Assume GCH and that $\kappa$ is a regular uncountable cardinal. Let $\mathbb{P}$ be a separative, $<\kappa$-directed closed, nowhere trivial, $\kappa^+$-cc poset of size $\kappa^+$. Must $\mathbb{P}$ be forcing equivalent to $\text{Col}(\kappa, < \kappa^+)$? (which I believe is equivalent to adding $\kappa^+$ many Cohen subsets of $\kappa$). If not, then what if we also assume that the $<\kappa$ directed closure of $\mathbb{P}$ is witnessed by greatest lower bounds? (i.e. that $\mathbb{P}$ satisfies a strong version of the ``well-met" requirement).

This question is somewhat related to the following earlier question on MO:"Resembling the Levy collapse". There it was shown that for $\delta > \kappa$ where $\delta$ is inaccessible, the Silver collapse to turn $\delta$ into $\kappa^+$ has all the relevant properties but is not equivalent to Levy collapse $\text{Col}(\kappa, < \delta)$. I don't think the analogue of the Silver collapse between $\kappa$ and $\kappa^+$ is $\kappa^+$-cc, however, so I don't think that provides a counterexample to this question.

  • $\begingroup$ You probably should require also that $\mathbb{P}$ is separative or at least splitting, since otherwise we can make a trivial example by using $\text{Add}(\kappa,1)$, but putting a linear chain of size $\kappa^+$ on top to pump up the size to $\kappa^+$. $\endgroup$ Oct 9, 2015 at 19:12
  • $\begingroup$ We're looking forward to seeing you soon in New York! $\endgroup$ Oct 10, 2015 at 0:12
  • $\begingroup$ I am looking forward to it too! $\endgroup$
    – Sean Cox
    Oct 10, 2015 at 15:55

1 Answer 1


First note that in the special case $\kappa = \omega_1$, countably closed implies countably directed-closed.

Answer 1: No. In any model of CH, there is a countably closed, $\omega_2$-c.c. forcing that is inequivalent to $\mathbb P = \text{Add}(\omega_1,\omega_2)$.

Proof: Let $\mathbb Q$ be Jensen's partial order for adding a Kurepa tree. Conditions are $(t,b)$, where $t$ is a countable tree of successor height $\alpha$, $b$ is a countable subset of $\mathcal P(\omega_1)$, and for all $x \in b$, $x \cap \alpha \subseteq t$. Ordering is $(t_1,b_1) \leq (t_0,b_0)$ when $t_1$ end-extends $t_0$ and $b_0 \subseteq b_1$. It is not hard to show that $\mathbb Q$ is countably closed and $\omega_2$-c.c. under CH. Any two conditions with the same first coordinate are compatible. The union of the first coordinates in any generic is a Kurepa tree $T$ by a density argument.

Note that every subset of $\omega_1$ added by $\mathbb P$ is added by some $\omega_1$-sized regular suborder. If $\mathbb Q$ were forcing equivalent to $\mathbb P$, then there would be some $\omega_1$-sized regular subalgebra $\mathbb R$ of $ro(\mathbb Q)$ that adds the generic Kurepa tree $T$. $\mathbb Q$ forces an $\omega_2$-size subset of $\mathcal P(\omega_1)^V$ to be contained in the set of branches of $T$. Thus suppose $G * H$ is $\mathbb R * \mathbb Q / \mathbb R$-generic. But in $V[G]$ we can compute whether $(p,q) \in H$, since we just determine whether $p \subseteq T$ and whether all $x \in q$ are branches of $T$. Thus $V[G * H] = V[G]$, and $\mathbb Q$ must have a dense set of size $\omega_1$. But this is false: If $\{ (t_i,b_i) : i < \omega_1 \} \subseteq \mathbb Q$, then pick $x \notin \bigcup b_i$. No $(t_i,b_i)$ can force $x$ to be a branch of $T$ since we can extend $t$ to rule out $x$ as a branch.

Note that $\mathbb Q$ doesn't have infima to countable chains since we have a lot of choices for the "top level" of the countable tree. But...

Answer 2: Not necessarily, even for $\omega_1$-closed with infima. Let $V$ be a model of GCH, and let $G \subseteq \text{Col}(\omega_1,\omega_2)$ be generic. $\omega_3^V = \omega_2^{V[G]}$. I claim that in $V[G]$, $\mathbb P = \text{Col}(\omega_1,<\omega_2)^{V[G]}$ and $\mathbb Q = \text{Col}(\omega_2,<\omega_3)^{V}$ are both countably closed with infima and both $\omega_2$-c.c., but are not forcing equivalent.

The closure follows from the fact that $V$ and $V[G]$ have the same countable sequences. The $\omega_2$-c.c. for $\mathbb Q$ follows from the fact that $\mathbb Q \times \text{Col}(\omega_1,\omega_2)$ is $\omega_3$-c.c. in $V$.

Next, one can prove a similar fact to Mohammad's answer. In $V[G]$,

(1) $\Vdash_{\mathbb P} \exists A \in [\omega_2]^{\omega_2}$ such that $A$ does not contain any $\omega_1$-sized set from $V[G]$.

(2) $\Vdash_{\mathbb Q} \exists A \in [\omega_2]^{\omega_2}$ such that for all $X \in [\omega_2]^{\omega_2} \cap V[G]$, there is $y \in [X]^{\omega_1} \cap V[G]$ such that $y \cap A = \emptyset$.

The justification for (1) is the same as for Mohammad's answer. To see (2), let $\dot A$ be a name for a code of the generic $H$ for $\mathbb Q$. In $V$, let $\dot B$ be a name for a code for $G \times H$. If $X \in ([\omega_2]^{\omega_2})^{V[G]}$, let $\dot X$ be a name for it in $V$. Let $p \in \text{Col}(\omega_1,\omega_2)$ be arbitrary, and let $\{ p_i : i < \omega_3 \} \subseteq \text{Col}(\omega_1,\omega_2) \restriction p$ be such that $p_i$ decides the $i^{th}$ member of $\dot X$. Let $p'$ be such that $p_i = p'$ for $\omega_3$ many $i$, giving a large set $Y$ such that $p' \Vdash \check Y \subseteq \dot X$. Let $q \in \mathbb Q$ be arbitrary. Interpreting $Y$ as a subset of $\mathbb Q$, find $Y' \subseteq Y$ of size $\omega_3$ such that $q \nleq y$ for all $y \in Y'$. For each such $y$, choose $q_y \leq q$ such that $q_y \perp y$. Now form a $\Delta$-system among the $q_y$, and let $z$ be an infimum of a set $S$ of $\omega_1$ many of them. Then $z$ forces that the generic $H$ misses $y$ for $q_y \in S$. As $p$ and $q$ were arbitrary, we are done.

Likewise, we can show that $\mathbb P$ forces the negation of the the property under the forcing sign in (2), and vice versa. Some details are in section 2.1.2 of my thesis. I may post more later.


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.