arxiv:math/ v1 [math.lo] 15 Oct 1996

Transcript

1 ISRAEL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICS 95 (1996), FURTHER CARDINAL ARITHMETIC BY arxiv:math/ v1 [math.lo] 15 Oct 1996 Saharon Shelah Institute of Mathematics The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel and Department of Mathematics Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA ABSTRACT We continue the investigations in the author s book on cardinal arithmetic, assuming some knowledge of it. We deal with the cofinality of (S ℵ0 (κ), ) for κ real valued measurable (Section 3), densities of box products (Section 5,3), prove the equality cov(,, θ +, 2) = pp() in more cases even when cf() = ℵ 0 (Section 1), deal with bounds of pp() for limit of inaccessible (Section 4) and give proofs to various claims I was sure I had already written but did not find (Section 6). Annotated Contents 1. Equivalence of two covering properties [We try to characterize when, say, has few countable subsets; for a given θ (ℵ 0, ), we try to translate to expressions with pcf s the cardinal { Min P : P S <µ() and every a S θ () is b n a n, such that every n<ω S ℵ0 (a n) is included in a member of P This continues and improves [Sh410, 6].] 2. Equality relevant to weak diamond * Done mainly 1 4/1991. I thank Alice Leonhardt for typing and retyping so beautifully and accurately. Partially supported by the Basic Research Fund, Israel Academy of Sciences. Publication number 430. Received January 23, 1992 and in final revised form April 22, 1996 }. 61

2 62 S. SHELAH Isr. J. Math. [We show that if µ > κ, θ = cov(µ, +, +, κ) and cov(,κ, κ,2) µ (or θ), then cov(µ, +, +,2) = cov(θ, κ, κ, 2). This is used in [Sh-f, Appendix, 1] to clarify the conditions for the holding of versions of the weak diamond.] 3. Cofinality of S ℵ0 (κ) for κ real valued measurable and trees [Dealing with partition theorems on trees, Rubin Shelah [RuSh117] arrive at the statement: > κ > ℵ 0 are regular, a α S <κ(µ), µ < ; can we find unbounded W such that α W aα < κ? Of course, α< cov(α, κ, κ, 2) < suffice, but is it necessary? By 3.1, yes. Then we answer a problem of Fremlin: e.g. if κ is a real valued measurable cardinal then the cofinality of (S ℵ0 (κ), ) is κ. Lastly we return to the problem of the existence of trees with many branches (3.3, 3.4).] 4. Bounds for pp Γ(ℵ1 ) for limits of inaccessibles [Unfortunately, our results need an assumption: pcf(a) does not have an inaccessible accumulation point ( a < Min a, a Reg, of course). Our main conclusion (4.3) ( is that e.g. if ζ : ζ < ω 4 is the list of the first ℵ 4 inaccessibles ) then pp Γ(ℵ1 ) ζ<ω 1 ζ < ζ<ω 4 ζ. This does not follow from the proof of pp ℵ ω < ℵ ω4 [Sh400, 2], nor do we make our life easier by assuming ζ<ω 1 ζ is strong limit. We indeed in the end quote a variant of [Sh400, 2] (= [Sh410,3.5]). But the main point now is to arrive at the starting point there: show that for δ < ω 4, cf δ = ℵ 2, for some club C of δ, suppcf ℵ2 -complete ({ ζ: ζ C}) is δ. This is provided by 4.2.] 5. Densities of box products [The behavior of the Tichonov product of topological spaces on densities is quite well understood for µ 2 : it is Min{: 2 µ}; but less so for the generalization to box products. Let T µ,θ,κ be the space with set of points µ θ, and basis {[f]: f a partial function from µ to θ of cardinality < κ}, where [f] = {g µ θ: f g}. If θ = <κ, 2 µ the situation is similar to the Tichonov product. Now the characteristic unclear case is µ strong limit singular of cofinality < κ, θ = 2, 2 µ > µ +. We prove that the density is usually large (2 µ ), i.e. the failure quite limits the cardinal arithmetic involved (we can prove directly consistency results but what we do seems more informative).] 6. Odds and ends References Notation: Let J [a] be {b a: / pcf(b)}, equivalently J < [a] + b [a]. See more in [Sh513], [Sh589]. * There is a paper in preparation on independence results by Gitik and Shelah.

3 Vol. 95, 1996 FURTHER CARDINAL ARITHMETIC Equivalence of Two Covering Properties 1.1 Claim: If pp = +, > cf() = κ > ℵ 0 then cov(,, κ +, 2) = +. Proof: Let χ = ℶ 3 () + ; choose B ζ : ζ < + increasing continuous, such that B ζ (H(χ),, < χ), + 1 B ζ, B ζ = and B ξ : ξ ζ B ζ+1. Let B =: ζ< + B ζ and P =: S < () B. Let a S κ (); it suffices to prove ( A P)[a A]. Let f ξ be the < χ-first f (Reg ) such that ( g)[g (Reg )&g B ζ g < f mod J bd], such f exists as (Reg )/J bd is + -directed. By [Sh420, 1.5, 1.2] we can find C α : α < + such that: C α is a closed subset of α, otpc α κ +, [β naccc α C β = C α β] and S =: {δ < + : cf(δ) = κ + and δ = supc δ } is stationary. Without loss of generality C B 0. Now we define for every α < + elementary submodels N 0 α, N 1 α of B: N 0 α is the Skolem Hull of {f ζ : ζ C α } {i: i κ} and N 1 α is the Skolem Hull of a {f ζ : ζ C α } {i : i κ}, both in (H(χ),, < χ ). Clearly: (a) N 0 α N1 α B α B [why? as f ζ B ζ+1 because B ζ B ζ+1 ], (b) N l α κ + C α, (c) N 0 α B α+1. [Why? As α B α (you can prove it by induction on α) clearly α B α+1, but C B 0 B α+1 ; hence C α B α+1, also B γ : γ α B α+1 hence f γ : γ α B α+1, hence f γ : γ C α B α+1. Now N 0 α B α B α+1 and the Skolem Hull can be computed in B α+1.] (d) for each α with κ + > otp(c α ), for some γ α < +, letting a α =: Nα 0 Reg \κ++ clearly Ch α a α where Ch α (θ) =: sup(θ Nα 1 ), and we have: Ch α < f γα a α mod Ja bd α. [Why? a α B α+1 as Nα 0 B α+1, and a α /Ja bd α is + -directed (trivially) and has cofinality maxpcf J bd aα (a α ) pp() = +, so there is f aα β : β < +, < J bd aα increasing cofinal sequence in a α, so without loss of generality f aα β : β < + B α+1 ; also by the cofinal above, for some β (α, + ), Ch α < f aα β mod Ja bd α. We can use the minimal β, now obviously β B β+1 so f aα β B β+1, hence f aα β < f β+2 mod J bd. Together γ α =: β + 2 is as required.] (d) + for each α with otp(c α ) < κ + for some γ α (α, + ), for any µ Reg Nα, 0 letting Nα 0,µ =: Ch Bα (Nα 0 µ), a α,µ = Nα 0,µ Reg µ + and Ch α,µ -

4 64 S. SHELAH Isr. J. Math. Πa α,µ be Ch α,µ (θ) = { sup(θ N 1 α ) if θ N 1 α, 0 otherwise, we have: Ch α < f γα a α,µ mod Ja bd α,µ. [Why? Clearly Ch Bα (Nα 0 µ) B α+1, so a α,µ B α+1, hence there are in B α+1 elements b θ [a α,µ ]: θ pcf(a α,µ ) and fα aα,µ,θ : α < θ : θ pcf(a α,µ ) as in [Sh 371, 2.6, 1]. So for some γ α,µ (α, + ) we have Ch α b +[a α,µ ] < f γα, so it is enough to prove a α,µ b +[a α,µ ] is bounded below µ but otherwise pp() = + will be contradicted. Let γ α = sup{γ α,µ : µ N 0 α}.] (e) E =: {δ < + : α < δ & C α κ γ α < δ and δ > } is a club of. Now as S is stationary, there is δ( ) S E. Remember otp C δ( ) = κ +. Let C δ( ) = {α δ( ),ζ : ζ < κ + } (in increasing order). Let (for any ζ < κ + ) M 0 ζ be the Skolem Hull of { f αδ( ),ξ : ξ < ζ } {i : i κ}, and let M 1 ζ be the Skolem Hull of a { f αδ( ),ξ : ξ < ζ } {i : i κ}. Note: for ζ < κ + non-limit { f αδ( ),ξ : ξ < ζ } = { f ξ : ξ C αδ( ),ζ }. Clearly M 0 ζ : ζ < κ +, M 1 ζ : ζ < κ + are increasing continuous sequences of countable elementary submodels of B and M 0 ζ M1 ζ and for ζ < κ+ a successor ordinal, N l α δ( ),ζ = M l ζ. Now for each successor ζ, for some ǫ(ζ) (ζ, ω 1 ) we have γ αδ( ),ζ < α δ( ),ǫ(ζ) (by the choice of δ( )) hence f γαδ( ),ζ < f αδ( ),ǫ(ζ) mod J bd hence Ch α δ( ),ζ < f αδ( ),ǫ(ζ) mod J bd. Let E =: {δ < ω 1 : for every successor ζ < δ, ǫ(ζ) < δ}, clearly E is a club of κ +. Let = i<κ i, i < singular increasing continuous with i, wlog { i : i < κ} Ch B ({i: i κ} {}). So for some µ ζ,i <, we have: ( ) i < κ, ζ =ξ + 1 < κ + & θ Reg \µ ζ,i & θ Nα 0,i δ( ),ζ Nα 1 δ( ),ζ ( ) sup Nα 1 δ( ),ζ θ < f αδ( ),ǫ(ζ) (θ) θ Nα 0,i δ( ),ζ+1. So for some limit i(ζ) < κ + we have i(ζ) = sup{µ ζ,j : j < i(ζ)}. Now as cf κ + for some i( ) < W =: {ζ < κ + : ζ successor ordinal and i(ζ) = i( )} is unbounded in κ +. So if ξ < κ +, ξ E, ξ = sup(ξ W) and θ Mξ 1 Reg M 0, i( ) ξ \ i( ) then M 0,i ξ θ is an unbound subset of M 1 ξ θ.

5 Vol. 95, 1996 FURTHER CARDINAL ARITHMETIC 65 Hence by [Sh400] 5.1A(1), remembering Mζ+1 0 = N0 α δ( ),ζ+1, we have: Mξ 1 ] ) Skolem Hull[ ζ<ξ N0 ζ+1 i( ) Skolem Hull (N 0 αδ( ),ξ+1 i( ) whenever ξ E is an accumulation point of W. But a Mξ 1 and the right side belongs to B (as we can take the Skolem Hull in B δ( ) ). So we have finished. 1.1 Remark: Alternatively note: cov(,, κ, 2) cov(θ,, σ, 2) when σ = cf() < κ <, σ => ℵ 0, θ = pp Γ(κ,σ) (); remember cf() < κ < & pp() < +κ+ pp < () = pp(). 1.2 Claim: For > µ = cf(µ) > θ > ℵ 0, we have (0) (1) (2) = (3) and if cov(θ, ℵ 1, ℵ 1, 2) < µ they are all equal, where: (0) =: is the minimal κ such that: if a Reg + \µ, a θ then we can find a l : l < ω such that a = l<ω a l and ( b)[b S ℵ0 (a n ) maxpcf(b) κ]. (1) =: Min { P : P S <µ (), and for every A, A θ there are A n A (n < ω), A = n<ω A n, A n A n+1 such that: for n < ω, every a S ℵ0 (A n ) is a subset of some member of P }. (2) is defined similarly to (1) as: { Min P : P S <µ () and for every A S θ () for some A n A(n < ω) A = A n and for each n < ω for some P n P, P n < µ, n<ω sup B P n B < µ and every a S ℵ0 (A n ) is a subset of some member of P n }. (3) is the minimal κ such that: if a Reg + \µ, a θ, then we can find a l : l < ω, a l a l+1 a = l<ω a l such that: there is {b l,i : i < i l < µ}, b l,i a l such that max pcf b l,i κ and ( c)[c a l & c ℵ 0 i c b l,i]; equivalently: S ℵ0 (a n ) is included in the ideal generated by {b σ [a n ]: σ d} for some d κ + pcf a n of cardinality < µ.

6 66 S. SHELAH Isr. J. Math. 1.2A Remark: (1) We can get similar results with more parameters: replacing ℵ 0 and/or ℵ 1 by higher cardinals. (2) Of course, by assumptions as in [Sh410, 6] (e.g. pcf a a ) we get (0) = (3). This (i.e. Claim 1.2) will be continued in [Sh513]. Proof: (1) (2): Trivial. (2) (3): Let χ = ℶ 3 ((3)) + and for ζ µ + we choose B ζ (H(χ),, < χ ), {, µ, θ, (2), (3)} B ζ, B ζ = (3) and (3) B ζ, B ζ (ζ µ + ) increasing continuous and B ξ : ξ ζ B ζ+1 and let B = B µ +. Lastly let P = B S <µ (). Clearly ( ) 0 a function a b σ [a]: σ pcf a as in [Sh371, 2.6] is definable in (H(χ),, < χ) hence B is closed under it. It suffices to show that P satisfies the requirements in the definition of (2). Let A, A θ. We choose by induction on n < ω, N a n, (for l < ω) and N b n, f n such that: (a) N a n, N b n are elementary submodels of (H(χ),, < χ) of cardinality θ, (b) f n a n where a n =: Nn a Reg + \µ, and f n (σ) > sup(nn b σ) (for any σ a n ), (c) θ + 1 N a n N b n B, (d) N b n is the Skolem Hull of {Rang f l : l < n} A (θ + 1), (e) N a 0 is the Skolem Hull of θ + 1 in (H(χ),, < χ), (f) N a n+1 is the Skolem Hull of Na n Rang f n, (g) there are P n,l S <µ ( + 1) and A n,l N a n (for l < ω) such that: (α) P n,l < µ and µ n,l =: sup B Pn,l B < µ and P n,l P n,l+1, (β) N a n = l A n,l, P n = l<ω P n,l B and A n,l A n,l+1, (γ) for every countable a A n,l there is b P n,l satisfying a b, (δ) P n,l = S µn,l ( + 1) (Skolem Hull of A n,l P n,l (θ + 1)). As in previous proofs, if we succeed to carry out the definition, then n (Na n ) = n Nb n, but the former is n,l A n,l, hence A n l A n,l, by (g)(α), (β) the P n,l = {a : a P n,l} are of the right form and so by (g)(γ) we finish. P n,l. Note that without loss of generality: if a P n,l then a Reg ( + 1)\µ

7 Vol. 95, 1996 FURTHER CARDINAL ARITHMETIC 67 For n = 0 we can define N a 0, Nb 0, A n,l trivially. Suppose N a m, Nb m, A m,l, P m,l are defined for m n, l < ω and f m (m < n) are defined. Now a n is well defined and Reg + \µ B and a n θ. So a n = l a n,l and a n,l a n,l+1 where a n,l =: a n A n,l and, of course, a n,l Reg + \µ has cardinality θ. Note that a n,l is not necessarily in B but ( ) 1 every countable subset of a n,l is included in some subset of B which belongs to P n,l and is Reg + \µ. By the definition of (3) (see equivalently there), for each n, l we can find an increase sequence a n,l,k : k < ω of subsets of a n,l with union a n,l and d n,l,k [µ, (3)] pcf(a n,l,k ), d n,l,k < µ such that: ( ) 2 if b a n,l,k is countable then b is included in a finite union of some members of {b σ [a n,l,k ]: σ d n,l,k } (hence max pcf(b) (3)). By the properties of pcf: ( ) 3 for each l, k < ω and c Reg + \µ such that c P n,l we can find e = e l,k c (3) + pcf c, e d n,l,k < µ such that for every σ d n,l,k we have: c b σ [a n,l,k ] is included in a finite union of members of {b τ [c]: τ e c }. By [Sh371, 1.4] we can find f n σ a n σ such that: ( ) 4 (α) sup(nn b σ) < f n(σ); (β) if c P n,l, l, k < ω, c Reg + \µ and σ e l,k c pcf(c) [µ, (3)] (where e l,k c is from ( ) 3 ) then for some m < ω, σ p σ + pcf(c) and α p < σ p, (for p m) the function f n (b σ [c]) is included in Note Max p m f c,σ l α p b σp [c] (the Max taken pointwise). ( ) 5 if b a n,l,k is countable (where l, k < ω) then there is c P n,l, c < µ, By ( ) 4 : c Reg + \µ such that b c. ( ) 6 if l, k < ω, c P n,l, c Reg + \µ, and σ d n,l,k (3) + pcf c\µ then f n b σ [c] B. You can check that (by ( ) 2 ( ) 6 ) : ( ) 7 if b a n,l,k is countable then there is f n,l,k b that f n b f n,l,k b. Let τ i (i < ω) list the Skolem function of (H(χ),, < χ). Let B, Dom f n,l,k b < µ such A n+1,l = { Rang (τ i (A n,j Rang f n a n,j,k )): i < l, j < l, k < l }, P n+1,l = m l P n,m { f n a : a m l P n,m and f n a B },

8 68 S. SHELAH Isr. J. Math. and P n+1,l = S <µ ( + 1) (Skolem Hull of A n+1,l P n+1,l (θ + 1) ). So f n, P n+1,l are as required. Thus we have carried the induction. (3) (2): Let P exemplify the definition of (2). Let a Reg + \µ, a θ(< µ). Let J = J (2) [a], and let J 1 = {b: b a and there is b i : i < i, satisfying: b i b, i < µ, maxpcf b i (2) and any countable subset of b is in the ideal which {b i : i < i } generates}. Clearly J 1 is an ideal of subsets of a extending J. Let { J 2 = b: for some b n J 1 (for n < ω), b } b n. n Clearly J 2 is an ℵ 1 -complete ideal extending J 1 (and J). If a J 2 we have that a satisfies the requirement thus we have finished so we can assume a / J 2. As we can force by Levy ( (2) +, 2 (2)) (alternatively, replacing a by [Sh355, 1]) without loss of generality (2) + = max pcf a and so tcf( a/j 2 ) = tcf( a/j) = (2) +. Let f = f α : α < (2) + be < J -increasing, f α a, cofinal in a/j. Let B (H(χ),, < χ) be of cardinality (2), (2) + 1 B, a B, f B and P B. Let P =: B S <µ (). For B P (so B < µ) let g B a be g B (σ) =: sup(σ B), so for some α B <, g B < J f αb. Let α( ) = sup{α B : B P}, clearly α( ) < (2) +. So B P g B < J f α( ). Note: P P (as P B, P (2), (2) + 1 B) and for each B P, c B =: {σ a: g B (σ) f α( ) (σ)} is in J and J J 1 J 2. Apply the choice of P (i.e. it exemplifies (2)) to A =: Rang f α( ), get A n, P n : n < ω as there. Let a n =: {σ a: f α( ) (σ) A n }, so a = n a n, hence for some m, a m / J 2 (as a / J 2, J 2 is ℵ 1 -complete) hence a m / J 1. As a B, P B clearly P m B. So {c B : B P m } is a family of < µ subsets of a, each in J and every countable b a m is included in at least one of them (as for some B P m, Rang(f α( ) b) B, hence b c B ). Easy contradiction. (3) (0) if cov(θ, ℵ 1, ℵ 1, 2) < µ: Let a Reg + \µ, a κ, let a l : l < ω be as guaranteed by the definition of (0), let P l S <ℵ1 (a l ) exemplify cov(θ, ℵ 1, ℵ 1, 2) < µ, for each b P l we can find a finite e b (pcf a l ) + \µ such that b {b σ [a l ]: σ e b } and {b l,i : i < i } enumerates {e b : b P l }. (0) (1): Similar to the proof of (3) (2). 1.2

9 Vol. 95, 1996 FURTHER CARDINAL ARITHMETIC Claim: Assume ℵ 0 < cf θ < <, pp() and Then cov(,, θ +, 2) <. Proof: Easy. cov(, +, θ +, 2) <. 1.3A Definition: Assume θ = cf θ > κ = cf κ > ℵ 0. (1) ( C, P) T [θ, κ] if ( C, P) T [θ, κ] (see [Sh420, Def 2.1(1)]), and δ S( C) δ = sup(acc C δ ) (note: accc δ C δ ), and we do not allow (viii) (in [Sh420, Definition 2.1(1)]), or replace it by: (viii) for some list a i : i < θ of α S( C) P α, we have: δ S( C), α acc C δ implies {a β: a P δ, β a α} {a i : i < α}. (2) For ( C, P) T [θ, κ] we define a filter D ( C, P) () on [S <κ()] <κ (rather than on S <κ () as in [Sh420, 2.4]) (let χ = ℶ ω+1 ()) : Y D ( C, P) () iff Y (S <κ()) <κ and for some x H(χ) for every N α, N a: α < θ, a δ S P δ satisfying condition from [Sh420, 2.4], and also [a P δ & δ S & α < θ x N a & x N α] there is A id a ( C) such that δ S( C)\A a P δ N a N α : α acc C δ Y. Remark: For 1.3B below, see Definition of T l (θ, κ) and compare with [Sh420, Definition 2.1(2), (3)]. 1.3B Claim: (1) If ( C, P) T [θ, κ] (so > κ are regular uncountable) then D () is ( C, P) a non-trivial ideal on [S <κ ()] <κ. (2) If C T 0 [θ, κ], [δ S( C) δ = supacc C δ ], P δ = {C δ α: α C δ } then ( C, P) T [θ, κ]. If C T 1 [θ, κ], [δ S( C) δ = sup acc C δ ] and P δ = S <ℵ0 (C δ ) then ( C, P) T [θ, κ]. (3) If θ is successor of regular, σ = cf σ < κ, there is C T 0 [θ, κ] T 1 [θ, κ] with: for δ S( C), C δ is closed, cf δ = σ and otp C δ divisible by ω 2 (hence δ = sup acc C δ ). (4) Instead of θ successor of regular, it suffices to demand ( ) θ > κ regular uncountable, and cov(α, κ 1, κ, 2) < θ. α<θ κ 1 [κ,θ) Replacing 2 by σ, C δ closed is weakened to {otp(α C δ ): α C δ } is stationary. Proof: Check.

10 70 S. SHELAH Isr. J. Math. 1.3C Claim: Let > κ = cf κ > ℵ 0, θ = κ +, ( C, P) T [θ, κ] then the following cardinals are equal: µ(0) = cf (S <κ (), ), } µ(4) = Min { Y : Y D ( C, P) (). Proof: Included in the proof of [Sh420, 2.6]. 1.3D Claim: Let 1 0 > κ = cf κ > ℵ 0, θ = κ + and ( C, P) T [θ, κ]. Let B 1 be a rich enough model with universe 1 and countable vocabulary which is rich enough (e.g. all functions (from 1 to 1 ) definable in (H(ℶ ω ( 1 ) + ),, < ) with any finite number of places). Then the following cardinals are equal: µ (0) = cov({ 1, + 0, κ, 2), } µ + (4) = Min Y/ 0 B 1 : Y D ( C, P) ( 1) where a i : i acc C δ 0 B a i : i accc δ iff i accc δ Skolem Hull B 1 (a i 0) = Skolem Hull B1 (a i 0 ). Proof: Like the proof of [Sh420], 2.6, but using [Sh400, 3.3A]. 2. Equality Relevant to Weak Diamond It is well known that: κ = cf κ & θ > 2 <κ cov(θ, κ, κ, 2) = θ <κ = cov(θ, κ, κ, 2) <κ. Now we have 2.1 Claim: (1) If µ > κ, θ = cov(µ, +, +, κ), cov(, κ, κ, 2) µ (or θ) then cov(µ, +, +, 2) = cov(θ, κ, κ, 2). (2) If in addition 2 <κ (or just θ 2 <κ ) then cov(µ, +, +, 2) <κ = cov(µ, +, +, 2). 2.1A Remark: (1) A most interesting case is κ = ℵ 1. (2) This clarifies things in [Sh-f,AP1.17]. Proof: (1) Note that θ µ (because µ > κ). First we prove. Let P 0 be a family of θ subsets of µ each of cardinality, such that every subset

11 Vol. 95, 1996 FURTHER CARDINAL ARITHMETIC 71 of µ of cardinality is included in the union of < κ of them (exists by the definition of θ = cov(µ, +, +, κ)). Let P 0 = {A i : i < θ}. Let P 1 be a family of cov(θ, κ, κ, 2) subsets of θ, each of cardinality < κ such that any subset of θ of cardinality < κ is included in one of them. Let P =: { i a A } i: a P 1 ; clearly P is a family of subsets of µ each of cardinality, P P 1 = cov(θ, κ, κ, 2), and every A µ, A is included in some union of < κ members of P 0 (by the choice of P 0 ), say i b A i, b θ, b < κ; by the choice of P 1, for some a P 1 we have b a, hence A i b A i i a A i P. So P exemplify cov(µ, +, +, 2) cov(θ, κ, κ, 2). Second we prove the inequality. If κ ℵ 0 then cov(µ, +, +, 2) = θ and cov(θ, κ, κ, 2) = θ so trivially holds; so assume κ > ℵ 0. Obviously cov(µ, +, +, 2) θ. Note, if κ is singular then, as cf + > κ for some κ 1 < κ, we have θ = cov(µ, +, +, κ) = cov(µ, +, +, κ ) whenever κ [κ 1, κ] is a successor (by [Sh355, 5.2(8)]); also cov(θ, κ, κ, 2) sup{cov(θ, κ, κ, 2): κ [κ 1, κ] is a successor cardinal} and cov(θ, κ, κ, 2) cov(θ, κ, κ, 2) when κ < κ, so without loss of generality κ is regular uncountable. Hence for any θ 1 < θ we have ( ) θ1 we can find a family P = {A i : i < θ 1 }, A i µ, A i, such that any subfamily of cardinality + has a transversal. [Why? By [Sh355, 5.4], (= + ) and [Sh355,1.5A] even for µ.] Hence if θ 1 θ, cf θ 1 < + (or even cf θ 1 µ) then ( ) θ1. Now we shall prove below ( 1 ) ( ) θ1 cov(θ 1, κ, κ, 2) cov(µ, +, +, 2) and obviously ( 2 ) if cf θ κ then cov(θ, κ, κ, 2) = α<θ cov(α, κ, κ, 2) together; (as θ cov(θ, +, +, 2) which holds as < µ θ) we are done. Proof of 1 : Let {A i : i < θ 1 } exemplify ( ) θ1 and P 2 exemplify the value of cov(µ, +, +, 2). Now for every a θ 1, a < κ, let B a =: i a A i; so B a µ, B a hence there is A a P 2 such that: B a A a. Now for A P 2 define b[a] =: {i < θ 1 : A i A}; it has cardinality (as any subfamily of {A i : A i A} of cardinality + has a transversal). Note a b[a a ] (just read

12 72 S. SHELAH Isr. J. Math. the definitions of b[a] and A a ; note a S <κ (θ 1 )). For A P 2 let P A be a family of cov(, κ, κ, 2) subsets of b[a] each of cardinality < κ such that any such set is included in one of them (exists as b[a] by the definition of cov(, κ, κ, 2)). So for any a S <κ (θ 1 ) for some c P Aa, a c. We can conclude that {P A : A P 2 } is a family exemplifying cov(θ 1, κ, κ, 2) cov(µ, +, +, 2) + cov(, κ, κ, 2) but the last term is µ (by an assumption) whereas the first is µ (as µ > ) hence the second term is redundant. (2) By the first part it is enough to prove cov(θ, κ, κ, 2) <κ = cov(θ, κ, κ, 2), which is easy and well known (as θ µ > 2 <κ ) B Remark: So actually if µ > κ, θ = cov(µ, +, +, κ) then (θ µ > κ and) cov(µ, +, +, 2) cov(µ, +, +, κ) + cov(θ, κ, κ, 2) = θ + cov(θ, κ, κ, 2) = cov(θ, κ, κ, 2) and cov(θ, κ, κ, 2) cov(µ, +, +, 2) + cov(, κ, κ, 2), hence, cov(θ, κ, κ, 2) = cov(µ, +, +, 2) + cov(, κ, κ, 2). 3. Cofinality of S ℵ0 (κ) for κ Real Valued Measurable and Trees In Rubin Shelah [RuSh117] two covering properties were discussed concerning partition theorems on trees, the stronger one was sufficient, the weaker one necessary so it was asked whether they are equivalent. [Sh371, 6.1, 6.2] gave a partial positive answer (for successor of regular, but then it gives a stronger theorem); here we prove the equivalence. In Gitik Shelah [GiSh412] cardinal arithmetic, e.g. near a real valued measurable cardinal κ, was investigated, e.g. {2 σ : σ < κ} is finite (and more); this section continues it. In particular we answer a problem of Fremlin: for κ real valued measurable, do we have cf(s <ℵ1 (κ), ) = κ? Then we deal with trees with many branches; on earlier theorems see [Sh355, 0], and later [Sh410, 4.3]. 3.1 Theorem: Assume, θ, κ are regular cardinals and > θ = κ > ℵ 0. Then the following conditions are equivalent: (A) for every µ < we have cov(µ, θ, κ, 2) <, (B) if µ < and a α S <κ (µ) for α < then for some W of cardinality we have α W a α < θ.

13 Vol. 95, 1996 FURTHER CARDINAL ARITHMETIC A Remark: (1) Note that (B) is equivalent to: if a α S <κ () for α <, then for some unbounded S {δ < : cf(δ) κ} and b S <θ (), for α β in S, a α a β b (we can start with any stationary S 0 {δ < : cf δ κ}, and use Fodour Lemma). (2) We can replace everywhere θ by κ, but want to prepare for a possible generalization. By the proof we can strengthen W of cardinality to W is stationary (for (A) (B) this is trivial, for (A) (B) real), so these two versions of (B) are equivalent. Proof: (A) (B): Trivial [for µ < let P µ S <θ (µ) exemplify cov(µ, θ, κ, 2) < ; suppose µ < and a α S <κ (µ) for α < are given, for each α for some A α P µ we have a α A α ; as P µ < = cf for some A we have W =: {α < : A α = A } has cardinality, so S is as required in (B)]. (A) (B): First Case: For some µ [θ, ), cf µ < κ < µ and pp + <κ(µ) >. Then we can find a Reg µ\θ, a < κ, supa = µ and maxpcf J bd a. So by [Sh355, 2.3] a without loss of generality = maxpcf a; let f α : α < be < J< [a]-increasing cofinal in a. Let a α = Rang(f α ), so for α <, a α is a subset of µ < of cardinality < κ. Suppose W has cardinality, hence is unbounded, and we shall show that µ = α W a α ; as µ θ this is enough. Clearly a α = Rang f α sup a = µ, hence α W a α µ. If α W a α < µ define g a by: g(σ) is sup ( σ α W a ) α if σ > α W a α and 0 otherwise. So g a hence for some β < g < f β mod J < [a]. As the f β s are < J< [a]-increasing and W unbounded, without loss of generality β W, hence by g s choice [ σ a\ α W a β + f β (σ) g(σ) ] but { σ: σ a, σ > θ W a α +} / J < [a] (as µ is a limit cardinal and maxpcf J bd(a) ), contradiction. a The main case is: Second Case: For no µ [θ, ) is cf µ < κ < µ, pp + <κ(µ) >. Let χ =: ℶ 2 () +, B be the model with universe and the relations and functions definable in (H(χ),, < χ) possibly with the parameters κ, θ,. We know that > θ + (otherwise = θ + and (A) holds). Let S {δ < : cf δ = θ} be stationary and

14 74 S. SHELAH Isr. J. Math. in I[] (see [Sh420, 1.5]) and let S S +, C = Cα : α S + be such that: C α closed, otpc α θ, [β nacc C α C β = C α β], [otp C α = κ α S] and for α S + limit, C α is unbounded in α (see [Sh420, 1.2]). Without loss of generality C is definable in (B, κ, θ, ). Let µ 0 [θ, ) be minimal such that cov(µ 0, θ, κ, 2), so µ 0 > θ, κ > cf µ 0. We choose by induction on α <, A α, a α such that: (α) A α (H(χ),, < χ ), A α < and A α is an ordinal and {, µ 0, θ, κ, B, C} A α. (β) A α (α < ) is increasing continuous and A β : β α A α+1. (γ) a α S <κ (µ 0 ) is such that for no A S <θ (µ 0 ) A α is a α A. (δ) a β : β α A α+1. There is no problem to carry the definition and let A = α< A α. Clearly it is enough to show that ā = a α : α < contradict (B). Clearly µ 0 (θ, ) and a α S <κ (µ 0 ). So let W, W = and we shall prove that α W a α θ. Note: ( ) if a [θ, ), a < κ, a A α (and a Reg, of course) then ( a) A α is cofinal in a (as maxpcf a < ). Let R = {(α, β): β a α, α < } and E =: {δ < : (A δ, R δ, W δ, µ 0 ) (A, R, W, µ 0 ) and A δ = δ }. Clearly E is a club of, hence we can find δ( ) S acc(e). Let C δ( ) = {γ i : i < θ} (in increasing order). We now define by induction on n < ω, M n, N n ζ : ζ < θ, f n such that: (a) M n is an elementary submodel of (A, R, W), M n = θ, (b) Nζ n : ζ < θ is an increasing continuous sequence of elementary submodels of B, (c) N n ζ < θ, (d) N n ζ A δ( ), (e) ζ<κ Nn ζ M n, (f) f n (Reg M n ), (g) f n (σ) > sup(m n σ) for σ Dom(f n )\θ +, (h) for every ζ < θ, f n (Reg N n ζ \θ+ ) A δ( ), (i) N 0 ζ is the Skolem Hull in B of {γ i, i: i < ζ}, (j) N n+1 ζ is the Skolem Hull in B of N n ζ {f n(σ): σ Reg N n ζ \θ+ }, (k) M n is the Skolem Hull in (A, R, W) of l<n M l ζ<θ Nn ζ.

15 Vol. 95, 1996 FURTHER CARDINAL ARITHMETIC 75 There is no problem to carry the definition: for n = 0 define Nζ 0 by (i) [trivially (b) holds and also (c), as for (d), note that C A 0 A δ( ) and {γ i : i < ζ} A δ( ) as C is definable in B hence { α, γ, ζ : α S +, ζ < θ, and γ is the ζ-th member of C α } is a relation of B hence each C γζ+1 (ζ < θ) is in A δ( ) hence each {γ i : i < ζ} is and we can compute the Skolem Hull in A γj for j < θ large enough]. Next, choose M n by (k), it satisfies (e) + (a). If N n ζ : ζ < θ, M n are defined, we can find f n satisfying (f) + (g) + (h) by [Sh371,1.4] (remember ( )). For n + 1 define N n ζ by (j) and then M n+1 by (k). Next by [Sh400, 3.3A or 5.1A(1)] we have ( ) M n δ( ) = Nζ n δ( ) n<ω n<ω hence Nζ n W is unbounded in δ( ), n<ω ζ<θ ζ<θ hence for some n ( ) n we have: Nζ n W is unbounded in δ( ). ζ<θ Remember N n ζ A δ( ) = α<δ( ) A α = i<θ A γ i. So for some club e of θ ( ) if ζ e, ξ < ζ then: N n ξ A γ ζ, and γ ζ E C δ( ) (remember δ( ) acc(e)). Hence, for ζ e, we have: A γζ = γ ζ, and W N n ζ \ supnn ξ for every ξ < ζ. Let e = {ζ(ǫ): ǫ < θ}, ζ(ǫ) strictly increasing continuous in ǫ. Now for every ǫ < θ, N n ζ(ǫ) A γ ζ(ǫ+1) (and a β : β sup( N n ζ(ǫ) A γ ζ(ǫ+1) ) hence A 1 =: {a β : β W N n ζ(ǫ) } A 2 =: {a β : β N n ζ(ǫ+1) } µ 0 A γζ(ǫ+1) and A 2 is a subset of µ 0 of cardinality < θ hence (by the choice of the a γ s above) a γζ(ǫ+1) A 2 hence a γζ(ǫ+1) {a β : β W Nζ(ǫ) n }; moreover, similarly γ ζ(ǫ+1) γ < a γ {a β : β W Nζ(ǫ) n }. But W Nζ(ǫ+2) n \γ ζ(ǫ+1), hence {a β : β W Nζ(ǫ) n }: ǫ < θ is not eventually constant, hence { a β : β W ǫ<θ N n ζ(ǫ) } = a β: β W Nζ n ζ<θ has cardinality θ. Hence β W a β has cardinality θ, as required. 3.1

16 76 S. SHELAH Isr. J. Math. 3.2 Conclusion: (1) If is real valued measurable then κ = cf [S <ℵ1 (), ] (equivalently, cov(, ℵ 1, ℵ 1, 2) = ). (2) Suppose is regular > κ = cf κ > ℵ 0, I is a -complete ideal on extending J bd and is κ-saturated (i.e. we cannot partition to κ sets not in I). Then for α <, cf(s <κ (α), ) <, equivalently cov(α, κ, κ, 2) <. 3.2A Remark: (1) So for regular θ (κ, ) (in the above situation) we have α< cov(α, θ, θ, 2) < ; actually κ cf θ θ < suffices by the proof. Proof: (1) Follows by (2). (2) The conclusion is (A) of Theorem 3.1, hence it suffices to prove (B). Let µ < and a α S <κ (µ) for α < be given. As κ < = cf without loss of generality for some σ < κ, α< a α = σ. Let f α be a function from σ onto a α, so Rang f α µ. Now for each i < σ, {α < : f α (i) = γ}: γ < µ is a partition of to µ sets; as I is κ-saturated, b i =: {γ < µ: {α < : f α (i) = γ} / I} has cardinality < κ, hence b =: i<σ b i has cardinality < κ + σ + κ (remember σ < κ = cf κ). For each i < σ, γ µ\b i the set {α < : f α (i) = γ} is in I; so as I is -complete, > µ we have: {α < : f α (i) / b i } is in I. Now let W =: {α < : for some i < σ, f α (i) / b i } {α < : f α (i) / b i }. This is the union of σ < sets each in I, hence is in I, so \W =, and clearly α \W a α = {f α (i): α \W, i < σ} {f α (i): α <, f α (i) / b i, i < σ} b, i<σ and b < κ so \W is as required in (B) of Theorem Lemma: For every there is µ, µ < 2 such that (A) or (B) or (C) below holds (letting κ = Min{θ: 2 θ = 2 }) : (A) µ = and for every regular χ 2 there is a tree T of cardinality with χ cf(κ)-branches (hence there is a linear order of cardinality χ and density ). (B) µ > is singular, and: (α) pp(µ) = 2 (even = κ pp + (µ) = ( 2 ) + ), cf µ, ( θ)[cf θ < θ < µ pp θ < µ] (and µ 2 <κ ) hence

17 Vol. 95, 1996 FURTHER CARDINAL ARITHMETIC 77 (α) for every successor χ 2 there is a tree from [Sh355, 3.5]: cf µ levels, every level of cardinality < µ and χ (cf µ)-branches, (β) for every χ (, µ), there is a tree T of cardinality with χ branches of the same height, (γ) cf µ cf κ and even cf κ > ℵ 0 pp Γ(cf µ) (µ) = + 2. (C) Like (B) but we omit (α) and retain (α). Proof: First Case: κ = ℵ 0. Trivially (A) holds. Second Case: κ is regular uncountable. So κ and 2 κ = 2 and [θ < κ 2 θ < 2 κ ] hence 2 <κ < 2 κ (remember cf(2 κ ) > κ). Try to apply [Sh410, 4.3], its assumptions (i) + (ii) hold (with κ here standing for there) and if possibility (A) here fails then the assumption (iii) there holds, too; so there is µ as there; so (α), (γ) of (B) of 3.3 holds and let us prove (β), so assume χ (, µ), without loss of generality, is regular, and we shall prove the statement in (β) of 3.3(B). Without loss of generality χ is regular and µ (, χ)&cf µ pp (µ ) < χ; i.e. χ is (, +, 2)-inaccessible. [ Why? If χ is not as required, we shall show how to replace χ by an appropriate regular χ [χ, µ).] Let µ (, χ) be minimal such that pp (µ ) χ, (so cf µ ) now pp(µ ) < µ (by the choice of µ) and χ =: pp(µ ) +, by [Sh355, 2.3] is as required]. Let θ be minimal such that 2 θ χ. So trivially θ κ < χ and (2 <κ ) κ = 2 κ hence µ 2 <κ hence χ < 2 <κ ; as χ is regular < 2 <κ but > κ, clearly θ < κ ; also trivially 2 <θ χ 2 θ but χ is regular > κ > θ and [σ < θ 2 σ < χ], so 2 <θ < χ 2 θ. Try to apply [Sh410, 4.3] with θ here standing for there; assumptions (i), (ii) there hold, and if assumption (iii) fails we get a tree with θ nodes and χ θ-branches as required. So assume (iii) holds and we get there µ ; if µ we have a tree as required; if * If = κ, just regular, and we can change for this. ** Alternatively to quoting [Sh410, 4.3], we can get this directly, if cov(2 <κ, +,(cf κ) +, cf κ) < 2 we can get (A); otherwise by [Sh355, 5.4] for some µ 0 (,2 <κ ], cf(µ 0) = cf κ and pp(µ 0) = (2 ). Let µ (,2 <κ ] be minimal such that cf µ & pp (µ) > 2 <κ. Necessarily ([Sh355, 2.3] and [Sh371, 1.6(2), (3), (5)]) pp (µ) = pp µ = pp(µ 0) = (2 ) and (again using [Sh355, 2.3]) we have ( θ)[cf θ < θ < µ pp (θ) < µ]; together (α) of (B) holds. Also µ 2 κ, hence cf(µ) < κ ppµ µ <κ 2 <κ, contradiction, so (γ) of (B) follows from (α). Note that if we replace by κ (changing the conclusion a little; or = κ) then by [Sh355, 5.4(2)] if 2 is regular the conclusion holds for χ = 2 too.

18 78 S. SHELAH Isr. J. Math. µ (, 2 <θ ] (, χ) we get contradiction to χ is (, +, 2)-inaccessible which, without loss of generality, we have assumed above. Third Case: κ is singular (hence 2 <κ is singular, cf(2 <κ ) = cf κ). Let µ =: 2 <κ and we shall prove (C); easily (B)(γ) holds. Now κ> 2 is a tree with 2 <κ = µ nodes and 2 κ = 2 κ-branches, so (α) of (C) holds. As for (β) of (B), if κ is strong limit checking the conclusion is immediate, otherwise it follows from 3.4 part (3) below. Clearly if cf κ > ℵ 0, also (B) holds Claim: (1) Assume θ n+1 = Min { θ: 2 θ > 2 θn } for n < ω and n<ω θ n < 2 θ0 (so θ n+1 is regular, θ n+1 > θ n ). Then: for infinitely many n < ω, for some µ n [θ n, θ n+1 ) (so 2 µn = 2 θn ) we have: ( ) µn,θ n for every regular χ 2 θn there is a tree of cardinality µ n with χ θ n - (2) Moreover branches; if µ n > θ n then cf(µ n ) = θ n, µ n is (θ n, θ + n, 2)-inaccessible. (α) for every n < ω large enough for some µ n : θ n µ n < m<ω θ m and ( ) µn,θ n and cf(µ n ) = θ n, [µ n > θ n µ n is [(θ n, θ + n, 2)-inaccessible, pp(µ n ) = 2 θn ]. (β) Moreover, for infinitely many m we can demand: for every n < m, χ = cf χ 2 θn the tree T n χ (witnessing ( ) µ n,θ n for χ) has cardinality < θ m+1 (i.e. µ m < θ m+1 ). (3) If κ is singular, κ < 2 <κ < 2 κ then for every regular χ (κ, 2 <κ ), there is a tree with < κ nodes and χ branches (of same height). Also for some θ (κ, pp + (κ)) Reg, for every regular χ 2 κ there is a tree T, T κ cf κ, with χ θ -branches. Proof: Clearly (2) implies (1) and (3) (for (3) second sentence use ultraproduct). Let θ =: n<ω θ n. Let S 0 =: {n < ω: ( ) θn,θ n fails}. Let for n ω\s 0, µ n = θ n and note that (α) of 3.4(2) holds and if S 0 is co-infinite, also (β) of 3.4(2) holds. We can assume that S 0 is infinite (otherwise the conclusion of 3.4(2) holds). By [Sh355, 5.11], fully [Sh410, 4.3] for n S 0 there is µ n such that: (α) n θ n = cf µ n < µ n 2 <θn, (β) n pp Γ(θn)(µ n ) 2 θn (hence equality holds and really pp + Γ(θ n) (µ n) = ( 2 θn ) +) and

19 Vol. 95, 1996 FURTHER CARDINAL ARITHMETIC 79 (γ) n θ n < µ < µ n &cf µ θ n pp θn (µ ) < µ n hence pp + θ n (µ n ) = pp + Γ(θ n) (µ n) = ( 2 θn ). Note that 2 <θn = 2 θn 1 so µ n 2 θn 1. By [Sh355, 5.11] for n S 0, part (α) (of 3.4(2)) holds except possibly µ n < θ. Remember cf(µ n ) = θ n. Let n < m be in S 0 and µ n > θ m, so Max{cf µ n, cf µ m } = Max{θ n, θ m } < Min{µ n, µ m } so by (γ) n (and [Sh355, 2.3(2)]) we have µ n µ m. Note cf µ n = θ n, cf µ m = θ m (which holds by (α) n, (α) m ) hence µ n > µ m. As the class of cardinals is well ordered we get S 1 =: {n < ω: n S 0, µ n θ n+1 } is co-infinite and S =: {n: µ n θ} is finite (so (α) of 3.4(2)(b) holds). So for some n( ) < ω, S n( ) hence for every n [n( ), ω) for some m (n, ω), µ n < θ m. Note: n m µ n µ m (as their cofinalities are distinct) and [n / S 0 µ n / {θ m : m < ω}]. Assume n n( ), if µ n > θ n+1, let m = m n = Min{m: µ m+1 > µ n and m n} (it is well defined as k µ n < θ k and θ k < µ k < θ = l<ω θ l) and we shall show µ m < θ m+1 ; assume not, hence m S 0 ; so µ m+1 2 θm = pp Γ(θm)(µ m ) pp θm+1 (µ m ) but µ m µ n (by the choice of m) so as cf(µ m ) = θ m θ m+1, necessarily µ m > θ m+1 and if m+1 / S 0 trivially and if m + 1 S 0 by one of the demands on µ m+1 (in its choice) and [Sh355, 2.3] we have µ m+1 µ m ; but µ m < µ n, so µ m+1 < µ n contradicting the choice of m. So by the last sentence, n n( ) µ mn < θ mn+1. By [Sh355, 5.11] we get the desired conclusion (i.e. also part (β) of 3.4(2)). 3.4 Remark: It seemed that we cannot get more as we can get an appropriate product of a forcing notion as in Gitik and Shelah [GiSh344]. 4. Bounds for pp Γ(ℵ1) for Limits of Inaccessibles 4.1 Convention: For any cardinal µ, µ > cf µ = ℵ 1 we let Y µ, Eq µ be as in [Sh420, 3.1], µ is a strictly increasing continuous sequence of singular cardinals of cofinality ℵ 0 of length ω 1, µ = i<ℵ 1 µ i. So µ stands here for µ in [Sh420, 3, 4, 5]. (Of course, ℵ 1 can be replaced by regular uncountable.) In previous versions these sections have been in [Sh410], [Sh420] hence we use Y, etc. (and not the context of [Sh386]); see 4.2B below.

20 80 S. SHELAH Isr. J. Math. 4.2 Theorem (Hypothesis [Sh420, 6.1C] ): (1) Assume (a) µ > cf µ = ℵ 1, Y = Y µ, Eq µ Eq µ, (b) every D FIL(Y) is nice (see [Sh420, 3.5]), E = FIL(Y) (or at least there is a nice E (see [Sh420, 5.2 5], E = E = Min E, E is µ-divisible having weak µ-sums, but we concentrate on the first case), (c) µ < < pp + E (µ), inaccessible. Then there are e Eq µ and x : x Y/e, a sequence of inaccessibles < µ and a D FIL(e, Y) E nice to µ, D FIL(e, Y µ ) such that: (α) x Y µ/e x/d has true cofinality, (β) µ = tlim D x : x Y µ. (2) We can weaken (b) to E FIL(Eq, Y) and for D E, in the game wg(µ, D, e, Y) the second player wins choosing filters only from E. (3) Moreover, for given e 0, D 0, 0 x : x Y/e 0, if x Y/e 0 0 x /De 0 is -directed, then without loss of generality e 0 e, D 0 D and x x [e 0 ]. 4.2A Remark: (1) We could have separated the two roles of µ (in the definition of Y, etc. and in (µ, pp + E (µ))) but the result is less useful; except for the unique possible cardinal appearing later. (2) Compare with a conclusion of [Sh386] (see in particular 5.8 there): Theorem: Suppose > 2 ℵ1, (weakly) inaccessible. (1) If ℵ 1 < i = cf i < for i < ω 1, D is a normal filter on ω 1, i<ω 1 i /D is -directed, then for some i, ℵ 1 < i = cf i i and normal filter D extending D, = tcf ( i<ω 1 i /D ) and {i: i inaccessible} D. (2) If ℵ 1 = cf µ < µ <, pp Γ(ℵ1)(µ) then for some i : i < ω 1, ℵ 1 < i = cf i < µ, each i inaccessible and pcf Γ(ℵ1){ i : i < ω 1 }. Proof of 4.2: (1) By the definition of pp + E (µ) (and assumption (c), and [Sh355, 2.3 (1) + (3)]) there are D E and f Yµ/e µ such that: (A) f µ > f(x) = cf[f(x)] > µ ι(x), [ ] (B) f,d = tcf x Y/e f(x)/d. Let K 0 =: { (f, D): D E, f Yµ/e µ and conditions (A) f and (B) f,d hold}, so K 0. Now if (f, D) K 0, for some γ (C) f,d,γ in G γ (D, f, e, Y) the second player wins (see [Sh420, 3.4(2)]) * I.e.: if a Reg, a < min(a), inaccessible then > sup( pcf a).

21 Vol. 95, 1996 FURTHER CARDINAL ARITHMETIC 81 hence K 1 where K 1 =: {(f, D, γ) K 0 condition (C) f,d,γ holds}. Choose (f 1, D 1, γ ) K 1 with γ minimal. By the definition of the game ( ) for every A mod D 1 we have (f 1, D 1 + A, γ ) K 1. Let e 1 = e(d 1 ). Case A: {x: f 1 (x) inaccessible} mod D 1. We can get the desired conclusion (by increasing D 1 ). Case B: {x: f 1 (x) successor cardinal} mod D 1. By ( ), without loss of generality f 1 (x) = g(x) +, g(x) a cardinal (so µ ι(x) ) for every x Y µ /e. By [Sh355, 1.3] for every regular κ (µ, ) there is f κ (Y/e) Ord satisfying: (a) f κ < f 1, each f κ (x) regular, (b) tlim D1 f κ = µ, (c) x f κ(x)/d 1 has true cofinality κ. By (a) we get (d) f κ g. By (b) we get, by the normality of D 1, that for the D 1 -majority of x Y/e, f κ (x) µ ι(x) ; as f κ (x) is regular (by (a)) and µ ι(x) singular (see 4.1) we get (e) for the D 1 -majority of x Y/e, we have f κ (x) > µ ι(x). Let χ be large enough, let N be an elementary submodel of (H(χ),, < χ ), N, D 1 N, N is the ordinal N (singular for simplicity) and {µ, f 1, g, f κ : κ Reg (µ, ) } belongs to N. Choose κ Reg \(sup N), now in x Y/e 1 f κ (x)/d 1, there is a cofinal sequence f κ,ζ : ζ < κ ; as κ > sup( N), so for some ζ( ) < κ: h N Y/e1 Ord { x Y/e 1 : f κ,ζ( ) (x) h(x) < f κ (x) } = mod D 1. [Why? For any such h define h Y/e1 Ord by: h (x) is h(x) if h(x) < f κ (x) and zero otherwise, so for some ζ h < κ, h < f κ,ζh mod D 1. Let ζ( ) = sup { ζ h : h N Y/e1 N } ; it is < κ as N < κ, and it is as required.] Let f = f κ,ζ( ). The continuation imitates [Sh371, 4], [Sh410, 5]. Let { K 2 = (D, B, j x : x Y/e 1 ): D 1 D E, player II wins G γ E (f1, D), e 1 = e(d), B = < B x,j : j < j 0 x µ ι(x) > : x Y/e 1 N, B x,jx g(x) and j x < jx 0 µ ι(x), } {x Y/e 1 : f (x) is in B x,jx } D.

22 82 S. SHELAH Isr. J. Math. Clearly K 2. For each (D, B, j x : x Y/e 1 ) K 2 : ( ) 1 letting h Y/e1 Ord, h(x) = B x,jx, for some h =, f 1, 0, h, for some γ <0> < γ <> and D player II wins in G γ<>,γ<0> E (D, h, e 1, Y µ ). So choose (D, B, j x : x Y/e 1, γ 0 ) such that: ( ) 2 (D, B, j x : x Y/e 1 ) K 2, ( ) 1 for γ 0 holds and (under those restrictions) γ 0 is minimal. So (as player I can move twice ), for every A D +, if we replace D by D + A, then ( ) 2 still holds. So without loss of generality (for the first and third members use normality): ( ) 3 one of the following sets belongs to D: A 0,ζ = { x Y/e 1 : cf B x,jx > µ ι(x) and j 0 x < µ ζ } (for some ζ < ω 1 such that Y/e 1 < µ ζ ), A 1 = { x Y/e 1 : cf B x,jx < µ ι(x) B x,jx }, A 2,ζ = {x Y/e 1 : B x,jx µ ζ and j x < µ ζ } (for some ζ < ω 1 ). If A 2,ζ D then (for x Y/e 1 ) B x =: { Bx,j : x Y/e 1, j < j 0 x and B x,jx < µ ζ and j < µ ζ } is a set of µ ζ ordinals and {x Y/e 1 : f (x) B x } D and B x : x Y/e 1 belongs to N (as (D, B, j x : x Y/e 1 ) K 2 and the definition of K 2 ), contradiction to the choice of f (see, remember D 1 D by the definition of K 2 ). If A 1 D, we can find B 1 N, B1 = Bx,j 1 : j < j1 x µ ι(x) : x Y/e 1, Bx,j 1 g(x) and [ j<jx cf B 1 1 x,j µ ι(x) Bx,j 1 = 1] and each B x,j satisfying cf B x,j < µ i(x) is a union of cf B x,j sets of the form Bx,j 1 of smaller cardinality 1 and so for some jx 2 < jx, 1 f (x) B x,jx f (x) B x,j 2 x & B x,j 2 x < B x,jx. Now playing one move in G γ<>,γ<0> E (D, h, e, Y) we get contradiction to choice of γ 0. We are left with the case A 0,ζ D, so without loss of generality x,j cf B x,j > µ ι(x). Let a = { cf B x,j : cf B x,j > µ ι(x), x Y/e 1, j < j 0 x, j < µ ζ and ι(x) > ζ },

23 Vol. 95, 1996 FURTHER CARDINAL ARITHMETIC 83 so a is a set of regular cardinals, and (remember Y/e 1 < µ ζ ) we have a < Mina, so let b = b θ [a]: θ pcf a be as in [Sh371, 2.6]. So as (by the Definition of K 2 ), B x,j : j < jx 0 : x Y/e 1 N, clearly a N hence without loss of generality b N. Let = sup[ pcf a], so by Hypothesis [420, 6.1(C)], <, but N, so + 1 N. By the minimality of the rank we have for every θ pcf a, {x y/e 1 : cf B x,jx b θ } = mod D hence x cf B x,j x /D is -directed, hence we get contradiction to the minimality of the rank of f 1. (2), (3) Proof left to the reader B Remark: (1) The proof of 4.3 below shows that in [Sh386] the assumption of the existence of nice filters is very weak, removing it will cost a little for at most one place. (2) We could have used the framework of [Sh386] but not for 4.3 (or use forcing). 4.3 Claim (Hypothesis 6.1(C) of [Sh420] even in any K[A]): Assume µ > cf µ = ℵ 1, µ > θ > ℵ 1, pp Γ(θ,ℵ1)(µ) > µ, inaccessible. Then for some e Eq µ, D FIL(e, Y µ ) and sequence of inaccessibles x : x Y µ /e, we have tlim D x = µ and = tcf( x /D) except perhaps for a unique in V (not depending on µ) and then pp + Γ(θ,ℵ 1) (µ) +. Proof: By the Hyp. (see [Sh513, 6.12]) for some a Reg µ, a < Min(a), = maxpcf(a), and ( < )( b)[b a & b < θ >]& > sup pcf ℵ 1 complete (b) > ], J = J < [a]. First assume in K[A] there is a Ramsey cardinal > θ when A θ. Choose A θ such that θ L[A] and for every α < θ, there is a one to one function f α from α (i.e. α V ) onto α, f α L[A], so Card L[A] ( θ + 1 ) = Card V, and apply 4.2 to the universe K[A] (its assumption holds by [Sh420, 5.6]). Second assume ( ) in K[A] there is a Ramsey cardinal > when A + and assume our desired conclusion fails. Let S be stationary [δ S cf δ = θ + ], a α : α <, exemplify S I[] (exist by [Sh420, 1]). We can find a, J as described above. Let f α : α < exemplify = tcf( a/j), now by [Sh355, 1.3] without loss of generality = max pcf a. Let A 0 be such that a, f α : α <, b σ [a]: σ pcf a are in L[A 0 ]. Hence in L[A 0 ] for suitable J, f α /J: α < is increasing, and without loss of generality for some c δ α : α a δ : δ S L[A 0 ],

24 84 S. SHELAH Isr. J. Math. we have: for δ S, cf δ = a +, a δ a club of δ and f α (a\c δ α ): α a δ is <-increasing (see [Sh345b, 2.5] ( good point )) and c δ α J and S is stationary in V, so the assumption of 4.3 holds in V 1 whenever L[A 0 ] V 1 V ; hence for A +, in K[A 0, A] the conclusion of 4.2 holds as we are assuming ( ). Note: if A, in K[A], < = hence if α < +, A α then K[A] = < < ( + ) V. Choose by induction on α < + a set A α [α, (α + 1)) such that: A 0 is as [ above and for α > 0: if x : x Y/e, J exemplify the conclusion of 4.2 ] ( ) in K β<α A β, and f i : i < exemplify the = tcf x Y/e x/j, without [ ] loss of generality J canonical (all in K β<α A β, canonical means: the normal [ ] ideal generated by {x: x b < [{ y : y Y/e}]}), then in K β α A β we can find f, α< f < J x : x Y/e, α f J f α (as they cannot exemplify the conclusion of 4.5 in V otherwise we have finished). Let A = α< + A α. Now in K[A] there are e, x : Y/e, f i : i < (and J) exemplifying the conclusion of 4.2 (by ( ) and [Sh513, 6.12(3)]). By 4.5 below, for some δ < +, e, x : x [ Y/e, b σ [{ x : x Y/e}]: σ pcf{ x : x Y/e}, ] [ ] f α (α < ) all belongs to K γ<δ A γ, and in K γ δ A γ we get a contradiction. If ( ) holds for every we are done. If not, let 0 be minimal such that ( ) 0 fails; so if < 0 the conclusion holds, and if > 0 then let A + 0 be such that in K[A] there is no Ramsey, hence ([DoJ]) for µ + 0 in V, cov(µ, θ, θ, 2) µ, so the assumptions of 4.3 fail. Similarly µ > θ, cf(µ) = ℵ 1, pp Γ(θ,ℵ1)(µ) > + 0 bring a contradiction Conclusion: Hypothesis [Sh420, 6.1(C)] in any K[A]. (1) Assume µ > cf µ = ℵ 1, µ 0 < µ, σ {: µ 0 < < µ, inaccessible} < µ. Then σ +4 > { : µ < < (2) The parallel of [Sh400, 4.3]. Proof: See [Sh410, 3.5] and use 4.2(3). By [DoJe] pp (µ) and is inaccessible }. Γ(σ,ℵ 1)

25 Vol. 95, 1996 FURTHER CARDINAL ARITHMETIC Theorem: If is regular (> ℵ 1 ) A, Z K[A] a bounded subset of then for some α <, Z α< K[A α]. We shall return to this elsewhere. 5. Densities of Box Products 5.1 Definition: d <κ (, θ) is the density of the topological space θ where the topology is generated by the following family of clopen sets: {[f]: f a θ for some a, a < κ} where [f] = {g θ: g f}. So d <κ (, θ) = Min { F : F θ and if a S <κ () and g a θ then ( f F)g f }. If θ = 2 we may omit it, if κ = ℵ 0 we may omit it (i.e. d(, θ) = d <ℵ0 (, θ)). Always we assume ℵ 0, κ ℵ 0, θ > 1 and + κ. We write d κ (, θ) for d <κ +(, θ). 5.1A Discussion: Note: for κ = ℵ 0 this is the Tichonov product, for higher κ those are called box products and d has obvious monotonicity properties. d ( ) 2 ℵ0 = ℵ0 by the classical Hewitt Marczewski Pondiczery theorem [H], [Ma], [P]. This has been generalized by Engelking Karlowicz [EK] and by Comfort Negrepontis [CN1], [CN2] to show, for example, that d <κ (2 α, α) = α if and only if α = α <κ ([CN1] (Theorem 3.1)). Cater Erdős Galvin [CEG] show that every non-degenerate space X satisfies cf(d <κ (, X)) cf(κ) when κ +, and they note (in our notation) that d <κ () is usually (if not always) equal to the well-known upper bound (log ) <κ. It is known (cf. [CEG], [CR]) that SCH d <ℵ1 () = (log ) ℵ0, but it is not known whether d <ℵ1 () = (log ) ℵ0 is a theorem of ZFC. The point in those theorems is the upper bound, as, of course, d <κ (µ, θ) > χ if µ > 2 χ & θ > 2 [why? because if F = {f i : i < χ} exemplify d <κ (µ, θ) χ, the number of possible sequences Min{1, f i (ζ)}: i < χ (where ζ < µ) is 2 χ, so

26 86 S. SHELAH Isr. J. Math. for some ζ ξ they are equal and we get contradiction by g, g(ζ) = 0, g(ξ) = 1, Dom g = {ζ, ξ}]. Also trivial is: for κ limit, d <κ (, θ) = κ+sup σ<κ d <σ (, θ), so we only use κ regular; d <κ (, θ) σ θ for σ < κ. Also if cf() < κ, strong limit then d <κ () >. The general case (say 2 <µ < < 2 µ, cf µ θ) is similar; we ignore it in order to make the discussion simpler. So the main problem is: 5.2 Problem: Assume is strong limit singular, > κ > cf(), what is d <κ ()? Is it always 2? Is it always > + when 2 > +? In [Sh93] this question was raised (later and independently) for model theoretic reasons. I thank Comfort for asking me about it in the Fall of Lemma: Suppose is singular strong limit, cf() = cf(δ ) δ < cf(κ) κ <, 2 θ <, χ < 2 and α, µ α, χ α, χ α : α < δ is such that: χ α = θ µα, χ α = cov(χ α, α, α, 2), α < β µ α < µ β, = α<δ µ α = tlim α<δ α, θ < µ α, d <κ (µ α, θ) α (this holds e.g. if ( < α )[2 < µ α ]), A α = [µ α, µ α + µ α ], G α = {g: g a partial function from some a S <κ (A α ) to θ}, for g G α, (A [g] = {f X α : g f} where X α =: α) θ, so X α = χ α, ( h α is a function from S (Aα) <α θ ) to G α such that h α (a) exemplifies that a is not dense in (Aα) θ, i.e. [f a & g = h α (a) g f]. Then (F) (E) (D) (C) (B) (A); and (E) σ decrease with σ and (E) σ (G) when χ α = χ α; and if every α is regular (G) (F) and if in addition α<δ χ α = χ α then (G) (F) (E), and if {α < δ : σ α } mod J and σ < then (E) (E) σ (fixing J), where (A) d <κ (, θ) > χ; (B) if x ζ α<δ X α for ζ < χ then there is ḡ α<δ G α such that: for every ζ < χ, {α < δ : x ζ (α) / [g ζ ]} ; (C) if x ζ α<δ X α for ζ < χ then for some w α S <α (X α ) (α < δ ) for every ζ < χ, {α < δ : x ζ (α) w α } ;

27 Vol. 95, 1996 FURTHER CARDINAL ARITHMETIC 87 (D) for every x ζ α<δ χ α for ζ < χ there is w α<δ S < α (χ α ) such that: for each ζ < χ, α<δ x ζ(α) w α ; (E) σ for some ideal J on δ extending J bd δ for every x ζ α<δ χ α (for ζ < χ) there are ǫ( ) < σ and w ǫ α<δ S < α (χ α ) for ǫ < ǫ( ) such that for each ζ we have ǫ {α < δ : x ζ (α) / wα ǫ } = mod J. If σ = 2 we may omit it; (F) for some non-trivial ideal J on δ extending J bd δ we have α<δ (S <α (χ α ), )/J is χ + -directed; (G) for some non-trivial ideal J on δ extending J bd δ, for any P α: α < δ, P α a α -directed partial order of cardinality χ α, we have: α<δ P α/j is χ + -directed. 5.3A Remark: (1) Note that the desired conclusion is 5.2(A). (2) The interesting case of 5.3 is when {µ α : α < δ } does not contain a club of. (3) Note that with notational changes we can arrange is the disjoint union of A α (α < δ ), hence θ = α<δ X α. Proof: (E) σ2. Check. Clearly (E) σ decreases with σ, i.e. if σ 1 < σ 2 then (E) σ1 (E) (D): Just for J varying on non-trivial ideals, we have monotonicity in J; and for J = { } we get (D). (D) (C): (C) is a translation of (D). (C) (B): If x ζ α<δ X α for ζ < χ, let w α : α < δ be as in (C); for each α we know that w α is not a dense subset of X α (as d <κ (µ α, θ) α > w α ) so there is g α G α for which [g α ] w α =, so ḡ =: g α : α < δ is as required in (B). (B) (A): They say the same (see 5.3A(3)). (F) (E): Note that (E) just says that in α<δ (S < α (χ α ), ), any subset of { f: f α<δ S < α (χ α ), such that each f(α) is a singleton} has a J -upper bounded. In this form it is clearly a specific case of (F).