Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T05:06:35.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

CLASS FORCING, THE FORCING THEOREM AND BOOLEAN COMPLETIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2016

PETER HOLY
Affiliation:
MATH. INSTITUT UNIVERSITÄT BONN ENDENICHER ALLEE 60, 53115 BONN, GERMANYE-mail: [email protected]
REGULA KRAPF
Affiliation:
MATH. INSTITUT UNIVERSITÄT BONN ENDENICHER ALLEE 60, 53115 BONN, GERMANYE-mail: [email protected]
PHILIPP LÜCKE
Affiliation:
MATH. INSTITUT UNIVERSITÄT BONN ENDENICHER ALLEE 60, 53115 BONN, GERMANYE-mail: [email protected]
ANA NJEGOMIR
Affiliation:
MATH. INSTITUT UNIVERSITÄT BONN ENDENICHER ALLEE 60, 53115 BONN, GERMANYE-mail: [email protected]
PHILIPP SCHLICHT
Affiliation:
MATH. INSTITUT UNIVERSITÄT BONN ENDENICHER ALLEE 60, 53115 BONN, GERMANY INSTITUT FÜR MATHEMATISCHE LOGIK UND GRUNDLAGENFORSCHUNG UNIVERSITÄT MÜNSTER EINSTEINSTR. 62, 48149 MÜNSTER, GERMANYE-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

The forcing theorem is the most fundamental result about set forcing, stating that the forcing relation for any set forcing is definable and that the truth lemma holds, that is everything that holds in a generic extension is forced by a condition in the relevant generic filter. We show that both the definability (and, in fact, even the amenability) of the forcing relation and the truth lemma can fail for class forcing.

In addition to these negative results, we show that the forcing theorem is equivalent to the existence of a (certain kind of) Boolean completion, and we introduce a weak combinatorial property (approachability by projections) that implies the forcing theorem to hold. Finally, we show that unlike for set forcing, Boolean completions need not be unique for class forcing.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Symbolic Logic 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Antos, C., Class-Forcing in Class Theory, submitted, arXiv preprint, arXiv:1503.00116, 2015.Google Scholar
Beller, A., Jensen, R., and Welch, P., Coding the Universe, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, vol.47, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, 1982.Google Scholar
Drake, F. R., Set Theory: An Introduction to Large Cardinals. Studies in logic and the foundation of mathematics. vol. 76, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1974.Google Scholar
Enayat, A., Models of set theory with definable ordinals . Archive for Mathematical Logic, vol. 44 (2005), no. 3, pp. 363385.Google Scholar
Friedman, S. D., Fine Structure and Class Forcing, de Gruyter Series in Logic and its Applications, vol. 3, Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 2000.Google Scholar
Gitman, V., Hamkins, J. D., and Johnstone, T. A., What is the theory ZFC without power set? Mathematical Logic Quarterly, to appear.Google Scholar
Holy, P., Krapf, R., and Schlicht, P., Characterisations of Pretameness and the Ord-cc, submitted.Google Scholar
Holy, P., Krapf, R., and Schlicht, P., Separation in Class Forcing Extensions, submitted.Google Scholar
Hamkins, J. D., Linetsky, D., and Reitz, J., Pointwise definable models of set theory , this Journal, vol. 78 (2013), no. 1, pp. 139156.Google Scholar
Kunen, K., Set Theory, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 102, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1980.Google Scholar
[11] Owen, R., Outer Model Theory and the Definability of Forcing , Ph.D thesis, 2008.Google Scholar
Stanley, M. C., Outer models and genericity , this Journal, vol. 68 (2003), no. 2, pp. 389418.Google Scholar
Zarach, A., Forcing with proper classes . Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 81 (1973), no. 1, pp. 127.Google Scholar