I'm trying to see that every weakly inaccessible cardinal $\kappa$ in a ctm $M$ remains weakly inaccesible if we force with a forcing which preserves cofinalities (thus, preserves cardinalities). It's clear for me that this situation can't be reproduced for a $\kappa$ inaccesible because we can destroy it adding enough Cohen reals; namely, forcing with $\mathbb{P}=Fn(\kappa\times\omega,2)$.

My attempt to prove that we can preserve inaccessible cardinals is the following:

Let $\mathbb{P}\in M$ any forcing which preserves cofinalities (for example, the Cohen forcing which adds only one real) and $\kappa$ a cardinal number such that $(\kappa\;\text{is weakly inaccessible})^M$ then:

  • $(\kappa\;\text{is a cardinal number})^{M[G]}$ because $\mathbb{P}$ preserves cardinalities.
  • $(\kappa\;\text{is regular})^{M[G]}$ because $\mathbb{P}$ preserves cofinalities and $\aleph_0$ is an absolute.
  • $(\kappa\;\text{is a limit cardinal})^{M[G]}$ because given $\lambda<\kappa$ a cardinal number in $M[G]$ then $\lambda\in M$ (by transitivity) so $(\lambda\;\text{is a cardinal})^M$. Since $(\kappa\;\text{is weakly inaccessible})^M$ then $(\lambda^+<\kappa)^M$ and therefore $((\lambda^+)^M<\kappa)^{M[G]}$ once again because our forcing preserves cardinal numbers. So, If we were willing to prove that $(\lambda^+)^M=(\lambda^+)^{M[G]}$ then we will be done. In this regard, $\leq$ is obvious and $\geq$ holds because $((\lambda^+)^M>\lambda)^{M[G]}$ and $((\lambda^+)^M\;\text{is a cardinal})^{M[G]}$.

Could someone tell me if my attemp is in fact a right proof?


Yes, your argument is essentially the correct one, although it's not clear why it is important that $\aleph_0$ is an absolute in the second argument.

The whole point is that if $\Bbb P$ preserves cofinalities, then it preserves the property "$\alpha$ is a cardinal" as well, since otherwise the least ground model cardinal which is not a cardinal will have its cofinality changed.

You can even look at this in a more general way:

Suppose that $M\subseteq N$ are two models of $\sf ZFC$ and $\operatorname{cf}^M(\alpha)=\operatorname{cf}^N(\alpha)$ for every $\alpha\in\mathrm{Ord}^M$, then being weakly inaccessible is absolute between $M$ and $N$.

You don't even need that $N$ was a generic extension.

  • $\begingroup$ thanks for your answer and for that more general result. On the other hand, you're right: it's not necessary for the argument the absoluteness of $\aleph_0$. $\endgroup$ – Antoine Apr 15 '16 at 13:37

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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