8

4
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
7
-
2
6







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
7
-
2
6


UNIVERSAL FORCING NOTIONS AND IDEALS
ANDRZEJ ROS LANOWSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
Abstract. The main result of this paper is a partial answer to [6, Problem
5.5]: a nite iteration of Universal Meager forcing notions adds generic lters
for many forcing notions determined by universality parameters. We also give
some results concerning cardinal characteristics of the ideals determined by
those universality parameters.
0. Introduction
One of the most striking dierences between measure and category was discov-
ered in Shelah [8] where it was proved that the Lebesgue measurability of
1
3
sets
implies
1
is inaccessible in L, while one can construct (in ZFC) a forcing notion
P such that V
P
[= projective subsets of R have the Baire property. For the
latter result one builds a homogeneous ccc forcing notion adding a lot of Cohen
reals. Homogeneity is obtained by multiple use of amalgamation (see [4] for a full
explanation of how this works), the Cohen reals come from compositions with the
Universal Meager forcing notion UM or with the Hechler forcing notion D. The
main point of that construction was isolating a strong version of ccc, so called
sweetness, which is preserved in amalgamations. Later, Stern [10] introduced a
weaker property, topological sweetness, which is also preserved in amalgamations.
Sweet (i.e., strong ccc) properties of forcing notions were further investigated in
[6], where we introduced a new property called iterable sweetness (see [6, Denition
4.2.1]) and we proved the following two results.
Theorem 0.1. (1) (See [6, Proposition 4.2.2]) If P is a sweet ccc forcing notion
(in the sense of [8, Denition 7.2]) in which any two compatible elements
have a least upper bound, then P is iterably sweet.
(2) (See [6, Theorem 4.2.4]) If P is a topologically sweet forcing notion (in the
sens of Stern [10, Denition 1.2]) and Q

is a Pname for an iterably sweet

forcing, then the composition P Q

is topologically sweet.
In [6, 2.3] we introduced a scheme of building forcing notions from so called
universality parameters (see 1.2 later). We proved that typically they are sweet
(see [6, Proposition 4.2.5]) and in natural cases also iterably sweet. So the question
arose if the use of those forcing notions in iterations gives us something really new.
Specically, we asked:
Date: April 2004.
1991 Mathematics Subject Classication. 03E40, 03E17.
The rst author thanks the Hebrew University of Jerusalem for support during his visit to
Jerusalem in Spring2003. He also thanks his wife, Ma lgorzata JankowiakRos lanowska for sup-
porting him when he was working on this paper.
Both authors acknowledge support from the United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation
(Grant no. 2002323). This is publication 845 of the second author.
1
8
4
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
7
-
2
6







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
7
-
2
6


2 ANDRZEJ ROS LANOWSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
Problem 1 (See [6, Problem 5.5]). Is there a universality parameter p satisfying
the requirements of [6, Proposition 4.2.5(3)] such that no nite iteration of the
Universal Meager forcing notion adds a Q
tree
(p)generic real? Does the Universal
Meager forcing add generic reals for the forcing notions Q
tree
(p) dened from p as
in 1.11, 1.7, 1.9 here?
Bad news is that Problem 1 has a partially negative answer: if the universality
parameter p satises some mild conditions (i.e., is regular, see 1.14), then nite
iteration of UM will add a generic lter for the corresponding forcing notion, see
Corollary 2.2.
Good news is that we have more examples of iterably sweet forcings, and they
will be presented in a subsequent paper [7].
The structure of the present paper is as follows. In the rst section we recall in a
simplied form all the denitions and results we need from [6], and we dene regular
universality parameters. We also re-present the canonical examples we keep in mind
in this context. In the second section we prove our main result: a sequence Cohen
real dominating real Cohen real produces generic lters for forcing notions
Q
tree
(p) determined by regular p (see Theorem 2.1). In the following section we
look at the ideals 1
p
for regular p and we prove a couple of inequalities concerning
their cardinal characteristics.
Notation Our notation is rather standard and compatible with that of classical
textbooks (like Jech [3] or Bartoszy nski and Judah [1]). In forcing we keep the
older convention that a stronger condition is the larger one. Our main conventions
are listed below.
(1) For a forcing notion P, all Pnames for objects in the extension via P will
be denoted with a tilde below (e.g.,

, X

). The complete Boolean algebra

determined by P is denoted by RO(P).
(2) For two sequences , we write whenever is a proper initial segment
of , and when either or = . The length of a sequence is
denoted by lh().
(3) A tree is a family T of nite sequences such that for some root(T) T we
have
( T)(root(T) ) and root(T) T T.
For a tree T, the family of all branches through T is denoted by [T], and
we let
max(T)
def
= T : there is no T such that .
If is a node in the tree T then
succ
T
() = T : & lh() = lh() + 1 and
T
[]
= T : .
(4) The Cantor space 2

and the Baire space

are the spaces of all functions

from to 2, , respectively, equipped with the natural (Polish) topology.
(5) The quantiers (

n) and (

n) are abbreviations for

(m )(n > m) and (m )(n > m),
respectively. For f, g

we write f <

g (f

g, respectively) whenever
(

n )(f(n) < g(n)) ((

n )(f(n) g(n)), respectively).

8
4
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
7
-
2
6







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
7
-
2
6


UNIVERSAL FORCING NOTIONS AND IDEALS 3
(6) R
0
stands for the set of non-negative reals.
Basic convention: In this paper, H is a function from to 2 and A =

i<
H(i).
The space A is equipped with natural (Polish) product topology.
1. Regular universality parameters
Since our main result applies to a somewhat restricted class of universal param-
eters of [6, 2.3], we adopt here a simplied version of the denition of universality
parameters (it ts better the case we cover). The main dierence between our de-
nition 1.2 and [6, Def. 2.3.3] is that we work in the setting of complete tree creating
pairs (so we may ignore (K, ) and just work with trees) and T
p
is assumed to be
a singleton (so we also ignore it incorporating its function into (
p
). This simplica-
tion should increase clarity, but we still include particular examples from [6, 2.4]
(see 1.7, 1.11 at the end of this section).
Denition 1.1. (1) A nite Htree is a tree S

nN

i<n
H(i) with N < ,
root(S) = ) and max(S)

i<N
H(i). The integer N may be called the
level of the tree S and it will be denoted by lev(S).
(2) An innite Htree is a tree T

n<

i<n
H(i) with root(T) = ) and
max(T) = .
(3) The family of all nite Htrees will be denoted by FT[H], and the set of
all innite Htrees will be called IFT[H]
Denition 1.2 (Compare [6, Def. 2.3.3]). A simplied universality parameter p
for H is a pair ((
p
, F
p
) = ((, F) such that
() elements of ( are triples (S, n
dn
, n
up
) such that S is a nite Htree and
n
dn
n
up
lev(S), (), 0, 0) (;
() if: (S
0
, n
0
dn
, n
0
up
) (, S
1
is a nite Htree, lev(S
0
) lev(S
1
), and
S
1

i<lev(S
0
)
H(i) S
0
, and n
1
dn
n
0
dn
, n
0
up
n
1
up
lev(S
1
),
then: (S
1
, n
1
dn
, n
1
up
) (,
() F

is increasing,
() if:
(S

, n

dn
, n

up
) ( (for < 2), lev(S
0
) = lev(S
1
),
S FT[H], lev(S) < lev(S

), and S

i<lev(S)
H(i) S (for < 2),
lev(S) < n
0
dn
, n
0
up
< n
1
dn
, F(n
1
up
) < lev(S
1
),
then: there is (S

, n

dn
, n

up
) ( such that
n

dn
= n
0
dn
, n

up
= F(n
1
up
), lev(S

) = lev(S
0
) = lev(S
1
), and
S
0
S
1
S

and S

i<lev(S)
H(i) = S.
Denition 1.3 (Compare [6, Def. 2.3.5]). Let p = ((, F) be a simplied univer-
sality parameter for H.
(1) We say that an innite Htree T is pnarrow if for innitely many n < ,
for some n = n
dn
< n
up
we have
(T
_
nnup+1

i<n
H(i), n
dn
, n
up
) (.
8
4
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
7
-
2
6







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
7
-
2
6


4 ANDRZEJ ROS LANOWSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
(2) We dene a forcing notion Q
tree
(p):
A condition in Q
tree
(p) is a pair p = (N
p
, T
p
) such that N
p
< and T
p
is an innite pnarrow Htree.
The order on Q
tree
(p) is given by:
(N
0
, T
0
) (N
1
, T
1
) if and only if
N
0
N
1
, T
0
T
1
, and
T
1

i<N
0
H(i) = T
0

i<N
0
H(i).
Proposition 1.4 (Compare [6, Prop. 2.3.6]). If p is a simplied universality pa-
rameter, then Q
tree
(p) is a Borel centered forcing notion.
Denition 1.5 (Compare [6, Def. 3.2.1]). Let p = ((, F) be a simplied univer-
sality parameter for H.
(1) We say that p is suitable whenever:
(a) for every n < , there is N > n such that
if (S, n
dn
, n
up
) (, N n
dn
and

i<n
H(i),
then (

i<lev(S)
H(i))( & / S), and
(b) for every n < , there is N > n such that
if S is a nite Htree, lev(S) = n,

i<N
H(i) and n S,
then there is (S

, n
dn
, n
up
) ( such that n < n
dn
n
up
< N,
S S

, S

i<lev(S)
H(i) = max(S) and S

.
(2) We say that a closed set A A is pnarrow if the corresponding innite
Htree T (i.e., A = [T]) is pnarrow.
(3) 1
0
p
is the ideal generated by pnarrow closed subsets of A.
(4) 1
p
is the ideal generated by 1
0
p
.
(5) T

p
is a Q
tree
(p)name such that

Q
tree
(p)
T

p
=
_
T
p

i<N
p
H(i) : p G

Q
tree
(p)
.
Proposition 1.6 (Compare [6, Prop. 3.2.3]). Let p be a suitable simplied univer-
sality parameter for H.
(1) Every set in 1
0
p
is nowhere dense in A; all singletons belong to 1
0
p
.
(2) If T
0
, T
1
IFT[H] are pnarrow, then T
0
T
1
IFT[H] is pnarrow.
(3) 1
0
p
is an ideal and 1
p
is a proper Borel ideal of subsets of A.
(4) In V
Q
tree
(p)
, T

p
is an innite pnarrow Htree.
Let us recall some of the examples of universality parameters from [6]. We
represent them in a somewhat modied form to t the simplied setting here.
Denition 1.7 (Compare [6, Ex. 2.4.9]). Let g

and F : FT[H] R
0
and
A []

. We dene (
g,A
F
as the family consisting of (), 0, 0) and of all triples
(S, n
dn
, n
up
) such that
() S is a nite Htree, n
dn
n
up
lev(S), and
()
_
S

i<n
dn
H(i)
__


i<lev(S)
H(i)
__
& / S
_
,
and such that for some sequence Y
i
: i A [n
dn
, n
up
]) we have
() Y
i
FT[H], lev(Y
i
) = i + 1, F(Y
i
) g(i) (for all i A [n
dn
, n
up
)), and
8
4
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
7
-
2
6







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
7
-
2
6


UNIVERSAL FORCING NOTIONS AND IDEALS 5
()
_
max(S)
__
i A [n
dn
, n
up
)
__
i max(Y
i
)
_
.
If A = then we may omit it and write (
g
F
.
Proposition 1.8. Let F
H

be an increasing function such that

_
n <
__
(n + 1)
2

in
H(i) < F
H
(n)
_
and let g

, A []

. If a function F : FT[H] R
0
satises
_
S FT[H]
__
[ max(S)[ = 1 F(S) = 0
_
,
then ((
g,A
F
, F
H
) is a suitable simplied universality parameter.
Example 1.9. Let g

, A []

.
(1) Let F
0
, F
1
: FT[H] R
0
be dened by
F
0
(S) = max
_
[succ
S
(s)[ : s S max(S)
_
1 and F
1
(S) = [ max(S)[ 1
(for S FT[H]). Then both ((
g,A
F0
, F
H
) and ((
g,A
F1
, F
H
) are suitable simpli-
ed universality parameters.
(2) Let F
2
: FT[H] R
0
be dened by F
2
()) = 0 and
F
2
(S) =

_
lev(S) 1
_
: max(S)
_

1
when lev(S) > 0. Then ((
g,A
F2
, F
H
) is s suitable simplied universality
parameter.
(3) Suppose that (K, ) is a local tree creating pair for H (see [5, 1.3, Def.
1.4.3]) such that
for each n < ,

i<n
H(i) and a non-empty set X H(n), there is a
unique tree creature t
,X
K satisfying pos(t
,X
) =

k) : k X,
if n < ,

i<n
H(i), X H(n) and [X[ = 1, then nor[t
,X
] = 0.
For S FT[H] let
F
3
(S) = F
K,
3
(S)
def
= max(nor[t

] :

S),
where t

:

S) is the unique nite treecandidate such that pos(t

) =
succ
S
() for

S = S max(S). Then ((
g,A
F3
, F
H
) is a suitable simplied
universality parameter.
Remark 1.10. The universality parameters from 1.9 are related to the PPproperty
and the strong PPproperty (see [9, Ch VI, 2.12*], compare also with [5, 7.2]).
Note that if A []

and g

then an innite Htree T is ((

g,A
F2
, F
H
)narrow
if and only if there exist sequences w = w
i
: i A) and n = n
k
: k < ) such that

_
i A
__
w
i
H(i) & [w
i
[ g(i) + 1
_
, and
n
k
< n
k+1
< for each k < , and

_
[T]
__
k <
__
i A [n
k
, n
k+1
)
__
(i) w
i
_
.
Denition 1.11 (Compare [6, Ex. 2.4]). Let (
cmz
H
consist of (), 0, 0) and of all
triples (S, n
dn
, n
up
) such that S FT[H], n
dn
n
up
lev(S) and
[S

i<nup
H(i)[
[

i<nup
H(i)[

nup

i=n
dn
1
(i + 1)
2
.
8
4
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
7
-
2
6







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
7
-
2
6


6 ANDRZEJ ROS LANOWSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
Proposition 1.12. (1) Let F
H
be as in 1.8. Then p
cmz
H
= ((
cmz
H
, F
H
) is a
suitable simplied universality parameter.
(2) An innite Htree T is p
cmz
H
narrow if and only if [T] is of measure zero
(with respect to the product measure on A).
(3) 1
p
cmz
H
is the ideal of subsets of A generated by closed measure zero sets.
Denition 1.13. (1) A coordinate-wise permutation for H is a sequence =

n
: n < ) such that (for each n < )
n
: H(n) H(n) is a bijection.
We say that such is an ncoordinate-wise permutation if
i
is the identity
for all i > n.
(2) A rational permutation for H is an ncoordinate-wise permutation for H
(for some n < ). The set of all ncoordinate-wise permutations for H will
be called rp
n
H
and the set of all rational permutation will be denoted by
rp
H
(so rp
H
=

n
rp
n
H
).
(3) Let be a coordinate-wise permutation for H. We will treat as a bijection
from

i<n
H(i) onto

i<n
H(i) such that for

i<n
H(i) (n ) and
i < n we have ()(i) =
i
((i)).
Denition 1.14. A simplied universality parameter p = ((, F) for H is called a
regular universality parameter whenever
(a) p is suitable (see 1.5(1)), and
(b) ( is invariant under rational permutations, that is
if rp
H
and (S, n
dn
, n
up
) (, then ( [S], n
dn
, n
up
) (.
Proposition 1.15. (1) Suppose that F
H

, g

, A []

and a
function F : FT[H] R
0
are as in 1.8. Assume also that
_
S FT[H]
__
rp
H
__
F(S) = F( [S])
_
.
Then ((
g,A
F
, F
H
) is a regular universality parameter.
(2) For i = 0, 1, 2, ((
g,A
Fi
, F
H
) (dened in 1.7(1,2)) is a regular universality
parameter.
From now on we will assume that all universality parameters we consider are
regular. The ideals associated with regular parameters are much nicer than those in
the general case, and they are more directly connected with the respective universal
forcing notions.
Lemma 1.16. Suppose that T IFT[H] is a pnarrow tree. Then there are a p
narrow tree T

IFT[H] and a strictly increasing sequence n = n

k
: k < )
such that
(a) T T

and for every k < :

(b)
k
if
0
,
1
T

in
k
H(i) and rp
n
k
H
are such that (
0
) =
1
, then
[(T

)
[0]
] = (T

)
[1]
, and
(c)
k
if a nite Htree S FT[H] is such that
lev(S) = n
k+1
+ 1, and
for all
0
S

in
k
H(i) and
1
T

in
k
H(i) and rp
n
k
H(i)
such
that (
0
) =
1
we have: [S
[0]
] (T

)
[1]
,
then (S, n
k
+ 1, n
k+1
) (.
8
4
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
7
-
2
6







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
7
-
2
6


UNIVERSAL FORCING NOTIONS AND IDEALS 7
Proof. We will dene n
k
and T

nn
k
+1

i<n
H(i) inductively. We let n
0
= 0 and
T

i0
H(i) = T

i0
H(i). Now suppose that n
k
and T

nn
k
+1

i<n
H(i) have
been already chosen. Let
T
+
=
_
[T] : rp
n
k
H
.
It follows from 1.6(2) that T
+
is a pnarrow tree, so we may pick n
k+1
> n
k
such
that
_
T
+

_
nn
k+1

i<n
H(i), n
k
+ 1, n
k+1
_
(.
We choose T

nn
k+1
+1

i<n
H(i) so that
T

in
k+1
H(i) =
_
T
+
: lh() = n
k+1
+ 1 & (n
k
+ 1) T

in
k
H(i)
_
,
completing the inductive denition. Now it should be clear that n and T

are as
required.
Proposition 1.17. (1) The ideal 1
0
p
is invariant under coordinate-wise per-
mutations.
(2) For every A 1
p
there is A

1
0
p
such that
A
_
[A

] : rp
H
.
(3)
Q
tree
(p)
T

p
is a pnarrow tree such that for every closed set A 1
0
p
coded
in V, there is n < with A

[ [T

p
]] : rp
n
H
.
Proof. (3) It follows from 1.6(4) that
Q
tree
(p)
T

p
is pnarrow .
Suppose now that p = (N, T) Q
tree
(p) and A A is a closed set from 1
0
p
.
Pick S IFT[H] such that
[S

iN
H(i)[ = 1, say S

iN
H(i) =
0
, and
S is pnarrow, and
A

[ [S]] : rp
N
H
.
Now we may pick a condition q Q
tree
(p) stronger than p and such that N
q
= N
and
_
[S] : rp
N
H
& (
0
) T T
q
.
Then q
Q
tree
(p)
A

[ [T

p
]] : rp
N
H
.
2. Generic objects for regular universal forcing notions
In this section we present our main result: a sequence
Cohen real dominating real Cohen real
produces generic lters for forcing notions Q
tree
(p) determined by regular univer-
sality parameters p.
Theorem 2.1. Let p = ((, F) be a regular universality parameter for H.
(1) Suppose that V V

are universes of set theory, p V, T V

and c

are such that

8
4
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
7
-
2
6







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
7
-
2
6


8 ANDRZEJ ROS LANOWSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
(a) T IFT[H] is a pnarrow tree such that for every closed set A 1
0
p
coded in V, there is n < with A

[ [T]] : rp
n
H
, and
(b) c is a Cohen real over V

.
Then, in V

, there is a generic lter G

_
Q
tree
(p)
_
V
over V.
(2) Suppose that V V

are universes of set theory, p V, c

and d

are such that

(a) c is a Cohen real over V, and
(b) d is dominating over V

.
Then, in V

, there is a pnarrow tree T IFT[H] such that for every

closed set A 1
0
p
coded in V, there is n < with A

[ [T]] : rp
n
H
.
Proof. (1) The proof essentially follows the lines of that of this result for the case
of the Universal Meager forcing notion by Truss [11, Lemma 6.4]. So suppose that
T, c are as in the assumptions. Let n = n
k
: k < ), T

be as given by 1.16
for T (so they satisfy 1.16(ac)).
Consider the following forcing notion C

= C

( n, T

):
A condition in C

is a nite Htree S such that lev(S) = n

k
+1 for some k < .
The order relation
C
on C

is given by:
S
0

C
S
1
if and only if S
0
S
1
and S
1


i<lev(S0)
H(i) = max(S
0
), and
() if lev(S
0
) = n
k
+ 1, lev(S
1
) = n

+ 1,
0
max(S
0
),
1
T

in
k
H(i)
and rp
n
k
H
are such that (
1
) =
0
,
then [(T

)
[1]

in

H(i)] (S
1
)
[0]
.
Plainly, C

is a countable atomless forcing notion, so it is equivalent to the Cohen

forcing C. Therefore the Cohen real c determines a generic lter G
c
C

over
V

. Letting T
c
=

G
c
we get an innite Htree, T
c
V

. By an easy density
argument, for innitely many k < , for each
0
T
c

in
k
H(i),
1
T

in
k
H(i)
and rp
n
k
H
such that (
0
) =
1
we have
(T

)
[1]

in
k+1
H(i) = [(T
c
)
[0]
]

in
k+1
H(i).
Hence T
c
is pnarrow (remember 1.16(c)). Also, because of the denition of the
order,
() if S G
c
, lev(S) = n
k
+1, then for every
0
max(S),
1
T

in
k
H(i)
and rp
n
k
H
such that (
1
) =
0
we have [(T

)
[1]
] T
c
.
Suppose now that D V is an open dense subset of
_
Q
tree
(p)
_
V
. In V

we
dene C
D
C

as the collection of all S C

such that for some k < and

T

IFT[H] V we have
(n
k
, T

) D, and T

in
k
H(i) = max(S), and
T

[T

] : pr
n
k
H
.
Claim 2.1.1. C
D
V

is an open dense subset of C

.
Proof of the Claim. Working in V

, let S
0
C

, n
k0
= lev(S
0
)1. Pick an innite
Htree S
+
IFT[H] such that S
+

in
k
0
H(i) = max(S
0
) and
8
4
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
7
-
2
6







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
7
-
2
6


UNIVERSAL FORCING NOTIONS AND IDEALS 9
if S
+
, T

and lh() = lh() = n

k0
+ 1 and rp
n
k
0
H
are such that
() = ,
then (S
+
)
[]
= [(T

)
[]
].
In V, take a maximal antichain / D of Q
tree
(p)
V
such that N
p
> n
k0
for each
p /. It follows from 1.4 that then also / is a maximal antichain of Q
tree
(p)
V

in
V

. Therefore some condition p = (N

p
, T
p
) / is compatible with (n
k0
+1, S
+
)
_
Q
tree
(p)
_
V

. Note that then (N

p
> n
k0
and)
T
p

in
k
0
H(i) = S
+

in
k
0
H(i) = max(S
0
)
and S
+

i<N
p
H(i) T
p

i<N
p
H(i). Take k < such that n
k
> N
p
> n
k0
and
T
p

[T] : rp
n
k
H
(remember the assumption 2.1(1)(a) on T). Let
S
1
def
= (S
+
T
p
)
_
nn
k
+1

i<n
H(i) FT[H].
Then S
1
C

is a condition stronger than S

0
.
Note that T
p
, S
1
V, so we may nd T

IFT[H] V such that:

T

in
k
H(i) = max(S
1
), and
if T
p

in
k
H(i), then (T

)
[]
= (T
p
)
[]
, and
if (T

T
p
)

in
k
H(i), then (T

)
[]
= [(T
p
)
[]
] for some T
p

in
k
H(i) and rp
n
k
H
such that () = .
It follows from the choice of k and from the choice of T

(remember 1.16(a,b))
that for each
0
T
p
,
1
T

, rp
n
k
H
such that lh(
0
) = lh(
1
) = n
k
+ 1 and
(
1
) =
0
we have (T
p
)
[0]
[(T

)
[1]
]. Therefore,
T

_
[T

] : pr
n
k
H
.
It should also be clear that (n
k
, T

)
_
Q
tree
(p)
_
V
is stronger than p D, and
therefore it also belongs to D. Consequently, (n
k
, T

) witnesses that S
1
C
D
,
proving the density of C
D
.
To show that C
D
is open suppose that S
0
C
D
, S
0

C
S
1
C

. Let lev(S
0
) =
n
k
+ 1, lev(S
1
) = n

+ 1 and let (n
k
, T

) witness that S
0
C
D
. By the denition
of the order of C

, [(T

)
[1]

in

H(i)] (S
1
)
[0]
whenever
0
max(S
0
),
1

T

in
k
H(i) and rp
n
k
H
is such that (
1
) =
0
. Since T

[T

] : pr
n
k
H

and T

in
k
H(i) = max(S
0
), we may conclude that T

in

H(i) max(S
1
).
Consequently we may nd T

IFT[H] V such that

T

and T

in

H(i) = max(S
1
), and
T

in
k
H(i) = T

in
k
H(i), and
T

[T

] : rp
n

[T

] : rp
n

H
.
Then easily (n

, T

)
_
Q
tree
(p)
_
V
is stronger than (n
k
, T

), so it belongs to D and
thus it witnesses that S
1
C
D
.
8
4
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
7
-
2
6







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
7
-
2
6


10 ANDRZEJ ROS LANOWSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
Claim 2.1.2. Let
G
def
=
_
p
_
Q
tree
(p)
_
V
: T
p
T
c
& T
p

iN
p
H(i) = T
c

iN
p
H(i)
_
V

.
Then G is a generic ler in
_
Q
tree
(p)
_
V
over V.
Proof of the Claim. By 1.6(2), G is a directed subset of
_
Q
tree
(p)
_
V
. We need that
G D ,= for every open dense subset D V of
_
Q
tree
(p)
_
V
. So let D V
be an open dense subset of
_
Q
tree
(p)
_
V
and let C
D
be as dened before 2.1.1. It
follows from 2.1.1 that G
c
C
D
,= , say S G
c
C
D
. Then for some k < and
T

IFT[H] V we have
(n
k
, T

) D, and
T

in
k
H(i) = max(S), and T

[T

] : pr
n
k
H
.
Now, by (), we may conclude that T

T
c
getting (n
k
, T

) G.
(2) Suppose that c, d and V V

are as in the assumptions. In V,

consider the following forcing notion C

:
A condition in C

is a pair ( n, S) such that

() n = n
i
: i k) is a strictly increasing nite sequence (so k < ),
() S FT[H] is a nite Htree such that lev(S) = n
k
+ 1, and for < k:
()

if
0
,
1
S, lh(
0
) = lh(
1
) = n

+1, and rp
n

H
is such that (
0
) =
1
,
then [S
[0]
] = S
[1]
, and
()

if
T FT[H], lev(T) = n
+1
+ 1 and
for each
0
S,
1
T, lh(
0
) = lh(
1
) = n

+ 1 and rp
n

H
such
that (
0
) =
1
we have T
[1]
[S
[0]
],
then there is n < such that n

+1 < n F(n) < n

+1
and (T, n

+1, n)
(.
The order relation
C
on C

is essentially that of the end-extension:

( n
0
, S
0
)
C
( n
1
, S
1
) if and only if n
0
n
1
, S
0
S
1
and S
1


i<lev(S0)
H(i) =
max(S
0
).
Since C

is a countable atomless forcing notion, the Cohen real c V

deter-
mines a generic lter G
c
C

over V, G
c
V

. Put
n
c
=
_
n: (S)(( n, S) G
c
) V

and T
c
=
_
S: ( n)(( n, S) G
c
) V

.
Then n
c
= n
c
i
: i < ) is strictly increasing and T
c
IFT[H], and
_
k <
__
_
T
c
: lh() n
k+1
+ 1, n
k
+ 1, n
k+1
_
(
_
Note that if
0
,
1
T
c
, lh(
0
) = lh(
1
) = n
k
+ 1 and rp
n
k
H
is such that
(
0
) =
1
, then [(T
c
)
[0]
] = (T
c
)
[1]
.
Since, in V

, there is a dominating real over V

, we may nd K

= k

i
: i <
[]

(the enumeration is increasing) such that

(K []

)(

i)([K [k

i
, k

i+1
)[ > 2).
8
4
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
7
-
2
6







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
7
-
2
6


UNIVERSAL FORCING NOTIONS AND IDEALS 11
Let A be the set of all A =

i<
H(i) such that
_
i <
__
[k

i
, k

i+1
)
__
(n
+1
+ 1)
_
[T
c
] : rp
n

_
.
Clearly, A is a closed subset of A (coded in V

). Let T

IFT[H] V

be an
innite Htree such that [T

] = A.
Claim 2.1.3. The tree T

is pnarrow.
Proof of the Claim. Let i < . For [k

i
, k

i+1
) let
T

def
=
_

_
nn
k

i+1
+1

i<n
H(i) : (n
+1
+ 1)
_
[T
c
] : rp
n

_
and then let
S
i
def
=
_
T

: k

i
< k

i+1

(so T

FT[H] and also S

i
FT[H]). Note that for each as above, by ()

, there
is n

such that n

+1 < n

F(n

) < n
+1
and (T

, n

+1, n

) (. Thus we may
use repeatedly 1.2() to conclude that (S
i
, n
k

i
+ 1, n
k

i+1
) (. Since
T

i<

_
n<

j<n
H(j) : (n
k

i+1
+ 1) S
i

we may easily nish the proof of the Claim.

Claim 2.1.4. For every pnarrow tree T

IFT[H] V there is k < such that

T

[T

] : rp
n
k
H
.
Proof of the Claim. Let T

V be pnarrow.
Suppose that ( n
0
, S
0
) C

, n
0
= n
0
i
: i k). Since T
+
def
=

[T

] : rp
n
0
k
H

is also a pnarrow tree, we may nd m > n
0
k
+ 1 such that
( T
+
: lh() F(m) + 3, n
0
k
+ 1, m) (.
Let n
1
= n
0
F(m) + 2), and let a nite Htree S
1
be such that
max(S
1
) = T
+

i<F
G
(m)+3
H(i) : (n
k
+ 1) S
0
.
It should be clear that ( n
1
, S
1
) C

is a condition stronger than ( n

0
, S
0
).
Using the above considerations we may employ standard density arguments to
conclude that the set
K
T

def
=
_
< : for all
0
T
c
,
1
T

such that lh(

0
) = lh(
1
) = n

+ 1,

[(T

)
[1]

in
+1
H(i)] : rp
n

H
& (
1
) =
0
T
c
_
is innite (and, of course, K
T
V

). Therefore, by the choice of the set K

,
for some N < we have (i N)([K
T
[k

i
, k

i+1
)[ > 2). Thus, for each i N we
may nd (k

i
, k

i+1
) such that
if
0
T

,
1
T
c
, lh(
0
) = lh(
1
) = n

+ 1, lh() = n
+1
+ 1, and
rp
n

H
is such that (
0
) =
1
,
then () T
c
.
8
4
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
7
-
2
6







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
7
-
2
6


12 ANDRZEJ ROS LANOWSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
Hence we may conclude that
_
i N
__
(k

i
, k

i+1
)
__
T

in
+1
+1
H(i)
_
[T
c
] : rp
n

_
and therefore T

[T

] : rp
nN
H
(just look at the choice of T

).

Corollary 2.2. Suppose that p is a regular universality parameter for H and P is

either the Hechler forcing (i.e., standard dominating real forcing) or the Univer-
sal Meager forcing (i.e., the amoeba for category forcing). Then Q
tree
(p) can be
completely embedded into RO(P P

).
3. Ideals 1
p
Let us recall that for an ideal 1 of subsets of the space A we dene cardinal
coecients of 1 as follows:
the additivity of 1 is add(1) = min[/[ : / 1 &

/ / 1;
the covering of 1 is cov(1) = min[/[ : / 1 &

/ = A;
the conality of 1 is cof (1) = min[/[ : / 1 & (B 1)(A /)(B A);
the uniformity of 1 is non(1) = min[A[ : A A & A / 1.
The dominating and unbounded numbers are, respectively,
d = min[T[ : T

& (g

)(f T)(g

f)
b = min[T[ : T

& (g

)(f T)(f ,

g).
Below, /denotes the ideal of meager subsets of A (or of any other Polish perfect
space).
For the rest of this section let us xed a regular universality parameter p = ((, F)
for H.
Corollary 3.1. add(/) add(1
p
).
Proof. It should be clear how the proof of 2.1(2) should be rewritten to provide
argument for
min
_
b, cov(/)
_
add(1
p
).
(Alternatively, see the proof of the dual version of this inequality in 3.2 below.) By
well known results of Miller and Truss we have min
_
b, cov(/)
_
= add(/) (see
[1, Corollary 2.2.9]), so the corollary follows.
Corollary 3.2. cof (1
p
) cof (/).
Proof. By a well known result of Fremlin we have cof (/) = max
_
d, non(/)
_
(see
[1, Theorem 2.2.11]). Thus it is enough to show that
cof (1
p
) max
_
d, non(/)
_
.
Let C

be the forcing notion dened at the beginning of the proof of 2.1(2). Let
}
def
=
_
( n, T)

IFT[H] :
_
k <
__
( n(k+1), T : lh() n
k
+1) C

_
_
be equipped with the natural Polish topology. Let = max
_
d, non(/)
_
and
choose sequences K

: < ) and ( n

, T

) : < ) so that
(i) K

= k

i
: i []

(the enumeration is increasing),

(ii) (K []

)( < )(

i )([K (k

i
, k

i+1
)[ > 2),
8
4
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
7
-
2
6







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
7
-
2
6


UNIVERSAL FORCING NOTIONS AND IDEALS 13
(iii) the set ( n

, T

) : < is not meager (in }).

For , < and N < let
A
N
,
def
=
_
A :
_
i N
__
[k

i
, k

i+1
)
__
(n

+1
+1)
_
[T

] : rp
n

H

__
.
Then:
()
1
Each A
N
,
is a closed pnarrow subset of A.
[Why? See the proof of 2.1.3.]
()
2
For each pnarrow tree T

IFT[H], there is < such that the set

K

def
=
_
< : for all
0
T

,
1
T

such that lh(

0
) = lh(
1
) = n

+ 1,

[(T

)
[1]

in

+1
H(i)] : rp
n

H
& (
1
) =
0
T

_
is innite.
[Why? By (iii) and an argument similar to the one in the proof of 2.1.4.]
()
3
For each pnarrow tree T

IFT[H] there are , < and N < such

that [T

] A
N
,
.
[Why? By ()
2
+(ii) and an argument as in the proof of 2.1.4.]
Consequently, A
N
,
: , < & N < is a conal family in 1
0
p
. Hence, by
1.17(2),
_
_
[A
0
,
] : rp
H
: , <
_
is a basis of 1
p
.
Proposition 3.3. add(1
p
) b and d cof (1
p
).
Proof. Recall that A =

n<
H(n) and / = /(A) is the ideal of meager subsets
of A. We are going dene two functions

: /

and :

1
0
p
.
First, for each n < , pick a nite Htree S
n
FT[H] such that
(a) lev(S
n
) > n, S
n


i<n
H(i) =

i<n
H(i),
(b) (S
n
, n, lev(S
n
)) (,
and let m
n
= lev(S
n
). Put M
n
= maxm
j
: j n (for n < ). Now, for f

let f

be dened by f

(0) = f(0), f

(n + 1) = M
f

(n)+f(n+1)
, and let
(f) =
_
A : (n < )(m
f

(2n)
S
f

(2n)
)
_
.
Note that, for any f

, f

is strictly increasing and (f) 1

0
p
.
Now suppose that B A is meager and let T
n
IFT[H] be such that T
n

T
n+1
(for n < ) and each [T
n
] is nowhere dense (in A) and B

n<
[T
n
]. Let

(B)

be dened by letting

(B)(0) = 0 and

(B)(n+1) = min
_
k < : k > M

(B)(n)
&
(

iM

(B)(n)
H(i))(

i<k
H(i))( / T
n+1
)
_
.
Claim 3.3.1. If f

and B A is meager, and (

n < )(

(B)(n) < f(n)),

then (f) B ,= .
8
4
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
7
-
2
6







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
7
-
2
6


14 ANDRZEJ ROS LANOWSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
Proof of the Claim. Assume that (

n < )(

(B)(n) < f(n)). Then the set

K =
_
n < : (k < )(f

(2n)

(B)(k) <

(B)(k + 1) < f

(2n + 2))
_
is innite. Now we may pick A such that for each n < we have:
(i) m
f

(2n)
S
f

(2n)
, and
(ii) if n K, then for some k such that
f

(2n)

(B)(k) <

(B)(k + 1) < f

(2n + 2)
we have

(B)(k + 1) / T
n+1
.
It should be clear that the choice is possible; note that for n, k as in (ii) we have
f

(2n) < lev(S

f

(2n)
) = m
f

(2n)
< M
f

(2n)
M

(B)(k)
.

The proposition follows from 3.3.1: if T

is an unbounded family, then

(f) : f T / 1
p
, and if B 1
p
is a basis of 1
p
, then

(B) : B B is a
dominating family in

.
It was shown in [2] that the additivity of the ideal generated by closed measure
zero sets (i.e., the one corresponding to p
cmz
H
of 1.11) is add(/). We have a similar
result for another specic case of 1
p
:
Proposition 3.4. Suppose that H : 2 and g : 2 is such that
g(n) + 1 < H(n) for all n < . Let A []

and p = ((
g,A
F2
, F
H
) (see 1.9(2)).
Then add(1
p
) = add(/).
Proof. Since p is a regular universality parameter (by 1.15), we know that add(/)
add(1
p
) b (by 3.1, 3.3). So for our assertion it is enough to show that add(1
p
)
cov(/).
Let us start with analyzing sets in 1
p
. Suppose that n, w are such that
()
0
n = n
k
: k < ) is a strictly increasing sequence of integers such that
A [n
k
, n
k+1
) ,= for each k < ,
()
1
w = w
i
: i A), w
i
[H(i)]
g(i) + 1
for each i A.
Put
Z( n, w)
def
=
_

i<
H(i) : (

k < )(i A [n
k
, n
k+1
))((i) w
i
)
_
.
It follows from 1.10 that Z( n, w) 1
p
. Moreover, for every Z 1
p
there are n, w
satisfying ()
0
+ ()
1
and such that Z Z( n, w) (by 1.10+1.17(2)).
Claim 3.4.1. Suppose that n

, w

satisfy ()
0
+()
1
above (for = 0, 1). Assume
that Z( n
0
, w
0
) Z( n
1
, w
1
). Then (

k < )(i A [n
0
k
, n
0
k+1
))(w
0
i
= w
1
i
).
Proof of the Claim. If the assertion fails, then (as [w
0
i
[ = [w
1
i
[ = g(i) + 1 < H(i))
we have (

k < )(i A [n
0
k
, n
0
k+1
))(w
0
i
w
1
i
,= ). Consequently we may pick
Z( n
0
, w
0
) such that (i A)((i) / w
1
i
). Then / Z( n
1
, w
1
), contradicting
Z( n
0
, w
0
) Z( n
1
, w
1
).
Claim 3.4.2. Suppose that f : 2, < add(1
p
) and f

: <

i<
f(i). Then there is a function f

i<
f(i) such that
_
<
__

i <
__
f

(i) = f

(i)
_
.
8
4
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
7
-
2
6







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
7
-
2
6


UNIVERSAL FORCING NOTIONS AND IDEALS 15
Proof of the Claim. Pick an increasing sequence a
i
: i < ) of members of A so
that f(i) <

[H(a
i
)]
g(a
i
) + 1

for all i < ). For each i x a one-to-one mapping

i
: f(i) [H(a
i
)]
g(a
i
) + 1
. Now, for < , k < and j A let
n

k
= a
k
and w

k
=
_

i
_
f

(i)
_
if j = a
i
, i < ,
g(j) + 1 if j / a
i
: i < .
Then n

, w

satisfy ()
0
+ ()
1
above and thus Z( n

, w

) 1
p
(for all < ).
Since < add(1
p
) we know that

<
Z( n

, w

) 1
p
and therefore we may nd
n, w such that they satisfy ()
0
+ ()
1
and
_
<
__
Z( n

, w

) Z( n, w)
_
. It
follows from 3.4.1 that
_
<
__

k <
__

k
(f

(k)) = w

a
k
= w
a
k
_
.
Let f

i<
f(i) be such that if k < and w
k
Range(
k
), then
k
(f

(k)) = w
k
.
It should be clear that then f

is as required.
The proposition follows now from 3.4.2 and the inequality add(1
p
) b.
To generalize the above result to the ideals 1
p
(for a regular universality param-
eter p) one would like to know the answer to the following question.
Problem 3.5. Suppose that p is a regular universality parameter for H. Does
add(1
p
) cov(/)?
References
[1] Tomek Bartoszy nski and Haim Judah. Set Theory: On the Structure of the Real Line. A K
Peters, Wellesley, Massachusetts, 1995.
[2] Tomek Bartoszynski and Saharon Shelah. Closed measure zero sets. Annals of Pure and
Applied Logic, 58:93110, 1992. math.LO/9905123.
[3] Thomas Jech. Set theory. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
2003. The third millennium edition, revised and expanded.
[4] Haim Judah and Andrzej Ros lanowski. On Shelahs Amalgamation. In Set Theory of the
Reals, volume 6 of Israel Mathematical Conference Proceedings, pages 385414. 1992.
[5] Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah. Norms on possibilities I: forcing with trees
and creatures. Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society, 141(671):xii + 167, 1999.
math.LO/9807172.
[6] Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah. Sweet & Sour and other avours of ccc forcing
notions. Archive for Mathematical Logic, 43:583663, 2004. math.LO/9909115.
[7] Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah. How much sweetness is there in the universe?
Mathematical Logic Quarterly, 52:7186, 2006. math.LO/0406612.
[8] Saharon Shelah. Can you take Solovays inaccessible away? Israel Journal of Mathematics,
48:147, 1984.
[9] Saharon Shelah. Proper and improper forcing. Perspectives in Mathematical Logic. Springer,
1998.
[10] Jacques Stern. Regularity properties of denable sets of reals. Annals of Pure and Applied
Logic, 29:289324, 1985.
[11] John Truss. Sets having calibre
1
. In Logic Colloquium 76, volume 87 of Studies in Logic
and the Foundations of Mathematics, pages 595612. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1977.
8
4
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
7
-
2
6







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
7
-
2
6


16 ANDRZEJ ROS LANOWSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
Department of Mathematics, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, NE 68182-
0243, USA
E-mail address: roslanow@member.ams.org
URL: http://www.unomaha.edu/aroslano
Einstein Institute of Mathematics, Edmond J. Safra Campus, Givat Ram, The Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 91904, Israel, and Department of Mathematics,
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08854, USA
E-mail address: shelah@math.huji.ac.il
URL: http://www.math.rutgers.edu/shelah