5
$\begingroup$

Let $\operatorname{Col}(\omega,<\kappa)$ denote the Lévy collapse of an inaccessible cardinal $\kappa$. A variant of the Factor Lemma is as follows:

Lemma. Suppose that $\kappa$ is an inaccessible cardinal and that $\mathbb{P}$ is a poset of size $<\kappa$. Let $G$ be $\operatorname{Col}(\omega,<\kappa$)-generic over $V$. If in $V[G]$ there is a filter $h \subseteq \mathbb{P}$ that is $\mathbb{P}$-generic over $V$, then there is $G^* \in V[G]$ that is $\operatorname{Col}(\omega,<\kappa)$-generic over $V[h]$ and such that $V[h][G^*] = V[G]$.

For those interested, I took this variant from the paper Happy and mad families in $L(\mathbb{R})$, Lemma 17 of Page 10.

This lemma shows that, in particular, $h \in V[G]$. Is it true that there must exist some ordinal $\beta < \kappa$ such that $h \in V[G\upharpoonright\beta]$?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

10
$\begingroup$

Note that the lemma doesn't show that $h$ is in $V[G]$, it assumes this. But yes, if $h\in V[G]$ is a subset of a set $X\in V$ such that $|X| < \kappa$, then for some $\beta < \kappa$, $h\in V[G\restriction \beta]$. The argument to follow is by no means original, but I don't remember where I saw it. Fix a name $\dot h$ such that $h = \dot h_G$, and for each $x\in X$, let $A_x\subseteq \text{Col}(\omega,{<}\kappa)$ be a maximal antichain consisting of conditions that force either $\check{x}\in \dot h$ or its negation. Recall that $\text{Col}(\omega,{<}\kappa)$ has the $\kappa$-cc, so $|A_x| < \kappa$. Let $A = \bigcup_{x\in X} A_x$. Since $|X| < \kappa$, $|A| < \kappa$, and therefore there is some $\beta < \kappa$ be such that $A\subseteq \text{Col}(\omega,{<}\beta)$. We have $h\in V[G\restriction \beta]$ since $h = \{x\in X : \exists q\in G\restriction \beta\, (q\Vdash \check{x} \in \dot h)\}$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think that, in the definition of $A_x$, $\check p\in\dot h$ should be $\check x\in\dot h$, and two lines later "Since $|\mathbb P|<\kappa$" should be "Since $|X|<\kappa$". $\endgroup$ Jan 26 at 0:45
  • $\begingroup$ Agh, thanks for pointing that out! $\endgroup$ Jan 26 at 2:13

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.