0
$\begingroup$

Suppose $G$ is $M$ generic over some model $M$ of $ZFC$, for some poset $P$. We have the following equivalences:

  1. $G$ is $M$-generic, i.e, for every $D \in M$ such that $D$ is dense in $P$, $G \cap D \not = \emptyset$

  2. $G$ meets every maximal antichain in $M$

  3. $G$ meets every predense set in $M$

  4. $G$ meets every open and dense set in $M$

  5. For every $r \in G$, if $D$ is dense below $r$ (i.e, for every $p \leq r$ there is a $q \in D$ such that $q \leq p$), and $D \in M$, $G \cap D \neq \emptyset$

I wanted to prove these equivalences. Most of these are pretty easy, but some of them I've blanked on.

$1 \implies 4$ is obvious. $4 \implies 1$ is: given a dense $D \in M$, take the downward closure $D' = \{q \in P: \exists p \in D q \leq p \}. D' \in M$ because $M$ satisfies $ZFC$ and is transitive and this is a simple definition. $D'$ is then dense and open so $G \cap D' \not = \emptyset$ and then just use the upwards closure of filters.

$3 \implies 1$ is obvious. $1 \implies 3$ is: given any $D \in M$ predense we have that $(D$ is predense$)^M$ and thus $M$ knows that for any $p \in P$ there is a $q \in D$ such that $p$ and $q$ are comparable, i.e, there is $r_{pq} \in P$ such that $r_{pq} \leq p, q$. Now define $D' = \{r_{pq} : p \in P$ and $q \in D$ such that $p, q$ comparable $\}$ and then I was thinking $D' \in M$ since $(Choice)^M$ (so a random $r_{pq}$ ca nbe chosen if there are many. $D'$ is dense so $G$ meets it at which point you just use upwards closure again. I feel less comfortable with this argument.

$5 \implies 1$ clearly, and $3 \implies 2$ clearly (as maximal antichains are predense). So all that's left is $2 \implies 1,4,5$ and $1,3,4 \implies 5$.

Perhaps I'm being an idiot but I've been having trouble with these ones.

Does this work for $1 \implies 5$? Suppose $D \in M$ dense below some $r$. Then define $D' = \{q \in P:q$ is incompatible with $r$, or $q \in D\}$. This is dense: given any $p \in P$, if $p$ incompat. with $r$, $p \in D'$ so assume not. So that means $p$ is compatible with $r$, which means there is $q$ such that $q \leq p, r$. By density below $r$ there is $q' \in D$ such that $q' \leq q \leq p, r$ so $q' \in D'$ and $q' \leq p$; therefore $D'$ is dense. Then $G \cap D \not = \emptyset$, and it is clear that intersection has to be in $p$, due to the directedness of filters. Does this work?

Finally $2 \implies 1,3,4,5$: this one I'm just stuck with. I may be missing something obvious.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Try looking at Theorem III.3.60 in Kunen's Set Theory (the newer edition). $\endgroup$
    – Reveillark
    Feb 19, 2021 at 2:26

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

There are multiple questions here; let me address the question of applying $(2)$ (which seems the most unclear point).

The key to applying $(2)$ is to note that every dense set contains a maximal antichain. Specifically, fix a dense set $D$ and let $A$ be a set with the following properties:

  • $A\subseteq D$,

  • $A$ is an antichain, and

  • there is no antichain $B\subseteq D$ with $A\subsetneq B$.

The existence of such an $A$ is guaranteed, as usual, by Zorn's Lemma (consider the partial order of antichains which are subsets of $D$). Now I claim that this $A$ is in fact a maximal antichain.

For suppose otherwise. Let $a\not\in A$ such that $A\cup\{a\}$ is an antichain. Then no extension of $a$ can meet $D$, since if $b\le a$ with $b\in D$ then $A\cup\{b\}$ would be an antichain strictly containing $A$ which is a subset of $D$.

The idea, then, is the following: "If $G$ meets every maximal antichain, then $G$ meets every dense set since every dense set contains a maximal antichain." Do you see how to appropriately formulate this to get $(2)\rightarrow(1)$?


Note that unlike the "maximal-antichain-to-dense-open" translation $$A\leadsto\{p: \exists a\in A(p\le a)\},$$ there is in general no canonical way to find a maximal antichain inside a given dense set. Indeed, it is consistent with $\mathsf{ZF}$ that there is a partial order $P$ with top element $\mathbb{1}_P$ which is separative (= nowhere-trivial, from the forcing perspective) but which has no maximal antichains other than $\{\mathbb{1}_P\}$; in such a poset, the dense set $P\setminus\{\mathbb{1}_P\}$ does not contain a maximal antichain.

$\endgroup$
0

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.