Countable support iteration

1987 ◽  
pp. 67-72
Author(s):  
Vladimir Kanovei ◽  
Marcin Sabok ◽  
Jindrich Zapletal

2016 ◽  
Vol 81 (2) ◽  
pp. 483-492
Author(s):  
GIORGIO VENTURI

AbstractWe show how to force, with finite conditions, the forcing axiom PFA(T), a relativization of PFA to proper forcing notions preserving a given Suslin tree T. The proof uses a Neeman style iteration with generalized side conditions consisting of models of two types, and a preservation theorem for such iterations. The consistency of this axiom was previously known using a standard countable support iteration and a preservation theorem due to Miyamoto.


2012 ◽  
Vol 75 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jakob Kellner ◽  
Saharon Shelah

AbstractThere is a proper countable support iteration of length ω adding no new reals at finite stages and adding a Sacks real in the limit.


2002 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
pp. 1431-1468 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tadatoshi Miyamoto

AbstractLet T be an ω1-Souslin tree. We show the property of forcing notions; “is {ω1}-semi-proper and preserves T” is preserved by a new kind of revised countable support iteration of arbitrary length. As an application we have a forcing axiom which is compatible with the existence of an ω1 -Souslin tree for preorders as wide as possible.


1984 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 1034-1038 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saharon Shelah

§1. A counterexample and preservation of “proper + X”.Theorem. Suppose V satisfies, , and for some A ⊆ ω1, every B ⊆ ω1, belongs to L[A].Then we can define a countable support iterationsuch that the following conditions hold:a) EachQiis proper and ⊩Pi “Qi, has power ℵ1”.b) Each Qi is -complete for some simple ℵ1-completeness system.c) Forcing with Pα = Lim adds reals.Proof. We shall define Qi by induction on i so that conditions a) and b) are satisfied, and Ci, is a Qi-name of a closed unbounded subset of ω1. Let : ξ < ω1› ∈ L[A] be a list of all functions f which are from δ to δ for some δ < ω1 and let h: ω1 → ω1, h ∈ L[A], be defined by h(α) = Min{β: β > α and Lβ[A]⊨ “∣α∣ = ℵ0”}.Suppose we have defined Qj for every j < i; then Pi is defined, is proper (as each Qj, j < i, is proper, and by III 3.2) and has a dense subset of power ℵ (by III 4.1). Let Gi ⊆ Pi be generic so clearly there is B ⊆ ω1, such that in V[Gi] every subset of ω1 belongs to L[A, B], The following now follows:Fact. In V[Gi], every countableN ⥽(H(ℵ2), ∈, A, B) is isomorphic toLβ[A ∩ δ, B ∩ δ] for some β < h(δ), where δ = δ(N) = ω1, ∩ N.


2009 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jakob Kellner ◽  
Saharon Shelah

AbstractFor f, g ∈ ωω let be the minimal number of uniform g-splitting trees (or: Slaloms) to cover the uniform f-splitting tree, i.e., for every branch v of the f-tree, one of the g-trees contains v. is the dual notion: For every branch v, one of the g-trees guesses v(m) infinitely often.It is consistent that for ℵ1 many pairwise different cardinals κ∊ and suitable pairs (f∊, g∊).For the proof we use creatures with sufficient bigness and halving. We show that the lim-inf creature forcing satisfies fusion and pure decision. We introduce decisiveness and use it to construct a variant of the countable support iteration of such forcings, which still satisfies fusion and pure decision.


2001 ◽  
Vol 66 (4) ◽  
pp. 1865-1883 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chaz Schlindwein

One of the main goals in the theory of forcing iteration is to formulate preservation theorems for not collapsing ω1 which are as general as possible. This line leads from c.c.c. forcings using finite support iterations to Axiom A forcings and proper forcings using countable support iterations to semi-proper forcings using revised countable support iterations, and more recently, in work of Shelah, to yet more general classes of posets. In this paper we concentrate on a special case of the very general iteration theorem of Shelah from [5, chapter XV]. The class of posets handled by this theorem includes all semi-proper posets and also includes, among others, Namba forcing.In [5, chapter XV] Shelah shows that, roughly, revised countable support forcing iterations in which the constituent posets are either semi-proper or Namba forcing or P[W] (the forcing for collapsing a stationary co-stationary subset ofwith countable conditions) do not collapse ℵ1. The iteration must contain sufficiently many cardinal collapses, for example, Levy collapses. The most easily quotable combinatorial application is the consistency (relative to a Mahlo cardinal) of ZFC + CH fails + whenever A ∪ B = ω2 then one of A or B contains an uncountable sequentially closed subset. The iteration Shelah uses to construct this model is built using P[W] to “attack” potential counterexamples, Levy collapses to ensure that the cardinals collapsed by the various P[W]'s are sufficiently well separated, and Cohen forcings to ensure the failure of CH in the final model.In this paper we give details of the iteration theorem, but we do not address the combinatorial applications such as the one quoted above.These theorems from [5, chapter XV] are closely related to earlier work of Shelah [5, chapter XI], which dealt with iterated Namba and P[W] without allowing arbitrary semi-proper forcings to be included in the iteration. By allowing the inclusion of semi-proper forcings, [5, chapter XV] generalizes the conjunction of [5, Theorem XI.3.6] with [5, Conclusion XI.6.7].


1995 ◽  
Vol 92 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 349-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haim Judah ◽  
Miroslav Repický

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document