We all know and love Cohen reals, and we can (and often do) define the Cohen forcing as partial functions $p\colon\omega\to 2$ with finite domain. The Prikry–Silver forcing is defined as partial functions $p\colon\omega\to 2$ with co-infinite domain.

These two couldn't be any more different. For example, Cohen reals are aggressively non-minimal, whereas Prikry–Silver reals are minimal.

We can look at a similar situation with other forcings that are given by finite conditions. For example $\operatorname{Col}(\omega,\omega_1)$ is a forcing notion whose conditions are finite partial functions $p\colon\omega\to\omega_1$. We can ask what would be the Prikry–Silver analogue of this forcing, then. That is, $\{p\colon\omega\to\omega_1\mid\operatorname{dom} p\text{ is co-infinite}\}$.

Interestingly, assuming CH this is the same as the standard collapsing forcing. This follows from the fact that the cardinality of the partial order is $2^{\aleph_0}$, which under CH is just $\aleph_1$, and we know that any forcing of size $\aleph_1$ which collapses $\omega_1$ is equivalent to $\operatorname{Col}(\omega,\omega_1)$.

Question. Is this so-called "Prikry–Silver collapse" provably equivalent to the standard collapsing forcing?

  • $\begingroup$ Prikry–Silver adds a minimal real, it is proper, and so it most certainly does not collapse $\omega_1$. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila May 20 at 14:56

If $\mathrm{CH}$ fails then $\mathrm{Col}(\omega, \omega_1)$ does not add a generic for the "Prikry-Silver collapse" $\mathbb P$: Let $\mathbb U$ be $(\mathcal{P}(\omega)/I)^+$ where $I$ is the ideal of finite subsets of $\omega$. The map $$\pi:\mathbb P\rightarrow \mathbb U,\ p\mapsto [\omega\setminus\mathrm{dom}(p)]_I$$ is a projection so that $\mathbb P$ adds a $\mathbb U$-generic filter. It is hence enough to show that under $\neg\mathrm{CH}$, $\mathrm{Col}(\omega,\omega_1)$ does not add a $\mathbb U$-generic filter. Suppose it does. In this case, there is a projection $$\mu:\mathrm{Col}(\omega,\omega_1)\rightarrow \mathrm{RO}(\mathbb U)$$ but this implies that there is $p\in\mathbb U$ and a set $D\subseteq\mathrm{RO}(\mathbb U)$ of size $\omega_1$ that is dense below $p$. This contradicts the fact that $\mathbb U$ has an antichain of size continuum below every condition.


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.