\lecture{23}{2024-01-25}{Negation of CH is consistent to ZFC} \begin{goal} We want to construct a model of $\ZFC$ such that $2^{\aleph_0} \ge \aleph_2$. % = ? \end{goal} Let $M$ be a countable transitive model of $\ZFC$. Suppose that $M \models \CH$ (otherwise we are done). Let $\alpha = \omega_2^M$. Let $\bC(\alpha) \coloneqq \{p : p\colon \alpha \to \bC \text{ is a function such that } \{\xi < \alpha : p(\xi) \neq \emptyset\} \text{ is finite} \}$, ordered by $p \le_{\bC(\alpha)} q$ iff $p(\xi) \le_{\bC} q(\xi)$ for all $\xi < \alpha$. Recall that $\bC$ is the set of finite sequences of natural numbers ordered by $p \le_{\bC} q$ iff $p \supseteq q$. Let $g $ be $\bC(\alpha)$-generic over $M$. For $\xi < \alpha$ let $x_\xi = \bigcup \{ p(\xi) : p \in g\}$. We have already seen that $x_\xi\colon \omega \to \omega$ is a function and $x_\xi \neq x_\eta$ for $\xi \neq \eta$. We have $M[g] \models\ZFC$.\footnote{We only handwaved this step.} As $g \in M[g]$, we have $\langle x_\xi : \xi < \alpha\rangle \in M[g]$. Therefore $M[g] \models \text{``$2^{\aleph_0} \ge \alpha$''}$. Also $\alpha = \omega_2^M$. However the proof is not finished yet, since we need to make sure, that $M[g]$ does not collapse cardinals. We only have $M[g] \models 2^{\aleph_0} \ge \aleph_2^M$, i.e.~we need to see $\aleph_2^{M[g]} = \aleph_2^M$. \begin{claim} Every cardinal of $M$ is still a cardinal of $M[g]$. \end{claim} This suffices, because then $\aleph_0^M = \aleph_0^{M[g]}$, $\aleph_1^M = \aleph_1^{M[g]}$, $\aleph_2^{M}= \aleph_2^{M[g]}$, $\ldots$ \begin{definition} Let $(\bP, \le )$ be a partial order. We say that $\bP$ has the \vocab{countable chain condition} (\vocab{c.c.c.})% \footnote{it should really be the ``countable antichain condition''} iff there is no uncountable antichain, i.e.~every uncountable $V \subseteq \bP$ contains compatible $p \neq q$. \end{definition} We shall prove: \begin{claim} \label{l23:c:1} For all $\beta$, $\bC(\beta)$ has the c.c.c. \end{claim} \begin{claim} \label{l23:c:2} If $\bP \in M$ and $M \models \text{`` $\bP$ has the c.c.c.''}$ and $h$ is generic over $M$, then all $M$-cardinals are still $M[h]$ cardinals. \footnote{Being a cardinal is $\Pi_1$, so $M[h]$ cardinals are always $M$ cardinals.} \end{claim} \begin{yarefproof}{l23:c:2} Suppose not. Let $\kappa$ be minimal such that $M \models \text{``$\kappa$ is a cardinal''}$, but $M[h] \models \text{``$\kappa$ is not a cardinal''}$. Then $\kappa = (\lambda^+)^M$ for some unique $M$-cardinal $\lambda < \kappa$. By minimality, $\lambda$ is also an $M[h]$-cardinal. Let $f \in M[h]$ be such that $M[h] \models \text{``$f$ is a surjection from $\lambda$ onto $\kappa$''}$. There is a name $\tau \in M^{\bP}$ with $\tau^h = f$. We then have some $p \in h$ with $p \Vdash_M^\bP \text{``$\tau$ is a surjection from $\check{\lambda}$ onto $\check{\kappa}$''}$. Let $\xi < \lambda$. Consider $X_\xi \coloneqq \{\eta < \kappa: \exists q \le_{\bP} p .~q \Vdash \tau(\check{\xi}) = \check{\eta}\} \in M$. $X_\xi$ is countable in $M$ by the following argument (in $M$): For every $\eta \in X_\xi$, let $q_\eta \le p$ be such that $q_\xi \Vdash^{\bP}_M \tau(\check{\xi}) = \check{\eta}$. The set $\{q_\eta : \eta \in X_\xi\}$ is an antichain as for $\eta_1 \neq \eta_2$ we have that $q_{\eta_i} \Vdash \tau(\check{\xi}) = \check{\eta_i}$, so they are not compatible. So $\{q_\eta : \eta \in X_\xi\}$ is countable by the c.c.c. Thus $X_\xi$ is countable. Therefore we may define a function in $M$ \begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{rCl} F\colon \lambda \times \omega &\longrightarrow & \kappa \end{IEEEeqnarray*} such that for all $\xi < \lambda$ \[ \{F(\xi,n) : n < \omega\} = X_\xi. \] $F$ is surjective since $f$ is surjective: For $\eta < \kappa$, there is some $\xi < \lambda$ such that $M[h] \models \text{``$f(\xi) = \eta$''}$, there is some $\overline{q} \in h$ with $\overline{q} \Vdash ^{\bP}_M \tau(\check{\xi}) = \check{\eta}$. Pick $q \le \overline{q},p$. This shows $\eta \in X_\xi$ hence $\eta = F(\xi, n)$ for some $n$. But $|\lambda \times \omega| = |\lambda| = \lambda$, so in $M$ there is a surjection $F' \colon \lambda \to \kappa$, but $\kappa$ is a cardinal in $M$ $\lightning$. \end{yarefproof} \begin{yarefproof}{l23:c:1} Omitted. % TODO combinatorial argument \end{yarefproof}