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.
A perfect tree of mutually generic name interpretations
Statement
Let be a bounded intermediate model in the Solovay collapse, let be the interval collapse from to some , and let and be a -name for a real. Suppose that
In there is a perfect binary tree of -generics containing , mutually generic in every pair of distinct branches, whose -interpretations are pairwise distinct and vary continuously.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: as in the statement and the final collapse extension .
The inaccessible Lévy-collapse setup for Solovay's construction, Size and rank bounds below an inaccessible, and Cardinal effects of collapse and Lévy-collapse forcing: and arise from forcing of size below the inaccessible . The families and have ambient cardinal below and are countable after the remaining Lévy collapse.
Forcing theorem and Monotonicity, density, and decision for forcing: the forcing predicate is definable, and for each fixed bit formula the conditions deciding it are dense. Iterating this density finitely many times gives a dense set of conditions deciding any prescribed finite initial segment of a real name.
The Axiom of Choice: ambient AC enumerates dense sets of and .
Proof
The initial forcing producing and the interval forcing both have size below . Nice names for subsets of and are coded by subsets of a ground set of size below ; strong inaccessibility bounds the collection of those codes below . The remaining Lévy collapse therefore makes and countable in , as asserted in F1. Use F3 to enumerate their dense members and replace each by its downward closure. Recursively assign for . At stage , extend every node into the first one-coordinate open dense sets and every ordered pair of distinct nodes into the first product open dense sets. There are only finitely many requirements at a level: process them successively, strengthening the affected coordinates each time. Downward closure preserves all requirements already met.
Below every there are two extensions forcing incompatible initial segments of . Otherwise, for some , any two decided strings would be compatible. For each length , density of deciding conditions then gives one unique string that can be forced below ; least-string selection makes the sequence definable in from and . Its union is a real , and density closure gives , contradicting the displayed hypothesis, since . Apply this splitting below each node to make siblings decide incompatible strings of length at least , preserving all earlier finite requirements.
For , the filter generated by the branch is , the upward closure in the convention that smaller conditions are stronger. It meets every enumerated dense set and so is -generic. Distinct give an -generic pair by the product requirements, and the incompatible decisions make . Agreement through level fixes an output prefix of length , so is continuous. Compactness makes its injective image perfect and nonempty.
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
23 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
- Solovay 1970, Part III, Lemma 1.6 (standard reference, not scraped)