1

6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


Models with second order properties V:
A general principle
S. Shelah C. Laamme B. Hart

October 6, 2003
Abstract. We present a general framework for carrying out the construc-
tions in [2-10] and others of the same type. The unifying factor is a com-
binatorial principle which we present in terms of a game in which the rst
player challenges the second player to carry out constructions which would
be much easier in a generic extension of the universe, and the second player
cheats with the aid of 3. 1 contains an axiomatic framework suitable for
the description of a number of related constructions, and the statement of
the main theorem 1.9 in terms of this framework. In 2 we illustrate the use
of our combinatorial principle. The proof of the main result is then carried
out in 3-5.

This paper is based on lectures given by the rst author while visiting the University
of Michigan. The research was partially supported by the BSF, the NSF and the NSERC.
1
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


Contents
1. Uniform partial orders.
We describe a class of partial orderings associated with attempts to man-
ufacture an object of size
+
from approximations of size less than . We also
introduce some related notions motivated by the forcing method. The un-
derlying idea is that a suciently generic lter on the given partial ordering
should give rise to the desired object of size
+
.
We describe a game for two players, in which the rst player imposes
genericity requirements on a construction, and the second player constructs
an object which meets the specied requirements. The main theorem (1.9) is
that under certain combinatorial conditions the second player has a winning
strategy for this game.
2. Illustrative application.
We illustrate the content of our general principle with an example. We
show the completeness of the logic L
<
, dened by Magidor and Malitz [2]
for the
+
-interpretation assuming the combinatorial principles Dl

and 3

+.
3. Commitments.
We give a preliminary sketch of the proof of Theorem 1.9. We then
introduce the notion of basic data which is a collection of combinatorial
objects derived from Dl

and an object called a commitment describing the

main features of the second players strategy in a given play of the genericity
game. We state the main results concerning commitments, and show how
Theorem 1.9 follows from these results.
4. Proofs.
We prove the propositions stated in 3 except we defer the proof of Propo-
sitions 3.6 and 3.7 to section 5. We use Dl

to show that a suitable collection

of basic data exists. Then we verify some continuity properties applying
to our strategy at limit ordinals.
5. Proof of Proposition 3.7.
We prove Proposition 3.7 as well as Proposition 3.6.
Notation
2
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


If (A

: < ) is an increasing sequence of sets we write A

<
for

<
A

.
(Note the exception arising in lemma 1.3.)
Throughout the paper, is a cardinal such that
<
= .
T
<
(A) = B A : [B[ < .
otp (u) will mean the order type of u. Trees are well-founded, and if T is
a tree, T, we write len () for otp T : < (the level at which
occurs in T).
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our deepest gratitude to Greg Cherlin without
whose insistence this paper might not have been completed this century.
3
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


1 Uniform partial orders
We will present an axiomatic framework for the construction of objects of
size
+
from approximations of size less than , under suitable set theoret-
ical hypotheses. The basic idea is that we are constructing objects which
can fairly easily be forced to exist in a generic extension, and we replace
the forcing construction by the explicit construction of a suciently generic
object in the ground model.
We begin with the description of the class of partial orderings to which
our methods apply. Our idea is that an approximation to the desired nal
object is built from a set of ordinals u
+
of size less than . Furthermore,
though there will be many such sets u, there will be at most constructions
applicable to an arbitrary set u. We do not axiomatize the notion of a
construction in any detail; we merely assume that the approximations can
be coded by pairs (, u), where < is to be thought of as a code for the
particular construction applied to u. An additional feature, suggested by
the intuition just described, is captured in the indiscernibility condition
below, which is a critical feature of the situation though trivially true in
any foreseeable application.
Denition 1.1 A standard
+
-uniform partial order is a partial order
dened on a subset P of T
<
(
+
) satisfying the following conditions,
where for p = (, u) in P we write domp = u, and call u the domain of p.
1. If p q then domp domq.
2. For all p, q, r P with p, q r there is r

P so that p, q r

r and
domr

= domp domq.
3. If (p
i
)
i<
is an increasing sequence of length less than , then it has a
least upper bound q, with domain

i<
domp
i
; we will write q =

i<
p
i
,
or more succinctly: q = p
<
.
4. For all p P and <
+
there exists a q P with q p and
domq = domp ; furthermore, there is a unique maximal such q, for
which we write q = p.
5. For limit ordinals , p =

<
p.
4
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


6. If (p
i
)
i<
is an increasing sequence of length less than , then
(

i<
p
i
) =

i<
(p
i
).
7. (Indiscernibility) If p = (, v) P and h : v v

+
is an order-
isomorphism then (, v

) P. We write h[p] = (, h[v]). Moreover, if

q p then h[q] h[p].
8. (Amalgamation) For every p, q P and <
+
, if p q and
domp domq = domp , then there exists r P so that p, q r.
It should be remarked that a standard
+
-uniform partial order comes
with the additional structure imposed on it by the domain and restriction
functions. We will call a partial order
+
-uniform if it is isomorphic to a
standard
+
-uniform partial ordering. It follows that although a
+
-uniform
is isomorphic to a standard one as a partial order, there will be an induced
notion of domain and restriction. The elements of such a partial order will
be called approximations, rather than conditions, as we are aiming at a
construction in the ground model.
Observe that p = p i dom p . Note also that for p q in P,
p q . (As p , q q, there is r q in P with p , q r and
domr = domp domq = domq ; hence r = q by maximality of
q, and p q.)
It is important to realize that in intended applications there will be
many comparable elements of a
+
-uniform partial order which have the
same domain (see the rst example of the next section).
Typically the only condition that requires attention in concrete cases is
the amalgamation condition. It is therefore useful to have a weaker version of
the amalgamation property available which is sometimes more conveniently
veried, and which is equivalent to the full amalgamation condition in the
presence of the other (trivial) hypotheses. Such a version is:
Weak Amalgamation. For every p, q P, and <
+
, if p q,
domp + 1, and domq , then there exists r P with
p, q r.
To prove amalgamation from weak amalgamation, we dene a continuous
increasing chain of elements r

P for so that
5
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


1. dom(r

) and
2. r

p, q.
Let r

= q. For limit ordinals, use conditions 3 and 5 of the denition

of uniform partial order.
Suppose we have dened r

and , dom(p) dom(q). Let r

+1
= r

.
If dom(q) dom(p) then p + 1 = p. Apply weak amalgamation
to r

and q. Using condition 2 of the denition now, we can dene r + 1.

If dom(p)dom(q) then we can apply weak amalgamation to p + 1
and r

.
Since these are all the possibilities, let = sup(dom(p) dom(q)) and
so r

p, q. This veries amalgamation.

Notation
For p, q P we write p
sd
q to mean p q and domp = domq. (Here
sd stands for same domain.) If p, q P then we write p q if p and q
are incompatible i.e. there is no r so that p r and q r.
We dene the collapse p
col
of an approximation as h[p] where h is the
canonical order isomorphism between domp and otp(domp).
Convention
For the remainder of this section we x a standard
+
-uniform partial
order P, and we let
P

= p P : domp
for <
+
. Note that P

+ = P.
Be forewarned that the following denition does not follow the standard
set theoretic use of the term ideal.
Denition 1.2 1. For <
+
, a -generic ideal G in P

is a subset of
P

satisfying:
(a) G is closed downward;
(b) if Q G and [Q[ < then Q has an upper bound in G; and
(c) for every p P

, if p , G then p is incompatible with some q G.

Gen(P

) is the set of -generic ideals of P

.
6
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


2. If G Gen(P

) then
P/G = p P : p is compatible with every r G.
Note that p P/G i p G.
3. We say an increasing sequence g
i
: i < ) is conal in G Gen(P

) if
G = r P

: for some i, r g
i
. Every G Gen(P

) has a conal
sequence of length (possibly constant in degenerate cases). We will
often write (g

to mean g

: < ).
4. We will say that G is generic if G Gen(P

) for some .
Lemma 1.3 Let G
i
Gen(P

i
) for i < be an increasing sequence of sets,
and = sup
i

i
. Then there is a unique minimal -generic ideal of P

containing

i<
G
i
. This ideal will be denoted G
<
.
Proof: We may suppose that is a regular cardinal, . If = then
it is clear that

i<
G
i
Gen(P

). Suppose now that < . For i < x an

increasing continuous sequence (g
i

)
<
conal in G
i
. Fix i < j < . There
is a club C
ij
in such that for all C
ij
, g
i

= g
j

i
. Let C =

i<j<
C
ij
.
If C then dene g

=

i<
g
i

. Then the downward closure of

(g

: < ) is the required generic set in P

. 2
The notion of -genericity is of course very weak. In order to get a notion
adequate for the applications, we need to formalize the notion of a uniform
family of dense sets.
Denition 1.4
1. For <
+
and G Gen(P

) or G = (in which case, in what follows,

read P for P/G) we say
D : (u, w) : u w T
<
(
+
) T(P)
is a density system over G if:
7
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


(a) for every (u, w), D(u, w) p P/G : domp w,
(b) for every p, q P/G, if p D(u, w), p q and domq w then
q D(u, w),
(c) (Density) For every (u, w) and every p P/G, with domp w,
there is q p in D(u, w); and
(d) (Uniformity) For every (u
1
, w
1
), (u
2
, w
2
), if w
1
= w
2
and
there is an order-isomorphism h : w
1
w
2
such that h[u
1
] = u
2
,
then for every p P/G with domp w
1
p D(u
1
, w
1
) i h[p] D(u
2
, w
2
).
The term density system will refer to density systems over some
G Gen(P

), for some , and we write 0-density system for density

system over .
2. For G Gen(P

) and D any density system, we say G meets D if for

all u T
<
() there is v T
<
() so that u v and GD(u, v) ,= .
We give now two examples of density systems which will be important
in the proof of Theorem 1.9. Both examples use the following notion. A
closed set X of ordinals will be said to be -collapsed if 0 X and for any
sup X, [, + ] X ,= . An order isomorphism h : Y X between
closed sets of ordinals will be called a -isometry if for every pair in Y
and every < , = + i h() = h() +. Every closed set of ordinals
is -isometric with a unique -collapsed closed set; the corresponding -
isometry will be called the -collapse of Y , and more generally the -collapse
of any set Y of ordinals is dened as the restriction to Y of the -collapse
of its closure. Observe that a -collapsed set of fewer than ordinals is
bounded below (ordinal product).
Example 1.5 We shall show that there is a family T of at most 0-density
systems such that for any <
+
, if G Gen(P

) meets all D T then

P/G is again
+
-uniform. (The amalgamation property must be veried.)
Construction
For p, q P

and < (where is the ordinal product), we

dene a density system D
p,q,
as follows. Let u = (domp domq) . For
u

T
<
(
+
),
8
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


if there is an order-isomorphism h : w

w with h[u

] = u, then let
D
p,q,
(u

, w

) = r : domr w

and either there does not exist

s p, q, h[r], or there exists s p, q
so that s = h[r].
This denition is independent of the choice of h.
If there is no such h then let D
p,q,
(u

, w

) = r : domp w

. We claim
that D
p,q,
is a 0-density system. It suces to check the density condition
for u w , and this is immediate.
Application
We will now show that if G Gen(P

) meets every density system of the

form D
p,q,
then P/G is
+
-uniform. In order to view P/G as encoded by
elements of T
<
(
+
), we let h :
+

+
be an order isomorphism,
and replace (, u) in P/G by (

, h[u]) where

is just a code for the

pair (, u ). We need only check the amalgamation condition (8) of the
denition.
Let p, q P/G, <
+
with p q and domq domp = domp .
We must nd r p, q with r P/G. Let X = domp domq and let
h
0
: X X

be the -collapse of X. Let p

= h
0
[p], q

= h
0
[q],

= h
0
(),
and u = domq. Now choose w with [w[ < and r GD
p

,q

,
(u, w).
Since X

is -isomorphic with X, we can extend h

0
to an order-isomorphism
h : X w X

with h[w] = w

.
We claim that there is s p

, q

, h[r]. It suces to nd some s p, q, r.

Since p , q , r are all in G, we may take r

p , q , r in G. Since
q P/G and r

G then by amalgamation we can nd q q, r

with
dom q = domq domr

. But now domp dom q = domp and p q,

so we can nd s p, q. This is the desired s.
As r D
p

,q

,
(u, w), it now follows that there exists s p

, q

so that
s

= h[r], and hence h

1
[s] p, q and (h
1
[s]) = r. So h
1
[s] P/G
and h
1
[s] p, q, verifying condition (8) for P/G.
Example 1.6 The next example will be useful in the following situation.
Suppose we have G Gen(P

), > , and we want to build G

G with
9
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


G

Gen(P

). To ensure the genericity of G

we must arrange that for all

q P

, either q G

or else q is incompatible with some g G

. We will
nd another family of at most 0-density systems D
p,q,r,
which make it
possible to construct a suitable G

G if G meets all D
p,q,
(from Example
1.5) and D
p,q,r,
.
Construction
For p, q, r P

, < such that:

p r; domr ; and there does not exist s p, q, r,
we dene D
p,q,r,
as follows
Let u = (domp domq) . For u

T
<
(
+
), if there is an
order-isomorphism h : w

w where w and h[u

] = u then let
D
p,q,r,
(u

, w

) = s : doms w

and h[s] is incompatible with r,

or h[s] r and there is some t p so that
t h[s] and t is incompatible with q.
If there is no such h then let D
p,q,r,
(u

, w

) = s : doms w

.
We claim that D
p,q,r,
is a 0-density system. Again we check only the
density condition for u w . So suppose we have s P, doms w, and
s is compatible with r. We seek s

s in D
p,q,r,
(u, w).
Choose s

r, s with domain domr doms; so doms

. Then s

r p and doms

domp = domp , so we can choose t s

, p so that
dom(t) = doms

domp, and hence t is incompatible with q (since there

is no t

p, q, r). Now t s

r, s, so if s

= t then s

r, s, and
s

D
p,q,r,
(u

, w

) as desired.
Application
We return to the situation in which we have G Gen(P

), > , and
we want to build G

G with G

Gen(P

), assuming that G meets all

D
p,q,
and D
p,q,r,
. We will naturally take G

to be the downward closure of

a sequence (g
i
)
i<
which is constructed inductively, taking suprema at limit
ordinals. At successor stages, suppose that the i-th term of our sequence has
just been constructed, and let p = g
i
. Suppose q P

is xed. We wish to
10
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


decide q: that is, we seek p p so that either p is incompatible with q, or
else p q.
If p is already incompatible with q then let p = p. Otherwise, let X =
domp domq and let h : X X

be the -collapse of X. Let

p

= h[p], q

= h[q], and

= h(). If u = X , choose w u and

r GD
p

,q

,
(u, w). Extend h to an order-preserving function from X w
to X

, and let r

= h[r].
Suppose rst that there is some s p

, q

with s

. We may suppose
that doms = domp

domq

. In this case let p = h

1
[s]. As p r, we
have p P/G, and q is decided by p.
Now suppose alternatively that there is no s p

, q

, r

. We may assume
that p r since p G and G is directed. Let:
Y = domp domq domr ,
and let k : Y Y

be the -collapse of Y . Let p

= k(p), q

= k(q), r

=
k(r), and

= k(). Then p

, and there is no s p

, q

, r

.
Let v = (domqdomr), and choose z v and s GD
p

,q

,r

,
(v, z).
We can extend k to an order-isomorphism from Y z to Y

z

with k[z] =
z

. Let s

= k[s].
Certainly r

and s

are compatible since r, s G. As s belongs to

D
p

,q

,r

,
(u, z), we have k[s] r

, and there is some t

so that
t

and t

is incompatible with q

; in other words, s r, and there

is some p p so that p s and p is incompatible with q. Then p P/G,
and p decides q. 2
We now introduce the genericity game. Our main theorem will state
that the second player has a winning strategy in this game, under certain
combinatorial conditions.
Denition 1.7 Let P be a
+
-uniform partial order. The genericity game
for P is the two-player game of length
+
played according to the following
rules:
1. At the
th
move, player II will have chosen an increasing sequence of
ordinals

<
+
, and will have dened an increasing sequence of -
generic ideals G

on P

for all < . Player I will choose an element

g

P/G
<
and will also choose at most density systems D

i
over
G
<
. Note that G
<
Gen(P
<
) by Lemma 1.3.
11
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


2. After player I has played his
th
move, player II will pick an ordinal

and a -generic ideal of P

.
Player II wins the P-game if the sequences

and G

are increasing, and

for all , and all indices i occurring at stage : g

, and for all ,

G

meets D

i
.
Our main theorem uses the following combinatorial principle.
Denition 1.8 Suppose is a regular cardinal. Dl

asserts that there are

sets /

T(), [/

[ < for every < , such that for all A :

: A /

is stationary.
Easily, 3

or strongly inaccessible (or even =

0
) implies Dl

. Also,
Kunen showed that Dl

+ implies 3

+. Gregory has shown that if GCH holds

and cf () >
0
then 3

+ holds. It is useful to note that Dl

implies
<
= .
Theorem 1.9 Dl

implies that player II has a winning strategy for the P-

game.
This theorem will be proved in 3-5. We illustrate its use in the next
section.
12
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


2 Illustrative application
In this section we give an example of an application of the combinatorial
principle described in section 1.
In [2], Magidor and Malitz introduce a logic L
<
which has a new quan-
tier Q
n
for each n , in addition to the usual rst order connectives and
quantiers. The -interpretation of the formula Q
n
(x
1
, . . . , x
n
, y) is
there is a set A of cardinality so that for any x
1
, . . . , x
n
A,
(x
1
, . . . , x
n
, y) holds.
They then give a list of axioms which are sound for the -interpretation
when is regular, and show that these axioms are complete for the
1
-
interpretation under the assumption of 3

1
. They ask whether these axioms
are complete for the
+
-interpretation. We will show that their axioms are
complete when both Dl

and 3

+( <
+
: cf() = ) hold. This will
explain a remark at the end of [5]. See Hodges ([1]) for a treatment in the
same vein for the
1
-interpretation.
Fix a complete L
<
theory T, [T[ . Let Q = Q
1
. We may assume that
that associated to each formula with free variables x
1
, . . . , x
n
, y
1
, . . . , y
m
,
L contains an (m+1)-ary function F

, so that T proves Qx(x = x) and, for

any xed y
1
, . . . y
m
, F

(, y
1
, . . . , y
m
) is one-to-one and
Q
n
x(x
1
, . . . , x
n
, y
1
, . . . , y
m
)
z
1
. . . z
n
(

i<j
z
i
,= z
j

Sym(n)
(F

(z
(1)
, y), . . . , F

(z
(n)
, y), y)).
Strictly, it is not necessary to make this conservative extension to our lan-
guage and theory but it is convenient when handling the inductive step cor-
responding to Q
n
.
We add new constants y

: <
+
and x

i
: <
+
, i < to L,
to obtain a language L
1
. The set of constants y

i
: i < is called
the set of -constants and y

is called the special -constant. A constant is

said to be a w-constant if it is a -constant for some w; in particular a
constant is a (< )-constant if it is a -constant for some < .
We dene a partial order P as follows: p P i
1. p is a set of L
<
1
sentences consistent with T;
13
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


2. [p[ < ;
3. p is closed under conjunction and existential quantication; and
4. if (y

, z) p and the z are (< )-constants, then Qy(y, z) p.

We now indicate how P may be viewed as a standard
+
-uniform partial
order. We order P by inclusion. Let P

be
p P : all constants occurring in a formula of p are (< )-constants.
The elements of P

will be called templates. For any template p, there is a

least so that all formulas in p use only constants from y
i
: i < x
i
j
:
i < , j < . Call this
p
.
For any template p and any w
+
so that otp(w) =
p
, x an order-
isomorphism h :
p
w. Dene p(w) as the set of formulas obtained by
replacing x
i
j
and y
i
by x
h(i)
j
and y
h(i)
respectively for i <
p
. Every element
of P can be obtained in this way from a template.
Let be any bijection between the set of templates and . Identify P
with the set ([p], w) : p P

, w T
<
(
+
) where otp(w) =
p
by sending
([p], w) to p(w). Throughout the rest of this section we will treat P as if
it were in standard for although in practice we will use its original deni-
tion. We claim that P is
+
-uniform; it suces to check the amalgamation
condition 8.
The following notation will be convenient. If (y

1
, z
1
, y

2
, z
2
, . . . , y
n
, z
n
)
is a formula with
1
>
2
> . . . >
n
, and z
i
is a collection of [
i+1
,
i
)-
constants, then the string S of quantiers:
x
n
Qy
n
. . . x
1
Qy
1
is called standard for where the xs quantify over the zs. Its dual is denoted
S

:
x
n
Qy
n
. . . x
1
Qy
1

If p is a set of fewer than formulas of L

<
1
which is closed under conjunction,
then the following are equivalent:
1. p q for some q P;
2. S T for all p where S is standard for .
14
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


For p P and <
+
, we have:
p = p : all constants in are < -constants .
To show that P satises amalgamation, we will show that it satises weak
amalgamation. Suppose p P
+
, q P

and p q.
Suppose ( x, y

, z) p where x is all the -variables except y

and z is
the < -variables. Then
Qy x( x, y, z) p

.
If q then
SQy x( )
where S is a standard sequence, is equivalent to
S( Qy x).
Since both of the conjuncts are in q, this last sentence is in T. This veries
weak amalgamation.
Now the strategy is to build a set G which is the union of generics so
that the constant structure derived from G will form a model of T under the

+
-interpretation. More precisely, we introduce an equivalence relation on
the set of nonspecial constants A = x

j
: <
+
, j < by:
a b i a = b G.
Let

G = a/: a A and dene the functions and relations on

G in the
usual manner. We want to ensure that for any formula in L
<
1
we will
have:

G [= (a
1
/, . . . , a
n
/) i (a
1
, . . . , a
n
) G. (1)
If (1) is true, its proof naturally proceeds by induction on the complexity
of formulas. We now describe a strategy for Player I in the genericity game
which can only be defeated by achieving (1). In other words, we will specify
density systems and elements g P, to be played by Player I, such that a
proper response by Player II ensures that G allows an inductive argument
for (1) to be carried out. Our discussion will be somewhat informal, stopping
well short of actually writing down the density systems in many cases.
15
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


We begin with the treatment of the ordinary existential quantier. When-
ever x(x, z) G we will want (eventually) to have some a A so that
(a, z) G. In particular, for every there will be some a A so that
y

= a G. The density systems which ensure this condition is met will in

fact be 0-density systems.
Next we consider the quantier Q. For each formula Qx(x) which is put
into G, at conally many subsequent stages we wish to add the formula (y)
for an unused special constant y. The rst player will play such formulas as
g

from time to time. We will also have to deal with the case in which
Qx(x), and we will return to this in a moment.
We now consider the quantier Q
n
. Suppose that the formula Q
n
x( x, y)
is in G at some stage. This is where we use the function F

. If

G is a model
of T then it has cardinality
+
. Moreover, F

(, y) is one-to-one. Since
Q
n
x( x, y) is in G, so is
z
1
. . . z
n
(

i<j
z
i
,= z
j

Sym(n)
(F

(z
(1)
, y), . . . , F

(z
(n)
, y), y)).
It follows that the range of F

(, y) is homogeneous for .
We are now left with the cases in which formulas of the form Q
n
x
(n 1) are placed in G. We deal rst with the case n = 1. For this case, we
dene a number of density systems depending on the following parameters:
1. j, j
0
, . . . , j
m1
< ;
2. a formula (x, y
0
, . . . , y
m1
); and
3. a function f : m m.
We associate with these data a density system D. If otp (u) ,= m+1, we
let D(u, w) be degenerate:
D(u, w) = p P : dom() .
If otp(u) = m + 1 then let g : m + 1 u be an order preserving map, let
h = gf and set = g(m) = max u, and:
(x) = (x, x
h(0)
j
0
, . . . , x
h(m1)
j
m1
).
We will then let D(u, w) consist of those p P for which, setting = min(w),
we have:
16
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


1. dom(p) w;
2. If Qx(x) p, then either (x

j
) p or x

j
= x

i
p for some i < .
We shall verify the density condition on D. Suppose q P and
Qx(x) q. The extension of q we are about to construct will only involve
the adjunction of formulas with ( )-constants, so we may assume that q
itself contains only ( )-constants.
If we cannot complete q(x

j
) to an element of P, then there is some
q so that:
Sx( (x)) , T
where Sx is a standard sequence for the formula . Note that by the
assumption that is the maximal element of dom(q), we may assume that
the nal quantier in the standard sequence is an existential quantier on
the constant x in .
By the axioms for the Q-quantier, for any q such that T ,
Sx( (x)) T.
As Qx(x) q, repeated use of the Q-quantier axiom:
Qxy(x, y) xQy(x, y) Qyx(x, y)
shows that xS( (x)) T.
If we now choose a constant x

i
not occurring in q, where = min(w),
one can conclude that q x

j
= x

i
can be completed to an element of P.
It is easy to see that if the foregoing density systems are met, then we
can carry out the argument from right to left in condition (1) above for
= Qx(x). We turn now to the treatment of the quantiers Q
n
for n > 1.
By applying Fodors Lemma to the map sending to dom(f()) we
obtain:
Lemma 2.1 If S : cf () = is stationary and f : S P then
there is a stationary S

S, a template p and <

+
so that for S

,
f() = p(w

) where w

= dom(f()) and w

.
It will be convenient to treat conditions as if they were single formu-
las. Extending our previous notation, for p P and S a standard sequence
covering some of the variables in p, we will write S(p) for the set:
S

: p
17
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


where S

is the standard sequence for which we think of as a subsequence

of the possibly innite standard sequence S.
Let (A

)
cf ()=
be a 3-sequence. For u, v sets of ordinals, we write u < v
if for all u, < min v.
If cf () = and G

Gen(P

), we will dene certain associated density

systems over G

which depend on the following additional parameters:

1. an i < ;
2. a formula (x
1
, . . . , x
n
, y) (we will suppress the y);
3. some k with 0 k < n;
4. templates p
1
, . . . , p
k
; and
5. ordinals
j
<
p
j
for 1 j k.
The density system D that depends on this particular set of parameters
will be taken to have D(u, w) degenerate unless:
1. u =

1jk
w
j
;
2. < < w
k
< . . . < w
1
;
3. w
j

=
p
j
;
4.

1jk
p
j
(w
j
) can be extended to a member of P;
in which case we adopt the following notation. Let
j
be the
th
j
element of
w
j
, and write z

for x

i
. Note that since
j
<
p
j
we will have
j
> and
hence <
k
< . . . <
1
. Dene the set r(
1
, . . . ,
nk1
) for
1
< . . . <

nk1
A

to be
S(

1jk
p
j
(w
j
) (z

1
, . . . , z

nk1
, z

, z

k
, . . . , z

1
))
where S covers all the (> )-variables.
We now dene D(u, w) as the set of q P/G with dom(q) w which
satisfy one of the following three conditions:
18
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


1. q

1jk
p
j
(w
j
); or
2.

1jk
p
j
(w
j
) q and for some
1
< . . . <
nk1
A

,
r(
1
, . . . ,
nk1
) q; or
3.

1jk
p
j
(w
j
) q and for all
1
< . . . <
nk1
A

:
S

0
(q S

k
(p
k
(w
k
) . . . S

1
(p
1
(w
1
)
(z

1
, . . . , z

nk1
, z

, z

k
, . . . , z

1
)) . . .)) G

The third condition means that for every

1
< . . . <
nk1
A

, there
is a q and
j
p
j
(w
j
) so that
S

0
( S

k
(
k
. . . S

1
(
1
(z

1
, . . . , z

nk1
, z

, z

k
, . . . , z

1
)) . . .)) G

where S
j
covers all the ( )-variables in
j
for j > 0, and S
0
covers all the
( )-variables in . Notice that the only overlap among the variables occur
in the (< )-variables.
Now suppose

G [= Q
n
x( x, a/). We would like to argue that Q
n
x( x, a)
G. For convenience we will suppress the parameters a. We may also assume
that T ( x)

i<j
x
i
,= x
j
.
Since

G [= Q
n
x( x), there is a
+
-homogeneous subset B

G for . We
may assume there is an i < so that every b B is of the form x

i
/ for
some . Let A = : x

i
/ B and is the least such in a given -class .
For any so that cf () = , let

= min(A A

). Note that if A = A

then

> .
We will now produce the following data. There will be:
1. stationary sets S
k
for 0 k n with S
k+1
S
k
for all k < n and
S
0
= : cf () = , and A = A

;
2. templates p
k
for 1 k n, and ordinals
k
so that
k
<
p
k
;
3. a domain w
k

of the same order type as

p
k
for each S
k
; a
k
< S
k
so that if S
k
then w
k

k
; let
k

be the
th
k
element of w
k

;
19
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


4. For 0 k < n, if <
k
< . . . <
1
S
k
are chosen so that

k+1

< w
k

k

k
< . . . < w
1

1

1
and D is the density system over G

corresponding to i, , k, p
1
, . . . , p
k
and
1
, . . . ,
k
, then
p
k+1
(w
k+1

) D(
k+1

w
k

k
. . . w
1

1
, w
k+1

) G
Using lemma 2.1 and the fact that G meets all the density systems intro-
duced at stages S
0
, this is straightforward.
Now suppose
n
< . . . <
1
S
n
, so that w
n
n

n
< . . . < w
1

1

1
. Let
q
k
= p
k
(w
k

k
).
Since B is a homogeneous set for , it follows that (z

n
, . . . , z

2
, z

1
)
G, for every
n
< . . . <
2
<

1
in A

. Since q
1
G, using the density
systems dened before, we conclude that
S

1
(q
1
(z

n
, . . . , z

1
)) G
where S
1
covers the w
1

1
-variables. Proceeding by induction and using the
denition of the density systems, we conclude that
S

n
(q
n
S

n1
(q
n1
. . . S

1
(q
1
(z

n
, . . . , z

1
)))) G
where S
j
covers the w
j

j
-variables.
Of course, S
n
q
n
G, so by the Magidor-Malitz axioms, Q
n
x( x) G
and we nish.
20
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


3 Commitments
In this section we begin the proof of Theorem 1.9. Our main goal at present
is to formulate a precise notion of a commitment (that is, a commitment
to enter a dense set or in model theoretic terms, to omit a type). We will
also formulate the main properties of these commitments, to be proved in
4-5, and we show how to derive Theorem 1.9 from these facts.
Before getting into the details, we give an outline of the proof of Theorem
1.9.
General overview
Suppose that we wish to meet only the following very simple constraints.
We are given some 0-density systems D
i
over for i < , and some g
0
P,
and we seek a -generic ideal G
0
containing g
0
, and meeting each D
i
. Let
= sup(dom(g
0
)), and enumerate P

as (r
i
: i < ). Then we may
construct G
0
by generating an increasing sequence (g

)
<
beginning with
the specied g
0
, and taking G
0
to be the downward closure of (g

). We will
run through this in some detail.
Our rst obligation is to make G
0
-generic in P

. We will say that r P

has been decided if we have chosen some g

so that either r g

or else
r g

. If the sequence (g

)
<
ultimately decides every r P

, then G
0
will
be -generic in P

. At stage + 1 we will ensure that r

is decided. This
takes care of the basic -genericity requirement. At limit stages we can let
g

be anything greater than g

<
. We will also take pains at limit stages to
meet the specied density systems D
i
. We enumerate the pairs (u, D
i
) with
u T
<
(), using
<
= , assigning one such pair to each limit ordinal
< . Suppose that (u, D
i
) is considered at stage . Let v = domg
<
. By
the density condition on D
i
, we can nd g

g
<
with g

D
i
(u, v).
Thus it is easy to deal with constraints of the type arising in one play
of our genericity game. Our strategy in that game will rely on this sort
of straightforward do what you must when you have the time approach,
but will encounter diculties in keeping up at limit stages in the game.
We will use Dl

to guess what additional commitments should be made

with regard to various density systems D
i
, so that any generic set which we
construct subsequently which meets these commitments will meet each D
i
.
The commitments themselves retain the feature that each of them can easily
21
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


be met when necessary; deciding when these commitments should be met
requires another use of Dl

.
At stage 0, player I selects some density systems, to which we may add
all the density systems from examples 1.5 and 1.6. From these we construct
some stage 0 commitments
0
p, and a G
0
meeting
0
p.
At stage in the play of the game, Player II is attempting to extend
G
<
to a suitable G

. (At limit stages we also will need to check that G

<
continues to meet suitable commitments). Since G
<
meets all the previous
commitments, in particular it meets all the density systems of examples 1.5
and 1.6, and therefore P/G
<
is
+
-uniform. Consequently the construction
of G
0
described at the outset also works in P/G
<
. Hence we need only
construct new commitments

p, add them to our previous commitments,
and construct G

meeting

p as above. In this way, Player II wins the game.
There is a certain diculty involved in coping with the freedom enjoyed
by Player I (in terms of obligations accumulating at limit stages in the game).
There are a priori
+
sets u T
<
(
+
) that may require attention. On the
other hand, at a given stage we are only prepared to consider fewer than
such sets. However, by uniformity, it will be sucient to consider pairs
(u, w) T
<
( + ) T
<
( +), and hence such pairs suce. This still
leaves Player II at a disadvantage, but with the aid of Dl

, at limit stages we
will guess a relevant set of us of size less than .
It remains to show that this strategy can be implemented, and works.
We introduce the notion of basic data which will be provided by Dl

.
Denition 3.1 A collection of basic data will contain
1. trees T

, subsets of P

(but not suborders), with orders <

, for every
< ;
2. for every generic set G Gen(P

) for some <

+
, two stationary
subsets of , S(G) and S

(G) and a club C so that C S

(G) S(G);
and
3. for every < , a set U

T
<
()
with the following properties
1. [T

[ < , [U

[ < for every < ,

22
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


2. if p T

then len (p) = ,

3. if p

q and len (p) = then p = q,

4. if p T

and dom(p) then p T

,
5. if (g

is a conal sequence for a generic set G Gen(P

) then there
is a club C so that for C S(G), (g
<
)
col
T

,
6. if G and G

are generic sets so that G G

then there is a club C so

that C S(G

) S(G) and
7. (oracle property) for <
+
and G Gen(P

), u T
<
() and
=

<
w

a continuous increasing union with w

T
<
() and
u w
0
then there is a club C so that for every C S

(G) there is
u

so that (w

, u)

= (otp (w

), u

).
Remarks:
1. Although there is the possibility of confusion between the orders <

and < on P

, we will use < for both and the context should usually
make it clear which we mean.
2. The following will be true of the trees that we eventually build although
this property will not be needed in the proof: if q T

then there is
a generic set G with a conal sequence (g

so that q = (g
col
<
) for
some and
3. If (g

and (g

are conal sequences for G and G

then there is a
club C so that if C and = dom(g
col
<
) then g
col
<
= (g

<
)
col
. In
condition 6, we may assume that for particular conal sequences, C
satises this property as well as C S(G

) S(G). We will often use

this version of condition 6.
4. It is important to notice the following about p T

for which dom(p)

is a limit ordinal. If < dom(p) then p T

and p < p. Hence,

any such p is the limit of those elements of T

which are less than it.

Lemma 3.2 (Dl

) There is a collection of basic data.

23
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


We leave the proof of this until the next section. For the rest of the paper
except for the proof of Lemma 3.2, we will x a particular choice of basic
data using the notation of denition 3.1.
Denition 3.3 A weak commitment is a sequence p = p

: < ) where
p

: T

with the following properties:

1. p

() P
len ()
(We usually write p

for p

().)
2. if T

then p

len ().
We dene an order on weak commitments by p q if for almost all
(i.e. on a club), p

pointwise. We say that q is stronger than p.

We will identify two weak commitments p and q if p q and q p.
Notation: From the xed collection of basic data one can extract a critical
weak commitment. Dene

p =

: < ) where

p

= .
Denition 3.4 A commitment is a weak commitment which is stronger than

p.
Denition 3.5 Suppose G is generic with a conal sequence (g

and p
is a commitment. We say G meets p if there is a club C in so that
for every C S(G),

=: (g
<
)
col
T

and there is r

G so that
dom(r

) = dom(g
<
) and
r
col

for all

.
Remark: If h : len (

) dom(g
<
) is an order isomorphism then in the
above denition the existence of r

is equivalent to saying that h[p

] G for
all

.
Proposition 3.6 If D
i
, i < , are 0-density systems and g P

then there
is a commitment q(

p) and some G Gen(P

), so that:
1. g G,
2. G meets q and
3. if

<
+
and G

Gen(P

) meets q, then G

meets each D
i
.
24
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


Proposition 3.7 Suppose G Gen(P

) and G satises
1. for all g P/G, P there is

P/G with

and either

or

and
2. P/G is
+
-uniform.
For i < , let D
i
be a density system over G, and suppose g P

/G where
<
+
and p is some commitment that is met by G. Then there is a
commitment q p, and some G

Gen(P

), so that:
1. G G

, g G

;
2. G

meets q;
3. If

<
+
and G

Gen(P

) contains G and meets q, then G

meets each D
i
.
Lemma 3.8 Let (

p)
<
be an increasing sequence of commitments with
<
+
. Then the sequence has a least upper bound.
Notation 3.9
With the notation of the preceding lemma, we write

<

p or
<
p
for the least upper bound of the commitments

p.
Proposition 3.10 Suppose G

Gen(P

) meets

p for all < , where
<
+
, and the G

and

p are increasing. Then G
<
meets
<
p.
By combining these results we immediately obtain a proof of Theorem
1.9.
Proof of Theorem 1.9: We dene a sequence of ordinals

, a sequence of
commitments

p, and a sequence of -generic ideals G

Gen(P

), so that:
1.
<

;
<
p

p; G
<
G

for <
+
2. G

meets the commitment

p
25
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


3. If

and G Gen(P

) contains G

and meets the commitment

p, then G meets each -density system D

i
over G

proposed by Player
I at stage of the genericity game.
At stage 0, Player I provides some g
0
P and at most many 0-density
systems. To these Player II adds all the 0-density systems mentioned in
examples 1.5 and 1.6. We now apply Proposition 3.6 to all these 0-density
systems and g
0
. This will provide us with G
0
,
0
and
0
p.
At stage , we will have
<
, G
<
,
<
p dened, and by Proposition 3.10
G
<
meets
<
p. Now since G
0
G
<
, G
<
meets
0
p and hence meets each of
the 0-density systems from examples 1.5 and 1.6. It follows that G
<
satises
the conditions on the generic set in Proposition 3.7. By Proposition 3.7 a
suitable choice of

, G

,

p can then be made.
Now we verify that Player II wins the genericity game using this strategy.
By construction, g

for all . Suppose that D is a density system over

G
<
selected by Player I at stage of the genericity game, and . As
G

meets the commitment

p,

p

p, and G

, it follows that G

meets D. 2
26
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


4 Proofs
In this section we give the proofs of the results stated in the previous section
except the proofs of Propositions 3.6 and 3.7 which are deferred to the next
section.
Proof of Lemma 3.2
The Lemma states that there is a collection of basic data.
Let (v

)
<
be an enumeration of T
<
() so that v

for all . Let

V

= v

: < for < . Using Dl

and an encoding of
( ) ( T
<
())
by , we can nd sets 1

T( ) and (

T( V

), such that
[1

[, [(

[ < for all < , and for any R , G T

<
(),
the set:
: R ( ) 1

and G ( V

) (

is stationary.
Before dening the basic data we establish some notation. For each <

+
, we select a bijection i

: [[. For simplicity we assume [[ =

throughout in our notation below. For < , let

be the order type of

i
1

[], and let

: i
1

[]

, j

i
1

.
Let
R

= (i

(), i

()) : < < ;

R

= R

( ) ( < ).
Then j

: (, R

) (

, <). It will be important that j

is determined by
R

.
If G is a -generic ideal in P

with <
+
, let:

G = (, i

[u]) : (, u) G

=

G ( V

)
G

= (, u) G : (, i

[u]) ( V

= (,

[u]) : (, u) G

27
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


Again, we can go directly from

G

to

G

by applying j

. Observe also
that

induces an isomorphism

: G

. We are primarily interested

in this collapsing map

, but

G provides a better encoding of G because
the sets

G

increase with , while the sets

G

do not.
Let C(G) be the set of < for which G

contains a conal increasing

subsequence. Then C(G) is a club in . For C(G),

G

has a least upper

bound, which will be denoted

.
We are now ready to dene the basic data. For < we dene T

as:
p P : <
+
G Gen(P

) : C(G),

, R

, and p = [

].
Notice that dom(p) is an ordinal for every p T

. To see that [T

[ < , we
use the fact that

G

, R

together determine

G

, and also that any p in P has

fewer than distinct restrictions. For p, q T

, dene the order by; p q i

p = qdom(p).
Now for G a -generic ideal in P

with <
+
, x a conal sequence
(g
G
i
)
i<
in G, and set:
S(G) = < : [g
G
<
]
col
T

;
S

(G) = < :

G

and R

;
U

= u : v V

R 1

<
+
(, v, R) (, u, <)
Clearly U

T
<
() and [U

[ < . It is also straightforward to see that

S

(G) is stationary.
Let C
1
be
C(G) : g
G
<
= G

Then C
1
is a club in , and if S

(G) C
1
then (g
G
<
)
col
T

so S(G) is
stationary. If (g

is any other conal sequence for G then there is a club

C = : g

<
= g
G
<

and for every C S(G), (g

<
)
col
T

.
Let G G

be two -generic ideals in P

, P

with S(G), S(G

) de-
termined by conal sequences (g
G

, (g
G

respectively. If one considers

C = : g
G

<
= g
G
<
, it is easy to see that C S(G

) S(G).
28
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


It remains to verify the oracle property (7) of Denition 3.1. We x
<
+
, G -generic in P

, u T
<
(), and we let =
<
w

be a
continuous increasing union with each [w

[ < and u w
0
. On some club
C, otp w

and if v

then < . So (w

, u) (

[u]). For
C S

(G) we have
(, i

[u], R

) (

[u], <) (w

, u, <).
Hence,

[u] U

. 2
Notation 4.1 In the next few results we make systematic use of the diag-
onal intersection of clubs. If (C

)
<
is a sequence of clubs in , the diagonal
intersection is dened correspondingly as:

= < :

<
C

.
The diagonal intersection of such a sequence of clubs is again a club.
Proof of Lemma 3.8 Let (

p)
<
be an increasing sequence of commit-
ments with <
+
. We claim that the sequence has a least upper bound.
We may take to be a regular cardinal, with . We deal with the case
= ; for < our use of a diagonal intersection below would reduce to an
ordinary intersection.
For < let C

be a club such that for all < :

pointwise for C

.
Let C =

. For C and T

, let p

=
<

. Then p is a
commitment. We have

p p since

p

pointwise for C .
Now we will check that p is the least upper bound of the sequence as a
commitment Let q be a second upper bound. Let
C

= < : q

pointwise,
and let C

. For C C

, and T

, we have:
q

<

= p

.
It follows that p is the least upper bound. 2
We divide Proposition 3.10 into two parts.
29
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


Proposition 4.2 Suppose that (G
i
)
i<
is an increasing sequence with G
i

Gen(P

i
), <
+
, and that each G
i
meets a xed commitment p. Then
i
G
i
also meets the commitment p.
Proof: Let G =

i<
G
i
. By consulting the proof of Lemma 1.3, we
can see that there is a conal sequence (g
j
)
j<
for G so that if g
i
j
= g
j

i
then (g
i
j
)
j<
is a conal sequence in G
i
. For each i < let C
i
be a club
demonstrating that G
i
meets p. In other words, for C
i
S(G
i
) we have
r
i

G with:
1. domr
i

= domg
i
<
,
i

= (g
i
<
)
col
T

; and
2. [r
i

]
col
p

for all
i

.
By Denition 3.1.5, we may also suppose that C
i
S(G) S(G
i
).
We consider the case = (Use ordinary intersection instead of diagonal
intersection when < ).
Let
C =
i
C
i
< : sup domg
<
= sup
i<

If C S(G) then we can nd r

G so that r

r
i

for i < and

dom(r

) =

i<
dom(g
i
<
) =

i<
dom(g
<

i
) = dom(g
<
).
Clearly, r
col

for all < (g

<
)
col
=

. However, since p

len ()
p

for all

and p

<

len(), r
col

. 2
Proposition 4.3 Suppose G Gen(P

) meets an increasing sequence of

commitments (

p : < ) where <

+
. Then G meets

<

p.
Proof: Again, we treat only the case when = . Let (g
i
)
i<
be a
conal sequence in G. For each , let C

witness the fact that G meets

p.
That is, for all C

S(G) there is r

G so that:
1. domr

= domg
<
,

= g
col
<
T

; and
2. (r

)
col

for all

.
30
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


We may also suppose that C

witnesses the relation

i
p

p for i < . Hence
we may assume r
i

for C

S(G). Let C =

.
For C S(G), let r

i<
r
i

. Then on C S(G), domr

= domg
<
and r
col

=

i<
[r
i

]
col

i<
i
p

=
<
p

for all

. The last equality

follows from the proof of Lemma 3.8. 2
Proposition 3.10 is an immediate consequence of the preceding two propo-
sitions.
31
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


5 Proof of Proposition 3.7
We recall the statement of Proposition 3.7.
Proposition 3.7
Suppose G Gen(P

) and G satises
1. for all g P/G, P there is

P/G with

and either

or

and
2. P/G is
+
-uniform.
For i < , let D
i
be a density system over G, and suppose g P

/G where
<
+
and p is some commitment that is met by G. Then there is a
commitment q p, and some G

Gen(P

), so that:
1. G G

, g G

;
2. G

meets q;
3. If

<
+
and G

Gen(P

) contains G and meets q, then G

meets each D
i
.
We are also obliged to prove Proposition 3.6 as well. The proof is very
similar to the proof of Proposition 3.7 and so we will only highlight the formal
dierences at the end of the proof.
Proof of Proposition 3.7: Let =

<
w

be a continuous increasing
union with [w

[ < . Set

= otp(w

) and choose

so that

ht (T

).
Let
h

[, +

)
be an order isomorphism.
Fix a conal sequence (g

for G. Since G meets p, there is a club C so

that for all C S(G) we have g
col
<
=:

, and there is r

G so that
dom(r

) = w

and r
col

for all

. We may also assume that

dom(g
<
) = w

for all C.
Now we build the commitment q. If , C S(G) then let q

= p

. Fix
then C S(G). For i < ,

and u U

, u

, let
D

i
(u) = r P

+
: h

[r] D
i
(h

[u], w

[, +))
Let P
G
[T

] be the set of functions p : T

so that
32
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


1. p() P
len ()
for all T

,
2. if then p() p()len () and
3. if is comparable with

then h

[ p()] P/G.
We will write p

for p().
Remark: Since G meets p, if C S(G) then p

P
G
[T

]. To see this,
we must show that if is comparable to

then h

[p

] P/G. If

then
since C S(G), h

[p

] G. Suppose

. Now p

len (

) p

and
since w

= dom(g
<
) we have h

[p

] h

[p

] so h

[p

] P/G.
Proposition 5.1 There is a q

P
G
[T

] with q

pointwise and so that

for every u U

, i < if

with len (

) =

+ and u

+
then q

i
(u).
To obtain this q

we use a claim whose proof we postpone.

Claim 5.2 If q P
G
[T

], u U

, i < ,

and

with
len (

) =

+ and u

+ then there is r P
G
[T

] so that r q
pointwise and r

i
(u).
Proof of Proposition 5.1 To get the required q

, one starts with p

, at
limit stages take unions and at successor stages use the claim applied to some
particular i < ,

, u U

and

. After at most [U

[ [[ [

[ [T

[
stages we will have produced q

. 2
Now we turn to the construction of G

, a -generic ideal in P

meeting q
with G G

and g G

, hence completing the proof of Proposition 3.7.

Fix an enumeration (s

of P

. G

will be the downward closure of

an increasing sequence (g

which is constructed inductively starting with

g

0
= g. We shall guarantee that g

/G for each .
At stage , if C S(G), dom(g

<
) = w

, (g

<
) = g
<
and (g

<
)
col
=

then let h : len (

) dom(g

<
) be an order isomorphism and let
g

P/G be chosen so that dom( g

) = dom(g

<
), g

<
and g

[q

]
for every

. This can be accomplished because P/G is

+
-uniform
by assumption and we guaranteed that h

[q

] P/G when we built the

commitment q.
33
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


If any of the above conditions fail, let g

= g

<
. In either case, use the
assumption on G to nd g

so that g

/G with g

<
and either
g

or g

.
It follows easily now that G

Gen(P

), G G

and g G

. We now
show that G

meets q. Choose C
1
so that C
1
S(G

) C S(G) and for

all C
1
, dom(g

<
) = w

and (g

<
) = g
<
. If C
1
S(G

) then
(g

<
)
col
=

so from considerations at stage , g

and ( g

)
col
q

for all

. It follows that G

meets q.
Now suppose G

meets q, G

Gen(P

) contains G with

<
+
.
Fix a conal sequence (g

for G

, a density system D
i
and u T
<
(

).
We want to nd w so that u w and D
i
(u, w) G

,= . Write

as a
continuous increasing union

<
w

with w

T
<
(

).
There is a club C
2
with the following properties:
1. if C
2
, (g

<
) = g
<
and dom(g

<
) = w

;
2. C
2
S

(G

) C
2
S(G

) C S(G);
3. for C
2
S(G

) there is r

with dom(g

<
) = dom(r

), g

<
r

,
(g

<
)
col
=

and r
col

for all

; and
4. for C
2
S

(G

) there is u

so that
f

: (otp(w

), u

) (w

, u).
This can be obtained by refering to the denition of basic data, Deni-
tion 3.1 and Lemma 3.2. In particular, condition 4 follows from the oracle
property.
Now choose C
2
S

(G

) with i < . Let = otp(w

). Since
dom(g

<
) = w

and

= (g

<
)
col
T

, we have that

+ ht (T

).
Moreover,

= g
col
<
T

and

. Hence,
h

[q

] D
i
(h

[u

], w

[, +))
and r
col

with r

.
By the indiscernibility of the density systems, we have
f

[q

] D
i
(u, w

)
34
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


since
f

h
1

: (w

[, +), h

[u

]) (w

, u).
By the indiscernibility of P, we have r

[q

]. Since r

,
f

[q

] G

D
i
(u, w

)
so G meets D
i
. 2
It remains to prove Claim 5.2.
Proof of Claim 5.2: Consider the set
S = h

[ q

] :

which is a subset of P/G. By the compatibility condition in the denition

of P
G
[T

], S is also a compatible set so we can choose r

P
len (

)
so that
r

for all

and h

[r

] P/G since P/G is

+
-uniform.
Now choose r

i
(u) so that r

. This is possible since D

i
is a
density system over G. Dene
r

len() if

otherwise.
It is easy to check that r P
G
[T

]. 2
To obtain a proof of 3.6, make the following changes in the above proof.
In the statement of 3.6, there is no G or p so at the start of the proof, one
must consider all < . The denition of D

i
(u) is the same. We replace
P
G
[T

] with P[T

] which is the same as P

G
[T

] but there is no third condition.

With few formal changes, Claim 5.2 can be proved which allows one to build
the required q

.
The rest of the proof is almost identical except that instead of referring
to the two conditions on G in the statement of Proposition 3.7, one uses the
fact that P already possesses these qualities by virtue of being
+
-uniform.
35
1
6
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
0
-
1
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
3
-
1
1
-
1
1


References
[1] W. Hodges. Building models by games. LMSST 2. Cambridge University
Press, 1985.
[2] M. Magidor and J.Malitz. Compact extensions of L(Q). Annals of Math.
Logic, 1977.
[3] S. Shelah [Sh 72]. Models with second order properties I: Boolean algebras
with no undenable automorphisms. Annals of Math. Logic 14 (1978),
57-72.
[4] S. Shelah [Sh 73]. Models with second order properties II: On trees with
no undenable branches. Annals of Math. Logic 14 (1978), 73-87.
[5] S. Shelah [Sh 82]. Models with second order properties III: Omitting
types in
+
for L(Q). Archive fur Math. Logik 21 (1981), 1-11.
[6] M. Rubin and S. Shelah [Sh 84]. On the elementary equivalence of au-
tomorphism groups of Boolean algebras, downward Skolem-Lowenheim
theorems and compactness of related quantiers. Journal of Symbolic
Logic 45, 1980, 265-283.
[7] S. Shelah [Sh 89]. Boolean algebras with few endomorphisms. Proc. Am.
Math. 14 (1979), 135-142.
[8] S. Shelah [Sh 107]. Models with second order properties IV: A general
method and eliminating diamond. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 25
(1983), 183-212.
[9] S. Shelah [Sh 128]. Uncountable constructions. Israel Journal of Mathe-
matics 51 (1985), 273-297.
[10] S. Shelah [Sh 176]. Can you take Solovays inaccessible away? Israel
Journal of Mathematics 48 (1984), 1-47.
[11] S. Shelah [Sh 326]. Vive la dierence! To appear.
36