Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: Literature-sourcedPipeline-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.

PFA implies the P-ideal dichotomy

Statement

In ZFC, PFA implies PID: every P-ideal of countable subsets of an arbitrary set satisfies one of the two alternatives in the P-ideal dichotomy.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: PFA and a P-ideal I⊆[S]≤ω.

[F1]

PFA supplies a filter meeting at most ω1 dense sets in every proper forcing. The Proper Forcing Axiom

[F2]

The P-ideal property supplies modulo-finite pseudounions, and PID's two conclusions are an uncountable Z with all countable subsets in I or a countable cover by sets orthogonal to I. P-ideals, PID, the pseudointersection number, and S-spaces

[F3]

A model-generic condition forces the model-generic intersection and the ground/ordinal trace properties used below. Master-condition characterizations

[A1]

AC supplies simultaneous P-ideal bounds, well-ordered elementary models, finite-chain choices, names, and the omega-one recursions. The Axiom of Choice

Proof

1.1F2A1Given

Fix a large regular θ. For every countable X⊆I, use F2 and A1 to fix IX∈I with a⊆∗IX for all a∈X, and put IN=IN∩I for a countable N≺Hθ. Define QI as follows. A condition p=(Zp,Np) has finite Zp⊆S and a finite membership-chain Np of countable elementary submodels containing I; distinct points of Zp are separated by some N∈Np; and if N∈Np and X∈N∩I⊥, then X∩Zp⊆N. Put p≤q when Zq⊆Zp, Nq⊆Np, and (Zp∖Zq)∩N⊆IN for every N∈Nq. These clauses are preserved by extension and make the empty pair a greatest condition.

2.1F2F3A1step 1.1

We verify properness, including the combinatorial compatibility step. Let M be suitable, p0∈QI∩M, and add N=M∩Hθ to its side chain; the result q is a condition below p0. Fix once and for all the well-order of Hθ carried by the elementary structure. For a condition u and a model K∈Nu, define the condition trace u↾K=(Zu∩K,Nu∩K), and enumerate the finite set Zu∖K in the fixed well-order, writing tu,K∈S∣Zu∖K∣ for the resulting tuple. It suffices by F3 to take r≤q and dense D∈M, first strengthen r into D, and then find a member of D∩M compatible with this strengthening; rename the strengthened condition r. Put r0=r↾N and n=∣Zr∖N∣. By elementarity, restrict D to the conditions s carrying a distinguished Ns∈Ns such that s↾Ns=r0 and ∣Zs∖Ns∣=n; the witnesses for r are Nr=N and tr,N. Let T={ts,Ns:s∈D}⊆Sn and let J be the sigma-ideal generated by I⊥. For U⊆Sn, let ∂U retain the tuples u for which, at every coordinate k<n, the fibre of possible kth entries above u↾k is J-positive. The derivative claim in Moore's cited tutorial says that T′=∂nT is a nonempty J+-splitting member of M and contains the external tuple tr,N. Its finite induction uses the membership chain and clause 4 of the forcing: if tr,N first disappeared, the least bad fibre's countable I⊥ decomposition, coded in the relevant side model, would put one of the corresponding outside points of Zr in a member of I⊥ from that model, contrary to clause 4. In particular, this claim does not assume that tr,N itself belongs to M. Starting with the empty tuple, choose successively in M an initial segment extendible in T′. Its next-coordinate set C∈M is not in J, hence is not orthogonal to I; elementarity gives an infinite H∈I∩M with H⊆C. For every one of the finitely many outer models P∈Nr∖M, membership-chain coherence gives H∈P∩I, so H⊆∗IP. Choose the next coordinate in H∩⋂P∈Nr∖MIP. After n choices, elementarity supplies s∈D∩M whose tuple ts,Ns is the chosen one, and hence Zs∖Ns is contained in every IP. Then (Zs∪Zr,Ns∪Nr) is a common extension. Thus q is an (M,QI)-master and QI is proper.

3.1F2F3A1step 2.1

If S is a countable union of members of I⊥, PID's second alternative holds. Otherwise choose a suitable countable M and x∈S∖⋃(M∩I⊥). Then q=({x},{M∩Hθ}) is a condition and, by step 2.1, an M-master. For a QI-generic G containing q, set Z˙=⋃p∈G˙Zp and N˙=⋃p∈G˙Np. The master condition forces Z˙ uncountable: if an M-name enumerated it countably, F3 would put all of its ground points in M, contrary to x∈Z˙∖M. Properness gives the ground-model countable-covering property by the same master-name argument, so every countable subset of Z˙ is contained in some side model N∈N˙. The order clause gives N∩Z˙⊆∗IN, and therefore N∩Z˙∈I. Hence q forces every countable subset of Z˙ to lie in I.

4.1F1F2A1step 3.1∎

Work in the proper cone QI↾q. Choose names f˙:ω1→Z˙ and g˙:ω1→I such that q forces f˙ injective and f˙‘‘ξ⊆g˙(ξ) for every ξ<ω1; step 3.1 supplies them. For each ξ, the set Dξ of conditions deciding both values is dense. By F1 there is a filter meeting all Dξ. Compatibility within the filter makes the decided values coherent, producing in the ground universe an injection f:ω1→S and g:ω1→I with f‘‘ξ⊆g(ξ). Put Z=f‘‘ω1. If a⊆Z is countable, the set of its f-indices is bounded by some ξ<ω1, so a⊆f‘‘ξ⊆g(ξ)∈I and downward closure gives a∈I. Thus Z witnesses PID's first alternative. Together with the first sentence of step 3.1, this proves PID. AC is used exactly through A1 and the stated ZFC suppliers.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

17 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