5

4
1


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4


Cardinal invariants above the continuum
James Cummings
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
cummings@math.huji.ac.il

Saharon Shelah
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
shelah@math.huji.ac.il

October 6, 2003
Abstract
We prove some consistency results about b() and d(), which are
natural generalisations of the cardinal invariants of the continuum b
and d. We also dene invariants b
cl
() and d
cl
(), and prove that
almost always b() = b
cl
() and d() = d
cl
()
1 Introduction
The cardinal invariants of the continuum have been extensively studied. They
are cardinals, typically between
1
and 2

, whose values give structural in-

formation about

. The survey paper [2] contains a wealth of information
about these cardinals.
In this paper we study some natural generalisations to higher cardinals.
Specically, for regular, we dene cardinals b() and d() which generalise
the well-known invariants of the continuum b and d.

Supported by a Postdoctoral Fellowship at the Hebrew University.

Partially supported by the Basic Research Fund of the Israel Academy of Science.
Paper number 541.
1
5
4
1


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4


For a xed value of , we will prove that there are some simple constraints
on the triple of cardinals (b(), d(), 2

). We will also prove that any triple

of cardinals obeying these constraints can be realised.
We will then prove that there is essentially no correlation between the
values of the triple (b(), d(), 2

) for dierent values of , except the obvious

one that 2

is non-decreasing. This generalises Eastons celebrated

theorem (see [3]) on the possible behaviours of 2

; since his model was

built using Cohen forcing, one can show that in that model b() =
+
and
d() = 2

for every .
b() and d() are dened using the co-bounded lter on , and for >
we can replace the co-bounded lter by the club lter to get invariants b
cl
()
and d
cl
(). We nish the paper by proving that these invariants are essen-
tially the same as those dened using the co-bounded lter.
Some investigations have been made into generalising the other cardinal
invariants of the continuum, for example in [7] Zapletal considers s() which
is a generalised version of the splitting number s. His work has a dierent
avour to ours, since getting s() >
+
needs large cardinals.
We are indebted to the referee and Jindrich Zapletal for pointing out a
serious problem with the rst version of this paper.
2 Denitions and elementary facts
It will be convenient to dene the notions of bounding number and domi-
nating number in quite a general setting. To avoid some trivialities, all par-
tial orderings P mentioned in this paper (with the exception of the notions
of forcing) will be assumed to have the property that p P q P p <
P
q.
Denition 1: Let P be a partial ordering. Then
U P is unbounded if and only if p P q U q
P
p.
D P is dominating if and only if p P q D p
P
q.
b(P) is the least cardinality of an unbounded subset of P.
2
5
4
1


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4


d(P) is the least cardinality of a dominating subset of P.
The next lemma collects a few elementary facts about the cardinals b(P)
and d(P).
Lemma 1: Let P be a partial ordering, and suppose that = b(P) and
= d(P) are innite. Then
= cf() cf() [P[.
Proof: To show that is regular, suppose for a contradiction that cf() < .
Let B be an unbounded family of cardinality , and write B =

<cf ()
B

with [B

[ < . For each nd p

such that p B

p p

, then nd q such
that < cf() p

q. Then p B p q, contradicting the assumption

that B was unbounded.
Similarly, suppose that cf() < . Let D be dominating with cardinality
and write D =

<cf ()
D

where [D

[ < . For each nd p

such that
p D

p, and then nd q such that < cf() p

q. Then
p D q p, contradicting the assumption that D was dominating.

The next result shows that we cannot hope to say much more.
Lemma 2: Let and be innite cardinals with = cf() and
<
= .
Dene a partial ordering P = P(, ) in the following way; the underlying set
is []
<
, and (, x) (, y) if and only if and x y.
Then b(P) = and d(P) = .
Proof: Let B P be unbounded. If [B[ < then we can dene
= sup [ y (, y) B < ,
x =

y [ (, y) B []
<
.
But then (, x) is a bound for B, so [B[ and hence b(P) . On the
other hand the set (, ) [ < is clearly unbounded, so that b(P) = .
3
5
4
1


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4


Let D P be dominating. If [D[ < then

y [ (, y) D ,= ,
and this is impossible, so that d(P) . On the other hand GCH holds and
cf() , so that [P[ =
<
= . Hence d(P) = .

Denition 2: Let P, Q be posets and f : P Q a function. f embeds P

conally into Q if and only if
p, p

P p
P
p

f(p)
Q
f(p

).
q Q p P q
Q
f(p). That is, rge(f) is dominating.
Lemma 3: If f : P Q embeds P conally into Q then b(P) = b(Q) and
d(P) = d(Q).
Proof: Easy.

Lemma 4: Let P be any partial ordering. Then there is P

P such that
P

is a dominating subset of P and P

is well-founded.
Proof: We enumerate P

recursively. Suppose that we have already enumer-

ated elements b

: < ) into P

. If b

[ < is dominating then we

stop, otherwise we choose b

so that b

for all < .

Clearly the construction stops and enumerates a dominating subset P

of
P. To see that P

is well-founded observe that b

< b

= < .

Notice that the identity embeds P

conally in P, so b(P

) = b(P) and
d(P

) = d(P).
We also need some information about the preservation of b(P) and d(P)
by forcing.
Lemma 5: Let P be a partial ordering with b(P) = , d(P) = .
4
5
4
1


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4


Let V [G] be a generic extension of V such that every set of ordinals of
size less than in V [G] is covered by a set of size less than in V .
Then V [G] b(P) = .
Let V [G] be a generic extension of V such that every set of ordinals
of size less than in V [G] is covered by a set of size less than in V .
Then V [G] d(P) = .
Proof: We do the rst part, the second is very similar. The hypothesis
implies that is a cardinal in V [G], and since B is unbounded is upwards
absolute from V to V [G] it is clear that V [G] b(P) . Suppose for a
contradiction that we have C in V [G] unbounded with V [G] [C[ < . By
our hypothesis there is D V such that C D and V [D[ < , but now
D is unbounded contradicting the denition of .

With these preliminaries out of the way, we can dene the cardinals which
will concern us in this paper.
Denition 3: Let be a regular cardinal.
1. If f, g

then f <

g i < > f() < g().

2. b() =
def
b((

, <

)).
3. d() =
def
d((

, <

)).
These are dened by analogy with some cardinal invariants of the con-
tinuum (for a reference on cardinal invariants see [2]) known as b and d. In
our notation b = b() and d = d().
Lemma 6: If is regular then

+
b().
b() = cf(b()).
b() cf(d()).
5
5
4
1


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4


d() 2

.
cf(2

) > .
Proof: The rst claim follows from the following trivial fact.
Fact 1: Let f

[ <

. Then there is a function f

such that
< f

<

f.
Proof: Dene f() = sup f

() + 1 [ < . Then f() > f

() for
< < .

The next three claims follow easily from our general results on b(P) and
d(P), and the last is just K onigs well-known theorem on cardinal exponen-
tiation.

We will prove that these are essentially the only restrictions provable in
ZFC. One could view this as a renement of Eastons classical result (see [3])
on 2

.
3 Hechler forcing
In this section we show how to force that certain posets can be conally
embedded in (

, <

). This is a straightforward generalisation of Hechlers

work in [4], where he treats the case = .
We start with a brief review of our forcing notation. p q means that p
is stronger than q, a -closed forcing notion is one in which every decreasing
chain of length less than has a lower bound, and a -dense forcing notion
is one in which every sequence of dense open sets of length less than has
non-empty intersection.
If x is an ordered pair then x
0
will denote the rst component of x and
x
1
the second component.
6
5
4
1


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4


Denition 4: Let be regular. D() is the notion of forcing whose con-
ditions are pairs (s, F) with s
<
and F

, ordered as follows;
(s, F) (t, F

) if and only if
1. dom(t) dom(s) and t = s dom(t).
2. s() F

() for dom(t) < dom(s).

3. F() F

() for all .
We will think of a generic lter G as adding a function f
G
: given
by f
G
=

s [ F (s, F) G . It is easy to see that
G = (t, F) [ t = f
G
dom(t), dom(t) = F() f
G
() ,
so that V [f
G
] = V [G] and we can talk about functions from to being
D()-generic.
Lemma 7: Let
<
= , and set P = D(). Then
1. P is -closed.
2. P is
+
-c.c.
3. If g : is P-generic over V then f

V f <

g.
Proof:
1. Let < and suppose that (t

, F

) : < ) is a descending -
sequence of conditions from P. Dening t =

t

[ < and
F : sup F

() [ < , it is easy to see that (t, F) is a lower

bound for the sequence.
2. Observe that if (s, F) and (s, F

) are two conditions with the same rst

component then they are compatible, because if H : F()F

()
the condition (s, H) is a common lower bound. There are only
<
=
possible rst components, so that P clearly has the
+
-c.c.
7
5
4
1


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4


3. Let f

V , and let (t, F) be an arbitrary condition. Let us dene
F

: (F() f()) + 1, then (t, F

) renes (t, F) and forces that

f() < f
G
() for all dom(t).

If = cf() > =
<
then it is straightforward to iterate D() with
< -support for steps and get a model where b() = d() = . Getting a
model where b() < d() is a little harder, but we can do it by a nonlinear
iteration which will embed a well chosen poset conally into (

, <

).
Theorem 1: Let =
<
, and suppose that Q is any well-founded poset
with b(Q)
+
. Then there is a forcing D(, Q) such that
1. D(, Q) is -closed and
+
-c.c.
2. V
D(,Q)
Q can be conally embedded into (

, <

)
3. If V b(Q) = then V
D(,Q)
b() = .
4. If V d(Q) = then V
D(,Q)
d() = .
Proof: We will dene the conditions and ordering for D(, Q) by induction
on Q. The idea is to iterate D() along Q so as to get a conal embedding
of Q into

. It will be convenient to dene a new poset Q
+
which consists
of Q together with a new element top which is greater than all the elements
of Q.
We will dene for each a Q
+
a notion of forcing P
a
. If a Q
+
then
we will denote c Q [ c < a by Q/a. It will follow from the denition
that if c < a then P
c
is a complete subordering of P
a
, and that the map
p P
a
p Q/c is a projection from P
a
to P
c
.
Suppose that for all b <
Q
a we have already dened P
b
.
1. p is a condition in P
a
if and only if
(a) p is a function, dom(p) Q/a and [dom(p)[ < .
8
5
4
1


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4


(b) For all b dom(p), p(b) = (t,

F) where t
<
and

F is a P
b
-name
for a member of

.
2. If p, q P
a
then p q if and only if
(a) dom(q) dom(p).
(b) For all b dom(q), if p(b) = (s,

H) and q(b) = (t,

I) then
i. t = s dom(t).
ii. p (Q/b)
P
b
dom(t) < dom(s) = s() >

I().
iii. p (Q/b)
P
b


H()

I().
We dene D(, Q) = P
top
, and verify that this forcing does what we
claimed. The verication is broken up into a series of claims.
Claim 1: D(, Q) is -closed.
Proof: Let < and let p

: < ) be a descending -sequence of con-

ditions. We will dene a new condition p with dom(p) =

dom(p

). For
each b dom(p

) let p

(b) = (t

(b),

F

(b)).
Let p(b) = (t,

F) where t =

t

(b) [ b dom(p

) and

F(b) is a P
b
-
name for the pointwise supremum of

F

(b) [ b dom(p

) . Then it it is
easy to check that p is a condition and is a lower bound for p

: < )

Claim 2: D(, Q) is
+
-c.c.
Proof: Let p

: <
+
) be a family of conditions. Since =
<
we may
assume that the domains form a -system with root r. We may also assume
that for b r, p

(b) = (t
b
, F

(b)) where t
b
is independent of . It is now easy
to see that any two conditions in the family are compatible.

9
5
4
1


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4


Claim 3: If c < a then P
c
is a complete subordering of P
a
, and the map
p p Q/c is a projection from P
a
to P
c
.
Proof: This is routine.

If G is D(, Q)-generic, then for each a Q we can dene f

a
G


V [G]
by f
a
G
=

t(a)
0
[ t G . It is these functions that will give us a conal
embedding of Q into (

V [G], <

), via the map a f

a
G
.
Claim 4: If a <
Q
b then f
a
G
<

f
b
G
.
Proof: Let p be a condition and let

F be the canonical P
b
-name for f
a
G
.
Rene p to q in the following way; q(c) = p(c) for c ,= b, and if p(b) = (t,

H)
then q(b) = (t,

I) where

I names the pointwise maximum of

F and

H.
Then q forces that f
b
G
() is greater than f
a
G
() for dom(t).

Notice that by the same proof f

b
G
dominates every function in V
Pa
.
Claim 5: If a
Q
b then f
a
G

f
b
G
.
Proof: If b <
Q
a then we showed in the last claim that f
b
G
<

f
a
G
, so we may
assume without loss of generality that b
Q
a.
Let p be a condition and let < . Choose large enough that
dom(p(a)
0
), dom(p(b)
0
), . Let p(b) = (t,

F), and nd q P
b
such
that q p (Q/b) and q decides

F ( + 1).
Let p
1
be the condition such that p
1
(c) = p(c) if c
Q
b and p
1
(c) = q(c)
if c <
Q
b. Then p
1
renes p and p
1
(a) = p(a), p
1
(b) = p(b).
Let p(a) = (s,

H). Find r P
a
such that r p
1
(Q/a) and r decides

H ( + 1).
Let p
2
be the condition such that p
2
(c) = p
1
(c) if c
Q
a and p
2
(c) = r(c)
if c <
Q
a. Then p
2
renes p
1
and p
2
(a) = p(a), p
2
(b) = p(b).
10
5
4
1


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4


Now it is easy to extend p
2
to a condition which forces f
a
G
() > f
b
G
().

Claim 6: The map a f

a
G
embeds Q conally into (

, <

) in the generic
extension by D(, Q).
Proof: We have already checked that the map is order-preserving. It remains
to be seen that its range is dominating.
Let G be D(, Q)-generic and let f

V [G]. Then f = (

f)
G
for some
canonical name

f, and by the
+
-c.c. we may assume that there is X Q
such that [X[ = and

f only involves conditions p with dom(p) X. Now
b(Q)
+
so that we can nd a Q with X Q/a.
This implies that

f is a P
a
-name for a function in

, so that f <

f
a
G
and we are done.

Claim 7: If V b(Q) = then V

D(,Q)
b() = .
Proof: Let G be D(, Q)-generic. By lemma 3 it will suce to show that
V [G] b(Q) = . This follows from lemma 5, the fact that D(, Q) is
+
-
c.c. and the assumption that b(Q)
+
.

Claim 8: If V d(Q) = then V

D(,Q)
d() = .
Proof: Exactly like the last claim.

This nishes the proof of Theorem 1.

11
5
4
1


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4


4 Controlling the invariants at a xed cardi-
nal
In this section we show how to force that the triple (b(), d(), 2

) can be
anything reasonable for a xed value of .
Theorem 2: Let =
<
and let GCH hold at all cardinals . Let
, , be cardinals such that
+
= cf() cf(), and cf() > .
Then there is a forcing M(, , , ) such that in the generic extension
b() = , d() = and 2

= .
Proof: In V dene Q = P(, ), as in lemma 2. We know that V b(Q) =
and V d(Q) = . Fix Q

a conal wellfounded subset of Q, and then dene

a new well-founded poset R as follows.
Denition 5: The elements of R are pairs (p, i) where either i = 0 and
p or i = 1 and p Q

. (p, i) (q, j) i i = j = 0 and p q in ,

i = j = 1 and p q in Q

, or i = 0 and j = 1.
Now we set M(, , , ) = D(, R). It is routine to use the closure and
chain condition to argue that M makes 2

= . Since R contains a conal

copy of Q

, it is also easy to see that M forces b() = and d() = .

5 A rst attempt at the main theorem

We now aim to put together the basic modules as described in the previous
section, so as to control the function (b(), d(), 2

) for all regular .

A naive rst attempt would be to imitate Eastons construction from [3]; this
almost works, and will lead us towards the right construction.
Let us briey recall the statement and proof of Eastons theorem on the
behaviour of 2

.
12
5
4
1


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4


Lemma 8 (Eastons lemma): If P is -c.c. and Q is -closed then P is -
c.c. in V
Q
and Q is -dense in V
P
. In particular
<
ONV
PQ
=
<
ONV
P
.
Theorem 3 (Eastons theorem): Let F : REG CARD be a class
function such that cf(F()) > and < = F() F(). Let GCH
hold. Then there is a class forcing P which preserves cardinals and conalities,
such that in the extension 2

= F() for all regular .

Proof:[Sketch] The basic module is P() = Add(, F()). P is the Easton
product of the P(), to be more precise p P i
1. p is a function with dom(p) REGand p() P() for all dom(p).
2. For all inaccessible , dom(p) is bounded in .
P is ordered by pointwise renement. There are certain complications arising
from the fact that we are doing class forcing; we ignore them in this sketch.
If is regular then we may factor P as P
<
P() P
>
in the obvious
way. P

is always -closed.
It follows from GCH and the -system lemma that if is Mahlo or the
successor of a regular cardinal then P
<
is -c.c. On the other hand, if is
a non-Mahlo inaccessible or the successor of a singular cardinal, then P
<
is
in general only
+
-c.c.
In particular for regular P

= P
<
+ is always
+
-c.c. so that by Eas-
tons lemma

ON V
P
=

ON V
P

. This implies that in the end we have

only added F() many subsets of .
It remains to be seen that cardinals and conalities are preserved. It
will suce to show that regular cardinals remain regular. If is Mahlo
or the successor of a regular cardinal, then Eastons lemma implies that
<
ON V
P
=
<
ON V
P<
, and since is regular in V
P<
(by -c.c.) is
clearly regular in V
P
.
Now suppose that =
+
for singular. If becomes singular in V
P
let its new conality be , where we see that < and is regular in V .

ON V
P
=

ON V
P

, so that will have conality in V

P

. This is
13
5
4
1


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4


absurd as P

is
+
-c.c. and
+
< < . A very similar argument will work
in case is a non-Mahlo inaccessible.

Suppose that we replace Add(, F()) by P() = M(, (), (), ()),
where ((), (), ()) is a function obeying the constraints given by
Lemma 6. Let P be the Easton product of the P(). Then exactly as in
the proof of Eastons theorem it will follow that P preserves cardinals and
conalities, and that 2

= () in V
P
.
Lemma 9: If is inaccessible or the successor of a regular cardinal then
b() = (), d() = () and 2

= () in V
P
.
Proof: For any ,

V
P
=

V
P

. b() and d() have the right values

in V
P()
by design, and these values are not changed by -c.c. forcing. So
assuming P
<
is -c.c. those invariants have the right values in V
P

, and
hence in V
P
.

We need some way of coping with the successors of singular cardinals and
the non-Mahlo inaccessibles. Zapletal pointed out that at the rst inacces-
sible in an Easton iteration we are certain to add many Cohen subsets, so
that there really is a need to modify the construction.
6 Tail forcing
Eastons forcing to control 2

can be seen as a kind of iterated forcing

in which we choose each iterand from the ground model, or equivalently as
a kind of product forcing. Silvers Reverse Easton forcing is an iteration
in which the iterand at is dened in V
P

. The tail forcing which we

describe here is a sort of hybrid.
We follow the conventions of Baumgartners paper [1] in our treatment of
iterated forcing, except that when have

Q V
P
and form P

Q we reserve the
14
5
4
1


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4


right not to take all P-names for members of Q (as long as we take enough
names that the set of their denotations is forced to be dense). For example
if Q V we will only take names q for q Q, so P

Q will just be P Q.
We will describe a kind of iteration which we call Easton tail iteration
in which at successor stages we choose iterands from V , but at limit stage
we choose

Q

in a dierent way; possibly Q

/ V , but we will arrange things

so that the generic G

factors at many places below and any nal segment

of G

essentially determines Q

. This idea comes from Magidor and Shelahs

paper [5].
We assume for simplicity that in the ground model all limit cardinals
are singular or inaccessible. In the application that we intend this is no
restriction, as the ground model will obey GCH.
Denition 6: A forcing iteration P

with iterands

Q

: + 1 < ) is an
Easton tail iteration i
1. The iteration has Easton support, that is to say a direct limit is taken
at inaccessible limit stages and an inverse limit elsewhere.
2.

Q

= 0 unless is a regular cardinal.

3. If is the successor of a regular cardinal then Q

V .
4. For all regular , P
+1
is
+
-c.c.
5. For a limit cardinal P

is
++
-c.c. if is singular, and
+
-c.c. if is
inaccessible.
6. For all regular with + 1 < there exists an iteration P

dense in
P

such that P

+1
= P
+1
, and for with + 1 <
(a) P

factors as P
+1
P

( + 1, ).
(b) If is inaccessible or the successor of a singular, and p P

, then
p() is a name depending only on P

( + 1, ).
(c) P

( + 1, ) is
+
-closed.
15
5
4
1


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4


Clause 6 is of course the interesting one. It holds in a trivial way if P

is just a product with Easton supports. Clauses 6a and 6b should really be

read together, as the factorisation in 6a only makes sense because 6b already
applies to

< , and conversely 6b only makes sense once we have the
factorisation from 6a.
The following result shows that Easton tail iterations do not disturb the
universe too much.
Lemma 10: Let P

be an Easton tail iteration. Then

1. For all regular < ,

ON V
P
=

ON V
P
+1
.
2. P

preserves all cardinals and conalities.

Proof: Exactly like Theorem 3.

In the next section we will see how to dene a non-trivial Easton tail iter-
ation. If
+
is the successor of a regular then it will suce to choose Q

+ V
as any
+
-closed and
++
-c.c. forcing. The interesting (dicult) stages are
the ones where we have to cope with the other sorts of regular cardinal, here
we will have to maintain the hypotheses on the chain condition and factorisa-
tion properties of the iteration. It turns out that slightly dierent strategies
are appropriate for inaccessibles and successors of singulars.
7 The main theorem
Theorem 4: Let GCH hold. Let ((), (), ()) be a class function
from REG to CARD
3
, with
+
() = cf(()) cf(()) () ()
and cf(()) > for all .
Then there exists a class forcing P

, preserving all cardinals and co-

nalities, such that in the generic extension b() = (), d() = () and
2

= () for all .
16
5
4
1


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4


Proof: We will dene by induction on a sequence of Easton tail iterations
P

, and then let take a direct limit to get a class forcing P

. The proof that

P

has the desired properties is exactly as in [3], so we will concentrate on

dening the P

. As we dene the P

we will also dene dense subsets P

intended to witness clause 6 in the denition of an Easton tail iteration.

Much of the combinatorics in this section is very similar to that in Section
3. Accordingly we have only sketched the proofs of some of the technical
assertions about closure and chain conditions.
The easiest case to cope with is that where we are looking at the successor
of a regular cardinal. So let be regular and assume that we have dened P

+
(which is equivalent to P
+1
since we do trivial forcing at all points between
and
+
), and P

+
(which is equivalent to P

+1
) for all .
Denition 7: Q

+ = M(
+
, (
+
), (
+
), (
+
)) as dened in Section 4.
P

+
+1
= P

+ Q

+, and P

+
+1
= P

+
Q

+ for .
It is now easy to check that this denition maintains the conditions
for being an Easton tail iteration. Since P

+ is
+
-c.c. and we know that

+
V
P
=

+

+
V
P

+
+1
, we will get the desired behaviour at
+
in
V
P
.
Next we consider the case of a cardinal
+
, where is singular. Sup-
pose we have dened P

+ (that is P

) and P

+
appropriately. Let R be a
well-founded poset of cardinality () with b(R) = () and d(R) = (),
as dened in Section 4. Let R
+
be R with the addition of a maximal ele-
ment top. We will dene P

+

Q
a
by induction on a R
+
, and then set
P

+
+1
= P

+

Q
top
. In the induction we will maintain the hypothesis that,
for each < , P

+


Q
a
can be factored as P
+1
(P

( + 1,
+
)

Q
a
).
Let us now x a, and suppose that we have dened P

+

Q
b
for all b below
a in R
+
.
Denition 8: Let b < a, and let be a for a function from
+
to
+
. Then
is symmetric i for all < , whenever G
0
G
1
and G

0
G
1
are two
generics for P
+1
(P

( + 1,
+
) Q
b
), then
G
0
G
1
=
G

0
G
1
.
17
5
4
1


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4


Of course the (technically illegal) quantication over generic objects in
this denition can be removed using the truth lemma, to see that the collec-
tion of symmetric names really is a set in V .
Denition 9: (p, q) is a condition in P

+

Q
a
i
1. p P

+.
2. q is a function, dom(q) R
+
/a and [dom(q)[ .
3. For each b dom(q), q(b) is a pair (s,

F) where s
<
+

+
and

F is a
symmetric P

+

Q
b
-name for a function from
+
to
+
.
Denition 10: Let (p, q) and (p

, q

) be conditions in P

+

Q
a
. (p

, q

) renes
(p, q) i
1. p

renes p in P

+.
2. dom(q) dom(q

).
3. For each b dom(q), if we let q(b) = (s, F) and q(b

) = (s

, F

), then
(a) s

extends s.
(b) If lh(s

) lh(s) then (p

, q

(R
+
/b)) s

() F().
(c) For all , (p

, q

(R
+
/b)) F

() F().
Denition 11: We dene P

+
+1
as P

+

Q
top
. If < then we dene P

+
+1
as P

+

Q
top
.
It is now routine to check that this denition satises the chain condition
and factorisation demands from Denition 6. The chain condition argument
works because 2

=
+
, and any incompatibility in Q
top
is caused by a dis-
agreement in the rst coordinate at some b R. The factorisation condition
(clause 6a) holds because symmetric names can be computed using any nal
segment of the P

-generic, and the closure condition (clause 6c) follows from

the fact that the canonical name for the pointwise sup of a series of functions
with symmetric names is itself a symmetric name.
Now we check that we have achieved the desired eect on the values of
b(
+
) and d(
+
).
18
5
4
1


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4


Lemma 11: The function added by P

+

Q
top
at b R
+
eventually domi-
nates all functions in

+

+
V
P

Q
b
.
Proof: It suces to show that if

F is a P

+

Q
b
-name for a function from

+
to
+
then there is a symmetric name

F

such that F() F

().
For each regular < we factor P

+

Q
b
as P
+1
(P

(+1,
+
)

Q
b
).
In V
P

(+1,
+
)

Q
b
we may treat

F as a P
+1
-name and dene
G

() = sup( [ p P
+1
p

F() = ).
Notice that we may also treat G

as a P

+

Q
b
-name, and that if <
then G

G

. Now let F

be the canonical name for a function such that

F

() = sup
<
G

(), then it is easy to see that F

is a symmetric name
for a function from
+
to
+
and that F() F

().

Lemma 12: In V
P

+
+1
there is a copy of R embedded conally into

+

+
.
Proof: Let

f name a function from
+
to
+
in V
P

+
+1
. As P

+
+1
has the

++
-c.c. we may assume that

f only depends on
+
many coordinates in R,
and hence (since b(R) = (
+
)
++
) that

f is a P

+

Q
b
-name for some
b R. By the preceding lemma the function which is added at coordinate b
will dominate

f.

It remains to be seen what we should do for inaccessible. The construc-

tion is very similar to that for successors of singulars, with the important
dierence that we need to work with a larger class of names for functions in
order to guarantee that we dominate everything that we ought to. This in
turn leads to a slight complication in the denition of P

.
Suppose that we have dened P

and P

appropriately. Let R be a poset

with the appropriate properties ([R[ = (), b(R) = (), d(R) = ())
and let R
+
be R with a maximal element called top adjoined. As before we
dene P

Q
a
by induction on a R
+
. In the induction we will maintain
19
5
4
1


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4


the hypothesis that for each < there is a dense subset of P

Q
a
which
factorises as P
+1
(P

( +1, )

Q

a
). Let us x a, and suppose that we
have dened everything for all b below a.
Denition 12: (p, (, q)) is a condition in P

Q
a
i
1. p P

.
2. < , is regular.
3. q is a function, dom(q) R
+
/a and [dom(q)[ < .
4. For each b dom(q), q(b) is a pair (s,

F) where s
<
+

+
and

F is a
P

( + 1, )

Q

b
-name for a function from
+
to
+
.
Denition 13: Let (p, (, q)) and (p

, (

, q

)) be conditions in P

+

Q
a
.
(p

, (

, q

)) renes (p, (, q)) i

1. p

renes p in P

+.
2. dom(q) dom(q

).
3.

.
4. For each b dom(q), if we let q(b) = (s, F) and q(b

) = (s

, F

), then
(a) s

extends s.
(b) If lh(s

) lh(s) then (p

, q

(R
+
/b)) s

() F().
(c) For all , (p

, q

(R
+
/b)) F

() F().
Notice that since any P

Q
b
-generic induces a P

(+1, )

Q

b
-generic,
there is a natural interpretation of any P

(+1, )

Q

b
-name as a P

Q
b
-
name. We are using this fact implicitly when we dene the ordering on the
conditions. We need to maintain the hypothesis on factorising the forcing,
so we make the following denition.
20
5
4
1


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4


Denition 14: Let be regular with < . P
+1
(P

(+1, )

Q

a
) is
dened as the set of (p
0
, (p
1
, (, q))) such that p
0
P
+1
, p
1
P

(+1, )
and (p
0
p
1
, (, q)) P

Q
a
with .
The key point here is that the factorisation makes sense, because for such
a condition q(b) depends only on P

( + 1, )

Q

b
.
Denition 15: We dene P
+1
as P

Q
top
, and P

+1
as P

top
,
As in the case of a successor of a singular, it is straightforward to see that
we have satised the chain condition and factorisation conditions. To nish
the proof we need to check that the forcing at has achieved the right eect,
which will be clear exactly as in the singular case when we have proved the
following lemma.
Lemma 13: The function added by P

Q
top
at b R eventually dominates
all functions in

V
P

Q
b
.
Proof: We do a density argument. Suppose that

f names a function in

V
P

Q
b
, and let (p, (, q)) be a condition in P

Q
top
. We factor
P

Q
b
as P
+1
(P

( + 1, )

Q

b
), and use the fact that P
+1
has

+
-c.c. in V
P

(+1,)

b
to nd a P

( + 1, )

Q

b
-name g such that


f() g().
Now we can rene (p, (, q)) in the natural way by strengthening the
second component of q(b) to dominate g. This gives a condition which forces
that the function added at b will eventually dominate

f.

This concludes the proof of Theorem 4.

21
5
4
1


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4


8 Variations
In this appendix we discuss the invariants that arise if we work with the club
lter in place of the co-bounded lter. It turns out that this does not make
too much dierence. All the results here are due to Shelah.
Denition 16: Let be regular.
1. Let f, g

. f<
cl
g i there is C closed and unbounded in such
that C = f() < g().
2. b
cl
() =
def
b((

, <
cl
)).
3. d
cl
() =
def
d((

, <
cl
)).
Theorem 5: d
cl
() d() d
cl
()

.
Proof: If a family of functions is dominating with respect to <

it is domi-
nating with respect to <
cl
, so that d
cl
() d().
For the converse, let us x D

such that D is dominating with
respect to <
cl
and [D[ = d
cl
(). We may assume that every function in D is
increasing (replace each f D by f

f()).
Let g
0


. Dene by induction f
n
, g
n
, and C
n
such that
1. f
n
D.
2. C
n
is club in , and C
n
= g
n
() < f
n
().
3. C
n+1
C
n
.
4. g
n
is increasing.
5. g
n+1
() > g
n
() for all .
6. g
n+1
() > f
n
(min(C
n
( + 1))) for all .
22
5
4
1


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4


Now let = min(

n<
C
n
). We will prove that g
0
()

n
f
n
() for
> .
Fix some > . For each n we know that C
n
,= , so that if we dene

n
= sup(C
n
( + 1)) then
n
is the largest point of C
n
less than or equal
to . Notice that min(C
n
( + 1)) = min(C
n
(
n
+ 1)).
Since C
n+1
C
n
,
n+1

n
, so that for all suciently large n (say
n N) we have
n
= for some xed . We claim that g
0
() f
N+1
(),
which we will prove by building a chain of inequalities. Let us dene
= min(C
N
( + 1)) = min(C
N
( + 1)).
Then
g
0
() g
N
() g
N
() < f
N
() < g
N+1
( ) < f
N+1
( ) f
N+1
(),
where the key point is that C
N+1
and hence g
N+1
( ) < f
N+1
( ).
Now it is easy to manufacture a family of size d
cl
()

which is dominating
with respect to <

, so that d() d
cl
()

Theorem 6: b
cl
() = b().
Proof: If a family of functions is unbounded with respect to <
cl
it is un-
bounded with respect to <

, so that b() b
cl
().
Suppose for a contradiction that b() < b
cl
(), and x U
0


such
that [U
0
[ = b() and U
0
is unbounded with respect to <

. We may assume
without loss of generality that every function in U
0
is increasing. We perform
an inductive construction in steps, whose aim is to produce a bound for
U
0
with respect to <

.
By assumption U
0
is bounded with respect to <
cl
, so choose g
0
which
bounds it modulo the club lter. Choose also club sets C
0
f
[ f U
0
such
that C
0
f
= f() < g
0
(). For each f U
0
dene another function f
[0]
by f
[0]
: f(min(C
0
f
( + 1)))
For n 1 dene U
n
= U
n1
f
[n1]
[ f U
n1
. By induction it will
follow that [U
n
[ = b(), so that we may choose g
n
such that g
n
() > g
n1
()
23
5
4
1


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4


for all and g
n
bounds U
n
modulo clubs. We choose clubs C
n
f
[ f U
n

such that
1. C
n
f
= f() < g
n
().
2. If f U
n1
, then C
n
f
C
n1
f
.
3. If n 2 and f U
n2
then C
n
f
C
n1
f
[n2]
, where this makes sense
because in this case f
[n2]
U
n1
.
For each f U
n
we dene f
[n]
: f(min(C
n
f
( + 1))) to nish round
n of the inductive construction.
Now we claim that the pointwise sup of the sequence g
n
: n < ) is an
upper bound for U
0
with respect to <

. Let us x f U
0
, and then let
= min(

C
n
f
).
We will now give a very similar argument to that of Theorem 5. Fix
> . We dene
n
= sup(C
n
f
( + 1)) and observe that
n+1

n
, so we
may nd N and such that n N =
n
= .
Let = min(C
N
F
( + 1)) = min(C
N
F
( +1)). We now get a chain of
inequalities
f() f() = f
[N]
( ) < g
N+1
( ) g
N+1
().
This time the key point is that C
N+2
f
C
N+1
f
[N]
, so that f
[N]
( ) < g
N+1
( ).
We have proved that > = f()

n
g
n
(), so that every function
f U
0
is bounded on a nal segment of by

n
g
n
(). This contradicts
the choice of U
0
as unbounded with respect to <

, so we are done.

It is natural to ask whether the rst result can be improved to show that
b
cl
() = b(). This can be done for suciently large, at the cost of using
a powerful result from Shelahs paper [6].
Denition 17: Let = cf() < .
1. T

() = X [ [X[ = .
24
5
4
1


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4


2.
[]
is the least cardinality of a family P T

() such that
A T

() B P ([B[ < A

B).
One of the main results of [6] is that ZFC proves a weak form of the GCH.
Theorem 7: Let >

. Then
[]
= for all suciently large <

.
It is easy to see that if P T

is such that
A T

() B P ([B[ < A

B),
then A T

() C P [A C[ = . This is all we use in what follows,

and in fact we could get away with A T

() C P [A C[ =
0
.
Theorem 8: Let = cf() >

. Then d() = d
cl
().
Proof: Let = d
cl
(). Then >

, so that we may apply Theorem 7 to

nd a regular <

such that
[]
= . let us x P T

() such that
[P[ = and A T

() C P [A C[ = .
Now let D

be such that [D[ = and D is dominating in (

, <
cl
).
We may suppose that D consists of increasing functions. Enumerate D as
h

: < ), and then dene h

A
:

A
h

() for each A P. Since

<

, h
A


. We will prove that h
A
[ A P is dominating in
(

, <

).
We will do a version of the construction from Theorem 5. Let g
0


.
Dene by induction f

, g

, and C

for < , with the following properties.

1. f

D.
2. C

is club in , and C

= g

() < f

().
3. < = C

C

.
4. g

is increasing.
5. If < , then g

() > g

() for all .
25
5
4
1


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4


6. If < , then g

() > f

(min(C

( + 1))) for all .

This is easy, because < . By the choice of P we may nd a set A P
such that [ h

[ A f

[ < [ = . Enumerate the rst many

such that f

[ A as
n
: n < ).
We may now repeat the proof of Theorem 5 with f
n
, g
n
and C
n
in place of f
n
, g
n
and C
n
. We nd that for all suciently large we
have g
0
() g

0
()

n
f
n
(). By the denition of h
A
and the fact
that f
n
[ n < h

[ A ,

n
f
n
() h
A
() for all , so that
g
0
<

h
A
. This shows h
A
[ A P to be dominating, so we are done.

We do not know whether it can ever be the case that d

cl
() < d(). This
is connected with some open and apparently dicult questions in pcf theory.
References
[1] J. E. Baumgartner, Iterated forcing, Surveys in set theory, (A. Mathias,
editor), LMS Lecture Notes 87, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
1983, pp. 159.
[2] E. K. van Douwen, The integers and topology, Handbook of Set-
Theoretic Topology, (K. Kunen and J. E. Vaughan, editors), North-
Holland, Amsterdam, 1984, pp. 111167.
[3] W. Easton, Powers of regular cardinals, Annals of Mathematical Logic,
vol. 1 (1964), pp. 139178.
[4] S. Hechler, On the existence of certain conal subsets of

, Axiomatic
Set Theory, Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. 13 part
II, American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 1974,
pp. 155173.
[5] M. Magidor and S. Shelah, When does almost free imply free?, Journal
of the American Mathematical Society (to appear).
26
5
4
1


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
5
-
0
9
-
0
4


[6] S. Shelah, The Generalised Continuum Hypothesis revisited, Israel Jour-
nal of Mathematics (to appear).
[7] J. Zapletal, Splitting number and the core model, (to appear).
27