Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2014 / iii / Paper 19 / 6 / i

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.

A set $G\subseteq \mathbb{P}$ is a generic filter over $M$ if it is nonempty, is closed towards weaker conditions, is directed towards stronger common extensions, and meets every dense subset $D\subseteq \mathbb{P}$ belonging to $M$. Density means that every condition has a stronger extension in $D$. Genericity is relative to $M$, not to every dense subset of a forcing order in the ambient universe. Under the printed weaker-first convention in Question 5, closure is towards smaller conditions and directedness is towards larger ones; in the standard stronger-first notation these inequalities reverse.

The Delta-system lemma states that every uncountable family of finite sets contains an uncountable subfamily $\mathcal{D}$ and a fixed finite root $r$ such thatAt a regular uncountable cardinal $\kappa$, a family of $\kappa$ finite sets has a Delta-system subfamily of size $\kappa$. The root may be empty. Neither version asserts that all sets in the original family have the same intersection.