5
$\begingroup$

Suppose $j : M \to N$ is an elementary embeddings between transitive models of ZFC. Everyone knows that if $G$ is $\mathbb{P}$-generic over $M$, $H$ is $j(\mathbb{P})$-generic over $N$, and $j[G] \subseteq H$, then the map can be extended to $\hat{j} : M[G] \to N[H]$.

Suppose now that $\mathbb{P}$ is a complete boolean algebra generated by some name $\tau$ for a subset of an ordinal $\kappa$. Suppose $A \subseteq \kappa$ is generic. In $M[A]$, we compute a generic for $\mathbb{P}$ corresponding to $A$. Now assume $B \subseteq j(\kappa)$ is $j(\mathbb{P})$-generic over $N$, and for all $\alpha < \kappa$, $\alpha \in A$ iff $j(\alpha) \in B$. Is it always true that we can extend $j$ to $\hat{j} : M[A] \to N[B]$? In other words, is it necessarily the case that the generic filter $G$ computed from $A$ has the property that $j[G] \subseteq H$, where $H$ is the generic filter computed from $B$?

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ I'm confused by some things in your question. Could you clarify what you mean when you say that a Boolean algebra is generated by a name? Is this a $\mathbb{P}$-name? And when you say $A$ is generic, for which forcing do you mean that it is generic? And what does it mean to say that you compute a generic for $\mathbb{P}$ corresponding to $A$? $\endgroup$ Dec 11, 2013 at 3:57
  • $\begingroup$ OK, I think you mean that $\mathbb{P}$ is a Boolean algebra generated by the Boolean values of $[[\check\alpha\in\tau]]$, where $\tau$ is a $\mathbb{P}$-name for a subset of $\kappa$. Now, you've done the forcing $G$ and $H$, with $A=\tau_G$ and $B=j(\tau)_H$, but you only have the pull-back property on the sets $A$ and $B$, and you want to know whether this implies the pull-back property on $G$ and $H$. Have I got it? $\endgroup$ Dec 11, 2013 at 4:05
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, exactly what I meant. $\endgroup$ Dec 11, 2013 at 4:06

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

The answer is no.

First, let's just consider the latter part of your question, whether the property $j[G]\subset H$ follows from your assumption on $A$ and $B$. It does not in general. Here is an example with forcing that is atomic. Let $\mathbb{P}$ be the Boolean algebra arising from the full support $\kappa$-product of the two-atom forcing. Thus, a condition is an element of $2^\kappa$, with these conditions forming an antichain of atoms. Let $\tau$ be the name of the subset of $\kappa$ where the generic condition has its $1$s. The Boolean values $[[\check\alpha\in\tau]]$ generate $\mathbb{P}$, since if you know all those values, you know which atom was selected. Let $G$ be the generic filter selecting the all-ones atom: $\vec 1=\langle 1,1,1,\cdots\rangle$. So $A=\kappa$. In $j(\mathbb{P})$, let $H$ be the filter selecting all ones up to $\kappa$, and then zeros. So $B=\kappa\subset j(\kappa)$. Since $\kappa$ is the critical point of $j$, we have $\alpha\in A\iff j(\alpha)=\alpha\in B$, since this only refers to $\alpha<\kappa$. But we don't have $j[G]\subset H$, since $j(\vec 1)$ is the all-ones condition in $j(\mathbb{P})$, which is not in $H$. So the pull-back property on the filters does not hold.

(Meanwhile, since both $G$ and $H$ are trivial forcing, the embedding does lift, so this shows that the two versions of your question are not equivalent.)

So let's now get a negative answer also to the lifting version of the question. We simply modify the forcing as follows, to get an example where the embedding does not lift. Let $\mathbb{P}$ be the forcing that either selects an eventually constant atom as above, or else adds a Cohen subset to $\kappa$. So the generic filter is determined by a subset $A\subset\kappa$, whose name $\tau$ will generate the Boolean algebra. Now, let $A$ be the eventually constant all-ones sequence, so $G$ is atomic, but this time, let $H$ be the filter adding a Cohen subset to $j(\kappa)$, but extending the condition having all ones up to $\kappa$, and after that being Cohen generic. Now, the argument as above shows that $\alpha\in A\iff j(\alpha)=\alpha\in B$, but this time the embedding does not lift to $j:M[G]\to N[H]$, since $G$ was trivial and $H$ was not.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Meanwhile, a positive answer is possible if every $p\in G$ is determined by less than $\kappa$ much information from $A$, a situation that often occurs, since if $p$ is determined by $A\cap a$, then $j(p)$ will be determined by $B\cap j(a)$, which is $B\cap a$ as $a$ is small. The counterexamples worked precisely by having conditions in $G$ determined by unbounded information about $A$. $\endgroup$ Dec 11, 2013 at 11:51

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.