7
$\begingroup$

It is a (folklore?) fact that if $\kappa$ is a regular cardinal, and $\mathbb{P}$ is a $\kappa$-closed poset such that $\Vdash_\mathbb{P} |\mathbb{P}| = \kappa$, then $\mathbb{P}$ is equivalent to $Col(\kappa,\mathbb{P})$, the collection of partial functions from $\kappa$ to $\mathbb{P}$ of size $<\kappa$, ordered by inclusion. Hence if $\mathbb{P}$ is any $\kappa$-closed forcing, then $\mathbb{P} \times Col(\kappa,\mathbb{P}) \sim Col(\kappa,\mathbb{P})$, so $\mathbb{P}$ is completely embeddable into $\mathcal{B}(Col(\kappa,\mathbb{P}))$.

If $\mathbb{P}$ is $\kappa$-strategically closed (following the notation from Cummings' chapter of the Handbook of Set Theory, not Jech's book), then one can show that $\mathbb{P}$ is completely embeddable into $\mathcal{B}(Col(\kappa,\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{P})))$, since after forcing with this collapse we can use the strategy to build a filter on $\mathbb{P}$ that is generic over the ground model. It is not clear to me whether we can always embed such $\mathbb{P}$ into the smaller forcing $Col(\kappa,\mathbb{P})$.

Question: Are there counterexamples to the statement, "If $\kappa$ is regular and $\mathbb{P}$ is $\kappa$-strategically closed, then there is a complete embedding of $\mathbb{P}$ into $\mathcal{B}(Col(\kappa,\mathbb{P}))$?

$\endgroup$
8
$\begingroup$

If $\mathbb{P}$ is $\kappa$-strategically closed then there is a projection from $Col(\kappa,\mathbb{P})$ onto $\mathbb{P}$.

The proof is very similar to the $\kappa$-closed case:

Let $\sigma$ be a winning strategy for the game of length $\kappa$. For every condition in $Col(\kappa,\mathbb{P})$, $f:\eta \rightarrow \mathbb{P}$ ($\eta < \kappa$), let define a condition in $\mathbb{P}$, $q_f$, to be the last condition in the game of length $\eta + 1$ that is played according to $\sigma$ and in which the "bad" player plays in step $\alpha$ the condition $f(\alpha)$, if it is a legal move, and otherwise he doesn't move. Since $\sigma$ is a winning strategy, there is condition $p_\eta$ that was played in the last move of the game. So $q_f = p_\eta$.

It's clear that if $f\leq g$ as conditions in $Col(\kappa,\mathbb{P})$ then $q_f \leq q_g$ and it also clear that for every $g\in Col(\kappa, \mathbb{P})$, the image of the function $f\rightarrow q_f$ for $f\leq g$ is dense below $q_g$, so it is a projection.

Now we can verify that if $G$ is a generic filter for $Col(\kappa, \mathbb{P})$ then $\{ p \in \mathbb{P} | \exists f\in G,\,q_f \leq p\}$ is a generic filter for $\mathbb{P}$: For every $D\subset \mathbb{P}$ open and dense and $g \in Col(\kappa, \mathbb{P})$, there is $f\leq g$ such that $q_f \in D$ (by the density of the image of $f\rightarrow q_f$ below $q_g$).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Actually more is true: $\mathbb{P}$ is $\kappa$-strategically closed iff $Col(\kappa,\lambda) \cong \mathbb{P}\ast \mathbb{R}$ for some $\mathbb{R}$ and $\lambda=|\mathbb{P}|$. $\endgroup$ – Yair Hayut May 9 '14 at 11:58
5
$\begingroup$

Meanwhile, let's observe that if you weaken strategic $\kappa$-closure to the requirement that the forcing is strategically ${\lt}\kappa$-closed, that is, strategically $\beta$-closed for all $\beta<\kappa$, then the conclusion does not necessarily hold. The difference is between player II being able to continue playing for $\kappa$ many moves in a single game, versus being able to play for $\beta$ many moves in the length $\beta$ games for arbitrarily large $\beta$ below $\kappa$.

Suppose $\kappa$ is a Mahlo cardinal, and let $\mathbb{P}$ be the forcing to kill the Mahloness of $\kappa$. Conditions in $\mathbb{P}$ consist of closed bounded subsets of $\kappa$, containing no regular cardinals, ordered by end-extension. This forcing has size $\kappa$, and it adds a club in $\kappa$ containing no regular cardinals. It is strategically $\lt\kappa$-closed, since for any $\beta<\kappa$, the collection of conditions mentioning an ordinal above $\beta$ is $\leq\beta$-closed and dense in $\mathbb{P}$. So player II can win the games of length $\beta+1$ simply by playing into that dense set at the first opportunity.

Meanwhile, $\mathbb{P}$ does not completely embed into $\text{Coll}(\kappa,\kappa)$, because that forcing is ${\lt}\kappa$ closed and hence preserves every ground model stationary subset of $\kappa$ (one can see this by a pseudo-generic argument, since for any name for a club avoiding a given set, one can produce a club in the ground model avoiding that set), while $\mathbb{P}$ destroys the stationarity of the set of regular cardinals below $\kappa$. So the collapse forcing cannot add a generic filter for $\mathbb{P}$.

$\endgroup$

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.