Saharon Shelah - The PCF Theorem Revisited

(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

THE PCF THEOREM REVISITED
SH506
DEDICATED TO PAUL ERD
OS
Saharon Shelah
Institute of Mathematics
The Hebrew University
Jerusalem, Israel
Rutgers University
Mathematics Department
New Brunswick, NJ USA
Abstract. The pcf theorem (of the possible conability theory) was proved for
reduced products
Q
i<

i
/I, where < min
i<

i
. Here we prove this theorem
under weaker assumptions such as wsat(I) < min
i<

i
, where wsat(I) is the minimal
such that cannot be delivered to sets / I (or even slightly weaker condition).
We also look at the existence of exact upper bounds relative to <
I
(<
I
-eub) as
well as cardinalities of reduced products and the cardinals T
D
(). Finally we apply
this to the problem of the depth of ultraproducts (and reduced products) of Boolean
algebras.
Partially supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, grant Ko 490/7-1. Publication no.
506.
I would like to thank Alice Leonhardt for the beautiful typing.
First Typed - File saharon.top, May 10, 1993; converted to TeX April 9, 2002
Latest revision - 08/Feb/10
Typeset by A
M
S-T
E
X
1
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

2 SAHARON SHELAH
0 Introduction
An aim of the pcf theory is to answer the question, what are the possible co-
nalities (pcf) of the partial orders
i
, for dierent ideals
I on . For a quick introduction to the pcf theory see [Sh 400a], and for a detailed
exposition, see [Sh:g] and more history. In 1 and 2 we generalize the basic theo-
rem of this theory by weakening the assumption < min
i<
i
to the assumption
that I extends a xed ideal I
with wsat(I
) < min
i<
i
, where wsat(I
) is the
minimal such that cannot be divided to sets / I
(not just that the Boolean

algebra P()/I
has no pairwise disjoint non zero elements). So 1, 2 follow

closely [Sh:g, Ch.I=Sh345a], [Sh:g, II,3.1], [Sh:g, VIII,1]. It is interesting to note
that some of those proofs which look to be superceded when by [Sh 420, 1] we know
that for regular < ,
+
< stationary S I[], S < : cf() = ,
give rise to proofs here which seem neccessary. Note wsat(I
) [Dom(I
)[
+
(and
reg
(I
) [Dom(I
)[
+
so [Sh:g, I,1,2,II,1,VII,2.1,2.2,2.6] are really a special
case of the proofs here.
During the sixties the cardinalities of ultraproducts and reduced products were
much investigated (see Chang and Keisler [\CK ]). For this the notion regular lter
(and (, )-regular lter) were introduced, as: if
i

0
, D a regular ultralter
(or lter) on then
i<
i
/D = (liminf
D

i
)
. We reconsider these problems in 3

(again continuing [Sh:g]). We also draw a conclusion on the depth of the reduced
product of Boolen algebras partially answering a problem of Monk; and make it
clear that the truth of the full expected result is translated to a problem on pcf.
On those problems on Boolean algebras see Monk [M]. In this section we include
known proofs for completeness (mainly 3.7).
Let us review the paper in more details. In 1.2, 1.4 we give basic denition
of conality, true conality, pcf(
) and J
<
[
] where usually

=
i
: i < ) is
a sequence of regular cardinals, I
a xed ideal on such that we consider only

ideals extending it (and lter disjoint to it). Let wsat(I
) be the rst such that we

cannot partition to I
-positive set (so they are pairwise disjoint, not just disjoint
modulo I
). In 1.5, 1.8 we give the basic properties. In lemma 1.9 we phrase the
basic property enabling us to do anything: (1.9 ()): essentially if liminf
I
(
)
wsat(I
) and
/I
is
+
-directed then we prove that
/J
<
[
] is -directed. In
1.11, 1.13 we deduce more properties of J
<
[
] : pcf(
)) and in 1.12 deal with

<
J
<
[
]
-increasing sequence f
: < ) with no <

J
<
[
]
-bound in
. In 1.14 we
prove pcf(
) has a last element. In 1.13 we deal with the connection between the
true conality of
i<
i
/D
and
i<
i
/E when
i
=: tcf(
i<
i
/D
i
) and D
is the
E-limit of the D
i
s.
In 2.1 we dene normality of for

: J
] = J
<
[
] +B
and we dene semi-

(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

THE PCF THEOREM REVISITED SH506 DEDICATED TO PAUL ERD
OS 3
normality: J
] = J
<
[
] + B
: < where B
/J
<
[
] is increasing. We
then (in 2.2) characterize semi-normality (there is a <
J
<
[
]
-increasing

f = f
:
< ) conal in
/D for every ultralter D (disjoint to I
of course) such that

tcf(
/D) = ) and when semi normality implies normality (if some such

f has a
<
J
<
[
]
eub).
We then deal with continuity system a and <
J
<
[
]
-increasing sequence obeying
a, in a way adapted to the basic assumption () of 1.9.
Here as elsewhere if min(
)
+
our life is easier than when we just assume
limsup
I
(
) ,
/I
is
+
-directed (where wsat(I
), of course). In 2.3 we
give the denitions, in 2.5 we quote existence theorem, show existence of obedient
sequences (in 2.7), essential uniqueness (in 2.10) and better consequence to 1.12
(in the direction to normality). We dene (2.12) generating sequence and draw a
conclusion (2.13(1)). Now we get some desirable properties: in 2.11 we prove semi
normality, in 2.13(2) we compute cf(
/I
) as max pcf(
). Next we relook at the

whole thing: dene several variants of the pcf-th (Denition 2.16). Then (in 2.17)
we show that e.g. if min(
) >
+
, we get the strongest version (including normality
using 2.9, i.e. obedience). Lastly, we try to map the implications between the
various properties when we do not use the basic assumption 1.9 () (in fact there
are considerable dependence, see 2.18, 2.19).
In 3.1, 3.3 we present measures of regularity of lters, in 3.2 we present measures
of hereditary conality of
/D: allowing to decrease

and/or increase the lter.
In 3.4 - 3.9 we try to estimate reduced products of cardinalities
i<
i
/D and
in 3.10 we give a reasonable upper bound by hereditary conality ( (
/D +
hcf
D,
(
i<
I
))
<
when reg
(D)).
In 3.13 - 3.14 we return to existence of eubs and obedience (Saharon, new point
over 2.9) and in 3.15 draw conclusion on downward closure.
In 3.16 - 3.17 we estimate T
D
(
) and in 3.18 try to translate it more fully to pcf

problem (countable conality is somewhat problematic (so we restrict ourselves to
T
D
(
) > =
0
). We also mention
1
-complete lters; (3.19, 3.20) and see what
can be done without relaying on pcf (3.23)).
Now we deal with depth: dene it (3.21, see 3.22), give lower bound (3.25), com-
pute it for ultraproducts of interval Boolean algebras of ordinals (3.27). Lastly we
translate the problem does
i
< Depth
+
(B
i
) for i < implies < Depth
+
(
i 2
and ( < )[[[
0
< ], to a pcf problem (in 3.29).
In the last section we phrase a reason 1.9() works (see 4.1), analyze the case we
weaken to 1.9() to lim inf
I
(
) wsat(I
) proving the pseudo pcf-th (4.4).

I thank Norm Greenberg and Adi Yarden for corrections.
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

4 SAHARON SHELAH
1 Basic pcf
1.1 Notation 1) I, J denote ideals on a set Dom(I), Dom(J) resp., called its domain
(possibly
_
AI
A Dom(I). If not said otherwise the domain is an innite cardinal
denoted by and also the ideal is proper i.e. Dom(I) / I. Similarly D denotes a
lter on a set Dom(D); we do not always distinguish strictly between an ideal on
and the dual lter on .
2) Let

denote a sequence of the form
i
: i < ). We say

is regular if every
i
is regular, Min(
) = Min
i
: i < (of course also in

we can replace
by another set), and let
i .
But we can replace by any set (in the denitions and claims). Let I
denote a
xed ideal on .
3) For I a lter on let I
+
= P() I (similarly D
+
= A : A / D), let
lim inf
I
= min : i < :
i
I
+
and
lim sup
I
= Min : i < :
i
> I and
atom
I
= : i :
i
= I
+
.
4) For a set A of ordinals with no last element, J
bd
A
= B A : sup(B) < sup(A),
i.e. the ideal of bounded subsets.
5) Generally, if inv(X) = sup[y[ : (X, y) then inv
+
(X) = sup[y[
+
: [X, y],
and any y such that [X, y] is a wittness for [y[ inv(X) (and [y[ < inv
+
(X)),
and it exemplies this.
6) Let Ord be the class of ordinals.
7) Considering
i<
f(i), considering
i<
f(i)/I formally if (i)f(i) = 0 then
i<
f(i) =
; but we usually ignore this, particularly when i : f(i) = 0 I.
1.2 Denition. 1) For a partial order
1
P:
(a) P is -directed if: for every A P, [A[ < there is q P such that
pA
p q, and we say: q is an upper bound of A;
1
actually we do not require p q p p = q so we should say quasi order
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

OS 5
(b) P has true conality if there is a sequence p = p
: < ) increasing
and conal in P, i.e.:
<
p
< p
and q P[
<
q p
]. We write
tcf(P) = for the minimal such , in fact it is unique and we say that p
witness = tcf(P). (Note: if P is linearly ordered it always has a true
conality but, e.g., (, <) (
1
, <) does not)
(c) P is called endless if p Pq P[q > p] (so if P is endless, in clauses (a),
(b), (d) above we can replace by <)
(d) A P is a cover (of P) if: p Pq A[p q]; we also say A is conal
in P
(e) cf(P) = min[A[ : A P is a cover
(f) We say that, in P, p is a lub (least upper bound) of A P if:
() p is an upper bound of A (see (a))
() if p
is an upper bound of A then p p
2) If D is a lter on S,
s
(for s S) are ordinals, f, g

sS
s
, then: f/D < g/D,
f <
D
g and f < g mod D all mean s S : f(s) < g(s) D. Also if f, g are
partial functions from S to ordinals, D a lter on S then f < g mod D means
i Dom(D) : i / Dom(f) or f(i) < g(i) (so both are dened) belongs to D.
We write X = A mod D if Dom(D) [(XA) (AX)] belongs to D. Similarly for
, and we do not distinguish between a lter and the dual ideal in such notions. So
if J is an ideal on and f, g
, then f < g mod J i i < : f(i) < g(i) J.

Similarly if we replace the
s
s by partial orders.
3) For f, g : S Ordinals, f < g means
sS
f(s) < g(s); similarly f g. So
(
, ) is a partial order, we denote it usually by
; similarly f or
i<
f(i).
4) If I is an ideal on , F

Ord, we call g

Ord an
I
-eub (exact upper bound)
of F if:
() g is an
I
-upper bound of F (in

Ord)
() if h

Ord, h <
I
Maxg, 1 then for some f F, h < maxf, 1 mod I
() if A , A ,= mod I and [f F f A =
I
0
A
, i.e., i A : f(i) ,= 0
I] then g A =
I
0
A
.
5a) We say the ideal I (on ) is -weakly saturated if cannot be divided to
pairwise disjoint sets from I
+
(which is P() I).
5b) wsat(I) = Min : I is -weakly saturated.
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

6 SAHARON SHELAH
1.3 Observation. 1) Concerning 1.2(4), note: g
= Maxg, 1 means g
(i) =
Maxg(i), 1 for each i < ; if for every f F, i < : f(i) = 0 I we
can replace Maxg, 1, Maxf, 1 by g, f respectively in clause () and omit clause
().
2) The ideal I on is -weakly saturated i in the topological space of the ultral-
ters on the subspace D : D an ultralter on disjoint to I has spread < , or
is a limit ordinal, it has spread but the spread is not obtained (hence 2
cf()

but it is consistently singular, see [Sh 233], [JuSh 231]).
1.4 Denition. Below if is the ultralters disjoint to I, we write I instead of
. Recall that we can replace by any set.
1) For a property of ultralters (if is the empty condition, we omit it):
pcf
) = pcf(
, ) = tcf(
/D) : D is an ultralter on satisfying

(so

is a sequence of ordinals, usually of regular cardinals, note: as D is an
ultralter,
/D is linearly ordered hence has true conality).

1A) More generally, for a property of ideals on we let pcf
) = tcf(
/J) : J
is an ideal on satisfying such that
/J has true conality; we call closed

when if I and A, B I
+
are disjoint then I + A is a maximal ideal.
Similarly below.
2) J
<
[
, ] = B : for no ultralter D on satisfying to which B belongs,

is tcf(
/D) .
3) J
, ] = J
<
+[
, ].
4) pcf
, I) = tcf(
/D) : D is an ultralter on disjoint to I satisfying .

5) If B I
+
, pcf
I
(
B) = pcf
I+(\B)
(
) (so if B I it is ), also J
<
(
B, I)
P(B) is dened similarly.
6) If I = I
we may omit it, similarly in (2), (4).

7) If =
I
= D : D an ultralter on disjoint to I
we may omit it.

Remark. We mostly use pcf(
), J
<
[
]. Below we list some of the obvious proper-

ties.
1.5 Claim. 0) (
, <
J
) and (
,
J
) are endless (even when each
i
is just a
limit ordinal).
1) min(pcf
I
(
)) liminf
I
(
) for

regular.
2)
(i) If B
1
B
2
are from I
+
then pcf
I
(
B
1
) pcf
I
(
B
2
);
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

OS 7
(ii) if I J then pcf
J
(
) pcf
I
(
); and
(iii) for B
1
, B
2
we have pcf
I
(
(B
1
B
2
)) = pcf
I
(
B
1
)
pcf
I
(
B
2
).
Also
(iv) A J
<
[
(B
1
B
2
)] A B
1
J
<
[
B
1
] & A B
2
J
<
[
B
2
]
(v) if A
1
, A
2
I
+
, A
1
A
2
= , A
1
A
2
= , and tcf(
, <
I
) = for
= 1, 2 then tcf(
, <
I
) = ; and if the sequence

f = f
: < ) witness
both assumptions then it witness the conclusion.
3)
(i) if B
1
B
2
, B
1
nite and

regular then
pcf
I
(
B
2
) Rang(
B
1
) pcf
I
(
(B
2
B
1
)) pcf
I
(
B
2
)
(ii) if in addition i B
1

i
< Min(Rang[
(B
2
B
1
)]),
then pcf
I
(
B
2
) Rang(
B
1
) = pcf
I
(
(B
2
B
1
)).
4) Let

be regular (i.e., each
i
is regular);
(i) if = liminf
I

then
/I is -directed
(ii) if = liminf
I

is singular then
/I is
+
-directed
(iii) if = liminf
I

is a regular uncountable cardinal, for some club E of ,i <
:
i
E or
i
= I then
/I is
+
-directed. We can weaken the
assumption to I is not lowly normal for (,
) (dened in 1.6 below, it is

a weaker assumption)
(iv) If i :
i
= = mod I and I is weakly normal then (
, <
I
) has true
conality
(v) If
/I is -directed then cf(
/I) and min pcf

I
(
)
(vi) pcf
I
(
) is non empty set of regular cardinals. [See part (7)].

5) Assume

is regular and: if
=: limsup
I
(
) is regular then I is not weakly nor-

mal for (
). Then pcf
I
(
) (limsup
I
(
))
+
; in fact for some ideal J extending
I,
/J is (limsup
I
(
))
+
-directed.
6) If D is a lter on a set S and for s S,
s
is a limit ordinal then:
(i) cf(
sS
s
, <
D
) = cf(
sS
cf(
s
), <
D
) = cf(
sS
(
s
, <)/D), and
(ii) tcf(
sS
s
, <
D
) = tcf(
sS
(cf(
s
), <
D
)) = tcf(
sS
(
s
, <)/D).
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

8 SAHARON SHELAH
In particular, if one of them is well dened, then so are the others. This is true
even if we replace
s
by linear orders or even partial orders with true connality.
7) If D is an ultralter on a set S,
s
a regular cardinal, then =: tcf(
sS
s
, <
D
)
is well dened and pcf(
s
: s S).
8) If D is a lter on a set S, for s S,
s
is a regular cardinal, S
=
s
: s S
and
E =: B : B S
and s :
s
B D
and
s
> [S[ or at least
s
> [t :
t
=
s
[ for any s S then:
(i) E is a lter on S
, and if D is an ultralter on S then E is an ultralter

on S
(ii) S
is a set of regular cardinals and

if s S
s
> [S[ then ( S
) > [S
[,
(iii) F = f
sS
s
:
s
=
t
f(s) = f(t) is a cover of
sS
s
,
(iv) cf(
sS
s
/D) = cf(S
/E) and tcf (
sS
s
/D) = tcf(S
/E).
9) Assume I is an ideal on , F

Ord and g

Ord. If g is a
I
-eub of F then
g is a
I
-lub of F.
10) sup pcf
I
(
) [
/I[.
11) If I is an ideal on S and (
sS
s
, <
I
) has true conality as exemplied by
f = f
: < ) then the function

s
: s S) is a <
I
-eub (hence <
I
-lub) of

f.
12) The inverse of (11) holds: if I is an ideal on S and f

S
Ord for <
= cf(), f
: < ) is <
I
-increasing with <
I
-eub f then tcf(
i
f(i), <
I
) =
tcf(cf[f(i)], <
I
) = .
13) If I J are ideals on then
(a) wsat(I) wsat(J)
(b) liminf
I
(
) liminf
J
(
)
(c) if = tcf(
i<
i
, <
I
) then = tcf(
i<
i
, <
J
).
14) If f
1
, f
2
are <
I
-lub of F then f
1
=
I
f
2
.
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

OS 9
1.6 Denition. 1) Let I is not almost normal for (,
) mean: for some h
,
for no j < is i < :
i
h(i) < j = mod I.
2) Let I is not lowly normal for (,
) mean: for some h
, for no < , is
i < :
i
h(i) < I
+
.
Remark. Note that weakly normals implies lowly normal.
Proof. They are all very easy, e.g.
0) We shall show (
, <
J
) is endless (assuming, of course, that J is a proper ideal
on ). Let f
, then g =: f + 1 (dened (f +1)() = f() +1) is in
too as
each
being an innite cardinal is a limit ordinal and f < g mod J.

4) Clause (iii):
First, assume that I is not medium normal for (,
), and let h
witness
this. Without loss of generality
i
> h(i) . So assume that f
for
< . We now dene a function f with domain by
f(i) = f
(i) : < h(i)(and < ).

Now rst i < f(i) <
i
because
i
is regular, h(i) <
i
and < f
(i) <
i
. So f
.
Second, for any < we have
i < : (f
(i) f(i)) i < : h(i)

and this set belongs to I by the choice of h above. So < f

I
f. Together
we are done. To nish we need
if there is a club E of and i :
i
E or
i
= I then I is not medium
normal for (,
).
[Why ? Without loss of generality
i
, we dene a function h with
domain , h(i) = sup(E
i
) if
i
/ E and h(i) = 0 if
i
E .
So i < h(i) (e.g., Min(E( + 1)), the set i < : h(i) < is included in
i < :
i
= i < :
i
E i < :
i
.]
Now the rst and second belong to I by an assumption and the third as < =
liminf
I
(
), so we are done.
5) Let
=: lim sup
I
(
) and dene
J =: A : for some <
the set i < :

i
> and i A belongs to I.
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

10 SAHARON SHELAH
Clearly J is an ideal on extending I (and / J) and lim sup
J
(
) = lim inf
J
(
) =
.
Case 1:
is
0
.
We do not use the J above. Now the desired conclusion fails then every ultralter
on disjoint to I is
1
-complete. Now if i < :
i
>
0
J
+
the construction
is immediate so without loss of generality i <
i
=
0
. But not weakly
normal for (,
) then j < A
j
=: i < : h(i) < j , = mod I but
A
j
: j < = . There is an ultralter D on disjoint to J A
j
: j < so
A
j
: j < ) exemplies D is not
1
-complete.
Case 2:
is singular.
By part (4), clause (ii),
/I is (
)
+
-directed and by part (4) clause (v) we get
the desired conclusion.
Case 3:
is regular >
0
.
Let h
witness that I is not weakly normal for (
) and let
J
= A : for every h
, for some j <
we have i A : h(i) < j = A mod I.

Note that if A J then for some <
the set A
=: i A :
i
> I
hence for every h
, the choice j =: witness A J
. So J J
. Also
J
P() by its denition. J
is closed under subsets (trivial) and under union

[why? assume A
0
, A
1
J
, A = A
0
A
1
; for every h
, choose j
0
, j
1
<
such that A
=: i A
: h(i) < j
= A
mod I, so j =: maxj
0
, j
1
<
and
A
= i A : h(i) < j = A mod I; so A J
]. Also / J
[why? as h
witness
that I is not weakly normal for (
)]. So together J
is an ideal on extending
I. Now J
is not medium normal for (
), as witnessed by h
.
[Why? Let us check Denition 1.6(2), so let <
. We should prove that A
=
i < :
i
h(i) < / J
+
; now A
1
= i < :
i
> J J
and
A
2
= i < : h(i) < j J
hence A
1
A
2
J but it includes A
, so we are
done.]
Lastly,
/J
is (
)
+
-directed (by part (4) clause (iii)), and so pcf
J
(
) is disjoint
to (
)
+
.
9) Let us prove g is a
I
-lub of F in (
Ord,
I
). As we can deal separately with
I + A, I + ( A) where A =: i : g(i) = 0, and the later case is trivial we can
assume A = . So assume g is not a
I
-lub, so there is an upper bound g
of F,
but not g
I
g
. Dene g

Ord:
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

OS 11
g
(i) =
_
0 & if g(i) g
(i)
g
(i) & if g
(i) < g(i).

Clearly g
<
I
g. So, as g in an
I
-eub of F for I, there is f F such that
g
<
I
maxf, 1, but B =: i : g
(i) < g(i) , = mod(I) (as not g

I
g
) so
g
B = g
B <
I
maxf, 1 B. But we know that f
I
g
(as g
is an
upper bound of F) hence f B
I
g
B, so by the previous sentence neccessarily

f B =
I
0
B
hence g
B =
I
0
B
; as g
is a
I
-upper bound of F we know
[f
F f
B =
I
0
B
], hence by () of Denition 1.2(4) we have g B =
I
0
B
, a
contradiction to B / I (see above).
1.5
1.7 Remark. In 1.5 we can also have the straight monotonicity properties of
pcf
I
(
, ).
1.8 Claim. 1) J
<
[
] is an ideal (of P(), i.e., on , but the ideal may not be

proper).
2) If , then J
<
[
] J
<
[
].
3) If is singular, J
<
[
] = J
<
+[
] = J
].
4) If / pcf(
), then J
<
[
] = J
].
5) If A , A / J
<
[
], and f
A, f
: < ) is <
J
<
[
]
-increasing
conal in (
A)/J
<
[
] then A J
].
Also this holds when A , f
: < ) is <
J
-increasing conal in (
A)/J
for any ideal J on such that I
J J
], A / J.
6) The earlier parts hold for J
<
[
, ], too.
Proof. Straight.
1.9 Lemma. Assume
()

is regular and
() Min(
) > wsat(I
) (see 1.2(5)(b)) or at least

() liminf
I
(
) wsat(I
), and
/I
is
+
-directed.
2
2
note, if cf() < then
+
-directed follows from -directed which follows from lim
inf
I
(
) , i.e. rst part of clause (). Note also that if clause () holds then
/I
is
+
-directed (even (
, <) is
+
-directed), so clause () implies clause ().
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

12 SAHARON SHELAH
If is a cardinal , and / J
<
[
] then (
, <
J
<
[
]
) is -directed (remember:
J
<
[
] = J
<
[
, I
]).
1.10 Remark. Note that above () () so in any case also (
,
I
) is
+
-
directed.
Proof. Note: if f
then f < f + 1
, (i.e., (
, <
J
]
) is endless) where
f + 1 is dened by (f + 1)(i) = f(i) + 1). Let F
, [F[ < , and we shall

prove that for some g
we have (f F)(f g mod J

<
[
]), this suces.

The proof is by induction on [F[. If [F[ is nite, this is trivial. Also if [F[ ,
when () of () holds it is easy: let g
be g(i) = supf(i) : f F <

i
;
when () of () holds use second clause of (). So assume [F[ = , < < so
let F = f
0
: < . By the induction hypothesis we can choose by induction on

< , f
1
such that:
(a) f
0
f
1
mod J
<
[
]
(b) for < we have f
1
f
1
mod J
<
[
].
If is singular, there is C unbounded, [C[ = cf() < , and by the induction
hypothesis there is g
such that for C, f

1
g mod J
<
[
]. Now g is as
required: f
0
f
1
f
1
min(C\)
g mod J
<
[
]. So without loss of generality is

regular. Let us dene A
=: i < :
i
> [[ for < , so < < A
and < A
= mod I
. Now we try to dene by induction on < , g
= () < and B
: < ) such that:

(i) g
(ii) for < we have g
(iii) for < let B
=: i < : f
1
(i) > g
(i)
(iv) for each < , for every [
+1
, ), B
,= B
+1
mod J
<
[
].
We cannot carry this denition: as letting () = sup
: < , then () <

since = cf() > . We know that B
()
A
+1
,= B
+1
()
A
+1
mod J
<
[
] for
< (by (iv) and as A
+1
= mod I
and I
J
<
[
]) and B
()
(by (iii))
and [ < B
()
A
()
] (by (ii)), together A
+1
(B
()
B
+1
()
) : < )
is a sequence of pairwise disjoint members of (I
)
+
, a contradiction
3
Now for = 0 let g
be f
1
0
and
= 0.
3
i.e we have noted that for no B
( < ) do we have: B
= B
+1
mod I
and < <

B
where A
= mod I
(e.g., A
= A
) to the denition of = wsat(I
).
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

OS 13
For limit let g
(i) =
_
<
g
(i) for i A
and zero otherwise (note: g
as
< ,
i
> for i A
and

is a sequence of regular cardinals) and let
= 0.
For = + 1, suppose that g
hence B
: < ) are dened. If B
J
<
[
] for
unboundedly many < (hence for every < ) then g
is an upper bound for F

mod J
<
[
] and the proof is complete. So assume this fails, then there is a minimal
() < such that B
()
, J
<
[
]. As B
()
/ J
<
[
], by Denition 1.4(2) for

some ultralter D on disjoint to J
<
[
] we have B
()
D and cf(
/D) .
But < . Hence f
1
/D : < has an upper bound h
/D where h
. Let
us dene g
:
g
(i) = Maxg
(i), h
(i).
Now (i), (ii) hold trivially and B
is dened by (iii). Why does (iv) hold (for )

with
+1
=
=: ()? Suppose () < . As f

1
()
f
1
mod J
<
[
]
clearly B
()
B
mod J
<
[
]. Moreover J
<
[
] is disjoint to D (by its choice)

so B
()
D implies B
/ J
<
[
].
On the other hand B
is i < : f
1
(i) > g
(i) which is equal to i < : f

1
(i) >
g
(i), h
(i) which does not belong to D (h
was chosen such that f

1
mod D).
We can conclude B
/ D, whereas B
D; so they are distinct mod J

<
[
] as
required in clause (iv).
Now we have said that we cannot carry the denition for all < , so we are stuck
at some ; by the above is successor, say = + 1, and g
is as required: an
upper bound for F modulo J
<
[
].
1.9
1.11 Claim. If () of 1.9, D is an ultralter on disjoint to I
and = tcf(
, <
D
), then for some B D,(
B, <
J
<
[
]
) has true conality . (So B J
]
J
<
[
] by 1.8(5).)
Proof. As (
,
I
) is
+
-directed (by 1.9) clearly
+
. By the denition of
J
<
[
] clearly D J
<
[
] = .
Let f
/D : < ) be increasing unbounded in
/D (so f
). By 1.9
without loss of generality ( < )(f
< f
mod J
<
[
]).
Now 1.11 follows from 1.12 below: its hypothesis clearly holds. If
_
<
B
=
mod D, (see (A) of 1.12) then (see (D) of 1.12) J D = hence (see (D) of 1.12)
g/D contradicts the choice of f
/D : < ). So for some < , B
D; by (C)
of 1.12 we get the desired conclusion.
1.11
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

14 SAHARON SHELAH
1.12 Lemma. Suppose () of 1.9, cf() > , f
, f
< f
mod J
<
[
] for
< < , and there is no g
such that for every < , f
< g mod J
<
[
].
Then there are B
(for < ) such that:

(A) B
and for some () < : () < B
, J
<
[
]
(B) < B
mod J
<
[
] (i.e. B
J
<
[
])
(C) for each , f
: < ) is conal in (
, <
J
<
[
]
) (better restrict
yourselves to () (see (A)) so that necessarily B
/ J
<
[
]);
(D) for some g
,
_
<
f
g mod J where
4
J = J
<
[
] +B
: < ;
in fact
(D)
+
for some g
for every < , we have f
g mod (J
<
[
] + B
), in
fact B
= i < : f
(i) > g(i)

(E) if g g
, then for arbitrarily large < :

i < : [g(i) f
(i) g
(i) f
(i)] = mod J
<
[
]
(hence for every large enough < this holds)
(F) if is a limit ordinal < , f
is a
J
<
[
]
-lub of f
: < then B
is a
lub of B
: < in P()/J
<
[
].
Proof. Remember that for < , A
= i < :
i
> [[ so A
= mod I
and
< A
. We now dene by induction on < , g
, () < , B
: < )
such that:
(i) g
(ii) for < , g
(iii) B
=: i : f
(i) > g
(i)
(iv) if () < then B
,= B
+1
mod J
<
[
].
For = 0 let g
= f
0
, and () = 0.
For limit let g
(i) =
_
<
g
(i) if i A
and zero otherwise; now

[ < g
]
holds trivially and g
as each
i
is regular and [i A

i
> ]), and let
() = 0.
4
Of course, if B
= mod J
<
[
], this becomes trivial.

(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

OS 15
For = + 1, if < : B
J
<
[
] is unbounded in , then g
is a bound for
f
: < ) mod J
<
[
], contradicting an assumption. Clearly

< < B
mod J
<
[
]
hence < : B
J
<
[
] is an initial segment of . So by the previous sentence

there is () < such that for every [(), ), we have B
/ J
<
[
] (of course,
we may increase () later). If B
: < ) satises the desired conclusion, with

() for () in (A) and g
for g in (D), (D)

+
and (E), we are done. Now among
the conditions in the conclusion of 1.12, clause (A) holds by the choice of B
and of
(), clause (B) holds by B
s denition as < f
< f
mod J
<
[
], (D)
+
holds with g = g
by the choice of B
hence also clause (D) follows. Lastly if (E)

fails, say for g
, then it can serve as g
. Now condition (F) follows immediately from

(iii) (if (F) fails for , then there is B B
such that
<
B
B mod J
<
[
] and
B
B / J
<
[
]; now the function g
=: (g
(B))(f
B) contradicts f
is a
J
<
[
]
-lub of f
: < , because: g
(obvious), (f
mod J
<
[
])
[why? as B
B / J
<
[
] and g
(B
B) = g
(B
B) < f
(B
B) by the
choice of B
], and for < we have:

f
B
J
<
[
]
f
B = g
B and
f
( B)
J
<
[
]
g
( B) = g
( B)
(the
J
<
[
]
holds as ( B) B
J
<
[
] and the denition of B
). So only
clause (C) (of 1.12) may fail, without loss of generality for = (). I.e. f
()
: < ) is not conal in (
()
, <
J
<
[
]
). As this sequence of functions
is increasing w.r.t. <
J
<
[
]
, there is h
()
) such that for no < do we
have h
B
j
()
mod J
<
[
]. Let h
= h
0
(\B
()
)
and g
be dened
by g
(i) = Maxg
(i), h
(i). Now dene B
by (iii) so (i), (ii), (iii) hold trivially,

and we can check (iv).
So we can dene g
, () for < , satisfying (i)(iv). As in the proof of 1.9, this

is impossible: because (remembering cf() = > ) letting () =:
_
<
() <
we have: B
()
A
: < ) is -decreasing, for each < , and A
= mod I
and B
+1
()
,= B
()
mod J
<
[
] so B
()
A
+1
B
+1
()
: < ) is a sequence of
pairwise disjoint members of (J
<
[
])
+
hence of (I
)
+
which give the contradiction
to () of 1.9; so the lemma cannot fail.
1.12
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

16 SAHARON SHELAH
1.13 Lemma. Suppose () of 1.9 and < .
1) For every B J
] J
<
[
], we have:
(
B, <
J
<
[
]
); has true conality ; (hence is regular).
2) If D is an ultralter on , disjoint to I
, then tcf(
/D) is min : DJ
] ,=
.
3)(i) For a limit cardinal J
<
[
] =
_
<
J
<
[
], hence
(ii) For every , J
<
[
] =
<
J
].
4) J
] ,= J
<
[
] i J
] J
<
[
] ,= i pcf(
).
5) J
]/J
<
[
] is -directed (i.e. if B
] for <
< then for

some B J
] we have B
B mod J
<
[
] for every <
.)
Proof. 1) Let
J = B :B J
<
[
] or B J
] J
<
[
] and
(
B, <
J
<
[
]
) has true conality .
By its denition clearly J J
]; it is quite easy to check it is an ideal (use

1.5(2)(v)). Assume J ,= J
] and we shall get a contradiction. Choose B

J
] J; as J is an ideal, there is an ultralter D on such that: DJ = and

B D. Now if tcf(
/D)
+
, then B / J
] (by the denition of J
]);
contradiction.
On the other hand if F
, [F[ < then there is g
such that (f
F)(f < g mod J
<
[
]) (by 1.9), so (f F)[f < g mod D] (as J

<
[
] J,
D J = ), and this implies cf(
/D) . By the last two sentences we know

that tcf(
/D) is . Now by 1.11 for some C D, ((
C), <
J
<
[
]
_
has true
conality , of course C B C and C B D hence C B / J
<
[
]. Clearly
if C
C, C
/ J
<
[
] then also (
, <
J
<
[
]
) has true conality , hence by
the last sentence without loss of generality C B; hence by 1.8(5) we know that
C J
] hence by the denition of J we have C J. But this contradicts the

choice of D as disjoint from J.
We have to conclude that J = J
] so we have proved 1.13(1).

2) Let be minimal such that DJ
] ,= (it exists as by 1.5(10) that is because

J
<(
Q
)
+[
] = P()) and choose B D J
]. So [ < B , J
]] (by
the choice of ) hence by 1.13(3)(ii) below, we have B / J
<
[
]. It similarly follows
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

OS 17
that D J
<
[
] = . Now (
B, <
J
<
[
]
) has true conality by 1.11. As we
know that B DJ
], and J
<
[
] D = ; clearly we have nished the proof.

3) Note that we should not use part (2)!
Clause (i):
Let J =:
<
J
<
[
]. Now J is an ideal by 1.8(2) and (
, <
J
) is -directed;
i.e., if
< and f
: <
, then there exists f
such that
( <
)(f
< f mod J).

[Why? If
<
+
, as () of 1.9 holds, this is obvious by 1.9. So without loss of generality
+
and
= cf(
); suppose not; is a limit cardinal, hence there is
such that
<
< . Without loss of generality [
[
+
<
. By 1.9, there is f
such
that ( <
)(f
< f mod J
<
[
]). Since J
<
[
] J, it is immediate that
( <
)(f
< f mod J).]

Clearly
_
<
J
<
[
] J
<
[
] by 1.8(2). On the other hand, let us suppose that

there is B (J
<
[
]
_
<
J
<
[
]). Choose an ultralter D on such that B D

and DJ = . Since (
, <
J
) is -directed and DJ = , one has tcf(
/D) ,
but B D J
<
[
], in contradiction to Denition 1.4(2).

Clause (ii):
If limit by part (i) and 1.8(2); if successor by 1.8(2) and Denition
1.4(3). Note that we hae not used part (2).
4) Easy.
5) Let f
: < ) be <
J
<
[
]+(\B
)
-increasing and conal in
mod J
<
[
] +
(
) (for <
). Let us choose by induction on < a function f
, as a
<
J
<
[
]
-bound to f
: < f
: <
, such f
exists by 1.9 and apply 1.12

to f
: < ), getting B
: < ), now B
for large enough is as required.
1.13
1.14 Conclusion. If () of 1.9, then pcf(
) has a last element.

Proof. This is the minimal such that J
]. [ exists, since
=: [
[
: J
] , = ] and by 1.5(10).
1.14
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

18 SAHARON SHELAH
1.15 Claim. Suppose () of 1.9 holds. Assume for j < , D
j
is a lter on
extending A : A I
, E a lter on and D
= B : j < : B D
j

E (a lter on ). Let
j
=: tcf(
, <
D
j
) be well dened for j < , and assume
further
j
> + .
Let
= tcf(
, <
D
), = tcf(
j<
j
, <
E
).
Then = (in particular, if one is well dened, then so is the other).
Proof. Without loss of generality . (Why? Otherwise we can add
j
=:
0
,
D
j
=: D
0
for j , and replace by and E by E
= A : A E).
Let f
j
: <
j
) be an <
D
j
-increasing conal sequence in (
, <
D
j
).
Now = 0, 1, for each f
, dene G
(f)
j<
j
by G
(f)(j) = min <

j
:
if = 1 then f f
j
mod D
j
and if = 0 then: not f
j
f mod D
j
(it is well
dened for f
by the choice of f
j
: <
j
)).
Note that for f
1
, f
2

and < 2 we have:

f
1
f
2
mod D
B(f
1
, f
2
) =: i < : f
1
(i) f
2
(i) D
A(f
1
, f
2
) =: j < : B(f
1
, f
2
) D
j
E
for some A E, for every i A we have f
1
D
i
f
2
for some A E for every i A we have
G
(f
1
)(i) G
(f
2
)(i)
G
(f
1
) G
(f
2
) mod E.
So
1
G
is a mapping from (
,
D
) into (
j<
j
,
E
) preserving order.
Next we prove that
2
for every g
j<
j
for some f
, we have g G
0
(f) mod E.
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

OS 19
[Why? Note that min
j
: j <
+

+
and J
] J
]. By 1.9 we
know (
, <
J
]
) is
+
-directed, hence for some f
:
()
1
for j < we have f
j
g(j)
< f mod J
].
We here assumed <
j
, hence J
] J
<
j
[
] (by 1.8(2)) but J

<
j
[
] is disjoint
to D
j
by the denition of J
<
j
[
] (by 1.13(2) + 1.5(13)(c)) so together with ()

1
:
()
2
for j < , f
j
g(j)
< f mod D
j
.
So for every j < we have g(j) < G
0
(f)(j) hence clearly g G
0
(f).]
3
for f
we have G
0
(f) G
1
(f).
[Why? Read the denitions].
4
if f
1
, f
2

and G
1
(f
1
) <
E
G
0
(f
2
) then f
1
<
D
f
2
.
[Why? As G
1
(f
1
) <
E
G
0
(f
2
) there is B E such that: j B
G
1
(f
1
)(j) < G
0
(f
2
)(j). For each j we have f
1

D
j
f
j
G
1
(f
1
)(j)
by
the denition of G
1
(f
1
)) and f
j
G
1
(f
1
)(j)
<
D
j
f
2
(as G
1
(f
1
)(j) < G
0
(f
2
)(j)
and the denition of G
0
(f
2
)(j)) so together f
1
<
D
j
f
2
. So A(f
1
, f
2
) =
i < : f
1
(i) < f
2
(i) satises: A(f
1
, f
2
) D
j
for every j B, hence
A(f
1
, f
2
) D
(by the denition of D
) hence f
1
<
D
f
2
as required.]
Now rst assume = tcf(
, <
D
) is well dened, so there is a sequence

f =
f
: < ) of members of
, <
D
-increasing and conal. So G
0
(f
) : < )
is
E
-increasing in
j<
j
(by
1
), for every g
j<
j
for some f
we
have g
E
G
0
(f) (why? by
2
), but by the choice of

f for some < we have
f <
D
f
hence by
1
we have g
E
G
0
(f)
E
G
0
(f
), so G
0
(f
) : < ) is
conal in (
j<
j
, <
E
). Also for every < , applying the previous sentence to
G
1
(f
) + 1 (
j<
j
) we can nd < such that G
1
(f
) + 1
E
G
0
(f
), so
G
1
(f
) <
E
G
0
(f
), so for some club C of , G

0
(f
) : C) is <
E
-increasing
conal in (
j<
j
, <
E
). So if is well dened then = tcf(
j<
j
, <
E
) is well
dened and equall to .
Lastly, assume that is well dened i.e.
j<
j
/E has true conality , let
g = g
: < ) exemplies it. Choose by induction on < , a function f
and
ordinals
such that
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

20 SAHARON SHELAH
(i) f
(ii) g
<
E
G
0
(f
)
E
G
1
(f
) <
E
g
(so
<
)
(iii)
1
<
2
<
1
<
2
(so
).
In stage , rst choose
1
+ 1 :
1
< , then choose f
such
that g
+1 <
E
G
0
(f
) (possible by
2
) then choose
such that G
1
(f
) <
E
g
.
Now G
0
(f
)
E
G
1
(f
) by
3
. By
4
we have
1
<
2
f
1
<
D
f
2
. Also if
f

then G
1
(f)
j<
j
hence by the choice of g, for some < we have
G
1
(f) <
E
g
but
so G
1
(f) <
E
g

E
G
0
(f
) hence by
4
, f <
D
f
.
Altogether, f
: < ) exemplies that (
, <
D
) has true conality , so is
well dened and equal to .
1.15
1.16 Conclusion. If () of 1.9 holds, and , =
j
: j < ), D
j
: j < ) are
as in 1.15 and + < min( ), and J is an ideal on and I an ideal on such
that I
I A : for some B J for every j B we have A / D

j
,
A I
j<
( A) D
j
(e.g. I = I
) then pcf
J
(
j
: j < ) pcf
I
(
).
Proof. Assume pcf
J
(
j
: j < ). Let E be an ultralter on disjoint to J
such that = tcf(
j<
j
/E) then we can dene an ultralter D
on as in 1.15,
so clearly D
is disjoint to I and = tcf(
/I) hence pcf

I
(
) as required.
1.16
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

OS 21
2 Normality of pcf(
) for

Having found those ideals J

<
[
], we would like to know more. As J

<
[
] is
increasing continuous in , the question is how J
<
[
], J
<
+[
] are related.
The simplest relation is J
<
+[
] = J
<
[
] +B for some B , and then we call

normal (for

) and denote B = B
] though it is unique only modulo J

<
[
].
We give a sucient condition for exsitence of such B, using this in 2.11; giving the
necessary denition in 2.3 and needed information in 2.5, 2.7, 2.9; lastly 2.10 is the
essential uniqueness of conal sequences in appropriate
/I.
2.1 Denition. 1) We say pcf(
) is normal (for

) if for some B ,
J
] = J
<
[
] + B.
2) We say pcf(
) is semi-normal (for

) if there are B
for < such that:

(i) < B
mod J
<
[
] and
(ii) J
] = J
<
[
] +B
: < .
3) We say

is normal if every pcf(
) is normal for

. Similarly for semi
normal.
4) In (1), (2), (3) instead

we can say (
, I) or
/I or (
, <
I
) if we replace I
by I (an ideal on Dom(
)).
2.2 Fact. Suppose () of 1.9 and pcf(
).
Now:
1) is semi-normal for

i for some F = f
: <
we have: [ <
f
< f
mod J
<
[
]] and for every ultralter D over disjoint to J

<
[
], F is
unbounded in (
, <
D
) whenever tcf(
, <
D
) = .
2) In 2.1(2), without loss of generality, we may assume that
either: B
= B
0
mod J
<
[
] (so is normal)
or: B
,= B
mod J
] for < < .

3) Assume is semi normal for

. Then is normal for

i for some F as in
part (1) (of 2.2) F has a <
J
<
[
]
-exact upper bound g
i<
(
i
+ 1) and then
B =: i < : g(i) =
i
generates J
] over J
<
[
].
4) If is semi normal for

then for some

f = f
: < ),

B = B
: < )
we have:

B is increasing modulo J
<
[
], J
] = J
<
[
] + B
: < , and
f
: < ) is <
J
<
[
]
-increasing and

f,

B as in 1.12.
Proof. 1) For the direction , given B
: < ) as in Denition 2.1(2), for each

< , by 1.13(1) we have (
, <
J
<
[
]
) has true conality , and let it be
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

22 SAHARON SHELAH
exemplied by f
: < ). By 1.9 we can choose by induction on < a function

f
such that: , f

J
<
[
]
f
and < f
<
J
<
[
]
f
.
Now F =: f
: < is as required. [Why? First, obviously < f
< f
mod J
<
[
]. Second, if D is an ultralter on disjoint to I
and (
, <
D
) has
true conality , then by 1.11 for some B J
] J
<
[
] we have B D, so by
the choice of B
: < ) for some < , B B
mod J
<
[
] hence B
D.
As f

J
<
[
]
f
for [, ) clearly F is conal in (
, <
D
).]
The other direction, follows from 1.12 applied to F = f
: < . [Why?
By 1.12 there is a sequence B
: < ) as there, in particular B
]
increasing modulo J
<
[
] so J =: J
<
[
] +B
: < J
].
If equality does not hold then for some ultralter D over , D J = but
D J
] ,= so by clause (D) of 1.12, F is bounded in /D whereas by

1.13(1),(2), tcf(
, <
D
) = contradicting the assumption on F.]
2) Because we can replace B
: < ) by B
i
: i < ) whenever
i
: i < ) is
non decreasing, non eventually constant.
3) If is normal for

, let B be such that J
] = J
<
[
] + B. By 1.13(1)
we know that (
B), <
J
<
[
]
) has true conality , so let it be exemplied by
f
0
: < ). Let f
= f
0
0
(\B)
for < . Now f
: < ) is as required by
1.5(11).
Now suppose f
: < ) is as in part (1) of 2.2 and g is a <

J
<
[
]
-eub of F,
g
i<
(
i
+ 1) and B = i : g(i) =
i
. Let D be an ultralter on disjoint to
J
<
[
]. If B D then for every f
, let f
= (f B) 0
(\B)
, now necessarily
f
< maxg, 1 (as [i B f
(i) <
i
= g(i)] and [i B f
(i) = 0 g(i)]),
hence (see Denition 1.4(4)) for some < we have f
< maxf
, 1 mod J
<
[
]
hence for some < , f
mod J
<
[
] hence f f
mod D; also
< f
< f
mod D, hence together f
: < ) exemplies tcf(
, <
D
) = . If B / D then B D so g
= g ( B) 0
B
= g mod D and
< f
<
D
f
+1

D
g =
D
g
, so g
exemplies F is bounded in
(
, <
D
) so as F is as in 2.2(1), tcf(
, <
D
) = is impossible. As D is disjoint
to J
<
[
], necessarily tcf(
, <
D
) > . The last two arguments together give, by
1.13(2) that J
] = J
<
[
] +B as required in the denition of normality.

4) Should be clear.
2.2
We shall give some sucient conditions for normality.
Remark. In the following denitions we slightly deviate from [Sh:g, Ch.I] = [Sh
345a]. The ones here are perheps somewhat articial but enable us to deal also
with case () of 1.9(). I.e. in Denition 2.3 below we concentrate on the rst
elements of an a
and for obey we also have

A
= A
: < ) and we want to

cover also the case is singular.
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

OS 23
2.3 Denition. Let there be given regular , < < , possibly an ordinal,
S , sup(S) = and for simplicity S is a set of limit ordinals or at least have no
two successive members.
1) We call a = a
: < ) a special continuity condition for (S, , ) (or is an

(S, , )-continuity condition) if: S is an unbounded subset of , a
, otp(a
) <
, and [ a
= a
] and, for every club E of , for some

5
S we have
= otp a
: otp(a
) < and for no a
is (, ) E = . We say a
is continuous in S
if S
= sup(a
).
2) Assume f

Ord for < and

A
= A
: < ) is a decreasing sequence of

subsetes of such that A
. We say

f = f
: < ) obeys a = a
: < )
for

A
if:
(i) for a
, if =: otp(a
) < then we have f
(note:

A
determine ).
2A) Let ,

, I
be as usual. We say

f obeys a for

A
continuously on S
if: a
is continuous in S
and

f obeys a for

A
and in addition S
S and for S
(a limit ordinal) we have f
= f
a
from (2B) below, i.e., for every i < we have

f
(i) = supf
(i) : a
when [a
[ <
i
.
2B) For given

=
i
: i < ),

f = f
: < ) where f
and a , and
let f
a

be dened by: f
a
(i) is 0 if [a[
i
and f
(i) : a if [a[ <

i
.
3) Let (S, ) stands for (S, +1, ); (, , ) stands for (S, , ) for some unbounded
subset S of and (, ) stands for (, + 1, ).
If each A
is then we may omit for

A
(but should be xed or said).

4) We add to continuity condition (in part (1)) the adjective weak [-weak]
if a
= a
is replaced by S & a
( < )[a
& < min(a
( + 1)) & [[a
[ < [a
[ < ]] [and we demand

that exists only if otp(a
) < ]. (Of course a continuity condition is a weak

continuity condition which is a -weak continuity condition).
2.4 Remark. There are some obvious monotonicity implications, we state below
only 2.5(3).
2.5 Fact. 1) Let
r
=
_
cf() =
+
cf() <
and assume = cf() >
+
r
. Then for
some stationary S < : cf() =
r
, there is a continuity condition a for
(S,
r
); moreover, it is continuous in S and S otp(a
) =
r
; so for every
5
Note: if otp(a
) = and = sup(a
) (holds if S, = + 1 and a continuous in S (see

below)) then E.
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

24 SAHARON SHELAH
club E of for some S, , [ < & a
& a
(, ) E ,= ].
2) Assume =
++
, then for some stationary S < : cf() = cf() there is
a continuity condition for (S, + 1, ).
3) If a is a (, ,
1
)-continuity condition and
1
then there is a (, + 1, )-
continuity condition.
Proof. 1) By [Sh 420, 1].
2) By [Sh 351, 4.4](2) and
6
.
3) Check.
2.5
2.6 Remark. Of course also if =
+
the conclusion of 2.5(2) may well hold. We
suspect but do not know that the negation is consistent with ZFC.
2.7 Fact. Suppose () of 1.9, f
for < , = cf() (of course

= dom(
)) and

A
=

A
] is as in the proof of 1.9 (i.e., A
= i < :
i
> ).
Then
1) Assume a is a -weak continuity condition for (S, ), = sup(S), then we can
nd

f
= f
: < ) such that:

(i) f
,
(ii) for < we have f
(iii) for < < we have f
<
J
<
[
]
f
(iv)

f
obeys a for

A
.
2) If in addition min(
) > , S
S are stationary subsets of and a is a continuity

condition for (S, , ) then we can nd

f
= f
: < ) such that:

(i) f
(ii) for S
we have f
and = +1 S
& S
(iii) for < < we have f
<
J
<
[
]
f
(iv)

f
obeys a for

A
continuously on S
.
3) Suppose f
: < ) obeys a continuously on S
and satises 2.7(2)(ii) (and

2.7(2)s assumption holds). If g
and g
: < ) obeys a continuously on

S
and [ S
] then
.
6
the denition of B
i
in the proof of [Sh:g, III,2.14](2) should be changed as in [Sh 351, 4.4](2),
[Sh:g, III,2.14](2),clause(c),p.135-7
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

OS 25
4) If < , for < we have

f
= f
: < ), where f
, then in 2.7(1)
(and 2.7(2)) we can nd f
as there for all

f
simultaneously. Only in clause (ii)

we replace f
by f
(and f
by f
.
Proof. Easy (using 1.9 of course).
2.8 Claim. In 2.7 we can replace () from 1.9 by
/J
<
[
] is -directed.
2.9 Claim. Assume () of 1.9 and let

A
be as there.
1) In 1.12, if f
: < ) obeys some (S, )-continuity condition or just a -weak

one for

A
(where S is unbounded) then we can deduce also:

(G) the sequence B
/J
<
[
] : < ) is eventually constant.

2) If
+
< then J
]/J
<
[
] is
+
-directed (hence if is semi normal for

then it is normal to

).
Proof. 1) Assume not, so for some club E of we have
() < < & E B
,= B
mod J
<
[
].
As a is a -weak (S, )-continuity condition, there is S such that b =:
a
: otp(a
) < and for no a
is (, ) E = has order type

. Let
: < list b (increasing with ). So for every < there is
,
+1
) E, and let
<
+1
be such that a
and otp(a
) < ;
by shrinking and renaming without loss of generality
<
and
. Let
() =: otp(a
).
Lastly, let B
0
=: i < : f
(i) < f
(i) < f
(i) < f
+1
(i), clearly it is
= mod I
and let (remember () above) B
=: A
()+1
(B
) B
0
, now
B
mod J
<
[
] by clause (B) of 1.12, and B
,= B
by () above
hence B
,= mod J
<
[
]. Now B
0
, A
()+1
= mod I
by the previous
sentence and by 1.9() which we are assuming respectively and I
J
<
[
] by
the laters denition; so we have gotten B
,= mod J
<
[
]. But for < <

we have B
= , for suppose i B
, so i A
()+1
and also f
(i) <
f
+1
(i) f
(i) (as i B
0
and as
+1
a
& i A
()+1
respectively); now
i B
hence i B
i.e., (where g is from 1.12 clause (D)

+
) f
(i) > g(i) hence (by

the above) f
(i) > g(i) hence i B
hence i , B
, contradiction. So B
: < )
is a sequence of pairwise disjoint members of (J
<
[
])
+
, contradiction.
2) The proof is similar to the proof of 1.13(4), using 2.9(1) instead 1.12 (and a from
2.5(1) if >
+
r
or 2.5(2) if =
++
).
2.9
We note also (but shall not use):
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

26 SAHARON SHELAH
2.10 Claim. Suppose () of 1.9 and
(a) f
for < , pcf(
) and

f = f
: < ) is <
J
<
[
]
-increasing
(b)

f obeys a continuously on S
, where a is a continuity condition for (S, )

and = sup(S) (hence > by the last phrase of 2.3(1))
(c) J is an ideal on extending J
<
[
], and f
/J : < ) is conal in
(
, <
J
) (e.g., J = J
<
[
] + ( B), B J
] J
<
[
]).
(d) f
: < ) satises (a), (b) above

(e) f
for S
(alternatively: f
: < ) satises (c))

(f) if S
then J is cf()-indecomposable (i.e., if A
: < cf()) is a
-increasing sequence of members, of J then
_
< cf()
A
J).
Then:
(A) the set
< : if S
and otp(a
) = then f
= f
mod J
contains a club of
(B) the set
< : if S and = sup( a
) and otp( a
) =
then f
= f
a
mod J
contains a club of .
Proof. We concentrate on proving (A).
Suppose S
, and f
,= f
mod J. Let
A
1,
= i < : f
(i) < f
(i)
A
2,
= i < : f
(i) > f
(i).
So A
1,
A
2,
J
+
, suppose rst A
1,
J
+
. By Denition 2.3(2A), for every
i A
1,
for every large enough a
, f
(i) < f
(i), say for a

i
. As
J is cf()-indecomposable for some < we have i < :
i
< J
+
so
f
A
1,
< f
A
1,
(and < ). Now by clause (c), E =: < : for every <
we have f
< f
mod J is a club of , and so we have proved

(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

OS 27
E A
1,
J.
If
<
f
(rst possibility in clause (e)) also A

2,
J hence for no S
E
do we have f
,= f
mod J. If the second possibility of clause (e) holds, we can

interchange

f,

f
hence [ E A
2,
J] and we are done.
2.10
We now return to investigating the J
<
[
], rst without using continuity conditions.

2.11 Lemma. Suppose () of 1.9 and = cf() pcf(
). Then is semi normal

for

.
Proof. We assume is not semi normal for

and eventually get a contradiction.
Note that by our assumption (
, <
I
) is
+
-directed hence min pcf
I
(
)
+
(by 1.5(4)(v)) hence let us dene by induction on ,

f
= f
: < ), B
and
D
such that:
(I)(i) f
(ii) < < f
mod J
<
[
]
(iii) < & < f
mod J
<
[
]
(iv) for < < and < : f
(II)(i) D
is an ultralter on such that: cf(
/D
) =
(ii) f
/D
: < ) is not conal in
/D
(iii) f
+1
/D
: < ) is increasing and conal in
/D
; moreover
(iii)
+
B
and f
+1
: < ) is increasing and conal in
/(J
<
[
] + (
B
))
(iv) f
+1
0
/D
is above f
/D
: < .
For = 0: No problem. [Use 1.13(1)+(4)].
For limit < : Let g
be dened by g
(i) = supf
(i) : < for i A
and f
(i) = 0 else, (remember that A
). Then choose by induction on

< , f
such that g
and < f
< f
mod J
<
[
]. This is
possible by 1.9 and clearly the requirements (I)(i),(ii),(iv) are satised.
Use 2.2(1) to nd an appropriate D
(i.e.. satisfying II(i)+(ii)). Now f
: < )
and D
are as required.
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

28 SAHARON SHELAH
For = : Choose f
by induction of satisfying I(i), (ii), (iii) (possible by 1.9).

For = + 1: Use 1.11 to choose B
] J
<
[
]. Let g
: < ) be
conal in (
, <
D
) and even in (
, <
J
<
[
]+(\B
)
) and without loss of generality
_
<
f
/D
< g
0
/D
and
<
f
. We get f
: < ) increasing
and conal mod (J
<
[
] + ( B
)) such that g
by 1.9 from g
: < ).
Then get D
as in the case limit.

So we have dened the f
s and D
s. Now for each < we apply (II) (iii)

+
for f
+1
: < ), f
: < ). We get a club C
of such that:
() < C
< f
+1
mod J
<
[
]
So C =:
<
C
is a club of . By 2.2(1) applied to f
: < ) (and the assumption

is not semi-normal for

) there is g
such that
()
1
g f
mod J
<
[
] for <
by 1.9 without loss of generality
()
2
f
0
< g mod J
<
[
] for <
For each < , by II (iii), (iii)
+
for some
< we have
()
3
< g B
< f
+1
mod J
<
[
]
Let () = sup
<

, so () < and so
()
4
< g B
< f
+1
()
B
mod J
<
[
]
For < , let B
= i A
: g(i) < f
()
(i). By ()
4
, clearly
+1

mod
J
<
[
], but
by (II)(iii)
+
hence B
+1
D
; by (II)(iv)+()
2
we know
B
/ D
, hence B
,= B
+1
mod D
hence B
,= B
+1
mod J
<
[
].
On the other hand by (I)(iv) for each < we have B
: ) is -
increasing and (as A
= mod J
<
[
] for each < ) we have B
/I
: < ) is
-increasing, and by the previous sentence B
,= B
+1
mod J
<
[
] hence B
/I
:
< ) is strictly -increasing. Together clearly B
+1
A
+1
B
: < ) is a
sequence of pairwise disjoint members of (J
<
[
])
+
, hence of (I
)
+
; contradiction
to wsat(I
).
2.11
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

OS 29
2.12 Denition. 1) We say

B = B
: c) is a generating sequence for

if:
(i) B
and c pcf(
)
(ii) J
] = J
<
[
] + B
for each c.
2) We call

B = B
: c) smooth if:
i B
&
i
c B
i
B
.
3) We call

B = B
: Rang(
)) closed if for each

B
i < :
i
pcf(
).
4) We call

B = B
: c) full when c = pcf(
).
2.13 Fact. Assume () of 1.9.
1) Suppose c pcf(
),

B = B
: c) is a generating sequence for

, and B .
If pcf(
B) c then for some nite d c, B

_
d
B
mod I
.
2.14 Remark. For another proof of 2.13(2) see 2.17(2) + 2.17(4) and for another
use of the proof of 2.13(2) see 2.19(1).
Proof. 1) If not, then I = I
+B
_
d
B
: d c, d nite is a family of subsets

of , closed under union, B / I, hence there is an ultralter D on disjoint from I
to which B belongs. Let =: cf(
i<
i
/D); necessarily pcf(
B), hence by
the last assumption of 2.13(1) we have c. By 1.13(2) we know B
D hence
B B
D, contradicting the choice of D.

2.15 Claim. 1) cf (
/I
) = max pcf(
).
2) The case =
0
is trivial (as wsat(I
)
0
implies P()/I
is a Boolean
algebra satisfying the
0
-c.c. (as here we can substract) hence this Boolean algebra
is nite hence also pcf(
) is nite) so we assume >

0
.
For B (I
)
+
let (B) = max pcf
I
B
(
B).
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

30 SAHARON SHELAH
We prove by induction on that for every B (I
)
+
, cf(
, <
I
+(\B)
) = (B)
when (B) ; this will suce (use B = and = [
i<
i
[
+
). Given B let
= (B), by renaming without loss of generality B = . By 1.14, pcf(
) has a
last element, necessarily it is =: (B). Let f
: < ) be <
J
<
[
]
increasing
conal in
/J
<
[
], it clearly exemplies max pcf(
) cf(
/I
). Let us prove
the other inequality. For A J
<
[
] I
choose F
A

which is conal in
/(I
+(A)), [F
A
[ = (A) < (exists by the induction hypothesis). Let be a
large enough regular, and we now choose by induction on < , N
, g
such that:
(A)(i) N
(H (), , <
) sn
(ii) |N
| =
(iii) N
: ) N
+1
(iv) N
: < ) is increasing continuous

(v) : + 1 N
0
,
, I
N
0
, f
: < ) N
0
and the function
A F
A
belongs to N
0
(B)(i) g
and g
N
+1
(ii) for no f N
do we have g
 [[ g
(i) < g
(i).
There is no problem to dene N
, and if we cannot choose g
this means that N
exemplies cf(
, <) as required. So assume N
, g
: < ) is dened. For

each < for some () < , g
< f
()
mod J
<
[
] hence () <
g
<
J
<
[
]
f
. As = cf() > , we can choose < such that >

_
<
().
Let B
= i < : g
(i) f
(i); so for each < we have B
: < )
is increasing with , (by clause (B)(iii)), hence as usual as wsat(I
) (and
>
0
) we can nd () < such that
_
n
B
()+n
= B
()
mod I
[why do we
not demand ((), ) B
= B
()
mod I
? as may be singular]. Now as

g
()
N
()+1
and f
N
0
N
()+1
clearly, by its denition, B
()
N
()+1
hence F
B
()
N
()+1
. Now:
g
()+1
( B
()
) =
I
g
()+1
( B
()+1
) < f
( B
()+1
)
=
I
f
( B
()
).
[Why rst equality and last equality? As B
()+1
= B
()
mod I
, why the < in

the middle? By the denition of B
()+1
].
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

OS 31
But g
()+1
B
()

iB
()
i
, and B
()
J
<
[
] as g
< f
()
f
mod J
<
[
] so for some f F
B
()

we have g
()+1
B
()
< f B
()
mod I
. By the last two sentences

() g
()+1
< maxf, f
mod I
Now f
N
()+1
and f N
()+1
(as f F
B
()
, [F
B
()
[ , + 1 N
()+1
the function B F
B
belongs to N
0
N
()+1
and B
()
N
()+1
as g
()
, f

N
()+1
) so together
() maxf, f
N
()+1
;
But (), () together contradict the choice of g
()+1
(i.e., clause (B)(ii)).
2.15
> scite2.10A ambiguous
2.16 Denition. 1) We say that I
satises the pcf-th for (the regular) (
, ) if:
(a)
/I
is -directed and
(b) for every pcf
I
(
), (
, <
J
<
[
]
) is -directed and
(c) we can nd B
: pcf
I
(
)), such that:
B
() B
,
() J
<
[
, I
] = I
+B
: pcf
I
(
),
() B
/ J
<
[
, I
] and
() (
)/J
<
[
, I
] has true conality (so B
]
J
<
[
] and J
] = J
<
[
] + B
).
1A) We say that I
satises the weak pcf-th for (
, ) if:
(a) (
, <
I
) is -directed
(b) (
, <
J
<
[
]
) is -directed for each pcf
I
(
)
(c) there are B
,
for < pcf
I
(
) such that
() < < pcf
I
(
) B
,
B
,
mod J
<
[
, I
]
() J
<
[
] = I
+B
,
: < < , pcf
I
(
) and
() (
, <
J
<
[
]
) is -directed and
() ((
B
,
), <
J
<
[
]
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

32 SAHARON SHELAH
1B) We say that I
satises the weaker pcf-th for (
, ) if:
(a) (
, <
I
) is -directed
(b) each (
, <
J
<
[
) is -directed
(c) for any ultralter D on disjoint to J
<
[
] letting = tcf(
, <
D
) we
have: and for some B D J
] J
<
[
], the partial order

((
B), <
J
<
[
]
1C) We say that I
satises the weakest pcf-th for (
, ) if:
(a) (
, <
I
) is -directed and
(b) (
, <
J
<
[
]
) is -directed for any .
1D) Above we write

instead (
, ) when we mean
= max : (
, <
I
) is -directed.
2) We say that I
satises the pcf-th for if for any regular

such that lim
inf
I
(
) , we have: I
satises the pcf-th every for

. We say that I
satises
the pcf-th above if it satises the pcf-th for

with lim inf
I
(
) > . Similarly
(in both cases) for the weak pcf-th and the weaker pcf-th.
3) Given I
, let
J
pcf
= A : A I
or A / I
and I
+( A) satises the pcf-theorem for .

J
wsat
=: A : wsat(I
A) or A I
similarly J
wpcf
; we may write J
x
[I
].
4) We say that I
satises the pseudo pcf-th for

if for every ideal I on extending
I
, for some A I
+
we have ((
A), <
I
) has a true conality.
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

OS 33
2.17 Claim. 1) If () of 1.9 then I
satises the weak pcf-th for (
,
+
).
2) If () of 1.9 holds, and
/I
is
++
-directed (e.g.,
+
< min
) or just there
is a continuity condition for (
+
, )) then I
satises the pcf-th for (
,
+
).
3) If I
satisfy the pcf-th for (
, ) then I
satisfy the weak pcf-th for (
, ) which
implies that I
satises the weaker pcf-th for (
, ), which implies that I
satises
the weakest pcf-th for (
, ).
Proof. 1) Let appropriate

be given. By 1.9, 1.13 most demands holds, but we
are left with normality. By 2.11, if pcf(
), then

is semi normal for . This
nishing the proof of (1).
2) Let pcf(
) and let

f,

B be as in 2.2(4). By 2.5(1)+(2) there is a, a (, )-
continuity condition; by 2.7(1) without loss of generality

f obeys a, by 2.9(1) the
relevant B
/I
are eventually constant which suces by 2.2(2).

3) Should be clear.
2.17
2.18 Claim. Assume (
, <
I
) is given (but possibly () of 1.9 fails).
1) If I
,

satises (the conclusions of ) 1.11, then I
,

satisfy (the conclusion of )
1.13(1), 1.13(2), 1.13(3), 1.13(4), 1.14.
1A) If I
satises the weaker pcf-th for

then they satisfy the conclusion of 1.11
(and 1.9).
2) If I
,

satises (the conclusion of ) 1.9 then I
,

satises (the conclusion of )
1.15.
2A) If I
satises the weakest pcf-th for

then I
,

satisfy the conclusion of 1.9.
3) If I
,

satises 1.9, 1.11 then I
,

satises 2.2(1) (for 2.2(2) - no assumptions).
4) If I
,

satises 1.13(1), 1.13(2) then I
,

satises 2.2(3).
5) If I
,

satises 1.13(2) then I
,

satises 2.13(1).
6) If I

satisfy 1.13(1) + 1.13(3)(i) then I
,

satises 1.13(2).
7) If I
,

satises 1.13(1) + 1.13(2) and is semi normal then 2.13(2) holds, i.e.,
cf(
, <
I
) sup pcf
I
().
Proof. 1) We prove by parts.
Proof of 1.13(2). Let = tcf(
/D); by the denition of pcf, DJ

<
[
] = . Also
by 1.11 for some B D we have = tcf((
B), <
J
<
[
]
), so by the previous
sentence B / J
<
[
], and by 1.8(5) we have B J
], together we nish.
Proof of 1.13(1). Repeat the proof of 1.13(1) replacing the use of 1.9 by 1.13(2).
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

34 SAHARON SHELAH
Proof of 1.8(3)(i). Let J =:
<
J
<
[
], so J J
<
[
] is an ideal because J
<
[
] :
< ) is -increasing (by 1.8(2)), if equality fail choose B J
<
[
] J and choose
D an ultralter on disjoint to J to which B belongs. Now if = cf() < then
+
< (as is a limit cardinal) and = cf() &
+
< D J
] =
D J
<
+[
] = hence by 1.13(2) we have ,= cf(
/D). Also if = cf()

then D J
<
[
] D J
<
[
] = hence by 1.13(2) we have ,= cf(
/D).
Together contradiction by 1.5(7).
Proof of 1.13(3)(ii). Follows.
Proof of 1.13(4). Follows.
Proof of 1.14. As in 1.14.
1) Check.
2) Read the proof of 1.15.
2A) Check.
3) The direction is proved directly as in the proof of 2.2(1) (where the use of
1.13(1) is justied by 2.18(1)).
So let us deal with the direction . So assume

f = f
: < ) is a sequence
of members of
which is <
J
<
[
]
-increasing such that for every ultralter D
on disjoint to J
<
[
] we have: = tcf(
, <
D
) i

f is unbounded (equiva-
lently conal) in (
, <
D
). By (the conclusion of) 1.9 without loss of generality

f
is <
J
<
[
]
-increasing, and let
J =: A : A J
<
[
] or

f is conal in (
, <
J
<
[
]+(\A)
.
Clearly J is an ideal on (by 1.5(2)(v)), and J
<
[
] J J
]. If J ,= J
<
[
]
choose A J
] J and an ultralter D on disjoint to J to which A belongs.

By (the conclusion of) 1.11, there is A J D; contradiction, so actually
J = J
]. By 1.9 there is g
such that f
< g mod J
] for each < ,

and let B
=: i < : g(i) f
(i). Hence B
] (by the previous sentence)

and B
/J
<
[
] : < ) is -increasing (as f
: < ) is <
J
<
[
]
-increasing).
Lastly if B J
], but B B
/ J
<
[
] for each < , let D be an ultralter

on disjoint to J
<
[
] +B
: < but to which B belongs, so tcf(
, g
D
) =
(by 1.13(3) which holds by 2.17(1)) but f
/D : < is bounded by g/D (as

f
/D g/D by the denition of B
), contradiction. So the sequence B
: < )
is as required.
4) 6) Left to the reader.
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

OS 35
7) For pcf(
) let B
i
: i < ) be such that J
] = J
<
[
] + B
i
: i <
(exists by semi-normality; we use only this equality). Let f
,i
: < ) be conal
in ((
i
), <
J
,
[
]
), it exists by 1.13(1). Let F be the closure of f
,i
: <
, i < , pcf(
), under the operation maxg, h. Clearly [F[ sup pcf(
), so
it suce to prove that F is a cover of (
, g(i) : f F, A I
is
0
-directed, / I, so there is an ultralter D on disjoint to I, (so f F
g <
D
f) and let = tcf(
/D), so by 1.13(2) we have D J
] J
<
[
] ,= ,
hence for some i < , B
i
D, and we get contradiction to the choice of the
f
,
: < ( F).
2.18
2.19 Claim. If I
satises pseudo pcf-th then

(1) cf(
, <
I
) = sup pcf
I
(
)
(2) We can nd (J
) : <
),
a successor ordinal such that J

0
= I
,
J
+1
= A : if A / J
then tcf((
A), <
J
) =
and for no
A (J
)
+
does ((
A), <
J
) has true conality which is <
(3) If I
satises the weaker pcf-th for

then I
satises the pseudo pcf-th for
.
Proof. 1) Similar to the proof of 2.13(2).
2) Check (we can also present those ideals in other ways).
3) Check.
2.19
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

36 SAHARON SHELAH
3 Reduced products of cardinals
We characterize here the cardinalities
i<
i
/D and T
D
(
i
: i < )) using pcfs
and the amount of regularity of D (in 3.1 - 3.4). Later we give sucient conditions
for the existence of <
D
-lub or <
D
-eub. Remember the old result of Kanamori
[Kn] and Ketonen [Kt]: for D an ultralter the sequence /D : < ) (i.e., the
constant functions) has a <
D
-lub if reg(D) < ; and see [Sh:g, III,3.3] (for lters).
Then we turn to depth of ultraproducts of Boolean algebras.
The questions we would like to answer are (restricting ourselves to
i
2
or
i
2
2
and D an ultralter on will be good enough).

Question A: What can be Car
D
=:
i<
i
/D :
i
a cardinal for i < , i.e.,
characterize it by properties of D; (or at least Card
D
2
) (for D a lter also

T
D
(
i<
i
) :
i
a cardinal for i < is natural).
Question B: What can be DEPTH
+
D
= Depth
+
(
i<
i
/D) :
i
a regular cardinal
(at least DEPTH
+
D
2
, see Denition 3.21).

If D is an
1
-complete ultralter, the answer is clear. For D a regular ultralter
on ,
i

0
the answer to question A is known ([\CK ]) in fact it was the reason for
dening regularity of lters (for
i
<
0
see [Sh 7], [Sh:a, VI,3,Th. 3.12,pp.357-
370] better [Sh:c, VI,3] and Koppleberg [Ko].) For D a regular ultralter on , the
answer to the question is essentially completed in 3.25(1), the remaining problem
can be answered by pp (see [Sh:g]) except the restriction ( < )([[
0
< ),
which can be removed if the cov = pp problem is completed (see [Sh:g, AG]). So
the problem is for the other ultralters D, on which we give a reasonable amount on
information translating to a pcf problem, sometimes depending on the pcf theorem.
3.1 Denition. 1) For a lter D let reg(D) = Min : D is not -regular (see
below).
2) A lter D is -regular if there are A
D for < such that the intersection of

any innitely many A
-s is empty.
3) For a lter D let
reg
(D) = Min : there are no A
D
+
for < such that
no i < belongs to innitely many A
s
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

OS 37
and
reg
(D) =: : there are no A
D
+
for < such that :
< A
mod D and no i <

belongs to innitely many A
s.
4) reg
(D) = min : D is not (, )-regular where D is (, )-regular means

that there are A
D for < such that the intersection of any of them is

empty.
Lastly, reg
(D), reg
(D) are dened similarly using A
D
+
. Of course, reg(I),
etc., means reg(D) where D is the dual lter.
3.2 Denition. 1) Let
htcf
D,
(
i
) = suptcf(
i<
i
/D) :
i
= cf
i

i
for i < and
tcf(
i
/D) is well dened
and
hcf
D,
(
i<
i
) = supcf(
i
/D) :
i
= cf
i

i
;
if =
0
we may omit it.
2) For E a family of lters on let hcf
E,
(
i<
i
) be
suptcf(
i<
i
/D) :D E and
i
= cf
i

i
for i < and
tcf(
i<
i
/D) is well dened.
Similarly for hcf
E,
(using cf instead of tcf).
3) hcf
D,
(
i<
i
) is hcf
E,
(
i<
i
) for E = D
: D
a lter on extending D.
Similarly for htcf
D,
.
4) When we write I, e.g., in hcf
I,
we mean hcf
D,
where D is the dual lter.
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

38 SAHARON SHELAH
3.3 Claim. 1) reg(D) is always regular.
2) If < reg
(D) then some lter extending D is -regular.

3) wsat(D) reg
(D).
4) reg(D) reg
(D) reg
(D).
5) reg
(D) = min: no ultralter D

1
on extending D is -regular.
6) If D E are lters on then:
(a) reg(D) reg(E)
(b) reg
(D) reg
(E).
Proof. Should be clear. E.g.
2) Let u
: < ) list the nite subsets of , and let A
: < D
+
exemplify
< reg
(D). Now let D
=: A : for some nite u , for every < we

have: u u
A mod D, and let A
: u
. Now D
is a
lter on extending D and for < we have A
D.
Finally, the intersection of A
0
A
1
. . . for distinct
n
< is empty, because
for any memeber j of it we can nd
n
< such that j A
n
and
n
u
n
. Now if
n
: n < is innite then there is no such j by the choice of A
: < ), and if
n
: n < is nite then without loss of generality
n<
n
=
0
contradicting u
0
is nite as
n<
n
u
n
.
3.3
3.4 Observation. [
i<
i
/I[ [
0
/I[ holds when
i<
i

0
.
3.5 Observation. 1) [
i<
i
/I[ htcf
I
(
i<
i
).
2) If I
satises the pcf-th for

or even the weaker pcf-th or even the pseudo pcf-th
for

(see Denition 2.16) then: cf(
/I
) = max pcf
I
(
).
3) If I
satises the pcf-th for for and min(
) then
hcf
D,
(
) = hcf
D,
(
) = htcf
D,
(
)
whenever D is disjoint to I
.
4) hcf
E,
(
i<
i
) = hcf
E,
(
i<
i
).
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

OS 39
5)
i<
i
/I hcf
I,
(
i<
i
) = hcf
I,
(
i<
i
) htcf
I,
(
i<
i
) and hcf
I,
(
i<
i
)
htcf
I,
(
i<
i
).
3.6 Remark. In 3.5(3) concerning htcf
D,
see 3.13.
Proof. 1) By the denition of htcf
I
it suces to show [
i<
i
/I[ tcf(
i
/I
),
when I
is an ideal on extending I,
i
= cf
i

i
for i < and tcf(
i<
i
/I
)
is well dened. Now [
i<
i
/I[ [
i<
i
/I[ [
i<
i
/I
[ cf(
i
/I
), so we have
nished.
2) By 2.18(1) and 1.14 and 2.19.
3) Left to the reader (see Denition 2.16(2)).
4), 5) Check.
3.5
3.7 Claim. If = [
i<
i
/I[ (and
i

0
and, of course, I an ideal on ) and
< reg(I) then =
.
Proof. For each i < , let
i
: <
i
) list the nite sequences from
i
. Let
M
i
= (
i
, F
i
, G
i
) where F
i
() = lg(
i
), G
i
(, ) is
i
() if < g(
i
) (= F
i
()),
and F(, ) = 0 otherwise; let M =
i<
M
i
/I so |M| = [
i
/I[ and let M =
(
i
/I, F, G). Let A
i
: i < ) exemplies I is -regular. Now
()
1
We can nd f

and f
i<
f(i) for < such that: < < f
<
I
f
[just for i < let w

i
= < : i A
, it is nite and let f(i) = [w

i
[
and f
(i) = [ w
i
[ < f(i), and note < &i A
(i) < f
(i)].
()
2
For every sequence g = g
: < ) of members of
i<
i
, there is h
i<
i
such that < M F(h/I, f
/I) = g
/I.
[Why? Let, in the notation of ()
1
, h(i) be such that
i
h(i)
= g
(i) : w
i
)
(in the natural order).]
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

40 SAHARON SHELAH
So in M, every -sequence of members is coded by at least one member so |M|
=
|M|, but |M| = [
i<
i
/I[ hence we have proved 3.7.
3.7
3.8 Fact. 1) For D a lter on , A
1
, A
2
) a partition of and (non zero) cardinals
i
for i < we have
[
i<
i
/D[ = [
i<
i
/(D + A
1
)[ [
i<
i
/(D +A
2
)[
(note: [
i<
i
/P()[ = 1).
2) D
[]
=: A : [
i<
i
/(D+(A))[ < is a lter on ( an innite cardinal
of course) and if
0

i<
i
/D then D
[]
is a proper lter.
3) If [
i<
i
/I[, (
i
innite, of course, I an ideal on ) and A I
+
iA
i
/I[ and < reg
(I) then [
i
/I[
.
Proof. Check (part (3) is like 3.7).
3.9 Claim. If D E are lters on then
[
i<
i
/D[ [
i<
i
/E[ + sup
AE\D
[
i<
i
/(D + ( A))[ + (2
/D) +
0
.
We can replace 2
/D by [P[ if P is a maximal subset of E such that A ,= B

P (A B) (B A) ,= mod D.
Proof. Think.
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

OS 41
3.10 Lemma. [
i<
i
/D[ (
/D+hcf
D,
(
i<
i
))
<
(see Denition 3.2(1)) pro-
vided that:
() reg
(D)
3.11 Remark. 1) If =
+
1
, we can replace
/D by
1
/D. In general we can
replace
/D by sup
i<
f(i)/D : f
.
2) If D satises the pcf-th above (see 2.16(1A), 2.17(2)) then by 3.5(3) we can
use htcf
(sometime even htcf, see 3.13). But by 3.8(1) we can ignore the
i
,
and when i < 2
i
> we know that 1.9(*)() holds by 3.3(3).
Proof. Let =
/D + hcf
D,
(
i<
i
). Let for < ,
=:
, i.e.,
=:
(
/D + hcf
D,
i<
i
)
||
, clearly
=
||
. Let =
8
(sup
i<
i
)
+
and N

(H (), , <
) be such that |N
| =
, N
||
N
, + 1 N
and D,
i
: i <
) N
and [ < N
]. Let N = N
: < . Let g
i<
i
and
we shall nd f N such that g
= f mod D, this will suce. We shall choose by

induction on < , f
e
(e < 3) and

A
such that:
(a) f
e
i<
(
i
+ 1)
(b) f
1
and f
2
(c)

A
= A
i
: i < ) N
(d)
i
A
i

i
+ 1, [A
i
[ [[ + 1, and A
i
: < ) is increasing continuous
(in )
(e) f
0
(i) = Min(A
i
g
(i)); note: it is well dened as g
(i) <
i
A
i
(f) f
1
= f
0
mod D
(g) g
< f
2
< f
1
mod (D +i < : g
(i) ,= f
1
(i))
(h) if g
(i) ,= f
1
(i) then f
2
(i) A
+1
i
.
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

42 SAHARON SHELAH
So assume everything is dened for every < . If = 0, let A
i
=
i
, if limit
A
i
=
<
A
i
, for = + 1, A
i
will be dened in stage . So arriving to ,

A
is
well dened and it belongs to N
: for = 0 check, for = +1, done in stage , for

limit it belongs to N
as we have N
||
and < N
. Now use clause

(e) to dene f
0
/D. As A
i
: i < ) N
, [A
i
[ < and
/D < + 1 N
,
clearly [
i<
[A
i
[/D[ hence f/D : f
i<
A
i
N
hence f
0
/D N
hence
there is f
1
such that f
1
f
0
/D i.e. clause (f) holds. As g
f
0
clearly
g
f
1
mod D, let y
0
=: i < : g
(i) f
1
(i), y
1
=: i < : i / y
0
and
cf(f
1
(i)) < and y
2
=: y
0
y
1
. So y
e
: e < 3) is a partition of and g
< f
1
mod (D + y
e
) for e = 1, 2.
Let y
4
= i < : cf(f
1
(i)) so f
1
, and N
hence y
4
N
, so
(
i<
f
1
(i), <
D+y
4
) N
. Now
cf(
i<
f
1
(i), <
D+y
4
) hcf
D+y
4
,
(
i<
i
) hcf
D,
(
i<
i
) < + 1 N
hence there is F N
, [F[ , F
iy
4
f
1
(i) such that:

(g)[g
iy
4
f
1
(i) (f F)(g < f mod (D + y
4
)))].
As + 1 N necessarily F N
. Apply the property of F to (g y
2
) 0
(\y
2
)
and get f
4
F N such that g
< f
4
mod (D + y
2
). Now use similarly
i<
cf(f
1
(i))/(D + y
1
) [
/D[ ; by the proof of 3.8(1) there is a function

f
2
i<
f
1
(i) such that g
(y
1
+ y
2
) < f
2
mod D. Let A
+1
i
be: A
i
if
i y
0
and A
i
f
2
(i) if i y
1
y
2
.
It is easy to check clauses (g), (h). So we have carried the denition.
Let
X
=: i < : f
0
+1
(i) < f
0
(i).
Note that by the choice of f
1
, f
1
+1
we know X
= y
1
y
2
mod D, if this last set is
not D-positive then g
f
1
mod D, hence g
/D = f
1
/D N
, contradiction, so
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

OS 43
y
1
y
2
,= mod D hence X
D
+
. Also y
1
y
2
: < ) is -decreasing hence
X
/D : < ) is -decreasing.
Also if i X
1
X
2
and
1
<
2
then f
0
2
(i) f
0
1
+1
(i) < f
0
1
(i) (rst inequality:
as A
1
+1
i
A
2
i
and clause (e) above, second inequality by the denition of X
1
),
hence for each ordinal i the set < : i X
is nite. So < reg
(D),
contradiction to the assumption ().
3.10
Note we can conclude
3.12 Claim.
i<
i
/D = sup(
i<
f(i))
<reg
(D
1
)
+ hcf
D
1
(
i<
i
)
<reg
(D
1
)
: D
1
is a lter on
extending D such that
A D
+
1

i<
i
/(D
1
+ A) =
i<
i
/D
1
and f
, f(i)
i
Proof. The inequality should be clear by 3.8(3). For the other direction let
be the right side cardinality and let D
1
= A : if A D
+
then
i . By 3.10 (see
3.11(1)) we get a contradiction.
3.12
Next we deal with existence of <
D
-eub.
3.13 Claim. 1) Assume D a lter on , g

Ord for < , g
= g
: < )
is
D
-increasing, and
() cf() reg
(D).
Then at least one of the following holds:
(A) g
: < ) has a <

D
-eub g

Ord; moreover, lim inf
D
cf[g(i)] : i <
)
(B) cf() = reg
(D)
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

44 SAHARON SHELAH
(C) for some club C of and some
1
< and
i
<
+
1
and w
i
Ord of order
type
i
for i < , there are f
i<
w
i
(for C) such that f
(i) =
min(w
i
g
(i)) and C & C & < f

D
f
& f
=
D
f
& f

D
g
& g
.
2) In (C) above if for simplicity D is an ultralter we can nd w
i
Ord, otp(w
i
) =
i
,
: < cf()) increasing continuous with limit , and h
i<
w
i
such that
f
<
D
h
<
D
f
+1
, moreover,
i<
i
< .
Proof. 1) Let = reg
(D). We try to choose by induction on < , g
, f
,
(for
< ),

A
such that:
(a)

A
= A
i
: i < )
(b) A
i
= f
,
(i), g
(i) : < [sup

<
g
(i)] + 1
(c) f
,
(i) = Min(A
i
g
(i)) (and f
,

Ord, of course)
(d)
is the rst ,
_
<
< < such that [ [, ) f

,
= f
,
mod D]
if there is one
(e) g
,
; moreover, g
< maxf
,
, 1
but for no < do we have

g
< maxg
, 1 mod D
Let
be the rst for which they are not dened (so
).
Note
() < <
&
< f
,
=
D
f
,
& f
,
f
,
& f
,
,=
D
f
,
.
[Why last phrase? applying clause (e) above, second phrase with , here standing
for , there we get A
0
=: i < : maxg
(i), 1 g
(i) D
+
and applying
clause (e) above rst phrase with here standing for there we get A
1
= i < :
g
(i) < f
,
(i) or g
(i) = 0 = f
,
(i) D, hence A
0
A
1
D
+
, and g
(i) > 0 for

i A
0
A
1
(even for i A
0
). Also by clause (c) above g
(i) g
(i) f
,
(i)
g
(i). Now by the last two sentences i A

0
A
1
g
(i) g
(i) < f
,
(i)
f
,
(i) g
(i) < f
,
(i), together f
,
,=
D
f
,
as required.]
Case A:
= and
_
<
< .
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

OS 45
Let () =
<

, for < let y
= i < : f
(),
(i) ,= f
(),+1
(i) , =
mod D. Now for i < , f
(),
(i) : < ) is non increasing so i belongs to nitely
many y
s only, so y
: < ) contradict reg
(D).
Case B:
= and
_
<
= .
So possibility (B) of Claim 3.13 holds.
Case C:
< .
Still A
i
(i < ), f
,
( < ) are well dened.
Subcase C1:
cannot be dened.
Then possibility C of 3.13 holds (use w
i
=: A
i
, f
= f
+,
).
Subcase C2:
can be dened.
Then f
,
is a <
D
-eub of g
: < ) as otherwise there is g
as required in
clause (e). Now f
,
is almost as required in possibility (A) of Claim 3.13 only
the second phrase is missing. If for no
1
< , i < : cf[f
,
(i)]
1
D
+
,
then possibility (A) holds.
So assume
1
< and B =: i < :
0
cf[f
,
(i)]
1
belongs to D
+
,
we shall try to prove that possibility (C) holds, thus nishing. Now we choose w
i
for i < : for i we let w
0
i
=: f
,
(i), [sup
<
g
(i)] + 1, for i B let w

1
i
be
an unbounded subset of f
,
(i) of order type cf[f
,
(i)] and for i B let
w
1
i
= , lastly let w
i
= w
0
i
w
1
i
, so [w
i
[
1
as required in possibility (C). Dene
f

Ord by f
(i) = min(w
i
g
(i)) (by the choice of w

0
i
it is well dened). So
f
: < ) is
D
-increasing; if for some
< , for every [
, ) we have
f
/D = f
/D, we could dene g

Ord by:
g
B = f
(which is < f
,
),
g
( B) = 0
\B
.
Now g
is as required in clause (e) so we get contradiction to the choice of
. So
there is no
< as above so for some club C of we have < C f
,=
D
f
,
so we have actually proved possibility (C).
2) Easy (for
i
< , without loss of generality = reg
(D) but reg
(D) =
reg(D) so
1
< reg(D)).
3.13
3.14 Claim. 1) In 3.13(1), if = = cf(), g
obeys a ( a as in 2.1), a a -weak

(S, )-continually condition, S unbounded, then clause (C) of 3.13 implies:
(C)
there are
1
< reg
(D) and A
D
+
for < such that the intersection of
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

46 SAHARON SHELAH
any
+
1
of the sets A
is empty (equivalently i < (
1
)[i A
] (reminds
(,
+
1
)-regularity of ultralters).
2) We can in 3.13(1) weaken the assumption () to ()
below if in the conclusion

we weaken clause (A) to (A)
where
()
cf() reg(D)
(A)
there is a
D
-upper bound f of g
: < such that

no f
<
D
f (of course f

Ord) is a
D
-upper bound of g
: <
and lim inf
D
cf[f(i)] : i < ).
3) If g

Ord, g
: < ) is <
D
-increasing and f

Ord satises (A)
above
and
()
cf() wsat(D) and for some A D for every i < , cf(f(i)) wsat(D)
then for some B D
+
we have
i<
cf[f(i)]/(D + B) has true conality cf().
Remark. Compare with 2.9.
Proof. 1) By the choice of a = a
: < ) as C (in clause (c) of 3.14(1)) is a club

of , we can nd < such that letting
: < ) list a
: otp(a
) <
(or just a subset of it) we have (
,
+1
) C ,= .
Let
,
+1
) C, and
,
+1
) be such that
: a
,
and as we can use
2
: < ), without loss of generality
<
. For < let

B
= i < : f
(i) < f
(i) < f
(i) < f
+1
(i) and supf
(i) + 1 : < <

supf
(i) + 1 : < + 1.
2) In the proof of 3.13 we replace clause (e) by
(e
) g
,
and for < we have f
mod D.
3) By 1.13(1).
3.14
3.15 Claim. 1) Assume = tcf(
/D) and = cf() < then there is

<
D

,
a sequence of regular cardinals and = tcf(
/D) provided that

() > reg
(D), min(
) > reg
(D) whenever < reg
(D)
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

OS 47
2) Let I
be the ideal dual to D, and assume () above. If ()() of 1.9 holds and
is semi-normal (for (
, I
)) then it is normal.
Proof.
Case 1 < lim inf
D
(
).
We let
=
_
if , and ( < reg
(D))[reg
(D) < ].
Let =: reg
(D). There is an unbounded S and an (S, )-continuity system

a (see 2.5). As
/D has true conality , > clearly there are g
for
< such that g
= g
: < ) obeys a (exists as lim inf

D
(
)).
Now if in claim 3.13(1) for g
possibility (A) holds, we are done. By 3.14(1) we

get that for some < reg
(D), reg
(I) , contradiction.
Case 3: lim inf
D
(
) reg
(D), , and ( < reg
(D))[reg
(D) < ].
Like the proof of [Sh:g, Ch.II,1.5B] using the silly square.

We turn to other measures of
/D.
3.16 Denition.
(a) T
0
D
(
) = sup[F[ : F
and f
1
,= f
2
F f
1
,=
D
f
2
(b)
T
1
D
(
) = Min[F[ :(i) F
(ii) f
1
,= f
2
F f
1
,=
D
f
2
(iii) F maximal under (i) + (ii)
(c) T
2
D
(
) = Min[F[ : F
and for every f

1

, for some f
2
F we
have f
1
,=
D
f
2
(d) If T
0
D
(
) = T
1
D
(
) = T
2
D
(
) then let T
D
(
) = T
l
D
(
) for l < 3
(e) for f

Ord and < 3 let T
l
D
(f) means T
l
D
(f() : < )).
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

48 SAHARON SHELAH
3.17 Theorem. 0) If D
0
D
1
are lters on then T
D
0
(
) T
D
1
(
) for = 0, 2.
Also if = A
0
A
1
, A
0
D
+
, and A
1
D
+
then T
D
(
) = minT
D+A
0
(
), T
D+A
1
(
)
for = 0, 2.
1) htcf
D
(
) T
2
D
(
) T
1
D
(
) T
0
D
(
).
2) If T
0
D
(
) > [P()/D[ or just T

0
D
() > , and P()/D satises the
+
-c.c.
then T
0
D
(
) = T
1
D
(
) = T
2
D
(
) so the supremum in 3.16(a) is obtained (so, e.g.,

T
0
D
(
) > 2
suce).
3) T
0
D
(
)
<reg(D)
= T
0
D
(
) (each
i
innite of course).
4) [htcf
D
i<
f(i)] T
2
D
(f) [htcf
D
i<
f(i)]
<reg(D)
+ wsat(D)
/D.
5) If D is an ultralter [
/D[ = T
e
D
(
) for e 2.
6) In (4), if
i<
f(i) 2
(or just (wsat(D) + 2)
/D min
i<
f(i)), the second and
third terms are equal.
7) If the sup in the denition of T
0
D
(
) is not obtained then it has conality reg(D)

and even is regular.
Proof. 0) Check.
1) First assume =: T
2
D
(
) < htcf
D
(
); then we can nd
= cf(
)
(, htcf
D
(
)] and =
i
: i < ), a sequence of regular cardinals,
i<
i

i
such that
= tcf( /D) and let f
: <
) exemplify this. Now let F

exemplify = T
2
D
(
), for each g F let

g
i = [F[). So g F g ,=
D
f
, contradiction. So
really T
2
D
(
) htcf
D
(
) as required.
If F exemplies the value of T
1
D
(
), it also exemplies T
2
D
(
) [F[ hence
T
2
D
(
) T
1
D
(
).
Lastly if F exemplies the value of T
1
D
(f) it also exemplies T
0
D
(
) [F[, so
T
1
D
(
) T
0
D
(
).
2) Let be [P()/D[ or at least is such that the Boolean algebra P()/D
satises the
+
-c.c. Assume that the desired conclusion fails so T
2
D
(
) < T
0
D
(
), so
there is F
0

, such that [f
1
,= f
2
F
0
f
1
,=
D
f
2
], and [F
0
[ > T
2
D
(
) + (by
the denition of T
0
D
(
)). Also there is F

2

exemplifying the value of T

2
D
(
).
For every f F
0
there is g
f
F
2
such that f ,=
D
g
f
(by the choice of F
2
).
As [F
0
[ > T
2
D
(
) + for some g F
2
, F
=: f F
0
: g
f
= g has cardinality
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

OS 49
> T
2
D
(f) +. Now for each f F
let A
f
= i < : f(i) = g(i) clearly A
f
D
+
.
Now f A
f
/D is a function from F
into P()/D, hence, if = [P()/D[, it is

not one to one (by cardinality consideration) so for some f
,= f
from F
(hence
form F
0
) we have A
f
/D = A
f
/D; but so
i < : f
(i) = f
(i) i < : f
(i) = g(i) i < : f
(i) = g(i) = A
f
/D
hence is ,= mod D, so f
,=
D
f
, contradition the choice of F

0
. If ,= [P()/D[
(as F
F
0
by the choice of F
0
) we have:
f
1
,= f
2
F
A
f
1
A
f
2
= mod D
so A
f
: f F
contradicts the Boolean algebra P()/D satises the

+
-c.c..
3) Assume that < reg(D) and
7

+
T
0
D
(
). As
+
T
0
D
(
) we can nd
f
for < such that [ < f
,=
D
f
]. Also (as < reg(D)) we can

nd A
: < D such that for every i < the set w

i
=: < : i A
is
nite. Now for every function h : we dene g
h
, a function with domain :
g
h
(i) = (, f
h()
(i)) : w
i
.
So [g
h
(i) : h

[ (
i
)
|w
i
|
=
i
, and if h
1
,= h
2
are from

then for some < ,
h
1
() ,= h
2
() so B
h
1
,h
2
= i : f
h
1
()
(i) ,= f
h
2
()
(i) D that is B
h
1
,h
2
A
D so
1
if i B
h
1
,h
2
A
then w
i
, so g
h
1
(i) ,= g
h
2
(i)
2
B
h
1
,h
2
A
D.
So g
h
: h

) exemplies T
0
D
(
. If the supremum in the denition of

T
0
D
(
) is obtained we are done. If not then T

0
D
(
) is a limit cardinal, and by the

proof above:
[ < T
0
D
(
) & < reg(D)
< T
0
D
(
)].
So if T
0
D
(
) has conality reg(D) we are done; otherwise let it be
<

with
< T
0
D
(
) and < reg(D). Note that by the previous sentence T

0
D
(
=
T
0
D
(
)
<reg(D)
=
<
, and let f
: <
be such that [ < f
,=
D
f
D
] and repeat the previous proof with f
h()
replacing f
h()
.
7
+
means the left side is a supremum, right bigger than the left or equal but the supremum
is obtained
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

50 SAHARON SHELAH
4) For the rst inequality assume it fails so =: T
2
D
(f) < htcf
D
(
i<
f(i)) hence for
some g
i<f(i)
(f(i)+1), tcf(
i<
g(i), <
D
) is with = cf() > . Let f
: < )
exemplies this. Let F be as in the denition of T
2
D
(f), now for each h F, there
is (h) < such that
i < : if h(i) < g(i) then h(i) < f
(g)
(i) D.
Let
= sup(h) + 1 : h F, now f
i<
f(i) and h F h ,=
D
f
contradicting the choice of F.

For the second inequality repeat the proof of 3.10 except that here we prove F =:
_
<
(N
i<
f(i)) exemplies T
2
D
(f) ; we replace clause (g) in the proof by
(g)
< f
2
+1
< f
1
mod D
the construction is for < reg(D) and if we nd satisfy f
1
,=
D
g
we are done.
5) Straightforward.
6) Note that all those cardinals are 2
and 2
wsat(D)
/D. Now write

successively inequalities from (2), (4), (1) and (3):
T
0
D
(f) = T
2
D
(f) [htcf
D
i<
f(i)]
<reg(D)
[T
0
D
(f)]
<reg(D)
= T
0
D
(f).
7) See proof of part (3). Moreover, if =
<
, < T
0
D
(
),
< T
0
D
(
) as
exemplied by f
: < , f
: <
respectively. Let g
be: if
<
< <
then g
(i) = (f
(i), f
(i)). So g
: < show: if T
0
D
(
) is singular then
the supremum is obtained.
3.17
3.18 Claim. Assume D is a lter on , f

Ord,
0
= and 2
< , T
D
(f),
(see Denition 3.16(d) and Theorem 3.17(2)). If < T
D
(f) then for some sequence
f of regulars,
+
= tcf(
/D), or at least
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

OS 51
() there are
i,n
: n < n
i
) : i < ),
i,n
= cf(
i,n
) < f(i) and a lter
D
on
_
i<
i n
i
such that:
+
= tcf(
(i,n)
i,n
/D
) and D = A :
_
iA
i n
i
D
.
Also the inverse is true.
Remark 3.15A. 1) It is not clear whether the rst possibility may fail. We have
explained earlier the doubtful role of
0
= .
2) We can replace
+
by any regular such that
<
[[
0
< and then we use
3.17(4) to get
+
T
D
(f).
(3) The assumption 2
< can be omitted.

Proof. The inverse should be clear (as in the proof of 3.7, by 3.17(3)). Without loss
of generality f(i) > 2
for i < , and trivially wsat(D))
/D 2
, so by 3.17(4)
T
D
(f) [htcf
D
(
i<
f(i)]
<reg(D)
.
If < htcf
D
(
i<
f(i)) we are done (by 3.15(1)), so assume htcf
D
(
i<
f(i)) ,
but we have assumed < T
D
(f) so we can conclude
<reg(D)

+
. Let
be minimal such that
< reg(D)
, and let =: cf() so, as > 2
we know
cf
=
<reg(D)
=
<reg(D)

+
, > 2
,
_
<
[[
<reg(D)
< . By the assumption
=
0
we know >
0
(of course is regular). By [Sh:g, Ch.VIII,1.6](2),IX,3.5
and [Sh 513, 6.12] there is a strictly increasing sequence
: < ) of regular
cardinals with limit such that
+
= tcf(
<
J
bd
).
As clearly htcf
D
(
i<
f(i)), we can nd for each < , a sequence

i
:
i < ) such that
i
= cf(
i
) f(i), and tcf(
i 2
. Let A
: < ) exemplify < reg(D) and n

i
= [ < : i
A
[ and
i,n
: n < enumerate
i
: satises i A
, so we have gotten ().
3.18
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

52 SAHARON SHELAH
3.19 Conclusion Suppose D is an
1
-complete lter on . If
i
2
for i < and

sup
AD
+ T
D+A
(
) >
0
then for some
i
= cf(
i
)
i
we have
sup
AD
+
tcf
D+A
(
i .
3.20 Conclusion Let D be an
1
-complete lter on . If for i < , B
i
is a Boolean
algebra and
i
< Depth
+
(B
i
) (see below) and
2
<
0
< sup
AD
+
T
D+A
(
)
then
+
< Depth
+
(
i<
B
i
/D).
Proof. Use 3.28 below and 3.19 above.
3.21 Denition. For a partial order P (e.g., a Boolean algebra) let Depth
+
(P) =
Min:we cannot nd a
P for < such that < a
<
P
a
.
3.22 Discussion 1) We conjecture that in 3.19 (and 3.20) the assumption D is
1
-
complete can be omitted.
2) Note that our results are for =
0
only; to remove this we need to improve
the theorem on pp = cov (i.e., to prove cf() =
0
< pp() = cov(, ,
1
, 2)
(or suppp() : cf() =
0
< < = cf(S
0
(), ) (see [Sh:g], [Sh 430, 1]),
which seems to me a very serious open problem (see [Sh:g, Analytic guide,14]).
3) In 3.20, if we can nd f
i 2
.
4) We can approach 3.18 dierently, by 3.23 - 3.26 below.
3.23 Claim. If 2
2
< T
D
(
), (or at least 2
|D|+
< T
D
(
)) and
<
= ,
then for some -complete lter E D we have T
E
(
) > .
Proof. Without loss of generality is regular (as
<
= & cf() <
<
+
=
). Let f
: <
+

, be such that [ < f
,=
D
f
]. We choose by
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

OS 53
induction on ,
<
+
as follows:
is the minimal ordinal <

+
such that
E
,
D where E
,
= the -complete lter generated by
_
i < : f
(i) ,= f
(i) : <
_
(note: each generator of E
,
is in D but not necessarly E
,
D!).
Let
be well dened if <
, clearly <
<
. Now if
<
+
, then
clearly
=
_
<
<
+
and for every (
,
+
), E
,
D, so for every
such there are A
D
+
and a
]
<
such that A
i < : f
(i) =
f
(i). But for every A D

+
, a [
]
<
we have
: (
,
+
), A
= A, a
= a : f
i<
f
(i) : a
,
hence has cardinality
< . Also [[
]
<
[
<
<
+
, |D
+
| 2
<
so we get easy contradiction.

So
=
+
, but the number of possible Es is 2
2
, hence for some E we

have [ <
+
: E
,
= E[ =
+
. Necessarily E D and E is -complete, and
f
: <
+
, and E
= E exemplies T
E
(
) > , so E is as required.
3.23
3.24 Fact 1) In 3.23 we can replace
+
by
if 2
2
< cf(
T
0
D
(
) and
<
[[
<
<
.
2) We can, in 3.23, [and 3.24(1)] replace T
D
(
) > by
/D has an increasing
sequence of lengths > [ ], we can deduce this also otherwise.
3.25 Claim. 1) If 2
< [
/D[, D an ultralter on , = cf() [
/D[,
i<
[i[
0
< , and D is regular then < Depth
+
(
i
0
, also by
s
minimality
i<
[i[
cf()
[i[
< , and remember < = cf()

cf
so by [Sh:g,
VIII,1.6](2) there is
: < cf()) strictly increasing sequence of regular cardinals

(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

54 SAHARON SHELAH
with limit ,
< cf()
/J
bd
cf()
has true connality . Let
= sup
: < +2
,
let i : cf() be i(i) = sup + 1 :
i

. If there is a function h
i<
i(i)
such that
j<cf()
i < : h(i) < j = mod D then
i<
h(i)
/D has true conality
as required; if not (D, i) is weakly normal (i.e. there is no such h - see [Sh 420]).
But for D regular, D is cf()-regular, some A
: < cf()) exemplies it and

h(i) = max : < i(i) and i A
(maximum over a nite set) is as required.
3.25
3.26 Discussion 1) In 3.23 (or 3.24) we can apply [Sh 410, 6] so = tcf(
_
i<
a
i
/D
,
where D = A :
_
iA
a
i
D
and each a
i
is nite.
In 3.18 we have gotten this also for (2
, 2
2
).
3.27 Claim. If D is a lter on , B
i
is the interval Boolean algebra on the ordinal
i
, and [
i 2
then for regular we have < Depth

+
(
i<
B
i
/D) i for
some
i

i
(for i < ) and A D
+
, the true conality of
i<
i
/(D+A)) is well
dened and equal to .
Proof. The (i.e., only if direction) is clear. For the direction assume
is regular < Depth
+
(
i 2
. Let f
(i) =
_
<n(,i)
[j
,i,2
, j
,i.2+1
) where
j
,i,
< j
,i,+1
 2
without loss of generality n

,i
=
n
i
. By [Sh 430, 6.6D] (see more [Sh 513, 6.1]) we can nd A A
=: (i, ) : i <
, < 2n
and
i,
: i < , < 2n
i
) such that (i, ) A
i,
is a limit ordinal
and
() for every f
(i,)A
i,
and < there is (, ) such that
(i, ) A
A j
,i,
=
i,
(i, ) A f(i, ) < j
,i,
<
i,
(i, ) A cf(
i,
) > 2
.
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

OS 55
Let (i) = max < 2n(i) : (i, ) A and let B = i : (i) well dened. Clearly
B D
+
(otherwise we can nd < < such that f
/D = f
/D, contradiction).
For (i, ) A dene
i,
by
i,
= sup
j,m
+1 : (j, m) A
and
j,m
<
i,
. Now
i,
<
i,
as cf(
i,
) > 2
. Let
Y = < : if(i, ) A
A then j
,i,
=
i,
and if (i, ) A then
i,
< j
,,i
<
,i
.
Let B
1
= i B : (i) is odd. Clearly B
1
B and B B
1
= mod D (otherwise
as in ()
1
, ()
2
below get contradiction) hence B
1
D
+
. Now
()
1
for < from Y we have
j
,i,(i)
: i B
1
) j
,i,(i)
: i B
1
) mod (D B
1
)
[Why? as f
/D was non decreasing in
i<
B
i
/D]
()
2
for every Y for some , < Y we have
j
,i,(i)
: i B
1
) < j
,i,(i)
: i B
1
) mod (D B
1
)
[Why? by () above.]
Together for some unbounded Z Y ,
j
,,(i)
: i B
1
)/(D B
1
) : Z
_
is
<
DB
1
-increasing, so it has a <
(DB
1
)
-eub (as > 2
), say j
i
: i B
1
) hence
iB
1
j
i
/(D B
1
) has true conality , and clearly j
i,(i)

i
, so we have
nished.
3.27
3.28 Claim. If D is a lter on , B
i
a Boolean algebra,
i
< Depth
+
(B
i
) then
(a) Depth(
i<
B
i
/D) sup
AD
+
tcf(
i<
i
/(D + A)) (i.e., on the cases tcf is well
dened)
(b) Depth
+
(
i<
B
i
/D) is Depth
+
(P()/D) and is at least
sup[tcf(
i<
i
/(D + A))]
+
:
i
< Depth
+
(B
i
), A D
+
.
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

56 SAHARON SHELAH
Proof. Check.
3.29 Claim. Let D be a lter on ,
i
: i < ) a sequence of cardinals and
2
< = cf(). Then () () () (), and if ( < )(
0
< ) we also
have () () where
() if B
i
is a Boolean algebra,
i
< Depth
+
(B
i
) then < Depth
+
(
i<
B
i
/D)
() there are
i
= cf(
i
)
i
for i < and A D
+
such that = tcf(
i
/(D+
A))
() there are
i,n
: n < n
i
) : i < ),
i,n
= cf(
i,n
) <
i
and a lter D
on
_
i<
i n
i
such that:
= tcf(
(i,n)
i,n
/D
) and D = A : the set

_
iA
i n
i
belongs to D
() for some A D
+
, T
D+A
(
i
: i < )).
Remark. So the question whether () () assuming ( < )(
0
< ) is
equivalent to () () which is a pure pcf problem.
Proof. Note () () is easy (as in 3.18, i.e., as in the proof of 3.7, only easier).
Now () () is trivial and () () by 3.28. Next () () holds as we can
use () for B
i
=: the interval Boolean algebra of the order
i
and use 3.27. Lastly
assume ( < )(
0
< ), now () () by 3.18.
3.29
Discussion: We would like to have (letting B
i
denote Boolean algebra)
Depth
(+)
(
i<
B
i
/D)
i<
Depth
(+)
(B
i
)/D
if D is just lter we should use T
D
and so by the problem of attainment (serious
by Magidor Shelah [MgSh 433]), we ask
for D an ultralter on , does
i
< Depth
+
(B
i
) for i < implies
i 2
for D a lter on , does

i
< Depth
+
(B
i
) for i < implies, assuming
i
> 2
for simplicity,
T
D
(
i
: i < )) < Depth
+
(
i<
B
i
/D).
As explained in 3.29 this is a pcf problem.
However changing the invariant (closing under homomorphisms, see [M]) we get
a nice result; this will be presented in [Sh 580].
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

58 SAHARON SHELAH
4 Remarks on the conditions for the pcf analysis
We consider a generalization whose interest is not so clear.
4.1 Claim. Suppose

=
i
: i < ) is a sequence of regular cardinals, and is a
cardinal and I
is an ideal on ; and H is a function with domain . We consider

the following statements:
()
H
lim inf
I
(
) wsat(I
) and H is a function from to P() such that:

(a) for every < we have i < : H(i) = mod I
(b) for i < we have otp(H(i))

i
or at least i < : [H(i)[
i

I
()
+
similarly but
(b)
+
for i < we have otp(H(i)) scite1.11 undened
3) Suppose in Denition 2.3(2) we say

f obeys a for H (instead of for

A
) if
(i) for a
such that =: otp(a
) < we have
otp(a
), otp(a
) H(i) f
(i) f
(i)
and in 2.3(2A), f
(i) = supf
(i) : a
and otp(a
), otp(a
) H(i).
Then we can replace 1.9() by ()
H
in 2.7, 2.8, ?; and replace 1.9() by ()
+
H
in
> scite2,6 undened
2.10 (with the natural changes).
Proof. 1) Like the proof of 1.9, but dening the g
s by induction on we change
requirement (ii) to
(ii)
if < , and i H() H() then g
(i) < g
(i).
We can not succeded as
(B
()
B
+1
()
) i < : , + 1 H(i) : < )
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

OS 59
is a sequence of pairwise disjoint member of (I
)
+
.
In the induction, for limit let g
(i) < g
(i) : H(i) and H(i) (so this

is a union at most otp(H(i) ) but only when H(i) hence is otp(H(i))
i
).
2) The proof of 1.11 is the same, in the proof of 1.12 we again replace (ii) by (ii)
.
Also the proof of the rest is the same.
3) Left to the reader.
4.1
We want to see how much weakening () of 1.9 to lim inf
I
(
) wsat(I
)
suces. If singular or lim inf
I
(
) > or just (
, <
I
) is
+
-directed then case
() of 1.9 applies. This explains () of 4.2 below.
4.2 Claim. Suppose

=
i
: i < ),
i
= cf(
i
), I
an ideal on , and
() lim inf
I
(
) = wsat(I
), regular.
Then we can dene a sequence

J = J
: < ()) and an ordinal ()

+
such
that
(a)

J is an increasing continuous sequence of ideals on
(b) J
0
= I
, J
+1
=: A : A and: A J
or we can nd h : A such
that
i
> h(i) and < i : h(i) < J
(c) for < () and A J

+1
J
, the pair (
, J
+ ( A)) (equivalently
A, J
A)) satises condition 1.9() (case ()) hence its consequences,

(in particular it satises the weak pcf-th for )
(d) if ,
<()
J
then (
,
<()
J

Proof. Straight. (We dene J
for
+
by clause (b) for = 0, successor
and as
_
<
J
for limit. Clause (c) holds by claim 4.4 below. It should be clear
that J
+
+1
= J
+, and let () = min : J

+1
=
_
<
J
so we are left with

checking clause (d). If A J
+
()
, h
iA
i
, choose by induction on < , () <
increasing with such that i < : h(i) ((), ( + 1)) J
+
()
. If we succeed
we contradict wsat(I
) as is regular. So for some < , () is well dened

but not ( + 1). As J
()
= J
()+1
, clearly i < : h(i) () = mod J
()
.
So g
(i) =
_
if <
i
0 if
i
exemplies tcf(
/J
()
) = 0.
4.2
Now:
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

60 SAHARON SHELAH
4.3 Conclusion. Under the assumptions of 4.2, I
satises the pseudo pcf-th (see

Denition 2.16(4)), hence cf(
, <
I
) = sup pcf
I
(
) (see 2.19).
4.4 Claim. Under the assumption of 4.2, if J is an ideal on extending I
the
following conditions are equivalent
(a) for some h
, for every < we have i A : h(i) < J

(b) (
, <
J+(\A)
) is
+
-directed.
Proof. (a) (b)
Let f
for < , we dene f
by
f
(i) = supf
(i) + 1 : < h(i).

Now f
(i) <
i
as h(i) <
i
= cf(
i
) and f
A <
J
f
A as i A : h(i) <
J.
(b) (a):
Let f
be the following function with domain :

f
(i) =
_
if <
i
0 if
i
As lim inf
I
, clearly < f
<
I
f
and of course f
. By our
assumption (b) there is h
such that < f
A < h A mod J. Clearly

h is as required.
4.4
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

OS 61
regular cardinals and cardinal invariants of Boolean Algebra,
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

62 SAHARON SHELAH
REFERENCES.
[JuSh 231] Istvan Juhasz and Saharon Shelah. How large can a hereditarily sepa-
rable or hereditarily Lindelof space be? Israel Journal of Mathematics,
53:355364, 1986.
[Kn] Akihiro Kanamori. Weakly normal lters and irregular ultra-lters.
Trans. of A.M.S., 220:393396, 1976.
[Kt] Jussi Ketonen. Some combinatorial properties of ultra-lters. Fund.
Math., CVII:225235, 1980.
[Ko] Peter Komjath. On second-category sets. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.,
107:653654, 1989.
[MgSh 433] Menachem Magidor and Saharon Shelah. Length of Boolean alge-
bras and ultraproducts. Mathematica Japonica, 48(2):301307, 1998.
math.LO/9805145.
[M] J. Donald Monk. Cardinal functions of Boolean algebras. circulated
notes.
[Sh 7] Saharon Shelah. On the cardinality of ultraproduct of nite sets. Jour-
nal of Symbolic Logic, 35:8384, 1970.
[Sh:a] Saharon Shelah. Classication theory and the number of nonisomor-
phic models, volume 92 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of
Mathematics. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam-New York,
xvi+544 pp, $62.25, 1978.
[Sh 233] Saharon Shelah. Remarks on the numbers of ideals of Boolean algebra
and open sets of a topology. In Around classication theory of models,
volume 1182 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, pages 151187. Springer,
Berlin, 1986.
[Sh:c] Saharon Shelah. Classication theory and the number of nonisomor-
phic models, volume 92 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of
Mathematics. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, xxxiv+705
pp, 1990.
[Sh 351] Saharon Shelah. Reecting stationary sets and successors of singular
cardinals. Archive for Mathematical Logic, 31:2553, 1991.
[Sh 400a] Saharon Shelah. Cardinal arithmetic for skeptics. Ameri-
can Mathematical Society. Bulletin. New Series, 26:197210, 1992.
math.LO/9201251.
(
5
0
6
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
0

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
8
-
0
2
-
1
1

OS 63
[Sh 420] Saharon Shelah. Advances in Cardinal Arithmetic. In Finite and In-
nite Combinatorics in Sets and Logic, pages 355383. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 1993. N.W. Sauer et al (eds.). 0708.1979.
[Sh 410] Saharon Shelah. More on Cardinal Arithmetic. Archive for Mathemat-
ical Logic, 32:399428, 1993. math.LO/0406550.
[Sh 345a] Saharon Shelah. Basic: Conalities of small reduced products. In Car-
dinal Arithmetic, volume 29 of Oxford Logic Guides, chapter I. Oxford
University Press, 1994.
[Sh:g] Saharon Shelah. Cardinal Arithmetic, volume 29 of Oxford Logic
Guides. Oxford University Press, 1994.
[Sh 430] Saharon Shelah. Further cardinal arithmetic. Israel Journal of Math-
ematics, 95:61114, 1996. math.LO/9610226.
[Sh 580] Saharon Shelah. Strong covering without squares. Fundamenta Math-
ematicae, 166:87107, 2000. math.LO/9604243.
[Sh 513] Saharon Shelah. PCF and innite free subsets in an algebra. Archive
for Mathematical Logic, 41:321359, 2002. math.LO/9807177.

Saharon Shelah - The PCF Theorem Revisited

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Saharon Shelah - The PCF Theorem Revisited

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

(

(not just that the Boolean

has no pairwise disjoint non zero elements). So 1, 2 follow

. We reconsider these problems in 3

a xed ideal on such that we consider only

) be the rst such that we

)) and in 1.12 deal with

: < ) with no <

and we dene semi-

/D for every ultralter D (disjoint to I

of course) such that

). Next we relook at the

/D: allowing to decrease

) and in 3.18 try to translate it more fully to pcf

and ( < )[[[

) proving the pseudo pcf-th (4.4).

] : < ) be dened by: A

is an upper bound of A then p p

, then f < g mod J i i < : f(i) < g(i) J.

, ) is a partial order, we denote it usually by

/D) : D is an ultralter on satisfying

/D is linearly ordered hence has true conality).

/J has true conality; we call closed

, ] = B : for no ultralter D on satisfying to which B belongs,

/D) : D is an ultralter on disjoint to I satisfying .

we may omit it, similarly in (2), (4).

we may omit it.

]. Below we list some of the obvious proper-

) (dened in 1.6 below, it is

/I is -directed then cf(

/I) and min pcf

) is non empty set of regular cardinals. [See part (7)].

) is regular then I is not weakly nor-

, and if D is an ultralter on S then E is an ultralter

is a set of regular cardinals and

/E) and tcf (

: < ) then the function

) mean: for some h

) mean: for some h

, then g =: f + 1 (dened (f +1)() = f() +1) is in

being an innite cardinal is a limit ordinal and f < g mod J.

(i) : < h(i)(and < ).

(i) f(i)) i < : h(i)

. Also for every < choose

the set i < :

witness that I is not weakly normal for (

, for some j <

we have i A : h(i) < j = A mod I.

, the choice j =: witness A J

P() by its denition. J

is closed under subsets (trivial) and under union

= i A : h(i) < j = A mod I; so A J

is not medium normal for (

. We should prove that A

= i < : h(i) < j J

(i) < g(i).

(i) < g(i) , = mod(I) (as not g

B, so by the previous sentence neccessarily

] is an ideal (of P(), i.e., on , but the ideal may not be

) (see 1.2(5)(b)) or at least

, [F[ < , and we shall

we have (f F)(f g mod J