Weakly compact cardinals lie at the focal point of a number of diverse concepts in infinite combinatorics, admitting various characterizations in terms of these concepts. If $\kappa^{ {<}\kappa} = \kappa$, then the following are equivalent: Weak compactness  A cardinal $\kappa$ is weakly compact if and only if it is <a href="Uncountable" class="mw-redirect" title="Uncountable">uncountable</a> and every $\kappa$-satisfiable theory in an [$\mathcal{L}_{\kappa,\kappa}$](Infinitary%20logic.md "Infinitary logic") language of size at most $\kappa$ is satisfiable. Extension property  A cardinal $\kappa$ is weakly compact if and only if for every $A\subset V_\kappa$, there is a transitive structure $W$ properly extending $V_\kappa$ and $A^*\subset W$ such that $\langle V_\kappa,{\in},A\rangle\prec\langle W,{\in},A^*\rangle$. Tree property  A cardinal $\kappa$ is weakly compact if and only if it is [inaccessible](Inaccessible.md "Inaccessible") and has the [](Tree%20property.md). Filter property  A cardinal $\kappa$ is weakly compact if and only if whenever $M$ is a set containing at most $\kappa$-many subsets of $\kappa$, then there is a $\kappa$-[](Filter.md) $F$ measuring every set in $M$. Weak embedding property  A cardinal $\kappa$ is weakly compact if and only if for every $A\subset\kappa$ there is a transitive set $M$ of size $\kappa$ with $\kappa\in M$ and a transitive set $N$ with an [embedding](Elementary%20embedding.md "Elementary embedding") $j:M\to N$ with <a href="Critical_point" class="mw-redirect" title="Critical point">critical point</a> $\kappa$. Embedding characterization  A cardinal $\kappa$ is weakly compact if and only if for every transitive set $M$ of size $\kappa$ with $\kappa\in M$ there is a transitive set $N$ and an embedding $j:M\to N$ with critical point $\kappa$. Normal embedding characterization  A cardinal $\kappa$ is weakly compact if and only if for every $\kappa$-model $M$ there is a $\kappa$-model $N$ and an embedding $j:M\to N$ with critical point $\kappa$, such that $N=\{\ j(f)(\kappa)\mid f\in M\ \}$. Hauser embedding characterization  A cardinal $\kappa$ is weakly compact if and only if for every $\kappa$-model $M$ there is a $\kappa$-model $N$ and an embedding $j:M\to N$ with critical point $\kappa$ such that $j,M\in N$. Partition property  A cardinal $\kappa$ is weakly compact if and only if the [](Partition%20property.md) $\kappa\to(\kappa)^2_2$ holds. Indescribability property  A cardinal $\kappa$ is weakly compact if and only if it is $\Pi_1^1$-[indescribable](Indescribable.md "Indescribable"). Skolem Property  A cardinal $\kappa$ is weakly compact if and only if $\kappa$ is inaccessible and every $\kappa$-unboundedly satisfiable $\mathcal{L}_{\kappa,\kappa}$-theory $T$ of size at most $\kappa$ has a model of size at least $\kappa$. A theory $T$ is $\kappa$-unboundedly satisfiable if and only if for any $\lambda<\kappa$, there exists a model $\mathcal{M}\models T$ with $\lambda\leq\|M\|<\kappa$. For more info see <a href="https://mathoverflow.net/questions/309896/a-weakening-of-cardinal-compactness-is-it-equivalent/309937#309937" class="external text">here</a>. Weakly compact cardinals first arose in connection with (and were named for) the question of whether certain [](Infinitary%20logic.md) satisfy the compactness theorem of first order logic. Specifically, in a language with a signature consisting, as in the first order context, of a set of constant, finitary function and relation symbols, we build up the language of $\mathcal{L}_{\kappa,\lambda}$ formulas by closing the collection of formulas under infinitary conjunctions $\wedge_{\alpha<\delta}\varphi_\alpha$ and disjunctions $\vee_{\alpha<\delta}\varphi_\alpha$ of any size $\delta<\kappa$, as well as infinitary quantification $\exists\vec x$ and $\forall\vec x$ over blocks of variables $\vec x=\langle x_\alpha\mid\alpha<\delta\rangle$ of size less than $\kappa$. A theory in such a language is *satisfiable* if it has a model under the natural semantics. A theory is *$\theta$-satisfiable* if every subtheory consisting of fewer than $\theta$ many sentences of it is satisfiable. First order logic is precisely $L_{\omega,\omega}$, and the classical Compactness theorem asserts that every $\omega$-satisfiable $\mathcal{L}_{\omega,\omega}$ theory is satisfiable. A uncountable cardinal $\kappa$ is *[](Strongly%20compact.md)* if every $\kappa$-satisfiable $\mathcal{L}_{\kappa,\kappa}$ theory is satisfiable. The cardinal $\kappa$ is *weakly compact* if every $\kappa$-satisfiable $\mathcal{L}_{\kappa,\kappa}$ theory, in a language having at most $\kappa$ many constant, function and relation symbols, is satisfiable. Next, for any cardinal $\kappa$, a *$\kappa$-tree* is a tree of height $\kappa$, all of whose levels have size less than $\kappa$. More specifically, $T$ is a *tree* if $T$ is a partial order such that the predecessors of any node in $T$ are well ordered. The $\alpha^{\rm th}$ level of a tree $T$, denoted $T_\alpha$, consists of the nodes whose predecessors have order type exactly $\alpha$, and these nodes are also said to have *height* $\alpha$. The height of the tree $T$ is the first $\alpha$ for which $T$ has no nodes of height $\alpha$. A ""$\kappa$-branch"" through a tree $T$ is a maximal linearly ordered subset of $T$ of order type $\kappa$. Such a branch selects exactly one node from each level, in a linearly ordered manner. The set of $\kappa$-branches is denoted $[T\]$. A $\kappa$-tree is an *Aronszajn* tree if it has no $\kappa$-branches. A cardinal $\kappa$ has the *tree property* if every $\kappa$-tree has a $\kappa$-branch. A transitive set $M$ is a $\kappa$-model of set theory if $\|M\|=\kappa$, $M^{\lt\kappa}\subset M$ and $M$ satisfies ZFC$^-$, the theory ZFC without the power set axiom (and using collection and separation rather than merely replacement). For any infinite cardinal $\kappa$ we have that $H_{\kappa^+}$ models ZFC$^-$, and further, if $M\prec H_{\kappa^+}$ and $\kappa\subset M$, then $M$ is transitive. Thus, any $A\in H_{\kappa^+}$ can be placed into such an $M$. If $\kappa^{\lt\kappa}=\kappa$, one can use the downward Löwenheim-Skolem theorem to find such $M$ with $M^{\lt\kappa}\subset M$. So in this case there are abundant $\kappa$-models of set theory (and conversely, if there is a $\kappa$-model of set theory, then $2^{\lt\kappa}=\kappa$). The partition property $\kappa\to(\lambda)^n_\gamma$ asserts that for every function $F:[\kappa\]^n\to\gamma$ there is $H\subset\kappa$ with $\|H\|=\lambda$ such that $F\upharpoonright[H\]^n$ is constant. If one thinks of $F$ as coloring the $n$-tuples, the partition property asserts the existence of a *monochromatic* set $H$, since all tuples from $H$ get the same color. The partition property $\kappa\to(\kappa)^2_2$ asserts that every partition of $\[\kappa\]^2$ into two sets admits a set $H\subset\kappa$ of size $\kappa$ such that $\[H\]^2$ lies on one side of the partition. When defining $F:\[\kappa\]^n\to\gamma$, we define $F(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n)$ only when $\alpha_1<\cdots<\alpha_n$. ## Weakly compact cardinals and the constructible universe Every weakly compact cardinal is weakly compact in [$L$](Constructible%20universe.md "Constructible universe"). {% cite Jech2003 %} Nevertheless, the weak compactness property is not generally downward absolute between transitive models of set theory. ## Weakly compact cardinals and forcing - Weakly compact cardinals are invariant under small forcing. <a href="http://www.math.csi.cuny.edu/~fuchs/IndestructibleWeakCompactness.pdf" class="external autonumber">[1]</a> - Weakly compact cardinals are preserved by the canonical forcing of the GCH, by fast function forcing and many other forcing notions \[ [](Library.md) \]. - If $\kappa$ is weakly compact, there is a forcing extension in which $\kappa$ remains weakly compact and $2^\kappa\gt\kappa$ \[ [](Library.md) \]. - If the existence of weakly compact cardinals is consistent with ZFC, then there is a model of ZFC in which $\kappa$ is not weakly compact, but becomes weakly compact in a forcing extension {% cite Kunen1978 %}. ## Indestructibility of a weakly compact cardinal *To expand using <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/math/9907046" class="external autonumber">[2]</a>* ## Relations with other large cardinals - Every weakly compact cardinal is [inaccessible](Inaccessible.md "Inaccessible"), [Mahlo](Mahlo.md "Mahlo"), hyper-Mahlo, hyper-hyper-Mahlo and more. - [Measurable](Measurable.md "Measurable") cardinals, [Ramsey](Ramsey.md "Ramsey") cardinals, and [](Indescribable.md) cardinals are all weakly compact and a stationary limit of weakly compact cardinals. - Assuming the consistency of a <a href="Strongly_unfoldable" class="mw-redirect" title="Strongly unfoldable">strongly unfoldable</a> cardinal with ZFC, it is also consistent for the least weakly compact cardinal to be the least [unfoldable](Unfoldable.md "Unfoldable") cardinal. {% cite Cody2013 %} - If GCH holds, then the least weakly compact cardinal is not [](Weakly_measurable.md). However, if there is a [measurable](Measurable.md "Measurable") cardinal, then it is consistent for the least weakly compact cardinal to be weakly measurable. {% cite Cody2013 %} - If it is consistent for there to be a [](Nearly%20supercompact.md), then it is consistent for the least weakly compact cardinal to be nearly supercompact. {% cite Cody2013 %} - For a cardinal $κ=κ^{<κ}$, $κ$ is weakly compact iff it is 0-[Ramsey](Ramsey.md "Ramsey"). {% cite Nielsen2018 %} ## $\Sigma_n$-weakly compact etc. An inaccessible cardinal $κ$ is $Σ_n$-weakly compact iff it reflects $Π_1^1$ sentences with $Σ_n$-predicates, i.e. for every $R ⊆ V_κ$ which is definable by a $Σ_n$ formula (with parameters) over $V_κ$ and every $Π_1^1$ sentence $Φ$, if $\langle V_κ , ∈, R \rangle \models Φ$ then there is $α < κ$ (equivalently, unboundedly-many $α < κ$) such that $\langle V_α , ∈, R ∩ V_α \rangle \models Φ$. Analogously for $Π_n$ and $∆_n$. $κ$ is $Σ_ω$-weakly compact iff it is $Σ_n$-weakly compact for all $n < ω$. $κ$ is $Σ_n$-weakly compact $\iff$ $κ$ is $Π_n$-weakly compact $\iff$ $κ$ is $∆_{n+1}$-weakly compact $\iff$ For every $Π_1^1$ formula $Φ(x_0 , ..., x_k)$ in the language of set theory and every $a_0 , ..., a_k ∈ V_κ$, if $V κ \models Φ(a_0 , ..., a_k )$, then there is $λ ∈ I_n := \{λ < κ : λ$ is inaccessible and $V_λ \preccurlyeq_n V_κ\}$ such that $V_λ \models Φ(a_0 , ..., a_k)$. In {% cite Bosch2006 %} it is shown that every $Σ_ω$-w.c. cardinal is $Σ_ω$-[Mahlo](Mahlo.md "Mahlo") and the set of $Σ_ω$-Mahlo cardinals below a $Σ_ω$-w.c. cardinal is $Σ_ω$-stationary, but if κ is $Π_{n+1}$-Mahlo, then the set of $Σ_n$-w.c. cardinals below $κ$ is $Π_{n+1}$-stationary. These properties are connected with some forms of absoluteness. For example, the existence of a $Σ_ω$-w.c. cardinal is equiconsistent with the <a href="index.php?title=Generic_absoluteness_axiom&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1" class="new" title="Generic absoluteness axiom (page does not exist)">generic absoluteness axiom</a> $\mathcal{A}(L(\mathbb{R}), \underset{\sim}{Σ}_ω , Γ)$ where $Γ$ is the class of projective ccc forcing notions. This section from {% cite Leshem2000 Bagaria2006 %}