Sign up ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

We know that if we start with a ctm $\mathbb{B}$ and force with the poset of finite functions from $\omega$ to $2$, we add a single Cohen real. We also know that if we force with the poset $\mathbb{P} = Fn(\kappa \times \omega, 2, \aleph_0)$, we add $\kappa$ many reals (and hence can make the Continuuum Hypothesis fail).

What happens if instead we iterate adding one real $\kappa$ many times? Would we still get a model for not-CH?

share|cite|improve this question
How are you iterating? (Meaning what are you doing at limit stages? Or perhaps you are iterating in some completely different, non-linear, fashion?) – Andrés Caicedo Nov 29 '12 at 19:32
@Andres: Just by the fact that the question was asked naively I would guess that this is a finite support iteration. – Asaf Karagila Nov 29 '12 at 19:40
Kris, also relevant is Stefan's answer:… – Asaf Karagila Nov 29 '12 at 19:42
Perhaps it is worth to note that even when forcing with finite functions from $\omega$ to 2 you don't add just a single Cohen real but a whole bunch of them. – Miha Habič Nov 29 '12 at 20:59
@AsafKaragila I think that when you discover that you have continuum many cockroaches, it's time to move. – Miha Habič Nov 30 '12 at 2:01

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Note that the definition of a Cohen forcing as $2^{<\omega}$ does not change between models.

Iterating it $\kappa$ many times, or taking the product of $\kappa$ many Cohen posets, or using $\mathbb P$ as you defined it -- all of these have the same consequence.

So to your question, yes. A finite-support iteration of length $\kappa$ of adding a single Cohen at a time would end up with a model of $\lnot$CH.

share|cite|improve this answer
thanks! we've only done basic one-step forcing in lectures, so i didn't even know how you would iterate forcing (apart from in the naive way). – Kris Nov 29 '12 at 20:01
Sorry to ruin your palindrome. ;) – Arthur Fischer Nov 29 '12 at 20:16
@Kris, the issue is that explaining precisely what one means by "the naive way" may be a bit problematic. For example, you could have $M_0\subseteq M_1\subseteq M_2\subseteq\dots $ models of set theory, each $M_{i+1}$ an extension of $M_i$ by Cohen forcing, and yet $M_\omega=\bigcup_n M_n$ is not a model of set theory. Once one sees how to do iterations "internally" these worries disappear, but there are several options on how to proceed. (It is a very interesting topic.) – Andrés Caicedo Nov 29 '12 at 20:22

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.