Skip to main content
TeXified; other fixes
Source Link
François G. Dorais
  • 44.4k
  • 6
  • 150
  • 233

I am a beginner of forcing, often I read from some articles something like "p forces \dot{G}"$p \Vdash \dot{G}$ is P$P$-generic over \check{M}$\check{M}$" (M bewhere $M$ is a CTMcountable transitive model, for instance).

Q1. I learnt from Jech'Jech's book a definition of "p forces \dot{x} in \check{M}"$p \Vdash \dot{x} \in \check{M}$", but I don't know how to translate "p forces \dot{G}"$p \Vdash \dot{G}$ is P$P$-generic over \check{M}$\check{M}$" into a formal version using this.

Q2. I also learnt from Kanamori'book HIGHER INFINITE LARGER CARDINALS...Kanamori's book that M is an DEFINABLEa definable proper class of M[G]$M[G]$ whenever G$G$ is generic over M$M$, why definable  (i.e. a form of the form {x \in M[G]: \phi(x)}$\lbrace x \in M[G]: \phi(x) \rbrace$)?

I am a beginner of forcing, often I read from some articles something like "p forces \dot{G} is P-generic over \check{M}" (M be a CTM, for instance).

Q1. I learnt from Jech' book a definition of "p forces \dot{x} in \check{M}", but I don't know how to translate "p forces \dot{G} is P-generic over \check{M}" into a formal version using this.

Q2. I also learnt from Kanamori'book HIGHER INFINITE LARGER CARDINALS... that M is an DEFINABLE proper class of M[G] whenever G is generic over M, why definable(i.e. a form of {x \in M[G]: \phi(x)})?

I am a beginner of forcing, often I read from some articles something like "$p \Vdash \dot{G}$ is $P$-generic over $\check{M}$" (where $M$ is a countable transitive model, for instance).

Q1. I learnt from Jech's book a definition of "$p \Vdash \dot{x} \in \check{M}$", but I don't know how to translate "$p \Vdash \dot{G}$ is $P$-generic over $\check{M}$" into a formal version using this.

Q2. I also learnt from Kanamori's book that M is a definable proper class of $M[G]$ whenever $G$ is generic over $M$, why definable  (i.e. of the form $\lbrace x \in M[G]: \phi(x) \rbrace$)?

Source Link

"name" for the ground model

I am a beginner of forcing, often I read from some articles something like "p forces \dot{G} is P-generic over \check{M}" (M be a CTM, for instance).

Q1. I learnt from Jech' book a definition of "p forces \dot{x} in \check{M}", but I don't know how to translate "p forces \dot{G} is P-generic over \check{M}" into a formal version using this.

Q2. I also learnt from Kanamori'book HIGHER INFINITE LARGER CARDINALS... that M is an DEFINABLE proper class of M[G] whenever G is generic over M, why definable(i.e. a form of {x \in M[G]: \phi(x)})?