5

0
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2


Simple forcing notions and Forcing Axioms
Andrzej Roslanowski

Institute of Mathematics
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
91904 Jerusalem, Israel
and
Mathematical Institute of Wroclaw University
50384 Wroclaw, Poland
Saharon Shelah

Institute of Mathematics
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
91904 Jerusalem, Israel
and
Department of Mathematics
Rutgers University
New Brunswick, NJ 08854, USA
October 6, 2003

The research supported by KBN (Polish Committee of Scientic Research) grant

1065/P3/93/04

The research partially supported by Basic Research Foundation of the Israel Academy
of Sciences and Humanities. Publication 508
0
5
0
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2


[RoSh:508] October 6, 2003 1
0 Introduction
In the present paper we are interested in simple forcing notions and Forcing
Axioms. A starting point for our investigations was the article [JR1] in which
several problems were posed. We answer some of those problems here.
In the rst section we deal with the problem of adding Cohen reals by simple
forcing notions. Here we interpret simple as of small size. We try to establish
as weak as possible versions of Martin Axiom sucient to conclude that some
forcing notions of size less than the continuum add a Cohen real. For example
we show that MA(-centered) is enough to cause that every small -linked
forcing notion adds a Cohen real (see 1.2) and MA(Cohen) implies that every
small forcing notion adding an unbounded real adds a Cohen real (see 1.6). A
new almost

-bounding -centered forcing notion Q

appears naturally here.

This forcing notion is responsible for adding unbounded reals in this sense, that
MA(Q

) implies that every small forcing notion adding a new real adds an
unbounded real (see 1.13).
In the second section we are interested in AntiMartin Axioms for simple
forcing notions. Here we interpret simple as nicely denable. Our aim is to show
the consistency of AMA for as large as possible class of ccc forcing notions
with large continuum. It has been known that AMA(ccc) implies CH, but it
has been (rightly) expected that restrictions to regular (simple) forcing notions
might help. This is known under large cardinals assumptions and here we try
to eliminate them. We show that it is consistent that the continuum is large
(with no real restrictions) and AMA(projective ccc) holds true (see 2.5).
Lastly, in the third section we study the inuence of MA on
1
3
absoluteness
for some forcing notions. We show that MA
1
(P) implies
1
3
(P)absoluteness
(see 3.2).
Notation: Our notation is rather standard and essentially compatible with that
of [Je] and [BaJu]. However, in forcing considerations we keep the convention
that a stronger condition is the greater one.
For a forcing notion P and a cardinal let MA

(P) be the following statement:

If /

P are maximal antichains in P (for < ), p P

then there exists a lter G P such that p G and G /

,= for
all < .
For a class / of forcing notions the sentence MA

(/) means (P/)MA

(P);
MA

is the sentence MA

(ccc).
For a forcing notion P, the canonical Pname for the generic lter on P will be
called
P
. The incompatibility relation on P is denoted by
P
(so ,
P
means
compatible).
c stands for the cardinality of the continuum. For a tree T 2
<
, [T] is the
set of all branches through T.
The family of all sets hereditarily of cardinality < (for a regular cardinal )
is denoted by H().
5
0
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2


[RoSh:508] October 6, 2003 2
1 Adding a Cohen real
In this section we obtain several results of the form a (weak) version of MA
implies that small forcing notions (of some type) add Cohen reals. As a con-
sequence we answer Problem 5.3 of [JR1] (see 1.9, 1.10 below).
Proposition 1.1 Suppose P is a forcing notion and

h is a function such that
1. dom(

h) P, rng(

h) 2
<
,
2. if p
1
, p
2
dom(

h), p
1
,
P
p
2
then either

h(p
1
)

h(p
2
) or

h(p
2
)

h(p
1
),
3. if q P then there is
0
2
<
such that
( 2
<
,
0
)(p

dom(

h))(p

,
P
q &

h(p

)).
Then P adds a Cohen real.
Proof Though this is immediate, we present the proof fully for readers
convenience. Let

h : dom(

h) 2
<
be the function given by the assumptions.
Dene a P-name c by

P
c =

h(p) : p dom(

h)
P
.
First note that, by the properties of

h, for every lter G P the set

h(p) : p
dom(

h) G is a chain in (2
<
, ). Hence

P
c 2

.
But really c is a name for a member of 2

: suppose not. Then we have q P,

m such that
q
P
c 2
m
.
Applying the third property of

h we get
0
2
<
as there. Let 2
<
,

0
be such that lh() > m. We nd p

dom(

h) such that p

,
P
q and


h(p

). Thus p

P


h(p

) c, a contradiction.
To show that

P
c is a Cohen real over V
suppose that we have a closed nowhere dense set A 2

and a condition q P
such that
q
P
c A.
Take
0
2
<
given by condition (3) (for q). Since A is nowhere dense we may
choose 2
<
such that
0
and [] A = . By the choice of
0
, there
is a condition p

dom(

h) such that p

,
P
q and

h(p

) (so p

P
c / A), a
contradiction.
5
0
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2


[RoSh:508] October 6, 2003 3
Theorem 1.2 Assume MA

(-centered). If P is a -linked atomless forcing

notion of size then P adds a Cohen real.
Proof We may assume that the partial order (P, ) is separative, i.e.
if p, q P, p
P
q
then there is r P such that q
P
r and r
P
p.
Of course we may assume that P is a partial order on a subset of 2

. We are
going to show that (under our assumptions) there exists a function

h as in the
assumptions of proposition 1.1. Since P is -linked there are sets T
n
P such
that

n
T
n
= P and any two members of T
n
are compatible in P (i.e. each
T
n
is linked). Let N be a countable elementary submodel of (H((
7
)
+
), , <

)
such that P, T
n
: n ), . . . N.
We dene a forcing notion R = R(P):
conditions are pairs r = h, w) = h
r
, w
r
) such that
(a) h is a nite function, dom(h) P N, rng(h) 2
<
,
(b) if p
1
, p
2
dom(h) then either p
1

P
p
2
or p
2

P
p
1
or p
1

P
p
2
,
(c) if p
1
, p
2
dom(h), p
1

P
p
2
then h(p
1
) h(p
2
),
(d) w [P]
<
,
the order is such that r
1

R
r
2
if and only if
() h
r1
h
r2
,
() w
r1
w
r2
,
() if q w
r1
, p dom(h
r1
), p, q are compatible in P and no p

dom(h
r1
)
satises p
P
p

, p ,= p

, p

,
P
q
then the set
J
r1,r2
p,q
def
= h
r2
(p
1
) : p p
1
dom(h
r2
) & p
1
,
P
q &
(p
2
)(p
1
< p
2
dom(h
r2
) p
2

P
q)
contains a front of 2
<
above h
r1
(p) (i.e. for every 2

such that
h
r1
(p) there is k with k J
r1,r2
p,q
).
Claim 1.2.1 (R,
R
) is a partial order.
Proof of the claim: The relation
R
is reexive as J
r,r
p,q
= h
r
(p) for all
relevant p, q. For the transitivity suppose that r
1

R
r
2
and r
2

R
r
3
. Clearly
the conditions (), () for the pair r
1
, r
3
are satised. To get condition () note
that if
0
, . . . ,
k1
is a front in 2
<
above and
0
0
, . . . ,
l1
0
is a front in
2
<
above
0
then
0
0
, . . . ,
l1
,
1
, . . . ,
k1
is a front above .
5
0
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2


[RoSh:508] October 6, 2003 4
Claim 1.2.2 R is -centered.
Proof of the claim: Note that if r
1
, r
2
R, h = h
r1
= h
r2
then h, w
r1
w
r2
)
is a common upper bound of r
1
, r
2
.
Claim 1.2.3 Suppose p PN, q P, r
0
R and m . Then the following
sets are dense in R:
1. I
0
p
def
= r R : (q w
r
)[p,
P
q (p

dom(h
r
))(p
P
p

& p

,
P
q)],
2. I
1
q
def
= r R : q w
r
,
3. I
2
r0,m
def
= r R : r
R
r
0
or for every q w
r0
and p dom(h
r0
) such
that p,
P
q & (p

dom(h
r0
))([p
P
p

& p ,= p

] p

P
q)
and for every 2
m
such that h
r0
(p) there is
p

dom(h
r
) with p
P
p

, p

,
P
q and h
r
(p

).
Proof of the claim: 1) Assume p P N, r
0
R. Let q
l
: l < l

) be an
enumeration of q w
r0
: q,
P
p. Choose conditions p
l
(for l < l

) such that
1. p
l
P N
2. for each p

dom(h
r0
) either p

P
p
l
or p

P
p
l
,
3. p
P
p
l
,
4. p
l
: l < l

) are pairwise incompatible,

5. p
l
,
P
q
l
.
For this we need the assumption that P is atomless and linked. First take
p
+
l
P such that p, q
l

P
p
+
l
(for l < l

). Next we choose p
++
l
P, p
+
l

P
p
++
l
such that the clauses (2)(4) are satised (remember that P is atomless and
dom(h
r0
) is nite). Let n
l
be such that p
++
l
T
n
l
. As N is an elementary
submodel of (H(
+
7
), , <

) we nd p
l
: l < l

) N such that p
l
T
n
l
and the
clauses (2)(4) are satised. But now we have (1) too. Moreover this sequence
satises (5) since p
l
, p
++
l
T
n
l
and the second condition is stronger than q
l
(remember that the sets T
n
l
are linked).
Dene h
r
by
dom(h
r
) = dom(h
r0
) p
l
: l < l

, h
r0
h
r
and
h
r
(p
l
) =

h
r0
(p

) : p

P
p
l
& p

dom(h
r0
).
First note that all conditions p

dom(h
r0
) satisfying p

P
p
l
are compatible
in P and hence (by (b) for r
0
) they are pairwise comparable and thus (by (c)
for r
0
) the set
h
r0
(p

) : p

P
p & p

dom(h
r0
)
5
0
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2


[RoSh:508] October 6, 2003 5
is a (nite) chain in (2
<
, ). Hence h
r
(p
l
) 2
<
(actually h
r
(p
l
) = h
r0
(p

l
)
for the
P
-maximal p

l
dom(h
r0
) such that p

l

P
p
l
; if there is no such p

l
then h
r
(p
l
) = )). Consequently h
r
satises (a). One can easily check that h
r
satises conditions (b), (c) too and thus r = h
r
, w
r0
) I
0
p
. Conditions (), ()
for the pair r
0
, r are clear. To check the clause () suppose that p

dom(h
r0
),
q w
r0
are relevant for it. If for each l < l

either p
l

P
q or p

P
p
l
(which
implies p

P
p
l
) then J
r0,r
p

,q
= h
r0
(p

) as the property of p

there is preserved.
Otherwise J
r0,r
p

,q
= h
r
(p
l
) : l < l

, p
l
,
P
q, p

P
p
l
. But due to condition (b)
for r
0
we have that each condition from dom(h
r0
) weaker than any p
l
such that
p
l
,
P
q, p

P
p
l
is weaker than p

. Consequently h
r
(p
l
) = h
r0
(p

) for all relevant

p
l
and we get r
0

R
r.
2) Let q P, r R. Take h
r
, w
r
q); easily it is a condition in I
q
stronger
than r.
3) Assume r
0
R, m . Let r R. If r
0
, r are incompatible in R then
r I
2
r0,m
and we are done. So we may assume that r
0

R
r.
Let (q
l
, p
l
,
l
) : l < l

) list all triples (q, p, ) such that

q w
r
, p dom(h
r
), q,
P
p, h
r
(p) 2
m
and there is no
p

dom(h
r
) with p <
P
p

, q,
P
p

.
(It is possible that l

= 0, e.g. if m is too small.)

Now choose conditions p

l
such that
1. p

l
P N,
2. for each p dom(h
r
) either p
P
p

l
or p
P
p

l
,
3. p
l

P
p

l
,
4. p

l
: l < l

) are pairwise incompatible,

5. p

l
,
P
q
l
.
For this we follow exactly the lines of the respective part of the proof of 1) (so
this is another place we use the assumptions on P).
Next dene h
r1
= h
r
(p

l
,
l
) : l < l

, w
r1
= w
r
, r
1
= h
r1
, w
r1
).
Similarly as in 1) one checks that r
1
R.
The condition r
1
is stronger than r: clauses (), () are clear. For ()
suppose that q w
r
, p dom(h
r
) are relevant for this clause. If m lh(h
r
(p))
then each 2
m
extending h
r
(p) appears as
l
= h
r1
(p

l
) for some l < l

such
that q
l
= q, p
l
= p. Hence J
r,r1
p,q
contains a front above h
r
(p). If m < lh(h
r
(p))
then the pair (p, q) does not appear as (p
l
, q
l
). Note that for each l < l

, if q
l
,
P
p
then p
l

P
p (as p
l
cannot be stronger than p since lh(h
r1
(p
l
)) m) and hence
p

P
p. If q
l

P
p then we get the same conclusion (though p
l
might be weaker
than p, the demands (5), (2) of the choice of p

l
imply that p

P
p). Consequently
the maximality property of p is preserved in dom(h
r1
) and J
r,r1
p,q
= h
r
(p).
5
0
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2


[RoSh:508] October 6, 2003 6
To prove that r
1
I
2
r0,m
suppose that q w
r0
and p dom(h
r0
) is maximal
(in dom(h
r0
)) compatible with q. Let 2
m
extend h
r0
(p). Since r
0

R
r
we nd p

dom(h
r
) stronger than p, maximal (in dom(h
r
)) compatible with
q and such that , h
r
(p

) are comparable (by condition ()). If h

r
(p

) then
we are done. So suppose h
r
(p

) . Then for some l < l

we have q = q
l
,
p

= p
l
and =
l
. By the choice of p
l
and the denition of h
r1
(p
l
) we get
p
P
p

P
p

l
& p

l
,
P
q
l
= q & =
l
= h
r1
(p

l
).
The claim is proved.
Since we have assumed MA

(-centered) we nd a lter H R such that

(
0
) H r R : r
R
r
0
or (r
0
r & r I
0
p
) ,= for p P N, r
0
R,
(
1
) H I
1
q
,= for q P and
(
2
) H I
2
r0,m
,= for r
0
R, m .
Put

h =

h
r
: r H. Clearly

h is a function from a subset of P N to
2
<
. Conditions (b), (c) imply that

h satises the second requirement of the
assumptions of 1.1.
Suppose now that q P. Take p P N compatible with q and choose
r
0
H I
0
p
I
1
q
(so q w
r0
). Next take p

dom(h
r0
) such that
p
P
p

& p

,
P
q & (p

dom(h
0
))([p

P
p

& p

,= p

] p

P
q).
Assume that h
r0
(p

) 2
m
.
By (
2
) we nd r H I
2
r0,m
. As r
0
, r H, H is a lter, we cannot have
r
R
r
0
. Consequently the second part of the denition of I
2
r0,m
applies to r.
Looking at this denition (with p

as p there) we see that there is p

dom(h
r
)
with
p

P
p

& p

,
P
q & h
r
(p

).
So
0
=

h(p

) is as required in 3). Applying 1.1 we nish the proof of the

theorem.
Remark 1.3 Of course, what we have shown in 1.2 is that MA

(R(P)) implies
P adds a Cohen real, provided P is atomless linked of size .
Corollary 1.4 Assume MA

. If P is a ccc atomless forcing notion of size

then P adds a Cohen real.
Proposition 1.5 Let P be a ccc forcing notion. Then the following conditions
are equivalent:
5
0
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2


[RoSh:508] October 6, 2003 7
(a)
P
there is an unbounded real in

over V
(b) there exists a sequence /
n
: n ) of maximal antichains of P such that
1. /
0
= 0,
2. (n )(p /
n+1
)(q /
n
)(q
P
p),
3. (n )(p /
n
)(|q /
n+1
: p
P
q| = ),
4. (q P)(n )(|p /
n
: p,
P
q| = ).
Proof Easy, left for the reader.
Theorem 1.6 Suppose that P is a ccc forcing notion such that |P| < cov(/)
(i.e. unions of |P| many meager sets are meager) and

P
there is an unbounded real over V.
Then

P
there is a Cohen real over V.
Proof We are going to apply proposition 1.1 and for this we will construct
a function

h satisfying (1)(3) of 1.1.
Let /
n
: n ) be a sequence of maximal antichains of P given by (b) of
proposition 1.5. Take a countable elementary submodel N of (H(
+
7
), , <

)
such that P, /
n
: n ), . . . N. Consider the following partial order:
conditions are nite functions h such that
a. dom(h)

n
/
n
, rng(h) 2
<
,
b. if p
1
, p
2
dom(h), p
1

P
p
2
then h(p
1
) h(p
2
),
the order is the inclusion; h
1

C
h
2
i h
1
h
2
.
Clearly C is (isomorphic to) the Cohen forcing notion.
Claim 1.6.1 Let p

n
/
n
, h
0
C, q P, m . Then the following sets
are dense in C:
1. J
0
p
def
= h C : p dom(h),
2. J
1
q,m,h0
def
= h C : h
C
h
0
or for every p dom(h
0
) such that for some
n , p /
n
and the set p

/
n+1
: p
P
p

& p

,
P
q is
innite we have: for every 2
m
extending h
0
(p)
there is p

dom(h) with p
P
p

, p

,
P
q and h(p

) =
5
0
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2


[RoSh:508] October 6, 2003 8
Proof of the claim: 1) Assume p

n
/
n
, h C. Extend h to h

by putting
h

(p) =

h(p

) : p

dom(h) & p

P
p.
Easily this h

satises h

J
0
p
, h
C
h

.
2) Suppose that q P, m , h
0
C, h C. We may assume that h
0

C
h.
Let (p
l
, n
l
,
l
) : l < l

) enumerate all triples p dom(h

0
), n , 2
m
such
that
() p /
n
and the set p

/
n+1
: p
P
p

& p

,
P
q is innite
() h
0
(p) .
Next (using () above) choose p

l
/
n
l
+1
such that
1. p
l

P
p

l
2. p

l
: l < l

) are pairwise incompatible

3. for each p dom(h), l < l

either p
P
p

l
or p
P
p

l
.
Now put dom(h

) = dom(h) p

l
: l < l

, h

(p

l
) =
l
and h

dom(h) = h.
Easily h

C, h
C
h

and h

J
1
q,m,h0
. This nishes the claim.
Since |P| < cov(/) we nd a lter H C such that H J
0
p
,= and
H J
1
q,m,h0
,= for all q P, m , h
0
C and p

n
/
n
. Put

h =

H.
Then clearly

h :

n
/
n
2
<
is a function satisfying the requirements (1),
(2) of 1.1. To check the third condition there suppose q P. Take n and
p

/
n
such that the set p

/
n+1
: p

P
p

& p

,
P
q is innite (possible
by the choice of the /
k
s). Since H J
0
p
,= we nd a condition h
0
H
such that p

dom(h
0
). Suppose that 2
<
,

h(p

) and let m = lh().

Take h
1
H J
1
q,m,h0
. Since h
0
, h
1
cannot be incompatible, p

dom(h
0
),
h(p

) 2
m
we nd p

dom(h
1
) such that p

, p

,
P
q and h
1
(p

) = .
Since h
1
(p

) =

h(p

) we conclude that
0
=

h(p

) is as required in (3) of 1.1 for

q. The theorem is proved.
Denition 1.7 A forcing notion P is almost

-bounding if
for each P-name

f for an element of

and a condition p P there

is g

V such that for every X []

V:
(p

P
p)(p

P
(

n X)(

f(n) < g(n))).
5
0
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2


[RoSh:508] October 6, 2003 9
Lemma 1.8 1. Suppose that P is a ccc forcing notion such that for every
integer n the product forcing notion P
n
does not add unbounded real and
satises the ccc. Then the -product P

with nite support is almost

-
bounding and satises the ccc.
2. Finite support iteration of ccc almost

-bounding forcing notions does

not add a dominating real.
Proof 1) Suppose that for each n the product forcing notion P
n
satises the ccc and does not add unbounded reals. By [Je, 23.11] we know that
then P

satises the ccc. We have to show that P

is almost

-bounding. Let

f be a P

name for a function in

. For each n, k choose a maximal

antichain /
n
k
of P
n
and mappings
n
k
: /
n
k
P

and g
n
k
: /
n
k
such that
(q /
n
k
)(
n
k
(q)n = q &
n
k
(q)
P

f(k) = g
n
k
(q))
(possible as P
n
< P

). Thus, for each n , we have a P

n
name g
n
for a
function in

dened by
(k )(q /
n
k
)(q
P
n g
n
(k) = g
n
k
(q)).
Since P
n
does not add unbounded reals and satises the ccc we nd a function
g
n

such that

P
n (m )(k m)( g
n
(k) < g
n
(k)).
Take g

such that (n )(m )(k m)(g

n
(k) < g(k)). We claim
that

P
(X []

V)(

k X)(

f(k) < g(k)).
To this end suppose that X []

, p P

and N . Take n such that p P

n
and look at the function g
n
. By its choice we nd a condition p

P
n
stronger
than p and an integer m
0
such that p

P
n (k m
0
)( g
n
(k) < g
n
(k)). By the
choice of g we nd m
1
such that (k m
1
)(g
n
(k) < g(k)). Let k X be
such that k > m
0
+ m
1
+ N. Since /
n
k
is a maximal antichain of P
n
we may
take a condition q /
n
k
compatible with p

. Let p

be a common upper bound

of p

and
n
k
(q) in P

. Then (p

is stronger than p and)

p

f(k) = g
n
k
(q) = g
n
(k) < g
n
(k) < g(k)
(remember k is above m
0
, m
1
). Since k X is greater than N we nish by
standard density arguments.
2) See [Sh:f, Ch VI, 3.6+3.17] or [BaJu, 6.5.3].
Theorem 1.9 Assume MA

(ccc & almost

-bounding). Then every atom-

less ccc forcing notion of size adds a Cohen real.
5
0
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2


[RoSh:508] October 6, 2003 10
Proof We assume of course that
1
. Let P be a ccc forcing notion,
|P| . If P adds an unbounded real then theorem 1.6 applies (note that
the Cohen forcing notion is almost

-bounding, so our assumption implies

< cov(/)). Thus to nish the proof we need to show that P adds an
unbounded real. This fact is done by the two claims below.
Claim 1.9.1 Assume MA

(ccc &

-bounding). Suppose that P is a ccc forc-

ing notion which adds no unbounded real (i.e. it is

-bounding). Then for

every n the product forcing notion P
n
adds no unbounded real and satises
the ccc.
Proof of the claim: As MA

(ccc &

-bounding) applies to P, this forcing

notion has the Knaster property (strong ccc) and consequently all powers of it
satisfy the ccc. What might fail is not adding unbounded reals. So suppose that
n is the rst such that

P
n there is an unbounded real over V.
Clearly n > 1. By proposition 1.5 we nd maximal antichains /
k
P
n
(for
k < ) satisfying conditions (1)(4) of clause (b) there.
We may think that P is an ordering on . Let N be an elementary submodel
of (H(
+
7
), , <

) such that
P,
P
, /
k
: k ), . . . N, + 1 N and |N| = .
Let : N M be the Mostowski collapse of N, M a transitive set. Note
that (P) = P, (/
k
) = /
k
etc. Since P
n1
is ccc and adds no unbounded real
we may apply our restricted version of MA

to it and get an M-generic lter

H P
n1
in V. (Note that if / P
n1
, / M then M [=/ is a maximal
antichain of P
n1
i / is really a maximal antichain of P
n1
.) Let
/
H
k
def
= p P : ( p H)(( p, p) /
k
) M[H].
Then
M[H] [= /
H
k
is a maximal antichain of P
and easily the same holds in V. As P adds no unbounded real, by 1.5 we nd
p P such that
(k )(|p

/
H
k
: p,
P
p

| < )
and thus
(k )(|( p

, p

) /
k
: p

H & p,
P
p

| < ).
Since P
n1
adds no unbounded real (and this is true in M too) we nd nite
sets A
k
/
k
(for k ) and a condition p P
n1
such that for each k
M [= p
P
n1 ( p

, p

) /
k
: p

P
n1 & p,
P
p

A
k
.
5
0
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2


[RoSh:508] October 6, 2003 11
This means that if ( p

, p

) /
k
A
k
then either p
P
n1 p

or p
P
p

. Hence the
condition ( p, p) P
n
is a counterexample to the fourth property of /
k
: k ).
The claim is proved.
It follows from 1.9.1 and 1.8 that (under our assumptions) P is -centered.
So now we may use the following claim.
Claim 1.9.2 Every -centered atomless forcing notion adds an unbounded real.
Proof of the claim: Folklore; see e.g. 5.2 of [JR1].
Corollary 1.10 It is consistent that c >
1
, every atomless ccc forcing notion
of the size < c adds a Cohen real but MA
1
(ccc) fails.
As we saw in 1.6, if we assume a small part of MA

then each forcing notion

adding an unbounded real adds a Cohen real, provided the size of the forcing is
at most . Therefore it is natural to look for requirements implying that small
forcing notions add unbounded reals. The main part of the proof of 1.9 was
to show that MA

(ccc & almost

-bounding) is such a condition. It occurs

however, that we need much less for this. As in 1.6 the crucial role was played
by the Cohen forcing, here we naturally arrive to the forcing notion dened
below.
Denition 1.11 We dene a forcing notion Q

:
conditions are pairs a, w) such that w [2

]
<
and a [2
<
]
<
,
the order is dened by: a
0
, w
0
)
Q
a
1
, w
1
) if and only if
a
0
a
1
, w
0
w
1
and ( w
0
)(l )( l a
1
l a
0
).
Lemma 1.12 1. Q

is an almost

-bounding -centered partial order.

2. Let

A be the Q

name for a subset of 2

<
given by

Q

A =

a : (w)(a, w)
Q
).
Then
()
Q
( 2

V)(

n )(n /

A)
()
Q
if T 2
<
is a perfect tree from the ground model
then (

n )(T 2
n

A ,= ).
Proof 1) Clearly if a
0
= a
1
, a
0
, w
0
), a
1
, w
1
) Q

then a
0
, w
0
w
1
) Q

is a common upper bound of a

0
, w
0
), a
1
, w
1
). This implies that Q

is -
centered. Next note that
5
0
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2


[RoSh:508] October 6, 2003 12
a
0
, w
0
)
Q
a
1
, w
1
) if and only if
either there are w
0
, l such that l a
1
a
0
or the symmetrical condition holds (interchanging 0 and 1).
Hence if a
0
, a
1
2
l
0
, l
0
: w
1
= l
0
: w
2
then
a
0
, w
0
)
Q
a
1
, w
1
) i a
0
, w
0
)
Q
a
1
, w
2
).
Since the product space (2

)
n
is compact we may conclude that
if / Q

is a maximal antichain, n , a [2
<
]
<
then there is a nite set A = A
a,n
/ such that for every w 2

,
|w| = n there is r A with a, w),
Q
r.
The above property easily implies that Q

is almost

-bounding: suppose that

h is a Q

-name for an element of

. For each k x a maximal antichain

/
k
such that each member of /
k
decides the value of

h(k). For k, n and
a [2
<
]
<
choose a nite set A
a,n,k
/
k
with the property stated above.
Finally put
g(k) = 1 + maxl : (a 2
k
)(n k)(r A
a,n,k
)(r
Q

h(k) = l).
To show that the function g works for

h (for the denition of almost

-
bounding) suppose that X []

. Assume that
r
0

Q
(

n X)(g(n)

h(n)),
so we have r
1
and k such that
r
1

Q
(n > k)(n X g(n)

h(n)).
Now take k

X such that k

> k and if r
1
= a, w) then a 2
k

, |w| =
n k

. By the denition of A
a,n,k

we nd r A
a,n,k

compatible with r
1
.
But each member of A
a,n,k

forces that

h(k

) < g(k

), a contradiction.
2) Straightforward.
Theorem 1.13 Assume MA

(Q

). Suppose that P is a forcing notion such

that |P| and
P
2

V ,= 2

(i.e. the corresponding complete Boolean

algebra RO(P) is not (, )-distributive). Then P adds an unbounded real.
Proof Since P adds new reals we can nd a Pname r for an element of 2

such that
P
r / V. For a condition q P let
T
q
def
= 2
<
: q ,
P
r.
By our assumptions on r we know that each T
q
is a perfect tree in 2
<
. Next
x
q
[T
q
] (for q P). Since we have assumed MA

(Q

) we may apply
lemma 1.12 to nd a set A 2
<
such that for each q P:
5
0
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2


[RoSh:508] October 6, 2003 13
() (

n )(
q
n / A) and
() (

n )(T
q
2
n
A ,= ).
Now dene a P-name

K for a subset of by:

P

K = n : rn A.
First note that

K is a P-name for an innite subset of : Why? Suppose that
q P and N . By the property () of A we nd A T
q
such that
lh() > N. Then we have a condition p

q which forces r and thus

p

P
lh()

K.
Suppose now that q P, g

is an increasing function and N

0
. Take
N
1
> N
0
such that (n N
1
)(
q
n / A) and a condition p
qg(N1)
such that
q
P
p
qg(N1)
and p
qg(N1)

P

q
g(N
1
) r (remember that
q
[T
q
]). Now
note that
p
qg(N1)

P

K [N
1
, g(N
1
)) = .
Hence we easily conclude that

P
the increasing enumeration of

K is an unbounded real over V
nishing the proof.
Remark 1.14 The forcing notion Q

makes the ground model reals meager

in a soft way: it does not add a dominating real (see 1.12). However it
adds an unbounded real (just look at n :

A 2
n
,= , for

A as in
1.12(2)). Consequently it adds a Cohen real (by [Sh:480]; note that Q

is a
Borel ccc forcing notion). Hence we may put together 1.6 and 1.13 and we get
the following corollary.
Corollary 1.15 Assume MA

(Q

). Then every ccc forcing notion of size

adding new reals adds a Cohen real.
2 Anti-Martin Axiom
In this section we are interested in axioms which are considered as strong nega-
tions of Martin Axiom. They originated in Millers problem if it is consistent
with CH that for any ccc forcing notion of the size c there exists an
1
-Lusin
sequence of lters (cf [MP]). The question was answered negatively by Todorce-
vic (cf [To]). However under some restrictions (on forcing notions and/or dense
sets under consideration) suitable axioms can be consistent with CH. These
axioms were considered by van Douwen and Fleissner, who were interested in
the axiom for projective ccc forcing notions, but they needed a weakly compact
5
0
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2


[RoSh:508] October 6, 2003 14
cardinal for getting the consistency (cf [DF]). Cicho n preferred to omit the large
cardinal assumption and restricted himself to
1
2
ccc forcing notions and still
he was able to obtain interesting consequences (see [Ci]). Here we show how to
omit the large cardinal assumption in getting AntiMartin Axiom for projective
ccc forcing notions. This answers Problem 6.6(2) of [JR1].
Denition 2.1 For a forcing notion P and a cardinal let AMA

(P) be the
following sentence:
there exists a sequence G
i
: i < ) of lters on P such that for every
maximal antichain / P for some i
0
< we have
(i i
0
)(G
i
/ ,= ).
For a class / of forcing notions the axiom AMA

(/) is for each P /,

AMA

(P) holds true.

Denition 2.2 1. For two models N, M and an integer n, M
n+1
N
means:
for every
n
formula (x, y) and every sequence m M,
if N [= x(x, m) then M [= x(x, m).
(Thus M N if and only if (n > 0)(M
n
N).)
2. If P
0
, P
1
are ccc forcing notions, n > 0 then P
0
<
n
P
1
means P
0
< P
1
(i.e. P
0
is a complete suborder of P
1
) and

P1
(H(
1
)
V[
P
1
P0]
, )
n
(H(
1
), ).
Instead of < we may write <
0
.
Denition 2.3 Let be a cardinal number.
1. (

is the class of all ccc forcing notions of size .

2. We inductively dene subclasses (
n

of (

(for n ):
(
0

= (

,
(
n+1

is the class of all P (

n

such that for every P

(
n

P < P

P <
n+1
P

,
(

=

n<
(
n

.
Lemma 2.4 Let be a cardinal such that

= , n .
1. If P
0
, P
1
(
n

, P
0
< P
1
then P
0
<
n
P
1
.
5
0
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2


[RoSh:508] October 6, 2003 15
2. Suppose <
+
, cf()
1
and P
i
(
n

(for i < ) are such that

i < j < P
i
< P
j
. Then P

def
=

i<
P
i
(
n

and if P (

, P
i
<
n
P
for every i < then P

<
n
P.
3. If P (

then there is P

(
n

such that P < P

.
4. If P (

then there are functions F

k
:

i<
P P (for k ) such that
for every Q P: if Q is closed under all F
k
then Q <
n
P.
Proof The proof is by induction on n. For n = 0 there is nothing to do.
(For 4. consider functions F
0
, F
1
:

i
P P such that if p
i
: i ) P is an
antichain which is not maximal then F
0
(p
i
: i < ) is a condition incompatible
with all p
i
; if p
i
P (i ) and p
0
,
P
p
1
then F
1
(p
i
: i ) is a condition
stronger than both p
0
and p
1
.) So suppose that 1.4. hold true for n and we
are proving them for n + 1.
1) By the denition.
2) Suppose that P (

, P
i
<
n+1
P for each i < . By the inductive hypothesis
we know that P

<
n
P, P

(
n

and hence (by the denition of (

n+1

) we have
P
i
<
n+1
P

for each i < . Suppose that G P is a generic lter over V. Then

for i < :
() (H(
1
)
V[GPi]
, )
n+1
(H(
1
)
V[GP

]
, ) and
() (H(
1
)
V[GPi]
, )
n+1
(H(
1
)
V[G]
, ).
Let (x, y) be a
n
-formula and y
0
H(
1
)
V[GP

]
. Take i < such that
y
0
H(
1
)
V[GPi]
(remember cf() > ). If (H(
V[G]
1
), ) [= x(x, y
0
) then
(H(
V[GPi]
1
), ) [= x(x, y
0
) (by ()) and H(
V[GP

]
1
), ) [= x(x, y
0
) (by
()). This shows P

<
n+1
P. To prove that P

(
n+1

suppose that P (
n

,
P

< P. Then for each i < we have P

i
< P, P
i
(
n+1

and consequently
P
i
<
n+1
P. By the previous part we get P

<
n+1
P nishing 2.
3) Let P (

. By a book-keeping argument we inductively build sequences

P
i
: i ) and (p
i
,
i
,
i
) : i < ) such that for all i < j < :
1. P
i
(
n

, P < P
0
, P
i
< P
j
, P

=

i<
P
i
,
2. p
i
P
i
,
3.
i
is a
n
-formula,
i
is a P
i
-name for a nite sequence of elements of
H(
1
),
5
0
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2


[RoSh:508] October 6, 2003 16
4. (p
i
,
i
,
i
) : i < ) lists all triples (p, , ) such that = (x, y) is a

n
-formula, is a (canonical) P

-name for a nite sequence (of a suitable

length) of members of H(
1
), p P

,
5. if i is limit, cf(i) = then P
i
(
n

is such that

<i
P

< P
i
,
6. if i is limit, cf(i) > then P
i
=

<i
P

(
n

,
7. if there is P

(
n

such that P
i
< P

and for some p

we have
p

,
P
p
i
and
p

P
(H(
1
), ) [= x
i
(x,
i
)
then P
i+1
is an example of such P

.
The construction is fully described by the above conditions (and easy to carry
out; remember about the inductive hypothesis and the assumption that

= ).
Clearly P

(
n

(by the inductive assumption 2.) and P < P

. We have to
show that actually P

(
n+1

. Suppose not. Then we nd P

(
n

such that
P

< P

but P

,<
n+1
P

. The second means that there are a condition p

and a
n
-formula and a P

-name for a sequence of elements of H(

1
) such
that
p

P
(H(
1
), ) [= x(x, ) but (H(
1
)
V[
P
P]
, ) [= x(x, ).
Take p P

such that p

,
P
p and there is no condition p

such that
p
P
p

and p

P
p

. Let i < be such that (p, , ) = (p

i
,
i
,
i
). Condition
7 of the construction implies that for some p
+
P
i+1
we have p
+
,
P
p and
p
+

Pi+1
(H(
1
), ) [= x(x, ).
Since P
i+1
<
n
P

(the inductive hypotheses 2., 1.) we get

p
+

P
(H(
1
), ) [= x(x, ).
The choice of p implies p
+
,
P
p

and this provides a contradiction as

p
+

P
(H(
1
)
V[P]
, ) [= x(x, ).
4) Let F
0
k
:

i<
P P (for k ) be functions such that if Q P, Q is
closed under all F
0
k
then Q <
n
P (they are given by the inductive hypothesis 4.).
Let A
i,j,k
0 be disjoint innite sets (for i, j, k ). For a
n
-formula
(x, y
0
, . . . , y
1
) and m we choose a function F
,m
:

i<
P P satisfying
the condition described below.
5
0
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2


[RoSh:508] October 6, 2003 17
Let p
m
: m < ) P. For k < we try to dene a P-name
k
for a real in

by
(m A
i,j,k
)(p
m

P

k
(i) = j).
If this denition is correct then we ask if these reals encode (in the canonical
way) elements of H(
1
) (which we identify with the names
k
themselves). If
yes then we ask if
p
0

P
(H(
1
), ) [= x(x,
0
, . . . ,
1
).
If the answer is positive then we x a P-name for (a real encoding) a member
of H(
1
) such that
p
0

P
(H(
1
), ) [= ( ,
0
, . . . ,
1
).
This name can be represented similarly as names
k
(for k < ) so we have a
sequence q
m
: m < ) P encoding it. Finally we want F
,m
to be such that
if the above procedure for p
m
: m < ) works then F
,m
(p
m
: m < ) = q
m
.
Now take all the functions F
0
k
, F
,m
; it is easy to check that they work.
Lastly note that the case n = follows immediately from the lemma for
n < . (For 3. construct an increasing sequence P
i
: i <
1
) such that P < P
0
and if <
1
is limit, k < then P
+k
(
k

.)
Theorem 2.5 Suppose that , are cardinals such that
1
= cf()
=

. Then there exists a ccc forcing notion P such that

P
c = & AMA

(projective ccc).
Proof The forcing notion P which we are going to construct will be es-
sentially a nite support iteration of length of ccc forcing notions. One
could try to force with all possible ccc orders in the iteration. However some
care is necessary to make sure that several notions (including being a max-
imal antichain) are suciently absolute for intermediate stages. Therefore
we use forcing notions from the class (

. So we inductively build sequences

P
i
: i ) and (
i
,
i
,
i
) : i < ) such that for all i < j < :
1. P
i
(

, P

=

i<
P
i
(

,
2. P
i
< P
j
,
3. (
i
,
i
,
i
) : i < ) lists with conal repetitions all triples (, , ) such
that is a formula with n+1 variables, is a formula with n+2 variables
and is a P

-name for a sequence of length n of elements of H(

1
),
5
0
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2


[RoSh:508] October 6, 2003 18
4. if
i
is a P
i
-name and

Pi

i
(x,
i
),
i
(x
0
, x
1
,
i
)) denes in (H(
1
), ) a ccc partial order

Q
i

then P
i


Q
i
< P
i+1
.
It is easy to carry the construction (use a book-keeping argument, remembering

= plus lemma 2.4). We want to show that P = P

has the required

properties. Easily
P
c = . Now suppose that G P is a generic lter over V
and work in V[G].
Assume that Q is a projective ccc forcing notion and thus it is denable
in (H(
1
), ). Thus we have formulas (x, y) and (x
0
, x
1
, y) and a sequence
r H(
1
) such that
Q = x H(
1
) : (H(
1
), ) [= (x, r)

Q
= (x
0
, x
1
) H(
1
) H(
1
) : (H(
1
), ) [= (x
0
, x
1
, r).
Let be a P-name for r. We may assume that

P
(x, ), (x
0
, x
1
, )) denes (in (H(
1
), )) a ccc partial order.
There is an increasing conal in sequence i
j
: j < ) such that is a
P
i0
-name and (
ij
,
ij
,
ij
) = (, , ). Since P, P
ij
(

we have that

P
(H(
1
)
V[
P
Pi
j
]
, ) (H(
1
), )
and hence the formulas (x, r), (x
0
, x
1
, r)) dene (in (H(
1
)
V[GPi
j
]
, )) the
partial order QH(
1
)
V[GPi
j
]
. The incompatibility relation in this partial or-
der is expressible in (H(
1
), ) and thus it is the restriction of
Q
. Consequently
QH(
1
)
V[GPi
j
]
is ccc in V[G] and hence in V[GP
ij
]. Hence in V[GP
ij+1
]
we have a lter G

j
QH(
1
)
V[GPi
j
]
generic over V[GP
ij
] (here we apply
condition 4 of the construction). Look at the sequence G

j
: j < ). Let / Q
be a maximal antichain. It is countable and hence for suciently large j <
we have / V[GP
ij
]. Moreover the antichain can be coded as a one real and
the fact that it is a maximal antichain in the partial order dened by , ) is
expressible in (H(
1
), ). Applying P
ij
(

we get that
V[G P
ij
] [= / is a maximal antichain in Q H(
1
)
V[GPi
j
]
.
Consequently for suciently large j < we have
G

j
/ ,= .
This nishes the proof.
5
0
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2


[RoSh:508] October 6, 2003 19
Remark 2.6 In 2.4 and 2.5 we used H(
1
) as we were mainly interested in
AMA
1
and projective ccc forcing notions. But we may replace it by H() for
any uncountable regular cardinal such that

<

||
= . Then in 2.4(2) we
consider <
+
such that cf() and in 2.5 we additionally assume that
.
3 Absoluteness and embeddings
In this section we answer positively Problem 4.4 of [JR1] (see 3.2) and we give
a negative answer to Problem 3.3 of [JR1] (see 3.5).
Denition 3.1 Let P be a forcing notion. We say that
1
n
(P)-absoluteness
holds if for every
1
n
formula (with parameters in V) and a generic lter
G P over V
V[G] [= if and only if V [= .
Obviously
1
2
(P)-absoluteness holds for any forcing notion P.
Theorem 3.2 Assume MA
1
(P). Then
1
3
(P)absoluteness holds.
Proof Suppose that is a
1
3
sentence (with a parameter a

). Using
the tree representation of
1
2
sets we nd a tree T (constructible from a) over

1
such that
(x

)(f
1

)(n )(x n, f n) / T)
(x

)(the tree T(x) is well founded).

(For x

, T(x) is the tree on

1
consisting of all
1
<
such that
x lh( ), ) T.) Moreover, as by MA
1
(P) we know that
P

V
1
=
1
, the
tree T represents in V
P
too:

P
(x

)(the tree T(x) is well founded).

Suppose now that
P
. Then we have a P-name r for a real in

such that

P
the tree T( r) is well founded.
Consequently we have a P-name for a function such that

P
: T( r) Ord is a rank function.
For n ,
1
n
put
J
0
n
= p P : (m )(p
P
r(n) = m),
5
0
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2


[RoSh:508] October 6, 2003 20
J
1

= p P : either p
P
/ T( r)
or ( Ord)(p
P
T( r) & ( r n, ) = ).
Clearly these are dense subsets of P. By MA
1
(P) we nd a lter G on P such
that G J
0
n
,= for n and G J
1

,= for
1
<
. Using this lter we
may interpret the name r to get r = r
G

. Moreover we may interpret the

name to get a function =
G
: T(r) Ord:
(r n, ) = i (p G)(p
P
T( r) & ( r n, ) = ).
[Note that this really denes a function from T(r) to ordinals: suppose that
r n, ) T. First we nd p G

m<n
J
0
m
; then clearly
p
P
r n = r n and T( r).
Thus if p

J
1

G then p

,
P
/ T( r) and hence for some ordinal we have
p

P
T( r) & ( r n, ) = . Moreover if
0
,
1
are such that for some
p
0
, p
1
G we have
p
i

P
T( r) & ( r n, ) =
i
then (as p
0
,
P
p
1
) we cannot have
0
,=
1
.]
We claim that is a rank function on T(r). Suppose that n
0
< n
1
,
0

1
n
0
,

1

1
n
1
,
0

1
and r n
0
,
0
), r n
1
,
1
) T. Take a condition
p G

m<n1
J
0
m
. Then
p
P
r n
1
= r n
1
&
0
,
1
T( r).
Next choose conditions p
0
, p
1
G such that
p
i

P

i
T( r) & ( r n
i
,
i
) = (
i
).
Take p

G stronger than p
0
, p
1
, p. Since is (forced to be) a rank function on
T( r) we have
p

P
(
0
) = ( r n
0
,
0
) > ( r n
1
,
1
) = (
1
).
Hence (
0
) > (
1
) and we may conclude our theorem: the tree T(r) is well
founded so V [= .
Proposition 3.3 Suppose that Q is a ccc Souslin forcing notion (i.e. Q,
Q
and
Q
are
1
1
sets), r is a Qname for a function from 2
<
to 2. Let
A[ r]
def
= 2

: (p Q)(

m )(p
Q
r( m) = 1).
Then A[ r] is an analytic set.
5
0
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2


[RoSh:508] October 6, 2003 21
Proof For each 2
<
choose a maximal antichain p
,l
: l ) in Q
and a set I

such that for each l :

l I

p
,l

Q
r() = 0 and l / I

p
,l

Q
r() = 1.
Now note that for each 2

we have
A[ r] (p Q)(

n )(l I
n
)(p
n,l

Q
p).
Proposition 3.4 For every A 2

there exist a -centered forcing notion Q

A
and a Q
A
name r (for a function from 2
<
to 2) such that A = A[ r] and
|Q| = |A| +
0
.
Proof The forcing notion Q
A
is dened by
conditions are pairs r, w) such that r is a nite function, dom(r) 2
<
,
rng(r) 2 and w [A]
<
,
the order is such that r
1
, w
1
) r
2
, w
2
) if and only if r
1
r
2
, w
1
w
2
and
( dom(r
2
) dom(r
1
))([( w
1
)( )] r
2
() = 1).
The Q
A
name r is such that

Q
A r =

r : (w)(r, w)
Q
A).
It should be clear that Q
A
is -centered, |Q
A
| = |A| +
0
and

Q
A r : 2
<
2.
Moreover for each 2

and r, w, ) Q
A
:
(

m)(r, w)
Q
A r( m) = 1) i w.
Consequently A = A[ r].
Corollary 3.5 If A 2

is not analytic then Q

A
cannot be completely embed-
ded into a ccc Souslin forcing. In particular, if c >
1
then there is a -centered
forcing notion of size
1
which cannot be completely embedded into a ccc Souslin
forcing notion.
5
0
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
6
-
2
2


[RoSh:508] October 6, 2003 22
References
[BaJu] Bartoszy nski, Tomek and Judah, Haim, Set Theory: On the
Structure of the Real Line, A K Peters, Wellesley, Mas-
sachusetts, 1995.
[Ci] Cicho n, Jacek, AntiMartin Axiom, circulated notes (1989).
[DF] van Douwen, Eric K. and Fleissner, William G., Denable Forcing
Axiom: An Alternative to Martins Axiom, Topology and its Appli-
cations vol.35(1990): 277289.
[Je] Jech, Thomas, Set Theory, Academic Press 1978.
[JR1] Judah, Haim and Ros lanowski, Andrzej, Martin Axiom and the con-
tinuum, Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol.60(1995): 374391.
[MP] Miller, Arnold and Prikry, Karel, When the continuum has conality

1
, Pacic Journal of Mathematics, vol.115(1984): 399-407.
[Sh:480] Shelah, Saharon, How special are Cohen and Random forcings, Israel
Journal of Mathematics, vol.88(1994): 153174.
[Sh:f] Shelah, Saharon, Proper and improper forcing, Perspectives in
Mathematical Logic, Springer, accepted.
[To] Todorcevic, Stevo, Remarks on Martins Axiom and the Continuum
Hypothesis, Canadian Journal of Mathematics, vol.43 (1991): 832
851.