Woodin - Set Theory of The Continuum (1992) PDF
Woodin - Set Theory of The Continuum (1992) PDF
Woodin - Set Theory of The Continuum (1992) PDF
Publications 26
Editors
S.S. Chern
I. Kaplansky
C.C. Moore
I.M. Singer
Mathematical Sciences Research Institute
Publications
Springer-Verlag
New York Berlin Heidelberg London Paris
Tokyo Hong Kong Barcelona Budapest
HaimJudah Winfried Just
Department of Mathematics Department of Mathematics
and Computer Science Ohio University
Bar l1an University Athens, OH 45701-2979
52900 Ramatgan, Israel USA
987654321
ISBN-13:978-1-4613-97564 e-ISBN-13:978-1-4613-9754-0
DOl: 10.10071978-1-4613-9754-0
PREFACE
v
vi PREFACE
J. Baumgartner: c++
H. Becker: Descriptive set theoretic phenomena in analysis and
topology
M. Foreman : Amenable group actions on the integers, an indepen-
dence result
M. Gitik : The singular cardinals problem revisited again
S. Jackson: Admissible Souslin cardinals in L(JR)
H. Judah: Measure and category
A. Kechris : Descriptive dynamics
A. Louveau : Classifying Borel structures
S. Mac Lane: Topos-theoretic versions of the continuum
M. Magidor : The singular cardinals problem revisited
S. Shelah : Is cardinal arithmetic interesting?
R. Shore : Degrees of constructibility
S. Simpson: Reverse mathematics and dynamical systems
T. Slaman : Global properties of degree structures
R. Soare : Continuity properties of Turing degrees and games ap-
plied to recursion theory
J. Steel: Fine structure and inner models of Woodin cardinals
S. Todorcevic : Forcing axioms
B. Velickovic : OCA and automorphisms of P(w)/finite
The organizer of the workshop would like to thank all of the partici-
pants for they are in essence responsible for its success. We, the editors of
this volume, thank all those who contributed; their work is evident. We
particulal;ly would like to express our sincere appreciation to all the refer-
ees without whom this volume would not really have been possible. As is
usually the case, the magnitude of their contribution is not evident.
The workshop would not have occurred without the help of the MSRI
staff, in particular without Irving Kaplansky. This volume would not exist
were it not for the technical assistance of Arlene Baxter, David Mostardi,
Margaret Pattison, and Sean Brennan.
Though uninvited, Nature also decided to give a talk. Midway through
the workshop at 5:04 pm on TUesday, October 17 the Lorna Prieta earth-
quake occurred, measuring approximately 7.1 on the Richter scale.
Haim Judah
Winfried Just
Hugh Woodin
CONTENTS
PREFACE. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V
TALKS
H. Becker
DESCRIPTIVE SET THEORETIC PHENOMENA IN ANALYSIS
AND TOPOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
P. Dehornoy
AN ALTERNATIVE PROOF OF LAVER'S RESULTS ON THE
ALGEBRA GENERATED BY AN ELEMENTARY EMBEDDING. 27
M. Foreman
SOME OTHER PROBLEMS IN SET THEORY . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
S. Jackson
ADMISSIBILITY AND MAHLONESS IN L(IR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
H. Judah
SET THEORY OF REALS: MEASURE AND CATEGORY . . . . 75
A.S. Kechris
THE STRUCTURE OF BOREL EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS IN
POLISH SPACES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
vii
viii CONTENTS
A. Louveau
CLASSIFYING BOREL STRUCTURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 103
A.R.D. Mathias
WHAT Is MAC LANE MISSING? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 113
S. Mac Lane
Is MATHIAS AN ONTOLOGIST? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 119
R.A. Shore
DEGREES OF CONSTRUCTIBILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 123
B. Velickovic
ApPLICATIONS OF THE OPEN COLORING AXIOM 137
RESEARCH PAPERS
W. Just
A WEAK VERSION OF AT FROM OCA 281
CONTENTS ix
G. Melles
ONE CANNOT SHOW FROM ZFC THAT THERE Is
AN ULM TYPE CLASSIFICATION OF THE COUNTABLE
TORSION-FREE ABELIAN GROUPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . .. 293
W.J. Mitchell
EA-ABSOLUTENESS FOR SEQUENCES OF MEASURES 311
S. Shelah
VIVE LA DIFFERENCE I: NONISOMORPHISM OF
ULTRAPOWERS OF COUNTABLE MODELS 357
HOWARD BECKER
1. INTRODUCTION
This paper is concerned with a portion of descriptive set theory, namely
the theory of (boldface) ~~, 1J~ and ~~ sets in Polish spaces, for n :::; 3.
We assume the reader has some familiarity with this subject, in fact with
the logicians' version of this subject. Moschovakis [37] is the basic reference
and we generally follow his notation and terminology. A Polish space is a
topological space homeomorphic to a separable complete metric space. All
uncountable Polish spaces are Borel isomorphic, and a Borel isomorphism
preserves ~~ sets, so as far as the abstract theory is concerned, there is
only one space [37,lG]. But particular examples"happen to live in particular
spaces, so in this paper we will consider many different spaces, all Polish.
The theorems of descriptive set theory show that there are pointsets
exhibiting various phenomena, e.g., that there are universal sets. While
we know that such things exist, it remains an interesting problem to find
examples of the given phenomenon which arise naturally in some context
in analysis, topology, algebra, logic, etc. The principal purpose of this
paper is to give some natural examples of three types of descriptive set
theoretic phentlmena, examples which occur in analysis and topology. The
three phenomena are: true ~~ sets (§2), universal sets (§3), and inseparable
pairs (§4). This paper is mainly a list of such examples, both ancient and
modern, along with references, definitions, questions, remarks, comments,
asides, and occasionally even a few hints at proofs. This i~ a survey; we
make no claim to completeness. The word "natural" is not a technical term
- it just reflects the author's personal esthetic judgment. It is undoubtedly
true that naturalness is in the eye of the beholder. It is also undoubtedly
true that some natural examples are more natural than others.
Descriptive set theory has its historical origins in analysis, but it has
moved a long way from its origins. The subject has been studied largely for
its own sake, or for its connections with logic. In recent years, a number
of mathematicians - both logicians and analysts - have been studying
1
2 H.BECKER
situations in analysis where ideas and results of descriptive set theory may
be relevant. This paper is a part of that trend, but only a small part.
There is a lot more to the subject which might be called "connections
between descriptive set theory and analysis," than finding natural examples
of descriptive set theoretic phenomena.
This paper is a revised version of a talk given at the Workshop on Set
Theory and the Continuum, held at MSRl in October 1989, a workshop at
which, incidentally, several of the talks illustrated the trend mentioned in
the previous paragraph. I thank the organizers of the workshop, and MSRl,
for enabling me to participate. I thank Robert Lubarsky, Frank Tall and
Hugh Woodin for their comments after the talk, comments which have led
to some revisions. This paper has been heavily influenced by about six
years of conversations with Alexander Kechris, whom I also thank.
One of the most important theorems about ~~ (1J~) sets is that these
sets actually exist - that is, there exist pointsets which are ~~ (1J~) but
not 4.~.We call such a pointset true ~~ (true 1J~). In §1 we give some
natural examples of such pointsets, or in Qther words, for certain natural
pointsets, we give the set's exact classification in the projective hierarchy.
The following is one of the oldest (1936) and best known natural exam-
ples.
Example 3. (Woodin).
Space: C[O,I].
Pointset: E3 = {f : f satisfies Rolle's Theorem }.
Classification: True ~t.
Example 4. (Woodin).
Space: C[O,I].
Pointset: E4 = {f : f satisfies the Mean Value Theorem }.
Classification: True IJ~.
Example 5. (Humke-Laczkovich [17]).
Space: C[O, 1].
Pointset: E5 = {f : (3g E C [0,1]) (j = gog) }.
Classification: True ~t.
Saying that f satisfies Rolle's Theorem means, of course, that f satisfies
the conclusion of Rolle's Theorem, that is:
For all a, b E [0,1], if a < b and f(a) = feb), then there exists a c in
(a, b) such that f is differentiable at c and f'(c) = 0.
For all a, bE [0,1], if a < b then there exists a c in (a, b) such that f is
differentiable at c and f'(c) =
= f(b~ ~(a).
The upper bounds on the complexity are obvious, except for Example 3.
To see that E3 is ~t note that for continuous f, f satisfies Rolle's Theorem
iff:
For all rational a, b, d, ifO :::; a < d < b :::; 1 and either fed) > max(j(a),
feb)) or fed) < min(j(a),f(b)), then there exists a c in (a,b) such that
f'(c) = 0.
quantifier comes from: f satisfies the Mean Value Theorem iff for every
linear function L, f + L satisfies Rolle's Theorem.
A pointset B in a Polish space Y is called complete ~~ (complete U~) if B
is ~~ (1J~) and for every Polish space X and every ~~ (1J~) pointset A eX,
there is a Borel measurable function H : X -+ Y such that A = H-l[B].
Such an H is said to reduce A to B.
Clearly any complete ~~ (1J~) set is true ~~ (or U;), and indeed this is
the most cornmon method of proving a given set is true ~; (or U;). It was
essentially the method used in the original proofs of the lower bounds for
Examples 1, 2 and 4. But it is not the only method. The original proof that
E3 is not U~ is as follows: If E3 was ui, then E4 would also be U~, since
f E E4 iff for every linear function L, f + L is in E 3; but Woodin proved
that E4 is not U~ . This argument does not show that E3 is complete ~i.
The only known proof that E5 is not Borel is the proof in [17], where it
is proved that every Borel set is reducible to E5 by a continuous function.
This argument also does not show completeness.
Assuming Ui-determinacy (equivalently, assuming '\Ix C w, x" exists),
every true ~i set is complete ~~. This is a theorem of Wadge -see [44].
So assuming strong axioms (actually all that is needed is 0"), E3 and E5
are complete ~~. At the time of the Set Theory Workshop, it was not
known whether the completeness of E3 was provable in ZFC, but Woodin
has subsequently shown that it is. It is still open whether the completeness
of E5 is provable in ZFC.
For any Polish space X, denote by XW the topological product of count-
ably many copies of X. The space XW is also Polish. We next consider some
examples from the space (e[O, 1])w. The points in this space are sequences
of functions. Note that the topology on e[O,I] will always be the same
topology considered above, that is, the topology of uniform convergence,
and point classes such as ~; refer to this topology. We will be considering
pointwise convergence of sequences in e[O,I], but we will never consider
the topolo&y of pointwise convergence on e[O, 1] (which, incidentally, is not
a Polish topology).
Example 6.
Space: (e[O,1])w.
Pointset: E6 = {(M : (M converges pointwise }.
Classification: True U~ .
Example 7.
Space: (e[O, l])w.
DESCRIPTIVE SET THEORETIC PHENOMENA 5
then Q is also ut .
Returning to Example 7, the continuous limit (if it exists) is clearly
hyperarithmetic in the sequence. Hence (Ii) E E7 iff:
first published proof. (Assani [3], [4] is concerned with weakly Cauchy and
weakly convergent sequences in various Banach spaces, including C[O, 1].
For more information on this topic, see Becker [9].)
Example 8.
Space: (C[O,1])w.
Pointset: Es = {(Ii): Some subsequence of (Ii) converges uniformly}.
Classification: 'Iiue ~~.
Example 8 is another folklore result. It has perhaps the easiest proof of
any natural example - so easy, that we put it in this paper. Example 8 is a
special case of Example 9, below. Since uniform convergence is convergence
in the topology of the space C[O, 1], the pointset Es has an analog for any
space. That is, for any space X, we can consider the pointset in XW of
all sequences which have a convergent subsequence (with respect to the
topology of X).
Example 9.
Space: XW, X a fixed Polish space whi~h is not a-compact.
Pointset: Eg = {(Xi) : Some subsequence of (Xi) converges }.
Classification: True ~~.
Proof. A Polish space which is not a-compact contains a closed copy of WW .
So it will suffice to prove that Eg is complete ~~ for the space X = WW. The
set ofnonwellfounded trees on w\{O} (Le., those trees which have an infinite
branch) is a complete ~i set in the Polish space Tr of all trees on w\{O}
- see [26} for details. We construct a continuous function H : Tr -+ (WW)W
which reduces the nonwellfounded trees to E g , and thereby complete the
proof. For" a E w<w, let Xu E WW be a followed by an infinite string of a's.
For T a tree, let H(T) = (yT) E (WW)W be such that
and such that yJ =F y'[ for i =F j j such a sequence (yT) can be constructed
from T in a continuous way. Note that (yT) has a convergent subsequence
iff T has an infinite branch.
Returning to the space (C[O, 1])w, we give three more examples. In all
three, the obvious upper bound obtained by quantifier-counting, is, in fact,
the best upper bound.
DESCRIPTIVE SET THEORETIC PHENOMENA 7
The fact that E 13 is IJ~ was published in 1931 by Kuratowski [28], where
it is attributed to Banach. This fact may appear to be a triviality, a
straightforward exercise in quantifier-counting; that appearance is correct,
but the reader should keep in mind that Kuratowski invented quantifier-
counting (the "Tarski-Kuratowski algorithm" - see [41]), and this was one
of its first applications. The problem of whether E 13 is true IJ~ was posed
in that paper, and solved 56 years later by Ajtai and Kechris.
In Examples 1 and 2, we considered everywhere differentiable and no-
where differentiable functions. By analogy, after Example 13, we should
consider functions whose Fourier series diverges everywhere. For most of the
spaces of Example 13, this is the empty set; by a famous theorem of Carleson
and Hunt, for p > 1, for any £P function f (hence for any continuous f), the
Fourier series of f converges almost everywhere. But Kolmogorov proved
that there exists an £1 function with everywhere divergent Fourier series.
The next example is a strengthening of Kolmogorov's Theorem.
Example 14. (Kechris [22]).
Space: £1 [0, 27f].
Pointset: E14 = {f : The Fourier series of f diverges everywhere }.
Classification: True IJ~.
For any space X, let K(X) denote the space of all nonempty compact
subsets of X, with the Hausdorff metric 8:
If X is Polish, so is K(X).
Example 15. (Hurewicz [18]).
Space: K(X), X a fixed uncountable Polish space.
Pointset: E 15 = {K : K is countable }.
Classific~tion: True IJ~.
To see that E 15 is IJi, note that K E E 15 iff '<I perfect set P, P ct. K.
Example 15 is the oldest natural example (1930). The fact that E 15 is
not Borel has an interesting application to Banach space theory, due to
Bourgain - see Rosenthal [42].
We next consider some natural examples from topology. We are inter-
ested in determining the complexity of notions such as connectedness, path-
connectedness and simple connectedness, for compact subsets of JRn, Le.,
in the space K(JRn). (A topological space is simply connected if it is path-
connected and it has no holes. A topological space Y has no holes if every
DESCRIPTIVE SET THEORETIC PHENOMENA 9
map from the unit circle into Y is homotopic to a constant map; equiva-
lently, every map from the unit circle into Y can be extended to a map from
the closed unit disc into Y.) For any X, {K E IC(X) : K is connected}
is closed, hence uninteresting. For subsets of the line, connected = path-
connected = simply connected. Thus the only interesting cases are path-
connectedness and simple connectedness in IC(JRn) for n ;:::: 2. For certain
dimensions n the answer is known. That constitutes the next three exam-
ples.
Example 16. (Ajtai, Becker [10]).
Space: IC(JRn), for fixed n ;:::: 3.
Pointset: E 16 = {K : K is path-connected}.
Classification: 'Irue U~.
Example 17. (Becker [10]).
Space: IC(JR2).
Pointset: E17 = {K : K is simply connected}.
Classification: 'Irueut.
Example 18. (Becker [10]).
Space: IC(JRn) , for fixed n;:::: 4.
Pointset: E 18 = {K : K is simply connected }.
Classification: '!rue U~.
In IC(JR2), we have upper and lower bounds on path-connectedness.
Now (b) is a ui
condition, which proves 1.4. The set E17 is, by definition,
the intersection of the ui
set N H and the set
PC = {K E K(1R2) : K is path-connected}.
But PC is not a ui
set (by Theorem 2.2). So we have not yet succeeded
in showing that E17 is ui.
DESCRIPTIVE SET THEORETIC PHENOMENA 11
By 2.1 and 2.4, the above formula shows that E17 is U~.
We have three remarks about 2.5. First, this theorem is false for arbitrary
path-connected, as opposed to simply connected, sets; for if it was true, the
above argument would show that path-connectedness in ]R2 is ui. which,
by 2.2, is not so. Second, "hyperarithmetic" is best possible. Our third
remark is that this is an example of the use of effective methods to prove
a noneffective theorem. The fact that E17 is (boldface) u~ is a statement
of classical descriptive set theory, a statement which does not in any way
involve recursion theoretic concepts. (I am tempted to call it a "classical
theorem," but that could be misunderstood.) The only known proof, the
one given above, uses recursion theory.
We now leave topology and return to analysis. A set A c [0,211"] is called
a set of uniqueness if no nonzero trigonometric series converges to a at every
point of [0, 211"] \ A. Thus the sets of uniqueness are a type of exceptional
set, or notion of smallness, which comes up in harmonic analysis.
Space: K:([O;211"]).
Pointset: E19 = {K : K is a set of uniqueness}.
Classification: True u~.
Kechris and Louveau have written a book [23] about connections between
descriptive set theory and various types of exceptional sets, including sets
of uniqueness. So we do not pursue the subject here, but instead refer the
reader to [23]. We do, however, wish to point out that the Kaufman-Solovay
Theorem was used by Debs-Saint Raymond [13] in their solution of an old
problem in the theory of sets of uniqueness; specifically, they proved that
every set of uniqueness (which has the property of Baire) is first category.
But later Kechris-Louveau [23, VIII, §3] came up with a different proof,
not involving descriptive set theory.
12 H.BECKER
3y A(z, y). Note that the function H given by the uniform version of 3.1
reduces B to the set {/ : 3y (y E R I ) } C C[O, 1]. That is, H reduces B
to the set C[O, 1] \ E2. This proves that C[O, 1] \ E2 is complete ~L hence
E2 is complete ut. This is Mauldin's Theorem (Example 2), although it is
not Mauldin's proof.
Similarly, suppose C C WW is an arbitrary 1J~ set. Then there is a ~t
set A c WW x R such that C(z) -<==} Vy A(z,y). Then H reduces C to the
set {/ : Vy(y E R I ) }, so this set is complete u~, which gives us another
example.
Example 20.
Space: C[O,l].
Pointset: E20 = {/ : (Vy E R)(y is in the range of /')}.
Classification: True u~.
This method of proof is very general. H U is any universal set satisfying
the above uniformity property, then by putting a universal or existential
quantifier in front of the universal set, one obtains a complete set in the
appropriate pointclass. In practice, representa.tion theorems tend to hold
uniformly. Hence taking such a theorem and putting quantifiers in front of
the universal set, generates examples of pointsets of a particular complexity.
(The naturalness of the examples is another matter.)
This type of proof is fairly new. The abstract idea of completeness (e.g.,
that complete u~ sets are true u~), and the use of completeness arguments
for natural examples was known classically. The abstract notion of uni-
versal set was also known classically, as were various specific representation
theorems, including 3.1. But the idea of uniformity, of calculating an index,
was not considered classically; it seems to be a recursion theoretic idea, even
though it can be formalized in a boldface setting with no mention of recur-
sion theory. This method of pointclass computation, via universal sets and
uniformity, w~ first applied to natural examples in descriptive set theory
by Kechris, around 1984.
Consider the complex Banach space CO. Let T : CO -+ eo be a bounded
linear operator. Let
In contrast to 3.2, for any Banach space V and any bounded linear
T: V -> V, the spectrum of T is always a nonempty compact set.
Several other representation theorems for ~i sets have appeared in the
literature, for example Bagemihl-McMillan [5], Lorentz-Zeller [30], and
Nishiura [38]. There is only one basic type of representation theorem for
~~ sets which is known, although there are a number of variations on the
same theme. I know of no representation theorem for ~~ sets, for n 2:: 3.
We now take up the ~~ case. For any (Ii) E (C[O, l])W, let AU;) be the
following subset of C[O, 1]:
The consistency of (a) follows from that of (b) by going into the model
L(IR). Toward proving the consistency of (b), consider the following propo-
sition.
It follows from (*) and (the uniform version of) Theorem 3.3 that B has
no uniformization ordinal-definable from a real. And (*) is known to be
consistent. It holds in the model obtained by adding Nl Cohen reals to L;
the nonuniformizable 1J~ relation is { (x, y) : y ¢. L( x) }. These consistency
results are variants of a theorem of Levy [29].
Two open questions were posed in [8]. The first question involved an
analog of 3.3 for Baire-I functions, the second question (due to Kechris)
involved an analog of 3.3 for weak convergence. For any (M E (C[O, I])W ,
let A(/;) be the following set of Baire-I functions:
The Baire-I functions do not form a Polish space in any natural way.
But the Baire-I functions can be encoded by elements of (C[O, 1])w, each
sequence in (C[O, I])W encoding its pointwise limit, if it exists. The set of
codes is 1J~ and the induced equivalence .relation on codes is also 1J~. We
say that a set of Baire-I functions is ~~ if its set of codes is ~~. It is
not hard to see that for any (Ii) E (C[O, I])W, A(h) is a ~~ set of Baire-
1 functions. The first question was: Is it true that for any ~~ set S of
Baire-I functions, there is an (Ii) E (C[O,I])W such that S = A(ft)? This
is still open. It is not even known whether the set of discontinuous Baire-I
functions can be represented as an A(f.). A positive answer to this open
question would provide a positive answer to the open question about E12
following Example 12.
For any (Ii) E (C[O, I])W, let K(f.) be the following subset of C[O, 1]:
T is a Polish space, and for any (Ci) E C W , the pointset B(c;} is Fa(j mg).
Can every :g:g subset of T be represented. as a set of the form B(c;}, for some
(Ci)? If so, we would have a nice example of a universal set for ug.
This question appeared in print in some papers in the 1940's and 50's,
papers in which weak versions of a positive answer were proved.. The prob-
lem was solved. in 1978 by LukaSenko [31], who showed that there exists
a G(j subset of T which cannot be represented as a B(Ci} -see Komer
[27], for more information. One of the positive partial results proved is the
following.'
Theorem 3.6. (Herzog-Piranian [16]). Let SeT be any Fa (~g) set.
There exists a power series r::'oCiZi with radius of convergence 1 such
that S = B(Ci}'
This is a representation theorem, but it does not give a universal set -
it gives a ug set in the plane such that every ~g set occurs as a vertical
section.
We now consider two more natural examples. We identify power series
with the space CW.
DESCRIPTIVE SET THEORETIC PHENOMENA 17
Example 21.
Space: CWo
Pointset: E21 = {(Ci) : The power series Z=:OCizi converges every-
where on T}.
Classification: True JJi.
Example 22.
Space: Cwo
Pointset: E22 = {(Ci) The power series Z=:OCizi diverges everywhere
on T}.
Classification: True JJi.
is a Borel set in CW x [0,00]. Hence intersecting the set of power series with
radius of convergence 1, with either E21 or E22 , gives a set which is also
true JJi.
Even though Theorem 3.6 does not give us an honest universal set, (the
uniform version of) it is still sufficient to prove that E21 is completeJJi. If
p c wW is an arbitrary JJiset, there is an Fer set A c wW x T such that
P(x) {:} 'v'zA(x, z), so the completeness proof works. But if we try to prove
that E22 is complete JJi by this method, we run into problems. It is not
true that any JJi set in wW is obtained by applying a universal quantifier to
a G D set in wW x T; in fact, since T is compact, the subset of wW obtained by
applying a universal quantifier to a GD set in wW x T will itself be a G D• So
the fact that E22 is complete JJi
does not follow from 3.6. It does follow,
however, from (the uniform version of ) Theorem 3.7, below, a theorem
which is another positive partial result in the direction of the conjectured
(but false) FerD representation theorem.
A set E c T has logarithmic measure 0 if for each c > 0, there is a
sequence (In) of open intervals of T such that E C UIn , length (In) < 1
and
00 -1
~ log( length (In)) < c.
Theorem 3.7. (Erd6s-Herzog-Piranian [15]). Let SeT be any G8(JJg)
set whose closure has logarithmic measure o. There exists a power series
Z=:OCiZi with radius of convergence 1 such that S = B(Ci).
18 H.BECKER
4. INSEPARABLE PAIRS
Ao = EI = {f : f is differentiable }.
A I = {f : There is exactly one x E [0, 1] such that l' (x) does not exist }.
Note that for functions f in AI, since the point where f is not differen-
tiable is unique, that point is hyperarithmetic-in-fj hence by Theorem 2.1,
Al is a JJi set. Thus Ao and Al are a pair of JJi sets in the same space,
and they are clearly disjoint.
Theorem 4.1. Ao and Al are a Borel-inseparable pair ofJJi sets.
An = {J: There are exactly n points in [0,1] at which l' does not exist}.
For any m and n, if 0 ::; m < n ::; No, then Am and An are a Borel-
inseparable pair of JJi sets.
The procedure used for going from Example 1 to Theorem 4.1 is very
general. It takes a JJi set of the form "points with no singularities," and cre-
ates a Borel-inseparable pair of JJi sets, the above set and the set of "points
DESCRIPTIVE SET THEORETIC PHENOMENA 19
with exactly one singularity." Using this procedure, one can mindlessly and
mechanically convert natural examples of true uisets into natural exam-
ples of Borel-inseparable pairs (and also convert a proof of the former into
a proof of the latter - see [7]).
We now mindlessly and mechanically apply this procedure to Example 6.
Consider the space (G[O, I])W, and in this space consider the two pointsets:
Then let
almost (but not quite) say that we understand u~, for arbitrary n, as well
as we understand ui. For an account of this theory, and of determinacy
axioms, see Moschovakis [37]. Assuming determinacy, the theory of pro-
jective sets exhibits a periodicity of order 2; that is, the point classes ui,
uL U~, etc., have similar structural properties, as do the point classes U~ ,
U!, U~, etc.
Since the pointclasses uiand U~ have the same properties, one would
expect this procedure for converting true ui sets into a Borel-inseparable
pair of ui sets, would also work two levels up. This expectation turns out
to be correct. We apply the procedure to a natural example of a true U~
set: Example 12. Consider the space (C[O, l])W, and in this space consider
the two pointsets:
See [37,Ch. 5] for a proof, as well as for the definition of a good wellorder-
ing. The Axiom of Constructibility, V = L, implies that there is a 4}.~-good,
hence 4}.~-good, wellordering of the reals [37,8F.7]; therefore it implies that
4.4 is false. In fact, if a Woodin cardinal exists, then there is an inner
model with a Woodin cardinal, in which there is a .o.~-good wellordering of
DESCRIPTIVE SET THEORETIC PHENOMENA 21
the reals (Martin-Steel [34]). This essentially means that Theorem 4.4 can-
not be proved from any large cardinal or determinacy axiom weaker than
~~-determinacy.
I know nothing about the strength of 4.4, either in terms of what it
implies, or in terms of relative consistency . It may be equiconsistent with
ZFC. Or it may outright imply ~~-determinacy. This is related to the
fourth Victoria Delfino problem [25, p. 281].
Determinacy is used twice in the proof of 4.4 - once to prove (a), and
once to prove (b). Recall that to prove that Ab BI and other "exactly one
singularity" sets are uL we used Theorem 2.1. In the very first paper in
which determinacy was applied to descriptive set theory [1], am-analog
of Theorem 2.1 was proved, assuming ~~-determinacy (see [37, 6B.2 and
4D.3j); this can then be applied to prove 4.4 (a). The proof of Borel-
inseparability in Theorems 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 (and in all the other examples),
uses the theorem of Lusin that every ~~ set is the one-to-one continuous
image of a closed set. The ~~-analog of this theorem was proved somewhat
later by Moschovakis (see [37, 6E.14j), again assuming ~~-determinacy;
using this result, we prove 4.4 (b).
We thus have two more open problems. While parts (a) and (b) of
Theorem 4.4 cannot both be provable in ZFC, it is possible that (a) is
provable in Z FC, and it is also possible that (b) is provable in Z FC.
We now return to ZFC, and close §4 by pointing out that some natural
examples of disjoint U~ sets can be separated by a (not necessarily natural)
Borel set. EI and E 2 , the sets of differentiable and nowhere differentiable
functions, respectively, are separated by {f : f'(P) exists }, where p is a
fixed point in [0,1]. Similarly, the pairs (E I3 , E1 4 ) and (E2b E 22 ) can be
separated. (C[O,I] \ E 3 ), the set of functions which fail to satisfy Rolle's
Theorem, is a lJ~ set, clearly disjoint from E I • We describe a Borel set
°: :;
Be C[O, 1] which contains El and is disjoint from (C[O,I] \ E3). For any
f E C[O, 1], and any a, b such that a < b:::; 1, let M(f, a, b) denote
and
22 H.BECKER
Then B separates. That B is Borel follows from the fact that the point class
of Borel sets is closed under quantification of the form: "For a comeager
set of x's" [37, 4F.19].
Y = 0[0,1] x 0[0,1]'
REFERENCES
DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS,
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, COLUMBIA SC 29208
PATRICK DEHORNOY
ABSTRACT. Richard Laver recently gave an achieved proof for some natural
conjectures about the algebraic structure generated by the iteration of an
elementary embedding of a rank into itself. The aim of this paper is to give
an alternative proof for these results.
x(yz) = (xy)(xz).
Now introduce h to be the monogenic free left distributive structure: h
is easily repres~nted as the quotient of the set W made by all wellformed
terms using a single variable say 'a' and a fixed binary operator under the
least congruence == that forces the distributivity condition to hold. Then
Laver proves in [La] the following results about the structure OJ
Theorem. AsSume that eA is nonempty for some A;
i) (for every j in eA,) OJ is isomorphic to h (i.e. is free);
ii) there exists a linear ordering < on h such that the left translations
are strictly increasing mappings of (h, <) into itself;
iii) the word problem for W / == is decidable.
We give here an alternative proof of this theorem. For the history, it hap-
pens that all the results used in this proof were already available some time
27
28 P.DEHORNOY
ago (the material of Proposition 1 below is presented in [De 2]), but there
cannot be any doubt about the priority for the theorem above because the
author was hopelessly unable to complete a proof by himself, and he only
understood his stupidity when seeing at the beginning of Laver's paper that
the missing piece (Proposition 2 below) was known for several years (yet
unpublished) and resulted from elegant, but short and basic, computations
on critical points and not from some difficult analysis.
Laver's proof and the present one are in some sense complementary: so to
speak, R. Laver starts from an intensive study of the elementary embeddings
and establishes enough properties of OJ to prove that OJ must resemble h,
while our proof starts from a purely algebraic analysis of h and establishes
that h must resemble OJ. Technically, this means that these proofs use the
specific properties of the elementary embeddings captured in Proposition 2
in different places: at the beginning of the construction in Laver's proof,
at the end in order to conclude in the present one. This discrepancy leads
to different developments of the basic result: thanks to the critical point,
Laver's method does not only prove the decidability of the word problem,
but it also provides a unique normal form result that is not included in
the present proof and has a great intrinsic interest; on the other hand, a
deepening of the methods below suggests an effective approach for solving
the word problem independently from any set theoretical hypothesis. One
can hope for future common developments.
We turn to the proof of the theorem. It happens that the notations in [La]
and [De] are mostly compatible or, at least, isomorphic. We shall use the
following ones in the sequel. First, to be short, any left distributive set en-
dowed with a left distributive binary operation will be called a LD-magma.
If 9 is an LD-magma, and x, y are elements of g, we write x<fJy if for some
positive p there exist Zl, ... ,zp in 9 such that y is ( ... ((XZdZ2) ... )zp- The
result we prove is the following one:
Proposition 1. Assume tbat 9 is a monogenic LD-magma sucb tbat <9
is irrefIexive;
i) 9 is isomorpbic to h (i.e. is free)
ii) tbere exists a linear ordering < on h sucb tbat tbe left translations
are strictly increasing mappings of (tI, <) into itself
iii) tbe word problem for W / == is decidable.
Laver's theorem follows from this proposition and the following one es-
tablished in the beginning of [La]:
AN ALTERNATIVE PROOF OF LAVER'S RESULTS 29
and the property holds for x as well. It follows that if x, y are arbitrary
elements of 9 then xa(n) and ya(n) are equal for n large enough. 0
Proof of Lemma 4. This is more crucial. The property follows from the
general analysis of the relation == which is initiated in [De 1]. We shall
extract the basic arguments that are used in the present case. First of all,
in order to understand what happens in W, we need a convenient repre-
sentation of the terms. This is done when seeing these terms as binary
trees in the usual way. We address the nodes of a binary tree using finite
sequences of 0 (for 'left') and 1 (for 'right'). The set of all such sequences
will be denoted by §, and the empty sequence (address for the root of the
tree) by A . For 8 in Wand u in §, we denote by 81u the subterm of 8
corresponding to the subtree with root in u (if defined). For instance if 8
is the term a((aa)(aa)), 810 is a, 8/1 is (aa)(aa), 8/110 is a, while 81L is 8
itself and 8/1100 is not defined.
In order to describe the equivalence ==, we polarize it as follows. First
we denote by ~ the partial mapping of W into itself that maps every term
that can be written as 8(TU) on the corresponding term 8T(8U); then we
introduce for every u in § the mapping ~ (u) that is similar to ~ but acts
below u: the action of ~(u) on 8 consists in distributing the subterm 81uo
to each of the subterms 81ulO and 81u11 (when these subterms are defined).
If 8 is the term in the example above, then 8 lies both in the domains of
~ and of ~ (1), and the respective images are the terms
(a(aa))(a(aa)) and a(((aa)a)((aa)a)). Now, for 8, Tin W, let us write
8 ---+ T if there is a finite composition of ~ (u) 's that maps 8 to T. It
should be clear that == is the equivalence relation generated by the relation
---+. Two claims are needed to prove Lemma 4.
S;oP under ~(U/), and therefore 81QP --+ T;op holds. IT u is Oi1u' for some
u', then T;op is 810p , and therefore 8101' ---+ T;op holds. 0
Claim 2. Assume 8 == Tj then there exists some U in W such that 8 --+ U
and T --+ U both hold.
Proof This is the hard core. However, if only the result of claim 2 is needed,
the details are rather easily and quickly checked. We shall only sketch
the arguments since the details appear in [De 1]. The point is getting a
convenient notion of derivation for the words. For every 8 in W there exists
another word called a8 that is a kind of 'lower common extension' for all
the possible images of 8 under some ~(u) (there is only a finite number of
u's such that a given term belongs to the domain of ~ (u»): if T is the image
of 8 under ~(u), then T --+ a8 holds (and a8 is nearly minimal with that
property). The main property is that the mapping a is compatible with
--+: 8 --+ T implies a8 --+ aT, and it follows that, if T is the image of
8 under the composition of k successive mappings ~ (Ul) , . •• ,~(Uk), then
T --+ ak 8 holds. Claim 2 easily follows, by showing that T == 8 implies
that, for k large enough, T ---+ ak 8 and, trivially, 8 --+ ak 8 hold. 0
Remark. In the proof above, the mapping a is effective (a has a simple
inductive definition), while the integer ok' arising at the end is not, and
therefore claim 2 is not sufficient to solve the word problem for W / ==.
We can now easily prove Lemma 4. Assume that xz = yz holds in
h; choose words 8, T, U in W that represent respectively x, y, z. Then
8U == TU holds, henceforth by claim 2 there exists V such that 8U --+ V
and TU --+ V hold. Now 8 is 8Ulo, so, by claim 1, there exists an integer
q ;:::: 1 such that 8 --+ \'lOq holds, and, symmetrically, there exists an integer
r ;:::: 1 such that T --+ \'lor holds. It follows that x is the equivalence class
of \'lOq, while y'is the class of \'lor. Now q = r implies x = y, q > r implies
x<hy and q < r implies y<h x , and we are done. 0
The proof of Laver's theorem is complete. We shall briefly discuss some
further points. Let (IH) be the hypothesis 'the relation <h is irreflexive'.
We first notice that, if, for x in h, "Ia; is the left translation map associated to
x, then "Ix is an homomorphism of (ft,., <h) into the sub-LD-magma of h
generated by xa, and, if (I H) holds, this homomorphism is an isomorphism;
moreover the mapping x t-t "Ix is injective. It follows that, if (IH) is true,
then h admits left cancellation and that the mapping x t-t "Ix gives a
realization of h as a LD-magma with the following properties:
its elements are increasing injections of some linear ordering into itself;
if j, 9 belong to this LD-magma and z in the image of j, (fg)(z) is
j(g(f-l(z))).
32 P.DEHORNOY
such that, for every x,y in ii, crit(xy) #- crit(x). This is enough to prove
that 1-cycles can exist for <1 neither in ii, nor in h. Likewise it can be
easily shown that if an LD-magma 9 is endowed with a mapping
such that the three rules crit(x) s; crit(y) =} crit(xy) > crit(y), crit(x) >
crit(y) =} crit(xy) = crit(y) and crit(x) < crit(y) =} crit(zx) < crit(zy) are
obeyed (this is trivially the case for OJ), then no 2-cycle can exist for < 1
in g. But these rules don't seem to be sufficient for going further, and, on
the other hand, no example of an LD-magma satisfying them (unless OJ) is
known to the author.
due to the fact that a variable is repeated twice in the distributivity iden-
tity but not in the latter ones, the problems in these cases are very easily
compared with the corresponding ones in the distributivity case ([De 4]).
Another natural extension of the present questions consists in introducing
the composition. as a second operation for elementary embeddings, as in
[La]. It happens that most of the results in the 'two operations' case can
be deduced from the results in the present 'one operation' case ([De 5]).
Note. (December 1991) A direct proof of the irreflexivity hypothesis has
been completed recently along the lines above. It uses algebraic methods
which are related with Garside's calculus on braid groups. As an application
one obtains a new example of distributive operation by defining on the braid
group Boo an operation * by
where li1, li2 ... are the generators of Boo and T is the endomorphism
which maps Iii to Iii+!. Let b be the closure of 1 under *: b is a monogenic
LD-magma, and the relation <t has no 3-cycle (it is conjectured that b is
free). The LD-magma " above is a quotient oft.
REFERENCES
[De 1) P. Dehornoy, Free distributive groupoids, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra
61 (1989), 123-146.
[De 2) P. Dehornoy, Sur la structure des gerbes libres, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 309-1
(1989), 143--149j (with an Abridged English Version).
[De 3) P. Dehornoy, Algebraic properties o/the shift mapping, Proc. AMS 106-3 (1989),
617--623.
[De 4) P. Dehornoy, Structural monoids associated to equational varieties, Proc. AMSj
(to appeat).
[De 5) P. Dehornoy, The adjoint representation o/left distributive structures, Commu-
nications in Algebraj (to appear).
[La) R. Laver, The left distributive law and the freeness 0/ an algebra 0/ elementary
embeddings, Advances in Mathematicsj (to appear).
MATTHEW FOREMAN
35
36 M. FOREMAN
for each of 1R, S1 and 1R2 there is more than one translation invariant finitely
additive measure (giving the unit interval measure one). More recently,
Margulis [M] and Sullivan [S] showed that for n ~ 4 there is a unique
isometry invariant finitely additive probability measure on the Lebesgue
measurable subsets of sn. Drinfeld [D) proved the analogous result for n =
2,3. A striking feature of these proofs is that they heavily use the structure
of the group. In particular, Banach used amenability (admittedly before
it was defined) and the others used representation-theoretic properties of
SO(n) that imply non-amenability. 0
We begin with:
REFERENCES
[B] S. Banach, Sur Ie probleme de la mesure, Fund. Math. 4 (1923), 7-33.
[D] V. G. Drinfeld, Solution of the Banach-Ruziewicz problem on S2 and S3, Func-
tional Anal. Appl. 18 (1984), 77-78.
[D-F] R. Dougherty and M. Foreman, The Banach-Tarski Paradox with "nice" pieces,
In preparation.
[F1] M. Foreman, Amenable Group Actions on the Integers: An Independence Result,
Bulletin of the AMS 21(2) (October, 1989).
[F2] M. Foreman, Locally finite groups of permutations of N acting on £<X>, A Tribute
to Paul ErdOs (Baker, Bollabas and Rajna1, eds.) , Cambridge University Press,
1990.
[K] S. Krass, Non-uniqueness of invariant means for amenable group actions, Monat-
shefte fur Mathematik 100 (1985), 21-125.
[M] G. Margulis, Finitely additive invariant measures on Euclidean spaces, J. Ergodic
Theory and Dyn. systems 2(3) (1982).
[R-T] J. Rosenblatt and M. Talagrand, Different types of invariant means, J. London
Math. Soc. 24 (1981), 525-532.
[S] D. Sullivan, For n > 3, there is only one finitely additive rotationally invariant
measure on the n-sphere defined on all Lebesgue measurable sets, Bull. Amer.
Math. Soc. (N.S.) 4 (1981), 121-123.
1. INTRODUCTION
The fundamental problems concerning structures in recursion theory
such as the 'lUring degrees, the recursively enumerable (r.e.) degrees, or
the lattice of r .e. sets, are questions of definable properties, decidability of
the first order theory, classification of algebraic properties, and classification
of automorphisms. The attempt to resolve these questions may be thought
of abstractly as a game between two players. Roughly, the first player
called "RED" attempts to produce definable properties, to code into the
structure some undecidable theory (perhaps even true arithmetic) in order
to prove undecidability, and to prove that the structure is rigid, namely has
no nontrivial automorphisms. The second player called "BLUE" attempts
to prove nondefinability of various elements or subclasses of the structure,
and to generate, as ~anY automorphisms of the structure as possible, since
automorphisms can be used to prove that a property is not definable.
For the structure which is the lattice, £, of r.e. sets under inclusion, the
struggle between RED and BLUE has been rather equal. In the direction
of RED Harrington (unpublished) and independently Herrmann [7] have
shown undecidability of the elementary theory of £. In the BLUE direction
Soare [13] produced a method for generating automorphisms of £, which
has been used by him and others to generate many automorphism results
39
40 L. HARRINGTON AND R.l. SOARE
In this section we state the two main results on continuity for cupping
and capping, and we derive as a corollary the continuity result for open
formulas of two variables.
GAMES IN RECURSION THEORY 41
We say that 0 < a < 0' is capping if a is half of a minimal pair, and
cupping if aU b = 0' for some b < 0'. The next theorem is the main result
of this paper. It asserts that there is no minimal pair of r.e. degrees which
is maximal with respect to the property of being a minimal pair.
For each statement about R there is a dual statement where 0,0', <, U,
and n are replaced by 0',0, >, n, and U, respectively. The next theorem
is the dual of Theorem 2.2, and will not be proved here, but will appear in
[1].
Theorem 2.3. (Ambos-Spies, La.chlan, and Soare [I}). Given r.e. degrees
a and b such that 0 < a < 0' and a U b = 0' there exists an r.e. degree
c < a such that cub = 0'. '
From now on we fix the language C = L( <, U, n, 0, 0') of the r.e. de-
grees (R,<,U,n,O,O') with partial order, supremum (cupping), infimum
(capping), least element 0 and greatest element 0'. Note that for a, bE R
aUb always exists but anb does not always exist because (R, <, U, n, 0, 0')
forms an upper semi-lattice but not a lattice. Hence, we view n in C as a
3-place relation symbol rather than as a binary function symbol. Note also
that the other,operations and constants U, n, 0, 0' can be defined in (R, <)
using quantifiers, but we prefer the language C to L( <) because we will be
considering open (i.e. quantifier free) formulas of C.
Corollary 2.5. Let F(x, y) be any open formula of C with two variables,
such that F(a, b) holds for r.e. degrees a -:F b, a, b -:F 0,0'. Then F(x, y)
holds in a neighborhood of (a, b).
Proof. Without loss of generality we may assume that the formula F(a, b)
specifies the complete (atomic) diagram of a, b, 0 and 0'. It is easy to see
that F( a, b) must be logically equivalent to one of the following cases.
Case 1. Assume that F(a, b) asserts that 0 < a < b < 0'. Then use the
Sacks Density Theorem to construct the necessary degrees 80, al, b o, and
b 1 . The case of 0 < b < a < 0' is the same.
Case 2. Assume that F(a, b) implies that
alb & anb=O.
Then by the Lachlan Nondiamond Theorem [14, p. 162] F(a, b) must also
imply that aub -:F 0'. Now apply Theorem 2.2 to a and b to produce a1 > a
such that a1 and b form a minimal pair. Next apply Theorem 2.2 to b and
a1 to produce b 1 > b such that a1 and b 1 form a minimal pair. Using the
Sacks Density Theorem choose any 80 such that 0 < 80 < a, and similarly
choose boo Then F(x,y) holds for all x E (80, a1), and y E (bo, bt).
Case 3. Assume that F(a, b) implies that
alb & aU b = 0'.
The proof is entirely dual to the preceding paragraph except with Theorem
2.3 in place of Theorem 2.2.
Case 4.. Assume that F(a, b) implies that
alb & an b -:F 0 & aU b -:F 0'.
Then there are degrees c and d such that
aU b = c & 0 < d < a, b.
Without loss of generality we may assume that d is low. By the Robinson
low splitting theorem [14, p.224] there are incomparable r.e. degrees eo and
e1 such that a = eo U e1 and d < ei for i = 0, 1. Now either e1 1:. b or
eo 1:. b (since otherwise a :5 b). Let 80 be whichever of eo and e1 satisfies
~ 1:. b. Similarly, choose b o such that d < b o < b and b o 1:. a. Hence,
d:5 80, b o so 80 and b o do not form a minimal pair, and aolbo.
Using a theorem of Robinson [14, VIII.4.7, p. 146] choose a1 such that
a < a1 < c and bo t. a1. Similarly, choose b 1 such that b < b 1 < c and
GAMES IN RECURSION THEORY 43
ao I- b l · Note that al/bl and al UbI = C < 0'. Then F(x,y) holds for all
x E (ao,al), and y E (bo, bI)' 0
3. THE REQUIREMENTS
The next few sections will be devoted to a proof of Theorem 2.2. Fix
r.e. degrees a and b such that 0 < a < 0' and an b = 0, and fix r.e. sets
A E a and BE b. We will construct an r.e. set C such that c = deg(AEBC)
satisfies a < c, and c n b = O.
In what follows upper case Greek letters, <P, \]f, r, .6., 3, and A, will
represent Turing reductions with oracles (i.e. recursive functionals) as de-
fined in [14, Chapter III], and the corresponding lower case Greek letters
r.p, 'IjJ, "I, 6, ~, and '\, will represent their use functions. Other lower case
Greek letters, 0, and TJ without corresponding upper case Greek letters will
represent partial recursive functions. Upper case Roman letters A, B, C,
D, and E wilhepresent r.e. sets. All these symbols may have subscripts or
even double subscripts.
To illustrate how the proof was discovered we view it as a game in the
style of Lachlan [8], where the two players RED and BLUE have roles
analogous to those in §1. For emphasis we may sometimes put a "hat"
over the sets or functionals such as {; played by us (the BLUE player),
and leave "unhatted" the sets and functionals played by the opponent (the
RED player), as in the automorphism notation [14, Chapter XV].
To prove Theorem 2.2, it suffices to meet for all i E w the following
requirements.
44 L. HARRlNGTON AND R.I. SOARE
Di = <Pi
AEIlC
= WiB ==}
('"
3ri , 6. i ,Ei ) [Ei
•
= r• iA = 6.• iB
& [Di nonrecursive ==} Ei nonrecursive ]].
= r iA = 6.• iB ],
•
Here we assume that for each i, {()i,j} jEw is a listing of all partial recur-
sive functions.
{do,d1,···}U{w}.
considered as a set ordered from left to right as listed. The tree of outcomes
T is a subset of finite sequences of S defined as follows.
We define T and the strategy assigned to each pET by induction on Ipi
as follows, where Ipi denotes the length of p.
(i) If pET and Ipi = 3i assign to p the r-module strategy for 'Ii and
put p"'(a} in T for each a E {do, eo, db el,··· } U {w}.
(ii) If pET and Ipi = 3i + 1 put p"'(a} in T for a E {s,g,w}, and
assign to p the a-module strategy for Si,j if P = r~(ej}. If p = r"'(w} or
p = r~(dj} assign no strategy to p.
where w LB] denotes w[n] for n the code number of (3 in some effective coding
ofT.
If node (3 E T is assigned to requirement Pi, 'Ii, or Si,j, we may write
<P{J, W{J ,D{J , S{J, B{J, for the functionals and sets <Pi, Wi,Di , Si, Bi,j, played
by RED and write t{J, ~{J, E{J, Afj, iJ{J, for the versions constructed by (3
as candidates for the corresponding functionals and sets til ~i' E i , Ai, iJi,j,
played by BLUE.
In describing the construction we regard all sets and functionals as being
in a state of formation and we will use A, B, C, <P, W, t, fl., and so on to
denote the current approximations to these objects during a given stage.
Thus, A denotes the finite set of elements which have been enumerated
in A, <P denotes the functional determined by the finite set of instructions
which have already been enumerated in <P, p denotes the current value of
parameter p, and similarly for all sets and functionals played by either RED
or BLUE. When necessary to avoid confusion we append [s] and write A[s],
<p[s] or p[s] to denote the result by the end of stage s as in [14, p. 315]. We
also append [s] to a whole expression to denote the current value of all the
symbols mentioned there. Finally, to improve readability we let As, B s ,
and Cs denote A[s], B[s], and C[s] for the sets A, B, and Conly.
46 L. HARRlNGTON AND R.I. SOARE
In what follows we view the use functions, for example ),AEBC (x) for
AAEBC(x), as.movable markers whose position at the end of stage s is de-
noted by ),(x)[s], and such that once defined ),(x) can become redefined
only if some z :::; ),(x) is enumerated in A EB C. We will ensure that as a
function of two variables ),(x)[s] (when defined) will be nondecreasing in
s and strictly increasing in x. We may assume that for each s each use
function ),(x)[s] is defined for at most finitely many arguments x, and that
whenever marker ),(x) is newly placed on a value z then z is fresh, i.e. z ex-
ceeds all previous values ),(y)[s] for all y and s (and therefore z fj. Cs). We
also assume that all functionals played by RED satisfy the "hat condition"
[14, p. 131], namely
5.1. The u-module for Pi' (This is the Sacks coding strategy as in the
Sacks Density Theorem [14, p.142].) If u E T satisfies lui = 3i+2 we assign
to u the following strategy for Pi called the u-module. Define
For convenience in §5.1 we drop the subscript i from Bi , Ai, ~i' Ai, and
other sets and functions.
If at stage s + 1, ~(x)[s + 1] 1, and x < feB, C)[s] but ),(x)[s] T then
we define AAEBC(x) = K(x) and ),AEBC(x) = z E w[u1, z > ~A(x). If later
some y :::; ~A(x) enters A causing e(x) to become undefined then y allows
BLUE to make ),AEBC(x) undefined also and ),(x) may be later redefined
as above. If x E K[s], x < feB, C)[s], and A(x)[s] != 0, then at stage
s + 1 BLUE enumerates ),(x)[s] in C, redefines A(x)[s + 1] = K(x)[s] and
redefines A(x), as above.
Now suppose that BA is total and = C. Then clearly AAEBC is total and
= K, so K :::;T A contrary to hypothesis. Hence, we can choose
It may be that either BA(x)!~ C(x) or that ~(x)[s]! for finitely many s,
so that lims feB, C)[s] < 00. This is the u-outcome w, in which case u acts
finitely often and hence contributes at most finitely many elements to C.
The second possibility is that ~(x)[s]! for infinitely many s but
This is the u-outcome dx (for divergence of ~(x)). In this case u may act
GAMES IN RECURSION THEORY 47
infinitely often and may put infinitely many elements into 6. Note however
that
(7)
If at some stage seither (7) holds for x or i'(x) is undefined then we say
that x is honest at s, and dishonest otherwise. If i'A(x) is defined and some
y S i'(x) enters A then we allow i'(x) and rex)
to become undefined, and
may later redefine them as above.
48 L. HARRINGTON AND R.I. SOARE
(8)
(9)
5.3. The a-module for Si,j' If ITI = 3i and a = T~(ej) then we assign
to a the following strategy for Si,j called the a-module, which is the key
part of the entire proof. (For a more intuitive but less formal description
the reader should now read §8 before proceeding.)
For convenience we drop the subscript i from various sets and functions
as above and we also write Ba and r,a in place of Bi,j and r,i,j.
The a-module will require various parameters such as Xa, Ya, ra whose
values at the end of stage s will be denoted by xa[s], Ya[s], rats]. During a
given stage we let Xa, Yo" r a denote the current value of these parameters.
Let leE, Ba)[s] denote the first disagreement of E and Ba at the end of
stage s (which must exist because Ba[s] is finite).
The a-module consists of the following steps.
GAMES IN RECURSION THEORY 49
Step 1. At step v+l if there exists Z E w[a) such that Z < l(i,v),
z < l(E,Ba ), Ba(z) != 0, and Z > xa[v], Ya[v] if either of the latter is
defined, then let Ya[v + 1] be the maximum such z.
Step 2. (Open a-gap). If AsH r z :f. As r z for z = Ya[s] or
z = (,O(xa)[s] + 1 (and the a-module is not currently in an open gap) then
open an a-gap at stage S+ 1.
Step 2b. If xa[s] < Ya[S] then define x,.[s + 1] = y,.[s], let
Ya[s be undefined, and define 'lja(z) = D(z)[s] for all z :5 xa[s + 1], z
+ 1]
not yet in dom('lja).
Step 3. (Close a-gap). If an a-gap was last opened at stage
s + 1 and t is the next i-expansionary stage> s + 1 then we close the a-gap
at stage t + 1. The stages v such that s + 1 :5 v :5 t are the gap stages and
non gap stages are called cogap stages.
Step 3a. (Successful close). Suppose 8B (xa)[v] j for some
v, s + 1:5 v :5 t. Enumerate Xa in Ea[t + 1], define raft + 1] = 0, and take
no action for the a-module at any stage t' > t + 1.
Step 3b. (Unsuccessful close). Otherwise. Define C re-
straint raft + 1] = i'(xa)[t + 1]. (Note that since t + 1 is i-expansionary
we may assume that at stage t + 1 the r-module has already defined
i'(Xa) > (,O(Xa) as in §5.2.)
We now describe the possible outcomes of the a-module and for each
outcome the progress made on requirement 'R., or Si,j'
Outcome g. In this outcome a opens infinitely many gaps and closes each
unsuccessfully.
Case 1. x = lims xa[s] < 00. Then Y = lims Ya[s] < 00 also,
since Xa [s + 1] = Ya [s] by Step 2 if a opens a gap at stage S+ 1. Hence, for
almost every S if a opens a gap at stage S + 1 then Z E A[s + 1] - A[s] for
some Z ~ <p(x)[s]. Hence, lims <p(x)[s] = 00, so cp(x) i and requirement Ri
is met.
Case 2. lims Xa[S] = 00. Then lims Ya[s] = 00 also, since every
value Xa [s] was Ya [v] for some v < s. Hence, Oa = E, and lim suPs f( i, s) =
00 by Step 1. But also fla is total because Xa[S] is nondecreasing in s, and
whenever'a opens a gap at s + 1 then fla(z) is defined for all z ~ Xa[S + 1].
In this case we prove the following Proposition and hence conclude that
requirement Ri is met.
(13)
and then the a-module defines C-restraint ra[s + I] = .:y(x) which remains
in force and hence ensures (13) during the cogap, i.e. during those stages v,
t + 1 S; v S; s', where s' + 1 is the least stage > t + 1 at which a opens a
gap. If u = <pAE9C (x) [t + 1] then this restraint ensures that no z S; u enters
C at any stage v, t + 1 S; v S; s' and the condition in Step 2 for opening a
gap ensures that no z :::; u enters A at such a stage v because s' + 1 is the
next gap opening stage > t. Hence,
(14) (Vz S; x)[q;(z)[s'] = q;(z)[t] = D(z)[t] = 1}(z)]
Now repeat the argument with x' = xa[s' + 1] in place of x. Repeating
the argument for each gap opening stage s" > s' we see that
("Iv ~ s)(Vz :::; x)[q;(z)[v] = 1}(z) V q,(z)[v] = 1}(z)]
and hence 1}(z) = D(z) since liminfsi(i,s) = 00. 0
6. THE CONSTRUCTION
We now combine the strategies assigned to each node f3 E T to give
the full construction. The following conventions and notation closely follow
those of the nonbounding construction in [14, pp. 327-330].
In addition to the above symbols if f3 E T is assigned the a-module then
f3 will also have associated parameters x{3, Y{3, r{3 as previously discussed.
A parameter p once assigned a value retains that value until redefined, the
52 L. HARRINGTON AND R.I. SOARE
current value of p is denoted simply by p, and p[s] denotes the value at the
end of stage s.
To initialize node (3 at a given stage means to let all the parameters xJ3,
r
y13, r13 and all functionals 13, 11 13 , AJ3 , iJJ3, become undefined on all values
and to let EJ3[s] = 0. (Later new (3 action may redefine them.)
At the end of the construction we will define the true path f E [T] of the
construction. We will approximate f by defining during each stage s of the
construction a string 1f[s] E T such that
f = liminfs 1f[sJ.
(15) PJ3[s] = min {~u(k)[v] : a~(dk) C (3 & lal == 2 mod 3 & v:::; s}.
Note that PJ3[s] is nondecreasing in s. Note also that, except for finitely
many s, if a C (3 contributes an element z to 6 at stage s+ 1 then z > PJ3[s].
The construction is as follows.
Let mer) be the maximum of R(i, w) for all r-stages w :::; Vo. Ifm(r) < R(i, s)
then s is a r-expansionary stage.
>'.,.(x)[s] then enumerate >'u(x)[s] in 6, let >'.,.(y) become undefined for all
54 L. HARRINGTON AND R.I. SOARE
7. THE VERIFICATION
To complete the proof of Theorem 2.2 we need to prove that for every i
requirements Pi and 'Ri are satisfied.
Define the true path f E [TJ of the construction by
(18) f = liminfs11'[s],
r r
namely f n = liminfs'11'[sJ n, for all n. (Since the tree T is infinitely
branching it is not obvious that this lim inf exists, but we will establish it
by proving (19) by induction on n for (3 = f r n.)
We will show that each requirement is satisfied by the unique node (3 C f
which is assigned to that requirement.
Fix (3 c f. By the definition of f we know 11'[8J <L (3 for at most finitely
many s. Also each a c (3 initializes (3 at most finitely often according to
Case 3 Step 1 of the construction in §6. Hence, there is a stage s{3 such
that (3 is )lever initialized and 11'[sJ 1:-L (3 at any stage s ~ s{3.
In addition we will assume the following inductive hypotheses for (3,
(19) (:3 OO S)[S a (3-stageJ,
(20) lims P{3[8J = 00, and
(21) R[3 = liminfs {R[3[sJ : S a (3-stage} < 00,
where P[3[sJ was defined in (15) and R[3[sJ was defined in (6).
We now examine the case (3 = f r 3i and we show in Lemmas 7.1 and
7.2 that the modules for (3 and (3+ = f r (3i + 1) satisfy R i , and that (19),
(20), and (21) hold for (3++ = f r (3i + 2). (Later we do the analogous
verification for (3 = f r (3i + 2) and Pi and (3+ in Lemmas 7.3 and 7.4.)
Let (3 = f r 3i and T = (3.
Lemma 7.1. Requirement Ri is satisfied.
GAMES IN RECURSION THEORY 55
Fix a = 7"~(ej). Now by (24) and the totality of ~i and ~i we know that
7l'[s] <L a for finitely many s, in particular never at stage S ~ Sa defined
above.
From (22), (23) and Step 1 of the a-module it follows that lims Ya [s] =
00. Hence, A nonrecursive implies that there are infinitely many S such
that at stage 8 + 1 the a-module is ready to open a gap via Step 1 where
As+l r z ::/: Avo r z for z = Ya[s]. By (22) each a-gap must later be closed.
Therefore, a opens and closes infinitely many gaps and f(3i) = ej so a C f.
Hence, Di = fla and Di is recursive by the same proof as in Proposi-
tion 5.1. (Here we are using (20), the definition of Sa and the fact that
tp(xa)[s] < Pars] to see that no element z :s Ta[S] is enumerated in b at a
stage S ~ sa.) D
Proof. Note that if f3++ exists (i.e. satisfies (19)) then f3++ clearly satisfies
(20) because Pf3++ [s] = Pf3[s]. We now show that f3++ exists and satisfies
(21). First note,that f3 = 7" satisfies (19) by inductive hypothesis.
Case 1. Suppose there are finitely many 7"-expansionary stages. Then
f3++ = f3~(w)~(w) and f3++ satisfies (19), (20), and (21).
Case 2. Suppose there are infinitely many 7"-expansionary stages, but
~i(j) i or ~i(j) i with j minimal. Then f3+ = T~(dj) or f3+ = 7"~(ek)
for some k < j because the tree T below 7" is finitely branching to the left
of outcome dj . If f3+ = T~(dj) then f3++ = 7"~(dj)~(w) and f3+ clearly
satisfies (19) and (21).
If f3+ = a = 7"~(ek) then f3+ = a~(a) for some a E {s,g,w}. If
a E {s, w} then TO = lims Ta[S] < 00. If a = 9 then Ta[S + 1] = 0 for each
56 L. HARRINGTON AND R.I. SOARE
of the infinitely many stages s + 1 at which (); opens a gap. In either case
(21) holds for {3++ = (3+~(a).
Case 3. Otherwise, RED constructs <Pi = 1l1 i = D i , so the 7-module
t
constructs T = AT = E T. But then RED must make ET recursive, say
ET = Bi,k with k minimal. Then (3+ = (); = 7~(ek)' {3++ = (};~(g) and the
argument is the same as in the second paragraph of Case 2 above.
Note that since (19) holds for {3++ we have that {3++ C f because it
is obvious in each case that 7f[s] <L {3++ for at most finitely many s, and
likewise in the proof of Lemma 7.4, although we will not mention it there
explicitly. 0
Proof. Assume Sf = c.
Then lims £(Si, C)[s] = 00. Hence, the (J-module
constructs A:(J)c total such that A:(J)C(x) = K(x) for all x satisfying R(J <
,\(J(x) by (21) and Case 3 of the construction. Thus, K "5.T A E9 C "5.T A
contrary to the hypothesis on A. 0
Proof Clearly, if {3+ exists then {3+ satisfies (21) because T,a[S] is never
defined so R,a+ [s] = R,a[s] for all s. Let (J = {3 = f I (3i + 2). By
Lemma 7.3 choose
x = (jty)-,[sf(y) 1 = C(y)].
If sf(xWI= C(x) or {(x)[s] 1 for at most finitely many s then
the (J-module performs finitely much action, and {3+ = (3~(w). In this case
P,a+ [s] = P,a[s] for all s, and almost every {3-stage is also a (3+ -stage, so
(19) and(20) hold for {3+.
Otherwise we have
(25)
in which case (19) holds for {3+ by the construction, and (20) follows for
{3+ from (15) and (20) for {3. 0
This completes the proof of Theorem 2.2. 0
GAMES IN RECURSION THEORY 57
Attention then turned to the dual of (34). In 1987 two recursion theorists
announced proofs of the negation of Theorem 2.2, and one presented his
result at a meeting in October, 1987. After receiving a written version
of the proof, M. Lerman discovered the error and pointed it out to us.
We then realized that the author was making a fundamental mistake in
trying to combine two methods from [14] and we began to try to refute
his claim. In December, 1987 we proved Theorem 2.2, and during the fall
of 1988, Ambos-Spies, Lachlan and Soare proved the dual, Theorem 2.3,
which is the nonuniform version of (34). Both were presented by Soare at
the Recursion Theory meeting in Oberwolfach, Germany in March, 1989.
After hearing that talk, C. G. Jockusch and M. Stob made some helpful
observations which led to the present formulation of Corollary 2.5 in place
of an earlier version presented in the lecture. Very recently Sui [16] has
suggested another method of doing the a-module for Theorem 2.2 in the
style of the promptly simple degree theorem [14, p. 284].
During the fall of 1990 David Seetapun [10] used a very interesting 0"'-
priority argument to prove that every r.e. degree 0 < a < 0' is locally
noncappable namely
This action causes much more enumeration into 6 than with our a-module
as presented in §5.1. In our case such an A f Y changes automatically allows
XAE96 (x) to be redefined, namely if (36) holds before the A change then it
holds after the A change without enumerating X(x) into 6.
The significance of this is that combining this new a-strategy with the
rest of Sacks Density Theorem method (see [13, p. 142]) it is easy to prove:
Theorem 10.1. If C, D, F, and G are r.e. sets such that D <T C, F 1:.T
D, and C 1:.T G then there exists an r.e. set A such that D <T A <T C,
F 1:.T A, and A 1:.T G.
Slaman and Soare have noted that Theorem 10.1 (suitably extended for
finitely many sets Ci , D i , Fi , G i , i :::; k, and combined with standard re-
sults from [13] such as the minimal pair theorem, existence of branching
degrees, and embedding posets in (R, <)), gives a solution for the one point
extension of embeddings, namely the case where m = 1.
11. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The first author was supported by National Science Foundation Grant
DMS 89-10312, and the second author by National Science Foundation
Grant DMS 88-07389. The second author presented the results in this
paper and those in the companion paper [1] by Ambos-Spies, Lachlan, and
Soare, at the Workshop on Set Theory and the Continuum, October 16-20,
1989, while the authors were visiting the Mathematical Sciences Research
Institute in Berkeley, California, during the Special Year in Mathematical
Logic, from September 1, 1989 through August 24, 1990, where they were
partially supported by National Science Foundation Grant DMS 85-05550.
62 L. HARRINGTON AND R.1. SOARE
REFERENCES
1. K. Ambos-Spies, A. H. Lachlan, and R. I. Soare, The continuity of cupping to 0',
Ann. Pure Appl. Logic, to appear.
2. S. B. Cooper, The jump is definable in the structure of the degrees of unsolvability,
Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 25 (1990), 151-158.
3. P. A. Fejer, The density of the nonbranching degrees, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 24
(1983), 113-130.
4. L. Harrington and S. Shelah, The undecidability of the recursively enumerable de-
grees (research announcement), Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N. S.) 6 (1982) 79-90.
5. L. Harrington and R. I. Soare, Post's Program and incomplete recursively enumer-
able sets, Proceedings National Academy of Sci. USA, to appear.
6. L. Harrington and R. I. Soare, Definable classes and automorphisms of recursively
enumerable sets, to appear.
7. E. Herrmann, The undecidability of the elementary theory of the lattice of recur-
sively enumerable sets (abstract), In: Frege Conference 1984, Proceedings of the
International Conference at Schwerin, GDR, Akademie-Verlag, Berlin, GDR, 66-72.
8. A. H. Lachlan, On some games which are relevant to the theory of recursively enu-
merable sets, Ann. of Math. (2) 91 (1970), 291-310.
9. E. L. Post, Recursively enumerable sets of positive integers and their decision prob-
lems, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 50 (1944), 284-316.
10. D. Seetapun, Every recursively enumerable degree is locally noncappable, to appear.
11. D. Seetapun, Every 10W2 recursively enumerable degree is locally noncuppable, to
appear.
12. T. Slaman and W. H. Woodin, Definability in degree structures, to appear.
13. R. I. Soare, Automorphisms of the recursively enumerable sets, Part I: Maximal
sets, Ann. of Math. (2), 100 (1974), 80-120.
14. R. I. Soare, Recursively Enumerable Sets and Degrees: A Study of Computable
FUnctions and Computably Generated Sets, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1987.
15. M. Stob, wtt-degrees and T -degrees of recursively enumerable sets, J. Symbolic
Logic, 48 (1983), 921-930.
16. Y. Sui, On the problem of the critical bound, Acta Mathematica Sinica, to appear.
STEVE JACKSON
1. INTRODUCTION
Our purpose here is to present some recent results about the structural
theory of L(JR) assuming the axiom of determinacy. We will focus our at-
tention "high-up" in the L(JR) hierarchy, in a sense to be made precise mo-
mentarily. In particular, we will be considering cardinals '" corresponding
to highly closed pointclasses. We will therefore be far beyond the projective
sets. The results presented here will appear shortly in [2] with complete
proofs. We will therefore omit some proofs or merely sketch an outline, al-
though we provide enough details in the case of our main result (Theorem 1)
so that the reader may reconstruct the proof.
There are several reasons for considering these problems. To understand
the first, we review briefly the problem of developing the so-called ''very-
fine" structure theory for L(JR). The well-known axiom of determinacy,
introduced by Mycielsky and Steinhaus in the 60's, asserts that every two
player integer valued game is determined. Beginning with the work of
Martin and Moschovakis in the late 60's, and continuing with the work of
Solovay, Kechris, Steel and others, a reasonable theory of the projective
sets was developed assuming AD. This theory described the properties of
the projective ~ets in terms of the so-called projective ordinals, §~. (We
refer the reader to [5] and [8] for their definitions and basic properties.)
However, the theory did not compute the values of these ordinals, nor
establish all their properties. In 1985, the author, building on some ideas of
Martin, was able to complete a program originally conceived of by Kunen for
computing the §~. The main result proved was that §~n+l = [~",.,oo.,} 2n+1]+
(also, §~n+2 = (§~n+l)+ was previously known). The theory developed for
this analysis also described in detail the cardinal structure for cardinals
'" < Ne o = sUPn §~. For example, it can be verified that all regular cardinals
< ~EO are measurable (we refer the reader to [3] for the main part of the
argument for the computation of all the projective ordinals, and to the
forthcoming [4] for the special case of §A). We refer to this analysis as the
''very-fine'' structure theory for the projective sets.
63
64 S. JACKSON
ordinals, for example, but exactly how much larger? This question will
guide our discussion here.
Our main theorem (stated in the next section) extends and general-
izes a result of Kechris-Woodin [6) that e is Mahlo, and also a result of
Moschovakis that the point class of sets semi-recursive in 3 E lies strictly
within the inductive sets. Our ideas also borrow from some ideas of Har-
rington (1) where the first recursively Mahlo ordinal is studied. Our main
result will be that an admissible Suslin cardinal K, must be very large in the
Mahlo hierarchy. Our methods will also allow us to pinpoint a potential
obstacle to extending the very-fine structure theory further.
We collect now some facts about admissible Suslin cardinals we will
require.
(F1) The set of Suslin cardinals K,' < K, is c.u.b. in K,. In fact, the Suslin
cardinals K,' < K, for which for which 8(K,') = ~1 - Ja,cIR) for some
a < K, is c.u.b. in K, (c.f. (9) theorem 4.3 and corollary 4.4). Here
8(K,) denotes the pointclass of K,-Suslin sets.
(F2) ~1 - JK(IR.) has the prewellordering (in fact, scale) property. In
fact, there is a ~1 formula cp with real parameters such that cpJ K,(JR)
defines a prewellorderlng of length K,. and such that for c.u.b. many
K,' < K" cpJ K,'(JR) defines the restriction of cpJ K,(JR) to those reals of
rank < K,'.
(F3) K, is (weakly) inaccessible and has the strong partition property
K, - t (K,)K (we refer the reader to (7) for a proof).
as above for property 2 that if a is x-Mahlo for some x E field (-<a), then
o(a) ~ Ixl-<<> - 1 (where Ixl-<<> denotes the rank of x in -<a, and A-I = A
for limit A). This follows since for all Z -<a x, S': is stationary in a, and
if ZI -<a Z2 -<a x, then (S':J' < (S,:J in the ordering on stationary sets,
where (S':J', (S':2)' denote the thin points of these sets. To see this, let
C <;;;: a be as in (2) for ZI and Z2. Then for f3 E C n S':2' ZI E field (-<a) and
ZI -<a Z2 from (2). Hence S~ is stationary in a, and therefore so is (S':J'.
Also from property 2 it follows that if a E C U {K,} for this C and a is not
x-Mahlo for some x E field (-<a), then there is a c.u.b. C <;;;: a such that for
f3 E C, f3 is not x-Mahlo.
We now continue with the definition of local:
(3) For each x E field (-<) (where -< abbreviates -<",), there is a function
ix : 11, ----+ 11" a c.u.b. Cx <;;;: 11" and formulas 'ljJ~, ... ,'ljJ"; (here n may
depend on x) in the language of set theory with real parameters,
each ofthe form 'ljJ~ (WI, W2, W3) ...... ----+ \;/Z E W3",1i~ (WI, W2, z) for some
",Ii~, such that for all inaccessible Suslin cardinals a E C x U {K,}, a
closed under ix, if x E field (-<a) then for all y E JR, (y E field (-<a)
J ()3)(1lI)
and y -<a x) -{==}-. 3 a c.u.b. D <;;;: a[Vf3 E D 'ljJ~ Ix (y, f3, Dn(3) V
JI ()3)(1lI)
... V \;/f3 E D 'ljJ"; x (y, f3, D n (3)].
(4) For each x E field (-<) there is a c.u.b. Dx <;;;: 11, such that for all
inaccessible Suslin cardinals a E D x , if x 1. field (-<a), then there is
a c.u.b. D <;;;: a such that for all inaccessible Suslin cardinals f3 E D,
x 1. field (-<{3).
(5) For each x E field (-<), there is a c.u.b. Ex <;;;: 11, such that for all
inaccessible Suslin cardinals a E Ex, if x 1. field (-<a), then there is
ayE field (-<a) such that a is not y-Mahlo.
(6) Fo~ each x E field (-<), if 11, is x-Mahlo, then the set Sx = {f3 < a : f3
is an inaccessible Suslin cardinal and x E field (-<an is stationary
in 11,.
r
It is easy to check, using the fact that is closed under real quantifiers
r
that n defines a set.
We now claim that x E -.A +--t n(x).
First assume that x E .,A. One shows then that for any Zn, if Zn E -.A
then we may find a Zn+l E -.A such that (zn' zn+d satisfy one of the cases
in n. By case 0, we may assume that Zn is of the correct syntactical form
to be a code. Cases 1,2,3 are relatively easy. For case 4, we may find such a
Zn+l unless (1 = (1(Zn) codes a c.u.b. set C u which we assume to be the case.
We may further assume subcase ii does not hold as otherwise we may take
Zn+l = zn·It follows that for some m :5 n(= n(x), where now Zn = (4, x, (1)
and all inaccessible Bustin cardinals {3 E Cu that 'lj!rr;JJ~(~)(Il) (x, {3, Cu n {3)
holds. From (3) in the definition of local it now follows that x E field (-<)
and x -< x. However, from the definition of Mahloness it follows that we
may find a a timit point of Cu such that x E field (-<oJ and a is x-Mahlo.
Taking the least such a it follows that Zn codes a, a contradiction.
For the other direction, assume n(x) holds and show x E .,A. We assume
not, so x E A. We let Zo = x, Zl,'" ,Zn, ••• , witness n. One then shows
by induction on n that each Zn E A and IZn+11 < IZnl, a contradiction. For
fixed Zn, we consider cases on the syntactical form of Zn. The argument in
all cases is straightforward.
Hence x E .,A +--t n(x), so -.A E r,
a contradiction.
4. RESULTS ABOUT 8
Definition. For K an admissible Buslin cardinal, we define 8(= 8(K» to
the supremum 9f the lengths of the local well-founded relations at K.
Thus, the results of the previous section give that for K an inaccessible
Bustin cardinal, O(K) ~ 8. We state now some results concerning the size of
8. We will present only a rough outline of the proofs, referring the reader
to [2] for details.
Theorem 2. 8 is a. limit ordina.l.
Proof One checks that if -< is a local well-founded relation of length ')'+ 1,
then we may find a local relation -<' of length')' + 2. We may assume 0 ¢
72 S. JACKSON
field (-<) nor in the field of any of the -<0:, and we let Xm E field (-<) be
such that IXml = 'Y. We define -<I by adjoining to -< the relations Y -<I 0
for all y -< X m , or y = X m . We define -<~ for 0 < K, by similarly adjoining
these relations whenever Xm E field (-<0:)' It is not difficult to check that
-<I is local. 0
We note that it is not clear in general whether or not 8 is attained as
the length of a single local well-founded relation.
Theorem 3. 8 is "closed under ultrapowers". That is, if 'Y < 8 and 8
is a representative for the 'Yth equivalence class for stationary subsets of
K" and if v'"( denotes the corresponding atomic normal measure on K" then
jv., (K,) < 8, where jv., refers to the embedding corresponding to ultrapower
by the measure V'Y"
Proof. Fix 'Y < 8, and fix a local well-founded relation -< at K, of length 'Y+2,
and reals Xm, x:n E field (-<) with Ixml--< = 'Y, Ix:nl--< = 'Y+ 1, and Xm -< x:n.
From theorem 1 it follows that 8 m = {o < K, : 0 is an inaccessible Sustin
cardinal, Xm E field (-<0:), and 0 is xm-Mahlo} is stationary. Also, from
theorem 1 and (2) in the definition of local, it follows that 8:n = {o < K, : 0
is an inaccessible Sustin.cardinal, 8 m n 0 is stationary in 0, and 0 is x:n-
Mahlo} is stationary. Further, the rank of 8 m in the ordering on stationary
sets is at least 'Y. It suffices,therefore, to show that js",,(K,) < 8, where jSm
refers to the embedding from the atomic normal measure corresponding
to 8 m (this follows since an easy argument shows that if 81 < 82 in the
ordering on stationary sets then i S1 (K,) < j S2 (K, )).
We define another local well-founded relation -<I of length iSm (K,) as
follows:
(1) The field of -<I consists of reals x such that x -< Xm or x = Xm
together with pairs (xm' y) where y codes via the uniform coding
lemma a function fy : K, -+ K,.
(2) For the reals x such that x -< x:n or x = x:n, the ordering -<I agrees
with -<. Also, all such reals x are set -<I to all pairs (xm' y). Further,
we set (xm,y) -<I (Xm'Y') iff [fy]sm < [f~]sm'
(3) For 0 < K" we define -<~=-<o: if x:n ¢ field (-<0:) or 8 m n 0 is not
stationary in o.
If x:n E field (-<0:) and 8 m n 0 is stationary in 0, we define -<~ similarly
to -< (using the same x:n).
One may then check that -<I is local, which finishes the proof. 0
5. CONCLUSION
For K an admissible Sustin .cardinal, we have shown that o( K) ~ some 8
for which cof(8) > K and 8 is "closed under ultrapowers". We have also
stated a result which suggest that 6 should be regular. We state explicitly:
Conjecture. For K a Suslin cardinal, o( K) being regular and closed under
ultrapowers implies that K is admissible (Le. ~1 - JIt(IR) is closed under
real quantification).
Finally, we remark that using methods similar to the proof of theorem 5
we can show that 8 carries a K+ - additive measure, which in turn induces a
non-atomic normal measure V on K with jv (k) > 8. This seems to parallel
some results of Woodin "high up" at K = §~ on the existence of normal
measures with strength [10]. This may be important for extending the
L(IR) theory. We have not been able to a corresponding version of theorem
5 for this measUre on 8 (Le. rule out the various jv(K) as candidates for the
least cardinal where additivity of the measure fails). Thus, it is not clear
whether or not 8 is (or should be) measurable.
74 S. JACKSON
REFERENCES
1. Harrington, L.A., The Superjump and the First Recursively Mahlo Ordinal, Gener-
alized Recursion Theory, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol.
79, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1974, pp. 43-52.
2. Jackson, S., Admissible Suslin Cardinals in L(JR), Journal of Symbolic Logic (to
appear).
3. Jackson, S., AD and the Projective Ordinals, Cabal Seminar 81-85, Lecture Notes
in Mathematics 1333 (1988), Springer-Verlag, 117-220.
4. Jackson, S., A Computation of §~, in preparation.
5. Kechris, A.S., AD and Projective Ordinals, Cabal Seminar 76-77, Lecture Notes in
Mathematics 689 (1978), Springer-Verlag, 91-132.
6. Kechris, A.S., Determinacy and the Structure of L(JR), Proceedings of Symposia in
Pure Mathematics 42 (1985), 271-283.
7. Kechris, A.S., Kleinberg. E.M., Moschovakis, Y.N., and Woodin, W.H., The Axiom
of Determinacy, Strong Partition Properties, and Non-Singular Measures, Cabal
Seminar 77-79, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 839 (1981), Springer-Verlag, 75-100.
8. Moschovakis, Y.N., Descriptive Set Theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1980.
9. Steel, J.R., Scales in L(JR), Cabal Seminar 79-81, Lecture Notes in Mathematics
1019 (1983), Springer-Verlag, 107-156.
10. Woodin, W.H., Large Cardinals and Determinacy, in preparation.
HAIM JUDAH
1. INTRODUCTION
75
76 H. JUDAH
A(m)
!
/ A(e) '-.
/ '-.
B(m)->U(e) B(e)->U(m)
'-. /
'-. C(e) /
!
G(m)
SET THEORY OF REALS: MEASURE AND CATEGORY 77
+I
B(m)-U(c)-C(c)-C(m)
I t
A(m)-A(c)-B(c)-U(m)
In addition,
A(c) == B(c) & D
C(c) == U(c) V wD.
In the context of this diagram, like before, a natural question arises:
are these the only implications between these sentences that are provable
in Z FC? It turns out that the answer to this question is positive: every
combination of those sentences which does not contradict the implications
in the diagram is consistent with Z FC.
This is proved "step-by-step", i. e., by giving a model for each impli-
cation. The last five models are given in BartoszyJiski-Judah-Shelah [8].
Although our paradigm is to look for asymmetries between measure and
category, in the construction of the models we can recognize some kind of
symmetry.
Let W be the set of sentences obtained from the sentences A, B, U, C,
78 H. JUDAH
.'lj;* if ¢ =.'lj;
'lj;1 * V'lj;2* if ¢ = 'lj;1 V'lj;2
.C if ¢=A
.U if ¢=B
¢* = .B if ¢=U
.A if ¢=C
.wD if ¢=D
.D if ¢=wD
for ¢ E W.
It turns out that if ¢ is consistent with ZFC, then ¢* is consistent with
ZFC. Moreover, in most cases, one can find a notion of forcing P such
that w2-iteration of P over of model for CH gives a model for ¢, while
wI-iteration of P over a model for MA + .CH gives a model for ¢*.
To give an example of our method of work, we shall describe step-by-step
how we got a model for .B(c) & .U(m) & .B(m) & U(c) & wD & .D.
The first step is to find the appropriate support for the iteration. Because
we want .B(c), we are obliged to avoid adding Cohen reals, therefore we
must use a countably supported iteration.
We thus get two restrictions: namely, we must start from a model of C H
and we can not get models for the continuum being bigger than ~2' We do
not have a preservation theorem for the sentence "not adding Cohen reals."
But if the forcing notion satisfies a little more than axiom A, then we are
able to show that the Cohen reals are not added at limit stages.
The second restriction is to get .U(m) in the final model. We take care
of this by, a preservation theorem for the sentence "the outer measure of A
is one," as mentioned in the section on the Kunen-Miller chart.
The third restriction is to get a model for .B(m), which means not
adding random reals. We prove a preservation theorem for "not adding
random reals."
The fourth restriction is .D. We use here a preservation theorem for
the sentence "not adding dominating reals."
Now we go to the second stage. We should find forcing notions for
getting U(c), that is, for making the old reals a meager set. This forcing
notion must also satisfy the fourth previous condition, i. e., it must not add
dominating reals. (This was one of the hardest problems.)
Finally, we want to get wD. For this, we must add an unbounded real
without violating the four above-mentioned restrictions. Miller rational
perfect forcing is used for this.
SET THEORY OF REALS: MEASURE AND CATEGORY 79
4. COFINALITIES
It is an interesting problem to study the cofinalities of the cardinalities
associated with the Kunen-Miller chart. In general, these cardinals are
defined as follows.
Let T be a a-ideal of Borel sets of R, then we define
Is cof(KB(C)) > w?
A lot of effort has been devoted to solve this problem. (See [16], [17].)
The best partial result was obtained by Bartoszynski [4]:
Clearly this is enough to show that in his model, KU(C) = NW1 '
I think that the study of the cofinalities associated to the Kunen-Miller
chart will be an area of very interesting development in the near future.
It is impressive how Rothberger's work done in the 40's and 50's has a
strong flavor of our work in the 80's.
In his celebrated work, "On the consistency of the Borel Conjecture,"
R. Laver [26] built a model where 2No = N2 and every strong measure zero
set is countable. In this paper countably supported iterations of forcing
were introduced. A complete solution of the Borel conjecture with large
continuum was given independently by W. H. Woodin and Judah-Shelah
(see [18]). In [18] it is proved that adding w2-Laver reals followed by any
number of random reals gives models for the Borel conjecture. It is an open
problem if we can destroy the Borel conjecture by a adding a random real.
A. Miller asked if the existence of a Ramsey filter on w implies the
negation of the Borel conjecture. This is a natural question when you
know that the existence of Ramsey filters has a close relation with models
having a lot of Cohen reals. The Cohen reals are the main ingredient to
build Luzin sets. In [19] a model for both the Borel conjecture and the
existence of Ramsey filters was constructed. It can be noticed that all the
constructions of strong measure zero sets of size N2 have used the existence
of Cohen reals over L. T. Weiss and I, working independently, were looking
for models where S\R <N2 =f. 0 and no real is Cohen over L. This problem
was solved recently by Goldstern-Judah-Shelah [12], where we produce such
models.
82 H. JUDAH
Galvin asked if
Using the ideas of [36], it was not hard to get a model for LlACM) by a
a-centered forcing extension, therefore, if we start from L, we can get a
model for LlACM) + -.LlM.c).
For a long time, the main problem concerning .dA-sets was to show that
Ll~(.c) + -.Ll~(M),
but we used the consistency of a measurable cardinal. This result did not
yet make me happy. Fortunately, during this logic year, we built a model for
LlAC.c) +-.LlACM) using only the consistency of ZFC [-]. This construction
owes a lot to technology introduced by Galvin, Laver, Shelah, Todorcevic,
etc.
We think that a forcing characterization of LlA(.c) (LlA(M)) would give
us a deeper understanding of these statements.
Concerning the .dA-sets, Harrington-Shelah [13] proved that
We don't know how to build models for ~A(.c) + -,~1(.c) starting from
large cardinals which are possibly consistent with V = L. I think this must
be one of the most interesting problems in the near future of set theory.
One of the first asymmetries of measure and category was found by
S. Shelah [36] when he started from L and built a model for 'v'n ~~(M)
(without using an inaccessible cardinal).
Surprisingly, this asymmetry disappears when one adds a weak assump-
tion to ZFC, as shown by the following theorem of Raisonnier[33]:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to thank J. W. Addison and D. Martin for helping
me to be at M.S.R.I. duri~g the logic year, Richard Shore for supporting
my last month under a grant for Latin America, W. Just for pressing me
to write this evaluation, and M. Wiener for improving the presentation to
this final form.
REFERENCES
13. L. Harrington and S. Shelah, Some exact equiconsistency results in set theory, Notre
Dame Journal of Formal Logic 26 (1985), 178-188.
14. H. Judah, S. Shelah, The Kunen-Miller Chart, JSL (to appear).
15. H. Judah and S. Shelah, Souslin forcing, Journal of Symbolic logic 53 (1988), 1188-
1207.
16. H. Judah, S. Shelah, Around random algebra, Archive for Mathematical Logic (to
appear).
17. H. Judah, S. Shelah, Adding dominating reals with measure algebras, submitted.
18. H. Judah, S. Shelah, H. Woodin, The Borel Conjecture, AnPAL (to appear).
19. H. Judah, Strong measure zero sets and rapid filters, Journal of Symbolic logic 53
(1988), 393-402 .
20. H. Judah, S. Shelah, MA(u-centered), Cohen reals, strong measure zero sets, and
strongly meager sets, Israel Journal of Mathematics 68 (1989), 1-17.
21. H. Judah and S. Shelah, A~-sets ofreals, Annals of pure and applied logic 42 (1989),
207-233.
22. H. Judah, S. Shelah, Martin's axioms, measurability and equiconsistency results,
Journal of Symbolic logic 54 (1989), 78-94.
23. H. Judah, S. Shelah, A~-sets of reals, submitted.
24. A. Kamburelis, Iteration of Boolean Algebras with Measure, Archives of Mathemat-
icallogic 29 (1989), 21-28.
25. K. Kunen, Random and Cohen Reals, Handbook of Set Theoretical Topology, North-
Holland, 1984.
26. R. Laver, On the consistency of Borel's Conjecture, Acta Mathematica 137 (1976),
151-169.
27. D. Martin and R. Solovay, Internal Cohen extensions, Annals of Mathematical Logic
2 (1970), 143-178.
28. A. Miller, Some properties of measure and category, Transactions of the American
Mathematical Society 266,1 (1981),93-114.
29. A. Miller, The Baire category theorem and cardinals of countable cofinality, Journal
of Symbolic logic 47 (1982), 275-288 .
30. A. Miller, Special sets of reals, Handbook of Set Theoretical Topology, North-
Holland, 1984.
31. Oxtoby, Measure and Category, Springer-Verlag, 1971.
32. J. Pawlikowsky, Finite support iteration and strong measure zero sets, Journal of
Symbolic logic (to appear).
33. J. Raisonnier, A mathematical proof of s. Shelah's theorem on the measure problem
and related results, Israel Journal of Mathematics 48 (1984), 48-56.
34. J. Raisonnier, J. Stern, The strength of measurability hypotheses, Israel Journal of
Mathematics 50 (1985), 337-349.
35. Rothberger, Eine Aquivalenz zwischen der Kontinuumshypothese unter der Existenz
der Luzinschen und Sierpinskischen Mengen, Fundamenta Mathematicae 30 (1938),
215-217.
36. S. Shelah, Can you take Solovay's inaccessible away'?, Israel Journal of Mathematics
48 (1984), 1-47.
ALEXANDER S. KECHRIS
1. INTRODUCTION
This article is a survey of some recent work on Borel equivalence rela-
tions in Polish spaces. The subject has interesting connections with ergodic
theory and operator algebras and in fact a lot of the work reported here
has been motivated by results 'and concepts originating in these areas.
Before getting down to specific results, it would be helpful, in order to
put things in perspective, to discuss informally some aspects of the subject
of "definable" equivalence relations in Polish spaces to which these results
belong. One can look at this from two different but related points of view.
The first we dub the "set theoretic point of view", the second one "the
classification point of view". Here is what we have in mind.
89
90 A.S. KECHRIS
2. A GLIMM-EFFROS DICHOTOMY
FOR BOREL EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS
Notice that E has a Borel separating family iff E ::::; .6.(2W), where b.(S)=
equality on S.
x . g(h) = x(gh)
we denote by E(XG) the induced equivalence relation.
The following result shows that all countable Borel equivalence relations
come from group actions.
THE STRUCTURE OF BOREL EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS 95
E=Eo. .
Apart from the group actions, another important ingredient in the study
of countable Borel E is the type of "structures" that can be "uniformly"
attached to each E-equivalence class, as it will be gradually explained be-
low.
In terms of these ingredients one can ramify countable Borel equivalence
relations in different levels of complexity.
These are by definition the ones with finite equivalence classes, and there
is not much to say about them.
Again these are fairly easy to understand. We only want to make here
a couple of remarks: Because of the countability assumption, smoothness
can be characterized by the existence of a Borel selector. Also because of
Theorem 2.5 and the remarks following it, non-smoothness is characterized
by the existence of a non-atomic, ergodic and quasi-invariant probability
measure. (A measure p, is E-quasi-invariant if for every Borel set A,
p,(A) = 0 implies p,([AJE) = 0, where [AJE = {x::Jy E A(xEy)}).
Before we go to the next level, recall the Feldman-Moore Theorem. One
can ask various questions about a countable group generating a given equiv-
alence relation. For example, can it always be taken to have 2 generators?
This does not seem to be known. However one has the following fact proved
in [8J.
96 A.S. KECHRlS
We have now the following basic fact for hyperfinite equivalence relations.
Put
E>:::!F~Er;;F & Fr;;E
Problem 12. Is there a Glimm-Effros type dichotomy for amenable (or per-
haps hyperfinite) equivalence relations?
A strong possible formulation (that settles Problem 11 as well) is the
following: Is there a non-amenable equivalence relation E 1 , perhaps in-
duced by some appropriate action of F2, which embeds in any given non-
hyperfinite E? (If such a result holds effectively this would also imply that
hyperfiniteness is effective). Notice that this can be viewed as an analog
of the following classical problem for groups: Does every non-amenable
countable group contain F2? (see [33]). The answer in this case is of course
known to be negative (see again [33]).
Up until now we have not yet seen equivalence relations strictly between
Eo and E(2F2) (in ::;:). Such examples have been pointed out to us by
Zimmer and also Adams. We describe here the Borel version of Adams'
notion of a treeable equivalence relation (see Adams [1]).
4. ADDENDUM
E ~* F {:==? E :S F 1\ F:S E .
REFERENCES
1. S. Adams, Trees and amenable equivalence relations, Erg. Theory and Dyn. Systems
10 (1990), 1-14.
2. S. Adams, Indecomposability of treed equivalence relations, Israel J. Math 64(3)
(1988), 362-380.
3. S. Adams and R. Spatzier, Kazhdan groups, cocycles and trees, Amer. J. Math 112
(1990), 271-287.
4. J. Burgess, A selection theorem for group actions, Pac. J. Math. 80(2) (1979),
333-336.
5. A. Connes, J. Feldman and B. Weiss, An amenable equivalence relation is generated
by a single transformation, Erg. Theory and Dyn. Systems 1 (1981),431-450.
6. C. Dellacherie and P-A. Meyer, The6rie discrete du potentiel, Hermann, 1983.
7. R. Dougherty, S. Jackson and A. Kechris, The structure of equivalence relations
on Polish spaces, I: An extension of the Glimm-Effros dichotomy, circulated notes,
March 1989.
8. R. Dougherty, S. Jackson and A. Kechris, The structure of equivalence relations on
Polish spaces, II: Countable equivalence relations or descriptive dynamics, circulated
notes, March 1989.
9. E. Effros, Transformation groups and C*-algebras, Ann. of Math. 81(1) (1965),
38-55.
10. E. Effros, Polish transformation groups and classification problems, General Topol-
ogy and Modern Analysis, Rao and McAuley, eds. (1980), Academic Press, 217-227.
11. J. Feldman and C. C. Moore, Ergodic equivalence relations, cohomology and von
Neumann algebras, I, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 234(2) (1977), 289-324.
12. M. Foreman, A Dilworth decomposition theorem for A-Suslin quasi-orderings of JR,
in "Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science VIII", North Holland, 1989, 223-
244, 223-244.
13. H. Friedman and L. Stanley, A Borel reducibility theory for classes of countable
structures, J. Symb. Logic 54(3) (1989),894-914.
14. J. Glimm, Locally compact transformation groups, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 101
(1961), 124-138.
15. A. Godefroy, Some remarks on Suslin sections, Fund. Math. LXXXIV (1986),
159-167.
16. L. Harrington, A. Kechris and A. Louveau, A Glimm-Effros dichotomy for Borel
equivalence ~lations, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 3(4) (1990),903-928.
17. L. Harrington, D. Marker and S. Shelah, Borel orderings, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.
310(1) (1988), 293-302.
18. L. Harrington and R. Sami, Equivalence relations, projective and beyond, Logic
Colloq. 78 (North Holland, 1979), 247-264.
19. K. Kada, A Borel version of Dilworth's theorem, (to appear).
20. Y. Katznelson and B. Weiss, The construction of quasi-invariant measures, Israel J.
Math. 12 (1972), 1-4.
21. A. Kechris, Amenable equivalence relations and Turing degrees, J. Symb. Logic (to
appear).
22. W. Krieger, On Borel automorphisms and their quasi-invariant measures, Math. Z.
151 (1976), 19-24.
23. A. Louveau, Two results on Borel orders, J. Symb. Logic 34(3) (1989), 865-874.
24. A. Louveau and J. Saint Raymond, On the quasi-ordering of Borel linear orders
under embeddability, J. Symb. Logic 55(2) (1990), 537-560.
25. D. Mauldin and S. Ulam, Mathematical problems and games, Adv. in Appl. Math 8
(1987), 281-344.
102 A.S. KECHRIS
26. P. Muhly, K. Saito and B. SoleI, Coordinates for triangular opemtor algebms, Ann.
of Math. 121 (1988), 245-278.
27. S. Shelah and B. Weiss, Measumble recurrence and quasi-invariant measures, Israel
J. Math. 43 (1982), 154-160.
28. J. Silver, Counting the number of equivalence classes of Borel and coanalytic equiv-
alence relations, Ann. Math. Logic 18 (1980), 1-28.
29. T. Slaman and J. Steel, Definable functions on degrees, in "Cabal Seminar 81-85",
Lecture Notes in Math. 1333, Springer-Verlag, 1988,37-55.
30. J. Steel, Long games, in "Cabal Seminar 81-85", Lecture notes in Math. 1333,
Springer-Verlag, 1988,56-97.
31. D. Sullivan, B. Weiss and J.D.M. Wright, Generic dynamics and monotone complete
C*-algebms, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 295(2) (1986),795-809.
32. A. Vershik, The action of PSL(2,Z) on JRl is approximable, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk.
33(1) (1978), 209-210 (in Russian).
33. S. Wagon, The Banach-Tarski Pamdox, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985.
34. B. Weiss, Measumble dynamics, Cant. Math. 26 (1984), 395-421.
35. R. Zimmer, Hyperfinite factors and amenable ergodic actions, Inv. Math 41 (1977),
23-31.
ALAIN LOUVEAU
1. INTRODUCTION
In what follows, a Borel structure is a first-order structure A (in some
countable language) such that both the domain of A, and its relations and
functions, are Borel (sets or functions) in some Polish space.
In Analysis, these structures occur quite naturally, but have been much
less studied than their topological counterparts. Reasons for that may be
that for most practical uses the topological frame is sufficient, and also
the lack, in the Borel case, of the powerful duality methods. Still there
has been some investigations, for particular Borel structures, like e.g. the
work of J. P. R. Christensen ~n Borel groups [C] or the study of Borel
transformations in Ergodic theory. Moreover, there seems to be a renewal
of interest in Borel structures in various parts of Analysis, e.g. in specific
Borel subgroups of the circle in Harmonic Analysis (Host-Mela-Parreau [H-
M-P]), or in Borel equivalence relations in Ergodic theory and in C'''-algebra
theory (see the paper by Kechris [Ke], in this volume).
In the mid-seventies H. Friedman proposed a systematic model-theoretic
study of the Borel structures, as an important intermediate level between
the countable structures and the general abstract structures of standard
model theory. lIe proved some general model theoretic results for Borel
structures, like a completeness theorem which insures the existence, for
first order theories with infinite models, of an uncountable Borel model in
which every definable relation is Borel (see H. Friedman [F] and Steinhorn
[Stn]). He also 'Proved specific structural results, in particular on Borel
linear orders, that we will discuss later.
Since then, a lot of results, concerning Borel partial orders, Borel linear
orders and Borel equivalence relations have been established. Although
there is no general theory relating these results, they all share the same
flavour, and are proved using very similar techniques, those of Descriptive
Set Theory. The aim of this paper is to give an account of what has been
obtained in these last 15 years, and to organize the exposition of the results
so that to stress these similarities.
103
104 A.LOUVEAU
The first interesting case concerns Borel structures with only equality,
i.e. the study of cardinality for Borel sets. As is well-known, any uncount-
able Borel set has cardinality c, and this can be made more precise by the
106 A.LOUVEAU
Perfect Set Theorem (Suslin; Harrison. See [MoJ). For every Borel set
X, either X ::;* w or ~ ::;~ X. Moreover in the first case the reduction can
be found 6.1 in a code for X.
This result is a paradigm for all dichotomy results. And using the
Cantor-Bernstein technique, it easily follows that any two Borel sets of the
same cardinality are Borel isomorphic, so that for this class of structures,
the notions of isomorphism, Borel isomorphism and Borel bi-reducibility
coincide.
The C8Se of finitely many unary predicates is very similar: Again iso-
morphism, Borel isomorphism and Borel bi-reducibility coincide, and the
equivalence class of a structure (X, A o, . .. , An-l) is determined by the car-
dinality of each atom As = nS(i)=l Ai n ns(i)=o(X\Ai ) , for s E 2n.
For structures with countably many unary predicates, or with unary
functions, the situation is not really known, and probably quite interest-
ing and complicated. Note that the latter case contains the case of Borel
transformations, which are studied (usually in a measure-theoretic, not de-
scriptive set theoretic context) in ergodic theory and dynamical systems.
The situation for stl1J,ctures with a unary predicate is much less trivial if
instead of considering Borel reducibility, one considers the partial ordering
of continuous reducibility. To simplify the statements, let us consider only
the case where the domain is (a closed subset of) wW. One then gets the
Wadge ordering, usually denoted by ::; w, on Borel sets: A ::; w B if for
some continuous f: wW -4 wW A = f-l(B).
Wadge's Main Lemma (Wj, which uses Borel determinacy, asserts that
a Borel set A and its complement AC = wW\A always form a maximal
antichain in ::; w. IT A ~w A c, A is said to be selfdual, and non self dual
otherwise. Self-dual sets can easily be described in terms of non self dual
ones. And for non self dual sets, Wadge's lemma can be strengthened in
the following dichotomy result:
Theorem. Let A ~ wW be Borel, and non self dual. Then one can find a
set Ao ~ wW, Ao ~w A, and a structure (KllAt} ~w (wW,A) such that
for any Borel set B ~ wW
(i) either B ::;w Ao, and in this case the continuous reduction can be
found 6.1 in codes for Ao and B or
(ii) (Kll A l ) ::;w (WW, B), and in this case the continuous reduction can
be found one-to-one.
[In fact if A is ~g the set K 1 is a countable compact set, and if A is
not ~g, one can take Kl = ~, so that in both cases, the reduction is a
homeomorphism on its image.]
CLASSIFYING BOREL STRUCTURES 107
This result was the starting point for many investigations, especially
about possible extensions to more complicated definable equivalence rela-
tions (see [Sh], [H-S]).
A later much simpler proof by Harrington of Silver's result leads to the
following dichotomy result for the ordering ~ on Borel equivalence relations.
Theorem (Harrington [Hal). Let (X, E) be a Borel equivalence relation.
Then
-either (X, E) ~ (w, =), and in this case the reduction can be found ..6.~
in (a code for) (X, E)
--or (2 w ,=) ~ (X,E), and in this case the reduction can be found con-
tinuous and one-to-one.
Harrington's proof of this result (and of the natural extension to 1Jt
equivalence relations) is historically very important, for it is the first place
where the Gandy-Harrington forcing is used to get dichotomy results.
It follows from this result that the first w + 2 ~-classes of Borel equiva-
lence relations are those of (n, =) for n < w, (w, =) and (2W, =).
Very recently, another dichotomy result has been proved by Harrington,
Kechris and Louveau.
Let Eo be the following equivalence relation on 2W : aEof3 r-+ a and f3
are eventually equal r-+ 3kVn 2 ka(n) = f3(n).
Theorem (Harrington-Kechris-Louveau [H-K-L]). Let (X, E) be a Borel
equivalence relation. Then
-either (X, E) ~ (2W, =), and in this case the reduction can be found..6.~
in a code for (X, E)
--or (2 W , Eo) ~ (X, E), and in this case the reduction can be found con-
tinuous I;W.d one-to-one.
We won't discuss here the origins of this dichotomy result, nor its rel-
evance in Analysis-in particular for building ergodic measures. We refer
the reader to Kechris' paper [Ke] in this volume.
So by'this result, one gets that the ~-class of (2W, Eo) is the (w + 3)rd
class in the ordering ~ on Borel equivalence relations.
Rather few other results are known for this ordering: It is not linear,
and has no maximal element, by a result of Friedman-Stanley [F-S], which
uses the Borel diagonalization results of H. Friedman, see [Sta]. It follows
easily that there are chains of length WI in it. And Harrington has noticed
that there is a chain of WI Borel equivalence relations which is cofinal in ~.
However, there is no known "natural" example of such a chain.
It is also not known if there are any dichotomy results above (2 W , Eo),
and the wqo problem is open.
CLASSIFYING BOREL STRUCTURES 109
4. BOREL ORDERINGS
Let us consider first Borel partial (pre-)orders. The main result is the
following dichotomy-type result, proved by Harrington and Shelah (see [H-
M-S]) , and which is an extension of the Silver-Harrington result on Borel
equivalence relations
Theorem (Harrington-Shelah). Let (X, R) be a. Borel partial preorder.
Then
-either there is a. decomposition (Xn)nEw, of X into Borel sets which are
R-chains (i.e. R restricted to Xn is a linear preorder) and in this case the
partition (Xn) can be found At in a. code for (X, R)
-or there is a. perfect subset of X of pairwise R-incomparable elements.
This result refines an earlier result of Shelah [S] stating that a Borel
partial order admitting an uncountable anti chain must admit a perfect an-
tichain. It can also be viewed as an infinite Borel analog of the classical
theorem of Dilworth [D] which states that a partial preorder for which all
antichains are of cardinality bounded by k E w is the union of k chains.
Recently, K. Kada has proved the following finite Borel version of Dil-
worth's theorem:
Theorem (Kada [Ka]). If (X, R) is a Borel partial preorder, and all an-
tichains in it are of cardinality bounded by k < w, then X = U:=l Xi,
where Xi are Borel R-chains. Moreover the Xi'S can be found bot in a code
for (X,R).
For both previous theorems, the effective refinements are instrumental
for the proofs.
Let us consider now the subclass BOR of Borel linear orders. In this case
Borel reductions are just Borel strictly increasing functions, and sand s*
coincide.
For each ordinal ~ < WI. consider the structures (2~,lex) (resp. 2<~,lex)
of sequences of O's and l's of length ~ (resp. < ~), with the lexicographical
ordering. These are clearly Borel (in fact ~g) linear orders.
The first result for (BOR, s) is a cofinality result.
110 A. LOUVEAU
The non-effective version of this result is due to Friedman [F], and implies
that there is no Borel Souslin line (Friedman-Shelah [F], [Stnl).
A similar situation holds at all limit countable ordinals:
Theorem (Louveau [L03]). Let € < Wi> and (X, R) E BOR. Then
(i) Either (X, R) ::; (2<w·e, lex), in which case the Borel reduction can
be found Ai in codes for (X, R) and € or (2 w ·e,lex) ::; (X, R), in which case
the reduction can be found continuous.
(ii) Either (X,R) ::; (2w·e,lex), in which case the Borel reduction can be
found Ai in codes for (X, R) and € or (2w'Hl , lex) ::; (X, R), in which case
the reduction can be found continuous.
This result says that for all € (2<w·e, lex), (2 w·e,lex) and (2 wHl ,lex) are
three consecutive nodes in the ordering (BOR, ::;).
The last type of results deals with the bqo property. Note that the
restriction of ::; to the class DEN of countable linear orders is the relation
called by FraIsse "abritement", and that by Laver's celebrated result [La],
solving Fraisse's conjecture, (DEN,::;) is a better-Quasi-ordering.
This result has been extended by Louveau and Saint Raymond [1-S4].
For each € < Wl, set BORe = {(X,R) E BOR} (X,R) ::; (2w·e ,lex). It
immediately follows from Laver's theorem that (BORil ::;) is bqo.
The case of (BOR~, $) for ~ > 2 is entirely open. However if one accepts
strong set theoretical axioms, there are some partial results for the order
$a (and in fact for various intermediate notions of definable reducibility):
Theorem (Louveau-8aint Raymond [1-84]).
(i) Assume projective determinacy. Then (UnEw BORn, $a) is bqo. In
fact the class of all projective linear orders which are projectively reducible
to some (2w •n ,lex), nEw, is bqo under projective reducibility.
(ii) Assume hyperprojective determinacy. Then (BOR.." $a) is bqo (and
again $a can be replaced by some form of definable reducibility).
A natural conjecture is that (BOR, $) should be bqo-and that this
should be provable in ZFC, maybe even in second order arithmetic. (The
proof in [1-84] for BOR2 heavily uses Borel determinacy.)
REFERENCES
[0] J. P. R. Christensen, Topology and Borel structure, Mathematics Studies
10, North Holland, 1974.
[D] R. P. Dilworth, A decomposition theorem for partially ordered sets, Ann.
Math. 51 (1950), 161-166.
[vE-M-S] F. van Engelen, A. Miller and J. Steel, Rigid Borel sets and better quasi
order theory, Contemporary Math. 65 (1987), 199-222.
[F] H. Friedman, Borel structures in mathematics, Manuscript (1979), Ohio
State University.
[F-S] H. Friedman and L. Stanley, A Borel reducibility theory for classes of count-
able structures, J. of Symb. Logic 54 (1989), 894-914.
[Ha] L. Harrington, A powerless proof of a theorem of Silver, Handwritten Notes
(1976), University of California, Berkeley.
[H-K-L] L. Harrington, A. S. Kechris and A. Louveau, A Glimm-Effros dichotomy
for Borel equivalence relations, (to appear).
[H-M-S] L. Harrington, D. Marker and S. Shelah, Borel orderings, Trans. Amer.
Math. Soc. 810 (1988), 293-302.
[H-S] L. Harrington and S. Shelah, Counting equivalence classes for co-Suslin
relations, Logic Colloquium '80, ed. D. Van Dalen, D. Lascar and T. J.
Smiley (1982), North Holland.
[H-M-P] B. Host, J. F. Mala and F. Parreau, Saturated subgroups, groups of quasi-
irwa'l'iance and spectral analysis of measures, Preprint.
[Hu] W. Hurewicz, Relativ perfekte Teile von Punktmengen und Mengen (A),
Fund. Math. 12 (1928), 78-109.
[Ka] K. Kada, Une version boUlienne d'un tMoreme de Dilworth, Trans. A.M.S
(to appear).
[Ke] A. S. Kechris, The structure of Borel equivalence relations in Polish spaces,
this volume.
[La] R. Laver, On Fraisse's order type conjecture, Ann. of Math. 98 (1971),
89-111.
[Lo1] A. Louveau, A separation theorem for El sets, Trans. A.M.S. 260 (1980),
363-378.
[Lo2] _ _ , Some results in the Wadge Hierarchy of Borel sets, CABAL Semi-
nar 79-81, Lecture Notes in Math. 1019 (1983), Springer-Verlag, 28-55.
112 A.LOUVEAU
[Lo3] ___ , Two results on Borel orders, J. ofSymb. Logic 54 (1989), 865-873.
[l..-S1] A. Louveau and J. Saint Raymond, Borel classes and closed games, Wadge
type and Hurewicz type results, Trans. A.M.S. 304 (1987), 431-467.
[l..-S2] ___ , The strength of Borel Wadge determinacy, CABAL Seminar 81-
85, A. S. Kechris, D. A. Martin, J. R. Steel (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Math.
1333 (1988), 1-30.
[l..-S3] ___ , Les proprUtes de reduction et de norme pour les classes de Borel-
iens, Fund. Math. 131 (1988), 223-243.
[l..-S4] ___ , On the quasi-ordering of Borel linear orders under embeddability,
J. of Symbolic Logic (to appear).
(Mo] Y. N. Moschovakis, Descriptive Set Theory, North Holland (1980).
(N] C. St. J. A. Nash-Williams, On better quasi-ordering transfinite sequences,
Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 64 (1968), 273-290.
[Sb] S. Shelah, On co-Su.slin relations, Israel J. of Math. 47 (1984).
[Si] J. H. Silver, Counting the number of equivalence classes of Borel and coan-
alytic equivalence relations, Annals of Math. Logic 18 (1980), 1-28.
[Sta] L. Stanley, Borel diagonalization and abstract set theory: Recent resu.lts
of Harvey FHedman, in Harvey Friedman's research on the foundations of
mathematics, L. A. Harrington et at. (Eds.) (1985), North Holland.
[Stl] J. R. Steel, Determinateness and the separation property, J. Symbolic Logic
46 (1981),41-44.
[Stn] C. Steinhorn, Borel structures and measure and category logics, Model The-
oretic Logics, Ed. Barwise and Feferman, Springer-Verlag, 1985.
(W) W. W. Wadge,. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley (1984).
113
114 A.R.D. MATHIAS
view that can be traced back certainly to Plato, namely that there are two
primitive mathematical intuitions; which might be called the geometrical
and the arithmetical; or, alternatively, the spatial and the temporal.
Plato did not have the advantage of modern research into the functions
of the left and right half of the brain; this work suggests that the temporal
mode (which would include recursive constructions) is handled in the left
brain, whereas the spatial mode is handled in the right.
What can each mode of thought contribute to the understanding of the
other? I believe, a lot.
Can either be reduced to the other? I should say not; certain formal
translations exist, but the underlying intuitions do not translate; and these
obstructions show themselves as paradoxes such as that of Banach-Tarski.
Let me refer to my contention that there are these two modes, neither
reducible to the other, as positing an essential bimodality of mathematical
thought.
In earlier pieces I have remarked how Mac Lane's choice of axioms agrees
with that made by Bourbaki, at least initially; Liliane Beaulieu has recently
remarked that Bourbaki's initial choice of topics was influenced by consider-
ation of the needs of physicists (see [1]); this in turn suggests that Bourbaki
attaches greater importance to the descriptive powers of mathematics than
to the constructive, and prompts a speculative question: what need is there
for a theory of recursion in physics?
There is certainly a need for a theory of recursion in mathematics. The
recursion theorem itself is the heart of logic; it is the watershed where
processes become objects. In descriptive set theory it takes the shape of
the Coding Theorem of Moschovakis, and is thus the source of the strength
of the axiom of determinacy.
My sense of the bimodality of mathematics is such that to suppress
the ordinals or other frameworks on which to carry out recursions is to
suppress half one's mathematical consciousness. I wonder therefore what
physicists might be missing by using only the Bourbaki-Mac Lane portion
of mathematics in their modeling. Might it be that physical time might
fruitfully be modeled by an ordering other than the reals, for example by
R x W2, so that a leap ahead by Wl corresponds to some discontinuous
event?
Such speculation prompts a further question: is it necessary for all the
mathematical concepts invoked in physical explanation to have a direct
physical meaning? Or might it be desirable to have abstract concepts which
have the merit of making the physics easier to understand without having
a perceptible physical interpretation?
118 A.R.D. MATHIAS
REFERENCES
Beaulieu, Liliane, Bourbaki for physicists? A glance at some unrealized projects (1934 -
1954), Abstracts AMS 73 12(1) (Jan. 1991), # 863-01-79.
Mac Lane, Saunders, Mathematics: Form and FUnction, Springer-Verlag, 1986.
119
120 s. MAC LANE
ten present the technique and not the meaning of their theorems. I am
now inclined to apologize to my friends the logicians-other branches of
mathematics, including some categorists, are even more isolated, and the
algebraic geometers are accomplished experts at obscuring their ideas be-
hind mountains of technique.
Mathias seems to claim that having just one foundation promotes the
unity of mathematics. I disagree; it is still the case that most mathemati-
cians don't think much about foundations. Real unity is fine, and unity is
promoted more by cross connections, especially the unexpected ones. For
example, categorical coherence theorems for tensored categories cropped
up in Tanaka duality for groups and then in conformal field theory. Again,
set theoretical forcing turned out to be related to Kripke semantics for
intuitionistic logic, then to Kripke-Joyal semantics for topoi and then to
sheafification for Grothendieck topologies. This latter connection seems to
me illuminating, but is one as yet little noted by logicians.
In this case, the neglect of this remarkable connection may arise because
the available categorical presentations are obscure. A forthcoming book by
Mac Lane and Moerdikj on topos theory will, I hope, serve to rectify this
situation.
A final word about foundations: my flashy title "Set theory is obso-
lete" was intended to draw attention to that remarkable observation by
F.W. Lawvere: axiomatics for sets is no longer the only effective way to a
foundation-one may instead start with axioms on functions-that is on
the category of sets.
The last chapter of my "big book" deals with the philosophy of math-
ematics, with the hope of perhaps reviving this moribund field. My first
claim was ,that too many philosophers of mathematics pay too little heed to
what there really is in mathematics. This applies in particular to Wittgen-
stein and Lakatos, but for now I take on the biggest living target. My
learned and articulate friend Van Quine has claimed that ontology is served
by observing that "to be" is to be existentially quantified. I disagree, and I
also doubt if Van realizes that the existential quantified is a left adjoint-an
important observation, again due to Lawvere.
My last chapter attempted to use the earlier survey of the content of
the mainstream of mathematics to draw some philosophical conclusions.
Today, I would put my view as follows: Mathematics is that branch of
science in which the concepts are protean: each concept applies not to one
aspect of reality, but to many. The real numbers are both analytical and
geometrical, natural numbers are both cardinal and ordinal, and so on in
many, many cases. Mathematical form fits varied substance.
IS MATHIAS AN ONTOLOGIST? 121
This view, if correct, has consequences. For example, the familiar set
theoretic explanation of the ordered pair is a convenience and not an ontol-
ogy. The same idea is formulated differently by observing that a product
A x B is something with projections to the objects A and B which are "uni-
versal;" in this case the ordered pair has been swallowed by the syntactic
order. Again, a real number is not a Dedekind cut; that cut is just one
possible model of a protean idea of the reals.
Long ago, mathematicians recognized that "Space" was not unique.
There was the Euclidean plane and the hyperbolic one, as well as elliptic
planes. Now there are many types of space-Hausdorff, metric, uniform and
so on, each with various contacts with different realities. Much the same
now applies to sets. The notions arise variously from finite sets, infinite
sets, combinatorial properties of sets, sets as extensional representations of
properties, and so on. ZFC had different models. Mathias observes that
one model of sets is often inner with respect to another. I am not per-
suaded that this circumstance argues for the existence of "One enormous
universe." Evidently, what one has is different universes, perhaps with dif-
ferent axioms, and connected with each other. These differences match the
different purposes of set theory. Moreover, the connections by the inner
model relation can be described with sheaf theory more clearly by observ-
ing that the new model may consist of sheaves for a suitable "site" of the
given model and that then there often is a geometric morphism form one
model to the other (For definition, MacLane-Moerdijk, loco cit.). This view
of the matter does give a better understanding because' it ties the relations
between different models of set theory to the continuous functions between
different models of space. This promotes the unity of mathematics.
Mathias as~ "What, then, is Mac Lane's ontology?" Since mathematics
is protean, I can answer easily: Ontology has to do with the nature of the
reality at issue. Each mathematical notion is protean, thus deals with
different realities, so does not have an ontology.
In closing, may I count my advantages. About 1940, when Bertrand
Russell lectured at the mathematical colloquium at Harvard, I was in a
position to berate him for his ignorance of the progress in foundational
studies. In the 1970's when I was a member of the National Science Board,
I was able to tell my colleagues that Kurt Godel was the greatest logician
since Aristotle; soon thereafter, GOdel was awarded the National Medal of
Science... I admire GOdel's accomplishments, but I suspect that it is futile
to wonder now what he imagined to be the "real" cardinal of the contin-
uum. Those earnest specialists who still search for that cardinal may call
to mind that infamous image of the philosopher-a blind man in a dark
cellar looking for a black cat that is not there.
122 S. MAC LANE
Set theory, like the rest of mathematics, is protean, shifting and working
in different ways for different uses. It is subordinate to mathematics and not
its foundation. The unity of mathematics is real and depends on wonderful
new connections which arise all around us. I urge my friends in logic to
look around.
RICHARD A. SHORE
123
124 R.A. SHORE
played crucial roles in the analysis of the global structure of the orderings in
considering such questions as automorphisms, homogeneity and definability.
(Although as reported in the talk at this Workshop by Slaman, he and
Woodin have now developed a new approach to such global questions which
eliminates the dependence on much of the earlier work.) The development
of the analysis of 'Dc has been similar to that of the Turing degrees, 'DT,
with some noticeable differences. The primary source or these differences is
the fact that ::;c is a constructible relation while Turing reducibility is not
recursive. This makes coding arguments much simpler for 'Dc than for 'DT
and leads to a much easier approach to global results about its structure.
Our major concern in this paper will be with an unfinished chapter in
the analysis of the local structure of 'Dc : initial segments. Before delving
into this problem, however, we would like to mention some ofthe early local
results and describe the current status of the global analysis of 'Dc. We will
also very briefly indicate the nature of the proofs.
To begin, note that, like the Turing degrees, the constructibility degrees
form an upper semilattice of size the continuum with least element and the
countable predecessor property, i. e. every degree has at most count ably
many predecessors. (Remember we are assuming that Nl is inaccessible
from reals and so as there are Nf[J] many reals constructible from f, there
are at most count ably many c-degrees below that of f.)
Proof Use Sacks forcing, i.e. forcing with perfect trees in the style of
Spector's [20] construction of a minimal T-degree.
Theorem 3. (Balcar and Hajek [5], Truss [22]): 'Dc is not a lattice.
Proof Use Cohen style forcing to build an ascending sequence {Ci) of de-
grees with an exact pair a, b, i. e. any d below both a and b is below some
Ci. As in the construction of Kleene and Post [13] for 'DT, no such pair can
have a greatest lower bound.
DEGREES OF CONSTRUCTIBILITY 125
In contrast to the Turing degrees, the last few results mentioned show
that the global structure of 'Dc is well understood. On the other hand
the local analysis is not as well developed for 'Dc. In particular, compared
to our knowledge of'DT , we are far from a complete characterization of
the possible initial segments (or equivalently, ideals) of 'Dc. Of course any
ideal in either structure' is an upper semilattice (usl) of size at most the
continuum with a least element and the countable predecessor property.
For the Turing degrees, Abraham and Shore [2J show that every such usl of
size at most ~1 is in fact isomorphic to an ideal of'DT. On the other hand,
Groszek and Slaman [13J show that no more is provable: It is consistent
(with ZFC) that the continuum be large but that there are usI's of size the
continuum which are not isomorphic to ideals of'DT . Our knowledge about
'Dc is much less complete. What we do know, however, indicates that the
story here is much more complicated.
The fir"st reasonably comprehensive positive results (following the path
broken by the construction of a minimal c-degree in Sacks [17]) are due to
Adamowicz:
Theorem 11. (Abraham and Shore [1]): (ZFC) Not every countable well-
founded distributive lattice is isomorphic to an initial segment of 'Dc.
Proof. The proof is non-uniform and like other coding results exploits the
constructibility of the ordering relation :5e. Either the diamond is not an
initial segment of 'Dc or it is with top d. In the former case we are done.
In the latter no lattice coding a set D E d which does not begin with a
diamond can be an initial segment of 'Dc.
To avoid such coding problems we will restrict our attention in this pa-
per to constructible lattices. On the other hand, there is more leeway
in relaxing the restriction of well-foundedness. The first constructions of
nonwell-founded initial segments of 'Dc can be found in Groszek [101 where
all orderings O!* for O! :5 W1 are embedded as initial segments of 'Dc. Some
restriction along these lines, however, is necessary. The first serious demon-
stration of such restrictions on possible initial segments of 'Dc are due to
Lubarsky:
Theorem 12. (Lubarsky [15]): Every countable lattice isomorphic to an
initial segment of 'Dc is complete.
Proof. We illustrate the starting idea for the result by considering the lat-
tice w+w*. Let (8.i) be the ascending chain and (bi) the descending one in
a purported realization of w+w* as an initial segment of 'Dc. We will build
a degree c strictly in between the chains for a contradiction. The point is
that we can define representatives Ai from 8.i in a canonical way that can
be recovered from each b i : We start with Ao E ao and Bo E boo Suppose
we have defined Ai E 8.i and Bi E bi. We then choose representatives
~+l E 8.i+l and Bi+l E bi+1 which are least in the canonical ordering of
L[B.]. It is clear that the sequence (Ai: i ::::: j) is uniformly constructible
in Bj. Thus the entire sequence (Ai: i E w) is constructible in each Bi but
strictly above, in c-degree, each Ai'
The question now is how far can we go towards embedding every count-
able complete constructible lattice C (with ordering~) as an initial segment
of 'Dc. Of course any such lattice has a least element, O. As we consider
only countable lattices, we may also assume without loss of generality that
C has a greatest element, 1, as well. The results that we report on here are
joint work with Marcia Groszek and appear in full in Groszek and Shore
[121. Our work shows that a much larger subclass of the complete count-
able lattices than the well founded or reverse well founded ones can be
embedded as initial segments of 'Dc. We also show, however, that there
128 R.A. SHORE
are inherent limitations on the available technology that imply that any
significant further positive results will require a new approach.
We begin with a general description of the techniques employed. Our
constructions are, like all known initial segment procedures for any re-
ducibilities, basically forcing arguments with trees. The trees, as usual,
consist of finite sequences of elements from some countable set e. The
construction produces a generic object, g, which is a path through all the
trees in the generic filter and so defines a map from w into e. The idea is
to define a structure on e that reflects that of the given lattice C in such a
way as to facilitate the proof that (Vc)L[g] ~ C. We want 9 to code in some
simple way representatives for the degrees corresponding to the elements i
of C. Moreover we would like this coding to guarantee on its own at least
some of the properties required of the isomorphism.
We present the notions needed for our lattice representations in §1, the
forcing notions and the outline of the argument in §2 and a discussion of
limitations on the methods and open problems in §3.
1. LATTICE REPRESENTATIONS
We follow the style for representations, e, of lattices introduced by Ler-
man for embeddings in the Thring degrees as presented for example in
Lerman [14]. The elements of e will be maps a: C -- w. We will define
maps hi : w -- w for each i E C with the intention that the map send-
ing i to the c-degree of hi will be the desired isomorphism between C and
Vc in L[g]. The coding of the hi in our generic map 9 from w into e is
straightforward:
hi(n) = (g(n»(i).
We now wish to impose some structure on e so as to make it into a stan-
dard lattice representation of C. We also need some additional properties
that are essentially dictated by the needs of the construction and verifi-
cation that the intended map is in fact an isomorphism. We use a =i 13
to mean &(i) = f3(i) and consider the following conditions on e for every
a,f3 E e and i,j,k E C:
1.0) Zero: a =0 13. Here 0 is the zero of the lattice. This guarantees that
ho is a constant and so in L as required.
1.1) Ordering: i j j&a =j 13 => a =i 13. This guarantees that if i j j
(in C) then hi :S;C hj. To calculate hi(n) it suffices to know hj(n) and e as
this requirement says that hi(n) = f3(i) for any 13 such that f3(j) = hj(n).
As e will be constructible, we will have hi :S;C hj.
1.2) Non-ordering: i~j => 3a,f3 E e(a =j f3&a ¢i 13). This property
allows us to find alternate extensions of 9 which keep hj the same but give
DEGREES OF CONSTRUCTIBILITY 129
(This condition says that, for (1 in Ln(T) and i in Cn, if two immediate
successors a and (3 of (1 are congruent mod i, then their extensions up to
Ln+l (T) must respect this congruence. The effect of this requirement is
that, if 9 and g' are two paths through T, 9 t m = (1-a, and g' t m = (1-(3,
then hi t m = h~ t m. Thus hi carries less information than g.)
(3) Uniformity 1: For all n, all nodes on Ln(T) have the same length.
(4) Uniformity 2: If (1 and '(" are both in Ln(T) then for all p, (1A pET
iff '("A pET.
(These uniformity conditions guarantee that, in the situation described
in (2), hi truly carries less information than g. Since T above (1-a and T
above (1- (3 are identical, it may well be that 9 above (1- a and g' above
(1- (3 are identical, in which case hi = h~ but 9 =f g'.)
vye can now describe the plan of the proof of the main theorem on initial
segments of 'Dc.
Note that as being compact is a m property and being ''the sup of the
compact elements below" is ~t, the property of a countable lattice being
algebraic is absolute. A£, C is constructible Theorem 1.10 tells us that
it has a sequential algebraic representation (en) in L. (An absoluteness
argument for properties (1.4) and (1.5) would also then tells us that this
constructible representation is an algebraic one in V as well. As we do our
forcing construction over L, this observation is not, however, needed at this
point.)
We force over L with the notion of forcing p(e) given by this represen-
tation. Our underlying assumption that Nfl!) is countable for every real f
(actually one only needs N~ < WI) allows us to produce a 9 generic for this
forcing. We claim that the map defined in §1 sending i E C to the degree
of hi (where hi(n) = (g(n))(i)) defines the desired isomorphism. The ex-
planations given in §1 when the appropriate properties of a representation
were presented show that this map automatically preserves order and join.
Once one shows that the values of terms for reals constructible from hi
can be made, for each n, to depend on only finitely much of hi and so of
9 (essentially a local Cohen forcing argument), the non-ordering property
allows us to show that if i~j then hi ic hj. Thus our map is one-one. The
difficult part of the argument is to show that the map is in fact onto the
o-degrees below g.
132 R.A. SHORE
We should point out that, together with Lubarsky's Theorem 12, this
result precisely characterizes the countable constructible linearly ordered
initial segments of Vc.
Thus the technology used here can be pushed no further at least not
in precisely its current form. A natural question to ask here is how are
these limitations overcome for the Turing degrees. The answer is that for
initial segments of 1JT one uses a sequence of finite approximations to the
representation e. That is, each forcing condition consists of a pair Cn and
en where (en) is a sequential representation for C but each en is a finite
representatio!l for the finite usl Cn . Of course any attempt to mimic this in
the set theoretic case will give a notion of forcing with finite conditions. As
any such forcing will add Cohen reals, it cannot produce the desired initial
segments.
Indeed even much weaker assumptions than the ones of Theorem 3.1 on
the forcing notions that might construct an initial segment of Vc seem to
impose restrictions on the types of lattices that could be produced. Con-
sider the following lattice 'R as a test case for further progress and as an
illustration of the limitations of existing methods:
Test Problem: Let 'R be the lattice with least element 0, greatest element
1, a descending sequence of elements ai+l < ai for i > 1 and another
element b incomparable with all the ai. The join and meet relations of'R
are determine<Lby requiring that b V at = 1 and b 1\ ai = 0 for every i > 1.
Suppose that 'R is embedded (as a lattice) into the c-degrees below a 9
that is generic for some notion of forcing by a map sending the elements of
'R to the c-degrees of functions f and hi for i E w. (The map sends b to
degc(f), 0 to degc(ho), 1 to degc(hl) and ai to degc(hi) for i > 1.) If the
coding procedures inherent in the forcing construction satisfy the ordering
and join properties, then the embedding cannot be onto an initial segment
of VC' To be a bit more precise, if there is a "constructible procedure"
(think of it as a form of generalized truth table reduction applied to the
graphs of the h j ) which determines, for each n, hi (n) from hj (n) if i ~ j,
134 R.A. SHORE
and hl(n) from hj(n) and f(n} for j > 1, then there is a non-zero c-degree
h below all those of all the hi' The proof is like that of Theorem 12: Define
h(n} = hn(n}. It is clear from our coding assumptions that for each i > 1,
hi :::;e h. On the other hand, it is also clear that hI :::;e h V f. Thus h is the
desired witness that the embedding is not onto an initial segment of 'Dc.
Thus some new approach is necessary to realize lattices such as 'R- as
initial segments of 'Dc. Perhaps all that is needed is a way to build the
coding machinery (i. e. the lattice representation) generically along with
the construction of the top of the initial segment. On the other hand it
would be even more interesting to find some way other than forcing with
trees to produce the missing initial segments (or indeed to produce any
initial segments at all). Of course, the other possibility is to try to turn
arguments like the one above for 'R- into ones like those of Theorem 12 to
show that non-algebraic lattices cannot be initial segments of 'Dc, or at least
that they cannot be realized by any forcing extensions.
In closing, we would like to raise one related embedding type question
about the "local" structure of 'Dc. Under our assumptions, 'Dc, like 'DT, is a
partial order of size the continuum with the countable predecessor property.
Is it a universal such partial order, i. e. is every partial order of size at
most the continuum with the countable predecessor property embeddable
(as a partial ordering) in 'Dc? The corresponding question for'DT was first
raised by Sacks [16] and remains open.
DEGREES OF CONSTRUCTIBILITY 135
REFERENCES
1. U. Abraham and R. Shore, The degrees of constructibility below a Cohen real, J.
Lon. Math. Soc. (3) 53 (1986), 193-208.
2. U. Abraham and R. Shore, Initial segments of the Turing degrees of size NI, Is. J.
Math. 55 (1986), 1-51.
3. Z. Adamowicz, On finite lattices of degrees of constructibility of reals, J. of Symb.
Logic 41 (1976), 313-322.
4. Z. Adamowicz, Constructible semi-lattices of degrees of constructibility, Set The-
ory and Hierarchy Theory V, Lachlan, Srebrny and Zarach eels., Lecture Notes in
Mathematics 619, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1977, pp. 1-44.
5. B. Balcar and P. Hajek, On sequences of degrees of constTUctibility, Z. f. Math. Logik
24 (1978), 291-296.
6. P. J. Cohen, Set Theory and the Continuum Hypothesis, Benjamin, New York, 1966.
7. P. Farrington, Hinges and automorphisms of the degrees of non-constructibility, J.
Lon. Math. Soc. (2) 28 (1983), 193-202.
8. P. Farrington, First order theory of the c-degrees, Z. f. Math. Logik 30 (1984),
437-446.
9. M. Groszek, Applications of iterated perfect set forcing, Ann. Pure and App. Logic
39 (1988), 19-53.
10. M. Groszek, wi as an initial segment of the degrees of constructibility, J. Symb.
Logic (to appear).
11. M. Groszekand T. Slaman, Independence results on the globalstTUcture of the Turing
degrees, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 277 (1983), 579-588.
12. M. Groszek and R. A. Shore, Initial segments of the degrees of constructibility, Is.
J. Math. 63 (1988), 149-177.
13. S. C. Kleene and E. L. Post, The upper semi-lattice of degrees of unsolvability, Ann.
Math. 59 (1954), 379-407.
14. M. Lerman, Degrees of Unsolvability, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1983.
15. R. Lubarsky, Lattices of c-degrees, Ann. Pure and App. Logic 36 (1987), 115-118.
16. G. Sacks, Degrees of Unsolvability, Annals of Math. Studies 55, Princeton University
Press, Princeton NJ, 1963.
17. G. Sacks, Forcing with perfect closed sets, Axiomatic Set Theory, D. Scott, ed., Proc.
Symp. Pure Math. 13(1), Am. Math. Soc., 1971, pp. 331-355.
18. R. A. Shore, On homogeneity and definability in the first order theory of the Turing
degrees, J. Symb. Logic 47 (1982), 8-16.
19. S. G. Simpson, First order theory of the degrees of recursive unsolvability, Ann.
Math. 105 (1977), 121-139.
20. C. Spector, On degrees of recursive unsolvability, Ann. Math. 64 (1956), 581-592.
21. T. Slaman and H. Woodin, Countable relations in the Turing degrees, Ill. J. Math.
30 (1986), 320-334.
22. J. Truss, A note on increasing sequences of constructibility degrees, Set Theory and
Hierarchy Theory V, Lachlan, Srebrny and Zarach eds., Lecture Notes in Mathe-
matics 619, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1977, pp. 473-476.
BOBAN VELICKOVIC
1. INTRODUCTION
Standard forcing axioms are usually stated in the form which asserts the
existence of sufficiently generic filters in every partial order 'P which belongs
to a given class IC of forcing notions. This approach, which is derived by
"internalizing" generic extensions, has been very successful in providing
strong forcing axioms and proving their consistency; in [FMSl a maximal
axiom of this sort is proved consistent for the case when one wishes to
consider only generic filters for families of at most Nl dense sets. However,
when applying these axioms we need to know when there is a partial order
in the class IC which introduces the object we wish to find. Of course, there
is no easy general answer to this question and even some of the most basic
instances are still open.
Following the realization that many applications of forcing axioms in-
volve finding homogeneous sets in certain kinds of partitions, in [TV] a
study of the so-called Ramsey forcing axioms was initiated. The idea is
that these statements would provide a combinatorial intermediary between
the abstract forcing axioms and their applications. It turned out that in
some cases they are equivalent to the axioms from which they are derived.
To be more specific suppose we are given an uncountable set S and a
partition of the ,form:
(2) [8]<W = Ko U Kl
together with a class IC of partial orders. Let us say that this partition is
lC-destructible if there is a poset 'P in IC which forces an uncountable subset
H of S which is O-homogeneous (i.e. [Hln ~ Ko for (1) and [Hl<w ~ Ko for
(2» and in addition every s E S is forced by some condition in 'P to be in
H. Let RFAn(lC) (RFA <W(IC» be the statement that every lC-destructible
137
138 B. VELICKOVIC
Question 1.2. Is there n < w such that RFAn (CCC) is equivalent to MAl-h ?
It is possible that these statements provide a natural hierarchy of axioms
whose limit is MA N1 . These questions were further studied in [To2].
Now, turning to stronger axioms much less is known. When is there a
proper poset forcing an uncountable homogeneous set for a partition of the
form (1) or (2)? For our purposes we only need to know that iterations
of (T-closed and ccc posets are proper. While for a given ccc destructible
partition there always exists a ccc poset of size at most ~1 which adds an
uncountable O-homogeneous set and, in fact, there is a poset of finite 0-
homogeneous sets which does this, there is no known such bound in the
case of proper posets. Thus, for example, the following is open.
Question 1.3. If there is a proper poset forcing an uncountable O-homo-
geneous set to a partition of form (1) or (2), is there such a poset of size
< :Jw(S)?
It is known though that RFA <W(proper) has roughly the same consistency
strength as PFA. Given these limitations of our knowledge we adopt a more
modest approach by trying to find sufficient conditions for the existence of
proper posets adjoining an uncountable O-homogeneous set. This approach
was taken by Todorcevic in [To1] where it was pursued in connection with
the well-known (S) and (L) problems from general topology. The thesis
is that this line of work would provide partition-type statements which
lie at the core of many diverse problems and are thus more suitable for
applications than the abstract forcing axioms. In this paper we offer further
evidence for this point of view by focusing on one particular axiom of this
kind which has been very successful in resolving questions about sets of
APPLICATIONS OF THE OPEN COLORING AXIOM 139
dimensions bigger than 2. Then we raise some open problems and indicate
areas for further research.
We believe that our notation is mostly standard, as for example in [Ku],
or self explanatory.
2. CONSISTENCY OF OCA
In this section we present the proof of the consistency of OCA ([ToI,
Theorems 4.4 and 8.0]) . We start with a ZFC result which is a natural gen-
eralization of the classical diagonalization argument of Sierpinski-Zygmund
([SZ]).
e
Let {f~ : < 2ND} enumerate all countable functions from a finite power
e
of S into S, and let {T~ : < 2ND} enumerate all closed I-homogeneous
e
subsets of S. Build Y as the set {x~ : < 2ND} such that:
(a) Xc< E e
S \ {x~ : < a},
(b) Xc< e
¢. T~, for < a,
(c) does not belong to any I-homogeneous set which has the form
'Xc<
e
wh(P)nS, where < a andp is a finite sequence from {x~ : < a}. e
To prove Y works, assume that F is a disjoint family of 2ND many finite
O-homogeneous subsets of Y. Without loss of generality we may assume
that all elements of F have the same size n 2:: 1. We prove, by induction
on n, there there are two members of F whose union is O-homogeneous.
Case n = 1 is handled by (b). Suppose n > 1. For 8 E F let 8 =
{Xs(O) , '" ,Xs(n-l)}< be the enumeration of 8 in the increasing order of
indices, i.e. 8(0) < ... 8(n -1) < 2ND . Identifying each 8 with an element
of sn we may assume that some fixed basic open set U in sn separates all
APPLICATIONS OF THE OPEN COLORING AXIOM 141
Proof Assume otherwise and for each S E :F \:Fo pick a rational open
interval IB which contains Xs(n-l) and is disjoint from wg(s t (n - 1». Fix
also a basic open subset Us of sn-l containing s t (n - 1) such that if
q E U:t(n-l) then g( q) ¢. IB. Then there is a subset Z of :F \:Fo of size 2No
such that the IB for s E Z are all equal to some I and the Us for s E Z
are all equal to some U. By the inductive assumption there are s, t E Z
such that s U t is O-homogeneous. But then t t (n - 1) E Ust(n-l) and
get t (n - 1» E I, a contradiction. 0
Proof. Fix a partition [8]2 = KoUKl as in OCA and assume that S cannot
be covered by countably many 1-homogeneous sets. This remains to hold
in V'P where P is the q-closed collapse of 2No to Nl • In V'P CH holds so
there is Y S; S such that the poset Q of finite O-homogeneous subsets of
Y is ccc. Some conditions in Q forces the generic homogeneous set to be
uncountable and we may assume that the maximal condition does so. Thus,
in V'P*Q there is an uncountable O-homogeneous set. By forcing internally
with P * Q we can produce such a set in V. 0
142 B. VELICKOVIC
Let us point out that although large cardinals are needed to prove the
consistency of PFA this is not the case with OCA + MA~h. Namely, we
can start with a model of V = L and perform a finite support iteration of
ccc posets forcing MAN l • Along the way, we use O( {a < W2 : cof( a) = WI} )
to guess potential open colorings on a set of reals S and, if possible, force
with the poset from Theorem 2.1 to obtain an uncountable O-homogeneous
set. The resulting model then satisfies OCA + MAN!. In [Tol] OCA is
shown to be equivalent to the following closed set-mapping axiom (CSM):
If F is a closed set-mapping on a set of reals, then either
there is an uncountable F-free subset of dom(F) , or else F
is the union of countably many connected subfunction.
Note that the strength of OCA comes from the fact that, although the
partition is assumed to be open, S is allowed to be an arbitrary set of
reals. Qi Feng ([Fe]) has studied versions of OCA obtained by restricting
the complexity of the set S and has shown that the restriction of OCA to
projective sets of reals follows from PD.
3. COMBINATORIAL ApPLICATIONS
Proof. To see (a), (b), and (c) observe that the inclusion is an closed rela-
tion on P(w), and that strictly increasing is an open relation in the plain.
For (d), first show that if B is an uncountable Boolean algebra with no
uncountable antichains then B can be embedded into P(w). Then use (a)
and (b). For (e) let :F be a subset of WW of size N1 • We may assume that
each function in :F is strictly increasing and that :F is well-ordered by <..
of order type WI. The everywhere dominance < is a closed relation on WW.
APPLICATIONS OF THE OPEN COLORING AXIOM 143
Since there are no uncountable linearly ordered sets under <, by OCA :F
has an uncountable pairwise incomparable subset A. Then by [Tol, §l] A
and hence :F is bounded under <.. 0
The following result is implicit in [Tol). It shows that OCA has a strong
influence on the partial ordering wW and gives support for the conjecture
that OCA implies that the continuum is ~2.
Theorem 3.2. OCA implies that the least size of an unbounded subset of
wW under <* is ~2.
Then Ko is open in the product topology. Let us show that X is not the
union of countably many I-homogeneous sets. Suppose towards contradic-
tion that X = Un<w X n , where each Xn is I-homogeneous. Then for some
n the set A of all f E A such that the set
13f = {g E Bf : (f,g) E Xn}
144 B. VELICKOVIC
To finish the proof of Theorem 3.2, following [Ba, Theorem 4.4] fix a subset
A of WW such that the order type of A, <* is ~2. Extend A to a ~-maximal
<*-linearly ordered set L. Then A will determine a gap in L whose coini-
tiality, by Lemma 3.1, cannot be a regular uncountable cardinal. Also, it
cannot be 1 since if 9 bounds A then so does 9 - 1. Thus the coinitiality
of A in L is either 0 or w. If it is 0 then A is already unbounded. If it is w
then by [Rol] one can produce an unbounded subset of WW of size ~2. This
is done as follows. Let B = {9n : n < w} be a subset of L such that (A, B)
forms a gap. We may assume that n :::; m implies 9m(k) :::; 9n(k), for all k.
For I E A let hf be defined as follows
hf(n) = min{k : l(l) < 9n(l) for alll 2:: k}.
Then the family {h f : I E A} is unbounded in WW. 0
Todorcevic and the author have shown that PFA implies that 2l'l0 = ~2
(see [Ve2]Jor the proof and the history involving this result). Similarly we
conjecture that the answer to the following question is positive.
Question 3.1. Does DCA imply that 2l'l0 = ~2?
4. AUTOMORPHISMS OF P(W)/FIN
The first step of the proof is to show that c.p is somewhere trivial, i.e.
there is an infinite set a such that c.p f a is trivial. Let us say that a
family A of almost disjoint infinite subsets of w is neat if there is a 1-1
map e : w ~ 2<w such that if a E A and n, mEa then e(n) ~ e(m) or
e(m) ~ e(n). Thus, Ue"(a) is an infinite branch through 2<w, for every
a E A. The following lemma is the key application of OCA in the proof.
Lemma 4.1.' Let A be a neat almost disjoint family. Then c.p is trivial on
all but countably many c E A.
Proof. Let e : w ~ 2<w be a function witnessing that A is neat. Let X be
the set of all cpairs (a, b) of subsets of w such that there exists c E A such
that b ~ a ~ c, and define the partition:
[X)2 = Ko UK1
by {(a, b), (a, b)} E Ko iff
(a) Ue"ai-Ue"a,
(b) a n b = a n b,
(c) F(a) n F(b) i- F(a) n F(b).
Then Ko is open in the product of the separable metric topology T on X
obtained by identifying (a, b) with (a,b,F(a),F(b)). 0
146 B. VELICKOVIC
and let Cl = C \ Co. Define the function Fn : P(Co) -+ P(w), for n < w, by:
I = { a ~ w: cp is trivial on a}.
Fix, for the rest of the proof, for each a in I a function ea : a - t w inducing
cp r a. Recall that an ideal on w containing all finite sets is called dense
provided every infinite subset of w contains an infinite member of the ideal.
Then I is a dense ideal on 1'(w). An ideal on w is called a P-ideal if it is
countably directed under ~*' and, in general, it is called a P tc-idea1 if it
is < I\;+-directed. We shall consider two cases according to whether I is a
P-ideal or not.
Proof. Assume otherwise and let .1 be the collection of all b ~ w which are
almost disjoint from'the an. Then it follows from either Theorem 3.I(e) or
by a simple application of MAtti .1 is a Ptti-subideal of I. Then as is easily
seen the partition considered in Case I restricted to .1 has no uncountable
O-homogeneous sets. Thus, there exists e : w - t W such that e r b =* eb for
every b E .1. We claim that there exists k < w such that e induces cp on
w \ Ui<k ai, which contradicts the nontriviality of cpo To see this, it suffices
148 B. VELICKOVIC
is finite. For then e induces cp r a for every a in the ideal generated by .:J
and {am: m ¢. T}. Since this ideal is dense in P(u), where u = W \ {am:
mET}, and cp is an automorphism it follows that e induces cp on u.
Now, suppose T were infinite. For each mET we pick an infinite subset
em of am such that e"(em) n F(em) =* 0. By shrinking the em we can
arrange that, furthermore, for every m, k E T e"(em) n F(ck) =* 0. We
then find d such that for every mET F(em) <;;;* d and e"(em) nd =* 0 and
let c be such that F(c) =* d. It follows that em <;;;* c, for each mET and
hence we can pick im E emncsuch that e(i m) ¢. F(c). Let b = {im : mET}.
Then bE .:J and hence F(b) =* e"(b). On the other hand b <;;; c and hence
F(b) <;;;* F(c). But e"(b) n F(c) = 0. Contradiction. D
Note that Claim actually shows that for every IE WW there exists 9 E WW
such that bg \bf is nontrivial. We can then easily construct an <*-increasing
sequence la; a < WI in WW such that cp is nontrivial on bfa+l \ bla for every
a < WI. Let aa = bfa+l \ bfa . By another application of MANl (see [Vel,
Lemma 3]) we can split each aa into two disjoint sets a~ and a; such that
Ai = {a~ : a < WI} is neat, for i = 0,1. By Lemma 4.1 there is a < WI
such that cp is trivial on both a~ and a;, and hence on aa. Contradiction.
D
Some of these ideas have been used by Just ([Ju]) in the proof of the
following.
Theorem 4.3. (OCA)
(a) (w*)(n+I) is not a continuous image of (w*)n, for every n < w.
(1) III is a dense P-ideal then P(w)/I is not isomorphic to P(w)/fin.
(b) II all E~+2 sets are measurable and I is a E; ideal containing all
finite sets such that P(w)/I is embeddable into P(w)/fin then I is
generated over the F'rechet ideal by at most one set.
°
(c) II I is the ideal of sets density and .:J is the ideal of sets of loga-
rithmic density 0, then P(w)/I and P(w)/.:J are not isomorphic.
[8]2 = Ko UK1
by {(a, b, c) (a, ~,e)} E Ko iff
a =F a and [(a \ b) n (c \ b) =F 0 or (c \ b) n (b \ a) =F 0).
and
B = U{("1,JL) : (ae, a7J , all-) E H}
are separated in 'YW. If there were an open subset U of 'YW such that A c U
and clU n B = 0, we could let c = un w and have a7J \ ae almost contained
in c and all- \ a7J almost disjoint from c whenever (ae, a7J , all-) E H. Now, for
every ~ there are at most one "1 and JL such that (ae,a 7J ,all-) E H. If this
happens choose n(~) E w such that
6. GENERALIZATIONS OF OCA
How can the Open Coloring Axiom be strengthened or generalized? It
turns out that there are some strong limitations on the possible generaliza-
tions. We first present an example from [To3) which shows that one cannot
reverse open and closed in the statement of OCA.
Remark: A similar argument can be used to show that the poset of finite
O-homogeneous sets, ordered under reverse inclusion is ccc.
Clearly, f is continuous.
Now suppose Y is an uncountable subset of X. We may assume that Y
is dense in itself. Given i < w we find x, y, z E Y such that f( {x, y, z}) = i.
Using the fact that c witnesses ~l -.'+ [~l]~ and the property of k, find
x, y E Y and nEw such that x < y and k(x r m, y r m) = i, for all m ~ n.
Since Y is dense in itself there exists z E Y such that fl(y, z) ~ n. It
follows that f({x,y,z}) = i, as desired. 0
REFERENCES
[ARS] U. Abraham, M. Rubin, and S. Shelah, On the consistency of some partition
theorems for continuous colorings, and the structure of Nl-dense real order types,
Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 29, (1985), pp. 123--206.
[Ba] J. Baumgartner, Applications of the Proper Forcing Axiom, in "Handbook of set-
theoretic topology", (K. Kunen, J. Vaughan eds.), North-Holland Publ.Co., Ams-
terdam, 1984, pp. 913--959.
[Fe] Qi Feng, Homogeneous sets for open partitions of pairs of reals, to appear.
[FMS] M. Foreman, M. Magidor, and S. Shelah, Martin's maximum, satumted ideals,
and nonergular ultmfilters, part I, Annals of Mathematics, 127(1), (1988), pp.
1-47.
[Ju] W. Just, A weak form of AT from OCA, these proceedings.
[Ku] K. Kunen, "Set theory", North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1980.
[vM] J. van Mill, Introduction to (3w, in "Handbook of set theoretic topology", eds. K.
Kunen, and J. Vaughan, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1984. pp. 503--567.
[Mo] Y. Moschovakis, "Descriptive set theory", Studies in Logic and the Foundations of
Mathematics, vol. 100, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1980.
[NY] P. Nyikos and B. Velickovic, Complete normality and countable compactness, Bul-
letin of the AMS, to appear.
[Ro1] F. Rothberger, Sur les famillies ind€nombmbles des suites de nombres naturels
et les problemes concernant la propri€t€ C, Proc. Cambridge Math Society, 37,
(1941), pp. 621-626.
[Ro2] F. Rothberger, On families of real functions with denumemble bases, Annals of
Math., 45 (3), (1944), pp. 397-406.
[Sh] S. Shelah, "Proper forcing", Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 940, Springer Verlag,
Berlin, 1982.
[SS] S. Shelah, and J. Steprans, PFA implies all automorphisms are trivial, Proc.
A.M.S., 104 (1988), pp. 1220-1225.
[SZ] W. Sierpinski and A. Zygmund, Sur une fonction qui est discontinue sur tout
ensemble de puissance du continuum, Fund. Math., 4, (1928), pp. 316-318.
[Tol] S. Todorcevic, "Partition problems in Topology", Contemporary Mathematics vol.
84, American Math Society, Providence, R.I. 1989.
[To2] S. Todorcevic, Martin's Axiom and Continuum Hypothesis, to appear.
[To3] S. Todorcevic, Two examples of Borel partial orderings with the countable chain
conditi/Jn, Proceedings of the AMS, to appear.
[To4] S. Todorcevic, Partitioning pairs of countable ordinals, Acta Math., 159, (1987),
pp. 261-294.
[TV] S. Todorcevic and B. Velickovic, Martin's axiom and partitions, Compositio Math,
63, (1987), pp. 397-408.
[Vel] B. Velickovic, OCA and automorphisms of P(w)/fin, Topology and its Applica-
tions, to appear.
[Ve2] B. Velickovic, Forcing axioms and stationary sets, Advances in Mathematics, to
appear.
1. INTRODUCTION
Suslin forcing, i.e., forcing notions in which the set of conditions, the
ordering, and the incompatibility relation are ~-Suslin sets of reals in the
sense of descriptive set theory, was first studied by H. Judah and S. Shelah
in [J-S 1]. In their paper, they show that Suslin forcing notions admit
a systematic treatment and specially so for No-Suslin, i.e., membership,
ordering and incompatibility are ~~. (In what follows, "Suslin" will mean
No-Suslin) .
Also, Suslin forcing is being considered in [J-S 2], where they study the
problem of the consistency strength of regularity properties of the projective
sets of reals tog~ther with some variants of MA, giving exact equiconsistency
results. In particular, they show that the following are equiconsistent:
(1) ZFC + There exists an inaccessible cardinal.
(2) ZFC + MA(Suslin) + Every projective set of reals is Lebesgue
measurable, has the property of Baire and is Ramsey.
We recall some definitions and basic facts about Suslin partial orderings:
155
156 J. BAGARlA AND H. JUDAH
Fact 1.1.2. If P is a 8uslin ccc poset, then the predicate ''x codes a max-
imal antichain of P" is ut
and hence absolute for transitive models of
ZF. 0
Glaim .. We can find I' ~ I, I' = (t~ : a < WI) such that for all t~,t~, if
a < (3, then there exists i,j < n such that t~(i) :5 tP{j).
Proof 01 Claim. Let th = to. Given (t~ : a < A < WI), let t~ be the first t1/
such that:
(i) 3i < n 3j < n with t~(i) :5 t1/(j)
(ii) For all a < A, if t~ = tf3, then 'fJ > (3.
t~ exists since:
(a) Va, (3 < WI 3i < n 3j < n such that either tOl(i) :5 tf3(j) or tOl(i) ~
tf3{j)
(b) Va < WI the set {(3: 3i < n 3j < n tf3(i) :5 tOl{j)} is countable.
o
Let U be a uniform ultrafilter on WI. For 6 < WI, i, j < n, define:
As(i,j) = {a < WI : t~(i) :5 t~(j)}
Since for each 6 < WI, Ui,j<n As(i, j) E U , it follows that for each 6 < WI
we can find is, js so that As(is,js) E U.
Hence, there is B ~ WI uncountable and i, j < n such that is =
i and js = j for all 6 E B. Now fix 6 < 'Y in B and choose a E As(i,j) n
Ay(i,j) such that a > 'Y. Then, t~(i), t''"Y(~) :5 t~(j). Hence, t~(i) and t~(i)
are comparable. Thus, {t~(i) : 6 E B} is an uncountable chain in 7rQ. But
since for all X, Y E 7rQ, X < Y implies that roin{Y - X) exists, this gives
an uncountable chain in Q. Contradiction. 0
AMOEBA FORCING, SUSLIN ABSOLUTENESS AND Add(L) 159
Fact 2.2.2. For every t E P, Pt = {t' : t' E P 1\ t ::; t'} is not a-linked.
Proof. Suppose Pt = UnEw pr is a a-linking partition of Pt , some t E P.
Let qo E Q. Say qo = O. If there is t U {X} E PP with sup X < qo, then
pick such an X and call it Xo; otherwise, pick q E Q, q < qo, such that
{q} rt t and t u {{ q}} E Pt (since t is finite, this is always possible) and let
Xo = {q}
Pick ql E Q such that supXo < ql < qo. If there is t U {X} E pl such
that Xo < X and supX < ql, pick such an X and call it Xl; otherwise,
pick q E Q strictly between supXo and ql and such that XoU{q} rt t. Now,
let Xl = Xo U {q}. And so on.
Claim 2.2.3. For every nEw, t U {Xn} E Pt.
Proof of Claim. By induction on nEw.
n = 0: clear.
Assume it true for n. If there is t u {X} E pr+1 with Xn < X and
supX < qn+b then X n+1 is such an X and we are done. Otherwise,
X n+l = Xn U {q}, where supXn < q < qn+1' Suppose there is X E t such
that X, X n+1 are compatible. Then, either X < X n+1 or X n+1 < X. If
X < X n+b then either X = X n , which is impossible by the construction
of X n , or X < X n , which is impossible by induction hypothesis. Simi-
larly, if X n+1 < X, then Xn < X, which, by induction hypothesis, is also
impossible. 0
Let Xoo = U nEw X n.
Claim 2.2.4. t U {Xoo} E Pt.
Proof of Claim. Otherwise, there is X E t such that either X < Xoo or
Xoo < X. If X < X oo , then there is nEw such that X < X n , which
contradicts the previous Claim. If Xoo < X, then for every nEw, Xn < X,
which also contradicts the previous Claim. 0
Claim 2.2.5. For every nEw, t U {Xoo} rt pro
Proof of Claim. Suppose t U {Xoo} E P[", some nEw. Then it is true
that there exists t U {X} E pr with Xi < X, all i < n, and sup X < qn'
Hence, Xn is such an X. But since Xn < X oo , t U {Xn} and t U {Xoo} are
incompatible. Contradiction. 0
This ends the proof of the Fact. 0
Fact 2.2.6. P is Suslin.
Proof. Each pEP, being a finite set of subsets of Q, can be coded by
a real number. That P, ::;p, and l..p are :E~ clearly follows from their
definition. 0
160 J. BAGARIA AND H. JUDAH
Now, let D* = {sp : p E P{3 and 3f E D such that sp :51 j}, where
:51 is the lexicographic ordering. Notice that since supp(P) is finite, for
each fED, the set {sp : pEP and sp :51 j} is countable. Hence, D* is
countable.
We first prove the following Fact:
Fact 2.3.7. If P is a-linked and II-p "Q is a-linked", then P*Q is a-linked.
Define
For "I a successor ordinal, we do the same construction just given for
one-step iteration.
So, let "I be a limit ordinal :5 /3.
Case 1: cfb) > w.
In this case there exists b < "I such that for all sp E D* r "I, supp(P) ~ b.
Then, any a-linking partition of Po induces a a-linking partition of P'Y.
Case 2: cfC"f) = w.
Without loss of generality, "I = w.
Let p E PW • For all 0 < k < w, there exists p~ E Pw and nk E w such
that
p~ r k II- "p(k) E Qk(nk)"
We can assume that p~ is such that for alll < k, p; l :5 p~ l. r r
Also, since for every k E wand every p E P k , P is compatible with 0, we
can assume that 0 E PoCO) and II-Pk "0 E Qk(O)", all k E w. Hence, since
supp(p) is finite, there is lEw such that for all k ~ l, II-Pk "p(k) E Qk(O)".
Therefore, Vp E Pw , 3p' E Pw such that
Proof of the Claim. (i) Clear, since V F CH and P satisfies the ccc.
(ii) See Fact 1.1.2. in the Introduction.
o
Suppose MA(Suslin) holds in V[G]. Then, there is a pV -generic 9 ~ P
over V.
Notice that 9 is a collection of ~l-many finite antichains of 1TQ. Hence,
we may assume, by coding each finite antichain of 1TQ into a real number,
that 9 is a sequence of ~l-many reals.
So, 9 has a simple PW2 -name g. (i.e., The elements of 9 are of the form
(p, ft, a) where ft is the standard name for nEw, a is the standard name
for 0: < ~l' and for every 0: < ~l and every nEw, {p: (p, ft, a) E g} is an
anti chain. )
Now, since PW2 is ccc, 30: < W2 such that 9 is a Pa-name. So, Pa adds a
P v -generic 9 over V.
Proof of Claim. Fix nEw. Let t~, t~ E R.n. We need to find t E P such
that t ~ t~, t~. Pick to ~ t~, tl ~ t~ and Po, PI E PJ: such that Po II- "io E ii'
and PI II- "i1 E iJ" .
Since P:; is pairwise compatible, there is pEP P ~ PO,Pl such that
P II- ''io, il E iJ". Moreover, since iJ is forced to be a filter, there is p' ~ P
such that p'lI- "3t E P(t ~ i o, i 1 )". Thus, if G S;;; POt is generic with p' E G,
then
V[G] F= 3t E P(t ~ to, tt}
But since P is a Suslin poset, the right hand side is a Ei statement with
parameters in V. Therefore, it holds in V. 0
Now, fix t E P such that R is dense in Pt. For each nEw, let Pl" =
{t' E P : 3t" E R.n(t" ~ t/)}. Then, Pt = UnEw Pl" is a u-linking partition
of Pt. But this contradicts Fact 2.2.3 above. 0
3. SUSLIN ABSOLUTENESS
3.1. The consistency strength of Suslin Absoluteness
Definition 3.1.1. Let P be a forcing notion. Let V be a model of a part
of ZFC and iet n ~ 1. V is ~~-absolute for P if for every ~~-formula </J(x)
with parameters in V and for every r E JR,
V F= </J(r) iff v P F= </J(r)
ro~ -absolute for P and 4~ -absolute for P are defined analogously.)
Definition 3.1.2. Let V be a model of a part of ZFC. V is Buslin Absolute
iff for every Suslin partial ordering P satisfying the ccc,
Th(JR) v -< Th(JR) v P
i.e., for every n ~ 1, V is ~~-absolute for P.
Theorem 3.1.3. The following are equiconsistent:
(1) There 'exists a Suslin absolute model of ZFC.
(2) There exists an inaccessible cardinal.
Proof. 1:::>2. Let V be Suslin absolute and suppose NI is not inaccessible
in L. Then, for some x E JR, Nl = Nf[zl. Let X = L[x] n R. SO, IXI = NI.
From Fact 2.3.3 above we have that for every r E JR,
yAm F= "There is a Borel measure one set ofrandom reals over L[x][r]"
But this is a ~A statement with parameters x and r. Hence, since Am is
Suslin and V is Suslin absolute, it holds in V.
Now, suppose c is a Cohen real over V.
164 J. BAGARIA AND H. JUDAH
Claim. V[c] F "There is a Borel measure one set of random reals over
L[x][cf' .
Proof of Claim. We have just seen that V F" For every r E JR, there is a
Borel measure one set of random reals over L[x] [r]" .
This is a U! statement with parameter x. Hence, it holds in every Suslin
extension of V. D
But this contradicts the following Lemma:
Lemma 3.1.4. (H. Woodin): Suppose X is an uncountable sequence of
reals and suppose that c is Cohen over V. Then, in V[c], there is no
random real over L(X, c).
Each Pn can be embedded into Coll(No, < IPnl+1), all nEw. Moreover,
inductively on nEw, we can extend the embedding fn of Pn into Coll(No, <
IPnl + 1) to an embedding fn+1 of Pn+1 into Coll(No, < IPn+11 + 1) (see
166 J. BAGARIA AND H. JUDAH
[J], p.278). By identifying Pn with its image under in, we can assume
Pn ~ Goll(No, < IPnl + 1), all nEw.
Let Gn = G n Pn. By the Claim above, for every n 5 m < w, !:n[G] =
'!:n[Gn] = '!:n[Gm].
Since for every nEw, Pn+1 collapses IPnl onto No, we can find, by
induction on nEw, Hn ~ Goll(No, < IPnl + 1) generic over V such that
Gn = Hn n Pn and if n 5 m, then Hm n Goll(No, < IPnl + 1) = Hn.
Then, H = UnEw Hn is generic over V for Goll(No, < /'1,). Hence, since
for every ..\ < /'1" Goll(No, < ..\) ~ Goll(NQ, /'1,), we have '!:n[G] = rn[G n] =
'!:n[Hn] = '!:n[H]. 0
To prove the Theorem, fix H ~ Coll(No, </'I,) generic over V and R a ccc
Suslin poset in V[H].
Let <pCa, x) be a ~;. formula with parameter a and let r E lR. be such that
V[H] 1= <p(a,r)
Fix G ~ R generic over V [H]. We want to show
V [H][G] 1= <pea, r)
Let b be a real number which encodes all the parameters appearing in the
definition of R. Thus, R is a forcing notion living in any universe containing
b.
Let V' = V[a, b, r].
In V', /'I, is still an inaccessible cardinal. So, by the Factor Lemma for the
Levy Collapse (see [J], ex. 25.11), we can find H' ~ Coll(No, </'I,) generic
over V' ~uch that
V'[H'] = V[H]
3.2. El-absoluteness
Theorem 3.2.1. Let P be the Cohen or the random forcing. Then, the
following are equivalent:
a. V 1= '<Ix E R there exists a P-generic filter over L[xl.
b. V is ~~-absolute for P.
Proof. a=? b. Let !p(x) be a ~~-formula with parameters in V. Without
loss of generality, a is the only parameter. Let r E R So, !per) is of form
3x t/J(y, r, a) where t/J is 1J~.
If V 1= !per), then v P 1= !per).
So, suppose v P 1= !per) and let G be P-generic over V. Then, V[G] 1=
3y t/J(y, r, a).
Let b be a witness and let r be a P-name for b.
r can be chosen as a Borel function f such that, for G ~ P generic over V,
V[G] 1=t/J(f(G),r,a).
Now, let pEP be such that p II- P t/J(r, r, a). Without loss of generality,
p=o.
Claim 3.2.2. L[r, r, all=ll- P t/J(r, r, a).
Proof of Claim. Since t/J is 1J~, so is II-p t/J(r,r,a). 0
So, if Gis P-generic over L[r, r, a], then L[r, r, a][G] 1= t/J(r[Gj, r, a). But,
by assumption, there is H P-generic over L[r, r, al. Hence,
L[r,r,all= t/J(r[Hl,r,a).
Therefore, by 1J~-absoluteness, V 1= t/J(r[Hl,r,a). i.e., V 1= !per).
b =? a. It follows -immediately from the fact that, for every real x, the
sentences
''There exists a Cohen real over L[xl"
and
"There exists a random real over L[xl"
are both El(x). 0
The following Corollary gives a partial answer to a question of H. Woodin.
Namely, suppose vCohen 1= 6~-determinacy. Does V 1= 6~-determinacy ?
Corollary 3.2.3.
(1) Assume 4~(B) (i.e., a114~ sets have the Baire property). Then,
V 1= 6~-determinacy iff vCohen 1= 6~-determinacy
(2) Assume 4~(L) (i.e., all 4~ sets are Lebesgue measurable). Then,
V 1= 6~-determinacy iffvRandom 1= 6~-determinacy
168 J. BAGARIA AND H. JUDAH
4. MA(AM)
4.1. A combinatorial characterization of MA(Am)
Lemma 4.1.4. (T.Bartoszyllski) Let N denote the ideal of the null sets.
There are maps 4> : WW -+N and 4>* :n-+ C such that for any f E WW and
X EN,
f ~* 4>*(X) whenever 4>(J) ~ X
Proof. By the Lemma above, and since the union of all Borel null sets with
code in M is null, there exists 8 E C such that for every f E WW n M,
f(n) E 8(n) for all but finitely many nEw. For every n < w, let {C~ :
m < w} be an enumeration of all finite unions of open intervals with rational
endpoints such that J.L(C~) :5 ~, all m < w. Let A = UnEw UmEs(n) C~.
So, J.L(A):5 L:nEw(}=mEs(n)J.L(C~)) < L:nEw(2n.~) = i. i.e., A E Am.
Now, for every a < A, we can find fa E WW such that Ba = UnEw Cj",(n)·
So, since by the lemma above fOf. S;;;* 8, we are done. 0
Claim. There exists x a Cohen real over M[A].
Proof of Claim. By [B] Add(L) :::} Add(B). Hence, since M[A] 1= "2W =
A", there are only A Borel meager sets coded in M[A]. Therefore, their
union is meager. 0
Thus, we can apply the following Lemma:
Lemma 4.1.6. (J.'fruss) Suppose A E Am is such that for every B E
Am coded in M there is a finite union C of open intervals with rational
endpoints satisfying A U B = Au C. Then, for any Cohen M[A]-generic
real x, M[A][x] contains aM-generic ultrafilter on Amoeba.
2::::}3
The following Lemma is an unpublished result of S. Shelah (implicit in
[G-S]) which is included here with his permission.
Lemma 4.1. 7. Suppose P is a forcing notion and {fn : n < w} are partial
automorphisms of P (i.e., partial order preserving functions) with domain
dense in P, and satisfying
(*) Vp,q E P there are n,r such that r E dom.fn, r ~ p, and fn(r) ~ q.
Then, If-p "F is u-centered".
Proof. Let G be the name of the generic set. Define
Gn = {p: 3r E G, p :5 fn(r)}
For each n, If-p "Gn is a centered subset of P": If PbP2 E Gn witnessed
by rI, r2 E G, then 3r E G such that rl :5 r, r2 :5 r and r E domfn. SO,
PI :5 fn(r), P2 :5 fn(r), as fn is order-preserving, and fn(r) E Gn-
Now, by (*), for every p, q E P, P If-p "3n such that q E Gn ". Hence
Without loss of generality, n = m. Consider the case where Iwpl 2:: Iwql.
(The other case is symmetric.)
Let u be a permutation of 2n such that V6 E Wq 31] E wp so that u(1]) = 6,
and u(1]) = 1] for all other 1] E 2n.
Hence, u(wp ) 2:: w q • Define:
p' = {oIl' : 31] E P 3k E W 1]' r k = 1] and 1]' rn Ii w p }
q' = {6' : 36 E q 3l E W 6' r l = 6 and 6' r m Ii w q }
Let r = wp Up' U F,y-l(q'). Since p(q') < e, per) < 1/2.
Also r 2:: p, since Up = Uwp U Up'. But F.,.(r) = F.,.(wp) U F.,.(p') U q' ;:::
Wq Up' U q' ;::: q. 0
To show 3., let P ~ Am, IPI < 2~o. Without loss of generality, IPI > w.
Let M = L(P).
The conditions of Amoeba are open sets. So, since Am satisfies the ccc,
each antichain of Am can be coded by a real number. But in M there are
at most IPI-many reals. Hence, by MA(Am), there is a generic filter G for
Am over M. Thus, by the above Lemmas,
3:::}1
It is enough to show that for any {~ : i < A < 2~o} a collection of
Borel measure zero sets where A is an uncountable cardinal less than 2~o,
Ui<A Ai is of measure zero.
So, let {Ai : i < A < 2~o} be such a collection and let M = L( {Ai : i <
A < 2~o}). We have M F 2~o = A. Hence, AmM is u-centered.
Let AmM = U nEw Pn be a u-centering partition and, for each n, let
Bn = U{p E Pn }.
p(Bn) <!. Otherwise,therewouldbepo,···,Pm E Pn withpCUi<mPi);:::
!, which is impossible since every finite subset of Pn has a suprem~. With-
out loss of generality, Ai + q = Ai for any rational number q. Given i < A,
there is nEw such that Ai ~ Bn. Hence, Ai ~ nqEQ(Bn + q). Since for
every nEw, p(Bn) < !, nqEQ(Bn + q)) is of measure zero, all nEw. So,
since Ui<A Ai ~ U nEw nqEQ(Bn + q), it follows that Ui<A Ai is of measure
zero. 0
MA <=} Every poset satisfying the ccc of size < 2~o is u-centered.
172 J. BAGARIA AND H. JUDAH
REFERENCES
[B] T. Bartoszyliski, Additivity of measure implies additivity of category, Trans.
Amer. Math. Soc. 281 (1984), no.l, 209-213.
[B-J] T. BartoszyIiski and H. Judah, Jumping with random reals, Annals of Pure and
Applied Logic, 48,1990, 197-213.
[E] R. Engelking, General Topology, PWN, Warszawa 1977.
[G-S] M. Gitik and S. Shelah, Forcings with Ideals and Simple Forcing Notions, Israel
Journal of Mathematics, to appear.
[J] T. Jech, Set Theory, Academic Press, New York, 1978.
[J-S I] J. Thoda and S. Shelah, Suslin Forcing, The Journal of Symbolic Logic 53 (4)
(Dec. 1988), 1188-1207.
[J-S 2] J. Thoda and S. Shelah, Martin's Axioms, Measurability and Equiconsistency
Results, The Journal of Symbolic Logic 54 (I) (March 1989), 78-94.
[J-S 3] J. Thoda and S. Shelah, A~ sets of reals, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 42
(1989), no.3, 207-223.
[K] K. Kunen, Set Theory. An Introduction to Independence Proofs, North-Holland,
1980.
[M-S] D. Martin and R. Solovay, Internal Cohen extensions, Annals of Mathematical
Logic 2 (1970), 143-178.
[S] S. Shelah, Can you take Solovay's inaccessible away?, Israel Journal of Mathe-
matics 48 (1) (1984), 1-47.
[So] R. Solovay, A model of set-theory in which every set of reals is Lebesgue measur-
able, Ann. of Math. (1970),1-56.
[T1] S. Todorcevic, Two examples of Borel ccc posets, unpublished notes (1989).
[T2] S. TodorCevic, 7rees and Linearly Ordered Sets in Handbook of Set-Theoretic
Topology, edited by K. Kunen and J.E. Vaughan, Elsevier Science Publishers
B.V., 1984.
[T-V] S. Todoreevic and B.Velickovic, Martin's axiom and partitions, Compositio Math-
ematica 63391-408 (1987), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dodrecht.
[Tr] J. Truss, Sets having calibre ~1, Logic Colloquium '76, 595-612. North-Holland
Publishing Company.
[WI H. Woodin, On the consistency strength of Projective Uniformization, Proceed-
ings of the Herbrand Symposium, Logic Colloquium '81, J. Stern (editor), North-
Holland Publishing Company, 1982.
DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS,
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY CA 94720
PARTIALLY SUPPOll,TED BY THE "GENERALITAT DE CATALUNYA" (CIRIT).
175
176 T. BARTOSZYNSKI AND H. JUDAH
Define I'(n) = max{In} for nEw. Let Ik(n) = I'(n + k) for nEw. Let
I E WW be any function dominating the family {/k : k E w}. It is easy to
see that I dominates :F.
3 -+ 1 Let F = UnEw Fn be any meager set of type Fu. Fix some
enumeration of w<w.
Define by induction two sequences {kn : nEw} and {Sn : nEw} as
follows:
and
kn+1 = k n + lh(sn+d .
Let In = [kn' k n+1) for nEw. Find X E :F such that X n In = 0 for
infinitely many nEw. Define Y E 2W as follows
Theorem 1.4 ([Ba2]). For any filter:F the following conditions are equiv-
alent:
(1) F is measurable,
(2) there exists a family {An: nEw} such that
(a) An consists of finitely many finite subsets ofw for all nEw,
(b) UAn n UAm = 0 whenever n"# m,
(c) L:'=l J.£( {X <;:; w : 3a E An a c X}) < 00 ,
(d) \;fXEF3°On3aEAn acX.
Lemma 1.5 ([0]). Suppose that He 2W has measure zero. Then there
exists a sequence {Fn : nEw} such that Fn <;:; 2n for nEw, L:'=l!Fnl·
2- n < 00 and H <;:; {x E 2W : 3°On x In E Fn} .
178 T. BARTOSZYNSKI AND H. JUDAH
Proof. Since H has measure zero there are open sets {G n : nEw} covering
H such that /L(Gn ) < 2~ for nEw. Represent each set Gn as a disjoint
union of open basic intervals i.e.
Gn =
m=l
Lemma 1.6. Suppose that (Al. 3 1 ) and (A2,.:J2) are two small sets. If
A1 is a finer partition than A2 then (Al. 3 1 ) U (A2' 3 2 ) is a small set.
In particular if (Ab 3 1 ) and (A2' 3 2 ) are two small sets and there exists
a partition which is coarser than both A1 and A2 then the union (A1, 3 1 ) U
(A 2 , 3 2 ) is small.
Lemma 1.7. Suppose that (Ab 3 1 ) and (A2, 3 2 ) are two small sets and
that (Al. 3 1 ) C (A2' 3 2 ). Then for all but finitely many a E A1 and for
every s E J! there exists b E A2 such that b n a # 0 and all extensions of
s tb are in Jr
MEASURE AND CATEGORY - FILTERS ON w 179
Proof. suppose that this is not true. Then there exists a sequence {an :
nEw} of elements of A1 and a sequence Sn E JL for nEw such that for
all b E A2 whenever an n b i= 0 then Sn rb has an extension which does not
belong to Jr For every b E A2 choose one sequence Sb rt J~ and define
x E 2W as follows:
x rb = Sb if b n UnEw an = 0 and
x rb = any extension of Sn rb which is not in Jl if b n an i= 0 and n is
minimal like that.
It is obvious that x rt (A 2, .:J2) since for all b E A2, x r b rt On Jr
the other hand x ran = Sn for nEw which means that x E (A1,.:J1).
Contradiction. 0
Lemma 1.8. Suppose that (A 1,.:J1) and (A2,.:J2) are two small sets and
that (Ab.:J 1) C (A2, .:J2). Then there exists partition A3 finer than both
A1 and A2 and a family .:J3 such that
mk = min{j E w : 2nk . f
i=j
I~I < cd ,
and
nk+1 = min{j E w : 2mk • f
i=j
I~I < ck} for k Ew .
t Idom(t) n domes) .
Similarly
S
I
E Jk ~ s E 2I'k & ::Ii E [nk+l' mk+1) ::It E Fi s rdom(t) n domes) =
tjdom(t) n domes) .
It remains to show that (h, Jk )k=l and (IL J~)~l are small sets and that
their union covers H.
Consider the set (h, Jk)'k=l . Notice that for k E w
Since L~l Cn < 00 this ~hows that the set (In, In)~=l is null. Analogous
argument works for the other set. Finally we have that
X n
k=l
X n
k=l
MEASURE AND CATEGORY - FILTERS ON w 181
Without loss of generality we can assume that it is the first case. But it
means that x E (In, In)~=l because if x t n E Fn and n E [mk' nk+1) then
by the definition there is t E J k such that x r ink, nk+t} = t. We are done
since it happens infinitely many times. 0
l,From now on we will assume that partitions occurring in the definition
of small set are always partitions into disjoint intervals.
holds for k E w.
Similarly if we define
S~ = {s E 2[n k,mon ) : s has at least 2nk-mk-l-k extensions
inside JD
182 T. BARTOSZYNSKI AND H. JUDAH
for all k E w.
Consider the set ([nk' mk), SkUS~)k::l' This set is small since 2:;:'=1 ISkU
S~I' 2nk - mk < 00.
Now we have three small sets
(1) HI = ([nk,nkH),Jk)k'=l'
(2) H2 = ([mk,mk+l), Jk)k::l'
(3) H3 = ([nk' mk), Sk U SDk'=l'
If :F C H2 U H3 we are done since by 1.6 H2 U H3 is a small set. Therefore
assume that there exists X E :F such that X rt H2 U H 3 • Since:F C HI U H 2
we get that X E HI' Therefore there exists an infinite sequence {ku : u E w}
such that
for u E w.
Define for u E w
Iu = [mk"H,nk"H) and
Tu = {s E 21,,: X rlnk", mk,,+d~s E Jk" or
s~Xflnk"+l,mk,,H) E JLH}'
for sufficiently large u E w. Hence for all except finitely many mEw,
Z rIm ¢ Jm which means that Z ¢ HI. Similarly, using the second clause
in the definition of H3 we prove that Z ¢ H 2 • That finishes the proof since
the set (Iu, TU)~=I is small. 0
Assume that F is a measurable filter. Then by the above lemma F can
be covered by a set {x E 2w : 3°On x rIn E I n } where sequences {In : nEw}
and {In : nEw} satisfy the definition of a small set.
Define for nEw
J~ = {s E I n : \:fu E 2I n (s-1(1) ~ u- 1(1) --t U E I n )} .
9 = {X ~ w : sUPPA(X) E 'H} .
It is clear that 9 is a filter; the fact that 9 does not have Baire property
follows from 1.3. 0
d(X) = lim IX n nl
n-+oo n
if the above limit exists.
Let {Ke : ~ < 2W} be an enumeration of all closed sets of positive
measure.
Lemma 1.15. Assume MA. There exists a family {Xe : ~ < 2W} such
that X~ E K~ for ~ < 2W and
1
VnEwV6, ... '~nd(Xeln ... nx~n)=2n .
He = {X c w: d(XnYe) = d(~e)}.
By the above claim all sets He have measure 1. By Martin Axiom KOI n
ne<1IO He f:. 0. Let XOI be any element of this set. This finishes the con-
struction and the proof of the lemma. 0
Proof. 1.14 Let {Xe : ~ < 2W} be a family from the above lemma. Let F
be a filter generated by this family. It is clear that F is a nonmeasurable
filter as F intersects every set of positive measure. Let In = [2n2, 2(n+1)2)
for nEw. Notice that if X n In = 0 for infinitely many nEw then
. fiX n nl
limIn =0
n-+oo n
therefore X fj. F since F is generated by elements having positive den-
sity. 0
Another application is related to the following.
MEASURE AND CATEGORY - FILTERS ON w 185
Proof It is clear from the definition that rapid filters are unbounded so by
1.3 they do not have Baire property.
Let F be a rapid filter. Suppose that F is covered by a set of form
{X C W : 3°On 3a E An a C X} where {An : nEw} is a family as in 1.4.
Without losing generality we can assume that for all nEw
1
1'( {X ~ W : 3a E An a C X}) < 2n +1
and that
max{max(a) : a E An} ~ min{min(a) : a E Am} for n ~ m .
2. INTERSECTIONS OF FILTERS
We start with the following:
Proof Let {F£. : { < K < 2No} be a family of filters without Baire property.
Let F = n£.<1I: F£.. Let {In: nEw} be a partition of w into finite sets. By
1.3 it is enough to show that there exists X E F such that X n In = 0 for
infinitely many nEw. Define sequences {X£. : { < K} and {Ye : { :5 K}
such that
(1) X£. E F£. for { < K,
(2) 'i{ < K 'in E Ye X£. n In = 0,
(3) Ye - Y71 is finite for { ~ 11·
186 T. BARTOSZYNSKI AND H. JUDAH
e
Given sequences {Xe : < o:} and {~ : e::;
o:} using M A find set Y~ such
e
that Y~ - ~ is finite for < 0:. Then using 1.3 find Yo< S;;; Yo< and Xo< having
properties 1) and 2). Finally let
x = U(Xe - U In).
e</t nEY"-YE
e
Proof Let {Fe : < K, < 2t-to} be a family of ultrafilters. Let F = ne</t Fe
and let {In : nEw} be a partition of w into finite sets. By 1.3 it is enough
to show that there exists X E F such that X n In = 0 for infinitely many
nEw.
e
Let {ae : < 2t-to} be a family of almost disjoint subsets of w. Consider
e
sets Xe .= UnEGE In for < 2No. Only one of those sets can belong to a
e
filter. Therefore there is .,., < 2t-to such that X 17 ¢ Fe for < K,. Thus
w - X 17 E F and (w - X 17 ) n In = 0 for n E aw D
Notice that in fact we showed that for every possible cover H of the
intersection of filters we found a family of 2t-to almost disjoint sets {Xe :
e e
< 2t-to} such that neither Xe nor w - Xe belongs to H for < 2t-to.
The question whether the analog of the theorem above is true for measure
is open. The following example shows why the same proof does not work
n
for measure. Define
In = [2n,2n+1) and I n = {a C In: 2- n ·Ial ~ for nEw. It is easy to
check that families {In,Jn : nEw} satisfy conditions 1)- 4) of 1.4. On the
other hand for every partition of w into 4 sets the set G = (In' In)~=l will
contain one of those sets or its complement.
For a countable case we have an analog of 2.1.
nX
n
P(Xb ... ,Xn,Y) =Yu k •
k=l
Notice that we identify here X E 2W with {n E w : X(n) = I}.
Let v be a measure on (2w)n x 2W defined as J.L x J.L x ... x J.L x J.Lc.
Claim 2.5. For every Borel set A c 2W J.La(A) = v(P- 1 (A)).
Proof. It is enough to check that it holds for sets Ak = {x E 2W : x(k) = I}
for k E w. Clearly J.La(Ak) = a for k E w. On .the other hand
(Xl, ... ,Xn , Y) E P-l(Ak) f--+ 'Vi:::; n Xi(k) = 1
or
3i :::; n Xk = 0 & Y(k) = 1 .
Therefore v(P-l(Ak)) = 2~ + (1- 2~) . C = a. 0
Suppose that :F is not measurable. Consider a set B c 2W such that
J.La(B) > O. Sj,nce the set :F x :F x ... x :F x 2W has outer measure 1 and
mapping P preserves measure we can find (Xl, ... ,Xn , Y) E p-l(B)n:Fx
:F x .. , x :F x 2W. Thus the set n~=l X k n Y E :F n B which finishes the
proof.
Assume that :F is measurable. Let {An : nEw} be a family satisfying
conditions a) - d) of 1.4. Let H = {X E w: 3°On 3a E An a c X}. Notice
° °
that if J.L(H) = then J.La(H) = for a E (0, 0 H
We will use the following notation: if {An : nEw} is a family satisfying
conditions a) - d) of 1.4 then (An)~=l denotes the set {X C w : 3°On 3a E
An a eX}. IfY c w then (An-Y)~=l denotes the set {X C w: 3°On 3a E
An a - Y c X}. Notice that if Y E (An)~=l then (An - Y)~=l = 2W.
Let {Pn : nEw} be the sequence of reals defined as Po = and Pn+ 1 = !
1 - VI - Pn for nEw.
Define a sequence {Xn : nEw} such that for nEw
188 T. BARTOSZ"YNSKI AND H. JUDAH
(1) Xn E:Fn ,
(2) Xn C Xn+b
(3) JLp,,«Ak - Xn)k=l) = O.
Suppose that Xn is already constructed for some nEw. Consider the
function S: 2w x 2w ---+ 2W defined as S(X, Y) = Xu Y. In the same way
as in 2.4 we show that for every Borel set A c 2W
JLp,,+l X JLP,,+l (S-l(A)) = JLp" (A) .
By the induction hypothesis JLp,,«Ak - Xn)k=l) = O. Therefore
JLP,,+l X JLPn+l (S-l(Ak - Xn)k=d = 0 .
Since filter :Fn+1 is JLPn+l -nonmeasurable using Fubini theorem we can find
Y E :Fn+l such that
JLP,,+l ({X : S(Y, X) E (Ak - Xn)k=d) = 0 .
Let X n+l = Xn U Y. It is clear that this set has desired properties.
Finally for every nEw find a natural number k n such that a ct Xn for
a E Am and m 2:: k n· Let Xw = UnEw(Xn - k n). Clearly Xw nnEw:Fn and
Xw f/- (Ak)k=l' 0
Surprisingly this theorem does not generalize to uncountable families of
filters.
Theorem 2.6 (Fremlin [F]). Assume MA & ..,CH. Then there exists
e
a family {:Fe : < 2No} of nonmeasurable filters such that neEl:Fe is a
measurable filter for every uncountable set I C 2No. In particular there
exists a family of Nl nonmeasurable filters with measurable intersection.
e
Proof. Let {Ie : < 2No} be a family of disjoint subsets of 2No of size 2No.
e
Let {Ke : < 2No} be an enumeration of closed sets of positive measure
such that for every closed set of positive measure K and { < 2No there
e
exists'f/ E1e such that K = K",. Let {Xe : < 2No} be a family from 1.15
constructed for the family {Ke : { < 2No}. Let:Fe be the filter generated
e
by the family {X", : 'f/ E Ie} for < 2No. It is clear that all those filters are
nonmeasurable. Suppose that I c 2No is uncountable. Let X E neEl :Fe.
For each e E I there is a finite set Je c Ie such that n"EJ~ X" c X.
Find an infinite set I' C I and k E w such that IJd = k for E I'. Let e
~ = n"EJ~ X" for eE I'. By the above remarks d(~) = 2- k for eE I'.
Since all sets Je are disjoint, for every finite set I" C I' we have
n.r~ c {X c w: d(X) = I} .
~EI
That finishes the proof since the family of sets having density 1 has measure
zero. 0
d = 2No.
Theorem 3.~ (Ketonen [K)). wD iff every filter generated by < 2No el-
ements can be extended to a p-point.
Proof. +- Suppose that F c WW is a family of size < 2No • For f E F and
nEw define XI = {(n,k) E w x w: k 2:: fen)} and xn = {(m,k) E w xw:
m 2:: n}. It is easy to see that the family {XI: f E F} u {xn : nEw}
generates a proper filter. Consider a partition of w xw given by Yn = {n} Xw
for nEw. By the assumption there exists X ~ w x w such that X n X f
is infinite for all f E F and X n Yn is finite for nEw. Define the function
g(n) = max{k E w : (n, k) E XnYn } for nEw. It is clear that the function
9 is defined on infinite subset of w and is not dominated by any function
fEF.
- This is proved by induction. Single step looks as follows:
Suppose that .r is a filter generated by < 2No elements and let {Yn : n E
w} be a partition of w.
190 T. BARTOSZYNSKI AND H. JUDAH
nEw
It is not hard to check that X has all the required properties. D
The next theorem was first proved by M. Canjar and independently by
the authors.
Theorem 3.3. Tbe following conditions are equivalent:
(1) lR'is not tbe union of < 2No meager sets,
(2) every filter generated by < 2No elements can be extended to a
Ramsey ultrafilter,
(3) wD and every filter generated by < 2No elements can be extended
to a q-point.
Proof. 1) ~ 2) Let:F be a filter on w generated by less than 2No elements.
Ultrafilter we are looking for is constructed by induction with respect to
all possible partitions of w. We present a single induction step here. Let
{Yn : nEw} be a partition of w. We have two cases:
CASE 1 There exists X E :F such that {n E w : X n Yn =F 0} is finite.
In this case we do nothing - every ultrafilter containing :F will contain
exactly one set Yn for some nEw.
CASE 2 For every X E :F {n E w : X n Yn =F 0} is infinite.
MEASURE AND CATEGORY - FILTERS ON w 191
Since X' = X~ u X~ one of those sets has infinite intersection with all sets
X F for F E A. Without loosing generality we can assume that it is Xi.
192 T. BARTOSZYNSKI AND H. JUDAH
It turns out that the condition 3) of 3.3 can be still weakened. Namely
we have the following:
is straightforward. 0
4. RAISONNIER'S FILTER
In this section we will define certain filter on w called Raisonnier's fil-
ter. We prove that this filter is rapid assuming that all ~§ are Lebesgue
measurable and unbounded assuming M A~l «(1 - centered).
Definition 4.1. Let X ~ 2W be an uncountable set of reals. Let h :
2W x 2W ----4 W be the following function
h(x,y)=min{nEw: xin:rfyrn} x,yE2w •
Proof. Suppose that X 1 ,X2 E :Fx. Let Rl,R2 be two relations such that
Xl = Ri and X 2 = R3c. Define R3 = Rl n R2. It is easy to see that
:Fx :3 R1- ~ Ri n R3c.
Also every set of form Rx is infinite. To see that let R be a relation
having count ably many equivalence classes. Since the set X is uncountable
at least one of those equivalence classes, call it Y, must be infinite. Function
h maps [Yj2 into Rx so if Rx is finite by Ramsey theorem we get an infinite
h-homogeneous set. This is not possible since h does not have homogeneous
sets of size > 2.
194 T. BARTOSZYNSKI AND H. JUDAH
As R has only countably many equivalence classes there are e < 'fJ < WI
such that
([X;JR : j $ n) = ([XJJR : j ~ n) .
By the hypothesis there exists l $ n such that
h(x;, xi) tt b
which contradicts the choice of R. 0
Now we can conclude the proof of the lemma.
We have
Proof. Let {(fe, ye, {k; : l ~ ne}} : e< WI} be an uncountable subset of
Q. By "thinning out" we can assume that there exist j, n, mEw such that
for all e,1J < WI
(1) ye = {yI. ... ,y~},
(2) n e = n,
(3) {kj : j ~ n} = {kJ : j ~ n} d,g' {k j : j ~ n},
(4) (fe(y1), ... ,fe(y~)} = (f'1(y'/.), ... ,j'1(y~)},
(5) Y1 fj, ... ,y~ tj are all different,
(6) (Y1 tj, ... ,y~ fj) = (Y1 ti,·· . ,y~ fj),
(7) y1.Rn+my1,· .. ,y~ R,.+mY~ .
Choose ef:. 1J and let
y = ye u y'1 , f = fe u j'1
{kl : n ~ l < n + m} = {h(y;,y() : l ~ m} .
It is easy to verify that the condition (f, y, {kl : l ~ n + m}} extends both
(fe, ye, {k; : l ~ n}} and (j'1, y'1, {ki : l ~ n}}. 0
Now applying MAl-ll to forcing Q we get an element a* E :Fx having
desired properties. 0
Thereforep = {x: f(x) > k} has positive measure and clearly p II-Iannkl >
k. Contradiction. D
Let ink : k E w} be the first Mathias real added by PW2 ' Suppose that
a E V[G] is a subset of w such that la n nkl S k for all k E w. In the model
V[G n PW2 ] a has a Bit-name a. Therefore the function a defined as above
belongs to the model V[G n PW2 ] hence it has a name fa E V. From now
on we will worK with this name.
We will need the following technical lemma. Recall that for two con-
ditions p,q E PW2 ' a set F C W2 and nEw, p ?:F,n q if P ?: q and
e
pte II- p(e) ?:n ,/(e) for E F.
Lemma 5.3. Suppose that p E PW2 and e > O. There exist sequence {Fn :
nEw} offinitesubsetsofw2, sequenceofconditions{p~,p~: nEw} C PW2 '
sequence of natural numbers {kn : nEw} and sequence of finite subsets of
w , {B~,B; : nEw} such that
(1) 0 E Fo C Fl C ... Fn C ... ,
(2) Unew(supp(P~) U supp(P~)) = Unew Fn ,
(3) p = pb SFo,O pi SFl,l p~ SF2,2 ... for i = 1,2,
(4) B& C Bi C B~ . .. for i = 1, 2, B~ n B; C BJ n B6 for nEw and
UnewBl UB; =w,
198 T. BARTOSZYNSKI AND H. JUDAH
qlf- L
1 1 1
(b) fa(j)<c.(l0+ 102 +···lO n- 1) ,
j"tBi,nkn
(b) qlf- L
1 1 1
fa(j)<c.(l0+ 102 +"'lOn - 1 ) ,
jftB~nkn
fl(i) = mlim
..... oo
hn,l(i) for i E W .
Notice that 2:: 1 fl(i) $ n + 1 for every l < 2n·IFnl. Otherwise there exists
k E W such that 2:7=1 fl (i) > n+ 1. Therefore there is j = jm > k such that
2:7=1 h,l(i) > n + 1. If On is small enough then P;',j If- 2:7=1 fa (i) > n + 1.
This is impossible by 5.2 and the fact that the n + I-st element of the
infinite part of P;',j is bigger that j.
MEASURE AND CATEGORY - FILTERS ON w 199
Finally let Fn+l be any finite set of ordinals containing Fn and first n
elements of supp(P~) for i = 1,2 and j ~ n (in some fixed enumeration of
supp(P~) in order type w). 0
Lemma 5.4. For every e > 0 and for every condition p E PW2 there are
conditions pI, p2 ~ P and sets BI, B2 C W such that
(1) pI II-.tt([B 2 E .11)
< e,
(2) p2 II- tt([B I E .1]) < e,
(3) BI U B2 = w and BI n B2 is finite.
Proof. Let ink : k E w} be the first Mathias real added by PW2 • Suppose
that a E V[GJ is an element of:F such that la n nkl ~ k for alI k E w.
Since j: is a name for a rapid filter apply 5.3 to the function fa and define
Bi = UnEw B~, pi = limn_co p~ for i = 1,2. Also we have
Since the above sum estimates the ''probability'' that the set Bi is infinite
and we assume that filter :F is nonprincipal we immediately get 1) and
2). 0 '
Next we have to show that in addition we can assume that the conditions
pI, p2 from 5.3 are compatible. First notice that there exists 0 < W2 such
that cf(o) = WI and 5.4 holds in V[G n P6]. In other words using standard
reflection argument using the fact that we force with proper forcing and that
V 1== GCH we can see that there exists 0 such that if BI, B2 E V[G n P6]
is a pair of almost disjoint sets covering w and if there are conditions pI, p2
such that pI II- tt([B2 E .1]) < e and p2 II- tt([BI E .1]) < e then we can
find those conditions in V[G n P6].
200 T. BARTOSZYNSKI AND H. JUDAH
Fix 6 as above. Since PW2 ~ PW2 \P6 5.3 is true in V[G n P6] and we can
find BI,B2,pl,p'l as in 5.3.
Since cf(6) = WI there is a < 6 such that BI, B2 E V[G n Pal. By
the assumption about 6 there are conditions pi,p2 E V[G n P6] such that
pI If- M([B 2 E i]) < e and p2 If- M([B 1 E i]) < e.
Consider q = pI . p2. It is a nonzero condition since pI and p2 have
disjoint supports. Without losing generality we can assume that q E G.
Therefore in V[G n PW2 ] we have that
(1) M([B 2 E p[G n Pw2 D) < e,
(2) M([B 1 E p[G n Pw2 D) < e.
If e < ~ then there is a condition q' E BI<, which forces that neither BI
nor B2 belongs to F. But this is a contradiction as F is assumed to be a
nonprincipal ultrafilter. 0
MEASURE AND CATEGORY - FILTERS ON w 201
REFERENCES
[Ba] T. Bartoszynski, On C01Jering of the real line by null sets, Pacific Journal of
Mathematics 1 (1988).
[Ba1] T. Bartoszynski, Combinatorial aspects of measure and category, Fundamenta
Mathematicre (1987).
[Ba2] T. Bartoszynski, On the structure of measurable filters on a countable set (to
appear).
[BJ] T. Bartoszynski and H. Judah, Measure and category in Set theory - the asym-
metry (in preparation).
[C] M. Canjar, On the generic existence of special ultrafilters (to appear in Proc.
AMS).
[F] D. Fremlin, Note of Aug. 16, 1982.
[Fl] D. Fi-emlin, Note of April 17, 1989.
[FM] D. Fi-emlin, A. Miller, On the properties of Hurewicz and Menger (to appear).
(J] H. Judah, Unbounded filters on w, Logic Colloquium (1989).
(JS] H. Judah and S. Shelah, Q-sets, Sierpinski sets and rapid filters (to appear in
Journal of Symb. Logic).
(JS1] H. Judah and S. Shelah, Martin's Axiom, measurability and equiconsistency
results, Journal of Symb. Logic (1989).
[K] J. Ketonen, On the existence of p-points in Cech-Stone compaetification of in-
tegers, Fundamenta Mathematicre (1976).
[Mi] A. Miller, There are no Q-points in Laver's model for the Borel Conjecture,
Proe. AMS 178 (Jan. 1980).
[0] J. OxtQby, "Measure and category", Springer Verlag.
[P] Sz. Plewik, Intersections and unions of ultrafilters with01i.t Baire property, Bull.
of Polish Acad. of Sciences 35 (1987).
[R] J. Raisonnier, A mathematical proof of She/ah's theorem, Israel Journal of Math.
(1984).
[T1] M. Talagrand, Compacts de fonetions mesurables et filtres nonmesurables, Stu-
dia Mathematica T.LXVII (1980).
[T2] M. Talagrand, Filtres: mesurabilite, rapidite, propriete de Baire forte, Studia
Mathematiea T.T.LXXIV (1982).
1. INTRODUCTION
We study in this paper a generalization of the property of Baire for sets
of reals. Given a subset A of the set of reals, we say that A is universally
Baire if for every topological space X and for every continuous function,
I:X - t R, the preimage of A under I, I-I[A], has the property ofBaire in
the space X. The main theorem we will prove states that a set A of reals is
universally Baire if and only if A and its complement are projections of two
class trees which have the property that they project to complements in
every set generic extension of the universe. It follows that the universally
Baire sets have the usual classical regularity properties of analytic and co-
analytic sets. Thus it is perhaps more accurate to view the universally Baire
sets as generalizations of the analytic and co-analytic sets. In fact we will
show that in the presence of suitable large cardinals, every universally Baire
set is determined. We will also show that the existence of large cardinals
can be used to show that certain sets are universally Baire and conversely
(at least in the sense of giving back inner models). For example every ~~
set of reals is universally Baire if and only if every set has a sharp. We shall
also show that within the projective sets the property of being universally
Baire has connections to the absoluteness of the theory of the reals under
set forcing. More precisely, every 4~ set of reals is universally Baire if
and only if V is ~~ absolute with respect to every set generic extension.
Further every ~~ set of reals is universally Baire if and only if every set
generic extension of V is ~~ absolute with respect to all further set generic
203
204 Q. FENG, M. MAGIDOR AND H. WOODIN
{f E WW I if lh(8) = 8 },
where lh(8) is the length of 8. The set {Ns 18 E w<W } generates a topology
on WWj it is the product topology derived from the discrete topology on w.
Endowed with this topology, WW is homeomorphic to the Euclidean space
of irrationals.
Suppose X is a set. We denote by XW the set of all functions from w
to X and we denote by X<w the set of all finite sequences of elements
of X. We adopt the usual convention that X<w is the set of all functions
f : dom(J) ---t X such that dom(J) E wand if 8 E X<w then dom(8) = lh(8)
is the length of 8. Suppose that A is an ordinal larger than O. A tree on w x A
is a subset T ~ w<w x A<w such that for all pairs (8, t) E T, lh(8) = lh(t)
and (8fi, tfi) E T for each i E lh(8) E w. Suppose that T is a tree on w x A.
For 8 E w<w and for x E wW,
Ts = {t E A<w I (8, t) E T }
and
We also define
Thus p[T] is the projection of T, and for each x E w W , x E p[T] if and only
if Tx is ill-founded.
Suppose that X is a nonempty set. We denote by m(X) the set of count-
ably complete ultrafilters on the Boolean algebra P(X). JL is a measure on
X if JL E m(X). For JL E m(X) and A ~ X we write JL(A) = 1 to indicate
A E JL. Suppose X = y<w and JL E m(Y<W). Since JL is count ably complete,
UNIVERSALLY BAIRE SETS OF REALS 205
there is a unique nEw such that JL(yn) = 1. Suppose JLl! JL2 are in m(Y<W),
and JLl (ynl) = JL2 (Yn2) = 1. Then JLl projects to JL2 if nl < n2 and for all
AS; ynl, JLl(ynl) = 1 if and only if JL2({ s E yn2 ISrnl E A}) = 1.
For each JL E m( X) there is a canonical elementary embedding j J.' : V -+
Mp, of the universe, V, into an inner model, MJ." where MJ.' is the transitive
collapse of the ultrapower V X / JL. Suppose that JLl projects to JL2 are in
m(Y<W). Then there is also a canonical elementary embedding
such that
Vj(f)(It) S; M.
206 Q. FENG, M. MAGID OR AND H. WOODIN
B* = { a E X 1 {i 1 a E B i } E A}.
The main theorem of (16) is that this operation preserves the Baire property
in any space X if the set A is absolutely 4~. Define a set A ~ P(w) to be
universally Baire in the natural fashion by identifying P(w) with 2w ~ ww.
It is not difficult to see that if the set A is universally Baire then this
operation preserves the Baire property in any space X. In fact it can be
shown that a set A ~ P(w) is universally Baire if and only if for every
B ~ P(w) which is continuously reducible to A, the Boolean operation
given by B preserves the Baire property in any space X.
Qi Feng would like to thank S. G. Simpson for communicating to him
the results of Schilling and Vaught on absolutely 4~ sets.
Baire, then f- 1 [A] is also universally Baire. In fact we shall see that every
analytic set is universally Baire.
We are mainly interested in which sets of reals are universally Baire.
Since each universally Baire set has the property of Baire, we will be pri-
marily concerned with consistency results. By results of Solovay [21] and
Shelah [18], the assertion that every projective set, or that every set of
reals which is in L(IR) has the Baire property is not very strong in consis-
tency strength. But we will see that even the assertion that every ~~ set is
universally Baire is a relatively strong statement.
Theorem 2.1. Let A ~ wW. let A be an infinite cardinal. Then the
following are equivalent:
(1) There are two trees T, T* such that
(a) A = p[T], WW - A = p[T*],
(b) Col(w,A)If--- p[TJ Up[T*] =ww.
(2) There are trees T, T* such that
(a) A = p[T] , WW - A = p[T*],
(b) P If--- p[T] Up[T*] = WW for every forcing notion P of cardinality
_:S A.
(3) A is A-universally Baire.
(4) For every continuous function f: AW ---+ wW, f- 1 [A] has the property
of Baire.
Define
Bo = [f(G) E p[T]],
208 Q. FENG, M. MAGID OR AND H. WOODIN
and
Bl = [f(G) E p[T*J].
Claim. B oD.f-l [AJ is meager.
To prove this claim, we use the following Banach-Mazur game on X and
apply a theorem of Oxtoby [15J.
Given D ~ X, the Banach-Mazur game Q(D) is defined as follows:
I Do D2
II Dl D3
Two players play in turn nonempty open sets so that Dn+l ~ Dn. After w
many steps, I wins if and only if nn<w Dn ~ D and II wins otherwise.
A winning strategy for either player has the standard meaning (cf. [4]).
We apply the following theorem of Oxtoby [15J which is easy to prove.
Theorem (Oxtoby). If I has a winning strategy a in the game Q(D),
and if Do is the first move of I according to the strategy a, then Do - D is
meager.
To prove the claim, it suffices to show that Bo - f- 1 [AJ is meager and
Bl - f- 1 [WW - AJ is meager.
By the symmetry, we may assume that Bo i= 0, and we only prove that
Bo - f- 1 [AJ is meager.
First, let us observe the following fact.
Fact. If M -< HK is a countable elementary submodel containing all the
relevant objects, and if G is a E-generic filter over M, then
f-l[NXn~ kJ ~ D n D 2n+l ·
Then I plays with D 2n+ 2 = f-l[Nxnt kJ
This defines a strategy for I. We show that it is a winning strategy for
I.
Let Mw = Un<w Mn- Then Mw -< HI<. Now the filter G generated by
{Dn In < w}
of the play is B-generic over Mw. Then we have
This finishes the proof of the claim, and hence (2) ~ (3) is proved.
(3) ~ (4) is trivial.
(4) ~ (1) By (4), we have that for every continuous function f:)..w --->
wW, f-l[A],
f-l[ww - A] have the property of Baire, Le., we can find two open
sets B o, B 1 , and dense open sets (Dn In < w) such that
n<w n<w
and
n<w n<w
210 Q. FENG, M. MAGIDOR AND H. WOODIN
n<w n<w
and
n<w n<w
Notice that we have the following:
(a) e[e-l[A] n nn<w Dn] = A,
(b) e[e-l[wW - A] n nn<w Dn] = WW - A.
(c) Bo U Bl is dense open.
Let us see why (a) is true. Let x E A. Let
Bx = {f E 8 I f(O) = T}.
UNIVERSALLY BAIRE SETS OF REALS 211
{f E Bx I fEn Dn}
n<w
is dense in Bx by the Baire category theorem.
Now we define the trees T, T* as follows.
Define that (a, (T,PO,'" ,Pk)) E T if and only if TEN is a canoni-
cal name for a real, and a E w<w, Th(a) = k, and for each i ~ k, we
n
have P~i If-- Tii = ati, and for some s E ,x<w we have V f E S if
TP~kS ~ f, then f E Bo n '<k D j
3_
Similarly define T*, replacing Bo by B 1 .
•
Bx = {f E S I f(O) = x}.
It is a clop en set. By the Baire category theorem,
Bx n (Bo U Bd n n Dn
n<w
is comeager in Bx.
If G is a Col( w, ,x )-generic over V, let
Then in V[q),
9 E Bx n (Bo U Bd n n Dn·
n<w
We may assume that
9 E Bx n Bo n n
n<w
Dn.
A = p[T] , wW - A = p[T*]
and
P II- p[T] U p[T*] = wW. D
Bo = [xa E p[T]]
and
Bl = [xa E p[T*]].
Claim. Bo6.A is of measure zero.
To see this, let fi, be a regular cardinal large enough such that every
thing relevant is in HI<.. Let M -< HI<. be a countable elementary submodel
containing all the relevant objects.
Subclaim. If x is Random over M, then
M 1= Bo II- xa E p[T].
(t, s) ~ (t', s') if and only if t' S; t, s S; s' ,and t - t' S; s'. For properties of
the Mathias forcing, see [14,24].
Let G be the canonical name for the generic filter of 8. Let ia be the
Mathias real. Let T, T* be two trees such that
p[T] = A, p[T*] = WW - A
and
8 If- p[T] U p[T*] = wW.
We may assume without loss of generality that
Subclaim. I has a winning strategy 0' such that P is the first move according
to 0'.
Given this subclaim, we show the claim holds.
Fix a winning strategy 0' for I in the game with P as the first move.
For each T 'E 2<w, we associate with T a perfect tree Pr ::; P so that
for any f ~ 2w, the sequence (Pftn' qftn+1 I n < w) is a play with I
playing according to 0', and
n<w
n
[P ft n] is a singleton, denoted by f*, and
the mapping f - f* is a one-to-one continuous mapping.
We do this by induction. p() = p.
For T E 2<w, assume that Pn qr are defined and satisfying the obvious
requirements. Let s E Pr be the first branching point of Pr. Then define
n [Pn]
n<w
= {x/G} ~ pIT]·
o
To end this section, we state the following theorem below, whose proof
will be given in the next section.
Theorem 2.4. If every .:;}~ set is universally Baire, then every uncountable
~~ set contains a perfect subset.
3. ABSOLUTENESS
Also Woodin showed that when the supremum of w many strong cardi-
nals is Levy collapsed to w, then no further set forcing can affect the first
order theory of the reals in a strong sense.
To illustrate some of the connections between absoluteness and sets being
universally Baire, we prove the following theorem from which it follows that
every 4~ set is universally Baire if and only if V is ~~ absolute with respect
to every set generic extension.
Given two models M ~ N of set theory, we say that N is ~~ absolute
with respect to M if R n M is a En elementary submodel of R n N. And N
is absolute with respect to M if it is ~~ absolute for every n.
Theorem 3.1. Let A be an infinite cardinal. Then the following are equiv-
alent:
(1) IfB is a forcing notion of size ~ A, and ¢(Xl.··· ,xn ) is anA formula
with free variables shown, and aI, ... ,an are reals, then
A = {x E WW 1 3 y ¢(x,y)}
and
WW-A={XEWW 13ycp(x,y)}.
There exist trees T, T* such that A = p[11, WW - A = p[T*] and
-Col(w, A) II- p[11 = { x E WW 1 3 y ¢(x, y) }
and
Col(w, A) II- p[T*] = { x E WW 1 3 y cp(x, y) }.
Since V x ( 3 y ¢(x, y) or 3 y cp(x, y)) is a :g:~ statement, by (1),
Hence
Col(w, A) II- p[11 U p[T*] = ww.
218 Q. FENG, M. MAGIDOR AND H. WOODIN
is meager.
Let A = AW - u{ Bs I s E w<w }. Then A is a comeager set, and the
function hex) = g(f(x» is continuous on A.
We now proceed to show that (3) ::} (I').
Assume that V[G] 1= 3 x Vy cp(x,y). Where cp is the negation ofa III
formula cp with parameters from V n WW. Let:i; be a canonical name such
that
V[G] 1= V y cp(X/G, y).
We can find a function f: AW - WW such that f is continuous on a G6
comeager set and in V[GJ we have f(G) = X/G.
We assume for a contradiction that V 1= V x 3 y cp(x, y). By the
Addison-Kondo theorem, we can find a 1J~ function g: WW - WW such that
V x cp(x,g(x». By a theorem of Stone [23], every G6 comeager subset of
AW is homeomorphic to AW. Hence by (3), we can have a G6 comeager set
A = nn<w D n , where each Dn is open dense, such that f is continuous on
A, and g(f(x» is continuous on A. Let F(x) = (f(x),g(f(x))). Then F(x)
is continuous on A.
Let T be a tree on w x w x w such that
n
(a) (Tl,T2,T3) E T & lh(a) = lh(Tl) and
(b) 3 t E A<w Niit ~ Di & F[Niit - Un<w(AW - Dn)] ~ N(Tl,T2) "
i$;1h(u)
UNIVERSALLY BAIRE SETS OF REALS 219
The following theorem, which underlies the proof of Theorem 3.1, will
be useful in the proofs of several theorems in this section which generalize
Theorem 3.1. It can be proved by an elementary analysis of terms. This
theorem shows that under certain circumstances forcing arguments can be
done pointwise.
Theorem 3.2.' Suppose that A is universally Baire and that T, T* are
class trees which witness this with A = p[T]. Suppose A is an infinite
cardinal.
(1) For each term T for a real in VCol(w,>.) there corresponds a partial
function !-,.: AW --t WW which is defined and continuous on a comeager
subset of AW (and conversely).
(2) If T is a term for a real with corresponding function fT then for any
condition p E Col(w, A),
p II- T E p[T]
220 Q. FENG, M. MAGID OR AND H. WOODIN
if and only if
{a I a E Op and fT(a) E A}
While this theorem is useful for certain arguments, it should be used with
some care. Difficulties can arise when the tree T does not project in V[G] to
the intended set from a semantical point of view. For example we shall see
in Theorem 3.8 that it is possible that every 4~ be universally Baire and
that ~l absoluteness fail between V and V[G]. Thus while one may have
that every 4~ set is universally Baire there can exist a 4~ set A defined
by ~~ formulas IPl(X), IP2(X) such that if the trees T, T* witness that A
is universally Baire then in some generic extension of V these trees do not
project to the sets defined by these formulas (the formulas while necessarily
defining disjoint sets in the extension may not define complements).
An immediate corollary to Theorem 3.1 is that if every 4~ set is univer-
sally Baire then Wl is inaccessible in L[x] for every real x since by Theo-
rem 3.1 V is ~~ absolute relative to V[G] for any set generic extension of V.
Thus if every 4~ set is universally Baire it follows that every uncountable
~~ set contains a perfect subset. This proves the theorem stated at the end
of the previous section.
The following theorem gives the consistency strength of the statement
that every 4~ set is universally Baire.
Theorem 3.3. The following are equiconsistent;
(1) Z~C + Every 4~ set is universally Baire.
(2) ZFC + There exists an inaccessible cardinal ,.. such that,
where,.. = wy.
Conversely suppose ,.. is strongly inaccessible and that
UNIVERSALLY BAIRE SETS OF REALS 221
Let G be V-generic for Col(w, < 11:). It follows that if H is set generic over
V[GJ then V[GJ is ~~ absolute with respect to V[G][H]. 0
Note that the consistency strength of (2) is less than that of a Mahlo
cardinal.
The following theorem gives a characterization of when every ~~ set is
universally Baire. In particular it follows that every ~~ set is universally
Baire if and only if for any two step forcing iteration, the extensions are
iteratively ~~ absolute.
Theorem 3.4. The following are equivalent:
(1) Every ~~ subset of the reals is universally Baire.
(2) For any set forcing B, if G is any B-generic over V, then in V[G],
every ~~ subset of the reals is universally Baire.
(3) For every set x, x# exists.
is meager.
Let A = )...W -U{ Bs I s E w<w } and let 0 = U{ Ds I s E w<w }. Then
A is comeager in )...W, 0 is open, An 0 = An dom(h) and h is continuous
on A nO. This proves the claim.
The claim has the following corollary.
To see this let rp(x) = 3 Y 4>(x,y) where 4>(x,y) is a lJ~ formula. Let B
be the subset of WW defined by 4>(x, y) and let g: WW -+ WW be a lJ~ partial
function that uniformizes B. Fix a cardinal), and suppose 7 is a term for
a real such that
Col(w,),) II- 7 E p[T]
The term 7 defines in a canonical fashion a partial function f:),W -+ WW
which is defined and continuous on a comeager set, with range in p[T]. Ev-
ery dense Go subset of ),W is homeomorphic to ),w. Therefore we can apply
the claim to f and 9 to get that the function h given by the composition of
9 with f is continuous on a comeager set. The function h being continuous
on a comeager set defines a term 0' such that
and so
Col(w,),) II- 7 E A
(ii) Suppose that A is a ~~ set and that T, T* are class trees which
witness that A is universally Baire (with A = p[T]). Let V[G] be a
set generic extension of V. Then in V[G),
A~p[T],
The point is the following. Suppose C is a reasonably fast club. (For exam-
ple suppose that for each a E C, there exists an elementary substructure,
X --< Vw1 +1, containing x,a, the two sequences, the function 'ire and such
that 'irc(a + 1) > X n wd Suppose that 9 is generic for almost disjoint
coding WI - Ae relative to (aD! : a < WI). Then in V[g] the set of Cohen
reals over V is not comeager. Hence in V[g] the set of Cohen reals over
L[x,g] is not comeager.
This gives the claim. The corollary follows. 0
Corollary 3.2 suggests that the following might be true. Suppose that in
every set generic extension of V, every projective set is Lebesgue measur-
able. Then every projective set is universally Baire. Actually the proof of
the corollary suggests that one need only assume that for every cardinal A,
VCo1(w,,x) F Every projective set is Lebesgue measurable.
However this weaker condition cannot be sufficient.
and
(2) Every universally Baire set is 4~.
The proof uses an argument of [26] for obtaining the consistency of,
It now follows by covering that for every real x, x# exists. However this
is expressible by a nl sentence and so by one more application of the
absoluteness of V with respect to every set generic extension, it follows
that for every set x, x# exists.
Suppose (h(x) and (h(x) are ~~ formulas which define a 4}.~ set. By the
~l absoluteness of V with respect to every set generic extension, it follows
that ¢1 (x) and ¢2 (x) define a 4}.~ set in every set generic extension. Since
every set has a sharp it follows from the results of Martin-Solovay [11 J that
there is a class tree definable in V whose projection in every set generic
extension of V is the universal ~k set. From this tree one can easily define
class trees which witness that the 4}.k set defined by ¢1(X) and ¢2(X) is
universally Baire. 0
In analogy with Theorem 3.1 one would expect the converse of this the-
orem to be true. While we cannot prove this (it is false) we can prove an
approximation to the converse.
Theorem 3.6. Suppose that every 4}.~ set is universally Baire and that
V is not ~! absolute with respect to some set generic extension. Then for
every real x, x t exists.
Proof. We first prove the following claim. Assume every 4}.~ set is uni-
versally Baire ...
Claim. Suppose that f:)..w ~ WW is a continuous function and that g: WW ~
WW is a function which is ~~. Let h:)"w --t WW be the function given by the
composition of 9 and f. Then h is continuous on a comeager set.
Let f and 9 be given. Then for each s E w<w, g-1 [NsJ is a 4}.~ set. Hence
there is an open set D s such that
is meager.
Let A = )..W - U{ Bs I s E w<w }. Then A is comeager in )..W and h is
continuous on A. This proves the claim.
Assume that for some real Xo, xb
does not exist. Since every 4}.~ set
is universally Baire clearly every ~~ set is universally Baire and so by
226 Q. FENG, M. MAGIDOR AND H. WOODIN
Theorem 3.3 every set has a sharp. Let z be any real with Xo E L[z]
and let Kz be the Jensen-Dodd core model constructed relative to the
real z. Since x6 does not exist it follows that zt does not exist and so
by Jensen's absoluteness theorem, Kz is ~~ absolute with respect to V.
Therefore because of the uniformity of the definition of Kz with respect to
z, it follows that every ~~ subset of WW x WW can be uniformized by a ~~
function.
Suppose that cp(x,y) is a:g:~ formula and that '<:j x:l y cp(x,y) is true in
V. Fix a cardinal >.. It suffices to prove
This proves
Col(w, >.) If- '<:j x :l y cp(x, y)
using Theorem 3.2 and the observation that since every set has a sharp
there are class trees T, T* which witness that the set defined by cp(x, y) is
universally Baire and such that the tree T projects to the set defined by
cp(x, y) in every set generic extension of V. 0
We can use Theorem 3.6 to compute the consistency strength of the
assertion'that every ~~ set is universally Baire.
Theorem 3.7. The following are equiconsistent:
(1) ZFC + Every ~~ set is universally Baire.
(2) ZF'C + For every set x, x# exists, and there exists an inaccessible
cardinal K, such that,
wi
where /'i, = and L# is the smallest transitive inner model of ZFC closed
under the sharp operation and containing the ordinals.
Conversely suppose every set has a sharp, /'i, is strongly inaccessible, and
that
VI< -<E3 V.
Let G be V-generic for Col(w, < /'i,). It follows that if H is set generic over
V[GJ then V[G] is t! absolute with respect to V[G][H]. 0
A version of the converse of Theorem 3.5 follows assuming the appro-
priate generalization of Jensen's absoluteness theorem: Assume that x is
a real and that there is no transitive inner model of ZFC + There is a
Woodin cardinal containing x and the ordinals. Assume that for every real
z, z# exists. Let Kx be the core model for 1 Woodin cardinal in the sense
of Steel [22] constructed relative to x. Then Kx is t~ absolute with respect
to V.
Given this one can prove the following are equivalent:
(1) In every set generic extension of V every ~~ set is universally Baire.
(2) If V[Gp] ~ V[Gp][GQ] are set generic extensions of V then V[Gp]
is t! absolute with respect to V[Gp][GQ].
The proof splits into two cases depending on whether or not ~~ sets are
determined, see [26] for more details on this kind of argument.
This is essentially the best one can hope for.
Theorem 3.S. Assume that every ~~ set is determined and that every
El sequence of distinct reals is countable. Then there is a transitive model
of ZFC satisfying:
(1) Every ~~ set is universally Baire
(2) V is not't! absolute with respect to vC01(W,Wl).
with parameters from M, that define in M a ,;}~ set. Hence the formulas
define a ,;}~ set in V. Suppose G is M-generic for a poset in M (with
G E V). Therefore M[G] is closed under the Q3 operation and further
the Q3 operation is definable in M[G]. Let U be a (reasonable) m set
which is complete (U ~ WW x WW). Therefore by the Generalized Spector-
Gandy Theorem, Un M[G] E M[G] and further Un M[G] is definable in
M[G]. Thus since II~ has the scale property it follows that there is a tree
Ta E M[GJ, definable in M[G], such that Un M[GJ = p[Ta] n M[GJ.
Finally it follows that there are definable (within M[G]) trees T6 1 , T6 2 in
M[G] such that
AInM[G]
and
where Al is the set defined in V by <PI and A2 is the set defined in V by <P2.
These trees are uniformly definable (independent of the poset for which G
is generic) hence the sets defined in M by <PI and <P2 are universally Baire
inM.
This proves that M satisfies every ,;}~ set is universally Baire. Suppose G
is M-gfmeric for Col(w, /'1,) where /'1, = wfI. Then Det1J~ fails in M[G] since
there exists a real a E M[G] (any real coding C4, G) such that Q3(a) =
WW n M[G]. Therefore M is not ~! absolute with respect to M[G]. This
completes the proof. 0
Our next theorem gives a characterization for every set of reals which is
in L(JR) to be universally Baire.
Theorem 3.9. Every set A ~ WW which is in L(JR) is universally Baire if
and only)fJR# exists and JR# is universally Baire.
Proof. ('*) Since each ~~ set is universally Baire, by the previous theo-
rem, JR# exists. Since JR# = Un<w An, where each An is in L(JR), we have
JR# is universally Baire, being a countable union of universally Baire sets.
C<=) 'Since each A E L(JR) is continuously reducible to JR#, i.e., there
is a continuous function f: WW ~ WW such that for each x E wW , x E A
iff f(x) E JR#. The universally Baire sets are closed under continuous
preimages hence A is universally Baire.
This completes the proof. 0
then every ~~ set is universally Baire. In this section, we will show that
if there is a supercompact cardinal, then every set in L(JR) is universally
Baire. Also we show that this conclusion is very strong.
Theorem 4.1. If there is a supercompact cardinal, then every subset of
the reals which is in L(JR) is universally Baire.
Proof. By Theorem 3.9, we need only to show that JR# exits and IR# is
universally Baire. Notice that if K, is a strong cardinal, then for each A S;;;
wW , A is universally Baire if and only if for each A < K, A is A-universally
Baire.
Let K, be a supercompact cardinal. By a theorem of Woodin [25] there
are trees T and T* on w x K, such that for any partial order IP E Vj(, if G S;;; IP
is a V -generic, then
(2) s does not code any of the ti and tj, and i < j, or
(3) s codes tj, but s does not code ti, or
(4) s codes both ti and tj, and 3 n < lh(t i ) tj = tifn, or
(5) s codes both ti and tj, and ti(m) < tj(m), where m is the least
ti(m) =F tj(m).
Notice that if s S;;; t then <8S;;;<t. For each x E wW , let
230 Q. FENG, M. MAGIDOR AND H. WOODIN
This defines a linear ordering of w for each x E wW. We then define that
x E WO if and only if <x is a well ordering. For x E WO, let IIxll be the
rank of 0 in <x, i.e., IIxll + 1 is the length of <x.
Let WOw be defined as y E WOw {:::::} 'V n < w (Y)n E WO for each
real y. We then define 1r : WOw ~ [W1]~W by
WW x WW = p[T] U p[T*].
Fix such two trees T, T* as above until the end of the section.
We playa game gT as follows.
I n
x, f y, z, g, h
nwins if and only if (x,!) E [S] implies that (x,y,g) E [F] and (y,z,h) E
[T].
Since the game gT is played along trees, it is a closed game. Hence one
of the player must have a winning strategy. We want to show that nhas a
winning strategy.
We will play the same game in a generic extension, where we can show
that 1I has a winning strategy. Then using an absoluteness argument we
conclude that 1I has a winning strategy.
To proceed, let (j be a strategy of I in the game gT. Call a sequence s
a correct partial play according to (j if it is a partial play of the game gT
such that neither player has lost the play so far and I has played according
to (j.
Define a tree PlY to be the set of all such correct partial plays according
to (j. Then (j is a winning strategy of I in the game gT if and only if PlY is
well founded.
Let Col(w, < 1\:) be the partial order for the Levy collapse of everything
< I\: to W so that I\: becomes WI. Let G <;;; Col(w, < 1\:) be a generic over V.
Now working in V[G], consider the game gT played in the extension, call
it gT.
Fact 2. If I has a winning strategy (j in gT in V, then (j is a winning
strategy for I in the game gT in V[G].
This is because all the partial plays are the same both in V and in V[G].
So a strategy of I in the ground model remains to be a strategy of I in the
extension. Therefore, in V[G], we still have that (j is a winning strategy for
I in the game gT if and only if PlY is well founded. Hence Fact 2 follows
from absoluteness.
Fact 3. n has a winning strategy in gT in V[G]. Hence n has a winning
strategy in the game gT in V.
232 Q. FENG, M. MAGIDOR AND H. WOODIN
Proof of Fact 3.
Claim. There is B ~ K = Wl such that B* = p[Tj.
We show first the following hold.
(1) (x,y) E p[Tj:::::} x E WO /\ Y E WOw,
(2) (x, y) E p[Tj, 7r(z) = 7r(y) :::::} (x, z) E p[Tj,
(3) (x,y) E p[T] , (x',y') E p[Tj, IIxll :::; IIx'll :::::} 7r(y) = IIxll n 7r(y'),
(4) (u,z) E p[Tj, x E WO, Y E WOw, 7r(y) = IIxll n 7r(z) :::::} (x,y) E
p[T].
Given (1)-(4), let
that 7r(z) = B n liyll. Then we have (y, z) E p[T]. nsimply plays them and
the needed witnesses to against the play by I. This certainly wins.
This finishes the proof of Fact 3. 0
Proof of Fact 1. First, let us consider the following auxiliary game 0.'4..
I n
x, f y
where f(i) :$ f(O) < /'i,. n wins if and only if (x, f) E lSI :::} :3 Q >
Ilxll & 7r(y) = An Q.
Since nhas a winning strategy in the game OT, nhas a winning strategy
for 0.'4. by consulting the winning strategy for the game OT and hiding the
witnesses.
Now we can translate a winning strategy for n in the game 0.'4. to a
winning strategy in the game 0A via the measures associated with the tree
S in a standard way.
Specifically, let U be a normal ultrafilter on /'i,. Inductively define ultra-
filters Un on [/'i,]n for n ~ 1 as follows.
234 Q. FENG, M. MAGIDOR AND H. WOODIN
For i < w, let U(i) = U 1 • For s E w<w, lh(s) ::::: 2, let trs : lh(s) ....... ls(s)
be the permutation such that
holds in every set generic extension of V, then every subset of the reals
which is in L(JR) is universally Baire. We conjecture that the converse is
also true. By the results of Martin-Steel and Woodin [13,26], we conclude
that if there are two Woodin cardinals then every universally Baire set is
determined. So in particular, if there are two Woodin cardinals and every
subset of the reals which is in L(JR) is universally Baire, then AD L (IR) holds.
Further the theory of L(JR) is absolute for forcing extensions by posets of
size less than the second Woodin cardinal.
Theorem 3.4, which characterizes when every ~~ set is universally Baire
can be reformulated as follows.
Theorem 5.1. The following are equivalent:
(1) Every ~~ set of the reals is universally Baire.
(2) Det:g:t holds in every set generic extension of the universe.
To see this, we show that in VI the projection of the tree T satisfies the
properties of being a sharp of the set of the reals. Then by the uniqueness
we have R# = p[T].
Since in V2 the projection p[T] is the sharp of the set of the reals, it
follows easily that in VI, p[T] is a well-founded, complete, consistent R#-
like theory. The only potential problem is the witness condition.
So let us check this.
To simplify notation let a E p[T] be a code for :3 x ",(x, ro, eo), where
ro is a real parameter and Co is the constant for (the least) Silver in-
discernible. We show that there is some b E p[T] which is a code for
",(t(rO,rl,Co,'" ,cm),ro,co) where t is a term, rl is an additional real pa-
rameter and CI, •.. ,Cm are additional constants for Silver indiscernibles.
Look at the set A of all such codes. Since the coding is done in a uniform
Borel way, there is a tree S such that both in VI and V2 the projection p[S]
of this tree S is the set of all such codes in the respective models. Now
merge the two trees Sand T to get T * S so that
Theorem 5.3; Suppose that every set in L(R) is universally Baire and
that ADL(R) holds. Then ADL(R) holds in every set generic extension of
V.
Proof. (sketch), Suppose ADL(R) holds and that R# exists. For each k < w
let rk be the pointclass of sets in L(R) which can be defined by a ~I formula
in L(R) using k indiscernibles as parameters. Solovay's theorem (cf. the
proof of Theorem 5.2) that every set in L(R) is Souslin actually states that
for each k every set A E rk admits in a canonical fashion a scale each norm
of which is in u{rj I jEw}.
For each k let Gk ~ w X WW x WW be the canonical universal rk set. For
each JEW and x E wW , let Gj,a; be the set,
238 Q. FENG, M. MAGIDOR AND H. WOODIN
It follows from the nature of the scales that exist that for all k E wand
for all jEw, x E WW if Gj,x =I- 0 then there exists Y E Gj,x such that
for alll E w, G~(k,j,l),x = {Yl}, where Yl(i) = y(i) if i :::; land Yl(i) = 0
otherwise. Here n: w x w x w -+ w is a (recursive) function which depends
on the actual (cooperative) choice of the scales. For each k E w let Tk, T;;
be trees witnessing that G k is universally Baire with G k = p[Tk ].
Since every set in L(JR) is universally Baire we have that IR# is universally
Baire. Let T, T* be trees that witness JR# is universally Baire with JR# =
p[T]. Suppose that V[G] is a set generic extension of V with G ~ 1P'. It
suffices to show that p[T] = JR# in V[G]. Again by absoluteness p[TJV[G]
is an JR# like theory. We need verify the witness condition. To verify the
witness condition return to V. Fix a cardinal 8 with IP' E Vo and such that
for each k E w,
IP' If- p[T] = p[S]
1P'1f- p[Tk] = p[Sk],p[T;;] = P[SkJ
where S = TnVo, Sk = TknVo, etc. Now choose a countable set X -< Vo+1
such that {IP', Sk, Sk} ~ X. Let 9 ~ X n IP' be X-generic and let M be the
transitive collapse of X.
Note that
(Sk,Sk I k,i E w) EX
and so
(G k n M[gJI k E w) E M[g].
We shall show the following. Suppose N is a transitive model of
ZFc-replacement and that
(G k n N IkE w) EN.
Then (JR#)N = N n JR#. From this it follows that
(JR#)M[g] = IR# n M[g] = p[S n X] n M[gJ.
Theorem 5.8 (Woodin). Assume there are infinitely many strong cardi-
nals below K,. Suppose G is generic for Col(w, K,). Then for every projective
formula cp(x) there is a class tree T", ~ (w x Ord)<w such that
p[T",l = {x E IR I cp(x) }
6. OPEN QUESTIONS
By Theorem 5.3 the answer to (2) is yes if one assumes in addition that
ADL(IR) holds. A positive answer to (5) would likely yield a positive answer
to (2) in the strong sense that if IR# is universally Baire then ADL(IR) holds
and so a positive answer to (5) would likely give a partial answer to (6).
One can show that a positive answer to (3) implies a positive answer
to (4). By the results indicated in the previous section one cannot hope
to prove that if every projective set is universally Baire then every projec-
tive set is determined. The pointclass of the projective sets is simply not
sufficiently closed. For more on this see [26].
Acknowledgments. This paper was written during the year 1989-90 when
Magidor and Woodin were at MSRI, 1000 Centennial Drive, Berkeley CA
94720, and Feng was visiting the Department of Mathematics, UC Berkeley.
Feng would like to thank the Department for its hospitality and to thank
Professor Hugh Woodin for his support.
REFERENCES
16. K. Schilling, On Absolutely ~~ operations, FUnd. Math. 121 (3) (1984 pages 239-
250).
17. K. Schilling and R. Vaught, Borel Games and the Baire Property, Trans. AMS 279,
411-428.
18. S. Shelah, Can you take Solovay's inaccessible away?, 48 (1984), 1-47.
19. J. Shoenfield, The problem of predicativity, Essays on the Foundations of Mathe-
matics (Y. Bar-Hilled, ed.), The Magnes Press, Jerusalem, 1961, pp. 132-142.
20. J. Silver, Measurable cardinals and A~ well-orderings, Ann. Math. 94 (1971), 414-
446.
21. R. Solovay, A model of set theory in which every set of reals is Lebesgue measurable,
Ann. Math. (1970), 1-56.
22. J. Steel, The Core Model Iterability Problem, Manuscript (June 1990).
23. A. Stone, Nonseparable Borel sets, Rozprawy Mathematyczne, 1962.
24. H. Woodin, On the strength of projective uniformization, Logic Colloquium '81 (J.
Stern, ed.), pp. 365--383.
25. H. Woodin, Supercompact cardinals, sets of reals, and weakly homogeneous trees,
Proc. Nat!. Acad. Sci., USA 85 (1988), 6587--6589.
26. H. Woodin, Large cardinals and Determinacy, in preparation.
INTRODUCTION
Cardinal arithmetic had been one of the central themes in set theory,
but in the late 60's and early 70's, it seemed that there were actually very
few theorems that could be proved about cardinal arithmetic. For example,
except for some trivial facts, the behavior of cardinal exponentiation (which
is the only non-trivial operation in cardinal arithmetic) is almost completely
arbitrary, and the accepted system of axioms for set theory, ZFC, does not
yield any structure theory for cardinal arithemetic.
The most dear formulation of the lack of any deep structure is Eastons's
result [Ea]; namely that for regular cardinals, the only theorems one can
prove in ZFC are the trivial fact of monotonicity of exponentiation (a < f3
implies 20< ~ 2/3) and the Zermelo-Konig inequality (the cofinaIity of 20< >
a).
In [Ea] it is shown that for every reasonable "function" F, from cardinals
to cardinals, which satisfies the above requirements there exists a model of
set theory in which for regular a, 20< = F(a).
In the models constructed by Easton there was a very simple rule that
determines the exponents of singular a, 20< for a singular was the smallest
cardinal having cofinaIity > a and not smaller than 2/3 for f3 < a. (Hence
for instance if a is strong limit, i.e. f3 < a implies 2/3 < a, then 20< = a+.)
More formally, for singular a
243
244 M. GITIK AND M. MAGIDOR
it Nw did require leaving some cardinals untouched, and they were exactly
the cardinals which left an unbounded sequence of cardinals below K, at
which GCH was violated. So naturally there arises the problem: "Can a
singular cardinal be the first counterexample to GCH?"
In the early 70's it was generally believed by set theorists that the above
weakness of the proofs are only artifacts and, for singular cardinals, one
should expect the complete analogues of the results for regular cardinals.
The situation was dramatically changed in 1975 when Silver proved what
became known as "Silver's singular Cardinals Theorem" claiming that a
singular cardinal of cofinality > No can not be the first cardinal violating
the GCH. So here is a non-trivial theorem about cardinal arithmetic which
applies only to singular cardinals. Further results followed, for instance the
Theorem of Galvin and Hajnal [GH] giving a bound for powers of singular
cardinals of uncountable cofinality.
Silver's theorem triggered a striking series of results, which became the
cornerstone ofInner Models Thoery. They were Jensen's Covering Theorem
for L, the Jensen-Dodd Covering Theorem for the Core Model K, and
the Mitchell Core Model with its weak covering properties. These results
showed that the use made of large cardinals assumptions in the construction
of the models of SCH was really necessary.
Shelah has proved many further deep theorems, extending the Galvin-
Hajnal bound also to singular cardinals of cofinality No and (in many cases)
improving them. His most recent result shows that N~o < max(2 No, NW4 )'
One cannot avoid comparing these deep results with the absence of any
deep theorems restricting the powers of regular cardinals.
One is now faced with the problem of classifying all the possible behaviors
of powers of singular cardinals. Natural test problems are the problem like
the problem mentioned above "Can a singular cardinal be the first cardinal
violating GCH?" (In view of Silver's result it must have cofinality No.) and
the problems like "Is it possible that every cardinal violates the GCH?"
"Assuming that 2No < Nw , how large can N~o be?" (Is Shelah's bound the
best possible?)
The first test problem was handled in [Ma2J, where starting from stronger
large cardinals ("huge") a model was constructed in which GCH holds be-
low Nw and 2No = Nw +2 ' Concerning the third problem: the original con-
struction of [Mal] gave as a possible value for Nw any cardinal of the form
Nw + a + 1 for a :s; w. Shelah in [Shl] showed that a change in the construc-
tion can give as possible value for N~o any Nw+a+l for a < WI. SO the best
possible upper bound for N~o is NWl (and it is still open whether this is
actually an upper bound). Since the constructions used by Shelah in [Shl]
246 M. GITIK AND M. MAGIDOR
followed [Mal], GCH was failing below Nw . The methods of Shelah and
[Ma2] were combined by the second author (unpublished) to get models
for every given a < WI in which GCH holds below Nw and 2N", = NW +ct +1'
Again very large cardinals were used in these proofs. The second prob-
lem was solved by Foreman and Woodin [FW], who constructed a model
in which every cardinal violates the GCH. The construction of models in
which a singular cardinal is the first counterexample to GCH required as-
sociation of the cardinals between K and 2/t to cardinals below K. Actually
each K < a < 2/t had to have its set of associates below K such that for
different a's the corresponding sets were disjoint. This meant that these
methods could not have produced a model in which K is singular, GCH
holds below K and 2/t > K+/t. Was there some hidden theorem?
Another class of problems comes up naturally. The results of Jensen,
Jensen-Dodd and Mitchell showed that some large cardinals are needed for
the failure of SCH. More formally, if SCH holds then some inner model
has some large cardinals. The definitions of large cardinals form a natural
hierarchy. It is very desirable to pin down, if possible, the exact large
cardinal notion equiconsistent with the statement under study. The linear
scale of large cardinals is used to measure the degree of independence of the
statement, or dually, what risk of inconsistency is involved in assuming the
truth of this statement. In case such an exact equiconsistency result is not
available, the alternative is to give as tight consistency bounds as possible,
a lower bound (namely a large cardinal notion whose consistency is implied
by the statement under consideration), and an upper bound (namely a large
cardinal notion whose consistency implies the consistency of the statement).
The closer these two bounds are, the better the result.
Until 1988, the results of Mitchell gave the best lower bounds; namely,
...,SCH implies the existence of a sequence of measurable cardinals Kn such
that O(Kn) ~ Kn-l' For ...,SCH at a singular cardinal of cofinality > No
Mitchell proved the much better lower bound O(K) = K++. (Mitchell in
[Mil] introduces an heirarchy of measurable cardinals, which are determined
by their order: O(K) = I means simply being measurable. O(K) = K++ is
the largest possible order. The hierarchy can be generalized to hyperme-
asurables and so we can talk about O(K) = A for A = K++. The notion
of a strong cardinal is equivalent to O(K) = 00). This lower bound was
much weaker than the large cardinals used in [Mal] and [Shl], and even
more so for the cardinals used in [Ma2]. So pinning down the exact consis-
tency stength of ...,SCH became an important research problem. The major
step towards solving this problem was made by Woodin in [Wo] (These
results will be included in the forthcoming book [C-Wo]. See also [Ca]).
THE SINGULAR CARDINAL HYPOTHESIS REVISITED 247
He lowered the upper bound substantially by getting models for ,SCH and
also for the failure of GCH at a measurable cardinal, starting from hyper-
measureable cardinals. His final result was one that can get ,SCH from
a cardinal '" having the following property: "There exists an elementary
embedding j : V ~ M, where M is transitive, M'" c M, for", the crit-
ical point of j and ",+2 = j(1)(",) for some! : '" ~ ",." He also showed
that like in [Mal] one can get the failure of SCH at Nw • The assumption
above together with GCH was needed for getting 2Nw = Nw +2' For get-
ting 2Nw = Nw+a+l for a < WI, one needed the obvious strengthening of
the above assumption to ",+a = j(1)(",). He later showed that one could
dispense with the function! and simply require j(",) ~ ",+2. Gitik in [Gil
proved that Woodin's condition can be forced starting from 0("') = ",++.
So the upper bound became 0("') = ",++. In recent work Gitik combined
Mitchell's methods with the pc! theory of Shelah (see [Sh2]) to improve
the lower bound to 0("') = ",++. Thus the consistency strength of ,SCH
was finally pinned down at 0("') = ",++. If '" was a singular strong limit
cardinal such that 2'" = ",+n, then Gitik's lower bound was 0("') = ",+n,
provided the Mitchell's Covering Theorem can be generalized to the higher
core models .. (The analoguous problem for 2'" = A+ where A ~ ",+w is still
open.) The constructions of Woodin described above were along the lines
of [Mal], hence they did not produce models with GCH below '" (where
'" is the first counterexample to SCH). So there remained the (unlikely)
possibility that the consistency strength of "A singular cardinal is the first
violating GCH" could be much higher than that of ,SCH. But Woodin
modified his construction, and assuming GCH and the existence of an ele-
mentary embedding j : V ~ M such that M'" c M and j ("') ~ ",+2, where
'" is the critial point of j, he constructed a model in which GCH holds below
Nw and 2Nw = ~w+2' The method of proof involved collapsing cardinals in
a special way so as to get rid of the cardinals below '" initially violating
GCH and some essential ingredients of it seemed not to work if one wanted
higher values fqr 2Nw while keeping GCH below Nw ; so again one was left
with the possibility that the consistency strength of "GCH below Nw and
2Nw = Nw +3 " could be much higher than that of the same statement with
Nw +3 replaced by Nw +2 '
In this paper we present a different method of constructing models vio-
lating SCH. The main merit of this new method is that we eliminate the
need to blow up 2'" while", is still regular, hence we are not forced to have
an unbounded set of cardinals below 2'" violating the GCH while '" is still
regular, and so it is much easier to have GCH below the counterexam-
ple to SCH. The idea is to start with some large cardinal '" (of course we
248 M. GITIK AND M. MAGIDOR
have to use some large cardinal!) and then add simultaneously many new
w-sequences to K" such that K, becomes singular of cofinality w and 21< be-
comes large. Thus the two steps essential to all the previous proofs become
merged into one step. The construction adds no new bounded subsets K,
and it satisfies the K,++ -chain condition (so if we started from a model of
GCH, we still have GCH below K,). No cardinals are collapsed (one needs
a special argument for K,+). The idea is that if for a given A we want to
introduce A many new w-sequences into K" we might try to add Prikry se-
quences for a system (Uo:la < A) of A many K,-complete ultrafilters on K,.
(Of course if A > K,++ we must have many repetitions among the Uo:'s).
A typical condition for adding a Prikry sequence for an ultrafilter U has
the form, (ao, .. . ,an, T) where (ao, . .. ,an) is a finite sequence (giving an
initial segment of the Prikry sequence (anln < w) for U) and T is a tree of
possible continuations of the sequence (ao, ... , an) such that if pC q E T
then the set {alq ,-..., {a} E T} is a set in the ultrafilter U. (In the case
U is normal one can replace T by one set A E U). For a fixed U the ar-
guments of Prikry show that no new bounded subsets of K, are introduced.
However, if one tries to do the same construction A many times (even for
different U's) in a straightforward way, then it is not true that no now
bounded subsets of K, are introduced. For instance, if one uses the product
forcing of the two Prikry forcings for UI and U2, getting the two Prikry
sequences (anln < w) and (.8nln < w), the set {nl.8n < an} is a new sub-
set of w. Typically, cardinals are collapsed. In order to block the above
example one has to assume some "coupling" between the different Prikry
sequences, so that the relation between two different ones will not generate
a new bounded subset of K,. The most natural coupling can be created if
in the ground model we have I : K, - K, such that one Prikry sequence is
obtained from the other one by applying I to it's members. One can easily
verify that if (anln < w) is a Prikry sequence for UI , thus (.8nln < w) is
a Prikry sequence for U2, and for all n (or only for sufficiently large n's)
I(an) = f!n then I is a Rudin-Keisler projection of UI to U2. (Namely
I reduces the problem of membership in U2 to that of membership in UI ,
i.e. A E U2 ¢} I-I(A) E Ud So we assume that Wo:la < A) form a
directed system under Rudin-Keisler reductions. Namely there is a partial
order -< on A, such that if a -< .8, there is a Rudin-Keisler reduction Ifjo:
of Ufj to Uo:. It is also natural to require that this system is commutative,
Le. if a -< .8 -< '1 then for some A in U-Y' and for all x E A the equality
l/3o:(f-yfj(x)) = l-yo:(x) holds. So now the idea is to introduce for each Uo:
from our system a Prikry sequence (.8n(a)ln < w), such that if a -< '1, then
.8n(a) = l-yo:(.8n('Y)) for large enough n. In order to guarantee that the
THE SINGULAR CARDINAL HYPOTHESIS REVISITED 249
sequences will all be different (remember that the Ua's can be the same
for different a's), one should require that if a -< ,,/, (3 -< ,,/, then for some
A E U'Y and all x E A the inequality f'YO/(x) =I- f'Y{3(x) holds. There are
further technical condition on the system of ultrafilters (UO/la < oX) which
are all incorporated in the notion of a "nice system of ultrafilters."
In Section 1 it is shown that if one has a nice system of ultrafilters on r;,
of length oX and one forces with the forcing notion intended to introduce the
Prikry sequences as described above, then 2K ? oX, no new bounded subsets
of r;, are introduced and the forcing satisfies r;,++ -C.c. A special argument
shows that r;,+ is not collapsed. So if oX > r;,+ we get a model in which r;,
violates SCH and GCH holds below r;,. How does one get a nice system
of ultrafilters of a given length oX? In Section 1 it is shown that having an
elementary embedding j : V --+ M such that VK +A <; M is enough. This is
a hyper-measurable assumption, much weaker than an assumption used in
[Ma2] or its generalizations. Also note that if r;, is strong, then oX is arbitrary
and for every oX we get a model in which r;, is the first cardinal violating
GCH, it is singular and 2K ? oX. So no bound can be proved in general
about powers of singular cardinals even if one assumes GCH below r;,. The
assumption used can be somewhat weakened; in a forthcoming paper it will
be shown how to start from o( r;,) = oX and force a nice system of ultrafilters
of length oX.
In Section 2 it is shown how to get the singular cardinal r;, of Section 1
to be Nw , at least in the case 2K = r;,+m for finite m. So using what seems
to be the exact consistency strength needed (which is much weaker than
what was used before for the case m > 2) one gets a model of "GCH holds
below Nw and 2~'" = Nw +m +2 '"
In Section ~ we merge the methods of Section 2 with Shelah's [Shl] to
get (for each a < Wi) a model of "GCH below Nw and 2~'" = Nw+a +1'"
Again this is a major improvement in the strength of the large cardinals
used.
"Old problems never die, they just fade away." The singular cardinals
problem is an example. In spite of all the progress, some very interesting
open problems are still left. We already mentioned the problem of finding
out whether Shelah's bound for N~o is the best possible. The first cardi-
nal which according to the present knowledge, cannot be ruled out as an
improvement of Shelah's bound is NW1 ' So a subproblem is: "Can one get
a model in which Nw is a strong limit and 2~'" ? NW1 ?" It seems that
completely new methods are called for in solving this problem. It seems
plausible that, the consistency strength needed for getting a model in which
Nw is a strong limit and 2~'" ? NWl is much higher than what was sufficient
for the statements considered in this paper.
250 M. GITIK AND M. MAGIDOR
Similar problems concern the first cardinal fixed point, i.e. the first K
such that K = N/t. Shelah proved many important bounds for powers of
cardinal fixed points, but no such bound was proved for the first cardinal
fixed point. The methods of this paper can be used to get for each 0: < WI
a model in which K is the first cardinal fixed point; GCH holds below K and
2/t has 0: many cardinal fixed points below it. However, it is not known
how to get a similar model, in which 2/t has WI many fixed points below it.
Arguments similar to the Nw-case indicate that the consistency strength
of the statment "If K is the first cardinal fixed point, then 2/t has WI fixed
point below it and K is strong limit" is much larger than the cardinals
used in this paper. The first singular cardinal for which we know that no
bound on its power set can be proved is the first cardinal fixed point of
order W ([Sh1], see Def. 4.13 below). For small fixed points of countable
cofinality the problem is open. It seems that cardinal arithmetic still has
some surprises for us in stock.
We tried to keep the notation of this paper rather standard. A fair
amount of acquaintance with forcing techniques is expected. We shall refer
to many notions of large cardinals, not all of them properly documented
in the })ublished literature, but the paper should be understandable even
without knowing the exact definitions.
1. MAKING KW LARGE
a K++ -directed system. For a technical reason we would like also to have
the normal measure generated by j, i.e. U = {X ~ K IKE j (X)} to be
"covered" by every measure of the extender. Fix some well-ordering -< of
V,., so that for every inaccessible cardinal a < K -< la+h(a) : a+I.>·(a) +-t
[a+J.>.(a)l:5 a + and -< (a) = {a}. Consider a set A = {8 < K+Alj(-<)(8) is a
subset
of K+ A of cardinality $ K+ with the minimal element K and for every
'Y E j( -<)(8) j( -<)('Y)n(K+A\K) ~ j(-<)(8)}. Define for 81.82 E A 81 <,A 82 iff
81 E j( -<)(82). Then (A, $,A) will be a partial ordered set which is K++-
directed and has the minimal element K.
For every 8 E A let us define an ultrafilter Uo over K as follows:
X E Uo {:=:} 8 E j(X) .
If 82,A ~ 81, then U02 can be naturally projected onto U01 . Let US define
the projections (11"62 61 I 8u ~ 81). Proceed as follows. Set 11"66 = id for every
8 E A. Set 11"62 61 (0) = 0 for every 82,A ~ 81. Let 1I"6,.,(a) = min(-< (a) nOn)
for every 8 E A, 0 < a < K. Let now 82 ,A > 81 ¥=- K. Consider the following
commutative diagram:
Proposition 1.1.1. Let (A, <A) be a K++ -directed partial order and (Ua I
a E A) a Rudin-Keisler directed commutative sequence of P-points. Then
there exists a nice system of the length IAI.
(4) for every 'Y E g, 1fmc (p),"Y(max(pmC)) is not permitted for p"Y
(5) For every v E SUCT(pmc)
(6) 1fmc (p),O projects pmc onto pO, in particular, pmc and pO are of the
same length.
Let us give some intuitive motivation for the definition of forcing condi-
tions. We like to add a Prikry sequence for every U6(8 E A). The finite
sequences p"Y ("( E suppp) are initial segments of such sequences. The sup-
port of p has two distinguished coordinates. The first is the O-coordinate
of p and the second is its maximal coordinate. The O-coordinate or more
precisely the Prikry sequence for the normal measure will be used further
in order to push the present construction to Nw • Also condition (6) will
be used only for this purpose. The maximal coordinate of p is responsible
for extending the Prikry sequences for 'Y's in the support of p. The tree
TP is a set of possible candidates for extending pmc and by using the pro-
jections map 1fmc (p),"Y ('Y E suppp) it becomes also the set of candidates
for extending p"Y's. Instead of working with a tree, it is possible using the
diagonal intersection.6.* to replace it by a single set. Condition (4) means
that the information carried by max(pmC) is impossible to project down.
The reasons for such a condition are technical. Condition (5) is desired to
allow the use of the diagonal intersections.
Definition 104. Let p, q E P. We say that p extends q(p ~ q) if
(1) supp(P) ;2 supp(q)
(2) for every 'Y E supp(q) p"Y is an endextension of q"Y
(3) pmc(q) E Tq
(4) for every 'Y E supp(q)
p"Y\q"Y = 1fmc(q),"Y "«pmc(q)\qmc(q»)t (length (pmc)\(i + 1)) where
i E dompmc(q) is the largest such that pmc(q) (i) is not permitted for
q"Y.
(5) 1fmc(p),mc(q) projects T$mc into Timc
(6) for evelY'Y E suppq, for every v E SUCTP(pmc), if v is permitted for
p"Y. then
In clause (5) above we use denote, for tree T which is a tree of finite
sequences, 1] E T, by T1j the subtree above 1], namely all the finite sequences
J.t such that 1]~ J.t is in T.
Intuitively, we are allowing to add almost everything on the new coordi-
nates and restrict ourselves to choosing extensions from the sets of measure
one on the old coordinates. Actually here we are really extending only the
maximal old coordinate and then we are using the projection map. This
idea goes back to [G1] and further to Mitchell [Mil].
Definition 1.5. Let p, q E P. We say that p is a direct or Prikry
extension of q(p 2::* q) if
(1) p 2:: q
(2) for every 'Y E supp(q) p"Y = q"Y.
Our strategy would be to show that (P,:5, :5*) is a K-weakly closed forcing
satisfying the Prikry condition and K++ -c.c. Where K-weakly closedness
means that (P, :5*) is K-closed and the Prikry condition means the follow-
ing: for every statement 0" of the forcing language and for every q E P there
is P*2:: q deciding 0".
The :prikry condition together with K-weak closedness insure that no new
bounded subsets of K are added. K++ -c.c. takes care of cardinals 2:: K++.
Since K will change its cofinality to No, an argument similar to those of
[M2], 4.2 will be used to show that K+ is preserved. Condition (6) of the
definition of nice system insures that at least IAI-many w-sequences will be
added to K.
Lemma 1.6. The relation :5 is a partial order.
Proof. Let us check the transitivity of:5. Suppose that r :5 q and q :5 p.
Let us show that r :5 p. Conditions (1) and (2) of Definition 1.4 are
obviously satisfied. Let us check (3), i.e. let us show that pmc(r) E Tr.
Since p 2:: q 2:: r, mc(r) E supp(q), qmc(r) E Tr and
Also pmc(q) E Tq. By (5) of 1.4 (for q and r) 7rmc(q),mc(r) projects Time
into
subtree of ~me(r)' Hence pmc(r) E Tr and, so condition (3) is satisfied.
Let us check condition (4). Suppose that 'Y E supp(r). We need to show
that p"Y\r"Y = 7r~c(r)'''Y(pmc(r)\rmc(r)). In order to simplify the notation,
we are assuming here that every element of pmc(r)\rmc(r) is permitted for
r"Y. Since q 2:: r,q"Y\r"Y = 7r~c(r),"Y (qmc(r\rmc(r)). So, we need to show
only that p"Y\q"Y = 7r~c(r),"Y (pmc(r\qmc(r)). Since p 2:: q,pmc(q) E Tq and
THE SINGULAR CARDINAL HYPOTHESIS REVISITED 257
p'Y\q'Y = 7r::' c (q),'Y (pmc(q)\qmc(q)). Using condition (6) of 1.4 for q ~ rand
the elements of pmc(q)\qmc(q), we obtain the following
= 7r"mc(r),'Y (pmc(r)\qmc(r))
•
The last equality holds by condition (4) of 1.4 used for p and q.
Let us check condition (5), i.e. 7rmc (p),mc(r) projects T:-me into T;-me(r).
Since p ~ q, T:me is projected by 7rmc(p),mc(q) into Time. Since q ~
r,7rmc (q),mc(r) projects Time into T;me(r). Now, using condition (6) for p
and q with 'Y = me(r), we obtain condition (5) for p and r.
Finally, let us check condition (6). Let 'Y E supper), v E SUCTP(pmc)
and suppose that v is permitted for p'Y. Using condition (5) for p and q,
we obtain that 7rmc(p),mc(q)(v) E SUCTq(qmc). Recall, that it was required
in the definition of a condition that each splitting contains splitting below
it in the tree. Denote 7rmc(p),mc(q)(v) by o. By condition (6) for q and r
7rmc (q),'Y(o) = 7rmc (r) ,'Y (7rmc(q) ,mc(r) (0)). Using (6) for p and q, we obtain
This completes the checking of (6) and also the proof of the lemma. 0
where q' is constructed from q by removing Tq from the triple (mc(q), qmc, Tq),
t is an a-increasing sequence which projects onto qO by 7raO and the tree T
will be defined below.
Consider first the tree To which is the inverse image ofT:",c by 7r a ,mc(q) ,
with t added as the trunk. Then Po = q' U {(a:, t, To)} is a condition in
P which is "almost" an extension and even a direct extension of q. The
only problematic thing is that condition (6) of Definition 1.4 may not be
satisfied by Po and q. In order to repair this, let us shrink the tree To a
little.
Denote SUCTo(t) by A. For v E A set Bv = h E supp(q) I 'Y i=
mc(q) and v is permitted for q'Y }. Then IBvl :s; vO, since 7ra ,mc(q)(v) E
SUCTq(qmc), vO = 7ra o(v) = 7rmc (q),O (7ramc(q)(v)) and q being in P, satis-
fies condition (5) of Definition 1.3. Clearly, for v, fj E A, if vO = fjo then
Bv = B o, and if vO > fjo then Bv :2 Bo. Also, if v E A and vO is a limit
point of {fjo I fj E A}, then Bv = U{Bo I fj E A and fjo < vO}. So the
sequence (Bv I v E A) is increasing and continuous (according to vo - 8).
Obviously U{Bv I v E A} = supp(q)\{mc(q)}. Let (~i I i < "') be an
enumeration of supp(q)\mc(q) such that for every v E A
Lemma 1.8.
(a) (P,:S;) satisfies ",++ -C.c.
(b) (P, :s;*) is ",-closed.
Proof of (a). Let (Pa I a: < ",++) be a set of forcing conditions. W.l. of g.
let us assume their supports form a Ll-system and are contained in ",++.
Also assume that there are s and (t, T) so that for every a: < ",++ Pa fa: = s
THE SINGULAR CARDINAL HYPOTHESIS REVISITED 259
and (p,,;c,po.) = (t,T). Let us show then that Pa and P/3 are compatible
for every a, (3 < K++.
Let a, (3 < K++ be fixed.
We would like simply to take the union Pa U P/3 and to show that this
is a condition stronger than both Pa and P/3' The first problem is that
Pa U P/3 may not be in P, since sUPP(Pa U P/3) = sUPP(Pa) U supp(P/3) may
not have a maximal element. In order to fix this, let us add say to Pa some
new coordinate 8 so that 8A ~ mc(pa) , mc(p/3)' Let p~ be the extension of
Pa defined in the previous lemma by adding 8 as a new coordinate to Pa.
Then p~ U P/3 E P. But we do need a condition stronger than both Pa and
P/3' The condition p~ U P/3 is a good candidate for it. The only problematic
things here are (5) and (6) of Definition 1.4. Actually, (5) can be easily
satisfied by intersecting T~1)mc with 7ri,:nc(P/3) "(r:*c). In order to satisfy
(6), we need to shrink p;' more. The argument of the previous lemma can
be used for this. CJ
Proof of (b). Let 8 < K and let (Pi I i < 8) be an ~*-increasing sequence
of elements of P. Pick a E A above {mc(pi) I i < 8}. Let P be the union
of Pi'S with Pi removed. Set T =
-
n7r~!nc(p) "(TPi). Also remove all
i<6 ' i
Lemma 1.9. (P,~, ~*) satisfies the Prikry condition, i.e. for every state-
ment 0' of the forcing language, for every q E P there exists P ~* q deciding
0'.
Let v = minA. Consider {< a, (v), T(v) >}. If there is no pEN and
T' S;; T(v) such that P U {(a, < v >, T')} is in P and decides 17, then set
Pv = </J and TV = T(v)' Otherwise, pick some P and T' S;; T(v) so that
P U ({a, < v>, T')} is in P and decides u. Set Pv = P and TV = T'.
Suppose now that Pt; and Tt; are defined for every < v in A. We e
shall define Pv and TV. But let us first define p~ and p~. Define p~ to be
e
the union of all Pt;'S with E An v. Let p~ = {{-y,p~'Y) I 'Y E supp(P~)},
where for 'Y E supp(P~) p~'Y = p~'Y unless v is permitted for p"'Y and then
p~'Y = p~'Yn < 1ra'Y(v) >. If there is no pEN and T' so that q = P U {(a, <
v>, T')} E P, q*?:. p~ U ({a, < v >, T(v»)} and qliu, then set Pv = p~ and
TV = T(v)' Suppose otherwise. Let p, T' be witnessing this. Then set
TV = T' and Pv = p~ U (p\p~).
This completes the inductive definition. Set P = U PV' For i < K let
vEA
For 6 E Sucs( <» = A* let us denote by (p U {(a, </>, 8){)6 the sequence
{(" (P1')1t"a-y(6») I, E suppp} U {(a, < 6 >, 8(6))}' where
Note that (p U {(a, </>, 8)})6 is a condition and 71"0<1'(6) is added only for ,'s
which appear in the support of some Pe with eO < 6° and hence, with e < 6.
Also (p U {(a, </>, 8)} )6*~ P6 U {(a, < 6 >, T6).
Claim 1.9.2. For every 6 E Suc<> 8 iffor some q, R E N (pU{(a, </>, 8)})6
5* q U {(a, < 6 >, R)} and q U {(a, < 6 >, R) 11-0' (or -'0'), then (p U
{(a, </>, 8)} )611-0' (or -'0').
Proof. Note that such qU{(a, < 6 >,R)} is a direct extension Ofp6U{(a, <
6 >, T6)}. By the choice of P6 and T 6, then P6 U {(a, < 6 >, T6)} forces 0'
(or -'0'). But (p U ({a, </>, 8)} )6*~ P6 U ({a, < 6 >, T6)}.
[] of the claim.
Let us shrink now the first level of 8 in order to insure that for every 61
and 62 in the new first level
iff
iff
(P* U {(a,¢,S*)})1)21I-lT (or -'IT)
Using Lemma 1.8, find S so that U qi U {(o., <p, S)}o02: qi U {(o., <p, Si)}
i<J.'
for every i < J.t. Denote U qi by p. As in Lemma 1.9, pick /3 E NnA above
i<J.'
supp(P) and prpject S to /3 using 7r0<f3. Denote the projection by S*. Let
p* = p U {(/3, <p, S*)}. Then p* EN and p* U {(o., <p, S)}o02: p U {(o., <p, S)}.
Since N is an elementary submodel, for every i < J.t there will be q E N, q 2:
p* forcing a value of 9 (i). Then, using (b), as in Lemma 1.9, for some t E S
~
(P U {(/3, <p, S)})t will force the same value of 9 (i). But lSI = K,. So, all
~
Contradiction. IJ
(c) cl'" = No
(d) ",No ~ IAI.
IT '" is a strong cardinal, then for every oX a nice system of a length ~ oX
can be constructed. The Solovay arguments [So-Re-Ka] for producing a
function I : '" --+ '" and j : V --+ M so that j(f)(",) > oX for supercompact
"', can work without changes also for strong "'_. Now, having I and j we can
use a nice system defined from them in the beginning. So, the following
holds.
Theorem 1.13. Let V be a model of GCH, '" be a strong cardinal. Then
for every oX there exists a cardinal preserving set generic extension V[G] of
V so that
(a) no new bounded subsets are added to "'.
(b) '" changes its cofinality to No.
(c) 2'" ~ oX.
V
Y k
~ N
where i : V -+ N ~ Ult(V, Uo), k([/luJ = j(f)(~).
We would like to have in V an M-generic subset of (Col().+,j(~)))M.
The way of obtaining it was pointed out by H. Woodin. Proceed as fol-
lows. Pick H o ~ (Col(~+m+1)N,i(~)))N, which is possible since both
(~+m+1)N and i(~) are of cardinality ~+ in V. Then let H be gener-
ated by k"(Ho). If D E M is a dense open subset of Col(>'+,j(~))M,
then for some ordinals ~1, ... ,~n,). > ~n > ... > ~1 > ~ and a function
9 : [~ln+l -+ VI< D = j(g)(~, ~1,'" '~n)' The set A = {a < ~I there
exist ordinals 0'.1,." ,an, 0'. < 0'.1 < ... < an < a+ m g(O'., al,'" ,an)
is a dense open subset of Col(O'.+m+l,~)} is in Uo. Define 9 : A -> VI<
as follows g(O'.) = n{g(a,al,'" ,an) 10'. < al < ... < an < O'.+m and
g(O'., all' .. ,an) is a dense open subset of Col(O'.+m+1, ~)}.
Then j(g)(K) is a dense open subset of D. But, also i(g)(~) is dense in
(Col«~+m+1)N, i(~)))N. Hence i(g)(K) n Ho 1= cp. It implies H n D 1= cp.
Now we are ready to define the forcing conditions.
Definition 2.1. The set of forcing conditions P consists of all elements
p of the form {(O, (Tt, . .. ,Tn),
(fo, ... ,In),F)}U{('Y,p'Y,b(p,,),)) I')' E g\{maxg,O}}U{(maxg,pmaxg,T)},
where
If ~ Fq«pO\qO) ti + 1)
(6) min(p°\qO) > sup(rnglnq )
{(O,q°,f,F)}
- , UqU {(a,qOt,T)}
,
is a direct extension of {(O, I/J, I/J, F)} Up U {(a, I/J, T*)} and forces 0"
Define by induction sequences (Pi I i < K), (Ti I i < K) and (Fi I i < K).
Set Po = I/J, TO = T and FO = I/J.
Suppose that Pj, Tj and Fj are defined for every j < i. Define Pi, Ti
and Fi.'
Set first p~' = U Pj' Let p~ = {(-y,p~'Y) I "( E supp(prn, where for
j<i
"( E supp(p~') p~'Y = p~''Y unless there is v E q't permitted for p~''Y and then
p? = p~''Y U the maximal final segment of 7r~'Y (qf) permitted for p~''Y.
If {(O, q?,};, I/J)} u p~ U {(a, q't, Tq't)} fj. P or it belongs P and there is no
pEN, T' and F so that {(O, q?,};, F)} Up U {(a, qf, T')} E P extends
{(O, q?,};, I/J)} U p~ U {(a, qf, Tq't)} and decides 0" or --'0", then set Pi =
p~', Ti = Tq't and Fi = I/J. Otherwise, pick some p, T' and F witnessing this.
Define then Ti = T', Fi = F. Set Pi = p~'Up*, where supp(P*) = supp(p\pD
THE SINGULAR CARDINAL HYPOTHESIS REVISITED 269
belongs to 'P and it is a direct extension of {(O, q?, 1. Fi) }U(P)iU{ (a, qf, Ti)},
where (P)i is obtained from P by extending p'Y's using 1T~'Y(qf) and correct-
ing b(p, 'Y)'s according to sup uK
The proof is similar to those of Claim 1.9.1. The bounds b(p,'Y)'s are
used in order ~o show that for every v E Sucs(qf) 1h E sUPPP 1v is
permitted for p'Y} I::::; vo. Namely the problem (in the simplest setting) is
due to the fact that 1Col(w, < K,)I = K,. So there will be K, indexes i such
that Ii E Col(w, < K,) and q? = qf = 0. Hence long unions of conditions
with p? = pf' :::; 0 should be taken. But the supports of Pi'S may increase.
The bounds b(p, "I) 's ("{ E supp(P)) where introduced in order to keep the
number of v's permitted for p'Y small.
The rest of the proof is as in Lemma 1.9.
cof the claim.
As in Lemma 1.9, it is possible to show that the assumption "q E N" is
not really restrictive. Briefly, if there is some q outside of N which is used
to decide (j, then there exists one also inside N.
So the following claim will provide the desired contradiction.
270 M. GITIK AND M. MAGIDOR
forces the same, where /(0) is the first function in the sequence f,
i.e. a member of Col(w, ~).
Proof. Instead of dealing with fj, f of arbitrary length, let us concentrate
on the case of lfil = 1, 111 = 1. In this case the notation are much simpler
and it contains all the techniques needed for the general one. In order to
obtain the general case the argument below should be applied level by level
through the tree 8*.
So we like to show the following:
(*) There exist F* and 8* so that
(a) r* = {(O, ¢, F*)} Up U {(a, ¢, 8*)}*~ r
(b) for every q E N, R, G, /0, 11 and 1/, if
{(O, < I/0 >, /0, 11, G)} U q U {(a, < 1/ >, R)} ~ r*
and {(O, < I/0 >'/0,11, G)} U q U {(a, < 1/ >, R)} II-u (or ...,u)then
{(O, ¢, /0, F*)} Up U {(a, ¢, 8*)} forces the same.
Let (fOi Ii < ~) be an enumeration of Col(w, ~).
Define by induction sequences (Si Ii < ~) and (Fi I i < ~).
Stage O. Consider in M the following two sets
{(O, < vO>, foo, g", Fo)} Up U {(a, < v >, So<,,»} 11-0- .
Hence
HO, q" Ft)} Up U {(a, q" Si)} ~ {(O, q" Ft)} Up U {(a, q" Si')}
for every i' < i. Define F{ as F~ above, just replace foo by fOi and require
{(O, q" Ff) }UpU{ (a, q" Si) to be stronger than {(O, q" Ft) }UpU{ (a, q" Si)}·
Set S~ = Si. Define Fi , Si from F{, S: as above. Then ri = {(O, q" Fi )} U
p U {(a, q" Si)} will satisfy the following:
(**) If for some q E N, R, G, v and gv, {(O, < vO >, fOi, gv, G) }UqU{ (a, <
v>, R)} ~ ri and forces (j (or -,a) then {(O, q" fOi, Fi) }UpU {(a, q" Si)} Ira
(or -,a).
This completes the construction of (Fi Ii < K), (Si Ii < K).
Let us combine now (Si Ii < K) into one tree. Proceed as follows. Let
A = Suc<> S. Shrink A to a set A' E Ua so that for every v E A'
(i) if i < vO then sup(rngfoi) < vO;
(ii) if f E Col(w, vO) then for some i < vO f = fOi'
Set A* = {v E A' I Vi < vO v E Suc<> Si}. Then A* E Ua . Define
Suc<> S* to be A*. Let SdA* be the tree obtained from Si by intersecting
it level by level with A*. For every v E A* set S~v> = n{ (Si)<v> I i < vOl.
Now, for (Vb'" ,vn ) E S* let F*(vP, ... ,v~)) = U{Fi(vP, ... ,v~)) Ii <
vp}.
It is easy to see that
V: Qr..I
a = Add* Col
f"V
j",(O)
f'V
(a), where Ia
f"V
is the name of the generic choice made by Add on stage a. Use on a limit
stage a the direct limit for inaccessible a and the inverse limit otherwise.
Then, for every n,i : V -* M extends in Vp,,*Col n (,.,) to an embedding
jn : VP,,*Col n (,.,) -* MP,,*Coln(,.,)*P' where pI = j(P,.,)/ P,.,*{ (0, n) }*Coln(K).
Denote MP,,*Coln(,.,)*P' by Mn and VP,,*Coln(,.,) by Vn-
Using i, define in V a nice system U =« Ua I a E A), (7raj3 I aA:::: /3 »
of the length KH+1, as in Section 1. Now, in Vn using in we define a nice
system ~n =«~na I a E A >, <~naj3 I aA;:::: /3» so that ~na ::2 Ua for
every a E A. Then ~ naj3 can be chosen to be 7raj3.
As in section 2, fix some H n E VP,,*Col n (,.,) which is Mn-generic subset
~
idea of S. Shelah [Sh2] for doing this, is to leave more and more cardinals
climbing up to '" along the zero coordinate, and to give only small pieces of
information about collapses between", and ",H+1, which finally would not
produce a real collapse. r = p(col) is such a piece.
Definition 3.2. Let p, q E P. We say that p extends q(p ~ q), if
(1) p\{p(col)} extends q\{q(col)} in sense of Definition 2.2.
(2) p(col) is stronger than O'mn(q(col)) in the forcing with B n , where
m = length (qO), n = length (PO).
Definition 3.3. Let p,q E P,p*~ q if
(a) p ~ q
(b) for every 'Y E supp(q) p'Y = q'Y.
The proofs of the following lemmas are more or less routine translations
of the proofs of corresponding lemmas of the previous sections.
Lemma 3.4. The relation :5 is a partial order.
Lemma 3.5. Let q E P and 0: E A. Then there is p* ~ q. so that
supp(P).
0: E
Lemma 3.6. Let pEP and l' E pO. Then (Plp)?:r,:5*) is (1'H+1)V_
closed, where (Plp)"?T is defined as in Section 2.
Lemma 3.7. (P,:5, :5*) satisfies the Prikry condition.
Lemma 3.S. ",+ remains a cardinal in y1'.
Lemma 3.9. (a) GO = ("'0, ... ''''n .. ') is an w-sequence unbounded in "'.
(b) If 0: =J (3 are in A then GO!. =J Gf3, where GO!. 's are defined as in
Section 2.
Lemma 3.10. If 1', No < l' < '" and l' remains a cardinal in yP",*1', then
there exists n such that "'n :5 l' < "'n+1 and for some m :5 IDn I+2 l' = ",;tm.
The new point here is to show that all the cardinals between ",+ and
",H+1 are preserved. Note that P satisfies now only ",H+2_c.c.
Lemma 3.11. Let 8,1 < 8:5 ~ be an ordinal. Then ",+6+1 is preserved in
yP.. *1'.
Proof. Suppose first that 8 is a successor ordinal. Let n < w be the least
so that 8 - 1,8 E Dn. Let q E P. Extend q to p so that Ipol > n. Consider
the forcing notion Pip = {t E Pit ~ pl. For every t E Pip, t(col) E Bm
for some m ~ n. Recall that then Bm is a complete subalgebra of Bn.
Also, ",+6+1 is preserved by forcing with Bn. Namely Bn splits into B n,l
276 M. GITIK AND M. MAGID OR
(3) all the cardinals and its cofinalities above Ii are preserved
(4) GCH holds below Ii
REFERENCES
[B] S. Baldwin, Between strong and superstrong, J. Sym. Logic 51 (1986),547-
449.
[Cal J. Cummings, A model in which GCH holds at successors but fails at limits;
(to appear).
[C-Wo] J. Cummings and H. Woodin, Applications of Radin's Forcing, a forthcoming
book.
[De-Jen] K. Devlin and R. Jensen, Marginalia to a Theorem of Silver, vol. 499, Logic
Conference, Kie11974, Lec. Notes in Math., Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New
York 1975.
[D] A. Dodd, The Core Model, London Mathematical Society Lecture Notes
Series 61 (1982), Cambridge Univ. Press.
[Ea] W. Easton, Powers of regular cardinals, Ann. Math. Logic 1, 139-178.
[F-W] M. Foreman and H. Woodin, GCH can fail everywhere, Ann. of Math.
[Ga-H] F. Galvin and A. Hajnal, Ann. Math. 101,491-498.
[Gl] M. Gitik, Changing cofinalities and the nonstationary ideal, Israel J. Math.
56 (3), 280-314.
[G2] M. Gitik, The negation of SCH from O(K) = K++, Ann. of Pure and Appl.
Logic 43, 209-234.
[G3] M. Gitik, The strength of the failure of SCH, Ann. of Pure and Appl. Logic
51, 215-240.
[G4] M. Gitik, On measurable cardinals violating GCH, to appear.
[G5] M. Gitik, Handwritten notes, UCLA 1991.
[G-M] M. Gitik and M. Magidor, Extender Based Forcing Notions.
[G-Sh] M. Gitik and S. Shelah, On Certain Indestructibility of Strong Cardinals
and a Question of Hajnal, Arch. Mth. Logic 28, 35-42.
[J] T. Jech, Set Theory, Academic Press, New York.
[K-M] A. Kanamori and M. Magidor, Muller and Scott, eds., Lecture Note in
Math. 699, Higher Set Theory, (Springer, Berlin).
[L] R. Laver, Making the supercompactness of K indestructible under K-directed
closed forcing, Israel J. Math. 29, 385-388.
[Mal] M. Magidor, On the singular cardinals problem, I, Israel. J. Math. 28 (1)
(1977), 1-3l.
[Ma2] M. Magidor, On the singular cardinal problem, II, Ann. of Math. 106 (1977),
'517-647.
[Mil] W. Mitchell, Indiscernibles, skies and ideals, Contemporary Math. 31 (1984),
161-182.
[Mi2] W. Mitchell, Hypermeasurable cardinals, Boffa (eds) Logic Coll., vol. 78,
North Holland, 1979.
[Mi3] ·W. Mitchell, The Core Model for sequences of measures J, Math. Proc. Cam-
bridge Phil. Soc. 95 (1984), 229-260.
[Mi4] W. Mitchell, The Core Model for sequences of measures II.
[Mi5] W. Mitchell, On the SCH, Trans A.M.S.
[P] K. Prikry, Changing measurable into accessible cardinals, Diss. Math. 68
(1970), 5-52.
[Sh1] S. Shelah, Proper forcing, vol. 940, Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Math.,
1982.
[Sh2] S. Shelah, The Singular Cardinals Problem. Independence Results, Mathias
(ed.), vol. 87, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Series, Surveys in Set Theory,
pp. 116-133.
[Sh3] S. Shelah, Cardinal Arithmetic, in preparation.
THE SINGULAR CARDINAL HYPOTHESIS REVISITED 279
[Si) J. Silver, On the singular cardinals problem, Proc. of the International Con-
gress of Math.; Vancouver, vol. I, 1974, pp. 265-268.
[So-Re-Ka) R. Solovay, W. Reinhardt and A. Kanomori, Strong azioms of infinity and
elementary embeddings, Ann. Math. Logic 13 (1) (1978),73-116.
[W) H. Woodin; private communication.
WINFRIED JUST
281
282 W. JUST
(see [M]).
(c) In particular, if I = Fin, then in (b) we can take M = {0}.
(d) Let h : P(w) -+ R+ and define
'T
.Lh = { Ii
a C w: m sUP"
n-oo
I:mEann h(m)
L..Jm<n
h()
m
= O} .
Proof. If Hn(Y) is comeagre for every y ~ b~-1, then the graph of FIP(b~-1)
is contained in the set
Proof. This follows immediately from the fact that Vn is dense in Xn and
from the choice of the Ci'S. 0
14. Fact. Let i, nand b C Ci be such that (Ci, b) E X n . Suppose
(Ci' b, F(Ci), d) ~ Bn,i' Then F(Ci) n (dtl.F(b» EM E& M.
Proof. Suppose b = (ci,b,F(Ci),F(b», d = (ci,b,F(Ci),d) witness the
contrary. Since M E& M is topologically closed and closed under subsets,
there is an mEw such that F(Ci) n (dtl.F(b» n m ¢. M E& M. We may
without loss of generality assume that blm, dim E Tn,i'
But now recall the reason why dim was put into Tn,i:
there are (ao, bo) E Vn such that
aonm=Cinm=aonCi
bo nm = bnm = bo nb
F(ao) n m = F(Ci) n m
288 W. JUST
F(bo) n m = d n m.
It follows from the choice of d, m that F(Ci)n(F(b)~F(bo))nm ~ MEeM.
On the other hand, ((Ci,b), (ao,bo)) E K:1 ; and since (a),(b) in the defi-
nition of K:o are clearly satisfied, we must have ...,(c), i.e.,
(F(ao) n F(b))~(F(Ci) n F(bo)) EM Ee M.
But since F(ao) nm = F(Ci) nm, we have (F(Ci) n (F(b)~F(bo)) nm S;;;
(F(ao) nF(b))~(F(Ci) nF(bo)). This yields a contradiction, since M EeM
is closed under subsets.
For nEw, i E {O,1} let Kn,i = {b: 3d E Bn,i (d)o = Ci & (dh = b}.
15. Fact. For nEw, i E {O,1} there exists a Borel function Gn,i
P(Ci) -+ pew) such that Vb E Kn,i (Ci, b, F(Ci), Gn,i(b)) E Bn,i'
Proof. This follows from the fact that every Borel set with compact sections
has a Borel uniformization (see [Mo], page 254). 0
17. Corollary. OCA + MA implies that for every n < w, the topological
space (w*)n+l is not a continuous image of (w*)n.
Proof. See [J2] for definitions and a proof.
18. Corollary. OCA + MA implies tbat no nowbere dense P-subset of
w* is bomeomorphic to w* itself.
REFERENCES
(E] ErdOs, P., My Scottish Book "Problems", The Scottish Book (D. Mauldin, ed.),
Birkhiuser, Boston, Mass., 1981.
[F] Frankiewicz, R., Some remarks on embeddings of Boolean algebras, Measure The-
ory, Oberwolfach 1983 (D. Kolzowand D. Maharam-Stone, eds.), SLNM 1089,
pp.64-68.
[J] Just, W., Ph.D. Thesis (in Polish), University of Warsaw (1987).
[J1] Just, W., A modification of Shelah's oracle-c.c. with applications, Trans. AMS
(to appear).
[J2] Just, W., The space (w*)n+l is not always a continuous image of the space (w*)n,
Fund. Math. 132 (1989), 59-72.
[J3] Just, W., Nowhere dense P-subsets of w·, Proc. AMS 104 (1989), 1145-1146.
[J4] Just, W., Repercussions of a problem of Erdos and mam, Canad. J. of Math.
XLII, No.5 (1990), 902-914.
[JK] Just, W., Krawczyk, A., On certain Boolean Algebras P(w)/I, Trans. AMS 285,
No. 1 (1984), 411-429.
[K] Kechris, A.S., Measure and category in effective descriptive set theory, Ann. of
Math. Logic 5 (1973).
[M] Mazur, K., F,,-ideals and wlwi-gaps in the Boolean algebras P(w)/I, Preprint,
University of Warsaw.
[Mo] Moschovakis, Y., Descriptive Set Theory, North Holland, 1980.
[S] Shelah, S., Proper forcing, SLNM 940.
[T] Todoreevic, S., Partition Problems in Topology, Contemporary Mathematics 84
(1989). -
[V] Veliclrovic, B., OCA and automorphisms ofP(w)/ fin, Submitted for publication.
GARVIN MELLES
1. INTRODUCTION
We consider a class of models C to be classifiable (Le., has a structure
theory) if there is an effective construction within set theory from the mod-
els in C to invariants depending only on the isomorphism types of C, and if
there is a way to effectively construct from each invariant, an example with
that invariant. We call a classification canonical if the construction from
invariants back to models with those invariants can be made canonical.
The divisible abelian groups, rank one abelian torsion-free groups, mod-
els of the language < Ei : i < Q > with Q an ordinal and each Ei an
equivalence relation such that for every i < Q Ei refines Ei+l, models of
a language with countably many unary relations, the countable homoge-
neous models of a finite relational language and the models of the theory
of «ww ,1) where f is a unary function s.t. f(." r-, i) = ." for." =f. < >
and f( < » =< >, are all examples of classes classifiable in the canoni-
cal sense. The-last example is interesting because although it is w-stable
and has NDOP, it is deep and therefore has 2A many models for every un-
countable >.. Ulm's classification of the countable torsion groups is not an
example of a canonical classification, but it is close to one. From a given ad-
missible UIm sequence one can effectively construct a group with that Ulm
sequence, but the construction is canonical only up to the choice of a bijec-
tion from w to the UIm sequence's length. There is a natural strengthening
of the notion of canonical classification which we call UIm-type classifica-
tion. The countable torsion abelian groups have such a classification by
293
294 G. MELLES
UIm's theorem, whereas if the universe has a Cohen real over L, there is no
UIm-type classification of the countable torsion-free abelian groups.
In order to prove non-classification we need an exact definition for the
intuitive notion of effective construction within set theory. We define the
class of recursive set functions and define a set B as effectively constructible
from a set A if there is a set function F recursive in the cardinality function
such that F(A) = B. It should be noted that one needs a hypothesis
stronger than ZFC to prove the non-classifibility of the countable torsion-
free abelian groups because the canonical well ordering of L is recursive
in our sense, so that within L any reasonable class C of countable models
(reasonable in a sense to be defined later) is canonically classifiable by using
Scott sentences as invariants and by taking as the canonical example of a
model with a given Scott sentence cp as the least countable model M in the
sense of the well ordering of L such that M F cpo
What is the connection between Shelah's classification theory and the
type of classification defined above? It follows from Theorem 2.4 and the
proof of Lemma 2.9 in ISh] that for a countable first order theory T which
is not superstable or has OTOP or DOP, isomorphism type is not absolute
under ~xtensions of the universe preserving cardinals. As a result, such
theories cannot have a classification via generalized recursive functions.
How about for countable superstable T without OTOP or DOP? This is
still an open problem, but at the MSRI conference, Shelah and Hrushovski
found a finitary structure theorem for the superstable Ne-saturated models
with NDOP which is of the type defined here [Sh401].
For another approach to the classifiability of countable structures see
[F & S] . Also, Hodges & Shelah ask some questions of a similar flavor, cf.
[H], [H & S] . The author would like to thank his thesis advisor Paul Eklof
for many' helpful discussions.
Definition 1. A set function F is recursive in F 1 , ... ,Fk if it is a member
of the smallest class containing the initial functions and closed under sub-
stitution,' definition by recursion, the JL-operator, and random well ordering
by ordinals. The class of primitive recursive set functions in F 1 , ... ,Fk is
the smallest class containing the initial functions, closed under substitution,
and definition by recursion.
Initial functions:
(1) F(x) = Fi(x), 1 ~ i ~ k
(2) Pn,i(Xl,"" Xn) = Xi
(3) F(x) = 0
(4) F(x,y) =xU{y}
COUNTABLE TORSION-FREE GROUPS 295
Substitution:
(1) F(xl, ... ,Xn,YI,··· ,Ym) = G(XI' ... ,xn,H(xlJ··. ,Xn),YI, ... ,Ym)
(2) F(XI, ... , Xn , YI,··., Ym) = G(H(XI, ... , x n ), Yl,···, Ym)
Recursion:
F(XI, ... , Xn , z) =
G(U{(Xl, ... ,xn,U,F(XI,· .. ,xn,u)) : u E Z},Xl, ... ,xn,z)
The j.L-operator:
If 'v'Xl , ... , xn3a E ORD(G(Xb ... , Xn , a) = 0) where G is a n+1-ary set
function then j.LG is the n-ary set function such that for every Xl, ... ,Xn E
V, j.LG(XI' ... ' Xn) = the least ordinal a such that G(Xl, ... , Xn , a) = O.
Then the function F(Xl, ... , xn) defined from the recursive functions
G(x, Xl, ... , xn) by letting F(XI, . .. , xn) = ¢ if
Definition 2. # is the set function which takes every set to its cardinality.
All recursive set functions are .0. 1 definable and if V = L, then the class
of set recursive functions is the class of .0. 1 definable functions. We are now
ready to give a formal definition of classification.
296 G. MELLES
Proof. Suppose e is canonically classifiable, and let Fl, F2, and F3 be func-
tions recursive in # that witness the classifibility of e. Then let F = F 3 (H).
Now suppose that F is a choice function on the isomorphism types of
e which is recursive in #. Define Fl(X) = F(x). Let F2(x) = 1 if
F(F(x)) = F(x) and </> otherwise. Let F3 = the identity function.
If e is a class of countable models, we change the definition of classifica-
tion sligh.tly. We use recursive functions defined on HC and we can drop
the random well ordering clause in the definition of recursive; otherwise the
definition is the same.
The author would like to thank Menachem Magidor and Tomek Bartoszyn-
ski for pointing out the following stronger version of the Main Lemma and
the resulting corollary.
Extended Main Lemma. If M is a transitive model of Z FC and G is a
Cohen real over M, then there is no EI formula of set theory with parame-
ters in HC M which defines in M[G] a choice function on the isomorphism
types of the hereditarily countable torsion-free abelian groups.
Proof. Exactly the same as the proof of the Main Lemma.
Corollary 3. There is a model M of ZFC such that for no EI formula
t.p(x, y, YI,' .. ,Yn) and PI,' .. ,Pn hereditarily countable parameters does
t.p(x, y, PI, ... ,Pn) define a choice function on the isomorphism types of the
torsion-free abelian groups.
Proof Iterate Cohen forcing WI times.
298 G. MELLES
Proof. Let sp = {qO,' .. , ijs}. For each j < w and each r ::;; s, let ij~(j) =
o j < i and let q,.(j) = ijr(j) if j ~ i. We can assume that for each
r ::;; S there is an integer nr such that nrij~ E Hp. If not, extend p to the
smallest p' E pI extending p such that q,. E Spl and work with p' in place
of p. Let n* = no· .... ns. Let kl = the smallest integer such that for
no i ~ kl' does Pi divides n* . n where n is an integer such that for some
r ::;; s, ijr/n E tp. Let k2 = the smallest integer such that for no i ~ k2' is
there apE N such that pi divides n* . n where n is an integer such that for
some r ::;; s, ijr/n E tp. Let k = max:{kI, k 2 }. Let m = mk' H; = H;"1fp
•
smce £or every r < - = qr
_ S 7rqr - + Pok+l ..... Pkk+l=l
qr' S'mce H*p = H*p"1fp' we
have H;"1fp n tp = 0. Suppose H;"1fp n t1fp =1= 0. Suppose ij E tp such that
7rij E H;"1fP' For each r ::;; s we have ijr + (m - 1)q,. = 7rijr where m - 1 =
300 G, MELLES
Lemma 4. Let pEP' and let ijl and ij2 be independent elements of Q(w)
in Hp. Then there is a Pi E Nt, t a positive integer and p" E P' such
that domp" = dompU{ijt!p1, ij2, ij2/pH and p"(ijdpD = 1,p"(ij2) = 1, and
p"(ij2/pD = o.
Proof. Let sp = {ik, ... , ij~}. Without loss of generality, ij2 ESp. Without
loss of generality, for each i,j < l(ijl) ijl(i) = ijl(j) or ijl(i) . ijl(j) = O.
(H not, multiply sp by a 'Tr E (Q - {O})W so that the assumption is true
about'Trsp. Lemma 4 holds for sp if and only if it holds for 'TrSp since'Tr is an
automorphism of Q(w). Without loss of generality, if ij E Hp then for each
i < l(ij) ij(i) is an integer, Hnot, multiply sp by a'Tr E (Q-{O})W so that the
assumption is true about 'Trp. Lemma 4 holds for sp if and only if it holds for
'TrSp since 'Tr is an automorphism of Q(w). Let Pi E Nl such that Pi does not
divide n for any n such that iJ',./n E tp. Extend p to p' by letting domp' =
dompU{ijdpH where t is a positive integer such that p~ > 21ij2(j)1 for every
j < l(iJ.2) and let p'(ijdpD = 1. Let ii'r/n E tp. To see that p' E P, suppose
aoiJO + ... + a8~ + aijdp~ = mij~/n where m is an integer whose prime
factors are not in N l . Then p~ij~/n E Hp, and since n and p~ are relatively
prime and n(mij~/n) E Hp,miJ',./n E Hp so ii'r/n E H;, a contradiction of
ij~/n E tp. Extend p' to P" E P' by letting domp" = domp' U {ij2/pH
and let p"(ij2/pD = o. Suppose aoiJO + ... + a8~ + ijdp~ = ij2/p~. Then
aijl = ij2 mod p~ which implies that for every i < w if ijl (i) = 0 then
ij2(i) = 0 and that for every i,j < w if ijl(i) = ijl(j) then ij2(i) = ij2(j).
This is a contradiction of our assumption that ijl and ij2 are independent,
Suppose aoiJO + .. , + a8ij~ + aijdp~ = mij2/p~ where m is an integer whose
prime factors are not in N l . Since m and p~ are relatively prime, ij2/p~ E Hp
which is a contradiction of what we have just shown.
ij E (Q - {O} )(w) extending 7rjk there is a ij' extending ij which fixes a then
there exists k' 2:: k such that 7ifk' fixes a.
Definition 14. H x E MB, and 7r E UGAut(x) then 7r E VUGAut(x)
if for every y E D(x) - {0}, Z E M[G] and k E w such that 1rfk insures
and fixes y, if for every extension ij of 7rtk there exists a ij' extending ij and
b E dom y such that if insures and fixes b at z then there exists a E dom y
and k' 2:: k such that 7ifk' insures and fixes a at z.
Stable Names Lemma. If x, Xl,··· , Xn E MB and D{x) U D{XI) U··· U
D{Xn) is countable in M and if k E w is such that iG{x) = iG(7rx) for every
7r E GAut{x,xl,··· ,xn) with 7r(i) = 1 for i < k, then for all y E D(x)
I. Whenever 7r E [(Q - {O})w]M such that 7r(i) = 1 for i < k and there
is a k' 2:: k such that 7rjk' insures y (relative to x) then there is a k" 2:: k'
such that 7rjk" fixes y.
II. If7r E VUGAut(x)nGAut{x,xl,··· ,xn ) such that 7r(i) = 1 for
i < k and there is a k" 2:: k such that 7rjk" insures and fixes y (insures y
relative to x) then iG (7rY) = iG (7r' y) for every 7r' E [(Q - {O} )W] M such that
7r'jk" = 7rtk".
Proof ,By induction on p(y). Without loss of generality k = O. Let 7r E
[(Q - {O} )w]M and let k' E w such that 7ifk' insures y.
Definition 15. Sy is the name with dom Sy = {( n, Sny) v : nEw} and
if X E dom Sy, Sy(x) = 1. Sny is the name with dom Sny = {7rY : 7r E
[(Q - {O} )w]M and 7r(i) = 1 for i < n and if x E dom Sny, Sny(x) = 1.
Let 8(x) be the formula which says x is a function with domain wand
such that Vn E w,x(n) has at least two elements. Suppose that I. of the
Stable Names Lemma does not hold. Then M[G] F 8(iG(7rsy)) and by
Jech 19.14, 19.16, and the Forcing Theorem there is a k" 2:: k' such that
V7r' E [(Q - {O})W]M7r'tk" = 7rjk" :=:} M[G] F 8(iG(7r'sy)).
Let S = {iG{7r'Y) : 7r' E GAUt{X,XI,·· ·xn ) and 7r'jk' = 7ifk'}. S is
countable in M[G] since iG{7r'y) E trcl iG{7r'x) = trcl iG{x) for 7r' such
that 7r'jk' = 7rjk' and iG(x) is hereditarily countable in M[G]. Well or-
der S as {Si : i < w}. We will define {7ri : i < w} E W«Q - {O})(w»)
such that if we let 7r* = U{7ri : i < w}, then 7r*tk' = 7rjk', 7r* E
VUGAut(x)nGAut(x,xl,··· ,xn ) and iG{7r*y) ~ S. This will contra-
dict the definition of S, so I. of the Stable Names Lemma must hold.
Definition 16. H ij E {Q - {O} )(w) extends 7ifk' then label ij with (yes, z)
ifthere is an a E domy such that ij insures (relative to y thru (a,y)) and
fixes a at z. Label ij with (no, z) if and only if for all 7r' E [(Q - {O})w]M
such that 7r'~(ij) = ij,z ~ iG(7r'y).
COUNTABLE TORSION-FREE GROUPS 303
Claim. (Assuming that I. of Stable Names Lemma does not hold for y).
For every ij extending 7lfk' there exist ijl and ij2 extending ij such that for
some z, ijl is labeled (yes, z) and ij2 is labeled (no, z).
Proof. Let ij extend 7lfk'. Let 7f1 and 7f2 be elements of [(Q - {O} )w]M such
that 7f1~(ij) = ij = 7f2~(ij) and ia(7fIy) i= ia(7f2Y) and let z E ia(7fIY) and
Z ¢:. ia(7f2Y)' Let a E domy such that ia(7fIo') = z. Since there is an
extension of the form 7fIfk" which insures a (relative to y thru (o"y)), by
the induction hypothesis there is a kill such that 7fIfklll insures and fixes
o,. Let ijl be 7fIfk". If there is abE domy such that ia(7f2b) = z then
n n
117f2b ¢:. 7f2yll G i= 0, and II7fIo' = 7f2bll G i= 0 so there is a k2 2: kill E W
such that for every 7f' E [(Q - {O})w]M such that 7f'fk2 = 7f2fk2' 117f'b ¢:.
n n
7f'yll G i= 0,117f'7f2" I7f Io' = 7f'bll G i= 0 and ia(7f'7f2"I7fIo') = z. Let
ij2 = 7f2fk2· If there is no b E dom y such that iG( 7f2b) = z then let diJ be the
name with domdiJ = domy and for C E domddy let diJ(c) = 1. M[G] F z ¢:.
ia(7f2ddy)/\Z = ia(7fIo') so since 7fIfk"' fixes a at z, for all7f' E [(Q-{O} )w]M
with 7f'fk lll = 7f2fklll, M[G] F z = ia(7f'7f2"I7fIa) and therefore there is a
k~ 2: kill such that for all7f' E [(Q-{O} )w]M such that 7f'fk~ = 7f2fk~, M[G] F
z ¢:. ia(7f'diJ). Therefore M[G] F Z ¢:. ia(7f'Y)· Let ij2 = 7f2fk~. 0
Construction of 7f*. Let 7fo = 7ffk'. If F = {'P( WI, ... ,Wn ) : 'P is a Ao for-
mula and {WI," ·Wn } ~ D(x) U{X} UD(XI) U·· 'UD(xn) U{Xl,'" ,xn}},
then well order F as {'Pi (Will' .. ,Win,) : i < w}. Order D(x) as {o'i : i < w}
so that for every i E w there exists an JEW such that j > i and ai = aj.
For each a E D(x) and each ij such that ij insures (relative to x) and
fixes a, let Za,fj = {z : z E ia(7fa) for some 7f E [(Q - {O})w]M such that
7f~(ij) = ij}. Let Za = {z : z E Za,fj for some ij E (Q - {O} )(w)}. Order
Za as {Za,i : i E w} so that for every i E W there exists an JEW such
that j > i and such that Za,i = Za,j' If 7fi has been defined, define 7fiH as
follows: By the claim, there are extensions of 7fi, 7fil and 7fi2 such that for
some Z,7fil is marked (yes,z) and 7fi2 is marked (no,z). If Z E Si then let
7f~ = 7fi2 else let 7f~ = 7fil' Now if 7f~ insures ai let 7f~' be an extension of
7f~ which fixes ai if such an extension exists, else let 7f~' = 7f~. If 7f? insures
(relative to x) and fixes ai and if for every extension ij of 7f~' there exists a
ij' extending ij and b E domai such that ij' insures (thru (b, ai)) and fixes b
at Zai ,k where k equals the number of indices j such that j < i and ai = aj
then let 7ft = one of the ij' else let 7f~" = 7f?- Let 7f' E [(Q - {O} )w]M
be any extension of 7f~". If M[G] F 'Pi(ia (7f'WiJ, ... ,ia(7f'Wi n ) ) then
let Pcp ('Ill 1.1' .w·1-ni ) E II'Pi(Will'" ,wi)11 such that 7f'pcp(w ... '1.ni
~ nl, 'I. 1.1)
w' ) E G
and if 'Pi(Vil"" ,Vin.) is of the form 3w E VilWi(W,Vil"" ,Vin ) find
wE dom Wil such that M[G] F wi(ia(7f'w), ia(7f'WiJ"" ,ia(7f'Win :)) and
304 G. MELLES
let P' E Ilwi(w, Wil'··· , wi n )1I such that 7r'p' E G. Let 7ri+l =7r'f(maximum
of {l(7r~'Y'),l(p'),l(pcpi(will'··· ,WinJ})· If M[G] 1= -'<Pi(ic(7r'Wil)'···'
ic( 7r'Wi n » then let Pr,oi (Will· .. ,Win.) E II-'<Pi(ic( 7r'Wit), ... , ic( 7r'Wi n.)) II
such th~t 7r'P,~·(w '11'
.,..~
. ... , W· ni ) E G. 'Let 7ri+l = 7r'~maximum of{l(;t),
'I
aE domy and k* 2: kif such that 7r*fk* insures and fixes a (relative to x)
at z. By inductive hypotheses (II), ia(7r*o') = z, so z E ia(7r*y). 0
Notation. If q E Ql(w) and a is a name, then {q, a} v is the name with do-
main {qV, a} and such that {q, a} v and (q, o,)V (a) = 1 and {q, a} v, (a) = 1.
(q, o,)V is the name with domain {{qV, {q, o, V} and such that (q, o,)V ({qV) =
1 and (q,O,)V({q,o'V) = 1.
One can show there exists hereditarily countable x which satisfies 'ljJ(x, A,
C A) by using tpe fact that A is hereditarily countable, the Mostowski Col-
lapse, and the Reflection Principle in order to find a countable transitive
model N containing A such that 3z'ljJ(z, x, y) defines a function in N. Then
CA and a witness for 3z'ljJ(z,A,CA) must be in N by the absoluteness of
'ljJ(z,x,y), and,by the absoluteness of 'ljJ(z,x,y),CA and the witness for
3z'ljJ(z, A, CA) in N satisfy 'ljJ(z, A, CA) in M[G].
Let C A and UCA be names for CA and U CA such that D(CA) and D(UCA )
are hereditarily countable. Let j be a name for f such that dom j =
{(q,7ro')V : q E Ql(W) , 7r E Aut(P, ::;) and a E dom UCA}. Let A be the name
for A such that domA = {(q)V : q E Ql(w)} and A((q)V) = u(q ~ 1)~ where
q ~ 1 denotes the element of pi whose domain is {q} and whose value at
q is 1, and u(q ~ 1)~ is the set of extensions of (q ~ 1)~ in P. Let x
be a name of x such that D(x) is hereditarily countable. By the Forcing
Theorem there is a p* E G such that
306 G. MELLES
11"P* If- 'I,b(11"X, 11"A, 11"CA) /\ (11"j is an isomorphism from 11"A to 11"CA)/\ (The
universe of nCA is nUcA)
So, for -every nEG Aut(x, j, A, CA, UCA) such that 11" is the identity on the
length of p* and for every n E Aut(P,:::;) such that np* E G,
Note that for every nEG Aut(CA, UcAA, j) and for every 11" E Aut(P :::;),
11"-1is an isomorphism from A to ia(11"A) since ij E A iff 11"-lij E ia(nA).
So, for ev;ery nEG Aut(x, j, A, CA, UCA) such that 11" is the identity on the
length of p* and for every n E Aut(P,:::;) such that 11"P* E G,
By our assumption about <p(x, y) and the preceding equation, we have that
for every nEG Aut(x, j, A, CA, UCA ) such that 11" is the identity on the
length of p* and for every n E Aut(P,:::;) such that np* E G
So, for every nEG Aut(x, j, A, CA, UcA) such that 11" is the identity on the
length of p*, and for every n E Aut) such that np* E G, ia(nj)n- 11- 1 is
an automorphism of CA'
COUNTABLE TORSION-FREE GROUPS 307
71"- 1 19!
For every 7r E G Aut(x, j, A, 6.,4., (;6.) such that 7r is the identity on the
A
length of p* and for every 7r E Aut(P,~) such that 7rp* E G, the above
picture holds (the diagram is not commutative).
Claim. The only automorphisms of A are multiplication by fractions in S.
Proof. If iiI and i12 are elements of A which are independent in Q(w) then
there can be no automorphism of A which sends ib to i12 because by
Lemma 4 the set Dibih = {p E P : p ~ {ql ---+ l,q2 ---+ 1}~ and such
that for some Pi E NI and some positive integer t,p ~ {ql/pt ---+ 1}~
and p ~ {/12 / pt ---+ O} ~} is dense below {ill ---+ 1, q2 ---+ I} ~; thus since
n
G Dqlq2 =I- 0, for some positive integer t we have ql/pt E A and q2/pt =I-
A. Since the set DqPi = {p E P : P ~ {q ---+ 1, q/pt ---+ O}~ for some positive
integer t} is ·dense below {ij ---+ I} ~ for all Pi E N I , no element of A but 0
is infinitely divisible by any element of N I , so the only possible automor-
phisms of A are multiplication by fractions of the form ml/m2 where ml
and m2 are elements of N~.
So, by the above claim, if 7r E G Aut(x, j, A, 6.,4., (;6.) such that 7r is the
A
identity on the length of p* or if 7r E Aut(P,~) such that 7rP* E G, then
for some ml and m2 elements of N~
Let nEw such that the identity sequence in Q(n) insures and fixes
a, such that n > l(p),n > 1(1'), and such that 1rsnP E G,1rsnP" E G
and 1rsnP* E G (By a simple denseness argument if pEG then there are
infinitely many nEw such that 1rsnP E G). Since 1r sn (r,a)V = (r,1rsna)V
n
and 1rsn [i((r, a)V)) G = 1rsn j((r, 1rsna) V) G =I- 0,n
M[G) F (r,ic(1rsna)) E iC(1rsnj)
By I. there are ml and m2 elements of N~ so that
(II)
So there is a pi E P such that pi E j((mI/m21rsnr, 1rsna)Y) G. If mEw n
let 1rl,m be the element of (Q - {O})W such that 1r(j) = 1 for j < nand
1r(j) = m, for j ~ n. By Lemma 3 and a simple denseness argument there
is an m E N~ such that m =I- 1 and such that 1rl,mP' E G. Let 1rm ,l be the
element of (Q - {O})W such that 1r(j) = 1 for n ~ j < 2n and 1r(j) = m
for j < n or j ~ 2n. Note that 1rl,mP E G since l(P) < n. Note also that
iC(1rl,ma) = ic(a) since the map 1r with domain n such that 1r(i) = 1 for
i < n fixes a. Therefore
M[G) F (r,iC( 1ri,ma)) = (r,ic(a)) E iC(1rl,mj)
which implies by I and 1rl,mr = l' that
(III)
By II and since 1rl,mP' E G we must have
(IV) M[G) F (mI/m21rsnr, iC(1rl,m1rsna)) =
(mI/m21rsnr,ic(1rsn1rm,la)) E iC(1rl,mj)
Since (l/m1r m,l)a = 1rm,la (by construction of P, multiplying or dividing
any equivalence class of pi by an element of N~ leaves the equivalence class
unchanged, and therefore multiplying or dividing any element of M B by an
element of N~ leaves the name unchanged) and p" If- a = (l/m1rm,l)a we
h ave p"I,rL a' = 1rm,la. and 1rsnP" I
r L ' = 1rsn1rm,la.
1rsna . S'Ince 1rsnP" E G ,
by IV,
(V) M[G) F (mI/m2 1rsnr, iC(1rsna)) =
(mI/m21rsnr, iC(1rsn1rm,la)) E iC(1rl,mj)
This is a contradiction since by II. and V. we have that
M[G) F iC(1rl,mj)(mI/m 21rsnr ) = f(mI/ m 21rsnr )
but by III. we know that iC(1rl,mj) = f1rl,m, so
M[G) F iC(1rl,mj)(mI/m 21rsnr ) = m· f(mI/ m 21rsnr ) (m =I- 1).
COUNTABLE TORSION-FREE GROUPS 309
REFERENCES
[B] Jon Barwise, Back and Forth through Infinitary Logic, Studies in Model Theory
(1973), The Mathematical Association of America, 5-34.
[B1] ___ , Admissible Sets and Structures (1975), Springer-Verlag, New York.
[B&E] Jon Barwise and Paul Eklof, Infinitary properties of Abelian torsion groups,
Ann. Math. Logic 2 (1970), 25-68.
[F] Laszlo Fuchs, Infinite Abelian Groups II, Academic Press, New York, 1970.
[FS] Harvey Friedman & Lee Stanley, A Borel reducibility theory for classes of count-
able structures, J. Sym. Logic 54(3) (1989).
[H] Wilfred Hodges, On the Effectivity of some Field Constructions, Proceedings of
the London Mathematical Society 32 (1976), 133-162.
[HI] ___ , Constructing Pure Injective Hulls, The Journal of Symbolic Logic 45(3)
(Sept. 1980).
[H2] ___ , What is a structure theory?, preprint.
[HS1] Wildred Hodges & Saharon Shelah, Naturality and definability I, J. London
Math. Soc. (2) 33 (1986), 1-12.
[HS2] ___ , Naturality and definability II, preprint.
[J] Thomas Jech, Set Theory, Academic Press, New York, 1978.
[J&K] Ronald B. Jenson and Carol Karp, Primitive Recursive Set Functions, Pro-
ceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. 13 part I (1971), American
Mathematical Society, 143-176.
[K] Irving Kaplansky, Infinite Abelian Groups, The University of Michigan Press,
Ann Arbor, 1962.
[M] Garvin'Melles, Classification Theory and Generalized Recursive Functions, Uni-
versity of California at Irvine, 1989.
[S] Saharon Shelah, Classification of First Order Theories which have a Structure
Theorem, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 12(2) (April 1985).
[Sh] ___ , Existence of Many Loo). -equivalent non isomorphic models of T of
power.x, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 34 (1987), 291-310.
[Sh401] ___ , Finitary Structure Theorem, Preprint.
WILLIAM J. MITCHELL
1. INTRODUCTION
We say that a transitive model M of set theory is correct for a formula
¢ (or, equivalently, that ¢ is absolute for M) if for all reals x E M we have
M 1= ¢(x) iffV 1= ¢(x). Shoenfield proved in [Sho61] that
Theorem 1-.1. Any transitive model M of set theory containing wY is
correct for lJ~ formulas.
Jensen [Jen81] later extended theorem 1.1 by showing that if the sharp
of every real exists and there is no inner model with a measurable cardinal,
then the core model K for mice with a single measure is correct for lJ!
formulas. In this note we extend this result to the core model for sequences
of measures.
We write K = L(&) for the maximal core model for sequences of measures
originally constructed in [Mi84] and [Mi]. The preferred construction of K
has changed since those papers were originally written; we will follow the
new style but will try to make the exposition accessible to a reader without
prior knowledge of these developments. See [MiS90] for an exposition of
this new construction of the core model. In particular the model which we
call K is the model which was called K(:F) in [Mi84] and [Mi].
Theorem 1.2. Suppose that there is no model of3Ko(K) = K++, that
a# exists for every real a, and that M is a transitive model of set theory
such that K M is an iterated ultrapower of K. Then M is correct for lJ!
formulas.
If Of does not exist then K is the Dodd-Jensen core model and the-
orem 1.2 reduces to Jensen's result. Our statement is actually slightly
311
312 W.J. MITCHELL
stronger than that given in [Jen81] even this case, since it allows for pa-
rameters from M, but Jensen's proof does give this stronger version. The-
orem 1.2 follows immediately from theorem 1.3 below (we write (a, b)n for
the sharp of a real coding the pair (a, b) of reals).
Theorem 1.3. Suppose that there is no model of 3~o(~) = ~++, that
a and b are reals such that (a, b)n exists, and that </J is a II~ formula such
that V F </J(a,b). Suppose further that KM is an iterated ultrapower of
K. Then K M [b], the smallest model of ZF containing K M and b, satisfies
3x </J(x, b).
Theorem 1.2 can be given a slightly stronger statement which is some-
what analogous to the statement of Shoenfield's theorem: it is sufficient
that M contain an iterated ultrapower of any countable premouse. The
following conjecture probably gives something close to the correct analog
of Shoenfield Absoluteness for ~l formulas.
Conjecture 1.4. Suppose that the class of ordinals is measurable and that
K is the core model for cardinals up through a Woodin cardinal together
with a sharp for the Woodin cardinal, and let M be a model which contains
an iterated ultrapower of any countable iterable premouse m which does not
iterate out to be longer than K. Then M is correct for ~l formulas.
This conjecture, if true, would be the "correct analog" to theorem 1.1
in the sense that the negative large cardinal hypothesis -,3~o(~) = ~++ of
theorem 1.2 has been entirely eliminated. The assumption that the class of
ordinals is measurable is a strengthening of the assumption of theorem 1.2
that sharps exist. The assumption that sharps exist is necessary both for
the conjecture and for theorem 1.2: for example if On does not exist then
K is equal to L, which need not be correct for the ~l formula ''there is
a nonconstructible real". Steel has pointed out that the core model for
a Woodin cardinal alone would not be enough and that some stronger
assumption than the existence of sharps is necessary: If M is any fully
iterable minimal model for ''there exists a Woodin cardinal" then the set
of reals of M is Q3, which is II! definable. The assumption that the class
of ordinals is measurable can probably be reduced to a strong form of
ineffability, but some such assumption appears to be necessary to define
the core models (see [Ste90]). .
Magidor (private communication) has given an alternate proof of Jensen's
absoluteness result. This proof is somewhat easier than Jensen's and does
not require the covering lemma but it does not give the 'pattern of indis-
cernibles' result which Jensen's does-that for any real a there is a mouse
E~-ABSOLUTENESS FOR SEQUENCES OF MEASURES 313
m and an ordinal 'Y < wi' such that beyond some point the indiscernibles
for L(a) are obtained by taking every ~h indiscernible for m. Our proof,
which is a direct extension of that of Jensen, uses the covering lemma even
more heavily that his does and gives a 'patterns of indiscernibles' result,
lemma 5.6, which is almost as strong as that of Jensen though much more
difficult to state. Steel has recently extended Magidor's method to give an
alternate proof of theorem 1.2 which works so long as there is no model
with a strong cardinal. This proof is substantially easier than ours, but
does not include the "pattern of indiscernibles" results and does not prove
the stronger theorem 1.3.
Prerequisites. It is assumed throughout this paper that the reader has
a good understanding of the basic theory [Mi74] of models L(U) of sets
constructed from a coherent sequence of measures, including iterated ultra-
powers of such models, the use of iterated ultrapowers to compare two such
models, and indiscernibles generated by iterated ultrapowers. This paper
also depends heavily on the theory of the core model and in particular on
the covering lemma. The following paragraphs summarize the fine struc-
ture and other core model theory used in the paper, but it is recommended
that the reader be previously acquainted with this theory, as described in
[Mi84], [Mi] and [MiS89].
We recommend one of two strategies for reading this paper. A full under-
standing of the proof will require a good understanding of the fine structure,
and for this the reader should be familiar with [Mi84], [Mi] and [MiS89]. An
understanding of the basic ideas of this paper, however, should be possible
with a considerably more superficial understanding of the fine structure.
This section was originally written with the aim that the paper should be
accessible at this level to a reader with only an understanding of [Mi74]
and some acquaintance with the fine structure of L. This aim is probably
impossible, but the next paragraphs should make it possible to read this
paper with a somewhat unsophisticated understanding of the details of fine
structure. These paragraphs should also be read by more sophisticated
readers, if only as an explanation of the notation and conventions used in
this paper.
The core model K which we are considering is exactly the same model
as the core model K(:F) described in [Mi] but we use a more modern pre-
sentation based on an observation of S. Baldwin. A detailed exposition of
fine structure theory using this presentation can be found in [MiS90]. It
should be noted the paper [MiS90] is primarily concerned with cardinals
larger than a strong cardinal and thus involves some complexity, notably
314 W.J. MITCHELL
the use of iteration trees, which is not needed here. The first four chapters
of [MiS90] are particularly recommended.
There are three basic differences between the the presentation of the core
model given in [Mi84] and that used in this paper. A minor difference is a
change in the indexing of the sequence of measures: A coherent sequence e
is a function e ('Y) of a single variable, rather than a function F( "", {3) of two
variables as in [Mi74] and [Mi]. A measure U on "" on the sequence e will be
written e ('Y), where 'Y is an ordinal in the interval ",,+ < 'Y < ",,++, instead of
F("", {3) as in [Mi84]. A more significant difference is that the the members
e of the sequence are extenders rather than measures but in this paper all
of the extenders are equivalent to measures so the reader can safely ignore
this difference. We will in fact simply refer to and deal with the extenders
on e as measures. The third, and most basic, difference is that the sequence
e now contains partial as well as total measures. A member e(r) of the
sequence e is a total measure on the sets in L(er'Y), and only on those sets,
so that e(r) is a total measure on L(e) only if every subset of crit(e(r)) in
L(e) is already a member of L(e b). The effect of this gambit is to code the
mice into the sequence e. In [Mi84] it was necessary to to define the core
model ~[:F] to be the class of sets constructible using both the sequence F
and a class coding all of the F mice, but in the new presentation the core
model K is a model of the form L(e) and (as explained more fully in the
next paragraph) the mice of K are simply the initial segments of K. The
partial measures are important to the fine structure and as such will come
up in section 2, but for the most part they can be ignored in reading this
paper. Except when we specify otherwise, the word "measure" will always
refer to a total measure.
The mpdels M = L(e) or M = J-y(e) used in this paper will all be
itemble premise, which means that M satisfies three conditions: (1) e is
good, (2) Mis iterable, and (3) every initial segment of M is a mouse. The
first condition essentially says that e is a coherent sequence of extenders;
see [MiS90] for the details. The second condition says that every iterated
ultrapower of M is well founded (although in [MiS90] this is stated in terms
of iteration trees). The third condition asserts that J0. (e) is a mouse for all
ordinals a if M = L(e) or all ordinals a < 'Y if M = J-y(e). Because of this
requirement the definitions of a premouse and a mouse use a simultaneous
recursion on 'Y. A mouse is a premouse J,Ae) which satisfies an additional
condition which makes it look like what Dodd and Jensen call a core mouse
in [Dod82]. To explain this more fully we will have to go a bit more into
the fine structure of the models of Jo.(e). We will, of course, only give a
brief outline of the fine structure. The approach to fine structure which we
E5-ABSOLUTENESS FOR SEQUENCES OF MEASURES 315
will use is different from, though basically equivalent to, that of [MiS90].
One advantage of this approach is that the definition is almost identical to
Jensen's definition in [Jen72J of the fine structure of L, thereby highlighting
the superiority of the new presentation of the core model (although the
proofs for K are, of course, still more difficult than those for L). The only
basic difference from the definition in L is at the beginning: if Q is an
ordinal such that £(Q) is defined then it is necessary to define a ~o code
An = (Jpo,Ao) for J a (£) in order to get a amenable structure with a
predicate for £(Q). This definition uses the same idea as the ~o codes used
in [MiJ. Once this is done we define the ~n projectum Pn, the ~n code
An = (Jpn (£), An), and the ~n standard parameter Pn by recursion on n
using exactly the same definition that Jensen used in L: If Pn, Pn and An
have been defined then
• Pn+1 is the least ordinal P such that there is a subset of P which is ~1
definable from parameters in An = (Jpn(£),An), but is not a member
of J a (£).
• Pn+1 is the least finite set of ordinals such that there is such a subset
definable from parameters from Pn+ 1 U Pn+ 1.
• An+l C Pn+l codes the set of ~l-sentences with parameters from Pn+1 U
{Pn+1}'
The projectum, P = proj(Ja(e), of a premouse J a (£) is defined to be
lnin{ Pn : nEw}.
A fundamental theorem of the fine structure of L states that for each
nEw the nth projectum Pn is contained in the ~l-hull in An of Pn+1 UPn+1'
This need not be true for an arbitrary premouse J a (£). A premouse J a (£)
is said to be m-sound for m :::; w if for all n < m the ~n projectum Pn is
contained in the ~l-hull in An of Pn+1 U Pn+1, and the premouse J a (£) is
a mouse if Ja (£) is w-sound.
An embedding i: J a (£) -+ Jat (£') of premise is said to be fine structure
preserving if for each n the restriction of i to J pn (£) is a ~l-elementary
embedding between the ~n codes. We will define ultrapowers of mice in
such a way that the canonical embeddings do preserve fine structure. Two
observations about the iterated ultrapowers used in this paper will be useful
for this definition. The first observation is that every iterated ultrapower
will have increasing critical points, that is, if the iterated ultrapower is
(My: 1/ < ¢) with M Y +1 = ult(My, Ey) then crit(Ey) < crit(E~) whenever
1/ < 1/'. The second observation is that in every ultrapower of a mouse, and
in fact in every embedding k: m -+ m' of a mouse m, the critical point of i
will be at least as large as the projectum of m, so that if proj( m) = id. There
is actually one exception to this second observation, which will be discussed
316 W.J. MITCHELL
good, which it will be recalled is the first criterion for J-y+l (e') to be a
premouse.
The reader might wish to consider reading this paper under the (false)
assumption that only El codes are necessary. This means that Eo codes
do not arise and that a mouse is simply a structure m = JOI(e) with p =
proj(m) equal to pr;\ so that there is a new El-subset of p definable in
m, every subset of an ordinal v < p definable over m is in m, and m is
equal to the El-hull of p U Pl in m. Then mouse ultrapowers are ordinary
ultrapowers, and for any embedding which is the identity on p the term
"fine structure preserving" means El-elementary. As in most fine structure
arguments, all of the arguments of this paper apply to this special case
exactly as they apply to the general case-in fact the reduction of the En
case to the El case, repeated n times, is the basic idea behind the use of
fine structure.
The covering lemma is used in this paper in two different ways. First,
chapter 2 uses the fact that the core model K satisfies theorem 1.5(2), and
hence also the maximality principle 1.7 (with the mention ofthe projectum
p omitted). Thus the covering lemma allows us to make the core model K
an exception to the rule asserted above that Hproj(m) is always equal to
the identity whenever m is a mouse. See [Mi] for a proof of these facts.
The second, and more basic, application of the covering lemma comes
in the proof of lemma 3.7. The versions of the covering lemma which are
used are stated there as lemmas 3.B and 3.9 and should cause no problems
to the reader.
Notation. As is usual in descriptive set theory, we identify the real num-
bers with ww. If X is a set of ordinals then we write [x]n for the set of
size n subsets bf X, which we identify with the set of increasing sequences
of members of X of length n. If c, c' E [X] <w then we write c == c' if c
and c' have the same length. If in addition d, d' E [X]<w then we write
c, c' == d, d' if c == d, c' == d', and for all i and j we have Ci :5 cj iff di :5 dj.
We use n to stand for the class of all ordinals.
Martin-Solovay trees. Most of the proof of theorem 1.3 is concerned with
indiscernibles rather than with the n~ formula ¢. We make the connection
between the two via the Martin-Solovay analysis of E§ sentences, which we
use instead of the infinitary logic used by Jensen in [JenB1]. This analysis
was introduced in [MaS69] in a much more delicate form than we will require
here. In order to provide a visible destination for the main body of the proof
we will describe this analysis here rather than at the end where it logically
belongs.
318 W.J. MITCHELL
B= (B,i',h,Ga,CI, ... ).
(2) The G6del numbers of "ZFC + V = L(i', h)" and of the sentences
asserting that the ordinals Ci form a remarkable set of indiscernibles
(see [Sil71]) are in e.
(3) For nEw the G6del number of "n E iJ" is in e if and only if nEb.
(4) The G6del number of "¢(i', h)" is in e.
(5) If s is a term with n free variables in the language of M which
does not use any of the constants q and the G6del number of
"s(Ga, ... , Cn-I) is an ordinal" is in e then O'(s) E Tn.
Eli-ABSOLUTENESS FOR SEQUENCES OF MEASURES 319
(6) Suppose that s and s' are in the domain of a, that c and c' are
finite sequences from {C; : i E w} so that s( c) and Sf (c') make
sense, and that j and j' are arbitrary sequences in [Jj<w such that
c, c' == j,j'. Then the G6del number of "s(c) ~ s'(c')" is in e if and
only if O'(s)(j) ~ O'(s')(j').
Clauses (1) to (4) ensure that the first order theory coded by the alleged
sharp e is correct, while clauses (5) and (6) ensure that e is the theory of a
well founded model L(r, b) with a class of indiscernibles.
The rest of this paper will be concerned with defining the set J of ordinals
and the set T of functions, with the ultimate definition taking place inside
K although most of the actual work will take place outside it.
Summary of the proof. We conclude this introduction with an outline
of a proof of Jensen's result, followed by a discussion of what is necessary
to extend this proof to a proof of theorem 1.3. I believe that the proof of
Jensen's result outlined here is essentially the same as that given in [Jen81]'
though it is not easy to make the comparison.
The proof of Jensen's result proceeds under the assumption that L(p,)
does not exist, so all mice contain at most one total measure and K contains
no total measures. Let Ka be the core model as defined in L[a, bj. Then
K a =I- K, since (a, b)# gives an ultrafilter on L(a, b) and hence on Ka, so
let Mo be the least mouse not in K a and let j: Mo --+ M = ultn(Mo, Uo),
the n-fold iteration of Mo by its measure Uo. We now have two classes of
indiscernibles: the class I of Silver indiscernibles for L[a,bj given by (a,b)U
and the class C of indiscernibles in M generated by the iterated ultrapower
j. It is not hard to prove that IcC. Now there are two major lemmas
to be proved: the first lemma is that any map 1r : L(a, b) --+ L(a, b) yields
a map 1r*: M --+ M such that 1r* rn = 1r rn and 1r* r range(j) = id, and the
second lemma is that if c and c' are adjacent members of I then there are
at most count ably many members of C in the interval (c, c'). By the first
lemma, together with the fact that 1r* "c c C, it follows that the order type
of C n (c, c') is nondecreasing as c increases, and it follows by the second
lemma that for c sufficiently large the order type ~ of C n (c, c') is constant.
Then there is bEn such that 1\ b consists of every ~th member of C \ band
hence I \ b is definable in K. The set J of ordinals for the Martin-Solovay
tree is taken to be 1\ b. To get the set T of functions, define the function
s. for ~ < ~ by letting s.(v) be the ~th member of C above v. Now let A
be least such that j(A) ~ n and let T be the closure under composition of
the set containing (i) the constant functions, cv(x) = v for v < b, (ii) the
320 W.J. MITCHELL
functions j(g) where 9 E Mo and g: [Al n ---+ A for some nEw, and (iii) the
functions s, for " < ~.
This choice of J and T is suitable, so any branch through the Martin-
Solovay tree T generated by (J, T) will give a solution to 3x ¢>(x, b). Fur-
thermore any embedding 7r of L( a, b) preserves the functions in T, that is,
7r*(r(c)) = r(7r(c)) for any rET and C E [Iln. Now set e = (a, W, and if s
is any n-term in the language of B let 0-( s) be any member of Tn such that
sL(a,b)(c) = o-(s)(c) for some sequence c E [I\~ln. This definition doesn't
depend on the choice of c: to see this, let c' == c be the first n members
of I \ 8 and suppose that o-(s)(c') = s(c'). Then there is an embedding
7r: L(a, b) -7 L(a, b) such that 7r(c') = c. Then o-(s)(c) = o-(s)(7r(c')) =
7r*(o-(s)(c')) = 7r(o-(s)(c')) = 7r(s(c')) = s(7r(c')) = s(c). Clause (6) of
definition 1.9 may be verified similarly, completing the proof that (e, 0-) is a
branch through T. It follows by absoluteness that there is a branch through
T which is a member of K[b] and hence there is a real r E K[b] such that
¢>(r, b). This completes the proof of the theorem.
In our proof, K a does contain measures. The first problem which this
gives rise to is that it is not obvious what is meant by "the first mouse not
in Ka",. since a mouse minK will be a mouse for &K tp for some ordinal p,
and &K tp will not in general be in Ka. We solve this problem in section 2 by
using iterated ultrapowers to carry out a modified version of the standard
comparison of the corelike models K and K a • During the construction K
may be replaced by a mouse which is in the current iteration of K, but not
in the current iteration of Ka, and then by successively smaller mice until
''the least mouse not in Ka" is reached.
In practice we construct the iterated ultrapower N of Ka first so that
we can th~n iterate K against N without moving N. The reason for this
procedure is that we need to have N definable in Ka.
Since we were dealing with sequences of measures, instead of a single
measure, Jensen's class C of indiscernibles is now replaced by a function C.
If &('}') is pne of the measures in M, then C('}') is the set of indiscernibles
for &("I). The second of the lemmas of the proof of Jensen's result becomes
our main lemma 3.1, which says essentially that the same measure is never
used more than p+ + wy times in the iteration j, where p is an ordinal
coming out of the construction of the iterated ultrapower M of K. More
precisely, if the order type of C('}') n ((3 \ a) is greater than p+ + wy then
either In (3 ct. a or there is &("(') with "I' > "I such that C('}") n (3 ct. a.
At this point we have to deal with a complication which does not come
up in Jensen's proof. In his argument M is taken to be ultn(Mo, Uo), where
both Mo and Uo are in K, and it follows that M is definable in K. In our
E~-ABSOLUTENESS FOR SEQUENCES OF MEASURES 321
2. THE COMPARISON
Notation. Before starting the actual construction we will define some gen-
eral notions. As was pointed out in the last section we will follow the new
presentation of the core model (see [MiS90]) rather than that of [Mil, but
since we will avoid use of fine details of the core model, and because for
sequences of mE;)asures the model is in fact identical to that in [Mi84] and
[Mi], the difference should not cause major problems. The core model has
the form L(e), where e is a sequence of extenders. Some of the extenders
in e are only partial extenders, but except for a brief mention of this in
the proof of the- main lemma we will deal only with the total extenders in
e. In addition the assumption that there is no model of 3KO{K) = K++
implies that all of the extenders in e are isomorphic to measures, and from
this point on we will forget we ever knew that in some sense they really
are extenders. Thus, unless specified otherwise, the term "measure" always
refers to a measure which is total in the model M in which is occurs, and
when we refer to a measure e(-y) we will, unless specified otherwise, assume
not only that "I is in the domain of e but that e (-y) is a total measure in
the premouse being considered.
If e(-y) is a measure on K then we say that K is the critical point of e(-y),
322 W.J. MITCHELL
written", = crit(£(-y». We use 0(",) for sup{ "( : '" = crit(£(-y))} and 0("')
for the order type of {"( : £(-y) is a total measure and", = crit(£(-y))}.
If "(' < "( and £ (-y) is a measure on '" then we write <1:£ (-y', "() for the
coherence junction, the least function g: '" ---t '" in the order of construction
of L(£) such that [gl£(-y) = "('. Thus if £(-y') exists then for all j E L(£)
{ v < '" : '<Ix E f"v (x n v E £(<1:£ (-y', "()(v)) {=} x E £(-y')) } E £(-y).
While the definition of the coherence function depends on the the sequence
£, the function only depends on £f(-y+ 1). For this reason we will normally
omit the superscript.
Definition 2.1. Suppose that jo,v: Mo ---t Mv is an arbitrary iterated
ultrapower with strictly increasing critical points, Mv+l = ult(Mv,£v(-yv))
where £v = jo,v(£). We define the sequence Cv oj indiscernibles generated
by the iteration jo,v by induction on v: Co(-y) = 0 for all "(; at successor
ordinals we have
and if v is a limit ordinal then C E Cv (-y) if and only if there are ordinals
v' < v and "(' such that c < "'v' = crit(jvl,v), "( = jvl,v(-Y') and c E CVI(-y').
Definition 2.2. If the sequence Dv of indiscernibles is generated by the
iterated ultrapower jo,v then a is an accumulation point for "( in Dv if one
of the following clauses holds:
(1) a is measurable in M v , a < "( ~ O£v(a), and for every 8 < a and
f3 < "( there is A such that f3 ~ A < O£v(a) and Dv(A) ct. 8.
(2) There is v' < v such that if", = jVI,v(a) then", < "( ~ O£v(",) and
for all 8 < a and f3 < "( in the range of jvl,v there is A such that
f3 ~ A < O£v ("') and Dv(A) n a ct. 8.
We say that a is a strict accumulation point for "( in Dv if a is an
accumulation point for "( and a E Dv(f3) for some f3 < "(.
There are several observations to be made on this definition. First, note
that if a is an accumulation point for "( and a < "(' < "( for clause (1) or '" <
"(' < "( for clause (2) then a is also an accumulation point for "('. However
we will be interested primarily in the largest ordinal "( such that a is an
accumulation point for ,,(, so that either "( = O£v(",) or Dv("() is bounded
El-ABSOLUTENESS FOR SEQUENCES OF MEASURES 323
the existence of (a, b)~ implies that we can choose the embedding 7f so that
for some c E 1 we have 7f(c) > j8,n(c). Then 7r(j8,n(c») ~ 7f(c) > j8,n(c),
so that 7r . j8,n cannot be equal to j8,n. 0
. = J;;,;;+v:
Jo,v ·k .".
lV.LO --+
Mv
j = jo,n: Mo --+ M
Set Px = max(d) + 1 and suppose that 1rfpx = id. We will show that
1r*(x) = x. If not then pick e E I' such that 1r(x n e) =f. x n 1r(e). First
suppose that 1r(e) = f.' E I'. Then 1r(x n f.) = 1r(g(ce) n e) = g(1r(ce» n e',
but since 1r( ce) fn = ce fn = d = ce' fn this is equal to g( ce' ) n f.' = x n f.',
contrary to assumption.
Now if f.' ¢. I' then pick 1r' so that 1r'fe' = id and e" = 1r'(f.') E I'. Then
(1r'·1r)(x)nf." = xne" by the last paragraph, so 1r(x)ne' = (1r"1r)(x)ne' =
(xnf.") ne' =xne'· 0
Now let p = sup{Px : x E P(S'l) n j"Mo }. If X = r1(S'l) E Mo then
IP(S'l) n j"Mol = IP(x) n Mol < S'l, so p < S'l. Now we will show that if
1rfp = id then the map 1r* defined by the equation 1r*(j(f)(a)) = j(f)(1r(a))
is well defined and one to one and preserves fine structure. If Zo = j(fo)(f.o)
and Zl = j(ft)(f.l) then we have
(a,a') E 1r({ (v, v') : f(v) = f'(v') }), and setting 7i"(z) = [(cz,O)l~ where Cz
is the constant function, cz(f.) = Z for all f..
Now we will show that 7i" is the same as 1r*. We can define k: M --+
M' by k(j(f)(a)) = [(j(f),a)l~. It is easy to see that this embedding is
well defined. But k is onto, since if f E M then there is 9 E Mo and
328 W.J. MITCHELL
says that it is true for a cofinal subset of Co. It is the only place in which
we use the assumption that cf(l\:) ~ p+.
Proposition 3.4. There is a function h E io,v ''Mo such that C = {a E
Co : (3(a) E h 'h} is colinal in 1\:.
Proof. By Fact 2.9, for each a E Co there is hOI. E io,v"Mo such that
(3(a) E hOI. "a. Since cf(l\:) ~ p+ > IO(x>x n Mol it follows that there
must be a single function h E i "Mo such that {a : hOI. = h}, and hence
{a E Co : (3(a) E h "a}, is cofinal in Co. 0
Let h and C be as given by this proposition, so that I\: is still an ac-
cumulation point for A + 1 in C although it may not be an accumulation
point for'Y in C. Now if {3 is an assignment for C then there is a function
(3G in Mv such that (3(a) = (3G(a) for all sufficiently large a E C, and in
particular there is essentially only one assignment having such a function
h. To see this, define Xh('Y) for'Y < I\: to be the least set x in the ordering
of Mv such that
Then for each sufficiently large a E C the ordinal 'Y = (3( a) satisfies
(1)
Furthermore there can be only one ordinal 'Y E h "a satisfying formula (1),
e e'
since if < < a and h(e) ~ h(e') then Xh(e') E evee') \ev(e), so that the
right hand side of formula (1) differs for 'Y = h(e) and 'Y' = h(e') at Xh(e')
while the left hand side does not involve 'Y. Hence formula (1) can be used
to define, in M v , a function (3G such that (3G(a) = (3(a) for all sufficiently
large a E'C.
Definition 3.5. We say that a set D genemtes a measure U in M via a
function 9 if a < g(a) :5 D(a) for all a E D and U is the filter of sets x C I\:
such that' for all sufficiently large ordinals a ED.
To see this, note that if 0: E C and (3C(o:) = >. then 0: E C(>') and hence
for sufficiently large 0: we have 0: E x if and only if x E t',,(>.); while if
0: E C and (3C(o:) > >. then x E t',,(>.) if and only if {e E K. : x neE
t',,(<t(>',(3C(e))(e)} E t',,«(3C(o:)), and for sufficiently large 0: E C this is
equivalent to x n 0: E t'(g(o:)) since t't>. = t'"t>.. This function 9 is in M"
because (3c is in M", and since the models N", and M" have the same
subsets of K. it follows that the function 9 is a member of N",. We now
switch to working in N", with the aim of using 9 there. Let c be the largest
member of [ below K.. This exists since by the hypothesis K. is not a member
of [.
Proposition 3.6. There is a set X E L(a, b) such that IXIL(a,b) = c and
X n C is cofinal in K..
Proof. Every member of C may be written in the form gn(O:, c, Cl, ... , en)
where nEw, gn is the universal El function on n + 2 variables in L(a, b),
0: < c, and (Cl, ••• ,en) are the first n members of I above c. Since cf(K.) > w
there is an unbounded subset of C on which n is constant, so that if we set
X = {gn(O:, c, Cl,"" en) : 0: E c} then X n Cis cofinal in K.. 0
We can assume wlog that C eX. Now we have to find a set D of
indiscernibles in L(a, b) which contains a cofinal subset of C. The next
lemma abstracts the properties we need for this set.
Lemma 3.7. The following is true in L(a, b), where K. and v' are as in the
main lemma, X is given by proposition 3.6, and 9 is defined by (*) above.
There is a set D of indiscernibles in K. for N", such that the assignment (3D
for D is in N", and there is a function hEN", such that for sufliciently
large 0: in X
Thus we can assume wlog that C C D, and in fact since any subset of
D also satisfies lemma 3.7 we can assume that C = D. We will continue
to use f3c and f3D for the assignment functions for C and D, respectively,
since these functions also depend on the sequence £y and Fy' and hence
need not be the same.
This proof breaks down into two cases, depending on whether the set of
ordinals a: such that f3 C(a:) = A is unbounded in C. We will begin with
the easier case, that in which f3c (a:) is equal to A on an unbounded subset
of C. In this case we can assume wlog that f3c (a:) = A for all a: E C.
Define a function q by setting q(a:) equal to the least ordinal 1/, if there is
one, such that f3D(a:) = h(1/). Then q is a member of Ny, since h and f3D
are members of Ny" and q(a:) is defined and q(a:) < a: for all members of
D = C. Now q is in Mv since it is in N v', and since C = C(A) it follows
that {a: : q(a:) < a:} E £v'(A) and hence there is an ordinal ~ < K, such
that {a: < K, : q( a:) = 0 E £v' (A). Hence q( a:) = ~ for all sufficiently
large a: E C = D, so f3D(a:) = h(~) for all sufficiently large a: E D. Then
both Fyl(h(~)) and £v(A) are generated by C and hence FVI(h(~)) = £v(A).
This implies that h(~) = A, so that FVI(A) = £v(A) as was to be shown,
completing the proof of the first case.
Thus we can assume wlog that f3c (a:) > A for all a: E C, so that £v (A) is
the set of subsets x of K, such that x n a: E £y (g( a:)) for all sufficiently large
a: E C. Then g(a:) < O£"(a:) = 0 10,,1 (a:) for all sufficiently large a: E C. We
will begin this second case by enhancing the function h from lemma 3.7.
Claim. There is a function h E Nv' which satisfies clauses (1) and (2) of
lemma 3.7 such that for all a: E C there is an ordinal 1/ E h "a: such that
g(a:) = ([..r,,1 (1/, f3D(a:))(a:).
Proof. Let hI be any function satisfying clauses (1) and (2) of lemma 3.7
and set 1/0. = [gl.r",(,BD(o.)). Since f3D(a:) is in hI "a: and 1/0. is definable
from f3D (a:) together with finitely many parameters which do not depend
on a: there is a function h2 E Nvl such that 1/0. E h2 "a: for all a: E
D. Now g(a:) < O(a:), that is, a: E {ll : g(lI) < O(lI)}, for all a: E
D. It follows that for all sufficiently large a: E D the set {ll : g(lI) <
O(lI)} is in F v ,(f3D(a:)), so 1/0. < f3D(a:) and thus the coherence function
([..r", (1/0., f3D (a:)) exists. By the definition of the coherence function we have
[gl.r",(,BD(o.)) = 1/0. = [([..r", (1/0.,f3D(a:))l.r",c8D(0.))' Thus Bo. = {~ < K, :
g(~) = ([..r,,1 (1/0., f3D(a:))(~)} is in Fv' (f3D (a:)). Now Bo. is definable from 1/0.
and f3D(a:) together with parameters which do not depend on a:, so there
is a function h3 E Nyl such that Bo. E h3 "a: for all sufficiently large a: E D.
It follows that a: E Bo., that is, that g( a:) = 1/0., for all sufficiently large
E§-ABSOLUTENESS FOR SEQUENCES OF MEASURES 333
a E D. Then any function h in N v' such that h "1/ = hI "1/ U h2 "1/ for limit
ordinals 1/ will satisfy the conditions of the claim. 0
Now define the function q in N v' by setting q(a) equal to the least ordinal
TJ (if one exists) such that g( a) = ItFv' (h( TJ), 'YD (a)). By the claim, q( a)
does exist and q(a) < a for all ordinals a E D = C. We will show that
q(a) is constant for all sufficiently large a E C. Define xT/' for TJ < K, to
be the least set x C K in the order of construction of L(:Fv ') such that
x E :Fv,(h(TJ)) but x ¢. :Fv,(h(TJ')) for any TJ' E K such that h(TJ') i= h(TJ)·
Now Xq(a) is defined in N v' from parameters hand q(a) < a, so there
is a function k E N v' such that Xq(a) E k"a. Since Xq(a) E :Fv,(h(q(a)))
it follows that Xq(a) n a E :Fvl(ltFv' (h(q(a)),,aD(a))(a)) = :Fv,(g(a)) =
e(g(a)). Now k is in Mv since it is in N v " so Xq(a) E e().) for all sufficiently
large a in C and (again using Xq(a) E k"a) it follows that
Proof of lemma 3.7. With the exception of one step the proof of this lemma
takes place entirely inside L( a, b), and all calculations are carried out in
L(a, b) unless otherwise noted. We will have two cases, depending on
whether range (io,v') is cofinal in K. In the simpler of the two cases, that
in which range (io,v') is not cofinal in K, the required set D is taken from
V v ' just as C was taken from Cv and the required version of the covering
lemma is a simple modification of the basic lemma from [Mil. In the case
in which range (io,v') is cofinal in K the set D of indiscernibles comes out of
the covering lemma itself and hence a stronger form of the covering lemma
will be necessary. In neither case is it necessary to know anything of the
proof of the covering lemma, or anything of core model techniques beyond
those which have already been used in this paper.
Suppose first that range (iO,vl ) n K C K' < K. The set of indiscernibles
in this case is the set D = U{VVI(TJ) : crit(:F(TJ)) = Ii}. Then D is a set
of indiscernibles, with ,aD (a) equal to the ordinal TJ such that a E VV' (TJ).
Now for each a E X there is ha E No such that either a E io,v,(ha)"a
334 W.J. MITCHELL
Now we will show that D satisfies the lemma. As before, let a be any
ordinal less then'" and let a' be least such that io,v' (a / ) ~ a. First we will
336 W.J. MITCHELL
deal with the ordinals 0: in X \ D. For these we need only show that there
is a function h E NIJI such that h "0: n (I\: \ 0:) #- 0 for all 0: E X \ D. First
suppose that 0:' ¢ D'. Then h' "(0:') n (I\:' \ 0:') #- 0 and since io,IJ' "0:' C 0: it
follows that if we set hI = io,IJ,(h') then hI "0: n (I\: \ 0:) #- 0. Thus we can
assume for the rest of the proof that 0:' ED'.
Since 0: ¢ D it follows that 0: ¢ 'DIJI (11) for any measure FIJI (11) on
io,IJ' (0:'), so that there is I: 0:' -+ 0:' in X' such that io,IJ' (f) "0: <t 0:. By
lemma 3.9 there is I' E h'''(o:') such that 1= I'to:', so that io,IJ,(f') "0: n
(I\: \ 0:) #- 0. Then io,IJ,(f') E hI "0:, so if we set h2(~' e) = hI (~)(~') then
h2 "(0: x 0:) n (I\: \ 0:) #- 0.
Thus for the rest of the proof we will assume that 0: ED. We will
have to define f3D (0:) , show that it works as an assignment, and prove
that f3D(o:) E h"o:. First suppose that 0: = io,IJ'(O:'), in which case set
f3D (0:) = io,1J1 (f3D' (0:')) E hI "0:. We must show that this function f3D is an
assignment on io,1J1 "(D'). If I: I\: -+ P(I\:) is a function in NIJI then there is
a function I' E No and an ordinal 6o < I\: such that I = io,IJ , (f')(60). There
is 61 < 1\:' such that for all e E D' \ fh
and it follows that if 6 = ma.x(60' io,IJ I (6 I )) then for all 0: in io,IJ' "(D') \ 6
since (3D(a) and (3D(io,v,(a')) = io,vl((3D' (a') are each in h "a', and (1) is
equivalent to f(O E FV ((3D(a)). This completes the proof that D is a set
I
Proof. Suppose first that the hypothesis to clause (1) holds. If the order
type of C(-y) n (d \ 8) is not greater than p+ then we are done, so we can
assume that the limit", of the first p+ members of C(-y) above 8 is less
than d. Then", is an indiscernible in C, so there is an ordinal v such that
", = crit(jv,o). We may assume that there is also an ordinal A such that
, = jv,o(A), since otherwise C(-y) n ", would be empty. The definition of ",
implies that ", ~ I and", is an accumulation point for A + 1 in Cv , so if v'
is the least ordinal such that crit(ivl,o) > ", then the main lemma implies
that Fv r(A + 1) = £1' r(A + 1).
l
Set "'Ol = ~VI,VI+Ol("') and let ~ be the least ordinal such that either
"'f; = ivl,o (",), so that "'f; is not an indiscernible in D, or "'f; is in D(".,) for
some"., > " = iVI,o(A). Set ",' = "'f;. We will show that
i) D(-y') n (",' \",) has order type at most wf,
ii) ",' = j",v+l;("')' and either ",' = j""o("')' so that ",' is not an indis-
cernible in C, or ",' E C(".,) for some "., > " and
iii) D(-y') n (",' \",) = C(-y) n (",' \ ",).
The corollary follows easily from this: (ii) implies that either ",' 2: d or
£(-y) c ",', and then (i) and (iii) imply that the order type of C(-y) n (d \ 8)
is at most the sum of the order types of C(-y) n (", \ 8) and D(-y') n (",' \ ",),
which is at most p+ + wf.
First we prove clause (i). For a ~ ~ set AOl = iVI,VI+Ol(A). Take a
so that "'Ol is the supremum of the first wf members of D(,') above ",.
If no such a exists or "'Ol 2: d then we are done, so we can assume that
338 W.J. MITCHELL
"'a < d. It follows that Vv'+a(A",) is unbounded in "''''' and by the def-
inition 2.3 of N this implies that V v ' +'" (e) is unbounded in "'a for every
measure FV'+a(e) on "'a with e < A",. Furthermore cfL(a,b) ("'a) = wY
since
VV'+a(A a ) = V(A') n "'0. is in L(a,b). By definition 2.3 this implies that
Nv'+a+1 = ult(Nv'+a, FV'+o.(7])) where 7] > Aa, so that either "'a = iv',n("')
(if crit(Fv'+a(7])) > "'a) or "'a E V(i v',n(7])) where iv"n(7]) > "I'. In either
case this implies that Q = ~, and this completes the proof of clause (i).
Now we show by induction on Q ::; ~ that
4. TERMS IN KM
This and the next section will complete the proof of theorem 1.3. In
this section we will work inside K M to construct a suitable pair (J*, T*)
and in the next section we will show that L( a, b) yields a branch through
the Martin-Solovay tree T associated with (J*, T*) in V. Since the tree T
El-ABSOLUTENESS FOR SEQUENCES OF MEASURES 339
M~M
Mo~Mo
Recall that I is the set of Silver indiscernibles for L(a, b) which are larger
r
than p+. The map t will be defined by first letting t I map I isomorphically
onto J, and then observing that the set T of terms for M can be used to
define a set T M of terms for M. Every member of M can be written in
the form ".M (i) for some ".M E TM and i E [I]<w (although not all of these
expressions will denote any member of M), and thus we can define t(".M (i))
to be ".M (t(i)).
In order to show that L(a, b) induces a branch through the Martin-
Solovay tree associated with (J, T) we would like to show that if 71": J --+ J
is any order preserving map then there is a map 71"*: M --+ M such that
the diagram
1r*l 1r 1
M~M
commutes. We don't know if this is true in general, but we are able to
prove it for maps 71" which preserve successors and wth successors in J. For
e < w2 let sf (v) be the eth member of J larger than v. We modify the pair
(J, T) by letting J* be the set of members of J which are not of the form
sf(v) for any e < w2 , and letting T* be the terms in T, augmented by the
functions sf for e < w2 • The suitability of (J, T) implies that of (J* , T*),
and the existence of the maps 71"* implies that there is a branch through
the Martin-Solovay tree associated with (J*, T*), and this completes the
proof.
340 W.J. MITCHELL
of parameters in K. The first three have already been defined, and the
last two are defined below. The choice of these parameters comes from our
previous work in V and depends on a knowledge of the real number a, but
given this choice of parameters the construction of M 0 takes place inside
K.
We define models M~ by recursion on k :::; k, along with maps t~: M~ --+
M~. Set ~ = M8 = K and let tg: M8 = K -+ KM be the iterated
ultrapower asserted to exist by the hypothesis of theorem 1.3. Suppose
that t~: M~ --+ M~ has been defined. We first define an iterated ultrapower
s~,v: M~ --+ M~ by a subsidiary recursion on /I. Recall that /lk was the
length of the iteration of M~, which stopped with the definition of Mt+l
as a mouse in M{;k. We write e~ for the sequence of measures in M~ and
C~ for the system of indiscernibles for M~ generated by s~,V"
If k = 0 then let ,x be the least ordinal such that critU2,v+l) < i8,v(,x)
for all /I < /10. Let C~ be the system of indiscernibles generated by s~ v'
and let'K be least the least measurable cardinal in M~ such that one of the
two following conditions fails, and such that if k = 0 then K < sg ,v(,x):
(1) If K is measurable in F(K) then cf(K) = /Ii; in K.
(2) K is an accumulation point for OM~ (K) in C~.
If such an ordinal exists then we set M~+l = ult(M~,e~(-y)) where if
K
j~/v
M{;, Mk
v
(1) t:,l t~ 1
Sk
-k u(v'),u(v) -k
MO'k(V') I MO'k(v)
ak(v) are given, and Mi+l = ult(Mi, E). Then let a k (v+1) be v'+l where
v' is least such that M~'+l = ult(M~"E') for E' = Skk()u V,v ,(t~(E)). This
v' always exists by the construction of S~'Vk' Define t~+l by t~+l ([i] E) =
[S~(II)'II' (t~(f))] E"
Finally, set
We now define the set T and class J, assuming that M and S = sO,0. have
been defined. Recall that X = r1(0). We write X for to(X), which will be
equal to S-l(O). The definition given below has been simplified by ignoring
342 W.J. MITCHELL
fine structure. The functions f in clause (2) of definition 4.2 are actually
members of the E n - I code of M, where n = n~ is the least integer such
that the En projectum of M is smaller that than n. The En projectum Pn
r
of M is equal to the En projectum of M 0 and s P is the identity, and Mo
is (n - 1)-sound so that every member of M is definable from members of
the E n - I code of M. Furthermore the last sentence is also true with s, Mo
and M replaced by j, Mo and M.
Definition 4.2. The set T c M 0 is obtained by starting with the follow-
ing four classes of basic terms and closing under composition.
(1) IT x is any variable then::i; is a unary term.
(2) IT f is any function in M 0 with domain in [X]n for some n < w then
j is an n-ary term.
(3) IT e is any ordinal smaller than p+ + wy then it; is a binary term.
(4) IT e is any ordinal smaller than p+ + wy then at; is a ternary term.
The following definition gives the meaning of the basic terms from defini-
tion 4.2. The meaning of a term obtained from these terms by composition
is then given by recursion on the length of the term.
Definition 4.3.
(1) ::i;M(C) = c.
(2) jM (eo, ... ,en-I) = s(f)(eo, . .. ,en-I).
(3) it;M (-y, 0) is equal to 0 unless'Y E domain(&) and 0 < crit(&(-y)), in
which case it;M (-y, 0) is the eth member of C(-y) above o.
(4) at;M(1],'Y,O) is equal to 0 unless 'Y E domain(&) and 0 < K =
crit(&(-y)) < 'Y < 1] :5 Oe(K) , in which case at;M (1], 'Y, 0) is the
eth member v ofC(-y) above e such that v is an accumulation point
for &(1]).
Now we can take clause 4.1(3) as a definition of J. Note that if r is a
term, C E [J]n, and rM (c) = v E n then there is a term r' and sequence
M
C' E [J n{v + 1)]n such that r' (c') = v.
I
Proof of proposition ,f..1. Clause 4.1(1), which asserts that every term de-
notes an ordinal, is proved by induction on the complexity of the term T.
Clause 4.1(2) is also proved by an induction: Every member of M is of the
form s(f)(c) where f E Mo and c is a sequence of indiscernibles arising
from the iterated ultrapower s. Thus it is enough to show that each of these
indiscernibles can be denoted by a term, but this follows easily from the
fact that indiscernibles from clauses (1) and (2) were only added because
they were required as the denotation of some term and all of the other
indiscernibles are in J. Clause 4.1(3) follows easily from the definition of
J.
The proof of clause 4.1(4) uses a normal form for the terms T. The next
definition is a start towards the definition of this normal form.
Definition 4.5. A support sequence is a finite sequence s = ( (ci' ~i' fi' qi) :
i < k) of quadruples such that
(1) Ci E {1,2,3} for each i < k.
(2) ~i < p+,+ wy for each i < k.
(3) fi and gi are in s ''M0, and are each functions such that domain(/i) =
domain(gi) = [O]i.
Since etj = dtj, proposition 4.7 implies that this order depends only on Sj
and~. 0
In order to complete the proof of proposition 4.1(4) we need to show
that for any term T there is a term T' in standard form such that T( c) =
T'(C) for every sequence c from J. Since any term will have the form
T = t(TQ, ... ,Tn-I) where t is one of the terms given by the four clauses of
the definition, the proof breaks down into four cases:
Case 1. If t comes from clause (1) then T is just a variable Xi and T( c) =
c;, which is a term in standard form.
Case 2. If t comes from clause (2) then we can assume that each of
the terms Ti is in standard form, Ti = fi(Si(C». FUrthermore we can
assume that fi is the identity, so that Ti(C) = fi(Si(C» = SUP(Si(c)),
since otherwise f could be replaced by the function l' defined by f' (iJ) =
f(fo(iJ) , ... , fn-l(iJ», which is also in range(s). By the lemma, the union of
the sequences Si (c) is a support d, with support sequence S depending only
on the support sequences Si, so that we can write T(C) = f(s(c)) = f(d).
This is a term in standard form unless there is a sequence a and a function
h E range(s) such that f(d) = h(a) and sup (a) < sup(d). In this case
define a function l' by setting f'(iJ) equal to the least sequence a such that
h( a) = f (iJ), where the sequences a of ordinals are ordered lexicographically
as decreasing sequences. Then f(d) = h(f'(d». If 1'(d) < sup(d) then by
e
using the normality of the measures in the sequence we can define a func-
tion 1" E range(s) such that f'(d) = 1"(dnsup(f'(d))+I). If j is least such
346 W.J. MITCHELL
5. TERMS IN M
Since T c Mo, we can define TM to be {x E Mo : to(x) E T}. The
meaning of an expression TM(c) for T E TM and C E [I]n, is given by
definition 5.1 below.
Definition 5.1.
(1) xM (c) = c.
(2) jM (eo, ... ,en-I) = j(f)(eo, ... , en-I).
(3) If "( E domain(&) and 8 < crit(&h)) then ReM ("(,8) is the eth
member v of C("() above 8, provided that such an ordinal v exists
and that (v + 1) n Ie 8 and Ch') n v c 8 for all "(' > 'Y. Otherwise
ReM h, 8) is undefined.
(4) If "( E domain(&) and 8 < K, = crit(&('Y)) < 'Y < 1] ~ Oe(K,) then
ae M(1], "(,8) is the eth member v of Ch) which is an accumulation
point in C for 1], provided that such an ordinal v exists and that
(v+1)nI c 8andCh')nv c 8forall,,(' ~ 1]. OtherwiseaeM(1],,,(,8)
is undefined.
Notice that this definition is similar to definition 4.3 except for the
phrases beginning with the words "provided that" in clauses (3) and (4).
El-ABSOLUTENESS FOR SEQUENCES OF MEASURES 347
Proposition 5.2. Every set in M has the form 'TM (e) for some 'T E ~M
and e E [l]n.
We also have
Proposition 5.3. For every term 'T E 'I'M there is a term 'T' in standard
form such that whenever e E [I]n is a sequence such that 'T(e) is defined
then 'T'(e) is also defined and 'T(e) = 'T'(e).
Proof This is identical to the proof of the same proposition for M, which is
the last part of the proof of clause (4) of proposition 4.1. The proof shows,
in fact, that to('T') is the term of 'I'M which is in standard form and is equal
~~W. 0
Lemma 5.4. Let ttl be the map taking I isomorphically onto J. Then
t can be extended to a fine structure preserving embedding from M to M
such that t('TM(e)) = 'TM(t(e)) for all terms'T and all e E [l]<w such that
'Tm(e) is defined.
348 W.J. MITCHELL
Definition 5.5.
(1)s~(8) is the ~th member of I larger than 8.
(2) d is a 1J-conservative extension of c if for every member d of d \ c
there is acE c U {OJ and ~ < 1J such that either d = s~(c) or
C = s~(d)
In the rest of this paper, the letters f and 9 will always be used in
accordance with the following convention: the letter 9 is always used to
denote functions of the form
Lemma 5.6.
(1) Hc ==w2 d and r E TM then r(c) exists iffr(d) exists.
(2) Hd ==w2 C and f(g(c» = rM(c) then f(g(d» = rM(d).
(3) For any f, 9 and c, if x = f(g(c» then there is a term r E TM and
an w2 -conservative extension c' of c such that x = r(c')
Proof of theorem 1.3, assuming lemma 5.6. We will use lemma 5.6 to show
that there is a branch through the Martin-Solovay tree T associated with
(J*, T*). Let 1* be the set of w2-limit points of 1 and define T*M like
T*, by augmenting TM with the functions sI for i < w2 and closing under
composition. Thus lemma 5.6 is true for T*M, and in fact it remains
true for T*M even if ==w2 is replaced by == and instead of allowing an w2 _
conservative extension in clause (3) x is required to be equal to r(c). Recall
that a branch through the Martin-Solovay tree T is a pair (e, (f) where e is
the sharp of a pair (r, b) of reals and (f is a function which takes terms of
the structure 8 from definition 1.9 into the set J* of ordinals. The real e
will be (a,W, and we need to define the map (f. By lemma 5.6(3) we can
define a map (fM taking terms s of 8 with n free variables into terms in
T; M by lettip.g (fM (s) be some term r E T*M such that rM. (c) = sB (c) for
an arbitrary sequence c E [1]<w. Clauses (1) and (2) of lemma 5.6 imply
that (fM (s) does not depend on the choice of c. The final clause of the
definition of the Martin-Solovay tree clearly holds, since s(c) and (fM (s) (c)
are the same ordinal. Now if we set (f = to' (fM , so that (f maps the terms of
8 to members of T*, then the pair «a,
b)U, (f) is the desired branch through
Tin V. It follows by absoluteness that there is such a branch in K[b], and
hence there is a solution to the II~ formula ¢(x, b). D
The proof o{ lemma 5.6 will involve a series of observations:
Proposition 5.7. Iif(g(c» = f(g(c'» then there is g' such that f(g(c» =
f(g'(c n c'».
Proof. Let d c n c'. Order [1] <W, regarded as a class of descending
=;:
sequences of ordinals, lexicographically, and suppose that e is the least
sequence such that e ~ d and there is g' such that f(g'(e» = f(g(c». Let
ei be the least member of e such that ei ¢. d. It will be enough to show
that
for then we will have v = gll(e') for some e' E [1 n (v + 1)]<w, so that
fg' (e) = fg'( eo, ... ,ei-b gil (e'), eHl, ... ,en-l ),
350 W.J. MITCHELL
Prool. Pick 7ro and 7rl so that 7ro(e) = 7rl(d). Then by proposition 5.8
(1) go(e) E C(/t(gl(e))) iff 7ro(go(e)) E C(7ro(f1g1(e))).
But
and
7ro(flgl(e)) = /tgl(7rO(e») = /tgl(7rl(d» = 7ri(f1g1(d»
so the right hand side of (1) is also equivalent to g1(d) E C(/t (g1 (d))). D
E!-ABSOLUTENESS FOR SEQUENCES OF MEASURES 351
8(v) = go(d)
Furthermore, ife',d' ==w2 e,d and v' = gee') then 8(v') = go(d'), A(V') =
hgl(d'), and "'I(v') = !2g2(d').
Proof. We will first find the required functions Ii and gi and the w2 _
conservative extension d. For A(V) no extension is required. Let h be such
that A(V) E h "v, and take d E [v n I]<w so that A(V) = hgl(d) for some
function gl, with d :> e and d as small as possible. We claim that d = e.
352 W.J. MITCHELL
If it is not then we can find sequences e', d~, and d 1 so that e, d == e', d~
and e, d == e', d 1 but d~ n d 1= e'. Then flgl (d~) =1= flgl (dJ.), since other-
wise proposition 5.7 implies that there is g' so that flgl(d~) = flg'(e')
and hence f W' (e ) = fl gl (d), contrary to assumption. By indiscerni-
bility and corollary 5.9 g(e') is in both C(fl(gl(d~))) and C(Jl(gl(dJ.))),
and since both gl (d~) and gl (d1) are less than g( e') this implies that
flgl(d~) = ),(g(e')) = flgl(dJ.), contradicting the claim.
Pick go, 12, g2 and d' so that -y(v) = h(g2(d')) and 8(v) = go(d'),
with d' E [I n v] <w. Let d be the sequence such that d', e ==w d, e and
each member of d \ e is as small as possible, so that d is a w2 -conservative
extension of e. We will show that -y(v) = hg2(d) and 8(v) = go(d).
First we consider -y(v). We can assume that v is a strict accumulation
point, since otherwise -y(v) equals ),(v)+l. Certainly hg2(d) ~ hg2(d') =
-y(v) and it follows immediately that v is an accumulation point for hg2(d).
Now consider the formula ¢(8, ,,(, v):
The formula ¢( 8, v, "() implies that v is not an accumulation point for any
ordinaI-larger than "(. It is a III formula and ¢(go(d'),hg2(d'),g(e)) is
true, so lemma 5.10 implies that ¢(go(d), hg2(d),g(e)) is also true. Thus
hg2(d) ~ hg2(d') so hg2(d) = hg2(d') = -y(v)
Now we show that go(d) = go(d') = 8(v). If 8(v) = max(1 n v), then
8(v) = max(env) since gee) < a for any a > max(cnv) in I. In that case
go(d') = max(e) = go(d). Now assume 8(v) rt I. Again we have go(d) ~
go(d') = 8(v). As before, the formula ¢(go(d),hg2(d),g(e)) is true. Since
hg2(d) = "(v) and gee) = v this says ¢(go(d),-y(v),v) which asserts that
Ch') n V c 8 for all -y' ~ ,,(v). But this implies that go(d) ~ 8(v), so
go(d) = 8(v).
Now we prove the last clause of the lemma. Suppose that e', d' ==w2 e, d
where d and the functions gi and fi are as above. Corollary 5.9 implies
that g(e') E C(flgl(d')) and hence ),(g(e')) = flgl(d'). The formula
¢(go( d'), hg2(d'), gee')) is true because ¢(go(d), hg2( d), gee)) is true, and
thus hg2(d') ~ "(g(e')), so it is enough to show that hg2(d') is an accu-
mulation point for g( e'). The statement that v is an accumulation point
for -y is
VaV!'Vf33f" 3e3p,
(a < v /\ f'(f3) < -y /\ f3 < v ===}
Proof. If the lemma is false then v' = g' (d), where d is not a w2 -conservative
extension of c and if Q is the set of i < len(d) such that di is not in any
w2 -conservative extension of c t~len g'(d) actually depends on the members
di of d such that i E Q. Let gi for i = 0,1,2 and fi for i = 1,2 be as
in the last lemma. Then there is a sequence c' such that c' =w2 C and
the members of c' which are ~ot related by the functions s~ are spread
out enough that there is room for p+ + wi
+ 1 many disjoint sequences,
(d'" : a :::::: p+ + wi), such that
Then if we set v", = g'(d"') we have va. < va.' for a < a' < p+ + wi + 1,
and for all a :::::: p+ + wi
we have
This contradicts corollary 3.10 which says that the order type of the set of
such ordinals cannot be grflater than p+ + wi. D
The remaining clauses, (1) and (2), of lemma 5.6 follow easily by an
induction on the complexity of the term 7, using lemmas 5.11 and 5.12.
This completes the proof of lemma 5.6 and hence of the main theorem.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Tom Jech and Jean Larson, who listened
to the proof and insisted on understanding it, and John Steel who read the
original draft and made many useful suggestions.
This w~rk was partially completed while the author was visiting the
University of California, Los Angeles and the California Institute of Tech-
nology, and was partially supported by grant number DMS-8614447 from
the National Science Foundation.
E~-ABSOLUTENESS FOR SEQUENCES OF MEASURES 355
REFERENCES
[Dod82] A. Dodd, The Core Model, London Math. Soc. Lecture Notes G1, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1982.
[Jen72] R. Jensen, The Fine Structure of the Constructible Hiemrchy, Ann. Math.
Logic 4 (1972), 229-309.
[Jen81] ___ , Some Applications of the Core Model, Set Theory and Model Theory,
Lecture Notes in Mathematics 872 (B. Jensen and A. Prestel, eds.), Springer-
Verlag, New York, 1981, pp. 55-97.
[MaS69] D. A. Martin and R. Solovay, A Basis Theorem for rr~ Sets of Reals, Annals
of Mathemtics 89 (1969), 138-160.
[Mi74] W. J. Mitchell, Sets Constructible from Sequences of Ultmfilters, Journal of
Symbolic Logic 39 (1974), 57-66.
[Mi84] ___ , The Core Model for Sequences of Measures, I, Math. Proc. of the
Cambridge Philosophical Society 95 (1984), 41-58.
[Mi87] ___ , Applications of the Core Model for sequences of measures, trans. of
the American Mathematics Society 299 (1987), 41-58.
[Mi] ___ , The Core Model for Sequences of Measures, II, submitted to Math.
Proc. of the Cambridge Phil. Soc ..
[Mi91a] ___ , On the Singular Cardinal Hypothesis, Transactions of the American
Mathematical Society (to appear).
[Mi91b] ___ , Definable Singularity, Transactions of the American Mathimatical So-
ciety (to appear).
[MiS89] W. J. Mitchell and J. Steel, Fine Structure and Itemtion Trees, (in prepara-
tion).
[Sho61] J. R. Shoenfield, The Problem of Predicativity, Essays on the Foundations of
Mathematics (Y. Bar-Hillel, E. 1. J Poznanski, M. O. Rabin and A. Robinson,
eds.), The Magnes Press, Jerusalem, 1961, pp. 132-142.
[Sil71] J. Silver, Some Applications of Set Theory in Model Theory, Annals of Math-
ematical Logic 3 (1971), 45-110.
[Ste90] J. Steel, The Core Model Itembility Problem, Handwritten notes (June 1990).
SAHARON SHELAH
ABSTRACT. We show that it is not provable in ZFC that any two countable
elementarily equivalent structures have isomorphic ultrapowers relative to
some ultrafilter on w.
SUMMARY
357
358 S. SHELAH
1. INTRODUCTION
Any two elementarily equivalent structures of cardinality A have isomor-
phic ultrapowers (by [Sh 13], in 1971) with respect to an ultrafilter on 2A.
Earlier, as the culmination of work in the sixties, Keisler showed, assuming
2A = A+, that the ultrafilter may be taken to be on A [Keisler]. In par-
ticular, assuming the continuum hypothesis, for countable structures any
nonprincipal ultrafilter on w will do. As a special case, the continuum hy-
pothesis implies that an ultraproduct of power series rings over prime fields
Fp is isomorphic to the ultrapower of the corresponding rings of p-adic inte-
gers; this has number-theoretic consequences [AxKo]. Kim has conjectured
that the isomorphism TIp Fp[[tlJ/F :::: TIp 7l..p/ F is valid for any nonprincipal
ultrafilter over w, regardless of the status of the continuum hypothesis. In
fact it has not previously been clear what could be said about isomorphism
of nonprincipal ultrapowers or ultraproducts over w in general, in the ab-
sence of the continuum hypothesis; it has long been suspected that such
questions do involve set theoretic issues going beyond ZFC, but there have
been no concrete results in this area. For the case of two different ultrafil-
ters and on higher cardinals, see [Sh a VI]. In particular, ([Sh a VI, 3.13]) if
M = (w, <)W /D (D an ultrafilter on w), the cofinality of ({a EM: a > n
for every natural number n}, » can be any regular K E (N o,2 No ].
It does follow from the results of [Sh 13] that there is always an ultrafil-
ter F on A such that for any two elementarily equivalent models M, N of
cardinality A, MW / F embeds elementarily into N W/ F. On the other hand,
we show here that it is easy to find some countable elementarily equivalent
structures with nonisomorphic ultrapowers relative to a certain nonprinci-
pal ultrafilter on w: given enough Cohen reals, some ultrafilter will do the
trick (§4), and with more complicated forcing any ultrafilter will do the
trick (§2, refined in §3). The (first order theories of the) models involved
have the independence property but do not have the strict order property.
Every unstable theory either has the independence property or the strict
order property (or both) (in nontechnical terms, in the theory we can in-
terprate in a way the theory of the random graph or the theory of a linear
order), and our work here clearly makes use of the independence property.
The rings occurring in the Ax-Kochen isomorphism are unstable, but do not
have the independence property, so the results given here certainly do not
apply directly to Kim's problem. However it does appear that the methods
used in §4 can be modified to refute Kim's conjecture, and we intend to
return to this elsewhere [Sh 405].
A final technical remark: the forcing notions used here are <wl-proper,
strongly proper, and Borel. Because of improvements made in the iteration
NONISOMORPHISM OF ULTRAPOWERS OF COUNTABLE MODELS 359
theorems for proper forcing [Sh 177, Sh f], we just need the properness; in
earlier versions w-properness was somehow used.
In the appendix we give a full presentation of a less general variant of
the preservation theorem of [Sh f] VI §1.
The forcing notions introduced in §2, §3 here (see 2.15, 2.16) are of
interest per se. Subsequently specific cases have found more applications;
see Bartoszynski, Judah and Shelah [BJSh 368], Shelah and Fremlin [ShFr
406].
2.2 Remark. The two properties (i,ii) are handled quite independently by
the forcing, and in particular (ii) can be obtained just by adding random
reals.
2.3 Notation. We work with the language of bipartite graphs (with a spec-
ified bipartition P, Q). rk,l is a bipartite graph with bipartition U =
. u u
Uk,l, V = Vk,.e, .IUI = k and V = Um<l (m)' where (m) denotes the set
of all subsets of U of cardinality m. The edge relation is membership. We
also let roo be the bipartite graph with lUI = No specifically U = w and V
the set of all finite subsets of U. The theory of the r k,l converges to that
of roo as l, k/l ---t 00.
2.4 Remark. Our construction will ensure that for any sequence (kn' In)
with In, kn/ln ---t 00 and any ultrafilters Ft, F2 the ultraproducts
.
I1.Tkn . ,I,.., / F1 and r~/F2 are nonisomorphic. In particular, if rfin is the
disjoint union of the graphs r2n,n, and r is the disjoint union of rfin and
roo, then rfin and r are elementarily equivalent, but any isomorphism of
360 S. SHELAH
For any f E Ilk Ak and infinite B ~ w, both in the ground model, the
generic branch "1 agrees with f on an infinite subset of B.
2.13 Proof of Proposition 1.10. It suffices to check that Q(A) is an Ww_
bounding proper forcing notion. We claim in fact:
Observe that for T/ of length at least kN, the only relevant v in the
definition of T' is T/ itself. That is, T/ E T' if and only if T/ E TrJfkj ("I)' In
particular T' is a condition (with K'(T/) :S K rJfkj ("I)(T/) for len(T/) 2:: kN)'
Also, since T' n kN?w ~ U{Tv : vET n kN2:W}, we find T' If- "g E {a v :
vET n kN2:W}". Notice also that T'rkl = Trk 1 .
The main point, finally, is to check that we can take K' = K on T'nm2: w.
Fix T/j E T'n m2: w , k 2:: K(T/j), and x E A k ; we have to produce an extension
v of T/j in T', with v(k) = x. Let T/h be an extension of T/j of length k1 ,
364 S. SHELAH
such that 'T/h has an extension vET with v(k) = x. If k < kh' then
vf(k + 1) E T', as required.
Now suppose k 2:: kh+1, and let 'T/ be an extension of'T/h of length kh.
Then TTJ 5; T', and k 2:: KTJ("l)' Thus a suitable v extending 'T/ exists.
We are left only with the case: k E [kh' kh+1)' In particular k 2:: k2' so
k > K ("lh) for all 'T/h in Tn kl~. This means that any extension Of'T/h of'T/
l
of length kl could be used in place of our original choice of'T/h. Easily there
is such h' #- h (remember IAkl 2:: 2 and demand on K). But k cannot lie
in two intervals of the form [kh' k h+1), so we must succeed on the second
try. 0
2.14 Logarithmic measures
We will define the forcing used to prove Proposition 2.9 in 2.16 below.
Conditions will be perfect trees carrying extra information in the form of
a (very weak) "measure" associated with each node. These measures may
be defined as follows.
For a a set, we write P+(a) for P(a) \ {0}. A logarithmic measure on a
is a function II II : P+(a) - - N such that:
1. x 5; Y ==? IIxil ~ IIYII;
2. If x = Xl U X2 then for some i = 1 or 2, IIxili 2:: IIxil - 1.
By (1), II II has finite range. If a is finite (as will generally be the case
in the present context), one such logarithmic measure is IIxil = Lln2lxlJ.
2.15 The forcing notion £T
We will force with trees such that the set of successors of any node carries
a specified logarithmic measure; the measures will be used to prevent the
tree from being pruned too rapidly. The formal definition is as follows.
1. £T is the set of pairs (T, t) where:
1:1. T is a subtree of w>w with finite stem; this is the longest
branch in T before ramification occurs. We call the set of
nodes of T which contain the whole stem the essential part
of T; so T will consist of its essential part together with the
proper initial segments of its stem. We denote the essential
part of T by ess(T).
1.2. t is a function defined on the essential part of T, with t('T/)
a logarithmic measure on the set SUCCT("l) of all successors
of'T/ in T; we often write II IITJ (or possibly II II~) for t('T/).
For 'T/ a proper initial segment of the stem of T, we stipulate
t('T/)[succ('T/)] = o.
2. The partial order on £T is defined by: (T2' t2) 2:: (Tb tl) iff T2 5; Tb
and for 'T/ E T2 t2('T/) is the restriction oftl('T/) to P+(SUCCT2('T/)).
NONISOMORPHISM OF ULTRAPOWERS OF COUNTABLE MODELS 365
3. We define £T[(T,t)] to be {(T', t') E £T : (T', t') ~ (T, t)} with the
induced order. Similarly for £Tf, £Td , and CTj (see below).
£Tf is the set of pairs (T, t) E £T in which T has only finite ramification
at each node.
£T d is the set of pairs (T, t) E £T such that for any m, every branch of
T is almost contained in the set {ry E T : 'Vv ~ ry II succT(v)llv ~ m} (i.e.
the set difference is finite).
1
£T is £Tf n £Td. For T E £Tf, an equivalent condition for being in
£T~ is: limkinf{1I succT(ry)ll7J : len(ry) = k} = 00. Note: £T~ is an upward
closed subset of £Td.
We make an observation concerning fusion in this connection. Define:
1. (Tb tt) ~* (T2' h) if (TI , tl) ~ (T2, t2) and in addition for allry E
ess T 2 , II SUCCT2 (ry) 11~2 ~ II SUCCT1 (ry) 11~1 - 1.
2. (TI,t l ) ~m (T2,t2) if (TI,tl) ~ (T2,t2) and for allry E T2 with
IlsuccTl(ry)ll7J ~ m, (so ry E ess(TI» we have IIsuccT2(ry)lI7J ~ m
(hence ry E ess(T2) when m > 0).
3. (TI,tt) ~:n (T2,t2) if (Tt,h) ~m (T2,t2) and for allry E T2 with
Ilsucc(ry)lI~l ~ m, we have SUCCTt(ry) ~ T 2 •
If (Tn, t n ) is a sequence of conditions in £Tj with (Tn, t n ) ~~ (Tn+l, t n+1)
for all n, then sup(Tn, t n ) exists in £Tj.
We also mention in passing that a similar statement holds for £T d, with
a more complicated notation. Using arguments like those given here one
can show that £Td is also proper. This will not be done here.
For ry E T, (T, t) E £T we let T7J be the set of vET comparable with ry,
t 7J = tress(T7J): so (T, t) ~ (T7J, t7J); we may write (T, t)TJ or (TTJ, t) instead
of (TTJ, tTJ).
We will now restate Proposition 2.9 more explicitly, in two parts.
extensions 1] of v in T2 will satisfy II SUCCT2 (1]) 11'1 2:: m, and (T2' t2)V witnesses
the fact that v E W. Thus if we apply Lemma 2.19, the alternative (-) is
not possible.
Accordingly we have some (TI' tI) *2:: (T, t) such that every branch of
(TI, h) meets W. Let Wo be the set of minimal elements of W in T I .
Then Wo is finite. For v E Wo select (Tv, tv) with (Tv, tv) ~ (T, t)V and
(Tv, tv) If- "g = av" for some avo Form T' = U{TV : v E W o }. 0
Proof. Fix k so that II succ(1]) 11'1 > m for len(1]) 2:: k. Apply 2.20 to each
TV for vET of length k + 1. 0
This completes the verification that the desired model N can be con-
structed by iterating forcing.
3.1 Theorem. Suppose that V satisfies CH, and that (km In), (k~, l~) are
monotonically increasing sequences of pairs (and 2 < l~ < k~ < In < k n <
l~+1) such that:
Inh(n)
(2) ----t 00.
In ITi<n fo (i)
this is e~ily done. Let T~ = {v E T' : (Vl < len(v) n N(n» vr{l + 1) E
8(vrl, n)}.
We now define Til C;;;; T' so that for all k the set X k of n for which
Til n k~ = T~ n k~ is infinite. For this we proceed by induction on k. If
Til n k~ has been defined, then we can select X C;;;; X k infinite such that
for n E X and v E Til n "'w, 8(V, n) = 8(V) is independent of n. We then
define
Til n {k+ 1 )w = {v E T' n k+1w : vrk E Til n kw and v E 8(vrk)}
Observe that (Til, t rT") *2:: (T', t'), and (Til, t rT") forces:
"For any k, if n E XN{k) and n 2:: k, then
!Irk = 'f/~ rk for some v E Til n kw".
NONISOMORPHISM OF ULTRAPOWERS OF COUNTABLE MODELS 371
Indeed, for any v' of length N(k) in T", if v' E T~ then 11~' = 11:;' tk =
11:;,rktk. Since IT" n kHwl $; IT n k+lwl < g(k), this yields the stated
bounding principle. 0
I lnh(n)
lIanll n = max{l : Fo(n) < h(n)} '" In Fo(n) .
4.2 Corollary. Under the hypotheses of Theorem 4.1 there are elementar-
ilyequivalent countable graphs r~, r~ and a nonprincipal ultrafilter F on
w with (r~)W IF i=- (r~)W IF.
4.6 Discussion
Working in the ground model we will build a lP'-name for a suitable
nonprincipal ultrafilter:[. We will view the reals fa as (for example)
potential members of the ultraproduct II r~. We will consider candidates
Ya for (representatives of) their images under a putative isomorphism, and
d""efeat them by arranging (for example) that the set of n for which
- - --
R(xa(n),x,a(n» iff -,R(Ya(n),Y,a(n»
gets into :[.
Note however that this must be done for every two potential sequences
(~l(n» and (e(n» indexing the ultraproducts IIn r~l(n/:[' IIn r~2(n/:[
to be .formed. At stage a we deal with sequences ~~(n), ~~(n) E vlPta
(which are guessed by the diamond). We require {n : Xa~n) E r~!"'(n)} E:[
where Ca E {I,2} is a label, and another very important requirement is
that for any sequence (An : n < w) E vlPta with 4n ~ r~~", (n) and
14nl/llr~!"'(n)11 small eno~gh, the set {n : fa(n) f/. 4n} E :[. -(This sort
of condition is an analog of the notion of a r-big type in [Sh 107].) It
will be used in combination with clause (ii) in the definition of sufficient
randomness.
The name :[ is built by carefully amalgamating a large set of approxi-
mations to the final object, using the combinatorial principle ON2' which
follows from the cardinal arithmetic [Gregory]; this method, which was
illustrated in [Sh 107], is based on the theorem from [ShHL 162]. (The
comparatively'elaborate tree construction of [ShHL 162] can be simplified
in the presence of 0; it is designed to work when N2 is replaced by a limit
cardinal and 0 is weakened to the principle DlA .) In what follows, the con-
nection with [ShHL 162] is left somewhat vague; the details will be found
in §A3 of the Appendix. In particular, in §A3.5 we show how the present
A'P fits the framework of §A3.1-3.
4.7 A notion of smallness
If F is a filter on w, k E ww, c E {I,2}, then a sequence (An: n < w)
of subsets of the r~(n) (i.e. An ~ r~(n» is (F, k, c)-slow if there is some d
374 S. SHELAH
such that F-lim [IAnl! ( IWh(n) II . (log Ilfh(n) Il)d)] = O. Later on we will
deal primarily with the case c = 1, to lighten the notation, and we will then
write "(F, k)-slow" in place of "(F, k, 1)-slow".
It should perhaps be emphasized that here (as opposed to §3) c is merely
a label.
used as a forcing notion, without <>, and in this case the c and Is would
have to be included. So the version given here is the most flexible one.
4.9 Claim (Amalgamation)
1. Suppose tha.t qo, qb q2 E AP, Aql S; 8, Aq2 = AqO u {8}, and qo ::;
qbq2. Then we can Hnd r ~ ql,q2 in AP.
2. If q1,q2 E AP, a < Na, domq1 S; a, and q2ra ::; ql, then there is
r ~ Q1,Q2 in AP.
.?n[HOj = {v E r~(n)[HOj :
For some p~ E IPfA2 with p~ ~ P2 and p~ fAa E HO,
PilI-
2 "n E b_and
_6 x (n) = v"
Now P ~ p~ U p~ E IP'fA and p~ U p~ forces "n E Q, n ~ n (;)' (over HO),
contradicting the choice of p. This completes the proof of 4.9 (1).
2: Let [(Aq2 \ a) U{sup Aq2}] = {8i : i ~ 'Y} in increasing order. Define
inductively ri E AP, increasing in i, with q2 f(A n 8i ) ~ ri, dom ri ~ 8i ,
ro = ql; then let r = r'Y'
At successor stages i = j + 1 we apply 4.9 (1) to q21(Aq2 n 8j ), rj,
q21[Aq2 n (8 j + 1)].
If i is a limit of uncountable cofinality, we just take unions:
"..f(j : TIn r~Hn) ~ TIn r~~(n) induces a map which can be extended
to an isomorphism:
(Here we have taken e{j = 1; otherwise the roles of 1 and 2 in this - and in
all that follows .-- must be reversed.)
We will refer to the genericity game of [ShHL 162], as described in §A3 of
the Appendix. In that game the Ghibellines can accomplish the following.
For 6 < Na, they determine a set of compatible approximations G{j which
together will determine an ultrafilter Ff6 on w in VlP't{j (specifically, GO< is
a subset of {r E AP: Domr S;;; a} which is directed, increasing in a). The
Guelfs set them tasks which ensure that the ultrafilter F which is gradually
built up by the Ghibellines has all the desired properties. .
Let Fo be a fixed nonprincipal ultrafilter on w, in the ground model and
without loss of generality there is q EGo with F q = Fo. For 6 < Na of
cofinality N2 , let q'6 be an approximation ({6}, .e{j, (e{j), (~?)), where ~ is
the lP'f{6}-name of some ultrafilter on w extending Fo such that
(2) {n: fo(n) ~ An} E:[o for any (.ro,~~6,co)-slow sequence (An) in
the universe V
The Ghibellines will be required (by the Guelfs) to put q6 in G0+ 1 . The
Ghibellines are also obliged to make commitments of the following form,
which should then be respected throughout the rest of the construction.
(These commitments involve a parameter 0: > 0" to be controlled by the
Ghibellines as the play progresses: of course these commitments have to
satisfy density requirements.)
There is such a commitment for each q*, ~* with q6 ::::: q* E AP, q* fO" E
GO, and ~* a (lP'fAq*)-name of a member of TInr~~(nr So apparently we
are making ~3 commitments, which is not feasible, but as we are using
isomorphism types this amounts to only 2~1 = ~2 commitments, and this
is feasible. This is formalized in §A3.6 in the Appendix.
These commitments can only be met when the corresponding set of
approximations is dense, but on the other hand we have a stationary set
8 of opportunities to meet such a commitment, and we will show that for
any candidate .f for an isomorphism, either we kill it off as outlined above
(by making it obvious that .f(fo) cannot be defined), or else - after failing
to do this on a stationary set - that .f must be quite special (somewhat
definable) and hence even more easily dealt with, as will be seen in detail
in the next few sections.
After we have obtained GOl for all 0:, we will let :[Ol be U{:[q : q E GOl}
(that is, the appropriate (lP'fo:)-name of a uniform ultrafilter on w). Letting
G =: G~3 =: UOl GOl, also :[ = :[~3 is defined.
NONISOMORPHISM OF ULTRAPOWERS OF COUNTABLE MODELS 379
4.12 Proof of Theorem 4.1.· The heart of the matter. Now suppose toward
a contradiction that after :E has been constructed in this way, there are
lP'-names f, ~l, ~2, and a condition p E lP' such that:
(4)
(**)x,y For all r ;::: q in AP such that rrb E GO and :£, y are (lP'iAriO)-
- - names, (* )'E,l! holds. -
(Clm)
p II-pto ":£1 = :£2 mod.fi8[H] or both are restricted for (H, AqO, ~1)."
NONISOMORPHISM OF ULTRAPOWERS OF COUNTABLE MODELS 381
We will give the proof of this, which contains one of the main combi-
natorial points, in paragraph 4.13. For the present we continue with the
proof of the theorem. We first record a consequence of the claim.
Suppose this is not possible, and thus as in 4.9 (1) for some p' 2: p in
lP'f A, if p~ = p' fAi for i = 0,1,2, we have:
a (lP'fAl)-name g of a member of .fl;
a (lP'fA2)-name Qof a member of .f2; and
a lP'-name Q =: {n : f02(n) E ql(n)\4n} associated with a (lP'fAl)-
name (4n)n<w of an ('El, lsI )-slow sequence; with
p/lhl'tA "g n Qn Qn 4 = 0"
We shall get a contradiction. Let H O <;;;; lP'fAo be generic over V.
We define for every n the following (lP'fAO)-names:
Now in V[H°], (4~: n < w) is not (~,lsl)-slow, and thus the set:
Now by 4.4(ii) we find ai, a~ E g-l(bi ) for i = 1,2 with r~l(n) 1== R(al, a2)
and--,R(ai,a~). Aseitherr~l(n) I==R(b1,b2)orql(n) I==--,R(b1,b2 ),wecan
show that it is not forced by p' that n f/. g n Qn ~ n 4, a contradiction. 0
4.13 Proof of the Claim 4.12A from 4.12. We first recall the situation. We
had:
(i) 8 is (..€,,~1,~2,p)-cl08ed; qo = qj8;
(ii) p E lP'jAqO, 8 E Aq, E: q = 1, ~~ = ~l, £Ii = £j8;
(iii) ~ is a (lP'fAq)-name for a real;
(iv) For all r ~ q in AP such that d8 E ali, and q; a (lP'IArfli)-name,
with y =: £(q;) a (lP'jArfli)-name, we have:
(*)'§,; p II-- "The set {n : r~l(n) 1== R(q;(n),q;Ii(n)) iff r%2(n) 1==
R(l1(n), ~(n))}
is in J?" .
We defined the property (** )'§'1! as follows:
(**)x,yFor all r ~ q in AP such that rj8 E ali and q;, yare
- - (lP' IArfO)-names, (* )'§,'!! holds. -
Proof. Suppose that p :S :P E lP'r8 and:p forces the contrary; so without loss
of generality
(5)
By 4.9(2) we can also find r' ~ r, q, and then (7) contradicts (** )'§l,y &
(**)'§2,y. Thus to complete the proof of our claim, it suffices to find r. -
This is the sort of problem considered in 4.9(1), with an additional
set required to be in .c1(Aql U {8}). The Qo, Q1 under consideration here
384 S. SHELAH
we have:
P'lI-PtA "g n Qn g n rJ = 0"
Let p~ = p/fAi for i = 0,1,2, and take HO S;; IP'fAo generic over V.
Without loss of generality, for some natural number d:
{v E r~l(n) :
for some p~ ~ p~ with p~fAo E HO, p~ Il-lP'tA2:"n E Qand :fo(n) = v"}
(8)
NONISOMORPHISM OF ULTRAPOWERS OF COUNTABLE MODELS 385
(9)
as we can then choose p~ E IP'fAI, p~ E IP'fA2 with p~' ~ p~, p~'fAo E HO for
i = 1,2, so that:
mode"
Hence p II-PtA "if 1J.i #- 1J.'mode for i = 1,2 and 1J.' a (lP'fAo)-name
then 1J.I #- 1J.2 mode"·
Proof. We use induction construction. Much as in the proof of 4.9, we must
deal primarily with the case in which Aq2 = Aqo u {,8}. Suppose toward
a contradiction that P ::5 p' E lP'fA, and with p~ = p'fA for i = 0,1,2 we
have:
i. a (lP'fAd-name g of a member of :{l;
ii. a (lP'fA2)-name ~ of a member of :{2j
iii. a (lP'fA)-name g = {n : ~.8(n) E r~2(n) \4n} associated with a
(lP'fAI)-name (4 n )n<w of a (.fl, ~l)-slow sequence; and
iv. a (lP'fA)-name 4 = nf.,, 1 4;, for a finite intersection of sets of the
form 43, =: {n : y~(n) #- y~(n)}, with each yi. a lP'fA-name of a
-3 -3 -3
member of I1n r~2(n)' such that for each i = 1,2 and j = 1, ... ,N:
and that P' II- "g n ~ n g n 4 = 0". Let HO be generic over V, Po E HO,
and let us define in V[sO]:
Thus:
{n: there is (A,ul, ... ,UN) E ~~, Ulfi:.·. ,UN tt <Tn } E;:O.
For nEg" there are (A, U{, ... ,U~) E ~;., for j ::::; N + 1, with
Now we have finished proving the existence of p', t (see before (1)) as re-
quired: q' If- "[ E Br (t)", as t includes the tree: {1] E w>w: For all
i, 1]ini E Uj~i tj}; and R(x, t) holds. Hence we have finished proving
°
If-pw "(D; R) covers w w". So it suffices to carry out the induction.
There is no problem for n = or 1. Assume that qn and tn are defined.
Let G n ~ Pn be generic with qn E Gn . Then f_n+ 1 becomes a Q _n [Gnl-name
In+l = [n+1/Gn for a member of Ww. As Pn+1 preserves (D, R), for every
r E !l?n [G n] and every y E dom R there is a condition r' 2 r in !l?n [G n ] such
NONISOMORPHISM OF ULTRAPOWERS OF COUNTABLE MODELS 393
that
(*) r' If- ''In+l E Br(t')" for some t' E D with R(y, t').
For each m < w, applying this to r =: pm(n), y = X3n we get r' = r~, t' =
t~+1; we could have guaranteed t~+1 ~ t~+2' Now choose by induction
on I < w, r;;',l E Qn[Gnl such that: r~,o = r~, r;;',l ::; r;;',I+1' r;;',I+1 forces
a value to In+l II. SO for some 17~ E Ww[Gn], r;;',l 1f-"ln+1 II = 17~ Ii". Note
17~lm = fnlm. Without loss of generality, (r~,t~,r;;',£,17~ : n,m,i < w)
belongs to N. Applying (3®) from A2.1 (to 17 = f_n [G n ], 17m = 17~) we
can find T~ E D n N[Gnl = D n N such that R(X3n, T~), f-n E Br(T~)
and 17~ E Br(TD for infinitely many m < w. Applying (3*) from A2.1
(to T~,t'i,t~, ... and X3n,X3n+1) we obtain a tree T~I. Returning to V,
we have a Pn-name T for such a tree. For s E Pn , if s If- "T = T" for
some tree T in V, let T( s) be this tree. Let U be the open dense subset of
s E P n for which T(s) is defined. Some such function TO belongs to N,
and U E N. If qn is in the generic set G n , then some s E Un N is in G n ,
by condition (2). Let un N = {Si : i < w}. Applying (3*) there is a tree
tn+1 satisfying:
(a) R(X3n+3, tn+1)'
(b) tn ~ tn+1'
(c) for every T E (Rang R) nN such that R(X3n+2, T) for some kT < w
we have:
vET & v IkT E tn =? v E tn+1
We shall prove now
(d) suppose Gn ~ P n is generic over V with qn E Gn , and k * <
w. Then there is q', pk*(n) ::; q' E Qn[Gnl n N[G n ], such that
q'If-"f_n+ 1 E Br(t n+1)" (though tn+l is generally not in N).
Proof of (d). As qn E G n necessarily for some s E Pn n N we have s E G n
so (c) applies to Ts and Ts = T~I[Gnl (as T~I = T~I[Gnl is well defined
and also T~ is ~ell-defined and belongs to N n D not only N[Gnl n D, as
D ~ V). By the choice of T~ the following set is infinite
By the choice of ti'+1' for every i E w there exists k i < w such that 17 E
ti'+1 &17lki = 17ilki ==? 17 E T~I. To show (d), choose i E W \ k* (exists as
W is infinite, k* will be shown to be as required in (d)).
Nowr~k E NnQn[Gnl is well-defined, and anyq', pi(n) ::; q' E Q~[Gnl
which is (N, Qn[Gn])-generic is as required (note that pk* (n) ::; pi(n)).
394 S. SHELAH
where 5+ is the set of positive rationals, < is the order on 5+' and
R(e, t) =: e E 5+ &t E T/. g . See A2.4(c).
Call a family F g-closed if it satisfies the following two closure condi-
tions:
1. For f E F, the function F(n) = TIm<n(J(m) + 1) lies in Fj
2. For f E F, f g is in F.
If F is g-closed, f E F, and (An)n<oo are sets with IAnl = fen),
then the function f'(n) = the number of trees of the form TIm<n Bm with
Bm ~ Am and IBml < gem) is dominated by a function in F.
Using the formalism of §A2.2, we wish to prove:
Theorem. If F is g-closed then a countable support iteration of (F,g)-
bounding proper forcing notions is again an (F, g)-bounding proper forcing.
Since the V-preserving forcing notions are the same as the (F, 9 )-
bounding ones, we need only check that V is a fine* covering model. Again
the nontrivial condition is (3)+, i.e.,
Let f E F. For any sequence of trees Tn in Tj,g, R(e / , Tn), e' < e
(in 5+)' there is a tree T in D satisfying R(e, T) and an increasing
sequence ni such that for all 'fJ E ww, if 'fJrni E Uj:S;i Tnj for all i, then
'fJ. E Br(T).
This must be verified in any generic extension V* of V in which V
covers ww. Working in V, choose (ni)i<w increasing so that no = 0 and for
ni ::=; n we have minn>ni g(n)(e-e')/2 > i + 1. For ni ::=; n < niH set:
(For n < no let Bn = {'fJ(n) : 'fJ E To}.) If the sequence Bn was in the
ground m~del, we could take T = Un TIm<n Bm. Instead we have to think
of the sequence Bn as a possible branch through the tree of finite sequences
of subsets of fen) of size at most (say) max{l, g(n) -I}. As F is g-closed,
TF,g cont~ins a tree T- which encodes a tree TO of such subsets, for which
the desired sequence Bn is a branch in V*, so that the number of members
of TO of level m is ::=; gem) (e-e')/2 (or is ::=; 1). Let B~ = UbETO ben). Then
Bn ~ B~, limn --+ oo IB~I/ge(n) = 0 and UnTIm<n(B;;') is in V. 0
A2.6 Discussion
This was treated in [Sh-f,VI] [Sh-f, XVIII §3] too (the presentation in
[Sh-b, VI] was inaccurate). The version chosen here goes for less generality
(gaining, hopefully, in simplicity and clarity) and is usually sufficient. We
consider below some of the differences.
NONISOMORPHISM OF ULTRAPOWERS OF COUNTABLE MODELS 397
For Yo < Yl < ... y < x in dom Rand tn E D such that R(Yn, t n )
(*)' for all n, there is tED with R(x, t) holding and indices
no < nl < ... such that [11 E w>w & Ai lIflli E Uj~i tj =} 11 E t].
Theorem. H(D;R, <) is aline* c.lm., (Pa , ~{3 : a:::; ti,{3 < a) is a count-
able support iteration of proper forcing notions with each factor (D; R, <)-
preserving. Then P6 is (D; R, <)-preserving.
Proof. Similar to the previous one, with the following change. After saying
that without loss of generality ti = wand, above p, for every n, fen) as a Pn -
name, and choosing x n , x', we do the following. For clarity think that our
universe V is countable in the true universe or at least ~3(lPwl) v is. We let
K = {(n,p"G) : n < W,p E Pw , G ~ Pn is generic over V and pfn E Gn }.
On K there is a natural order (n,p, G) :::; (n',p',G') if n:::; n', Pw F p:::; p'
and G ~ G'. Also for (n,p, G) E G and n' E (n, w) there are p', G' such that
(n,p,G) :::; (n',p',G'). For (n,p,G) E K let L(n,p,G) = {g : 9 E (Ww) V[G]
and there is an increasing sequence (PI. : f. < w) of conditions in Pw/G,
p :::; Po, such that PI. II- [rf. = gff.}. So:
9 E L(n,p,G) => [fn = gfn
(n,p,G):::; (n',p',G') => L(n',p',G') ~ L(n,p,G)' 0
Proof. Otherwise choose by induction (nl., pi, GI.) for f. :::; f.*, in K, in-
creasing such that: L(nHl,pHl,GH1) has no member of the f.'th kind. So
L(nt~pt~Gtj = 0 contradiction.
So without loss of generality for every (n,p, G) E K, L(n,p,G) has a
member of the f.* 'th kind. Now we choose by induction on n, An, (p." : 'TJ E
n+!w,'TJfn E An), (f : 'TJ E An), (q." : 'TJ E An), and tn such that
-."
(A)' An ~ nW,Ao = {()},'TJ E An => (3Nof.)('TJ~(f.) E An+!) P." E Pw n
N,p<> = P,P." :::; p."-(I.),p.,,fn :::; qn'
(B)' q,., is (N, 'Pig,.,)-generic, q." E 'Pig,., and [f. < Ig'TJ => q."ff. = q,.,tl.]·
NONISOMORPHISM OF ULTRAPOWERS OF COUNTABLE MODELS 399
(C)' q'T/ II- "/ E Br(tn ) is of the .e*'th kind" when'fJ E An and / is a
-'T/ -'T/
Pn-name.
(D)' R3n(X3n, tn), tn s;;; tn+l.
(E)' P.,{l) II-pw "11/ r.e = l.,{l) r.e = [f.e".
This suffices, as Xn < x' so An R(x', t n ) hence for some (ni : i <
w) strictly increasing and t as guaranteed by (*) of (3) we find v E Ww
increasing fast enough and let q = Un<w qvtn. In the induction there is
no problem for n = 0,1. For n + 1; first for each 'fJ E n+1w we choose .e,
work in V Pn+1 and find (P1/-{l) : .e < w), 1'T/' and without loss of generality
they are in N. For'fJ E nw there is a Pn+1-name t'T/ E N of a member
of D, Rl(X3n, t1/)' 1'T/ E Br(t1/)' (3°o.e)I'T/-{l) E BrU'T/). Now we can replace
P1/-{l) by P'T/-{l')' .e' = Min{m : m ::::: .e,l.,{l) E Br(t1/)}. We continue as
in A2.2. Note: it is natural to use this framework e.g. for preservation of
P-points. 0
and also fix an element gQ in PIG;;. Let a' be minimal such that ga E PQI
NONISOMORPHISM OF ULTRAPOWERS OF COUNTABLE MODELS 401
and a.' 2: sup f3i. The Ghibellines then build an admissible ideal G a , for
Pa' containing a;; as well as ga, and meeting all specified density systems,
or forfeit the match; they let Gall = G a , n a" when a ~ a" < a.'. The
main result is that the Ghibellines can win with a little combinatorial help
in predicting their opponents' plans.
For notational simplicity, we assume that Go is an ~2-generic ideal on
APf6', when cf 6' = N2 which is true on a club in any case.
A3.4 DI>.
The combinatorial principle Dh states that there are subsets Qa of
the power set of a for a < A such that \Qa\ < A, and for any A ~ A the
set {a : A n a E Qa} is stationary. This follows from 0>. or inaccessibility,
obviously, and Kunen showed that for successors, DI and 0 are equivalent.
In addition Dl>. implies A<>. = A.
Second try
Let ~ : Nt +4 Nt x N2 order preserving where Nt x N2 is ordered
lexicographically. Let 11" : Nt X N2 - - t Nt be the projection on the first
coordinate. First encode q by ~[q] = (~[A], ... ), then encode L[q] by (T, 11" [A]) ,
where T is defined much as in the first try - a description of the result of
collapsing q into otp 11" [A] x N2, after which T is encoded by an ordinal label
below N2. The point of this is that now the domain of q is the set 1I"[AJ,
and q has many extensions with the same domain. After this recoding,
AP again becomes a Nt -uniform partial ordering, as before. We will need
some additional notation in connection with the indiscernibility condition.
It will be convenient to view AP simultaneously from an encoded and a
decoded point of view. One should now think of q E AP as a quintuple
(u,A,.f,e,~) with A ~ u X N2 • If h: u +4 v is an order isomorphism, and
q is an approximation with domain u, we extend h to a function h* defined
on Aq by letting it act as the identity on the second coordinate. Then h[q]
is the transform of q using h*, and has domain v.
In order to obtain least upper bounds for increasing sequences, it is
also necessary to allow some extra elements into AP, by adding formal
least upper bounds to increasing sequences of length < N2 •
This provides the formal background for the discussion in §3. The ac-
tual construction should be thought of as a match in the genericity game
for AP, with the various assertions as to what may be accomplished cor-
responding to proposals by the Guelfs to meet certain density systems. To
complete the argument it remains to specify these systems and to check
that they are in fact density systems.
A3.6 The major density systems
The main density systems under consideration were introduced im-
plicitly in 4.11. Suppose that 6 < N2, q E AP with 6 E domq ~ N2,
qZ S; q, and ~ is a (lP'tdomq)-name. Define a density system Dg,~(u,v) for
u ~ v ~ N3 with Ivl S; Nl as follows. First, if otpu S; otpdomq then let
Dg,~(u,vY degenerate to APtv. Now suppose that otpu > otpdomq and
that h : dom q - - t U is an order isormorphism from dom q to an initial
segment of u. Let q* = h[q]. Call an element r of AP a (u, v)-witness if:
1. u ~ dom r ~ v;
2. r ~ q*;
3. for some p E PtAr with p ~ pO, and some (lP'trAr n 6])-name :J;,
.E'o(:J;) is a (lP't[Ar n 6])-name; and:
4. p'If-lI'rAr "{n: [r!~(n) F R(:J;(n),:J;o(n)) -{=:}
Let Dg,~ (u, v) be the set of rEAP with dom r = v such that either r
is a (u, v)-witness, or else there is no (u, v)-witness r' ~ r.
This definition has been arranged so that Dg,~ (u, v) is trivially dense.
In §4 we wrote the argument as if no default condition had been used to
guarantee density, so that the nonexistence of (u, v )-witnesses is called a
"failure of density". Here we adjust the terminology to fit the style of [ShHL
162].
Now we return to the situation described in 4.12. We had P-names f,
~l, ~2, and a condition pEP, satisfying conditions (3,4) as stated there,
and we considered the set C = {e < N3 : cof(e) = N2, e is (f,~1,~2,p)_
closed}, and a stationary set Se on which ffe, p, e6, ~~ were guessed by
O. Then ~ =: f(:f6) is a (PfAq)-name for some q E G. Let u = domq,
qo = qfo. Now we consider the following condition used in 4.12:
(iv) For all r ~ q in AP such that rfe E G6, and:f a (prAr t6)-name, with
y =: f(:f) a (PfAr t6)-name, we have:
(*);,ll p II- "The set {n: r~l(n) 1= R(:f(n),:f6(n)) iff
r~2(n) 1= R(rt(n), ~(n))} is in:e".
We argued in 4.12 that we could confine ourselves to the case in which
(iv) holds. We now go through this more carefully. Suppose on the contrary
that we have r ~ q in AP with rre E G6, and a (prAr t6)-name :f, so that
rt =: f(:f) is a (PfAr t6)-name, and a condition p' ~ p, so that
p'll- "The set {n: ql(n) 1= R(:f(n),:f6(n))
iff r~2(n) 1= R(rt(n) , ~(n))} is not in :e".
and argued that S is stationary. This led us to consider certain ordinals 'Y <
0, with eof cofinality N2, and an element rl E G6, at which point we claimed
404 S. SHELAH
that we could produce a 1-1 order preserving function h with domain AT!,
equal to the identity on AT! n ('Y + 1), with h( min (AT! \ ('Y + 1))) > sup AT!,
and h[rlJ E Cli. More precisely, our claim was that this could be ensured
by meeting suitable density systems.
For 0: < N2, q E AP fN2, define D~ (u, v) as follows.
If ({ o:} U otp dom q) ~ otp u then let D~ (u, v) degenerate. Otherwise, fix
k : ({ o:} U dom q) ---t U an order isomorphism onto an initial segment of u,
and let (3 = inf(u \ range k). Let D~(u, v) be the set of rEAP with domain
v such that r fv \ u contains the image of q under an order-preserving map
ho which agrees with k below 0: and which carries inf(Aq \ (0: x N2)) above
(3 (i.e., above ((3,0)). The density condition corresponds to our ability to
copy over part of q onto any set of unused ordinals in (v \ (3) X N2 , recalling
that Idom rl < N2 for any rEAP, and then to perform an amalgamation.
For our intended application, suppose that 'Y, 8, rl are given as above,
and let u = ("(}UdomrlU{sup dom rl). Let 7l' be the canonicalisomorphism
of u with otpu, and 0: = 7l'C"/), q = 7l'[rlJ. As Cli meets D~, we have v ~ 8,
and r E Cli n D~(u, v). Then with h = ho 07l', we have hhJ S; r, and our
claim is verified.
Finally, a few lines later in the course of the same argument we men-
tioned that the claim proved in 4.14 can be construed as the verification that
certain additional density systems are in fact dense, and that accordingly
we may suppose that the condition r described there lies in C.
Acknowledgments. This paper owes its existence to Annalisa Marcja's hos-
pitality in Trento, July 1987; van den Dries' curiosity about Kim's con-
jecture; the willingness of Hrushovski and Cherlin to look at §4 through a
dark glass; and most' of all to Cherlin's insistence that this is one of the
fundamental problems of model theory.
This is Number 326 in the publication list.
The author thanks the BSF, the Basic Research Fund, Israeli Academy
of Sciences and the NSF for partial support of this research.
NONISOMORPHISM OF ULTRAPOWERS OF COUNTABLE MODELS 405
REFERENCES
[AxKo] J. Ax and S. Kochen, Diophantine problems over local rings I, Amer. J.
Math. 87 (1965), 605-630.
[Bollobas] Bollobas, Random Graphs, Academic Press, London-New York, 1985.
[JBSh 368] H. Judah and T.Bartoszynski and S.Shelah, The Chicon diagram, Israel J.
of Math.
[Gregory] J. Gregory, Higher Souslin trees and the generalized continuum hypothesis,
J. Symb. Logic 41 (1976), 663-67l.
[Jech] T. Jech, MUltiple Forcing, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1986.
[Keisler] H. J. Keisler, Ultraproducts and saturated models, Indag. Math. 26 (1964),
178-186.
[Sh] S. Shelah, Classification theory and the number of non-isomorphic models,
North Holland Pub!. Co. Studies in Logic and the foundation of Math. 92
(1978).
[Sh b] S. Shelah, Proper Forcing, Lect. Notes Math. 940 (1982), Springer-
Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg NY Tokyo, 496.
[Sh c] S. Shelah, Classification theory and the number of non-isomorphic models,
revised, North Holland Pub!. Co. Studies in Logic and the foundation of
Math. 92 705+xxxiv (1990).
[Sh fj S. Shelah, Proper and Improper Forcing, revised edition of [Sh b] (in prepa-
ration).
[Sh 13] S. Shelah, Every two elementarily equivalent models have isomorphic ultra-
powers, Israel J. Math 10 (1971), 224-233.
[Sh 65] K. Devlin and S. Shelah, A weak form of the diamond which follows from
2 No < 2Nl, Israel J. Math. 29 (1978), 239-247.
[Sh 82] S. Shelah, Models with second order properties III. Omitting types for L(Q),
Proceedings of a workshop in Berlin, July 1977 Archiv f. Math. Logik 21
(1981), 1-11.
[Sh 107] S. Shelah, Models with second order properties IV. A general method and
eliminating diamonds, Annals Math. Logic 25 (1983), 183-212.
[ShHL 162] S. Shelah and B. Hart and C. Laflamme, Models with second order properties
V. A general principle, Annals Pure App!. Logic; (to appear).
[Sh 177] S. Shelah, More on proper forcing, J. Symb. Logic 49 (1984), 1035-1038.
[Sh 345] S. Shelah, Products of regular cardinals and cardinal invariant of Boolean
Algebras, Israel J. of Math 70 (1990), 129-187.
[Sh 405] S. Shelah, Vive la differance II-refuting Kim's conjecture, (preprint) (Oct
1989).
[ShFr 406] S. Shelah and D. Fremlin, Pointwise compact and stable sets of measurable
functions, Journal of Symbolic Logic (submitted).
1. INTRODUCTION
407
408 S. SHELAH AND L.J. STANLEY
into Jensen's uses of the Covering Lemma, and how he was able to eliminate
them. In [2), S. Friedman presents a rather different, more streamlined
approach to avoiding such uses of Covering. It should be clear from the
preceding that Jensen's appeals to the Covering Lemma are of a rather
different character than ours.
To better understand the role of this "marking" technique, let us briefly
recall some material from [1). Let us first consider the possibility of coding
R S;;; K+ into a subset of K, when K is regular. In order to use almost disjoint
set coding, we seem to need extra properties of the ground model, or of the
set R, since, in order to carry out the decoding recursion across [K, K+) we
need, e.g., an almost disjoint sequence b = (bet: a E [K, K+)) of cofinal
subsets of K satisfying:
only members of a certain club subset which have been marked. The club
will exist in a small enough inner model, thanks to the Covering Lemma.
This argument is given in (3.3). We are grateful to the referee for suggest-
ing the use of "fast clubs" in the argument of (3.3). This allowed us to
streamline a more complicated argument (which also suffered from some
[probably reparable) inaccuracies) in an earlier version of this paper. We
use "I" to mark ordinals. To guarantee that this does not collide with
requirements imposed by the "coding" part of the conditions, we set aside
the limit ordinals as the only potentially marked ordinals and do not use
them for coding.
for all n < w, p(n) = (£(p(n)), r(p(n))), £(p(n)) E S(Z n K-n, K-n) and
p(n) E PW,n, znW,n+l, i(p(n+1»' Thus, letting G be the canonical name for the
generic of S(K-), letting G(n) be the canonical name for {£(p(n)) : pEG},
and letting W(n) be the canonical name for UG(n), S(K-) is a sort of Easton
product of the PW,n, znW,n+l, W(n+1)'
2. THE FORCINGS
2.2 Definition. If,X is a infinite cardinal, T ~ ,x, then 9 E S(T, ,x) iff
there's 6 = 6(g) E (,x, ,X+) such that 9 : (,x, 6) -+ {D, I} and for all
a E (,x, 6] :
(*)a,9 (card a)L[T, 91a) =,X (we say: 9 promptly collapses a).
S(T, ,x) = (S(T, ,x), ~).
CODING AND RESHAPING WHEN THERE ARE NO SHARPS 411
3. THE RESULTS
Our ultimate goal in this section will be to prove that for cardinals K
with K ~ N2, for all k < w, Sk(K) is (Kk' 00)- distributive. As will be clear
from what follows, by this we mean that the intersection Kk open dense sets
is dense, and not the weaker notion involving fewer than Kk open dense sets.
We denote the latter notion by « Kk, oo-distributive. A useful first step
will be to establish something stronger than this latter notion.
3.1 Proposition. For all k < w, Sk(K) is < Kk- complete.
Proof. Let (J < Kk, (Pi: i < (J) be a ~k-increasing sequence from Sk(K). For
i < (J, k ~ n < w, let 6i (n) = 6(£(pi(n»), so, for such n, (bi(n): i < (J) is
non-decreasing. Let b(n) = sup {bien) : i < (J}. Let .e(p(n» = U{.e(pi(n» :
i < (J}, r(p(n» = U{r(pi(n» : i < (J}, and let pen) = (.e(p(n», r(p(n))), for
412 S. SHELAH AND L.J. STANLEY
(3.2) Before proving the main lemma of the section, in (3.3), it will be
helpful to simply remark (the proofs are easy, and the reader may consult
[2] for an outline) that letting G be the canonical name for the generic,
letting G(n) be the canonical name for {.e(p(n)) : pEG}, and letting W(n)
be the canonical name for U G( n), then for all k < w,
N[P] F "(Vn)(k + 1 :::; n < w =?- pen) E L[u(Z n KkH), p(k + 1)]".
Thus, N[P] F "a(Z n Kw) E L[a(Z n KkH), p(k + 1)]".
A crucial observation is:
Thus, (ej kn)L :::; (ej kkH)L, for all k + 1 :::; n < w. Typically, of course,
kkH is a (regular cardinal)L. Let XkH = Z n kk+l, hkH = .e(p(k + 1)).
We shall construct in V, p(k) which is IN I-generic for Pl<k, Xk+l, hk+ll as
defined in N. Among other properties, letting hk = .e(p(k)), hk will code
hkH. This will be clear from the construction; we shall use this fact before
showing that (ej kkH)L[Znl<k, hkJ = Kk. This is exactly what is required to
show that if we define p by letting pen) = (7r(.e(p(n))) , 7r(r(p(n)))) (recall
our convention about 7r(X) for (N, X) amenable), then p E Sk(K) (and p
is INI-generic for Sk(K) n INI).
We shall have hk = .e(ql<k)' r(p(k» = r(ql<k)' where qi = (.e(qi) , r(qi))
and (qi : i :::; Kk) is defined recursively in V, with qo = a(po(k)). For
this, in V, we Jet (Di : i < Kk) enumerate the dense subsets, in INI, of
P I<k, Xk+l, hk+l' as defined in N. For all () < Kk, (Di : i < 8) E INI, in
virtue of the closure property we have assumed for INI. For all i < 8, we'll
have qi E INI, so, by the same observation, for () < Kk, (qi : i < 8) E INI.
Also, for j <: kk+l, letting D(j) be the subset of P I<k, Xk+l, hk+l consist-
ing of those r with o(.e(r)) ~ j, as defined in N, clearly D(j) is dense and so
is among the Di . This will guarantee that sup {O(.e(qi)) : i < Kk} = kk+l,
provided that we know that qi+l E D i . This will be part ofthe construction
and will also guarantee the genericity of p.
For i < Kk, we'll set C¥i = O(.e(qi)). For limit () :::; Kk, we let .e(@) =
U{.e(qi) : i < ()}, r(q(J) = U{r(qi) : i < ()}. If () < Kk, by the covering
argument of the proposition of (2.1), these are always conditions, and, if
() < Kk, as noted above, (qi : i < ()) E INI, so also q(J E INI. SO, we must
define qi+ 1, where our crucial work is done.
414 S. SHELAH AND L.J. STANLEY
For each ai ::; a < "I < kk+1, a a limit ordinal, we define p"!' <>, 1 ~ qi as
follows: r(p"!' <>,1) = r(qi); if ai::; (3 < "I and (3 == 1 (mod 3) then
R(p"!' a, 1)((3) = 0 if (3' (j. Z & = 1, if (3' E Z, where (3' is such that (3 =
3(3' +1. If"( ~ ai+"'k, we fix a subset b E INlnL, b ~ "'k which codes a well-
ordering of "'k in type "I, and for (3 < "'k, we set R(p"!' a, 1)(ai + 3(3 + 2) = 0
if (3 (j. b & = 1 if (3 E b. If ai + "'k ::; (3 < "I and (3 == 2 (mod 3), we set
R(p"!, a, 1)((3) = O. Similarly, if "I < ai + "'k, we set R(p"!' <>, 1)((3) = 0 for all
ai ::; (3 < "I such that f3 == 2 (mod 3).
If ai ::; f3 < "I and for some T E dom r(qi), f3 E b~k+1 \ r(qi)(T), then
R(p"!' a, 1)((3) = h k+1(T). Note that in virtue of (4) of (1.4), this is well-
defined. For all other successor ordinals, ai ::; f3"1 which are multiples of 3,
we set R(p"!, a, 1 )(f3) = O.
Now, suppose (3 is a limit ordinal, ai ::; (3 < "I. We set
R(p"!, "', 1)((3) = 0, unless (3 = a & = 1), if (3 = a (in this case, we mark
a).
Then, let p"!' "', 2 ~ p"!' "', 1 be chosen canonically in D i . Now C'Y, a) 1--7
p"!' a, 2 is definable in N, and so, for each "I, in N, we can compute a
bound, 'TJC'Y) < kk+1, for sup {dom R(p"!' "', 2) : ai ::; a < "I, a a limit
ordinal }, as a function of "I. Iterating 'TJ in N gives us a club, E i , of
kk~1' Ei E INI. Now, (HKk+2)N = LKk+2[a(Z)nkk+2], so all clubs of kk+1
which lie in INI, and, in particular, E i , lie in L[a(Z) n kk+2J. Already in
L, card kk+2 = card kk+1. So, in L[a(Z) n kk+2J there is () < (kk+1)+
such that all clubs of kk+1 which lie in INI, in fact, lie in Le[a(Z) n kk+2J.
This, however, readily gives us that unless (card kk+1)L[u(Z) nK k+2] = "'k
(and in this case, there is no problem in proving that q"'k is a condition),
there is a club C of kk+l, C E L[a(Z) n kk+2], such that C grows faster
than any c~ub of kk+1 which lies in INI. In particular, C grows faster than
E i , so that for sufficiently large "I < kk+l, all Ei-intervals above "I miss C.
In V, fix C* ~ C, o.t. C* = "'k, C* a club of Kk+1'
The idea of the above is that in constructing p"!' a, 1, we have "marked"
a and OUL hope is that in passing from p"!' <>, 1 to P"~ cr, 2, we have not
inadvertently "marked" anything else. While this is too much to hope for,
in general, we shall be able to get that we have not marked anything else
in C, provided we choose "I sufficiently large so that every interval of E i ,
above "I, misses C. So, GOOD's winning strategy, finally, to go from qi to
qi+b is to take "I to be the least ordinal> ai, "I E C which, as above, is
sufficiently large that the interval [,,(, 'TJC'Y))nC = 0, and such that there
is a* E raj, "I) n C* and then to take qi+1 = P"~ a*, 2. Thus, GOOD has
"marked" a member of C* and nothing else in C, while obtaining qi+1 E D i .
Now, since, as remarked above, we know from the construction that hk
CODING AND RESHAPING WHEN THERE ARE NO SHARPS 415
codes h kH , in L[Z n I\:k, hk], we can recover u(Z) n K:k+2, and therefore C.
But then, by the construction, we have that {a E C : (h k (a), hk (a + 1)) =
(1, I)} is a cofinal subset of C*. Thus, as required, (cf K:k+l)L[ ZnK k, hkl =
I\:k. This completes the proof. 0
,=
is clear, as is the preservation of all cardinals except possibly I\:;!;. The
argum~nt here is routine: if this failed, then letting (cf 1i;!;)VS(K), for
some 0 < k < w, I = I\:k. But then, since (cf 1\:;!;)VSk(K) > I\:k, forcing
with Qk over VSk(K) would have to collapse a cardinal 2: likH which is
impossible. 0
(3) Several people have observed that the 8(1\:) afford a method of cod-
ing any set of ordinals using a set forcing over models of GC H
where 0# does not exist. This can be done as follows. Let X ~ A,
and assume, without loss of generality, that A 2: N2 • Code X into a
Z ~ A+w, where Z has the properties assumed above. Then, force
416 S. SHELAH AND L.J. STANLEY
REFERENCES
(continued)