8
$\begingroup$

Let $U\in V$ be an ultrafilter on $\omega$. We say $U$ is preserved under forcing with $\mathbb{P}$ if $\Vdash \forall x\subset \omega \ \exists Z\in U \ Z\subset x \vee Z\subset x^c$. In other words, $U$ generates an ultrafilter in $V[G]$. Familiar examples of such ultrafilters:

  • Ramsey ultrafilters, P-points are preserved under Sacks forcing and Miller forcing (also their products)
  • P-points/Ramsey ultrafilters are also preserved under iterations of Sacks forcing with countable support
  • There are also combinatorial characterizations of ultrafilters preserved by Sacks forcing, related to Halpern-Lauchli theorem, see https://www.math.wisc.edu/~miller/res/ultra-s.pdf

My question is: is it known that an ultrafilter preserved by Sacks forcing necessarily needs to be preserved by side-by-side products of Sacks forcing (finite/countable support)? There are probably more ad-hoc examples of forcing $\mathbb{P}$ that preserves an ultrafilter $U$ but not the product $\mathbb{P}\times\mathbb{P}$ (is there any)? Maybe there is something easy that I overlook.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Yes indeed thanks for pointing out. Edited. $\endgroup$ – Jing Zhang Oct 12 '16 at 0:48
  • $\begingroup$ It makes sense to ask about the countable support product of Sacks forcing. But finite support? The sequence of all first values of the Sacks reals will be a Cohen real. $\endgroup$ – Goldstern Jul 19 '17 at 16:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Goldstern: sorry it was bad phrasing I intended to ask finite products or infinite products with countable support $\endgroup$ – Jing Zhang Jul 19 '17 at 16:35
8
$\begingroup$

Regarding your final request, here is an example of a forcing notion $\mathbb{P}$ that preserves all ground-model ultrafilters on $\omega$, but $\mathbb{P}\times\mathbb{P}$ destroys all ground model ultrafilters.

Namely, assume CH and let $\mathbb{P}=T$ be a self-specializing Suslin tree, which is a Suslin tree with the property that forcing to add a branch $g$ through the tree makes $T$ a special $\omega_1$-tree off the generic branch; that is, if $b$ is any node not on the generic branch $g$, then the subtree $T_b$ of conditions extending $b$ is special in $V[g]$. In particular, forcing with $T$ once adds no reals, since it is a Suslin tree, and therefore preserves all ultrafilters on $\omega$. But forcing with the tree twice $T\times T$ amounts to forcing with a special Aronszajn tree in the second step and therefore collapses $\omega_1$ and consequently destroys all ground model ultrafilters on $\omega$.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for a nice example. I've been looking at mainly proper forcings whose product remains proper (or rather just Sacks forcing). But this example is great. $\endgroup$ – Jing Zhang Oct 12 '16 at 1:51
  • $\begingroup$ Also any references on how to construct such trees (assuming maybe only CH but I suspect diamond)? Thanks. $\endgroup$ – Jing Zhang Oct 12 '16 at 2:02
  • $\begingroup$ If you follow the link, Gunter Fuchs has a construction from $\Diamond$. I'm not sure if he ever published the argument. I recall that it was very nice. $\endgroup$ – Joel David Hamkins Oct 12 '16 at 2:05
  • $\begingroup$ Gunter Fuchs has told me that evidently the construction of a self-specializing Suslin tree was known before his rediscovery, so he didn't publish. But I'm not sure of a reference. Paul Larson has mentioned that it was known earlier. $\endgroup$ – Joel David Hamkins Oct 13 '16 at 23:05
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! I think it might be a good exercise to figure this out (though I don't know how hard it is). But any sketch or pointer would be appreciated ;-) . $\endgroup$ – Jing Zhang Oct 14 '16 at 21:46
5
$\begingroup$

Let $\mathbb M$ be Miller forcing. Then $\mathbb M$ adds an unbounded real, so $\mathbb M\times \mathbb M\times\mathbb M$ adds a Cohen real (Velickovic; also an unpublished result of Shelah). Hence this forcing destroys every ultrafilter from the ground model.

So for every ultrafilter $U$ in the ground model, one of the following is true:

  • $\mathbb M$ destroys $U$.
  • $\mathbb M$ preserves $U$, but $M\times M$ destroys $U$
  • $P:=\mathbb M\times\mathbb M$ preserves $U$, but $P\times P$ destroys $U$.

The first alternative cannot happen for P-points, but I am not sure which of the other two may hold.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For P-points, the second alternative holds, since $\mathbb{M}\times \mathbb{M}$ always adds a splitting real. For non-P-points, the first alternative holds. $\endgroup$ – Jing Zhang Jul 19 '17 at 17:08

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.