Jakob Kellner and Saharon Shelah - Preserving Preservation

8
2
8

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
0
9

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
0
2
-
1
8

PRESERVING PRESERVATION
JAKOB KELLNER
AND SAHARON SHELAH
Abstract. We prove that the property P doesnt make the old reals Lebesgue null is preserved under
countable support iterations of proper forcings, under the additional assumption that the forcings are nep (a
generalization of Suslin proper) in an absolute way. We also give some results for general Suslin ccc ideals.
1. Introduction. Let us consider the following
Hypothesis 1: Let (P
)
<
be a countable support iteration of proper
forcings ( a limit) such that each P
( < ) forces that the set of old reals

X V 2
remains Lebesgue positive. Then P
forces this as well.

The main result of this paper (9.4) is that hypothesis 1 is true under some additional
(relatively mild) requirements on the P
. It seems that such requirements are needed

(this is argued in section 4).
Preservation theorems of this kind have proven to be extremely useful in indepen-
dence proofs. Hypothesis 1 specically is used in the proof of the following two theo-
rems of [9]:
It cannot be decided in ZFC whether every superposition-measurable func-
tion is measurable. (A function f : R
2
R is superposition-measurable,
if for every measurable g : R R the superposition function f
g
: R R,
x f (x, g(x)) is measurable.)
and (von Weizs ackers problem):
It cannot be decided in ZFC whether for every f : R R there is a contin-
uous function g : R R such that x R : f (x) = g(x) is of positive outer
measure.
Forcing is a very general method for proving independence results, i.e., results of
the form formula is neither provable nor refutable in ZFC. Forcing gives a method
for modifying a given set-theoretical universe V to a new universe V
in which some
formula is guaranteed to hold. In a forcing argument (for example, to violate CH) one
typically has to
Received by the editors April 2004.
1991 Mathematics Subject Classication. 03E40, 03E17.
partially supported by FWF grant P17627-N12.
supported by the United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation (Grant no. 2002323), publication
828.
The authors thank a referee for proposing numerous enhancements, including a substantial simplication
of lemma 5.11.
1
8
2
8

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
0
9

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
0
2
-
1
8

2 JAKOB KELLNER AND SAHARON SHELAH
change the universe (by adding generic objects, in the CH example
2
many
reals), and
preserve certain properties of the universe (e.g. we have to guarantee that
1
and
2
remain cardinals).
In the CH example, preservation can be guaranteed by the countable chain condition
(ccc). If a forcing P is ccc, then it is very well behaved in the sense that it preserves
many properties of the universe. In particular all cardinalities are preserved.
In a (transnite) forcing iteration (e.g. to create a world without Suslin trees) one
typically has to
change the universe in successor stages (pick a tree and kill it),
preserve properties of the universe in successor stages (use a ccc forcing),
make sure that preservation still works in limit stages, and
use some bookkeeping (make sure that in stage
2
all trees are dead).
In the Suslin tree example, preservation at limits is guaranteed by the following iteration
(or: preservation) theorem:
The nite support iteration of ccc forcings is ccc.
Historically [14] this was the rst theoremof its kind, and it still is of central importance
in forcing applications.
However, in many cases nite support iterations are not the right tool. For example,
they always add Cohen reals at steps of countable conality. While Cohen reals are
harmless in some respects (Cohen forcing is ccc, and in this sense well behaved),
they do change the universe dramatically in some other respects. For example, a Cohen
real makes the set of old reals (i.e. 2
V) Lebesgue null. So if we want to preserve

positivity of the old reals we cannot use nite support iterations.
The most popular alternative to nite support iterations of ccc forcings are countable
support iterations of proper forcings. A forcing P is proper if (for some large regular )
for all countable elementary submodels N of H() and all p P N
there is a condition q p forcing that G
P
is N-generic.
(G
P
is N-generic if for all dense P-subsets D N, G
P
D N is nonempty.)
Again, properness implies that P is well behaved in some respects (in particular,
1
is
not collapsed). Also, we have the following central preservation theorem:
Properness is preserved under countable support iterations.
In addition to this basic theorem, there are numerous additional properties that are pre-
served in limit steps as well. For example, countable support iterations of proper forc-
ings that are
-bounding (or that satisfy the Laver or Sacks property) are
-bounding
again (or satisfy the Laver or Sacks property, respectively). Actually, these three prop-
erties are instances of a class which we call tools-preserving (see 7.1). All these prop-
erties are preserved under countable support iterations of proper forcings (see section 7
for details).
In this paper, we ask: Is the property
Forcing with P leaves the set of old reals Lebesgue positive (P1)
preserved under countable support iterations of proper forcings? (I.e. is Hypothesis
1 true)? It seems that the answer is (consistently) no, but a full counterexample is
dicult. Instead we give in section 4 a counterexample to the following more general
(i.e. stronger) iteration theorem:
8
2
8

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
0
9

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
0
2
-
1
8

PRESERVING PRESERVATION 3
Hypothesis 2: Assume X has positive outer measure. Then the following property is
preserved by countable support iterations of proper forcings:
Forcing with P leaves the set X positive.
So P1 does not seem to be iterable. The Lebesgue version of tools-preserving (9.2)
is an iterable property that implies P1. In this paper we show (in sections 6 and 9) that
the following property P2 implies Lebesgue-tools-preservation:
ZFC proves that P is nep and satises P1. (P2)
So the iteration of forcings satisfying P2 satises Lebesgue-tools-preservationand there-
fore P1.
Non-elementary proper forcing (nep) has been introduced in [13]. It is a generaliza-
tion of Suslin
+
(introduced in [2]), which in turn is a generalization of Suslin proper. For
example, Cohen, random, amoeba and Hechler forcing are Suslin ccc, Mathias forcing
is Suslin proper, Laver, Miller and Sacks forcing are Suslin
+
. An introduction to transi-
tive nep forcing and Suslin ccc ideals can be found in [7].
We will investigate not only the Lebesgue ideal, but general Suslin ccc ideals (such
as the meager ideal) as well. The case of the meager ideal has already been solved by
Goldstern and Shelah in [12, Lem XVIII.3.11, p.920].
Annotated contents.
Section 2, p. 3: We recall the denition and basic properties of Suslin ccc ideals,
the corresponding notions of positivity and outer measure, and the Cohen and
random algebras on 2
.
Section 3, p. 8: We dene preservation of positivity and of outer measure, and list
some basic properties.
Section 4, p. 11: We give a partial counterexample to hypothesis 1. To be more
exact: We show that Hypothesis 2 is consistently false.
Section 5, p. 13: We introduce true preservation (of positivity and of outer measure),
a notion using the stationary ideal on []
0
. We show that these notions are re-
lated to (strong) preservation of generics. Apart from denition 5.9, this section
is not required for the main result 9.4.
Section 6, p. 18: We prove that under certain assumptions, preservation of positivity
implies strong preservation.
Section 7, p. 24: We recall the Case A or tools preservation theorem for count-
able support iterations of proper forcings.
Section 8, p. 25: We review the case of the meager ideal.
Section 9, p. 26: We deal with the case of the Lebesgue ideal and show that strong
preservation is equivalent to Lebesgue-tools-preservation, and that therefore
strong preservation is preserved in countable support iterations.
Diagrams of implications (for the general case, as well as for meager and Lebesgue
null) can be found on pages 29 and 30.
2. Notation and Basic Results. In this paper, the notion N H() always means
that N is a countable elementary submodel.
Forcings are written downwards, i.e. q < p means q is a stronger condition than p.
Usually, the symbols for stronger conditions will be chosen lexicographically bigger
than those for weaker conditions.
8
2
8

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
0
9

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
0
2
-
1
8

Names for objects in the forcing extension are usually written with a tilde below, such
as
. The standard name for an object x V is denoted by x. The name of the generic
lter however (as well as a generic lter itself) will usually be called G (or e.g. G
P
if we
want to stress the forcing P).
ro(Q) denotes the complete Boolean algebra of regular open sets of Q.
We will x a Suslin ccc ideal I (Suslin ccc ideals are dened in 2.2). We will use the
phrases null, measure 1 or outer measure 1 for every such I, even if I is not related
to a measure. This seems more intuitive than terminology such as having outer Borel
approximation 2
. Note that our notation does not mention the ideal I as parameter:
we will say null instead of e.g. I-null (although the notion does of course depend
on the ideal I used).
We will mainly be interested in the case that I is the set of Lebesgue null sets.
C denotes the Cohen algebra and B the random algebra.
Suslin ccc Ideals. We assume that Q
I
is a Suslin ccc forcing:
Drrrxrrrox 2.1. A (denition for a) forcing Q is Suslin ccc, if Q 2
, x Q and
x
Q
y are
1
1
statements, x and y are compatible is Borel, and Q is ccc.
So Q
I
is dened using a real parameter r
Q
. Acandidate is a countable transitive model
of some ZFC
ZFC containing r
Q
(see denition 6.3 for more details on ZFC
).
In addition, we assume that
I
is a hereditarily countable name for a newreal (i.e.
Q
I

\ V)
such that in all candidates
I
(n) = m, n, m generates ro(Q
I
). (Such a real is
sometimes called generic real.) Note that e.g. for Cohen forcing the canonical name
for the Cohen real has this property; analogously for random forcing.
A Suslin ccc ideal I is an ideal dened from a pair (Q
I
,
I
) as above in the following
way:
Drrrxrrrox 2.2. A BC means A is a Borel code.
For A BC, A
V
denotes the evaluation of A in V
(i.e. A
V
is the Borel set corresponding to the code A).
A Borel code A is null, or: A I
BC
, if
Q
I
I
A
V[G
Q
I ]
.
A is positive, or: A I
+
BC
, if A is not null.
A has measure 1 if the code for 2
\ A is null.
A subset X of 2
is null, or: X I, if for some A I

BC
, X A
V
.
X 2
is positive, or: X I
+
, if it is not null.
X is of measure 1 if 2
\ X is null.
For an arbitrary set N and a real r 2
, r is called I-generic over N,

or: r Gen(N), if r A
V
for all A I
BC
N.
So Gen(N) = 2
A
V
: A I
BC
N.
For example, if Q
I
is the random algebra B, then I is the ideal of Lebesgue null sets,
and if Q
I
is Cohen forcing C, then I is the ideal of meager sets.
Note that the notation we use assumes that the ideal I is understood, e.g. we say
positive instead of positive with respect to I.
The following can be found e.g. in [7]:
Lrmmx 2.3. I is a -complete ccc ideal containing all singletons, and
ro(Q
I
) Borel/I (as a complete Boolean algebra).
8
2
8

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
0
9

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
0
2
-
1
8

For a Borel code A, the sentences q
Q
I
I
A
V[G
Q
I ]
and A I
BC
are
1
2
.
(So in particular they are absolute.)
If N is countable, then Gen(N) is a Borel set of measure 1.
If N is a countable elementary submodel of H() and M the transitive collapse of
N, then r is I-generic over N i r is I-generic over M.
Let M be a candidate. r is I-generic over M i there is (in V) a Q
I
-generic lter G
over M such that
I
[G] = r.
If M is a candidate and q Q
I
M, then there is a positive Borel code B
q
M
such that M
I
B
M[G]
q

ro(Q
I
)
= q. Such a B
q
satises
I
[G] : G V is Q-generic over M and contains q =
=
A
V
: A M, q
I
A = Gen(M) B
V
q
.
For example, if we we chose Q
I
to be Cohen forcing, then we get the following
well known facts: The meager ideal is a -complete ccc ideal, ro(Q
I
) is Borel modulo
meager, for a Borel code A the statement A is meager is absolute, a real c is Q
I
-generic
over a model M i it is I-generic (i.e. if it avoids all meager Borel sets of M), etc.
For any Suslin ccc ideal I there is a notion analogous to the Lebesgue outer measure.
Note however that this generalized outer measure will be a Borel set, not a real number:
Drrrxrrrox 2.4. Let X be a subset of 2
.
A Borel set B is (a representant of) the outer measure of X if B is (modulo I) the
smallest Borel superset of X. I.e. B X, and for every other Borel set B
X,
B \ B
is null.
X has outer measure 1, if 2
is outer measure of X.
Instead of B X we could use X \ B I in the denition of outer measure.
1
Clearly, every X has an outer measure (unique modulo I); the outer measure of a
Borel set A is A itself; the outer measure of a countable union is the union of the outer
measures; etc.
If I is the Lebesgue ideal, then the outer measure of X (according to our denition) is
a Borel set B containing X such that Leb(B) = Leb
(X), where Leb
(X) R is the outer

measure according to the usual denition.
If I is the ideal of meager sets, then the outer measure of a set X is 2
minus the union

of all clopen sets C such that C X is meager. (This follows from the fact that every
positive Borel set contains (modulo I) a clopen set and that there are only countable
many clopen sets).
The Random and Cohen Algebras on 2
. We can add many Cohen (or random)

reals simultaneously using the Cohen algebra C
(or random algebra B
) on 2
. We
will need these forcings only for the counterexamples 3.3 and 4.1. We briey recall
some well known facts.
Let J be any set. For i J and a 0, 1 dene [i a] x 2
J
: x(i) = a. A
basic clopen set is a nite intersection of such sets [i a]. These sets form a basis of
the topology, and the clopen subsets of 2
J
are exactly the nite unions of basic clopen
sets.
Lrmmx 2.5. Let J
J
be the -algebra on 2
J
generated by the (basic) clopen sets.
1
That makes no dierence modulo I, since every null set is contained in a Borel null set.
8
2
8

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
0
9

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
0
2
-
1
8

Every A J
J
depends only on a countable J
J
(i.e. if x, y 2
J
is such that x(i) = y(i) for all i J
, then x is in A i y is in A).
(2
J
, J
J
, Leb
J
) is a measure space, where Leb
J
is the product measure.
For A J
J
and > 0 there is a B A such that Leb
J
(B) Leb
J
(A) + and B is a
countable disjoint union of (basic) clopen sets.
Let B
J
(the randomalgebra on 2
J
) be J
J
factorized by the Leb
J
-null sets. The generic
lter G on B
J
is determined by the random sequence
r 2
J
dened by
r(i) = 0 i
[i 0] G.
Lrmmx 2.6. B
J
is a complete ccc Boolean algebra.
If J and K are disjoint, then B
JK
is equivalent to B
J
B
K
.
If J is innite, then
r codes a sequence of J many random reals.

If J is uncountable, then B
J
forces that the set
X of these randomreals is a nowhere

Lebesgue-null Sierpinski set.
2
If X is not Lebesgue null then B
J
forces that

X remains positive, and if J is innite
then B
J
forces that V 2
is meager.
Note that B
is not equivalent to either the

product countable support iteration nite support iteration
of many random forcings, since B
does not
add an unbounded real make the continuum small add a Cohen real.
A set X in a topological space is called nowhere dense if

X
= , and meager if it
is the countable union of nowhere dense sets. C
J
(the Cohen algebra on 2
J
) is dened
as the Borel algebra on 2
J
factorized by the ideal of meager sets. Again, the generic
lter G on C
J
is determined by the Cohen sequence
c 2
J
, dened by
c(i) = 0 i
[i 0] G.
Lrmmx 2.7. Every Borel set B is equivalent (modulo meager) to an open set
(i.e. there is an open set O such that BO is meager).
C
J
is a complete ccc Boolean algebra.
If J and K are disjoint, then C
JK
is equivalent to C
J
C
K
and C
J
C
K
.
If J is innite, then
c codes a sequence of J many Cohen reals.

If J is uncountable, then the C
J
forces that the set
X of these Cohen reals is a

nowhere meager Luzin set.
3
If X is non-meager, then C
J
forces that

X remains non-meager, and if J is innite
then C
J
makes V 2
Lebesgue null.
We can represent B
J
as well as C
J
in a very absolute way. To be able to refer to this
property in section 4, we introduce the following denition:
Drrrxrrrox 2.8. (The denition of) a forcing Q is strongly absolute, if the following
formulas are upwards absolute between V and every forcing extension of V:
p Q, q p and A is a maximal antichain.
2
A set of reals is nowhere Lebesgue-null if it has nonempty intersection with every Lebesgue-positive
Borel set, and it is a Sierpinski set if it is uncountable and has a countable intersection with any Borel
Lebesgue-null set (such a set cannot be measurable).
3
A set of reals is nowhere meager if it has nonempty intersection with every non-meager Borel set, and it
is Luzin if it is uncountable and has countable intersection with every meager Borel set.
8
2
8

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
0
9

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
0
2
-
1
8

The requirement that A is a maximal antichain is upwards absolute is very strong
and will usually only be satised by ccc forcings. For example every Suslin ccc forcing
is strongly absolute, but Mathias forcing is not (although it is nicely denable and in
particular Suslin proper). Note that for strongly absolute forcings p and q are compat-
ible is absolute.
Lrmmx 2.9. For any J (suitable denitions of forcings equivalent to) B
J
and C
J
are
strongly absolute.
Quotient forcings. The following is a basic fact of forcing theory: If f : P Q is a
complete embedding, then
Q is equivalent to P
R, where
R contains all q Q that are compatible with f (p)

for all p G
P
. So in particular
for every Q-generic lter G
Q
over V there is a P-generic lter G
P
over V and an
R[G
P
]-generic lter G
R
over V[G
P
] such that V[G
Q
] = V[G
P
][G
R
], and
for every P-generic lter G
P
over V and every
R[G
P
]-generic lter G
R
over V[G
P
]
there is a Q-generic lter G
Q
over V such that V[G
Q
] = V[G
P
][G
R
].
Sometimes it is more convenient to use the following analogon that doesnt mention
complete embeddings (which is folklore, but we do not have a reference):
Lrmmx 2.10. Let P and Q be arbitrary partial orders.
1. If G
Q
is Q-generic over V, and
if in V[G
Q
] there is a P-generic lter G
P
over V,
then there is a forcing R V[G
P
] and an R-generic lter G
R
over V[G
P
] such that
V[G
Q
] = V[G
P
][G
R
].
R can be chosen to be a subset of ro(Q)
V
(and G
R
is essentially the same as G
Q
).
2. Assume that Q forces that for all p P there is a P-generic lter over V containing
p. Then there is a P-name
R for a subset of ro(Q)

V
such that the following holds:
If G
P
is P-generic over V and G
R
is
R[G
P
]-generic over V[G
P
], then G
R
is ro(Q)-
generic over V and V[G
P
][G
R
]
R[G
P
]
= V[G
R
]
ro(Q)
.
3. Q forces: If (2
P
)
V
is countable, then for all p P there is a P-generic lter G
P
over V containing p.
Paoor. (1) Assume towards a contradiction that q ro(Q) forces that
G is P-generic
but there is no such R in V[
G]
P
. There is a p
0
P such that q , (p
G) for all p p
0
.
(Otherwise the set D p P : q (p
G) is dense, so q forces that there is a

p
G D.) In particular the truth value q

0
p
0

G q is positive. There is a
complete embedding f from P
p
0
to ro(Q)
q
0
(just set f (p) p
G).
So ro(Q)
q
0
can be factorized as P
p
0

R, where
R is the P-name for the set of all

q ro(Q)
q
0
such that p
G q 0 for all p G
P
. If G
P
is P
p
0
-generic over V
and G
R
is
R[G
P
]-generic over V[G
P
], then G
R
is ro(Q)
q
0
-generic over V, and therefore
V[G
R
]
Q
is a Q-generic extension by a lter containing q.
In V[G
R
],
G[G
R
] = G
P
:
G
R

R[G
P
], so p
G q 0 for every q G
R
.
If p
G[G
R
] then p
G q = 0 for some q G
R
, so p G
P
.
If p
G[G
R
] then p
G[G
R
] for all p
p, so p
G
P
for all p
p, and p G
P
.
So in V[
G] there is an R as required after all and we get a contradiction.

(2) For p P pick a ro(Q)-name
G for a P-generic lter containing p. Then there is

a p
p such that , (p
G) for all p
(as in the proof of (1)). Choose a maximal

8
2
8

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
0
9

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
0
2
-
1
8

antichain A P of such p
and call the associated names for lters
G
p
. For a A set
q
a
a
G
a
. So q
a
, (p
G
a
) for all p
a.
Let
R be the following P-name: If G

P
A = a then let
R consist of those q ro(Q)

q
a
such that p
G
a
q 0 for all p G
P
.
Assume that G
P
is P-generic and that G
P
A = a. Then V[G
P
] is an extension
by P
a
, and
R[G
P
] is the quotient of the complete embedding f : P
a
ro(Q)
q
a . So
every
R[G
P
]-generic G
R
over V[G
P
] is ro(Q)
q
a -generic (and therefore Q-generic) over
V.
(3) If only countably many subsets of P are in V, then we can start with any p and
can construct a decreasing sequence of length meeting all these dense sets. -
3. Preservation. Recall that we have xed a Suslin ccc ideal I and the correspond-
ing notions of positivity.
Drrrxrrrox 3.1. Let X 2
be positive with outer measure B, and P a forcing.

P preserves positivity of X if
P

X I
+
.
P preserves Borel positivity if P preserves the positivity of A
V
for all positive
Borel codes A (i.e.
P
A
V
I
+
).
P preserves positivity if P preserves the positivity of X for all positive X.
P preserves outer measure of X if
P
(B
V[G]
is outer measure of X).
P preserves Borel outer measure if P preserves the outer measure of A
V
for all
Borel codes A (i.e.
P
A
V[G]
is outer measure of A
V
).
P preserves outer measure if P preserves the outer measure of X for all X.
Of special interest is preservation of positivity (or outer measure) of 2
(we will also

say: of V), i.e. of the set of all old reals.
We have already mentioned the following: If I is the ideal of Lebesgue null sets, then
the random algebra B preserves positivity, and the Cohen algebra C does not preserve
positivity. Dually, if I is the ideal of meager sets, then the Cohen algebra C preserves
positivity, and the random algebra B does not preserve positivity.
It is clear that preserving outer measure of X implies preserving positivity of X (since
being null is absolute for Borel codes, and the outer measure of X is a null set i X is
null).
Preserving the outer measure of V is equivalent to preserving Borel outer measure:
Let A be a Borel set in V. Then in V[G], the outer measure of X 2
V is the disjoint
union of the outer measure of X A
V[G]
= A
V
and the outer measure of X \ A
V[G]
=
(2
\ A)
V
. So if the outer measure of A decreases, then the outer measure of V decreases.
So another way to characterize Borel outer measure preserving is:
No positive Borel set disjoint to V is added.
If in every forcing extension of V the set of old reals 2
V has either outer measure

0 or 1 then clearly preservation of positivity of V implies preservation of Borel outer
measure. Note that this is the case (for any P) if I is either the Lebesgue null or the
meager ideal.
Other than for outer measure, positivity preservation of V and of all Borel sets is not
equivalent. A trivial counterexample is the following:
Set B
0
x 2
: x(0) = 0, B
1
2
\ B
0
. Let Q
I
add a
I
2
such that either
I
B
0
and
I
is random or
I
B
1
and
I
is Cohen.
Q
I
I
B i
Q
I
I
B B
0
and
Q
I
I
B B
1
, i.e. i B B
0
is Lebesgue null and B B
1
is meager. In particular, B
0
8
2
8

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
0
9

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
0
2
-
1
8

and B
1
are positive Borel sets. So C forces that B
V
0
is null and that B
V
1
remains positive.
Therefore C preserves positivity of V, but not of Borel sets.
However, preservation of positivity of V does imply Borel positivity preservation if
additional requirements are satised, for example once again if we know that the outer
measure of V in V[G
P
] is either 0 or 1. Another sucient condition is the following
(which also is satised in case that I is Lebesgue null or meager, for any P):
Lrmmx 3.2. Assume that P preserves positivity of V, and that
for every A, B I
+
BC
there is
an A
I
+
BC
and a Borel (denition of a) function f : A
B
such that
A
A and P forces that for all null sets X B, f

1
(X) is null.
Then P preserves positivity of Borel sets.
Paoor. (from [13]) Assume that G
P
is P-generic over V and that in V[G
P
], B
V
is null.
In V, let X be a maximal family of positive Borel sets such that for every A
X there
is a f
A
: A
B as in the assumption and such that for A
X, A
I. X
is countable and its union is 2
(modulo I). In V[G

P
], A
V f
1
A
(B V) is null for
each A
X. So 2
V =
X
(A
V) is null. -
Borel positivity (or outer measure) preserving generally (consistently) does not imply
positivity preserving, not even for Cohen or random.
The standard counterexample is the following:
Exxmrir 3.3. Assume I is the Lebesgue null ideal and R is B
1
.
(Or I is the meager ideal and R is C
1
.)
Let G
R
be R-generic over V. Then in V[G
R
], X V 2
is positive and there is a ccc

forcing P that preserves Borel outer measure but destroys the positivity of X.
Paoor. We assume that I is meager (the Lebesgue case is analog). Note that in both
cases, it is enough to show that P preserves positivity of (2
)
V[G
R
]
(this implies preser-
vation of Borel outer measure).
Assume r is B-generic over V, and (c
i
)
i
1
is C
V[r]
1
-generic over V[r]. Then (c
i
)
i
1
is
C
V
1
-generic over V as well. So BC
1
can be factored as C
P, where P is a C
1
-name
for a ccc forcing. Set V
V[(c
i
)
i
1
], and let G
P
be the corresponding P-generic lter
over V
.
In V
, X = V 2
is not meager, but in V
[G
P
] = V[r][(c
i
)
i
1
] it clearly is (cf. 2.6 and
2.7). So in V
, P does not preserve positivity.

On the other hand, in V
[G
P
] = V[r][(c
i
)
i
1
] the set Y c
i
: i
1
V
is a Luzin
set, in particular non-meager (cf. 2.7). So in V
, P preserves positivity of (2
)
V
. -
However, if P is (absolutely) Borel positivity preserving and nep (for example Suslin
proper), then positivity preserving does follow, see theorem 6.1.
Note that in any case, preservation of positivity (or outer measure) is trivially pre-
served by composition of forcings (or equivalently: in successor steps of iterations). In
this paper we investigate what happens at limit stages.
We will restrict ourselves to countable support iterations. Note that for example for
nite support iterations, in all limit steps of countable conalities Cohen reals are added,
so preservation of Lebesgue positivity is never preserved in nite support iterations.
Preservation of positivity is connected to preservation of generics (e.g. random reals)
over models:
8
2
8

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
0
9

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
0
2
-
1
8

Lrmmx 3.4. If P is proper and X is positive, then the following are equivalent:
1. P preserves the positivity of X.
2. for all N H() and p P N there is an X and an N-generic q p forcing
that is I-generic over N[G].
3. for all p P there are unbounded (in 2
) many N H() containing p such that

there is an X and an N-generic q p forcing that is I-generic over N[G].
Here, A N H() is called unbounded in 2
, if for every x 2
there is a N A
such that x N (or equivalently, if for all y 2
countable there is an N A such that

y N).
Paoor. (1) (2): Assume that N H(), that q
0
p is N-generic, and that G
P
is
P-generic over V and contains q
0
. In V[G
P
], Gen(N[G
P
]) is a measure 1 set, and X is
positive, so Gen(N[G
P
]) X is nonempty. This is forced by some q q
0
in G
P
.
(2) (3) is clear.
(3) (1): Assume p forces that X is null, i.e. that X
A
V[G
P
]
for some Borel null
code
A. According to (3), there is an N H() containing p and
A, and there are X

and an N-generic q p forcing that is I-generic over N[G].
If G
P
is P-generic over V and contains q, then G
P
is P-generic over N as well, and
A[G
P
]
is a Borel null code in N[G
P
]. In V[G
P
], is I-generic over N[G
P
], so
A[G
P
]
V[G
P
]
X, a contradiction. -
Lrmmx 3.5. If P is proper, then the following are equivalent:
1. P preserves positivity.
2. For all N H(), there is a set A of measure 1 such that for all p N and A
there is an N-generic q p forcing that is I-generic over N[G].
3. For all p there are unbounded (in 2
) many N H() containing p such that for

some measure 1 set A and for all A there is an N-generic q p forcing that
is I-generic over N[G].
Paoor. (1) (2): Since there are only countable many ps in N, it is enough to show
that for all N H() and all p P N there is a set A as in (2). Let X be the set of
exceptions, i.e. X i every N-generic q p forces that is not I-generic over N[G].
We have to show that X is a null set. Otherwise (according to lemma 3.4) there is an
X and an N-generic q p forcing that Gen(N[G]), a contradiction.
(2) (3) is clear, and (3) (1) follows from lemma 3.4. -
Why are we interested in preservation of I-generics over models instead of preserva-
tion of positivity? It is not clear how the iterability of preservation of positivity can be
shown directly. On the other hand, in some important cases it turns out that preservation
of generics is iterable (e.g. if I is meager, see section 8, or if I is Lebesgue null under
additional assumptions, see section 9). However, to be able to apply the according it-
eration theorems, we will generally need that all I-generics are preserved, not just a
measure 1 set of them (as in lemma 3.5).
It seems that preservation of all I-generics really is necessary, more specically that
the statement
preservation of Lebesgue positivity is preserved in proper countable support iterations
(and the analog statement for meager) is (consistently) false. A counterexample seems
to be dicult, but we can give a counterexample to the following (stronger) statement:
8
2
8

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
0
9

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
0
2
-
1
8

Let X be a positive set. Then
preservation of positivity of X is preserved under proper countable support iterations
4. A Counterexample.
Exxmrir 4.1. Assume that I is the Lebesgue null ideal and that R is B
1
.
(Or I is the meager ideal and R is C
1
.)
Then R forces the following: There is a positive set X and a forcing iteration (P
n
,
Q
n
)
n<
of ccc forcings such that P
n
forces that X remains positive for each n , but P
makes
X null (regardless of the kind of limit we use for P
).
4
So if I is the Lebesgue ideal, and we let (P
n
,
Q
n
)
n<
be a countable support iteration
(i.e. P
is the full or inverse limit), then we get the counterexample to

preservation of positivity of X is preserved under proper countable support iterations
If we take the direct limit (i.e. if we interpret (P
n
,
Q
n
)
n<
as nite support iteration),
then we get nothing new, since we already know that P
adds a Cohen real and there-

fore destroys Lebesgue positivity.
If I is the meager ideal, then the counterexample is interesting for both nite and count-
able support iteration.
The simplest idea for a counterexample of this kind is the following: Let P be the
countable support iteration B
1
C B
1
C . . . .
So the set X of the
1
many random reals added by P is null (since the rst n
1
many are made null by the n-th Cohen).
Now factor P the following way: First add all the randoms, then the rst (former)
Cohen, the second, the third etc (these reals are not Cohen anymore, of course). One
would expect that the rst former Cohen will make only the rst
1
many randoms null,
the second only the next
1
many, etc. So the set of all randoms will become null only
in the limit.
However, it is not clear how to show that this idea actually works, and we will use a
slightly dierent construction:
Paoor or 4.1. Let I be the ideal of Lebesgue null sets, let J be a set of size
1
, and
let R = P
0
be B
J
, the random algebra on 2
J
. (Again, the proof for the meager case is
analog.)
So we have to construct a directed system (P
n
)
n<
with commuting complete embed-
dings f
n,m
: P
n
P
m
satisfying the following:
P
0
B
J
adds a set X of
1
many random reals.
P
n
is ccc and forces that X is Lebesgue positive (for any n).
Any limit P
makes X null.
Write J as the disjoint countable union of sets J
n
of size
1
, i.e. J =
n
J
n
, J
n
=
1
. Set J
n

mn
J
m
, and let
r
0
2
J
be the random sequence added by P
0
.
P
1
is the forcing that adds a Cohen real between the rst
1
random reals and the
rest, i.e.
P
1
B
J
0
C B
J
1
.
4
This means that X will be null in any forcing extension V
of V[G
R
] that contains P
n
-generic lters G
n
(over V[G
R
]) for all n.
8
2
8

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
0
9

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
0
2
-
1
8

Generally, we dene
P
n
B
J
0
C B
J
n1
C B
J
n
.
We dene the P
n
-name
r
n
2
J
to be the concatenation of the random sequences for all
the random algebras used in P
n
.
Lrmmx 4.2. There is a complete embedding f
n,n+1
from P
n
to P
n+1
which leaves the
random sequence invariant.
5
Assuming this lemma, the rest of the proof is straightforward:
As usual, we interpret
r J
n
as a sequence of (
1
many) random reals. Let
X
n
be the
set of these reals. Set
X
n
;
X
<n

X
1

X
2

X
n1
; and
X
n

X \
X
<n
.
P
n
forces that
X
n
is a Sierpinski set (in particular positive), and that
X
<n
is null, and we
are done. -
For the proof of lemma 4.2, we will need the following fact:
Lrmmx 4.3. Assume that f
0
: P Q is a complete embedding and that P forces
S to be strongly absolute. Then f

0
can be extended to a complete embedding f
1
:
P
S
V[G
P
]
Q
S
V[G
Q
]
dened by f
1
((p,
)) = ( f
0
(p), f
).
6
For the denition of strongly absolute, see 2.8. In particular
S is a forcing denition
using arbitrary P-names as parameters, and
S
V
is its evaluation in the universe V.
Note that B
J
and C
J
are strongly absolute (see 2.9).
7
Paoor or irmmx 4.3. Assume (p
) (p,
). Then f
0
(p
) f
0
(p), and f
0
(p
) forces
that p
G
P
(by denition of G
P
). So if G
Q
is Q-generic over V and contains f
0
(p
),
then in V[G
P
] we have
[G
P
]
[G
P
] (since this is forced by p
). Since q
S and
q
q are upwards absolute between V[G

P
] and V[G
Q
], in V[G
Q
]
f
[G
Q
] =
[G
P
]
[G
P
] = f
[G
Q
].
This is forced by f
0
(p
), so ( f
0
(p
), f
) ( f
0
(p), f
).
A similar argument shows that f
1
preserves incompatibility.
Finally assume towards a contradiction that

A P
S
V[G
P
]
is predense, and that there is
a (q, ) Q
S
V[G
Q
]
incompatible to all f
1
((p,
)) for (p,
)

A. Let G
Q
be a Q-generic
lter over V containing q. Since G
P
is P-generic, the set
A
[G
P
] : (p,
)

A, p G
P
is (in V[G
P
]) a predense subset of S
V[G
P
]
. Since
S is strongly absolute, A is (in V[G

Q
])
a predense subset of S
V[G
Q
]
. So there is a (p,
)

A with p G
P
such that
[G
Q
]
5
This means the following: Let G
n+1
be P
n+1
-generic over V, and set G
n
f
1
n,n+1
(G
n+1
) (which is P
n
-
generic over V, since f
n,n+1
is complete). Then
r
n
[G
n
]
Pn
=
r
n+1
[G
n+1
]
P
n+1
.
6
f
0
is the following mapping from P-names onto Q-names: f
0
: P Qis complete. So if G
Q
is Q-generic
over V, then G
P
f
1
0
[G
Q
] is P-generic over V. So for every P-name
there is a Q-name f
such that
f
[G
Q
]
Q
=
[G
P
]
P
. ( f
0
can also be dened recursively over the rank of the names.)
7
You should not be confused by the following fact: If f
0
is a complete embedding of P into Q and G
Q
is
a Q-generic lter over V and G
P
the corresponding P-generic lter, then in V[G
Q
] the partial order S
V[G
P
]
generally can not be completely embedded into S
V[G
Q
]
. For example B B adds an unbounded real. So if P
is the trivial partial order and Q and
S are both B, then in V[G

Q
] there cannot be a complete embedding of
S
V[G
P
]
= B
V
into
S
V[G
Q
]
= B
V[G
Q
]
. However the f
1
dened in the lemma clearly is a complete embedding
from P
S
V[G
P
]
= B
V
into Q S
V[G
Q
]
= B B
V[G
Q
]
(since a random real over V[G
Q
] is random over V as
well).
8
2
8

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
0
9

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
0
2
-
1
8

is compatible with
[G
P
] = f
[G
Q
]. Now pick a q
q Q forcing that
[G
Q
]
S
V[G
Q
]
is a witness for this compatibility. Then (q
) f
1
((p,
)), (q,
), and we get a
contradiction. -
Paoor or irmmx 4.2. First note that B
J
n
is equivalent to B
J
n
B
J
n+1
. So we have to
nd a complete embedding
from P
n
=
P
B
J
0
C C B
J
n1
C B
J
n
B
J
n+1
to P
n+1
= B
J
0
C C B
J
n1
C B
J
n
C
Q
B
J
n+1
It is clear that the identity (lets call it f
0
) is a complete embedding between P and Q (the
two blocks marked above). (Generally, for all R,
S the identity is a complete embedding

from R into R
S .) Therefore we can apply lemma 4.3 to get a complete embedding

f
1
: P
n
P
n+1
. It is clear that f
1
leaves the random J-sequence invariant. -
5. True Preservation. Preservation of all generics (not just a measure-1-set of
them) is closely related to preserving true positivity, a notion using the stationary
ideal on []
0
.
From this section only denition 5.9 is needed for the proof of main result 9.4.
8
Drrrxrrrox 5.1. Let J be arbitrary and C [J]
0
a family of countable subsets of J.
C is called unbounded, if for all A [J]
0
there is a B C such that B A.
C is a club set (or: club), if C is unbounded and closed under increasing countable
unions.
The club lter is the family of subsets of [J]
0
containing a club set.
A set S [J]
0
is stationary if every club set C meets S , i.e. C S .
(Or equivalently, if the complement of S , [J]
0
\ S , is not in the club lter.)
First we recall some basic facts:
Lrmmx 5.2. Let J and 1
1
1
2
be arbitrary.
1. (Jech) The club lter on [J]
0
is closed under countable intersections.
2. (Menas) C [J]
0
contains a club i there is an f : [J]
2
[J]
0
such that
C( f ) C, where C( f ) x [J]
0
: (i j x) f (i, j) x.
3. If C [1
1
]
0
is club, then C
H
2
B [1
2
]
0
: B 1
1
C is club.
4. If C [1
2
]
0
is club, then C
H
1
B 1
1
: B C contains a club.
5. If C
0
[J]
0
is club and P an arbitrary forcing, then there is a C
1
C
0
club and
a name
such that P forces that
[J]
0
is club and that
C V = C
1
.
6. (Shelah) A forcing P is proper i for arbitrary J and S [J]
0
stationary, P forces
that S remains stationary.
7. The set of countable elementary submodels of H() contains a club of [H()]
0
.
8. Assume [J]
0
H(). Then the following are equivalent:
C [J]
0
contains a club.
For all N H() containing J and C, N J C.
For club many N H(), N J C.
8
This proof only needs implication (3) (1) of lemma 9.3, i.e. the fact that a strongly preserving forcing
is tools-preserving. However we do use the notion of true preservation to show implication (3) (1) of 5.11,
which in turn is used in the proof that Lebesgue-tools-preservation is equivalent to strong preservation.
8
2
8

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
0
9

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
0
2
-
1
8

9. Assume [J]
0
H(). Then the following are equivalent:
S [J]
0
is stationary.
There is an N H() containing J and S such that N J S .
For stationary many N H(), N J S .
Note that if C is club in V, then generally C will not be club any more in a forcing
extension V[G
P
], even if P is proper.
Paoor. We refer to Kanamoris Higher Innite [6] or Jechs Millennium Edition [5].
The proof of (1) is straightforward (see 25.2 or 8.22). (2) is proven in [6, 25.3] or
[5, 8.26]. (3) is trivial. (4) and (5) follow from (2) (for the latter, set C
1
C( f )
V
and
C C( f )
V[G
P
]
).
For (6) see e.g. Proper and improper forcing [12].
For (7), consider the family of countable subsets of H() closed under some xed
Skolem function.
(8): If C N is club, then clearly J N C. If

C N H() [H()]
0
is club,
then

C
I
= N J : N

C [J]
0
contains a club according to (4).
(9) follows directly from(8), since S is stationary i [J]
0
\S does not contain a club. -
Assume that J is an arbitrary index-set, S [J]
0
is stationary and = (
s
: s S ) is a
sequence of reals. Pick any 1 J 2
(think of 1 to be a H()). For C [1]
0
, we
dene
9
S (C) s S : N C : N J = s &
s
Gen(N), and
(C)
s
: s S (C).
So we get S (C) the following way: Take an N C (which will be a countable elemen-
tary submodel of H()), and let s be the intersection of N with J (so s is a countable
subset of J). If s is an element of S , and if
s
is I-generic over N, then put s into S (C).
Drrrxrrrox 5.3. Assume 1 J 2
.
is truly positive, if (C) is positive for every club set C [1]
0
.
B is the true outer measure of , if it is the smallest Borel set containing any of the
(C), i.e. if the following holds: B is Borel, there is a C [1]
0
club such that
(C) B, and for no club C
[1]
0
there is a Borel B
such that (C
) B
and
B \ B
I.
Lrmmx 5.4. 1. The above notions do not depend on 1 (provided that 1 J2
).
2. The true outer measure always exists.
3. The following are equivalent:
is truly positive.
(C) for every club set C [1]
0
.
for all x H() there is an N H() containing x, J, S and such that
N J = s S and
s
Gen(N).
Paoor. (1) Assume that J 2
1
1
1
2
and that C [1
1
]
0
is club.
By denition s S (C) i for some N C, s = N J S and
s
Gen(N).
In particular s S (C
H
2
) i for some N
[1
2
]
0
, N N
1
1
is in C,
s = N
J is in S and
s
Gen(N
).
So since N and N
contain the same elements of J and 2
, S (C) = S (C
H
2
).
9
Gen(N) was dened in 2.2.
8
2
8

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
0
9

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
0
2
-
1
8

The same argument works with C [1
2
]
0
and C
H
1
.
For general 1
1
, 1
2
, apply the argument to the pairs 1
1
, 1
1
1
2
and 1
2
, 1
1
1
2
.
(2) The family (C) : C club is semi-closed under countable intersections:
If (C
i
)
i
is a countable sequence of club sets, and C
C
i
its intersection, then C
is club, and (C
)

(C
i
).
Let X be the family of Borel sets B such that for some club set C, B (C). So X is
closed under countable intersections. Therefore X contains a minimal element (modulo
I), since I is a ccc-ideal.
(3) Without loss of generality 1 = H(). Assume is not truly positive. Then for some
club set C and Borel null set B, (C) B. Set
C
N H() : N C, B N.
C
is club. For any N C
and any I-generic over N, is not in B. So (C
) 2
\ B.
But (C
) (C) B, so (C
) = . The rest is similar. -

Drrrxrrrox 5.5. Let P be a forcing.
P preserves true positivity if for all truly positive, P forces that remains truly
positive.
P preserves true outer measure, if for any with true outer measure A
V
, P forces
that A
V[G
P
]
remains the true outer measure of .
Lrmmx 5.6. 1. If P is true outer measure preserving, then it is true positivity pre-
serving.
2. If P is true positivity preserving, then it is proper and positivity preserving.
3. If P is true outer measure preserving, then it is outer measure preserving.
It seems that true positivity preserving generally does not imply true outer measure
preserving. (But the equivalence holds if I is the ideal of meager sets, see lemma 8.1;
or if I is the ideal of Lebesgue null sets and P is weakly homogeneous, see lemma 9.1).
Paoor. (1) is clear since a sequence is truly positive i its true outer measure is not
0.
True positivity preservation implies properness because of 5.2(6).
So for (2) and (3) it is enough to show the following: If X is positive (or: has true outer
measure B) then there is a truly positive (or: an with true outer measure B) such that
s
: s S X. Let J be 2
.
For (2), pick for each N H() an X Gen(N). (Recall that Gen(N) is a measure
1 set.) Then is truly nonempty (cf. 5.4(3)).
For (3), set 2
0
. As cited in Kanamori [6, 25.6(a)] or Jech [5, 38.10(i)], [J]
0
can be
partitioned into 2
0
many stationary sets, i.e. [J]
0
=
. Enumerate all positive

Borel subsets of B as (B
: ). For each N H() let be such that N S
and
pick an B
Gen(N). Assume towards a contradiction that the true outer measure

of is B
B and that B
= B \ B
is positive. Since C is club and S
stationary, there
is an N C S
. So
N
B
(C), a contradiction. -
As announced, the true notions are closely related to preservation of generics:
Drrrxrrrox 5.7. P preserves generics, if
for all N H(), p N and Gen(N)
there is a q p N-generic forcing that Gen(N[G
P
]).
8
2
8

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
0
9

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
0
2
-
1
8

Norrs. Instead of for all N, we can equivalently say for club many N. (This
follows from the proof of lemma 5.8.)
Of course the notion does not depend on , provided is regular and large enough
(in relation to P).
It is clear that preservation of generics is preserved under composition and implies
properness.
Lrmmx 5.8. P preserves generics i P is true positivity preserving.
Paoor. : Assume otherwise, i.e. assume that is truly positive, and p (
C) =
for some name
C of a club set in H()

V[G]
.
In V, the set
S
N H() : N J = s S,
s
Gen(N)
is stationary. (Otherwise, the complement of S
would witness that is truly empty.)

Pick some
> . According to 5.2(9), there is an N
H(
) containing , S
, , p, P,
C
such that N N
H() S
(and such that P preserves generics for N
, if we assume
preservation for club many N only). So N
J = N J = s S , and there is an N
-
generic q p forcing that
s
Gen(N
[G]) (since N and N
contain the same subsets of

P). Let G be a P-generic lter over V containing q. In V[G], N
[G] J = N
[G] J = s
(since G is N
[G]-generic), and N
1[G]
C[G] (since
C N
[G] is club). So
s
(
C), a contradiction.
: Assume towards a contradiction that N
H(
), p, is a counterexample.
Without loss of generality there is a N
such that P < <
. Set
S N H() : N is counterexample for p and some .
This set is stationary, since S N
and N
H() S .
For each N S , pick an
N
witnessing the counterexample. Then is truly positive:
If N C S , then
N
(C).
Let G be a P-generic lter over V containing p. In V[G], set
C
gen
N H
V
() : G is N-generic.
(Note that the elements of C
gen
are generally not in V, only subsets of V.)
C
gen
contains a club:
N H
V
() is guaranteed if N is closed under a Skolem functions of H
V
().
G is N-generic means that for every dense subset D P in N, G N D is nonempty.
So C
gen
contains the set of N closed under countably many operations.
Therefore (still in V[G])
C
1
C
H
V[G
P
]
()
gen
=

N H
V[G
P
]
() countable :

N V C
gen
contains a club as well, as does the set

C

N H
V[G
P
]
() : G

N and

N C
1
.
By the assumption (C) , i.e. for some
N H(), we get: N

N V S (note that
S V), and
N
Gen(

N), and G is N-generic and element of

N. Therefore N[G]

N,
and
N
Gen(N[G]). G contains some q p forcing this all. But we assumed that
N
is a counterexample, therefore no N-generic q p can force that
N
Gen(N). -
For the analog equivalence to true outer measure preservation we need the notion of
interpretation:
8
2
8

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
0
9

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
0
2
-
1
8

Drrrxrrrox 5.9. Let p be a condition in P.
T is an interpretation of
with respect to p, if:

T is a positive Borel set,
a P-name for a positive Borel set, and

for all positive Borel sets A
V
T, p does not force that A
V[G]
is null.
P strongly preserves generics if the following holds:
For all N H(), p, T,
N and 2
such that
with respect to p and

T Gen(N)
there is an N-generic q p forcing that
Gen(N[G
P
]).
Norrs. If T is an interpretation of
with respect to p, p
, and
T
T is positive, then then T
is an interpretation of
.
Again, instead of for all N, we can equivalently say for club many N, and the
notion does not depend on .
Lrmmx 5.10. For every p P and every name
for a positive Borel set there is an

interpretation T of
with respect to p.
Paoor. Set
X B I
+
BC
: p B
V[G]
I.
Let Y be a maximal family of pairwise disjoint members of X. Then Y is countable
(since I is a ccc ideal) and

Y is not of measure 1 (since p forces that
is positive
and that

Y
V[G]
I). Set T
Y. Then T is an interpretation of
with
respect to p. -
Lrmmx 5.11. The following are equivalent:
1. P preserves true outer measure.
2. P strongly preserves generics.
3. If p
I
+
BC
, then there is a T I
+
BC
and a p
p such that:
with respect to p
, and
if N H(), p
, T,
N, and T Gen(N),
then there is an N-generic q p
forcing that
Gen(N[G]).
Paoor. This is similar to the proof of 5.8.
(1) (2) Assume that N
H(
), p, T,
, is a counterexample. Without loss of

generality there is a N
such that P < <
. Set
S N H() : N is counterexample for p, T,
and some
This set is stationary, since S N
and N
H() S .
For each N S , pick an
N
witnessing the counterexample. So in particular
N
T Gen(N).
Let B T be a true outer measure of . B is positive (which just means that is truly
positive). So there is a p
p forcing that B
is positive (since T is an interpretation

of
with respect to p).

Let G be a P-generic lter over V containing p
. In V[G], set
C

N H
V[G
P
]
() : G, p, T,

N and G is

N V-generic.
8
2
8

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
0
9

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
0
2
-
1
8

B
T
(
)
(C)
Frotar 1. T is an interpretation of
with respect to p
.
C contains a club (as in the proof of 5.8). Assume
N
(C). Then for some
N C
N

N H
V
() S , G is N-generic, and
N
is I-generic over

N.
Note that N[G]

N (since G

N). So
N
is I-generic over N[G] as well. Since N S
and N, p, T, T
,
N
is a counterexample, we knowthat
N
cannot be in
[G]. Therefore
(C) B \
[G], i.e. the true outer measure of decreases (p
forces that B
is
positive).
(2) (3) This follows from fact 5.10 (for every p,
there is an interpretation T of
with respect to p).

(3) (1) Assume that B (C) is an outer measure of , and p P forces that
there is a Borel code
and a club set
of H()
V[G]
such that (
) (
C),
B,
B \
I
+
and
).
Without loss of generality,
s
B for every s S . Now choose a p
p and an
interpretation T of
with respect to p
according to (3). Without loss of generality

T B (cf. gure 1). In V, the set
S
N H() : p
, P, T,
N, N J = s S,
s
Gen(N) T
is stationary. (Otherwise, the complement of S
contains a club C
. If (C
), then
T. So (C
) B \ T, and B cannot be true outer measure of .)

Pick some
> . There is an N
H(
) containing , S
, p
, T,
etc such that

N N
H() S
. So N
J = s S , and there is an N
-generic q p
forcing
that
s
Gen(N
[G])
. Let G be a P-generic lter over V containing q. In V[G],

N
[G] J = N
J = s (since G is N
-generic), and N
H()
V[G]
[G] (since
[G] N
[G] is club). So
s

[G] (
C[G]), a contradiction to (
C[G])
B[G]
and
B[G]
[G] = . -
6. Strong Preservationof Generics for nep Forcings. We already knowthat preser-
vation of Borel outer measure generally does not imply preservation of positivity. An
example was presented in 3.3. Note that the P of this example is very undenable.
In this section we will show that under some additional assumptions on P, we even get
strong preservation:
Tnroarm 6.1. If in all forcing extensions of V, P is nep and Borel outer measure
preserving then P strongly preserves generics.
In particular this requirement will be satised if there is a proof in ZFC that (a def-
inition of the forcing) P is nep and Borel outer measure preserving. We formulate this
as a corollary:
8
2
8

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
0
9

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
0
2
-
1
8

Coaoiixa. 6.2. If P is provably nep and provably Borel outer measure preserving
then P strongly preserves generics.
The notion of nep forcing (a generalization of Suslin proper) was introduced in [13].
The most important instances of nep forcings are
1. nicely denable, proper (but not necessarily Suslin proper) forcings P that are
coded as set of reals. We will call such forcings transitive nep.
2. nicely denable (long) iterations of forcings as in (1).
Examples for transitive nep forcings are Sacks and Laver. Such forcings typically are
Suslin
+
. In this paper, we will not dene the general notion of nep which would allow
us to deal with (2) since the denition requires technicalities such as non-transitive
candidates.
10
Instead, in the following section we will recall the denition of transitive
nep.
11
About transitive nep forcing. In the denition of nep (or Suslin proper) we use
candidates, i.e. models of some xed -theory ZFC
. Intuitively, we would like to use

ZFC (just as we would like to use N V in the denition of proper forcing), but
for obvious technical reasons this is not possible. So we will restrict ourselves to a
reasonable choice of ZFC
:
Drrrxrrrox 6.3. A recursive theory ZFC
ZFC is called strongly normal, if the

following is provable in ZFC:
H() ZFC
for all suciently large regular .

You can think of ZFC
as ZFC minus the power set axiom plus something like
exists.
12
We assume that the forcing P is dened by formulas
(x) and
(x, y), using a real

parameter r
P
. Fixing a strongly normal ZFC
, we call M a candidate if it is a countable

transitive ZFC
model and r
P
M. So in any candidate (P
M
,
M
) is dened (but this
forcing is generally not equal to PM, since the denitions do not have to be absolute).
It is important that the transitive collapse of an N H() (containing r
P
) is a candidate
(for suciently large regular ).
If M is a candidate, then G is P-generic over M if for all A M such that
M A P is a maximal antichain,
G A = 1. (Note that in this case it is not enough that G meets all dense sets, since
incompatibility is generally not absolute).
q is called M-generic is q forces that G is P-generic over M.
10
Note that including forcings of type (2) is not needed for the main result 9.4 of this paper: We will show
that forcings of type (1) satisfy a strong, iterable condition, therefore this condition is satised by forcings of
type (2) anyway.
11
Usually transitive nep forcings are in fact Suslin
+
. Nevertheless we dene transitive nep here instead
of Suslin
+
since the denition is actually simpler and better isolates the property needed for the proof. Also,
there are examples of transitive nep forcings P that are not Suslin
+
, to be more exact: whose natural denitions
are not Suslin
+
, e.g. because p Pis
1
1
and not
1
1
. (It is a dierent question whether for these examples
there are equivalent forcings P
that do have (possibly less natural) Suslin

+
denitions.)
12
For the usual transitive nep forcings we could actually x this ZFC
. Generally however we should

for technical reasons not do that, just as we should not x e.g. H() = H(
+
) in the denition of proper

forcing.
8
2
8

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
0
9

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
0
2
-
1
8

Drrrxrrrox 6.4. A (denition of a) forcing P is transitive nep (with respect to ZFC
),
if
p P and q p are upwards absolute between candidates and between
candidates and V as well.
13
P H(
1
) (in V and all candidates), and p P and q p are absolute
between the universe and H() (for large regular ).
If M is a candidate and p P
M
then there is an M-generic q p.
So transitive nep is a direct generalization of Suslin proper. Since (transitive collapses
of) elementary submodels (containing r
P
) are candidates, every transitive nep forcing
is proper. There are popular forcings that are transitive nep and not Suslin proper,
for example Laver, Miller or Sacks (all these forcings are Suslin
+
and even satisfy an
eective version of Axiom A, see [7] for a proof).
If P is nep and M a candidate, then
M p (
) i
M[G] (
[G]) for every lter G containing p which is P-generic over M and V.

14
When we say P is nep we mean
(a suitable denition of) P is nep with respect to some strongly normal ZFC
.
In practice the choice of ZFC
is immaterial (similar to the choice of in the denition

of proper forcing). If you believe this you can skip the following explanation, continue
at the proof of theorem 6.1, let S () be some regular
> and ignore the arguments

why certain models are in fact candidates.
Why do we use strongly normal here, and not just normal, i.e.
H() ZFC
for large regular ?

Normal would denitely be enough to imply proper. The point in using strongly normal
is that we can assume without loss of generality that not only the candidate M satises
ZFC
, but also e.g. all forcing extensions M[G] (for forcings that are small in M). (This
is of course not possible with a ZFC
that is just normal. For example if V = L then

there is a normal ZFC
containing V = L, but ZFC
fails to be normal in any nontrivial

forcing extension.)
15
Lets explain that in more detail:
First note that we are dealing with two forcings, Q
I
and P. Q
I
is Suslin ccc. This
implies that Q is Suslin proper (and therefore transitive nep) with respect to any ZFC
that contains a certain strongly normal sentence .

16
Each two strongly normal theories
are compatible (i.e. the union is strongly normal as well), and a forcing remains nep if
we strengthen ZFC
(since then there are fewer candidates). So we can assume without

loss of generality that Q and P are nep with respect to the same ZFC
.
13
I.e. if M
2
, M
1
are candidates, M
2
M
1
is a candidate, and M
1
p P, then M
2
p P and
V p P, and the same for .
14
More formally this reads: p forces: If G is M-generic, then M[G] (
[G]).
15
We can still formulate the theorem for forcings that are nep with respect to not necessarily strongly
normal theories, but then we have to use two theories ZFC
and ZFC
and have to assume something like

the following:
A forcing extension of a ZFC
-candidate is a ZFC
-candidate; P is nep with respect to ZFC
; ZFC
implies
that every small forcing R forces that P is nep with respect to ZFC
.
So the formulation of the theorem gets messy, while there is no gain in practice, where ZFC
is strongly
normal anyway.
16
is the completeness theorem for Keisler logic. This follows from the proof that Suslin ccc implies
Suslin proper in [4], see [7] for a discussion.
8
2
8

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
0
9

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
0
2
-
1
8

If 2
R
H() then
R
H
V
()[G] = H
V[G]
() and r (H
V[G]
() ) i H() (r ).
So if P is nep (or Borel outer measure preserving) in V, then it is nep (or preserving) in
H() (for suciently large regular ).
Let R be any forcing notion. We assumed that R forces that P is nep and preserving.
Also ZFC
is strongly normal, so R forces that H

V[G
R
]
() satises
ZFC
plus P is nep and Borel outer measure preserving ()

for every regular
R
. Clearly we can nd a
R
such that R forces that
R
<
R
, and
we can do that for all R H(). So for all there is a regular S () > such that
H() thinks that R forces () for all regular S () and R H(). (
2
)
Proof of theorem 6.1. The proof is very similar to the proof of preserving a little
implies preserving much in [13] (or its version in [7]). The point of the proof is that
we mix internal forcing extensions (i.e. by M-generic lters in V) for Q
I
and R (a
collapse) with external forcing extensions for P, and use absoluteness to compare what
P forces in the dierent internal models.
We will prove the theorem for the case that P is transitive nep. If you know the
general denition of nep, you will see that the same proof works for general nep as
well.
17
Recall that the Suslin ccc ideal I was dened by a Suslin ccc forcing Q
I
and a generic
real
I
(see 2.2).
We have to show the following: if T is an interpretation of
with respect to p,
then for all (or just: conally many) N H() containing p, T,
and for all
Gen(N) T the following holds:

there is an N-generic q p forcing that
Gen(N[G
P
]). ()
P is nep with respect to a strongly normal ZFC
. Set
0

1
,
1
S (
0
),
2

S (
1
), and
3
S (
2
).
There are conally many such N
0
H(
3
) containing P, p, T,
. We x such an
N
0
. So it is enough to show () for N
0
. Let i : N
0
M
0
be the transitive collapse.
For i 1, 2, set
i
i(
i
), and set
i(
). Note that i doesnt change p, T or
I
, since these objects are hereditarily countable (T is a Borel code, i.e. a real number).
Not surprisingly, () for N
0
is equivalent to the following:
there is an M
0
-generic q p forcing that
Gen(M
0
[G
P
]). (
2
)
This is straightforward: A lter G is M
0
-generic i it is N
0
-generic (since i doesnt
change the elements of P). Also, the evaluation of a name
s of a real number is absolute:

If G is M
0
-generic, then
s[G] = i(
s)[G]. To see this, pick in N

0
maximal antichains A
n
deciding
s(n). Fix n. If G is N
0
-generic, then G chooses an element of p A
n
N
0
forcing that
s[G](n) = m. M
0
thinks that p
n
forces that i(
s)(n) = m, so i(
s)[G](n) = m.
So in particular
[G] =
[G], and N
0
[G] and M
0
[G] see the same Borel null sets, i.e.
Gen(N
0
[G]) = Gen(M
0
[G]).
From now on for the rest of the proof we x the above M
0
, p, T,
.
We formulate (
2
) as a property of
:
17
You just have to use the ord-collapse instead of the transitive collapse, and keep in mind that the evalu-
ation of names
[G] has to be redened for non-transitive candidates. And you have to formulate awkward
requirements on ZFC
if you allow ZFC
to be a (,
P
)-theory.
8
2
8

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
0
9

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
0
2
-
1
8

Drrrxrrrox 6.5. Let M be a candidate containing p, T and
is absolutely generic
over M, or:
Gen
abs
(M), if
T and there is an M-generic q

P
p forcing that
Gen(M[G
P
]).
(Note that the denition of absolutely generic does not only depend on M, but on p,
T and
as well. However, these parameters are xed.)

Using this notion, (
2
) reads as follows:
Gen(M
0
) T = Gen
abs
(M
0
).
For any candidate M, Gen(M) is a measure 1 set. So if Gen(M)T = Gen
abs
(M) then
Gen
abs
(M) is a measure 1 set in T. As the rst step in our proof we show that Gen
abs
(M)
is at least nonempty:
Lrmmx 6.6. Assume that P is Borel outer measure preserving, M is a candidate, and
M thinks that
with respect to p, and

A is a positive Borel (code for a) subset of T.
Then Gen
abs
(M) A I
+
.
Paoor. In M, A is an interpretation of
with respect to p, since A T is positive.

So without loss of generality A = T, i.e. we just have to show that Gen
abs
(M) is positive.
Pick (in M) a p
p forcing that T
is positive. Let q p
be M-generic, and
G a P-generic lter over V containing q. So in M[G] (and therefore by absoluteness in
V[G]) T
V[G]
[G] is positive. T
V[G]
is the outer measure of T
V
(since P preserves
outer measure). So T
V
[G] is positive. Also, Gen(M[G]) is of measure 1. Therefore

X Gen(M[G]) T
V
[G]
is positive in V[G]. Clearly X Gen
abs
(M)
V
. So in V, Gen
abs
(M) has to be positive. -
Let (in M
0
, for i 1, 2) R
i
be the collapse of H
M
0
(
i
) to
0
, i.e. the set of nite
partial functions from to H
M
0
(
i
). Fix an
Gen(M
0
) T. We have to show that
Gen
abs
(M
0
).
Gen(M
0
) means that there is (in V) a Q
I
-generic lter G
Q
over
M
0
such that
I
[G
Q
] =
. Pick (again in V) an R
2
-generic lter G
R
2
over M
0
[G
Q
]. Set
M
M
0
[G
Q
][G
R
2
]. So we get (in V) the following forcing extensions:
M
0
M
0
[G
Q
] M
M
0
[G
Q
][G
R
2
]
M
sees all relevant information about H

1
H(
1
)
M
0
(in particular M
knows that H
1
is a candidate). So it is enough to show that M
thinks that
is absolutely generic for

H
1
:
Lrmmx 6.7. M
Gen
abs
(H
1
)
If we assume this, theorem 6.1 follows immediately: Q
I
R
2
H
M
0
(
2
). M
0
is the
transitive collapse of N
0
H(S (
2
)), so according to (
2
) M
is a candidate and P is
transitive nep in M
. Clearly M
knows that H
1
is a candidate. So according to the
lemma there is a p
such that
M
p is H
1
-generic, and p
Gen(H
1
[G
P
]).
Let (in V) q
P
p
be M
-generic. We claim that q witnesses (

2
), i.e. that
q is M
0
-generic and forces that
Gen(M
0
[G
P
])
.
So let G
P
be a P-generic lter over V containing q. Then G
P
is M
-generic.
M
[G
P
] thinks that G
P
(i.e. G
P
P
M
) is H
1
-generic, since this is forced by p
G
P
.
8
2
8

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
0
9

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
0
2
-
1
8

M
0
R
1
/
Q
G
M
1

Gen
abs
(H
1
) B
M
1
q
R
G
2
M
0
[
]
R
1
/Q
G
1
?
M
2

Gen
abs
(H
1
)
R
2
G
1

G
2
/
Frotar 2. The models used in the proof of lemma 6.7.
Being H
1
-generic is absolute (it just says that G
P
A = 1 for all maximal antichains
in H
1
). So G
P
really is H
1
-generic. Analogously
is I-generic over H
1
[G
P
].
Recall that H
1
= H(
1
)
M
0
, the denition of P is absolute between the universe and
H() and
1
is suciently large. Therefore P
H
1
= P
M
0
and H
1
contains exactly the
same subsets of P as M
0
does. So G
P
is M
0
-generic as well. Also, H
1
[G
P
] contains
exactly the same reals (in particular Borel codes) as M
0
[G
P
]. (This can again be seen
by deciding
r(n) by a maximal antichain.) Therefore
is I-generic over M
0
[G
P
]. This
is all forced by some q p, so we are nished.
Paoor or irmmx 6.7. We already know that
is I-generic over M
0
. Using the facts
that H
1
and M
0
see the same subsets of P and that H
1
is countable in M
we get
M
Gen(H
1
) T.
Assume towards a contradiction that M
Gen
abs
(H
1
). Since M
= M
0
[G
Q
][G
R
]
this is forced by some q G
Q
and r R
2
. However since R
2
is homogeneous and the
sentence
Gen
abs
(H
1
) only contains parameters in M
0
[G
Q
] we can assume that
r = 1, i.e.
M
0
q
Q
(
I
T,
R
2
I
Gen(H
1
) \ Gen
abs
(H
1
)). ()
Fix a positive Borel code B
q
M
0
such that
I
[G] : G V is an M
0
-generic lter containing q = Gen(M
0
) B
V
q
(see 2.3). Without loss of generality B
q
T, since (in M
0
) q
I
T.
Choose in V an R
1
-generic lter G
R
1
over M
0
, and set M
1
M
0
[G
R
1
]. M
1
knows
that H
1
is a candidate, and that B
M
1
q
T is positive. M
1
knows that P preserves Borel
outer measure (because of (
2
)), and H
1
thinks that T is an interpretation of
with
respect to p (since H
1
is the collapse of H
V
(
1
)). So we can apply lemma 6.6 in M
1
(i.e.
M
1
is the universe V and H
1
the candidate M) and nd a
Gen
abs
(H
1
) B
M
1
q
. In
particular
is I-generic over H
1
and therefore over M
0
. So in M
1
there is a M
0
-generic
lter G
Q
such that
[G
Q
] =
B
V
q
. Therefore q G
Q
, and we can factorize R
1
as
R
1
= Q R
1
/Q such that G
R
1
= G
Q

G
1
. (See gure 2 for a diagram of the forcing
extensions we are going to construct).
In M
0
[G
Q
] = M
0
[
] we look at the forcing R

2
= R
M
0
2
(the nite partial functions
from to H
M
0
(
1
) = H
1
).
2
>
1
and R
1
/Q is a subforcing of ro(R
1
), where R
1
H
1
.
So according to 2.10 (2) and (3), R
2
can be factorized as R
2
= (R
1
/Q) R
. We already
have the (R
1
/Q)-generic lter

G
1
(over M
0
[G
Q
]), now choose (as always in V) a R
-
generic lter

G
2
over M
1
. Set G
R
2
=

G
1

G
2
. So G
R
2
is R
2
-generic over M
0
[G
Q
]. Set
M
2
M
0
[
][G
R
2
].
8
2
8

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
0
9

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
0
2
-
1
8

Now set H
2
H(
2
)
M
1
. H
2
thinks that P is nep and that
Gen
abs
(H
1
) (by
absoluteness in M
1
). Also, H
2
is a candidate (by (
2
), since H
2
= H
M
0
[G
R
1
]). So for
some p
1
H
2
,
H
2
p
1
p is H
1
-generic, p
1

Gen(H
1
[G
P
])
.
In M
2
, there is an H
2
-generic p
2
p
1
(since M
2
thinks that P is nep and that H
2
is a candidate.) Let G
P
be a P-generic lter over M
2
containing p
2
. From now on,
we work in M
2
[G
P
]. G
P
is H
2
-generic and contains p
1
, so by absoluteness G
P
is H
1
-
generic as well and
Gen(H
1
[G
P
])
. On the other hand, according to (),
Gen(H
1
[G
P
])
, a contradiction. -
Note that if we set T =
= 2
this proof gives us preserving a little implies

preserving much of [13]:
Tnroarm 6.8. If in all forcing extensions of V, P is nep and preserves Borel positiv-
ity, then P preserves generics.
In particular, if P is provably nep and provably preserves Borel positivity, then P pre-
serves generics.
7. A general preservation theorem. For proving the main result 9.4 we will use a
general iteration theoremfor countable support iterations of proper forcings. It appeared
as Case A in Proper and improper forcing [12, XVIII,3]. The proof there is not easily
digestible, though. A simplied version appeared in Section 5 of Goldsterns Tools [2].
This version uses the additional requirement that every forcing of the iteration adds a
new real. Note that this requirement is met in many applications anyway (e.g. in the
forcings of [9] cited in the introduction).
A proof of the iteration theorem without this additional requirement appeared in [8]
and was copied into Set Theory of the Reals [1] (as rst preservation theorem 6.1.B),
but Schlindwein pointed out a problem in this proof.
18
Another proof (building on the
one in [2]) will appear in [3].
The general preservation theorem uses the following setting: Fix a sequence of in-
creasing arithmetical two-place relations R
n
on
. Let R be the union of the R

n
. As-
sume
( f
: f R for some
is closed,
f
: f R
n
is closed for all n ,
, and
for every countable N there is an such that f R for all f N (
(in this case we say covers N).
Drrrxrrrox 7.1. Let P be a forcing notion, p P.
1
. . . f
k
is a tools-interpretation of

f
1
, . . . ,
f
k
under p, if each
f
i
is a
P-name for an element of (, and there is an decreasing chain p = p
0
p
1
. . .
of conditions in P such that p
i
(
f
1
i = f
1
i &. . . &
f
k
i = f
k
i).
A forcing notion P is tools-preserving, if for all
N H(),
covering N,
18
See [11]. In this paper Schlindwein wrote a simple proof for the special case of
-bounding, however
he later found a problem in his own proof [C. Schlindwein, personal commuinication, April 2005]. He is
preparing a new version [10].
8
2
8

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
0
9

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
0
2
-
1
8

p, n
i
,

f
f N such that

f

f under p and f
i
R
n
i

there is an N-generic q p, forcing that
covers N[G
P
], and
f
i
R
n
i
for all i k.
Note that if

f is a tools-interpretation, then f
l
(.
Tools-interpretations dier from the interpretations of denition 5.9. They obviously
deal with functions from to instead of Borel sets modulo I. But there is another
technical dierence: For tools-interpretations, we require that there is a decreasing se-
quence of conditions p p
1
p
2
. . . , not just that for all n, the truth value of
(m n)
f (m) = f
(m) is positive.
19
Now we can formulate the rst preservation theorem [1, 6.1.B] already mentioned:
Tnroarm 7.2. Assume (P
i
,
Q
i
)
i<
is a countable support iteration of proper, tools-
preserving forcings. Then P
is tools-preserving.
20
8. Preservation of non-meager. In this section I is the ideal of meager sets.
This is the easiest (and already well known) case: strong preservation is equivalent
to preservation of generics and is iterable.
We already know that preservation of Borel positivity is equivalent to preservation of
Borel outer measure. The same holds for the non-Borel notions as well:
Lrmmx 8.1. Preservation of positivity implies preservation of outer measure, and the
same holds for the true version.
Paoor. Assume towards a contradiction that A is outer measure of X, and that p forces
that
B is outer measure of

X and A\
B is positive. Then A\
B contains a nonempty clopen

set D V. So p forces that D
V[G
P
]

X = D
V

X is null. By positivity preservation
D X has to be null, a contradiction.
To show the lemma for the true notion, the same argument works: Assume towards
a contradiction that A is true outer measure of and that p forces (
) D is null for
some clopen D A. Then dene
S
s S :
s
D, and
.
The usual argument shows that
is truly positive: Otherwise, let C be club such that
(C) = . Then C witnesses that A is not true outer measure of . On the other hand, p
forces that
) is null, a contradiction to true positivity preservation. -

It is well known that preservation of Cohens is iterable:
Tnroarm 8.2. If (P
i
,
Q
i
)
i<
is a countable support iteration of proper forcings such
that
P
i
(
Q
i
preserves Cohens) for all i , then P
preserves Cohens.
19
Given a forcing P and a tools-interpretation f
of a function
f V under p, we can nd a dense subforc-

ing P
P such that for every condition p
of P
there is a n(p
) such that p
forces that f
(n(p
))
f (n(p
)).
So with respect to P
, f
cannot be a tools-interpretation of
f any more. Denition 5.9 of interpretation on

the other hand is invariant under equivalent forcings.
20
Let us call P densely preserving, if there is a dense subforcing Q of P that is tools-preserving. Since
tools-interpretations are not absolute, densely preserving does not seem to imply tools-preserving. When
iterating forcings that do not neccessarily add reals, it actually seems that densely preserving is the property
that is preserved and not tools-preserving, see [3]. In practice this distinction is of course not important.
8
2
8

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
0
9

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
0
2
-
1
8

Paoor. This is proven as application 3 in [2] or as theorem 6.3.20 of Set theory of the
reals [1]. It is an easy application of tools-preservation (7.2):
Let be the set of clopen sets of 2
. Set
( = f
: (U ) f (U) U.
We dene f R
n
by
f ( and 2
and for some k n, f (U

k
).
Then for any N H(), covers N i is Cohen over N. Also f : f R
n
is clopen, so
f
i
R
n
i
can be forced by determining
f
i
m for some m. Therefore P preserves Cohens
i P is tools-preserving. This nishes the proof of 8.2.
Note that in this simple case tools-preservation isnt really needed. It is enough to
trivially modify the proof that a countable support iteration of proper forcings is proper
(see e.g. [1, 6.1.3]). In the following we point out the changes that have to be made to
this specic proof:
The lemma now reads:
Suppose (P
)
<
is a countable support iteration such that for all < ,
is proper and preserves Cohens.

Suppose that N H() contains (P
). Then for all N , for all N

and for all p P
N, whenever q
p is (N, P
)-generic and forces that
Gen(N[G
]), there is an (N, P
)-generic condition r
p such that r = q
and r
Gen(N[G
]).
The successor step is trivial. In the limit step we enumerate (just like the the
n
)
a list
T
n
of the P
-names in N of nowhere dense trees. Then we add the following

requirement: p
n+1
determines
T
n
up to a level m, and
T
n
m.
Why can we do this? By induction we already know that there is a P
n
-generic
q
n
p
n
over N that forces
Gen(N[G
n
]). Assume G
n
is P
n
-generic over V and
contains q. In N[G
n
], construct T
m
and an decreasing sequence p
m
n
< p
n
such that
p
m
n
T
m
=
T
n
m and

m
T
m
is a nowhere dense tree. So
m
for some m. T
m
lives in V (since it is nite). So there is an m, T
m
and a p
m
n
p
n
N such that
m
.
Now choose p
n+1
p
m
n
.
So in this case the additional preservation property can be satised locally (we can
once and for all deal with
M
n
in step n). -
Applying theorem 6.1 gives the following result due to Goldstern and Shelah [12,
Lem XVIII.3.11]:
Coaoiixa. 8.3. If (P
i
,
Q
i
)
i<
is a countable support iteration such that
Q
i
is provably
nep and provably doesnt make V meager, then P
doesnt make any old set meager.

9. Preservation of Lebesgue-positive. In this section, I is the ideal of Lebesgue
null sets.
The outer measure of X as dened in this paper is equivalent to the outer measure in
the usual sense, called Leb
(X). In particular, preservation of outer measure is equiva-

lent to the preservation of the value of Leb
(X), more formally: Assume Leb
(X) = r.
Then P preserves outer measure of X i P forces that Leb
(

X) = r.
Also the true outer measure is fully described by the true outer measure as a real,
dened by T-Leb
( ) minLeb
( (C)) : C club (note that T-Leb
really is a mini-
mum). Then P is true outer measure preserving i P preserves T-Leb
. (This follows
from the proof of the next lemma).
8
2
8

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
0
9

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
0
2
-
1
8

Lrmmx 9.1. If P is weakly homogeneous
21
and preserves (true) positivity then P pre-
serves (true) outer measure.
Paoor. For the untrue version, this is [1, Lem 6.3.10]. The same proof works for
true outer measure as well: Assume that B is a true outer measure of , that Leb(B) = r
1
and that p forces that
) and Leb(
) < r
2
< r
1
, r
2
rational. We have to show
that there is a truly positive
that fails to be truly positive after forcing with P.

So p forces that there is a sequence
I
n
of clopen sets such that

I
n
(
) and
Leb(
I
n
) < r
2
. Let p
n
, h(n), I
n
be such that for all m h(n),
p
n
Leb(
m>h(n)
I
m
) < 1/n & (k < m)
I
k
= I
k
.
So Leb(
m
) r
2
, and B \
m
is not null. Therefore
S
s S :
s

is is stationary (otherwise, the complement of S
would witness that B is not the true

outer measure or ). Dene
. So
is truly positive.
p
n
Leb(
I
m
\
m
) < 1/n, and
p
n

I
m
\
m
, i.e.
p
n
Leb
)) < 1/n. So
p
n
T-Leb
) 1/n.
Since the last statement does not contain any names except standard-names, and since P
is weakly homogeneous, we get 1
P
T-Leb
) 1/n for all n, i.e. T-Leb
) = 0.
So the truly positive
becomes null after forcing with P. -

Now we are going to show that strong preservation is equivalent to the Lebesgue
version of tools-preservation (see denition 7.1).
We list the clopen subsets of 2
as (I
i
)
i
, and interpret a function f
as a
sequence of clopen sets. We set
( f : i Leb(I
f (i)
) < 2
i
, and
f R
n
i f (, 2
, and for all l > n, I

f (l)
.
For f (, the set A
f

i>n
I
f (i)
is a null set. In fact, every null set is contained
in a A
f
for some f ( (see e.g. [1, 2.3.10] or [2]). f R just means A
f
.
is random over a model N i is not element of any null set coded by a real in N.
So is random over N i covers N.
For reference we baptize this version of tools-preservation:
Drrrxrrrox 9.2. P is called Lebesgue-tools-preserving if it is tools-preserving for the
R
n
dened as above.
It is clear that Lebesgue-tools-preserving implies preservation of generics and there-
fore preservation of positivity. Lebesgue-tools-preservation is preservation of generics
plus side functions. It turns out that this is equivalent to strong preservation:
Lrmmx 9.3. The following are equivalent:
1. P is Lebesgue-tools-preserving.
21
So if only contains standard-names, then (p
P
) implies (1
P

P
).
8
2
8

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
0
9

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
0
2
-
1
8

2. P is Lebesgue-tools-preserving for k = 1 and n
1
= 0.
3. P strongly preserves randoms.
Paoor. (2) (1): Assume N H(), p, , f
1
, . . . , f
k
,
f
1
, . . . ,
f
k
and n
1
, . . . , n
k
are
as in the denition of Lebesgue-tools-preserving.
Set n
max(k, n
1
, . . . , n
k
). p
n
p forces that f
i
n
f
i
n
. Let g
be such
that I
g
(m)
=
i=1...k
I
f
i
(n
+m)
, and
g the name of a function in
such that p forces that

I
g(m)
=
i=1...k
I
f
i
(n
+m)
. So for all m, p Leb(I
g
(m)
) < k2
(n
+m)
< 2
m
, i.e. p
g (.
g
g under p
n
(this is clear if we assume that the list I
m
contains no repetitions; otherwise we just have to choose
g(m) accordingly).
I
g
(m)
for all m; i.e. g
R
0
.
Since we assume (2) we can nd an N-generic q p
n
forcing that is random over
N[G] and that
g R
0
.
This means that q forces that I
f
i
(m)
for all i k and m > n
. And for n
i
m n
,
p
n
forces that I
f
i
(m)
= I
f
i
(m)
and therefore that I
f
i
(m)
. So q forces that
f
i
R
n
i
.
(2) (3): We show the equivalent property (3) of lemma 5.11. So x p and N and
assume p
I
+
BC
. We want to show that there is a T and a p
p such that T is an
interpretation of
with respect to p
, and for every
T N there is an N-generic
q p forcing that
Gen(N[G])
.
Since every positive set contains a positive closed set we can assume without loss
of generality that p forces that
is closed and that the measure of
is at least some
rational number r.
Any measurable A 2
can be approximated from the outside by countable unions

of clopen sets. If A is closed (i.e. compact), then any open cover of A has a nite sub-
cover. So for any > 0 there is a clopen set C A such that Leb(C \ A) < . In
particular there is a sequence of clopen sets
2
= A
0
A
1
A
such that Leb(A
n
\ A) = Leb(A
n
) Leb(A) < 2
n
and A =
A
n
. Set B
n
:= A
n
\ A
n+1
.
Then the B
n
are a disjoint sequence of clopen sets, A = 2
B
n
and
Leb(B
n
) = Leb(A
n
) Leb(A
n+1
) Leb(A
n
) Leb(A) < 2
n
.
So the sequence (B
n
) is coded by an f (. Also Leb(B
n
) = 1 Leb(A).
Applying this to
we get that p forces that there is the according
f for
. Pick an
N
H(
) containing p and
f , and let G V be an N
-generic lter. Then f
f [G]
f , witnessed by a decreasing sequence p

n
of elements of G.
Let (B
n
)
n
be the sequence of clopen sets corresponding to f
. B
n
is disjoint to B
m
for m n (since p forces this for
B). Also p forces that Leb(
B
n
) 1Leb(
) < 1r,
and therefore Leb(B
n
) 1 r. So T 2
n
is positive. T is an interpretation
of
with respect to p: Assume A T has measure s > 2

n
. Then p
n
p forces that
Leb(
m<n
B
m
) =< 2
n
and that

m<n
B
m
=
m<n
B
m
. A is disjoint to

n<m
B
m
, so
A
has to be positive.
Assume N H() contains p, P, T,
and T Gen(N). T means B
n
for
all n, i.e. f
R
0
. So by (2) there is a q p N-generic forcing that Gen(N[G]) and
that R
0
f . That again means that
, and we are nished.

(3) (2): Fix an N H(), a tools-approximation f
of
f under p such that
f , f
,
and p are in N, and an Gen(N) such that f
R
0
.
So the appropriate p
2
p forces that f
(0) =
f (0) and f
(1) =
f (1).
8
2
8

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
0
9

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
0
2
-
1
8

Set T 2
m>1
I
f
(m)
and
m>1
I
f (m)
.
Then T is an interpretation of
with respect to p
2
:
Assume A T is a positive Borel set. Pick N such that
nN
2
n
< Leb(A). p
N
p
2
forces that f
(i) =
f (i) for all i < N. So p

N
forces that A
m<N
I
f (m)
is empty, and that
Leb(
mN
I
f (m)
) < Leb(A), and therefore that A
is positive.
So by (3) we know that there is an N-generic q p
2
forcing that is random over N[G]
and that
means that for all m > 1, I
f (m)
. Since q p
2
, q forces that
is not in I
f (0)
= I
f
(0)
or I
f (1)
= I
f
(1)
either. So q forces that
f R
0
. -
Using this lemma, theorem 6.1 and the fact that strong preservation implies preserva-
tion we get:
22
Coaoiixa. 9.4. Assume that (P
i
,
Q
i
)
i<
is a countable support iteration such that for
all i,
Q
i
is provably nep and provably preserves Lebesgue positivity of V. Then P
preserves Lebesgue positivity (of all old positive sets).

The Diagram of Implications. So in the cases of the Lebesgue null and the meager
ideal we have implications of preservation of the following notions:
I is the Lebesgue null ideal:
Lebesgue-tools
(iterable)
true outer measure
/
P weakly
hom. (9.1)
o
randoms
true positivity
outer measure /
P weakly
hom. (9.1)
o
positivity
positivity of V
Borel outer measure
P nep: 6.1
For the denition of Lebesgue-tools-preserving, see 9.2.

For nep see section 6.
I is the meager ideal:
Cohens
(iterable)
true outer measure
outer measure
positivity
positivity of V
Borel outer measure

P nep: 6.1
For general Suslin ccc ideals we get:

22
Compare that to Zapletal [15, Cor 5.4.10]: Assume that there is a proper class of measurable Woodin
cardinals. If P is a forcing adding a single real which has a denition satisfying a (very general) syntax and
preserves Lebesgue positivity of V (or in fact positivity with respect to similar ideals), then the countable
support iteration of P (or arbitrary length) preserves positivity as well.
8
2
8

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
0
9

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
0
2
-
1
8

preserving true
outer measure
O
5.11
/
preserving true
positivity
O
5.8
strongly
preserving generics
/
5.6
preserving
generics
preserving many
generics
O
3.5
preserving
outer measure
/
preserving
positivity
preserving Borel
outer measure
O
/
P nep: 6.1
preserving
Borel positivity
P is Borel
homogeneous: 3.2
O
P nep: 6.8
preserving outer
measure of V
preserving
positivity of V
V has outer measure
0 or 1
o
Preservation of (Borel) positivity and outer measure is dened in 3.1, the true notions
in 5.5, and (strong) preservation of generics in 5.7 and 5.9. For P nep see section 6.
REFERENCES
[1] Tomrk Bxarosz.xskr and Hxrm Jtoxn, Set theory: On the structure of the real line, A K Peters,
Wellesley, MA, 1995.
[2] Mxarrx Goiosrrax, Tools for Your Forcing Construction, Set theory of the reals (Haim Judah, editor),
Israel Mathematical Conference Proceedings, vol. 6, American Mathematical Society, 1993, pp. 305360.
[3] Mxarrx Goiosrrax and Jxkor Kriixra, New reals: Can live with them, can live without them, preprint,
see http://arxiv.org/math.LO/0505471.
[4] Jxrmr Inoox (Hxrm Jtoxn) and Sxnxaox Snrixn, Souslin forcing, The Journal of Symbolic Logic,
vol. 53 (1988), pp. 11881207.
[5] Tnomxs Jrcn, Set theory, Monographs in mathematics, Springer, 2002, 3. millennium ed.
[6] Akrnrao Kxxxmoar, The higher innite, Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, Springer, 1994.
[7] Jxkor Kriixra, Preserving non-null with suslin
+
forcings, preprint, see
http://arxiv.org/math.LO/0211385.
[8] Mraosixv Rrrrck., Goldstern-Judah-Shelah preservation theorem for countable support iterations,
Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 144 (1994), pp. 5572.
8
2
8

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
0
9

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
0
2
-
1
8

[9] Axoazrs Rosixxowskr and Sxnxaox Snrixn, Measured creatures, Israel Journal of Mathematics,
vol. accepted, math.LO/0010070.
[10] Cnxz Scnirxowrrx, Understanding preservation theorems: omega-omega bounding, preprint, see
http://arxiv.org/math.LO/0505645 .
[11] , A short proof of the preservation of the
-bounding property, MLQ. Mathematical Logic

Quarterly, vol. 50 (2004), no. 1, pp. 2932.
[12] Sxnxaox Snrixn, Proper and improper forcing, Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, Springer,
1998.
[13] , Properness Without Elementaricity, Journal of Applied Analysis, vol. 10 (2004), pp. 168
289, math.LO/9712283.
[14] R. M. Soiovx. and S. Trxxrxrxtm, Iterated Cohen extensions and Souslins problem, Annals of
Mathematics. Second Series, vol. 94 (1971), pp. 201245.
[15] Jrxo arcn Zxrirrxi, Descriptive set theory and denable forcing, Memoirs of the American Mathe-
matical Society, vol. 167,3 (2004), no. 793, pp. vii+141.
JAKOB KELLNER
INSTITUT F

UR DISKRETE MATHEMATIK UND GEOMETRIE
TECHNISCHE UNIVERSIT

AT WIEN
1050 WIEN, AUSTRIA
E-mail: kellner@fsmat.at
URL: http://www.logic.univie.ac.at/
kellner
SAHARON SHELAH
EINSTEIN INSTITUTE OF MATHEMATICS
EDMOND J. SAFRA CAMPUS, GIVAT RAM
THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM
JERUSALEM, 91904, ISRAEL
and
DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS
RUTGERS UNIVERSITY
NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ 08854, USA
E-mail: shelah@math.huji.ac.il
URL: http://www.math.rutgers.edu/
shelah

Jakob Kellner and Saharon Shelah - Preserving Preservation

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

Jakob Kellner and Saharon Shelah - Preserving Preservation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8

AND SAHARON SHELAH

( < ) forces that the set of old reals

remains Lebesgue positive. Then P

forces this as well.

. It seems that such requirements are needed

partially supported by FWF grant P17627-N12.

V) Lebesgue null. So if we want to preserve

-bounding (or that satisfy the Laver or Sacks property) are

is null, or: X I, if for some A I

, r is called I-generic over N,

(X), where Leb

(X) R is the outer

minus the union

. We can add many Cohen (or random)

(or random algebra B

r codes a sequence of J many random reals.

X of these randomreals is a nowhere

is not equivalent to either the

c codes a sequence of J many Cohen reals.

X of these Cohen reals is a

R contains all q Q that are compatible with f (p)

R for a subset of ro(Q)

G) is dense, so q forces that there is a

G D.) In particular the truth value q

R is the P-name for the set of all

G] there is an R as required after all and we get a contradiction.

G for a P-generic lter containing p. Then there is

(as in the proof of (1)). Choose a maximal

and call the associated names for lters

R be the following P-name: If G

R consist of those q ro(Q)

be positive with outer measure B, and P a forcing.

(we will also

V has either outer measure

such that either

A and P forces that for all null sets X B, f

B as in the assumption and such that for A

(modulo I). In V[G

is positive and there is a ccc

is not meager, but in V

, P does not preserve positivity.

) many N H() containing p such that

countable there is an N A such that

A. According to (3), there is an N H() containing p and

A, and there are X

) many N H() containing p such that for

is the full or inverse limit), then we get the counterexample to

adds a Cohen real and there-

S to be strongly absolute. Then f

q are upwards absolute between V[G

S is strongly absolute, A is (in V[G

S are both B, then in V[G

S the identity is a complete embedding

S .) Therefore we can apply lemma 4.3 to get a complete embedding

such that P forces that

(think of 1 to be a H()). For C [1]

contain the same elements of J and 2

is club. For any N C

and any I-generic over N, is not in B. So (C

) = . The rest is similar. -

. Enumerate all positive