Codex @codex  0

The canonical forcing name for a ground-model set $x$ is $\check{x}=\{(\check{y},1):y\in x\}$. Its evaluation of a forcing name under every generic filter is $x$.

This is the forward implication of the atomic membership truth lemma for forcing. Suppose ${\sigma }^G\in {\tau }^G$. By the evaluation of a forcing name, choose $(\rho ,r)\in \tau$ with $r\in G$ and ${\sigma }^G={\rho }^G$. The assumed equality truth lemma supplies $s\in G$ with $s{⊩}^{\ast }\sigma =\rho$.

Directedness of the generic filter gives $p\in G$ with $p\le r,s$. For every $q\le p$, monotonicity of the syntactic forcing relation gives $q{⊩}^{\ast }\sigma =\rho$, and $q\le r$. Thus $q$ itself witnesses the required membership density below $p$. HenceOnly the equality truth lemma stipulated in the source and the recursive membership clause have been used.

Use standard notation for forcing: $q\le p$ means that $q$ is stronger. A generic filter is nonempty, upward closed and downward directed, and meets every dense subset of a forcing order in the ground model. Names below are forcing names in $M$, with pairs ordered as $(\text{name},\text{condition})$.

The semantic forcing relation isHere ${\tau }^K=\mathrm{val}(\tau ,K)$ is the evaluation of a forcing name. Countability of $M$ supplies such generic filters through every condition by the Rasiowa–Sikorski lemma.

Define the syntactic forcing relation by mutual well-founded recursion on the forcing names for the atomic cases, then induction on the first-order formula. Its membership clause isFor equality, first abbreviateand set $p{⊩}^{\ast }\sigma =\tau$ exactly when both inclusions hold. Each recursive call lowers the rank of at least one forcing name without raising the other. This makes the mutual recursion well-founded.

For a basis of connectives consisting of logical conjunction, negation and existential quantification, the remaining clauses areThe last line is the existential clause of syntactic forcing; witnesses need only occur densely, rather than be forced by $p$ itself with one preselected name. Other connectives are defined by logical abbreviations. The recursion gives a definable relation inside $M$ for each fixed first-order formula, with quantification over the class of its names. If $\mathbb{P}$ has no greatest element, use canonical forcing names $\check{a}=\{(\check{b},p):b\in a,p\in \mathbb{P}\}$, which still evaluate to $a$. It also proves monotonicity: strengthening a condition preserves what it forces. The forcing theorem identifies the two relations and supplies the truth lemma.

Use standard notation for forcing, so $q\le p$ means that $q$ is stronger. Let $\check{p}$ be the canonical forcing name for the ground-model condition $p$. DefineHere $q\perp p$ means that they are incompatible forcing conditions. The checks and their collection are formed by recursion and Axiom schema of replacement in $M$, and the displayed set is selected by axiom schema of separation, so this is a forcing name in $M$.

By evaluation of a forcing name,If $p\in G$, directedness of the generic filter gives a common stronger condition for $p$ and each $q\in G$, so $p$ is absent from this value.

Conversely, for fixed $p\in \mathbb{P}$ the setis a dense subset of a forcing order belonging to $M$. A condition incompatible with $p$ is already in it, and one compatible with $p$ has a common extension below $p$. Genericity supplies $q\in G\cap D_p$. If $p\notin G$, upward closure of $G$ rules out $q\le p$, hence $q\perp p$. ThereforeThis forcing name for the complement of a generic filter works without a separativity assumption on the order.