The following was asked on stackexchange but I think it also belongs here:


Suppose $M, N$ are two countable transitive models of ZFC which have same ordinals, cofinalities and reals (but not necessarily same sets of reals!). Suppose $M$ models the continuum hypothesis. Can we conclude that $N$ also models continuum hypothesis? I can see that if this fails, then neither one of $M, N$ is included in the other. But what if $M, N$ are incomparable.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ CW by request of Ashutosh, because he was only relaying the question. $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Nov 5 '15 at 2:13
  • $\begingroup$ I should clarify that Monroe had an entire machinery (anonymous collapse and he spoke about it in GSCL 2014) to get much stronger results around April 2014. $\endgroup$ – Ashutosh Nov 5 '15 at 3:33
  • $\begingroup$ I actually answered the question on Math.SE. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Nov 5 '15 at 7:25
  • $\begingroup$ (There are other ways to relay questions from MSE to MO, by the way. For example: meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1967/…) $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Nov 5 '15 at 7:28
  • $\begingroup$ @Asaf, if I am not mistaken, the question was answered here before your answer there, although the link to Monroe's paper over on MSE by hot_queen came even earlier. $\endgroup$ – Joel David Hamkins Nov 5 '15 at 11:54

This strange situation can indeed happen.

Start with a countable transitive model of set theory $W$, satisfying CH, and let $G$ be $W$-generic for the forcing $\newcommand\Add{\text{Add}}\Add(\omega,\omega_1)^W$. So the model $M=W[G]$ continues to satisfy CH. Now, let $g$ be $W[G]$-generic for the collapse of $\omega_2^W$ to $\omega_1^W$, using the collapse forcing as it is defined in $W$, and temporarily consider $W[G][g]$. Notice that the collapse forcing was countably closed in $W$, and so it remains at least countably distributive in $W[G]$. So we have added no new countable sequences of ordinals in going from $W[G]$ to $W[G][g]$. Inside $W[G][g]$, the ordinals $\omega_1^W$ and $\omega_2^W$ are now in bijection, and so there is an isomorphism $\pi:\Add(\omega,\omega_1)^W\cong \Add(\omega,\omega_2)^W$ between these two forcing notions as posets. Furthermore, since by design the bijection of the ordinals has the property that every countable piece of it is in $W$, the same property is true for this isomorphism $\pi$. Let $H=\pi[G]\subset\Add(\omega,\omega_2)^W$ be the isomorphic copy of $G$ induced by the isomorphism $\pi$. I claim that $H$ is $W$-generic for $\Add(\omega,\omega_2)^W$, because if $A$ is any maximal antichain in this forcing in $W$, then by the c.c.c. it follows that $A$ is countable, and so $\pi^{-1}A\subset\Add(\omega,\omega_1)^W$ is a maximal antichain in $W$ for the first forcing, since this much of $\pi$ is in $W$. And so, since $G$ must meet $\pi^{-1}A$, it follows that $H$ meets $A$; so $H$ is $W$-generic, and we may let $N=W[H]$. So $N$ is a model of $\neg\text{CH}$, since we've added $\omega_2$ many Cohen reals. Both $M$ and $N$ are c.c.c. extensions of $W$, and so they have the same cardinals and cofinalities.

Let's now argue that they have the same reals. First off, every real of $N=W[H]$ is certainly in $W[G][g]$, where $H$ is constructed, and the reals of $W[G][g]$ are the same as the reals of $W[G]=M$, since the $g$ forcing is countably distributive. So every reals of $N$ is in $M$. Conversely, if $x$ is a real in $M=W[G]$, then $x$ is in $W[G\upharpoonright\alpha]$ for some $\alpha<\omega_1$. And since $\pi\upharpoonright\Add(\omega,\alpha)$ is in $W$, it follows that $x$ is in $W[H\upharpoonright\pi[\alpha]]$, which is contained in $W[H]=N$. So they have the same reals.

In conclusion, $M$ and $N$ have the same reals, the same cardinals, the same cofinalities, but one has CH and one does not, as desired.

One may cast the argument in terms of forcing over $V$; there is no need to go to countable transitive models. Namely, start in $V$, with CH, and then force to add $\omega_1$ many Cohen reals to form $V[G]$. Now collapse $\omega_2$ to $\omega_1$ using the ground model collapse, and in $V[G][g]$ define $H$ as the copy of $G$ induced by that isomorphism. It now follows by the argument above that $V[G]$ and $V[H]$ have the same reals, the same cardinals and cofinalities, but one has CH and the other does not.

And of course, there is nothing special about $\omega_2$ in these arguments, we could have used $\omega_3$ or any other regular cardinal in $W$ just as easily.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The situation is possible. See my answer on math.SE $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Nov 5 '15 at 7:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ But haven't I also given a proof here that it happens? I find my argument to be more direct, since it doesn't use symmetric models. There is no need to consider $L(\mathbb{R})$ explicitly, although of course the models will have the same $L(\mathbb{R})$ since they have the same reals. $\endgroup$ – Joel David Hamkins Nov 5 '15 at 11:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Well, sure. Your argument, however, can be reduced to passing through $L(\Bbb R)$, which can be clearer and easier to see why these things work nicely (after forcing over $L(\Bbb R)$ to have say, $2^{\aleph_0}=\aleph_2$, you didn't add any new reals, so every real is in $L$ or Cohen over $L$, so this is again a Cohen extension). $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Nov 5 '15 at 11:54
  • $\begingroup$ I suppose one can view that as a reduction, but I'm inclined to say that the symmetric model argument can be reduced to a direct forcing argument. $\endgroup$ – Joel David Hamkins Nov 5 '15 at 12:01

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.