I'm reading this survey. In it the author states the following result (fact 5.3) which is attributed to Silver:
If $2^{\aleph_0}>\aleph_1$, countably closed forcing cannot add a new branch to an $\aleph_2$-tree.
I cannot find any proof of this and I cannot come up proof. Could someone give an sketch of why this is true?
Thanks
Let $T$ be a tree of height $\omega_2$ and let $\mathbb{P}$ be a poset. Assume that the $\mathbb{P}$-name $\dot{f}$ is forced by the condition $p \in \mathbb{P}$ to be a branch through $T$ that is not in $V$. Then we can get a perfect binary tree $(p_s : s \in 2^{\mathord{<}\omega})$ of conditions in $\mathbb{P}$ below $p$ and a sequence of ordinals $(\alpha_n : n< \omega)$ less than $\omega_2$ such that for every $n < \omega$ and every pair of distinct $s,t \in 2^n$, the conditions $p_s$ and $p_t$ force $\dot{f} \restriction \alpha_n$ to be different nodes of $T$. Let $\alpha = \sup_{n< \omega} \alpha_n$.
If $\mathbb{P}$ is countably closed, then for each real $x \in 2^\omega$ there is a lower bound $p_x$ for $(p_{x \restriction n} : n<\omega)$. Then the various conditions $p_x$ force $\dot{f} \restriction \alpha$ to take continuum many different values from the $\alpha^{\text{th}}$ level of $T$. In particular if the continuum is at least $\omega_2$ then $T$ has a level of cardinality $\omega_2$, so it is not an $\omega_2$-tree.
I'm sure this argument appears in print somewhere, but I can't remember where.