Skip to main content

The Notion of Forcing

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Combinatorial Set Theory

Part of the book series: Springer Monographs in Mathematics ((SMM))

Abstract

In this chapter we present a general technique, called forcing, for extending models of ZFC. The main ingredients to construct such an extension are a model V of ZFC (e.g., \(\mathbf{V} =\boldsymbol{\mathop{ \mathrm{L}}\nolimits }\)), a partially ordered set \(\mathbb{P} = (P,\leq )\) contained in V, as well as a special subset G of P which will not belong to V. The extended model V[G] will then consist of all sets which can be “described” or “named” in V, where the “naming” depends on the set G. The main task will be to prove that V[G] is a model of ZFC as well as to decide (within V) whether a given statement is true or false in a certain extension V[G].

To get an idea of how this is done, think for a moment that there are people living in V. Notice that for these people, V is the unique set-theoretic universe which contains all sets. Now, the key point is that for any statement, these people are in fact able to compute whether the statement is true or false in a particular extension V[G], even though they have almost no information about the set G (in fact, they would actually deny the existence of such a set).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Paul J. Cohen, The independence of the continuum hypothesis I., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (U.S.A.), vol. 50 (1963), 1143–1148.

    Google Scholar 

  2.  _________ , The independence of the continuum hypothesis II., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (U.S.A.), vol. 51 (1964), 105–110.

    Google Scholar 

  3.  _________ , Independence results in set theory, in The Theory of Models, Proceedings of the 1963 International Symposium at Berkeley (J.W. Addison, L. Henkin, and A. Tarski, eds.), [Studies in Logic and the Foundation of Mathematics], North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1965, pp. 39–54.

    Google Scholar 

  4.  _________ , Set Theory and the Continuum Hypothesis, Benjamin, New York, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  5.  _________ , The discovery of forcing, Proceedings of the Second Honolulu Conference on Abelian Groups and Modules (Honolulu, HI, 2001), vol. 32, 2002, pp. 1071–1100.

    Google Scholar 

  6. William B. Easton, Powers of regular cardinals, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 1 (1970), 139–178.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Solomon Feferman, Some applications of the notions of forcing and generic sets, Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 56 (1964/1965), 325–345.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Thomas Jech, Multiple Forcing, [Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Akihiro Kanamori, Cohen and set theory, The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, vol. 14 (2008), 351–378.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kenneth Kunen, Set Theory, an Introduction to Independence Proofs, [Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics 102], North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gregory H. Moore, The origins of forcing, in Logic Colloquium ’86, Proceedings of the Colloquium held in Hull, U.K., July 13–19, 1986 (F.R. Drake and J.K. Truss, eds.), [Studies in Logic and the Foundation of Mathematics 124], North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1988, pp. 143–173.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Halbeisen, L.J. (2017). The Notion of Forcing. In: Combinatorial Set Theory. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60231-8_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics