Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:00:10.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

HYPERCLASS FORCING IN MORSE-KELLEY CLASS THEORY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2017

CAROLIN ANTOS
Affiliation:
UNIVERSITY OF KONSTANZ ZUKUNFTSKOLLEG, PO BOX 216 78457 KONSTANZ, GERMANYE-mail: [email protected]
SY-DAVID FRIEDMAN
Affiliation:
KURT GÖDEL RESEARCH CENTER FOR MATHEMATICAL LOGIC UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA VIENNA, AUSTRIAE-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

In this article we introduce and study hyperclass-forcing (where the conditions of the forcing notion are themselves classes) in the context of an extension of Morse-Kelley class theory, called MK**. We define this forcing by using a symmetry between MK** models and models of ZFC plus there exists a strongly inaccessible cardinal (called SetMK**). We develop a coding between β-models ${\cal M}$ of MK** and transitive models M+ of SetMK** which will allow us to go from ${\cal M}$ to M+ and vice versa. So instead of forcing with a hyperclass in MK** we can force over the corresponding SetMK** model with a class of conditions. For class-forcing to work in the context of ZFC we show that the SetMK** model M+ can be forced to look like LK*[X], where κ* is the height of M+, κ strongly inaccessible in M+ and $X \subseteq \kappa$. Over such a model we can apply definable class forcing and we arrive at an extension of M+ from which we can go back to the corresponding β-model of MK**, which will in turn be an extension of the original ${\cal M}$. Our main result combines hyperclass forcing with coding methods of [3] and [4] to show that every β-model of MK** can be extended to a minimal such model of MK** with the same ordinals. A simpler version of the proof also provides a new and analogous minimality result for models of second-order arithmetic.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Symbolic Logic 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Antos, C., Class forcing in class theory, Proceedings of the JTF Hyperuniverse Project, Birkhäuser, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Abraham, U. and Shelah, S., Forcing closed unbounded sets, this Journal, vol. 48 (1983), no. 3, pp. 643657.Google Scholar
Beller, A., Jensen, R., and Welch, P., Coding the Universe, Lecture Note Series, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982.Google Scholar
Friedman, S., Fine Structure and Class Forcing, de Gruyter Series in Logic and its Applications, vol. 3, Walter de Gruyter, New York, 2000.Google Scholar
Gitman, V. and Hamkins, J. D., Kelley-morse set theory and choice principles for classes, in preparation.Google Scholar
Gitman, V., Hamkins, J., and Johnstone, T. A., What is the theory ZFC without powerset? Mathematical Logic Quarterly, vol. 62 (2016), no. 4–5, pp. 391406.Google Scholar
Holy, P., Krapf, R., Lücke, P., Njegomir, A., and Schlicht, P., Class forcings, the forcing theorem and boolean completions . Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 81 (2016), no. 4, pp. 15001530.Google Scholar
Zarach, A., Unions of ZF-models which are themselves ZF-models, Logic Colloquium ’80 (Prague, 1980) (Van Dalen, D., Lascar, D., and Smiley, T.J., editors), Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 108, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982, pp. 315342.Google Scholar