If we start with $V\models\lozenge$, it is not hard to force the failure of diamond. You can blow up the continuum, or destroy all the Suslin trees. You can blow up the continuum of $\aleph_1$, and then collapse $\aleph_1$ to be countable.

There are many ways of doing that, but all of them (that I could think of, with the help of a few people over the day) include one of the two:

  1. Blowing up the continuum,
  2. Collapsing cardinals.

Is it consistent that $V\models\lozenge$, and $r$ is a $V$-generic real such that $V[r]\models\lnot\lozenge+\sf CH$ and no cardinals were collapsed between $V$ and $V[r]$?

If the answer is positive, can we strengthen the preservation of $\sf CH$ by requiring also that the continuum function remains the same (so no blowing up power sets of larger cardinals somehow)?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Possibly worth mentioning: if $\mathbb{P}$ is ccc and $|\mathbb{P}| \leq \aleph_1$, then forcing with $\mathbb{P}$ preserves $\diamondsuit$ and CH. This is Exercise IV.7.58 in the newer set theory book by Kunen. $\endgroup$ – Will Brian May 26 '15 at 17:12
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Jensen's forcing for $SH+CH$ forces the failure of diamond without collapsing cardinals or blowing up the continuum, but its generic is certainly not a real. $\endgroup$ – Yair Hayut May 26 '15 at 17:51
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ I've upvoted in order to partially offset the inevitable backlash from environmentalists who react negatively to "blow up the continuum and destroy all the Suslin trees." $\endgroup$ – Vidit Nanda May 26 '15 at 19:47
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Do you know the answer if we weaken $r \subseteq \omega$ to $r \subseteq \omega_1$? $\endgroup$ – Monroe Eskew May 27 '15 at 2:56
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The answer to your question is no, if $V=L,$ as then for any real $r, L[r]\models \Diamond+CH.$ $\endgroup$ – Mohammad Golshani May 27 '15 at 4:08

The answer is yes, assuming the existence of $\aleph_2$-many measurable cardinals. To see this, assume $GCH+\Diamond$ holds and $S$ is a discrete set of measurable cardinals of size $\aleph_2.$

Step 1. Force with Prikry product forcing $P_S$ to change the cofinality of each element of $S$ into $\omega.$

Note that the extension is of the form $V[(x_\alpha: \alpha\in S)]$, where each $x_\alpha$ is an $\omega-$sequence cofinal in $\alpha.$

Step 2. Force with Jensen's coding theorem, to code everything into a real $r$, so that we have $V[(x_\alpha: \alpha\in S)][r]=V[r]$ (we can do this using a set forcing construction, and assuming that the ground model is a core model).

Step 3. Force over $V[r]$, by a cardinal and $GCH$ preserving forcing iteration to force $\neg \Diamond$.

Note that the generic can be seen as a subset $X$ of $S.$ Now working in $V[r][X],$ define a new sequence $(y_\alpha: \alpha\in S),$ so that $y_\alpha=x_\alpha,$ if $\alpha\in X$ and $y_\alpha=x_\alpha\setminus\{ min(x_\alpha) \}$ if $\alpha\notin X.$

Then let $V_1=V[(y_\alpha: \alpha\in S)]$ and $V_2=V_1[r].$ Note that:

1) $V_1\models GCH+\Diamond,$

2) $V_2=V[(y_\alpha: \alpha\in S)][r]=V[r][X]\models GCH+\neg\Diamond,$

3) $V_2=V_1[r]$, for some real $r$.

I may mention that the above method can be used to prove the consistency of many statements using adding a single real.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ But is this $r$ generic over $V_1$? It seems class generic? (Although probably coding just a portion of the universe, not everything, would suffice, no?) $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila May 27 '15 at 12:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The coding part can be done using a set forcing, as we are coding a set of ordinals. For example we can start with the ground model being a core model $K$, and we will have $K[(x_\alpha: \alpha<\omega_2)][r]=K[r].$ $\endgroup$ – Mohammad Golshani May 27 '15 at 13:38
  • $\begingroup$ I think that I understand this construction, which is quite clever. You might want to change/remove the remark that $V[r]=L[r]$, since we don't want $r$ to be class-generic and it might not be the case that $r$ encodes the entire universe anymore. I'll sleep on it, and see if I have additional questions tomorrow morning. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila May 27 '15 at 22:37
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Nice argument. Can we justify the use of measurables here? $\endgroup$ – Ashutosh May 28 '15 at 12:40

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.