Let $P$ be a forcing poset, and $Q \in V^P$ a forcing poset in $V^P$. Let $M \prec H(\lambda)$ ($\lambda$ sufficiently large) countable with $P,Q \in M$.

What I want to know is if then the following statement holds:

$(p,q) \in P \ast Q$ is $(M, P \ast Q)$-generic iff $p$ is $(M,P)$-generic and $p \Vdash_P q$ is $(M[\dot{G}_0],Q)$-generic,

where here $\dot{G}_0$ is the canonical name for the $(V,P)$-generic filter.


I want to use this statement in order to prove that the two-step iteration of proper forcings is again proper.

  • $\begingroup$ You can prove the following, to prove the fact you are looking for: if $p$ is $(M, P)$-generic and $\dot{r}$ is such that $p \Vdash \dot{r}=(r_0,\dot{r}_1) \in M \cap P*\dot{Q}, r_0 \in \dot{G}_0$, then there is $\dot{q}$ such that $(p, \dot{q})$ is $(M, P*\dot{Q})$-generic and $(p, \dot{q})\Vdash ``\dot{r}\in \dot{G} $''. $\endgroup$ – Mohammad Golshani Aug 30 '15 at 6:12

Are you working through Abraham's chapter in the handbook? I think he omits the proof of this fact because it's elementary and a little gritty, though it's an essential part of his proof that a two-step iteration of proper forcings is proper.

We'll need the fact that generics for $\ast$-products can be factored: $K$ is generic for $P \ast \dot{Q}$ if and only if there are generics $G$ for $P$ and $H$ for $\dot{Q}_G$ such that $K = G \ast H = \{(p, \dot{q}): p \in G, \dot{q}_G \in H\}$. (Throughout, I'll abbreviate $\dot{Q}_G$ as $Q$, $\dot{q}_G$ as $q$, etc.)

I'll use the following definition for master conditions: $p$ is $(M, P)$-generic iff for every dense set $D \in M$, we have $p \Vdash \dot{G} \cap D \cap M \neq \emptyset$ (i.e., for every generic $G \ni p$ and dense set $D \in M$, we have $G \cap D \cap M \neq \emptyset$).

Now, assume first that $(p_0, \dot{q_0})$ is $(M, P \ast \dot{Q})$-generic. Fix $G$ a generic for $P$, and $D \subseteq P$ a dense set with $D \in M$. To establish the $(M, P)$-genericity of $p_0$, we need to show $G \cap D \cap M \neq \emptyset$. Let $D' = \{(p, \dot{q}): p \in D\}$. Then $D'$ is dense in $P \ast \dot{Q}$, and further $D' \in M$ since it is defined in terms of $D$. Let $H$ be an arbitrary generic for $Q$ containing $q_0$. Then since $G \ast H$ contains the master condition $(p_0, \dot{q_0})$, we have $G \ast H \cap D' \cap M \neq \emptyset$, which gives $G \cap D \cap M \neq \emptyset$, as desired.

To show that $p_0 \Vdash \dot{q_0}$ is $(M[\dot{G}], \dot{Q})$-generic, we must prove that if we are given generics $G \ni p_0$ for $P$ and $H \ni q_0$ for $Q$, and $E \in M[G]$ that is dense in $Q$, we have $E \cap H \cap M[G] \neq \emptyset$. Fix such $G, H, E$. Let $\dot{E}$ be a name for $E$ with $\dot{E} \in M$, and find $p_1 \in G$ such that $p_1 \Vdash \dot{E}$ is dense in $\dot{Q}$. Let $E' = \{(p, \dot{q}): p \Vdash \dot{q} \in \dot{E}\}$. Then $E' \in M$. One checks that $E'$ is dense in $P \ast \dot{Q}$ below $(p_1, \dot{1_Q}) \in G \ast H$. Then since $G \ast H$ contains the master condition $(p_0, \dot{q_0})$, we have $G \ast H \cap E' \cap M \neq \emptyset$. Unraveling the definitions gives $H \cap E \cap M[G] \neq \emptyset$, as desired.

For the converse, suppose $p_0$ is $(M, P)$-generic and $p_0 \Vdash \dot{q_0}$ is $(M[G], \dot{Q})$-generic. Let $K$ be generic for $P \ast \dot{Q}$, with $(p_0, \dot{q_0}) \in K$. Factor $K$ as $G \ast H$. Then we have $p_0 \in G$ and $q_0 \in H$. Let $D \in M$ be dense in $P \ast \dot{Q}$. To show $(p_0, \dot{q_0})$ is $(M, P \ast \dot{Q})$-generic, we must witness $G \ast H \cap D \cap M \neq \emptyset$.

Now, one may view $D$ as a $P$-name for a subset of $Q$. It's evaluation $D_G$ is just $\{q: \exists (p, \dot{q}) \in D$ s.t. $p \in G$ and $\dot{q}_G = q\}$. One may check that since $D$ is dense in $P \ast \dot{Q}$, we have that $D_G$ is dense in $Q$. Of course, since $D \in M$, we have $D_G \in M[G]$.

We'll need the following two facts.

$\textbf{Fact 1}$: For any set $A \in M$, we have $A \cap M = A \cap M[G]$.

We need only prove the containment $\supseteq$. If $x \in A \cap M[G]$ then there is a name $\dot{x} \in M$ for $x$ and a $p \in G$ such that $p \Vdash \dot{x} \in \check{A}$. The set $E = \{q: \exists y \in A$ such that $q \Vdash \dot{x} = \check{y}\}$ is defined with parameters from $M$, hence in $M$, and dense in $P$ below $p$. Since $G$ contains the master condition $p_0$, we may find a $q \in G \cap E \cap M$. Of course, $q$ must decide the value of $\dot{x}$ is $x$. Hence we must have $x \in M$, as desired.

$\textbf{Fact 2}$: For any $P$-name $\sigma \in M$, we have $(\sigma \cap M)_G = \sigma_G \cap M[G]$.

Again the containment $\subseteq$ is easy, so assume $x \in \sigma_G \cap M[G]$. Since $x \in \sigma_G$, we must have

$\exists (p, \dot{x}) \in \sigma \, \textrm{with} \, p \in G \, \textrm{and} \, \dot{x}_G = x$.

This statement only involves parameters in $M[G]$, and it is true in $H_{\lambda}[G]$. It is a general fact that $M[G] \prec H_{\lambda}[G]$, and so by elementarity we may find such a $(p, \dot{x})$ in $\sigma \cap M[G]$. By fact 1, this gives $(p, \dot{x}) \in \sigma \cap M$. Hence $x \in (\sigma \cap M)_G$, as desired.

Now we can finish the argument. Since $p_0 \in G$, we have by hypothesis that $q_0$ is $(M[G], Q)$-generic. Hence $D_G \cap M[G] \cap H \neq \emptyset$. By the second fact this gives $(D \cap M)_G \cap H \neq 0$. Say $q \in (D \cap M)_G \cap H$. Then there is $(p, \dot{q}) \in D \cap M$ with $p \in G$ and $\dot{q}_G = q \in H$. But this means $(p, \dot{q}) \in G \ast H$, hence $G \ast H \cap D \cap M \neq 0$, as desired.


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.