If the ground model satisfies the Generalized continuum hypothesis, a finite-function collapse to countable size of preserves it. The old becomes the new , and there are at most names for subsets of . For every old cardinal there are at most names for subsets of . Cardinal preservation by chain-condition forcing and Cantor theorem turn these upper bounds into the required equalities.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2017 iii Paper 121 4 iv Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-05
Put and let . Conditions from Fn forcing agree on common coordinates because is directed, so is a function. For each , the ground-model setis dense: add a value at that coordinate if necessary. The generic filter meets all these sets, making total.
For distinct , the ground-model setis dense. Choose fresh for both rows of a finite condition and assign and there. Genericity therefore makes the rows pairwise different. The generic coordinate reals for finite-function forcing are , and in the generic extensionThe family is a set in , for example by collecting the ground-model names and evaluating the corresponding name for their indexed family. This argument only needs as the specified ground-model ordinal; it does not silently assume a cardinal preservation by chain-condition forcing result.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2018 iii Paper 121 2 iv Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-05
We give a relative-consistency argument using a finite-function collapse to countable size. The assumed consistency implies that ZFC is consistent. Passing to the constructible universe gives consistency of , which also satisfies the Generalized continuum hypothesis. Work in this ground theory, let , and force with finite partial functions , ordered by reverse inclusion.
The union of a generic filter is a total surjection : prescribing a new domain coordinate is dense, and putting any specified into the range is dense. Hence becomes countable. Set forcing preserves ordinals, and absoluteness of constructible levels implies that the extension has the same constructible universe as the ground model. Its is therefore still the old , so it satisfies the stated countability of constructible omega-one condition.
We must also verify GCH after the collapse. The order has ground-model size , hence the -chain condition. By cardinal preservation by chain-condition forcing, all old cardinals at least survive. Every old ordinal below has size at most and becomes countable, so the old is exactly the new .
A name for a subset of a fixed ground-model ordinal can be chosen as a set of pairs with and a condition: use an antichain deciding membership at each coordinate. Thus the number of such names in the ground model is at most . For subsets of this is by ground-model GCH. In the extension it gives , and Cantor theorem gives the reverse lower bound. For every old cardinal the bound isin the ground model. Both and remain cardinals, so again the upper bound and Cantor theorem give the extension's equality . These are all its uncountable cardinals. This proves GCH preservation by a finite-function collapse in the required case.
The forcing relative-consistency theorem now yieldsThe construction in fact only needs consistency of ZFC. This argument uses the formal inner-model and forcing consistency theorems; it does not infer the existence of a countable transitive model merely from consistency.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2018 iii Paper 121 3 iv c Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-05
Assume satisfies the countable chain condition for forcing. We prove cardinal preservation by chain-condition forcing using the possible-values lemma for chain-condition forcing, and give the argument explicitly for ccc.
Let be an uncountable cardinal of . If it ceased to be a cardinal, some ordinal would admit a surjection onto in an extension. By the forcing theorem, there would be a condition and a forcing name such thatInside , for each choose a maximal antichain in a forcing order below deciding the ordinal value of . Conditions deciding that value are dense below . The chain condition makes the chosen antichain countable in , so the corresponding set of possible decided values is countable in .
A generic filter containing meets the downward closure of every such maximal antichain, so its value belongs to . Therefore its whole range lies in the ground-model setThe last inequality is infinite cardinal arithmetic and uses only that is uncountable and ; no regularity of is needed. Some ordinal in exists already in and cannot occur in the range, contradicting the forced surjectivity.
Finite cardinals cannot collapse, and cannot become finite: a finite domain has finite image, and transitive models agree on the natural numbers. Old non-cardinals cannot become cardinals because their old bijections persist. Thus
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2019 iii Paper 121 3 ii Solution 2026-10-03
Let be a cardinal number of . If forcing collapsed , some condition would force a surjective function for an ordinal . Replacing by its ground-model cardinality lets us assume that is a cardinal.
For each , choose in a maximal antichain in a forcing order deciding . The chain condition for forcing makes its size less than , so the set of possible values of has size below . This is the possible-values lemma for chain-condition forcing. Every interpreted range is contained in . If , the fact that is a regular cardinal gives ; if , infinite cardinal arithmetic gives . Either way cannot contain the range of a surjection onto , a contradiction. By cardinal preservation by chain-condition forcing, preserves every cardinal at least .
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2019 iii Paper 121 3 v c Solution 2026-10-03
Suppose first that is regular and uncountable in . Part (b) and cardinal preservation by chain-condition forcing show that remains a cardinal number in , while part (a) makes every infinite ground-model cardinal below countable. Every ordinal below has ground-model cardinality below and is therefore countable in the extension. Thus is the least uncountable ordinal there:
Conversely, suppose and were singular in . Let and take in a cofinal function . Part (a) makes countable in , while the same remains cofinal there. This would give countable cofinality, contradicting first uncountable ordinal is regular. Hence was regular in , and for the intended uncountable ,