8/3/2019 Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah- The Last Forcing Standing
1/23
8/3/2019 Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah- The Last Forcing Standing
2/23
942
re
vision:2011-06-21
modified:2011-06-21
2 ANDRZEJ ROSLANOWSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
However, the exact relationships between these and other properness conditions arenot clear.
While there are some similarities between conditions studied so far, we are farfrom the state that was achieved for CS iterations and the concept of properness.The considered properties are (unfortunatelly) tailored to fit particular forcing no-tions and they do not provide any satisfactory general framework covering all ex-amples. The search for the right notion of propernes is still far from beingcompleted.
Basic definitions concerning strategically complete forcing notions, their itera-tions and trees of conditions are reminded in the further part of the Introduction.In the second section of the paper we prove our Iteration Theorem 2.6 and in thefollowing section we present the forcing notions to which this theorem applies. Somespecial properties of and relationships between the forcings from the third sectionare investigated in the fourth section.
1.1. Notation. Our notation is rather standard and compatible with that of clas-sical textbooks (like Jech [2]). However, in forcing we keep the older conventionthat a stronger condition is the larger one.
(1) Ordinal numbers will be denoted be the lower case initial letters of the Greekalphabet ( , , , . . .) and also by i, j (with possible sub- and superscripts).
Cardinal numbers will be called , ; will be always assumed to bea regular uncountable cardinal such that
8/3/2019 Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah- The Last Forcing Standing
3/23
942
re
vision:2011-06-21
modified:2011-06-21
THE LAST FORCING STANDING 3
(6) A tree is a downward closed set of sequences. A complete tree is atree T
8/3/2019 Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah- The Last Forcing Standing
4/23
942
re
vision:2011-06-21
modified:2011-06-21
4 ANDRZEJ ROSLANOWSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
pt Prk(t) for t T, and if s, t T, s t, then ps = ptrk(s).
If, additionally, (T, rk) is a standard tree, then p is called a standard treeof conditions.
(4) Let p0, p1 be trees of conditions in Q, pi = pit : t T. We write p0 p1
whenever for each t T we have p0t p1t .
Note that our standard trees and trees of conditions are a special case of that[6, Def. A.1.7] when = 1.
2. Semi-purity and iterations
In this section we introduce a new property of (
8/3/2019 Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah- The Last Forcing Standing
5/23
942
re
vision:2011-06-21
modified:2011-06-21
THE LAST FORCING STANDING 5
(4) Let Y be an findexing sequence and p Q. A game mainY
(p,Q, , pr, D)between two players, Generic and Antigeneric, is defined as follows. A play
of the game lasts steps during which the players construct a sequencep, q : < . At stage < of the play, first Generic chooses a systemp = p, : Y of pairwise incompatible conditions from Q. ThenAntigeneric answers by picking a system q = q, : Y of conditionsfrom Q satisfying
p, pr q, for all Y.
At the end, Generic wins the play p, q : < if and only if, lettingq = q, : < & Y,() there is an aux-generic condition p p over q, D.
(5) A forcing notionQ is fsemi-purely proper over an indexing sequence Y anda filterD if for some sequence pr of binary relations on Q, (Q, , pr) is aforcing with the fcomplete semi-purity and for every p Q Generic has a
winning strategy in mainY (p,Q, , pr, D). We then say that the sequencepr witnesses the semi-pure properness ofQ.
(6) IfD is the club filter on , then we omit it and we write mainY
(p,Q, , pr)etc. If pr=pr for all < , then we write pr instead of pr, like in
mainY
(p,Q, , pr). If f() = for all , then we write instead of f (inphrases like complete semipurity etc).
The proof of the following proposition may be considered as an introduction tothe (more complicated and general) proof of Theorem 2.6 dealing with the itera-tions.
Proposition 2.4. Assume that f : + 1, + < f() for < and D isa normal filter on . Let Y = Y : < be an findexing sequence. If a forcing
notionQ is fsemi-purely proper over Y , D, then it is proper in the standardsense.
Proof. Let pr be a sequence witnessing the semi-pure properness ofQ. AssumeN (H(), ,
8/3/2019 Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah- The Last Forcing Standing
6/23
942
re
vision:2011-06-21
modified:2011-06-21
6 ANDRZEJ ROSLANOWSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
play (r, A, , r) : < of
auxY
(p, q,Q, , pr, D) in which COM follows herwinning strategy and INC plays:
r0 = p+, and for > 0 he lets r = r.Let
8/3/2019 Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah- The Last Forcing Standing
7/23
942
re
vision:2011-06-21
modified:2011-06-21
THE LAST FORCING STANDING 7
So suppose we have defined qj , rj for j < i. Stipulating r1 = p, t = t0, and
=
0 we ask if there is a condition q P such that rjti
prw q for all j < i which
forces a value to i. If there are such conditions, let qiti be one of them. Otherwise
let qiti be any prw bound to {r
jti
: j < i} (there is such a bound by () + ()). Thenfor t T \ {ti} define qit so that letting s = t ti:
if < rk(s), then qit() = qiti
(),
if rk(s) < rk(t), / w, then qit() is the 1),
a condition in Q4 is a tree T Tclub such that
(t T)(root(T) t |succT(t)| > 1).
(4) For = 1, 2, 3, 4 we define a binary relation pr on Q by
T1 pr T2 if and only if (T1, T2 Q and) T1 T2 and root(T1) = root(T2).
(5) Let Q1, consists of all conditions T Q1 such that for each branch
lim(T) the set { : |succT()| > 1} is a club of .(6) Let Q3, consists of all conditions T Q
3 such that for some club C
we have if t T and lh(t) C, then |succT(t)| > 1, and if t T and lh(t) / C, then |succT(t)| = 1.
Observation 3.2. Let T Tclub. Then T Q1, if and only if there exists asequence F : < of fronts of T we have
if < < , t F, then there is s t such that s F, if < is limit, t F (for < ) are such that t t whenever
< < , then
1 if and only if t
8/3/2019 Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah- The Last Forcing Standing
13/23
942
re
vision:2011-06-21
modified:2011-06-21
THE LAST FORCING STANDING 13
(i) F is a front of T, T+1 T, and F T
+1,(ii) if is limit, then T =
i 1, then |succT+1(t)| > 1.
Then Sdef=
1} contains a club (foreach i < ). Also the set { < : F} is a club (remember (ii)). So wemay pick a limit ordinal < such that lh(s) < , F and |succTi()| > 1for all i < . Then (by (ii)) also |succT ()| > 1 and hence (by (iv)+(iii)+(i))|succS()| > 1 (and s ). So we may conclude that S Tclub. We will arguethat S Q considering the four possible values of separately.Case = 1Suppose lim(S). Then for each < the set { < : |succT ()| > 1}contains a club and thus the set
Adef=
< : is limit and ( < )(|succT ()| > 1) and F
contains a club. But if A, then also |succT()| > 1 and hence |succS()| >1 (remember (ii)+(iv)).
Case = 2Suppose that a sequence si : i < j S is increasing and |succS(si)| > 1 for alli < j. Let s =
i 1 (for all i < j) and
hence |succT (s)| > 1. By (iv)+(iii)+(i) we easily conclude |succS(s)| > 1 (notethat s t for some t F).Case = 3Let C be a club such that
C & t T |succT(t)| > 1.
Set C =
1 for all < , and hence also |succT(t)| > 1 (by (ii)). Invoking (iv) we see that|succS(t)| > 1 whenever t S, lh(t) C is limit.Case = 4If root(S) s S, then |succT (s)| > 1 for all < and hence |succS(s)| > 1(remember (i)).
Proposition 3.6. Let be a strongly inaccessible cardinal, Y = for <
and Y = Y : < . Then the forcing notions (Q, , pr) for {2, 3, 4} are
-semipurely proper over Y.
Proof. Let 1 < 4, T Q. Consider the following strategy st of Generic in thegame main
Y(T,Q, , pr).
8/3/2019 Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah- The Last Forcing Standing
14/23
942
re
vision:2011-06-21
modified:2011-06-21
14 ANDRZEJ ROSLANOWSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
In the course of the play, in addition to her innings T, : Y, Genericchooses also sets A Y and conditions T Q so that T
is decided before the
stage of the game. Suppose that the two players arrived to a stage < . If = 0 then Generic lets T0 = T and if is limit, then she puts T =
i
8/3/2019 Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah- The Last Forcing Standing
15/23
942
re
vision:2011-06-21
modified:2011-06-21
THE LAST FORCING STANDING 15
Case = 3.The winning strategy st of COM in the game aux
Y(S, S, Q3, , pr) is almost
exactly the same as in the previous case. The only difference is that now COMshrinks the answers S of INC to members of Q
3, pretending they were played
in the game. The argument that this is a winning strategy is exactly the same asbefore (as Q3, Q
2).
Case = 4. Similar.
The forcing notions considered above can be slightly generalized by allowingthe use of filters other than the club filter on . The forcing notions QEE of [7,
Definition 1.11] and PEE of [7, Definition 4.2] follow this pattern. However, to applythe iteration theorems of [7] we need to assume that the filter Econtrolling splittingsalong branches is concentrated on a stationary co-stationary set. Therefore the case
ofE being the club filter seems to be of a different character. Putting general filterson the splitting nodes only and controlling the splitting levels by the club filter leadsto Definition 3.7.
The forcing notion Q2,E was studied by Brown and Groszek [1] who describedwhen this forcing adds a generic of minimal degree.
Definition 3.7. Suppose that E = E : 1}
contains a club of ,
(c)3 for some club C we have
( C)(t T)(lh(t) C |succT(t)| > 1),
(c)4 (t T)(root(T) t |succT(t)| > 1).(3) For = 1, 2, 3, 4 we define a binary relation pr on Q
by
T1 pr T2 if and only if (T1, T2 Q and) T1 T2 and root(T1) = root(T2).
Proposition 3.8. LetE = E :
8/3/2019 Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah- The Last Forcing Standing
16/23
942
re
vision:2011-06-21
modified:2011-06-21
16 ANDRZEJ ROSLANOWSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
Proof. Same as 3.4, 3.6.
Close relatives of the forcing notions Q,E
were considered in [6, Section B.8]and [7, Definition 4.6]. The modification now is that we consider trees branchinginto less than successor nodes (but there are many successors from the point ofview of suitably complete filters).
Definition 3.9. Assume that
is strongly inaccessible, f : is a increasing function such that eachf() is a regular uncountalble cardinal and
8/3/2019 Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah- The Last Forcing Standing
17/23
942
re
vision:2011-06-21
modified:2011-06-21
THE LAST FORCING STANDING 17
4. Are Q2, Q1 very different?
The forcing notions Q1 and Q2 appear to be very close. In this section we will
show that, consistently, they are equivalent, but also consistently, they may bedifferent.
Lemma 4.1. Assume T Tclub and consider (T,) as a forcing notion. Let
bea Tname for the generic branch added by T. Suppose that
T the set { < : |succT()| > 1} contains a club .
Then there is T T such that T Q2.
Proof. Let C
be a Tname for a club of such that
T
C
|succT(
)| > 1
,
and putS =
t T : lh(t) is a limit ordinal and t T
< lh(t)
C
(, lh(t)) =
}.
One easily verifies that
(i) ift S, then t T lh(t) C
and hence |succT(t)| > 1,(ii) if a sequence t : <
S is increasing, < , then
8/3/2019 Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah- The Last Forcing Standing
18/23
942
re
vision:2011-06-21
modified:2011-06-21
18 ANDRZEJ ROSLANOWSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
Proof. Assume (a). By the ( 1} contains a club of ,
where
is a Tname for the generic branch. It follows now from Lemma 4.1that (a) holds.
Proposition 4.4. Assume Ax+C . ThenQ2 is a dense subset ofQ
1 (so the forcing
notions Q1,Q2 are equivalent).
Proof. Let T Q1
and let us consider (T,) as a forcing notion. Let S be aTname given by
T S
= { < : |succT()| > 1}
where
is a Tname for the generic branch. Ask the following question
Does T S
contains a club of ?
If the answer is yes, then by Lemma 4.1 there is T T such that T Q2.So assume that the answer to our question is not. Then there is t T such
that
t T \ S
is stationary .
The forcing notion T is isomorphic with C, so (by Ax+C
) there is a directed setdownward closed set H T such that
H {t T : lh(t) > } = for all < , and ( \ S
)[H] is well defined and it is a stationary subset of .
Then =
[H] =
H lim(T) and the set { < : |succT()| = 1} is stationary,
contradicting T Q1.
Proposition 4.5. It is consistent thatQ2 is not dense inQ1.
Proof. We will build a (
8/3/2019 Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah- The Last Forcing Standing
19/23
942
re
vision:2011-06-21
modified:2011-06-21
THE LAST FORCING STANDING 19
Now we inductively define a ( 1.
Claim 4.5.1. (1) If p, p P , then p P p if and only if dom(p) dom(p),
p(0) Q0 p(0) and (i dom(p) \ {0})(p(i) = p(i) (p + 1)).
(2) |P | = ||
8/3/2019 Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah- The Last Forcing Standing
20/23
942
re
vision:2011-06-21
modified:2011-06-21
20 ANDRZEJ ROSLANOWSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
q(0) = c {q}.
One easily verifies that q P and it is stronger than p.
Case is limit and cf() < Let p P. Fix an increasing sequence : < cf() cofinal in and thenuse the inductive assumption (and properties of an iteration) to choose inductivelya sequence p : < cf() such that for each < < cf() we have
p P
, < p < p and p P p P p.
Then define a condition q P as follows. Declare that dom(q) =
8/3/2019 Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah- The Last Forcing Standing
21/23
942
re
vision:2011-06-21
modified:2011-06-21
THE LAST FORCING STANDING 21
q(i) =
n
8/3/2019 Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah- The Last Forcing Standing
22/23
942
re
vision:2011-06-21
modified:2011-06-21
22 ANDRZEJ ROSLANOWSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
Proof of the Claim. By induction on < choose a sequence T : < so thatfor all < < we have
()5 T T, root(T) root(T) and()6 T+1 decides the value of
3lh(root(T)), and
()7 if is limit then T =
1 for all < . Then also, by ()7, = root(T) and clearly (by ()6) T forces a value to
3.
Claim 4.6.3. Let {1, 2}, T Q. Then there is T+ T such that for every
t T, for some
8/3/2019 Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah- The Last Forcing Standing
23/23
2
re
vision:2011-06-21
modified:2011-06-21
THE LAST FORCING STANDING 23
For = 1, 2 and t T+ let (t)
Top Related