7
$\begingroup$

I am reading Uri Abraham's chapter on Proper Forcing in the Handbook of Set Theory and I have a quite trivial question on the definition of $\alpha$-proper forcing. Since there are many equivalent definitions and characterizations, let me recall those related to my question.

If $\lambda$ is a fixed regular cardinal and $\alpha>0$ a countable ordinal, an $\alpha$-tower is a sequence $\left<M_i\mid i<\alpha\right>$ of elementary substructures of $H_\lambda$ such that $M_\delta=\bigcup_{i<\delta}M_i$ when $\delta$ is a limit ordinal and $\left<M_i\mid i\leq j\right>\in M_{j+1}$.

A poset $P$ is $\alpha$-proper if for every sufficiently large $\lambda$ and every $\alpha$-tower such that $P\in M_0$, every $p\in M_0$ can be extended to a condition $q$ which is $(M_i,P)$-generic for each $i<\alpha$.

Among the characterizations of $\alpha$-properness, there is the following one:

Let $T^\alpha(P)$ the set of all sequences $\{a_i\mid i<\alpha\}$ of countable subsets of $A=P\cup \mathcal PP$ such that every $p\in a_0\cap P$ can be extended to $q\in P$ such that if $D\in a_i\cap \mathcal PP$ dense in $P$ then $D\cap M_i$ is pre-dense below (or above) $p$.

$(*)$ $P$ is $\alpha$-proper iif $T^\alpha(P)\in \mathcal D^\alpha(A)$ (a generalization of the club-filter for sequences of countable subsets).

In Proper and Improper Forcing, Shelah requires $i\in M_i$ in the definition of $\alpha$-tower, Abraham does not include this, but I have needed an even stronger hypothesis in order to prove that $(*)$ implies $\alpha$-properness, namely, that $\alpha\in M_0$.

I see that it is not relevant, since what really matters is that the set of all $\alpha$-towers satisfying the definition of $\alpha$-proper poset belongs to $\mathcal D^\alpha(H_\lambda)$ (and this is an easy consequence of the proof of this characterization), but I have been wondering whether $(*)\Rightarrow \alpha$-proper can be shown without restricting the definition to $\alpha$-towers satisfying $\alpha\in M_0$.

The idea of the proof is to show that $\{M_i\cap A\}_{i<\alpha}\in T^\alpha(P)$, and I need $\alpha\in M_0$ to guarantee that $T^\alpha(P)\in M_0$.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

Does a proof by contradiction work here?

Your (*) is stated as a theorem and not a hypothesis, so I am assuming by $(*)$ you really mean the right-hand side. Since it depends on $\alpha$, I'll call it $(*)_\alpha$.

Given $P$, we want to see that $(*)_\alpha$ implies $\alpha$-proper for all $\alpha<\omega_1$. If this fails, let $\alpha$ be the least witness. Now given a tower of models with $P\in M_0$, we get $\alpha\in M_0$ automatically, as it is definable from $P$, etc.

Now your proof should give a contradiction.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much! Yes, (*) should be just the right-hand side. What I missed is that $\alpha$ can be defined as the least witness. All is clear now. $\endgroup$ – Carlos Mar 29 '14 at 10:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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