Dear Sy,

On Nov 3, 2014, at 3:38 AM, Sy David Friedman wrote:

Hugh:

1. The only method I know to obtain the consistency of the maximality criterion I stated involves Prikry-like forcings, which add Weak Squares. Weak Squares contradict supercompactness.

So you think that if the Maximality Criterion holds then weak square holds at some singular strong limit?

3. I was postponing the discussion of the reduction of #-generation to ctm’s (countable transitive models) as long as possible as it is quite technical, but as you raised it again I’ll deal with it now. Recall that in the HP “thickenings” are dealt with via theories. So #-generation really means that for each Gödel lengthening of , the theory in which expresses that is generated by a presharp which is -iterable is consistent. Another way to say this is that for each , there is an -iterable presharp which generates in a forcing extension of in which is made countable. For ctm’s this translates to: A ctm is (weakly) #-generated if for each

countable, is generated by an -iterable presharp. This is weaker than the cleaner, original form of #-generation. With this change, one can run the LS argument and regard as a statement about ctm’s. In conclusion: You are right, we can’t apply LS to the raw version of , essentially because #-generation for a (real coding a) countable is a property; but weak #-generation is and this is the only change required.Just be clear you are now proposing that is:

witnesses if

1) is weakly #-generated.

2) If holds in an outer model of which is weakly #-generated then holds in an inner model of .

Here: a ctm is weakly #-generated if for each countable ordinal , there is an -iterable whose -iterate gives .

Is this correct?

Regards, Hugh