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

In some papers, the author wants to show 1 forces (A implies B), i.e., for every generic G, (A implies B) holds in V[G], as follows: Suppose 1 forces A, then let G be a generic filter over V and show B holds in V[G], done. (For example, to show Lindeloffness is preserved, suppose $\dot{U}$ is a name for an open cover of $X$ ($X$ is a Lindelof space in the ground model, here, the author assumes 1 forces ($\dot{U}$ is an open cover of $X$). Then prove $\dot{U}_{G}$ has a countable subcover for a given G, done.)

I don't know why this proof works:

  1. Fix a single G, if A holds in V[G], then certainly A is forced by some p in G. But can we say A is forced by 1?

  2. As I know, to prove 1 forces (A implies B), one must show {p $\in$ P: p forces (($\neg A$) \vee B)} is dense in P. So let q in P. Suppose no $p\lt q$ forces $\neg A$,i.e.,q forces A. Then find a $p\lt q$ such that p forces B by letting G is a generic filter contains q. Done.

Could anyone kind enough to explain it to me?

share|improve this question
    
beginner: A key basic result in forcing (in the presence of choice), sometimes called the "existential lemma", explains how, if it is forced (by 1) that there is an $A$ with some property, then we can actually find a name $\dot A$ forced by 1 to have that property; moreover, if $p$ forces $\dot B$ to have this property, we can ensure that $p$ forces that $\dot A=\dot B$. This essentially takes care of your first issue. –  Andres Caicedo May 1 '11 at 16:53
    
(Sorry about the multiple edits, your question was not displaying correctly). –  Andres Caicedo May 1 '11 at 16:54
    
Thank you! I know the first part of the "existential lemma", but how to prove the second part? fixed a name $\dot{A}$ such that 1 forces $\dot{A}$ has the property, and a name $\dot{B}$ such that 1 forces $\dot{B}$ has the property, how to ensure p forces $\dot{A}=\dot{B}$? Back to the example of "preserving Lindeloffness", do you mean it is sufficient to "Suppose 1 forces $\dot{U}$ is an open cover of ..." by the "existential lemma" ? –  beginner May 2 '11 at 4:37
    
Sorry, I made a mistake, it should be "p forces $\dot{B}$ has the property" there. –  beginner May 2 '11 at 4:39
    
beginner: This "existential" or "fullness" property is covered in most introductory books. Jech's "Set theory" explains it in terms of complete Boolean algebras. Kunen's book explains it using partial orders. I think it is better if you read the details in one of these sources or some other introductory text. The usual statement is that, given a maximal antichain $M$ of conditions, and associated with each condition $q\in M$ a name $x_q$, we can form a name $x$ such that any $q\in M$ forces $x=x_q$. –  Andres Caicedo May 2 '11 at 5:37
show 2 more comments

1 Answer 1

  1. No, if $A$ holds in a forcing extension $V[G]$, it need not be forced by $1$ in general. But this is not what is done. Instead, the argument can proceed as follows: In order to show that $1$ forces a statement to be true, we may show it is true in all forcing extensions. Consider an arbitrary forcing extension $V[G]$. If $V[G] \nvDash A$, then $V[G] \models A \rightarrow B$. Consequently, it suffices to restrict our attention to forcing extensions $V[G]$ for which $A$ is true and then show that $B$ will also be true in $V[G]$.

  2. I'm still not sure which part of the proof you find problematic, but let me try to break it down step by step.

  1. First note that $\lnot A \vee B$ is tautologically equivalent to $A \rightarrow B$ so: $1 \Vdash A \rightarrow B$ $\Leftrightarrow$ $1 \Vdash \lnot A \vee B$. Specifically, $A \rightarrow B$ will be true in every forcing extension if and only if $\lnot A \vee B$ is true in every forcing extension.

  2. But to show $1 \Vdash \lnot A \vee B$, it is sufficient to show that the set $D$ of conditions from $P$ forcing $\lnot A \vee B$ is dense in $P$. This is because if $G$ is a $V$-generic filter for $P$, then it must meet every dense set. Consequently, if $D$ is dense, then there will be a condition $p$ in $G \cap D$. In this case, $p \in G$ and $p \Vdash \lnot A \lor B$ so $V[G] \models \lnot A \lor B$, or equivalently, $V[G] \models A \rightarrow B$.

  3. Fix a $q$ in $P$. If any $p \lt q$ forces $\lnot A$, then it will also force $\lnot A \lor B$ because $\lnot A \vee B$ is a tautological consequence of $\lnot A$. Specifically, if every forcing extension $V[G]$ such that $p \in G$ models $\lnot A$, then every such extension will also model $\lnot A \vee B$.

  4. We may therefore assume that all $p \lt q$ do not force $\lnot A$ so that $q \Vdash A$. Notice that if $q$ did not force $A$, then we'd have $V[G] \models \lnot A$ for some $G$ where $q \in G$. In this case, we would have some condition $r \in G$ forcing $\lnot A$. Now notice that if $r \Vdash \lnot A$ and $s < r$, then also $s \Vdash \lnot A$ since every filter containing $s$ will contain $r$ by the upward closure of filters. But also if $q \in G$ and $r \in G$, then we may find such a condition $s$ in $G$ below both $q$ and $r$ by virtue of $G$ being a filter. This $s$ will then be below $q$ and will force $\lnot A$ by virtue of being less than $r$, contrary to assumption.

  5. It therefore suffices to show that we have a condition $p$ below $q$ forcing $B$. If we let $q \in G$, and $V[G] \models B$, then we will have a condition $r \Vdash B$ such that $r \in G$. As in 4., we may then find an $s \in G$ below $q$ that forces $B$ (and hence also $\lnot A \lor B$), and so we are done.

As a technical point, it is implicitly assumed throughout this argument that there is no minimal condition in $P$. Otherwise, replace $\lt$ with $\leq$.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you! question 2 is now completed. –  beginner May 2 '11 at 4:30
    
Glad I could help. It looks like I missed your comment before I typed up my answer to 2, but maybe it'll still be useful to you or someone else. –  Jason May 2 '11 at 5:14
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.