Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2014 / iii / Paper 19 / 5

A forcing name is built by well-founded recursion: every member of a $\mathbb{P}$-name $\tau$ is a pair $(\sigma ,p)$ with $p\in \mathbb{P}$ and $\sigma$ itself a $\mathbb{P}$-name of lower forcing name rank. In the ground model all such forcing names form the recursively defined class $V^{\mathbb{P}}$. Its evaluation by a generic filter isThe recursion is on forcing name rank, not on the forcing order. Forcing names need not have a unique evaluation across different generics, and many different forcing names may have the same evaluation.

The forcing truth lemma says that for a formula $\phi$ and ground-model forcing names ${\tau }_1,\dots ,{\tau }_n$,The forcing relation is the ground-model relation furnished by the forcing theorem. The witnessing condition must belong to the particular generic filter, not merely to the forcing order.

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.

Let $x={\tau }_G$ be any set in the extension. The set $D=\{\sigma :\exists p((\sigma ,p)\in \tau )\}$ belongs to $M$. Ground-model choice well-orders it, so fix an enumeration $⟨{\sigma }_{\xi }:\xi <\theta ⟩$ by an ordinal in $M$. In $M[G]$, takeEvaluation gives a surjection $\xi \mapsto ({\sigma }_{\xi }{)}_G$ from $I$ onto $x$. This is a set function by the ZF part of the forcing theorem; no extension choice is needed. For each $y\in x$, take its least preimage ordinal. Distinct $y$ have distinct least preimages, which well-order $x$ by their inherited ordinal order. Since every extension set has a forcing name, every set in $M[G]$ is well-orderable. ThereforeThis choice preservation by well-ordered names tolerates repeated evaluations, because the least-index step removes them canonically.

Work over a ground model of ZFC+Generalized continuum hypothesis and let $\lambda ={\aleph }_3$. Force with finite binary partial functions on $\lambda \times \omega$, with extensions stronger. The Delta-system lemma thins any uncountable family of finite domains to an uncountable family with one common root. Only finitely many binary assignments on that root occur, so two conditions agree there and their union is a common extension. Hence the forcing has the countable chain condition for forcing and preserves cardinals and cofinalities.

The generic union yields $\lambda$ distinct reals. Totality at each coordinate is dense, and for two different coordinates it is dense to assign different values at some unused natural-number position. Thus the extension satisfies $2^{{\aleph }_0}\ge \lambda$.

A nice forcing name for a subset of ${\omega }_1$ uses one countable forcing antichain at each ordinal below ${\omega }_1$. Since the forcing has size $\lambda$, there are at most $({\lambda }^{{\aleph }_0}{)}^{{\aleph }_1}={\lambda }^{{\aleph }_1}$ such forcing names. Ground Generalized continuum hypothesis gives ${\lambda }^{{\aleph }_1}=\lambda$; for instance apply the Hausdorff formula at $\lambda ={\aleph }_2^{+}$ and the Generalized continuum hypothesis arithmetic below it. Therefore $2^{{\aleph }_1}\le \lambda$ in the extension. Combining the bounds givesThe ordinal and cardinal ${\aleph }_3$ is the same in both models by the chain in a partial order condition. The forcing theorem formalizes this construction as the requested relative-consistency implication. A countable transitive ground model is a convenient presentation, not an additional consequence silently derived from mere consistency. This is the Cohen forcing two-level continuum plateau.

All cardinalities in this part are first computed in $M$. The forcing has size $\kappa$. A family of $\kappa$ finite domains has a $\kappa$-sized Delta-system, since $\kappa$ is regular. There are fewer than $\kappa$ possible value assignments on its finite root: each coordinate $(\alpha ,n)$ allows fewer than $\kappa$ values. Regularity lets us thin to two conditions, indeed $\kappa$ many, with identical root assignments. Their union is a condition, proving the $\kappa$-chain condition.

Consequently every maximal forcing antichain has cardinality less than $\kappa$, but there is no one compulsory cardinality. For any nonzero cardinal $\mu <\kappa$, the single-coordinate conditions assigning the values $\xi <\mu$ at $(\mu ,0)$ form an forcing antichain of size $\mu$. It is maximal: a condition already assigning that coordinate is compatible with its matching value, and a condition not assigning it is compatible with every allowed value. Thus every such size occurs, including singleton maximal forcing antichains. These are the maximal-antichain sizes in the finite Lévy collapse.

The paper writes $p\le q$ for $p\subseteq q$. We use this printed weaker-first convention: $q$ extends $p$ and is stronger. Compatibility and generic meeting arguments below always refer to common extensions, so do not accidentally reverse the convention.

For every infinite $\alpha <\kappa$, the generic union at coordinate $\alpha$ gives a function $g_{\alpha }:\omega \to \alpha$. The requirement to assign $(\alpha ,n)$ is dense for each $n$, and the requirement to use any specified value $\beta <\alpha$ is dense by assigning it at a fresh natural-number position. Therefore $g_{\alpha }$ is a surjection, and every ordinal below $\kappa$ becomes countable.

The $\kappa$-chain condition preserves the regularity of $\kappa$. For a direct verification, a forcing name for a function from some $\mu <\kappa$ into $\kappa$ has fewer than $\kappa$ possible values at each coordinate, using a maximal deciding forcing antichain. The union of these possible-value sets has size less than $\kappa$ by regularity and is bounded in $\kappa$. No such function can be cofinal. In particular $\kappa$ remains uncountable, while every smaller ordinal is countable. HenceThis is the finite Lévy collapse to omega-one.

In $M$, take $T={\bigcup }_{\alpha <\kappa }{}^{\alpha }2$ ordered by extension. Strong inaccessibility gives $|T_{\alpha }|=2^{|\alpha |}<\kappa$. In $M[H]$, each of these ground levels is therefore countable, while the height $\kappa$ is ${\omega }_1$. Thus the unchanged ground set-theoretic tree is an ${\aleph }_1$-tree in the extension.

Every ground binary function of length $\kappa$ still yields a distinct cofinal branch through this set-theoretic tree. There are $(2^{\kappa }{)}^M\ge ({\kappa }^{+}{)}^M$ such branches. The $\kappa$-chain condition preserves cardinals at and above $\kappa$, so $({\kappa }^{+}{)}^M={\aleph }_2^{M[H]}$. The ground branch family still has at least that cardinality. ConsequentlyThis Kurepa tree from an inaccessible binary tree uses ground-model levels and branches; it does not claim the full binary set-theoretic tree newly computed in the extension has countable levels.