Sei sulla pagina 1di 14

modified:2001-11-12

733 revision:2001-11-12

HISTORIC FORCING FOR Depth

ANDRZEJ ROSLANOWSKI

AND SAHARON SHELAH

Abstract. We show that, consistently, for some regular cardinals θ < λ, there exists a Boolean algebra B such that | B| = λ + and for every subalgebra B B of size λ + we have Depth(B ) = θ .

0. Introduction

The present paper is concerned with forcing a Boolean algebr a which has some prescribed properties of Depth. Let us recall that, for a Boo lean algebra B, its depth is defined as follows:

Depth(B)

=

sup{|X | : X B is well-ordered by the Boolean ordering } ,

Depth + (B) = sup{|X | + : X B is well-ordered by the Boolean ordering } .

(Depth + (B) is used to deal with attainment properties in the definition of Depth(B), see e.g. [5, § 1].) The depth (of Boolean algebras) is among cardinal functions that have more algebraic origins, and their relations to “topolo gical fellows” is often indirect, though sometimes very surprising. For example, if we define

Depth H+ (B) = sup{ Depth(B/I ) : I is an ideal in B } ,

then for any (infinite) Boolean algebra B we will have that Depth H+ (B) is the tightness t (B) of the algebra B (or the tightness of the topological space Ult(B) of ultrafilters on B), see [3, Theorem 4.21]. A somewhat similar function to Depth H+ is obtained by taking sup{ Depth(B ) : B is a subalgebra of B } , but clearly this brings nothing new: it is the old Depth. But if one wants to understand the behaviour of the depth for subalgebras of the considered Boolean algebra , then looking at the following subalgebra Depth relation may be very appropriate:

Depth Sr (B) = { (κ, µ) : there is an infinite subalgebra B of B such that |B | = µ and Depth(B ) = κ } .

A number of results related to this relation is presented by Monk in [3, Chapter 4]. There he asks if there are a Boolean algebra B and an infinite cardinal θ such that (θ, (2 θ ) + ) Depth Sr (B), while (ω, (2 θ ) + ) / Depth Sr (B) (see Monk [3, Problem 14]; we refer the reader to Chapter 4 of Monk’s book [3] for the motivation and background of this problem). Here we will partially answer this question, showing that it is consistent that there is such B and θ . The question if that can be done in ZFC remains open.

1991 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 03E35, 03G05; Secondary 03E05, 06Exx. Key words and phrases. Boolean algebras, depth, historic forcing. The first author thanks the KBN (Polish Committee of Scientific Research) for partial support through grant 2 P03 A 01109. The research of the second author was partially supported by the Israel Science Foundation. Publication 733.

1

modified:2001-11-12

733 revision:2001-11-12

2

ANDRZEJ ROSLANOWSKI

AND SAHARON SHELAH

Our consistency result is obtained by forcing, and the construction of the required

forcing notion is interesting per se. We use the method of historic forcing which was first applied in Shelah and Stanley [9]. The reader familiar with [9] will notice several correspondences between the construction here and the method used there. However, we do not relay on that paper and our presentation here is self-contained. Let us describe how our historic forcing notion is built. So, we fix two (regular)

cardinals θ, λ and our aim is to force a Boolean algebra B θ λ such that | λ | = λ +

B

θ

˙

˙

and for every subalgebra B B λ θ of size λ + we have Depth(B) = θ . The algebra

B ˙ λ θ will be generated by x i : i U for some set U λ + . A condition p will be

˙

˙

˙

an approximation to the algebra B λ θ , it will carry the information on what is the subalgebra B p = x i : i u p λ for some u p λ + . A natural way to describe algebras in this context is by listing ultrafilters (or: homo morphisms into { 0 , 1 } ):

Definition 1. For a set w and a family F 2 w we define cl(F ) = { g 2 w : (u [w ] < ω )(f F )(f u = g u )} , B ( w,F ) is the Boolean algebra generated freely by { x α : α w } except that if u 0 , u 1 [w ] < ω and there is no f F such that f u 0 0, f u 1 1 then x α (x α ) = 0.

˙

˙

B

θ

αu 1

αu 0

This description of algebras is easy to handle, for example:

Proposition 2 (see [6, 2.6]). Let F 2 w . Then:

(1) Each f F extends (uniquely) to a homomorphism from B ( w,F ) to { 0 , 1 }

(i.e. it preserves the equalities from the definition of B ( w,F ) ). If F is closed, then every homomorphism from B ( w,F ) to { 0 , 1 } extends exactly one element of F .

(2)

If τ (y 0 ,

, y ) is a Boolean term and α 0 ,

, α w are distinct then

B ( w,F ) |= τ (x α 0 ,

, x α ) = 0

if and only if

(f F )({ 0 , 1 } |= τ (f (α 0 ),

, f (α k )) =

1).

(3)

If w w ,

F 2 w and

(f F )(g F )(f g )

and

(g F )(g w cl(F ))

then B ( w,F ) is a subalgebra of B ( w ,F ) .

So each condition p in our forcing notion P λ θ will have a set u p [λ + ] <λ and a

closed set F p 2 u p (and the respective algebra will be B p = B ( u p ,F p ) ). But to make the forcing notion work, we will have to put more restrictions on our conditions, and we will be taking only those conditions that have to be taken to make the arguments work. For example, we want that cardinals are not collapsed by our forcing, and demanding that P λ θ is λ + -cc (and somewhat ()–closed) is natural in this context. How do we argue that a forcing notion is λ + –cc? Typically we start with a sequence of λ + distinct conditions, we carry out some “cleaning procedure” (usually involving the ∆–lemma etc), and we end up with (at least two) conditions that “can be put together”. Putting together two (or more) conditions that a re approximations to a Boolean algebra means amalgamating them. There are various ways to amalgamate conditions - we will pick one that will work for several purpo ses. Then, once we

declare that some conditions forming a “clean” ∆–sequence o f length θ are in P θ we will be bound to declare that the amalgamation is in our for cing notion. The

,

λ

HISTORIC FORCING FOR Depth

3

modified:2001-11-12

733 revision:2001-11-12

amalgamation (and natural limits) will be the only way to build new conditions from the old ones, but the description above still misses an important factor. So far, a condition does not have to know what are the reasons for it to be called to P λ θ . This information is the history of the condition and it will be encoded by two

functions h p , g p . (Actually, these functions will give histories of all elements of u p describing why and how those points were incorporated to u p . Thus both functions will be defined on u p × ht(p ), were ht(p ) is the height of the condition p , that is the step in our construction at which the condition p is created.) We will also want that our forcing is suitably closed, and getting “()–strategically closed” would

be fine. To make that happen we will have to deal with two relations on P θ λ :

and . The first (“pure”) is ()–closed and it will help in getting the strategic closure of the second (main) one. In some sense, the relation pr represents “the official line in history”, and sometimes we will have to rewrite that official history, see Definition 6 and Lemma 7 (on changing history see also Orwe ll [4]). The forcing notion P λ θ has some other interesting features. (For example, condi- tions are very much like fractals, they contain many self-similar pieces (see Defini- tion 10 and Lemma 11).) The method of historic forcing notions could be applicable to more problems, and this is why in our presentation we separ ated several observa- tions of general character (presented in the first section) from the problem specific arguments (section 2)

pr

Notation: Our notation is standard and compatible with that of classical text- books on set theory (like Jech [1]) and Boolean algebras (like Monk [2], [3]). How- ever in forcing considerations we keep the older tradition that

the stronger condition is the greater one.

Let us list some of our notation and conventions.

(1) Throughout the paper, θ, λ are fixed regular infinite cardinals, θ < λ.

(2) A name for an object in a forcing extension is denoted with a dot above

˙

(like X ) with one exception: the canonical name for a generic filter in a

˙

forcing notion P will be called Γ P . For a P –name X and a P –generic filter

G over V , the interpretation of the name X by G is denoted by X G .

˙

˙

(3) i, j, α, β, γ, δ,

(4) For a set X and a cardinal λ, [X ] < λ stands for the family of all subsets of X of size less than λ. The family of all functions from Y to X is called

will denote ordinals.

X Y . If X is a set of ordinals then its order type is denoted by otp(X ).

(5) In Boolean algebras we use (and ), (and ) and for the Boolean operations. If B is a Boolean algebra, x B then x 0 = x, x 1 = x. (6) For a subset Y of an algebra B, the subalgebra of B generated by Y is denoted by Y B .

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank the referee for valuable com- ments and suggestions.

1. The forcing and its basic properties

Let us start with the definition of the forcing notion P λ θ . By induction on α <

we will define

. Our

θ,λ

λ we will define sets of conditions P

α

θ,λ

, and for each p P

α

u p , F p , ht(p ), h p and g p . Also we will define relations α and pr on inductive requirements are:

α

θ,λ

P

α

modified:2001-11-12

733 revision:2001-11-12

4

ANDRZEJ ROSLANOWSKI

θ,λ

(i) α for each p P

α

:

AND SAHARON SHELAH

is a non-empty closed set, g p is a

function with domain dom(g p ) = u p × ht(p ) and values of the form (ℓ, τ ), where ℓ < 2 and τ is a Boolean term, and h p : u p × ht( p ) −→ θ + 2 is a function,

u p [λ + ] < λ , ht(p ) α, F p 2 u p

θ,λ

(ii) α α , pr are transitive and reflexive relations on P

α

α

, and α extends

α

pr ,

θ,λ

(iii) α if p, q P

α

, p α q , then u p u q , ht(p ) ht(q ), and F p = { f u p :

f F q } , and if p pr q , then for every i u p and ξ < ht(p ) we have

h p (i, ξ ) = h q (i, ξ ) and g p (i, ξ ) = g q (i, ξ ),

α

(iv) α if β < α then P

β

θ,λ

For a condition p P

α

θ,λ

θ,λ

P

α

, and pr extends pr β , and α extends β .

α

, we will also declare that B p = B ( u p ,F p ) (the Boolean

algebra defined in Definition 1).

θ,λ

We define P

0

= { ξ : ξ < λ + } and for p = ξ we let F p = 2 { ξ } , ht(p ) = 0

and h p = = g p . The relations pr and 0 both are the equality. [Clearly these

objects are as declared, i.e, clauses (i) 0 –(iv) 0 hold true.]

0

If γ < λ is a limit ordinal, then we put

θ,λ

= p ξ : ξ < γ : (ξ < ζ < γ )(p ξ P

γ

P

θ,λ

P

γ

θ,λ

= P

α

P γ ,

ξ

α<γ

&

ζ

ht(p ξ ) = ξ & p ξ pr p ζ ) ,

and for p = p ξ : ξ < γ P we let

γ

u p = u p ξ ,

ξ<γ

F p = { f 2 u p : (ξ < γ )(f u p ξ F p ξ )} ,

ht(p ) = γ

and h p = ξ<γ h p ξ and g p = g p ξ . We define γ and pr γ by:

ξ<γ

p pr γ q

if and only if

either p, q P

or or

θ,λ

α

, α < γ and p

α

pr q ,

θ,λ

q = q ξ : ξ < γ P , p P p = q ;

γ

α

and p pr q α for some α < γ ,

α

p γ q

if and only if

θ,λ

either p, q P

α

, α < γ and p α q ,

or q = q ξ : ξ < γ P , p P

or

γ

θ,λ

α

and

p α q α for some α < γ ,

p = p ξ : ξ < γ P , q = q ξ : ξ < γ P and

γ

γ

(δ < γ )(ξ < γ )(δ ξ p ξ ξ q ξ ).

[It is straightforward to show that clauses (i) γ –(iv) γ hold true.]

Suppose now that α < λ. Let P α+1 consist of all tuples

ζ , τ , n , u , p ξ , v ξ : ξ < θ

such that for each ξ 0 < ξ 1 < θ :

(α) ζ < θ , n < ω , τ = τ (y 1 ,

(β ) p ξ 0 P

(γ ) the family { u p ξ : ξ < θ } forms a ∆–system with heart u and u p ξ 0 \ u =

, y n ) is a Boolean term, u [λ + ] < λ ,

θ,λ

α

, ht(p ) = α, v ξ 0 [u p ξ 0 ] n ,

and

sup(u ) < min(u p ξ 0 \ u ) sup(u p ξ 0 \ u ) < min(u p ξ 1 \ u ),

HISTORIC FORCING FOR Depth

5

modified:2001-11-12

733 revision:2001-11-12

(δ ) otp(u p ξ 0 ) = otp(u p ξ 1 ) and if H

: u p ξ 0 −→ u p ξ 1 is the order isomorphism

then H u is the identity and

on u , F p ξ 0 = { f H : f F p ξ 1 } , H [v ξ 0 ] = v ξ 1

(j u p ξ 0 )(β < α)(h p ξ 0 (j, β ) = h p ξ 1 (H (j ), β ) & g p ξ 0 (j, β ) = g p ξ 1 (H (j ), β )).

We put P

α+1 = P α

θ,λ

θ,λ

let u p = u p ξ and

ξ<θ

P α+1 and for p = ζ , τ , n , u , p ξ , v ξ : ξ < θ P

α+1 we

F p = { f 2 u p : (ξ < θ )(f u p ξ F p ξ ) and for all ξ < ζ < θ

f (σ maj (τ 3· ξ , τ 3· ξ +1 , τ 3· ξ +2 )) f (σ maj (τ 3· ζ , τ 3· ζ +1 , τ 3· ζ +2 ))} ,

where τ ξ = τ (x i : i v ξ ) for ξ < θ (so τ ξ is an element of the algebra B p ξ =

B ( u p ξ ,F p ξ ) ), and σ maj (y 0 , y 1 , y 2 ) = (y 0 y 1 ) (y 0 y 2 ) (y 1 y 2 ). Next

we let

ht(p ) = α + 1 and we define functions

h p , g p on u p × (α + 1) by

h p (j, β ) =

  h p ξ (j, β ) if

j u p ξ , ξ < θ, β < α,

  θ + 1

θ

if j u , β = α,

if j u p ζ \ u , β = α,

  if

ξ

j u p ξ \ u , ξ < θ, ξ = ζ , β = α,

g p (j, β ) =

g p ξ (j, β )

(1 , τ )

(0 , τ )

if

j

u p ξ , ξ < θ, β < α,

if

j

v ξ , ξ < θ, β = α,

if

j

u p ξ \ v ξ , ξ < θ, β = α.

Next we define the relations

p

α+1

pr

q

if and only if

α+1

pr

θ,λ

either p, q P

α

and p

α

pr q ,

and α+1 by:

or

q

= ζ , τ , n , u , q ξ , v ξ :

or

p = q ;

θ,λ

ξ < θ P α+1 , p P

α

, and p

α

pr q ζ ,

p α+1 q

if and only if

θ,λ

either p, q P

α

and p α q ,

θ,λ

or q = ζ , τ , n , u , q ξ , v ξ : ξ < θ P α+1 , p P

α

ξ < θ ,

, and p α q ξ for some

or p = ζ , τ , n , u , p ξ , v ξ : ξ < θ , q = ζ , τ , n , u , q ξ , v ξ :

from P α+1 and

(ξ < θ )(p ξ α q ξ & u p ξ = u q ξ ).

ξ < θ are

[Again, it is easy to show that clauses (i) α+1 –(iv) α+1 are satisfied.]

After the construction is carried out we let

P

λ =

θ

α<λ

θ,λ

P

α

and

pr = pr

α

α<λ

and

= α .

α<λ

One easily checks that pr is a partial order on P λ θ and that the relation is transitive and reflexive, and that pr ⊆ ≤.

Lemma 3. Let p, q P θ

λ

.

(1)

If p q

then ht(p ) ht(q ), u p u q and F p = { f u p : f F q } (so B p

is

a subalgebra of B q ). If p q and ht(p ) = ht(q ), then q p .

(2)

For each j u p ,

the set { β < ht(p ) : h p (j, β ) < θ } is finite.

(3)

If p pr q and i u p , then h q (i, β ) θ for all β such that ht(p ) β < ht(q ).

modified:2001-11-12

733 revision:2001-11-12

6

(4)

ANDRZEJ ROSLANOWSKI

AND SAHARON SHELAH

If i, j u p are distinct, then there is β < ht(p ) such that θ = h p (i, β ) = h p (j, β ) = θ .

(5) For each finite set X ht(p ) there is i u p such that

{ β < ht(p ) : h p (i, β ) < θ } = X.

(6) If p pr q then there is a pr –increasing sequence p ξ : ξ ht(p ) P λ θ such that p ht( p) = p , p ht( q ) = q and ht(p ξ ) = ξ (for ξ ht(p )). (In particular, if

p pr q and ht(p ) = ht(q ) then p = q .)

If ht(p ) = γ is a limit ordinal, p = p ξ : ξ < γ , then for each i u p and

ξ < γ :

(7)

i u p ξ

if and only if

(ζ < γ )(ξ ζ h p (i, ζ ) θ ).

Proof. 1) Should be clear (an easy induction).

2) Suppose that p P λ θ and j u p are a counterexample with the minimal possible value of ht(p ). Necessarily ht(p ) is a limit ordinal, p = p ξ : ξ < ht(p ) , ht(p ξ ) = ξ and ζ < ξ < ht(p ) p ζ pr p ξ . Let ξ < ht(p ) be the first ordinal such that j u p ξ . By the choice of p , the set { β ξ : h p (j, β ) < θ } is finite, but clearly

h p (j, β ) θ for all β

(ξ, ht(p )).

3)

An easy induction on ht(q ) (with fixed p ).

4)

We show this by induction on ht(p ). Suppose that ht(p ) = α + 1, so p =

ζ , τ , n , u , p ξ , v ξ : ξ < θ , and i, j u p are distinct. If i, j u p ξ for some ξ < θ , then by the inductive hypothesis we find β < α such that

θ = h p (i, β ) = h p ξ (i, β ) = h p ξ (j, β ) = h p (j, β ) = θ.

at the definition

of h p (i, α), h p (j, α) – these two values cannot be equal (and both are distinct fro m θ ). Finally suppose that ht(p ) is limit, so p = p ξ : ξ < ht(p ) . Take ξ < ht(p ) such that i, j u p ξ and apply the inductive hypothesis to p ξ getting β < ξ such that h p (i, β ) = h p (j, β ) (and both are not θ ).

If i u p ξ \ u , j u p ζ \ u and ξ, ζ < θ are distinct, then look

5) Again, it goes by induction on ht(p ). First consider a limit stage, and suppose

be

such that X ξ . By the inductive hypothesis we find i u p ξ such that { β < ξ :

h p (i, β ) < θ } = X . Applying clause (3) we may conclude that this i is as required. Now consider a successor case ht(p ) = α +1. Let p = ζ , τ , n , u , p ξ , v ξ : ξ < θ , and let ξ < θ be ζ if α X , and be ζ +1 otherwise. Apply the inductive hypothesis to p ξ and X α to get suitable i u p ξ , and note that this i works for p and X too.

that ht(p ) = γ is a limit ordinal, X [γ ] <ω and p = p ξ : ξ < γ . Let ξ < γ

6), 7) Straightforward.

Definition 4. We say that conditions p, q P λ θ are isomorphic if ht(p ) = ht(q ), otp(u p ) = otp(u q ), and if H : u p −→ u q is the order isomorphism, then for every β < ht(p )

(j u p )(h p (j, β ) = h q (H (j ), β ) & g p (j, β ) = g p (H (j ), β )).

[In this situation we may say that H is the isomorphism from p to q .]

Lemma 5. Suppose that q 0 , q 1 P λ θ are isomorphic conditions and H is the iso- morphism from q 0 to q 1 .

HISTORIC FORCING FOR Depth

7

modified:2001-11-12

733 revision:2001-11-12

(1)

(2)

If ht(q 0 ) = ht(q 1 ) = γ is a limit ordinal, q = q ξ : ξ < γ (for ℓ < 2 ), then

H u q is an isomorphism from q to q

ξ . If ht(q 0 ) = ht(q 1 ) = α + 1 , α < λ, and q = ζ , τ , n , u , q ξ , v ξ : ξ < θ

0

ξ

0

ξ

1

0

(for ℓ < 2 ), then ζ = ζ , τ = τ , n 0 = n , H u q ξ is an isomorphism from q to q and H [v ] = v (for ξ < θ ).

0

ξ

1

ξ

0

0

ξ

1

0

1

ξ

1

1

(3) F q 0 = { f H : f F q 1 } .

(4) Assume p 0 q 0 . Then there is a unique condition p 1 q 1 such that H u p 0

is the isomorphism from p 0 to p 1 .

[The

condition p 1 will be called H (p 0 ).]

Proof. 1), 2) Straightforward (for (1) use Lemma 3(7)). 3), 4) Easy inductions on ht(q 0 ) using (1), (2) above.

θ,λ

Definition 6. By induction on α < λ, for conditions p, q P we define the p –transformation T p (q ) of q .

α

such that p α q ,

If α = 0 (so necessarily p = q ) then T p (q ) = p .

Assume that ht(q ) = α + 1, q = ζ , τ , n , u , q ξ , v ξ : ξ < θ . If p q ξ for some ξ < θ , then let ξ be such that p q ξ . Next for

< θ let q ξ = T H ξ ,ξ ( p) (q ξ ), where H ξ ,ξ is the isomorphism from q ξ to q ξ . Define T p (q ) = ξ , τ , n , u , q ξ , v ξ : ξ < θ .

ξ

Suppose now that p = ζ , τ , n , u , p ξ , v ξ : ξ < θ and u p ξ =

u q ξ ,

p ξ q ξ (for ξ < θ ). Let q ξ = T p ξ (q ξ ) and put T p (q ) = ζ , τ , n , u , q ξ , v ξ :

ξ < θ .

Assume now that ht(q ) is a limit ordinal and q = q ξ : ξ < ht(q ) . If ht(p ) < ht(q ) then p q ε for some ε < ht(q ), and we may choose q

ξ

ξ , and

q ζ = T p (q ζ ) for ζ [ε, ht(q )). Next we let T p (q ) = q ζ : ζ < θ . If ht(p ) = ht(q ), p = p ξ : ξ < ht(p ) and p ξ q ξ for ξ > δ (for some δ < ht(p )) then we define T p (q ) = p .

(for ξ < ht(q )) such that ht(q ξ ) = ξ , ξ < ξ < ht(q ) q

ξ pr q

To show that the definition of T p (q ) is correct one proves inductively (parallely to the definition of the p –transformation of q ) the following facts.

Lemma 7. Assume p, q P λ θ , p q . Then:

(1) T p (q ) P λ θ , u T p ( q ) = u q , ht(T p (q )) = ht(q ),

(2)

p pr T p (q ) q T p (q ),

(3)

ht(p ) = ht(q ) T p (q ) = p ,

(4) if q P λ θ is isomorphic to q and H : u q −→ u q is the isomorphism from q to q , then H is the isomorphism from T p (q ) to T H ( p) (q ),

(5)

if q pr q then T p (q ) pr T p (q ).

Proposition 8. Every pr –increasing chain in P λ θ of length < λ has a pr –upper bound, that is the partial order (P λ θ , pr ) is (< λ)–closed.

Let us recall that a forcing notion (Q , ) is ()–strategically closed if the second player has a winning strategy in the following game λ (Q ). The game λ (Q ) lasts λ moves. The first player starts with choosing a condition p Q . Later, in her i th move, the first player chooses an open dense subset D i of Q . The second player (in his i th move) picks a condition p i Q so that p 0 p ,

modified:2001-11-12

733 revision:2001-11-12

8

ANDRZEJ ROSLANOWSKI

AND SAHARON SHELAH

p i D i and p i p j for all j < i . The second player looses the play if for some i < λ he has no legal move. It should be clear that ()–strategically closed forcing notions do not add sequences of ordinals of length less than λ. The reader interested in this kind of properties of forcing notions and iterating them is referred to [7], [8].

Proposition 9. Assume that θ < λ are regular cardinals, λ <λ = λ. Then (P λ θ , ) is a (< λ)–strategically closed λ + –cc forcing notion.

Proof. It follows from Lemma 7(2) that if D P λ θ is an open dense set, p P θ then there is a condition q D such that p pr q . Therefore, to win the game λ (P λ θ ), the second player can play so that the conditions p i that he chooses are pr –increasing, and thus there are no problems with finding pr –bounds (remember Proposition 8). Now, to show that P λ θ is λ + –cc, suppose that p δ : δ < λ + is a sequence of

distinct conditions from P λ θ . We may find a set A [λ + ] λ + such that

λ

,

conditions { p δ : δ A} are pairwise isomorphic,

the family { u p δ : δ A} forms a ∆–system with heart u ,

if δ 0 < δ 1 are from A

then

sup(u ) < min(u p δ 0 \ u ) sup(u p δ 0 \ u ) < min(u p δ 0 \ u ).

Take an increasing sequence δ ξ : ξ < θ of elements of A, let τ = 1 , v ξ =

(for ξ < stronger

Definition 10. By induction on ht(p ) we define α–components of p (for p P θ α ht(p )).

λ

,

θ ), and look at p = 0 , τ , 0 , u , p δ ξ , v ξ : ξ < θ . It is a condition in P θ

λ

than all p δ ξ ’s.

First we declare that the only ht(p )–component of p is the p itself.

α = β , then

α–components of p are p ξ (for ξ < θ ); if α < β , then α–components of p are those q which are α–components of p ξ for some ξ < θ .

If ht(p ) is a limit ordinal, p = p ξ : ξ < ht(p ) and α < ht(p ), then α– components of p are α–components of p ξ for ξ [α, ht(p )).

If ht(p ) = β + 1, p = ζ , τ , n , u , p ξ , v ξ : ξ < θ and

Lemma 11. Assume p P λ θ and α < ht(p ).

(1)

If q is an α–component of p then q p , ht(q ) = α, and for all j 0 , j 1 u q and every β [α, ht(p )):

Moreover, for each i u p there is a unique α–component q of p such that

i u q and

h p (j 0 , β ) = θ & h p (j 1 , β ) = θ

h p (j 0 , β ) = h p (j 1 , β ).

(j u q )(β [α, ht(p )))(h p (i, β ) θ h p (j, β ) θ ).

(2) If H is an isomorphism from p onto p P λ θ , and q is an α–component of

p , then H (q ) is an α–component of p . If q 0 , q 1 are α–components of p then

q 0 , q 1 are isomorphic.

(3) There is a unique α–component q of p such that q pr p .

Proof. Easy inductions on ht(p ).

Definition 12. By induction on ht(p ) we define when a set Z λ is p –closed for

a condition p P θ

λ

.

HISTORIC FORCING FOR Depth

9

modified:2001-11-12

733 revision:2001-11-12

If ht(p ) = 0 then every Z λ is p –closed;

if ht(p ) is limit, p = p ξ : ξ < ht(p ) , then Z is p –closed provided it is p ξ –closed for each ξ < ht(p );

if ht(p ) = α + 1, p = ζ , τ , n , u , p ξ , v ξ :

ξ < θ and α / Z , then Z is

p –closed whenever it is p ζ –closed;

if ht(p ) = α + 1, p = ζ , τ , n , u , p ξ , v ξ :

ξ < θ and α Z , then Z is

p –closed provided it is p ζ –closed and

{ β < α : (j v ζ ∪ { min(u p ζ \ u )} )(h p ζ (j, β ) < θ )} ⊆ Z.

Lemma 13.

set Z ht(p ) such that w Z . (2) If p, q P λ