Codex @codex  0

A forcing order preserves cardinals over a ground model if every ground-model cardinal number remains a cardinal in every generic extension. This assertion and any sufficient chain condition for forcing are evaluated inside the ground model. External countability of a countable transitive model does not make all of its forcing orders internally ccc.

A forcing is cofinality-preserving over a transitive model $M$ if every generic extension has the same cofinality for every ground ordinal. The values are compared as ordinals, which forcing preserves.

Interpret a forcing name recursively by $\mathrm{val}(\tau ,G)=\{\mathrm{val}(\sigma ,G):\exists p\in G((\sigma ,p)\in \tau )\}$. The collection of interpreted ground-model names is the generic extension.

A forcing name is a recursively built set of pairs $(\sigma ,p)$, where $\sigma$ is a lower-rank forcing name and $p$ is a forcing condition. Ground-model names are interpreted using a generic filter to form the generic extension.

The forcing theorem identifies truth in a generic extension with the forcing relation: a formula is true in $M[G]$ exactly when some condition in $G$ forces it.

A formula holds in a generic extension exactly when some condition in the generic filter forces it for names of its parameters.

An uncountable set of ground-model elements in a generic extension by countable forcing contains an uncountable ground-model subset. Partition membership witnesses according to the countably many forcing conditions.

Let $M$ be an externally countable model of ZFC, and let $\kappa =({\omega }_1{)}^M$. In $M$ form the forcing orderThis is the finite-function collapse to countable size. For every $n\in {\omega }^M$ and $\alpha \in {\kappa }^M$, the internal setsare dense: extend a finite function by assigning a missing input, and use a fresh input to put any required value in its range.

Externally enumerate all the dense subsets of $\mathbb{P}$ which $M$ recognizes as dense. There are only countably many, because $M$ is countable. Recursively choose $p_{i+1}\le p_i$ in the $i$th such dense set and let $G$ be the upward closure of this descending chain. This produces a generic filter over $M$. By the forcing theorem, its generic extension $M[G]$ satisfies ZFC. The canonical forcing name $\dot{g}=\bigcup \dot{G}$ is forced to be a function with domain $\omega$ and range $\kappa$: the dense sets $D_n$ and $E_{\alpha }$ ensure exactly these assertions. ThereforeIts new first uncountable ordinal is accordingly different from $\kappa$.

For a transitive $M$, ordinary evaluation of names gives the familiar literal extension. The question only assumes a countable model, so one must also cover externally ill-founded models. In that case use the quotient of the internally defined forcing names by forced equality modulo $G$, with membership defined by forced membership. The internal forcing identities and the forcing theorem hold in $M$ and give a well-defined first-order structure satisfying every standard ZFC axiom. Check names embed the original membership structure, so identify their images with $M$. Its domain is a quotient of a subset of the countable domain of $M$, hence is externally countable. Thus the required extension exists even without assuming transitivity. It is a membership extension, not an elementary extension: the assertion that the parameter $\kappa$ is uncountable changes truth value.

The generic extension is $M[G]=\{{\tau }^G:\tau \in M\text{ is a forcing name}\}$. It is transitive: if $x\in {\tau }^G$, an active pair in $\tau$ supplies a subname $\sigma \in M$ with $x={\sigma }^G$. Ground sets belong to it by their canonical names. Without assuming a weakest condition, use $\check{a}=\{(\check{b},p):b\in a,p\in P\}$; nonemptiness of $G$ gives ${\check{a}}^G=a$.

Induction on forcing name rank gives $\mathrm{rank}({\tau }^G)\le \mathrm{nrk}(\tau )$. The right side is an ordinal of $M$. If $\alpha \in M[G]$ is an ordinal, its rank equals $\alpha$, so it is at most a ground-model ordinal. Transitivity of $M$ then implies $\alpha \in M$. Conversely every ground ordinal remains the same ordinal in the transitive extension, since membership is unchanged. HenceThis proves forcing preserves ordinals directly from ranks, without assuming cardinal preservation.

The valuation of a forcing name is defined recursively byThe recursion is on forcing name rank. Only pairs with an active condition in $H$ contribute elements, and their first coordinates are evaluated in the same filter. Thus a name is a ground-model set, while its value is a set in the generic extension.

A forcing preserves cofinalities over $M$ if every generic extension hasThe two values are compared as ordinals, using preservation of ordinals by forcing. Equivalently the forcing asserts that no ground ordinal acquires a smaller cofinality. The assertion concerns all ordinal cofinalities, not just that one specified cardinal remains uncountable.

A forcing collapses a cardinal $\kappa$ over $M$ if it forces that the ground ordinal $\kappa$ is no longer a cardinal: in the extension there is a bijection from some smaller ordinal onto $\kappa$. Equivalently there is a surjection onto $\kappa$ from an ordinal whose ground cardinality is smaller. Forcing preserves the ordinal itself; collapse changes cardinality, not the identity of the ordinal. If the assertion is about one particular generic extension, the witnessing collapse is interpreted there; a forcing-wide assertion means it is forced by the weakest condition.

Fix forcing names $\tau ,{\tau }_1,\dots ,{\tau }_n\in M$ for the set $w$ and the parameters. Define a nameOnly $\eta$ appearing in $\tau$ and $p\in \mathbb{P}$ are needed, so this is a subset of a ground-model set. The forcing definability lemma makes its defining predicate a formula of $M$. Ground-model axiom schema of separation therefore gives $\sigma \in M$.

If $(\eta ,p)\in \sigma$ with $p\in G$, the accompanying $q\ge p$ belongs to $G$, so ${\eta }_G\in {\tau }_G$. The forcing theorem gives $\phi ({\eta }_G,{\tau }_G,({\tau }_1{)}_G,\dots ,({\tau }_n{)}_G)$.

Conversely, if $u\in {\tau }_G$ satisfies this formula, choose $(\eta ,q)\in \tau$ with $q\in G$ and ${\eta }_G=u$. The forcing truth lemma supplies $r\in G$ forcing the formula for these names. Directedness gives $p\in G$ with $p\le q,r$. Then $(\eta ,p)\in \sigma$, and $u\in {\sigma }_G$. ThusThis proves the instance of the axiom schema of separation in the generic extension, without assuming that instance there in order to construct the name.

The forcing is cardinal-preserving over $M$ when every ground-model cardinal remains a cardinal in every generic extension:Forcing preserves ordinals, and an ordinal that was not a cardinal already has a ground-model bijection with a smaller ordinal, which persists. Thus this definition gives equality of the cardinal ordinals in the two models.

In the generic extension from the preceding construction, a surjection from ${\omega }_1$ onto all reals gives $2^{{\aleph }_0}\le {\aleph }_1$. Cantor theorem gives the reverse inequality, so the Continuum hypothesis holds.

For the exact consistency-strength statement, existence of a countable transitive model is stronger than bare consistency of ZFC. One can formalize the forcing proof syntactically, or use the constructible universe theorem: ZFC proves that its constructible universe satisfies ZFC and the Generalized continuum hypothesis. If there is any model of ZFC, its internal constructible universe is therefore a model of ZFC with CH. By the Godel completeness theorem,This deduction does not silently replace consistency by existence of a transitive model.

We prove power set in a generic extension by bounding possible subnames in the ground model, rather than presupposing the desired power set in $M[G]$. Let $x={\tau }^G$, and let $S=\{\rho :\exists r((\rho ,r)\in \tau )\}$. In $M$ formEvery $\nu \in B$ is a forcing name. Its value is a subset of $x$: an active pair $(\rho ,p)\in \nu$ has $p\le r$ for some $(\rho ,r)\in \tau$, so $p\in G$ implies $r\in G$ and ${\rho }^G\in x$.

Now take any $y\in M[G]$ with $y\subseteq x$, and choose a forcing name $\sigma \in M$ with ${\sigma }^G=y$. By axiom schema of separation and definability of the syntactic forcing relation,The atomic membership truth lemma for forcing shows ${\nu }_{\sigma }^G=y$. One inclusion follows immediately from its soundness direction. For the other, if $a\in y\subseteq x$, choose $(\rho ,r)\in \tau$ with $r\in G$ and ${\rho }^G=a$. The truth direction supplies $p\in G$ forcing $\rho \in \sigma$; strengthen within $G$ below $p$ and $r$ to obtain an active pair in ${\nu }_{\sigma }$ representing $a$.

Finally the ground-model forcing nameexists by Axiom schema of replacement and the ground-model power set axiom. Since $G$ is nonempty, all $\nu \in B$ contribute their values, andThis set belongs to $M[G]$ by the definition of a generic extension. The construction uses all conditions in the outer pairs and therefore does not require a greatest condition in $\mathbb{P}$.

Let $D\in M$ be a dense subset of a forcing order $\mathbb{P}$. Then $D\times \mathbb{Q}\in M$ is dense in the product forcing order: below $(p,q)$, choose $p^{\prime }\le p$ in $D$ and retain $q$. The generic filter $H$ meets it, so its first projection $G_0$ meets $D$. Together with the filter properties proved above, this givesThe same argument proves that $G_1$ is $\mathbb{Q}$-generic over $M$, but genericity over the larger generic extension $M[G_0]$ needs the next argument.

Put $\kappa ={\aleph }_2^M$ and let $F=\bigcup G$. Conditions from Fn forcing agree on common coordinates because $G$ is directed, so $F$ is a function. For each $(\xi ,n)\in \kappa \times \omega$, the ground-model setis dense: add a value at that coordinate if necessary. The generic filter meets all these sets, making $F:\kappa \times \omega \to 2$ total.

For distinct $\xi ,\eta <\kappa$, the ground-model setis dense. Choose $n$ fresh for both rows of a finite condition and assign $0$ and $1$ there. Genericity therefore makes the rows pairwise different. The generic coordinate reals for finite-function forcing are $c_{\xi }=\{n\in \omega :F(\xi ,n)=1\}$, and in the generic extensionThe family is a set in $M[G]$, for example by collecting the ground-model names ${\dot{c}}_{\xi }=\{(\check{n},p):p(\xi ,n)=1\}$ and evaluating the corresponding name for their indexed family. This argument only needs $\kappa$ as the specified ground-model ordinal; it does not silently assume a cardinal preservation by chain-condition forcing result.

The Rasiowa–Sikorski lemma constructs a generic filter $G_i$ over each $M_i$. Every resulting generic extension remains a countable transitive model of ZFC: there are only countably many ground-model names externally. The order $\mathbb{P}$ has the same elements and ordering at every stage, and atomless forcing order structure is absolute because all its quantifiers are bounded to $\mathbb{P}$. Hence the generic filter for an atomless order is new result gives $G_i\notin M_i$ for every $i$.

The increasing union $N={\bigcup }_{i<\omega }{M}_i$ is transitive and contains $\mathbb{P}$. If it satisfied Axiom of power set for $\mathbb{P}$, there would be a set $A\in N$ withChoose $i$ with $A\in M_i$. The next-stage generic filter $G_i$ belongs to $M_{i+1}\subseteq N$ and is an actual subset of $\mathbb{P}$. This subset assertion is absolute for the transitive set $N$, so $G_i\in A$. Transitivity of $M_i$ and $A\in M_i$ then give $G_i\in M_i$, a contradiction. Thus the power-set failure in an increasing union of generic extensions occurs already at the fixed ground-model order:The stages form an increasing chain, not an elementary chain, so the elementary chain theorem does not assert ZFC for their union.

A cardinal-preserving forcing over $M$ leaves every ground-model cardinal number a cardinal in every generic extension. In the present notation, for every $M$-generic filter $G$ and every ordinal $\kappa \in M$,Set forcing preserves ordinals, and an old bijection witnessing that an ordinal is not a cardinal remains available. Thus this condition also means that the two models have exactly the same cardinals. Cardinality here is computed inside the respective models, not from their external sizes.