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

It is known that if a forcing notion is proper, then every P-filter will generate a P-filter in the generic extension (see, e.g., Shelah, Proper and Improper Forcing, VI.5)

On the other hand, if we start collapsing cardinals, we can destroy the P-filter property. For example, making a base of a P-point countable will add a sequence of elements from the filter (namely, a complete enumeration of that base) that serves as a counterexample for the P-filter property in the extension.

So my question is:

Are there examples of "nicer" (e.g., not collapsing cardinals) forcing notions that destroy P-filters in this way, i.e., add a sequence in the filter that the filter cannot decide?

More spectacularly, is there maybe a forcing notion that could preserve a P-point as an ultrafilter while destroying the P-filter property?

EDIT: As Martin Goldstern pointed out, I should add that I'm interested in filters on $\omega$.

share|improve this question
    
You mean filters on $\omega$, right? If not, and if you allow me to call a sigma-complete ultrafilter a "p-point", then the answer is easy: Prikry forcing on a measurable cardinal will destroy the p-ness of the measure. Also, namba forcing destroys the p-ness of the club filter on $\omega_2$. (It collapses $\omega_2$, but is nice in the sense that it may preserve $\omega_1$.) –  Goldstern Jun 4 '11 at 12:57
    
Yes, I mean filters on $\omega$. I'll add that to my question. –  Peter Krautzberger Jun 4 '11 at 19:10
1  
My previous comment suggested that "not collapsing $\omega_1$" is a more suitable niceness property, but that was misguided. If you have a filter generated by a tower of length $\omega_2$, then this will be a p-filter, and Namba forcing will destroy the p-property trivially. (Namba introduces a cofinal $\omega$-sequence to $\omega_2$ without collapsing $\omega_1$) So a better property to demand (to avoid trivial counterexamples) should be "preserves uncountable cofinality". –  Goldstern Jun 4 '11 at 22:47
    
Thank you, Martin. –  Peter Krautzberger Jun 6 '11 at 20:55

2 Answers 2

up vote 6 down vote accepted

(A very partial answer.) Assuming CH, the answer seems to be "no" (for filters on countable sets).

CH implies that every P-filter on $\omega$ is generated by a tower (i.e., an almost decreasing sequence) of length $\omega_1$. In any $\omega_1$-preserving forcing extension any countable sequence of filter sets can be refined to a countable sequence of sets from the tower, so there is a lower bound in the tower.

share|improve this answer
    
Martin, thanks! I hope you don't mind that I'll wait a bit to see if more (partial) answers turn up. –  Peter Krautzberger Jun 4 '11 at 19:28

A second partial (and not very deep, sorry) answer: Assume that at least one of the following holds:

  1. zero sharp does not exist, i.e., Jensen's covering lemma holds.

  2. The continuum is below $\aleph_\omega$ (or at least: your filter is generated by less than $\aleph_\omega$ many sets).

Then the answer is again "no" (if the forcing is not allowed to collapse cardinals).

Proof: Every new countable subset of the filter base is contained in an old countable subset of the filter base. (This is well known, but for the sake of completeness I give a sketch of the proof. Fix a bijection between the filter base and some ordinal $\alpha$. Every new countable set $A \subseteq \alpha$ is contained in an old set $B$ of size $\aleph_n$, for some $n$. [Under assumption 1, the covering lemma gives $n\le 1$; assumption 2 just says outright that there is some $n$.] Now fix $A$ and choose $n$ as small as possible. Using a bijection from $B$ to $\aleph_n$ in $V$, we may wlog assume that the original set $A$ was a subset of $\omega_n$. If $n>0$, then the countable set $A$ is bounded in $\omega_n$, so we can cover $A$ by an ordinal of cardinality $\aleph_{n-1}$, contradiction.)

share|improve this answer
    
Martin, thanks again. I was really hoping for a positive answer, but hank you for sharing these two partial ones. –  Peter Krautzberger Jun 14 '11 at 16:57

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.