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

Let $\kappa$ be an inaccessible cardinal. Is there any forcing notion $P$ with the following properties:

1-$P$ preserves GCH and the strong inaccessibility of $\kappa$,

2-$P$ adds a subset of $\kappa$ of size $\kappa$,

3-$P$ is the $< \aleph_1-$support product of some forcing notions $P_{\alpha}, \alpha < \kappa.$

4- The generic filter for $P$ can be reconstructed from the subset of $\kappa$ added in 2.

share|improve this question
1  
In 2 you want that no new subset of a smaller cardinal is added, right? (Otherwise adding a single Cohen real and somehow extending it to a set of size $\kappa$ would do.) –  Stefan Geschke Jun 8 '11 at 6:17
    
This is still not the right question. Let $P_0$ be Cohen forcing, and let $P_\alpha$ be trivial for each $\alpha>0$. You get essentially Cohen forcing, but formally a countable support product. Or, let each $P_\alpha$ be (countable) Cohen forcing. Their countable support product will be a forcing which is equivalent to "countable partial functions from $\kappa$ to 2", which has $\aleph_2$-cc. –  Goldstern Jun 9 '11 at 11:12
    
Martin, your latter example kills the inacessibility of $\kappa$. –  Joel David Hamkins Jun 9 '11 at 12:38

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

Here is my answer to the updated question:

If you allow the forcing $P_\alpha$ to be trivial, then the Cohen real forcing example still works: add a Cohen real, and then perform $\kappa$ many stages of trivial forcing, with countable support. Overall, this is the same as just adding a Cohen real, since the later stages don't do anything, and it will still have the properties you request as in the original question.

But if you insist that every $P_\alpha$ is nontrivial as a forcing notion, then the inaccessibility of $\kappa$ will necessarily be destroyed. To see this, suppose that each $P_\alpha$ has incompatible conditions. Pick a condition $p_\alpha$ in $P_\alpha$ such that there are other conditions in $P_\alpha$ incompatible with $p_\alpha$. Consider any block $B$ of $\omega_1$ many coordinates $\alpha$ at which such nontrivial forcing is to be done. Let $G$ be $V$-generic for the iteration. For each such $\alpha\in B$, let $s_B(\alpha)$ be $0$ or $1$ accordingly as to whether $p_\alpha\in G$ or not. Thus, for each block $B$, the binary pattern of $s_B$ determines a subset of $\omega_1$. Since your iteration uses only countable support, it is dense that the binary pattern of $s_B$ is different from that of $s_{D}$, if $B$ is disjoint from $D$, since we may introduce such a difference by moving beyond the support of any given condition. Since we may divide $\kappa$ into $\kappa$ many disjoint blocks $B$, it follows that in $V[G]$ we have $\kappa$ many subsets of $\omega_1$, and so $\kappa$ is no longer inaccessible, contrary to 1.


Here is my answer to the original question:

Stefan's comment provides an easy example if you don't intend that the forcing should not add bounded sets to $\kappa$. Just add a Cohen real. This of course preserves GCH, has countable conditions, and adds a subset to $\kappa$ (since every subset of $\omega$ is already a subset of $\kappa$); if you throw in all infinite ordinals as well, then you've got a new subset of $\kappa$ of size $\kappa$.

But even if you don't want to add bounded sets to $\kappa$, there are some easy examples showing that the question is probably not quite what you want to ask. This is because the size of conditions is not a fundamental feature of a forcing notion. For any partial order $\mathbb{P}$, let's make an isomorphic copy $\mathbb{P}'$ by replacing each condition $p$ with its singleton $p'=\{p\}$. We order $p'\leq q'$ just in case $p\leq q$. So now we have a partial order all of whose conditions have size $1$, and hence are countable. So any forcing notion is isomorphic and hence forcing equivalent to a forcing notion with countable conditions. Thus, this property is probably not really what you want to ask about.

share|improve this answer
    
The fact that this partial order is not hereditarily countable is not a fix either. Indeed, many arguments in forcing assume the partial order lives on an ordinal or other fixed set via some abstract isomorphism. –  Juris Steprans Jun 8 '11 at 11:40
    
Yes, Juris. Clearly, if you insist that conditions are hereditarily countable, then the forcing must be contained in $H_{\omega_1}$, which is too small to add a new subset to $\kappa$ if no bounded sets are to be added. –  Joel David Hamkins Jun 8 '11 at 12:47
    
@Joel, in your answer to the updated question, do you mean the $P_\alpha$ to be the $\alpha^{\mathrm{th}}$ iterand (what you often see denoted as $\dot{Q}_\alpha$ or do you mean the iteration up to the first $\alpha$ iterands? If it's the former, then I don't follow your definition of $s_B$ and if it's the latter, then I don't see how it's dense that $s_B$ and $s_D$ have different patterns - in particular Cohen forcing followed by trivial iterations is such that each $P_\alpha$ (in the sense of being the iteration of the first $\alpha$ iterands) is non-trivial and has incomparable elements. –  Amit Kumar Gupta Jun 9 '11 at 16:41
    
Amit, I meant that $P_\alpha$ was the forcing appearing at coordinate $\alpha$ (the OP is using product forcing, not iterated forcing, although my argument works in either case). Thus, the decision as to whether $p_\alpha$ is included in $G$ or not can be made independently for different $\alpha$. I am using $p_\alpha$ just to have an easy way of having the coordinate $\alpha$ part of the generic filter give me a binary digit, and $s_B(\alpha)$ is that digit, for $\alpha$ in $B$. For example, among the first $\omega_1$ many stages of forcing, some choose $p_\alpha$ and some do not, and this... –  Joel David Hamkins Jun 9 '11 at 17:15
    
...determines a subset of $\omega_1$. And the same for each subseqeunce block of size $\omega_1$. These patterns must be different by a density argument, so we get $\kappa$ many subsets of $\omega_1$ in the extension $V[G]$. –  Joel David Hamkins Jun 9 '11 at 17:16

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.