Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedaudited 2026-09-14
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.

Proper iteration master-condition lemma

Statement

Let ⟨Pξ,Q˙ξ:ξ<α⟩ be a countable-support iteration such that every preceding stage forces Q˙ξ proper. Let M≺(Hλ,∈,<) be countable and contain the iteration. Suppose γ∈M∩(α+1), q0∈Pγ is (M,Pγ)-generic, and the Pγ-name p˙ satisfies

q0⊩Pγp˙∈Pα∩M and p˙↾γ∈G˙γ.

Then there is an (M,Pα)-generic q∈Pα such that q↾γ=q0 and q⊩Pαp˙∈G˙α.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: ZFC and all iteration, model, name, and genericity hypotheses in the statement.

[F1]

Countable-support iterations use two-step successors, supplied top names, and inverse limits of countably supported coherent conditions. Countable-support forcing iterations

[F2]

A condition is model-generic exactly when it forces ordinal-name values, or equivalently generic intersections with dense sets, to remain in the model. Master-condition characterizations

[F3]

Two-step generics factor into a first-stage generic and a quotient generic, and conversely. Generic factorization and ccc preservation for two-step iterations

[F4]

The forcing theorem supplies definability of forcing and the truth lemma for all formulas and names used in the recursion. Forcing theorem

[F5]

Transfinite induction applies to the iteration length. Transfinite induction

[F6]

A countable union of countable sets is countable under countable Choice. Countable unions of at most countable sets, assuming ACω

[A1]

AC supplies well-ordered elementary structures, enumerations of dense sets and model ordinals, and the recursive name/condition choices. The Axiom of Choice

Proof

1.1F1F5GivenbaseIH

We prove the displayed extension property by transfinite induction on α. At α=γ take q=q0: the hypothesis already says q0 forces p˙∈G˙γ. Assume as induction hypothesis that the property holds at every smaller iteration length.

1.2F4A1

We record the name-selection argument used below. Suppose u forces that there is a set x satisfying a fixed formula φ(x). By the existential forcing clause, the conditions below u that force φ(x˙) for some name x˙ are dense below u. Use A1 to choose a maximal antichain A of such conditions and, for each a∈A, one witness name x˙a. The usual mixed name x˙=⋃a∈A(x˙a↾a) agrees with x˙a below a. Thus the conditions forcing φ(x˙) are dense below u, and the forcing definition gives u⊩φ(x˙). This derives the needed maximum principle from the forcing clauses and AC rather than attributing it to F4.

2.1F2F3F4A1IHstep 1.1step 1.2

Let α=β+1. Apply the induction hypothesis at β to obtain an (M,Pβ)-generic qβ extending q0 and forcing p˙↾β∈G˙β. In a Pβ-extension containing qβ, the last coordinate p(β) belongs to M[Gβ]∩Qβ. Since Qβ is proper there, choose an (M[Gβ],Qβ)-master qβ∗ below it, and apply step 1.2 to choose a name for this condition. By F3, (qβ,q˙β∗) forces p˙ into the two-step generic. It is (M,Pβ+1)-generic: for any ordinal-valued Pβ+1-name in M, the quotient master forces its value into M[Gβ], and the first-stage master then forces that ground ordinal into M; F2 applies. This gives the successor case.

2.2F1F2F4A1IHstep 1.1step 1.2

Now let α be limit. The case γ=α was settled at step 1.1, so assume γ<α and put ρ=sup⁡(M∩α). Choose an increasing sequence ⟨γn:n<ω⟩ from M∩(α+1) with γ0=γ and supremum ρ, and enumerate the dense subsets of Pα in M as ⟨Dn:n<ω⟩. Recursively construct (M,Pγn)-generic qn and Pγn-names p˙n, beginning with the given pair, so that qn+1↾γn=qn and qn forces: pn∈Pα∩M; pn≤pn−1 and pn∈Dn−1 for n>0; and pn↾γn∈Gγn. For the recursive step, work in a Pγn-generic extension containing qn and resolve pn∈Pα∩M. In the ground model define E={u∈Pγn:u⊥pn↾γn or (∃r≤pn) [r∈Dn & u≤r↾γn]}. The set E belongs to M and is dense: below a condition compatible with pn↾γn, first take a common extension, paste it to the tail of pn, and then strengthen the resulting Pα-condition into Dn. Since qn is an (M,Pγn)-master, the generic meets E∩M. Its member cannot take the incompatible alternative because pn↾γn is in the same generic. Elementarity therefore supplies pn+1∈Dn∩M below pn whose restriction lies in the generic. Apply step 1.2 to name that choice, then apply the induction hypothesis at γn+1<α to obtain qn+1.

3.1F1F4F6A1step 2.2

Define q on ρ by q=⋃nqn and fill every coordinate in [ρ,α) with its supplied top name. This is a condition: the equalities qn+1↾γn=qn make the union a coherent function, and F6 makes its support, a subset of ⋃nsupp⁡(qn), countable. This is the only fusion operation; no coordinatewise lower bound in an arbitrary proper iterand is used. To check what q forces, take any Pα-generic G containing it and resolve the names pn. For k≥n, the construction and truth lemma give pn↾γk∈Gγk. Also pn∈M, so the countable set supp⁡(pn) belongs to M and is a subset of M∩α⊆ρ; hence pn↾ρ=pn. The inverse-limit generic is determined on a condition by these cofinal projections, so pn∈Gρ⊆Gα. Thus q forces pn∈Gα for every n, in particular p0=p.

4.1F2F5F6A1step 1.1step 2.1step 3.1discharge-induction: step 1.1step 2.1step 3.1∎

Step 3.1 shows that q forces pn+1∈Dn∩M∩Gα for every n, so every Dn∩M is predense below q; F2 makes q (M,Pα)-generic. Its restriction to γ0 is q0, and step 3.1 gives q⊩p˙∈G˙α. The base, successor, and limit cases exhaust the induction, so the lemma holds for every α. AC is used exactly in A1, including the countable-support union through F6.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

30 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