Study of Different Methods of Introducing Forcing

Golshani, Mohammad; Etesami, Omid; Mohsenipour, Shahram

doi:10.30465/lsj.2019.5266

Study of Different Methods of Introducing Forcing

Document Type : Review

Authors

Mohammad Golshani ¹

Omid Etesami ²

Shahram Mohsenipour ²

¹ Faculty member, School of Mathematics, Institute for Research in Fundamental Science (IPM).

² Faculty Member , School of Mathematics, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM)

https://doi.org/10.30465/lsj.2019.5266

Abstract

Cohen’s method of forcing is one of the main tools in set theory for constructing models of ZFC. In this paper, we consider different methods of introducing forcing, and show that they are all equivalent. First we introduce the method of forcing using partial orders and state some of its basic properties. Then we consider the method of Boolean-valued models and show that it is equivalent to the first approach using partial orders. We do this by showing that each forcing notion can densely be embedded into a complete Boolean algebra. Then we introduce the topological approach to forcing and compare it with the partial order approach to forcing. We show that the forcing relation defined in a topological manner is the same as the forcing relation defined using partial orders and hence these two methods are essentially identical. Finally we consider the categorical approach to forcing and compare it with the method of Boolean-valued models. We show that for a given complete Boolean algebra, the category of sheaves over it is essentially the same as the Boolean-valued model constructed using that Boolean algebra.

Keywords

Forcing

Boolean valued models

Generic Filter

Category

Bell, J. L. (1985), Boolean-valued Models and Independence Proofs in Set Theory, Second Edition, With a Foreword by Dana Scott, Oxford Logic Guides, 12, New York: The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press.

Blass, Andreas and Andre Scedrov (1989), “Freyd's Models for the Independence of the Axiom of Choice”, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., vol. 79, no. 404.

Cohen, Paul J. (1966), Set Theory and the Continuum Hypothesis, New York, Amsterdam: W. A. Benjamin, Inc.

Jech, Thomas (1978), Set Theory, Pure and Applied Mathematics, New York, London: Academic Press [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers].

Kunen, Kenneth (1980), Set Theory, An Introduction to Independence Proofs, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 102, Amsterdam, New York: North-Holland Publishing Co.

Mostowski, A. (1969), Constructible Sets with Applications.Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co., Warsaw: PWN-Polish Scientific Publishers.

Shoenfield, J. R. (1967), “Unramified forcing Axiomatic Set Theory”, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., vol. XIII, Part I, Univ. California, Los Angeles, Calif.

Tierney, Myles Sheaf (1971), “Theory and the Continuum Hypothesis”, in: Toposes, Algebraic Geometry and Logic, Conf., Dalhousie Univ., Halifax, N.S), Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 274, Springer, Berlin.