Assume $\kappa > \aleph_1$ is regular and let $P=(P_\alpha, \dot{Q}_\beta: \alpha \leq \kappa^+, \beta< \kappa^+)$ be an iteration such that:

1) For even $\beta, \dot{Q}_\beta$ is forced to be $\aleph_1$-closed, $\kappa$-c.c. and a subset of $V_\kappa$.

2) For odd $\beta, \dot{Q}_\beta$ is forced to be $\kappa$-closed,

3) For $p \in P,$ if $Supp(p)$ denotes the support of $p$, then $|Supp(p) \cap E| < \aleph_1$ and $|Supp(p) \cap O|< \kappa$ (where $E$ and $O$ are the class of all even and odd ordinals respectively).

From $P$ we can naturally define the forcing notions $P^E$ and $P^O$, where $$P^E=\{p \in P: \forall \beta \in O, p\restriction \beta \Vdash p(\beta)=1 \}$$ and $$P^O=\{p \in P: \forall \beta \in E, p\restriction \beta \Vdash p(\beta)=1 \}$$. Note that there is a natural map $$\pi: P^E \times P^O \to P$$ which is defined as follows: $\pi(p, q)=r$, where for even $\beta, r(\beta)$ is forced to be $p(\beta)$ and for odd $\beta$ it is forced to be $q(\beta)$.

Clearly $P^O$ is $\kappa$-closed.

Question. Is $\pi$ a projection of forcing notions, assuming $P^E$ is $\kappa$-c.c.?

Remark. I think the extra assumption ``$P^E$ is $\kappa$-c.c.'' is necessary for the question, as otherwise, maybe the arguments from "The $\aleph_2$-Souslin Hypothesis" may be used to show that for some suitable choice of the forcings, $P$ may collapse $\kappa,$ while this can not happen for the product $P^E \times P^O$ by Easton's lemma.

  • $\begingroup$ Now I'm intrigued as to what the construction is supposed to be doing. Looks like some tree property related thing... $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Mar 7 '17 at 8:15

You can drop the hypothesis of $P^E$ being $\kappa$-c.c.

So take $(p_1,p_2)\in P^E\times P^O$, and set $p=\pi(p_1,p_2)$. Let $q\in P$ be such that $q\leq p$.

We shall build $q_1\in P^E$ and $q_2\in P^O$ such that $(q_1,q_2)\leq(p_1,p_2)$ and $\pi(q_1,q_2)\leq q$. We define $q_1\upharpoonright\beta$ and $q_2\upharpoonright\beta$ by induction on $1\leq\beta\leq\kappa^+$.

For $\beta=1$ set $q_1\upharpoonright\beta=q\upharpoonright\beta$ and $q_2\upharpoonright\beta=\{(0,1)\}$.

Suppose for some $\beta\leq\kappa^+$ both $q_1\upharpoonright\alpha$ and $q_2\upharpoonright\alpha$ have been defined for all $\alpha<\beta$, with $q\upharpoonright\alpha\leq q_1\upharpoonright\alpha, q_2\upharpoonright\alpha$ and $q_i\upharpoonright\alpha\leq p_i\upharpoonright\alpha$ for $i=1,2$.

If $\beta$ is odd, say $\beta=\gamma+1$, let $q_1(\gamma)$ be a $ P\upharpoonright\gamma$-name such that $q\upharpoonright\gamma\Vdash q_1(\gamma)=q(\gamma)$ and for all $q'\leq q_1\upharpoonright\gamma$ in $ P\upharpoonright\gamma$ with $q'\perp q\upharpoonright\gamma$ we have $q'\Vdash q_1(\gamma)=p(\gamma)$. Finally, let $q_2(\gamma)$ be a $ P\upharpoonright\gamma$-name such that $q_2\upharpoonright\gamma\Vdash q_2(\gamma)=1$. It is easy to verify that $q\upharpoonright\beta\leq q_1\upharpoonright\beta,q_2\upharpoonright\beta$ and $q_i\upharpoonright\beta\leq p_i\upharpoonright\beta$.

Similarly, if $\beta$ is even and successor, we define $q_2(\gamma)$ in such a way that $q\upharpoonright\gamma\Vdash q_2(\gamma)=q(\gamma)$ and $q_2\upharpoonright\gamma-q\upharpoonright\gamma\Vdash q_2(\gamma)=p(\gamma)$, and $q_1(\gamma)$ with $q_1\upharpoonright\gamma\Vdash q_1(\gamma)=1$, again we have $q\upharpoonright\beta\leq q_1\upharpoonright\beta,q_2\upharpoonright\beta$ and $q_i\upharpoonright\beta\leq p_i\upharpoonright\beta$.

For $\beta$ limit, $q_i\upharpoonright\beta$ is just the union of $q_i\upharpoonright\alpha$, $\alpha<\beta$.

We have $q_i\in P$ as $supp(q_i)\subseteq supp(q) \cup supp(p)$.

It is clear that $(q_1,q_2)\leq (p_1,p_2)$.

It is easy to show by induction on $1\leq\beta\leq\kappa^+$ that $\pi(q_1,q_2)\upharpoonright\beta\leq q\upharpoonright\beta$.

Therefore $\pi$ is a projection.

  • $\begingroup$ @MohammadGolshani in that case we have $q\upharpoonright\gamma\leq q_2\upharpoonright\gamma$ by inductive hypothesis, but as $q_2\upharpoonright\gamma\Vdash q_2(\gamma)=1$, we then have $q\upharpoonright\gamma\Vdash q(\gamma)\leq q_2(\gamma)$. $\endgroup$ – Camilo Arosemena-Serrato Apr 3 '17 at 16:55
  • $\begingroup$ You are right, I made a mistake with the order relation. $\endgroup$ – Mohammad Golshani Apr 5 '17 at 3:25
  • $\begingroup$ Your claim "It is easy to show by induction on $1\leq\beta\leq\kappa^+$ that $\pi(q_1,q_2)\upharpoonright\beta\leq q\upharpoonright\beta$" is not clear. $\endgroup$ – Mohammad Golshani Apr 8 '17 at 4:27
  • $\begingroup$ As at successors we are forcing with the projected condition and not the condition itself. $\endgroup$ – Mohammad Golshani Apr 8 '17 at 5:20
  • $\begingroup$ @Mohammad You prove $\pi(q_1,q_2)\upharpoonright\beta\leq q\upharpoonright\beta$ by induction on $\beta\geq 1$. Case $\beta=1$ is obvious. If $\beta=\gamma+1$ is odd, then $1\Vdash_{P\upharpoonright\gamma} \pi(q_1,q_2)(\gamma)=q_1(\gamma)$, and thus as by induction $\pi(q_1,q_2)\upharpoonright\gamma\leq q\upharpoonright\gamma$, we get $\pi(q_1,q_2)\upharpoonright\gamma\Vdash \pi(q_1,q_2)(\gamma)=q(\gamma)$, and therefore $\pi(q_1,q_2)\upharpoonright\beta\leq q\upharpoonright\beta$. $\endgroup$ – Camilo Arosemena-Serrato Apr 8 '17 at 17:20

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.