5
$\begingroup$

Let $\mathbb{V}$ denote Prikry-Silver forcing. That is, $\mathbb{V}$ is forcing with partial functions $\omega \rightarrow 2$ with coinfinite domain or forcing with uniform trees.

Let $\dot x$ denote the canonical name for the unique real given by the generic filter. A real $r \in V[G]$ is a $\mathbb{V}$ generic real if and only if there exists some $H \subseteq \mathbb{V}$ and $H \in V[G]$ such that $V[H] \models r = \dot x_G$.

The question is: Is every new real in $V[G]$ a $\mathbb{V}$-generic real.

This meaning, if $p \in \mathbb{V}$ and $\tau \in V^{\mathbb{V}}$ and $p \Vdash_{\mathbb{V}} \tau \in {}^\omega 2 \wedge \tau \notin \check V$, then there exists a $q \leq_{\mathbb{V}} p$ such that $q \Vdash_{\mathbb{V}} \tau = \dot x$.

It is known that every new real in the Sacks extension, is a Sack generic real. Both Sacks forcing and Prikry-Silver forcing add reals of minimal degree (although Sacks actually is a minimal extension and Silver forcing is not).

Does having all new reals being generic follow from adding reals of minimal degree? If not, what is a counterexample of a forcing adding minimal degree such that a new real is not a generic real for that forcing?

Thanks.

$\endgroup$
9
$\begingroup$

No, not every new real in the Silver extension is generic for Silver forcing. To see this, take any new real $x$ in the extension, and form a new real $y$ by doubling every digit of $x$. So if $x=011010\ldots$, then $y=001111001100\ldots$. The real $y$ cannot be Silver generic, since it is dense in Silver forcing to violate the digits-doubling property. Given any condition, look at the first bit not specified, and then fill that bit (and possibly the next) in such a way that the double-digit property is violated.

$\endgroup$

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.