3
$\begingroup$

Work in $V$. Let $P = \text{Col}(\omega, \omega_1)$ and suppose that $G$ is generic for $P$ over $V$. Then $V[G]\models |\omega_1^V|=\aleph_0$ and $\omega_2^V=\aleph_1$. In particular, $V[G]\models\omega_1^V$ is an ordinal between $\omega$ and $\omega_1^{V[G]}$. What ordinal is it? I would guess that the answer depends on $G$, and the best that we can say is that it is a limit ordinal.

  • 0
    Yes, I was afraid that my question was malformed; I'll try to be clearer. In $V[G]$ I'd like to write $\omega_1^V$ in Cantor normal form. Another way of asking this: if we momentarily forget that we are in a forcing extension, and view $V[G]$ as our universe, what ordinal between $\omega$ and $\omega_1$ was our old $\omega_1$ collapsed to? You wouldn't call it $\omega_1^V$.2012-08-13

1 Answers 1

5

I think that you're missing the point of the Levy collapse.

Forcing [over transitive models] does not add ordinals. It does not remove ordinals either. What the collapse does is to add a bijection between $\omega$ and $\omega_1$.

Note that all the "definable" ordinals ($\varepsilon_0$, etc.) and so are very small, and $\omega_1^V$ is far far beyond them.

And to your comment, yes. In fact this is what we would call it: $\omega_1^V$. If $\alpha$ is a countable ordinal and we know that there is an inner model $M$ in which $\alpha=\omega_1^M$ then we immediately know two things:

  1. $\alpha$ is quite a large countable ordinal; and
  2. $\omega_1^M$ is an excellent way to name it.

In the case of forcing we actually start with the inner model.


For the comment:

  1. Definability is a strong word. If the ground model was $L$, certainly $\omega_1^L$ is a definable ordinal. It is the least ordinal that there is no bijection between him and $\omega$ which satisfies the constructibility axiom. Furthermore, we now know that the ground model is definable with parameters. This means that $\omega_1^V$ is definable from parameters in $V[G]$ by the same trick.

  2. Note that ordinal arithmetics are not changed by forcing. This means that $\omega_1^V$ is an $\varepsilon$ number in $V[G]$ since $\omega^{\omega_1}=\omega_1$ in $V$; furthermore it is a fixed point of $\varepsilon$ numbers, for the same reasons. Namely if $\alpha=\omega_1^V$ then $\alpha=\varepsilon_\alpha$, which in $V$ is the $\omega_1$-th and in $V[G]$ is not.

  3. Since $\omega_1^V$ is an $\varepsilon$ number its Cantor normal form is in fact $\omega_1^V$, so there is no simpler way of writing it.

  • 0
    @Jambalaya: There's nothing I feel that I can point you to. What I wrote here is a collective understanding from a plethora of classes, books, papers, and discussions with people. You can try to begin with Jech and Kunen's books and review some of the parts about definability, and so on.2012-08-13