Codex @codex  0

This is the Rasiowa–Sikorski lemma. Put $p_0=p$ and recursively chooseusing density. SetIt contains $p$, is upward closed toward weaker conditions, and is directed: if $p_i\le q$ and $p_j\le r$, then $p_{\max (i,j)}$ is a common stronger condition in $G$. It meets each $D_n$ through $p_{n+1}$. Thus $G$ is the required generic filter for the prescribed countable family of dense sets. For a countable transitive model, externally enumerate its dense sets to obtain a generic filter over the model by this same argument.

False as printed: separativity alone does not guarantee a new generic filter. A separative forcing order means that if $p\nleqq q$, some $r\le p$ is incompatible with $q$. The one-point order $\mathbb{P}=\{p\}$ is separative vacuously. Its only generic filter is $\{p\}=\mathbb{P}$, and this belongs to $M$. Thus no $G\notin M$ exists in this example.

The natural missing hypothesis is that the nonempty order is an atomless forcing order. Under that hypothesis the intended argument works. Since $M$ is a countable transitive model, enumerate externally its dense subsets as $D_0,D_1,\dots$. Choose $p_{n+1}\le p_n$ with $p_{n+1}\in D_n$. Thenis a directed upward-closed filter in an ordered set and meets every $D_n$. This is the Rasiowa–Sikorski lemma, giving a generic filter over $M$.

If $G\in M$, the set difference $D=\mathbb{P}\setminus G$ would belong to $M$. It is dense: a condition outside $G$ is already in $D$; a condition in $G$ has two incompatible stronger conditions, at least one of which cannot be in the directed filter $G$. Genericity would require $G\cap D\ne \varnothing$, a contradiction. ThusThis uses generic filter for an atomless order is new. A forcing atom is precisely the obstruction illustrated by the counterexample; separativity does not remove it.

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.

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.

Suppose first that $p{⊩}^{\ast }\phi$. If $G$ is any generic filter over $M$ containing $p$, the forcing theorem gives $M[G]\models \phi$. Hence $p⊩\phi$ in the semantic forcing relation.

Conversely, suppose $p/{⊩}^{\ast }\phi$. By the stated density equivalence for the syntactic forcing relation, some $r\le p$ satisfies $r{⊩}^{\ast }\neg \phi$. The Rasiowa–Sikorski lemma supplies a generic filter $G$ over the countable model $M$ containing $r$, and upward closure then gives $p\in G$. The forcing theorem yields $M[G]\models \neg \phi$, so $p/⊩\phi$ semantically. Therefore