Timeline for Forcing the negation of CH without adding Cohen reals over L
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 7, 2016 at 1:38 | history | edited | William | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 380 characters in body
|
| Jan 7, 2016 at 1:34 | comment | added | William | @tci You are right, a Sacks generic for $V$ may not be Sack's generic for $L$. | |
| Jan 6, 2016 at 13:10 | comment | added | user3462 | Is it clear that $x$ would also be Sacks-generic over $L$? What if, say, $V$ itself is a Sacks-generic extension of $L$? I can't see why $x$ cannot code some extra information, enough to ensure that there are inner models of $L[x]$ which are not $L$. | |
| Jan 5, 2016 at 21:32 | comment | added | Todd Eisworth | Does this work if the ground model is something other than L? Can Sacks forcing over a model of CH containing no L-Cohen reals add an L-Cohen real? | |
| Jan 4, 2016 at 22:23 | history | edited | William | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 21 characters in body
|
| Jan 4, 2016 at 22:21 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | Link to the paper you mention by Geschke and Qickert: math.uni-hamburg.de/home/geschke/papers/OnSacks_main.pdf | |
| Jan 4, 2016 at 22:15 | history | answered | William | CC BY-SA 3.0 |