Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

Notation(from Kunnen): $M$ is countable transitive model of $ZFC$, $P$ is a partial order that belongs to $M$, $G$ is a $P$-generic filter over $M$, $\hat{b}$ will be a $P$-name for $b\in M$, and $M[G]$ is the smallest model of $ZFC$ containing $G$ and $M$.

The exercise i'm trying to do is the following: If $f$ is a function with range contained in $M$ and $f$ belongs to $M[G]$ then there is a set $B$ that belongs to $M$ containing the range of $f$. The hint given is to consider

$B=\left \{ b:\exists p \in P(p\Vdash \hat{b} \in \operatorname{Rng}(\tau ) ) \right \} $ where $\operatorname{val} (\tau,G) = f$

I understand that this describes the desired $B$ as a class in $M$ but i can't find a way to show that this is actually a set in $M$.

Thanks for the help and sorry for the trivial question.

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 5 down vote accepted

Here is a quick proof, which doesn't use the hint.

If $f$ is a function in $M[G]$ with $\text{ran}(f)\subset M$, then since $\text{ran}(f)$ is a set in $M[G]$, it has some von Neumann rank $\alpha$ there. Thus, every element of $\text{ran}(f)$ has rank less than $\alpha$. Since rank is absolute and $\alpha$ is an ordinal in $M$, it follows that $\text{ran}(f)\subset (V_\alpha)^M$, and this is a set in $M$.

(This proof requires you already to know that $M$ and $M[G]$ have the same ordinals and that $M[G]$ satisfies ZFC.)

share|improve this answer
    
How elegant! :-) –  Asaf Karagila May 16 '11 at 15:07

The class $B$ is the class of all elements that some condition forces them into $\rm{Rng}(f)$.

The question is, indeed, why is this a set in $M$.

Note that: $B_p = \{b\colon p\Vdash \hat b\in\operatorname{Rng}(\tau)\}$ is a definable class in $M$, since $p$ cannot force a proper class of elements into the range of $f$ we have that this is a set in $M$.

Suppose some $p$ would force $B_p$ to be a proper class of elements, then any generic filter concentrating on $p$ would force $f$ to be a proper class. Take $G$ to be a generic filter concentrating on $p$ and derive contradiction.

Now $\displaystyle B=\bigcup_{p\in P}B_p$ is also a set in $M$ by axioms of replacement and union.

Let's look at a concrete example. Consider a Cohen forcing that introduces one new real number, that is a new function $f\colon\omega\to 2$, or a new $A\subseteq\omega$.

Of course, for different $P$-generic filters, the resulting set is going to be different (that is, one filter might force $f(0)=1$ and another the opposite). However for every $p\in P$ we can define the set $B_p = \{n\colon p\Vdash n\in A\}$.

Note if we consider $P$ to be partial functions from some $n$ into $2$ (ordered by extension) then $B_p$ is exactly $\{n\colon n\in\operatorname{Dom}(p)\land p(n)=1\}$, i.e. all the numbers on which $p$ decides that are in the set.

Of course that in this rather trivial example $B = \omega$, and the $B_p$ was extremely simple to define, but I hope the idea got through.

share|improve this answer
    
I'm sorry but I still don't get why $p$ cannot force a proper class of elements into the range of $f$. What's the problem with this being true? –  user10811 May 16 '11 at 14:34
2  
If the forcing notion is a set, then the size of antichains in it will have some bounded size. Thus, there will be some bound on the size of the range of $f$. And there will be only an antichain of possible values for the $\alpha$-th element, for any fixed $\alpha$. So the class of possible elements in the range will be a set. –  JDH May 16 '11 at 15:03
    
Thanks to both of you for the help, I got it. –  user10811 May 18 '11 at 22:34

Your Answer

 
discard

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.