Book

Iterated forcing, category forcings, generic ultrapowers,
generic absoluteness
Matteo Viale,
Giorgio Audrito, Silvia Steila,
and the collaboration of Raphaël Carroy.

What can be found in this book
The book contains:
• A self-contained account of the theory of iterated forcing, as well as the main results
regarding the preservation of (semi)properness through limit stages by means of
(revised) countable support iterations.
• A compact self-contained account of the general theory of generic ultrapowers in-

duced by a (tower of) normal ideal(s). In particular how to force the existence of ide-
als inducing generic ultrapower with strong closure properties, and a self-contained
proof of the presaturation of the stationary towers. The latter results are also used
to give a complete presentation of Woodin’s generic absoluteness results for second
order number theory in the presence of large cardinals.
• A detailed account of the first author’s work on generic absoluteness results for (large
fragments of) third order arithmetic in the presence of strong forcing axioms.
The book is divided in six parts. It grew out of a series of lecture notes the first
author prepared for two PhD courses, one on iterated forcings and semiproperness and the
other on generic ultrapowers embeddings and Woodin’s generic absoluteness for projective
sets of reals. Only the sixth part of the book contains original research material by
the first author (and Asperó). The first two parts contain material which is by now
well-established; this makes an hard task (at least for us) the correct attribution of the
main results. The third, fourth and fifth parts of the book present major results (at
least in the authors’ opinion) mainly by Shelah (on semiproper iterations), Foreman,
Magidor, Shelah (on forcing axioms, Martin’s maximum, and their consistency relative
to supercompactness), Foreman, Magidor (on the general theory of generic ultrapowers),
Woodin (on the stationary towers and on generic absoluteness for second order number
theory). Clearly we’re not mentioning here many of the contributors to the development
of these topics. We hope for their comprehension, and we’ll try in the subsequent pages
to report with the greatest care the work of any scholar whose results appear in this book.
The book is organized as follows:
1. Part I introduces the basic objects we will be dealing with, i.e. on the one hand
the category of complete boolean algebras and complete homomorphisms between
them and on the other hand normal ideals and towers of normal ideals. The core
of chapter 1 gives the basic facts on Stone duality between the category of boolean
algebras and that of compact Hausdorff spaces as well as a categorial characterization
of completeness for an homomorpshim i : B → C of boolean algebras in terms of the
existence of an adjoint map π : C → B (Theorem 1.3.14). This will be repeatedly
used in our analysis of iterated forcing, among other reasons because it gives a ∆0 -
characterization (therefore absolute between transitive structures) of the property
of being a complete homomorphism, (this is in sharp contrast with the fact that
being a complete boolean algebra is not an absolute property). Chapter 2 deals with
the notions of normal ideal I on a set X and of generalized stationarity. We prove
results of Burke showing that (a tower of) normal ideal(s) is the projection of the
nonstationary ideal restricted to a stationary set. Other basic facts about normality
and stationary sets are proved.
2. Part II introduces the type of structures we will be studying: i.e. boolean valued
models of set theory of type V B with B a complete boolean algebra, and generic
1
ultrapowers of type Ult(V, G) with G a V -normal (tower of) filter(s). We aimed to
give a unified presentation of these two distinct type of structures, hence we first
develop the basic theory of boolean valued models in chapter 3, introducing the key
notion of full B-model, then we prove Lòs Theorem for full B-models, as well as the
rules governing the forcing relation on these type of models. Our approach to these
matters is inspired by Hamkins and Seabold [27]. Chapter 4 gives a fast account of
the basic theory of forcing for boolean valued models of set theory, recalling with
sketchy proofs the main results needed in the sequel of the book. Chapter 5 presents
generic ultrapowers of type Ult(V, G) as quotients by certain type of ultrafilters
G ⊆ P (P (X)) of the full P (P (X))-model given by functions f : P (X) → V
in V . In this manner we can give a unified treatment both of generic ultrapower
embeddings and of the ultrapower embeddings induced by standard large cardinals;
here (and everywhere in the book we deal with these topics) we continue along the
lines of Foreman’s chapter for the Handbook [18], Larson’s book on stationary tower
forcing [30], and Foreman and Magidor’s [20]. We make a point to prove all the
basic results about elementary embeddings using minimal assumptions, so to be
able to use them both when dealing with standard ultrapower embeddings given
by large cardinals, or when dealing with generic ultrapower embeddings given by
a V -generic filter on P (P (X)) /I for some normal ideal I on X. Along the way
we also deal with towers of normal ideals. In the end we show how to describe
standard large cardinal properties such as hugeness or supercompactness by means
of this technology. A common theme of this part of the book is to outline the
common features shared by generic ultrapowers and boolean valued models of set
theory. Many of the remaining parts of the book analyze which are the situations
in which the two types of models (V [G] and Ult(V, G)) are very close to each other.
A more general approach to generic ultrapowers which encompasses as special cases
both the towers of normal ideals (which are the focus of the present book) and
the notion of generic extender (which is the generic counterpart for strongness and
superstrongness) has been devised by Audrito and Steila in [4], however we decided
not to pursue it in the present book.
3. Part III deals with the general theory of iterated forcing, which is here developed
in the framework of boolean algebras, fully exploiting all the results on these type
of objects gathered in Chapter 1. Chapter 6 deals with two-steps iterations, while
Chapter 7 deals with iterations of limit length. Here and in chapter 10 we develop on
Donder and Fuchs approach to iterated forcing [22]. In chapter 6 we also introduce
category forcings (i.e. any class forcing whose conditions are set-sized forcing notions
and which is ordered by (a subfamily of) the complete embeddings existing between
its conditions). This concept will gain more and more importance in the sequel of
the book, and will become the central topic of the last part of the book.
4. Part IV deals with forcing axioms, properness and semiproperness. Chapter 8 gives
a thorough analysis of different types of forcing axioms and of their mutual interac-
tions: it is shown that the axiom of choice, Baire’s category theorem, and Shoenfield’s
absoluteness results can all be naturally seen as forcing axioms; stationary sets are
also used to give a different characterization of forcing axioms in terms of a strong
form of the downward Lowenheim-Skolem theorem. Chapter 9 introduces proper-
ness and semiproperness. We link these concepts to that of forcing axioms and give
a topological and algebraic characterization of both of these properties. Chapter 10
gives the main results regarding (semi)proper iterations, mainly their preservation
2
through limit stages.
5. Part V deals with stationary tower forcings and generic ultrapowers induced by
(towers of) normal ideals. Chapter 11 presents the main results of Woodin re-
garding stationary towers (i.e. that they induce almost huge generic elementary
embeddings) and a key result by Foreman (Theorem 11.3.1) regarding ideal forcings
(i.e. forcings of type P (P (X)) /I with I a normal ideal on X). Foreman’s theorem
gives an exact characterization of which type of forcings can consistently become
isomorphic to an ideal forcing; along the way it provides an informative description
of the closure properties of the generic ultrapower embedding induced by these ideal
forcings. Chapter 12 proves one of Woodin’s main achievements: i.e the invariance
of second order number theory in the presence of large cardinals axioms; specifically
it is proved that the theory of the Chang model L(Ordω ) is generically invariant if
we assume the existence of class many supercompact cardinals. Chapter 13 proves
the consistency of Martin’s maximum relative to the existence of a supercompact
cardinal. It next addresses an analysis of the category forcing whose conditions
are stationary set preserving complete boolean algebras and whose order relation
is given by the complete homomorphisms between them. Among many things it is
shown that (assuming class many supercompact cardinals) Martin’s maximum can
be formulated as the assertion that the class of presaturated towers is dense in this
category forcing. This shows that very strong forcing axioms can also be formulated
in the language of categories in terms of density properties of class partial orders.
These two last chapters serve as a motivation for the last part of the book, where
we will look at suitable generalizations to third order number theory (and beyond)
of Woodin’s generic absoluteness results for second order number theory.
6. In part VI we develop a general theory of category forcings: in Chapter 14 it is shown
that for a variety of natural classes of forcings Γ closed under two-steps iterations
the class partial order (Γ, ≤Γ ) is particularly well behaving (C ≤Γ B if and only
if there exists a complete homomorphism of B into C with a generic quotient in
Γ). This expands on [50] where just the case Γ = SSP is studied. For example
if δ is a large enough cardinal (Γ ∩ Vδ , ≤Γ ) ∈ Γ, and in case Γ = SSP and δ is
supercompact we also obtain that (Γ ∩ Vδ , ≤Γ ) forces Martin’s maximum. Also
it is shown that any forcing in Γ is absorbed as a complete subforcing into some
(Γ ∩ Vδ , ≤Γ ) whenever δ is large enough. Chapter 15 presents a new forcing axiom
CFA(Γ) and proves that the forcings in Γ preserving CFA(Γ) cannot change the
theory of L(OrdκΓ ) for a cardinal κΓ which is naturally attached to Γ. In case Γ is
the class of stationary set preserving forcings, CFA(Γ) is a natural strengthening of
Martin’s maximum, and can be formulated as a density property of the class forcing
(Γ, ≤Γ ) which makes the theory of L(Ordω1 ) generically invariant with respect to
forcings preserving CFA(Γ). We can produce similar results for a variety of other
classes Γ as well. This expands the results of [3, 50], and generalizes to (a very
large fragment of) third order arithmetic Woodin’s generic absoluteness results. In
our opinion these results give a sound a posteriori explanation of the success forcing
axioms have met in settling a variety of problems undecidable on the basis of ZFC.
Several applications of the main theorems of these chapters will appear in [2].
How to read the book

Parts I and II are the backbones for all the other results of the book. They contain material
which is familiar to most of the potential readers. However we discourage the readers from
3
skipping them entirely, since the approach to forcing and iterations taken in the book is in
many respects different from what one encounters in most forcing books or papers in set
theory: we made a point to exploit as much as we could the algebraic and categorial tools
one disposes of when dealing with the category of boolean algebras with homomorphisms;
we believe that, despite the initial effort required for the reader, this approach pays off.
A safe road for the reader is to skim through the first five chapters and try to get a clear
idea of the statements of the main results, omitting their proofs (when those are present).
Parts III and IV deal with iterated forcings. Chapter 8 only serves as a motivation for
the results in part VI.
Part V on stationary towers and ideal forcings can be read independently of parts III
and IV. There will be need of the results of Part IV just in Chapter 13 for the proof of
the consistency of Martin’s maximum.
Part VI reposes on all the results presented in the first five parts of the book, and
requires the reader to have gained familiarity with the content of almost all of them.
Several selection of topics are possible, we list the following two:
Woodin’s generic absoluteness results for second order number theory:

Skim through parts I and II, then read sections 11.2.1, 11.4, and chapter 12.
Preservation theorems for limits of semiproper iterations:

Skim through parts I and II (omitting entirely chapter 5) and then read Parts III
and IV. Section 6.3 and chapter 8 can be omitted. The consistency proof of Martin’s
maximum is given in section 13.1 and can be read independently of the other results
of Part V (provided the reader has some familiarity with the notion of supercom-
pactness).
Prerequisites
Strictly speaking the unique prerequisite the reader is required to have is a good familiarity
with the forcing method as presented in any of the by-now numerous textbooks on this
topic, such as [7, 28, 29] or the first author’s notes [54] (which gives a presentation of forcing
in line with the approach taken in this book). Some familiarity with large cardinals will be
of great help to understand the content of chapter 5 and of part V, even if complete proofs
are given in the book for all results on ultrapowers by standard large cardinals we will
use. Some familiarity with the notion of (semi)properness and its variants, and especially
with some of its applications can also be of great thelp but is not strictly needed.
Who made what.

Part I is due to all four authors, and its current presentations owes much to the contribution
of R. Carroy. The overall architecture of the book has also seen an important contribution
of Carroy. Chapters 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 are mostly due to G. Audrito and S. Steila. Parts of
these chapters and the remainder of the book is due to M. Viale. The last part of the book
(VI) develops on ideas of Viale and Asperó; a paper coauthored by them containining a
number of applications of the results of Part VI is in preparation [2]; due to the length of
proofs, we decided to move the general theory of category forcings to this book, and leave
its applications to the joint paper.
4
Some motivations to write the book
The driving motivation (at least for the first author) to embark in the researches pre-
sented in this book has been the following: give a satisfactory sound explanation rooted in
mathematical logic for the success forcing axioms have met in settling so many problems
formalizable in third order arithmetic. Most of these problems are otherwise undecidable
on the basis of ZFC alone. Why forcing axioms have been so succesful? We believe that
the the results of part VI provide a solid mathematical explanation: strong forcing axioms
yield as a natural byproduct strong generic absoluteness results for third order arithmetic.
This occurs much in the same way as large cardinal axioms do for second order number
theory. Therefore large cardinals and forcing axioms transform forcing from a tool to prove
independence results into a tool to prove theorems. Moreover the axiom of determinacy
AD plays a crucial role in providing a new powerful tool to settle most of the questions
on second order arithmetic which are independent from ZFC; likewise Martin’s maximum
plays the same role for third order arithmetic as AD does for second order arithmetic. We
do not want to dwelve further on this theme here; the motivated reader is referred to [53],
the introductory parts of [3, 51, 52], and (for a more technical set of results) to the results
of Chapter 8.
5
Contents
0.1 Axiomatizations of Set Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
I Boolean algebras and generalized stationarity 16
1 Basics on partial orders, topology, boolean algebras 18

1.1 Orders and topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.1.1 Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.1.2 Topological spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.2 Boolean algebras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1.2.1 Lattices and boolean algebras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1.2.2 Complete boolean algebras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1.2.3 Stone spaces of boolean algebras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.2.4 Boolean completion of a partial order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1.3 Homomorphisms of boolean algebras and Stone duality . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1.3.1 Adjoint pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1.3.2 Quotient homomorphisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2 Clubs and normal ideals 36

2.1 Generalized clubs and generalized stationarity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.1.1 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.1.2 Generalized stationarity versus classical stationarity . . . . . . . . . 38
2.1.3 First properties of the non-stationary ideals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.2 Skolem Hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.2.1 Fast Skolem functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.3 Normal Fine vs Non Stationary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.3.1 Normal Fine Ideals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.3.2 Non-stationary ideals and normal fine ideals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.3.3 Projection and Lifting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.4 Towers of normal fine ideals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
II Boolean valued models 53
3 Boolean Valued Models 55

3.1 Boolean valued models and boolean valued semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.2 Full boolean valued models and Loś theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.2.1 Loś theorem for full boolean valued models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.2.2 Full B-models for a non complete boolean algebra B . . . . . . . . . 61
3.2.3 Sufficient conditions for fullness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6
3.3 Homomorphisms of boolean Valued Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4 Forcing 67
4.1 Boolean valued models for set theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
4.1.1 Embeddings and boolean valued models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
4.2 Basic properties of forcing extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.2.1 Preservation of regular cardinals in forcing extensions . . . . . . . . 71
V [G]
4.2.2 Computing Hλ in forcing extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.3 Class forcing and Set forcing with posets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.3.1 V P versus V RO(P ) for set sized forcings P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
5 Generic ultrapowers 79
5.1 Normal (towers of) ultrapowers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
5.2 V -normal ultrafilters and towers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
5.2.1 V -normal ultrafilters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
5.2.2 Towers of V -normal ultrafilters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
5.2.3 Generic elementary embeddings versus (towers of) V -normal ultra-
filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
5.3 Normal (towers of) ultrafilters in forcing extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5.4 Large cardinals defined by means of normal ultrapowers . . . . . . . . . . . 92
III Iterations of forcing notions 96
6 Two-steps Iterations 98
6.1 Two-steps iterations and generic quotients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
6.1.1 Two-steps iterations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
6.1.2 Generic quotients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
6.1.3 Equivalence of two-steps iterations and injective complete homomor-
phisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
6.1.4 Generic quotients of generic quotients, aka three-steps iterations . . 107
6.2 Definable classes of forcing notions closed under two-steps iterations . . . . 108
6.3 Category forcings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
7 Iteration systems 114

7.1 Definitions and basic properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
7.2 Sufficient conditions for the equality of direct and inverse limit . . . . . . . 117
7.3 Generic quotients of iteration systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
7.4 Examples and counterexamples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
7.4.1 Distinction between direct limits and full limits . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
7.4.2 Direct limits may not preserve ω1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
7.5 Iterable classes of forcing notions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
7.5.1 Weakly iterable forcing classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
7.5.2 The lottery preparation forcings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
IV Forcing axioms, properness, semiproperness 127
8 Forcing axioms I 129

8.1 The axiom of choice and Baire’s category theorem are forcing axioms . . . . 129
7
8.2 Forcing axioms and stationarity I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
8.3 Ωκ is closed under two-step iterations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
8.4 Forcing axioms as Σ1 -reflection properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
8.5 Which forcings can be in Ωκ ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
8.6 Forcing axioms and stationarity II: MM++ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
8.7 Forcing axioms and Category forcings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
9 Properness and semiproperness. 142

9.1 Shelah’s properness and semiproperness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
9.2 Algebraic definition of properness and semiproperness . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
9.3 Topological characterization of properness and semiproperness . . . . . . . 151
9.4 FA+ω1 (Countably closed) implies SP = SSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
9.5 A common framework for the classes of proper semiproper and stationary
set preserving forcings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
10 Proper and semiproper iterations 156

10.1 Two-step iterations of (semi)proper posets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
10.1.1 Two-steps iterations of proper forcings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
10.2 (Semi)proper iteration systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
10.2.1 Iterations of proper forcings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
V Selfgeneric ultrapowers, generic absoluteness for L(Ordω ), Martin’s

maximum 166
11 Self-generic presaturated ideals and towers 168

11.1 Self-generic towers and self-generic ideal forcings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
11.2 Sufficient conditions to get (almost) huge generic elementary embeddings . 171
11.2.1 Characterization of presaturation for towers of normal ideals . . . . 171
11.2.2 Sufficient condition granting the presaturation for normal ideal forcings173
11.3 Foreman’s duality theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
11.3.1 Forcing the existence of presaturated towers: a guiding example . . 182
11.4 Self-genericity and presaturation of the stationary tower forcings . . . . . . 184
11.4.1 Basic properties of tower forcings concentrating on sets of order type
at most λ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
11.4.2 The stationary towers are presaturated and self-generic . . . . . . . 186
11.4.3 Other properties of stationary towers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
12 Generic absoluteness for L([Ord]ω ) 191
13 Forcing axioms II 197

13.1 Consistency of MM++ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
13.2 Selfgeneric towers, forcing axioms, and category forcings . . . . . . . . . . . 199
VI Forcing Axioms and Category Forcings 205
14 Category forcings 209

14.1 Definitions and main results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
14.2 κ-suitable category forcings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
8
14.2.1 Proper, semiproper and stationary set preserving forcings are ω1 -
suitable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
14.2.2 Γ-Freezeability and Γ-rigidity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
14.2.3 From freezeability to total rigidity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
14.2.4 Key properties of Γ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
14.3 When is (Γ ∩ Vδ , ≤Γ ) a partial order in Γ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
14.3.1 Proof of Theorem 14.3.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
14.4 The quotient of (Γ B)V by a V -generic G for a B ∈ ΓV is ΓV [G] . . . . . . 227
14.5 Other properties of the class forcing Γ and of UΓδ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
14.6 MM++ and the relation between the stationary towers and the category
forcing (SSP, ≤SSP ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
14.6.1 A rough analysis of the forcing axiom MM++ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
14.6.2 Duality between SSP-forcings and stationary sets . . . . . . . . . . . 233
14.6.3 SSP-superrigidity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
15 Category forcing axioms 236

15.1 Γ-superrgidity and category forcing axioms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
15.1.1 Basic properties of Γ-superrigid self-generic forcings . . . . . . . . . 239
15.1.2 Main results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
15.1.3 Proof of Theorem 15.1.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
15.1.4 Proof of Theorem 15.1.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
9
0.1 Axiomatizations of Set Theory
We assume throughout the platonistic stance that there is a definite mathematical entity
called the universe of sets V and an ∈-relation holding between two sets a, b ∈ V if and only
if a belongs to b. We also assume that it is meaningful to speak of the proper subclasses of
V and to consider the inclusion relation ⊆ holding between subclasses A, B of V if every
set belonging to A belongs to B. Set theory describes the mathematical properties of this
universe of sets and of its proper classes.
Throughout the book we will work in two distinct natural first order axiomatizations
of set theory: the standard ZFC axiom system and the Morse-Kelley axiom system MK
with sets and classes. While most (if not all) the results in the book can be proved in
ZFC, the last part of the book presents a number of results which are naturally formulated
in MK since they concern the properties of certain (proper) classes of forcing notions.
Even though all the classes we will be interested are definable in ZFC, it is convenient to
formulate our results in MK in order to avoid the cumbersome verifications that all our
arguments involving proper classes can be carried in ZFC. Throughout the book, with
the exception of the last part, the readers can choose whichever of the two axiom systems
as the base theory over which they prefer to formalize our results. In the last part we
will explicitly embrace MK as our base theory. Also it will be convenient in many cases
to formulate ZFC in a language with classes, i.e. to resort to the NBG axiom system for
set theory. Hence we list below all these three axiom systems and recall that NBG is a
conservative extension of ZFC (all formulae not containing class quantifiers provable in
NBG are also provable in ZFC).
We will work in a language L = {∈, ⊆, =} with three binary relation symbols for
equality, membership, and containment. We feel free to adopt standard shorthands in the
set theory practice, such as:
• the use of restricted quantifiers ∀x ∈ y, ∃x ∈ y,
• the use of defined predicates such as x = {z ∈ y : φ(z, x1 , . . . , xn )} (which is a short-
hand for a formula ψ(x, y, x1 , . . . .xn ) defined by means of φ(z, x1 , . . . , xn )),
• the use of defined constants (such as ∅, ω, ω1 , . . . ),
• the use of definable functions such as the rank function, etc....
• the fact that most of our reasonings about sets can be formalized in the above first
order language.
The ZFC axioms for set theory

Letting L = {∈, ⊆, =}, we formalize ZFC as the following list of L formulae.
1. Extensionality for sets: Two sets are equal if they have the same elements:
∀x∀y(x ⊆ y ↔ ∀z ∈ x(z ∈ y))
and
∀x∀y(x = y ↔ (x ⊆ y ∧ y ⊆ x)).
2. Pairing: For any sets x and y there is a set containing {x, y}:
∀x∀y∃z(x ∈ z ∧ y ∈ z)
10
3. Infinity: There is an infinite set:
∃z∃y[y ∈ z ∧ ∀x(x ∈ z → ∃t[(t ∈ z) ∧ ∀w(w ∈ t ↔ (w ∈ x ∨ w = x)))]]
4. Union: For every set a its union ∪a exists:
∀y∃z∀w(w ∈ z ↔ ∃x ∈ y w ∈ x).
5. Powerset: For every set a its powerset P (a) exists:
∀y∃z∀w(w ∈ z ↔ w ⊆ y).
6. Foundation: Every nonempty set has an ∈-minimal element:
∀y∃x(x ∈ y ∧ ∀z ∈ x¬z ∈ y)
7. ZFC-Comprehension: For any formula φ(x, x1 , . . . , xn ) with displayed free variables
∀x1 , . . . xn ∀x∃y∀z[z ∈ y ↔ (z ∈ x ∧ φ(z, x1 , . . . , xn ))].
8. Collection: For all formulae φ(x, y, x1 , . . . , xn ) with displayed free variables
∀x1 . . . ∀xn ∀w(∀x ∈ w∃yφ(x, y, x1 , . . . , xn ) → ∃z∀x ∈ w∃y ∈ zφ(x, y, x1 , . . . , xn )).
9. Choice: There exists a well-ordering of any set.
ZF is the axiom system consisting of all the above axioms except the axiom of choice,
ZF \ P is the axiom system consisting of all the above axioms except power set and choice.
ZFC \ P is the axiom system consisting of all the above axioms except power set.
The Morse-Kelley Set Theory MK

We present the axioms of Morse-Kelley Set Theory MK, following the notation of [1]. To
simplify the readability, we work in a two sorted language L2 extending the first order
language L = {∈, ⊆, =} for set theory with variables for sets and classes: capital letters
X, Y, Z, . . . will range over classes and sets, small letters x, y, z, . . . will range just over
sets. Each set is a class and the class of sets is definable in the L2 formulation of MK
by the formula φ(X) ≡ ∃Y X ∈ Y . Hence the reader can convert our presentation of MK
in L2 in a standard first order axiomatization replacing all quantifiers ∀x occurring in a
formula φ of L2 by the string ∀x∃Y x ∈ Y → and ∃x by the string ∃x∃Y x ∈ Y ∧.
1. Extensionality: Two classes are equal if they have the same elements:
∀X∀Y (X ⊆ Y ↔ ∀z(z ∈ X → z ∈ Y ))
and
∀X∀Y (X = Y ↔ (X ⊆ Y ∧ Y ⊆ X)).
2. Pairing: For any sets x and y there is a set {x, y}:
∀x∀y∃z∀w[w ∈ z ↔ (w = x ∨ w = y)]
11
3. Infinity: There is an infinite set:
∃z∃y[y ∈ z ∧ ∀x(x ∈ z → ∃t∀w(w ∈ t ↔ (w ∈ x ∨ w = x)))]
4. Union: For every class A its union ∪A exists:
∀Y ∃Z∀w(w ∈ Z ↔ ∃x ∈ Y w ∈ x).
5. Powerset: For every class A its powerset P (A) exists:
∀Y ∃Z∀w(w ∈ Z ↔ ∀x ∈ w x ∈ Y ).
6. Foundation: Every nonempty class has an ∈-minimal element:
∀Y ∃x(x ∈ Y ∧ ∀z ∈ x ¬z ∈ Y )
7. MK-Comprehension: For any formula ϕ(x, X1 , . . . , Xn )
∀X1 , . . . Xn ∃Y (Y = {x : ϕ(x, X1 , . . . , Xn )}).
8. Collection: If a class R is a binary relation and a is a set contained in its domain,

there is a set b such that for all u ∈ a there is v ∈ b with u R v. In particular (using
comprehension) if F is a class function and a is a set
F [a] = {y : ∃x ∈ a hx, yi ∈ F }
is a set.
9. Global choice: There exists a global class well-ordering of the universe of sets.
Recall that a model with classes has the form hM, CM , ∈M i, where M is the collection
of sets in the model (and it is itself a model of ZFC), and CM is the collection of classes in
the model; if M is truly a transitive class contained in the universe V of sets (i.e. a ∈ M
entails a ⊆ M and ∈M is the true ∈-relation restricted to M ) each class X in CM is an
element or a subset of M . We often denote an MK model hM, CM i just by CM and omit
the reference to its class of sets M (M can be recovered from CM as the class of elements
of CM satisfying ∃y x ∈ y). In some cases we denote the MK model hM, CM i just by its
family of sets M if the intended meaning of CM is clear from the context or is not relevant
for our argument (i.e the argument is truly a ZFC argument in which there is no need to
refer to proper classes).
The Gödel-Bernays Set Theory NBG

NBG is obtained replacing from the MK-system the comprehension axiom to its weaker
form:
NBG-Comprehension: For any formula ϕ(x, X1 , . . . , Xn ) in which quantifiers

range just over sets we have that
∀X1 , . . . Xn ∃Y (Y = {x : ϕ(x, X1 , . . . , Xn )}).
12
In our formulation of NBG, the axiom of global choice of MK is replaced with the standard
axiom of choice of ZFC.
V is for us the standard model of ZFC, in the following sense:
(V, ∈, ⊆, =) |= ZFC
according to the rules of Tarski semantics for L applied to the structure (V, ∈, ⊆, =) (we
are here taking the liberty to consider also proper classes as the possible domain of a first
order structure). In the same spirit V with its collection of classes C is the standard model
of MK (and of NBG), in the sense that:
(V, C, ∈, ⊆, =) |= MK
according to the rules of Tarski semantics for L2 applied to the structure (V, C, ∈, ⊆, =).
Set theoretic terminology

trcl(x), rank(x) denote respectively the transitive closure and the rank of a given set x.
Vα is the set of x such that rank(x) < α and Hκ is the set of x such that |trcl(x)| < κ.
We use P (x), [x]κ , [x]<κ to denote the powerset of x, the set of subsets of x size κ, and
the set of subsets of x of size less than κ. Given a set M , πM : M → ZM denotes its
Mostowski collapse map onto a transitive set ZM . The notation f : A → B is improperly
used to denote partial functions in A × B, A B to denote the collection of all such (partial)
functions, and f [A] to denote the pointwise image of A through f . We use sa t for sequence
concatenation and sa x where x is not a sequence as a shorthand for sa hxi. We use t C s
to denote that s = t (|t|−1) . CH denotes the continuum hypothesis and c the cardinality
of the continuum itself. We prefer the notation ωα instead of ℵα for cardinals.
~ ~y are the displayed free variables of set type of φ and Z
For a L2 -formula φ(~y , Z), ~ are
the displayed free variables of class type of φ. We introduce the following Levy hierarchy
for formulae of L2 over a theory T :
~ is ∆0 (T ) or Σ0 (T ) or Π0 (T ) if it is provably equivalent in T to a formula in
• φ(~y , Z) 0 0 0
which all quantifiers are of type ∃y ∈ x, ∀y ∈ x.
~ is Σ0 (T ) if it is provably equivalent in T to a formula of type ∃xψ(x, ~y , Z)
• φ(~y , Z) ~
n+1
~ 0
with ψ(x, ~y , Z) Πn (T ).
~ is Π0 (T ) if it is provably equivalent in T to a formula of type ∀xψ(x, ~y , Z)
• φ(~y , Z) ~
n+1
~ Σ0n (T ).
with ψ(x, ~y , Z)
~ is ∆0 (T ) if it is provably equivalent in T to a formula of type Π0 (T ) and to
• φ(~y , Z) n n
a formula of type Σ0n (T ).
• All Σ0n (T ) formulae will also be Σ10 (T ), ∆10 (T ), Π10 (T ).

~ is Π1 (T ) if it is provably equivalent in T to a formula of type ∀Xψ(X, ~y , Z)
• φ(~y , Z) ~
n+1
1
with ψ(X, ~y ) Σn (T ).
~ is Σ1 (T ) if it is provably equivalent in T to a formula of type ∃Xψ(X, ~y , Z)
• φ(~y , Z) ~
n+1
~ Π1 (T ).
with ψ(X, ~y , Z) n
13
~ is ∆1n (T ) if it is provably equivalent in T to a formula of type Π1n (T ) and to
• φ(~y , Z)
a formula of type Σ1n (T ).
• Qm m m m
n (T ) denotes any among the family of formulae Σn (T ), Πn (T ), ∆n (T ).
• If T consists of the logical axioms, we just write that φ is Qin rather than Qin (T ).
• We omit the upper index of the classes Σ0n (T ), Π0n (T ), ∆0n (T ) for formulae φ(~x) of
this type whose displayed free variables are just of set-type and the Qn (T )-formulae
stand for the formulae with just set-type free variables of type Σn (T ), Πn (T ), ∆n (T ).
• Given M ⊆ V transitive and sets a1 . . . , ak ∈ M , a formula
ψ(x1 , . . . , xi , a1 , . . . , ak )
with just set-type free variables is Qn (M ) in parameters a1 , . . . , ak if for some Qn -

formula
φ(x1 , . . . , xi , y1 , . . . , yk )
we have that for all b1 , . . . , bi ∈ M
M |= ψ(b1 , . . . , bi , a1 , . . . , ak )
if and only if
M |= φ(b1 , . . . , bi , a1 , . . . , ak ).
• Given sets a1 . . . , ak ∈ V , a formula
ψ(x1 , . . . , xi , a1 , . . . , ak )
with just set-type free variables is Qn (T ) in parameters a1 , . . . , ak if it is Qn (M ) in pa-

rameters a1 , . . . , ak for all transitive sets M which are models of T with a1 , . . . , an ∈
M.
We use hM, CM i ≺in hN, CN i to denote that hM, CM , ∈i is a Σin -elementary substruc-
ture of hN, CN , ∈i.
We will often encounter the following scenario: we have transitive classes V, M ⊆ W
which are all models of ZF and an elementary embedding j : V → M (i.e. it preserves
truth of all formulae with no free variables and parameters in V ). To avoid ambiguities in
the intended meaning of the above, we always assume the following: W comes in pair with
its family of classes C so that hW, Ci is a model of NBG, j, V, M, W ∈ C, j is elementary just
with respect to formulae φ(~x) with just set-type bounded variables and set type parameters
occurring in them.
We denote by crit(j) (the critical point of j) the least ordinal moved by j (if such an
ordinal exists). In general j might not have a critical point, however we will see that in
all cases of interest, j has a critical point unless it is the identity.
Notations
We will have to deal with objects ranging over many different domains. For this reason
we will try to stick to the following conventions:
• X, Y are either sets or classes;
14
• X <ω denote the set of finte sequences on X;
• x, y and z are elements of X or Y ;
• s, t are elements of X <ω and Y <ω ;
• Z is an element in P (X) or P (Y );
• S, T are elements of P (P (X));
• I, J are ideals on P (X) or P (Y );
• I˘ is the dual filter of I;
• I + is the set of positive elements of I.
• I is a tower of ideals.
• πM : M −→ ZM = πM [M ] ⊆ V is the Mostowsky’s collapse of the structure (M, ),

and jM : ZM → M denotes its inverse.
• The first letter of the greek letters such as α, β, γ denote ordinals, while letters
occurring later in the alphabet such as κ, λ, δ, θ denote cardinals.
15
Part I
Boolean algebras and generalized

stationarity
16
This part introduces the two type of mathematical entities which will be the bricks over
which we develop the main body of this book: boolean algebras and normal ideals. The
first chapter outlines the algebraic properties of boolean algebras relevant for us, while the
second gives a detailed account of the properties of stationary sets and of normal ideals.
17
Chapter 1
Basics on partial orders, topology,

boolean algebras
We recall some basic algebraic properties of (complete) boolean algebras and (complete)
homomorphisms between them. Among other things we briefly recall Stone duality be-
tween this category and that of compact Hausdorff spaces, we show that any partial order
admits a unique boolean completion up to isomorphism, and we give a ∆0 -characterization
of the notion of complete homomorphism. To do this, we first give some definitions about
orders, topology, boolean algebras and their associated Stone spaces while setting up the
notation. Throughout this chapter the reference text for unexplained details and missing
proofs for results in the first two sections is [54, Chapter 2]; reference texts on the material
of this chapter are [8, 23, 33, 43], in particular:
• our treatment of Stone duality for complete boolean algebras follows loosely Balcar
and Simon’s appendix on general topology in the third volume of [33],
• we are inspired by [8, Chapters 1, 6] in our presentation of the basic properties of
homomorphisms of bolean algebras.
1.1 Orders and topology

1.1.1 Orders
A pre-order, also called quasi-order or qo, is a set P equipped with a reflexive and transitive
binary relation denoted by ≤P . An antisymmetric qo is a partial order, or poset, or even
just po. Every qo has an associated strict relation denoted by <P and defined by x <P y
if and only if x ≤P y and y 6≤P x.
Remark that if P is a po then the strict relation <P is just ≤P \∆P , where ∆P stands
for the diagonal in P 2 . Remark also that this is far from being true in any qo, since for
instance the total relation P 2 on P is a qo.
In a clear context we write ≤ instead of ≤P .
When x ≤ y holds we say that x is below y. When x is either below or above y, we
say that x and y are comparable. An order (P, ≤) is total when any two elements are
comparable.
Let (P, ≤) be a qo.
We say that two elements x, y in P are compatible and we write x||y if there is z ∈ P
such that both z ≤ x and z ≤ y hold. Otherwise x and y are incompatible, which is
denoted by x ⊥ y.
18
A ⊆ P has c as an upper bound if c ≥ b for all b ∈ A. A has supremum a ∈ P if it is
a least upper bound: i.e. a is an upper bound for A and c ≥ a any c upper bound for A.
Notice that if P is a partial order the upper bound of A is unique if it exists.
We define the notions of lower bound and infimum dually reversing the ≤-relation
A partial order is complete if it admits suprema and infima for all its subsets.
A subset D of P is dense in P if for all x in P there is some y in D below x, it is
predense if its downward closure
↓ D = {q : ∃x ∈ D, q ≤ x}
is dense.
We say that (P, ≤) is separative if for all x and y in P , if x is not below y then there
is some z below x that is incompatible with y. Formally,
∀x ∈ P ∀y ∈ P ( x 6≤ y → ∃z ≤ x(z ⊥ y)) .
We say that a separative (P, ≤) is atomless if it does not have minimal elements, in
the following strong sense: given any x in P there are elements y ⊥ z of P strictly below
x.
A map i : P → Q between partial orders is a morphism if it preserves the order
relation, an embedding if it preserves the order and the incompatibility relations, a complete
embedding if it maps predense subsets of P in predense subsets of Q. Remark that a
complete embedding need not be injective, natural examples of non-injective complete
embeddings are given by the natural dense embedding A 7→ Reg (A) of the partial order
(τ \ {∅} , ⊆) given by a topology τ on some space X into the complete boolean algebra of
regular open sets of τ .
Definition 1.1.1. Let P be a partial order.

G ⊆ P is a filter on P if it is upward closed and any two elements p, q of G have a
common refinement r ≤ p, q in G.
A ⊆ P is a prefilter if any finite subset of A has a common refinement in P .
Dually an ideal I on P is a downward closed subset of P such that any two elements
p, q of I are bounded above by some r ≥ p, q also in I.
Given a family X of subsets of P G ⊆ P is X -generic if G ∩ X 6= ∅ for all X ∈ X .
Lemma 1.1.2. Let P be a partial order. Assume X is a countable family of predense

subsets of P . Then there is a filter G on P which is X -generic.
1.1.2 Topological spaces

A topology on a given set X is a family τ ⊆ P (X) that contains ∅ and X and that is
closed under arbitrary unions and finite intersections. We call (X, τ ) a topological space.
Remark that (τ, ⊆) is a complete partial order for any topological space (X, τ ).
The elements of τ are the open sets for the topology τ . Complements of open sets
are called closed sets, we denote by τ c the family of closed sets (the family of closed sets
of a topological space is closed under arbitrary intersections and finite unions). When a
set A is both open and closed, we call it a clopen set of τ and we denote this family by
CLOP(X, τ ).
A basis σ for a topological space (X, τ ) is a subfamily of τ with the property that every
open set in τ can be written as an union of elements of σ. We say that τ is generated by
σ.
19
We say that U ⊂ X is a neighborhood of some x ∈ X if x ∈ U .
A Hausdorff space (X, τ ) is a topological space (X, τ ) in which any two distinct points
x and y can be separated by two open sets U and V in τ , that is x is in U , y is in V and
U and V are disjoint.
A 0-dimensional space (X, τ ) is a topological space (X, τ ) whose clopen sets form a
basis.
Given a topological space (X, τ ) and an arbitrary subset A of X, we denote by Cl (A)
(the closure of A) the smallest closed set containing A. We denote by Int (A) (the interior
of A) the biggest open set contained in A. An open set A is regular open if A = Int (Cl (A)).
For any A ⊆ X Reg (A) = Int (Cl (A)) denotes the regularization of the set A.
Given B ⊆ A, B is dense in A if Cl (B) = Cl (A). Remark that if B is dense in A and
C ⊆ A is open, then B ∩ C is dense in C. B is nowhere dense in A if A \ Cl (B) is a dense
subset of A.
A map f : X → Y between topological spaces (X, τ ) and (Y, σ) is:
• continuous if the preimage by f of any open set of Y is open,
• open if the (direct) image of an open set of X is open in Y ,
• closed if the (direct) image of a closed set of X is closed in Y ,
• a projection if it is an open and continuous surjection,
• a homeomorphism if it is an open and continuous bijection.
Given a topological space (X, τ ) and Y ⊆ X the restriction of τ to Y is given by the

family {A ∩ Y : A ∈ τ } and is a topology on Y .
Topology of partial orders

A pre-order can always be equipped with a topological structure. Let (P, ≤) a pre-
order. For each X ⊆ P ↓ X = {q ∈ P : ∃ a ∈ X q ≤ a} denote its downward closure,
↑ X = {q ∈ P : ∃ a ∈ X a ≤ q} its upward closure and for each p ∈ P we let
Np :=↓ {p} .
The sets Np form a basis of a topology τP on P , which we call the forcing topology for
lack of a better terminology. We remark the following:
• The open sets of P in this topology are the downward closed subsets of P with
respect to the order ≤ (dually the closed sets in τPc are the upward closed subsets of
P ).
• For any p ∈ P , Np is the smallest open set to which p belongs.
• A subset D of P is dense in the sense of the order iff it is dense in P with respect
to the forcing topology.
• The family of open sets of this forcing topology is closed under arbitrary intersections,
since the family of downward closed subsets of P has this property. In particular
the order topologies are always complete and distributive sublattices of P (P ) (see
the next subsection 1.2 for a definition of complete and distributive lattice).
20
Remark 1.1.3. This topology is not to be confused with the one induced by a linear order.
For example the family of open sets for the forcing topology induced by the linear order
(R, <) is given by the intervals of the form (−∞, a) or (−∞, a] as a ranges in R. We are
interested in order topologies for orders which are not linear. For any pre-order (P, ≤)
containing p 6= q with p ≤ q the induced forcing topology is not Hausdorff: p ∈ U for any
open neighborhood of q, since p ∈ Nq .
Examples of the kind of partial orders we will focus on are given by (τ \ {∅} , ⊆), where
τ is a topology on some space X with no isolated points.
Example 1.1.4. The simplest example of a non-separative partial order is given by the
standard topology τ on R. Consider the partial order (τ \ {∅} , ⊆), this is an atomless
non-separative partial order: First of all notice that open sets A and B in this partial order
are incompatible iff they have empty intersections. Next notice that any non-empty open
set contains two disjoint non-empty proper open subsets, showing that (τ \ {∅} , ⊆) is an
atomless partial order. Finally to see that (τ \ {∅} , ⊆) is not separative, let A 6= B be such
that A ∩ B is a dense subset of both (for example A = (0, 1) ∪ (1, 4), B = (0, π) ∪ (π, 4)).
We have that any V ⊆ A contains an U ⊆ B and conversely, thus giving that neither
A ≤ B, nor B ≤ A, but also that no non-empty open subset of A is incompatible with B.
Example 1.1.5. The partial order (2<ω , ⊇) is the standard example of a separative atom-
less partial order: s ⊥ t iff s ∪ t is not a function and s||t iff s ∪ t = s or s ∪ t = t.
These two partial orders give rise to isomorphic boolean completions, cfr.: Theo-
rem 1.2.20.
Remark 1.1.6. Let (X, τ ) be a topological space. Then:
• D ⊂ X is a dense and open iff σD = {O ∈ τ : O ⊆ D} is a dense subset of the partial

order (τ \ {∅}, ⊆) which is open in the forcing topology induced by ⊆ on τ \ {∅}.
• σ ⊆ τ \ {∅} is predense in the partial order (τ \ {∅}, ⊆) iff ∪σ = Dσ is an open dense

subset of X with respect to the topology τ .
Product topologies
Q I be a set of indexes and for all i ∈ I, let (Xi , τi ) be a topological space and
Let
X = i∈I Xi be the cartesian product of the sets Xi . The product topology τ on X is
Q maps πi : f 7→ f (i) continuous. It is
the weakest topology making all the projections
generated by the family of sets of the form i∈I Ai , where each Ai is open in Xi and
Ai 6= Xi only for finitely many i.
Compactness
A topological space (X, τ ) is compact if any of the following equivalent conditions are
met:
• every family F of closed sets with the finite intersection property1 has a non-empty
intersection.
• Every open covering of X has a finite subcovering.

1
F has the finite intersection property
S if any finite subfamily of F has a non-empty intersection. A
family A of subsets of X such that A = X is a covering of X.
21
We recall that for an Hausdorff space X a subset Y which is compact in the relative
topology inhereted from X is closed. This yields the following fundamental property of
continuous functions between compact Hausdorff spaces:
Assume f : X → Y is continuous with X, Y compact Hausdorff. Then f is a

closed map.
We emphasize the following two statements:
• We focus on either Hausdorff compact spaces or on order topologies.
• We often interplay between the topological notion of density and the notion of dense
subset of a partial order.
1.2 Boolean algebras

1.2.1 Lattices and boolean algebras
A join-semilattice (P, ≤) is a partial order such that every pair of elements (x, y) of P
admits a unique least upper bound denoted by x ∨ y, the join of x and y.
Dually, a partial order (P, ≤) is a meet-semilattice when any two elements x and y in
P have a unique greatest lower bound denoted by x ∧ y, the meet of x and y.
A partial order (P, ≤) is a lattice if it is both a join-semilattice and a meet-semilattice.
A lattice (P, ≤) is bounded if it has a greatest element 1P and a least element 0P which
satisfy 0P ≤ x ≤ 1P for every x in P .
A lattice (P, ≤) is distributive if for all x, y and z in P we have
x ∧ (y ∨ z) = (x ∧ y) ∨ (x ∧ z) and x ∨ (y ∧ z) = (x ∨ y) ∧ (x ∨ z).
Let (P, ≤) be a bounded lattice. A complement of an element a ∈ P is an element

b ∈ P such that a ∨ b = 1P and a ∧ b = 0P .
Remark 1.2.1. In a distributive lattice, if a has a complement it is unique. In this case we
denote by ¬a the complement of a.
A lattice is complemented if it is bounded and every element has a complement.
A lattice
V (P, ≤) is complete if every subset
W X = {xi : i ∈ I} of P has a meet (or infi-
mum) i∈I xi and a join (or supremum)
V x
i∈I Wi.
Notice that if X = ∅, then ∅ = 1 and ∅ = 0, so a complete lattice is always
bounded.
A boolean algebra B is a bounded complemented distributive lattice. To define a boolean
algebra we consider a signature given by a sextuple (0, 1, ∨, ∧, ¬, ≤).
Example 1.2.2. Given a (non-empty) set X and a topology τ on X:
• let 0, 1, ∨, ∧, ¬ and ≤ be respectively ∅, X, ∪, ∩, ¬ and ⊆, then the power set P (X)

of X is a cba,
• the family τ and the family of closed sets τ c are bounded distributive sublattices of
P (X) (with the same operations we have on P (X)),
• the family CLOP(X, τ ) of clopen set of τ is a boolean subalgebra of P (X) (though

in general it is not a cba).
• The partial order (τ, ⊆) has suprema for all of its subsets.
22
• The partial order (τ c , ⊆) has infima for all of its subsets.
It is often convenient to introduce further operations on a boolean algebra. For example

given a and b elements of a boolean algebra a \ b = a ∧ ¬b, and a∆b = (a \ b) ∨ (b \ a).
Notice that if B is P (X), these turn out to be the natural set theoretic operations on
subsets of X.
We denote by B+ the positive elements of B. We often consider B+ when referring to
B as an order, otherwise some definitions could indeed become trivial.
We can also gather the formal definition of a bounded complemented distributive lattice
in an equational characterization of a boolean algebra:
Lemma 1.2.3. Let (B, ∧, ∨, ¬, 0, 1) be a sextuple consisting of a set B, two total binary
operations ∧ and ∨, a total unary operation ¬ on B and two elements 0 and 1 of B.
(B, ∧, ∨, ¬, 0, 1) is a boolean algebra if and only if the following hold:
a ∨ (b ∨ c) = (a ∨ b) ∨ c associativity
a ∧ (b ∧ c) = (a ∧ b) ∧ c
a ∨ (b ∧ c) = (a ∨ b) ∧ (a ∨ c) distributivity
a ∧ (b ∨ c) = (a ∧ b) ∨ (a ∧ c)
a∨b=b∨a commutativity
a∧b=b∧a
a∨0=a identity
a∧1=a
a ∨ ¬a = 1 complements
a ∧ ¬a = 0
On a boolean algebra (B, 0, 1, ∨, ∧, ¬, ≤) we can define an order relation a ≤ b given by

a ∧ b = a (or equivalently a ∨ b = b).
Ideals and filters on boolean algebras

The following also holds:
Lemma 1.2.4. (B, ∧, ∨, ¬, 0, 1) is a boolean algebra if and only if letting a∆b = (a ∨ b) ∧

¬(a ∧ b) we have that (B, ∧, ∆, 0, 1) satisfies the axiom of a multiplicatively idempotent
commutative ring with ∆ interpreting the sum and ∧ the multiplication.
Definition 1.2.5. Let B be a boolean algebra, H ⊆ B. Its dual H̆ = {¬b : b ∈ H}.
Fact 1.2.6. Let B be a boolean algebra. I ⊆ B is an ideal on B seen as a commutative

ring if and only if I˘ is a filter on B+ seen as a partial order.
By the above Lemma and Fact, we get the following:
Lemma 1.2.7. For any boolean algebra B and ideal I on B, B/I is a boolean algebra whose
elements are the equivalence classes [a]I = {b ∈ B : a∆b ∈ I} with operations inherited by
B: ¬[a]I = [¬a]I , [a]I ∧ [b]I = [a ∧ b]I . . .
Proof. hB, ∆, ∧, 0B , 1B i is a commutative ring with idempotent multiplication, hence so is

its quotient B/I modulo any ideal I on B.
23
1.2.2 Complete boolean algebras
If B is also complete (i.e. it admits suprema and infima with respect Wto all of its subsets),
then it is a complete boolean algebra, or cba for short, we denote by A the supremaV(in
the sens of the order on B) of a subset A of a boolean algebra B (if it exists), and by A
its infima (if it exists).
Given a boolean algebra B, a subset X of B+ is dense if it is dense in the poset B+ . A
boolean algebra B is atomless if the order B+ is atomless. A boolean algebra is atomic if
the set of minimal elements (i.e. atoms) of B+ is dense in B+ .
Given a boolean algebra B, and some b ∈ B+ , the booelan algebra B b is given by
{a ∈ B : a ≤B b}, with the operations inherited from B. The top element of B b is b.
We need the following property of complete boolean algebras:
W
Fact 1.2.8. Assume B is a complete boolean algebra and X ⊆ B. Then X = 1B iff
X ∩ B+ is a predense subset of B+ in the sense of the order.
More generally for any dense set D ⊇ B+ and any a ∈ B+ a = {q ∈ D : q ≤B a}
W
In particular a complete boolean algebra B can be split in the disjoint sum of an atomic
boolean algebra and of an atomless boolean algebra. I.e. there is c ∈ B such that B ¬c
is atomless, and B c is atomic.
Preservation of completeness under quotients

Remark that the class of complete boolean algebras is closed under products and
complete subalgebras, but in general it is not closed under quotients (for example P (N)
is complete, while P (N) /Fin is not, Fin being the ideal of finite subsets of N).
Definition 1.2.9. Let B be a boolean algebra and W κ a cardinal.
B is κ-complete (respectively < κ-complete) if B J (the suprema of J under the order
relation on B) exists for all J ∈ [B]κ (respectively J ∈ [B]<κ ).
B is complete if it is |B|-complete W
Let I ⊆ B an ideal. I is κ-complete (respectively < κ-complete) if B J ∈ I for all
J ∈ [I]κ (respectively J ∈ [I]<κ ).
Lemma 1.2.10. Assume κ ≥ λ, B is κ-complete and I ⊆ B is a λ-complete ideal. Then
B/I is λ-complete. Hence if B and I are both < δ-complete, so is B/I .
W
Proof. Given {[aξ ]I : ξ < λ} ⊆ B/I , a = ξ<λ aξ ∈ B exists since B is κ-complete. [a]I
is the suprema of {[aξ ]I : ξ < λ}:
W if [c]I ≥ [aξ ]I for all ξ, we get that dξ = aξ \ c ∈ I
for all ξ ≤ λ and a \ c ≤ d = B {dξ : ξ ≤ λ} (d exists by κ-completeness of B), hence
[c]I ≥ [a]I .
Complete boolean algebras of regular open sets

Every complete boolean algebra can be considered as the family of regular open sets
of some given topological space. The first step in this direction is to show that the regular
open sets of a given topological space have a natural structure of complete boolean algebra.
Definition 1.2.11. Let (X, τ ) be a topological space. A ∈ τ is regular open if A =
Reg (A). We denote by RO(X, τ ) the collection of regular open sets in X with respect to
τ . If no confusion can arise we write RO(X) instead of RO(X, τ ).
Remark 1.2.12. Any clopen subset of a topological space is regular. Any open interval
of R with the usual topology is regular. If U and V are open regular then so is U ∩ V .
Moreover any isolated point x ∈ X of a topological space X is such that {x} is clopen and
thus regular.
24
We set 0 = ∅, 1 = X, U ≤ V if and only if U ⊆ V and we equip RO(X) with the
following operations:
U ∨ V =Reg (U ∪ V ) ,
U ∧ V =U ∩ V,
!
_ [
Ui =Reg Ui ,
i∈I i∈I
!
^ \
Ui =Reg Ui ,
i∈I i∈I
¬U =X \ Cl (U ) .
The following holds:
Theorem 1.2.13. Assume (X, τ ) is a topological space. Then RO(X) with the operations
defined above is a complete boolean algebra.
The following characterization of regular open sets is useful:
Lemma 1.2.14. Let (X, τ ) be a topological space. For any open A ∈ τ we have:
Reg (A) = {x ∈ X : ∃U ∈ τ open set containing x such that A ∩ U is dense in U } .
Hence if (P, ≤) is a partial order, we get that for the forcing topology τP and some
A⊆P
Reg (A) = {q ∈ A : A ∩ Nq is dense in Nq } ,
since Nq is the smallest open neighborhood of q in τP .
Remark that if U is an open neighborhood of x witnessing that x ∈ Reg (A) any V ⊆ U

open neighborhood of x is equally well a witness of x ∈ Reg (A), since A ∩ W = A ∩ U ∩ W
is a dense open subset of W for any open W ⊆ U .
1.2.3 Stone spaces of boolean algebras

There is a natural functor that attaches to a boolean algebra the Stone space of its ul-
trafilters. These spaces turn out to be compact and 0-dimensional. Complete boolean
algebras are those whose Stone spaces have the property that their regular open sets are
clopen.
Definition 1.2.15. Let B be a boolean algebra. G ⊂ B is a prefilter in B if and only if

for every a1 , . . . , an ∈ G, a1 ∧ · · · ∧ an > 0B .
A prefilter G is a filter if it contains all its finite meets and is upward closed.
A filter G is an ultrafilter if it satisfies the additional condition:
∀a ∈ B, a ∈ G ∨ ¬a ∈ G.
A filter G is principal if a ∈ G for some atom a ∈ B.
We recall the following essential result:
Theorem 1.2.16 (Prime ideal theorem). Assume F is a prefilter on a boolean algebra B.

Then F can be extended to an ultrafilter G on B.
25
Let B be a boolean algebra. We define:
St(B) = {G ⊆ B : G is an ultrafilter};
τB is the topology on St(B) generated by 2 {Nb = {G ∈ St(B) : b ∈ G} : b ∈ B}.

The topological space (St(B), τB ) is the Stone space of B. We have:
1. for all b ∈ B, Nb ∩ N¬b = ∅;
2. for all b ∈ B, Nb ∪ N¬b = St(B);
3. for all b1 , . . . , bn ∈ B, Nb1 ∩ . . . ∩ Nbn = Nb1 ∧...∧bn ;
4. for all b1 , . . . , bn ∈ B, Nb1 ∪ . . . ∪ Nbn = Nb1 ∨...∨bn .

We outline the key properties of Stone spaces.
Theorem 1.2.17 (Stone duality for boolean algebras). Given a boolean algebra B, we
have that:
• (St(B), τB ) is a Hausdorff 0-dimensional, compact topological space.
• The map
φ :B → CLOP(St(B))
b 7→ Nb
is an isomorphism, hence the clopen sets of τB are the sets Nb for b ∈ B, and form
a basis for τB .
• There is a natural correspondence between open (closed) subsets of St(B) and ideals
(filters) on B:
– U ⊆ St(B) is open if and only if
{c ∈ B : Nc ⊆ U } is an ideal on B
– F ⊆ St(B) is closed if and only if
{c ∈ B : Nc ⊇ F } is a filter on B
• G is an isolated point of St(B) if and only if G = Ga = {b ∈ B : a ≤ b} is a principal

ultrafilter generated by some atom a ∈ B.
It is possible to go the other way round, i.e. take a topological space and attach to it a
boolean algebra, we already outlined one natural option assigning to (X, τ ) the complete
boolean algebra RO(X, τ ). There is also another possibility, which assigns to (X, τ ) the
family of clopen subsets of X.
Proposition 1.2.18. Let (X, τ ) be a 0-dimensional compact topological space. Then
(X, τ ) is homeomorphic to the Stone space of CLOP(X, τ ) via the map
π : X −→ St(CLOP(X, τ ))
x 7−→ Gx = {U ∈ CLOP(X, τ ) : x ∈ U } ∈ St(CLOP(X, τ )).
2
I.e., the smallest topology that contains {Nb : b ∈ B}.
26
For a given topology τ on X there are two natural boolean algebras we can attach to it:
CLOP(X, τ ) and RO(X, τ ). Observe that CLOP(X, τ )+ is always contained in RO(X, τ )+
and that if τ is 0-dimensional, any open set contains a clopen set, hence CLOP(X, τ )+ is
a dense subset of RO(X, τ )+ .
We give a necessary and sufficient condition to ensure that CLOP(X, τ ) and RO(X, τ )
coincide.
Proposition 1.2.19. Assume B is a boolean algebra. B is complete if and only if the

regular open sets of St(B) overlap with the clopen subsets of St(B).
We say that a topological space (X, τ ) is extremally disconnected if CLOP(X, τ ) =

RO(X, τ ).
1.2.4 Boolean completion of a partial order

Every pre-order can be completed to a complete boolean algebra.
Theorem 1.2.20. Let (Q, ≤Q ) a pre-order. There exists a unique (up to isomorphism)
cba B and a map j : Q → B such that:
1. j preserves order and incompatibility (i.e. both a ≤Q b ⇒ j(a) ≤B j(b) and a ⊥ b ⇔

j(a) ∧ j(b) = 0B hold).
2. j[Q] is a dense subset of the partial order (B+ , ≤).
Notice that while B is unique, there can be many j : Q → B which satisfy the above
requirements.
Proof. Define:
j : Q −→ RO(Q)
p 7−→ Reg (↓ {p}) .
The map j defines a complete embedding of Q into RO(Q)+ with a dense image which
preserves order and incompatibility. The uniqueness up to isomorphism of the boolean
completions of Q can also be established.
Remark 1.2.21. (Q, ≤) is a separative pre-order if and only if the map j : Q → RO(Q) of
Theorem 1.2.20 is an injection.
Notation 1.2.22. Given a partial order P we denote by RO(P ) the algebra of regular
open sets of the forcing topology on P . Given a topological space (X, τ ) we denote by
RO(X) (or RO(X, τ ) in case confusion can arise) the algebra of regular open sets of τ .
1.3 Homomorphisms of boolean algebras and Stone duality

We introduce the type of homomorphisms between boolean algebras that will be of interest
for us and we analyze their basic properties.
27
1.3.1 Adjoint pairs
The terminology we adopt comes from category theory (i.e. adjoint functors for categories
which are partial orders), and from Stone duality which (as we just saw) establish the
correspondence of the notion of homomorphism between boolean algebras with that of
continuous function between compact Hausdorff spaces. Much of what we say draws
from [8, Chapters 1, 6].
Definition 1.3.1 (Def. 1.3, Thm 1.2 [8]). Let P, Q be partial orders and i : P → Q,
π : Q → P be order preserving maps between them. The pair (i, π) forms an an adjoint
pair (or a Galois connection or a pair of residuated mappings) if for all p ∈ P and q ∈ Q
i(p) ≥ q if and only if π(q) ≤ p.
Proposition 1.3.2. Let P, Q be partial orders and i : P → Q, π : Q → P be such that

(i, π) is an adjoint pair. It holds that:
1. π ◦ i(c) ≥ c for all c ∈ Q,
2. π is defined by
π(c) = inf {b ∈ P : i(b) ≥ c} ,
P
3. i is defined by
i(b) = sup {c ∈ Q : b ≥ π(c)} ,
Q
4. i ◦ π ◦ i = i for all b ∈ P , and π ◦ i ◦ π = π for all c ∈ Q,
5. if i is injective π ◦ i is the identity map on P .
Hence any order preserving map i : P → Q (π : Q → P ) can have at most one π : Q → P

(i : P → Q) such that (i, π) is an adjoint pair.
Proof.
1. Since (i, π) is an adjoint pair we get that i(b) ≥ c if and only if b ≥ π(c), therefore
i ◦ π(c) ≥ c if and only if π(c) ≤ π(c), which is clearly the case.
2. Observe that i ◦ π(c) ≥ c by the first item, hence π(c) is in the set on the right-hand
side. Moreover b ≥ π(c) if and only if i(b) ≥ c since (i, π) is an adjoint pair. Hence
π(c) is the minimum of the set on the right-hand side.
3. Observe that π ◦ i(b) ≤ b since i(b) ≤ i(b) trivially holds and (i, π) is an adjoint
pair, hence i(b) is in the set on the right-hand side. Moreover b ≥ π(c) if and only if
i(b) ≥ c since (i, π) is an adjoint pair. Therefore i(b) is the maximum of the set on
the right-hand side.
4. π(i(b)) ≤ b if and only if i(b) ≤ i(b) since (i, π) is an adjoint pair. Therefore
i ◦ π ◦ i(b) ≤ i(b) since i is order preserving. i(π(i(b))) ≥ i(b) if and ony if π(i(b)) ≥
π(i(b)) since (i, π) is an adjoint pair. Hence i ◦ π ◦ i(b) = i(b). The other assertion
is proved exactly in the same vein.
5. If i is injective i ◦ π ◦ i(b) = i(b) if and only if π ◦ i(b) = b for all b ∈ P .
28
Notation 1.3.3. In case (i, π) forms an adjoint pair, π is the adjoint, the residual, the
retraction, or the projection associated to i.
Definition 1.3.4. Let B, C be boolean algebras (not necessarily complete).

A map k : B → C is a homomorphism if it preserves the boolean operations, a κ-
complete homomorphism if it moreover maps predense subsets of size at most κ of B+ to
predense subsets of C+ , a complete homomorphisms if it is |B|-complete, an isomorphism
if it is a bijective homomorphism.
i is a regular embedding if it admits an adjoint πi .
Remark 1.3.5. Assume B, C are W W boolean algebras. i : B → C is a κ-complete

κ-complete
homomorphisms if and only if i[ B A] = C i[A] for all A ⊂ B of size at most κ.
The following theorem links the notion of (complete injective) homomorphism to that
of (open surjective) continuous function and of adjoint pair:
Theorem 1.3.6. Let i : B → C be an homomorphism of boolean algebras.

Define
πi∗ : St(C) → St(B)
G 7→ i−1 [G],
Then:
1. πi∗ is continuous and closed;
2. i is injective if and only if πi∗ is surjective, in which case π ∗ [Ni(b) ] = Nb ;
3. i is complete if πi∗ is open.
4. Assume i is injective. Then i has an adjoint πi if and only if πi∗ is an open map, in
which case:
• πi is defined by the identity Nπi (c) = πi∗ [Nc ].

• i is complete,
• πi (c) ∧ b = πi (c ∧ i(b)) for all b ∈ B and c ∈ C.
• πi is order and suprema preserving.
5. Assume i is an injective complete homomorphism. Then
ī : RO(St(B)) → RO(St(C))
[
A 7→ Reg Ni(b) : Nb ⊆ A
is a regular embedding extending i (i.e. modulo the identification of B with CLOP(St(B))

and C with CLOP(St(C)) ī(Nb ) = Ni(b) ). Moreover i has an adjoint π if and only
if π is the restriction to B of the adjoint π̄ of ī (i.e. modulo the identification of B
with CLOP(St(B)), π̄ B is the map Nc 7→ πi∗ [Nc ]).
Remark 1.3.7. We are not able to rule out the case that there is an injective homomorphism
i : B → C which is complete but does not have an adjoint. This occurs if πi∗ [Nc ] is just
closed but not open for some c ∈ C+ . In particular the notion of complete injective
homomorphisms is possibly slightly weaker than that of regular embedding. In any case
in the remainder of the book we will just consider complete injective homomorphism which
are also regular embeddings.
29
Proof. Let π ∗ denote πi∗ in what follows. Observe that
π ∗ [Nc ] = {H : ∃G ∈ Nc (i[H] ⊆ G)} = {H ∈ St(B) : c ∧ i(d) > 0 for all d ∈ H}
by the prime ideal theorem.
1. Immediate since π ∗ −1 [Nb ] = Ni(b) for all b ∈ B.

2. The surjectivity of π ∗ follows by the prime ideal theorem:
If i is injective, i[H] is a prefilter, hence there is G ∈ St(B) containing it, and
π ∗ (G) = H.
If i is not injective and i(b) = 0 for some b > 0, we have that Nb ∩ ran(π ∗ ) = ∅,
hence πi is not surjective.
3. Assume i is not complete. Let D be a predense subset of B such that i[D] is not
predense in C. Fix c ∈ C such that c ∧ i(d) = 0C for all d ∈ D. Then
[
A= Nd
d∈D
is a dense open subset of St(B) and π ∗ [Nc ] ∩ A = ∅. Since St(B) \ A is closed

nowhere dense, this gives that π ∗ [Nc ] is closed (since St(B) is compact Hausdorff)
and nowhere dense, hence it is not open.
4. First assume π ∗ is open. By 3 i is complete. Let us define πi : C → B by the identity
π ∗ [Nc ] = Nπi (c) for c ∈ C. πi is well defined since π ∗ is an open and closed map,
hence π ∗ [Nc ] is always clopen. πi is immediately seen to be order preserving. πi is
also surjective: For b ∈ B
Nb = π ∗ [Ni(b) ] = Nπi (i(b)) .
Now we show the remaining properties of πi and π ∗ :

W S
πi preserves suprema: Assume c = C A; this occurs if and only if Nc = Reg ( {Na : a ∈ A}).
Now π ∗ is open, hence π ∗ [ {Na : a ∈ A}] is open; it is also dense in π ∗ [Nc ] since
S
π ∗ is open surjective. Hence
[
Nπi (c) = π ∗ [Nc ] = Reg π ∗ [ {Na : a ∈ A}] ,
W
giving that πi (c) = B πi [A].
πi is the adjoint of i: It suffices to prove that
^
πi (c) = {b : i(b) ≥ c} ,
by 1.3.2.
First we prove πi (c) ≤ b for all b such that i(b) ≥ c: Assume i(b) ≥ c. Let
H ∈ π ∗ [Nc ] = Nπi (c) , this occurs if and only if i(d) ∧ c > 0c for all d ∈ H, giving
that i(d)∧i(b) ≥ i(d)∧c > 0C for all d ∈ H (since i(b) ≥ c), which occurs only if
b ∈ H, since this occurs for all H ∈ π ∗ [Nc ] we have that π ∗ [Nc ] ⊆ Nb , therefore
πi (c) ≤ b. To conclude it suffices to show that i(πi (c)) ≥ c. Assume not towards
a contradiction; then 0C < ¬(i(πi (c)) ∧ c = i(¬πi (c)) ∧ c. Hence there exists
H ∈ Ni(¬πi (c)) with c ∈ H. Then on the one hand i−1 [H] = π ∗ (H) ∈ π ∗ [Nc ] =
Nπi (c) by definition of πi (c), and on the other hand πi (c) 6∈ i−1 [H] by definition
of H; we reached a contradiction.
30
πi (c) ∧ b = π(c ∧ i(b)) for all b ∈ B and c ∈ C:
Nπi (c∧i(b)) = {H ∈ St(B) : c ∧ i(b) ∧ i(d) > 0 for all d ∈ H} =

= {H ∈ Nb : c ∧ i(d) > 0 for all d ∈ H} =
= {H ∈ St(B) : c ∧ i(d) > 0 for all d ∈ H} ∩ Nb =
= π ∗ [Nc ] ∩ Nb =
= Nπi (c) ∩ Nb =
= Nπi (c)∧b .
On the other hand assume i has an adjoint πi , it suffices to prove that Nπi (c) = π ∗ [Nc ]
for all c ∈ C. This grants that π ∗ is an open map, hence i is complete, and all the
required properties of π ∗ and πi holds.
To this aim recall that π ∗ [Nc ] = {H ∈ St(B) : c ∧ i(d) > 0 for all d ∈ H}. Now as-
sume H ∈ π ∗ [Nc ], then i(d ∧ πi (c)) ≥ i(d) ∧ c > 0 for all d ∈ H, therefore
d ∧ πi (c) > 0 for all d ∈ H, which occurs if and only if H ∈ Nπi (c) . This shows
that π ∗ [Nc ] ⊆ Nπi (c) . On ∗
Vthe other hand H 6∈ π [Nc ] if and only if for some d ∈ H
i(d)∧c = 0, but πi (c) = {b : i(b) ≥Vc}. Now if i(d)∧c = 0 and i(b) ≥ c, we get that
i(d ∧ b) = i(d) ∧ i(b) ≥ c. Hence d ∧ {b : i(b) ≥ c} = 0. This gives that H 6∈ Nπi (c) ,
hence π ∗ [Nc ] ⊇ Nπi (c) .
5. Assume i is complete and injective. We first show the following:
For all A dense open subset of St(B)
B = π ∗ −1 [A] =
[
Ni(b) : Nb ⊆ A
is a dense open subset of St(C).
Clearly B is open since π ∗ is continuous. If it is not dense, we get that for some
c ∈ C+ Nc ∩ B = ∅. But B =
S
Ni(b) : Nb ⊆ A , and A is an open dense subset
of B if and only if {b : Nb ⊆ A} is a predense subset of B+ . Since i is complete,
{i(b) : Nb ⊆ A} is a predense subset of C+ , which occurs if and only if B is a dense
open subset of St(C).
Now we prove that ī is an homomorphism. For A regular open subset of St(B) we
have that [
ī(A) = Reg Ni(b) : Nb ⊆ A
and [
ī(¬A) = Reg Ni(b) : Nb ∩ A = ∅ ;
therefore ī(A) ∪ ī(¬A) is dense in St(C) since A ∪ ¬A is dense open in St(C). On the
other hand
[ [
ī(A) ∩ ī(B) = Reg Ni(b) : Nb ⊆ A ∩ Ni(c) : Nc ⊆ B =
[
= Reg Ni(b∧c) : Nb ⊆ A, Nc ⊆ B =
ī(A ∩ B).
These two identities suffice to prove that ī is an homomorphism. Clearly ī(Nb ) =

Ni(b) , hence ī extends i.
31
T
Let π̄(A) = Int ( {B : ī(B) ⊇ A}). Then it is immediate to check that π̄ is the
adjoint of ī by 1.3.2. since
\
π̄(A) = Int {B : ī(B) ⊇ A} = inf {B : ī(B) ⊇ A} .
RO(St(B))
Therefore ī is a regular embedding with adjoint π̄ which extends i.

If i is a regular embedding, then πi∗ [Nc ] = Int (πi∗ [Nc ]) is clopen for all c ∈ C by 4.
Assuming this is the case for all c ∈ C, we get that
\
πī (Nc ) = Int B ∈ RO(St(B)) : ī(B) ⊇ Nc = Int (πi∗ [Nc ]) = πi∗ [Nc ].
Conversely if πī (Nc ) is clopen for all c ∈ C we get that πī B is the adjoint of i,
hence i is a regular embedding and πī (Nc ) = πi∗ [Nc ] can be again obtained as above
using 4 for the regular embedding i.
For the sake of completeness we also outline that any continuous map between compact
Hausdorff spaces gives rise to an homomorphism between the boolan algebras of clopen
sets, which is also complete if the map is open:
Lemma 1.3.8. Assume X, Y are compact Hausdorff and f : X → Y is continuos, then:
if : CLOP(Y ) → CLOP(X)
U 7→ f −1 [U ],
is an homomorphism, which is complete if f maps open sets to open sets, morever in this
case πif (U ) = f [U ] for all U clopen subset of X.
Proof. Left to the reader.
1.3.2 Quotient homomorphisms

The following definitions and results will be extremely useful to analyze the quotient
homomorphisms induced by V -generic filters, as well as the homomorphisms defining a
tower of ideals.
Definition 1.3.9. Let k : B → C an homomorphism of boolean algebras, I be an ideal on

B, and J an ideal on C.
• J projects to I through k if k[I] ⊆ J and k[I + ] ⊆ J + .
• J is the lift of I by k if J =↓ k[I].
Proposition 1.3.10. Let k : B → C be a complete homomorphism of boolean algebras,

π : C → B be such that (k, π) forms an adjoint pair, I be an ideal on B, and J be an ideal
on C.
1. J projects to I through k if and only if π[J + ] = I + and π[J] ⊇ I.
2. J is the lift of I by k if and only if π[J] = I and π[J + ] = I + . Hence if J is the lift
of I by k, J projects to I through k.
32
Proof.
1. First assume J projects to I through k. We show that π[J + ] = I + and π[J] ⊇ I.

Clearly k[I] ⊆ J gives that π[J] ⊇ π ◦k[I] = I. Now J + , J partition C in two disjoint
pieces, and π is surjective, hence B = π[J + ] ∪ π[J]. Now assume π(c) ∈ I ∩ π[J + ].
Then c ≤ k(π(c)) ∈ J, since J projects to I through k, a contradiction. Therefore
π[J + ] ⊆ I + . Since k[I + ] ⊆ J + and I + = π ◦ k[I + ], we get that π[J + ] = I + .
Conversely assume π[J + ] = I + and π[J] ⊇ I. Then k[I + ] = k ◦ π[J + ] ⊆ J + , and
k[I] ⊆ k ◦ π[J] ⊆ J. Hence I projects to J through k.
2. Assume J =↓ k[I]. Then c ∈ J + if and only if c 6≤ k(b) for all b ∈ I if and only if
π(c) 6≤ b for all b ∈ I if and only if π(c) ∈ I + . Hence π[J + ] = I + and π[J] = I. The
converse is left to the reader.
Lemma 1.3.11. Assume k : B → C is an homomorphism. Let I be an ideal on B and J

an ideal on C such that J projects to I through k. Then
k/I,J :B/I → C/J

[b]I 7→ [k(b)]J
is an injective homomorphism.
Assume moreover that k has an adjoint π and that J is the lift of I by k. Then
π/I,J :C/J → B/I

[c]J 7→ [π(c)]I
is well defined and π/I,J is the adjoint of k/I,J , hence k/I,J is a regular embedding (even
though B/I , C/J need not be complete)
Proof. The condition k[I] ⊆ J grants that k/I,J is an homomorphism on the quotient
algebras, the condition k[I + ] ∩ J = ∅ grants that k/I,J is injective.
To prove the second part of the proposition, we first observe that k/I,J ([b]I ) ≥ [c]J if
and only if c ∧ k(¬b) = c ∧ ¬k(b) ∈ J if and only if3 π(c) ∧ ¬b = π(c ∧ k(¬b)) ∈ I, if and
only if [π(c)]I ≤ [b]I .
Hence
[π(c)]I = inf {[b]I : k/I,J ([b]I ) ≥ [c]J } .
This gives that π/I,J ([c]J ) = [π(c)]I is a well defined order-preserving map from C/J onto
B/I and also that (k/I,J , π/I,J ) forms an adjoint pair.
Remark 1.3.12. In general the notion of canonical projection through k is weaker than that
of being the lift by k: For example if k : B → C is injective but not surjective, H ∈ St(B),
G ∈ St(C) are ultrafilters with k[H] ⊆ G, we have that Ğ canonically projects to H̆, but
Ğ is never the lift of H̆ by k, since ↓ k[H̆] is not a prime ideal.
Proposition 1.3.13. Assume k : B → C is a κ-complete homomorphism of κ-complete
boolean algebras. Let J be an ideal on C which projects to I ideal on B through k. Then
k/I,J is κ-complete as well.
3
Here we are crucially using that J is the lift of I by k.
33
W
Proof. Assume A = {[ai ]I : i < κ} ⊆ B/I . Let a = i<κ ai . Then [a]I is the supremum of
it is an upper bound, and if [b]I ≥ [ai ] for all i < κ we have that ai \ b = ci ∈ I,
A: clearly W
hence c = i<κ ci ∈ I and a \ b ≤ c. Similarly one checks that [k(a)]J is the supremum in
C/J of k/I,J [A].
Summing up we have the following crucial properties of adjoint pairs:
Theorem 1.3.14. Assume i : B → C is an homomorphism. The following holds:
1. If i has an adjoint πi , i is a complete homomorphism and πi∗ : St(C) → St(B) is an

open map with πi∗ [Nc ] = Nπi (c) for all c ∈ C. Moreover πi and πi∗ are surjective if
and only if i is injective.
2. If i is a complete injective homomorphism and B is a complete boolean algebra, then

i has an adjoint πi .
3. Assume i has an adjoint π and I, J are ideals respectively on B and C such that J
is the lift of I. Then i/I,J has as adjoint π/I,J .
4. The assertion “i : B → C is a regular embedding” is a ∆0 -property, hence it is

absolute between transitive structures to which i, B, C belong.
Assume πi is the adjoint of i and i is injective. For any b ∈ B, c, d ∈ C we have that:

V
(a) πi is order preserving and is defined by c 7→ {b ∈ B : i(b) ≥ c};
(b) πi ◦ i(b) = b, hence πi is surjective;
(c) i ◦ πi (c) ≥ c, moreover πi maps C+ to B+ ;

W W
(d) πi preserves joins, i.e. πi ( X) = πi [X] for all X ⊆ C for which a suprema exists
in C;
W
(e) i(b) = {e : πi (e) ≤ b};
W
(f ) πi (c ∧ i(b)) = πi (c) ∧ b = {πi (e) : e ≤ c, πi (e) ≤ b},
(g) πi does not preserve neither meets nor complements whenever i is not surjective, but
πi (d ∧ c) ≤ πi (d) ∧ πi (c) and πi (¬c) ≥ ¬πi (c).
Proof. Left to the reader (recall the fundamental identity Nπi (c) = i−1 [Nc ] and all the
results established in 1.3.6 and in 1.3.11). Remark that i has an adjoint if and only if
∀c ∈ C ∃b ∈ B (b = inf {e : i(e) ≥ c}),
which is a ∆0 -property.
Remark 1.3.15. Remark in sharp contrast, that while the property of being a complete
boolean algebra is not absolute between transitive structures (in an outer model some new
subset of the boolean algebra may not have a supremum), the property of being a regular
embedding is absolute (and regular embeddings are just a very slight strengthening of the
notion of complete injective homomorphism).
34
Notation 1.3.16. Let B be a complete boolean algebra, and let b ∈ B+ . Then
B b = {c ∈ B : c ≤ b},
and
Restb : B → B b
c 7→ c ∧ b.
is the restriction map from B to B b .

Let i : B → C be a complete homomorphism. We define
_
ker(i) = {b ∈ B : i(b) = 0C }
coker(i) = ¬ ker(i)
Remark 1.3.17. We can always factor a complete homomorphism i : B → C as the re-

striction map from B to B coker(i) (which we can trivially check to be a complete and
surjective homomorphism) composed with the regular embedding i Bcoker(i) . This fac-
torization allows to generalize easily many results on regular embeddings to results on
complete homomorphisms.
Later in these notes we will use the following Lemma to extend various results on
i : B → C to subalgebras of the form B πi (c), C c.
Lemma 1.3.18 (Restriction). Let i : B → C be a regular embedding, c ∈ C, then
ic : B πi (c) → C c
b 7→ i(b) ∧ c
is a regular embedding and its associated retraction is πic = πi (Cc ) .
Proof. First suppose that ic (b) = 0, then by Proposition 1.3.14.f,
0 = πi (ic (b)) = πi (i(b) ∧ c) = b ∧ πi (c) = b.
Hence ic is injective. Furthermore, for any d ≤ c,

V
πic (d) = V {b ≤ πi (c) : i(b) ∧ c ≥ d}
= {b ≤ πi (c) : i(b) ≥ d} = πi (d),
concluding the proof.
35
Chapter 2
Clubs and normal ideals
2.1 Generalized clubs and generalized stationarity

In this section we recall the properties of generalized stationarity. Reference texts are
[28], [30, Chapter 2]. The notion of generalized stationary set is rooted in the downward
Lowenheim-Skolem theorem for countable languages stating that:
Let hRi : i ∈ I, fj : j ∈ J, ck : k ∈ Ki be a countable first order signature,

and M = hM, RiM : i ∈ I, fjM : j ∈ J, cM k : k ∈ Ki a structure of large size
(i.e. with domain an uncountable set of size λ) for this signature. Given a
subset X of M of size κ with κ ≤ λ, there is an N ≺ M such that X ⊆ N and
|N | = |X| + ℵ0 .
In particular this theorem provides “many” elementary substructures of M: for example

for any infinite X ⊆ M we can “blow” X to a larger set of the same cardinality which is
an elementary substructure of M .
The notion of generalized stationarity and (of normal fine ideal which we are going
to introduce later on) aims to give a precise meaning to the concept of “many”. More
specifically the Lowenheim Skolem theorem gives us the possibility to find substructures
of M which maintain certain second order properties of M which are not expressed by
the first order theory of M (specifically that of having size at least κ for some κ ≥ ω).
Moreover the theorem states that we can find many such structures of a fixed infinite
cardinality κ < λ (by the theorem any subset of M of size κ can be a subset of an
elementary substructure of size κ). The notion of generalized club gives us the tool to
describe precisely what is meant by “many”: the basic idea being that a subset of P (M ) is
large if it contains “almost all” elementary substructures of M. The notion of generalized
stationarity captures the concept that the set of elementary substructures of M which
maintain certain second order properties of M (for example that of being a model of
uncountable size) is always “non negligible”.
The standard proof of this theorem produces a Skolem function f : M <ω → M and
shows that any superset N of X closed under f (i.e. such that f [N <ω ] ⊆ N ) is an
elementary substructure of M. It appears that the notion of Skolem function is more
manageable from a combinatorial point of view, than that of first order structure. For this
reason in the development of the notion of generalized stationarity one is led to focus on
Skolem functions on a set M , which for us are just functions f : M <ω → M , rather than
on first order structures with domain M .
36
2.1.1 Definitions
Definition 2.1.1. Let X be a set. A set C is a club on P (X) if there is a function
f : X <ω → X such that
C ⊇ Cf = Y ∈ P (X) : f [Y ]<ω ⊆ Y .

Given a function f : X <ω → X we write Cf to denote the club defined from f .

Definition 2.1.2. A set S is stationary on P (X) if it intersects every club on P (X).
Example 2.1.3. The set {X} is always stationary since every club contains X. Also
P (X) \ {X} and [X]κ are stationary for any infinite κ ≤ |X| (following the proof of the
well-known downwards Löwhenheim-Skolem Theorem). Notice that every element of a
club C must contain fC (∅), a fixed element of X. Moreover Ca = {Z : a ∈ Z} is a club
as witnessed by the constant function ca : X <ω → X, s 7→ a for all a ∈ X. Finally if
X = {xn : n ∈ ω} is countable {X} is a club (choose g(s) = x|s| for s ∈ X <ω ). Hence the
notion of stationarity for a set S ⊆ P (X) is non-trivial (i.e. different from that of club)
only if X is uncountable.
Remark 2.1.4. The reference to the support set X for clubsSor stationary sets may be
omitted, since every set S can be club or stationary only on S (otherwise S is disjoint
from Ca for some a ∈/ ∪S).
There is a key property of stationary sets worth to mention. Given any first-order
structure M in a countable language with domain M , we can define a Skolem function
fM : M <ω → M (i.e., a function coding solutions for all existential first-order formulas over
M). The set C of all elementary submodels of M contains a club (the one corresponding
to fM ). Henceforth, every set S stationary on X must contain an elementary submodel of
any first-order structure in a countable language with domain X. Moreover the following
property of clubs will be repeatedly used throughout these notes:
Fact 2.1.5. Assume M ≺ Hθ and f : X <ω → X in M . Then M ∩ X ∈ Cf .
Proof. f ∈ M ≺ Hθ grants that f (s) ∈ M ∩ X for any s ∈ X <ω ∩ M = (X ∩ M )<ω
(the latter equality holds since M ≺ Hθ is closed under finite sequences). The conclusion
follows immediately.
Definition 2.1.6. A set S is subset modulo club of T , in symbols S ⊆∗ T , if S = T =

S S
X and there is a club C on X such that S ∩ C ⊆ T ∩ C. Similarly, a set S is equivalent
modulo club to T , in symbols S =∗ T , if S ⊆∗ T ∧ T ⊆∗ S.
Definition 2.1.7. Let X be a set and let A ⊆ P (P (X)).
The dual of A is the set Ă given by {P (X) \ S : S ∈ A}.
I ⊆ P (P (X)) is an ideal with support X if it is an ideal on the complete boolean
algebra P (P (X)).
F ⊆ P (P (X)) is a filter with support X if it is the dual of an ideal with support X.
If I is an ideal I + denotes the I-positive sets, i.e. P (P (X)) \ I.
Remark 2.1.8. I is an ideal with support X if and only if I˘ is a filter.
˘
Ă = A.
Definition 2.1.9. Let I ⊆ P (P (X)) be an ideal and let S ∈ I + . We define
I S = I ∩ P (S) .
37
Remark 2.1.10. Observe that modulo isomorphism we have:
I S ∼
= the ideal generated by I ∪ {P (X) \ S} .
(where the ideal J generated by a set U is the smallest ideal containing U ).
Definition 2.1.11. The non-stationary ideal on X is
NSX = {S ∈ P (P (X)) : ∃f Cf ∩ S = ∅} .
Analogously the club filter on X is
CFX = {C ⊂ P (P (X)) : ∃f C ⊇ Cf } .
By definition for any element in S ∈ NSX there exists a function f such that Cf ∩S = ∅,
we will write that f is the witnessing function of S.
Remark 2.1.12. If |X| = |Y |, then P (X) and P (Y ) are isomorphic and so are CFX and
CFY (or NSX and NSY ): hence we can suppose X ∈ Ord or X ⊇ ω1 , or X transitive if
needed.
Lemma 2.1.13. CFX is a σ-complete filter on P (X), and the stationary sets are exactly
the CFX -positive sets.
Proof. CFX is closed under supersets by definition. Given a family of clubs Ci , i < ω,
let fi be the function corresponding to the club Ci . Let π : ω → ω 2 be a surjection,
with components π1 and π2 , such that π2 (n) ≤ <ω → X to be g(s) =
T n. Define g : X
fπ1 (|s|) (s π2 (|s|) ). It is easy to verify that Cg ⊆ i<ω Ci .
2.1.2 Generalized stationarity versus classical stationarity

The generalized notion of club and stationary set we just introduced is closely related to
the usual one defined for subsets of (regular) cardinals (see [28, Chapter 8]).
Lemma 2.1.14. C ⊆ ω1 is a club in the classical sense ([28, Def. 8.1]) if and only if
C ∪ {ω1 } is a club. S ⊆ ω1 is stationary in the classical sense ([28, Def. 8.1]) if and only
if it is stationary.
Proof. Let C ⊆ ω1 + 1 be a club in the generalized sense.

S Then C is closed: given any
α = sup αi with f [αi ]<ω ⊆ αi , f [α]<ω = i f [αi ]<ω ⊆ i αi = α. Furthermore, C is
S
unbounded: given any β0 < ω1 , define a sequence βi by taking βi+1 = sup f [βi ]<ω . Then
βω = sup βi ∈ C.
Let now C ⊆ ω1 be a club in the classical sense. Let C = {cα : α < ω1 } be an
enumeration of the club. For every α < ω1 , let {dαi : i < ω} ⊆ cα+1 be a cofinal sequence
in cα+1 (eventually constant), and let {eαi : i < ω} ⊆ α be an enumeration of α. Define fC
to be fC ((cα )n ) = dαn , fC (0a αn ) = eαn , and fC (s) = 0 otherwise. The sequence eαi forces
all closure points of fC to be ordinals, while the sequence dαi forces the ordinal closure
points of fC being in C.
Lemma 2.1.15. If κ is a regular uncountable cardinal, C ⊆ κ contains a club in the

classical sense if and only if C ∪ {κ} contains the ordinals of a club in the generalized
sense. S ⊆ κ is stationary in the classical sense if and only if it is stationary in the
generalized sense.
38
Proof. If C is a club in the generalized sense, then C ∩ κ is closed and unbounded by the
same reasoning of Lemma 2.1.14. Let now C be a club in the classical sense, and define
f : κ<ω → κ to be f (s) = min {c ∈ C : sup s < c}. Then Cf ∩ κ is exactly the set of
ordinals in C ∪ {κ} that are limits within C.
Remark 2.1.16. If S is stationary in the generalized sense on ω1 , then S ∩ ω1 is stationary

(since ω1 + 1 is a club by Lemma 2.1.14), while this is not true for κ > ω1 . In this case,
P (κ) \ (κ + 1) is a stationary set: given any function f , the closure under f of {ω1 } is
countable, hence not an ordinal.
2.1.3 First properties of the non-stationary ideals

In this section we present two key results on the non-stationary ideal: Fodor’s Lemma and
Ulam’s Theorem. To state them we need to recall the definitions of diagonal union and
diagonal intersection.
Definition 2.1.17. Let {Sx : x ∈ X} ⊆ P (P (X)). We define:

a
• {Sx : x ∈ X} = {Z ⊆ X : ∀x ∈ Z(Z ∈ Sx )} (diagonal intersection);
`
• {Sx : x ∈ X} = {Z ⊆ X : ∃x ∈ Z(Z ∈ Sx )} (diagonal union).
Lemma 2.1.18 (Fodor). CFX is closed under diagonal intersection. Equivalently, every
function f : P (X) → X that is regressive on a CFX -positive set is constant on a CFX -
positive set.
Proof. Given a family Ca , a ∈ X of clubs, with corresponding functions fa , let g(aa s) =

fa (s). It is easy to verify that Cg = ∆a∈X Ca .
Assume by contradiction that f : P (X) → X is regressive (i.e. f (Y ) ∈ Y ) in a
CFX -positive (i.e. stationary) set, and f −1 [{a}] is non-stationary for every a ∈ X. Then,
for every a ∈ X there is a function ga : [X]<ω → X such that the club Cga is disjoint from
f −1 [a]. Without loss of generality, suppose that Cga ⊆ Ca = {Y ⊆ X : a ∈ Y }. As in the
first part of the lemma, define g(aa s) = ga (s). Then for every Z ∈ Cg and every a ∈ Z, Z
is in Cga , hence is not in f −1 [{a}] (i.e., f (Z) 6= a). So f (Z) ∈
/ Z for any Z ∈ Cg , therefore
Cg is a club disjoint with the stationary set on which f is regressive, a contradiction.
The above equivalence holds for any filter F. We postpone its proof to Lemma 2.3.3
in Section 2.3.
Remark 2.1.19. The generalized club filter is never < ω2 -complete. Let Y ⊆ X be
T such that
|Y | = ω1 , and Ca be the club corresponding to fa : [X]<ω → {a}; then C = a∈Y Ca =
{Z ⊆ X : Y ⊆ Z} is disjoint from the stationary set [X]ω , hence is not a club.
Theorem 2.1.20 (Ulam). Let κ be an infinite cardinal. Then for every stationary set
S ⊆ κ+ , there exists a partition of S into κ+ many disjoint stationary sets.
Proof. For every β ∈ [κ, κ+ ), fix a bijection πβ : κ → β. For ξ < κ, α < κ+ , define
Aξα = {β < κ+ : πβ (ξ) = α} (notice that β > α when α ∈ ran(πβ )). These sets form a
(κ × κ+ )-matrix, the Ulam Matrix, with the property that two sets in the same row or
column are always disjoint. Moreover, every row is a partition of α<κ+ Aξα = κ+ , and
S
every column is a partition of ξ<κ Aξα = κ+ \ (α + 1).

S
Let S be a stationary subset of κ+ . For every α < κ+ , define fα : S \ (α + 1) → κ

by fα (β) = ξ if β ∈ Aξα . Since κ+ \ (α + 1) is a club in the classical sense, and hence is
39
stationary in the generalized sense, every fα is regressive with a stationary domain. by
Fodor’s Lemma 2.1.18 there exists a ξα < κ such that fα−1 [{ξα }] = Aξαα ∩ S is stationary.
Define g : κ+ → κ by g(α) = ξα , g is regressive on the stationary set κ+ \ κ, again by
Fodor’s Lemma 2.1.18 let ξ ∗ < κ be such that g −1 [{ξ ∗ }] = T is stationary. Then, the row
ξ ∗ of the Ulam Matrix intersects ∗S in a stationary set for stationary
S many columns∗ T . So
S can be partitioned into S ∩ Aξα for α ∈ T \ {min(T )}, and S \ α∈T \{min(T )} Aξα .
Remark 2.1.21. In the proof of Theorem 2.1.20 we actually proved something more: the
existence of a Ulam Matrix, i.e. a κ × κ+ -matrix such that every stationary set S ⊆ κ+ is
compatible (i.e., has stationary intersection) with stationary many elements of a certain
row.
2.2 Skolem Hulls

We want to find a very efficient proof of the downward Lowenheim-Skolem theorem which
gives the following:
Let L = hRi : i ∈ I, fj : j ∈ J, ck : k ∈ Ki be a first order countable signature,

and M = hM, RiM : i ∈ I, fjM : j ∈ J, cM k : k ∈ Ki a structure of large size (i.e.
with domain an uncountable set of size λ) for this signature. Then we can find
h Skolem function for M such that for any infinite X ⊆ M , N = h[X <ω ] ⊇ X
is already an elementary substructure of M .
The standard proof of the downward Lowenheim-Skolem theorem produces a function

g : MS<ω → M such that, given any set X, letting X0 = X, Xn+1 = Xn ∪ g[Xn<ω ], and
N = n∈ω Xn , one gets that N ⊇ X is an elementary substructure of M of size |X| + ℵ0 .
We want to be able to get this N in just one step using h and setting N = h[X <ω ] rather
than in ω-steps using g. While this result appears to be rather technical, it plays a crucial
role in many of the basic results to follow on stationary sets and normal fine ideals. This
section aims to give a detailed proof of how to construct such a function h. We will
formulate our result just for very specific types of first order languages, however it is clear
that with suitable complications the same strategy will be able to define the required type
of Skolem functions for all types of countable first order signature. The reader may skip
all proofs and just keep track of Proposition 2.2.3 to follow.
2.2.1 Fast Skolem functions

Let L be a first order language containing one and only one n-ary function symbol fn for
all n ∈ ω. Given a set X, let LX stand for the expansion of L where we added a constant
symbol cx for each element of x.
Notation 2.2.1. When we write t(x0 , . . . , xn ) for a term in L with free variables (x0 , . . . , xn ),
we really consider the free variables (x0 , . . . , xn ) as an ordered sequence rather than a non-
ordered set.
More specifically, the notation t(x0 , . . . , xn ) stands for: t is a term of L, and (x0 , . . . , xn )
is an enumeration of the set of free variables occuring in t such that if i < j ≤ n holds
then the first occurence of the variable xi in the representation of t as a string of symbols
occurs before that of xj . In particular, the sequence (x0 , . . . , xn ) has no repetitions. When
no confusion can arise we write ~x and t(~x) instead of (x0 , . . . , xn ) and t(x0 , . . . , xn ).
40
Given a map g : X <ω → X, there is a natural interpretation of CT (LX ), the of set
closed terms (i.e. with no free variables) of LX , inside X given by the map ν : CT (LX ) →
X defined as follows:
• ν(cx ) = x for all x ∈ X,
• If t1 , . . . , tn are closed terms of LX , then
ν(fn (t1 , . . . , tn )) = g(ν(t1 ), . . . , ν(tn )).
In this way each term t(x0 , . . . , xn ) of L in the free variables (x0 , . . . , xn ) (and without
constant symbols!!) can be identified with a function which we denote by
t̄(x0 , . . . , xn ) : X n+1 → X
s 7→ ν(t(x0 /cs(0) , . . . , xn /cs(n) )).

First of all notice that any substitution t(x0 /y0 , . . . , xn /yn ) such that yi 6= yj for all i 6= j
will yield the same function t̄(x0 , . . . , xn ). In particular we can enumerate the functions
t̄ : X n → X given by these kind of terms as a family
{t̄nk : n, k ∈ ω}
such that t̄nk : X n → X is induced by a given term tk (x0 , . . . , xn−1 ) in n-free variables. If
no confusion on the arity of t̄nk can arise we drop the superscript n denoting its arity and
we denote t̄nk just by t̄k .
Notice also the following trivial fact:
Fact 2.2.2. Assume t(x0 , . . . , xm ) is a term of L in the free variables (x0 , . . . , xm ) and
each ti (y0i , . . . , yni i ) is a term in L in the free variables (y0i , . . . , yni i ) so that (yji 6= ykl ) for
i 6= l and j, k arbitrary. The term
t0 (y00 , . . . , yn0 0 , . . . , y0i , . . . , yni i . . . , y0m , . . . , ynmm ) =
t(x0 /t0 (y00 , . . . , yn0 i ), . . . , xm−1 /tm−1 (y0m−1 , . . . , ynmm−1 ))

gives a function P
t̄0 : X i≤m ni
→X
with the property that
t̄(t̄0 (s0 ), . . . , t̄m (sm )) = t̄0 (sa a

0 . . . sm ).
We leave the proof of this fact to the masochistic reader.

We now fix φ : ω → ω × ω surjective such that the preimage of any couple (i, j) is
infinite and contained in ω \ i + 1, and we let φ(n) = (in , jn ).
Let hg : X <ω → X be defined by
i
hg (u) = t̄j|u|
|u|
(u i|u| ).
Proposition 2.2.3. For any g : X <ω → X, hg : X <ω → X is such that:
1. Chg is contained in Cg ,
2. for all infinite Z ⊂ X, hg [Z <ω ] ∈ Chg ,
41
3. if Z ∈ Chg , hg [Z <ω ] = Z.
Proof. We prove that the three items of the proposition are satisfied by g and hg = h as
follows:
1. Ch is contained in Cg : Assume Z ∈ Ch is infinite and s ∈ Z <ω has length n. Then
fn (x0 , . . . , xn−1 ) is a term in L in the free variables (x0 , . . . , xn−1 ) thus it gives a
function t̄nk : X n → X for some k ∈ ω. This means that
g(s) = fn (x0 , . . . , xn )(s) = t̄nk (s) = h(u)
for any u ⊇ s in Z <ω such that φ(|u|) = (n, k). The desired conclusion follows.
2. For all infinite Z ⊆ X, h[Z]<ω ∈ Ch :

WARNING: To avoid heavy notation in what follows we will systematically drop the
superscript indexing the functions t̄nm we will use below, thus t̄nm will be denoted by
t̄m , its arity will be clear from the context.
Pick s finite sequence with range in h[Z <ω ]. Then
i
h(s) = t̄j|s|
|s|
(s i|s| ) = t̄j|s| (s i|s| ).
Now for all l < i|s| = m,

i|u |
s(l) = h(ul ) = t̄j|ul | (ul i|ul | ) = t̄j|u | (ul i|ul | ).
l l
We let i|ul | = nl for all l < m. So we get
h(s) = t̄j|s| (t̄j|u0 | (u0 n0 ), . . . , t̄j|um−1 | (um−1 nm−1 )).
In particular for each l < m

t̄j|u | : X nl → X
l
is the function given by a fixed term tl (y0l , . . . , ynl l −1 ) and
t̄j|s| : X m → X
is the function given by a particular term t0 (x0 , . . . , xm−1 ).

We can suppose that ykl 6= yeh for all l 6= h, k < nl , e < nh . Then we can let
t(y00 , . . . , yn0 0 , . . . , y0l , . . . , ynl l , . . . , y0m−1 , . . . , ynm−1

m−1
)=
t0 (x0 /t0 (y00 , . . . , yn0 l −1 ), . . . , xm−1 /tm−1 (y0m−1 , . . . , ynm−1

m−1 −1
)).
By the above fact we get that
h(s) = t̄(u0 na a
0 . . . um−1 nm−1 ).
Observe that this latter sequence is in Z <ω . Let u denote this sequence and extend
it to u0 so that i|u0 | = |u| and
tj|u0 | = t(y00 , . . . , yn0 0 , . . . , y0l , . . . , ynl l , . . . , y0m−1 , . . . , ynm−1

m−1
).
Then h(s) = h(u0 ) ∈ h[Z <ω ]. Since s ∈ h[Z <ω ] was chosen arbitrarily, we are done.
42
2.3 Normal Fine vs Non Stationary
We now introduce normal fine ideals I ⊆ P (P (X)). These ideals are characterized by the
property of being closed under diagonal unions indexed by X, or equivalently by the fact
that regressive functions defined on I + are constant on a set in I + . By Lemma 2.1.18 (and
Proposition 2.3.7 below), we have that the non-stationary ideal is normal fine, outlining
a (somewhat at least on a first sight) surprising analogy between the analysis of first
order elementary substructure (i.e. stationary sets) of some signature on a set X and the
analysis of the properties of choice functions on P (X) \ {∅} (i.e. the regressive functions
on X). We will see that this analogy is not an accident, as all normal fine ideals can be
seen as the projection of the non-stationary ideal restricted to a specific stationary set
(Theorem 2.3.19). A detailed comparison between the concept of normality and that of
stationarity is carried in Subsection 2.3.2.
2.3.1 Normal Fine Ideals

Definition 2.3.1. Let X be a set and let I ⊆ P (P (X)).
1. I is normal if for any f : S → X such that S ∈ / I and f is a choice function, there
exists x ∈ X such that {Y ∈ S : f (Y ) = x} ∈ I + .
ˇ
2. I is fine if ∀x ∈ X Cx = {Y ⊆ X : x ∈ Y } ∈ I.
Definition 2.3.2. Let I be a normal fine ideal with support X, and f : S → X be
a regressive function such that S ∈
/ I. x ∈ X is a pressing down constant for f if
+
{Y ∈ S : f (Y ) = x} ∈ I .
Lemma 2.3.3 (Fodor). Let I ⊆ P (P (X)) be an ideal, then the following are equivalent:
1. I is normal fine;
`
2. if {Sx : x ∈ X} ⊆ I then {Sx : x ∈ X} ∈ I.
Proof.
1 ⇒ 2`Assume by contradiction 2 fails as witnessed by {Sx : x ∈ X} ⊆ I. Let S =

{Sx : x ∈ X} ∈ I + , and define
f : S −→ X
Z 7−→ x,
where x ∈ Z is such that Z ∈ Sx . Let x be the pressing down constant which exists
by the normality of I. Then {Y ∈ S : f (Y ) = x} ⊆ Sx ∈ I. Contradiction.
2 ⇒ 1 Assume, for the sake of contradiction, f : S → X is a regressive function with S ∈

+ −1 −1
`
I such that ∀x ∈ X f [{x}] ∈ I. Let Sx = f [{x}] and set T = {Sx : x ∈ X}.
We have S ⊆ T since
Z ∈ S =⇒ f (Z) = x for some x ∈ Z =⇒ Z ∈ Sx for some x ∈ Z =⇒ Z ∈ T.
Then T ∈ I + . Contradiction.
43
A normal fine ideal I on P (P (Y )) is not even ω1 -complete in general (see Remark 2.1.19),
nonetheless its quotient algebra is always |Y |-complete:
Proposition 2.3.4 (Proposition 2.22 [18]). Suppose that X ⊆ Y and I is a normal, fine
ideal on Y . Suppose that A = {[Sx ]I : x ∈ X} ⊆ P (P (Y )) /I . Then in P (P (Y )) /I we
have _ h
A = [ {Sx : x ∈ X}]I
and ^ i
A = [ {Sx : x ∈ X}]I .
Therefore P (P (Y )) /I is always |Y |-complete.
` `
Proof. For any x ∈ X Sx ∩ Cx ⊆ {Sx : x ∈ X}. Therefore S x ≤I {Sx : x ∈ X}, since
ˇ `
Cx ∈ I. Vice versa, we have to prove that if T ≤I {Sx : x ∈ X} ` and T ∈/ I, then there
exists x ∈ X such that T ∩ Sx ∈ / I. We can assume that T ⊆ {Sx : x ∈ X}, thus for
each Z ∈ T there is x(Z) ∈ Z such that Z ∈ Sx(Z) . So the map
f : T −→ X
Z 7−→ x(Z)
is regressive. Since I is normal fine, there exists a positive set T0 ⊆ T and a fixed x ∈ X
such that for all Z ∈ T0 , x(Z) = x. This implies that T0 ⊆ Sx and we are done.
Definition 2.3.5. Let I ⊆ P (P (X)) be an ideal.

ˇ
• I is ω-fine if for any Z ⊆ X countable, {Y ⊆ X : Z ⊆ Y } ∈ I.
• I is ω-normal if ∀f : S → X <ω with S ∈ I + and such that ∀Z ∈ S f (Z) ∈ Z <ω ,
there exists t ∈ X <ω such that {z ∈ S : f (z) = t} ∈ I + .
Proposition 2.3.6. Every normal fine ideal is ω-normal, ω-fine, and countably closed.
Proof. Let I ⊆ P (P (X)) be a normal fine ideal.
I is ω-fine. Let Z = {xn : n ∈ ω}. Suppose by contradiction that {Y ⊆ X : Z * Y } ∈
I + . Since Cx0 ∈ Iˇ we have S = {Y ⊆ X : Z * Y } ∩ Cx0 ∈ I + . Define the following
regressive function:
f : S −→ X
Y 7−→ xn ,
where n is such that {x0 , . . . , xn } ⊆ Y and xn+1 ∈

/ Y . Since f is regressive and I is
normal, let xm be the pressing down constant. Then f −1 [{xm }] ∈ I + and for any
Y ∈ f −1 [{xm }] xm+1 ∈
/ Y . This is a contradiction since I is fine.
I is countably closed. Let Z = {xn : n ∈ ω} be a subset of X. Assume {Sn : n ∈ ω} ⊆
Iˇ and put Tn = Sn ∩ Cxn ∈ I.ˇ Then, since I is fine, we can define
(
Tn if x = xn ;
Tx =
Cx otherwise.
a
Then {Tx : x ∈ X} ∈ I, ˇ since I is normal fine. Moreover {Y ⊆ X : Z ⊆ Y } ∈ Iˇ
since I is ω-fine. Therefore
i
{Tx : x ∈ X} ∩ {Y ⊆ X : Z ⊆ Y } ∈ I. ˇ
44
Now we are done since:
i \ \
{Tx : x ∈ X} ∩ {Y ⊆ X : Z ⊆ Y } ⊆ {Tn : n ∈ ω} ⊆ {Sn : n ∈ ω} .
I is ω-normal. Given f : S → X <ω such that ∀Z ∈ S f (Z) ∈ Z <ω , define Sn =

{Z ∈ S : |h(Z)| = n}. Since S ∈ I + and I is countably closed there exists n such
that Sn ∈ I + . Let us define Tm for any m ≤ n by induction. Put T0 = Sn . Given
Tm for some m ≤ n − 1 define xm and Tm+1 as follows. Let
hm : Tm −→ X
z 7→ h(z)(m).
and let xm be the pressing down constant. Put Tm+1 = h−1 +

m [{xm }] ∈ I . Then
Tn ∈ I + and for all Z ∈ Tn h(Z) = (x0 , . . . , xn−1 ) = t. Hence we are done.
2.3.2 Non-stationary ideals and normal fine ideals

We will show that the nonstationary ideals form a directed, coinitial and cofinal family
NS of normal fine ideals in the sense that:
• NSX is always normal fine for any |X| > 1, and NSY canonically projects1 to NSX
for every X ⊆ Y (NS consists of normal fine ideals and is directed),
• any normal fine ideal on X contains NSX (NS is coinitial in the class of normal fine
ideals),
• for every normal fine ideal I, there is an X and a stationary set S such that NSX S
canonically projects to I (NS is cofinal in the class of normal fine ideals).
We start showing that NSX is normal fine.
Proposition 2.3.7. NSX is a normal fine ideal if |X| > 1.
Proof. We must show three properties:
NSX is fine. Given x ∈ X, put
fx : X <ω −→ X
s 7−→ x.
Hence Cx = Cfx is a club and P (X) \ Cx ∈ NSX .
NSX is an ideal. Let S0 , S1 ∈ NSX , then by definition there are f0 , f1 : X <ω → X

such that Si ∩ Cfi = ∅. Fix x0 6= x1 ∈ X and define g : X <ω → X as follows:
(
fi (s) if i ∈ {0, 1} ;
g(xi ∗ s) =
x|s| mod 2 otherwise (i.e. if s(0) 6= x0 , x1 ).
Then Cg ⊆ Cf0 ∩ Cf1 ∩ Cx0 ∩ Cx1 is disjoint from S0 ∪ S1 .

1
Notion to be defined below in Subsection 2.3.3
45
NSX is normal. We will prove that if {Sx : x ∈ X} ∈ NSX then
h
{Sx : x ∈ X} ∈ NSX .
Applying Fodor’s Lemma we obtain our thesis. Assume {Sx : x ∈ X} ∈ NSX and
let fx : X <ω → X be such that Sx ∩ Cfx = ∅. Define f : X <ω → X such that
f (x ∗ s) = fx (s).
a
First of all observe that Cf ⊆ {Cfx : x ∈ X}. Assume Z ∈ Cf , then ∀s ∈ zf (s) ∈
Z. Let s = x ∗ t, then f (s) = fx (t) where x ∈ Z and t ∈ Z <ω . Thisa implies that
fx (t) ∈ Z for any t ∈ Z <ω , hence for any x ∈ Z, Z ∈ Cfx . Thus Z ∈ {Cfx : x ∈ X}.
a `
Moreover Cf ⊆ {Cfx : x ∈ X} implies Cf ∩ {Sx : x ∈ X} = ∅, therefore
h
{Sx : x ∈ X} ∈ NSX .
We now show that normal fine ideals canonically project to each other, we need to
introduce the relevant definition:
2.3.3 Projection and Lifting

Definition 2.3.8. If S ⊆ P (P (X)) and Z ⊆ X ⊆ Y we define
• S ↓ Z = {Z0 ∩ Z : Z0 ∈ S};
• S ↑ Y = {Z0 ⊆ Y : Z0 ∩ X ∈ S}.
The following is trivial but crucial (recall Def. 1.3.1 and 1.3.3):
Fact 2.3.9. Given X ⊆ Y the map iXY : S 7→ S ↑ Y defines a complete injective

homomorphism of P (P (X)) into P (P (Y )) with associated projection πXY : T 7→ T ↓ X.
Notation 2.3.10. For sets S, T S ≤NS T is a short-hand for the assertion that for
X = ∪S ∪ ∪T S ↑ X ∩ Cf ⊆ T ↑ X ∩ Cf for some f : X <ω → X.
Recall now Def.1.3.9.
Definition 2.3.11. Let X ⊆ Y be sets and let I ⊆ P (P (X)) and J ⊆ P (P (Y )) be

ideals.
• J canonically projects to I if it projects to I through iXY , i.e. if
S ∈ I ⇐⇒ S ↑ Y ∈ J
for any S ∈ P (P (X)), or equivalently if and only if iXY [I] ⊆ J and iXY [I + ] ∩ J = ∅.
• J is the canonical lift of I if it is the lift of I through iXY , i.e. if J =↓ iXY [I].
Lemma 2.3.12. Let X ⊆ Y be sets and let I ⊆ P (P (X)) and J ⊆ P (P (Y )) be ideals.

Then the following are equivalent:
1. ∀S ∈ P (P (X)) (S ∈ I =⇒ S ↑ Y ∈ J);
2. ∀T ∈ P (P (Y )) (T ∈
/ J =⇒ T ↓ X ∈
/ I).
46
Proof. First prove that 1 implies 2. Assume T ∈ / J and that T ↓ X ∈ I, by 1 we have
(T ↓ X) ↑ Y ∈ J, but this is a contradiction since (T ↓ X) ↑ Y ⊇ T and J is an ideal.
Now assume that 2 holds in order to prove 1. Let S ∈ I, if S ↑ Y ∈ / J, then by 2, we have
(S ↑ Y ) ↓ X ∈
/ I, but this is a contradiction since S = (S ↑ Y ) ↓ X and I is an ideal.
Definition 2.3.13. Let X ⊆ Y . Given a function f : X <ω → X we define
f ↑ Y : Y <ω −→ Y
(
f (s) if s ∈ X <ω
s 7−→
s(0) otherwise.
Given a function g : Y <ω → Y we define
g ↓ X : X <ω −→ X
(
g(s) if g(s) ∈ X
s 7−→
x0 otherwise,
where x0 is a fixed element of X.
Proposition 2.3.14. Assume X ⊆ Y . Then NSY canonically projects to NSX .
Proof.
S ∈ NSX =⇒ S ↑ Y ∈ NSY . Assume h : X <ω → X is such that S ∩ Ch is empty. Then

S ↑ Y ∩ Ch↑Y is also empty.
S∈
/ NSX =⇒ S ↑ Y ∈ / NSY . Assume S ∈/ NSX and let g : Y <ω → Y . Find h : Y <ω →
Y such that Ch ⊆ Cg and h[Z <ω ] ∈ Ch for any infinite Z ⊆ Y as in Proposition
/ NSX there exists Z ∈ Ch↓X ∩ S. Observe that h[Z <ω ] ∈ Ch and
2.2.3. Since S ∈
h[Z <ω ] ∩ X = h ↓ X[Z <ω ] = Z ∈ S.
Therefore
h[Z <ω ] ∈ Ch ∩ (S ↑ Y ) ⊆ Cg ∩ (S ↑ Y ).
We now argue that NSX is the smallest fine normal fine ideal on X:
Proposition 2.3.15. Let I ⊆ P (P (X)) be a normal, fine ideal. Then I ⊇ NSX .
Proof. Assume, for the sake of contradiction, that S ∈ I + and S ∩ Cg = ∅ for some
g : X <ω → X. Then for any Z ∈ S there exists t ∈ Z <ω such that g(t) ∈
/ Z. Define
h : S −→ X <ω
Z 7−→ t ∈ Z <ω such that g(t) ∈
/ Z.
By Proposition 2.3.6 I is ω-normal, hence there exists t ∈ X <ω such that T = h−1 [{t}] ∈
I + . Therefore T ⊆ {Z ∈ S : g(t) ∈
/ Z}, hence
T ∩ Cg(t) = ∅ ∈ I + .
Contradiction.
47
We now turn to the proof that the family NS is cofinal with respect to the class of
normal fine ideals.
Lemma 2.3.16 (Proposition 3.44 [18]). Assume that I ⊆ P (P (X)) is a normal fine ideal
and let g : Hθ<ω → Hθ with X ∈ Hθ . There exists h : Hθ<ω → Hθ such that:
• Ch ⊆ Cg , Ch ↓ X = Ch↓X , and any Z ∈ Ch is infinite.
• The set T consisting of all Z ∈ Ch↓X such that h[Z <ω ] ∩ X = Z ∈

/ D for all
ˇ
D ∈ h[Z <ω ] ∩ I is in the filter I.
Proof. Fix h : Hθ<ω → Hθ witnessing Proposition 2.2.3 relative to g. Clearly h satisfies

the first part of the proposition. We are left to prove the second part of the proposition:
First of all notice that all Z ∈ Ch↓X are infinite, and such that Z = h[Z <ω ] ∩ X.
Assume towards a contradiction that
Ch↓X \ T = S = Z ∈ Ch↓X : ∃h(s) ∈ h[Z <ω ] ∩ I(Z ∈ h(s)) ∈ I + .

Define
f : S −→ X <ω
Z 7−→ sZ ,
where sZ ∈ Z <ω is a witness that Z ∈ S (i.e. is such that h(sZ ) ∈ I and Z 6∈ h(sZ )). By
ω-normality and fineness, there exists s ∈ X <ω such that
{Z ∈ S : f (z) = s} = {Z ∈ S : s ⊆ Z ∧ Z ∈ h(s)} ∈ I + .
Now h(s) ∈ I and

{Z ∈ S : s ⊆ Z ∧ Z ∈ h(s)} ⊆ h(s) ∈ I.
This is a contradiction.
Notation 2.3.17. Given an ideal I ⊆ P (P (X)) and θ large enough so that I ∈ Hθ ,

define i
T ↑ Hθ : T ∈ Iˇ .

SHθ (I) =
We remark the following immediate consequence of the definition of SHθ (I):
Property 2.3.18. For all θ > 2|I|

∗
i
T ↑ Hθ : T ∈ Iˇ .

{M ≺ Hθ : I ∈ M and ∀A ∈ I ∩ M, M ∩ X ∈
/ A} =
Moreover for all 2|I| < θ < λ

∗
SHθ (I) ↑ Hλ = SHλ (I).
In particular in view of the above property we denote by S(I) the set(s) SHθ (I) for
some (all) large enough θ.
Theorem 2.3.19 (Burke). Assume I ⊆ P (P (X)) is a normal fine ideal and θ is large
enough so that X ∈ Hθ . Then SHθ (I) is stationary and I is the projection of NSHθ SH (I) .
θ
Proof. We prove both properties of SHθ (I) = S(I) as follows:
48
S(I) is stationary. Let g : Hθ<ω → Hθ and let h and T be the witnesses of Lemma 2.3.16
applied to g. Then for any Z ∈ T we have
h[Z <ω ] ∈ Ch ∩ S(I) ⊆ Cg ∩ S(I).
NSHθ S(I) projects to I. Let T ∈ I, we show that T ↑ Hθ ∈ NSHθ S(I) : Let C =

{M ≺ Hθ : T ∈ M }, hence by Property 2.3.18:
(P (X) \ T ) ↑ Hθ ⊇ {M ≺ Hθ : M ∩ X ∈
/ T } ⊇ S(I) ∩ C.
Since C is a club and T ↑ Hθ ∩ S(I) ∩ C = ∅, T ↑ Hθ ∩ S(I) is non-stationary.
On the other hand, let S ∈ I + and g : Hθ<ω → Hθ . We can fix h : Hθ<ω → Hθ and T
as in Lemma 2.3.16 applied to g. W.l.o.g. (modifying h eventually) we can assume
that S ∈ h[Y <ω ] for all Y ∈ Ch↓X . Since T ∈ I,ˇ S ∩ T ∈ I + , hence we can find
<ω
Z ∈ S ∩ T , i.e. such that Z = h[Z ] ∩ X ∈ / A for all A ∈ I ∩ h[Z <ω ]. Therefore
h[Z <ω ] ∈ S ↑ Hθ ∩ S(I) ∩ Ch ⊆ S ↑ Hθ ∩ S(I) ∩ Cg .
The proof is completed.
2.4 Towers of normal fine ideals

We will now focus on towers of normal fine ideals.
Proposition 2.4.1. Assume X ⊆ Y and I, J are normal fine ideals with support respec-
tively Y , X such that J projects to I. Then iXY /IJ is an injective homomorphism which
is |X|-complete.
Proof. iXY /IJ is an injective homomorphism. By Lemma 1.3.11.
iXY /IJ is |X|-complete. Given {[Sx ]I : x ∈ X} we want to prove that
_ _
iXY /IJ ( {[Sx ]I : x ∈ X}) = {iXY /IJ ([Sx ]I ) : x ∈ X} .
By Proposition 2.3.4 and since I and J are normal fine and fine we have
_ h
{[Sx ]I : x ∈ X} = [ {Sx : x ∈ X}]I ,
and _ h
{[Sx ↑ Y ]J : x ∈ X} = [ {Sx ↑ Y : x ∈ X}]J .
Therefore
_ h
iXY /IJ ( {[Sx ]I : x ∈ X}) = [ {Sx : x ∈ X} ↑ Y ]J
h
= [{Z : ∃z ∈ Z ∩ X : (Z ∩ X ∈ Sx )}]J = [ {Sx ↑ Y : x ∈ X}]J
_ _
= {[Sx ↑ Y ]J : x ∈ X} = {iXY /IJ ([Sx ]I ) : x ∈ X} .
Observe that in general the homomorphism iXY /IJ is not complete.

Notation 2.4.2. Given X ⊆ Y , ideals I with support X and J with support Y such
that J canonically projects to I, we will often improperly denote (to avoid an unnecessary
heavy notation) the quotient homomorphism iXY /IJ by iXY loosing track of the reference
to I and J while still assuming these maps act with domain P (P (X)) /I and range
P (P (Y )) /J .
49
Definition 2.4.3.
I = {IX : X ∈ Vδ }
is a tower of normal fine ideals of height δ if IX ⊆ P (P (X)) is normal fine for any X ∈ Vδ
and IY canonically projects to IX if Y ⊇ X.
Notation 2.4.4. Given a tower of normal fine ideals I = {IX : X ∈ Vδ }, let
in o
SVδ (I) = T ↑ Vδ : T ∈ I˘X , X ∈ Vδ .
Theorem 2.4.5 (Burke). Assume I = {IX : X ∈ Vδ } is a tower of normal fine ideals of

inaccessible height δ. Then SVδ (I) is stationary and IX is the projection of NSVδ SV (I)
δ
for any X ∈ Vδ .
Proof.
SVδ (I) is stationary. Take any f : Vδ<ω → Vδ . We look for Z ∈ Cf ∩ SVδ (I). Since δ
is inaccessible, there exists α < δ strong limit cardinal such that f Vα : Vα<ω → Vα .
Since α is strong limit, X ∈ Vα entails that IX ∈ Vα as well, hence {IX : X ∈ Vα } ⊆
Vα . Moreover IVα canonically projects to IX ∈ Vα for all X ∈ Vα , therefore
i
T ↑ Vα : T ∈ IˇX , X ∈ Vα ∈ IˇVα .

SVα (I ∩ Vα ) =
In particular (since IVα is normal fine) SVα (I ∩ Vα ) ∈

/ NSVα . This implies that there
exists Z ⊆ Vα such that
Z ∈ SVα (I ∩ Vα ) ∩ Cf Vα ⊆ SVδ (I) ∩ Cf .
NSVδ SV (I) projects to IX for any X ∈ Vδ . Fix X ∈ Vδ and let T ∈ P (X). We need
δ
to prove that T ↑ Vδ ∈ NSVδ SV (I) if and only if T ∈ IX .
δ
Assume first T ∈ IX . Let C = {M ≺ Vδ : T ∈ M }, then C is a club and

(P (X) \ T ) ↑ Vδ ⊇ SVδ (IX ) ∩ C ⊇ SVδ (I) ∩ C.
Hence T ↑ Vδ ∩ SVδ (I) is non-stationary.
+
Assume now that T ∈ IX . Let f : Vδ<ω → Vδ . As before we can find α < δ
+
strong limit such that f Vα : Vα<ω → Vα and X ∈ Vα . Since T ∈ IX , we have
T ↑ Vα ∈ IVα . On the other hand we already showed that SVα (I ∩ Vα ) ∈ IˇVα , hence
+
SVα (I ∩ Vα ) ∩ T ↑ Vα ∈ IV+α is stationary. Therefore there exists Z such that

Z ∈ SVα (I ∩ Vα ) ∩ T ↑ Vα ∩ Cf Vα ⊆ SVδ (I) ∩ T ↑ Vδ ∩ Cf .
This completes the proof.
We conclude giving a description of the tower forcings induced by a tower of normal

fine ideals of strong limit height.
Definition 2.4.6. Let δ be a strong limit cardinal.
Tδ denotes the boolean algebra obtained as the direct limit of the system of complete
homomorphisms
S {iXY : P (P (X)) → P (P (Y )) : X ⊆ Y ∈ Z}, i.e.:
Tδ = X∈Vδ P (P (X)) /≡ where S ≡ T if and only if letting XS = ∪S and XT = ∪T
S ↑ (XS ∪ XT ) = T ↑ (XS ∪ XT ),
with operations:
50
• [S] ∧ [T ] = [S ↑ (XS ∪ XT ) ∩ T ↑ (XS ∪ XT )],
• [S] ∨ [T ] = [S ↑ (XS ∪ XT ) ∪ T ↑ (XS ∪ XT )],
• ¬[S] = [P (P (∪S)) \ S].
Lemma 2.4.7. Assume δ is inaccessible. Then (Tδ , ∧, ∨, ¬, [∅], [P (P (0))]) is a < δ-

complete boolean algebra.
S assume I = {IX : X ∈ Vδ } is a tower of normal fine ideals. Then I =
Moreover
{[S] : S ∈ I} is a < δ-complete ideal on Tδ , hence TδI = Tδ /I is a < δ-complete boolean
algebra.
Proof. We leave to the reader to check that Tδ is a boolean algebra. We show that Tδ is
< δ-complete. Assume {[Si ] : i ∈ α} ⊆ Tδ with α < δ. Let Xi = ∪S S iFind α < ξ < δ such
that Si ∈ Vξ for all i < α. We leave to the reader to check that [ iXi Vξ (Si ) : i < α ] is
the exact upper bound of {[Si ] : i ∈ α}.
Similarly one can check that the ≤I order on Tδ admits suprema for all the < δ-sized
subsets of Tδ (we can use Burke’s theorems 2.3.19 and 2.4.5 to find an exact upper bound
in I for any subset of I of size less than δ). Otherwise Lemma 2.3.4 in combination with
the proof of Theorem 2.4.5 can be used to compute the supremum in TδI of a family
{[Si ]I : i < ξ} ⊆ TδI for some ξ < δ.
Remark 2.4.8. Let I = {IX : S X ∈ Vδ } be a tower of normal fine ideals of height an inac-
cessible cardinal δ. Let J = I and I = {[S] ∈ Tδ : S ∈ J}. Consider the partial order
(Vδ \ J, ≤I ) where S ≤I T if letting ∪S = X and ∪T = Y , we have that
(S ↑ X ∪ Y ) \ (T ↑ X ∪ Y ) ∈ IX∪Y .
We leave to the reader to check that the map S 7→ [S]I defines a dense embedding of the
above partial order in (Tδ /I )+ .
To avoid confusion between the case of forcings induced by normal fine ideals and
forcings induced by towers of normal fine ideals, and to simplify our notation, we adopt
the following conventions:
Notation 2.4.9. From now on, for the remainder of this book, we will just say I is a
normal ideal on X to subsume that I is normal and fine ideal on X.
Let I = {IX : X ∈ Vδ } beSa tower of normal ideals of height an inaccessible cardinal δ
and I be the ideal {[S] : S ∈ I} on Tδ . We denote Tδ /I by TδI . [S]I for S ∈ Vδ denotes
a generic element of TδI . Moreover to avoid an exceedingly heavy notation (in case we
I
S this cannot generate misunderstandings) we identify Tδ with the forcing notion
feel that
(Vδ \ I, ≤I ).
Remark 2.4.10. Let I be a tower of normal ideals of height δ with δ inaccessible.

S S
We obtain that [S]I ≤ [T ]I if and only if S ≤I T (where setting X = S and Y = T ,
S ⊆ P (X), T ⊆ P (Y ) are stationary and
S ↑ (Y ∪ X) ⊆IY ∪X T ↑ (Y ∪ X)).
Moreover the supremum and infimum of a family {[Si ]I : i < ξ} ∈ TδI with ξ < cof(δ)V
51
are given respectively by the I-equivalence classes of the sets
^ n [ [ o
{Si : i < ξ} = M ⊆ ( {Si : i < ξ}) ∪ ξ : ∀i ∈ M ∩ ξ, M ∩ Si ∈ Si
in [ o
= Si ↑ (ξ ∪ {Si : i < ξ}) : i < ξ ,
_ n [ [ o
{Si : i < ξ} = M ⊆ ( {Si : i < ξ}) ∪ ξ : ∃i ∈ M ∩ ξ, M ∩ Si ∈ Si
hn [ o
= Si ↑ (ξ ∪ {Si : i < ξ}) : i < ξ .
A great deal of this book will investigate the forcing properties of boolean algebras of
type TδI or P (P (X)) /I with I normal or I a tower of normal ideals of height δ.
52
Part II
Boolean valued models
53
We introduce the type of first order structures we will be studying in the remainder
of the book: boolean valued models of set theory of type V B with B a complete boolean
algebra, and generic ultrapowers of type Ult(V, G) with G a (tower of) V -normal filter(s).
We aim to give a unified presentation of these two distinct type of structures, hence we
first develop the basic theory of boolean valued models in chapter 3, where we introduce
the key notion of full B-model, and we prove Lòs Theorem for full B-models, as well as
the rules governing the forcing relation on these type of models. Our approach to these
matters is inspired by Hamkins and Seabold [27]. Chapter 4 gives a fast account of the
basic theory of forcing for boolean valued models of set theory, recalling with sketchy
proofs the main results needed in the sequel of the book. Chapter 5 presents generic
ultrapowers of type Ult(V, G) as quotients by certain type of ultrafilters G ⊆ P (P (X)) of
the full P (P (X))-model given by functions f : P (X) → V in V .
54
Chapter 3
Boolean Valued Models
This chapter presents some basic properties of boolean valued models and homomorphisms
between them. Detailed references for all results we mention without proofs are [54, 47]
or the more encyclopedic (and a bit out of date) [37].
1. In the first section we give the formal definition of boolean semantic for any first order
language, and we present the soundness theorem for the semantic for the language
of set theory. The boolean valued semantic selects a given complete boolean algebra
B and assigns to every statement φ a boolean value in B. The boolean operations
will reflect the behavior of the propositional connectives; it will require more care
to give a meaning to atomic formulae and to quantifiers, and we need that B has
an high degree of completeness in order to be able to interpret quantifiers in our
boolean semantic. The standard Tarski semantics will be recovered when we choose
the boolean algebra {0, 1} as B.
2. The second section carves a bit more into the theory of B-valued models M and their
Tarski quotient M/G induced by an ultrafilter G ∈ St(B). We state a necessary and
sufficient condition (that of being a full model) on a B-valued model M which gives
a complete control on how truth in M/G is determined by the topological properties
of G as a point of St(B) via a Loś theorem for full boolean valued models. We also
prove a version of the Forcing theorem relating the boolean value of a formula φ in a
B-valued model M to the topological density of the family of G such that M/G |= φ.
Finally we give an exact characterization of the degree of completeness B must have
with respect to a given B-model M in order to grant that M is a full B-model to
which Loś theorem applies. We also introduce Cohen’s forcing relation on a B-valued
model M and compare it to the B-valued semantic for M. Finally we show that the
property of being a full B-valued model is preserved by passing to quotients.
3. The third section outlines the basic properties of homomorphisms between B-valued
models.
3.1 Boolean valued models and boolean valued semantics

In this section we give the formal definition of a boolean valued model for any first order
relational language (i.e. a language containing no function symbols), and we introduce a
sound semantic for these languages. We limit ourselves to analyze relational languages to
avoid some technicalities arising in the semantical interpretation of function symbols in
boolean valued models.
55
Definition 3.1.1. Let L = {Ri : i ∈ I, cj : j ∈ J} be a language with no function symbols
(a relational language in the sequel) and B a Boolean algebra. A B-valued model M for
L consists of:
1. A non-empty set M . The elements of M are called names.
2. The Boolean value of the equality symbol. That is, a function
M 2 −→ B
hτ, σi 7−→ Jτ = σKM
B
3. The interpretation of symbols in L. That is:
• for each n-ary relation symbol R ∈ L, a function
M n −→ B
hτ1 , . . . , τn i 7−→ JR(τ1 , . . . , τn )KM
B
• for each constant symbol c ∈ L, a name cM ∈ M .
We require that the following conditions hold:
1. For all τ, σ, π ∈ M ,
Jτ = τ KM
B = 1, (3.1)
Jτ = σKM
B = Jσ = τ KM
B , (3.2)
Jτ = σKM M M
B ∧ Jσ = πKB ≤ Jτ = πKB . (3.3)
2. If R ∈ L is an n-ary relation symbol, for all hτ1 , . . . , τn i, hσ1 , . . . , σn i ∈ M n ,

n
!
Jτi = σi KB ∧ JR(τ1 , . . . , τn )KM
M M
^
B ≤ JR(σ1 , . . . , σn )KB . (3.4)
i=1
Notation 3.1.2. We feel free to confuse a boolean structure M = hM, RiM : i ∈ Ii with
its domain M when no confusion can arise.
We define now the semantic of a boolean valued model: assume we have fixed an
L-structure M, its Tarski semantic can be seen as a function that takes a L-statement
ϕ and assigns 1 or 0 to ϕ according to the fact that M ϕ or M 6 ϕ. We want to
generalize this framework letting this evaluation function get its values inside any given
boolean algebra B. To simplify slightly our treatment, in the beginning we will assume
that B is complete though this is not strictly necessary (in subsection 3.2.2 we characterize
exactly the amount of completeness for B and M which is needed to give a satisfactory
B-valued semantics for M). We adopt the following strategy to define the semantic of a
boolean valued structure for L:
• Given M = hM, =M , RiM : i ∈ I, cM j : j ∈ Ji B-valued model for a relational

language L = {Ri : i ∈ I, cj : j ∈ J}, we expand L to LM = L ∪ {ca : a ∈ M } adding
constant symbols for all elements of M so that ca is always assigned to a. In such
a way we can interpret in M formulae with constant symbols in the place of free
variables.
56
• FRV(L) denotes the set of free variables for the formulae of the language L, and any
map ν : FRV(L) → M is an assignment.
• Given an assignment ν, a free variable x, and b ∈ M , νx/b denotes the assignment ν 0

such that ν 0 (y) = ν(y) for all y 6= x in FRV(L) and such that ν 0 (x) = b.
• If ȳ = (y0 , . . . , yn−1 ) is an n-tuple of free variables, ν(ȳ) is a short-hand for (ν(y0 ), . . . , ν(yn−1 )).
• If ā = (a0 , . . . , an−1 ) is an n-tuple of elements of M , cā is a short-hand for the n-tuple

of constant symbols of LM (ca0 , . . . , can−1 ).
Definition 3.1.3. Let M = hM, =M , RiM : i ∈ Ii be a B-valued model for the relational
language L = {Ri : i ∈ I}.
We evaluate all formulae of LM without free variables (but possibly with constant
symbols) as follows:
- JR(ca1 , . . . , can )KM M

B = Ri (a1 , . . . , an ).
- Jϕ ∧ ψKM M M
B = JϕKB ∧B JψKB .
- J¬ϕKM M
B = ¬B JϕKB .
- Jϕ → ψKM M
B = ¬B JϕKB ∨B JψKB .
M
- J∃xϕ(x, cā )KM M

W
B = b∈M Jϕ(cb , cā )KB .
- J∀xϕ(x, cā )KM M

V
B = b∈M Jϕ(cb , cā )KB .
If φ(x1 , . . . , xn ) is a formula of LM with free variables x1 , . . . , xn and ν is an assignment,

q yM
we let ν(φ(x1 , . . . , xn )) = φ(cν(x1 ) , . . . , cν(xn ) ) B .
To simplify notation we confuse from now on the constant symbol ca ∈ LM with its
intended interpretation a ∈ M .
Remark 3.1.4. Some comments:
- In the definition of J∃xϕ(x, ā)KM M

B and J∀xϕ(x, ā)KB we are (apparently) using that
B is complete.
- Clearly the definitions of Jφ ∨ ψKM M

B and Jφ → ψKB is redundant once we have defined
J¬ϕKM M M
B and Jϕ ∧ ψKB . Also J∀xϕ(x, ā)KB is redundant once we have defined J¬ϕKB
M
and J∃xϕ(x, ȳ)KM

B .
- If no confusion can arise, we avoid to put the superscript M and the subscript B in
JφK.
- If B = {0, 1}, the semantic we have just defined is the usual Tarski semantic for first
order logic.
Now we outline that this semantic is sound and complete with respect to first order
calculus.
Definition 3.1.5. A statement ϕ in the language L is valid in a B-valued model M for

L and the boolean algebra B if JϕK = 1B . A theory T is valid in M if every axiom ϕ ∈ T
is valid.
57
Theorem 3.1.6 (Soundess and Completeness). Let L be a relational first order language.
An L-formula ϕ is provable syntatically by an L-theory T if and only if for all cba B
ν(ϕ) = 1B for every assignment ν : FRV(L) → M on a boolean valued model M for L in
which T is valid.
Definition 3.1.7. Let B be a cba and let L = {Ri : i ∈ I} be a relational language where
Ri is a mi -ary relation symbol for every i ∈ I. Suppose that M = (M, Ri : i ∈ I) is a
B-model for L. Let J be an ideal on B and G be its dual filter. The quotient model M/J
is the B/J -valued model defined as follows:
- its domain M/J is the set {[h]J : h ∈ M } where [h]J = {f ∈ M : Jf = hK ∈ G};
- JRi /J ([f1 ]J , . . . , [fmi ]J )KB/J = [JRi (f1 , . . . , fmi )KB ]J for every i ∈ I.
We feel free to denote these quotient models as M/J or M/G .
We leave to the reader to check that these quotients are B/J -valued models.
Remark 3.1.8. In case the dual of J is an ultrafilter G, B/J = 2 and M/J is a standard
Tarski model for a first order language. In this case we say that M/J is the Tarski quotient
of M by G.
In general B-valued models are not extensional, i.e. there can be f 6= g ∈ M such
Jf = gK = 1B , consider for example the case of L∞ -functions on R, i.e. the essentially
bounded measurable functions. This can be viewed as a B-valued model for B the complete
boolean algebra given by measurable sets modulo null sets: Jf = gK is the equivalence
class modulo the null ideal of the measurable set on which the two functions agree. Two
measurable functions f, g which disagree on a measure 0-set are such that Jf = gK = 1B .
Nonetheless it is customary to identify these functions passing to the quotient structure
L∞ = L∞ /{1B } , whose equivalence classes are given by essentially bounded measurable
functions agreeing modulo a null set, obtained by passing to quotient L∞ by the trivial
filter {1B }.
Definition 3.1.9. A B-valued model M with domain M is extensional if Jf = gKB = 1B

entails f = g for all f, g ∈ M .
Remark 3.1.10. Given any B-valued model M and any ideal I on B, M/I is an extensional
B/I -model, hence M/{1B } is an extensional B-model.
We have no reasons to believe that if a formula which is not quantifier free is true in
a B-valued model M, then it is also true in M/G , for some G ∈ St(B). In general this is
false, as the following example shows:
Example 3.1.11. Fix the language L = {<, C} consisting of two relation symbols, where
< is binary and C is unary. Let B = RO(R) and C ω (R) denote the analytic functions with
domain R (i.e. those defined by a power series converging on all of R). Consider the B-
valued model for the language L M = (C ω (R), =, <B , CB ) with the following interpretation
of the atomic formulae:
Jf = gK =Reg ({x ∈ R : f (x) = g(x)}),

Jf <B gK =Reg ({x ∈ R : f (x) < g(x)}) ,
[
JCB (f )K = Reg ({U : f U is constant}) .
58
We leave to the reader to check that (C ω (R), =, <B , CB ) is a B-valued model. Now, fix
any f ∈ C ω (R) and look at the formula φ(f ) := ∃y (f < y ∧ C(y)).
_
J∃y (f <B y ∧ CB (y))K = Jf <B g ∧ CB (g)K ≥
g∈C ω (R)
_
= Jf <B ca K ∧ JCB (ca )K ≥
a∈R
where ca is the constant function ca (x) = a
_
= Jf <B ca K ≥
a∈R
_
≥ Jf < can K = where an = sup(f (n − 1, n))
n∈Z
!
[
=Reg (n − 1, n) = R.
n∈Z
Therefore, we have that (C ω (R), =, <B , CB ) |= φ(f ) and in particular

(C ω (R), =, <B , CB ) |= ∃y (idR < y ∧ C(y)),
where idR is the identity function x 7→ x.
Now, consider F = {(n, +∞) : n ∈ Z} ⊆ RO(R). Since F satisfies the finite intersection
property (that is, F is closed under intersection of finite subsets), we can extend F to some
G ∈ St(RO(R)). Consider the model given by the quotient M/G . The identity function
idR has the property that for any a ∈ R
J¬([idR ]G <B [ca ]G )K = (a, +∞) ∈ G.
For any analytic function f either JC(f )K = R or JC(f )K = ∅; moreover JC(f )K = R if and
only if f is constant. It follows that M/G |= ¬∃y (idR < y ∧ C(y)).
3.2 Full boolean valued models and Loś theorem

Example 3.1.11 shows that quotients of boolean valued models may not preserve validity
of formulae with quantifiers. To overcome this issue we are led to the definition of full
boolean valued models as those boolean valued models for which the above problem does
not occur. We show that fullness characterizes the preservation of satisfiability in any
quotient and we give several examples of full boolean valued models.
3.2.1 Loś theorem for full boolean valued models

Definition 3.2.1. Fix a language L and a complete boolean algebra B, a B-valued model
M for L is full if for every formula φ(x, ȳ) and ā ∈ M |y|
J∃xφ(x, ā)KM M
B = Jφ(b, ā)KB
for some b ∈ M .
Theorem 3.2.2 (Loś theorem). Let B be a (complete)1 boolean algebra. Assume M is a
full B-valued model. For any G ∈ St(B), f1 , . . . , fn ∈ M , and for all formulae φ(f1 , . . . , fn )
M/G |= φ([f1 ]G , . . . , [fn ]G ) iff Jφ(f1 , . . . , fn )KM
B ∈ G.
1
In subsection 3.2.2 we will replace this assumption on the completeness of B with a weker condition
requiring the existence of suprema just for certain famillies of subsets of B determined by the B-valued
semantics of M .
59
Proof. By induction on the complexity of φ(f1 , . . . , fn ). The case for φ atomic holds by def-
inition; propositional connectives are easily handled. Assume φ(f1 , . . . , fn ) = ∃xψ(x, f1 , . . . , fn ),
then
M/G |= ∃xψ(x, [f1 ]G , . . . , [fn ]G ) iff M/G |= ψ([h], [f1 ]G , . . . , [fn ]G )
for some h ∈ M
iff Jψ(h, f1 , . . . , fn )K ∈ G
for some h ∈ M
which implies J∃xψ(x, f1 . . . , fn )K ∈ G
Moreover, since M is full, the viceversa also holds: pick h ∈ M such that
J∃xψ(x, f1 . . . , fn )K = Jψ(h, f1 . . . , fn )K ,
we have that Jψ(h, f1 . . . , fn )K belongs to G if and only if J∃xψ(x, f1 . . . , fn )K does.
The following Lemma outlines a fundamental link between full B-valued models and
the topological properties of St(B).
Lemma 3.2.3 (Forcing lemma I). Let B be a (complete)2 boolean algebra. Let M be a full
B-model and G ∈ St(B). Then, for any formula φ the following statements are equivalent
1. JφK ≥ b.
2. Dφ = {G ∈ St(B) : M/G |= φ} is dense in Nb .
3. Dφ ⊇ Nb .
According to Lemma 3.2.3, if M is full, we can check that a formula φ is valid in M
by showing it is valid in M/G for densely-many G ∈ St(B).
Lemma 3.2.4 (Forcing lemma II). Let B be a (complete)3 boolean algebra. Given a B-
valued model M for a relational language L, φ(x0 , . . . , xn ) a formula of the language L,
a0 , . . . , an ∈ M , define:
b φ(a0 , . . . , an ) (to be read as b forces φ(a0 , . . . , an ))
iff b ≤ Jφ(a0 , . . . , an )K.
Then the following holds:
1. b φ iff the set of G ∈ St(B) such that M/G |= φ is dense in Nb ,
2. b φ ∧ ψ iff b φ and b ψ,
3. b ¬φ iff c 6 φ for all c ≤ b,
4. b φ ∨ ψ iff the set of c ≤ b such that c φ or c ψ is dense below b in B+ .
5. b ∃xφ(x) iff the set of c ≤ b such that c φ(σ) for some σ ∈ M is dense below b.
6. For all G ∈ St(B) and all φ formulae with parameters in M and no free variable,
M/G |= φ if and only if b φ for some b ∈ G.
W
7. For all φ formulae with parameters in M JφK = {b : b φ}.
2
See the previous footnote regarding the degree of completeness of B needed for this Lemma.
3
See the previous footnote regarding the degree of completeness of B needed for this Lemma.
60
Examples of full boolean valued models: standard ultraproducts We now sketch
an argument to show that the familiar notion of ultraproduct of Tarski models is a special
case of a quotient of a full boolean valued model.
Let X be a set. Then P (X) is an atomic complete boolean algebra. Notice that all
theorems proved so far applies equally well to atomic complete boolean algebras even if
in the examples we focused on atomless, complete boolean algebras. A key observation is
that {{x} : x ∈ X} is a maximal antichain and a dense open set in P (X)+ . Now observe
that St(P (X)) is the space of ultafilters on X and X can be identified inside St(P (X))
as the open dense set {Gx : x ∈ X} where Gx is the principal utrafilter on P (X) given by
all supersets of {x}. Another key observation is the following:
Fact 3.2.5. Let {Mx : x ∈ X} be a family of Tarski-models
Q in the first order relational
language L each with domain Mx . Then N = x∈X Mx is the domain of a full P (X)-
model N letting for each n-ary relation symbol R ∈ L,
JR(f1 , . . . , fn )KP(X) = {x ∈ X : Mx |= R(f1 (x), . . . , fn (x))} .
Let G be any non-principal ultrafilter on X. Then, using the notation of the previous
fact, N/G is the domain of the familiar ultraproduct of the family (Mx : x ∈ X) by G and
the usual Loś Theorem for ultraproducts of Tarski models is the specialization to the case
of the full P (X)-valued model N of Theorem 3.2.2. Notice that in this special case, if the
ultraproduct is an ultrapower of a model M, the embedding a 7→ [ca ]G (where ca (x) = a
for all x ∈ X and a ∈ M ) is elementary. A good deal of our work in the remainder of this
book will be to establish to what extent this is the case for other examples of full B-valued
models we will be looking at.
3.2.2 Full B-models for a non complete boolean algebra B

We have essentially used that B is a complete boolean algebra to assign a truth value to
existential formulae. Nonetheless in many cases we do not need that B is complete in
order to show that a certain B-valued model is full. It suffices that the model satisfies the
following definition:
Definition 3.2.6. Let B be a boolean algebra and M be a B-valued model for a relational
language L.
M is a full B-valued model if for all formulae φ(x0 , . . . , xn ) and all a1 , . . . , an ∈ M ,
there exists a b ∈ M such that
Jφ(b, a1 , . . . , an )K ≥B Jφ(c, a1 , . . . , an )K
for any c ∈ M , i.e.: _

Jφ(b, a1 , . . . , an )K = Jφ(c, a1 , . . . , an )K .
c∈M
In order to check that this definition holds for a B-valued model M, one must proceed
by induction on the complexity of the formula φ(x0 , . . . , xn ) to check that
Jφ(a0 , a1 , . . . , an )K ∈ B
is well defined for all a0 , . . . , an ∈ M . This is always the case for atomic formulae φ, since
M is a B-valued model, and it holds for quantifier free formula by the rules of boolean
connectives. Assuming that
Jφ(a0 , a1 , . . . , an )K ∈ B
61
for all a0 , . . . , an has been defined, one has to check whether
J∃xφ(x, a1 , . . . , an )K ∈ B
can be defined as _
Jφ(b, a1 , . . . , an )K = Jφ(c, a1 , . . . , an )K
c∈M
for some b ∈ M such that
Jφ(b, a1 , . . . , an )K ≥B Jφ(c, a1 , . . . , an )K
for any c ∈ M .
On the other hand once one has been able to check that M is a full B-valued model,
we automatically get that Loś theorem 3.2.2 and the Forcing lemmas 3.2.3, 3.2.4 hold for
M even if B is not complete, since the proof of these two results used just the assumption
that M is a full B-valued model, not the one that B is a complete boolean algebra.
Fullness is an absolute property:
Lemma 3.2.7. Assume V ⊆ W are transitive models of MK (or ZFC) and M is a full
B-valued model in V whose domain and relations are classes in V and in W . Then M
remains a full B-valued model also in W .
A comment is in order for the above statement: even if the domain M of M and all
the relations R : M k → B used to define M in V are definable classes in V , in W we are
not considering the structure N obtained as the extension in W of the relations used in
V to define M (which could be quite different from M!), but the structure M itself. This
is possible if V is itself a definable class in W or if all the classes of the MK model V are
also classes of the MK model W .
Proof. To evaluate the formula Jφ(f1 , . . . , fk )KM

B = b one needs to check just quantifiers
ranging over the domain of M and the boolean algebra B. Hence the truth value assigned
to this formula is the same in W and in V since the structures M and the boolean algebra
B are the same in the two models.
Hence, once we have established the fullness of a boolean valued model in some tran-
sitive model V of ZFC (MK), its fullness is propagated to all the transitive outer models
W of V .
3.2.3 Sufficient conditions for fullness

We show two methods to obtain full B-models:
• Quotients of full B-valued models remain full: this will be used to obtain that generic
ultrapowers are full, being Tarski quotients of full B-models.
• B-models with the mixing property are full: this will be used to argue that the
boolean valued models of set theory of the form V B are full.
Lemma 3.2.8. Assume M is a full B-valued model and J is an ideal on B. Then M/J
remains a full B/J -valued model and is also extensional.
62
Proof. By Remark 3.1.10 M/J is an extensional B/J -valued model.
We proceed by induction on the logical complexity of formulae to show that
Jφ([f1 ]J , . . . , [fn ]J )KB/J = [Jφ(f1 , . . . , fn )KB ]J
for all formulae φ(x1 , . . . , xn ) and f1 . . . , fn ∈ M . The thesis holds by definition for atomic
formulae, and the induction is trivially checked for propositional connectives. In case of
quantifiers
J∃xφ(x, [f1 ]J , . . . , [fn ]J )KB/J =

_n o
= Jφ([f ]J , [f1 ]J , . . . , [fn ]J )KB/J : f ∈ M =
B/J
_
= {[Jφ(f, f1 , . . . , fn )KB ]J : f ∈ M } .
B/J
Since M is full there exists g ∈ M such that
J∃xφ(x, f1 , . . . , fn )KB = Jφ(g, f1 , . . . , fn )KB ,
hence Jφ(f, f1 , . . . , fn )KB ≤ Jφ(g, f1 , . . . , fn )KB for all f ∈ M . This gives that
[Jφ(f, f1 , . . . , fn )KB ]J ≤ [Jφ(g, f1 , . . . , fn )KB ]J = Jφ([g]J , [f1 ]J , . . . , [fn ]J )KB/J
for all f ∈ M . Hence

_
J∃xφ(x, [f1 ]J , . . . , [fn ]J )KB/J = {[Jφ(f, f1 , . . . , fn )KB ]J : f ∈ M } ≤ Jφ([g]J , [f1 ]J , . . . , [fn ]J )KB/J .
B/J
The other inequality is trivial.
Remark 3.2.9. Observe the following:

• For an ideal J on B, B/J may not be anymore a complete boolean algebra even if B
is (also B/J may be a complete boolean algebra even if B is not).
• Loś theorem for full boolean valued models is the instantiation of the above Lemma
to the case of J being a prime ideal on B.
• If M is a full P (X)-model, M/J is also full for any ideal J on P (X).
Another sufficent condition which guarantees fullness is the Mixing property.
Definition 3.2.10 (Mixing property manca riferimento – M). Let B be a complete boolean
algebra and M a B-valued model. M has the mixing property if for all {ba : a ∈ A} family
of elements of M indexed by an antichain, there exists b ∈ M such that Jb = ba K ≥ a for
all a ∈ A.
Lemma 3.2.11 (Maximum Principle [7, Lemma 1.27] ). Let B be a complete boolean
algebra and M a B-valued model with the mixing property. Then M is full.
We prove the Lemma. We first need the following piece of notation:
Notation 3.2.12. Let B be a boolean algebra and b ∈ B+ . D ⊆ B+ is predense below b if
{q ∧ b : q ∈ D} ∪ {¬b}
is predense in B+ .
63
Proof.
J∃xϕ(x, τ̄ )K ≥ Jϕ(σ, τ̄ )K
holds always. So we want to show that
Jϕ(σ, τ̄ )K ≥ J∃xϕ(x, τ̄ )K
for some σ ∈ M. Let

u0 = J∃xϕ(x, τ̄ )K > 0B .
Let
D = u ∈ B+ : there is some σu ∈ V such that u ≤ Jϕ(σu , τ̄ )K .

D is dense and open below u0 in B+ . Let A be a maximal antichain of D; clearly

_
{u : u ∈ A} = u0 .
Now we can appeal to the Mixing lemma to find σ ∈ M such that Jσ = σu K ≥ u for any
u ∈ A. Thus for each u ∈ A we have
u ≤ Jσ = σu K ∧ Jϕ(σu , τ̄ )K ≤ Jϕ(σ, τ̄ )K .
Therefore _
J∃xϕ(x, τ̄ )K = u0 = A ≤ Jϕ(σ, τ̄ )K .
The proof is complete.
A standard example of a B-model (with B a cba) satisfying the mixing property is the
boolean valued model for set theory V B given by Cohen’s forcing method.
3.3 Homomorphisms of boolean Valued Models

Definition 3.3.1. Let M be a B-valued model and N a C-valued model in the same
relational language L. Let
i:B→C
be a morphism of boolean algebras and Φ ⊆ M × N a relation. The couple hi, Φi is a
morphism of boolean valued models if:
1. domΦ = M ;
2. given (τ1 , σ1 ), (τ2 , σ2 ) ∈ Φ:
i(Jτ1 = τ2 KM N
B ) ≤ Jσ1 = σ2 KC ,
3. given R an n-ary relation symbol and (τ1 , σ1 ), . . . , (τn , σn ) ∈ Φ:
i(JR(τ1 , . . . , τn )KM N
B ) ≤ JR(σ1 , . . . , σn )KC ,
An injective morphism is a morphism such that in 2 equality holds.

An embedding of boolean valued models is an injective morphism such that in 3 equality
holds.
An embedding hi, Φi from M to N is called isomorphism of boolean valued models if
i is an isomorphism of boolean algebras and for every b ∈ N there is a a ∈ M such that
(a, b) ∈ Φ.
64
Notation 3.3.2. A boolean couple hB, M i is a pair given by a boolean algebra B and a
B-valued model M .
Remark 3.3.3. hi, Φi is a morphism between the boolean couples hB, Mi and hC, N i if and
only if letting J be the trivial ideal {0C } the map Φ0 defined by τ 7→ [σ]J for (τ, σ) ∈ Φ is a
function and is also a well defined morphism of the boolean couple hB, Mi with the boolean
couple hC, N /J i: observe that if Φ is a morphism Φ0 is a function; given (τ, σ1 ), (τ, σ2 ) ∈ Φ,
1C = i(1B ) = i(Jτ = τ K) ≤ Jσ1 = σ2 K
hence [σ1 ]J = [σ2 ]J , since N /J is extensional. We leave to the reader to check the rest.
In particular morphisms between extensional boolean valued models are maps and not
just binary relations.
Definition 3.3.4. Suppose M is a B-valued model and N a C-valued model (both in the
same language L) such that B is a complete subalgebra of C, M ⊆ N , and
JR(τ1 , . . . , τn )KM N
B = JR(τ1 , . . . , τn )KC
for all relation symbols R. Let IdM be the immersion of M into N . Then hIdB , IdM i is
an embedding of boolean valued models and N is said to be a boolean extension of M.
Proposition 3.3.5. Let M be a B-valued model and N a C-valued model in the same
language L. Assume hi, Φi is an isomorphism of boolean valued models.
Then for any L-formula φ(x1 , . . . , xn ), and for every (τ1 , σ1 ), . . . , (τn , σn ) ∈ Φ we have
that:
i(Jφ(τ1 , . . . , τn )KM N
B ) = Jφ(σ1 , . . . , σn )KC
Morphisms of boolean valued models are preserved by quotients.
Proposition 3.3.6. Let hB, Mi and hC, N i be two boolean couples in the language L. Let
F be a filter in B, G a filter on C and i : B → C a morphism of boolean algebras such that
G ⊇ i[F ]. Then hB/F , M/F i and hC/G , N /G i are still boolean couples.
Assume now Φ ⊆ M × N is such that hi, Φi is a morphism of boolean valued models.
Let
i/F,G : B/F → C/G
[b]F 7→ [i(b)]G
and
Φ/F,G = {(α, β) ∈ M/F × N/G : ∃σ ∈ α, τ ∈ β such that (σ, τ ) ∈ Φ} .
Then hi/F,G , Φ/F,G i is a morphism between the extensional boolean valued models M/F
and N /G . Moreover, if hi, Φi is an injective morphism, embedding, or isomorphism of
boolean valued models, and i/F,G is injective, then hi/F,G , Φ/F,G i is respectively an injective
morphism, embedding, or isomorphism of boolean valued models.
Proof. Given (α, β) ∈ Φ/F,G , we let σα ∈ M and τβ ∈ N be two elements such that
(τα , σβ ) ∈ Φ and α = [τα ]F , β = [σβ ]G .
1. Since dom(Φ) = M , it follows that Φ/F,G is everywhere defined.
2. Consider (α1 , β1 ), (α2 , β2 ) ∈ ΦF . Then
i/F,G (Jα1 = α2 KB/F ) = i/F,G ([Jτα1 = τα2 K]F ) =

= [i(Jτα1 = τα2 K)]G ≤ [Jτβ1 = τβ2 K]G = Jβ1 = β2 KC/G .
65
3. Let R be an n-ary relation symbol in L and (α1 , β1 ), . . . , (αn , βn ) ∈ Φ/F,G . Then
i/F,G (JR(α1 , . . . , αn )KB/F ) = i/F,G ([JR(τα1 , . . . , ταn )K]F ) = [i(JR(τα1 , . . . , ταn )K)]G ≤
≤ [JR(σβ1 , . . . , σβn )K]G = JR(β1 , . . . , βn )KC/G .
It can be easily checked that whenever equality holds in 2-3 of Definition 3.3.1, equality
holds as well in the above equations. The proof is concluded.
66
Chapter 4
Forcing
This chapter sums up some general facts about forcing we need in the remainder of these
notes. We assume the reader is already familiar with the standard development of forcing
as done for example in [29]. Reference texts for this chapter are [7, 28, 29] or the notes
[54].
We focus our analysis of the forcing method following the approach by means of boolean
valued models, the advantage being that we will make extensive use of the algebraic
apparatus we developed so far. Nonetheless in some parts of this book (notably the last on
category forcings), we cannot neglect the standard approach to forcing by means of posets
taken originally by Cohen (Kunen [29] is the reference text). The main reason being that
in case the forcing notions we consider are proper classes, their boolean completion may
not exist even as a proper class, hence for class forcings the unique reasonable approach
is to generalize to the proper class setting the Cohen’s presentation of the forcing method
via partial orders. This is done for example in [1] and we will follow its approach referring
the reader to it for details and proofs.
We start developing forcing by means of boolean valued models using as base theory
ZFC since this is notationally simpler. Next we show which slight changes one has to
implement to handle the case of forcing over models of MK. Finally we present the
approach to class forcing by means of posets over models of MK and compare the two
approaches.
4.1 Boolean valued models for set theory

We introduce the standard boolean valued models for set theory; it is practical to work in
the language L = {∈, ⊆, =} with three binary relation symbols. For the moment we work
with base theory ZFC.
Definition 4.1.1 (Manca riferimento – M [54]). Let hM, ∈, =, ⊆i be a model of ZFC
with M transitive. Let B ∈ M be a complete boolean algebra in hM, ∈i. The canonical
B-valued model hM B , =B , ∈B , ⊆B i for L is the following class definable inside M :
M B = {ȧ ∈ M : ȧ : M B → B is a partial function}.
The boolean relation =B , ∈B , ⊆B are the following classes definable inside M :

r z W nr z o
• ∈B (ḃ0 , ḃ1 ) = ḃ0 ∈ ḃ1 = ȧ = ḃ0 ∧ ḃ1 (ȧ) : ȧ ∈ dom(ḃ1 ) ,
B B
r z Vn r z o
• ⊆B (ḃ0 , ḃ1 ) = ḃ0 ⊆ ḃ1 = ¬ḃ0 (ȧ) ∨ ȧ ∈ ḃ1 : ȧ ∈ dom(ḃ0 ) ,
B B
67
r z r z r z
• =B (ḃ0 , ḃ1 ) = ḃ0 = ḃ1 = ḃ0 ⊆ ḃ1 ∧ ḃ1 ⊆ ḃ0 ,
B B B
When the context is clear, we will omit indexes.

Remark 4.1.2. The definition of M B is a shorthand for a recursive definition by rank in
M . Similarly ḃ0 R ḃ1 for ḃ0 , ḃ1 ∈ M B and R ∈ {∈, =, ⊆} is defined by a recursion on the
rank of (ḃ0 , ḃ1 ).
It can be shown that M B has the mixing property, hence it is full and therefore Loś
theorem holds for M B .
Lemma 4.1.3 (Mixing [7, Lemma 1.25] or [54]). Assume hM, ∈, =, ⊆i models ZFC and
M is transitive. Let B be a complete boolean algebra in hM, ∈i. Then hM B , ∈B , =B , ⊆B i
has the mixing property.
We will also use the following variant of the mixing Lemma:
Lemma 4.1.4 (Mixing [7, Lemma 1.25] or [54]). Let B be a complete boolean algebra
in V , and θ > |B| be regular. Then hHθB , ∈B , =B , ⊆B i has the mixing property, where
HθB = Hθ ∩ V B .
Proof. Run the proof of the mixing Lemma inside Hθ and check that this can be done on
the basis of the axioms of ZFC holding in Hθ .
Theorem 4.1.5 (Cohen-Solovay-Scott-Vopenka [7, Theorem 4.1]). Assume hM, ∈, =, ⊆i

models ZFC and M is transitive. Let B be a complete boolean algebra in M . Let G be any
ultrafilter on B. Then (M B /G , ∈B /G , =B /G , ⊆B /G ) is a Tarski model of ZFC.
Moreover the following holds:
• If M is transitive and models all axioms of ZFC except the powerset axiom, then
(M B /G , ∈B /G , =B /G , ⊆B /G ) is a Tarski model of the same axioms.
• If M is transitive and models the replacement scheme for Σn -formulae, then (M B /G , ∈B

/G , =B /G , ⊆B /G ) is a Tarski model of extensionality and of the replacement scheme
for Σn -formulae.
Definition 4.1.6. Assume hM, ∈, =, ⊆i models ZFC and M is transitive. Let B be a

complete boolean algebra in hM, ∈, =, ⊆i.
G is an M -generic ultrafilter for B if it is an ultrafilter on B and G ∩ D 6= ∅ for all
D ∈ M predense subset of B.
Given G ultrafilter on B, define by recursion on the rank of ḃ ∈ M B
ḃG = {ȧG : ∃p ∈ Ghȧ, pi ∈ ḃ}.
M [G] = {ḃG : ḃ ∈ M B }.
Notation 4.1.7. For a complete boolean algebra B ∈ V , ĠB ∈ V B denotes the canonical
name for a V -generic filter for B, i.e.
ĠB = {hb̌, bi : b ∈ B}.

W
Also we let Jτ ∈ V K be a short hand for the boolean value {Jτ = x̌K : x ∈ V }.
68
Remark 4.1.8. The above notation needs a bit of explanation: it is well known that for an
atomless boolean algebra B in V there cannot be a V -generic ultrafilter G ∈ St(B) since
for all G ∈ St(B) B+ \ G is open dense and disjoint from G.
Nonetheless the forcing statement
r z
Ġ is a V -generic filter for B̌ = b
makes perfectly sense as it is formalizable in first order logic by the sentence

r z
ˇ Ġ ∩ x 6= ∅) ∧ (G is an ultrafilter on B̌)
(∀x ∈ PD(B)
where PD(B) ∈ V is the collection of predense subset of B and is a definable subset of

P (B). It can be checked that
r z
ĠB is a V -generic filter for B̌ = 1B .
In view of the forcing theorem below, one can safely work under the assumption that
V -generic filters G for B exist and translate by means of the forcing theorem her/his
conclusions regarding the first order properties holding in V [G] to statements asserting
that in V the corresponding forcing statements have a certain positive boolean value.
Theorem 4.1.9 (Cohen’s forcing theorem [7, Lemma 4.11], [28, Theorem 14.6, Theorem
14.29]). Assume hM, ∈, =, ⊆i models ZFC and M is transitive. Let B be a complete boolean
algebra in hM, ∈, =, ⊆i, G be an M -generic filter for B. Then:
1. hM B [G], ∈, ⊆, =i is isomorphic to hM B /G , ∈B /G , ⊆B /G , =B i via the map which

sends ḃG to [ḃ]G .
r z
2. M [G] |= φ((ḃ1 )G , . . . , (ḃn )G ) iff φ(ḃ1 , . . . , ḃn ∈ G.
r z
3. M |= b ≤B φ(ḃ1 , . . . , ḃn ) iff
M [G] |= φ((ḃ1 )G , . . . , (ḃn )G )
for all M -generic filters G for B such that b ∈ G.
Fact 4.1.10. Let hM, ∈, =, ⊆i be a model of ZFC with M transitive,

V B ∈ M be a complete
boolean algebra in M , G be an M -generic ultrafilter for B. Then A ∈ G for any A ⊂ G
which belongs to M .
The following also holds:
Proposition 4.1.11. Assume hM, ∈, =, ⊆i models ZFC and M is transitive. Let B be a

complete boolean algebra in hM, ∈, =, ⊆i. Then φ(x) ≡ (x ∈ M B ) is a provably ∆1 (M )-
property in the parameter B. The same holds for φR (x, y, z) ≡ (Jx R yKB = z) with R
among ∈, ⊆, =.
More generally assume φ(x1 , . . . , xl ) is a Qi -formula for some i > 0.
Then for all ḃ1 , . . . , ḃl ∈ M B and b ∈ B
r z
φ(ḃ1 , . . . , ḃl ) = b
B
is Qi (M ) in parameters ḃ1 , . . . , ḃl , B, b.
69
Proof. The base case follows by a delicate inductive proof based on the very definition of
the classes M B and RB for R among r ∈, ⊆, = inside Mz. To prove the remaining part of
the Proposition, observe that M |= ∃xφ(x, b˙1 , . . . , ḃn ) = b if and only if
r z
M |= ∃σ ∈ M B φ(σ, b˙1 , . . . , ḃn ) = b.
An easy induction can now be carried to yield the desired conclusion.
4.1.1 Embeddings and boolean valued models

Complete homomorphisms of complete boolean algebras extend to natural ∆1 -elementary
maps between the associated boolean valued models for set theory.
Proposition 4.1.12. Let i : B → C be a complete homomorphism. Define by recursion
ı̂ : V B → V C by
ı̂(ḃ)(ı̂(ȧ)) = i ◦ ḃ(ȧ)
for all ȧ ∈ dom(ḃ) ∈ V B . Then the pair hi, îi is a boolean embedding of V B into V C and
the map ı̂ is ∆1 -elementary, i.e. for every ∆1 formula φ,
r z r z
i φ(ḃ1 , . . . , ḃn ) = φ(ı̂(ḃ1 ), . . . , ı̂(ḃn ))
B C
Proof. We prove the result by induction on the complexity of φ. For atomic formulas ψ
(either x = y or x ∈ y), we proceed by further induction on the rank of ḃ1 , ḃ2 .
r z _ n r z o
i ḃ1 ∈ ḃ2 =i ḃ2 (ȧ) ∧ ḃ1 = ȧ : ȧ ∈ dom(ḃ2 )
B B
_n r z o
= i ḃ2 (ȧ) ∧ i ḃ1 = ȧ : ȧ ∈ dom(ḃ2 )
B
_n r z o
= i ḃ2 (ȧ) ∧ ı̂(ḃ1 ) = ı̂(ȧ) : ȧ ∈ dom(ḃ2 )
C
r z
= ı̂(ḃ1 ) ∈ ı̂(ḃ2 )
C
r z ^ n r z o
i ḃ1 ⊆ ḃ2 =i ḃ1 (ȧ) → ȧ ∈ ḃ2 : ȧ ∈ dom(ḃ1 )
B
^n r B z o
= i ḃ1 (ȧ) → i ȧ ∈ ḃ2 : ȧ ∈ dom(ḃ1 )
B
^n r z o
= i ḃ1 (ȧ) → ı̂(ȧ) ∈ ı̂(ḃ2 ) : ȧ ∈ dom(ḃ1 )
C
r z
= ı̂(ḃ1 ) ⊆ ı̂(ḃ2 ) .
C
r z
We used the inductive hypothesis in the last row of each case. Since ḃ1 = ḃ2 =
r z r z
ḃ1 ⊆ ḃ2 ∧ ḃ2 ⊆ ḃ1 , the proof for ψ atomic is complete. In particular this gives that
the pair hî, ii is a boolean embedding of V B into V C .
For ψ quantifier-free formula, the proof is immediate: i is an embedding hence preserves
∨, ¬. Suppose now that ψ = ∃x ∈ y φ is a ∆0 formula.
r z
i ∃x ∈ ḃ1 φ(x, ḃ1 , . . . , ḃn )
B
_n r z o
= i ḃ1 (ȧ) ∧ i φ(ȧ, ḃ1 , . . . , ḃn ) : ȧ ∈ dom(ḃ1 )
B
_n r z o
= i(ḃ1 (ȧ)) ∧ φ ı̂(ȧ), ı̂(ḃ1 ), . . . , ı̂(ḃn ) : ȧ ∈ dom(ḃ1 )
C
r z
= ∃x ∈ ı̂(ḃ1 ) φ x, ı̂(ḃ1 ), . . . , ı̂(ḃn )
C
70
Furthermore, ifr ψ = ∃x φ is a Σ1z formula,
r by the Maximum z Principle there exists a
B
ȧ ∈ V such that ∃xφ(x, ḃ1 , . . . , ḃn ) = φ(ȧ, ḃ1 , . . . , ḃn ) hence
B B
r z r z
i ∃xφ(x, ḃ1 , . . . , ḃn ) = i φ(ȧ, ḃ1 , . . . , ḃn )
B B
r z
= φ ı̂(ȧ), ı̂(ḃ1 ), . . . , ı̂(ḃn )
r zC
≤ ∃xφ x, ı̂(ḃ1 ), . . . , ı̂(ḃn )
C
Thus, if φ is a ∆1 formula, φ and ¬φ are both Σ1 , hence the above inequality holds and
also
r z r z
i φ(ḃ1 , . . . , ḃn ) = ¬i ¬φ(ḃ1 , . . . , ḃn )
B B
r z
≥ ¬ ¬φ ı̂(ḃ1 ), . . . , ı̂(ḃn )
C
r z
= φ ı̂(ḃ1 ), . . . , ı̂(ḃn ) ,
C
Notation 4.1.13. In general all over these notes, for the sake of readability, we indi-
cate B-names with their defining properties. Recurring examples of this behavior are the
following:
• If we have in V a collection {ḃi : i ∈ I} of B-names, we confuse {ḃi : i ∈ I} with a

B-name ḃ such that for all ȧ ∈ V B
r z r z
ȧ ∈ ḃ = ∃i ∈ Iˇȧ = ḃi .
• If i : B → C is a complete homomorphism, we denote by C/i[Ġ] a B-name ḃ such that

r z
ḃ is the quotient of C modulo the ideal generated by the dual of i[ĠB ] = 1B .
4.2 Basic properties of forcing extensions

4.2.1 Preservation of regular cardinals in forcing extensions
Definition 4.2.1. A partial order (Q, ≤Q ) is <δ-presaturated is for any family {Aγ : γ < ξ}
with ξ < δ of maximal antichains
q ∈ Q+ : ∀γ < ξ |{a ∈ Aγ : a and q are compatible} < δ|

is open dense in (Q, ≤Q ).

A boolean algebra B is <δ-presaturated if (B+ , ≤B ) is <δ-presaturated.
Remark 4.2.2. Any partial order P is <ω-presaturated, any <δ-CC partial order is <δ-
presaturated. Hence any complete boolean algebra B is < δ-presaturated, whenever it
admits a dense subset P of size less than δ. In particular RO(P ) is < θ-presaturated if
P ∈ Hθ .
Proposition 4.2.3. Let (Q, ≤Q ) in V be a partial order, and δ be a regular cardinal in

V . The followings are equivalent:
71
1. Q is <δ-presaturated in V ;
2. RO(Q) preserves the regularity of δ in V (i.e.: Jδ is regularKRO(Q) = 1RO(Q) ).
Proof. Let B = RO(Q). It suffices to prove the above equivalence for B.

r z
(1)⇒(2). Assume that f˙ : α̌ → δ̌ = 1B for some α < δ. Then define for any γ < α
n r z o
Aγ = aγβ = f˙(γ) = β : β < δ .
By (1), for any q ∈ B+ there exists r ≤ q such that

n o
| β : aγβ ∧ r > 0 | < δ
for any γ < α. Let n o

Xγ = β : aγβ ∧ r > 0
for any γ < α. Since δ is regular and α < δ, we have

[
| {Xγ : γ < α} | < δ.
Let η = sup {rank(Xγ ) : γ < α} < δ. Then for any γ < α

_n γ o _n o
r= aβ ∧ r : β < δ = aγβ ∧ r : β ∈ Xγ ≤
_n γ o _ nr z o r z
≤ aβ : β < η = ˙ ˙
f (γ) = β : β < η = f (γ) < η .
Hence ^ nr z o r z
r≤ f˙(γ) < η : γ < α = f˙[α] ⊆ η .
Therefore there is a dense open set of conditions r which force f˙ to be not cofinal.
(2)⇒(1). Assume that {Aγ : γ < α} is a family of maximal antichains of B and put
n o
Aγ = aγβ : β < δ ,
and n o
f = hop(δ̌, β̌), aγβ i : β < δ, γ < α ,
where op(δ̌, β̌) is a canonical name for the pair hδ, βi. Observe that
r z
• f˙(γ̌) = β̌ = aγβ ;
r z
• f˙ : α̌ → δ̌ = 1B .
By (2) f˙ is forced to be bounded, i.e.:

n r z o
q : ∃η < δ f˙[α] ⊆ η ≥ q
is open dense. We get

r z ^ nr z o
q ≤ f˙[α] ⊆ η = f˙(γ̌) < η̌ : γ < α .
72
Fix γ < α. Since r z nr z o
f˙(γ̌) < η̌ = sup f˙(γ̌) = β̌ β < η ,
we have _ nr z o _n o
q≤ f˙(γ̌) < β̌ : β < η = aγβ : β < η .
Thus for any β ≥ η, q ∧ aγβ = 0. This means that
n o
| aγβ : aγβ ∧ q > 0 | ≤ η < δ.
V [G]
4.2.2 Computing Hλ in forcing extensions
Lemma 4.2.4. Let λ be a regular cardinal in V and let B ⊆ Hλ be a < λ-presaturated
cba. Assume G is V -generic for B. Then
V [G]
Hλ [G] = {ẋG : ẋ ∈ V B ∩ Hλ } = Hλ .
It is clear that the Lemma can be relativized to any (transitive) model of ZFC.
Proof. Since every element a of Hλ with λ regular is coded by a bounded subset of λ (i.e.
a bounded subset of λ coding a binary relation whose transitive collapse is the transitive
closure of a), and B preserves the regularity of λ, we can assume that every B-name for
V [G]
an element of Hλ is coded by a B-name for a function f˙ : λ → 2 such that f˙ is allowed
to assume the value 1 only on a bounded subset of λ. In particular we let for any such f˙,
n r zo
Df˙ = p ∈ B+ : ∃αp p ≤ f˙−1 [{1}] ⊆ αp
and for all ξ < λ, n r zo
Eξ,f˙ = p ∈ B : ∃i < 2 p ≤ f˙(ξ) = i
Notice that the above sets are open dense for any ξ, f˙, and also that p ∈ Df˙ as witnessed
by αp implies that p ∈ E ˙ for all ξ ≥ αp . In particular to decide the values of f˙ below
ξ,f
any p ∈ Df˙ we just need to consider the dense sets Eξ,f˙ for ξ < αp .
Let p ∈ B+ be arbitrary, and let Aξ ⊆ Eξ,f˙ ∩ Df˙ be maximal antichains for all ξ < αp .
Since B preserves the regularity of λ, it is <λ presaturated; hence we can find q ≤ p such
that q ∈ Df˙ as witnessed by αp and
Bξ = {r ∈ Aξ : r is compatible with q}
has size less than λ for all ξ < αp . We can now use these antichains Bξ to cook up a name
ġq ∈ Hλ ∩ V B such that q forces that f˙ = ġq . By standard density arguments, the thesis
follows.
Bounding the cardinality of P (α) in forcing extensions We outline how the car-
dinality of the powerset of some sets can be computed in a generic extension:
Lemma 4.2.5. Assume B is a cba and G is V -generic for B. Then every element of
P (α)V [G] is equal to τG for some τ ∈ V B with
ˇ bξ i : ξ < α .

τ = hξ,
Therefore the cardinality of P (α)V [G] is bounded by (|α||B| )V .
Proof. Any subset of α in V [G] is given by its characteristic function and the above set of
B-names describe all the possible characteristic functions in V [G] with domain α.
73
4.3 Class forcing and Set forcing with posets
We start defining class-sized forcings models of MK. We briefly recall some definitions and
general facts about forcing with (set or class sized) posets in Morse-Kelley Set Theory,
following closely [1]. When we restrict this approach to models of ZFC (i.e. we do not
consider classes) and to set sized forcings, it turns out to be the standard set-forcing over
ZFC, as presented for instance in [29, 28].
Definition 4.3.1. Let hM, CM i be a model of MK. (P, ≤P ) is a hM, CM i-forcing if

P, ≤P ∈ CM , ≤P is a partial ordering on P with greatest element 1P . G ⊆ P is an
hM, CM i-generic filter for P if
1. G is a filter (i.e upward closed and such that finitely many elements of G always
have a common refinement in G with respect to ≤P ),
2. G ∩ D 6= ∅ whenever D ⊆ P is dense and D ∈ CM .
When we assume M to be countable and transitive and CM to be countable as well,

this yields that for each p ∈ P there exists G such that p ∈ G and G is hM, CM i-generic
for P .
Definition 4.3.2. Let hM, CM i be a model of MK with M transitive. Define
• M0P := ∅;
P := q̇ : q̇ is a subset of MαP × P in M ;

• Mα+1
• MλP :=
S P
Mα : α ∈ Ord(M ) ;
• M P = α∈Ord(M ) MαP ;
S
n o
P := Ẋ ∈ C : Ẋ is a subclass of M P × P .
• CM
• x̌ := {hy̌, 1P i : y ∈ x} for any x ∈ M .
• X̌ := {hy̌, 1P i : y ∈ X} for any X ∈ C.
Remark 4.3.3. It is possible to check that M P is a class in CM (which is also the extension
of a formula in the parameter P ) and CM P is the extension of a formula in the parameter
P . This can be done much as in the same fashion as one argue for set sized forcings in
transitive models of ZFC. We refer the reader to [1] for the details.
Given a hM, CM i-generic filter G for P , we define the interpretations of set- and class-
names recursively:
Definition 4.3.4. Let hM, CM i be a model of MK, (P, ≤P ) a hM, CM i-forcing, and
G ⊆ P an hM, CM i-generic filter for P .
• q̇G = {ṙG : ∃p ∈ G(hṙ, pi ∈ q̇)} for all q̇ ∈ M P .

n o
• ẊG = q̇G : ∃p ∈ G(hq̇, pi ∈ Ẋ) for all Ẋ ∈ CM P .
Definition 4.3.5.
n o
(M, CM )[G] = (M [G], CM [G]) = ( q̇G : q̇ ∈ M P , ẊG : Ẋ ∈ CM
P

).
74
Lemma 4.3.6 (Lemma 9 [1]). Let hM, CM i be a model of MK with M transitive, and
P ∈ CM be a poset with maximal element 1P . Then for all G ⊆ P hM, CM i-generic filters
for P :
• ∀x ∈ M (x̌ ∈ M P ∧ x̌G = x) and ∀X ∈ CM (X̌ ∈ M P ∧ X̌G = X).
• M ⊆ M [G], CM ⊆ CM [G], G ∈ C[G].
• (M, CM )[G] is transitive and is contained in any transitive MK-model hN, Ci such
that M ⊆ N , CM ⊆ C, G ∈ C.
• OrdM [G] = OrdM .
• hM [G], CM [G]i is a model of extensionality and Class comprehension.
Remark 4.3.7. Notice that we do not assert that hM [G], CM [G]i is a model of MK. This
is in general false, the problematic axioms to be checked in hM [G], CM [G]i being the
replacement axiom and the power-set axiom: for example if G is hM, CM i-generic for
Coll(ω, Ord)M , G makes all ordinals of M -countable in M [G], and all well orders in CM [G]
countable as well, hence hM [G], CM [G]i is not a model of replacement.
Let us now introduce the external and internal forcing relation, we refer the reader to
[29, 28, 1] for the proof of their equivalence and their exact formulation.
Definition 4.3.8 (External forcing relation). Let hM, CM i be a model of MK with M tran-
sitive, and P ∈ CM be a poset with maximal element 1P . Let p ∈ P , ϕ(x1 , . . . , xn , X1 , . . . , Xn )
be a formula with displayed free variables, q̇1 , . . . , q̇m be P -set-names and Ẋ1 , . . . , Ẋn be
P -class-names.
p P ϕ(q̇1 , . . . , q̇m , Ẋ1 , . . . , Ẋn ),
if and only if for any G ⊆ P which is an (M, CM )-generic filter for P with p ∈ G, we have
(M, C)[G] |= ϕ((q̇1 )G , . . . , (q̇n )G , (Ẋ1 )G , . . . , (Ẋn )G ).
Lemma 4.3.9 (Definability Lemma — Lemma 11 [1]). Let hM, CM i be a model of MK
with M transitive, and P ∈ CM be a poset with maximal element 1P . For any L2 -formula
ϕ(x1 , . . . , xm , X1 , . . . , Xn ) with displayed free variables, the relation
p P ϕ(q̇1 , . . . , q̇m , Ẋ1 , . . . , Ẋn )
is definable in (M, CM ) with parameters p, q̇1 , . . . , q̇m , Ẋ1 , . . . , Ẋn , P .
Lemma 4.3.10 (Truth Lemma — Lemma 12 [1]). Let hM, CM i be a model of MK with
M transitive, and P ∈ CM be a poset with maximal element 1P . Assume G is hM, CM i-
generic for P . Then
(M, C)[G] |= ϕ((q̇1 )G , . . . , (q̇n )G , (Ẋ1 )G , . . . , (Ẋn )G )
if and only if there is p ∈ G such that
p ϕ(q̇1 , . . . , q̇m , Ẋ1 , . . . , Ẋn )
We will need the following:
Definition 4.3.11 (Pretameness — Definition 20 [1]). Let hM, CM i be a model of MK
with M transitive, and P ∈ CM be a poset with maximal element 1P .
P is pretame if for all families {Ai : i ∈ a} of maximal antichains of P indexed by an
a ∈ M and definable in hM, CM i, there is a dense set q of conditions in P such that for
all i ∈ a
hM, CM i |= {r ∈ Ai : r and q are compatible} is a set.
75
Lemma 4.3.12 (Theorem 23 [1]). Let hM, CM i be a model of MK with M transitive, and
P ∈ CM be a poset with maximal element 1P . Assume P is pretame and G is hM, CM i-
generic for P . Then hM, CM i[G] models the Replacement axiom.
Remark 4.3.13. Pretameness of P corresponds to < Ord-presaturation of P (see Def. 4.2.1)

and the Pretameness Lemma corresponds in the class partial order scenario to Proposi-
tion 4.2.3. More specifically assume δ is inaccessible, P ⊆ Vδ is a class partial order in
Vδ+1 , then Vδ+1 models that P is pretame according to Def. 4.3.11 if and only if V models
that P is < δ-presaturated according to Def. 4.2.1.
Theorem 4.3.14 (Cohen’s forcing Theorem — Theorem 23 [1]). Assume hM, CM i is a

model of MK with M transitive, and P ∈ M is a set-sized poset with maximal element 1P .
Assume G is hM, CM i-generic for P . Then hM, CM i[G] models MK.
In the following, with abuse of notation, we write V P , V [G] to denote the generic
extension of the standard MK-model (V, C) given by the class of all sets and the family of
all classes.
Remark 4.3.15. Restricting our attention to transitive models M of ZFC and to set sized
forcings P ∈ M , the above results and definitions provides the usual definability and truth
lemmas for the corresponding forcing relation as defined in [28, 29] relative to M .
More specifically one can prove the version of all of the above results in which one
systematically omit any reference to classes in the formulation of the relevant properties.
We leave the details to the reader.
4.3.1 V P versus V RO(P ) for set sized forcings P

We now relate the presention of forcing for set sized posets in models of ZFC with the
boolean valued approach to forcing outlined before. In certain cases (for example in the
definition of the name β̇ in the proof of Lemma 10.2.3) it is convenient to allow a name ȧ
to be a relation, as it occurs for the P -names in V P .
Definition 4.3.16 (Manca riferimento – M). Let V be a transitive model of ZFC, P be

a partial order in V , and iP : P → RO(P ) be a dense embedding of P into its boolean
completion.
V P = ȧ ∈ V : ȧ ⊆ V P × P

r z∗ W nr z∗ o
• ∈∗P (ḃ0 , ḃ1 ) = ḃ0 ∈ ḃ1 = ȧ = ḃ0 ∧ iP (b) : hȧ, bi ∈ ḃ1 ) ,
P P
r z∗ Vn r z∗ o
• ⊆∗P (ḃ0 , ḃ1 ) = ḃ0 ⊆ ḃ1 = ¬iP (b) ∨ ȧ ∈ ḃ1 : hȧ, bi ∈ ḃ0 ,
P P
r z∗ r z∗ r z∗
• =∗P (ḃ0 , ḃ1 ) = ḃ0 = ḃ1 = ḃ0 ⊆ ḃ1 ∧ ḃ1 ⊆ ḃ0 .
P B P
Notation 4.3.17. For any formula φ, we denote by JφK∗P the boolean value assigned to φ
by the above boolean valued model.
Remark 4.3.18. Once again the definition of the classes V P , =∗P , ⊆∗P , ∈∗P is a shorthand
for a recursive definition by rank, and (apparently) depends on the choice of iP . We
will briefly outline below that different choices of iP produce isomorphic boolean valued
models, hence we will not bother to specify which iP is chosen to define hV P , =∗P , ⊆∗P , ∈∗P i.
76
In case P is a set sized poset, the following theorem links the forcing relation p P
φ(q̇1 , . . . , q̇n ) defined in the previous section on V P to the boolean valued model
hV P , =∗P , ∈∗P , ⊆∗P i
defined above.
Theorem 4.3.19 (Manca riferimento – Silvia). Assume P ∈ V is a set-sized partial order

with maximal element 1P . Let iP : P → RO(P ) in V be a dense embedding of P into
RO(P ) used to define (V P , =∗P , ∈∗P ).
Then for any L2 -formula φ(x1 , . . . , xn ) ḃ1 , . . . , ḃn ∈ V P ,
r z∗
V |= p P φ(ḃ1 , . . . , ḃn ) ⇐⇒ V |= iP (p) ≤ φ(ḃ1 , . . . , ḃn ) .
P
Theorem 4.3.20 (Manca riferimento – M). Assume (V, ∈) is a transitive model of ZFC
and P ∈ V is a partial order. Let B = RO(P )V ∈ V . Then V models that
hV B , =B , ∈B , ⊆B i
and
hV P , =∗P , ∈∗P , ⊆∗P i
are isomorphic and full B-valued models for L = {∈, ⊆, =}.
More precisely assume iP : P → B is the dense embedding of P into its boolean
completions used to define hV P , =∗P , ∈∗P , ⊆∗P i, then the map
îP :V P → V B
n _n o o
fȧ = hfḃ , iP (p) : hḃ, pi ∈ ȧ i : hḃ, pi ∈ ȧ ,
is the desired boolean isomorphism.
Remark 4.3.21. The above result can be relativized to any (transitive) model M which is
a model of ZFC. We leave the details to the reader.
Let us add the following observation: while the notion of being a complete boolean
algebra is not absolute (for example if B in V is a cba and H is V -generic for a complete
subalgebra of B, then B is not anymore complete in V [H], since new maximal antichains
of B without a sup in V have been added). On the other hand, the notion of being a
complete embedding i : P → Q is absolute between transitive models:
Lemma 4.3.22. Assume V ⊆ W are transitive models of some T extending ZFC. Let
P, Q ∈ V be partial orders and i : P → Q an embedding. Then i is a complete embedding
in V if and only if it is a complete embedding in W .
In which case, let B = RO(P )V and Q = RO(Q)W . Then i lifts to a ∆1 -preserving
homomorphism î : V P → W Q between the B-valued model V P and the Q-valued model
W Q (î is a definable class in W , if V is a class of the NBG model W ).
Proof. Clearly if i : P → Q is a complete embedding in W it remains so in V , hence

only one direction of the above equivalence is non-trivial. To simplify matters assume
P, Q are separative, otherwise first pass to their boolean completions as computed in
V . Assume i : P → Q is complete in V , then in V i extends to a regular embedding
77
i : RO(P ) → RO(Q) with associated adjoint π. Then (i, π) remain an adjoint pair also in
W , giving that i remains a complete embedding also in W (we are repeatedly using 1.3.14
in V and in W ). n o
Now let B = RO(P )V and Q = RO(Q)W and define î : V P → W Q by σ 7→ hî(τ ), i(a)i : hτ, ai ∈ σ .
We leave to the reader to prove (by inductions on ranks of σ, τ ∈ V B ) that
V |= Jσ R τ KB = b
if and only if r z
W |= î(σ) R î(τ ) = i(b)
Q
for R a relation among ∈, ⊆, =.

Similarly we can prove that
V |= J∃xφ(x, σ1 , . . . , σn )KB ≥ p
entails that r z
W |= ∃xφ(x, î(σ1 ), . . . , î(σn )) ≥ i(p)
Q
for φ a Σ0 -formula.
This suffices to prove that the boolean value of ∆1 -properties is preserved when passing
from V P to W Q .
78
Chapter 5
Generic ultrapowers
We introduce the second type of boolean valued model we will be interested in the remain-
der of this book, which are the boolean valued models giving raise to ultrapowers. Generic
ultrapowers of type Ult(V, G) are quotients by certain type of ultrafilters G ⊆ P (P (X))
of the full P (P (X))-model given by functions f : P (X) → V in V . We aim to give a uni-
fied treatment both of generic ultrapower embeddings and of the ultrapower embeddings
induced by standard large cardinals; here (and everywhere in the book we deal with these
topics) we continue along the lines of Foreman’s chapter for the Handbook [18], Larson’s
book on stationary tower forcing [30], and Foreman and Magidor’s [20]. We make a point
to prove all the basic results about elementary embeddings using minimal assumptions,
so to be able to use them both when dealing with standard ultrapower embeddings given
by large cardinals, or when dealing with generic ultrapower embeddings given by a V -
generic filter on P (P (X)) /I for some normal ideal I on X. Along the way we also deal
with towers of normal ideals. In the end we show how to describe standard large cardinal
properties such as hugeness or supercompactness by means of this technology. A common
theme of this chapter is to outline the common features shared by generic ultrapowers and
boolean valued models of set theory. Many of the remaining parts of the book analyze
which are the situations in which the two types of models (V [G] and Ult(V, G)) are very
close to each other. A more general approach to generic ultrapowers which encompasses
as special cases both the towers of normal ideals (which are the focus of the present book)
and the notion of generic extender (which is the generic counterpart for strongness and
superstrongness) has been devised by Audrito and Steila in [4], however we decided not
to pursue it in the present book.
5.1 Normal (towers of ) ultrapowers

Definition 5.1.1. Let X be a non-empty set
n o
Ult(V, X) = f : P (X)V → V : f a function in V ,
Define for any relation R ⊆ V k
RX (f1 , . . . , fk ) = JR(f1 , . . . , fk )KP(P(X)) = {Y ⊆ X : R(f1 (Y ), . . . , fk (Y ))} .
Lemma 5.1.2. Let R1 , . . . Rj be arbitrary ki -ary relations on V for i = 1, . . . , j. Then
hUlt(V, X), R1X , . . . , RjX i
is a full P (P (X))-valued model.
79
Proof. The proof is straightforward and is left to the reader.
By Lemma 3.2.8 we obtain the following:
Theorem 5.1.3 (Loš Theorem for ultrapowers). Assume I ⊆ P (P (X)) is an ideal. Then
Ult(V, X)/I is a full and extensional P (P (X))-valued model.
Moreover if I˘ is an ultrafilter, the map jI˘ : V → Ult(V, X)/I mapping a 7→ [ca ]I˘ is
elementary (where ca : P (X) → V is constant with value a).
Proof. The first part of the theorem is immediate by Lemma 3.2.8. The second part of the
theorem is a reformulation of the well known result that a first order structure elementarily
embeds in its ultrapowers via the diagonal embedding. See for more details 5.2.4 below.
Similarly we can handle directed systems of ultrapowers (recall Def. 2.4.6, 2.3.13):
Definition 5.1.4. Let δ be an inaccessible cardinal. Let

n o
Ult(V, δ) = f : P (X)V → V : X ∈ Vδ , f a function in V .
We endow Ult(V, δ) with the structure of a Tδ -valued model (recall Def. 2.4.6) as follows:
given R ⊆ V k and f1 , . . . , fk ∈ Ult(V, δ), let Y ∈ Vδ be such that dom(fj ) ⊆ Y for all
j = 1, . . . , k. Then
Rδ (f1 , . . . , fk ) = [{Z ⊆ Y : R(f1 ↑ Z, . . . , fk ↑ Z)}]
Lemma 5.1.5. Let R1 , . . . Rj be arbitrary ki -ary relations on V for i = 1, . . . , j and δ be

an inaccessible cardinal. Then
hUlt(V, δ), R1δ , . . . , Rjδ i
is a full Tδ -valued model.
Similarly to Theorem 5.1.3, we have the following:
Theorem 5.1.6 (Loš Theorem for directed systems of ultrapowers). Assume δ is inac-
cessible and I is an ideal on Tδ . Then Ult(V, Tδ )/I is a full and extensional T -valued
model.
Moreover if I˘ is an ultrafilter, the map jI˘ : V → Ult(V, δ)/I mapping a 7→ [ca ]I˘ is
elementary (where ca : P (∅) → V is constant with value a).
In the remainder of this chapter we will analyze two specific cases of the above results,
i.e. those induced respectively by a normal ideal on X or by a tower of normal ideals I of
height an inaccessible δ. In these two cases, much more can be said about the properties
of the maps jI˘. S
Our main focus will be on the cases in which the duals of I and I are (towers of)
normal ultrafilters. However this assumption is rather strong: in most cases there cannot
be interesting normal ultrafilters on X in V , much for the same reasons for which there
cannot be V -generic ultrafilters for an atomless boolean algebra B ∈ V . Hence we are
naturally led to analyze the situation in which we have a pair of models V ⊆ W of ZFC
(or MK), and we have in W a (tower of) V -normal ultrafilter(s) GX on X (respectively
on Vδ for some δ inaccessible in V ).
80
All over this chapter we have the following scenario: we have transitive classes V, M ⊆
W which are all models of ZFC and an elementary embedding j : V → M (i.e. it preserves
truth of all formulae with no free variables and parameters in V ). To avoid ambiguities in
the intended meaning of the above, we always assume the following: W comes in pair with
its family of classes C so that hW, Ci is a model of NBG, j, V, M, W ∈ C, j is elementary just
with respect to formulae φ(~x) with just set-type bounded variables and set type parameters
occurring in them.
5.2 V -normal ultrafilters and towers

We now focus on pairs of transitive models V ⊆ W of ZFC (or MK) and we consider
(towers of) ultrafilters G in W on the boolean algebra P (P (X))V (respectively on the
boolean algebra Tδ for some δ inaccessible in V ).
5.2.1 V -normal ultrafilters

Definition 5.2.1. Let V ⊆ W be transitive models of ZFC (or MK), X ∈ V and G ⊆
P (P (X))V with G ∈ W . G is a V -normal ultrafilter on X if it is a fine filter on X, and
for any regressive
f : P (X)V −→ X
belonging to V there exists S ∈ G such that f [S] = {x0 } for some x0 ∈ X.
Remark 5.2.2. We focus on transitive models to simplify the discussion, however our results
can be formulated in order to work for any pair V ⊆ W of models of ZFC (or MK).
Notation 5.2.3. Assume V ⊆ W are transitive models of ZFC (or MK) and let G ∈ W
be a V -normal ultrafilter on X. Define in W Ult(V, G) = Ult(V, X)/G .
Theorem 5.2.4 (Loš). Assume V ⊆ W are transitive models of ZFC (or MK) and let
G ∈ W be a V -normal ultrafilter on X. Then
Ult(V, G) ϕ([f1 ], . . . , [fn ]) ⇐⇒ {Z ⊆ X : V ϕ(f1 (Z), . . . , fn (Z))} ∈ G.
Proof. Ult(V, X) is a full P (P (X))V -model in V . This assertion is absolute between
transitive structures (see 3.2.7), hence Ult(V, X) is a full P (P (X))V -model in W as well.
Now we conclude applying Lemma 3.2.8 in W to G and Ult(V, X).
Definition 5.2.5. Given I ⊆ P (P (X)) normal fine ideal on X, P I is the boolean algebra
P (P (X)) /I.
Remark 5.2.6. Given I ⊆ P (P (X)) normal fine ideal on X the map S 7→ [S]I induces a
complete embedding of the partial order (P (P (X)) \ I, ≤I ) (with S ≤I T if S \ T ∈ I)
into (P (P (X)) /I )+ with a dense image. Hence we feel free when convenient to confuse
elements S of P (P (X)) with their corresponding class [S]I and P I wih the partial order
(P (P (X)) \ I, ≤I ). `
Moreover since I is normal, the diagonal union {Sx : x ∈ X} of a subset {Sx : x ∈ X}
of P (P (X)) /I of size at most |X| defines its suprema in P I , hence P I is always an |X|-
complete boolean algebra.
Proposition 5.2.7. Let in V , I ⊆ P (P (X)) be a normal fine ideal on X. Let Ḡ be a V -
generic filter for P (P (X)) /I . Then G = {S ⊆ P (X) : [S]I ∈ G} ∈ V [Ḡ] is a V -normal
ultrafilter on X.
In particular Ult(V, G) is always a definable class in V [Ḡ] and, letting B = RO(P (P (I))),
Ġ ∈ V B a B-name for G:
81
q y
V |= [S]I ≤ φ([f1 ]Ġ , . . . , [fn ]Ġ ) B
if and only if
V |= [S]I = [{M ∈ S : V |= φ(f1 (M ), . . . , fn (M ))}]I .
Proof. Let f : P (X)V −→ X be a regressive function such that f ∈ V . Put
Df = S ∈ I + : f S is constant .

Df is open dense: let f : P (X)V −→ X be regressive. Given T ∈ I + , f T : T −→ X

is still regressive; by normality of I there exists T 0 ⊆ T such that f T 0 is constant and
T 0 ∈ I + . T 0 ∈ Df refines T in ≤I . It is immediate to check that Df is open.
The second part of the proposition is an immediate consequence of its first part, of Loś
Theorem for Ult(V, G), and of the forcing Theorem for V B and for Ult(V, X). We leave
the details to the reader.
Remark 5.2.8. A V -normal ultrafilter G on P (P (X)) /I with I a normal ideal, captures

a family of open dense sets of size equal to the cardinality of the family of all the open
dense subsets of P (P (X)) /I, however G may avoid some open dense sets and thus fail
to be fully V -generic for P (P (X)) /I.
Definition 5.2.9. Given x ∈ Vθ , define
ρx = {hZ, πZ (x)i : x ∈ Z ⊆ Vθ } .
Observe that if we want ρx to be total we can define
ρx = {hZ, πZ [x ∩ Z]i : Z ∈ P (Vθ )} .
If β ∈ θ
ρβ : P (Vθ ) −→ θ
Z 7−→ otp(Z ∩ β).
The following proposition sums up the extra information we can extract from the
embedding jG (defined in 5.1.3) in case G is a V -normal ultrafilter on P (P (X)).
Proposition 5.2.10. Let G ⊆ P (P (Vθ )) be a V -normal ultrafilter. Then:
1. ∀α ≤ θ ([ρα ]G , ∈G ) ∼
= (α, ∈). Hence any α ∈ θ is represented by ρα in Ult(V, G).
2. There exists an isomorphism between (θ, ∈) and an initial segment of OrdUlt(V,G) .
3. For any x ∈ Vθ , (trcl(x), ∈) ∼

= (trcl([ρx ]), ∈G ). This implies:
(a) any x ∈ Vθ is represented in Ult(V, G) by ρx ;

Ult(V,G)
(b) Vθ can be naturally identified with a subset of Vθ .
4. For any x ∈ Vθ , jG [x] = {hZ, Z ∩ xi : Z ⊆ Vθ }.
82
5. Assume θ > λ and
Pλ (Vθ ) = {X ⊆ Vθ : X ∩ λ ∈ λ ≥ otp(X ∩ Vθ )}
is in G. Then crit(jG ) = λ and jG (λ) ≥ θ.
6. S ∈ G if and only if [IdP(X) ]G ∈G jG (S).
Proof.
1. By induction on α. Assume the thesis holds for any β < α. Let [f ]G ∈G [ρα ]G and
put
T = {Z ⊆ Vθ : f (Z) ∈ ρα = otp(Z ∩ α)} .
Then T belongs to G. For any Z ∈ T let βZ ∈ α∩Z be such that otp(Z ∩βZ ) = f (Z)
and define
g : T −→ θ
Z 7−→ βZ .
Since g is regressive and G is V -normal, we can find β < α pressing down constant
for g such that
{Z ⊆ Vθ : f (Z) = ρβ (Z)} = {Z ⊆ Vθ : βZ = β} ∈ G.
Therefore [f ]G = [ρβ ]G for some β < α. It is now easy to check (using Loš Theorem
and the inductive assumptions) that the map β 7→ [ρβ ]G is order preserving and
surjective between (α, ∈) and ([ρα ]G , ∈G ). The thesis follows.
2. By Loš Theorem Ult(V, G) |= [ρα ]G ∈ Ord. This shows that there exists an isomor-
phism between θ and an initial segment of the class of ordinals of the ultrapower
Ult(V, G).
3. In order to prove the thesis we need the following:
• For any x, y ∈ Vθ
x ∈ y ⇐⇒ [ρx ]G ∈ [ρy ]G :
x ∈ y if and only if πZ (x) ∈ πZ (y) for any (some) Z ⊆ Vθ such that x, y ∈ Z.
Since G is fine, the thesis follows.
•
[f ]G ∈ [ρx ]G ⇐⇒ ∃y ∈ x [f ]G = [ρy ]G :
Assume there exists y ∈ x such that [f ]G = [ρy ]G , then [f ]G ∈ [ρx ]G . On the
other hand, assume [f ]G ∈ [ρx ]G let
T = {Z ⊆ Vθ : f (Z) ∈ ρx (Z) = πZ (x), x ∈ Z} ∈ G.
For any Z ∈ T let yZ ∈ x ∩ Z be such that πZ (yZ ) = f (Z) and define
g : T −→ Vθ
Z 7−→ yZ .
Since g ∈ V is regressive and G is V -normal, we have a pressing down constant
y for g. This means that
{Z ⊆ Vθ : f (Z) = ρy (Z)} = {Z ⊆ Vθ : yZ = y} ∈ G.
Hence [ρy ]G = [f ]G .
83
4. Let Idx be such that Idx (Z) = Z ∩ x. On the one hand we have for any Z ⊆ Vθ
y ∈ x ⇐⇒ cy (Z) = y ∈ Idx (Z) = Z ∩ x.
Therefore for any y ∈ x, jG (y) = [cy ]G ∈G [Idx ]G . On the other hand if [f ]G ∈ [Idx ]G
we have that T = {Z : f (Z) ∈ Z ∩ x} ∈ G and f is regressive on T . Let y ∈ x be
the pressing down constant for f , then [f ]G = [cy ]G .
5. First of all observe that ∀β < λ {Z ≺ Vθ : β ⊆ Z} ∈ G. As a matter of fact, since G

is V -normal and fine, ∀β ∈ λ Aβ = {Z ≺ Vθ : β ∈ Z} ∈ G. Moreover Pλ (Vθ ) ∈ G,
hence {Z ≺ Vθ : β ⊆ Z} ⊇ Pλ (Vθ ) ∩ Aβ ∈ G.
Now we want to show that the critical point is at least λ: Let β < λ, then Bβ =
{Z ≺ Vθ : β ⊆ Z} ∈ G, and for any Z ∈ Bβ , we have cβ (Z) = β and ρβ (Z) =
πZ (β) = β, since πZ (β) = πZ [β ∩ Z] = πZ [β] = β. Hence [cβ ]G = [ρβ ]G for any
β < λ.
We will now see that the critical point is λ: Let f (Z) = Z ∩ λ for any Z ∈ Pλ (Vθ ).
Then
{Z : f (Z) < cλ (Z)} ⊇ Pλ (Vθ )∩{Z ∈ P (Vθ ) : λ ∈ Z} ∈ G ⇐⇒ [f ]G < [cλ ]G = jG (λ).
On the other hand for any α < λ, [f ]G > [cα ]G , since for any Z ∈ {Z ⊆ Vθ : α + 1 ⊆ Z} ∈
G, f (Z) > α = cα (Z).
6. The thesis follows from the following observations.
• jG [Vθ ] = [IdP(Vθ ) ]G . In fact for any Z ⊆ Vθ and x ∈ Z:
x ∈ Vθ ⇐⇒ cx (Z) ∈ IdP(Vθ ) (Z),
hence [cx ] = jG (x) ∈G [IdP(Vθ ) ]G . For the other inclusion if [f ]G ∈ [IdP(Vθ ) ]G

let
T = {Z : f (Z) ∈ Z} .
which belongs to G. Let x be the pressing down constant for f , then [f ]G =
[cx ]G and we are done.
• Assume S ∈ G. Then

S = {Z ⊆ Vθ : Z ∈ S} = Z ⊆ Vθ : IdP(Vθ ) (Z) ∈ cS (Z) ∈ G
if and only if
[IdP(Vθ ) ]G ∈G [cS ]G .
5.2.2 Towers of V -normal ultrafilters

Definition 5.2.11. Let V ⊆ W be transitive models of ZFC (or MK) and δ be in V a
strong limit cardinal. G ∈ W is a tower of V -normal ultrafilters of height δ if G ⊆ (Vδ )V
and
• GX = G ∩ P (P (X))V is a V -normal ultrafilter for any X ∈ Vδ .
84
• GY projects to GX iff X ⊆ Y .
Recall the regular embedding iXY : P (P (X)) → P (P (Y )) mapping S ⊆ P (X) →
S ↑ Y for any X ⊆ Y .
Proposition 5.2.12. Assume X ⊆ Y . Then i−1 XY [H] is a V -normal ultrafilter on X,
whenever H is a V -normal ultrafilter on Y .
Proof. Let f : P (X) → X be regressive, then f ↑ Y is regressive. By normality there
exists a pressing down constant x0 ∈ X such that
T = {Z ⊆ Y : f ↑ Y (Z) = x0 } ∈ H.
Then iXY ([T ↓ X]) ≥ [T ], which means that T ↓ X ∈ i−1

XY [H] and f is constant on it.
Definition 5.2.13. Let V ⊆ W be models of ZFC (or MK) and G ∈ W be a tower of

V -normal ultrafilter on Vδ .
• The induced ultrapower is:
Ult(V, G) = Ult(V, δ)/G = {[f ]G : f ∈ Ult(V, δ)} ,
• The associated embedding jG is:
jG : V −→ Ult(V, G)
a 7−→ [ca ],
where
ca : {∅} −→ V
∅ 7−→ a.
• For any X, Y ∈ Vδ we define the factor maps
kXY : Ult(V, GX ) −→ Ult(V, GY )

[f ]GX 7−→ [f ↑ Y ]GY
kX : Ult(V, GX ) −→ Ult(V, G)
[f ]GX 7−→ [f ]G .
In analogy with what has been done in the previous subsection, we have the following:
Proposition 5.2.14. Assume I ⊆ Vδ is a tower of normal ideals of height an inaccessible
δ. Let G be V -generic for (TδI )+ ∼
= (Vδ \ ∪I, ≤I ). Then G ∈ V [G] is a tower of V -normal
˘
ultrafilters with GX ⊇ IX for any X ∈ Vδ .
In particular Ult(V, G) is always a definable class in V [G] and, letting B = RO(TδI ),
Ġ ∈ V B a B-name for G:
q y
V |= [S]I ≤ φ([f1 ]Ġ , . . . , [fn ]Ġ ) B
if and only if
V |= [S]I = [{M ∈ S : V |= φ(f1 (M ), . . . , fn (M ))}]I .
85
Proof. We prove that if G is V -generic for TδI , GX is a V -normal ultrafilter for any X ∈ Vδ
(which is clearly disjoint from IX ). Given a regressive function f : P (X) → X, let
Df = {[S]I : ∃x0 ∈ X ⊆ ∪S ∀Z ∈ S(f (Z ∩ X) = x0 )} .
It is enough to show that Df is open dense, the conclusion will then follow easily.
S
Df is dense: Let [S]I > [0]I . Take Y = X ∪ S and consider the regressive function
g : S ↑ Y −→ X
Z 7−→ f (Z ∩ X).
By normality of IY , let T ≤IY S ↑ Y , T ∈ IY+ such that g is constant on T . Then

[T ]I ≤ [S]I = [S ↑ Y ]I and [T ]I ∈ Df .
S S
Df is open. If T ∈ Df and S ≤I T let X = S ∪ T , then S ↑ X ≤IX T ↑ X and
[S]I = [S ↑ X]I . Now for all Z ∈ S ↑ X, Z ∈ T ↑ X, therefore f (Z ∩ X) = x0 which
gives that [S]I = [S ↑ X]I ∈ Df .
The second part of the proposition is left to the reader.
Notation 5.2.15. Given x ∈ Vα we define
ρVxα : P (Vα ) −→ Vα
Z 7−→ πZ (x).
Proposition 5.2.16. Let V ⊆ W be models of ZFC (with W a model of NBG). Let G ⊆ Vδ

be a tower of V -normal ultrafilters with G ∈ W .
1. jG is definable in W with parameters G and Vδ (provided V is a (definable) class in
W ).
2. Ult(V, G) |= φ([f0 ]G , . . . , [fn−1 ]G ) if and only if there exists α < δ such that dom(fi ) ∈
Vα for any i ∈ n and
{M ≺ Vα : V |= φ(f0 ↑ Vα (M ), . . . , fn−1 ↑ Vα (M ))} ∈ G.
3. For any x ∈ Vδ , x is represented by [ρVxα ]G in the ultrapower, where α < δ is such

that x ∈ Vα .
4. Assume δ > θ > λ and
Pλ (Vθ ) = {X ⊆ Vθ : X ∩ λ ∈ λ ≥ otp(X ∩ Vθ )}
is in G. Then crit(jG ) = λ and jG (λ) ≥ θ.

S
5. T ∈ G if and only if jG [ T ] ∈ jG (T ).
6. crit(kVα ) ≥ α and kX = kY ◦ kXY for any X ⊆ Y ∈ Vδ .
jG
V Ult(V, G)
jGY
jGX
kX kY
Ult(V, GX ) Ult(V, GY )
kXY
86
Aggiungere
dimostrazione
Proof. The proof of all items except the last one is a straightforward variation of the case
dell’ultimo
for V -normal ultrafilters and is left as an instructive exercise to the reader. punto – M
–M
Notation 5.2.17. In the following we will refer to forcings of type P I with I a normal
ideal as ideal forcings, while forcings of type TδI will be referred to as tower forcings.
5.2.3 Generic elementary embeddings versus (towers of ) V -normal ul-

trafilters
We now show that generic elementary embeddings j : V → M between transitive models of
ZFC which are classes of some NBG-model W ⊇ V, M and (towers of) V -normal ultrafilters
are two sides of the same coin: from one we can define the other and conversely.
Theorem 5.2.18. Assume W is a model of NBG and j, V, M are classes in W with V, M

transitive models
n of ZFC and j : V → M elementary.
o For any X ∈ V such that j[X] ∈ M ,
V
let GX,j = S ∈ P (P (X)) : j[X] ∈ j(S) . The following holds:
1. j Ord is not the identity map, hence it has a least ordinal moved, its critical point
V
crit(j), which is a regular cardinal in V . Moreover j Hcrit(j) is the identity.
2. If M ⊆ V , the critical point of j is a strongly inaccessible cardinal in V .
3. GX,j ∈ W is a V -normal ultrafilter on X.
4. GX,j projects to GY,j for all Y ∈ P (X)V .
5. Let kGX,j : Ult(V, GX,j ) → M be defined by [f ]GX,j 7→ j(f )(j[X]). Then:
(a) Ult(V, GX,j ) is well founded, kGX,j is elementary, and crit(kGX,j ) ≥ rank(X);
(b) kGX,j ◦ jGX,j : x 7→ [cx ]GX,j 7→ j(cx )(j[X]) is j;
(c) for Y ∈ P (X)V , kGY,j GX,j : [f ]GY,j 7→ [f ↑ X]GX,j is elementary and such that
kGY,j = kGX,j ◦ kGY,j GX,j .
6. Assume G ∈ W is a V -normal ultrafilter on some X ∈ V with Ult(V, G) well-

founded, and identify Ult(V, G) with its transitive collapse. Then GX,jG = G. More-
over1 n o
Ult(V, G) = jG (f )(jG [X]) : f ∈ V, f : P (X)V → V
jGX,j = jG and kGX,j is the identity map.
7. Assume G = {GX : X ∈ Vδ } ∈ W is a tower V -normal ultrafilter on Vδ such that

Ult(V, ∪G) is well-founded, and identify Ult(V, ∪G) with its transitive collapse. Then
GX,jG = GX for all X ∈ Vδ . Moreover
n o
Ult(V, ∪G) = jG (f )(jG [X]) : f ∈ V, X ∈ Vδ , f : P (X)V → V .
1
More precisely: the left-hand class and the right-hand class of the equation have the same transitive
collapse.
87
j
V M
jGY,j kGX,j
jGX,j
kGY,j
Ult(V, GX,j ) Ult(V, GY,j )

kXY,j
Remark 5.2.19. In view of 5.2.18(6), whenever Ult(V, G) is a well founded ultrapower

induced by a V -normal ultrafilter G on some set X, we will identify Ult(V, G) with its
transitive collapse and freely represent its elements by [f ]G or jG (f )(jG [X]) according to
what is more convenient. Similarly we will handle ultrapowers given by towers of normal
ideals according to 5.2.18(7).
Proof.
1. If j is not the identity map, let a ∈ V be of least rank such that j(a) 6= a. Let R
be a well order of a and let predR (b) denote the set of R-predecessors of b for each
b ∈ a. Since rank(b) < rank(a) for all b ∈ a, we get that
j[A] = {j(hu, vi) : hu, vi ∈ A} = {hj(u), j(v)i : hu, vi ∈ A} = {hu, vi : hu, vi ∈ A} = A
and similarly j[X] = X for any A ⊆ a2 and X ⊆ a.

Let b ∈ a be least such that (predR (b), R) 6= (predj(R) (b), j(R)) if such a b ex-
ists, and X = predR (b), otherwise let X = a. In both cases we obtain that
S = R ∩ X 2 is a well-order on X such that j(S) 6= S, j(X) 6= X, and (predS (c), S) =
(predj(S) (c), j(S)) for all c ∈ X. Hence (X, S) is a proper initial segment of (j(X), j(S)).
Now letting α be the order type of (X, S) and β be the order type of (j(X), j(S)),
we have that α 6= β and β = j(α), by elementarity of j. Hence j has a critical point
γ.
Assume γ = crit(j) is not regular in V . Let f : α → γ be a cofinal sequence in V
with α < γ (i.e. sup(ran(f )) = γ). Then in M it holds that j(f ) : j(α) = α → j(γ)
is also cofinal in j(γ) (i.e. M |= sup(ran(j(f ))) = j(γ)). Since M ⊆ W are both
transitive, sup(ran(j(f ))) = j(γ) holds in W . Now for all ξ < α,
j(f )(ξ) = j(f )(j(ξ)) = j(f (ξ)) = f (ξ)
(since ξ, f (ξ) < γ = crit(j)), hence j(f ) = f . This gives that
j(γ) = sup(ran(j(f ))) = sup(ran(f )) = γ,
a contradiction.
Finally let a ∈ HγV , we must show j(a) = a. trcl(a) can be coded by an element
f ∈ 2α for some limit α < γ. Notice that rank(f ) ≤ α < γ. Hence it suffices to show
that j(f ) = f for all f ∈ 2α and for all limit α < γ. In this case j(f ) ∈ j(2α ) =
j(2)j(α) = 2α and
j(f ) ⊇ j[f ] = {j(hη, ii) : hη, ii ∈ f } = {hj(η), j(i)i : hη, ii ∈ f } = {hη, ii : hη, ii ∈ f } = f,
since all pairs in f have as components ordinals less than crit(j). Hence j(f ) ∈ 2α
is a function extending f ∈ 2α , which occurs only if j(f ) = f .
88
2. Assume M ⊆ V and let γ = crit(j).
First assume γ is not a limit cardinal. Then γ = ν + with j(ν) = ν (since γ is regular
by the previous item). Since ν + = γ < j(γ) = (ν + )M we get that M |= |γ| ≤ ν.
Since M ⊆ V , we get that γ is not a cardinal in V , contradicting the assumption
that γ is regular in V .
Finally assume γ is not strong limit. Let α < γ be least such that |2α | ≥ γ. Let
2α = {fξ : ξ < η} with η ≥ γ being the size of 2α in V . Let R ⊆ (2α )2 be the well
order on 2α induced by the map hfξ : ξ < ηi. Then j(R) is a well order of 2α in M .
Since M ⊆ V , j(R) ∈ V . Observe also that j(hf, gi) = hf, gi for all hf, gi ∈ R, since
all such pairs have rank less than γ. Hence R = j[R] ⊆ j(R). But a total linear order
on 2α cannot have any proper super relation on 2α which is still a total linear order.
Since j(R), R are both total linear orders on 2α in V , they must coincide. Now
hfξ : ξ < ηi is the enumeration of 2α in order type η according to R, and we have
that also M models that j(hfξ : ξ < ηi) is the unique enumeration of j(2α ) = 2α in
order type j(η) according to j(R). The unique such enumeration being hfξ : ξ < ηi
(since R = j(R)), we have that j(hfξ : ξ < ηi) = hfξ : ξ < ηi. But now j(fγ ) is (by
elementarity of j) the j(γ)th -element of 2α according to the well order j(R) of j(2α ),
i.e. j(fγ ) = fj(γ) 6= fγ . On the other hand observe that j(f ) = f for all f ∈ 2α since
rank(f ) < γ for any such f . We reached a contradiction.
3. Clearly j[X] ∈ j(S) or j[X] ∈ j(P (X) \ S), hence GX is ultra. Assume f :
P (X)V → X is regressive and in V . Then j(f ) : P (j(X))M → j(X) is regres-
sive and o = j(z) for some z ∈ X.
n in M . Hence j(f )(j[X]) n By elementarity, we o
get
V V
that Z ∈ P (X) : f (Z) = z ∈ GX , since j[X] ∈ j( Z ∈ P (X) : f (Z) = z ).
Hence GX,j is a V -normal ultrafilter.
4. S ∈ GY if and only if j[Y ] = j(Y ) ∩ X ∈ j(S) if and only if j[X] ∈ j(S) ↑ j(X) =
j(S ↑ X) if and only if S ↑ X ∈ GX .
5.
(a) We have that:

Ult(V, GX,j ) |= φ([f1 ]GX,j , . . . , [fn ]GX,j )
if and only if
n o
S = Z ∈ P (X)V : V |= φ(f1 (Z), . . . , fn (Z)) ∈ GX,j
if and only if
n o
j[X] ∈ j(S) = Z ∈ P (j(X))M : M |= φ(j(f1 )(Z), . . . , j(fn )(Z))
if and only if
M |= φ(j(f1 )(j[X]), . . . , j(fn )(j[X])).
Hence kX is elementary.
Ult(V, GX ) is well-founded since kX is ∈X /G -preserving and identifies Ult(V, GX )
with a sub-class of a well-founded class.
89
It remains to show that kX (α) = α for any α < rank(X). W.l.o.g. we can
assume X = β is an ordinal in V . By 5.2.10(1) α = [ρα ]GX,j for any α < β.
Hence
kX (α) = kX ([ρα ]GX,j ) = j(ρα )(j[X]) = otp(j[X]∩j(α)) = otp(j[X∩α]) = otp(X∩α) = α,
as was to be shown.
(b) We have that
kX ◦ kGX,j (x) = kX ([cx ]GX,j ) = j(cx )(j[X]) = cj(x) (j[X]) = j(x).
(c) Left to the reader (as in 5.2.16(6)).
6. S ∈ GX,jG if and only if jG [X] ∈ jG (S) if and only if S ∈ G. The rest is left to the
reader.
7. Left to the reader.
In the remainder of this book we will focus just on generic ultrapower embeddings
which define well founded ultrapowers, this notion therefore deserves a definition:
Definition 5.2.20. Let I ∈ V be a normal ideal on X. I is precipitous if P I has the follow-

ing property: whenever H is V -generic for all P I the generic ultrapower Ult(V, H) defined
in V [H] is well founded in V [H]. Equivalently: there is a ∆1 -preserving homomorphism
I I I
between the boolean valued models (Ult(V, X)/I , ∈X /I , =X /I ) and (V P , ∈P , =P ).
Similarly we define I being a precipitous tower.
5.3 Normal (towers of ) ultrafilters in forcing extensions

Definition 5.3.1. Let B be a complete boolean algebra and Ḣ ∈ V B be such that
r z
Ḣ is a V -normal ultrafilter on P (X) = 1B .
B
Set n r z o
I(Ḣ) = S ⊆ P (X) : S ∈ Ḣ = 0B
B
and
iḢ : P I(Ḣ) −→ B
r z
S 7−→ S ∈ Ḣ .
Proposition 5.3.2. Let B be a complete boolean algebra and Ḣ ∈ V B be such that

r z
Ḣ is a V -normal ultrafilter on X = 1B .
B
1. I(Ḣ) is a normal ideal.
2. iḢ is an homomorphism between boolean algebras which is |X|-complete.
90
3. Moreover if the range of iḢ is dense in B, iḢ extends to an isomorphism of the
respective boolean completions.
Proof. A straightforward simplification of the proof of Proposition 5.3.4 to follow.
Similarly
Definition 5.3.3. Let B be a complete boolean algebra and Ḣ ∈ V B be such that

r z
Ḣ is a V -normal tower of ultrafilters on Vδ = 1B .
B
Set n r z o
IX (Ḣ) = S ⊆ P (X) : S ∈ Ḣ = 0B ,
B
n o
I(Ḣ) = IX (Ḣ) : X ∈ Vδ ,
I(Ḣ)
iḢ : Tδ −→ B
r z
S 7−→ S ∈ Ḣ .
Proposition 5.3.4. Let B be a complete boolean algebra and Ḣ ∈ V B be such that

r z
Ḣ is a V -normal tower of ultrafilters on Vδ = 1B .
B
1. IX (Ḣ) is a normal ideal for all X ∈ Vδ .
2. If X ⊆ Y , then IY (Ḣ) projects on IX (Ḣ).
3. The map iḢ is an homomorphism between boolean algebras which is < cof(δ)-complete.
4. Moreover if the range of iḢ is dense in B, iḢ extends to an isomorphism of the

respective boolean completions.
Proof. We prove each item as follows:

r z r z
1. IX (Ḣ) is an ideal. If S ∈ Ḣ = 0 and T ≤ S are stationary, then T ∈ Ḣ = 0.
r z
Moreover if S ∪ T ∈ Ḣ = b > 0, let G V -generic be such that b ∈ G. If
H = valG (Ḣ), then S ∪ T ∈ H implies either S ∈ H or T ∈ H. Hence
r z r z
S ∈ Ḣ > 0 or T ∈ Ḣ > 0.
r z
IX (Ḣ) is fine.Cx ∈ Ḣ = 1B for all x ∈ X, since Ḣ is fine with boolean value 1B .
r z
IX (Ḣ) is normal. Let T ∈/ IX (H) and f : T → X regressive. Since T ∈ Ḣ > 0B ,
let G be V -generic such that T ∈ H = valG (Ḣ). Thenrthere exists x ∈ zX such
that S = {Z ∈ T : f (Z) = x} ∈ H. This means that S ⊆ T ∧ S ∈ Ḣ > 0B .
Hence S ∈ IX (Ḣ)+ . Now S ⊆ T iff JS ⊆ T K > 0B . Hence S ≤IX T witnesses
the pressing down property for f with respect to T .
91
2. Since H = valG (Ḣ) is V -normal for all V -generic filters G:
r z r z
S ∈ IX ⇐⇒ S ∈ Ḣ = 0B ⇐⇒ S ↑ Y ∈ Ḣ = 0B ⇐⇒ S ↑ Y ∈ IY .
3. iḢ is a homomorphism.
r z r z
iḢ (¬S) = ¬S ∈ Ḣ = ¬ S ∈ Ḣ = ¬iḢ (S).
r z r z r z
iḢ (S ∨ T ) = S ∨ T ∈ Ḣ = S ∈ Ḣ ∨ T ∈ Ḣ = iḢ (S) ∨ iḢ (T );
iḢ is <δ-complete. It is enough to show that for all {Si : i < ξ} ∈ Vδ

_ nr z o rh z
Si ∈ Ḣ : i < ξ = {Si : i < ξ} ∈ Ḣ .
B
r` z
Let G be V -generic with {Si : i < ξ} ∈ Ḣ ∈ G. Then H = valG (Ḣ) is V -
`
normal with S = {Si : i < ξ} ∈ H. Let in V f : S → ξ be given by f (Z) = iZ
for some iZ ∈ ξ ∩ Z. Then f ∈ V is regressive on S ∈ H, hence there exists
−1
z that Ti = f [{i}] ∈ H. Now Si ⊇ Ti ↓ ∪Si ∈ H, giving that
ir < ξ such
Si ∈ Ḣ ∈ G. Since this occurs for all V -generic filters G
_ nr z o rh z
Si ∈ Ḣ : i < ξ = {Si : i ∈ ξ} ∈ Ḣ .
B
4. Immediate, hence left to the reader.
5.4 Large cardinals defined by means of normal ultrapowers

We briefly recall the large cardinal notions we will use in the remainder of this book.
Definition 5.4.1.
• κ is Vλ -supercompact in V if there is a V -normal fine ultrafilter G ∈ V on λ concen-

trating on
Pκ (λ) = {X ⊆ Vλ : X ∩ κ ∈ κ > |X| and for some α πX [X] = Vα } .
• κ is supercompact in V if it is Vλ -supercompact in V for all λ.
• κ is huge in V if for some strongly inaccessible λ > κ there is a V -normal fine

ultrafilter G ∈ V on Vλ concentrating on
{X ⊆ Vλ : πX [X] = Vκ and X ∩ κ ∈ κ = otp(X)} .
• κ is 2-huge in V if for some strongly inaccessible cardinals λ > δ larger than κ there
is a V -normal fine ultrafilter G ∈ V on Vλ concentrating on

X ⊆ Vλ : X ∩ κ ∈ κ = otp(X ∩ δ) and πX [X] = Vδ) .
92
• κ is 2-superhuge in V if for all η there exist strongly inaccessible cardinals λ > δ
above η and a V -normal fine ultrafilter G ∈ V on Vλ concentrating on
{X ⊆ Vλ : πX [X] = Vδ and X ∩ κ ∈ κ = otp(X ∩ δ)} .
Theorem 5.4.2. The following holds for a cardinal κ:

1. For all strong limit cardinals λ κ is Vλ -supercompact if and only if there there exists
j : V → M elementary such that M ⊆ V , crit(j) = κ and M λ ⊆ M .
2. κ is huge if and only if there there exists j : V → M elementary such that M ⊆ V ,

crit(j) = κ and M j(κ) ⊆ M . Moreover the hugeness of κ is witnessed by a V -normal
fine ultrafilter G ∈ V on Vj(κ) concentrating on

X ⊆ Vj(κ) : πX [X] = Vκ and X ∩ κ ∈ κ = otp(X) .
3. κ is 2-huge if and only if there there exists j : V → M elementary such that M ⊆ V ,

2
crit(j) = κ and M j (κ) ⊆ M . Moreover the 2-hugeness of κ is witnessed by a V -
normal fine ultrafilter G ∈ V on j 2 (κ) concentrating on

X ⊆ Vj 2 (κ) : X ∩ κ ∈ κ = otp(X ∩ j(κ)) and πX [X] = Vj(κ) .
4. Assume there exists j : Vλ → Vλ elementary such that j[Vλ ] ∈ V with crit(j) = κ.

Then
Vλ |= κ is 2-superhuge.
Proof.
1. Follows the same lines of the second item.
2. First assume there exists j : V → M elementary such that M ⊆ V , crit(j) = κ and

M j(κ) ⊆ M . Standard arguments (i.e. 5.2.18(2) and the closure properties of M )
yield that κ, j(κ) are both strongly inaccessible in V . This gives that j[Vj(κ) ] ∈ M .

Now let G = S ⊆ P Vj(κ) : j[Vj(κ) ] ∈ j(S) . We leave to the reader to check that
G ∈ V is a V -normal ultrafilter on Vj(κ) . Observe that j −1 implements an isomor-
phism of j[Vj(κ) ] with Vj(κ) , hence it is the Mostowski collapsing map of j[Vj(κ) ].
Therefore
S = X ⊆ Vj(κ) : X ∩ κ ∈ κ and πX [X] = Vκ ∈ G,
since j[Vj(κ) ] ∈ j(S).
Next assume that G ∈ V is a V -normal fine ultrafilter on λ concentrating on
{X ⊆ Vλ : X ∩ κ ∈ κ and πX [X] = Vκ }
for some strongly inaccessible λ > κ. Then jG : V → Ult(V, G) has critical point κ
and jG (κ) ≥ λ by Proposition 5.2.10(5).
Now let {fi : i ∈ Vλ } ∈ Ult(V, κ). Consider the function g : P (Vλ ) → V given by
g(X) = {fi (X) : i ∈ X}. By fineness of G, Ult(V, G) models that [fi ]G ∈Vλ /G [g]G
for all i ∈ Vλ . By normality of G, if [h]G ∈Vλ /G [g]G , there exists i ∈ Vλ such that
[h]G = [fi ]G . Hence [g]G has as extension the family {[fi ]G : i ∈ Vλ } in Ult(V, G)
with respect to ∈Vλ /G .
Since G ∈ V , Ult(V, G) is a definable class in V ; hence the above shows that:
93
• ∈Vλ /G is a well founded extensional relation on Ult(V, G),
• letting M be the transitive collapse of Ult(V, G) with respect to ∈Vλ /G , we
have that M λ ⊆ M .
To conclude we just need to show (modulo the identification of Ult(V, G) with M )

that jG (κ) = λ.
Observe that |Pκ (λ)|κ = λ, since λ is strongly inaccessible, hence
|jG (κ)| = |{[f ]G : f : Pκ (λ) → κ}| ≤ λ.
We conclude that jG (κ) ≥ λ is an ordinal of size λ in V , hence its cofinality is at

most λ in V . But any sequence of ordinals in V cofinal in jG (κ) of order type at most
λ is in M , since M λ ⊆ M . Moreover M models that jG (κ) is a regular cardinal, we
conclude that jG (κ) = λ.
3. Follows the same lines of the second item.
4. We get that j n : Vλ → Vλ is elementary with critical point the strongly inaccessible

κ for all n and also that λ = supn∈ω j n (κ), hence item (3) applies to each η < κ to
find that j 2n witnesses that κ is 2-huge as witnessed by a V -normal fine ultrafilter
G ∈ V on
X ⊆ j 2n (κ) : X ∩ κ ∈ κ = otp(X ∩ j n (κ)) and πX [X] = Vj n (κ)

with j 2n (κ) > j n (κ) > η.
We also need the following characterizations of supercompactness, hugeness and 2-

hugeness which is essentially due to Magidor:
Theorem 5.4.3 (Magidor [32]). The following holds:
• κ is supercompact if and only if for all α
{M ≺ Vα : M ∩ κ ∈ κ and (M, ∈) ∼
= (Vη , ∈) for some η}
is stationary.
• κ is superhuge if and only if for all α exists δ > α such that
{M ≺ Vδ : M ∩ κ ∈ κ and (M, ∈) ∼
= (Vκ , ∈)}
is stationary.
• κ is 2-superhuge if and only if for all α > κ exists δ > α and λ < δ such that
{M ≺ Vδ : M ∩ κ ∈ κ, (M ∩ Vλ , ∈) ∼
= (Vκ , ∈) and (M, ∈) ∼
= (Vλ , ∈)}
is stationary.
94
Remark 5.4.4. Later in this book we will argue that certain elementary maps jG : V →
Ult(V, G) defined in a forcing extension V [H] (with H V -generic for some B) of V are
generically almost-huge (i.e. such that Ult(V, G)<j(crit(j)) ⊆ Ult(V, G) holds in V [H]).
The proofs will be much more involved then the ones occurring in the proof of 5.4.2. The
main issue being the following: assume {[fα ]G : α < λ} ∈ V [H] is a subset of Ult(V, G),
we need to argue that this family is the extension in Ult(V, G) of some [g]G ∈ Ult(V, G).
We encounter the following problem: most likely {fα : α < λ} 6∈ V . In this case we can
just argue that there is a family {τα : α < λ} ∈ V of B-names such that fα = (τα )G for
each α < λ. By the forcing theorem for each α < λ there is some pα ∈ H such that pα
forces that fα = τα . However in order to run in V [H] the argument we sketched in the
proof of 5.4.2 that {[fα ]G : α < λ} is the extension of [g]G , we need that in H there is a
unique p which decides simultaneously for all α that fα = τα . This is a very strong request
which is satisfied only in very specific circumstances. We will outline several occasions in
which this scenario occurs.
95
Part III
Iterations of forcing notions
96
We develop a general theory of iterated forcing in the framework of boolean algebras,
fully exploiting all the results on these type of objects gathered in Chapter 1. Chapter 6
deals with two-steps iterations, while Chapter 7 deals with iterations of limit length. Here
and in chapter 10 we develop on Donder and Fuchs approach to iterated forcing [22]. In
chapter 6 we also introduce category forcings (i.e. any class forcing whose conditions are
set-sized forcing notions and which is ordered by (a subfamily of) the complete embeddings
existing between its conditions). This concept will gain more and more importance in the
sequel of the book, and will become the central topic of the last part of the book.
97
Chapter 6
Two-steps Iterations
Complete homomorphisms are the boolean algebraic counterpart of two-steps iterations,

this will be spelled out in details in this chapter.
Section 6.1 develops the basic theory of two steps iterations both from the point of
view of forcing (i.e. viewing a two-steps iteration as a poset of type P ∗ Q̇ with Q̇ a V P -
name for a poset, which is the usual approach at least in the set theory community), and
from an algebraic point of view (i.e. viewing a two-steps iteration as a complete injective
homomorphism i : B → C). We give both approaches and show their equivalence. We
also show how to treat algebraically three steps iterations. In the last two sections of the
chapter we deal with the basic properties of classes of complete boolean algebras Γ closed
under two-steps iterations (section 6.2), we also study (section 6.3) the basic features of
class forcings whose conditions are (certain classes) of complete boolean algebras Γ ordered
by certain classes of complete homomorphisms →Θ between them. We also start to outline
how the logical properties which define Γ and →Θ affects the combinatorial properties of
the class forcing (Γ, →Θ ). The analysis of this type of class forcings will gain more and
more importance in the sequel of the book, and the last part of the book will be entirely
devoted to this topic.
6.1 Two-steps iterations and generic quotients
We start outlining the relation existing between V -generic extensions for B and C in
case there is a complete homomorphism i : B → C.
Lemma 6.1.1. Assume M |= ZFC is transitive and let i : B → C be a complete homomor-

phism in M , D ⊂ B, E ⊂ C be predense sets also belonging to M . Then i[D] and πi [E]
are predense (i.e. predense subsets are mapped into predense subsets). Moreover πi maps
M -generic filters in M -generic filters.
Proof. First, let c ∈ C be arbitrary. Since D is predense, there exists d ∈ D such that
d ∧ π(c) > 0. By Property 1.3.14.f relativized to M , also i(d) ∧ c > 0 hence i[D] is
predense. Finally, let b ∈ B be arbitrary. Since E is predense, there exists e ∈ E such that
e ∧ i(b) > 0. By Property 1.3.14.f also πi (e) ∧ b > 0 hence πi [E] is predense.
We leave to the reader to check that πi [G] is an ultrafilter for any G ∈ St(C). Now
let D be a predense subset of B in M and assume G is M -generic for C. We have that
i[D] is predense, hence i[D] ∩ G 6= ∅ by the M -genericity of G. Fix c ∈ i[D] ∩ G, then
πi (c) ∈ D ∩ πi [G] concluding the proof.
98
Lemma 6.1.2. Let i : B → C be an homomorphism of boolean algebras. Then i is a
complete homomorphism if and only if for every V -generic filter G for C, i−1 [G] is a
V -generic filter for B.
Proof. If i is a complete homomorphism and G is a V -generic filter, then i−1 [G] is trivially
a filter. Furthermore, given D dense subset of B, i[D] is predense so there exists a c ∈
G ∩ i[D], hence i−1 (c) ∈ i−1 [G] ∩ D.
WConversely,
W suppose that i is not complete,
W i.e. that
W there exists an A W ⊆ B such
W that
i( A) 6= i[A] (in particular, necessarily i( A) > i[A]). Let d = i( A) \ i[A], G
be a V -generic filter with d ∈ G. Then i−1 [G] ∩ A = ∅, hence it is not V -generic below
i (d) = A ∈ i−1 [G], a contradiction.
−1
W
The remainder of the section is organized as follows:

• In its second part we define two-steps iterations of the form B ∗ Q̇, where Q̇ is a
B-name for a complete boolean algebra, following Jech [28, chapter 16]. We study
the basic properties of the natural injective complete homomorphism of B into B ∗ Q̇.
• In its third part we study the properties of the generic quotients C/i[G] (where
i : B → C is a complete homomorphism in V and G is V -generic for B). We show
that if we have a commutative diagram of complete homomorphisms in V
i0
B C0
j
i1
C1
and G is a V -generic filter for B, the map defined by j/G ([c]i0 [G] ) = [j(c)]i1 [G] is a
complete homomorphism in V [G]. We also show a converse of this property.
• In its fourth part we show that the two approaches are equivalent in the sense that
i : B → C is a complete homomorphism iff C is isomorphic to B ∗ (C/i[ĠB ] ) and we
prove a converse of the above factorization property when we start from B-names
for complete homomorphisms k̇ : Ċ → Ḋ.
6.1.1 Two-steps iterations

We present two-steps iterations following [28].
Definition 6.1.3. Let B be a complete boolean algebra, and Ċ be a B-name for a complete
boolean algebra. We denote by B ∗ Ċ the boolean algebra defined in V whose r elements
z are
B
the equivalence classes of B-names for elements of Ċ (i.e. ȧ ∈ V such that ȧ ∈ Ċ = 1B )
B
modulo the equivalence relation:
r z
ȧ ≈ ḃ ⇔ ȧ = ḃ = 1,
B
with the following operations:

r z
˙≈∨ ˙ d˙ ∨Ċ ė = f˙ = 1B ;
[d] B∗Ċ [ė]≈ = [f ]≈ ⇐⇒ B
˙ ≈ = [ė]≈
¬B∗Ċ [d]
r z
for any ė such that ė = ¬Ċ d˙ = 1B .
B
99
Literally speaking our definition of B ∗ Ċ yields an object whose domain is a family
of proper classes of B-names. By means of Scott’s trick we can arrange so that B ∗ Ċ is
indeed a set. We leave the details to the reader. We denote elements of B ∗ Ċ just by [ḃ]
omitting the subscript ≈ if no confusion arises.
Lemma 6.1.4. Let B be a complete boolean algebra, and Ċ be a B-name for a complete
boolean algebra. Then B ∗ Ċ is a complete boolean algebra and the maps iB∗Ċ , πB∗Ċ defined
as
iB∗Ċ : B → B ∗ Ċ
b 7→ [d˙b ]≈
πB∗Ċ : B ∗ Ċ → B
[ċ]≈ 7→ Jċ > 0KB
r z r z
where d˙b ∈ V B is a B-name for an element of Ċ such that d˙b = 1Ċ = b and d˙b = 0Ċ =
B B
¬b, are an injective complete homomorphism with its associated adjoint.
Proof. We leave to the reader to verify that B ∗ Ċ is a boolean algebra. We can also check
that
[ċ] ≤ [ȧ] ⇐⇒ Jċ ∨ ȧ = ȧK = 1B ⇐⇒ Jċ ∧ ȧ = ċK = 1B ⇐⇒ Jċ ≤ ȧK = 1B .
Observe
r that B ∗ ozĊ is also complete: if n{[d˙α ] : α <o δ} ⊆ B ∗ Ċ, let ċ be such that
Wn ˙ W ˙
ċ = dξ : ξ < δ = 1B . Then [ċ] ≥ [dξ ] : ξ < δ since for all α < δ
r_ n o z
d˙ξ : ξ < δ ≥ d˙α = 1B .
Moreover if r z
ȧ ≥ d˙α = 1B ,
B
for all α < δ, then ^ nr z o
ȧ ≥ d˙α : α < δ = 1B .
B
We conclude that r _n oz
ȧ ≥ d˙ξ : ξ < δ = 1B ,
B
n
W ˙ o
hence [ȧ] ≥ [ċ], which gives that [ċ] = [dα ] : α < δ .
Now we prove that iB∗Ċ is an injective complete homomorphism and that πB∗Ċ is its
associated adjoint map.
• First of all a standard application of the mixing lemma to the maximal antichain
{b, ¬b} and the family ofrB-names z {1̇Ċ , 0̇Ċ } rshows that
z for each b ∈ B there exists
a [d˙b ] ∈ B ∗ Ċ such that d˙b = 1̇ = b and d˙b = 0̇ = ¬b. Therefore i B∗Ċ is well-
defined.
• iB∗Ċ preserves negation. Observe that ¬[d˙b ] = [d˙¬b ]. In fact we have that
r z r z
(¬Ċ d˙b ) = 1̇Ċ = d˙b = 0̇Ċ = ¬b
and similarly r z r z
(¬d˙b ) = 0̇ = d˙b = 1̇ = b;
therefore [¬d˙b ] = [d˙¬b ]. We conclude that

iB∗Ċ (¬b) = [d˙¬b ] = ¬[d˙b ] = ¬iB∗Ċ (b).
100
• iB∗Ċ preserves joins. Consider {bα ∈ B : α < δ}. We have that
r_ n o z ^r z ^ _
d˙bα : α < ξ = 0̇ = d˙bα = 0̇ = ¬bα = ¬( bα ).
α<ξ α<ξ α<ξ
We have also
r_ n o z r_ n o z _r z
d˙bα : α < ξ = 1̇ ≤ d˙bα : α < ξ > 0̇ = d˙bα > 0̇
α<ξ
_r z r_ n o z
= d˙bα = 1̇ ≤ d˙bα : α < ξ = 1̇ ;
α<ξ
rW n o z W r z W
hence d˙bα : α < ξ = 1̇ = α<ξ d˙bα = 1̇ = α<ξ bα . Therefore
_ h_ n oi _
d˙bα : α < ξ =

iB∗Ċ bα = iB∗Ċ (bα ) .
α<ξ
r z
˙ then b0 = d˙ = 1̇ = b.
• iB∗Ċ is injective. If iB∗Ċ (b) = iB∗Ċ (b0 ) = [d],
q y
• We have to show that πiB∗Ċ ([ċ]) = ċ > 0̇ : by applying the definition of adjoint map
associated to iB∗Ċ ,
^
πiB∗Ċ ([ċ]) = {b ∈ B : iB∗Ċ (b) ≥ [ċ]}.
r z
If b is such that iB∗Ċ (b) ≥ [ċ], then d˙b ≥ ċ = 1 and we obtain
r z r z q y r z q
b = d˙b = 1̇ = d˙b > 0̇ ≥ ċ > 0̇ ∧ d˙b ≥ ċ = ċ > 0̇ ;
y
this gives the first inequality

q y
πiB∗Ċ ([ċ]) ≥ ċ > 0̇ .
In order to obtain the other one, let ċ > 0̇ = e, so that iB∗Ċ ( ċ > 0̇ ) = [d˙e ]. Then
q y q y
on the one hand:

y r z r z
¬ ċ = 0̇ = ċ > 0̇ = d˙e = 1̇ ≤ ċ ≤ d˙e .
q y q
On the other hand: y r z

ċ = 0̇ ≤ ċ ≤ d˙e .
q
q y q y
In particular since ¬ ċ = 0̇ ∨ ċ = 0̇ = 1B we get that
r z
ċ ≤ d˙e = 1B ,
and thus that [ċ] ≤ [d˙e ] = iB∗Ċ ( ċ > 0̇ ), giving that

q y
q y
πiB∗Ċ ([ċ]) ≤ ċ > 0̇
as was to be shown.
101
When clear from the context, we feel free to omit the subscripts in iB∗Ċ , πB∗Ċ .
Remark 6.1.5. This definition is provably equivalent to Kunen’s two-steps iteration of
posets, i.e. RO(P ∗ Q̇) (as defined in [29]) is isomorphic to RO(P ) ∗ RO(Q̇) as defined
above.
We need in several occasions the following fact:
Fact 6.1.6. A = {[ċα ]≈ : α ∈ λ} is a maximal antichain in D = B ∗ Ċ, if and only if
r z
{ċα : α ∈ λ} is a maximal antichain in Ċ = 1.
Proof. It is sufficient to observe the following:

q y
ċα ∧ ċβ = 0̇ = 1 ⇐⇒ [ċα ]≈ ∧ [ċβ ]≈ = 0̇ ≈ ;
t | " #
_ _ _
ċα = 1̇ = 1 ⇐⇒ [ċα ]≈ = ċα = 1̇ ≈ .
α<λ α<λ α<λ ≈
6.1.2 Generic quotients

We now outline the definition and properties of generic quotients.
Proposition 6.1.7. Let i : B → C be an injective complete homomorphism of complete
boolean algebras and G be a V -generic filter for B. Then C/i[G] , defined with abuse of
notation as the quotient of C with the ideal dual to the filter generated by i[G], is a boolean
algebra in V [G].
Proof. Immediate, hence left to the reader.
Lemma 6.1.8. Let i : B → C be an injective complete homomorphism, ĠB be the canonical

name for a generic filter for B, Q̇ be a B-name for the boolean algebra C/i[ĠB ] . Fix d˙ B-
r z
name for an element of Q̇. Then there exists a unique c ∈ C such that d˙ = [c] = 1B .
i[ĠB ]
Proof. First, notice that the B-name for the dual of the filter generated by i[Ġ] is I˙ =
{hc, ¬πi (c)i : c ∈ C}.
r z
Uniqueness. Suppose that c0 , c1 are such that d˙ = [ck ]I˙ = 1B for k < 2. Then
r z
[c0 ]I˙ = [c1 ]I˙ = 1B , hence c0 4c1 ∈ I˙ = ¬πi (c0 4c1 ) = 1B . This implies that
q y
πi (c0 4c1 ) = 0B ⇒ c0 4c1 = 0C ⇒ c0 = c1 .

Existence. Let A ⊂ B be a maximal antichain among the elements deciding that ˙
r z d=
[c] ˙ for some c ∈ C. For every a ∈ A let ca be such that a ≤ d˙ = [ca ]I˙ . Let
WI
{i(a) ∧ ca : a ∈ A} = c ∈ C. Then
y r z
[c]I˙ = [ca ]I˙ = c4ca ∈ I˙ = ¬πi (c4ca ) ≥ ¬πi (i(¬a)) = a,
q
since c4ca ≤ ¬i(a) = i(¬(a)). Thus,

r z r z q
d˙ = [c]I˙ ≥ d˙ = [ca ]I˙ ∧ [c]I˙ = [ca ]I˙ ≥ a ∧ a = a
y
r z W
The above inequality holds for any a ∈ A, so d˙ = [c]I˙ ≥ A = 1B concluding the
proof.
102
Proposition 6.1.9. Let i : B → C be an injective complete homomorphism of complete
boolean algebras and G be a V -generic filter for B. Then C/i[G] is a complete boolean
algebra in V [G].
Proof. In what follows to simplify our notation we will denote C/i[G] by C/J where J is
the ideal which is dual to the filter generated by i[G], i.e. J = J˙G with
J˙ = {hc, ¬π(c)i : c ∈ C} .
By Proposition 6.1.7, we need only to prove that C/J is complete. Let {ċα : α < δ} ∈ V B
B
be a set
q of B namesy for elements of C/J˙ (i.e. {ċα : α < δ} is a shorthand for a τ ∈ V such
that τ : δ → C/J˙ B = 1B . By Lemma 6.1.8 for each α < δ there exists a unique dα ∈ C
such that q y
ċα = [dα ]J˙ = 1B .
W
We have that d = α<δ dα ∈ C, since C is complete. Clearly d ≥ dα entails that V [G] |=
∀α < δ [d]J ≥ [dα ]J . To complete the proof it is enough to show that [d]J is the least
upper bound of {[dα ]J : α < δ} in V [G]. Fix c ∈ C such that V [G] |= ∀α < δ [c]J ≥ [dα ]J ,
we must show that V [G] |= [c]J ≥ [d]J . Now
r z q
¬π(dα ∧ ¬c) = dα ∧ ¬c ∈ J˙ = [c]J˙ ≥ [dα ]J˙ ∈ G
y
for all α < δ. So π(dα ∧ ¬c) 6∈ G for all α < δ. Observe that {π(dα ∧ ¬c) W : α < δ} ∈ V .
Since G is V -generic we get that G∩{π(dα ∧ ¬c) : α < δ} = ∅ if and only if {π(dα ∧ ¬c) : α < δ} =
π(d ∧ ¬c) 6∈ G. Hence [d]J ≤ [c]J holds in V [G]. This shows that V [G] |= C/J is complete
for all V -generic filters G.
The construction of generic quotients can be defined also for injective complete homo-
morphisms:
Proposition 6.1.10. Let B, C0 , C1 be complete boolean algebras, and let G be a V -generic

filter for B. Let i0 , i1 , j form a commutative diagram of injective complete homomorphisms
of complete boolean algebras as in the following picture:
i0
B C0
j
i1
C1
Then j/G : C0 /G → C1 /G defined by j/G ([c]i0 [G] ) = [j(c)]i1 [G] is a well-defined injective
complete homomorphism of complete boolean algebras in V [G] with associated adjoint map
πj /G defined by πj /G ([c]i1 [G] ) = [πj (c)]i0 [G] .
Proof. Let I be the dual ideal of G. Ik the ideal obtained by the downward closure of ik [I]
for k = 0, 1. Then πj [I1 ] = I0 and πj [I1+ ] = I0+ .
By Lemma 1.3.11 applied in V [G], j/G is an injective complete homomorphism and
(j/G , πj /G ) forms an adjoint pair, since it still holds in V [G] that (j, πj ) is an adjoint pair
and I1 =↓ k[I0 ] holds in V [G].
The proof is completed.
103
6.1.3 Equivalence of two-steps iterations and injective complete homo-
morphisms
We are now ready to prove that two-steps iterations and injective complete homomor-
phisms capture the same concept.
Theorem 6.1.11. If i : B → C is an injective complete homomorphism of complete
boolean algebras, then B ∗ (C/i[ĠB ] ) ∼
= C.
Conversely if Q̇ ∈ V B is a B-name for a complete boolean algebra, and G is V -generic
for B
(B ∗ Q̇)/iB∗Ċ [G] ∼
= Q̇G .
Proof. Let
i∗ : C → B ∗ C/Ġ
h i
c 7→ [c]i[Ġ]
≈
We show that i∗ is a bijective complete homomorphism. Let
J˙ = {hc, ¬πi (c)i : c ∈ C}
be a B-name for the ideal dual to the filter generated by i[Ġ].

h i h i
i∗ is well-defined and injective: [c]i[Ġ] = [d]i[Ġ] if and only if
≈ ≈
r z
[c]i[Ġ] = [d]i[Ġ] = 1B
if and only if r z
c∆d ∈ J˙ = 1B
if and only if πi (c∆d) = 0B if and only if c∆d = 0C if and only if c = d.
i∗ is surjective: by Lemma 6.1.8.
i∗ is a complete homomorphism: By definition of two-steps iteration:
h i h i h i
i∗ (¬c) = [¬c]i[Ġ] = ¬[c]i[Ġ] = ¬ [c]i[Ġ] = ¬i∗ (c);
≈ ≈ ≈
and
_ h_ i h_ i _h i _
i∗ ( cα ) = [ cα ]i[Ġ] = [cα ]i[Ġ] = [cα ]i[Ġ] = i∗ (cα ).
≈ ≈ ≈
For the second part of the proposition define in V [G]:
i∗ : (B ∗ Q̇)/iB∗Ċ [G] → Q̇G

[[q̇]≈ ]G 7→ q̇G
We leave to the reader to check that the above map is an isomorphism.
Notation 6.1.12. From now on given a complete boolean algebra B ∈ V a B-name Q̇ ∈ V B

for a complete boolean algebra and a V -generic filter G for B we feel free to identify in V [G]
the complete boolean algebras Q̇G and B ∗ Q/i[G] modulo the isomorphism [[q̇]≈ ]G 7→ q̇G .
In particular we will identify the B-name q̇ for an element of Q̇ with the B-name [[q̇]≈ ]ĠB
for the corresponding element of (B ∗ Q̇)/ĠB .
104
Proposition 6.1.13. Let Ċ0 , Ċ1 be B-names for complete boolean algebras, and let k̇
be a B name for a complete homomorphism from Ċ0 to Ċ1 . Then there is a complete
homomorphism i : B ∗ Ċ0 → B ∗ Ċ1 such that
r z
k̇ = i/ĠB = 1B .
Moreover if k̇ is a B name for an injective homomorphism, i is injective.

The following picture assumes G is V -generic for B.
i0 ∼
=
(Ċ0 )G B B ∗ Ċ0 (B ∗ C˙0 )/i0 [GB ] (Ċ0 )G
V [G] : (k̇)G V : i V [G] : i/GB (k̇)G
i1
(Ċ1 )G B ∗ Ċ1 (B ∗ C˙1 )/i1 [GB ] ∼ (Ċ1 )G

=
Proof. Let
i : B ∗ Ċ0 → B ∗ Ċ1
˙ ≈ 7→ [k̇(d)]
[d] ˙ ≈.
Since k̇ is a B-name for a complete (injective) homomorphism with boolean value 1B ,

we have that
h i r z
d˙ = [ė]≈ ⇐⇒ d˙ = ė = 1 ⇒
r z≈ h i h i
˙
⇒ k̇(d) = k̇(ė) = 1 ⇐⇒ k̇(d) ˙ = k̇(ė)
≈ ≈
r z
This shows that i is well defined (in case k̇ is forced to be injective, d˙ = ė = 1 ⇐⇒
r z
˙ = k̇(ė) = 1, giving that i is injective). We have that i is a complete homomorphism,
k̇(d)
since
h i
i (¬ [ċ]≈ ) = i ([¬ċ]≈ ) = k̇ (¬ċ)
≈
h i h i
= ¬k̇ (ċ) = ¬ k̇ (ċ) = ¬i ([ċ]≈ ) ;
≈ ≈
and
_ h_ i h _ i
i [ċα ]≈ = i ċα = k̇ ċα
≈ ≈
h_ i _h i _
= k̇ (ċα ) = k̇ (ċα ) = i ([ċα ]≈ ) .
≈ ≈
Moreover assume G is V -generic for B, then k̇G = i/G : it suffices to chase the following
diagram
iB∗Ċ
0
B B ∗ Ċ0
i
iB∗Ċ
1
B ∗ Ċ1
105
hh i i
i/G ([[ċ]≈ ]i [G] ) = [i ([ċ]≈ )]i = k̇ (ċ) .
B∗Ċ0 B∗Ċ1 [G] ≈ iB∗Ċ [G]
1
Proposition 6.1.14. Let G be V -generic for B, I be its dual ideal, and ij : B → Cj be

complete homomorphisms for j = 0, 1.
Assume C0 /i0 [G] and C1 /i1 [G] are isomorphic complete boolean algebras in V [G].
V : V [G] :
i0
B C0 C0 /i0 [G]
i1
k ∼=
C1 C1 /i1 [G]
Then C0 i0 (b) and C1 i1 (b) are isomorphic in V for some b ∈ G and k ∼

= l/G .
V [G] : V :
i0 rest
C0 /i0 [G] = C0 i0 (b)/i0 [G] B C0 C0 i0 (b)
k ∼
= l/G ∼
= l ∼
=
i1
rest
C1 /i1 [G] = C1 i1 (b)/i1 [G] C1 C1 i1 (b)
Proof. By the previous Proposition we know that Cj /ij [G] are isomorphic to B∗ Q̇/G (where
Q̇ is a B-name for C0 /i0 [G] ) via maps kj = (k̇j )G for both j = 0, 1. Let bj ∈ B be the
boolean value that k̇j is an isomorphism for both j. Then
r b = b0 ∧ b1 ∈ G. Define
z in V a
map l : C0 i0 (b) → C1 i1 (b) by the rule c0 7→ c1 iff k̇0 ([c0 ]i0 [Ġ] ) = k̇1 ([c1 ]i1 [Ġ] ) ≥ b.
We leave to the reader to check that l is an isomorphism in V and k ∼ = l/G in V [G].
We also have the following:
Proposition 6.1.15. Assume B, C are complete boolean algebras, G is V -generic for C,
and H ∈ V [G] is V -generic for B. Let Ḣ ∈ V C be such that ḢG = H. Then there exists
r ∈ G such that the map
iq,Ḣ :B → C q
r z
b 7→ b̌ ∈ Ḣ ∧ q
C
is a complete homomorphism for all 0C < q ≤C r.

Proof. Let A ∈ V be the collection of predense subsets of B ∈ V . Then Ḣ is a V -generic
ultrafilter on B is the forcing statement:
φ(Ḣ, B̌, Ǎ) := (Ḣ is a filter on B̌) ∧ ∀τ ∈ Ǎ (Ḣ ∩ τ 6= ∅)
Hence r z
r = φ(Ḣ, B̌, Ǎ) ∈ G
C
We leave to the reader to check that the map iq,Ḣ defined above is a complete homomor-
phism for all 0C < q ≤C r.
106
Lemma 6.1.16. Let i : B → C be a homomorphism with B, C cbas. For all r ∈ C+ let
ir : B → C r be defined by b 7→ i(b) ∧ r. The following are equivalent for any G V -generic
for C:
1. i−1 [G] = H is in V [G] a V -generic filter for B,
2. ir = ir,Ḣ for some r ∈ G and some Ḣ ∈ V C such that H = ḢG is a V -generic filter
for B in V [G].
3. ir is a complete homomorphism for some r ∈ G.
Proof.
• 1 =⇒ 2. Assume that 1 holds, let Ḣ = {hb, i(b)i : b ∈ B}, then ḢG = i−1
r [G]; hence
z
by Proposition 6.1.15 there exists r ∈ G such that ir,Ḣ defined by b 7→ b ∈ Ḣ ∧ r
is a complete homomorphism. Now observe that
r z
ir,Ḣ (b) = b ∈ Ḣ ∧ r = i(b) ∧ r,
C
z r
where the last equality holds since a ∈ Ḣ ≥ i(a) for all a ∈ B, hence choosing
C
a = b and a = ¬b we get the desired equality for any b ∈ B. We conclude that 2
holds.
r z
• 2 =⇒ 3. Assume that ir = ir,Ḣ and let φ(Ḣ, B̌, Ǎ) (∈ G) as in the proof
r z C
Proposition 6.1.15. Then for any q ≤ r∧ φ(Ḣ, B̌, Ǎ) we have that iq,Ḣ is complete.
C
• 3 =⇒ 1. Assume that 3 holds. Then i−1 [{q ∧ r : q ∈ G}] is V -generic for B by

Proposition 6.1.2, therefore i−1 [G] is also V -generic for B.
6.1.4 Generic quotients of generic quotients, aka three-steps iterations

We can also handle the generic quotient of a generic quotient.
Proposition 6.1.17. Let B, C0 , C1 be complete boolean algebras, and let G be a V -generic

filter for B. Let i0 , i1 , j form a commutative diagram of injective complete homomorphisms
of complete boolean algebras as in the following picture:
i0
B C0
j
i1
C1
Assume K̄ is a V -generic filter for C0 with i0 [G] ⊆ K̄. Then:

• K = [q]i0 [G] ∈ C0 : q ∈ K̄ is V [G]-generic for C0 /i0 [G] ,
• V [K̄] = V [G][K],
• V [K̄] |= C1 /j[K̄] ∼
= (C1 /i1 [G] )/j/G [K] via the map [q]j[K̄] 7→ [[q]i1 [G] ]j/G [K] .
Conversely assume G is V -generic for B and K is a V [G]-generic filter for C0 /i0 [G] . Then:

• K̄ = q ∈ C0 : [q]i0 [G] ∈ K is V -generic for C0 with i0 [G] ⊆ K̄,
107
• V [K̄] = V [G][K],
• V [K̄] |= C1 /j[K̄] ∼
= (C1 /i1 [G] )/j/G [K] via the map [q]j[K̄] 7→ [[q]i1 [G] ]j/G [K] .
Proof. We identify C0 ∼
= B ∗rC0 /i0 [G] . Let D ∈ V [G] be a dense subset of C0 /i0 [G] . Let Ḋ
z
be a name for D such that Ḋ is dense in C0 /i0 [Ġ] = 1. Then, by Fact 6.1.6,
B
n r z o
D̄ := [[q]i0 [G] ]≈ : [q]i0 [G] ∈ Ḋ = 1
B
is dense for C0 in V . Hence there exists [[q]i0 [G] ]≈ ∈ K̄ ∩ D̄. By definition, we get that
q ∈ K ∩ D holds in V [G]. Since D ∈ V [G] was chosen arbitrarily among the dense subsets
of C K is V [G]-generic for C0 /i0[G] .
Note that K̄ ∼

= G ∗ K := [[q]i0 [G] ]≈ ∈ G : [q]i0 [G] ∈ K , from which it follows that
V [K̄] = V [G][K].
Let j 0 be defined by [q]j[K̄] 7→ [[q]i1 [G] ]j/G [K] .
Using standard facts from ring theory we get that the map [q]j[K̄] 7→ [[q]i1 [G] ]j/G [K]
implements in V [K̄] the isomorphism C1 /j[K̄] ∼ = (C1 /i1 [G] )/j/G [K] . It remains to argue that

K̄ is V -generic for C0 : Let D̄ ∈ V be a dense subset of C0 . Define D := [q]i0 [G] : q ∈ D̄ .
Once again, since C0 ∼ = B ∗ C0 /i0 [G] , and by Fact 6.1.6, D is dense in V [G]. Since K is
V [G]-generic it follows that there exists [q]i0 [G] ∈ K ∩ D. Hence q belongs to K̄ ∩ D̄. Thus
K̄ is V -generic for C0 .
6.2 Definable classes of forcing notions closed under two-

steps iterations
We need to be able to characterize in the forcing language when a class Γ of forcing notions
is closed under two step iterations.
Definition 6.2.1. Let Γ be a definable class of forcing notions as the extension of the
formula φΓ (x, aΓ ) in the set-parameter aΓ .
Let B, C be complete boolean algebras.
• A complete homomorphism i : B → C is Γ-correct if1
r z r z
C/i[ĠB ] ∈ Γ = φΓ (C/i[ĠB ] , ǎΓ ) ≥B coker(i).
B B
• Assume C is a complete boolean algebra and G is V -genericr for C. Let H ∈ V [G] zbe
V -generic for B. Let Ḣ ∈ V C be such that ḢG = H and q = Ḣ is V -generic for B ∈
G.
Define for r ≤C q
ir,Ḣ :B → C r
r z
b 7→ b̌ ∈ Ḣ ∧ r.
C
Then ir,Ḣ is a complete homomorphism such that H = i−1

r,Ḣ
[G] by Lemma 6.1.15. H
is Γ-correct for B in V [G] if for some r ∈ G, r ≤C q, letting J be the ideal ↓ (ir,Ḣ [H̆])
V [H] |= C/J ∈ ΓV [H] .

1
Notice that we do not require a priori neither B nor C to be in Γ, even if in what follows we are mostly
interested in the case in which this occurs for both of them.
108
A definable class of forcings Γ is closed under two steps iterations whenever B ∈ Γ and
i : B → C is Γ-correct entail that C ∈ Γ as well.
Lemma 6.2.2. Let Γ be a class of forcings which is the extension of the formula φΓ (x, aΓ )
in the set-parameter aΓ . Let i : B → C be a complete homomorphism. For all r ∈ C+ let
ir : B → C r be defined by b 7→ i(b) ∧ r. The following are equivalent for any G V -generic
for C:
1. i−1 [G] = H is in V [G] a Γ-correct V -generic filter for B,
2. ir = ir,Ḣ for some r ∈ G and some Ḣ ∈ V C such that H = ḢG is Γ-correct in V [G].
3. ir is Γ-correct for some r ∈ G.

r z
4. V |= i( Č/i[ĠB ] ∈ Γ ) ∈ G.
B
Proof. Left to the reader. It is an almost self-evident reformulation of the notion of Γ-

correct homomorphism and Γ-correct filter. Use 6.1.16
r and thez fact that in all relevant
cases the hypothesis grant that the boolean value C/i[ĠB ] ∈ Γ ∈ H = (ĠB )H .
B
Lemma 6.2.3. Assume Γ is a definable class of forcings. Let B, C0 , C1 be complete boolean

algebras, and let G be any V -generic filter for B. Let i0 , i1 , j be Γ-correct complete homo-
morphisms in V forming a commutative diagram of injective complete homomorphisms of
complete boolean algebras as in the following picture:
i0
B C0
j
i1
C1
Then in V [G], j/G : C0 /G → C1 /G is still a ΓV [G] -correct complete homomorphism.
Proof. By Proposition 6.1.10 j/G is a complete homomorphism. Assume K̄1 is V [G]-

generic for C1 /G = C1 /i1 [G] . Then K1 = q : [q]i1 [G] ∈ K̄1 is V -generic for C1 and
V [G][K̄1 ] = V [K1 ]. Hence K0 = j −1 [K1 ] is a Γ-correct V -generic filter for C0 in V [K1 ],
since j is Γ-correct in V , i.e.
V [K0 ] |= C1 /j[K0 ] ∈ ΓV [K0 ] .
Let K̄0 = [q]i0 [G] : q ∈ K0 . Then in V [K0 ], G = i−1

0 [K0 ] and C1 /j[K0 ] is isomorphic
to (C1 /i1 [G] )/j/G [K̄0 ] via the map [q]j[K0 ] 7→ [[q]i1 [G] ]j/G [K̄0 ] (see Proposition 6.1.17).
Hence K̄0 = j −1 /G [K̄1 ] and V [G][K̄0 ] = V [K0 ]. We get that
V [G][K̄0 ] |= (C1 /i1 [G] )/j/G [K̄0 ] ∈ ΓV [G][K̄0 ] .
Hence K̄0 is in V [G][K̄1 ] a ΓV [G] -correct V [G]-generic filter for C1 /i1 [G] . Since this occurs
for all K̄1 V [G]-generic for C1 /i1 [G] , we conclude that j/G is ΓV [G] -correct in V [G].
Remark 6.2.4. Note that B, C0 , C1 may not be in Γ! The Lemma gives control just on the
behaviour of the generic quotient of C1 with respect to the complete homomorphism j,
but does not give any information regarding whether C1 itself is or not in Γ.
We also need the following:
109
Proposition 6.2.5. Assume Γ is a definable class of forcings. Let G be V -generic for
some complete boolean algebra B. Assume k : B → R is a Γ-correct homomorphism in V ,
h : R/k[G] → Q is a Γ-correct homomorphism in V [G].
k
V : B R V [G] : R/k[G]
Then there are in V :

• C ∈ Γ,
• a Γ-correct homomorphism l : B → C,
• a Γ-correct homomorphism h̄ : R → C,
such that:
• Q is isomorphic to C/l[G] in V [G],
• h̄/G ∼
= h (modulo the isomorphism of Q with C/l[G] ) holds in V [G],
• h̄ ◦ k = l holds in V ,
• 0C 6∈ l[G].
k
V : B R V [G] : 2∼
= B/G R/k[G]
k/G ∼
=Id
h̄ h̄/G ∼
=h
l l/G ∼
=Id
C C/l[G] ∼
=Q
Proof. By Proposition 6.1.13 and Theorem 6.1.11 there are complete homomorphisms
l : B → C and h̄ : R → C such that Q ∼= C/l[G] and h = h̄/G with l = h̄ ◦ k.
It remains to argue that l and h̄ are Γ-correct in V . To seer that l is Γ-correct
z we
∼
proceed as follows: V [G] models that C/l[G] = Q ∈ Γ V [G] . Hence C/l[ĠB ] ∈ Γ = r ∈ G.
B
Refining (if necessary) C to C l(r) and l to ll(r) , we can assume w.l.o.g. that l(r) = 1C
(hence r ≥ coker(l)), and conclude that l : B → C is Γ-correct in V while maintaining that
C/l[G] ∼
= Q, moreover 0C 6∈ l[G] since C/l[G] ∼
= Q is a non-trivial complete boolean algebra
in V [G].
We also want to argue that h̄ is Γ-correct in V :
V [G] |= h is ΓV [G] -correct
and Q ∼
= C/l[G] ∈ ΓV [G] , hence whenever K is V [G]-generic for Q and H = h−1 [K] we get
that
V [G][H] |= Q/h[H] ∈ ΓV [G][H] .
Now (modulo the identification of Q with C/l[G] in V [G])
110

• K̄ = q ∈ C : [q]l[G] ∈ K is V -generic for C,

• H̄ = r ∈ R : [r]k[G] ∈ H is V -generic for R,
• V [K̄] = V [G][K],
• V [G][H] = V [H̄],
• the map [q]h̄[H̄] 7→ [[q]l[G] ]h[H] defined in V [H] is an isomorphism of C/h̄[H̄] with
(C/l[G] )/h[H] .
Conversely whenever K̄ is V -generic for C, let G = l−1 [K̄], and H̄ = h̄−1 [K̄]. Then
(modulo the identification of Q with C/l[G] in V [G]):

• K = [q]l[G] : q ∈ K̄ is V [G]-generic for Q,

• H = [q]k[G] : q ∈ H̄ is V [G]-generic for R/k[G] ,
• V [K̄] = V [G][K],
• V [G][H] = V [H̄],
• the map [q]h̄[H̄] 7→ [[q]l[G] ]h[H] defined in V [H] is an isomorphism of C/h̄[H̄] with
(C/l[G] )/h[H] .
Hence whenever K̄ is V -generic for C,
V [H̄] |= C/h̄[H̄] ∼
= Q/h[H] ∈ ΓV [G][H] .
We conclude that r z
C/h̄[ĠR ] ∈ Γ = 1R ,
R
as was to be shown.
Remark 6.2.6. Note that with the notation of the proof of the Lemma it may be the case
that neither B nor R nor C are in ΓV and still, l, h̄ are both Γ-correct in V (as for the
previous proposition, the Lemma gives information just on the generic quotients of the
boolean algebras and not on the algebras themselves).
Remark 6.2.7. Most of the results in this chapter can be generalized to complete (non-
injective) homomorphisms i : B → C, applying the relevant Lemmas to the injective
homomorphism i coker(i) . We leave the details to the reader.
6.3 Category forcings

Assume Γ is a class of complete boolean algebras and Θ is a family of complete homomor-
phisms between elements of Γ closed under composition and containing all identity maps.
(Γ, →Θ ) is the category whose objects are the complete boolean algebras in Γ and whose
arrows are given by complete homomorphisms i : B → Q in →Θ . We call embeddings in
Θ, Θ-correct embeddings. Notice that these categories immediately give rise to natural
class partial orders associated with them, partial orders whose elements are the complete
boolean algebras in Γ and whose order relation is given by the arrows in Θ (i.e. B ≤Θ C
if there exists i : C → B in →Θ ). We denote these class partial orders by (Γ, ≤Θ ).
Depending on the choice of Γ and Θ these partial orders can be trivial (as forcing
notions), for example:
111
Remark 6.3.1. Assume Γ = Ωℵ0 is the class of all complete boolean algebras and Θ is the
class of all complete embeddings, then any two conditions in (Γ, ≤Θ ) are compatible, i.e.
(Γ, ≤Θ ) is forcing equivalent to the trivial partial order. This is the case since for any
pair of partial orders P, Q and X of size larger than 2|P |+|Q| there are complete injective
homomorphisms of RO(P ) and RO(Q) into the boolean completion of Coll(ω, X) (see [30,
Thm A.0.7] and its following remark). These embeddings witness the compatibility of
RO(P ) with RO(Q).
On the other hand these partial orders will in general be non-trivial (see for example
Fact 8.7.1).
Since we want to allow ourselves more freedom in the handling of our class forcings
(Γ, ≤Θ ) we allow elements of the category Γ to be arbitrary partial orders2 in Γ and we
identify the arrows in →Θ between the objects P and Q in Γ to be the Θ-correct homo-
morphisms between the boolean completions of P and Q. We will be mainly interested in
these two types of category forcings:
• (Γ, ≤Ω ) where Γ is a definable (in set parameters) class of forcing notions and Ω is the
class of all complete homomorphisms between the boolean completions of elements
of Γ;
• (Γ, ≤Γ ) where Γ is a definable class of complete boolean algebras closed under two
step iterations, products, and complete subalgebras, and B ≤Γ C if there is a Γ-
correct homomorphism i : C → B.
Suprema in (Γ, ≤Θ )
Q
Notation 6.3.2. Let B be a collection of complete Boolean algebras. BB = B, the
lottery sum of the algebras in B, is the Boolean algebra obtained by the cartesian
Q product of
the respective Boolean algebras with pointwise operations. Remark that B is complete.
Q
The name lottery sum is justified by the intuition that forcingQ with B corresponds
to forcing with a “random” algebra in B: since the set of p Q ∈ B that are 1 in one
component
Q and 0 in all the others form a maximal antichain of B, every V -generic filter
G for B concentrates only on a specific B ∈ B (determined by the generic filter).
Whenever Γ is a class W of complete boolean algebras closed under products, the lottery
sum defines a natural operation of suprema on subsets of (Γ, ≤Ω ). Moreover if Γ is
closed under two steps iterations, the lottery sum defines a sup operation also on (Γ, ≤Γ ):
Proposition 6.3.3. Assume Γ is a class of complete boolean algebras closed under prod-
ucts, and let A = {Bi :Qi < γ} be a family of complete boolean algebras in Γ. Then the
product algebra BA = i<γ Bi endowed with coordinatewise operations is the exact up-
per bound of A in (Γ, ≤Ω ). Moreover if Γ is also a definable class closed under two step
iterations BA is the supremum of A also in (Γ, ≤Γ ).
Q
Proof. The adjoint maps πi : BA → Bi mapping f ∈ j<γ Bj to f (i) define (Γ-correct)
complete homomorphisms witnessing that BA ≥Ω Bi .
Moreover if C ≥Ω Bi for all i < γ as witnessed by ki : C → Bi , the map k : C → BA
mapping c 7→ hki (c) : i < γi witnesses that C ≥Ω BA . If Γ is closed under two steps
iterations and lottery sums, and each of the ki is Γ-correct, then one can check that k is
Γ-correct as well.
2
Specifically one of our main aims will be to show that for certain classes Γ of complete boolean algebras
(Γ ∩ Vδ , ≤Γ ∩Vδ ) ∈ Γ. In general (Γ ∩ Vδ , ≤Γ ∩Vδ ) is a non-separative partial order.
112
Why this ordering on class partial orders?
Given a pair (Γ, Θ) as above, we can define two natural order relations ≤Θ and ≤∗Θ on
Γ. The first one is given by complete homomorphisms i : B → Q in Θ (which is the
one we described before) and the other given by complete and injective homomorphisms
i : B → Q in Θ. Both notion of orders are interesting and set theorists are used to focus
on this second stricter notion of order since it is the one suitable to develop a theory of
iterated forcing. However in the present book we focus mostly on complete (but possibly
non-injective) homomorphisms because this notion of ordering grants that whenever we
add a V -generic filter for a C ≤Θ B, we will also be adding a V -generic filter for B by 6.1.1
applied to the i : B → C witnessing C ≤Θ B. Moreover the ≤Θ will grant us that whenever
B is put into a V -generic filter for (Γ, ≤Θ ) for suitably well behaved category forcings
(Γ, ≤Θ ), this V -generic filter will also add a V -generic filter for B. To understand why this
occurs we leave to the reader to check that the map k : B → Γ mapping b 7→ B b is well
defined, order and sup-preserving, whenever Γ is closed under complete subalgebras and
lottery sums (which is trivially the case for most of our choices of Γ). The critical issue is
to check whether the above map can be incompatibility preserving and a main result we
will achieve is that this is the case for many interesting classes Γ.
If we decided to order the family Γ using injective homomorphisms in Θ we would
get that a V -generic filter for this other category forcing defined according to this stricter
notion of order will just give a directed system of partial orders in Γ with injective ho-
momorphisms in Θ between them, without actually giving V -generic filters for the partial
orders in this directed system.
We will come back to these issues in great details in the last part of this book.
113
Chapter 7
Iteration systems
In this chapter we present iteration systems and some of their algebraic and forcing prop-
erties. In order to develop the basic theory of iterations, along the chapter we consider
only injective complete homomorphisms.
The first four sections prove in full details the basic properties of iterations of limit
length, in particular the first section introduces the key definitions, section 7.2 proves
Baumgartner’s theorem on the preservation of < λ-CC through limit stages and outlines
its most relevant consequences, section 7.3 shows how to handle the generic quotiens of an
iteration, 7.4 gives several counterexamples to certain false conclusions on the properties
of iterations one may be tempted to conjecture.
The last section of the chapter outlines the basic requirement a class of forcing notions
Γ must have in order to grant that most of the iterations of posets in Γ do have a limit
which is also in Γ. We also introduce the lottery preparation for a class of forcings Γ:
it provides a smart way to organize an iteration of posets in Γ which is enough flexible
to grant that the limit forces a variety of forcing axioms (depending on the length of
the limit). This technique is due to Hamkins [24] and has been extensively used in the
Cercare su
literature to prove the consistency of a number of forcing axioms – M. We will employ it mathscinet
in Parts IV and V to obtain the consistency of Martin’s maximum. uso di lottery
preparation in
articoli ed
7.1 Definitions and basic properties aggiungere qui
referenze
Definition 7.1.1. F = {iαβ : Bα → Bβ : α ≤ β < λ} is a complete iteration system of principali su
questo
complete boolean algebras iff for all α ≤ β ≤ γ < λ: argomento –
M
1. Bα is a complete boolean algebra and iαα is the identity on it;
2. iαβ is an injective homomorphism with associated adjoint παβ ;
3. iβγ ◦ iαβ = iαγ .
If γ < λ, we define F γ = {iαβ : α ≤ β < γ}.
iα,β iβ,γ
Bα Bβ Bγ
iα,γ
Definition 7.1.2. Let F be a complete iteration system of length λ. Then:
114
• The inverse limit of the iteration is
( )
Y
lim(F) = f ∈ Bα : ∀α∀β > α παβ ◦ f (β) = f (α)
←−
α<λ
and its elements are called threads.
• The direct limit is

lim(F) = f ∈ lim(F) : ∃α∀β > α f (β) = iαβ (f (α))
−→ ←−
and its elements are called constant threads. The support of a constant thread
supp(f ) is the least α such that iαβ ◦ f (α) = f (β) for all β ≥ α.
• The revised countable support limit is1

RCS(F) = f ∈ lim(F) : f ∈ lim(F) ∨ ∃α f (α) Bα cof(λ̌) = ω̌
←− −→
We can define on lim(F) a natural join operation (which nonetheless produce the
←−
suprema of a family of threads only assuming certain nice properties of the family, while
giving in most cases just an upper bound for the family):
Definition 7.1.3. Let A be any subset of lim(F). We define the pointwise supremum of
←−
A as _˜ _
A = h {f (α) : f ∈ A} : α < λi.
The previous definition makes sense since by Proposition 1.3.14.d ˜ A is a thread.

W
Remark 7.1.4. It must be noted that if A is an infinite subset of lim(F), ˜ A might not
W
←−
be the least upper bound of A in RO(lim(F)), as shown in Example 7.4.1. A sufficient
←−
condition on A for this to happen is given by Lemma 7.1.11 below.
Definition 7.1.5. Let F = {iαβ : α ≤ β < λ} be an iteration system. For all α < λ, we
define iαλ as
iαλ : Bα → lim(F)
−→
b 7→ hπβ,α (b) : β < αia hiαβ (b) : α ≤ β < λi
and παλ
παλ : lim(F) → Bα
←−
f 7→ f (α)
When it is clear from the context, we will denote iαλ by iα and παλ by πα .
Fact 7.1.6. We may observe that:
1. lim(F) ⊆ RCS(F) ⊆ lim(F) are partial orders with the order relation given by
−→ ←−
pointwise comparison of threads.
2. Every thread in lim(F) is completely determined by its tail. Moreover every thread
←−
in lim(F) is entirely determined by the restriction to its support. Hence, given a
−→
thread f ∈ lim(F), for every α < λ f α determines a constant thread fα ∈ lim(F)
←− −→
such that f ≤lim(F ) fα .
←
−
1
This definition can be appreciated just by the reader familiar with forcing, see Chapter 4 for details.
115
3. It follows that for every α < β < λ, iαλ = iαβ ◦ iβλ .
4. iαλ can naturally be seen as a injective homomorphism of Bα in any of RO(lim(F)),

−→
RO(lim(F)), RO(RCS(F)). Moreover by Property 1.3.14.d in all three cases παλ =
←−
πiα,λ P where P = lim(F), lim(F), RCS(F).
−→ ←−
5. If F is an iteration of length λ, and g : cof(λ) → λ is an increasing cofinal map,
then we have the followings isomorphisms of partial orders:
lim(F) ∼
= lim ({i : α ≤ β < cof(λ)});
−→ −→ g(α)g(β)
lim(F) ∼
= lim ({i : α ≤ β < cof(λ)});
←− ←− g(α)g(β)
RCS(F) ∼= RCS({ig(α)g(β) : α ≤ β < cof(λ)}).
hence we will always assume w.l.o.g. that λ is a regular cardinal.
Definition 7.1.7. lim(F) inherits the structure of a boolean algebra with boolean oper-
−→
ations defined as follows:
• f ∧ g is the unique thread h whose support β is the max of the support of f and g
and is such that h(β) = f (β) ∧ g(β),
• ¬f is the unique thread h whose support β is the support of f such that h(β) =
¬f (β).
Fact 7.1.8. Assume g ∈ lim(F) and h ∈ lim(F). g ∧ h, defined as the thread where
←− −→
eventually all coordinates α are the pointwise meet of g(α) and h(α), is the infimum of g
and h in lim(F).
←−
Remark 7.1.9. In general lim(F) is not complete and RO(lim(F)) cannot be identified
−→ −→
with a complete subalgebra of RO(lim(F)) (i.e. lim(F) and lim(F) as forcing notions in
←− −→ ←−
general share little in common), as shown in Example 7.4.1. However, RO(lim(F)) can be
−→
identified with a subalgebra of lim(F) that is complete (even though it is not a complete
←−
subalgebra, see the following proposition).
Proposition 7.1.10. Let F = {iαβ : α ≤ β < λ} be an iteration system. Then RO(lim(F)) '
n o −→
D = f ∈ lim(F) : f = ˜ g ∈ lim(F) : g ≤ f .
W
←− −→
Proof. We represent RO(lim(F)) as the family of regular open sets of the Stone space of
−→
lim(F). We also identify a g ∈ lim(F) with its associated neighborhood Ng in the Stone
−→ −→
space of lim(F). The isomorphism associates to a regular open U ∈ RO(lim(F)) the thread
−→ −→
k(U ) = ˜ U , with inverse
W
n o
k −1 (f ) = Reg Ng : g ∈ lim(F) and g ≤lim(F ) f .
−→ ←
−
First, we prove that
[n o
k −1 (f ) = Nh : h ∈ lim(F) and h ≤lim(F ) f :
−→ ←−
Let [n o
A= Nh : h ∈ lim(F) and h ≤lim(F ) f .
−→ ←−
We show that k −1 (f ) = A. One inclusion is clear since k −1 (f ) = Reg (A) ⊇ A by
definition.
116
For the other assume that g ∈ lim(F) \ A. Then
−→
n o
Ng 6⊆ Nh : h ∈ lim(F) and h ≤lim(F ) f .
−→ ←−
In particular g lim(F ) f , and this is witnessed by some α > supp(g), so that g(α) f (α).
←−
Let h = iα (g(α) \ f (α)) > 0, then h ∈ lim(F) and for all h0 ≤lim(F ) h, h0 ⊥ f , giving that
−→ −
→
Nh ∩ A is empty. Therefore g 6∈ Reg (A) by Lemma 1.2.14, since A ∩ Ng is not dense in
Ng . n W o
Now we prove that k −1 ◦ k(U ) = Ng : g ∈ lim(F) and g ≤ ˜ U = U :
−→
Since ˜ U ≥ f for all f ∈ U , it follows that U ⊆ k −1 ◦ k(U ). Furthermore, since U
W
is a regular open set, if g ∈ / U , there exists a g 0 ≤lim(F ) g such that Ng0 ∩ U is empty,
−
→
by Lemma 1.2.14. Suppose towards a contradiction that there exist a g ∈ lim(F) such
−→
that g ≤ ˜ U with Ng0 ∩ U empty for some g 0 ≤ g. Let α be the support of g, so that
W
W
g(α) ≤ {f (α) : f ∈ U }. Then, there exists an f ∈ U such that f (α) is compatible with
g(α), hence f ∧ g > 0 and is in U (since U is open). Since f ∧ g ≤ g, this is a contradiction.
It follows that k(U ) ∈ D for every U ∈ RO(lim(F)).
−→
Furthermore, k −1 is the inverse map of k since we already verified that k −1 ◦ k(U ) = U
and for all f ∈ D, k ◦ k −1 (f ) = f by definition of D.
Finally, k and k −1 are order-preserving maps since U1 ⊆ U2 iff ˜ U1 ≤ ˜ U2 .
W W
As noted before, the notion of supremum in lim(F) may not coincide with the notion
←−
of pointwise supremum. However the following Lemma (which will be repeatedly used in
our analysis of semiproper iterations) shows that in some cases pointwise suprema are true
suprema:
Lemma 7.1.11. Let F = {iαβ : α ≤ β < λ} be an iteration system and A ⊆ lim(F) be an
←−
antichain such that παλ [A] is an antichain for some α < λ. Then ˜ A is the supremum of
W
the elements of A in RO(lim(F)).
←−
Proof. Suppose by contradiction that A < ˜ A in RO(lim(F)). Then there exists g ∈
W W
←−
lim(F) such that 0 < g ≤ ¬ A ∧ ˜ A. Let α < λ be such that παλ [A] is an antichain
W W
←−
and let Wf ∈ A be such that f (α) is compatible with g(α). Such an f exists because
g(α) ≤ {f (α) : f ∈ A}. We show that g and f are compatible: Consider
h = hg(β) ∧ iα,β ◦ f (α) : α ≤ β < λi.
Then h ≤ g is a thread of lim(F) by 7.1.8. It only remains to prove that h(β) ≤ f (β)
←−
for each β ≥ α. We have that h(β) ≤ g(β) ≤ sup{t(β) : t ∈ A}, and also that h(β) is
incompatible with t(β) for all f 6= t ∈ A for all α ≤ β < λ, since h(α) = g(α) ∧ f (α) ≤
f (α) ⊥ t(α). Hence the only possibility is that
_ _
h(β) ≤ {t(β) : t ∈ A} ∧ ¬ {t(β) : t ∈ A, t 6= f } = f (β)
for all β ≥ α. Therefore g and f are compatible. Contradiction.
7.2 Sufficient conditions for the equality of direct and in-

verse limit
Even though in general lim(F) is different from lim(F), in certain cases they happen to
−→ ←−
coincide:
117
Lemma 7.2.1. Let F = {iαβ : α ≤ β < λ} be an iteration system such that lim(F) is
−→
<λ-cc. Then lim(F) = lim(F) is a complete boolean algebra.
←− −→
Proof. First, since every element of RO(lim(F)) is the supremum of an antichain in lim(F),
−→ −→
since lim(F) is <λ-cc and since λ is regular, the supremum of such an antichain can be
−→
computed in some Bα for α < λ hence RO(lim(F)) = lim(F).
−→ −→
Let f be in lim(F) \ lim(F). Since f is a non-constant thread, for all α < β we have
←− −→
that iαβ (f (α)) ≥ f (β) and for all α there is an ordinal βα such that iαβα (f (α)) > f (βα ).
By restricting to a subset of λ w.l.o.g. we can suppose that f (β) < iαβ (f (α)) for all β > α.
Hence {iαλ (f (α)) : α < λ} is a strictly descending sequence of length λ of elements in
lim(F)+ . From a descending sequence we can always define an antichain in lim(F) setting
−→ −→
aα = iαλ (f (α)) ∧ ¬iα+1,λ (f (α + 1)). Since lim(F) is <λ-cc, this antichain has to be of size
−→
less than λ. Hence aα = 0 for coboundedly many α, giving that f (α + 1) = iα,α+1 (f (α)),
so that f ∈ lim(F), contradiction.
−→
In the formulation and proof of the following theorem we use a standard result about
clubs and stationary sets: Fodor’s Lemma 2.1.18. For details see Chapter 2.
Theorem 7.2.2 (Baumgartner). Let λ be a regular cardinal and F = {iαβ : α ≤ β < λ}
be an iteration system such that Bα is <λ-cc for all α and S = α : Bα ∼

= RO(lim
−→
(F α ))
is stationary. Then lim(F) is <λ-cc.
−→
Proof. Let {fα : α < λ} ⊆ lim(F)+ . We show that it is not an antichain:
−→
Let h : λ → λ be such that h(α) > α, supp(fα ). Let C ⊆ λ be the club of closure
points of h (i.e. such that for all α ∈ C, h[α] ⊆ α). For each α ∈ S find gα ∈ lim(F α )+
−→
such that gα ≤α fα (α) in RO(lim(F α )+ ).
−→
Define a regressive function
φ: S → λ
α 7→ supp(gα ).
By Fodor’s Lemma find ξ ∈ λ, and T ⊂ S stationary such that φ[T ] = {ξ}.
Since T ∩ C has size λ, and Bξ is <λ-cc, there are α < β ∈ T ∩ C and b ∈ B+ ξ such
that gα (ξ) ∧ gβ (ξ) ≥ξ b. Now α < β ∈ C ∩ S, thus supp(fα ) = η < β (since β ∈ C), and
fβ (ν) = iξ,ν (fβ (ξ)) for all ν < β (since β ∈ T ). Thus for η = supp(fα ),
fβ (η) = iξ,η (fβ (ξ)) ≥η iξ,η (gβ (ξ)) ≥η iξ,η (b).
This gives that for all ν ≥ β
πη,ν (fα (ν) ∧ fβ (ν) ∧ iξ,ν (b)) =
= πη,ν (iη,ν (fα (η)) ∧ fβ (ν) ∧ iη,ν ◦ iξ,η (b)) =
= πη,ν (fβ (ν) ∧ iη,ν (iξ,η (b) ∧ fα (η))) =
= fβ (η) ∧ iξ,η (b) ∧ fα (η) ≥
≥ gβ (η) ∧ iξ,η (b) ∧ fα (η) =
= iξ,η (b) ∧ fα (η),
where the first inequality follows from gβ ≤β fβ (β) and the second from gβ (η) = iξη ◦
gβ (ξ) ≥η iξη (b).
Now observe that
πξ,η (iξ,η (b) ∧ fα (η)) = b ∧ fα (ξ) ≥ b ∧ gα (ξ) = b > 0ξ .
Therefore fα ∧ fβ ∈ lim F + since fα (ν) ∧ fβ (ν) > 0ν for all ν > β. Hence {fα : α < λ} is
−→
not an antichain.
118
7.3 Generic quotients of iteration systems
The results on generic quotients of the previous section generalize without much effort to
iteration systems. In the following we outline how this occurs.
Lemma 7.3.1. Let F = {iαβ : Bα → Bβ : α ≤ β < λ} be a complete iteration system of

complete boolean algebras, Gγ be a V -generic filter for Bγ . Then F/Gγ = {iαβ /Gγ : γ <
α ≤ β < λ} is a complete iteration system in V [Gγ ].
Proof. Apply Proposition 6.1.10 repeatedly.
Lemma 7.3.2. Let F = {iαβ : Bα → Bβ : α ≤ β < λ} be a complete iteration system of

complete boolean algebras, Ġα be the canonical name for a generic filter for Bα and f˙ be a
Bα -name for an element of lim(F/Ġα ). Then there exists a unique g ∈ lim(F) such that
r z ←− ←−
f˙ = [g]
Ġα = 1B .
α
Proof. We proceed applying Lemma 6.1.8 at every stage β > α.
Existence. For every β > α, by hypothesis f˙(β) is a name for anr element of the quotient z
Bβ /iαβ [Ġα ] . Let g(β) be the unique element of Bβ such that f˙(β) = [g(β)]iαβ [Ġα ] =
1Bα . Then,
r z r z
f˙ = [g]Ġα = ∀β ∈ λ f˙(β) = [g(β)]Ġα
^ nr z o ^
= f˙(β) = [g(β)]iαβ [Ġα ] : β ∈ λ = 1Bα = 1Bα
r z r z
Uniqueness. If g 0 is such that f˙ = [g 0 ]Ġα = 1Bα then for every β > α, f˙(β) = [g 0 (β)]iαβ [Ġα ] =
1Bα . Such an element is unique by Lemma 6.1.8, hence g 0 (β) = g(β) defined above,
completing the proof.
g is a thread. Apply once again Proposition 6.1.10 to infer that παβ (g(β)) = g(α) for
all β > α.
7.4 Examples and counterexamples

We now examine some aspects of iterated systems by means of examples. In the first
one we will see that lim(F) may not be a complete boolean algebra, and that lim(F)
←− −→
and lim(F) as forcing notions share little in common. In the second one, we will justify
←−
the introduction of RCS-limits showing that in many cases lim(F) collapses ω1 even if all
−→
factors of the iteration are preserving ω1 . This shows that in order to produce a limit of
an iteration system that preserves ω1 , one needs to devise subtler notions of limits than
full and direct limits. This motivates the results of chapters 9 and 10 where it is shown
that RCS-limits are a nice notion of limit, since RCS-iterations of semiproper posets are
semiproper and preserve ω1 . The last iteration system also provides an example of an
iteration in which the direct limit is taken stationarily often but lim(F) 6= RO(lim(F)).
←− −→
7.4.1 Distinction between direct limits and full limits

We start showing that the inverse limit and direct limit of the same iteration system may
be completely unrelated as forcing notions.
119
Example 7.4.1. Let F0 = {in,m : Bn → Bm : n < m < ω} be an iteration system such
that for all n ∈ ω 1Bn Bn+1 /Ġ 6= 2, and B0 is atomless and infinite.
Lemma 7.4.2. There exists tm ∈ lim(F0 ) for each m ∈ ω such that the followings hold:
−→
1. {tn+1 : n ∈ ω} ⊆ lim(F0 ) is an antichain;
−→
2. ˜ {tn+1 : n ∈ ω} = 1;
W
3. {tn+1 : n ∈ ω} is a maximal antichain in lim(F0 );

−→
4. there exists t ∈ lim(F0 ) such that for all n ∈ ω, t ⊥ tn+1 .
←−
Proof. Let a0 = 1B0 . Since 1Bn Bn+1 /ĠB 6= 2, there exists ȧn+1 ∈ V Bn such that
n r z
1Bn = J0 < ȧn+1 < 1K. Let an+1 ∈ Bn+1 be such that ȧn+1 = [an+1 ]ĠB = 1Bn , which
n
exists by Lemma 6.1.8. Then
πn,n+1 (an+1 ) = J0 < ȧn+1 K = 1
and
πn,n+1 (¬an+1 ) = Jȧn+1 < 1K = 1.
For all n > 0, let
^
tn = hin,m (¬an ) ∧ {il,m (al ) : l < n} : m ∈ ω, m > ni.
First of all we have

^
πn,n+1 ( {il,n+1 (al ) : l ≤ n + 1})
^
= πn,n+1 (in,n+1 ( {il,n (al ) : l < n + 1}) ∧ an+1 )
^ ^
= {il,n (al ) : l ≤ n} ∧ πn,n+1 (an+1 ) = {il,n (al ) : l ≤ n} .
This implies also that

^
tn+1 (n) = πn,n+1 (¬an+1 ∧ {il,n+1 (al ) : l < n + 1}) =
^ ^
= πn,n+1 (¬an+1 ) ∧ {il,n (al ) : l ≤ n}) = {il,n (al ) : l ≤ n} .
1. Observe that for all 0 < m < n ∈ ω, tn ⊥ tm . As a matter of fact:

^
tm (n) = im,n (¬am ) ∧ {il,n (al ) : l < m} ≤ ¬im,n (am ),
^
tn (n) = ¬an ∧ {il,n (al ) : l < n} ≤ im,n (am ).
2. In order to prove ˜ {tm : 0 < m ∈ ω} = 1, we prove by induction on n that

W
_
{tm (n) : 0 < m ≤ n + 1} = 1Bn .
If n = 0 then t1 (0) = π0,1 (a1 ∧ i0,1 (a0 )) = π0,1 (a1 ) = 1. Now assume that it holds
for n. Observe that
^
tn+1 (n + 1) ∨ tn+2 (n + 1) = (¬an+1 ∧ {im,n+1 (am ) : m < n + 1})
^ ^
∨ (an+1 ∧ {im,n+1 (am ) : m < n + 1} = {im,n+1 (am ) : m < n + 1}
^
= in,n+1 ( {im,n (am ) : m ≤ n}) = in,n+1 (tn+1 (n)).
120
Therefore
_
in,n+1 ( {tm (n) : 0 < m ≤ n}) ∨ tn+1 (n + 1) ∨ tn+2 (n + 1) =
_
= in,n+1 ( {tm (n) : 0 < m ≤ n}) ∨ in,n+1 (tn+1 (n)) =
_
= in,n+1 ( {tm (n) : 0 < m ≤ n + 1})) = 1.
3. We can now show that {tm : 0 < m ∈ ω} is a maximal antichain in lim(F0 ): Assume
−→
s ∈ lim(F0 ). Let n be the support of s. Then, by the previous item, there exists
−→
m > 0 such that tm (n) ∧Bn s(n) > 0Bn . Hence for all j > n
0Bn < tm (n) ∧Bn s(n) = πnj (tm (j) ∧ inj (s)).
We conclude that tm and s are compatible in lim(F0 ), since their meet is a positive
−→
thread in lim(F0 ). Since s was chosen arbitrarily, we get our thesis.
−→
V
4. Let t = h {im,n (am ) : m ≤ n} : n ∈ ωi. It is a thread since for all l < n:
^ ^
πl,n ( {im,n (am ) : m ≤ n}) = {im,l (am ) : m ≤ l} .
Moreover we have that t ⊥ tn for all n ∈ ω \ {0}, since tn (n) < ¬an and t(n + 1) <
in,n (an ) = an .
Proposition 7.4.3. RO(lim(F0 )) is not a complete subalgebra of RO(lim(F0 )). Moreover

−→ ←−
lim(F0 ) is not closed under suprema.
←−
Proof. We follow the notation of Lemma 7.4.2. For each m ∈ ω tm+1 ∈ lim(F0 ) and
−→
tm+1 ⊥lim(F0 ) t for all m. Hence
←
−
_ ˜
_
{tn+1 : n ∈ ω} =
6 {tn+1 : n ∈ ω} = 1,
RO(lim(F0 ))
←
−
since the left term is orthogonal to t in RO(lim(F0 )). Since {tn+1 : n ∈ ω} is a max-
←−
imal antichain of lim(F0 ) which is not maximal in RO(lim(F0 )), this implies also that
−→ ←−
RO(lim(F0 )) is not a complete subalgebra of RO(lim(F0 )). Moreover since it is easy to
−→ ←−
check that a thread f ∈ lim(F0 ) is a majorant of a family A of threads in lim(F0 ) iff
←− ←−
f ≥ ˜ A, we also get that lim(F0 ) is not closed under suprema of its subfamilies.
W
←−
7.4.2 Direct limits may not preserve ω1

We now produce an example of an iteration system of length bigger than ω1 whose direct
limit does not preserve ω1 . We use the following forcing notion:
Definition 7.4.4. Let λ be a regular cardinal. Namba forcing Nm(λ) is the poset of
all perfect trees T ⊆ λ<ω (i.e. everbranching and such that for every t ∈ T , the set
{α < λ : ta α ∈ T } has cardinality either 1 or λ), ordered by reverse inclusion.
Recall that a forcing notion P is stationary set preserving if
q y
Š is stationary RO(P ) = 1
for all S stationary subset of ω1 ∈ V (see Definition 2.1.2 and Lemma 2.1.14 for the
notion of stationary subset of ω1 ). Recall also that stationary set preserving forcings
do not collapse ω1 (see Lemma 9.1.3). In the example below we use only the following
well-known properties of Namba forcing (see [21, Theorem A.2], [28, Theorem 28.10], [42]):
121
Fact 7.4.5. Nm(λ) is stationary set preserving (and thus preserves ω1 ) and forces the
cofinality of λ to become ω and its size to become ω1 .
Example 7.4.6. Let F1 = {iα,β : B α → Bβ : α ≤ β < λ} be an iteration system such

that S = α < λ : Bα = lim(F1 α ) is stationary, and suppose that B0 is the boolean
−→
completion of the Namba forcing Nm(λ) and Bα+1 /Ġα is forced to have antichains of
uncountable size.
Proposition 7.4.7. lim(F1 ) is not a dense subset of lim(F1 ) and lim(F1 ) collapses ω1 .
−→ ←− −→
Proof. Let iα : Bα → lim(F1 ) be the canonical embedding of Bα into lim(F1 ). Let f˙ ∈ V B0
−→ −→
be the canonical name for a cofinal function from ω to λ, and let Ȧα be a Bα -name for an
antichain of size ω1 in Bα+1 /Ġα , with Aα = {aαβ : β < ω1 } the corresponding antichain of
size ω1 in s
Bα+1 obtained by{ repeated application of Lemma 6.1.8. Then for all α, β we
h i
have that 0 < aαβ < 1 = 1Bα hence πα,α+1 (aαβ ) = πα,α+1 (¬aαβ ) = 1Bα .
Ġα
Let ṫ ∈ V B0 be a name for the thread in lim(F1 /Ġ0 ) defined by the requirement that
←−
for all n < ω
˙
r z
f (n)
ṫ(f˙(n)) = [a0 ]Ġ0 = 1B0 .
B0
Let t ∈ lim(F1 ) be the canonical representative for ṫ obtained from Lemma 7.3.2. Suppose
←−
by contradiction that t ∈ RO(lim(F1 ))+ , so that there exists an r ≤ t in lim(F1 )+ . Since
−→ −→
f˙ is a B0 -name for a cofinal increasing function from ω to λ, r cannot decide in lim(F1 )
−→
a bound for the value of î0 (f˙(n)) for cofinitely many n, else λ would be the supremum of
such bounds and would have countable cofinality in V . Let b ∈ B0 , b ≤ r(0) be such that
b B0 f˙(n) = γ
with γ > supp(r) and n large enough so that r cannot bound the value of î0 (f˙(n)).
Then t ∧ i0 (b) ≤ iγ (aγ0 ) but r ∧ i0 (b) cannot be below iγ (aγ0 ) since it has support
smaller than γ (and so is compatible with ¬aγ0 , that is an element that projects to 1Bγ ),
a contradiction which shows that t is not refined by any element of lim(F1 )+ .
−→
For the second part of the thesis, let G0 be V -generic for B0 , f = f˙G0 . Let iα /G0
denote the canonical embedding of Bα /G0 into lim(F1 /G0 ).
−→
Define ġ to be a lim(F1 /G0 )-name in V [G0 ] for a function from ω to ω1 as follows:
−→
q y f (n)
ġ(n) = β̌ = if (n) /G0 ([aβ ]G0 ).
Then ġ is forced to be a lim(F1 /G0 )-name for a surjective map from ω to ω1 , since for
−→
every t ∈ lim(F1 /G0 ) and β ∈ ω1 we can find an n such that f (n) > supp(t) so that
−→
f (n)
[t]G0 ∧ if (n) /G0 ([aβ ]G0 )
is positive and forces β to be in the range of ġ. Thus, lim(F1 /G0 ) collapses ω1 to ω for
−→
every G0 V -generic for B0 . Since lim(F1 ) = B0 ∗ lim(F1 /Ġ0 ) the same holds for lim(F1 ),
−→ −→ −→
as witnessed by the following lim(F1 )-name ḣ for a function
−→
r z _ r z
ḣ(ň) = β̌ = i0 ˙
f (ň) = α̌ α
∧ aβ : α ∈ λ ,
RO(lim(F1 )) B0
−
→
completing the proof.
122
7.5 Iterable classes of forcing notions
We now introduce natural sufficient conditions granting that a class of forcing notions
Γ has nice iteration properties. Specifically we want to address the following problem:
Assume Γ is a definable class of forcing notions and
F = {iαβ : Bα → Bβ : α ≤ β < λ}
is an iteration system of cbas in Γ. When F admits a limit in Γ?

In this section we isolate sufficient conditions granting that this is most often the case
if Γ satisfies them. In chapter 10 we show that the classes of proper, semiproper and
stationary set preserving forcings satisfy these conditions.
7.5.1 Weakly iterable forcing classes

We introduce the notion of weakly iterable forcing notions.
Notation 7.5.1. Let Γ be class of forcing notions definable as the extension of the formula
φΓ (x, aΓ ) in the set-parameter aΓ and closed under two-steps iterations.
Γlim denotes the (definable) class of complete iteration systems F = {iαβ : Bα → Bβ : α ≤ β < λ}
with iαβ such that
r z r z
Bβ /iαβ [ĠB ] ∈ Γ = φΓ (Bβ /iαβ [ĠB ] , ǎΓ ) = 1Bα
α Bα α Bα
for all α ≤ β < λ.
Definition 7.5.2. Let T be a theory extending NBG, Γ be a definable class of complete

Boolean algebras in T , Σ : Γlim → Γlim be a definable class function in T , γ be a definable
cardinal in T .
• An iteration system F = {Bη : η < α} ∈ Γlim of length α follows Σ if and only if for
all β < α even2 , F (β+1) = Σ(F β ).
• Σ is a weak iteration strategy for Γ if and only if we can prove in T that for every
F = {Bη : η < α} of length α which follows Σ, Σ(F) has length α + 1 and F =
Σ(F) α .
• Σ is a γ-weak iteration strategy for Γ if in addition Σ(F) = lim F whenever F =

−→
{Bη : η < α} and cof(α) = γ or cof(α) = α > γ, |B| for all B in F.
Definition 7.5.3. Let T be a theory extending NBG by a recursive set of axioms, Γ a

definable class of complete Boolean algebras, Σ : Γlim → Γlim a definable class function, γ
a definable cardinal.
Γ is γ-weakly iterable through Σ in T iff we can prove in T that:
• Γ is closed under two-step iterations and set-sized lottery sums;
• Σ is a γ-weak iteration strategy for Γ;
• hΓ, Σi as computed in Vκ+1 is equal to hΓ ∩ Vκ , Σ ∩ Vκ i whenever κ is inaccessible

and Vκ+1 |= T .3
2
We remark that every limit ordinal is even.
3
Since κ is inaccessible, this statement is equivalent to Vκ+1 |= T \ NBG which is recursive.
123
Γ is weakly iterable iff it is γ-weakly iterable through Σ for some γ, Σ.
Intuitively, Γ is weakly iterable if and only if there is a sufficiently nice strategy for
choosing limits in Γ for iterations of indefinite length in Γlim . We remark that the latter
definition (for a T ⊇ NBG) is not related to a specific model V of T , and requires that the
above properties are provable in T , and hence hold for every T -model M : for example, if
T = MK they must hold in every Vκ+1 where κ is inaccessible. We feel free to omit the
reference to T when clear from the context, and in particular when T = MK or NBG.
Many notable classes Γ are ωi -weakly iterable for some i = 0, 1:
• Ω (the class of all forcings) is ω-weakly iterable using a strategy Σ which takes finite
support limits at limit stages and is the identity elsewhere.
• The class SP of semiproper forcings is ω1 -weakly iterable using a strategy Σ which
takes revised countable support limits, and chooses Bα = Bα−1 ∗ Coll(ω1 , |Bα−1 |)
at even successor stages α. We will prove this in full details in chapter 10. By
simplifications of the argument for semiproperness, or as a corollary of this result,
one can also prove that:
– the class of axiom-A forcing notions or of proper forcing notions are ω1 -weakly
iterable using a strategy Σ which takes countable support limits at limit stages
and is the identity elsewhere.
– Locally <κ+ -cc4 and <κ-closed are κ-weakly iterable using a strategy Σ which
takes <κ-sized support limits at limit stages and is the identity elsewhere.
– The class of stationary set preserving forcings SSP is ω1 -weakly iterable assum-
ing the existence of a proper class of supercompact cardinals, using a strategy
Σ which takes revised countable support limits and chooses Bα = Bα−1 ∗ Ċ,
where Ċ forces SP = SSP and collapses |Bα−1 | to have size ω1 (details will be
given in chapter 10).
7.5.2 The lottery preparation forcings

The definition of weak iterability for a definable class of forcing notions Γ provides the
right conditions to carry out the lottery iteration PΓ,f
κ with respect to a partial function
f : κ → κ where κ is an inaccessible cardinal. The lottery iteration has been studied
extensively by Hamkins [24] and is one of the main tools to obtain the consistency of
forcing axioms. We will employ these type of iterations in Parts IV and V to obtain the
consistency of Martin’s maximum and some of its variants and strengthenings.
o iterable through Σ and f : κ → κ be a partial

Definition 7.5.4. Letn Γ be γ-weakly
Γ,f
function. Define Fξ = Pα : α < ξ by recursion on ξ ≤ κ + 1 as:
1. F0 = ∅ is the empty iteration system;

2. Fξ+1 = Σ(Fξ ) if ξ is even;
3. Fξ+2 has PΓ,f Γ,f

ξ+1 = Pξ if ξ + 1 is odd and f (ξ) is undefined;
4. Fξ+2 has PΓ,f Γ,f Γ,f

ξ+1 = Pξ ∗ Ċ otherwise, where Ċ is a Pξ -name for the lottery sum (as
Γ,f
computed in V Pξ ) of all complete Boolean algebras in Γ of rank less than f (ξ), i.e.,
a PΓ,f
Q
ξ -name for Γ ∩ Vf (ξ) .
4
B is locally <κ-cc if it is the lottery sum of <κ-cc complete Boolean algebras.
124
We say that PΓ,f
κ is the lottery iteration of Γ relative to f .
Proposition 7.5.5. Let T be a theory extending NBG by a recursive set of axioms, Γ

be γ-weakly iterable through Σ, f : κ → κ be a partial function with κ > γ inaccessible
cardinal such that Vκ+1 |= T . Then:
1. PΓ,f
κ exists and is in Γ;
2. PΓ,f
q y
κ is a <κ-cc complete boolean algebra and for all α < κ, 2α̌ ≤ κ̌ PΓ,f = 1PΓ,f ;
κ κ
3. PΓ,f
κ is definable in Vκ+1 using the class parameter f ;
4. Let g : λ → λ with λ inaccessible be such that f = g κ , Vλ |= T . Then PΓ,g

λ
Γ,f
absorbs every forcing in Γ ∩ Vg(κ) as computed in V Pκ . That is, for every Ḃ in
Γ,f
Pκ
(Γ ∩ Vg(κ) )V , there is a condition p ∈ PΓ,g Γ,g Γ,f
λ such that Pλ p ≤Γ Pκ ∗ Ḃ.
Proof.
1. Follows from Σ being a weak iteration strategy for α < κ even, and from Γ being
closed under two-step iterations and lottery sums for α odd.
2. Since Σ ∩ Vκ is Σ as computed in Vκ+1 , we can prove by induction on α < κ that

Γ,f Γ,f
Pα < κ, hence Pα is <κ-cc for all α < κ. Furthermore, by definition of γ-weak
iteration strategy the set of ordinals:
n o
S = α < κ : PΓ,f α =− lim (Fκ α ) ⊇ {α < κ : cof(α) = γ}
→
is stationary in κ. It follows by Baumgartner’s Theorem 7.2.2 and Lemma 7.2.1
that lim Fκ = lim Fκ is <κ-cc and a complete boolean algebra. Since Σ is a γ-weak
−→ ←−
iteration strategy and κ = cof(κ) > γ, PΓ,f Γ,f
α for all α < κ, Pκ = Σ(Fκ ) = lim Fκ

−→
concluding the proof of the first part of the statement.
For the second part, given α < κ let ẋ be a PΓ,f
κ -name for a subset of α. Then ẋ is
decided by α < κ antichains of size 2 (see Lemma 4.2.5), hence ẋ = ı̂β (ẏ)5 for some
Γ,f
ẏ ∈ V Pβ , β < κ.

Since PΓ,f
β < κ and κ is inaccessible, there are less than κ-many names for subsets

Γ,f Γ,f
of α in V Pβ . Thus there are at most κ-many names for subsets of α in V Pκ .
3. Straigthforward, given that hΓ ∩ Vκ , Σ ∩ Vκ i is hΓ, Σi as computed in Vκ+1 .
4. Let g : λ → λ and λ inaccessible be such that f = g κ and Vλ+1 |= T . Since

hΓ ∩ Vκ , Σ ∩ Vκ i is hΓ, Σi as computed in Vκ+1 and the same holds for λ, letting
F = {PΓ,g
α : α < λ}, we have that
F κ = {PΓ,g Γ,f
α : α < κ} = {Pα : α < κ}.
Γ,f
P
Hence PΓ,f Γ,g
κ = Pκ . Furthermore any Ḃ in (Γ ∩ Vg(κ) )
V κ is forced by PΓ,f to be the
κ
Γ,f
Q V Pκ
restriction of Ċ = Γ ∩ Vg(κ) to a suitable condition q̇ applying Definition
Γ,f Γ,f
5 Pβ
Recall that ı̂β is the natural embedding from V to V Pκ (see Proposition 4.1.12).
125
Γ,g
7.5.4.(4) in V Pλ (q̇ is forced by PΓ,f
κ to be 1 in the component of Ċ corresponding
to Ḃ and 0 in all the other components of Ċ). Hence we can find p ∈ PΓ,g
λ such that
PΓ,g ∼ PΓ,f
∗ Ḃ. Therefore,
κ+1 (pκ+1 ) = κ
PΓ,f ∼ Γ,g Γ,g

κ ∗ Ḃ = Pκ+1 (pκ+1 ) ≥Γ Pλ p .
126
Part IV
Forcing axioms, properness,

semiproperness
127
Part IV deals with forcing axioms, properness and semiproperness. Chapter 8 gives a
thorough analysis of different types of forcing axioms and of their mutual interactions: it
is shown that the axiom of choice, Baire’s category theorem, and Shoenfield’s absolute-
ness results can all be naturally seen as forcing axioms; stationary sets are also used to
give a different characterization of forcing axioms in terms of a strong form of the down-
ward Lowenheim-Skolem theorem. Chapter 9 introduces properness and semiproperness.
We link these concepts to that of forcing axioms and give a topological and algebraic
characterization of both of these properties. Chapter 10 gives the main results regarding
(semi)proper iterations, mainly their preservation through limit stages.
128
Chapter 8
Forcing axioms I
Forcing is well-known as a versatile tool for proving consistency results. The axiom of
choice and Baire’s category theorm are useful non-constructive principles which greatly
simplify (or in some cases are unavoidable assumptions for) the development of many
mathematical theories. In this section we outline on the one hand how Baire’s category
theorem and the axiom of choice can be regarded as specific instances of forcing axioms,
and on the other hand how (by means of forcing axioms) one can transform forcing in a
non-constructive tool to prove theorems by means of variations of Levy’s absoluteness and
Shoenfield’s absoluteness results.
Notation 8.0.1. Let P be a partial order and κ a cardinal.

PD(P ) is the collection of predense subsets of P .
PD(P, κ) is the collection of predense subsets of RO(P ) of size at most κ.
Definition 8.0.2. Let κ be a cardinal and (P, ≤) be a partial order.
FAκ (P ) ≡ For all families {Dα : α < κ} of predense subsets of P , there is a filter G on P
meeting all these predense sets.
Given a class Γ of partial orders FAκ (Γ) holds if FAκ (P ) holds for all P ∈ Γ.
Notation 8.0.3. Ωκ denotes the class of all forcings P such that FAκ (P ), Ω stands for
Ωℵ0 , the class of all posets (in view of Lemma 8.1.3 below).
8.1 The axiom of choice and Baire’s category theorem are

forcing axioms
The axiom of choice AC and Baire’s category theorem BCT are non-constuctive principles
which play a prominent role in the development of many fields of abstract mathematics.
Standard formulations of the axiom of choice and of Baire’s category theorem are the
following:
Q
Definition 8.1.1. AC ≡ i∈I Ai is non-empty
S for all families of non empty sets {Ai : i ∈ I},
i.e. there is a choice function f : I → i∈I Ai such that f (i) ∈ Ai for all i ∈ I.
Theorem 8.1.2. BCT0 ≡ For all compact Hausdorff T spaces (X, τ ) and all countable
families {An : n ∈ N} of dense open subsets of X, n∈N An is non-empty.
129
There are large numbers of equivalent formulations of the axiom of choice and it may
come as a surprise that one of these is a natural generalization of Baire’s category theorem
and naturally leads to the notion of forcing axiom.
A simple proof of the Baire Category Theorem is given by a basic enumeration argu-
ment (which however needs some amount of the axiom of choice to be carried):
Lemma 8.1.3. BCT1 ≡ Let (P, ≤) be a partial order and {Dn : n ∈ N} be a family of
predense subsets of P . Then there is a filter G ⊆ P meeting all the sets Dn .
Proof. Build by induction a decreasing chain {pn : n ∈ N} with pn ∈ ↓ Dn and pn+1 ≤ pn

for all n. Let G = ↑ {pn : n ∈ N}. Then G is a filter and meets all the Dn .
Baire’s category theorem can be proved from the above Lemma (without any use of
the axiom of choice) as follows:
Proof of BCT0 from BCT1 . Given a compact Hausdorff space (X, τ ) and a family of dense
open sets {Dn : n ∈ N} of X, consider the partial order (τ \ {∅} , ⊆) and the family En =
{A ∈ τ : Cl (A) ⊆ Dn }. Then it is easily checked that each En is dense open in the partial
order (τ \ {∅} , ⊆). By Lemma 8.1.3, we can find a filter G ⊆ τ \ {∅} meeting all the sets
En . This gives that for all A1 , . . . An ∈ G
Cl (A1 ) ∩ . . . ∩ Cl (An ) ⊇ A1 ∩ . . . ∩ An ⊇ B 6= ∅
for some B ∈ G (where Cl (A) is the closure of A ⊆ X in the topology τ .) By the

compactness of (X, τ ), \
{Cl (A) : A ∈ G} =
6 ∅.
Any point in this intersection belongs to the intersection of all the open sets Dn .
Remark the interplay between the order topology on the partial order (τ \ {∅} , ⊆) and
the compact topology τ on X. Modulo the prime ideal theorem (a weak form of the axiom
of choice), BCT1 can also be proved from BCT0 .
It is less well-known that the axiom of choice has also an equivalent formulation as-
serting the existence of filters on posets meeting sufficiently many dense sets.
Definition 8.1.4. Let λ be a cardinal. A partial order (P, ≤) is < λ-closed if every
decreasing chain {Pα : α < γ} indexed by some γ < λ has a lower bound in P .
A cba B is < λ-closed if B+ contains a dense subset P such that (P, ≤B ) is < λ-closed.
Γλ denotes the class of < λ-closed posets.
It is almost immediate to check that Γℵ0 is the class of all posets, and that BCT1 states
that FAℵ0 (Γℵ0 ) holds. The following formulation of the axiom of choice in terms of forcing
axioms has been handed to me by Todorčević, I’m not aware of any published reference.
In what follows, let ZF denote the standard first order axiomatization of set theory in the
first order language {∈, =} (excluding the axiom of choice) and ZFC denote ZF+ the first
order formalization of the axiom of choice.
Theorem 8.1.5. The axiom of choice AC is equivalent (over the theory ZF) to the asser-
tion that FAκ (Γκ ) holds for all regular cardinals κ.
We sketch a proof of Theorem 8.1.5, the interested reader can find a full proof in
[36, Chapter 3, Section 2] (see the following hyperlink: Tesi-Parente). First of all, it is
convenient to prove 8.1.5 using a different equivalent formulation of the axiom of choice.
130
Definition 8.1.6. Let κ be an infinite cardinal. The principle of dependent choices DCκ
states the following:
For every non-empty set X and every function F : X <κ → P (X) \ {∅}, there exists
g : κ → X such that g(α) ∈ F (g α) for all α < κ.
Lemma 8.1.7. AC is equivalent to ∀κ DCκ modulo ZF.
The reader can find a proof in [36, Theorem 3.2.3]. We prove the Theorem assuming
the Lemma:
Proof of Theorem 8.1.5. We prove by induction on κ that DCκ is equivalent to FAκ (Γκ )
over the theory ZF + ∀λ < κ DCλ . We sketch the ideas for the case κ-regular1 :
Assume DCκ ; we prove (in ZF) that FAκ (Γκ ) holds. Let (P, ≤) be a <κ-closed partially
ordered set, and {Dα : α < κ} ⊆ P (P ) a family of predense subsets of P .
Given a sequence hpβ : β < αi call ξp~ the least ξ such that hpβ : ξ ≤ β < αi is a
decreasing chain if such a ξ exists, and fix ξp~ = α otherwise. Notice that when the length
α of p~ is successor then ξp~ < α.
We now define a function F : P <κ → P (P )\{∅} as follows: given α < κ and a sequence
p~ ∈ P <κ , (
{p0 } if ξp~ = α
F (~
p) =
d ∈ ↓ Dα : d ≤ pβ for all ξp~ ≤ β < α otherwise.
The latter set is non-empty since (P, ≤) is <κ-closed, α < κ, and Dα is predense. By DCκ ,
we find g : κ → P such that g(α) ∈ F (g α) for all α < κ. An easy induction shows that
for all α the sequence g α is decreasing, so g(α) ∈ ↓Dα for all α < κ. Then
G = {p ∈ P : there exists α < κ such that g(α) ≤ p}
is a filter on P , such that G ∩ Dβ 6= ∅ for all β < κ.

Conversely, assume FAκ (Γκ ), we prove (in ZF) that DCκ holds.
Let X be a non-empty set and F : X <κ → P (X) \ {∅}. Define the partially ordered
set
P = s ∈ X <κ : for all α ∈ dom(s), s(α) ∈ F (s α) ,

with s ≤ t if and only

S if t ⊆ s. Let λ < κ and let s0 ≥ s1 ≥ · · · ≥ sα ≥ . . . , for α < λ, be
a chain
S in P . Then α<λ sα is clearly a lower bound for the chain. Since κ is regular, we
have α<λ sα ∈ P and so P is <κ-closed. For every α < κ, define
Dα = {s ∈ P : α ∈ dom(s)} ,
and note that Dα is dense in P . Using

S FAκ (Γκ ), there exists a filter G ⊂ P such that
G ∩ Dα 6= ∅ for all α < κ. Then g = G is a function g : κ → X such that g(α) ∈ F (g α)
for all α < κ.
8.2 Forcing axioms and stationarity I

In an informal sense, assuming the forcing axiom for a broad class of posets suggests that
a number of different forcing has already been done in our model of set theory. This
intuitive insight is reflected into the following equivalence.
1
In this case the assumption ZF + ∀λ < κ DCλ is not needed, but all the relevant ideas in the proof of
the equivalence are already present.
131
Definition 8.2.1. Let M be a set P a poset, B be a boolean algebra. G is M -generic for
P if G ∩ M ∩ D is non-empty for all D ∈ M dense subset of P . G is M -generic for B if it
is M -generic for B+ .
Theorem 8.2.2. Let B be a cba and κ be a cardinal. The following are equivalent:
1. FAκ (B).
2. For some cardinal θ with θ > 2|B| , κ, there exists an M ≺ H(θ), |M | = κ, B ∈ M ,

κ ⊂ M and a filter G M -generic for B.
3. The following set is stationary:
S = N ≺ H(|B|+ ) : κ ⊂ N ∧ |N | = κ ∧ ∃G filter N -generic for B .

Proof. We prove these equivalences as follows:

1⇒2: Suppose that FAκ (B) holds and let M ≺ H(θ) be such that B ∈ M , κ ⊂ M ,
|M | = κ. There are at most κ dense subsets of B in M , hence by FAκ (B) there is a
filter G meeting all those sets. However, G might not be M -generic since for some
D ∈ M , the intersection G ∩ D might be disjoint from M . Define:
n o
N = x ∈ H(θ) : ∃τ ∈ M ∩ V B Jτ = x̌K ∈ G

Clearly, N contains M (hence contains κ), moreover |N | ≤ M ∩ V B = κ, since
every τ ∈ M can be evaluated in at most one way by the elements of the filter
G. To prove that N ≺ H(θ), let ∃xφ(x, a1 , . . . , an ) be any formula with parameters
a1 , . . . , an ∈ N which holds in V . Let τi ∈ M B , qi ∈ G be such that qi = Jτi = ǎi K ∈ G
for all i < n. Define
Qφ = {Jφ(x̌, τ1 , . . . , τn )K : x ∈ Hθ } ,
V in M hence Qφ ∈ M . Furthermore, Qφ ∩ G is not empty since

this set is definable
it contains q = i<n qi ∈ G. By the mixing Lemma applied in H(θ), we can find
τ ∈ Hθ ∩ V B such that:
_ _
H(θ) Qφ = Jφ(τ, τ1 , . . . , τn )K = (Jτ = x̌K ∧ Jφ(x̌, τ1 , . . . , τn )K)
x∈Hθ
Hence, since M ≺ Hθ and τ1 , . . . , τn ∈ M ,

_ _
M ∃τ Qφ = Jφ(τ, τ1 , . . . , τn )K = Jτ = x̌K ∧ Jφ(x̌, τ1 , . . . , τn )K)
x∈Hθ
Fix such a τ ∈ M . Since the set {Jx̌ = τ K : x ∈ H(θ)} is a predense set definable in
M , there is an a ∈ H(θ) such that q 0 = Jτ = ǎK ∈ G. Then q 0 , τ witness that a ∈ N ,
hence the original formula ∃xφ(x, a1 , . . . , an ) holds in N as witnessed by a.
Finally, we need to check that G is N -generic for B. Let D ∈ N be a dense subset
of B, and Ḋ ∈ M be such that
r z
1B = Ḋ is dense ∧ Ḋ ∈ V
W
(recall z ∈ V K is a short hand
r that Jτ r for the boolean
z value {Jτ = x̌K : x ∈ V }), and
q = Ḋ = D ∈ G. Since 1B = Ḋ ∩ Ġ 6= ∅ , by the fullness lemma, there exists a
132
r z
τ ∈ H(θ) such that 1B = τ ∈ Ḋ ∩ Ġ . By elementarity there is such a τ also in M .
Let q 0 ∈ G below q decide the value of τ , q 0 ≤ Jτ = p̌K. Since q 0 forces that p̌ ∈ Ġ,
we get that q 0 ≤ p, hence p ∈ G ∩ D ∩ N .
2⇒3: Let M , G be as in the hypothesis of the theorem, and fix a collection D = hDα :
α < κi of dense subsets of B. Define:
S = N ≺ H(|B|+ ) : κ ⊂ N ∧ |N | = κ ∧ ∃ G filter N -generic for B

Note that S is definable in M , hence S ∈ M . Furthermore, since B ∈ M so does

H(|B|+ ), therefore M ∩ H(|B|+ ) ≺ H(|B|+ ) and M ∩ H(|B|+ ) is in S. Given any
Cf ∈ M club on H(|B|+ ), since f ∈ M , we have that M ∩ H(|B|+ ) ∈ Cf . Hence
Hθ S ∩ Cf 6= ∅, and by elementarity, the same holds for M . Thus, S is stationary
in M and again by elementarity S is stationary also in V .
3⇒1: Given D ∈ [PD(B)]≤κ , find N ∈ S such that D ∈ N . Since κ ⊂ N and D has size
κ, Dα ∈ N for every α < κ. Hence any N -generic filter G for B meets all the dense
sets in D, verifying FAκ (B) for this collection.
Remark 8.2.3. A comment on the notion of M -genericity for an M ≺ Hθ is in order.

Assume θ is inaccessible, so that Hθ |= ZFC. If M is transitive and G is M -generic for
some B ∈ M , we have a clear idea of what is M [G] and we know that there is a natural
isomorphism between M B /G and M [G] mapping [τ ]G 7→ τG for τ ∈ M B .
If M is not transitive but G is V -generic (but possibly not M -generic), we still have a
clear definition of n o
M [G] = τG : τ ∈ V B ∩ M ,
and the above map [τ ]G 7→ τG for τ ∈ M ∩ V B is still an isomorphism definable in V [G].

It remains to analyze the case in which M is not transitive and G is M -generic, but
not V -generic for B. Then:
• M B /G is the Tarski model with elements
n o
[τ ]G = σ ∈ M ∩ V B : Jσ = τ K ∈ G
and the Loś Theorem holds for M B /G .

• The definition of M [G] = τG : τ ∈ M ∩ V B with

n o
τG = σG : τ (σ) ∈ G, σ ∈ M ∩ V B
gives a transitive set which does not contain M .

• The definition of M [G] as
n o
M [G] = τG : τ ∈ V B ∩ M
makes sense only if G is V -generic: assume G is not V -generic, then it is most likely
the case that V B /G is not even well founded (for example this occurs if B is Cohen’s
forcing and G ∈ V see [27]), hence the definition of
n o
V [G] = τG : τ ∈ V B
133
with τG = {σG : τ (σ) ∈ G} still makes sense, but the forcing theorem for V [G] fails.
So does the isomorphism between V B /G and V [G] (being the former ill-founded and
the latter transitive). Nonetheless the forcing theorem for V B /G holds.
It is now not clear whether it has any meaning to look at M [G] and what its definition
should be.
These difficulties can be resolved passing to the transitive collapse of M : let πM : M →
N be the Mostowski’scollapsing map. Then H = πM [G] is N -generic for πM (B) = Q, the
definition of N [H] = τH : τ ∈ N Q makes sense since N is transitive and H is N -generic
for Q; the maps [τ ]G 7→ [πM (τ )]H 7→ πM (τ )H implement isomorphisms of M B /G with
N Q /H with N [H].
Moreover now N [H] ∈ V is a transitive model of ZFC, by the forcing theorem applied
to N, H. It is interesting to see how much resemblance do N [H] and V maintain: being
both transitive, certainly N [H] is ∆1 -elementary in V .
It is possible to formulate forcing axioms such as FA++ (B) which are natural strength-
enings of FAω1 (B) requiring the existence of M -generic filters G for B such that the degree
of elementarity between πM [M ][πM [G]] and V is more than just ∆1 -elementarity. We will
address this issue in the latter section of this chapter.
8.3 Ωκ is closed under two-step iterations

Lemma 8.3.1. For any cardinal κ the class Ωκ is closed under two-step iterations.
Proof. Assume FAκ (B) holds and B FAκ (Q̇) holds. Given {Dα : α < κ} family of pre-
dense subsets of B ∗ Q̇, find M ≺ Hθ such that κ ⊆ M with {Dα : α < κ} ∈ M and G
M -generic for B. This is possible by 8.2.2 applied to B. Let πM : M → NM = N be the
transitive collapse of M , B = πM (B), Q̇ = πM (Q̇), H = πM [G], Q = Q̇H , Eα = πM (Dα ),
Fα = {q ∈ Q : ∃(p, q̇) ∈ Eα with p ∈ H and q̇H = q}
for all α < κ. Then H is N -generic for B and N is transitive, hence N [H] is a generic
extension of N . Moreover
N [H] |= FAκ (Q)
and
N [H] |= {Fα : α < κ} is a family of predense subsets of Q
by the
r forcingztheorem applied to N, H, B for the above statements, given that N models
that FAκ (Q̇) = 1B and N models that B forces:
B
n o
Ḟ α = q̇ ∈ Q̇ : ∃(p, q̇) ∈ Eα with p ∈ ĠB defines a dense subset of Q̇.
Hence there is K ∈ N [H] filter on Q meeting all the predense sets Fα .

Then
{(p, q̇) : p ∈ G, πM (q̇) ∈ K}
is a filter on B ∗ Q̇ meeting all the predense sets Dα for all α < κ.
134
8.4 Forcing axioms as Σ1 -reflection properties
The work of Bagaria [5] shows that forcing axioms entail strong forms of reflection2 .
Actually we will expand on these topics in the last part of the book which will show that
generic absoluteness results stem out as natural consequences of strong forcing axioms.
This section essentially draws from [5]. We will use the notation M ≺n N to mean
M ≺Σn N (or equivalently M ≺Πn N , M ≺∆n+1 N ). We first recall the following lemma:
Lemma 8.4.1 (Levi’s Absoluteness). Let κ > ω be a cardinal. Then H(κ) ≺1 V .
Proof. Given any Σ1 formula φ = ∃x ψ(x, p1 , . . . , pn ) with parameters p1 , . . . , pn in H(κ),
if V ¬φ also H(κ) ¬φ since H(κ) ⊆ V and ψ is ∆0 hence absolute for transitive models.
Suppose now that V φ, so there exists a q such that V ψ(q, p1 , . . . , pn ). Let λ be large
enough so that q ∈ H(λ). By the downward Löwenheim Skolem Theorem Sthere exists an
M ≺ H(λ) such that q ∈ M , trcl(pi ) ⊆ M for all i < n, and |M | = ω ∪ i<n trcl(pi ) <
κ. Let N be the Mostowski Collapse of M , with πM : M → N the corresponding
isomorphism. Notice that πM (pi ) = pi for all i < n. Since H(λ) ψ(q, p1 , . . . , pn ), the
same holds for M , hence N ψ(π(q), p1 , . . . , pn ). Since N is transitive of cardinality less
than κ, N ⊆ H(κ) so π(q) ∈ H(κ) and H(κ) φ.
Lemma 8.4.2 (Cohen’s Absoluteness). Let T be any theory extending ZFC, and φ be
any Σ1 formula with a parameter p such that T ` p ⊆ ω. Then T ` φ(p) if and only if
T ` ∃B (1B φ(p)).
Proof. The left to right implication is trivial (choosing the cba 2). For the reverse impli-
cation, suppose that V |= T , hence V ∃B (1B = Jφ(p̌)K). Let B be any such cba in V
and θ be such that p, B ∈ Vθ and Vθ satisfies a finite fragment of T large enough to prove
basic ZFC facts and 1B = Jφ(p)K. Let M ≺ Vθ be countable with p, B ∈ M and N be its
transitive collapse. Then N (1Q = Jφ(p)K) where Q = π(B). Let G be N -generic for Q
(G exists since N is countable), so that N [G] φ(p). Since φ is Σ1 , φ is upward absolute
for transitive models, hence V φ(p). The thesis follows by completeness of first-order
logic (we can run this argument in any model of T other than V ).
Cohen’s Absoluteness Lemma can be generalized to the case p ⊆ κ for any cardinal κ.
Lemma 8.4.3 (Generalized Cohen’s Absoluteness). Let T be any theory extending ZFC,
κ be a cardinal, φ be a Σ1 formula with a parameter p such that T ` p ⊆ κ. Then T ` φ(p)
if and only if T ` ∃B (1B φ(p) ∧ FAκ (B)).
Proof. The forward implication is trivial; the converse implication follows the proof of
Lemma 8.4.2. Given p, B such that 1B = Jφ(p)K and FAκ (B) holds, by Theorem 8.2.2, let
M ≺ H(θ) and G be such that |M | = κ, B ∈ M , κ ⊂ M and G is a filter M -generic for B.
Since there are stationarily many such M , we can assume that p ∈ M . Let πM : M → N
be the transitive collapse map of M , then H = πM [G] is N -generic for Q = π[B] and
p ⊆ κ ⊆ M is not moved by π so that N [H] φ(p). Since φ is Σ1 , φ is upward absolute
for transitive models, hence V φ(p).
Corollary 8.4.4. Assume κ is regular, B is a complete boolean algebra and FAκ (B) holds.
Then κ is regular in V [G] for any V -generic filter G.
Proof. κ is a regular cardinal is a Π1 -property expressible in Hκ+ . We conclude by
Lemma 8.4.3.
2
Stavi and Väänänen [44] argued that generic absoluteness results can by themselves be seen as forms
of forcing axioms; a line pursued further mainly by Hamkins (see among others [25, 26], the latter with
Johnstone); the authors of this book contributed as well with [3].
135
8.5 Which forcings can be in Ωκ ?
In view of the above results it becomes interesting to understand for each cardinal κ what
is the extent of the class Ωκ , for we can then use elements of this class to force the truth
of certain Σ1 -facts. Baire’s category theorem asserts that Ω = Ωℵ0 = Γℵ0 is the class of all
forcing notions. The axiom of choice shows that Ωκ ⊇ Γκ (recall that the latter is the class
of < κ-closed forcings). Shelah has outlined a clear drawing line which isolates a large
class of posets P for which FAκ (P ) provably fails. Once again the notion of stationarity
plays a crucial role in defining this class:
Definition 8.5.1. Let κ be a regular infinite cardinal. SSP(κ) is the class of complete
boolean algebras B such that for all S ⊆ P (κ) stationary we have that
JS is stationaryKB = 1B .
Following the standard usage SSP(ω1 ) = SSP is the class of stationary set preserving
posets.
Notation 8.5.2. Let Γ be a class of posets. A poset P is locally-Γ if and only if there
exists a p ∈ P such that P p = {q ∈ P : q ≤ p} is in Γ.
Theorem 8.5.3 (Shelah). Assume FAκ (B) holds and P (κ) admits a club subset of size
κ. Then B is locally-SSP(κ).
Remark 8.5.4. Notice that the assumption of the lemma holds for all successor cardinal λ+
such that λ+ = 2λ . This is the case since C = [λ+ ]≤λ ∪ {λ+ } is a club subset of P (λ+ ) of
size λ+ . C is a club since λ+ is never a Jònsson cardinal, hence there is f : (λ+ )<ω → λ+
such that the unique X ∈ Cf of size λ+ is λ+ by a classical result of Shelah [40].
Proof. Assume B is not locally-SSP(κ), let g : κ<ω → κ be such that Cg is a club subset
of P (κ) of size κ. Then there is a maximal antichain A of B such that for all b ∈ B there
is some Sb stationary subset of Cg and f˙b ∈ V B B-name for a function from κ<ω → κ such
that r z
Cf˙b ⊆ Cg and Sb ∩ Cf˙b = ˇ∅ = b
B
r z
By the fullness Lemma we can find f˙ ∈ V B such that f˙b = f˙ ≥ b for all b ∈ A.
B
Set for all s ∈ κ<ω , b ∈ A and Z ∈ Sb ∩ Cg
n r z o
Ds = p ∈ B : ∃α f˙(s) = α̌ ≥ p
n B r z o
FZ,b = p ∈ B b : there are α 6∈ Z and s ∈ Z <ω such that f˙(s) = α̌ ≥ p .
B
We leave to the reader to check that Ds is open dense in B for all s ∈ κ<ω , and that
FZ,b isWopen dense in B b for all b ∈ A and Z ∈ Sb ∩ Cg . Now set for each Z ∈ Cg
aZ = {b ∈ A : Z ∈ Sb } and
FZ = B ¬aZ ∪ {FZ,b : b ∈ A, Z ∈ Sb }
We leave to the reader to check that FZ is open dense for all Z ∈ Cg . Remark that the
family
{↓ A} ∪ {FZ : Z ∈ Cg } ∪ Ds : s ∈ κ<ω

is a family of size κ of dense open subsets of B.
136
Suppose by way of contradiction that FAκ (B) holds, and let G ∈ V be a filter that
intersects A, and all the Ds , FZ for s ∈ κ<ω and Z ∈ Cg . Hence there is
r a uniquez b ∈ A
such that b ∈ G. Remark that f = f˙G : κ<ω → κ defined by f˙G (s) = α if f˙(s) = α̌ ∈ G
B
is a well defined total function, since G ∩ Ds is non-empty for all s ∈ κ<ω .
Find Z ∈ Sb ∩ Cf ∩ Cg , which exists since Sb is stationary. Then f (s) ∈ Z for all
s ∈ Z <ω . However G r∩ FZ 6= ∅ zand b ∈ G, entail that G ∩ FZ,b 6= ∅. Hence there is α 6∈ Z
and s ∈ Z such that f˙(s) = α̌ ∈ G. This gives that f˙G (s) = α 6∈ Z, contradicting our
B
assumption that Z ∈ S ∩ Cf .
Lemma 8.5.5. Stationary set preserving forcings preserve ω1 .
Proof. If the Lemma fails there is B ∈ SSP and G V -generic for B in which (ω V
1 ) is a
countable ordinal. Remark that in this case (ω1 )V is a club subset of P (ω1 )V in V [G]

(see the example right after 2.1.2). Hence all stationary subset of (ω1 )V are no longer
stationary in V [G] since they are disjoint from the club (ω1 )V . A contradiction.

A main result of Foreman, Magidor, Shelah [16] is that B being SSP(ω1 ) can consis-
tently be a sufficient condition to assert FAω1 (B). They proved the following remarkable
theorem:
Theorem 8.5.6 (Foreman, Magidor, Shelah). Let Martin’s maximum be the assertion
that FAω1 (B) holds for all B ∈ SSP(ω1 ). Then Martin’s maximum is consistent relative to
the existence of a supercompact cardinal.
Martin’s maximum (and its variants) has given set theorists and mathematicians a
very powerful tool to obtain independence results: for any given mathematical problem
we are most likely able to compute its (possibly different) solutions in the constructible
universe L and in models of Martin’s maximum. Actually much of the motivation of this
book comes from the search for a sound explanation of the success this axiom has met.
Martin’s maximum settles basic problems in cardinal arithmetic like the size of the contin-
uum and the singular cardinal problem (see among others the works of Foreman, Magidor,
Shelah [16], Veličković [48], Todorčević [46], Moore [34], Caicedo and Veličković [9], and
the first author [49]), as well as combinatorially complicated ones like the basis problem for
uncountable linear orders (see Moore’s result [35] which extends previous work of Baum-
gartner [6], Shelah [39], Todorčević [45], and others). Interesting problems originating
from other fields of mathematics and apparently unrelated to set theory have also been
settled appealing to Martin’s maximum, as it is the case (to cite two of the most prominent
examples) for Shelah’s results [38] on Whitehead’s problem in group theory and Farah’s
result [15] on the non-existence of outer automorphisms of the Calkin algebra in operator
algebra, which expands on previous works by Steprans, Shelah, Velickovic and others.
We will give a proof of a stronger version of Theorem 8.5.6 in section 13.1. For the
moment we have (provably in ZFC) the following inclusions:
Γκ ⊆ Ωκ
for all cardinals κ and

Ωκ ⊆ SSP(κ)
for all cardinals κ such that P (κ) admits a club subset of size κ, with equality of the first
two for κ = ℵ0 and the consistent equality of the last two for κ = ℵ1 .
137
8.6 Forcing axioms and stationarity II: MM++
++
n FAω1 (P )oholds if for all family {Dα : α < ω1 }
Definition 8.6.1. Let P be a partial order
of dense subsets of P and for all family Ṡα : α < ω1 ⊆ V P of P -names for a stationary
r z
subset of ω1 (i.e. such that Ṡα ⊆ ω̌1 is stationary = 1RO(P ) ), there is a filter G on P
meeting all the Dα and such that
n o
Sξ = ξ < ω1 : ∃p ∈ G p P ξ ∈ Ṡα
is stationary for all α < ω1 .

FA++ ++
ω1 (Γ) holds if FAω1 (P ) holds for all P ∈ Γ. MM
++
stands for FA++
ω1 (SSP).
Definition 8.6.2. For a regular cardinal λ, let Pλ (V ) be the class of sets Z such that
|Z| < λ Z ∩ λ ∈ λ.
(a): Let θ be a regular cardinal, and M ≺ Hθ (so that M |= ZFC \ {power-set axiom})
be in Pω2 (V ). Given B ∈ SSP ∩ Hθ , let:
• πM : M → ZM be the transitive collapse of M ,

• Q = πM (B),
Q
ZM = {τ ∈ ZM : ZM |= τ is a Q-name} .
G ultrafilter on B ∩ M is (M, SSP)-correct if letting H = πM [G], we have that:
(i): G is M -generic for B. Equivalently H is ZM -generic for Q, hence

n o
Q
ZM [H] = τH : τ ∈ ZM
is a transitive model of ZFC \ {power-set axiom} (with τH = {σH : τ (σ) ∈ H}

Q
for all τ ∈ ZM ).
(ii): G is (M, SSP)-correct for B: For all S ∈ ZM [H]
V |= S is a stationary subset of ω1
if and only if
ZM [H] |= S is a stationary subset of ω1 ;
i.e. G interprets correctly the B-names for stationary subsets of ω1 in M .
(b): For any B ∈ SSP and λ > |B| we let

SSP
TB,λ = {M ∈ Pω2 (Hλ ) : B ∈ M and there exists an (M, SSP)-correct generic filter for B}
SSP .
and TB = TB,|B| +
SSP is stationary for some (any)

Remark 8.6.3. Notice that TB is stationary if and only if TB,λ
λ ≥ |B|+ , 2ω1 : for all B-names τ for a stationary subset of ω1 there is σ ∈ H|B|+ +2ω1 such
that Jσ = τ K = 1B (τ is essentially described by ω1 -many partitions of B in two pieces,
these partitions all belong to H|B|+ +2ω1 , use them to find σ).
Theorem 8.6.4. Let B be a cba and κ be a cardinal. The following are equivalent:
1. FA++
ω1 (B).
138
2. For some cardinal θ with θ > 2|B| , κ, there exists an M ≺ H(θ), |M | = ω1 , B ∈ M ,
ω1 ⊂ M and an (M, SSP)-correct generic filter for B.
3. TB is stationary.
Proof. The proof is almost identical to the proof of 8.2.2. We sketch 1 implies 2 and leave
the rest to the reader.
Suppose that FA++ ω1 (B) holds and let M ≺ H(θ) be such that B ∈ M , ω1 ⊂ M ,
|M | = ω1 . There are at most ω1 -many dense subsets of B in M and at most ω1 -many
B-names Ṡ ∈ M for stationary subsets of ω1 in M . By FA++ ω1 (B) there is a filter G meeting
all the dense sets and evaluating each Ṡ as a stationary subset of ω1 . However, G might
not be M -generic since for some D ∈ M , the intersection G ∩ D might be disjoint from
M . Define: n o
N = x ∈ H(θ) : ∃τ ∈ M ∩ V B ∃q ∈ G Jτ = x̌K ∈ G

Clearly, N contains M (hence contains ω1 ), moreover |N | ≤ M ∩ V B = ω1 , since every
τ ∈ M can be evaluated in at most one way by the elements of the filter G. We can argue
as in 8.2.2 that G is N -generic and N ≺ H(θ). Now we show the following:
Claim
r 1. For all Ṫ ∈ N B-name for a stationary subset of ω1 , there is Ṡ ∈ M such that
z
Ṡ = Ṫ ∈ G and
r z
Ṡ ⊆ ω̌1 is stationary = 1B .
Proof. Suppose
r z Ṫ ∈ N is a B-name for a stationary subset of ω1 , then for some τ ∈ M ∩V B ,
ˇ
τ = Ṫ ∈ G. The following set is therefore in M :
r z r z
D = Ȧ ∈ Hθ : bȦ = τ = Ȧˇ > 0B and Ȧ ⊆ ω̌1 is stationary = 1B .
n o
Moreover Ṫ ∈ D. By the mixing Lemma applied in M ≺ Hθ find Ṡ0 ∈ M such that

r z
bȦ ≤ Ṡ0 = Ȧ
for all Ȧ ∈ D. Notice that r z

τ = Ṫˇ = bṪ ∈ G.
r z r z
Hence Ṫ = Ṡ0 ≥ bṪ = τ = Ṫˇ ∈ G, as was to be shown. Notice also that
r z _
Ṡ0 ⊆ ω̌1 is stationary = D = q.
r z r z
Let Ṡ ∈ M be such that Ṡ = Ṡ0 = q and Ṡ = Ǎ = ¬q for some A ∈ M stationary
subset of ω1 . Then Ṡ works.
Finally let πN : N → ZN be the transitive collapse of N , H = πN [G], Q = πN (B).

Then H is ZN -generic for Q. We must show that any S ∈ ZN [H] which is stationary
according to ZN [H] is really stationary in V .
Q
Now fix U̇ ∈ ZN such that S = U̇H , hence
r z
q = U̇ ⊆ ω̌1 is stationary ∈ H.
139
r z
Q
By the Mixing Lemma applied in ZN there is V̇ ∈ ZN such that V̇ = U̇ = q and
r z
V̇ = Ǎ = ¬q for some A ∈ ZN stationary subset of ω1 . Hence
r z
V̇ ⊆ ω̌1 is stationary = 1Q
r z
and V̇ = U̇ ≥ q ∈ H. Now V̇ = πN (Ṫ ) for some Ṫ ∈ N such that
r z
Ṫ ⊆ ω̌1 is stationary = 1B .
By the Claim there is Ṡ ∈ M such that

r z
Ṡ ⊆ ω̌1 is stationary = 1B .
r z
and Ṡ = Ṫ ∈ G. Therefore
S = U̇H = V̇H =
r z
= α < ω1 : α ∈ V̇ ∈H =
Q
n r z o
= α < ω1 : α ∈ Ṫ ∈G =
B
n r z o
= α < ω1 : α ∈ Ṡ ∈ G
B
is stationary, since G evaluates Ṡ as a stationary subset of ω1 .
8.7 Forcing axioms and Category forcings

We give some more information on certain type of category forcings and relate these class
forcings to the class partial order given by stationary sets, specifically we show that:
• (SSP, ≤Ω ), and (SSP, ≤SSP ) are non-trivial class forcing.
• Assuming Martin’s maximum or MM++ , there is a natural order and sup preserving
map of these class forcings into the class boolean algebra given by stationary sets
concentraing on Pω2 (V ) ordered by the ≤NS -relation.
As we progress in our analysis of forcing axioms and tower forcings in the next chapters,
we will outline nicer and nicer properties of this correspondence, for example we will show
(see 13.2.7, 13.2.8) that the natural embedding of (SSP, ≤Ω ) and (SSP, ≤SSP ) into the sta-
tionary sets concentrating on Pω2 (V ) ordered by the ≤NS -relation is also incompatibility
preserving in the presence of large cardinals.
Incompatibility in (SSP, Ω)
Fact 8.7.1. (SSP, ≤Ω ) is non-trivial.
Proof. Observe that if P is Namba forcing on ℵ2 and Q is Coll(ω1 , ω2 ), then RO(P ), RO(Q)
are incompatible conditions in (SSP, Ω): If R ≤SSP RO(P ), RO(Q), we would have that if
V [H]
H is V -generic for R, ω1 = ω1 (since R ∈ SSP, see 8.5.5) and there are G, K ∈ V [H]
140
V -generic filters for P and Q respectively (since R ≤Ω RO(P ), RO(Q)). G allows to define
in V [H] a sequence cofinal in ω2V of type ω while K allows to define in V [H] a sequence
cofinal in ω2V of type (ω1 )V . These two facts entail that V [H] models that cof(ω1V ) = ω
V [H]
contradicting the assumption that ω1 = ω1 .
We now bring forward for the specific case of stationary set preserving forcings a duality
relating certain categories of forcing notions with the category of normal ideals. The last
chapter of the book will develop the property of this duality in its full generality.
Notation 8.7.2. We denote by T λ be the quasi order on V given by S ≤T λ T if letting

X = ∪S ∪ ∪T we have that S ↑ X \ T ↑ X has non-stationary intersection with Pλ (X).

Lemma 8.7.3. Let for each cardinal λ and B ∈ Ωλ SB,λ be the set of M ∈ Pκ+ H|B|+
admitting an M -generic filter for B.
The map
+
Iκ :Ωκ → T κ
B 7→ SB,κ
is order preserving and maps set sized suprema to set sized suprema.
Proof. Assume i : C → B witnesses that B ≤Ω C. Let θ be large enough so that i, B, C ∈

Hθ . Let M ∈ SB,κ ↑ Hθ with i, B, C ∈ M . Let H be M -generic for B.
Then i−1 [H] is M -generic for C. Therefore (SC,κ ↑ Hθ ) ∩ Pκ+ (Hθ ) contains (SB,κ ↑
Hθ ) ∩ Pκ+ (Hθ ) modulo a club, hence SB,κ ≤T κ SC,κ .
It is also immediate to check that for any set-sized family A of complete boolean
algebras, _
SBA ,κ = SB,κ .
B∈A
In the case we assume MM++ we can say even more:
Lemma 8.7.4. Assume MM++ The map
Iω1 :SSP → T ω2
B 7→ TB (Recall Def. 8.6.2)
is ≤SSP -preserving and maps set sized suprema to set sized suprema.
Proof. Similar to the previous one: Assume i : C → B witnesses that B ≤SSP C. Let θ
be large enough so that i, B, C ∈ Hθ . Let M ∈ TB ↑ Hθ with i, B, C ∈ M . Let H be
(SSP, M )-correct for B. Then i−1 [H] is M -generic for C. We leave to the reader to check
that it is also (SSP, M )-correct for C. As before we conclude that TB ≤T κ TC .
We leave to the reader to check the preservation of set-sized suprema.
In section 13.2 we will show that in the presence of class many supercompact cardinals
these maps are also incompatibility preserving.
141
Chapter 9
Properness and semiproperness.
Shelah has isolated two very interesting classes which greatly affects the combinatorics of
P (ω1 ) and provide a useful insight on the properties of sets of ordinals of size ω1 in models
of set theory. These are the classes of proper and semiproper forcings. In the remainder
of this chapter we give a thorough presentation of their basic features and we link some
of these results to what we have already outlined for the classes Γω1 , Ωω1 , SSP.
9.1 Shelah’s properness and semiproperness

We draw all the results of this section from [41].
Definition 9.1.1. Let X be a transitive set. N is an X-end extension of M if M ⊆ N

and M ∩ X = N ∩ X.
Assume ∪S ⊇ X and S, C ⊆ P (∪S) with C stationary. S is (X, C)-semistationary if
{N ∈ C : N is an X-end extension of some M ∈ S}
is a stationary subset of C.
S is semistationary if it is (ω1 , [∪S]ℵ0 )-semistationary.
Definition 9.1.2. Let B be a complete boolean algebra.
B is proper if for all S stationary subset of [∪S]ℵ0 we have that

q y
Š is stationary B = 1B .
B is semiproper if for all semistationary set S we have that

q y
Š is semistationary B = 1B .
A partial order P is (semi)proper if so is RO(P ).
Recall that a poset P has the CCC (countable chain condition) if all its antichains are
countable.
Lemma 9.1.3. The following holds:
• Countably closed posets and CCC posets are proper.
• Proper posets are semiproper.
142
• Semiproper posets are stationary set preserving.
• Stationary set preserving forcings preserve ω1 .
Proof. We prove all implications as follows:
P CCC or countably closed entails P is proper: To argue that P is proper it suf-

fices to show that:
P forces that Cf˙ ∩ S is non-empty for any S ∈ V stationary set consisting

of countable sets and f˙ ∈ V P P -name for a function from ∪S <ω → ∪S.
First assume P is CCC. Fix S ∈ V , f˙ ∈ V P as above and pick θ large enough and
M ≺ Hθ with f˙ ∈ M and Z = M ∩ ∪S ∈ S, which is possible since S is stationary.
Now observe that for each s ∈ ∪S <ω we have that f˙(s) is a P -name for an element
of Z and is equal with boolean value 1RO(P ) to a P -name of the form
τs = {hap , pi : p ∈ A}
with A a maximal antichain of P . Since P is CCC, A is countable.

Now M ≺ Hθ entails that for each s ∈ M ∩ Z <ω there is
τs = {hap , pi : p ∈ A}
as above and in M . Since A is countable, As = {ap : p ∈ A} is also countable and

is in M . Hence As = {ap : p ∈ A} ⊆ M ∩ Z. Let G be V -generic for P . Then
f˙G (s) = (τs )G ∈ As ⊆ M ∩ Z. Hence Z r is f˙G -closed in
z V [G]. Since this occurs for
all V -generic filters G, we conclude that Z ∈ S ∩ Cf˙ = 1RO(P ) .
RO(P )
Now assume P is countably closed. Given S ∈ V , f˙ ∈ V P as above, and p ∈ P find

again θ large enough and M ≺ Hθ countable with P, p, f˙ ∈ M and Z = M ∩ ∪S ∈ S.
Now let {sn : n ∈ ω} enumerate Z <ω . Build inside M a decreasing chain {pn : n ∈ ω}
such that
• p0 = p,
• pn+1 ∈ M refines pn and decides the value of f˙(sn ).
By induction each pn ∈ M . Since pn+1 ∈ M and M ≺ Hθ , applying the Tarski

Vaught criterion to the formula with parameters in M
∃x (pn+1 P f˙(sn ) = x̌),
we get that pn+1 decides that the value of f˙(sn ) is an ordinal in M ∩ ∪S for all
n ∈ ω. Since P is countably closed in V , we can find q ∈ P which refines all the pn
for all n ∈ ω.
Then q forces that f˙[Z <ω ] ⊆ Z, hence q forces that S ∩ C ˙ 6= ∅. Since the argument
f
can be repeated below any p ∈ P we r conclude that
z there is a dense set of q ∈ P
which force that S ∩ Cf˙ =
6 ∅. Hence S ∩ Cf˙ 6= ∅ = 1RO(P ) .
RO(P )
143
B proper implies B semiproper: Assume B is proper in V . It suffices to show that
any S ∈ V semistationary in V remains semistationary in V [G].
Remark that an S ⊆ [X]ℵ0 with ∪S = X is semistationary in V if and only if
n o
S̄ = N ∈ [X]ℵ0 : ∃M ∈ S N ⊇ M and N ∩ ω1 = M ∩ ω1
is stationary in V , and S ⊆ [X]ℵ0 is semistationary in V [G] if and only if

n o
S̄ V [G] = N ∈ ([X]ℵ0 )V [G] : ∃M ∈ S N ⊇ M and N ∩ ω1 = M ∩ ω1
is stationary in V [G].
Remark also that S̄ ⊆ S̄ V [G] .
Now assume G is V -generic for B. Then S̄ is stationary in V [G] (since B is proper),
hence so is S̄ V [G] being a superset of S̄. Since G is an arbitrarily chosen V -generic
filter for B, we conclude by the forcing theorem.
B semiproper implies B is stationary set preserving: This is an immediate conse-

quence of the following observation (which is left to the reader):
S is a stationary subset of ω1 if and only if S is a semistationary subset

of ω1 .
Stationary set preserving forcings preserve ω1 : Proved in 8.5.5.
The above results brings us the following picture regarding classes of forcing notions:
Remark 9.1.4. Let CCC, Γω1 , PR, SP, SSP, Ωω1 denote respectively the class of CCC,
countably closed, proper, semiproper, stationary set preserving, and posets P satisfying
FAℵ1 (P ). The following holds in ZFC:
CCC ⊆ proper ⊆ SP ⊆ SSP

⊇
<ω1 -closed ⊆ Ωℵ 1
The work of Foreman, Magidor, Shelah shows that the equality
SP = SSP = Ωω1
is consistently possible and holds assuming Martin’s maximum (we will prove it in sec-
tion 13.1).
There are several equivalent characterizations of properness and semiproperness, and
we will need the following:
Definition 9.1.5. (Shelah) Let P be a partial order, and fix M ≺ Hθ .
• q is an M -generic condition for P iff for every α̇ ∈ V P ∩ M such that 1P α̇ ∈ θ̌,
q α̇ ∈ M̌ .
144
• q is an M -semigeneric condition for P iff for every α̇ ∈ V P ∩ M such that 1P α̇ <
ω̌1 ,
q α̇ < M ∩ ω1 .
Notation 9.1.6. Assume P is a partial order, X is a set, G is a V -generic filter for P .

X[G] = σG : σ ∈ X ∩ V P

Remark 9.1.7. Note that whenever M ≺ Hθ and q ∈ P is M -(semi)generic for P , so is any

refinement of q. Moreover q is M -(semi)generic for P if and only if for all G V -generic for
P with q ∈ M , we have that M [G] ∩ θ = M ∩ θ (M [G] ∩ ω1 = M ∩ ω1 ).
Fact 9.1.8. Let P be a partial order and θ > |P | be a cardinal. For all countable M ≺ Hθ
with P ∈ M and for all q ∈ P the following holds:
(a) q is M -semigeneric for P if and only if it is M ∩ H|P |+ +ω2 -semigeneric for P .
(b) q is M -generic for P if and only if it is M ∩ H|RO(P )|+ -generic for P .
Proof. This is a consequence of the fact that all predense subsets of P are in H|P |+ ⊆
H|RO(P )|+ , H|P |+ +ω2 . In particular any P -name τ for an ordinal is equal with boolean
value 1RO(P ) to one of the form
{hαp , pi : p ∈ A}
with A a maximal antichain of P and αp an ordinal for each p ∈ A. Hence all P -names
for ordinals below (ω1 )V are equal to one which belongs to H|P |+ +ω2 . This immediately
entails that for all countable M ≺ Hθ , q ∈ P is M -semigeneric for P if and only if it is
M ∩ H|P |+ +ω2 -semigeneric for P .
It is slightly more delicate to argue that q is M -generic for P if and only if it is
M ∩ H|RO(P )|+ -generic for P .
The reader can work out the details of this equivalence using the results given in
section 9.2: essentially one argues that q is M -generic for P if and only if
 
^  _ 
q≤ (A ∩ M ) : A ∈ M is a maximal antichain of P
 
RO(P ) RO(P )
(see in particular Propositions 9.2.2, 9.2.6). Since this is proved in full details there, we
decide to omit the proof here.
Notation 9.1.9. For each partial order P and θ such that P ∈ Hθ

n o
S(P, θ) = M ∈ [Hθ ]ℵ0 : for all p ∈ P ∩ M there is q ≤ p M -generic for P
and
n o
S(P, θ, ω1 ) = M ∈ [Hθ ]ℵ0 : for all p ∈ P ∩ M there is q ≤ p M -semigeneric for P .
Fact 9.1.10. For a partial order P and for all θ ≤ κ with P ∈ Hθ we have that
S(P, θ) ↑ Hκ ∩ [Hκ ]ℵ0 =NS S(P, κ),
S(P, θ, ω1 ) ↑ Hκ ∩ [Hκ ]ℵ0 =NS S(P, κ, ω1 ),
and
S(P, κ) ↓ Hθ =NS S(P, θ),
S(P, κ, ω1 ) ↓ Hθ =NS S(P, θ, ω1 ).
145
Proof. These are immediate consequences of Fact 9.1.8 above.
Lemma 9.1.11. Assume (P, ≤) is a partial order The following holds:
• P is proper if and only if S(P, θ) =NS [Hθ ]ℵ0 for some (any) θ > |RO(P )|.
• P is semiproper if and only if S(P, θ, ω1 ) =NS [Hθ ]ℵ0 for some (any) θ > |P | + ω1 .
Proof. We start with a proof of the first item:
⇐: Assume P is not proper and let S witness this fact. Pick θ such that P (P ) , S ∈ Hθ . It
suffices to show that there is some p ∈ P and a stationary set of countable M ≺ Hθ
which do not have an M -generic condition refining p.
First of all w.l.o.g. we can assume that ∪S is a cardinal κ smaller than θ. Since S
is non-stationary in V [G] for some G V -generic for P , we can find p ∈ G such that
JS is not stationaryK ≥ p
Hence we can find a P -name f˙ for a function from κ<ω → κ such that for all Z ∈ S
r z
f˙[Z <ω ] 6= Z ≥ p.
B
For each Z ∈ S we can pick a P -name ṡ for an element of Z <ω such that
r z
f˙(ṡ) 6∈ Z ≥ p.
B
Now assume towards a contradiction that there is a club C of countable M ≺ Hθ

with p, f˙, P ∈ M , each of them admitting an M -generic condition qM refining p.
Pick M ∈ (S ↑ Hθ ) ∩ C and G V -generic for P with qM ∈ G. Let Z = M ∩ ∪S and
find r ∈ G, s ∈ Z <ω , α 6∈ Z such that r forces that ṡ = s and that f˙(ṡ) = α. Now
observe that the P -name f˙(s) for an ordinal in κ belongs to M and r forces that
f˙(s) ∈ κ \ M . Hence qM cannot be M -generic, contradicting our assumptions.
⇒: Assume that for some θ > 2|P | there is a stationary set of countable models M ≺ Hθ
and some pM ∈ P ∩ M such that no refinement of pM is M -generic for P .
By pressing down (in V ) on this stationary set, we can find S ∈ V stationary set
(in V ) of countable models M ≺ Hθ and a fixed p ∈ P such that for all M ∈ S no
refinement of p is M -generic for P .
It is enough to argue that S ∈ V is not anymore stationary in V [G], whenever G is a
V -generic filter for P with p ∈ G. Towards a contradictiona assume S is stationary
in V [G] for some G as above. Since no q ∈ G is M -generic for P for no M ∈ S,
we have that M [G] ∩ θ 6= M ∩ θ for all M ∈ S. Hence for each M ∈ S we can
find α̇M ∈ M ∩ V P P -name for an ordinal, such that (α̇M )G ∈ θ \ M . By pressing
down (in V [G]) on S (which is possible, since we are assuming that S is stationary
in V [G]) we can find a stationary (in V [G]) T ⊆ S and α̇ ∈ V P such that α̇M = α̇
for all M ∈ T and (α̇)G = α 6∈ M for all M ∈ T . Pick M ∈ T with α ∈ M (which is
possible since T is stationary in V [G]). Then M 3 α = (α̇M )G 6∈ M , a contradiction.
This concludes the proof of the left to right implication.
We now prove the second item:
146
⇐: Assume P is not semiproper and let S witness this fact with ∪S = X ⊇ ω1 . Hence
n o
S V [G] = N ∈ ([X]ℵ0 )V [G] : ∃M ∈ S such that N ω1 -end extends M
is non-stationary in V [G] for some G V -generic for P . Hence so is

n o
S = N ∈ [X]ℵ0 : ∃M ∈ S such that N ω1 -end extends M ,
since S ⊆ S V [G] . On the other hand S is stationary in V since S is semistationary

in V .
Let Ṡ be a P -name such that Ṡ G = S V [G] .
Pick θ such that P (P ) , S, Ṡ ∈ Hθ . It suffices to show that there is some p ∈ P and a
stationary set of countable M ≺ Hθ which do not have an M -semigeneric condition
refining p.
Since S V [G] is non-stationary in V [G] for some G V -generic for P , we can find
f : κ<ω → κ in V [G] such that Cf ∩ S V [G] is empty and Y ⊆ f [Y <ω ] ∈ Cf for
all Y ∈ P (X)V [G] (by further refining an f ∈ V [G] such that Cf ∩ S V [G] is empty
eventually applying 2.2.3 in V [G] to f ).
6 Z ∩ (ω1 )V for all Z ∈ S, else f [Z <ω ] ∈ S V [G] ∩ Cf ,
This gives that f [Z <ω ] ∩ (ω1 )V =
contradicting our assumptions on f .
Hence we can find p ∈ G and f˙ ∈ V P such that:
• f˙G = f ,
• for all Z ∈ S r z
f˙[Z <ω ] ∩ ω1 6= Z ∩ (ω1 )V ≥ p,
B
• for all Z ∈ S r z
Z ⊆ f˙[Z <ω ] which is f˙-closed ≥ p.
B
Working now in V , for each Z ∈ S we can pick in V a P -name ṡ for an element of

Z <ω such that r z
f˙(ṡ) ∈ (ω1 )V \ Z ≥ p.
B
Now assume towards a contradiction that there is a club C of countable M ≺ Hθ
with p, f˙, P ∈ M , each of them admitting an M -semigeneric condition qM refining
p. Pick M ∈ (S ↑ Hθ ) ∩ C (which is possible cince C is a club in [Hθ ]ℵ0 and S is
stationary in V ) and G V -generic for P with qM ∈ G. Let Z = M ∩ X ∈ S and
find r ∈ G, s ∈ Z <ω , α ∈ (ω1 )V \ Z such that r forces that ṡ = s and that f˙(ṡ) = α.
Now observe that the P -name f˙(s) for an ordinal in (ω1 )V belongs to M and r
forces that f˙(s) ∈ (ω1 )V \ M . Hence qM cannot be M -semigeneric, contradicting
our assumptions.
⇒: Assume that for some θ > 2|P | there is a stationary set of countable models M ≺ Hθ
with some pM ∈ P ∩ M such that no refinement of pM is M -semigeneric for P .
By pressing down (in V ) on this stationary set, we can find S ∈ V stationary set
(in V ) of countable models M ≺ Hθ and a fixed p ∈ P such that for all M ∈ S no
refinement of p is M -semigeneric for P .
147
It is enough to argue that S ∈ V is not anymore semistationary in V [G], whenever
G is a V -generic filter for P with p ∈ G. Towards a contradiction assume S is
semistationary in V [G] for some G as above. Hence
n o
S V [G] = N ∈ ([(Hθ )V ]ℵ0 )V [G] : ∃M ∈ S such that N (ω1 )V -end extends M
is stationary in V [G].
Since no q ∈ G is M -semigeneric for P for any M ∈ S, we have that
M [G] ∩ (ω1 )V 6= M ∩ (ω1 )V
for all M ∈ S. On the other hand we claim the following:

Claim 2. In V [G] it holds that
n o
(M ∩ HθV )[G] = σG : σ ∈ M ∩ V B = M
V [G]
for a club of M ≺ Hθ .
V [G] V [G]
Proof. One inclusion is clear for any M ≺ Hθ . For the other, pick M ≺ Hθ+
V [G] V [G]
with P, HθV ∈ M . Then M ≺ Hθ+ models that Hθ = HθV [G] by 4.2.4 applied
V [G] V [G]
in Hθ+ to HθV , Hθ and elementarity of M . Hence the thesis.
V [G]
Now pick N ∈ S V [G] with N ≺ Hθ and N = (N ∩ HθV )[G]. Hence there exists
M ∈ S such that N ∩ (ω1 )V = M ∩ (ω1 )V and N ⊇ M . Therefore
M ∩ (ω1 )V = N ∩ (ω1 )V = (N ∩ HθV )[G] ∩ (ω1 )V ⊇ M [G] ∩ (ω1 )V ⊇ M ∩ (ω1 )V ,
contradicting our assumption that
M [G] ∩ (ω1 )V 6= M ∩ (ω1 )V
for all M ∈ S.
9.2 Algebraic definition of properness and semiproperness

We now introduce another equivalent definition of (semi)properness which is more conve-
nient for our treatment of iterated forcing in Chapter 10.
Definition 9.2.1. Let B be a complete boolean algebra, PD(B, ω1 ) is the collection of
predense subsets of B of size at most ω1 .
Fix M ≺ Hθ countable for some θ > |B|. The boolean value
^ n_ o
gen(B, M ) = (D ∩ M ) : D ∈ PD(B) ∩ M
is the degree of genericity of M with respect to B.

The boolean value
^ n_ o
sg(B, M ) = (D ∩ M ) : D ∈ PD(B, ω1 ) ∩ M
is the degree of semigenericity of M with respect to B.
148
Most of the proofs to follow are modular and apply equally well to the boolean values
gen(B, M ) and sg(B, M ). Hence we prove all results just for the case of sg and leave to
the reader the corresponding proof for gen.
The next results show that the degree of (semi)genericity can be also calculated from
maximal antichains, and behaves well with respect to the restriction operation.
Proposition 9.2.2. Let B, M be as in the previous definition, and let A(B) be the collec-
tion of maximal antichains of B, A(B, ω1 ) be the collection of maximal antichains of B of
size at most ω1 . Then
^ n_ o
g(B, M ) = (A ∩ M ) : A ∈ A(B) ∩ M
^ n_ o
sg(B, M ) = (A ∩ M ) : A ∈ A(B, ω1 ) ∩ M
Proof. Since A(B, ω1 ) ⊆ PD(B, ω1 ), the inequality

^ n_ o
sg(B, M ) ≤ (A ∩ M ) : A ∈ A(B, ω1 ) ∩ M
is trivial. Conversely, if D = {bα : α < ω1 } ∈ PD(B, ω1 ) ∩ M , define

n _ o
AD = aα = bα ∧ ¬ {bβ : β < α} : α < ω1
By elementarity, since D ∈WM , alsoWAD is in M . It is straightforward to verify that AD

is an antichain,
W and since W AD = D = 1, it is also maximal. Moreover, since aα ≤ bα
we
V W have that AD ∩ M ≤ D ∩ M .WThus, for any D ∈ PD(B, ω1 ) ∩ M , we have that
{ (A ∩ M ) : A ∈ A(B, ω1 ) ∩ M } ≤ D ∩ M hence
^ n_ o
(A ∩ M ) : A ∈ A(B, ω1 ) ∩ M ≤ sg(B, M )
The thesis follows.
Proposition 9.2.3. Let B be a complete boolean algebra and M ≺ Hθ for some θ > |B|.
Then for all b ∈ M ∩ B
sg(B b , M ) = sg(B, M ) ∧ b.
and
gen(B b , M ) = gen(B, M ) ∧ b.
Proof. Observe that if A is a maximal antichain in B, then A ∧ b = {a ∧ b : a ∈ A}

is a maximal antichain in B b . Moreover for each maximal antichain Ab in B b ∩M ,
A = Ab ∪ {¬b} is a maximal antichain in B ∩ M . Therefore
^_ ^_
sg(B, M ) ∧ b = (A ∩ M ) ∧ b = ((A ∧ b) ∩ M ) = sg(B b , M ).
We are now ready to introduce the algebraic definition of semiproperness and proper-
ness for complete boolean algebras and regular embeddings.
149
Definition 9.2.4. Let B be a complete boolean algebra, S be a stationary set on Hθ with
θ > |B| and S ⊆ [Hθ ]ℵ0 .
B is S-SP if for club many M ∈ S whenever b is in B ∩ M , we have that sg(B, M ) ∧ b >
0B .
i : B → C is S-SP if B is S-SP and for club many M ∈ S, whenever c is in C ∩ M we
have that
π(c ∧ sg(C, M )) = π(c) ∧ sg(B, M ).
B is S-proper if for club many M ∈ S whenever b is in B∩M , we have that gen(B, M )∧
b > 0B .
i : B → C is S-proper if B is S-proper and for club many M ∈ S, whenever c is in
C ∩ M we have that
π(c ∧ gen(C, M )) = π(c) ∧ gen(B, M ).
The previous definitions can be reformulated with a well-known trick in the following
form.
Proposition 9.2.5. B is S-SP iff for every ν θ regular, M ≺ Hν with B, S ∈ M and

M ∩ Hθ ∈ S we have that sg(B, M ) ∧ b > 0 ∀b ∈ B ∩ M .
i : B → C is S-SP iff B is S-SP and for every ν θ regular, M ≺ Hν with i, S ∈ M
and M ∩ Hθ ∈ S
π(c ∧ sg(C, M )) = π(c) ∧ sg(B, M )
∀c ∈ C ∩ M .
Similarly B is S-proper iff for every ν θ regular, M ≺ Hν with B, S ∈ M and
M ∩ Hθ ∈ S we have that gen(B, M ) ∧ b > 0 ∀b ∈ B ∩ M .
i : B → C is S-proper iff B is S-proper and for every ν θ regular, M ≺ Hν with
i, S ∈ M and M ∩ Hθ ∈ S
π(c ∧ gen(C, M )) = π(c) ∧ gen(B, M )
∀c ∈ C ∩ M .
Proof. First, suppose that B, i : B → C satisfy the above conditions. Then C = {M ∩ Hθ :

M ≺ Hν , B, S ∈ M } is a club (since it is the projection of a club), and witnesses that B,
i : B → C are S-SP.
Conversely, suppose that B, i : B → C are S-SP and fix ν θ regular and M ≺ Hν
with B, S ∈ M , M ∩ Hθ ∈ S. Since the sentence that B, i : B → C are S-SP is entirely
computable in Hν and M ≺ Hν , there exists a club C ∈ M such that ∪C = Hθ witnessing
that B, i : B → C are S-SP. Furthermore, M models that C is a club hence M ∩ Hθ ∈ C
(see Fact 2.1.5) and sg(B, M ) ∧ b > 0, π(c ∧ sg(C, M )) = π(c) ∧ sg(B, M ) holds for any
b ∈ B∩M , c ∈ C∩M since C witnesses that B, i : B → C are S-SP and M ∩Hθ ∈ S ∩C.
We may observe that if i : B → C is S-SP, then C is S-SP. As a matter of fact c ∈ C∩M

is such that sg(C, M ) ∧ c = 0 iff
0 = π(c ∧ sg(C, M )) = π(c) ∧ sg(B, M ),
this contradicts the assumption that B is S-SP.

Definition 9.2.1 is equivalent to the original Shelah’s notion of semiproperness and
properness in case S is a club of countable models. We now spell out the details of this
equivalence.
150
Proposition 9.2.6. Let B be a complete boolean algebra, and fix M ≺ Hθ countable. Then
_
sg(B, M ) = {q ∈ B : q is an M -semigeneric condition for B}
and _
gen(B, M ) = {q ∈ B : q is an M -generic condition for B}
Proof. Given A = {aβ : β < ω1 } ∈ A(B),Wdefine q α̇A y= {hγ̌, aβ i : γW < β < ω1 }. It is

straightforward to check that Jα̇A < ω̌1 K = α̇A = β̌ : β < ω1 = {aβ : β < ω1 } =
q y
1. Conversely, given α̇ ∈ V B ∩M such that Jα̇ < ω̌1 K = 1, define Aα̇ = aβ = α̇ = β̌ : β < ω1 .

It is straightforward to check that Aα̇ ∈ A(B).

Suppose now that q is an M -semigeneric condition, and fix an arbitrary A ∈ A(B) ∩ M .
Then α̇A ∈ M and Jα̇A < ω̌1 K = 1, hence
r z _ q
q ≤ α̇A < (M ∩ ˇ ω1 ) = y
α̇A = β̌ : β ∈ M ∩ ω1

_ _
= {aβ : β ∈ M ∩ ω1 } = A∩M
V W
It follows that q ≤ { (A ∩ M ) : A ∈ A(B) ∩ M } = sg(B, M ), hence
_
sg(B, M ) ≥ {q ∈ B : q is a M -semigeneric condition}
Finally, we show that sg(B, M ) is a M -semigeneric condition itself. Fix an arbitrary

α̇ ∈ V B ∩ M such that 1B α̇ < ω̌1 , and let Aα̇ ∈ Aω1 (B) be as above. Since α̇ ∈ M , also
Aα̇ ∈ M . Moreover,
r z _ q
α̇ < (M ∩ˇ ω1 ) = y
α̇ = β̌ : β ∈ M ∩ ω1

_ _
= {aβ : β ∈ M ∩ ω1 } = Aα̇ ∩ M ≥ sg(B, M )
Corollary 9.2.7. Let P be a partial order, then P is semiproper (respectively proper) if

and only if RO(P ) is C-SP (respectively C-proper) for some C club subset of [Hθ ]ℵ0 and
θ > 2|P | .
Proof. First, suppose that P is semiproper in the sense of Shelah as witnessed by a club C
of countable elementary submodels of some Hθ with θ > 2|P | . Fix M ∈ C, b ∈ RO(P )∩M .
Since P is dense in RO(P ), there exists a p ∈ P ∩ M , p ≤ b, and by semiproperness there
exists a q ∈ P , q ≤ p ≤ b that is M -semigeneric. Then q > 0 and by Proposition 9.2.6,
q ≤ sg(RO(P ), M ). Hence sg(RO(P ), M ) ∧ b ≥ q > 0.
Finally, suppose that RO(P ) is C-SP for some club of countable models C as above,
and fix M ∈ C, p ∈ P ∩ M . Since P is dense in RO(P ), there exists a q ∈ P , q ≤
sg(RO(P ), M ) ∧ p. Then q is an M -semigeneric condition, since q ≤ sg(RO(P ), M ) and
the set of semigeneric conditions is open.
9.3 Topological characterization of properness and semiproper-

ness
An equivalent definition of semiproperness and properness can be stated also in topological
terms, as a Baire Category property. Let B be a complete boolean algebra and St(B) be
151
the space of its ultrafilters defined in 1.2.3. The Baire Category
T Theorem
S states that
given any family of maximal antichains {An : n ∈ ω} of B, then n∈ω {Na : a ∈ An } is
comeager in St(B), so
\[ ˚
{Na : a ∈ An } = St(B).
n∈ω
Now, let M ≺ Hθ , B ∈ M , then if {An : n ∈ ω} is a subset of the set of the maximal

antichains of B ∈ M , the classical construction of an M -generic filter shows that
\ [
{Na : a ∈ An ∩ M } 6= ∅.
n∈ω
However this does not guarantee that

\ [
{Na : a ∈ An ∩ M } is comeager on some Nb in V,
n∈ω
i.e. that the above set has the Baire property in St(B). This latter requirement is exactly
the request that B is proper.
Proposition 9.3.1. B is proper if and only if ∀M ≺ Hθ with B ∈ M , M countable

\ n[ o
XM = {Na : a ∈ A ∩ M } : A ∈ M maximal antichain of B
is such that for all c ∈ M ∩ B there is b ∈ B with XM a comeager set on Nb ∩ Nc .
Proof. As a matter of fact
∀c ∈ M ∩ B ∃b(Nb ⊆ X˚M ∩ Nc )
^ n_ o
⇐⇒ ∀c ∈ M ∩ B ∃b ≤ (A ∩ M ) : A ∈ M maximal antichain on B ∧ c.
Proposition 9.3.2. B is semiproper if and only if ∀M ≺ Hθ with B ∈ M , M countable

\ n[ o
XM = {Na : a ∈ A ∩ M } : A ∈ M maximal antichain of B, |A| = ω1
is such that for all c ∈ M ∩ B there is b ∈ B with XM a comeager set on Nb ∧ Nc .
9.4 FA+
ω1 (Countably closed) implies SP = SSP
We will need the results of this section to prove the consistency of MM++ .
Definition 9.4.1. FA+ω1 (P ) holds if for all family {Dα : α < ω1 } of dense subsets of P and
P
for all Ṡ ∈ V P -namen for a stationary subseto of ω1 there is a filter G on P meeting all
the Dα and such that α : ∃p ∈ G p P α ∈ Ṡ is stationary.
FA+ +
ω1 (Γ) holds if FAω1 (P ) holds for all P ∈ Γ.
Theorem 9.4.2. Assume FA+ ω1 (Γω1 ), where Γω1 is the class of posets admitting a countably
closed dense subset. Then SP = SSP.
152
Proof. The inclusion SP ⊆ SSP holds in ZFC. Assume the other inclusion fails and let Q
be in SSP \ SP. Let θ be such that Q ∈ Hθ and let
n o
S = M ∈ [Hθ ]ℵ0 : ∃qM ∈ M ∩ Q such that sg(RO(Q), M ) ∧ qM = 0RO(Q) .
Since Q 6∈ SP, S is stationary. By pressing down on S we can find q ∈ Q and T ⊆ S
stationary such that qM = q for all M ∈ T .
S chains {Mα : α < β} of countable elementary
Consider the poset P given by continuous
sub-models of Hθ (i.e. such that Mγ = {Mα : α < γ} for all γ < β limit) ordered by
reverse inclusion. Clearly P is countably closed. Let
Ṫ = {hα, pi : p = {Mξ : ξ < β} such that β > α and Mα ∈ T }
Claim 3. P forces that Ṫ is a stationary subset of ω1 .
Proof. Fix Ċ P -name for a club subset of ω1 . Given p ∈ P , find a countable M ≺ Hν
with ν >> θ with Ċ, Ṫ , P ∈ M and M ∩ Hθ ∈ T . Let M = {xn : n ∈ ω} and M ∩ ω1 =
{αn : n ∈ ω}. Build inside M a decreasing chain {pn : n ∈ ω} such that p0 = p, for some
β ∈ (αn , M ∩ ω1 ) p2n+1 β ∈ Ċ, for some N ∈ p2n+2 xn ∈ N and otp(p2n+2 ) > αn
(i.e. Sp2n+2 = {Mα : α < ν} for some ν > αn ). We leave to the reader to check that
q = {pn : n ∈ ω} ∪ {M ∩ Hθ } ∈ P , q = {Mξ : ξ ≤ M ∩ ω1 } with MM ∩ω1 = M ∩ Hθ , and
q forces that M ∩ ω1 ∈ Ċ ∩ Ṫ .
By FA+ω1 (P ), find G filter on P such that G ∩ Dα 6= ∅ for all α ∈ ω1 (where Dα is the
dense subset of P given by p = {Mξ : ξ < β} with β ≥ α) and
n o
T0 = α < ω1 : ∃p ∈ G p P α ∈ Ṫ
is stationary. Let
{Mα : α < ω1 } = ∪G
S
and M = {Mα : α < ω1 }. Then M ≺ Hθ has size ω1 and contains ω1 , {Mα : α < ω1 }
is a club subset of [M ]ℵ0 , and {Mα : α ∈ T0 } is a stationary subset of [M ]ℵ0 . Notice that
α ∈ T0 if and only if Mα ∈ T , giving that sg(RO(Q), Mα ) ∧ q = 0RO(Q) for all α ∈ T0 .
V [H]
Now assume H is V -generic for Q with q ∈ H. Since Q ∈ SSP, we get that ω1 = ω1V
and T0 remains a stationary subset of ω1 in V [H]. Let
M [H] = σH : σ ∈ M ∩ V P

and Mα [H] = σH : σ ∈ Mα ∩ V P . Then in V [H] it holds that

[
M [H] = {Mα [H] : α < ω1 } ,
{Mα [H] : α < ω1 } is a club subset of [M [H]]ℵ0 and {Mα [H] : α ∈ T0 } is a stationary subset
of [M [H]]ℵ0 .
Since [
ω1 = {Mα [H] ∩ ω1 : α < ω1 } = {Mα ∩ ω1 : α < ω1 } ,
we can find in V [H] a club C of α < ω1 such that
Mα [H] ∩ ω1 = Mα ∩ ω1 = α.
Hence in V [H] we can find α ∈ T0 ∩ C. Therefore
V [H] |= Mα [H] ∩ ω1 = Mα ∩ ω1
i.e. sg(RO(Q), Mα ) ∈ H. Since q ∈ G, this gives that sg(RO(Q), Mα ) ∧ q ∈ H. But
α ∈ T0 if and only if Mα ∈ T , giving that sg(RO(Q), Mα ) ∧ q = 0RO(Q) . We reached a
contradiction.
153
9.5 A common framework for the classes of proper semiproper
and stationary set preserving forcings
The following is a curiosity, which does not have any specific application other than out-
lining some common properties shared by proper, semiproper and SSP-forcings.
Definition 9.5.1. Let P (x) be a property definable by means of a formula with parameters
in one free variable ranging over sets. ΓP is the class of complete boolean algebras B such
that q y
P (S) ⇔ P (Š) B = 1B
for all S ∈ V .
We will be mainly interested in classes ΓP defined by a Π1 -property ∀yφP (x, y, aP ),
aP ⊆ κ for some cardinal κ, φP (x, y, z) a ∆0 -formula in free variables for sets x, y, z, and
∀y a quantifier ranging only over sets (and not on proper classes).
Notation 9.5.2. We write that i : B → C is P -correct to specify that it is ΓP -correct,
B ≤P Q to specify that B ≤ΓP Q, and we let for Π1 properties P (x) ∀yφP (x, y, aP ) be the
Π1 -formula whose extension in V is the class ΓP .
There is a tight interaction between the properties of a class of forcings Γ and the
theory T ⊇ ZFC in which we analyze this class. For example in our analysis of ΓP , we are
naturally led to work with theories T which extend ZFC but which are not preserved by
all set sized forcings. For example this occurs for T = ZFC + {ω1 is a regular cardinal}
which is not preserved by Coll(ω, ω1 ), but is preserved by all SSP(ω1 ) forcings.
Remark 9.5.3. The class SP of semiproper complete boolean algebras, the class PR of
proper complete boolean algebras, and the class SSP of stationary set preserving forcings
are all of the form ΓP with P a Π1 -definable property in the parameter ω1 :
PR: Let ∀yφPR (x, y, ω1 ) be the formula stating that x is stationary and consists of count-
able sets, i.e.:
φPR (x, y, ω1 ) ≡ “ (∪x ⊇ ω1 ) ∧ (∀w ∈ x w is countable1 ) ∧ [(y : (∪x)<ω →

∪x is a function) → (∃w ∈ x y[w<ω ] ⊆ w)]”
SP: Let ∀yφSP (x, y, ω1 ) be the formula stating that x is semistationary and consists of
countable sets, i.e.:
φSP (x, y, ω1 ) ≡ “(∪x ⊇ ω1 ) ∧ (∀w ∈ x w is countable) ∧ [(y : (∪x)<ω →

∪x is a function) → (∃w ∈ x w ⊆ y[w<ω ] ∧ y[w<ω ] ∩ ω1 = w ∩ ω1 )]”
SSP: Let ∀yφSSP (x, y, ω1 ) be the formula stating that x is a stationary subset of ω1 :
φSP (x, y, ω1 ) ≡ “(y is a club subset of ω1 ) → (∃w ∈ x ∩ y)”
SSP(κ): this is the class ΓP given by posets B which preserve stationary subsets of P (κ)
and is defined by the property P (x) ≡ ∀yφP (x, y, κ) with φP given by
1
This is the ∆1 -property (over the theory ZFC) in the parameter ω1 given by the Σ1 -formula
φ0 (w) ≡ ∃α ∈ ω1 ∃f : α → w bijective
and the Π1 -formula

φ1 (w) ≡ ∀f : ω1 → w f is not bijective.
154
φP (x, y, κ) ≡ “(∀w ∈ x |w| < κ) ∧ [(y : κ<ω → κ is a function) →
(∃w ∈ x y[w<ω ] ⊆ w)]”
φPR (x, y, ω1 ), φSP (x, y, ω1 ), φSSP (x, y, ω1 ), φSSP (x, y, κ) are Π1 -properties over the theory
ZFC and the definition of properness (semiproperness, stationary set preserving) given by
these formulae witness that these classes are of the form ΓP with P (x) Π1 -definable in the
parameter ω1 (or κ for the last one).
The property of B being proper or semiproper is provably ∆2 in ZFC. B is (semi)proper
if and only if it satisfies:
• The Σ2 -statement in the parameters B, ω
There is2 Hθ with B ∈ Hθ and C club subset of Hθ such that for all
countable M ∈ C with B ∈ M and M ≺ Hθ there exists r ∈ B which is
M -(semi)generic and is compatible with all q ∈ B ∩ M .
• The Π2 -statement in the parameters B, ω
For all Hθ with P (B) ∈ Hθ , there is C club subset of H|B|+ such that for
all countable M ∈ C with B ∈ M and M ≺ H|B|+ there exists r ∈ B which
is M -(semi)generic and is compatible with all q ∈ B ∩ M .
Observe that both statements hold in Vδ for some inaccessible δ if and only if they hold
in V . Using this characterization of (semi)properness in a generic extension of B, one can
check that i : B → C is P -correct for the corresponding property P if and only if Vδ models
that i : B → C is P -correct for any inaccessible δ to which i, B, C belong.
Also B being a stationary set preserving forcing is expressible by a ∆2 -property in
parameters B, ω which is absolute between Vδ and V for any inaccessible δ to which B
belongs: checking whether B is stationary set preserving requires to test the preservation
of stationary subsets of ω1 by quantifying just over B-names belonging to H|B|+ +ω2 . We
leave the details to the reader.
Fact 9.5.4. Assume P (x) is a Π1 -property definable in the parameter aP ⊆ κ by the Π1 -

formula ∀yφP (x, y, aP ). Then ZFC + {ap ⊆ κ, κ is regular} proves that ΓP is closed under
two step iterations, lottery sums and preimages of complete homomorphisms.
2
The statement X = Hθ for some θ is Π1 : it is the conjunction of the ∆1 -properties φ0 (X) ≡X is
transitive and φ1 (X) ≡ hX, ∈i |= ZFC \ P and of the Π1 -property φ2 (X) ≡ ∀Z ∈ X∀Y (Y ⊆ Z ↔ Y ∈ X).
155
Chapter 10
Proper and semiproper iterations
In this chapter we prove that iterations of (semi)proper boolean algebras are (semi)proper.
We will use these results to infer the consistency of MM++ in Section 13.1 and to analyze
category forcings in the last part of the book.
In the first part of the chapter we examine the case of two-step iterations, in the second
part we focus on the limit case. Since the proof of the relevant results for properness is
easier, we just give detailed formulations and proofs for the semiproper case.
10.1 Two-step iterations of (semi)proper posets

The notion of being S-SP can change when we move to a generic extension: for example,
S can be no longer stationary. In order to recover the “stationarity” in V [G] of an S which
is stationary in V , we are led to the following definitions:
Notation 10.1.1. Given a complete boolean algebra B ∈ V , a V -generic ultrafilter G on

B, and a set M ⊆ V in V [G],we let
M [G] = {ȧG : ȧ ∈ M ∩ V B }.
Definition 10.1.2. Let S be a subset of P (Hθ ), B ∈ Hθ be a complete boolean algebra,

and G a V -generic filter for B. We define
S(G) = {M [G] : B ∈ M ∈ S}.
Fact 10.1.3. Let S be a stationary set on Hθ , B ∈ Hθ be a complete boolean algebra, and

G be a V -generic filter for B. Then S(G) is stationary in V [G].
V [G] V [G]
Proof. Let f˙ ∈ V B be such that f˙G : (Hθ )<ω → Hθ . By 4.2.4 we can assume that
f˙ ∈ HθV+ . Let M ≺ HθV+ be such that M ∩ HθV ∈ S, and B, f˙, Hθ ∈ M . Then f˙G ∈ M [G],
V [G]
hence M [G] ∩ Hθ ∈ Cf˙G .
Claim 4.
V [G]
M [G] ∩ Hθ = (M ∩ HθV )[G]
Proof. The right to left inclusion is clear. For the left to right inclusion, let σG ∈ M [G] ∩
V [G]
Hθ for some σ ∈ M . By 4.2.4 applied in HθV+ there exists τ ∈ HθV ∩ V B such that
Jτ = σK = 1B . By elementarity of M , we can suppose that τ ∈ M as well. Hence τG = σG
and τ ∈ M ∩ HθV .
156
V [G]
Thus M [G] ∩ Hθ ∈ S(G) ∩ Cf˙G . The thesis follows.
Proposition 10.1.4. Let S be a stationary set of countable sets. Let B be an S-SP

complete boolean algebra, and let Ċ be such that
r z
Ċ is S(Ġ)-SP = 1B ,
B
then D = B ∗ Ċ and iB∗Ċ are S-SP.

B
r that i = iB∗Ċz is S-SP. Fix θ large enough Let Ċ ∈ V ∩ Hθ be
Proof. We start to verify
the club that witnesses Ċ is S(Ġ)-SP = 1, and let M ∈ S ↑ Hθ be countable and such
B
V [G]
that Ċ ∈ M and M ≺ Hθ : this guarantees that V [G] M [G] ∩ Hθ ∈ ĊG .
We first prove that π(sg(D, M )) = sg(B, M ). By Lemma 6.1.1 we obtain sg(D, M ) ≤
i(sg(B, M )), hence
π(sg(D, M )) ≤ (sg(B, M )).
Now we have to prove π(sg(D, M )) ≥ (sg(B, M )). Let G be V -generic for B with
sg(B, M ) ∈ G and C = ĊG = D/G , then, by the S-semiproperness of B,
V [G] M ∩ ω1 = M [G] ∩ ω1 .
Therefore, by Lemma 6.1.6, in V [G] we get that

^ n_ o
[sg(D, M )]i[G] =[ A ∩ M : A ∈ PD(D, ω1 ) ∩ M ]i[G] =
^n _ o
= [ A ∩ M ]i[G] : A ∈ PD(D, ω1 ) ∩ M =
^ n_ o
= A0 ∩ M [G] : A0 ∈ PD(C, ω1 ) ∩ M [G] =
= sg(C, M [G]).
Since this occurs for all V -generic G with sg(B, M ) ∈ G, we can conclude that
r z
[sg(D, M )]i[ĠBs ] = sg(Ċ, M [ĠB ]) ≥ sg(B, M ).
B
Therefore
r z r z
sg(B, M )∧ [sg(D, M )]i[ĠB ] > 0̇ = sg(B, M )∧ sg(Ċ, M [G˙B ]) > 0̇ = sg(B, M ), (10.1)
B B
using the S(ĠB )-semiproperness of Ċ in V [ĠB ]. Thus,

r z
π(sg(D, M )) = [sg(D, M )]i[ĠB ] > 0̇ ≥ sg(B, M ).
Finally, by Lemma 9.2.3 and 1.3.18, repeating the proof for B π([ċ]) and D [ċ] (that are a
two-step iteration of S-SP boolean algebras) we obtain that
π(sg(D, M ) ∧ [ċ]) = sg(B, M ) ∧ π([ċ])
hence i is S-SP. Finally, assume [ċ] ∈ D ∩ M is incompatible with sg(D, M ). Then
π(0) = π(sg(D, M ) ∧ [ċ]) = sg(B, M ) ∧ π([ċ]) = 0.
This implies π([ċ]) = 0 and [ċ] = 0 since B is S-SP, completing the proof that D is
S-SP.
157
Lemma 10.1.5. Let B, C0 , C1 be S-SP complete boolean algebras, and let G be any V -
generic filter for B. Let i0 , i1 , j form a commutative diagram of regular embeddings as in
the following picture:
i0
B C0
j
i1
C1
Moreover assume that C0 /i0 [G] is S(G)-SP in V [G] and

r z
C1 /j[ĠC ] is S(ĠC0 )-SP = 1C0 .
0 C0
Then in V [G], j/G : C0 /G → C1 /G is an S(G)-SP embedding.

Proof. Let G be V -generic for B. Pick K V [G]-generic for C0 /G . Then we can let
H = {c ∈ C0 : [c]G ∈ K},
and we get that

K = H/G = {[c]G : c ∈ H}.
Moreover H is V -generic for C0 , V [H] = V [G][H/G ] and in V [H] we have that S(H) =
S(G)(H/G ). Since this latter equality holds for whichever choice of K we make, this gives
that in V [G] it holds that j/G : C0 /G → C1 /G is a map such that
r z
(C1 /G )/j/G [ĠC / ] is S(G)(ĠC0 /G )-SP = 1C0 /G .
0 G C0 /G
So, by applying Proposition 10.1.4 in V [G], j/G is S(G)-SP in V [G].
Lemma 10.1.6. Let B, C0 , C1 be complete boolean algebras. Assume B is S-SP and let
G be any V -generic filter for B. For any n ∈ 2, let in ; B → Cn be an injective complete
homomorphism and let k̇ be such that
r z
k̇ : C0 /i0 [Ġ] → C1 /i1 [Ġ] is S(Ġ)-SP = 1B
B
r z
Then there exists a S-SP regular embedding j : C0 → C1 in V , such that k̇ = j/ĠB = 1B .
i0
B C0 C0 /i0 [GB ]
j jGB ∼
= k̇GB
i1
C1 C0 /i1 [GB ]
Proof. By Proposition 6.1.13
j : B ∗ C0 /i0 [ĠB ] → B ∗ C1 /i1 [ĠB ]

˙ ≈ 7→ [k̇(d)]
[d] ˙ ≈.
r z
is an injective complete homomorphism such that k̇ = j/ĠB = 1B . By hypothesis
r z
C0 /i0 [Ġ] is S(Ġ)-SP = 1B
B
158
Hence by Proposition 10.1.4, C0 is S-SP in V . We have to show that for any countable
M ≺ Hθ such that M ∩ ∪S ∈ S and [ċ]≈ ∈ C1 ∩ M :
πj ([ċ]≈ ∧ sg(C1 , M )) = πj ([ċ]≈ ) ∧ sg(C0 , M ).
By Fact 6.1.6 for any n ∈ 2
sg(Cn , M ) = [sg(Cn /in [ĠB ] , M [Ġ])]≈ .
Moreover by unfolding the definitions:

^n o ^n r z o
πj ([ċ]≈ ) = ˙ ˙
[d]≈ ∈ C0 : j([d]≈ ) ≥ [ċ]≈ = ˙ ˙
[d]≈ ∈ C0 : k̇(d) ≥ ċ = 1B
h^ n oi
= d˙ ∈ C0 /i0 [ĠB ] : k̇(d)
˙ ≥ ċ = [πk̇ (ċ)]≈ .
≈
Hence, since k̇ is S(ĠB )-SP:
πj ([ċ]≈ ∧ sg(C1 , M )) = [πk̇ (ċ ∧ sg(C1 /i1 [ĠB ] , M [ĠB ]))]≈

= [πk̇ (ċ) ∧ sg(C0 /i0 [ĠB ] , M [ĠB ])))]≈
= πj ([ċ]≈ ) ∧ sg(C0 , M ).
10.1.1 Two-steps iterations of proper forcings

Similarly we can handle the proper case:
Proposition 10.1.7. Let S be a stationary set of countable sets. Let B be an S-proper

complete boolean algebra, and let Ċ be such that
r z
Ċ is S(Ġ)-proper = 1B ,
B
then D = B ∗ Ċ and iB∗Ċ are S-proper.
Lemma 10.1.8. Let B, C0 , C1 be S-proper complete boolean algebras, and let G be any
V -generic filter for B. Let i0 , i1 , j form a commutative diagram of regular embeddings as
in the following picture:
i0
B C0
j
i1
C1
Moreover assume that C0 /i0 [G] is S(G)-SP in V [G] and

r z
C1 /j[ĠC ] is S(ĠC0 )-SP = 1C0 .
0 C0
Then in V [G], j/G : C0 /G → C1 /G is an S(G)-proper embedding.
159
Lemma 10.1.9. Let B, C0 , C1 be complete boolean algebras. Assume B is S-proper in
V and let G be any V -generic filter for B. For any n ∈ 2, let in ; B → Cn be an injective
complete homomorphism and let k̇ be such that
r z
k̇ : C0 /i0 [Ġ] → C1 /i1 [Ġ] is S(Ġ)-proper = 1B
B
r z
Then there exists a S-proper regular embedding j : C0 → C1 in V , such that k̇ = j/ĠB =
1B .
i0
B C0 C0 /i0 [GB ]
j jGB ∼
= k̇GB
i1
C1 C0 /i1 [GB ]
10.2 (Semi)proper iteration systems

The limit case needs a slightly different approach depending on the length of the iteration.
We start with some general lemmas, then we will proceed to examine the different cases
one by one.
Definition 10.2.1. Let S be a stationary set concentrating on countable sets. An iteration

system F = {iαβ : α ≤ β < λ} is S-SP iff iαβ is S-SP for all α ≤ β < λ.
An iteration system F = {iαβ : α ≤ β < λ} is S-proper iff iαβ is S-proper for all
α ≤ β < λ.
An iteration system F = {iαβ : α ≤ β < λ} is RCS iff for all α < λ limit ordinal we
have Bα = RO(RCS(F α )).
Fact 10.2.2. Let S be a stationary set concentrating on countable sets. Let F = {iαβ :
α ≤ β < λ} be an S-SP (respectively S-proper) iteration system, f be in lim(F). Then
←−
F f = {(iαβ )f (β) : Bα f (α) → Bβ f (β) : α ≤ β < λ}
is an S-SP (respectively S-proper) iteration system and its associated adjoints are the
restriction of the original adjoints.
Lemma 10.2.3. Let F = {iαβ : Bα → Bβ : α ≤ β < λ} be an RCS and S-SP iteration

system with S stationary on [Hθ ]ω . Let M be in S, g ∈ M be any condition in RCS(F),
α̇ ∈ M be an RCS(F)-name for a countable ordinal, δ ∈ M be an ordinal smaller than λ.
Then
• there exists a condition g 0 ∈ RCS(F) ∩ M below g with g 0 (δ) = g(δ) such that
g 0 ∧ iδ (sg(Bδ , M ))
forces that α̇ < M ∩ ω1 .
• If λ = ω1 , then we can choose g 0 ∈ M so that the support of g 0 ∧ iδ (sg(Bδ , M )) is

contained in M ∩ ω1 .
160
Proof. Let D ∈ M be the set of conditions in RCS(F) deciding the value of α̇ (D is open
dense by the forcing theorem):
D = {f ∈ RCS(F) : ∃β < ω1 f α̇ = β̌}.
Consider the set πδ [D g ] (which is open dense below g(δ) in W Bδ by Lemma 6.1.1) and fix
A ⊆ Bδ a maximal antichain in M contained in it, so that A = g(δ). Let φ : A → D g
be a Wmap in M such that πδ (φ(a)) = a for every a ∈ A, and define g 0 ∈ RCS(F) ∩ M by
g = ˜ φ[A].
0 Observe that g 0 (δ) = g(δ) and g 0 ≤ g by definition of pointwise supremum.
Moreover ˜ φ[A] is really the supremum of φ[A] in RO(lim(F)) by Lemma 7.1.11 (thus it
W
←−
is the supremum in RO(RCS(F)) as well).
Now we can define a name1 β̇ ∈ V Bδ ∩ M as:

β̇ = hγ̌, ai : a ∈ A, φ(a) RCS(F ) α̇ > γ̌
r z
so that for any a ∈ A, a Bδ β̇ = ξˇ iff φ(a) RCS(F ) α̇ = ξ. ˇ It follows that ı̂δ (β̇) = α̇ ≥
r z
W
φ[A] = g 0 . Moreover, sg(Bδ , M ) ≤ β̇ < M ∩ ˇ ω1 and is compatible with g 0 (δ) ∈ M
(since Bδ is S-SP), so that
ˇ ω1 ≥ g 0 ∧ iδ (sg(Bδ , M )).
q y
α̇ < M ∩
This proves the first conclusion in the Lemma.
Assume now that λ = ω1 , then RCS(F) = lim(F) and we can define a name γ̇ ∈
−→
V Bδ ∩ M for a countable ordinal setting:
γ̇ = {hη̌, ai : a ∈ A, η < supp(φ(a))} .
Notice that γ̇ is defined in such a way that for all β < ω1
_
Jγ̇ = βKBδ = {a ∈ A : supp(φ(a)) = β}.
In particular this gives that:

iδ (Jγ̇ < βK) ∧ g 0 =
_ _
= iδ ( {a ∈ A : supp(φ(a)) < β}) ∧ {φ(a) : a ∈ A} =
_˜
= {φ(a) : a ∈ A, supp(φ(a)) < β}.
Now observe that

_˜
g 0 ∧ iδ (sg(Bδ , M )) = {φ(a) ∧ iδ (sg(Bδ , M )) : a ∈ A}.
ˇ ω1
q y
Since sg(Bδ , M ) ≤ γ̇ < M ∩ B
, we get that:
δ
g 0 ∧ iδ (sg(Bδ , M )) =
= g 0 ∧ iδ (sg(Bδ , M )) ∧ iδ (Jγ̇ < M ∩ ω1 K) =
˜
_
= {φ(a) : a ∈ A, supp(φ(a)) < M ∩ ω1 } ∧ iδ (sg(Bδ , M )).
It is now immediate to check that this latter element of lim(F) has support contained in
−→
M ∩ ω1 as required.
1
Literally speaking this is not a Bδ -name according to Definition 4.1.1, it is nonetheless a B+
δ -name
+
considering B+
δ as a partial order according to Definition 4.3.2. Since V
Bδ
and V Bδ are isomorphic B-
valued models, the ambiguity can be resolved.
161
Lemma 10.2.4. Let F = {inm : n ≤ m < ω} be an S-SP iteration system with S
stationary on [Hθ ]ω . Then lim(F) and the corresponding inω are S-SP.
←−
Proof. By Proposition 9.2.5, any countable M ≺ Hν with ν > θ, F, S ∈ M , M ∩ Hθ ∈ S,
witnesses the semiproperness of every inm .
We need to show that for every f ∈ lim(F) ∩ M , n < ω,
←−
πnω (sg(RO(lim(F)), M ) ∧ f ) = sg(Bn , M ) ∧ f (n)
←−
this would also imply that RO(lim(F))is S-SP by the same reasoning of the proof of Lemma
←−
10.1.4. Without loss of generality, we can assume that n = 0 and by Lemma 9.2.3 and
10.2.2 we can also assume that f = 1. Thus it is sufficient to prove that
π0ω (sg(RO(lim(F)), M )) = sg(B0 , M )

←−
Let {α̇n : n ∈ ω} be an enumeration of the lim(F)-names in M for countable ordinals.
←−
Let g0 = 1lim(F ) , gn+1 be obtained from gn , α̇n , n as in Lemma 10.2.3, so that
←−
ˇ ω1
q y
α̇n < M ∩ lim(F )
≥ gn+1 ∧ in (sg(Bn , M ))
←−
and gn+1 (n) = gn (n). Consider now the sequence ḡ(n) = gn (n)∧sg(Bn , M ). This sequence
is a thread since in,n+1 is S-SP and gn (n) ∈ M for every n, hence
πn,n+1 (sg(Bn+1 , M ) ∧ gn+1 (n + 1)) = sg(Bn , M ) ∧ πn,n+1 (gn+1 (n + 1))
and πn,n+1 (gn+1 (n + 1)) = gn+1 (n) = gn (n) by Lemma 10.2.3. Furthermore, for ev-
ery n ∈ ω, ḡ ≤ gn since the sequence gn is decreasing, and ḡy ≤ in (sg(Bn , M )) since
ˇ ω1
q
ḡ(n) ≤ sg(Bn , M ). It follows that ḡ forces that α̇n < M ∩ lim(F )
for every n, thus
←−
ḡ ≤ sg(RO(lim(F)), M ) by Lemma 9.2.6. Then,
←−
π0 (sg(RO(lim(F)), M )) ≥ ḡ(0) = g0 (0) ∧ sg(B0 , M ) = sg(B0 , M )
←−
and the opposite inequality is trivial, completing the proof.
Lemma 10.2.5. Let F = {iαβ : Bα → Bβ : α ≤ β < ω1 } be an RCS and S-SP iteration

system with S stationary on [Hθ ]ω . Then lim(F) and the corresponding iαω1 are S-SP.
−→
Proof. The proof follows the same pattern of the previous Lemma 10.2.4. By Proposition
9.2.5, any countable M ≺ Hν with ν > θ, F, S ∈ M , M ∩ Hθ ∈ S, witnesses the
semiproperness of every iαβ with α, β ∈ M ∩ ω1 .
As before, by Lemma 9.2.3 and 10.2.2 we only need to show that
π0 (sg(RO(lim(F)), M )) ≥ sg(B0 , M ),
−→
the other inequality being trivial. Let hδn : n ∈ ωi be an increasing sequence of ordinals
such that δ0 = 0 and supn δn = δ = M ∩ ω1 , and {α̇n : n ∈ ω} be an enumeration of the
lim(F)-names in M for countable ordinals. Let g0 = 1lim(F ) , gn+1 be obtained from gn ,
−→ ←
−
α̇n , δn as in Lemma 10.2.3, so that
ˇ ω1 ≥ gn+1 ∧ iδ (sg(Bδ , M ))
q y
α̇n < M ∩ n n
and the support of gn+1 ∧ iδn (sg(Bδn , M )) is contained in M ∩ ω1 . Consider now the
sequence ḡ(δn ) = gn (δn ) ∧ sg(Bδn , M ). As before, this sequence induces a thread on F δ ,
162
so that ḡ ∈ Bδ since F is an RCS-iteration, δ has countable cofinality and thus we can
naturally identify lim(F δ ) as a dense subset of Bδ . Moreover we can also check that iδ (ḡ)
←−
is a thread in lim(F) with support δ such that iδ (ḡ)(α) = ḡ(α) for all α < δ.
−→
Since by Lemma 10.2.3
supp(gn+1 ∧ iδn (sg(Bδn , M ))) ≤ δ,
the relation iδ (ḡ) ≤y gn+1 ∧ iδn (sg(Bδn , M )) holds pointwise on all ω1 , hence iδ (ḡ) forces
ˇ ω1 for every n. Thus, iδ (ḡ) ≤ sg(RO(lim(F)), M ) by Lemma 9.2.6 and
q
that α̇n < M ∩
−→
−→
as required. The proof is completed.
Lemma 10.2.6. Let F = {iαβ : Bα → Bβ : α ≤ β < λ} be an RCS and S-SP iteration

system with S stationary on [Hθ ]ω such that lim(F) is <λ-cc. Then lim(F) and the
−→ −→
corresponding iαλ are S-SP.
Proof. The proof follows the same pattern of the previous Lemmas 10.2.4 and 10.2.5. By
Proposition 9.2.5, any countable M ≺ Hν with ν > θ, F, S ∈ M , M ∩ Hθ ∈ S, witnesses
the semiproperness of every iαβ with α, β ∈ M ∩ λ.
As before, by Lemma 9.2.3 and 10.2.2 we only need to show that
π0 (sg(RO(lim(F)), M )) ≥ sg(B0 , M ).
−→
Let hδn : n ∈ ωi be an increasing sequence of ordinals such that δ0 = 0 and supn δn = δ =
sup(M ∩ λ), and {α̇n : n ∈ ω} be an enumeration of the lim(F)-names in M for countable
−→
ordinals. Let g0 = 1lim(F ) , gn+1 be obtained from gn , α̇n , δn as in Lemma 10.2.3, so that
←−
ˇ ω1 ≥ gn+1 ∧ iδ (sg(Bδ , M )).
q y
α̇n < M ∩ n n
Since lim(F) is <λ-cc by Theorem 7.2.1 we have that lim(F) = RO(lim(F)) = lim(F),
−→ ←− −→ −→
so every gn is in lim(F) ∩ M hence M has to model gn to be eventually constant, thus
−→
supp(gn ) < δ. Then the sequence ḡ(δn ) = gn (δn ) ∧ sg(Bδn , M ) induces a thread on
F δ (hence ḡ ∈ Bδ = RO(lim(F δ )) by the countable cofinality of δ) and iδ (ḡ) ≤
←−
gn+1 ∧ iδn (sg(Bδn , M )) for every n, so that iδ (ḡ) ≤ sg(RO(lim(F)), M ) by Lemma 9.2.6
−→
and
−→
as required.
Theorem 10.2.7. Let F = {iαβ : Bα → Bβ : α ≤ β < λ} be an RCS and S-SP iteration

system with S stationary on [Hθ ]ω , such that for all α < β < λ,
r z
Bβ /iαβ [Ġα ] is S(Ġα )-SP = 1Bα
and for all α there is a β > α such that Bβ |Bα | ≤ ω1 . Then RCS(F) and the corre-
sponding iαλ are S-SP.
Proof. First, suppose that for all α we have that |Bα | < λ. Then, by Theorem 7.2.2,
lim(F) is <λ-cc and RCS(F) = lim(F) hence by Lemma 10.2.6 we have the thesis.
−→ −→
Now suppose that there is an α such that |Bα | ≥ λ. Then by hypothesis there is a
β > α such that Bβ |Bα | ≤ ω1 , thus Bβ cof λ ≤ ω1 . So by Lemma 10.1.5 F/Ġβ is a
163
Bβ -name for an S(Ġβ )-SP iteration system that is equivalent to a system of length ω or
ω1 hence its limit is S(Ġβ )-SP by Lemma 10.2.4 or Lemma 10.2.5 applied in V Bβ . Finally,
RCS(F) can always be factored as a two-step iteration of Bβ and RCS(F/Ġβ ), hence by
Proposition 10.1.4 we have the thesis.
Theorem 10.2.8. The class SP of semiproper forcings is ω1 -weakly iterable in NBG + ω1

is a regular cardinal.
Proof. Let Σ : SPlim → SPlim be defined as follows:
1. If F ∈ SPlim is an iteration system of limit length, Σ(F) = F ∪ {RCS(F)},
≤ β ≤ γ} ∈ SPlim o
2. If F = {iαβ : Bα → Bβ : α n is an iteration system of odd successor
˙
length γ + 1, Σ(F) = F ∪ Bγ ∗ Coll(ω 1 , Bγ ) .
Lemmas 10.2.4, 10.2.5, 10.2.6 and Theorem 10.2.7 show that Σ(F) ∈ SPlim for all F ∈
SPlim , and also that this is a provable statement in NBG + ω1 is a regular cardinal.
Now we run through the items of Def. 7.5.3:
• We know already that NBG proves that SP is closed under lottery sums, two-steps
iterations and complete subalgebras. This give that for any inaccessible δ, Vδ+1
proves these properties of SP, since Vδ+1 |= NBG.
• We have already proved that Σ is an ω1 -weak iteration strategy for SP in NBG + ω1

is a regular cardinal.
• It is also clear ty the definition of Σ and of SP that hSP, Σi as computed in Vκ+1 is

equal to hSP ∩ Vκ , Σ ∩ Vκ i whenever κ is inaccessible.
Hence SP is ω1 -weakly iterable through Σ in NBG + ω1 is a regular cardinal.
10.2.1 Iterations of proper forcings

Similarly we can handle proper forcings:
Lemma 10.2.9. Let F = {iαβ : Bα → Bβ : α ≤ β < λ} be an RCS and S-proper iteration
system with S stationary on [Hθ ]ω . Let M be in S, g ∈ M be any condition in RCS(F),
α̇ ∈ M be an RCS(F)-name for a countable ordinal, δ ∈ M be an ordinal smaller than λ.
Then
• there exists a condition g 0 ∈ RCS(F) ∩ M below g with g 0 (δ) = g(δ) such that
g 0 ∧ iδ (gen(Bδ , M ))
forces that α̇ < M ∩ ω1 .
• If λ = ω1 , then we can choose g 0 ∈ M so that the support of g 0 ∧ iδ (gen(Bδ , M )) is

contained in M ∩ ω1 .
Lemma 10.2.10. Let F = {inm : n ≤ m < ω} be an S-proper iteration system with S
stationary on [Hθ ]ω . Then lim(F) and the corresponding inω are S-proper.
←−
Lemma 10.2.11. Let F = {iαβ : Bα → Bβ : α ≤ β < ω1 } be an RCS and S-proper iter-
ation system with S stationary on [Hθ ]ω . Then lim(F) and the corresponding iαω1 are
−→
S-proper.
164
Lemma 10.2.12. Let F = {iαβ : Bα → Bβ : α ≤ β < λ} be an RCS and S-proper iteration
system with S stationary on [Hθ ]ω such that lim(F) is <λ-cc. Then lim(F) and the
−→ −→
corresponding iαλ are S-proper.
Theorem 10.2.13. Let F = {iαβ : Bα → Bβ : α ≤ β < λ} be an RCS and S-proper iter-

ation system with S stationary on [Hθ ]ω , such that for all α < β < λ,
r z
Bβ /iαβ [Ġα ] is S(Ġα )-proper = 1Bα
and for all α there is a β > α such that Bβ |Bα | ≤ ω1 . Then RCS(F) and the corre-
sponding iαλ are S-proper.
Theorem 10.2.14. The class PR of proper forcings is ω1 -weakly iterable in NBG + ω1 is

a regular cardinal.
Remark 10.2.15. There is a great simplification in the properties of RCS-iteration of proper

forcings: its RCS-limit is always a full limit at stages of countable cofinality and a direct
limit elsewhere. This holds because proper forcings have the countable covering property,
see below, hence the intermediate proper forcings in an iteration of length a regular un-
countable λ cannot change λ to become of countable cofinality, which is the only case in
which the RCS-limit of an iteration system of length a regular uncountable λ can differ
from its direct limit.
Fact 10.2.16. Assume B is a proper forcing and G is V -generic for B. Then any countable
set of ordinals in V [G] is contained in some set which is countable in V .
Proof. Assume σG is a countable set of ordinals in V [G]. Let C ∈ V be the stationary set
of countable elementary sub-models of some Hθ with σ ∈ M . Then C remains stationary
in V [G]. Hence if M ∈ C, M [G] ∩ θ = M ∩ θ. Since σG ∈ M [G] is countable in V [G], we
have that σG ⊆ M [G] ∩ θ = M ∩ θ ∈ V .
165
Part V
Selfgeneric ultrapowers, generic

absoluteness for L(Ordω ), Martin’s
maximum
166
Part V deals with stationary tower forcings and generic ultrapowers induced by (towers
of) normal ideals. Chapter 11 presents the main results of Woodin regarding stationary
towers (i.e. that they induce almost huge generic elementary embeddings) and a key result
by Foreman (Theorem 11.3.1) regarding ideal forcings (i.e. forcings of type P (P (X)) /I
with I a normal ideal on X). Foreman’s theorem gives an exact characterization of which
type of forcings can consistently become isomorphic to an ideal forcing; along the way
it provides an informative description of the closure properties of the generic ultrapower
embedding induced by these ideal forcings. Chapter 12 proves one of Woodin’s main
achievement: i.e the invariance of second order number theory in the presence of large
cardinals axioms; specifically it is proved that the theory of the Chang model L(Ordω )
is generically invariant if we assume the existence of class many supercompact cardinals.
Chapter 13 proves the consistency of Martin’s maximum relative to the existence of a
supercompact cardinal. It next addresses an analysis of the category forcing whose con-
ditions are stationary set preserving complete boolean algebras and whose order relation
is given by the complete homomorphisms between them. Among many things it is shown
that (assuming class many supercompact cardinals) Martin’s maximum can be formulated
as the assertion that the class of presaturated towers is dense in this category forcing. This
shows that very strong forcing axioms can also be formulated in the language of categories
in terms of density properties of class partial orders. These two last chapters serve as a
motivation for the last part of the book, where we will look at suitable generalizations
to third order number theory (and beyond) of Woodin’s generic absoluteness results for
second order number theory.
167
Chapter 11
Self-generic presaturated ideals

and towers
In this chapter we analyze the kind of (towers of) normal ideals we are interested. Their key
property is that they allow to define almost-huge generic embedding with small critical
point (as small as ω1 , ω2 ), this allows to transfer many of the reflection arguments on
the structure Hκ one can use when dealing with standard large cardinal properties of κ to
analyze and study the combinatorics of Hℵ1 or Hℵ2 (or of Hθ for any θ which is the critical
point of a generic elementary embedding). The use of this type of generic elementary
embeddings is by now a standard technique, the terminology “generic embedding” was first
introduced in Foreman’s [17]. We will denote the forcing notions induced by these (towers
of) normal ideals as the self-generic forcings. The terminology will become transparent
later on. It turns out that there is a deep interaction between forcing axioms, self-generic
forcings and generic absoluteness results: first of all these tower forcings are universal
among the class of forcings satisfying certain type of forcing axioms (for example assuming
Martin’s maximum any forcing notion which is stationary set preserving is absorbed by a
presaturated tower). The combination of this universality property with the fact that the
self-generic forcings induce almost huge generic elementary embedding with small critical
points produce a variety of generic absoluteness results: in this part of the book we will
prove Woodin’s generic absoluteness results for second order number theory, in the last
part of the book we will produce a number of generic absoluteness results regarding the
theory with parameters of Hω2 or more generally of the Chang models L(Ordκ ) with κ a
regular cardinal.
Definition 11.0.1. Let V ⊆ W be transitive models of ZFC (or MK) with V, M transitive
classes in W . An elementary embedding j : V → M is:
• generically λ-supercompact if M λ ⊆ M holds in W . If W = V we just say that j is

λ-supercompact.
• generically almost huge if crit(j) = δ and M <j(δ) ⊆ M holds in W . If W = V we

just say that j is almost huge.
• generically huge if crit(j) = δ and M j(δ) ⊆ M holds in W . If W = V we just say

that j is huge.
• δ is λ-supercompact in V if it is the critical point of a λ-supercompact j : V → M ⊆

V.
168
• δ is supercompact in V if it is the critical point of a λ-supercompact j : V → M ⊆ V
for all λ.
• δ is (almost) huge in V if it is the critical point of an (almost) huge j : V → M ⊆ V .
• δ is superhuge in V if for all λ it is the critical point of an huge j : V → M ⊆ V
with j(δ) > λ.
The remainder of the chapter will show how to generate a variety of (generically)
almost huge embeddings by means of tower or ideal forcings.
First of all we introduce the notion of self-generic tower and ideal forcings. Next we
show that the stationary towers of height a supercompact cardinal are self-generic and
presaturated.
11.1 Self-generic towers and self-generic ideal forcings

Notation 11.1.1. For a set Z, GZ = {S ∈ Z : Z ∩ ∪S ∈ S}.
Definition 11.1.2. Let M ≺ Hθ for some θ.
• For some X ∈ M , H ⊆ M ∩ P (P (X)) is an M -normal ultrafilter on X if for all
regressive f : S → X with f ∈ M and S ∈ H, there is T ∈ H such that f T is
constant.
• For some δ ∈ M , H ⊆ M ∩ Vδ is an M -normal tower of ultrafilter if HX = H ∩
P (P (X)) is an M -normal ultrafilter on X for all X ∈ M ∩ Vδ .
Proposition 11.1.3. For any cardinal δ, and M ≺ Hδ+ , GM ∩ Vδ is an M -normal tower
of ultrafilters on M .
S S
Proof. GM Sis a filter.
S Let T, S ∈ GM , then M ∩ S ∈ S and M ∩ T ∈ T . Let
X = S ∪ T ∈ M . Then
M ∩ X ∈ S ↑ X ∩ T ↑ X = S ∧ T.
GM is ultra. Let T ∈ M with X = ∪T , then

M ∩ X ∈ T ∨ M ∩ X ∈ P (X) \ T.
S
GM is M -normal. Assume f : S → S = X is regressive with S ∈ GM and f ∈ M , put
Tx = {N ∈ S : f (N ) = x} .
We have {Tx : x ∈ X} ∈ M and
h
M |= S =NS {Tx : x ∈ X}
(since the latter statement holds in Hδ+ and M ≺ Hδ+ ). In particular there is a
club Cf : X <ω → X in M such that M ∩ X ∈ Cf ∩ S and
h
S ∩ Cf = {Tx : x ∈ X} ∩ Cf .
Assume by contradiction that M ∩ X ∈/ Tx for any x ∈ M ∩ X then

h
M ∩X ∈ / {Tx : x ∈ X} ∩ Cf = S ∩ Cf .
A contradiction.
169
Can we render GM ∩ Vδ (or GM ∩ P (P (Vδ ))) an M -generic ultrafilter for a tower
forcing induced by a tower of height δ (or for an ideal forcing concentrating on bounded
subsets of Vδ )? We introduce the notion of self-genericity as a mean to describe towers
and ideal forcings for which this can occur.
Definition 11.1.4. Let I be a tower of normal ideals of height an inaccessible δ. Let

T = TδI be the induced tower forcing.
• Given some transitive sets X ⊇ Vδ+1 , M ⊆ X is I-self-generic if for all D ∈ M

which are predense subsets of T there exists S ∈ GM ∩ Vδ with [S]I ∈ D (i.e.
{[S]I : S ∈ GM ∩ Vδ } is M -generic for T ).
• SGI is the set of M ≺ Hδ+ which are I-self-generic.
• I is a self-generic tower of ideals if SGI ∧ T is stationary for all [T ]I ∈ T + .
Similarly
Definition 11.1.5. Let I be a normal ideal on P (X). Let P I = P (P (X)) /I be the

induced ideal forcing.
• Given some transitive sets Y 3 P (P (X)), M ⊆ Y is P I -self-generic if for all D ∈ M

which are predense subsets of P I there exists S ∈ GM ∩ P (P (X)) with [S]I ∈ D.
• SGI is the set of M ≺ H|P(P(X))|+ which are P I -self-generic.
• I is self-generic if SGI ∧ T is stationary for all [T ]I ∈ (P I )+ .
Self-generic towers and ideals produce the following improvement of Burke’s theo-
rems 2.3.19 and 2.4.5.
Proposition 11.1.6. Let I be a self-generic ideal on P (X) and θ > |P (P (X)) |. Then
^
SGI ≤NS I˘ =NS {M ≺ Hθ : M ∩ X 6∈ S for all S ∈ M ∩ I} .
Similarly, let I be a self-generic tower of ideals of height an inaccessible δ and θ > |Vδ |.
Then ^
SGI ≤NS Ĭ =NS {M ≺ Hθ : M ∩ X 6∈ S for all S ∈ M ∩ ∪I} .
Definition 11.1.7. We say that B is a self-generic forcing if it is the boolean completion

either of T IB for a self-generic tower IB or of P IB for a self-generic ideal IB .
Lemma 11.1.8. Assume B, C are self-generic tower forcings with

SGIB ∈ ∪IC+ Then the map [T ]IB 7→ [SGIB ∧T ]IC extends to a complete homomorphism
of B into C [SGIB ]IC .
Remark 11.1.9. We leave to the reader to formulate the corresponding proposition in case
IB or IC are self-generic ideals.
Proof. An instructive exercise for the reader.
170
11.2 Sufficient conditions to get (almost) huge generic ele-
mentary embeddings
We start outlining sufficient conditions granting that (a tower of) normal ideal(s) induces
an almost huge elementary embedding. In case of towers of normal ideals we get a necessary
and sufficient condition. In case of normal ideal we just get a sufficient condition for almost
hugeness and another one for hugeness and beyond.
11.2.1 Characterization of presaturation for towers of normal ideals

Proposition 11.2.1. Let I be a tower of normal ideals of height an inaccessible δ which
concentrates on
X : otp(X ∩ δ) ≤ γ + , and γ ⊆ X

for some cardinal γ < δ. The following are equivalent:
1. For any G V -generic for TδI
V [G] |= Ult(V, G)<δ ⊆ Ult(V, G).
2. RO(TδI ) is a <δ presaturated complete boolean algebra.
Proof. (1)⇒(2). By Proposition 4.2.3 it is enough to show that TδI preserves the reg-
ularity of δ. Let G be V -generic for TδI and jG : V → Ult(V, G) be the derived
embedding. By (1) Ult(V, G) is < δ-closed thus it is well founded, so we can identify
it with its transitive collapse. Moreover we have at the same time that crit(jG ) = γ +
(by Prop. 5.2.16(4)) and that jG (γ + ) ≥ δ. Suppose towards a contradiction that
jG (γ + ) > δ. First of all observe that the family of functions f : P (Vα ) → γ + in V
as α ranges on all ordinals less than δ suffice to represent all elements of Ult(V, G)-
ordinals below jG (γ + ). Next observe that this family belongs to V and has size δ
in V , in particular jG (γ + ) < (δ + )V , thus it is an ordinal whose cofinality in V is
at most δ. Now observe that V [G] models that |δ| = γ since Ult(V, G) ⊆ V [G] and
Ult(V, G) models |δ| = γ, since δ < jG (γ + ), which is the successor of γ in Ult(V, G).
In particular V [G] models that jG (γ + ) has cofinality at most γ. We conclude that
Ult(V, G) |= cof(jG (γ + )) ≤ γ,
since Ult(V, G) is < δ-closed in V [G] and γ < δ. This contradicts the regularity of
jG (γ + ) in Ult(V, G).
This shows that δ = jG (γ + ) is a regular cardinal in Ult(V, G). Now any subset of
δ of size less than δ in V [G] belongs to Ult(V, G) (since Ult(V, G) is < δ-closed in
V [G]) and Ult(V, G) models this set to be bounded (since δ is a regular cardinal in
Ult(V, G)). Hence this set is bounded also in V [G], which gives that δ is regular in
V [G], as was to be shown.
(2) =⇒ (1). Let K be V -generic for TδI and let {fi : i < ξ} ∈ V [K] be a set of functions
fi : P (Xi ) → V in V with Xi ∈ Vδ for all i < ξ indexed by some ξ < δ. It is enough
to show the following:
Claim 5. There exists h : X → V in V such that for all [g]K ∈ Ult(V, K), [g]K ∈
[h]K if and only if for some i < ξ [g]K = [fi ]K .
171
r z
Let f˙ : ξ → V be a TδI -name for {fi : i < ξ}.
For any i < ξ let
n r z o
Di = [S]I : [S]I ≤ f˙(i) = fS,i for some fS,i ,
and let Xi ⊆ Di be a maximal antichain in TδI . By assumption (2) (and by

Prop. 4.2.3) there exists [T ]I ∈ K such that for any i < ξ,
| {[S ∧ T ]I : [S]I ∈ Xi and [S ∧ T ]I > 0T } | < δ.
Then Yi = {[SW∧ T ]I : [S]I ∈ Xi } is aVmaximal

W antichain in TδI below [T ]I . Hence
for any i < ξ, Yi = [T ]I . Therefore { Yi : i < ξ} = [T ]I .
On the other hand (since ξ < δ and δ is inaccessible) we can also observe that
^ n_ o
Yi : i < ξ = [T ∗ ]I ,
where for some η < δ large enough

i nh o
T∗ = {S ∧ T : [S]I ∈ Xi } : i < ξ =
n [ o
= M ≺ Vη : ∀i ∈ M ∩ ξ, ∃ [S]I ∈ Xi ∩ M (M ∩ S ∈ S) ,
since the size of each Yi is smaller than δ and ξ ∈ Vδ .

Hence [T ]I = [T ∗ ]I . Define
h : T ∗ −→ Ordξ
n [ o
M 7−→ fS,i (M ∩ ∪S) : i ∈ M ∩ ξ, [S]I ∈ M ∩ Xi , and (M ∩ S ∈ S) ,
define h(M ) arbitrarily for all other M ∈ P (Vη ) .

We show the following:
Claim 6. [g]K ∈ [h]K if and only if for some i < ξ, [g]K = [fi ]K .
Proof. We prove the claim as follows:
[fi ]K ∈ [h]K for all i < ξ: Yi is a predense antichain below [T ]I for all i < η, hence
r ∩ Yi = {[S
K zi ∧ T ]I } for some unique [Si ]I ∈ Xi for all i < η. Thus [Si ]I ≤
f (i) = fSi ,i and [Si ]I ∈ K. This gives that fSi ,i = fi for all i < η, since f˙
˙
is a T -name for {fi : i < η}. Recall that [T ∗ ]I ∈ K, since [T ∗ ]I = [T ]I ∈ K.
Hence [Si ∧ T ∗ ]I ∈ K for all i < ξ. By definition of h, for any M ∈ Si ∧ T ∗
with i ∈ M
fi (M ) = fS,i (M ) ∈ h(M ) =
= {fS,j (M ) : M ∩ ∪S ∈ S for the unique [S ∧ T ]I ∈ Yj ∩ M, j ∈ M ∩ η} .
In particular we get that [fi ]K ∈ [h]K for all i < ξ.
172
[g]K ∈ [h]K implies [g]K = [fi ]K for some i < ξ: Assume [g]K ∈ [h]K with g :
P (X) → V in V and (w.l.o.g. enlarging X if necessary) X ⊇ ∪T ∗ . We
get that
{M ∈ P (X) : g(M ) ∈ h(M ∩ ∪T ∗ )} = T ∗∗ and [T ∗∗ ]I ∈ K.
This gives (in V ) that for each M in the above set there is some i ∈ M ∩ ξ and
a unique S ∈ M such that [S ∧ T ]I ∈ M ∩ Yi and g(M ) = fS,i (M ). By pressing
down on [T ∗∗ ]I ∈ K (since K is V -normal), we can find i < ξ such that
[{M ∈ T ∗∗ : g(M ) = fS,i (M ∩ ∪T ∗ )}]I ∈ K,
giving that [fi ]K = [fS,i ]K = [g]K .
The Claim is proved.
The Proposition is proved.
11.2.2 Sufficient condition granting the presaturation for normal ideal

forcings
It is not clear whether an analogue of this proposition can be proved for ideal forcings at
δ for some inaccessible δ. For our purposes the following suffices:
Proposition 11.2.2. Let δ be a regular cardinal and I be a normal ideal on a set X of size
δ such that P I is < δ-presaturated. Let H be V -generic for P I and K = {S : [S]I ∈ H}.
Then Ult(V, K)<δ ⊆ Ult(V, K) holds in V [H].
Proof. W.l.o.g. we can suppose that X = δ = |X|. Fix (fi : i < γ) ∈ V [K] = V [H] such
that fi : P (δ) → V in V for some γ < δ. It suffices to find some g : P (δ) → V in V such
that [h]K ∈ [g]K if and only if [h]K = [fi ]K for some i < γ.
I
Let f˙ ∈ V P be a P I -name for a function such that f˙H (i) = fi for all i < γ and f˙(i)
is always forced by P I to be a function f : P (δ) → V in V .
For each i < γ, fix Ai maximal antichain in P I in V such that for each [S]I ∈ Ai [S]I
forces that f˙(i) = fS,i for some fS,i : P (δ) → V in V . Since P I is < δ-presaturated in V ,
we get that there is a dense open set D of conditions in P I such that for all [T ]I ∈ D
n o
{[S]I ∈ Ai : [S ∧ T ]I > 0P I } = Sηi I : η ∈ γi
has size γi < δ for all i < γ. Hence for each [T ]I ∈ D

( )
^ _ hi nh oi
Sji : j ∈ γi : i < γ

[T ]I ≤ Ai : i ∈ γ =
I
PI PI
by Proposition 2.3.4. Therefore for each [T ]I ∈ D

i nh o
T∗ = Sji : j ∈ γi : i < γ = M ⊆ δ : for all i ∈ M ∩ γ there is η ∈ M ∩ γi with M ∈ Sηi

is in V and such that T ∗ ≥I T . Since D ∩ H is non empty, let [T ]I ∈ H ∩ D and

n o
{[S]I ∈ Ai : [S ∧ T ]I > 0P I } = Sηi I : η ∈ γi
173
for all i < γ. Let T ∗ be defined as above as
i nh o
Sji : j ∈ γi : i < γ

and g : T ∗ → V be defined by
g(M ) = {fS,i (M ) : i ∈ M ∩ γ, M ∈ S, S ∈ Ai }
for M ∈ T ∗ , g(M ) = 0 otherwise. Then g ∈ V . Finally, since T ≤I T ∗ and [T ]I ∈ H,

T ∗ ∈ K, and we get that
[h]K ∈ [g]K
if and only if (since T ∗ ∈ K)
{M ∈ T ∗ : h(M ) = fi (M ) for some i ∈ M ∩ γ} ∈ K
if and only if for some i ∈ γ (since K is a V -normal ultrafilter)
{M ∈ T ∗ : h(M ) = fi (M )} ∈ K
if and only if [h]K = [fi ]K .

The following proposition will grant sufficient conditions to get huge (or even more
than huge) generic elementary embeddings.
Proposition 11.2.3. Let δ be a regular cardinal and I be a normal ideal on a set X of size
δ such that P I is γ-CC for some γ < δ. Then P I is a complete boolean algebra. Moreover
let H be V -generic for P I and K = {S : [S]I ∈ H}. Then Ult(V, K)δ ⊆ Ult(V, K) holds
in V [H].
Proof. W.l.o.g. we can suppose that X = δ = |X|. P I is automatically a complete boolean

algebra since it is γ-CC and δ-complete for some δ > γ.
Now fix (fi : i < δ) ∈ V [K] = V [H] such that fi : P (δ) → V in V . It suffices to find
some g : P (δ) → V in V such that [h]K ∈ [g]K if and only if [h]K = [fi ]K for some i < δ.
I
Let f˙ ∈ V P be a P I -name for a function such that f˙H (i) = fi for all i < δ and f˙(i)
is always forced by P I to be a function f : P (δ) → V in V .
For each i < δ, fix Ai maximal antichain in P I in V such that for each [S]I ∈ Ai [S]I
forces that f˙(i) = fS,i for some fS,i : P (δ) → V in V . Since P I is γ-CC in V , we get that
|Ai | ≤ γ for all i < δ. Hence
( )
^ _ hi nh oi
Sji : j ∈ γ : i < δ

1PI = Ai : i ∈ δ =
I
PI PI
by Proposition 2.3.4, since P I is a δ-complete boolean algebra whose sups and infs are
computed by means of diagonal unions and intersections. Therefore
i nh o
T∗ = Sji : j ∈ γ : i < δ = M ⊆ δ : for all i ∈ M ∩ δ there is η ∈ M ∩ γ with M ∈ Sηi

is in V and such that [T ∗ ]I = 1P I . Let g : T ∗ → V be defined by
g(M ) = {fS,i (M ) : i ∈ M ∩ δ, M ∈ S, S ∈ Ai }
174
for M ∈ T ∗ , g(M ) = 0 otherwise. Then g ∈ V . Finally, since [T ∗ ] = 1P I , T ∗ ∈ K, and we
get that
[h]K ∈ [g]K
if and only if (since T ∗ ∈ K)
{M ∈ T ∗ : h(M ) = fi (M ) for some i ∈ M ∩ δ} ∈ K
if and only if for some i ∈ δ (since K is a V -normal ultrafilter)
{M ∈ T ∗ : h(M ) = fi (M )} ∈ K
if and only if [h]K = [fi ]K .

11.3 Foreman’s duality theorem

Now we focus on ideal forcings and we give a variety of methods to produce consistently
self-generic ideal forcings with strong closure properties. They are all based on a re-
markable result of Foreman [19, 18], which (for the sake of avoiding some piece of heavy
notation) is presented here in a weaker form. Foreman shows that all precipitous ideals I
(recall Def. 5.2.20) in the ground model can be naturally lifted to precipitous ideals I¯ in
any generic extension by a forcing P which interacts nicely with P I . Roughly Foreman’s
duality theorem states the following: Assume j : V → M is the ultrapower embedding
induced by some precipitous ideal I in V . Assume further that j P : P → j(P ) is a
complete homomorphism. Then, whenever H is V -generic for P , I extends in V [H] to
¯
a precipitous ideal I¯ such that P I is forcing equivalent to j(P )/H in V [H]. There are
lenghty details to be addressed when I ∈ V is not a V -normal ultrafilter in V (in which
case j exists only in a generic extension by P I and the definition of j(P ) can occur only
in this generic extension). Since we won’t use this more general case of Foreman’s duality,
we limit ourselves to address the case in which I ∈ V is the dual of a V -normal ultrafilter
inducing a well founded ultrapower. Other remarkable properties of this correspondence
are the following: On the one hand, it gives a neat characterization of which definitions
for a forcing notion P ∈ V can become in some generic extension of V the definitions of an
¯
ideal forcing notion of type P I . On the other hand, the nicer P and I interacts, the better
I¯ behaves in the generic extension by P . For example we produce as easy corollaries of
¯
Foreman’s duality theorem examples of ideals I¯ on Vλ such that P I is a self-generic ideal
forcing, a complete boolean algebra, a < λ-CC poset, an ideal forcing inducing λ-closed
generic ultrapower embeddings, etc. . . We will extensively use the results of this section
in the last part of this book. The literature which exploit this duality theorem (even in
other less elegant forms, prior to Foreman’s polished formulation we present below) is
vast, Cumming’s [14] and Foreman’s [18] articles in the Handbook of set theory are useful
source of references and give detailed proofs of many of the most interesting applications,
for more recent uses of these techniques see for example [10, 11, 12, 13].
Theorem 11.3.1 (Foreman duality theorem: Thm. 17 [19]). Assume G ∈ V is a normal

ultrafilter on P (P (Vλ )) and j = jG : V → Ult(V, G) = M ⊆ V is its induced elementary
embedding with Ult(V, G) = M well-founded and identified with its transitive collapse.
Assume (P, ≤) ∈ V is a partial order such that:
• j(P ) ⊆ λ,
175
• for some q ∈ j(P ), letting Q = RO(j(P ))M and RO(P )M = B, the map
iP,G = i :P 7→ Q+
p 7→ j(p) ∧Q q
extends to a regular embedding of B into Q q .
Then the following holds for any V -generic filter H for P :

1. For any K̄ which is a V [H]-generic filter for Q/i[H] , let K = q ∈ Q : [q]i[H] ∈ K̄ .
Then:
(a) K is a V -generic filter for Q, V [K] = V [H][K̄], and j extends in V [K] to
jK̄ :V [H] → M [K]

τH 7→ j(τ )K
which is also elementary. Moreover jK̄ V = j.

(b) In1 V [K] n o
LK̄ = S ∈ P (P (Vλ ))V [H] : j[Vλ ] ∈ jK̄ (S)
is a V [H]-normal ultrafilter on Vλ and LK̄ ∩ V = G. Moreover M [K] =

Ult(V [H], LK̄ ) and jK̄ is the ultrapower embedding induced by LK̄ .
j
V Ult(V, G) = M ⊆ V
⊆
jK̄
V [H] Ult(V [H], LK̄ ) = M [K] ⊆ V [K] = V [H][K̄]
2. Let in V [H] L̇ be a Q/i[H] -name such that L̇K̄ = LK̄ for any K̄ V [H]-generic for
Q/i[H] . Then V [H] models that
n r z o
¯
I(H, G, P ) = I¯ = S ∈ P (P (Vλ ))V [H] : S ∈ L̇ = 0Q
is a normal ideal on Vλ and
iH,G,P :P (P (Vλ ))V [H] /I¯ → RO(Q/i[H] )V [H]

r z
[S]I¯ 7→ S ∈ L̇
extends to an isomorphism of the respective boolean completions.
3. Let n r z o
¯
J(H, G, P ) = J¯ = S ∈ P (P (Vλ [H]))V [H] : S ↓ Vλ ∈ L̇ = 0Q
¯ ¯
Then P I and P J are isomorphic via the map [S]I¯ 7→ [S ↑ Vλ [H]]J¯, and J¯ is the lift
of I¯ via the map iVλ ,Vλ [H] : T 7→ T ↑ Vλ [H].
Proof.
1
In what follows Vλ stand for the elements of V of rank less than λ.
176

1. Assume K̄ is a V [H]-generic filter for Q/i[H] , and K = q ∈ Q : [q]i[H] ∈ K̄ .
(a) Clearly K is V -generic for Q and V [H][K̄] = V [K] (by 6.1.17). By Lemma 4.3.22
applied to the identity map on j(P ) q , we can identify M Q with a ∆1 -elementary
RO(j(P ) q )V -valued submodel of V j(P )q .
Moreover the map i belongs to M . Hence M models that i is a regular embedding
of B into Q and M models that j(B) is a complete boolean algebra with Q =
j(B) q (even though nor j(B), nor Q, nor B might be cbas in V ).
We get that the following key identity holds in M for any A ⊆ B:
_ _ _ _
q ∧j(B) j(A) = q ∧j(B) j( A) = i( A) = i[A]. (11.1)
j(B) B B Q
The first of the above equality holds by elementarity of j, the second by definition
of i, while the last holds by our assumptions that i is a complete homomorphism.
We have the following:
Claim 7. Set for all formulae φ and τ1 , . . . , τn ∈ V B
Jφ(j(τ1 ), . . . , j(τn ))KQ = j(Jφ(τ1 , . . . , τn )KB ) ∧ q.
Then
Jφ(j(τ1 ), . . . , j(τn ))KQ = i(Jφ(τ1 , . . . , τn )KB )
for all formulae φ and τ1 , . . . , τn ∈ V B .
Proof. First of all notice that j(Jφ(τ1 , . . . , τn )KB ) ∧ q is a well defined element of
Q since M |= ZFC.
We have that
M |= j(Jφ(τ1 , . . . , τn )KB ) = Jφ(j(τ1 ), . . . , j(τn ))Kj(B)
by elementarity of j. Since i is a complete homomorphism, we have that

_
{i(p) : p ≤ Jφ(τ1 , . . . , τn )KB } = i(Jφ(τ1 , . . . , τn )KB ).
Q
By equation 11.1 and the forcing theorem applied to B in V and j(B) in M , we

get:
i(Jφ(τ1 , . . . , τn )KB ) =
_
= i[{r ∈ P : r ≤ Jφ(τ1 , . . . , τn )KB }] =
Q
_n o
= q ∧j(B) r ∈ j(P ) : r ≤ Jφ(j(τ1 ), . . . , j(τn ))Kj(B) =
j(B)
= q ∧j(B) Jφ(j(τ1 ), . . . , j(τn ))Kj(B) =

= Jφ(j(τ1 ), . . . , j(τn ))KQ .
The thesis follows.
177
The hypotheses grants that j[H] ⊆↑ i[H] ⊆ K. By the above facts we get that
Jφ(τ1 , . . . , τn )KB ∈ H iff Jφ(j(τ1 ), . . . , j(τn ))KQ = i(Jφ(τ1 , . . . , τn )KB ) ∈ K
for all formulas φ and τ1 , . . . , τn ∈ V B . This immediately gives that jK̄ is

elementary and well defined.
(b) Clearly j[λ] = [IdP(λ) ]G ∈ Ult(V, G) = M ⊆ M [K]. Hence (by 5.2.18(3) applied
to jK̄ ), LK̄ ∈ V [K] is a V [H]-normal ultrafilter on λ.
We must show that M [K] = Ult(V [H], LK̄ ), and also that jK̄ = jLK̄ .
We first prove that
M [K] ⊆ Ult(V [H], LK̄ ) :
It suffices to prove that M ⊆ Ult(V [H], LK̄ ) and also that K ∈ Ult(V [H], LK̄ ).
First of all:
Claim 8. The map [f ]G 7→ [f ]LK̄ is the inclusion map of Ult(V, G) = M into
Ult(V [H], LK̄ ), hence M ⊆ Ult(V [H], LK̄ ).
Proof. We leave to the reader to check that it is enough to prove that for any
f ∈ V and h ∈ V [H], [h]LK̄ ∈ [f ]LK̄ if and only if h S = g S for some S ∈ LK̄
and g ∈ V .
So assume h ∈ V [H] and f ∈ V are such that f : P (λ)V → V , h : P (λ)V → V ,
and [h]LK̄ ∈ [f ]LK̄ . By 5.2.18(6) applied to LK̄ and V [H]
[h]LK̄ ∈ [f ]LK̄ if and only if jK̄ (h)(j[λ]) ∈ j(f )(j[λ]).
Hence jK̄ (h)(j[λ]) ∈ j(f )(j[λ]). But
Ult(V, G) = M = {j(g)(j[λ]) : g ∈ V, g : P (λ) → V }
by 5.2.18(6) applied to G and V . Therefore j(f )(j[λ]) ⊆ M = Ult(V, G). Hence

j(g)(j[λ]) = jK̄ (h)(j[λ]) for some g : P (λ) → V with g ∈ V . This gives that
n o
S = Z ∈ P (λ)V : h(Z) = g(Z) ∈ LK̄ ,
i.e. g S = h S for some g ∈ V and S ∈ LK̄ as was to be shown.
Now let in V [H]
k :P (λ)V → V [H]
Z 7→ πZ [Z] ∩ H
Claim 9. [k]LK̄ = K.
Proof. Notice that jK̄ (H) = K. Therefore in M [K]

n o
jK̄ (k) = hZ, πZ [Z] ∩ Ki : Z ∈ P (j(λ))M .
Moreover in M [K] we have that πj[λ] [j[λ]] ∩ K = λ ∩ K = K. Hence
[k]LK̄ = jK̄ (k)(j[λ]) = πj[λ] [j[λ]] ∩ K = K.
178
This gives that K = [k]LK̄ ∈ Ult(V [H], LK̄ ) ⊇ M . We conclude that M [K] ⊆
Ult(V [H], LK̄ ).
Now assume
k̄ : Ult(V [H], LK̄ ) → M [K]

[f ]LK̄ 7→ jK̄ (f )(j[λ])
is not the identity map. Then it must have a non-trivial critical point η (by
5.2.18(1). Assume η = [f ]LK̄ . Since η ∈ M , we can assume f ∈ V by what we
have already shown. This gives that
k̄([f ]LK̄ ) = jK̄ (f )(j[λ]) = j(f )(j[λ]) = [f ]G = [f ]LK̄
by what we have already shown. Therefore k̄(η) = η, contradicting that η is

moved by k̄. Hence k̄ must be the identity, giving that M [K] = Ult(V [H], LK̄ )
and also that jK̄ = jLK̄ (the latter again by 5.2.18(6)).
2. iH,G,P is an injective homomorphism by 5.3.2. We must prove that it has a dense

image to conclude (again by 5.3.2). We show that j(P )/i[H] is in the range of iH,G,P .
We define for p ∈ j(P )
n o
Sp = Z ∈ P (λ)V : p ∈ Z, πZ (p) ∈ H .
It suffices to prove the following:

Claim 10. For all K̄ V [H]-generic for Q/i[H] , letting K = q : [q]i[H] ∈ K̄ , we
have that
Sp ∈ LK̄ if and only if p ∈ K if and only if [p]i[H] ∈ K̄.
Assume the claim holds. Then iH,G,P ([Sp ]I¯) = [p]i[H] for all p ∈ j(P ). It remains to
prove the claim.
Proof. Observe that

n o n o
M M
jK̄ (Sp ) = Z ∈ P (j(λ)) : πZ (j(p)) ∈ jK̄ (H) = Z ∈ P (j(λ)) : πZ (j(p)) ∈ K .
Now πj[λ] (j(p)) = p. Hence p ∈ K if and only if j[λ] ∈ j(Sp ) if and only if Sp ∈
LK̄ .
3. Observe that S ∈ J¯ if and only if for all K̄ V -generic for Q/i[H] jK̄ [Vλ [H]] ∈ jK̄ (S)
if and only if for all K̄ V -generic for Q/i[H] j[Vλ ] ∈ jK̄ (S ↓ Vλ ) if and only if
S ↓ Vλ ∈ I. ¯ Therefore J¯ is the lift of I¯ via iV ,V [H] . Moreover the above also shows
λ λ
that [S]J¯ 7→ [S ↓ Vλ [H]]I¯ is injective: if [S]J¯ = [T ]J¯ and K̄ is V -generic for Q/i[H]
jK̄ [Vλ [H]] ∈ jK̄ (S) if and only if jK̄ [Vλ [H]] ∈ jK̄ (T ) and j[Vλ ] ∈ jK̄ (S ↓ Vλ ) if and
only if j[Vλ ] ∈ jK̄ (T ↓ Vλ ). Hence [S ↓ Vλ [H]]I¯ = [T ↓ Vλ [H]]I¯. This gives that
J¯ I¯
¯ J¯ must be an isomorphism of P with P .
πVλ ,Vλ [H] /I,
The proof of the theorem is completed in all its parts.
Lemma 11.3.2 (Preservation Lemma for almost huge embeddings). Let G ∈ V be a

normal ultrafilter on some λ > ω such that Ult(V, G)<λ ⊆ Ult(V, G) with jG : V →
Ult(V, G) the induced ultrapower embedding.
Let P be a forcing notion such that for some q ∈ j(P ):
179
• Q = RO(jG (P ) q )Ult(V,G) is < λ-presaturated in V ,
• the map p 7→ jG (p) ∧Q q can be extended (in Ult(V, G) and in V ) to a regular

embedding i∗ : RO(P ) → Q (even though Q may not be complete in V ).
Let H be V -generic for RO(P ). Then in V [H]:

¯
• Q/jG [H] is < λ-presaturated, and is forcing equivalent to the ideal forcing P I where
I¯ is the normal ideal I(H,
¯ G, P ).
¯
• Whenever K is V [H]-generic for P I , Ult(V [H], K) is < λ-closed in V [H][K].
Proof. Immediate by 11.3.1, and 11.2.2.
A basic outcome of Foreman’s duality is the following Lifting Lemma first isolated
by Levy and Solovay when they realized that small forcings do not affect large cardinal
properties [31].
Lemma 11.3.3 (Lifting Lemma I). Assume j : V → M ⊆ V is an elementary embedding

with δ = crit(j) and M ⊆ V a transitive structure. Let P ∈ Vδ be a forcing notion.
Assume G is V -generic for RO(P ), then in V [G] the map
j̄ : V [G] → M [G]
given by τG 7→ j(τ )H is elementary.

Moreover if j is a supercompact, almost huge, huge embedding in V , so is j̄ in V [G].
Proof. Left to the reader (else assuming j = jG for some V -normal ultrafilter G ∈ V on
some X ⊇ Vδ with crit jG = δ and G, apply Theorem 11.3.1 to P = j(P ) ∈ Vδ and then
Lemma 11.3.2).
Lemma 11.3.4 (Preservation Lemma for huge embeddings). Let G ∈ V be a normal ul-
trafilter on some Vλ for some uncountable cardinal λ > ω such that Ult(V, G)λ ⊆ Ult(V, G)
with jG : V → Ult(V, G) the induced ultrapower embedding.
Let P be a forcing notion such that for some q ∈ j(P ):
• Q = RO(jG (P ) q )Ult(V,G) is γ-CC in V for some γ < λ;
• the map p 7→ jG (p) ∧Q q can be extended (in Ult(V, G) and in V ) to a regular

embedding i∗ : RO(P ) → Q (even though Q may not be complete in V ).
Let H be V -generic for RO(P ). Then in V [H]:
• Q/jG [H] is a γ-CC complete boolean algebra, and is forcing equivalent to the ideal
¯
forcing P I , where I¯ is the normal ideal I(H,
¯ G, P ).
¯ ¯
• P I is a complete boolean algebra and, whenever K is V [H]-generic for P I , Ult(V [H], K)
is λ-closed in V [H][K].
¯ ¯
Proof. P I is always a λ-complete boolean algebra; being also γ-CC, we conclude that P I
¯
is a complete boolean algebra. P I induces a λ-closed generic ultrapower by 11.2.3.
We will need some bits of the notion of decisive ideal introduced by Foreman. Since
we do not need to explore this notion at length we just present the Lemma capturing the
properties of ideals projecting to one another which are relevant for us.
180
Lemma 11.3.5 (Projection Lemma for more than huge embedding). Assume λ > ν ≥
γ > δ are inaccessible and G ∈ V is a V -normal ultrafilter concentrating on
{X ⊆ Vλ : (X, ∈) ∼
= (Vγ , ∈), X ∩ δ ∈ δ, otp(X ∩ λ) = γ, otp(X ∩ ν) = δ} .
1. Let j = jG : V → Ult(V, G) be the embedding induced by G. Then crit(j) = δ,

j(δ) = ν, and Ult(V, G)λ ⊆ Ult(V, G).
2. Furthermore let G0 = πVν ,Vλ [G]. Then G0 ∈ V is a V -normal ultrafilter concentrat-

ing on
{X ⊆ Vν : (X, ∈) ∼ = (Vδ , ∈), X ∩ δ ∈ δ} .
and jG0 : V → Ult(V, G0 ) is a huge embedding such that jG = k ◦ jG0 , where
k : [f ]G0 7→ [f ↑ Vλ ]G is also elementary between Ult(V, G0 ) and Ult(V, G).
jG
V Ult(V, G)
⊆
jG0
k V
⊆
Ult(V, G0 )
3. Finally assume that P ⊆ Vδ is < δ-presaturated. Then j(P ) = jG (P ) = jG0 (P ) ⊆ Vν

is < ν-presaturated and ν-CC both in Ult(V, G), Ult(V, G0 ), and V . Assume further
that for some q ∈ RO(j(P ))Ult(V,G0 ) , the map
i : p 7→ p ∧RO(j(P ))Ult(V,G0 ) q = j(p) ∧RO(j(P ))Ult(V,G0 ) q
extends to a complete homomorphism of RO(P ) into Q = RO(j(P ))Ult(V,G0 ) q .

Let:
• H be V -generic for P ,
• I be the ideal induced on P (P (Vλ [H]))V [H] by Foreman’s duality theorem ap-
plied to P, G, H,
• I0 be the ideal induced on P (P (Vν [H]))V [H] by Foreman’s duality theorem ap-
plied to P, G0 , H.
Then in V [H] it holds that:
(a) P I is a complete boolean algebra and induces a λ-closed generic ultrapower em-
bedding.
(b) P I0 is self-generic and induces a < ν-closed generic ultrapower embedding.
(c) P I ∼
= Q/i[H] ∼ = P I0 .
(d) The map iVν ,Vλ : [S]I0 7→ [S ↑ Vλ ]I implements in V [H] the isomorphism between
P I0 and P I obtained by the composition of the natural isomorphisms of P I and
P I0 with Q/i[H] given by Foreman’s duality theorem.

The following picture assumes that Ḡ is V [H]-generic for Q/i[H] , K = q ∈ Q : [q]H ∈ Ḡ
is V -generic for Q, K̄ (respectively K̄0 ) is the V [H]-generic for P I (respectively for
P I0 ) induced by Ḡ.
181
jK̄
V [H] Ult(V [H], I)
⊆
iVν ,Vλ V [K] = V [H][G] = V [H][K̄] = V [H][K̄0 ]
jK¯
0
⊆
Ult(V [H], I0 )
Proof. The proofs of items 1, 2 are standard and follow the same lines of the proof of
item 2 in 5.4.2; we leave the details to the reader. 3a follows from 11.2.3. 3c follows fron
Foreman’s duality theorem. 3d is immediate if one unveils the definitions of the natural
isomorphisms of P I and P I0 with Q/i[H] given by Foreman’s duality theorem (using the
same patterns of the proof of the last item in Foreman’s duality theorem).
We are left with 3b: the fact that P I0 induces a < ν-closed generic ultrapower follows
from 11.2.2; the unique part which requires a new separate argument is the proof that P I0
is self-generic. This can be proved as follows:
Let k0 : P I0 → Q/i[H] and k : P I → Q/i[H] denote the natural isomorphisms of these
forcing notions given by Foreman’s duality theorem.
Let G be V [H]-generic for Q/i[H] and K0 = i−1 −1
0 [G], K = k [G] be the corresponding
I I
V [H]-generic ultrafilters on P 0 , P .
Now
n o
V [H]
SGI0 = M ≺ Hν + : GM ∩ P (P (Vν [H]))V [H] is M -generic for P I0 .
Let N = jK [Vλ [H]], and observe that jK [K0 ] = jK0 [K0 ] is jK [Vλ [H]]-generic for jK (P I0 )
since K0 is V [H]-generic for P I0 . By definition:
n o
jK [K0 ] = jK (S) : S ∈ P (P (Vν [H]))V [H] , jK [Vν [H]] ∈ jK (S) =
n o
= jK (S) : S ∈ P (P (Vν [H]))V [H] , (N ∩ jK (Vν [H])) ∈ jK (S) =
n o
= T ∈ P (P (j(Vν [H])))Ult(V [H],K) ∩ N, (N ∩ jK (Vν [H])) ∈ T =
= GN ∩ P (P (j(Vν [H])))Ult(V [H],K) .
Hence GN ∩ P (P (j(Vν [H])))Ult(V [H],K) is N -generic for j(P I0 ). This gives that N ∈
jK (SGI0 ↑ Vλ [H]), and therefore that SGI0 ↑ Vλ [H] ∈ K is stationary in V [H]. We
conclude that SGI0 is stationary in V [H]. Similarly one can argue that T ∧ SGI0 is
stationary in V [H] for all stationary T ∈ P (P (Vν [H]))V [H] \ I0 .
11.3.1 Forcing the existence of presaturated towers: a guiding example

We can now produce the simplest example of a presaturated ideal forcing inducing an al-
most huge generic embedding with critical point a successor cardinal. More sophisticated
applications of the same type of ideas forcing the existence of presaturated towers or ideals
with certain given properties are ubiquitous in the literature, Foreman’s handbook chap-
ter [18] is one of the most up-to-date source of references; for our part we will repeatedly
apply these results in chapter 15.
Recall that Coll(ω, < κ) is the partial order given by the finite functions f : κ × ω → κ
such that f (α, n) ∈ α for all (α, n) ∈ dom(f ). The order on Coll(ω, < κ) is reverse
inclusion.
182
Example 11.3.6. Let δ be huge and G ∈ V be a normal ultrafilter on Vλ for some
λ > δ witnessing this. Let also H be V -generic for Coll(ω, < δ). Then Coll(ω, <λ)/H ∼
=
Coll(ω, <λ) is a presaturated ideal forcing in V [H] induced by a normal ideal J on Vλ
defined by the following property:
Let for p ∈ Coll(ω, <λ)

n o
Tp = X ∈ P (Vλ )V : (X, ∈) ∼
= (Vδ , ∈) and πX (p) ∈ H .
Then
{[Tp ]J : p ∈ Coll(ω, <λ)}
defines a dense subset of P (P (Vλ ))V [H] /J .
Proof. Let j = jG be the ultrapower embedding induced by G. Then j : V → Ult(V, G) = Aggiungere

referenza – M
M has critical point δ with j(δ) = λ. Observe that Coll(ω, < λ)V = Coll(ω, < λ)V [H] .
Moreover let i be the inclusion map:
i : Coll(ω, <δ) −→ Coll(ω, <λ)

f 7−→ f.
Then i extends to a regular embedding on the respective boolean completions.

Let K be V [H]-generic for Coll(ω, <λ)/i[H] . It is an instructive exercise to check that:
∼ Coll(ω, <δ) × Coll(ω, [δ, < λ) (where f ∈ Coll(ω, [δ, <λ)) if f ∈
• Coll(ω, <λ) =
Coll(ω, <λ) and dom(f ) ∩ δ × ω = ∅);
• H = K ∩ Vδ = i−1 [H] is V -generic for Coll(ω, <δ);
• K ∩ Coll(ω, [δ, <λ)) is V [H]-generic for Coll(ω, [δ, <λ)).
– M Hence the map j Coll(ω,<δ) = i extends to a regular embedding of Coll(ω, < δ) into
Coll(ω, < λ). By Theorem 11.3.1 and Lemma 11.3.2 we conclude that Coll(ω, < λ)/H is
an ideal forcing P J which induces a generic ultrapower which is < λ-closed. Now observe
that Foreman’s duality theorem gives that
n o
K̄ = S ∈ P (P (Vλ ))V [H] : iG,H,Coll(ω,<δ) ([S]J ) ∈ K
induces the V [H]-generic filter for P J . Since K̄ ⊇ G by Foreman’s duality theorem, we

get that (by 5.4.2)
n o
X ∈ P (Vλ )V : πX [X] = Vκ and X ∩ κ ∈ κ = otp(X) ∈ K̄.
Since this occurs for all K V [H]-generic for Coll(ω, <λ)/i[H] , Claim 10 applied in the
present context shows that
iG,H,Coll(ω,<δ) ([Tp ]J ) = p
for all p ∈ Coll(ω, < δ).
The reader can play checking what happens if in the variety of Lemmas proved so far
P is replaced by Coll(ω, < κ).
183
11.4 Self-genericity and presaturation of the stationary tower
forcings
A remarkable result of Woodin shows that there are provably in ZFC+large cardinals
natural examples of self-generic presaturated towers, and moreover that these towers play
a key role in order to establish generic absoluteness results for second order number theory.
In the remainder of this chapter we give a proof of Woodin’s result stating that the
stationary towers of height a supercompact cardinal are presaturated and self-generic.
Woodin’s is able to show that one can reduce significantly the large cardinal assump-
tions replacing supercompacts by Woodin cardinals (see [30, Theorem 2.5.8]). However
we decide to present Woodin’s result using the supercompactness assumption, since on
the one hand the proof of the presaturation of the relevant towers is greatly simplified,
and on the other hand it brings forward many ideas which rely on supercompact and
huge embeddings which will be developed in the final part of this book, where we show
in a variety of ways how one can employ presaturated towers and ideal forcings to derive
generic absoluteness results.
11.4.1 Basic properties of tower forcings concentrating on sets of order

type at most λ
Notation 11.4.1. Let λ be a a regular cardinal.
Pλ = {Z : Z ∩ λ ∈ λ > |Z|}
and
Pλ (X) = Pλ ∩ P (X) .
λ = NS P (X) and I is the tower of normal ideals I λ .
IX λ λ X
We also use the following notational conventions:
TδIλ = Tδλ .
SGIλ ∩Vδ := SGλδ .
Lemma 11.4.2. Let λ be a a regular cardinal and I be a tower concentrating on sets M

of size at most λ such that M ∩ λ ∈ λ. Let
SδI = M ∈ SGI : otp(M ∩ δ) = λ .

Assume SδI ∧ T is stationary for all T ∈ Vδ . Then
SGI ∧ Pλ (Vδ+1 ) ∧ T
is also stationary for all T ∈ Vδ and TδI is < δ-presaturated.
To prove the Lemma we need the following piece of notation:
Definition 11.4.3. Let N ⊇ M and X be a transitive set. We say that N is an X-end

extension of M if N ∩ X = M ∩ X.
Notation 11.4.4. Given an ordinal δ and a set M , δM = sup(M ∩ Vδ ).
184
Remark 11.4.5. Observe that if N is a VδM -end extension of M and α ≤ δM , GN ∩ Vα =
GM ∩ Vα , since:
[ [
S ∈ GN ∩ Vα ⇐⇒ N ∩ S ∈ S ⇐⇒ (N ∩ Vα ) ∩ S∈S
[ [
⇐⇒ (M ∩ Vα ) ∩ S ∈ S ⇐⇒ M ∩ S ∈ S ⇐⇒ S ∈ GM .
Proof. Let S = SδI .
SGI ∧ Pλ (Vδ+1 ) ∧ T is stationary for all stationary T ∈ Vδ such that TI ∈ TδI .

Assume M ∈ S ↑ Hθ ∧ T for some large θ. Let jM : πM [M ] → M be the inverse of
the transitive collapse of M .
Since δ is inaccessible, fix in M g : δ → Vδ bijection. We have that M ∩Vδ = g[M ∩δ]
has size λ. Fix in M f : Hδ<ω + → Hδ + Skolem function such that any N ∈ Cf is
elementary in Vδ+1 and such that f [Z <ω ] ∈ S Cf for any infinite set Z (f exists by
<ω
2.2.3). Let Nα = f [g[α ∩ M ] ]. Let N = α∈M ∩δ Nα . Now N ⊆ M , N ∩ Vδ =
<ω I
M ∩ Vδ , N = f [M S ∩ Vδ ]. Hence GM ∩ Vδ = GN ∩ Vδ , therefore N ∈ SG ∧ T .
Moreover Nβ = α∈M ∩β Nα for all β ∈ M ∩ Vδ+1 , Therefore we can find a club
subset C of λ such that for any α ∈ C
NjM (α) ∩ Vδ = g[jM (α) ∩ M ],
NjM (α) = f [NjM (α) ∩ Vδ<ω ],

and GM ∩ A ∈ NjM (α) for any A ∈ NjM (α) , i.e. GNjM (α) ∩ Vδ is NjM (α) -generic for
TδI .
Let for each α ∈ C δα = sup NjM (α) ∩ δ.
Observe that NjM (β) is a Vδα -end extension of NjM (α) for any α < β both in C since:
NjM (β) ∩ Vδ = g[δβ ∩ M ],
NjM (α) ∩ Vδ = g[δα ∩ M ].

and
g[δβ ∩ M ] ∩ Vδα = g[δ ∩ M ] ∩ Vδα = g[δα ∩ M ]
since α ∈ C.
Pick α ∈ C large enough so that T ∈ NjM (α) . Then
NjM (α) ∈ SGI ∧ Pλ (Vδ+1 ) ∧ T.
Since this can be repeated for any M ∈ S ↑ Hθ ∧ T , the stationarity of SGI ∧

Pλ (Vδ+1 ) ∧ T is established.
TδI is < δ-presaturated.

By Propositions 4.2.3, 11.2.1, it is enough to show the following:
Claim 11. Given any sequence of γ-many maximal antichains {Aξ : ξ < γ} for some
γ < δ,
A = R ≤I T ∈ TδI : ∀i < γ| {U ∈ Ai : U ∧ R is stationary } | < δ

is dense.
185
Proof. Let T0 ∈ TδI . We look for T ∈ A such that T ≤I T0 .
GivenSM ≺ Hθ with M ∈ S ∧ T0 ↑ Hθ , {Ai : i < γ} ∈ M and S, T0 ∈ M , we have
M ∩ T0 ∈ T0 and for any i ∈ γ ∩ M , GM ∩ Ai ∩ M 6= ∅, since GM is M -generic
for TδI . For any i ∈ M ∩ γ, let Si ∈ GM ∩ Ai , and find αi ∈ M ∩ δ be such that
Si ∈ Vαi . Since otp(M ∩ δ) = λ and γ ∈ M ∩ δ, otp(M ∩ γ) < otp(M ∩ δ) = λ, thus
α = sup {αi : i ∈ M ∩ γ} < sup(M ∩ δ). Therefore there exists β ∈ M ∩ δ such that
αi < β for any i ∈ M ∩ γ. Put
T ∗ = {N ∩ Vβ : ∀i ∈ N ∩ γ(Ai ∩ GN ∈ Vβ )} ∧ T0 .
Then M ∩ Vβ ∈ T ∗ , and T ∗ ∈ GM . This gives that T ∗ ∈ TδI refines T0 .

Subclaim 1. For any i ∈ γ:
{U ∈ Ai : U ∧ T ∗ is stationary} ⊆ Ai ∩ Vβ .
By the subclaim we get that T ∗ ∈ A and we are done. So we prove it.
Proof. Assume that U ∈ Ai and U ∈ / Vβ for some i < γ, we will show that U ∧ T ∗ ∧ S
is non-stationary: Assume by contradiction it is stationary, let N ∈ U ∧ S ∧ T ∗ with
i ∈ N , then U ∈ GN ∩ (Ai \ Vβ ), on the other hand GN ∩ Ai ∩ Vβ is non-empty, since
T ∗ ∈ GN as well. Thus |GN ∩ Ai | ≥ 2. Since Ai is an antichain and GN is a filter,
their intersection can have at most one element, a contradiction. We conclude that
U ∧ T ∗ ∈ ∪I, and we are done.
The Lemma is proved.
11.4.2 The stationary towers are presaturated and self-generic

We prove the following theorem:
+
Theorem 11.4.6. Let δ be supercompact. Then Tδγ is < δ-presaturated and self-generic
for any γ < δ.
We prove the following stronger result:
Theorem 11.4.7. Assume δ is supercompact and λ = γ + < δ. Let
S δ = SGλδ ∩ {M ≺ Hδ+ : otp(M ∩ δ) = λ} .
Then S δ ∧ T is stationary for any stationary set T ∈ Tδλ .

By Lemma 11.4.2, we get that Tδλ is < δ-presaturated; clearly it is also self-generic,
since S δ ∧ T ≤NS SGλδ ∧ T for all T ∈ Vδ .
We proceed with the proof of Theorem 11.4.7.
Proof. We start our proof introducing the following definitions and sets:
Notation 11.4.8. Let A ⊆ Vδ be a family of stationary sets, and M ≺ Hδ+ .
M captures A ∈ M if A ∩ GM is non-empty, i.e.:
h n [ o
M∈ A = N ≺ Hδ+ : ∃T ∈ A ∩ N, N ∩ T ∈ T .
186
Definition 11.4.9. Let A ⊆ Vδ be a family of stationary sets, then
h
S(A) = {M ≺ Hδ+ : A ∩ GM 6= ∅} = A,
C(A) = {M ≺ Hδ+ : ∃N ∈ S(A) VδM -end extension of M } ,
where δM = sup(M ∩ δ).

Lemma 11.4.10. Let δ be inaccessible, θ δ be a strong limit of cofinality larger than
δ, λ < δ be regular. Let A ⊆ Vδ be a family of stationary sets with S ⊆ Pλ for all S ∈ A.
The following are equivalent:
1. Given any M ≺ Hθ in Pλ (Hθ ) with A ∈ M , there exists N ≺ Hθ which is a VδM -end

extension of M such that S(A) ∈ GN .
2. C(A) is a club subset of Pλ (Hδ+ ).
Proof. We prove this equivalence as follows:
(1) ⇒ (2) Assume by contradiction that C(A) is not a club subset of Pλ (Hδ+ ). Let S be
the complement in Pλ (Hδ+ ), and let M be an elementary substructure of Hθ such
that M ∈ S ↑ Hθ . By (1) there exists N VδM -end extension of M such that N ≺ Hθ
and N ∩ Hδ+ ∈ S(A). Then M ∩ Hδ+ ∈ C(A) and this is a contradiction since
M ∈ S ↑ Hθ .
(2) ⇒ (1) Assume that (2) holds, and assume M ⊆ Hθ with A ∈ M . Then C(A) ∈ M
and so M |= C(A) is a club. Therefore there exists
f : Hδ<ω
+ → Hδ +
such that f ∈ M and C(A) ⊇ Cf . Since f ∈ M , for any s ∈ M ∩ Hδ<ω + f (s) ∈

M ∩ Hδ+ . This implies that M ∩ Hδ+ ∈ Cf ⊆ C(A). By definition of C(A), there
exists N 0 ∈ S(A) such that
N 0 ∩ V δM = M ∩ V δ ,
N 0 ≺ Hδ+ , and N 0 ⊇ M ∩ Hδ+ . Put
N = g(x) : x ∈ N 0 ∩ Vδ , g ∈ M, g : Vδ → V .

We want to show that N witnesses (1) for M . We have the following:
• N ∩ Vδ = N 0 ∩ Vδ . Clearly N ∩ Vδ ⊇ N 0 ∩ Vδ . For the other inclusion let

x ∈ Vδ ∩ N . Then x = g(y) for some g : Vδ → Vδ , g ∈ M ∩ Hδ+ ⊆ N 0 and
y ∈ N 0 ∩ Vδ . Then g(y) ∈ N 0 ∩ Vδ , since g, y ∈ N 0 .
• N ≺ Hθ : We prove this using the Tarski-Vaught criterium. Assume
Hθ |= ∃yφ(y, f1 (x1 ), . . . , fn (xn )),
where f1 , . . . , fn ∈ M , and x1 , . . . , xn ∈ N 0 ∩ Vδ . W.l.o.g. we can assume that

x1 = · · · = xn = x, letting x = hx1 , . . . , xn i and eventually replacing fj (xj )
with fj ◦ πj (x) where πj is the projection on the j-th coordinate.
For each x ∈ Vδ , let αx < θ be the least β such that
Hθ |= ∃y ∈ Vβ ∧ φ(y, f1 (x), . . . , fn (x))
187
if such a y and β can be found, αx = 0 otherwise. The map x 7→ αx is definable
in Hθ and maps Vδ into θ. Recall that θ is strong limit and cof(θ) > δ = |Vδ |
by our assumptions. Hence the range of this map is bounded below θ by some
β. Therefore Hθ models that there exists β such that for all x ∈ Vδ there exists
yx ∈ Vβ such that
Hθ |= φ(yx , f1 (x), . . . , fn (x))
(if there is any any y such that Hθ |= φ(y, f1 (x), . . . , fn (x))). Since M ≺ Hθ ,
we can find such a β ∈ M . Let g : Vδ → Vβ be in M be defined for z ∈ Vδ by
g(z) = 0 if Hθ |= ∀y¬φ(y, f1 (z), . . . , fn (z));

g(z) = y such that Hθ |= φ(y, f1 (z), . . . , fn (z)) otherwise.
Since g ∈ M and x ∈ N 0 ∩ Vδ , g(x) ∈ N , moreover since
Hθ |= ∃yφ(y, f1 (x), . . . , fn (x)),
we get that
Hθ |= φ(g(x), f1 (x), . . . , fn (x)).
This concludes the proof.
The following is the key-step in the proof of 11.4.7. We feel free to confuse an element
of Vδ with its equivalence class in Tδλ to simplify notation.
Lemma 11.4.11. Let δ be supercompact and λ = γ + < δ. Then for any A ⊆ Vδ predense
subset of Tδλ , C(A) is a club of models in Pλ (Vδ+1 ).
Proof. Let
A =C(A)c ∩ Pλ (Hδ+ ) =
= N ≺ Hδ+ : N ∈ Pλ (Hδ+ ) , and ∀N 0 ≺ Hδ+ VδN end-extension of N, N 0 ∈

/ S(A)
Assume by contradiction that C(A) is not a club. Then A is stationary.

<η ⊆ M , crit j = δ,
of δ, we can find j : V → M with M
By the supercompactness
+
η δ. Since P P Hδ ⊆ M , U ⊆ P (Hδ+ ) is stationary in V if and only if U is
stationary in M . Therefore if A ∈ V is stationary, then A ∈ M and it is also stationary 2
λ )M . Since M |= j(A) is a maximal antichain of T λ , there exists
in M . Hence A ∈ (Tj(δ) j(δ)
T1 in M such that
M |= T1 ∧ A is stationary and T1 ∈ j(A).
Let θ ∈ M be large enough (i.e. above j(δ)) and let3 in M
N ∈ T1 ∧ A ↑ (Hθ )M ,
with j Hδ+ ∈ N . Take4 N0 = N ∩ Hδ+ . Then:

• j[N0 ] = j(N0 ) ∈ M , since j[N0 ] has size less than λ < δ and M is closed under
η-sized sequences with η > δ.
2
This conclusion can be obtained just assuming δ measurable so that Hδ+ ⊆ M , since A ⊆ [Hδ+ ]ℵ0 ⊆
Hδ+ is definable with parameters in Hδ+ and M ⊆ V grants that A remains stationary in M .
3
To find such an N we need j to be a (2δ )+ - supercompact embedding to grant that j Hδ+ ∈ M .
4
Note that M δ ⊆ M grants that (Hδ+ )M = Hδ+ .
188
• N ∩ (Hj(δ)+ )M ⊇ j[N0 ], since j Hδ+ ∈ N (hence j(δ + ) ∈ N and j(δ + ) > δ + .
• j[N0 ] ∩ Vj(δ) = N0 ∩ Vδ = N ∩ Vδ , since δ is the critical point of j (hence all elements

of N0 ∩ Vδ are not moved by j).
• j(δ)j[N0 ] = sup(j[N0 ] ∩ j(δ)) = sup(N0 ∩ δ) < δ, since N0 ∩ Vδ = j[N0 ] ∩ Vj(δ) has

size less than λ.
• N ∩(Hj(δ)+ )M ∈ S(j(A)), since N ∩∪T1 ∈ T1 ∈ j(A) and N ∩(Hj(δ)+ )M ≺ (Hj(δ)+ )M .
Hence N ∩ (Hj(δ)+ )M is in M a Vj(δ) -end extension of j[N0 ] witnessing that
M |= j[N0 ] ∈ C(j(A)).
On the other hand j[N0 ] = j(N0 ) ∈ j(A), since N0 ∈ A.

We conclude that j[N0 ] witnesses that j(A) and C(j(A)) have non-empty intersection.
But, by elementarity of j, j(A) is disjoint from C(j(A)) = j(C(A)), since A is disjoint
from C(A). This is a contradiction.
The proof of the Lemma is completed.
To conclude our proof it suffices to show the following:

Claim 12. Let
S = SGλδ ∩ {M ≺ Hδ+ : otp(M ∩ δ) = λ} .
Then S ∧ T is stationary for any T ∈ Tδλ .
We prove the lemma in case λ = ω1 = ω + to simplify slightly the book-keeping
devices. The reader can supply the proof of this Claim for arbitrary λ = γ + with minor
modifications. With these assumption on λ, Pλ consists of the countable sets whose
intersection with ω1 is an ordinal.
S
Proof. Let M ≺ Hθ be countable and such that M ∩ T ∈ T (i.e. T ∈ GM ). Put
M0 = M . Let
ϕ : N −→ N2
n 7−→ hm, ji,
be a surjection such that the preimage of pair is infinite and m ≤ n for all
every ordered
n in the preimage of hm, ji. Assume that A0i : i ∈ ω is an enumeration of the maximal
antichains of M0 . Let ϕ(0) = h0, ji and α = sup(M0 ∩δ), then by Lemmas 11.4.11, 11.4.10,
we can find M1 which is a Vα end-extension of M = M0 such that A0j ∩ GM1 6= ∅ and
M1 ≺ Hθ . Observe that GM1 ∩ Vδ ⊃ GM0 ∩ Vδ .
We proceed by induction on γ ≤ ω1 as follows:
n o
• Assume γ = β + n with β limit and that we have defined Mγ . Let Aβ+n i : i ∈ ω
be an enumeration of the maximal antichains of Mβ+n . Let ϕ(n) = hm, ji and
α = sup(Mβ+n ∩δ), then by Lemmas 11.4.11, 11.4.10, we can find a Vα end-extension
of Mγ , Mβ+n+1 , such that Aβ+m
j ∩GMβ+n+1 6= ∅ and Mβ+n+1 ≺ Hθ . Then GMβ+n+1 ⊃
GMn .
S
• At a limit stage γ ≤ ω1 let Mγ = β<γ Mβ .
S
Let N = {Mγ : γ ∈ ω1 }. Then N ∈ S ∧ T .
189
The proof of Theorem 11.4.7 is completed.
Remark 11.4.12. Regarding the proof of the last Claim, following the same notation, we
observe that in ω-many steps we consider all the possible maximal antichains of Mω (and
for all β in ω-many steps we consider all the possible maximal antichains of Mβ+ω , in
particular along the way Mγ ∈ SGωδ 1 for all limit γ). This shows that an induction of
length ω suffices to prove that Tδω1 is self-generic, but it is not yet sufficient to infer that
Tδω1 is presaturated. Hence we continued the induction for ω1 + 1-many steps in order
to have otp(N ∩ δ) = ω1 , so that we can use Lemma 11.4.2 to get the presaturation of
Tδω1 . To prove the Claim for arbitrary λ = γ + one has to organize the above inductive
construction using λ + 1-many steps and use a bookeeping surjection from γ to γ 2 such
that the preimage of each ordered pairs has size γ. We leave the details to the reader.
11.4.3 Other properties of stationary towers

We outline a few other properties of the stationary towers we will need in the sequel:
Lemma 11.4.13. Assume δ is supercompact and γ + = λ < δ. Then for all X ∈ V

n o
DX = SGλα : ∃j : Vη → Vλ elementary with crit(j) = α, j(α) = δ and X ∈ j[Vη ]
is predense in Tδλ .
Proof. Fix T stationary in Tδλ . Given X ∈ V , find j : Vη → Vλ elementary with crit(j) =

α > λ, j(α) = δ, X ∈ j[Vλ ], T ∈ Vα . This is possible by the supercompactness of δ. Then
we have that
S δ = SGλδ ∩ {M ≺ Hδ+ : otp(M ∩ δ) < λ}
is equal to j(S α ), where
S α = SGλα ∩ {M ≺ Hδ+ : otp(M ∩ α) < λ} .
By Theorem 11.4.7 and Lemma 11.4.2, S δ ∧ T is stationary, and by elementarity of j we

get that S α ∧ T is stationary. Hence SGλα ∧ T is stationary and SGλα belongs to DX . Since
T was chosen arbitrarily in Tδλ , the thesis follows.
190
Chapter 12
Generic absoluteness for L([Ord]ω )
Woodin’s generic absoluteness for second order number theory is in our eyes one of the
major achievements of set theory of the last fourty years. The aim of this chapter is to
provide a detailed proof of this result. More precisely we will prove the following theorem:
Theorem 12.0.1 (Woodin). Assume V is a (transitive1 ) model of ZFC which also models
that there are class many supercompact cardinals2 . Let φ(x1 , . . . , xn ) be a formula in the
free variables x1 , . . . , xn . The following are equivalent for any r1 , . . . , rn ∈ 2ω :
• L([Ord]ω )V models φ(r1 , . . . , rn ).
• For some boolean algebra B ∈ V
JL([Ord]ω ) |= φ(ř1 , . . . , řn )KB = 1
holds in V .
The theorem will be an easy corollary of the following:
Theorem 12.0.2. Assume V is a (transitive) model of ZFC and δ is supercompact in V .
Then there is a complete boolean algebra B ∈ V and injective complete homomorphisms
i0 : Tδω1 → B
i1 : RO(Coll(ω, < δ)) → B

in V such that for all H V -generic for B
−1 −1
L([Ord]ω )V [i0 [H]]
= L([Ord]ω )V [H] = L([Ord]ω )V [i1 [H]]
.
We prove Theorem 12.0.1 assuming Theorem 12.0.2. First we need to recall some
properties of the forcing Coll(ω, < δ):
Remark 12.0.3. Coll(ω, < δ) has the following properties whenever δ is inaccessible (most
of them hold just assuming δ regular and uncountable):
• It is < δ-CC and the inclusion map of Coll(ω, < γ) into Coll(ω, < δ) extends to
an injective complete homomorphism of the respective boolean completions for all
cardinals γ < δ (see [28, ?, Theorem XXX]).
1
We carry the proof of this and of the subsequent theorem assuming that V is transitive, but this
assumption is redundant.
2
The large cardinal assumption can be reduced to ask just for the existence of class many Woodin
cardinals which are a limit of Woodin cardinals (see [30, Theorem 3.1.2, Corollary 3.1.7]).
191
• It collapses δ to become ω1 (see [28, ?, Theorem XXX]).
• It is homogeneous, i.e. for any p, q ∈ RO(Coll(ω, < δ))+ there is an automorphism

of RO(Coll(ω, < δ)) mapping p to q (see [28, ?, Theorem XXX]).
• It absorbs any forcing in Vδ if δ is inaccessible, i.e.: for any B ∈ Vδ there is a complete

injective homomorphism of B into RO(Coll(ω, < δ)) (Kripke [28, Corollary 26.8]).
• For homogenous forcings B, Jφ(ǎ1 , . . . , ǎn )KB is either 1B or 0B (see [28, ?, Theorem
XXX]).
• Whenever G is V -generic for some B ∈ Vδ , Coll(ω, < δ)V [G] = Coll(ω, < δ)V and
RO(Coll(ω, < δ))V [G] ∼
= RO(Coll(ω, < δ))V /i[G] , where i : B → RO(Coll(ω, < δ))V is
any complete injective homomorphism in V (see [28, ?, Theorem XXX]).
Proof. Let W be a transitive model of ZFC, H be W -generic for B (where B is the cba
given in Theorem 12.0.2 for W and δ. Let Gj = i−1
j [H], by 11.4.6 there is in W [G] an
elementary j : W → Ult(W, G0 ) such that Ult(W, G0 )ω ⊆ Ult(W, G0 ). In particular we
obtain that
L([Ord]ω )Ult(W,G0 ) = L([Ord]ω )W [G0 ] = L([Ord]ω )W [H] = L([Ord]ω )W [G1 ] .
Moreover k = j L([Ord]ω )W is still an elementary embedding
k : L([Ord]ω )W → L([Ord]ω )W [H] .
This gives that the structures
hL([Ord]ω )W , ∈, (2ω )W i
hL([Ord]ω )W [G1 ] , ∈, (2ω )W i

are elementarily equivalent in W [H]. Thus for any first order formula φ(x1 , . . . , xn ) and
r1 , . . . , rn ∈ (2ω )W , we get that
hL([Ord]ω )W , ∈, (2ω )W i |= φ(r1 , . . . , rn )
if and only if
hL([Ord]ω )W [G1 ] , ∈, (2ω )W i |= φ(r1 , . . . , rn ).
Since Coll(ω, < δ) is homogeneous, we get that
ω W
W |= φ(r1 , . . . , rn )L([Ord] )
s {
L([Ord] ω )W [ĠColl(ω,<δ) ]
if and only if (since φ(r1 , . . . , rn ) ∈ G1 )
s {
W [ĠColl(ω,<δ) ]
L([Ord]ω )
W |= φ(r1 , . . . , rn ) > 0RO(Coll(ω,<δ))
if and only if (by the homogeneity of Coll(ω, < δ))

s {
W [ĠColl(ω,<δ) ]
L([Ord]ω )
W |= φ(r1 , . . . , rn ) = 1RO(Coll(ω,<δ)) .
192
We conclude that for all transitive models W , and for all supercompact cardinal δ in W ,
and all formulae φ(x1 , . . . , xn ) in the free variables x1 , . . . , xn , and all r1 , . . . , rn ∈ (2ω )W :
r ω
z
L([Ord]ω )W |= φ if and only if φ(ř)L([Ord] ) = 1.
RO(Coll(ω,<δ)
Now let V be a fixed transitive model of ZFC, C be any complete boolean algebra in
V , and δ be a supercompact cardinal in V such that C ∈ Vδ . Let G be V -generic for C.
Then in V [G] δ remains supercompact (by Lemma 11.3.3) and
Coll(ω, < δ)V = Coll(ω, < δ)V [G] .
Moreover any V [G]-generic filter H for Coll(ω, < δ) is also V -generic for the same forcing
notion and V [G][H] = V [H]. By the above observations, we get that for any formula
φ(x1 , . . . , xn ) in the free variables x1 , . . . , xn , and all r1 , . . . , rn ∈ (2ω )V , letting H be
V [G]-generic for Coll(ω, < δ):
L([Ord]ω )V |= φ(r1 , . . . , rn )
if and only if
ω V [H]
L([Ord] ) |= φ(r1 , . . . , rn )
if and only if
ω V [G]
L([Ord] ) |= φ(r1 , . . . , rn ).
Since this holds for any G V -generic for B and H V [G]-generic for Coll(ω, < δ), we get
that
L([Ord]ω )V |= φ(r1 , . . . , rn )
if and only if
r z
L([Ord]ω )V [Ġ] |= φ(ř1 , . . . , řn ) = 1B .
We now prove Theorem 12.0.2.
Proof. Let G be V -generic for Tδω1 with δ supercompact in V .

In V [G] consider the forcing notion P given by functions
g : ω × γg → γg
such that γg < δ is a cardinal in V and
H(g) = {s ∈ Coll(ω, < γg ) : s ⊆ g}
is V -generic for Coll(ω, < α) for all α ≤ γg which are regular cardinals in V . The order
on P is reverse inclusion. We will be done once we prove the following:
Claim 13. The following holds for any V [G]-generic filter K for P :
1. H = H(∪K) is V -generic for Coll(ω, < δ),
193
2. For any α we can find g ∈ K such that dom(g) ⊇ ω × γ and G ∩ Vα ∈ V [g].
V [H] V [G]
Consequently Hω1 ⊇ Hω1 , since
ω ω
n o [n o
V [G] Tδ 1 Tδ 1
Hω1 = τG : τ ∈ Vδ ∩ V = τG∩Vα : τ ∈ Vα ∩ V
α<δ
by the presaturation of Tδω1 and 4.2.4.

V [G] V [G][K] V [H]
3. V [G] models that P is < ω1 -distributive. Consequently Hω1 = Hω1 ⊇ Hω1 .
V [G] V [G][K] V [H]
Therefore Hω1 = Hω1 = Hω1 .
4. All countable sequences of ordinals in V [G][K] are in V [H]. Hence V [G][K] is a
V [H]-generic extension by a < δ-distributive forcing in V [H].
It is clear that the proof of this Claim suffices to prove the Theorem.
Proof. We prove each item of the Claim as follows:
1. Any maximal antichain A of Coll(ω, < δ) is a maximal antichain of Coll(ω, < γ) for all
cardinals γ such that A ∈ Vγ , due to the < δ-CC of Coll(ω, < δ) and to the fact that
the inclusion map of Coll(ω, < γ) into Coll(ω, < δ) extends to a injective complete
homomorphism of the respective boolean completions for all cardinals γ < δ. It is
also immediate to check that
Dα = {h ∈ P : ω × α ⊆ dom(h)}
is an open dense subset of P in V [G] for all α < δ. This gives that if A ∈ Vα is
a maximal antichain of Coll(ω, < δ) and g ∈ Dα , H(g) ∩ A is non-empty. An easy
density argument on P shows that H(∪K) is V -generic for Coll(ω, < δ).
2. It suffices to show that (2ω )V [G] = (2ω )V [H(∪K)] for any K V [G]-generic for P , since
V [G]
G ∩ Vα is a countable set in Hω1 for any α < δ. To this aim given h ∈ P let
(γ +n : n ≤ ω) list the first ω + 1-many cardinals of V greater or equal than γh . To
simplify notation let γω = γ. Notice that (γn : n < ω) ∈ V and that Coll(ω, < γ)
is not < γ-CC in V since γ is a strong limit cardinal of countable cofinality in V .
Nonetheless this will not harm our construction below.
Fix r ∈ (2ω )V [G] and build a sequence (hn : n ∈ ω) in V [G] such that:
• h0 = h,
• hn+1 ⊇ hn ,
• hn+1 (0, γn ) = r(n),
• H(hn ) is V -generic for Coll(ω, < γn ) for all 0 < n < ω.
To build hn+1 given hn , find in V [G] a V [hn ]-generic filter U for the poset given
by finite partial functions s : ω × γn+1 → (γn+1 \ γn ) such that s(0, γn ) = r(n)
ordered by reverse inclusion — thisSforcing is easily seen in V to be isomorphic to
Coll(ω, < γn+1 ) — let hn+1 = hn ∪ U .
Let g = ∪n∈ω hn . Then H(g ω ×γn ) is V -generic for Coll(ω, < γn ) for all 0 < n < ω,
giving that g ∈ P refines h.
Thus in V [G] for any given h ∈ P and r ∈ (2ω )V [G] , we can find g ⊇ h in P such
that r ∈ V [H(g)], since r is computable in the parameters (γh+n : n < ω) ∈ V and g.
V [H(∪K)] V [G]
A standard density argument will now give that Hω1 = Hω1 for any K
V [G]-generic for P . The desired conclusion follows.
194
3. We have to prove that V [G] models that P is < ω1 -distributive for any G V -generic
for Tδω1 .
Let S ∈ Tδω1 and fix G V -generic for Tδω1 such that S ∈ G. Let {An : n ∈ ω} be a
countable family of maximal antichains of P in V [G] and h ∈ V [G] ∩ P . Notice that
each An is an subset of Voδ [G]. By the < δ-presaturation of Tδω1 in V , we can find in
V a family Ȧn : n ∈ ω ∈ V and ḣ ∈ V such that
• valG (ḣ) = h,
• valG (Ȧn ) = An for all n ∈ ω.
• Ȧn ⊆ Vδ , ḣ ∈ Vδ .
By Lemmma 11.4.13 the set

Dh{Ȧn :n∈ω},Ḣ,Ṗ i
is dense in Tδλ . Hence we can find j : Vγ → Vη in V elementary and such that
• j(crit(j)) = δ, α = crit(j) > ξ, ḣ ∈ Vα ,

n o
• Ȧn : n ∈ ω , Ṗ ∈ j[Vγ ],
• SGIα ∈ G, so that G ∩ Vα is V -generic for Tαω1 .
Notice that j(Ȧn ∩ Vα ) = Ȧn for all n since Ȧn ⊆ Vδ .

Now in V [G] let (αn : n ∈ ω) be an increasing sequence converging to α of countable
ordinals of V [G] which are inaccessible cardinals in V (this sequence exists in V [G]
since α is in V an inaccessible limit of inaccessible cardinals by elementarity of j,
while it is a countable ordinal in V [G]).
In V [G ∩ Vα ] build an increasing sequence {hm : m ∈ ω} ⊆ P ∩ Vα such that
• h0 = h
• h2m+1 extends some h∗ ∈ Am ∩ Vα = (Ȧm ∩ Vα )G∩Vα ,
• H(h2m+2 ) is V -generic for Coll(ω, < αi ) with αi chosen so that h2m+1 ⊆ Vν for
some ν < αi .
Then ∪m∈ω hm = g ∈ P : Coll(ω, < α) is < α-CC in V , hence for any maximal
antichain B ∈ V on Coll(ω, < α), there is i < ω such that B ⊆ Coll(ω, < αk ) is
a maximal antichain of Coll(ω, < αk ) for all k ≥ i. therefore B has been met by
the filter H(hk ) for eventually all k ∈ ω. Thus H(g) is V -generic for Coll(ω, < α).
Clearly g meets all the An since it extends h2m+1 for all m.
4. Let us now argue that f ∈ V [H] for any function f : ω → Ord in V [G][K]. So let
us fix f : ω → Ord in V [G][K]. We aim to show that f ∈ V [H]: first observe that
f ∈ V [G] by the < δ-distributivity of P over V [G].
Next, since δ is supercompact, we have that
D = SGIα : α < δ Tαω1 is self-generic and presaturated

is predense in Tδω1 by Lemma 11.4.13, in particular it is immediate to check that
β < δ : SGIβ ∈ G ∩ D

195
is unbounded in δ in V [G].
ω
1
Now f = f˙G for some f˙ ∈ V Tδ name for a function with domain ω and range into
V [G]
the ordinals. Since δ = ω1 , the countably many maximal antichains contained in
Vδ needed to decide the values of f˙ in V [G] are met by G all in some Vα for some
α < δ. We can suppose that α is such that SGIα ∈ G. Hence Gα = G ∩ Vα is
V -generic for Tαω1 by Lemma 11.1.8.
1 ω
This gives that f ∈ V [Gα ], since f˙G = ḣG∩Vα where ḣ ∈ V Tα is the Tαω1 -name
satisfying the property
r z r z
ḣ(n) = α ≥ S iff (S ∈ Tαω1 and f˙(n) = α ≥ S ∧ SGIα in Tδω1 ).
We conclude that f ∈ V [g] ⊆ V [H] for any g ∈ K such that Gα ∈ V [g].

Now we can show that V [G][K] is a generic extension of V [H] by a < δ-distributive
forcing in V [H]: V [G][K] is a forcing extension of V [H] by [28, ?, Theorem XXX]
for some forcing Q ∈ V [H]. Assume L ∈ V [G][K] is V [H]-generic for Q; since all
countable sequences of ordinals in V [G][K] are in V [H] and δ = (ω1 )V [G][K] , we get
that Q q is < δ-distributive over V [H] for some q ∈ L. W.l.o.g. we can assume that
Q = Q q .
The proof of the Claim is completed.
The proof of the Theorem is completed.
196
Chapter 13
Forcing axioms II
This chapter dwelves further in the analysis of forcing axioms. The first aim is to prove
the consistency of MM++ relative to a supercompact cardinal. The remaining part of the
chapter outlines that many forcing axioms can be formulated as density properties of the
category forcings (Γ, ≤Γ ) for suitably chosen Γ: for example in the last part of the chapter
we show that MM++ can be formulated as a density property of the class partial order
(SSP, ≤SSP ). Towards this aim we first show that assuming the existence of class many
supercompact cardinals the natural embedding of the category forcing (Ωκ , ≤Ω ) of forcings
P satisfying FAκ (P ) into the class partial order given by stationary sets concentrating on
Pκ+ (V ) ordered by the ≤NS -relation is order and incompatibility preserving and preserves
set sized suprema.
Recall that (see Def. 8.6.2 for details):
For M ≺ Hθ of size ω1 and containing ω1 and B ∈ M a cba, G ultrafilter

on B ∩ M is (M, SSP)-correct if G is M -generic and interprets correctly the
B-names for stationary subsets of ω1 in M .
SSP
SSP .
and TB = TB,|B| +
13.1 Consistency of MM++

Theorem 13.1.1 (Foreman, Magidor, Shelah). Assume there exists a supercompact car-
dinal. Then NBG + MM++ is consistent.
Proof. We use the following property of supercompact cardinals1 [28, Laver, Theorem
20.21]:
Assume δ is supercompact. Then there exists g : δ → δ such that for all

α > δ there exists j : V → M ⊆ V elementary with δ = crit(j), j(g)(δ) > α,
Mα ⊆ M.
Now consider the lottery preparation forcing PSP,g

δ (see Def. 7.5.4).
V [G]
Lemma 13.1.2. Assume G is V -generic for PSP,g
δ . Then V [G] |= MM++ and δ = ω2 .
1
Literally the
cited theorem proves something different for a certain function f : δ → Vδ , nonetheless
letting g(α) = Vrank(f (α)+1) , we have that g satisfies the quoted sentence.
197
Proof. We first prove the following:
Claim 14. Assume that for all semiproper forcings B FA++ (B) holds. Then MM++ holds.
Proof. Notice that every countably closed forcing is semiproper. Moreover FA++ (B) clearly
entails FA+ (B). By Theorem 9.4.2, we conclude that every stationary set preserving forcing
is semiproper. Hence the thesis.
V [G]
Now assume G is V -generic for PSP,gδ . Then ω1V = ω1 since PSP,g
δ is semiproper in
SP,g
V by Theorems 10.2.7, 10.2.8 and Proposition 7.5.5. Moreover Pδ is < δ-CC, again by
Proposition 7.5.5. Hence δ is regular in V [G] and is the successor of ω1 , since for all even
successor α < δ, PSP,g
α adds a bijection of α with ω1 .
To complete the proof of the Lemma we must show that MM++ holds in V [G].
By the first Claim it suffices to prove the following:
Claim 15. Let B ∈ V [G] be a semiproper forcing. Then FA++ (B) holds in V [G].
r z
Proof. Find Ḃ ∈ Hθ with θ > 2|B| regular and such that Ḃ ∈ SP = 1PSP,g and ḂG = B.
δ
θ
Find j : V → M ⊆ V such that M 2 ⊆ M r z > θ. Observe that j Hθ ∈ M
and j(g)(δ)
M M
and that Hθ = Hθ . Hence Hθ models that Ḃ ∈ SP = 1PSP,g , which gives that M as
r z δ
well models that Ḃ ∈ SP = 1PSP,g . Hence Ḃ is one of the factors used to define in M
δ
Yn r z o
SP,j(g) M
(Pδ+1 ) = PSP,g
δ ∗ M
Ċ ∈ Vj(g)(δ) : M |= Ċ ∈ SP = 1PSP,g .
δ
SP,j(g) M
Consider in V the forcing (Pj(δ) ) . Now (PSP,g
δ )M = PSP,g
δ is a complete sub-forcing
SP,j(g) M
of (Pj(δ) ) and is < δ-presaturated in V . Moreover letting q = iδ+1,j(δ) (h1PSP,g ,Ḃ , Ḃi),
δ
we have that the map p 7→ j(p) ∧ q defines a complete homomorphism of PSP,g
δ into
SP,j(g) M
(Pj(δ) ) q in V .
SP,j(g)
We let H be V -generic for (Pj(δ) )M with G ⊆ H and q ∈ H. By Theorem 11.3.1 j
lifts to an elementary j̄ : V [G] → M [H] with j̄(σG ) = j(σ)H .
Now observe that q in H grants that
n o
K = ḃG ∈ B : iδ+1,j(δ) (h1PSP,g , ḃi) ∈ H
δ
is V [G]-generic for B. Let K̇G = K. Since M [H] is a generic extension

n of M [G][K] by the
o
SP,j(g) M
semiproper (in M [G][K]) forcing (Pj(δ) ) /G∗K̇ (with G ∗ K̇ = (p, ḃ) : p ∈ G, ḃG ∈ K
SP,j(g)
V -generic for (Pδ+1 )M ), we get that all B-names Ṡ in M [G] for stationary subsets of ω1
are such that ṠK remains stationary in M [H]. Moreover each such B-name Ṡ can be found
M [G]
in HθV [G] = HθM [G] = Hθ , since HθV = HθM and B ∈ Hθ . Now j̄[HθV [G]] ∈ M [H], since
G ∈ M [H] and j[Hθ ] ∈ M , and
M [ H]
M [H] |= j̄[HθV [G]] ≺ Hj(θ) .
M [H] SP,j(g)
Moreover j̄[HθV [G]] has size ω1 = ω1V in M [H] (again because (Pj(δ) )M is semiproper
M [H] M [H] M [H] V [G]
in M ) and contains ω1 , since ω2 = j(δ) > HθV [G] and crit j̄ = ω2 > ω1V .
V V V
We get that Hθ [G] is the transitive collapse of j[Hθ [G]] and that K is Hθ [G]-generic
for B and evaluates correctly in M [H] all B-names for stationary subsets of ω1 .
198
We conclude that M [H] models that j[K] is (SSP, j[HθV [G]])-correct for j(B). By
Theorem 8.6.4 applied in M [H], FA++ (j̄(B)) holds in M [H].
By elementarity of j̄, we get that FA++ (B) holds in V [G].
The proof of the Claim is concluded.
The proof of the Lemma is completed.
The Theorem is proved.
13.2 Selfgeneric towers, forcing axioms, and category forc-

ings
Recall that for a self-generic ideal forcing induced a by a tower of normal ideals I of height
δ SGI is the set of M ≺ Hδ+ such that
GM ∩ Vδ = {S ∈ M ∩ Vδ : M ∩ ∪S ∈ S}
is M -generic for T I . Recall also that a presaturated tower of normal ideals which concen-
trates on
Pκ (V ) = {X : X ∩ κ ∈ κ > |X|} .
is such that its generic ultrapower embedding has critical point κ and maps the critical
point to δ.
We start remarking the following fundamental property of the class SSP:
Theorem 13.2.1 (Woodin, Theorem 2.53 [55]). Assume δ is inaccessible and I is a self-
generic and presaturated tower of normal ideals of height δ concentrating on Pλ+ (V ). For
each cba B ∈ SSP ∩ Vδ the following are equivalent:
1. FAλ (B)
2. There is some S ∈ T I and a complete homomorphism k : B → T I [S]I .
Proof. By Theorem 8.2.2 for any B ∈ SSP, FAλ (B) holds iff
n o
SB,λ = M ∈ Pκ H|B|+ : there exists H M -generic filter for B
is stationary.
First assume SB,λ is stationary and for each M ∈ SB,λ fix HM M -generic for B. Define
k :B → T I [SB,λ ]I
b 7→ {M ∈ SB,λ : b ∈ HM }
We claim that k is a complete homomorphism. It is an homomorphism, since
k(b ∧ c) =NS {M ∈ SB,λ : b ∈ HM } ∩ {M ∈ SB,λ : c ∈ HM }
and
k(¬b) =NS {M ∈ SB,λ : b ∈
/ HM } .
Now we show that it is complete: Pick G V -generic filter for T I [SB,λ ]I and let
H = k −1 [G]. Then H is a filter on B. Now fix A maximal antichain of B. Then
{M ∈ SB,λ : A ∈ M } is a club subset of SB,λ , hence it is in G as well. Remark that
199
HM ∩ A = {bM } for some unique bM ∈ HM , since HM is M -generic for B. By the V -
normality of G there exists a unique b ∈ B such that Sb = {M ∈ SB,λ : bM = b} ∈ G.
Then k(b) = Sb ∈ G, hence b ∈ H. Therefore H is V -generic for B. Clearly H ∈ V [G].
Since this occurs for all V -generic filters for T I [SB,λ ]I , we conclude that k is a complete
homomorphism by Lemma 6.1.2.
Conversely assume there is [T ]I ∈ T I and a complete homomorphism k : B → T I
[T ]I . W.l.o.g. we can assume H|B|+ = ∪SB,λ ⊆ ∪T = Hθ .
For any M ∈ T ∧ SGI , let HM = {b ∈ M ∩ B : k(b) ∈ GM }.
We claim that HM is M -generic for B for any M ∈ T ∧SGI with k ∈ M : Let A ∈ M be
a maximal antichain of B. Then k[A] ∈ M is a maximal antichain of T I [T ]I , therefore
GM ∩ k[A] 6= ∅, giving that HM ∩ A 6= ∅.
We conclude that for some M ∈ T ∧ SGI there exists an M -generic filter for B. Hence
SB,λ is stationary by Theorem 8.2.2.
We can prove the analogue result for presaturated self-generic ideal forcings:
Theorem 13.2.2. Assume δ is inaccessible and I is a normal ideal concentrating on

Pλ+ (δ) and such that P I is presaturated and self-generic. For each cba B ∈ Ωλ ∩ Vδ the
following are equivalent:
1. FAλ (B)
2. There is some S ∈ P I and a complete homomorphism k : B → P P [S]I .
Proof. Identical to the previous one and left to the reader.
In case we focus on the case λ+ = ω2 and we replace FAω1 (B) with FA++ (B) we can
gather much more informations on the corresponding category forcing.
Lemma 13.2.3. Let I be a self-generic and presaturated tower of normal ideals of height
δ which concentrates on
Pω2 (V ) = {X : X ∩ ω2 ∈ ω2 > |X|} .
For each M ∈ SGI , GM ∩ Vδ is (M, SSP)-correct for T I .
Proof. Since I is a self-generic tower, SGI ∧ T is stationary for all T ∈ Tδω2 . In particular
FAω1 (Tδω2 ) holds by Theorem 8.2.2.
Moreover whenever G is V -generic for Tδω2 , we have that
HωUlt(V,G)
2
= HωV2[G] = Vδ [G],
V [G]
where the first equality holds since Ult(V, G)<δ ⊆ Ult(V, G) and δ = ω2 holds in V [G],
I
and the second equality holds since T is < δ-presaturated.
To simplify the argument (even if the assumption that θ is inaccessible is not necessary)
assume that θ > δ is inaccessible. We can replicate the above argument for each M ∈
SGI ↑ Hθ as follows: Let πM : M → ZM be the transitive collapse of M , ā = πM (a) for
all a ∈ M . Then ZM is a transitive model of ZFC in which δ̄ is supercompact. Moreover
HM = πM [GM ] is ZM -generic for T̄ I . Hence
ZM [HM ] |= HωUlt(Z
2
M ,HM )
= HωZ2M [HM ] = (Vδ )ZM [HM ].
Now fix τ ∈ V Tδω2 -name for a stationary subset of ω1 .
200
Then for each M as above with τ ∈ M τ̄HM is a stationary subset of ω1 in ZM [HM ].
Ult(Z ,H ) Ult(Z ,H )
Hence it belongs to Hω2 M M ; therefore there exists some SM ∈ Hω2 M M such that
τ̄H = SM with SM = [f¯M ]H for some f M : P P X M → P (ω1 ) in M ∩ Vδ .

M τ M τ
By pressing down we can find a fixed f and a fixed X ∈ Vδ such that P (P (X)) =
dom(f ) and the set T of M with fτM = f is stationary. Let S = T ↓ Vβ for some β < δ
with X ∈ Vβ . Then S ∈ T I . Now assume G is V -generic for T I with S ∈ G. Then V [G]
models that τG is a stationary subset of ω1 and also that τG = [f ]G . Since
HωUlt(V,G)
2
= HωV2[G] = Vδ [G],
we get that Ult(V, G) models that [f ]G is a stationary subset of ω1 . By Los̀ theorem we

conclude that
{M ∈ S : fτ (M ∩ X) is a stationary subset of ω1 } ∈ G.
Since this occurs for all V -generic filter G for T I with S ∈ G, we conclude that
{M ∈ S : fτ (M ∩ X) is a stationary subset of ω1 } =I S.
Hence fτ (M ∩ X) = SM is a stationary subset of ω1 for all M ∈ T .

Now remark that _
SGI =NS {Tf : dom(f ) ∈ Vδ }
where Tf is the set of M ∈ SGI such that fτM = f for some fixed f and for all M ∈ Tf .
Repeating the above argument for all Tf ⊆ SGI we obtain that SM = fτM is a station-
ary subset of ω1 for all M ∈ SGI .
We conclude that for each M ∈ SGI , for each T I -name τ for a stationary subset of ω1
in M , letting HM = πM [GM ∩ Vδ ], SM = τ̄HM , we have that SM is a stationary subset of
ω1 .
By definition GM ∩ Vδ is an M -generic filter for T I . Hence GM is (M, SSP)-correct
for T I . The proof is concluded.
Similarly one can prove:
Lemma 13.2.4. Let I be a self-generic normal ideal which concentrates on
Pω2 (δ) = {X ⊆ δ : X ∩ ω2 ∈ ω2 > |X|}
and such that P I is presaturated.

For each M ∈ SGI , GM ∩ Vδ is (M, SSP)-correct for P I .
We can now prove the following characterization of MM++ :
Theorem 13.2.5. Assume δ is a supercompact cardinal. For each cba B ∈ SSP ∩ Vδ the
following are equivalent:
1. FA++
ω1 (B)
2. There is some S ∈ Tδω2 and a complete and SSP-correct homomorphism i : B →

Tδω2 S.
201
Proof. By Lemma 13.2.3 SGωδ 2 ∧ T is stationary for all T ∈ (Tδω2 )+ . In particular
ω2
FA++
ω1 (Tδ T ) holds for all supercompact cardinals δ and all T ∈ (Tδω2 )+ .
Notice also that for any B ∈ SSP, FA++ ω1 (B) holds iff TB is stationary (where the latter
is the set of M ≺ H|B|+ admitting an (SSP, M )-generic filter for B).
Now assume 2 holds. Given some B ∈ SSP ∩ Vδ and some SSP-correct i : B → Tδω2 T ,
Fix M ∈ SGωδ 2 ∧T with k ∈ M and let HM = {b ∈ B : i(b) ∈ GM }. Let τ ∈ V B ∩M be a B-
name for a stationary subset of ω1 . Then σ = k̂(τ ) is a Tδω2 -name for a a stationary subset
of ω1 since i is SSP-correct. By Lemma 13.2.3, πM (σ)πM [GM ∩Vδ ] is a stationary subset
of ω1 . Clearly πM (σ)πM [GM ∩Vδ ] is equal to τπM [HM ] , hence the latter is also a stationary
subset of ω1 . Since this occurs for all τ ∈ V B ∩ M B-names for a stationary subset of ω1 ,
we conclude that HM is an (SSP, M )-correct filter for B.
Conversely assume 1 holds for B ∈ Vδ . Fix θ inaccessible with δ > θ > |B|+ + 2ω1 .
Then S = TB ↑ Hθ is stationary.
For each M ∈ S fix HM (M, SSP)-correct filter for M . Let k : B → Tδω2 S be defined
by b 7→ {M ∈ S : b ∈ HM }. We check that k is SSP-correct: First of all we remark that
all B-names for stationary subsets of ω1 are in H|B|+ +2ω1 ∈ Vδ (since they are given by
ω1 -many maximal antichains of size 2 of B).
Fix Ṡ ∈ Hθ B-name for a stationary subset of ω1 . Let in V ,
fṠ :S → P (ω1 )
M 7→ (πM (Ṡ))πM [HM ]
Since HM is (M, SSP)-correct for all M ∈ S, we get that fṠ (M ) is stationary for all
M ∈ S.
Fix G V -generic for Tδω2 with S ∈ G and let H = k −1 [G]. We claim that:
ṠH = [fṠ ]G .
Proof. Observe that
α ∈ ṠH
if and only if
r z
α ∈ Ṡ ∈H
B
if and only if
r z n r z o
k( α ∈ Ṡ ) = M ∈ S : α ∈ Ṡ ∈ HM ∈ G
B B
if and only if

M ∈ S : α ∈ fṠ (M ) ∈ G
if and only if
α ∈ [fṠ ]G .
Remark that
HωUlt(V,G)
2
= HωV2[G] = Vδ [G],
V [G]
where the first equality holds since Ult(V, G)<δ ⊆ Ult(V, G) and δ = ω2 holds in V [G],
and the second equality holds since Tδω2 is < δ-presaturated.
202
Now for all Ṡ ∈ Hθ B-name for a stationary subset of ω1
Ult(V, G) |= [fṠ ]G is stationary
by Loś Theorem, hence

V [G] |= ṠH is stationary
for all Ṡ ∈ Hθ B-name for a stationary subset of ω1 . Since this holds for all G V -generic
for Tδω2 with S ∈ G, we conclude that k is SSP-correct. The proof is completed.
We have the following immediate corollary:
Corollary 13.2.6. Assume there are class many supercompact cardinals. Then the fol-
lowing are equivalent:
1. MM++ ;
2. the class of presaturated normal towers is dense in (SSP, ≤SSP ).
Duality between SSP-forcings and stationary sets

We can now prove the following two theorems:
Theorem 13.2.7. Assume there are class many supercompact

cardinals. Let for each
cardinal λ and B ∈ Ωλ SB,λ be the set of M ∈ Pλ+ H|B|+ admitting an M -generic filter
for B.
The map
+
Iκ :Ωκ → T κ
B 7→ SB,κ
is order and incompatibility preserving and maps set sized suprema to set sized suprema.
Theorem 13.2.8. Assume there are class many supercompact cardinals and MM++ holds.
The map
ISSP :SSP → T ω2
B 7→ TB
is order and incompatibility preserving (with respect to the ≤SSP -order on the class SSP)
and maps set sized suprema to set sized suprema.
Both theorems are immediate corollaries of Lemma 8.7.3 (respectively Lemma 8.7.4
for the case of MM++ ) and Lemma 13.2.9 (respectively Lemma 13.2.10 for the case of
MM++ ) to follow.
Lemma 13.2.9. Assume there are class many supercompact cardinals. Then B0 , B1 are
compatible conditions in (Ωκ , ≤Ω ) if and only if SB0 ,κ ∧ SB1 ,κ is stationary.
Lemma 13.2.10. Assume MM++ and there are class many supercompact cardinals. Then
B0 , B1 are compatible conditions in (SSP, ≤SSP ) if and only if TB0 ∧ TB1 is stationary.
We prove just Lemma 13.2.10 and leave the other proof to the reader.
203
Proof. First assume that C ≤ B0 , B1 . We show that TB0 ∧TB1 is stationary. Let ij : Bj → C
be SSP-correct homomorphisms Fix γ > |C|+|B0 |+|B1 | inaccessible, and for all M ∈ TC ↑ γ
j
such that ij ∈ M for j = 0, 1 pick GM (SSP, M )-correct filter for C. Let HM = i−1
j [GM ],
j
then both HM are (SSP, M )-correct filter for Bj for both j = 0, 1, hence
TB0 ∧ TB1 ≥SSP TC
is stationary.
j
Conversely assume that S = TB0 ∧ TB1 is stationary. For each M ∈ S pick HM
(M, SSP)-correct filter for Bj for j = 0, 1. Fix a supercompact cardinal δ > |S|. Let
ij : Bj → Tδω2 S map
j
b → {M ∈ S : b ∈ HM }.
Then (by Theorem 8.6.4) each ij is an SSP-correct homomorphism, therefore B0 and B1
are compatible conditions with respect to ≤SSP .
All in all assuming MM++ and class many supercompact cardinals we are in the fol-
lowing situation:
1. MM++ can be defined as the statement that the class PT of presaturated towers of
normal filters is dense in the category forcing (SSP, ≤SSP ).
2. We also have in the presence of MM++ a functorial map
ISSP : SSP → T ω2
defined by B 7→ TB which
• is order and incompatibility preserving,

• maps set sized suprema to set sized suprema in the respective class partial
orders.
It is now tempting to conjecture that it is possible to reflect this to some Vδ and obtain
that the map F Vδ defines a complete embedding of USSP δ = (SSP ∩ Vδ , ≤SSP ∩Vδ ) into
ω2
Tδ . However we just have that F preserves suprema of set sized subsets of USSP which
would reflect to the fact F Vδ defines a < δ-complete embedding of USSP δ into Tδω2 .
However we have no reason to expect that F Vδ extends to a complete homomorphism
of the respective boolean completions because neither of the above posets is < δ-CC.
Nonetheless we have now many reasons to investigate to a full extent this correspon-
dence and this is what we will do in the last part of the book.
204
Part VI
Forcing Axioms and Category

Forcings
205
The aim of this last part of the book is to study certain categories of forcings Γ as forc-
ing notions. We divide our analysis in two chapters: “Category forcings” (chapter 14), and
“Category forcing axioms” (chapter 15). Chapter 14 shows that any category Γ of forcing
notions satisfying certain natural properties defines a well behaving class forcing. This
type of class forcings will be used in chapter 15 to prove the consistency of a forcing axiom
which makes the theory of L([Ord]κ ) invariant with respect to forcings in Γ preserving the
axiom for a cardinal κ which depends on Γ. We will also argue that these generic abso-
luteness results are close to optimal extensions of Woodin’s generic absoluteness results
for L([Ord]ω ). The chapters are organized as follows:
Category forcings (chapter 14): We introduce and analyze category forcings: specif-
ically we study subcategories of the category of complete boolean algebras with
complete homomorphisms. Given a category (Γ, →Θ ) (where Γ is the class of ob-
jects and →Θ the class of arrows) we associate to it the partial order (Γ, ≤Θ ) whose
elements are the objects in Γ ordered by B ≥Θ C iff there is an i : B → C in →Θ .
We feel free to confuse a set sized partial order with its uniquely defined boolean
completion.
Depending on the choice of Γ and →Θ these partial orders can be trivial or not,
for example, by Remark 6.3.1 and Fact 8.7.1, the category (Ω, →Ω ) of all complete
boolean algebras and complete homomorpshims between them gives raise to a trivial
class forcing (Ω, ≤Ω ), while the category (SSP, →Ω ) whose objects are the stationary
set preserving complete boolean algebras, and whose arrows are the complete homo-
morphisms between them gives raise to a non trivial class partial order (SSP, ≤Ω ).
We focus on the analysis of category forcings of type (Γ, →Γ ) with Γ a defin-
able
r class ofz posets and →Γ the complete homomorphisms i : B → C such that
C/i[ĠB ] ∈ Γ = 1B . Among the classes (Γ, →Γ ) we analyze we find: proper,
B
semiproper, stationary set preserving, and many more.
The reasons guiding our selection of classes of forcings are twofolds:
• We aimed firstly (see [3, 52, 51]) at a generic absoluteness result for a strength-
ening of Martin’s maximum or of the proper forcing axiom. This naturally led
us to an analysis of the category of forcings which are relevant for these forcing
axioms, i.e. the SSP-forcings, the semiproper forcings, the proper forcings.
• Along the way, and in joint work with Asperó [2], we realized that the machin-
ery we set forth works smoothly for a variety of other category forcings which
share a certain amount of similarity with the three classes mentioned above.
In particular our machinery gives the means to provide modular proofs of a
generic absoluteness result which applies to a variety of forcing classes Γ.
The following list sums up the main concepts and results on the combinatorial prop-
erties of these category forcings we isolate in this chapter:
• We introduce the key concept (at least for our aims) of Θ-rigid element of a
category (Γ, →Θ ).
B ∈ Γ is Θ-rigid if it is fixed by any automorphism of some complete boolean
algebra in Γ which absorbs B using an arrow in →Θ . We can formulate this
property in purely categorical terms as follows:
B object of Γ is Θ-rigid if for all Q ∈ Γ there is at most one arrow
i : B → Q in →Θ .
206
We show that for suitably defined classes of forcings Γ, in the presence of class
many large cardinals, the class of Γ-rigid partial orders is dense in (Γ, ≤Γ ).
• We show that for these classes Γ the cut-off UΓδ = Γ ∩ Vδ of the category forcing
(Γ, ≤Γ ) is itself an element in Γ, is Γ-rigid, and absorbs all forcings in Γ ∩ Vδ
(provided that δ is inaccessible and Vδ+1 satisfies some extra axioms other than
MK).
• We show that for the relevant classes Γ, the quotient of the category forcing
(Γ, ≤Γ )V with respect to a V -generic filter G for some B ∈ ΓV is the category
forcing (Γ, ≤Γ )V [G] as computed in the generic extension V [G].
Category forcing axioms (chapter 15): We introduce and analyze the forcing axiom
CFA(Γ). To do so we proceed as follows:
• We have observed (13.2.6) that in the presence of class many supercompact car-
dinals the forcing axiom MM++ can be formulated as the assertion that the class
of self-generic presaturated towers is dense in the category forcing (SSP, ≤SSP ).
Moreover assuming MM++ we have shown that there is a natural embedding of
the class forcing (SSP, ≤SSP ) into the class tower T ω2 concentrating on station-
ary sets whose elements have size ω1 and contain ω1 (13.2.8). This embedding
is order and incompatibility preserving (with respect to the ≤NS order on T ω2 ),
but we cannot prove by means of MM++ that the embedding has a dense image.
• These observations raise a number of questions:
– What can be said in general about the intersection of the class of Γ-rigid
posets and the class of self-generic presaturated towers? In case Γ = SSP
and assuming MM++ +class many supercompacts we can prove that both of
these classes are dense in (Γ, ≤Γ ), but we do not see how to prove rightaway
in MK + MM++ +large cardinals that their intersection is non-empty.
– Can we prove that the natural embedding of (SSP, ≤SSP ) into the class
forcing (T ω2 , ≤NS ) has a dense image? More generally can we classify
which class forcings Γ admit a class sized tower of normal ideals which we
can naturally associate to Γ and in which Γ can be densely embedded?
– Can UΓδ be forcing equivalent to a self-generic presaturated tower or ideal
forcing inducing an almost huge generic embedding?
The forcing axiom CFA(Γ) arises as a positive answer to these questions and
is a slight strengthening of the assertion that the class of presaturated tower
forcings which are also Γ-rigid is dense in the category forcing (Γ, ≤Γ ).
• We prove (mimicking Woodin’s arguments of Chapter 12) that over any model
of CFA(Γ)+large cardinals any forcing in Γ which preserves CFA(Γ) does not
change the theory of L([Ord]≤κΓ ) with parameters in P (κΓ ), where κΓ is a
cardinal associated to Γ (κΓ = ω1 for Γ the class of proper and/or semiproper
forcings). We can also argue that our generic result is optimal outlining that no
forcing out of Γ can even preserve the Σ1 -theory of L([Ord]≤κΓ ) with parameters
in P (κΓ ) (at least for the case Γ = SSP).
• We finally prove the consistency of CFA(Γ) for many classes Γ: this is done show-
ing that any of the standard forcing methods to produce a model of FAκΓ (Γ)
collapsing an inaccessible δ to become κ+
Γ actually produces a model of CFA(Γ)
provided that δ is a large enough cardinal (2-super huge suffices).
207
Further notational conventions
From now on we will always assume that V (the universe of sets) is the “standard” model
of set theory and we focus on first order theories T ⊇ ZFC which we believe to hold in
V . We need to handle proper classes, therefore it will be convenient to assume that V
is a model of the Morse-Kelley theory of sets with classes, theory which we denote by
MK, i.e. we consider the first order theory of the hyperuniverse (V, C, ∈, =) where C is the
family of classes contained in V . Strictly speaking in what follows, we will just work with
classes definable by formulae with parameters which are sets, and quantifiers which range
just over sets; hence the use of MK is somewhat an overshot and has the drawback that
it creates some ambiguity on the precise scope of range of quantifiers (i.e. do quantifiers
range over all sets or over all sets and proper classes?), at points where this ambiguity
may generate confusion we will be explicit on how to solve it. We will denote set sized
transitive models (M, X , ∈, =) ∈ V of MK by their family of classes X since their family
of sets M can be recovered inside X as those classes which belong to some element. For
example Vδ+1 for δ inaccessible will be a standard example of a transitive set-sized model
of MK. For the purpose of these notes we will also be focusing on theories T holding in V
which are extensions of MK by a finite explicit number of axioms. For example T can be
MK+ the statement that there a exists a proper class of large cardinals of a certain kind
(supercompact, Woodin, huge, etc....).
Finally it is important to note that MK is preserved in set sized forcing extensions of
a model of MK (by the results of Section 4.3). When we focus on a class of forcings Γ, we
will be interested in theories T which are preserved by all forcings in Γ. For example if Γ is
the class of semiproper posets the theory T = MK + {ω1 is a regular cardinal} is preserved
by all forcings in Γ. We will soon give precise definitions encompassing the theories that
are of interest for us.
To fix ambiguities we may encounter in the semantic interpretation of logical formulae,
we adopt the following conventions (most of which have already been introduced in the
prelimiaries of this book):
• We use a two sorted language with variables for sets x, y, z..., constants for sets
a, b, c..., variables for classes X, Y, Z, ...., and constants for classes A, B, C, ..... A
quantifier of type Qx ranges only over sets, a quantifier of type QX ranges over sets
and classes.
• (V, C, ∈) is the universe of sets and classes which is the standard model of MK.
• Vδ ≺Σn V asserts that all Σn -formulae with set parameters in Vδ and quantifiers
which range only over sets are absolute between Vδ and V .
• Vδ+1 ≺Σn V asserts that all Σn -formulae with set parameters in Vδ and quantifiers
which range over sets and classes are absolute between (Vδ+1 , ∈) and (V, C, ∈).
Notation 13.2.11. Let Qn -denote the complexity class Σn , Πn or ∆n of formulae of the

language of MK with quantifiers ranging only over sets and with just set parameters.
• ∃Qn is the complexity class Qn if Qn ∈ Σn or Σn+1 if Qn ∈ Πn ;
• ∀Qn is the complexity class Qn if Qn ∈ Πn or Πn+1 if Qn ∈ Σn ;
• ¬Σn is Πn and ¬Πn is Σn .
208
Chapter 14
Category forcings
14.1 Definitions and main results

All the classes Γ we consider in these notes are defined as the extension of a formula
φΓ (x, aΓ ) in the language of set theory enriched with a constant symbol for a set aΓ ; aΓ is
a set parameter, all the quantifiers in φΓ range over sets, the free variable x ranges over
sets.
Notation 14.1.1. Given a class Γ defined by a formula with quantifiers and parameters
ranging over sets, φΓ (x, aΓ ) and aΓ will always denote the formula and the parameter used
to define it.
Remark 14.1.2. Our official definition of a class forcing Γ assumes that Γ consists of
complete boolean algebras. This is the case since most of our definitions and calculations
on such class forcings Γ are much easier to state and compute if Γ consists solely of complete
boolean algebras. On the other hand in some cases there are posets Q, which are not even
separative, and whose boolean completion RO(Q) is in Γ. As it is often the case in forcing
arguments, we have a clear grasp of what Q is and how its combinatorial properties work,
while this is much less transparent when we pass to its boolean completion RO(Q). It will
be convenient in these situations to assume Q ∈ Γ even if this actually holds just for its
boolean completion RO(Q). So we feel free in many cases to assume that the extension of
a class forcing Γ consists of all the posets Q whose boolean completions satisfy the defining
property of Γ. If we feel that this can generate misunderstandings we shall be explicitly
more careful in these situations.
The following definitions introduce the key properties of a class of forcings Γ we are
interested in.
Definition 14.1.3. Let Γ be a definable class of forcing notions.

Let B, C be complete boolean algebras.
• A complete homomorphism i : B → C is Γ-correct if1

r z r z
C/i[ĠB ] ∈ Γ = φΓ (C/i[ĠB ], ǎΓ ) ≥B coker(i).
B B
• C ≤Γ B if there is a Γ-correct
i : B → C.
1
Notice that we do not require a priori neither B nor C to be in Γ, even if in what follows we shall
mostly be interested in the case in which this occurs for both of them.
209
• C ≤∗Γ B if there is an injective Γ-correct complete homomorphism
i : B → C.
• Assume further that k : B → C is Γ-correct and B, C ∈ Γ.

k Γ-freezes B if for all Γ-correct i0 , i1 : C → D we have that i0 ◦ k = i1 ◦ k.
• B is Γ-rigid if the identity map Id : B → B Γ-freezes B.
Notation 14.1.4. Given a category forcing (Γ, ≤Γ ) with Γ a definable classes of complete
boolean algebras and ≤Γ the order induced on Γ by the Γ-correct homomorphisms between
elements of Γ, we denote the incompatibility relation with respect to ≤Γ by ⊥Γ , and the
subclass of Γ given by its Γ-rigid elements by RigΓ .
Remark the following:

Remark 14.1.5. Assume Γ ⊆ ∆ are definable classes of forcings. Then ≤Γ ⊆≤∆ and
⊥∆ ⊆ ⊥Γ . Hence if i : B → C is Γ-correct and ∆-freezes B, we also have that i Γ-freezes B.
Asperó proved that the classes Γ of proper (from now on denoted as Proper), semiproper
(denoted by SP), and stationary set preserving forcings (denoted by SSP) all have the
Γ-freezeability property establishing that for all B ∈ SSP, there is i : B → C which is
Proper-correct and SSP-freezes B (Theorem 14.2.3).
A rough comparison of ≤∗Γ and ≤Γ

Given a definable class Γ as above, we can define two natural order relations ≤Γ and ≤∗Γ
on Γ. The first one is given by Γ-correct homomorphisms i : B → Q (which is the one we
described before) and the other given by injective Γ-correct homomorphisms i : B → Q.
Both notion of orders are interesting and as set theorists we are used to focus on the second
stricter notion of order since it is the one suitable to develop a theory of iterated forcing.
However the ≤Γ notion of ordering induced by complete (but possibly non-injective) Γ-
correct homomorphisms grants that whenever we add a V -generic filter for a C ≤Γ B, we
will also be adding a V -generic filter for B by 6.1.1 applied to the i : B → C witnessing
C ≤Γ B. ≤Γ will grant us that whenever B is put into a V -generic filter for Γ, then this
V -generic filter for Γ will also add a V -generic filter for B. We can replicate this feature
of ≤Γ at a suitable inaccessible cardinal δ and (repeating the above reasoning in Vδ+1 )
get that the partial order (Γ ∩ Vδ , ≤Γ ∩Vδ ) absorbs all its elements as complete suborders,
much in the same way as Coll(ω, < δ) absorbs all complete boolean algebras in Vδ as
complete suborders.
On the other hand if Γ is a weakly iterable class (see Def. 7.5.3), such as the class of
semiproper forcings, we get quite easily that the class forcing (Γ, ≤∗Γ ) is (at least strate-
gically) closed under set sized descending sequences. This observation is useful to prove
that (Γ, ≤Γ ) has nice weak distributivity properties; however as a forcing notion by itself
(Γ, ≤∗Γ ) is not very interesting: its closure under set-sized descending sequences entails
that any V -generic filter for Γ adds just new proper classes but no new sets, in particular
it cannot add V -generic filters for any of its elements.
We will show that the merging of the nice closure properties of (Γ, ≤∗Γ ) with the freeze-
ability property for (Γ, ≤Γ ) gives a powerful tool to analyze the forcing (Γ, ≤Γ ).
210
Syntactic analysis of definable class forcings
Definition 14.1.6. Let Γ be a definable class of forcing notions. An inaccessible cardinal
δ is Γ-correct2 if
• Γ ∩ Vδ = ΓVδ+1 ,
V
• ≤Γ ∩Vδ =≤Γδ+1 .
Definition 14.1.7. We say that P (x) is absolutely Σ2 if there is a Σ0 formula φ(x, y, z)

such that for all inaccessible δ and A ∈ Vδ
Vδ |= ∃y∀zφ(A, y, z) if and only if V |= ∃y∀zφ(A, y, z)
Fact 14.1.8. The statements “B is a complete boolean algebra” and “i : B → C is

a complete homomorphism” are absolutely Σ2 in the relevant parameters (they are also
∆2 ).
Assume T ⊇ MK proves that φΓ (x, aΓ ) is an absolutely Σ2 -property in the parameter
aΓ . Then T proves that all inaccessible cardinals δ are weakly Γ-correct.
Proof. The second assertion is self-evident. Regarding the first observe that 3
i : B → C is a complete homomorphism can be expressed either by the absolutely
Σ2 -property
∃θ [θ = max |trcl(B)|+ , |trcl(C)|+ ∧ (Hθ |= i : B → C is a complete homomorphism)]

or by the Π2 -property
∀Hθ [(i, B, C ∈ Hθ ) → (Hθ |= i : B → C is a complete homomorphism)]
in the relevant parameters. Similarly for the statement “B is a complete boolean algebra”.
Proposition 14.1.9. Assume Γ is a definable class of forcing with φΓ (x, aΓ ) a Qn -property

with Qn either Σn , Πn or ∆n (with n > 1)
Then:
• “i : B → C is Γ-correct” is a Qn -statement in the set parameters i, B, C, aΓ . Moreover

if φΓ (x, aΓ ) is an absolutely Σ2 -property so is “i : B → C is Γ-correct”.
• B ≤Γ C is a ∃Qn -statement in the set parameters B, C, aΓ . Moreover if φΓ (x, aΓ ) is

an absolutely Σ2 -property so is B ≤Γ C.
• “B, C are incompatible in Γ” is a ∀¬Qn -statement in the set parameters B, C, aΓ

(with quantifiers ranging only over sets),
• “i : B → C is Γ-freezing B” is a ∀¬Qn -statement in the set parameters i, B, C, aΓ , κ

(with quantifiers ranging only over sets).
• “B is Γ-rigid” is a ∀¬Qn -statement in the set parameters B, aΓ , κ (with quantifiers

ranging only over sets).
2
Notice that we do not require the absoluteness of the incompatibility relation ⊥Γ , which is (as we will
see below) in general harder to obtain between V and Vδ for the classes Γ we are interested in.
3
The formula X = Hθ for some regular cardinal θ can be expressed by: “∀a(|trcl(a)| < θ ↔ a ∈ X)”
which is a Π1 -formula in parameter θ and variable X.
211
Hence for all inaccessible δ such that Vδ ≺Σn+1 V , we have that
Γ ∩ Vδ = ΓVδ+1
V
≤Γ ∩Vδ =≤Γδ+1
V
⊥Γ ∩ Vδ = ⊥Γδ+1
RigΓ ∩ Vδ = (RigΓ )Vδ+1
Moreover if φΓ (x, aΓ ) is provably ∆n in some theory T holding in V , we have that the
above holds already if Vδ ≺Σn V .
Proof.
• “i : B → C is Γ-correct” is the conjuctions of the statement “i : B → C is a complete

homomorphism” and the statement
r z
φΓ (Č/i[ĠB ] , ǎΓ ) = 1B .
B
The latter has the same complexity of φΓ (x, aΓ ) i.e. it is Qn in the relevant param-
eters, moreover in case φΓ (x, aΓ ) is absolutely Σ2 , it remains absolutely Σ2 .
On the other hand we have already seen that the former can be expressed either by
an absolutely Σ2 -property or by a Π2 -property.
Hence the the required statement is the conjuction of a Qn -statement with a ∆2 -
statement, therefore it is Qn and is absolutely Σ2 if so is φ(x, aΓ ).
• B ≤Γ C is the statement “∃i : B → C Γ-correct” which is ∃Qn in the relevant

parameters and it remains absolutely Σ2 if so is φΓ (x, aΓ ) in view of the previous
item.
• “B, C are incompatible in Γ” is the assertion
∀R∀i0 ∀i1 ¬[(i0 : C → R is Γ-correct) ∧ (i1 : C → R is Γ-correct)].
Since (i0 is Γ-correct) ∧ (i1 is Γ-correct) is a Qn -property in the relevant parameters,

the above sentence is ∀¬Qn in the relevant parameters.
• “i : B → C is Γ-freezing B” is the assertion
∀R∀i0 ∀i1
¬[(i0 : C → R is Γ-correct) ∧ (i1 : C → R is Γ-correct)∧
∧ (i0 ◦ i : B → R is Γ-correct) ∧ (i1 ◦ i : B → R is Γ-correct)∧
∧ i0 ◦ i 6= i1 ◦ i].
Observe that
(i0 : C → R is Γ-correct) ∧ (i1 : C → R is Γ-correct)∧

∧(i0 ◦ i is Γ-correct) ∧ (i1 ◦ i is Γ-correct)∧
∧(i0 ◦ i 6= i1 ◦ i)
is a Qn -property in the parameters B, C, R, i0 , i1 , i. The desired property hence is

∀¬Qn in the relevant parameters.
212
• “B is Γ-rigid” is immediately seen to be ∀¬Qn since it is obtained substituting the
identity map on B in the place of i in the assertion that i is Γ-freezing B.
The last part of the Lemma is immediate since all the relevant notions are either Σn+1
or Πn+1 , hence are absolute between Vδ and V . In case φΓ (x, aΓ ) is ∆n , the relevant
notions become either Σn or Πn . Hence in this case we can decrease by 1 the degree of
elementarity required between Vδ and V .
κ-suitable class forcings

Definition 14.1.10. Let Γ ⊆ V be a definable class of posets.
• Γ is closed under complete subalgebras if, given any B ∈ Γ, and a complete injective
homomorphism i : C → B, we also have that C ∈ Γ.
• r
Γ is closed
z under two step iterations if for all B ∈ Γ and all Ċ ∈ V B such that
Ċ ∈ Γ = 1B we have that B ∗ Ċ ∈ Γ.
B
W
• Γ is closed
W under lottery sums if every set A ⊂ Γ has an exact upper bound Γ A
in ≤Γ ( Γ A is the lottery sum of the posets in A, equivalently - if A consists of
complete boolean algebras - the product of the boolean algebras in A).
• Γ has the Γ-freezeability property if for every B ∈ Γ there is k : B → C Γ-freezing B.
• Γ is weakly κ-iterable if for each ordinal α Player II has a winning strategy in the
games Gα (Γ) defined as follows:
– at successor stages α players I and II play Γ-correct injective embeddings
iα,α+1 : Bα → Bα+1 ;
– Player I plays at odd stages, player I at even stages (0 and all limit ordinals
are even);
– at stage 0, II plays a Γ-correct embedding i0,1 : 2 → B1 (i.e. a B1 ∈ Γ);
– at limit stages λ, II must play lim{Bα : α < λ} if cof(λ) = κ or λ is regular
−→
and all boolean algebras in F have size less than λ.
There is a tight interaction between the properties of a class of forcings Γ and the
theory T ⊇ MK in which we analyze this class. For example in our analysis of Γ, we are
naturally led to work with theories T which extend MK but which are not preserved by all
set sized forcings. For example this occurs for T = MK + {ω1 is a regular cardinal} which
is not preserved by Coll(ω, ω1 ), but is preserved by all stationary set preserving forcings.
The following definition outlines the key correlations between a theory T ⊇ MK and
a class of forcings Γ we want to bring forward, and allows us to prove that Γ is a well
behaved class forcing. The reader may keep in mind, while reading the definition below,
that semiproperness and properness will be the simplest examples of ω1 -suitable classes
Γ, and that for these classes Γ a useful Γ-canonical theory is any enlargment of MK + {ω1
is a regular cardinal } by large cardinal axioms.
Definition 14.1.11. Let T ⊇ MK be a theory and Γ be a definable class of forcings by
means of the formula φΓ (x, aΓ ) in parameter aΓ ⊆ κ.
• T ⊇ MK is κ-canonical if it extends MK by a finite list of axioms expressible without
quantifiers ranging over classes (but with no bound on the number of quantifiers
ranging over sets) among which the axiom “κ is a regular cardinal”.
213
• Γ is (Qn , κ)-suitable for a κ-canonical theory T if:
1. T proves that φΓ (x, aΓ ) is a equivalent to a Qn -property in the parameter

aΓ ⊆ κ. Hence, if Γ is provably in T an absolutely Σ2 -property in the parameter
aΓ ⊆ κ, T proves that δ is Γ-correct for all inaccessible cardinals δ > κ.
2. T proves that all forcing notions in Γ preserve T .
3. T proves that Γ is closed under two step iterations, lottery sums and complete
subalgebras.
4. T proves that Γ contains all < κ-closed posets.
5. T proves that Γ is weakly κ-iterable.
6. T proves that Γ has the Γ-freezeability property,
T is (Qn , Γ)-canonical if it is κ-canonical and Γ is (Qn , κ)-suitable for T .

If Γ is provably in T an absolutely Σ2 -property in the parameter aΓ ⊆ κ, we just say
that T is Γ-canonical and Γ is κ-suitable for T .
Remark 14.1.12. We remark the following:
• Theories T of the form MK+ the statement that there a exists a proper class of large
cardinals of a certain kind (supercompact, Woodin, huge, etc....) are Ω-canonical,
where Ω is the class of all set sized forcings.
• A key feature of a canonical theory T we will exploit is that once it holds in Vδ+1
for some inaccessible δ it holds also in W for any W ⊇ V such that:
– δ remains inaccessible in W ,
– Wδ+1 is a model of MK,
– Wδ = Vδ .
This is the case since the extra axioms in T \ MK are defined by properties which do
not take into consideration (in order to evalute their truth) the new proper classes
appearing in Wδ+1 \ Vδ+1 .
The main theorem of this chapter is:
Theorem 14.1.13. Assume Γ is κ-suitable for a κ-canonical T . Let δ be inaccessible and

such that Vδ+1 |= T .
Let UΓδ = Γ ∩ Vδ with the inherited order ≤Γ ∩Vδ . Then:
• UΓδ is a forcing notion in Γ,
• UΓδ preserves the regularity of δ and makes it the successor of κ,
• B ≥Γ UΓδ B for all B ∈ UΓδ .
We are also going to prove that for a κ-suitable Γ the quotient of Γ by a V -generic
filter G for a forcing in Γ is forcing equivalent to the class forcing ΓV [G] in V [G]. Since the
precise formulation of this theorem is rather delicate, we defer its statement to section 14.4
(Theorem 14.4.3).
214
14.2 κ-suitable category forcings
14.2.1 Proper, semiproper and stationary set preserving forcings are
ω1 -suitable
We show that the classes of proper, semiproper and stationary set preserving forcings are
ω1 -suitable. The first two are ω1 -suitable for the ω1 -canonical theory
T0 = MK+“ω1 is regular”
The latter is ω1 -suitable with respect to the ω1 -canonical theory
T1 = T0 + there exists class many supercompact cardinals”
Lemma 14.2.1. Let Γ be the class of proper or semiproper forcings and T0 be the theory
MK+“ω1 is regular”. Then T0 proves the following:
• Γ is the extension of a provably in T0 absolutely Σ2 -property;
• all forcing notions in Γ preserve T0 ;
• Γ is closed under two step iterations, lottery sums, and preimages of complete ho-
momorphisms;
• Γ contains all < ω1 -closed posets;
• Γ is ω1 -iterable.
Proof.
Γ is the extension of a T0 -provably absolutely Σ2 -property: The following two state-

ments give different equivalent definitions of Γ:
• The absolutely Σ2 -statement in the parameters B, ω:

There is Hθ with |B|+ = θ, and C ∈ Hθ club such that P (B) , B ∈ ∪C
and for all countable M ∈ C with B ∈ M , there exists r ∈ B which is
M -(semi)generic and is compatible with all q ∈ B ∩ M .
• The Π2 -statement in the parameters B, ω:
For all Hθ with P (B) ∈ Hθ , there is C club subset of H|B|+ such that
for all countable M ∈ C with B ∈ M and M ≺ H|B|+ there exists r ∈ B
which is M -(semi)generic and is compatible with all q ∈ B ∩ M .
Hence Γ is ∆2 and provably absolutely Σ2 with respect to T0 .
All forcing notions in Γ preserve T0 : Proper and semiproper forcings preserve ω1 and
MK.
Γ is closed under two step iterations, lottery sums, preimages of complete homomorphisms:
clear from the results of Chapter 10.
Γ contains all < ω1 -closed posets: every < ω1 -closed partial order is proper and there-
fore also semiproper.
Γ is weakly ω1 -iterable: clear from the results of Chapter 10.
215
Lemma 14.2.2. Let Γ be the class of stationary set preserving forcings and T1 be the
theory
MK+“ω1 is regular and there exists class many supercompact cardinals”
Then T1 proves the following:
• Γ is the extension of a T1 -provably ∆2 -property which is also absolutely Σ2 ;
• all forcing notions in Γ preserve T1 ;
• Γ is closed under two step iterations, lottery sums, and preimages of complete ho-
momorphisms;
• Γ contains all < ω1 -closed posets;
• Γ is ω1 -iterable.
Proof. All the above items except the last one go through with minor modifications with
respect to the proof of the previous Lemma. For the last item we proceed as follows:
Let SP denote the class of semiproper forcings and SSP denote the class of stationary
set preserving forcings. Then SP ⊆ SSP.
Recall that MM++ proves that stationary set preserving forcings are semiproper (by 13.1.1)
and that for every stationary set preserving forcing B q∈ Vδ with
y δ-supercompact there is an
++
iB,δ : B → Cδ,B SP-correct homomorphism such that MM Cδ,B
= 1Cδ,B and iB,δ in Vδ+1
(by 13.1.2).Now let player I play at odd stages α + 1 whichever SSP-correct i : Bα → Bα+1
he prefers and player II answer at all even non limit stages with iBα+1 ,δ where δ is the
least supercompact cardinal such that Bα+1 ∈ Vδ . At limit stages player II always takes
the RCS-limit. We leave to the reader to check that the above is a winning strategy for
player II in the game Gα (SSP) for all ordinals α.
Hence the above lemmas show that the classe of proper semiproper and stationary set
preserving forcings lack just the freezeability property to be ω1 -suitable with respect to
the appropriate ω1 -canonical T .
The following two results in combination with the above remark yield the freezeability
property for the relevant classes Γ.
Theorem 14.2.3 (Asperó). Let T0 = MK+“ω1 is regular”. Then T0 proves that for all
B ∈ SSP there exists i : B → C such that
q y
C/i[GB ] is proper B = 1B
and i is SSP-freezing for B.
The above grants that the classes of proper and semiproper forcing are ω1 -suitable
with respect to T0 = MK+“ω1 is regular” and the class of SSP-forcings is ω1 -suitable with
respect to
T1 = MK+“ω1 is regular and there are class many supercompact cardinals”
We will limit ourselves to prove the following weaker result which grants that the class of
semiproper and stationary set preserving forcings are ω1 -suitable with respect to T1 .
216
Theorem 14.2.4. Let T0 = MK+“ω1 is regular”. Then T0 proves that for all B ∈ SSP
there exists i : B → C such that
q y
C/i[GB ] ∈ SSP B = 1B
and i is SSP-freezing B.
The proof the above theorem is deferred to a later stage: first we need to give the
relevant facts about the freezeability property.
14.2.2 Γ-Freezeability and Γ-rigidity

The aim of this section is the proof of the following:
Theorem 14.2.5. Assume Γ is κ-suitable for the κ-canonical theory T . Then T proves
that the class of Γ-rigid partial orders is dense in (Γ, ≤∗Γ ).
We need some preliminary Lemmas. All over this section we assume that Γ is κ-suitable
for the κ-canonical theory T .
Lemma 14.2.6. The following are equivalent characterizations of Γ-rigidity for a B ∈ Γ:
1. for all b0 , b1 ∈ B such that b0 ∧B b1 = 0B we have that B b0 is incompatible with

B b1 in (Γ, ≤Γ ).
2. For all C ≤Γ B and all H, V -generic filter for C, there is just one G ∈ V [H] Γ-correct
V -generic filter for B.
3. For all C ≤Γ B in Γ there is only one Γ-correct homomorphism i : B → C.
Remark 14.2.7. Γ-rigidity entails rigidity by its very definition. Nonetheless it is conceiv-
able that even if B is Γ-rigid, there could be k : B → B b complete (and non-surjective)
homomorphism which is not Γ-correct. If H is V -generic for B, k −1 [H] = G ∈ V [H] is
also V -generic for B. Hence in V [H] there could be distinct V -generic filters for B even if
B is Γ-rigid. This is not in conflict with 14.2.6(2), since G ∈ V [H] is not Γ-correct for B
in V [H].
Proof. We prove these equivalences by contraposition as follows:
2 implies 1: Assume 1 fails as witnessed by ij : B bj → Q for j = 0, 1 with b0

incompatible with b1 in B. Pick H V -generic for Q. Then Gj = i−1 j [H] ∈ V [H] are
distinct and Γ-correct V -generic filters for B in V [H], since bj ∈ Gj \ G1−j .
1 implies 3: Assume 3 fails for B as witnessed by i0 6= i1 : B → C. Let b be such

that i0 (b) 6= i1 (b). W.l.o.g. we can suppose that r = i0 (b) ∧ i1 (¬b) > 0C . Then
j0 : B b → C r and j1 : B ¬b → C r given by jk (a) = ik (a) ∧ r for k = 0, 1 and
a in the appropriate domain witness that B ¬b and B b are compatible in (Γ, ≤Γ )
i.e. 1 fails.
3 implies 2: Assume 2 fails for B as witnessed by some C ≤Γ B, H V -generic filter for

C, and G1 6= G2 ∈ V [H] Γ-correct V -generic filters for B in V [H]. Let Ġ1 , Ġ2 ∈ V C
be such that
(Ġ1 )H = G1 6= (Ġ2 )H = G2 are Γ-correct V -generic filters for B in V [H] for both j = 1, 2.
(14.1)
217
Find q ∈ G forcing that b ∈ G1 \G2 for some fixed b ∈ B. Then, by Lemma 6.2.2(2 =⇒
3), for some r ∈ H refining q both homomorphisms ij = iĠj ,r : B → C defined by
r z
a 7→ ǎ ∈ Ġj ∧ r are Γ-correct. However i1 (b) = r = i2 (¬(b), hence i1 6= i2 witness
C
that 3 fails for B.
We also need the following characterizations of Γ-freezeability:

Lemma 14.2.8. Let k : B → Q be a Γ-correct homomorphism. The following are equiva-
lent:
1. For all b0 , b1 ∈ B such that b0 ∧B b1 = 0B we have that Q k(b0 ) is incompatible with
Q k(b1 ) in (Γ, ≤Γ ).
2. For all R ≤Γ Q, all H V -generic filter for R, there is just one G ∈ V [H] Γ-correct
V -generic filter for B such that G = k −1 [K] for all K ∈ V [H] Γ-correct V -generic
filters for Q.
3. For all R ≤Γ Q in Γ and i0 , i1 : Q → R witnessing that R ≤Γ Q we have that

i0 ◦ k = i1 ◦ k.
Proof. Left to the reader, along the same lines of the proof of the previous Lemma.
A Γ-freezeable B ∈ Γ can be embedded in Γ C for some k : B → C Γ-freezing B as

follows:
Lemma 14.2.9. Assume Γ is a class of posets having the Γ-freezebility property. Let
k : B → C be a Γ-correct freezing homomorphism of B into C. Then the map kB : B → Γ C
which maps b 7→ C k(b) defines a complete embedding4 of the partial order (B+ , ≤B ) into
(Γ C, ≤Γ ).
Proof. Left to the reader. It is immediate to check that kB preserve predense sets and the
≤B -order relation. The Γ-freezeability property of k is designed exactly in order to get
that kB preserve also the incompatibility relation on B.
Proof of Theorem 14.2.4

The results of this section assume the reader is familiar with the standard facts regarding
stationary set preserving forcings.
Definition 14.2.10. For any regular cardinal κ ≥ ω2 fix
{Sαi : α < κ, i < 2}
a partition of Eκω (the set of points in κ of countable cofinality) in pairwise disjoint sta-
tionary sets. Fix
{Aα : α < ω1 }
partition of ω1 in ω1 -many pairwise disjoint stationary sets such that min(Aα ) > α and
such that there is a club subset of ω1 contained in
[
{Aα : α < ω1 }.
4
We do not (as yet) assert that kB is Γ-correct. We will be able to prove that the embedding is Γ-correct
up to δ under some further assumptions on Γ and δ.
218
Given P a stationary set preserving poset, we fix in V a surjection f of the least regular
κ > |P | with P . Let ġP : κ → 2 be the P -name for a function which codes ĠP using f ,
i.e. for all α < |P |
p P (ġP (α) = 1 ↔ f (α) ∈ ĠP ).
Now let QP be the complete boolean algebra RO(P ∗ ṘP ) where ṘP is defined as follows
in V P :
Let G be V -generic for P . Let g = valG (ġP ). R = valG (ṘP ) in V [G] is the poset given
by pairs (cp , fp ) such that for some countable ordinal αp
• fp : αp + 1 → κ,
• cp ⊆ αp + 1 is closed,
• for all ξ ∈ cp
ξ ∈ Aβ and g ◦ fp (β) = i if and only if sup(fp [ξ]) ∈ Sfi p (β) .
The order on R is given by p ≤ q if fp ⊇ fq and cp end extends cq . Let

• f˙QP : ω1 → κ be the P ∗ ṘP -name for the function given by
[
{fp : p ∈ ĠP ∗ṘP },
• ĊQP ⊂ ω1 be the P ∗ ṘP -name for the club given by

[
{cp : p ∈ ĠP ∗ṘP },
• ġQP ⊂ ω1 be the P ∗ ṘP -name for the function ġP coding a V -generic filter for P
using f .
We are ready to show that all stationary set preserving posets are freezeable.
Theorem 14.2.11. Assume P is stationary set preserving. Then P forces that ṘP is
stationary set preserving and QP = RO(P ∗ ṘP ) freezes P as witnessed by the map k :
RO(P ) → QP which maps p ∈ P to hp, 1ṘP i.
Proof. It is rather standard to show that ṘP is forced by P to be stationary set preserving.
We briefly give the argument for R = valG (ṘP ) working in V [G] where G is V -generic for
P . First of all we observe that {Sαi : α < κ, i < 2} is still in V [G] a partition of (Eκω )V in
pairwise disjoint stationary sets (since P is < κ-CC), and also that {Aα : α < ω1 } is still
a maximal antichain on P (ω1 )/NSω1 in V [G] (since P ∈ SSP and {Aα : α < ω1 } contains
a club subset of ω1 ).
Claim 16. R is stationary set preserving.
Proof. Let Ė be an R-name for a club subset of ω1 and S be a stationary subset of ω1 .

Then we can find α such that S ∩ Aα is stationary. Pick p ∈ R such that α ∈ dom(fp ),
Let β = fp (α) and i = g(β) where g : κ → 2 is the function coding G by means of f . By
V [G]
standard arguments find M ≺ Hθ countable such that
• p ∈ M,
• M ∩ ω1 ∈ S ∩ A α ,
219
• sup(M ∩ κ) ∈ Sβi .
Working inside M build a decreasing chain of conditions pn ∈ R ∩ M which seals all dense
sets of R in M and such that p0 = p. By density we get that
[
fω = fpn : ξ = M ∩ ω1 → M ∩ κ
n<ω
is surjective and that ξ is a limit point of

[
cω = cpn
n<ω
which is a club subset of ξ. Set

q = (fω ∪ {hξ, 0i}, cω ∪ {ξ}).
p g(f (α))
Now observe that q ∈ R since ξ ∈ Aα and sup(fq [ξ]) ∈ Sfp (α) and cq is a closed subset
of ξ + 1. Now by density q forces that ξ ∈ Ė ∩ S and we are done.
Claim 17. QP SSP-freezes P .
Proof. We prove this by means of Lemma 14.2.8(2).

Assume that R ≤SSP QP , let H be V -generic for R and pick G0 , G1 ∈ V [H] distinct
correct V -generic fiters for QP . It is enough to show that
Ḡ0 = Ḡ1
where
Ḡj = {p ∈ P : ∃q̇ ∈ V P such that hp, q̇i ∈ Gj }
Let gj : κ → 2 be the evaluation by Gj of the function ġP which is used to code Ḡj as
a subset of κ by letting gj (α) = 1 iff f −1 (α) ∈ Ḡj . Let
[
hj = {fp : p ∈ Gj },
[
Cj = {cp : p ∈ Gj },
In particular we get that C0 and C1 are club subsets of ω1 in V [H], h0 , h1 are bijections
of ω1 with κ.
Now observe that κ has size and cofinality ω1 in V [Gj ] and thus (since V [H] is a generic
extension of V [Gj ] with the same ω1 ) κ has size and cofinality ω1 in V [H]. Observe also
that in V [H]
S is a stationary subset of κ iff S ∩ {sup h[ξ] : ξ < ω1 } is non empty for any
bijection h : ω1 → κ.
Now the very definition of the hj gives that for all α ∈ Cj :
hj (α) = η and gj (η) = i if and only if sup hj [ξ] ∈ Sηi for all ξ ∈ Aα ∩ Cj .
Now the set
E = {ξ ∈ C0 ∩ C1 : h0 [ξ] = h1 [ξ]}
is a club subset of ω1 , and the above observations show that
g (η)
Sη j ⊇ {sup hj [ξ] : ξ ∈ E ∩ Aα } =
6 ∅
for both j. In particular g0 (η) = g1 (η) for all η < κ, else Sη0 ∩ Sη1 is non-empty for some η
contradicting the very definition of the family of sets Sηi . Thus Ḡ0 = Ḡ1 .
220
This completes the proof of Theorem 14.2.4.
14.2.3 From freezeability to total rigidity

Lemma 14.2.12. Assume
{iαβ : Bα → Bβ : α < β ≤ δ}
is a complete iteration system such that for each α there is β > α such that
• iα,β Γ-freezes Bα .
• Bδ is the direct limit of the iteration system and is in Γ.
Then Bδ is Γ-rigid.
Proof. Assume the Lemma fails. Then there are f0 , f1 incompatible threads in Bδ such
that Bδ f0 is compatible with Bδ f1 in (Γ, ≤Γ ). Now Bδ ∈ Γ is a direct limit, hence f0 , f1
have support in some α < δ. Thus f0 (β), f1 (β) are incompatible in Bβ for all α < β < δ.
Now for eventually all β > α Bβ Γ-freezes Bα as witnessed by iα,β . In particular, since
fi = iα,δ ◦ fi (α) for i = 0, 1 we get that Bδ f0 cannot be compatible with Bδ f1 in
(Γ, ≤Γ ), contradicting our assumption.
We can now prove Theorem 14.2.5:
Proof. Given B ∈ Γ let A ⊆ B be a maximal antichain such that for all b ∈ A there is
kb : B → Cb Γ-freezing B with coker(kb ) = b. Let
_ _
k= kb :B → C = {Cb : b ∈ A}
A Γ
a 7→ (kb (a) : b ∈ A)
Then k : B → C Γ-freezes B and is injective.

Now given B0 let
F = {kij : Bi → Bj : i ≤ j < κ}
be a decreasing sequence in ≤∗Γ such that kii+1 Γ-freezes Bi . Then lim F ∈ Γ is Γ-rigid
−→
and refines B0 in ≤∗Γ .
14.2.4 Key properties of Γ

The density of the class of Γ-rigid forcings gives us the means to unfold the key properties
of the forcing (Γ, ≤Γ ) for a given κ-suitable Γ and a Γ-canonical theory T .
The results of the previous section show that RigΓ (the class of Γ-rigid elements of Γ)
is dense in (Γ, ≤∗Γ ). It is immediate to check the following facts:
Fact 14.2.13. The following holds:
1. RigΓ is closed under lottery sums,
2. RigΓ is κ-iterable.
221
Fact 14.2.14. For any C ∈ RigΓ the map kC : C → UΓ C which maps c ∈ C to C c is a
complete injective homomorphism.
Proof. We get that Id : C → C is a Γ-freezing homomorphism for C. Now we can use
Lemma 14.2.9.
The following Lemmas condense the main features of the forcing (Γ, ≤Γ ).
Lemma 14.2.15. Let D be a dense open subset of (RigΓ , ≤Γ ). Then for every B ∈ Γ,
there is C ∈ RigΓ , an injective Γ-correct complete homomorphism i : B → C, and A ⊂ C
maximal antichain of C such that kC [A] ⊆ D and kC [A] is a maximal antichain of Γ C.
Proof. Given B ∈ Γ find C0 ≤Γ B in D (which is possible since RigΓ is a dense subclass
of Γ). Let i0 : B → C0 be a complete and Γ-correct homomorphism of B into C0 . Let
b0 = coker(i0 ) ∈ B, so that i0 b0 : B b0 → C0 is an injective Γ-correct homomorphism.
Proceed in this way to define Cl and bl such that:
• il bl : B bl → Cl is an injective Γ-correct homomorphism,
• Cl ∈ D ⊆ Γ,
• bl ∧B bi = 0B for all i < l.

This procedure must terminate in η < |B|+ steps producing a maximal antichain
{bl : l < η} of B and injective Γ-correct homomorphisms il : B bl → Cl such that
Cl ∈ D ⊆ RigΓ refines B in the ≤Γ order. Then we get that
• C = l<η Cl ∈ RigΓ .
W
• i is an injective Γ-correct homomorphism, where

_ _
i= ik : B → Ck
k<η k<η
c 7→ hik (c ∧B bk ) : k < ηi
is such that
JC/i[ĠB ] ∈ ΓKB = 1B ,
since i is the lottery sum of the injective Γ-correct homomorphisms il such that
JCl /il [ĠB ] ∈ ΓKCl = 1Cl .
• C i(bk ) ∈ D for all k < η.

In particular we get that A = i[{bk : k < η}] is a maximal antichain of C ∈ RigΓ such that
C c ∈ D for all c ∈ A. Moreover since kC : C → Γ C is a complete embedding, kC [A] is
a maximal antichain in Γ C, as was to be shown.
Lemma 14.2.16. Γ is a class forcing notion preserving the regularity of Ord.

Proof. Let f˙ be a Γ-name for an increasing function from η into Ord for some ordinal η.
Given B ∈ Γ let Ai ⊂ RigΓ be a dense subclass of RigΓ contained in the open dense class
of partial orders in Γ B which decide that f˙(i) = α for some α. Then using the previous
lemma we can build a downward directed system with respect to ≤∗Γ
{iα,β : Cα → Cβ : α ≤ β ≤ η}
222
such that for all i < η Ci+1 ∈ RigΓ and there is Bi maximal antichain of Ci+1 ≤∗Γ Ci such
that kCi+1 [Bi ] ⊂ Ai and kCi+1 [Bi ] is a maximal antichain of Γ Ci+1 . Then Cη ∈ Γ forces
that f˙ has values bounded by
sup{α : ∃i ∈ η, ∃c ∈ Bi ⊆ Ci+1 such that Ci+1 c forces that f˙(i) = α} ∈ Ord.
Lemma 14.2.17. Assume f˙ ∈ V Γ is a name for a function with domain α and range
contained in V for some ordinal α. Then there is a dense set of C ∈ RigΓ with an f˙C ∈ V C
such that
C Γ k̂C (f˙C ) = f˙.
Proof. Given f˙ as above, let for all ξ < α
Dξ = {C ∈ RigΓ : ∃a ∈ V C Γ f˙(ξ) = a}.
Let B ∈ RigΓ be arbitrary. By the previous lemma we can find C ∈ RigΓ below B such
that for all ξ < α there is a maximal antichain Aξ ⊂ C such that kC [Aξ ] ⊂ Dξ and kC [Aξ ]
is a maximal antichain in Γ C. Now let f˙C be the C-name
{h(ξ, a), ci : c ∈ Aξ and C c Γ f˙(ξ) = a}.
It is immediate to check that for all ξ < α and c ∈ Aξ
c C f˙C (ξ) = a iff C c Γ f˙(ξ) = a.
The Lemma is proved.
Lemma 14.2.17 can be refined to the following more useful versions:

Lemma 14.2.18. For every τ ∈ V Γ such that
Γ τ is a set
we get that n o
Dτ = C ∈ RigΓ : ∃σ ∈ V C C Γ τ = k̂C (σ)
is dense open in RigΓ .

Proof. Left to the reader: observe that any Γ-name τ as in the assumptions can be coded
in a provably ∆1 -way by a Γ-name for a well-founded relation on some ordinal α, which in
2
turn can be coded in a provably ∆1 -way by a Γ-name for a function in 2(α ) . Now apply
Lemma 14.2.17.
14.3 When is (Γ ∩ Vδ , ≤Γ ) a partial order in Γ?

Notation 14.3.1. For any class Γ, UΓδ denotes the partial order Γ ∩ Vδ with the order
relation ≤Γ ∩Vδ .
This is the main result of the section.
Theorem 14.3.2. Assume Γ is a κ-suitable property for the Γ-canonical theory T . Then
UΓδ ∈ Γ for any inaccessible cardinal δ which models T .
To prove the theorem we must relativize the results regarding Γ to the forcing Γ ∩ Vδ .
223
Transferring to Vδ+1 the properties of Γ
We need the corresponding results for UΓδ of all the results for the class forcing Γ we
established in subsection 14.2.4. This is rather straightforward once we assume that δ is
Γ-correct for T . Hence we state the results we need and we leave the proofs to the reader.
Lemma 14.3.3. Assume T is Γ-canonical and Γ is κ-suitable for T .

Assume δ is inaccessible and Γ-correct with Vδ+1 a model of T . The following holds:
1. Let RigΓδ = (RigΓ )Vδ+1 . Then RigΓδ is dense in5 UΓδ .

Γ
2. Assume f˙ ∈ V Uδ is a UΓδ -name for a function with domain α < δ and range contained
in V . Then there is a dense set of C ∈ RigΓδ with an f˙C ∈ V C such that
C Γ k̂C (f˙C ) = f˙.
3. UΓδ forces that δ is the least regular cardinal larger than κ.

Γ
4. For every τ ∈ V Uδ such that
UΓδ τ is a set whose transitive closure has size less than δ
we get that
n o
Dτ = C ∈ RigΓ ∩ Vδ : ∃σ ∈ V C ∩ Vδ C UΓ τ = k̂C (σ)
δ
is dense in UΓδ .
Proof. Most proofs are obtained by straightforward modifications of the corresponding

results for the class forcing.
1: We can repeat verbatim the relevant proofs in Vδ+1 (which models T ).
2: Left to the reader.
3: The previous item shows that the regularity of δ is preserved by Uδ since Uδ forces all
functions with domain α < δ and range contained in δ to be bounded below δ.
On the other hand for all κ ≤ α < δ,
n o
˙
Dα = B ∗ Coll(κ, α) : B ∈ Γ ∩ Vδ
is dense in UΓδ (where Coll(κ, α) is the forcing ordered by reverse inclusion whose
conditions are partial functions from κ → α with domain less than κ): this is the
case since Γ is closed under two step iterations and contains all < κ-closed posets
(and Coll(κ, α) is < κ-closed for all α ≥ κ).
4: Left to the reader.
5
We cannot exclude that RigΓ ∩ Vδ 6= RigΓ
δ for some Γ. This does not occur however for the classes of
proper, semiproper and SSP-forcings.
224
14.3.1 Proof of Theorem 14.3.2
We can now prove Theorem 14.3.2.
Lemma 14.3.4. Assume T is Γ-canonical and Γ is κ-suitable for T . Assume δ is inac-

cessible and Γ-correct with Vδ+1 a model of T . Let Q ⊆ Vδ be the forcing whose conditions
are iteration systems
F = {Bα : α < γ} ∈ Vδ
such that:
• Bβ ≤∗Γ Bα for all α < β < γ,
• Bβ ∈ RigΓδ for all β < γ,
• F = {Bα : α < γ} ∈ Q if F has been built according to the winning strategy for
II in Gδ (Γ) (hence Bα = lim(F α) for all α < γ of cofinality κ or for all regular
−→
cardinals α such that |Bβ | < α for all β < α).
Let Q be ordered by end extension.

Then Q is < δ-closed. Moreover for all D dense subclass of Γ the set X(D) of
F = {Bα : α < γ} ∈ Q
such that for some (eventually all) α < γ there is A maximal antichain of Bα such that
kBα [A] ⊆ D is open dense.
Proof. The first assertion is immediate since all conditions in Q are iteration system obey-
ing the winning strategy for II in Gδ (Γ), hence lower bounds for any sequence of conditions
in Q can always be found. To prove the second, let D be a dense subset of Γ and
F = {Bα : α < γ} ∈ Q
be a condition in Q. Find B ≤∗Γ Bα for all α < γ with B ∈ RigΓδ (which is possibe since
RigΓδ is weakly κ-iterable in Vδ+1 , so it has lower bounds for all iteration systems in RigΓδ
which obey the winning strategy for II in Gδ (Γ)) and find C ≤∗Γ B also in RigΓδ such that
for some A maximal antichain of C kC [A] ⊆ D. Then
F ∪ {hγ, Bi, hγ + 1, Ci} ∈ X(D)
as well as any of its refinements in Q.
Lemma 14.3.5. Assume T is Γ-canonical and Γ is κ-suitable for T . Assume δ is inac-

cessible and Γ-correct with Vδ+1 a model of T . Let G be V -generic for Q and
F = {Bα : α < δ} = ∪G.
Then in V [G], F is an iteration system whose direct limit lim(F) is such that whenever
−→
H is a V [G]-generic filter for lim(F)
−→
{Bα b : ∃f ∈ H f (α) = b}
generates a V -generic filter for UΓδ .
225
Proof. Notice that Q is < δ-closed. Let G and H be as in the assumptions of the Lemma.
We get that (Vδ )V [G] = Vδ . Clearly
{Bα b : ∃f ∈ H f (α) = b}
is a family of compatible conditions in (UΓδ )V . By the previous Lemma we can also easily
check that
{Bα b : ∃f ∈ H f (α) = b} ∩ D
is non-empty for all D ∈ V dense subset of UΓδ . The Lemma is proved.
We have proved the following:
Corollary 14.3.6. Assume P is κ-suitable for the Γ-canonical theory T . Let δ > κ be
inaccessible and Γ-correct for T . Then UΓδ ∈ Γ.
Proof. With the notation of the previous Lemma, Q ∈ Γ since it is < δ-closed in V .
Let G be V -generic for Q. Then:
• V [G] |= T since Q ∈ Γ and T is Γ-canonical.
• δ is inaccessible in V [G] and Vδ [G] = (Vδ )V [G] , since no new sets of size less than δ
are added by Q (the latter forcing being < δ-closed).
V [G]
• Vδ+1 |= T , since T holds in Vδ+1 and we can apply Remark 14.1.12 to the Γ-
canonical theory T , given that Vδ [G] = (Vδ )V [G] .
• δ is Γ-correct in V [G] as well, since it is inaccessible in V [G] and Γ is absolutely

Σ2 -definable in T .
By the previous Lemma, we also get that UΓδ is a regular subforcing of Q ∗ Ḟ.
V [G]
Since T is Γ-canonical, δ is Γ-correct in V , V [G], and Vδ = VδV , we also have that
V [G]
RigΓδ ⊆ Γ ∩ Vδ = ΓVδ+1 = ΓVδ+1 [G] = Vδ ∩ ΓV [G] . (14.2)
The first and third equalities come from the observation that Γ is absolutely Σ2 -definable
in models of T (among which V [G] and V ), and δ is inaccessible both in V and V [G].
The second equality follows form the fact that in order to check whether B ∈ Γ holds
in Vδ+1 [G] or in Vδ+1 , we must check a formula which do not quantify over classes and the
two structures have the same sets.
By the same arguments we can also infer that
V V [G] V [G] V [G]
≤Γ ∩Vδ =≤Γδ+1 =≤Γδ+1 =≤Γ ∩Vδ . (14.3)
Hence we get that F = ∪G ∈ V [G] is an iteration system in V [G] of length δ of

Γ-correct complete homomorphism (in V [G]) of boolean algebras in Vδ ∩ Γ = ΓVδ+1 [G] .
By assumption Γ is provably weakly κ-iterable for T . This gives that V [G] models also
that lim F ∈ ΓV [G] , since lim F is the direct limit of inaccessible length δ > κ of posets in
−→ −→
ΓV [G] ∩ Vδ .
Finally remark that ΓV is closed under two-step iterations and preimages of complete
homomorphisms. We conclude that Q ∗ lim Ḟ ∈ ΓV , and therefore also that UΓδ ∈ ΓV .
−→
226
14.4 The quotient of (Γ B)V by a V -generic G for a B ∈ ΓV
is ΓV [G]
All over this section we assume Γ is a (Qn , κ)-suitable class of posets for a κ-canonical
theory T .
Notation 14.4.1. For each R ∈ RigΓ let
kR : R → Γ R
be given by r 7→ R r. Then kR is an order and incompatibility preserving embedding

of R in the class forcing Γ R which maps maximal antichains to maximal antichains.
Moreover for every B ≥Γ C with B ∈ RigΓ , let
iB,C : B → C
denote the unique Γ-correct homomorphism between B and C.
By the results of the previous sections RigΓ is a dense subclass of Γ and is a separative
partial order. Hence to simplify slightly calculations we focus on RigΓ rather than on Γ
when analyzing this class forcing.
Definition 14.4.2. Given B0 ∈ Γ, fix k0 : B0 → B Γ-freezing B0 and such that B ∈ RigΓ .

Let iC = iB,C ◦ k0 and
k = kB ◦ k0 :B0 → Γ B
b 7→ B k0 (b)
Given G a V -generic filter for B0 , define in V [G] the class quotient forcing
PB0 = ((RigΓ B)V /k[G] , ≤Γ /k[G] )
as follows:
C ∈ PB0
Γ
if and only if C ∈ (Rig B)V and letting J be the dual ideal of G we have that 1C 6∈ iC [J]
(or equivalently if and only if coker(iC ) ∈ G).
We let
C ≤Γ /k[G] R
if C ≤Γ R holds in V .
Theorem 14.4.3. Assume Γ is (Qn , κ)-suitable for a κ-canonical T , B0 ∈ Γ, and let

k0 : B0 → B be a Γ-freezing homomorphism for B0 with B ∈ RigΓ . Set k = kB ◦ k0 and
iC = iB,C ◦ k0 for all C ≤Γ B in Γ.
k
V
k0 kB
B0 B ΓB
Let G be V -generic for B0 . Then:
227
1. The class forcing
PB0 = ((RigΓ B)V /k[G] , ≤Γ /k[G] )
is in V [G] forcing equivalent to the class forcing
QB = (Γ (B/k0 [G] ))V [G]
via the map
i∗ :PB → QB
C 7→ C/iC [G] .
V [G]
k0 kB
B0 /G B/k[G] Γ B/k[G]
∼
= [C]k[G]
∼
=
2 ΓV [G]
C/iC [G]
2. Moreover let δ > |B| be inaccessible and such that Vδ+1 models T and Vδ ≺n V .
Then:
(a) (UΓδ (B/k0 [G] ))V [G] is forcing equivalent in V [G] to (UΓδ B)V /k[G] via the same
map.
(b) V models that kB : B → UΓδ B is Γ-correct.
Proof. We prove the theorem for the case of Γ being κ-suitable. We leave to the reader
to check that this same proof works for the general case of a (Qn , κ)-suitable Γ, since the
syntactic complexity of Γ plays no role in any of the argument to follow.
Part 2a of the Theorem follows immediately from its part 1 relativizing every assump-
tion in part 1 to Vδ+1 . To prove part 2b, first observe that if B = B0 , k0 is necessarily the
identity map, G is V -generic for B, and this gives that (B/k0 [G] ) is the trivial complete
boolean algebra 2 = {0, 1}, i.e.:
(UΓδ (B/k0 [G] ))V [G] = (UΓδ )V [G] .
Now (UΓδ )V [G] ∈ (Γ)V [G] , since V [G] and (Vδ+1 )V [G] are both models of T and δ is inacces-
sible in V [G], so we can apply Theorem 14.3.2 in V [G]. By part 2a for the case B0 = B (so
that k = kB ), we get that (UΓδ B)V /kB [G] ∼ = (UΓδ )V [G] holds in V [G] for all G V -generic
for B. This concludes the proof of 2b in case B = B0 . The desired conclusion 2b for an
arbitrary B0 ∈ UΓδ follows using the fact that the set of B ≤Γ B0 in RigΓ is dense in UΓδ
and applying 2b to all such B.
We are left to prove part 1: Following the notation introduced in 14.4.2, we let iR
denote the Γ-correct homomorphism iB,R ◦ k0 for any R ≤Γ B, and we let k denote the
map kB ◦ k0 : B0 → Γ B given by b 7→ B k0 (b).
Let G be V -generic for B0 and J denote its dual prime ideal. We first observe that in
V [G]
↓ k[J] = {R ∈ (Γ)V : ∃q ∈ J R ≤VΓ B k0 (q)}.
We show that in V [G] the map i∗ is total, order and incompatibility preserving, and
with a dense target. This suffices to prove this part of the Theorem.
228
i∗ is total and with a dense target: By Theorem 6.1.11, any Q ∈ QB is isomorphic
to C/iC [G] for some C ∈ (Γ B)V such that 1C ∈↓ / iC [J], since Q is a non-trivial
complete boolean algebra in V [G]. Let in V R ∈ RigΓ refine C in the ≤∗Γ -order. If
R/iR[G] 6∈ QB , we would get that 1R ∈ iR [J]. Therefore for any Γ-correct injective
u : C → R witnessing that R ≤∗Γ C, we would have that iC [J] = u−1 [iR [J]], giving
that 1C ∈ iC [J], and contradicting our assumption that 1C ∈↓ / iC [J]. Therefore
1R ∈/ iR [J], and
u/J : C/iC [G] → R/iR[G]
witnesses that i∗ (R) refines Q in QB . Hence i∗ has a dense image.
Moreover if R ∈ PB0 , 1R 6∈ iR [J], hence R/iR [G] is a non-trivial complete boolean
algebra in (Γ)V [G] . Thus i∗ is well defined on all of (RigΓ B)V /k[G] .
i∗ is order and compatibility preserving: Let iQ0 Q : Q0 → Q be a Γ-correct complete

homomorphism in V with Q0 , Q ∈ PB0 witnessing that Q ≤Γ /k[G] Q0 . This occurs
only if 1Q ∈
/ iQ [J]. Hence iQ0 Q /J : Q0 /iQ0 [J] → Q/iQ [J] is well defined and witnesses
that Q0 /iQ0 [J] ≥Γ Q/iQ [J] in V [G]. This shows that i∗ is order preserving and maps
non trivial conditions to non trivial conditions. In particular we can also conclude
that i∗ maps compatible conditions to compatible conditions.
i∗ preserves the incompatibility relation: We prove it by contraposition. Assume

jh : Qh /iQ [G] ∼
= Rh → Q for h = 0, 1 witness that Q0 /iQ0 [G] and Q1 /iQ1 [G] are
h
compatible in (Γ)V [G] . We can assume that Q ∼
= C/i [G] .C
By Proposition 6.2.5 applied for both h = 0, 1 to B, iQh , jh we have that jh = lh /G

for some Γ-correct homomorphism lh : Qh → Ch in V such that:
• lh ◦ iQh = iCh for both h = 0, 1,

• C1 /iC1 [G] ∼
=Q∼= C0 /iC0 [G] in V [G],
• 0Ch 6∈ iCh [G] for both h = 0, 1.
By Proposition 6.1.14, we can find sj ∈ / iCj [J] such that C1 s1 and C0 s0 are
isomorphic. Without loss of generality we can suppose that Ch sh = C ∈ Γ. This
gives that (modulo the refinement via sh ) lh ◦ iQh = iC for both h = 0, 1, since both
lh ◦ iQh factor through k0 which is Γ-freezing B0 .
In particular each lh witnesses in V that Qh ≥Γ C and are both such that 1C 6∈ iC [J].
Find in V R ≤∗Γ C with R ∈ RigΓ . Then iR [J] = u ◦ iC [J] for some (any) Γ-correct
injective u : C → R. Hence 1R 6∈ iR [J], else 1C ∈ u−1 [iR [J]] = iC [J].
This grants that R is a non trivial condition in (RigΓ B)V /k[G] refining Qh for both
h = 0, 1.
14.5 Other properties of the class forcing Γ and of UΓδ

Lemma 14.5.1. Assume Γ is κ-suitable, T is Γ-canonical, δ is inaccessible and Vδ+1 |= T ,
G is V -generic for UΓδ . Then for all B ∈ UΓδ , B ∈ G if and only if there is H ∈ V [G]
Γ-correct V -generic filter for B.
Moreover G is the unique V -generic filter on UΓδ in V [G].
229
Remark 14.5.2. The latter part of the proposition does not follow from Lemma 14.2.6
applied to UΓδ (see its following remark). UΓδ has an even stronger property than rigidity:
not only there are no non-trivial automorphisms of UΓδ , it is also the case that there are
no complete homomorphisms
k : RO(UΓδ ) → RO(UΓδ Q)
other than the ones given by the maps kQ : B 7→ B ∧RO(UΓ ) Q. Otherwise if

δ
k : RO(UΓδ ) → RO(UΓδ Q)
is a complete homomorphism different from kQ and G is V -generic for UΓδ with Q ∈ G,

k −1 [G] = H ∈ V [G] is also V -generic for UΓδ and is different from G. The Proposition
rules out this possibility.
Proof. It suffices to prove the Lemma for the B ∈ RigΓ ∩ Vδ , since this is a dense subset of
UΓδ .
For one direction observe that if B ∈ G we get that kB : B → UΓδ B is Γ-correct and
−1
k [G] is a Γ-correct V -generic filter for B in V [G]. Conversely assume H ∈ V [G] is a
Γ
Γ-correct V -generic filter for B. Let Ḣ ∈ V Uδ be such that ḢG = H. Let also C ∈ G refine
r z
Ḣ is a Γ-correct V -generic filter for B Γ .
Uδ
Since
C UΓ Ḣ ⊆ B,
δ
by Lemma 14.3.3(4) applied in Vδ+1 , we can further refine C to some E ∈ G and find some
K̇ ∈ V E ∩ Vδ such that r z
k̂E (K̇) = Ḣ Γ ≥Γ E.
Uδ
r z
We leave to the reader to check that i : B → E defined by b 7→ b ∈ K̇ is a Γ-correct
E
homomorphism, giving that B ≥Γ E ∈ G, as was to be shown.
We are left with the proof of the uniqueness of G: Assume H ∈ V [G] is V -generic for
UΓδ . By what we have shown in V [H] it holds that
B ∈ H if and only if there exists k : B → UΓδ and K V -generic for B such that
in V [H] it holds that
V [K] |= B/k[K] ∈ ΓV [K]
Now V [H] ⊆ V [G] since H ∈ V [G], hence K ∈ V [G] as well. The statement
V [K] |= B/k[K] ∈ ΓV [K]
is absolute between V [G] and V [H], hence it holds also in V [G]. Therefore H ⊆ G.
Since G, H are both V -generic filters for UΓδ , the inclusion entails equality. The proof is
completed.
230
14.6 MM++ and the relation between the stationary towers
and the category forcing (SSP, ≤SSP )
We now bring forward the simplest case of a surprising duality linking category forcings
to towers of normal ideals. The intuition bringing us to the results of the next chapter is
largely driven by this duality. All over this section we let T be the ω1 -canonical theory
MK + ω1 is a regular cardinal + there are class many supercompact cardinals.
Recall that (see Def. 8.6.2 for details):
For M ≺ Hθ of size ω1 and containing ω1 and B ∈ M a cba, G ultrafilter

on B ∩ M is (M, SSP)-correct if G is M -generic and interprets correctly the
B-names for stationary subsets of ω1 in M .
SSP
SSP .
and TB = TB,|B| +
14.6.1 A rough analysis of the forcing axiom MM++

Theorem 14.6.1. Let T = MK+there exist class many supercompact cardinals. Assume
V models that δ is supercompact and is such that Vδ+1 is a model of T . Then USSP
δ forces
MM++ .
Proof. USSP
δ ∈ SSP since Vδ+1 being a model of T models that SSP is an ω1 -weakly iterable
class.
SSP
Let Ṙ ∈ V Uδ be a name for a complete boolean algebra in SSP. Given B in USSP δ find
k : Vγ+1 → Vλ+1 in V such that λ is inaccessible and Vλ+1 models T , crit(k) = α, B ∈ Vα ,
k(crit(k)) = δ, and Ṙ ∈ k[Vγ ].
SSP
Let Q̇ ∈ V Uα be such that k(Q̇) = Ṙ. Since Vδ + 1 models T and δ is inaccessible, we
get that α is inaccessible and Vα+1 models T . This gives that USSP
α ∈ SSP. Let
Q = (USSP
α B) ∗ Q̇ ≤SSP USSP
α , B.
We get that for all G V -generic for USSP

δ with Q ∈ G, USSPα ∈ G as well, hence we get that
SSP
G ∩ Vα = G0 is an SSP-correct V -generic filter for Uα (since the unique SSP-correct map
kUSSP
α
: USSP
α → USSP
δ USSP
α is given by B 7→ USSP
α B ≤SSP B). Thus k lifts to
k̄ :Vγ [G0 ] → Vλ [G]

τG0 7→ k(τ )G .
Since Q ∈ G, in V [G] there is an SSP-correct V -generic filter H for Q.

Now Q = USSP α ∗ Q̇, and USSPα forces Q̇ is isomorphic to Q/k[G0 ] ∈ SSP where k :
SSP SSP
Uα → Uα ∗ Q̇ given by B 7→ (B, 1Q̇ ) is the natural SSP-correct embedding. Since H is
an SSP-correct V -generic filter for Q, we conclude that
K0 = {[q]k[G0 ] : q ∈ H} ∈ V [G]
is an SSP-correct V [G0 ]-generic filter for Q/k[G0 ] .

We also have that in V [G0 ] (and thus as well in V [G]) Q/k[G0 ] ∼
= Q̇G0 . Therefore in
V [G] there is K0 SSP-correct V [G0 ]-generic filter for Q̇G0 .
231
Finally we get that in V [G], j̄[K0 ] is an SSP-correct j̄[Vγ [G0 ]] ≺ Vλ [G]-generic filter for
SSP is non-empty in V [G]. Since this holds for all V generic
ṘG = k̄(Q̇G0 ) showing that TR,λ
filter G to which Q ≤SSP B belongs, we have shown that for any Ṙ USSP δ -name for a cba
in SSP, for all inaccessible λ > δ, |Ṙ|, below any condition B ∈ Uδ , there is a Q in USSP
SSP
δ
SSP is non-empty in V [Ġ
which forces that TR,λ ].
USSP
δ
The thesis follows.
In the presence of MM++ and class many supercompact cardinals we have a further
characterization of SSP-rigidity:
Proposition 14.6.2. Assume MM++ and there are class many Woodin cardinals . Then
the following are equivalent for a B ∈ SSP:
1. B is SSP-rigid.
2. G(M, B) = {b ∈ M : M ∈ TBb } is the unique correct (M, SSP)-correct filter for B

for a club of M ∈ TBb .
Proof. We first show that G(M, B) is an (M, SSP)-correct filter for B iff there is a unique
such (M, SSP)-correct filter.
So assume there are two distinct (M, SSP)-correct filters for B H0 , H1 . Let b ∈ H0 \H1 .
Then M ∈ TBb ∧ TB¬b as witnessed by H0 , H1 , thus b, ¬b ∈ G(M, B) and G(M, B) is not
even a filter.
Conversely assume H is the unique (M, SSP)-correct filter for B. Then b ∈ H gives
that M ∈ TBb . Thus H ⊆ G(M, B). Now if c ∈ G(M, B) \ H there is a correct M -generic
filter H ∗ for M with c ∈ H ∗ \ H. This contradicts the uniqueness assumption on H. Thus
H = G(M, B) as was to be shown.
Now we prove the equivalence of SSP-rigidity with 2.
Assume first that 2 fails. Let S ⊂ TB be a stationary set such that for all M ∈ S there
are at least two distinct correct M -generic filters H0M , H1M . For each such M we can find
bM ∈ M ∩ (H0M \ H1M ). By pressing down on S and refining S if necessary, we can assume
that bM = b∗ for all M ∈ S. Let δ > |B| be a supercompact cardinal. For j = 0, 1 define
ij : B → Tδω2 S by
b 7→ {M ∈ S : b ∈ HjM }.
Then i0 , i1 are complete homomorphisms such that
B Tδω2 S/ij [ĠB ] is stationary set preserving.
and i0 (b∗ ) = S = i1 (¬b∗ ). In particular we get that i0 witnesses that B b∗ ≥SSP Tδω2 S
and i1 witnesses that B ¬b∗ ≥ Tδω2 S. All in all we have that B b∗ and B ¬b∗ are
compatible conditions in (SSP ≤SSP ), i.e. B is not SSP-rigid.
Now assume that B is not SSP-rigid. Let i0 : B b → C and i1 : B ¬b → C be distinct
SSP-correct homomorphisms of B into C.
Then for some inaccessible γ > |C| + |B| and all M ∈ TC,γ SSP such that i , i ∈ M we
0 1
−1
can pick HM (M, SSP)-correct filters for C. Thus Gj = ij [HM ] for j = 0, 1 are both
(M, SSP)-correct filters and such that b ∈ G0 and ¬b ∈ G1 . In particular we get that for
a club of M ∈ TC,γSSP ≤
SSP TB there are at least two M -generic filter for B, i.e. 2 fails for
TB .
232
14.6.2 Duality between SSP-forcings and stationary sets
MM++ permits a simple representation of SSP-rigid boolean algebras and a characteriza-
tion of the SSP-correct homomorphisms between SSP-rigid complete boolean algebras.
Fact 14.6.3. Assume B is SSP-rigid and TBb is stationary for all b ∈ B+ . Then B
is isomorphic to the complete boolean subalgebra {[TBb ]NS : b ∈ B} of the boolean algebra
P (TB ) /NS.
Notice that in the above setting, P (TB ) /NS may not be a complete boolean algebra
and may not be stationary set preserving, while {[TBb ]NS : b ∈ B} is a subalgebra which
is SSP and complete.
Fact 14.6.4. Assume MM++ holds. Assume B ≥SSP Q are SSP-rigid and complete boolean
algebras. Let i : B → Q be the unique SSP-correct homomorphism between B and Q. Then
SSP ∧ T SSP is stationary if
for all b ∈ B and q ∈ Q and all inaccessible γ > |B| + |Q|, TBb,γ Qq,γ
and only if i(b) ∧Q q > 0Q .
All in all assuming MM++ and class many supercompact cardinals we are in the fol-
lowing situation:
1. MM++ can be defined as the statement that the class PT of presaturated towers of
normal filters is dense in the category forcing (SSP, ≤SSP ).
2. We also have in the presence of MM++ a functorial map
ISSP : SSP → {S ∈ V : S is stationary and concentrates on Pω2 (V )}
defined by B 7→ TB which
• is order and incompatibility preserving,

• maps set sized suprema to set sized suprema in the respective class partial
orders,
• gives a neat representation of the separative quotients of SSP-rigid partial orders
and of the SSP-correct embeddings between them.
We have shown in the previous sections that in the presence of class many supercompact
cardinals we have that the class RigSSP of SSP-rigid posets is dense in the category forcing
(SSP, ≤SSP ). What about the intersection of the classes RigSSP and PT? Can there be
densely many presaturated towers which are also SSP-rigid in (SSP, ≤SSP )? Let us now
examine in more details this question.
14.6.3 SSP-superrigidity
We continue to work in the base theory T = MK + MM++ +there are stationarily many
supercompact cardinals.
Definition 14.6.5. A self-generic ideal forcing P I ∈ SSP (respectively a self-generic tower
forcing TδI ) is SSP-superrigid if TP I = SGI (respectively TT I = SGI ).
δ
Theorem 14.6.6. Assume G ∈ V is a V -normal ultrafilter on Vλ such that its induced j =

jG : M → Ult(V, G) is huge with critical point δ, j(δ) = λ, and Ult(V, G)λ ⊆ Ult(V, G).
Let H be V -generic for USSP SSP V [H] is SSP-superrigid.
δ . Then in V [H] (Uλ )
233
Proof. Remark SSP ) = USSP since Ult(V, G)λ ⊆ Ult(V, G). Moreover the map6
SSP that
j(U δ λ
B 7→ inf Uδ , B = Uδ B implements the unique SSP-correct embedding of USSP
SSP
δ into
SSP SSP
Uλ USSP . Remark also that B ∈ Vδ grants that j(B) = B. Since Uλ is < λ-presaturated,
δ
we are in the hypothesis of Foreman’s duality theorem 11.3.1, hence (USSP
λ USSP )/j[H]
δ
is forcing equivalent to an ideal forcing P I in V [H]. By theorem 14.4.3, we get that
(USSP
λ USSP )/j[H] is forcing equivalent to (USSP
λ )
V [H] in V [H]. By Proposition 11.2.2,
δ
we actually get that for all K V [H]-generic for P I the induced ultrapower embedding
jK : V [H] → Ult(V [H], K) is < λ-closed in V [K].
It remains to argue that P I is SSP-superrigid self-generic in V [H]. For this we in-
voke 14.5.1 and we work in V [H] (hence all definitions are computed in V [H] unless
otherwise specified). Let i : USSP ∼
= P I be in V [H] the unique isomorphism between these
λ
two forcing notions. Let K be V [H]-generic for USSP λ and L =↑ i[K] be the correspond-
ing V [H]-generic filter for P I . Now B ∈ K if and only if in V [H][K] there exists HB
SSP-correct V [H]-generic filter for B by 14.5.1.
Since jK [Vλ [H]] ∈ Ult(V [H], K) and L = {[S]I : jK [Vλ [H]] ∈ jK (S)} (by 11.3.1), we
get that in V [H]
SSP
[TB,λ ]I ∈ L if and only if B ∈ K,
since:
SSP )
jK [Vλ [H]] ∈ jK (TB,λ
if and only if
Vλ [H] = πjK [Vλ [H]] [jK [Vλ [H]]] admits in V [H][K] (and thus also in
Ult(V [H], K) ⊆ V [H][K]) an SSP-correct V -generic filter HB for B
if and only if
B ∈ K.
We conclude that n o
SSP
L =↑ [TB,λ ]I : B ∈ K
and n o
SSP
K = B : [TB,λ ]I ∈ L .
SSP ] ) for all B ∈ USSP .
The above shows that B = i([TB,λ I λ
We get that TP I =NS TUSSP . Moreover for all M ∈ TP I with i ∈ M
λ
n o
G(M, P I ) = [S]I ∈ M : [S]I ≥ [TB,λ
SSP
]I for some B ∈ i[G(M, P I )] =↑ i−1 [G(M, USSP
λ )] .
But for any M ∈ TUSSP

λ
B∈ G(M, USSP
λ ) if and only if (by 14.6.2) M ∈ TUSSP B =NS TB ∧ TUSSP if and
λ λ
SSP ∈ G ∩ P (P (V )).
only if M ∩ HB+ ∈ TB if and only if TB,λ M λ
This gives that
G(M, PI ) = {[S]I : S ∈ GM ∩ P (P (Hλ ))} ,
for all M ∈ TUSSP =NS TPI . Hence TPI =NS SGI , concluding the proof.
λ
6
By 13.2.10 TB ∧ TUSSP = TUSSP B , by 14.6.3 USSP
δ B is the infimum of B, USSP
δ in USSP
λ .
δ δ
234
Corollary 14.6.7. Assume δ is a superhuge cardinal and there are class many super-
compacts cardinals. Let H be V -generic for USSP
δ . Then in V [H] there are densely many
SSP-superrigid self-generic forcings.
Proof. By the previous Theorem any G ∈ V inducing a huge embedding jG : V →

Ult(V, G) with critical point δ is such that (USSP
j(δ) )
V [H] is Γ-superigid self-generic in V [H].
The thesis follows.
In the next chapter we will see that the existence of class many SSP-superrigid self-
geneirc forcings is intertwined with the search of generic absoluteness results for the Chang
model L([Ord]ω1 ) which are the correct and natural generalization of Woodin’s absolute-
ness results for L([Ord]ω ).
235
Chapter 15
Category forcing axioms
The aim of this chapter is to leverage on the results we got on category forcings to replicate
for the Chang model L(Ordκ ) Woodin’s generic absoluteness results for L(Ordω ). Let us
remind the reader the salient features of Woodin’s argument:
1. If δ is inaccessible Coll(ω, < δ) absorbs all forcings in Vδ : i.e. there is a complete

homomorphism i : Q → RO(Coll(ω, < δ)) for all complete boolean algebras Q ∈ Vδ
[28, ?, Thm. XXX]).
2. If δ is inaccessible, Q ∈ Vδ , i : Q → RO(Coll(ω, < δ)) is a complete homomorphism,

and L is V -generic for Q, in V [L] we get that RO(Coll(ω, < δ))/i[L] ∼
= RO(Coll(ω, <
δ))V [L] (again Theorem [28, ?, Thm. XXX]). Hence any G which is V [L]-generic for
Coll(ω, < δ) is also V -generic for Coll(ω, < δ).
3. If δ is supercompact in V and G is V -generic for Coll(ω, < δ), there exists in V [G]
j : L(Ordω )V → L(Ordω )V [G]
with crit(j) = ω1 and j(ω1 ) = δ (an immediate by-product of Theorem 12.0.2).
To complete Woodin’s argument, assume L is V -generic for Q ∈ Vδ , and δ is supercompact

in V . We get that δ-remains supercompact in V [L] (by 11.3.3) and (by the second item) if
G is V [L]-generic for Coll(ω, < δ), it is also V -generic for Coll(ω, < δ). By the third item
applied in V [G] or in V [L][G]:
(L(Ordω )V , ∈, P (ω)V ) ≡ (L(Ordω )V [G] , ∈, P (ω)V )
and
(L(Ordω )V [L] , ∈, P (ω)V [L] ) ≡ (L(Ordω )V [G] , ∈, P (ω)V [L] ).
Therefore we conclude that
(L(Ordω )V , ∈, P (ω)V ) ≡ (L(Ordω )V [L] , ∈, P (ω)V ).
holds for all V -generic filters L for B, and we get Woodin’s generic absoluteness Theo-
rem 12.0.1.
Observe what the results of the previous chapter have brought us:
1. Assume Γ is κ-suitable and δ is inaccessible. Then UΓδ ∈ Γ (Theorem 14.3.2) and

absorbs all B ∈ Γ ∩ Vδ (Lemma 14.2.9).
236
2. Assume Γ is κ-suitable and δ is inaccessible. Let G be V -generic for Q ∈ Γ ∩ Vδ .
Then (UΓδ )V [G] ∼
= (UΓδ )V /G (Theorem 14.4.3).
Assume we were able to grant by some type of axiom AX(Γ) that:
3 AX(Γ) entails that for all cardinals δ satisfying a certain large cardinal property (e.g.
in the case of Woodin’s argument for L(Ordω ), we asked δ being supercompact), UΓδ is
forcing equivalent to a presaturated tower of height δ (hence when G is V -generic for
UΓδ , there exists j : L(Ordκ )V → L(Ordκ )V [G] with crit(j) = κ+ and j(κ+ ) = δ).
Then we could replicate mutatis-mutandis Woodin’s argument in our setting as follows:
Assume AX(Γ) holds in V , given some B ∈ Γ forcing AX(Γ), find δ > |B| such that δ
satisfies the required property (e.g. supercompactness) in V and in V B (for the case of
supercompactness this holds since this property of δ is preserved by forcings in Vδ ). Now
replace Coll(ω, < δ) with UΓδ . Then we would get that
(L(Ordκ )V , ∈, P (κ)V ) ≡ (L(Ordκ )V [L] , ∈, P (κ)V ).

holds for all V -generic filters L for B.
In this chapter we propose to isolate an axiom CFA(Γ) which grants that the above
occurs for enough inaccessible cardinals δ, and for all κ-suitable Γ. Let us first address
the question of how to render UΓδ a self-generic presaturated ideal forcing. We have seen
that this is possible in case Γ = SSP. It is also not difficult to get the same result for an
arbitrary κ-suitable Γ, by means of Foreman’s duality theorem:
Proposition 15.0.1. Let Γ be κ-suitable forcing for the κ-canonical theory T . Assume
G ∈ V is a V -normal ultrafilter on λ such that its induced j = jG : M → Ult(V, G) is
huge with critical point δ, j(δ) = λ, and Ult(V, G)λ ⊆ Ult(V, G). Assume δ is such that
Vδ+1 |= T . Let H be V -generic for USSP SSP V [H] is forcing equivalent
δ . Then in V [H] (Uλ )
to an ideal forcing P I .
Proof. Follow line by line the proof of the first part of 14.6.6 using Foreman’s duality
theorem 11.3.1, Theorem 14.4.3 and Proposition 11.2.2. Else look at the proof of 15.1.9
to follow.
We obtain as a corollary:
Corollary 15.0.2. Let Γ be κ-suitable forcing for the κ-canonical theory T . Assume δ is
a superhuge cardinal such that Vδ+1 |= T . Let H be V -generic for UΓδ . Then in V [H] there
are densely many Γ-rigid presaturated ideal forcings.
Nonetheless this does not suffice to give the desired AX(Γ). The problem is the follow-
ing:
Remark 15.0.3. The above corollary gives an axiom CFA0 (Γ) stating that for unboundedly
many λ UΓλ is a Γ-rigid presaturated ideal forcing. This is not yet sufficient though to run
Woodin’s argument:
Assume CFA0 (Γ) holds in V . Let B ∈ Γ force CFA0 (Γ), and H be V -generic for B.
There is no reason to expect that the unbounded class of λ ∈ V such that (UΓλ )V is a
Γ-rigid presaturated ideal forcing in V have a non-emtpy intersection with the unbounded
class of λ ∈ V [H] such that (UΓλ )V [H] is a Γ-rigid presaturated ideal forcing in V [H]. If
there is no δ in this intersection the last step in Woodin’s argument cannot be run.
To overcome this issue we develop a notion of Γ-superrigidity (which generalize the
notion of SSP-superrigidity to arbitrary κ-suitable Γ) and we prove the following key result
(see 15.1.7):
237
Whenever δ is such that Vδ+1 |= T + there are class many Γ-superrigid self-
generic ideal forcings, then UΓδ is by itself a self-generic presaturated tower
forcing.
Since the axiom CFA(Γ) stating that there are class many Γ-superrigid self-generic
ideal forcings reflects to a club-subset of the inaccessible cardinals in V , we now get that
there will be plenty of δ such that UΓδ is a self-generic presaturated tower forcing in any
model of CFA(Γ). This will grant that the class of λ ∈ V such that (UΓλ )V is a Γ-rigid
presaturated ideal forcing in V will have a non-emtpy intersection with the unbounded
class of λ ∈ V [H] such that (UΓλ )V [H] is a Γ-rigid presaturated ideal forcing in V [H]
whenever H is V -generic for a B ∈ Γ forcing CFA(Γ).
There is one main key issue related to the notion of Γ-superrigidity: given a cba B we
have a clear idea of what is an (SSP, M )-correct filter for an M ≺ Hθ containing ω1 and
of size ω1 . However if Γ 6= SSP is just κ-suitable, it is not at all clear whether a sensible
notion of what is a (Γ, M )-correct filter for B for an M ≺ Hθ containing κ and of size κ
can at all be defined (even if this is still possible for the case of proper and semiproper
forcings). We side-step this difficulty defining relative to a self-generic ideal forcing P I ∈ Γ
what it means that H is a (Γ, M )-correct filter for B for an M ∈ SGI . Then we can run an
argument similar to what has been done for the SSP-case centering our characterization of
the generic filter for P I using the stationary sets of M ∈ SGI admitting a (Γ, M )-correct
filter for B ∈ UΓδ .
15.1 Γ-superrgidity and category forcing axioms

Notation 15.1.1. We say that S is a presaturated self-generic forcing of height δ if:
• either S = P I for some self-generic ideal forcing P I with I a normal ideal concentrat-
ing on some X ⊇ Vδ , and P I preserving the regularity of δ and inducing a < δ-closed
generic ultrapower (in which case we say that P I has height δ),
• or S = TδI for some presaturated self-generic tower forcing TδI of height an inacces-
sible δ with I a tower of normal ideals of height δ.
We denote the elements of a presaturated self-generic forcing S by [S]S (rather then [S]I
for S = P I or [S]I for S = TδI ).
For a presaturated self generic forcing S of height δ, an inaccessible λ > |S|, an M ≺ Vλ
GM,S = {[S]S ∈ S : M ∩ ∪S ∈ M } ,
SGSλ = {M ≺ Vλ : GM,S is M -generic for S}

SGS = SGSλ
for λ = λS the least inaccessible cardinal larger than |S|.
Definition 15.1.2. Let
• Γ be a definable class of forcings,
• δ < λ be inaccessible cardinals,
• B ∈ Γ ∩ Vδ ,
• S ∈ Γ a presaturated self-generic forcing of height δ,
238
• M ∈ SGSλ .
H is an (M, S)-correct filter for B if letting:
• πM : M → NM be the Mostowski collapse of M onto a transitive set NM ,
• K̄M = πM [GM,S ],
πM [H] ∈ NM [K̄M ] and
NM [K̄M ] |= πM [H] is a ΓNM -correct filter for πM (B).
We define
TB,S,λ = {M ∈ TS,λ : ∃HM (M, S)-correct filter for B}
and TB,S = TB,S,λS .

Definition 15.1.3. A self-generic S ∈ Γ of height an inaccessible δ is a Γ-superrigid
self-generic forcing if for all [S]S ∈ S + there exists B ∈ RigΓδ such that
TB,S ≤NS S ∧ SGS .
Definition 15.1.4. Let Γ be a definable class of forcings. CFA(Γ) holds if there is a dense
class of Γ-superrigid self generic forcings in (Γ, ≤Γ ).
15.1.1 Basic properties of Γ-superrigid self-generic forcings

These are the key basic properties of Γ-superrigid self-generic forcings:
Lemma 15.1.5. Assume Γ is κ-suitable and there are class many supercompact cardinals.
Then:
1. For any self-generic forcing S of height δ the map
iS : [S]S 7→ S ∧ SGS
defines an isomorphism of S with its target i[S] = ES where ES ⊆ P (P (VλS )) is

endowed with the order ≤NS .
2. Let
DS = B ∈ RigΓδ : TB,S is stationary .

Then for any B ∈ DS the map kB,S : b 7→ TBb,S defines the unique Γ-correct complete
homomorphism of B into ES .
3. Assume moreover that S is Γ-superrigid. Then:
(a) S is Γ-rigid and the map
jS :(DS , ≤Γ ) → (ES , ≤NS )

B → TB,S
is order and incompatibility preserving with a dense target. Hence for a Γ-

superrigid self-generic forcing S, we can freely identify S with DS or ES ac-
cording to our convenience, since these three forcings have isomorphic boolean
completions.
239
(b) For all K̄ V -generic for S and modulo the identification of S with DS

K̄ =↑ B ∈ DS : ∃H ∈ V [K̄] Γ-correct V -generic filter for B .
(c) For all B ∈ DS , S B is also a Γ-superrigid self-generic forcing and TB,S =

SGSB .
4. Assume S ≤∗Γ T are both Γ-superrigid self-generic with rank(T ) < rank(S). Then
the inclusion of DT ⊆ DS extends to the unique injective Γ-correct homomorphism
of T into S.
More generally S ≤Γ T if and only if there is an antichain A in DT such that for
all B ∈ A the inclusion of DT B into DS B extends to an injective Γ-correct
homomorphism, and for all Q ∈ DT orthogonal to all elements of A, Q is also
orthogonal to all elements of DS .
Proof.
1: Left to the reader, almost self-evident.

+
2: Fix a supercompact cardinal δ > |S|. Let G be V -generic for Tδκ with TBb,S ∈ G.
Let H ∈ V [G] be V -generic for S. We get that Ult(V, G) models that in VλS [H]
there is a Γ-correct V -generic filter K for B with b ∈ K. Since Γ is absolutely Σ2 -
definable and VλS [H] ≺1 V [H] with λS still inaccessible in V [H], we get that V [H]
models that there is a Γ-correct V -generic filter K for B with b ∈ K. By the forcing
theorem applied to V [H] and 6.2.2(2 =⇒ 3) we get that the map b 7→ TBb,S defines
a Γ-correct embedding.
3: Almost self-evident. 3a follows from 2. 3b follows from 3a and 2. 3c follows from 3a,
3b, and 2.
4: Almost self-evident.
Notation 15.1.6. Given a self-generic forcing S either of the form TγI or of the form P I :
• [S]S ≥S B for B ∈ DS signifies that S ∧ SGS ≥NS TB,S ,
• for B ∈ DS , S B denotes the Γ-superrigid self-generic T with DT = DS B.
15.1.2 Main results

We have the following theorems, whose proofs are deferred to later parts of this chapter:
Theorem 15.1.7. Let Γ be a κ-suitable class of forcings for a κ-canonical theory T .
Assume CFA(Γ) holds and Vδ+1 |= CFA(Γ) + T for some inaccessible δ.
Let G be V -generic for UΓδ . Then in V [G]
K = S ∈ Vδ : S ≥NS SGS for some Γ-superrigid self generic S ∈ G

is a V -normal tower of ultrafilters and Ult(V, K) is < δ-closed in V [G].

Remark 15.1.8. We do not assert that the tower forcing in V induced by the normal filter
K in V [G] is forcing equivalent in V to UΓδ . This can be proved to be the case if δ is Mahlo
and there is a stationary set of inaccessible γ < δ with Vγ+1 a model of T + CFA(Γ). But
we won’t need this stronger result here and hence we omit its proof.
240
We now reinforce Proposition 15.0.1 to the following theorem which takes into account
the concept of Γ-superrigidity we introduced.
Theorem 15.1.9. Assume Γ is κ-suitable for a Γ-canonical theory T . Assume λ > ν ≥

γ > δ are inaccessible and G ∈ V is a V -normal ultrafilter concentrating on
{X ⊆ Vλ : (X, ∈) ∼
= (Vγ , ∈), X ∩ δ ∈ δ, otp(X ∩ λ) = γ, otp(X ∩ ν) = δ} .
1. Let j = jG : V → Ult(V, G) be the embedding induced by G. Then crit(j) = δ,

j(δ) = ν, and Ult(V, G)λ ⊆ Ult(V, G).
2. Furthermore let G0 = πVν ,Vλ [G]. Then G0 ∈ V is a V -normal ultrafilter concentrat-

ing on
{X ⊆ Vν : (X, ∈) ∼ = (Vδ , ∈), X ∩ δ ∈ δ} .
and jG0 : V → Ult(V, G0 ) is a huge embedding such that jG = k ◦ jG0 , where
k : [f ]G0 7→ [f ↑ Vλ ]G is also elementary between Ult(V, G0 ) and Ult(V, G).
3. Assume that H is V -generic for UΓδ .

Then in V [H] (UΓj(δ) )V [G] is a Γ-superrigid self-generic ideal forcing.
Corollary 15.1.10. Let Γ be a κ-suitable class of forcings. Then CFA(Γ) is consistent

relative to the existence of a 2-superhuge cardinal.
Proof. Assume δ is 2-superhuge in V and H is V -generic for UΓδ . Then in V [H] (by
repeated applications of 15.1.9),
n o
(UΓj(δ) )V [H] B : j : V → M is 2-huge in V and B ∈ (RigΓj(δ) )V [H]
witnesses CFA(Γ) in V [H].
Theorem 15.1.11. Let Γ be a κ-suitable class of forcings with respect to the Γ-canonical
theory
T = MK + κ is regular +aP ⊆ κ + CFA(Γ).
Assume in V there exists stationarily many inaccessible cardinals δ.

Then CFA(Γ) entails FAκ (Γ) and makes the theory of the Chang model L(Ordκ ) in-
variant with respect to forcings in Γ preserving CFA(Γ).
Proof. CFA(Γ) entails FAκ (Γ) by 13.2.1.

For club many inaccessible δ, Vδ+1 |= T , since all the axioms of T not in MK holds on
Vδ+1 for a club subset of δ ∈ Ord. Now for any B ∈ Γ forcing T , any V -generic filter for
UΓδ B induces both in V and V B generic ultrapower embeddings of V (respectively V B )
B
with critical point κ+ (respectively (κ+ )V ) sent to δ and both closed under < δ-sequences
Γ
in V Uδ B .
Given any B ∈ Γ forcing T , we can run the Woodin’s generic absoluteness template
described in the introduction of the present chapter with UΓδ in the place of Coll(ω, < δ),
B are both models of T .
where δ is inaccessible and such that Vδ+1 , Vδ+1
δ exists since in V there are stationarily many inaccessible cardinals and the classes of
γ with Vγ+1 a model of T and η with Vη+1 B a model of T are both closed unbounded.
B |=
Hence for all inaccessible δ which are in the intersection of these two clubs Vδ+1 , Vδ+1
CFA(Γ), therefore we can apply Theorem 15.1.7 to UΓδ both in V and in V B .
241
Proof. Notice that for all Γ-superrigid self-generic T ∈ UΓδ , T ∈ G entails that (the upward
closure of) G ∩ DT is the unique Γ-correct filter for T in V [G]. Notice also that T B is
still Γ-superrigid self-generic for all B ∈ DT .
We prove both parts as follows:
K is a V -normal ultrafilter: Assume S ∈ K is a subset of P (X) and f : P (X) → X
is regressive. Pick S ∈ G Γ-superrigid self-generic tower forcing of height γ with
S ∈ Vγ , with S ≥NS SGS (this is possible since for all η < δ the set of Γ-superrigid
self-generic S of height at least η is dense in UΓδ ).
Then [S]S ∈ S + , given that S ∧ SGS = SGS .
Now
Df = {[T ]S : f T is constant and T ⊆ S}
is a predense subset of S below [S]S . Since S = S [S]S ∈ G is Γ-superrigid self-
generic, the set GS of [T ]S ∈ S such that S [T ]S ∈ G is a Γ-correct V -generic filter
for S in V [G] to which [S]S belongs. So there is [T ]S ∈ GS ∩Df refining [S]S . W.l.o.g
we can suppose [T ]S is refined by some B ∈ GS ∩ DS ⊆ G, since S is Γ-superrigid
selfgeneric. Then S B ∈ G is also a Γ-superrigid selfgeneric forcing and
T ≥NS T ∧ SGS ≥NS T ∧ TB,S = TB,S = SGSB
witnesses that T ∈ K.
Now S ≥NS T , and f T is constant.
Ult(V, K)<δ ⊆ Ult(V, K) holds in V [G]: It is enough to show the following:

Claim 18. For any γ-sequence (fi : i < γ) in V [G] of functions fi : P (Xi ) → V
with fi ∈ V and Xi ∈ Vδ for all i < γ, there is an f ∈ V with domain P (X) for
some X ∈ Vδ such that for all [h] ∈ Ult(V, K) [h]K ∈ [f ]K if and only if for some
i < γ [h]K = [fi ]K .
Proof. Let us fix a sequence (fi : i < γ) ∈ V [G] of elements of V which are func-
tions with domain P (Xi ) for some Xi ∈ Vδ . By the presaturationSof UΓδ (given by
Lemma 14.3.3(3)), the map i 7→ rank(Xi ) is bounded in δ, thus i∈I Xi ⊆ Vα for
some α < δ. Now we can let gi (Z) = Z ∩ Xi for each i < γ and Z ⊆ Vα . Then each
gi ∈ V and it is immediate to check that {Z ∈ Vα : gi (Z) = fi (Z ∩ Xi )} ∈ K. Thus
it suffices to prove the conclusion of the Claim for the sequence (gi : i < γ) ∈ V [G]
to have it also for the sequence (fi : i < γ).
Γ
Assume now τ ∈ V Uδ is a UΓδ -name for (gi : i < γ). Then w.l.o.g. we can assume
τ is a UΓδ -name for a function with domain γ < δ and range contained in V . By
Lemma 14.3.3(2), there is some C ∈ G and a σ ∈ V C such that
C UΓ k̂C (σ) = τ
δ
holds. By further refining C ∈ G if necessary, we can further assume that C = S is

a Γ-superrigid self-generic forcing. Then
H = {[S]S : S [S]S ∈ G}
is the unique Γ-correct V -generic filter for S ∈ V [G] by Lemma 14.5.1.
242
First of all we observe that σ ∈ V S can be chosen so that
σ = {(hi, gS i, [S]S ) : [S]S ∈ Ai , i < γ} ,
where, Ai is a maximal antichain in S for each i < γ, and each gS : P (Vα ) → V is

in V for each [S]S ∈ Ai .
Next notice that σH = kS (σ)G = τG = (gi : i < γ), since S ∈ G.
Finally observe the following:
K ⊇ {S ∈ Vη : [S]S ∈ H} . (15.1)
Proof. Since H is an ultrafilter, either [S]S ∈ H or [¬S]S ∈ H. Thus it suffices to

show that [S]S ∈ H gives that S ∈ K for all [S]S ∈ S. Now [S]S ∈ H if and only if
for some B ∈ DS ∩ G [S]S ≥S B. Hence S ≥NS SGSB and S B ∈ G. Therefore
S ∈ K.
The equation is proved.
For each i < γ, let Si ∈ K be the unique element of K such that [Si ]S ∈ Ai ∩ H.
This forces (hi, gSi i : i < γ) = σH = τG , hence gi = gSi for all i < γ.
For each M ∈ SGS with {Ai : i < γ} ∈ M , let g(M ) : M ∩ γ → V be defined by
n o
g(M ) = gS i (M ∩ Vα ) : i ∈ M ∩ γ ,
M
i ∈ G is the unique such that [S i ] ∈ G(M, S)∩A ∩M .

where for each i ∈ M ∩γ, SM M M S i
For any other M ⊆ VλS , let g(M ) = ∅. Then g ∈ V and the following holds:
Ult(V, K) |= [g]K = {[gi ]K : i < γ} (15.2)
Proof. Given h : Y → V in V , we have that [h]k ∈ [g]K iff for some X ∈ Vδ

containing Y and Vα and some fixed i < γ,
n o
T = M ∈ P (X) : h(M ∩ Y ) = gS i (M ∩ Vα ) ∈ K.
M
Find T ∈ G refining S with [T ]T ∈ T and T ≥NS SGT . Since Si ∈ K and SM i =S

i
for all M ∈ SG ∧Si ≥NS SG ∧Si with {Ai : i < γ} ∈ M , we get that K 3 SGS ∧Si ,
S T
and for a club of M in this set h(M ∩ Y ) = gSi (M ∩ Vα ) = gi (M ∩ Vα ). Equation 15.2

is proved.
The proof that Ult(V, K)<δ ⊆ Ult(V, K) is completed.
243
Proof. We start to show that we are in the assumption of 11.3.5 with UΓδ in the place of
P and UΓν UΓδ in the place of j(P ) q:
Since j(δ) = ν and Ult(V, G)λ ⊆ Ult(V, G), by elementarity of j, the theory T holds
in (Vν+1 )Ult(V,G) = Vν+1 , since it holds in Vδ+1 . Therefore UΓj(δ) ∈ Γ holds in V , and (by
the Σ2 -absolute definability of Γ) it holds also in Ult(V, G) (since (Vλ )Ult(V,G) = Vλ and
Σ2 -properties are upward absolute between Ult(V, G) and Vλ ).
In V
UΓδ ≥Γ UΓj(δ) UΓδ
as witnessed by the map B 7→ UΓδ B. It also holds that UΓδ B = inf B, UΓδ both

in (Γ, ≤Γ ) and in (UΓj(δ) , ≤Γ ) (we leave this to the diligent reader). Hence the map
i : B 7→ B ∧UΓ UΓδ defines a complete homomorphism. Therefore the assumptions of
j(δ)
Proposition 11.3.5 are satisfied.
Moreover by Theorem 14.4.3
(UΓj(δ) UΓδ )V /i[H] ∼

= (UΓj(δ) )V [H] .
Now we combine the results of 11.3.5 and 14.4.3 with the present context.
Let H be V -generic for UΓδ . In V [H] we get that:
1. U = (UΓj(δ) )V [H] ∼
= (UΓj(δ) UΓδ )V /i[H] .
2. I is the normal ideal induced on P (P (Vλ [H]))V [H] by Foreman’s duality theorem
applied to P, G, H.
3. I0 is the ideal induced on P (P (Vν [H]))V [H] by Foreman’s duality theorem applied
to P, G0 , H.
4. P I a complete boolean algebra in V [H] inducing a λ-closed generic ultrapower em-

bedding.
5. P I0 a self-generic ideal forcing inducing a < ν-closed generic ultrapower embedding.
6. P I ∼
=U∼
= P I0 .
7. The map iVν [H],Vλ [H] : [S]I0 7→ [S ↑ Vλ [H]]I implements in V [H] the isomorphism
between P I0 and P I obtained by the composition of the natural isomorphisms of P I
and P I0 with U given by Foreman’s duality theorem.
We show that P I0 is a Γ-superrigid ideal forcing in V [H]. By 11.3.5 we already know

that P I0 is self-generic. Remark that (λ being the least inaccessible above ν) for each
B∈U
TB,P I0 = M ∈ SGI0 ↑ Vλ [H] : there is a ΓNM -correct NM -generic filter H ∈ NM [KM ] for B ,

where for each M in the above set KM = πM [GM ∩ P (P (Vλ [H]))V [H] ].
We must show that for each S 6∈ I0 we can find B ∈ RigΓδ such that
TB,P I0 ≤NS S ∧ SGI0 .
244
Let K be V [H]-generic for P I , K0 be the induced V [H]-generic filter for P I0 , L be the
induced V [H]-generic filter for U. By 11.3.5 we know that jK [Vλ [H]] ∈ jK (SGI0 ↑ Vλ [H]).
Moreover by 14.5.1 Vλ [H][L] = Vλ [H][K0 ] models that there exists H Γ-correct Vλ [H]-
generic filter for B if and only if B ∈ L.
Therefore for each B ∈ U, we have that
jK [Vλ [H]] ∈ j(TB,P I0 )
if and only if Vλ [H][L] = Vλ [H][K0 ] models that there exists H Γ-correct Vλ [H]-generic
filter for B if and only if B ∈ L.
This gives that the natural isomorphism of P I with U defined in V [H] by means
of 11.3.5 and 14.4.3 is such that [TB,P I0 ]I 7→ B for all B ∈ U.
This gives that
[TB,P I0 ]I : B ∈ U
is a dense subset of P I .
Hence given [S]I0 ∈ (P I0 )+ find B ∈ U such that [S ↑ Vλ [H]]I ≥ [TB,P I0 ]I . Then
S ∧ SGI0 =NS (S ∧ SGI0 ) ↑ Vλ [H] ≥NS TB,P I0 .
This proves that P I0 is Γ-superrigid self-generic in V [H], completing the proof of the
Theorem.
245
Bibliography
[1] Carolin Antos, Class forcing in class theory, Proceeding of the JTF Hyperuniverse
Project (Birkhuser, ed.), forthcoming.
[2] David Asperó and Matteo Viale, Category forcings, In preparation, 2017.
[3] G. Audrito and M. Viale, Absoluteness via resurrection, J. Math. Log. (2017), On-line
first.
[4] Giorgio Audrito and Silvia Steila, Generic large cardinals and systems of filters,
arXiv:1511.05326, to apper in the Journal of Symbolic Logic, 2015.
[5] J. Bagaria, Bounded forcing axioms as principles of generic absoluteness, Arch. Math.
Logic 39 (2000), no. 6, 393–401. MR 1773776 (2001i:03103)
[6] J. E. Baumgartner, All ℵ1 -dense sets of reals can be isomorphic, Fund. Math. 79
(1973), no. 2, 101–106. MR 317934
[7] J. L. Bell, Set theory: boolean-valued models and independence proofs, Oxford Uni-
versity Press, Oxford, 2005.
[8] TS Blyth, Lattices and ordered algebraic structures, Springer, Dordrecht, 2006.
[9] A. E. Caicedo and B. Veličković, The bounded proper forcing axiom and well orderings
of the reals, Math. Res. Lett. 13 (2006), no. 2-3, 393–408. MR 2231126 (2007d:03076)
[10] Brent Cody and Sean Cox, Indestructibility of generically strong cardinals, Funda-
menta Mathematicae 232 (2016), 131–149.
[11] S. Cox, PFA and ideals on ω2 whose associated forcings are proper, Notre Dame J.
Form. Log. 53 (2012), no. 3, 397–412. MR 2981015
[12] Sean Cox and Matteo Viale, Martin’s maximum and tower forcing, Israel Journal of
Mathematics 197 (2013), no. 1, 347–376.
[13] Sean Cox and Martin Zeman, Ideal projections and forcing projections, The Journal
of Symbolic Logic 79 (2014), no. 04, 1247–1285.
[14] James Cummings, Iterated forcing and elementary embeddings, Handbook of set the-
ory. Vols. 1, 2, 3, Springer, Dordrecht, 2010, pp. 775–883. MR 2768691
[15] I. Farah, All automorphisms of the Calkin algebra are inner, Ann. of Math. (2) 173
(2011), no. 2, 619–661. MR 2776359
[16] M. Foreman, M. Magidor, and S. Shelah, Martin’s maximum, saturated ideals, and
nonregular ultrafilters. I, Ann. of Math. (2) 127 (1988), no. 1, 1–47. MR 924672
246
[17] Matthew Foreman, Potent axioms, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 294 (1986), no. 1, 1–28.
MR 819932
[18] , Ideals and generic elementary embeddings, Handbook of Set Theory

(Matthew Foreman and Akihiro Kanamori, eds.), Springer Netherlands, 2010,
pp. 885–1147 (English).
[19] , Calculating quotient algebras of generic embeddings, Israel Journal of Math-

ematics 193 (2013), no. 1, 309–341.
[20] Matthew Foreman and Menachem Magidor, Large cardinals and definable counterex-
amples to the continuum hypothesis, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 76 (1995), no. 1, 47–97.
MR 1359154
[21] D.H. Fremlin, Topological spaces after forcing, http://www.essex.ac.uk/maths/people/

fremlin/n05622.pdf, 2011.
[22] U. Fuchs, Donder’s version of revised countable support, (1992), 1–4.
[23] S.R. Givant and P.R. Halmos, Introduction to Boolean algebras, Springer Verlag, 2009.
[24] Joel David Hamkins, The lottery preparation, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 101 (2000),
no. 2-3, 103–146. MR 1736060 (2001i:03108)
[25] , A simple maximality principle, J. Symbolic Logic 68 (2003), no. 2, 527–550.

MR 1976589
[26] Joel David Hamkins and Thomas A. Johnstone, Resurrection axioms and uplifting
cardinals, Arch. Math. Logic 53 (2014), no. 3-4, 463–485. MR 3194674
[27] Joel David Hamkins and Daniel Seabold, Well-founded Boolean ultrapowers as large
cardinal embeddings, 1–40, preprint http://jdh.hamkins.org/boolean-ultrapowers/.
[28] T. Jech, Set theory, Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer, Berlin, 2003,
The third millennium edition, revised and expanded. MR 1940513
[29] K. Kunen, Set theory, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol.
102, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1980, An introduction to independence proofs. MR
597342
[30] Paul B. Larson, The stationary tower, University Lecture Series, vol. 32, American
Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2004, Notes on a course by W. Hugh Woodin.
MR 2069032
[31] A. Lévy and R. M. Solovay, Measurable cardinals and the continuum hypothesis, Israel
J. Math. 5 (1967), 234–248. MR 0224458
[32] M. Magidor, Combinatorial characterization of supercompact cardinals, Proc. Amer.

Math. Soc. 42 (1974), 279–285. MR 327518
[33] J. Donald Monk and Robert Bonnet (eds.), Handbook of Boolean algebras. Vol. 3,
North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1989. MR 991607
[34] J. T. Moore, Set mapping reflection, J. Math. Log. 5 (2005), no. 1, 87–97. MR 2151584
247
[35] , A five element basis for the uncountable linear orders, Ann. of Math. (2) 163
(2006), no. 2, 669–688. MR 2199228
[36] Francesco Parente, Boolean valued models, saturation, forcing axioms, (2015), Un-
published Master Thesis, University of Pisa 2015.
[37] Helena Rasiowa and Roman Sikorski, The mathematics of metamathematics, third
ed., PWN—Polish Scientific Publishers, Warsaw, 1970, Monografie Matematyczne,
Tom 41. MR 0344067
[38] S. Shelah, Infinite abelian groups, Whitehead problem and some constructions, Israel
J. Math. 18 (1974), 243–256. MR 0357114 (50 #9582)
[39] , Decomposing uncountable squares to countably many chains, J. Combinato-

rial Theory Ser. A 21 (1976), no. 1, 110–114. MR 409196
[40] , Jonsson algebras in successor cardinals, Israel J. Math. 30 (1978), no. 1-2,
57–64. MR 0505434
[41] , Proper and improper forcing, second ed., Perspectives in Mathematical Logic,
Springer, Berlin, 1998. MR 1623206
[42] Saharon Shelah, Proper and improper forcing, second ed., Perspectives in Mathemat-
ical Logic, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998. MR 1623206 (98m:03002)
[43] Roman Sikorski, Boolean algebras, Third edition. Ergebnisse der Mathematik und
ihrer Grenzgebiete, Band 25, Springer-Verlag New York Inc., New York, 1969. MR
0242724
[44] J. Stavi and J. Väänänen, Reflection principles for the continuum, Logic and algebra,
Contemp. Math., vol. 302, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2002, pp. 59–84. MR
1928384 (2003h:03082)
[45] S. Todorcevic, Basis problems in combinatorial set theory, Proceedings of the Inter-
national Congress of Mathematicians, Vol. II (Berlin, 1998), no. Extra Vol. II, 1998,
pp. 43–52 (electronic). MR 1648055
[46] , Generic absoluteness and the continuum, Math. Res. Lett. 9 (2002), no. 4,
465–471. MR 1928866 (2003f:03067)
[47] Andrea Vaccaro, C*-algebras and B-names for complex numbers, (2015), Unpublished
Master Thesis, University of Pisa 2015.
[48] B. Veličković, Forcing axioms and stationary sets, Adv. Math. 94 (1992), no. 2, 256–
284. MR 1174395 (93k:03045)
[49] Matteo Viale, A family of covering properties, Math. Res. Lett. 15 (2008), no. 2,
221–238. MR 2385636
[50] , Category forcings, MM+++ , and generic absoluteness for the theory of strong
forcing axioms, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 29 (2016), no. 3, 675–728. MR 3486170
[51] , Category forcings, M M +++ , and generic absoluteness for the theory of strong
forcing axioms, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 29 (2016), no. 3, 675–728. MR 3486170
248
[52] , Martin’s maximum revisited, Arch. Math. Logic 55 (2016), no. 1-2, 295–317.
MR 3453587
[53] , Useful axioms, arXiv:1610.02832, 2016.
[54] , Notes on forcing, 2017.
[55] W. H. Woodin, The axiom of determinacy, forcing axioms, and the nonstationary
ideal, de Gruyter Series in Logic and its Applications, vol. 1, Walter de Gruyter &
Co., Berlin, 1999. MR 1713438
249

Book

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Book

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Iterated forcing, category forcings, generic ultrapowers,

Giorgio Audrito, Silvia Steila,

and the collaboration of Raphaël Carroy.

• A compact self-contained account of the general theory of generic ultrapowers in-

How to read the book

Woodin’s generic absoluteness results for second order number theory:

Preservation theorems for limits of semiproper iterations:

Who made what.

0.1 Axiomatizations of Set Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

I Boolean algebras and generalized stationarity 16

1 Basics on partial orders, topology, boolean algebras 18

2 Clubs and normal ideals 36

II Boolean valued models 53

3 Boolean Valued Models 55

III Iterations of forcing notions 96

7 Iteration systems 114

IV Forcing axioms, properness, semiproperness 127

8 Forcing axioms I 129

9 Properness and semiproperness. 142

10 Proper and semiproper iterations 156

V Selfgeneric ultrapowers, generic absoluteness for L(Ordω ), Martin’s

11 Self-generic presaturated ideals and towers 168

12 Generic absoluteness for L([Ord]ω ) 191

13 Forcing axioms II 197

VI Forcing Axioms and Category Forcings 205

14 Category forcings 209

15 Category forcing axioms 236

The ZFC axioms for set theory

∀x∀y(x ⊆ y ↔ ∀z ∈ x(z ∈ y))

∃z∃y[y ∈ z ∧ ∀x(x ∈ z → ∃t[(t ∈ z) ∧ ∀w(w ∈ t ↔ (w ∈ x ∨ w = x)))]]

4. Union: For every set a its union ∪a exists:

5. Powerset: For every set a its powerset P (a) exists:

6. Foundation: Every nonempty set has an ∈-minimal element:

7. ZFC-Comprehension: For any formula φ(x, x1 , . . . , xn ) with displayed free variables

∀x1 , . . . xn ∀x∃y∀z[z ∈ y ↔ (z ∈ x ∧ φ(z, x1 , . . . , xn ))].

8. Collection: For all formulae φ(x, y, x1 , . . . , xn ) with displayed free variables

∀x1 . . . ∀xn ∀w(∀x ∈ w∃yφ(x, y, x1 , . . . , xn ) → ∃z∀x ∈ w∃y ∈ zφ(x, y, x1 , . . . , xn )).

9. Choice: There exists a well-ordering of any set.

The Morse-Kelley Set Theory MK

2. Pairing: For any sets x and y there is a set {x, y}:

∃z∃y[y ∈ z ∧ ∀x(x ∈ z → ∃t∀w(w ∈ t ↔ (w ∈ x ∨ w = x)))]

4. Union: For every class A its union ∪A exists:

5. Powerset: For every class A its powerset P (A) exists:

6. Foundation: Every nonempty class has an ∈-minimal element:

7. MK-Comprehension: For any formula ϕ(x, X1 , . . . , Xn )

∀X1 , . . . Xn ∃Y (Y = {x : ϕ(x, X1 , . . . , Xn )}).

8. Collection: If a class R is a binary relation and a is a set contained in its domain,

The Gödel-Bernays Set Theory NBG

NBG-Comprehension: For any formula ϕ(x, X1 , . . . , Xn ) in which quantifiers

∀X1 , . . . Xn ∃Y (Y = {x : ϕ(x, X1 , . . . , Xn )}).

V is for us the standard model of ZFC, in the following sense:

Set theoretic terminology

• All Σ0n (T ) formulae will also be Σ10 (T ), ∆10 (T ), Π10 (T ).

• Given M ⊆ V transitive and sets a1 . . . , ak ∈ M , a formula

with just set-type free variables is Qn (M ) in parameters a1 , . . . , ak if for some Qn -

• Given sets a1 . . . , ak ∈ V , a formula

with just set-type free variables is Qn (T ) in parameters a1 , . . . , ak if it is Qn (M ) in pa-

• X, Y are either sets or classes;

• x, y and z are elements of X or Y ;

• s, t are elements of X <ω and Y <ω ;

• S, T are elements of P (P (X));

• I, J are ideals on P (X) or P (Y );

• I˘ is the dual filter of I;

• πM : M −→ ZM = πM [M ] ⊆ V is the Mostowsky’s collapse of the structure (M, ),