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.
Generic factorization and ccc preservation for two-step iterations
Statement
In ZFC, a -generic factors as a -generic and -generic with , and conversely is generic. If is ccc and is ccc, then is ccc.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: AC, a two-step iteration in a transitive ground model, and the stated chain hypotheses for the last clause.
Two-step forcing iterations fixes the set-sized order and, under AC, supplies a bounded-carrier name forced equal below any condition to an arbitrary local name for a member of .
Forcing theorem supplies name evaluation and the truth lemma; Forcing relation for all formulas supplies the existential and negation clauses, Atomic forcing relation supplies atomic membership, and Monotonicity, density, and decision for forcing supplies dense decisions and density closure.
Chain conditions preserve high cofinalities and ccc preserves cardinals preserves through ccc forcing.
Forcing preserves ordinals says each ordinal of a generic extension is a ground ordinal.
Proof
From put and . Preimages of ground dense subsets of are dense in the iteration, so is generic. If is dense in , the forcing theorem produces below each pair a name for a second-coordinate extension in ; [F1] replaces that local name by a forced-equal name in the set carrier . The resulting pairs are dense, and meeting them proves generic over .
Conversely, for generics take the filter generated by pairs in the restricted iteration with and . Every quotient condition has a name occurring in , or a locally forced-equal representative in by [F1], so the same dense-set translation meets every ground dense subset of . Recursive evaluation of names first by and then by proves .
Suppose were an antichain and put . We prove syntactically that forces the map from into to have pairwise incompatible, hence distinct, values. Otherwise some forces distinct and a common -extension of their values. The forcing membership clause lets us strengthen below and ; the existential clause of [F2] then supplies a further condition and a name with . By [F1], replace below by a forced-equal . Then belongs to the restricted iteration and extends both members of , a contradiction. Thus injects into a -antichain. Since is ccc, is countable.
Because is ccc, [F3] preserves the ground regular . Hence is bounded below . The forcing existential clause supplies, densely below any condition, a name for such a bound; F4 says that bound is a ground ordinal, and the check-name membership clause then densely decides the name equal to some ground with . Thus is dense. Choose a maximal antichain ; it is countable by ccc of . For each choose a ground bound , and put . Predensity of and the forcing negation clause give . But the definition of gives for every , contradicting the bound when . Therefore is ccc. AC supplies the antichain indexing, the maximal antichain , and its bound choices; no external generic is used. [F1, F2, F3, F4] ∎
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
- Karagila, Forcing & Symmetric Extensions, Theorems 6.4 and 6.9 (standard reference, not scraped)