6

9
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
1


Category analogue of sup-measurability
problem
Krzysztof Ciesielski

Department of Mathematics, West Virginia University,

Morgantown, WV 26506-6310, USA
e-mail: K Cies@math.wvu.edu
web page: http://www.math.wvu.edu/homepages/kcies
Saharon Shelah

Institute of Mathematics, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

91904 Jerusalem, Israel
and
Department of Mathematics, Rutgers University
New Brunswick, NJ 08854, USA
Abstract
A function F : R
2
R is sup-measurable if F
f
: R R given
by F
f
(x) = F(x, f(x)), x R, is measurable for each measurable
function f : R R. It is known that under dierent set theoretical
assumptions, including CH, there are sup-measurable non-measurable
functions, as well as their category analogues. In this paper we will
show that the existence of the category analogues of sup-measurable
non-measurable functions is independent of ZFC. A similar result for

The work of the rst author was partially supported by NSF Cooperative Research
Grant INT-9600548, with its Polish part nanced by Polish Academy of Science PAN.

This work was supported in part by a grant from Basic Research Foundation founded
by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Publication 695.
The authors wish to thank Professor Andrzej Ros lanowski for reading earlier versions
of this paper and helping in improving its nal form.
1
6
9
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
1


the original measurable case is the subject of a work in prepartion by
Roslanowski and Shelah.
1 Introduction
Our terminology is standard and follows that from [3], [4], [10], or [12].
In particular, pr: X Y X will stand for the projection onto the rst
coordinate. A subset A of a Polish space X is nowhere meager provided
A U is not meager for every non-empty open subset of X.
The ternary Cantor subset of R will be identied with with its home-
omorphic copy, 2

, which stands for the set of all function x: 0, 1

considered with the product topology. In particular, the basic open subsets
of 2

are in the form

[s]
def
= x 2

: s f,
where s 2
<
. Also, since R Q is homeomorphic to 2

E for some
countable set E (the set of all eventually constant functions in 2

) in our
more technical part of the paper we will be able replace R with 2

.
The study of sup-measurable functions
1
comes from the theory of dif-
ferential equations. More precisely it comes from the question: For which
functions F : R
2
R does the Cauchy problem
y

= F(x, y), y(x

0
) = y
0
(1)
have a (unique) a.e.-solution in the class of locally absolutely continuous
functions on R in the sense that y(x
0
) = y
0
and y

(x) = F(x, y(x)) for almost

all x R? (For more on this motivation see [8] or [2]. Compare also [9].)
It is not hard to nd measurable functions which are not sup-measurable.
(See [13] or [1, Cor. 1.4].) Under the continuum hypothesis CH or some
weaker set-theoretical assumptions nonmeasurable sup-measurable functions
were constructed in [6], [7], [1], and [8]. The independence from ZFC of
the existence of such an example is the subject of a work in prepartion by
Ros lanowski and Shelah.
A function F : R
2
R is a category analogue of sup-measurable function
(or Baire sup-measurable) provided F
f
: R R given by F
f
(x) = F(x, f(x)),
x R, has the Baire property for each function f : R R with the Baire
1
This is abbreviation from superposition-measurable function.
2
6
9
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
1


property. A Baire sup-measurable function without the Baire property has
been constructed under CH in [5]. (See also [1] and [2].) The main goal of
this paper is to show that the existence of such functions cannot be proved
in ZFC. For this we need the following easy fact. (See [1, Prop. 1.5].)
Proposition 1 The following conditions are equivalent.
(i) There is a Baire sup-measurable function F : R
2
R without the Baire
property.
(ii) There is a function F : R
2
R without the Baire property such that
F
f
has the Baire property for every Borel function f : R R.
(iii) There is a set A R
2
without the Baire property such that the pro-
jection pr(A f) = x R: x, f(x)) A has the Baire property for
each Borel function f : R R.
(iv) There is a Baire sup-measurable function F : R
2
0, 1 without the
Baire property.
The equivalence of (i) and (ii) follows from the fact that the function
F : R
2
R is Baire sup-measurable if and only if F
f
has a Baire property
for every Borel function f : R R.
2
The main theorem of the paper is the following.
Theorem 2 It is consistent with the set theory ZFC that
: for every A 2

for which the sets A and A

c
= (2

) A are
nowhere meager in 2

there exists a homeomorphism f from 2

onto 2

such that the set pr(A f) does not have the Baire property
in 2

.
Before proving this theorem let us notice that it implies easily the follow-
ing corollary.
Corollary 3 The existence of Baire sup-measurable function F : R
2
R
without the Baire property is independent from the set theory ZFC.
2
It is also true that F : R
2
R is Baire sup-measurable provided F
f
has the Baire
property for every Baire class one function f : R R, and that F : R
2
R is sup-
measurable provided F
f
is measurable for every continuous function f : R R. See for
example [2, lemma 1 and remark 1].
3
6
9
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
1


Proof. As mentioned above under CH there exist Baire sup-measurable
functions without the Baire property. So, it is enough to show that the
property from Theorem 2 implies that there are no such functions.
So, take an arbitrary A R
2
without the Baire property. By (iii) of
Proposition 1 it is enough to show there exists a Borel function f : R R
for which the set pr(A f) does not have the Baire property.
We will rst show this under the additional assumption that the sets A
and R
2
A are nowhere meager in R
2
. But then the set A
0
= A (R Q)
2
and its complement are nowhere meager in (R Q)
2
. Moreover, since R Q
is homeomorphic to 2

E for some countable set E we can consider A

0
as a
subset of (2

E)
2
2

. Then A
0
and its complement are still nowhere
meager in 2

. Therefore, by , there exists an autohomeomorphism f

of 2

such that the set pr(A

0
f) = x 2

E: x, f(x)) A
0
does not
have the Baire property in 2

. Now, as before, f (2

E) can be considered
as dened on R Q. So if

f : R R is an extension of f (2

E) (under
such identication) to R which is constant on Q, then

f is Borel and the set
pr(A
0


f) does not have the Baire property in R.
Now, if A is an arbitrary subset of R
2
without the Baire property we can
nd non-empty open intervals U and W in R such that A and (U W) A
are nowhere meager in U W. Since U and W are homeomorphic with R
the above case implies the existence of Borel function f
0
: U W such that
pr(A f
0
) does not have the Baire property in U. So any Borel extension
f : R R of f
0
works.
2 Reduction of the proof of Theorem 2 to the
main lemma
The theorem will be proved by the method of iterated forcing, a knowledge
of which is needed from this point on.
The idea of the proof is quite simple. For every nowhere meager subset
A of 2

for which A
c
= (2

) A is also nowhere meager we will nd

a natural ccc forcing notion Q
A
which adds the required homeomorphism f.
Then we will start with the constructible universe V = L and iterate with
nite support these notions of forcing in such a way that every nowhere
meager set A

, with (2

) A

nowhere meager, will be taken

care of by some Q
A
at an appropriate step of iteration.
4
6
9
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
1


There are two technical problems with carrying through this idea. First
is that we cannot possibly list in our iteration all nowhere meager subsets
of 2

with nowhere meager complements since the iteration can be of

length at most continuum c and there are 2
c
such sets. This problem will be
solved by dening our iteration as P

2
= P

,

Q

): <
2
) such that the
generic extension V [G] of V with respect to P

2
will satisfy 2

= 2

1
=
2
and have the property that
(m) every non-Baire subset A

of 2

contains a non-Baire subset A of car-

dinality
1
.
Thus in the iteration we will use only the forcing notions Q

= Q
A
for the
sets A of cardinality
1
, whose number is equal to
2
, the length of iteration.
Condition (m) will guarantee that this will give us enough control of all
nowhere meager subsets A

of 2

.
The second problem is that even if at some stage <
2
of our iteration
we will add a homeomorphism f appropriate for a given set A 2

,
that is such that
V [G

] [= pr(A f) is not Baire in 2

,
where G

= G P

, then in general there is no guarantee that the set

pr(A f) will remain non-Baire in the nal model V [G]. The preservation
of non-Baireness of each appropriate set pr(A f) will be achieved by care-
fully crafting our iteration following a method known as the oracle-cc forcing
iteration.
The theory of the oracle-cc forcings is described in details in [12, Ch. IV]
(compare also [11, Ch. IV]) and here we will recall only the fragments that
are relevant to our specic situation. In particular if

def
= <
1
: is a limit ordinal
then
an
1
-oracle is any sequence / = M

: ) where M

is a countable
transitive model of ZFC

that is, ZFC without the power set axiom)

with a property that + 1 M

, M

[= is countable, and the set

: A M

is stationary in
1
for every A
1
.
5
6
9
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
1


The existence of an
1
-oracle is equivalent to the diamond principle .
With each
1
-oracle / = M

: ) there is associated a lter D

M
generated by the sets I
M
(A) = : A M

for A
1
. It is proved
in [12, Claim 1.4] that D
M
is a proper normal lter containing every closed
unbounded subset of .
We will also need the following fact which, for our purposes, can be viewed
as a denition of /-cc property.
Fact 4 Let P be a forcing notion of cardinality
1
, e: P
1
be one-to-
one, and / = M

: ) be an
1
-oracle. If there exists a C D
M
such
that for every C
e
1
(E) is predense in P for every set E M

T(), for which

e
1
(E) is predense in e
1
( : < ),
then P has the /-cc property.
This follows immediately from the denition of /-cc property [12, Deni-
tion 1.5, p. 150].
Our proof will rely on the following main lemma.
Lemma 5 For every A 2

for which A and A

c
= (2

) A are
nowhere meager in 2

and for every

1
-oracle / there exists an /-cc
forcing notion Q
A
of cardinality
1
such that Q
A
forces
there exists an autohomeomorphism f of 2

such that the sets

pr(f A) and pr(f A) are nowhere meager in 2

.
The proof of Lemma 5 represents the core of our argument and will be
presented in the next section. In the remainder of this section we will sketch
how Lemma 5 implies Theorem 2. Since this follows the standard path, as
described in [12, Chapter IV], the readers familiar with this treatment may
proceed directly to the next section.
First of all, to dene an appropriate iteration we will treat forcings Q
A
from Lemma 5 as dened on
1
. More precisely, in the iteration we will always
replace Q
A
with its order isomorphic copy
1
,
A
). So, we can treat any -
nite support iteration P

= P

,

Q

): < ) of Q
A
forcing notions as having
an absolute and xed universe, say U

= g (
1
)

2
: g
1
(
1
0) []
<
.
This will allow us to treat the

2
-sequence X

: <
2
) as a sequence of
P

-names of subsets of 2

. (After appropriate coding.)

We will also need the following variant of [12, Example 2.2].
6
6
9
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
1


Lemma 6 Assume that

1
holds and that S 2

is such that S and S

c
are nowhere meager in 2

. Then there exists an

1
-oracle / such that if P
is an arbitrary /-cc forcing then P forces that
S and S
c
are nowhere meager in 2

.
Proof. By [12, Example 2.2] for any non-empty basic open set W of 2

there are oracles /

0
W
and /
1
W
such any /
0
W
-cc forcing forces that S W
is not meager, and any /
1
W
-cc forcing forces that S
c
W is not meager. So,
by [12, Claim 3.1], there is a single
1
-oracle / which extends all oracles
/
i
W
, and it clearly does the job.
Now, the iteration P

2
is dened by choosing by induction the sequence
P

,

A

,

/

,

Q

,

f

): <
2
) such that for every <
2
(a) P

= P

,

Q

): < ) is a nite support iteration,

(b)

A

is a P

-name for which P

forces that

and (

A

)
c
are nowhere meager subsets of 2

,
(c)

/

is a P

-name for which P

forces that

is an
1
-oracle and for every

Q satisfying

/

-cc we have
(i) for every < if P

= P

P
,
then
P

P
,

Q is

/

-cc,
(ii) if = + 1 then

Q pr(

f

), pr(

f

) 2

are nowhere meager in 2

,
(d)

Q

is a P

-name for a forcing such that P

forces

is an

/

-cc forcing Q

A
from Lemma 5,
(e)

f

is a P
+1
-name for which P
+1
forces that

is a

Q

-name for the function f from Lemma 5.

7
6
9
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
1


If for some <
2
the sequence P

,

A

,

/

,

Q

,

f

): < ) has been

dened then we proceed as follows. Forcing P

is already determined by (a).

We choose

A

as X

from the

2
-sequence if it satises (b) and arbitrarily,
still maintaining (b), otherwise. Since steps (d) and (e) are facilitated by
Lemma 5, it is enough to construct

/

satisfying (c). For this we will

consider two cases.
Case 1: is a limit ordinal.
For a moment x a < and work in V
P

. Let /

and P
,
be the
interpretations of

/

and

P
,
, respectively. By the inductive assumption
for every < < forcing P
,
is /

-cc. So, by [12, Claim 3.2], P

,
is
/

-cc. Thus, by [12, Claim 3.3], in (V

P

)
P
,
= V
P
there is an
1
-oracle
/

such that if Q is /

-cc then P
,
Q is /

-cc.
So, in V
P
, we have
1
-oracles /

for every < . Thus, by [12,

Claim 3.1], in V
P
there exists an
1
-oracle /

which is stronger than all

/

s in a sense that if Q is /

-cc then Q is also /

-cc. So, there is a

P

-name

/

for /

for which (c) holds.

Case 2: is a successor ordinal, = + 1. Then P

= P

.
Since, by (d), P

forces that

Q

is

/

-cc, using (c) for = we conclude

that
P

P
,
is

/

-cc
for every < . So, proceeding as in Case 1, in V
P
we can nd
1
-oracles

such that
P

P
,

Q is

/

-cc
for every Q which is

/

-cc. Let / be an
1
-oracle from Lemma 6 used
with S = pr(

f

). As above we can nd, in V

P
, an
1
-oracle /

which
is stronger than all /

s and /. Then, there is a P

-name

/

for /

for
which (c) holds. This nishes the construction of the iteration.
To nish the argument rst note that the interpretations of pr(

f

)
and pr(

f

) in the nal model V [G] remain nowhere meager in 2

. This
is the case since, by (e), P
+1
forces that
pr(

f

) and pr(

f

) are nowhere meager in 2

,
and, by (c)(i), that
every

P
+1,
is

/
+1
-cc
8
6
9
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
1


while, by condition (c)(ii), every

/
+1
-cc forcing preserves nowhere meager-
ness of pr(

f

) and pr(

f

). To nish this part of the argument it

is enough to note that P
+1
forces that

P
+1,
2
is

/
+1
-cc which follows
from [12, Claim 3.2].
To complete the argument it is enough to show that each nowhere meager
subset A

of 2

from V [G] with nowhere meager complement contains

an interpretation of some

A

. However, P

2
is ccc. So, if

A is a P

2
-name
for A

then the set

: P

A V
P
is nowhere meager in 2

contains a closed unbounded subset of . Thus

2
guarantees that A

contains an interpretation of some

A

.
3 Proof of Lemma 5
Let / be the family of all sequences

h = h

: ) such that each h

is a
function from a countable set D

onto R

and that
D

= R

= for every distinct , .

For each

h / we will dene a forcing notion Q
h
. Forcing Q
A
satisfying
Lemma 5 will be chosen as Q
h
for some

h /.
So x an

h /. Then Q
h
is dened as the set of all triples p = n, , h)
for which
(A) h is a function from a nite subset D of

into 2

;
(B) n < and is a permutation of 2
n
;
(C) [D D

[ 1 for every ;
(D) if x D D

then h(x) = h

(x) and h(x) n = (x n).

Forcing Q
h
is ordered as follows. Condition p

= n

, h

) is stronger than
p = n, , h), p

p, provided
n n

, h h

, and

(s) n = (s n) for every s 2

n

. (2)
9
6
9
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
1


Note that the second part of (D) says that for every x D and s 2
n
x [s] if and only if h(x) [(s)]. (3)
Also, if n < we will write [s] 2
n
for x 2
n
: x [s]. Note that in this
notation the part of (2) concerning permutations says that

extends in a
sense that

maps [t] 2
n

onto [(t)] 2
n

for every t 2
n
.
In what follows we will use the following basic property of Q
h
.
() For every q = n, , h) Q
h
and m < there exist an n

m and a
permutation

of 2
n

such that q

= n

, h) Q
h
and q

extends q.
The choice of such n

and

is easy. First pick n

maxm, n such
that x n

,= y n

for every dierent x and y from either domain D or

range R = h[D] of h. This implies that for every t 2
n
the set D
t
=
x n

: x D [t] [t] 2
n

has the same cardinality as D [t] and

H
t
= x n

: x h[D] [(t)] [(t)] 2

n

has the same cardinality as

h[D] [(t)]. Since, by (3), we have also [D [t][ = [h[D] [(t)][ we see
that [D
t
[ = [H
t
[. Dene

on D
t
by

(x n

) = h(x) n

for every x D
t
.
Then

is a bijection from D
t
onto H
t
and this denition ensures that an
appropriate part of the condition (D) for h and

is satised. Also, if for

each t 2
n
we extend

onto [t] 2
n

as a bijection from ([t] 2

n

) D
t
onto
([(t)] 2
n

) H
t
, then the condition (2) will be satised. Thus such dened
q

= n

, h) belongs to Q
h
and extends q.
Next note that forcing Q
h
has the following property, described in Fact 7,
needed to prove Lemma 5. In what follows we will consider 2

with the
standard distance:
d(r
0
, r
1
) = 2
min{n<: r
0
(n)=r
1
(n)}
for dierent r
0
, r
1
2

.
Fact 7 Let

h = h

: ) / and f =

h: n, , h) H, where H
is a V -generic lter over Q
h
. Then f is a uniformly continuous one-to-one
function from a subset D of 2

into 2

. Moreover, if for every the

graph of h

is dense in 2

, then D and f[D] are dense in 2

and f can
be uniquely extended to an autohomeomorphism

f of 2

.
Proof. Clearly f is a one-to-one function from a subset D of 2

into 2

.
To see that it is uniformly continuous choose an > 0. We will nd > 0
10
6
9
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
1


such that r
0
, r
1
D and d(r
0
, r
1
) < imply d(f(r
0
), f(r
1
)) < . For this
note that, by (), the set
S = q = n, , h) Q
h
: 2
n
<
is dense in Q
h
. So take a q = n, , h) H S and put = 2
n
. We claim
that this works.
Indeed, take r
0
, r
1
D such that d(r
0
, r
1
) < . Then there exists a
q

= n

, h

) H stronger than q such that r

0
and r
1
are in the domain
of h

. Therefore, n n

and for j < 2

f(r
j
) n = h

(r
j
) n = (h

(r
j
) n

) n =

(r
j
n

) n = (r
j
n)
by the conditions (D) and (2). Since d(r
0
, r
1
) < = 2
n
implies that
r
0
n = r
1
n we obtain
f(r
0
) n = (r
0
n) = (r
1
n) = f(r
1
) n
that is, d(f(r
0
), f(r
1
)) 2
n
< . So f is uniformly continuous.
Essentially the same argument (with the same values of and ) shows
that f
1
: f[D] D is uniformly continuous. Thus, if

f is the unique
continuous extension of f into cl(D), then

f is a homeomorphism from cl(D)
onto cl(f[D]).
To nish the argument assume that all functions h

have dense graphs,

take a t 2
m
for some m < , and notice that the set
S
t
= q = n, , h) Q
h
: the domain D

of h intersects [t]
is dense in Q
h
. Indeed, if q = n, , h) Q
h
then, by (), strengthening q
if necessary, we can assume that m n. Then, rening t if necessary, we
can also assume that m = n, that is, that t is in the domain of . Now, if
[t] intersects the domain of h, then already q belongs to S
t
. Otherwise take
with D

= and pick x, h

(x)) [t] [(t)], which exists by the

density of the graph of h

. Then n, , h x, h

(x))) belongs to S
t
and
extends q.
This shows that D [t] ,= for every t 2
<
, that is, D is dense in 2

.
A similar argument shows that for every t 2
<
the set
S
t
= q = n, , h) Q
h
: the range of h intersects [t]
11
6
9
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
1


is dense in Q
h
, which implies that h[D] is dense in 2

. Thus

f is a homeo-
morphism from cl(D) = 2

onto cl(h[D]) = 2

.
Now take A 2

for which A and A

c
= (2

) A are nowhere
meager in 2

and x an
1
-oracle / = M

: ). By Fact 7 in order
to prove Lemma 5 it is enough to nd an

h = h

: ) / such that
Q
A
= Q
h
is /-cc (4)
and Q
h
forces that, in V [H],
the sets pr(f A) and pr(f A) are nowhere meager in 2

. (5)
(In (5) function f is dened as in Fact 7.)
To dene

h we will construct a sequence x

, y

) 2

: <
1
)
aiming at h

= x
+n
, y
+n
): n < , where .
Let s
n
, t
n
): n < be an enumeration of 2
<
2
<
with each pair
s, t) appearing for an odd n and for an even n. Points x
+n
, y
+n
) are
chosen inductively in such a way that
(i) x
+n
, y
+n
) is a Cohen real over M

[x

, y

): < + n)] for every

, , that is, x
+n
, y
+n
) is outside all meager subsets of
2

which are coded in M

[x

, y

): < +n)];
(ii) x
+n
, y
+n
) A if n is even, and x
+n
, y
+n
) A
c
otherwise.
(iii) x
+n
, y
+n
) [s
n
] [t
n
].
The choice of x
+n
, y
+n
) is possible since both sets A and A
c
are nowhere
meager, and we consider each time only countably many meager sets. Con-
dition (iii) guarantees that the graph of each of h

will be dense in 2

.
Note that if
0
< <
k1
, where k < , then (by the product
lemma in M

)
x

i
, y

i
): i < k) is an M

-generic Cohen real in (2

)
k
. (6)
For q = n, , h) Q
h
dene
q =

s,t
[s] [t].
12
6
9
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
1


Clearly q is an open subset of 2

and condition (2) implies that for every

q, r Q
h
with r = n

, h

)
if q r then q r and q ([s] [t]) ,= for every s, t)

. (7)
Also for let (Q
h
)

n, , h) Q
h
: h

<
h

. To prove (4) and

(5) we will use also the following fact.
Fact 8 Let and let E M

be a predense subset of (Q
h
)

. Then for
every k < and p = n, , h) (Q
h
)

the set
B
k
p
=

( q)
k
: q extends p and some q
0
E

(8)
is dense in ( p)
k
(2

)
k
.
Proof. By way of contradiction assume that B
k
p
is not dense in ( p)
k
. Then
there exist m < and s
0
, t
0
, . . . , s
k1
, t
k1
2
m
with the property that
P =

i<k
([s
i
] [t
i
]) ( p)
k
is disjoint from B
k
p
. Increasing m and rening
the s
i
s and t
j
s, if necessary, we may assume that m n, all s
i
s and t
j
s are
dierent,

i<k
[s
i
] is disjoint from the domain D of h, and h[D]

i<k
[t
i
] = .
We can also assume that x m ,= y m for every dierent x and y from
D and from h[D]. Now, rening slightly the argument for () we can nd
r = m,

, h) (Q
h
)

extending p such that

(s
i
) = t
i
for every i < k.
(Note that P ( p)
k
.) We will obtain a contradiction with the predensity of
E in (Q
h
)

by showing that r is incompatible with every element of E.

Indeed if q were an extension of r p and an element q
0
of E, then we
would have ( q)
k
B
k
p
. But then, by (7) and the fact that s
i
, t
i
)

for
i < k, we would also have ( q)
k
P ,= , contradicting P B
k
p
= . This
nishes the proof of Fact 8.
Now we are ready to prove (4), that is, that Q
h
is /-cc. So, x a bijection
e: Q
h

1
and let
C =

: (Q
h
)

= e
1
() M

.
Then C D
M
. (Just use a suitable nice codding or [12, Claim 1.4(4)].) Take
a C and x an E , E M

, for which e
1
(E) is predense in (Q
h
)

.
By Fact 4 it is enough to show that
e
1
(E) is predense in Q
h
.
13
6
9
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
1


Take p
0
= n, , h
0
) from Q
h
, let h = h
0


<
D

and h
1
= h
0
h,
and notice that the condition p = n, , h) belongs to (Q
h
)

. Assume that
h
1
= x
i
, y
i
): i < k. Since s(h
1
) = x
i
, y
i
): i < k) ( p)
k
, B
k
p
M

(as
dened from (Q
h
)

) and, by Fact 8, B
k
p
is dense in ( p)
k
condition (6)
implies that s(h
1
) B
k
p
. So there are q = n
0
,
0
, g) (Q
h
)

extending p
and some q
0
e
1
(E) for which s(h
1
) q
k
. But then p

= n
0
,
0
, g h
1
)
belongs to Q
h
and extends q. This nishes the proof of (4).
The proof of (5) is similar. We will prove only that pr(f A) = pr(f A
c
)
is nowhere meager in 2

, the argument for pr(f A) being essentially the

same.
By way of contradiction assume that pr(f A) is not nowhere meager
in 2

. So there exists an s

2
<
such that pr(f A) is meager in [s

]. Let
a condition p

Q
h
and Q
h
-names

U
m
, for m < , be such
p

Q
h
each

U
m
is an open dense subset of [s

] and pr(f A)

m<

U
m
= .
For each m < , since p

forces that

U
m
is an open dense subset of [s

], for
every t 2
<
extending s

there is a maximal antichain p

m
s,k
: k <
m
s
) in Q
h
forcing that

U
m
[t] contains some basic open subset [s].
Note that each of these antichains must be countable, since the forcing
notion Q
h
is /-cc and therefore ccc. Combining all these antichains we get
a sequence p
m
s,k
Q
h
: m < , s 2
<
, k <
m
s
) such that

m
s
,
p
m
s,k

Q
h
[s]

U
m
,
for every q Q
h
extending p

and t 2
<
extending s

there are
s 2
<
and k <
m
s
such that the conditions q and p
m
s,k
are compatible
and t s.
Note that for suciently large we have p
m
s,k
(Q
h
)

for all m < ,

s 2
<
, and k <
m
s
.
Now, by the denition of
1
-oracle, the set B
0
of all for which
p
m
s,k
Q
h
: m < , s 2
<
, k <
m
s
) M

and (Q
h
)

is stationary in
1
. (Just use a suitable nice coding, or see [12, Ch.IV,
Claim 1.4(4)]). Thus, using clause (iii) of the choice of x

s, we may nd a
B
0
, an odd j < , and a condition p
0
= n
0
,
0
, h
0
) Q
h
such that
14
6
9
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
1


p
0
p

, s

x
+j
, and
x
+j
belongs to the domain of h
0
.
Then p
0
x
+j
[s

]proj(fA) (remember j is odd so x

+j
, y
+j
) A
c
).
We will show that
p
0
x
+j

m<

U
m
,
which will nish the proof.
So, assume that this is not the case. Then there exist an i < and
a p
1
= n, , h
1
) Q
h
stronger than p
0
such that p
1
x
+j
/

U
i
. Let
us dene h = h
1
x

: < and h
1
h = a
l
, b
l
): l < m. Notice
that the condition p = n, , h) belongs to (Q
h
)

. We can also assume that

x
+j
, y
+j
) = a
0
, b
0
).
Now consider the set Z of all z
0
, z

0
, . . . , z
m1
, z

m1
) (2

)
m
for
which
there exist s 2
<
, k <
i
s
, and q (Q
h
)

such that s z
0
, q extends
p and p
i
s,k
, and z
0
, z

0
, . . . , z
m1
, z

m1
) ( q)
m
.
Claim The set Z belongs to the model M

and it is an open dense subset

of ( p)
m
.
Proof. It should be clear that Z is (coded) in M

. (Remember the choice

of .) To show that it is dense in ( p)
m
we proceed like in the proof of Fact 8.
We choose s
0
, t
0
, . . . , s
m1
, t
m1
and r exactly as there. Next pick a condition
q Q
h
, a sequence s 2
<
, and k <
m
s
such that
s
0
s and q extends p
i
s,k
and r.
(Remember the choice of the p
i
s,k
s.) Clearly we can demand that q (Q
h
)

.
Now note that it is possible to choose a z = z
0
, z

0
, . . . , z
m1
, z

m1
) ( q)
m
such that s z
0
, s
i
z
i
, t
i
z

i
. Then z Z

i<k
([s
i
] [t
i
]).
Since Z is clearly open, this completes the proof of Claim.
Now, by (6) and the Claim above, a
l
, b
l
): l < m) belongs to Z since
a
l
, b
l
): l < m) belongs to ( p
1
)
m
= ( p)
m
. But this means that there exist
q = n
q
,
q
, h
q
) (Q
h
)

and s 2
<
such that:
q p, q [s]

U
i
, and
a
l
, b
l
): l < m) ( q)
m
, and x
+j
= a
0
[s].
15
6
9
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
1


But then p
2
= n
q
,
q
, h
q
a
l
, b
l
): l < m) belongs to Q
h
and extends
both q and p
1
. So, p
2
forces that x
+j
= a
0
[s]

U
i
, contradicting our
assumption that p
1
x
+j
/

U
i
.
This nishes the proof of (5) and of Lemma 5.
References
[1] M. Balcerzak, Some remarks on sup-measurablilty, Real Anal. Exchange
17 (199192), 597607.
[2] M. Balcerzak, K. Ciesielski, On sup-measurable functions problem, Real
Anal. Exchange 23 (199798), 787797.
[3] T. Bartoszy nski, H. Judah, Set Theory, A K Peters, 1995.
[4] K. Ciesielski, Set Theory for the Working Mathematician, London
Math. Soc. Student Texts 39, Cambridge Univ. Press 1997.
[5] E. Grande, Z. Grande, Quelques remarques sur la superposition
F(x, f(x)), Fund. Math. 121 (1984), 199211.
[6] Z. Grande, J. Lipi nski, Un example dune fonction sup-mesurable qui
nest pas mesurable, Colloq. Math. 39 (1978), 7779.
[7] A. B. Kharazishvili, Some questions from the theory of invariant mea-
sures, Bull. Acad. Sci. Georgian SSR 100 (1980) (in Russian).
[8] A. B. Kharazishvili, Sup-measurable and weakly sup-measurable map-
pings in the theory of ordinary dierential equations, J. Appl. Anal.
3(2) (1997), 211223.
[9] A. B. Kharazishvili, Strange Functions in Real Analysis, Pure and Ap-
plied Mathematics 229, Marcel Dekker, 2000.
[10] K. Kunen, Set Theory, North-Holland, 1983.
[11] S. Shelah, Proper Forcing, Lectures Notes in Math. 940, Springer-Verlag
1982.
[12] S. Shelah, Proper and improper forcing, Perspectives in Mathematical
Logic, Springer-Verlag 1998.
16
6
9
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
1


[13] J. W.

Sragin, Conditions for measurability of superpositions, Dokl.
Akad. Nauk SSSR 197 (1971), 295298 (in Russian).
17