How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Schema of continuity in the basic Cohen model
Statement
Let , let be the forcing in The basic Cohen symmetric system, and let be -generic. Define exactly when some has , and put . Let be a finite tuple, let be injective, put , and fix a formula . If
then there are pairwise disjoint basic clopen sets , with , such that
whenever and for every .
Consequently, if finitely many parameters are ordinal-definable in from and a fixed finite tuple of distinct members of , they may be held fixed while a finite tuple of distinct members of , disjoint from , is varied through pairwise disjoint basic clopen neighbourhoods which also avoid . Here “ordinal-definable from ” means unique definability using the predicate , the tuple , and finitely many ordinal parameters, in the coded sense of Ordinal definability and HOD.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The ZF forcing extension, tuples, formula, and displayed truth in the Statement. Existence of the particular generic is a hypothesis. Once it and the finite tuples are fixed, the argument below makes only finitely many explicit extensions and permutations; no form of Choice is used.
The basic Cohen symmetric system gives the finite-coordinate forcing and the action , .
The Cohen reals form a symmetric set but their enumeration is not symmetric gives that the coordinate reals are distinct.
Forcing theorem and Monotonicity, density, and decision for forcing give the truth lemma, persistence, and density closure used below.
Symmetry lemma for forcing automorphisms transports forced formulas under finite permutations of the first coordinate.
Ordinal definability and HOD supplies coded unique definitions from ordinal parameters.
Proof
If , take the empty family of clopens: there is one empty tuple, and the conclusion is the given truth. Assume . By the truth lemma choose which forces , where . It is enough to show that below every such there is a condition forcing the asserted clopen-box conclusion, because density closure and the truth lemma then put that conclusion in .
Extend to a condition and choose so that , , and the rows are pairwise distinct for . This is a finite construction: first enlarge the rectangle, then give each pair of rows a fresh column on which their bits differ. Put . The are pairwise disjoint because their defining binary strings are incompatible, and forces .
Suppose, towards a contradiction, that some forces that a tuple lies in but fails . By finitely many applications of the membership forcing clause and density, strengthen so that for a ground-model map . The disjointness of the and F2 make injective. Moreover, if , then and give ; the pairwise distinct rows imply . Thus every lies outside .
Let interchange and whenever they differ and fix every other coordinate. The transpositions are disjoint by the last conclusion of step 2.1. The symmetry lemma gives
because , while check names and are fixed. On every row below not in , agrees with and hence with . On row , the part of below column is the old -row of , which equals because forced . Since has domain , and are compatible. [F1, F4, step 2.1]
A common extension of and would force both , by persistence from , and its negation, by step 3.1. This is impossible. Hence forces that every tuple from in the displayed clopen box satisfies . Since such a is available below every forcing the original instance, step 1.1 and density closure prove the first assertion in .
For the consequence, choose fixed formulas and ordinal parameters which uniquely define the finitely many supported parameters from . Replace their occurrences in the desired assertion by those definitions and conjoin uniqueness. Apply the first assertion to the concatenated tuple . Keep the coordinates belonging to at their original values and retain only the clopens belonging to . All clopens in the larger box are pairwise disjoint, so the retained ones avoid ; unique definability restores the fixed parameters after every permitted substitution. The construction is finite and makes no choice from an arbitrary family.
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
20 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Miroslav Repický, A proof of the independence of the Axiom of Choice from the Boolean Prime Ideal Theorem, Lemma 2 and Corollary 3, pp.543-545 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Thomas Jech, The Axiom of Choice, Theorem 7.1 and surrounding discussion, printed pp.97-98 (standard reference, not scraped)