Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lectured by O. Kolman
Michaelmas Term 2012
Axiomatics. The formal axiomatic system of ordinary set theory (ZFC). Models of set theory.
Absoluteness. Simple independence results. Transnite recursion. Ranks. Reection principles.
Constructibility.
[4]
Innitary combinatorics. Conality. Stationary sets. Fodors lemma. Solovays theorem.
Cardinal exponentiation. Beth and Gimel functions. Generalized Continuum Hypothesis. Singular Cardinals Hypothesis. Prediction principles (diamonds, squares, black boxes). Partial
orders. Aronszajn and Suslin trees. Martins Axiom. Suslins Hypothesis.
[6]
Forcing. Generic extensions. The forcing theorems. Examples. Adding reals; collapsing
cardinals. Introduction to iterated forcing. Internal forcing axioms. Proper forcing.
[4]
Large cardinals. Introduction to large cardinals. Ultrapowers. Scotts theorem.
[2]
[4]
Pre-requisite Mathematics
Logic and Set Theory is essential.
Literature
Basic material
Drake, F. R., Singh, D., Intermediate Set Theory, John Wiley, Chichester, 1996.
Eklof, P. C., Mekler, A. H., Almost Free Modules, rev. ed., North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2002.
Halbeisen, L., Combinatorial Set Theory With a Gentle Introduction to Forcing, Springer, Berlin,
2012.
Kanamori, A., The Higher Innite, 2nd ed., Springer, Berlin, 2009.
Kunen, K., Set Theory, reprint, Studies in Logic, 34, College Publications, London, 2011.
Advanced topics
Burke, M. R., Magidor, M., Shelahs pcf theory and its applications, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 50
(1990), 207254.
Kanamori, A., Foreman, M., Handbook of Set Theory, Springer, Berlin, 2012.
Shelah, S., Proper and Improper Forcing, 2nd ed., Springer, Berlin, 1998. Chapters 1 and 2.
Shelah, S. Cardinal Arithmetic, Oxford University Press, New York, 1994.
Todorcevic, S., Combinatorial dichotomies in set theory, Bull. Symbolic Logic 17 (2011), 172.
Lecture 1
Introduction
The Continuum Hypothesis (CH) asserts that if X is any uncountable subset of the real
numbers R, then there is a bijection from X onto R. It is an answer to Cantors Continuum
question: for which ordinal is 20 = ?
This is Hilberts First Problem (1900). However, there are other answers. Indeed, the response to
Cantors question is among the most striking and surprising results of 20th Century mathematics.
Stated loosely, CH is independent of the principles of ordinary mathematics. More precisely, if
ZFC is consistent then ZFC does not prove CH and ZFC does not prove CH (the negation of
CH, namely 20 > 1 ).
One of the aims of this course is to provide an introduction to the ideas and methods developed
since Godel (1938) and Cohen (1963) to handle this and other insoluble problems.
Independence results appear everywhere, not just in set theory. Let us consider some examples
(to correct any naive misconceptions/prejudices, etc).
Example 1. Combinatorics and the order type of the real line.
Let T = hT, 6T i be a tree, i.e.
(1) 6T is a partial order on T ;
(2) {y T : y <T x} is well ordered.
A chain in T is a set C T such that C is totally ordered: x 6 y or y 6 x for all x, y C. An
antichain in T is a set A T such that (x 6= y A)(x 66 y y 66 x).
Suppose is an innite cardinal. A -Suslin tree is a tree T = hT, 6T i such that
(1) |T | =
(2) every chain and every antichain in T has cardinality less than .
Proposition. There are no 0 -Suslin trees.
Proof. Let T be an innite tree with no innite antichains. We show that T has an innite
chain. Note that since |T | = 0 , there exists x0 T such that {y T : y > x0 } is innite:
for if each x had only nitely many descendants then we could inductively construct an
innite antichain.
Now continue by induction to dene {xn : n }, as follows: given xn T such that
|{y T : y > xn }| = 0 , pick xn+1 > xn such that |{y T : y > xn+1 }| = 0 .
Then {xn : n } is an innite chain in T. So T is not 0 -Suslin.
iI
Z Z is a homomorphism of groups.
Question. If |LiI Z 0, is 0 ?
Theorem (Specker). If I = N, and |LiI Z 0, then 0.
Theorem (Lo
s). The following are equivalent:
iI
Measurable cardinals are examples of large cardinals. They are sets that are so big that their
existence cannot be proved from the principles of ordinary mathematics.
Q Yet, they determine
whether there exist non-trivial homomorphisms of the Cartesian power iI Z fullling (1).
Denition. An uncountable cardinal is measurable i there is a -complete non-principal
ultralter on , i.e. there is a set U P() such that
(1) U is a lter on (i.e., A, B U implies A B U ; U ; and if A U and
A B , then B U )
(2) for all A , either A U or \ A U
(3) for all < , {}
/U
(4) if < and A U for all < , then
<
A U .
Logical questions. Although these ve examples are not explicitly set-theoretic in character,
the solutions are all independent of the principles of ordinary set theory. Why? What is the
source of the complexity that gives rise to set-theoretic independence? What sorts of properties
and classes of structures are immune to independence phenomena?
Lecture 2
Chapter 1. Axiomatics
In this lecture, we review the mathematical logic required for independence results in set theory,
specify the vocabulary, the language and the axioms of the rst-order theory ZFC. We then describe the architecture of independence proofs, and introduce some useful models of (subtheories
of) ZFC. As a pay-o, we shall be able to show:
(1) any proof of the existence of the set of real numbers in rst-order set theory must necessarily use the power set axiom.
(2) the rst-order theory ZFC is not nitely axiomatisable
(3) the existence of a strongly inaccessible cardinal cannot be proved from ZFC
What does (3) mean?
Denition. A cardinal is strongly inaccessible i
1. is an uncountable regular cardinal, and
2. is a strong limit cardinal.
Denition. A cardinal is regular i cannot be written as a union of less than many
sets of size less than .
For example, 0 is regular it cannot be written as a nite union of nite sets. Also, 1
is regular countable
S unions of countable sets are countable, under AC. But is not
regular, since = n< n . (Non-regular innite cardinals are called singular.)
Denition. A cardinal is a strong limit i ( < )(2 < ).
For example, 0 is a strong limit.
We can manufacture strong limits using the i function (bet function). We dene it by
transnite recursion:
i0 = 0
i+1 = 2i
[
i =
i when is a limit ordinal
<
variables v0 , v1 , v2 , . . .,
But of course we shall use the customary meta-linguistic abbreviations , , , and other
conventions too. We write L() or L for the language of set theory.
Suppose is a vocabulary. A -theory is a family T of -sentences (i.e., sentences in L( )).
For a theory T and a sentence (in L( )), we write T to mean that is deducible (provable)
from T , i.e. there is a formal rst-order deduction of from T .
For families S, T L( ), we write T S to mean T for all S.
A theory T L( ) is consistent i for some -sentence , T 6 (i.e., T does not prove );
equivalently, for every L( ), we have T 6 .
A theory T is complete i T is maximal consistent, i.e. if T T and T is consistent then
T = T . Equivalently, T is complete i for every L( ), either T or T .
With this review of syntax over, we can dene the theory ZFC precisely. The axioms are the
transcriptions into L() of the formal principles of naive (or semi-axiomatic) set theory.
The axioms of ZFC are:
(A0) Set Existence. x(x = x)
(A1) Extensionality. x(x a x b) a = b
Notes. 1. We are using the meta-language to write this axiom.
2. We tacitly adopt the generality interpretation of free variables: that free variables a
and b are understood to be universally quantied.
4
Lecture 3
Denition. The rst-order theories ZF and ZFC are those with axioms A0A9 and A0A10
respectively.
Comments. Why these choices?
1. Why axiomatise?
reduce vagueness of naive set theory and avoid paradoxes
provide rigorous concept of provability (and unprovability)
discover new set-theoretic principles
2. Why this first-order axiomatisation?
the vocabulary {} is economised and suces to express everything pertinent
rst-order logic is sound, complete and compact
innitary logics are not compact (innitary logic allows innite conjunctions and
innite strings of quantiers)
second-order and higher order logics are generally not compact and the quantiers
range over subsets of domains
3. Why these axioms?
see the Shoeneld handout (or Part II Logic & Set Theory)
Proposition.
1. If < then V V .
2. V is transitive: if x y V then x V (i.e., x V = x V ).
(Hint: use transnite induction on .)
Denition. The class WF of well-founded sets is dened by the formula WF (x)
( Ord)(x V )
Picture.
V =
n<
Vn
..
.
..
.
..
.
V+1
V2 = PP
V7
V1 = P
V0 =
V1
Denition. Let be an innite cardinal. We dene H() = {x : |trcl(x)| < }, where trcl(x)
is the transitive closure of x.
H(), also written H , is the family of sets of cardinality hereditarily less than .
Lecture 4
xr
V
rz
Vz +1
V = WF
Comments.
1. Note, we do not attempt to show ZF xWF (x) by constructing a formal derivation
from the axioms. We argue informally in V (a class), and then observe that the
argument could be recast as a formal deduction.
2. We can restate the Proposition as follows. Let ZF0 be ZF without Foundation.
By the Deduction Theorem of rst-order logic, the Proposition is exactly ZF0
Foundation (V = WF ).
Exercise. Show that ZF0 (V = WF ) Foundation.
Returning to the picture of V , it is natural to ask: how similar are V and V ? We consider
which rst-order properties of V are reected in V , for large .
There are two aspects to this problem.
1. For an axiom of ZFC or rst-order property in L(), and Ord, is V a model of ?
2. For which axioms of ZFC can one prove there exist (arbitrarily large) Ord such
that V |= .
There is a technical diculty to overcome: what does it mean to write V |= , or A |= when
A is a proper class?
Recall by Tarskis Theorem on indenability of truth that we cannot dene (in ZFC) V |= .
We deal with this by relativising formulas to a class.
Denition. Suppose A = {x : A(x)} is a class where A(x) is a formula in L() with free
variable x.
For each formula in L() we dene A , the relativisation of to A, as follows:
if is vi vj or vi = vj , then A is vi vj or vi = vj
A
A
if is 1 2 or 3 , then A is A
1 2 or (3 )
Ord
0 otherwise
For any , fi Aji is a set by Replacement, so there is an ordinal i () greater than all
j
ordinals in fi Ai .
Let () = max{i () : i 6 k}.
Now, given Ord, dene hn : n < i by
0 = ,
n+1 = (n ),
and = sup{n : n }
V |= ZFC
V = V V
If VV : < were a cumulative hierarchy for V , then in V we could apply the Reection
V
V
Principle to = T0 to get a new ordinal < such that V V .
V
But V , so V
10
Cumulative hierarchies are very useful as a source of new axioms of set theory.
Denition. Suppose A is a set. Then the collection Def(A) is the family of sets y A such
that for some formula (x, y1 , . . ., yn ) in L() and a1 , . . ., an A, we have y = {x :
(x, a1 , . . ., an )A }.
Def(A) is the collection of denable subsets of A.
We dene the cumulative hierarchy of constructible sets as follows.
1. L0 =
2. L+1 = Def(L )
S
3. L = < L when is a limit ordinal.
S
The class L = Ord L is the universe of constructible sets. The Axiom of Constructibility
is the assertion that V = L, i.e. x Ord(x L ).
The Axiom of Constructibility is independent of ZFC. It is a very powerful statement about the
regularity of the universe V . Although the study of the class L is not the goal of this course, we
note that L is a transitive class model of ZFC+GCH. It is the smallest transitive model of ZFC
containing all of the ordinals.
Lecture 6
The intuition behind the denition of the class L is that instead of the maximally fat power
set operation, one puts into the power set of a set x only those subsets of x that necessarily
must be there, i.e. the ones that have names (in the sense of denability).
It is instructive to begin the study of L by comparing the basic properties of V and L .
Theorem (Basic properties of V ).
(1) 6 V V
(2) < V V
(3) V is transitive: x V x V
(4) V = {x WF : rank(x) < }, where rank(x) = min{ Ord : x V+1 }
(5) y x rank(y) < rank(x)
(6) rank() = for all Ord
(7) Ord V =
= { : < }
(8) n, |Vn | < 0 , and |V | = 0 , and, with (AC), |V+ | = i for all Ord
Proof. All are done by transnite induction on Ord. (Exercise.)
Theorem (Basic properties of L ).
(0) L is a set and L V
(1) L is transitive
(2) |Ln | < 0 , Ln = Vn for n < , and L = V
(3) |L | = || for >
(4) 6 L L
(5) < L L (use the formula x = x), and L ( L
(6) L+1 and
/ L
11
Proof. In most cases, these are like the proofs for V using transnite induction. (Exercise.) 2
Comment. For most Ord, we have L ( V , by (8). Thus in L, we have greater control
over the power set operation.
These basic properties of V and L will be useful when we come to establish relative consistency
results.
12
Lecture 7
Why is f well-dened for all cf()? By minimality of |A|, f is well-dened. Then (1)
and (2) are immediate.
2
Denition. We say that f : is a conal map (or that f maps into conally) if
range(f ) is unbounded in .
Proposition 2. The following are equivalent:
(1) cf() =
(2) is the least ordinal such that there is a conal map f :
Proof.
(1) (2). Let A be a cover of cardinality cf() = . So is a cardinal. By Lemma 1,
there is an increasing function f : such that range(f ) is a cover of . So
range(f ) is unbounded in and is therefore conal.
is the least ordinal with this property. For if < and g : , then |range(g)| 6
|| 6 < = cf(), so range(g) is not a cover and hence is not conal.
Thus is the least cardinal such that there is f : conally.
(2) (1). Let f : be conal, and is minimal, so || = . Then A = range(f )
is a cover of , so cf() 6 |A| 6 || = cf().
2
13
<
A ,
n<
n . And i is also
<
A . (Take any 6 ,
So is singular.
() Suppose is singular, and let be minimal such that =
<
A with |A | < .
<
A , with |A | < + .
S
Then + = < A = sup{|A | : < } = max , sup{|A | : < } .
But |A | 6 , so + = max{, } = = cf(+ ).
Lecture 8
Lemma 5. Suppose is a limit ordinal, and f : is strictly increasing and conal. Then
cf() = cf().
Proof. First, cf() 6 cf(). Let g : cf() be as in Lemma 1.
Now, range(f g) is a cover of . So cf() 6 cf().
Second, cf() 6 cf(). Let h : cf() be conal, and let
k() be the least < such that f () > h().
Claim: k : cf() is conal.
Why? If i < then f (i) < . There exists with f (i) 6 h(),
and k() = min{ : f () > h()}, and so i < k() = .
(If < i then f () < f (i) and we get a contradiction.)
So cf() 6 cf().
14
cf()
f ()
h()
=
=
6
6
cf( )
cf()
by regularity
by Corollary 8
by the exercise
So = .
iI
Theorem 10 (K
onig). Suppose < , for all < . Then
<
Proof. Clearly,
<
<
<
<
Note
<
S
Q
S
.
{}
{} . Suppose that G :
=
<
<
15
<
<
h() = min : \ { G(, ) : < }
|
{z
}
has cardinality 6
onto .
<
i<cf()
i <
= cf() 6
i<cf()
i<cf()
2
Corollary 12. If > 0 , then cf(2 ) > .
Proof. Let = cf(2 ). By Corollary 11, (2 ) > 2 .
But (2 ) = 2 = 2max{,} . So 2max{,} > 2 .
So max{, } > , and so = cf(2 ) > .
Lecture 9
16
Denition.
(1) The Generalised Continuum Hypothesis (GCH) is the statement:
( > 0 )(2 = + )
(2) The Continuum Hypothesis (CH) is the statement:
20 = 1
(3) The weak Generalised Continuum Hypothesis (wGCH) is the statement:
+
<
Proof.
() Suppose < = cf(). Note key observation: if f , then range(f ) is bounded
in , and so there is < such that f .
So
and clearly
<
. Thus () holds.
<
Lemma 14. For all > 0 , if < cf() and ( < )(2 6 ), then = .
Proof. If < cf(), then
[
| | =
<
()
X
X
X
=
=
||
<
<
||
<
<
||
<
= = 6
<
(Note that () uses the key observation from the proof of Proposition 13.)
Thus GCH answer all of the opening question about , cf() and 2 . GCH implies that
17
<
So < =
= = .
<
<
(2) Note GCH implies that ( < ) 2 = + 6 .
i<cf()
2 = 2
i<cf()
2i 6
i<cf()
2
Lecture 10
Theorem 19 (Bukovsk
y-Hechler). Let > cf() be such that
0 0 6 < 2 = 20
()
Then 2 = 20 .
Proof. Since cf() < , by () and wlog, cf() 6 0 .
Now, by Lemma 18, 2 = (2< )cf() = (20 )cf() = 20 .
Denition. The Gimel function () is dened on the class of innite cardinals by
() = cf() .
18
Remarks.
(1) If is a successor ordinal, then clubs are not very interesting, since e.g. if = + 1,
then {} is a club.
(2) C is closed i C contains all of its limit points: is a limit point if ( <
) ( C) ( < < ) (where is a limit ordinal)
Examples.
(1) is closed in .
(2) If cf() > 0 , then lim() = { < : is a limit ordinal} is club in .
(3) If C is unbounded in , then the set C of limit points of C is club in .
(4) If > 0 and cf() = 0 , then any conal -sequence in is club in .
(5) If is a limit cardinal, then { < : is a cardinal} is club in .
(6) If is a limit cardinal, then {+ : hi} is not club in (it is not closed)
Remark. The concept of a club of is most interesting when is an ordinal of uncountable
conality.
Remark. If Ci is closed in , then
Ci is also closed in .
iI
However, arbitrary intersections of clubs will not in general be club. Suppose that = cf()
and f : is conal in .TConsider C = { < : > f ()} = [f (), ). Then C is
club in for all < , but
C = .
<
20
<
Proof. Let C =
<
Let < be given. Let f () = min C \ ( + 1) .
(I.e., remove and its predecessors.)
g(g()) r
r
r
g()
r
r
r
C is club in .
<
21
<
Denition. Suppose = cf() > 0 and X for < . We dene the diagonal intersection to be the set
X = < : ( < )( X )
<
Proposition 26. Suppose that = cf() > 0 and each C is club in . Then C = C is
<
club in .
Lecture 12
Proof. Clearly C is closed. To see that C is unbounded in , dene g() for < as follows:
\
g() = min
C \ ( + 1)
<
| {z }
club by Prop 23
Claim. g () C.
Why? Suppose < g (). Then n (m > n) ( < gn () C ), and we know that C is
closed, so g () C .
Thus C is club in .
Theorem 27 (Pressing Down Lemma / Fodors Lemma). Suppose = cf() > 0 and
S is stationary in . If f : S is regressive, i.e. S f () < , then there
is some stationary S S such that f |S is constant. I.e., < such that f 1 ({}) is
stationary.
Proof. Otherwise, there exists a club C such that C f 1 ({}) = . Then, by Proposition
26, C = C is club.
<
Theorem 28 (Ulam). Suppose = cf() > 0 . Then there exists a family of disjoint
stationary subsets of .
Proof. There are two cases.
Case 1. is a limit cardinal.
Consider {S : = cf() < }. Recall: S = { < : cf() = }
This is as required.
Case 2. = + .
Let {A : < , < } be an Ulam (, )-matrix on , i.e.
22
<
Prediction Principles
Intuitively, a set-theoretic prediction principle is a list of guesses (or approximations) of subsets
of a cardinal. In this sense, CH is a prediction principle:
CH hX : < 1 i Y < 1 Y = X
AC is also a prediction principle:
AC hX : < 2 i Y < 2 Y = X
The syntactic form of these statements leads one to consider stronger statements.
Denition. Let S be a stationary subset of = cf() > 0 .
The diamond on S, denoted 3S , is the statement: hA : Si such that
(1) A
(2) for all X , the set { S : X = A } is stationary in
If S = , we write 3 for 3S , and we write 3 for 31 .
Lecture 13
Remarks.
(1) S S implies 3S 3S . (Recall: for stationary sets.)
(2) 3+ 2 = + , so 3 CH.
(3) 3S is equivalent to: hfa : Si such that
(i) f :
(ii) for all f : , the set { S : f | = f } is stationary.
23
Proof.
(1) is trivial.
(2) We show P() {A : + }.
If X , then there is < + with X . The set E = { < + : X = A } is
stationary. Pick E with > . Now X = X = A .
(3) will be on Exercise Sheet 3.
Remark. V = L implies 3S , but we will show the relative consistency of 3 by forcing.
One of the most striking and important applications of 3 is to prove the existence of a Suslin
tree.
Theorem 30. 3 implies that there exists a Suslin tree.
It will be convenient rst to recall some denitions relating to trees.
Denitions.
(1) A tree is a partial order T = hT, 6T i such that for all x T , the set x
b = {y T :
y <T x} is well-ordered.
(2) The order-type of x
b under <T is called the height of x in T, denoted htT (x).
(3) If Ord, the th level of T is the set T = Lev (T) = {x T : htT (x) = }.
S
T | .
We write T| for the partial order T restricted to the set T | , where T | =
<
24
The elements of T are the nite ordinals, and for innite , the elements of T will be
ordinals from the set { : 6 < + }.
How do we go?
(0) T0 = {0}.
(1) If n and T|n+1 is dened, dene T|n+2 by taking the elements of Tn in turn and,
for each element, picking the next two unused nite ordinals to be its successors in
Tn+1 .
(2) If > and T|+1 is dened, dene T|+2 by using the ordinals in { : 6 <
+ } to provide each element in T with two successors in T+1 .
This is possible, since |T | 6 0 .
(3) If > and is a limit ordinal, and T| is dened, for each x T | , pick an
-branch bx with x bx , subject to the condition: if A is a maximal antichain in
T| , then bx A 6= . (Remember that A is from the 3-sequence one of the
guesses.)
Why is this possible?
There exists a A such that x and a are comparable: x 6T a or a <T x. If x 6T a
then pick bx to be some -branch extending b
a {a}, and if a <T x then pick bx to
be an -branch extending x
b {x}.
If A is not a maximal antichain in T| , pick bx to be any -branch containing x.
<1
25
It remains to show that T is Suslin, i.e. T has no uncountable antichains. Its enough to
show that every maximal antichain of T is countable.
Suppose that X 1 , and X is a maximal antichain in T. Consider
C = { 1 : = and X is a maximal antichain in T| }
Claim. C is a club.
Proof of claim. Its easy to see that C1 = { < 1 : = } is a club, and check that
C2 = { lim(1 ) : X is a maximal antichain in T| } is a club.
Why is C2 club? Easily C2 is closed: n C2 n .
C2 is unbounded. Let 0 < 1 . We nd C2 with > 0 . Given n , dene n+1
to be the least limit ordinal > n such that every element of T|n is comparable to
some element X . Let = sup n . So C2 , and so C = C1 C2 is a club.
n<
26
We shall return to 3 later. We now introduce a new axiom MA (Martins Axiom) and use it
to show that there are no Suslin trees.
Denition. Suppose P = hP, 6P i is a partial order. Wlog, P has a least element OP .
(1) Two elements p, q P are compatible if (r P )(p 6 r q 6 r). Otherwise p, q
are incompatible.
(2) A subset G P is directed if (p G)(q G)(r G)(p 6 r q 6 r).
(3) A subset D P is dense in P if (p P )(d D)(p 6 d).
(4) Let be an innite cardinal. We say that P satises the -chain condition if every
antichain in P has cardinality less than .
(5) If = 1 , then the 1 -chain condition is called the countable chain condition
(CCC).
Caveat. Some sources reverse the order in the above (and subsequent) denitions. E.g., they
say p, q are compatible if (r P )(r 6 p r 6 q).
Denition (cont.)
(6) Suppose D is a family of dense sets in P, and
V G P is directed. We say that G is
G D 6=
D-generic (or generic relative to D) if
DD
Proposition 31. Suppose D = {Dn : n < } is a countable family of dense sets in the partial
order P. Then there exists a D-generic set G P .
Proof. By induction, we dene hdn : n < i.
D0 6= , so pick d0 D0 . Given dn Dn , since Dn+1 is dense in P, there exists dn+1
Dn+1 with dn 6 dn+1 .
Now G = {dn : n < } is a D-generic set, as required.
In general, we cannot improve Proposition 31 to uncountable families of dense sets. Uncountable antichains can wreak havoc. However, if we require that P has the CCC then there is a
relatively consistent statement.
Denition. Let be an innite cardinal. The statement MA asserts: for every CCC partial
order P and every family D = {D : a < } of dense subsets in P, there exists a D-generic
set G P in P.
^
MA .
Martins Axiom is the statement:
0 6<20
Remark. CH MA.
So for this reason, we generally tacitly assume CH when we apply MA.
Proposition 32.
(1) ZFC MA0
(2) MA 20 >
(3) ZFC MA20 .
27
Proof.
(1) is immediate from Proposition 31.
(2) We must nd a poset P and some dense sets.
Let hf 2 : < i. We aim to nd g 2 with
g 6= f .
<
We pick P to approximate g. Let P be the set of nite functions from into {0, 1} :
P = f : dom(f ) , f : dom(f ) {0, 1}, |dom(f )| < 0
and dene f 6P h i h|dom(f ) = f , i.e. h extends f .
P = (P, 6P ) is CCC since |P | = 0 .
Let En = {p P : n dom(p)}. Easily, En is dense in P.
For < , let
D = p P : n dom(p), f (n) 6= p(n) .
Then D is dense in P.
Now let D = {D , En : < , n < }. By MA , there exists a D-generic set G.
S
Let g = G. Note: g is a function since G is directed.
The axioms MA1 and MA say that the universe contains generic sets (for families of dense sets
in CCC posets, provided the families are of size < 20 ). We now prove:
Theorem 33. MA1 implies that there are no Suslin trees.
Lemma. If T is a Suslin tree, then every chain in T is countable.
Proof. By contradiction. Suppose C is an uncountable chain in T. Wlog, C is maximal. So
C T 6= for all < 1 . So there exists c C T , and by normality (iii) of a Suslin
tree, there exists a+1 T+1 \ C such that {a+1 , c+1 } is an antichain in T+1 .
Consider A = {a+1 : < 1 }. Clearly, A is an antichain, and |A| = 1 , contradiction. 2
Why can one not simply dene inductively an uncountable chain in a Suslin tree by using
normality to grab a chain member at each next level?
This will not work, since at limit levels , there is no uniform single choice for an element c to
continue the chain at the limit level above all the lower elements c , < . By normality, one
can certainly ascend one-by-one, but not above a boatload.
28
29
: Hom(A , Z), (h) = 1, A is a pure nitely-generated subgroup of A
Then 6 if extends .
Lecture 17
Chapter 3. Forcing
In this chapter, we present forcing, a method for constructing extensions of models of (subtheories of) ZFC. We then use the technique to prove the independence of the Continuum Hypothesis,
3, , and some other combinatorial principles, but also V = L.
There are several approaches to the presentation of forcing. We shall follow the presentation of
Shelah in Proper and Improper Forcing, chapter 1.
We start from the assumption that ZFC is consistent, and has a countable model M. Wlog, we
shall also assume:
(1) M is a standard -model: if M = (M, E M ) then E M = |MM . In other words, the
membership predicate of M is real membership.
(2) The universe of M is a transitive set: x y M x M .
These additional assumptions come for free and they simplify the presentation. (We can justify
(1) and (2) either using the fact that L, the universe of constructible sets, is a standard -model
and use the Downward L
owenheim-Skolem theorem to obtain a countable elementary submodel;
alternatively, use the Reection Principle to cut down to a V for an arbitrary large nite
fragment of ZFC, and take a countable elementary submodel of V ; nally, use the Mostowski
Collapse to obtain an isomorphic transitive model.)
So throughout this presentation, we shall assume that M is a countable transitive model satisfying (1) and (2). We call M a CTM.
We wish to extend M.
Denition. A forcing is a partial order P = (P, 6P ). We shall, wlog, assume that forcings
have minimal elements. It is also not necessary to assume that P is antisymmetric. In
some sources, this is called a pre-partial order or quasi-order.
The elements of a forcing are called (forcing) conditions.
30
The extensions we construct are dened using forcings and generic lters in V . These forcings
and generic sets control the truth values of sentences in the extensions.
Denition. Suppose A is a model of ZFC (or a fragment of ZFC), and P A (so P and 6P
belong to A). We say that G P is a lter in P if
(1) G is directed: (x, y G) (z G) (x 6 z y 6 z)
(2) G is downward-closed: x 6 y G x G.
G A
q
V
31
that belong to M. Now, inductively, pick pn+1 > pn with pn+1 Dn+1 (using denseness
of Dn+1 ) and p1 = p. Let G = {q P : n : q 6 pn }.
G is a generic lter over M, as required.
diagram with the sentences a6= g for each a A is nitely satisable, hence
+
by the Compactness Theorem has a model A+ , and g A
/ A.
q g A+ A+
q a A
Of course, this is too much, since A+ is already an elementary extension of A, but the idea of
using names or new constants is a useful strategy. We therefore design names that are more
32
complicated sets in M, dened by transnite recursion for elements of M and P, and whose
interpretations will depend upon the generic set G. In general, the referents of these names
cannot be computed or identied in M, since G
/ M (usually).
Denition. Suppose P M is a forcing. We dene by induction on Ord the P-names (or
names) of rank 6 as follows.
A set is a P-name of rank 6 if = {(pi , i ) : i < i0 }, where pi P , i is a P-name of
rank 6 i < , and i0 Ord.
A P-name is a P-name of rank 6 for some Ord.
We write MP for the collection of P-names that are elements of M.
We let the (name) rank of , rkn ( ) = if is a P-name of rank 6 , but not of rank
6 for any < .
: p P, b a}.
We dene for a M , by induction on rk(a), a P-name a = {(p, b)
Note that a is a P-name. (Check.)
Examples of P-names.
(1) rank 6 0:
(2) rank 6 1: , {(pi , ) : i < i0 }.
Lecture 19
Notation. V P is the class of all P-names. We use f , , a for P-names that are not of the form
e
a for a M.
e e
33
In this course, M is called the ground model, and M[G] the generic extension of M relative
to G (by G).
Finally, we dene the forcing relation
P (or
) which connects truth in generic extensions
with denable sets in M and the combinatorial properties of P.
Denition. Suppose P M is a forcing, 1 , . . ., n are P-names, and (x1 , . . ., xn ) is a formula
in the vocabulary of set theory (possibly with a unary predicate symbol M (x) for M).
We say that a condition p P forces (1 , . . ., n ), denoted p
P (1 , . . ., n ), if
h
i
M[G] 1 [G], . . ., n [G]
for every generic lter G in P over M such that p G.
Remark. The denition of
P is given in V , apparently. However, we shall prove that the
binary predicate
P is definable in M.
This is a critical fact about forcing.
We can now state precisely the Forcing Theorem.
Theorem 3. Suppose M is a CTM, and P M is a forcing. Then for every generic lter G in
P over M, there exists a CTM M[G] (dened as above) such that
(1) M[G] is an extension of M. M M[G], G M[G].
(2) Ord M = Ord M[G], i.e. M and M[G] have the same ordinals.
(3) For every sentence in the vocabulary of ZFC (possibly with a unary predicate
symbol M (x)),
M[G] i (p G)(p
P )
(4) The predicate
P is denable in M.
(5) M[G] is minimal with the above properties: if M+ is any transitive model of ZFC
with M M+ , G M+ , then M[G] M+ .
It will take some preparatory work to prove M[G] has properties (1)(5).
Let us consider some examples to see how this theorem helps us to establish independence
results.
Example 1. Adding a Cohen real.
o
Let P = f : f : dom(f ) {0, 1}, |dom(f )| < 0 , 6P is extension of functions, i.e.
f 6 g g|dom(f ) = f .
So we have P M. In M, the sets Dn = {f P : n dom(f )} are dense open and
denable in M, so belong to M. So G Dn 6= .
What do we know about g =
Lecture 20
S
If G is generic, then g = G is a real, i.e. g : {0, 1}. And since P is separative,
G
/ M and so g
/ M. So g is a real which is new.
34
If we could add enough new reals, then CH would fail in the generic extension M[G].
Example 2. Let P = f : f is a nite function from into {0, 1} , where M, and
f 6 g g|dom(f )=f .
If G is generic over M, dene g : {0, 1} by g (n) =
is a sequence of new reals.
However, this would not be quite enough to blow up the continuum to size in M[G],
because maybe M could be small in M[G]. We would need to ensure that cardinals do
not collapse.
Example 3. P3 = {
a = hAi : i < i : < , Ai i < }, with a
6 a
a
is an initial
segment of a
.
S
A 3-sequence in M[G] will be A = {
a:a
G}, where G is a generic lter over M.
Example 4. P = {f : f is a function from a countable (in M) ordinal into P()}, with f 6
g f g.
A generic lter G gives rise to a map g =
G : 1M P()M .
M[G]
and P()M =
M[G]
To check that M[G] is an extension of M and that, e.g. in the examples above, 1M = 1
and P()M = P()M[G] , we need to show that for transitive models, the simplest set-theoretic
concepts are invariant under extension. The concept of invariance of a property or a term is
important in its own right. We study it briey in a more general setting.
Absoluteness
Denition. Suppose (x1 , . . ., xn ) is a formula in the vocabulary of ZFC (or some expansion),
and A B are classes. We say:
(1) (x1 , . . ., xn ) is absolute between A and B if
x1 , . . ., xn A (x1 , . . ., xn )A (x1 , . . ., xn )B
35
I.e., properties expressed by formulas with restricted quantiers are absolute, leading to the
following denition of 0 -formulas.
Denition. We dene that class of 0 = 0 = 0 formulas as follows:
(1) If is atomic, then is 0 .
(2) If 1 , 2 , 3 are 0 , then 1 2 and 3 are 0 . (And 1 2 , 1 2 , 1 2
are also 0 by conventional abbreviations.)
(3) If is 0 , then x(x y ) is 0 . (We abbreviate x(x y ) as x y .)
Also, x(x y ) is 0 (abbreviated as (x y)).
(See handout for a list of 0 -formulas.)
Denition. Suppose T is a theory. We say that is T0 (T -provably 0 ) if for some 0 -formula
, we have T .
If T is ZF or stronger, we omit T .
Lemma. Suppose (x1 , . . ., xn ) is 0 (or provably equivalent to a 0 -formula), and A is a
transitive class.
Then x1 , . . ., xn A (x1 , . . ., xn ) (x1 , . . ., xn )A .
I.e., (x1 , . . ., xn ) is absolute.
Proof. Straightforward induction on the complexity of (x1 , . . ., xn ).
With these matters claried, we turn to the proof of the Forcing Theorem.
Lemma 4. Let G be a generic lter in P over M. Then
(1) For all a M, we have a[G]
= a, and [G] = G.
So M M[G], and G M[G].
(2) M[G] is transitive.
(3) If is a P-name in M, then rkr ( ) 6 rkn ( ), and rank( [G]) 6 rkn ( ).
So Ord M = Ord M[G].
(4) M[G] is minimal: if M+ is a transitive model of ZFC with M M+ and G M+ ,
then M[G] M+ .
Lecture 21
36
a.
x a[G]
x = b[G]
for some b a with (p, b)
= a.
Then [G] = {(p, p)
: p P }[G] = {p[G]
: p G} = {p : p G} = G.
(2) x [G] M[G] x = i [G] for some P-name i , etc, which x M[G].
(3) The claims about rank are proved by induction (exercise).
We show that Ord M = Ord M[G]. Clearly, Ord M Ord M[G] by (1).
If Ord M[G], say = [G] for some P-name MP .
e
Then = rank() = rank( [G]) 6 rkn ( ) Ord M, since ranks are dened by
e
We start proving M[G] satises the axioms of ZFC. We get some very easily.
Proposition 5. With the usual assumptions on M, P, G, we have that M[G] satises the following.
(0) Set existence
(1) Extensionality
(2) Null set
(3) Foundation
(4) Pair set
(5) Union
(6) Innity
Proof.
(0) 6= M M[G].
(1) M[G] is transitive
(2), (3), (6) absoluteness of terms involved in the axioms.
(4) Let x = [G], y = [G] M[G], with , MP .
Dene a P-name upair(, ) MP , by upair(, ) = {h0P , i, h0P , i}.
Its easy now to check upair(, )[G] = {[G], [G]} = {x, y}.
(5) Suppose that x = [G] M[G]. Two ways to check union.
S
(i) manufacture a P-name u MP such that u[G] = x
S
(ii) on credit. Find a P-name MP such that x [G] and then appeal to
Separation. (But this assumes that we have checked that Separation holds in
M[G].)
37
S
We indicate (1). We want ( x)[G] = z[G] : u[G] x[G], z[G] u[G] .
S
Reecting suggests the following P-name as a candidate to give x in M[G].
u = (r, ) : p, q P, MP , hp, i hq, i p 6 r q 6 r
S
S
This is a P-name in M, and it is easy enough to check that u[G] = x = ( [G]).
S
If one does (2), take = range( ). We have range( ) = { : p P, hp, i }.
S
is a P-name in M, and x [G]. Now apply Separation.
2
It remains to verify Power set, Replacement, Separation and Choice in M[G]. These axioms will
require us to produce more complicated P-names in M. Hence we must treat the denability of
in M.
Lecture 22
To verify these remaining axioms, we shall assume proven the following two clauses of the Forcing
Theorem.
(3) M[G] |= 1 [G], . . ., n [G] i (p G) p
(1 , . . ., n ) .
(4) The relation
P is denable in M; more precisely, given (x1 , . . ., xn ), there is a formula
(x1 , . . ., xn , x, y) which is absolute in M such that for all a1 , . . ., an M,
p
(a 1 , . . ., a n ) i M |= (a1 , . . ., an , p, P)
Notes.
(3) is sometimes called the Truth Lemma.
(4) is sometimes called the Denability Lemma.
We shall prove (3) and (4) in an appendix (they are proved by induction).
Proposition 5 12 The axioms of Separation, Power set, Replacement and Choice are all satised
in M[G].
Proof.
(1) Separation.
Well write G , G , . . . instead of [G], [G], . . ., when more convenient.
Suppose that , 1 , . . ., n MP and (x, y, x1 , . . ., xn ) is a formula. We wish to show
that
y = a G : M[G] |= [a, G , 1G , . . ., nG ]
belongs to M[G].
Since p G,
M[G] |= G G [G , G , 1G , . . ., nG ]
(by denition of
).
So a = [G] y.
Second, y [G]. Suppose a y. Then a [G] and (a, G , 1G , . . ., nG )M[G] .
So a = [G] for some range(). So M[G] |= G G [G , G , 1G , . . ., nG ].
Thus (p G)p
(, , 1 , . . ., n ) (by Truth Lemma (3)).
So hp, i and G G . So y G .
(2) Power set.
Suppose x M[G], x = [G] for some MP .
Let Z = hq, pi : (p 6 q)(hp, i ) .
Let Z = {u : u Z }M . Let = P Z .
o
n
[G] = z : (y [G]) (y, z)M[G]
Then Z MP .
There are too many P-names z for this to be a set in M. We cut the collection down
to a set in M by using the rank function in M.
Let (q, y) be the least rank of a set z M for which q
(y,
z).
(If no such z exists,
then (q, y) = 0.)
Now, let
n
oM
= hw, zi : (hq, yi Z ) q
(y,
z)
rank(z) 6 (q, y)
Check that G is as required. Note that MP because rank( ) is bounded in M,
and
is denable in M.
(4) Choice.
Suppose x = G M[G]. We show that there is a function f M[G] mapping an
ordinal onto a set containing x as a subset.
Let h : < i be an enumeration of range( ).
39
(q , ) and M[G] |= G G (G , 1G , . . ., nG ) ,
By the Truth Lemma, there is q G such that q
(, 1 , . . ., G ).
Wlog, q > p, q .
()
Denition.
1. Suppose > 0 . A forcing P is -closed (or -complete) if for any V
< , every
6P -increasing sequence hpi : i < i P has an upper bound p P . I.e.,
pi 6P p.
i<
/ K).
Now we work entirely in M and dene by transnite recursion a 6P -increasing sequence
hp : 6 i and hb B : < i as follows:
(1) p0 = p
(2) 6 p 6P p
= b for some b B.
(3) p+1
()
Why is this possible to do?
If 6 is a limit ordinal, since P is -closed and < , there is p P with
p 6P p.
<
So (2) is satised.
(p = p0 6 p )
If p has been dened, p
is a function from into B.
= x).
So p
(x)(x B (B)
= b .
By Proposition 7, there exists b B and p+1 > p such that p+1
()
This completes the denition.
In M, consider the function g : B given by g() = b . Then g K. In particular,
g M.
Let H be a generic lter in P over M such that p H. Then for all < , p H.
V
().
<
so M[H] |= H
But, p = p0 6 p H, so p H. And p
/ K,
/ K.
So H
/ K, which contradicts (). Thus f M.
41
(1) P is 1 -complete. So 1M = 1
M
M[G]
, by Corollary 10.
Then Ea = f : a range(f ) , for (in M), is a dense open set in M.
So G Ea 6= .
M[G]
onto (P())M[G] .
= )
.
For each < , dene y = < |(r)(p 6 r)(r
()
Note: y M by the Denability Lemma, and y where = f ().
In M, y is countable. Why? Choose for each y a condition q such that p 6 q and
= .
q
()
Then {q : y } is an antichain in P. This is easy to check.
42
y . Then y M since , y M:
<
|y| =
<|a
M
|y | = 0 || = || .
M
43
= M
1
M[G]
= M
2 6
G : 2. Let g (n) =
Corollary 17. The Continuum Hypothesis is independent of ZFC (if ZFC is consistent).
Proof. Theorems 11 and 16.
44
Dr Oren Kolman
(i) Let ZF C be the first-order theory whose axioms are obtained from ZF C by
omitting the axiom of infinity. Show that (*) (V , (V V )) is a model
of ZF C .
(ii) Show that every element of V is finite. Deduce that the axiom of infinity
cannot be proved from the other axioms of ZF C .
(iii) Can the assertion (*) be proved from ZF C ? Explain.
S
(ii) Prove there exists a family {A,n : < 1 , n < } such that (i) 1 \ n< A,n
is countable for every < 1 , and (ii) if 6= , then A,n A,n = for all
n < . [Hint: For each ordinal < 1 , choose a surjection f from onto
(why is this possible?), and consider the set A,n = { : f (n) = } .]
(iii) Can you generalize the result of part (ii) to cardinals greater than 1 ? How
about ?
5 Assume that 1 0 = 1 . Prove n 0 = n for all n < . [Hint: induction.]
Dr Oren Kolman
(i) Suppose that x and y belong to the class W F of well-founded sets. Find
bounds for the ranks of the following sets in terms of the ranks of x and y :
x , P (x) , {x} , x y , x y , x y , {x, y} , hx, yi , and y x .
(ii) Calculate the ranks of the sets N , Z , Q , R , and C .
(i) Suppose that M is a transitive model of ZF (or a large enough finite fragment
of ZF including the Power Set Axiom) and let x M . Prove that P (x)M =
P (x) M . Deduce that the Power Set Axiom holds in M if and only if
x My M(P (x) M y) .
(ii) Suppose that V reflects (a large enough finite fragment T of) ZF C , let
< . Prove that VV = V . Hence complete the second proof that neither
ZF nor ZF C is finitely axiomatizable.
L .
6 **
(i) Consider the assertion that for every formula (x1 , . . . , xn ) in the language of
set theory, for all ordinals < < , for all a1 , . . . , an V ,
(a1 , . . . , an )V (a1 , . . . , an )V .
What is your opinion? Can the assertion be proved in ZF C ? Would your
view change if V and V were replaced by L and L ? Would your views
alter if the assertion were modified to the sharpened form: for all uncountable
cardinals < , for every formula (x1 , . . . , xn ) in the language of set theory,
for all a1 , . . . , an V ,
(a1 , . . . , an )L (a1 , . . . , an )L .
(ii) Suppose there exists an ordinal such that V is a model of ZF C . Show
that the least such ordinal has cofinality .
(iii) Suppose is a strongly inaccessible cardinal. Prove that V is a model of
ZF C . 1
1
Unrelated general gossip: apparently, if the existence of inaccessible cardinals were inconsistent with
ZF C , marvellous phenomena would appear - one could prove that there are no uncountable Grothendieck
universes and the axiom of universes in category theory is false. (An uncountable Grothendieck universe
is exactly H for an inaccessible cardinal , and the axiom of universes asserts that every set is in such
a universe.)
Dr Oren Kolman
< cf ( );
(iv) GCH implies = +1 cf ( ) ;
+1
.
(v) 1 = 0 21 .
(vi) < 2 implies 2 = 1 22 .
2
(i) Prove that an infinite cardinal is a strong limit cardinal if and only if = i
for some limit ordinal .
(ii) (Tarskis recursion formula) Let be a limit cardinal and > 0 . Let be
a limit ordinal such that < cf () . Suppose that { P
< : < } is a
strictly increasing sequence of cardinals such that = < . Show that
P
= < .
(i) S, f : ;
(ii) f : , { S : f | = f } is a stationary subset of .
10
()
theorem of ZF C (or even ZF C + GCH ).
(iii) Assume that = < = 2 is a regular limit cardinal. Determine whether
is a theorem of ZF C .
Dr Oren Kolman
This final set of exercises involves, alongside basic drill, some questions that require significant extensions of the material covered in lectures. Attempt a representative selection.
Several questions are optional (they presuppose some elementary non-set-theoretic information from algebra, complex analysis, model theory, or topology); some problems
are difficult (marked ) or open, and they have been included, along with guidance, to
illustrate the richness and flexibility of forcing.
1 Absoluteness results
All formulas and terms are in the vocabulary of ZF C unless otherwise indicated.
Suppose that , 1 and 2 are absolute.
(i) Suppose that is a formula with the same free variables as such that
ZF ` . Show that is absolute.
(ii) Suppose that y1 , z2 and have the same free variables; suppose
ZF ` y1 and ZF ` z2 . Show that is absolute.
(iii) Suppose that (y) and the term t are absolute. Show that (t) is absolute.
(iv) Suppose that t is absolute. Show that x t and t x are absolute.
(v) Suppose that (y) and t are absolute. Show that {y t : (y)} is absolute.
(vi) Prove that the following terms and predicates are absolute (in each instance,
it suffices to produce a ZF -provably equivalent absolute or 0 -formula):
S
y x ; z = {x, y} ; z = {x} ; z = hx, yi ; z = x ; z = x y ; z = x y ;
z = x \ y; z = x y;
f is a function; y = dom(f ) ; y = range(f ) ;
y = ; y = s(x) ; y = 1 ; y = 2 ;
y = f 00 x (where f 00 x means the application of f to x ); y = f | x ;
x is transitive; x Ord (remember that Foundation is an axiom of ZFC);
x is a limit ordinal; x = .
(vii) Suppose that the term s(y, z) is absolute, and ZF C ` ()t() = s(t | , ) .
Show that the formula y = t() is absolute. [For a formula (x) , ()
abbreviates ( Ord ()) .]
(viii) Prove that the following are absolute:
+ ; ; ; rank(x) ; y is the transitive closure of x .
1
(ix) Determine which of the following are (a) absolute, (b) absolute for V , when
is a strongly inaccessible cardinal, (c) absolute between the ground model
and its generic extensions (brief explanations suffice):
Z , (Q, ) , (R, ) , x is countable, y = P (z) , is a cardinal, 1 , S is
a stationary set, C is a club, P is a forcing, the partial order P is a c.c.c.
forcing, F n(A, B, 0 ) , F n(A, B, 1 ) , T is a Suslin tree ( ), y = ,
= , z = i , x L , ()(x L ) , ZF C ` ;
Optional
() ( ), M is an R -module over the commutative ring R , P = N P , the
real Hilbert space `2 , X is a complex Banach space, Y is an inseparable
topological space, the Singular Cardinals Hypothesis ( ), the Riemann
Hypothesis ( ).
2 Generic filters and classical theorems
(i) Prove Cantors theorem on the 0 -categoricity of unbounded dense linear orders: if A and B are countable unbounded dense linear orders, then A and
B are isomorphic. [HINT. Let P be the partial order of finite partial isomorphisms between A and B under extension. Show that for all a A and
b B , the sets Da = {p : a dom(p)} and Rb = {q : b range(q)} are
dense open in P . Consider what properties a filter G generic relative to the
family {Da , Rb : a A, b B} might possess.]
(ii) For a set X P
and a cardinal , let [X]< = {Y X : | Y |P
< } . Let
1
I = {I : nI n < } . Let Q be the partial order {I : nI n1 < 1}
where I Q J iff I J . For a cardinal , let HS< (I) abbreviate the
statement:
(H [I]< )(I I)(I H)(I I )
where for x, y P (), x y (| x\y |< ) . Prove the assertion HS<1 (I) .
What can be said about HS<20 (I) ? [HINT. Show DJ = {q Q : J q} is
dense in I for J I .]
(iii) Consider the following (rash) statement: if the forcing P has the 2 -chain
condition and D is a family of less than 21 dense open sets in P , then there
exists a D -generic filter G in P . Is this statement provable, refutable, or
independent of ZF C ? (Generalization of Martins Axiom to higher cardinals and discovery of the strongest or optimal form of the generic principle it
expresses are elusive; Martins Maximum ( M M ; see below) and the Proper
Forcing Axiom ( P F A ) are the best-known candidates.)
3 Concerning forcings, anti-chains and generic sets
(i) Prove that a filter G is generic in P over M if and only if for every maximal
anti-chain A M of P | G A | = 1 . [HINT. One direction might use AC.]
(ii) A subset D P is:
(1) pre-dense above p P if (q P)(q p (d D)(d and q are compatible)); D is pre-dense if D is pre-dense above 0P .
2
(iv) Suppose = cf () , Col(, ) has the -chain condition, and G is Col(, ) generic. Then for any f M[G] such that f : Ord , where < , there
exists < such that f M[G Col(, )] . [HINT. Let f = G and for <
, let A be a maximal
anti-chain such that (p A )()(p
()
= ) .
S
Deduce ()(p < A dom(p) ) . To see f M[G Col(, )] ,
observe f () = if and only if p
()
= where p is the unique member
of G Col(, ) (see Question 3).]
11 Optional: Moderately large cardinals do not decide CH
Recall the arrow notation from the partition calculus: () is the statement:
for every function f : [X] B , where | X | and | B | = , there exists
Y X such that | Y | and f [Y ] b for some b B . In this notation,
Ramseys infinite theorem is written (n )(k )(0 (0 )nk ) . Analogously,
()<
is the statement: for every function f : [X]< B , where | X |
Remark: This exercise sketches an early proof of + from GCH due to Gregory
(1976) and Shelah (1981); in the course lecture notes, there is a short, much simplified, unpublished proof discovered by Peter Komjath, inspired by a new proof of
Shelah: S. Shelah, Diamonds, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 138 (2010), 21512161.
13 Optional
(i) Consider the ordinal 1 + 1 with the order topology and let X = (1 + 1) be
the topological space with the product topology. Let A be the set of successor
ordinals in 1 . Show that for A , the set G = {f X : range(f )}
is dense and open in X . Show that the family {H : A} , where H =
{h X : h(0) = } , is a collection of non-empty open pairwise disjoint sets.
(ii) Prove the Continuum Hypothesis is equivalent to the statement: in every
compact Hausdorff space, the intersection of less than 20 -many dense open
sets is non-empty. [HINT. Forwards, the Baire Category Theorem; backwards,
part (i) if CH fails.]
14 Optional
(i) Prove that non-isomorphism (of groups) is not absolute. [HINT. Free groups
of different infinite cardinalities; collapse. Now state a generalisation.]
(ii) An infinite abelian group A is called almost free if every subgroup B of
cardinality less than | A | is free. Show the statement that the group Z is
almost free is independent of ZF C . [HINT. You may take it as proven that
Z is 1 -free, but is not 2 -free.]
15 Optional: Forcing and Partial Isomorphisms
Suppose A and B are -structures in a vocabulary . Say A and B are partially
isomorphic, denoted A 'p B , if some non-empty family F Part(A, B) of the
partial isomorphisms from A to B is a back-and-forth set for A and B :
(f F)(a A)(g F)(f g a dom(g)) and
(f F)(b B)(g F)(f g b range(g)) .
(i) Prove if , A and B are countable, then A 'p B . [Use the idea of your proof
of Cantors theorem from a previous exercise.]
(ii) Show the converse of (i) fails. [HINT. Consider the linear orders Q and R .]
(iii) Show that if two structures A and B are partially isomorphic, then there is
a forcing extension in which A and B are isomorphic.
Remark: Partial isomorphism yields a characterization of elementary equivalence
in the infinitary language L . For a recent introduction to these ideas, see J.
Vaananen, Models and Games, Cambridge University Press, 2011.
16 Optional
(i) Prove Erdoss Theorem: if the Continuum Hypothesis holds then there is
an uncountable orbit-countable family of entire holomorphic functions on C .
[HINT. This is an ingenious elementary argument; see the original paper: P.
Erdos, An interpolation problem associated with the Continuum Hypothesis,
Mich. Math. J. 11, 9-10 (1964), or pages 335-336 in P. Komjath, V. Totik,
Problems and Theorems in Classical Set Theory, Springer, 2006.]
(ii) Deduce that the Continuum Hypothesis is equivalent to the assertion that
some orbit-countable family is uncountable.
(iii) Deduce that the statement (*) every orbit-countable family is countable is
independent of ZF C .
17 Let ZF C be the theory ZF C Power Set Axiom.
(i) Suppose = cf () 1 . Prove that H is a model of ZF C .
(ii) Deduce that no proof of the existence of R avoids some non-trivial use of the
Power Set Axiom.
18 Optional
Let ZF C be the theory ZF C Power Set Axiom. Suppose = cf () 1 .
Let N be a countable elementary submodel of H .
(i) Suppose (x) is a formula in the vocabulary of ZF C (possibly with parameters from N ) such that ZF C ` (!x)(x) . Show if a H and H |= [a] ,
then a N .
V
(ii) Suppose f H , dom(f ) = {a1 , . . . , an } N, 1in f (ai ) N . Prove
f N.
(iii) H ; 1 H ; H .
(iv) If {a, A, B, f } N , a A , and f : A B is a function (in V ), then
f (a) N .
(v) If X N and X is countable, then X N .
(vi) For every ordinal 1 {1 } , N is an ordinal.
(vii) If X = {X : 1 } N , then X N for every 1 N .
19 Optional
For a forcing P , a cardinal is large enough (for P ) if = cf () > 1 and the set
of dense subsets of P is an element of H (so, in particular, P , the conditions in
P and every dense subset of P all belong to H ). For a set N , a condition p P
is called N -generic if for every D N which is a dense subset of P , D N is
pre-dense above p .
Suppose is large enough for P . Prove the following are equivalent:
9
Steprans, J., History of the Continuum in the Twentieth Century, to appear in:
Vol. 6, History of Logic;
http://www.math.yorku.ca/~steprans/Research/PDFSOfArticles/hoc2INDEXED.pdf
Remark. For research problems in set theory, there are some treasure houses to visit:
Shelah, S., On what I do not understand (and have something to say): Part I, Fund.
Math. 166(2000), 182;
http://matwbn.icm.edu.pl/ksiazki/fm/fm166/fm16612.pdf.
And for the model-theoretic pendant:
Shelah, S., On what I do not understand (and have something to say ), model theory,
Math Japonica 51 (2000), 329377;
http://shelah.logic.at/files/702.pdf.
Fremlin, D.H., Problems;
http://www.essex.ac.uk/maths/people/fremlin/problems.pdf.
Miller, A.W., Some interesting problems;
http://www.math.wisc.edu/~miller/res/problem.pdf.
S. Todorcevic, Combinatorial dichotomies in set theory, Bull. Symbolic Logic, 17
(2011), 172.
12