4
$\begingroup$

A Silver forcing "below $2^n$" is defned e.g. in Definition 7.4.11 of [Tomek Bartoszyński and Haim Judah, Set Theory: on the structure of the real line, A. K. Peters, Wellesley, 1995.]. It is called Infinitely equal forcing EE there. In the same book, in Lemma 7.4.15 the authors show that EE preserves p-points. However, the proof of this lemma seems to be not complete/correct: the choice of conditions $p^{n+1}$ is not clear, as needed extensions of $p^n$ for various $r_n^j$ may "contradict" each other. (This would not be a problem if conditions were $2^n$-splitting trees, i.e., if the forcing were more like the Sacks rather than Silver.)

Do you know another source/reference for the proof that EE preserves p-points? Or perhaps I am missing something and the proof in the book is actually complete?

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

David Chodounský and Osvaldo Guzmán showed in arXiv:1703.02082 that There are no P-points in Silver extensions. They prove that

after adding a Silver real no ultrafilter from the ground model can be extended to a P-point, and this remains to be the case in any further extension which has the Sacks property.

In particular, any free ultrafilter from the ground model will not be a p-point, and hence cannot be an ultrafilter, as Silver forcing is proper.

Silver is a complete subforcing of the forcing EE (right? In each entry of the generic, use the first bit - this will be a Silver generic) so also EE destroys all p-points.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ So as everyone else is too polite to explicitly say it, I will, to avoid any confusion: As Martin points out, 7.4.15 in B-J is incorrect. $\endgroup$
    – Jakob
    Jan 19 at 15:17

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.