Our context is the study of
-models of subsystems of second
order arithmetic [5, Chapter VIII]. As in [5, Chapter
VII], a
-model is an
-model M such
that, for all
sentences
with parameters from
M,
is true if and only if
.
Theorems
1.1 and 1.3 below are an interesting
supplement to the results on
-models which have been presented
in Simpson [5, §§VII.2 and VIII.6].
Let
HYP denote the set of hyperarithmetical reals. It is well
known that, for any
-model M,
HYP is properly included in
M, and each
is definable in M.
Proof.Fix a recursive enumeration Se,
,
of the
sets of reals. If p is a finite subset of
,
say that
meets p if
for all
.
Let
be the set of p such that
there exists
meeting p. Put
if and only if
.
Say that
is dense if for all
there exists
such that
.
Say that
is definable if it is definable over
the
-model
HYP, i.e., arithmetical in the complete
subset of
.
Say that
is generic if for every dense
definable
there exists
such that
meets p. We can show that for every
there exists a generic
meeting p. (This is a fusion argument, a la Gandy forcing.)
Clearly
is a
-model. We can also show
that, if C is countable and
,
then there
exists a generic
such that
.
Let
be the language of
second order arithmetic with additional set constants Xn,
.
Let
be a sentence of
.
We say that p forces
,
written
,
if for all generic
meeting p, the
-model
satisfies
.
It can be shown that, for all
generic
,
the
-model
satisfies
if and only if
meets some p such that
.
If
is a permutation of
,
define an action of
on
and
by
and
.
It is
straightforward to show that
if and only if
.
The support of
is
defined by
.
Clearly if
and
,
then
.
We claim that if
and
are generic, then the
-models
and
satisfy the same
L2-sentences. Suppose not. Then for some
we have
and
,
for some
L2-sentence
.
Let
be a permutation of
such that
.
Since
,
we have
,
hence
,
a contradiction. This proves our
claim.
Finally, let
where
is generic. Suppose
is definable
in M. Let
be generic such that
has
.
Let
be
an L2-formula with X as its only free variable, such that
exactly one
,
and
.
Then
exactly one
.
Let
be such that
.
Then for each
,
we have that
if and only if
and
,
if and only if
and
,
if and only if
.
Thus A=A'. Hence
.
This
completes the proof.![]()
We now improve Theorem 1.1 as follows.
Let
denote hyperarithmetical reducibility, i.e.,
if and only if X is hyperarithmetical in Y.
The
-model which we shall use to prove Theorem
1.3 is the same as for Theorem 1.1,
namely
where
is generic. In order to see that M has the desired property, we
first relativize the proof of Theorem 1.1, as follows.
Given Y, let
be the set of
such that there exists
meeting p with X0=Y.
(Obviously 0 plays no special role here.) Say that
is generic over Y if, for every
dense
definable from Y over
,
there exists
such that
meets p.
Proof.The proof of this lemma is a straightforward relativization to Y of the proof of Theorem 1.1.![]()
Consequently, in order to prove Theorem 1.3, it suffices to prove the following lemma.
Proof.It suffices to show that, for all p forcing
is dense
in
,
there exists
forcing
and
meets r).
Assume
is dense in
.
Since
,
it follows that
and
.
Fix
and
such that
.
Put
meets
.
Then S' is a
set, so let
be such that S'=Se. Claim 1:
.
If not, let
be such that
.
Let
be a permutation such that
and
.
Then
and
,
a
contradiction. This proves Claim 1.
Claim 2:
.
To see this, let
be generic meeting
.
By Claim 1 we have
.
Hence
,
i.e., there exists
meeting q' with X0=G'0. Thus
meets
.
This proves Claim 2. Finally, put
.
Then
and
and
meets q'). This proves our lemma.![]()
The proof of Theorem 1.3 is immediate from Lemmas 1.4 and 1.5.