Skip to main content
8 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Sep 7, 2015 at 12:36 comment added Stefan Mesken Right, I completely ignored the fact that we were talking about totally proper forcings. Thank you.
Sep 7, 2015 at 11:25 comment added Joel David Hamkins Ah, I hadn't actually considered his definition. But it still seems to be no problem, since if you put the open dense sets into $M$, then $q$ will have to be in all of them, since the filter meets them, and so the intersection is not empty. By working below any condition, the intersection is dense.
Sep 7, 2015 at 11:19 comment added Stefan Mesken I have OP's definition in mind. A forcing is countable distributive iff the intersection of countably many open dense sets remains to be dense. This follows from not adding countable subsets if the forcing is separative.
Sep 7, 2015 at 11:14 comment added Joel David Hamkins My argument shows that no condition can force that $\sigma$ is an $\omega$ sequence of ordinals that is not in the ground model (since we find such a $q$ below any given $p$), and this is one of the usual definitions of what it means to be countably distributive. So I don't think we need separativity for this. What definition of countable separativity are you using?
Sep 7, 2015 at 11:03 comment added Stefan Mesken Sure, but from this we can conclude its countable distributivity only if the forcing is separative, right?
Sep 6, 2015 at 23:54 comment added Joel David Hamkins @Stefan Does it matter? If the principle filter above $q$ is $M$-generic, it will decide the values of $\sigma(\check n)$ for every $n$, whether the forcing is separative or not.
Sep 6, 2015 at 22:48 comment added Stefan Mesken Are you assuming that $Q$ is separative?
Sep 4, 2015 at 12:52 history answered Joel David Hamkins CC BY-SA 3.0