Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Recently during a lecture, my professor mentioned that forcing over any poset which is countable, separative, and atomless, is essentially the same as forcing over the Cohen poset, that is to say results in adding a Cohen real.

My question is: Are there any other similar characterizations of "commonly used" forcing posets? Specifically, is there one for the Hechler poset?

The Hechler Poset/forcing notion $(H,\le)$ is given by setting $H=\omega^{\lt\omega} \times \omega^{\omega} $, and defining the relation $(t,v) \le (s,u)$ iff $ ( t \supset s \wedge (\forall n\in\omega) (u(n) \le v(n)) \wedge (\forall m \in dom(t \backslash s))(t(m) \gt u(m))$. When forcing with this poset, you end up adding an unbounded real to the ground model.

I understand that you cannot produce a model in which $\mathfrak{b}=\omega_2$ using product forcing, and that you need iterated forcing to do so. Moreover, the iterated forcing construction I've seen that produces $\mathfrak{b}=\omega_2$ in the forcing extension, used the finite support iteration of $\omega_2$ many copies of the Hechler poset. Is this evidence for the lack of such a characterization?

(I apologize in advance if this is an ill-stated question, I will change it accordingly if it is.)

share|improve this question
1  
When I first opened this, I thought you were asking about someone who "Heckled" your professor during a lecture. Then I realized I need to get my eyes checked. –  Harry Gindi Oct 20 '10 at 5:01
3  
Oh no wait, my eyes are fine. You just changed the title =p. –  Harry Gindi Oct 20 '10 at 5:02
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 7 down vote accepted

Here are a few additional examples of the kind you seek, and in fact each of them directly generalizes the characterization you mention of the forcing to add a Cohen real. However, I know of no such characterization of Hechler forcing.

  • The collapse forcing $\text{Coll}(\omega,\theta)$ is, up to forcing equivalence, the unique forcing notion of size $|\theta|$ necessarily collapsing $\theta$ to $\omega$. (Note, this includes the case of adding a Cohen real, since $\text{Add}(\omega,1)\equiv\text{Coll}(\omega,\omega)$.) To see this, suppose that $\mathbb{Q}$ is a forcing notion of size $|\theta|$ that necessarily collapses $\theta$ to $\omega$. We may assume without loss of generality that $\mathbb{Q}$ is separative, since the separative quotient of $\mathbb{Q}$ is forcing equivalent to it and no larger in size. Observe that below every condition in $\mathbb{Q}$, there is an antichain of size $\theta$. Since forcing with $\mathbb{Q}$ adds a function from $\omega$ onto $\theta$ and $\mathbb{Q}$ has size $\theta$, there is a name $\dot g$ forced to be a function from $\omega$ onto the generic filter $\dot G$. We build a refining sequence of maximal antichains $A_n\subset\mathbb{Q}$ as follows. Begin with $A_0=\{ 1\}$. If $A_n$ is defined, then let $A_{n+1}$ be a maximal antichain of conditions such that every condition in $A_n$ splits into $\theta$ many elements of $A_{n+1}$, and such that every element of $A_{n+1}$ decides the value $\dot g(\check n)$. The union $\mathbb{R}=\bigcup_n A_n$ is clearly isomorphic as a subposet of $\mathbb{Q}$ to the tree $\theta^{\lt\omega}$, and so it is forcing equivalent to $\text{Coll}(\omega,\theta)$. Furthermore, $\mathbb{R}$ is dense in $\mathbb{Q}$. To see this, fix any condition $q\in\mathbb{Q}$. Since $q$ forces that $q$ is in $\dot G$, there is some $p\leq q$ and natural number $n$ such that $p$ forces via $\mathbb{Q}$ that $\dot g(\check n)=\check q$. Since $A_{n+1}$ is a maximal antichain, there is some condition $r\in A_{n+1}$ that is compatible with $p$. Since $r$ also decides the value of $\dot g(\check n)$ and is compatible with $p$, it must be that $r$ forces $\dot g(\check n)=\check q$ also. In particular, $r$ forces $\check q\in\dot G$, and so by separativity it must be that $r\leq q$. So $\mathbb{R}$ is dense in $\mathbb{Q}$, as desired. Thus, $\mathbb{Q}$ is forcing equivalent to $\mathbb{R}$, which is forcing equivalent to $\text{Coll}(\omega,\theta)$, as desired.

  • If $\kappa^{\lt\kappa}=\kappa$, then the forcing $\text{Add}(\kappa,1)$ to add a Cohen subset to $\kappa$ with conditions of size less than $\kappa$ is, up to forcing equivalence, the unique ${\lt}\kappa$-closed necessarily nontrivial forcing notion of size $\kappa$. For this, one similarly builds up a dense tree of conditions inside the poset that is isomorphic to $\kappa^{\lt\kappa}$, which is forcing equivalent to $\text{Add}(\kappa,1)$.

  • More generally, if $\theta^{\lt\kappa}=\theta$, then the forcing $\text{Coll}(\kappa,\theta)$ is the unique ${\lt}\kappa$-closed forcing notion necessarily collapsing $\theta$ to $\kappa$ and having size $\theta$. (The straightforward generalization uses separativity, but the separative quotient of a partial order may no longer be $\lt\kappa$-closed, so there is an issue about it; but my student Norman Perlmutter found a solution avoiding the issue.)

share|improve this answer
    
A few other examples can be found looking through the 3-volume "Boolean algebras". There is at least one chapter devoted to forcing and Cohen and the collapse are mentioned, among others. –  Andres Caicedo Oct 20 '10 at 18:05
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.