Existence of disjunction of conditions in countable support iteration of Laver forcing












1












$begingroup$


Jajaja




The part i'm interested in, is the part between the brackets. One side note is that the forcing order is reversed and that's why the disjunction is the greatest lower bound instead of least upper bound. My confusion here is the part which i have underlined in the image. How do we take the conjunction of such $q Rightarrow p_q(gamma)$? My first guess is to embed $mathbb{P}^{alpha beta}$ into a complete boolean algebra and go from there. But this idea has an apparent issue and that is the fact that $q not in mathbb{P}^{alpha beta}$ and we can't calculate $q Rightarrow p_q(gamma)$. What is he doing here? Because the disjunction is crucial in the proofs of his last lemmas, i can't skip it. Any help would be appreciated.




Edit I: One idea i have is is to outright ignore that $Rightarrow$ and go with this: Let $p(gamma)$ be a name for the union of the $p_q(gamma)$ such that the names for the $p_q(gamma)$ are altered so that when a generic set is chosen containing another $q'$ from the antichain like $G$ then $p_q(gamma)$ is empty. This does seem to meet the requirements by writing them down. Is this correct? If so, can we extract the meaning of $Rightarrow$ from this?(Because it appears again in the bottom of the page.)






set-theory forcing







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Any ideas on what that arrow could mean?
    $endgroup$
    – Shervin Sorouri
    Dec 28 '18 at 11:30






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I think in 2018 this statement you are confused by would be written as $qVdash_alpha p(gamma) = p_q(gamma)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Dec 29 '18 at 7:32










  • $begingroup$
    Oh, but it's still vague how someone could extract a condition from the conjunction of some forcing relations.
    $endgroup$
    – Shervin Sorouri
    Dec 29 '18 at 7:50






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Just mix the names over the antichain.
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Dec 29 '18 at 7:51










  • $begingroup$
    But then again one thing that may cause trouble is the fact that if $gamma > alpha$ then the name for $p_q(gamma)$ isn't even in the language of $mathbb{P}_{alpha}$.
    $endgroup$
    – Shervin Sorouri
    Dec 29 '18 at 8:00
















1












$begingroup$


Jajaja




The part i'm interested in, is the part between the brackets. One side note is that the forcing order is reversed and that's why the disjunction is the greatest lower bound instead of least upper bound. My confusion here is the part which i have underlined in the image. How do we take the conjunction of such $q Rightarrow p_q(gamma)$? My first guess is to embed $mathbb{P}^{alpha beta}$ into a complete boolean algebra and go from there. But this idea has an apparent issue and that is the fact that $q not in mathbb{P}^{alpha beta}$ and we can't calculate $q Rightarrow p_q(gamma)$. What is he doing here? Because the disjunction is crucial in the proofs of his last lemmas, i can't skip it. Any help would be appreciated.




Edit I: One idea i have is is to outright ignore that $Rightarrow$ and go with this: Let $p(gamma)$ be a name for the union of the $p_q(gamma)$ such that the names for the $p_q(gamma)$ are altered so that when a generic set is chosen containing another $q'$ from the antichain like $G$ then $p_q(gamma)$ is empty. This does seem to meet the requirements by writing them down. Is this correct? If so, can we extract the meaning of $Rightarrow$ from this?(Because it appears again in the bottom of the page.)






set-theory forcing







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Any ideas on what that arrow could mean?
    $endgroup$
    – Shervin Sorouri
    Dec 28 '18 at 11:30






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I think in 2018 this statement you are confused by would be written as $qVdash_alpha p(gamma) = p_q(gamma)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Dec 29 '18 at 7:32










  • $begingroup$
    Oh, but it's still vague how someone could extract a condition from the conjunction of some forcing relations.
    $endgroup$
    – Shervin Sorouri
    Dec 29 '18 at 7:50






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Just mix the names over the antichain.
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Dec 29 '18 at 7:51










  • $begingroup$
    But then again one thing that may cause trouble is the fact that if $gamma > alpha$ then the name for $p_q(gamma)$ isn't even in the language of $mathbb{P}_{alpha}$.
    $endgroup$
    – Shervin Sorouri
    Dec 29 '18 at 8:00














1












1








1





$begingroup$


Jajaja




The part i'm interested in, is the part between the brackets. One side note is that the forcing order is reversed and that's why the disjunction is the greatest lower bound instead of least upper bound. My confusion here is the part which i have underlined in the image. How do we take the conjunction of such $q Rightarrow p_q(gamma)$? My first guess is to embed $mathbb{P}^{alpha beta}$ into a complete boolean algebra and go from there. But this idea has an apparent issue and that is the fact that $q not in mathbb{P}^{alpha beta}$ and we can't calculate $q Rightarrow p_q(gamma)$. What is he doing here? Because the disjunction is crucial in the proofs of his last lemmas, i can't skip it. Any help would be appreciated.




Edit I: One idea i have is is to outright ignore that $Rightarrow$ and go with this: Let $p(gamma)$ be a name for the union of the $p_q(gamma)$ such that the names for the $p_q(gamma)$ are altered so that when a generic set is chosen containing another $q'$ from the antichain like $G$ then $p_q(gamma)$ is empty. This does seem to meet the requirements by writing them down. Is this correct? If so, can we extract the meaning of $Rightarrow$ from this?(Because it appears again in the bottom of the page.)






set-theory forcing







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Jajaja




The part i'm interested in, is the part between the brackets. One side note is that the forcing order is reversed and that's why the disjunction is the greatest lower bound instead of least upper bound. My confusion here is the part which i have underlined in the image. How do we take the conjunction of such $q Rightarrow p_q(gamma)$? My first guess is to embed $mathbb{P}^{alpha beta}$ into a complete boolean algebra and go from there. But this idea has an apparent issue and that is the fact that $q not in mathbb{P}^{alpha beta}$ and we can't calculate $q Rightarrow p_q(gamma)$. What is he doing here? Because the disjunction is crucial in the proofs of his last lemmas, i can't skip it. Any help would be appreciated.




Edit I: One idea i have is is to outright ignore that $Rightarrow$ and go with this: Let $p(gamma)$ be a name for the union of the $p_q(gamma)$ such that the names for the $p_q(gamma)$ are altered so that when a generic set is chosen containing another $q'$ from the antichain like $G$ then $p_q(gamma)$ is empty. This does seem to meet the requirements by writing them down. Is this correct? If so, can we extract the meaning of $Rightarrow$ from this?(Because it appears again in the bottom of the page.)






set-theory forcing




set-theory forcing






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 29 '18 at 12:00









Asaf Karagila♦

305k33435766




305k33435766










asked Dec 27 '18 at 8:47









Shervin SorouriShervin Sorouri

519211




519211












  • $begingroup$
    Any ideas on what that arrow could mean?
    $endgroup$
    – Shervin Sorouri
    Dec 28 '18 at 11:30






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I think in 2018 this statement you are confused by would be written as $qVdash_alpha p(gamma) = p_q(gamma)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Dec 29 '18 at 7:32










  • $begingroup$
    Oh, but it's still vague how someone could extract a condition from the conjunction of some forcing relations.
    $endgroup$
    – Shervin Sorouri
    Dec 29 '18 at 7:50






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Just mix the names over the antichain.
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Dec 29 '18 at 7:51










  • $begingroup$
    But then again one thing that may cause trouble is the fact that if $gamma > alpha$ then the name for $p_q(gamma)$ isn't even in the language of $mathbb{P}_{alpha}$.
    $endgroup$
    – Shervin Sorouri
    Dec 29 '18 at 8:00


















  • $begingroup$
    Any ideas on what that arrow could mean?
    $endgroup$
    – Shervin Sorouri
    Dec 28 '18 at 11:30






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I think in 2018 this statement you are confused by would be written as $qVdash_alpha p(gamma) = p_q(gamma)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Dec 29 '18 at 7:32










  • $begingroup$
    Oh, but it's still vague how someone could extract a condition from the conjunction of some forcing relations.
    $endgroup$
    – Shervin Sorouri
    Dec 29 '18 at 7:50






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Just mix the names over the antichain.
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Dec 29 '18 at 7:51










  • $begingroup$
    But then again one thing that may cause trouble is the fact that if $gamma > alpha$ then the name for $p_q(gamma)$ isn't even in the language of $mathbb{P}_{alpha}$.
    $endgroup$
    – Shervin Sorouri
    Dec 29 '18 at 8:00
















$begingroup$
Any ideas on what that arrow could mean?
$endgroup$
– Shervin Sorouri
Dec 28 '18 at 11:30




$begingroup$
Any ideas on what that arrow could mean?
$endgroup$
– Shervin Sorouri
Dec 28 '18 at 11:30




1




1




$begingroup$
I think in 2018 this statement you are confused by would be written as $qVdash_alpha p(gamma) = p_q(gamma)$.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Dec 29 '18 at 7:32




$begingroup$
I think in 2018 this statement you are confused by would be written as $qVdash_alpha p(gamma) = p_q(gamma)$.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Dec 29 '18 at 7:32












$begingroup$
Oh, but it's still vague how someone could extract a condition from the conjunction of some forcing relations.
$endgroup$
– Shervin Sorouri
Dec 29 '18 at 7:50




$begingroup$
Oh, but it's still vague how someone could extract a condition from the conjunction of some forcing relations.
$endgroup$
– Shervin Sorouri
Dec 29 '18 at 7:50




2




2




$begingroup$
Just mix the names over the antichain.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Dec 29 '18 at 7:51




$begingroup$
Just mix the names over the antichain.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Dec 29 '18 at 7:51












$begingroup$
But then again one thing that may cause trouble is the fact that if $gamma > alpha$ then the name for $p_q(gamma)$ isn't even in the language of $mathbb{P}_{alpha}$.
$endgroup$
– Shervin Sorouri
Dec 29 '18 at 8:00




$begingroup$
But then again one thing that may cause trouble is the fact that if $gamma > alpha$ then the name for $p_q(gamma)$ isn't even in the language of $mathbb{P}_{alpha}$.
$endgroup$
– Shervin Sorouri
Dec 29 '18 at 8:00










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

The point here is that when you iterate, you can amalgamate a bunch of names of conditions in "future iterations" into a single condition in the full length iteration.



Namely, given a bunch of conditions in $Bbb P_beta$, whose projections to $Bbb P_alpha$ all extend some fixed $q'$, we have a condition in $Bbb P_beta$ whose projection to $Bbb P_alpha$ is $q'$, and the content of condition in $Bbb{P_beta/P_alpha}$ is decided by some extension of $q'$ in $Bbb P_alpha$.



To be more formal, this means that given $q'$ we take a maximal antichain below it in $Bbb P_alpha$, and to each $q$ in the antichain we attach a condition $p_qinBbb P_beta$ such that $p_qrestrictionalpha=q$, and then we define a condition $p$ in $Bbb P_beta$ such that $prestrictionalpha=q'$, and for each $q$ in the antichain, if $q$ is in the generic for $Bbb P_alpha$, then $p$ is interpreted the same as $p_q$.



In principle it just means that $Bbb{P_betacong P_alphaast P_beta/P_alpha}$. The key point of Baumgartner is that this amount of freedom does not exist in a product, since in a product we require the conditions of the iteration to be canonical ground model names, rather than arbitrary names which allow for some genericity to be incorporated into the partial order.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3053719%2fexistence-of-disjunction-of-conditions-in-countable-support-iteration-of-laver-f%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    2












    $begingroup$

    The point here is that when you iterate, you can amalgamate a bunch of names of conditions in "future iterations" into a single condition in the full length iteration.



    Namely, given a bunch of conditions in $Bbb P_beta$, whose projections to $Bbb P_alpha$ all extend some fixed $q'$, we have a condition in $Bbb P_beta$ whose projection to $Bbb P_alpha$ is $q'$, and the content of condition in $Bbb{P_beta/P_alpha}$ is decided by some extension of $q'$ in $Bbb P_alpha$.



    To be more formal, this means that given $q'$ we take a maximal antichain below it in $Bbb P_alpha$, and to each $q$ in the antichain we attach a condition $p_qinBbb P_beta$ such that $p_qrestrictionalpha=q$, and then we define a condition $p$ in $Bbb P_beta$ such that $prestrictionalpha=q'$, and for each $q$ in the antichain, if $q$ is in the generic for $Bbb P_alpha$, then $p$ is interpreted the same as $p_q$.



    In principle it just means that $Bbb{P_betacong P_alphaast P_beta/P_alpha}$. The key point of Baumgartner is that this amount of freedom does not exist in a product, since in a product we require the conditions of the iteration to be canonical ground model names, rather than arbitrary names which allow for some genericity to be incorporated into the partial order.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      2












      $begingroup$

      The point here is that when you iterate, you can amalgamate a bunch of names of conditions in "future iterations" into a single condition in the full length iteration.



      Namely, given a bunch of conditions in $Bbb P_beta$, whose projections to $Bbb P_alpha$ all extend some fixed $q'$, we have a condition in $Bbb P_beta$ whose projection to $Bbb P_alpha$ is $q'$, and the content of condition in $Bbb{P_beta/P_alpha}$ is decided by some extension of $q'$ in $Bbb P_alpha$.



      To be more formal, this means that given $q'$ we take a maximal antichain below it in $Bbb P_alpha$, and to each $q$ in the antichain we attach a condition $p_qinBbb P_beta$ such that $p_qrestrictionalpha=q$, and then we define a condition $p$ in $Bbb P_beta$ such that $prestrictionalpha=q'$, and for each $q$ in the antichain, if $q$ is in the generic for $Bbb P_alpha$, then $p$ is interpreted the same as $p_q$.



      In principle it just means that $Bbb{P_betacong P_alphaast P_beta/P_alpha}$. The key point of Baumgartner is that this amount of freedom does not exist in a product, since in a product we require the conditions of the iteration to be canonical ground model names, rather than arbitrary names which allow for some genericity to be incorporated into the partial order.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        2












        2








        2





        $begingroup$

        The point here is that when you iterate, you can amalgamate a bunch of names of conditions in "future iterations" into a single condition in the full length iteration.



        Namely, given a bunch of conditions in $Bbb P_beta$, whose projections to $Bbb P_alpha$ all extend some fixed $q'$, we have a condition in $Bbb P_beta$ whose projection to $Bbb P_alpha$ is $q'$, and the content of condition in $Bbb{P_beta/P_alpha}$ is decided by some extension of $q'$ in $Bbb P_alpha$.



        To be more formal, this means that given $q'$ we take a maximal antichain below it in $Bbb P_alpha$, and to each $q$ in the antichain we attach a condition $p_qinBbb P_beta$ such that $p_qrestrictionalpha=q$, and then we define a condition $p$ in $Bbb P_beta$ such that $prestrictionalpha=q'$, and for each $q$ in the antichain, if $q$ is in the generic for $Bbb P_alpha$, then $p$ is interpreted the same as $p_q$.



        In principle it just means that $Bbb{P_betacong P_alphaast P_beta/P_alpha}$. The key point of Baumgartner is that this amount of freedom does not exist in a product, since in a product we require the conditions of the iteration to be canonical ground model names, rather than arbitrary names which allow for some genericity to be incorporated into the partial order.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        The point here is that when you iterate, you can amalgamate a bunch of names of conditions in "future iterations" into a single condition in the full length iteration.



        Namely, given a bunch of conditions in $Bbb P_beta$, whose projections to $Bbb P_alpha$ all extend some fixed $q'$, we have a condition in $Bbb P_beta$ whose projection to $Bbb P_alpha$ is $q'$, and the content of condition in $Bbb{P_beta/P_alpha}$ is decided by some extension of $q'$ in $Bbb P_alpha$.



        To be more formal, this means that given $q'$ we take a maximal antichain below it in $Bbb P_alpha$, and to each $q$ in the antichain we attach a condition $p_qinBbb P_beta$ such that $p_qrestrictionalpha=q$, and then we define a condition $p$ in $Bbb P_beta$ such that $prestrictionalpha=q'$, and for each $q$ in the antichain, if $q$ is in the generic for $Bbb P_alpha$, then $p$ is interpreted the same as $p_q$.



        In principle it just means that $Bbb{P_betacong P_alphaast P_beta/P_alpha}$. The key point of Baumgartner is that this amount of freedom does not exist in a product, since in a product we require the conditions of the iteration to be canonical ground model names, rather than arbitrary names which allow for some genericity to be incorporated into the partial order.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Dec 29 '18 at 11:58









        Asaf Karagila♦Asaf Karagila

        305k33435766




        305k33435766






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3053719%2fexistence-of-disjunction-of-conditions-in-countable-support-iteration-of-laver-f%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            Ellipse (mathématiques)

            Image
            Pour les articles homonymes, voir Ellipse. L'ellipse est le lieu des points dont la somme des distances à deux points fixes, dits foyers, est constante. Section du cône ou projection du cercle. En géométrie, une ellipse est une courbe plane fermée obtenue par l’intersection d’un cône de révolution avec un plan, à condition que celui-ci coupe l'axe de rotation du cône ou du cylindre : c'est une conique d'excentricité strictement comprise entre 0 et 1. On peut également la définir comme le lieu des points dont la somme des distances à deux points fixes, dits foyers, est constante (sa construction par la méthode du jardinier est très simple). Dans la vie courante, l’ellipse est la forme qu'on perçoit en regardant un cercle en perspective, ou la figure formée par l’ombre d'un disque sur une surface plane. On retrouve aussi, en première approximation [ 1 ] , des ellipses dans les trajectoires des corps célestes (planètes, comètes ou satellites arti...
            Read more

            Quarter-circle Tiles

            Image
            up vote 0 down vote favorite I have $99$ identical square tiles, each with a quarter-circle drawn on it like this: [asy] size(1.5cm); draw(Arc((2,0),1,90,180),red+1); draw((0,0)--(2,0)--(2,2)--(0,2)--(0,0)); [/asy] When I arrange the tiles in a $9times 11$ rectangular grid, each with a random orientation, what is the expected value of the number of full circles I form? I think this problem has to do with finding the chance any given 2x2 square has a circle, but I can't find it. expected-value share | cite | improve this question asked Nov 20 at 15:03 6minecraftninja 1 2 ...
            Read more

            Mont Emei

            Image
            Mont Emei.mw-parser-output .entete.map{background-image:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Picto_infobox_map.png")} Vue du sommet Wanfo du mont Emei Géographie Altitude 3 099  m , Wanfo Coordonnées 29° 31′ 11″ nord, 103° 19′ 57″ est Administration Pays   Chine Province Sichuan Ville-préfecture Leshan Géolocalisation sur la carte : Sichuan Mont Emei Géolocalisation sur la carte : Chine Mont Emei modifier   Paysage panoramique du mont Emei, incluant le paysage panoramique du grand Bouddha de Leshan *   Patrimoine mondial de l'UNESCO Passerelle en bois sur le versant ouest Pays   Chine Subdivision Sichuan Type Mixte Critères (iv) (vi) (x) Superficie 15 400 ha Numéro d’identification 779 Zone géographique Asie et Pacifique  ** Année d’inscription 1996 (20 e session) * Descriptif officiel UNESCO ** Classification géog...
            Read more