Which axioms of set theory are intrinsically justified?
Rupert McCallum

TL;DR
This paper explores the justification of certain set-theoretic axioms through reflection principles and large cardinal hypotheses, establishing new connections and implications among them.
Contribution
It analyzes the relationships between various reflection principles and large cardinals, showing how strengthened principles imply the existence of supercompact and huge cardinals.
Findings
A natural strengthening of Roberts' reflection principle yields supercompact cardinals.
The work resolves open questions about the strength of Marshall's theories.
It demonstrates equivalences between certain reflection principles and large cardinal axioms.
Abstract
We recently formulated a new large-cardinal axiom of strength intermediate between a totally indescribable cardinal and an -Erd\H{o}s cardinal, positing the existence of what we called an "extremely reflective cardinal", and we showed that the property of being extremely reflective was in fact equivalent to the property of being remarkable, and we sought to argue that this axiom should be seen as intrinsically justified. This built on related earlier work in which the notion of an -reflective cardinal was formulated. Then Welch and Roberts put forward a family of reflection principles, Welch's principle implying the existence of a proper class of Shelah cardinals and provably consistent relative to a superstrong cardinal, and Roberts' principle implying the existence of a proper class of 1-extendible cardinals and provably consistent relative to a 2-extendible cardinal.…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsPhilosophy and History of Science
