Structural connections between a forcing class and its modal logic (Q498994): Difference between revisions

Let \(\varphi(q_0,\ldots,q_n)\) be modal propositional formula. In [Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 360, No. 4, 1793--1817 (2008; Zbl 1139.03039)], \textit{J. D. Hamkins} and \textit{B. Löwe} defined \(\varphi(q_0,\ldots,q_n)\) to be a \textit{valid principle of forcing} if for all sentences \(\psi_i\) in the language of set theory, \(\varphi(\psi_i,\ldots,\psi_n)\) holds when the modal operators \(\square\) and \(\lozenge\) are interpreted as ``in all forcing extensions'' and ``in some forcing extension'', respectively. Further, \(\varphi(q_0,\ldots,q_n)\) is said to be a ZFC-\textit{provable principle of forcing} if ZFC proves all substitution instances \(\varphi(\psi_i,\ldots,\psi_n)\). The main theorem of this earlier work is: If ZFC is consistent, then the ZFC-provable principles of forcing are exactly those in the modal theory \(S4.2\). In the current paper, for \(\Gamma\) a definable forcing class the modal operators \(\square\) and \(\lozenge\) are relativized to \(\Gamma\), i.e., \(\square_{\Gamma} \) and \(\lozenge_{\Gamma}\) are interpreted as ``in all \(\Gamma\) forcing extensions'' and ``in some \(\Gamma\) forcing extension'', respectively. For various \(\Gamma\), the authors seek to identify which modal assertions are valid. Here are some sample results (always assuming that ZFC is consistent). The provably valid principles of collapse forcing and Cohen forcing are exactly \(S4.3\). The provably valid principles of c.c.c forcing and proper forcing are contained in \(S4.3\), but do not contain \(S4.2\). These results and others are achieved through the discovery of ``structural connections between a class of forcing notions and the modal logic of forcing to which it gives rise.''