Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah - Reasonable Ultrafilters, Again

8
9
0

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

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

REASONABLE ULTRAFILTERS, AGAIN
ANDRZEJ ROS LANOWSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
Abstract. We continue investigations of reasonable ultralters on uncount-
able cardinals dened in Shelah [12]. We introduce stronger properties of
ultralters and we show that those properties may be handled in support
iterations of reasonably bounding forcing notions. We use this to show that
consistently there are reasonable ultralters on an inaccessible cardinal with
generating systems of size less than 2
. We also show how ultralters gen-

erated by small systems can be killed by forcing notions which have enough
reasonable completeness to be iterated with supports.
0. Introduction
Reasonable ultralters were introduced in Shelah [12] in order to suggest a line
of research that would repeat in some sense the beautiful theory created around the
notion of Ppoints on . Most of the generalizations of Ppoints to uncountable
cardinals in the literature go into the direction of normal ultralters and large
cardinals (see, e.g., Gitik [3]), but one may be interested in the opposite direction.
If one wants to keep away from normal ultralters on , one may declare interest
in ultralters which do not include some clubs and even demand that quotients by
a closed unbounded subset of do not extend the club lter of . Such ultralters
are called weakly reasonable ultralters, see 1.1, 1.2. But if we are interested in
generalizing Ppoints, we have to consider also properties that would correspond
to any countable family of members of the ultralter has a pseudo-intersection in
the ultralter. The choice of the right property in the declared context of very
non-normal ultralters is not clear, and one of the goals of the present paper is to
show that the very reasonable ultralters suggested in Shelah [12] (see Denition
1.3 here) are very reasonable indeed, that is we may prove interesting theorems on
them.
In the rst section we recall some of the concepts and results presented in Shelah
[12] and we introduce strong properties of generating systems (super and strong
reasonability, see Denitions 1.11, 1.12) and we show that there may exist super
reasonable systems which generate ultralters (Propositions 1.15, 1.16).
In the next section we recall from [8] some properties of forcing notions relevant
for support iterations. We also improve in some sense a result of [8] and we show
a preservation theorem for the nice double abounding property (Theorem 2.13).
Date: September 2010.
1991 Mathematics Subject Classication. Primary 03E35; Secondary: 03E05, 03E20.
The rst author would like to thank the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Lady Davis
Fellowship Trust for awarding him a Schonbrunn Visiting Professorship under which this research
was carried out.
Both authors acknowledge support from the United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation
(Grant no. 2002323). This is publication 890 of the second author.
1
8
9
0

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

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

2 ANDRZEJ ROS LANOWSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
Then in the third section we show that super reasonable families generating
ultralters will be still at least strongly reasonable and will continue to generate
ultralters after forcing with support iterations of Abounding forcing notions.
Therefore, for an inaccessible cardinal , it is consistent that 2
=
++
and there
is a very reasonable ultralter generated by a system of size
+
(Corollary 3.4). It
should be stressed that generating an ultralter has the specic meaning stated
in Denition 1.3(3). In particular, having a small generating system does not
imply having small ultralter base.
The fourth section shows that some technical inconveniences of the proofs from
the third sections reect the delicate nature of our concepts, not necessarily our lack
of knowledge. We give an example of a nicely double abounding forcing notion
which kills ultralters generated by systems from the ground model. Then we show
that for an inaccessible cardinal , it is consistent that 2
=
++
and there is no
ultralter generated by a system of size
+
(see Corollary 3.4).
Studies of ultralters generated according to the schema introduced in [12] are
also carried out in Roslanowski and Shelah [10].
Notation: Our notation is rather standard and compatible with that of classical
textbooks (like Jech [5]). In forcing we keep the older convention that a stronger
condition is the larger one.
(1) Ordinal numbers will be denoted be the lower case initial letters of the
Greek alphabet (, , , . . .) and also by i, j (with possible sub- and su-
perscripts). Cardinal numbers will be called , , (with possible sub- and
superscripts). is always assumed to be regular, sometimes even
strongly inaccessible.
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().
(2) A sequence is a function with the domain being a set of ordinals. For two
sequences , we write whenever is a proper initial segment of ,
and when either or = . The length of a sequence is the
order type of its domain and it is denoted by lh().
(3) We will consider several games of two players. One player will be called
Generic or Complete or just COM, and we will refer to this player as she.
Her opponent will be called Antigeneric or Incomplete or just INC and will
be referred to as he.
(4) For a forcing notion P, all Pnames for objects in the extension via P will
be denoted with a tilde below (e.g.,
, X
). The canonical Pname for the

generic lter in P is called G
P
. 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 consideration 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() =
.
(5) 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
.
8
9
0

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

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

REASONABLE ULTRAFILTERS, AGAIN 3
1. More reasonable ultrafilters on
Here we recall some basic denitions and results from [12], and then we introduce
even stronger properties of ultralters and/or generating systems. We also show
that assumptions like
S
imply the existence of such objects.

As explained in the introduction, we are interested in ultralters (on an uncount-
able cardinal ) which are far from being normal. Weakly reasonable ultralters
dened below do not contain some clubs even if we look at their quotients by a
club.
Denition 1.1 ([12, Def. 1.4]). We say that a uniform ultralter D on is weakly
reasonable if for every function f

there is a club C of such that
_
[, +f()) : C / D.
Observation 1.2 ([12, Obs. 1.5]). Let D be a uniform ultralter on . Then the
following conditions are equivalent:
(A) D is weakly reasonable,
(B) for every increasing continuous sequence
: < ) there is a club

C
of such that
_
_
[
,
+1
) : C
_
/ D.
We want to investigate ultralters on which are generated by systems dening
largeness in by giving a condition based on largeness in intervals below .
The family Q
0
introduced below is a natural generalization of the approach used

in [7, Sections 5, 6]. The directness of G
is an easy way to guarantee that l(G
)
is a lter, and (<
+
)directness has the avour of Ppointness.
Denition 1.3 ([12, Def. 2.5]). (1) Let Q
0
consist of all tuples

p = (C
p
, Z
p
: C
p
), d
p
: C
p
))
such that
(i) C
p
is a club of consisting of limit ordinals only, and for C
p
:
(ii) Z
p
=
_
, min
_
C
p
( + 1)
__
and
(iii) d
p
T(Z
p
) is a proper non-principal ultralter on Z

p
.
(2) For q Q
0
we let
l(q)
def
=
_
A : ( < )( C
q
)(A Z
q
d
q
)
_
,
and for a set G
Q
0
we let l(G
)
def
=
l(p) : p G
. We also dene
a binary relation
0
on Q
0
by
p
0
q if and only if l(p) l(q).
(3) We say that an ultralter D on is reasonable if it is weakly reasonable
(see 1.1) and there is a directed (with respect to
0
) set G
Q
0
such that
D = l(G
). The family G
may be called the generating system for D.

(4) An ultralter D on is said to be very reasonable if it is weakly reasonable
and there is a (<
+
)directed (with respect to
0
) set G
Q
0
such that
D = l(G
).
Denition 1.4. Suppose that
(a) X is a non-empty set and e is an ultralter on X,
8
9
0

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

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

(b) d
x
is an ultralter on a set Z
x
(for x X).
We let
e
xX
d
x
=
_
A
_
xX
Z
x
: x X : Z
x
A d
x
e
_
.
(Clearly,
e
xX
d
x
is an ultralter on
xX
Z
x
.)
Proposition 1.5 ([12, Prop. 2.9]). Let p, q Q
0
. Then the following are equiva-

lent:
(a) p
0
q,
(b) there is < such that
_
C
q

__
A d
q
__
C
p
__
A Z
p
d
p
_
,
(c) there is < such that
if C
q
,
0
= sup
_
C
p
( + 1)
_
,
1
= min
_
C
p
min(C
q
( + 1))
_
,
then there is an ultralter e on [
0
,
1
) C
p
such that
d
q
=
_
A Z
q
: A
e
d
p
: [
0
,
1
) C
p
_
.
Observation 1.6 (Compare [12, Prop. 2.3(4)]). If p Q
0
, A , then there is
q Q
0
such that p
0
q and either A l(q) or A l(q).
Denition 1.7 ([12, Def. 2.10]). Let p Q
0
. Suppose that X [C
p
]
and C C
p
is a club of such that
if < are successive elements of C,
then [[, ) X[ = 1.
(In this situation we say that p is restrictable to X, C).) We dene the restriction
of p to X, C) as an element q = pX, C) Q
0
such that C
q
= C, and if <
are successive elements of C, x [, ) X, then Z
q
= [, ) and d
q
= A Z
q
:
A Z
p
x
d
p
x
.
Proposition 1.8 ([12, Prop. 2.11]). (1) If G
Q
0
is
0
directed and [G
[
, then G
has a
0
upper bound. (Hence, in particular, l(G
) is not an
ultralter.)
(2) Assume that G
Q
0
is
0
directed and
0
downward closed, p G
,
X [C
p
]
and C C
p
is a club of such that p is restrictable to X, C).
If
xX
Z
p
x
l(G
), then pX, C) G
.
The following denition is used here to simplify our notation in 1.11 only. How-
ever, these concepts play a more central role in [10].
Denition 1.9. (1) Let Q
be the family of all sets r such that

(a) members of r are triples (, Z, d) such that < , Z [, ),
0

[Z[ < and d is a non-principal ultralter on Z, and
(b)
_
<
__
[(, Z, d) r : = [ <
_
, and [r[ = .
For r Q
we dene
l
(r) =
_
A :
_
<
__
(, Z, d) r
__
A Z d
__
,
and we dene a binary relation
on Q
by
r
1

r
2
if and only if (r
1
, r
2
Q
and) l
(r
1
) l
(r
2
).
8
9
0

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

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

(2) For a set G
we let l
(G
) =
_
l
(r) : r G
.
(3) We say that an r Q
is strongly disjoint if and only if
_
<
__
[(, Z, d) r : = [ < 2
_
, and
_
(
1
, Z
1
, d
1
), (
2
, Z
2
, d
2
) r
__
1
<
2
Z
1

2
_
.
(4) For p Q
0
we let #(p) = (, Z
p
, d
p
) : C
p
.
Observation 1.10. (1) If p Q
0
then #(p) Q
is strongly disjoint and

l(p) = l
(#(p)). Also, if r Q
is strongly disjoint, then l
(r) = l(p)
for some p Q
0
.
(2) Let r, s Q
. Then r
s if and only if there is < such that

_
(, Z, d) s
__
A d
__
>
_
(
, Z
, d
) r
__
A Z
__
.
The various denitions of super reasonable ultralters introduced in Denition
1.11 below are motivated by the proof of the Sacks forcing preserves Ppoints.
In that proof, a fusion sequence is constructed so that at a stage n < of the
construction one deals with nitely many nodes in a condition (the nodes that are
declared to be kept). We would like to carry out this kind of argument, e.g., for
forcing notions used in [9, B.8.3, B.8.5], but now we have to deal with < nodes in
a tree, and the ultralter we try to preserve is not that complete. So what do we do?
We deal with nitely many nodes at a time eventually taking care of everybody.
One can think that in the denition below the set I
is the set of nodes we have to

keep and the nite sets u
,i
are the nodes taken care of at a substage i.
The technical aspects of 1.11 are motivated by the iteration theorems in [8] and
[6]: our games here are taylored to t the games played on trees of conditions in
support iterations, see Theorems 3.2, 3.3 later. As said earlier, the main goal is
to have a property of G
which implies the preservation of l(G
) is an ultralter
by many forcing notions. We would also love to preserve that property itself, but
we failed to achieve it. The super reasonability is what we need to preserve the
ultralter (see 3.2), strong reasonability is what we can prove about G
in the
extension (see 3.3).
Denition 1.11. Let G
Q
0
and let =
: < ) be a sequence of cardinals,

2
for < .
(1) We dene a game

(G
) between two players, COM and INC. A play of

(G
) lasts steps and at a stage < of the play the players choose
I
, i
, u
and r
,i
, r
,i
, (
,i
, Z
,i
, d
,i
) : i < i
) applying the following

procedure.
First, INC chooses a non-empty set I
of cardinality <
and an
enumeration u
= u
,i
: i < i
) of [I
]
<
(so i
<

0
).
Next the two players play a subgame of length i
. In the i
th
move of
the subgame,
(a) COM chooses r
,i
G
, and then
(b) INC chooses r
,i
G
such that r
,i

0
r
,i
, and nally
(c) COM picks (
,i
, Z
,i
, d
,i
) #
_
r
,i
_
such that
,i
> .
In the end of the play COM wins if and only if
() there is r G
such that for every

j = j
: < )

<
I
we have
(
,i
, Z
,i
, d
,i
) : < , j
u
,i
and i < i
#(r).
8
9
0

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

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

A game

(G
) is dened similarly to

(G
) except that () is weakened

to
() for every

j

<
I
the set
Z
,i
: < , i < i
and j
u
,i
belongs to l(G
).
(2) We say that the family G
is super reasonable ( super
reasonable,
respectively) if
(i) G
is (<
+
0
), and
(ii) if s G
, r Q
0
and for some < we have C

r
= C
s
and
d
r
= d
s
for C
r
, then r G
, and
(iii) INC has no winning strategy in the game

(G
) (

(G
), respec-
tively).
(3) We say that a uniform ultralter D on is super reasonable ( super
reasonable, respectively) if there is a super reasonable ( super
reason-
able, respectively) set G
Q
0
such that D = l(G
).
(4) If
= for all < , then we omit and say just super reasonable
or super
reasonable (in reference to both ultralters on and families

G
Q
0
). Also in this case we may write
instead of

.
Denition 1.12. Let G
Q
0
be directed with respect to

0
and let =
:
< ) be a sequence of cardinals, 2
for < .
(1) A game

(G
) between two players, COM and INC is dened as follows.

A play of

(G
) lasts steps and at a stage < of the play the

players choose I
, i
, u
and r
,i
,
,i
, (
,i
, Z
,i
, d
,i
) : i < i
) applying
the following procedure.
First, INC chooses a non-empty set I
of cardinality <
, and then
COM chooses i
< and a sequence u
= u
,i
: i < i
) of non-empty
nite subsets of I
such that I
i<i
u
,i
.
Next the two players play a subgame of length i
. In the i
th
move of
the subgame,
(a) COM chooses r
,i
G
and then
(b) INC chooses
,i
< , and nally
(c) COM picks (
,i
, Z
,i
, d
,i
) #
_
r
,i
_
such that
,i
is above
,i
and .
In the end of the play COM wins if and only if
() there is r G
such that for every

j = j
: < )

<
I
we have
(
,i
, Z
,i
, d
,i
) : < , j
u
,i
and i < i
#(r).
A game

(G
) is dened similarly to

(G
) except that () is weakened

to
() for every

j

<
I
the set
Z
,i
: < , i < i
and j
u
,i
belongs to l(G
).
(2) If G
Q
0
is (<
+
0
) and INC has no winning
strategy in the game

(G
), then we say that G
is strongly reasonable.
Also, G
is said to be strongly
reasonable if it is (<
+
)directed and
INC has no winning strategy in the game

(G
).
8
9
0

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

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

(3) We say that a uniform ultralter D on is strongly reasonable (
strongly
reasonable, respectively) if there is a strongly reasonable (

strongly
reasonable, respectively) set G
Q
0
such that D = l(G
). If
= for all < , then we omit and say just strongly reasonable or
strongly
reasonable.
Observation 1.13. Assume that 2
for < and =
: <
), =
: < ). Then for a family G
Q
0
and/or a uniform ultralter D

on the following implications hold.
super reasonable super reasonable strongly reasonable

super
reasonable super
reasonable strongly
reasonable
Proposition 1.14. Assume that 2
for < and =
: < ). If
a uniform ultralter D on is strongly
reasonable, then it is very reasonable.

Proof. Pick a strongly
reasonably family G
Q
0
such that D = l(G
).
Then G
is (<
+
)directed and the proof will be completed once we show that D
is weakly reasonable.
Let f

. We will argue that for some club C =
: < we have
[, +f()) : C / D, where
are given by the arguments below.

We consider the following strategy st(f) for INC in

(G
). The strategy st(f)

instructs INC to construct on the side an increasing continuous sequence
: <
) so that at a stage < of the play, when
, i
, u
, r
,i
,
,i
, (
,i
, Z
,i
, d
,i
) : i < i
) : <
_
is the result of the play so far, then
if is limit, then
= sup(
: < ),
if is not limit, then
= sup
_
Z
,i
: i < i
, <
_
+ 1.
Now (at the stage ) st(f) instructs INC to choose I
= 0 and then (after COM

picks i
, u
) he is instructed to play in the subgame of this stage as follows. At

stage i < i
, after COM has picked r

,i
, INC lets
,i
=
+f(
) + sup
_
_
Z
,j
: j < i
_
+ 890.
(After this COM chooses (
,i
, Z
,i
, d
,i
) #
_
r
,i
_
with
,i
>
,i
.)
The strategy st(f) cannot be the winning one for INC, so there is a play
, i
, u
, r
,i
,
,i
, (
,i
, Z
,i
, d
,i
) : i < i
) : <
_
of

(G
) in which INC follows st(f) but

A
def
=
_
_
Z
,i
: < , i < i
_
l(G
) = D
(note that necessarily u
,i
= I
= 0). It follows from the choice of
,
,i
that
for each <
[
+f(
))
_
_
Z
,i
: < , i < i
_
= ,
and hence also
_
[
+ f(
)) : <
_
A
= . Consequently
_
[
+
f(
)) : <
_
/ D and one can easily nish the proof.
Proposition 1.15. Assume =
<
and
S
holds. There exists a sequence

r
: <
+
) Q
0
such that
8
9
0

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

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

(i) ( < <
+
)(r

0
r
), and
(ii) the family
G
def
=
_
r Q
0
: ( <
+
)(r
0
r
)
_
is super reasonable and l(G
) is an ultralter on .
Proof. The sequence r
: <
+
) will be constructed inductively. At successor
stages we will use 1.6 to make sure that l(G
) is an ultralter. At limit stages we

will use 1.8(1) to nd upper bounds to the sequence constructed so far. Moreover,
at (some) stages of conality the element r
will be chosen so that it kills a

strategy for INC in
(G
) predicted by the diamond sequence.

For < let X
1
be the set of all legal plays of
(Q
0
) of the form
()
1
, i
, u
, r
,i
, r
,i
, (
,i
, Z
,i
, d
,i
) : i < i
) : <
_
where each I
(for < ) is an ordinal below . Also let X

1
=
<
X
1
. Next, for
< , 0 < I < and an enumeration u = u
j
: j < i) of [I]
<
let X
2
,I, u
be the
set of all legal plays of
(Q
0
) of the form
()
2
,I, u

(I, i, u))
r
j
, r
j
, (
j
, Z
j
, d
j
) : j < j
r),
where X
1
, j
< i (and r
j
, r
j
, (
j
, Z
j
, d
j
) : j < j
r) is a legal partial play

of the subgame of level ; in particular r
j
, r
j
, r Q
0
). Also let
X
2
=
_
X
2
,I, u
: < and 0 < I < and
u = u
j
: j < i) is an enumeration of [I]
<
_
.
Any strategy for INC in
(Q
0
) can be interpreted as a function st such that

()
3
the domain of st is X
1
X
2
,
()
4
if X
1
, < , then st( ) = (I, i, u) for some I < and an enumeration

u = u
j
: j < i) of [I]
<
,
()
5
if X
2
,I, u
, < , 0 < I < , u = u
j
: j < i) = [I]
<
, and =

0
(I, i, u))
r
j
, r
j
, (
j
, Z
j
, d
j
) : j < j
r), then st( ) Q

0
is such
that r
0
st( ).
Below, whenever we say a strategy for INC we mean a function st satisfying con-
ditions ()
3
()
5
.
Since [Q
0
[ = 2
2
<
=
+
, we may pick a bijection
0
: Q
0
11

+
and for <
+
let A
consist of all X
1
X
2
such that
0
(r) < for all elements r Q
0
involved in the representation of as in ()

1
, ()
2
. We also let }
consist of all
pairs ( , a) such that
A
and a = st( ) for some strategy st of INC, and

if X
2
(and so a Q
0
) then
0
(a) < .
Note that [A
[ and [}
[ (for each <

+
). Put } =
<
+
}
. Plainly
[}[ =
+
so we may x a bijection
1
:
+
onto
}. Let
C = <
+
:
1
[] = }
;
it is a club of
+
.
Let A
: <
+
) list all subsets of and let B
: S
) be a diamond
sequence on S
= <
+
: cf() = . By induction on <
+
we choose
a
0
increasing sequence r
: <
+
) Q
0
applying the following procedure.

Assume <
+
and we have constructed r
: < ).
8
9
0

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

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

Case 0: = 0.
We let r
0
be the <
rst member of Q
0
.
Case 1: = + 1.
Pick r
Q
0
such that r

0
r
and either A
l(r
) or A
l(r
) (remember
Observation 1.6).
Case 2: is a limit ordinal, cf() < .
Pick r
Q
0
such that ( < )(r

0
r
) (exists by Proposition 1.8(1)).

Case 3: is a limit ordinal, cf() = .
Now we ask if
()
6
C and ( < )(
0
(r
) < ) and there is a strategy st for INC in
(Q
0
) such that
1
[B
] = st }
= stA
.
If the answer to ()
6
is negative, then we choose r
Q
0
as in Case 2.
Suppose now that the answer to ()
6
is positive (so in particular C) and st

is a strategy for INC such that
1
[B
] = st }
= stA
. Let

=
: < ) be
an increasing continuous sequence conal in . Consider a play
=
, i
, u
, r
,i
, r
,i
, (
,i
, Z
,i
, d
,i
) : i < i
) : <
_
of
(Q
0
) in which INC follows the strategy st and COM proceeds as follows.

When playing
(Q
0
), at step i < i
of the subgame of level < (of
(Q
0
))
COM chooses r
,i
= r
and then, after INC determines r
,i
by st, she picks the
<
rst (
,i
, Z
,i
, d
,i
) #(r
,i
) satisfying:
()
7
,,i
( )(A d
,i
)( C
r
)(A Z
r
d
r
) (remember 1.5) and

()
8
,,i
( < )(j < i
)(Z
,j

,i
) and (j < i)(Z
,j

,i
).
The above rules fully determine the play and it should be clear that A
for each < . Note that depends on B
and

only (and not on st, provided it
is as required by ()
6
).
By the demands ()
8
,,i
, we may choose an increasing continuous sequence
:
< ) such that
0
= 0 and ( < )(i < i
)(Z
,i
[
,
+1
)). Now, for
< choose an ultralter e
on i
such that
()
9
,
_
j I
__
i < i
: j u
,i
e
_
and let d
be an ultralter on [
,
+1
) such that
()
10
,
e
_
d
,i
: i < i
_
d
.
Now let r
Q
0
be such that
C
r
: < , and
if =
, then Z
r
= [
,
+1
) and d
r
= d
.
One easily veries that r

0
r
for all < (remember ()

7
and the choice of
d
; use 1.5) and so r

0
r
for all < . It follows from ()

9
,
and ()
10
,
that
()
11
for every

j = j
: < )

<
I
we have
_
(
,i
, Z
,i
, d
,i
) : < & j
u
,i
& i < i
,i
_

#(r
).
After the construction of r
: <
+
) is carried out we let
G
= r Q
0
: ( <
+
)(r
0
r
).
8
9
0

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

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

Plainly, G
satises demands (i) and (ii) of 1.11(2) and l(G
) is an ultralter on
(remember Case 1 of the construction). We should argue that INC has no winning
strategy in
(G
). To this end suppose that st
is a strategy of INC in
(G
).
Pick S
C such that ( < )(

0
(r
) < ) and
1
[B
] = st
= st
.
Then when choosing r
we gave a positive answer to ()

6
and we constructed a
play of
(Q
0
). In that play, INC follows st
and COM chooses members of G
,
so it is a play of
(G
) . Now the condition ()

11
means that r
witnesses that
COM wins the play and consequently st
is not a winning strategy for INC.

Proposition 1.16. Let Q
0
= (Q
0
,
0
).
(1) Q
0
is a (<
+
)complete forcing notion of size 2
2
<
.
(2)
Q
0
Q
0
is a super reasonable family and l(G
Q
0
) is an ultralter .
Proof. (1) Should be clear; see also Proposition 1.8(1).
(2) By the completeness of Q
0
, forcing with it does not add new subsets of , and

by 1.5
Q
0
l(G
Q
0
) is a uniform ultralter on .
It should also be clear that G
Q
0
satises the demands of 1.11(2)(i+ii) (in V

Q
0
).
Let us argue that
Q
0
INC has no winning strategy in
(G
Q
0
)
and to this end suppose p Q
0
and st
is a Q
0
name such that

p
Q
0
st
(G
Q
0
) .
We are going to construct a condition q Q
0
stronger than p and a play of
(Q
0
) such that
q
Q
0
is a play of
(G
Q
0
) in which INC follows st
but COM wins.

Let X
1
, X
2
be dened as in the proof of 1.15 (see ()
1
, ()
2
,I, u
there). We may
assume that
p
Q
0
st
is a function satisfying ()
3
()
5
of the proof of 1.15 .
By induction on < we choose conditions p
Q
0
and partial plays
X
1
so that
()
1
p
0
p

0
p
and
for < < ,

()
2
p

Q
0
is a partial play of
(G
Q
0
) in which INC uses st
,
()
3
if
, i
, u
, r
,i
, r
,i
, (
,i
, Z
,i
, d
,i
) : i < i
) : <
_
, then for
every < < and j < i < i
we have
r
,i

0
p
and Z
,j

,i
and Z
,j

,0
.
Suppose that =
+ 1 and we have determined p
. Pick p

0
p
and I
, i
, u
such that p
st
) = (I
, i
, u
). Now choose inductively

p
i
, r
,i
, r
,i
and (
,i
, Z
,i
, d
,i
) for i < i
so that for each i < j < i
we have
()
4
(i) p
0
= p
, p
i

0
p
j
, p
i
= r
,i

0
r
,i

0
p
i+1
, and
(ii) p
i+1
,i
is the answer by st
at stage i of the subgame ,

(iii)
,i
satises the demand in ()
3
and (
,i
, Z
,i
, d
,i
) #(r
,i
),
(iv) (A d
,i
)(
)( C
p
)(A Z
p
d
p
).
8
9
0

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

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

Then p
+1
is any
0
upper bound to p
i
: i < i
.
The limit stages of the construction should be clear.
After the construction is carried out and we have
: < , we dene
r Q
0
like r
in the proof of 1.15 (see ()

9
,
+()
10
there). Then r is
0
stronger
then all p
(for < ) and

r
Q
0
is a play of
(G
Q
0
but COM wins .

(Note that the respective version of ()
11
of the proof of 1.15 holds. By the com-

pleteness it continues to hold in V
Q
0
.)
2. More on reasonably complete forcing
Denition 2.1. Let P be a forcing notion.
(1) For a condition r P let
0
(P, r) be the following game of two players,
Complete and Incomplete:
the game lasts at most moves and during a play the
players attempt construct 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,
rst Incomplete chooses p
i
and then 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 strategically (<)complete if Complete
has a winning strategy in the game
0
(P, p) for each condition p P.
(3) 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 .
(4) 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 p N P there is an (N, P)generic condition q P
stronger than p.
Theorem 2.2 (See Shelah [11, Ch. III, Thm 4.1], Abraham [1, 2] and Eisworth
[2, 3]). 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
(1) for every <
++
,
P
=
+
, and
(2) the limit P
++ satises the
++
cc.
Proposition 2.3 ([9, Prop. A.1.6]). Suppose

Q = P
i
, Q
i
: i < ) is a support
iteration and, for each i < ,
Pi
Q
i
is strategically (<)complete .
Then, 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:
8
9
0

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

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

(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 ac-
cording to the strategy st(
1
, r), then (p
i
0
, q
i
0
0
(P
0
, r
0
) in which Complete uses st(
0
, r
0
);
(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 2.4 (Compare [8, Def. 2.2]). (1) Let be an ordinal, w . A
standard (w, 1)
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 ),
(T, ) is a tree with root ) and such that every chain in T has a
upper bound in T,
if t T, then there is t
T such that t t
and rk(t
) = .
We will keep the convention that T
x
y
is (T
x
y
, rk
x
y
).
(2) 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, 1)
tree for some w , and

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

Q, p
i
= p
i
t
: t T). We write
p
0
p
1
whenever for each t T we have p
0
t
p
1
t
.
Note that our standard trees and trees of conditions are a special case of that
introduced in [9, Def. A.1.7] when = 1. Also, the rank function rk is essentially
the function giving the level of a node, adjusted to have values in w via the
canonical increasing bijection.
Proposition 2.5 (See [9, Prop. A.1.9]). 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), and such that conditions
q
t0
, q
t1
are incompatible whenever t
0
, t
1
T, rk(t
0
) = rk(t
1
) but t
0
,= t
1
.
Denition 2.6 (See [8, Def. 3.1]). Let Q be a forcing notion and let =
:
< ) be a sequence of regular cardinals such that
0

for all < .

(1) For a condition p Qwe dene a reasonable Acompleteness game
rcA

(p, Q)
between two players, Generic and Antigeneric, as follows. A play of
rcA

(p, Q)
lasts steps and during a play a sequence
_
I
, p
t
, q
t
: t I
) : <
_
is constructed. Suppose that the players have arrived to a stage < of
the game. Now,
()
rst Generic chooses a non-empty set I
of cardinality <
and a
system p
t
: t I
) of conditions from Q,
8
9
0

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

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

()
then Antigeneric answers by picking a system q
t
: t I
) of condi-
tions from Q such that (t I
)(p
t
q
t
).
At the end, Generic wins the play
_
I
, p
t
, q
t
: t I
) : <
_
of
rcA

(p, Q) if and only if
()
rc
A
there is a condition p
Q stronger than p and such that

p
Q

_
<
__
t I
__
q
t
G
Q
_
.
(2) We say that a forcing notion Q is reasonably Abounding over if
(a) Q is strategically (<)complete, and
(b) for any p Q, Generic has a winning strategy in the game
rcA

(p, Q).
Denition 2.7 (See [8, Def. 3.2]). Let

Q = P
, Q
: < ) be a support
iteration and let =
: < ) be a sequence of regular cardinals such that
for all < .

(1) For a condition p P
= lim(
Q) we dene a tree Acompleteness game
treeA

(p,

Q) between two players, Generic and Antigeneric, as follows. A
play of
treeA

(p,

Q) lasts steps and in the course of a play a sequence
T
, p
, q
: < ) is constructed. Suppose that the players have arrived

to a stage < of the game. Now,
()
rst Generic picks a standard (w, 1)
tree T
such that [T
[ <
and
a tree of conditions p
= p
t
: t T
) P
(so Generic, as a part of

choosing T
, picks also w = w
),
()
then Antigeneric answers by choosing a tree of conditions

q
= q
t
: t T
) P
such that p
.
At the end, Generic wins the play T
, p
, q
: < ) of
treeA

(p,

Q) if and
only if
()
tree
A
stronger than p and such that

p
P

_
<
__
t T
__
rk
(t) = & q
t
G
P
_

(2) We say that P
= lim(
Q) is reasonably
A(
Q)bounding over if Generic

has a winning strategy in the game
treeA

(p,

Q) for every p P
.
Theorem 2.8 (See [8, Thm 3.2]). Assume that
(a) is a strongly inaccessible cardinal,
(b) =
: < ), each
is a regular cardinal satisfying (for < )
and
_
f

__
<
f()
<
_
,
(c)

Q = P
, Q
: < ) is a support iteration such that for every < ,
is reasonably Abounding over .

Then P
= lim(
Q) is reasonably
A(
Q)bounding over (and so P
is also
proper).
In [8, 3], in addition to Areasonable completeness game we considered its
variant called areasonable completeness game. In that variant, at stage <
of the game the players played a subgame to construct a sequence p
, q
: <
i
) (corresponding to p
t
, q
t
: t I
)). In the following denition we introduce

8
9
0

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

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

a further modication of that game. In the new game, the players will again
play subgames, in some sense repeating several times the subgames from the a
reasonable completeness game.
Denition 2.9. Let Q be a forcing notion and let =
: < ) be a sequence
of cardinals such that
0

< for all < . Suppose also that | is a normal

lter on .
(1) For a condition p Q we dene a reasonable doubleacompleteness game
rc2a

(p, Q) between Generic and Antigeneric as follows. A play of
rc2a

(p, Q)
lasts at most steps and in the course of the play the players try to con-
struct a sequence
()
, p
, q
: <
) : <
_
.
(Here
is treated as an ordinal and
is the ordinal product of
and
.) Suppose that the players have arrived to a stage < of the

game. First, Antigeneric picks a non-zero ordinal
< . Then the two

players start a subgame of length
alternately choosing the terms of

the sequence p
, q
: <
). At a stage =
i +j (where i <
,
j <
) of the subgame, rst Generic picks a condition p
Q stronger
than all conditions q
for < of the form =
+ j (where i
< i),
and then Antigeneric answers with a condition q
stronger than p
.
At the end, Generic wins the play () of
rc2a

(p, Q) if and only if both
players had always legal moves and
()
rc
2a

p
Q

_
<
__
j <
__
q
i+j
: i <
Q
_
.
(2) Games
rc2b
,U
(p, Q) (for p Q) are dened similarly, we only replace condi-
tion ()
rc
2a
by
()
rc
2b

p
Q

_
< :
_
j <
__
q
i+j
: i <
Q
__
|
Q
,
where |
Q
is the (Qname for the) normal lter generated by | in V
Q
.
(3) A strategy st for Generic in
rc2a

(p, Q) (or
rc2b
,U
(p, Q)) is said to be nice
if for every play
, p
, q
: <
) : <
_
in which she uses st,
for every < , the conditions in p
: <
are pairwise incompatible.

(These are conditions played in the rst run of the subgame. Note that
then p
, p
are incompatible whenever ,
mod
.)
(4) Let x a, b. A forcing notion Q is nicely double xbounding over (and
| if x = b) if
(a) Q is strategically (<)complete, and
(b) Generic has a nice winning strategy in the game
rc2a

(p, Q) (
rc2b
,U
(p, Q)
if x = b) for every p Q.
Remark 2.10. (1) Reasonable double xboundedness (for x a, b) is an
iterable relative of reasonable xboundedness introduced in [8, Denition
3.1, pp 206-207]. Technical dierences in the denitions of suitable games
are to achieve the preservation of the corresponding property in support
iterations (see Theorems 2.13, 2.14 below).
8
9
0

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

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

(2) The game
rc2b
,U
(p, Q) is easier to win for Generic than
rc2a

(p, Q) (because
the winning criterion is weaker). Therefore, if we are interested in
properness for support iterations only, then 2.14 will cover a larger class
of forcing notions than 2.13.
Denition 2.11 (See [8, Def. 6.1]). Suppose that is inaccessible and =
:
< ) is a sequence of cardinals, 1 <
< for < . We dene a forcing notion

P

as follows.
A condition in P

is a pair p = (f
p
, C
p
) such that
C
p
is a club of and f
p
: C
p
.
The order
P
= of P

is given by:
p
P
q if and only if C
q
C
p
and f
p
f
q
.
Proposition 2.12. (1) Assume that , are as in 2.11 above and let a se-
quence =
: < ) be chosen so that
<
< (for < ).

Then the forcing notion P

is nicely double bbounding over , T
.
(2) If
= for all < and
, then P
is nicely double abounding

over .
Proof. (1) A natural modication of the proof of [8, Prop. 6.1] works here. Note
that if

=
: < ) is an increasing continuous sequence constructed as there

during a play of
rc2b
,D
(p, P

), then the set B
def
=
_
< :
<
_
is in the
lter T
. In the game, the stages B are ignored and only those for B
are active. Also, at each stage we may create
not active steps at each

run of the subgame by picking an antichain of conditions incompatible with p.
(2) Similar; we get double abounding here as at each stage < of the game
we know that
<
(so all steps are active).

Theorem 2.13. Assume that
(a) is a strongly inaccessible cardinal,
(b) =
: < ) is a sequence of cardinals below such that ( < )(

0

=
|+1|
),
(c)

Q = P
, Q
: <
) is a support iteration such that for every < ,
is nicely double abounding over .

Then P
= lim(
Q) is nicely double abounding over (and so P
is also proper).
Proof. Our arguments rene those presented in the proof of [8, Theorem 3.2, p.
217], but the dierences in the games involved eliminate the use of trees of condi-
tions. However, trees of conditions are implicitely present here too. The tree at
level of the argument is indexed by
T
=
_
_
: w
_
and it is formed in part by conditions played in the game for various t

w
=
t T
: rk(t) =
; note the coherence demand in ()

7
.
8
9
0

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

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

Let p P
. We will describe a strategy st for Generic in the game

rc2a

(p, P
).
The strategy st instructs Generic to play the game
rc2a

on each relevant coordinate
<
using her winning strategy st

. At stage < Generic will be concerned
with coordinates w
for some set w
of size < . If
< is the ordinal put by

Antigeneric in the play of
rc2a

(p, P
), then in the simulated plays on coordinates

w
Generic pretends that her opponent put
. The innings of the two

players, Generic and Antigeneric, in the subgame of level on a coordinate are
p
,
= p
,
: <
) and q
,
= q
,
: <
),
respectively. Generics innings in the subgame of
rc2a

(p, P
) will be associated
with sequences t
= t
j
: j <
) =

t
. The innings of the two players will

be p
, q
(for <
) and they will be related to what happens at coordinates

w
as follows. If t = t
j
, w
and = (t)
<
, then in the subgame of
rc2a

(p, P
) of level at stages of the form =
i +j we will have p
() = p
,
and q
() = q
,
, where =
+.
To keep track of what happens at coordinates / w
Generic will use conditions

r
.
Let us note that the construction of st presented in detail below would be some-
what simpler if we knew that all forcings Q
are (<)complete (and not only

strategically (<)complete). Then st
, r
and p
,
could be eliminated as their

role is to make sure that some sequences of conditions (related to r
and/or p
)
have upper bounds. However, many natural forcing notions tend to have strategic
completeness only (see [9, Part B]).
Let us formalize the ideas presented above. For each <
pick a P
name st
such that
st
is a winning strategy for Complete in
0
_
Q
_
such that
if Incomplete plays
then Complete answers with
as well .
In the course of a play of
rc2a

(p, P
), at a stage < , Generic will be instructed

to construct on the side
()
, st

(for w
+1
w
), p
,
, q
,
, p
,
(for <
), and r
, r
.
These objects will be chosen so that if
, p
, q
: <
) : <
_
is a play of
rc2a

(p, P
) in which Generic follows st, and the additional objects

constructed at stage < are listed in ()
, then the following conditions are

satised (for each < ).
()
1
r
, r
, r
0
(0) = r
0
(0) = p(0), w
, [w
[ = [ +1[,
<
Dom(r
) =
<
w
, w
0
= 0, w
w
+1
and if is limit then w
<
w
.
()
2
For each < < we have ( w
+1
)(r
() = r
() = r
()) and
p r
, and p
,
(for <
).
()
3
If
, then
r
the sequence r
(), r
() : ) is a legal partial play of
0
_
Q
_
in which Complete follows st

8
9
0

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

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

and if w
+1
w
, then st

is a P
name for a nice winning strategy for

Generic in
rc2a

(r
(), Q
). (And st
0
is a nice winning strategy of Generic
in
rc2a

(p(0), Q
0
).)
()
4

t
= t
j
: j <
) is an enumeration of
=
w
.
()
5

(the ordinal product) and p
,
= p
,
: <
) and
q
,
= q
,
: <
) are P
names for sequences of conditions in Q
of
length
(for

<
w
).
()
6
If w
+1
w
, < (or = = 0), then
, p
,
, q
,
: <
) : ) is a partial play of
rc2a

(r
(), Q
) in which Generic uses st

.
()
7
If =
i +j, i <
, j <
, then
Dom(p
,
) = Dom(p
) = w
Dom(p)
_
<
Dom(r
)
_
<
Dom(q
),
and for each w
the condition p
,
is an upper bound to
p r
: <
q
+j
< & i
<
& j
<
& t
j
= t
j
.
()
8
If j <
, i <
, w
, (t
j
)
= and =
i +j, =
+ , then
p
,
() = p
() = p
,
and q
() = q
,
.
()
9
If =
i + j, i <
, j <
and t

: w
,
t t
j
, then
p
the sequence
p
,
(), p
() :
+j
& i
<
& j
<
& t t
j
)
is a legal partial play of
0
(Q
, p()) in which Complete follows st
.
()
10
Dom(r
) = Dom(r
) =
Dom(q
) : <
and if
,
t
: w
, and q P
, q r
and q q
whenever
=
i +j, i <
, j <
and t t
j
, then
q
P
if the set
p() r
() : <
q
() : =
i +j & i <
& j <
& t t
has an upper bound in Q
, then r
() is such an upper bound,

otherwise
r
() is just an upper bound to p() r
() : < .
Assume that the two players arrived to stage of
rc2a

(p, P
) and
, p
, q
: <
) : <
_
is the play constructed so far, and that Generic followed st and determined objects
listed in ()
(for < ) with properties ()

1
()
10
.
Below, whenever we say Generic chooses x such that we mean Generic chooses
the <
rst x such that , etc.

First, Generic uses her favorite bookkeeping device to determine w
so that the
demands of ()
1
are satised (and that at the end we will have
<
Dom(r
) =
8
9
0

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

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

<
w
). If < and w
, then we already have p
,
, q
,
for < (see
()
6
), but we have not yet dened those objects when =
0
+1 and w
w
0
.
So if =
0
+ 1 and w
w
0
then let p
,
= p
,
: <
) and
q
,
= q
,
: <
) (for < ) be such that
, p
,
, q
,
: <
) : < ) is a partial play of
rc2a

(r
0
(), Q
) in which Generic uses st

and
p
,
= q
,
for all < , <
.
Condition ()
4
and our rule of taking the <
rst determine the enumeration
= t
j
: j <
) of
. Now Antigeneric picks
and the two players start

a subgame of length
. During the subgame Generic will simulate subgames

of level at coordinates w
pretending that Antigeneric played
there. Each step in the subgame of

rc2a

(p, P
) will correspond to
steps in the
subgames of
rc2a

(r
(), Q
) (when w
+1
w
, < ). So suppose that the

two opponents have arrived to a stage =
i +j of the subgame, i <
, j <
,
and assume also that Generic (playing according to st) has already dened p
,
, q
,
for w
, <
and p
,
for
< , so that the requirements of ()

6
()
9
are
satised. Note that (by ()
7
()
9
)
() if >
+j
>
+j
, w
and t
j
= t
j
,
then p
p
,
.
For each w
and < (t
j
)
let p
+
,
= q
+
,
be P
names for conditions in

Q
such that (the relevant part of) ()

6
holds. The same clause determines also
p
+
,
for = (t
j
)
, w
. Then the requirements in ()

7
+ ()
8
essentially
describe what p
,
is. Note that the upper bound demands in ()

7
can be satised
because of ()
9
+ ()
3
and () above. Next, Generics inning p
in
rc2a

(p, P
)
is chosen so that Dom(p
) = Dom(p
,
) and clauses ()
8
+ ()
9
hold. After this
Antigeneric answers with a condition q
, and Generic picks for the construction

on the side names q
+
,
for w
and = (t
j
)
by the demand in ()
8
. She
also picks p
+
,
= q
+
,
for w
and (t
j
)
< <
so that ()
6
holds.
This completes the description of what happens during the
steps of the
subgame. After the subgame is over and the sequence p
, q
: <
) is
constructed, Generic chooses conditions r
, r
by ()
1
()
3
and ()
10
.
(Note: since st

are names for nice strategies, if
, i
0
, i
1
<
, j
0
, j
1
<
0
=
i
0
+j
0
,
1
=
i
1
+j
1
, t
0
, t
1

: w
, t
0
t
j0
, t
1
t
j1
and
t
0
,= t
1
, then the conditions q
0
, q
1
are incompatible.)
This nishes the description of the strategy st.
Let us argue that st is a winning strategy for Generic. Suppose that
, p
, q
: <
) : <
_
is a play of
rc2a

(p, P
) in which Generic followed st and she constructed the side

objects listed in ()
(for < ) so that demands ()

1
()
10
are satised. We
dene a condition r P
as follows. Let Dom(r) =
<
Dom(r
). For Dom(r)
let r() be a P
name for a condition in Q
such that
8
9
0

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

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

()
11
if w
+1
w
, < (or = = 0), then
r() r
() and r()
Q
_
<
__
j<
__
<
__
q
+j
,
G
_
.
Clearly r is well dened (remember ()
6
) and ( < )(r
r) and p r.
Suppose now that < and r
r. We are going to nd j <
and a condition
r
such that (i <
)(q
i+j
r
). To this end let
) be the
increasing enumeration of w
. For
and q P
, let st(, q) be a
winning strategy of Complete in
0
(P
, q) with the coherence properties given in

2.3.
By induction on
we will choose conditions r
, r
and (t)
<
such that
()
12
r
,
()
13
if i <
, j <
and (t
j
)
= (t)
for < , then q
i+j
,
()
14
r
), r
) : < ) is a partial legal play of
0
(P
, r
)
in which Complete uses her winning strategy st(
, r
).
Suppose that
is a limit ordinal and we have already dened (t)
<
and
r
, r
for < . Let = sup(
: < ). It follows from ()

14
that we may
pick a condition s P
stronger than all r
for < . Put r
= s
[,
) P
.
Then plainly r
and q
i+j
r
whenever
()
i,j,
15
i <
, j <
and (t
j
)
= (t)
for all < .

Now by induction on
we show that q
i+j
r
whenever ()
i,j,
15
holds. For we are already done, so assume [,
) and we have shown

that q
i+j
r
whenever ()
i,j,
15
holds. It follows from ()
7
+()
9
that the
condition r
forces in P
that
the set
p() r
() : <
_
q
() : =
i +j & i <
& j <
&
_
<
__
(t
j
)
= (t)
has an upper bound in Q
.
and therefore we may use ()
10
to conclude that
r
if ()
i,j,
15
holds, then q
i+j
() r
() r
() = r
() .
The limit stages are trivial and we may claim that q
i+j
whenever ()
i,j,
15
holds. Next, r
is determined by ()
14
.
Now suppose that = + 1
and we have already dened r
, r
and (t)
: < ). It follows from ()

11
that
r
r(
)
Q
_
<
__
<
__
q
+
,
_
,
so we may pick = (t)
and a condition s P
+1
such that r
and
s
_
<
__
q
+
,
s(
)
_
.
It follows from ()
13
+()
8
that then also q
i+j
(
+ 1) s whenever i <
,
j <
and (t
j
)
= (t)
for . We let r
= s
) and exactly like

in the limit case we argue that r
and q
i+j
whenever i <
,
j <
and (t
j
)
= (t)
for . Again, r
is determined by ()
14
.
8
9
0

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

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

After the induction is completed look at r
= r
and j <
such that t
j
=
(t)
: <
).
Theorem 2.14. Assume (a), (b) of 2.13. Suppose that | is a normal lter on
and
(c)

Q = P
, Q
: <
) is a support iteration such that for every < ,
is nicely double bbounding over , |

P
.
Then P
= lim(
Q) is nicely double bbounding over , |.

Proof. The proof essentially repeats that of 2.13 with the following modications
in the arguments that st is a winning strategy for Generic in
rc2b
,U
(p, P
).
We assume that
, p
, q
: <
) : <
_
is a play in which Generic
follows st and the objects listed in ()
were constructed on a side. A condition r

P
is chosen so that Dom(r) =
<
Dom(r
) =
<
w
and for each w

+1
w
,
< , we have
r() r
() and
r()
Q
< : (j <
)( <
)(q
+j
,
G
) |
P
+1
.
Then, for each Dom(r), we choose P
+1
names A
i
for elements of | such that
r()
Q
(
<
A
i
)(j <
)( <
)(q
+j
,
G
) .
Finally, we show that for each limit ordinal < ,
r
P
( w
)(
<
A
i
) (j <
)(i <
)(q
i+j
G
) .
For this we start with arbitrary condition r
r such that
r
P
( w
)(
<
A
i
)
and we repeat the arguments from the end of the proof of 2.13 to nd j <
and
r
such that (i <
)(q
i+j
r
).
3. Reasonable ultrafilters with small generating systems
Our aim here is to show that, consistently, there may exist a very reasonable
ultralter on an inaccessible cardinal with generating system of size less than 2
.
Lemma 3.1. Assume that G
Q
0
is directed (with respect to

0
) and l(G
) is
an ultralter on , r G
. Let P be a forcing notion not adding bounded subsets

of , p P and let A
be a Pname for a subset of such that p

P
A
_
l(G
)
_
+
.
Then
Y
def
=
_
_
Z
r
: C
r
and p
P
A
Z
r
/ d
r

_
l(G
).
Proof. Assume towards contradiction that Y / l(G
). Then we may nd s G
such that r
0
s and Y l(s). Take < such that
if C
s
,
then Z
s
Y d
s
and (A d
s
)( C
r
)(A Z
r
d
r
).
8
9
0

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

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

(Remember 1.5.) Now take a generic lter G P over V such that p G and
work in V[G]. Since A
G
l(s)
+
, we may pick C
s
such that < and
A
G
Z
s
d
s
. Then also Z
s
G
Y d
s
and thus we may nd C

r
such that
Z
s
G
Z
r
Y d
r
. In particular, Z
r
Y ,= , so p A
Z
r
/ d
r
, and thus
A
G
Z
r
/ d
r
. Consequently Z
s
G
Z
r
Y / d
r
giving a contradiction.
Theorem 3.2. Assume that
(i) is strongly inaccessible, =
: < ), each
is a regular cardinal,
and
_
f

__
<
f()
<
_
for < ;
(ii)

Q = P
, Q
: < ) is a support iteration such that for every < ,
is reasonably Abounding over ;

(iii) G
Q
0
is a
0
downward closed super reasonable family such that
l(G
Then
P
l(G
Proof. The proof is by induction on the length of the iteration

Q. So we assume
that (i)(iii) hold and for each <
()
l(G
Note that (by the strategic (<)completeness of P
) forcing with P
does not add

bounded subsets of , and therefore
_
Q
0
_
V
_
Q
0
_
V
P
.
Claim 3.2.1. Assume that
(a) A
is a P
name for a subset of such that

P
A
_
l(G
)
_
+
,
(b) w []
<
and T is a nite standard (w, 1)
tree, and
(c) p = p
t
: t T) is a (nite) tree of conditions in

Q, and
(d) r G
and X is the set of all C

r
for which there is a tree of conditions
q = q
t
: t T) such that q p and
(t T)(rk(t) = q
t
A
Z
r
d
r
).
Then
Z
r
: X l(G
).
Proof of the Claim. Induction on [w[.
If w = and so T = ), then the assertion follows directly from Lemma 3.1
(with p, P there standing for p
, P
here).
Assume that [w[ = n + 1,
= max(w), w
= w
and the claim is true for

w
(in place of w) and any A
, p. Let P
be a P
name for a forcing notion with

the universe P
= p[
, ) : p P
and the order relation

P
such that
if G P
is generic over V and f, g P
,
then V[G] [= f
P
[G]
g if and only if (p G)(p f
P
p g).
Note that P
is from V but the relation

P
[G]
is dened in V[G] only. Also
P
is isomorphic with a dense subset of the composition P
.
We are going to dene a P
name Y
for a subset of . Suppose that G P
is generic over V and work in V[G]. For t T such that rk(t) = let X
t
consist
of all C
r
for which there is f P
such that
p
t
[
, )
P
[G]
f and f
P
[G]
A
Z
r
d
r
.
8
9
0

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

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

Let Y
t
=
_
Z
r
: X
t
_
(for t T such that rk(t) = ). It follows from Lemma
3.1 that each Y
t
belongs to l(G
) (remember that
P
l(G
) is an ultralter
by ()
). Hence
Y

def
=
_
Y
t
: t T & rk(t) =
_
l(G
).
Note that for each C
r
, either Z
r
Y

= or Z
r
Y

.
Going back to V, let Y
, Y
t
, X
t
be P
names for the objects described as

Y
, Y
t
, X
t
above. Thus
P
l(G
) and we may apply the inductive hy-

pothesis to w
, T
= t
: t T and p
= p
t
: t
) P
. Thus, if X
is the
set of all C
r
for which there is a tree of conditions q
= q
t
: t
) P
such that q
and
_
t
T
__
rk(t
) =
t

P
Z
r
d
r
_
,
then
_
Z
r
: X
l(G
).
Now suppose that X
is witnessed by q
and let t
T be such that
rk(t
) =
. Then q
t

P
Z
r
and hence q
t

P
t
for all t T with
rk(t) = , so we have P
names f
t
for elements of P
such that
q
t

P
p
t
[
, )
P
t
& f
t

P
Z
r
d
r
.
Now use 2.5 (or just nite induction) to get a tree of conditions
q
= q
t
: t
) P
and objects g
t
t
(for t
, t T, rk(t
) =
, rk(t) = ) such that q
and
q
t

P
t
= g
t
t
. Now, for t T put
q
t
= q
t
if rk(t)
, and
q
t
= q
g
t
t
if rk(t) = .
It should be clear that q = q
t
: t T) is a tree of conditions in

Q, p q and for
every t T with rk(t) = we have q
t

P
A
Z
r
d
r
. This shows that X
is
included in the set X dened in the assumption (d), and hence
_
Z
r
: X
_

l(G
).
Let A
be a P
name for a subset of such that

P
A
_
l(G
)
_
+
and let
p P
. We will nd a condition p
p such that p
P
A
l(G
). It will be
provided by the winning criterion ()
tree
A
of the game
treeA

(p,

Q) (see Denition
2.7; remember P
is reasonably
A(
Q)bounding over by Theorem 2.8).

Let st be a winning strategy of Generic in
treeA

(p,

Q), and for and q P
let us x a winning strategy st(, q) of Complete in
0
(P
, q) so that the coherence

demands (i)(iii) of Proposition 2.3 are satised.
We are going to describe a strategy st
of INC in the game

(G
). In the
course of a play of

(G
), INC will construct on the side a play of

treeA

(p,

Q) in
which Generic plays according to st. So suppose that INC and COM arrived to a
stage < of a play of

(G
), and they have constructed

()
, i
, u
, r
,i
, r
,i
, (
,i
, Z
,i
, d
,i
) : i < i
) : <
_
.
Also, let us assume that INC (playing according to st
) has written on the side a

partial play
()
, p
, q
: <
_
8
9
0

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

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

of
treeA

(p,

Q) (in which Generic plays according to st). Let a standard tree T
and a tree of conditions p
= p
t
: t T
) be given to Generic by the strategy st

in answer to ()
2
(so [T
[ <
).
On the board of

(G
), the strategy st
instructs INC to play the set

I
def
= t T
: rk
(t) =
and the <
rst enumeration u
= u
,i
: i < i
) of [I
]
<
(so i
<
). Now
the two players start playing a subgame of length i
to determine a sequence
r
,i
, r
,i
, (
,i
, Z
,i
, d
,i
) : i < i
). During the subgame INC will construct on

the side a sequence q
0
i
, q
1
i
: i < i
) of trees of conditions in P
so that
()
3
q
i
= q
t,i
: t T
) (for < 2, i < i
) and for each t T
, the sequence
q
0
t,i
, q
1
t,i
: i < i
) is a legal play of
0
(P
rk(t)
, p
t
) in which Complete uses
her winning strategy st(rk
(t), p
t
).
Suppose that COM and INC arrive at level i < i
of the subgame (of

(G
)) and
()
i
4
r
,j
, r
,j
, (
,j
, Z
,j
, d
,j
) : j < i) and q
0
j
, q
1
j
: j < i)
have been determined and COM has chosen r
,i
G
. INCs answer is given by

st
as follows. First, INC takes the <
rst tree of conditions q
in

Q such that
()
a
5
q
= q
t
: t T
) and q
t
P
rk(t)
is an upper bound to the set p
t
q
1
t,j
:
j < i (for each t T
)
(remember ()
3
). Then INC lets X C
r,i
to be the set of all C
r,i
greater
than sup
_

<
j<i
Z
,j

j<i
Z
,j
_
+ 890 and such that
()
b
5
there is a tree of conditions q
in

Q such that q
and
if t u
,i
, then q
t

P
A
Z
r,i
d
r,i
.
Since u
,i
is nite, it follows from 3.2.1 that
_
Z
r,i
: X
_
l(G
). Then
INC picks also the club C of such that C C
r,i
and r
,i
is restrictable to
X, C) (see Denition 1.7) and min(C) = min(X), and his inning at the stage i of
the subgame of

(G
) is r
,i
= r
,i
X, C) (again, see Denition 1.7; note that
r
,i
G
by 1.8).
After this COM answers with (
,i
, Z
,i
, d
,i
) #
_
r
,i
_
, and then INC chooses
(for the construction on the side) the <

0
i
in

Q such that
q
q
0
i
and
()
6
if t u
,i
, then q
0
t,i

P
A
Z
,i
d
,i
.
Then q
1
i
= q
1
t,i
: t T
) is a tree of conditions determined by the demand in ()

3
and the strategies st(rk
(t), p
t
) (for t T
); remember the coherence conditions

of 2.3.
This completes the description of how INC plays in the subgame of stage .
After the subgame is nished, INC determines the move q
of Antigeneric in the
play of
treeA

(p,

Q) which he is constructing on the side:
()
7
q
is the <
t
: t T
) such that q
0
i
q
1
i
q
for all i < i
.
(There is such a tree of conditions by ()
3
; remember i
<
.)
This completes the description of the strategy st
. Since G
is super reason-
able, st
cannot be a winning strategy, so there is a play

8
9
0

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

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

()
8
, i
, u
, r
,i
, r
,i
, (
,i
, Z
,i
, d
,i
) : i < i
) : <
_
of

(G
, but
()
9
for some r G
, for every j
: < )
<
I
we have
(
,i
, Z
,i
, d
,i
) : < & i < i
& j
u
,i

#(r).
Let T
, p
, q
: < ) be the play of

treeA

(p,

Q) constructed on the side by INC
(so this is a play in which Generic uses her winning strategy st). Since Generic
won that play, there is a condition p
stronger than p and such that for each

< the set q
t
: t T
& rk
(t) = is pre-dense above p
. Note that if we
show that
()
10
it is forced in P
that for every

j = j
: < )

<
I
we have
_
(
,i
, Z
,i
, d
,i
) : < & i < i
& j
u
,i
_

#(r),
then we will be able to conclude that p
l(r) (remember ()
6
+ ()
7
and
1.10), nishing the proof of the Theorem. So let us argue that ()
10
holds true.
It follows from the description of st
(see the description of X after ()

a
5
) that
we may choose a continuous increasing sequence
: < ) such that

_
<
__

,0
sup
_
_
i<i
Z
,i
_
<
+1
_
.
Now, we will say that C
r
is a sick case whenever there are
0
<
1
< and
B d
r
such that Z
r
[
0
,
1
) and
_
[
0
,
1
)
__
t I
__
i < i
__
t / u
,i
or B Z
,i
/ d
,i
_
.
Using 1.10(2) one can easily verify that the following two conditions are equivalent:
()
one
11
there is j
: < )

<
I
such that
_
(
,i
, Z
,i
, d
,i
) : < & i < i
& j
u
,i
_

#(r),
()
two
11
there are many sick cases of C
r
.
Since the forcing with P
does not add bounded subsets of , being a sick case is

absolute between V and V
P
. So we may conclude (from ()
9
) that ()
10
is true
and thus the proof of Theorem 3.2 is complete.
Theorem 3.3. Assume (i) and (ii) of 3.2 and
() =
: < ) is a sequence of regular cardinals such that for each < :
and ( <
)(2
<
),
() G
Q
0
is super reasonable.
Then
P
G
is strongly reasonable .
Proof. First of all note that the forcing notion P
is reasonably
A(
Q)bounding
over and proper (see 2.8). Therefore
P
_
[G
_
V
is conal in [G
, and
consequently
P
G
is (<
+
0
).
Suppose that st
is a P
name, p P
and
P
st

(G
) such that
all values given by it are from V .
8
9
0

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

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

We are going to nd a condition p
p and a P
name g
such that
p
P
g
is a play of

(G
but
COM wins the play .
The condition p
will be provided by the winning criterion ()

tree
A
of the game
treeA

(p,

Q) (see Denition 2.7).
In the rest of the proof whenever we say INC chooses/picks x such that we
mean INC chooses/picks the <
rst x such that. Let us x

(i) a winning strategy st of Generic in
treeA

(p,

Q),
(ii) winning strategies st(, q) of Complete in
0
(P
, q) (for , q P
) such
that the coherence conditions of 2.3 are satised.
We are going to describe a strategy st
of INC in the game

(G
). In the
course of a play of

(G
), INC will simulate a play of

treeA

(p,

Q) and he will
consider names for partial plays of

(G
. Thus players
INC/COM will appear in the play of

(G
) in V and in the play of

(G
) in
V
P
. To avoid confusion we will refer to them as COM
V
, INC
V
for

(G
) (in V)
and COM
V
P
, INC
V
P
for

(G
) (in V
P
).
So suppose that INC
V
and COM
V
arrived at a stage < of the play of

(G
)
(in V), and INC
V
(playing according to st
) has written on the side:

()
1
a partial play T
, p
, q
: < ) of
treeA

(p,

Q) in which Generic plays
according to st, and
()
2
a P
name g
= I
, i
, u
, x
: < ) of a partial play of

(G
) (in
V
P
) in which INC
V
P
uses the strategy st
,
()
3
ordinals i
<
such that q
t
i
= i
for every t T
with rk
(t) =
(for < ).
Note that I
is a P
name for a set of size <
from V, u
is a P
name for
an i
sequence of nite subsets of I
and x
is a P
name for the result of the

subgame of length i
of level .
Let I
be a P
name for the answer by st
to the play g
of

(G
) (in V
P
).
Let T
and p
= p
t
: t T
) be given to Generic by the strategy st as an

answer to ()
1
. Let q
= q
t
: t T
) be a tree of conditions in

Q such that
()
a
4
p
and q
t0
, q
t1
are incompatible for distinct t
0
, t
1
T
with rk
(t
0
) =
rk
(t
1
),
()
b
4
for every t T
with rk
(t) = the condition q
t
decides the value of I
,
say q
t

P
I
= I
t
.
(Note that
P
I
V by the choice of st
; remember 2.5.)
In the play of

(G
), the strategy st
instructs INC
V
to choose the set
I
I
t
: t T
& rk
(t) =
and an enumeration u
= u
,i
: i < i
) of [I
]
<
. Note that [I
t
[ <
for all
relevant t T
and [T
[ <
, so by our assumptions on
and
we know that
[I
[ <
(so also i
<
).
8
9
0

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

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

Then, in the play of

(G
), INC
V
P
pretends that COM
V
P
played an ordinal
i
[i
, ) and u
= u
,i
: i < i
) such that
P
u
[I
]
<
and
_
u
,i
: i < i
= I

and for each t T
with rk
(t) = we have
q
t

P
i
= i
and u
,i
= c(t) : c u
,i
for i < i
.
Now, both in

(G
) of V
P
and in

(G
) of Vthe two players start a subgame.

The length of the subgame in V
P
may be longer than i
, but we will restrict our

attention to the rst i
steps of that subgame. In our active case we will have

i
= i
, see the choice of i
above. When playing the subgame, INC

V
will build
a sequence q
0
i
, q
1
i
: i < i
) of trees of conditions in

Q such that (in addition to
demands stated later):
()
a
5
q
j
= q
t,j
: t T
), q
q
0
j
q
1
j
q
0
i
for < 2, j < i < i
, and
()
b
5
for each t T
, the sequence q
0
t,i
, q
1
t,i
: i < i
) is a legal play of the game
0
(P
rk(t)
, q
t
) in which Complete uses her winning strategy st(rk
(t), q
t
).
He (as INC
V
P
) will also construct a name for a play of a subgame of

(G
) of
V
P
for this stage.
Suppose that INC
V
and COM
V
have arrived to a stage i < i
of the subgame
and INC
V
has determined on the side q
j
for j < i, < 2 and a P
name z
j
: j < i)
for a partial play of the subgame of

(G
) of V
P
. Now COM
V
chooses r
,i
G
which INC
V
passes to INC
V
P
as an inning of COM
V
P
at the ith step of the
subgame of level of

(G
) in V
P
. There the strategy st
gives INC
V
P
an
answer
,i
< .
Next, INC
V
picks a tree of conditions q
0
i
= q
0
t,i
: t T
) in

Q such that
()
a
6
(j < i)( q
1
j
q
0
i
) and q
q
0
i
, and
()
b
6
for every t T
with rk
(t) = , the condition q

0
t,i
decides the value of
,i
,
say q
0
t,i

P

,i
=
t
,i
.
Then INC
V
lets
,i
= sup
_
_
t
,i
: t T
& rk
(t) =
_
_
<
_
j<i
Z
,j

_
j<i
Z
,j
_
+ 890
and in the subgame of

(G
) (in V) he is instructed to put r
,i
such that
C
r
,i
= C
r,i

,i
and d
r
,i
= d
r,i
for C
r
,i
.
(Note that r
,i
G
by 1.11(2)(ii).)
After this COM
V
chooses (
,i
, Z
,i
, d
,i
) #(r
,i
), so
,i
C
r,i
,
,i

,i
and d
,i
= d
r,i
,i
. Next INC
V
lets
q
1
i
be the tree of conditions in

Q fully determined by demand ()
b
5
and
z
i
be a P
name for a legal result of stage i of the subgame of level of

(G
) in V
P
such that for each t T
with rk
(t) = we have
q
0
t,i

P
z
i
=
_
r
,i
,
,i
, (
,i
, Z
,i
, d
,i
)
_
.
8
9
0

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

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

Then the subgame continues.
After all i
steps of the subgame are completed, INC

V
chooses a tree of condi-
tions q
= q
t
: t T
) in

Q such that (i < i
)( q
1
i
q
) and he also lets x
be
a P
name for the result of the subgame of level of

(G
) in V
P
such that
x
= z
i
: i < i
). Note that all the objects described by ()

+1
1
()
+1
3
are
determined now.
This completes the description of the strategy st
of INC (i.e., INC

V
) in

(G
).
Since G
is super reasonable, this strategy cannot be a winning one, so there is

a play
()
7
, i
, u
, r
,i
, r
,i
, (
,i
, Z
,i
, d
,i
) : i < i
) : <
_
of

(G
, but
()
8
for some r G
, for every j
: < )

<
I
we have
(
,i
, Z
,i
, d
,i
) : < & i < i
& j
u
,i

#(r).
Exactly as in the proof of Theorem 3.2 we may argue that then also
()
9
it is forced in P
that
_
<
I
___
(
,i
, Z
,i
, d
,i
): < & i < i
& j
u
,i
_

#(r)
_
.
(See ()
10
in the proof of 3.2.)
Let T
, p
, q
: < ) be the play of

treeA

(p,

Q) constructed on the side by
INC. Generic won that play, so there is a condition p
stronger than p and

such that for each < the set q
t
: t T
& rk
(t) = is pre-dense above p
.
Also, let g
be the P
name of a play of

(G
) (in V
P
) constructed on the side
in the same run of

(G
) (see ()
2
). We are going to argue that
()
10
the condition p
forces (in P
) that
_
<
I
__
(
,i
, Z
,i
, d
,i
) : < & i < i
& j
,i

#(r)
_
,
that is
p
P
COM
V
P
wins the play g
as witnessed by r .
Suppose that G P
is generic over V, p
G and let us work in V[G]. For every

< there is a unique t = t() T
such that rk
(t) = and q
t
G, and thus
_
I
_
G
= I
t
,
_
i
_
G
= i
and
_
u
_
G
= (u
,i
)
G
: i < i
), where
_
u
,i
_
G
= c(t) :
c u
,i
I
t
. Suppose that

j = j
: < )
<
I
t()
. For each < x

j
I
t
: t T
& rk
(t) = such that j
(t()) = j
. Note that if
j
u
,i
, i < i
, then j

_
u
,i
_
G
and therefore
(
,i
, Z
,i
, d
,i
) : < & i < i
& j

_
u
,i
_
G

(
,i
, Z
,i
, d
,i
) : < & i < i
& j
u
,i

#(r)
(remember ()
9
). Now ()
10
follows and the proof of the theorem is complete.
8
9
0

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

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

Corollary 3.4. Assume that is a strongly inaccessible cardinal. Then there is a
forcing notion P such that
P
is strongly inaccessible and 2
=
++
and
there is a strongly reasonable family G
Q
0
such that
l(G
) is an ultralter on and [G
[ =
+
, in particular
there is a very reasonable ultralter on
with a generating system of size < 2
Proof. We may start with a universe V in which

S
holds (and is strongly

inaccessible). It follows from 1.15 that (in V) there is a
0
increasing sequence
r
: <
+
) Q
0
such that G
def
= r Q
0
: ( <
+
)(r
0
r
) is super
reasonable and l(G
Let

Q = P
, Q
: <
++
) be a support iteration of the forcing notion
Q
tree
D
(K
1
,
1
) dened in the proof of [9, Prop. B.8.5]. This forcing is reasonably A
bounding (by [8, Prop. 4.1, p. 221] and [9, Thm B.6.5]), so we may use Theorems
3.2 and 3.3 to conclude that
++
G
is strongly reasonable, [G
[ =
+
< 2
and
l(G
) is ultralter on .
If one analyzes the proof of Theorem 3.3, one may notice that even
++
r
: <
+
is strongly reasonable .
4. A feature, not a bug

One may wonder if Theorems 3.2, 3.3 could be improved by replacing the as-
sumption that we are working with the iteration of reasonably Abounding forcings
by, say, just dealing with a nicely double abounding forcing. A result of that sort
would be more natural and the fact that we had to refer to an iteration-specic
property could be seen as some lack of knowledge. However, this is a feature, not
a bug as nicely double abounding forcing notions may cause that l(G
) is not an
ultralter anymore.
In this section we assume that is a strongly inaccessible cardinal.
Denition 4.1. (1) Let P
consist of all pairs p = (

p
, C
p
) such that
p
:
1, 1 and C
p
is a club of . A binary relation =
P
on P
is
dened by letting p q if and only if
() C
q
C
p
,
q
min(C
p
) =
p
min(C
p
), and
() for every successive members < of C
p
we have
_
[, )
__
q
() =

p
()
q
()

p
()
_
.
(2) For p P
and C
p
let
pos(p, )
def
=
_
q
: q P
& p q
_
.
(3) For p P
, < and : 1, 1 we dene

p = (
p
[, ), C
p
).
(Plainly,
p P
.)
8
9
0

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

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

Remark 4.2. P
is a natural generalization of the forcing notion used by Goldstern

and Shelah [4] to the context of uncountable cardinals.
Proposition 4.3. Let =
: < ),
= 2
||+0
(for < ). Then P
is a
nicely double abounding over forcing notion. Also [P
[ = 2
.
Proof. One easily veries that the relation
P
is transitive and reexive, also
plainly [P
[ = 2
.
Claim 4.3.1. P
is (<)complete.
Proof of the Claim. Suppose that < and p
: < ) is a
P
increasing
sequence of conditions in P
. Let C =
<
C
p
(it is a club of ) and let :

1, 1 be dened by
if < min(C) and = min
_
< : < min(C
p
)
_
,
then () =
p
(),
if < are successive members of the club C, < and = min
_
<
: < min
_
C
p
( + 1)
__
, then () =
p
()
p
().
Plainly, is well dened and q
def
= (, C) P
. We claim that ( < )(p
q).
To this end suppose < . Clearly C C
p
. Now, if < min(C

p
), then
() =
p
() for some such that < min(C

p
). Since p
, we have
() =
p
() and thus
p
() = ().
Next, suppose that < are successive members of C
p
and < . If
< min(C) and = min
_
< : < min(C
p
)
_
, then > , () =
p
() and
()
1
() =
p
() =

p
()
()

p
() =

p
()
()

p
().
So assume C ,= and let
<
be successive members of C such that
<
. Let = min
_
< : < min
_
C
p
(
+ 1)
__
. If =
,
then and
()
2
() =
p
()
p
() =
p
()

p
()
()

p
() =
()
p
() =

p
()
()

p
()
(as () = (
) = 1). If
< , then < and () =

p
)
p
(), and hence

()
3
() =
p
)
p
() =
()
()

p
() =
()
()

p
()
()

p
() =

p
()
()

p
().
Clearly ()
1
()
3
are what we need to justify 4.1(1) and conclude p
q.
Claim 4.3.2. Let p P
. Then Generic has a nice winning strategy in the game
rc2a

(p, P
) (see Denition 2.9).

Proof of the Claim. We will describe a strategy st for Generic in
rc2a

(p, P
). When-
ever we say Generic chooses x such that we mean Generic chooses the <
rst x
such that (and likewise for other variants).
During a play of
rc2a

(p, P
) Generic constructs on the side sequences p
: <
) and

=
: < ) so that for each < :

(a)

is a strictly increasing continuous sequence of ordinals below , p
and
: + = C
p
(
+
+ 1),
(b) if < , then p
and
p
+
=
p
+
,
(c)
: = C
p
: otp( C
p
) and p
0
= p,
8
9
0

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

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

(d)
++1
and p
+1
are determined right after stage of
rc2a

(p, P
).
So suppose that the two players have arrived to a stage < of a play of
rc2a

(p, P
), and Generic has constructed on the side

++1
and p
+1
for < .
If = 0 or is a limit ordinal, then conditions (a)(c) and our rule of taking
the <
rst fully determine
: + and p
(the suitable bounds exists

essentially by 4.3.1).
Now Generic chooses an enumeration (without repetition) =
j
: j <
)
of pos(p
,
+
) such that
0
=
p
+
. Antigeneric picks a non-zero ordinal
< and the two players start a subgame of length
. In the course
of the subgame, in addition to her innings p
, Generic will also choose ordinals
< and sequences
1, 1. These objects will satisfy

the following demands (letting q
be the innings of Antigeneric):

(e)
+
<
<
C
q
and
[
+
,
) =
[
+
,
) for
< <
,
(f) if =
i + 2j, i <
and j <
, then
(i)

+1
,
=
q
, and
+1
() =
q
+1
() for
[
+
,
+1
),
(ii) p
0

+
p
, min(C
p
0
) >
+
, and (
for
< , and
(iii) q
+1

+1
+1
q
+1
.
So suppose that the two players have arrived to a stage =
i + 2j (i <
,
j <
) of the subgame and p
, q
have been determined for
< . Let
=
<
[
+
,
). It follows from (f) that the sequence (
< ) is
P
increasing, so Generic may choose an upper bound p
to it.
(Note that necessarily
p
, sup(
< ) min(C
p
).) She plays p
in
the subgame and Antigeneric answers with q
. Now Generic lets
C
q
be such that [C
q
[ = 1 and she puts
=
q
and she lets :

1, 1 be dened by
+
=
j
and () =
() for [
+
,
). Then
Generic plays p
+1
=
as her inning at stage + 1 of the subgame and

Antigeneric answers with q
+1
p
+1
. Finally, Generic picks
+1
C
q
+1
such
that [C
q
+1
+1
[ = 1 and she takes
+1
:
+1
1, 1 such that

+1
and
+1
() =
q
+1
() for [
,
+1
). Plainly, if i
< i,
+ 2j then
q
and q
+1
p
+1
so both p
and p
+1
are legal innings in
rc2a

(p, P
).
Also easily the demands in (e)+(f) are satised. Moreover, if j
< j <
then the
conditions p
+j
and p
+j
are incompatible.
After the subgame is over, Generic lets
=
[
+
,
) : <
,
and she picks a
P
upper bound p
+1
to the increasing sequence
(
: <
).
Note that
min
_
C
p
+1
_
and
+1
for all <
, so also
0
=
+

p
+1
. Also
(g) (
p
+1
+1
for all <
.
8
9
0

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

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

Let p
+1
P
be such that C
p+1
=
: + C
p
+1
and
p+1
=
p
+1
(plainly p
p
+1
) and let
++1
= min
_
C
p
+1
_
.
This nishes the description of the strategy st. Let us argue that st is a winning
strategy for Generic. To this end suppose that
()
, p
, q
: <
) : <
_
is a result of a play of
rc2a

(p, P
) in which Generic follows st and the objects

constructed on the side are
()
, p
: <
),
j
: j <
)
(and the demands in (a)(g) are satised). Let C =
: < (so it is a club

of ) and =
<
+
(clearly : 1, 1; remember (b)), and let
p
= (, C). It is a condition in P
and it is stronger than all p
(for < ) so
also p
p. Suppose that < and p
. We will show that there is p
such that for some j <
, the condition p
is stronger than all q
i+j
for all
i <
. Without loss of generality, min(C

p
)
++1
. Let j
<
be such that
+
=
j
. We consider two cases now.
Case 1:
p
(
+
) =
p
(
+
) =
p+1
(
+
).
Then
p
[
+
,
++1
) =
p+1
[
+
,
++1
). Let j = 2 j
<
, and we will
argue that q
i+j
p
for all i <
. So let i <
, =
i + j. By the choice
of j
we know that
p
+
=
j
=
q
+
and also
[
+
,
) =
p+1
[
+
,
) =
p
[
+
,
).
Hence (by (f)(i))
p
=
q
and now
q
(
p
(
p
+
)
+
p
+1
=
(
p
++1
)
++1
p
+1
= (
p
++1
)
++1
p
+1

(
p
++1
)
++1
p
(
p
++1
)
++1
p
= p
(for the second inequality remember (g)).

Case 2:
p
(
+
) =
p
(
+
) =
p+1
(
+
).
Then
p
() =
p
() =
p+1
() for all [
+
,
++1
). Let j = 2 j
+ 1
and let us argue that q
i+j
p
for all i <
. So let i <
, =
i +j. Like
in the previous case we show that
p
=
q
and then easily

q
(
p
(
p
++1
)
++1
p
+1

(
p
++1
)
++1
p
= p
Proposition 4.4. Let
be a P
name such that
=
_
p
min(C
p
) : p G
P
.
Then
P

: 1, 1 and for every s Q

0
V,
P
< :
() = 1 l(s)
+
and < :
() = 1 l(s)
+
.
8
9
0

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

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

Proof. It should be clear that
P

: 1, 1 , so let us show the second

statement. Assume p P
, s Q
0
. Choose a continuous increasing sequence
: < ) C
p
such that for every < there is = () C
s
such that
Z
s
,
+1
). Then let C =
: < is even (it is a club of ) and let

: 1, 1 be such that
[
,
+1
)
_
p
[
,
+1
),
p
[
,
+1
)
_
,
if < is even, then
_
Z
s
()
: () = 1
_
d
s
()
,
if < is odd, then
_
Z
s
()
: () = 1
_
d
s
()
.
Now note that (, C) P
is a condition stronger than p and it forces in P
that
_
< :
() = 1
_
l(s)
+
and
_
< :
() = 1
_
l(s)
+
.
Corollary 4.5. Assume is a strongly inaccessible cardinal. Then there is a

forcing notion P such that
P
is strongly inaccessible and 2
=
++
and there is no very
reasonable ultralter on with a generating system of size < 2
Proof. We may start with the universe V in which 2
=
+
.
Let

Q = P
, Q
: <
++
) be a support iteration of the forcing notion P
(see Denition 4.1). This forcing is nicely double abounding over (where
=
2
||+0
; remember Proposition 4.3) and hence P
++ is nicely double abounding

over (by Theorem 2.13). Using Theorem 2.2 we conclude that P
++ does not
collapse any cardinals and forces that 2
=
++
. Proposition 4.4 implies that
++
for no family G
Q
0
of size < 2
, l(G
Problem 4.6. (1) Is it consistent that for some uncountable regular cardinal
we have that there is no super-reasonable ultralter on ? Or even no
very reasonable one?
(2) In particular, are there super-reasonable ultralters on in the model con-
structed for Corollary 4.5?
(3) Do we need the inaccessibility of for the assertions of Corollaries 3.4, 4.5
(concerning ultralters on )?
References
[1] Uri Abraham. Lectures on proper forcing. In M. Foreman A. Kanamori and M. Magidor,
editors, Handbook of Set Theory.
[2] Todd Eisworth. On iterated forcing for successors of regular cardinals. Fundamenta Mathe-
maticae, 179:249266, 2003, math.LO/0210162.
[3] Moti Gitik. On nonminimal p-points over a measurable cardinal. Annals of Mathematical
Logic, 20:269288, 1981.
[4] Martin Goldstern and Saharon Shelah. Ramsey ultralters and the reaping numberCon(r <
u). Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 49:121142, 1990.
[5] Thomas Jech. Set theory. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
2003. The third millennium edition, revised and expanded.
[6] Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah. Lords of the iteration. In Proceedings of the Confer-
ence on Boise Extravaganza in Set Theory (BEST 2009), volume accepted of Contemporary
Mathematics (CONM). math.LO/0611131.
8
9
0

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

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

[7] Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah. Norms on possibilities I: forcing with trees
and creatures. Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society, 141(671):xii + 167, 1999.
math.LO/9807172.
[8] Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah. Reasonably complete forcing notions. Quaderni di
Matematica, 17, 2005. math.LO/0508272.
[9] Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah. Sheva-Sheva-Sheva: Large Creatures. Israel Jour-
nal of Mathematics, 159:109174, 2007. math.LO/0210205.
[10] Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah. Generating ultralters in a reasonable way. Math-
ematical Logic Quarterly, 54:202220, 2008. math.LO/0607218.
[11] Saharon Shelah. Proper and improper forcing. Perspectives in Mathematical Logic. Springer,
1998.
[12] Saharon Shelah. The combinatorics of reasonable ultralters. Fundamenta Mathematicae,
192:123, 2006. math.LO/0407498.
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/logic
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 address: shelah@math.huji.ac.il
URL: http://shelah.logic.at

Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah - Reasonable Ultrafilters, Again

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 - Reasonable Ultrafilters, Again

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8

. We also show how ultralters gen-

). The canonical Pname for the

) are total functions on

Dom(p) we will let p() =

imply the existence of such objects.

: < ) there is a club

introduced below is a natural generalization of the approach used

is an easy way to guarantee that l(G

consist of all tuples

) is a proper non-principal ultralter on Z

may be called the generating system for D.

. Then the following are equiva-

be the family of all sets r such that

is strongly disjoint if and only if

is strongly disjoint and

is strongly disjoint, then l

s if and only if there is < such that

is the set of nodes we have to

which implies the preservation of l(G

: < ) be a sequence of cardinals,

) between two players, COM and INC. A play of

) applying the following

such that for every

) except that () is weakened

is super reasonable ( super

and for some < we have C

reasonable, respectively) if there is a super reasonable ( super

such that D = l(G

reasonable (in reference to both ultralters on and families

). Also in this case we may write

be directed with respect to

) between two players, COM and INC is dened as follows.

) lasts steps and at a stage < of the play the

< and a sequence u

such that for every

) except that () is weakened

), then we say that G

reasonable, respectively) if there is a strongly reasonable (

reasonable, respectively) set G

such that D = l(G

for < and =

: < ). Then for a family G

and/or a uniform ultralter D

for < and =

reasonable, then it is very reasonable.

such that D = l(G

are given by the arguments below.

). The strategy st(f)

= 0 and then (after COM

) he is instructed to play in the subgame of this stage as follows. At

, after COM has picked r

) in which INC follows st(f) but

= 0). It follows from the choice of

holds. There exists a sequence

) is an ultralter. At limit stages we

will be chosen so that it kills a

) predicted by the diamond sequence.

be the set of all legal plays of

(for < ) is an ordinal below . Also let X

r) is a legal partial play

) can be interpreted as a function st such that