Anda di halaman 1dari 20

(

7
9
4
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1


REFLECTION IMPLIES THE SCH
SH794
Saharon Shelah
Institute of Mathematics
The Hebrew University
Jerusalem, Israel
Rutgers University
Mathematics Department
New Brunswick, NJ USA
Abstract. We prove that, e.g., if > cf() =
0
and > 2

0
and every stationary
family of countable subsets of
+
reect in some subset of
+
of cardinality
1
then
the SCH for
+
holds (moreover, for
+
, any scale for
+
has a bad stationary set
of conality
1
). This answers a question of Foreman and Todorcevic who gets such
conclusion from the simultaneous reection of four stationary sets.
2000 Mathematics Subject Classication. 03E04, 03E05.
Key words and phrases. reection, stationary sets, Singular Cardinal Hypotheses, pcf, set
theory.
The author would like to thank the Israel Science Foundation for partial support of this research
(Grant No. 242/03)
I would like to thank Alice Leonhardt for the beautiful typing.
First Typed - 01/12/18
Done - Dec. 2001
Latest Revisions - 07/Oct/1
Typeset by A
M
S-T
E
X
1
(
7
9
4
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1


2 SAHARON SHELAH
0 Introduction
In 1 we prove that the strong hypothesis (pp() =
+
for every singular )
hence the SCH (singular cardinal hypothesis, that is


+
+ 2

) holds when:
for every
1
every stationary S []

0
reect in some A []

1
.
This answers a question of Foreman and Todorcevic [FoTo] where they proved
that the SCH holds for every
1
when: every four stationary S

[]

0
, =
1, 2, 3, 4 reect simultaneously in some A []

1
. They were probably motivated
by Velickovic [Ve92a] which used another reection principle: for every stationary
A []

0
there is A []

1
such that A [A]

0
contains a closed unbounded
subset, rather than just a stationary set.
The proof here is self-contained modulo two basic quotations from [Sh:g], [Sh:f];
we continued [Sh:e], [Sh 755] in some respects. We prove more in 1. In particular
if > cf() =
0
and pp() >
+
then some A [
+
]

0
reect in no uncountable
A [
+
]

and see more in the end.


We thank the referee and Shimoni Garti for not few helpful comments.
For the readers convenience let us recall some basic denitions.
0.1 Denition. Assume is regular uncountable (if =
+
, [B]
<
= [B]

, we
can use [B]

, the main case is B = )


(a) A [B]
<
is closed in [B]
<
, if for every x

: < A where
0 < < and
1
<
2
< x

1
x

2
, we have

<
x

A
(b) A is unbounded in [B]
<
, if for any y [B]
<
we can nd x A, such
that x y
(c) A is a club in [B]
<
, if A [B]
<
and (a)+(b) hold for A
(d) A is stationary in [B]
<
, or is a stationary subset of [B]
<
when A [B]
<
and A C ,= for every club C of [B]
<
(e) similarly for [B]

or [B]

or consider S [B]
<
as a subset of [B]

.
0.2 Remark. Note: if B = then A [B]
<
is stationary i A is a stationary
subset of .
0.3 Denition. Let A [B
1
]
<
and B
2
[B
1
]

. We say that A reects in B


2
when A [B
2
]
<
is a stationary subset of [B

]
<
.
(
7
9
4
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1


REFLECTION IMPLIES THE SCH SH794 3
0.4 Denition. Let be a regular uncountable cardinal, and assume A is a
stationary subset of [B]
<
. We dene
A
(i.e., the diamond principle for A) as
the following assertion:
there exists a sequence u
a
: a A), such that u
a
a for any a A, and for every
B

B the set a A : B

a = u
a
is stationary in [B

]
<
.
0.5 Notation. 1) For regular > let S

= < : cf() = .
2) H () is the set of x with transitive closure of cardinality < .
3) <

denotes any well ordering of H ().


Let us repeat the denition of the next ideal: (see [Sh:E12]).
0.6 Denition. For S we say that S

I[] i: there is a club E in , and a
sequence C

: < ) such that:


(i) C

for every <


(ii) otp(C

) <
(iii) C

= C

(iv) E S = sup(C

).
0.7 Claim. (By [Sh 420] or see [Sh:E12]).
1) If , are regular and >
+
then there is a stationary S S

such that
S

I[].
2) In 0.6 we can add E S otp(C

) = cf().
0.8 Denition/Observation. Let A []

be stationary and > and


has uncountable conality then prj

(A) := sup(a) : a A, and it is a stationary


subset of ; if = we may omit it.
0.9 Denition. Let f
i
be a function with domain
0
to the ordinals, for every
i I where I is a set of ordinals. We say that the sequence

f = f
i
: i I)
is free, if we can nd a sequence n = n
i
: i I) of natural numbers such that:
(i, j I) (i < j) (n
i
, n
j
n < ) f
i
(n) < f
j
(n). We say that

f is -free
when for every J [I]
<
the sequence

f J is free.
0.10 Remark. If we consider f

: S) for some stationary S when


= cf() >
0
, then we can assume (without loss of generality) that n
i
= n() for
every i S, as we can decrease S.
(
7
9
4
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1


4 SAHARON SHELAH
1 Reflection in [
+
]

0
and the strong hypothesis
1.1 The Main Claim. Assume
(A) =
+
and > cf() =
0
and
2

(e.g.,

=
2
which implies
that below always =
1
)
(B)

=
n
: n < ) is an increasing sequence of regular cardinals >
1
with
limit and = tcf(
n
, <
J
bd

)
(C)

f = f

: < ) is <
J
bd

-increasing conal in (

n<

n
, <
J
bd

)
(D) the sequence

f is

-free or at least for every cardinal for which


1
=
cf() <

the following is satised: if <

, A []

0
is stationary
(recall 0.2) and
i
: i < ) is an increasing continuous sequence of ordinals
< then for some stationary subfamily A
1
of A (A
1
is stationary in []

0
of course) letting R
1
= prj

(A
1
), see 0.8 we have f

i
: i R
1
) is free. See
0.9 and by 0.10 we can assume that i R
1
n
i
= n() so f

i
(n) : i R
1
)
is strictly increasing for every n [n(), ).
Then some stationary A []

0
does not reect in any A []

1
or even in any
uncountable A []
<

, (see Denition 0.3).


1.2 Remark. 0) From the main claim the result on SCH should be clear from pcf
theory (by translating between the pp,cov and cardinal arithmetic) but we shall
give details (i.e. quotes).
1) Clause (D) from claim 1.1 is related to the good set of

f, gd(

f) contains S

modulo the club lter. But the clause (D) is stronger.


Note that the good set gd(

f) of

f is < :
0
< cf() < and for some
increasing sequence
i
: i < cf()) of ordinals with limit and sequence n = n
i
:
i < cf()) of natural numbers we have i < j < cf() n
i
n < n
j
n <
f

i
(n) < f

j
(n) (so f

i
(n) : i < cf() and n n
i
: n < ) is a <
J
bd

-eub of

f ).
If we use another ideal J say on < , the n
i
is replaced by s
i
J.
2) Recall that by using the silly square ([Sh:g, II,1.5A,pg.51]), if cf() < , J
an ideal on (e.g. =
0
, J = J
bd

) and pp
J
() > = cf() > then we can
nd a sequence
i
: i < ) of regulars < such that = lim
J

i
: i < ) and
tcf(

i<

i
, <
J
) = and some

f = f

: < ) exemplifying it satises gd(



f) =
< : < cf() < and moreover

f is
+
-free which here means that for every
u of cardinality we can nd s

: u) such that s

J, and for <


(
7
9
4
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1


REFLECTION IMPLIES THE SCH SH794 5
from u we have (s

) f

() < f

(). This is stronger than the demand


in clause (D).
3) Also recall that if is supercompact, > > = cf() and
i
: i < ) is
an increasing sequence of regulars with limit , f

: < ) exemplies =
+
=
tcf(

i<

i
, <
J
bd

) then for unboundedly many

Reg
+
the set S

gd(

f)
is stationary. This is preserved by e.g. Levy(
1
, < ).
4) For part of the proof (mainly subclaim 1.5) we can weaken clause (D) of the
assumption, e.g. in the end demand f

i
(n) ,= f

j
(n) only. The weakest version
of clause (D) which suces there is: for any club C of the set Rang(f

) : C
has cardinality .
Before proving 1.1 we draw some conclusions.
1.3 Conclusion. 1) Assume > 2

0
then

0
=
+
provided that
(A)

> cf() =
0
(B)

every stationary A [
+
]

0
reects in some A [
+
]

1
.
2) Assume


2
. We can replace (B)

by
(B)
,

every stationary A [
+
]

0
reects in some uncountable A [
+
]
<

.
Proof. 1) Easily if
1

then (B)

holds. Now if is a counterexample,


without loss of generality is a minimal counterexample and then by [Sh:g, IX,1]
we have pp() >
+
, hence there is a sequence
0
n
: n < ) of regular cardinals with
limit such that
++
= tcf(

n<

0
n
/J
bd

), (see [Sh:g]; more [Sh:E12] or [Sh 430,


6.5]; e.g. using no hole for pp and the pcf theorem). Let

f
0
= f
0

: <
++
)
witness this. Hence by [Sh:g, II,1.5A,p.51] there is

f as required in 1.1 even a

+
-free one and also the other assumptions there hold so we can conclude that
there exists A [
+
]

0
which does not reect in any A [
+
]

1
, so we get a
contradiction to (B)

.
2) The same proof.
1.3
1.4 Conclusion. 1) If for every >
1
, every stationary A []

0
reects in some
A []

1
, then
(a) the strong hypothesis (see [Sh 410], [Sh 420], [Sh:E12]) holds, i.e. for every
singular , pp() =
+
and moreover cf([]
cf()
, ) =
+
which follows
(b) the SCH holds.
(
7
9
4
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1


6 SAHARON SHELAH
2) Let
0
. We can restrict ourselves to >
+
, A []

+
(getting the strong
hypothesis and SCH above ).
Proof. 1) As in 1.3, by 1.1 we have > cf() =
0
pp() =
+
, this implies
clause (a) (i.e. by [Sh:g, VIII,1], > cf() pp() =
+
). Hence inductively by
[Sh:g, IX,1.8,pg.369], [Sh 430, 1.1] we have < cf([]

, ) = if cf() >
and is
+
if > cf(). This is a consequence of the strong hypothesis.) The
SCH follows.
2) The same proof.
1.4
Proof of 1.1. Let M

be an algebra with universe and countably many functions,


e.g. all those denable in (H (
+
), , <

+
,

f) and are functions from to or just
the functions f

(n), + 1.
1.5 Subclaim. There are

S, S

,

D such that:
()
1

S = S

: <
1
) is a sequence of pairwise disjoint stationary subsets of
S

0
()
2
(i) S

1
= < : cf() =
1
is stationary and belongs to

I[]
(ii) if S

then there is an increasing continuous sequence

: <
1
)
of ordinals with limit such that for some sequence

=

: R) of
ordinals <
1
, the set R
1
is stationary, R

and

is
with no repetitions
()
3
(i)

D = (D
1,
, D
2,
) : <
1
)
(ii) D
,
is a lter on containing the lter of cobounded subsets of
(iii) if R
1

1
is unbounded and A D
1,
: R
1
then for some R
1
we have A ,= mod D
2,
(iv) for each <
1
for some A we have A D
1,
& A D
2,
.
1.6 Remark. 1) For 1.5 we can assume (A), (B), (C) of 1.1 and weaken clause (D):
because (inside the proof below) necessarily for any stationary S

1
, which
belongs to

I[], we can restrict the demand in (D) of 1.1 for any
i
: i < ) with
limit in S

. See more in [Sh 775].


2) In Subclaim 1.5 we can demand

= in ()
2
(ii). See the proof.
3) If we like to demand that each D
,
is an ultralter (or just have A D
2,
in
the end of ()
3
(iii) of 1.5), use [Sh:E3].
(
7
9
4
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1


REFLECTION IMPLIES THE SCH SH794 7
Proof of the subclaim 1.5. How do we choose them?
Let A
i
: i
1
) be a sequence of innite pairwise almost disjoint subsets of .
Let D
1,i
= A : A
i
A is nite, D
2,i
= A : A
j
A is nite for all but
nitely many j <
1
, so D
2,i
does not depend on i. Clearly (D
1,i
, D
2,i
) : i <
1
)
satises ()
3
.
Recall, 0.7, that by 0.7 and the fact that >

>
2
, there is a stationary
S

1
from

I[], and so every stationary S

has the same properties (i.e.


is a stationary subset of which belongs to

I[] and is included in S

1
).
Let N (H ((2

)
+
), , <

) be of cardinality such that +1 N and

, ,

f
belongs to N. Let C

= C : C N is a club of , so clearly C

is a club of .
For each h

(
1
) we can try

S
h
= S
h

: <
1
) where S
h

= < : cf() =
0
and h() = , so it is enough to show that for some h N, the sequence

S
h
is as
required. As |N| < , for this it is enough to show that for every S

1
C

(or
just for every S

, or just for stationarily many S

) the demand
holds for

S
h
for some h (

(
1
)) N. That is, S

h
satises ()
1
and ()
2
(ii) of
subclaim 1.5. Given any S

1
C

let

: <
1
) be an increasing continuous
sequence of ordinals with limit , without loss of generality <
1
cf(

) =
0
,
and by assumption (D) of 1.1 for some
1
stationary R
1
and n = n() < , the
sequence f

(n) : R) is strictly increasing, so let its limit be

. So


and cf(

) =
1
but + 1 N hence

N.
Note that
()
1
for every

<

the set S

0
: f

(n()) [

) is a stationary
subset of .
[Why? So assume that

<

and that the set S

= S

0
: f

(n()) [

)
is not a stationary subset of . As

+1 N and

f N clearly S

N hence there
is a club C

of disjoint to S

which belongs to N. Clearly acc(C

) too is a club of
which belongs to N hence C

acc(C

) hence acc(C

). So = sup(C

),
so C

is a club of . Recall that

: R is a stationary subset of of order


type
1
.
Now by the choice of

for some () R we have

()
(n()), hence
R() f

(n()) [

), so has a stationary subset included in S

hence disjoint to C

, contradiction.]
()
2
for every

<

there is

) such that S

0
: f

(n())
[

) is a stationary subset of .
[Why? Follows from ()
1
as
1
< .]
1
Note that if we require just that f

(n) : R is without repetitions, then for some


stationary subset R

of R the sequence f

(n) : R

is increasing.
(
7
9
4
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1


8 SAHARON SHELAH
As

N we can nd an increasing continuous sequence

: <
1
) N of
ordinals with limit

. So by ()
2
()
3
for every
1
<
1
for some
2
(
1
,
1
) the set S

0
: f

(n())
[

1
,

2
) is stationary.
Hence for some unbounded subset u of
1
we have
()
4
for every u the set S

0
: f

(n()) [

,
+1
) is a stationary
subset of .
If 2

1
then u =
1
recalling we demand

: <
1
) N.
We dene h :
1
by h() = i for some u we have = otp(u
f

(n())) and/or = 0 & f

(n()) sup(u).
Clearly h N is as required. So

S =

S
h
as required exists. But maybe 2

1
> ,
then after ()
3
we continue as follows. Let

C = C

: S

1
) be such that C

is a club of of order type


1
which guess clubs, i.e. for every club C of
3
for
stationarily many S

1
we have C

C, exists by [Sh:g, III]. Without loss of


generality

C N.
Now let

acc(C

) has conality
3
. Again

belongs to N hence
some increasing continuous sequence

: <
3
) N has limit

. Now for
each S

1
we could choose above =

hence for some n

< we have
(

<

)(

<

)[

<

(
stat
S

0
)(

(n

) <

]. So for some
n

< the set S

:= <
3
: cf() =
1
and n

= n

is a stationary subset of S

1
.
It follows that ( <
3
)( <
3
)[ < (
stat
S

0
)(

(n

) <
+1
)].
Let

be the minimal as required above, so C = <


3
: if < then

< and is a limit ordinal is a club of


3
. Hence for some () S

1
we have
C
()
C. Let u :=

: C
()
so clearly

: u) belongs to N.
1.5
1.7 Remark. Why cant we, in the proof of 1.5, after ()
3
, put the instead assuming
2

1
use as N (H (2

)
+
), , <

) without loss of generality u = w


1
?
The set u chosen above depends on , so if 2

1
still u N, but otherwise
the without loss of generality u N does not seem to be justied.
Continuation of the proof of 1.1. Let S := S

: <
1
. For <
1
, S

let
A

= a :a []

0
is M

-closed, sup(a) = ,
otp(a) and
(
D
1,
n)(a
n
f

(n))
and (
D
2,
n)(a
n
f

(n))
(
7
9
4
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1


REFLECTION IMPLIES THE SCH SH794 9
A

= A

: S

A = A

: <
1
.
So
A []

0
.
As the case

=
2
was the original question and its proof is simpler we rst prove
it.
1.8 Subclaim. A does not reect in any A []

1
.
Proof. So assume A []

1
, let a
i
: i <
1
) be an increasing continuous sequence
of countable subsets of A with union A, and let R = i <
1
: a
i
A, and
assume toward contradiction that R is a stationary subset of
1
. As every a A
is M

-closed, necessarily A is M

-closed and so without loss of generality each a


i
is M

-closed.
For each i R as a
i
A by the denition of A we can nd
i
<
1
and
i
S

i
such that a
i
A

i
hence by the denition of A

i
we have otp(a
i
)
i
. But
as A = a
i
: i <
1
with a
i
countable increasing with i and [A[ =
1
, clearly
for some club E of
1
the sequence otp(a
i
) : i E) is strictly increasing, hence
i E otp(i E) otp(a
i
) so without loss of generality i E i otp(a
i
)
and without loss of generality i < j E
i
< j otp(a
j
).
Now j E R j otp(a
j
)
j
so
i
: i E R) is strictly increasing
but S

: <
1
) are pairwise disjoint and
i
S

i
so
i
: i E R) is without
repetitions; but
i
= sup(a
i
) and for i < j from R E we have a
i
a
j
which
implies that
i
= sup(a
i
) sup(a
j
) =
j
so necessarily
i
: i R E) is strictly
increasing.
As sup(a
i
) =
i
for i R E, clearly sup(A) =
i
: i E R and let

i
= Min(A
i
) for i <
1
, it is well dened as
j
: j R E) is strictly
increasing. Thinning E without loss of generality

1
i < j E R
i
<
j
&
i
a
j
.
Note that, by the choice of M

2
i E R i < j E R
i
a
j

n
(f

i
(n) a
j
)

n
(f

i
(n) + 1
a
j
).
As
i
: i E R) is (strictly) increasing continuous and R E is a stationary
subset of
1
clearly by clause (D) of the assumption of 1.1 we can nd a stationary
(
7
9
4
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1


10 SAHARON SHELAH
R
1
E R and n() such that i R
1
j R
1
i < j n() n < f

i
(n) <
f

j
(n).
Now if i R
1
, let j(i) =: Min(R
1
(i + 1)), so f

i

J
bd

i
<
J
bd

j(i)
so for
some m
i
< we have n [m
i
, ) f

i
(n) f

i
(n) < f

j(i)
(n). Clearly for some
stationary R
2
R
1
we have i, j R
2
m
i
= m
j
= m(), so possibly increasing
n() without loss of generality n() m(); so we have (where Ch
a

n<

n
is
dened by Ch
a
(n) = sup(a
n
) for any a []
<
0
):

3
for i < j from R
2
we have j(i) j and
() f

i
[n(), ) f

i
[n(), )
() f

i
[n(), ) < f

j(i)
[n(), ) f

j
[n(), )
() f

i
[n(), ) < Ch
a
j
[n(), ), by
2
.
Now by the denition of A

i
as a
i
A

i
A

i
we have

4
if i R
2
then
() Ch
a
i

D
1,
i
f

i
() f

i
<
D
2,
i
Ch
a
i
.
Let f

n<

n
be f

(n) = f

i
(n) : i R
2
if n n() and zero otherwise. As
f

i
(n) a
j(i)
for i R
2
by
3
() clearly n n() f

(n) supCh
a
i
(n) : i
R
2
= sup(A
n
) = Ch
A
(n) and by
3
() we have n n() cf(f

(n)) =
1
.
Let B
1
=: n < : n n() and f

(n) = sup(A
n
) and B
2
=: [n(), )B
1
. As
A + 1 A we have n B
1
A
n
f

(n) = sup(A
n
). Also as by
the previous sentence f

[n(), ) Ch
A
[n(), ) clearly n B
2
A
n

f

(n). As a
i
: i R
2
) is increasing with union A, clearly there is i() R
2
such
that: n B
2
a
i()

n
f

(n), so as i R
2
& a
i
+ 1 a
i
we have i() i R
2
Ch
a
i
B
2
> f

i
B
2
hence by clause
4
() we have
i R
2
i() B
2
= mod D
1,
i
B
1
D
1,
i
. Also by
3
and the choice
of f

and B
1
, for each n B
1
for some club E
n
of
1
we have i E
n
R
2

sup(a
i

n
) = supf

j
(n) : j R
2
i = supf

j
(n) : j R
2
i f

i
(n), hence
R
3
= R
2

E
n
i() : n < is a stationary subset of
1
. So n B
1
& i
R
3
a
i

n
f

i
(n) hence i R
3
Ch
a
i
B
1
f

i
B
1
hence by
4
() we
have i R
3
B
1
= mod D
2,
i
hence i R
3
B
2
D
2,
i
.
By the choice of (D
1,i
, D
2,i
) : i <
1
) in 1.5 as B
1
B
2
is a conite subset of
, B
1
B
2
= (by the choice of B
1
, B
2
, clearly) and R
3

1
is stationary we get
a contradiction, see ()
3
(iii) of 1.5.
1.8
(
7
9
4
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1


REFLECTION IMPLIES THE SCH SH794 11
1.9 Subclaim. A is a stationary subset of []

0
.
Remark. See [RuSh 117], [Sh:f, XI,3.5,pg.546], [Sh:f, XV,2.6].
We give a proof relying only on [Sh:f, XI,3.5,pg.546]. In fact, also if we are
interested in Ch
N
= sup( N) :
0
< N Reg), N (H (), ) we have full
control, e.g., if

S = S

:
1
Reg ), S

0
stationary we can demand

1
= cf() N Ch
N
() S

and control the order of f


a,
sup(N)
and
Ch
N
a.
Proof. Let M

be an expansion of M

by countably many functions; without loss


of generality M

has Skolem functions.


Recall that S

1
is from 1.5 so it belongs to

I[] and let a = a

: < )
witness it (see 0.6, 0.7) so otp(a

)
1
and a

= a

, and omitting
a non-stationary subset of S

we have S

otp(a

) =
1
& = sup(a

).
Let
T

= : is a nite sequence of ordinals, (2n) < and


(2n + 1) <
n
.
Let

= if g() is even and

=
n
if g() = 2n + 1 and let I

be the non-
stationary ideal on

for T

, so (T

I) is well dened where



I := I

: T

).
For T

, let M

be the M

-closure of () : < g() so each M

is
countable and T

and for lim(T

) =

: n T

for every n < let M

= M
n
: n < , so it is enough to prove that M

A
for some lim(T

), more exactly [M

[ A recall M

as M

has Skolem functions. Let



M = M

: T

) and we can nd a subtree


T T

such that
(T

, I) (T, I) and for some

<
1
we have lim(T) otp(M

) =

(recalling (T

, I) (T, I) means T T

, ( T

)( < g())(
T

), <> T

and ( T)( <

: ) T

,= mod I

, i.e. is
stationary)).
Why? As lim(T

) = B

: <
1
, see
4
below, and by
1
below each B

is a Borel subset of lim(T

) and note that says the ( <


1
)(T)[(T

, I)
(T, I) lim(T) B

). The existence of such is, e.g., [Sh:f, XI;3.5,p.546]; the


reader may ask to justify the sets being Borel, so let u

be the universe of M

, a
countable set of ordinals.
(
7
9
4
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1


12 SAHARON SHELAH
So we use

1
for any <
1
the set B

= lim(T) : otp(u

) = is a Borel set.
[Why? Without loss of generality u

,= and let
,n
: n < ) enumerate the
members of u

and for n
1
, n
2
< and m
1
, m
2
< let B
n
1
,n
2
,m
1
,m
2
:=
lim(T

) :
n
1
,m
1
<
n
2
,m
2
.
Clearly

2
B
n
1
,n
2
,m
1
,m
2
is an open subset of lim(T

3
there is a L

1
,
sentence

in the vocabulary consisting of p


n
1
,n
2
,m
1
,m
2
,
:
n
1
, n
2
, m
1
, m
2
< such that: the ps are propositional variables (i.e. 0-
place predicates) and if
n,m
: n, m < ) is a sequence of ordinals and
p
n
1
,n
2
,m
1
,m
2
is assigned the truth value of
n
1
,m
1
<
n
2
,m
2
then =
otp
n,m
: n, m < i

is assigned the truth value true

4
lim(T

) = B

: <
1
.
[Why? As otp(M

) < |M

|
+
=
1
. Together should be clear.]
Note that for every T

of length 2n + 2 we have T

is

+
n
-complete. As we can shrink T further by [Sh:f, XI,3.5,pg.346] without loss of
generality
for every n < and T
2n+2
for some =

<
n
we have: if
lim(T) then

= sup(
n
M

).
[Why? As above applied to each T

=
>
: T.]
Let = (2

)
+
and N

B = (H(), , <

) for < be increasing continuous,


|N

| = , N

, N

: ) N

+1
and (T, I,

M, a,

f,

, ) N

, clearly
possible and E = < : N

= is a club of , hence we can nd () S

E,
so a
()
is well dened. Let

N

= N

: < ). Let C
()
be the closure of a
()
as
a subset of () in the order topology and let

: <
1
) list C
()
in increasing
order, so is increasing continuous.
We dene N

by induction on <
1
by:
()
0
N

is the Skolem hull in B of

: < N

: < ),

N

: < (T, I,

M, a,

f,

, ).
Let
()
1
g

n<

n
be dened by g

(n) = sup(N


n
).
(
7
9
4
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1


REFLECTION IMPLIES THE SCH SH794 13
Clearly
()
2
(a) N

: ) N

()
and even N

for every [ + 1,
1
)
(b) C
()
(

+ 1) and a

belongs to N

for [ + 1,
1
).
[Why? For clause (a), N

: ) appear in the set whose Skolem Hull is N

. For
clause (b) because a N

()
and a
()
a

= a
()
and C
()
(

+1) =
the closure of a

+1
(

+ 1).]
Let e = <
1
: is a limit ordinal and N


1
= . So
()
3
(a) e is a club of
1
,
(b) if e then sup(N

) =

= N

, N

and < <

1
N

hence
()
4
if + 2 < e then g

, g
+1
N
+2
N

.
Now

f is increasing and conal in

n<

n
hence
()
5
if < e then g

<
J
bd

and f

<
J
bd

.
Also easily
()
6
if < e then g

< g

.
For n < , <
1
let N
,n+1
be the Skolem hull inside B of N


n
and let
N
,0
= N

. Easily
()
7
if n m < and <
1
then g

(m) = sup(N
,n

m
).
Recall that

is the order type of M

for every lim(T).


Choose acc(e) such that >

for some [,
1
) (possible by
subclaim 1.5 particularly clause ()
2
(ii)) and choose
k
e for k < such that

k
<
k+1
< =

: < . We also choose n


k
by induction on k < such that
()
8
(a) n

< n
k
< for < k
(b) g

k+1
[n
k
, ) < f

[n
k
, ).
[Why is this choice possible? By ()
5
.]
Stipulate n
1
= 0.
(
7
9
4
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1


14 SAHARON SHELAH
Let B
1
D
1,
be such that B
2
= B
1
D
2,
, exists by clause ()
3
(iv) of
subclaim 1.5.
Now we choose
n
by induction on n < such that
(a)
n
T and g(
n
) = n
(b) m < n
m

n
(c) if n [n
k1
, n
k
) then
2n
,
2n+1
N

k
,n
(d) if n [n
k1
, n
k
) then
2n+1
(2n) = Min < :
2n
) T and

k1
if k > 0
(e) if n [n
k1
, n
k
) and n B
1
then
2n+2
(2n + 1) = Min <
n
:

2n+1
) T
(f) if n [n
k1
, n
k
) and n B
2
then
2n+2
(2n + 1) = Min <
n
:

2n+1
) T and > f

(n).
No problem to carry the induction.
[Clearly if
n
is well dened then
n+1
(n) is well dened (by clause (c) or (d) or
(e) according to the case; hence
n+1
T
n+1
is well dened by why clause (c)
holds, i.e. assume n [n
k1
, n
k
), why
2n
,
2n+1
N

k,n
?
Case 1: If n = 0, then
2n
=<> N

k
,n
trivially.
Case 2:
2n
is O.K. hence N

k,n
and show
2n+1
N

k,n
.
[Why? Because N

k
,n
B, if k = 0 as
2n+2
(2) is dened from
2n
and T both of
which belongs to N

k
,n
. If k > 0 we have to check that also

k1
N

k
,n
which
holds by ()
0
.
Case 3:
2n+1
is O.K. so N

k
,n
and we have to show
2n+2
N

k
,n+1
.
As
2n+2
(n) <
n
N

k
,n+1
this should be clear.]
Let =
n
: n < . Clearly lim(T) hence u =: [M

[ []

0
and
M

, hence it is enough to prove that u A.


Now

1
sup(u)

[Why? As
n
belongs to the Skolem hull of N

hence M

n

N

and N

as

E.]

2
sup(u)

n
, for every n <
[by clause (d) of ]

3
sup(u) =

[Why? By
1
+
2
]
(
7
9
4
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1


REFLECTION IMPLIES THE SCH SH794 15

and >

= otp(u)
[Why? By the choice of ]

5
if n n
0
, n > 0 and n B
1
then u
n
f

(n)
[Why? By the choice of
2n+2
(2n+1), i.e., let k be such that n [n
k1
, n
k
),
so
2n+1
N

k
,n
by clause (c) and by clause (e) of we have
2n+2
(2n+1)

n
N

k
,n
hence by above, as lim(T) we have
(2n+2)
=

2n+2
=
sup(u
n
) and as

M N

k
,n
we have

2n+2
N

k
,n
so sup(u
n
) =

2n+2
< sup(N

k
,n

n
) but the latter is equal to sup(N

k

n
) by ()
7
which is equal to g

k
(n) which is < f

(n) by ()
8
, as required.]

6
if n n
1
and n B
2
then u
n
f

(n)
[Why? By the choice of
2n+2
(2n + 1).]
So we are done.
1.9
This (i.e., 1.8 + 1.9) is enough for proving 1.1 in the case

=
2
. In general we
should replace 1.8 by the following claim.
1.10 Claim. The family A does not reect in any uncountable A []
<

.
Proof. Assume A is a counterexample.
Trivially

0
A is M

-closed.
For a A let ((a), (a)) be such that a A
(a)
(a)
hence (a) = sup(a), otp(a)
(a). Let A

= A [A]

0
and let = (a) : a A

. Of course, ,= .
Assume that
n
for n < so let
n
= (a
n
) where a
n
A so necessarily

n
S
(a
n
)
. As A is uncountable we can nd a countable b such that a
n
b A and
(a
n
) < otp(b) for every n < and as A

[A]

0
is stationary we can nd c such
that b c A

; so (c) otp(c) otp(b) > (a


n
) &
n
S
(a
n
)
& (a
n
) =

n
sup(a
n
) sup(c) = (c) for each n < . So if (a
n
) =
n
= (c), n <
necessarily (a
n
) = (c) contradiction so
n
,= (c); hence (c) > (a
n
) and, of
course, (c) so n <
n
< (c) . As
n
for n < were any members
of , clearly has no last element, and let

= sup(). Similarly cf(

) =
0
is
impossible, so clearly cf(

) >
0
and let = cf(

) so [A[ <

and is a
regular uncountable cardinal.
As a A

sup(a) = and A

[A]

0
is stationary clearly A

= sup(A) =
sup(). Let
i
: i < ) be increasing continuous with limit

and if
i
S

then
we let
i
= .
For i < let
i
= Min(A
i
), so
i

i
<

,
i
A and i < j <
i

j
.
But i <
i
<

(j)(i < j <


i
<
j
) so for some club E
0
of we
(
7
9
4
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1


16 SAHARON SHELAH
have i < j E
0

i
<
j

j
; as we can replace
i
: i < ) by
i
: i E
0
)
without loss of generality
i
<
i+1
hence
i
: i < ) is strictly increasing.
Let A

:=
i
: i < and let H : []

0
be H(b) = supi :
i
b and let
J := R : the family b A

: H(b) R = b A

: sup(i < :
i
b)
R is not a stationary subset of [A

0
.
Clearly

1
J is an
1
-complete ideal on extending the non-stationary ideal and / J
by the denition of the ideal

2
if B J
+
(i.e., B P()J) then a A

: H(a) B is a stationary
subset of []

0
.
By clause (D) of the assumption of 1.1, for some stationary R
1
J
+
and n
i
<
for i R
1
we have

3
if i < j are from R
1
and n n
i
, n
j
(but n < ) then f

i
(n) < f

j
(n).
Recall that

4
i < j R
1

i
<
j
.
Now if i R
1
, let j(i) = Min(R
1
(i + 1)), so f

i

J
bd

i
<
J
bd

j(i)
hence for
some m
i
< we have n [m
i
, ) f

i
(n) f

i
(n) < f

j(i)
(n). Clearly for some
n() satisfying
n()
> and R
2
R
1
from J
+
we have i R
2
n
i
, m
i
n(),
so

5
for i < j in R
2
we have
() f

i
[n(), ) f

i
[n(), )
() f

i
[n(), ) < f

j
[n(), ).
Let f

n<

n
be dened by f

(n) = f

i
(n) : i R
2
if n n() and zero
otherwise. Clearly f

(n) sup(A
n
) for n < .
Let A

= a A

: (i < )(i a
i
a
i

i
) supi R
2
:
i
a =
supi :
i
a = sup(a ) R
2
and sup(A
n
) > f

(n) a
n
f

(n). As
R
2
J
+
clearly A

is a stationary subset of [A]

0
.
Let R
3
= i R
2
: i = sup(i R
2
) so R
3
R
2
, R
2
R
3
is a non-stationary subset
of (hence belongs to J) and a A

sup(a)
i
: i R
3
.
Let
(
7
9
4
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1


REFLECTION IMPLIES THE SCH SH794 17
A

a [A]

0
:(a)
min(R
2
)
a and a is M

-closed
(b) if i R
2
& j = Min(R
2
(i + 1)) then [a
i
a
j
] and
n [n(), ) & a
n
f

i
(n) a
n
f

j
(n) ,=
(c) if i < & n [n(), ) then ()(
i
a)
(j)(i < j < &
j
a) ()(f

i
(n) a f

(n)) and
(d) if A
n
f

(n) then a
n
f

(n)
but ( a)( + 1 a)
hence sup (a
n
) > f

(n)

.
Clearly A

is a club of [A]

0
(recall that A is M

-closed). But if a A

, then
for some limit ordinal i R
3
we have a sup(a) =
i
and n [n(), )
sup(a f

(n)) = sup(a f

j
(n) : j R
2
).
Let
B
1
= n : n() n < and A
n
f

(n) = sup(A
n
).
B
2
= n : n() n < and f

(n) < sup(A


n
).
Clearly B
1
, B
2
are disjoint with union [n(), ) recalling A + 1 A by

0
.
By the denition of A

, for every a A

, we have

6
n B
2
Ch
a
(n) f

(n) > f
(a)
(n)

7
n B
1
Ch
a
(n) = f

(n) : R
2
(a) f
(a)
(n).
But this contradicts the observation below.
1.11 Observation. If B , then for some <
1
we have:
if a A is M

-closed and n < : sup(a


n
) f
sup(a)
(n) = B mod J
bd

,
then otp(a) < .
Proof. Read the denition of A (and A

, A

) and subclaim 1.5 particularly ()


3
.

1.11
,
1.10
,
1.1
(
7
9
4
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1


18 SAHARON SHELAH
Remark. Clearly 1.11 shows that we have much freeness in the choice of A

s.
We can get somewhat more, as in [Sh:e]
1.12 Claim. In Claim 1.1 we can add to the conclusion
() A satises the diamond, i.e.
A
.
Proof. In 1.5 we can add
()
5
2n + 1 : n < = mod D
,
for < 2, <
1
.
This is easy: replace D
,
by D

,
= A : n : 2n A D
,
. We can x
a countable vocabulary and for <
1
choose a function F

from P() onto


N : N is a -model with universe such that F

(A) = F

(B) if A = B mod
nite.
Case 1: > 2

0
.
Lastly, for a A let
a
,
a
be such that a A

a
and let A
a
= n : sup(a

2n+1
) < f

a
(2n), and let N
a
be the -model with universe a such that the one-
to-one order preserving function from onto a is an isomorphism from F

(N) onto
N. Note that in the proof of A []

0
is stationary, i.e. of 1.9, given a -
model M with universe without loss of generality
0
> 2

0
and so can demand
that the isomorphism type of M

is the same for all lim(T) and, of course,


M M

. Hence the isomorphic type of M u

is the same for all lim(T)


where u

is the universe of M

. Now in the choice for B


1
we can add the demand
F

(n : 2n + 1 B
1
) is isomorphic to M u

for every lim(T).


Now check.
Case 2: 2

0
.
Similarly letting 2n + 1 : n < be the disjoint union of B

n
: n < ), each
B
n
innite. We use A
a
B

n
to code model with universe for some <
1
, by
a function F
n
. We then let N
a
be the model with universe a sucht hat the order
preserving function from a onto a countable ordinal is an isomorphism from N
a
onto F
n
(A
a
B

n
) : n < when the union is a -model with universe .
Now we cannot demand them all M

, lim(T) has the same isomorphism


type but only the same order type. The rest should be clear.
1.12
We can also generalize
(
7
9
4
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1


REFLECTION IMPLIES THE SCH SH794 19
1.13 Claim. We can weaken the assumption of 1.1 as follows
(a) = cf() > instead =
+
(still necessarily

)
(b) replace J
bd

by an ideal J on containing the nite subsets,


n
= cf(
n
) >

1
, = lim
J

n
: n < ) but not necessarily n <
n
<
n+1
and add
P()/J is innite (hence uncountable).
Proof. In 1.5 in ()
3
we choose A

: <
1
), a sequence of subsets of such
that A

/J : <
1
) are pairwise distinct. This implies some changes and waiving

n
<
n+1
requires some changes in 1.9, in particular for each n using B

:
S

0
) with B

= lim(T

) : a
n
and the partition theorem [Sh:f,
XI,3.7,pg.549].

1.13
(
7
9
4
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
7
-
1
0
-
0
1


20 SAHARON SHELAH
REFERENCES.
[FoTo] Matthew Foreman and Stevo Todorcevic. A new L owenheim-
Skolem theorem. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society,
357:16931715, 2005.
[RuSh 117] Matatyahu Rubin and Saharon Shelah. Combinatorial problems on
trees: partitions, -systems and large free subtrees. Annals of Pure
and Applied Logic, 33:4381, 1987.
[Sh:E3] S. Shelah. On some problems in general topology. In Set Theory, Boise
ID, 19921994, volume 192 of Contemporary Mathematics, pages 91
101. 0708.1981.
[Sh:E12] Saharon Shelah. Analytical Guide and Corrections to [Sh:g].
math.LO/9906022.
[Sh:e] Saharon Shelah. Nonstructure theory, accepted. Oxford University
Press.
[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: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 Mathe-
matics, 95:61114, 1996. math.LO/9610226.
[Sh:f] Saharon Shelah. Proper and improper forcing. Perspectives in Mathe-
matical Logic. Springer, 1998.
[Sh 755] Saharon Shelah. Weak Diamond. Mathematica Japonica, 55:531538,
2002. math.LO/0107207.
[Sh 775] Saharon Shelah. Middle Diamond. Archive for Mathematical Logic,
44:527560, 2005. math.LO/0212249.
[Ve92a] Boban Velickovic. Forcing axioms and stationary sets. Advances in
Mathematics, 94:256284, 1992.