Strong partition relations below the power set: consistency, was Sierpinski right, II?

eft to the reader (after reading [Sh:80] or [Sh:154a]).

asy; e.g. for (1A) we can use (6).

We induct on n; for n+1 and given d_{n+1} : \bigcup \big\{ [{}^{\alpha}2]^{n+1} : \alpha < \mu \big\} \to \sigma and \mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mu<\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu^{n+1} = \langle {<_\alpha^{n+1}} : \alpha < \mu \rangle, we apply \Pr_\mathrm{ehtn}^\mathrm{fe}(\mu, n, {<\sigma}). We get T.

Let f = \mathrm{clp}_T : T \to {}^{\mu>}2 be as in 2.1(5). Define \mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mu<\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu^* = \langle {<_\alpha^*} : \alpha < \mu \rangle and d_n as follows:

1. For \alpha < \mu and \eta_0,\eta_1 \in {}^{\alpha}2, \mathrm{clp}_T(\nu_\ell) = \eta_\ell, {\ell\kern-.27ex g}(\nu_\ell) = \beta then

   \eta_0 <_\alpha^{n} \eta_1 \Leftrightarrow \nu_0 <_\alpha^{n+1} \nu_1

2. for \alpha < \mu and \eta_0 <_\alpha^{n} \ldots <_\alpha^{n} \eta_{n-1}, \mathrm{clp}_T(\nu_\ell) = \eta_\ell, {\ell\kern-.27ex g}(\nu_\ell) = \beta and for k < n, \rho < 2 we have \nu_k {\char 94} \langle \ell \rangle \lhd \rho_{k,\ell} \in \mathrm{sp}(T_{n+1}) \cap {}^{\gamma}2. If \gamma is minimal then d_n(\{ \eta_0, \ldots \eta_{n-1} \}) codes the set of the following objects \mathbf{t}:

   • For some \gamma > \alpha there are \rho_{k,\ell} \in \mathrm{sp}(T_{n+1}) \cap {}^{\gamma}2 such that \nu_k {\char 94} \langle \ell \rangle \unlhd \rho_{k,\ell} for k < n, \ell < 2 and \mathbf{t} codes all the information on the sequence \langle \rho_{k,\ell} : k < n, \ell < 2 \rangle (i.e. the order <_\gamma^{n+1} and instances of \mathbf{d}_{n+1}).

Stage A: We force by \mathfrak{K}^1_{<\lambda} = \left\{\mathbf{q} \in \mathfrak{K}^1 : {\ell\kern-.27ex g}(\mathbf{q}) < \lambda,\ \mathbf{q} \in \mathcal{H}(\lambda )\right\} ordered by being an initial segment (which is equivalent to forcing a Cohen subset of \lambda). The generic object is essentially \mathbf{q}^*\in \mathfrak{K}^1_\lambda, {\ell\kern-.27ex g}(\mathbf{q}^*) = \lambda, and then we force by \mathbb{P}_\lambda = \lim\mathbf{q}^*. Clearly \mathfrak{K}^\ell_{<\lambda} is a \lambda-complete forcing notion of cardinality \lambda, and \mathbb{P}_\lambda satisfies the c.c.c. Clearly it suffices to prove part (2) of 3.1.

Suppose \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3d\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_n is a name of a function from [\lambda]^n to \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3k\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_n for n < \omega, \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_n < \omega,
\langle \sigma_n : n < \omega \rangle diverges(I.e. (\forall m) (\exists k) (\forall n\ge k) [\sigma_n\ge m].) and for some \mathbf{q}^0 \in \mathfrak{K}^1_{<\lambda}, we have

In \mathbf{V} we can define \langle\mathbf{q}^\zeta : \zeta < \lambda \rangle with \mathbf{q}^\zeta \in \mathfrak{K}^1_{<\lambda} such that

In \mathbf{q}^{\zeta +1}, e^*_{{\ell\kern-.27ex g}(\mathbf{q}_\zeta)} = 1, \mathbf{q}^{\zeta +1} forces (in \mathfrak{K}^1_{<\lambda}) a value to p and the \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}{P}_\lambda-names \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3d\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_n\restriction\zeta, \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_n, \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3k\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_n for n < \omega; i.e. the values here are still \mathbb{P}_\lambda-names. Let \mathbf{q}^* be the limit of the \mathbf{q}^\xi-s. So \mathbf{q}^* \in \mathfrak{K}^1, {\ell\kern-.27ex g}(\mathbf{q}^*) = \lambda, \mathbf{q}^* = \langle \mathbb{P}^*_i,\let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}{Q}^*_j,\alpha^*_j,e^*_j : i \le \lambda,\ j < \lambda\rangle, and the \mathbb{P}^*_\lambda-names \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3d\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_n, \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_n, \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3k\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_n are defined such that in \mathbf{V}^{\mathbb{P}^*_\lambda}, \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3d\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_n, \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_n, \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3k\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_n contradict clause (2) (as any \mathbb{P}^*_\lambda-name of a bounded subset of \lambda is a \mathbb{P}^*_{{\ell\kern-.27ex g}(\mathbf{q}^\xi)}-name for some \xi < \lambda).

Stage B: Let \chi = \kappa^+ and <^*_{\chi} be a well-ordering of \mathcal{H}(\chi). Now we can apply \lambda \to (\omega_1)^{<\omega}_2 to get \delta,B,N_s and \mathbf{h}_{s,t} (for s,t \in [B]^{<\aleph_0} with |s| = |t|) such that:

1. (a) B \subseteq \lambda with \mathrm{otp}(B) = \omega_1 and \sup B = \delta.

2. (b) N_s \prec (\mathcal{H}(\chi),\in,<^*_\chi), \mathbf{q}^* \in N_s, \langle \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3d\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_{ {n}},\let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_n,\let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3k\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_n : n < \omega \rangle \in N_s.

3. (c) N_s \cap N_t = N_{s\cap t}

4. (d) N_s \cap B = s

5. (e) If s = t\cap \alpha, t\in[B]^{<\aleph_0} then N_s \cap \lambda is an initial segment of N_t.

6. (f) \mathbf{h}_{s,t} is an isomorphism from N_t onto N_s (when defined).

7. (g) \mathbf{h}_{t,s} = \mathbf{h}_{s,t}^{-1}

8. (h) p_0\in N_s, p_0 \Vdash_{\mathbb{P}_\lambda} “\langle \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3d\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_n,\let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_n,\let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3k\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_n : n < {\omega}\rangle is a counterexample to the conclusion of 3.1”.

9. (i) \omega_1 \subseteq N_s, |N_s| = \aleph_1 and if \gamma \in N_s, \mathrm{cf}(\gamma) > \aleph_1 then \mathrm{cf}(\sup(\gamma \cap N_s)) = \omega_1.

Let \mathbf{q} = \mathbf{q}^*\restriction\delta, \mathbb{P} = \mathbb{P}^*_{\delta} and \mathbb{P}_a = \mathbb{P}^\mathrm{cn}_a (for \mathbf{q}), where a is closed for \mathbf{q}.

Note: \mathbb{P}^*_\lambda\cap N_s = \mathbb{P}^*_\delta \cap N_s = \mathbb{P}_{\sup \lambda\cap N_s} \cap N_s = \mathbb{P}_s\cap N_s. Note also

Stage C: It suffices to show that we can define \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}{Q}_\delta in \mathbf{V}^{\mathbb{P}_\delta} which forces a subset W of B of cardinality \aleph_1 and an \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3F\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth} : W \to {}^\omega2 which exemplify the desired conclusion in (2), and prove that \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}{Q}_\delta satisfies the \aleph_1-c.c.c. in \mathbf{V}^{\mathbb{P}_\delta} (and has cardinality \aleph_1). Moreover (see Definitions 3.4 and 3.7(3)), we also define a_\delta = \bigcup\limits_{s\in [B]^{<\aleph_0}}N_s, e_\delta = 1, \mathbf{q}' =\mathbf{q} {\char 94} \langle \mathbb{P}^*_\delta,\let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}{Q}_\delta,a_\delta,e_\delta\rangle and prove \mathbf{q}' \in \mathfrak{K}^1. We let \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3d\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}(u) \mathrel{\vcenter{\baselineskip0.5ex \lineskiplimit0pt\hbox{\scriptsize.}\hbox{\scriptsize.}}}= \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3d\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_{|u|}(u).

Let F : \omega_1 \to {}^{\omega}2 be one-to-one such that (\forall \eta \in {}^{\omega >}2)(\exists ^{\aleph_1}\alpha < \omega_1) [\eta \lhd F(\alpha)]. (This will not be the needed \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3F\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}, just notation).

For s,t \in [B]^{<\aleph_0}, we say s \equiv^n_F t if |s| = |t| and

Let

We define \mathbb{R}_n as follows: a sequence \langle p_s : s \in I_n\rangle\in \mathbb{R}_n if and only if

1. (i) for s\in I_n, p_s\in \mathbb{P}^*_\lambda\cap N_s,

2. (ii) for some c_s we have p_s \Vdash “\let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3d\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}(s) = c_s",

3. (iii) for s,t\in I_n, s\equiv^n_F t\Rightarrow \mathbf{h}_{s,t}(p_t) = p_s,

4. (iv) for s,t\in I_n, p_s\restriction N_{s\cap t} = p_t\restriction N_{s\cap t}.

\mathbb{R}_n^{\text{\hspace{.05cm}--}} is defined similarly, omitting (ii).

For x = \langle p_s : s \in I_n\rangle let n(x) = n, p^x_s = p_s, and (if defined) c^x_s = c_s. Note that we could replace x \in \mathbb{R}_n by a finite subsequence. Let \mathbb{R} = \bigcup\limits_{n<\omega} \mathbb{R}_n, \mathbb{R}^{\text{\hspace{.05cm}--}} = \bigcup\limits_{n<\omega} \mathbb{R}_n^{\text{\hspace{.05cm}--}}. We define an order on \mathbb{R}^{\text{\hspace{.05cm}--}}: x \le y if and only if n(x) \le n(y) and

Stage D: Note the following facts:

Subfact D(\alpha): If x \in \mathbb{R}_n^{\text{\hspace{.05cm}--}}, t\in I_n and p^x_t \le p^1\in \mathbb{P}^*_\delta\cap N_t, then there is y such that x \le y\in \mathbb{R}_n^{\text{\hspace{.05cm}--}} and p^y_t = p^1.

Subfact D(\beta): If x\in \mathbb{R}_n^{\text{\hspace{.05cm}--}}, t\in I then \bigcup\big\{p^x_s : s \in I_n,\, s \subseteq t\big\} (as a union of functions) exists and belongs to \mathbb{P}^*_\lambda \cap N_t.

Subfact D(\gamma): If x \le y, x\in \mathbb{R}_n, y\in \mathbb{R}_n^{\text{\hspace{.05cm}--}}, then y\in \mathbb{R}_n.

Subfact D(\delta): If x \in \mathbb{R}_n^{\text{\hspace{.05cm}--}}, n < m, then there is y\in \mathbb{R}_m with x \le y.

Subfact D(\varepsilon): If x\in \mathbb{R}_n^{\text{\hspace{.05cm}--}}, s,t \in I_n, s\equiv^n_F t,

(\forall \zeta \in t)\left[F(\zeta)(n) \ne F\big(\mathbf{h}_{s,t}(\zeta) \big)(n)\right] (or just p^x_{s_1} \restriction s_1 = \mathbf{h}_{s,t}(p^x_{t_1}\restriction t_1), where t_1 = \big\{ \xi \in t : F(\xi)(n) = F(\mathbf{h}_{s,t}(\xi))(n) \big\} and s_1 = \{\mathbf{h}_{s,t}(\xi) : \xi \in t_1\}), then there is y \in \mathbb{R}_{n+1} with x \le y such that r_1 = p^y_s and r_2 = p^y_t.

Stage E:(We will have T\subset {}^{\omega >}2 from 2.7(2) and then want to get a subtree with as few colors as possible; we can find one isomorphic to {}^{\omega >}2, and there restrict ourselves to \bigcup_n T^*_n. )

We define T^*_k \subseteq {}^{2^k\ge} 2 by induction on k as follows:

We define

For T\in \mathbf{T}(k,*) let n(T) be the unique n such that T\in\mathbf{T}(k,n) and let

Furthermore, let

For \bar p\in \Theta, \mathbf{n}_{\bar p} = \mathbf{n}(\bar p) and T_{\bar p} are defined naturally.

For \bar p,\bar q \in \Theta, \bar p \le \bar q iff \mathbf{n}_{\bar p} \le \mathbf{n}_{\bar q} and for every s \in \mathrm{fs}_{T_{\bar p}} we have p_s \le q_s.

Stage F: Let \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3g\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth} : \omega \to \omega, \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3g\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth} \in N_s, \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3g\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth} grows fast enough relative to \langle\sigma_n : n < \omega \rangle. We define a game Gm. A play of the game lasts \omega moves: in the n^\mathrm{th} move Player I chooses \bar p^n\in \Theta_n and a function h_n satisfying the restrictions below, and then Player II chooses \bar q_n \in \Theta_n such that \bar p_n \le\bar q_n (so T_{\bar p_n} = T_{\bar q_n}). Player I loses the play if at any time he has no legal move; if he never loses, he wins. The restrictions Player I has to satisfy are:

1. (a) For m < n, \bar q_m \le \bar p_n, p^n_s forces a value to \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3g\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}\restriction(n + 1).

2. (b) h_n is a function from [B_{T_{\bar p_n}}]^{\le g(n)} to \omega.

3. (c) m < n\Rightarrow h_n,h_m are compatible.

4. (d) If m < n, \ell < g(m), and s \in [B_{T_{\bar p_n}}]^\ell then p^n_s \Vdash \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3d\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}(s) = h_n(s).

5. (e) Let s_1,s_2 \in \mathrm{dom}(h_n). Then h_n(s_1) = h_n(s_2) whenever s_1,s_2 are similar over n, which means:

   1. (i) F\big(H^\mathrm{OP}_{s_2,s_1}(\zeta )\big) \restriction \mathbf{n}[\bar p^n] = F(\zeta ) \restriction \mathbf{n}[\bar p^n] for \zeta \in s_1.

   2. (ii) H^\mathrm{OP}_{s_2,s_1} preserves the relations \mathrm{sp}\big(F(\zeta_1),F(\zeta_2)\big) < \mathrm{sp}\big(F(\zeta_3),\allowbreak F(\zeta_4)\big) and F(\zeta_3)\big(\mathrm{sp}(F(\zeta_1),F(\zeta_2))\big) = i (in the interesting case \zeta_3\ne \zeta_1, we have \zeta_2 implies i = 0).

Stage G/Claim: Player I has a winning strategy in this game.

Stage H: We fix a winning strategy for Player I (whose existence is guaranteed by stage G).

We define a forcing notion \mathbb{Q}^*. We have (r,y,f)\in \mathbb{Q}^* iff

1. (i) r \in \mathbb{P}^\mathrm{cn}_{a_\delta}

2. (ii) y = \langle \bar p^\ell,h^\ell,\bar q^\ell : \ell \le m(y)\rangle is an initial segment of a play of Gm in which Player I uses his winning strategy.

3. (iii) f is a finite function from B to \{0,1\} such that f^{-1}(\{1\})\in \mathrm{fs}_{T_y} (where T_y = T_{\bar q^{m(y)}}).

4. (iv) r = q^{y,m(y)}_{f^{-1}(\{1\})}.

(The order is the natural one.)

Stage I: If \underline{J} \subseteq \mathbb{P}^\mathrm{cn}_{a_\delta} is dense open then \big\{(r,y,f)\in \mathbb{Q}^* : r\in \underline{J}\big\} is dense in \mathbb{Q}^*.

Stage J: We define \mathbb{Q}_\delta in \mathbf{V}^{\mathbb{P}_\delta} as \big\{(r,y,f)\in \mathbb{Q}^*:r \in \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3G\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_{\mathbb{P}_\delta}\big\}, the order is as in \mathbb{Q}^*.

The main point left is to prove the Knaster condition for the partial ordered set \mathbf{q}^* =\mathbf{q} {\char 94} \langle \mathbb{P}_\delta, \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}{Q}_\delta, a_\delta, e_\delta \rangle demanded in the definition of \mathfrak{K}^1. This will follow by 3.8(3) (after you choose meaning and renamings) as done in stages K and L below.

Stage K: So let i < \delta, \mathrm{cf}(i)\ne \aleph_1, and we shall prove that \mathbb{P}_{\delta+1}^+/ \mathbb{P}_i satisfies the Knaster condition. Let p_\alpha\in \mathbb{P}^*_{\delta+1} for \alpha< \omega_1, and we should find p\in \mathbb{P}_i, p\Vdash_{\mathbb{P}_i}“there is an unbounded A\subseteq\{\alpha: p_\alpha\restriction i\in \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3G\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_{\mathbb{P}_i}\} such that for any \alpha,\beta\in A, p_\alpha,p_\beta are compatible in \mathbb{P}^*_{\delta+1}/\let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3G\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_{\mathbb{P}_i}".

Stage L: If c \subset \delta+1 is closed for \mathbf{q}^*, then \mathbb{P}^*_{\delta+1}/ \mathbb{P}^\mathrm{cn}_c satisfies the Knaster condition.

If c is bounded in \delta, choose a successor i\in (\sup c,\delta) for \mathbf{q}\restriction i\in \mathfrak{K}_1. We know that \mathbb{P}_i/ \mathbb{P}^\mathrm{cn}_c satisfies the Knaster condition and by stage K, \mathbb{P}_{\delta+1}^*/ \mathbb{P}_i also satisfies the Knaster condition; as it is preserved by composition we have finished the stage.

So assume c is unbounded in \delta and it is easy too. So as seen in stage J, we have finished the proof of 3.1.

) It is easy to check that each r_u(\gamma) is in \mathbb{P}^\mathrm{cn}_{b_u}. So, in order to prove \bar r\in\mathbf{q}[\bar b], we assume W\models u_1\le u_2 and have to prove that r_{u_2} \restriction b_{u_1} = r_{u_1}. Let \zeta\in b_{u_1}.

First case: \zeta \notin \mathrm{dom}(p_{u_1}) \cup \mathrm{dom} (q).

So \zeta \notin \mathrm{dom}(r_{u_1}) (by the definition of r_{u_1}) and \zeta \notin \mathrm{dom} (p_{u_2}) (as \bar p \in \mathbf{q}[\bar b]) hence \zeta \notin \mathrm{dom} (p_{u_2}) \cup \mathrm{dom}(q) hence \zeta \notin \mathrm{dom}(r_{u_2}) by the choice of r_{u_2}, so we have finished.

Second case: \zeta\in\mathrm{dom} (p_{u_1})\setminus \mathrm{dom}(q).

As \bar p\in\mathbf{q}[\bar b] we have p_{u_1}(\zeta)=p_{u_2}(\zeta), and by their definition, r_{u_1}(\zeta)=p_{u_1}(\zeta), r_{u_2}(\zeta)=p_{u_2}(\zeta).

Third case: \zeta\in\mathrm{dom}(q) and (\exists v\in W) [\zeta\in b_v \land v\le u_1\land v\le w].

By the definition of r_{u_1}(\zeta), we have r_{u_1}(\zeta)= p_{u_1}(\zeta)\ \&\ q(\zeta); also, the same v witnesses r_{u_2}(\zeta)=p_{u_2}(\zeta)\ \&\ q(\zeta)

and of course p_{u_1}(\zeta) = p_{u_2}(\zeta) (as \bar p\in\mathbf{q}[\bar b]).

Fourth case: \zeta\in\mathrm{dom}(q) and \neg(\exists v\in W)[\zeta\in b_v\land v\le u_1 \land v\le w].

By the definition of r_{u_1}(\zeta) we have r_{u_1}(\zeta) = p_{u_1}(\zeta). It is enough to prove that r_{u_2}(\zeta) = p_{u_2}(\zeta) as we know that p_{u_1}(\zeta) = p_{u_2}(\zeta) (because \bar p \in\mathbf{q}[\bar b], u_1 \le u_2). If not, then for some v_0 \in W, \zeta \in b_{v_0}\land v_0\le u_2 \land v_0\le w. But \bar b\in \mathrm{IN}_W(\mathbf{q}), hence (see condition (\gamma) of Definition 3.7(1), applied with \zeta,\,w_1,\,w_2,\,w there standing for \zeta,\,v_0,\, u_1,\,u_2 here) we know that for some v\in W, \zeta\in v\land v\le v_0\land v\le u_1. As (W,\le) is a partial order, v\le v_0 and v_0\le w, we can conclude v\le w. So v contradicts our being in the fourth case. So we have finished the fourth case.

Hence we have finished proving \bar r\in\mathbf{q}[\bar b]. We also have to prove q\le r_w, but for \zeta\in\mathrm{dom}(q) we have \zeta\in b_w (as q\in \mathbb{P}^\mathrm{cn}_{w} is on assumption) and r_w(\zeta)=q(\zeta) because r_w(\zeta) is defined by the second case of the definition as

i.e. v=w.

Lastly, we have to prove that \bar p\le \bar r (in \mathbf{q}[\bar b]). So let u\in W, \zeta \in \mathrm{dom} (p_u) and we have to prove r_u\restriction \zeta\Vdash_{\mathbb{P}_\zeta}“p_u(\zeta)\le_{\mathbb{P}_\zeta} r_u(\zeta)". As r_u(\zeta) is p_u(\zeta) or p_u(\zeta)\; \&\; q(\zeta) this is obvious.

2) Immediate.

3) We prove this by induction on |W|.

For |W| = 0 this is totally trivial.

For |W| = 1,2 this is assumed.

For |W| > 2 fix \bar p^i \in\mathbf{q}[\bar b] for i < \omega_1. Choose a maximal element v \in W and let c = \bigcup \{b_w : W \models w < v\}. Clearly c is closed for \mathbf{q}.

We know that \mathbb{P}_c^\mathrm{cn}, \mathbb{P}^\mathrm{cn}_{b_v}/ \mathbb{P}_c^\mathrm{cn} are Knaster by the induction hypothesis. We also know that p^i_v\restriction c\in \mathbb{P}_c^\mathrm{cn} for i < \omega_1, hence for some r\in \mathbb{P}_c^\mathrm{cn},

hence

Fix a \mathbb{P}_c^\mathrm{cn}-name \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3A\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}^1 for such an A^1.

Let A^2 = \left\{ i < \omega_1 : (\exists q \in P_c^\mathrm{cn}) [q\Vdash i \in \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3A\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}^1]\right\}. Necessarily |A_2| = \aleph_1, and for i\in A^2 there is q^i\in \mathbb{P}_c^\mathrm{cn}, q^i\Vdash i \in A^1, and without loss of generality p^i_v\restriction c \le q^i. Note that p^i_v\ \&\ q^i\in \mathbb{P}^\mathrm{cn}_c.

For i\in A^2, let \bar r^i be defined using 3.8(1) (with \bar p^i, p^i_v\, \&\, q^i). Let W_1 = W \setminus \{v\}, \bar b' = \langle b_w : w \in W_1\rangle.

By the induction hypothesis applied to W_1, \bar b', \bar r^i\restriction W_1, for i\in A^2 there is an uncountable A^3 \subseteq A^2 and for i < j in A^3, there is \bar r^{i,j}\in\mathbf{q}[\bar b'] with \bar r^i\restriction W_1 \le \bar r^{i,j} and \bar r^j\restriction W_1 \le \bar r^{i,j}. Now define r_c^{i,j} \in \mathbb{P}_c^\mathrm{cn} as follows: its domain is \bigcup\left\{\mathrm{dom}(r_w^{i,j}) : W \models w < v\right\} and r_c^{i,j}\restriction \mathrm{dom}(r_w^{i,j}) = r_w^{i,j} whenever W \models w < v.

Why is this a definition? As W \models w_1 \le v \wedge w_2 \le v, \zeta\in b_{w_1} \wedge \zeta \in b_{w_2} implies that for some u \in W, u \le w_1\wedge u \le w_2 and \zeta \in u. It is easy to check that r_c^{i,j}\in \mathbb{P}_c^\mathrm{cn}. Now r_c^{i,j}\Vdash_{\mathbb{P}_c^\mathrm{cn}} “p^i_{b_v}, p^j_{b_v} are compatible in \mathbb{P}^\mathrm{cn}_{b_v}/ \mathbb{P}_c^\mathrm{cn}".

So there is r\in \mathbb{P}^\mathrm{cn}_{b_v} such that r^{i,j}_c \le r, p^i_{b_v} \le r, p^j_{b_v} \le r. As in part (1) of 3.8, we can combine r and \bar r^{i,j} to a common upper bound of \bar p^i, \bar p^j in \mathbf{q}[\bar b].

e define \mathbb{P}_\delta by Definition 3.4(d). The least easy problem is to verify the Knaster conditions (for \mathbf{q}\in \mathfrak{K}^1). The proof is like the preservation of the c.c.c. under iteration for limit stages.

eft to the reader.

imilar to the proof of 3.1. Superficially we need more indiscernibility then we get, but getting \langle M_u:u\in [B]^{\le n}\rangle we ignore d(\{\alpha ,\beta\}) when there is no u with \{\alpha ,\beta\} \in M_u.

gain, like 3.1.

Proof of 4.1:

1), 2). Let \kappa \le \omega, \sigma(n) < \mu, d_n \in \mathrm{Col}^n_{\sigma(n)}(^{\mu >}2) for n < \kappa.

Choose \lambda such that \lambda \to (\mu^+)^{<2\kappa}_{2^\mu} (there is such a \lambda by assumption for (2) and by \kappa < \omega for (1)). Let \mathbb{Q} be the forcing notion (^{\mu >}2,\lhd), and \mathbb{P} = \mathbb{P}_\lambda be

ordered naturally. For i \notin \mathrm{dom}(f), take f(i)= \langle\ \rangle. Let \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_i be the \mathbb{P}-name for \bigcup \{f(i) : f \in \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3G\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_\mathbb{P}\}. Let \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3D\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth} be a \mathbb{P}-name of a normal ultrafilter over \mu. For each n < \omega, d \in \mathrm{Col}^n_{\sigma(n)}(^{\mu >}2), j < \sigma(n) and u= \{\alpha_0,\ldots ,\alpha_{n-1}\}, where \alpha_0 <\cdots < \alpha_{n-1} < \lambda, let \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3A\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}^j_d(u) be the \mathbb{P}_\lambda-name of the set

So \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3A\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}^j_d(u) is a \mathbb{P}_\lambda-name of a subset of \mu, and for j(1) < j(2) < \sigma(n) we have \Vdash_{\mathbb{P}_\lambda}“\let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3A\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}^{j(1)}_d(u)\cap \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3A\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}^{j(2)}_d(u) = \varnothing, and \bigcup_{j<\sigma(n)} \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3A\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}^j_d(u) is a co-bounded subset of \mu”. As \Vdash_\mathbb{P} “\mathfrak{D} is \mu-complete uniform ultrafilter on \mu", in \mathbf{V}^\mathbb{P} there is exactly one j < \sigma(n) with A^j_d(u)\in\mathfrak{D}. Let \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3j\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_d(u) be the \mathbb{P}-name of this j.

Let I_d(u) \subseteq \mathbb{P} be a maximal antichain of \mathbb{P}, each member of I_d(u) forces a value to \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3j\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_d(u). Let W_d(u) = \bigcup \{\mathrm{dom}(p) : p \in I_d(u)\} and W(u) =\bigcup \{W_{d_n}(u) : n < \kappa \}. So W_d(u) is a subset of \lambda of cardinality \le \mu as well as W(u) (as \mathbb{P} satisfies the \mu^+-c.c. and p\in P\Rightarrow |\mathrm{dom}(p)| < \mu ).

As \lambda \to (\mu^{++})^{<2\kappa}_{2^\mu}, d_n \in \mathrm{Col}^n_{\sigma_n}(^{\mu >}2) there is a subset Z of \lambda of cardinality \mu^{++} and set W^+(u) for each u \in [Z]^{<\kappa} such that:

1. (i) W^+(u_1)\cap W^+(u_2) = W^+(u_1\cap u_2)

2. (ii) W(u) \subseteq W^+(u) if u\in [Z]^{<\kappa}.

3. (iii) If |u_1| = |u_2| < \kappa and u_1,u_2 \subseteq Z then W^+(u_1) and W^+(u_2) have the same order type.

   (Note that H[u_1,u_2] = H^\mathrm{OP}_{W^+(u_1),W^+(u_2)} naturally induces a map from \mathbb{P}\restriction u_1 = \{p\in \mathbb{P} : \mathrm{dom}(p) \subseteq W^+(u_1)\} to
   \mathbb{P}\restriction u_2 = \{p \in \mathbb{P} : \mathrm{dom}(p) \subseteq W^+(u_2)\}.)

4. (iv) If u_1,u_2 \in [Z]^{<\kappa} and |u_1| = |u_2| then H[u_1,u_2] maps I_{d_n}(u_1) onto I_{d_n}(u_2) and

   q \Vdash ``{\let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{$3j$\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{$3\skew\skewfactor\theaccent{}$}\vss}\hidewidth}}_d(u_1) = j" \Leftrightarrow H[u_1,u_2](q) \Vdash ``{\let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{$3j$\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{$3\skew\skewfactor\theaccent{}$}\vss}\hidewidth}}_d(u_2) = j".

5. (v) If u_1 \subseteq u_2\in [Z]^{<\kappa}, u_3 \subseteq u_4 \in [Z]^{<\kappa}, |u_4| = |u_2|, and H^\mathrm{OP}_{u_2,u_4} maps u_1 onto u_3, then H[u_1,u_3] \subseteq H[u_2,u_4].

Let \gamma(i) be the i^\mathrm{th} member of Z.

Let s(m) be the set of the first m members of Z and

We define, by induction on \alpha < \mu, a function F_\alpha and p_u \in \mathbb{R}_{|u|} for u \in \bigcup\limits_{\beta <\alpha}[^\beta2]^{<\kappa} where we let \varnothing_\beta be the empty subset of [^\beta 2], we behave as if [\beta \ne \gamma \Rightarrow \varnothing_\beta\ne \varnothing_\gamma], and we also define \zeta(\beta) < \mu such that:

1. (i) F_\alpha is a function from {}^{\alpha >}2 into {}^{\mu >}2, extending F_\beta for each \beta < \alpha.

2. (ii) F_\alpha maps {}^\beta 2 to {}^{\zeta(\beta)}2 for some \zeta(\beta) < \mu, and

   \beta_1 < \beta_2 < \alpha \Rightarrow \zeta (\beta_1) < \zeta (\beta_2).

3. (iii) \eta \lhd \nu \in {}^{\alpha >}2 implies F_\alpha(\eta) \lhd F_\alpha (\nu).

4. (iv) For \eta\in ^{\beta}2, \beta + 1 < \alpha, and \ell< 2, we have F_\alpha(\eta) {\char 94} \langle\ell\rangle \unlhd F_\alpha(\eta {\char 94} \langle\ell\rangle).

5. (v) p_u\in \mathbb{R}_m whenever u\in[^\beta 2]^m, m < \kappa, \beta < \alpha and for u(1)\in [Z]^m let p_{u,u(1)} = H[s(|u|),u(1)](p_u).

6. (vi) \eta \in {}^\beta 2, \beta < \alpha, then p_{\{\eta\}}(\min Z) = F_\alpha(\eta).

7. (vii) If \beta < \alpha, u \in [^\beta2]^n, n < \kappa, and h : u \to s(n) is one-to-one and onto (but not necessarily order preserving) then for some c(u,h) < \sigma(n),

   \bigcup_{t \subseteq u}p_{t,h''(t)} \Vdash_{\mathbb{P}_\lambda} ``\let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{$3d$\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{$3\skew\skewfactor\theaccent{}$}\vss}\hidewidth}{}_n( \hbox{$\let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{$3\eta$\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{$3\skew\skewfactor\theaccent{}$}\vss}\hidewidth}_{\gamma(0)}$},\ldots,\hbox{$\let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{$3\eta$\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{$3\skew\skewfactor\theaccent{}$}\vss}\hidewidth}_{\gamma(n-1)}$}) = c(u,h)".

   (Note: as p_u \in \mathbb{R}_{|u|}, the domains of the conditions in this union are pairwise disjoint.)

8. (viii) If n,u,\beta ,h are as in (vii), u = \{\nu_0,\ldots ,\nu_{n-1}\}, \nu_\ell \lhd \rho_\ell \in {}^\gamma 2, and \beta \le \gamma < \alpha, then d_n(F_\alpha (\rho_0),\ldots , F_\alpha (\rho_{n-1})) = c(u,h), where h is the unique function from u onto s(n) such that [h(\nu_\ell) \le h(\nu_m) \Rightarrow \rho_\ell <^*_\gamma \rho_m].

9. (ix) If \beta < \gamma < \alpha, \nu_1,\ldots, \nu_{n-1} \in {}^\gamma 2, n <\kappa, and \nu_0\restriction\beta, \ldots, \nu_{n-1}\restriction\beta are pairwise distinct, then: p_{\{\nu_0\restriction\,\beta,\ldots ,\nu_n\restriction\,\beta \}} \subseteq p_{\{\nu_0,\ldots ,\nu_{n-1}\}}.

For \alpha limit: no problem.

For \alpha+1 with \alpha limit: we try to define F_\alpha(\eta) for \eta\in {}^\alpha 2 such that

and (viii) holds. Let \zeta = \bigcup\limits_{\beta < \alpha}\zeta(\beta). For \eta \in {}^\alpha 2, we define

and for u\in[^\alpha 2]^{<\kappa},

Clearly p^0_u\in \mathbb{R}_{|u|}.

Then let h : {}^\alpha 2 \to Z be one-to-one such that \eta <^*_\alpha \nu \Leftrightarrow h(\eta) < h(\nu) and let

For any generic G \subseteq \mathbb{P}_\lambda to which p belongs, for \beta < \alpha, n < \omega, and ordinals i_0 <\cdots <i_{n-1} from Z such that \langle h^{-1}(i_\ell)\restriction \beta : \ell < n\rangle are pairwise distinct, we have that

belongs to \mathfrak{D}[G], where u = \{h^{-1}(i_\ell)\restriction\beta : \ell < n\} and h^* : u \to s(|u|) is defined by h^*(h^{-1}(i_\ell)\restriction\beta) = H^\mathrm{OP}_{\{i_\ell : \ell<n\},s(n)}(i_\ell). Really every large enough \beta < \mu can serve so we omit it. As \mathfrak{D}[G] is \mu-complete uniform ultrafilter on \mu, we can find \xi \in (\zeta,\kappa) such that \xi \in B_u for every u \in [^\alpha 2]^{<\omega}.

For \nu \in {}^\alpha 2, we let F_\alpha (\nu) = \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_{h(i)}[G]\restriction\xi, and we let p_u = p^0_u except when u = \{\nu\}. In that case:

For \alpha +1, with \alpha a successor:

First, for \eta\in {}^{\alpha-1}2 define F\big(\eta {\char 94} \langle\ell\rangle\big) = F_\alpha (\eta) {\char 94} \langle\ell\rangle. Next we let \big\{(u_i,h_i):i < i^*\big\} list all pairs (u,h) with u\in [^\alpha 2]^{\le n} and h : u \to s(|u|) one-to-one and onto. Now, by induction on i \le i^*, we define p^i_u (for u\in [^\alpha 2]^{<\kappa}) such that:

1. (a) p^i_u\in \mathbb{R}_{|u|}

2. (b) p^i_u increases with i.

3. (c) For i + 1, clause (vii) above holds (with \alpha,u_i,h_i here standing in for \beta,u,h there).

4. (d) If \nu_m \in {}^\alpha 2 for m < n < \kappa and \langle\nu_m\restriction(\alpha-1) : m < n\rangle are pairwise distinct, then p_{\{\nu_m \restriction (\alpha-1) : m < n\}} \le p^0_{\{\nu_m : m < n\}}.

5. (e) If \nu \in {}^\alpha2 and \nu(\alpha-1) = \ell then p^0_{\{\nu\}}(0) = F_\alpha(\nu\restriction(\alpha - 1)) {\char 94} \langle\ell\rangle.

There is no problem to carry the induction.

Now F_{\alpha +1}\restriction {}^\alpha 2 is to be defined as in the second case, starting with \eta \to p^{i^*}_{\{\eta\}}(\eta).

For \alpha = 0,1: Left to the reader.

So we have finished the induction hence the proof of 4.1(1),(2).

3) Left to the reader (the only influence is the choice of h in stage of the induction).

asy.

et \chi = \beth_8 (\lambda_1)^+, let \{F^0_{n,m} : m < \omega\} list the definable n-place functions in the model (\mathcal{H}(\chi),\in,<^*_\chi) with \lambda_0,\mu ,\lambda_1 as parameters, let F^1_{n,m}(\alpha_0, \ldots, \alpha_{n-1}) (for \alpha_0,\ldots ,\alpha_{n-1} < \lambda_1) be equal to F^0_{n,m}(\alpha_0,\ldots ,\alpha_{n-1}) if it is an ordinal < \lambda_1 and zero otherwise. Let F_{n,m}(\alpha_0,\ldots,\alpha_{n-1}) (for \alpha_0,\ldots ,\alpha_{n-1} < \lambda_1) be F^0_{n,m}(\alpha_0,\ldots ,\alpha_{n-1}) if it is an ordinal <\omega and zero otherwise. We shall show that the F_{n,m} (for n,m < \omega) exemplify \Pr_\mathrm{np}(\lambda_1,\mu ,\aleph_0) (see 5.3(1)).

So suppose W\in [\lambda_1 ]^\mu is a counterexample to \Pr(\lambda_1,\mu ,\aleph_0): i.e. for no n,m is F''_{n,m}([W]^n) = \omega. Let W^* be the closure of W under \{F^1_{n,m} : n,m < \omega \}. Let N be the Skolem Hull of W in (\mathcal{H}(\chi),\in,<^*_\chi), so clearly N \cap \lambda_1 = W^*. (Note W^* \subseteq \lambda_1 and |W^*| = \mu.) Also, as \mathrm{cf}(\mu) > \aleph_0, if A \subseteq W^* with |A| = \mu then for some n,m < \omega and u_i \in [W]^n (for i < \mu) we have F^1_{n,m}(u_i)\in A and

It is easy to check that also W^1 \mathrel{\vcenter{\baselineskip0.5ex \lineskiplimit0pt\hbox{\scriptsize.}\hbox{\scriptsize.}}}= \{F^1_{n,m}(u_i) : i < \mu \} is a counterexample to \Pr(\lambda_1,\mu,\sigma). In particular, for n,m < \omega, W_{n,m} = \{F^1_{n,m}(u):u\in [W]^n\} is a counterexample if it has power \mu. Without loss of generality W is a counterexample with minimal \delta \mathrel{\vcenter{\baselineskip0.5ex \lineskiplimit0pt\hbox{\scriptsize.}\hbox{\scriptsize.}}}= \sup(W) = \bigcup\{\alpha + 1 : \alpha \in W\}. The above discussion shows that |W^* \cap \alpha| < \mu for \alpha < \delta. Obviously \mathrm{cf}(\delta) = \mu^+. Let \langle \alpha_i : i < \mu \rangle be a strictly increasing sequence of members of W^*, converging to \delta, such that for limit i we have \alpha_i = \min \! \big( W^* \setminus \bigcup\limits_{j<i}(\alpha_j + 1) \big). Let N = \bigcup\limits_{i < \mu} N_i where N_i\prec N, |N_i| < \mu, N_i increasing continuous, and without loss of generality N_i \cap \delta = N \cap \alpha_i.

Fact (\alpha): \delta > \lambda_0.

Fact (\beta): If F is a unary function definable in N, F(\alpha) is a club of \alpha for every limit ordinal \alpha\ (<\lambda_1) then for some club C of \mu we have

Fact (\beta)^+: Without loss of generality, the club C in Fact (\beta) is \mu.

Proof: By renaming.

Fact (\gamma): \delta is a limit cardinal.

Fact (\delta): For each i < \mu, \alpha_i is a cardinal.

Fact (\varepsilon): For a club of i < \mu, \alpha_i is a regular cardinal.

Fact (\zeta): For a club of i < \mu, \alpha_i is Mahlo.

Fact (\xi): For a club of i < \mu, \alpha_i is \alpha_i-Mahlo.

Together we are done.

) For each i, 0 < i < \lambda_i, we choose C_i such that if i is a successor ordinal then C_i = \{i-1,0\}, and if i is a limit ordinal then C_i is a club of i of order type \mathrm{cf}(i) containing 0 such that [\mathrm{cf}(i) < i \Rightarrow \mathrm{cf}(i) < \min(C_i \setminus \{0\})] and C_i\setminus \mathrm{acc}(C_i)contains only successor ordinals.

Now for \alpha<\beta, \alpha > 0 we define \gamma^+_\ell(\beta,\alpha), \gamma^{\text{\hspace{.05cm}--}}_\ell(\beta,\alpha) by induction on \ell, and then \kappa(\beta,\alpha),\,\varepsilon(\beta,\alpha).

1. (A) \gamma^+_0(\beta,\alpha) = \beta, \gamma^{\text{\hspace{.05cm}--}}_0(\beta,\alpha ) = 0.

2. (B) If \gamma^+_\ell(\beta ,\alpha ) is defined and > \alpha and \alpha is not an accumulation point of C_{\gamma^+_\ell(\beta ,\alpha )} then we let \gamma^{\text{\hspace{.05cm}--}}_{\ell+1}(\beta ,\alpha ) be the maximal member of C_{\gamma^+_\ell(\beta,\alpha)} which is < \alpha and \gamma^+_{\ell+1}(\beta,\alpha) is the minimal member of C_{\gamma^+_\ell(\beta, \alpha)} which is \ge \alpha (by the choice of C_{\gamma^+_\ell(\beta ,\alpha )} and the demands on \gamma^+_\ell(\beta ,\alpha) they are well defined).

   So

3. (B1)

   1. \gamma^{\text{\hspace{.05cm}--}}_\ell(\beta ,\alpha ) < \alpha \le \gamma^+_\ell(\beta,\alpha ), and if the equality holds then \gamma^+_{\ell+1}(\beta ,\alpha) is not defined.

   2. \gamma^+_{\ell+1}(\beta ,\alpha) < \gamma^+_\ell(\beta ,\alpha) when both are defined.

4. (C) Let k = k(\beta ,\alpha) be the maximal number k such that \gamma^+_k(\beta ,\alpha ) is defined (it is well defined as \langle \gamma^+_\ell(\beta, \alpha) : \ell < \omega \rangle is strictly decreasing). So

5. (C1) \gamma^+_{k(\beta,\alpha)}(\beta,\alpha) = \alpha or \gamma^+_{k(\beta,\alpha)} > \alpha, \gamma^+_{k(\beta,\alpha)} is a limit ordinal and \alpha is an accumulation point of C_{\gamma^+_{k(\beta,\alpha)}}(\beta,\alpha).

6. (D) For m \le k(\beta ,\alpha ) let us define

   \varepsilon_m(\beta ,\alpha ) = \max\{\gamma^{\text{\hspace{.05cm}--}}_\ell(\beta ,\alpha ) + 1 : \ell \le m\}.

   Note

7. (D1)

   1. \varepsilon_m(\beta ,\alpha ) \le \alpha (if defined).

   2. If \alpha is limit then \varepsilon_m(\beta ,\alpha ) < \alpha (if defined).

   3. If \varepsilon_m(\beta ,\alpha) \le \xi \le \alpha then for every \ell \le m we have

      \gamma^+_\ell(\beta ,\alpha ) = \gamma^+_\ell(\beta ,\xi ),\quad\gamma^{\text{\hspace{.05cm}--}}_\ell(\beta ,\alpha ) = \gamma^{\text{\hspace{.05cm}--}}_\ell(\beta ,\xi),\quad \varepsilon_\ell(\beta ,\alpha ) = \varepsilon_\ell (\beta ,\xi).

      (Explanation for (c): if \varepsilon_m(\beta ,\alpha ) < \alpha this is easy (check the definition) and if \varepsilon_m(\beta ,\alpha ) = \alpha, necessarily \xi = \alpha and it is trivial.)

   4. If \ell \le m then \varepsilon_\ell (\beta ,\alpha) \le \varepsilon_m(\beta,\alpha).

For a regular \kappa \in (\alpha(*),\lambda) let g^1_\kappa : [\kappa]^{<\omega} \to \sigma(2) exemplify \kappa \not\to [\theta]^{<\omega}_{\sigma(1)}, and for every regular cardinal \kappa \in [\theta,\lambda) let g^2_\kappa : [\kappa]^n \to \sigma(2) exemplify \kappa \not\to [\alpha (*)]^n_{\sigma(2)}.

Let us define the colourings:

Let \alpha_0 > \alpha_1 > \ldots > \alpha_n. (Remember n\ge 2.)

Let n = n(\alpha_0,\alpha_1,\alpha_2) be the maximal natural number such that:

1. (i) \varepsilon_n(\alpha_0,\alpha_1) < \alpha_0 is well defined.

2. (ii) \gamma^{\text{\hspace{.05cm}--}}_\ell(\alpha_0,\alpha_1) = \gamma^{\text{\hspace{.05cm}--}}_\ell(\alpha_0,\alpha_2) for \ell \le n.

We define d_2(\alpha_0,\alpha_1,\ldots ,\alpha_n) as g^2_\kappa(\beta_1,\ldots ,\beta_n), where

Next we define d_1(\alpha_0,\alpha_1,\alpha_2) .

Let i(*) = \sup \big(C_{\gamma^+_n(\alpha_0,\alpha_2)} \cap C_{\gamma^+_n(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)}\big), where n = n(\alpha_0,\alpha_1,\alpha_2). Let E be the equivalence relation on C_{\gamma^+_n(\alpha_0,\alpha_1)} \setminus i(*) defined by

If the set w = \big\{\gamma \in C_{\gamma^+_n(\alpha_0,\alpha_1)} :\gamma > i(*),\ \gamma = \min \gamma /E\big\} is finite, we let d_1(\alpha_0,\alpha_1,\alpha_2) be g^1_\kappa \big(\{\beta_\gamma : \gamma \in w\}\big), where \kappa = \big|C_{\gamma^+_n(\alpha_0,\alpha_1)}\big| and

We have defined d_1, d_2 required in condition (b) (though have not yet proved that they work) We still have to define d (exemplifying \lambda\not\to [\mu]^{n+1}_\ell). Let n \ge 3: for \alpha_0 > \alpha_1 >\ldots > \alpha_n, we let d(\alpha_0,\ldots,\alpha_n) be d_1(\alpha_0,\alpha_1,\alpha_2) if w defined during the definition has odd number of members and d_2(\alpha_0,\ldots ,\alpha_n) otherwise.

Now suppose Y is a subset of \lambda of order type \mu, and let \delta = \sup Y. Let M be a model with universe \lambda and with relations Y and \{(i,j):i\in C_j\}. Let \langle N_i : i < \mu \rangle be an increasing continuous sequence of elementary submodels of M of cardinality < \mu such that \alpha(i) = \alpha_i = \min(Y\setminus N_i) belongs to N_{i+1}, \sup(N\cap \alpha_i) = \sup(N\cap\delta). Let N =\bigcup\limits_{i < \mu} N_i. Let \delta(i) =\delta_i = \sup(N_i\cap \alpha_i), so 0 < \delta_i \le \alpha_i, and let n = n_i be the first natural number such that \delta_i an accumulation point of C^i = C_{\gamma^+_n(\alpha_i,\delta(i))}, let \varepsilon_i = \varepsilon_{n(i)}(\alpha_i,\delta_i). Note that \gamma^+_n(\alpha_i,\delta_i) = \gamma^+_n(\alpha_i,\varepsilon_i) hence it belongs to N.

Case I: For some (limit) i < \mu, \mathrm{cf}(i) \ge\theta and (\forall \gamma < i)[\gamma + \alpha(*) < i] such that for arbitrarily large j < i, C^i\cap N_j is bounded in N_j\cap \delta=N_j\cap\delta_j.
This is just like the last part in the proof of [Sh:276, 3.3], using g^1_\kappa and d_1 for \kappa=\mathrm{cf}(\gamma^+_{n_i}(\alpha_i,\delta_i)).

Case II: Not case I.

Let S_0 = \{i < \mu : (\forall \alpha < i)[\gamma + \alpha(*) < i], \mathrm{cf}(i) = \theta\}. So for every i \in S_0, for some j(i) < i,

But as C^i \cap \delta_i is a club of \delta_i, clearly (\forall j)\big[j \in (j(i),i)\Rightarrow\delta_j\in C^i\big].

We can also demand j(i) > \varepsilon_{n(\alpha(i),\delta(i))}(\alpha(i),\delta(i)).

As S_0 is stationary, by ‘not case I,’ for some stationary S_1 \subseteq S_0 and n(*), j(*) we have (\forall i \in S_1)\big[j(i) = j(*)\wedge n(\alpha(i),\delta_i) = n(*)\big].

Choose i(*)\in S_1, i(*) = \sup(i(*)\cap S_1), such that the order type of S_1\cap i(*) is i(*)> \alpha(*). Now if i_2 < i_1\in S_1\cap i(*) then n(\alpha_{i(*)},\alpha_{i_1},\alpha_{i_2}) = n(*). Now L_{i(*)} = \big\{\mathrm{otp}(\alpha_i \cap C^{i(*)}):i \in S_1\cap i(*)\big\} are pairwise distinct and are ordinals < \kappa = |C^{i(*)}|, and the set has order type \alpha(*). Now apply the definitions of d_2 and g^2_\kappa on L_{i(*)}. 2) The proof is like the proof of part (1),but for \alpha_0 > \alpha_1 >\cdots we let d_2(\alpha_0,\ldots ,\alpha_{2n-1}) = g^2_\kappa(\beta_0,\ldots,\beta_n), where

and in case II note that the analysis gives \mu possible \beta_\ell-s so that we can apply the definition of g^2_\kappa.

) For n=2 this is a theorem of Todorčevič [To2], and if it holds for n\ge 2 by 5.7(1) we get that it holds for n+1 (with n, \lambda, \mu, \theta, \alpha(*), \sigma(1), \sigma(2) there corresponding to n+1, \aleph_{n+1}, \aleph_1, \aleph_0, \aleph_0, \aleph_0, \aleph_0 here).

2) Similar.