ADDENDUM TO MAXIMAL CHAINS IN AND ULTRAPOWERS OF THE INTEGERS

SAHARON SHELAH AND JURIS STEPRANS

modified:1996-03-11

This note is intended as a supplement and clarication to the proof of Theorem 3.3 of [1]; namely, it is consistent that b = 1 yet for every ultralter U on there is a chain {f : 2 } such that {f /U : 2 } is conal in /U . The general outline of the the proof remains the same. In other words, a ground model is taken which satises 20 = 1 and in which there is a 2 sequence {D : 2 } such that for every X 2 there is a stationary set of ordinals, , such that cof() = 1 and such that X = D . Actually, a coding will be used to associate with subsets of 2 , names for subsets on in certain partial orders. The details of this coding will be ignored except to state that c(D ) will denote the coded set and that if P2 = lim{P : 2 } is the nite support iteration of ccc partial orders of size no greater than 1 and 1 P2 X [] then there 0 is a stationary set SX 2 , consisting of ordinals of uncountable conality, such that 1 P X P = c(D ) for each SX . Here X P denotes the P -name obtained by considering only those parts of X that mention conditions in P ; to be more precise here would requires providing the details of a specic development of names in the theory of forcing, and so this will not be done. The partial order P2 is dened by induction using the 2 sequence. Simultaneously, a partial ordering will be dened on 2 by if and only if 1 1 1
P P P

c(D ) is an ultralter on c(D ) is an ultralter on c(D ) = c(D ) V P

revision:1993-08-24

If 2 then the order type of { : } will be denoted by o(). Furthermore, an enumeration {g : 2 } will be constructed by induction along with P2 which will list all P2 -names for functions from to . If P has been dened and 1 P c(D ) is an ultralter on then P+1 is dened to be P C Q where C is simply Cohen forcing which adds a single generic function A : 2 and Q adds a function F : such that F F and F A1 {k} go() A1 {k}, for a certain k 2, for all such that . To be more precise, Q is dened, in the forcing extension by P , to consist of all pairs (f, ) such that f is a nite partial function from to and []<0 , and the ordering is dened by (f, ) (f , ) if f f if and and m dom(f \ f ) then f (m) F (m) if , , m dom(f \f ), 1 P A1 {k} c(D ) and A1 (m) = k then f (m) go() (m)

If 1 P c(D ) is an ultralter on fails to be true then Q is dened to be empty. At limits the iteration is with nite support.
1

465a

SAHARON SHELAH AND JURIS STEPRANS

To see that for every ultralter on there is an increasing chain which is conal in the ultrapower, let G be P2 generic over V and let U be an ultralter on in V [G]. There must be some name U such that 1 P2 U is an ultralter on and U is the interpretation U in V [G]. It is well known that there is a set which is closed under increasing 1 sequences, C such that 1 P U is an ultralter on for each C. It follows that if and {, } C SU then . It is now easy to verify that {F : C SU } is an -increasing sequence. Moreover, because C SU is conal in 2 it follows that {o() : C SU } = 2 and hence 1 P2 {go() : C SU } = . Therefore, if 1 P2 g : there is some C SU such that 1 Po() (g = go() and so it follows that 1
P 2

( n A1 {k})F (n) go() (n) and A1 {k} c(D ) U

modified:1996-03-11

for any C SU \ It follows immediately that {F : C SU } is conal in the ultrapower by U. The only thing which now has to be proved is that P2 is locally Cohen since this immediately implies that b = 1 . A condition p P2 will be said to be determined if there is some p [2 ]<0 such that p is the support of p and for each p there is a quadruple (a , fp , , gp ) such that: p p p P p() = a (fp , ) for each p p p p for each p p p P go() dom(a ) = gp for each p p 2 for each {, } [p ] such that there is some kp (, ) 2 such that p P A1 {kp (, )} D dom(fp ) dom(a ) for each p p dom(fp ) dom(fp ) for each {, } [p ]2 such that This denition of determined diers in a substantial way from the denition of somewhat determined in [1]. The next lemma shows that every condition can be extended to a determined condition; this is problematic for the somewhat determined conditions. Lemma 0.1. The set of determined conditions is dense in P2 . Proof: Induction on 2 + 1 will be used to prove the following stronger statment: For each m and each p P there is a determined condition q p such that if is the maximal element of q then m a and is the maximal q element of the support of p. Note that a has the smallest domain of any function q appearing in q so the requirement that m a implies that m is in the domain of q any function appearing in q. To prove this, suppose the statement is true for all . If is a limit ordinal the result follows from the nite support of the iteration; therefore suppose that = + 1. Then extend p so that p P p() = a (f, ). By extending, it may be assumed that m dom(a) dom(f ). Let m be the maximal element of dom(f ). Let p p be such that is contained in the support of p . There are now two cases to consider: Either is a successor in or it is a limit. If it is a successor then let be the predecessor of in . Otherwise, let be such that is greater then the support of of p and and is the successor of 1 in the ordering . In the rst case, let p p be such that p P A k D . 1 In the second case, choose p such that p P A k D and such that belongs to the support of p .

465a

revision:1993-08-24

ADDENDUM TO MAXIMAL CHAINS IN

AND ULTRAPOWERS OF THE INTEGERS 3

Now use the induction hypothesis to nd a determined condition q such that if is the maximal element of q then m dom(a ). Moreover, in the case that is q a limit of , then the induction hypothesis can be used to ensure that < . It will be shown that the transitivity of guarantees that q p() = r is a determined condition satisfying the extra induction requirements. Let r = q {} and let fr , a and have the values inherited from q and p(). Furthermore, kr (, ) r r can be dened to be kq (, ) unless = . Here the choice of p helps. In the case that is the successor of , then p decides that A1 k D so kr ( , ) can be dened to be k and, moreover kr (, ) can be dened to be k for each q such that . Since is the successor of in there are no new instances with which to deal. In the case that is a limit in the partial order , it is possibe to dene kr ( , ) = k because of the transitivity of . For the same reason it is possible to dene kr (, ) to be k for each q such that . Since the support of q is contained in and is the successor of in the partial order , it follows that there are no new instances to consider in this case as well.

Lemma 0.2. The partial order P2 is locally Cohen. Proof: Let X [P2 ]0 . Let M be a countable elementary submodel of H(3 ) which contains X and the -sequence {D : 2 } as well as P2 . It suces to show that if p P2 and D MP2 is a dense subset of the partial order MP2 then there is q D and r P2 such that r p and r q. Given p P2 , by using Lemma 0.1, it may, without loss of generality, be assumed that p is determined. Using the elementarity of M it follows that there is some determined condition p which is isomorphic to p. In particular, there is an order preserving bijection I : p p such that I is the identity on p M, I() I() a = ap , fp = fp , gp = g I() and I preserve the partial ordering . It is not p required that = p because will be dened to be p . p p Now let q D be a condition extending p . Using Lemma 0.1 it may again be assumed that q is determined. It must be shown how to dene r P2 extending both q and p. In order to do this, dene s() to be the unique, minimal ordinal M such that if such a unique ordinal exists. Notice that if M and / there is some M such that then s() exists. The reason for this is that the only way that s() can fail to exist in this context is that there are two minimal ordinals M and M such that and . However, this means that the supremum of { : and } belongs to M and hence there is some M \ such that and . From the easily veried fact that is a tree ordering it follows contradicting the minimality assumption on and . Now dene r as follows: the domain of r is the union of the domains of q and p if M then r() = a (fq , ) q q p if M and there does not exist dom(q) such that / then r() = p() if M and there exists dom(q) such that then recall that s() / is dened and dene r() = a (fr , ) where the function a is dened r p r
I()

465a

revision:1993-08-24

modified:1996-03-11

SAHARON SHELAH AND JURIS STEPRANS

by a (n) = r a (n) p kp (, s()) + 1 mod 2 if n dom(a ) p if n dom(a ) / p is a

(note that in this case kp (, s()) has a natural denition because tree ordering) and the function fr is dened by
fr (n) = fp (n) min{fq (n) : p M and

} a q

if n dom(fp ) if n dom(ap ) /

The fact that r q is immediate because = and fr = fq for each q and, moreover, if dom(q) then q M; so there is no restriction on the points in the domain of r not in the domain of q. It will be shown that r p by inductively proving that r p for each 2 . If = 0 there is nothing to do and at limits the nite support of the iteration makes the task easy. So suppose that r p . Tt suces to show that the following Key Condition is satised: If p p n is in the domain of fr \ fp then fr (n) fr (n) and, in addition, if a (n) = kr (, ) then r ( + 1) P+1 r fr (n) go() (n). This will be established by considering various cases. Case 1 Suppose that and both belong to M. Since q p , from the denition of p and the partial order Q it easily follows that the Key Condition is satised. There is no need to use the induction hypothesis in this case. Case 2 Suppose now that belongs to M but does not. First it will be shown that fr (n) fr (n). There are two subcases to consider; either n belongs to the domain I() of fp or it does not. If it does, then fp (n) = fp (n) = fr (n) and I() . p Because I() , it follows from the fact that q p that fq (n) fp (n) = fr (n). The other possibility is that n does not belong to the domain of fp . In this case, the denition of r asserts that fr (n) = min{fq (n) : I()

a r

modified:1996-03-11

and M dom(p)}

revision:1993-08-24

and, since is in the support of p and , it follows that fr (n) fq (n). It must now be shown that, if kr (, ) = ar (n) then r ( + 1) P+1 fr (n) go() (n). There are again two subcases to consider; either n belongs to the domain

of a or it does not. If it does, then gp p

I()

(n) = gp (n) and I() . Because p I()

I() , it follows from the fact that q p that q P fq (n) gp (n) while, on the other hand, p P go() (n) = gp (n). Since the induction hypothesis implies that r p and it has already been noted that r q it I() follows that r +1 fq (n) gp (n) = gp (n) = go() (n). The other possibility is that n does not belong to the domain of a . In this case, the denition of r p guarantees that a (n) = kr (, s()) and, the minimality of s() guarantees that r s() because and M. The transitivity of , now guarantees that kr (, ) = a (n) and so the Key Condition is vacuously satsied. r

465a

ADDENDUM TO MAXIMAL CHAINS IN

AND ULTRAPOWERS OF THE INTEGERS 5

Case 3 Suppose now that M but M. It will rst be shown that fr (n) fr (n). To / see this, recall that fr (n) = fq (n) for some such that , M and belongs to the support of p recall that it is being assumed that n is not in the domain of fp and this function was only extended in the case that there was an appropriate . Recall also that this implies that = p M and hence . Because p p it follows from the fact that q p that fq (n) fq (n) = fr (n). Now consider go() (n). Since and it follows that p q
go() fq (n)

and, because it has already been noted that r q it follows that r ( + 1)

Since fq (n) = fr (n) it follows that the Key Condition has been satised. Case 4 Finally, suppose that neither nor belongs to M. To show that fr (n) fr (n) two cases must again be considered; either n belongs to the domain of fp or it does not. If it does, then fr (n) = fq (n) for some such that , M and belongs to the support of p. Since it follows that I() and so I() fq (n) fp (n) = fp (n) = fr (n). On the other hand, if n does not belong to the domain of fp then fr (n) = min{fq (n) :

and M dom(p)}

modified:1996-03-11

and, since this minimum is taken over a set which includes , it follows that fr (n) fq (n) = fr (n). To show that r ( + 1) P+1 go() (n) fr (n) there are, once again, two cases to consider; either n belongs to the domain of a or it does not. If it does, p

then gp

I()

(n) = gr (n) and I() . Because I() p fq (n) I() gp (n).

, it follows from the fact

revision:1993-08-24

that q p that q On the other hand, p P go() (n) = gr (n) and so the, because the induction hypothesis yields that r p it I() follows that r (+1) P+1 fq (n) = fq (n) gp (n) = gr (n) = go()(n). The other possibility is that n does not belong to the domain of a . In this case, the p denition of r guarantees that a (n) = kr (, s()). The fact that , together r with the uniquenness of s() guarantees that s() = s(). The transitivity of , now guarantees that kr (, ) = kr (, s()) = kr (, s()) = a (n) and so the r Key Condition is vacuously satisied. The use of kr (, s()) and kr (, s()) here is a slight abuse of notation because there is no guarantee that s() belongs to the domain of r. Nevertherless, because kr (, ) is dened for some such that s() there is no harm in this abuse.

References
1. S. Shelah and J. Steprns, Maximal Chains in a in Arch. fr Math. Log. u

and Ultrapowers of the Integers, to appear

465a

SAHARON SHELAH AND JURIS STEPRANS

Institute of Mathematics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Givat Ram, Israel and Department of Mathematics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey Department of Mathematics, York University, 4700 Keele Street, North York, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3

465a

revision:1993-08-24

modified:1996-03-11