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 supercompact cardinal can be forced to give PFA
Statement
If is supercompact, the Laver-guided countable-support iteration forces PFA and , while preserving and ZFC.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A ZFC ground universe with a supercompact cardinal . Generic filters used in the semantic proof are supplied in common outer universes; none is asserted to exist inside its ground model.
PFA asks for a filter meeting every family of at most dense subsets of each nonempty proper partial order. The Proper Forcing Axiom
A supercompact cardinal has a Laver anticipation function. Existence of a Laver function at a supercompact
The Laver-guided iteration is proper, preserves , forces , and an embedding anticipating a forced-proper name factors its image as . Size, collapse, and factorization for the PFA iteration
Set-forcing extensions of ZFC models satisfy ZFC. Generic extensions satisfy ZF and preserve ground-model Choice
Forcing is definable formula by formula and satisfies the truth lemma and, when the stated outer generics are available, its semantic characterization. Forcing theorem
The bookkeeping iteration uses the anticipated name exactly when the preceding stage forces that it is a nonempty proper order with a greatest condition. Laver-guided proper bookkeeping iteration
AC supplies the ground well-orders and the set-sized selections of names, bounds, and embeddings used below. The Axiom of Choice
Proof
By F2 fix a Laver function and form as in F6. By F3 this forcing is proper, preserves , and forces . Let be arbitrary -generic. F4 gives . It remains to prove PFA in this arbitrary extension.
Work in . Fix a nonempty proper partial order and a family of dense subsets, where . If , any generates a filter and there is nothing to meet. Suppose and repeat to regard the family as an -sequence. Choose ground names for these objects. By F5 there is forcing that is proper and that is an -sequence of dense subsets of it. Restrict every coefficient of below and adjoin a new greatest condition, obtaining a name . In a generic containing its value is with that new top; in a generic on the incompatible side its value is the one-condition order. Adding a top preserves properness: an old condition uses a -master, while below the new top a countable model containing the nonempty contains an old condition and a -master below it. The set of conditions below or incompatible with is dense, so F5 shows that forces to be nonempty, proper, and to have a greatest condition. In the actual extension every remains dense in .
Choose a cardinal large enough for the names in step 2.1 and all restrictions of the desired embedding to them. Laver anticipation and supercompactness give a correspondingly closed with critical point and . By step 2.1 and F6 the image iteration uses at stage , and F3 gives in a tail name and a canonical dense factorization
By the outer-universe convention in Given, take generic over , followed by an -generic , all in a common outer universe. Under the factorization let . Every condition of has countable, hence bounded, support in ; the canonical first factor therefore sends it into , so . Define If two -names have the same -value, F5 gives a condition of forcing their equality; its image belongs to , so F5 in makes the displayed definition independent of the name. The same argument, applied to a formula or its negation, proves formula-by-formula that is elementary and extends .
Enumerate in the transitive closure of the name below the closure bound chosen in step 3.1. Closure puts the pointwise image of that enumeration in , and evaluating it with and constructs the set restriction in . There form the upward-closed filter generated by . It is directed because is directed and preserves the order. Since , For every , genericity gives , and . Thus satisfies that a filter on meets every member of the image sequence. Elementarity of reflects the existential assertion to a filter on in meeting every . Because the sequence is nonempty and every lies in , is nonempty; it is upward closed in , and any common extension in of two of its members lies in , not at the newly adjoined greatest condition. Hence is the required filter on .
The choice of and its dense family in was arbitrary, including the empty-family case, so F1 and step 5.1 give . Since was an arbitrary generic, F5 yields . Step 1.1 and F3 give preservation of and , while F4 gives preservation of ZFC. All uses of Choice are those declared in A1; the outer generics facilitate the semantic argument and are not claimed to be elements of .
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
38 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
- Cummings, Iterated Forcing and Elementary Embeddings, Theorem 24.11, pp.99-101 (standard reference, not scraped)