Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
6
8
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
5
-
1
9
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
8
-
2
6
THE CICHO
N DIAGRAM
TOMEK BARTOSZY
0
.
Sentences A(c), B(c), U(c) and C(c) are dened analogously by replacing word
null by the word meager in the denitions above.
In addition dene
wD F [
]
<2
0
g
f F
]
<2
0
g
f F
D wD
A(m) A(c) B(c) U(m)
In addition
A(c) B(c) & D
and
C(c) U(c) wD.
1991 Mathematics Subject Classication. 03E35, 03E15.
Key words and phrases. cardinal invariants, measure and category.
The second author would like to thank NSF under grant DMS-8505550 and MSRI for partial
support.
The third author would like to thank US-Israel Binational Science Foundation and MSRI for
partial support. Publication number 368.
1
3
6
8
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
5
-
1
9
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
8
-
2
6
2 TOMEK BARTOSZY
: L L as
=
_
if =
2
if =
1
2
C if = A
U if = B
B if = U
A if = C
wD if = D
D if = wD
for L.
It turns out that if is consistent with ZFC then
.
The rst table known as, the Kunen-Miller chart, gives consistency results con-
cerning sentences A, B, U, C only. It was completed by H. Judah and S. Shelah
in [5]. The remaining three tables give corresponding information including all 3
consistent combinations of D and wD.
3
6
8
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
5
-
1
9
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
8
-
2
6
THE CICHO
N DIAGRAM 3
Add T F F F F F
Category Baire T T T F F F
Measure Unif T T F T F F
Add Baire Unif Cov T T T T T F
T T T T A
F T T T B C D
F T F T E=E
F F T T F G H=H
I =I
F F F T D
F F F F A
A
2
-iteration with nite (countable) support of amoeba reals over a model
for CH or any model for CH or MA works.
A
2
-iteration with nite (countable) support of amoeba reals over a model
for CH or
2
-iteration of Sacks or Silver reals over a model for CH.
B
2
-iteration of random and dominating reals over a model for CH. [7]
B
1
-iteration of random and dominating reals over a model for CH & B(c).
C
2
-iteration with nite support of random reals over a model for CH. [7]
C
1
-iteration with nite support of random reals over a model for CH& D.
[7]
D Countable support
2
-iteration of innitely equal reals (see section 3) and
random reals over a model for CH. [7]
D
2
-iteration of Laver reals ([5]). We do not know if there exists a notion
of forcing P such that
2
-iteration of P over a model for CH gives D and
1
-iteration of P over a model for MA & CH gives D
.
E=E
2
random reals over a model for CH. This model is self-dual.
F
2
-iteration with nite support of any -centered notion of forcing adding
dominating reals over a model for CH . [7]
3
6
8
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
5
-
1
9
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
8
-
2
6
4 TOMEK BARTOSZY
1
-iteration with nite support of any -centered notion of forcing adding
dominating reals over a model for MA & CH . We can also get a model
for this case by an
2
-iteration of innitely equal reals over a model for CH.
G
2
-iteration with nite support of eventually dierent reals (see [7]) over a
model for CH.
G
1
-iteration with nite support of eventually dierent reals over a model
for CH & B(c).
H=H
2
Cohen reals over a model for CH. This model is self-dual.
I =I
2
-iteration of Mathias forcing over a model for CH [7]. This model is self
dual.
wD & D Add T F F F F F
Category Baire T T T F F F
Measure Unif T T F T F F
Add Baire Unif Cov T T T T T F
T T T T
F T T T A B
F T F T C
F F T T D E=E
F =F
F F F T B
F F F F
A
2
-iteration with nite support of random reals over a model for CH.
A
1
-iteration with nite support of random reals over a model for CH &D.
B
2
-iteration with countable support of forcing from [10] and random reals
over a model for CH (see section 5).
B
2
-iteration with countable support of rational perfect set forcing and forc-
ing Q
f,g
from [11] over a model for CH (see section 5).
C
2
Cohen and then
2
random reals over a model for CH. This model is
self-dual.
3
6
8
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
5
-
1
9
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
8
-
2
6
THE CICHO
N DIAGRAM 5
D
2
-iteration of eventually dierent reals over a model for CH. [7]
D
1
-iteration of eventually dierent reals over a model for CH & B(c).
E=E
2
Cohen reals over a model for CH. This model is self-dual.
F =F
2
-iteration with countable support of forcing Q from [2] over a model for
CH. This model is self-dual.
Models in the following two tables are dual to each other.
D Add T F F F F F
Category Baire T T T F F F
Measure Unif T T F T F F
Add Baire Unif Cov T T T T T F
T T T T A
F T T T B C
F T F T F
F F T T E D
F F F T G
F F F F
3
6
8
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
5
-
1
9
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
8
-
2
6
6 TOMEK BARTOSZY
F T F T F
F F T T D
F F F T C
F F F F A
A
2
-iteration of amoeba reals over a model for CH or any model for MA.
A
2
-iteration of amoeba reals over a model for CH.
B
2
-iteration of dominating and random reals over a model for CH. [7]
B
2
-iteration of dominating and random reals over a model for CH &B(c).
C
2
-iteration with countable support of Mathias and random reals (see sec-
tion 5).
C
2
-iteration with countable support of forcing Q
f,g
from [11] (see section 2
and 3).
D
2
-iteration with countable support of Mathias reals over a model for CH.
D
2
-iteration with countable support of Q
f,g
and innitely equal reals over
a model for CH. (section 2)
E
2
-iteration of dominating reals over a model for CH. [7]
E
2
-iteration of dominating reals over a model for CH &MAor
2
-iteration
with countable support of eventually equal reals.
F
2
random reals over a model for MA & 2
0
=
2
.
F
2
random reals over a model for CH.
G
2
-iteration with countable support of Laver reals over a model for CH.
3
6
8
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
5
-
1
9
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
8
-
2
6
THE CICHO
N DIAGRAM 7
G
2
-iteration with countable support of innitely equal and random reals
over a model for CH. [5]
2. Not adding unbounded reals
Our rst goal is to construct a model for ZFC & wD & U(c) & B(m) & U(m).
We start with the denition of the forcing which will be used in this construction.
This family of forcing notions was dened in [11].
Denition 2.1. Let f
and g
j<n
f(j) for n ,
(2) g(n, j + 1) > f(n)
2
g(n, j) for n, j ,
(3) minj : g(n, j) > f(n + 1)
n
.
Let
Seq
f
=
_
n
j<n
f(j).
For a tree T dene T
[s]
= t T : s t or t s, succ
T
(s) = t T : t
s, lh(t) = lh(s) + 1. If T = T
[s]
for some s T then s is called a stem of T.
Let Q
f,g
be the following notion of forcing: T Q
f,g
i
(1) T is a perfect subtree of Seq
f
,
(2) there exists a function h
f,g
Q
f,g
be the set dened as follows: T Q
f,g
i there exists s
0
Seq
f
such that T = T
[s0]
and there exists an increasing function h
such that
m lh(s
0
) s T
m1
[succ
T
(s)[ g(m, h(m)).
Clearly Q
f,g
is dense in Q
f,g
and therefore from now on we will work with
conditions in this form. Notice that
Lemma 2.2. V
Q
f,g
[= V
is meager in
.
Proof Notice that if r is a Q
f,g
-generic real then by an easy density argument
we show that
h V
n h(n) ,= r(n).
Therefore V
-bounding if
V
P
| r V
n (n) r(n).
The following theorem was proved in [11], we prove it here for completeness;
Theorem 2.4. Q
f,g
is
-bounding.
Proof We will need the following
Denition 2.5. For T, T
Q
f,g
and
k dene T
k
T
if
(1) T T
,
(2) s T succ
T
(s) ,= succ
T
(s) [succ
T
(s)[ g(lh(s),
k).
3
6
8
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
5
-
1
9
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
8
-
2
6
8 TOMEK BARTOSZY
kn
T
n
for n where k
n
: n is an increasing sequence of natural
numbers. Then there exists T Q
f,g
such that T
kn
T
n
for n .
Proof For n dene
u
n
= minj : k j s T
n
k
[succ
Tn
(s)[ g(k, k
n
).
Let T =
n
T
n
u
n
. Function h(m) = k
n1
for m [u
n1
, u
n
) witnesses that
T Q
f,g
.
Lemma 2.7. Let T Q
f,g
and be such that T | . Suppose that
k .
Then there exists
T
k
T and n such that
s
T
n
a
s
T
[s]
| = a
s
.
Proof Let S T be the set of all t T such that T
[t]
satises the lemma.
In other words
S = t T : n
t
k
T
[t]
s
T
nt
a
s
T
[s]
| = a
s
.
We want to show that stem of T belongs to S. Notice that if s , S then
[succ
T
(s) S[ g(lh(s),
k).
Suppose that stem of T does not belong to S and by induction on levels build a
tree
S
k
T such that for s
S,
succ
S
(s) =
_
succ
T
(s) if [succ
T
(s) S[ g(lh(s),
k)
succ
T
(s) succ
S
(s) otherwise
.
Clearly
S Q
f,g
since g(lh(s), m)g(lh(s),
k) g(lh(s), m
k.
Find
S
1
S and n such that
S
1
| = n. Now get t T and
S
2
S
1
such
that
S
2
k
T
[t]
. But that contradicts the denition of the condition
S.
We nish the proof of the theorem. Suppose that T |
. Build by
induction sequences T
n
: n and k
n
: n such that for n ,
(1) T
n+1
kn
T
n
,
(2) s T
n+1
kn
a
s
T
[s]
n+1
| (n) = a
s
.
Let T = lim
n
T
n
and let r(n) = maxa
s
: s T
kn
for n . Then
T | n (n) r(n)
which nishes the proof.
Notice that in fact we proved that
Lemma 2.8. If T |
T T such that
s
T
kn
a
s
T
[s]
| (n) = a
s
.
Our next goal is to show that forcing with Q
f,g
does not add random reals. We
will need the following
3
6
8
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
5
-
1
9
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
8
-
2
6
THE CICHO
N DIAGRAM 9
Denition 2.9. Let f
and let X
f
=
n=0
f(n). Dene S
f
as follows: T S
f
if T is a perfect subtree of Seq
f
and
lim
n
[T
n
[
n1
m=1
f(m)
= 0.
Notion of forcing Q is called f-bounding if
X
f
V
Q
T S
f
V n n T.
Theorem 2.10. Let P be a notion of forcing. We have the following
(1) If P is an f-bounding notion of forcing then P does not add random reals.
(2) If P is
.
Proof Dene a measure on X
f
as a product of equally distributed, nor-
malized measures on f(n).
(1) Every element of S
f
corresponds to a closed, measure zero subset of X
f
. This
nishes the proof as X
f
is isomorphic to the Cantor space with standard measure.
(2) Suppose that | X
f
. Since we assume that P does not add random reals
we can nd a null G
subset H V of X
f
such that | H.
Claim 2.11. Suppose that H X
f
. Then (H) = 0 i there exists a sequence
J
n
Seq
f
n
: n such that
(1) H x X
f
:
n xn J
n
,
(2)
n=0
(x X
f
: xn J
n
) < .
Proof () This implication is an immediate consequence of Borel-Cantelli
lemma.
() Since (H) = 0 there are open sets G
n
: n covering H such that
(G
n
) <
1
2
n
for n . Write each G
n
as a union of disjoint basic sets i.e.
G
n
=
_
m
[s
n
m
] for n .
Let J
n
= s Seq
f
n
: s = s
l
k
for some k, l for n . Verication of (1)
and (2) is straightforward.
Let J
n
: n be a sequence obtained by applying the above to the set H.
In particular n : n J
n
is innite. Using the fact that forcing P is
-
bounding nd a function h
n
h(n+1)
_
m=h(n)
_
sJm
[s].
It is easy to see that C is a closed set and that | C. As C is a closed set C is
a set of branches of some tree T. This tree has required properties.
The following theorem was proved in [11], we prove it here for completness.
Theorem 2.12. Forcing Q
f,g
is f-bounding.
Proof We start with the following
3
6
8
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
5
-
1
9
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
8
-
2
6
10 TOMEK BARTOSZY
witnesses that T Q
f,g
. In other words [succ
T
(s)[
g(lh(s), h(lh(s))) for s T.
Build by induction a family of trees T
n,l
: n , n l k
n
such that
(1) T
n,l
T
n,l
for l l
, n ,
(2) T
n,l
l = T
n,l
l for l l
, n ,
(3) T
n,l
T
m,l
for n < m and all l, l
,
(4) T
n,l
n = T
m,l
n for n < m and all l, l
,
(5) n s T
n,l
l
a
s
f(n) T
[s]
n,l
| (n) = a
s
,
(6) n s T
n,n
n
[succ
T
n,l
(s)[ g(lh(s), h(lh(s)) 1).
It is clear that
T = lim
n
T
n,n
has the required properties and the function h
in
f(i)
g(n, h(n) 1).
This veries (6) and nishes the proof of the lemma.
Now we can prove the theorem. Let be a Q
f,g
-name such that
T | n (n)
f(n) for some
T Q
f,g
.
Let
T
T be the condition as in the lemma above. The tree T
we are looking
for will be dened as follows:
s T
i t
T
T
[t]
| lh(s) = s.
By trimming
T some more we can see that
[T
n
[
n
m=1
f(m)
[
T
n
[
n
m=1
f(m)
n
0 .
3
6
8
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
5
-
1
9
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
8
-
2
6
THE CICHO
N DIAGRAM 11
To conclude this section we need some preservation theorems. We have to show
that a countable support iteration of
-bounding forcings is
-bounding. This
has been proved for proper forcings (see [9]). Here we present a much easier proof
that works for a more limited class of partial orderings. Similarly we need to know
that the iterations we use do not add random reals. Unfortunately f-boundedness
is not preserved by a countable support iteration. We will prove it only for certain
partial orderings. For a general preservation theorem of a slightly stronger property
called (f, g)-boundedness see [12].
Denition 2.14. Let P be a notion of forcing satisfying axiom A (see [3]). We
say that P has property () if for every p P, n and a P-name for a natural
number there exists N and q
n
p such that q | < N.
It is easy to see that partial orderings having property () are
-bounding.
Theorem 2.15. Let P
,
Q
= lim
<
P
is
-bounding.
Proof For p, q P
, F []
<
and n write p
F, n
q if
(1) p q,
(2) F p | p()
n
q().
The proof of the theorem is based on the following general fact:
Lemma 2.16. Suppose that p P
, F []
<
and n are given. Let be
a P-name for a natural number. Then there exists q
F, n
p and N such that
q | < N.
Proof It will be proved by induction on ([F[, min F) over all possible models.
Suppose that [F[ = n+1 and min F =
0
< . By induction hypothesis in V
P
0
+1
the lemma is true for F
= F
0
. Therefore there exists a Q
0
name V
P
0
such that
V
P
0
[= p(
0
) | q
F
, n
p(
0
, ) q | < .
Since Q
0
has property () in V
P
0
we can nd q
n
p(
0
) and N such that
V
P
0
[= q
| < N.
The last statement is forced by a condition q
0
P
0
. Let q = q
0
q
. It is the
condition we were looking for.
Let p
0
be any element of P
. Suppose that p
0
|
such that
(1) p
n+1
Fn,n
p
n
for n ,
(2) supp(p
n
) j F
j
,
(3) F
n
F
n+1
for n ,
(4) p
n+1
| (n) < r(n).
Let q be the limit of p
n
: n . Then q | n (n) < r(n).
Finally we can prove:
Theorem 2.17. Con(ZFC) Con(ZFC & wD & U(c) & B(m) & U(m)).
Proof The following notion of forcing was introduced in [7]: let f
.
Dene
p Q
f
i
3
6
8
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
5
-
1
9
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
8
-
2
6
12 TOMEK BARTOSZY
.
Lemma 2.19. Let f
n x(n) = h(n)
has measure zero. It is easy to see that
X
f
V H
hG
where h
G
is a generic real.
(2) Let p
0
be any element of Q
f
. Suppose that p
0
| X
f
. Dene by
induction sequences p
n
: n , k
n
: n and J
n
: n such that
(1) J
n
Seq
f
kn
for n ,
(2) p
n+1
n
p
n
for n ,
(3) p
n+1
| k
n
J
n
for n ,
(4)
[J
n
[
kn
m=1
f(m)
1
n
for n .
Let q p
0
be the limit of p
n
: n and T =
n
J
n
. By removing all nodes
whose ancestors are missing we can make sure that T is a tree. Then q forces that
is a branch through T and by (4) T has measure zero.
Let P
,
Q
: <
2
be a countable support iteration such that
|
= Q
f,g
if is even
|
= Q
f
if is odd.
Let P = P
2
. Then V
P
[= wD since P is
-bounding, and V
P
[=
U(c) & U(m) by the properties of forcings Q
f,g
and Q
f
(note that Q
f,g
has prop-
erty ()). To nish the proof we need
Lemma 2.20. P is f-bounding.
Proof For p, q P, F [
2
]
<
and n denote p
F, n
q if
(1) p q,
(2) F p | p()
n
q().
Let p
0
be any element of P. Suppose that p
0
| X
f
. Using the fact that
both Q
f,g
and Q
f
are f-bounding and arguing as in the proofs of 2.13 and 2.19,
dene by induction sequences p
n
: n , F
n
: n , k
n
: n and
J
n
: n such that
3
6
8
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
5
-
1
9
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
8
-
2
6
THE CICHO
N DIAGRAM 13
(1) J
n
Seq
f
kn
for n ,
(2) p
n+1
Fn,n
p
n
for n ,
(3) supp(p
n
) j F
j
,
(4) F
n
F
n+1
for n ,
(5) p
n+1
| k
n
J
n
for n ,
(6)
|Jn|
kn
m=1
f(m)
1
n
for n .
Let q p
0
be the limit of p
n
: n and T =
n
J
n
. As before, by removing
non-splitting nodes we can assume that T is a tree. Then q forces that is a branch
through T and by (6) T has measure zero.
Notice that 2.20 can be proved in the same way for many other forcings including
perfect set forcing from section 5.
3. Preserving old reals have outer measure 1
In this section we construct a model for ZFC & wD& U(c) & U(m) & B(m).
It is obtained by
2
-iteration with countable support of Q
f,g
.
The main problem is to verify that U(m) holds in that model.
We will use the following technique from [5].
Denition 3.1. Let P be a notion of forcing. Dene
1
[P] i for every suciently large cardinal , and for every countable elementary
submodel N H(, ), if P N and
I
n
: n N is a P-name for a sequence
of rational intervals and p
n
: n N is a sequence of elements of P such that
p
0
|
n=1
(
I
n
) < and p
n
|
I
n
= I
n
for n then for every random real x
over N, if x ,
n
I
n
then there exists q p
0
such that
(1) q is (N, P)-generic,
(2) q | x is random over N[G] for every P-generic lter over N containing p
0
,
(3) q | x ,
I
n
.
2
[P] i for every P-name
A for a subset of 2
and every p P, if p | (
A)
then
(x 2
: q p q | x ,
A) 1 .
3
[P] i for every A V 2
of positive measure V
P
[=
(A) > 0.
4
[P] i for every suciently large cardinal , and for every countable elementary
submodel N H(, ), if P N and p
n
: n N is a sequence of P and
A
n
: n N is a sequence of elements of P-names such that for n
p
n
|
A
n
is a Borel set of measure
n
, and lim
n
n
= 0 then for every random
real x over N there exists a condition q P such that
(1) q is (N, P)-generic,
(2) q | x is random over N[G] for every P-generic lter over N containing p
0
,
(3) there exists n such that q p
n
and q | x ,
A
n
.
In [5] it is proved that
Lemma 3.2. For every notion of forcing P,
(1) If P is weakly homogenous then
2
[P]
3
[P],
(2)
1
[P]
4
[P].
3
6
8
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
5
-
1
9
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
8
-
2
6
14 TOMEK BARTOSZY
is not measur-
able.
Proof It is enough to show that V 2
I
n
: n be a P-name for a sequence of rational intervals such that p
0
|
n
(
I
n
) < 1. Find sequences p
n
: n , j
n
: n , and I
n
: n
such that for n
(1) p
n+1
p
n
,
(2) p
n+1
|
I
j
= I
j
for j j
n
,
(3) p
n+1
|
j=jn
(
I
j
)
1
n
.
It is easy to see that
n
(I
n
) .
Choose a countable, elementary submodel N of H() containing Pand p
n
, j
n
,
I
n
, I
n
:
n . Since N is countable there exists x V 2
n
I
n
. Using
1
[P] we get q p such that q | x ,
I
n
.
Since
I
n
: n was arbitrary it shows that
V
P
[=
(V 2
) = 1
which nishes the proof.
The lemma above would be even easier to prove if we assume
3
[P]. The reason
for using property
1
[P] is in the following:
Theorem 3.4 ([5]). Suppose that P
,
Q
has property
1
for < . Let P = P
1
.
To construct the model satisfying ZFC & wD & U(c) & U(m) & B(m)
we show that forcing Q
f,g
has property
1
. At the rst step we show that it has
property
3
i.e.
Theorem 3.5. Let A 2
(A) > 0.
Proof Suppose that this theorem is not true. Then there exists a set A 2
such that
(A) =
0
> 0, a condition T Q
f,g
and a sequence
I
n
: n of
Q
f,g
-names for rational intervals such that
(1) T |
n=1
(
I
n
) = 1,
(2) T | A
n>m
I
n
.
Let s
0
be the stem of T. By 2.8 without losing generality we can assume that there
exists an increasing sequence of natural numbers k
n
: n such that
(1) For every s T
kn
T
[s]
forces a value to
I
j
: j n,
(2) T |
nlh(s0)
(
I
n
) <
1
2
0
,
(3)
n=lh(s0)
(1
1
f(n)
) >
1
2
.
For s T and j dene
I
s
j
=
_
I if T
[s]
|
I
j
= I
otherwise
.
Suppose that a function h
witnesses that T Q
f,g
and consider a function
h
such that h
N DIAGRAM 15
(1) There exists T
T such that h
witnesses that T
Q
f,g
and T
| x ,
I
n
,
(2) For every k lh(s
0
) there exists a nite tree t of height k such that
(a) t T
k
,
(b) [succ
t
(s)[ g(lh(s), h
(lh(s))) for s t
lh(s0)
,
(c) If s t
k
then x ,
j
I
s
j
.
Proof (1) (2) If T
k satises (2)
(2) (1) Build a sequence t
k
: k satisfying (2) and apply the compactness
theorem to construct T
.
Dene a set D 2
as follows:
y D i there exists T
Q
f,g
such that
(1) T
| y ,
nlh(s0)
I
n
,
(3) n lh(s
0
) s T
n
[succ
T
(s)[ g(n, h(n) 1).
Notice that the set D is dened in V and since T | A
nlh(s0)
I
n
we have
(2
D) >
0
.
For k lh(s
0
) dene sets D
k
as follows:
y D
k
i there exists a nite tree t such that
(1) t T
k
,
(2) n lh(s
0
) s t
n
[succ
t
(s)[ g(n, h(n) 1),
(3) s t
k
y ,
nlh(s0)
I
s
n
.
By the above claim D =
k
D
k
. Since sets D
k
form a decreasing family we can
nd k such that (2
D
k
) >
0
.
For every s T such that lh(s
0
) lh(s) k dene set D
k,s
as follows:
y D
k,s
i there exists a nite tree t such that
(1) t T
k
and t = t
[s]
,
(2) n lh(s) s
t
n
[succ
t
(s
t
k
y ,
nlh(s0)
I
s
n
.
Notice that D
k
= D
k,s0
. Observe also that for s T
k
(2
D
k,s
)
nlh(s0)
(I
s
n
) <
0
2
.
Claim 3.7. Suppose that for some m [lh(s
0
), k 1] and s T
m
,
(2
D
k,t
) a for t succ
T
(s).
Then
(2
D
k,s
)
a
1
g(m, h(m) 1)
g(m, h(m))
.
Proof Notice that y , D
k,s
i [t succ
T
(s) : y , D
k,t
[ > g(m, h(m))
g(m, h(m) 1).
Claim 3.8. Let N
1
> N
2
be two natural numbers. Suppose that A
j
: j N
1
is
a family of subsets of 2
of measure a. Let U = x 2
: x belongs to at least
N
2
sets A
j
. Then
(U) a
N
1
N
2
.
3
6
8
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
5
-
1
9
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
8
-
2
6
16 TOMEK BARTOSZY
_
_
_
_
_
x 2
iN1
Ai
(x) N
2
_
_
_
_
_
N
1
N
2
a.
By applying the claim above we get
(2
D
k,s
) a
g(m, h(m))
g(m, h(m)) g(m, h(m) 1)
=
a
1
g(m, h(m) 1)
g(m, h(m))
.
Finally by induction we have
(2
D
k
) = (2
D
k,s0
)
0
2
1
M
where
M =
m=k
lh(s0)
_
1
g(m, h(m) 1)
g(m, h(m))
_
m=k
lh(s0)
_
1
1
f(m)
_
>
1
2
.
Therefore (2
D
k
) <
0
which gives a contradiction.
Now we can prove
Theorem 3.9. Q
f,g
has property
1
.
Proof We will need several denitions:
Denition 3.10. Let
I
n
: n be a Q
f,g
-name for a sequence of rational
intervals. We say that T Q
f,g
interprets
I
n
: n if there exists an increasing
sequence k
n
: n such that for every j n and s T
kn
T
[s]
decides
a value of
I
j
i.e. T
[s]
|
I
j
= I
s
j
for some rational interval I
s
j
.
By 2.8 we know that
T Q
f,g
: T interprets
I
n
: n
is dense in Q
f,g
. Suppose that T Q
f,g
. Subset S T is called front if for every
branch b through T there exists n such that bn S.
Suppose that D Q
f,g
is an open set. Dene
cl(D) = T Q
f,g
: s T : T
[s]
D is a front in T.
Let
I
n
: n be a Q
f,g
-name for a sequence of rational intervals such that
for some T
0
Q
f,g
T
0
|
n=1
(
I
n
) < < 1 and T
0
interprets
I
n
: n .
Let N H() be a countable model containing Q
f,g
, T
0
,
I
n
: n .
Dene a set Y 2
as follows:
x Y i there exists
T Q
f,g
such that
(1)
T T
0
,
(2) If D N is an open, dense subset of Q
f,g
then there exists T
cl(D) N
such that
T T
,
(3)
T | x ,
I
n
,
3
6
8
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
5
-
1
9
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
8
-
2
6
THE CICHO
N DIAGRAM 17
(4) Suppose that J =
I
n
: n N is a Q
f,g
-name for a sequence of
rational intervals such that |
n=1
(
I
n
) < and let D
J
= T Q
f,g
:
T interprets
I
n
: n (with sequence k
T
n
: n ). Then there exists
T D
J
N and k such that
m k s
T
k
T
m
x , I
T,s
m
.
Notice that (2) guarantees that
T is (N, Q
f,g
)-generic while (4) guarantees that x
is random over N[G].
Lemma 3.11.
(1) Y is a
1
1
set of reals (in V),
(2) (Y ) 1 .
Proof (1) It is easy to see that conditions (1)-(4) in the denition of Y are
Borel provided that we have an enumeration (we can code as a real number) of the
objects appearing in (2) and (4).
(2) easy computation using the fact that Q
f,g
has property
3
and
2
.
Work in N. Let G Coll(
0
, 2
0
) be generic over N and let x be a random real
over N[G]. Let B denotes the measure algebra. Since parameters of the denition
of Y are in N[G] we can ask whether N[G][x] [= x Y .
Since in N[G], Y is a measurable set we can nd two disjoint, Borel sets A and B
such that (AB) = 1 and A |
B
x Y and B |
B
x , Y . Morover (A) 1.
In other words A Y a.e. and B 2
Y a.e.
Since x is a random real over N as well we have
Coll(
0
, 2
0
) B
= Q
x
R
= B
R
where Q
x
is the smallest subalgebra which adds x.
Find a Borel set of positive measure A
such that
N [= A
|
B
p
R p | x A
and
N [= 2
|
B
| x B
.
It is clear that A
) 1 .
Notice that the denitions above do not depend on the choice of random real x
as long as x A
then we
can nd an N-generic lter G Coll(
0
, 2
0
) such that (G, x) is Coll(
0
, 2
0
) B-
generic over N and N[G][x] [= x Y . Since Y is a
1
1
set it means that V [= x Y .
In other words there exists a Borel set A
I
n
: n and
x be such that
(1) p
n+1
p
n
for n ,
(2) p
n
|
I
n
= I
n
for n ,
(3) x ,
n
I
n
,
(4)
n=1
(I
n
) = .
Dene for n , Y
n
= set Y dened for model N, condition p
n
and set
I
m+n
:
m .
By the above remarks we can nd Borel sets A
n
: n N such that for
n (A
n
) 1 (
jn
(I
j
)) and for every x V A
n
if x is random over
3
6
8
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
5
-
1
9
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
8
-
2
6
18 TOMEK BARTOSZY
n
A
n
) = 1 if x is random over N then x A
n
for some
n . Therefore x Y
n
and this nishes the proof as Y
n
Y
0
for all n . From
the fact that x Y
0
follows the existence of the condition witnessing
1
.
Theorem 3.12. Con(ZFC) Con(ZFC & wD & U(c) & U(m) & B(m)).
Proof Let P
,
Q
: <
2
be a countable support iteration such that
|
= Q
f,g
for <
2
. Let P = P
2
. Then V
P
[= U(m) because P has
property
1
and V
P
[= B(m) and wD since P is f-bounding and
-bounding
by 2.20 and 2.15. Finally V
P
[= U(c) by 2.2.
4. Rational perfect set forcing
Our next goal is to construct a model for
ZFC & wD & D & U(c) & U(m) & B(m).
We will do it in the next section. H This model is obtained as a
2
-iteration with
countable support of Q
f,g
and rational perfect set forcing. In this section we will
prove several facts about rational perfect set forcing which we will need later.
Recall that rational perfect set forcing is dened as follows:
T R i T is a perfect subtree of
<
and for every s T there exists s t T
such that succ
T
(t) is innite.
Elements of R are ordered by .
Without loss of generality we can assume that for every T R and s T the
set succ
T
(s) is either innite or contains exactly one element since elements of this
form are dense in R.
For T R dene
split(T) = s T : succ
T
(s) is innite .
For T, T
R let
T
0
T
if T T
and T and T
n
T if T
).
First we have to show that forcing R preserves outer measure.
Denition 4.1. Let
I
n
: n be an R-name for sequence of rational intervals
such that |
n=1
(
I
n
) =
1
2
.
We say that T R interprets
I
n
: n if for every s split(T) there exist
rational intervals I
s
1
, . . . , I
s
ns
such that
(1) T
[s]
| j n
s
I
j
= I
s
j
,
(2) for every > 0 and every branch y through T there exists m such that
for k m
_
_
_
jn
yk
I
yk
j
_
_
1
2
.
Lemma 4.2. Suppose that
I
n
: n is an R-name for sequence of rational
intervals. Assume that T |
n=1
(
I
n
) =
1
2
. Then there exists
T T such that
T interprets
I
n
: n .
3
6
8
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
5
-
1
9
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
8
-
2
6
THE CICHO
N DIAGRAM 19
Proof Construct a sequence T
n
: n R such that T
n+1
n
T
n
for
n as follows:
T
0
= T and suppose that T
n
is already constructed.
For every s split(T
n
) such that exactly n proper segments of s belong to
split(T
n
) and every m such that s
m succ
Tn
(s) extend T
[s
{m}]
to decide
a suciently long part of
I
n
: n . Paste all extensions together to get T
n+1
.
Clearly
T =
n
T
n
has required property.
Now we are ready to show:
Theorem 4.3. If A 2
(A) > 0.
Proof Suppose not. Then there exists a measure one set A 2
, a R-name
for sequence of rational intervals
I
n
: n and a condition T R such that
(1) T |
n=1
(
I
n
) =
1
2
.
(2) T | A
mn
I
m
.
By the above lemma we can assume that T interprets
I
n
: n .
For s split(T) and > 0 dene
h
(s) = min
_
_
_
j :
ij
(I
s
i
)
1
2
_
_
_
and
A
s
=
_
ih
(s)
I
s
i
.
Note that h
T such that
(1) T
either x A
s
or n : s
n succ
T
(s) succ
T
(s)
is nite.
Proof Fix > 0. For s split(T) dene an ordinal r
(s) as follows:
r
(s) = 0 i x A
s
,
r
(s) = limsupr
(t) is dened.
In other words r
(t) .
Claim 4.5. For every s split(T) ordinal r
T
[s]
such that r
(t) is not
dened for all t split(T
). But then T
| x ,
nh
(s)
I
n
. Contradiction.
Let s
0
be the stem of T. Dene
T
= s T : s
0
s or for all k < l if r
(sk) and r
(sk) > r
(sl))
It is easy to see that T
(yk) = 0.
On the other hand if x , A
s
then by the denition of rank the set t succ(s) :
r
(t) r
together with a
function r
: split(T
)
1
such that
s, t split(T
) s t r
(s) > r
(t).
Since N[x] is a generic extension of N there exists Borel set B 2
of positive
measure such that
N [= B |
B
> 0 there exist r
and T
as in 4.4 .
Fix
0
= (B)/2 and let r and
T be B-names for r
0
and T
0
.
We can nd Borel set B
B such that (B
) >
1
2
(B) and for s split(T)
(1) n : B
| s
T & s
n ,
T & (B
A
0
s
) = 0 is
nite,
(2)
1
: B
| r(s) = is nite.
To show this we use the fact that the measure algebra B is
-bounding and
T is
forced to satisfy 4.4(2).
Now dene in N
T = s T : B
|
B
s
T
and
r(s) = max( <
1
: B
|
B
s
T & r(s) = ).
Notice that these denitions do not depend on the initial choice of random real
x as long as x B
.
Lemma 4.6.
(1)
T is a subtree of T,
(2) If s
T and x B
n
T[x]
T is nite,
(3) If t s
T then r(t) > r(s).
Proof (1) and (2) follow immediately from the denition of
T and the choice
of the set B
.
(3) Suppose that r(s) = . It means that there exists a set B
such that
B
| r(s) = .
Thus
B
for s split(
T) as follows:
If r(s) = 0 then X
s
= A
0
s
. If r(s) > 0 then X
s
= z 2
T).
It is easy to check that (X
s
)
0
for s split(
T).
Choose x A (B
X
s0
) which is random over N. Since x , X
s0
we can nd
innitely many immediate successors s of s
0
in split(
T) such that x , X
s
. Choose
one of them, say s
1
s
0
3
6
8
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
5
-
1
9
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
8
-
2
6
THE CICHO
N DIAGRAM 21
such that x , X
s1
and s
1
T[x]. By repeating this argument with s
1
instead
of s
0
and so on we construct a branch through
T[x]. Contradiction since the tree
T[x] is well-founded. .
By repeating the proof of 3.9 we get
Theorem 4.7. R has property
1
.
5. Not adding dominating and Cohen reals
In this section we construct models for
(1) ZFC & D & B(m) & B(c) & U(m),
(2) ZFC & wD & D & B(c) & B(m) & U(m),
(3) ZFC & wD & D & U(c) & U(m) & B(m)).
We need the following denitions.
Denition 5.1. Let P be a notion of forcing. We say that P is almost
-bounding
if for every P-name such that p |
n A (n) f(n).
We say that P is weakly
n (n) f(n).
We will use the following two preservation theorems.
Theorem 5.2 ([10]). Let P
,
Q
is almost
-bounding.
Then P
= lim
<
P
is weakly
-bounding.
Denition 5.3. Let P be a notion of forcing satisfying axiom A. We say that P
has Laver property if there exists a function f
P
,
Q
: < is a countable
support iteration such that
|
. Then no real in V
P
is Cohen over V.
Now we can prove that:
Theorem 5.5.
(1) Con(ZFC) Con(ZFC & D & B(m) & B(c) & U(m)),
(2) Con(ZFC) Con(ZFC & wD & D & B(c) & B(m) & U(m)),
(3) Con(ZFC) Con(ZFC & wD & D & U(c) & U(m) & B(m)).
3
6
8
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
5
-
1
9
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
8
-
2
6
22 TOMEK BARTOSZY
,
Q
: <
2
be a countable support iteration such that
|
2
. Then
V
P
[= D & B(m) & U(m) because Mathias and random reals are added
conally in the iteration and
V
P
[= B(c) by 5.4.
(2) Let P
,
Q
: <
2
be a countable support iteration such that
|
2
. Then
V
P
[= wD & B(m) & U(m) because of properties of Shelah forcing and random
forcing. To show that V
P
[= B(c) we use 5.4 and the fact that Shelah forcing has
the Laver property.
(3) Let P
,
Q
: <
2
be a countable support iteration such that
|
= Q
f,g
if is even
|
= R if is odd.
Let P = P
2
. Since R is has Laver property ([8]) exactly as in 2.20 we show
that P is f-bounding. Therefore V
P
[= B(m). V
P
[= U(m) since Q
f,g
and R
have property
1
. Also V [= wD & U(c) since R adds unbounded reals and by 2.2.
To nish the proof of (2) and (3) we have to check that forcings used there do
not add dominating reals. By 5.2 it is enough to verify that both Shelah forcing
and rational perfect set forcing are almost
-bounding,
(2) The Shelah forcing is almost
-bounding.
Proof Let be an R-name such that T |
for some T R. As in
4.2 we can assume that for every s split(T) and t succ
T
(s), T
[t]
decides the value
of lh(s). Notice that in this case every branch through T gives an interpretation
to . Let N be a countable, elementary submodel of H() such that R, T and
belong to N. Let g V
. Fix a set A V []
N R, T T
N R, T
.
Let
b
N
= T
[t]
where
t = bn.
(2) The proof presented here uses notation from [2]. Since the denition of
Shelahs forcing and all the necessary lemmas can be found in [2] we give here only
a skeleton of the proof.
Let p = (w, T) S and let be an S-name for an element of
. Let q be a
pure extension of p satisfying 2.4 of [2]. Suppose that q = (w, t
0
, t
1
, . . . ). We dene
by induction a sequence q
l
: l satisfying the following conditions:
(1) q
0
= q,
(2) q
l+1
= (w, t
l+1
0
, t
l+1
1
, . . . ) is an l-extension of q
l
,
3
6
8
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
5
-
1
9
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
8
-
2
6
THE CICHO
N DIAGRAM 23
(3) if k l + 1 and (w, w
) t
l+1
0
. . . t
l+1
k
and w
[n(t
l+1
k
), m(t
l+1
k
)) ,= when
t
l+1
k
K
n(t
l+1
k
),m(t
l+1
k
)
then (w
, t
l+1
k+1
, t
l+1
k+1
, . . . ) forces value for k,
(4) Dp(t
l+1
l+1
) > l.
Before we construct this sequence let us see that this is enough to nish the proof.
Let q
= (w, t
1
1
, t
2
2
, . . . ). By (4), q
S.
Let g(n) = maxk : w
(w, w
) t
1
1
. . . t
n
n
and (w
, t
n+1
n+1
, t
n+2
n+2
, . . . ) | (n) = k
for n .
Clearly g
n A (n) g(n)
which nishes the proof.
We build the sequence q
l
: l by induction on l. Suppose that q
l
is already
given. By the denition of S it is enough to build the condition for some xed
w
= w m(t
l
0
, . . . t
l
l
).
Dene a function C :
<
2 as follows:
C(v) = 1 i k (w
, v) t
l
l+1
, . . . , t
l
k
and (v, t
l
k+1
, t
l
k+2
, . . . ) forces value for (l).
Using lemma 2.6 from [2] we get a condition where the function C is constantly 0
or 1. The rst is impossible since the set of conditions forcing a value for (l) is
dense. Therefore we get a condition q = q
l+1
on which C is constantly 1. Moreover
we can assume that q
l+1
is an l-extension of q
l
.
This nishes the induction and the proof.
References
[1] T.Bartoszynski Additivity of measure implies additivity of category, Transactions of
AMS 1984.
[2] A.Blass, S.Shelah There may be simple P
1
- and P
2
-points and the Rudin-Keisler order
may be downward directed, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 33, 1987
[3] J.Baumgartner Iterated forcing in Surveys in set theory, London Mathematical Society
Lecture Note Series, No. 8, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983.
[4] D.Fremlin On Cicho ns diagram, Initiation a lAnalyse, Universite Pierre et Marie
Curie, Paris 1985
[5] H. Judah, S. Shelah The Kunen-Miller chart, Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol.55 (1990)
[6] J.Judah, S.Shelah
1
3
sets to appear in Journal of Symb. Logic
[7] A.Miller Some properties of measure and category, Trans. AMS,1983.
[8] A. Miller Rational perfect set forcing, Contemporary Mathematics vol.31 1983
[9] S. Shelah Proper Forcing, Springer Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1982
[10] S. Shelah On cardinal invariants of the continuum, Contemporary Mathematics vol.
31, 1983
[11] S. Shelah Vive la dierence, in Set theory of the continuum, Springer Verlag 1992
[12] S. Shelah Proper and improper forcing, to appear
3
6
8
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
5
-
1
9
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
8
-
2
6
24 TOMEK BARTOSZY