Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

3

Let M be a transitive model, and let I and J be uncountable sets (with respect to M ). Let P = Fn(I, 2), and let Q = Fn(J, 2). We will show that they force precisely the same statements. Lemma. If |I| = |J| in M , then for any formula (x) and any ordinal M , 1 and only if 1 P (( )L(P()) )
P

(( )L(P()) ) if

Proof. Since I and J are in bijection in M , Fn(I, 2) Fn(J, 2) in M , using the bijection. Thus, the = isomorphic image of 1P (which is clearly 1Q ) proves the same statements. Lemma. If |I| |J| in M , let H be F n(I, J, 1 )M -generic over M . If G is then P-generic over M [H] (noting that the denition of P is absolute for transitive models containing I) then P() M [H][G] = P() M [G]. Proof. Fix X ; we show X M [H][G] if and only if X M [G]. The left direction is clear; if X M [G], then for M P , G = X. But then M Fn(I,J,1 ) and H = , so (H )G = X M [H][G]. This does not use the fact that X , and in fact shows that M [G] M [H][G]. For the converse, let X M [H][G], so there is M [H]P where G = X. We dene a function f : P(P), where f (n) = {p P : p n }. Then f is a countable function, so f M , by the 1 -closure of Fn(I, J, 1 ). Now, in M , dene the P-word = {( , p) : n p f (n)}. We argue that G = X, so X M [G]. n So, if n X, then n G , so there is p G such that p n . Then p f (n), so ( , p) , so n p n , so n G . Conversely, if n G , then for some p G, ( , p) , so p f (n), so p n , n so since p G, n G , so n X. Thus G = X. Lemma. The above lemma, but for Q. That is, if |I| |J| in M , let H be F n(I, J, 1 )M -generic over M . If G is then Q-generic over M [H] (noting that the denition of Q is absolute for transitive models containing J) then P() M [H][G ] = P() M [G ]. Proof. This is fundamentally the same as the above; we can simply replace all instances of G in the above with G , and P with Q, noting we did not use any properties at all of either, except that they are partial orders. Theorem. For any uncountable I and J in M , let P = Fn(I, 2), and let Q = Fn(J, 2). Then for any formula (x) and any ordinal M , 1 P (( )L(P()) ) if and only if 1 P (( )L(P()) ). Proof. For clarity of notation in the following, assume |I| |J| in M , and let H be (Fn(I, J, 1 ))M generic over M . Let G be P-generic over M [H], and let G be Q-generic over M [H]. First, we note that because of E2 and E1, every statement (with no words) is either forced by 1 to be true, or forced by 1 to be false, over P or Q. Thus, 1 P ()L(P()) if and only if ( )L(P()) holds in some forcing extension over P, and likewise for Q. Next, we note that the D operation is absolute for transitive models, so if M N are both transitive models where o(M ) = o(N ) and X M , then (L(X))M = (L(X))N = L(o(M ), X). In particular, by the second and third lemmas, (L(P()))M [G] = (L(P()))M [H][G] and (L(P()))M [G ] = (L(P()))M [H][G ] . Finally, using the rst lemma, we note that since |I| = |J| in M [H], forcing over either from M [H] yields the same results (about any sentence with no words, in fact, but in particular about our intended sentence). This is enough to yield the following chain of equivalences: 1 P,M (()L(P()) ) i M [G] |= ( )L(P()) i |= ()L(o(M ),P()M [G]) i M [H][G] |= ( )L(P()) i 1 P,M [H] (( )L(P()) ) i 1 Q,M [H] (( )L(P()) ) i M [H][G ] |= ( )L(P()) L(o(M ),P()M [G ]) i |= () i M [G ] |= ( )L(P()) i 1 Q,M (( )L(P()) ) 1

Some of which are probably too trivial to write out. Fundamentally, if we pre-force over Fn(I, J, 1 )M , it doesnt change the result of forcing over P or Q with respect to our (wordless) sentence, but it does put I and J in bijection (since it adds a surjection I J, in addition to the injection that was in M ), and thus puts P and Q in isomorphism, so that they yield the same results. Thus we go up, over, and down, without changing anything, so they yield the same results.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi