Recall that given a finite language $\mathcal{L}$, we say that an $\mathcal{L}$-structure is computably saturated (or recursively saturated) if for any computable set $\Sigma(\bar{x},y)$ of $\mathcal{L}$-formulas in the variables $\bar{x}y$ and any $\bar{a} \in M^{\bar{x}}$, if $\Sigma(\bar{a},y)$ is finitely satisfiable in $M$, then it is satisfied in $M$. An easy inductive argument shows that every countable $\mathcal{L}$-structure has a countable computably saturated elementary extension. Another easy argument shows that any expansion of a computably saturated structure by finitely many constants is still computably saturated.

One important property of countable computably saturated structures is resplendence, which for our purposes can be defined like this: An $\mathcal{L}$-structure $M$ is resplendent if for any finite extensions $\mathcal{L}' \supseteq \mathcal{L}$ and any $\mathcal{L}'$-sentence $\varphi$ that is consistent with $\mathrm{Th}(M)$, there is an expansion $M'$ of $M$ that is a computably saturated model of $\mathrm{Th}(M)\cup\{\varphi\}$.

All countable computably saturated structures are resplendent. Moreover, the same is true after any expansion by any finite number of constants.

Forcing is typically defined in terms of well-founded models of $\mathsf{ZFC}$, but, as discussed in the answers to this question, forcing ultimately makes sense over arbitrary models of $\mathsf{ZFC}$: Given an model $M$ of $\mathsf{ZFC}$ and a forcing poset $\mathbb{P} \in M$, we can consider the language that contains $\in$, $\mathbb{P}$, and a unary predicate $G$. There is a single sentence $\chi(\mathbb{P},G)$ in this language that says that $\mathbb{P}$ is a forcing poset and $G$ is a generic filter on $\mathbb{P}$. As Emil Jeřábek points out in his answer to that question, $\mathsf{ZFC} \cup \{\chi(\mathbb{P},G)\}$ is a conservative extension of $\mathsf{ZFC}$. (The rest of the work of a forcing argument is showing that $(M,\mathbb{P},G)$ interprets an end extension of $M$ modeling $\mathsf{ZFC}$ in which $G$ is a set. We don't really need to worry about that for the sake of this question.)

We have, furthermore, that the theory $\mathrm{eldiag}(M) \cup \{\chi(\mathbb{P},G)\}$ is consistent. If $M$ is a countable computably saturated model of $\mathsf{ZFC}$, then, by resplendence, we have that for any forcing poset $\mathbb{P}\in M$, there is a $G \subseteq \mathbb{P}$ which is $M$-generic such that $(M,\mathbb{P},G)$ is computably saturated. (In particular, this means that the actual forcing extension $M[G]$ will be computably saturated as well.)

My question is about whether this always happens, 'usually' happens, or 'usually' doesn't happen for various choices of $G$.

Question 1: Let $M$ be a countable computably saturated model of $\mathsf{ZFC}$, and let $\mathbb{P} \in M$ be a forcing poset. If $G \subseteq \mathbb{P}$ is an $M$-generic filter, does it follow that $(M,\mathbb{P},G)$ is computably saturated?

I doubt that this does in fact always hold, but I don't know how to build a counterexample. What's less certain to me is whether a 'sufficiently generic' $M$-generic filter results in a computably saturated expansion.

To state this carefully, we need the following observation: Fix a countable computably saturated model $M$ of $\mathsf{ZFC}$ and a forcing poset $\mathbb{P} \in M$. Let $A$ be the set of all elements $\alpha$ of $\mathbb{P}^\omega$ such that for each $i<\omega$, $\alpha(i+1) \leq \alpha(i)$. $\mathbb{P}^\omega$ can easily be identified with Baire space, and $A$ is a $G_\delta$ subset of $\mathbb{P}^\omega$ and therefore itself a Polish space. It's easy to see that the set $$B = \{\alpha \in A : \alpha\text{ generates an }M\text{-generic filter}\}$$ is comeager in $A$. (This is essentially the Rasiowa–Sikorski lemma.) For any $\alpha \in A$, let $G_\alpha = \{p \in \mathbb{P} : p \geq \alpha(i)\text{ for some }i\}$. (This is what we mean by 'generating' a filter.)

Question 2: Is the set $$\{\alpha \in B : (M,\mathbb{P},G_\alpha)\text{ is computably saturated}\}$$ always comeager in $A$?

I would also be interested in answers involving a weaker set theory than $\mathsf{ZFC}$.


1 Answer 1


The answer to Question 1 is positive (thus the answer to Question 2 is also positive). More explicitly, the positive answer to Question 1 follows from the following well-known facts:

Lemma 1. $(M,\mathbb{P},G)$ is parametrically definable in $M[G]$.

Lemma 2. $M[G]$ is recursively saturated.

Lemma 3. Any structure that is parametrically definable in a computably saturated structure is also computably saturated.

Lemma 1 is due independently to Laver and Woodin, who proved that $M$ is parametrically definable in $M[G]$; see this MO post of Hamkins for more detail.

Lemma 2 was proved as part of the proof of Theorem 2.6 of this paper of mine. You can also find a proof of Lemma 2 in this blogpost of Kameryn Williams (see the third proposition). The same blogpost also includes a reference to another result of mine which shows that Lemma 2 can fail if $\mathbb{P}$ is a proper class notion of forcing in $M$.

Lemma 3 follows from the definitions involved.

Finally, let me point out that Lemma 2 is true for all models $M$ of ZF, but I do not know the status of Lemma 1 for a model of ZF in which AC fails.


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.