Goldstern–Judah–Shelah preservation theorem for countable support iterations
نویسنده
چکیده
In [4] a preservation theorem for countable support iterated forcing is proved with restriction to forcing notions which are not ω-distributive. We give the proof of the theorem without this restriction. 1. The preservation theorem. In [4] a preservation theorem for countable support iteration of proper forcing notions was proved with the additional assumption that all forcing notions which are iterated add a new sequence of ordinals. In this section we will prove the same theorem (Theorem 1.7) without this additional assumption. We use the terminology introduced in [4]; definitions and lemmata 1.1–1.8 correspond to 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.8, 5.11, 5.12, 5.14, 5.13 of [4]. Lemma 1.9 is a version of 5.15 without the additional assumption and essentially it marks the difference between these two proofs of the preservation theorem. Let 〈vn: n ∈ ω〉 be an increasing sequence of two-place relations on ω. We let v = n vn. We assume the following: (i) {f ∈ ω : f vn g} is a closed set for any n ∈ ω and g ∈ ω; (ii) the set C = dom(v) is a closed subset of ω; (iii) for every countable set A ⊆ C there is g ∈ ω such that ∀f ∈ A, f v g; (iv) the closed sets mentioned in conditions (i) and (ii) have an absolute definition (i.e. as Borel sets they have the same Borel codes in all transitive models we will consider). 1991 Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary 03E40.
منابع مشابه
New reals: Can live with them, can live without them
Judah and Shelah [3] proved that countable support iterations of proper forcings preserve the ω-bounding property (see 2.2 here). In his book Proper and Improper Forcing [8, XVIII §3] Shelah gave several cases of general preservation theorems for proper countable support iterations (the proofs tend to be hard to digest, though). In this paper we deal with “Case A”. A simplified version of this ...
متن کاملPreserving Non–Null with Suslin proper forcings
We (i.e. I) present a simplified version of Shelah’s “preserving a little implies preserving much”: If I is the ideal generated by a Suslin ccc forcing (e.g. Lesbeque– null or meager), and P is a Suslin forcing, and P is I–preserving (i.e. it doesn’t make any positive Borel–set small), then P preserves generics over candidates and therefore is strongly I–preserving (i.e. doesn’t make any positi...
متن کاملPreserving Non-null with Suslin+ Forcings
We (i.e. I) present a simplified version of Shelah’s “preserving a little implies preserving much”: If I is the ideal generated by a Suslin ccc forcing (e.g. Lebesque– null or meager), and P is a Suslin forcing, and P is I–preserving (i.e. it doesn’t make any positive Borel–set small), then P preserves generics over candidates and therefore is strongly I–preserving (i.e. doesn’t make any positi...
متن کاملMany countable support iterations of proper forcings preserve Souslin trees
We show that many countable support iterations of proper forcings preserve Souslin trees. We establish sufficient conditions in terms of games and we draw connections to other preservation properties. We present a proof of preservation properties in countable support iterations in the so-called Case A that does not need a division into forcings that add reals and those who do not.
متن کاملNew Reals: Can Live with Them, Can Live without Them (draft)
A simplified version of this case appeared in Section 5 of Goldstern’s Tools for your forcing constructions [2]. This version uses the additional requirement that every forcing of the iteration adds a new real. Note that this requirement is met in most applications, but the case of forcings not adding reals has important applications as well (and not adding reals is generaly not preserved under...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2007