Countability of the forcing and uncountability of are understood internally in and , respectively. This matters because the model itself is externally countable. Choose a name and a ground-model set containing every ground-model element that can occur in . Such an exists: the rank of bounds the ranks of its values, so a sufficiently high contains .
For , ground-model axiom schema of separation and the forcing definability lemma give
By the forcing truth lemma,
If every for were countable in , it would remain countable in , where is countable. Then would be countable, contrary to the hypothesis. Thus some has uncountable in ; otherwise its ground-model enumeration would still enumerate it in the extension. Let . Every one of its members is forced by into , so
The countable chain condition for forcing also preserves its uncountability. Separativity is not needed for this particular argument. This is the ground-model uncountable subset lemma for countable forcing.
The finite binary-function Cohen forcing is countable in . It preserves , and the countable levels, height, and normal extensions of the ground-model tree remain unchanged.
If the extension contained an uncountable tree antichain, apply the ground-model uncountable subset lemma for countable forcing to obtain an uncountable contained in it. Incomparability in the fixed ground-model tree is absolute, so already regards as an uncountable tree antichain, contradicting that is Suslin in . Similarly, a new cofinal branch has an uncountable ground-model subset. Comparability is absolute, so this would be an uncountable chain in the ground-model tree, again impossible.
Therefore countable forcing preserves Suslin trees, and in particular

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.