Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah - Sheva-Sheva-Sheva: Large Creatures

a
r
X
i
v
:
m
a
t
h
/
0
2
1
0
2
0
5
v
2

[
m
a
t
h
.
L
O
]

2
3

M
a
r

2
0
0
3
SHEVASHEVASHEVA: LARGE CREATURES
ANDRZEJ ROS LANOWSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
Abstract. We develop the theory of the forcing with trees and creatures for
an inaccessible continuing Ros lanowski and Shelah [14], [13]. To make a
real use of these forcing notions (that is to iterate them without collapsing
cardinals) we need suitable iteration theorems, and those are proved as well.
(In this aspect we continue Ros lanowski and Shelah [15] and Shelah [16], [17].)
Contents
0. Introduction 1
A.1. Iterations of complete forcing notions and trees of conditions 4
A.2. Bounding properties 8
A.3. Fuzzy properness over 14
B.4. A creaturefree example 30
B.5. Trees and creatures 33
B.6. Getting completeness and bounding properties 36
B.7. Getting fuzzy properness 40
B.8. More examples and applications 43
References 47
Date: February 2003.
1991 Mathematics Subject Classication. Primary 03E35, 03E40; Secondary: 03E05, 03E55.
The rst author thanks the Hebrew University of Jerusalem for support during his visit to
Jerusalem in Summer2001 and he also acknowledges partial support from University Commit-
tee on Research of the University of Nebraska at Omaha. He also thanks his wife, Ma lgorzata
JankowiakRos lanowska for supporting him when he was preparing the nal version of this paper.
The research of the second author was partially supported by the United States-Israel Bina-
tional Science Foundation. Publication 777.
0
SHEVASHEVASHEVA: LARGE CREATURES 1
0. Introduction
The present paper has two themes.
The rst is related to the quest for the right generalization of properness to higher
cardinals (that is, for a property of forcing notions that would play in iterations with
uncountable supports similar role to that of standard properness in CS iterations).
The evidence that there is no straightforward generalization of properness to larger
cardinals was given already in Shelah [18] (see [19, Appendix 3.6(2)]). Substantial
progress has been achieved in Shelah [16], [17], but the properties there were tailored
for generalizing the case no new reals of [19, Ch. V]. Then Roslanowski and Shelah
[15] gave an iterable condition for not collapsing
+
in support iterations of
complete forcing notions (with possibly adding subsets of ). Very recently Eisworth
[6] has given another property preserved in support iterations (and implying that
+
is not collapsed). At the moment it is not clear if the two properties (the one
of [15] and that of [6]) are equivalent, though they have similar avour. However,
the existing iterable properties still do not cover many examples of natural forcing
notions, specially those which come naturally in the context of reals. This brings
us to the second theme: developing the forcing for reals.
A number of cardinal characteristics related to the Baire space

, the Cantor
space

2 and/or the combinatorial structure of []
can be extended to the spaces
2 and []
for any innite cardinal . Following the tradition of Set Theory of

the Reals we may call cardinal numbers dened this way for

(and related spaces)
cardinal characteristics of reals. The menagerie of those characteristics seems
to be much larger than the one for the continuum. But to decide if the various
denitions lead to dierent (and interesting) cardinals we need a well developed
forcing technology.
There has been a serious interest in cardinal characteristics of the reals in
literature. For example, Cummings and Shelah [5] investigates the natural gen-
eralizations b
of the unbounded number and the dominating number d
, giving
simple constraints on the triple of cardinals (b
, d
, 2
) and proving that any triple

of cardinals obeying these constraints can be realized. In a somewhat parallel work
[20], Shelah and Spasojevic study b
and the generalization t
of the tower num-

ber. Zapletal [21] investigated the splitting number s
here the situation is really

complicated as the inequality s
>
+
needs large cardinals. One of the sources
of interest in characteristics of the reals is their relevance for our understanding
of the club lter on (or the dual ideal on non-stationary subsets of ) see,
e.g., Balcar and Simon [2, 5], Landver [9], Matet and Pawlikowski [10], Matet,
Roslanowski and Shelah [11]. First steps toward developing forcing for reals has
been done long time ago: in 1980 Kanamori [8] presented a systematic treatment
of the perfectset forcing in products and iterations. Recently, Brown [3], [4]
discussed the superperfect forcing and other treelike forcing notions.
Our aim in this paper is to provide tools for building forcing notions relevant
for reals (continuing in this Roslanowski and Shelah [14], [13]) and give suitable
iteration theorems (thus continuing Roslanowski and Shelah [15]). However, we
restrict our attention to the case when is a strongly inaccessible uncountable
cardinal (after all,
0
is inaccessible), see 0.3 below.
The structure of the paper is as follows. It is divided into two parts, rst one
presents iteration theorems, the second one gives examples and applications. In
Section A.1 we present some basic notions and methods relevant for iterating
2 ANDRZEJ ROS LANOWSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
complete forcing notions. The next section, A.2, presents preservation of
analogue of the Sacks property (in Theorem A.2.3) as well as preservation of being
bounding (in Theorem A.2.6). Section A.3 introduces fuzzy properness, a more
complicated variant of properness over semi-diamonds from [15]. Of course, we
prove a suitable iteration theorem (see Theorem A.3.10). Then we give examples
for the properties discussed in Part A. We start with showing that a forcing no-
tion useful for uniformization is fuzzy proper (in Section B.4), and then we turn
to developing forcing notions built with the use of trees and creatures. In Section
B.5 we set the terminology and notation, and in the next section we discuss when
the resulting forcing notions have the two bounding properties discussed in A.2.
Section B.7 shows how our methods result in suitably proper forcing notions, and
the last section introduces some new characteristics of the reals.
Notation Our notation is rather standard and compatible with that of classical
textbooks (like Jech [7]). In forcing we keep the older convention that a stronger
condition is the larger one. Our main conventions are listed below.
Notation 0.1. (1) For a forcing notion P,
P
stands for the canonical Pname
for the generic lter in P. With this one exception, all Pnames for objects
in the extension via P will be denoted with a tilde below (e.g.,
, X
). The
weakest element of P will be denoted by
P
(and we will always assume that
there is one, and that there is no other condition equivalent to it). We will
also assume that all forcing notions under considerations are atomless.
By support iterations we mean iterations in which domains of con-
ditions are of size . However, we will pretend that conditions in a
support iteration

Q = P
, Q
: <
) are total functions on
and for
p lim(
Q) and
Dom(p) we will let p() =
.
(2) For a lter D on , the family of all Dpositive subsets of is called D
+
.
(So A D
+
if and only if A and A B ,= for all B D.)
The club lter of is denoted by T
.
(3) Ordinal numbers will be denoted be the lower case initial letters of the Greek
alphabet (, , , . . .) and also by i, j (with possible sub- and superscripts).
Cardinal numbers will be called , , , (with possible sub- and super-
scripts); is a xed inaccessible cardinal (see 0.3).
(4) By we will denote a suciently large regular cardinal; H() is the family
of all sets hereditarily of size less than . Moreover, we x a well ordering
<
of H().
(5) A bar above a letter denotes that the object considered is a sequence;
usually

X will be X
i
: i < ), where is the length lh(

X) of

X. Sometimes
our sequences will be indexed by a set of ordinals, say S , and then

X
will typically be X
: S).
But also, , and (with possible sub- and superscripts) will denote
sequences (nodes in quasi trees).
For two sequences , we write whenever is a proper initial
segment of , and when either or = .
(6) We will consider several games of two players. One player will be called
Generic or Complete or just I player, and we will refer to this player as
she. Her opponent will be called Antigeneric or Incomplete or just II
player and will be referred to as he.
Denition 0.2. (1) A quasi tree is a set T of sequences of length < with
the smallest element denoted by root(T).
(2) A quasi tree T is a tree if it is closed under initial segments longer
then lh(root(T)).
(3) A quasi tree is complete if the union of any increasing sequence of
length less than of members of T is in T.
(4) For a quasi tree T and T we dene the successors of in T, maximal
points of T, the restriction of T to , and the height of T by:
succ
T
() = T : & ( T)( ),
max(T) = T : there is no T such that ,
T
[]
= T : , and ht(T) = suplh() : T.
We put

T = T max(T).
(5) For < and a quasi tree T we let
(T)
= T : lh() = and (T)

<
= T : lh() < .
The set of all limit branches through T is
lim
(T)
def
= : is a sequence and ( < )( > )( T).
(6) A subset F of a quasi tree T is a front of T if no two distinct members
of F are comparable and
( lim
(T) max(T))( < )( F).

Note that if T is a complete quasi tree of height < , then max(T) is a front
of T and every increasing sequence of members of T has a upper bound in
max(T).
In the present paper we assume the following.
Context 0.3. (a) is a strongly inaccessible cardinal,
(b)

=
: < ) is a strictly increasing sequence of uncountable regular

cardinals, sup
<
= ,
(c) for each < ,
<
<
and ( <
)([[
<
).
Part A
Iteration theorems for support iterations
A.1. Iterations of complete forcing notions and trees of conditions
In this section we recall some basic denitions and facts concerning complete
forcing notions and support iterations.
Denition A.1.1. Let P be a forcing notion.
(1) For a condition r P and a set S , let
0
(P, S, r) be the following game
of two players, Complete and Incomplete:
the game lasts moves and during a play the players con-
struct a sequence (p
i
, q
i
) : i < ) of pairs of conditions
from P in such a way that (j < i < )(r p
j
q
j
p
i
)
and at the stage i < of the game:
if i S, then Complete chooses p
i
and Incomplete chooses
q
i
, and
if i / S, then Incomplete chooses p
i
and Complete chooses
q
i
.
Complete wins if and only if for every i < there are legal moves for both
players.
(2) We say that the forcing notion P is (, S)strategically complete if Complete
has a winning strategy in the game
0
(P, S, r) for each condition r P. We
say that P is strategically (<)complete if it is (, )strategically complete.
(3) We say that P is complete if every
P
increasing chain of length less than
has an upper bound in P.
(4) Let N (H(), , <
) be a model such that

<
N N, [N[ = and
P N. We say that a condition p P is (N, P)generic in the standard
sense (or just: (N, P)generic) if for every Pname
N for an ordinal
we have p
N .
(5) P is proper in the standard sense (or just: proper) if there is x H()
such that for every model N (H(), , <
) satisfying
<
N N, [N[ = and P, x N,
and every condition q N P there is an (N, P)generic condition p P
stronger than q.
Remark A.1.2. (1) On strategic completeness (and variants) see [16, A.1].
Plainly, completeness implies strategic (<)completeness.
(2) Note that if P is strategically (<)complete and D is a normal lter on
, then in V
P
the lter D generates a proper normal lter on . [Abusing
notation, we may call this lter also by D.]
Proposition A.1.3. Suppose that P is a (<)strategically complete (atomless)
forcing notion,
< and q
P (for <
). Then there are conditions p
P
(for <
) such that q
and for distinct ,
<
the conditions p
, p
are incompatible.
Proof. For <
let st
be the winning strategy of Complete in the game
0
(P, , q
). By induction on i <
we dene conditions q
i
, p
i
as follows:
p
0
0
= q
0
, q
0
0
is the answer of Complete to p
0
0
) according to st
0
, q
0
= p
0
= q
for
> 0.
Suppose that conditions p
j
, q
j
have been dened for j < i, <
(where
i <
) so that
() ( <
< i)(q
, q
are incompatible ),
() for each < i, (p
j
, q
j
) : j < i) is a play of
0
(P, , q
) in which
Complete uses the strategy st
, and
() p
j
= q
j
= q
for i > j.
For < i let r
be a condition stronger than all q

j
for j < i (there is one by ()). If

every r
(for < i) is incompatible with q

i
, then we let p
i
= r
for < i, p
i
= q
for i. Otherwise, let

0
< i be the rst such that r
0
, q
i
are compatible. Then
we may pick two incompatible conditions p
i
0
, p
i
i
above both r
0
and q
i
. Next we
let p
i
= r
for < i, ,=
0
and p
i
= q
for > i. Finally, for i, q

i
is
dened as the answer of Complete according to st
to (p
j
, q
j
) : j < i)
p
i
), and
q
i
= q
for > i.
After the inductive denition is carried out we may pick upper bounds p
to q
j
:
j <
) (for <
; exist by ()). The conditions p
are pairwise incompatible by

(), so we are done.
Both completeness and strategic completeness are preserved in iterations:
Proposition A.1.4. Suppose that P
, Q
: <
) is a support iteration such

that for each <
P
Q
is complete.
Then the forcing P
is complete.
Proposition A.1.5. Suppose

Q = P
i
, Q
i
: i < ) is a support iteration and for
each i <
Pi
Q
i
is strategically (<)complete .
Then:
(a) P
is strategically (<)complete.
(b) Moreover, for each and r P
there is a winning strategy st(, r)

of Complete in the game
0
(P
, , r) such that, whenever

0
<
1
and
r P
1
, we have:
(i) if (p
i
, q
i
) : i < ) is a play of
0
(P
0
, , r
0
) in which Complete
follows the strategy st(
0
, r
0
),
then (p
i
r[
0
,
1
), q
i
r[
0
,
1
)) : i < ) is a play of
0
(P
1
, , r) in
which Complete uses st(
1
, r);
(ii) if (p
i
, q
i
0
(P
1
, , r) in which Complete plays
according to the strategy st(
1
, r),
then (p
i
0
, q
i
0
0
(P
0
, , r
0
) in which Com-
plete uses st(
0
, r);
(iii) if (p
i
, q
i
) : i < i
) is a partial play of
0
(P
1
, , r) in which Complete
uses st(
1
, r) and p
P
0
is stronger than all p
i
0
(for i < i
), then
there is p
P
1
such that p
= p
0
and p
p
i
for i < i
.
Denition A.1.6 (Compare [16, A.3.3, A.3.2]). (1) Let , be ordinals, , =
w . A standard (w, )
tree is a pair T = (T, rk) such that

rk : T w ,
if t T and rk(t) = , then t is a sequence (t)
: w ), where
each (t)
is a sequence of length ,
(T, ) is a tree with root ) and such that every chain in T has a
upper bound it T.
We will keep the convention that T
x
y
is (T
x
y
, rk
x
y
).
(2) Suppose that w
0
w
1
,
0

1
, and T
1
= (T
1
, rk
1
) is a standard
(w
1
,
1
)
tree. The projection proj

(w1,1)
(w0,0)
(T
1
) of T
1
onto (w
0
,
0
) is dened
as a standard (w
0
,
0
)
tree T
0
= (T
0
, rk
0
) such that
T
0
= (t)
0
: w
0
rk
1
(t)) : t = (t)
: w
1
rk
1
(t)) T
1
.
The mapping
T
1
(t)
: w
1
rk
1
(t)) (t)
0
: w
0
rk
1
(t)) T
0
will be denoted proj
(w1,1)
(w0,0)
too.
(3) We say that

T = T
: <
) is a legal sequence of trees if for some

increasing continuous sequence w = w
: <
) of subsets of we have
(i) T
is a standard (w
, )
tree (for <
),
(ii) if < <
, then T
= proj
(w
,)
(w,)
(T
).
(4) Suppose that

T = T
: <
) is a legal sequence of trees and
is a
limit ordinal. Let w
be such that T
is a standard (w
, )
tree (for
<
) and let w =
<
. The inverse limit
lim(
T ) of

T is a standard
(w,
tree (T
lim
, rk
lim
) such that
() T
lim
consists of all sequences t satisfying
(i) Dom(t) is an initial segment of w (not necessarily proper),
(ii) if Dom(t), then (t)
is a sequence of length
,
(iii) (t)
: w
Dom(t)) T
for each <
.
(5) A legal sequence

T = T
: <
) is continuous if for each limit ordinal

<
, T
lim(
T ).
(6) Let

Q = P
i
, Q
i
: i < ) be a support iteration. A standard tree of
conditions in

Q is a system p = p
t
: t T) such that
(T, rk) is a standard (w, )
tree for some w and an ordinal ,

p
t
P
rk(t)
for t T, and
if s, t T, s t, then p
s
= p
t
rk(s).
(7) Let p
0
, p
1
be standard trees of conditions in

Q, p
i
= p
i
t
: t T
i
), where
T
0
= proj
(w1,1)
(w0,0)
(T
1
), w
0
w
1
,
0
<
1
. We will write p
0
w1,1
w0,0
p
1
(or just p
0
p
1
) whenever for each t T
1
, letting t
= proj
(w1,1)
(w0,0)
(t) T
0
,
we have p
0
t
rk
1
(t) p
1
t
.
Remark A.1.7. Concerning Denition A.1.6(4), note that even though T
lim
could
be empty, it does satisfy requirements of A.1.6(1) (so
lim(
T ) is indeed a standard
(w,
tree). Also, if the sequence

T is continuous (and T
s are not empty),

then T
lim
,= .
Proposition A.1.8. Assume that

Q = P
i
, Q
i
: i < ) is a support iteration
such that for all i < we have
Pi
Q
i
is strategically (<)complete .
Suppose that p = p
t
: t T) is a standard tree of conditions in

Q, [T[ < , and
1 P
is open dense. Then there is a standard tree of conditions q = q

t
: t T)
such that p q and (t T)(rk(t) = q
t
1).
Proof. For and r P
, let st(, r) be a winning strategy of Complete in
0
(P
, , r) as in A.1.5(b). Let
T
max
def
= t T : (t
T)(t t
) = t
: <
(where < is a cardinal). We construct partial plays (p
i
, q
i
) : i ) of
0
(P
rk(pt
)
, , p
t
) (for < ) in which Complete uses strategy st(rk(p

t
), p
t
) and
such that
() if < and rk(p
t
) = , then p
1,
() if t t
, t t
, t T, , < , i ,
then p
i
rk(t) = p
i
rk(t) and q
i
rk(t) = q
i
rk(t).
So suppose we have dened p
j
, q
j
for < , j < i < . First we look at (p
i
j
, q
i
j
) :
j < i) it is a play of
0
(P
rk(pt
i
)
, , p
ti
) in which Complete uses st(rk(p
ti
), p
ti
), so
we may nd a condition p
i
i
P
rk(pt
i
)
stronger than all p
i
j
, q
i
j
for j < i, and such
that rk(p
ti
) = p
i
i
1. Next, for < , ,= i, we dene p
i
as follows. Let
t T be such that t t
, t t
i
and rk(t) is the largest possible. We declare that
Dom(p
i
) = (Dom(p
i
i
) rk(t))
_
j<i
Dom(q
j
) Dom(p
t
),
and p
i
rk(t) = p
i
i
rk(t), and for [rk(t), ) we have that p
i
() is the <
rst
P
name for a member of Q
such that
p
i

P
p
i
() is an upper bound to p
t
() q
j
() : j < i .
The denition of p
i
s is correct by A.1.5(b)(iii+ii). Also, by the choice of the
<
rst names and clause () at earlier stages we get clause () for p
i
s.
Finally we dene q
i
(for < ) as the condition given to Complete by st(rk(t
), p
t
)
in answer to (p
j
, q
j
) : j < i)
i
). (Again, one easily veries (), ().)
The conditions p
, q
are chosen in a similar manner except that we do not have

to worry about entering 1 anymore, so we may take p
0
to be any bound to the

previously dened conditions p
0
i
, q
0
i
, and other p
, q
are dened as earlier.

After the above construction is carried out, for t T we let
q
t
= p
rk(t) for some (equivalently: all) < such that t t
.
It should be clear that q = q
t
: t T) is as required.
Let us close this section with recalling an important result on easy ensuring
that support iteration satises the
++
cc. Its proof is a fairly straightforward
modication of the proof of the respective result for CS iterations; see [19, Ch. III,
Thm 4.1], Abraham [1, 2] for the CS case, Eisworth [6, 3] for the general case of
support iterations.
Theorem A.1.9. Assume 2
=
+
,
<
= . Let

Q = P
i
, Q
i
: i <
++
) be
support iteration such that for all i <
++
we have
P
i
is proper,

Pi
[Q
i
[
+
.
Then the limit P
++ satises the
++
cc.
A.2. Bounding properties
The results on preservation in CS iterations of properties like the Sacks property
and

bounding property were among the earliest in the theory of proper forcing.
Here we introduce relatives of these two properties for reals and we show suitable
iteration theorems. For both properties, the properness is built into the property.
Recall that ,
are assumed to be as specied in Context 0.3.

(1) For a condition p P and an ordinal i
0
< we dene a game
Sacks
(i
0
, p, P)
of two players, the Generic player and the Antigeneric player. A play lasts
moves indexed by ordinals from the interval [i
0
, ), and during it the
players construct a sequence (s
i
, q
i
, p
i
) : i
0
i < ) as follows. At stage
i of the play (where i
0
i < ), rst Generic chooses s
i

i+1
and a
system q
i
= q
i
: s
i

i+1
) such that
() s
i
is a complete tree of height i + 1, and
( s
i
)( s
i
)( & lh() = i + 1),
and lh(root(s
i
)) = i
0
,
() for all j such that i
0
j < i we have s
j
= s
i

j+1
,
() q
i
P for all s
i

i+1
, and
() if i
0
j < i, s
i

j+1
and s
i

i+1
, then p
j
q
i
and
p q
i
,
() [s
i

i+1
[ <
i
.
Then Antigeneric answers choosing a system p
i
= p
i
: s
i

i+1
) of
conditions in P such that q
i
p
i
for each s
i

i+1
.
The Generic player wins a play if she always has legal moves (so the play
really lasts steps) and there are a condition q p and a Pname
such
that
() q
P

&
_
i [i
0
,
_
)
_
(i + 1) s
i
& q
i
(i+1)

P
_
.
(2) We say that P has the strong

Sacks property whenever the Generic player
has a winning strategy in the game
Sacks
(i
0
, p, P) for any i
0
< and p P.
(3) We say that P has the

Sacks property if for every p P and a Pname
such that p
: V, there are a condition q p and a sequence a
:
< ) such that [a
[ <
(for < ) and q ( < )(
() a
) .
Remark A.2.2. (1) At a stage i < of a play of
Sacks
(i
0
, p, P), the Antigeneric
player may play stronger conditions, and using A.1.3 we may require that
if p
i
= p
i
: s
i

i+1
) is his move, then the conditions p
i
are pairwise
incompatible.Thus the winning criterion () could be replaced by
()
q
P

_
i [i
0
,
_
)
_
s
i

i+1
__
q
i

P
_

(thus eliminating the use of
). However, the branch along which the

conditions are from the generic lter will be new (so we cannot replace the
name
by an object

).
(2) Note that if Generic has a winning strategy in
Sacks
(0, p, P), then she

has one in
Sacks
(i
0
, p, P) for all i
0
< . (Remember: the sequence

is
increasing.) The reason why we have i
0
as a parameter is a notational
convenience.
(3) Plainly, if Generic has a winning strategy in
Sacks
(i
0
, p, P), then she has
one with the following property:
(
nice
) if s
i
, q
i
are given to Generic as a move at a stage i [i
0
, ), then for
every s
i

i
, the set < :
) s
i
is an initial segment of
i
and (j) = 0 for all j < i
0
.
Strategies satisfying the condition (
nice
) will be called nice.
(4) Easily, if P has the strong

Sacks property, then it is strategically (<)
complete and has the

Sacks property.
Theorem A.2.3. Suppose that

Q = P
, Q
: < ) is a support iteration such

that for all < :
P
Q
has the strong

Sacks property .
Then:
(a) P
has the

Sacks property.
(b) If N (H(), , <
), [N[ = ,
<
N N and

, , p,

Q, P
, . . . N,
p P
, then there is an (N, P
)generic condition r P
stronger than p.
Proof. (a) First note that each P
is strategically (<)complete (by A.1.5;

remember A.2.2(4)), so our assumptions on ,
hold in intermediate universes

V
P
.
For < and i
0
< and a P
name q
for a condition in Q
, let st

(i
0
, q
)
be the <
rst P
name for a nice (see A.2.2(3)) winning strategy of the Generic

player in the game
Sacks
(i
0
, q
, Q
).
Let
be a P
name for a function from to V, p P
. Pick a model N
(H(), , <
) such that
, ,
, p,

Q, P
, . . . N, and [N[ = and

<
N N.
Note that if i
0
< , N , and q
N is a P
, then
st

(i
0
, q
) N. Also, as

Q is a support iteration of (<)strategically complete
forcing notions, we may use A.1.5 inside N and for each N and r P
N
x a winning strategy st
(, r) N of Complete in the game
0
(P
, , r) so that
conditions (i)(iii) of A.1.5(b) hold true.
Fix a list

1 = 1
: < ) of all open dense subsets of P
from N and a one-to-

one mapping : N . For i < let w
i
=
1
[i] (thus w = w
i
: i < )
is an increasing continuous sequence of subsets of N , each of size < , and
i<
w
i
= N ).
By induction on i < we dene sequences T
i
: i < ) and p
i
, p
i
: i < is not
a limit ordinal ) such that the following requirements are satised.
() T
i
: i < ) is a continuous legal sequence of trees; T
i
N is a standard
(w
i
, i)
tree, [T
i+1
[ <
i
, and (t T
i
)(t
T
i
)(t t
& rk
i
(t
) = ).
() For i < and t T
i
such that rk
i
(t) < let
i
(t) = (s)
rki(t)
: t s T
i
.
Then (for each i, t as above) , =
i
(t)

j<i
j
and for each
i
(t) and
i
< (rk
i
(t)) we have (i
) = 0.
() If N , () < i < j < , t T
j
, rk
j
(t) = and t
= proj
wj,j
wi,i
(t) T
i
(so rk
i
(t
) = ), then
i
(t
) = i :
i
(t).
() T
0
= ), p
0
= p
0
), p
0
= p, and for i < , p

i+1
= p
i+1
t
: t T
i+1
)
and p
i+1
= p
i+1
,t
: t T
i+1
) are standard trees of conditions in

Q, both
belonging to N and such that p
i+1
p
i+1
.
() If i < j < , then p
i+1
wj+1,j+1
wi+1,i+1
p
j+1
.
() If t
i+1
T
i+1
(for i < ) are such that rk
i+1
(t
i+1
) = and t
i+1
=
proj
wj+1,j+1
wi+1,i+1
(t
j+1
) (for i < j), then p
i+1
,ti+1
, p
i+1
ti+1
: i < ) is a play of
the game
0
(P
, , p) in which Complete uses the strategy st
(, p).
() If t T
i+1
, rk
i+1
(t) = , then p
i+1
t
1
for all i and p

i+1
t
forces a
value to
(i).
() Assume that N, () = i
0
i and t T
i+1
is such that rk
i+1
(t) = .
Let, for j i, t
j
= proj
wi+1,i+1
wj,j
(t) and let r
be the <
rst P
name for a
member of Q
such that
if there is a common upper bound to p

j
tj
() : j i
0
is non-limit ,
then r
is such an upper bound, else r
= p() .
Furthermore, for i
0
j i and
j+1
(t
j+1
), x s
j+1
T
j+1
such that
rk
j+1
(s
j+1
) > and (s
j+1
= , t
j+1
s
j+1
, and put r
= p
j+1
s
j+1
().
Then the condition p
i+1
t
forces in P
the following:
there is a partial play s
j
, q
j
, r
j
: i
0
j i) of the game
Sacks
(i
0
, r
, Q
) in which the Generic player uses the strat-

egy st

(i
0
, r
) and, for i
0
j i,
s
j

j+1
=
j+1
(t
j+1
) and r
j
= r
: s
j

j+1
).
Let us describe how the construction of T
i
: i < ) and p
i+1
: i < ) is carried
out. We start with letting T
0
= ), p
0
= p (as in ()). Now suppose that we

have dened T
j
, p
j
for j < i < so that clauses ()() are satised. If i is a
limit ordinal, then we let T
i
=
lim(T
j
: j < i)) N ( p
i
, p
i
are not dened). It is

straightforward to verify conditions ()() (use the inductive hypothesis), clauses
()() are not relevant.
So suppose now that i is a successor ordinal, say i = i
0
+ 1. First we let
T
be a the largest standard (w

i
, i)
tree such that proj

wi,i
wi
0
,i0
(T
) = T
i0
, and if
t = (t)
: w
i
rk
(t)) T
, then (t)
(i
0
) <
i0
, and if () = i
0
, then
(t)
i
0
0. (Plainly T
N and [T
[ < .) Next, for each t T
we dene a
condition q
t
P
rk
(t)
N and names
t
() for ordinals (for w
i
rk
(t)). For
this let us x t T
and let t
j
= proj
wi,i
wj,j
(t) T
j
for j < i. Put
Dom(q
t
) =
_
w
i

_
Dom(p
j
tj
) : j < i is not a limit
_
rk
(t),
and for Dom(q
t
) let q
t
() be a P
chosen as follows.
If Dom(q
t
) w
i
, then q
t
() is the <
rst P
name such that
if possible, then q
t
j
tj
() : j < i is non-limit .
If Dom(q
t
) w
i
, then
t
() N is a P
name for an element of

i
and q
t
() is
the <
rst P
name for a condition in Q
with the following property.

Let r
be the <
rst P
such that
if possible, then r
is an upper bound to p
j
tj
() : j () is non-limit ,
else r
= p() .
Now, suppose that G
is a generic lter over V and p

j+1
tj+1
G
for all j < i

0
,
and work in V[G
]. Then, by clause (), there is a partial play s

j
, q
j
, r
j
: ()
j < i
0
) of the game
Sacks
((), r
, Q
) in which Generic uses st

((), r
)
G
, and
s
j

j+1
=
j+1
(t
j+1
) and r
j
= r
j
: s
j

j+1
), where r
j
=
_
p
j+1
s
j+1
()
_
G
for s
j+1
T
j+1
such that t
j+1
s
j+1
, (s
j+1
= and rk
j+1
(s
j+1
) = . So we
may look at the answer s
i0
, q
i0
= q
i0
: s
i0

i0+1
) to this play according to
the strategy st

((), r
)
G
. Then, q
t
()
G
is a condition stronger than all r

j
(tj+1)
for j < i
0
, and such that
if (t
i
)
s
i0
, then q
t
()
G
= q
i0
(ti)
.
Also,
t
() = <
i
: (t
i0
)
) s
i0
.
[If () = i
0
, then we do not have the partial play we started with - the game just
begins and we look at the rst move of Generic, requiring that q
t
()
G
is stronger
than r
and if (t
i
)
s
i0
then q
t
()
G
= q
i0
(ti)
.]
This nishes the denition of q = q
t
: t T
). One easily checks that q N

is a tree of conditions (remember the choice of the <
rst names) . Also, by

induction on Dom(q
t
), one veries that p
j
wi,i
wj,j
q for all non-limit j i
0
.
(Note that if () = i
0
, t T
, and rk
(t) > , then in the inductive process we

know that by clause ()
q
t

P
there is a common upper bound to p

j
tj
() : j () is non-limit
and thus q
t
forces that the respective condition r
is stronger than all p

j
tj
() (for
non-limit j ()).)
Next, we use A.1.8 to pick a standard tree of conditions p
= p
t
: t T
) N
such that q p
and for each t T
with rk
(t) = the condition p
t
decides the
values of all names
() for t
, w
i
rk(t
) and the value of
(i
0
) (and
let p
(i
0
) =
t
i0
), and such that p
t
1
for all i
0
. For t T
with
rk
(t) = and for w

i
let
t
() be the value forced to
t
() by p
t
. Since
t
()
is a P
name, we have that

t
0
t
1
T
& rk
(t
1
) = & w
i
rk
(t
0
) p
t0

t0
() =
t1
().
So we may naturally dene
t
() also for t T
with rk(t) < . Now we let

T
i
= T
i0+1
= t T
: ( w
i
rk
(t))((t)
(i
0
) <
t
()
and p
i
,t
= p
t
for t T
i
(thus dening p
i
). Plainly, T
i
N is a standard (w
i
, i)
tree satisfying ()(), p

i
N. Finally, using the properties of the strategies st

stated in A.1.5(b) (and the clause () from earlier stages) we may pick a standard
tree of conditions p
i
= p
i
t
: t T
i
) such that p
p
i
and
if t T
i
, rk
i
(t) = , t
j
= proj
wi,i
wj,j
(t) for non-limit j i,
then p
j+1
tj+1
: j < i) is a sequence of answers of Complete in some partial play of
0
(P
, , p) in which she uses the winning strategy st
(, p).
Now one easily veries that T
i
, p
i
, p
i
satisfy requirements ()(), thus the con-

struction is complete.
Let T
lim(T
j
: j < )). We will consider this standard (N , )
tree in
universes V
P
(for ), so let us note that forcings P
may add new branches in

T
. But if (in V
P
) t T
and i < , then

t[i
def
= (t)
i : w
i
rk
(t)) = proj
N,
wi,i
(t) V.
Also if i < is limit, then the equality T
i
=
lim(T
j
: j < i)) holds in V
P
as well.
We are going to dene a condition r P
such that Dom(r) = N and the

names r() are dened by induction on N. For N we will also choose
P
+1
names t
for functions in

, and we will put t
= t
: < & N).

The construction will be carried out so that (for each N ( + 1)):
(i)
r
P
t
,
(ii)
r
P
(i < )
_
(p
i+1
t
|i+1
)
P
_
.
Arriving at a limit stage N ( + 1), we have dened r and t
, and
we should only check that conditions (i)
, (ii)
hold (assuming (i)
, (ii)
hold for
< , N).
RE: (i)
: T
is a standard tree, so every chain in T
has a bound. Now, the

rst condition follows immediately from the inductive hypothesis.
RE: (ii)
: Suppose that G
is generic over V and r G
. Let i < and

for let t
i
= (t
[i)
GP
T
i
. Then, by (ii)
, we know that p
i+1
t
i+1
G
(for each N). But p

i+1
t
i+1
= p
i+1
t
i+1
(as t
i+1
t
i+1
), so remembering that
p
i+1
t
i+1
N we conclude p
i+1
t
i+1
G
.
Now suppose that we arrived at stage + 1 N ( + 1) and we have dened
r, t
so that (i)
+ (ii)
hold. Let G
be generic over V, r G
.
For i < let t
i
= (t
[i)
G
T
i
(remember (i)
). Plainly, t
j
= proj
wi,i
wj,j
(t
i
) for
j < i < . By (ii)
we get p
i+1
t
i+1
G
for all i < .

()
Let i
0
= () and let r
be the <
rst P
name for an element of Q
such
that (r
V, of course, and)
P
if there is a common upper bound to p
j
t
j
() : j i
0
is non-limit
then r
is such an upper bound, else r
= p() .
(Note: for each j
< the sequence t
j
: j < j
) belongs to the ground model V,

and even to N.)
Fix j
< , j
> i
0
for a moment. In V, for each i [i
0
, j
] and
i+1
(t
i+1
)
let us choose s
i+1
T
i+1
such that t
i+1
s
i+1
, (s
i+1
= . Now work in V[G
].
Since p
j
+1
t
+1
G
, we may use clause () of the construction to claim that there is

a partial play
j
= s
i
, q
i
, r
i
: i
0
i j
) of the game
Sacks
(i
0
, r
G
, (Q
)
G
) in
which Generic uses st

(i
0
, r
G
) and s
i
i+1
=
i+1
(t
i+1
) and r
i
= (p
i+1
s
i+1
())
G
:
s
i

i+1
).
It should be clear that (in V[G
])
j
for i
0
< j
< j
< , so we have
a play =
i0<j
<

j
= s
i
, q
i
, r
i
: i
0
i < ) of the game
Sacks
(i
0
, r
G
, (Q
)
G
)
with the respective properties. This play is won by Generic, so there are a condition
q (Q
)
G
and a (Q
)
G
name
for a member of

such that q r
G
and
() q
(Q
)
G (i [i
0
, ))(
(i+1)
i+1
(t
i+1
) &p
i+1
s
i+1
(i+1)
()
G

(Q
)
G ) .
Let r(), t
be names for the q,
as above (i.e., r() is a P
name of a member of
Q
and t
is a P
+1
name of a member of

and r forces that they have the
property stated in ()). It follows from our choices that (i)
+1
+ (ii)
+1
hold true,
nishing the inductive construction of r P
and t
s.
For < let a
=
t
: t T
+1
& rk
+1
(t) = (remember:
t
is the value
forced to
() by p
+1
t
). Plainly, [a
[ <
for each < .

The proof of the iteration theorem will be complete once we show the following
claim.
Claim A.2.3.1. The condition r P
(dened earlier) is stronger than p, it is

(N, P
)generic and r
P
( < )(
() a
) .
Proof of the Claim. First, by induction on N ( + 1) we are showing that
p r. There is nothing to do at limit stages, so let us deal with non-limit
ones. Assume we have shown p r.
Suppose that G
is generic over V, r G
. Let t
j
= (t
[j)
G
T
j
, and
let i
0
, r
be dened as in ()
. Since, by (ii)
, p
j
t
j
G
(for non-limit j i
0
)
and by the clause () of the construction, we get
V[G
] [= there is a common upper bound to p

j
t
j
()
G
: j i
0
is non-limit ,
and thus
V[G
] [= (j < i
0
)(p
j+1
t
j+1
()
G
r
G
) .
By the choice of r() we have r()
G
r
G
p()
G
.
Hence r p() r(), as needed.
Now, let G P
be generic over V, r G. For i < let t

i
= (t
[i)
G
T
i
.
By (ii)
we know that p
i+1
ti+1
G. By clause () we have p
i+1
ti+1
1
i
and (by the
denition of a
i
) p
i+1
ti+1

a
i
. The former implies that G intersects 1 N for each
open dense subset of P
from N, the latter gives
G
(i) a
i
.
(b) Included in the proof of (a).
(1) For a condition p P and an ordinal i
0
< we dene a game
bd
(i
0
, p, P)
like
Sacks
(i
0
, p, P), but demand A.2.1(1()) is replaced by
()
[s
i

i+1
[ < .
(2) P has the strong bounding property if Generic has a winning strategy in
the game
bd
(i
0
, p, P) for every i
0
< , p P.
(3) P has the bounding property if for every p P and a Pname
such that
p
V , there are a condition q p and a sequence a
: < )
such that [a
[ < (for < ) and q ( < )(
() a
) .
Remark A.2.5. (1) All the remarks stated in A.2.2 have their (obvious) paral-
lels for the bounding properties.
(2) Clearly, (strong)

Sacks property implies (strong, respectively) bounding
property.
Theorem A.2.6. Suppose that

Q = P
, Q
: < ) is a support iteration such

that for all < :
P
Q
has the strong bounding property .

Then:
(a) P
has the bounding property.

(b) If N (H(), , <
), [N[ = ,
<
N N and , p,

Q, P
, . . . N, p P
,
then there is an (N, P
)generic condition r P
stronger than p.
Proof. Basically the same as for A.2.3, just replacing each occurrence of
i
by .
A.3. Fuzzy properness over
A properness-type property preserved in support iterations, so called proper-
ness over semi-diamonds, was introduced in Roslanowski and Shelah [15]. That
property worked for any uncountable regular cardinal satisfying
<
= (not
necessarily strongly inaccessible), so because of the known ZFC limitations a num-
ber of natural forcing notions were not covered. For the context considered in this
paper we may do much better: fuzzy properness introduced in this section captures
more examples. Even though we do not prove a real preservation in support
iterations, our iteration theorem A.3.10 is satisfactory for most applications (see
sections B.4 and B.8 later).
In this section we x
, A, W and D such that

Context A.3.1. (1)
> is a regular cardinal, A H

<
(
), W [A]
, and
if a W, w [a]
<
, f : w a, then f a (hence also 0 a for a W),
(2) for every x H() there is a model N (H(), , <
) such that [N[ = ,

<
N N, x N and N A W,
(3) D is a normal lter on such that there is a Ddiamond (see A.3.2).
Denition A.3.2. (1) We say that

F = F
: S) is a Dpre-diamond
sequence if
S D
+
contains all successor ordinals below , S is unbounded in
, 0 / S, and
F

for all S.
(2) A convenient Ddiamond is a Dpre-diamond

F = F
: S) such that
(f

)( S : F
f D
+
).
Denition A.3.3. Let P be a forcing notion. A base for P over W is a pair
(R,

Y) such that
(a) R P A is a relation such that
if (p, , x) R and p
P
p
, then (p
, , x) R,
(b)

Y = Y
a
: a W) where, for each a W, Y
a
: [a]
<
,
(c) if q P, a W, and < is a limit ordinal,
then there are p
P
q and x Y
a
() such that (p, , x) R.
If R is understood and (p, , x) R, then we may say p obeys x at .
Denition A.3.4. Let P be a forcing notion and let (R,

Y) be a base for P
over W. Also let a model N (H(), , <
) be such that [N[ = ,

<
N N,
a
def
= N A W and , P, D, R N. Furthermore, let h : N be such that
the range Rng(h) of the function h includes P N and let

F = F
: S) be a
Dpre-diamond sequence.
(1) Let

1 = 1
: < ) N list all open dense subsets of P from N. A

sequence p = p
: < ) of conditions from PN of length is called
1exact if
( < )( < )(p
).
(2) We say that

F is a quasi Ddiamond sequence for (N, h, P) if for some
(equivalently: all) list

1 = 1
: < ) of all open dense subsets of P from

N, for every
P
increasing sequence p = p
: < ) P N such that

E
def
= < : p
: < ) is

1exact D
(equivalently: p is

1exact) we have
E : ( < )(h F
() = p
) D
+
.
(3) For a limit ordinal S we dene }() = }(N, P, h,

F, R,

Y, ) as the set
_
x Y
a
() : if h F
() : < ) is a
P
increasing sequence
of conditions from P,
then there is a condition p P such that
( < )(h F
()
P
p) and (p, , x) R
_
(4) Let

1 = 1
: < ) N list all open dense subsets of P from N. A

sequence q = q
,x
: S limit & x A
) N P is called a weak fuzzy

candidate over

F for (N, h, P, R,

Y,

1) whenever , = X
}() (for limit

S) and
() S : (x A
)(q
,x
1
) = S mod D for each < , and

() if S is a limit ordinal, x A
, and h F
() : < ) is a
P
increasing

1exact sequence of members of P N,
then ( < )(h F
()
P
q
,x
) and (q
,x
, , x) R.
If above X
= }() for each limit S, then q is called a fuzzy candidate

over

F for (N, h, P, R,

Y,

1).
Omitting

1 means for some

1.
(5) Let q = q
,x
: S limit & x A
) be a weak fuzzy candidate over

F for
(N, h, P, R,

Y,

1), and r P. We dene a game
fuzzy
(r, N,

1, h, P,

F, q) of
two players, the Generic player and the Antigeneric player, as follows. A
play lasts moves, in the i
th
move a condition r
i
P and a set C
i
D
are chosen such that (j < i)(r r
j
r
i
), and Generic chooses r
i
, C
i
if i S = Dom(

F), and Antigeneric chooses r
i
, C
i
if i / S. In the end
Generic wins the play if
() ( < )(i < )(p P N)(p 1
& p r
i
), and
() if S

i<
C
i
is a limit ordinal, hF
() : < ) is a
P
increasing
1exact sequence and ( < )(i < )(h F
() r
i
),
then for some x A
we have q
,x
r
.
(6) Let q be a weak fuzzy candidate over

F for (N, h, P, R,

Y,

1). We say that
a condition r P is (R,

Y)fuzzy generic for q (over (N,

1, h, P,

F)) if
Generic has a winning strategy in the game
fuzzy
(r, N,

1, h, P,

F, q).
Remark A.3.5. (1) For any two lists

1
1
,

1
2
of open dense subsets of P from N,
on a club E of we have
1
1
: < = 1
2
: <
for E. Thus the corresponding notions of exactness agree for E. As
the generic player can choose C
i
E, in A.3.4(4,5,6) we allow not mention
1 as a parameter.
(2) Plainly, every fuzzy candidate is a weak fuzzy candidate.
Denition A.3.6. Let P be a complete forcing notion.
(1) We say that P is fuzzy proper over quasi Ddiamonds for W whenever for
some base (R,

Y) for P over W and for some c H(),
() if N (H(), , <
), [N[ = ,
<
N N, , P, c, R N, and
a
def
= N A W, p P N,
h : N satises P N Rng(h), and

F is a quasi Ddiamond for (N, h, P) and q is a fuzzy candidate
over

F,
then there is r P stronger than p and such that r is (R,

Y)fuzzy generic
for q.
(We may call (R,

Y) and c witnesses for fuzzy properness.)
(2) P is strongly fuzzy proper over quasi Ddiamonds whenever for some base
(R,

()
+
if N (H(), , <
), [N[ = ,
<
a
def
= N A W, p P N,
h : N satises P N Rng(h),

F is a quasi Ddiamond for (N, h, P) and q is a weak fuzzy
candidate over

F,
then there is a condition r P stronger than p such that r is (R,

Y)fuzzy
generic for q.
(3) P is weakly fuzzy proper over quasi Ddiamonds whenever for some base
(R,

()
if N (H(), , <
), [N[ = ,
<
a
def
= N A W, p P N,
h : N satises P N Rng(h),
then for some quasi Ddiamond

F for (N, h, P) and a weak fuzzy candidate
q over

F, there is a condition r P stronger than p such that r is
(R,

Y)fuzzy generic for q.
(4) P is fuzzy proper for W if it is fuzzy proper over quasi D
diamonds for
every normal lter D
on (which has diamonds). Similarly for strongly

fuzzy and weakly fuzzy proper.
Remark A.3.7. Strong fuzzy properness is very close to properness over semi-
diamonds of Roslanowski and Shelah [15] and even closer to properness over dia-
monds introduced by Eisworth [6]. (Note that considering the condition A.3.6()
+
we may assume that the weak fuzzy candidate q = q
,x
: S is limit & x A
)
is such that [A
[ = 1 for each relevant , so one may treat it as q = q
:
S is limit ).) Thus fuzzy properness has a avour of a weaker property. However,
the dierences in technical details of the conditions introduced in this section and
those in [15] and/or [6] make it unclear if there are any implications between the
properness conditions in this section and those in the other two papers.
Proposition A.3.8. Let N, P, h,

1, R,

Y be as in A.3.4,

F = F
: S) be a
Dpre-diamond.
(1) If the forcing notion P is -complete, then there is a fuzzy candidate q over
F for (N, h, P, R,

Y,

1). In fact we can even demand:
(+) for every < , for every large enough S, q
,x
1
for all
x }().
(2) If r is (R,

Y)fuzzy generic for some weak fuzzy candidate q, then r is
(N, P)generic (in the standard sense).
(3) Assume that a condition r is (N, P)generic (in the standard sense),

F is a
quasi Ddiamond and q is a weak fuzzy candidate over (N,

1, h, P,

F). Sup-
pose that Generic has a strategy in the game
fuzzy
(r, N,

1, h, P,

F, q) which
guarantees that the result r
i
, C
i
: i < ) of the play satises A.3.4(5)().
Then she has a winning strategy in
fuzzy
(r, N,

1, h, P,

F, q) (i.e., one en-
suring () + () of A.3.4(5)).
(4) If P is fuzzy proper over quasi Ddiamonds, then it is weakly fuzzy proper
over quasi Ddiamonds. If P is strongly fuzzy proper over quasi Ddiamonds,
then it is fuzzy proper over quasi Ddiamonds.
(5) Assume that P is weakly fuzzy proper over quasi Ddiamonds, , Y
[]
, A
H(), W
[A
(Y, A
, W
V). Then:
(a) forcing with P does not collapse
+
,
(b) forcing with P preserves the following two properties:
(i) Y is a conal subset of []
(under inclusion),
(ii) for every x H() there is N (H(), , <
) such that [N[ =

,
<
N N, N A
(i.e., the stationarity of W
under
the relevant lter).
Proof. (1) Immediate (by the completeness of P; remember A.3.3(c) and that
R N; note that Y
a
() N).
(2) Remember that 0 / S, so in the game
fuzzy
(r, N,

1, h, P,

F, q) the condition
r
0
is chosen by Antigeneric. So if the conclusion fails, then for some Pname
N
for an ordinal we have r ,
N . Thus Antigeneric can choose r

0
r so that
r
0

=
0
for some ordinal
0
/ N, what guarantees him to win the play
(remember clause () of A.3.4(5)).
(3) The Generic player modies her original strategy as follows. During the play
she builds aside a
P
increasing sequence of conditions p
i
: i S) P N.
Arriving to stage i + 1, i S, she has two sequences: r
j
, C
j
: j i) (of the
play) and p
j
: j i S) such that p
j
r
j
. Now Generic picks p
i
P N such
that
(j i S)(p
j
p
i
) and ( < i)(p
i
1
),
and p
i
, r
i
are compatible (remember: we assumed that r is (N, P)generic). Next
she replaces r
i
by a common upper bound of p
i
and r
i
, pretending that that was
the condition played by her opponent, and then she plays according to her original
strategy. One easily veries that this is a winning strategy for the Generic player.
(4) Straightforward (remember that, by A.3.1(3), there is a quasi Ddiamond and
by A.3.8(1) there is a fuzzy candidate over it).
(5) Follows from (2).
Proposition A.3.9.
+
complete forcing notions are strongly fuzzy proper for W.
Proof. This is essentially a variant of [15, 2.5], but since we did not give the proof
there, we will present it fully here.
So suppose that a forcing notion P is
+
complete. Let R
tr
= R
tr
(P) be the
trivial relation consisting of all triples (p, , 0) such that p P and < and let
Y
tr
be such that Y
tr
a
() = 0 (for each < , a W). Assume now that
N (H(), , <
), [N[ = ,
<
N N, , P N, and a
def
= N A W,
p P N, and h : N satises P N Rng(h),

F = F
: S) is a quasi Ddiamond for (N, h, P) and q is a weak fuzzy

candidate over

F. Since Y
tr
a
() has a one member only we may think of q
as a sequence q
: S is limit ).
Let

1 = 1
: < ) list all open dense subsets of P from N.

We are going to build a condition r P stronger than p which is (R
tr
,

Y
tr
)fuzzy
generic for q. For this we inductively build a
P
increasing sequence r
i
: i < )
P N such that
r
0
= p, r
i+1

i
1
,
if there is an upper bound to r
j
: j < i q
i
, then r
i
is such an upper
bound.
Then we pick any upper bound r to the sequence r
i
: i < ) (remember: P is
+
complete). Now we want to argue that Generic has a winning strategy in the game
fuzzy
(r, N,

1, h, P,

F, q). Since r is (N, P)generic it is enough to give a strategy
for the Generic player which ensures that the result of the play satises A.3.4(5)()
(by A.3.8(3)). To this end note that there is a club E
0
of such that
every member of E
0
is a limit of ordinals from S,
for every E
0
and i < ,
q P : q r
i
or q, r
i
are incompatible 1
: < ,
Let Generic play so that arriving to a stage S of the play she puts the <
rst
upper bound to the conditions played so far and E
0
. Why does this strategy work?
Let r
i
, C
i
: i < ) be the result of the play in which Generic plays as described
above and let S

i<
C
i
be a limit ordinal such that h F
() : < ) is a
P
increasing

1exact sequence and
( < )(i < )(h F
() r
i
).
Then no r
i
, h F
() (for i, < ) can be incompatible, so (since E

0
and
h F
() : < ) is

1exact) we have also
(i < )( < )(r
i
h F
()),
and hence q
is stronger than all r
i
(for i < ). Therefore q
.
Theorem A.3.10. Let A, W, D be as in A.3.1 and let

Q = P
, Q
: <
)
be a support iteration of complete forcing notions, and assume that
A.
Suppose also that for each <
we have

Y
and P
names R

, c
such that
is fuzzy proper over quasi Ddiamonds for W

with witnesses (R

,

Y
) and c
.
Then P
= lim(
Q) is weakly fuzzy proper over quasi Ddiamonds.

Proof. By A.1.4, the forcing notion P
is complete, so we have to concentrate on

showing clause A.3.6(3)(()
) for it. The proof, though not presented as such, is by

induction on
. However, the inductive hypothesis is used only to be able to claim

that A, W, D are as in A.3.1 when considered in the intermediate universes V
P
(for
<
) remember A.3.8(5). Thus our assumptions on Q
s are meaningful.
Let us x a convenient Ddiamond sequence

F
= F
: S) (so in particular,
S D
+
contains all successors, S is unbounded in and 0 / S). Put
E
0
def
= < : is a limit of points from S , E
1
def
= ( S) E
0
.
Plainly, E
0
, E
1
are clubs of . Let i
: < ) be the increasing enumeration of

E
1
and E
2
= E
0
< : i
= (So E
2
is a club of too).
For each a W x a one-to-one mapping
a
: a
such that
a
(0) = 0
(say,
a
is the <
rst such function), and for < let w

a
= (
a
)
1
[i
] (so
a
<
w
a
).
For
let R
[]
consist of all triples (p, , x) P
A such that for some

non-empty w [ A]
<
we have
x = x
: w) and ( w)(p
P
(p(), , x
) R

).
Next, for
, a W and < we put

Y
[]
a
() =
a
() : w
a
,
thus dening Y
[]
a
and

Y
[]
= Y
[]
a
: a W). If =
we will omit it (so then we

write R and

Y).
Claim A.3.10.1. For each
, (R
[]
,

Y
[]
) is a base for P
over W.
Proof of the Claim. Immediately by the denition of R
[]
,

Y
[]
we see that clauses
(a), (b) of A.3.3 hold (note: Y
[]
a
() a by A.3.1(1)). Now, to verify A.3.3(c),
suppose q P
, a W and < is limit. For each w

a
let p
(), x
be
P
names such that

q
P
p
() q() & x
a
() & (p
(), , x
) R

,
and for Dom(q) w
a
let p
() = q(). This denes a condition p
stronger
than q (and names x
). Since P
is complete we may nd a condition p p
and
x
a
() (for w
a
) such that p
P
x
= x
(for w
a
). Then,
by A.3.3(a), we have p
P
(p(), , x
) R

(for each w
a
), and hence
(p, , x
: w
a
)) R
[]
.
Our aim now is to show that P
is weakly fuzzy proper with witnesses (R,

Y)
and c = (c
: <
), R

: <
), R,

Y, S, D,

F
,

Q). So suppose that a model
N (H(), , <
) satises
[N[ = ,
<
N N, , P
, c N, a
def
= N A W,
and p P
N, and h : N is such that P
N Rng(h). To simplify the

notation later, let =
a
, w
= w
a
(for < ).
Let us x a list

1 = 1
: < ) of all open dense subsets of P
from N.
For (
+ 1) N, let

1
[]
= 1
[]
: < ), where 1
[]
= p : p 1
.
(Note that

1
[]
lists all open dense subsets of P
from N.) Also for
N let
= p P
: p p() ,=
(so
is an open dense subset of P
from N)
and let E
3
= E
2
: ( w
)( < )(
= 1
). Clearly, E
3
is a club of .
Now, using the diamond

F
xed earlier, we are going to dene the quasi D

diamond sequence

F (and then a weak fuzzy candidate q over it) that will be as
required by ()
of A.3.6(3). So, for each S we let

Z() =
_
(
+ 1) 0 : (h F
() : < ) is a
P
increasing
1
[]
exact sequence of members of N P
_
and if Z() ,= then we put () = sup(Z()). Note that Z() N and thus
() N (when dened). Now, the prediamond

F = F
: S) is picked so
that for a limit S:
()
1
if Z() ,= , then h F
() =
_
h F
()
_
() for all < ;
()
2
if Z() = , then h F
() =
P
for all < .

Then easily

F is a quasi Ddiamond for (N, h, P
) and for each limit S,

h F
() : < ) is a
P
increasing sequence of conditions from P
N.
Just for notational simplicity, we will identify a sequence =
0
) with its (only)
term
0
. Thus below, when we talk about a standard (w, 1)
tree T , we think of
T as a set of sequences t = (t)
: w rk(t)) where (t)
s do not have to be
sequences.
Now we are going to dene sequences p = p
i
: i < ) P
N, T
:
S is limit ), and q
,t
: S is limit & t T
) P
N such that for a limit

ordinal S:
(i) T
= (T
, rk
) is a standard (w
, 1)
tree, and (under the identication

mentioned earlier) t T
: rk
(t) = Y
[]
a
() for w
,
(ii) q
,t
: t T
) is a standard tree of conditions in

Q,
(iii) p p
i
p
j
for i < j < ,
(iv) if j < , then w
j
Dom(p
j
) and ( w
j
)(j
> j)(p
j
() = p
j
()),
(v) if t T
, rk
(t) = , then q
,t
P
N is such that
(a)
_

<
Dom(h F
())

i<
Dom(p
i
)
_
Dom(q
,t
),
(b) ( < )
_
(h F
)() q
,t
_
, and
(c) if Dom(q
,t
) w
, then
q
,t
if the set p
i
() : i <
_
h F
()
_
() : <
has an upper bound in Q
,
then q
,t
() is such an upper bound ,
(d) if Dom(q
,t
) w
, then
q
,t
if the set p
i
() : i <
_
h F
()
_
() : <
has an upper bound which obeys (t)
at ,
then q
,t
() is such an upper bound,
else q
,t
() is an upper bound of
_
h F
()
_
() : <
which obeys (t)
at ,
(e) q
,t

<
1
[]
,
(vi) if t T
, = rk
(t) <
is the successor of in w
and t
, t
are such that rk
(t) = rk
(t
) =
, t t
, t t
and t
,= t
,
then
q
,t

P
the conditions q
,t
() and q
,t
() are incompatible ,
(vii) if t T
and Dom(q
,t
) w
, then Dom(p
) and
p
if q
,t

P
and p
i
() : i < q
,t
() has an upper bound in Q
,
then p
() is such an upper bound ,

(viii) if t T
, rk
(t) = <
, x Y
a
() and
q
,t
,
P
there is no condition stronger than all

(h F
())() for < which obeys x at ,

then there is t
such that t t
and (t
= x.
Assume < and we have dened p
i
, T
i
, q
i,t
for relevant i < and t. If is not a
limit ordinal from S, then only p
N needs to be dened, and clauses (iii),

(iv) can be easily taken care of. So suppose that S is limit.
First we let T
be a standard (w
, 1)
tree such that t T
: rk
(t) = =
Y
[]
a
() (for w
). For t T
we dene a condition r
t
P
rk
(t)
so that
Dom(r
t
) =
_
_
<
Dom(h F
())
_
i<
Dom(p
i
) w
_
rk
(t),
and for each Dom(r
t
), r
t
() is the <
rst P
such
that:
if w
, then
r
t

P
if the family p
i
() : i <
_
h F
()
_
() : <
has an upper bound which obeys (t)
at ,
then r
t
if the previous is impossible, but there is an upper bound of
_
h F
()
_
() : < which obeys (t)
at
then r
t
if neither from the previous two possibilities holds,
then r
t
() is an upper bound of
_
h F
()
_
() : < ,
and if / w
, then
r
t

P
if the family p
i
() : i <
_
h F
()
_
() : <
has an upper bound, then r
t
if this is not possible, then r
t
() is just an upper bound of
_
h F
()
_
() : < .
Plainly, [T
[ < and r = r
t
: t T
) is a standard tree of conditions, and it

belongs to N (remember:
<
N N). So using A.1.8 in N we may pick a standard
tree of conditions r
= r
t
: t T
) N such that r r
and for each t T
and
w
rk
(t) the condition r
t
decides the truth value of the sentence
r
t
() obeys (t)
at (with respect to R

)
(remember the choice of r
t
() for w
and A.3.3(a)). Put

T
=
_
t T
: for each w
rk
(t), r
t

P
t
() obeys (t)
at
_
,
and notice that T
N is a standard (w
, 1)
tree. Note also that for each t T
there is t
such that t t
and rk
(t
) =
. Finally, using A.1.3 and next

A.1.8 in N we may choose a standard tree of conditions q
,t
: t T
) N which
satises clauses (vi) and (v)(e) and such that r
t
q
,t
(for t T
). It should be
clear that then T
and q
,t
: t T
) satisfy all the relevant demands from our list

((i)(viii)). Now nding a condition p
N which satises (iii)+(iv)+(vii) is

straightforward. (Note that, by (vi), if t
, t
, Dom(q
,t
) Dom(q
,t
), /
w
and the conditions q

,t
, q
,t
are compatible, then q
,t
(+1) = q
,t
(+1).)
For a limit ordinal S and N (
+ 1) we let
A
[]
= t : t T
& rk
(t) =
;
if s A
[]
, then q
[]
,s
= q
,t
for some (equivalently: all) t T
such that
s t and rk
(t) =
;
q
[]
= q
[]
,s
: S is limit & s A
[]
);
h
[]
: N is such that h
[]
() = (h()) provided h() is a function,
and h
[]
() =
P
otherwise.
Plainly, , = A
[]
Y
[]
a
() (remember (i)) and h
[]
: N is such that
P
N Rng(h
[]
). Moreover, one easily veries the following claim.
Claim A.3.10.2. Let N(
+1). Then

F is a quasi Ddiamond sequence for
(N, h
[]
, P
) and q
[]
is a weak fuzzy candidate over

F for (N, h
[]
, P
, R
[]
,

Y
[]
,

1
[]
).
We may write q, q
,t
, A
for q
[
]
, q
[
]
,t
, A
[
, respectively. Also note that, in the

context of our denitions, the functions h and h
[
]
behave the same, so we may
identify them. Of course, we are going to dene an (R,

Y)fuzzy generic condition
r P
for q over

F, but before that we have to introduce more notation used later
and prove some important facts.
For
N we dene a function h
and P
names S
, A
, 1
,

F
,

1
and q
so that:
h
: N is such that if h() is a function, Dom(h()) and

(h())() is a P
name then h
() = ((h())(), otherwise h
() =
;

P
= S : if is limit then > () & (s A

[]
)(q
[]
,s

P
);

P
if S
is limit, then A
= x Y
a
() : (t A
)(q
,t

& (t)
= x) ;

P
= q
,x
: S
is limit & x A
), where:

P
if S
is limit and x A
, then q
,x
= q
,t
() for some (equiva-
lently: all) t A
such that q
,t

P
and (t)
= x ;

P
= F
: S
);

P
= 1
: < ) , where:

P
= p() : p 1
& p
P
.
Naturally, we treat h
as a P
name for a function from to N[

P
]. Observe
that
P
N[
P
] Q
Rng(h
) , and
lists all open dense subsets of Q
from N[
P
] .
Claim A.3.10.3. Assume that N
and r P
is a (R
[]
,

Y
[]
)fuzzy generic
condition for q
[]
over (N,

1
[]
, h
[]
, P
,

F). Then
(1) r
P
D
+
,
(2) r
P
is a quasi Ddiamond for (N[

P
], h
, Q
) , and
(3) r
P
is a fuzzy candidate for (N[

P
], h
, Q
, R

,

Y
) over

F
.
Proof. (1) Will follow from (2).
(2) Assume that this fails. Then we can nd a condition r
, a P
name
q
= q
: < ) for an increasing sequence of conditions from Q
N[
P
], and
P
names A
, B

for members of D V such that r
P
and
r
(
<
A

)(q
: < ) is

1
exact ) and
( S

<
B

)(h
() : < ) , = q
) .
Consider a play r
j
, C
j
: j < ) of the game
fuzzy
(r, N,

1
[]
, h
[]
, P
,

F, q
[]
) in
which Generic uses her winning strategy and Antigeneric plays as follows.
Together with choosing r
j
(for j S), the Antigeneric player chooses also
side conditions p
j
N P
, sets A
, B
D and P
names q
N for elements of
Q
(for j) such that

r
j
r
(so r
0
r
; remember Antigeneric plays at 0), r

j
r
i
(for i < j),
and r
j
p
j
and
r
j

P
( j)(A

= A
& B

= B
& q
= q
) , and
if j
< j are from S, then p

j
p
j
, and p
j

<j
1
[]
, and
p
j

P
(
0
<
1
j)(q
0
q
1
) , and
if < j,

<
A
, then p
j
j
) 1
[+1]
for all < .

[The C
j
s are not that important for our argument, so we do not specify any re-
quirements on them. Regarding the choice of the p
j
s, remember A.3.8(2); for the
last two demands remember that q
j
s are (forced to be) increasing.] After the play,
the Antigeneric player completes p
j
: j S) to a
P
increasing sequence
p
j
: j < ) N P
letting p
j
= p
min(\S\(j+1))
for j S.
Note that if E
0
is a limit of elements of
<
A
, then the sequence p

j
j
) :
j < ) is

1
[+1]
exact and increasing (and p
j
: j < ) is

1
[]
exact). So, as D is
normal and A
, B
, C
j
D and

F is a quasi Ddiamond for (N, h
[+1]
, P
+1
) (by
A.3.10.2), we may nd an ordinal S E
0

<
A

<
B

j<
C
j
(() +1)
which is a limit of members of
<
A
and such that h

[+1]
F
(j) : j < ) =
p
j
j
) : j < ). By the choice of

F we know that h(F
(j)) is a condition in P
(so a function) and hence h
(F
(j)) = q
j
for all j < . Also
(i < )(j S)(h
[]
F
(i)
P
h
[]
F
(j) = p
j

P
r
j
).
Since the play is won by Generic, for some s A
[]
we have q
[]
,s
r
. But then
r

<
B

& h
() : < ) = q
,
a contradiction.
(3) Straightforward (remember the choice of q
,t
s, specically clauses (v)(b,d,e)
and (viii)).
Now we are going to dene an (R,

Y)fuzzy generic condition r P for q over
(N,

1, h, P
,

F) in the most natural way. Its domain is Dom(r) =
N and for
each
N
r r() p
()+1
() is an (R

,

Y
)fuzzy generic condition for q
over (N[
P
],

1
, h
, Q
,

F
) .
[So r p
i
for all i < .]
Claim A.3.10.4. For every (
+ 1) N, the Generic player has a winning

strategy in the game
fuzzy
(r , N,

1
[]
, h
[]
, P
,

F, q
[]
).
Proof of the Claim. We will prove the claim by induction on (
+1)N. After
we are done with stage (
+ 1) N, we know that r is (R
[]
,

Y
[]
)fuzzy
generic for q
[]
over (N,

1
[]
, h
[]
, P
,

F). For
N this implies that r() is

well-dened (remember A.3.10.3). Of course for =
we nish the proof of the

theorem.
Suppose that (
+ 1) N and we know that r
is (R
[
]
,

Y
[
]
)fuzzy
generic for q
[
]
over (N,

1
[
]
, h
[
]
, P
,

F) for all
N . We are going to dene

a winning strategy st for Generic in the game
fuzzy
(r, N,

1
[]
, h
[]
, P
,

F, q
[]
).
First, for N x a P
name st

such
r st

is a winning strategy of the Generic player
in the game
fuzzy
(r(), N[
P
],

1
, h
, Q
,

F
, q
) .
We will think of st

as a name for a function from <sequences of members of
Q
D (thought of as pairs of sequences of the same length < ) to Q
D such
that if (
,

C
) Dom(st

) and
has an upper bound, then the rst coordinate

of st
,

C
) is such an upper bound (and, of course, any play according to st

is
won by Generic). (In a play of
fuzzy
(r(), N[
P
],

1
, h
, Q
,

F
, q
) only the
values of st

at legal partial plays according to st

matter, but it is notationally
convenient to have st

giving values for all sequences of elements of Q
D, even if
rst coordinates are not increasing, as well as for sequences after which Antigeneric
should play.)
We will describe the strategy st by giving the answers of Generic on intervals S
[i
, i
+1
) (for < ), where, remember, i
: < ) is the increasing enumeration

of E
1
. Aside the Generic player will construct sequences r
j
() : j
< , N)
and C
j
() : j
, < , N) so that
()
1
r
j
() is a P
, C
j
() is a P
name for a member

of D V, and
()
2
if < , = min
_
S[i
, i
+1
)
_
, and w
+1
, then after the -th move
(which is a move of the Generic player) the terms r
j
(), C
j
() : < )
are dened for all j
< i
+1
, and
()
3
if < , w
+1
and p
is stronger than all r

j
for j (i
+1)S
(r
j
are the conditions played in the game), then
p
P
(j (i
+ 1) S)(r
j
() r
i
()) ,
()
4
if < , w
+1
and r
i+1
is the condition played by Generic at stage
i
+ 1 S, then
r
i+1

P
(j
< i
+1
)(r
j
() r
i+1
()) ,
()
5
for each N ,
r
P
r
j
(),
<
C
j
() : j < ) is a play of the game
fuzzy
(r(), N[
P
],

1
, h
, Q
,

F
, q
) in which Generic uses st

.
So suppose that < , = min
_
S [i
, i
+1
)
_
and r
j
, C
j
: j < ) is the result
of the play so far. Now Generic looks at ordinals w
+1
. She lets the P
names r
j
(), C
j
() be such that r
j
(),
<
C
j
() : j
< i
+1
) is forced by r
to be a play of
fuzzy
(r(), N[
P
],

1
, h
, Q
,

F
, q
) in which the moves are

determined as follows. If w
, then we have already the play below i
and the
names r
i
(), C
i
() are such that
if i
= (i.e., i
S and r
i
, C
i
have been chosen for i < i
only), then
r
P
(r
i
(),
<
C
i
()) is the value of st

applied to r
j
(),
<
C
j
() : j < i
),
if i
< (i.e., i
/ S so r
i
, C
i
are already chosen for i i
), then
r
P
if (j < i
)(r
j
() r
i
()) then r
i
() = r
i
()
otherwise r
i
() is the rst coordinate of st

applied to
the play so far, and C
i
() =
ji
C
j
for all < .
Then for j (i
, i
+1
) (and w
) the names r
j
(), C
j
() are determined by
applying successively st

, that is
r
P
(r
j
(),
<
C
j
()) is the value of st

applied to r
j
(),
<
C
j
() : j
< j).
If (w
+1
w
) , then the Generic player denes the names r
j
(), C
j
()
somewhat like above, but starting with subscript j = 0. Thus
if i
= , then
r
P
r
0
() is the rst coordinate of the value of st

at r
j
(),
i<i
C
i
: j
< i
)
and C
0
() =
i<i
C
i
for all < ,
if i
< , then
r
P
if (j < i
)(r
j
() r
i
()) then r
0
() = r
i
()
otherwise r
0
() is the rst coordinate of the value of st

at r
j
(),
i<i
C
i
: j < i
)
and C
0
() =
ji
C
j
for all < .
Lastly, for 0 < j < i
+1
(and (w
+1
w
) ) the names r
j
(), C
j
() are
determined by applying successively st

(like earlier).
This denes the names r
j
(), C
j
() for j < i
+1
, < and w
+1
. It
is straightforward to check that the requirements ()
1
()
3
and ()
5
restricted to
w
+1
(and with j < replaced by j < i
+1
) are satised.
Next, using the fact that P
is closed and ()
3
of the choice above, Generic
picks a condition r
such that
()
6
r
r
j
for every j < ,
()
7
r
j
() r
() for every j
< i
+1
and w
+1
,
()
8
r

<i+1
1
, and
()
9
for every j
, < i
+1
and w
+1
, the condition r
decides the value

of C
j
(), say r
j
() = C
j
() , where C
j
() D V.
If i
S (so = i
is a limit ordinal), then Generic picks a condition r

+
P
stronger than r
and such that for every t A

[]
and (w
) we have:
()
10
either the conditions r
+
and q
[]
,t
are incompatible, or q
[]
,t

P
r
+
,
()
11
if w
and q
[]
,t

P
r
+
, and s A
[]
is such that t = s, then

either r
+
q
[]
,s
(), r
+
() are incompatible or r
+
q
[]
,s
() r
+
().
If > i
(i.e., i
/ S) then Generic lets r

+
= r
. Finally, for every j [i
, i
+1
)S
she plays
r
j
= r
+
and C
j
= E
3

j
() : j
, < i
+1
, w
+1
.
Plainly, r
i+1
= r
+
satises clause ()
4
.
Why does the strategy described above work?
Suppose that r
j
, C
j
: j < ) is a play of the game (r , N,

1
[]
h
[]
, P
,

F, q
[]
) in
which the Generic player used this strategy and let r
j
() : j
< , N) and
C
j
() : j
, < , N) be the sequences she constructed aside.

First let us argue that condition A.3.4(5)() holds. We will show slightly more
than actually needed to help later with clause (). Below remember that ordinals
() were dened when we picked our quasi Ddiamond

F, and if < () then
the sequence h
[+1]
F
() : < ) is

1
[+1]
exact. Now, suppose that a limit
ordinal S

j<
C
j
(so in particular E
3
) is such that
()
() and ( < )(j < )(h

[]
F
() r
j
).
(So then ( < )(h
[]
F
() r
). Note also that by the choice of E

3
, if
h
[]
F
() : < ) is

1
[]
exact, then w
().)
We are going to choose t A
[]
and show that q

[]
,t
r
. We do this by induction
on ( +1) N, dening t T
and showing that q

,t
= q
,t
r
(and
for = we get the desired conclusion). Limit stages and the initial stage = 0 are
trivial, so assume that we have dened t and have shown q
,t
= q
,t
r
(where N), and let us consider the restrictions to + 1.

If / w
then t( +1) = t (so it has been already dened). Suppose also that
Dom(q
,t
) (otherwise there is nothing to do). Look at the clause (v)(c) of the
choice of q
,t
at the beginning: r
r p
(and ()
) implies that
r
q
,t
i
() : i < .
But then also by the clause (vii) there, r
q
,t
() p
() r
() , so we
are done.
Suppose now that w
(and thus < ()). Since E

3
, we know that
arriving to stage of the game, Generic has already dened r
j
(), C
j
() for j <
and < (remember ()
2
). Moreover, the condition r
forces that (remember:

h
[+1]
F
() : < ) is

1
[+1]
exact):
the sequence h
() : < ) is
Q
increasing

1
exact, and
r
j
(),
<
C
j
() : j < ) is a play according to st

(by ()
5
), and
S

j,<
C
j
() (remember ()
9
and the choice of C
i+1
for < ),
and hence also S

j<
<
C
j
(),
(j < )(j
< )(r
j
() r
j
()) and (j < )(j
< )(r
j
() r
j
()) (by
()
3
+ ()
4
), so also
( < )(j < )(h
()
Q
j
()).
Since st

is a name for a winning strategy, we may conclude that (by ()
7
)
r

P
(x A
)(q
,x
r
() r
()) .
Now look at ()
11
remembering clause (vi) of the choice of q: by them there is
a unique x Y
a
() such that letting (t)
= x we get t( + 1) T
satisfying
q
,t(+1)
( + 1) r
( + 1).
This completes the inductive proof of A.3.4(5)().
Why does A.3.4(5)() hold? To show this condition, it is enough to prove that
()
holds for unboundedly many S

<
C
j
(remember clause (v)(e) of the
choice of q
,t
s and what we have already shown). We do this considering various
characters of .
is a limit ordinal of conality cf() < .
Pick a closed set u such that u N, 0 u, otp(u) = cf() and sup(u) = . For
< let
u be such that = otp

_
u
_
mod cf(). Now, by induction on
< we choose conditions s
N P
such that
(a)
(j < )(s
r
j
),
(b)
N,
(c)
if < < , then s
) s
),
(d)

<
1
[]
.
So suppose that we have dened s
s for < . For < let

1
,
= s P
: either s
s,
or s
, s are incompatible .
Clearly 1
,
N is an open dense subset of P
. Since the condition r
is
(N, P
)generic and the increasing sequence r

j
: j < ) enters all open dense

subsets of P
from N (by ()
8
), we may nd s

<
1
,

j<
1
[]
j
such that
s
r
j
for all large enough j < . By (a)
(for < ) we conclude that s
and s
cannot be incompatible, and hence clauses (a)
(d)
are satised.
Now, let conditions s
N (for < ) be such that Dom(s
) =
Dom(s
)
and s
() (for Dom(s
)) is the <
rst P
satisfying
s

P
( < )(s
() s
()) and
if there is a [, ) such that ( < )(s
() s
())
then s
() = s
() for the rst such .

Then the sequence s
: < ) is
P
increasing and
( < )( <
)(s

P
s
() = s
() ).
So it follows from (d)
that for each u there is a club C
such that s
:
< ) is

1
[]
exact for all C
. Also, as clearly ( < )(j < )(s
r
j
), we
may pick a club C
of such that
( C
)( < )(j < )(s
r
j
).
Now, as

F
is a Ddiamond, for unboundedly many S

j<
C
j

u
C
we have s
: < ) = h F
() : < ). Plainly, dening F
for those we
had clause ()
1
with () and hence s
: < ) = h
[]
F
() : < ).
Therefore ()
holds for those (remember the choice of C
).
is a limit ordinal of conality .
Let
: < ) N be an increasing continuous sequence conal with N,
0
= 0. By induction on < choose conditions s
such that
(a)
(j < )(s
r
j
),
(b)
N,
(c)
if < < , then s
,
(d)

<
1
[]
.
[Possible as r
is (N, P
)generic and by ()
8
.] For each < , for some club
C
of we have
( C
)(s
: < ) is

1
[]
exact).
Also for a club C
of we have ( C
)(w
). Like before, as

F
is a Ddiamond, for unboundedly many S

j<
C
j

<
C
we have
s
: < ) = h F
() : < ). Plainly, for those we have () =
and also
s
: < ) = h
[]
F
() : < ), and thus ()
holds (remember clause (a)
).
is a successor ordinal.
Like before (remember that, letting =
+1, the condition r
is (N, P
)generic
and it forces that r(
) is (N[G
], Q
)generic).
Remark A.3.11. In A.3.1 we may have

S = S
a
: a W) and

D = D
a
: a W) be
such that each D
a
is a normal lter on , S
a
D
+
a
satises the relevant demands
of A.3.2(1), and require that there is a D
a
diamond F
a
: S
a
). Then in all
denitions and results we may replace D, S by D
a
, S
a
, where a = N A. In
particular, this way we get the notions of fuzzy properness over quasi

Ddiamonds
which behave nicely in iterations.
Part B
Building suitably proper forcing notions
B.4. A creaturefree example
In this section we show that a natural forcing notion uniformizing colourings on
ladder systems is fuzzy proper. (This forcing is a relative of Q
from [15, 4.64.8].)

Here we assume that:
Context B.4.1. (1)
> is a regular cardinal, A = H

<
(
) and W [A]
is as in A.3.1, and a for each a W,

(2)
< , S
def
= <
+
: cf() = and for S
:
() B
is a club of of order type otp(B
) = ,
() h
: B
.
Let

B = B
: S
),

h = h
: S
).
The forcing notion Q
= Q
(S
,

B,
h) is dened as follows:
a condition in Q
is a tuple p = (u
p
, v
p
, e
p
, h
p
) such that
(a) u
p
[
+
]
<
, v
p
[S
]
<
,
(b) e
p
= e
p
: v
p
), where each e
p
is a closed bounded subset of B
, and
e
p
u
p
, and
(c) sup(e
p
) = sup(u
p
) (for v
p
), and if
1
<
2
are from v
p
, then
sup(e
p
2
) >
1
and sup(e
p
1
) > sup(B
2

1
),
(d) h
p
: u
p

is such that
( v
p
)( e
p
)(h
p
() = h
());
the order of Q
is such that p q if and only if u

p
u
q
, h
p
h
q
, v
p
v
q
,
and for each v
p
the set e
q
is an end-extension of e
p
.
A tuple p = (u
p
, v
p
, e
p
, h
p
) satisfying clauses (a), (b) and (d) above will be called
a pre-condition. Note that every pre-condition can be extended to a condition in
Q
.
Proposition B.4.2. (1) The forcing notion Q
is complete, it satises the
+
chain condition and [Q
[ =
+
.
(2) If p Q
, <
+
, S
and < , then there is a condition q p such

that
u
q
, v
q
and (
v
q
)(otp(e
q
) > ).
Proof. (1) Verication of the chain condition is a straightforward application of
the lemma. To check that Q
is complete suppose that p

i
: i < j) is a
Q
increasing sequence of conditions from Q
, j < . Let r = (u
r
, v
r
, e
r
, h
r
) be such
that
v
r
=
i<j
v
pi
, and for v
r
e
r
e
pi
: v
pi
& i < j sup
_
e
pi
: v
pi
& i < j
_
u
r
=
i<j
u
pi
e
r
: v
r
h
r

i<j
h
pi
,
and if e
r
e
pi
: v
pi
, i < j, then h
r
() = h
(). Using clause (c) for

p
i
s one easily sees that r is a pre-condition. Extend it to a condition q Q
.
(2) Should be clear.
Proposition B.4.3. Q
is fuzzy proper for W.

Proof. Suppose that D is a normal lter on such that there is a Ddiamond. We
will show that Q
is fuzzy proper over quasi Ddiamonds. First we dene a base

(R
,

Y
) for Q
over W. We let R
be the set of all triples (p, , x) such that p Q
,
and x is a function with Dom(x) u
p
and ( Dom(x))(h
p
() = x()).
Now suppose that a W and let
a
be the <
rst one-to-one mapping from

a
+
to . For a limit ordinal < we put
x
0
= (
a
)
1
[] <
+
: = sup
_
(
a
)
1
[]
_
,
and then
Y
a
() = x : x is a function from x
0
a to
.
This denes Y
a
and

Y
= Y
a
: a W). It is easy to check that (R
,

Y
) is a
base for Q
(for A.3.3(c) use repeatedly B.4.2). Assume now that

N (H(), , <
), [N[ = ,
<
N N, , Q
,

B,
h, S
, R
N, and
a
def
= N A W, p Q
N,

1 = 1
: < ) lists all open dense subsets of Q
from N,
h : N satises Q
N Rng(h), and

F = F
: S) is a quasi Ddiamond for (N, h, Q
) and q is a fuzzy
candidate over

F.
For limit S let }() = }(N, Q
, h,

F, R
,

Y
, ) be as dened in A.3.4(3) (and

thus q = q
,x
: S is limit & x }())). Also let E
0
be the set of all <
which are limits of members of S (so it is a club of ).
We are going to show that the condition p is (R
,

Y
)fuzzy generic for q. Note

that, as Q
satises the
+
cc, the condition p is (N, Q
)generic (in the standard

sense). So, by A.3.8(3), it is enough to give a strategy of the Generic player in the
game
fuzzy
(p, N,

1, h, Q
,

F, q) which guarantees that the result r
i
, C
i
: i < ) of
the play satises A.3.4(5)().
Suppose that we arrive to a stage S and r
i
, C
i
: i < ) is the sequence
played so far. First, Generic picks the <
rst condition r
stronger than all r

i
s
played so far and such that
if is limit and
_
x }()
__
r Q
__
q
,x
r & (i < )(r
i
r)
_
,
then q
,x
r
for some x }().

Then she plays the <
rst condition r
above r
such that
()
1
if v
r
, then otp(e
r
) > , and
()
2
(
a
)
1
[] u
r
and (
a
)
1
[] S
v
r
.
The set C
played at this stage is (, ) E

0
, where is the rst ordinal such that
()
3

a
[u
r
N] , and the set

q Q
: (
a
)
1
[] u
q
& (
a
)
1
[] S
v
q
& ( v
q
)(otp(e
q
) > )
(which is an open dense subset of Q
from N; remember B.4.2) is in 1
:
< ,
()
4
otp(B
(sup(e
r
) + 1)) < for all v

r
,
()
5
if v
r
and a(sup(e
r
)+1) ,= , then there is a(sup(e

r
)+1)
with
a
() < .
Why does this strategy work (i.e., why does it ensure A.3.4(5)())?
Let r
i
, C
i
: i < ) be a play according to this strategy, and suppose that
S
i<
C
i
is a limit ordinal such that h F
() : < ) is a
Q
increasing

1
exact sequence of conditions fromQ
N such that ( < )(i < )(hF
() r
i
).
Note that then
()
6
if
i<
v
ri
, then otp(
i<
e
ri
) = and
i<
e
ri
is an unbounded subset of
B
: otp( B
) < , and
()
7
i<
u
ri
N = (
a
)
1
[] =
<
u
hF
()
and
i<
v
ri
N = (
a
)
1
[] S
<
v
hF
()
,
()
8
if (
a
)
1
[] S
, then
_
e
hF
()
: < & v
hF
()
=
_
e
ri
: i < & v
ri
.
We want to show that
() for some x }(), there is a common upper bound to r
i
: i < q
,x
(which, by the denition of our strategy, will nish the proof). For S
let
be such that otp(B
) = . Now, let a pre-condition r
= (u
r
, v
r
, e
r
, h
r
)
be such that
v
r
i<
v
ri
, u
r
i<
u
ri

: v
r
,
e
r
e
ri
: i < & v
ri

(for v
r
), and
h
r
: u
r
is such that
i<
h
ri
h
r
and h
r
) = h
).
One easily veries that the above conditions indeed dene a pre-condition (remem-
ber ()
6
). Also, note that if v
r
, then
e
r

e
ri
: i < & v
ri
and each e
ri
is a proper subset of
e
ri
: i < & v
ri
. Moreover, if v
r
and
N, then
= sup(u
r
) = sup((
a
)
1
[]
) (by ()
5
+ ()
2
;
remember also ()
7
). Now, extend r
to a pre-condition r
such that u
r
= u
r
0
,
v
r
= v
r
and e
r
= e
r
for v
r
(clearly possible). Let x = h

r
0
(note that
x
0
a). Since r
is stronger than all h F
() (for < ), any condition stronger

than r
witnesses that x }(). Now we put

u
= u
q
,x
u
r
, v
= v
q
,x
v
r
, h
= h
q
,x
h
r
,
if v
q
,x
, then e
= e
q
,x
, and if v
r
N, then e
= e
r
.
Note that h
is a function from u
to
by ()
7
(remember the choice of x and
that q
,x
N is stronger than all h F
()s). Also, if v
r
N then ( v
q
,x
and) e
q
,x
is an end-extension of e
r
(remember ()
7
+ ()
8
). Hence (u
, v
, e
, h
)
is a pre-condition stronger than both q
,x
and r
. Extending it to a condition in
Q
we conclude (), thus completing the proof of B.4.3.

Corollary B.4.4. Assume that is a strongly inaccessible cardinal, 2
=
+
,
2
+
=
++
and D is a normal lter on such that there is a Ddiamond. Then
there is a forcing notion P such that:
P is complete weakly fuzzy proper over quasi Ddiamonds for W and it
satises the
++
cc,
in V
P
, 2
= 2
+
=
++
and for every
, S
,

B,
h as in B.4.1(2) there is
h :
++

such that for every S
the set
B
: h
() = h()
contains a club.
Proof. The forcing notion P is the limit P
++ of a support iteration

Q = P
, Q
:
<
++
), where each Q
is forced to be Q
(S
,

B
) for some

B
. Then,
by A.1.9, A.3.10 and B.4.3 we are sure that P satises the
++
cc, it is weakly
fuzzy proper over quasi Ddiamonds for W and it has a dense subset of size
++
.
Consequently we may arrange suitable bookkeeping to take care of all P
+
+
names
for objects as in B.4.1(2) the details and the rest should be clear.
B.5. Trees and creatures
Let us introduce the notation used in the forcing notions we want to build. The
terminology here is somewhat parallel to that of [14, 1.2, 1.3], but there are some
dierences as the context is dierent. We start with the tree case.
Denition B.5.1. Let H : H(
+
).
(1) A tree creature for H is a tuple
t = (, dis, pos, nor) = ([t], dis[t], pos[t], nor[t])
such that dis H(
+
), nor + 1,

_
<
<
H(), and ,= pos
_
<
<
H() : .
TCR
[H] is the family of all tree creatures for H.

For

<
<
H() we let TCR
[H] = t TCR
[H] : [t] = .
(2) Let K TCR
[H]. A treecomposition operation on K is a mapping

with values in T(K) and the domain consisting of systems t
:

T) such
that
T is a complete quasi tree of height ht(T) < ,
for each

T, t
K satises succ
T
() = pos[t
],
and
if t (t
:

T), then [t] = root(T) and pos[t] max(T),
if t (t
:

T) and t
(s
:

T
) (for

T), then
t (s
), and
for each t K we have t) Dom() and t (t).
Then (K, ) is called a tree creating pair (for H).
(3) A tree creating pair (K, ) is local if
(t
: T) Dom() implies ht(T) = lh(root(T)) + 1 (and so

T = root(T) pos[t
root(T)
]), and
t
(t) implies nor[t
] nor[t].
We say that (K, ) is very local if, additionally, for every

<
<
H()
such that K TCR
[H] ,= there is t
K TCR
[H] satisfying (t
K TCR
[H])(t (t
)). The tree creature t
may be called the minimal

creature at .
(4) If (K, ) is a very local tree creating pair, then the minimal tree T
for
(K, ) and the minimal condition p
for (K, ) are dened by

T
= T
(K, ) =

<
<
H() : ( < lh())(( + 1) pos[t
])
p
= p
(K, ) = t
: T
).
[Note that, in the general case, T
could be empty, but in real applications

this can be easily avoided.]
Denition B.5.2. Let (K, ) be a tree creating pair for H.
(1) We dene the forcing notion Q
tree
1
(K, ) by:
conditions are systems p = t
: T) such that
(a) ,= T

<
<
H() is a complete quasi tree with max(T) = ,
(b) t
TCR
[H] K and pos[t
] = succ
T
(),
(c)
1
for every lim
(T), lim(nor[t
] : < , T) = ;
the order be given by:
t
1
: T
1
) t
2
: T
2
) if and only if
T
2
T
1
and for each T
2
there is a complete quasi tree T
0,
(T
1
)
[]
of height ht(T
0,
) < such that t
2
(t
1
:

T
0,
).
If p = t
: T) then we write root(p) = root(T), T

p
= T, t
p
= t
etc.
(2) Let D
be a lter on . The forcing notion Q

tree
D
(K, ) is dened similarly,
replacing the condition (c)
1
by
(c)
D
for some set Y = Y
p
D
we have
( Y )( (T)
)(nor[t
] [[).
[The set Y
p
above may be called a witness for p Q
tree
D
(K, ).]
(3) The forcing notion Q
tree
cl
(K, ) is dened by replacing the condition (c)
1
by
(c)
cl
() ( T)( T)( & nor[t
] [lh()[), and
() ( T)(nor[t
] = 0 or nor[t
] [lh()[), and
() nor[t
root(p)
] [lh(root(p))[, and
() if < is a limit ordinal and
i
: i < ) T is a increasing
sequence such that nor[t
i
] [lh(
i
)[ for each i < and =
i<
i
, then ( T and) nor[t
] [lh()[.
(4) If p Q
tree
e
(K, ) and T
p
, then we let p
[]
= t
p
: (T
p
)
[]
).
(5) For the sake of notational convenience we dene partial order Q
tree
(K, )
in the same manner as Q
tree
e
(K, ) above but we omit the requirement (c)
e
.
Denition B.5.3. Let (K, ) be a tree creating pair for H, t K. We dene a
relation _
t
on (t) by
t
_
t
if and only if (t
, t
(t) and) t
(t
).
If (K, ) is very local, t
is the minimal creature at , then _

t
is also denoted by
_
.
Remark B.5.4. (1) Note that the relation _
t
is transitive and reexive.

(2) If (K, ) is local and p Q
tree
(K, ), then T
p
is a complete tree.
Now we are going to describe the non-tree case of forcing with creatures. For
sake of simplicity we restrict ourselves to what corresponds to forgetful creatures
of [14, 1.2.5].
Denition B.5.5. Let H : H(
+
).
(1) A forgetful creature for H is a tuple
t = (
dn
,
up
, dis, val, nor) = (
dn
[t],
up
[t], dis[t], val[t], nor[t])
such that dis H(
+
), nor + 1,
dn
<
up
< and , = val
dn
<up
H().
CR
[H] is the family of all forgetful creatures for H.

Since we will consider only forgetful creatures, from now on we will
omit the adjective forgetful.
(2) Let K CR
[H]. A composition operation on K is a mapping with

values in T(K) and the domain consisting of systems t
i
: i < j) K such
that j < and
up
[t
i
] =
dn
[t
i+1
] for i < i + 1 < j, and
sup
up
[t
i
] : i
< i =
dn
[t
i
] for limit i < j,
and if t (t
i
: i < j), then

=
dn
[t] =
dn
[t
0
],
+
=
up
[t] = sup
up
[t
i
] : i < j, and
val[t]

<
+
H() : (i < j)([
dn
[t
i
],
up
[t
i
]) val[t
i
]),
and
if t
i
(s
i
: <
i
) (for i < j) and t (t
i
: i < j),
then t (s
i
: <
i
, i < j), and
for each t K we have t) Dom() and t (t).
Then (K, ) is called a creating pair (for H).
(3) We say that (K, ) is local if for each t K

up
[t] =
dn
[t] + 1 , and
t
(t) implies nor[t
] nor[t].
It is very local if, additionally, for each < there is t
K such that
dn
[t
] = and for every t K with

dn
[t] = we have t (t
). The
creature t
will be called the minimal creature t
at .
(4) For j < , a japproximation for (K, ) is a pair (w, t
i
: i < j)) such that
t
i
K,
up
[t
i
] =
dn
[t
i+1
] for i < i + 1 < j, and
sup
up
[t
i
] : i
< i =
dn
[t
i
] for limit i < j,
and w

<
dn
[t0]
H().
(5) For a japproximation (w, t
i
: i < j)) for (K, ) we let
pos(w, t
i
: i < j)) = v

<
+
H() : w v and for all i < j
v[
dn
[t
i
],
up
[t
i
]) val[t
i
] ,
where
+
= sup
up
[t
i
] : i < j.
Denition B.5.6. Let (K, ) be a creating pair for H.
(1) We dene the forcing notion Q
1
(K, ):
conditions are pairs p = (w,
t) such that
(a)

t = t
i
: i < ) is a sequence of creatures from K satisfying
up
[t
i
] =
dn
[t
i+1
] for i < i + 1 < , and
sup
up
[t
i
] : i
< i =
dn
[t
i
] for limit i < ,
(b) w

<
dn
[t0]
H()
(c)
1
lim(nor[t
i
] : i < ) =
the order is given by:
(w
1
, t
1
i
: i < )) (w
2
, t
2
i
: i < ) if and only if
for some continuous strictly increasing sequence i
: < ) we have
w
2
pos(w
1
, t
1
i
: i < i
0
)) and ( < )
_
t
2
(t
1
i
: i
i < i
)
_
.
If p = (w, t
i
: i < )), then we write w
p
= w, t
p
i
= t
i
(for i < ).
(2) Let D
be a lter on . The forcing notion Q
D
(K, ) is dened similarly,
replacing the condition (c)
1
by
(c)
D
for some set Y = Y
p
D
we have
(i Y )(nor[t
i
] [
dn
[t
i
][).
[The set Y
p
above may be called a witness for p Q
D
(K, ).]
(3) For the sake of notational convenience we dene partial order Q
(K, ) in
the same manner as Q
e
(K, ) above but we omit the requirement (c)
e
. If
(K, ) is very local, then the minimal condition p
for (K, ) is
p
= p
(K, ) = (), t
: < )) Q
(K, ),
where t
is the minimal creature at .

(4) The relations _
t
and _
t
=_
are dened in a way parallel to B.5.3.

B.6. Getting completeness and bounding properties
In this section we introduce properties of tree creating pairs ensuring that the
resulting forcing notions are complete or strategically complete. Next we show that
adding bounds on the size of H() guarantees strong bounding properties from
section A.2. Finally we will introduce parallel completeness conditions for the case
of creating pairs.
Denition B.6.1. Let (K, ) be a tree creating pair for H, be a cardinal (and
,
be as in 0.3).
(1) We say that a tree creature t K is complete (for (K, )) if
() for every _
t
increasing chain t
: < ) (t) with < and

nor[t
] > 0, there is t
(t) such that ( < )(t
_
t
) and
nor[t
] minnor[t
] : < ,
() if t
(t), nor[t
] = 0, then [pos[t
][ = 1 and (t
) = t
,
() if pos[t], then there is t
(t) such that pos[t
] = and
nor[t
] = 0.
(2) t K is said to be exactly complete if it is complete and
() if

t = t
: < ) (t) is a strictly _

t
increasing chain, then

t has
no _
t
upper bound in (t), but
<
pos[t
] ,= .
(3) We say that (K, ) is

complete (exactly

complete, respectively) if
(a) (K, ) is very local, and
(b)
each minimal creature t
is
+
lh()
complete (exactly
lh()
complete,
resp.).
We say that (K, ) is just complete if it satises (a) above and
(b)
each minimal creature t
is complete.
Proposition B.6.2. Assume that (K, ) is a very local tree creating pair for H,
D
is a <complete lter on . Let P be one of the forcing notions Q

tree
1
(K, ),
Q
tree
D
(K, ), or Q
tree
cl
(K, ).
(1) If (K, ) is

complete, then P is strategically (<)complete.
(2) If (K, ) is just complete, then P is complete.
(3) If (K, ) is exactly

complete, then P is complete.
Proof. (1) Let P Q
tree
1
(K, ), Q
tree
D
(K, ), Q
tree
cl
(K, ) and let r P. Con-
sider the following strategy st of Complete in the game
0
(P, , r). At stage j <
of the game, after a sequence (p
i
, q
i
) : i < j)
p
j
) P has been constructed (so p
j
is the move of Incomplete), she plays the <
rst condition q
j
P stronger than
p
j
and such that lh(root(q
j
)) > j +.
Why is this a winning strategy? Suppose that the players have arrived at a
limit stage < of the game, Complete has used st and (p
i
, q
i
) : i < ) is
the result of the game so far. Our aim is to show that the (increasing) sequence
q
i
: i < ) has an upper bound in P. To this end we are going to dene a condition
q = t
: T) P inductively dening (T)
and t
for < , (T)
. First we
declare root(T) =
i<
root(q
i
) and we note that
root(T)
i<
T
qi
and lh(root(T)) <
+
lh(root(T))
.
Now we may choose t
root(T)
TCR
root(T)
[H] so that t
root(T)
(t
qi
root(T)
) (for all
i < ) and nor[t
root(T)
] minnor[t
qi
root(T)
] : i < , and we declare pos[t
root(T)
]
T (thus dening (T)
lh(root(T))+1
). Next we proceed inductively in a similar manner:
suppose that (T)
has been already dened and it is included in
i<
T
qi
. For each
(T)
choose t
such that
(i < )(t
(t
qi
)) and nor[t
] minnor[t
qi
] : i < ,
and declare pos[t
] T. (So after this step (T)

+1
is dened.) If < is limit
and (T)
has been dened for < , then we let (T)
consist of all such that

(T)
whenever lh(root(T)) < , and then we choose t
(for (T)
like above).
This way we build a condition t
: T) Q
tree
(K, ), and it is very straight-

forward to verify that this condition is actually in P, and it is stronger than all q
i
(for i < ).
(2), (3) Similar.
The exact

completeness may seem to be very strange and/or strong. But as a
matter of fact it is easy to modify any

complete tree creating pair to one that
is exactly complete (and the respective forcing notions are very close).
Denition B.6.3. Let (K, ) be a very local

complete tree creating pair for
H. We dene the

exactivity (K
ex(
)
,
ex(
)
) of (K, ) as follows.
Let

<
<
H(). We let K
ex(
)
TCR
[H] consist of all tree creatures

t such that
[t] = ,
dis[t] = t
: ), where t
0
= t
is the minimal creature at for (K, ),

<
lh()
, and < t
& t
,= t
,
pos[t] = pos[t
],
nor[t] = minnor[t
] : .
Then, for t
, t K
ex(
)
TCR
[H] we let t

ex(
)
(t) if and only if dis[t] dis[t
].
Proposition B.6.4. Assume(K, ) is a very local

complete tree creating pair.
Then (K
ex(
)
,
ex(
)
) is a very local exactly

complete tree creating pair. The
minimal creature for it at is t
such that dis[t
] = t
).
Proof. Easy.
Theorem B.6.5. Suppose that
(a) ( < )([H()[ <
), and
(b) (K, ) is a complete very local tree creating pair for H for some strictly
increasing sequence =
: < ) of regular cardinals such that
<
(for < ), and
(c) D
is a normal lter on .
Then the forcing notion Q
tree
D
(K, ) has the strong

Sacks property
Proof. Let i
0
< and p Q
tree
D
(K, ). Just for notational simplicity we assume
that H()
for all < and lh(root(p)) i

0
. We are going to describe a
strategy for the Generic player in the game
Sacks
(i
0
, p, Q
tree
D
(K, )). In the course
of the play she will also choose sets Y
i+1
D
and tree creatures t
.
First Generic picks T
p
such that lh() > i
0
and she starts the game with
playing s
i0
= (i
0
+ 1) and q
i0
(i0+1)
= p
[]
. She also picks t
i0
(t
p
(i0+1)
)
such that pos[t
(i0+1)
] = (i
0
+ 1) (remember B.6.1(1)()).
Arriving at a successor stage j = i + 1 of the play the players have determined
s
i
, q
i
, p
i
and Y
i
so that, in addition to the demands of the game, for each s
i
i+1
we have root(q
i
). Now for each s

i

i+1
Generic picks
T
p
i
strictly
extending and she plays
s
i+1
= s
i

(i + 2) : s
i
, q
i+1
(i+2)
= (p
i
)
[]
for s
i

i+1
.
She also xes a set Y
i+1
D
of limit ordinals included in
si
Y
q
i+1
(i+2)
(recall
B.5.2(2)) and for s
i

i+1
she lets t
(t
p
) be such that pos[t
] =
.
Now suppose that the players have arrived to a limit stage < of the game,
and assume that /

i<
Y
i+1
. Generic lets s
consist all sequences of length

such that (i + 1) s
i
whenever i
0
i < . For each s
she rst picks a

condition r
stronger than all p

i
(i+1)
for i
0
i < (there is one by arguments as
in the proof of B.6.2(1)) and then she chooses
T
r
strictly extending . Then
she plays
s
= s
( + 1) : s
, q
(+1)
= (r
)
[]
for s
.
The tree creatures t
(for s
) are chosen as above: t
(t
p
), pos[t
] =
.
Finally suppose that we are at a limit stage < of the game and

i<
Y
i
.
Let s
be dened as above and for each s
let r
be a condition stronger than

all p
i
(i+1)
for i
0
i < and such that root(r
) = and nor[t
r
] [[ (there is
one by arguments as in the proof of B.6.2(1) and the choice of the Y
i
s). Then she
plays
s
= s

_
pos[t
r
] : s
, q
= (r
)
[]
for pos[t
r
], s
.
She also lets t
= t
r
(t
p
) (for s
).
It should be clear that the strategy described above always tells Generic to play
legal moves (remember 0.3(c)). It should also be clear that if (s
i
, q
i
, p
i
) : i
0

i < ) is the result of a play of
Sacks
(i
0
, p, Q
tree
D
(K, )) in which Generic uses
that strategy, then letting T =
s
i
: i
0
i < and q = t
: T) we get
a condition in Q
tree
D
(K, ) (as witnessed by
i<
Y
i+1
) stronger than p and forcing
that
(

)(i [i
0
, ))((i + 1) s
i
& q
i
(i+1)

Q
tree
D
(K,)
_
.
Theorem B.6.6. Assume that ( < )([H()[ < ), and (K, ), D
satisfy
(b), (c) of B.6.5. Then the forcing notion Q
tree
D
(K, ) has the strong bounding
property.
Proof. Similar to B.6.5.
The above two theorems are applicable to forcing notions of the type Q
tree
cl
(K, )
as they may be treated as a special case (under the assumptions as there):
Proposition B.6.7. Assume that ( < )([H()[ < ) and (K, ) is a
complete very local tree creating pair for H (for some ). Then the forcing
notions Q
tree
cl
(K, ) and Q
tree
D
(K, ) are equivalent.

Turning to the case of creating pairs (and forcing notions of the formQ
e
(K, )),
we do easy ways to ensure they are suitably complete (parallel to B.6.1, B.6.2).
However at present we do not know how to get the strong bounding properties of
section A.2 (which were obviously tailored for trees).
Denition B.6.8. (1) For a creating pair (K, ) and t K we dene when
t is complete and exactly complete like in B.6.1(1,2) (but with val
replacing pos).
(2) If (K, ) is very local, then we say that it is

complete (exactly

complete,
resp.) if each minimal creature t
is
+
complete (exactly
complete,
resp.).
Proposition B.6.9. Assume that (K, ) is a very local creating pair for H, D
is a normal lter on . Let P be either the forcing notion Q
1
(K, ) or Q
D
(K, ).
(1) If (K, ) is

complete, then P is strategically (<)complete.
(2) If (K, ) is exactly

complete, then P is complete.
B.7. Getting fuzzy properness
In this section we show that the forcing notions with trees and creatures may
t the fuzzy proper framework. Note that even though the forcing notions covered
by Theorems B.7.1 and B.7.2 below are also covered by Theorem B.6.6, the results
here still have value if we want to iterate that forcing notions with ones which do
not have the strong bounding property.
Theorem B.7.1. Let A, W, D be as in A.3.1 and let D
be a normal lter on
such that for some S
0
D
we have S
0
D. Let be an increasing sequence
of regular cardinals conal in . Assume that (K, ) is an exactly complete very
local tree creating pair for H, and [H()[ < for each < . Then the forcing
notion Q
tree
D
(K, ) is strongly fuzzy proper over quasi Ddiamonds for W.
Proof. By B.6.2 we know that Q
tree
D
(K, ) is complete.
Let R
tr
,

Y
tr
be the trivial base dened as in the proof A.3.9 (but for P =
Q
tree
D
(K, )). We are going to show that for this base and for c = (
, K, )
the condition A.3.6(2)(()
+
) holds. So assume that N, h,

F = F
: S) and
q = q
,x
: S limit & x A
) are as there and p Q

tree
D
(K, ) N. Note that
A
= 0 (for all relevant ) and thus we may think that q = q
: S limit).
Let

1 = 1
: < ) list all open dense subsets of Q

tree
D
(K, ) from N. For i <
let
i
be such that 1
i
consist of conditions p Q
tree
D
(K, ) with lh(root(p)) > i,
and let E be a club of such that
( E)(i < )( is limit and
i
< ).
By induction on < choose conditions p
Q
tree
D
(K, ) N and sets Y
such that
(i) p
0
= p, root(p
) = root(p), and p
and Y
S
0
for < < ,
(ii) Y
witnesses p
Q
tree
D
(K, ) (see B.5.2(2)),
(iii) for every < < and (T
p
)
we have T
p
and t
p
= t
p
,
(iv) if < is a successor, < and (T
p
)
, then for some (T

p
)
[]
we have: (p
)
[]
1
and ( T
p
)( nor[t
p
] = 0),
(v) if

<
Y
is a limit ordinal, then Y
for every ,
(vi) if S E S
0
and h F
(i) : i < ) is an increasing

1exact sequence
of members of N Q
tree
D
(K, ) such that
( < )(i < )(p
h F
(i)),
and (T
p
is such that every h F
(i) is compatible with (p
)
[]
, then
(p
)
[]
q
= (p
)
[root(q
)]
and
( T
p
)( root(q
) nor[t
p
] = 0).
[Note that there is at most one as above; remember the choice of E.]
It should be clear that the inductive construction of the p
s and Y
s is possible
(for (v) remember <
; note also that there is no collision between (v) and (vi)

because Y
S
0
). Now letting root(r) = root(p), T
r
=
<
(T
p
)
, t
r
= t
p
lh()+1
we get a condition r Q
tree
D
(K, ) (as witnessed by
<
Y
). Also note that r is

stronger than all p
s.
Claim B.7.1.1. The condition r is (R
tr
,

Y
tr
)fuzzy generic for q.
Proof of the Claim. First note that the condition r is (N, Q
tree
D
(K, ))generic by
clause (iv) above. Therefore we may use A.3.8(3), and it is enough that we show that
the Generic player has a strategy in the game
fuzzy
(r, N,

1, h, Q
tree
D
(K, ),

F, q)
which guarantees that the result r
i
, C
i
: i < ) of the play satises A.3.4(5)().
Let us describe such a strategy.
First, for < let
< be such that

(q 1
)( either p
q or p
, q are incompatible ),
and let E
= E : ( < )(
< ) (it is a club of ).

Now, suppose that during a play of
fuzzy
(r, N,

1, h, Q
tree
D
(K, ),

F, q) the players
have arrived at stage i S having constructed a sequence r
j
, C
j
: j < i).
If either i is a successor ordinal or i /

j<i
C
j
, then the Generic player plays the
<
rst condition r
i
Q
tree
D
(K, ) such that (j < i)(r
j
r
i
) and lh(root(r
i
)) > i,
and the set C
i
= E
(S
0
lh(root(r
i
))).
If i

j<i
C
j
is a limit ordinal (so also i E
S
0
), then Generic asks
() is h F
i
() : < i) an increasing

1exact sequence such that
(j < i)( < i)(p
j
h F
i
()) ?
If the answer to () is no, then she plays like at the successor stage.
[Note that if the answer to () is no and h F
i
() : < i) is increasing

1exact,
then for some j < i and < i the conditions p
j
and h F
i
() are incompatible,
and hence r
i
and h F
i
() are incompatible.]
If the answer to () is yes, then Generic looks at clause (vi) (of the choice of
p
s) and =
j<i
root(r
j
) (note that lh() = i). If (p
i
)
[]
is incompatible with some
h F
i
(), < i, then she plays C
i
, r
i
as in the successor case.
[Note that then r
i
, h F
i
() are incompatible.]
Otherwise root(q
i
) T
pi
, q
i
= (p
i
)
[root(qi)]
and ( T
pi
)( root(q
i
)
[pos[t
pi
][ = 1). Therefore, root(q

i
) T
rj
and q
i
(r
j
)
[root(qi)]
(for each j < i). So
the Generic player can play C
i
= E
i and the <
rst condition r
i
stronger than
all r
j
(for j < i) and q
i
.
It follows immediately from the comments stated during the description of the
strategy that every play according to it satises A.3.4(5)(), nishing the proof of
the claim and that of the theorem.
Theorem B.7.2. Let A, W, D be as in A.3.1 and let D
be a normal lter on
such that for some S
0
D
we have S
0
D. Assume that (K, ) is an exactly
complete very local creating pair for H, [H()[ < for each < . Then the
forcing notion Q
D
(K, ) is strongly fuzzy proper over quasi Ddiamonds for W.
Proof. Like B.7.1
Theorem B.7.3. Let A = H
<
(
),
> and W [A]
be as in A.3.1. Let
be an increasing sequence of regular cardinals conal in . Suppose that (K, ) is
an exactly complete very local tree creating pair for H, ( < )([H()[ < ),
and D
is a normal lter on . Then the forcing notion Q

tree
D
(K, ) is fuzzy proper
for W.
Proof. The proof closely follows the lines of that of B.7.1. Let D be a normal lter
on such that there is a Ddiamond.
Just only to simplify somewhat the denition of a base which we will use,
let us assume that
<
<
H() a for every a W. Now we let R = R(K, )
consist of all triples (p, , ) such that < ,

<
H() and p Q
tree
D
(K, )
satises root(p). Next, for a W let Y
a
= Y
a
(K, ) : [a]
<
be given
by Y
a
() =
H() a (for < ). It should be clear that (R,

Y) is a base
for Q
tree
D
(K, ) over W.
We claim that (R,

Y) and c = (
, H, K, ) witness the condition () of A.3.6(1).

To this end, let N, h,

F = F
: S) and q = q
,x
: S limit & x A
) be
as in A.3.6(1)(), p Q
tree
D
(K, ) N. Let

1 = 1
: < ) list all open dense

subsets of Q
tree
D
(K, ) from N. For i < let
i
be such that 1
i
consist of conditions
p Q
tree
D
(K, ) with lh(root(p)) > i, and let E be a club of such that
( E)(i < )( is limit and
i
< ).
By induction on < , like in B.7.1 (but note the change in (vi) below!), we choose
conditions p
Q
tree
D
(K, ) N and sets Y
such that
(i) p
0
= p, root(p
) = root(p), and p
and Y
for < < ,

(ii) Y
witnesses p
Q
tree
D
(K, ),
(iii) for every < < and (T
p
)
we have T
p
and t
p
= t
p
,
(iv) if < is a successor ordinal and (T
p
)
, then for some (T

p
)
[]
we have: (p
)
[]
<
1
and ( T
p
)( nor[t
p
] = 0),
(v) if
<
Y
is a limit ordinal, then Y
for every ,
(vi) if S E, h F
(i) : i < ) is increasing

1exact, =
i<
root(h F
(i))
and lh() = , and ( < )(i < )(p
h F
(i)),
then ( T
p
and) for every pos[t

p
]

i<
pos[t
hF
(i)
] we have
(p
)
[]
q
,
= (p
)
[root(q
,
)]
and ( T
p
)( root(q
,
) nor[t
p
] = 0).
[Note that, in the situation as in (vi), A
i<
pos[t
hF
(i)
].]
Plainly, the inductive construction of the p
s and Y
s is possible (for (v) remember

<
). Now letting root(r) = root(p), T

r
=
<
(T
p
)
, t
r
= t
p
lh()+1
we get a
condition r Q
tree
D
(K, ) stronger than all p
s.
Claim B.7.3.1. The condition r is (R,

Y)fuzzy generic for q.
Proof of the Claim. It is very much like B.7.1.1. We note that r is (N, Q
tree
D
(K, ))
generic (by clause (iv)), and therefore it is enough to show that the Generic player
has a strategy in the game
fuzzy
(r, N,

1, h, Q
tree
D
(K, ),

F, q) which guarantees that
the result r
i
, C
i
: i < ) of the play satises A.3.4(5)() (remember A.3.8(3)). Let
us describe such a strategy. First, for < let
< be such that

(q 1
)( either p
q or p
, q are incompatible ),
and let E
= E : ( < )(
< ) (it is a club of ).

Now, suppose that during a play of
fuzzy
(r, N,

1, h, Q
tree
D
(K, ),

F, q) the players
have arrived at stage i S having constructed a sequence r
j
, C
j
: j < i).
If either i is a successor ordinal or i /

j<i
C
j
, then Generic plays the <
rst
condition r
i
Q
tree
D
(K, ) such that (j < i)(r
j
r
i
) and lh(root(r
i
)) > i and
C
i
= E
lh(root(r
i
)).
If i

j<i
C
j
E
is a limit ordinal, then Generic asks

() is h F
i
() : < i) an increasing

1exact sequence such that
( < i)(j < i)(h F
i
() r
j
) ?
If the answer to () is no, then she plays like at the successor stage.
If the answer to () is yes, then Generic takes =
j<i
root(r
j
) and she notes that
lh() = (by the choice of C
j
s at successor stages) and =
i<
root(h F
(i)).
Also, by the exactness and the choice of E
, we have
(j < i)( < i)(p
j
h F
i
()).
So now Generic looks at clause (vi) of the choice of p
s. She picks (say, the <
rst)

j<i
pos[t
rj
]

j<i
pos[t
hFi()
] and notices that (by (vi)) root(q

i,
) T
pi
,
q
i,
= (p
i
)
[root(qi,)]
and ( T
pi
)( root(q
i,
) [pos[t
pi
][ = 1).
Therefore, root(q
i,
) T
rj
and q
i,
(T
rj
)
[root(qi,)]
(for each j < i). So the
Generic player can play C
i
= E
i and the <
rst condition r
i
stronger than all
r
j
(for j < i) and q
i,
.
Easily, the strategy described above has the required property, and the proof is
completed.
Problem B.7.4. Unlike that was in the case of B.7.1, it is not clear how the proof
of B.7.3 can be modied to get the parallel result for non-tree case. So, assuming
that A, W, H and D
are as in B.7.3 and (K, ) is an exactly

complete very local
creating pair for H, is the forcing notion Q
D
(K, ) fuzzy proper for W?
B.8. More examples and applications
Here we are going to present some direct applications of the methods developed
in this paper. Though we do keep our basic assumptions from 0.3, we are going to
introduce more parameters, so let us fully state the context we are working in now.
Context B.8.1. (a) is a strongly inaccessible cardinal, 2
=
+
, and 2
+
=
++
, and
(b) =
: < ),

=
: < ) and =
: < ) are strictly

increasing sequences of uncountable regular cardinals, each conal in ,
(c) for each < ,

+
<
<

<
<
and ( <
)([[
<
),
(d) A = H
<
(
),
> and W [A]
are as in A.3.1,
(e) D is a normal lter on such that there is a Ddiamond.
Let us recall some notions related to cardinal characteristics of reals.
Denition B.8.2. (1) Let o

be the family of all sequences a = a
; < )
such that a
[]
<
(for all < ). We dene

c( ) = min
_
[}[ : } o

& (f

)( a })( < )(f() a
)
_
,
c
cl
( ) = min
_
[}[ : } o

& (f

)( a })
_
< : f() a
(T
)
+
__
,
and also
e
cl
( ) = min
_
[([ : (

<
and
(f
<
)(g ()
_
< : f() ,= g() T
__
,
(2) For an ideal of subsets of a set A, the covering number cov() of is
cov() = min[}[ : } &
_
} = A.
Proposition B.8.3. It is consistent that c(
) < e
cl
( ).
Proof. Let H
0
() =
(for < ) and let K

0
consist of all tree creatures
t TCR
[H
0
] such that:
dis[t]
lh([t])
+ 1,
if dis[t] =
lh([t])
, then pos[t] = [t]
) : <
lh([t])
and nor[t] =
lh([t])
,
if dis[t] <
lh([t])
, then pos[t] = [t]
dis[t]) and nor[t] = 0.

Let
0
be a local tree-composition operation on K
0
(so its domain consists of
singletons only) such that
if dis[t] <
lh([t])
, then
0
(t) = t,
if dis[t] =
lh([t])
, then
0
(t) = t
K
0
: [t
] = [t].
It should be clear that (K
0
,
0
) is a very local exactly

complete tree creating
pair. The forcing notion Q
tree
D
(K
0
,
0
) has the strong

Sacks property (by B.6.5).
Let W
be the canonical Q
tree
D
(K
0
,
0
)name for the generic function in
<
, so
p
Q
tree
D
(K0,0)
root(p) W
.
Then we have
Q
tree
D
(K0,0)

_
f
<
V
__
< : W
() = f() (T
)
+
_
.
Now let P be the limit of a support iteration,
++
in length, of the forcing notions
Q
tree
D
(K
0
,
0
). Then, by A.2.3 + A.1.9 + A.1.4 + A.3.10,
P is complete, proper and satises the
++
cc, and it has a dense
subset of size
++
, thus forcing with P does not collapse cardinals,
P has the

Sacks property, it is weakly fuzzy proper for W,

P
2
= 2
+
=
++
= e
cl
( ) and c(
) =
+
Remark B.8.4. The forcing Q

tree
D
(K
0
,
0
) is a bounded relative of D
from [15,
4.10] (remember B.6.7). It is also a generalization of the forcing notions D
X
from
[12].
Proposition B.8.5. It is consistent that c(
) < c
cl
(
+
) = c(
+
), where
+
=
: < ).
Proof. Let H
1
() =
+
(for < ) and let K
1
consist of all tree creatures
t TCR
[H
1
] such that:
dis[t]
+
lh([t])
, either [dis[t][ = 1 or dis[t] is a club of
+
lh([t])
,
pos[t] = [t]
) : dis[t],
if [dis[t][ = 1 then nor[t] = 0, if [dis[t][ > 1 then nor[t] =
lh([t])
.
Let
1
be a local tree-composition operation on K
1
such that
1
(t) = t
1
: [t
] = [t] & dis[t
] dis[t].
Then (K
1
,
1
) is a very local complete tree creating pair. Let (K
1
,
1
) be the
exactivity of (K
1
,
1
) (see B.6.3); thus (K
1
,
1
) is a very local exactly complete
tree creating pair. The forcing notion Q
tree
D
(K
1
,
1
) is complete fuzzy proper
for W and it has the strong

Sacks property. Also, letting W
be the canonical
name for the generic function in
<
(i.e., p
Q
tree
D
(K1,1)
root(p) W
), we
have
Q
tree
D
(K1,1)

_
a o

+ V
__
< : W
() / a
) T
_
.
Let P be the limit of a support iteration,
++
in length, of the forcing notions
Q
tree
D
(K
1
,
1
). Then (by A.2.3 + A.1.9 + A.1.4 + A.3.10) we have:
P is complete, proper and satises the
++
cc, and it has a dense
subset of size
++
, thus forcing with P does not collapse cardinals,
P has the

Sacks property, it is weakly fuzzy proper for W,

P
2
= 2
+
=
++
= c
cl
(
+
) and c(
) =
+
Remark B.8.6. The result in B.8.5 is of interest as it shows that the versions
of cardinal characteristics of the reals may behave totally dierently from their
ancestors. Recall that if for an increasing function f

we let o
f
consist of
all sequences a = a
n
: n < ) with a
n
[]
f(n) + 1
(for n < ), then
min
_
[}[ : } o
f
& (h

)( a })(n < )(h(n) a
n
)
_
=
min
_
[}[ : } o
g
& (h

)( a })(n < )(h(n) a
n
)
_
for any increasing f, g

The tree creating pair (K

1
,
1
) may be treated (in some sense) as a special
case of the tree creating pairs (K(

/), (

/)) from B.8.10 below.
Denition B.8.7. Let / be a family of subsets of such that /.
(1) A game
(/, ) of two players, I and II, is dened as follows. A play lasts

moves, in the
th
move a set A
/ is chosen, and player I chooses A
for even s. In the end player II wins if
<
A
,= .
(2) The family / is a category prebase on if player II has a winning strategy
in the game
(/, ) and (A /)( < )(B /)(B A ).

(3) A set X is /presmall if
(A /)(B /)(B A X).
Of course, every
+
complete uniform lter D
on is a category base on
and then a set is Dpresmall if and only if its complement is in D
.
Denition B.8.8. (1) A

smallness base on is a sequence

/ = /
: <
) such that each /
is a
category prebase on
.
Let

/ be a

smallness base on .
(2) Let T

<
<
be a complete tree with max(T) = and D
be a
lter on . We say that
T is

/small if for every (T)
, < , the set <
) T
is /
presmall;
T is (D
,

/)small if
_
< : for every (T)
the set <
) T is /
presmall
_
D
.
(3) Let

(

/) consist of all subsets X of
<
such that X
<
lim
(T
)
for some

/small trees T
<
<
(for < ).

(D
,

/) is dened similarly, replacing

/small by (D
,

/)small.
Proposition B.8.9. Let

/ be a

smallness base on . Then both

(

/) and

(D
,

/) are proper
+
complete ideals of subsets of
<
,

(

/)

(D
,

/).
They contain singletons and < cov
_

(D
,

/)
_
cov
_

(

/)
_
.
Proposition B.8.10. Let

/ be a

smallness base on and D
be a normal lter
on . It is consistent that cov
_

(D
,

/)
_
>
+
.
Proof. First we dene a tree creating pair (K(

/), (

/)) = (K, ). For < let
H() =
and let st
be a winning strategy of player II in the game
(/
).
K consists of all tree creatures t TCR
[H] such that letting = lh([t]):

either dis[t] = (, A
t
i
: i < )), where <
and A
t
i
: i < ) is (an initial
segment of) a play of
(/
) in which player II uses strategy st
,
or dis[t] = ) for some <
;
if dis[t] = ), then pos[t] = [t]
) and nor[t] = 0;
if dis[t] = (, A
t
i
: i < )), then pos[t] = [t]
) :
i<
A
i
and
nor[t] = + 1. (If = 0 then we stipulate pos[t] = [t]
: <
.)
The domain of the tree composition operation consists of singletons only, and
if nor[t] = 0 then (t) = t,
if nor[t] > 0, = lh([t]) and dis[t] = (, A
t
i
: i < )), then (t) consists of those
t
K TCR
[t]
[H] for which:
either nor[t
] = 0 and pos[t
] pos[t],
or nor[t
] > 0, dis[t
] = (
, A
t
i
: i <
)) and A
t
i
: i < ) A
t
i
: i <
).
Claim B.8.10.1. (K, ) is an exactly

complete very local tree creating pair for
H. Hence the forcing notion Q
tree
D
(K, ) is fuzzy proper for W.
Proof of the Claim. Should be clear.
We nish the proof of the proposition in a standard way: we force with support
iteration,
++
in length, of the forcing notion Q
tree
D
(K(

/), (

/)).
References
[1] Uri Abraham. Lectures on proper forcing. In M. Foreman A. Kanamori and M. Magidor,
editors, Handbook of Set Theory.
[2] Bohuslav Balcar and Petr Simon. Disjoint renement. In Handbook of Boolean algebras, vol-
ume 2, pages 333388. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1989.
[3] Elizabeth T. Brown. Tree Forcing at Uncountable Cardinals. Talk at Boise Extravaganza In
Set Theory, March 29-31, 2002.
[4] Elizabeth T. Brown. Tree Forcing at Uncountable Cardinals. Preprint.
[5] James Cummings and Saharon Shelah. Cardinal invariants above the continuum. Annals of
Pure and Applied Logic, 75:251268, 1995. math.LO/9509228.
[6] Todd Eisworth. On iterated forcing for successors of regular cardinals. Preprint,
math.LO/0210162.
[7] Thomas Jech. Set theory. Academic Press, New York, 1978.
[8] Akihiro Kanamori. Perfect-set forcing for uncountable cardinals. Annals of Mathematical
Logic, 19:97114, 1980.
[9] Avner Landver. Singular Baire numbers and related topics. PhD thesis, University of Wis-
consin, Madison, 1990.
[10] Pierre Matet and Janusz Pawlikowski. Qpointness, Ppointness and feebleness of ideals.
Journal of Symbolic Logic, 68:235261, 2003.
[11] Pierre Matet, Andrzej Roslanowski, and Saharon Shelah. Conality of the nonstationary
ideal. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, submitted.
[12] Ludomir Newelski and Andrzej Ros lanowski. The ideal determined by the unsymmetric game.
Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 117:823831, 1993.
[13] Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah. Sweet & Sour and other avours of ccc forcing
notions. Archive for Mathematical Logic, accepted. math.LO/9909115.
[14] Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah. Norms on possibilities I: forcing with
trees and creatures. Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society, 141(671), 1999.
math.LO/9807172.
[15] Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah. Iteration of -complete forcing notions not collaps-
ing
+
. International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences, 28:6382, 2001.
math.LO/9906024.
[16] Saharon Shelah. Not collapsing cardinals in (< )support iterations. Israel Journal of
Mathematics, accepted. math.LO/9707225.
[17] Saharon Shelah. Successor of singulars: combinatorics and not collapsing cardinals in
(< )-support iterations. Israel Journal of Mathematics, accepted. math.LO/9808140.
[18] Saharon Shelah. Proper forcing, volume 940 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer-
Verlag, Berlin-New York, xxix+496 pp, 1982.
[19] Saharon Shelah. Proper and improper forcing. Perspectives in Mathematical Logic. Springer,
1998.
[20] Saharon Shelah and Zoran Spasojevic. Cardinal invariants b and t. Publications de
LInstitute Mathematique - Beograd, Nouvelle Serie, 72, 2002. math.LO/0003141.
[21] Jindrich Zapletal. Splitting number at uncountable cardinals. Journal of Symbolic Logic,
62:3542, 1997.
Department of Mathematics, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, NE 68182-
0243, USA
E-mail address: roslanow@member.ams.org
URL: http://www.unomaha.edu/aroslano
Institute of Mathematics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 91904 Jerusalem,
Israel, and Department of Mathematics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08854,
USA
E-mail address: shelah@math.huji.ac.il
URL: http://www.math.rutgers.edu/shelah

Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah - Sheva-Sheva-Sheva: Large Creatures

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah - Sheva-Sheva-Sheva: Large Creatures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

a

can be extended to the spaces

for any innite cardinal . Following the tradition of Set Theory of

of the unbounded number and the dominating number d

) and proving that any triple

and the generalization t

of the tower num-

here the situation is really

) are total functions on

Dom(p) we will let p() =

= T : lh() = and (T)

(T) max(T))( < )( F).

: < ) is a strictly increasing sequence of uncountable regular

) be a model such that

). Then there are conditions p

and for distinct ,

be the winning strategy of Complete in the game

have been dened for j < i, <

be a condition stronger than all q

for j < i (there is one by ()). If

(for < i) is incompatible with q

for i. Otherwise, let

for > i. Finally, for i, q

; exist by ()). The conditions p

are pairwise incompatible by

) is a support iteration such

there is a winning strategy st(, r)

, , r) such that, whenever

tree is a pair T = (T, rk) such that

tree. The projection proj

) is a legal sequence of trees if for some

tree (for <

) is a legal sequence of trees and

. The inverse limit

for each <

) is continuous if for each limit ordinal

tree for some w and an ordinal ,

tree). Also, if the sequence

s are not empty),

is open dense. Then there is a standard tree of conditions q = q

, let st(, r) be a winning strategy of Complete in

) (for < ) in which Complete uses strategy st(rk(p

name for a member of Q

rst names and clause () at earlier stages we get clause () for p

are chosen in a similar manner except that we do not have

to be any bound to the

are dened as earlier.

rk(t) for some (equivalently: all) < such that t t

are assumed to be as specied in Context 0.3.

: V, there are a condition q p and a sequence a

(for < ) and q ( < )(

). However, the branch along which the

(0, p, P), then she

: < ) is a support iteration such

has the strong

, then there is an (N, P

is strategically (<)complete (by A.1.5;

hold in intermediate universes

name for a nice (see A.2.2(3)) winning strategy of the Generic

name for a function from to V, p P

, . . . N, and [N[ = and

name for a member of Q