The question is exactly that of the title: what are Moschovakis cardinals?


**Background**. In a recent answer to the question, "Are there examples of statements that have been proven whose consistency proofs came before their proofs?," user14111 posted ([Are there examples of statements that have been proven whose consistency proofs came before their proofs?](https://mathoverflow.net/questions/71201/are-there-examples-of-statements-that-have-been-proven-whose-consistency-proofs/137218#137218)) an answer involving "Moschovakis cardinals," a large cardinal notion which was shown to be inconsistent at some point in time. Now, googling for Moschovakis cardinals reveals nothing besides that answer and this (<http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?forumID=13&threadID=22263&messageID=59655#59655>) Math Forum Discussion post, which seems(?) to be responding to a post which was then deleted.


According to user14111, the notion of a Moschovakis cardinal arose in an unpublished manuscript circulated around the late 60s; given the timing, my current guess is that "Moschovakis cardinal" is just a synonym for "Reinhardt cardinal," but I'll admit there is no real basis for my guess.


**Why I'm interested**. (Assuming these aren't just Reinhardts in disguise) I'm always interested in large cardinal axioms inconsistent with ZFC; in particular, can Moschovakis cardinals survive in ZF? Also, on a purely historical level, it would be interesting to know about.


Even if Moschovakis=Reinhardt, I'm still intrigued: why would that name be used? I've heard Reinhardt cardinals called Kunen cardinals before, since Kunen proved their inconsistency; but Moschovakis seems to have no relation to the subject that I'm aware of.



What are Moschovakis cardinals?
The following quotations are from "A survey of recent results in set theory" by A. R. D. Mathias, a preprint dated July 1968, and stated to be "a draft of a survey to be published in the Proceedings from the UCLA Set Theory Institute." (I found this today while doing some housecleaning.)


The first quotation begins on p. 28, column 2, and continues onto p. 29, column 1.



> 
> D 2001 (Moschovakis) Let $\ \kappa,\lambda,\nu$ be cardinals, $\mu$ an ordinal.  
> 
>  $\kappa\underset{\lambda}\to(\mu)\_{\nu}^{\lt\omega}$ iff for every $f$ with domain the set of sequences of  
> 
>  length $\lambda$ of finite subsets of $\kappa$ and range a subset of $\nu$ (in  
> 
>  symbols, $f:([\kappa]^{\lt\omega})^{\lambda}\to\nu$), there is a sequence $\langle x\_{\eta}\ |\eta\lt\lambda\rangle$ of  
> 
>  subsets of $\kappa$, each of order type $\mu$, (i.e. $\langle x\_{\eta}, \in\restriction x\_{\eta}\rangle\cong\mu$),  
> 
>  with the property that for every $s$ and $t$ in the domain of $f$,  
> 
>  if for all $\eta\lt\lambda,\ s\_{\eta}\subseteq x\_{\eta},t\_{\eta}\subseteq x\_{\eta}$, and $\overline{\overline s}\_{\eta}=\overline{\overline t}\_{\eta}$, then  
> 
>  $f(s)=f(t)$.  
>   
> The case $\lambda=1$ is the Erdös-Rado property $\kappa\to(\mu)\_{\nu}^{\lt\omega}$. The case  
> 
>  $\nu=2$ will be written $\kappa\underset{\lambda}\to(\mu)^{\lt\omega}$.  
>   
> $\kappa$ is a $\underline{\text{Ramsey}}$ cardinal iff $\kappa\to(\kappa)^{\lt\omega}$. $\quad\kappa$ is a $\underline{\text{Moschovakis}}$ cardinal  
> 
>  iff $\kappa\underset{\omega\_1}\to(\omega\_1)^{\lt\omega}$
> 
> 
> 


From p. 30, column 2:



> 
> Little is known about the size of Moschovakis cardinals relative to  
> 
>  other large numbers; Silver has made the following simple observation:  
>   
> T 2011 $\text{ZF}+\text{AC}\vdash$ If there are both Moschovakis and strongly compact  
> 
>  cardinals, then the first Moschovakis cardinal is smaller than  
> 
>  the first strongly compact.
> 
> 
> 


From p. 51, what must have been the motivation for considering such awful things:



> 
> T 3025 (Moschovakis; Prikry) $\text{ZF}+\text{AC}\vdash$ If there is a Moschovakis  
> 
>  cardinal, then every $\underset{\sim}\Sigma^1\_2$ game is determined.
> 
> 
> 


This is all pretty much Greek to me but I suppose it will mean something to you, if I didn't botch the typing too badly.


