The technique of forcing is almost ubiquitous in set theory, and it seems to be based on technicalities like the concepts of genericity, forcing names and their evaluations, and on the recursively defined forcing predicates, the definition of which is particularly intricate for the basic case of atomic first order formulas. In his [3], the first author has provided an axiomatic framework for set forcing over models of $\mathrm {ZFC}$ that is a collection of guiding principles for extensions over which one still has control from the ground model, and has shown that these axiomatics necessarily lead to the usual concepts of genericity and of forcing extensions, and also that one can infer from them the usual recursive definition of forcing predicates. In this paper, we present a more general such approach, covering both class forcing and set forcing, over various base theories, and we provide additional details regarding the formal setting that was outlined in [3].

The class forcing theorem, which asserts that every class forcing notion ${\mathbb {P}}$ admits a forcing relation $\Vdash _{\mathbb {P}}$ , that is, a relation satisfying the forcing relation recursion—it follows that statements true in the corresponding forcing extensions are forced and forced statements are true—is equivalent over Gödel–Bernays set theory $\text {GBC}$ to the principle of elementary transfinite recursion $\text {ETR}_{\text {Ord}}$ for class recursions of length $\text {Ord}$ . It is also equivalent to the existence of truth predicates for the infinitary languages $\mathcal {L}_{\text {Ord},\omega }(\in ,A)$ , allowing any class parameter A; to the existence of truth predicates for the language $\mathcal {L}_{\text {Ord},\text {Ord}}(\in ,A)$ ; to the existence of $\text {Ord}$ -iterated truth predicates for first-order set theory $\mathcal {L}_{\omega ,\omega }(\in ,A)$ ; to the assertion that every separative class partial order ${\mathbb {P}}$ has a set-complete class Boolean completion; to a class-join separation principle; and to the principle of determinacy for clopen class games of rank at most $\text {Ord}+1$ . Unlike set forcing, if every class forcing notion ${\mathbb {P}}$ has a forcing relation merely for atomic formulas, then every such ${\mathbb {P}}$ has a uniform forcing relation applicable simultaneously to all formulas. Our results situate the class forcing theorem in the rich hierarchy of theories between $\text {GBC}$ and Kelley–Morse set theory $\text {KM}$ .

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.

The forcing theorem is the most fundamental result about set forcing, stating that the forcing relation for any set forcing is definable and that the truth lemma holds, that is everything that holds in a generic extension is forced by a condition in the relevant generic filter. We show that both the definability (and, in fact, even the amenability) of the forcing relation and the truth lemma can fail for class forcing.

In addition to these negative results, we show that the forcing theorem is equivalent to the existence of a (certain kind of) Boolean completion, and we introduce a weak combinatorial property (approachability by projections) that implies the forcing theorem to hold. Finally, we show that unlike for set forcing, Boolean completions need not be unique for class forcing.

Let Z2, Z3, and Z4 denote 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order arithmetic, respectively. We let Harrington’s Principle, HP, denote the statement that there is a real x such that every x-admissible ordinal is a cardinal in L. The known proofs of Harrington’s theorem “$Det\left( {{\rm{\Sigma }}_1^1} \right)$ implies 0♯ exists” are done in two steps: first show that $Det\left( {{\rm{\Sigma }}_1^1} \right)$ implies HP, and then show that HP implies 0♯ exists. The first step is provable in Z2. In this paper we show that Z2 + HP is equiconsistent with ZFC and that Z3 + HP is equiconsistent with ZFC + there exists a remarkable cardinal. As a corollary, Z3 + HP does not imply 0♯ exists, whereas Z4 + HP does. We also study strengthenings of Harrington’s Principle over 2nd and 3rd order arithmetic.

This paper deals with the question whether the assumption that for every inaccessible cardinal κ there is a well-order of H(κ+) definable over the structure $\langle {\rm{H}}({\kappa ^ + }), \in \rangle$ by a formula without parameters is consistent with the existence of (large) large cardinals and failures of the GCH. We work under the assumption that the SCH holds at every singular fixed point of the ℶ-function and construct a class forcing that adds such a well-order at every inaccessible cardinal and preserves ZFC, all cofinalities, the continuum function, and all supercompact cardinals. Even in the absence of a proper class of inaccessible cardinals, this forcing produces a model of “V = HOD” and can therefore be used to force this axiom while preserving large cardinals and failures of the GCH. As another application, we show that we can start with a model containing an ω-superstrong cardinal κ and use this forcing to build a model in which κ is still ω-superstrong, the GCH fails at κ and there is a well-order of H(κ+) that is definable over H(κ+) without parameters. Finally, we can apply the forcing to answer a question about the definable failure of the GCH at a measurable cardinal.

Using square sequences, a stationary subset ST of אω1+1 is constructed from a tree T of height ω1, uniformly in T. Under suitable hypotheses, adding a closed unbounded subset to ST requires adding a cofinal branch to T or collapsing at least one of ω1, אω1, and אω1+1. An application is that in ZFC there is no parameter free definition of the family of subsets of אω1+1 that have a closed unbounded subset in some ω1, אω1, and אω1+1 preserving outer model.

0# can be invisibly class generic.