Woodin - The Axiom of Determinacy, Forcing Axioms and The Non-Stationary Ideal

de Gruyter Series in Logic and Its Applications 1
Editors: Wilfrid A. Hodges (London)

Steffen Lempp (Madison)
Menachem Magidor (Jerusalem)
W. Hugh Woodin
The Axiom of Determinacy,

Forcing Axioms,
and the Nonstationary Ideal
Second revised edition
De Gruyter
Mathematics Subject Classification 2010: 03-02, 03E05, 03E15, 03E25, 03E35, 03E40,
03E57, 03E60.
ISBN 978-3-11-019702-0
e-ISBN 978-3-11-021317-1
ISSN 1438-1893
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Woodin, W. H. (W. Hugh)
The axiom of determinacy, forcing axioms, and the nonstationary
ideal / by W. Hugh Woodin. 2nd rev. and updated ed.
p. cm. (De Gruyter series in logic and its applications ; 1)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-3-11-019702-0 (alk. paper)
1. Forcing (Model theory) I. Title.
QA9.7.W66 2010
511.3dc22
2010011786
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.
2010 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/New York
Typesetting: Da-TeX Gerd Blumenstein, Leipzig, www.da-tex.de
Printing and binding: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Gttingen
Printed on acid-free paper
Printed in Germany
www.degruyter.com
Contents
1 Introduction
1.1 The nonstationary ideal on !1 . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 The partial order Pmax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3 Pmax variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4 Extensions of inner models beyond L.R/ . . . . .
1.5 Concluding remarks the view from Berlin in 1999
1.6 The view from Heidelberg in 2010 . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
2
6
10
13
15
18
2 Preliminaries
2.1 Weakly homogeneous trees and scales
2.2 Generic absoluteness . . . . . . . . .
2.3 The stationary tower . . . . . . . . .
2.4 Forcing Axioms . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5 Reection Principles . . . . . . . . .
2.6 Generic ideals . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
21
31
34
36
41
43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3 The nonstationary ideal

51
3.1 The nonstationary ideal and 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.2 The nonstationary ideal and CH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
116
4 The Pmax -extension
4.1 Iterable structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
4.2 The partial order Pmax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
5 Applications
5.1 The sentence AC . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 Martins Maximum and AC . . . . .
5.3 The sentence AC . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4 The stationary tower and Pmax . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5 Pmax
0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.6 Pmax
5.7 The Axiom . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.8 Homogeneity properties of P .!1 /=INS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
184
184
187
192
199
221
232
238
274
6 Pmax variations
6.1 2 Pmax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2 Variations for obtaining !1 -dense ideals
6.2.1 Qmax . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.2 Qmax . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
287
288
306
306
334
vi
Contents
6.3
6.2.3 2 Qmax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.4 Weak Kurepa trees and Qmax . . . .
6.2.5 KT Qmax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.6 Null sets and the nonstationary ideal
Nonregular ultralters on !1 . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
370
377
383
403
421
7 Conditional variations
426
7.1 Suslin trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426
7.2 The Borel Conjecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441
8 | principles for !1
493
8.1 Condensation Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496
|NS
8.2 Pmax
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501
C
CC
8.3 The principles, |NS and |NS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577
9 Extensions of L.; R/
9.1 ADC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.2 The Pmax -extension of L.; R/ . . . .
9.2.1 The basic analysis . . . . . .
9.2.2 Martins Maximum CC .c/ . .
9.3 The Qmax -extension of L.; R/ . . . .
9.4 Changs Conjecture . . . . . . . . . .
9.5 Weak and Strong Reection Principles
9.6 Strong Changs Conjecture . . . . . .
9.7 Ideals on !2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
609
610
617
618
622
633
637
651
667
683
10 Further results
10.1 Forcing notions and large cardinals . . . . .
10.2 Coding into L.P .!1 // . . . . . . . . . . .
10.2.1 Coding by sets, SQ . . . . . . . . . .
10.2.2 Q.X/
max . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.;/
10.2.3 Pmax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.;;B/
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.2.4 Pmax
10.3 Bounded forms of Martins Maximum . . .
10.4 -logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.5 -logic and the Continuum Hypothesis . .
10.6 The Axiom ./C . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.7 The Effective Singular Cardinals Hypothesis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
694
694
701
703
708
739
768
784
807
813
827
835
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11 Questions
840
Bibliography
845
Index
849
Chapter 1
Introduction
As always I suppose, when contemplating a new edition one must decide whether
to rewrite the introduction or simply write an addendum to the original introduction.
I have chosen the latter course and so after this paragraph the current edition begins
with the original introduction and summary from the rst edition (with comments
inserted in italics and some other minor changes) and then continues beginning on
page 18 with comments regarding this edition.
The main result of this book is the identication of a canonical model in which
the Continuum Hypothesis (CH) is false. This model is canonical in the sense that
Godels constructible universe L and its relativization to the reals, L.R/, are canonical
models though of course the assertion that L.R/ is a canonical model is made in the
context of large cardinals. Our claim is vague, nevertheless the model we identify can
be characterized by its absoluteness properties. This model can also be characterized
by certain homogeneity properties. From the point of view of forcing axioms it is
the ultimate model at least as far as the subsets of !1 are concerned. It is arguably a
completion of P .!1 /, the powerset of !1 .
This model is a forcing extension of L.R/ and the method can be varied to produce a wide class of similar models each of which can be viewed as a reduction
of this model. The methodology for producing these models is quite different than
that behind the usual forcing constructions. For example the corresponding partial
orders are countably closed and they are not constructed as forcing iterations. We
provide evidence that this is a useful method for achieving consistency results, obtaining a number of results which seem out of reach of the current technology of iterated
forcing.
The analysis of these models arises from an interesting interplay between ideas
from descriptive set theory and from combinatorial set theory. More precisely it is
the existence of denable scales which is ultimately the driving force behind the arguments. Boundedness arguments also play a key role. These results contribute to a
curious circle of relationships between large cardinals, determinacy, and forcing axioms. Another interesting feature of these models is that although these models are
generic extensions of specic inner models (L.R/ in most cases), these models can be
characterized without reference to this. For example, as we have indicated above, our
canonical model is a generic extension of L.R/. The corresponding partial order we
denote by Pmax . In Chapter 5 we
give a characterization for this model isolating an
axiom . The formulation of does not involve Pmax , nor does it obviously refer to
L.R/. Instead it species properties of denable subsets of P .!1 /.
1 Introduction
The original motivation for the denition of these models resulted from the discovery that it is possible, in the presence of the appropriate large cardinals, to force
(quite by accident) the effective failure of CH. This and related results are the subject
of Chapter 3. We discuss effective versions of CH below.
Gdel was the rst to propose that large cardinal axioms could be used to settle
questions that were otherwise unsolvable. This has been remarkably successful particularly in the area of descriptive set theory where most of the classical questions have
now been answered. However after the results of Cohen it became apparent that large
cardinals could not be used to settle the Continuum Hypothesis. This was rst argued
by Levy and Solovay .1967/.
Nevertheless large cardinals do provide some insight to the Continuum Hypothesis.
One example of this is the absoluteness theorem of Woodin .1985/. Roughly this
theorem states that in the presence of suitable large cardinals CH settles all questions
with the logical complexity of CH.
More precisely if there exists a proper class of measurable Woodin cardinals then
21 sentences are absolute between all set generic extensions of V which satisfy CH.
The results of this book can be viewed collectively as a version of this absoluteness
theorem for the negation of the Continuum Hypothesis (:CH).
1.1
The nonstationary ideal on !1
We begin with the following question.

Is there a family S j < !2 of stationary subsets of !1 such that S \ S is
nonstationary whenever ?
The analysis of this question has played (perhaps coincidentally) an important role
in set theory particularly in the study of forcing axioms, large cardinals and determinacy.
The nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated if there is no such family. This
statement is independent of the axioms of set theory. We let INS denote the set of
subsets of !1 which are not stationary. Clearly INS is a countably additive uniform
ideal on !1 . If the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated then the boolean algebra
P .!1 /=INS
is a complete boolean algebra which satises the !2 chain condition. Kanamori .2008/
surveys some of the history regarding saturated ideals, the concept was introduced by
Tarski.
The rst consistency proof for the saturation of the nonstationary ideal was obtained by Steel and VanWesep .1982/. They used the consistency of a very strong form
of the Axiom of Determinacy (AD), see .Kanamori 2008/ and Moschovakis .1980/ for
the history of these axioms.
1.1 The nonstationary ideal on !1
Steel and VanWesep proved the consistency of

ZFC C The nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated
assuming the consistency of
ZF C AD R C is regular :
AD R is the assertion that all real games of length ! are determined and denotes the
supremum of the ordinals which are the surjective image of the reals. The hypothesis
was later reduced by Woodin .1983/ to the consistency of ZF C AD. The arguments
of Steel and VanWesep were motivated by the problem of obtaining a model of ZFC in
which !2 is the second uniform indiscernible. For this Steel dened a notion of forcing
which forces over a suitable model of AD that ZFC holds (i. e. that the Axiom of Choice
holds) and forces both that !2 is the second uniform indiscernible and (by arguments of
VanWesep) that the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated. The method of .Woodin
1983/ uses the same notion of forcing and a ner analysis of the forcing conditions
to show that things work out over L.R/. In these models obtained by forcing over
a ground model satisfying AD not only is the nonstationary ideal saturated but the
quotient algebra P .!1 /=INS has a particularly simple form,
P .!1 /=INS RO.Coll.!; <!2 //:
We have proved that this in turn implies ADL.R/ and so the hypothesis used (the consistency of AD) is the best possible.
The next progress on the problem of the saturation of the nonstationary ideal was
obtained in a series of results by Foreman, Magidor, and Shelah .1988/. They proved
that a generalization of Martins Axiom which they termed Martins Maximum actually
implies that the nonstationary ideal is saturated. They also proved that if there is a
supercompact cardinal then Martins Maximum is true in a forcing extension of V .
Later Shelah proved that if there exists a Woodin cardinal then in a forcing extension
of V the nonstationary ideal is saturated. This latter result is most likely optimal in the
sense that it seems very plausible that
ZFC C The nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated
is equiconsistent with
ZFC C There exists a Woodin cardinal
see .Steel 1996/.
There was little apparent progress on obtaining a model in which !2 is the second
uniform indiscernible beyond the original results of .Steel and VanWesep 1982/ and
.Woodin 1983/. Recall that assuming that for every real x, x # exists, the second uni12 prewellorderings.
form indiscernible is equal to
12 , the supremum of the lengths of
Thus the problem of the size of the second uniform indiscernible is an instance of the
1 Introduction
more general problem of computing the effective size of the continuum. This problem
has a variety of formulations, two natural versions are combined in the following:
Is there a (consistent) large cardinal whose existence implies that the length of
any prewellordering arising in either of the following fashions, is less than the
least weakly inaccessible cardinal?
The prewellordering exists in a transitive inner model of AD containing all
the reals.
The prewellordering is universally Baire.
The second of these formulations involves the notion of a universally Baire set
of reals which originates in .Feng, Magidor, and Woodin 1992/. Universally Baire
sets are discussed briey in Section 10.3. We note here that if there exists a proper
class of Woodin cardinals then a set A R is universally Baire if and only if it is
1
-weakly homogeneously Suslin which in turn is if and only if it is 1 -homogeneously
Suslin. Another relevant point is that if there exist innitely many Woodin cardinals
with measurable above and if A R is universally Baire, then
L.A; R/ AD
and so A belongs to an inner model of AD. The converse can fail.
More generally one can ask for any bound provided of course that the bound is a
specic ! which can be dened without reference to 2@0 .
1
For example every
2 prewellordering has length less than !2 and if there is a
measurable cardinal then every
13 prewellordering has length less than !3 . A much
deeper theorem of .Jackson 1988/ is that if every projective set is determined then
every projective prewellordering has length less than !! . This combined with the
theorem of Martin and Steel on projective determinacy yields that if there are innitely
many Woodin cardinals then every projective prewellordering has length less than !! .
The point here of course is that these bounds are valid independent of the size of 2@0 .
The current methods do not readily generalize to even produce a forcing extension
of L.R/ (without adding reals) in which ZFC holds and !3 < L.R/ . Thus at this point
it is entirely possible that !3 is the bound and that this is provable in ZFC. If a large
cardinal admits an inner model theory satisfying fairly general conditions then most
likely the only (nontrivial) bounds provable from the existence of the large cardinal are
those provable in ZFC; i. e. large cardinal combinatorics are irrelevant unless the large
cardinal is beyond a reasonable inner model theory.
For example suppose that there is a partial order P 2 L.R/ such that for all transitive models M of ADC containing R, if G P is M -generic then
.R/M G D .R/M ,
.13 /M G D .!3 /M G ,
L.R/G ZFC,
1.1 The nonstationary ideal on !1
where
13 is the supremum of the lengths of
13 prewellorderings of R. The axiom ADC
is a technical variant of AD which is actually implied by AD in many instances. Assuming DC it is implied, for example, by AD R . It is also implied by AD if V D L.R/.
By the results of .Woodin 2010b/ if inner model theory can be extended to the
level of one supercompact cardinal then the existence of essentially all large cardinals
is consistent with
13 D !3 .
It follows from the results of .Steel and VanWesep 1982/ and .Woodin 1983/ that
such a partial order P exists in the case of 12 , more precisely, assuming
L.R/ AD;
there is a partial order P 2 L.R/ such that for all transitive models M of ADC containing R, if G P is M -generic then
.R/M G D .R/M ,
.12 /M G D .!2 /M G ,
L.R/G ZFC.
Thus if a large cardinal admits a suitable inner model theory then the existence of the
large cardinal is consistent with 12 D !2 . We shall prove a much stronger result in
Chapter 3, showing that if is a Woodin cardinal and if there is a measurable cardinal
above then there is a semiproper partial order P of cardinality such that
V P 12 D !2 :
This result which is a corollary of Theorem 1.1, stated below, and Theorem 2.64, due
to Shelah, shows that this particular instance of the Effective Continuum Hypothesis is
as intractable as the Continuum Hypothesis.
Foreman and Magidor initiated a program of proving that
12 < !2 from various
combinatorial hypotheses with the goal of evolving these into large cardinal hypotheses, .Foreman and Magidor 1995/. By the (initial) remarks above their program if
successful would have identied a critical step in the large cardinal hierarchy.
Foreman and Magidor proved among other things that if there exists a (normal)
12 < !2 . In
!3 -saturated ideal on !2 concentrating on a specic stationary set then
Chapter 9 we improve this result slightly showing that this restriction is unnecessary;
if there is a measurable cardinal and if there is an !3 -saturated (uniform) ideal on !2
then
12 < !2 .
An early conjecture of Martin is that
1n D @n for all n follows from reasonable
1
1n prewellorderings.
hypotheses. n is the supremum of the lengths of
The following theorem proves the Martin conjecture in the case of n D 2.
Theorem 1.1. Assume that the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated and that
there is a measurable cardinal. Then
12 D !2 and further every club in !1 contains a
club constructible from a real.
t
u
1 Introduction
As a corollary we obtain,
Theorem 1.2. Assume Martins Maximum. Then
12 D !2 and every club in !1 contains a club constructible from a real.
t
u
Another immediate corollary is a renement of the upper bound for the consistency
strength of
ZFC C For every real x; x # exists. C !2 is the second uniform indiscernible.
Assuming in addition that larger cardinals exist then one obtains more information.
For example,
Theorem 1.3. Assume the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated and that there
exist ! many Woodin cardinals with a measurable cardinal above them all.
(1) Suppose that A R, A 2 L.R/, and that there is a sequence hB W < !1 i of
borel sets such that
A D [B j < !1 :
1
Then A is
2 .
(2) Suppose that X is a bounded subset of L.R/ of cardinality !1 . Then there exists
t
u
a set Y 2 L.R/ of cardinality !1 in L.R/ such that X Y .
We note that assuming for every x 2 R, x # exists, the statement (1) of Theorem 1.3
1
implies that
12 D !2 ; if 12 < !2 then every
3 set is an !1 union of borel sets.
1.2
The partial order Pmax
Theorem 1.3 suggests that if the nonstationary ideal is saturated (and if modest large
cardinals exist) then one might reasonably expect that the inner model L.P .!1 // may
be close to the inner model L.R/. However if the nonstationary ideal is saturated one
can, by passing to a ccc generic extension, arrange that
P .R/ L.P .!1 //
and preserve the saturation of the nonstationary ideal. Nevertheless this intuition was
the primary motivation for the denition of Pmax .
The canonical model for :CH is obtained by the construction of this specic partial
order, Pmax . The basic properties of Pmax are given in the following theorem.
Theorem 1.4. Assume ADL.R/ and that there exists a Woodin cardinal with a measurable cardinal above it. Then there is a partial order Pmax in L.R/ such that;
(1) Pmax is !-closed and homogeneous (in L.R/),
(2) L.R/Pmax ZFC.
1.2 The partial order Pmax
Further if is a 2 sentence in the language for the structure

hH.!2 /; 2; INS i
and if
hH.!2 /; 2; INS i
then
Pmax
hH.!2 /; 2; INS iL.R/
:
t
u
The partial order Pmax is denable and thus, since granting large cardinals
Th.L.R// is canonical, it follows that Th.L.R/Pmax / is canonical.
Many of the open combinatorial questions at !1 are expressible as 2 statements
in the structure
hH.!2 /; 2; INS i
and so assuming the existence of large cardinals these questions are either false, or
they are true in L.R/Pmax .
In some sense the spirit of Martins Axiom and its generalizations is to maximize
the collection of 2 sentences true in the structure
hH.!2 /; 2i
Indeed MA!1 is easily reformulated as a 2 sentence for hH.!2 /; 2i.
By the remarks above, assuming fairly weak large cardinal hypotheses, any such
sentence which is true in some set generic extension of V is true in a canonical generic
extension of L.R/.
The situation is analogous to the situation of 12 sentences and L. By Shoenelds
absoluteness theorem if a 12 sentence holds in V then it holds in L.
The difference here is that the model analogous to L is not an inner model but
rather it is a canonical generic extension of an inner model. This is not completely
unprecedented. Manselds theorem on 12 wellorderings can be reformulated as follows.
Theorem 1.5 (Manseld). Suppose that is a 13 sentence which is true in V and
there is a nonconstructible real. Then is true in LP where P is Sacks forcing .dened
in L/.
t
u
Of course the 13 sentence also holds in L so this is not completely analogous to
our situation. :CH is a (consistent) 2 sentence for hH.!2 /; 2i which is false in any
of the standard inner models.
Nevertheless the analogy with Sacks forcing is accurate. The forcing notion Pmax
is a generalization of Sacks forcing to !1 .
The following theorem, slightly awkward in formulation, shows that any attempt to realize in H.!2 / all suitably consistent 2 sentences, requires at least 12 Determinacy.
1 Introduction
Theorem 1.6. Suppose that there exists a model, hM; Ei, such that
hM; Ei ZFC
and such that for each 2 sentence if there exists a partial order P such that
hH.!2 /; 2iV
then
;
hH.!2 /; 2ihM;E i :
Assume there is an inaccessible cardinal. Then

V 12 -Determinacy:
t
u
One can strengthen Theorem 1.4 by expanding the structure

hH.!2 /; 2; INS i
by adding predicates for each set of reals in L.R/. This theorem requires additional
large cardinal hypotheses which in fact imply ADL.R/ unlike the large cardinal hypothesis of Theorem 1.4.
Theorem 1.7. Assume there are ! many Woodin cardinals with a measurable above.
Suppose is a 2 sentence in the language for the structure
hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; X I X 2 L.R/; X Ri
and that
hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; X I X 2 L.R/; X Ri
Then
Pmax
hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; X I X 2 L.R/; X RiL.R/
:
t
u
We note that since Pmax is !-closed, the structure

Pmax

is naturally interpreted as a structure for the language of
hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; X I X 2 L.R/; X Ri:
The key point is that this strengthened absoluteness theorem has in some sense a
converse.
Theorem 1.8. Assume ADL.R/ . Suppose that for each 2 sentence in the language
for the structure
hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; X I X 2 L.R/; X Ri
if
Pmax
then
hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; X I X 2 L.R/; X Ri :
Then
L.P .!1 // D L.R/G
for some G Pmax which is L.R/-generic.
t
u
If one assumes in addition that R# exists then Theorem 1.8 can be reformulated as
follows. For each n 2 ! let Un be a set which is 1 denable in the structure
hL.R/; hi W i < ni; 2i
where hi W i < ni is an increasing sequence of Silver indiscernibles of L.R/, and
such that Un is universal.
Theorem 1.9. Assume ADL.R/ and that R# exists. Suppose that for each 2 sentence
in the language for the structure
hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; Un I n < !i
if
Pmax
hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; Un I n < !iL.R/

then
hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; Un I n < !i :
Then
L.P .!1 // D L.R/G
t
u
Thus in the statement of Theorem 1.9 one only refers to a structure of countable
signature.
These theorems suggest that the axiom:
./ AD holds in L.R/ and L.P .!1 // is a Pmax -generic extension of L.R/;
is perhaps, arguably, the correct maximal generalization of Martins Axiom at least as
far as the structure of P .!1 / is concerned. However an important point is that we do
not know if this axiom can always be forced to hold assuming the existence of suitable
large cardinals.
Conjecture. Assume there are ! 2 many Woodin cardinals. Then the axiom ./ holds
in a generic extension of V .
t
u
Because of the intrinsics of the partial order Pmax , this axiom is frequently easier to
use than the usual forcing axioms. We give some applications for which it is not clear
that Martins Maximum sufces. Another key point is:
There is no need in the analysis of L.R/Pmax for any machinery of iterated forcing. This includes the proofs of the absoluteness theorems.
Further
The analysis of L.R/Pmax requires only ADL.R/ .
For the denition of Pmax that we shall work with the analysis will require some iterated
forcing but only for ccc forcing and only to produce a poset which forces MA!1 .
In Chapter 5 we give three other presentations of Pmax based on the stationary
tower forcing. The analysis of these (essentially equivalent) versions of Pmax require
no local forcing arguments whatsoever. This includes the proof of the absoluteness
theorems.
10
1 Introduction
Also in Chapter 5 we shall discuss methods for exploiting ./, giving a useful
reformulation of the axiom. This reformulation does not involve the denition of Pmax .
We shall also prove that, assuming ./,
L.P .!1 // AC:
This we accomplish by nding a 2 sentence which if true in the structure,
hH.!2 /; 2i;
implies (in ZF C DC) that there is a surjection
W !2 ! R
which is denable in the structure
hH.!2 /; 2i
from parameters. This sentence is a consequence of Martins Maximum and an analogous, but easier, argument shows that assuming ADL.R/ , it is true in L.R/Pmax . Thus
the axiom ./ implies 2@0 D @2 . Actually we shall discuss two such sentences, AC
and AC . These are dened in Section 5.1 and Section 5.3 respectively.
1.3 Pmax variations

Starting in Chapter 6, we shall dene several variations of the partial order Pmax . Interestingly each variation can be dened as a suborder of a reformulation of Pmax . The

and it is the subject of Section 5.5. A slightly more general reforreformulation is Pmax
0
mulation is Pmax and in Section 5.6 we prove a theorem which shows that essentially
any possible variation, subject to the constraint that
2@0 D 2@1
0
in the resulting model, is a suborder of Pmax
.
The variations yield canonical models which can be viewed as constrained versions
of the Pmax model. Generally the constrained versions will realize any 2 sentence in
the language for the structure
hH.!2 /; INS ; 2i
which is (suitably) consistent with the constraint; i. e. unless one takes steps to prevent
something from happening it will happen. This is in contrast to the usual forcing
constructions where nothing happens unless one works to make it happen.
One application will be to establish the consistency with ZFC that the nonstationary
ideal on !1 is !1 -dense. This also shows the consistency of the existence of an !1 dense ideal on !1 with :CH. Further for these results only the consistency of ZFCAD
is required. This is best possible for we have proved that if there is an !1 -dense ideal
on !1 then
L.R/ AD:
More precisely we shall dene a variation of Pmax , which we denote Qmax , and
assuming ADL.R/ we shall prove that
L.R/Qmax ZFC C The nonstationary ideal on !1 is !1 -dense:
1.3 Pmax variations
11
Again ADL.R/ sufces for the analysis of L.R/Qmax and there are absoluteness theorems which characterize the Qmax -extension.
Collectively these results suggest that the consistency of ADL.R/ is an upper bound
for the consistency strength of many propositions at !1 , over the base theory,
ZFC C For all x 2 R, x # exists C 12 D !2 :
However there are two classes of counterexamples to this.
Suppose that R# exists and that L.R# / AD. For each sentence such that
L.R/ ;
the following:
There exists a sequence, hB; W < < !1 i, of borel sets such that

[ \
R# D
B; ;
>
and
L.R/ AD C ,
can be expressed by a 2 sentence in hH.!2 /; 2i which can be realized by forcing
with a Pmax variation over L.R# /. There must exist a choice of such that this 2
sentence cannot be realized in the structure hH.!2 /; 2i of any set generic extension
of L.R/. This is trivial if the extension adds no reals (take to be any tautology),
otherwise it is subtle in that if
L.R/ AD
then we conjecture that there is a partial order P 2 L.R/ such that
L.R/P ZFC C R# exists:
The second class of counterexamples is a little more subtle, as the following example illustrates. If the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !1 -dense and if Changs Conjecture
holds then there exists a countable transitive set, M , such that
M ZFC C There exist ! C 1 many Woodin cardinals;
(and so M ADL.R/ and much more). The application of Changs Conjecture is only
necessary to produce
X 2 H.!2 /
such that X \ !2 has ordertype !1 . The subtle and interesting aspect of this example
is that
L.R/Qmax Changs Conjecture;
but by the remarks above, this can only be proved by invoking hypotheses stronger
than ADL.R/ .
In fact the assertion,
L.R/Qmax Changs Conjecture,
is equivalent to a strong form of the consistency of AD. This is the subject of Section 9.4.
12
1 Introduction
The statement that the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !1 -dense is a 2 sentence in

hH.!2 /; 2; INS i:
This is an example of a (consistent) 2 sentence (in the language for this structure)
which implies :CH. Using the methods of Section 10.2 a variety of other examples
can be identied, including examples which imply c D !2 .
Thus in the language for the structure
hH.!2 /; 2; INS i
there are (nontrivial) consistent 2 sentences which are mutually inconsistent. This is
in contrast to the case of 2 sentences.
It is interesting to note that this is not possible for the structure
hH.!2 /; 2i;
provided the sentences are each suitably consistent. We shall discuss this in Chapter 8, (see Theorem 10.159), where we discuss problems related to the problem of the
relationship between Martins Maximum and the axiom ./.
The results we have discussed suggest that if the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 saturated, there are large cardinals and if some particular sentence is true in L.P .!1 //
then it is possible to force over L.R/ (or some larger inner model) to make this sentence
true (by a forcing notion which does not add reals). Of course one cannot obtain
models of CH in this fashion. The limitations seem only to come from the following
consequence of the saturation of the nonstationary ideal in the presence of a measurable
cardinal:
Suppose C !1 is closed and unbounded. Then there exists x 2 R such that
< !1 j L x is admissible C:
This is equivalent to the assertion that for every x 2 R, x # exists together with the
assertion that every closed unbounded subset of !1 contains a closed, conal subset
which is constructible from a real.
Motivated by these considerations we dene, in Chapter 7 and Chapter 8, a number
of additional Pmax variations. The two variations considered in Chapter 7 were selected
simply to illustrate the possibilities. The examples in Chapter 8 were chosen to highlight quite different approaches to the analysis of a Pmax variation, there we shall work
in L-like models in order to prove the lemmas required for the analysis.
It seems plausible that one can in fact routinely dene variations of Pmax to reproduce a wide class of consistency results where c D !2 . The key to all of these
variations is really the proof of Theorem 1.1. It shows that if the nonstationary ideal on
!1 is !2 -saturated then H.!2 / is contained in the limit of a directed system of countable models via maps derived from iterating generic elementary embeddings and (the
formation of) end extensions.
Here again there is no use of iterated forcing and so the arguments generally tend
to be simpler than their standard counterparts. Further there is an extra degree of
freedom in the construction of these models which yields consequences not obviously
1.4 Extensions of inner models beyond L.R/
13
obtainable with the usual methods. The rst example of Chapter 7 is the variation,
Smax , which conditions the model on a sentence which implies the existence of a Suslin
tree. The sentence asserts:
Every subset of !1 belongs to a transitive model M in which holds and such
that every Suslin tree in M is a Suslin tree in V .
If AD holds in L.R/ and if G Smax is L.R/-generic then in L.R/G the following
strengthening of the sentence holds:
For every A !1 there exists B !1 such that A 2 LB and such that if
T 2 LB is a Suslin tree in LB, then T is a Suslin tree.
In L.R/G every subset of !1 belongs to an inner model with a measurable cardinal
(and more) and under these conditions this strengthening is not even obviously consistent.
The second example of Chapter 7 is motivated by the Borel Conjecture. The rst
consistency proof for the Borel Conjecture is presented in .Laver 1976/. The Borel
Conjecture can be forced a variety of different ways. One can iterate Laver forcing or
Mathias forcing, etc. In Section 7.2, we dene a variation of Pmax which forces the
Borel Conjecture. The denition of this forcing notion does not involve Laver forcing, Mathias forcing or any variation of these forcing notions. In the model obtained,
a version of Martins Maximum holds. Curiously, to prove that the Borel Conjecture
holds in the resulting model we do use a form of Laver forcing. An interesting technical question is whether this can be avoided. It seems quite likely that it can, which
could lead to the identication of other variations yielding models in which the Borel
Conjecture holds and in which additional interesting combinatorial facts also hold.
1.4
Extensions of inner models beyond L.R/
In Chapter 9 we again focus primarily on the Pmax -extension but now consider extensions of inner models strictly larger than L.R/. These yield models of ./ with rich
structure for H.!3 /; i. e. with many subsets of !2 .
The ground models that we shall consider are of the form L.; R/ where
P .R/ is a pointclass closed under borel preimages, or more generally inner
models of the form L.S; ; R/ where P .R/ and S Ord. We shall require that
a particular form of AD hold in the inner model, the axiom is ADC which is discussed
in Section 9.1. It is by exploiting more subtle aspects of the consequences of ADC that
we can establish a number of combinatorially interesting facts about the corresponding
extensions.
Applications include obtaining extensions in which Martins Maximum holds for
partial orders of cardinality c, this is Martins Maximum.c/, and in which !2 exhibits
some interesting combinatorial features.
14
1 Introduction
Actually in the models obtained, Martins MaximumCC .c/ holds. This is the assertion that Martins MaximumCC holds for partial orders of cardinality c where Martins
MaximumCC is a slight strengthening of Martins Maximum. These forcing axioms,
rst formulated in .Foreman, Magidor, and Shelah 1988/, are dened in Section 2.5.
Recasting the Pmax variation for the Borel Conjecture in this context we obtain, in
the spirit of Martins Maximum, a model in which the Borel Conjecture holds together
with the largest fragment of Martins Maximum.c/ which is possibly consistent with
the Borel Conjecture.
Another reason for considering extensions of inner models larger than L.R/ is that
one obtains more information about extensions of L.R/. For example the proof that
L.R/Qmax Changs Conjecture;
requires considering the .Qmax /N -extension of inner models N such that
.R \ N /# 2 N
and much more.
Finally any systematic study of the possible features of the structure
hH.!2 /; INS ; 2i
in the context of
ZFC C ADL.R/ C 12 D !2
requires considering extensions of inner models beyond L.R/; as we have indicated,
there are (2 ) sentences which can be realized in the structure, hH.!2 /; INS ; 2i, of
these extensions but which cannot be realized in any such structure dened in an extension of L.R/.
The results of Chapter 9 suggest a strengthening of the axiom ./:
Axiom ./C : For each set X !2 there exists a set A R and a lter G Pmax
such that
(1) L.A; R/ ADC ,
(2) G is L.A; R/-generic and X 2 L.A; R/G.
This is discussed briey in Chapter 10 which explores the possible relationships between Martins Maximum and the axiom ./. One of the theorems we shall prove
Chapter 10 shows that in Theorem 1.8, it is essential that the predicate, INS , for the
nonstationary sets be added to the structure. We shall show that
Martins Maximum CC .c/ C Strong Changs Conjecture
together with all the 2 consequences of ./ for the structure
hH.!2 /; Y; 2 W Y R; Y 2 L.R/i
does not imply ./. We shall also prove an analogous theorem which shows that conally many sets from P .R/ \ L.R/ must be added; for each set Y0 2 P .R/ \ L.R/,
15

hH.!2 /; INS ; Y0 ; 2i
does not imply ./.
Finally, we shall also show in Chapter 10 that the axiom ./ is equivalent (in the
context of large cardinals) with a very strong form of a bounded version of Martins
MaximumCC .
1.5
Concluding remarks the view from Berlin in 1999
The following question resurfaces with added signicance.

Assume ADL.R/ . Is L.R/ !3 ?
The point is that if it is consistent to have ADL.R/ and L.R/ > !3 then presumably this can be achieved in a forcing extension of L.R/. This in turn would suggest
there are generalizations of Pmax which produce generic extensions of L.R/ in which
c > !2 . There are many open questions in combinatorial set theory for which a (positive) solution requires building forcing extensions in which c > !2 .
The potential utility of Pmax variations for obtaining models in which
!3 < L.R/
is either enhanced or limited by the following theorem of S. Jackson. This theorem
is an immediate corollary of Theorem 1.3(2) and Jacksons analysis of measures and
ultrapowers in L.R/ under the hypothesis of ADL.R/ .
Theorem 1.10 (Jackson). Assume the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated and
that there exist ! many Woodin cardinals with a measurable cardinal above them all.
Then either:
(1) There exists < L.R/ such that is a regular cardinal in L.R/ and such that
is not a cardinal in V , or;
(2) There exists a set A of regular cardinals, above !2 , such that
a) jAj D @1 ,
b) jpcf.A/j D @2 .
t
u
One of the main open problems of Shelahs pcf theory is whether there can exist a
set, A, of regular cardinals such that jAj < jpcf.A/j (satisfying the usual requirement
that jAj < min.A/).
Common to all Pmax variations is that Theorem 1.3(2) holds in the resulting models
and so the conclusions of Theorem 1.10 applies to these models as well. Though,
16
1 Introduction
recently, a more general class of variations has been identied for which Theorem 1.3(2) fails in the models obtained. These latter examples are variations only in
the sense that they also yield canonical models in which CH fails, cf. Theorem 10.185.
I end with a confession. This book was written intermittently over a 7 year period
beginning in early 1992 when the initial results were obtained. During this time the
exposition evolved considerably though the basic material did not. Except that the
material in Chapter 8, the material in the last three sections of Chapter 9 and much
of Chapter 10, is more recent. Earlier versions contained sections which, because of
length considerations, we have been compelled to remove.
This account represents in form and substance the evolutionary process which actually took place. Further a number of proofs are omitted or simply sketched, especially
in Chapter 10. Generally it seemed better to state a theorem without proof than not to
state it at all. In some cases the proofs are simply beyond the scope of this book and in
other cases the proofs are a routine adaptation of earlier arguments. Of course in both
cases this can be quite frustrating to the reader. Nevertheless it is my hope that this
book does represent a useful introduction to this material with few relics from earlier
versions buried in its text.
By the time (May, 1999) of this writing a number of papers have appeared, or are
in press, which deal with Pmax or variations thereof. P. Larson and D. Seabold have
each obtained a number of results which are included in their respective Ph. D. theses,
some of these results are discussed in this book.
Shelah and Zapletal consider several variations, recasting the absoluteness theorems in terms of 2 -compactness but restricting to the case of extensions of L.R/,
.Shelah and Zapletal 1999/.
More recently Ketchersid, Larson, and Zapletal .2007/ isolate a family of explicit
Namba-like forcing notions which can, under suitable circumstances, change the value
of
12 even in situations where CH holds. These examples are really the rst to be
isolated which can work in the context of CH. Other examples have been discovered
and are given in .Doebler and Schindler 2009/.
Finally there are some very recent developments (as of 1999) which involve a generalization of !-logic which we denote -logic. Arguably -logic is the natural limit
of the lineage of generalizations of classical rst order logic which begins with !-logic
and continues with -logic etc.
We (very briey) discuss -logic (updated to 2010) in Section 10.4 and Section 10.5. In some sense the entire discussion of Pmax and its variations should take
place in the context of -logic and were we to rewrite the book this is how we would
proceed. In particular, the absoluteness theorems associated to Pmax and its variations
are more naturally stated by appealing to this logic. For example Theorem 1.4 can be
reformulated as follows.
Theorem 1.11. Suppose that there exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals.
Suppose that is a 2 sentence in the language for the structure hH.!2 /; 2; INS i
and that
ZFC C hH.!2 /; 2; INS i
is -consistent, then
Pmax
hH.!2 /; 2; INS iL.R/
:
17
t
u
In fact, using -logic one can give a reformulation of ./ which does not involve
forcing at all, this is discussed briey in Section 10.4.
Another feature of the forcing extensions given by the (homogeneous) Pmax variations, this holds for all the variations which we discuss in this book, is that each
provides a nite axiomatization, over ZFC, of the theory of H.!2 / (in -logic). For
Pmax , the axiom is ./ and the theorem is the following.
Theorem 1.12. Suppose that there exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals.
Then for each sentence , either
(1) ZFC C ./ ` H.!2 / , or
(2) ZFC C ./ ` H.!2 / :.
t
u
This particular feature underscores the fundamental difference between the method
of Pmax variations and that of iterated forcing. We note that it is possible to identify
nite axiomatizations over ZFC of the theory of hH.!2 /; 2i which cannot be realized
by any Pmax variation. Theorem 10.185 indicates such an example, the essential feature
is that 12 < !2 but still there is an effective failure of CH. Nevertheless it is at best
difcult through an iterated forcing construction to realize in hH.!2 /; 2iV G a theory
which is nitely axiomatized over ZFC in -logic. The reason is simply that generally
the choice of the ground model will inuence, in possibly very subtle ways, the theory
of the structure hH.!2 /; 2iV G . There is at present no known example which works,
say from some large cardinal assumption, independent of the choice of the ground
model.
-logic provides the natural setting for posing questions concerning the possibility
of such generalizations of Pmax , to for example !2 , i. e. for the structure H.!3 /, and
beyond. The rst singular case, H.!!C /, seems particularly interesting.
There is also the case of !1 but in the context of CH. One interesting result (but
as of 2010, this is contingent on the ADC Conjecture), with, we believe, potential
implications for CH, is that there are limits to any possible generalization of the Pmax
variations to the context of CH; more precisely, if CH holds then the theory of H.!2 /
cannot be nitely axiomatized over ZFC in -logic.
Acknowledgments to the rst edition. Many of the results of the rst half of this
book were presented in the Set Theory Seminar at UC Berkeley. The (ever patient)
participants in this seminar offered numerous helpful suggestions for which I remain
quite grateful.
I am similarly indebted to all those willingly to actually read preliminary versions
of this book and then relate to me their discoveries of mistakes, misprints and relics.
I only wish that the nal product better represented their efforts.
I owe a special debt of thanks to Ted Slaman. Without his encouragement, advice
and insight, this book would not exist.
18
1 Introduction
The research, the results of which are the subject of this book, was supported in part
by the National Science Foundation through a succession of summer research grants,
and during the academic year, 19971998, by the Miller Institute in Berkeley.
Finally I would like to acknowledge the (generous) support of the Alexander von
Humboldt Foundation. It is this support which enabled me to actually nish this book.
Berlin, May 1999
1.6
W. Hugh Woodin
The view from Heidelberg in 2010
In the 10 years since what was written above as the introduction to the rst edition of
this book there have been quite a number of mathematical developments relevant to
this book and I nd myself again in Germany on sabbatical from Berkeley working on
this book. This edition contains revisions that reect these developments including the
deletion of some theorems now not relevant because of these developments or simply
because the proofs, sketched or otherwise, were simply not correct. Finally I stress that
I make no claim that this revision is either extensive or thorough and I regret to say that
it is not I feel that the entire subject is at a critical crossroads and as always in such a
situation one cannot be completely condent in which direction the future lies. But it
is this future that dictates which aspects of this account should be stressed.
First and most straightforward, the theorems related to ! .!2 /, such as the theorem that Martins Maximum implies ! .!2 /, have all been rendered irrelevant by a
remarkable theorem of .Shelah 2008/ which shows that ! .!2 / is a consequence of
2!1 D !2 . Shelahs result shows that assuming Martins Maximum.c/, or simply assuming that 2!1 D !2 , then the nonstationary ideal at !2 cannot be semi-saturated on
the ordinals of countable conality. It does not rule out the possibility that there exists
a uniform semi-saturated at !2 on the ordinals of countable conality. On the other
hand, the primary motivation for obtaining such consistency results for ideals at !2 in
the rst edition was the search for evidence that the consistency strength of the theory
ZF C ADR C is regular
was beyond that of the existence of a superstrong cardinals. Dramatic recent results
.Sargsyan 2009/ have shown that this theory is not that strong, proving that the consistency of this theory follows from simply the existence of a Woodin cardinal which is
a limit of Woodin cardinals. Therefore in this edition the consistency results for semisaturated ideals at !2 are simply stated without proof. The proofs of these theorems
are sketched at length in the rst edition but based upon an analysis in the context of
ADC of HOD which is open without requiring that one work relative to the minimum
model of
ZF C ADR C is Mahlo
but of course the sketch in the case of obtaining the consistency that JNS is semisaturated is not correct that error was due to a careless misconception regarding
1.5 The view from Heidelberg in 2010
19
iterations of forcing with uncountable support. As indicated in the rst edition the
analysis of HOD in the context of ADC is not actually necessary for the proofs, it was
used only to provide a simpler framework for the constructions.
Ultimately of far more signicance for this book is that recent results concerning
the inner model program undermine the philosophical framework for this entire work.
The fundamental result of this book is the identication of a canonical axiom for :CH
which is characterized in terms of a logical completion of the theory of H.!2 / (in logic of course). But the validation of this axiom requires a synthesis with axioms for
V itself for otherwise it simply stands as an isolated axiom. This view is reinforced
by the use of the Conjecture to argue against the generic-multiverse view of truth
.Woodin 2009/. I remain convinced that if CH is false then the axiom ./ holds and
certainly there are now many results conrming that if the axiom ./ does hold then
there is a rich structure theory for H.!2 / in which many pathologies are eliminated.
But nevertheless for all the reasons discussed at length in .Woodin 2010b/, I think the
evidence now favors CH.
The picture that is emerging now based on .Woodin 2010b/ and .Woodin 2010a/
is as follows. The solution to the inner model problem for one supercompact cardinal
yields the ultimate enlargement of L. This enlargement of L is compatible with all
stronger large cardinal axioms and strong forms of covering hold relative to this inner
model. At present there seem to be two possibilities for this enlargement, as an extender model or as strategic extender model. There is a key distinction however between
these two versions. An extender model in which there is a Woodin cardinal is a (nontrivial) generic extension of an inner model which is also an extender model whereas
a strategic extender model in which there is a proper class of Woodin cardinals is not
a generic extension of any inner model. The most optimistic generalizations of the
structure theory of L.R/ in the context of AD to a structure theory of L.VC1 / in the
context of an elementary embedding,
j W L.VC1 / ! L.VC1 /
with critical point below
require that V not be a generic extension of any inner model
which is not countably closed within V . Therefore these generalizations cannot hold
in the extender models and this leave the strategic extender models as essentially the
only option. Thus there could be a compelling argument that V is a strategic extender
model based on natural structural principles. This of course would rule out that the
axiom ./ holds though if V is a strategic extender model (with a Woodin cardinal)
then the axiom ./ holds in a homogeneous forcing extension of V and so the axiom
./ has a special connection to V as an axiom which holds in a canonical companion
to V mediated by an intervening model of ADC which is the manifestation of -logic.
An appealing aspect to this scenario is that the relevant axiom for V can be explicitly
stated now and in a form which claries the previous claims without knowing
the detailed level by level inductive denition of a strategic extender model .Woodin
2010b/: in its weakest form the axiom is simply the conjunction of:
20
1 Introduction
(1) There is a supercompact cardinal.

(2) There exist a universally Baire set A R and < L.A;R/ such that
V .HOD/L.A;R/ \ V
for all 2 -sentences (equivalently, for all 2 -sentences).
As with the previous scenarios this scenario could collapse but any scenario for such a
collapse which leads back to the validation of the axiom ./ seems rather unlikely at
present.
Acknowledgments to the second edition. I am very grateful to all of those who sent
me lists of errata for the rst edition or otherwise offered valuable comments, I wish
this edition better reected their efforts. I would also like to thank Christine Woodin
for an extremely useful python script for nding unbalanced parentheses in very large
LATEX les.
Heidelberg, March 2010
W. Hugh Woodin
Chapter 2
Preliminaries
We briey review, without giving all of the proofs, some of the basic concepts which
we shall require, .Foreman and Kanamori (Eds.) 2010/ covers most of what we need
and obviously quite a bit more. In the course of this we shall x some notation. As
is the custom in Descriptive Set Theory, R denotes the innite product space, ! ! .
Though sometimes it is convenient to work with the Cantor space, 2! , or even with
the standard Euclidean space, .
1; 1/. If at some point the discussion is particularly
sensitive to the manifestation of R then we may be more careful with our notation. For
example L.R/ is relatively immune to such considerations, but Wadge reducibility is
not.
We shall require at several points some coding of sets by reals or by sets of reals.
There is a natural coding of sets in H.!1 / (the hereditarily countable sets) by reals.
For example if a 2 H.!1 / then the set a can be coded by coding the structure
hb [ !; a; 2i
where b is the transitive closure of a.
A real x codes a if x decodes sets A ! and E ! ! such that
hb [ !; a; 2i h!; A; Ei;
where again b is the transitive closure of a.
Suppose that M 2 H.c C / and let N be the transitive closure of M . Fix a reasonable decoding of a set X R to produce an element of
P .R/ P .R R/ P .R R/:
A set X R codes M if X decodes sets A R, E R R and R R such
that is an equivalence relation on R, A R, E R R, A and E are invariant
relative to , and such that
hN; M; 2i hR=; A=; E=i:
We shall be interested in sets M which are coded in this fashion by sets X R such
that X belongs to a transitive inner model in which the Axiom of Choice fails.
2.1
Weakly homogeneous trees and scales
For any set X , X <! is the set of nite sequences of elements of X . If s 2 X <! then
`.s/ denotes the length of s, which formally is simply the domain of s. A tree T on
a set X is a set of nite sequences from X which is closed under initial segments. So
T X <! .
We abuse this convention slightly and say that a tree T is a tree on ! where
is an ordinal if T is a set of pairs .s; t / such that
22
2 Preliminaries
(1) s 2 ! <! and t 2 <! ,

(2) `.s/ D `.t /,
(3) for all i < `.s/, .sji; t ji / 2 T .
Suppose that T is a tree on ! . For s 2 ! <! we let
Ts D t 2 <! j .s; t / 2 T
and for each x 2 ! ! ,
Tx D [Txjk j k 2 !:
Thus for each x 2 ! , Tx is a tree on . We let

!
T D .x; f / j x 2 ! ! ; f 2 ! ; and for all k 2 !; .xjk; f jk/ 2 T

denote the set of innite branches of T and we let
pT D x 2 ! ! j .x; f / 2 T for some f 2 ! :
Thus pT ! ! , it is the projection of T , and clearly
pT D x 2 ! ! j Tx is not wellfounded:
A set of reals, A, is Suslin if A D pT for some tree T . Of course assuming
the Axiom of Choice every set is Suslin. One can obtain a more interesting notion by
restricting the choice of the tree. This can done two ways, by denability or by placing
combinatorial constraints on the tree. The rst route is the descriptive set theoretic one.
A pointclass is a set P .! ! /. Suppose that is a pointclass and that for any
continuous function
F W !! ! !!
if A 2 then F 1 A 2 ; i. e. suppose is closed under continuous preimages.
Then has an unambiguous interpretation as a subset of P .X / where X is any space
homeomorphic with ! ! . The point of course is that this does not depend on the homeomorphism. We shall use this freely. Similarly if in addition, is closed under nite
intersections and contains the closed sets, then has an unambiguous interpretation as
a subset of P .X / where X is any space homeomorphic with a closed subset of ! ! .
If is a pointclass closed under preimages by borel functions then has an unambiguous interpretation as a subset of P .X / where X is any space homeomorphic with
a borel subset of ! ! . If the borel set is uncountable, i. e. if X is uncountable, then the
pointclass, , is uniquely determined by this interpretation. More generally if X is a
topological space for which there is an isomorphism
W hX; .Z.X //i ! h! ! ; B.! ! /i
where .Z.X // is the -algebra generated by the zero sets of X , and B.! ! / is the
-algebra of borel subsets of ! ! , then again has an unambiguous interpretation as a
subset of P .X / which again uniquely determines . This includes any space we shall
ever need to interpret in. We shall almost exclusively be dealing with pointclasses
closed under preimages by borel functions.
23
Suppose that is a pointclass. Then : denotes the pointclass obtained from

complementing the sets in ,
: D ! ! n A j A 2 :
Clearly if is closed under continuous preimages then so is the dual pointclass, :.
Moschovakis introduced the fundamental notion in descriptive set theory of a scale,
(see .Moschovakis 1980/). We recall the denition.
Denition 2.1. Suppose that is a pointclass closed under continuous preimages.
(1) Suppose that A 2 . The set A has a -scale if there is a sequence
hi W i 2 !i
of prewellorderings on A such that the following conditions hold.
a) The set
hi; x; yi j i 2 !; x i y
belongs to .
b) There exists Y 2 : such that
Y ! !! !!
and such that for all i < !,
i D Yi \ .R A/:
where Yi D .x; y/ j .i; x; y/ 2 Y is the section given by i .
c) Suppose that hxi W i < !i is a sequence of reals in A which converges to x.
Suppose that for each i there exists i such that xj i xi and xi i xj
for all j i . Then x 2 A and for all i < !,
x i x i :
(2) The pointclass has the scale property if every set in has a -scale.
t
u
The notion of a scale is closely related to Suslin representations.

Remark 2.2. (1) If the pointclass is a -algebra closed under continuous preimages and if contains the open sets then a set A 2 has a -scale if and
only if there is a sequence hi W i < !i of prewellorderings on A such that each
belongs to and the condition (c) of the denition holds.
(2) If is a -algebra closed under both continuous preimages and continuous images then a set A 2 has a -scale if and only if A D pT for some tree T
which is coded by a set in .
t
u
24
2 Preliminaries
Recall that a set A 2 P .R/ \ L.R/ is 21 -denable in L.R/ if and only if it is 1

denable in L.R/ with parameter R.
Assuming the Axiom of Choice fails in L.R/, then it is easily veried that there
must exist a set A 2 P .R/ \ L.R/, such that R n A is 21 -denable in L.R/ and such
that A is not Suslin in L.R/.
The following theorem of Martin and Steel .1983/ shows that assuming .AD/L.R/ ,
2 L.R/
the pointclass .
has the scale property. By the remarks above this is best pos1 /
sible. In fact it follows by Wadge reducibility that, assuming .AD/L.R/ , every set
A 2 P .R/ \ L.R/
2 L.R/
.
which is Suslin in L.R/, is necessarily .
1 /
This theorem will play an important role in the analysis of the Pmax extension of
L.R/.
Theorem 2.3 (MartinSteel). Suppose that
L.R/ AD:
2
Then every set A R which is 1 -denable in L.R/ has a scale which is 21 -denable
in L.R/.
t
u
Suppose that X is a nonempty set. We let m.X / denote the set of countably complete ultralters on the boolean algebra P .X /. Our convention is that is a measure
on X if 2 m.X /. As usual for 2 m.X / and A X , we write .A/ D 1 to
indicate that A 2 .
Suppose that X D Y <! and that 2 m.X /. Since is countably complete, there
is a unique k 2 ! such that .Y k / D 1. Suppose that 1 and 2 are measures on
Y <! . Let k1 and k2 be such that 1 .Y k1 / D 1 and 2 .Y k2 / D 1. Then 2 projects to

1 if k1 < k2 and, for all A Y k1, 1 .A/ D 1 if and only
if 2 .A / D 1 where

k2
A D s 2 Y j sjk1 2 A :
We write 1 < 2 to indicate that 2 projects to 1 .
For each 2 m.X / there is a canonical elementary embedding
j W V ! M
where M is the transitive inner model obtained from taking the transitive collapse of
V X = . Suppose that 1 2 m.Y <! /, 2 2 m.Y <! / and 1 < 2 . Then there is a
canonical elementary embedding
j1 ;2 W M1 ! M2
such that j2 D j1 ;2 j1 .
Suppose that h k W k 2 !i is a sequence of measures on Y <! such that for all
k 2 !, k .Y k / D 1. The sequence h k W k 2 !i is a tower if for all k1 < k2 ,
k1 < k2 . The tower, h k W k 2 !i, is countably complete if for any sequence
hAk W k 2 !i such that for all k < !, k .Ak / D 1, there exists f 2 Y ! such that
f jk 2 Ak for all k 2 !. It is completely standard that if h k W k 2 !i is a tower of
measures on Y <! then the tower is countably complete if and only if the direct limit
of the sequence hMk W k < !i under the system of maps,
.k1 < k2 < !/;
jk1 ;k2 W Mk1 ! Mk2
is wellfounded.
25
We come to the key notions of homogeneous trees and weakly homogeneous trees.
These denitions are due independently to Kunen and Martin.
Denition 2.4. Suppose that is an ordinal and 0. Suppose that T is a tree on
! .
(1) The tree T is -weakly homogeneous if there is a partial function
W ! <! ! <! ! m. <! /
such that
a) if .s; t / 2 dom./ then .s; t /.Ts / D 1 and .s; t / is a -compete measure,
b) for all x 2 ! ! , x 2 pT if and only if there exists y 2 ! ! such that
.xjk; yjk/ j k < ! dom./,
h.xjk; yjk/ W k 2 !i is a countably complete tower.
(2) The tree T is <-weakly homogeneous if T is -weakly homogeneous for all
< .
(3) The tree T is weakly homogeneous if T is -weakly homogeneous for some . u
t
Denition 2.5. Suppose that is an ordinal and 0. Suppose that T is a tree on
! .
(1) The tree T is -homogeneous if there is a partial function
W ! <! ! m. <! /
such that
a) if s 2 dom./ then .s/.Ts / D 1 and .s/ is a -compete measure,
b) for all x 2 ! ! , x 2 pT if and only if
xjk j k 2 ! dom./,
h.xjk/ W k 2 !i is a countably complete tower.
(2) The tree T is <-homogeneous if T is -homogeneous for all < .
(3) The tree T is homogeneous if T is -homogeneous for some .
t
u
Any tree on ! ! is -weakly homogeneous for all and similarly any tree on
! 1 is -homogeneous for all . In each case the associated measures are principal.
The denition of a weakly homogeneous tree has a simple reformulation which
is frequently more relevant to the process of actually verifying that specic trees are
weakly homogeneous. This reformulation is given in the following lemma which we
leave as an exercise.
26
2 Preliminaries
Lemma 2.6. Suppose that T is a tree on ! . Then T is -weakly homogeneous

if and only if there exists a countable set m. <! / such that every measure
in is -complete and such that for all x 2 ! ! , x 2 pT if and only if there is a
countably complete tower h k W k 2 !i of measures in such that for all k 2 !,
t
u
k .Txjk / D 1.
Homogeneity is a rather restrictive condition on a tree, weak homogeneity, however, is not. For example if is a Woodin cardinal and T is a tree on ! for some
then there exists an ordinal < such that if G Coll.!; / is V -generic then in
V G, T is <-weakly homogeneous. Another example is the theorem of Martin that
ADR implies that every tree is weakly homogeneous.
A set of reals which can be represented as the projection of a weakly homogeneous
tree or as the projection of a homogeneous tree has special regularity properties and
this is the primary reason for considering these trees.
Denition 2.7. Suppose that A ! ! .
(1) The set A is -weakly homogeneously Suslin if A D pT for some tree T which
is -weakly homogeneous. The set A is -homogeneously Suslin if A D pT
for some tree T which is -homogeneous.
(2) The set A is <-weakly homogeneously Suslin if A is -weakly homogeneously
Suslin for all < . The set A is <-homogeneously Suslin if A is - homogeneously Suslin for all < .
(3) The set A is weakly homogeneously Suslin if A is -weakly homogeneously
Suslin for some . The set A is homogeneously Suslin if A is -homogeneously
Suslin for some .
t
u
The connection between the notions of being weakly homogeneously Suslin and
being homogeneously Suslin is given in the following lemma.
Lemma 2.8. Suppose that A R. Then A is -weakly homogeneously Suslin if and
t
u
only if A is the continuous image of a set B which is -homogeneously Suslin.
Homogeneously Suslin sets are determined and as a consequence have strong regularity properties. Weakly homogeneously Suslin sets share some of these regularity properties, for example weakly homogeneously Suslin sets have all the regularity
properties that correspond to forcing notions. These include the properties of being
Lebesgue measurable etc. Other regularity properties include the following, due to
Kechris.
Lemma 2.9 (Kechris). Suppose that A !1 and that A is weakly homogeneously
Suslin where
A D x 2 R j x codes A \ for some < !1 :
Then A is constructible from a real.
t
u
27
Denition 2.10. (1) WH is the set of all A R such that A is -weakly homoWH
is the set of all A R such that A is < -weakly
geneously Suslin. <
WH
homogeneously Suslin. 1
is the set of all A R such that A is -weakly
homogeneously Suslin for all .
H
(2) H is the set of all A R such that A is -homogeneously Suslin. <
is the
H
set of all A R such that A is <-homogeneously Suslin. 1 is the set of all
A R such that A is -homogeneously Suslin for all .
t
u
The next lemma gives the elementary closure properties for these pointclasses.
Lemma 2.11.
tions.
(1) H is closed under continuous preimages and countable intersec-
(2) WH is closed under continuous preimages, continuous images, countable intersections and countable unions.
(3) H WH .
(4) If 1 < 2 then
WH
WH
2
1
and
H2 H1 :
t
u
If is a limit of Woodin cardinals then much stronger closure conditions hold.

WH
.
Theorem 2.12. Suppose that is a limit of Woodin cardinals. Suppose that A 2 <
Then
WH
P .R/ \ L .A; R/ <
where is the least ordinal such that

L .A; R/ ZF :
t
u
We shall need the following theorem, .Koellner and Woodin 2010/. This theorem
can be used in place of the Martin-Steel theorem on scales in L.R/, Theorem 2.3, in
the analysis of L.R/Pmax .
Theorem 2.13. Suppose that is a limit of Woodin cardinals and that there a measurable cardinal above . Suppose that A R and that A 2 L.R/. Then A is < weakly
homogeneously Suslin.
t
u
The basic machinery for establishing that sets are weakly homogeneously Suslin
is developed in Larson .2004/. An important application is given in the following
theorem of Steel.
28
2 Preliminaries
Theorem 2.14 (Steel). Suppose that 0 < 1 are Woodin cardinals and
A 2 WH
C:
1
t
u
WH
Then A has a scale in <
.
0
The fundamental theorem of .Martin and Steel 1989/ implies that if is a Woodin
cardinal then
H
WH
C < :
An immediate corollary to this is the following theorem which is extremely useful
in developing the elementary theory of these pointclasses.
Theorem 2.15. Suppose that is a limit of Woodin cardinals. Then
WH
H
<
D <
:
and further there exists < such that

WH
H
D <
:
WH D <
t
u
Putting everything together we obtain the following theorem.

H
is a -algebra
Theorem 2.16. Suppose that is a limit of Woodin cardinals. Then <
H
closed under continuous preimages and continuous images. Further every set in <
H
admits a scale in < .
t
u
Remark 2.17. (1) Suppose that 0 1 are pointclasses which are closed under
continuous preimages. Suppose that 1 is a -algebra and is closed under continuous images. Suppose every set in 1 is the continuous image of a set in 0 .
Suppose every set in 1 is determined. Then 0 D 1 . Therefore if is a limit
WH
H
and <
follows abstractly from
of Woodin cardinals, the equivalence of <
WH
.
the determinacy of the sets in <
(2) Suppose that is strongly compact. Then by the results of .Larson 2004/ the
pointclass WH is a -algebra with the property that every set in WH admits
a scale in WH . Further WH has very strong closure properties. For example,
2
assuming CH, then if A 2 WH then every set which is
1 denable from A is in
WH
. An interesting open question is the following.
Suppose that is strongly compact. Must WH D H ?
This is equivalent to the question of whether every -weakly homogeneously
Suslin set is determined (given that is strongly compact).
t
u
It is convenient in many situations to associate with a pointclass P .! ! / a
transitive set M . Roughly M is simply the set of all sets X which are coded by a set
in . For technical reasons we actually dene M to be a possibly smaller set, though
in practice this distinction will never really be important to us. It does however raise
an interesting question.
29
Denition 2.18. Suppose that is a pointclass which is a boolean subalgebra of P .R/

and that is closed under continuous preimages and under continuous images.
(1) N is the set of all sets X such that
hY; X; 2i hR=; P =; E=i
where
a) Y is the transitive closure of X ,
b) is an equivalence relation on R,
c) P R and E R R,
d) ; P; E are each in .
(2) M is the set of all X 2 N such that the following holds where Y is the
transitive closure of X .
a) Suppose that
0 W R ! N
and
1 W R ! N
are functions in N . Then
.x; y/ 2 R R j 0 .x/ D 1 .y/ and 0 .x/ 2 Y 2 :
t
u
Clearly M and N are each transitive. With our coding conventions N is simply
the set of all sets X which are coded by a set in .
Remark 2.19. Suppose that P .R/ is a pointclass as in Denition 2.18.
(1) Suppose that Y 2 N is transitive and that
hY; 2i hR=; E=i
where
a) is an equivalence relation on R,
b) E is a binary relation on R,
c) ; E are each in .
Let W R ! Y be the associated surjection. Then 2 N .
(2) M is a transitive set which is closed under the Godel operations. Even with
t
u
determinacy assumptions on we do not know if this is true of N .
Remark 2.20.
(1) If D P .R/ then

M D N D H.c C /:
30
2 Preliminaries
(2) If D P .R/ \ L.R/ then

M D N D L .R/
where is as computed in L.R/; i. e. where is the least ordinal such that in
L.R/ there is no surjection
WR!
t
u
of the reals onto .
The following theorems summarize some of the relationships between M and N .

Theorem 2.21. Suppose that P .R/ is a pointclass such that for each A 2 ,
L A .A; R/ \ P .R/
where for each A 2 , A is the least ordinal admissible relative to the pair .A; R/.
Then
u
t
M D N D [L A .A; R/ j A 2 :
Assuming AD one obtains some nontrivial information in the general case (weaker
closure on ), using various generalizations of the Moschovakis Coding Lemma.
Theorem 2.22. Suppose that is a pointclass which is a boolean subalgebra of P .R/
and that is closed under continuous preimages and under continuous images. Suppose that every set in is determined. Then:
(1) M \ Ord D N \ Ord.
(2) Suppose that T 2 N is a wellfounded subtree of R<! . Let
W T ! Ord
be the associated rank function. Then 2 N .
(3) Let D M \ Ord. Then
P ./ \ N D P ./ \ M
and for each pair .X; Y / of elements of P ./ \ M ,
L .X; Y / M :
t
u
Remark 2.23. (1) We do not know if one can prove that M D N , assuming
either every set in is determined or even assuming
L.; R/ AD:
(2) Note that if 0 1 are each (boolean) pointclasses closed under continuous
images and preimages then
N0 N1 :
However the relationship between M0 and M1 is less clear, even with determinacy assumptions.
2.2 Generic absoluteness
31
(3) Generally we shall only be interested in M \ P .Ord/ unless in fact satises

the closure requirements of Theorem 2.21. Thus the distinction between M and
N will never really be an issue for us.
Given a pointclass with the closure properties of Denition 2.18 we dene a new
2
pointclass
1 ./.
Denition 2.24. Suppose that is a pointclass which is a boolean subalgebra of P .R/
and that is closed under continuous preimages and under continuous images.
2
1 ./ is the set of all Y R such that Y is 1 denable in the structure

hM \ V!C2 ; R; 2i
t
u
from real parameters.
It is easily veried that the pointclass

21 ./ is closed under nite unions, intersections, continuous preimages and continuous images. It is not closed under complements and further it is R-parameterized; i. e. it has a universal set. If M D N then
2
1 ./ is the set of all Y R such that Y is 1 denable in the structure

hM ; R; 2i
from real parameters. We generally will only consider
21 ./ when satises the
closure conditions of Theorem 2.21; i. e. when M D N .
WH
Denition 2.25. (1) Suppose is an ordinal and that the pointclass <
is closed
2
2
under complements. A set of reals Y is
1 .< -WH/ if it belongs to
1 ./
WH
where D < .
WH
(2) Suppose that the pointclass 1
is closed under complements. A set of reals Y
2 1
2
WH
.
WH/ if it belongs to 1 ./ where D 1 .
t
u
is
1

2.2
Generic absoluteness
Suppose A R is -weakly homogeneously Suslin. Then the set A has an unambiguous interpretation in V G where G is V -generic for a partial order in V . The
interpretation is independent of the choice of the representation of A as the projection
of a tree which is -weakly homogeneous. This is an immediate consequence of the
next two lemmas.
Lemma 2.26. Suppose T is a tree on ! and T is -weakly homogeneous. Then
there is a tree S on ! .2 /C such that if P 2 V is a partial order and G P is
V -generic then
t
u
.pT /V G D RV G n .pS /V G :
32
2 Preliminaries
Lemma 2.27. Suppose T1 is a tree on ! 1 , T2 is a tree on ! 2 , and

pT1 D pT2 :
Suppose T1 and T2 are -weakly homogeneous. Then
.pT1 /V G D .pT2 /V G
where G P is V -generic for a partial order P 2 V .
t
u
Suppose A R and let

D B R j B is projective in A:
Suppose every set in is -weakly homogeneously Suslin. Suppose .x1 ; x2 / is a
formula in the language of the structure
hH.!1 /; A; 2i
and a 2 R. Let
B D t 2 R j hH.!1 /; A; 2i t; a:
Thus B 2 .
Suppose P 2 V is a partial order and that G P is V -generic. Let AG and BG
be the interpretations of A and B in V G. Then
BG D t 2 R j hH.!1 /V G ; AG ; 2i t; a :
This is an easy consequence of Lemma 2.26 and Lemma 2.27. Alternate formulations are given in the next two lemmas.
Lemma 2.28. Suppose A R and let B R be the set of reals which code elements
of the rst order diagram of the structure
hH.!1 /; 2; Ai:
Suppose S and T are trees on ! such that
(1) S and T are -weakly homogeneous,
(2) A D pS and B D pT .
Suppose P 2 V and G P is V -generic. Let AG D pS and let BG D pT , each
computed in V G. Then in V G, BG is the set of reals which code elements of the
rst order diagram of the structure
hH.!1 /V G ; 2; AG i:
t
u
Lemma 2.29. Suppose A R and suppose that each set B R which is projective
in A, is -weakly homogeneously Suslin.
Suppose Z V is a countable elementary substructure such that C ! < ,
2 Z and such that A 2 Z.
Let MZ be the transitive collapse of Z and let Z be the image of under the
collapsing map. Suppose P 2 .MZ /Z is a partial order and that g P is MZ generic.
2.2 Generic absoluteness
33
Then
(1) A \ MZ g 2 MZ g,
(2) hV!C1 \ MZ g; A \ MZ g; 2i hV!C1 ; A; 2i.
Suppose further that
A 2 .WH /V :
Then
A \ MZ g 2 .WH
/MZ g :
Z
t
u
Suppose that A R and that every set B 2 P .R/ \ L.A; R/ is -weakly homogeneously Suslin. Then .A; R/# is -weakly homogeneously Suslin. This is easily
veried by noting that .A; R/# is a countable union of sets in L.A; R/.
This observation yields the following generic absoluteness theorem.
Theorem 2.30. Suppose that A R and that every set in P .R/\L.A; R/ is -weakly
homogeneously Suslin. Suppose that T is a -weakly homogeneous tree such that
A D pT
and that P 2 V is a partial order.
Suppose that G P is V -generic. Then there is a generic elementary embedding
jG W L.A; R/ ! L.AG ; RG /
such that
(1) jG .A/ D AG D pT V G ,
(2) RG D RV G ,
(3) L.AG ; RG / D jG .f /.a/ j a 2 RG ; f W R ! L.A; R/ and f 2 L.A; R/.
Further the properties (1)(3) uniquely specify jG .
t
u
One corollary of Theorem 2.30 is the following generic absoluteness theorem

which we shall need.
Theorem 2.31. Suppose that is a limit of Woodin cardinals and that there a measurable cardinal above . Suppose that
GP
is V -generic where P is a partial order such that P 2 V .
Then
L.R/V L.R/V G :
Proof. By Theorem 2.13, each set
X 2 P .R/ \ L.R/
is <-weakly homogeneously Suslin.
The theorem follows from Theorem 2.30.
t
u
34
2 Preliminaries
The next theorem shows, in essence, that the key property of weakly homogeneous
trees given in Lemma 2.26 is equivalent in the presence of large cardinals to weak
homogeneity.
Theorem 2.32. Suppose is a Woodin cardinal. Suppose that S and T are trees on
! such that if G Coll.!; / is V -generic then,
.pT /V G D RV G n .pS /V G :
Then S and T are each <-weakly homogeneous.
2.3
t
u
The stationary tower
We briey review some of the basic facts concerning the stationary tower forcing.
Denition 2.33.
(1) A nonempty set a is stationary if for any function

f W .[a/<! ! [a
there exists b 2 a such that f b <! b.

(2) A set c is closed if there exists a function
f W .[c/<! ! [c
such that
c D b [c j f b <! b:
(3) A set b is closed and unbounded in a if b D c \ a for some closed set c such
that [c D [a.
(4) A set b is stationary in a if b is stationary, b a and if [a D [b.
The following elementary facts concerning stationary sets are easy to verify.
(i) (projection) Suppose a is stationary and x [a. Then
\ x j 2 a
is stationary.
(ii) (normality) Suppose a is stationary and that [a ;. Suppose
f W a ! [a
is a choice function; i. e. for all 2 a n ;, f . / 2 . Then for some t 2 [a,
j f . / D t
is stationary in a.
t
u
2.3 The stationary tower
35
Denition 2.34 (Stationary Tower). Suppose a and b are stationary sets. Then a b
if [b [a and
\ .[b/ j 2 a b:
(1) For each ordinal , P< , is the partial order given by,
P< D a 2 V j a is stationary:
(2) For each ordinal , Q< , is the partial order given by,
Q< D a 2 V j a is stationary and a P!1 .[a/:
t
u
Remark 2.35. This generalization of the notion of a stationary set appears in Woodin
.1985/, where it is exploited in this generality and where the stationary tower is introduced. The idea for generalizing the notion of a stationary set in this fashion originates
in work of Shelah. The motivation for some of the key denitions relating to the stationary tower is from consideration of the results of Foreman, Magidor, and Shelah
.1988/. An expanded treatment can be found in .Larson 2004/.
t
u
There are numerous variations of P< . The partial order Q< is one such example.
The others are dened in a similar fashion as suborders of P< .
Except in the proof of Theorem 9.68, we shall need to use only Q< . Suppose
G Q<
is V -generic. For each a 2 G, G denes in V G an ultralter Ua on V \ P .a/. The
ultralter is simply
Ua D G \ b a j b 2 G and [ b D [a:
This in turn yields an elementary embedding
ja W V ! .Ma ; Ea /
where Ma D Ult .V; Ua /. If a < b and a 2 G then there is a natural embedding
jb;a W Mb ! Ma
and this denes a directed system. The verication relies on (i).
Let .M; E/ be the limit and let
j W V ! .M; E/
be the resulting embedding. It is straightforward to verify the following, each of which
is a consequence of (ii).
(1) For all x 2 V , there exists y 2 M such that
t 2 M j t E y D j.a/ j a 2 x:
(2) For all a 2 Q< , a 2 G if and only if there exists y 2 M such that y E j.a/
and such that
t 2 M j t E y D j.b/ j b 2 [a:
36
2 Preliminaries
Suppose .M; E/ is wellfounded and let N be the transitive collapse of .M; E/. In
this case (1) asserts that for each x 2 V , j x 2 N . Therefore for each < ,
j jV 2 N and so by (2), G \ V 2 N .
If .M; E/ is not wellfounded these conclusions still hold. (1) implies that for each
< , V belongs to the wellfounded part of .M; E/ and so by (2), G \ V also
belongs to the wellfounded part of .M; E/.
The next theorem indicates a key inuence of large cardinals.
Theorem 2.36. Suppose is a Woodin cardinal and that G Q< is V -generic. Let
j W V ! .M; E/
be the induced generic elementary embedding. Then .M; E/ is wellfounded and further
N < N
in V G where N is the transitive collapse of .M; E/.
t
u
Remark 2.37. (1) Theorem 2.36 holds for P< and this leads to a variety of unusual
forcing effects. For example if is a Woodin cardinal and if is a measurable
cardinal below , then in a forcing extension of V which adds no new bounded
subsets to , it is possible to collapse C to and preserve the measurability
of .
(2) Theorem 2.36 can be proved from a variety of large cardinal assumptions. For
example it follows from the assumption that is strongly compact.
t
u
2.4
Forcing Axioms
We briey survey some of the forcing axioms which we shall be interested in.
Suppose that P is a partial order, 2 V P is a term, and that G P is a V -generic
lter. Then IG . / denotes the interpretation of in V G given by G.
Denition 2.38 (Shelah). Suppose that P is a partial order.
(1) P is proper if for all sufciently large ; if
X H. C /
is a countable elementary substructure with P 2 X , then for each p0 2 P \ X
there exists p1 2 P such that p1 p0 and such that for each term
2 V P \ X;
if G P is V -generic with p1 2 G then either IG ./ Ord or IG ./ 2 X .
2.4 Forcing Axioms
37
(2) P is semiproper if for all sufciently large ; if

X H. C /
is a countable elementary substructure with P 2 X , then for each p0 2 P \ X
there exists p1 2 P such that p1 p0 and such that for each term
2 V P \ X;
if G P is V -generic with p1 2 G then either IG ./ !1V or IG ./ 2 X .
t
u
Remark 2.39. (With notation as in Denition 2.38.)

(1) Denition 2.38(1) asserts simply that if p1 2 G then X can be expanded to an
elementary substructure
X H.
C /G
such that G 2 X and such that X \
C D X \
C . For sufciently large
this in turn is equivalent to requiring that X \ H.

C / D X .
(2) Denition 2.38(2) asserts that if p1 2 G then X can be expanded to an elementary substructure
X H.
C /G
such that G 2 X and such that X \ !1 D X \ !1 .
t
u
There are several equivalent denitions of proper partial orders. One elegant version is given in the next lemma.
Lemma 2.40 (Shelah). Suppose that P is a partial order. The following are equivalent.
(1) P is proper.
(2) For all stationary sets a such that a P!1 .[a/,
V P a is stationary:
t
u
Denition 2.41. (1) (Baumgartner, Shelah) Proper Forcing Axiom .PFA/: Suppose
that P is a proper partial order and that D P .P / is a collection of dense
subsets of P with
jDj !1 :
Then there exists a lter F P such that
F \D ;
for all D 2 D.
38
2 Preliminaries
(2) (Shelah) Semiproper Forcing Axiom .SPFA/: Suppose that P is a semiproper

partial order and that D P .P / is a collection of dense subsets of P with
jDj !1 :
F \D ;
for all D 2 D.
t
u
Denition 2.42 (ForemanMagidorShelah). Suppose that P is a partial order. The

partial order P is stationary set preserving if
.INS /V D .INS /V
\ V:
t
u
Denition 2.43 (ForemanMagidorShelah). Martins Maximum: Suppose that P is

a partial order which is stationary set preserving.
Suppose that D P .P / is a collection of dense subsets of P with
jDj !1 :
F \D ;
for all D 2 D.
t
u
In fact Martins Maximum is equivalent to SPFA.

Theorem 2.44 (Shelah). The following are equivalent.
(1) Martins Maximum.
t
u
(2) SPFA.
There are several variations of these forcing axioms which we shall be interested
in. We restrict our attention to variations of Martins Maximum.
Denition 2.45 (ForemanMagidorShelah). (1) Martins MaximumC : Suppose
that P is a partial order which is stationary set preserving.
jDj !1 ;
P
and that 2 V is a term for a stationary subset of !1 . Then there exists a lter
F P such that:
a) for all D 2 D, F \ D ;;
b) < !1 j for some p 2 F ; p 2 is stationary in !1 .
2.4 Forcing Axioms
39
(2) Martins MaximumCC : Suppose that P is a partial order which is stationary set
preserving.
jDj !1 ;
and that h W < !1 i is a sequence of terms for stationary subsets of !1 . Then
there exists a lter F P such that:
a) For all D 2 D, F \ D ;;
b) For each < !1 ,
< !1 j for some p 2 F ; p 2
t
u
is stationary in !1 .
The following lemma notes useful consequences of these axioms which are quite
relevant to the themes of this book. These consequences of Martins Maximum and
of Martins MaximumCC are not equivalences; however they are equivalences for
bounded versions of these forcing axioms, see Lemma 10.93 and Lemma 10.94 of
Section 10.3.
Lemma 2.46. Suppose that P is a partial order which is stationary set preserving.
(1) (Martins Maximum) Then
P
hH.!2 /; 2i 1 hH.!2 /; 2iV :

(2) (Martins MaximumCC ) Then
P
hH.!2 /; INS ; 2i 1 hH.!2 /; INS ; 2iV :
t
u
Denition 2.47 (ForemanMagidorShelah). (1) Martins MaximumC .c/: Martins MaximumC holds for partial orders P with jP j c.
(2) Martins MaximumCC .c/: Martins MaximumCC holds for partial orders P with
jP j c.
t
u
Remark 2.48. One can naturally dene SPFA.c/. One subtle aspect of the equivalence of Martins Maximum and SPFA is that Martins Maximum.c/ is not equivalent
to SPFA.c/; Martins Maximum.c/ implies that INS (the nonstationary ideal on !1 )
is !2 -saturated whereas SPFA.c/ does not. One strong indication of the difference
follows from the results of Section 9.5:
Assume Martins Maximum.c/. Then Projective Determinacy holds.
The consistency of SPFA.c/ can be obtained from that of the existence of a strong
t
u
cardinal and so SPFA.c/ does not imply even
12 -Determinacy.
40
2 Preliminaries
We end this section with the denition of a somewhat technical variation of Martins Maximum.c/. For many applications where Martins Maximum.c/ is used, this
variation sufces. For example, it implies that INS is !2 -saturated. However we shall
see in Section 9.2.2 that this forcing axiom is (probably) signicantly weaker than
Martins Maximum.c/. We require the following denition.
Denition 2.49. Suppose P D .R; <P / is a partial order of cardinality c. The partial
order P is absolutely stationary set preserving if the following holds. Suppose
X hH.!2 /; 2; <P i
is a countable elementary substructure and let MX be the transitive collapse of X . Let
PX be the partial order dened by the image of <P and suppose that N is a countabletransitive model such that
(1) N ZFC,
(2) H.!2 /N D H.!2 /MX and PX 2 N .
Then
N PX is stationary set preserving:
t
u
Remark 2.50. As we have suggested, many (but not all) of the partial orders to which
one applies Martins MaximumCC .c/ are in fact absolutely stationary set preserving.
These include the partial orders for sealing antichains in .P .!1 / n INS ; /, which are
dened immediately before Denition 2.56.
t
u
Denition 2.51. Martins Maximum ZF .c/: Martins Maximum holds for partial orders
P such that:
(1) jP j c.
(2) P is absolutely stationary set preserving.
t
u
We shall prove, in Section 9.5, that Martins Maximum.c/ implies that for every
A !2 , A# exists. The following lemma is an immediate corollary of this.
Lemma 2.52 (Martins Maximum .c/). Suppose that A !2 is such that
H.!2 / LA:
Then
LA Martins MaximumZF .c/:
t
u
2.5 Reection Principles
2.5
41
Reection Principles
Forcing axioms generalizing MA!1 to various classes of partial orders are inherently
reection principles in the spirit of supercompactness but for !2 . In the presence of
large cardinals these forcing axioms can be viewed as assertions that !2 is generically
supercompact. Suppose be a collection of partial orders. MA!1 ./ holds if for every
partial order P 2 and for every set X of dense subsets of P if X has cardinality !1
then there exists a lter F P which is X -generic.
Theorem 2.53. Assume there is a proper class of Woodin cardinals. Let be a collection of partial orders. Then the following are equivalent.
(1) MA!1 ./.
(2) For every poset P 2 and for every
there exists a generic elementary embedding
j W V ! M V P Q
such that cp.j / D !2 and such that M M in V P Q .
Proof. We rst show that (1) implies (2). This is a straightforward consequence of
the existence of the generic elementary embeddings associated to the stationary tower.
See Theorem 2.36 and Remark 2.37. We shall use the version of Theorem 2.36 which
concerns P< .
Fix P 2 and
2 Ord. Let be a Woodin cardinal such that
< and such that
P 2 V .
Let D be the set of d P such that d is dense in P .
Let < be a limit ordinal such that P 2 V and let a be the set of
X V
such that
(1.1) !1 X ,
(1.2) jX j D !1 ,
(1.3) there is a lter F X such that F is X -generic.
We claim that a is stationary in P!2 .V /.
Fix a function
H W V<! ! V :
Let be a term such that if g P is generic then the interpretation of by g is a
function
h W !1 ! V
such that if X D h!1 then
X V ;
42
2 Preliminaries
H X <! X , and g is X -generic. Let

A
D .q; ; z/ j q 2 P ; < !1 ; z 2 V ; and q ./ D z
Let D be the collection of all dense subsets of P which are denable in the structure
hV ; H; A
; 2i
from parameters in !1 [ . Thus D has cardinality at most !1 . Let F P be a
lter such that F \ d ; for all d 2 D. Dene
h W !1 ! V
by h./ D z if there exists q 2 F such that .q; ; z/ 2 A
. Let X D h!1 . Since
F \ d ; for all d 2 D it follows that
(2.1) X V ,
(2.2) H X <! X ,
(2.3) F is X -generic.
Thus X 2 a.
This proves that a is stationary in P!2 .V /.
Suppose G P< is V -generic such that a 2 G and let
j W V ! M V G
be the associated generic elementary embedding.
Since a 2 G, it follows that
j V 2 j.a/:
Therefore in M there is a lter F j.P / such that F is j V -generic. Let
g D q 2 P j j.q/ 2 F :
Since F is j V -generic it follows that g is V -generic; i. e. V G is a generic extension
of V g and so (2) follows.
(1) is an immediate consequence of (2).
t
u
A natural question arises. Is it possible to decompose Martins Maximum as an
axiom at !1 together with a (natural) reection principle at !2 ?
There are 2 reection principles for !2 which have a more traditional avor. Special cases, WRP.!2 / and SRP.!2 /, shall be considered in Section 9.5, cf. Denition 9.71. Some comments on the history of the formulation of these principles are
made in the remark following the denition.
Denition 2.54. Two principles of stationary set reection.
(1) (ForemanMagidorShelah) (Weak Reection Principle; WRP):
Suppose that
!2 and that
Z P!1 .
/
is stationary in P!1 .
/. Then for all X
of cardinality !1 there exists Y
such that:
a) X Y and jY j D !1 ;
b) Z \ P!1 .Y / is stationary in P!1 .Y /.
2.6 Generic ideals
43
(2) (Todorcevic) (Strong Reection Principle; SRP):

Suppose that
!2 , Z P!1 .
/ and that for each stationary set T !1 ,
2 Z j \ !1 2 T
is stationary in P!1 .
/. Then for all X
of cardinality !1 there exists Y
such that:
a) X Y and jY j D !1 ;
b) Z \ P!1 .Y / contains a set which is closed and unbounded in P!1 .Y /. u
t
Remark 2.55. (1) The principle WRP was introduced in .Foreman, Magidor, and
Shelah 1988/ as Strong Reection. It implies the (weaker) assertion that for any
partial order P , P is semiproper if and only if forcing with P preserves stationary
subsets of !1 , see .Foreman, Magidor, and Shelah 1988/. Interestingly, Todorcevic had previously proved that a special case of WRP implies that c @2 . The
results of .Foreman, Magidor, and Shelah 1988/ show that WRP is consistent
with CH.
(2) The principle SRP was formulated in .Todorcevic 1984/ and is based on Shelahs
proof that Martins Maximum is equivalent to SPFA. The precise formulation
given in Denition 2.54(2) is the principle of Projective Stationary Reection of
Feng and Jech .1998/. Feng and Jech proved that Projective Stationary Reection is actually equivalent to Todorcevics principle.
(3) SRP implies WRP and many of the consequences of Martins Maximum follow
from it. For example, SRP implies the nonstationary ideal on !1 is saturated and
that 2@1 @2 see .Todorcevic 1984/.
It will follow from the principal results of Chapter 3, that SRP implies that
12 D !2 and so SRP implies that c D @2 . Theorem 9.79 shows that a fairly
weak fragment of SRP sufces.
(4) Both WRP and SRP follow from SPFA.
(5) One can show that SRP is consistent with the existence of a Suslin tree on !1
and so SRP does not imply Martins Maximum.
u
t
2.6
Generic ideals
One of the main results of Chapter 3 is that if the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 saturated and if there is a measurable cardinal, then there is an effective failure of CH.
The force of this result is greatly amplied by the results of .Foreman, Magidor,
and Shelah 1988/ and Shelah .1987/ which show that if suitable large cardinals exist
then there is a semiproper partial order P such that in V P , the nonstationary ideal on
!1 is !2 -saturated.
44
2 Preliminaries
Combining these results yields that the effective version of the Continuum Hypothesis is as intractable a problem as the Continuum Hypothesis itself.
We review briey the results of .Foreman, Magidor, and Shelah 1988/ and .Shelah
and Woodin 1990/.
We begin with the key denition. Suppose that
A P .!1 / n INS
is nonempty. Let PA denote the following partial order. Conditions are pairs .f; c/
such that
(1) for some < !1 , f W ! A,
(2) c !1 is a countable closed subset such that for each 2 c, if 2 dom.f /
then
2 f ./
for some < , and such that c ;.
The ordering on PA is by extension. Suppose that
.f1 ; c1 / 2 PA
and that .f2 ; c2 / 2 PA . Then
.f2 ; c2 / .f1 ; c1 /
if f1 f2 and c1 D c2 \ .max.c1 / C 1/.
We note that if .f; c/ 2 PA then necessarily sup.c/ 2 c. This is because c is closed
in !1 and not conal.
One of the key theorems of .Foreman, Magidor, and Shelah 1988/ is that if
A P .!1 / n INS
is predense in .P .!1 / n INS ; / then forcing with PA preserves stationary subsets of
!1 .
It is not difcult to show that PA is proper if and only if there exists a sequence
hA W < !1 i of elements of A and a closed conal set C !1 such that for all
2 C,
2 A
for some < .
The question of when the partial order PA is semiproper is more interesting. This
isolates a fundamental combinatorial condition on the predense set A which we dene
below. This condition is implicit in .Foreman, Magidor, and Shelah 1988/.
Denition 2.56. Suppose that
A P .!1 / n INS :
Then A is semiproper if for any transitive set M such that
M P .H.!2 // M;
if
X M
is a countable elementary substructure such that A 2 X , then there exists a countable
elementary substructure
Y M
2.6 Generic ideals
45
such that
(1) X Y ,
(2) X \ !1 D Y \ !1 ,
(3) Y \ !1 2 S for some S 2 Y \ A.
t
u
The selection of name semiproper in Denition 2.56 is explained in the following

lemma.
Lemma 2.57 (ForemanMagidorShelah). Suppose that
A P .!1 / n INS
is nonempty. Then the following are equivalent.
(1) A is semiproper.
(2) The partial order PA is semiproper.
t
u
The nonstationary ideal on !1 is presaturated if for any A 2 P .!1 / n INS and for
any sequence hAi W i < !i of maximal antichains in P .!1 / n INS there exists B A
such that B INS and such that for each i < !, X 2 Ai j X \ B INS has
cardinality at most !1 .
Theorem 2.58 (ForemanMagidorShelah). Suppose that for each predense set
A P .!1 / n INS ;
A is semiproper. Then the nonstationary ideal on !1 is precipitous.
t
u
Theorem 2.59 (ForemanMagidorShelah). Suppose that is a supercompact cardinal and that

G Coll.!1 ; < /
is V -generic. Then in V G,
(1) each predense set
A P .!1 / n INS
is semiproper,
(2) the nonstationary ideal on !1 is presaturated.
t
u
The large cardinal hypothesis of Theorem 2.59 can be reduced, this yields the following theorem.
Theorem 2.60. Suppose that is a Woodin cardinal and that
G Coll.!1 ; </
is V -generic. Suppose that
hA W < i 2 V G
is a sequence such that in V G, for each < ,
A P .!1 / n INS
and A is predense.
46
2 Preliminaries
Then there exists a < such that is strongly inaccessible in V , such that
hA W < i 2 V Gj ;
and such that in V Gj , for each < ,
A P .!1 / n INS ;
A is predense, and A is semiproper.
t
u
The conclusion of Theorem 2.60 is weaker than that of Theorem 2.59, nevertheless
it is sufcient to prove INS is presaturated in V G.
G Coll.!1 ; </
is V -generic. Then in V G, INS is presaturated.
t
u
Suppose that
A P .!1 / n INS
and that A is predense and not semiproper. Let TA be the set of countable
X P .H.!2 //
such that there does not exist
Y P .H.!2 //
such that X Y , X \ !1 D Y \ !1 , and such that
Y \ !1 2 S
for some S 2 Y \ A. Since A is not semiproper, the set
TA P!1 .P .H.!2 ///
is stationary in P!1 .P .H.!2 ///.
Shelah has generalized Theorem 2.60 obtaining the following theorem. For the
statement of this theorem we require a denition. Suppose N M are transitive
models of ZFC such that
!1N D !1M :
Then M is a good extension of N if for each set A 2 N such that in N ,
A P .!1 / n INS ;
A is predense and not semiproper; the set
.TA /N
is a stationary set in M .
Theorem 2.62 (Shelah). Suppose that is a Woodin cardinal and that
P V
is a -cc partial order such that:
(1) There is a conal set S such that if 2 S then is a strongly inaccessible
cardinal such that if G P is V -generic then G \ V is V -generic for P \ V ,
and V G is a semiproper extension of V G \ V .
2.6 Generic ideals
47
(2) There exists a closed unbounded set C such that for all 2 C , if is
strongly inaccessible and if G P is V -generic then
a) !1V D !1V G ,
b) G \ V is V -generic for P \ V ,
c) D !2 in V G \ V ,
d) V G is a good extension of V G \ V .
Suppose that G P is V -generic and that
hA W < i 2 V G
is a sequence such that in V G, for each < ,
A P .!1 / n INS
and A is predense.
Then there exists < such that is strongly inaccessible in V , such that
(1) G \ V is V -generic for P \ V ,
(2) hA W < i 2 V G \ V ,
(3) in V G \ V , for each < ,
A P .!1 / n INS ;
A is predense, and A is semiproper.
t
u
One corollary of Lemma 2.57 is the following.

Lemma 2.63. Let
PD
PA
be the product with countable support of all the partial orders PA such that
A P .!1 / n INS
and such that A is semiproper. Then the partial order P is semiproper.
Suppose that G P is V -generic. Then V G is a good extension of V .
Proof. Let M be a transitive set such that
M H./ M
where is a regular cardinal such that
jP .P .!1 //j < :
Suppose that
A0 P .!1 / n INS
and that A0 is predense and not semiproper. Since A0 is not semiproper, the set TA0
is stationary in P!1 .P .H.!2 ///. Therefore there exists
X0 M
48
2 Preliminaries
such that X0 2 TA0 . The key point is the following. Suppose that
X M
is a countable elementary substructure such that X0 X and such that
X \ !1 D X0 \ !1 :
Then X 2 TA0 .
By constructing an elementary chain, there exists
X M
such that
(1.1) X0 X ,
(1.2) X \ !1 D X0 \ !1 ,
(1.3) for each predense set
A P .!1 / n INS
such that A 2 X and such that A is semiproper, there exists
S 2X \A
with X \ !1 2 S .
Now suppose that g X \ P is a lter which is X -generic. By (1.3) it follows
that there is a condition p 2 P such that
p<q
for all q 2 g. This veries that P is semiproper. Suppose that
GP
is V -generic and that p 2 G.
Thus there exists an elementary substructure
Y M G
such that Y \ M D X .
Since
M H./ M
and since
X 2 TA0 ;
V
it follows that .TA0 / is a stationary set in V G. This veries that V G is a good
extension of V .
t
u
As a corollary to Theorem 2.62 and Lemma 2.63 one obtains the following theorem of Shelah. The only additional ingredients required are the iteration theorems for
semiproper forcing.
Theorem 2.64 (Shelah). Suppose is a Woodin cardinal. Then there is a semiproper
partial order P such that;
(1) P is homogeneous and -cc,
(2) V P INS is saturated.
t
u
A corollary of Theorem 2.60 is the following theorem of .Shelah and Woodin

1990/.
2.6 Generic ideals
49

G Coll.!1 ; </
is V -generic. Then in V G there is a normal, uniform, ideal I on !1 such that
I \ V D .INS /V
and such that I is !2 -saturated in V G.
Proof. We sketch the proof.
The ideal I is rather easy to dene, it is the normal ideal (in V G) generated by
the following set.
Let I0 2 V G be the set of A !1 such that for some
f W !1 ! P .!1 / n INS ;
(1.1) A D < !1 j f ./ for all < ,
(1.2) if A D f ./ j < !1 then for some < , is strongly inaccessible in V ,
A 2 V G \ V ;
and A is semiproper in V G \ V .
Let I be the normal ideal generated by I0 . The only difculty is to verify that I is a
proper ideal. Granting this, it is easy to prove using Theorem 2.60 that I is a saturated
ideal in V G. Suppose that
A0 P .!1 / n I
is a maximal antichain. Let
A D A0 [ .I n INS /:
Clearly
A P .!1 / n INS
and A is predense. By Theorem 2.60, there exists < such that is strongly
inaccessible in V , such that
A \ V G \ V 2 V G \ V ;
and such that A \ V G \ V is semiproper in V G \ V . Let
f W !1 ! A \ V G \ V
be a surjection with f 2 V G. Thus A 2 I where
A D < !1 j f ./ for all < :
Since I is a normal ideal it follows that
A0 A \ V G \ V ;
and so jA0 j D !1 in V G.
Thus the ideal I is a saturated ideal, provided it is a proper ideal. To show that I is
proper we work in V . Let M D H. C /, thus
M V M:
By constructing an elementary chain one can show that there exists a countable elementary substructure,
X M;
and a condition p 2 Coll.!1 ; </ such that the following hold.
50
2 Preliminaries
(2.1) p is X -generic; i. e. the set

q 2 X \ Coll.!1 ; </ j p < q
is X -generic.
(2.2) Suppose that 2 X \ , is strongly inaccessible and that
2 V Coll.!1 ;</ \ X
is a term for a semiproper subset of P .!1 / n INS . Then there is a term for a
subset of !1 such that 2 X ,
p 2
and such that
p X \ !1 2 :
Now suppose
G Coll.!1 ; </
is V -generic and that p 2 G.
Since
q 2 X \ Coll.!1 ; </ j p < q
is X -generic it follows that there exists
Y M G
such that X D Y \ M . By (2.2), for each set A 2 Y \ I0 ,
Y \ !1 A:
This implies that the normal ideal generated by I0 is proper.
Finally by modifying the choice of .X; p/ it is possible to require p < p0 for any
specied condition and given a stationary set S !1 , it is also possible to arrange that
S 2 X and that
X \ !1 2 S:
Thus I \ V D .INS /V .
t
u
Chapter 3
The nonstationary ideal
We consider in this chapter some combinatorial consequences of the assumption that

the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated. We prove that if one assumes in addition
that there is a measurable cardinal, then CH is false and moreover there is a projectively
denable prewellordering of the reals of length !2 .
The precise result is that if the nonstationary ideal is saturated and if P .!1 /# exists
then !2 is the second uniform indiscernible.
This result is really a special case of a more general covering lemma which we
shall prove.
We also prove that some additional assumption is necessary showing that it is consistent for the nonstationary ideal to be saturated together with !2 is not the second
uniform indiscernible.
At the heart of these results is an equivalence which does not involve the saturation
of the nonstationary ideal. This equivalence centers on the study of (transitive) models
which are iterable with respect to the process of forming generic ultrapowers.
Many of the denitions and results of this chapter will be used throughout this
book.
3.1
The nonstationary ideal and 12
We shall be concerned with transitive models of a fragment of ZFC which is rich

enough to be preserved by the generic ultrapowers which we shall need to use. It
is convenient to work with a variety of structures and for each of these there is an obvious fragment of ZFC which works. We give a single fragment which works uniformly.
For our purposes it sufces to consider transitive sets M such that:
(1) M is closed under the Godel operations.
(2) Suppose that
R M <!1
is a nonempty subset which is denable in M (with parameters from M ) such

that for all f 2 R,
f j 2 R
for all < dom.f /. Then there exist !1M and a function
f W!M
such that
52
a) f 2 M n R,
b) for all < ,
f j 2 R;
c) if D C 1 then for all g 2 R, if
f j g
then f j D g.
We let ZFC be the corresponding fragment of ZFC.
Remark 3.1. (1) The second condition is a form of !1 -DC which is stronger than
!1 -replacement .
(2) At rst glance, (2c) might seem strange in its formulation. Suppose though that
M is simply a transitive set closed under the Godel operations and that R 2 M .
Suppose that
hW!!M
is an element of R. Then there exists
f W!C1!M
such that f extends h and such that f R.
(3) Assuming ZFC, if is an ordinal of conality > !1 then V ZFC . Also,
t
u
assuming ZFC, L.P .!1 // ZFC as does the transitive set H.!2 /.
The following lemma is a standard variation of os theorem.
Lemma 3.2. Suppose M is a transitive model of ZFC and that U is an ultralter on
P .!1M / \ M . Let hN; Ei be the model obtained from the M -ultrapower,
.M !1 /M =U
where
.M !1 /M D f W !1M ! M j f 2 M :
Then hN; Ei ZFC and the natural map

j WM !N
is an elementary embedding from the structure hM; 2i into hN; Ei.
t
u
Let S be the set of stationary subsets of !1 . The partial order .S; / is not separative. It is easily veried that
RO.S; / D RO.P .!1 /=INS /:
Denition 3.3. Suppose M is a model of ZFC .
(1) .P .!1 / n INS /M denotes the partial order .S; / computed in M .
(2) A lter G .P .!1 / n INS /M is M -generic if G \ D ; for all predense sets
D 2 M.
3.1 The nonstationary ideal and 12
53
(3)
M The nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 saturated
if in M every predense subset of .P .!1 / n INS /M contains a predense subset of
t
u
cardinality !1M in M .
Remark 3.4. (1) The nonstationary ideal is saturated has several possible formulations within ZFC and they are not in general equivalent.
(2) H.!2 / The nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 saturated .
(3) Suppose the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated, M is a transitive set,
M ZFC , and P .!1 / M . Then
M The nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 saturated:
(4) Suppose that M is a transitive model of ZFC ,
.P .!1 //M 2 M;
and that G .P .!1 / n INS /M is a lter such that G \ D ; for all dense sets
D 2 M . Then G is M -generic.
t
u
Denition 3.5. Suppose that M is a countable model of ZFC . A sequence
hM ; G ; j; W < < i
is an iteration of M if the following hold.
(1) M0 D M .
(2) j; W M ! M is a commuting family of elementary embeddings.
(3) For each C 1 < , G is M -generic for .P .!1 / n INS /M , M C1 is the M ultrapower of M by G and j ; C1 W M ! M C1 is the induced elementary
embedding.
(4) For each < if is a (nonzero) limit ordinal then M is the direct limit of
M j < and for all < , j; is the induced elementary embedding.
If is a limit ordinal then is the length of the iteration, otherwise the length of
the iteration is where C 1 D .
A model N is an iterate of M if it occurs in an iteration of M . The model M is
iterable if every iterate of M is wellfounded.
t
u
Remark 3.6. (1) In many instances a slightly weaker notion sufces. A model M
is weakly iterable if for any iterate N of M , !1N is wellfounded. For elementary
substructures of H.!2 / weak iterability is equivalent to iterability.
(2) Suppose M is a countable iterable model of ZFC. Then:
M The nonstationary ideal is precipitous :
54
(3) It will be our convention that the assertion,

j W M ! M is an embedding given by an iteration of M of length ,
abbreviates the supposition that there is an iteration
hM ; G ; j; W < < C 1i
of M such that
M D M
and such that
j D j0; :
(4) Suppose M is a countable model of ZFC . Then any iteration of M has length
at most !1 .
(5) The assertion that a countable transitive model M is iterable is a 12 statement
about M and therefore is absolute.
(6) Suppose M is iterable and N M is an elementary substructure then in general
N may not be iterable. This will follow from results later in this section. In fact
here are two natural conjectures.
a) Suppose there is no transitive inner model of ZFC containing the ordinals
with a Woodin cardinal. Suppose M is a countable transitive model of ZFC
and that M is iterable. Suppose X M . Then the transitive collapse of X
is iterable.
b) Suppose there is no transitive inner model of ZFC containing the ordinals
with a Woodin cardinal for which the sharp of the model exists. Suppose
M is a countable transitive model of ZFC and that M is iterable. Suppose
M The nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 saturated:
Suppose X M , NX 2 M and NX is countable in M where NX is the
transitive collapse of X , 2 M and where M ZFC . Then NX is not
iterable.
t
u
Remark 3.7. We shall usually only consider iterations of M in the case that in M , INS
is saturated. We caution that without this restriction it is possible that M be iterable
but that H.!2 /M not be iterable. If in M , INS is saturated and if M is iterable then
H.!2 /M is also iterable. This is a corollary of the next lemma.
The correct notion of iterability for those transitive sets in which INS is not saturated
is slightly different, see Denition 4.23.
t
u
The next two lemmas record some basic facts about iterations that we shall use
frequently. These are true in a much more general context.
Lemma 3.8. Suppose that M and M are countable models of ZFC such that
(i) !1M D !1M ,

(ii) P .!1 /M D P .!1 /M .
55
Suppose that either

(iii) P 2 .!1 /M D P 2 .!1 /M , or

(iv) M The nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 saturated;
and that
hM ; G ; j; W < < i
is an iteration of M . Then there corresponds uniquely an iteration

W < < i
hM ; G ; j;
of M such that for all < < :

M
(1) !1
M
D !1 ;
(2) P .!1 /M D P .!1 /M ;

(3) G D G .

.M / 2 M and there is
Suppose further that M 2 M . Then for all < , j0;
an elementary embedding

.M /
k W M ! j0;

jM D k j0; .
such that j0;
Proof. This is immediate by induction on .
t
u
Remark 3.9. The Lemma 3.8 has an obvious interpretation for arbitrary models. We
shall for the most part only use it for wellfounded models.
t
u
For the second lemma we need to use a stronger fragment of ZFC. There are
obvious generalizations of this lemma, see Remark 3.11.
Lemma 3.10. Suppose M is a countable transitive model of
ZFC C Powerset C AC C 1 -Replacement
in which the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated. Suppose
hM ; G ; j; W < !1 ;
(1.2) 0 < 0 ;
56
(1.3) there is an iteration,

of V0
hN ; G ; j; W < < 0 C 1i;

\ M such that j0;0 .0 / not wellfounded.
Choose .0 ; 0 ; 0 / minimal relative to the lexicographical order.

Thus 0 and 0 are limit ordinals.
Let
hN ; G ; j; W < < 0 C 1i
be an iteration of V0 \ M of length 0 such that j0;0 .0 / is not wellfounded. Choose
< 0 and such that < j0; .0 / and such that j ;0 . / is not wellfounded.
Let
hM ; G ; k; W < < 0 C 1i
be the induced iteration of M . By the minimality of 0 it follows that M is wellfounded for all < 0 .
The key point is that for any 2 M \ Ord if G Coll.!; / then the set M G is
1
-correct.
Thus .0 ; 0 ; 0 / can be dened in M . More precisely .0 ; 0 ; 0 / is least
1
such that:
(2.1) M cof. 0 / > !1 ;
(2.2) 0 < 0 ;
(2.3) there exist an ordinal 2 M , an M -generic lter G Coll.!; /, and an
iteration,

W < < 0 C 1i 2 M G;
hN ; G ; j;
of V0 \ M of length 0 such that j0;0 .0 / not wellfounded.
Further since M is wellfounded the same considerations apply to M and so
.j0; .0 /; j0; . 0 /; j0; .0 // must be the triple as dened in V for M . However
the tail of the iteration
hN ; G ; j; W < < 0 C 1i

starting at is an iteration of j0; .V0 \ M / of length at most 0 and
0 C 1 j0; .0 / C 1:
Further the image of by this iteration is not wellfounded. This is a contradiction
t
u
since < j0; .0 /.
Remark 3.11. Lemma 3.10 can be easily generalized to any iteration of generic elementary embeddings. A generic elementary embedding is an elementary embedding
j WV !M VP
where M is the transitive collapse of the ultrapower,
Ult.V; E/
of V by E where E is a V -extender in V P . As usual, this ultrapower is computed
using only functions in V .
t
u
57
Lemma 3.12. Let M be a transitive set such that M ZFC and such that
P .!1 / M . Suppose the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated in M , X M
and that X is countable.
Let D X \ !1 and let
Y D f ./ j f 2 X :
Let NX D collapse.X /, let NY D collapse.Y /, and let j W NX ! NY be the induced
embedding. Finally let G D A j A 2 NX ; and !1NX 2 j.A/ . Then

(1) Y M .
(2) j is an elementary embedding.
(3) G is NX -generic for P .!1 / n INS .computed in NX /.
(4) NY is the generic ultrapower of NX by G and j is the corresponding generic
elementary embedding.
Proof. This is straightforward. Since
M ZFC
it follows that Y M . The rest of the lemma follows provided we can show the
following:
Claim: Suppose A P .!1 / is a set of stationary subsets of !1 which denes a
maximal antichain in P .!1 / n INS . Suppose A 2 X . Then X \ !1 2 S for some
S 2 X \ A.
Since the nonstationary ideal is saturated in M , every antichain has cardinality at
most !1 . Thus suppose A D S j < !1 is a maximal antichain of stationary
subsets of !1 and A 2 X . Since A is a maximal antichain, the diagonal union
5S W < !1
contains a set C which is a club in !1 . Since X M , we can choose C such that
t
C 2 X in which case X \ !1 2 C . Therefore X \ !1 2 S for some < X \ !1 . u
Corollary 3.13. Let M be a transitive set such that
M ZFC
and such that P .!1 / M . Suppose the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated in
M , X M and that X is countable.
Let NX be the transitive collapse of X and let !1X D X \ !1 . Then there is a
wellfounded iteration
j W NX ! N
of NX such that j.!1X / D !1 and such that for all A 2 X \ H.!2 /
j.AX / D A
where AX is the image of A under the collapsing map.
58
Proof. Dene an !1 sequence hX W < !1 i of countable elementary substructures

of M by induction on :
(1.1) X0 D X ;
(1.2) for each < !1 ,
XC1 D f .X \ !1 / j f 2 X I
(1.3) for each limit ordinal < !1 ,
X D [X j < :
Let X!1 D [X j < !1 .
For each !1 let
N D collapse.X /
and for each < !1 let j; W N ! N the elementary embedding obtained

from the collapse of the inclusion map X X .
Thus N0 D NX and by induction on !1 using Lemma 3.12, it follows that for
each < !1 , NC1 is a generic ultrapower of N and
j;C1 W N ! NC1
is the induced embedding. Therefore
j0;!1 W N0 ! N!1
is obtained via an iteration of length !1 . Finally !1 X!1 . Hence
j0;!1 .!1X / D !1
and j0;!1 .AX / D A for each set A 2 X \ H.!2 /.
t
u
Lemma 3.14. Suppose that the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated. Let M be

a transitive set such that M ZFC and such that P .!1 / M . Suppose M # exists.
Then
X M j X is countable and MX is iterable
contains a club in P!1 .M /. Here MX is the transitive collapse of X .
Proof. Fix a stationary set
S P!1 .M /:
It sufces to nd a countable elementary substructure X M such that X 2 S and
such that MX is iterable.
Fix a cardinal such that M 2 V and such that
V ZFC :
Thus M # 2 V . Let Y V be a countable elementary substructure with M 2 Y and
such that Y \ M 2 S . Let X D Y \ M . We claim that MX is iterable. To see this let
59
NY be the transitive collapse of Y and let

W Y ! NY
be the collapsing map. X D Y \ M and M # 2 Y and so .M # / D .MX /# .
NY ZFC . Let G Coll.!; MX / be NY -generic. Let xG 2 R be the code of
MX given by G, this is the real given by
.i; j / j p.i / 2 p.j / for some p 2 G:
#
Thus xG
2 NY G and so NY G is correct in V for 12 statements about xG . Therefore if MX is not iterable then MX is not iterable in NY G. Assume toward a contradiction that 2 NY and that there is an iteration in NY G of MX of length which
is not wellfounded. Then by Lemma 3.8 this denes an iteration of NY of length
t
u
which is not wellfounded, a contradiction since 2 NY .
The next lemma gives the key property of iterable models. For this we shall need
some mild coding. There is a natural partial map
W R ! H.!1 /
such that:
(1) is onto;
(2) (denability) is 1 -denable;
(3) (absoluteness) If x 2 dom./ and .x/ D a then M .x/ D a where M
is any ! model of ZFC containing x and a;
(4) (boundedness) if A dom./ is
11 then rank..x// j x 2 A is bounded by
the least admissible relative to the parameters for A.
For example one can code a set X 2 H.!1 / by relations P ! and E ! ! where
h!; P; Ei hY [ !; X; 2i,
Y is the transitive closure of X .
Lemma 3.15. Suppose M is an iterable countable transitive model of ZFC . Suppose
N is an iterate of M by a countable iteration of length . Suppose x is a real which
codes M and . Then
rank.N / <
where is least ordinal which is admissible for x.
Proof. Let x 2 R code M and let y 2 R code . Then by the properties of the coding
map , the set of z 2 dom./ such that .z/ is an iteration of M of length is
t
u
11 .x; y/. The result now follows by boundedness.
Theorem 3.16. Suppose that the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated. The following are equivalent.
(1)
12 D !2 .
(2) There exists a countable elementary substructure X H.!2 / whose transitive
collapse is iterable.
60
(3) For every countable X H.!2 /, the transitive collapse of X is iterable.

(4) If C !1 is closed and unbounded, then C contains a closed unbounded subset
which is constructible from a real.
Proof. We x some notation. Suppose x is a real and x # exists. For each ordinal let
M.x # ; / be the model of x # .
(1 ) 3) Fix X H.!2 /. Fix an ! sequence hi W i < !i of ordinals in X \ !2
which are conal in X \ !2 . For each i < ! let zi 2 X be a real such that
i < rank.M.zi# ; !1 C 1//.
Let N be the transitive collapse of X . For each i < ! let iN be the image of i
under the collapsing map. Thus iN j i < ! is conal in N \ Ord. Suppose
j W .N; 2/ ! .M; E/
is an iteration of N . Then j.iN / W i < ! is conal in OrdM . The rst key
point is the following. Suppose that j.!1N / is wellfounded. Then for each i < !,
j.M.zi# ; !1N C 1// is wellfounded since by absoluteness:
j.M.zi# ; !1N C 1// M.zi# ; j.!1N C 1//:
Thus:
(1.1) For any iterate .M; E/ of N if !1M is wellfounded then M is wellfounded.
By assumption the nonstationary ideal on !1 is saturated. Thus if
G P .!1 / n INS
is V -generic for the partial order .P .!1 / n INS ; / and if
j W H.!2 / ! M
is the induced embedding then j.!1 / D !2 D OrdH.!2 / . This is expressible in H.!2 /
as a rst order sentence. This is the second key point. Thus:
(2.1) If M is a wellfounded iterate of N and if M is a generic ultrapower of M then
M is wellfounded.
From (1.1) and (2.1) it follows that N is iterable.
(2 ) 4) Fix X H.!2 / such that NX is iterable where NX is the transitive collapse
of X . It sufces to show that if C 2 X and if C !1 is closed and unbounded then C
contains a closed unbounded subset which is constructible from a real. This is because
if (4) fails then there must be a counterexample in X .
Fix C 2 X such that C is a club in !1 . Let z be a real which codes NX . Let
CX D C \ X . By Corollary 3.13 there is an iteration of length !1
j W NX ! N
such that j.CX / D C .
61
By Lemma 3.15, if is admissible relative to z and if k W NX ! M is any iteration

of length then k.!1NX / D . Therefore if < !1 is admissible relative to z then
2 C . Thus
D D < !1 j L z L!1 z
is a closed unbounded subset of C and D 2 Lz.
(4 ) 1) This is a standard fact. The only additional hypothesis required is that for
all x 2 R, x # exists and this is an immediate consequence of the assumption that the
nonstationary ideal on !1 is saturated. Suppose !1 < < !2 . Fix a wellordering <
of !1 of length . Choose a club
C !1
such that for all 2 C ,
rank.< j / <
where is the least element of C greater than . Let D C be a closed unbounded

subset such that D 2 Lz for some real z. We can assume by changing z if necessary
that D is denable in Lz from z and nitely many indiscernibles of Lz greater than
or equal to !1 . Further by replacing z by z # we can assume that D is denable in Lz
from z and !1 . Thus for each 2 D
rank.< j / < rank.M.z # ; C 1//
and so
< rank.M.z # ; !1 C 1//:
Hence

!2 D suprank M.z # ; !1 C 1/ j z 2 R:
t
u
Theorem 3.17. Suppose that the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated and that
12 D !2 .
P .!1 /# exists. Then
Proof. P .!1 /# exists and so H.!2 /# exists. By Lemma 3.14, there exists a countable
elementary substructure X H.!2 / whose transitive collapse is iterable. The theorem
follows by Theorem 3.16.
t
u
There is a version of Theorem 3.16 which does not require the hypothesis that the
nonstationary ideal is saturated.
Remark 3.18. The proof that (2) follows from (4) in Theorem 3.19 plays a fundamental role in the analysis of the Pmax -extension and its generalizations. This analysis is of
course the main subject of this book.
t
u
Theorem 3.19. The following are equivalent.
(1) There exists a countable elementary substructure X H.!2 / whose transitive
collapse is iterable.
(2) For every countable X H.!2 /, the transitive collapse of X is iterable.
62
(3) For all reals x, x # exists and if C !1 is closed and unbounded, then C
contains a closed unbounded subset which is constructible from a real.
(4) If C !1 is closed and unbounded, then there exists x 2 R such that
Proof. This is similar to the proof of Theorem 3.16.
(1 ) 3). As in the proof of Theorem 3.16 it follows that if C !1 is closed and
unbounded, then C contains a closed unbounded subset which is constructible from a
real. It remains to show that for every z 2 R, z # exists. Since X H.!2 / we need
only show this for z 2 X . Fix z 2 X \ R. Let M be the transitive collapse of X .
We prove that every uncountable cardinal of V is a regular cardinal in Lz. From
this it follows that z # exists by Jensens Covering Lemma. In fact we prove the following claim.
Claim: Suppose N is a countable transitive model of ZFC and that N is iterable.
Suppose that t is a real in N . Then !1N is a regular cardinal in Lt .
The proof of the claim is straightforward.
Let S be the set of < !1N such that is singular in L! N t . Assume toward a
1
contradiction that S is stationary in N . Let
j W N ! N
be an iteration of N of length !1 . Thus j.!1N / D !1 . Let G be V -generic for

Coll(!; !1 ). In V G let U .P .!1 / n INS /N be N -generic with
j.S / 2 U:
Let N be the generic ultrapower of N by U and let k W N ! N be the corresponding elementary embedding. Thus !1V 2 k.j.S // and so !1V is singular in
L! N t a contradiction.
1
Thus there exists club C !1N such that C 2 N and such that for all 2 C , is
a regular cardinal in L! N t . Finally suppose that !1N is not a regular cardinal in Lt .
1
Choose < !1 such that !1N is singular in L t . Let

j W N ! N
be an iteration of N of length . Thus !1N and so !1N is singular in L! N t .

1
However
L! N t D j.L! N t /:
1
This is a contradiction since

2 j.C / and this proves the claim.
From the claim it follows easily that every uncountable cardinal in V is a regular
cardinal of Lz. Let be an uncountable cardinal in V . Let V G be a generic
extension of V in which is countable. In V G let j W M ! M be an iteration of
!1N
63
M of length . By Lemma 3.15, it follows that j.!1M / D . By absoluteness M is

iterable in V G and so M is iterable in V G. Hence, by the claim, is a regular
cardinal in Lz.
(3 ) 4). This is immediate.
(4 ) 2). This is quite similar to the argument that (1 ) 3) in the proof of Theorem 3.16. Suppose that
X H.!2 /
is a countable elementary substructure and let N be the transitive collapse of X . There
are two key claims.
(1.1) Suppose that N is an iterate of N such that !1N is wellfounded. Then N is

wellfounded.
(1.2) Suppose that N is a wellfounded iterate of N and that N is a generic ultrapower of N . Then

.!1 /N D N \ Ord:
For each x 2 R and for each !1 let .x; / be the least ordinal such that
L x is admissible and such that < . Let
Ax D < !1 j L x is admissible:
It follows from (3) that .x; !1 / j x 2 R is conal in !2 .
Suppose that x 2 R, y 2 R and that .x; !1 / < .y; !1 /. Then by reection
there must exist a closed unbounded set C !1 such that for all 2 C ,
.x; / < .y; /:
By (3) there exists z 2 R such that Az C .
Since X H.!2 /, there exists a sequence hxi W i < !i of reals such that
(2.1) .xi ; !1 / j i < ! is conal in X \ !2 ,
(2.2) for each 2 Axi C2 ,
.xi ; / < .xiC1 ; /:
N is the transitive collapse of X and so by absoluteness it follows that for each
i < !, .xi ; !1N / is the image of .xi ; !1 / under the collapsing map.
Thus if
j W N ! .M; E/
is an iteration, j..xi ; !1N // j i < ! is conal in OrdM .
We prove (1.1). Let
j W N ! N
be the given iteration.
64

Let be the wellfounded part of OrdN . Thus for each x 2 N \ R, L x is

admissible. However !1N is wellfounded and so for each x 2 N \ R, L! N x is
1
admissible. Therefore by (2.2), for each i < !,
.xi ; !1N / < :

Thus by absoluteness, for each i < !,
j..xi ; !1N // D .xi ; !1N /

and so D OrdN . This proves (1.1).

(1.2) follows from the following consequence of (4). Suppose that f W !1 ! !1 .
Then there exists x 2 R such that for all 2 Ax ,
f ./ < .x; /:
This is a rst order property of H.!2 / and so it must hold in N . The second property

of N that we shall need is that for each x 2 R \ N , .x; !1N / 2 N ; i. e.
N 9 > !1 and L x is admissible:
Again this (trivially) holds in H.!2 / and so it must hold in N .
Let
j W N ! N
be an iteration of length 1. Thus Ord \ N is an initial segment of OrdN
function

f W !1N ! !1N
. Fix a
such that f 2 N . It sufces to prove that

j .f /.!1N / < Ord \ N :

Let x 2 R \ N be such that for all 2 Ax \ !1N ,

f ./ < .x; /:
By the remarks above,

.x; !1N /
2 N . Thus by absoluteness,
.x; !1N / D ..x; !1N //N
Therefore by the elementarity of j ,

j .f /.!1N / < .x; !1N / < Ord \ N :

This proves that
j .!1N / D Ord \ N
and this proves (1.2).

The iterability of N is an immediate consequence of (1.1) and (1.2). This proves
(2).
t
u
We shall need the following theorem of .Shelah 1987/ which is discussed in Section 2.4.
65
Theorem 3.20 (Shelah). Suppose is a Woodin cardinal. Then there is a semiproper

partial order P such that;
(1) P is homogeneous and -cc,
(2) V P INS is saturated.
t
u
Suppose that is a Woodin cardinal and that

12 D !2 in V P where P is the partial
order indicated in Theorem 3.20. Then since P is homogeneous it follows that if j
is the generic elementary embedding of V P corresponding to the nonstationary ideal
then j j 2 V .
We shall need the following technical lemma which is a minor improvement of the
analogous result in .Hjorth 1993/.
Suppose that for all x 2 R, x # exists. For each n !, n > 0, let un be the
th
n uniform indiscernible.
We dene a set Z of bounded subsets of u! and a map W Z ! V as follows.
Suppose X um for some m < !. Then X 2 Z if and only if for all y 2 R, if
A !1 and if A 2 LX; y then A is constructible from a real.
Thus Z \ P .!1 / is the set of subsets of !1 which are constructible from a real.
Suppose X !1 and X 2 Z. Let t 2 R be such that X 2 Lt . We can choose t
such that X is denable in Lt from !1V and indiscernibles above !1V . .X / D j.X /
where
j W Lt ! Lt
is any elementary embedding with critical point !1V and such that j.!1V / D u2 . It is
easily veried that .X / is unambiguously dened. The denition does not depend on
the choice of either j or t .
For the general case we dene .X / by induction on sup X .
Suppose X , < unC1 and X 2 Z. Let t 2 R be such that in Lt there is a
bijection
f W un ! :
Let Y D f 1 .X /. Then Y 2 Z. We dene
.X / D .f /..Y //:
It is straightforward to show that this is unambiguously dened.
Suppose X unC1 and X 2 Z. Then
.X / D [.X \ / j < unC1 :
Note that if ADL.R/ holds then Z contains all the bounded subsets of u! which are
in L.R/.
Lemma 3.21. Suppose that for all x 2 R, x # exists and that u2 D !2 . Suppose
X 2 Z. Then .X / 2 Z.
Proof. This is by the key argument of .Hjorth 1993/. The proof is included in the proof
of Lemma 3.23.
t
u
66
We shall need the following theorem due independently to Martin and Welch.
Theorem 3.22 (Martin, Welch). Suppose that
12 D !2 and that for every x 2 R, x #
exists. Then for every x 2 R, x exists.
u
t
Theorem 3.22 can be improved, obtaining much more than for every x 2 R, x
exists. It should be the case that the hypothesis implies
12 -Determinacy but this is still
an open question.
For each t 2 R let L; t denote the smallest transitive inner model N of ZFC
containing the ordinals and t such that N is closed under and such that \ N 2 N .
Lemma 3.23. Suppose that for all x 2 R, x # exists and that u2 D !2 . Suppose x 2 R.
(1) For each n < !,
P .un / \ L; x Z:
(2) There is an elementary embedding
j W L; x ! N
such that for all X 2 Vu! \ L; x, j.X / D .X /, and such that
j j L ; x 2 L; x
for all 2 Ord.
Proof. We rst prove (1). Suppose F is a function and t 2 R. For each ordinal
dene J F; t by induction on . JC1 F; t is the closure of
J F; t [ J F; t [ J F; t \ F [ F .X / j X 2 dom.F / \ J F; t
under the Godel operations.
By the denitions, we prove (1) if we prove the following claim.
Claim: Suppose t 2 R, is an ordinal and for all n < !,
P .un / \ J ; t Z:
Suppose m < !, y 2 R, B um and that B 2 JC1 ; t . Then every set A !1
such that A 2 LB; y is constructible from a real.
The argument for this is similar to the proof of Theorem 2.3 in .Hjorth 1993/. We
sketch the argument. Since 12 D !2 (and for all x 2 R, x # exists), by Theorem 3.22,
for all x 2 R, x exists.
Suppose the claim fails. Fix t 2 R and 2 Ord for which the claim fails. Fix a
ordinal such that V ZFC and < . Let X V be an elementary substructure
such that X has cardinality !1 , !1 X and such that X \ !2 has conality !. The
latter condition is the key condition. Let M be the transitive collapse of X . Choose an
! sequence, hzk W k < !i, of reals in M such that !2M D sup k j k < ! where for
each k < !, k is the least indiscernible of Lzk above !1 . The point of course is that
!2M D uM
2 and so this sequence exists.
67
Let z 2 R code the pair .hzk W k < !i; t /. z exists and so F \ Lz; F is an
ultralter in Lz; F where F is the club lter on !1 .
Let M be the image of under the transitive collapse of X . Let .J ; t /M be
the image of J ; t under the collapsing map and let M be the image of .
Thus
.J ; t /M D JM M ; t :
The key point is that JM M ; t 2 Lz; F and that
M jJM M ; t 2 Lz; F :
The verication that M jJM M ; t 2 Lz; F follows from the fact that for all
m < !,
P .um / \ J ; t Z
together with the observation that there is a map e 2 Lz; F such that for all
B 2 Z \ X , e.BM / D M .BM /. Here BM is the image of B under the collapsing map. The latter observation is easily veried as follows. By the choice of X ,
!1 X and so M is uniquely determined by the map
W Z \ X \ P .!1 / ! V
M
where .B/ D .B/ \ uM
2 and u2 is the image of u2 under the collapsing map. The
M
map is computed from exactly as and Z are computed from the set of B !1
such that B is constructible from a real. For this one uses the sequence hzi W i < !i.
It is straightforward to verify that for B 2 Z \ X \ P .!1 /, M .B/ D j.B/ \ uM
2
where
j W Lz; F ! Lz; j.F /;
is the ultrapower embedding as computed in Lz; F .

Fix m < !, B um , A !1 and x 2 R such that B 2 JC1 ; t , A 2 LB; x
and A Z. We may assume that A; B; x X . Let BM be the image of B under the
collapsing map and let AM be the image of A. Since !1 X , A D AM .
Thus BM 2 JM C1 M ; t and A 2 LBM ; x. But JM C1 M ; t 2 Lz; F and
Lz; F Lz . Therefore A 2 Lz , a contradiction since A Z and so A is not
constructible from a real.
We now prove (2). The key is to represent as the embedding derived from an
ultrapower.
For each x 2 R we abuse notation slightly and let
Q
L;
x!1 D [L; x!1 \ L; y j y 2 R:
By (1) we can form the ultrapower
Q
L;
x!1 =F
where F is the club lter on !1 . The point of course is that by (1), F is an ultralter
on
[P .!1 / \ L; y j y 2 R:
The lter F is countably complete and so the ultrapower is wellfounded.
68
For each x 2 R let
jx W L; x ! Mx
be the induced elementary embedding. It follows that for all X 2 Z \ L; x,
jx .X / D .X /.
For each x 2 R let Ex be the .u1 ; u! / extender derived from jx . Thus
Ex 2 L; x. Let
Nx D Ult .L; x; Ex /
and let
jx0 W L; x ! Nx
be the corresponding embedding. The ultrapower Ult .L; x; Ex / is wellfounded
since it embeds into Mx . Since Ex 2 L; x it follows that
jx0 j L ; x 2 L; x
for all 2 Ord. Further by the denition of Ex it follows that jx D jx0 when restricted
t
u
to Vu! \ L; x.
The proof of part 2 of Lemma 3.23 shows that assuming that u2 D !2 , the map
is obtained from a restricted ultrapower.
Theorem 3.24. Assume the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated. Then the following are equivalent.
(1) 12 D !2 .
(2) There is an inner model N of ZFC containing the ordinals and an elementary
embedding
k W N ! N
such that if G .P .!1 / n INS ; / is V -generic and if
j WV !M
is the associated generic elementary embedding then
a) kjN 2 N for all ;
b) j jN! D kjN! .
where ! D sup n j n < ! and h n j n < !i is the critical sequence of k.
Proof. (1) implies (2) by the previous lemma.
We now prove that (2) implies (1).
Fix a cardinal such that jV j D and such that cof./ > !1 . Thus V ZFC and
.N! ; kjN! / 2 V :
Let X V be a countable elementary substructure such that N! ; kjN! 2 X . We
show that X \ H.!2 / is iterable. The relevant point is that .N! ; kjN! / is naturally a structure that can be iterated and further all of its iterates are wellfounded. Let
k! D kjN! . The fact that .N! ; k! / is iterable is a standard fact. k N and
69
N contains the ordinals, therefore .N; k/ is iterable; i. e. any iteration of set length
is wellfounded. The image of .N! ; k! / under an iteration of .N; k/ of length is
simply the th iterate of .N! ; k! /.
Let MX be the transitive collapse of X . Let NX! be the image of N! under the
collapsing map and let kX! be the image of k! .
We claim that .NX! ; kX! / is iterable. This too is a standard fact. Any iterate of .NX! ; kX! / embeds into an iterate of .N! ; k! / which is wellfounded since
.N! ; k! / is iterable.
The image of .NX! ; kX! / under any iteration of MX is an iterate of .NX! ; kX! /.
This is an immediate consequence of the denitions and the hypothesis, (2), of the
lemma. Therefore the image of !2 under any iteration of MX is wellfounded and so by
Lemma 3.8, the transitive collapse of X \H.!2 / is iterable. But then by Theorem 3.16,
12 D !2 .
t
u
Combining Shelahs theorem with Theorem 3.17 yields a new upper bound for the
consistency strength of
ZFC C For every real x, x # exists C 12 D !2 :
With an additional argument the upper bound can be further rened to give the following theorem.
One corollary is that one cannot prove signicantly more than
12 -Determinacy
from the hypothesis of Theorem 3.22. It is proved in .Koellner and Woodin 2010/ that
1

3 -Determinacy implies that there exists an inner model with two Woodin cardinals.
Therefore Theorem 3.22 cannot be improved to obtain
13 -Determinacy.
Theorem 3.25. Suppose is a Mahlo cardinal and that there exists < such that:
(i) is a Woodin cardinal in L.V /;
(ii) V V .
Then there is a semiproper partial order P such that
V P ZFC C For every real x, x # exists C 12 D !2 :
If in addition is a Woodin cardinal then
V P INS is !2 -saturated:
Proof. The partial order is simply the partial order P dened by Shelah in his proof
of Theorem 3.20. We shall need a little more information from this proof which we
sketched in Section 2.4. The partial order P is obtained as an iteration of length ,
hP W < i, such that:
(1.1) hP W < i V for all < such that jV j D ;
(1.2) hP W < i is denable in V for all < such that jV j D ;
(1.3) For each < , if is strongly inaccessible then
P D [P j < :
70
By (1.2) the denition of

hP W < i
for suitable is absolute, more precisely suppose that N is a transitive model of ZFC,
< and that
N D V :
Suppose that jV j D . Then hP W < i is the iteration of length as dened in N .
We note by (1.3), since is a Mahlo cardinal, the partial order P is -cc. Thus if
GP
is V -generic then
H.!2 /V G D V G:
Let < be least such that is a Woodin cardinal in L.V / and such that
V V . Since V# exists it follows that has conality !. Therefore we can
construct in V an L.V /-generic lter H Q where Q is the poset for adding a
generic subset of . The point is that since is a Woodin cardinal in L.V / it
follows that < -DC holds in L.V /.
Thus L.V /H ZFC and standard arguments show that is a Woodin cardinal
in L.V /H .
Suppose that G P is V -generic and let
G D G \ P :
Thus G is L.V /H -generic and so since P is P as dened in L.V /H it
follows that the nonstationary ideal on !1 is saturated in L.V /H G . Further
since
V V
and since the iteration for P is locally denable it follows that
H.!2 /L.V /H G H.!2 /V G :
This is because
H.!2 /L.V /H G D V H G
and
H.!2 /V G D V G:
Let Y L.V /H G be a countable elementary substructure containing innitely many indiscernibles for L.V /H G above . Let
X D Y \ H.!2 /L.V /H G :
Let N be the transitive collapse of Y and let M be the transitive collapse of X .
Thus
N The nonstationary ideal on !1 is saturated
and further N is a rank initial segment of L.N / and so by Lemma 3.8 and Lemma 3.10,
N is iterable. However M D H.!2 /N and so M is iterable. Finally X H.!2 /V G
and so by Theorem 3.16,
12 D !2 in V G.
t
u
This upper bound is somewhat technical. It does follow from more natural assumptions. For example if is a Woodin cardinal in L.V /, V# exists and if cof./ D !1
then in L.V /, satises all the necessary requirements.
71
Note that this upper bound is strictly stronger than the assumption that is a
Woodin cardinal in L.V / and V# exists. This is because (with notation as in the
statement of the theorem) is a Woodin cardinal in L.V / and V# exists.
Remark 3.26. We do not know if the hypothesis needed to obtain
1 D !2
2
can be weakened below that of Theorem 3.25. A natural question is whether the assumption that is Mahlo can be reduced to the assumption that is inaccessible.
To obtain both
1 D !2
2
and that INS is !2 -saturated, the hypothesis indicated in Theorem 3.25 is plausibly
optimal.
t
u
The next theorem has been considerably improved by G. Hjorth. One of the main
theorems of .Hjorth 1993/ shows that the hypothesis that the nonstationary ideal is
saturated in unnecessary and that the conclusion can be strengthened to include all of
the usual regularity properties. In fact Hjorths theorem is an immediate consequence
of Lemma 3.23. The point is that the Martin-Solovay tree T2 is easily seen to be in
L. Lemma 3.23 is simply a mild strengthening of Hjorths result. We include our
original proof.
Theorem 3.27. Assume that the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated and that
!2 D
12 :
1
Then every uncountable
3 set contains a perfect subset.
Proof. The key point is that if M is a countable transitive model of ZFC which is
iterable then 13 statements with parameters from M which are true in M are true in
V.
Suppose that A R is an uncountable
13 set. Choose X H.!2 / such that X is
countable and such that X contains the parameters for the
13 denition of A. Let M
be the transitive collapse of X . By Theorem 3.16, M is iterable.
Suppose G is M -generic for .P .!1 / n INS /M . Let N be the generic ultrapower
of M by G. Let AM be A as computed in M . M is iterable hence AM D A \ M .
Similarly let AN be A as computed in N . M is iterable and so N is iterable. Hence
AN D A \ N .
Since A is uncountable it follows that there exists an injective function
f W !1 ! A
such that f 2 X . Let fM be the image of f under the collapsing map. Thus
fM D f j where D !1M .
Let hSk W k < !i be an enumeration of .P .!1 / n INS /M . For each x 2 2! let
Gx D Sk j x.k/ D 1. By a routine construction there is a perfect set Z 2! such
that:
(1.1) Gx is M -generic for each x 2 Z;
(1.2) tx ty for all x 2 Z, y 2 Z such that x y.
72
where for each x 2 Z, tx is the real in the generic ultrapower of M by Gx which is

given by fM . The map F W Z ! R dened by F .x/ D tx is continuous and by the
remarks above tx 2 A for each x 2 Z. Thus tx j x 2 Z is a perfect set contained
in A.
t
u
As a corollary to the previous theorem we obtain the following theorem which
12 from the
shows that some additional assumption is required to prove that !2 D
saturation of the nonstationary ideal.
Theorem 3.28. Assume that
ZFC C There is a Woodin cardinal
is consistent. Then so is
ZFC C The nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated C 12 !2 :
Proof. A wellordering of the reals is a good 13 wellordering of the reals if the
wellordering has length !1 and the set of reals which code proper initial segments
of the wellordering is a 13 set.
By the results of .Martin and Steel 1994/, if
is consistent then so is
C There is a good 13 wellordering of the reals :
Therefore we may assume that is a Woodin cardinal in V and that there is a good
13 wellordering of the reals. Let P be the partial order dened by Shelah in his proof
of Theorem 3.20. Again we shall need a little more information from this proof. What
is required is easily veried from the sketch provided in Section 2.4.
The partial order P is semiproper and it is obtained as an iteration of length ,
hP W < i, such that for all < , jP j < . Let G P be V -generic. Then
it follows that 13 statements are absolute between V and V G. Let be a good 13
wellordering of the reals in V . Let be a 13 formula which in V denes the set of
reals which code initial segments of . Let A be the set denes in V and let AG be
the set which denes in V G. By absoluteness A AG . By absoluteness again,
every real in AG codes a countable sequence of reals and further if x; y 2 AG then
the sequences coded by x and y are equal or one is an initial segment of the other.
Therefore since A AG , every real in AG codes an initial segment of and so R \ V
is a 13 set in V G.
The nonstationary ideal is saturated in V G. If
1 D !2
2
in V G then by Theorem 3.27, in V G every uncountable

13 contains a perfect set.
1
t
u
This is a contradiction since R \ V is a 3 set in V G.
73
Remark 3.29. Theorem 3.28 does not really seem optimal. For example consider the
following question.
Suppose the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated and that AD holds in
L.R/. Is
12 D !2 ?
The proof of Theorem 3.28 does not generalize to answer this question. One really
seems to need a deeper analysis of when the forcing iteration to make the nonstationary
12 D !2 . A typical question is the following.
ideal on !1 saturated necessarily forces
Suppose V is a core model and that is the least ordinal satisfying that is a
Woodin cardinal in L.V /. Let G be L.V /-generic for the iteration which forces
the nonstationary ideal saturated. Is
12 D !2 in L.V /G?
At this point there is not even a good understanding of how the forcing iteration for
making the nonstationary ideal saturated adds any reals. For example (for the specic
iteration indicated in Section 2.4) does the iteration add any reals which are V -generic
for proper forcing?
t
u
We shall need a slight variation on the notion of iterability.
Denition 3.30. Suppose A R and M is a countable transitive iterable model of
ZFC . The model M is A-iterable if for all iterations
j WM !N
j.A \ M / D A \ N where
j.A \ M / D [j. / j 2 M and A:
t
u
Remark 3.31. (1) This is really a strengthening of the notion of weak iterability.
Suppose A is the complete 11 set. Suppose M is a countable transitive model
of ZFC and that for any iteration j W M ! N , j.A \ M / D A \ N . Then M
is weakly iterable.
(2) In most (but not all) cases when we are considering M which are A-iterable we
shall also have that A \ M 2 M .
t
u
One easy consequence of the denition of A-iterability is the following theorem
which in some sense generalizes the theorem of AD which states that every !1 union
1
of borel sets is
2 .
We require the following denition. Suppose that A R. A set B R is
11 .A/
if it is 1 denable in the structure
hV!C1 ; A; 2i
11 .A/
if it 1 denable in this structure (without

from parameters. The set B is
parameters). Note that it is our convention that R n A is 11 .A/.
74
Theorem 3.32. Suppose that A R and that there exists a countable elementary
substructure X H.!2 / such that
hX; A \ X; 2i hH.!2 /; A; 2i
and such that the transitive collapse of X is B-iterable for each set B which is 11 .A/.
Suppose that there exists a sequence hB W < !1 i of borel sets such that
A D [B j < !1 :
1
Then A is
2 .
Proof. Fix a 11 set
universal for all
1
Similarly x a
U RR
sets. For each x 2 R let
11 .A/
Ux D y 2 R j .x; y/ 2 U :
set
UA R R
1
x 2 R let
universal for all
1 .A/ sets. For each
A
Ux D y 2 R j .x; y/ 2 U A :
Fix a countable elementary substructure X H.!2 / such that
hX; A \ X; 2i hH.!2 /; A; 2i
and such that the transitive collapse of X is U A -iterable.
Thus there exists a set R of cardinality @1 such that 2 X and such that
A D [Ux j x 2 :
Let M be the transitive collapse of X and let M be the image of under the
collapsing map. Thus M D \ M .
Let be the union of all sets j.M / such that
j W M ! M
is a countable iteration of M . Thus since, by Corollary 3.13, there exists an
iteration
j W M ! M
of length !1 such that j.M / D .

Let
A D [Ux j x 2 :
1

Clearly A is
2 . Further since , A A .
Finally since M is U A -iterable it follows that for each x 2 , Ux A and so
A D A :
1
Thus A is
t
u
2 .
Theorem 3.34 is the generalization of Theorem 3.19 to the case of A-iterability.

We require a minor variation of Corollary 3.13. The proof is identical to that of
Corollary 3.13, using an appropriately modied version of Lemma 3.12.
75
Lemma 3.33. Suppose

X 2 H.!2 /
is a countable 2 -elementary substructure and let M be the transitive collapse of X .
Suppose that
M ZFC :
Let
N D f .s/ j f 2 X; s 2 !1<! ;
and let
j WM !N
be the embedding inverting the transitive collapse.
t
u
Then j is given by an iteration of length !1 .
Theorem 3.34. Suppose that A R. Then the following are equivalent.
(1) There exists a countable elementary substructure X H.!2 / such that
hX; A \ X; 2i hH.!2 /; A; 2i
and such that the transitive collapse of X is A-iterable.
(2) For every countable X H.!2 /, if
hX; A \ X; 2i hH.!2 /; A; 2i
then the transitive collapse of X is A-iterable.
Proof. Clearly (2) implies (1).
We prove that (1) implies (2). Let X be the set of countable subsets
X H.!2 /
such that
(1.1) X 2 H.!2 /,
(1.2) MX ZFC ,
(1.3) MX is A-iterable.
Thus X is denable in the structure
hH.!2 /; A; 2i:
By (1), X ;. Since X is denable, (1) also implies that for all a 2 H.!2 / there
exists X 2 X such that a 2 X .
We x some notation. Suppose X 2 X. Let
NX D f .s/ j f 2 X; s 2 !1<! :
It follows that
NX 2 H.!2 /
and so since !1 NX , NX is transitive.
Let
jX W MX ! NX
be the elementary embedding given by the inverse of the collapsing map.
76
By Lemma 3.33, the embedding jX is given by an iteration of MX .

Therefore there exists a sequence hXi W i < !i of elements of X such that for all
i < !,
.Xi ; jXi ; NXi / 2 XiC1 \ X
and such that
X D [Xi j i < !:
We now x a countable elementary substructure X H.!2 / such that
hX; A \ X; 2i hH.!2 /; A; 2i:
We must prove that the transitive collapse, MX , of X is A-iterable.
For each i < ! let Ni be the image of NXi under the transitive collapse of X and
let
ji W MXi ! Ni
the image of jXi .
Thus for all i < !,
(2.1) .MXi ; ji ; Ni / 2 NiC1 ,
(2.2) Ni 2 NiC1 ,
(2.3) ji W MXi ! Ni is an iteration map,
and further
MX D [Ni j i < !:
By Theorem 3.19, MX is iterable. Suppose
j W MX ! M
is a countable iteration.
Then for each i < !,
j.ji / W MXi ! j.Ni /
is an iteration and so for each i < !,
j jNi W Ni ! j.Ni /
is an iteration.
For each i < !, Ni is an iterate of MXi and MXi is A iterable. Hence Ni is
A-iterable.
Finally
M D [j.Ni / j i < !;
and for each i < !, Ni 2 NiC1 . Hence
M D j.Ni / j i < !:
Therefore
j.A \ MX / D [j.A \ Ni / j i < !
D [A \ j.Ni / j i < !
D A \ M:
This veries that MX is A-iterable.
t
u
77
Lemma 3.35. Suppose that the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated. Suppose

A R and that B is weakly homogeneously Suslin for each set B which is projective
in A. Let M be a transitive set such that M ZFC , P .!1 / M , and such that M #
exists. Then
X M j X is countable and MX is A-iterable
Proof. We recall that if N is a countable transitive model of ZFC and if
j W N ! N
is a countable iteration then j.A \ N / is dened to be the set
j.A \ N / D [j.Z/ j Z 2 N; and Z A:
We rst prove the lemma in the case that M D H.!2 /.
Set M0 D H.!2 /. Let G be V -generic for the Levy collapse of 2!1 to !. Thus M0
is countable in V G. Let T be a weakly homogeneous tree in V such that A D pT .
Dene AG to be the projection of T in V G. It is a standard fact that AG does not
depend on the choice of T . Let T be a tree in V such that in V G,
pT D R n pT :
The tree T exists since T is weakly homogeneous in V and since G is generic for a
partial order of size less than the least measurable cardinal. Finally let S be a weakly
homogeneous tree in V such that B D pS where B is the set of reals which code
A-iterable transitive models of ZFC . Since B is projective in A, the tree S exists.
Further we have that in V G, BG is the set of reals which code AG -iterable transitive
models of ZFC where BG is the projection of S in V G.
We claim that M0 is AG -iterable in V G. Let
j0 W M0 ! N0
be a countable iteration of M0 in V G. Then by Lemma 3.8, there corresponds an
iteration
j W V ! .N; E/ V G
such that N0 D j.M0 / and j jM0 D j0 . By Lemma 3.10, .N; E/ is wellfounded and
we identify N with its transitive collapse.
Note that j.A/ D pj.T / \ N and that j0 .A/ D j.A/. It sufces to show that in
V G, pT D pj.T /. However in V G;
(1.1) pT pj.T /,
(1.2) pT pj.T /,
(1.3) pT D R n pT ,
(1.4) pj.T / \ pj.T / D ;.
78
Condition (1.4) holds by absoluteness since by elementarity of j it must hold in N .

From these conditions it follows immediately that pT D pj.T / in V G.
Thus M0 is AG -iterable in V G. Let x0 be a real in V G which codes M0 . Thus
x0 2 BG and so x0 2 pS .
In V x a set Z P!1 .M0 / such that Z is stationary. Let be large enough such
that T; S 2 V and such that V is admissible. Let X V be a countable elementary
substructure such that T 2 X , S 2 X and such that X \ M0 2 Z. Let NX be the
transitive collapse of X and let SN be the image of S under the collapsing map. Finally
let GN be N -generic for the Levy collapse of .2!1 /N . Thus by the argument above
we have that there exists a real xN 2 N GN such that xN 2 pSN and xN codes
H.!2 /N . Therefore xN 2 pS and so H.!2 /N is A-iterable. However H.!2 /N is
the transitive collapse of X \ H.!2 / and X \ M0 2 Z.
This proves the lemma in the case that M D H.!2 /.
The general case follows using Lemma 3.8 and Lemma 3.14. The point is that if
N is a countable transitive iterable model of ZFC in which the nonstationary ideal
is saturated and if A is any set of reals then N is A-iterable if and only if H.!2 /N is
A-iterable.
t
u
The covering theorems are more easily proved using the following theorem which
is a routine generalization of the (correct) results of .Woodin 1983/ from the setting of
L.R/ to that of L.A; R/.
We shall only need parts (2) and (3). For the sake of completeness we include a
sketch of the proof.
Theorem 3.36. Suppose A R,
L.A; R/ AD
and that G Coll.!; <!1 / is V -generic. Let RG D RV G and let
AG D [X V G j X 2 V; X is borel and X A
where if X 2 V is a borel set then X V G denotes its interpretation in V G. Then:
(1) L.AG ; RG /G is a generic extension of L.AG ; RG /.
(2) L.AG ; RG /G !1 -choice.
(3) There is an elementary embedding
j W L.A; R/ ! L.AG ; RG /
such that j.A/ D AG and j is the identity on the ordinals.
Proof. Let **uniformization denote the following assertion:
Suppose Z R R is a set such that dom.Z/ is comeager. Then there exist a
comeager set Y R and a borel function f W Y ! R such that Y dom.Z/
and such that for all x 2 Y ,
.x; f .x// 2 Z:
79
It is a standard fact that AD implies **uniformization and that **uniformization

implies that every set of reals has the property of Baire.
Assume **uniformization and that V D L.A; R/ where A R. Then **AC holds;
i. e. if
F W R ! V n ;
is a function then there exists a function
H WR!V
such that x j H.x/ 2 F .x/ is comeager in R.
This easily generalizes as follows. Suppose Q is a partial order with a countable
dense set and let 2 V Q be a term for a real. For each condition p 2 Q dene an
ideal I
p as follows. Let S be the Stone space of Q.
I
p D Z R j G Q j p 2 G; IG ./ 2 Z is meager in S
where if G Q is a lter then IG is the associated (partial) interpretation map. For
a comeager collection of lters G Q, IG ./ is dened; i. e. for each n 2 ! there
exists m 2 ! such that for some q 2 G,
q .n/ D m:
p
We say Z R is I
-positive if Z I
p . The set Z is I
p -large if X 2 I
p where
X D R n Z.
The following facts are easily veried. The ideals I
p are countably complete and
for all Z R, Z is I
p -positive if and only if there exists q < p such that Z is
I
q -large.
Now assume Q is a partial order with a countable dense set, is a term for a real,
p 2 Q, V D L.A; R/ and **uniformization. Suppose
F W R ! V n ;
is a function. Then there is a function
H WR!V
such that
x j H.x/ 2 F .x/
is I
p -large.
Suppose g Q is L.A; R/-generic and let z 2 L.A; R/g be the interpretation of
by g. Let
Ug D Z R j Z 2 L.A; R/; Z is I
p -large for some p 2 g
and so Ug is an L.A; R/-ultralter on L.A; R/ \ P .R/.
Let N D Ult.L.A; R/; Ug /. It is easily veried that N is wellfounded (use DC in
L.A; R/) and we identify N with its transitive collapse. Let
j
W L.A; R/ ! N
be the associated generic elementary embedding. It follows that j
is the identity on
the ordinals, RN D RL.A;R/z , and that
j
.A/ D [X V z j X 2 V; X is borel and X A
where if X 2 V is a borel set then X V z denotes its interpretation in V z.
80
Now suppose that G Coll.!; <!1 / is V -generic. Let

RG D RV G :
Suppose z 2 RG . Then there exists < !1 such that z 2 V Gj where
Gj D G \ Coll.!; </:
By the remarks above, setting Q D Coll.!; </, there exists an elementary embedding
jz W V ! L.jz .A/; jz .R//
such that jz is the identity on the ordinals,
jz .R/ D RV z ;
and such that
jz .A/ D [X V z j X 2 V; X is borel and X A:
This denes a directed system of elementary embeddings and the limit yields an elementary embedding
as desired. This proves (3).
For each < !1 let
Q D Coll.!; /:
For each < < !1 let
Q; D q 2 Coll.!; / j dom.q/ ! .;
Thus for < !1 ,
Q Q Q; :
For each < !1 let S be the Stone space of Q . The elements of S are maximal
lters in Q .
Similarly for each < < !1 let S; be the Stone space of Q; .
To prove (1) and (2) we require the following strengthening of **uniformization.
Let !1 -**uniformization denote the following assertion:
Suppose Z H.!1 / H.!1 / is a set such that for each < !1 ,
.dom.Z// \ S
is comeager in S . Then there exists X dom.Z/ and a function
f W X ! H.!1 /
such that
(1.1) for each < !1 ,
X \ S
is comeager in S ,
(1.2) for all x 2 X , .x; f .x// 2 Z,
1
(1.3) f is
1 in the codes.
It is straightforward to show that AD implies !1 -**uniformization.
Assume !1 -**uniformization and that V D L.A; R/ where A R. Then !1 **AC holds; i. e. if
F W H.!1 / ! V n ;
81
is a function then there exists X H.!1 / and there exists a function

H WX !V
such that for all g 2 X ,
H.g/ 2 F .g/
and such that for each < !1 ,
X \ S
is comeager in S .
In fact, both assertions (1) and (2) in the statement of theorem follow simply from
the assumption that !1 -**uniformization holds in L.A; R/ and we shall prove (1) and
(2) from only this weaker assumption.
Let S be the following partial order. Conditions are triples .N; g; / such that
(2.1) N !1 ,
(2.2) < !1 ,
(2.3) g 2 S .
Suppose .N1 ; g1 ; 1 / 2 S and .N2 ; g2 ; 2 / 2 S. Then
.N2 ; g2 ; 2 / < .N1 ; g1 ; 1 /
if N1 2 LN2 , 1 < 2 , g1 g2 and g2 \ Q1 ;2 is LN1 -generic.
We will need the following consequences of !1 -**AC and **uniformization. Suppose X H.!1 / and that < !1 . Suppose that for each < !1 , X \ S; is
comeager in S; . Then there exists N !1 such that for all < !1 , if < then
g Q; j g is LN -generic X:
By **uniformization, every set of reals has the property of Baire and so for every set
N !1 and for every < !1 , if < then
g Q; j g is LN -generic
is comeager in S; .
We rst prove the following. Suppose .N; g; / 2 S and D0 S is a set which is
dense below .N; g; /. Let D be the set of p 2 S such that for some q 2 D0 ,
p q 2 G
where G is the term for the generic lter.
We claim there exist N !1 and < !1 such that < and such that
.N ; g h; / 2 D
for all h Q; which are LN -generic.
By !1 -**AC, there exists X H.!1 / and there exists a function
F W X ! P .!1 /
such that for all < !1 , if < then
(3.1) X \ S; is comeager in S; ,
(3.2) if h 2 S; \ X and if there exists M !1 such that .M; g h; / 2 D then
.F .h/; g h; / 2 D.
82
Let T be the set of triples .; q; / such that

(4.1) < < !1 ,
(4.2) q 2 Q; ,
(4.3) < !1 ,
(4.4) h 2 S; j 2 F .h/ is comeager in the open subset of S; given by q.
Let X be the set of h Q; such that < < !1 and such that h is LT generic. Dene
F W X ! P .!1 /
by
F .h/ D j .; q; / 2 T for some q 2 h
where < !1 is such that h is LT -generic for Q; .

Let
X D h 2 X \ X j F .h/ D F .h/:
Since every set of reals has the property of Baire, for every < !1 , if < then
X \ S; is comeager in S; .
Let S be the set of pairs .; p/ such that
(5.1) < < !1 ,
(5.2) p 2 Q; ,
(5.3) h 2 S; j .F .h/; g h; / 2 D is comeager in the open subset of S;
given by p.
For each < !1 such that < let
Y D h 2 S; j .F .h/; g h; / 2 D $ .; p/ 2 S for some p 2 h:
Thus for each , Y is comeager in S; .
Let
Y D [Y j < < !1 :
Let N !1 be a set such that .g; S; T / 2 LN and such that for all < !1 , if
< then
g Q; j g is LN -generic X \ Y:
Suppose < !1 and < . Suppose h Q; is LN -generic and that there
exists M !1 such that .M; g h; / 2 D. h is LN -generic and so h 2 X .
Therefore
.F .h/; g h; / 2 D
and further F .h/ D F .h/. However T 2 LN and so F .h/ 2 LN h. Thus
.N ; g h; / .F .h/; g h; / 2 G
and so
.N ; g h; / 2 D:
83
Let
E D p j .; p/ 2 S for some < !1 :
We claim that E is predense in Coll.!; <!1 /. Fix p0 2 Coll.!; <!1 /. Fix 0 < !1
such that p0 2 Q;0 . Let h0 Q;0 be LN -generic with p0 2 h0 . Let
.M1 ; g1 ; 1 / 2 D be such that
.M1 ; g1 ; 1 / < .N ; g h0 ; 0 /:
Thus g1 D g h1 where h1 Q;1 , h0 h1 and h1 is LN -generic. Therefore
.N ; g h1 ; 1 / 2 D
and further h1 2 Y1 . Therefore there exists p1 2 h1 such that .1 ; p1 / 2 S . This
proves that E is predense. Therefore there exists < !1 such that
p 2 Coll.!; </ j . ; p/ 2 S for some <
is predense in Coll.!; </.
Finally suppose h Q; is LN -generic. Then there exists p 2 h and there
exists < such that . ; p/ 2 S . Therefore
.N ; g h ; / 2 D
where h D h \ Q; , and so
.N ; g h; / 2 D:
This proves our claim about .N; g; / and D.
We prove (1). Fix G. Let
be the elementary embedding given by (3).
For each < !1 let
G D G \ Q
and let
be the associated embedding. Similarly for each < < !1 let
G; D G \ Q;
and let
j; W L.A; R/ ! L.AG; ; RG; /
be the associated embedding.
Let
FG D .N; g; / 2 jG .S/ j g G and G \ Q;!1 is LN -generic:
We claim that FG is L.AG ; RG /-generic.
Suppose that
p0 2 S
and that p0 D .N0 ; g0 ; 0 /. Let FGp0 be the set of .N; g; / 2 jG .S/ such that
(6.1) .N; g; / < p0 ; g Gp0 ,
(6.2) Gp0 \ Q;!1 is LN -generic.
84
where
Gp0 D g0 .G \ Q0 ;!1 /
is the perturbation of G to extend g0 .
We prove that FGp0 \ jG .D/ ; for all D S such that D is dense.
Suppose D S is dense. We may assume that for all p 2 S, if
p q 2 G
for some q 2 D then p 2 D.
Since every set of reals has the property of Baire and since !1 -**AC holds, it
follows by the remarks above, that there exists < !1 such that 0 < and there
exists N1 !1 such that .N1 ; g0 h; / 2 D for all h Q0 ; such that h is
LN1 -generic.
Thus .N1 ; g0 G0 ; ; / 2 jG .D/ and .N1 ; g0 G0 ; ; / < jG .p0 /. Clearly
G \ Q;!1 is LN1 -generic. Thus
.N1 ; g0 G0 ; ; / 2 jG .D/ \ FGp0 :
This proves that FGp0 \ jG .D/ ; for all D S such that D is dense.
It now follows that FG \ D ; for all D 2 L.AG ; RG / such that D jG .S/
and such that D is dense. The point is that any set in L.AG ; RG / is the image of a
set in L.AG ; RG / for some and so genericity follows by relativizing the previous
argument, with a suitable choice of p0 , to
L.AG ; RG / V G :
Finally we prove (2). It sufces to show that if
F S
is L.A; R/-generic then !1 -AC holds in L.A; R/F . We work in L.A; R/.
Suppose is a term, .N; g; / 2 S and
.N; g; / ;:
We prove that there exists N
!1 and a term such that

.N ; g; / 2 :
Let D be the set of q < .N; g; / such that

q 2
for some term . Therefore D is open and D is dense below .N; g; /. By the claim
proved above, there exists N !1 and there exists < !1 such that < and such
that
.N ; g h; / 2 D
for all h Q; which are LN -generic. By **AC there exists a set X which is
comeager in S; and a function
F W X ! L.A; R/
such that for all h 2 X , F .h/ is a term and
.N ; g h; / F .h/ 2 :
85
Let N !1 be a set such that N 2 LN and such that if h Q; is LN generic then h 2 X . F denes a term and
.N ; g; / 2 :
Now suppose 2 L.A; R/S is a term, .N; g; / 2 S, and
.N; g; / W !1 ! V n ;:
Let h W < < !1 i be a sequence of terms such that for all < !1 ,
.N; g; / ./ D :
where C 1 C D .
By !1 -**AC and by **uniformization and by the result proved above, there exists
X H.!1 / and two functions,
F0 W X ! P .!1 /
and
F1 W X ! L.A; R/
with the following properties. For all < !1 , if < then X \ S; is comeager in
S; and for all h 2 X \ S; , F1 .h/ is a term and
.F0 .h/; g h; / F1 .h/ 2 :
As we did above we extract the term dened by F0 . Let T be the set of triples
.; q; / such that
(7.1) < < !1 ,
(7.2) q 2 Q; ,
(7.3) < !1 ,
(7.4) h 2 S; j 2 F0 .h/ is comeager in the open subset of S; given by q.
For each < !1 such that < let Y be the set of h 2 X \ S; such that
F0 .h/ D < !1 j .; q; / 2 T for some q 2 h:
Thus Y is comeager in S; . Let
Y D [Y j < < !1 :
Finally let N !1 be such that .N; T / 2 LN and such that for all < !1 , if
< then
h 2 S; j h is LN -generic X \ Y:
Suppose h Q; and that h is LN -generic. Therefore h 2 X and so
.F0 .h/; g h; / F1 .h/ 2 :
The genericity of h relative to LN also implies that h 2 Y . Therefore
F0 .h/ 2 LT h:
86
However T 2 LN and so
.N ; g h; / .F0 .h/; g h; / 2 G
where G is the term for the generic lter.
Thus for all < !1 , if < and if h 2 S; is LN -generic then
.N ; g h; / F1 .h/ 2 :
The function F1 yields a term 2 L.A; R/S such that
.N ; g; / is a choice function for :
t
u
Remark 3.37. (1) As indicated in the proof, one does not need AD for this. For
example, (3) follows assuming only that **uniformization holds in L.A; R/.
See .Woodin 1983/.
(2) The partial order S, dened in the proof of Theorem 3.36, is equivalent to the
forcing notion of .Steel and VanWesep 1982/. Assuming AD,
.N; g; / 2 S j N !
is dense in S and the order on S can be rened to make the partial order !-closed;
i. e. S is !-strategically closed.
(3) With additional requirements on the inner model, L.A; R/, one in fact gets !1 DC in L.AG ; RG /G. The additional assumption is ADC , it is implied by AD
if V D L.R/. !1 -choice is sufcient for our purposes. A brief survey of ADC
is given in the rst section of Chapter 9.
t
u
As a corollary to Theorem 3.36 we obtain the following theorem.
Theorem 3.38. Suppose A R,
L.A; R/ AD
and that G Coll.!; <!1 / is V -generic. Let RG D RV G and let
where if X 2 V is a borel set then X V G denotes its interpretation in V G. Suppose
is an ordinal. Then:
(1) Suppose f W !1 ! is a function in L.AG ; RG /. Then there is a function
g 2 L.A; R/ such that f and g agree on a club in !1 .
(2) Suppose X is a set of size !1 in L.A; R/G. Then there is a set Y in
L.A; R/ of size !1 such that X Y .
(3) Suppose f W !1 ! is a function in L.AG ; RG /G. Then there exists a
sequence
hS W < !1 i 2 L.AG ; RG /G
of subsets of !1 such that
87
5S j < !1
contains a club and such that for each < !1 , there is a club C on which
f j.S \ C / D g
for some g 2 L.AG ; RG /.
(4) Suppose X is a set of size !1 in L.AG ; RG /G. Then there is a set Y
in L.AG ; RG / of size !1 such that X Y .
Proof. (1) follows immediately from Theorem 3.36(3) noting that the club lter on !1
is an ultralter in L.A; R/ and that the ultrapower
Ord!1 =U
is wellfounded in L.A; R/ where U is the club lter on !1 .
(2) is an elementary consequence of the fact that the partial order,
Coll.!; <!1 /
is ccc and of cardinality !1 .
(4) follows from (2) and the elementary embedding given by Theorem 3.36(3).
We prove (3). For each x 2 R, let
kx W Lx ! Lx
be the canonical elementary embedding where kx has critical point !1V and
kx .!1V / D .12 /V D .!2 /L.A;R/ :
These conditions together with the condition
Lx D kx .h/./ j h 2 Lx and < kx .!1V /

uniquely specify kx .
Suppose x 2 Ly, then for any
Z 2 P .!1 / \ Lx;
kx .Z/ D ky .Z/.
Fix f W !1 ! with f 2 L.AG ; RG /G.
Clearly there exists a set X 2 L.A; R/ such that
(1.1) X ,
(1.2) jX j D !1 in L.A; R/,
(1.3) ran.f / X .
Therefore we may assume that f W !1 ! !1 .
Let be a term for f . We assume that
1 is a function from !1 to !1 :
88
Let
T D .p; ; / j p 2 Coll.!; <!1 /; p ./ D :
Since AD holds in L.A; R/, there exists x 2 R such that T 2 Lx. Let
TQ D kx .T /:
Thus TQ is a term for a function
fQ W
12 ! 12
in the forcing language for Coll.!; <12 /.
Let A Coll.!; <12 / be a maximal antichain such that A 2 Lx and such that
for all p 2 A there exists <
12 such that
.p; !1 ; / 2 TQ :
Thus A has cardinality at most !1 in L.AG ; RG /G. Let
D sup j .p; !1 ; / 2 A:
Thus
<
12 D .!2 /L.A;R/ :
Let y0 2 R be such that x 2 Ly0 and such that
< ..!1V /C /Ly0 :
Thus T 2 Ly0 G and so f 2 Ly0 G.
We work in Ly0 G. Let
A D p 2 A j pj.!1V !/ 2 G :
Let hp W < !1V i be an enumeration of A . For each < !1V let be such that
.p ; !1V ; / 2 TQ :
Let hg W < !1V i 2 Ly0 be a sequence of functions such that
g W !1V ! !1V
and such that
kQy0 .g /.!1V / D :
For each < !1 let

S D < !1 j f . / D g . /:
It sufces to show that in L.AG ; RG /G,
S D 5S j < !1
contains a closed unbounded subset of !1 .
Suppose E !1 is a stationary subset of !1 in L.AG ; RG /G. Let be a term
for E and let
S D .p; / j p 2 :
S 2 L.A; R/ and so there exists y 2 R such that S 2 Ly. We may suppose that
1 is a stationary subset of !1 :
89
Fix z 2 R such that S 2 Lz and such that y 2 Lz. Thus

S; E LzG:
Let
SQ D kz .S /:
Thus SQ is a term for a subset of 12 in the forcing language for Coll.!; <12 /.
Let Z !1 be the set of < !1 such that for all q 2 Coll.!; < / there exists
.p; / 2 S such that p < q. Thus Z 2 Lz.
A key point is the following. Since
1 is a stationary subset of !1 ;
it follows that in L.A; R/, Z contains a club in !1 . Otherwise, working in L.A; R/,
there exists a closed, unbounded, set C !1 and a condition
q0 2 Coll.!; <!1 /
such that for all 2 C ,
q0 ;
which contradicts that is a term for a stationary set.
Thus !1V 2 kz .Z/.
Suppose GQ Coll.!; <12 / is a V -generic lter such that
G D GQ \ Coll.!; <!1 /
and such that p 2 GQ for some p 2 Coll.!; <12 / with .p; !1 / 2 SQ .
Then kz lifts to
Q
kQz W LzG ! LzG
Q Therefore
A is a maximal antichain and so there exists < !1 such that p 2 G.
V
V
Q
Q
kz .f /.!1 / D D kz .g /.!1 /
and so it follows that
!1V 2 kQz .S/:
However ! V 2 kQz .E/ and so by elementarity,
1
E \ S ;:
Therefore in L.AG ; RG /G, S contains a closed unbounded subset of !1 .
t
u
Lemma 3.39. Suppose A R,

L.A; R/ AD
and that for all B 2 P .R/ \ L.A; R/ the set
X hH.!2 /; B; 2i j MX is B-iterable and X is countable
is stationary where MX is the transitive collapse of X . Suppose
G Coll.!; <!1 /
is V -generic. Let RG D RV G and let
where if X 2 V is a borel set then X V G denotes its interpretation in V G. Then in
V G, for all B 2 P .RG / \ L.RG ; AG / the set
X hH.!2 /V G ; B; 2i j MX is B-iterable and X is countable

is stationary.
90
Proof. Suppose G Coll.!; <!1 / is V -generic.

For each set C 2 P .R/ \ L.A; R/ let
CG D [X V G j X 2 V; X is borel and X C :
By Theorem 3.36, there is an elementary embedding
such that j is the identity on the ordinals.
It follows that for each C 2 P .R/ \ L.A; R/,
j.C / D CG :
Therefore if B 2 P .RG / \ L.AG ; RG / there exists C 2 P .R/ \ L.A; R/ such
that
B D f 1 CG
for some continuous function f W RG ! RG with f 2 V G.

Thus it sufces to prove that for all C 2 P .R/ \ L.A; R/, the set
X hH.!2 /V G ; CG ; 2i j MX is CG -iterable and X is countable

is stationary.
Fix C 2 P .R/ \ L.A; R/. Let
U RR
1
be a universal
1 set. For each z 2 R let
Uz D y 2 R j .z; y/ 2 U :
If M is a transitive model of ZFC we let U M D U \ M . By absoluteness U M is
dened in M by the same 11 formula which denes U in V .
Suppose
X hH.!2 /; C; 2i
is a countable elementary substructure in V such that MX is D-iterable and MX is
E-iterable where
D D z j Uz C
and
E D z j Uz R n C :
Let
Y D X G
and let N be the transitive collapse of Y . Therefore
N D MX G \ Coll.!; <!1X /
where !1X D X \ !1 .
Since **AC holds in L.A; R/ (see the proof of Theorem 3.36) it follows that
Y hH.!2 /V G ; CG ; 2i:
Suppose in V G,
91
k W N ! N
is a countable iteration of N . Let g D G \ Coll.!; <!1X /. Then by induction on the

length of the iteration, it follows that
kjMX W MX ! k.MX /
is a countable iteration of MX . MX is a countable transitive set and so
j.MX / D MX :
Therefore in V G, MX is DG -iterable and MX is EG -iterable. This implies that
DG \ k.MX / D k.DG \ MX / D k.D \ MX /
and that
EG \ k.MX / D k.EG \ MX / D k.E \ MX /:
However
N D k.MX /k.g/
and k.g/ is k.MX /-generic for Coll.!; </ where

D .!1 /k.MX / :
Note that
CG D [UzV G j z 2 D
and
RG n CG D [UzV G j z 2 E:
Therefore
CG \ N D [UzN j z 2 D \ MX
and
.RG n CG / \ N D [UzN j z 2 E \ MX :
This implies that
k.CG \ N / D [Uzk.N / j z 2 k.D \ MX /
D [Uzk.N / j z 2 DG \ k.MX /;
and
k.N \ .RG n CG // D [Uzk.N / j z 2 k.E \ MX /
D [Uzk.N / j z 2 EG \ k.MX /;
since
k.D \ MX / D DG \ k.MX /
and
k.E \ MX / D EG \ k.MX /:
Suppose z 2 DG . Then UzV G CG (by applying j ). Therefore
[Uzk.N / j z 2 DG \ k.MX / CG
since for each z 2 RG \ k.N /,
Uzk.N / UzV G :
92
Similarly
[Uzk.N / j z 2 EG \ k.MX / RG n CG :
This implies
k.N \ CG / CG
and
k.N \ .RG n CG // RG n CG :
Therefore
k.N \ CG / D k.N / \ CG
and
k.N \ .RG n CG // D k.N / \ .RG n CG /:
This proves that N is CG -iterable in V G.
Finally suppose
Z P!1 .H.!2 //
is stationary in P!1 .H.!2 //. Then
X G j X 2 Z
V G
.
is stationary in .P!1 .H.!2 ///
Therefore in V G, the set
X hH.!2 /V G ; CG ; 2i j MX is CG -iterable and X is countable

is stationary.
t
u
To prove the rst of the two covering theorems we need the following theorem of
Steel which is a corollary of the results of .Steel 1981/.
Theorem 3.40 (Steel, (AD + DC)). Suppose that < and cof./ > !. Suppose
that Y R R is a prewellordering of length .
Then there exists a set X R and a surjection
WX !
such that
1
(1) for each
1 set Z X ,
sup.t / j t 2 Z < ;
(2) the set

.x; y/ j .x/ .y/ X X
1
is
1 .Y /.
Proof. Suppose that there exists .; X / which satises (1). Then by the Moschovakis
Coding Lemma there exists .; X / satisfying both (1) and (2).
We prove (1). We x some notation. Suppose A R. Let A be the least ordinal
such that
LA .A; R/ ZF n Powerset
and let
A D P .R/ \ LA .A; R/:
93
It is useful to note that A B if and only if A B , (by Wadge).

Let
P .! ! /
be such that
(1.1) for each A 2 ,
A ;
(1.2) ordertype A j A 2 D .
These conditions uniquely specify . Let
D sup A j A 2 :
By (1.2), cof. / D cof./ and so cof. / > !.
We shall assume the basic facts concerning Wadge reducibility in the context of
AD, see the discussion after Denition 9.25. One such fact is that there exists a set
B ! ! of minimum Wadge rank such that B . Fix B0 and let
D B ! ! j B is a continuous preimage of B0 :
Let
O D ! ! n A j A 2
be the dual pointclass. By the choice of B0 ,

O
D \ ;
this is the second basic fact we require. In fact we shall use a slightly stronger form of
this. Let L.! ! ; ! ! / denote the set of continuous functions
f W !! ! !!
such that for all x 2 ! ! , for all y 2 ! ! , and for all k 2 !, if
xjk D yjk
then f .x/jk D f .y/jk.
It follows from the determinacy of the relevant Wadge games, the closure properties
of , and the denition of , that:
(2.1) Suppose B ! ! . Then
B; ! ! n B f 1 B0 j f 2 L.! ! ; ! ! /
if and only if B 2 .
By the results of .Steel 1981/:
(3.1) is closed under nite unions or O is closed under nite unions.
(3.2) Suppose that is closed under nite unions. Then for each
11 set Z ! !
and for each A 2 ,
A \ Z 2 :
94
It is the latter claim, which requires that

cof./ > !;
which is the key claim.
Without loss of generality we can suppose that is closed under nite unions.
Fix a surjection
W ! ! ! L.! ! ; ! ! /
such that the set
.x; y; z/ j .x/.y/ D z
is borel; i. e. a reasonable coding of L.! ! ; ! ! /.
Fix A0 2 n and let R be the set of pairs .x0 ; x1 / such that
(4.1) ..x0 //1 A0 \ ..x1 //1 A0 D ;,
(4.2) ..x0 //1 A0 [ ..x1 //1 A0 D ! ! .
Note that by the denition of , for each .x0 ; x1 / 2 R,
..x0 //1 A0 2 :
Dene
W R !
by
.x0 ; x1 / D B
where B D ..x0 //1 A0 . Thus by (1.2), denes a prewellordering of R with
length and
D sup.x0 ; x1 / j .x0 ; x1 / 2 R:
Finally we show that if
ZR
is
1
then
sup.x0 ; x1 / j .x0 ; x1 / 2 Z < :
This is where we use (3.2). Since the range of has ordertype , this boundedness
property will sufce to prove (1).
Let
Z D .x0 ; x1 ; y; z0 ; z1 / j .x0 ; x1 / 2 Z; .x0 /.y/ D z0 ; and .x1 /.y/ D z1 :
1
Thus Z is
1 . Let
A D .x0 ; x1 ; y; z0 ; z1 / j .x0 ; x1 ; y; z0 ; z1 / 2 Z and z0 2 A0

D Z \ .x0 ; x1 ; y; z0 ; z1 / j z0 2 A0 :
Then because is closed under intersections with
11 sets (and closed under continuous preimages),
A 2 :
95
But
! ! n A D .x0 ; x1 ; y; z0 ; z1 / j .x0 ; x1 ; y; z0 ; z1 / Z or z0 A0
D .x0 ; x1 ; y; z0 ; z1 / j .x0 ; x1 ; y; z0 ; z1 / Z or z1 2 A0
D .! ! n Z / [ .x0 ; x1 ; y; z0 ; z1 / j z1 2 A0
and so since is closed under nite unions (and contains all
11 sets),
! ! n A 2 :
Therefore
A 2 \ O D :
But for each .x0 ; x1 / 2 Z, ..x0 //1 A0 is a continuous preimage of A and so

B A <
where B D ..x0 //
1
A0 . Therefore
sup.x0 ; x1 / j .x0 ; x1 / 2 Z A < ;

t
u
and so Z is bounded.
We begin with a technical lemma.
Lemma 3.41. Suppose that M is a transitive inner model such that
M ZF C DC C AD;
and such that
(i) R M ,
(ii) Ord M ,
(iii) for all A 2 M \ P .R/, the set
X hH.!2 /; 2i j MX is A-iterable and X is countable
is stationary where MX is the transitive collapse of X .
Suppose < M , S !1 is stationary and f W S ! . Suppose that
g W !1 !
is a function such that g 2 M and such that
f ./ g./
for all 2 S .
Then there exists a sequence h.T ; g / W < !1 i such that
S D 5T j < !1
and such that for all < !1 ,
(1) T is stationary,
(2) g 2 M ,
96
(3) either
f jT D gjT ;
or for all 2 T ,
f ./ g ./ < g./:
12 D !2 and so we can assume that !2 < .

Proof. Fix < M . By Theorem 3.19,
Fix f W S ! such that S !1 and such that S is stationary. For notational reasons
we assume that the range of f is bounded in .
Fix a set A R such that A 2 M and such that A codes a prewellordering of
length . Suppose G Coll.!; <!1 / is V -generic. Let
where if X 2 V is a borel set then X V G denotes its interpretation in V G. By
Lemma 3.39, in V G if B is any set of reals such that B 2 L.RV G ; AG / then the set
X hH.!2 /V G ; B; 2i j MX is B-iterable and X is countable

By the Moschovakis Coding Lemma, g 2 L.A; R/ and so by Theorem 3.36(3),
g 2 L.RV G ; AG /:
We claim that the following holds in V G. Suppose S !1 . Then there exists a
sequence h.Ti ; gi / W i < !i such that
S D [Ti j i < !
and such that for all i < !,
(1.1) gi 2 L.RV G ; AG /G,
(1.2) either
f jTi D gjTi ;
or for all 2 Ti ,
f ./ gi ./ < g./:
By Theorem 3.38(3) the lemma follows from this claim.

We work in V G. We may suppose without loss of generality that for all 2 S ,
f ./ < g./:
We rst divide S into three parts. Let
S0 D 2 S j g./ is a successor ordinal;
let
and let
S1 D 2 S j cof.g.// D !;
S2 D 2 S j cof.g.// > !:
Clearly we may suppose that S D S0 , S D S1 or S D S1 ; for if the claim

holds for each of S0 ; S1 , and S2 then it trivially holds for S .
If S D S0 then the claim is trivial.
97
We next suppose that S D S1 .

Note that for ordinals less than , L.AG ; RG /G correctly computes the conality
if the ordinal has countable conality in V G.
Since !1 -choice holds in L.AG ; RG /G, there exists a sequence
hhi W i < !i W 2 S1 i 2 L.AG ; RG /G
such that for each 2 S1 , hi W i < !i is an increasing conal sequence in g./. For
each i < ! dene a function gi W !1 ! by
gi ./ D i :
For each i < ! let
Ti D 2 S1 j f ./ gi ./ < g./:
Clearly
S D [Ti j i < !:
This proves the claim holds for .g; f; S1 /. We nish by proving that the claim holds
for the triple .g; f; S2 /.
Let Y be a set in L.AG ; RG / of cardinality !1 in L.AG ; RG / such that the
range of g is a subset of Y . Y exists by Theorem 3.38 (3). Fix in L.AG ; RG / a function
h W !1 ! Y which is onto. Let U RG R2G be a universal set for the relations
1
2
which are
1 .AG /. Let P RG be the set of pairs .x; y/ such that:
(2.1) x codes a countable ordinal ;
(2.2) Uy is a prewellordering y of length h./ with the property that if
Z eld.y /
and Z is
1
then Z is bounded relative to y .
By Theorem 3.40, dom.P / is exactly the set of x 2 R such that x codes a countable
ordinal.
The key point is that !1 -choice holds in L.AG ; RG /G and so we can nd a sequence
h.x ; y / W < !1 i 2 L.AG ; RG /G
of elements of P such that for each < !1 , x codes a countable ordinal such that
h. / D g./.
Choose in V G an !1 sequence of reals hz W < !1 i such that for each < !1 ,
z 2 eld.y / and such that for each 2 S2 , f ./ is the rank of z relative to y .
Let S D h.x ; y / W < !1 i and let T D hz W < !1 i.
Choose a countable elementary substructure
X H.!2 /V G
containing the sequences S and T and such that MX is P -iterable where MX is the
transitive collapse of X . Let SX and TX be the images of S and T under the collapsing
98
map. Thus SX D Sj!1MX and similarly for TX . By Corollary 3.13, there is an iteration
j W MX ! N of length !1 such that
j.SX / D S and j.TX / D T :
Fix 2 !1 . Let Z be the set of all z 2 RG such that there is an iteration
k W MX ! N
of length C 1 such that k.SX /j. C 1/ D Sj. C 1/ and z D k.TX /./. Thus Z
1
is a
1 set and z 2 Z . Further since MX is P -iterable we have Z eld.y /.
Thus this set is bounded. The denition of Z is uniform in Sj. C 1/ and hence
hZ W < !1 i 2 L.AG ; RG /:
Therefore there is a function
g 2 L.AG ; RG /G
such that for all 2 S2 , f ./ g ./ < g./. This proves that the claim holds for
t
u
the triple .f; g; S2 /.
Lemma 3.41 yields the following theorem as an easy corollary.
Theorem 3.42. Suppose that M is a transitive inner model such that
M ZF C DC C AD;
and such that
(i) R M ,
(ii) Ord M ,
Suppose < M and that f W !1 ! .
Then there exists a sequence h.S ; g / W < !1 i such that
!1 D 5S j < !1
(1) S is stationary,
(2) g 2 M ,
(3) f jS D g jS .
Proof. By Lemma 3.41 there exists a sequence
hFi W i < !i
of functions such that for each i < !:
99
(1.1) dom.Fi / P .!1 / n INS and jdom.Fi /j D !1 ;

(1.2) if S; T dom.Fi / and if S T then
S \ T 2 INS I
(1.3) dom.Fi / is predense in .P .!1 / n INS ; /;
(1.4) for each S 2 dom.Fi /,
Fi .S / 2 M and either
Fi .S / W !1 ! ;
Fi .S /jS D f jS;
or for all 2 S ,
f ./ < Fi .S /./I
(1.5) for each T 2 dom.FiC1 / there exists S 2 dom.Fi / such that T S ;
(1.6) suppose that S 2 dom.Fi /, T 2 dom.FiC1 / and that T S , then for each
2 T,
FiC1 .T /./ < Fi .S /./I
(1.7) for each S 2 dom.Fi / if
Fi .S /jS f jS
then there exists T 2 dom.FiC1 / such that T S .

Let A be the set of S !1 such that for some i < !, S 2 dom.Fj / for all j > i .
By (1.2) and (1.6), for each S 2 A,
f jS D gjS
for some g 2 M .
Let be closed unbounded lter as computed in M . Since
M AD C DC;
is an ultralter in M and the ultrapower
g W !1 ! j g 2 M =
is wellfounded.
This in conjunction with (1.6) yields the following. Suppose that
hSi W i < !i
is an innite sequence such that for all i < j < !,
Sj Si
and Si 2 dom.Fi /. Then there exists i0 < ! such that for all i > i0 ,
Si D Si0 :
By (1.4) and (1.6), Sj 2 A for all j i0 .
Therefore by (1.3), for each
T 2 P .!1 / n INS
there exists S 2 A such that
S \ T INS :
100
Thus A is predense in .P .!1 / n INS ; /. Finally

A [dom.Fi / j i < !
t
u
and so jAj !1 .
We obtain as an immediate corollary the rst covering theorem.
Theorem 3.43. Suppose that the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated. Suppose

that M is a transitive inner model such that
M ZF C DC C AD;
and such that
(i) R M ,
(ii) Ord M ,
(iii) every set A 2 M \ P .R/ is weakly homogeneously Suslin in V .
Suppose < M , S !1 is stationary and f W S ! . Then there exists g 2 M
such that 2 S j f ./ D g./ is stationary.
Proof. By Lemma 3.35, for each A 2 P .R/ \ M , the set
contains a set closed and unbounded in P!1 .H.!2 //. Therefore the theorem follows
from Theorem 3.42.
t
u
Corollary 3.44. Suppose that the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated. Suppose
that
!3 sup M
where M ranges over transitive inner models such that
(i) R M ,
(ii) Ord M ,
(iii) M ZF C DC C AD,
(iv) every set A 2 M \ P .R/ is weakly homogeneously Suslin in V .
Suppose G P .!1 / n INS is V -generic and that
j WV !M
is the induced generic elementary embedding.
Then j j 2 V for every ordinal .
Proof. By the last theorem j j!3 2 V . It follows on general grounds that j jOrd is a
denable class in V .
u
t
101
The second covering theorem is stronger. Again we prove a preliminary version.

M ZF C DC C AD;
and such that
(i) R M ,
(ii) Ord M ,
Suppose < M , X and jX j D !1 . Then there exists Y 2 M such that
M jY j D !1
and such that X Y .
Proof. Fix < M and let A 2 M be a prewellordering of the reals of length . Fix a
set X of cardinality !1 .
As in the proof of the rst covering theorem suppose that G Coll.!; <!1 / is
V -generic. Let
AG D [ X V G j X 2 V; X is borel and X A
where if X 2 V is a borel set then X V G denotes its interpretation in V G.
By Theorem 3.38, it sufces to nd Y such that:
(1.1) Y 2 L.AG ; RG /G;
(1.2) X Y ;
(1.3) Y has cardinality !1 in L.AG ; RG /G.
By Lemma 3.39 we may apply the rst covering theorem in V G at to obtain
functions which are in L.AG ; RG /.
Let D L.A;R/ D L.AG ;RG / . Thus L .AG ; RG / ZFnPowerset. Fix <
such that:
(2.1) L .AG ; RG / L .AG ; RG /;
(2.2) has conality !2 in L.AG ; RG /;
(2.3) < .
102
This is easily done.

Let N D L .AG ; RG /G. Thus
N !1 -choice C !1 -Replacement:
By Theorem 3.42, has conality !2 in V G, and so V G ZFC ,
Choose Z V G such that
(3.1) Z is countable,
(3.2) AG 2 Z, X 2 Z and 2 Z,
(3.3) the transitive collapse MZ of Z is iterable.
Dene two sequences hX W < !1 i and hZ W < !1 i by induction on such
that:
(4.1) X0 D N \ Z and Z0 D Z;
(4.2) X D [X j < and Z D [Z j < for all limit ordinals < !1 ;
(4.3) XC1 D f .X \ !1 / j f 2 X ;
(4.4) ZC1 D f .Z \ !1 / j f 2 Z .
Dene a sequence hX W < !1 i by X D Z \ N . Thus for all < < !1 :
(5.1) Z Z V G ;
(5.2) X X N ;
(5.3) X X .
It is because !1 -choice and !1 -replacement hold in N that hX W < !1 i is an
elementary chain.
The key claim is that for all < !1 , X \ D X \ and so for all < !1 ,
X \ D Z \ . This will follow from the rst covering theorem. Once we prove
this claim the theorem follows. This is because
!1 [Z j < !1
and so since X 2 Z0 ,
X [Z \ j < !1 [X j < !1 :
Further X0 2 L.AG ; RG /G and so
hX W < !1 i 2 L.AG ; RG /G:
Thus Y D [X \ j < !1 is the desired cover of X .
To nish we must prove that for all < !1 , X \ D X \ . This follows by
induction provided we can prove the following:
103
Claim: Suppose X X N , Z V G and that X D Z \N . Suppose that

X \ D X \ , Z is countable and that ; AG 2 X . Then for each function
f 2 Z where f W !1 ! there exists g 2 X such that
f .Z \ !1 / D g.Z \ !1 /:
We prove this claim. Fix f W !1 ! .
By Theorem 3.42 we have in V G that there is a sequence h.S ; g / W < !1 i
such that:
(6.1) hS W < !1 i is a sequence of pairwise disjoint stationary sets;
(6.2) 5S j < !1 contains a club in !1 ;
(6.3) g W !1 ! and g 2 L.AG ; RG /;
(6.4) g jS D f jS .
Since
L .AG ; RG / L .AG ; RG /
and since has conality !2 in L.AG ; RG /,
g W !1 ! j g 2 L.AG ; RG / L .AG ; RG /:
Thus for each < !1 , g 2 N . Since Z V G , we can suppose that
h.S ; g / W < !1 i 2 Z :
It follows that
f .Z \ !1 / D g .Z \ !1 /
for some function g W !1 ! with

g 2 Z \ L .AG ; RG /:
Let
j W!
be the ultrapower embedding computed in L.AG ; RG / using the club measure on !1 .
Let
W !1 \ L .AG ; RG / !
be the map that assigns to each function the ordinal it represents.
By the Moschovakis Coding Lemma
j j W ! :
Let D .g / be the ordinal represented by g . Thus since g 2 Z , 2 X and so

2 X . But X N and so since is denable there exists
g 2 X \ L .AG ; RG /
such that .g/ D . Therefore g D g on a club and so
g.Z \ !1 / D g .Z \ !1 / D f .Z \ !1 /:
This proves the claim.
t
u
104
There is another formulation of Theorem 3.45. Recall P!1 .X / denotes the set of
all countable subsets of X .
M ZF C DC C AD;
and such that
(i) R M ,
(ii) Ord M ,
Suppose < M and that
f W !1 ! :
Then there exists a function
g W !1 ! P!1 ./
such that g 2 M and such that for all < !1 , f ./ 2 g./.
Proof. Let
X D f ./ j < !1 :
By Theorem 3.45, there exists a set Y such that X Y and such that
jY jM D !1 :
By Theorem 3.19,
.!2 /M D !2
and so we may reduce to the case that D !1 .
Let
C D < !1 j f :
The set C is closed and unbounded in !1 . By Theorem 3.19, there exists a closed,
conal, set D C such that for some x 2 R,
D 2 Lx:
Therefore D 2 M . Dene
g W !1 ! P!1 .!1 /
by
g./ D min.D n /;
where D C 1. Thus g is as required.
t
u
The second covering theorem is an immediate corollary of Theorem 3.45.

Theorem 3.47. Suppose that the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated. Suppose
M ZF C DC C AD;
105
and such that

(i) R M ,
(ii) Ord M ,
M jY j D !1
and such that X Y .
Proof. By Lemma 3.35, for each A 2 P .R/ \ M , the set
contains a set closed and unbounded in P!1 .H.!2 //. Therefore the theorem follows
from Theorem 3.45.
t
u
Corollary 3.48. Assume the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated and that there
exist ! many Woodin cardinals with a measurable cardinal above them all. Let
D L.R/ .
(1) Suppose that X is a bounded subset of of cardinality !1 . Then there exists a
set Y 2 L.R/ of cardinality !1 in L.R/ such that X Y .
(2) Suppose G P .!1 / n INS is V -generic and that j W V ! M is the induced
generic elementary embedding. Let k W ! be the map derived from the
ultrapower !1 =U computed in L.R/ where U is the club measure on !1 . Then
j j D k:
Proof. From the large cardinal hypothesis, AD holds in L.R/ and further every set of
reals which is in L.R/ is weakly homogeneously Suslin. The corollary follows by the
covering theorems.
t
u
We end this section with the following theorem which in the special case of L.R/
approximates the converse of Theorem 3.46.
Theorem 3.49. Assume ADL.R/ . Suppose that for all < L.R/ , if
f W !1 !
then there exists a function
g W !1 ! P!1 ./
such that g 2 L.R/ and such that for all < !1 , f ./ 2 g./.
Let be the least ordinal such that
L .R/ 1 L.R/:
Then for each set A R such that A 2 L .R/ there exists a countable elementary
substructure X H.!2 / such that
hX; A \ X; 2i hH.!2 /; A; 2i
and such that MX is A-iterable where MX is the transitive collapse of X .
106
Proof. By the denition of , is a regular cardinal in L.R/ and < L.R/ .

Therefore since > !2 , cof./ > !1 , and so
L .H.!2 // ZFC :
Further by the Moschovakis Coding Lemma, for each < ,
P ./ \ L.R/ 2 L .R/:
Let
X L .H.!2 //
be a countable elementary substructure and let MX be the transitive collapse of X .
We prove that MX is A-iterable for each A R such that
A 2 X \ L .R/:
Fix A. Thus for some t 2 R, A is denable in L .R/ from t .
The set A is 21 .t / in L.R/ and so by the MartinSteel theorem, Theorem 2.3,
there exist < , and trees T0 ; T1 on ! such that
A D pT0 ;
such that,
R n A D pT1 ;
and such that .T0 ; T1 / is 1 -denable in L.R/ from .t; R/.
Since
L .R/ 1 L.R/;
it follows that
L .R/ \ .HOD t /L.R/ D .HOD t /L .R/ ;
and so
.T0 ; T1 / 2 .HOD t /L .R/ :
Let
j W .HOD t /L.R/ ! N t
be the elementary embedding computed in L.R/ where
N t D .HOD!t 1 /L.R/ =
and where is the club lter on !1 . Since DC holds in L.R/, this ultrapower is
wellfounded and we identify it with its transitive collapse.
It follows that j .HOD t /L.R/ .
Since
L .R/ 1 L.R/
and since cof./ > !1 , j./ D .
The structure

.HOD t /L .R/ ; j j.HOD t /L .R/
is naturally iterable and the iterates are wellfounded. The notion of iteration is the
conventional (non-generic) one.
107
Let .N; k/ be the image of

..HOD t /L .R/ ; j j.HOD t /L .R/ /
under the transitive collapse of X . Thus N and k are denable subsets of MX . Let T0X
be the image of T0 under the transitive collapse of X and let T1X be the image of T1 .
Suppose
j W .N; k/ ! .N ; k /
is a countable iteration. Then it follows that there exists an elementary embedding
W N ! .HOD t /L .R/
such that
.j.T0X // D T0
and such that
.j.T1X // D T1 :
Thus N is wellfounded,
p.j.T0X // pT0
and
p.j.T1X // pT1 :
We now come to the key points. By the Moschovakis Coding Lemma, if
h W !1 !
and h 2 L.R/ then h 2 L .R/.
Thus the hypothesis of the theorem holds in L .H.!2 //.
Suppose that
jO W MX ! MX
is an iteration of MX . Then, abusing notation slightly,
jOjN W .N; k/ ! .jO.N /; jO.k//
is an iteration of .N; k/ and so MX is wellfounded.
Let B D R n A D pT1 .
Thus
jO.A \ MX / pjO.T0X / pT0
and
jO.B \ MX / pjO.T1X / pT1 :
Therefore
jO.A \ MX / D A \ MX :
This veries that MX is A-iterable.
t
u
108
3.2
The nonstationary ideal and CH
We still do not know if CH implies that the nonstationary ideal on !1 is not saturated.
In light of the results in the previous section this seems likely.
Shelah, Shelah .1986/, has proved that assuming CH the nonstationary ideal is not
!1 -dense. We prove a generalization of this theorem.
It is a standard fact, which is easily veried, that the boolean algebra, P .!1 /=INS ,
is !2 -complete; i. e. if
X P .!1 /=INS
is a subset of cardinality at most @1 then _X exists in P .!1 /=INS .
Theorem 3.50. Suppose that the quotient algebra
P .!1 /=INS
is !1 -generated .equivalently !-generated/ as an !2 -complete boolean algebra. Then
2@0 D 2@1 :
t
u
We shall actually prove the following strengthening of Theorem 3.50.

We x some notation. Suppose A !1 . For each < !2 such that !1 , let
bA 2 P .!1 /=INS
be dened as follows. Fix a bijection
W !1 ! :
Let
S D < !1 j ordertype./ 2 A:
Set
to be the element of P .!1 /=INS dened by S . It is easily checked that bA is
unambiguously dened.
We let BA denote the !2 -complete subalgebra of P .!1 /=INS generated by
A
b j !1 < !2 :
bA
Suppose
Z P .!1 /=INS
is of cardinality @1 . Then there exists a set A !1 such that
Z BA :
Thus Theorem 3.50 is an immediate corollary of the next theorm.
Theorem 3.51. Suppose that for some set A !1
BA D P .!1 /=INS
Then
2@0 D 2@1 :
3.2 The nonstationary ideal and CH
109
Proof. The key point is the following. Suppose

Y hH.!2 /; 2i
is a countable elementary substructure such that A 2 Y . Let N be the transitive collapse of Y and suppose that
j W N ! N
is a countable iteration such that N is transitive. Then we claim that j is uniquely
determined by j.AN / where AN D A \ !1N .
To see this let
hN ; G ; j; j < i
be the iteration giving j . We rst prove that G0 is uniquely determined by j.AN / \ N .
This follows from the denitions noting that the property of A,
BA D P .!1 /=INS
is a rst order property of A in H.!2 /.
Therefore since
Y hH.!2 /; 2i
it follows that
N Ba D P .!1 /=INS
where a D AN . For each 2 N \ Ord with !1N , let .ba /N be as computed in N .
Strictly speaking .ba /N is not an element of N , instead it is a denable subset of N .
G0 is an N -generic lter and so it follows since
N Ba D P .!1 /=INS
that G0 is uniquely determined by
2 N j G0 \ .ba /N ; :
Finally
2 N j G0 \ .ba /N ; D .j.a/ \ N / n !1N :
This veries that G0 is uniquely determined by j.AN /\N . It follows by induction

that j is uniquely determined by j.AN /.
Fix B !1 and x a countable elementary substructure X H.!2 / with A 2 X
and B 2 X .
Let
hX W < !1 i
be the sequence of countable elementary substructures of H.!2 / generated by X as
follows.
(1.1) X0 D X .
(1.2) For all < !1 ,
X C1 D X X \ !1 D f .X \ !1 / j f 2 X :
110
(1.3) For all < !1 , if is a limit ordinal then

X D [X j < :
Let
hM X W < !1 i
be the sequence of countable transitive sets where for each < !1 , M X is the transitive
collapse of X .
Let X!1 D [X j < !1 and let M!1 be the transitive collapse of X!1 .
For each < !1 let
j; W M ! M
be the elementary embedding given by the image of the inclusion map X X under
the collapsing map. For each < !1 , .!1 /M is the critical point of j ; C1 and M C1
is the restricted ultrapower of M by G where G is the M -ultralter on .!1 /M
given by j ; C1 .
By Lemma 3.12,
hM ; G ; j; W < !1 i
is an iteration of M0 . For each !1 let A be the image of A under the collapsing
map. Therefore A D A \ .!1 /M and for each < !1 ,
j ; C1 .A / D A C1 :
Similarly for each !1 let B be the image of B under the collapsing map.
Thus by Corollary 3.13, j0;!1 .B0 / D B.
For all < !1 , j ; C1 .A / D A C1 . By the claim proved above, for all < !1 ,
G is uniquely determined by j ; C1 .A /. But for each < !1 ,
j ; C1 .A / D A C1 :
Therefore the iteration
hM ; G ; j; W < !1 i
is uniquely determined by M0 and A. Finally j0;!1 .B0 / D B. This induces a map
t
u
from H.!1 / onto P .!1 /.
Remark 3.52. One can also prove Theorem 3.51 using a form of , weak diamond,
due to Devlin and Shelah, Devlin and Shelah .1978/. This weakened form of diamond
holds whenever 2@0 2@1 .
t
u
Suppose that the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated. Then for each A !1
there exists A !1 such that A is denable in LA and such that the quotient
algebra
.P .!1 /=INS /=BA
is atomless.
111
Thus if the nonstationary ideal on !1 is saturated and CH holds then

P .!1 /=INS
decomposes as B T where T is a Suslin tree in V B .
We now dene two weak forms of . We shall see that if holds in a transitive
inner model which correctly computes !2 then these forms of hold in V . To motivate
the denitions we recall the following equivalents of , stating a theorem of Kunen.
Theorem 3.53 (Kunen). The following are equivalent.
(1) .
(2) There exists a sequence hS j < !1 i of countable sets such that for each
A !1 the set j A \ 2 S is stationary in !1 .
A !1 the set ! j A \ 2 S is nonempty.
countable X P .!1 / the set ! j A \ 2 S for all A 2 X is nonempty.
Proof. .2/ is commonly referred to as weak . That .3/ is also equivalent to is
perhaps at rst glance surprising. We prove that .3/ is equivalent to .2/.
Let hS j < !1 i be a sequence witnessing .3/. For each < !1 let
T D P ./ \ L .hS j < C !i/
where < !1 is the least ordinal such that
L .hS j < C !i/ ZF n Powerset:
We claim that hT j < !1 i witnesses .2/. To verify this x A !1 and x a
closed unbounded set C !1 . We may suppose that C contains only limit ordinals.
It sufces to prove that for some 2 C , A \ 2 T .
Let
B0 D 2 j 2 A:
For each 2 C [ 0, let x ! be a set which codes A \ where is the least
element of C above .
Let
B1 D C 2k C 1 j 2 C and k 2 x :
Let B D B0 [ B1 . Since hS W < !1 i witnesses .3/, there exists an innite ordinal
such that
B \ 2 S :
If 2 C then set D . Thus is as required since S T .
If C let be the largest element of C below . Let D 0 if C \ D ;. Let
be the least element of C above .
There are two cases. If C ! then A \ 2 T since
x D k < ! j . C 2k C 1/ 2 B \ :
If < C ! then 0. Therefore 2 C and since < C !, A \ 2 T .
t
u
In either case A \ 2 T for some 2 C .
112
Our route toward a weakening of starts with .4/ which is reminiscent of C .

Denition 3.54. Suppose hS j < !1 i is a sequence of countable sets. Suppose
X P .!1 / is countable. Then X is guessed by hS j < !1 i if the set
j A \ 2 S for all A 2 X
t
u
is unbounded in !1 .
Q There exists a sequence hA j < !2 i of distinct subsets of !1

Denition 3.55. :
and there exists a sequence hS j < !1 i of countable sets such that
X j X P .!1 / is countable and hS j < !1 i guesses X
is stationary in !2 . Here X D sup C 1 j A 2 X .
t
u
We weaken (possibly) still further in the following denition.

QQ There exists a sequence
Denition 3.56. :
hA j < !2 i
of distinct subsets of !1 and a sequence
hS j < !1 i
of countable sets such that for a stationary set of countable sets X !2 , there exists
< !1 such that X \ !1 and such that j 2 X \ !2 and A \ 2 S is
t
u
conal in X \ !2 .
QQ the sequence
Remark 3.57. (1) Suppose that 2@1 D @2 . Then in the denition of ,
hA j < !2 i can be taken to be any enumeration of P .!1 /.
(2) If there is a Kurepa tree on !1 then Q holds. We shall show in Section 6.2.5
that the existence of a weak Kurepa tree is consistent with the nonstationary
ideal on !1 is !1 -dense. Therefore QQ is not implied by the existence of a weak
Kurepa tree. Recall that a tree T 0; 1<!1 is a weak Kurepa tree if jT j D !1
and T has !2 branches of length !1 .
t
u
We do not know if CH actually implies QQ though this seems unlikely.
Theorem 3.58. Assume that there is a transitive inner model of ZFC in which holds
and which correctly computes !2 . Then Q holds.
Proof. Suppose M is a transitive inner model of ZFC such that holds in M and such
that
!2 D !2M :
Thus !1 D !1M . Let hS W < !1 i be a sequence in M which witnesses in the
sense of Theorem 3.53(4).
113
Let hA W < !2 i be a sequence of distinct subsets of !1 with

hA W < !2 i 2 M:
The key point is that the set M \ P!1 .!2 / is stationary in P!1 .!2 /. To verify this,
let
F W !2<! ! !2
be a function in V . We must prove that there exists a set
2 M \ P!1 .!2 /
such that F .
Let < !2 be an ordinal above !1 such that
<!
F <! :
Let 2 M be a bijection from !1 to . For each < !1 ,
2 M \ P!1 .!2 /
and
< !1 j is closed under F
contains a club in !1 . The existence of follows.
Therefore M \ P!1 .!2 / is stationary. This implies that the set
2 P!1 .!2 / j hS W < !1 i guesses A j 2
is stationary in P!1 .!2 / since it contains P!1 .!2 / \ M .
It follows
X j X P .!1 / is countable and hS j < !1 i guesses X
is stationary in !2 where X D sup j A 2 X .
Q
Therefore hS W < !1 i and hA W < !2 i together witness .
t
u
Theorem 3.59. Assume that the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated. Then QQ

fails.
QQ
Proof. Suppose hS W < !1 i and hA W < !2 i together witness .
Therefore there exists a countable elementary substructure
X H.!3 /
such that
(1.1) hS W < !1 i 2 X ,
(1.2) hA W < !2 i 2 X ,
(1.3) for some < !1 , X \ !1 < and
j 2 X and A \ 2 S
is conal in X \ !2 .
114
Fix satisfying (1.3). Let hX W < !1 i be the elementary chain where X0 D X
and for all < !1 ,
(2.1) XC1 D f .X \ !1 / j f 2 X ,
(2.2) if is a limit ordinal,
X D [X j < :
Fix < !1 such that
!1 \ X < !1 \ XC1 :
Note that for all < !1 , X \ !2 is conal in X \ !2 . Therefore
j 2 X and A \ 2 S
is conal in X \ !2 . Thus by replacing X by X if necessary we may assume that
D 0; i. e. that
!1 \ X < !1 \ Y
where
Y D f .X \ !1 / j f 2 X :
Let NX be the transitive collapse of X , let NY be the transitive collapse of Y and
let
j W NX ! NY
be the induced elementary embedding (the image of the inclusion map). However
the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated and P .!1 / H.!3 /. Therefore by
Lemma 3.12, NY is a generic ultrapower of NX and j is the induced embedding.
Transferring to V (or equivalently, working in NX ) there exists a stationary set
S !1 and ordinal 0 such that !1 0 < !2 and such that if
G P .!1 / n INS
is V -generic with S 2 G then
< !2 j j.A / \ 0 2 S0
is conal in !2 where
j W V ! N V G
is the induced embedding and

hS W < !2 i D j.hS W < !1 i/:
However for all < !2 , j.A / \ !1 D A , and so for all 1 < 2 < !2 ,
j.A 1 / \ 0 j.A 2 / \ 0 :
This is a contradiction since S0 is countable in V G and !2V D !1V G .
t
u
As an immediate corollary to Theorem 3.58 and Theorem 3.59 we obtain the following.
Corollary 3.60. Assume that the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated. Then
u
t
fails in any transitive inner model which correctly computes !2 .
115
Related to the question of CH is the following question:

Question. Can there exist countable transitive models M; M such that
M ZFC C The nonstationary ideal on !1 is saturated;
M is an iterate of M and such that M 2 M ?
t
u
Remark 3.61. (1) For this question the fragment of ZFC is important. The answer
should be the same for all reasonably strong fragments. But note the answer is
yes for ZFC for trivial reasons.
(2) It is straightforward to show that the answer is no if the model M is iterable or
if M P .!1 /=INS is countably generated.
(3) Suppose the nonstationary ideal on !1 is saturated and CH holds. Suppose there
exists an inaccessible cardinal. Then the answer is yes.
t
u
One could ask this question for any iteration of generic embeddings.
Suppose V is the inner model for one Woodin cardinal. Suppose
G Coll.!1 ; </
is V -generic where is the Woodin cardinal. Then in V G there are saturated ideals
on !1 . Suppose < and that is inaccessible. Let X V G be a countable
elementary substructure of V G and let M be the transitive collapse of X . Thus
M 2 V . Suppose j W M ! N is an elementary embedding with N transitive and
!1 D !1N . Then it follows that R N and so M 2 N . Thus if there is any wellfounded iteration of M of length !1 then the answer to the more general form of the
question is yes.
An even more general class of iterations is obtained by mixing generic ultrapowers
with iteration trees. For this notion of iteration it is possible for a model to be an
element of an iterate of itself. We state without proof a theorem which illustrates the
possibilities.
Theorem 3.62. Suppose there are two Woodin cardinals with an inaccessible above
them both. Then there is a sequence hM0 ; M1 ; M2 i of countable transitive models of
ZFC such that:
(1) M1 is an iterate of M0 by an iteration tree on M0 ;
(2) M2 is a generic ultrapower of M1 . for the stationary tower/;
(3) M0 2 M2 .
t
u
Chapter 4
The Pmax -extension
The results of Chapter 3 suggest that under suitable large cardinal hypotheses, if the
nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated then the inner model L.P .!1 // may be close
to the inner model L.R/. Perhaps the most important clue is given by Corollary 3.13;
if the nonstationary ideal on !1 is saturated and there is a measurable cardinal, then
every subset of !1 appears in an iterate of a countable iterable model. Motivated by
these considerations we shall dene and analyze in Section 4.2 a partial order
Pmax 2 L.R/
for which the corresponding generic extension,
L.R/G;
is an optimal version of L.P .!1 // (assuming ADL.R/ ).
First we generalize the notion of iterability slightly to accommodate the denition.
4.1
Iterable structures
We formulate the obvious generalizations of the denitions of iterability from Chapter 3.

Denition 4.1. Suppose M is a countable transitive model of ZFC . Suppose I 2 M
is a set of normal uniform ideals on !1M .
(1) A sequence h.M ; I /; G ; j; W < < i is an iteration of .M; I/ if:
a) M0 D M and I0 D I.
b) j; W M ! M is a commuting family of elementary embeddings.
c) For all < , I D j0; .I0 /.
d) For each C 1 < , G is M -generic for .P .!1 / n I /M for some ideal
I 2 I ;
M C1 is the generic ultrapower of M by G and
j ; C1 W M ! M C1
is the induced elementary embedding.
e) For each < if is a (nonzero) limit ordinal then M is the direct
limit of M j < and for all < , j; is the induced elementary
embedding.
4.1 Iterable structures
117
(2) If is a limit ordinal then is the length of the iteration, otherwise the length of
(3) A pair .N ; J/ is an iterate of .M; I/ if it occurs in an iteration of .M; I/.
(4) .M; I/ is iterable if every iterate is wellfounded.
t
u
Remark 4.2. (1) This is the natural denition for iterability relative to a set of ideals. We shall only use it in the case that the set of ideals is nite.
(2) Suppose that M is a countable transitive model of ZFC such that
.P .!1 //M 2 M:
Then .M; .INS /M / is iterable if and only if M is iterable in the sense of Denition 3.5.
(3) We will often write .M; I / when referring to .M; I / in the case where only
one ideal is designated.
t
u
We dene the corresponding notion of X -iterability where X R.
Denition 4.3. Suppose M is a countable transitive model of ZFC . Suppose I 2 M
is a set of uniform normal ideals on !1M . Suppose .M; I/ is iterable, X R and that
X \ M 2 M. Then .M; I/ is X -iterable if for any iteration of .M; I/,
j W .M; I/ ! .M ; I /
j.X \ M/ D X \ M .
t
u
The next two lemmas are the generalizations of Lemma 3.8 and Lemma 3.10 respectively. The proofs are similar and we omit them.
Lemma 4.4. Suppose that M and M are countable models of ZFC such that
(i) !1M D !1M ,

(ii) P 2 .!1 /M D P 2 .!1 /M ,

(iii) M 2 M .
Suppose I 2 M is a set of uniform, normal, ideals on !1M and that
h.M ; I /; G ; j; j < < i
is an iteration of .M; I/. Then there corresponds uniquely an iteration

j < < i
h.M ; I /; G ; j;
118
of M such that for all < < :

M
(1) !1
M
D !1 ;
(2) P .!1 /M D P .!1 /M ;

(3) G D G .
Further for all < there is an elementary embedding

k W .M ; I / ! j0;
..M; I//

such that j0;
jM D k j0; .
t
u
Lemma 4.5. Suppose M is a countable transitive model of ZFC and that

I2M
is a set of normal precipitous ideals on !1M . Suppose
h.M ; I /; G ; j; j < < i
is an iteration of .M; I/ of length where M \ Ord. Then M is wellfounded for
all < .
t
u
We shall need boundedness for iterable structures. Lemma 4.6(1) is proved by an
argument analogous to the proof of Lemma 3.15 and Lemma 4.6(2) follows easily from
Lemma 4.6(1).
Lemma 4.6 (ZFC ). Suppose that x 2 R codes a countable iterable structure, .M; I/.
(1) Suppose that
j W .M; I/ ! .M ; I /
is an iteration of length . Then
rank.M / <
where is the least ordinal such that < and such that L x is admissible.
(2) Suppose that
j W .M; I/ ! .M ; I /
is an iteration of length !1 . Let
D D < !1 j L x is admissible:
Then for each closed set C !1 such that C 2 M , D n C is countable.
t
u
As an immediate corollary to Lemma 4.6 we obtain the following boundedness

lemma.
119
Lemma 4.7 (ZFC ). Assume that for all x 2 R, x # exists.

Suppose .M; I/ is a countable iterable structure and that
j W .M; I/ ! .M ; I /
is an iteration of length !1 . Then rank.M / <
12 .
t
u
We extend Denition 4.1 to sequences of models.

Denition 4.8. Suppose
h.Nk ; Jk / W k < !i
is a countable sequence such that for each k, Nk is a countable transitive model of
ZFC and such that for all k:
(i) Jk 2 Nk and
Nk Jk is a set of normal uniform ideals on !1 I
N
(ii) Nk 2 NkC1 and !1 k D !1 kC1 ;

(iii) for each I 2 Jk there exists I 2 JkC1 such that
a) I \ Nk D I ,
N
b) for each A 2 Nk such that A P .!1 k / \ Nk n I , if A is predense in

.P .!1 / n I /Nk then A is predense in .P .!1 / n I /NkC1 .
An iteration of h.Nk ; Jk / W k < !i is a sequence
hh.Nk ; Jk / W k < !i; G ; j; W < < i
such that the following hold.
(1) j; W [Nk j k < ! ! [Nk j k < ! j < < is a commuting
family of 0 elementary embeddings.
(2) If C 1 < then there exists a sequence hIk W k < !i such that for all k < !,
a) Ik 2 Jk ,
b) G \ Nk is Nk -generic for .P .!1 / n Ik /Nk .

(3) If C 1 < then Nk C1 is the [Nk j k < !-ultrapower of Nk by G and
j ; C1 jNk W Nk ! Nk C1
is the induced elementary embedding. The ultrapower of Nk is computed using
all functions

f W .!1 /N0 ! Nk
such that f 2 [Nk j k < !.
120
(4) For each < if is a nonzero limit ordinal then for every k < !, Nk is
the direct limit of Nk j < and for all < , j; is the induced 0
elementary embedding.
A sequence h.Nk ; Jk / W k < !i is an iterate of h.Nk ; Jk / W k < !i if it occurs in
an iteration of h.Nk ; Jk / W k < !i.
t
u
The sequence h.Nk ; Jk / W k < !i is iterable if every iterate is wellfounded.
Condition (iii) in Denition 4.8 guarantees that nontrivial iterations exist.
Lemma 4.9. Suppose h.Nk ; Jk / W k < !i is an iterable sequence. Suppose
I 2 J0
Then there exist
G [.P .!1 //Nk j k < !
and a sequence hIk W k < !i such that I0 D I and such that for all k < !, G \ Nk is
Nk -generic for
.P .!1 / n Ik /Nk :
Proof. By condition (iii) in Denition 4.8 there exists a sequence hIk W k < !i such
that I D I0 and such that for all k < !,
(1.1) Ik 2 Jk ,
(1.2) IkC1 \ Nk D Ik ,
N
(1.3) for each A 2 Nk such that A P .!1 k / \ Nk n Ik , if A is predense in

.P .!1 / n Ik /Nk then A is predense in .P .!1 / n IkC1 /NkC1 .
Let hAk W k < !i enumerate all
A 2 [Nk j k < !
such that for some k < !, A is predense in .P .!1 / n Ik /Nk . We assume that Ak 2 Nk
for each k < !.
Let hbk W k < !i be a sequence of subsets of .!1 /N0 such that
(2.1) bk 2 Nk ,
(2.2) bk Ik ,
(2.3) bk b for some b 2 Ak .
121
The sequence hbk W k < !i is easily constructed by induction on k using the

properties (1.1)(1.3) of the sequence hIk W k < !i.
Let
G D bk j k < !:
The sequence hAk W k < !i enumerates all the predense sets and so it follows that for
all k < !,
G \ Nk
is Nk -generic for .P .!1 / n Ik /Nk .
t
u
We now prove a lemma which we shall use to show that condition (iii) of Denition 4.8 is satised by the ! sequences of structures that we shall be interested in.
Ultimately we shall apply the lemma within models of only ZFC and so we prove the
lemma assuming only ZFC .
Suppose that J is a normal uniform ideal on !1 and that A P .!1 / n J has
cardinality at most !1 . Suppose that
hA W < !1 i
and
hA W < !1 i
are each enumerations of A possibly with repetition. Then the diagonal unions
5A j < !1 and
5A j < !1
are equal on a club in !1 and so they are equal modulo J . Thus modulo J the diagonal
union, 5A is unambiguously dened. The same considerations apply to diagonal
intersections. We let 4A denote the diagonal intersection of A.
Lemma 4.10 (ZFC ). Suppose M0 is a countable transitive model, I0 2 M0 is a set
of normal uniform ideals on !1M0 , and M0 ZFC . Suppose that
(i) for all I0 ; I1 2 I0 , if
I0 b 2 .P .!1 //M0 j b \ a 2 I1
for some a 2 .P .!1 //M0 such that
!1M0 n a I1 ;
then I0 D I1 .
Suppose J is a normal uniform ideal on !1 and that
j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
is a wellfounded iteration of length !1 such that J \ M0 D J for some J 2 I0 . Let

X be the set of A 2 M0 such that A P .!1 /M0 n J and A is a maximal antichain.
Let
A D 45A j A 2 X:
122
Then
(1) !1 n A 2 J ,
(2) B \ A J for all B 2 P .!1 /M0 n J .

Proof. This is immediate from the denitions. Let
h.M ; I /; G ; j; W < !1 i
be the iteration such that j D j0;!1 .
The ideal J is an element of I!1 . Hence there exist 0 < !1 and I 2 I0 such
that J D j0 ;!1 .I /.
Let
S D < !1 j G M n j0 ; .I /:
By (i) of the hypothesis of the lemma, S is the set of such that G is M -generic for
.P .!1M / n j0 ; .I //M :
Since
J \ M0 D J
it follows that !1 n S 2J . This is the key point which we now verify. assume toward
a contradiction that !1 n S J . Then since J is normal there exist 0 < !1 and
b0 2 j0 ;0 .I / such that
< !1 j j0 ; .b0 / 2 G J:
This implies j0 ;!1 .b0 / J . However j0 ;!1 .b0 / 2 j0 ;!1 .I / which is a contradiction since j0 ;!1 .I / D J and J \ M0 D J .
S
S
S
be the ideal dened by INS [ !1 n S . Thus INS
is a normal ideal, INS
J
Let INS
and
S
\ M D J :
INS
The lemma follows by the M -genericity of G .
t
u
Remark 4.11. (1) The set A in Lemma 4.10 is analogous to a master condition.
As a condition in P .!1 / n J it forces that the generic lter is M0 -generic for

P .!1 /M0 =J .
(2) The requirement (i) in the statement of Lemma 4.10 can be weakened though
some assumption is necessary.
t
u
Lemma 4.12 is a version of Lemma 4.10 where the assumption
J \ M0 2 I0
is dropped and where no additional assumptions are made about I0 .
123
Lemma 4.12 (ZFC ). Suppose M0 is a countable transitive model, I0 2 M0 is a set

of normal uniform ideals on !1M0 , and M0 ZFC . Suppose J is a normal uniform
ideal on !1 and that
j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
is a wellfounded iteration of length !1 .
Then there exist J0 2 I0 and S !1 such that
(1) S J ,
(2) S n A 2 J ,
where
A D 45A j A 2 X:
and X is the set of A 2 M0 such that A P .!1 /M0 n J0 and such that A is a
maximal antichain.
Proof. Let
h.M ; I /; G ; j; W < !1 i
be the iteration such that j D j0;!1 .
For each < !1 , there is an ideal I 2 I such that
G M n I
and such that G is M -generic. The ideal I is not necessarily unique however distinct
candidates differ in a trivial manner.
For each < !1 let IO be the set of I 2 I such that
(1.1) G M n I ,
(1.2) G is M -generic for
.P .!1 / n I; /M
:
Since J is normal it follows that there exist S !1 , 0 < !1 , and I 2 IO0 such
that
(2.1) S J ,
(2.2) S .0 ; !1 /,
(2.3) for all 2 S ,
j0 ; .I / 2 IO :
Let J0 D j0 ;!1 .I /.

The lemma follows from the denitions.
We generalize Denition 4.8 still further in Denition 4.15.
t
u
124
Denition 4.13. Suppose M is a countable transitive model of ZFC . An ultralter

G .P .!1 //M
is M -normal if for any function
f W !1M ! !1M
such that f 2 M , if < !1M j f ./ < 2 G then for some 0 < !1M ,
< !1M j f ./ D 0 2 G:
t
u
Remark 4.14. It is easily veried that if G is M -normal then

G\A;
for any maximal antichain
A .P .!1 / n INS /M
such that A 2 M and such that A has cardinality !1 in M . Thus M -normal ultralters
are weakly generic.
t
u
hNk W k < !i
ZFC and such that for all k,
Nk 2 NkC1
and
!1 k D !1 kC1 :
An iteration of hNk W k < !i is a sequence

hhNk W k < !i; G ; j; W < < i
such that
j; W [Nk j k < ! ! [Nk j k < ! j < <
is a commuting family of 0 elementary embeddings and such that for all < <
the following hold.
(1) For all k < !, G \ Nk is an Nk -normal ultralter on .P .!1 //Nk .

(2) NkC1 is the [Nk j k < !-ultrapower of Nk by G and
j;C1 W [Nk j k < ! ! [NkC1 j k < !
is the induced 0 elementary embedding.
(3) If is a limit ordinal then for every k < !, Nk is the direct limit of
Nk j < and for all < , j; is the induced 0 elementary embedding.
A sequence hNk W k < !i is an iterate of hNk W k < !i if it occurs in an iteration
of hNk W k < !i.
t
u
The sequence hNk W k < !i is iterable if every iterate is wellfounded.
125
Remark 4.16. Denition 4.15 is really just a slight generalization of Denition 3.5.
Suppose hNk W k < !i is an iterable sequence such that for all k < !,
jNk jNkC1 D .!1 /N0 :
Let
N D [Nk j k < !:
In general, N is not a model of ZFC , however N is a model of a fragment of ZFC
which is rich enough to make it possible to apply Denition 3.5. Iterations of the
sequence hNk W k < !i correspond to iterations of N .
In virtually every situation in which we consider iterations of hNk W k < !i it will
be the case that for all k < !,
t
u
Lemma 4.17. Suppose

hNk W k < !i
ZFC and such that for all k,
Nk 2 NkC1
and
.!1 /Nk D .!1 /NkC1 :
Suppose that for all k < !:

(i) If C 2 Nk is closed and unbounded in !1N0 then there exists D 2 NkC1 such
that D C , D is closed and unbounded in C and
D 2 Lx
for some x 2 R \ NkC1 .
(ii) For all x 2 R \ Nk , x # 2 NkC1 .
(iii) For all k < !,
Then the sequence hNk W k < !i is iterable.

Proof. The key point is that if
j W hNk W k < !i ! hNk W k < !i
is an iteration of length 1 then
N
j.!1N0 / D !1 0
D sup.!2 /Nk j k < !

D supOrd \ Nk j k < !
D suprank.Nk / j k < !
D ;
126
where is the least ordinal such that
> .!1 /N0

and such that is a Silver indiscernible of Lx for all x 2 [R \ Nk j k 2 !.
From this iterability follows by an argument essentially identical to that given in
the proof of Theorem 3.16. There it is proved that assuming
12 D !2 and that the nonstationary ideal is saturated then if X H.!2 / is a countable elementary substructure,
the transitive collapse of X is iterable.
t
u
Remark 4.18. (1) It is important to note that the assumptions of Lemma 4.17 do
not actually imply that any iterations exist; the only implication is that if iterates
exist, they are wellfounded.
It is easy to construct sequences which satisfy the conditions of Lemma 4.17 and
for which no (nontrivial) iterations exist.
Lemma 4.19 isolates a condition sufcient to prove the existence of nontrivial
iterations.
(2) The conditions (i) and (ii) of the hypothesis of Lemma 4.17 are equivalent to the
assertions:
a) if C 2 Nk is closed and unbounded in !1N0 then there exists x 2 NkC1
such that
< !1N0 j L x is admissible C:
b) V!C1 \ NkC1 2 V!C1 .
t
u
Lemma 4.19. Suppose that

hNk W k < !i
is a sequence of countable transitive sets such that for all k < !, Nk 2 NkC1 ,
Nk ZFC ;
and
Nk \ .INS /NkC1 D Nk \ .INS /NkC2 :
Suppose that k 2 ! and that
a 2 .P .!1 //Nk n .INS /NkC1 :
Then there exists
G [.P .!1 //Ni j i < !
such that a 2 G and such that for all i < !, G \ Ni is a uniform Ni -normal ultralter.
Proof. Fix
a 2 .P .!1 //Nk n .INS /NkC1 ;

by replacing hNi W i < !i with hNiCk W i < !i, we may suppose that a 2 N0 .
Let hfi W i < !i enumerate all functions
f W !1N0 ! !1N0
such that
f 2 [Nj j j < !
and such that for all < !1N0 , f ./ < 1 C . (Thus f ./ < for all > !.)
127
We may suppose that fi 2 Ni for all i < !.

Construct a sequence hai W i < !i such that a0 a and such that for all i < !,
(1.1) ai !1N0 ,
(1.2) ai is conal in !1N0 ,
(1.3) ai 2 Ni n .INS /Ni C1 ,
(1.4) fi jai is constant,
(1.5) aiC1 ai .
The sequence is easily constructed by induction on i . Suppose ai is given. By (1.2)
it follows that
ai .INS /Nj
for all j i . This is the key point.
Thus ai is a stationary subset of !1N0 in NiC2 and so since fiC1 is regressive there
exists < !1N0 such that
a D 2 ai j fiC1 ./ D .INS /Ni C2 :
since fiC1 2 NiC1 . Therefore a satises the requirements for
However a 2 NiC1
aiC1 .
Let hai W i < !i be a sequence satisfying (1.1)(1.4) and let
G D b !1N0 j b 2 [Nj j j 2 ! and ai b for some i < !:

It follows that for each j < !,
G \ Nj
is a uniform Nj -normal ultralter. (1.2) guarantees uniformity and (1.4) guarantees
normality.
t
u
Lemma 4.17 yields the following corollary.
Corollary 4.20. Suppose
ZFC and such that for all k:
(i) Jk 2 Nk and
Nk Jk is a set of normal uniform ideals on !1 I
(ii) Nk 2 NkC1 and jNk jNkC1 D !1N0 ;
(iii) for each I 2 Jk there exists I 2 JkC1 such that,
(1) I \ Nk D I ,
N
(2) for each A 2 Nk such that A P .!1 k / \ Nk n I if A is predense in

.P .!1 / n I /Nk , then A is predense in .P .!1 / n I /NkC1 ;
128
(iv) .Nk ; Jk / is iterable;

(v) if C 2 Nk is closed and unbounded in !1N0 then there exists D 2 NkC1 such
that D C , D is closed and unbounded in C and such that
D 2 Lx
Then h.Nk ; Jk / W k < !i is iterable.
Proof. Any iteration of
naturally denes an iteration of
hNk W k < !i:
By Lemma 4.17, the iterates of hNk W k < !i are wellfounded.
t
u
Remark 4.21. The previous lemma is also true if condition (iv) is replaced by the
condition that for all
x 2 R \ .[Nk j k 2 !/;
x # 2 [Nk j k 2 !.
t
u
We continue our discussion of iterable structures with Lemma 4.22 which is a

boundedness lemma for iterations of sequences of structures. Lemma 4.22 which will
be used to guarantee that the conditions of Lemma 4.17 are satised, is proved by an
argument identical to that for Lemma 4.7.
Lemma 4.22 (ZFC ). Assume that for all x 2 R, x # exists.
Suppose hNk W k < !i is an iterable sequence and that
is an iteration of length !1 .
Let x 2 R code hNk W k < !i. Then
(1) for all k < !
rank.Nk / <
12 ;
(2) if C 2 [Nk j k < ! is closed and unbounded in !1 then there exists

D 2 Lx such that D C and such that D is closed and unbounded in
t
u
!1 .
Denition 4.15 suggests the following generalization of Denition 3.5.
Denition 4.23. Suppose that M is a countable model of ZFC . A sequence
hM ; G ; j; j < < i
is a semi-iteration of M if the following hold.
129
(1) M0 D M .
(2) j; W M ! M is a commuting family of elementary embeddings.
(3) For each C1 < , G is an M -normal ultralter, M C1 is the M -ultrapower
of M by G and j; C1 W M ! M C1 is the induced elementary embedding.
(4) For each < if is a limit ordinal then M is the direct limit of M j <
and for all < , j; is the induced elementary embedding.
A model N is a semi-iterate of M if it occurs in an semi-iteration of M . The model
M is strongly iterable if every semi-iterate of M is wellfounded.
t
u
Clearly if
M INS is saturated
then every semi-iteration of M is an iteration of M .
We recall the following notation. Suppose A R. Then
11 .A/ is the set of all
BR
such that B can be dened from real parameters by a 1 formula in the structure
hV!C1 ; A; 2i:
if both B and R n B are
11 .A/.
A set B R is
Let
11 .A/ be the supremum of the lengths of the prewellorderings of R that are
1

1 .A/.
1

1 .A/
Lemma 4.24. Suppose that A R and that there exists X H.!2 / such that
hX; A \ X; 2i hH.!2 /; A; 2i
Suppose that M is a transitive set, H.!2 / M ,
M ZFC ;
and that
M \ Ord <
11 .A/:
Then the set of
Y M j Y is countable and MY is strongly iterable
contains a club in P!1 .M /. Here MY is the transitive collapse of Y .
Proof. Let D rank.M / and let
WR!
be a surjection such that
1
.x; y/ j .x/ .y/ 2
1 .A/:
130
Let
B D .x; y/ j .x/ .y/:
Let N be a transitive set such that
N ZFC
and such that M; ; A [ H.!2 / N .
Let Y N be a countable elementary substructure such that ; M; A Y and
let NY be the transitive collapse of Y . Let Y be the image of under the transitive
collapse and let Y be the image of .
Let X D Y \ M and let MX be the transitive collapse of X .
Suppose
j W .MX ; 2/ ! .M ; E /
is an elementary embedding given by a countable semi-iteration.
Since
H.!2 /MX D H.!2 /NY ;
j lifts to dene a semi-iteration
k W .NY ; 2/ ! .N ; E /:
We identify the standard part of N with its transitive collapse.
Thus
kjH.!2 /MX W H.!2 /MX ! k.H.!2 /MX /
By Theorem 3.34, H.!2 /MX is A-iterable. Therefore
k.A \ NY / D A \ N
1
and so since B is
1 .A/ in parameters from NY ,
k.B \ NY / D B \ N :
By elementarity, it follows that

k.Y / W R \ N ! k.Y /
is a surjection and that
B \ N D .x; y/ j k.Y /.x/ k.Y /.y/:
Therefore k.Y / is an ordinal and so k.MX / is wellfounded.
Thus j.MX / is wellfounded since j.MX / elementarily embeds into k.MX /.
Therefore MX is strongly-iterable.
t
u
Denition 4.25. The nonstationary ideal on !1 is semi-saturated if for all generic extensions, V G, of V , if U 2 V G is a V -normal ultralter on !1V , then Ult.V; U / is
wellfounded.
t
u
131
Lemma 4.26. Suppose INS is not semi-saturated and that

G Coll.!; P .!1 //
is V -generic. Then there exists U 2 V G such that U is a V -normal ultralter on !1V
and such that Ult.V; U / is not wellfounded.
Proof. Suppose INS is not semi-saturated in V . Then there exists a V -normal ultralter
U0 such that U0 is set generic over V and such that Ult.V; U0 / is not wellfounded. Let
be an ordinal such that
f W !1V ! j f 2 V =U0
is not wellfounded.
We work in V G. Let hbi W i < !i be an enumeration of .P .!1 //V and let
hgi W i < !i be an enumeration of all functions
g W !1V ! !1V
such that g 2 V and such that for all < !1V , g./ < 1 C .
Let T be the set of nite sequences h.ai ; fi / W i ni such that for all i < n,
(1.1) ai 2 .P .!1 //V n ;, and aiC1 ai ,
(1.2) ai bi or ai \ bi D ;,
(1.3) fi W !1V ! , fi 2 V and for all 2 aiC1 ,
fiC1 ./ < fi ./;
(1.4) gi jai is constant.
T is a tree ordered by extension. Any innite branch of T yields a V -normal
ultralter, U , such that
f W !1V ! j f 2 V =U
is not wellfounded. Conversely if U is a V -normal ultralter such that
f W !1V ! j f 2 V =U
is not wellfounded, then U denes an innite branch of T .
Therefore U0 denes an innite branch of T and so T is not wellfounded. By
absoluteness, T must have an innite branch in V G.
t
u
Clearly if INS is !2 -saturated then INS is semi-saturated.
Lemma 4.27. Suppose that INS is semi-saturated and that U P .!1 / is a uniform,
V -normal ultralter which set generic over V . Let
j W V ! M V U
be the associated generic elementary embedding.
Then j.!1 / D !2 .
132
Proof. For each < !2 let
W !1 !
be a surjection and dene

f W !1 ! !1
by f ./ D ordertype. /.
Suppose that U P .!1 / is a uniform, V -normal ultralter which set generic
over V . Let
j W V ! M V U
be the associated generic elementary embedding. Then for each ,
j.f /.!1V / D I
i. e. the function f necessarily represents (it is a canonical function for ).
We begin by noting the following. Suppose that I0 P .!1 / is a normal uniform
ideal and that h W !1 ! !1 is a function such that for each < !2 ,
< !1 j f ./ < h./ I0 :
Then there is a normal, uniform, ideal I0 P .!1 / such that I0 I0 and such that
for each < !2 ,
< !1 j h./ f ./ 2 I0 I
simply dene I0 to be the ideal generated by
I0 [ < !1 j h./ f ./ j < !2 :
It is straightforward to verify that this is a normal ideal and that it is proper. The point
is that for all 1 2 < !2 ,
< !1 j f2 ./ h./ n < !1 j f1 ./ h./ 2 INS :
Assume toward a contradiction that the lemma fails. Then it follows that there
exists a function
h W !1 ! !1
and a normal, uniform, ideal I on !1 such that if U P .!1 / is a V -normal ultralter
which is set generic over V such that U \ I D ;, then
j.h/.!1V / D !2V
where
j W V ! M V U
be the associated generic elementary embedding. Otherwise one can easily construct a
V -normal ultralter U which is set generic over V and such that
Ult.V; U /
is not wellfounded.
Clearly we can suppose that for all < !1 , h./ is a nonzero limit ordinal. For
each < !1 let hk W k < !i be an increasing conal sequence in h./. For each
k < ! dene
hk W !1 ! !1
by hk ./ D k .
133
For each k < ! there must exist k < !2 such that

< !1 j fk ./ hk ./ 2 I:
Otherwise for some k0 < !1 and for each < !2 ,
< !1 j f ./ < hk0 ./ I:
In this case it follows, by the remarks above, that there is a normal ideal I such that
I I and such that if U P .!1 / is a V -normal ultralter, set generic over V ,
with U \ I D ;, then
j .hk0 /.!1V / !2V
where j is the associated generic elementary embedding. This contradicts the choice
of h and I .
Let ! D supk j k < !. Thus
j f! ./ < h./ 2 I
since for all < !1 ,
h./ D suphk ./ j k < !:
This again contradicts the choice of h and I .
t
u
Corollary 4.28. Suppose that INS is semi-saturated and that f W !1 ! !1 . Then

there exists < !2 such that the following holds. Let
W !1 !
be a surjection. The set
< !1 j f ./ < ordertype./
contains a closed, unbounded, subset of !1 .
Proof. As in the proof of Lemma 4.27, for each < !2 let
W !1 !
be a surjection and dene
f W !1 ! !1
Assume toward a contradiction that for each < !2 ,
< !1 j f ./ f ./ INS :
Then, arguing as in the proof of Lemma 4.27, there is a normal, uniform, ideal
I P .!1 / such that for each < !2 ,
< !1 j f ./ f ./ 2 I:
Suppose that U P .!1 / is a V -normal ultralter such that U is set generic over V
and such that U \ I D ;. Let
j W V ! M V U
be the associated generic elementary embedding. Then
!2V j.f /.!1V /
which contradicts Lemma 4.27.
t
u
134
We will encounter situations in which the nonstationary ideal on !1 is semisaturated and not saturated cf. Denition 6.11 and Theorem 6.13. Nevertheless the
assertion that INS is semi-saturated has many of the consequences proved in Section 3.1
for the assertion that INS is saturated.
For example it is routine to modify the proofs in Section 3.1 to obtain the following
variations of Lemma 3.14 and Theorem 3.17, together with the subsequent generalization of Theorem 3.47.
Clearly, if the nonstationary ideal is semi-saturated in V then it is semi-saturated in
L.P .!1 //.
Theorem 4.29. Suppose that the nonstationary ideal on !1 is semi-saturated and that
P .!1 /# exists. Suppose that
X H.!2 /
is a countable elementary substructure. Then the transitive collapse of X is iterable.
Proof. Clearly for all x 2 R, x # exists.
Let
Y L.P .!1 //
be a countable elementary substructure containing innitely many Silver indiscernibles
of L.P .!1 //.
Let X D Y \ H.!2 /, let N be the transitive collapse of Y and let M be the
transitive collapse of X .
Thus
M D .H.!2 //N
and
N D L .M /
where D N \ Ord.
Since Y contains innitely many indiscernibles of L.P .!1 //,
L .M / L.M /:
Finally INS is semi-saturated and so
L.P .!1 // INS is semi-saturated:
Therefore
N INS is semi-saturated
and so
L.M / INS is semi-saturated:
We claim that M is iterable. Suppose M is an iterate of M occurring in an
iteration of length .
Let < !1 be such that < and such that
L .M / L.M /:
135
By an absoluteness argument analogous to the proof of Lemma 3.10, any semiiterate of L .M / occurring in a semi-iteration of L .M / of length less than is wellfounded.
The iteration of M of length witnessing M is an iterate of M induces a semiiteration of L .M / of length producing a semi-iterate of L .M / into which M can
be embedded. Therefore M is wellfounded and so M is iterable.
Thus there exists a countable elementary substructure
X H.!2 /
whose transitive collapse is iterable. Thus by Theorem 3.19, if
X H.!2 /
is any countable elementary substructure, the transitive collapse of X is iterable.
t
u
Theorem 4.30. Suppose that the nonstationary ideal on !1 is semi-saturated and that
12 D !2 .
P .!1 /# exists. Then
Proof. By Theorem 3.19, the theorem is an immediate corollary of Theorem 4.29. u
t
The proof of Lemma 3.35 can similarly be adapted to prove the corresponding
generalization of Lemma 3.35.
Lemma 4.31. Suppose that the nonstationary ideal on !1 is semi-saturated. Suppose
A R and that B is weakly homogeneously Suslin for each set B which is projective
in A. Let M be a transitive set such that M ZFC , P .!1 / M , and such that M #
exists. Then
X M j X is countable and MX is A-iterable
t
u
Finally we obtain the generalization of the second covering theorem, Theorem 3.47,
to the case when INS is simply assumed to be semi-saturated.
Theorem 4.32. Suppose that the nonstationary ideal on !1 is semi-saturated. Suppose
M ZF C DC C AD;
and such that
(i) R M ,
(ii) Ord M ,
M jY j D !1
and such that X Y .
Proof. This is an immediate corollary of Lemma 4.31, applied to the set, H.!2 /, and
Theorem 3.45.
t
u
136
4.2
The partial order Pmax
We now dene the partial order Pmax .

Denition 4.33. Let Pmax be the set of pairs h.M; I /; ai such that:
(1) M is a countable transitive model of ZFC C MA!1 ;
(2) I 2 M and M I is a normal uniform ideal on !1 ;
(3) .M; I / is iterable;
(4) a !1M ;
(5) a 2 M and M !1 D !1Lax for some real x .
Dene a partial order on Pmax as follows:
h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i < h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i
if M0 2 M1 ; M0 is countable in M1 and there exists an iteration
j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
such that:
(1) j.a0 / D a1 ;
(2) M0 2 M1 and j 2 M1 ;
(3) I1 \ M0 D I0 .
t
u
Remark 4.34. (1) Given the results of Section 3.1 it would be more natural to dene
Pmax as the set of pairs .M; a/ where M is an iterable model in which the nonstationary ideal is saturated. Assuming
12 -Determinacy this yields an equivalent
forcing notion. More precisely assuming
12 -Determinacy, the set of conditions
h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax such that I is a saturated ideal in M and such that I is the
nonstationary ideal in M, is dense in Pmax .
(2) We shall prove that the nonstationary ideal is saturated in L.R/Pmax and that
ZFC holds there. Thus Pmax is in some sense converting the existence of models
with precipitous ideals (which are relatively easy to nd) into the existence of
models in which the nonstationary ideal on !1 is saturated. This is an aspect
we shall exploit when we modify Pmax to show the relative consistency that the
t
u
nonstationary ideal on !1 is !1 -dense.
There are equivalent versions of Pmax that do not require that the models which
appear in the conditions be models of MA!1 , this is a degree of freedom which is
essential for the variations that we shall dene. In Chapter 5 we shall give three other
(T)

0
, Pmax
and Pmax
. The rst of these will involve
presentations of Pmax , denoted by Pmax
137
using the generic elementary embeddings associated to the stationary tower in place of
embeddings associated to ideals on !1 . The second will be closer to Pmax , however
the stationary tower will be used to generate the necessary conditions and so certain
aspects of the analysis will differ. In fact there are strong arguments to support the

0
is actually the best presentation of Pmax . The third, Pmax
, is
claim that in the end, Pmax
(T)

a combination of Pmax and Pmax . In dening two of the variations of Pmax , we shall use
these alternate formulations as a template, see Denition 6.54 and Denition 8.30.
The following lemma indicates the utility of working with models of MA. We state
it in a more general form than is strictly necessary for the analysis of Pmax .
Lemma 4.35. Suppose M is a countable transitive model of ZFC C MA!1 . Suppose
a 2 M,
a !1M ;
and
M !1 D !1L.a;x/ for some x 2 R:
Suppose
j1 W M ! M1
and
j2 W M ! M2
are semi-iterations of M such that
(i) M1 is transitive,
(ii) M2 is transitive,
(iii) j1 .a/ D j2 .a/,
(iv) j1 .!1M / D j2 .!1M /.
Then M1 D M2 and j1 D j2 .
Proof. This is a relatively standard fact. The key point, which we prove below, is that
since both
j1 .a/ D j2 .a/
and
j1 .!1M / D j.!2M /;
it follows that j1 .b/ D j2 .b/ for each set b 2 M such that b !1M . From this it
follows easily by induction that at every stage the generic lters are the same and so
j1 D j 2 .
Let hs W < !1M i be the sequence of almost disjoint subsets of ! where for each
< !1M , s is the rst subset of ! constructed in L.a; x/ which is almost disjoint
from s for each < . Thus
hs W < !1M i 2 L.a; x/
138
and this sequence is denable from a and x. Since

j1 ..a; !1M // D j2 ..a; !1M //
it follows that
j1 .hs W < !1M i/ D j2 .hs W < !1M i/:
Let
ht W <
i D j1 .hs W < !1M i/
where
D j1 .!1M / D j2 .!1M /. Suppose that b 2 M and b !1M . Since
M MA!1
it follows that there exists t 2 M such that t almost disjoint codes b relative to
hs W < !1M i; i. e. b D j t \ s is innite. Therefore
j1 .b/ D <
j t \ t is innite D j2 .b/:
Therefore for each b 2 M such that b !1M , j1 .b/ D j2 .b/. The lemma follows.
t
u
The next two lemmas are key to proving many of the properties of the partial order
Pmax . Because we wish to apply them within the models occurring in conditions we
work in ZFC .
Lemma 4.36 (ZFC ). Suppose .M; I / is a countable transitive iterable model where
I 2 M is a normal uniform ideal on !1M and M ZFC . Suppose J is a normal
uniform ideal on !1 . Then there exists an iteration
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
such that:
(1) j.!1M / D !1 ;
(2) J \ M D I .
Proof. Fix a sequence hAk; W k < !; < !1 i of J -positive sets which are pairwise
disjoint. The ideal J is normal hence each Ak; is stationary in !1 . We suppose that
Ak; \ . C 1/ D ;.
Fix a function
f W ! !1M ! P .!1M / \ M n I
such that
(1.1) f is onto,
(1.2) for all k < !, f jk !1M 2 M,
(1.3) for all A 2 M if A has cardinality !1M in M and if A P .!1M / n I then
A ran.f jk !1M / for some k < !.
139
The function f is simply used to anticipate subsets of !1 in the nal model.

Suppose
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
is an iteration. Then we dene
j .f / D [j .f jk !1M / j k < !
and it is easily veried that the range of j .f / is P .!1M /\M nI . This follows
from (1.3).
We construct an iteration of M of length !1 using the function f to provide a
book-keeping device for all of the subsets of !1 which belong to the nal model and
do not belong to the image of I in the nal model. More precisely construct an iteration
h.M ; I /; G ; j; W < !1 i such that for each < !1 , if !1M 2 Ak; then
j0; .f /.k; / 2 G .
The set C D j0; .!1M / j < !1 is a club in !1 . Thus for each B !1 such
that B 2 M!1 and B j0;!1 .I / there exists k < !; < !1 such that
.C n C 1/ \ Ak; B \ Ak; :
Further if B !1 , B 2 M!1 and B 2 j0;!1 .I / then B \ C D ;.
Thus J \ M!1 D I!1 .
t
u
Lemma 4.37 is the analog of Lemma 4.36 for iterable sequences. The proof is a
straightforward modication of the proof of Lemma 4.36.
Lemma 4.37 (ZFC ). Suppose h.Nk ; Jk / W k < !i is an iterable sequence such that
Nk ZFC for each k < !. Suppose J is a normal uniform ideal on !1 . Then there
exists an iteration
j W h.Nk ; Jk / W k < !i ! h.Nk ; Jk / W k < !i
such that:
(1) j.!1N0 / D !1 ;
(2) J \ Nk D Jk for each k < !.
t
u
We analyze the conditions in Pmax in a variety of circumstances. The partial order

Pmax is nontrivial under fairly mild assumptions.
Lemma 4.38. Assume that for every real x, x exists. Then for each x 2 R the set of
h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax such that x 2 M is dense in Pmax .
Proof. Suppose x 2 R and h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i 2 Pmax . Let y 2 R code the pair
.x; h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i/ so that x 2 Ly, h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i 2 Ly and h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i is
countable in Ly. y exists and so there is a transitive inner model N and countable
ordinals < such that y 2 N , N contains the ordinals,
N ZFC C GCH;
140
is inaccessible in N , and such that is a measurable cardinal in N . Let Q 2 N be a

-cc poset in N such that;
(1.1) N Q MA C :CH,
(1.2) N Q D !1 ,
(1.3) Q has cardinality < in N .
Let J 2 N be an ideal dual to a normal measure on in N .
Let G Q be N -generic and let JG be the ideal generated by J in N G. Thus JG
is a normal uniform ideal on in N G. By .Jech and Mitchell 1983/ JG is a precipitous ideal in N G. Thus by Lemma 4.5, any iteration of .N G; JG / is wellfounded
and so by Lemma 4.4, .N G; JG / is iterable. Let
j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
be an iteration of .M0 ; I0 / such that j 2 N G and such that I0 D JG \ M0 . Let
b D j.a0 /. Thus
h.N G; JG /; bi 2 Pmax :
Finally x 2 N G and h.N G; JG /; bi < h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i.
t
u
Remark 4.39. Assuming that for every real x, x exists, it follows that the set of
conditions h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax for which M ZFC is dense in Pmax . Thus in the
denition of Pmax the fragment of ZFC used is not really relevant provided it is strong
enough.
t
u
For the analysis of Pmax we need a much stronger existence theorem for conditions.
Lemma 4.40. Assume AD holds in L.R/. Suppose that X R and that X 2 L.R/.
Then there is a condition h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax such that
(1) X \ M 2 M,
(2) hH.!1 /M ; X \ Mi hH.!1 /; X i,
(3) .M; I / is X -iterable,
and further the set of such conditions is dense in Pmax .
Proof. We work in L.R/.
Suppose that for some X R with X 2 L.R/ no such condition
h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax
exists. Then by standard reection arguments in L.R/ we may assume that X is
21
denable in L.R/. By the Martin-Steel theorem, Theorem 2.3, in L.R/ the pointclass
21 denable in L.R/
21 has the scale property. Thus any set X R R which is
is Suslin in L.R/ and so can be uniformized by a function which is
21 denable in
141
L.R/. Let F W R ! R be a function such that if N is a transitive model of ZF closed

under F then
hH.!1 /N ; X \ N; 2i hH.!1 /; X; 2i:
Let Y R be the set of reals which code elements of F X . Since X is
21 it follows
2
2

that F may be chosen such that F is
1 in which case Y is
1 . Let T; T be trees

such that Y D pT and R n Y D pT . Note that if N is any transitive model of
ZF with T 2 N then N is closed under F .
Since AD holds, there exists a transitive inner model N of ZFC, containing the
ordinals such that T 2 N , T 2 N and such that is a measurable cardinal in N for
some countable ordinal .
!1 is strongly inaccessible in N and so by passing to a generic extension of N if
necessary we can require that the GCH holds in N at . Let Q 2 N be a -cc poset in
N such that;
(1.1) N Q MA C :CH,
(1.2) N Q D !1 ,
(1.3) jQj D C in N .
Let G Q be N -generic. Let I 2 N be a normal ideal on which is dual to a
normal measure on . Let IG be the normal ideal generated by I in N G. Thus in
N G, IG is a precipitous ideal on !1N G . Let < !1 be an inaccessible cardinal in
N G. Thus by Lemma 4.4 and Lemma 4.5, it follows that .N G; IG / is iterable.
Since T 2 N G it follows that
hH.!1 /N G ; X \ N G; 2i hH.!1 /; X; 2i:
We claim that .N G; IG / is X -iterable. Suppose
j W N G ! M
is an iteration of .N G; IG /. Then by Lemma 4.4, there corresponds an iteration
j W N G ! M
of .N G; IG / and an elementary embedding
k W M ! j .N G/
such that k j D j jN G. (In fact in our situation M D j .N G/ and k is the
identity.)
Let YN G D pT \ N G. Thus
j .YN G / D pj .T / \ M :
However
(2.1) pT pj .T /,
(2.2) pT pj .T /.
142
Further by absoluteness pj .T / \ pj .T / D ; and so pT D pj .T / and

pT D pj .T /. Thus j .YN G / D Y \ M and so j.YN G / D Y \ M .
Therefore
j.X \ N G/ D X \ M:
This proves that .N G; IG / is X -iterable. Let a 2 N G be such that
N G a !1
and
!1 D !1La :
h.N G; IG /; ai is the desired condition.

The density of these conditions follows abstractly. Let h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax . Let
z 2 R code h.M; I /; ai. Choose a condition h.N ; J /; bi 2 Pmax such that;
(3.1) Y \ N 2 N ,
(3.2) hH.!1 /N ; Y \ N i hH.!1 /; Y i,
(3.3) .N ; J / is Y -iterable,
where Y is the set of reals which code elements of X z.
By Lemma 4.36, there exists an iteration
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
such that j 2 N and I D J \ M . Let a D j.a/. Thus h.N ; J /; a i 2 Pmax and
h.N ; J /; a i < h.M; I /; ai.
h.N ; J /; a i is the required condition.
t
u
The entire analysis of Pmax that we give can be carried out abstractly just assuming
the following:
For each set X R with X 2 L.R/, there is a condition h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax
such that
(1) X \ M 2 M,
(2) hH.!1 /M ; X \ Mi hH.!1 /; X i,
(3) .M; I / is X -iterable.
This in turn is equivalent to:
For each set X R with X 2 L.R/, there exists M 2 H.!1 / such that
(1) M is transitive,
(2) M ZFC ,
(3) X \ M 2 M,
(4) hH.!1 /M ; X \ Mi hH.!1 /; X i,
143
This includes the proof that the nonstationary ideal on !1 is saturated in L.R/Pmax .
However we shall see in Chapter 5 that this assumption implies ADL.R/ .
This property for a set of reals, X , is really a regularity property which can be
established from a variety of different assumptions. For example, it can be established
quite easily from just the assumption that every set of reals which is projective in X is
weakly homogeneously Suslin.
Theorem 4.41. Suppose X R and that every set of reals which is projective in X is
weakly homogeneously Suslin. Then there is a condition
h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax
such that
(1) X \ M 2 M,
(2) hH.!1 /M ; X \ Mi hH.!1 /; X i,
Proof. Note that since there are nontrivial weakly homogeneously Suslin sets there
must exist a measurable cardinal. Let be the least measurable cardinal and let I be
a normal uniform ideal on such that I is maximal; i. e. the dual lter is a normal
measure.
By collapsing 2 to C if necessary we can assume that 2 D C . The generic
collapse of 2 to C preserves the hypothesis of the theorem and it adds no new reals
to V .
X is weakly homogeneously Suslin and so there exists a weakly homogeneous tree
S such that X D pS . The tree S is necessarily -weakly homogeneous.
Let S be a weakly homogeneous tree such that pS D R n X . Again S is
necessarily -weakly homogeneous and so if G P is V -generic where P is a partial
order of size less than then in V G, pS D R n pS .
Let Y be the set of reals which code elements of the rst order diagram of
hH.!1 /; X; 2i:
Y is weakly homogeneously Suslin since it is a countable union of weakly homogeneously Suslin sets. Similarly R n Y is also weakly homogeneous Suslin since it too is
the countable union of weakly homogeneously Suslin sets.
Therefore there exist weakly homogeneous trees T and T such that
pT D Y
and such that pT D R n Y . The trees T and T are each necessarily -weakly
homogeneous.
Thus if G P is V -generic where P is a partial order of size less than , then in
V G, pT D R n pT .
A key point is that is measurable and so this also holds if P is a partial order
which is -cc.
144
Let > C be a regular cardinal such that S; T; S ; T H. /. Thus H. / is

admissible and if Q 2 H. / is any partial order of cardinality at most C then
H. /G ZFC
and H. /G is admissible, whenever G Q is V -generic.
Let
Z H. /
be a countable elementary substructure such that S; T; S ; T ; I Z.

; IN be the images of
Let N be the transitive collapse of Z and let N ; SN ; SN

; S; S ; I under the collapsing map.
Let Q 2 N be a N -cc poset in N such that;
(1.1) N Q MA C :CH,
(1.2) N Q N D !1 ,
C
.
(1.3) N jQj D N
Let G Q be N -generic and let J be the normal ideal in N G generated by IN .

Note that
pSN \ N G 2 N G
since N G is admissible.
Suppose that
j W .N G; J / ! .N G ; J /
is an iteration of countable length. Then it follows that
j W .N; IN / ! .N ; j.IN //
is an iteration. But IN 2 N is the ideal dual to a normal measure in N on N and so
this is an iteration in the usual sense. Let W N ! Z be the inverse of the collapsing
map. Thus by standard arguments there exists Z H. / such that Z Z , N is
the transitive collapse of Z and j jN D where W N ! Z is the inverse
of the collapsing map.

/ pS . Hence
Thus pj.SN / pS . Similarly pj.SN

pj.SN / \ N G D X \ N G
and so j.X \ N G/ D X \ N G . This proves that X \ N G 2 N G and that
.N G; J / is X -iterable.
It remains to show that
hH.!1 /N G ; X \ N G; 2i hH.!1 /; X; 2i:
A key point is the following. Suppose G P is V -generic where P is a partial
order of size less than . Then in V G, pT codes the diagram of hH.!1 /; pS ; 2i.
Again is measurable and so if G P is V -generic where P is a partial order which
is -cc, then in V G, pT codes the diagram of hH.!1 /; pS ; 2i.
By elementarity and the remarks above it follows that pTN \ N G codes the
diagram of hH.!1 /N G ; N G \ pSN ; 2i. Thus Y \ N G codes the diagram of
hH.!1 /N G ; N G \ X; 2i and so
t
u
hH.!1 /N G ; X \ N G; 2i hH.!1 /; X; 2i:
145
Remark 4.42. The requirement

hH.!1 /M ; X \ Mi hH.!1 /; X i
is important in the analysis of the Pmax -extension. It is also more difcult to achieve.
For example if there is a measurable cardinal and if X R is universally Baire then
there exists .M; I / which is X -iterable. The proof is identical to that of Theorem 4.41.
We do not know if from these assumptions one can nd an X -iterable structure .M; I /
for which
hH.!1 /M ; X \ Mi hH.!1 /; X i
even if one adds the assumption that every set of reals which is projective in X is universally Baire. The notion that a set of reals is universally Baire is dened in .Feng,
Magidor, and Woodin 1992/. It has a simple reformulation in terms of Suslin representations which is all that is relevant here:
If X is universally Baire then for any partial order P there exist trees T; T such
that X D pT and such that in V P , pT D R n pT .
Universally Baire sets are briey discussed in Section 10.3.
t
u
As a corollary to Lemma 4.37 we easily establish that under suitable hypotheses,
the partial order Pmax is !-closed and homogeneous.
Lemma 4.43. Assume Pmax ; and that for each x 2 R the set of
h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax
such that x 2 M is dense in Pmax . Then Pmax is !-closed and homogeneous.
Proof. We rst prove that Pmax is !-closed.
Suppose that hpk W k < !i is a descending sequence of conditions in Pmax and that
for each k < !,
pk D h.Mk ; Ik /; ak i:
Let b D [ak j k < !.
For each k < ! there is a unique iteration
jk W .Mk ; Ik / ! .Nk ; Jk /
such that jk .ak / D b.
We summarize the properties of the sequence h.Nk ; Jk / W k < !i:
(1.1) Nk ZFC ;
(1.2) Jk 2 Nk and
Nk Jk is a normal uniform ideal on !1 I
(1.3) .Nk ; Jk / is iterable;
(1.4) Nk 2 NkC1 ;
(1.5) jNk j D !1 in NkC1 ;
146
(1.6) 5A is of measure 1 for JkC1 whenever A 2 Nk ,

N
A P .!1 k / \ Nk n Jk ;
and A is dense;
(1.7) JkC1 \ Nk D Jk ;
(1.8) if C 2 Nk is closed and unbounded in !1N0 then there exists D 2 NkC1 such
D 2 Lx
These properties are straightforward to verify, (1.6) follows from Lemma 4.10 and
(1.8) follows from Lemma 4.6.
By Corollary 4.20, the sequence h.Nk ; Jk / W k < !i is iterable. Let z be a real
which codes h.Nk ; Jk / W k < !i. Thus there is a condition h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax such
that z 2 M. By Lemma 4.37, there is an iteration
such that:
(2.1) j 2 M;
(2.2) j.!1N0 / D !1M ;
(2.3) I \ Nk D Jk for each k < !.
Let a D j.b/. Thus h.M; I /; a i 2 Pmax and h.M; I /; a i < h.Mk ; Ik /; ak i for all
k < !. This shows that Pmax is !-closed.
We nish by showing that Pmax is homogeneous. Suppose h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i and
h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i are conditions in Pmax . Let z be a real which codes the pair of these
conditions. Suppose h.M; I /; ai is a condition in Pmax such that z 2 M. Thus there
are iterations
j0 W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
and
j1 W .M1 ; I1 / ! .M1 ; I1 /
such that:
(3.1) j0 2 M and j1 2 M;
(3.2) j0 .!1M0 / D !1M D j1 .!1M1 /;
(3.3) I \ M0 D I0 and I \ M1 D I1 .
147
Let a0 D j0 .a0 / and let a1 D j1 .a1 /. The key point is the following. Suppose that
h.N ; J /; bi 2 Pmax and h.N ; J /; bi < h.M; I /; ai. Let
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
be the unique iteration such that j.a/ D b. Then
h.N ; J /; j.a0 /i < h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i
and
h.N ; J /; j.a1 /i < h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i:
Thus the conditions below h.M; I /; ai have canonical interpretations as conditions

below h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i and as conditions below h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i. These interpretations
are unique given j0 and j1 .
Now suppose that G Pmax is L.R/-generic. Then by genericity there exists
a condition h.M; I /; ai 2 G such that z 2 M where z is a real coding both the
conditions h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i and h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i. From the arguments above it follows
that we can dene generics G0 Pmax and G1 Pmax such that h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i 2 G0 ,
h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i 2 G1 and such that
L.R/G0 D L.R/G1 D L.R/G:
This shows that Pmax is homogeneous.
t
u
Using the iteration lemmas we prove two more lemmas which we shall use to
complete our initial analysis of Pmax . We begin with a denition that establishes some
key notation.
Denition 4.44. A lter G Pmax is semi-generic if for all < !1 there exists a
condition h.M; I /; ai 2 G such that < !1M .
Suppose G Pmax is semi-generic. Dene AG !1 by
AG D [a j h.M; I /; ai 2 G:
For each h.M; I /; ai 2 G let
jG W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
be the embedding from the iteration which sends a to AG .
Let
P .!1 /G D [P .!1 / \ M j h.M; I /; ai 2 G
and let
IG D [I j h.M; I /; ai 2 G:
t
u
Remark 4.45. (1) Suppose G Pmax is a semi-generic lter. Then Pmax is somewhat nontrivial. Strictly speaking, a lter G Pmax may be, for example, L.R/generic and not be semi-generic. We shall never consider lters in Pmax without
assumptions which guarantee that Pmax is nontrivial.
148
(2) The iteration jG is uniquely specied by G and the condition h.M; I /; ai 2 G.

It is not in general uniquely specied by simply G and .M; I /. A more accurate notation would denote jG by jp;G where p D h.M; I /; ai. However we
shall use the potentially ambiguous notation jG , letting the context arbitrate any
ambiguities.
t
u
Lemma 4.46 isolates the combinatorial fact which will be used to prove that !1 DC holds in L.R/Pmax . This lemma will be applied within models occurring in Pmax
conditions and so the lemma is proved assuming only ZFC .
Lemma 4.46 (ZFC ). Assume Pmax ; and that for each x 2 R, the set of
h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax
such that x 2 M is dense in Pmax . Suppose J is a normal uniform ideal on !1 and that
Y H.!1 / is a .nonempty/ set of pairs .p; f / such that:
(i) p 2 Pmax ;
(ii) for some < !1 , f 2 0; 1 .
Suppose that for all p 2 Pmax , .p; ;/ 2 Y , and suppose that Y satises the following
closure conditions.
(iii) Suppose .p; f / 2 Y and q < p. Then .q; f / 2 Y .
(iv) Suppose .p; f / 2 Y and < dom.f /. Then .p; f j/ 2 Y .
(v) Suppose .p; f / 2 Y and < !1 . Then there exists .q; g/ 2 Y such that q < p,
f g and such that < dom.g/.
(vi) Suppose p 2 Pmax , < !1 , is a limit ordinal and
f W ! 0; 1:
Then either .p; f / 2 Y or .p; f j/ Y for some < .
Then for each q0 2 Pmax there is a semi-generic lter G Pmax and a function
f W !1 ! 0; 1
such that q0 2 G,
IG D J \ P .!1 /G
.p; f j/ 2 Y
for some p 2 G and for some > .
149
Proof. Let
h.p ; f / W < !1 i
be a sequence such that for all < < !1
(1.1) p0 < q0 ,
(1.2) .p ; f / 2 Y ,
(1.3) p < p ,
(1.4) f f ,
(1.5) dom.f /,
(1.6) J \ M D I ,
where .M ; I / is dened as follows. Let h.M ; I /; a i D p . Let
a D [a j < !1 :
Then for each there exists a unique iteration
j W .M ; I / ! .M ; I /
such that j .a / D a . This sequence is easily constructed using the properties of Y
and the proof of Lemma 4.36.
Let G be the lter generated by p j < !1 and let
f D [f j < !1 :
Thus G is a semi-generic lter and .G; f / has the desired properties.
t
u
The next lemma is simply the formulation of Lemma 4.10 for the special case we
are presently interested in. This is the case for structures of the form .M; I /; i. e. when
only one ideal is designated.
Lemma 4.47 (ZFC ). Suppose .M; I / is a countable transitive model where
I 2M
is a normal uniform ideal on !1M and M ZFC . Suppose that
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
is a wellfounded iteration of length !1 and that A P .!1 /M n I is a maximal

antichain with A 2 M . Let hA W < !1 i be an enumeration of A in V . Then
5A j < !1
contains a club in !1 .
t
u
150
Lemma 4.48 (ZFC ). Assume Pmax ; and that for each x 2 R, the set of
h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax
such that x 2 M is dense in Pmax .
Suppose J is a normal uniform ideal on !1 and that Y H.!1 / is a .nonempty/
set of pairs .p; b/ such that:
(i) p 2 Pmax ;
(ii) b !1M , b 2 M, and b I ;
where p D h.M; I /; ai.
(iii) Suppose .h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i; b0 / 2 Y and h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i < h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i. Then
.h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i; b1 / 2 Y where b1 is the image of b0 under the iteration of
.M0 ; I0 / which sends a0 to a1 .
(iv) Suppose h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i 2 Pmax , b0 2 M0 , b0 !1M0 and b0 I0 . Then there
exists .h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i; b1 / 2 Y such that
h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i < h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i
and such that b1 j.b0 / where j is the embedding given by the iteration of
Then for each p0 2 Pmax there exists a semi-generic lter G Pmax such that p0 2 G,
J \ P .!1 /G D IG ;
jP .!1 /G j D !1 ;
and such that
!1 n 5A 2 J
where A is the set of j.b/ such that .h.M; I /; ai; b/ 2 Y , h.M; I /; ai 2 G, and
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
is the embedding given by the iteration of .M; I / which sends a to AG .
Proof. Let
S < !1 j is a limit ordinal
and x a partition hS W < !1 i of S into disjoint sets such that S D 5S j < !1
and such that S J for each < !1 . For any uniform normal ideal such a partition
exists.
We construct a sequence h.q ; b / W < !1 i of elements of Y such that for all
< < !1 , q < q < p0 and such that;
(1.1) for each < !1 there is a club C !1 such that S \ C j .b /,
(1.2) for each < !1 and for each d 2 P .!1M / \ M with d I there exists
< !1 such that < and b j; .d /,
151
where for each < !1 , h.M ; I /; a i D q ,

j W .M ; I / ! .M ; I /
is the embedding given by the iteration which sends a to [a j < !1 and where
for all < < !1
j; W .M ; I / ! .M ; I /
is the embedding from the iteration which sends a to a .
We construct the sequence
h.q ; b / W < !1 i
and at the same time a sequence hd W < !1 i by induction on where for each
< !1 ,
d 2 P .!1M / \ M n I :
Suppose h.q ; b / W < i and hd W < i have been constructed.
If D C 1 then choose .h.M; I /; ai; b/ 2 Y such that h.M; I /; ai < q and
such that b j.d / where
j W .M ; I / ! .MO ; IO /
is the iteration such that j.a / D a. By (iv), .h.M; I /; ai; b/ 2 Y exists.
Let .q ; b / D .h.M; I /; ai; b/ and let d 2 P .!1M / \ M n I .
Now suppose that is a limit ordinal and let hk W k < !i be an increasing
conal sequence of ordinals less than . For each k < ! let .Nk ; Jk / be the iterate
of .Mk ; Ik / dened by the iteration which sends ak to [a j < . Thus
h.Nk ; Jk / W k < !i satises the conditions for Corollary 4.20 and so it is an iterable
sequence. This is just as in the proof that Pmax is !-closed.
Thus 2 5S j < . Let < be such that 2 S . Let
h.Nk ; Jk / W k < !i be the generic ultrapower of h.Nk ; Jk / W k < !i by a
[Nk j k < !-generic ultralter which contains j.b / where j is the embedding
from the iteration of .M ; I / which sends a to [a j < . Let a be the image
of [a j < under this iteration.
Let x be a real which codes
and choose h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax such that x 2 M. The condition exists since we have
assumed that for every real t , t exists.
h.Nk ; Jk / W k < !i is an iterable sequence and so by Lemma 4.37, there exists an
iteration
in M such that j.!1N / D !1M and such that for all k < !, I \ Nk D Jk . Let
a D j.a /. Thus
h.M; I /; a i 2 Pmax
and for all <
h.M; I /; a i < q < p0 :
152
Thus by property (iii) of Y there exists .q; b/ 2 Y such that q < h.M; I /; a i. Let
.q ; b / D .q; b/ and let d 2 P .!1M / \ M n I .
This completes the construction of the sequences. Notice that we have complete
freedom in the choice of d at each stage . Let G Pmax be the lter generated by
q j < !1 . We may assume by a routine book-keeping argument that
j .d / j < !1 D [M \ P .!1 / j < !1 n IG D P .!1 /G n IG :
We claim that G is the desired semi-generic lter. G is generated by a subset of
size !1 and so it follows that jAG j D !1 . All that needs to be veried is that 5AG is
of measure 1 relative to J and that IG D J \ P .!1 /G .
For each < !1 there is a club C !1 such that C \ S j .b /. Further by
denition j .b / 2 AG and so since S D 5S j < !1 it follows that there is a
club C !1 such that S \ C 5AG , take C D 4C j < !1 . However S is of
measure 1 relative to J and J is a uniform normal ideal. Hence C \ S is of measure 1
relative to J .
By the choice of hd W < !1 i it follows that
j .d / j < !1 D P .!1 /G n IG :

.bC1 / j .d /. Therefore every set in
However for each < !1 , jC1
P .!1 /G n IG is positive relative to J . Further every set in IG is nonstationary and
so
IG D J \ P .!1 /G :
t
u
The lemma follows.
Suppose G Pmax is L.R/-generic. We assume also that for all reals x, x exists
so that Pmax is nontrivial. Thus the lter G is semi-generic and so we have dened
AG !1 , P .!1 /G P .!1 /, and IG P .!1 /G .
The next theorem gives the basic analysis of Pmax .
Theorem 4.49. Suppose that for each set X R with X 2 L.R/, there is a condition
h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax such that
(i) X \ M 2 M,
(ii) hH.!1 /M ; X \ Mi hH.!1 /; X i,
(iii) .M; I / is X -iterable.
Suppose G Pmax is L.R/-generic. Then
L.R/G !1 -DC
and in L.R/G:
(1) P .!1 /G D P .!1 /;
(2) IG is a normal saturated ideal;
(3) IG is the nonstationary ideal.
153
Proof. We claim that for each set X R with X 2 L.R/ the set of such conditions
in Pmax which satisfy (i)(iii) is dense in Pmax . The point here is that given X and
a condition h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i 2 Pmax dene a new set X R as follows. Fix a real z
which codes h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i and dene X to be the set of reals which code a pair .z; t /
where t 2 X . We assume X is nonempty. Thus X 2 L.R/ and so there is a condition
(1.1) X \ M 2 M,
(1.2) hH.!1 /M ; X \ Mi hH.!1 /; X i,
(1.3) .M; I / is X -iterable.
By (1.2) it follows that z 2 M. Thus by Lemma 4.36, there is an iteration
j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
in M such that I D I \ M0 . Thus h.M; I /; j.a0 /i 2 Pmax and
h.M; I /; j.a0 /i < h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i:
h.M; I /; j.a0 /i is the desired condition.
Therefore by Lemma 4.43, Pmax is !-closed and homogeneous.
We rst prove that if G Pmax is L.R/-generic then !1 -DC holds in L.R/G.
Since Pmax is !-closed it follows that DC holds in L.R/G. Every set in L.R/G
is denable from an ordinal, a real and G. Therefore to establish that !1 -DC holds
in L.R/G it sufces to show that if T 0; 1<!1 is an !-closed subtree, closed
under initial segments, and with no maximal elements, then there exists a function
F W !1 ! 0; 1 such that F j 2 T for all < !1 .
Fix a term 2 L.R/ for such a tree T and x a condition
h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i 2 Pmax :
Clearly we may suppose for any q 2 Pmax , q forces that is an !-closed subtree of
0; 1<!1 , closed under initial segments and containing no maximal elements. We shall
apply Lemma 4.46 to obtain a term which is forced by a condition below h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i
to be a term for a conal branch of the tree dened by .
Let Y be the set of all pairs .p; f / such that:
(2.1) p 2 Pmax ;
(2.2) p f 2 ;
(2.3) f 2 0; 1 for some < !1 .
Let X be the set of reals which code elements of Y . Thus since Y 2 L.R/,
X 2 L.R/. Let .M; I / be a countable iterable structure such that
(3.1) X \ M 2 M,
(3.2) hH.!1 /M ; X \ Mi hH.!1 /; X i,
154
We may assume that M contains a real coding h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i by the remarks above.
The following closure properties of Y can be expressed as rst order statements in
the structure hH.!1 /; X; 2i.
(4.1) Suppose .p; f / 2 Y and q < p. Then .q; f / 2 Y .
(4.2) Suppose .p; f / 2 Y and < dom.f /. Then .p; f j/ 2 Y .
(4.3) Suppose .p; f / 2 Y and < !1 . Then there exists .q; g/ 2 Y such that
q < p, f g and such that < dom.g/.
(4.4) Suppose p 2 Pmax , < !1 , is a limit ordinal and
f W ! 0; 1:
Then either .p; f / 2 Y or .p; f j/ Y for some < .
Since
it follows that
hH.!1 /M ; X \ Mi hH.!1 /; X i
hH.!1 /M ; Y \ H.!1 /M ; 2i hH.!1 /; Y; 2i:
Further from this it follows that for all

x 2M\R
there exists h.N ; J /; bi 2 M \ Pmax such that x 2 N and N is countable in M.
We can now apply Lemma 4.46 in M to obtain .g; f / 2 M such that the following
hold in M.
(5.1) f W !1 ! 0; 1.
(5.2) g Pmax and g is a semi-generic lter.
(5.3) h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i 2 g.
(5.4) Ig D I \ P .!1 /g .
(5.5) For all < !1 ,
.p; f j/ 2 Y
for some p 2 g and for some > .

Let ag !1M be the set determined by g. Thus for all p 2 g,
h.M; I /; ag i < p:
Now suppose that G Pmax is L.R/-generic and that h.M; I /; ag i 2 G. There
exists a unique iteration
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
such that j.ag / D AG . Let F D j.f /. We claim that for all < !1 ,
F j 2 :
155
To see this x < !1 . Choose h.N ; J /; bi 2 G such that

h.N ; J /; bi < h.M; I /; ag i
and such that < !1N . Hence there is a unique iteration
k W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
such that k.ag / D b. This iteration is an initial segment of the iteration which denes
j , k.f / F , and < dom.k.f //.

.M; I / is X -iterable and so it follows that for all < !1M ,
.p; k.f /j/ 2 Y
for some p 2 k.g/ and for some > .
Finally for all p 2 k.g/,
h.N ; J /; bi < p;
and so k.g/ G.
Therefore we have that for all < !1N , k.f /j 2 . Thus k.f /j 2 and so
F j 2 .
This proves that !1 -DC holds in L.R/Pmax . In fact we have proved something
stronger:
Suppose that G Pmax is L.R/-generic. Suppose that T 2 L.R/G, T is an
!-closed subtree of 0; 1<!1 which is closed under initial segments and contains no maximal elements. Then there exists a condition h.M; I /; ai 2 G and
a function f 2 M such that j.f / 2 0; 1!1 and for all < !1 , j.f /j 2 T
where
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
is the unique iteration such that j.a/ D AG .
This immediately gives that if G Pmax is L.R/-generic then in L.R/G
P .!1 / D [P .!1 /M j h.M; I /; ai 2 G

since given B !1 with B 2 L.R/G let T be the subtree of 0; 1<!1 corresponding
to the set of initial segments of the characteristic function of B. Therefore
P .!1 /G D P .!1 /:
All that remains to be proved is that IG is the nonstationary ideal in L.R/G and
that this ideal is saturated in L.R/G.
We rst show that IG is the nonstationary ideal in L.R/G. This is immediate from the following. Suppose h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i 2 G, h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i 2 G, and
h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i < h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i. Then;
(6.1) M0 2 M1 ,
(6.2) every element of I0 is nonstationary in M1 ,
(6.3) every element of P .!1 / \ M0 n I0 is stationary in M1 ,
156
where
j0 W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /

and
j1 W .M1 ; I1 / ! .M1 ; I1 /
are the unique iterations such that j0 .a0 / D AG and j1 .a1 / D AG .
Finally we prove that IG is a saturated ideal in L.R/G. For this we prove the
following holds in L.R/G.
Suppose A P .!1 / n INS is dense. Then there exists A A such that A
has cardinality !1 and such that 5A contains a club in !1 .
We work in L.R/. Fix a term 2 L.R/Pmax and x a condition p0 2 Pmax . We
assume that
1 P .!1 / n INS
and
1
is dense:
Let Y H.!1 / be the set of all pairs .h.M; I /; ai; b/ such that,
(7.1) h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax ,
(7.2) b 2 M and b !1M ,
(7.3) h.M; I /; ai b 2 ,
where if G Pmax is L.R/-generic and h.M; I /; ai 2 G then b is the image of b
under the iteration of .M; I / which sends a to AG .
Observe that because IG is the nonstationary ideal it follows that if
.h.M; I /; ai; b/ 2 Y
then necessarily b I .
The following properties of Y are easily veried.
(8.1) Suppose .h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i; b0 / 2 Y and h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i < h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i. Then
.h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i; b1 / 2 Y where b1 is the image of b0 under the iteration of
(8.2) Suppose h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i 2 Pmax , b0 2 M0 , b0 !1M0 and b0 I0 . Then there
exists .h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i; b1 / 2 Y such that
h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i < h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i
and such that b1 j.b0 / where j is the embedding given by the iteration of
157
The second of properties, (8.2), follows from the fact that if G Pmax is L.R/generic then in L.R/G
P .!1 / D [P .!1 /M j h.M; I /; ai 2 G

which we have just proved.
We introduce some additional notation. Suppose G Pmax is a semi-generic lter.
Let AG be the set of subsets of !1 given by evaluating using G and Y ,
AG D j.b/ j h.M; I /; ai 2 G and .h.M; I /; ai; b/ 2 Y ;
where as above j W .M; I / ! .M ; I / is the embedding from the iteration of .M; I /
which sends a to AG .
Let X R be the set of reals which code elements of Y . Let
h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i 2 Pmax
be a condition such that h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i < p0 and such that:
(9.1) X \ M1 2 M1 ;
(9.2) hH.!1 /M1 ; X \ M1 i hH.!1 /; X i;
(9.3) .M1 ; I1 / is X -iterable.
We shall obtain a condition in Pmax by modifying a1 in the condition
h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i.
Let Y M1 be the set of elements of Y coded by a real in X \ M1 . Thus Y M1 2 M1
and in M1 has the properties (8.1) and (8.2) stated above for Y . Therefore we may
apply Lemma 4.48 within M1 to obtain a semi-generic lter G1 such that p0 2 G1 and
such that
I1 \ P .!1 /G1 D IG1
and such that
!1 n 5AG1 2 I1
where AG1 is the set of subsets of !1 given by evaluating using G1 and using
Y \ H.!1 /M :
Let
a10 D A
where A is AG as computed in M1 relative to the lter G1 . By absoluteness

.Pmax /M1 D Pmax \ H.!1 /M1 :
Further
and so
a10 D [b j h.N ; J /; bi 2 G1
h.M1 ; I1 /; a10 i < h.N ; J /; bi
for all h.N ; J /; bi 2 G1 . Note that since p0 2 G1 ,

h.M1 ; I1 /; a10 i < p0 :
158
Now suppose that G Pmax is L.R/-generic and that h.M1 ; I1 /; a10 i 2 G. Let
j W .M1 ; I1 / ! .M1 ; I1 /
be the embedding from the iteration which sends a10 to AG . The key point is that since
.M1 ; I1 / is X -iterable it follows that
j.Y M1 / D Y \ M1 :
Further suppose h.M; I /; ai < h.M1 ; I1 /; a10 i and let
k W .M1 ; I1 / ! .M1 ; I1 /
be the countable iteration of .M1 ; I1 / which sends a10 to a. By the properties of G1 in
M1 it follows that h.M; I /; ai < p for all p 2 k.G1 /. From these facts it follows that
j.AG1 / AG :
However 5AG1 is of measure 1 in M1 relative to I1 . Therefore 5j.AG1 / is of measure 1 relative to IG and so it contains a club in !1 since IG is the nonstationary ideal
in L.R/G.
Finally AG1 is of cardinality !1 in M1 and so j.AG1 / has cardinality !1 in
L.R/G. Thus j.AG1 / is the desired subset of AG .
This proves that IG is a saturated ideal in L.R/G and this completes the proof of
the theorem.
t
u
Combining Lemma 4.40 and Theorem 4.49 we obtain as an immediate corollary
the following theorem.
Theorem 4.50. Assume AD holds in L.R/. Suppose G Pmax is L.R/-generic. Then
L.R/G !1 -DC
and in L.R/G:
(1) P .!1 /G D P .!1 /;
t
u
We continue with our analysis of L.R/Pmax and prove that the conclusion of Corollary 3.48 holds in L.R/Pmax . This theorem can also be proved abstractly by using
Corollary 3.48 together with the absoluteness theorem, Theorem 4.64. But a proof
along these lines requires stronger hypotheses.
Remark 4.51. (1) It is possible to prove that INS is saturated in L.R/Pmax using
Lemma 4.52 instead of Lemma 4.48, see the proof of Theorem 10.54.
(2) There are Pmax -variations, P 2 L.R/, for which INS is not saturated in L.R/P .
However Lemma 4.52 will generalize to these models, yielding the semi-satut
u
ration of INS in these models, see Section 6.1.
159
Lemma 4.52. Assume ADL.R/ and suppose that G Pmax is L.R/-generic. Then in
L.R/G, for every set A 2 P .R/ \ L.R/ the set
X hH.!2 /; A; 2i j MX is A-iterable and X is countable
contains a club, where MX is the transitive collapse of X .
Proof. Suppose G Pmax is L.R/-generic. From the basic analysis of Pmax summarized in Theorem 4.49 it follows that
H.!2 /L.R/G D H.!2 /L.R/ AG :
We work in L.R/G. Fix A R with A 2 L.R/. Fix a countable elementary
substructure
X hH.!2 /; A; G; 2i:
Let hXi W i < !i be an increasing sequence of countable elementary substructures of
X such that
X D [Xk j k < !
and such that for each k 2 !, Xk 2 XkC1 . Therefore for each k < !, there exists
h.M; I /; ai 2 G \ XkC1 satisfying
(1.1) Xk \ P .!1 / M ,
(1.2) A \ M 2 M,
(1.3) .M; I / is A-iterable,
where M is the iterate of M given by the iteration of .M; I / which sends a to AG .
Let MX be the transitive collapse of X . We claim that MX is A-iterable. Given this
the lemma follows.
For each k < ! let h.Mk ; Ik /; ak i 2 G \ XkC1 be a condition satisfying the
requirements (1.1), (1.2) and (1.3). For each k < ! let
k
h.Mk ; Ik /; G ; j;
W < !1 i
k
be the iteration of .Mk ; Ik / such that j0;!
.ak / D AG . Thus for each k < !,
1
k
h.Mk ; Ik /; G ; j;
W < !1X i 2 MX
and further
MX D [Mk j k < !;
where D X \ !1 .
Suppose
j W MX ! N
is given by a countable iteration of MX . Let
D j.!1MX /:
For each k < ! let
.Nk ; Jk / D j..Mk ; Ik //
160
where D !1MX D !1X . Therefore for each k < !, .Nk ; Jk / is an iterate of .Mk ; Ik /
by an iteration of length which extends the iteration
k
h.Mk ; Ik /; G ; j;
W < i:
For each k < ! this is the (unique) iteration of .Mk ; Ik / which sends ak to
j.AG \ !1MX /. By induction on ,
N D [Nk j k < !
and so MX is iterable. The argument here is identical to proof that Pmax is !-closed,
cf. Lemma 4.43. We nish by analyzing
AQ D [j.B/ j B A and B 2 MX :
We must show that AQ D A \ N .
Let D !1MX . Thus MX D [Mk j k < !. For each k < !, .Mk ; Ik / is
A-iterable. Therefore
k
A \ MX D [j0;
.A \ Mk / j k < !:
For each k < ! let AQk be the image of A \ Mk under the iteration of .Mk ; Ik /
which sends ak to j.AG \ /. This is the iteration which denes Nk . Thus
AQ D [AQk j k < !
since for all B 2 MX , B A if and only if
B Mk \ A
for some k < ! and since for all k < !,
k
Mk \ A D j0;
.A \ Mk /:
The latter equality holds since .Mk ; Ik / is A-iterable.

Finally, using the A-iterability of .Mk ; Ik / once more, it follows that for each
k < !,
AQk D A \ Nk ;
and so AQ D A \ N .
t
u
We obtain as a corollary the following theorem.
Theorem 4.53. Assume ADL.R/ and suppose G Pmax is L.R/-generic. Then in
L.R/G the following hold.
(1) 12 D !2 .
(2) Suppose S !1 is stationary and
f W S ! Ord:
Then there exists g 2 L.R/ such that
2 S j f ./ D g./
is stationary.
161
Proof. (1) is an immediate corollary to Lemma 4.52 and Theorem 3.19. (1) also follows from (2).
We prove (2). Let D L.R/ and suppose
f W S ! Ord
where S is a stationary subset of !1 .
By the chain condition satised by Pmax in L.R/, there exists a set X Ord such
that X 2 L.R/, f S X and such that
jX j <
in L.R/.
Therefore we may suppose that
f WS !
for some
< . (2) now follows from Lemma 4.52 and Theorem 3.42.
t
u
We shall prove the following theorem in Section 5.1.

Theorem 4.54. Assume ADL.R/ . Then
L.R/Pmax ZFC:
t
u
Denition 4.55. Suppose that A !1 . The set A is L.R/-generic for Pmax if there
exists a lter G Pmax which is L.R/-generic and such that A D AG .
t
u
The following lemma shows that the generic for Pmax can be identied with the
subset of !1 it creates.
Lemma 4.56. Assume ADL.R/ . Suppose that A !1 is L.R/-generic for Pmax . Dene in L.R/A a subset F Pmax as follows.
h.M; I /; ai 2 F
if there exists an iteration
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
such that
(1) j.a/ D A,
(2) I D INS \ M .
Then F is a lter in Pmax , F is L.R/-generic and A D AF .
Proof. Fix a lter G Pmax such that G is L.R/-generic and such that
A D AG :
Note that for each h.M; I /; ai 2 G, the corresponding iteration
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
162
such that j.a/ D A can be computed in L.A; .M; I // and so M 2 L.R/A. Therefore by Theorem 4.50 it follows that
P .!1 /L.R/G L.R/A:
Thus the set F Pmax is the same computed in L.R/A or L.R/G.
Thus it sufces to show that in L.R/G,
F D G:
By Theorem 4.50, G F and so we need only show that F G, i. e. that
the requirement specifying membership in F fails for conditions which do not belong
to G.
Suppose h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax and h.M; I /; ai G. We prove that
h.M; I /; ai F :
Let z 2 R code h.M; I /; ai. Therefore there is a condition h.N ; J /; bi 2 G such
that z 2 N and such that h.M; I /; ai and h.N ; J /; bi are incompatible. First suppose
there is no iteration of .M; I / which sends a to b. If there exists an iteration of .M; I /
which sends a to A then it is easily veried that there must be an iteration of .M; I /
which sends a to b. Therefore there is no iteration of .M; I / which sends a to A and
so
h.M; I /; ai F :
Therefore we may assume that there is an iteration
k W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
such that k.a/ D b. The iteration k is unique and k 2 N . If I D M \ J then
h.N ; J /; bi < h.M; I /; ai
which contradicts the incompatibility of these conditions. Therefore
I M \ J
in particular there must exist B 2 P .!1N / \ M n I such that B 2 J . Let
j W .N ; J / ! .N ; J /
be the iteration such that j .b/ D A. Thus
j .k/ W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
is the iteration of .M; I / which sends a to A. But j .B/ 2 M n I and
j .B/ 2 j .J /. Therefore j .B/ is nonstationary in L.R/G since j .J / IG
and IG is the nonstationary ideal. Thus
h.M; I /; ai F ;
and this proves F D G.
t
u
163
The proof of Lemma 4.59 requires the following technical lemma.

Lemma 4.57 (ZFC ). Suppose D !1 and hyk W k < !i is a sequence of reals such
that for all k < !,
(1) yk# is recursive in ykC1 ,
(2) every subset of !1 which is constructible from yk and D contains or is disjoint
from a tail of the indiscernibles of LykC1 below !1 .
Then D is constructible from a real.
Proof. For each k < ! let Ck be the set of indiscernibles of Lyk below !1 . First
we show that if f W !1 ! !1 is a function in LD; yk then there is a function
h 2 LykC1 such that f D h on a tail of CkC1 . Fix f .
For each < !1 , let be the least element of CkC1 above . Thus
f ./ <
for all sufciently large < !1 . This is because every club in !1 which is in LD; yk
contains a tail of CkC1 . Fix 0 < !1 such that
f ./ <
for all > 0 .
For each 2 CkC1 if 0 < then f ./ is denable in LykC1 from , nitely
many elements of CkC1 below and nitely many of the !n s. Working in V we
can nd a stationary set S CkC1 , a nite set of ordinals t and a denable Skolem
function, , of LykC1 such that if 2 S then f ./ D .; t /. Thus we have produced
a function h W !1 ! !1 such that h 2 LykC1 and such that
T D < !1 j f ./ D h./
is stationary in !1 . Clearly T 2 LD; ykC1 and so T must contain a tail of CkC1
since it cannot be disjoint from a tail of CkC1 . Thus h is as desired.
Let
X H.!2 /
be a countable elementary substructure containing D and yk j k < !. Let
Z D X \ .[L!2 D; yk j k < !/:
Dene a 0 -elementary chain
hZ W < !1 i
as follows by induction on < !1 . Set Z0 D Z and for a limit ordinal let

Z D [Z j < :
Dene
ZC1 D f .Z \ !1 / j f 2 Z :
It is easily veried by induction on that for every k < !,
Z \ L!2 D; yk L!2 D; yk :
164
We prove by induction on < !1 that Z \ !1 is an initial segment of !1 . This is

clearly preserved at limits and so we may assume this holds for Z and we prove it
for ZC1 . Note that since Z \ !1 is an ordinal it follows that it is necessarily an
indiscernible of L.yk / for each k < !1 . Let D Z \ !1 . Suppose 2 ZC1 \ !1 .
Then D f ./ for some function f W !1 ! !1 with f 2 Z \ LD; yk for
some k < !. Fix k. Therefore from the remarks above D h./ for some function
h W !1 ! !1 with h 2 LykC1 \Z . Thus < where is the next indiscernible of
LykC1 . But every ordinal less than can be generated from nitely many ordinals
less together with and nitely many indiscernibles above !1 for LykC1 using
denable Skolem functions of LykC1 . X contains innitely many indiscernibles for
Lyi above !1 for every i < ! and so
D g./
for some g 2 Z .
Let Z D [Z j < !1 . Thus !1 Z . The key point is the following.
For each < !1 let M be the transitive collapse of Z and let M be the transitive
collapse of Z . For each < < !1 let j; W M ! M be the 0 elementary
embedding induced by the identity map taking Z into Z and let j W M0 ! M be
the embedding induced by the identity map taking Z0 into Z .
Let ZFC denote the axioms, ZFC n Powerset. It is useful to note that M is not
a model of ZFC , however it is an !-length increasing union of transitive models of
ZFC .
Let be the image of !1 under the collapsing map of Z . Then in M the club
lter on is a measure and
j W M0 ! M
is simply the iteration of length !1 of M0 by the club measure on 0 . This follows
easily from the fact that MC1 is the ultrapower of M by the club measure on and
j;C1 is the induced embedding. This fact we verify by induction on . It sufces to
prove that the critical point of j;C1 is ; i. e. that for every < !1 , Z \ !1 is an
initial segment of !1 and this we proved above.
This iteration of M0 is a non-generic analog of the iteration of a sequence of structures as dened in Denition 4.15, cf. Remark 4.16.
Note that D 2 M since !1 Z . Let t be a real which codes M0 . Thus
D 2 Lt .
t
u
Lemma 4.57 has the following corollary.
Corollary 4.58. Assume ZF C DC and that for all x 2 R; x # exists. The following
are equivalent.
(1) Every subset of !1 is constructible from a real.
(2) The club lter on !1 is an ultralter and every club in !1 contains a club which
is constructible from a real.
t
u
165
For example assume the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated, there is a measurable cardinal and there is a transitive inner model of ZF C DC containing the reals,
containing the ordinals, and in which the club lter on !1 is an ultralter. Then in
L.R/ every subset of !1 is constructible from a real.
Lemma 4.59. Assume that for every real x, x exists. Suppose
h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax ;
d
!1M
and d 2 M.
(i) Let D0 be the set of h.N ; J /; bi 2 Pmax such that

a) h.N ; J /; bi < h.M; I /; ai,
b) N !1 D !1L.d
;x/
for some real x.
(ii) Let D1 be the set of h.N ; J /; bi 2 Pmax such that

a) h.N ; J /; bi < h.M; I /; ai,
b) N d is constructible from a real .
Then D0 [ D1 is open, dense in Pmax below h.M; I /; ai. Here d denotes the image
of d under the iteration of .M; I / which sends a to b.
Proof. Fix a condition p 2 Pmax with p < h.M; I /; ai. There are two cases.
First suppose there is a sequence
h.pk ; xk / W k < !i
such that for all k < !;
(1.1) pk 2 Pmax and pkC1 < pk < p,
(1.2) xk 2 R \ Mk and xk# is recursive in xkC1 ,
(1.3) x0 codes p and h.M; I /; ai,
M
(1.4) every subset of !1 kC1 which belongs to LdkC1 ; xk either contains or is disM
joint from a tail of the indiscernibles of LxkC1 below !1 kC1 .
where for each k < !, pk D h.Mk ; Ik /; ak i, dk D jk .d / and jk is the elementary
embedding from the unique iteration of .M; I / such that jk .a/ D ak . Implicit in (1.4)
M
M
is the fact that if A !1 k and if A 2 Mk then every subset of !1 k which is in LA
#
belongs to L A where D Mk \ Ord. This is because A 2 Mk which in turn
follows from the iterability of .Mk ; Jk /. We use this frequently.
Choose a condition h.N ; J /; bi 2 Pmax such that for all k < !,
h.N ; J /; bi < h.Mk ; Ik /; ak i:
For each k < ! let
jk W .Mk ; Ik / ! .Mk ; Jk /
166
be the unique iteration such that jk .ak / D b. Let d D jk .dk /. This is unambiguously
dened and we may apply Lemma 4.57 in N to obtain that there is a real t 2 N such
that d 2 Lt . The condition h.N ; J /; bi 2 D1 and h.N ; J /; bi < p.
The second case is that no such sequence
h.pk ; xk / W k < !i
exists. Notice that if
h.N1 ; J1 /; b1 i < h.N0 ; J0 /; b0 i
in Pmax and if
j W .N0 ; J0 / ! .N0 ; J0 /
is the unique iteration such that j.b0 / D b1 then for every D 2 J a tail of indiscernibles of Lx below !1N1 is disjoint from D where x is any real in N1 which codes
N0 .
Therefore since the sequence h.pk ; xk / W k < !i does not exist it follows that there
exist a condition
h.N0 ; J0 /; b0 i < p;
a real x0 2 N0 , and a set D !1N0 , such that
(2.1) D 2 Lx0 ; d0 ,
(2.2) both D and !1N0 n D are positive relative to J0 ,
where d0 D j.d / and j W .M; I / ! .M ; I / is the unique iteration such that
j.a/ D b0 .
Fix a condition
h.N1 ; J1 /; b1 i < h.N0 ; J0 /; b0 i:
By modifying b1 we shall produce a condition in D1 below h.N0 ; J0 /; b0 i.
We work in N1 . Fix a real t which codes .N0 ; J0 /. Let C be the set
C D < !1N1 j L t Lt :
Therefore C is a club in !1N1 and C 2 Lt . Let XC be the elements of C which are
not limit points of C and let
W !1N1 ! XC
be the enumeration function of XC .
Fix A !1N1 such that A 2 N1 and !1N1 D !1LA . Let A C be the image of
A under . Working in N1 construct an iteration
j0 W .N0 ; J0 / ! .N0 ; J0 /
of length .!1 /N1 such that;
(3.1) J0 = J1 \ N0 ,
(3.2) j0 .D/ \ XC D A .
167
The iteration exists because the requirements given by (2.1) and (2.2) do not interfere. One achieves (2.1) by working on C n XC as in the proof of Lemma 4.36 and
(2.2) is achieved by working on XC .
Let b1 D j0 .b0 /, let d1 D j0 .d0 / and let D D j0 .D/. Thus
h.N1 ; J1 /; b1 i < h.N0 ; J0 /; b0 i
and

!1N1 D !1Lt;D
since A 2 Lt; D . However D 2 Lx; d0 and so D 2 Lx; d1 . Therefore
and so
h.N1 ; J1 /; b1 i
!1N1 D !1Lx;t;d1
2 D0 .
t
u
The next theorem reinforces the analogy between Pmax and Sacks forcing.
Theorem 4.60. Assume AD holds in L.R/. Suppose that G Pmax is a lter which
is L.R/-generic. Suppose that A !1 and that A 2 L.R/G n L.R/. Then A is
L.R/-generic for Pmax and
L.R/G D L.R/A:
Proof. This is immediate, the argument is similar to that for the homogeneity of Pmax
together with the analysis provided by Theorem 4.49 and Lemma 4.59.
Let G Pmax be L.R/-generic. Fix A !1 , A 2 L.R/G n L.R/. By
Theorem 4.49 there exists a condition
h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i 2 G

such that for some d 2 M0 , j .d / D A where
j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
is the iteration which sends a to AG . By Lemma 4.59 we may assume that
M0 !1 D !1L.d;x/ for some real x:
Therefore there exists a real x 2 M0 such that
!1 D !1LA;x :
We rst show that L.R/G D L.R/A. Since
M0 MA!1
it follows, by Lemma 4.35, that there exists a real y 2 M0 with
AG 2 LA; y:
Therefore L.R/A D L.R/AG D L.R/G.
To nish we must prove that A is L.R/-generic for Pmax .
Let g Pmax be the lter generated by
h.N ; J /; A \ !1N i j h.N ; J /; bi 2 G and h.N ; J /; bi < h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i:
It follows that g is L.R/-generic and that
A D [b j h.N ; J /; bi 2 gI
i. e. that A is the set AG computed from g.
t
u
Therefore A is L.R/-generic for Pmax .
168
The next theorem is the key for actually verifying that specic 2 sentences hold
in
Pmax
hH.!2 /; 2; INS iL.R/
Theorem 4.61. Assume AD holds in L.R/. Suppose

language for the structure
hH.!2 /; 2; INS i
and that
Pmax
hH.!2 /; 2; INS iL.R/
.x/ is a 1 formula in the
9x .x/:
Then there is a condition h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i 2 Pmax and a set b0 !1M0 with b0 2 M0

such that for all h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i 2 Pmax , if
h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i;
then
hH.!2 /M1 ; 2; I1 i
where b1 D j.b0 / and
b1
j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
is the iteration such that j.a0 / D a1 .

Proof. Assume V D L.R/ and let
G Pmax
be generic.
For each h.M; I /; ai 2 G let
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
be the iteration such that j.a/ D AG .
By Theorem 4.50, in L.R/G
P .!1 / D [P .!1 /M j h.M; I /; ai 2 G

and so
H.!2 /L.R/G D [H.!2 /M j h.M; I /; ai 2 G:

t
u
The theorem now follows.
The next theorem is simply a reformulation. This theorem strongly suggests that if
AD holds in L.R/ and if
G Pmax
is L.R/-generic then in L.R/G one should be able to analyze all subsets of P .!1 /
which are denable in the structure
hH.!2 /; 2; INS iL.R/G
by a 1 formula. Thus while a 2 sentence may fail in L.R/G one can analyze
completely the counterexamples.
169
Theorem 4.62. Assume AD holds in L.R/. Suppose .x/ is a 1 formula in the

hH.!2 /; 2; INS i:
Suppose G Pmax is L.R/-generic and that
hH.!2 /; 2; INS iL.R/G A
where A !1 and A 2 L.R/G n L.R/. Let G Pmax be the L.R/-generic lter
such that A D AG . Then there is a condition h.M; I /; ai 2 G such that for all
h.M ; I /; a i 2 Pmax ;

if h.M ; I /; a i h.M; I /; ai then

hH.!2 /M ; 2; I i a :
Proof. By Theorem 4.60, A is L.R/-generic for Pmax and so the generic lter G
exists. As in the proof of Theorem 4.61,

H.!2 /L.R/G D [H.!2 /M j h.M; I /; ai 2 G ;
where for each h.M; I /; ai 2 G let
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
is the iteration such that j.a/ D AG D A.
t
u
The next theorem we prove gives the key absoluteness property of L.R/Pmax . Using its proof one can greatly strengthen the previous theorems. To prove this we use
the following corollary of Theorem 2.61. This theorem is discussed in Section 2.4.
An alternate proof is possible using the stationary tower forcing and the associated
generic elementary embedding. The choice is simply a matter of taste, working with
Theorem 2.61 is more in the spirit of Pmax . In Chapter 6 we shall consider various generalizations of Pmax and for some of the variations we shall prove the corresponding
absoluteness theorems which are analogous to the absoluteness theorems proved here
for Pmax . There we will have to use the stationary tower forcing cf. Theorem 6.85.
Theorem 4.63. Suppose is a Woodin cardinal. Let
Q D Coll.!1 ; </ P
be an iteration dened in V such that P is ccc in V Coll.!1 ;</ . Then the nonstationary
ideal on !1 is precipitous in V Q .
Proof. If the nonstationary ideal is precipitous in V then in any ccc forcing extension
of V , the nonstationary ideal is precipitous. This is a relatively standard fact.
Using this, the theorem follows from Theorem 2.61
t
u
Theorem 4.64. Assume ADL.R/ and that there is a Woodin cardinal with a measurable above. Suppose is a 2 sentence in the language for the structure
hH.!2 /; 2; INS i
and that
hH.!2 /; 2; INS i :
Then
Pmax
:
t
u
hH.!2 /; 2; INS iL.R/
170
There is a stronger absoluteness theorem that is true and this is the version which
we prove.
Theorem 4.65. Assume ADL.R/ and that there is a Woodin cardinal with a measurable above. Suppose that J is a normal uniform ideal on !1 , is a 2 sentence in the
hH.!2 /; 2; J i;
and that
hH.!2 /; 2; J i :
Then
Pmax
hH.!2 /; 2; INS iL.R/
:
Proof. Let .x; y/ be a 0 formula such that D 8x9y: .x; y/ (up to logical
equivalence).
Assume towards a contradiction that
Pmax
hH.!2 /; 2; INS iL.R/
::
Then by Theorem 4.61, there is a condition h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i 2 Pmax and a set

b0 2 H.!2 /M0
such that if
h.M; I /; ai h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i
then
hH.!2 /M ; 2; I i 8y b
where b D j.b0 / and j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 / is the iteration such that j.a0 / D a.
By Lemma 4.36, there is an iteration
j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
such that:
(1.1) j.!1M0 / D !1 ;
(1.2) J \ M0 D I0 .
Let B D j.b0 /. The sentence holds in V and so there exists a set D 2 H.!2 /
such that
hH.!2 /; 2; J i : B; D:
Let be a Woodin cardinal and be a measurable cardinal above . Let g be
a V -generic enumeration of J of length !1 . The poset is simply J <!1 ordered by
extension. In V g let
S D 5hS W < !1 i
be the diagonal union of the generic enumeration of J . Thus S is co-stationary in V g.
This is because J is a normal ideal in V .
171
Let C be a V g-generic club in !1 which is disjoint from S . Conditions for C are

initial segments and so V is closed under ! sequences in V gC . A key point is that
V gC
J D INS
\V
V gC
where INS
is the nonstationary ideal as computed in V gC . This follows from
the normality of the ideal J in V .
V gC is a small generic extension of V and so is a Woodin cardinal in V gC
and is measurable in V gC .
Let
Q D Coll.!1 ; </ P
be an iteration dened in V gC such that P is ccc in V gC Coll.!1 ;</ ,

V gC Q MA C :CH
and such that Q has cardinality in V gC .
Let G Q be V gC -generic.
Thus by Theorem 4.63, the nonstationary ideal on !1 is precipitous in V gC G.
Clearly
V gC G
\ V:
J D INS
Therefore
hH.!2 /; 2; INS iV gC G : B; D:
Further is still measurable in V gC G. Let 2 V gC G be a measure on .
Let X VC2 gC G be a countable elementary substructure such that
M0 ; j; g; C; G; B; D; X
and let Y D X \ V gC G. Let N0 be the transitive collapse of Y and let N1 be the
transitive collapse of X . Let X be the image of and let X be the image of under
the collapsing map. Thus
N0 D VX \ N1
and the pair .N1 ; X / is iterable in the usual sense. Let
N D [k.N0 / j k is an iteration of k0
where the union ranges over iterations of arbitrary length and k0 is the embedding
given by X .
Thus N is a transitive inner model of ZFC containing the ordinals and
NX D N0 :
Let J0 be the ideal INS as computed in N0 . The ideal J0 is precipitous in N0 and
hence it is precipitous in N . Therefore by Lemma 3.8 and Lemma 3.10, .N0 ; J0 / is
iterable in V gC G.
Let jX be the image of j under the collapsing map. Thus jX 2 N0 and
jX W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
172
is an iteration of .M0 ; I0 / of length .!1 /N0 and further I0 D J0 \ M0 . The latter
holds since I0 D J \ M0 and since in V gC G,
V gC G
J D INS
\ V:
Thus h.N0 ; J0 /; jX .a0 /i 2 Pmax and h.N0 ; J0 /; jX .a0 /i < h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i.

Finally let BX be the image of B and let DX be the image of D under the collapsing
map. Thus
hH.!2 /; INS iN0 : BX ; DX
and so
hH.!2 /; INS iN0 .:8y /BX :
However BX D jX .b/.
Thus in V gC G there is a condition
h.M; I /; ai h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i
such that
hH.!2 /M1 ; I1 ; 2i 6 8y b
where b D j0 .b/ and j0 W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 / is the iteration such that
j0 .a0 / D a1 .
By absoluteness, noting that V is 13 -correct in the generic extension, V gC G,
such a condition h.M; I /; ai must exist in V , which is a contradiction.
t
u
Denition 4.66. Suppose X 2 H.!1 /. Let Z be the transitive closure of X . Then
Q3 .X / is the set of all Y Z such that the following hold.
(1) There exists a transitive inner model M of ZFC such that:
a) Ord M;
b) X 2 M;
c) for some < !1 ; X 2 V , 2 M and is a Woodin cardinal in M;
d) Y 2 M.
(2) Suppose that M is a transitive inner model of ZFC such that:
a) Ord M;
b) X 2 M;
c) for some < !1 ; X 2 V , 2 M and is a Woodin cardinal in M.
Then Y 2 M.
t
u
The operation Q3 .X / has its origins in descriptive set theory. The exact denition
is given, and the basic theory is developed in work of Kechris, Martin and Solovay
.Kechris, Martin, and Solovay 1983/. The context for the work is
12 -Determinacy.
Q3 .!/ is the set of all subsets of ! which are recursive in some real which is a 12
singleton in a countable ordinal .Kechris, Martin, and Solovay 1983/.
173
We can now provide better versions of the theorems about counterexamples to a 2

statement in L.R/Pmax . Roughly the analysis yields the following. Suppose G Pmax
is L.R/-generic and that A !1 has a 1 property in
hH.!2 /; 2; INS iL.R/G I
i. e. A is a counterexample to a 2 statement. Then there are !1 many stationary
subsets of !1 associated to A such that in a very strong sense any attempt to add a
witness to make the 1 property of A fail, must destroy the stationarity of one of these
sets. We shall again consider this in Chapter 5. See, for example, Theorem 5.67.
Theorem 4.67. Assume AD holds in L.R/. Suppose .x/ is a 1 formula in the
hH.!2 /; 2; INS i:
Suppose G Pmax is L.R/-generic and that
hH.!2 /; 2; INS iL.R/G A
where A !1 , A 2 L.R/G n L.R/.
Let G Pmax be the L.R/-generic lter such that A D AG .
Then there is a condition h.M; I /; ai 2 G such that the following holds.
Suppose
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
is a countable iteration and let a D j.a/. Let N be any countable, transitive, model
of ZFC such that:
(1) .P .!1 //M N ;

(2) !1N D !1M ;

(3) Q3 .S / N , for each S 2 N such that S !1N ;
(4) If S !1N , S 2 M and if S I then S is a stationary set in N .
Then
hH.!2 /; 2; INS iN a :
Proof. Fix a 0 formula, .x; y/ such that .x/ D 8y .x/.

By Theorem 4.60, A is L.R/-generic for Pmax and so the lter G exists.
By Theorem 4.62, there is a condition
h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i 2 G
such that for all h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i < h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i,
hH.!2 /M1 ; 2; I1 i 8y a1 :
Let h.M; I /; ai < h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i be any condition in G .
We claim that the condition h.M; I /; ai satises the requirements of the theorem.
To verify this let
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
be a countable iteration and let N be a countable, transitive, model of ZFC such that:
174
(1.1) M 2 N ;
(1.2) !1N D !1M ;

(1.3) Q3 .S / N , for each S 2 N such that S !1N ;
(1.4) If S !1N , S 2 M and if S I then S is a stationary set in N .
Let
j0 W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
be the iteration such that j0 .a/ D a .

Since h.M; I /; ai < h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i, it follows that
I0 D I \ M0 D .INS /N \ M0 :
We must show that
hH.!2 /; 2; INS iN 8y a
where a D j.a/.
Assume toward a contradiction that for some b 2 H.!2 /N ,
hH.!2 /; 2; INS iN : a ; b:
Choose a transitive set Y 1 N such that
(2.1) Y 2 N ,
(2.2) jY j D !1N in N ,
(2.3) h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i; a ; b Y ,
(2.4) !1N Y ,
(2.5) hH.!2 /; 2; INS iY : a ; b.
The structure .M0 ; I0 / is an iterate of .M0 ; I0 / and the iteration is uniquely determined by a . Therefore M0 2 Y .
Let Z !1N be such that Z 2 N and Y 2 LZ.
Let N1 be a transitive inner model of ZFC such that N1 contains the ordinals,
Z 2 N1 ,
Q3 .Z/ D P .!1N / \ N1 ;
and such that there exists < !1 such that is a Woodin cardinal in N1 . We may
suppose that
N1 D LS
for some S .
Y
N
D INS
\ Y and so it follows that
Note that INS
hH.!2 /; 2; INS iN1 : a ; b
and that
N1
I0 D INS
\ M0 :
Let
175
P0 D Coll.!1 ; </N1
and let
Q D P0 P
be an iteration dened in N1 such that P is ccc in N1P0 ,
N1Q MA C :CH
and such that Q has cardinality in N1 .
Let g Q be N1 -generic with g 2 V . Therefore
hH.!2 /; 2; INS iN1 g : a ; b:

N1 g
and let < !1 be strongly inaccessible in N1 g. Since
Let I D INS
N1 D LS
for some S , it follows that !1 is a limit of indiscernibles of N1 g, and so exists.
Let
M D V \ N1 g:
By Theorem 4.63, the ideal I is precipitous in N1 g and N1 g contains the ordinals.
Therefore by Lemma 3.8 and Lemma 3.10, .M ; I / is iterable.
Thus h.M ; I /; a i 2 Pmax and

hH.!2 /; 2; INS iM :8y a :
However M0 2 M and I0 D I \ M . Therefore
h.M ; I /; a i < h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i
and this is a contradiction.
t
u
In the case that the counterexample is actually in L.R/; i. e. is constructible from a
real, then a much stronger statement can be made.
Theorem 4.68. Suppose that there exists a Woodin cardinal with a measurable cardinal above.
Suppose that .x/ is a 1 formula in the language for the structure
hH.!2 /; 2; INS i:
Suppose that A !1 , x 2 R, and that A 2 Lx.
Suppose that M is a countable transitive model,
M ZFC C There is a Woodin cardinal with a measurable above;
x 2 M and that
M 1 V:
3
Then
hH.!2 /; 2; INS i A
if and only if
where AM D A \ !1M .
hH.!2 /; 2; INS iM AM

t
u
176
As a corollary to Theorem 4.67 one obtains the following technical strengthening

of Theorem 4.64. Generalizations of this theorem are the subject of Section 10.3.
Theorem 4.69. Assume ADL.R/ and that for each partial order P ,
1
VP
2 -Determinacy:
hH.!2 /; 2; INS i
and that for some partial order P ,
hH.!2 /; 2; INS iV
Then
:
Pmax
hH.!2 /; 2; INS iL.R/
:
Proof. The theorem follows by a simple absoluteness argument, noting that from the
hypothesis that for every partial order P ,
1
VP
2 -Determinacy;
it follows that for every partial order P ,
V 1 V P I
4
1
i. e. that 4 statements with parameters from V are absolute between V and V P .
It sufces to prove that if is a 2 sentence in the language for the structure
hH.!2 /; INS ; 2i
and if
Pmax
hH.!2 /; 2; INS iL.R/
;
then for each partial order P ,

hH.!2 /; 2; INS iV
:
Fix D 9 .x/ where .x/ is a 1 formula. Thus by Theorem 4.67 there is a

condition h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax such that the following holds.
(1.1) Suppose
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
is a countable iteration and let a D j.a/. Let N be any countable, transitive,

model of ZFC such that:
a) .P .!1 //M N ;
b) !1N D !1M ;
c) Q3 .S / N , for each S 2 N such that S !1N ;
d) If S !1N , S 2 M and if S I then S is a stationary set in N .
Then
177
hH.!2 /; 2; INS iN a :
Now assume toward a contradiction that P is a partial order such that

hH.!2 /; INS ; 2iV
::
Then by the iteration lemmas, (1.1) must fail in V P . But this is a contradiction since
(1.1) is expressible as a 14 statement about t where t 2 R codes the condition
h.M; I /; ai.
t
u
A stronger form of the absoluteness theorem is actually true. This arises from
expanding the structure hH.!2 /; 2; INS i by adding predicates for each set of reals in
L.R/. The expanded structure
hH.!2 /; 2 ; INS ; X I X 2 L.R/; X Ri
is a natural one to consider in the presence of suitable large cardinals. In this case each
set X R with X 2 L.R/ has a canonical interpretation in any generic extension of V
just as borel sets have canonical interpretations. We shall need the following corollary
to the results in Section 2.2.
Lemma 4.70. Suppose X R and let Y R be the set of reals which code elements
of the rst order diagram of the structure
hH.!1 /; 2; X i:
Suppose S and T are trees on ! such that
(1) S and T are weakly homogeneous,
(2) X D pS and Y D pT .
Suppose P 2 V and G P is V -generic. Let XG D pS and let YG D pT , each
computed in V G. Then in V G,
hH.!1 /V ; 2; X i hH.!1 /V G ; 2; XG i:
hH.!2 /; X; 2; INS i
.x/ is a 1 formula in the
where X R is a set in L.R/. Suppose that

Pmax
hH.!2 /; X; 2; INS iL.R/
9x .x/:
Then there is a condition h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax and a set b 2 H.!2 /M such that if
h.M ; I /; a i h.M; I /; ai
and if .M ; I / is X -iterable then
hH.!2 /M ; X \ M ; 2; I i
t
u
b
where b D j.b/ and j W .M; I / ! .M ; I / is the iteration such that j.a/ D a .
178
t
u
Proof. The proof is identical to the proof of Theorem 4.61.

We now prove the strong form of the absoluteness theorem.
Theorem 4.72. Assume is a Woodin cardinal and that every set
X 2 P .R/ \ L.R/
C
is weakly homogeneously Suslin. Suppose is a 2 sentence in the language for

the structure
hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; X I X 2 L.R/; X Ri
and that
hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; X I X 2 L.R/; X Ri :
Then
Pmax
:
Proof. We sketch the argument which is really just a minor modication of the proof
of Theorem 4.65.
Let .x; y/ be a 0 formula such that D 8x9y: .x; y/ (up to logical equivalence). Clearly we may assume that contains only 1 unary predicate from those
additional predicates for the sets of reals we have added to the structure
hH.!2 /; 2; INS i:
Let X be the corresponding set of reals. Assume toward a contradiction that
Pmax
hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; X iL.R/
::
Then by Theorem 4.71, there is a condition h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax and a set

b 2 H.!2 /M
such that:
(1.1) For all
h.M ; I /; a i h.M; I /; ai;
if .M ; I / is X -iterable then

hH.!2 /M ; 2; I ; X \ M i 8y b
where b D j.b/ and j W .M; I / ! .M ; I / is the iteration such that
j.a/ D a .
By Theorem 4.41, we may assume by rening h.M; I /; ai if necessary, that .M; I / is
X -iterable and that X \ M 2 M.
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
such that:
179
(2.1) j.!1M / D !1 ;
(2.2) J \ M D I ;
(2.3) X \ M D j.X \ M/.
Let B D j.b/ and let A D j.a/. The sentence holds in V and so there exists a
set D 2 H.!2 / such that
hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; X i : B; D:
Let be the least Woodin cardinal and let T be a C -weakly homogeneous tree
such that X D pT .
Let
Q D Coll.!1 ; </ P
be an iteration dened in V such that P is ccc in V Coll.!1 ;</ ,
V Q MA C :CH;
and such that Q has cardinality in V .
Let G Q be V -generic.
By Theorem 4.63, the nonstationary ideal on !1 is precipitous in V G. Since
.INS /V D .INS /V G \ V
and since
is a 0 formula, it follows that

hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; XG iV G : B; D;
where XG D pT V G .
Let be the least strongly inaccessible cardinal above . For trivial reasons (there
are sets which are not
11 and which are C -weakly homogeneously Suslin) exists
C
and further X is -weakly homogeneously Suslin. Let IG be the nonstationary ideal
on !1 (computed in V G).
Let g Coll.!; / be V G generic. Thus by Lemma 3.8 and Lemma 3.10,
.V G; IG / is iterable in V Gg. Let X.G;g/ D pT V Gg . It follows that
.V G; IG / is X.G;g/ -iterable in V Gg.
Therefore in V Gg,
hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; XG iV G : B; D;
and so in V Gg;
(3.1) h.V G; IG /; Ai 2 Pmax ,
(3.2) h.V G; IG /; Ai < h.M; I /; ai,
(3.3) h.V G; IG /; Ai is X.G;g/ iterable,
(3.4) hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; XG iV G :8y j.b/, where
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
is the iteration such that j.a/ D A.
180
Finally, in V , every set which is projective in X is C -weakly homogeneously

Suslin. Therefore by Lemma 4.70,
hH.!1 /V ; 2; X i hH.!1 /V Gg ; 2; X.G;g/ i
for sentences with parameters from H.!1 /V . This contradicts (1.1); i. e. the choice of
h.M; I /; ai in V .
t
u
We obtain as a corollary the following theorem.
Theorem 4.73. Assume that there are ! many Woodin cardinals with a measurable
above. Suppose is a 2 sentence in the language for the structure
hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; X I X 2 L.R/; X Ri
and that
hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; X I X 2 L.R/; X Ri :
Then
Pmax
:
Proof. Let be the least ordinal which is a limit of Woodin cardinals. Let be a
measurable cardinal above . By the results of .Koellner and Woodin 2010/ if X R
and X 2 L.R/ then X is < weakly homogeneously Suslin. Therefore the theorem
now follows from Theorem 4.72.
t
u
The strengthened absoluteness theorem has in some sense a converse. We rst
prove a technical lemma which, while not strictly necessary for the proof of Theorem 4.76, does simplify things a little.
Lemma 4.74. Assume that for some countable elementary substructure,
X0 H.!2 /;
MX0 is iterable where MX0 is the transitive collapse of X0 .
Suppose that h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i 2 Pmax and that h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i 2 Pmax are conditions
such that there exist iterations
j0 W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
and
j1 W .M1 ; I1 / ! .M1 ; I1 /
satisfying
(i) j0 .a0 / D j1 .a1 /,
(ii) I0 D M0 \ INS ,
(iii) I1 D M1 \ INS .
Then h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i and h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i are compatible in Pmax .
181
Proof. Suppose
X H.!2 /
is a countable elementary substructure such that
h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i; h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i; j0 ; j1 X:
Let MX be the transitive collapse of X . Let .j0X ; j1X / be the image of .j0 ; j1 / and let
IX be the image of INS \ X under the collapsing map.
By Theorem 3.16, .MX ; IX / is iterable.
By Theorem 3.22, for every x 2 R, x exists. Therefore by Lemma 4.38 there
exists h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax such that
MX 2 H.!1 /M :
By Lemma 4.36, there exists in M an iteration
j W .MX ; IX / ! .MX ; IX /
such that IX D I \ MX .
Let b D j.j0X .a0 //. The iteration j.j0X / witnesses that
h.M; I /; bi < h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i;
and the iteration
j.j1X /
witnesses that
h.M; I /; bi < h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i:
t
u
Remark 4.75. Lemma 4.74 can be proved under a variety of assumptions. For example it follows from the assumption that there is a Woodin cardinal with a measurable
cardinal above.
t
u
for the structure
hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; X I X 2 L.R/; X Ri
if
Pmax
then
hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; X I X 2 L.R/; X Ri :
Then L.P .!1 // D L.R/G for some G Pmax which is L.R/-generic.
Proof. It sufces to show that for all A 2 P .!1 / n L.R/, A is L.R/-generic for Pmax .
From this it follows by Theorem 4.60 that L.P .!1 // is a Pmax generic extension of
L.R/.
Suppose A !1 and A L.R/. Let
FA Pmax
be the set of all conditions h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax such that there is an iteration
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
such that j.a/ D A and INS \ M D I .
182
We prove that the conditions in FA are pairwise compatible.

The statement that for every A !1 , the conditions in FA are pairwise compatible
is expressible by a 2 sentence in the structure
hH.!2 /; INS ; X; 2i
where X is the set of reals z such that z codes a pair .p; q/ of elements of Pmax which
are incompatible.
By Lemma 4.52 and Lemma 4.74 this sentence holds in L.R/Pmax . Therefore it
holds in V and so for each A !1 , the conditions in FA are pairwise compatible.
If A is L.R/-generic for Pmax then FA D GA where GA is the generic lter given
by A.
Fix D Pmax such that D is dense and D 2 L.R/. Suppose G Pmax is L.R/generic. Then by Theorem 4.60 the following sentence holds in L.R/G:
For all A 2 P .!1 / n L.R/, FA \ D ;.
This is expressible by a 2 sentence in the structure
hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; DiL.R/G
and so by the hypothesis of the theorem it holds in V .
Therefore for all A 2 P .!1 / n L.R/, the lter FA is L.R/-generic. From this it
follows that for each A !1 , if A L.R/ then
L.P .!1 // D L.R/A:
Hence
L.P .!1 // D L.R/G
t
u
Remark 4.77. We shall show in Chapter 10 that it is essential for Theorem 4.76 that
INS be a predicate of the structure even if one assumes in addition Martins Maximum
for partial orders of cardinality c, cf. Theorem 10.70. We shall also show that conally many sets in P .R/ \ L.R/ must also be added, (Theorem 10.90).
t
u
If one assumes in addition that R# exists then Theorem 4.76 can be reformulated
so as to refer only to a structure of countable signature; i. e. the structure of a countable
language.
For each n 2 ! let Un be a set which 1 denable in the structure
hL.R/; hi W i < ni; 2i
where hi W i < ni is an increasing sequence of Silver indiscernibles of L.R/, and such
that Un is universal. Clearly the denition of the set Un depends only on the choice of
the universal formula (and not on the choice of hi W i < ni).
183
Theorem 4.78. Assume ADL.R/ and that R# exists. Suppose that for each 2 sentence in the language for the structure
hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; Un I n < !i
if
Pmax
hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; Un I n < !iL.R/
then
hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; Un I n < !i :
Then L.P .!1 // D L.R/G for some G Pmax which is L.R/-generic.
t
u
In the Theorem 4.78, the sequence,

hUn W n < !i;
can be replaced by any sequence, hUn W n < !i, of sets in L.R/ \ P .R/, provided
that the sequence is conal; i. e. provided that for each set A 2 P .R/ \ L.R/, there
exists n < ! such that A is a continuous preimage of Un .
We end this chapter by stating the following theorem. This theme we shall take up
again in Chapter 10.
Theorem 4.79. Suppose that there exists a model, hM; Ei, such that
hM; Ei ZFC
hH.!2 /; 2iV
then
;
hH.!2 /; 2ihM;E i :
Assume there is an inaccessible cardinal. Then:

(1) For all partial orders P ,
1
VP
1 -Determinacy:
(2) V 12 -Determinacy.
t
u
Remark 4.80. (1) It follows from Theorem 4.67 that Theorem 4.79(2) cannot be
1
signicantly improved; i. e.
2 -Determinacy can fail in V .
(2) Suppose that for each 2 sentence if there exists a partial order P such that
hH.!2 /; 2iV
;
then
hH.!2 /; 2i :
Assume there is an inaccessible cardinal. Must ADL.R/ hold?
t
u
Chapter 5
Applications
We give some applications of the axiom:

Denition 5.1. Axiom ./: AD holds in L.R/ and L.P .!1 // is a Pmax -generic extension of L.R/.
t
u
We begin by proving that ./ implies that
L.P .!1 // AC:
We actually give two proofs, the rst involves a sentence AC which is the subject of
Section 5.1. The second proof works through a variant of AC , this is the sentence AC
which is discussed in Section 5.3. In fact the latter approach is much simpler, however
the sentence AC introduces concepts which we shall use in Chapter 10.
Martins Maximum implies both AC and AC and so Martins Maximum also implies that
L.P .!1 // AC:
The main work of the chapter is in Section 5.7 where we give a reformulation of
./ which does not involve the denition of Pmax or the notion of iterable structures.
5.1
The sentence AC
We now prove Theorem 4.54; i. e. that

L.R/Pmax ZFC:
As we have noted, a second (simpler) proof is given in Section 5.3.
First we x some notation.
Denition 5.2. Suppose S !1 . Then SQ is the set of all < !2 such that !1
and such that if R is a wellordering of !1 of length then
j ordertype.Rj / 2 S
u
t
Thus SQ is the set of < !2 such that !1 and
1 B 2 j.S /
where B D RO.P .!1 / n INS / and
j W V ! .M; E/ V B
is the corresponding generic elementary embedding. Note that !2V is always contained
in the wellfounded part of the generic ultrapower .M; E/.
5.1 The sentence AC
185
Denition 5.3. AC :

(1) There is an !1 sequence of distinct reals.
(2) Suppose hSi W i < !i and hTi W i < !i are sequences of pairwise disjoint
subsets of !1 . Suppose the Si are stationary and suppose that
!1 D [Ti j i < !:
Then there exists < !2 and a continuous increasing function F W !1 !
with conal range such that
F Ti SQi
t
u
for each i < !.
Clearly AC is 2 in the structure hH.!2 /; 2i.

The next lemma is immediate. The idea for using subsets of !2 to dene a
wellordering of the reals in this fashion originates in .Foreman, Magidor, and Shelah
1988/. They use sets
S < !2 j cof./ D !
which are stationary in !2 . The additional ingredient here is using subsets of !1 to
generate these sets. This yields a wellordering which is simpler to dene.
Lemma 5.4 (ZF + DC). Assume AC holds in
hH.!2 /; 2i:
Suppose hSi W i < !i is a partition of !1 into ! many stationary sets. Then there is a
wellordering of the reals which is 1 denable in
hH.!2 /; INS ; 2i
from hSi W i < !i.
Proof. Let hSi W i < !i be a sequence of pairwise disjoint stationary sets. An immediate consequence of AC is that for every set x ! with x ; there exists an ordinal
< !2 such that cof. / D !1 and such that
x D i j SQi \ is stationary in :
Let x be the least such ordinal.
The wellordering of P .!/ n ; is given by x < y if x < y . This wellordering
is 1 denable in
hH.!2 /; INS ; 2i
from hSi W i < !i.
t
u
Lemma 5.5. Suppose that for each set X R with X 2 L.R/, there is a condition
186
5 Applications
(i) X \ M 2 M,
(ii) hH.!1 /M ; X \ Mi hH.!1 /; X i,
L.R/G AC :
Proof. We work in L.R/G.
Necessarily,
P .!1 / L.R/G:
Suppose hSi W i < !i and hTi W i < !i are sequences of pairwise disjoint subsets
of !1 . Suppose the Si are stationary and suppose that !1 D [Ti j i < !.
Let h.M; I /; ai 2 G be such that hSi W i < !i; hTi W i < !i 2 M where
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
is the iteration such that j.a/ D AG . Let hsi W i < !i; hti W i < !i in M be such that
j..hsi W i < !i; hti W i < !i// D .hSi W i < !i; hTi W i < !i/:
Thus in M, hsi W i < !i and hti W i < !i are sequences of pairwise disjoint subsets of
!1M , the si are not in I , and
!1M D [ti j i < !:
Let D be the set of conditions h.N ; J /; bi < h.M; I /; ai such that in N there exist
< !2N and a continuous increasing function F W !1N ! with conal range such
that
F .tiN / sQiN
for each i < ! where tiN D k.ti /, siN D k.si / and k is the embedding of the iteration
of .M; I / which sends a to b. For each i < !, sQiN denotes the set AQ as computed in
N where A D siN .
It sufces to show that D is dense below h.M; I /; ai.
We show something slightly stronger. Suppose
h.N ; J /; bi < h.N0 ; J0 /; b0 i < h.M; I /; ai:
Then for some c 2 N , h.N ; J /; ci 2 D and
h.N ; J /; ci < h.N0 ; J0 /; b0 i < h.M; I /; ai:
si0
Let be the image of si under the iteration of .M; I / which sends a to b0 and let
ti0 be the image of ti under this iteration.
Let x 2 N be a real which codes N0 .
Working in N we dene an iteration of .N0 ; J0 / of length !1N . Let C be the set of
indiscernibles of Lx less than !1N . Let D C be the set of 2 C such that C \
has ordertype . Thus D is a closed unbounded subset of C . Let
h.N ; J /; G ; j; W < !1N i
be an iteration of .N0 ; J0 / in N such that
5.2 Martins Maximum and AC
187
(1.1) for all 2 D and for all < , j0; .si0 / 2 G if 2 j0; .ti0 / where is the
th element of C above ,
(1.2) J! N D J \ N! N .
1
The iteration is easily constructed in N , the point is that the requirements given by
(1.1) and (1.2) do not interfere. The other useful observation is that if 2 C and if
k W .N0 ; J0 / ! .N0 ; J0 / is any iteration of length then D k.!1N0 /.
Let be the .!1N C !1N /th indiscernible of Lx. Let F be the function
F W !1N !
given by F ./ is the th indiscernible of Lx where D !1N C . Thus
(2.1) 2 N ,
(2.2) < !2N ,
(2.3) F 2 N ,
(2.4) F W !1N ! is continuous and strictly increasing.
Let siN D j0;! N .si0 / and let tiN D j0;! N .ti0 /. Let
1
c D j0;! N .b0 /:
1
Thus h.N ; J /; ci 2 Pmax and h.N ; J /; ci < h.N0 ; J0 /; b0 i. By the denition of the
iteration it follows that in N ,
F tiN sQiN
and so h.N ; J /; ci 2 D.
t
u
Lemma 5.5 yields, immediately, two corollaries, noting that by Lemma 4.40, the
hypothesis of Lemma 5.5 is a consequence of ADL.R/ .
Corollary 5.6. Assume ADL.R/ . Then L.R/Pmax ZFC.
t
u
Corollary 5.7. Assume ./ holds. Then AC holds in hH.!2 /; 2i.
t
u
5.2
Martins Maximum and AC
We sketch a proof of the following lemma which we shall use to prove that Martins
Maximum implies AC .
Lemma 5.8. Assume Martins Maximum. Suppose that S !1 is stationary. Then
j 2 SQ and cof ./ D !
188
5 Applications
Proof. Assume Martins Maximum. Let S0 !1 and S1 !1 be stationary sets.

Let P be Namba forcing. Conditions are pairs .s; t / such that
(1.1) t !2<! and t is closed under initial segments,
(1.2) s 2 t ,
(1.3) for all x 2 t if s x then
j < !2 j x _ 2 t j D !2 :
The order on P is dened in the natural fashion:
.s ; t / .s; t /
if s s and t t .
Suppose G is V -generic for P . In V G let ZG S0 ; S1 be the set of countable sets
X !2V such that
(2.1) X \ !1 2 S0 ,
(2.2) ordertype.X / 2 S1 .
We rst prove that in V G the set ZG S0 ; S1 is stationary in P!1 .!2V /.
We work in V .
Let be a term for a closed unbounded subset of P!1 .!2V / and x a condition
.s0 ; t0 / which forces this. If g P is V -generic we let
Cg P!1 .!2V /
be the interpretation of .
By a straightforward fusion argument there exists a condition .s1 ; t1 / < .s0 ; t0 /
and a function
f W t1 ! !2
such that:
(3.1) Suppose that g P is V -generic with .s1 ; t1 / 2 g. Let
g W ! ! !2V
be the function such that for each k < !, there exists t such that .g jk; t / 2 g.
Then
f .g jk/ j k < ! 2 Cg :
(3.2) if x 2 t1 , s1 x and if dom.x/ is even, then for each < !2 ,
j < !2 j x _ 2 t1 and f .x _ / D j D !2 :
It sufces to nd a condition .s2 ; t2 / < .s1 ; t1 / and a pair .0 ; 1 / 2 S0 S1 such
that:
189
(4.1) 0 < 1 .
(4.2) Suppose 2 t2 and let
X D f .jk/ j k < !:
Then
a) X \ !1 D 0 ,
b) ordertype.X / D 1 .
To see this suppose that g P is V -generic with .s2 ; t2 / 2 G. Then in V g, g 2 t2 .
Let
Xg D f .g jk/ j k < !:
Thus Xg 2 Cg . By absoluteness it follows from (4.2(a)) and (4.2(b)) that
Xg \ !1 D 0 and that ordertype.Xg / D 1 . Therefore Xg 2 Zg S0 ; S1 and so
Cg \ Zg S0 ; S1 ;:
To nd .0 ; 1 / and .s2 ; t2 / we associate to each pair
.0 ; 1 / 2 S0 S1
with 0 < 1 a game, G .0 ; 1 /, as follows: Player I plays to construct a sequence
h.i ; iI / W i < !i
of pairs such that .i ; iI / 2 !2 1 . Player II plays to construct a sequence
h.bi ; ni ; iII / W i < !i
of triples .bi ; ni ; iII / 2 t1 ! 1 . Let hi W i < !i be the sequence such that for all
i < !, 2iC1 D iI and 2i D iII .
The requirements are as follows: For each i < j < !,
(5.1) bi biC1 and dom.bi / D i ,
(5.2) if s1 bi then biC1 D bi _ for some > i ,
(5.3) f .b2iC1 / < !1 if and only if i < 0 ,
(5.4) ni is odd and
f .bi / D f .bni /;
(5.5) f .b2iC1 / f .b2j C1 / if and only if i j .

The rst player to violate the requirements loses otherwise Player II wins. Thus
the game is determined.
The key property of the game is the following. Suppose that h.i ; iI / W i < !i
and h.bi ; ni ; iII / W i < !i dene an innite run of the game which satises (5.1)(5.5)
(and so represents a win for Player II). Let hi W i < !i be the sequence such that for
all i < !, 2i D iI and 2iC1 D iII . Suppose that
1 D i j i < !:
190
5 Applications
Let X D f .bi / j i < !. Then X \ !1 D 0 and

ordertype.X / D 1 :
We claim that there must exist .0 ; 1 / 2 S0 S1 such that 0 < 1 and such that
Player II has a winning strategy in the game G .0 ; 1 /.
The proof requires only that INS is presaturated.
Let
G0 .P .!1 / n INS ; /
be V -generic with S0 2 G and let
j0 W V ! M0 V G0
be the associated generic elementary embedding. Let
G1 .P .!1 / n INS ; /M0
be M0 -generic with j0 .S1 / 2 G1 and let
j1 W M0 ! M1 M0 G1
be the generic elementary embedding given by G1 .
Thus
j1 j0 .!2 / D supj1 j0 ./ j < !2 :
Further, since !2V D j0 .!1V /,
.!1V ; !2V / 2 j1 j0 .S0 / j1 j0 .S1 /:
It follows by absoluteness, using the property (3.2) of f , that in M1 , Player II has a
winning strategy in the game G .!1V ; !2V /.
Therefore in V there must exist a pair .0 ; 1 / 2 S0 S1 such that 0 < 1
and such that Player II has a winning strategy in the game G .0 ; 1 /. Fix such a pair
.0 ; 1 / and let
hi W i < !i
enumerate 1 .
Let be a winning strategy for Player II in the game G .0 ; 1 /. It is straightforward to construct a condition
.s2 ; t2 / .s1 ; t1 /
such that if 2 t2 is a conal branch of t2 then there exists a sequences hi W i < !i
and h.bi ; ni / W i < !i such that
(6.1) for all i < !, i < !2 ,
(6.2) h.bi ; ni / W i < !i is the response of to Player I playing h.i ; i / W i < !i,
(6.3) D [bi j i < !.
191
Since 1 D i j i < ! it follows that if is a conal branch of t2 then

f .ji / j i < ! \ !1 D 0
and that
ordertype.f .ji / j i < !/ D 1 :
Thus .s2 ; t2 / is as required.
This proves the claim that if G P is V -generic then in V G, the set ZG S0 ; S1
is stationary in P!1 .!2V /.
For each set A !1 and for each ordinal > !1 let QA; be the partial order
dened as follows. Condition are partial functions
p W <! !
such that:
(7.1) dom.p/ is countable.
(7.2) Suppose X is such that X <! dom.p/ and such that pX <! X .
Then
ordertype.X / 2 A:
Suppose that p0 2 QA; and that p1 2 QA; . Then p0 p1 if p1 p0 .
It is straightforward to prove that if S !1 is stationary then S is stationary in
V QA; if and only if the set of X 2 P!1 ./ such that
(8.1) X \ !1 2 S ,
(8.2) ordertype.X / 2 A,
is stationary in P!1 ./.
Now suppose that S !1 is a stationary set and that C !2 is closed and
unbounded. Suppose G P is V -generic and let Q be the partial order QS; !2V as
dened in V G. Let H Q be V G-generic. Thus
Q V GH :
!2V 2 .S/
Suppose that T !1 is a stationary set in V . Then in V G the set ZG T; S is stationary in P!1 .!2V / and so by the remarks above, in V GH , the set T is stationary.
Thus stationary sets are preserved by the iteration P Q.
Applying Martins Maximum to P Q yields a function
W ! ! !2
and a function
F W <! !
192
5 Applications
such that:
(9.1) D sup.i / j i < !.
(9.2) .i / j i < ! .
(9.3) C \ is conal in .
(9.4) Suppose X 2 P!1 . / and that F X <! X . Then ordertype.X / 2 S .
Q
Thus 2 C \ S.
t
u
From Lemma 5.8 and the results of .Foreman, Magidor, and Shelah 1988/ we
obtain the following corollary.
H.!2 / AC :
Proof. The relevant result of .Foreman, Magidor, and Shelah 1988/ is the following.
Assume Martins Maximum. Suppose hTi W i < !i are pairwise disjoint subsets of !1
and that !1 D [Ti j i < !. Suppose hSi W i < !i are pairwise disjoint stationary
subsets of !2 such that for all i < !, Si C! where
C! D < !2 j cof D !:
Then there exists an ordinal < !2 and a continuous (strictly) increasing function
F W !1 ! with conal range such that
F Ti Si
for each i < !.
This together with the previous lemma yields that Martins Maximum implies AC .
t
u
Thus:
L.P .!1 // ZFC:
5.3
The sentence
AC
We prove that ./ implies a variant of AC . This sentence implies

L.P .!1 // AC,
and in addition it implies
2@0 D 2@1 D @2 .
t
u
5.3 The sentence
AC
193
Further this sentence can be used in place of MA!1 in dening Pmax , an alternate approach which will be useful in dening some of the Pmax variations, cf. Denition 6.91.
We will also consider, in Section 7.2, versions of this sentence relativized to a normal
ideal on !1 .
Denition 5.11. AC : Suppose S !1 and T !1 are stationary, co-stationary, sets.
Then there exist < !2 , a bijection
W !1 ! ;
and a closed unbounded set C !1 such that
< !1 j ordertype./ 2 T \ C D S \ C:
t
u
Thus AC asserts that for each pair .S; T / of stationary, co-stationary, subsets of
!1 , there exists an ordinal < !2 such that
S INS D 2 j.T / in V B
where
B D RO.P .!1 /=INS /
and
j W V ! .M; E/ V B
is the corresponding generic elementary embedding. This implies (in ZF) that the
boolean algebra
P .!1 /=INS
can be wellordered (in length at most !2 ).
Lemma 5.12 (ZF + DC). Assume
AC
holds in
hH.!2 /; 2i:
Suppose hS W < !1 i is a partition of !1 into !1 many stationary sets. Then there is
a surjection
W !2 ! P .!1 /
which is 1 denable in
hH.!2 /; INS ; 2i
from hS W < !1 i.
Proof. For each set A !1 let
SA D [SC1 j 2 A
and let SA D S0 if A D ;.
The key point is that if A !1 , B !1 , and if A B then
SA M SB INS :
Dene
W !2 ! P .!1 /
194
5 Applications
by ./ D A if there is a surjection

W !1 !
and a closed set C !1 such that
< !1 j ordertype./ 2 S0 \ C D SA \ C:
If no such set A exists then ./ D ;.
Since AC holds, is a surjection. It is easily veried that is is 1 denable in
hH.!2 /; INS ; 2i
from hS W < !1 i.
t
u
The proof that Martins Maximum implies AC is actually much simpler then the
proof we have given that Martins Maximum implies AC . The reason is that our approach to proving AC from Martins Maximum was through Lemma 5.8 which established quite a bit more than is necessary. Here we take a more direct approach which
only requires a special case of the reection principle, SRP, an observation due independently to P. Larson. The special case is SRP for subsets of P!1 .!2 /, which can be
proved from just Martins Maximum.c/. This special case is discussed in Section 9.3.
Theorem 5.13. Assume Martins Maximum.c/. Then
H.!2 /
AC :
Proof. Fix stationary sets S0 !1 and T0 !1 . Let

Z D X 2 P!1 .!2 / j X \ !1 2 S0 if and only if ordertype.X / 2 T0 :
It sufces to prove that for each stationary set S !1 , the set
ZS D X 2 Z j X \ !1 2 S
is stationary in P!1 .!2 /.
Let S !1 be stationary. The claim that ZS is stationary in P!1 .!2 / follows by
an absoluteness argument using the fact that INS is !2 -saturated.
Fix a function
H W !2<! ! !2 :
We must prove that
ZS \ X 2 P!1 .!2 / j H X <! X ;:
Let
G Coll.!; !2 /
be V -generic and in V G, let
j0;2 W V ! M2 V G
be an iteration of .V; INS / of length 2 such that
(1.1) !1V 2 j0;1 .S /,
(1.2) !2V 2 j0;2 .T0 / if and only if !1V 2 j0;1 .S0 /.
5.3 The sentence
AC
195
Let
X D j0;2 !2V ;
the image of !2V under j0;2 . Thus
(2.1) ordertype.X / < j0;2 .!1V /,
(2.2) j0;2 .H /X <! X ,
(2.3) X \ j0;2 .!1V / 2 j0;2 .S /,
(2.4) X \ j0;2 .!1V / 2 j0;2 .S0 / if and only if ordertype.X / 2 j0;2 .T0 /.
By absoluteness such a set X must exist in M2 and so by the elementarity of j0;2 ,
it follows that in V
X 2 ZS j H X <! X ;:
Thus ZS is stationary in P!1 .!2 /.
By Martins Maximum.c/, there exists 0 < !2 such that !1 < 0 and such that
Z \ P!1 .0 /
is closed unbounded in P!1 .0 /. Let
0 W !1 ! 0
be a surjection. It follows that .0 ; 0 / witnesses that
AC
holds for .S0 ; T0 /.
t
u
Larson has also noted that the proof of Theorem 5.13 easily adapts to show that
Martins Maximum.c/ implies AC . We note that Lemma 5.8 cannot be proved from
just Martins Maximum.c/. Therefore, for the proof that we have given that Martins
Maximum implies AC , Martins Maximum.c/ does not sufce. Finally Larson has
proved versions of Lemma 5.8 showing for example that Martins Maximum.c/ implies
that for each stationary set S !1 , SQ is stationary in !2 and that
SQ \ < !2 j cof./ D ! ;:
The sentence,
boolean algebra
AC ,
implies that for each stationary, co-stationary, set T !1 , the

P .!1 /=INS
is (trivially) generated by the term for j.T /. This fact combined with Theorem 3.51
yields the following lemma as an immediate corollary.
AC
holds. Then
2@0 D 2@1 D @2 :
Proof. By Theorem 3.51, 2@0 D 2@1 . By Lemma 5.12, 2@1 @2 .
t
u
The next lemma shows that AC serves successfully in place of MA!1 in the denition of Pmax . This lemma is really just a special case of the claim given at the beginning
of the proof of Theorem 3.51.
196
5 Applications
Lemma 5.15. Suppose M is a countable transitive set such that

M ZFC C
Suppose a 2 M,
AC :
a !1M ;
and
M a is a stationary, co-stationary, set in !1 :
Suppose
j1 W M ! M1
and
j2 W M ! M2
are semi-iterations of M such that M1 is transitive, M2 is transitive and such that
j1 .a/ D j2 .a/:
Proof. Fix a and suppose that
hM ; G ; j; j < i
is a semi-iteration of M such that M is transitive for all .
We prove that G0 , M1 and
j0;1 W M ! M1
are uniquely specied by j0; .a/ \ !2M .
We note that since G0 is an M-normal ultralter,
G0 D b !1M j b 2 M and !1M 2 j0;1 .b/:
Therefore since
M
AC
it follows that G0 is completely determined by

j0;1 .a/ \ !2M :
To see this x b 2 M such that b !1M . We may suppose that
b .INS /M
and that
!1M n b .INS /M :
Therefore there exist < !2M , a bijection

W !1M !
and c !1M such that
(1.1) 2 M, c 2 M,
(1.2) c is closed and conal in !1M ,
(1.3) < !1M j ordertype./ 2 a \ c D b \ c.
5.3 The sentence
AC
197
But this implies that

b 2 G0 $ 2 j0;1 .a/
since is the ordertype of j0;1 ./!1M .
Thus G0 is determined by j0;1 .a/ \ !2M and so M1 and j0;1 are uniquely specied
by j0;1 .a/ \ !2M .
Finally j0; D j1; j0;1 and !2M !1M1 . Therefore
j0;1 .a/ \ !2M D j0; .a/ \ !2M
and so G0 , M1 and j0;1 are uniquely specied by j0; .a/ \ !2M .
By induction on it follows in a similar fashion that for all < ,
hM ; j; j < C 1i
and
hG j i
M
are uniquely specied by j0; .a/ \ !2 .

The lemma follows noting that since
j1 .a/ D j2 .a/
it follows that
j1 .!1M /
j2 .!1M /.
t
u
The proof that ./ implies AC is simplied by rst proving the following technical
lemma which isolates the combinatorial essence of the implication.
Lemma 5.16 (ZFC ). Suppose that x 2 R codes
h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax
and that x # exists. Let C be the set of of the Silver indiscernibles of Lx below !1 and
let C 0 be the limit points of C . Suppose that
s; t .P .!1 //M n I
is such that both !1M0 n s I and !1M0 n t I . Suppose J is a normal, uniform, ideal
on !1 . Then there exists an iteration
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
of length !1 such that
and such that for all 2 C 0 ,
if and only if
I D J \ M
2 j.s/
C 2 j.t /
where C is the least element of C above .
198
5 Applications
Proof. We modify the proof of Lemma 4.36 using the notation from that proof. The
modication is a minor one.
Choose the sequence hAk; W k < !; < !1 i of J positive, pairwise disjoint, sets
such that
[Ak; j k < ! and < !1 C 0 :
Following the proof of Lemma 4.36 construct the iteration
h.M ; I /; G ; j; W < !1 i
of .M; I / to satisfy the additional requirement that for all 2 C 0 ,
2 j0;C1 .s/
if and only if
j0; .t / 2 G
C
where D .
For each 2 C if
h.M ; I /; G ; j; W < i
is any iteration of length then
j0; .!1M / D
and so this additional requirement does not interfere with the original requirements
indicated in the proof of Lemma 4.36. Thus
j0;!1 W .M; I / ! .M!1 ; I!1 /
t
u
is as desired.
Lemma 5.17. Assume ./ holds. Then
AC
holds.
Proof. Fix a lter G Pmax such that G is L.R/-generic.

Necessarily,
P .!1 / L.R/G:
Fix subsets S and T of !1 such that each are both stationary and co-stationary.
Therefore there exist
h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i 2 G;
s 2 M0 and t 2 M0 such that j.s/ D S and j.t / D T where
j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
is the (unique) iteration such that j.a0 / D AG . Thus
s; t; !1M0 n s; !1M0 n t \ I0 D ;:
Let x0 code M0 , let C be the set of Silver indiscernibles of Lx0 below !1 and let
C 0 be the set of limit points of C .
By Lemma 5.16, since G is generic, we may suppose, by modifying the choice of
h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i if necessary, that for all 2 C 0 ,
2 j.s/
5.4 The stationary tower and Pmax
199
if and only if
C 2 j.t /
where for each 2 C , C denotes the least element of C above .
Thus for all 2 C 0 ,
2S
if and only if
C 2 T:
Let be the least Silver indiscernible of Lx0 above !1 and let
W !1 !
be a bijection.
Thus there exists a club D C 0 such that for all 2 D,
ordertype. / D C :
Therefore
< !1 j ordertype. / 2 T \ D D S \ D:
This proves the lemma.
5.4
t
u
The stationary tower and Pmax
We sketch a different presentation of Pmax . This leads to different proofs of the absoluteness theorems. This approach will be useful in proving absoluteness theorems for
some of the variations of Pmax that we shall dene, cf. Theorem 6.85.
Another feature of this approach is that it much easier to show that suitable conditions exist. This is because the generic iterations are based on elementary embeddings
associated to the stationary tower and not to an ideal on !1 . Thus no forcing arguments
are required to produce conditions.
Recall from Section 2.3 the following conventions. Suppose is a Woodin cardinal. Then Q< is the partial order given by the stationary tower restricted to V and
restricted to sets of countable sets.
We let I< denote the associated directed system of ideals. This is dened as
follows. For each < , let
I D a P!1 .V / j a is not stationary in P!1 .V /:
If < there is a natural map
; W I ! I
given by
; .c/ D 2 P!1 .V / j \ V 2 c:
I< is the directed system of ideals, hI ; ; W < < i. A set a 2 V is
I< -positive if a P!1 .[a/ and a is stationary. Thus I< can be naturally identied
with the set of a 2 V such that a P!1 .[ a/ and such that a is not stationary.
Q< is the set of a 2 V such that a is I< -positive.
We generalize the notions of iterability to the current context.
200
5 Applications
Denition 5.18. Suppose M is a countable model of ZFC and I 2 M is the directed

system I< as computed in M for some 2 M which is a Woodin cardinal in M .
(1) A sequence
h.M ; I /; G ; j; W < < i
is an iteration of .M; I/ if the following hold.
a) M0 D M and I0 D I.
b) j; W M ! M j < < is a commuting family of elementary
embeddings.
c) For each C 1 < , G is M -generic for .Q< /M , M C1 is the M ultrapower of M by G and j ; C1 W M ! M C1 is the induced elementary embedding. Here D j0; ./ and so
.Q< /M D j0; .QM
< /:
d) For each < if is a nonzero limit ordinal then M is the direct limit
of M j < and for all < , j; is the induced elementary
embedding.
(2) If is a limit ordinal then is the length of the iteration, otherwise the length of
(3) A pair .N; J / is an iterate of .M; I/ if it occurs in an iteration of .M; I/.
(4) The structure .M; I/ is iterable if every iterate of M is wellfounded. Suppose
A R. An iterable structure, .M; I/, is A-iterable if A \ M 2 M and if for all
iterations
j W .M; I/ ! .N; J /;
j.A \ M / D A \ N .
t
u
The next lemma, while not strictly necessary for what follows, does simplify some
of the denitions. The lemma justies the identication of an iteration of .M; I/ with
the resulting elementary embedding.
Lemma 5.19. Suppose M is a countable model of ZFC and I 2 M is the directed
system I< as computed in M for some 2 M which is a Woodin cardinal in M .
Suppose
h.M ; I /; G ; j; W < < i
is an iteration of .M; I/ of length . Then for each < the sequence
h.M ; I /; G ; j; W < < i
is uniquely determined by the elementary embedding,
j0; W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M ; I /:
201
Proof. For each < < ,

G D a 2 M \ V j j; [a 2 j; .a/
where
D j0; ./. This is easily veried by induction on , xing .
t
u
We extend Denition 5.18 to sequences of models.

h.Mk ; Ik ; k / W k < !i
is a countable sequence such that for each k, Mk is a countable transitive model of
ZFC. Suppose k 2 Mk and for all k:
(i) k is a Woodin cardinal in Mk , k < kC1 , Ik 2 Mk and
Ik D .I<k /Mk I
Mk
(ii) Mk 2 MkC1 and !1
MkC1
D !1
(iii) .Q<k /Mk D Mk \ Vk \ .Q<kC1 /MkC1 .

An iteration of h.Mk ; Ik / W k < !i is a sequence
hh.Mk ; Ik / W k < !i; G ; j; W < < i
such that
j; W [Mk j k < ! ! [Mk j k < ! j < <
is a commuting family of 0 elementary embeddings and such that the following hold
for all < < .
(1) For each k < !,
G \ j0; ..Q<k /Mk /
is Mk -generic for j0; ..Q<k /Mk /.
(2) For each k < !, MkC1 is the [Mk j k < !-ultrapower of Mk by G and
j;C1 jMk W Mk ! MkC1
is the induced elementary embedding. The ultrapower of Mk is computed using
all functions, f 2 [Mi j i < !, such that
f W a ! Mk
for some a 2 G .
(3) If is a limit ordinal then for every k < !, Mk is the direct limit of
Mk j < and for all < , j; is the induced 0 elementary embedding.
202
5 Applications
A sequence h.Mk ; Ik / W k < !i is an iterate of h.Mk ; Ik / W k < !i if it occurs in
an iteration of h.Mk ; Ik / W k < !i.
The sequence h.Mk ; Ik / W k < !i is iterable if every iterate is wellfounded.
t
u
The next two lemmas are the generalizations of Lemma 3.8 and Lemma 3.10 to
iterations based on the stationary tower. We omit the proofs which are straightforward
modications of the previous arguments.
Lemma 5.21. Suppose M and M are countable transitive models of ZFC such that
M 2 M :

. Let I D .I< /M
Suppose 2 M , is a Woodin cardinal in M , and MC1 D MC1
and suppose
h.M ; I /; G ; j; W < < i
is an iteration of .M; I/. Then there corresponds uniquely an iteration

h.M ; I /; G ; j;
W < < i
of .M ; I/ such that for all < :

(1) j ./ D j ./;
(2) j .M / D j .M /;
(3) G D G .
Further for all < there is an elementary embedding

k W M ! j0;
.M /

such that j0;
jM D k j0; .
t
u
Lemma 5.22. Suppose M is a countable transitive model of ZFC, 2 M and is a

Woodin cardinal in M . Let I D .I< /M and suppose
h.M ; I /; G ; j; W < < i
is an iteration of .M; I/ of length where M \ Ord. Then M is wellfounded for
all < .
t
u
The main lemma for the existence of iterable structures .M; I/ is the routine generalization of Theorem 4.41. We state the lemma in a slightly stronger form, producing M such that if M g is a generic extension of M by a partial order in M then
.M g; Ig / is suitably iterable, where 2 M is the Woodin cardinal associated to I
and Ig D .I< /M g is the tower of ideals corresponding to .Q< /M g .
203
Lemma 5.23. Suppose is a Woodin cardinal and that is the least strongly inaccessible cardinal above . Suppose
X V
is a countable elementary substructure. Let .M; I/ be the transitive collapse of
.X; I< \ X / and let X be the image of under the collapsing map. Suppose that
A 2 P .R/ \ X and that every set of reals which is projective in A is C -weakly
homogeneously Suslin. Suppose that
P 2 MX
is a partial order and that g P is an M -generic lter with g 2 V . Let
Ig D .I<X /M g :
Then:
(1) hV!C1 \ M g; A \ M g; 2i hV!C1 ; A; 2i;
(2) .M g; Ig / is A-iterable.
Proof. Fix
X V
such that X is countable. Clearly 2 X since is denable in V .
Let .M; I; X / be the image of .V ; I< ; / under the collapsing map.
Suppose A 2 X , A R and for all B R such that B is projective in A, B is
C -weakly homogeneously Suslin.
Let
Since is the least strongly inaccessible above , every set in is weakly homogeneously Suslin. Therefore if G0 is M -generic for a partial order P0 2 M , with
G0 2 V , then A \ M G0 2 M G0 and
hH.!1 /M G0 ; A \ M G0 ; 2i hH.!1 /; A; 2i:
This follows by Lemma 2.29.
Fix a partial order P 2 MX and suppose that
gP
is an M -generic lter with g 2 V . Let
Ig D .I<X /M g :
Thus
hH.!1 /M g ; A \ M g; 2i hH.!1 /; A; 2i;
and so (1) holds.
Suppose 2 X , < and
V ZFC:
204
5 Applications
Let X be the image of under the collapsing map. Let S and T be trees on ! 2
such that if G Coll.!; / then
.pS /V G D AV G
and
.pT /V G D .R n A/V G :
Since 2 X we may suppose that
S; T X:
Let .SX ; TX / be the image of .S; T / under the collapsing map.
Suppose G Coll.!; X / is M g-generic with G 2 V . Therefore by the remarks
above,
A \ M gG 2 M gG
and
hH.!1 /M gG ; A \ M gG; 2i hH.!1 /; A; 2i:
Suppose
j W .M X g; Ig / ! ..M X /g ; Ig /
is a countable iteration with j 2 M gG. Then by Lemma 5.21, j lifts to dene a

countable iteration
k W .M g; Ig / ! .M g ; Ig /
where kjM g 2 M gG for all 2 M \ Ord. By Lemma 5.22, M g is wellfounded.
Noting
A \ M gG D pSX \ M gG
we have
and so
Similarly
k.A \ M g/ D k.pSX \ M g/ D pk.SX / \ M g

pSX \ M g k.A \ M g/:
pTX \ M g k.M g \ .R n A//:
However
pTX \ M gG D .R n pSX / \ M gG
and so
k.A \ M g/ D pSX \ M g D pSX \ .M X g/
since R \ .M X g/ D R \ M g .

Thus in M gG, the structure .M X g; Ig / is A \ M gG-iterable. Finally
.M X g; Ig /
205
is countable in M gG and

hH.!1 /M gG ; A \ M gG; 2i hH.!1 /; A; 2i:
Therefore .M X g; Ig / is A-iterable in V .
The set of 2 M g such that
M g ZFC
is conal in M g and so .M g; Ig / is A-iterable.
t
u
Remark 5.24. Lemma 5.23 can be proved with weaker requirements on the set A.
The approximate converse of this strengthened version of Lemma 5.23 is proved as
Lemma 6.59, in Section 6.2.2 where we consider the Pmax -variation, Qmax .
t
u
Denition 5.25. Suppose .M; I/ is a countable iterable structure where I is the directed system of nonstationary ideals, I< , for some 2 M such that is a Woodin
cardinal in M. Suppose
h.M ; I /; G ; j; W < !1 i
is an iteration of .M; I/ of length !1 . The iteration is full if for all < !1 and for all
a 2 M such that a is I -positive, the set
< !1 j j; .a/ 2 G
t
u
The next lemma accounts in part for the restriction to iterations which are full.
Lemma 5.26. Suppose .M; I/ is a countable iterable structure where I is the directed
system of nonstationary ideals, I< , for some 2 M such that is a Woodin cardinal
in M. Suppose
h.M ; I /; G ; j; W < !1 i
is an iteration of .M; I/ of length !1 .
(1) Suppose D 2 M!1 ,
D j0;!1 .QM
< /;
and that D is dense. Suppose A is stationary in P!1 .M!1 /. Then there exists
B A such that B is stationary in A and such that B b for some b 2 D.
(2) Suppose that the iteration is full. Then for each < !1 and for each a 2 M
such that a is I -positive, j;!1 .a/ is stationary set in V .
Proof. The proofs of (1) and (2) are similar. We rst prove (1). Fix A and D. Since
D 2 M!1 there exists < !1 and D 2 M such that
D D j;!1 .D /:
Let A be the set of X 2 P!1 .H.!2 // such that
206
5 Applications
(1.1) X H.!2 /,
(1.2) X \ M!1 2 A,
(1.3) M 2 X ,
(1.4) h.M ; I /; G ; j; W < !1 i 2 X .
Thus A is stationary.
Suppose X 2 A . Let D X \!1 . G is M -generic and so G \j; .D / ;.
Therefore there exist X < and bX 2 MX such that
jX ; .bX / 2 G \ j; .D /:
Clearly X 2 X and bX 2 X . A is stationary and so there exist 0 and b0 2 M0
such that
B D X 2 A j X D 0 and bX D b0
is stationary in P!1 .H.!2 //. Let b D j0 ;!1 .b0 /. Thus b 2 D.
For each X 2 B let
bX D j0 ; .b0 /
where D X \ !1 . Thus for each X 2 B,
bX 2 G \ j; .D /
where again D X \ !1 .
We claim that B b. To prove this it sufces to show that for each X 2 B,
X \ .[b/ 2 b:
Fix X 2 B. Let D X \ !1 and let
D j; C1 .t / j t 2 [bX :
By the properties of the generic elementary embedding associated to the stationary
tower and since bX 2 G ,
2 j; C1 .bX /:
Further is countable in M C1 since
j; C1 .bX / 2 j0; C1 .QM
< /:
Therefore
j C1;!1 . / D j C1;!1 .t / j t 2
and so
j;!1 .t / j t 2 [bX 2 j;!1 .bX /:
However
X \ .[b/ D j;!1 .t / j t 2 [bX
since
b D j0 ;!1 .b0 / D j;!1 .j0 ; .b0 // D j;!1 .bX /:
207
Therefore
X \ [b 2 b:
Thus B b and this proves (1).
We now prove (2). Fix 0 < !1 and a 2 G0 . Let
S D < !1 j j0 ; .a/ 2 G :
Since the iteration is full, S is a stationary subset of !1 . It sufces to prove that for
each function
F W H.!2 /<! ! H.!2 /
there exists X H.!2 / such that
X \ .[j0 ;!1 .a// 2 j0 ;!1 .a/:
Fix F and let X H.!2 / be a countable elementary substructure such that
(2.1) X \ !1 2 S ,
(2.2) M0 2 X ,
(2.3) h.M ; I /; G0 ; j0 ; W 0 < !1 i 2 X .
Let 0 D X \ !1 . As above, since j0 ;0 .a/ 2 G0 ,
j0 ;!1 .t / j t 2 [j0 ;0 .a/ 2 j0 ;!1 .a/:
It follows that
X \ .[j0 ;!1 .a// D j0 ;!1 .t / j t 2 [j0 ;0 .a/:
Therefore
X \ .[j0 ;!1 .a// 2 j0 ;!1 .a/:
This proves (2).
t
u
(T)
Denition 5.27. We dene Pmax
by induction on M \ Ord where M is the countable
(T)
consists of pairs h.M; I/; X i such that
transitive model specied in the condition. Pmax
the following hold.
(1) M is a countable transitive model of ZFC.

(2) I 2 M and I D I< as computed in M for some 2 M such that is a Woodin
cardinal in M.
(3) .M; I/ is iterable.
(4) X 2 M and X is a set, possibly empty, of pairs .h.M0 ; I0 /; X0 i; j0 / such that
the following conditions hold:
a) M0 is countable in M;
(T)
b) h.M0 ; I0 /; X0 i 2 Pmax
;
208
5 Applications
c) j0 W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 / is an iteration which is full in M;

d) j0 .X0 / X ;
e) if .h.M0 ; I0 /; X0 i; j1 / 2 X then j0 D j1 .
(T)
The order on Pmax
is implicit in its denition.
(T)
Suppose h.M1 ; I1 /; X1 i and h.M2 ; I2 /; X2 i are conditions in Pmax
. Then
h.M2 ; I2 /; X2 i < h.M1 ; I1 /; X1 i

j W .M1 ; I1 / ! .M1 ; I1 /
such that .h.M1 ; I1 /; X1 i; j / 2 X2 .
t
u
(T)
The precise relationship between Pmax and Pmax
is given in Theorem 5.39.
(T)
The analysis of Pmax requires a non-interference lemma.
Lemma 5.28. Suppose

(T)
h.M; I/; X i 2 Pmax
and that
j W .M; I/ ! .M ; I /
is an iteration of .M; I/ of length !1 . Then M M .

Proof. We argue by contradiction. Let .M0 ; I0 / be a counterexample to the lemma.
Let
j0 W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
be an iteration of length !1 with M0 2 M0 .
Therefore M0 is countable in M0 .
Let
k0 W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
be an iteration such that M0 2 M0 , M0 is countable in M0 and such that M0 \Ord
is as small as possible.
The key point is that M0 is iterable and therefore it is 12 -correct.
Therefore since M0 2 M0 and since M0 countable in M0 it follows that there
must exist an iteration
k1 W .M0 ; I0 / ! .N ; J /
such that M0 2 N , M0 is countable in N and such that k1 2 M0 . This contradicts
t
u
the minimality of M0 \ Ord.
A stronger version of Lemma 5.28 is actually true. One can drop the assumption
that the iteration is of length !1 ; i. e. one need not require (with notation as in the
statement of Lemma 5.28) that M be countable in M . However the weaker version is
all that we shall use.
209
Lemma 5.28 is really quite general. We state the version for iterable structures
.M; I / where I 2 M is an ideal on !1M . This we have already discussed in a different
context, see Remark 3.61. This lemma is required for the analysis of any variation of
Pmax in which one has dropped all the requirements on the models designed to recover
iterations from only the iterates. The proof of Lemma 5.29 is identical to the proof of
Lemma 5.28.
Lemma 5.29. Suppose M is a countable transitive model of ZFC and that .M; I / is
iterable. Suppose
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
is an iteration of .M; I / of length !1 . Then M M .
t
u
We shall also require a boundedness lemma for iterable structures of the form
.M; I/ where
I D .I< /M
and where is a Woodin cardinal of M. This lemma is the obvious generalization of
Lemma 3.15, and the proof is essentially the same.
Lemma 5.30. Suppose M is a countable model of ZFC and I 2 M is the directed
system I< as computed in M for some 2 M which is a Woodin cardinal in M.
Suppose that x 2 R codes M.
(1) Suppose that
j W .M; I/ ! .M ; I /
is an iteration of length . Then

rank.M / <
where is the least ordinal such that < and such that L x is admissible.
(2) Suppose that
j W .M; I/ ! .M ; I /
is an iteration of length !1 . Let

D D < !1 j L x is admissible:
Then for each closed set C !1 such that C 2 M , D n C is countable.
t
u
The boundedness lemma, Lemma 5.30, yields as an immediate corollary the following lemma.
(T)
(T)
Lemma 5.31. Suppose h.M0 ; I0 /; X0 i 2 Pmax
, h.M1 ; I1 /; X1 i 2 Pmax
, and
h.M1 ; I1 /; X1 i < h.M0 ; I0 /; X0 i:
Let
j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
be the .unique/ iteration such that

.h.M0 ; I0 /; X0 i; j / 2 X1 :
Let x 2 R \ M1 code M0 . Then
210
5 Applications
(1) rank.M0 / < .12 /M1 ,

(2) if C 2 M0 is closed and unbounded in !1M1 then there exists D 2 Lx such
t
u
that D C and such that D is closed and unbounded in !1M1 .
(T)
are trivial with the possible
The iteration lemmas required for the analysis of Pmax
exception of the lemma required for showing (assuming ADL.R/ ) that the partial order
(T)
(T)
is !-closed. This lemma is also required for the proof that the Pmax
-extension is
Pmax
a model of !1 -DC.
Lemma 5.32. Suppose

hh.Mi ; Ii /; Xi i W i < !i
(T)
such that for all i < !,
is a sequence of conditions in Pmax
h.MiC1 ; IiC1 /; XiC1 i < h.Mi ; Ii /; Xi i:

Let
h.Mi ; Ii / W i < !i
be the sequence such that for each i < !, .Mi ; Ii / is the iterate of .Mi ; Ii / obtained
by combining the iterations given by the h.Mj ; Ij /; Xj i for j > i .
Then:
(1) For each i < !,

,
a) Mi 2 MiC1
b) .!1 /Mi D .!1 /Mi C1 ,

c) jMi jMi C1 D .!1 /M0 ,

M0
d) if C 2 Mk is closed and unbounded in !1

D2
then there exists

MkC1
such that D C , D is closed and unbounded in C and such that

D 2 Lx

.
for some x 2 R \ MkC1
(2) For each i < ! let Qi be the partial order of Ii -positive sets computed in Mi .
For each a 2 [Qi j i < ! there exists a sequence hgi W i < !i such that
a) a 2 [gi j i < !,
b) for each i < !, gi giC1 and gi is Mi -generic.
(3) The sequence
is iterable.
211
Proof. For each i < j < ! let

kij W .Mi ; Ii / ! .Mij ; Iij /
be the iteration of .Mi ; Ii / in Xj . This iteration is the unique iteration k such that
.h.Mi ; Ii /; Xi i; k/ 2 Xj :
Mj
The iteration has length .!1 / .

Suppose i < j1 < j2 . Then since
h.Mj2 ; Ij2 /; Xj2 i < h.Mj1 ; Ij1 /; Xj1 i < h.Mi ; Ii /; Xi i
it follows that the iteration corresponding to kij1 is an initial segment of the iteration
corresponding to kij2 . Let ki be the embedding given by the induced iteration of
.Mi ; Ii / of length
Mj
supkij .!1 i / j i < j < ! D sup!1

Thus
j i < j < !:
ki W .Mi ; Ii / ! .Mi ; Ii /:
Suppose i < j < !. Then

(T)
h.Mj ; Ij /; Xj i 2 Pmax
and
.h.Mi ; Ii /; Xi i; ki / 2 Xj
where Xj D kj .Xj /. Thus

h.Mj ; Ij /; Xj i < h.Mi ; Ii /; Xi i:
(1) follows from Lemma 5.31 and the denitions.
For each i < j < ! the iteration
ki W .Mi ; Ii / ! .Mi ; Ii /
is full in Mj . (2) follows from this and Lemma 5.26.
(3) follows from (1) by Lemma 4.17. The relevant point is that by (1) and by
Lemma 4.17 the sequence
hMi W i < !i
is iterable in the sense of Denition 4.15. Any iteration of
denes in a unique fashion an iteration of
hMi W i < !i
and so
is iterable.

t
u
212
5 Applications
Remark 5.33. Lemma 5.32 has the following consequence which is really the key to
(T)
(cf. Theorem 5.39).
establishing the relationship between Pmax and Pmax
Suppose
is as specied in Lemma 5.32. By Lemma 5.32 (1) and by Lemma 4.17, the sequence
hMi W i < !i
is iterable in the sense of Denition 4.15. This was noted in the proof of Lemma 5.32
and the observation is the basis for the reformulation of Pmax given in Section 5.5.
By Lemma 5.32(2), for each i < !,
.INS /Mi C1 \ Mi D .INS /Mi :

Further it follows that iterations of
hMi W i < !i
correspond to iterations of
and conversely, iterations of
correspond to iterations of

hMi W i < !i:
t
u
(T)
can be carried in a fashion analogous to
Using Lemma 5.32, the analysis of Pmax
(T)
that for Pmax provided Pmax is sufciently nontrivial.
The proof of Lemma 5.37 requires Theorem 5.34 and Theorem 5.35; these are
proved in .Koellner and Woodin 2010/.
Theorem 5.34 (ZF + AD). Suppose Z Ord. For each x 2 R let

HODLZ;x
Z
denote HOD as computed in LZ; x with Z as a parameter. Then there exists x0 2 R
such that for all x 2 R, if x0 2 LZ; x then
.!2 /LZ;x
is a Woodin cardinal in HODLZ;x
.
Z
t
u
Theorem 5.35 (ZF + DC + AD). Assume V D L.R/. Suppose a !1 is a countable

set. Then
HODa D HODa:
t
u
From Theorem 5.34 and Theorem 5.35 we obtain the following theorem which
is quite useful in transferring theorems about weakly homogeneously Suslin sets to
theorems about all sets of reals in L.R/ assuming ADL.R/ .
213
Theorem 5.36. Assume AD holds in L.R/. Suppose A R and A 2 L.R/. Then for
each n 2 ! there exist a countable transitive model M and an ordinal 2 M such
that the following hold.
(1) M ZFC.
(2) is the nth Woodin cardinal of M .
(3) A \ M 2 M and
hV!C1 \ M; A \ M; 2i hV!C1 ; A; 2i:
(4) A \ M is C -weakly homogeneously Suslin in M .
Proof. We work in L.R/.
Suppose the theorem fails. Then there exists A 2 L.R/ which is a counterexample
and such that A is 21 in L.R/. Let B R code the rst order diagram of
hV!C1 ; A; 2i:
is 21
Thus B
denable in L.R/. Therefore by the MartinSteel theorem, Theorem 2.3,
there exist (denable) trees S and T in L.R/ such that
B D pS
and
R n B D pT :
Therefore if N L.R/ is any transitive inner model of ZF such that
S; T N
then A \ N 2 N , B \ N 2 N and
hV!C1 \ N; A \ N; 2i hV!C1 ; A; 2i:
We claim that by Theorem 5.34, there exists a transitive inner model N L.R/
and an increasing sequence hi W i n C 1i of countable ordinals such that
(1.1) S; T N ,
(1.2) N ZFC,
(1.3) for each i n C 1, i is a Woodin cardinal in N .
We indicate how to nd N in the case that n D 0, in this case there are to be two
Woodin cardinals in N . We work in L.R/.
Since S; T are denable, S; T HOD.
Let Z0 Ord be such that HOD D LZ0 . Choose x0 such that
.!2 /LZ0 ;x0
is a Woodin cardinal in
0 ;x0
:
HODLZ
Z0
214
5 Applications
Let
0 D .!2 /LZ0 ;x0 :
Choose a 0 such that
and such that
0 ;x0
a 2 HODLZ
Z0
0 ;x0
\ V 0 :
La \ V0 D HODLZ
Z0
Let y0 2 R be such that for all y 2 R if

y0 2 LZ0 ; ay
then
0 ;ay0
0 ;ay
D P .0 / \ HODLZ
:
P .0 / \ HODLZ
a;Z0
a;Z0
By Turing determinacy y0 exists and it follows that

LZ0 ;ay0
P .0 / \ HODa;Z
HODa :
0
Therefore by Theorem 5.35,

0 ;ay0
P .0 / \ HODLZ
HODa
a;Z0
and so 0 is a Woodin cardinal in

LZ0 ;ay0
:
HODa;Z
0
By Theorem 5.34, we may assume by increasing the Turing degree of y0 if necessary

that
.!2 /LZ0 ;a;y0
0 ;a;y0
:
HODLZ
Z0 ;a
Let
1 D .!2 /LZ0 ;a;y0
and let
0 ;a;y0
:
N D HODLZ
Z0 ;a
N is as required. The general case for arbitrary n is similar.

Let
D .2nC1 /N
and let S and T be trees on ! such that .S ; T / 2 N and such that if
g Coll.!; nC1 / is N -generic then in N g,
pS D pS
and
pT D pT :
The trees S ; T are easily constructed in N by an analysis of terms.

Suppose g Coll.!; nC1 / is N -generic with g 2 L.R/. The generic lter g
exists since !1 is strongly inaccessible in N .
Thus
215
pS \ N g D .R n pT / \ N g;
and so by Theorem 2.32, S and T are <nC1 -weakly homogeneous in N .

Let M D N where < !1 , nC1 < and
N ZFC:
Thus .S ; T / 2 M . Further S ; T are <nC1 -weakly homogeneous in M .
Therefore M witnesses the lemma holds for A which contradicts the choice of A.
t
u
As an immediate corollary to Lemma 5.23 and Theorem 5.36 we obtain the exis(T)
, from simply assuming ADL.R/ . We state
tence of sufciently many conditions in Pmax
(T)
the lemma in a more general form than is required for the analysis of Pmax
, cf. (4) of
the lemma and the reference to generic extensions.
Lemma 5.37. Assume AD holds in L.R/. Then for each set A R with
A 2 L.R/;
(T)
such that the following
and for each n 2 !, there is a condition h.M; I/; X i 2 Pmax
holds. Let be the Woodin cardinal of M associated to I and suppose that
g 2 H.!1 /
is a lter which is M-generic for a partial order in M . Let Ig D .I< /Mg .
(1) A \ Mg 2 Mg.
(2) hH.!1 /Mg ; A \ Mgi hH.!1 /; Ai.
(3) .Mg; Ig / is A-iterable.
(4) is the nth Woodin cardinal of M.
(T)
Further the set of such conditions is dense in Pmax
.
Proof. Let A be given and suppose that

(T)
:
h.M0 ; I0 /; X0 i 2 Pmax
Let A be the set of reals which code elements of

A h.M0 ; I0 /; X0 i
and let B be the set of reals which code elements of the rst order diagram of
hH.!1 /; A ; 2i:
By Theorem 5.36, there exist a countable transitive set N and a ordinal 2 N such
that the following hold.
216
5 Applications
(1.1) N ZFC.
(1.2) is the nth Woodin cardinal in N .
(1.3) B \ N 2 N and
hV!C1 \ N; B \ N; 2i hV!C1 ; B; 2i:
(1.4) B \ N is C -weakly homogeneously Suslin in N .
By Lemma 5.23 (applied in N ) there exists a condition
(T)
h.M; I/; ;i 2 .Pmax
/N
such that the following holds where M be the Woodin cardinal of M associated to I.
Suppose that M g is a generic extension of M for a partial order in MM such that
g 2 N . Let
Ig D .I<M /Mg :
Then
(2.1) A \ Mg 2 Mg,
(2.2) hV!C1 \ Mg; A \ Mg; 2i hV!C1 \ N; A \ N; 2i,
(2.3) .Mg; Ig / is A -iterable in N ,
(2.4) M is the nth Woodin cardinal of M.
Since
hV!C1 \ M; A \ M; 2i hV!C1 ; M; 2i;
it follows that h.M0 ; I0 /; X0 i 2 H.!1 /M .
Let
j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
be an iteration of .M0 ; I0 / such that j 2 M and such that j is full in M. Let
Y D .h.M0 ; I0 /; X0 i; j / [ j.X0 /.
(T)
Thus in N ; h.M; I/; Y i 2 Pmax
and
h.M; I/; Y i < h.M0 ; I0 /; X0 i:
Finally
hV!C1 \ N; B \ N; 2i hV!C1 ; B; 2i;
and so for any choice of g in V , (2.1)(2.3) hold in V .
(T)
Similarly in V ; h.M; I/; Y i 2 Pmax
and
h.M; I/; Y i < h.M0 ; I0 /; X0 i:
Thus h.M; I/; Y i is as required.
t
u
217
(T)
The analysis of Pmax
is now straightforward, following that of Pmax . In many ways
(T)
the analysis of Pmax is easier than that of Pmax . One reason is that no local forcing
arguments are required.
Assume ADL.R/ and suppose
(T)
G Pmax
is L.R/-generic. For each h.M; I/; X i 2 G there exists an iteration

j W .M; I/ ! .M ; I /
which is dened by combining the iterations k such that
.h.M; I/; X i; k/ 2 Y
where h.N ; J /; Y i 2 G and
h.N ; J /; Y i < h.M; I/; X i:
(T)
Theorem 5.38. Assume ADL.R/ and suppose G Pmax
is L.R/-generic. Then
L.R/G ZFC;
.P .!1 //
L.R/G
D [.P .!1 //M j h.M; I/; X i 2 G;
and for all h.M; I/; X i 2 G,

.INS /M D M \ .INS /L.R/G :
t
u
(T)
We leave the proof of this to the reader and simply prove that Pmax
is equivalent in
L.R/ to the iteration
Pmax .!2<!2 /:
(T)
Theorem 5.39. Assume AD holds in L.R/. Suppose G Pmax
L.R/G D L.R/gh
where g Pmax is L.R/-generic and
h .!2<!2 /L.R/g
is L.R/g-generic.
Proof. Suppose A !1 , A 2 L.R/G and
!1 D !1LA :
We prove that A is L.R/-generic for Pmax . This will prove that
.L.P .!1 ///L.R/G
(T)
is a Pmax generic extension of L.R/ noting that Pmax
is !-closed in L.R/.
Let FA be the set of h.N ; J /; bi 2 Pmax such that there exists an iteration
k W .N ; J / ! .N ; J /
with k.b/ D A and
J D INS \ N :
218
5 Applications
Fix D Pmax such that D is open, dense in Pmax and such that D 2 L.R/. Assume
toward a contradiction that
FA \ D D ;:
By Theorem 5.38, there exist h.M0 ; I0 /; X0 i 2 G and a0 2 M0 such that
!1M0 D !1La0
and such that j.a0 / D A where
j0 W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
is the iteration of .M0 ; I0 / given by G.
We work in L.R/ and assume that
h.M0 ; I0 /; X0 i FA \ D D ;:
Let h.N0 ; J0 /; b0 i 2 Pmax be such that
M0 2 .H.!1 //N0
and such that
J0 D .INS /N0 :
Let
j1 W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M1 ; I1 /
be an iteration such that j1 2 N0 , j.!1M0 / D !1N0 , and such that j1 is full in N0 . Let
a1 D j1 .a0 /. Thus
!1La1 D !1N0
and so h.N0 ; J0 /; a1 i 2 Pmax .
Since D is open, dense in Pmax , there exists h.N1 ; J1 /; b1 i 2 D such that
h.N1 ; J1 /; b1 i < h.N0 ; J0 /; a1 i
and such that
J1 D .INS /N1 :
(T)
Let h.M2 ; I2 /; X2 i 2 Pmax
be such that
N1 2 H.!1 /M2 :
Let
k0 W .N0 ; J0 / ! .N0 ; J0 /
be the iteration such that k0 .a1 / D b1 . By Lemma 4.36 there exists an iteration
k1 W .N1 ; J1 / ! .N2 ; J2 /
such that k1 2 M2 and such that
.INS /N2 D J2 D N2 \ .INS /M2 :
Let a2 D k1 .b1 /.
Thus k1 .k0 .j1 // is an iteration
k1 .k0 .j1 // W .M0 ; I0 / ! .k1 .k0 .j1 //.M0 /; k1 .k0 .j1 //.I0 //
219
which is full in M2 . Therefore

(T)
h.M2 ; I2 /; X i 2 Pmax
and
h.M2 ; I2 /; X i < h.M0 ; I0 /; X0 i
where
X D k1 .k0 .j1 //.X0 / [ .h.M0 ; I0 /; X0 i; k1 .k0 .j1 ///:
By genericity we may assume
h.M2 ; I2 /; X i 2 G:
Let
j2 W .M2 ; I2 / ! .M2 ; I2 /
be the iteration given by G. Thus
j2 .k1 / W .N1 ; J1 / ! .N1 ; J1 /
is an iteration such that
M
L.R/G
.INS /N1 D J1 D N \ INS 2 D N \ INS
:
Further
A D j0 .a0 / D j2 .k1 .k0 .j1 .a0 //// D j2 .k1 .b1 // D j2 .a2 /
and
j2 .k1 .b1 // D j2 .k1 /.j2 .b1 // D j2 .k1 /.b1 /:
Therefore h.N1 ; J1 /; b1 i 2 FA which contradicts the choice of D and A.
Therefore
.L.P .!1 ///L.R/G
is a Pmax generic extension of L.R/.
Fix g Pmax such that g is L.R/-generic and
.L.P .!1 ///L.R/G D L.R/g:
Let P be the following partial order dened in L.R/g.
(T)
P is the set of pairs .h.M; I/; X i; j / such that h.M; I/; X i 2 Pmax
and such that
O I/
O
j W .M; I/ ! .M;
is an iteration which is full in L.R/g. Suppose .h.M0 ; I0 /; X0 i; j0 / 2 P and that
.h.M1 ; I1 /; X1 i; j1 / 2 P . Then
.h.M1 ; I1 /; X1 i; j1 / < .h.M0 ; I0 /; X0 i; j0 /
if
.h.M0 ; I0 /; X0 i; j0 / 2 j1 .X1 /:
The two relevant properties of P are the following.
220
5 Applications
(1.1) For each

.h.M0 ; I0 /; X0 i; j0 / 2 P
and for each B !1 there exists .h.M1 ; I1 /; X1 i; j1 / 2 P such that
.h.M1 ; I1 /; X1 i; j1 / < .h.M0 ; I0 /; X0 i; j0 /
and such that B 2 j1 .M1 /.
(1.2) For each
.h.M0 ; I0 /; X0 i; j0 / 2 P
there exist .h.M1 ; I1 /; X1 i; j1 / 2 P , .h.M1 ; I1 /; X1 i; k1 / 2 P , and
.h.M2 ; I2 /; X2 i; k2 / 2 P
such that
a) .h.M2 ; I2 /; X2 i; j2 / < .h.M0 ; I0 /; X0 i; j0 /,
b) .h.M2 ; I2 /; X2 i; j2 / < .h.M1 ; I1 /; X1 i; j1 /,
c) .h.M2 ; I2 /; X2 i; j2 / < .h.M1 ; I1 /; X1 i; k1 /,
d) j1 k1 .
By (1.1), the partial order P is .< !2 /-closed in L.R/g and by (1.2), RO.P / has
no atoms.
The partial order P has cardinality 2@1 in L.R/g and so since 2@1 D @2 in
L.R/g,
RO.P / RO.!2<!2 /
in L.R/g.
Suppose
h0 P
is L.R/g-generic. Let
G0 D h.M; I/; X i j .h.M; I/; X i; j / 2 h0 :
(T)
It follows that G0 Pmax
and G0 is L.R/-generic.
By the genericity of h0 , for each B !1 with B 2 L.R/g there exists a condition
.h.M; I/; X i; j / 2 h0 such that B 2 j.M/. In particular there exists a condition
.h.M; I/; X i; j / 2 h0 such that Ag 2 j.M/. Therefore
L.R/G0 D L.R/gh0 :
By the denability of forcing it follows that there exists h P such that h is
L.R/g-generic and such that
L.R/G D L.R/gh:
t
u

5.5 Pmax
221

5.5 Pmax
(T)
We dene a second reformulation of Pmax . This version is quite closely related to Pmax
and it involves a reformulation of the sentence AC .

Denition 5.40. AC
: Suppose that hS W < !1 i and hT W < !1 i are each
sequences of stationary, co-stationary sets. Then there exists a sequence h W < !1 i
of ordinals less than !2 such that for each < !1 there exists a bijection
W !1 ! ;
and a closed unbounded set C !1 such that
< !1 j ordertype./ 2 T \ C D S \ C:
t
u
If M ZFC then clearly

M
AC
M

AC :
if and only if
The reason for introducing
iterable sequence and that

AC
is the following. Suppose that hMi W i < !i is an
[Mi j i < !

AC :
Suppose that hMi W i < !i is an iterate of hMi W i < !i. Then

[Mi j i < !
This can fail for

AC :
AC .

Denition 5.41. Pmax
is the set of pairs .hMk W k < !i; a/ such that the following
hold.
(1) a 2 M0 , a !1M0 , and

!1M0 D !1La;x
for some x 2 R \ M0 .
(2) Mk ZFC .
Mk
(3) Mk 2 MkC1 ; !1
MkC1
D !1
(4) .INS /MkC1 \ Mk D .INS /MkC2 \ Mk .

(5) [Mk j k 2 !

AC .
(6) hMk W k < !i is iterable.
222
5 Applications
(7) There exists X 2 M0 such that

M1
,
a) X P .!1 /M0 n INS
b) M0 jX j D !1 ,
M0
.
c) for all S; T 2 X , if S T then S \ T 2 INS

is analogous to Pmax . A condition
The ordering on Pmax
.hNk W k < !i; b/ < .hMk W k < !i; a/

if hMk W k < !i 2 N0 , hMk W k < !i is hereditarily countable in N0 and there exists
an iteration j W hMk W k < !i ! hMk W k < !i such that:
(1) j.a/ D b;
(2) hMk W k < !i 2 N0 and j 2 N0 ;
(3) .INS /MkC1 \ Mk D .INS /N1 \ Mk for all k < !.
Remark 5.42.
t
u
(1) One can strengthen (4) by requiring that for all k < !,
Mk
MkC1
D Mk \ INS
:
INS
In this case (7) necessarily holds.

is equivalent to the partial order Pmax , assuming that for
(2) The partial order Pmax

all x 2 R, x exists.

is the better presentation of Pmax . The key difference is that one
(3) Arguably Pmax

without using ideals on !1 . This we
can directly construct conditions in Pmax
shall do in proving Theorem 5.49.
t
u
The proof of Lemma 5.15 easily adapts to prove the following lemma which is the
analog of Lemma 4.35.

. Suppose that
Lemma 5.43. Suppose that .hMk W k < !i; a/ 2 Pmax
j1 W hMk W k < !i ! hMk1 W k < !i

and
j2 W hMk W k < !i ! hMk2 W k < !i
are wellfounded iterations such that j1 .a/ D j2 .a/. Then
hMk1 W k < !i D hMk2 W k < !i
and j1 D j2 .

5.5 Pmax
223
Proof. Fix x 2 R \ M0 such that

!1M0 D !1La;x :
It follows that there exists Z !1M0 such that
Z 2 La; x \ M0
M
and such that for all k < !, Z INS kC1 and .!1M0 n Z/ INS kC1 .
Therefore arguing as in the proof of Lemma 5.15, if j1 .Z/ D j2 .Z/ then
hMk1 W k < !i D hMk2 W k < !i
and j1 D j2 .
The sequence hMk1 W k < !i is iterable and so it follows that for all b !1M0 , if
b 2 [Mk j k 2 !
then
b # 2 [Mk j k 2 !:
Therefore .x; a/# 2 [Mk j k 2 !. Thus since j1 .a/ D j2 .a/ it follows that
t
u
j1 .Z/ D j2 .Z/ noting that necessarily j1 .!1M0 / D j2 .!1M0 /.

The basic iteration lemma required for the analysis of Pmax
is a modication of
Lemma 4.37. The proof is a minor variation of the proof of Lemma 4.36.

. Suppose that
Lemma 5.44 (ZFC ). Suppose that .hMk W k < !i; a/ 2 Pmax
hS W < !1 i
is a sequence of pairwise disjoint stationary subsets of !1 . Then there is an iteration
j W hMk W k < !i ! hMk W k < !i
such that for all S !1 , if
M
then S n S 2 INS
S 2 [Mk j k < ! n [INS k j k < !

for some < !1 .
t
u
As a corollary to Lemma 5.44 we obtain the following iteration lemma. It is for the

proof of this lemma that the requirement (7) in the denition of Pmax
is essential.

.hMk W k < !i; a/ 2 Pmax
;

.hNk W k < !i; b/ 2 Pmax ;
and that
hMk W k < !i 2 H.!1 /N0 :
Then there is an iteration

such that j 2 N0 and such that
M
N1
INS
\ .[Mk j k < !/ D [INS k j k < !:
224
5 Applications
Proof. Since

.hNk W k < !i; b/ 2 Pmax
there exists a sequence hS W < !1N0 i 2 N0 such that for all < < !1N0 ,
S !1N0 ;
N1
S INS
;
N0
.
and such that S \ S 2 INS
With this sequence the lemma follows by Lemma 5.44.
t
u

is a routine generalization of
Using the iteration lemmas the basic analysis of Pmax
the analysis of Pmax provided suitable iterable structures exist.

hMk W k < !i
is an iterable sequence and that A R. Then the sequence hMk W k < !i is A-iterable
if
(1) A \ M0 2 [Mk j k < !,
(2) for any iteration j W hMk W k < !i ! hMk W k < !i,
j.A \ M0 / D A \ M0 :
t
u

. It is (notationally)
We prove a very general existence lemma for conditions in Pmax
(T)
convenient to refer to Pmax in the statements of the two preliminary lemmas that we
require; note that the assumption
(T)
h.M0 ; I0 /; ;i 2 Pmax
simply abbreviates: M0 is a countable transitive model of ZFC,

I0 D .I<0 /M0 ;
and that .M0 ; I0 / is an iterable where 0 2 M0 is a Woodin cardinal in M0 .
(T)
h.M0 ; I0 /; ;i 2 Pmax
:
Let 0 2 M0 be the Woodin cardinal in M0 associated to I0 and let

Q0 D .Q<0 /M0
be the associated stationary tower. Suppose that h.S ; T / W < !1M0 i 2 M0 is such
that
S ; T j < !1M0 P .!1 /M0 n .INS /M0 :
j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
of length !1 such that the following hold.

5.5 Pmax
225
(1) .INS /M0 D INS \ M0 .

(2) Suppose that h.S ; T / W < !1 i D j.h.S ; T / W < !1M0 i/: Let
h W < !1 i
be the increasing enumeration of the ordinals 2 !1 n .M0 \ Ord/ such that
is a cardinal in L.M0 /. Let
C D < !1 j D :
Then for all 2 C and for all < ,
2 S
if and only if
C 2 T :
Proof. The key point is that for each 2 C , if
j0; W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
of length then by boundedness,
j0; .!1M0 / D :
Let D C be the set of 2 C such that C \ has ordertype .
Thus the desired iteration
h.M ; I /; G ; j; W < !1 i
of .M0 ; I0 / of length !1 can easily be construction by induction. By restricting the
choice of G for 2 D one can achieve (1). These restrictions place no constraint on
t
u
the choices of G for 2 C n D and so (2) can also easily be achieved.
(T)
h.M0 ; I0 /; ;i 2 Pmax
and that
X0 V
M0 D MX0
where MX0 is the transitive collapse of X0 . Suppose that a0 !1M0 is a set in M0
such that
.!1 /La0 D .!1 /M0
Then there exists

.hMO k W k < !i; a/
O 2 Pmax
226
5 Applications
such that:
(1) there exists a countable iteration
j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
O
such that j.a0 / D a.
O
(2) for each k < !, .INS /Mk D .INS /MkC1 \ MO k .

(3) hMO k W k < !i is A-iterable for each set A 2 X0 such that every set of reals
which is projective in A is C -weakly homogeneously Suslin.
(T)
.
Proof. Let M be the set of .M; I/ 2 H.!1 / such that h.M; I/; ;i 2 Pmax
Let 2 X0 be the Woodin cardinal whose image under the transitive collapse of
X0 is the Woodin cardinal in M0 associated to I0 .
We dene by induction on k a sequence
h.Mk ; Ik / W k < !i
of elements of M together with iterations
jk W .Mk ; Ik / ! .Mk ; Ik /
and elements .Fk.S/ ; Fk.T / / 2 Mk as follows. We simultaneously dene an increasing
sequence hXk W k < !i of countable elementary substructures of V such that for each
k < !, Mk is the transitive collapse of Xk .
.M0 ; I0 / and X0 are as given.
Suppose that Xk and .Mk ; Ik / have been dened. We dene .Fk.S/ ; Fk.T / /, jk ,
XkC1 and .MkC1 ; IkC1 /.
Let k 2 Mk be the Woodin cardinal of Mk corresponding to Ik and let
Qk D .Q<k /Mk ;
be the associated stationary tower. Let hk W < !1 i be the increasing enumeration
of the ordinals 2 !1 n Mk such that is a cardinal in L.Mk /. Let
Ck D j k D :
Choose .Fk.S/ ; Fk.T / / 2 Mk such that
(1.1) Fk.S/ W .!1 /Mk ! P .!1 /Mk n .INS /Mk ,
(1.2) Fk.T / W .!1 /Mk ! P .!1 /Mk n .INS /Mk .
By Lemma 5.47 there is an iteration
jk W .Mk ; Ik / ! .Mk ; Ik /

5.5 Pmax
227
(2.1) .INS /Mk D INS \ Mk ,

(2.2) for all 2 Ck and for all < ,
2 .jk /0;C1 .Fk.S/ /./
if and only if
C 2 .jk /0;CC1 .Fk.T / /./:
XkC1 V
such that
.Xk ; jk / 2 XkC1 :
Let MkC1 be the transitive collapse of XkC1 and let IkC1 be the image of I under the
collapsing map. Thus
.MkC1 ; IkC1 / 2 M:
This completes the denition of
(3.1) h.Mk ; Ik / W k < !i,
(3.2) hjk W k < !i,
(3.3) hXk W k < !i,
except that we require that
jk .Fk.S/ /; jk .Fk.T / / j k < !
is equal to the set,
M
M
[ jk .f / j f W !1 k ! P .!1 k / \ Mk n .INS /Mk and f 2 Mk j k < !
which is easily achieved.
Let X D [Xk j k < ! and for each k < ! let
.MO k ; YOk /
be the image of .Mk ; jk .Yk // under the transitive collapse of X . Let
aO D j0 .a0 / \ X:
We claim that

.hMO k W k < !i; a/
O 2 Pmax
and is as desired. The verication is straightforward. The sequence

hMO k W k < !i
satises the hypothesis of Lemma 4.17 and so by Lemma 4.17 it is iterable, cf. the
proof of Lemma 5.32.
u
t
228
5 Applications
Combining Lemma 5.48 with Theorem 5.36 we obtain the following fairly general

. A more general version is given in Secexistence theorem for conditions in Pmax
tion 10.4; cf. Theorem 10.152. The version here sufces for our immediate purposes.
Suppose that is a 2 sentence such that it is a theorem of
that there exists a boolean algebra B such that
V B :
For example could be any of the following.
(1) .
(2) MA C :CH.
(3) MA!1 C INS is !2 -saturated.
Theorem 5.49. Assume AD holds in L.R/. Then for each set A R with
A 2 L.R/;

such that
there is a condition .hMk W k < !i; a/ 2 Pmax
M0 ZFC C ;
and such that
(1) A \ M0 2 M0 ,
(2) hH.!1 /M0 ; A \ M0 i hH.!1 /; Ai,
(3) hMk W k < !i is A-iterable,

.
and further the set of such conditions is dense in Pmax
Proof. As usual the density of the desired conditions follows on abstract grounds (by
changing A and applying the iteration lemma, Lemma 5.44).
Fix A and let B0 be the set of x 2 R such that x codes an element of the rst order
diagram of the structure
hV!C1 ; A; 2i:
Let B1 be the set of x 2 R such that x codes an element of the rst order diagram of
the structure
hV!C1 ; B0 ; 2i:
Thus B1 2 L.R/.
By Theorem 5.36, there exist a countable transitive model M and an ordinal 2 M
(1.1) M ZFC.
(1.2) is the second Woodin cardinal in M .

5.5 Pmax
229
(1.3) B1 \ M 2 M and
hV!C1 \ M; B1 \ M; 2i hV!C1 ; B1 ; 2i:
(1.4) B1 \ M is C -weakly homogeneously Suslin in M .
Let 0 be the least Woodin cardinal of M and let
0 be the least strongly inaccessible cardinal of M above 0 . Thus since
M0 ZFC C There is a Woodin cardinal;
there exists a partial order P 2 M0 such that
M P :
Let g P be an M -generic lter (with g 2 V ). Thus:
(2.1) M g ZFC;
(2.2) is a Woodin cardinal in M ;
(2.3) B0 \ M g 2 M g and
hV!C1 \ M g; B0 \ M g; 2i hV!C1 ; B0 ; 2iI
(2.4) B0 \ M g is C -weakly homogeneously Suslin in M g;
noting that (2.3) and (2.4) follow from Lemma 2.29.
Let be the least strongly inaccessible cardinal of M g above . By (2.3),
1
B0 \ M g is not
1 in M g and so by (2.4), exists.
Let
X0 M g
be an elementary substructure structure such that X0 2 M g, B0 \ M g 2 X0 , and
such that X0 is countable in M g. Let M0 be the transitive collapse of X0 . Let a !1
be a set in X0 such that
!1 D .!1 /La
and let a0 D a \ X0 .
By Lemma 5.48 there exists

O 2 .Pmax
/M g
.hMO k W k < !i; a/
such that in M g,
(3.1) there exists a countable iteration
j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
such that j.a0 / D aO and such that
M0 D MO 0 ;
(3.2) hMO k W k < !i is B0 \ M g-iterable.
230
5 Applications
By (3.1), since is a 2 sentence,

MO 0 ;
and by (2.3), (2.4) and (3.1),
hV!C1 \ MO 0 ; A \ MO 0 ; 2i hV!C1 \ M g; A \ M g; 2i:
Therefore since
hV!C1 \ M g; B0 \ M g; 2i hV!C1 ; B0 ; 2i:
it follows that
hV!C1 \ MO 0 ; A \ MO 0 ; 2i hV!C1 ; A; 2i;

.hMO k W k < !i; a/
O 2 Pmax
;
and that hMO k W k < !i is A-iterable.
t
u
A very similar argument proves the following theorem.

Theorem 5.50. Assume AD holds in L.R/. Suppose that
D0 Pmax
is dense in Pmax with D0 2 L.R/. Let D1 be the set of

.hMk W k < !i; a/ 2 Pmax
such that
.INS /M0 D .INS /M1 \ M0
and such that
h.M0 ; .INS /M0 /; ai 2 D0 :

.
Then D1 is dense in Pmax
t
u

Suppose G Pmax
is L.R/-generic. We assume ADL.R/ so that by Theorem 5.49,

is nontrivial. We associate to the generic lter G, a subset of !1 , AG and an ideal,
Pmax
IG . This is just as in case of Pmax .
AG D [a j .hMk W k < !i; a/ 2 G for some hMk W k < !i:

For each .hMk W k < !i; a/ 2 G there is an iteration
such that j.a/ D AG . This iteration is unique by Lemma 5.43. Dene
M
IG D [INS 1 \ M0 j .hMk W k < !i; a/ 2 G

and let
P .!1 /G D [P .!1 /M0 j .hMk W k < !i; a/ 2 G:

The next theorem gives the basic analysis of Pmax
.

5.5 Pmax
231

Theorem 5.51. Assume AD L.R/ . Then Pmax
is !-closed and homogeneous.

Suppose G Pmax
L.R/G ZFC
and in L.R/G:
(1) P .!1 /G D P .!1 /;
t
u
Theorem 5.51 can be proved following the proof of the analogous theorem for Pmax .
One can also obtain the theorem as an immediate corollary of the following theorem
together with the analysis of L.R/Pmax .

Theorem 5.52. Assume AD L.R/ . Suppose G Pmax
is L.R/-generic. Then there
exists a lter H Pmax such that H is L.R/-generic and
L.R/G D L.R/H :

such that
Proof. Let DPmax be the set of .hMk W k < !i; a/ 2 Pmax
(1) M0 MA!1 ,
(2) M0 INS is saturated,
(3) .INS /M0 D .INS /M1 \ M0 .

By Theorem 5.50, DPmax is dense in Pmax
. Dene
H D h.M0 ; .INS /M0 /; a0 i j .hMk W k < !i; a/ 2 DPmax \ G:

We claim that H is a lter in Pmax . This follows from the denition of the order on

and the fact that DPmax is dense in Pmax
.
Pmax
Again by Theorem 5.50,
D\H ;
for each dense set D Pmax with D 2 L.R/. Thus H is L.R/-generic.
Clearly
L.R/H L.R/G:

By one last application of the density of DPmax and the denition of the order on Pmax
,
G 2 L.R/H
and so L.R/G D L.R/H .
t
u
232
5 Applications
0
5.6 Pmax
0
0
We dene a fourth presentation of Pmax , this is Pmax
. The partial order Pmax
is essen

without the requirement that AC
hold in the models associated to the
tially just Pmax
conditions. This requires that history be added to the conditions as was done in the
(T)
.
denition of Pmax
0
is generalizing the following two theorems which are
Our purpose in dening Pmax
corollaries of the results of Chapter 3.
Theorem 5.53 (MA!1 ). Assume INS is !2 -saturated and that P .!1 /# exists. Then
there is a semi-generic lter
G Pmax
such that P .!1 /G D P .!1 /.
Proof. By Lemma 3.14 and Theorem 3.16, if
X H.!2 /
is a countable elementary substructure then MX is iterable where MX is the transitive
collapse of X .
Fix a set A !1 such that
!1 D !1LA :
Following the proof of Theorem 4.76, let
FA Pmax
be the set of all conditions h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax such that there is an iteration
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
such that j.a/ D A and INS \ M D I .
Let
G D FA :
By Corollary 3.13, for each countable elementary substructure
X H.!2 /
such that A 2 X ,
h.MX ; IX /; AX i 2 G
where MX is the transitive collapse of X ,

AX D A \ !1 \ X
and IX D .INS / .
It follows that G is a semi-generic lter in Pmax and that
MX
P .!1 /G D P .!1 /:

A similar argument proves the corresponding theorem for Pmax
.
t
u
0
5.6 Pmax
233
Theorem 5.54 ( AC ). Assume INS is !2 -saturated and that P .!1 /# exists. Then there
is a semi-generic lter

G Pmax
t
u
We shall prove the following theorem in Section 9.5.

Theorem 5.55. Assume Martins Maximum.c/. Then for each set A !2 , A# exists.u
t
Martins Maximum.c/ implies that
2@1 D @2
and so we obtain the following corollary.
Corollary 5.56. Assume Martins Maximum.c/. Then there is a semi-generic lter
G Pmax
Proof. By the results of .Foreman, Magidor, and Shelah 1988/, Martins Maximum.c/
implies that 2@0 D 2@1 D @2 .
Therefore by Theorem 9.69, Martins Maximum implies that P .!1 /# exists. The
theorem follows from Theorem 5.53.
t
u
0
Denition 5.57. We dene Pmax
by induction on
[Mk \ Ord j k < !

where hMk W k < !i is the countable sequence transitive models specied in the
0
consists of pairs .hMk W k < !i; X / such that the following hold.
condition. Pmax
(1) Mk ZFC .
Mk
(2) Mk 2 MkC1 ; !1
MkC1
D !1

(5) X 2 M0 and X is a set, possibly empty, of pairs ..hNk W k < !i; X0 /; j0 / such
that the following conditions hold:
a) hNk W k < !i is countable in M0 ;
0
b) .hNk W k < !i; X0 / 2 Pmax
;
c) j0 W hNk W k < !i ! hNk W k < !i is an iteration such that for all k < !,
.INS /M1 \ Nk D .INS /NkC1 \ Nk I
234
5 Applications
d) j0 .X0 / X ;
e) if ..hNk W k < !i; X0 /; j1 / 2 X then j0 D j1 .
0
is dened as follows. Suppose
The order on Pmax
0
:
.hMk W k < !i; X /; .hNk W k < !i; Y / Pmax
Then
.hMk W k < !i; X / < .hNk W k < !i; Y /
such that ..hNk W k < !i; Y /; j / 2 X .
t
u
0
(T)
is a combination of the denitions of Pmax
and
Remark 5.58. The denition of Pmax

Pmax . One important item in the denition of Pmax has been eliminated, this is clause
0
is such that X ;
(7). The relevant observation is that if .hMk W k < !i; X / 2 Pmax
then (7) holds, i. e. there exists a set Z 2 M0 such that
M1
(1) Z P .!1 /M0 n INS
,
(2) M0 jZj D !1 ,
M0
.
(3) for all S; T 2 Z, if S T then S \ T 2 INS
t
u
0
extension of L.R/, assuming ADL.R/ , is a routine modiThe analysis of the Pmax

(T)
extension. As for the analysis of the Pmax
-extension,
cation of the analysis of the Pmax
a non-interference lemma is required. The proof is similar to that of Lemma 5.28 which
(T)
.
is the corresponding lemma for Pmax
Lemma 5.59 (ZFC ). Suppose

0
.hMk W k < !i; X / 2 Pmax
and that
is an iteration of hMk W k < !i of length !1 . Then hMk W k < !i M0 .
t
u
Denition 5.60. Suppose that for each x 2 R there exists a condition

0
such that x 2 M0 .
0
(1) A lter G Pmax
is semi-generic if for each < !1 there exists
0
such that < .!1 /M0 .
0
5.6 Pmax
235
0
(2) Suppose that G Pmax
is a semi-generic lter. Then for each p 2 G, with
p D .hMk W k < !i; X /,
jp;G W hMk W k < !i ! hMk W k < !i

is the iteration of length !1 given by G.
0
(3) Suppose that G Pmax
is a semi-generic lter. Then
P .!1 /G D [jp;G .P .!1 /.p;0/ / j p 2 G

0
where for each p 2 Pmax
with p D .hMk W k < !i; X /,
P .!1 /.p;0/ D .P .!1 //M0 :
t
u
0
The existence of conditions as required for the analysis of the Pmax
extension is an

.
immediate corollary of Theorem 5.49 which is the corresponding theorem for Pmax
Theorem 5.61. Assume AD holds in L.R/. Then for each set A R with A 2 L.R/;
0
such that
there is a condition .hMk W k < !i; X / 2 Pmax
(1) A \ M0 2 M0 ,
(2) hH.!1 /M0 ; A \ M0 i hH.!1 /; Ai,
0
.
t
u
0
The basic analysis of Pmax
is given in the following two theorems. The second
0
, the proof is similar.
theorem is the version of Theorem 5.39 for Pmax
0
Theorem 5.62. Assume AD L.R/ . Then Pmax
0
L.R/G ZFC
and in L.R/G:
(1) P .!1 /G D P .!1 /;
t
u
0
Theorem 5.63. Assume AD holds in L.R/. Suppose G Pmax
L.R/G D L.R/gh
where g Pmax is L.R/-generic and
h .!2<!2 /L.R/g
is L.R/g-generic.
t
u
236
5 Applications
The generalization of Theorem 5.53 and Theorem 5.54 that we seek is the following.
(1) 2@0 D 2@1 and there exists a countable elementary substructure
X H.!2 /
such that the transitive collapse of X is iterable.
(2) There exists a semi-generic lter
0
G Pmax

Proof. Let D .2@1 /C . Fix a wellordering, <, of H. /.
We x some notation. Suppose that
X hH. /; <; 2i
is a countable elementary substructure. For each !1 let
X D f .s/ j s 2 <! and f 2 X :
Thus
X hH. /; <; 2i
and if D !1 , then X \ H.!2 / is transitive.
We rst assume (1) and prove (2). It sufces to prove the following. Suppose that
0
is a semi-generic lter such that F0 is generated by a set Z0 F0 with
F0 Pmax
0
jZ0 j < 2@0 . Suppose that B0 !1 . Then there exists a semi-generic lter F0 Pmax
such that
(1.1) F0 F0 ,
(1.2) B0 2 P .!1 /F0 .
It is easily veried that this implies (2).
We build F0 as the lter generated by
Z0 D [Zi W i < !
where h.Zi ; Yi / W i < !i is a sequence dened as follows.
(2.1) Y0 is the set of pairs .p; j / such that p 2 Z0 and j D jp;F0 .
(2.2) Yi YiC1 and YiC1 n Yi is the set of pairs
..hMk W k < !i; X /; j /
such that there exists a sequence hXk W k < !i such that:
0
5.6 Pmax
237
a) For some a0 2 Zi<! , X0 is the set of b 2 H. / such that b is denable in

the structure
hH. /; .Zi ; Yi /; <; a0 ; B0 ; 2iI
b) For all k < !, XkC1 is the set of b 2 H. / such that b is denable in the
structure
hH. /; .Zi ; Yi /; <; a0 ; B0 ; Xk ; 2iI
c) For all k < !, Mk is the transitive collapse of Xk where
D [Xi \ !1 j i < !;
and X is the image of Yi \ X0 under the collapsing map;
d) j is the (unique) iteration
where for each k < !, Mk is the transitive collapse of Xk !1 and j jMk
is the image of the inclusion map,
k W Xk ! Xk !1 :
0
such that .p; j / 2 YiC1 for some j .
(2.3) ZiC1 is the set p 2 Pmax
By Lemma 3.12, the map j specied in (2.2(d)) is an iteration.

Let
Z0 D [Zk j k < !:
0
which satises the
It follows, since jZ0 j < 2@0 , that Z0 generates a lter F0 Pmax
conditions (1.1)(1.2). This proves our claim and (2) follows.
To nish we assume (2) holds and prove (1). First we must prove that (2) implies
that 2@0 D 2@1 . But
0
j 2@0
jGj jPmax
and for each condition p 2 G, there is a unique iteration

jp;G W hM.p;k/ W k < !i ! hM.p;k/
W k < !i
given by G where p D .hM.p;k/ W k < !i; X.p/ /i. By the denition of P .!1 /G ,

P .!1 /G D [P .!1 / \ M.p;0/
j p 2 G;
and so by (2), 2@0 D 2@1 . To nish we must prove that (2) implies that there exists a
countable elementary substructure
X H.!2 /
such that the transitive collapse of X is iterable. By (2), for every x 2 R there exists
an iterable sequence,
hNk W k < !i;
such that x 2 N0 . Thus arguing as in the proof of Theorem 3.19, for every x 2 R,
x # exists. Thus the existence of X H.!2 /, countable and with iterable transitive
collapse, is essentially an immediate corollary of Lemma 4.22 and Theorem 3.19. u
t
238
5 Applications
5.7
The Axiom

We prove that the Pmax -extension can be characterized by a certain kind of generic
homogeneity. This property generalizes to L.P .!1 // a well known property which
characterizes L.R/ in the case that L.R/ is computed in LG where G is L-generic
for adding uncountably many Cohen reals to L. This is the symmetric extension of L
given by innitely many Cohen reals.
Suppose that L.R/ is a symmetric extension of L for adding innitely many Cohen
reals. Then the following hold.
(1) There is an L-generic Cohen real.
(2) Let
X R
be a nonempty set which is ordinal denable in L.R/. Then there exists a term
2 L such that for all L-generic Cohen reals c,
.c/ 2 X;
where .c/ is the interpretation of by the generic lter given by c.
It is straightforward to show that the converse is also true: If (1) and (2) hold then
L.R/ is a symmetric extension of of L for adding innitely many Cohen reals. The
point is that (1) and (2) imply that for every x 2 R n L,
Lx D Lc
for some c 2 R which is an L-generic Cohen real. Further (1) and (2) also imply that
for every x 2 R, there is an Lx-generic Cohen real.
We generalize this to L.P .!1 // in Theorem 5.67. This gives a reformulation of
the axiom ./ which seems more suited to the investigation of the consequences of this
axiom. As we have indicated above, this property characterizes the Pmax -extension.
We x some notation. Recall that the partial order Coll.!; <!1 / consists of nite
partial functions
p W ! !1 ! !1
such that for all k 2 ! and for all 2 !1 ,
p.k; / < 1 C :
g Coll.!; <!1 /
is a lter. For each < !1 let
Sg D j for some p 2 g; p.0; / D :
Suppose !1 Coll.!; <!1 /, then
Ig . / D j .; p/ 2 for some p 2 g:
Ig . / is the interpretation of by g.
t
u
5.7 The Axiom

239
Remark 5.66. The sequence hSg W < !1 i, dened in Denition 5.65, can be dened
using any reasonable sequence h W < !1 i of terms for pairwise disjoint stationary
subsets of !1 . The only important requirement is that
h W < !1V i 2 L:
t
u
Theorem 5.67. Assume ./ holds. Suppose X P .!1 /,

X 2 L.P .!1 //;
X ;, and that X is denable in L.P .!1 // from real and ordinal parameters.
Then there exist t 2 R and a term
!1 Coll.!; <!1 /
such that
2 Lt
and such that for all lters
g Coll.!; <!1 /
if g is Lt -generic and if for each < !1 , Sg is stationary, then
Ig ./ 2 X:
Proof. Fix a 2 formula .x1 ; x2 ; x3 /, a real r, and an ordinal such that
X D A !1 j L.R/G A; r; :
If X \ L.R/ ; then the theorem is trivial since every set in P .!1 / \ L.R/ is
Fix A0 2 X such that A0 L.R/. By Theorem 4.60, A0 is L.R/-generic
for Pmax . Let G0 Pmax be the L.R/-generic lter such that A0 D AG0 . Let
h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i 2 G0 be a condition such that in L.R/,
h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i Pmax AG ; r; :
Let x0 2 R \ M0 be such that
.!1 /M0 D .!1 /La0 ;x0
and let hhi W i < !i enumerate all functions
h W !1M0 ! M0
such that h 2 M0 . Thus if
j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
is an iteration then
M
M0 D j.hi /./ j < !1 0 ; i < !:

Let t 2 R code M0 . Suppose g Coll.!; <!1 / is Lt generic.
Let
j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
be an iteration such that
240
5 Applications
(1.1) j 2 Lt g,
(1.2) j.!1M0 / D !1 ,
(1.3) for all
if S D j.hi /./ then
S 2 P .!1 / \ M0 n I0 ;

Sg n S 2 INS
where D ! C i (i. e. is the image of .i; / under a reasonable bijection

of ! !1 with !1 ).
The iteration j is easily constructed in Lt g.
Let be a term for j . We may suppose that the interpretation of by any Lt generic lter yields an iteration satisfying (1.1)(1.3).
Let 0 be a term in Lt for j.a0 / and let
D .; p/ j < !1 ; p 2 Coll.!; <!1 /; and p 2 0 :
Thus
!1 Coll.!; <!1 /
and 2 Lt .
We nish by proving that t and are as desired.
Suppose g Coll.!; <!1 / is Lt -generic and that for each < !1 , Sg is a
stationary subset of !1 .
Let
j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
be the iteration given by and g. Thus
Ig ./ D j.a0 /:
By elementarity,
!1 D !1Lj.a0 /;x0
and so j.a0 / L.R/. Therefore by Theorem 4.60, j.a0 / is L.R/-generic for Pmax .
Let G0 Pmax be the induced lter. Thus
L.R/G D L.R/j.a0 / D L.R/G0 :
Suppose S 2 P .!1 / \ M0 n I0 . Then by the properties of j , there exists < !1
such that
Sg n S 2 INS :
Therefore S is stationary and so
I0 D M0 \ INS :
Thus
h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i 2 G0
and so, by the choice of h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i,
L.P .!1 // j.a0 /; r; :
Therefore Ig . / 2 X .
t
u
5.7 The Axiom

241
We isolate the conclusion of Theorem 5.67 in dening the following axiom.

Denition 5.68. Axiom : For all t 2 R, t # exists. Suppose X P .!1 /, X ;,
and that X is denable from real and ordinal parameters. Then there exist t 2 R and a
term
!1 Coll.!; <!1 /
such that
2 Lt
g Coll.!; <!1 /
Ig ./ 2 X:
The next lemma shows that in the formulation of

t
u
one need only consider sets
X P .!1 /
which are denable (without parameters).
Lemma 5.69 (For all t 2 R, t # exists). The following are equivalent.

(1) .
(2) Suppose X P .!1 /, X ;, and that X is denable by a 2 formula.
!1 Coll.!; <!1 /
such that
2 Lt
g Coll.!; <!1 /
Ig ./ 2 X:

Proof. We have only to prove that (2) implies .
each z ! let z be the least ordinal such that there exists a counterexample
For
to which is denable in Vz from z and ordinal parameters. Let Xz be the least
such counterexample in the natural order of sets which are denable in Vz from z and
ordinal parameters.
If no such counterexample exists then set Xz D ;.
Let X be the set of A !1 such that
A 2 Xz
242
5 Applications
where z D A \ ! and where

A D < !1 j ! C 2 A:

If fails then X ;.
Assume toward a contradiction that X ;.
X is denable by a 2 formula. Therefore by (2) there exist t 2 R and a term
!1 Coll.!; <!1 /
such that
2 Lt
g Coll.!; <!1 /
Ig ./ 2 X:
#
Since t exists we may suppose, by replacing t if necessary, that is denable in

Lt from t and !1 .
Let 0 be the least Silver indiscernible of Lt and let
g0 Coll.!; 0 /
be an Lt -generic lter.
Fix t0 2 Lt g0 \ R such that
Lt g0 D Lt0
and dene
0 !1 Coll.!; <!1 /
as follows.
.; p/ 2 0 if there exists
q 2 Coll.!; <!1 /
such that
(1.1) qj.! 0; 0 C 1/ 2 g0 ,
(1.2) qj.! .0 C 1; !1 // D pj.! .0 C 1; !1 //,
(1.3) .! C ; q/ 2 .
Now suppose h Coll.!; <!1 / is an Lt0 -generic lter such that for all < !1 ,
Sh is stationary.
Dene g Coll.!; <!1 / by
g D q 2 Coll.!; <!1 / j qj.! 0; 0 C 1/ 2 g0 ; qj.! .0 C 1; !1 // 2 h :

It follows that g is an Lt -generic lter and that for all < !1 ,
Sg \ .0 C 1; !1 / D Sh \ .0 C 1; !1 /:
5.7 The Axiom

243
Thus for all < !1 , Sg is stationary.

Let A D Ig . /. Therefore A 2 X and so
A 2 Xz
where as above, z D A \ ! and
A D < !1 j ! C 2 A:
Since is denable in Lt from t and !1 , it follows that
A\!
is completely determined by
g \ Coll.!; <0 / g0 :
Therefore z 2 Lt0 and z does not depend on h.
Finally by the denition of 0 ,
Ih .0 / D A
and so Ih . / 2 Xz .

Therefore t0 and 0 witness that Xz is not a counterexample to , which is a
contradiction.
t
u

Many of the consequences of ./ are more easily proved using . We begin with
a straightforward consequence which concerns !1 -borel sets. A set A R is !1 -borel
if it can be generated from the borel sets by closing the borel sets under !1 unions and
intersections. Clearly if CH holds then every set of reals is !1 -borel. The following
lemma gives a useful characterization of the !1 -borel sets.
Lemma 5.70. Suppose A R. The following are equivalent.
(1) A is !1 -borel.
(2) There exist S !1 , < !2 , and a formula .x0 ; x1 /, such that !1 < and
such that
t
u
A D y 2 R j L S; y S; y:
Lemma 5.70 can fail if one does not assume AC, the difculty is that it is possible
for a set A R to be !1 -borel but not effectively !1 -borel. With the latter notion,
Lemma 5.70 is true in just ZF. A set A R is effectively !1 -borel if it has an !1 borel code. The !1 -borel codes are dened by induction as subsets of !1 in the natural
fashion generalizing the denition of borel codes as subsets of !.
Lemma 5.71 (ZF). Suppose A R. The following are equivalent.
(1) A is effectively !1 -borel.
(2) There exist S !1 , < !2 , and a formula .x0 ; x1 /, such that !1 < and
such that
t
u
244
5 Applications
1
It is not difcult to show, assuming AD, that every !1 -borel set is
3 . This is an
immediate consequence of the fact that assuming AD, the
13 sets are closed under !1
unions. In fact, Lemma 5.70 can be proved assuming AD, and so, assuming AD, the
following are equivalent:
(1) A is !1 -borel,
(2) A is effectively !1 -borel,
(3) there exist x 2 R, < !2 , and a formula , such that !1 < and such that
A D y 2 R j L x; y x; y:
t
u

Theorem 5.72. Assume . Suppose that A R and that A is denable from ordinal
and real parameters. Then the following are equivalent.
(1) A is !1 -borel.
1
(2) A is
3 and
L.R/ A is !1 -borel:
(3) There exist x 2 R, < !2 , and a formula , such that !1 < and such that
A D y 2 R j L x; y x; y:
t
u
Proof. (2) trivially implies (1) and by Lemma 5.70, (3) also implies (1).
We assume (1) and prove (3).
By Lemma 5.70 there exist S0 !1 , 0 < !2 , and a formula 0 .x0 ; x1 /, such that
!1 < 0 and such that
A D y 2 R j L0 S0 ; y 0 S0 ; y; !1 :
Clearly we can suppose that 0 is less than the least ordinal such that !1 < and
such that L S0 is admissible.
Fix 0 and 0 . Let X P .!1 / be the set of S such that
(1.1) A D y 2 R j L0 S; y 0 S; y,
(1.2) 0 < where is the least ordinal above !1 such that L S is admissible.
Thus X ; and since A is denable from ordinal and real parameters, so is X .
By there exist x 2 R and a term
!1 Coll.!; <!1 /
such that
2 Lx
g Coll.!; <!1 /
5.7 The Axiom

245
if g is Lx-generic and if for each < !1 , S g is stationary, then

Ig ./ 2 X:
Let < !2 be least such that 0 < and such that
L .x/ ZFC:
Note that for each y 2 R, if g Coll.!; <!1V / is L .x; y/-generic, then
L0 .x; y; g/ 2 L .x; y/g:
This follows from an analysis of terms, the only slight problem is that while
L .x/ ZFC
it certainly can happen that L .x; y/ does not.
Thus for each y 2 R, y 2 A if and only if
L0 .Ig ./; y/ 0 Ig ./; y
for all L .x; y/-generic lters
g Coll.!; <!1 /:
Note that is denable in L!1 .x # /. Thus there is a formula .x0 ; x1 / such that
A D y 2 R j L x # ; y x # ; y:
t
u

We prove a sequence of results that combine to show that, assuming , there
exists a lter
G Pmax
This proves (3).
such that G is L.R/-generic and such that

L.P .!1 // D L.R/G:
Thus assuming
L.R/ AD;
and that
V D L.P .!1 //;
it follows that ./ and are equivalent.

In fact we shall also prove that assuming , the nonstationary ideal has a homogeneity property which can be shown to imply that
L.R/ AD:
Thus if
V D L.P .!1 //;
then ./ and are equivalent.

The proof that implies that L.P .!1 // is a Pmax -extension of L.R/ requires the
following theorem and subsequent lemma. These combine to prove Corollary 5.78.
Theorem 5.73 gives more than we need however it does give some interesting consequences of ./.
246
5 Applications
Theorem 5.73. Assume

holds. Then:
(1) 12 D !2 .
(2) Every club in !1 contains a club which is constructible from a real.
(3) Suppose A !1 is conal. There is a wellordering <A of !1 and a club C !1
such that for all 2 C , rank.<A j / 2 A.
(4) Suppose A !1 is conal. The set A contains a conal subset which is constructible from a real.
(5) Suppose A !1 and that A is not constructible from a real. There exists a real
x and a lter g Coll.!; <!1 / such that g is Lx-generic and such that
Lxg D LxA:
Proof. Clearly (2) implies (1). Further assuming (2) and that for all x 2 R, x # exists,
(3) and (4) are equivalent. We note that (3) simply asserts that AQ ; whenever A is a
conal subset of !1 .

(2) is a trivial consequence of .
We prove (5), the proof of (4) is similar though much easier.
Let X0 P .!1 / be the set of counterexamples to (5). Assume toward a contradiction that
X0 ;.
By there exist t0 2 R,
0 !1 Coll.!; <!1 /;
such that for all lters g Coll.!; <!1 /, if g is Lt0 -generic and if
Sg j < !1 P .!1 / n INS ;
then Ig .0 / 2 X0 .
Since t0# exists, we can suppose by modifying t0 if necessary that 0 is denable in
Lt0 from t0 and !1 .
Let g0 Coll.!; <!1 / be a lter such that g0 is Lt0# -generic and such that
Sg0 j < !1 P .!1 / n INS :
Let 0 be the least indiscernible of Lt0 . Let 0 be the least ordinal such that 0 < 0
and such that there exist p; q 2 Coll.!; <!1 / satisfying the following.
(1.1) pj.! 0 / 2 g0 .
(1.2) qj.! 0 / 2 g0 .
(1.3) p 0 2 Ig0 .0 /.
(1.4) q 0 Ig0 .0 /.
5.7 The Axiom

247
Let p0 and q0 be the Lt0 -least such conditions relative to the canonical wellordering of Lt0 given by t0 .
Since Ig0 .0 / 2 X0 , 0 , p0 and q0 exist. Since 0 is denable in Lt0 from t0 and
!1 ,
0 ; p0 ; q0 L 1 t0
where 1 is the least indiscernible of Lt0 above 0 .
Let h W < !1 i be the increasing enumeration of the indiscernibles of Lt0
below !1 .
For each < !1 let
j W Lt0 ! Lt0
be the canonical elementary embedding such that
j.0 / D
and such that
Lt0 D j .f /.s/ j f 2 Lt0 ; s 2 <! :
These requirements uniquely specify j .
Since 0 is denable in Lt0 from .t0 ; !1 /, for each < !1 ,
j .0 / D 0 :
For each < !1 let
D j .0 /;
let
p D j .p0 /;
and let
q D j .q0 /:
Suppose that g Coll.!; <!1 / is an Lt0 -generic lter such that
g \ Coll.!; <0 / D g0 \ Coll.!; <0 /:
Then for each < !1 , the elementary embedding j lifts to an elementary embedding
jO W Lt0 g0 \ Coll.!; <0 / ! Lt0 g \ Coll.!; < /:
Thus
(2.1) p j.! / 2 g,
(2.2) q j.! / 2 g,
(2.3) p 2 Ig .0 /,
(2.4) q Ig .0 /.
We work in Lt0# g0 and dene a lter g Coll.!; <!1 / which is Lt0 -generic.
Construct g \ Coll.!; < / by induction on such that
g \ Coll.!; <0 / D g0 \ Coll.!; <0 /
and such that for all < !1 , if is a limit ordinal then
248
5 Applications
(3.1) p W ! ! j p 2 g0 g,
(3.2) i 2 ! j CiC1 2 Ig .0 / codes g0 \ Coll.!; <C! /,
(3.3) g \ Coll.!; < / 2 Lt0# g0 \ Coll.!; < /.
This is easily done. There are two relevant points.
(4.1) For each < !1 if is a limit ordinal and if
h0 Coll.!; <Ci /
is Lt0 -generic then the lter h0 can be enlarged to an Lt0 -generic lter
h1 Coll.!; <CiC1 /
with either pCi 2 h1 or qCi 2 h1 as desired.
(4.2) The are strongly inaccessible in Lt0 . Therefore if < ! is a limit ordinal
and h Coll.!; < / is a lter such that for all < ,
h \ Coll.!; < /
is Lt0 -generic, then h is Lt0 -generic.
With these observations in hand we sketch the inductive step. The limit steps are immediate, the uniformity of the construction at successor steps ensures that (3.3) holds.
Suppose < !1 , is a limit ordinal and that g \ Coll.!; < / is given. Since
g \ Coll.!; < / 2 Lt0# g0 \ Coll.!; < /;
we can dene g \ Coll.!; / satisfying (3.1) and preserving Lt0 -genericity.
For each i ! let
i D C2Ci :
Thus for each i < !,
.pCiC1 ; qCiC1 / 2 L i t0 :
We work in Lt0# g0 \ Coll.!; <! /.
Let x ! be such that
x 2 Lt0# g0 \ Coll.!; <! /
and such that x codes g0 \ Coll.!; <! /.
We choose x to be the Lt0# g0 \ Coll.!; <! /-least such set in the canonical
wellordering of Lt0# g0 \ Coll.!; <! / given by .t0# ; g0 \ Coll.!; <! //.
It is straightforward to construct, using (4.1),
g \ Coll.!; <i /
by induction on i < ! such that
i < ! j pCiC1 2 g D x
and such that
i < ! j qCiC1 2 g D ! n x:
5.7 The Axiom
By (4.2)

249
[g \ Coll.!; <i / j i < !
is Lt0 -generic. Thus
[g \ Coll.!; <i / j i < !
is as desired. We dene
g \ Coll.!; <! /
to be the Lt0# g0 \ Coll.!; <! /-least such extension of

g \ Coll.!; < /:
Let g Coll.!; <!1 / be an Lt0 -generic lter satisfying (3.1), (3.2), and (3.3).
Then by (3.1), for each < !1 ,
Sg0 \ C D Sg \ C
where
C D j < !1 ; is a limit ordinal:
Thus for each < !1 , Sg stationary.
We prove by induction on limit ordinals < !1 that
g \ Coll.!; < / 2 Lt0# g \ Coll.!; <! /Ig .0 /:
This is easily veried using (3.2) and (3.3).
Let
z 2 R \ Lt0# g0 \ Coll.!; <! /
code the pair .t0# ; g \ Coll.!; <! //. Thus
LzIg .0 / D Lt0# g D Lzg
where
g D pj.! ! ; !1 // j p 2 g
This contradicts Ig .0 / 2 X0 and so X0 D ;. This proves (5).
t
u
Remark 5.74. (4) can be generalized to give the following. Suppose T !1<!
is a wellfounded subtree such that for all s 2 T if s is not of rank 0 in T then
j s _ 2 T has size !1 . Then there is a subtree T T such that:
(1) T is constructible from a real;
(2) rank.T / D rank.T /;
(3) for all s 2 T if s is not of rank 0 in T then j s _ 2 T has size !1 .
This in fact follows just from the assertion that the nonstationary ideal on !1 is saturated together with the assertion that every set A !1 contains a conal subset which
is constructible from a real.
t
u
250
5 Applications
The following theorem which we shall prove in Section 6.2.4 shows that the axiom
implies that there are no weak Kurepa trees. The relevant theorem of Section 6.2.4

is Theorem 6.124 and
is actually a little stronger than Theorem 5.75. Note
that by
Theorem 5.73(5), implies that for every B !1 , B # exists. Therefore implies
that for every B !1 ,
jP .!1 / \ LBj D !1 :
that

. Suppose that A !1 . Then there exists B !1 such
(1) A 2 LB,
(2) for all Z !1 if
Z \ 2 LB
for all < !1 then Z 2 LB.
t
u

Remark 5.76. (1) The rst 4 consequences of given in Theorem 5.73 follow
from Martins Maximum though the proofs seem more involved.
(2) We do not know if (5) of Theorem 5.73 can be proved from Martins Maximum.
This problem seems very likely related to the problem of the relationship of Martins Maximum and the axiom ./. Similarly we do not know if Theorem 5.75
can be proved from Martins Maximum. The two problems are likely closely
related. Note that if B !1 satises the condition (2) of Theorem 5.75 and if
t
u
B # exists then there must exist x 2 LB \ R such that x # LB.
Lemma 5.77. Assume

. Suppose that y 2 R and that

M 2 H.!2 /
is denable from y and ordinal parameters. Then M 2 Lz for some z 2 R.

Proof. This is an immediate consequence of .
Fix y 2 R and suppose that M 2 H.!2 / is ordinal denable from y.
Let X be the set of A !1 such that
M 2 LA:
Thus
is ordinal denable from y (and X ;).
X
By , there exist z 2 R and
!1 Coll.!; <!1 /
such that 2 Lz and such that for all Lz-generic lters,
g Coll.!; <!1 /;
if
Sg
is stationary for each < !1 then

Ig ./ 2 X:
5.7 The Axiom

251
Let
g1 Coll.!; <!1 /
and
g2 Coll.!; <!1 /
be Lz-generic lters such that
(1.1) Sg1 is stationary for each < !1 ,
(1.2) Sg2 is stationary for each < !1 ,
(1.3) g2 is Lzg1 -generic.
Such a pair of lters is easily constructed using z # .
Let A1 D Ig1 . / and let A2 D Ig2 ./.
Thus A1 2 X and A2 2 X .
Therefore
M 2 Lzg1 \ Lzg2 :
It follows that M 2 Lz.
t
u
Lemma 5.77 has the following corollary. This is also a corollary of Theorem 5.73
and Theorem 3.22, but the proof we give is more direct.
Corollary 5.78. Assume

. Then for all x 2 R, x exists.
Proof. Fix x 2 R.
By Theorem 5.73(2) and Lemma 5.77,
F \ P .!1 / \ HODx
is an HODx -ultralter where F is the club lter on !1 .
Therefore !1 is a measurable cardinal in HODx and
F \ P .!1 / \ HODx
is a normal measure on !1 .
Let
N D LF ; x:
Since !1 is a measurable cardinal in N ,
jV!1 \ N j D !1
and so by Lemma 5.77 there exists y0 2 R such that
V!1 \ N 2 Ly0 :
Since y0# exists, for all A !1 , if
A \ 2 Ly0
for all < !1 then A 2 Ly0 .
252
5 Applications
Thus
P .!1 / \ N Ly0
and so
jP .!1 / \ N j D !1 :
Hence by Lemma 5.77 again there exists y1 2 R such that
P .!1 / \ N 2 Ly1
and such that
F \ P .!1 / \ N 2 Ly1 :
Thus
N Ly1
#
y1#
and so N exists since

exists.
Therefore x exists.
t
u
By Theorem 4.59 and Corollary 5.78, assuming

trivial.
Lemma 5.79. Assume

, the partial order Pmax is non-

. Suppose

A 2 P .!1 / n L.R/:
Then A is HODR -generic for Pmax .

Proof. For each
A 2 P .!1 / n L.R/;
let FA be the set of
h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax
for which there exists an iteration

j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
such that j.a/ D A and such that
I D INS \ M :
By Theorem 3.19 and Theorem 5.73(2), there exists a countable elementary substructure
X H.!2 /
such that MX is iterable where MX is the transitive collapse of X .
Thus by Lemma 4.74 the elements of FA are pairwise compatible. Therefore it
sufces to show that
FA \ D ;
for each D Pmax such that D is dense and such that D 2 HODR .
Assume toward a contradiction that
A0 2 P .!1 / n L.R/;
5.7 The Axiom

253
D0 Pmax is dense, D0 2 HODR , and that

D0 \ FA0 D ;:
By Theorem 5.73(5), there exists t0 2 R such that
!1 D .!1 /Lt0 ;A0 :
Let
X P .!1 / n L.R/
be the set of all
A 2 P .!1 / n L.R/
such that
(1.1) FA \ D0 D ;,
(1.2) !1 D .!1 /LA;t0 .
Since
D0 2 HODR ;
X is denable with
parameters from R [ Ord. Further A0 2 X and so X ;.
Therefore by there exist t 2 R and
!1 Coll.!; <!1 /
such that 2 Lt and such that for all lters g Coll.!; !1 /, if g is Lt -generic and
if
Sg j < !1 \ INS D ;;
then Ig . / 2 X .
We may suppose, by replacing t if necessary, that t0 2 Lt and that is denable
in Lt from t and !1 .
By Corollary 5.78, t exists.
Let N be a countable transitive set and let 2 N be a normal measure in N such
that .N; / is iterable (in the usual sense) and such that t 2 N .
Let 2 N be the measurable cardinal of N supporting and let
g Coll.!; </
be N -generic.
Let
a0 D < j .; p/ 2 for some p 2 g:
t 2 N and .N; / is iterable. Therefore t # 2 N and so is an indiscernible of Lt .
Since is denable in Lt from t and !1 , it follows that
D .!1 /La0 ;t0 :
Suppose that N gh is a ccc extension of N g such that
N gh MA!1 ;
254
5 Applications
and let I0 2 N g be the ideal generated by

a j n a 2 :
It follows that .N gh; I0 / is iterable. Thus
h.N gh; I0 /; a0 i 2 Pmax
and so, since D0 is dense, there exists h.M; I /; ai 2 D0 such that
h.M; I /; ai < h.N gh; I0 /; a0 i:
Let
j0 W .N gh; I0 / ! .N g h ; I0 /
be the iteration such that j0 .a0 / D a.

j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
Let A D j.a/.
By elementarity,
I D INS \ M :
j.g / Coll.!; <!1 /;
g is Lt -generic and
A D Ij.g / ./:
Moreover for each < ,
.Sg /N gh I0 :
Thus, by the elementarity of j j0 , for each < !1 ,
Sj.g
Since
/
I :
I D INS \ M ;
it follows that for each < !1 , Sj.g / is stationary.

Thus implies that A 2 X . However the iteration,
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
witnesses
h.M; I /; ai 2 FA :
t
u
This is a contradiction.

Corollary 5.80. Assume . Then MA!1 .
Proof. Let A 2 P .!1 / n L.R/ code a pair
.P ; D/ 2 H.!2 /
such that
5.7 The Axiom

255
(1.1) P is a ccc partial order,

(1.2) D is a collection of dense subsets of P .
By Lemma 5.79, A is L.R/-generic for Pmax . In particular there exists
h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax
and an iteration
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
such that
I D INS \ M
and such that j.a/ D A.

By elementarity,
M MA!1 :
Therefore since A 2 M we have that

.P ; D/ 2 M :
This implies that there is a lter F P such that F 2 M and such that
F \d ;
for all d 2 D.
t
u
We recall the following notation. Suppose G Pmax is a semi-generic lter.

P .!1 /G D [P .!1 / \ M j h.M; I /; ai 2 G
where for each h.M; I /; ai 2 G,
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
is the unique iteration such that
j.a/ D AG D [a j h.M; I /; ai 2 G:
Of course the lter G is uniquely specied by AG .

. Suppose

A 2 P .!1 / n L.R/:
Then exists a lter

G Pmax
such that G is HODR -generic and such that the following hold.
(1) A D AG .
(2) P .!1 / D P .!1 /G .
(3) HODP .!1 / D HODR G.
256
5 Applications
Proof. Suppose
A 2 P .!1 / n L.R/:
Fix x 2 R such that
!1 D .!1 /LA;x :
By Lemma 5.79 there is a lter

G Pmax
such that G is HODR -generic and such that
A D AG :
Suppose B !1 . By Corollary 5.80, MA!1 holds and so
B 2 L!1 C1 A; x; y
for some y 2 R.
By genericity there exists,
h.M; I /; ai 2 G
such that .x; y/ 2 M.
Let
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
is the unique iteration such that A D j.a/.
It follows that
L!1 C1 A; x; y 2 M
and so B 2 M ; i. e.
B 2 P .!1 /G :
Therefore
P .!1 / D P .!1 /G
and so G satises (2).
We nish by proving that
HODP .!1 / D HODR G:
Let P be the predicate dened as follows. .A; ; ; b/ 2 P if
(1.1) 2 Ord and > !2 ,
(1.2) b 2 R Ord,
(1.3) A 2 P .!1 /,
(1.4) is a formula in the language for set theory,
(1.5) V A; b.
It is an elementary fact that
HODP .!1 / D L.P; P .!1 //:
Therefore it sufces to show that for all 2 Ord,
P \ V 2 HODR G:
Let Q be the following predicate. .t; ; ; ; b/ 2 Q if
5.7 The Axiom

257
(2.1) 2 Ord and > !2 ,

(2.2) b 2 R Ord,
(2.3) t 2 R, !1 Coll.!; <!1 /, and
2 Lt ;
(2.4) is a formula in the language for set theory,
(2.5) for all lters g Coll.!; <!1 /, if g is Lt -generic and if
Sg j < !1 P .!1 / n INS ;
then
V Ig ./; b:
Thus for all 2 Ord, Q \ V 2 HODR .
However by ,
P \ V 2 L.Q \ V ; P .!1 //
and so
P \ V 2 L.Q \ V ; R/G:
Thus
HODP .!1 / D HODR G
t
u
and this proves the theorem.
Using the results of the next section, Section 5.8, the assumption in the Corollary 5.82 that
L.R/ AD
can be eliminated; i. e. if
then ./ and

V D L.P .!1 //;

are equivalent.

L.R/ AD:
Then the following are equivalent.
(1) ./.
(2) L.P .!1 //

We next prove that

of P .!1 /.
.

t
u
implies that a perfect set theorem holds for denable subsets
258
5 Applications

Theorem 5.83. Assume holds. Suppose X P .!1 / and that X is denable in
L.P .!1 // from real and ordinal parameters. Suppose there exists A 2 X such that
A L.R/. Then there exists a function
W 2<!1 ! !1 !
and a conal set
T !1
such that for all s 2 2<!1 and for all t 2 2<!1 :
(1) if s t then .s/ .t / and
.t / \ D .s/ \
for all 2 .s/;
(2) for all 2 T \ dom.s/,
2 .s/
if and only if
s./ D 1I
and such that for all F 2 2!1 ,
[.F j/ j < !1 2 X:
Proof. The proof is quite similar to the proof of Theorem 5.73(5).
Let X0 D X n L.R/. Thus X0 is denable from ordinal and real parameters, and
X0 ;.

By there exist t0 2 R,
0 !1 Coll.!; <!1 /;
such that for all lters g Coll.!; <!1 /, if g is Lt0 -generic and if
Sg j < !1 P .!1 / n INS ;
then Ig .0 / 2 X0 .
Since t0# exists, we can suppose by modifying t0 if necessary that 0 is denable in
Lt0 from t0 and !1 .
Let F t0 be the set of lters g Coll.!; <!1 /, such that g is Lt -generic and such
that
Sg j < !1 P .!1 / n INS :
Fix g0 2 F t0 . Since Ig0 .0 / 2 X0 ,
Ig0 .0 / Lt0 :
Let 0 be the least indiscernible of Lt0 . Let 0 be the least ordinal such that
0 < 0 and such that there exist p; q 2 Coll.!; <!1 / satisfying the following.
(1.1) pj.! 0 / 2 g0 .
(1.2) qj.! 0 / 2 g0 .
5.7 The Axiom

259
(1.3) p 0 2 Ig0 .0 /.

(1.4) q 0 Ig0 .0 /.
Let p0 and q0 be the Lt0 -least such conditions relative to the canonical wellordering of Lt0 given by t0 .
Since Ig0 .0 / 2 X0 , 0 , p0 and q0 exist. Since 0 is denable in Lt0 from t0 and
!1 ,
0 ; p0 ; q0 L 1 t0
where 1 is the least indiscernible of Lt0 above 0 .
Let h W < !1 i be the increasing enumeration of the indiscernibles of Lt0
below !1 .
For each < !1 let
j W Lt0 ! Lt0
be the canonical elementary embedding such that
j.0 / D
and such that
Lt0 D j .f /.s/ j f 2 Lt0 ; s 2 <! :
These requirements uniquely specify j .
Since 0 is denable in Lt0 from .t0 ; !1 /, for each < !1 ,
j .0 / D 0 :
For each < !1 let
D j .0 /;
let
p D j .p0 /;
and let
q D j .q0 /:
Suppose that g 2 F t0 and that
g \ Coll.!; <0 / D g0 \ Coll.!; <0 /:
Then for each < !1 , the elementary embedding j lifts to an elementary embedding
jO W Lt0 g0 \ Coll.!; <0 / ! Lt0 g \ Coll.!; < /:
Thus
(2.1) p j.! / 2 g,
(2.2) q j.! / 2 g,
(2.3) p 2 Ig .0 /,
(2.4) q Ig .0 /.
260
5 Applications
Let
T D C1 j < !1 :
For each < !1 let
F t0
be the set of lters

h Coll.!; < /
such that h is Lt0 -generic.

For each h 2 F t0 and for each < let
Sh D j for some p 2 h; p.0; / D :
Similarly for each h 2 F t0 let
Ih .0 / D < j .; p/ 2 h for some p 2 h:
Suppose g 2 F t0 . Then for each < !1 ,
Ih .0 / D Ig .0 / \
and for each < ,
Sh D Sg \
where h D g \ Coll.!; < /.
Dene a function
W 2<!1 ! V
such that for all s; t 2 2<!1 ,
(3.1) .s/ 2 F t0 where D dom.s/,
(3.2) .s/ \ Coll.!; <0 / D g0 \ Coll.!; <0 /,
(3.3) if s t then .s/ .t /,
(3.4) if 2 dom.s/ then
2 S .s/
where is such that 2 Sg0 ,

(3.5) if C1 2 dom.s/ then
pC1 2 .s/ if s.C1 / D 1;
and
qC1 2 .s/ if s.C1 / D 0:
By the remarks above involving the embeddings j , the requirements (3.4) and
(3.5) do not interfere.
Dene
W 2<!1 ! !1 !
by .s/ D I .s/ .0 /.
Thus satises the requirements (1) and (2) in the statement of the theorem.
5.7 The Axiom

261
Suppose F 2 2!1 and let

g D [.F j / j < !1 :
For each < !1 ,
.F j / 2 F t0
and so g is Lt0 -generic.
For each < !1 ,
Sg M Sg0 2 INS
and so for each < !1 , Sg is stationary.
Therefore Ig .0 / 2 X .
Finally
Ig .0 / D [.F j/ j < !1
t
u
and so is as desired.
Remark 5.84. Thus subsets of 2!1 which are denable in L.R/Pmax are either in L.R/
t
u
or contain copies of 2!1 .

The reformulation of ./ as taken together with the results of Chapter 4 strongly
suggests that, assuming ./, one should be able to analyze sets
X P .!1 /
which are denable in the structure
hH.!2 /; 2; INS i
by a 1 formula.
We explore the possibilities for classifying specic denable subsets of P .!1 /.
For this we assume that the axiom ./ holds and we focus on attempting to classify
partitions
W !1 2 ! 0;1
for which there is no homogeneous rectangle for 0, of (proper) cardinality @1 . Here we
adopt the convention that if Z D A B !1 !1 is a rectangle, then Z has proper
cardinality @1 if both A and B have cardinality @1 .
This is related to the following variation of a question of S. Todorcevic.
Is it consistent that for any partition
W !1 2 ! 0;1;
either there is a homogeneous rectangle for for 0, of (proper) cardinality @1 ,
or there is no such homogeneous rectangle in any generic extension of V which
preserves !1 ?
262
5 Applications
Remark 5.85.
(1) Suppose that

W !1 2 ! 0;1;
and for each < !1 dene

B D < !1 j .; / D 0:
The partition has a homogeneous rectangle of (proper) cardinality @1 if and
only if there exists a countably complete, uniform, lter
F P .!1 /
such that
j < !1 j B 2 F or !1 n B 2 F j D @1 ;
similarly the partition has a homogeneous rectangle for 0 of (proper) cardinality @1 if and only if there exists a countably complete, uniform, lter
F P .!1 /
such that
j < !1 j B 2 F j D @1 :
Thus one is really attempting to classify the sequences hB W < !1 i of subsets
of !1 for which there exists a uniform countably complete lter on !1 which
contains uncountably many of the sets.
(2) The problem of whether it consistent for every partition
W !1 2 ! 0;1
to have a homogeneous rectangle of (proper) cardinality @1 , has been solved
negatively Moore .2006/.
t
u
We x some more notation. Suppose a 2 H.!1 / and that
L.a/ ZFC:
Let D jcj
L.a/
where c is the transitive closure of a, Then

M3 .a/ D .H.j jC //L.Q3 .a// :
Let b be a set in L.a/ which codes a. One can show that M3 .a/ is precisely the
set of all sets, c, which can be coded by a set z such that z 2 Q3 .b/.
1
Denition 5.86 (
2 -Determinacy). Suppose that
W !1 2 ! 0;1:
(1) Suppose that X !1 . Let E .3/ X be the set of < !1 such that there exists
Z1 Z2
such that
5.7 The Axiom

263
a) Z1 and Z2 each have ordertype ,

b) .; / D 0 for all .; / 2 Z1 Z2 with < ,
c) Q3 .Z1 Z2 .X \ / j2 / ;,
d) M3 .Z1 Z2 .X \ / j2 / D !1 .
(2) Suppose that X !1 and that
A D hS W < !1 i
is a sequence of stationary subsets of !1 such that for each < !1 ,
S 2 LX :
Let E .3/ X; A be the set of < !1 such that there exists
Z1 Z2
such that
a) Z1 and Z2 each have ordertype ,
b) .; / D 0 for all .; / 2 Z1 Z2 with < ,
c) Q3 .a/ ;,
d) M3 .a/ D !1 ,
e) for each < , S \ 2 M3 .a/ and S \ is a stationary set within
M3 .a/,
where
a D Z1 Z2 .X \ / j2 :
t
u
Assume there exists a Woodin cardinal with a measurable cardinal above. Then
1
by .Martin and Steel 1989/,
2 -Determinacy holds and so Denition 5.86 applies. If
the partition given by has a homogeneous rectangle for 0, of (proper) cardinality @1 ,
then necessarily E .3/ X; A contains a club in !1 .
Another trivial observation is that if for some .X; A/ the set E .3/ X; A is nonstationary then there exists Y !1 such that
E .3/ Y; A D ;:
With the notation as above we have the following lemma.
Lemma 5.87. Assume there is a Woodin cardinal with a measurable above. Then
(1) E .3/ X contains a closed unbounded set or E .3/ X is nonstationary,
(2) E .3/ X; A contains a closed unbounded set or E .3/ X; A is nonstationary.
264
5 Applications
Proof. We prove (1), the proof of (2) is similar.

Suppose E .3/ X is stationary. We show that E .3/ X contains a closed unbounded
set.
Let be a Woodin cardinal and let S be a set such that
V 2 LS
#
and such that S exists. By the hypothesis of the lemma, and S exist.
Let
N D LS :
Let
Y N
be a countable elementary substructure containing innitely many Silver indiscernibles
of N .
We prove that
Y \ !1 2 E .3/ X :
Let NY be the transitive collapse of Y . Let SY be the image of S under the collapsing map and let Y be the image of .
Let D NY \ Ord.
Thus
NY Y is a Woodin cardinal
and
NY D L SY :
Since Y contains innitely many indiscernibles of N ,
L SY LSY :
The key points are that
.E .3/
XY /NY D E .3/ X \ Y \ !1
Y
and that
XY is stationary;
NY E .3/
Y
where XY and Y are the images of X and under the collapsing map.
By elementarity,
.E .3/
XY /LSY D E .3/ X \ Y \ !1
Y
and
XY is stationary:
LSY E .3/
Y
Let a D .E .3/
XY /LSY and let D !1LSY D Y \ !1 .
Y
Let
G .Q<Y /LSY
be an LSY -generic lter for the stationary tower such that a 2 G.
5.7 The Axiom
Let

265
j W LSY ! LSY
be the induced elementary embedding. Since Y is a Woodin cardinal in LSY , the

generic ultrapower is wellfounded, since a 2 G,
2 j.a/:
Further j.Y /j2 D j2 and similarly j.XY / \ D X \ .
Therefore there exists
Z 1 Z2
such that
(1.1) Z1 and Z2 each have ordertype ,
(1.2) .Z1 ; Z2 / 2 LSY ,
(1.3) j.Y /.0 ; 1 / D 0 for all .0 ; 1 / 2 Z1 Z2 with 0 < 1 ,
(1.4) .M3 .Z j2 .X \ ///LSY D !1 .

However LSY is a transitive inner model containing the ordinals and so it follows
that for each transitive set

b 2 .H.!1 //LSY ;
such that L.b/ ZFC,
M3 .b/ .M3 .b//LSY :

Therefore the set Z1 Z2 witnesses that
2 E .3/ X
and so Y \ !1 2 E .3/ X .
This proves (1).
t
u
Theorem 5.88. Assume ./. Suppose that A !1 . Then there exists a transitive inner
model M containing the ordinals and the set A such that
M ZFC C There exist ! many Woodin cardinals:
Proof. We sketch the argument. We require the following strengthening of Theorem 5.73(5). For each x 2 R let
Nx D HODxL.R/ :
Suppose A !1 . Then there exist x 2 R and G Coll.!; <!1V / such that
(1.1) G is Nx -generic,
(1.2) A 2 Nx G.
266
5 Applications
We prove this. By Theorem 5.67,

L.P .!1 //

:
Let X be the set of A !1 for which x and G do not exist satisfying (1.1) and (1.2).
By there exist t 2 R and 2 Lt such that
(2.1) !1 Coll.!; <!1 /,
(2.2) for each Lt -generic lter
g Coll.!; <!1V /;
if Sg .g/ INS for each < !1 then Ig ./ 2 X .
Let g Coll.!; <!1 / be an N t -generic lter such that
Sg j < !1 \ INS D ;;
and let A D Ig . /. Thus A 2 X , but
A 2 N t g
which is a contradiction. The lter g is easily constructed since there is a closed unbounded set
C !1V
of ordinals which are strongly inaccessible in N t .
We now prove the theorem. Fix A !1 . Fix x 2 R and G Coll.!; <!1V / such
that
(3.1) G is Nx -generic,
(3.2) A 2 Nx G.
By the results of .Koellner and Woodin 2010/, there is an inner model M of Nx such
that
(4.1) Ord M ,
(4.2) M ZFC C There exist ! many Woodin cardinals,
(4.3) P .!1V / \ Nx D P .!1V / \ M .
By .Koellner and Woodin 2010/, !1V is the least measurable cardinal of Nx . Therefore
M G ZFC C There exist ! many Woodin cardinals:
However A 2 M G and so M G is as required.
Combining Lemma 5.87 and Theorem 5.88 we obtain:
t
u
5.7 The Axiom

267
Theorem 5.89. Assume ./. Suppose that

W !1 2 ! 0;1;
X !1 and that
A D hS W < !1 i
is a sequence of stationary subsets of !1 . Then
(1) E .3/ X contains a closed unbounded set or E .3/ X is nonstationary,
(2) E .3/ X; A contains a closed unbounded set or E .3/ X; A is nonstationary. u
t
Lemma 5.90 is in essence just Theorem 4.67 adapted to our current context.
Lemma 5.90. Assume ./. Suppose
W !1 2 ! 0;1
is a partition with no homogeneous rectangle for 0 of .proper/ cardinality @1 . Then
there exist X !1 and a sequence
A D hS W < !1 i
of stationary sets such that A 2 LX and such that
E .3/ X; A D ;:
Proof. Fix a lter G Pmax such that G is L.R/-generic.
Let h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i 2 G be such that 0 2 M0 and such that j0;!1 .0 / D where
h.M ; I /; G ; j; W < !1 i
is the unique iteration such that j0;!1 .a0 / D AG and
0 D j!1M0 2 :
By Theorem 4.67 we can suppose that for all countable iterations,
j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M; I /
if N is a countable, transitive, model of ZFC such that;
(1.1) .P .!1 //M N ,
(1.2) !1N D !1M ,
(1.3) Q3 .S / N , for each S 2 N such that S !1N ,
(1.4) if S !1N , S 2 M and if S I then S is a stationary set in N ,
268
5 Applications
then
N j.0 / has no homogeneous rectangle for 0, of (proper) cardinality @1 .
Let A D hS W < !1 i be an enumeration of
.P .!1 //M!1 n I!1 :
Since
I!1 D INS \ M!1 ;
for each < !1 , S is a stationary subset of !1 .
Let X !1 be a set which codes M!1 .
Suppose
Y H.!2 /
is a countable elementary substructure with
h.M ; I /; G ; j; W < !1 i 2 Y
and let D Y \ !1 .
Then
S \ j < D .P .!1 //M n I
and X \ codes M .
Suppose that N is a countable transitive model of ZFC such that !1N D and such
that X \ 2 N . Then
.P .!1 //M N :
Therefore by the choice of h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i,
E .3/ X; A
and so E .3/ X; A D ;.
t
u
There is a version of Lemma 5.90 for dealing with the existence of homogeneous
sets for partitions
W !1 2 ! 0;1:
This requires the obvious adaptation of Denition 5.86.
1
Denition 5.91 (
W !1 2 ! 0;1:
(1) Suppose that X !1 . Let F .3/ X be the set of < !1 such that there exists
Z
such that
a) Z has ordertype ,
b) .; / D 0 for all .; / 2 Z Z with < ,
c) Q3 .Z .X \ / j2 / ;,
d) M3 .Z .X \ / j2 / D !1 .
5.7 The Axiom

269
(2) Suppose that X !1 and that

A D hS W < !1 i
is a sequence of stationary subsets of !1 such that for each < !1 ,
S 2 LX :
Let F .3/ X; A be the set of < !1 such that there exists
Z
such that
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Z has ordertype ,
.; / D 0 for all .; / 2 Z Z with < ,
Q3 .a/ ;,
M3 .a/ D !1 ,
for each < , S \ 2 M3 .a/ and S \ is a stationary set within
M3 .a/,
where
a D Z .X \ / j2 :
t
u
The proof of Lemma 5.90 is easily modied to yield a proof of

Lemma 5.92. Assume ./. Suppose
W !1 2 ! 0;1
is a partition with no homogeneous set for 0 of cardinality @1 . Then there exist X !1
and a sequence
A D hS W < !1 i
of stationary sets such that A 2 LX and such that
F .3/ X; A D ;:
u
t
For the problem of nding homogeneous sets, Lemma 5.92 is essentially the
strongest possible result. This is a consequence of the following theorem of
Todorcevic.
Theorem 5.93 (Todorcevic). Assume ./ and suppose S !1 is a stationary, costationary, subset of !1 . Then there exists a partition
W !1 2 ! 0;1
such that:
(1) F O.3/ ; D ;;
(2) For all X !1 , F .3/ X is contains a closed unbounded set;
(3) Let A D hS W < !1 i be any sequence of stationary sets which contains S ,
then F .3/ X; A is nonstationary;
where
O W !1 2 ! 0;1
is the partition; .;
O / D 0 if and only if .; / D 1.
t
u
270
5 Applications
Remark 5.94. Todorcevics theorem is actually stronger, Theorem 5.93 is simply the
version relevant to our discussion. Note that Theorem 5.93(1) asserts in effect that
t
u
cannot have a homogeneous set of cardinality @1 for 1.
By combining Theorem 5.67 and Lemma 5.90 we obtain the next theorem. Suppose
g Coll.!; <!1 /
is a maximal lter. Let
Ag D hSg j < !1 i:
Suppose
L!1 Coll.!; <!1 /:
Then
Ig . / D z j .z; p/ 2 g for some p 2 g:
This generalizes the denition of Ig ./ given previously where !1 Coll.!;<!1 /.
Theorem 5.95. Assume ./. Suppose
W !1 2 ! 0;1
is a partition with no homogeneous rectangle for 0 of .proper/ cardinality @1 . Then
there exist t !,
L!1 Coll.!; <!1 /;
and a lter
g Coll.!; <!1 /;
such that
(1) 2 Lt ,
(2) g is Lt -generic, 2 Lt g and D Ig ./,
(3) Sg j < !1 P .!1 / n INS ,
(4) for all lters
g Coll.!; <!1 /;
if g is Lt -generic and if
Sg j < !1 P .!1 / n INS ;

then
a) W !1 2 ! 0;1,

b) E .3/
X ; Ag D ;,
where D Ig . / and where X !1 is such that

Lt g D LX :
5.7 The Axiom

271

Proof. Assuming , this follows easily from Lemma 5.90. By Theorem 5.67,
u
t
holds in L.P .!1 //.
The key question is the following.
Assume ./. Suppose
W !1 2 ! 0;1
is a partition with no homogeneous rectangle for 0 of (proper) cardinality @1 .

Must there exist a set X !1 such that E .3/ X D ;?
The point here is the following. By Lemma 5.90, if
W !1 2 ! 0;1
is a partition with no homogeneous rectangle for 0 of (proper) cardinality @1 , and
if ./ holds, then the nonexistence of the homogeneous rectangle is coupled to the
stationarity of certain subsets of !1 . The question we are asking is if this is really
possible, perhaps the nonexistence of the homogeneous rectangle can only be coupled
to the preservation of !1 as is the case in all of the currently known examples (assuming
./).
In contrast to the situation concerning homogeneous rectangles, is that of the existence of homogeneous sets. Todorcevic has proved that given a stationary set S !1
there exists a partition
S W !1 2 ! 0;1
such that if V G is a set generic extension of V such that
!1V D !1V G ,
V G PFA.c/,
then in V G:
(1) The partition S has no homogeneous set for 1 which is of cardinality !1 ;
(2) The partition S has a homogeneous set for 0 of cardinality !1 if and only if the
set S is nonstationary.
The requirement,
V G PFA.c/;
can be weakened substantially.
It is a version of this theorem which we state as Theorem 5.93.
If the answer to the question stated above is yes, then the hypothesis of the next
theorem, Theorem 5.96, can be reduced to the hypothesis of Theorem 5.95 giving a
strong version of Lemma 5.90.
The key difference in the statement of this theorem is that all Lt -generic lters

are allowed, the requirement that the sets Sg each be stationary is not necessary.
272
5 Applications
Theorem 5.96. Assume ./. Suppose

W !1 2 ! 0;1
is a partition such that for some X !1 ,
E .3/ X D ;:
Then there exist t !,
L!1 Coll.!; <!1 /;
and a lter
g Coll.!; <!1 /;
such that
(1) 2 Lt ,
(2) g is Lt -generic, 2 Lt g and D Ig ./,
(3) for all lters
g Coll.!; <!1 /;
if g is Lt -generic then
a) W !1 2 ! 0;1,

b) E .3/
X D ;,
where D Ig . / and where X !1 is such that

Lt g D LX :
Proof. The theorem is a straightforward consequence of

in L.P .!1 //.
t
u
The connection with the question of Todorcevic is given in the Theorem 5.97 and
Theorem 5.98 below. We state these without giving the proofs for they require some
additional machinery which is beyond the scope of this presentation, particularly in the
case of Theorem 5.98.
The proof of Theorem 5.97 is completely straightforward given that (in the notation
of the theorem)
.E .3/ X /V D .E .3/ X /V Z
which is true by an absoluteness argument.
The proof of Theorem 5.98 requires some inner model theory and genericity iterations.
Theorem 5.97. Suppose is a Woodin cardinal, there is a measurable cardinal above
, and that
W !1 2 ! 0;1:
Suppose Z1 !1 and Z2 !1 are conal sets such that
5.7 The Axiom

273
(i) .Z1 ; Z2 / is V -generic for a partial order P 2 V ,

(ii) .; / D 0 for all .; / 2 Z1 Z2 such that < ,
(iii) !1V Z1 ;Z2 D !1V .
Then in V , for all X !1 , E .3/ X is stationary.
t
u
Theorem 5.98. Suppose is a Woodin cardinal, there is a measurable cardinal above

, and that
W !1 2 ! 0;1:
Suppose that for all X !1 , E .3/ X is stationary. Then for each < there exists a
transitive inner model N and a partial order P 2 N such that the following hold.
(1) Ord N .
(2) N ZFC C is a Woodin cardinal.
(3) V 2 N .
(4) Suppose G P is N -generic. Then
!1 D !1N G
and there exist conal sets Z1 !1 and Z2 !1 such that .Z1 ; Z2 / 2 N G
and such that
.; / D 0
for all .; / 2 Z1 Z2 such that < .
t
u
In Chapter 7 we shall consider Pmax -extensions of inner models other than L.R/;
i. e. inner models satisfying stronger determinacy hypotheses. Using these results one
can show, for example, that if
ZFC C There are ! 2 many Woodin cardinals
is consistent then
ZFC C

C There are ! 2 many Woodin cardinals
is consistent.
In particular it is consistent for ./ to hold and for there to exist a Woodin cardinal with a measurable above. Therefore by Theorem 5.97 if ./ implies that for all
partitions
W !1 2 ! 0;1
either there is a homogeneous rectangle for 0 of (proper) cardinality !1 or there exists
a set X !1 such that E .3/ X is nonstationary, then the answer to Todorcevics
question is yes.
274
5 Applications
Remark 5.99. (1) There is no evidence to date that Todorcevics question involves
large cardinals at all.
(2) One can dene other versions of E .3/ X . For example dene E .1/ X modifying the denition of E .3/ X by replacing M3 .a/ by M1 .a/ where for each
transitive set a 2 H.!1 /,
M1 .a/ D L .a/
where is the least ordinal such that L .a/ is admissible. E .2/ X is dened
using
M2 .a/ D La:
(3) Assume ./. Suppose
W !1 2 ! 0;1
is a partition such that for some X !1 , E .3/ X is nonstationary.
Is E .2/ X nonstationary for some X !1 ?
Is E .1/ X nonstationary for some X !1 ?
5.8
t
u
Homogeneity properties of P .!1 /=INS
Assume ./ holds. We shall show in Section 6.1 that it does not necessarily follow that
the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated in V . This suggests that the structure of
the quotient algebra
P .!1 /=INS
is necessarily somewhat complicated.
The following lemma, which is well known, shows that assuming MA!1 , if I is a
normal, uniform, ideal on !1 which is !2 -saturated then the boolean algebra,
P .!1 /=I
is rigid.
Lemma 5.100 (MA!1 ). Suppose that I0 ; I1 are are normal, uniform, saturated ideals
on !1 and that
G0 .P .!1 / n I0 ; /
G1 .P .!1 / n I1 ; /
is a V -generic lter such that G1 2 V G0 . Then G0 D G1 .
275
Proof. Fix a sequence h W < !1 i of (innite) pairwise almost disjoint subsets of

!.
For each set A !1 , let A be the set of all ! such that
A D < !1 j \ is innite:
Since MA!1 holds, for each A !1 , A ;
Let
j0 W V ! M0 V G0
be the generic elementary embedding corresponding to the generic ultrapower given
by G0 and let
j1 W V ! M1 V G1
be the generic elementary embedding corresponding to G1 .
Thus RV G0 M0 and G1 2 V G0 .
Let D ! V where
1
h W < !1M1 i D j1 .h W < !1 i/:

Thus, by the elementarity of j1 , for all A !1V , with A 2 V , and for all 2 A ,
A 2 G1
if and only if
\
is innite.
However 2 M0 since RV G0 M0 and G1 2 V G0 .
Let f 2 V be a function such that j0 .f /.!1V / D ; i. e. a function that represents .
We can suppose that for all < !1V , f ./ ! and that f ./ is innite.
Thus for all A 2 P .!1 /V , and for all 2 A ,
A 2 G1
if and only if
j f ./ \ is innite 2 G0 :
We work in V . Let
Z D [ j 2 s j s 2 !1 <! ;
let
B0 D < !1 j f ./ n is innite for all 2 Z;
and let C0 D !1 n B0 .
Since MA!1 holds in V , there exists a set a0 ! such that for all 2 B0
a0 \ f ./
is innite and for all < !1
is nite; i. e. a0 2 ; .
a0 \
276
5 Applications
We return to V G0 . If B0 2 G0 then ; 2 G1 since a0 2 ; , and so C0 2 G0 .

Again we work in V .
Dene
W C0 ! !1 <!
by
./ D < !1 j f ./ \ is innite:
For each 2 C0 ,
< !1 j f ./ \ is innite
is nite and so ./ 2 !1 <! . Further

f ./ n [ j 2 ./
is nite.
I0 is a normal ideal and so there must exist C1 C0 and a 2 !1 <! such that
C1 2 G0
and such that for all 2 C1 , for all 2 C1 , if then
./ \ ./ D a:
If 2 a then 2 G1 since
2 :
Therefore a D ; and so the sets given by jC1 are pairwise disjoint.
Let
B1 D 2 C1 j j./j 1
and let C2 D C1 n B1 .
Let
A1 D min..// j 2 B1
and let
A2 D max..// j 2 B1 :
Thus A1 \ A2 D ;.
Suppose 2 A1 . Then
j f ./ \ is innite \ C1 D B1
and so if B1 2 G0 then A1 2 G1 .
Similarly if B1 2 G0 then A2 2 G1 . Therefore since A1 and A2 are disjoint,
B1 G0 and so C2 2 G1 .
Dene
F W C2 ! !1
such that for all 2 C2 , ./ D F ./
Thus for all A 2 .P .!1 //V , A 2 G1 if and only if
F 1 A 2 G0 :
Equivalently, A 2 G1 if and only if
2 j0 .A/
V
where D j0 .F /.!1 /.
277
Thus there exists an elementary embedding

k0 W M1 ! M0
such that j0 D k0 j1 . But
j1 .!1V / D !2V D j0 .!1V /
and so k0 must be the identity.
Therefore j0 D j1 and so G0 D G1 .
t
u
A natural reformulation of Lemma 5.100 is given in the following corollary.

Corollary 5.101 (MA!1 ). Suppose that I is a normal, uniform, saturated ideal on !1
and that
G .P .!1 / n I; /
U 2 V G
is a normal, uniform, V -ultralter on !1V . Then
U D G:
Proof. Let be a term for U and x a set S 2 G such that
S is a normal, uniform, V -ultralter:
Working in V , dene
J D T !1 j S T :
Thus in V , J is a normal, uniform ideal on !1 . Since .P .!1 / n I; / is !2 -cc, J is a
saturated ideal.
Thus
U .P .!1 / n J; /
and U is V -generic. By Lemma 5.100,
U D G:
t
u
By Corollary 5.101, if ./ holds then

P .!1 /=INS
is not homogeneous.
In this section we show that if ./ holds then the boolean algebra
P .!1 /=INS
has a property which approximates homogeneity.
This we dene below. A key point is
that this property can be proved just assuming , which is how we shall proceed.
278
5 Applications
Denition 5.102. Suppose I is a normal, uniform, ideal on !1 . The ideal I is quasihomogeneous if the following holds. Suppose that
X0 P .!1 /
is ordinal denable with parameters from I [ R. Suppose that there exists A0 2 X0
such that
A0 ; !1 n A0 \ I D ;:
Then for all A 2 P .!1 / n I if !1 n A I there exists B 2 X0 such that
A M B 2 I:
t
u
Remark 5.103. (1) The condition that an ideal I is quasi-homogeneous is a very

strong one, particularly when the ideal is also saturated. We note the following
consequence.
Suppose that G P .!1 / n I is V -generic and let
j W V ! M V G
be the associated generic elementary embedding. Suppose that B Ord
and that B is ordinal denable in V . Then for each ordinal ,
j jL B 2 V:
(2) It is easily seen that if I is a normal !1 dense ideal on !1 then the ideal I is
not necessarily quasi-homogeneous. Combining the constructions of Qmax and
M
Qmax which are given in Section 6.2.1 and in Section 6.2.6, respectively, one
can construct a partial order Q 2 L.R/ such that if AD holds in L.R/ and if
GQ
is L.R/-generic then
L.R/G ZFC C V D L.P .!1 //;
and in L.R/G the following hold.
a) INS is !1 dense.
b) INS is not quasi-homogeneous.
t
u
A key consequence of the existence of a quasi-homogeneous saturated ideal is

given in
the following theorem. This seems to be the simplest route to establishing
that implies ADL.R/ , see Remark 5.111. Nevertheless the proof requires the core
model induction and so is beyond the scope of this book.
Theorem 5.104. Suppose that I is a saturated, normal, ideal on !1 and that I is
quasi-homogeneous. Then
L.R/ AD:
t
u

The rst step in showing that implies ./ is to establish that implies that INS
is quasi-homogeneous.
Theorem 5.105.

279
The nonstationary ideal on !1 is quasi-homogeneous.
Proof. The theorem follows from the following claim which is an immediate corollary
of Lemma 4.36.
Suppose .M; I / is iterable, b !1M , b 2 M, b I and that !1M n b I . Suppose
S !1 is stationary and co-stationary. Then there exists an iteration
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
of .M; I / of length !1 such that C \ S D C \ j.b/ for some club C !1 and such
that for all d !1 , if d 2 M n I then d is stationary.
Suppose that
X0 P .!1 / n INS
and that X0 is ordinal denable from x where x 2 R. We suppose that X0 is nonempty
and that for all A 2 X0 , A is co-stationary.
Let Z0 be the set of pairs .t; / such that
(1.1) t 2 R, !1 Coll.!; <!1 /, 2 Lt ,
(1.2) for all lters
g Coll.!; <!1 /;
if g is Lt -generic and if for all < !1 , Sg is stationary, then Ig ./ 2 X0 .
Suppose that A0 2 X0 .
Therefore A0 L.R/ for otherwise, by Lemma 5.77, there exists z 2 R such that
A0 2 Lz. This contradicts that A0 is both stationary and co-stationary.
By Theorem 5.81 there exists a lter G0 Pmax such that G0 is HODR -generic
and such that
HODP .!1 / D HODR G0
and such that A0 D AG0 .
Since X0 is ordinal denable from a real parameter,
Z0 2 HODR :
Further there must exist a condition
h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i 2 G0
such that in HODR ,
h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i Pmax AG 2
where is the term for the subset of P .!1 / given by Z0 .

Suppose S !1 is stationary and co-stationary. By the claim above there exists
an iteration
j0 W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
of .M0 ; I0 / of length !1 such that
280
5 Applications
(2.1) C \ S D C \ j0 .a0 / for some club C !1 ,

(2.2) I0 D M0 \ INS .
Let A1 D j0 .a0 /. Thus A1 is stationary and co-stationary. Again by Theorem 5.81,
there is a lter G1 Pmax such that G1 is HODR -generic and such that
HODP .!1 / D HODR G1
and such that A1 D AG1 .
The embedding, j0 , witnesses that
h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i 2 G1
and so
HODR G1 AG1 2 XG1 ;
where XG1 is the interpretation of by G1 .
However
AG1 D A1
and
X G1 X0 ;
and so A1 2 X0 . Finally by (2.1) and (2.2),
S M A1 2 INS ;
t
u
Remark 5.106. An immediate corollary of Theorem 5.105 and Theorem 5.67 is that
assuming ./, the nonstationary ideal is quasi-homogeneous in L.P .!1 //.
This shows that MA!1 is consistent with the existence of a saturated ideal on !1
which is quasi-homogeneous. In Chapter 7, we shall improve this result, replacing
t
u
MA!1 by Martins MaximumCC .c/.
By Theorem 4.49, the basic analysis of the Pmax extension can be carried out just
assuming that for each set B R such that B 2 L.R/, there exists a condition
(1) B \ M 2 M,
(2) hH.!1 /M ; B \ Mi hH.!1 /; Bi,
(3) .M; I / is B-iterable.

We now prove that this in fact holds, assuming . Our goal is to show that assum
ing , the nonstationary ideal is saturated in L.P .!1 //. By Theorem 5.104 it will

follow that implies ADL.R/ .

We rst prove that the conclusion of Lemma 4.52 follows from .
Lemma 5.107. Assume
281

. Suppose B R and B 2 HODR . Then the set

Proof. By Theorem 5.81, there exists a lter G Pmax such that G is HODR -generic
and such that
P .!1 / D P .!1 /G :
The lemma is a straightforward consequence of this fact.
This is more transparent if one reformulates it as follows.
Let

H.!2 /G D [H.!2 /M j h.M; I /; ai 2 G
where for each h.M; I /; ai 2 G,
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
is the (unique) iteration such that j.a/ D AG .
Since
P .!1 / D P .!1 /G ;
it follows easily that
H.!2 / D H.!2 /G :
We now x G.
Let
F W H.!2 /<! ! H.!2 /
be a function such that for all Z H.!2 / if F Z Z then
hZ; B \ Z; G \ Z; 2i hH.!2 /; B; G; 2i:
Suppose X H.!2 / is a countable subset such that
hX; F \ X; 2i hH.!2 /; F; 2i:
Let MX be the transitive collapse of X . We prove that MX is B-iterable.
Let hsk W k < !i enumerate X .
Let hNk W k < !i be a sequence of elements of X such that the following hold for
all k < !.
(1.1) !1 N0 .
(1.2) Nk 2 NkC1 .
(1.3) sk 2 Nk .
(1.4) hNk ; B \ Nk ; G \ Nk ; 2i hH.!2 /; B; G; 2i.
282
5 Applications
Since !1 N0 , for each k < !, Nk is transitive.

Since
H.!2 /G D H.!2 /;
there exist sequences
hh.Mk ; Ik /; ak i W k < !i;
hbk W k < !i;
and
htk W k < !i
such that for all k < !,
(2.1) h.Mk ; Ik /; ak i 2 G \ NkC1 \ X ,
(2.2) h.MkC1 ; IkC1 /; akC1 i < h.Mk ; Ik /; ak i,
(2.3) bk 2 Mk ,
(2.4) for all p 2 Zk \ Pmax ,
h.MkC1 ; IkC1 /; akC1 i < p;
(2.5) jk .bk / D Nk ,
(2.6) jk .tk / D sk ,
where Zk is the closure of bk under F and where
jk W .Mk ; Ik / ! .Mk ; Ik /
is the iteration such that jk .ak / D AG .
For each k < ! let
Xk D jk bk D jk .c/ j c 2 bk :
Thus for each k < !, Xk X and further
X D [Xk j k < !:
We note that for each k < !, since jk .bk / D Nk ,
jk .B \ bk / D B \ Nk :
For each k < ! and let Dk be the set of
h.M; I /; ai < h.Mk ; Ik /; ak i
such that
j .B \ bk / D B \ j .bk /
and such that for all countable iterations

j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
283
it is the case that j.B \ j .bk // D B \ j.j .bk //, where

j W .Mk ; Ik / ! .Mk ; Ik /
is the iteration such that j .ak / D a.
We claim that for each k 2 ! there exists q 2 G such that
p < q j p 2 Pmax Dk :
Assume toward a contradiction that this fails for k. Then for all q 2 G there exists
p 2 G such that p < q and p Dk .
However G is HODR -generic and so there must exist
h.M; I /; ai 2 G
and an iteration
j W .M; I / ! .M0 ; I 0 /
such that
(3.1) h.M; I /; ai < h.Mk ; Ik /; ak i,
(3.2) j.B \ j .bk // B \ j.j .bk // where
j W .Mk ; Ik / ! .Mk ; Ik /
is the iteration such that j .ak / D a,
(3.3) h.M0 ; I 0 /; a0 i 2 G where a0 D j.a/.
But this contradicts the fact that jk .B \ bk / D B \ Nk .
Therefore for each k < ! there exists qk 2 G such that
p < qk j p 2 Pmax Dk :
Note that Dk is denable in the structure
hH.!2 /; B; G; 2i
from bk . Therefore we can suppose that qk 2 Zk , for such a condition must exist in
Zk . This implies that
h.MkC1 ; IkC1 /; akC1 i 2 Dk :
For each k < n < !, let
jk;n W .Mk ; Ik / ! .Mkn ; Ikn /
be the iteration such that
jk;n .ak / D an
and let
jk;! W .Mk ; Ik / ! .Mk! ; Ik! /
jk;! .ak / D [an j n < !:
284
5 Applications
Thus for all k < !,

!
Mk! 2 MkC1
:

MX D [Mk! j k < ! D [jk;! .bk / j k < !:
and that for each k < !,
jk;! .bk / D NkX
where NkX is the image of Nk under the collapsing map.
These identities are easily veried from the denitions.
Finally suppose
jO W MX ! MO X
For each k < !,
!
!
; IkC1
//
jO..MkC1
is an iterate of .MkC1 ; IkC1 /. Further for each k < !,

h.MkC1 ; IkC1 /; akC1 i 2 Dk :
Therefore for each k < !,
jO.B \ NkX / D jO.jkC1;! .B \ jk;kC1 .bk ///
D B \ jO.jkC1;! .jk;kC1 .bk ///
D B \ jO.NkX /:
X
However for each k < !, NkX is transitive and NkX 2 NkC1
. Therefore
MO X D [jO.NkX / j k < !
and so
jO.B \ MX / D B \ MO X :
t
u
Therefore MX is B-iterable.
As a corollary to Lemma 5.107 we obtain that
of Pmax .

implies the requisite nontriviality

. Suppose B R and that B 2 HODR . Then there exists

h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax
such that
(1) B \ M 2 M,
(2) hH.!1 /M ; B \ Mi hH.!1 /; Bi,
(3) .M; I / is B-iterable.
285
Proof. Fix G Pmax such that G is HODR -generic and such that
P .!1 /G D P .!1 /:
Suppose 2 Ord,
L .B; R/G ZFC ;
and that
< L.B;R/ :
By Corollary 5.80,
L .B; R/G MA!1 :
Let A R be such that A 2 HODR and such that
<
11 .A/:
By Lemma 5.107, there exists a countable elementary substructure X H.!2 / such
that
hX; A \ X; 2i hH.!2 /; A; 2i
Therefore by Lemma 4.24, there exists a countable elementary substructure
Y L .B; R/G
such that B; AG Y and such that MY is strongly iterable where MY is the transitive collapse of Y .
Since B 2 Y , it follows by Theorem 3.34, that H.!2 /MY (which is the transitive
collapse of Y \ H.!2 /) is B-iterable.
MY
. Thus the structure .MY ; IY / is B-iterable. Let a be the image of
Let IY D INS
AG under the collapsing map. Thus
h.MY ; IY /; ai 2 Pmax
t
u
and is as required.

. Then
(1) L.P .!1 // ZFC,

(2) INS is saturated in L.P .!1 //.
Proof. By Theorem 5.108, Theorem 5.81, and Lemma 5.5,
H.!2 / AC
and so (1) follows.
Similarly (2) follows from Theorem 5.108, Theorem 5.81 and Theorem 4.49.
t
u
Combining Theorem 5.104, Theorem

5.105 and Corollary 5.109(2), yields the
equivalence of ./ and the assertion that holds in L.P .!1 //.
286
5 Applications

(1) ./.
(2) L.P .!1 //

t
u
Remark 5.111. In fact the proof that:

(1) For each set A R with A 2 L.R/ there exists h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax such that
.M; I / is A-iterable;
(2) There is a normal (uniform) saturated ideal on !1 which is quasi-homogeneous;
together imply ADL.R/ is somewhat simpler than the proof of Theorem 5.104.
t
u
Chapter 6
Pmax variations
In this chapter we dene several variations of Pmax . These yield models which, like
those dened in the next chapter, are conditional versions of the Pmax -extension.
The models obtained in this chapter condition the Pmax -extension by varying the
structure,
hH.!2 /; INS ; 2i;
relative to which the absoluteness theorems are proved.
One of these is the Qmax -extension which we shall dene in Section 6.2.1. This extension has two interpretations as a conditional extension. By modifying the structure,
hH.!2 /; INS ; 2i;
the Qmax -extension is the Pmax -extension conditioned on a form of . A very interesting feature of the Qmax -extension is that in it the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !1 -dense.
Further it also can be interpreted as the Pmax -extension conditioned by this, i. e. the
Qmax -extension realizes every 2 sentence in the language for the structure
hH.!2 /; INS ; 2i
which is (suitably) consistent with proposition that the nonstationary ideal is !1 -dense.
CH fails in the Qmax -extension so we also obtain as a corollary consistency of an
!1 -dense ideal on !1 together with :CH. Finally the Qmax -extension is a generic extension of L.R/ and ADL.R/ is sufcient to prove things work. This substantially lowers the upper bound for the consistency strength of the existence of an !1 -dense ideal
on !1 and in fact provides the optimal upper bound, the two theories are equiconsistent. Previous unpublished results of Woodin required the consistency of the existence
of an almost huge cardinal or the consistency of
ZF C ADR C is regular;
see Foreman .2010/ for a survey of results related to saturated ideals and generic elementary embeddings.
There is an important difference in the results here. The previous methods produced
models in which there is an !1 -dense ideal on !1 and in which CH holds. In the
context of CH the consistency of the existence of an !1 -dense ideal on !1 is quite
strong, much stronger than that of AD. This provides an example of a combinatorial
proposition whose consistency strength varies depending on whether one requires that
CH holds.
We also prove that the existence of an !1 -dense ideal on !1 implies that there is
a nonregular ultralter on !1 without assuming CH, this is a theorem of Huberich
.1996/. Combining these results also gives a new upper bound for the consistency
strength of the existence of a nonregular ultralter on !1 .
288
6 Pmax variations
6.1
Pmax
The nonstationary ideal on !1 is saturated in L.R/Pmax .

Suppose that
L.P .!1 // D L.R/G
where G Pmax is L.R/-generic. Does it follow that the nonstationary ideal on !1 is
saturated (in V )?
We dene another variation on Pmax in order to answer this question. With this
variation we can maximize the 2 sentences true in the structure
hH.!2 /; INS ; J; 2i
where J is a normal uniform ideal on !1 and J is not the nonstationary ideal.
The analysis of the 2 Pmax -extension yields an interesting combinatorial fact true in
the Pmax -extension. One version of this is given in Lemma 6.2 which is an immediate
corollary of Lemma 6.16. These lemmas concern a certain partial order which we
dene below.
We x some notation. Suppose that I is a uniform, normal, ideal on !1 and that
S !1 is a set such that
!1 n S I:
We let I _ S denote the normal ideal generated by I [ S . It is easily veried that
I _ S D T !1 j T \ .!1 n S / 2 I :
We dene a partial order PNS which is the natural choice for creating, by forcing, a
nontrivial normal ideal J such that J INS _ S for any S !1 .
Denition 6.1. Let PNS be the partial order dened as follows. Conditions are pairs
.X; S / such that
(1) X P .!1 /,
(2) jX j !1 ,
(3) S and !1 n S are stationary.
The order is given by .X1 ; S1 / .X0 ; S0 / if X0 X1 , S0 S1 and if
.INS _ S1 / \ X0 D .INS _ S0 / \ X0 :
t
u
Suppose G PNS is V -generic. Let

IG D S j .;; S / 2 G:
If PNS is .!1 ; 1/-distributive then IG is a normal ideal on !1 . If G V , i. e. if G
contains no elements which dene atoms in RO.PNS /, then IG INS _ S for any
S !1 .
It is easily veried that if .X; S / 2 PNS then .X; S / denes an atom in RO.PNS / if
and only if the set,
.T n S / n A j T 2 X; A 2 INS n INS ;
is dense in the partial order, .P .!1 n S / n INS ; /.
6.1
2P
max
289
Lemma 6.2. Assume ./.

(1) The partial order, PNS , is .!1 ; 1/-distributive in L.P .!1 //.
(2) Suppose G PNS is L.P .!1 //-generic. Then IG is a normal saturated ideal in
L.P .!1 //G and IG INS _ S for any set S !1 .
t
u
Proof. See Theorem 6.17.
This shows that in L.R/Pmax the quotient algebra P .!1 /=INS is not absolutely saturated and it answers the question above. The point here is that if the nonstationary ideal
is saturated then every normal ideal on !1 is of the form INS _ S for some S !1 .
Remark 6.3. It may seem strange that PNS could ever be nontrivial and yet be .!1 ; 1/distributive, or more generally that by forcing with an .!1 ; 1/-distributive partial order
it is possible to create a saturated ideal on !1 .
However suppose that
P .!1 /=INS RO.B Coll.!; !1 //
where B is a complete boolean algebra which is .!1 ; 1/-distributive and !2 -cc. Then
it is not difcult to show that
RO.PNS / B:
Further if G PNS is V -generic then in V G,
P .!1 /=IG RO.Coll.!; !1 //I
i. e. in V G, IG is an !1 -dense ideal.
One can show it is relatively consistent
P .!1 /=INS RO.B Coll.!; !1 //
where B is a complete, nonatomic, boolean algebra which, as above, is !2 -cc and
.!1 ; 1/-distributive; i. e. where B is the regular open algebra corresponding to a Suslin
tree on !2 . This can be proved by constructing a Qmax variation where Qmax is the
partial order constructed in Section 6.2.1.
However the example indicated in Lemma 6.2 is more subtle.
t
u
Remark 6.4. In Chapter 9 we shall consider the Pmax -extensions of inner models of
AD strictly larger than L.R/. We shall prove that if P .R/ is a pointclass such
that
L.; R/ ADR C is regular;
then if G Pmax Coll.!2 ; !2 / is L.; R/-generic,
L.; R/G ZFC C Martins MaximumCC .c/:
The proof of Lemma 6.2 easily generalizes to show both that
290
6 Pmax variations
L.; R/G PNS is .!1 ; 1/-distributive.

Suppose H PNS is L.; R/G-generic, then
L.; R/GH IH is !2 -saturated:
This shows that Martins Maximum.c/ is consistent with the assertion that PNS is
.!1 ; 1/-distributive. Martins Maximum.c/ implies that !2 has the tree property and
so, in L.; R/G, PNS cannot be embedded into P .!1 /=INS .
Recall that !2 has the tree property if every .!2 ; !2 / tree of rank !2 has a (rank)
conal branch.
t
u
Denition 6.5. Let 2 Pmax be the set of pairs h.M; I; J /; ai such that:
(1) M is a countable transitive model of ZFC C MA!1 ;
(2) M I; J are normal uniform ideals on !1 ;
(3) I J and I J ;
(4) .M; I; J / is iterable;
(5) a !1M ;
(6) a 2 M and M !1 D !1Lax for some real x .
The ordering on conditions in 2 Pmax is as follows:
h.M1 ; I1 ; J1 /; a1 i < h.M0 ; I0 ; J0 /; a0 i
j W .M0 ; I0 ; J0 / ! .M0 ; I0 ; J0 /
such that:
(1) j.a0 / D a1 ;
(2) M0 2 M1 , M0 is countable in M1 ;
(3) M0 2 M1 and j 2 M1 ;
(4) I0 D I1 \ M0 and J0 D J1 \ M0 .
The analysis of the partial order
that for Pmax .
t
u
Pmax can be carried out in a fashion similar to
Lemma 6.6 (ZFC ). Suppose that I J are normal uniform ideals on !1 and that
I J . Suppose that h.M0 ; I0 ; J0 /; a0 i 2 2 Pmax . Then there is an iteration
j W .M0 ; I0 ; J0 / ! .M0 ; I0 ; J0 /
such that j.!1M0 / D !1 , I0 D I \ M0 and J0 D J \ M0 .
6.1
2P
max
291
Proof. The proof is quite similar to the proof of Lemma 4.36, which is the analogous
lemma for Pmax .
Fix a set X !1 such that X 2 J n I .
Fix a sequence hAk; W k < !; < !1 i of pairwise disjoint subsets of !1 such that
the following conditions hold.
(1.1) If < !1 is an even ordinal then Ak; X and Ak; is I -positive.
(1.2) If < !1 is an odd ordinal then Ak; !1 n X and Ak; is J -positive.
Fix a function
f W ! !1M0 ! M0
such that
(2.1) f is onto,
(2.2) for all k < !, f jk !1M0 2 M0 ,
(2.3) for all A 2 M0 if A has cardinality !1M0 in M0 then
A ran.f jk !1M0 /
for some k < !.
The function f is simply used to anticipate subsets of !1 in the nal model.
Suppose
j W .M0 ; I0 ; J0 / ! .M0 ; I0 ; J0 /
j .f / D [j .f jk !1M / j k < !
and it is easily veried that the range of j .f / is M0 . This follows from (2.3).
We construct an iteration of .M0 ; I0 ; J0 / of length !1 using the function f to
provide a book-keeping device for all of the subsets of !1 which belong to the nal
model. More precisely construct an iteration
h.M ; I ; J /; G ; j; W < !1 i
such that for each < !1 , if is even and if for some < !1 ,
(3.1) !1M 2 Ak; ,
(3.2) < !1M ,
(3.3) j0; .f /.k; / !1M ,
(3.4) j0; .f /.k; / I ,
then G is M -generic for P .!1M / \ M n I and j0; .f /.k; / 2 G . If is odd
and if for some < !1 ,
6 Pmax variations
292
(4.1) !1M 2 Ak; ,

(4.2) < !1M ,
(4.3) j0; .f /.k; / !1M ,
(4.4) j0; .f /.k; / J ,
then G is M -generic for P .!1M / \ M n J and j0; .f /.k; / 2 G .
The set C D j0; .!1M / j < !1 is a club in !1 . Thus for each B !1 such that
B 2 M!1 and B j0;!1 .I0 / there exist k < !; < !1 such that C \Ak; B\Ak; .
Further if B !1 , B 2 M!1 and B 2 j0;!1 .I0 / then B \ C D ;.
Thus I \ M!1 D I!1 .
t
u
Similarly J \ M!1 D J!1 .
The analysis of the 2 Pmax -extension requires the generalization of Lemma 6.6 to
sequences of models. The proof of Lemma 6.7 is a straightforward adaptation of the
proof of Lemma 6.6. We state this lemma only for the sequences that arise, specically those sequences of structures coming from descending sequences of conditions
in 2 Pmax . There is of course a more general lemma one can prove, but the generality is
not necessary and the more general lemma is more cumbersome to state.
Suppose that hpk W k < !i is a sequence of conditions in 2 Pmax such that for all
k < !,
pkC1 < pk :
We let hpk W k < !i be the associated sequence of conditions which is dened as
follows. For each k < ! let
h.Mk ; Ik ; Jk /; ak i D pk
and let
jk W .Mk ; Ik ; Jk / ! .Mk ; Ik ; Jk /
be the iteration obtained by combining the iterations given by the conditions pi for
i > k. Thus jk is uniquely specied by the requirement that
jk .ak / D [ai j i < !:
For each k < !
pk D h.Mk ; Ik ; Jk /; ak i:
We note that by Corollary 4.20, the sequence

h.Mk ; Ik ; Jk / W k < !i
is iterable (in the sense of Denition 4.8).
Lemma 6.7 (ZFC ). Suppose I J are normal uniform ideals on !1 such that
I J . Suppose hpk W k < !i is a sequence of conditions in 2 Pmax such that for
6.1
2P
max
293
each k < ! pkC1 < pk . Let hpk W k < !i be the associated sequence of 2 Pmax
conditions and for each k < !, let
h.Mk ; Ik ; Jk /; ak i D pk :
j W h.Mk ; Ik ; Jk / W k < !i ! h.Mk ; Ik ; Jk / W k < !i
M
such that j.!1 0 / D !1 and such that for all k < !,

Ik D I \ Mk
and
Jk D J \ Mk :
Proof. By Corollary 4.20 the sequence

h.Mk ; Ik ; Jk / W k < !i
is iterable.
The lemma follows by an argument similar to that used to prove Lemma 6.6.
t
u
The next lemmas record some of the relevant properties of the partial order 2 Pmax .
First we note that the nontriviality of Pmax immediately gives the nontriviality of 2 Pmax .
Lemma 6.8. Assume that for each set X R with X 2 L.R/, there is a condition
(i) X \ M 2 M,
(ii) hH.!1 /M ; X \ Mi hH.!1 /; X i,
Then for each set X R with X 2 L.R/, there is a condition
h.M; I; J /; ai 2 2 Pmax
such that
(1) X \ M 2 M,
(2) hH.!1 /M ; X \ Mi hH.!1 /; X i,
(3) .M; I; J / is X -iterable.
Proof. This is immediate by the following observation. Suppose
h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax :
!1M
Let S
be such that S 2 M, S I , and !1M n S I . Let J 2 M be the ideal
generated by I [ S . Then h.M; I; J /; ai 2 2 Pmax . The point is that any iteration of
.M; I; J / is an iteration of .M; I /.
t
u
294
6 Pmax variations
As a corollary we obtain the following lemma.

Lemma 6.9. Assume ADL.R/ . Suppose X R and that X 2 L.R/. Then there is a
condition h.M; I; J /; ai 2 2 Pmax such that
(1) X \ M 2 M,
(2) hH.!1 /M ; X \ Mi hH.!1 /; X i,
Proof. This is immediate by the previous lemma and Lemma 4.40.
t
u
Remark 6.10. The analysis of 2 Pmax can be carried out abstractly just assuming: For
each set X R with X 2 L.R/, there is a condition
h.M; I; J /; ai 2 2 Pmax
such that
(1) X \ M 2 M,
(2) hH.!1 /M ; X \ Mi hH.!1 /; X i,
t
u
Suppose that I is a normal ideal on !1 and that S 2 P .!1 / n I . We let I jS denote

the normal ideal generated by I [ !1 n S .
We dene an operation on normal ideals.
Denition 6.11. Suppose that I is a normal ideal on !1 and that I is not saturated.
Let
t
u
sat.I / D S 2 P .!1 / j S 2 I or I jS is a saturated ideal:
Lemma 6.12. Suppose that I is a normal ideal on !1 and that I is not saturated.
Then sat.I / is a normal ideal on !1 .
Proof. This lemma is an elementary consequence of the denition of sat.I /.
t
u
Theorem 6.13. Suppose that INS is saturated or that sat.INS / is saturated. Then INS
is semi-saturated.
Proof. Clearly we may suppose that INS is not saturated and so sat.INS / is saturated.
Suppose V G is a generic extension of V and that U 2 V G is a V -normal
ultralter on !1V .
If
U .P .!1 / n sat.INS //V
6.1
2P
max
295
then U is V -generic since .sat.INS //V is saturated in V . In this case Ult.V; U / is

wellfounded.
U 6 .P .!1 / n sat.INS //V :
Thus for some
S 2 .P .!1 / n INS /V ;
S 2 U and
S 2 .sat.INS //V :
Necessarily .INS jS /V is saturated in V and so U is V -generic. Therefore again we

have that Ult.V; U / is wellfounded.
This proves the theorem.
u
t
Assume ADL.R/ and suppose G 2 Pmax is L.R/-generic. Then as in the case for
Pmax the generic lter G can be used to dene a subset of !1 and we denote it by AG .
Thus
AG D [a j h.M; I; J /; ai 2 G for some M; I :
However now the generic lter can also be used to dene two ideals which we denote
by IG and JG . For each h.M; I; J /; ai 2 G there is an iteration
j W .M; I; J / ! .M ; I ; J /
such that j.a/ D AG . This iteration is unique because M is a model of MA!1 . Let
IG D [I j h.M; I; J /; ai 2 G;
let
and let
JG D [J j h.M; I; J /; ai 2 G;
P .!1 /G D [P .!1 /M j h.M; I; J /; ai 2 G:
The next lemma gives the basic analysis of 2 Pmax . It shows that IG is the nonstationary
ideal, JG is a saturated ideal in L.R/G and JG D sat.IG /. This implies that the
ideal IG is presaturated in a very strong sense. Recall that a normal ideal I on !1 is
presaturated if for any sequence
hAi W i < !i
of antichains of P .!1 / n I and for any A 2 P .!1 / n I , there exists B A such that
B I and such that for each i < !,
jX 2 Ai j X \ B I j !1 :
Lemma 6.14. Assume ADL.R/ . Then 2 Pmax is !-closed and homogeneous.
Suppose G 2 Pmax is L.R/-generic. Then
L.R/G !1 -DC
and in L.R/G:
296
6 Pmax variations
(1) P .!1 /G D P .!1 /;

(2) IG is the nonstationary ideal;
(3) JG is a normal saturated ideal on !1 ;
(4) JG is nowhere the nonstationary ideal; i. e. for all stationary sets S !1 there
exists a stationary set T S such that T 2 JG ;
(5) JG D sat.IG /.
Proof. The proof that 2 Pmax is !-closed is immediate by applying Lemma 6.7 within
the relevant condition. With the possible exception of (3)(5) the remaining claims
are proved by simply adapting the proofs of the corresponding claims for Pmax , using
Lemma 6.6, Lemma 6.8, and Lemma 6.9.
(3) is proved following the proof that the nonstationary ideal is saturated in
L.R/Pmax .
(4) follows by an easy density argument.
(5) is also proved by using the proof that INS is saturated in the Pmax -extension.
The relevant observation is that one can seal antichains corresponding to IG on sets
t
u
which are IG -positive and in JG .
Part (4) of the previous lemma provides another example of how forcing notions
like Pmax can be devised to achieve something from very weak approximations. There
is a dense set of conditions h.M; I; J /; ai 2 2 Pmax such that ideals I; J differ in a
trivial way. J is obtained from I by adding one set. This is how we argued for the
nontriviality of 2 Pmax given the nontriviality of Pmax . However in the generic extension
the ideal JG is not trivially different from the ideal IG ; it is nowhere equal to IG .
One consequence of the next lemma is that if G 2 Pmax is L.R/-generic then
L.R/G AC
and so
L.R/G ZFC:
One can show directly that
L.R/G AC
and we shall do this for the remaining variations of Pmax that we shall dene.
Lemma 6.15. Assume ADL.R/ . Suppose G
L.R/G:
(1) AG is L.R/-generic for Pmax ;
(2) P .!1 / L.R/AG .
Pmax is L.R/-generic. Then in
6.1
2P
max
297
Proof. In L.R/G let F be the set of h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax such that there exists an
iteration
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
such that j.a/ D AG and such that
I D INS \ M :
By Lemma 6.14(1), in L.R/G every club in !1 contains a club which is constructible from a real. Therefore by Theorem 3.19, if
X H.!2 /
is a countable elementary substructure then the transitive collapse of X is iterable.
Thus by Lemma 4.74, the conditions in F are pairwise compatible in Pmax .
Therefore we have only to show that
F \D ;
for all D Pmax such that D is dense and D 2 L.R/.
Suppose h.M; I; J /; ai 2 G and that D Pmax is an open, dense set with
D 2 L.R/.
Let h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i 2 Pmax be such that
M 2 H.!1 /M0 :
Let B0 !1M0 be a set in M0 such that both B0 and !1M0 are I0 -positive. Let J0 2 M0
be the uniform normal ideal on !1M0 dened by I0 [ B0 .
By Lemma 6.6 there exists an iteration
j W .M; I; J / ! .M ; I ; J /

such that j 2 M0 , I D I0 \ M , and J D J0 \ M .
Thus h.M0 ; I0 /; j.a/i 2 Pmax . Let h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i 2 D be a condition such that
h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i < h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i
and let
j0 W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
be the iteration such that j0 .j.a// D a1 .
Thus h.M1 ; I1 ; J1 /; a1 i 2 2 Pmax and
h.M1 ; I1 ; J1 /; a1 i < h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i
where J1 2 M1 is the (normal) ideal on !1M1 dened by I1 [ j0 .B0 /.
Note that B0 and !1M0 n B0 are I0 -positive, and so j0 .B0 / and !1M1 n j0 .B0 / are
I1 -positive.
By genericity we may suppose that
h.M1 ; I1 ; J1 /; a1 i 2 G:
But then h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i 2 F and so
F \D ;
for all D Pmax such that D is dense and D 2 L.R/.
This proves (1).
The second claim of the lemma follows from Lemma 6.14(1).
t
u
6 Pmax variations
298
The next lemma gives the basic relationship between Pmax and 2 Pmax .
Lemma 6.16. Assume ADL.R/ . Suppose G
L.R/G:
Pmax is L.R/-generic. Then in
(1) L.P .!1 // is a generic extension of L.R/ for Pmax ;

(2) sat.INS / is saturated;
(3) There is a lter H0 PNS such that H0 is L.P .!1 //-generic, such that
L.P .!1 //H0 D L.R/G
and such that
IH0 D JG D sat.INS /:
Proof. (1) is immediate from Lemma 6.15. (2) follows from Lemma 6.14.
Let g Pmax be the L.R/-generic lter such that AG D Ag .
Let PNS be the partial order PNS as computed in L.R/g.
Conditions are pairs .X; S / such that
(1.1) X P .!1 /,
(1.2) jX j !1 ,
(1.3) S and !1 n S are stationary.
The order is given by .X1 ; S1 / .X0 ; S0 / if X0 X1 , S0 S1 and if
.INS _ S1 / \ X0 D .INS _ S0 / \ X0
where for each S !1 such that !1 n S is stationary, INS _ S is the normal ideal
generated by INS [ S .
Suppose h0 PNS is L.R/g-generic. In L.R/gh0 dene
G0 .2 Pmax /L.R/
as follows. h.M; I; J /; ai 2 G0 if h.M; I /; ai 2 g and if for some d 2 M the
following two conditions are satised.
(2.1) J is the ideal generated by I [ d .
(2.2)
..P .!1 //M ; j.d // 2 h0

where
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
is the iteration such that j.a/ D Ag .
6.1
2P
max
299
We prove that G0 is an L.R/-generic lter for 2 Pmax .

Suppose .X0 ; S0 / 2 h0 and that D 2 Pmax is open, dense with D 2 L.R/.
Since jX0 j !1 , there exist h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i 2 g and
.t0 ; b0 / 2 .PNS /M0
M0
such that I0 D INS
and such that
j0 ..t0 ; b0 // D .X0 ; S0 /
where
j0 W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
is the iteration such that j0 .a0 / D Ag .

We work in L.R/. Let h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i 2 Pmax be such that
h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i < h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i
M1
and such that I1 D INS
.
Let J0 be the normal ideal in M0 generated by I0 [ b0 .
Let .t1 ; b1 / be the image of .t0 ; b0 / under the iteration of .M0 ; I0 / which sends a0
to a1 . Let J0 be the image of J0 under this iteration. Thus
.t1 ; b1 / 2 .PNS /M1

and b1 I1 . In M1 , let J1 be the normal ideal on !1M1 generated by I1 [ b1 . Thus
and J1 \ t1 D J0 \ t1 .
J1 I1 and so h.M1 ; I1 ; J1 /; a1 i 2 2 Pmax . Therefore there exists
h.M2 ; I2 ; J2 /; a2 i 2 D
such that
h.M2 ; I2 ; J2 /; a2 i < h.M1 ; I1 ; J1 /; a1 i
and such that J2 is the ideal dened by I2 [ d0 for some
d0 2 .P .!1 //M2 :
By Lemma 6.6, the set of conditions h.M; I; J /; ai 2 2 Pmax such that J is obtained
by adding a single set to I is dense. Thus h.M2 ; I2 ; J2 /; a2 i exists.
Let
1 W .M; I1 ; J1 / ! .M1 ; I1 ; J1 /
be the iteration which sends a1 to a2 . An important point is the following. Since J1 is
the ideal in M1 generated by I1 [ b1 , is also an iteration of .M1 ; I1 /.
Thus
h.M2 ; I2 /; a2 i < h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i:
By genericity we may assume that
h.M2 ; I2 /; a2 i 2 g:
Let b2 D .b1 /, let t2 D .t1 / and let d1 D d0 [ b2 . Since
J1 D M1 \ J2
6 Pmax variations
300
it follows that b2 2 J2 and
J2 \ t2 D J1 \ t2 :
Therefore .t2 ; d1 / .t2 ; b2 / in .PNS /M2 .

Let
j2 W .M2 ; I2 / ! .M2 ; I2 /
be the iteration such that j2 .a2 / D Ag and let .X1 ; S1 / D j2 ..t2 ; d1 //.
In L.R/g,
.INS _ S0 / \ X0 D .INS _ S1 / \ X0
and so .X1 ; S1 / .X0 ; S0 / in PNS .
By genericity we may assume that .X1 ; S1 / 2 h0 . This implies that
h.M2 ; I2 ; J2 /; a2 i 2 G0
and so G0 \ D ;.
It remains to show that G0 is a lter. Since G0 \ D ; for each dense set
D 2 Pmax , it sufces to show that elements of G0 are pairwise compatible in 2 Pmax .
Suppose
h.M0 ; I0 ; J0 /; a0 i 2 G0
and
h.M1 ; I1 ; J1 /; a1 i 2 G0 :
Let d0 2 M0 be such that J0 is the ideal in M0 generated by I0 [ d0 and similarly
let d1 2 M0 be such that J1 is the ideal in M1 generated by I1 [ d1 .
Let
j0 W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
and
j1 W .M1 ; I1 / ! .M1 ; I1 /
be the iterations such that j0 .a0 / D AG D j1 .a1 /. Since J0 is generated from I0 by

adding one set, j0 is also an iteration of .M0 ; I0 ; J0 / and similarly j1 is an iteration
of .M1 ; I1 ; J1 /.
Let B0 D j0 .d0 / and let B1 D j1 .d1 /. Thus
j0 .J0 / D .INS _ B0 / \ M0
and
j1 .J1 / D .INS _ B1 / \ M1 :

Let S0 D B0 , S1 D B1 ,
and let
X0 D P .!1 / \ M0
X1 D P .!1 / \ M1 :
Since h.M0 ; I0 ; J0 /; a0 i 2 G0 , it follows

.X0 ; S0 / 2 h0 :
6.1
2P
max
301
Similarly .X1 ; S1 / 2 h0 . Let S D S0 [ S1 and let X D X0 [ X1 . Since h0 is a generic

lter, .X; S / 2 h0 .
Let h.M2 ; I2 /; a2 i 2 g be such that
.M0 ; M1 / 2 H.!1 /M2
and such that I2 D .INS /M2 . Thus j0 2 M2 and j1 2 M2 where
j2 W .M2 ; I2 / ! .M2 ; I2 /
is the iteration such that j2 .a2 / D AG . Let
k0 W .M0 ; I0 / ! .MO 0 ; IO0 /
and
k1 W .M1 ; I1 / ! .MO 1 ; IO1 /
be the iterations such that k0 .a0 / D a2 D k1 .a1 /. Thus k0 2 M2 and

j0 D j2 .k0 /:
Similarly j1 D j2 .k1 /.
Let b0 D k0 .d0 /, b1 D k1 .d1 /,
O
y0 D .P .!1 //M0
and let
y1 D .P .!1 //M1 :
Let b D b0 [ b1 and let y D y0 [ y1 .

Note that
(3.1) j2 ..y0 ; b0 // D .X0 ; S0 /,
(3.2) j2 .y1 ; b1 / D .X1 ; S1 /,
(3.3) j2 .y; b/ D .X; S /.
Now both .X0 ; S0 / .X; S / and .X1 ; S1 / .X; S / in PNS . Therefore both
M2
.
.y; b/ .y0 ; b0 / and .y; b/ .y1 ; b1 / in PNS
Let J2 be the normal ideal in M2 generated by I2 [ b.
Thus J2 \ MO 0 D JO0 and J2 \ MO 1 D JO1 where JO0 D k0 .J0 / and JO1 D k1 .J1 /.
Finally .MO 0 ; IO0 ; JO0 / is an iterate of .M0 ; I0 ; J0 / as witnessed by k0 and similarly .MO 1 ; IO1 ; JO1 / is an iterate of .M1 ; I1 ; J1 / as witnessed by k1 . This is because
in M0 , J0 is the normal ideal generated by I0 [ d0 and because in M1 , I1 is the
normal ideal generated by J1 [ d1 .
Thus h.M2 ; I2 ; J2 /; a2 i 2 2 Pmax ,
h.M2 ; I2 ; J2 /; a2 i < h.M0 ; I0 ; J0 /; a0 i;
and
h.M2 ; I2 ; J2 /; a2 i < h.M1 ; I1 ; J1 /; a1 i:
Therefore h.M0 ; I0 ; J0 /; a0 i and h.M1 ; I1 ; J1 /; a1 i are compatible and so G0 is
L.R/-generic.
6 Pmax variations
302
By the genericity of G0 and its denition it follows that

L.R/gh0 D L.R/G0 :
By the homogeneity of 2 Pmax it follows that there exists
h PNS
such that h is L.R/g-generic and such that
L.R/gh D L.R/G:
Finally since PNS has cardinality !2 in L.R/g and since
.P .!1 //L.R/g D .P .!1 //L.R/G ;
PNS is .!1 ; 1/-distributive in L.R/g.
t
u
As an immediate corollary to Lemma 6.16 we obtain the following theorem.

Theorem 6.17. Assume ./ and that V D L.P .!1 //. Then PNS is .!1 ; 1/-distributive. Further, suppose G PNS is V -generic. Then in V G;
(1) IG is a normal saturated ideal,
(2) IG D sat.INS /.
t
u
There are absoluteness theorems for 2 Pmax analogous to those for Pmax . The proofs
are straightforward modications of those for the Pmax theorems. We prove the absoluteness theorem for 2 Pmax which corresponds to Theorem 4.64. The proof is quite
similar to that of Theorem 4.64.
Of course in this theorem the ideal I could be simply the nonstationary ideal.
Theorem 6.18. Assume ADL.R/ and that there is a Woodin cardinal with a measurable above. Suppose is a 2 sentence in the language for the structure
hH.!2 /; I; J; 2i
where I J are normal uniform ideals on !1 and I J . Suppose
hH.!2 /; I; J; 2i :
Then
2P
max
hH.!2 /; INS ; JG ; 2iL.R/
:
Proof. Let .x; y/ be a 0 formula such that D 8x9y: .x; y/ (up to logical
equivalence).
Assume towards a contradiction that
hH.!2 /; IG ; JG ; 2i
2P
max
::
Then by Lemma 6.14, there is a condition h.M0 ; I0 ; J0 /; a0 i 2 2 Pmax and a set

b0 2 H.!2 /M0
6.1
such that if
2P
max
303
h.M0 ; I0 ; J0 /; a0 i h.M0 ; I0 ; J0 /; a0 i
then
hH.!2 /M0 ; 2; I0 ; J0 i 8y b0 ;
where b0 D j.b0 / and where

j W .M0 ; I0 ; J0 / ! .M0 ; I0 ; J0 /
is the iteration such that j.a0 / D a0 .
j W .M0 ; I0 ; J0 / ! .M0 ; I0 ; J0 /
such that:
(1.1) j.!1M0 / D !1 ;
(1.2) I0 \ M0 D I0 ;
(1.3) J0 \ M0 D J0 .
Let B0 D j.b0 /. The sentence holds in V and so there exists a set
D0 2 H.!2 /
such that
hH.!2 /; 2; I; J i : B0 ; D0 :
Let be a Woodin cardinal and be a measurable cardinal above .
Suppose that
G Coll.!1 ; P .!1 //
is V -generic. Let
hS W < !1 i
be an enumeration of I in V G, and let
hT W < !1 i
be an enumeration of J . Let
S D < !1 j 2 S for some <
and let
T D < !1 j 2 T for some < :
The key points are the following. We work in V G. First S is co-stationary and
.INS _ S /V G \ V D I:
This is easily veried by an analysis of terms in V ; since I is a normal ideal in V , for
each set A !1 such that A 2 V and A I ,
A \ .!1 n S /
304
6 Pmax variations
is a stationary subset of !1 . This follows from the observation that in V , for each set
A 2 P .!1 / n I ,
ZA P!1 .H.!2 //
is stationary in P!1 .H.!2 // where ZA is the set of countable
X H.!2 /
such that
X \ !1 2 A
and such that for all B 2 X \ I , X \ !1 B.
If B 2 I then
B \ .!1 n S /
is countable.
Similarly T is co-stationary and
.INS _ T /V G \ V D J
Since I J , it follows that
.INS _ S /V G .INS _ T /V G ;
and since I J ,
.INS _ S /V G .INS _ T /V G :
V G is a small generic extension of V and so is a Woodin cardinal in V G and

is measurable in V G.
Let
Q D Coll.!1 ; </ P
be an iteration dened in V G such that P is ccc in V GColl.!1 ;</ ,
V GQ MA C :CH
and such that Q has cardinality in V G.
Let H Q be V G-generic
Thus by Theorem 4.63, the nonstationary ideal on !1 is precipitous in V GH .
Further, .INS /V G D .INS /V GH \ V G and so
hH.!2 /; 2; INS _ S; INS _ T iV gC G : B0 ; D0 :
Clearly is still measurable in V GH . Let 2 V GH be a measure on .
Let X VC2 GH be a countable elementary substructure such that
M0 ; S; T; j; G; H; B0 ; D0 ; X
and let Y D X \ V GH . Let NY be the transitive collapse of Y and let NX be the
transitive collapse of X . Let X be the image of and let X be the image of under
NY D VX \ NX
and the pair .NX ; X / is iterable in the usual sense. Let
N D [k.NY / j k is an iteration of k0
6.1
2P
max
305
where the union ranges over iterations of arbitrary length and k0 is the embedding
given by X .
Thus N is a transitive inner model of ZFC containing the ordinals and
NX D NY :
Let IY be the image of .INS _S /V GH under the collapsing map and let JY be the
image of .INS _T /V GH . Since INS is precipitous in V GH , it follows that .INS /NX
is precipitous in NX . Therefore .INS /N is precipitous in N . Thus by Lemma 3.8 and
Lemma 3.10, the structure
.NY ; .INS /NY /
is iterable in V GH . Therefore the structure
.NY ; IY ; JY /
is iterable.
Let jY be the image of j under the collapsing map. Thus jY 2 NY ,
jY W .M0 ; I0 ; J0 / ! .M0 ; I0 ; J0 /
is an iteration of .M0 ; I0 ; J0 / of length .!1 /NY ,
I0 D IY \ M0
and
J0 D JY \ M0 :
The latter two identities hold since,
I0 D I \ M0 D .INS _ S /V GH \ M0
and
J0 D J \ M0 D .INS _ T /V GH \ M0 :
Thus h.NY ; IY ; JY /; jY .a0 /i 2 2 Pmax and
h.NY ; IY ; JY /; jY .a0 /i < h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i:
Finally let BY be the image of B0 under the collapsing map and let DY be the
image of D0 . Thus
hH.!2 /NY ; IY ; JY ; 2i : BY ; DY
and so
hH.!2 /NY ; IY ; JY ; 2i .:8y /BY :
However BY D jY .b0 /.
Thus in V GH there is a condition
h.M1 ; I1 ; J1 /; a1 i h.M0 ; I0 ; J0 /; a0 i
such that
hH.!2 /M1 ; I1 ; J1 i 6 8y b1
where b1 D j0 .b0 / and
j0 W .M0 ; I0 ; J0 / ! .M0 ; I0 ; J0 /
is the iteration such that j0 .a0 / D a1 .
By absoluteness, noting that V is 13 -correct in the generic extension, V GH ;
t
u
such a condition h.M1 ; I1 ; J1 /; a1 i must exist in V , which is a contradiction.
306
6 Pmax variations
6.2
Variations for obtaining !1 -dense ideals
6.2.1 Qmax
We shall be concerned with !1 -dense, normal, uniform ideals on !1 . Recall that if
I P .!1 / is a normal, uniform, ideal, then the ideal I is !1 -dense if the set of
nonzero elements of the boolean algebra,
P .!1 /=I;
contains a dense subset of cardinality @1 . We have previously proved using the core
model induction that the existence of such an ideal on !1 implies ADR and so we
obtain the equiconsistency, see Theorem 6.149 and the subsequent corollary.
We dene our next variation on Pmax which we shall call Qmax . This we shall use
to show that it is consistent that the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !1 -dense. The rst
proof we give here will require the consistency of a huge cardinal. We do this version
rst because it is relatively easy and it illustrates the basic method which can be used
to obtain a variety of results. We then reduce the hypothesis to simply the consistency
of AD by modifying the denition of Qmax . This version, which is somewhat more
technical to dene, we shall denote by Qmax . The denition of Qmax is analogous to

.
that of Pmax
In summary, we shall dene a partial order Qmax . Assuming the existence of an
huge cardinal we shall prove that
L.R/Qmax ZFC
and
L.R/Qmax The nonstationary ideal on !1 is !1 dense:
In fact we shall prove that if there is a normal, uniform, !1 -dense ideal on !1 and
there exist innitely many Woodin cardinals with a measurable cardinal above; then
L.R/Qmax ZFC
and
L.R/Qmax The nonstationary ideal on !1 is !1 dense:
Thus we abstractly obtain the consistency that the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !1 dense from the consistency that there is an !1 -dense, normal, uniform ideal on !1
(together with the appropriate large cardinals).
After the initial analysis of L.R/Qmax we shall dene Qmax and complete the anal
ysis of L.R/Qmax assuming only ADL.R/ . Finally we shall obtain as a corollary that,
assuming only ADL.R/ ,
RO.Qmax / D RO.Qmax /:
We shall also prove several absoluteness theorems for L.R/Qmax . One of these,
(Theorem 6.85), shows that the Qmax extension is simply the Pmax -extension conditioned on a form of . Another, Theorem 6.87, is a related theorem which shows that
satises a restricted form of the homogeneity condition, formalized
the Qmax -extension

in axiom , that characterizes the Pmax -extension.
We x some notation.
307
Denition 6.19. Suppose I is a normal !1 -dense ideal on !1 . Then YColl .I / denotes

the set of functions
f W !1 ! H.!1 /
such that for all < !1 , f ./ is a lter in Coll.!; 1 C / and such that the following
conditions are satised. For each p 2 Coll.!; !1 / let
Sp D j p 2 f ./:
(1) For each p 2 Coll.!; !1 /, Sp I .
(2) For each S 2 P .!1 / n I , Sp n S 2 I for some p 2 Coll.!; !1 /.
t
u
The functions in YColl .I / correspond to boolean isomorphisms

W P .!1 /=I ! RO.Coll.!; !1 //:
One manifestation of this correspondence we shall use frequently. Suppose
G Coll.!; !1 /
is V -generic. Let
H D S !1 j S n Sp 2 I for some p 2 G
be the corresponding V -generic lter in .P .!1 / n I; /.
The lter H induces a generic elementary embedding
j W V ! M V H :
It is easily veried that j.f /.!1V / D G.
Denition 6.20. Qmax is the set of pairs h.M; I /; f i where:
(1) I; f 2 M.
(2) M ZFC .
(3) I is a normal !1 -dense ideal on !1 in M.
(4) .M; I / is iterable.
(5) f 2 .YColl .I //M .
The ordering on Qmax is analogous to Pmax .
h.M1 ; I1 /; f1 i < h.M0 ; I0 /; f0 i
if M0 2 M1 ; M0 is countable in M1 , and there exists an iteration
j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
such that:
(1) j.f0 / D f1 ;
(2) M0 2 M1 and j 2 M1 ;
(3) I0 D I1 \ M0 .
t
u
308
6 Pmax variations
Remark 6.21.
(1) Suppose that

h.M1 ; I1 /; f1 i; h.M0 ; I0 /; f0 i Qmax
and that
j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
is an iteration of length !1M1 such that:

a) j.f0 / D f1 ;
b) M0 2 M1 and j 2 M1 .
Then necessarily,
I0 D I1 \ M0 ;
and so (3) in the denition of the order on Qmax is implied by the other conditions.
(2) If we modify the denition of Qmax to require that M ZFC we obtain an equivalent forcing notion provided for each real x there exists a condition h.M; I /; f i
with x 2 M (and M ZFC). This is true under mild assumptions. For example
if AD holds in L.R/ and there is an inaccessible then it is true. Unlike the situation for Pmax , the fragment of ZFC that the models occurring in the conditions
satisfy is important insofar as what theory one needs to work in to prove existence of conditions. The underlying point is that the existence of a precipitous
ideal on !1 is weak in terms of consistency strength, whereas the existence of an
t
u
!1 -dense ideal on !1 is equiconsistent with AD.
Lemma 6.22. Suppose h.M; I /; f i 2 Qmax . Suppose
j1 W .M; I / ! .M1 ; I1 /
and
j2 W .M; I / ! .M2 ; I2 /
are iterations of .M; I / such that j1 .f / D j2 .f /. Then M1 D M2 and j1 D j2 .
Proof. This lemma is the analogue of Lemma 4.35 and the proof is a routine adaptation
of the proof of Lemma 4.35. The function f plays the role of the set a.
We rst examine an iteration
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
corresponding to a single generic ultrapower. We prove that j is completely determined by j.f /.!1M /. The lemma follows by induction on the length of the iteration.
Let
U .P .!1 //M
be the M-ultralter corresponding to j . Thus
U D a !1M j a 2 M and !1M 2 j.a/:
309
Let g D j.f /.!1M /. Since f 2 .YColl .I //M ,

g Coll.!; !1M /
and g is an M-generic lter.
Again since f 2 .YColl .I //M , U can be recovered from g as follows. A set a
belongs to U if and only if there exists p 2 g such that
.!1M n a/ \ < !1M j p 2 f ./ 2 I:
Thus j is recoverable from j.f /.!1M /.
t
u
The next lemma is the basic iteration lemma for conditions in Qmax . Because we
wish to apply it within the models occurring in conditions we assume only the relevant
fragment of ZFC.
Lemma 6.23 (ZFC ). Suppose that I is a normal !1 -dense ideal on !1 and that
f 2 YColl .I /:
Suppose that
h.M0 ; I0 /; f0 i 2 Qmax :
Then there is an iteration k W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M ; I / such that:
(1) k.!1M0 / D !1 ;
(2) I \ M D I ;
(3) k.f0 / D f modulo I .
Proof. This lemma corresponds to Lemma 4.36, however the proof in this case is easier.
First we note that (1) and (2) follow from (3). We prove (3).
Let h.M ; I /; G ; k; W < !1 i be any iteration of .M0 ; I0 / such that for
all < !1 if
k0; .!1M0 / D
and if f ./ is an M -generic lter for Coll.!; / then k; C1 is the corresponding
generic elementary embedding.
We claim that
h.M ; I /; G ; k; W < !1 i
is as desired.
Suppose A !1 and A codes the iteration
h.M ; I /; G ; k; W < !1 i:
Then the set of < !1 such that
h.M ; I /; G ; k; W < i 2 LA \
310
6 Pmax variations
contains a club in !1 . Further the set of < !1 such that k0; .!1M0 / D also contains
a club. Because of the relationship between f and I ,
< !1 j f ./ is not a LA \ -generic lter for Coll .!; / 2 I:
This is easily veried by using the generic elementary embedding corresponding to I ,
noting that if j is the generic elementary embedding then j.A/ \ !1V D A.
Therefore
!1 n j f ./ is M -generic 2 I:
Let X !1 be the set of < !1 such that f ./ is an M -generic lter for
Coll.!; / and such that k0; .!1M0 / D . Thus !1 n X 2 I . However by the properties
of the iteration,
X j k0; C1 .f0 /./ D f ./
and so k0;!1 .f0 / D f modulo I . This proves (3).
t
u
The analysis of the Qmax -extension requires the generalization of Lemma 6.23 to
sequences. Here (unlike for 2 Pmax ) we state the general lemma cf. Lemma 6.7. The
reference in the hypothesis to conditions in Qmax is simply a device to shorten the
statement of the lemma.
Lemma 6.24 (ZFC ). Suppose I is a normal !1 -dense ideal on !1 and that
f 2 YColl .I /:
Suppose hpk W k < !i is a sequence of conditions in Qmax such that for each k < !
pk D h.Mk ; Ik /; fk i
and for all k < !
(i) pk 2 MkC1 ,
(ii) jMk jMkC1 D .!1 /MkC1 ,
Mk
(iii) !1
MkC1
D !1
(iv) fk D f0 ,
(v) IkC1 \ Mk D Ik ,
(vi) if C 2 Mk is closed and unbounded in !1M0 then there exists D 2 MkC1 such
D 2 Lx
for some x 2 R \ MkC1 .
j W h.Mk ; Ik / W k < !i ! h.Mk ; Ik / W k < !i
such that j.!1M0 / D !1 , such that
< !1 j f ./ j.f0 /./ 2 I;
and such that for all k < !,
Ik D I \ Mk :
311

is iterable.
The lemma follows by a construction essentially the same as that given in the proof
of Lemma 6.23.
t
u
Remark 6.25. Lemma 6.23 and Lemma 6.24 can both be proved without the requirement that the ideal I be !1 -dense. Instead one requires that the function f satisfy a
diamond-like condition relative to the ideal, as indicated in the proof. For the nonstationary ideal this condition is given in Denition 6.37.
t
u
Lemma 6.26 is a simple variation of Lemma 5.23.
Lemma 6.26. Suppose J is a normal precipitous ideal on !1 and that is the least
strongly inaccessible cardinal. Suppose
X V
is a countable elementary substructure. Let M be the transitive collapse of X and let
I be the image of J under the collapsing map. Then .M; I / is A-iterable for each set
A 2 X such that every set of reals which is projective in A is weakly homogeneously
Suslin.
Proof. Suppose A 2 X , A R and for all B R such that B is projective in A, B is
weakly homogeneously Suslin.
Let
Since is the least strongly inaccessible, every set in is weakly homogeneously
Suslin. Therefore if g is M -generic for a partial order P 2 M then A \ M g 2 M g
and
hH.!1 /M g ; A \ M g; 2i hH.!1 /; A; 2i:
This follows as in the proof of Lemma 5.23, by Lemma 2.29.
Suppose 2 X and that V ZFC. Let X be the image of under the collapsing
map. Let S and T be trees on ! 2 such that if G Coll.!; / then
.pS /V G D AV G
and
.pT /V G D .R n A/V G :
Since 2 X , we may suppose that
S; T X:
Let .SX ; TX / be the image of .S; T / under the collapsing map.
Suppose g Coll.!; X / is M -generic. Therefore by the remarks above,
A \ M g 2 M g
6 Pmax variations
312
and
hH.!1 /M g ; A \ M g; 2i hH.!1 /; A; 2i:

Let N D .M / X and suppose
j W .N; I / ! .N ; I /
is a countable iteration with j 2 M g. Then by Lemma 3.8, j lifts to dene a
countable iteration
k W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
where kjM 2 M g for all 2 M . By Lemma 3.10, M is wellfounded.
Noting
A \ M g D pSX \ M g
we have
k.A \ M / D k.pSX \ M / D pk.SX / \ M
and so
pSX \ M k.A \ M /:
Similarly
pTX \ M k.M \ .R n A//:
However
pTX \ M g D .R n pSX / \ M g
and so
k.A \ M / D pSX \ M D pSX \ N
since R \ N D R \ M .
Thus in M g, the structure .N; I / is A \ M g-iterable. Finally
.N; I /
is countable in M g and
hH.!1 /M g ; A \ M g; 2i hH.!1 /; A; 2i:
Therefore .N; I / is A-iterable in V .
The set of 2 M such that
M ZFC
is conal in M and so .M; I / is A-iterable.
t
u
Lemma 6.26 can be used to obtain the existence of suitably nontrivial conditions
in Qmax .
Theorem 6.27. Suppose there is a normal !1 -dense ideal on !1 . Suppose there are
! many Woodin cardinals with a measurable above them all. Suppose X R and
that X 2 L.R/.
313
Then there is a condition h.M; I /; f i 2 Qmax such that

(1) X \ M 2 M,
(2) hH.!1 /M ; X \ Mi hH.!1 /; X i,
Proof. From the large cardinal hypothesis, AD holds in L.R/ and further every set of
reals which is in L.R/ is weakly homogeneously Suslin. The theorem follows from
Lemma 6.26.
t
u
The following is proved in .Foreman 2010/. It shows that starting with a huge
cardinal one can force to obtain a model in which there are normal saturated ideals on
!1 for which
P .!1 /=I
can up to isomorphism be any complete boolean algebra satisfying the obvious necessary conditions.
Theorem 6.28. Suppose that 0 is 1 huge. Suppose
G0 Coll.!; < 0 /
is V -generic and that
G1 Coll. 0 ; < 1 /
is V G0 -generic where the poset Coll. 0 ; < 1 / is computed in V G0 .
Suppose that
B 2 V G1
is a complete, !2 -cc boolean algebra in V G1 such that
V G1 B j!1V G1 j D !:
Then in V G1 there is a normal uniform ideal I on !1 such that
P .!1 /=I B:
As an immediate corollary we get:
Corollary 6.29. Assume there exists an huge cardinal. Then for each set
X R
with X 2 L.R/, there is a condition h.M; I /; f i 2 Qmax such that
(1) X \ M 2 M,
(2) hH.!1 /M ; X \ Mi hH.!1 /; X i,
t
u
314
6 Pmax variations
Proof. Suppose 0 is 1 -huge. Therefore 1 is a measurable cardinal and 1 is a limit

of Woodin cardinals. Let be a normal measure on 1 and let
j WV !N
be the associated elementary embedding. N is closed under 1 sequences in V .
Suppose
G0 Coll.!; < 0 /
G1 Coll. 0 ; < 1 /
is V G0 -generic where the poset Coll. 0 ; < 1 / is computed in V G0 .
Since N is closed under 1 -sequences in V it follows that N G1 is closed under
1 sequences in V G1 . However
1 D .2@1 /V G1 :
Therefore by Theorem 6.28, in N G1 there is an !1 -dense normal ideal on !1 . j. 1 /
is a limit of Woodin cardinals in N and so it follows that j. 1 / is a limit of Woodin
cardinals in N G1 . j. 1 / is a measurable cardinal in N and hence it is a measurable
cardinal in N G1 .
By Lemma 6.26, the conclusion of the Corollary 6.29 holds in
L.R/N G1
since in N G1 , every set of reals which belongs to L.R/ is weakly homogeneously
Suslin. One could also use Theorem 6.27 for this.
Finally by Theorem 2.31,
L.R/N L.R/N G1
since N G1 is a generic extension of N by a partial order in N of cardinality less than
t
u
j. 1 / in N .
The conclusion of the corollary holds just assuming ADL.R/ .
As is the case for Pmax the analysis of Qmax can be carried out just assuming:
For each set X R with X 2 L.R/, there is a condition
h.M; I /; f i 2 Qmax
such that
(1) X \ M 2 M,
(2) hH.!1 /M ; X \ Mi hH.!1 /; X i,
Suppose G Qmax is L.R/-generic. Let
fG D [f j h.M; I /; f i 2 G for some M; I :
315
For each condition h.M; I /; f i 2 G there is a unique iteration

j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
such that j.f / D fG . Let
IG D [I j h.M; I /; f i 2 G for some M; f ;
and let
P .!1 /G D [P .!1 /M j h.M; I /; f i 2 G:
The next theorem gives the basic results concerning Qmax . It shows that IG is an
ideal, it is !1 -dense, and it is the nonstationary ideal in L.R/G.
Theorem 6.30. Suppose for each set X R with X 2 L.R/, there is a condition
h.M; I /; f i 2 Qmax such that
(i) X \ M 2 M,
(ii) hH.!1 /M ; X \ Mi hH.!1 /; X i,
Then Qmax is !-closed and homogeneous. Suppose G Qmax is L.R/-generic. Then
L.R/G !1 -DC
and in L.R/G:
(1) P .!1 /G D P .!1 /;
(2) IG is a normal !1 -dense ideal on !1 ;
Proof. The only claim here that does does not have a counterpart in the Pmax case is
(2).
The other claims are proved by simply adapting the proofs of the corresponding
claims for the Pmax -extension. As in the case for 2 Pmax , the proof that Qmax is !-closed
requires proving Lemma 6.23 for the sequences that arise. Again the sequences satisfy
the conditions of Corollary 4.20 and so are iterable in the sense of Denition 4.8.
To prove (2) we work in L.R/G. Suppose
A 2 P .!1 / n IG :
By (1) and the denitions, there exists h.M; I /; f i 2 G such that
A 2 M n I ;
where .M ; I / is the image of .M; I / under the iteration which sends f to fG .
Therefore by the properties of .I ; fG / in M , there exists p 2 Coll.!; !1 / such
that
< !1 j p 2 fG ./ I
6 Pmax variations
316
and such that
.!1 n A/ \ < !1 j p 2 fG ./ 2 I :
However I D M \ IG .
Therefore for each set
S 2 P .!1 / n IG
there exists p 2 Coll.!; !1 / such that
< !1 j p 2 fG ./ n S 2 IG :
t
u
This veries (2).
There remains the question of whether the axiom of choice holds in L.R/Qmax . We
show that it does and in fact for the same reason it holds in L.R/Pmax . Recall that AC
is the 2 sentence for
hH.!2 /; 2i
which we used to show that AC holds in L.R/Pmax .
Theorem 6.31. Suppose for each set X R with X 2 L.R/, there is a condition
(i) X \ M 2 M,
(ii) hH.!1 /M ; X \ Mi hH.!1 /; X i,
Then
Qmax
hH.!2 /; 2iL.R/
AC :
Proof. The proof is a minor modication of the proof that AC holds in L.R/Pmax .
Fix G Qmax such that G is L.R/-generic.
Suppose hSi W i < !i and hTi W i < !i are sequences of pairwise disjoint subsets
of !1 . Suppose the Si are stationary and suppose that
!1 D [Ti j i < !:
Let h.M; I /; f i 2 G be such that hSi W i < !i; hTi W i < !i 2 M where
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
is the iteration such that j.f / D fG .
Let hsi W i < !i; hti W i < !i in M be such that
j..hsi W i < !i; hti W i < !i// D .hSi W i < !i; hTi W i < !i/:
Thus in M, hsi W i < !i and hti W i < !i are sequences of pairwise disjoint subsets of
!1M , the si are not in I , and
!1M D [ti j i < !:
317
Let D be the set of conditions h.N ; J /; gi < h.M; I /; f i such that in N there
exists < !2N and a continuous increasing function F W !1N ! with conal range
such that
F .tiN / sQiN
for each i < ! where tiN D k.ti /, siN D k.si / and k is the embedding of the iteration
of .M; I / which sends f to g. For each i < !, sQiN denotes the set AQ as computed in
N where A D siN .
It sufces to show that D is dense below h.M; I /; f i.
We show something slightly stronger. Suppose
h.N ; J /; gi < h.N0 ; J0 /; g0 i < h.M; I /; f i:
Then for some h 2 N , h.N ; J /; hi 2 D and
h.N ; J /; hi < h.N0 ; J0 /; g0 i < h.M; I /; f i:
si0
Let be the image of si under the iteration of .M; I / which sends f to g0 and let
ti0 be the image of ti under this iteration.
Let x 2 N be a real which codes N0 .
Working in N we dene an iteration of .N0 ; J0 / of length !1N . Let C be the set of
indiscernibles of Lx less than !1N . Let D C be the set of 2 C such that C \
has ordertype . Thus D is a closed unbounded subset of C . Let
h.N ; J /; G ; j; W < !1N i
be an iteration of .N0 ; J0 / in N such that
(1.1) For all 2 D and for all < , j0; .si0 / 2 G if 2 j0; .ti0 / where is the
th element of C above ,
(1.2) J! N D J \ N! N .
1
(1.3) j0;! N .g0 /jD D gjD for some club D D.

1
Condition (1.3) is the additional requirement special to the case of Qmax . The condition
(1.3) is satised by constructing the iteration using g. / to dene the generic ultralter
at stage whenever possible provided 2 D.
The iteration is easily constructed in N , the point is that the requirements given by
(1.1), (1.2), and (1.3) do not interfere. The other useful observation is that if 2 C
and if k W .N0 ; J0 / ! .N0 ; J0 / is any iteration of length then D k.!1N0 /.
Let be the th indiscernible of Lx where D !1N C!1N . Let F be the function
F W !1N ! given by F ./ is the th indiscernible of Lx where D !1N C . Thus
(2.1) 2 N ,
(2.2) < !2N ,
(2.3) F 2 N ,
(2.4) F W !1N ! is continuous and strictly increasing.
6 Pmax variations
318
Let siN D j0;! N .si0 / and let tiN D j0;! N .ti0 /. Let
1
h D j0;! N .g0 /:
1
Thus h.N ; J /; hi 2 Qmax and h.N ; J /; hi < h.N0 ; J0 /; g0 i. By the denition of the
iteration it follows that in N ,
F .tiN / sQiN
and so h.N ; J /; hi 2 D.
t
u
As a corollary to the previous theorems we obtain the following consistency result

which we shall improve considerably in Corollary 6.82.
ZFC C There is an huge cardinal
ZFC C The nonstationary ideal on !1 is !1 -dense:
t
u
The analysis of Qmax yields the absoluteness theorem corresponding to Qmax .

There are several absoluteness theorems that one can prove. The absoluteness results hold if one expands the structure
hH.!2 /; I; 2i
by adding predicates for each set of reals which is in L.R/.
One can also add a predicate for F I H.!2 / where F I is the set of all functions
h W !1 ! H.!1 /
such that j F ./ h./ 2 I .
Theorem 6.33. Suppose there are ! many Woodin cardinals with a measurable above
them all. Suppose J is a normal !1 -dense ideal on !1 and that
F 2 YColl .J /:
hH.!2 /; J; F J ; A; 2 W A R; A 2 L.R/i
and that
hH.!2 /; J; F J ; A; 2 W A R; A 2 L.R/i :
Then
Qmax
hH.!2 /; IG ; fG IG ; A; 2 W A R; A 2 L.R/iL.R/
:
Proof. Let be the supremum of the rst ! Woodin cardinals and let be the least
strongly inaccessible cardinal above .
Since there is a measurable cardinal above , every set
A 2 P .R/ \ L.R/
is <-weakly homogeneously Suslin.
Therefore by Theorem 6.27, for each set X R with X 2 L.R/, there is a
condition h.M; I /; f i 2 Qmax such that
319
(1.1) X \ M 2 M,
(1.2) hH.!1 /M ; X \ Mi hH.!1 /; X i,
Thus the basic analysis of Qmax as given in Theorem 6.30 and Theorem 6.31 applies.
Suppose X V is a countable elementary substructure containing I and f . Let
hMX ; JX ; FX i be the image of hX; J; F i under the transitive collapse. Then .MX ; JX /
is iterable. Further for each A 2 X \ P .R/ \ L.R/, .MX ; JX / is A-iterable.
Thus hMX ; JX ; FX i 2 Qmax . The theorem follows from an argument similar to the
absoluteness theorem for Pmax . The situation here is actually simpler since no forcing
over V is required. The only other relevant point is that if h.M; I /; f i 2 Qmax then
there is an iteration
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
such that j.!1M / D !1 and such that
j j.f /./ F ./ 2 J:
t
u
As with the case for Pmax this expanded absoluteness theorem has a converse.
This requires two preliminary lemmas the rst of which is a very weak analogue of
Lemma 4.60.
(i) X \ M 2 M,
(ii) hH.!1 /M ; X \ Mi hH.!1 /; X i,
Suppose that G Qmax is L.R/-generic. Suppose h 2 L.R/G and that in L.R/G;
h is a function such that
h W !1 ! H.!1 /
and such that the set
j fG ./ D h./
contains a club in !1 . Then there is a lter G Qmax such that G is L.R/-generic,
fG D h and such that
L.R/G D L.R/G :
320
6 Pmax variations
Proof. For each q 2 Qmax let

Qmax jq D p 2 Qmax j p < q:
By Theorem 6.30(1), there exist h.M0 ; I0 /; f0 i 2 G and h0 2 M such that
j0 .h0 / D H where
j0 W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
is the iteration such that j0 .f0 / D fG .
Since I0 D IG \ M0 ,
< !1M0 j f0 ./ h0 ./ 2 I0 :
Therefore h.M0 ; I0 /; h0 i 2 Qmax .
Dene a map
W Qmax jh.M0 ; I0 /; f0 i ! Qmax jh.M0 ; I0 /; h0 i
as follows.
Suppose h.M; I /; f i 2 Qmax and h.M; I /; f i < h.M0 ; I0 /; f0 i. Let
k W .M0 ; I0 / ! .MO 0 ; IO/
be the iteration such that k.f0 / D f . Then h.M; I /; k.h0 /i 2 Qmax and
h.M; I /; k.h0 /i < h.M0 ; I0 /; h0 i:
Let
h.M; I /; k.h0 /i D .h.M; I /; f i/:
Now suppose h.M; I /; hi 2 Qmax and h.M; I /; hi < h.M0 ; I0 /; h0 i. Let
k W .M0 ; I0 / ! .MO 0 ; IO/
be the iteration such that k.h0 / D h. Then h.M; I /; k.f0 /i 2 Qmax and
h.M; I /; k.f0 /i < h.M0 ; I0 /; f0 i:
Further
h.M; I /; hi D .h.M; I /; k.f0 /i/:
Thus is a bijection from Qmax jh.M0 ; I0 /; f0 i to Qmax jh.M0 ; I0 /; h0 i. Clearly
preserves the order.
Thus
.p/ j p 2 G and p < h.M0 ; I0 /; f0 i
generates a lter G Qmax which is L.R/-generic.
The lter G is as desired.
t
u
(i) X \ M 2 M,
(ii) hH.!1 /M ; X \ Mi hH.!1 /; X i,
Suppose that G Qmax is L.R/-generic. Then
L.R/G D L.R/fG :
321
Proof. Let F be the set of h.M; I /; f i 2 Qmax such that there exists an iteration
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
such that j.f / D fG . The iteration j is unique and
j 2 L.fG ; h.M; I /; f i/:
Thus F 2 L.R/fg and G F .
It remains to show that the conditions in F are pairwise compatible in Qmax . This
follows easily from Theorem 6.30(1).
Suppose h.M0 ; I0 /; f0 i 2 F and that h.M1 ; I1 /; f1 i 2 F . Then by Theorem 6.30(1) there exists h.M; I /; f i 2 G such that
.M0 ; M1 / 2 H.!1 /M
and such that there exist iterations
k0 W .M0 ; I0 / ! .MO 0 ; IO0 /
and
k1 W .M1 ; I1 / ! .MO 1 ; IO1 /
with k0 .f0 / D f D k1 .f1 /. Necessarily, .k0 ; k1 / 2 M.

Therefore
h.M; I /; f i < h.M0 ; I0 /; f0 i
and
h.M; I /; f i < h.M1 ; I1 /; f1 i
and so F D G.
t
u
them all. Suppose I is a normal !1 -dense ideal on !1 and that
F 2 YColl .I /:
Suppose that for each 2 sentence, , in the language for the structure
hH.!2 /; I; F I ; X; 2 W X R; X 2 L.R/i
if
Qmax
hH.!2 /; IG ; fG IG ; X; 2 W X R; X 2 L.R/iL.R/

then
hH.!2 /; I; F I ; X; 2 W X R; X 2 L.R/i :
Then there exists G Qmax such that:
(1) G is L.R/-generic;
(2) P .!1 / L.R/G;
(3) fG D F ;
(4) IG D I .
322
6 Pmax variations
Proof. Suppose that h 2 F I . Let

Fh Qmax
be the set of all conditions h.M; I /; f i 2 Qmax such that there is an iteration
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
such that j.f / D h. Thus INS \ M D I .
We claim that the conditions in Fh are pairwise compatible.
Suppose that h.M0 ; I0 /; f0 i 2 F and that h.M1 ; I1 /; f1 i 2 F .
Let be the least strongly inaccessible and let
X V
be a countable elementary substructure such that
I; h; h.M0 ; I0 /; f0 i; h.M1 ; I1 /; f1 i 2 X:
Let MX be the transitive collapse of X and let .IX ; hX / be the image of .I; h/ under the
collapsing map. It follows that .MX ; IX / is iterable and so h.MX ; IX /; hX i 2 Qmax .
Since h.M0 ; I0 /; f0 i 2 F and h.M1 ; I1 /; f1 i 2 F , there exist iterations
k0 W .M0 ; I0 / ! .MO 0 ; IO0 /
and
k1 W .M1 ; I1 / ! .MO 1 ; IO1 /
with k0 .f0 / D hX D k1 .f1 /. Thus

h.MX ; IX /; hX i < h.M0 ; I0 /; f0 i
and
h.MX ; IX /; hX i < h.M1 ; I1 /; f1 i
and so the conditions in F are pairwise compatible in Qmax .
If G is L.R/-generic for Qmax then in L.R/G, Fh D G.
Fix D Qmax such that D is dense and D 2 L.R/. Suppose G Qmax is
L.R/-generic. Then by Theorem 4.60 the following sentence holds in L.R/G:
For all h 2 fG IG , Fh \ D ;.
This is expressible by a 2 sentence in the structure
hH.!2 /; 2; fG IG ; DiL.R/G
and so by the hypothesis of the theorem it holds in V .
Therefore for all h 2 F I , Fh is an L.R/G-generic lter for Qmax . For each
B !1 there trivially exists hB 2 F I such that B 2 L.hB /. Combining Lemma 6.34
and Lemma 6.35 we obtain
P .!1 / L.R/Fh
for each h 2 F I and this proves the theorem.
t
u
323
The absoluteness theorems suggest that in the model L.R/Qmax one should have
all the consequences of the largest fragment of Martins Maximum which is consistent
with the existence of an !1 -dense ideal on !1 . This seems to generally be the case and
we shall prove a theorem along these lines. However in Section 6.2.4 we shall prove
that there is a weak Kurepa tree on !1 in L.R/Qmax . By varying the order on Qmax we
shall also produce a model in which the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !1 -dense and in
which there are no weak Kurepa trees, this is the subject of Section 6.2.5.
Many of the combinatorial consequences of the existence of an !1 -dense ideal can
be factored through a variant of . We dene three such variants, the rst is .!1<! /
which is easily seen to follow from .
Denition 6.37. .!1<! /: There is a function
f W !1 ! H.!1 /
such that for all sequences hD W < !1 i of dense subsets of Coll.!; !1 /,
< !1 j f ./ is a lter in Coll.!; / and f ./ \ D ; for all <
t
u
Denition 6.38. + .!1<! /: There is a function
f W !1 ! H.!1 /
such that for all dense sets,
D Coll.!; !1 /;
the set
< !1 j f ./ is a lter in Coll.!; / and f ./ \ D ;
t
u
The next two lemmas give useful reformulations of .!1<! / and + .!1<! /.
Lemma 6.39. Suppose f W !1 ! H.!1 / is a function witnessing .!1<! / and that
M is a transitive set such that
H.!2 / M:
Then
X 2 P!1 .M / j f .X \ !1 / is MX -generic for Coll.!; X \ !1 /
is stationary in P!1 .M / where for each X 2 P!1 .M /, MX denotes the transitive
collapse of X .
Proof. Clearly we may suppose that M D H.!2 / since
P .Coll.!; !1 // H.!2 /:
Fix a function
H W H.!2 /<! ! H.!2 /:
324
6 Pmax variations
It sufces to prove that there exists a countable elementary substructure,

X H.!2 /
such that H X X and such that f ./ is MX -generic.
Let N H.!2 / be an elementary substructure of cardinality @1 such that
<!
!1 N
and such that H N N . Clearly N is transitive.
Let hD W < !1 i enumerate the dense subsets of Coll.!; !1 / which belong to
N.
Let
S D < !1 j f ./ \ D ; for all < :
<!
Since f witnesses .!1<! /, S is a stationary subset of !1 .

Let
Y H.!2 /
be a countable elementary substructure such that Y \ !1 2 S and such that
S; N; H jN; hD W < !1 i Y:
Let X D Y \ N .
Thus X H.!2 / and H X <! X .
Further if D Coll.!; !1 / is dense set such that D 2 X then D D D for some
t
u
< X \ !1 . Therefore f .X \ !1 / is MX -generic.
Lemma 6.40. Suppose f W !1 ! H.!1 / is a function witnessing + .!1<! / and that
M is a transitive set such that
H.!2 / M:
Suppose
X M
is a countable elementary substructure of M such that f 2 X . Let MX be the transitive
collapse of X . Then f .X \ !1 / is MX -generic for Coll.!; !1 /.
Proof. This is immediate. Fix X M such that X is countable and such that f 2 X .
Suppose D Coll.!; !1 /, D is dense, and that D 2 X . We must prove that
f .X \ !1 / \ D ;.
Since f witnesses + .!1<! /, there is a closed unbounded set C !1 such that
f ./ \ D ; for all 2 C . Since f 2 X and since H.!2 / M , it follows that we
can suppose C 2 X for such a set must exist in X .
Therefore X \ !1 2 C and so f .X \ !1 / \ D ;.
t
u
We shall in most cases be concerned with .!1<! / or + .!1<! / in a situation where
for every A !1 , A# exists.
325
Lemma 6.41. Suppose that for every A !1 , A# exists and that

f W !1 ! H.!1 /
is a function such that for all < !1 , f ./ is a lter in Coll.!; /.
(1) Suppose f witnesses .!1<! /. Then for all A !1 the set of < !1 such that
f ./ is LA \ -generic for Coll.!; / is stationary in !1 .
(2) Suppose f witnesses + .!1<! /. Then all A !1 there is a club C !1 such
that for all 2 C , f ./ is LA \ -generic for Coll.!; /.
Proof. We prove (1).
Fix A !1 and x a club C !1 .
By Lemma 6.39, there exists
X H.!2 /
such that X is countable,
A; C X;
and such that f .X \ !1 / is MX -generic for Coll.!; X \ !1 / where as usual MX is the
transitive collapse of X .
Since C 2 X , X \ !1 2 C . Since A# exists and since A 2 X , A# 2 X . Let AX be
the image of A under the collapsing map. Hence AX D A \ X \ !1 . The image of A#
#
under the collapsing map is precisely AX
.
Therefore
P .X \ !1 / \ LAX MX
and so f .X \ !1 / is LAX -generic.
This proves (1). The proof of (2) is similar.
t
u
Related to the reformulations of .!1<! / and + .!1<! / given in Lemma 6.41 we

dene ++ .!1<! / which is a strengthening of + .!1<! / analogous to + . This variation
is an immediate consequence of + , assuming that for every x 2 R, there is a Cohen
real over Lx.
Denition 6.42. ++ .!1<! /: There is a function
f W !1 ! H.!1 /
such that for all A !1 there is a club C !1 such that for all 2 C , f ./ <!
and f ./ is LA \ ; C \ -generic for Coll.!; /.
t
u
The principle ++ .!1<! / like .!1<! / or + .!1<! / is relatively easy to achieve in a
generic extension of V . For example if G Coll.!; <!1 / is V -generic then in V G
the function
f W !1 ! H.!1 /
given by G witnesses ++ .!1<! /.
Lemma 6.43 and Lemma 6.44 are used to prove Lemma 6.46. For this application
there will be an abundance of large cardinals present and so there is no need to optimize
the hypotheses of these two lemmas.
326
6 Pmax variations
Lemma 6.43. Suppose that for every A !1 , A# exists and that

f W !1 ! H.!1 /
is a function such that for all < !1 , f ./ is a lter in Coll.!; /. Then following
are equivalent.
(1) f witnesses .!1<! /.
(2) For every such that !1 ,
X V j f .X \ !1 / is L.MX /-generic for Coll.!; X \ !1 /
is stationary in P!1 .V / where MX is the transitive collapse of X .
Proof. Assuming (1) we prove (2), the converse is immediate.
Assume toward a contradiction that (2) fails. Therefore there exists a function
H W V<! ! V
such that if X V , X is countable, and if H X ! X then f .X \ !1 / is not
L.MX /-generic for Coll.!; X \ !1 /.
Let hX W < !1 i be an increasing sequence of countable subsets of V such that
for all < < !1 ,
(1.1) X X ,
(1.2) if is a limit then
X D [X j < ;
(1.3) H X<! X .
Let X D [X j < !1 and let M be the transitive collapse of X . For each
< !1 let M be the transitive collapse of X . Let A !1 code M . Therefore
< !1 j A \ codes M
By Lemma 6.41(1), since f witnesses .!1<! /, it follows that for some < !1 ,
A \ codes M and f ./ is LA \ -generic for Coll.!; /. But M 2 LA \
t
u
and so f ./ is L.M /-generic for Coll.!; /, a contradiction.
Suppose f W !1 ! H.!1 / is a function. Let P .f / denote the following partial
order. P .f / is the set of pairs .h; c/ such that
(1) h 2 P .!1 /<!1 ,
(2) c !1 ,
(3) c dom.h/,
(4) c is closed in !1 with a maximum element,
327
(5) for all 2 c with a limit point of c, f ./ is a lter in Coll.!; / and f ./ is

LAh \ ; c \
generic for Coll.!; / where
Ah D .; / j 2 h./:
The order on P .f / is given by extension:
.h2 ; c2 / .h1 ; c1 /
if h1 h2 , c1 c2 and
c2 \ . C 1/ D c1
where D [c1 .
Suppose is an ordinal and f W !1 ! H.!1 / is a function. Let P .f; / denote
the countable support iteration where for all < ,
P .f; C 1/ D P .f; / P .f /
and P .f / is as computed in V P .f;/ .
We note that P .f; / is not in general a semiproper partial order.
Lemma 6.44. Suppose that for all A !1 , A# exists, and that
f W !1 ! H.!1 /
is a function which witnesses .!1<! /. Suppose that is strongly inaccessible. Then
(1) P .f; / is .!; 1/-distributive,
(2) f witnesses ++ .!1<! / in V P .f;/ .
Proof. The partial order P .f; / is -cc and so (2) follows from (1) using the standard
analysis of terms and the denition of P .f; /.
We prove (1). Fix p 2 P .f; / and suppose hDk W k < !i is a sequence of dense
subsets of P .f; /. Let D C !.
By Lemma 6.43, the set,
X VC1 j f .X \ !1 / is L.MX /-generic for Coll.!; X \ !1 /;
is stationary in P!1 .VC1 / where for each X 2 P!1 .VC1 /, MX is the transitive
collapse of X . Note that if X VC1 then 2 X . Therefore P .f; / 2 X if f 2 X .
Therefore there exists X VC1 such that
(1.1) X is countable,
(1.2) p 2 X ,
(1.3) hDk W k < !i 2 X ,
(1.4) f .X \ !1 / is L.MX /-generic for Coll.!; X \ !1 /.
328
6 Pmax variations
Let Y D X \ V and let MY be the transitive collapse of Y . Thus

MY 2 L.MX /:
Let PY be the image of P .f; / under the collapsing map.
Let
F W ! ! MY
be a surjection such that g is L.MY ; F /-generic where g D f .Y \ !1 /.
To see that F exists let z 2 R code the pair .MY ; g/. z # exists and so !1 is
inaccessible in Lz. Therefore there exists a lter G Coll.!; MY / such that G is
Lz-generic. Let F be the function determined by G. Thus F is a surjection and
further g is L.MY ; F /-generic.
Let GY be MY -generic for PY with GY 2 L.MY ; F /. Choose GY such that
pY 2 GY
where pY is the image of p under the collapsing map.
Let
W Y ! V
be the inverse of the collapsing map. It follows that there is a condition
q 2 P .f; /
such that q < .p/ for all p 2 GY . The relevant points are that
GY 2 L.MY ; F /
and that f .Y \ !1 / is L.MY ; F /-generic for Coll.!; MY \ !1 /.
t
u
Lemma 6.45. Suppose

f W !1 ! H.!1 /
is V -generic for Coll.!1 ; H.!1 //. Then f witnesses .!1<! / in V f .
Proof. This is exactly like the proof that f witnesses in V f .
t
u
Lemma 6.46. Suppose 0 is 1 huge. Suppose V G0 f G1 is a generic extension of

V such that
(i) G0 is V -generic for Coll.!; < 0 /,
(ii) f is V G0 -generic for Coll.!1 ; H.!1 // as computed in V G0 ,
(iii) G1 is V G0 f -generic for P .f; 1 / as computed in V G0 f .
Then in V f; G1 , holds, f witnesses ++ .!1<! /, and there is a normal !1 -dense
ideal I on !1 such that
f 2 YColl .I /:
329
Proof. It is straightforward to show that the sequence h W < !1 i witnesses in

V f G1 where for each < !1 ,
D f . C 1/:
The lemma now follows by a straightforward modication of the proof of Theorem 6.28.
t
u
Lemma 6.47 gives a property of Qmax which is a consequence of the existence of
(suitable) large cardinals and yet which cannot be proved simply assuming ADL.R/ .
The difculty is (4). Let ZFC be ZFC together with a nite fragment of ZFC.
Lemma 6.47. Suppose there is an huge cardinal. Then for every set A R with
A 2 L.R/ there is a condition h.M; I /; f i 2 Qmax such that
(1) A \ M 2 M,
(2) hH.!1 /M ; A \ M; 2i hH.!1 /; A; 2i,
(3) .M; I / is A-iterable,
(4) holds in M,
(5) f witnesses ++ .!1<! / in M,
(6) M ZFC .
Proof. This follows from Lemma 6.46 and Lemma 6.26 following the proof of Corollary 6.29.
t
u
Theorem 6.48. Suppose there is an huge cardinal. Let G Qmax be L.R/-generic
and let
fG W !1 ! H.!1 /
be the function derived from G. Then fG witnesses ++ .!1<! / in L.R/G.
Proof. The theorem is an immediate corollary of Theorem 6.30(1) using the denition
of Qmax and Lemma 6.47.
t
u
The existence of an !1 -dense ideal on !1 does have some consequences reminiscent of CH and . These are the consequences of .!1<! /. By Lemma 6.50, below,
.!1<! / is implied by the existence of an !1 -dense ideal.
Theorem 6.49. Assume .!1<! /.
(1) There is a set of reals of cardinality !1 which is not meager.
(2) There is a Suslin tree on !1 .
330
6 Pmax variations
Proof. Let
f W !1 ! H.!1 /
be a function which witnesses .!1<! /. We may assume that for all < !1 , f ./ is a
lter in Coll.!; /.
(1) is immediate, in fact one can show that
R \ L.f /
is not meager. To see this suppose that N is a countable transitive set. Then since f
witnesses .!1<! / there exists a countable elementary substructure
X H.!2 /
such that N 2 X and such that f ./ is MX -generic for Coll.!; X \ !1 / where MX is
the transitive collapse of X .
Let D X \ !1 and let g W ! ! be the generic map given by f ./. Dene
c W ! ! 0;1 by c.i / D 0 if g.i / D 0 and c.i / D 1 if g.i / 0. Then c 2 L.f / and
c is Cohen generic over N .
Therefore R \ L.f / is not meager. This proves (1).
The proof of (2) is an easy modication of the standard construction of a Suslin
tree using .
Suppose .T; <T / is a tree. A branch is a maximal chain. A branch is rank conal
if the ranks of elements of the branch are conal in the rank of T . The tree is uniform
if for all a 2 T the ranks of b 2 T such that a <T b are conal in the rank of T .
Suppose <T is a partial order on such that .; <T / is a uniform tree and suppose
h W ! ! is a surjection.
The function h denes naturally a branch of .; <T / as follows. Let
hni W i < !i
be the sequence dened by n0 D 0 and niC1 is the least k < ! such that
h.ni / <T h.k/. Thus h.ni / j i < ! is chain in .; <T / which denes (uniquely) a
branch. If h is sufciently generic then this branch is rank conal.
Suppose g Coll.!; / is a lter with sufcient genericity to dene a function
hg W ! ! :
By xing a (recursive) bijection W ! ! ! ! we can dene from g a sequence
hhgi W i < !i of functions from ! ! where hgi .j / D hg ..i; j //. If g is sufciently
generic then
(1.1) for each i < !, the branch dened by hgi is rank conal in .; <T /,
(1.2) the union of the branches dened by the functions hgi contains every < .
Let <T be any order on !1 such that .!1 ; <T / is a normal, uniform, tree with
countable levels and such that for all countable elementary substructures
X H.!2 /;
331
containing <T , if the branches given by f .X \ !1 / are each rank conal in

.X \ !1 ; <T j X \ !1 /
and if the union of these branches contains X \ !1 , then these branches have upper
bounds in .!1 ; <T / and moreover these branches are the only unbounded branches of
.X \ !1 ; <T j X \ !1 / with upper bounds in .!1 ; <T /.
Such trees are easily constructed by induction.
Suppose A !1 is an antichain in .!1 ; <T /. Let
X H.!2 /
be a countable elementary substructure such that <T 2 X , A 2 X and such that
f .X \ !1 / is MX -generic for Coll.!; X \ !1 / where MX is the transitive collapse of
X.
Let hbi W i < !i be the branches of .X \ !1 ; <T j X \ !1 / given by f .X \ !1 /. It
follows that each branch bi is MX -generic and that X \!1 [bi j i < !. Therefore
for each i < !, A \ bi ;. Further if b is a conal branch of .X \ !1 ; <T j X \ !1 /
with an upper bound in .!1 ; <T / then b D bi for some i < !. Hence A X and so
A is countable.
t
u
Therefore .!1 ; <T / is a Suslin tree.
Lemma 6.50. Suppose I is a normal !1 -dense ideal on !1 . Let
f W !1 ! H.!1 /
be such that f induces a boolean isomorphism
W P .!1 /=I ! RO.Coll.!; !1 //:
Then f witnesses .!1<! /.
Proof. Fix A !1 . Let S be the set of < !1 such that f ./ is an LA \ -generic
lter for Coll.!; /.
Suppose G Coll.!; !1 / is V -generic and let
j W V ! M V G
be the generic elementary embedding given by I and . Hence j.f /.!1V / D G.
However j.A/ \ !1V D A and so it follows that !1V 2 j.S /.
Therefore S I and so S is stationary.
u
t
As an immediate corollary to Theorem 6.49 and Lemma 6.50 we obtain the following lemma which gives some combinatorial consequences of the existence of an
!1 -dense ideal on !1 which is uniform and countably complete.
Lemma 6.51. Assume there is an !1 -dense ideal on !1 .
(1) There is a set of reals of cardinality !1 which is not meager.
(2) There is a Suslin tree on !1 .
332
6 Pmax variations
Proof. It sufces to show that there must exist a normal !1 -dense ideal on !1 . This is
a relatively standard fact.
Let I be a uniform, countably complete, !1 -dense ideal on !1 . Then
P .!1 /=I RO.Coll.!; !1 //:
Therefore I denes a boolean-valued elementary embedding
j WV !M VB
where B D RO.Coll.!; !1 //.
Dene
W P .!1 / ! B
V
by .A/ D [[!1 2 j.A/]].
Let I0 be the set of A such that .A/ D 0.
Thus I0 is a normal saturated ideal on !1 and induces a boolean isomorphism of
P .!1 /=I0 with a complete subalgebra of B.
It follows that I0 is a normal !1 -dense ideal.
t
u
Lemma 6.52 (ZFC ). Suppose I is a normal !1 -dense ideal on !1 . Let
f W !1 ! H.!1 /
be such that f induces a boolean isomorphism
W P .!1 /=I ! RO.Coll.!; !1 //:
Suppose c is Cohen generic over V and in V c let I.c/ be the normal ideal generated
by I . Then in V c, I.c/ is normal !1 -dense ideal on !1 and f induces a boolean
isomorphism
.c/ W P .!1 /=I ! RO.Coll.!; !1 //:
Proof. Suppose G Coll.!; !1 / is V c-generic. Then G is certainly V -generic and
so there exists a generic elementary embedding
j W V ! M V G
V
such that j.f /.!1 / D G.
Since c is Cohen generic over V G and since Cohen forcing is ccc, the embedding
j lifts to a generic elementary embedding
j W V c ! M c V Gc:
The induced ideal is easily veried to be I.c/ . The generic elementary embedding j
shows that I.c/ and f have the desired properties.
t
u
Theorem 6.53. Assume that for each set X R with X 2 L.R/, there is a condition
(i) X \ M 2 M,
(ii) hH.!1 /M ; X \ Mi hH.!1 /; X i,
Then the following hold in L.R/Qmax .
(1) Every set of reals of cardinality !1 is of measure 0.
(2) The reals cannot be decomposed as an !1 union of meager sets.
333
Proof. (1) follows from (2).

We prove (2). Suppose G Qmax is L.R/-generic. We work in L.R/G.
(2) is equivalent to the assertion that for each A !1 there exists an LA-generic
Cohen real.
Suppose that A 2 L.R/G and that A !1 . We prove that there exists an LAgeneric Cohen real.
By Theorem 6.30(1), there exists h.M0 ; I0 /; f0 i 2 G and a0 2 M0 such that
j0 .a0 / D A where
j0 W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
Let h.M1 ; I1 /; f1 i 2 Qmax be such that
h.M1 ; I1 /; f1 i < h.M0 ; I0 /; f0 i
and let
k0 W .M0 ; I0 / ! .MO 0 ; IO0 /
be the iteration in M1 such that k0 .f0 / D f1 .

Let c be a real which is Cohen generic over M1 and let I1.c/ be the normal ideal
generated by I1 in M1 c. It is easily veried that M1 c ZFC .
By Lemma 6.52, it follows that
h.M1 c; I1.c/ /; f1 i 2 Qmax
noting that if
k W .M1 c; I1.c/ / ! .k.M1 c/; k.I1.c/ //
is an iteration of .M1 c; I1.c/ / then
kjM1 W .M1 ; I1 / ! .k.M1 /; k.I1 //
is an iteration of .M1 ; I1 /. Therefore .M1 c; I1.c/ / is iterable.
By genericity we may assume that
h.M1 c; I1.c/ /; f1 i 2 G:
Since c is Cohen over M1 it follows that c is Cohen generic over .Lk0 .a0 //M1 . Let
j1 W .M1 c; I1.c/ / ! .M1 c; .I1.c/ / /
be the iteration such that j1 .f1 / D fG .

Therefore c is Cohen generic over .Lj1 .k0 .a0 ///M1 . However
j1 .k0 .a0 // D j0 .a0 / D A
and by condensation,
.R/LA D R \ .LA/M1 :
Thus c is Cohen generic over LA.
t
u
6 Pmax variations
334
6.2.2 Qmax
We dene the variant of Qmax for which the analysis can be carried out assuming
just ADL.R/ . The modication is obtained by replacing the model M in a condition
with an ! sequence of models. With this we can improve Theorem 6.32 to obtain the
consistency of
ZFC C The nonstationary ideal on !1 is !1 dense
from simply the consistency of ZF C AD. This is best possible.
The denition of Qmax is motivated by the proof that Qmax is !-closed and the

denition is closely related both to Denition 4.15 and to the denition of Pmax
. In fact

there is a dense subset of Qmax which is a suborder of Pmax .
Suppose hpk W k < !i is a sequence of conditions in Qmax such that for all k < !,
pkC1 < pk . Suppose that for each k < !,
pk D h.Mk ; Ik /; fk i:
Let
D sup.!1 /Mk j k < !
and let f D [fk j k < !.

For each k < ! let .Mk ; Ik / be the image of .Mk ; Ik / under the iteration of
.Mk ; Ik / which sends fk to f .
It follows that iterations of
hMk W k < !i
in the sense of Denition 4.15, correspond to iterations of
in the sense of Denition 4.8. The relevant point is that for each k < !,
Ik D .INS /MkC1 \ Mk :

Thus if
G [P ./ \ Mk j k < !
is a lter such that G \ Mk is Mk -normal for all k < !, then for all k < !, G \ Mk
is Mk -generic. The same point applies to iterates of hMk W k < !i.
Therefore hMk W k < !i is iterable.
Denition 6.54. Qmax is the set of pairs .hMk W k < !i; f / such that the following
hold.
(1) f 2 M0 and
f W !1M0 ! M0
is a function such that for all < !1M0 , f ./ is a lter in Coll.!; /.

(2) Mk ZFC .

Mk
(3) Mk 2 MkC1 ; !1
(4) .INS /
MkC1
MkC1
D !1
\ Mk D .INS /
MkC2
335
\ Mk .

(6) For each p 2 Coll.!; !1M0 /,
< !1M0 j p 2 f ./ .INS /M1 :
(7) Suppose that a !1M0 , k 2 ! and that
a 2 Mk n .INS /MkC1 :
Then there exists
such that
p 2 Coll.!; !1M0 /
< !1M0 j p 2 f ./ \ .!1M0 n a/ 2 .INS /MkC1 :
The ordering on Qmax is analogous to Qmax . A condition

.hNk W k < !i; g/ < .hMk W k < !i; f /
if hMk W k < !i 2 N0 , hMk W k < !i is hereditarily countable in N0 and there exists
(1) j.f / D g;
(2) hMk W k < !i 2 N0 and j 2 N0 ;
(3) .INS /MkC1 D .INS /N1 \ Mk for all k < !.
t
u
As in the denition of the order on Qmax , clause (3) in the denition of the order on
Qmax follows from clauses (1) and (2).
The next lemma claries the effect of (6) and (7) in Denition 6.54.
Lemma 6.55. Suppose that .hMk W k < !i; f / 2 Qmax .
(1) Suppose that
is an iteration of length 1. Then

j.f /.!1M0 / Coll.!; !1M0 /
and j.f /.!1M0 / is a lter which is generic relative to [Mk j k < !.
(2) Suppose that
g Coll.!; !1M0 /
is a lter which is generic relative to [Mk j k < !. Then there is a unique

iteration
of length 1 such that g D j.f /.!1M0 /.
6 Pmax variations
336
Proof. The lemma is an immediate consequence of the denitions.
t
u
Denition 6.56. Suppose .hMk W k < !i; f / 2 Qmax and suppose X R. Then
hMk W k < !i is X -iterable if
(1) X \ M0 2 [Mk j k < !,
(2) for any iteration
j W hMk W k < !i ! hNk W k < !i
of hMk W k < !i, j.X \ M0 / D X \ N 0 .
t
u
If Qmax is sufciently nontrivial then Qmax and Qmax are equivalent as forcing
notions. More precisely if for every real x there exists a condition h.M; I /; f i 2 Qmax
such that x 2 M and such that
I D .INS /M
then
RO.Qmax / RO.Qmax /:
The proof of this is implicit in what follows.
We shall need a slight variant of iterability.
Denition 6.57. Let A R and .M; I; / 2 H.!1 / be such that
(i) M is a transitive model of ZFC,
(ii) is a Woodin cardinal in M and
I D .I< /M
is directed system of ideals associated to .Q< /M ,
(iii) .M; I/ is iterable,
(iv) A \ M 2 M and hH.!1 /M ; A \ M; 2i hH.!1 /; A; 2i.
The pair .M; I/ is strongly A-iterable if for all countable iterations
j W .M; I/ ! .M ; I /I
(1) j.A \ M / D A \ M ,
(2) hH.!1 /M ; A \ M ; 2i hH.!1 /; A; 2i.
t
u
The notion that .M; I/ is strongly A-iterable is simply a convenient abbreviation.
337
Lemma 6.58. Let A R and .M; I; / 2 H.!1 / be such that

I D .I< /M
(iii) .M; I/ is iterable,
(iv) A \ M 2 M and hH.!1 /M ; A \ M; 2i hH.!1 /; A; 2i.
The following are equivalent.
(1) .M; I/ is strongly A-iterable.
(2) .M; I/ is B-iterable for each set B R which is denable in
hV!C1 ; A; 2i:
Proof. This is immediate from the denitions.
We prove a lemma that approximates a converse to Lemma 5.23.
Lemma 6.59. Let A R and .M; I; / 2 H.!1 / be such that
I D .I< /M
(iii) .M; I/ is A-iterable.
Then there are trees T and T on ! such that:
(1) .T; T / 2 M ;
(2) Suppose that
g Coll.!; </
is an M -generic lter. Then
pT \ M g D A \ M g
and
pT \ M g D .R n A/ \ M g:
t
u
338
6 Pmax variations
Proof. This is a special case of the general theorem for producing Suslin representations from various forms of generic absoluteness and correctness in the context of a
Woodin cardinal. We briey sketch the argument which involves elementary aspects
of the stationary tower.
The key point is the following. Let R0 be the set of triples .P ; ; p/ such that
(1.1) P 2 M is a partial order,
(1.2) 2 MP is a term for a real,
(1.3) for all M -generic lters
g P;
if p 2 g then Ig . / A, where Ig ./ is the interpretation of by g.
Similarly let R1 be the set of triples .P ; ; p/ such that
(2.1) P 2 M is a partial order,
(2.2) 2 MP is a term for a real,
(2.3) for all M -generic lters
g P;
if p 2 g then Ig . / 2 A.
Then for each partial order P 2 M and for each term 2 MP ,
p j .P ; ; p/ 2 R0 [ R1
is dense in P . Further .R0 ; R1 / 2 M .
The verication is a routine consequence of A-iterability noting that if P 2 M is
a partial order and if g P is an M -generic lter then there exists an M -generic lter
h .Q< /M
such that g 2 M h.
We now work in M . Let AM D A \ M and x R0 and R1 as specied above.
Fix a strongly inaccessible cardinal, , of M which is below . A countable elementary substructure
X M
is AM -good if for each partial order P 2 X the following holds. Suppose 2 X \ M P
is a term for a real and that
g X \P
is an X -generic lter; i. e. g is a lter such that if D P is a dense set such that
D 2 X then
g \ D ;:
Let x 2 R be the interpretation of by g. Then
x 2 AM
339
if and only if for some p 2 g, .P ; ; p/ 2 R1 , and

x AM
if and only if for some p 2 g, .P ; ; p/ 2 R0 .
Suppose that G .Q< /M is M -generic and let
j W M ! N M G
be the corresponding generic elementary embedding. Then it is easily veried that
j.a/ j a 2 M
is j.AM /-good in N .
Therefore the set
X M j X is AM -good
contains a closed unbounded subset of P!1 .M /. In fact one can show that every
countable elementary substructure which contains A as an element, is AM -good.
t
u
It is now straightforward to construct the trees T and T as desired.
Remark 6.60. The next lemma isolates a consequence of .M; I/ is strongly A-iterable.
This consequence is all that we shall actually require. The lemma refers to iterations
j W .M; / ! .M ; /
where 2 M is a normal measure in M . This notion of iteration is the conventional
(non-generic) one.
t
u
Lemma 6.61. Let A R and .M; I/ 2 H.!1 / be such that .M; I/ is strongly
A-iterable. Let 2 M be the Woodin cardinal associated to I. Suppose that T 2 M
is a tree on ! such that for all M -generic lters,
g Coll.!; </;
pT \ M g D A \ M g. Let < be a measurable cardinal in M and let 2 M
be a normal measure on .
(1) The structure .M; / is iterable.
(2) Suppose that
j W .M; / ! .M ; /
is a countable iteration and that

G Coll.!; <j.//
is M -generic. Then
a) A \ M G D pj.T / \ M G,
b) hH.!1 /M
G
; A \ M G; 2i hH.!1 /; A; 2i.
6 Pmax variations
340
Proof. For each n 2 ! let An be the set of x 2 R which code an element of the n
diagram of the structure
hV!C1 ; A; 2i:
Thus for each n 2 !, .M; I/ is strongly An -iterable.
For each n 2 ! let Tn 2 M be a tree on ! such that for all M -generic lters,
g Coll.!; </;
pTn \ M g D An \ M g.
The trees Tn exist by Lemma 6.59.
We rst prove that for any countable iteration
k W .M; / ! .M ; /;
for each n 2 !,
pk.Tn / An :
Fix the iteration k. Suppose that the iteration is of length . Let

Q
kQ W .M; I/ ! .MQ ; I/
be a countable iteration of length . Thus for each < ,
Q
k.a/
j a 2 M 2 MQ :
Thus
Q
Q
\k.a/
j a 2 2 k. /:
Therefore there exists an elementary embedding

W M ! MQ
Q
such that k D k.
This implies that
Q n /:
pk.Tn / pk.T
Finally k.Tn / is countable in MQ and
hMQ \ V!C1 ; A \ MQ ; 2i hV!C1 ; A; 2i:
Therefore if
pk.Tn / 6 An
then there must exists
x 2 pk.Tn / n An
Q n / and this contradicts that
Q
such that x 2 M . But then x 2 pk.T
Q n \ M / D An \ MQ :
k.A
This proves that for each n,
pk.Tn / An :
Finally let
j W .M; / ! .M ; /
341
be the given countable iteration and let

G Coll.!; <j.//
be M -generic.
Let A D pj.T / \ M G and for each n < ! let An D pj.Tn / \ M G.
By the elementarity of j it follows that in M G, for each n < !, the set An is
the set of x 2 R which code an element of the n -diagram of
hV!1 \ M G; A ; 2i:
Further A A and for each n < !, An An . Therefore
A D A \ M G
and
hV!1 \ M G; pj.T / \ M G; 2i hV!C1 ; A; 2i:
t
u
As an immediate corollary to Lemma 5.37 we obtain the following theorem which

we shall use to produce suitable conditions in Qmax .
Theorem 6.62. Assume AD holds in L.R/. Then for each set A R with A 2 L.R/,
there exists
.M; I; / 2 H.!1 /
such that
(1) is a Woodin cardinal in M ,
(2) I D .I< /M ,
(3) .M; I/ is strongly A-iterable.
Proof. Let B R be the set of x 2 R which code an element of the rst order diagram
of the structure
hV!C1 ; A; 2i:
.M; I/ 2 H.!1 /
such that .M; I/ is B-iterable. It follows that .M; I/ is strongly A-iterable.
t
u
We now come to the main theorem for the existence of conditions in Qmax .
First we x some notation and prove an easy preliminary lemma. This lemma is
really the technical key for producing conditions in Qmax from our assumptions.
Suppose S Ord is a set of ordinals. Then Coll .!; S / is the partial order of
nite partial functions p W ! S ! Ord such that p.i; / < 1 C . The order is by
extension and so Coll .!; S / is the natural restriction of the Levy collapse.
1
1
We also x some coding. A partial function f W H.!1 / ! H.!1 / is
1 if it is
1
1
in the codes. More precisely f is
1 if the set
x 2 R j x codes .a; b/ and b D f .a/
is
1.
342
6 Pmax variations
Lemma 6.63 (For all x 2 R, x # exists). Suppose N is a transitive model of ZFC of

height !1 and A !1 is a conal set such that
A\ 2N
for all < !1 . Suppose B !1 , B A and that .N; A; B/ is constructible from a
1
real. Then there is
1 function f such that for all 2 B, if .g; h/ 2 H.!1 / and;
(1) g is N -generic for Coll .!; A \ /,
(2) h is N g-generic for Coll .!; /,
then f .g; h/ is an N hg-generic lter for Coll .!; S / where
S D A \ j < <
and is the least element of B above .
Proof. Let z 2 R be such that .A; B; N / 2 Lz. Dene f as follows. Suppose .g; h/
is given. Then f .g; h/ D G where G 2 Lz # , G is N hg-generic for Coll .!; S /,
S D \ A n . C 1/ and is the least element of B above and G is the least
such in Lz # in the natural wellordering by constructibility. It is easy to verify that
1
G 2 L z # where is the least admissible relative to .g; h; z # / and so f is
1 on its
domain. This proves the lemma.
t
u
Theorem 6.64. Suppose X R and that for each z 2 R there exists
.M; I/ 2 H.!1 /
such that
(i) z 2 M ,
(ii) .M; I/ is strongly X -iterable.
Then there is a condition .hMk W k < !i; f / 2 Qmax such that
(1) X \ M0 2 M0 ,
(2) hH.!1 /M0 ; X \ M0 i hH.!1 /; X i,
(3) hMk W k < !i is X -iterable.
Proof. We rst prove that for every set Y R such that Y is projective in X and for
every real z there exists
.M; I/ 2 H.!1 /
such that .M; I/ is strongly Y -iterable and such that z 2 M . This is immediate. Fix
Y R such that Y is projective in X and x z 2 R. Choose t 2 R and such that Y is
denable from t in the structure
hV!C1 ; X; 2i:
343
Let .M; I/ be strongly X -iterable with .z; t / 2 M . It follows that .M; I/ is strongly
Y -iterable.
For every real z there exists .M; I/ such that .M; I/ is strongly X -iterable and such
that z 2 M . In particular, .M; I/ is iterable and so for every z 2 R, z # exists.
We next prove that every subset of !1 which is coded by a set projective in X is
Suppose A !1 be such that A is coded by a set which is projective in X . Let
Y R be the set of reals which code elements of A. Therefore Y is projective in X .
Let .M; I/ be such that .M; I/ is strongly Y -iterable. Let z be a real which codes M .
Thus by absoluteness it follows that A 2 Lz.
We now prove the theorem. Fix X R. We are assuming that there exists .M; I/
such that .M; I/ is strongly X -iterable.
We dene sequences hNk ; fk ; Ck ; xk I k < !i and hMk ;
k ; k I k < !i as follows.
Set C0 D !1 . Choose
.M; I/ 2 H.!1 /
such that .M; I/ is strongly X -iterable and let be the Woodin cardinal of M associated to I.
Let T0 2 M be a tree on ! such that for all M-generic lters
g Coll.!; </;
pT0 \ Mg D X \ Mg. The existence of the tree T0 follows from Lemma 6.59.
Let M0 D M and let 0 2 M be a normal measure on
0 < . Let N0 be the
image of .M0 /0 under the !1th iteration of .M0 ; 0 /. Let C1 be the critical sequence
of this iteration. Thus
(1.1) N0 ZFC,
(1.2) Ord \ N0 D !1 ,
(1.3) C1 is a club in !1 consisting of inaccessible cardinals of N0 .
Further for any < with ; 2 C1 there exists a canonical elementary embedding
j W N0 ! N 0
1
such that cp.j / D and j./ D . Let y0 2 R be an index for a
1 function f0 with
the following property. If .; g; h/ is such that;
(2.1) 2 C1 ,
(2.2) g is N0 -generic for Coll .!; </,
(2.3) h is N0 g-generic for Coll .!; /,
then f0 .; g; h/ is an N0 hg-generic for Coll .!; S / where S is the interval
.; / and is the least element of C1 above . Let x0 be a real such that
N0 ; M0 ; y0 ; C1 2 Lx0 with M0 countable in Lx0 .
344
6 Pmax variations
We continue to dene hNk ; fk ; Ck ; xk I k < !i and hMk ;

k ; k I k < !i simultaneously by induction on k. Suppose Nk ; fk ; xk ; Mk ;
k ; k and CkC1 are given.
Choose .MkC1 ; kC1 / 2 H.!1 / such that .MkC1 ; kC1 / is iterable and such that
xk 2 MkC1 . Let
kC1 2 MkC1 be the measurable cardinal supporting kC1 . Let
NkC1 be the image of .MkC1 /kC1 under the !1th iteration of .MkC1 ; kC1 /. Let
CkC2 be the critical sequence of this iteration. Thus
(3.1) NkC1 ZFC,
(3.2) Ord \ NkC1 D !1 ,
(3.3) CkC2 is a club in !1 consisting of inaccessible cardinals of NkC1 ,
(3.4)
kC1 is the least element of CkC2 ,
(3.5) Ni NkC1 for all i k,
(3.6) Ci CkC2 for all i k C 1,
(3.7) Ci \ 2 NkC1 for all i k C 1 and < !1 .
Further for any < with ; 2 CkC2 there exists a canonical elementary embedding
j W NkC1 ! NkC1
such that
(4.1) cp.j / D and j./ D ,
(4.2) j.Ni / D Ni for all i k,
(4.3) j.Ci / D Ci for all i k C 1.
where j.Ni /; j.Ci / are dened in the natural fashion;
j.Ni / D [j.a/ j a 2 Ni ;
Let ykC1 2 R be an index for a
.; g; h/ is such that;
1
j.Ci / D [j.Ci \ / j < !1 :

function fkC1 with the following property. If
(5.1) 2 CkC2 ,
(5.2) g is NkC1 -generic for Coll .!; CkC1 \ /,
(5.3) h is NkC1 g-generic for Coll .!; /,
then fkC1 .; g; h/ is an NkC1 hg-generic for Coll .!; .; / \ CkC1 / where is
the least element of CkC2 above . Let xkC1 be a real such that
NkC1 ; MkC1 ; ykC1 ; CkC2 LxkC1
and such that MkC1 countable in LxkC1 .
345
This completes the denition of the sequences

hNk ; fk ; Ck ; xk I k < !i
and hMk ;
k ; k I k < !i.
Let 0 be the minimum element of \Ck j k < ! and let 1 be least element of
\Ck j k < ! above 0 . Thus 0 D sup
k j k < !. Choose generics gk ; hk for
k < ! such that
(6.1) gk Coll .!; Ck \
k / is Nk -generic and gk 2 NkC1 ,
(6.2) hk Coll .!;
k / is Nk gk -generic and hk 2 NkC1 .
We now dene a sequence of generics hGk W k < !i using the functions fk . This
denition is really the key to what is going on. We wish to dene
Gk Coll .!; Ck \ 0 /
such that Gk is Nk -generic and such that Nk Gk NkC1 GkC1 . There are of course
other key properties, these we shall discuss after giving the denition.
The generics hGk W k < !i are dened such that the following conditions are
satised, these conditions uniquely specify the generics.
(7.1) Gk \ Coll .!; Ck \
k / D gk .
(7.2) Gk \ Coll .!;
k / D hk .
(7.3) For all 2 CkC1 \ 0 ,
Gk \ Coll .!; .; // D fk .; g; h/
where g D Gk \ Coll .!; Ck \ /, h D GkC1 \ Coll .!; /, and is the
least element of CkC1 above .
It is straightforward to show the following by induction on
. For all k < !,
if
2 CkC1 then Gk \ Coll .!; Ck \
/ is Nk -generic. The key point is that
every element of CkC1 is strongly inaccessible in Nk and so the genericity of
Gk \ Coll .!; Ck \
/ follows from the genericity of Gk \ Coll .!; Ck \ / for
all <
. This enables one to argue for the genericity of Gk \ Coll .!; Ck \
/ for
which are limit points of CkC1 .

Now suppose that G Coll .!; 0 / is Nk Gk -generic for all k < !. Using G
we can prolong the generics Gk and dene a sequence hGk W k < !i of generics such
that:
(8.1) Gk Coll .!; Ck \ 1 / and Gk is Nk -generic;
(8.2) Gk \ Coll .!; Ck \ 1 / D Gk ;
(8.3) Gk \ Coll .!; 1 / D G;
6 Pmax variations
346
(8.4) for all 2 CkC1 \ 1 ,

Gk \ Coll .!; .; // D fk .; g; h/

where g D Gk \ Coll .!; Ck \ /, h D GkC1
\ Coll .!; /, and is the
least element of CkC1 above .
For each k < ! let k be the least element of CkC1 above 0 . Thus k is strongly
inaccessible in Nk and 1 D sup k j k < !.
Since 1 D sup k j k < !, for all k < !, Gk is Nk -generic. This follows by an
argument similar to that for the genericity of Gk .
We now come to the key points. For each k < ! let
jk W Nk ! N k
be the canonical embedding with critical point 0 and such that jk . 0 / D 1 . Thus for
all k < m < !;
(9.1) jm .Nk / D Nk and jm .Ck / D Ck ,
(9.2) jm jNk D jk ,
(9.3) jk j.Nk /k 2 Nm ,
where as above jm .Nk / and jm .Ck / are dened in the obvious way.
For each k < ! the embedding jk lifts to dene an embedding
jk W Nk Gk ! Nk Gk :
It follows that for all k < m < !;
(10.1) jm jNk Gk D jk ,
(10.2) jk j.Nk Gk /k 2 Nm Gm G.
For each k < ! let Uk be the Nk ultralter on 0 which is the image of k under
the iteration of .Mk ; k / which sends
k to 0 . It is straightforward to show that for
all k < !, Uk 2 NkC1 and that Uk D F \ Nk where F is the club lter on 0 as
computed in NkC1 .
The ultrapower of h.Nk ; Uk / W k < !i is dened as follows. Let
U D [Uk j k < !
and for each k < ! let
where
Nk D Nk0 =U
Nk0 D h W 0 ! Nk j h 2 [Ni
Let h.Nk ; Uk / W k < !i be the ultrapower of h.Nk ; Uk / W k < !i and let
j W [Nk j k < ! ! [Nk j k < !
be the induced embedding. Thus j is a 0 -embedding whose restriction to Nk is fully
elementary for each k < !. It follows that for each k < !, j jNk D jk .
347
Iterations of h.Nk ; Uk / W k < !i are dened in the natural fashion. As in the case
of iterating !-sequences of models (see Denition 4.8) the embeddings that arise
j W [Nk j k < ! ! [Nk j k < !
are 0 elementary embeddings whose restrictions to Nk are fully elementary.
It is easy to verify that h.Nk ; Uk / W k < !i is iterable and in fact for all k < !, Nk
is the image of Nk under any countable iteration of h.Nk ; Uk / W k < !i.
For each k < ! let Ik D INS \ Nk Gk where INS is the nonstationary ideal on
!1 .D 0 / as computed in NkC1 GkC1 .
Thus for all k < !:
(11.1) Nk Gk ZFC;
N Gk
(11.2) Nk Gk NkC1 GkC1 ; !1 k
D !1 kC1
GkC1
D 0 ;
(11.3) Ik P .!1N0 G0 / \ Nk Gk is a uniform ideal which is normal relative to

functions in Nk Gk ;
(11.4) Ik 2 NkC1 GkC1 ;
(11.5) IkC1 \ Nk Gk D Ik .
Iterations of hNk Gk W k < !i lift iterations of h.Nk ; Uk / W k < !i and so
hNk Gk W k < !i is iterable in the sense of Denition 4.15. Thus by the denition of
hNk Gk W k < !i the following hold,
(12.1) X \ N0 G0 2 N0 G0 ,
(12.2) hH.!1 /N0 G0 ; X \ N0 G0 i hH.!1 /; X i,
(12.3) If
j W hNk Gk W k < !i ! hNk Gk W k < !i
is a countable iteration of hNk Gk W k < !i then

j .X \ N0 G0 / D X \ N0 G0 :
We note that (12.3) follows from Lemma 6.61.
Dene
f W !1N0 G0 ! H.!1 /N0 G0
as follows. Suppose < !1N0 G0 . Then
f ./ D p 2 Coll.!; / j p 2 G0
where for each p 2 Coll.!; /, p is the condition in Coll .!; / such that
dom.p / D dom.p/
and such that
p .k; / D p.k/
for all k 2 dom.p/. For each k < !, let
Mk D .Nk Gk /k :

Thus .hMk W k < !i; f / 2 Qmax and .hMk W k < !i; f / is the desired condition.
t
u
348
6 Pmax variations
The following theorem is now an immediate corollary.

Theorem 6.65. Assume AD holds in L.R/. Then for each set X R with X 2 L.R/,
there is a condition .hMk W k < !i; f / 2 Qmax such that
(1) X \ M0 2 M0 ,
(2) hH.!1 /M0 ; X \ M0 i hH.!1 /; X i,
(3) hMk W k < !i is X -iterable.
t
u
As a corollary to Theorem 6.64 we obtain Lemma 6.68 which in some weak sense
corresponds to Lemma 6.47. As we have already noted, Lemma 6.47 cannot be proved
just assuming ADL.R/ . The basic method for proving Lemma 6.68 can be used to
prove many similar results, it is also related to additional absoluteness theorems we
shall prove for Qmax cf. Theorem 6.85.
We need two preliminary lemmas. The rst is a corollary of Lemma 6.40.
Lemma 6.66. Suppose .M; I/ is a countable iterable structure such that
(i) M ZFC,
(ii) I 2 M and I is the tower of ideals I< as computed in M where is a Woodin
cardinal in M .
Suppose f 2 M , f witnesses + .!1<! / in M and for all p 2 .!1<! /M the set
< !1M j p 2 f ./
is stationary within M . Suppose g .!1<! /M is M -generic. Then there exists
G QM
<
such that G is M -generic and such that j.f /.!1M / D g where
j W M ! N M G
is the generic elementary embedding corresponding to G.
Proof. Suppose G QM
is M -generic and let
<
j W M ! N M G
be the generic elementary embedding corresponding to G. By Lemma 6.40, it follows
that j.f /.!1 / is M -generic for Coll.!; !1M /.
For each p 2 Coll.!; !1M / let
Sp D < !1M j p 2 f ./:
The set Sp is stationary within M and so Sp 2 QM
. If Sp 2 G then
<
p 2 j.f /.!1M /:
The lemma follows by the denability of forcing.
t
u
349
The second lemma we need is a corollary of Theorem 5.23, Lemma 6.44,

Lemma 6.45 and the transfer theorem, Theorem 5.36.
Lemma 6.67. Assume AD holds in L.R/. Suppose A R and A 2 L.R/. Then there
is a countable, A-iterable structure .N; I/ such that
(1) N ZFC C C ++ .!1<! /,
(2) A \ N 2 N and hV!C1 \ N; A \ N; 2i hV!C1 ; A; 2i,
(3) I 2 N and I is the tower of ideals I< as computed in N where is a Woodin
cardinal in N .
Proof. Fix A R with A 2 L.R/. Let B0 R be the set of x 2 R such that x codes
an element of the rst order diagram of
hV!C1 ; A; 2i
and let B1 be the set of x 2 R such that x codes an element of the rst order diagram
of
hV!C1 ; B0 ; 2i:
Thus B0 and B1 are each sets in L.R/.
By Theorem 5.36 there exists a countable transitive model M and an ordinal 2 M
(1.1) M ZFC.
(1.2) is a Woodin cardinal in M .
(1.3) B1 \ M 2 M and hV!C1 \ M; B1 \ M; 2i hV!C1 ; B1 ; 2i.
(1.4) B1 \ M is C -weakly homogeneously Suslin in M .
Let 2 M be an ordinal such that < and such that
M 2 M:
Let
Z M
be an elementary substructure such that ; B0 \ M 2 Z, Z 2 M , and such that Z is
countable in M .
Let MZ be the transitive collapse of Z and let Z be the image of under the
collapsing map.
Thus in MZ , Z is a Woodin cardinal and so in MZ it is a limit of strongly inaccessible cardinals.
Therefore by Lemma 6.44 and Lemma 6.45, there exists a partial order
P 2 .MZ /
350
6 Pmax variations
such that if g P is MZ -generic then

MZ g C ++ .!1<! /:
Fix g P such that g 2 M and such that g is MZ -generic.
By Lemma 2.29,
hV!C1 \ MZ g; B0 \ MZ g; 2i hV!C1 ; B0 ; 2i:
Thus B0 \ MZ g is the set of
x 2 MZ g \ R
such that x codes an element of the rst order diagram of
hV!C1 \ MZ g; A \ MZ g; 2i:
Also by Lemma 2.29,
M g

B0 \ MZ g 2 WH Z ;
C MZ
/ .
where D .Z
C
Thus in MZ g every set projective in A \ MZ g is Z
-weakly homogeneously
Suslin.
Let 2 MZ g be the least strongly inaccessible cardinal above Z .
By standard arguments, Z is a Woodin cardinal in MZ g.
Let Y .MZ g/ be an elementary substructure such that A \ MZ g 2 Y ,
Y 2 MZ g and Y is countable in MZ g.
Let N be the transitive collapse of Y and let I be the image of .I<Z /MZ g under
N ZFC C C ++ .!1<! /;
and
hV!C1 \ N; A \ N; 2i hV!C1 ; A; 2i:
By Lemma 5.23, the structure .N; I/ is A \ MZ g iterable in MZ g.
However
hV!C1 \ MZ g; B0 \ MZ g; 2i hV!C1 ; B0 ; 2i
and N is countable in MZ g. Therefore the structure .N; I/ is A-iterable in V .
Lemma 6.68. Assume AD holds in L.R/. Then for every set
A 2 P .R/ \ L.R/;
there is a condition .hMk W k < !i; f / 2 Qmax such that
(1) A \ M0 2 M0 ,
(2) hH.!1 /M0 ; A \ M0 ; 2i hH.!1 /; A; 2i,
(4) holds in M0 ,
(5) f witnesses ++ .!1<! / in M0 .
t
u
351
Proof. Fix A R such that A 2 L.R/.

By Lemma 6.58 and Lemma 6.67 there exists a countable, A-iterable, structure
.N; I/ such that
(1.1) N ZFC C C ++ .!1<! /,
(1.2) A \ N 2 N and
hV!C1 \ N; A \ N; 2i hV!C1 ; A; 2i;
(1.3) I 2 N and I is the tower of ideals I< as computed in N where is a Woodin
cardinal in N .
By Theorem 6.65 there exists a condition .hMk W k < !i; f / 2 Qmax such that
(2.1) N 2 M0 and N is countable in M0 ,
(2.2) A \ M0 2 M0 ,
(2.3) hH.!1 /M0 ; A \ M0 i hH.!1 /; X i,
(2.4) hMk W k < !i is A-iterable.
Let f0 2 N witness ++ .!1<! /. By modifying f0 if necessary we can suppose that
for all p 2 Coll.!; !1N /, the set
< !1N j p 2 f0 ./ .INS /N :
We work in M0 . Let
h.N ; I /; G ; j; W < < !1M0 i
be an iteration of .N; I/ such that for all < !1M0 , if D !1 and if f ./ is N generic then
f ./ D j; C1 .j0; .f0 //./ D j0; C1 .f0 /./:
N
Here we use Lemma 6.66 to show that G exists as required.

Let
S D < !1M0 j f ./ D j0; C1 .f0 /./:
Since .hMk W k < !i; f / 2 Qmax , it follows that
!1M0 n S 2 .INS /M1 :
Let
j W .N; I/ ! .N ; I /
be the limit embedding of the iteration. Let f D j.f0 /.

Thus !1N D !1M0 and
S D < !1M0 j f ./ D f ./:
Let M0 D N and for each k > 0 let Mk D Mk .
6 Pmax variations
352
Since N 2 M0 ,
.INS /M1 \ N D .INS /M2 \ N ;
and so for all k 2 !,

.INS /MkC1 \ Mk D .INS /MkC2 \ Mk :

Thus
.hMk W k < !i; f / 2 Qmax

t
u
and is as required.
With Theorem 6.65 the analysis of Qmax can easily be carried out as in the case of
Qmax . We summarize the results of this in the next two theorems.
First we prove the main iteration lemmas for conditions in Qmax .
Lemma 6.69. Suppose .hMk W k < !i; f / 2 Qmax . Suppose
and
are iterations such that j .f / D j .f /. Then

hMk W k < !i D hMk W k < !i
and j D j .
Proof. The proof is identical to the proof of Lemma 6.22 which is the corresponding
lemma for Qmax .
To illustrate we examine an iteration
k W hMk W k < !i ! hMO k W k < !i
of length 1 so that k corresponds to a weakly generic ultrapower.
Let
U [.P .!1 //Mk j k < !
be the [Mk j k < !-ultralter corresponding to k.
Let g D k.f /.!1M0 /. By conditions (6) and (7) in the denition of Qmax ,
g Coll.!; !1M0 /
and g is [Mk j k < !-generic.
Again by the denition of Qmax , a set a belongs to U if and only if there exists
p 2 g and k 2 ! such that
.!1M0 n a/ \ j p 2 f ./ 2 .INS /Mk :
Thus the iteration k is completely determined by k.f /.!1M0 /.
The lemma follows by induction on the length of iterations.
t
u
353
Lemma 6.70. Suppose h W !1 ! H.!1 / and that I P .!1 / is a normal (uniform/

ideal such that for all A !1 ,
j h./ is not L.A \ /-generic for Coll.!; / 2 I:
Suppose .hMk W k < !i; f / 2 Qmax . Then there is an iteration
such that:
(1) j.!1M0 / D !1 ;
(2) for all k < !, I \ Mk D INS \ Mk D .INS /MkC1 \ Mk ;
(3) j.f / D h modulo I .
Proof. This lemma corresponds to Lemma 6.23.
Let hhMk W k < !i; G ; j; W < !1 i be any iteration of hMk W k < !i
such that for all < !1 if
j0; .!1M0 / D
and if h./ is an [Mk j k < !-generic lter for Coll.!; / then j; C1 is the
corresponding generic elementary embedding.
We claim that
hhMk W k < !i; G ; j; W < !1 i
is as desired.
Suppose A !1 . By assumption
< !1 j h./ is not a LA \ -generic lter for Coll.!; / 2 I:
Suppose A !1 and A codes the iteration
hhMk W k < !i; G ; j; W < !1 i
Then the set of < !1 such that
hhMk W k < !i; G ; j; W < i 2 LA \
contains a club in !1 . Further the set of < !1 such that
j0; .!1M0 / D
also contains a club.
Let X !1 be the set of < !1 such that h./ is an [Mk j k < !-generic
lter for Coll.!; / and such that j0; .!1M0 / D . Thus !1 n X 2 I . However by the
properties of the iteration,
X j j0; C1 .f /./ D h./
and so j0;!1 .f / D h modulo I .
t
u
354
6 Pmax variations
Lemma 6.70 can be reformulated as follows.

Lemma 6.71. Suppose that p 2 Qmax ,
.hNk W k < !i; g/ 2 Qmax
and that
p 2 .H.!1 //N0 :
Then there exists h 2 N0 such that

(1) .hNk W k < !i; h/ 2 Qmax ,
(2) .hNk W k < !i; h/ < p,
(3) < !1N0 j h./ g./ 2 .INS /N1 .
Proof. Since p 2 .H.!1 //N0 , p 2 .Qmax /N0 .
For each
a 2 .P .!1 //N0
let a be the set of < !1N0 such that g./ is La \ -generic for Coll.!; /.
Let I 2 N0 be the normal ideal generated by the set
a j a 2 .P .!1 //N0 :
The key point is that
I .INS /N1 ;
which is easily veried since .hNk W k < !i; g/ 2 Qmax .

Let
.hMk W k < !i; f / D p:
Applying Lemma 6.70 within N0 , there exists an iteration
such that:
(1.1) j.!1M0 / D !1N0 ;
(1.2) for all k < !, I \ Mk D .INS /N0 \ Mk D .INS /MkC1 \ Mk ;
(1.3) j.f / D g modulo I .
Let h D j.f /. Thus .hNk W k < !i; h/ 2 Qmax and
.hNk W k < !i; h/ < p:
t
u
As a corollary to Lemma 6.71 and Lemma 6.68, we obtain the set of conditions
specied in Lemma 6.68 is dense in Qmax .
355
Corollary 6.72. Assume AD holds in L.R/. Suppose that A R,

A 2 L.R/;
and that p 2
Qmax .
Then there exists

.hNk W k < !i; g/ 2 Qmax
such that:
(1) A \ N0 2 N0 ;
(2) hH.!1 /N0 ; A \ N0 ; 2i hH.!1 /; A; 2i;
(3) hNk W k < !i is A-iterable;
(4) holds in N0 ;
(5) g witnesses ++ .!1<! / in N0 ;
(6) .hNk W k < !i; g/ < p.
Proof. Let B R be the set of x 2 R such that x codes a pair .y; p/ where y 2 A.
.hNk W k < !i; g0 / 2 Qmax
such that:
(1.1) B \ N0 2 N0 ;
(1.2) hH.!1 /N0 ; B \ N0 ; 2i hH.!1 /; B; 2i;
(1.3) hNk W k < !i is B-iterable;
(1.4) holds in N0 ;
(1.5) g0 witnesses ++ .!1<! / in N0 .
By (1.2), p 2 .Qmax /N0 . By Lemma 6.71, there exists g 2 N0 such that
(2.1) .hNk W k < !i; g/ 2 Qmax ,
(2.2) .hNk W k < !i; g/ < p,
(2.3) < !1N0 j ./ g0 ./ 2 .INS /N1 .
Thus .hNk W k < !i; g/ is as desired.
Theorem 6.73. Assume AD holds in L.R/. Then Qmax is !-closed.
t
u
356
6 Pmax variations
Proof. This is one theorem about Qmax that is actually much simpler than the corresponding theorem about Qmax or Pmax .
The !-closure of Qmax is essentially built into its denition.
Suppose hpi W i < !i is a strictly decreasing sequence of conditions in Qmax and
that for each i < !,
pi D .hMki W k < !i; fi /:
Let fO D [fi j i < !. For each i < ! let
ji W hMki W k < !i ! hMO ki W k < !i
be the iteration such that ji .fi / D fO. This iteration exists since hpi W i < !i is a
strictly decreasing sequence in Qmax .
By Lemma 4.22, hMO kk W k < !i satises the hypothesis of Lemma 4.17 and so by
Lemma 4.17, hMO kk W k < !i is iterable.
Let
O0
M
Mi
D !1 0 D sup !1 0 j k < !:
For q 2 Coll.!; / let
Sq D < j q 2 fO./:
Then for each q 2 Coll.!; /,
Sq 2 MO 00 ;
and further
Ok
Sq .INS /Mk
for each k 2 !.
Fix k 2 !. Suppose that A and that
O kC1
A 2 MO kk n .INS /MkC1 :
Then for some q 2 Coll.!; /,
O kC1
Sq n A 2 .INS /MkC1 :
Finally if q1 q2 in Coll.!; / then Sq1 Sq2 .
It follows that .hMO kk W k < !i; fO/ 2 Qmax . Further if q 2 Qmax and
q < .hMO kk W k < !i; fO/;
then q < pi for all i < !.
By Corollary 6.72 there exists q 2 Qmax such that
q < .hMO kk W k < !i; fO/;
and so there exists q 2 Qmax such that
q < pi
for all i < !.
t
u
357
We adopt the usual notational conventions.

Suppose G Qmax is L.R/-generic. Let
fG D [f j .hMk W k < !i; f / 2 G for some hMk W k < !i:
For each condition .hMk W k < !i; f / 2 G there is a unique iteration
such that j.f / D fG . This is the unique iteration such that j.f / D fG .
Let

IG D [.INS /M1 j .hMk W k < !i; f / 2 G
and let
P .!1 /G D [P .!1 /M0 j .hMk W k < !i; f / 2 G:
The basic analysis of Qmax is straightforward, the results are given in the next two
theorems.
G Qmax
L.R/G !1 -DC
and in L.R/G:
(1) P .!1 /G D P .!1 /;
Proof. The proof is essentially the same as the proof of Theorem 6.30. Here one uses
Lemma 6.70 and the proof of Theorem 6.73.
t
u
Theorem 6.75. Assume AD holds in L.R/. Then

L.R/Qmax AC :
Proof. The proof for Qmax naturally generalizes.
t
u
Theorem 6.76. Assume ADL.R/ . Let G Qmax be L.R/-generic and let

fG W !1 ! H.!1 /
be the function derived from G. Then fG witnesses ++ .!1<! / in L.R/G.
Proof. By Theorem 6.65 and Theorem 6.30(1), in L.R/G,
P .!1 / D [P .!1 /M0 j .hMk W k < !i; f / 2 G

where for each .hMk W k < !i; f / 2 G,
is the (unique) iteration such that j.f / D fG .
The theorem is an immediate corollary of Corollary 6.72.
t
u
358
6 Pmax variations
As a corollary to the basic analysis of Qmax we obtain Theorem 6.80 which shows
that ADL.R/ implies that Qmax is nontrivial in the sense required for the basic analysis
summarized in Theorem 6.30.
We require a preliminary lemma.
Lemma 6.77. Assume ADL.R/ and suppose
G Qmax
is L.R/-generic. Then in L.R/G, for every set A 2 P .R/ \ L.R/ the set
Proof. This is the Qmax version of Lemma 4.52.
Suppose G Qmax is L.R/-generic. From the basic analysis of Qmax summarized
in Theorem 6.73 and Theorem 6.74, it follows that
H.!2 /L.R/G D H.!2 /L.R/ G:
We work in L.R/G. Fix A R with A 2 L.R/. Fix a stationary set
S P!1 .H.!2 //
and x a countable elementary substructure
X hH.!2 /; A; G; 2i
such that X \ H.!2 / 2 S . Let hXi W i < !i be an increasing sequence of countable
elementary substructures of X such that
X D [Xi j i < !
and such that for each i 2 !, Xi 2 XiC1 . Therefore for each i < !, there exists
.hMk W k < !i; f / 2 G \ XiC1 satisfying
(1.1) Xi \ P .!1 / j.M0 /,
(1.2) A \ M0 2 M0 ,
(1.3) hMk W k < !i is A-iterable,
where

Let MX be the transitive collapse of X . We claim that MX is A-iterable. Given this
the lemma follows.
For each i < ! let .hMki W k < !i; fi / 2 G \ XiC1 be a condition satisfying the
requirements (1.1), (1.2) and (1.3). For each i < ! let
ji W hMi W k < !i ! hMO i W k < !i
k
be the iteration of hMki W k < !i such that ji .fi / D fG j.X \ !1 /.
359
Thus for each i < !, ji 2 MX and

MX D [ji .M0i / j i < !:
Suppose j W MX ! N is an iteration of MX such that j.!1MX / D and < !1 .
For each i < ! let
hNki W k < !i D j.hMO ki W k < !i/:
Therefore for each i < !,
hNki W k < !i
is an iterate of hMki W k < !i and the iteration is the unique iteration which sends fi
to j.fG jX \ !1 /.
By induction on
N D [N0i j i < !
and so MX is iterable.
We nish by analyzing
C D [j.B/ j B A and B 2 MX :
We must show that C D A \ N .
Since
MX D [ji .M0i / j i < !
it follows that
C D [j.ji .A \ M0i // j i < !
This is because A \ M0i 2 M0i for each i < !.
However for each i < !, hMki W k < !i is A-iterable and so for each i < !,
j.ji .A \ M0i // D A \ N0i :
This implies that C D A \ N .
t
u
As a corollary to Lemma 6.77 and Lemma 4.24 we obtain the following theorem
which easily yields a plethora of conditions in Qmax .
Theorem 6.78. Assume AD holds in L.R/. Suppose G Qmax is L.R/-generic.
Then in L.R/G the following holds. Suppose 2 Ord,
L .R/G ZFC ;
and that
L .R/ 1 L.R/:
Suppose
X L .R/G
is a countable elementary substructure with G 2 X . Let MX be the transitive collapse
of Y and let
IX D .INS /MX :
Then for each A R such that A 2 X \ L.R/, .MX ; IX / is A-iterable.
6 Pmax variations
360
Proof. By an analysis of terms

L .R/G 1 L.R/G:
We prove that for each < , if
L .R/G ZFC
then the set
Y 2 P!1 .L .R/G/ j MY is iterable
contains a club in P!1 .L .R/G/, where MY is the transitive collapse of Y .
Assume toward a contradiction that this fails for some and let 0 be the least
such .
It follows that 0 < L.R/ . This contradicts Lemma 4.24 and Lemma 6.77.
Now suppose
X L .R/G
is a countable elementary substructure with G 2 X .
Let
Z D 2 X \ j L .R/G ZFC :
Thus Z is conal in X \ . Further since
L .R/G 1 L.R/G;
for each 2 Z there exists a function
F W L .R/G<! ! L .R/G
such that F 2 X and such that for all
Y 2 P!1 .L .R/G/;
if
F Y <! Y;
then
Y L .R/G
and the transitive collapse of Y is iterable.
Therefore for each 2 Z, the transitive collapse of X \ L .R/G is iterable and
so MX is iterable.
By Theorem 3.34 and by Lemma 6.77 it follows that for each
A 2 X \ P .R/ \ L.R/;
H.!2 /
MX
is A-iterable. Thus MX is A-iterable.
t
u
Another corollary of Lemma 6.77 is the following lemma.

Lemma 6.79. Assume ADL.R/ and suppose G Qmax is L.R/-generic. Then in
361
(1) !3 D L.R/ .
(2) 12 D !2 .
f W S ! Ord:
Then there exists g 2 L.R/ such that 2 S j f ./ D g./ is stationary.
Proof. (2) follows from Theorem 3.16 and Lemma 6.77.
By Theorem 6.75,
L.R/ !3
in L.R/G since c D !2 in L.R/G.
Qmax satises the following chain condition in L.R/. Suppose
W Qmax !
is a function. Then the range of is bounded in . This is because there is a map of
the R onto Qmax .
The usual analysis of terms shows that L.R/ is a cardinal in L.R/G. By Theorem 6.74(1), !1L.R/ and !2L.R/ are cardinals in L.R/G. Therefore (1) follows.
Similarly for (3) one can reduce to the case that for some < ,
f W !1 ! :
and so (3) follows from Theorem 3.42, Lemma 6.77, and Theorem 6.74(2).
t
u
As an immediate corollary to Theorem 6.78 we obtain that, assuming ADL.R/ ,

Qmax is suitably nontrivial as required for the analysis of the Qmax -extension.
Let ZFC be any nite fragment of ZFC together with ZFC .
there is a condition h.M; I /; f i 2 Qmax such that
(1) M ZFC ,
(2) I D .INS /M ,
(3) A \ M 2 M,
(4) hH.!1 /M ; A \ M; 2i hH.!1 /; A; 2i,
(6) f witnesses ++ .!1<! / in M.
6 Pmax variations
362
Proof. Let G Qmax be L.R/-generic. We work in L.R/G.

Fix 2 Ord such that
L .R/G ZFC ;
cof ./ > !1 and such that
L .R/ 1 L.R/:
Let
X L .R/G
be a countable elementary substructure such that A; fG X . Let MX be the transitive collapse of X and let fX be the image of fG under the collapsing map. Let
IX D .INS /MX
which is the image of INS under the collapsing map.
By Theorem 6.78, .MX ; IX / is A-iterable. Therefore
h.MX ; IX /; fX i 2 Qmax :
By Theorem 6.76, fg witnesses ++ .!1<! / in L.R/G and so since
P .!1 / L .R/G;
fg witnesses ++ .!1<! / in L .R/G. Therefore fX witnesses ++ .!1<! / in MX .
Therefore h.MX ; IX /; fX i is as desired.
t
u
The analysis of L.R/Qmax given by the assumption of the existence of a huge cardinal can now be carried out just assuming ADL.R/ .
For example we obtain the following theorem as an immediate consequence of
Theorem 6.80, Theorem 6.30, Theorem 6.31, and Theorem 6.53.
G Qmax
L.R/G ZFC
and in L.R/G:
(1) P .!1 / D P .!1 /G and IG D INS ;
(2) every set of reals of cardinality !1 is of measure 0;
(3) the reals cannot be decomposed as an !1 union of meager sets;
(4) the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !1 -dense;
(5) the function fG witnesses ++ .!1<! /;
(6) AC holds.
t
u
363

ZF C AD
ZFC C The nonstationary ideal on !1 is !1 -dense:
t
u
We continue our analysis of Qmax by proving another absoluteness theorem which

suggests that the Qmax model is simply a conditional form of the Pmax model. In
Chapter 7 we shall consider other conditional variations of Pmax .
The proof of this absoluteness theorem uses the generic elementary embedding associated to the stationary tower forcing. The argument can be adapted to prove the
absoluteness theorems for Pmax without using Theorem 2.61. See the remarks preceding Theorem 4.63.
Remark 6.83. The most general absoluteness theorem for Qmax requires a restriction
on the 2 formulas. With this restriction we shall obtain an absoluteness theorem
where only + .!1<! / is assumed. Since the assertion that INS is !1 -dense is expressible
by a 2 sentence in the language for
hH.!2 /; INS ; 2i;
some restriction on the formulas is necessary. It is straightforward to dene a variation
of Pmax for which all 2 sentences are absolute, assuming + .!1<! /, and for which in
the corresponding extension of L.R/, + .!1<! / holds. The extension is the canonical
model in which
RO.Coll.!; !1 // B P .!1 /=INS
for some complete boolean subalgebra, B, of P .!1 /=INS .
t
u
Denition 6.84. Suppose A is an alphabet for a rst order language and that A contains 2 and a unary predicate U .
A formula of L.A/ is a U -restricted 2 formula if there is a 0 -formula
.x; y; z/ in L.A n U / such that
D 8x8y9z.x/ !
.x; y; z/
where .x/ is the atomic formula U.x/.
t
u
them all. Suppose
F W !1 ! H.!1 /
is a function which witnesses + .!1<! / and for all p 2 Coll.!; !1 /,
< !1 j p 2 F ./
is stationary. Suppose is a F INS -restricted 2 sentence in the language for the
structure
hH.!2 /; F INS ; X; 2 W X R; X 2 L.R/i
364
6 Pmax variations
and that
hH.!2 /; F INS ; X; 2 W X R; X 2 L.R/i :
Then
Qmax
hH.!2 /; fG IG ; X; 2 W X R; X 2 L.R/iL.R/
:
Proof. From the large cardinal assumptions, AD holds in L.R/. Therefore by Theorem 6.80, Qmax is nontrivial in the sense required for the analysis of Qmax .
Fix A R with A 2 L.R/.
is a F INS -restricted 2 sentence and so
D 8x8y9z.x/ !
.x; y; z/
where is the atomic formula expressing x 2 F INS and is a 0 formula in the

language for
hH.!2 /; X; 2 W X R; X 2 L.R/i:
We assume that the only unary predicate occurring in corresponds to A.
Let 0 be the least Woodin cardinal and let 0 be the least strongly inaccessible
cardinal above 0 . Thus by Theorem 2.13, the set A is <0C -weakly homogeneously
Suslin.
We shall need the following from Section 5.4.
Let Q<0 be the (countably based) stationary tower dened up to 0 . Let I<0 be
the associated directed system of nonstationary ideals.
Suppose
X V0
is a countable elementary substructure with A 2 X . Let .MX ; IX / be the transitive
collapse of .X; I<0 /.
Then by Lemma 5.23, .MX ; IX / is A-iterable.
Qmax
hH.!2 /; fG IG ; A; 2iL.R/
::
Then by Theorem 6.30, there is a condition h.M; I /; f i 2 Qmax and a pair

.h; b/ 2 H.!2 /M
such that if
h.N ; J /; gi < h.M; I /; f i
then h 2 gJ and

hH.!2 /N ; A \ N ; 2i 8z: h ; b
where .h ; b / D j..h; b// and j W .M; I / ! .M ; I / is the iteration such that
j.f / D g.
By the proof of Lemma 6.23, there is an iteration
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
365
such that:
(1.1) j.!1M / D !1 ;
(1.2) INS \ M D I ;
(1.3) j j.f /./ D F ./ contains a club in !1 .
Let f D j.f /, H D j.h/ and let B D j.b/. The sentence holds in V and so
there exists a set D 2 H.!2 / such that
hH.!2 /; A; 2i
H; B; D:

X V 0
such that
M; A; b; h; F; f ; M X:
Let .MX ; IX / be the transitive collapse of .X; I/, let .fX ; BX ; HX ; DX / be the image
of .f ; B; H; D/ under the collapsing map. Thus
fX D f jX \ !1 ;
HX D H jX \ !1 and
BX D B \ X \ !1 :
Similarly DX D D \ X \ !1 .
Let h.N ; J /; gi 2 Qmax be a condition such that MX 2 N and such that MX is
countable in N .
Choose an iteration,
k W .MX ; IX / ! .MQ X ; IQX /;
in N of length .!1 /N such that
j k.fX /./ g./ 2 J:
The iteration exists by Lemma 6.66 since g 2 .YColl .J //N .
Thus h.N ; J /; k.fX /i 2 Qmax and
h.N ; J /; k.fX /i < h.M; I /; f i:
Since X V0 ,
hH.!2 /; A \ X; 2iMX
HX ; BX ; DX ;
and so by elementarity
Q
hH.!2 /; k.A \ X /; 2iMX
k.HX /; k.BX /; k.DX /:

The structure .MX ; IX / is A-iterable and so k.A \ X / D A \ MQ X .
The formula has only bounded quantiers and so
hH.!2 /; A \ N ; 2iN
k.HX /; k.BX /; k.DX /:
Finally k..HX ; BX // is the image of .h; b/ under the iteration of .M; I / which
t
u
sends f to k.fX / and this contradicts the choice of h.M; I /; f i and b.
6 Pmax variations
366
This absoluteness theorem also has a converse.

Theorem 6.86. Suppose AD holds in L.R/ and that
F W !1 ! H.!1 /
is a function which witnesses .!1<! /. Suppose that for all p 2 Coll.!; !1 /,
+
< !1 j p 2 F ./
is stationary. Suppose that for each F INS -restricted 2 sentence, , in the language
for the structure
hH.!2 /; F INS ; X; 2 W X R; X 2 L.R/i
if
Qmax
hH.!2 /; fG IG ; X; 2 W X R; X 2 L.R/iL.R/
:
then
hH.!2 /; F INS ; X; 2 W X R; X 2 L.R/i :
Then there exists G Qmax such that:
(1) G is L.R/-generic;
(2) P .!1 / L.R/G;
(3) fG D F .
Proof. By Theorem 6.80, Qmax is nontrivial in the sense required for the analysis of
Qmax .
Suppose
g 2 F NS :
We associate to the function g a lter
Fg Qmax
dened to be the set of h.M; I /; f i 2 Qmax such that there is an iteration
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
such that the set
< !1 j F ./ D j .f /./
is closed and unbounded in !1 .

Suppose g is generic for Qmax ; i. e. that there is an L.R/-generic lter
G0 Qmax
such that g D fG0 . Then as in the proof of Lemma 6.35, Fg D G0 .
Fix D Qmax such that D is dense and D 2 L.R/. Suppose G Qmax is L.R/generic. Then by Lemma 6.34 and by Lemma 6.30(1) the following sentences holds in
L.R/G:
367
(1.1) For all g 2 fG INS , Fg \ D ;.

(1.2) For all g 2 fG INS , Fg is a lter in Qmax .
(1.3) For all g 2 fG INS , for all a !1 ,
a 2 L.g; x/
for some x 2 R.
The rst sentence is expressible by a fG INS -restricted 2 sentence in the structure
hH.!2 /; 2; fG INS ; DiL.R/G ;
the second sentence is expressible by a fG INS -restricted 2 sentence in the structure
hH.!2 /; 2; fG INS ; Qmax iL.R/G ;
and the third sentence is expressible by a fG INS -restricted 2 sentence in the structure
hH.!2 /; 2; fG INS iL.R/G :
Thus by the hypothesis of the theorem the three sentences hold in V .
Therefore for all g 2 F INS , the lter Fg is L.R/-generic and further
gINS L.R/Fg :
For any A !1 there exists g 2 F INS such that A 2 L.F; g/.
Let G D FF . Thus it follows that
L.P .!1 // D L.R/G
t
u
The next theorem shows that the Qmax -extension satises a restricted version of the
homogeneity condition satised by the Pmax -extension (cf. Theorem 5.67).
We x some notation. Suppose t 2 R and that
g Coll.!; <!1 /
is a lter which is Lt -generic. Let
Fg W !1 ! H.!1 /
be the function dened as follows. Let
Hg W ! !1 ! !1
be the function given by g. For each < !1 ,
Fg ./ D p 2 Coll.!; / j p.n/ D Hg .n; / for all n 2 dom.p/:
Recall that if G Qmax is a semi-generic lter then fG INS is the set of all functions
f W !1 ! H.!1 /
such that
< !1 j f ./ D FG ./
368
6 Pmax variations

L.P .!1 // D L.R/G
where
G Qmax
is L.R/-generic. Suppose X P .!1 / is a nonempty set such that
X 2 L.P .!1 //;
and such that X is ordinal denable in L.P .!1 // with parameters from
R [ fG INS :
!1 Coll.!; <!1 /
such that
(1) 2 Lt ,
(2) for all Lt -generic lters
g Coll.!; <!1 /;
if Fg 2 fG INS then Ig . / 2 X .
Proof. This follows from Lemma 6.34 and the basic analysis of the Qmax -extension
as set forth in Theorem 6.30. By Theorem 6.80 the hypothesis of Theorem 6.30 holds
since AD holds in .R/.
Fix a formula .x; y; z; t /, w 2 R and 2 Ord such that
X D A !1 j L.R/G A; w; ; fG INS :
Fix A 2 X . From the basic analysis of the Qmax -extension there exist
h.M; I /; f i 2 G
and a 2 M such that
where
A D j.a/
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
is the iteration such that j.f / D fG . By genericity we can suppose that in L.R/,
h.M; I /; f i Qmax ; w; ; fG INS
where is the term for j.a/.
Let t 2 R code h.M; I /; f i. Suppose g Coll.!; <!1 / is a lter which is Lt generic.
Work in Lt g and let
hM ; G ; j; W < !1 i
369
be the iteration of h.M; I /; f i such that for all < !1

j; C1 .j0; .f //./ D Fg ./
where
D !1 :
This uniquely species the iteration. We note that for each < !1 ,
hM ; G ; j; W < < i 2 Lt g \ Coll.!; </
M
!1 .
where D
Therefore by the genericity of g, it follows by induction on that
for each < !1 , Fg ./ is M -generic and so j; C1 exists as specied.
A key property of the iteration is that
j j0;!1 .f /./ D Fg ./
contains
!1
j < !1
and so it contains a club in !1 .

Let !1 Coll.!; <!1 / be a term in Lt such that
Ig ./ D j0;!1 .a/
and such that this holds for all Lt -generic lters.
We verify that t and are as desired.
Suppose that g Coll.!; <!1 / is an Lt -generic lter such that
j Fg ./ D fG ./
Let
j W .M; I / ! .M!1 ; I!1 /
be the iteration given by g as above.
Let f D j0;!1 .f / and let A D Ig ./ D j0;!1 .a/.
Thus
j f ./ D fG ./
Therefore by Lemma 6.34, there is an L.R/-generic lter G Qmax such that
L.R/G D L.R/G
and such that f D fG .
Since f D fG , h.M; I /; f i 2 G . Thus
L.R/G A ; w; ; f INS
and so
Therefore A 2 X .
L.R/G A ; w; ; fG INS :

t
u
370
6.2.3
6 Pmax variations
2
Qmax
We dene and briey analyze a variant of Qmax which is analogous to 2 Pmax . We

denote this partial order by 2 Qmax .
We give this example to illustrate how extensions with various ideal structures can
be easily obtained by modifying Pmax .
Assuming AD holds in L.R/ we shall prove that if G 2 Qmax is L.R/-generic
then in L.R/G, INS is not saturated, sat.INS / is !1 -dense and further for each
S 2 sat.INS / n INS
INS jS is !1 -dense.
Before dening 2 Qmax we prove that AC holds in the Qmax -extension of L.R/.
Lemma 6.88 is the analog of Lemma 5.16, used to prove that AC holds in the
Pmax -extension. Here the situation is even simpler.
h.N ; J /; gi < h.M; I /; f i
in Qmax and let x0 2 N \ R code M Let C be the set of of the Silver indiscernibles of
Lx below !1N and let C 0 be the limit points of C . Suppose that
s; t .P .!1 //M n I
is such that both !1M0 n s I and !1M0 n t I . Then there exists an iteration
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
such that j 2 N ,
j j.f /./ g./ 2 J;

0
and such that for all 2 C ,

if and only if
2 j.s/
C 2 j.t /
where C is the least element of C above .

Proof. The proof is essentially a trivial modication of the proof of Lemma 6.23.
Construct the iteration
h.M ; I /; G ; j; W < !1M1 i;
in N , by induction such that for all 2 C 0 if g. / is M -generic for Coll.!; / then
j;C1 .j0; .f //. / D g. /
0
and such that for all 2 C ,
j0; .s/ 2 G
if and only if
j0; .t / 2 G
C
where D .
371
By the boundedness lemma, Lemma 4.6, for all 2 C , if

k W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
is given by any iteration of length then
k.!1M / D :
Therefore the requirements do not interfere with each other.
As in the proof of Lemma 6.23,
j j.f /./ g./ 2 J;
and so
j0;omega1 W .M; I / ! .M!1 ; I!1 /
t
u
is as desired.
As a corollary to Lemma 6.88 and the basic analysis of L.R/Qmax we obtain the
following lemma. The proof is essentially identical to that of Lemma 5.17, using
Lemma 6.88 in place of Lemma 5.16.
Lemma 6.89. Assume AD L.R/ . Suppose G Qmax is L.R/-generic. Then
L.R/G
AC :
t
u
Lemma 6.89 combined with Theorem 6.78 yields the following variation of Theorem 6.80.
Corollary 6.90. Assume AD holds in L.R/. Then for each set A R with A 2 L.R/,
there is a condition h.M; I /; f i 2 Qmax such that
(1) M ZFC C
AC ,
(2) A \ M 2 M,
(3) hH.!1 /M ; A \ M; 2i hH.!1 /; A; 2i,
(4) .M; I / is A-iterable.
t
u
Denition 6.91. 2 Qmax is the set of nite sequences hM; I; J; f; Y i which satisfy the
following.
(1) M ZFC C
AC .
(2) In M, I and J are normal !1 -dense ideals on !1 with I J .

(4) h.M; J /; f i 2 Qmax .
(5) Y J n I and jY j !1 in M.
372
6 Pmax variations
(6) For each a; b 2 Y , a M b 2 I or a \ b 2 I .

(7) For each a 2 Y ,
h.M; Ia /; f i 2 Qmax
where Ia is the ideal I ja as computed in M.
The ordering on 2 Qmax is analogous to Qmax .
hM1 ; I1 ; J1 ; f1 ; Y1 i < hM0 ; I0 ; J0 ; f0 ; Y0 i
j W .M0 ; I0 ; J0 / ! .M0 ; I0 ; J0 /
such that:
(1) j.f0 / D f1 ;
(2) M0 2 M1 and j 2 M1 ;
(3) I0 D I1 \ M0 and J0 D J1 \ M0 ;
(4) j.Y0 / Y1 .
Remark 6.92.
t
u
(1) The requirement (2) of Denition 6.91 implies that

J D I ja
for some a 2 P .!1 /M n I . Necessarily, by (5), a \ b 2 I for all b 2 Y . Further

iterations of .M; I; J / correspond to iterations of .M; I / and so (3) implies
that .M; I; J / is iterable.
(2) Given (3) of Denition 6.91, (4) and (7) become rst order conditions on M.
For example (4) simply asserts that J is an !1 -dense ideal and g is a function
t
u
related to J in the usual fashion; i. e. g 2 YColl .J /.
hM; I; J; f; Y i 2 2 Qmax :
Suppose that
j1 W .M; I; J / ! .M1 ; I1 ; J1 /
and
j2 W .M; I; J / ! .M2 ; I2 ; J1 /
are iterations of .M; I; J / such that j1 .f / D j2 .f /. Then M1 D M2 and j1 D j2 .
Proof. Let
373
a D < !1M j .0; 0/ 2 f ./:
Since h.M; J /; f i 2 Qmax , it follows that

aJ
and that
!1M n a J:
Therefore
M a is a stationary, co-stationary, subset of !1 .
Since j1 .f / D j2 .f / it follows that j1 .a/ D j2 .a/.
The lemma follows by Lemma 5.15.
t
u
Using Corollary 6.90 we trivially obtain the nontriviality of 2 Qmax as required for
the analysis of the 2 Qmax -extension.
Lemma 6.94. Assume AD holds in L.R/. Then for each set A R with
A 2 L.R/;
there is a condition hM; I; J; f; Y i 2 2 Qmax such that
(1) jY =I j D !1 in M,
(2) A \ M 2 M,
(3) hH.!1 /M ; A \ M; 2i hH.!1 /; A; 2i,
Proof. By Corollary 6.90, there is a condition h.M0 ; I0 /; f0 i 2 Qmax such that
.M0 ; I0 / satises (2)(4). We may suppose, by modifying f0 is necessary, that for
all < !1M0 , f0 ./ is a maximal lter in Coll.!; /.
For each < !1M0 let
S D < !1M0 j < 1 C and .0; / 2 f0 ./:
Dene
f W !1M0 ! H.!1 /M0
as follows. Suppose < !1M0 . Let be such that 2 S . Then

f ./ D p 2 Coll.!; / j .0; /a p 2 f0 ./:
Let
(1.1) M D M0 ,
(1.2) Y D S j > 0,
374
6 Pmax variations
(1.3) I D I0 ,
(1.4) J D I0 jS0 .
It follows that hM; I; J; f; Y i 2 2 Qmax and is as required.
t
u
The iteration lemmas for 2 Qmax are proved by minor modications in the arguments used to prove the iteration lemmas for Qmax . The only difference is that the
iteration lemmas for 2 Qmax are more awkward to state.
hM0 ; I0 ; J0 ; f0 ; Y0 i 2 2 Qmax ;
hM1 ; I1 ; J1 ; f1 ; Y1 i 2 2 Qmax ;
and that
hM0 ; I0 ; J0 ; f0 ; Y0 i 2 .H.!1 //M1 :
Suppose that Y Y1 , Y 2 M1 and that
M1 jY =I1 j D !1 :
Then there exists an iteration
j W .M0 ; I0 ; J0 / ! .M0 ; I0 ; J0 /
such that j 2 M1 and such that the following hold.
(1) < !1M1 j j.f0 /./ f1 ./ 2 I1 .
(2) I0 D M0 \ I1 and J0 D M0 \ J1 .
(3) j.Y0 /=I1 Y =I1 .
Proof. The key point is the following. Suppose
jQ W .M0 ; I0 ; J0 / ! .MQ 0 ; IQ0 ; JQ0 /
Q
g Coll.!; !1M0 /
is MQ 0 -generic.
Then
(1.1) there exists an iteration
kQ W .MQ 0 ; JQ0 / ! .MQ 1 ; JQ1 /
such that
Q
kQ jQ.f0 /.!1M0 / D g;
375
(1.2) for each S 2 jQ.Y0 / there exists an iteration

kQS W .MQ 0 ; IQ0 / ! .MQ 1 ; IQ1 /
such that
Q
kQS jQ.f0 /.!1M0 / D g
and such that
Q
!1M0 2 kQS .S /:
With this simple observation, the desired iteration, j , is easily constructed in M1

by the usual book-keeping arguments used in the proofs of the earlier iteration lemmas,
cf. the proof of Lemma 4.36. The point is that one must associate elements of j.Y0 /,
as they are generated in the course of the iteration, to elements of Y .
t
u
We require two other lemmas. The proofs are easy variations of the proofs of
Lemma 6.94 and Lemma 6.95. We again leave the details to the reader.
Lemma 6.96. Assume AD holds in L.R/. Suppose that
hM0 ; I0 ; J0 ; f0 ; Y0 i 2 2 Qmax
and that a0 2 J0 . Then there exists
hM1 ; I1 ; J1 ; f1 ; Y1 i 2 2 Qmax
such that
hM1 ; I1 ; J1 ; f1 ; Y1 i < hM0 ; I0 ; J0 ; f0 ; Y0 i
and such that
j.a0 / n 5Y1 2 I1
where
j W .M0 ; I0 ; J0 / ! .M1 ; I1 ; J1 /
is the .unique/ iteration such that j.f0 / D f1 .
t
u
Lemma 6.97. Assume AD holds in L.R/. Suppose that

hM0 ; I0 ; J0 ; f0 ; Y0 i 2 2 Qmax
and that a0 2 P .!1 /M0 n J0 . Then there exists
hM1 ; I1 ; J1 ; f1 ; Y1 i 2 2 Qmax
and b j.a0 / such that
hM1 ; I1 ; J1 ; f1 ; Y1 i < hM0 ; I0 ; J0 ; f0 ; Y0 i;
b 2 J1 n I1 , and such that
b \ a 2 I1
for all a 2 j.Y0 /, where

j W .M0 ; I0 ; J0 / ! .M1 ; I1 ; J1 /
is the .unique/ interation such that j.f0 / D f1 .
t
u
376
6 Pmax variations
Using the proof of Lemma 6.95 and of its generalization to sequences of conditions,
the analysis of the 2 Qmax extension can be carried out in a manner quite similar to that
for the Qmax -extension.
The results are summarized in the next theorem where we use the following notation.
Suppose G 2 Qmax is L.R/-generic. Let
fG D [f j hM; I; J; f; Y i 2 G:
For each condition
hM; I; J; Y; f i 2 G
there is a unique iteration
j W .M; I; J / ! .M ; I ; J /
such that j.f / D fG . We let Y denote j.Y /. Let
(1) P .!1 /G D [P .!1 / \ M j hM; I; J; Y; f i 2 G,
(2) IG D [I j hM; I; J; f; Y i 2 G,
(3) JG D [J j hM; I; J; f; Y i 2 G,
(4) YG D [Y j hM; I; J; f; Y i 2 G.
Theorem 6.98. Assume ADL.R/ . Suppose G 2 Qmax is L.R/-generic. Then
L.R/G ZFC
and in L.R/G:
(1) P .!1 / D P .!1 /G ;
(2) IG D INS ;
(3) for each set A 2 JG there exists Y YG such that jY j D !1 and such that
A n 5Y 2 IG I
(4) YG is predense in .P .!1 / n IG ; /;
(5) For each S 2 P .!1 / n JG ,
j p 2 fG ./ n S 2 JG
for some p 2 Coll.!; !1 /;
(6) For each S 2 YG and for each T S such that T IG ,
j p 2 fG ./ n T 2 IG
for some p 2 Coll.!; !1 /;
(7) JG D sat.IG /.
377
Proof. The proofs that P .!1 / D P .!1 /G , IG D INS and that

L.R/G AC
are routine adaptations of earlier arguments.
(3) follows from (1), Lemma 6.96, and the genericity of G.
(4) follows from (3) given that JG n IG is predense in .P .!1 / n IG ; / which in
turn follows from (1), Lemma 6.97, and the genericity of G.
(5) and (6) are immediate consequence of (1) and the denition of 2 Qmax .
It remains to prove (7).
By (1), Lemma 6.97, and the genericity of G, for all A 2 P .!1 / n JG and for all
Y YG such that jY j D !1 , there exists B A such that B 2 YG and such that
B \ S 2 IG
for all S 2 Y .
Thus for all A 2 P .!1 / n JG , IG jA is not saturated. Therefore sat.IG / is dened
and
sat.IG / JG :
We nish by calculating sat.IG /.
By (6), YG sat.IG /. However by (3), any normal ideal containing YG [ IG must
contain JG .
Therefore JG sat.IG / and so
JG D sat.IG /:
t
u
As an immediate corollary to Theorem 6.98 be obtain the following theorem.

Theorem 6.99. Assume ADL.R/ . Suppose that
G 2 Qmax
is L.R/-generic. Then in L.R/G:
(1) INS is not !2 -saturated,
(2) sat.INS / is !1 -dense,
(3) for each S 2 sat.INS /, the ideal INS jS is !1 -dense.
t
u
6.2.4 Weak Kurepa trees and Qmax

The absoluteness theorems suggest that in the model L.R/Qmax one should have all the
consequences for
hH.!2 /; 2i
which follow from the largest fragment of Martins Maximum which is consistent with
the existence of an !1 -dense ideal on !1 .
378
6 Pmax variations
It is therefore perhaps curious that there is a weak Kurepa tree on !1 in L.R/Qmax .

This is the principal result of this section. This result together with the results of
the next section show that the existence of a weak Kurepa tree is independent of the
proposition that the nonstationary ideal is !1 -dense. See Remark 3.57.
The following holds in the extension obtained by any Pmax -variation unless one
explicitly prevents it:
For each A !1 there exists x 2 R such that
x # L.A; x/:
For the Pmax -extension this is a corollary of Theorem 5.73(5).
1
Lemma 6.100 (
2 -Determinacy). Suppose that for each A !1 there exists x 2 R
such that
x # L.A; x/:
Suppose that A !1 and let

A D sup.!2 /LZ j Z !1 ; A 2 LZ; and RLA D RLZ :
Then A < !2 .
Proof. We rst prove the following.
(1.1) Suppose that !2 is a countable set. Then !1 is inaccessible in L. /.
Choose A0 !1 such that
(2.1) 2 LA0 ,
(2.2) !1 D .!1 /LA0 ,
1
(2.3) LA0
2 -Determinacy.
By Jensens Covering Lemma, if A !1 and x 2 R are such that x # exists and

x L.A; x/, then A# exists. Therefore, by the hypothesis of the lemma, A#0 exists and
so !2 is an indiscernible of LA0 . We work in LA0 . Let 2 LA0 be a countable
set of uniform indiscernibles of LA0 such that for some x0 2 R \ LA0 ,
#
2 L.; x0 /:
Let be the ordertype of . We can suppose that ! D by increasing if necessary.
Let M 2 LA0 be a countable transitive set such that
(3.1) x0 2 M ,
(3.2) < !1M ,
(3.3) M ZFC C There exist measurable cardinals ,
(3.4) M is iterable (by linear iterations using the normal measures in M ).
379
Since
1
LA0
2 -Determinacy;
the transitive set M exists. It follows that there exists an iteration by the normal measures in M ,
j W M ! M ;
such that is M -generic for product Prikry forcing. Thus !1 is inaccessible in M .
However x0 2 M and so
2 M :
This proves (1.1).
Fix A and x x 2 R such that
x # L.A; x/:
A D !2 :
Then for every set B !1 ,
.A;B/ D !2
where
.A;B/ D sup.!2 /LZ j Z !1 ; .A; B/ 2 LZ; and RLAB D RLZ :
Thus we can assume that !1 D .!1 /LA and that .A;x/ D !2 .
Let 0 be an innite set of indiscernibles of Lx with 0 !2 n !1 . Let Z !1
witness that .A;x/ > sup.0 /.
Thus there exists a countable set 2 LZ such that
(4.1) !2LZ ,
(4.2) 0 ,
(4.3) x 2 L ,
(4.4) is countable in L .
By (1.1), !1 is inaccessible in L and so by Jensens Covering Lemma,
x # 2 L LZ:
This contradicts that RLZ D RLAx .
t
u
This (essentially) rules out one method for attempting to have weak Kurepa trees
in L.R/P where P is any Pmax variation we have considered so far.
Remark 6.101. (1) There are Pmax -variations which yield models in which any previously specied set of reals is !1 -borel in the simplest possible manner, given
380
6 Pmax variations
X R with (say) X 2 L.R/, one obtains in L.R/P that

[ \
XD
B;
>
for some sequence hB; W < < !1 i of borel sets.

1
If X is the complete
3 set then in such an extension there exists A !1 such
#
that for all t 2 R, t 2 LAt . Simply choose A such that
hx; W < < !1 i 2 LA
where for each < < !1 , x; 2 H.!1 / is a borel code of B; .
(2) There is an interesting open question. Suppose that INS is !2 -saturated and that
P .!1 /# exists. For each A !1 let A be as dened in Lemma 6.100. Must
t
u
A < !2 ?
To prove that there are weak Kurepa trees in L.R/Qmax , it is necessary to to nd a condition h.M; I /; f i 2 Qmax and a tree T 2 M of rank !1 in M such that if h.N ; J /; gi
is a condition in Qmax and M 2 N with M countable in N then there is an iteration
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
in N with the following properties.
(1) J \ M D I .
(2) j.f / D g modulo J .
(3) There is a conal branch b of j.T / such that b M .
The next lemma identies the requirements which we shall use.
Lemma 6.102 (ZFC ). Suppose that f is a function which witnesses + .!1<! /. Then
there is triple .T; g; h/ such that the following conditions hold.
(1) T is a subtree of 0;1<!1 and T has cardinality !1 .
(2) g W !1 ! T is a bijection.
(3) For all < !1 the set x 2 T j < dom.x/ is dense in T .
(4) h W !1 !1<! ! T .
(5) For each < !1 let T be the .countable/ subtree of T generated by the range
of g restricted to and let
h W !1<! ! T
be the section of h at ; h .s/ D h.; s/. Then for all limit 0 < < !1 ,
a) h is an order preserving function, h W !1<! ! T ,
b) h .!1<! / is dense in T ,
c) for all s 2 !1<! , h .t / j s t is dense below h .s/ in T .
381
(6) For each limit < !1 ,

< !1 j x 2 T
contains a club in !1 where
x D [h .s/ j s f ./:
Proof. This is a routine construction.
t
u
The role of g in the conditions specied in Lemma 6.102 is simply to control the
sets T , for example it follows that T T whenever < .
Let T be the set of hM; I; f; .T; g; h/i such that
(1) h.M; I /; f i 2 Qmax ,
(2) f witnesses ++ .!1<! / in M,
(3) .T; g; h/ together with f satisfy in M the conditions (1)(6) indicated in the
statement of Lemma 6.102.
Lemma 6.103 (ZFC C ++ .! <! /). Suppose that f is a function which witnesses
++ .!1<! / and that
hM0 ; I0 ; f0 ; .T0 ; g0 ; h0 /i 2 T :
k W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
(1) k.!1M0 / D !1 .
(2) k.f0 / D f on a club in !1 .
(3) There exists a M0 -generic branch for k.T0 /.
Proof. Let p0 D hM0 ; I0 ; f0 ; .T0 ; g0 ; h0 /i. Fix a club C !1 such that for all
2 C , f ./ is L.f j; C \ ; p0 /-generic for Coll.!; /. We work in L.f; C; p0 /
and construct by induction on < !1 an iteration of .M0 ; I0 /,
h.M ; I /; G ; j; W < < !1 i
and a sequence hb W < !1 i such that for all < < !1 ,
(1.1) b is an M -generic branch of j0; .T0 /,
(1.2) b b ,
(1.3) the set j G D f . / contains a club in !1 .
382
6 Pmax variations
The following is the key to the construction. Suppose

j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M; I /
is a countable iteration of .M0 ; I0 / and that b is a M-generic branch of j.T0 /. Suppose
G is Mb-generic for Coll.!; !1M / and let
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
be the corresponding generic elementary embedding. Then there exists G such that

G is M -generic for Coll.!; !1M / and such that
b 2 j .j .j.T0 ///
where
j W .M ; I / ! .M ; I /;
where M is the generic ultrapower of M given by G , and where j is the corresponding elementary embedding. In this we are identifying generic ultrapowers with
their transitive collapses (as usual).
Given this the construction is straightforward.
The existence of G follows from the mutual genericity of b and G relative to M
and the properties of
j.T0 ; g0 ; h0 / D .T; g; h/
in M. There are two relevant points.
(2.1) .T; g; h/ satises in M the conditions (1)(6) of Lemma 6.102 and further
.T ; g ; h / satises these conditions in M where .T ; g ; h / is the image
of .T; g; h/ under the iteration associated to the generic ultrapower given by G.
(2.2) T 2 M and
g D g j!1M :
Thus by the mutual genericity of b and G, it follows that b is a M -generic

branch of T .
Therefore by clause (5) of the conditions set forth in Lemma 6.102, there exists an
M -generic G such that
b D h .s/ j s 2 G
where D !1M .
t
u
From the previous lemmas and the basic analysis of Qmax it follows that there is
a weak Kurepa tree in L.R/Qmax . Recall that if G Qmax is L.R/-generic then the
associated function fG witnesses ++ .!1<! / in L.R/G.
Theorem 6.104. Suppose ADL.R/ and that G Qmax is L.R/-generic. Suppose that
.T; g; h/ 2 L.R/G and that .T; g; h/ together with fG satisfy the conditions .1/.6/
of Lemma 6.102.
(1) If D is a set of dense subsets of T and D has cardinality !1 then there is a
D-generic branch of T .
(2) T has !2 distinct branches of rank !1 .
383
Proof. (2) is an immediate consequence of (1).

We prove (1) which really is an immediate consequence of Lemma 6.103 and the
basic analysis of L.R/G given in Theorem 6.30.
By Theorem 6.30 (and Theorem 6.80) there exist .T0 ; g0 ; h0 /; D0 2 M0 and
h.M0 ; I0 /; f0 i 2 G;
such that j0 ..T0 ; g0 ; h0 // D .T; g; h/ and j0 .D0 / D D where
j0 W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
By Theorem 6.80 there exists a condition
h.M1 ; I1 /; f1 i < h.M0 ; I0 /; f0 i
such that f1 witnesses ++ .!1<! / in M1 .
By Lemma 6.103, there exist k 2 M1 and b 2 M1 such that
k W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M ; I /
is an iteration of length !1M1 and such that in M1 the following hold.
(1.1) k.!1M0 / D !1 .
(1.2) k.f0 / D f1 on a club in !1 .
(1.3) b is a M -generic branch for k.T0 /.
Thus h.M1 ; I1 /; k.f0 /i 2 Qmax and
h.M1 ; I1 /; k.f0 /i < h.M0 ; I0 /; f0 i:
By the genericity of G we may assume that h.M1 ; I1 /; k.f0 /i 2 G.
Let
j1 W .M1 ; I1 / ! .M1 ; I1 /
Thus j1 .k.D0 // D D and j1 .k.T0 // D T . Therefore j1 .b/ is a D-generic branch
of T .
t
u
6.2.5
KT
Qmax
As our next example of a variant of Qmax we dene a partial order KT Qmax . The partial
order KT Qmax is obtained from Qmax by simply changing the denition of the order. Our
goal is to produce a model in which the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !1 -dense and in
which there are no weak Kurepa trees on !1 . By Lemma 6.51, if there is an !1 -dense
ideal on !1 then there is a Suslin tree. Thus one cannot obtain a model in which there
is an !1 -dense ideal on !1 and in which there are no weak Kurepa trees, by sealing
trees.
We shall also state as Theorem 6.121, the absoluteness theorem for the KT Qmax extension which is analogous to the absoluteness theorem (Theorem 6.84) which we
proved for the Qmax -extension.
384
6 Pmax variations
Denition 6.105. Let KT Qmax be the partial order obtained from Qmax as follows:
KT
Qmax D Qmax ;
but the order on KT Qmax is the following strengthening of the order on Qmax .
A condition h.M1 ; I1 /; f1 i < h.M0 ; I0 /; f0 i if h.M1 ; I1 /; f1 i < h.M0 ; I0 /; f0 i
relative to the order on Qmax and if addition the following holds.
Let
j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
is the (unique) iteration such that j.f0 / D f1 . Suppose b !1M1 , b 2 M1 and
b \ 2 M0
for all < !1M1 .
Then b 2 M0 .
t
u
The iteration lemmas necessary for the analysis of KT Qmax are an immediate corollary of the following lemmas.
Lemma 6.106 (ZFC + + .!1<! / + ). Suppose
F W !1 ! H.!1 /
is a function which witnesses .!1<! /. Then for any h.M; I /; f i 2 Qmax there is an
iteration
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
+
of length !1 such that:

(1) F D j.f / on a club in !1 ;
(2) if b !1 is a set such that b \ 2 M for all < !1 , then
b 2 M :
Proof. For each a 2 H.!1 / let
M.a/ D L .b [ a/
where b is the transitive closure of a and is the least ordinal such that L .b/ is
admissible.
Since F witnesses + .!1<! /, for every A !1 ,
< !1 j F ./ is M.A \ /-generic
Let h W < !1 i witness .
Let
h.M ; I /; G ; j; W < !1 i
be an iteration of .M; I / of length !1 such that for all < !1 ,
M
(1.1) G is M.M ; h W < i/-generic for Coll.!; !1 /,
385
(1.2) if j0; .!1M0 / D and if

M
F ./ Coll.!; !1 /
is a lter which is M.M ; h W < i/-generic then
G D F ./:
This iteration is easily constructed.
Since F witnesses + .!1<! / it follows by (1.2) that
< !1 j j0;!1 .f /./ D F ./
A key property of the iteration is the following one. Suppose < !1 . Then
2 M C1 or
M!1 :
This follows the genericity requirement of (1.1).
We note the following. Suppose A !1 . Let S be the set of < !1 such that
A \ D and such that F ./ is M.A \ /-generic for Coll.!; /. Then S is
stationary in !1 . This following by reection, since by ZFC for each A !1 , there
exists A < !2 such that !1 < A and such that LA A is admissible.
Now suppose b !1 and that b \ 2 M!1 for all < !1 . Let A !1 code
.b; h.M ; I /; G ; j; W < !1 i/:
Thus for a stationary set of < !1 the following hold.
(2.1) A \ D .
(2.2) F ./ is M.A \ /-generic for Coll.!; /.
(2.3) j0; .!1M0 / D and
.b; h.M ; I /; G ; j; W < i/ 2 LA \ :
By (1.2), for each such , G D F ./ and so b \ 2 M or b \ M C1 . But
if b \ M C1 then
b \ M!1
which is a contradiction. Hence b \ 2 M .
Thus for a stationary set of < !1 ,
b \ 2 M
and so b 2 M!1 .
Therefore the iteration is as desired.
A similar argument proves the following generalization of Lemma 6.106.
t
u
386
6 Pmax variations

F W !1 ! H.!1 /
is a function which witnesses + .!1<! /. Suppose hpk W k < !i is a sequence of
conditions in Qmax such that for each k < !
pk D h.Mk ; Ik /; fk i
and for all k < !
(i) pk 2 MkC1 ,
Mk
(iii) !1
MkC1
D !1
(iv) IkC1 \ Mk D Ik ,
(v) fkC1 D fk ,
(vi) if C 2 Mk is closed and unbounded in !1M0 then there exists D 2 MkC1 such
D 2 Lx
(1) F D j.f0 / on a club in !1 ;
(2) if b !1 is a set such that b \ 2 [Mk for all < !1 , then
b 2 [Mk :
t
u
Suppose G KT Qmax is L.R/-generic. Let

fG D [f j h.M; I /; f i 2 G for some M; I :
For each condition h.M; I /; f i 2 G there is a unique iteration
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
such that j.f / D fG . Let
IG D [I j h.M; I /; f i 2 G for some M; f
and let

P .!1 /G D [P .!1 /M j h.M; I /; f i 2 G:
Using Lemma 6.106 and Lemma 6.107 the analysis of Qmax generalizes to yield
the analogous results for KT Qmax . However for this we assume the existence of a huge
cardinal so that Lemma 6.47 holds. This gives a suitably rich collection of conditions
h.M; I /; f i 2 Qmax such that holds in M. Within these conditions Lemma 6.106
and Lemma 6.107 can be applied.
We note that the conclusion of Lemma 6.106 is false in L.R/Qmax . This shows that
some additional assumption is required, in particular Lemma 6.106 cannot be proved
from just + .!1<! /.
Theorem 6.108. Assume there is a huge cardinal. Then

mogeneous. Suppose G KT Qmax is L.R/-generic. Then
KT
387
Qmax is !-closed and ho-
L.R/G ZFC
and in L.R/G:
(1) P .!1 /G D P .!1 /;
(4) there are no weak Kurepa trees;
(5) for every A !1 there exists B !1 such that A 2 LB and such that for all
S !1 if
S \ 2 LB
for all < !1 then S 2 LB.
Proof. By Lemma 6.47, for every set A R with A 2 L.R/ there is a condition
(1.1) A \ M 2 M,
(1.2) hH.!1 /M ; A \ M; 2i hH.!1 /; A; 2i,
(1.3) .M; I / is A-iterable,
(1.4) holds in M,
(1.5) f witnesses ++ .!1<! / in M.
The proof that
L.R/G !1 -DC
requires dovetailing the proof of Lemma 6.107 with the construction of an !1 decreasing sequence of conditions in Qmax . This being done in the model associated to a
condition in Qmax which satises (1.1)(1.5) above relative to a suitable choice for A.
As in the case of Qmax this is straightforward. Similarly the proof that AC (or AC )
holds in L.R/G is a routine adaptation of the proof of the corresponding claim for
Qmax .
The remaining claims, except (4) and (5), follow from arguments which follow
quite closely the arguments for Qmax .
The claim (4) is an immediate consequence of (5). By (2) (or (1)), for every set
B !1 , B # exists and so
jP .!1 / \ LBj D !1 :
We sketch the proof of (5). We begin with the following claim.
6 Pmax variations
388
Suppose h.M0 ; I0 /; f0 i 2 G and let

j0 W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
be the iteration such that j0 .f0 / D fG . Suppose b !1 and that
b \ 2 M0
for all < !1 . Then b 2 M0 .
Choose h.M1 ; I1 /; f1 i 2 G, and b1 2 M1 such that
h.M1 ; I1 /; f1 i < h.M0 ; I0 /; f0 i
and such that j1 .b1 / D b where
j1 W .M1 ; I1 / ! .M1 ; I1 /
Let
k W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M; I /
be the iteration such that k.f0 / D f1 .
Thus k 2 M1 and j1 .M/ D M0 . Further
b1 \ 2 M
!1M .
for all <

Therefore by the denition of the order in KT Qmax , b1 2 M. This implies that
b 2 M0 .
We now prove (5). Fix X0 !1 with X0 2 L.R/G. By (1) there is a condition
h.M0 ; I0 /; f0 i 2 G
and a set b0
!1M0
such that b0 2 M0 and j.b0 / D X0 where

j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
is the unique iteration such that j.f0 / D fG . We work in L.R/ and we assume that
the condition h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i forces that X0 D j.b0 / is a counterexample to (5).
Let z 2 R be any real such that M0 2 Lz and M0 is countable in Lz. For each
i !, Let i be the i th Silver indiscernible of Lz. Let
k W L! z ! L! z
be the canonical embedding such that cp(k) = 0 and let
L! z D k.f /.0 / j f 2 L! z:
Let U be the L! z-ultralter on 0 given by k,
U D A 0 j A 2 L! z; 0 2 k.A/:
Thus
L! z Ult.L! z; U /
and k is the associated embedding. For each X P .0 / \ L! z if X 2 L! z and
jX j 0 in L! z then U \ X 2 L! z. Therefore .L! z; U / is naturally iterable.
389
Let g Coll.!; <0 / be L! z-generic. Let N D L! zg. Therefore

0 D !1N and the ultralter U denes an ideal I on !1N with I N . Further for
each X 2 N if jX j !1N in N then I \ X 2 N .
As in the proof of Theorem 6.64, if S then Coll .!; S / the restriction of
Coll.!; < / to S . Thus if < then
Coll.!; </ Coll.!; </ Coll .!; ; //:
Suppose that
k W .L! z; U / ! .k.L! z/; k.U //
h Coll .!; 0 ; k.0 ///
is k.L! z/g-generic. Then k lifts to dene an elementary embedding
kQ W N ! NQ
where NQ D k.L! z/gh.
kQ is naturally interpreted as an iteration of .N; I /. We abuse our conventions and
shall regard .N; I / as an iterable structure restricting to elementary embeddings arising
in this fashion.
For any set S !1N , if S is stationary in N then holds in N on S .
Let
Fg W !1N ! N
be the function such that for all < !1N , Fg ./ is the lter in Coll.!; 1 C / given by
g and . Thus
Fg ./ D p 2 Coll.!; 1 C / j p 2 g
where for each p 2 Coll.!; 1 C /, p 2 Coll.!; <!1 / is the the corresponding
condition:
dom.p / D dom.p/ ;
and for each k 2 dom.p/,
p .k; / D p.k/:
For each < !1N let

T D j .0; / 2 Fg ./:
!1N i
2 N and hT W < !1N i is a sequence of pairwise disjoint

Thus hT W <
sets which are positive relative to I . Fix a set S 0 such that S 2 L! z, S is
stationary in L! z and S U . Thus S !1N , S 2 N , S is stationary in N , and
S I . For each or each < !1N , let S D T n S . Thus hS W < !1N i is a sequence
in N of pairwise disjoint I -positive sets each disjoint from S .
j0 W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M1 ; I1 /
such that j0 2 N and such that:
390
6 Pmax variations
(2.1) for each s !1M1 , if s I1 then S n s 2 INS for some < !1 ;

(2.2) if b !1M1 is a set in N such that for all < !1M1 ,
b \ 2 M1 ;
then b 2 M1 .
Thus I \ M1 D I1 . Let f1 D j0 .f0 / and let b1 D j0 .b0 /.
We come to the key points. First, N D L! y1 where y1 !1N and second, the
proof Lemma 6.106 can be applied to .N; I /. Let h.M2 ; I2 /; f i be any condition in
KT
Qmax such that N 2 M2 , N is countable in M2 and such that holds in M2 . Then
there is an iteration
k W .N; I / ! .N ; I /
in M2 such that
(3.1) k .!1N / D .!1 /M2 ,
(3.2) I2 \ N D I ,
(3.3) if b !1M2 is a set in M2 such that b \ 2 N for all < !1 , then
b 2 N :
Let f2 D k .f1 /, b2 D k .b1 / and let y2 D k .y1 /. Thus
(4.1) h.M2 ; I2 /; f2 i < h.M0 ; I0 /; f0 i,
(4.2) b2 D j.b0 / where j is the embedding given by the iteration of .M0 ; I0 / which
sends f0 to f2 ,
(4.3) b2 .!1 /M2 ,
(4.4) y2 .!1 /M2 ,
(4.5) b2 2 .Ly2 /M2 ,
(4.6) if b !1M2 is a set in M2 such that for all < !1M2 ,
b \ 2 Ly2 ;
then b 2 Ly2 .
Now suppose G KT Qmax is L.R/-generic and that h.M2 ; I2 /; f2 i 2 G. Let
X0 D j0 .b0 / where j0 is the elementary embedding given by the iteration of .M0 ; I0 /
which sends f0 to fG . Similarly let
j2 W .M2 ; f2 / ! .M2 ; I2 /
be the iteration such that j2 .f2 / D fG . Let Y0 D j.y2 /. Now by the claim proved
above, in L.R/G if B !1 is a set such that for all < !1 ,
B \ 2 M2 ;
391
then B 2 M2 . By elementarity, since (4.6) holds in M2 , if B !1 , B 2 M2 and if

B \ 2 LY0
for all < !1 , then B 2 LY0 .
Therefore if B !1 , B 2 L.R/G and if
B \ 2 LY0
for all < !1 , then B 2 LY0 . This is a contradiction since X0 2 LY0 and Y0 !1 .
t
u
Remark 6.109. Theorem 6.108(5) is a useful approximation to and this principle
serves successfully in place of in the proofs of Lemma 6.106 and Lemma 6.107 (cf.
Lemma 6.118).
Theorem 6.108(5) is in some sense a feature of the KT Qmax -extension which is analt
u
ogous to that of the Pmax extension given in Theorem 5.73(5).
Theorem 6.108 can be proved just assuming ADL.R/ . We briey sketch the argument which in essence involves exploiting Theorem 6.108(5).
First one renes the partial order, Qmax , dening a partial order KT Qmax which is
the appropriate analog of KT Qmax .
Denition 6.110. Let KT Qmax Qmax be the partial order obtained from Qmax as follows. KT Qmax is the set of .hMk W k < !i; f / 2 Qmax such that for all
a 2 [Mk j k < !
if a
!1M0
and if
a \ 2 M0
!1M0 ,
for all <

then a 2 M0 . The order on KT Qmax is the following strengthening of

the order from Qmax . A condition
.hNk W k < !i; g/ < .hMk W k < !i; f /
if
.hNk W k < !i; g/ < .hMk W k < !i; f /
relative to the order on Qmax and if the following holds. Let
M
be the (unique) iteration such that j.f / D g. Suppose b !1 0 ,

b 2 [Nk j k < !
and
b \ 2 M0
M
for all < !1 0 . Then b 2 M0 .

Lemma 6.106 easily generalizes to the following lemma.
t
u
392
6 Pmax variations

F W !1 ! H.!1 /
is a function which witnesses .!1<! /. Then for any .hMk W k < !i; f / 2 Qmax there
is an iteration
+

(2) if b !1 is a set such that b \ 2 M0 for all < !1 , then
b 2 M0 :
t
u
The analysis of Qmax generalizes to KT Qmax using the proof of Lemma 6.111 and
using Theorem 6.113 to obtain the necessary conditions.
One obtains Theorem 6.113 by modifying the proof of Theorem 6.64. (6) is the
key requirement, the other requirements are automatically satised by the condition
produced in the proof of Theorem 6.64. The modication of the proof of Theorem 6.64
involves proving the following strengthening of Lemma 6.63.
Lemma 6.112 (For all x 2 R, x # exists). Suppose N is a transitive model of ZFC of
height !1 and A !1 is a conal set such that
A\ 2N
for all < !1 . Suppose B !1 , B A and that .N; A; B/ is constructible from a
real. Let z 2 R be such that
.N; A; B/ 2 Lz
and such that .N; A; B/ is denable from .!1V ; z/ in Lz. Then there exist x 2 R and
a function
f W H.!1 / ! H.!1 /
such that f is 11 .x/ and such that the following hold.
(1) For all 2 B, if .g; h/ 2 H.!1 / and if
a) g is N -generic for Coll .!; A \ /,
b) h is N g-generic for Coll .!; /,
then f .g; h/ is an N hg-generic lter for Coll .!; S / where
S D A \ j < <
and is the least element of B above .
393
(2) Suppose is an indiscernible of L.x/ and < !1 . Suppose

H Coll .!; B \ /
is L.x/-generic and
g Coll .!; A \ /
is N -generic. Suppose that for all 2 B \ ,
gjColl .!; S / D f .g; h/
where h D H jColl .!; /,
S D A \ j < <
and is the least element of B above . Finally, suppose b , b 2 L.x/H
and
b \ 2 N g
for all < . Then b 2 N g.
Proof. Let x 2 R with z recursive in x and let
f W H.!1 / ! H.!1 /
11 .x/
be any
denable function which satises (1). These exist by Lemma 6.63.
It follows that f must satisfy (2).
t
u
Using Lemma 6.112 in the proof of Theorem 6.64 yields the requisite strengthening
of Theorem 6.65.
Theorem 6.113. Assume AD holds in L.R/. Then for every set A R with A 2 L.R/
there is a condition .hMk W k < !i; f / 2 Qmax such that the following hold.
(1) A \ M0 2 M0 .
(2) hH.!1 /M0 ; A \ M0 ; 2i hH.!1 /; A; 2i.
(3) hMk W k < !i is A-iterable.
(4) holds in M0 .
(5) f witnesses + .!1<! / in M0 .
(6) Suppose b !1M0 , b 2 [Mk j k < !, and
b \ 2 M0
for all < !1M0 . Then b 2 M0 .
t
u
6 Pmax variations
394
We illustrate the use of Theorem 6.113 in the analysis of KT Qmax .

Suppose that .hMk W k < !i; f / 2 Qmax , .hNk W k < !i; g/ 2 Qmax ,
.hMk W k < !i; f / 2 .H.!1 //N0
and that .hNk W k < !i; g/ satises the conditions (1)(6) of Theorem 6.113 with
A D ;.
By Lemma 6.111, there exists in N0 an iteration
such that in N0
on a club in
!1N0
j.f / D g
and such that if b !1N0 is a set in N0 satisfying
b \ 2 M0
for all < !1N0 then b 2 M0 .

Suppose b !1N0 ,
and that
b 2 [Nk j k < !;
b \ 2 M0
for all < !1N0 .

Then by condition (6), b 2 N0 and so b 2 M0 .
Thus
.hMk W k < !i; f / < .hNk W k < !i; j.f //
in KT Qmax .
The basic analysis of KT Qmax is easily carried out. This yields the following theorem.
Suppose G KT Qmax is L.R/-generic. Let
fG D [f j .hMk W k < !i; f / 2 G for some hMk W k < !i:
For each condition .hMk W k < !i; f / 2 G there is a unique iteration
j W hMk W k < !i ! hMk W k < !i:
such that j.f / D fG . This is the unique iteration such that j.f / D fG .
Let

IG D [.INS /M1 j .hMk W k < !i; f / 2 G
and let
P .!1 /G D [P .!1 /M j h.M; I /; f i 2 G:
Theorem 6.114. Assume ADL.R/ . Then KT Qmax is !-closed and homogeneous. Suppose G KT Qmax is L.R/-generic. Then
L.R/G ZFC
and in L.R/G:
395
(1) P .!1 /G D P .!1 /;

(4) fG witnesses ++ .!1<! /;
(5) for every A !1 there exists B !1 such that A 2 LB and such that for all
S !1 if
S \ 2 LB
t
u
This sufces for the consistency result. With just a little more work one can easily prove the following lemmas which are the relevant versions of Lemma 6.77 and
Lemma 6.79. This in turn leads to absoluteness theorems for the KT Qmax -extension of
L.R/.
G KT Qmax
t
u
The proof of Lemma 6.116 follows that of Theorem 6.78 using Lemma 6.115 in
place of Lemma 6.77.
Lemma 6.116. Assume AD holds in L.R/. Suppose G
Then in L.R/G the following holds.
Suppose > !2 ,
L .R/G ZFC ;
KT
Qmax is L.R/-generic.
and that
L .R/ 1 L.R/:
Suppose
X L .R/G
of Y and let
IX D .INS /MX :
Then for each A R such that A 2 X \ L.R/, .MX ; IX / is A-iterable.
t
u
Putting everything together we obtain Theorem 6.117 which is a strengthening of

Theorem 6.80. The additional property (7) comes from Theorem 6.114(5).
396
6 Pmax variations
there is a condition h.M; I /; f i 2 Qmax such that the following hold.
(1) M ZFC .
(2) I D .INS /M .
(3) A \ M 2 M.
(4) hH.!1 /M ; A \ M; 2i hH.!1 /; A; 2i.
(6) f witnesses ++ .!1<! / in M.
(7) For each a !1M with a 2 M there exists b !1M such that
a) b 2 M and a 2 Lb,
b) for all d 2 M, if d !1M and if d \ 2 Lb for all < !1M then
d 2 Lb.
t
u
Theorem 6.117 provides the conditions in Qmax which are sufcient to carry
out the proof of Theorem 6.108. The key point is that the principle specied in
Theorem 6.117(7) successfully substitutes for in the proofs of Lemma 6.106,
Lemma 6.107, and in proving the generalizations which arise in the proof of Theorem 6.108. We illustrate this claim by proving Lemma 6.106 and for this we recall the
principle, + :
There is a sequence
ha W < !1 i
of countable transitive sets with the following property.

For all A !1 there exists a set C !1 , closed and unbounded in !1 , such
that for all 2 C if is a limit point of C then
.A \ ; C \ / 2 a :
Lemma 6.118 (ZFC + + .!1<! /). Suppose that for every A !1 there exists
B !1 such that A 2 LB and such that for all S !1 if
S \ 2 LB
for all < !1 then S 2 LB. Suppose
F W !1 ! H.!1 /
is a function which witnesses .!1<! /. Then for any h.M; I /; f i 2 Qmax there is an
iteration
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
+
397

b 2 M :
Proof. As in the proof of Lemma 6.106 we use the following notation.
For each a 2 H.!1 / let
M.a/ D L .b [ a/
where b is the transitive closure of a and is the least ordinal such that L .b/ is
admissible.
Let B !1 be such that
(1.1) .F; M/ 2 LB,
(1.2) for all S !1 if
S \ 2 LB

Since F 2 LB, !1LB D !1 and so + holds in LB.
Let ha W < !1 i 2 LB be a sequence which witnesses + in LB.
Let
h.M ; I /; G ; j; W < !1 i 2 LB
be an iteration of .M; I / of length !1 such that for all < !1 ,
M
(2.1) G is M.M ; ha W < i/-generic for Coll.!; !1 /,

M
(2.2) if F ./ is M.M ; ha W < i/-generic for Coll.!; !1 / and if

then G D F ./.
j0; .!1M0 / D
This iteration is easily constructed in LB.

A key property of the iteration is the following one. Suppose < !1 and that
t 2 a .
Then t 2 M C1 or
t M!1 :
This follows the genericity requirement of (2.1).
Since F witnesses + .!1<! / in V it follows by (2.2) that in V the set
< !1 j j0;!1 .f /./ D F ./
contains a club in !1 . Therefore in LB, this set is stationary.
From this we obtain that the following holds in LB. Suppose A !1 . Let S be
the set of < !1 such that A \ 2 a and such that F ./ is M.A \ /-generic for
Coll.!; /. Then S is stationary in !1 .
We work in LB.
Suppose b !1 and that b \ 2 M!1 for all < !1 . Let A !1 code
.b; h.M ; I /; G ; j; W < !1 i/:
Thus for a stationary set of < !1 the following hold.
398
6 Pmax variations
(3.1) A \ 2 a .
(3.2) F ./ is M.A \ /-generic for Coll.!; /.
(3.3) j0; .!1M0 / D and
.b \ ; h.M ; I /; G ; j; W < i/ 2 M.A \ /:
By (2.1) and (2.2), for each such , G D F ./ and so b\ 2 M or b\ M C1 .
But if b \ M C1 then
b \ M!1
which is a contradiction. Hence b \ 2 M .
Thus for a stationary set of < !1 ,
b \ 2 M
and so b 2 M!1 .
In summary we have proved that if b !1 , b 2 LB and if
b \ 2 M!1
for all < !1 , then b 2 M!1 .
Now suppose b !1 , b 2 V , and that
b \ 2 M!1
for all < !1 . Then
b \ 2 LB
for all < !1 since M!1 2 LB. Therefore b 2 LB by the key property of B, and
so b 2 M!1 .
Therefore the iteration has the desired properties in V .
t
u
There are absoluteness theorems corresponding to
the details to the reader.
Theorem 6.121 corresponds to Theorem 6.85.
KT
Qmax . We state one, leaving
Denition 6.119. : For all X !1 there is a sequence ha W < !1 i of elements

of H.!1 / such that for all Y !1 if
Y \ 2 L.X; ha W < !1 i/
for all < !1 then
< !1 j Y \ 2 a
t
u
The sentence is a weakening of the principle used in place of in Lemma 6.118.

It is also sufcient to prove the requisite iteration lemmas for KT Qmax . is implied
by + .
The absoluteness theorem for KT Qmax requires the following iteration lemma which
is easily proved using Lemma 6.66 and the proof of Lemma 6.118.
399
Lemma 6.120 ( ). Suppose

F W !1 ! H.!1 /
is a function which witnesses .!1<! /.
Suppose .M; I/ is a countable iterable structure such that
+
(i) M ZFC,
cardinal in M .
Suppose f 2 M , f witnesses + .!1<! / in M and for all p 2 .!1<! /M the set
< !1M j p 2 f ./
is stationary within M .
j W .M; I/ ! .M ; I /
b 2 M :
t
u
Recall that a tree

T 0;1<!1
is an .!1 ; !2 /-tree if T has rank !1 and cardinality !1 .
Suppose T is an .!1 ; !2 /-tree. We let T denote the set of rank conal branches
of T , these are the branches of T of rank !1 .
Theorem 6.121 ( ). Suppose there are ! many Woodin cardinals with a measurable
above them all. Suppose
f W !1 ! H.!1 /
is a function which witnesses + .!1<! / and for all p 2 Coll.!; !1 /,
< !1 j p 2 f ./
is stationary. Let
B D .T; Z/ 2 H.!2 / j T is an .!1 ; !2 /-tree and Z D T
Suppose is a f INS -restricted 2 sentence in the language for the structure
hH.!2 /; f INS ; B; X; 2 W X R; X 2 L.R/i
and that
hH.!2 /; f INS ; B; X; 2 W X R; X 2 L.R/i :
Then
KT Q
hH.!2 /; fG IG ; B; X; 2 W X R; X 2 L.R/iL.R/
max
:
t
u
400
6 Pmax variations
We end this section with a sketch of the proof of Theorem 5.75. For this it is
convenient to make the following denition. A tree
T 0;1<!1
is weakly special if for all countable elementary substructures
X hH.!2 /; T; 2i;
if
b W !1 \ X ! 0;1
a conal branch of TX such that b MX , then there is a bijection
W ! ! !1MX
which is denable in the structure
hMX ; TX ; b; 2i
where hMX ; TX ; 2i is the transitive collapse of X .
We shall require the following lemma which is a reformulation of a theorem of
Baumgartner. Recall that if P is a proper partial order and if
GP
is V -generic then
V
D .INS /V G \ V:
INS
Lemma 6.122 (Baumgartner). Suppose that
T 0;1<!1
is a tree with rank !1 . Then there is a proper partial order P such that if
GP
is V -generic then in V G;
(1) the tree T is weakly special,
(2) suppose that b 2 0;1!1 is a conal branch of T , then b 2 V .
t
u
It follows, by absoluteness and reection, that the set of weakly special trees of
cardinality !1 is 1 denable in the structure
hH.!2 /; 2i
using !1 as a parameter.
This leads to a strengthening of the sentence .
Denition 6.123. C
: For all A !1 there exists B !1 such that
(1) A 2 LB,
(2) the tree TB is weakly special where
TB D 0;1<!1 \ LB;
(3) suppose b 2 0;1!1 is a branch of TB , then b 2 LB.
C
t
u
is provably equivalent to the assertion that a certain 2

By the remarks above,
sentence holds in the structure,
hH.!2 /; 2i:
401
Therefore by the absoluteness theorem, Theorem 4.64, C

(if appropriately consistent)
is a consequence of the axiom ./.
Note that while is consistent with CH, (C implies ); if for all A !1 , A#
exists, then C
implies :CH.
Theorem 5.75 is an immediate corollary of the following theorem.
Theorem 6.124. Assume the axiom ./. Then C
holds.
Proof. By Theorem 4.60, it sufces to prove the following. Suppose
h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i 2 Pmax :
Then there exist
h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i 2 Pmax
and b1 2 .P .!1 //M1 such that
(1.1) h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i < h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i,
(1.2) a1 2 Lb1 ,
(1.3) Tb1 is weakly special in M1 where
Tb1 D .0;1<!1 \ Lb1 /M1 :
Fix h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i and x x0 2 R such that x0 codes M0 .
We work in L.R/.
By Theorem 6.117, there exists a condition h.M; I /; f i 2 Qmax such that the
following hold.
(2.1) M ZFC .
(2.2) x0 2 M.
(2.3) For each a !1M with a 2 M there exists b !1M such that
a) b 2 M and a 2 Lb,
b) for all d 2 M, if d !1M and if
d \ 2 Lb
for all <
Let
!1M
then d 2 Lb.
j0 W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
be an iteration such that j0 2 M and such that

I0 D I \ M0 :
Let x 2 R code M.
By Theorem 5.34 there exist a transitive inner model N containing the ordinals and
< !1 such that
6 Pmax variations
402
(3.1) N ZFC,
(3.2) x 2 N ,
(3.3) is a Woodin cardinal in N .
Let g0 be N -generic for the partial order
.Coll.!1 ; R//N
and let g1 be N g0 -generic for Coll.!; <!1N /.
Thus
N g0
and
N g0 g1 C ++ .!1<! /:
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
in N such that:
(4.1) I D .INS /N \ M ;
(4.2) if b 2 P .!1 /N is a set such that b \ 2 M for all < !1 , then
b 2 M :
Thus
j.j0 / W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
is an iteration in N such that

I0 D .INS /N \ M0 :
Further there exists b1 2 N such that
(5.1) b1 !1N ,
(5.2) j.j0 /.a0 / 2 Lb1 ,
(5.3) if b 2 P .!1 /N is a set such that b \ 2 Lb1 for all < !1N , then
b 2 Lb1 :
Let
T D 0;1<!1 \ Lb1 :
By Lemma 6.122 there exists a partial order P 2 N g0 g1 such that if g P is
N g0 g1 -generic then
(6.1) .INS /N g0 g1 D N g0 g1 \ .INS /N g0 g1 g ,
(6.2) T is weakly special in N g0 g1 g,
403
(6.3) if s 2 0;1!1 \ N g0 g1 g is a branch of T then s 2 N g0 g1 .

Let g2 P be N g0 g1 -generic and let
g3 .Coll.!1 ; <//N g0 g1 g2
be N g0 g1 g2 -generic.
Let
I1 D .INS /N g0 g1 g2 g3
and let
M1 D V \ N g0 g1 g2 g3
where < !1 is the least strongly inaccessible cardinal in N above .
is a Woodin cardinal in N and so it follows that is a Woodin cardinal in
N g0 g1 g2 . Thus by Theorem 2.61, I1 is presaturated in N g0 g1 g2 g3 . Since
N contains the ordinals it follows by Theorem 3.10 that .M1 ; I1 / is iterable. Thus
h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i 2 Pmax
and h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i < h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i.
t
u
6.2.6 Null sets and the nonstationary ideal

One can dene variations of Qmax which yield generic extensions of L.R/ in which the
nonstationary ideal is !1 -dense and in which some of the consequences of CH hold.
These include many of the consequences which persist after adding !2 Sacks reals to
a model of CH. For example one can arrange that there is a selective ultralter on !
which is generated by !1 many sets.
We dene as our next variation of Qmax a partial order M Qmax . Our goal here is
to obtain a model in which the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !1 -dense and in which
there is a set X R of cardinality !1 such that X is not of measure 0. By Theorem 6.81, assuming ADL.R/ , in L.R/Qmax every set of reals which has cardinality !1
is of measure 0.
Actually in the model we obtain something much stronger is true. There exists a
sequence hB W < !1 i of borel subsets of 0;1 such that
(1) for all < !1 , .B / D 1,
(2) if B 0;1 and .B/ D 1 then there exists < !1 such that B B.
This implies that the partial order of the borel sets of positive measure is !1 -dense
and this is easily seen to hold after adding !2 Sacks reals to a model of CH.
We shall also state as Theorem 6.139, an absoluteness theorem for the M Qmax extension which is analogous to the absoluteness theorem, Theorem 6.84, we proved
for the Qmax -extension.
It is convenient to work with a fragment of ZFC which is stronger then ZFC . Let
ZFC denote
ZFC C Powerset C 1 -Replacement:
404
6 Pmax variations
We x some notation. We let A denote the following partial order. This is Amoebaforcing scaled by 1=2. Conditions are perfect sets X 0;1 such that .X / > 1=2
and such that .X \ O/ > 0 for all open sets O 0;1 with X \ O ;. The latter
condition serves to make A separative. The order on A is by set inclusion. Suppose
G A is V -generic and in V G let
X D \P
V G
j P 2 G
V G
where P
denotes the closure of P computed in V G. This is P as computed in
V G. Then X has measure 1=2 and every member of X is random over V .
Suppose I is a uniform, countably complete, ideal on !1 and
F W !1 ! P .0;1/:
Let YA .F; I / be the set of all pairs .S; P / such that the following hold.
(1) S !1 and S I .
(2) P 0;1 and P 2 A.
(3) Suppose hPk W k < !i is a maximal antichain in A below P . Then
2 S j F ./ 6 Pk for all k < ! 2 I:
(4) If Q P is a perfect set of measure > 1=2 then
2 S j F ./ Q I:
(5) For all 2 S , .F .// D 1=2.
Suppose I is a uniform normal ideal on !1 and that F is a function such that
YA .F; I / is nonempty. Suppose .S1 ; P1 / 2 YA .F; I /, .S2 ; P2 / 2 YA .F; I / and that
S1 S2 . Then P1 P2 . Therefore if
G P .!1 / n I
is a lter in .P .!1 / n I; / then
HG D P 2 A j .S; P / 2 YA .F; I / for some S 2 G
generates a lter in A.
Lemma 6.125 (ZFC ). Suppose I is a uniform normal ideal on !1 and
F W !1 ! P .0;1/
is a function such that YA .F; I / is nonempty. Suppose .S1 ; P1 / 2 YA .F; I /.
(1) Suppose P2 is a perfect subset of P1 and P2 2 A. Let
S2 D 2 S1 j F ./ P2 :
Then .S2 ; P2 / 2 YA .F; I /.
405
(2) Suppose S2 S1 and S2 I . Then there exists .S3 ; P3 / 2 YA .F; I / such that
S3 S 2 .
Proof. We rst prove (1). To show that .S2 ; P2 / 2 YA .F; I / we have only to prove
that condition (3) in the denition of YA .F; I / holds for .S2 ; P2 /. The other clauses
are an immediate consequence of the fact that .S1 ; P1 / 2 YA .F; I /.
We may assume that .P2 / < .P1 / for otherwise there is nothing to prove. Let
hXi W i < !i be a maximal antichain in A below P2 . Let hZi W i < !i be a maximal
antichain in A of conditions below P1 which are incompatible with P2 . The key point
is that we may assume that for each i < !, .Zi \ P2 / < 1=2; if .Z \ P2 / D 1=2
then there exists a condition W 2 A such that
(1.1) W < Z,
(1.2) .W \ P2 / < 1=2.
Clearly
Xi j i < ! [ Zi j i < !
is a maximal antichain below P1 . Since .S1 ; P1 / 2 YA .F; I /, for I -almost all 2 S1 ,
there exists i < ! such that either F ./ Xi or F ./ Zi . For every 2 S2 and
for all i < !, .F .// D 1=2, F ./ P2 and .P2 \ Zi / < 1=2. Therefore for
I -almost all 2 S2 , F ./ Xi for some i < !. Therefore condition (3) holds for
.S2 ; P2 / and so
.S2 ; P2 / 2 YA .F; I /:
This proves (1).
We prove (2). Suppose G P .!1 / n I is V -generic for .P .S1 / n I; /. Let
j W V ! .M; E/
be the associated generic elementary embedding. Since the ideal I is normal it follows
that !1 belongs to the wellfounded part of .M; E/. Since .S1 ; P1 / 2 YA .F; I / it
follows that HG is V -generic for A where
HG D Q 2 A j j.F /.!1 / Q:
By part (1) of the lemma this induces a complete boolean embedding
W RO.AjP1 / ! RO..P .S1 / n I; //
where AjP1 denotes the suborder of A obtained by restricting to the conditions below
P1 . Let
b D ^c 2 RO.AjP1 / j S2 .c/
and let hXi W i < !i be a maximal antichain below b of conditions in A. For each
i < ! let
Ti D 2 S2 j F ./ Xi :
For each i < !, if Ti I then .Ti ; Xi / 2 YA .F; I /. Therefore it sufces to show that
for some i < !, Ti I .
Note that if Q 2 AjP1 and T S are such that T .Q/ then
2 T j F ./ 6 Q 2 I:
t
u
This follows from the denition of HG . Hence Ti I for all i < !.
6 Pmax variations
406
Lemma 6.126 (ZFC ). The following are equivalent.

(1) There is a sequence hP W < !1 i of perfect subsets of 0;1 each of positive
measure such that if B 0;1 is a set of measure 1 then P B for some
< !1 .
measure such that if P 0;1 is a perfect set of positive measure then P P
for some < !1 .
measure such that if P 0;1 is a perfect set of positive measure then for each
> 0 there exists < !1 such that P P and .P n P / < .
(4) There is a sequence hB W < !1 i of borel subsets of 0;1 such that each B is
of measure 1 and such that if B 0;1 is of measure 1 then B B for some
< !1 .
Proof. These are elementary equivalences. We x some notation. For each closed
interval J 0;1 with distinct endpoints let
J W J ! 0;1
be the afne, order preserving, map which sends J onto 0;1.
Suppose X .0; 1/. Let XJ D J1 X . Thus XJ is the subset of J given by
scaling X to J . Let
X D \J X \ J j J 0;1 is a closed interval with rational endpoints
and let
X D [XJ j J 0;1 is a closed interval with rational endpoints:
It follows that if .X / D 1 then .X / D 1 and if .X / > 0 then
.X / D 1:
The fact that X is of measure one is a consequence of the Lebesgue density theorem
applied to 0;1 n X .
We note that if P and B are borel subsets of 0;1 such that P B then P B.
Let hP W < !1 i witness (1). For each < !1 let B D P . Therefore for
each < !1 , .B / D 1. Suppose B 0;1 and .B/ D 1. Therefore there exists
< !1 such that
P B
and so B B since B D P .
This proves that (1) implies (4). Trivially, (4) implies (1).
We next show that (1) implies (2). Fix hP W < !1 i. We may assume that for
each < !1 and for each open set O .0; 1/, if O \ P ; then
.P \ O/ > 0:
407
Let Q 0;1 be a perfect (nowhere dense) set of positive measure. Since Q has
positive measure, Q is of measure 1.
Fix < !1 such that P Q . Q is an F and so there exist closed (proper)
intervals
I J 0;1
with rational endpoints such that P \ I ; and such that
P \ I D QJ \ P \ I D Q \ P \ I:
This implies that
J .P \ I / D Q \ J .P \ I /
and so
J .P \ J / \ J .I / Q
and .J .P \ J / \ J .I // > 0. There are only !1 many sets of the form
J .P \ J / \ J .I /
where I J 0;1 are closed subintervals with rational endpoints, < !1 and
I \ P ;. . Therefore these sets collectively witness (2).
Finally we show that (2) implies (3). Let hP W < !1 i be a sequence of perfect
subsets of 0;1 each of positive measure such that the sequence witnesses (2).
Suppose Q 0;1 is a perfect set of positive measure. For each < !1 let
X D [P j < and P Q:
We claim that for all sufciently large , .Q n X / D 0. This is immediate. Suppose
< !1 and .Q n X / > 0. Then there exists < !1 such that
P Q n X
and so .X / < .X / for some < !1 . The claim follows.
Let
hQ W < !1 i
enumerate the perfect subsets of 0;1 which can be expressed as a nite union of the
P s. Thus hQ W < !1 i witnesses (3).
t
u
Lemma 6.127 (ZFC ). Assume + .!1<! /. The following are equivalent.
(1) There is a function
F W !1 ! P .0;1/
such that YA .F; I / ; for some normal uniform ideal I .
(2) For any normal uniform ideal I on !1 there is a function
F W !1 ! P .0;1/
such that .!1 ; 0;1/ 2 YA .F; I /.
(3) There is a sequence hB W < !1 i of borel subsets of 0;1 such that each B is
of measure 1 and such that if B 0;1 is of measure 1 then B B for some
< !1 .
6 Pmax variations
408
Proof. We rst prove that (1) implies (3). Fix F and I . It follows immediately from
the denition of YA .F; I / that if B 0;1 is a set of measure 1 then F ./ B for
some < !1 . The point is that the set
Q 2 A j Q B
is dense in A. Therefore by Lemma 6.126, (3) holds.
We nish by proving that (3) implies (2). Let I be a normal ideal on !1 . Let
f W !1 ! H.!1 /
be a function which witnesses + .!1<! /. By modifying the function f if necessary we
may assume that for all p 2 Coll.!; !1 /, the set
2 !1 j p 2 f ./
is I -positive.
By Lemma 6.126, there is a dense set in A of cardinality !1 and so there is a
complete boolean embedding
W RO.A/ ! RO.Coll .!; !1 //:
Dene a function F W !1 ! P .0;1/ by
F ./ D \Q 2 A j .Q/ > p for some p 2 f ./:
Thus on a club in !1 , F ./ is a perfect set of measure 1=2. It is straightforward to
u
t
verify that .!1 ; 0;1/ 2 YA .F; I /.
Denition 6.128. M Qmax consists of nite sequences h.M; I /; f; F; Y i such that:
(1) h.M; I /; f i 2 Qmax ;
(2) M ZFC ;
(3) f witnesses ++ .!1<! / in M;
(4) F 2 M and
F W !1M ! P .0;1/I
(5) Y 2 M is the set YA .F; I / as computed in M, and .!1M ; 0;1M / 2 Y .

The order on M Qmax is given as follows. Suppose that
h.M1 ; I1 /; f1 ; F1 ; Y1 i; h.M2 ; I2 /; f2 ; F2 ; Y2 i M Qmax :
Then
h.M2 ; I2 /; f2 ; F2 ; Y2 i < h.M1 ; I1 /; f1 ; F1 ; Y1 i
if h.M2 ; I2 /; f2 i < h.M1 ; I1 /; f1 i in Qmax and if
j W .M1 ; I1 / ! .M1 ; I1 /
409
is the corresponding iteration,

(1) j.F1 / D F2 ,
(2) j.Y1 / D Y2 \ M1 .
t
u
We prove the basic iteration lemmas for M Qmax . There are two iteration lemmas,
one for models and one for sequences of models. The latter is necessary to show that
M
Qmax is !-closed. As usual its proof is an intrinsic part of the analysis of M Qmax .
We need a preliminary lemma.
Lemma 6.129 (ZFC ). Suppose h.M; I /; f; F; Y i 2 M Qmax and Q 0;1 is a perfect set with measure greater than 1=2.
Suppose .S; P / 2 Y and
.Q \ P / > 1=2:
Suppose that A 2 M,
A .P .!1 / n I /M ;
and A is open, dense in .P .!1 / n I; /M below S .

Then there exists
.S ; P / 2 Y
such that
.Q \ P / > 1=2
and such that S 2 A.
Proof. Fix .S; P / 2 Y and x Q 0;1 such that
.Q \ P / > 1=2:
The key point is that by Lemma 6.125, the set
D D P j .S ; P / 2 Y for some S 2 A
is open dense in AM below P .
Let hPi W i < !i 2 M be maximal antichain of conditions below P such that
Pi 2 D for all i < !. M is wellfounded and so by absoluteness hPi W i < !i is a
maximal antichain in A below P . Therefore for some i < !,
.Q \ Pi / > 1=2
t
u
and the lemma follows.
With this lemma the main iterations lemmas are easily proved. As usual it is really
the proofs of these iteration lemmas which are the key to the analysis of M Qmax .
Lemma 6.130 (ZFC C + .!1<! /). Assume there exists a sequence,
hB W < !1 i;
of borel subsets of 0;1 such that each B is of measure 1 and such that if B 0;1
is of measure 1 then B B for some < !1 .
410
6 Pmax variations
Suppose
g W !1 ! H.!1 /
is a function which witnesses + .!1<! / and that J is a uniform normal ideal on !1
such that for all p 2 Coll.!; !1 /,
j p 2 g./ J:
Suppose h.M; I /; f; F; Y i 2 M Qmax . Then there is an iteration
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
such that
(1) j j.f /./ D g./ contains a club in !1 ,
(2) j.Y / D YA .j.F /; J / \ M .
Proof. By Lemma 6.126, A has a dense set of size !1 . Let hP W < !1 i be a
sequence of conditions in A which is dense.
Let
h.M ; I /; G ; j; W < !1 i
be an iteration of .M; I / such that the following hold.
(1.1) For all < !1 if D !1M and if g./ is M -generic for Coll.!; / then G
is the corresponding generic lter.
(1.2) For all < !1 ,
MC1
jC1;C2 .FC1 /.!1
/ P
where for each < !1 , F D j0; .F /.

The iteration is easily constructed by induction on . Lemma 6.129 guarantees that
(1.2) can be satised at every stage. The use of Lemma 6.129 is as follows. Fix < !1
and suppose
h.M ; I /; G ; j; W < C 1i
is given. Let fC1 ; FC1 , and YC1 be the images of f; F , and Y under j0;C1 . Thus
h.MC1 ; IC1 /; fC1 ; FC1 ; YC1 i 2 M Qmax :
Suppose .S; P / 2 YC1 and .P \ P / > 1=2. Suppose A 2 MC1 and A is open
dense in the partial order
.P .!1 / n IC1 ; /M C1 :
By Lemma 6.129, there exists .S ; P / 2 YC1 such that S S , S 2 A and
.P \ P / > 1=2:
The model MC1 is countable and so there exists GC1 P .!1 / n IC1 such that
GC1 is MC1 -generic for .P .!1 / n IC1 ; /M C1 and such that for all
.S; P / 2 YC1
411
if S 2 GC1 then .P \ P / > 1=2. The lter GC1 is MC1 -generic and so
G D P 2 AM C1 j .S; P / 2 YC1 for some S 2 GC1
is a lter in AM C1 which is MC1 -generic. (Clearly G generates a generic lter
which is all we require. By Lemma 6.125, G literally is the lter it generates since
.!1 ; 0;1/M C1 2 YC1 .)
However for each P 2 G,
.P \ P / > 1=2:
It follows that
\P j P 2 G P :
This is an elementary property of the generic for Amoeba forcing. Let
XG D \P j P 2 G:
Then .XG / D 1=2 and .X \P / D 1=2. But if O 0;1 is open and O \XG ;
then .XG \ O/ 0. Therefore
XG D XG \ P :
Finally
M C1
/ XG
M C1
/ P :
jC1;C2 .FC1 /.!1

and so
jC1;C2 .FC1 /.!1
This veries that condition (1.2) can be met at every relevant stage. We consider
the effect of condition (1.1). Since g witnesses + .!1<! /, the set of < !1 such that
D !1M and g./ is M -generic for Coll.!; / contains a club in !1 . Therefore
< !1 j j0;!1 .f /./ D g./
contains a club in !1 . The situation here is similar to that in the proof of Lemma 6.23.
We nish by proving that
j0;!1 .Y / D YA .j0;!1 .F /; J / \ M!1 :
This is straightforward. We rst show that
YA .j0;!1 .F /; J / \ M!1 j0;!1 .Y /:
This is immediate by absoluteness and the fact that
J \ M!1 D I!1 :
Therefore we have only to show that
j0;!1 .Y / YA .j0;!1 .F /; J / \ M!1 :
Suppose .S; P / 2 j0;!1 .Y /. We must show that
.S; P / 2 YA .j0;!1 .F /; J /:
For this it sufces to show the following.
412
6 Pmax variations
(2.1) Suppose hQk W k < !i is a maximal antichain in A below P . Then

2 S j j0;!1 .F /./ 6 Qk for all k < ! 2 J:
(2.2) If Q P is a perfect set of measure > 1=2 then
2 S j j0;!1 .F /./ Q J:
The other requirements .S; P / must satisfy follow by absoluteness.
We rst prove (2.1). The key point is that there exists a club C0 !1 such that for
all 2 C0 ,
D D P 2 AM j P Qk for some k < !
is dense in AM . The existence of C0 follows from clause (1.2) in the construction of
the iteration.
Let
X H.!2 /
h.M ; I /; G ; j; W < !1 i
and such that D 2 X where
D D P 2 AM!1 j P Qk for some k < !:
Let D X \ !1 and let MX be the transitive collapse of X . g witnesses + .!1<! /
and so g./ is MX -generic for Coll.!; /.
We note that .M ; D / is the image of .M!1 ; D/ under the collapsing map. Thus
D !1M and .M ; D / 2 MX .
By clause (1.1) in the denition of the iteration, G is the generic lter given by
g./. Therefore
j0;C1 .F /./ Qk
for some k < ! and so
j0;!1 .F /./ Qk
for some k < !. (2.1) follows.
(2.2) follows by absoluteness. There are two relevant points. First,
J \ M!1 D I!1
and second,
P j < !1
is dense in A. The latter implies that for each Q 2 A there exists P 2 AM!1 such that
t
u
P Q.
413
Lemma 6.131 (ZFC C + .!1<! /). Assume there exists a sequence,

hB W < !1 i;
of borel subsets of 0;1 such that each B is of measure 1 and such that if B 0;1
is of measure 1 then B B for some < !1 . Suppose
g W !1 ! H.!1 /
is a function which witnesses + .!1<! / and that J is a uniform normal ideal on !1
such that for all p 2 Coll.!; !1 /,
j p 2 g./ J:
Suppose hpk W k < !i is a sequence of conditions in M Qmax such that for each k < !,
pk D h.Mk ; Ik /; fk ; Fk ; Yk i;
and for all k < !,
(i) pk 2 MkC1 ,
Mk
(iii) !1
MkC1
D !1
(iv) Fk D F0 and fk D f0 ,
(vi) Yk D YkC1 \ Mk ,
(vii) if C 2 Mk is closed and unbounded in !1M0 then there exists D 2 MkC1 such
D 2 Lx
such that
(1) j j.f0 /./ D g./ contains a club in !1 ,
(2) YA .j.F0 /; J / \ Mk D j.Yk /.
is iterable.
Given this the proof of the lemma is essentially identical to the proof of
Lemma 6.130.
Let hP W < !1 i be a sequence of conditions in A which is dense.
Let
hh.Mk ; Ik / W k < !i; G ; j; W < !1 i
be an iteration of h.Mk ; Ik / W k < !i such that the following hold.
414
6 Pmax variations
M
(1.1) For all < !1 if D !1 0 and if g./ is [Mk j k < !-generic for
Coll.!; / then G is the corresponding generic lter.
(1.2) For all < !1 ,
M0C1
jC1;C2 .F0C1 /.!1
/ P :
where for each < !1 , F0 D j0; .F0 /.

This is the iteration analogous to that specied in the proof of Lemma 6.131. Given
this iteration the remainder of the proof is the same.
In constructing this iteration the only point to check here is that Lemma 6.129 can
still be applied. It sufces to show the following. Suppose
j0; W h.Mk0 ; Ik0 / W k < !i ! h.Mk ; Ik / W k < !i
is a countable iteration of
h.Mk ; Ik / W k < !i D h.Mk0 ; Ik0 / W k < !i
and suppose Q 2 A. Then there exists an iteration
j; C1 W h.Mk ; Ik / W k < !i ! h.Mk C1 ; Ik C1 / W k < !i
of length 1 such that
M0
j; C1 .F /.!1
/Q
where F D j0; .F0 /.

We verify this in the special case that D 0; i. e. given Q 2 A we construct an
iteration
of length 1 such that j.F0 /.!1M0 / Q. The general case is identical.
Fix Q and construct by induction on k a sequence
h.Sk ; Pk / W k < !i
such that for all k 2 !,
(2.1) .Q \ Pk / > 1=2,
(2.2) .Sk ; Pk / 2 Yk ,
(2.3) SkC1 Sk ,
(2.4) The set
S 2 .P .!1 //Mk j Si S for some i 2 !
is Mk -generic for .P .!1 / n Ik ; /Mk .
415
Lemma 6.129 is used in the construction as follows. Suppose .Sk ; Pk / 2 Yk and

A 2 MkC1 is a dense open set in
.P .!1 / n IkC1 ; /MkC1 :
Suppose .Q \ Pk / > 1=2. YkC1 \ Mk D Yk and so .Sk ; Pk / 2 YkC1 . Therefore by Lemma 6.129 applied to MkC1 , there exists .SkC1 ; PkC1 / 2 YkC1 such that
.Q \ PkC1 / > 1=2, SkC1 Sk and such that SkC1 2 A. For each k 2 !,
h.Mk ; Ik /; fk i 2 Qmax
and fk D fkC1 . This is a key point for it implies that if A 2 Mk is a dense open set in
.P .!1 / n Ik ; /Mk ;
then A is predense in
.P .!1 / n IkC1 ; /MkC1 :
Therefore the genericity conditions (2.4) are easily met and so the sequence
h.Sk ; Pk / W k < !i
exists. For each k 2 ! let
Gk D S 2 .P .!1 //Mk j Si S for some i 2 !
and let
Hk D P 2 AMk j .S; P / 2 Yk for some S 2 Gk :
Thus for each k 2 !,
Hk D P 2 AMk j P \ MkC1 2 HkC1

and for all P 2 Hk , .Q \ P / > 1=2. For each k < !, Gk is Mk -generic and so for
each k < !, Hk is Mk -generic for AMk .
Let
be the iteration given by [Gk j k < ! and let

X D \P j P 2 H0 D \P j P 2 [Hk jk 2 !:
Therefore
j.F0 / X Q
and so the iteration is as desired.
We make the usual associations. Suppose G M Qmax is L.R/-generic. Then
(1) fG D [f j h.M; I /; f; F; Y i 2 G,
(2) FG D [F j h.M; I /; f; F; Y i 2 G,
(3) IG D [j .I / j h.M; I /; f; F; Y i 2 G,
(4) YG D [j .Y / j h.M; I /; f; F; Y i 2 G,
(5) P .!1 /G D [M \ P .!1 / j h.M; I /; f; F; Y i 2 G,
where for each h.M; I /; f; F; Y i 2 G,
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
t
u
416
6 Pmax variations
The basic analysis of M Qmax follows from these lemmas in a by now familiar fashion. The results of this we give in the following theorem. The analysis requires that
M
Qmax is suitably nontrivial. More precisely one needs that for each set A R with
A 2 L.R/ there exists
h.M; I /; f; F; Y i 2 M Qmax
such that
hH.!1 /M ; A \ H.!1 /M ; 2i hH.!1 /; A; 2i
and such that .M; I / is A-iterable.
By Lemma 6.47 and Lemma 6.127, this follows from the existence of a huge cardinal.
Theorem 6.132. Assume that for each set A R with A 2 L.R/ there exists
such that
(i) hH.!1 /M ; A \ H.!1 /M ; 2i hH.!1 /; A; 2i,
(ii) .M; I / is A-iterable.
Then M Qmax is !-closed and homogeneous. Suppose
G M Qmax
L.R/G !1 -DC
and in L.R/G:
(1) P .!1 /G D P .!1 /;
(4) YG D YA .FG ; INS /;
(5) fG witnesses ++ .!1<! /;
(6) suppose B !1 is a set of measure 1. Then
j FG ./ B
contains a club in !1 ;
(7) the sentence AC holds.
417
Proof. The proof that M Qmax is !-closed follows closely the proof that Qmax is !closed.
Suppose hpk W k < !i is a strictly decreasing sequence of conditions in M Qmax and
that for each k < !,
pk D h.Mk ; Ik /; fk ; Fk ; Yk i:
Let
f D [fk j k < !1
and let
F D [Fk j k < !1 :
For each k < ! let
and let
jk W .Mk ; Ik / ! .Mk ; Ik /

pk D h.Mk ; Ik /; f; jk .Fk /; jk .Yk /i
where jk is the iteration such that j.fk / D f .

By boundedness it follows that hpk W k < !i is a sequence of conditions in M Qmax
which satises the conditions (i)(vi) of Lemma 6.131.
By the nontriviality of M Qmax there exists a condition
h.N ; J /; g; G; Y i 2 M Qmax
such that
hpk W k < !i 2 .H.!1 //M :

such that j 2 N and such that in N ,
(1.1) j j.f /./ D g./ contains a club in !1 ,
(1.2) for all k < !,
YA .j.F /; J / \ Mk D j.Yk /:
Thus h.N ; J /; j.f /; j.F /; Zi 2 M Qmax and for all k < !,

h.N ; J /; j.f /; j.F /; Zi < pk
where
Z D .YA .j.F /; J //N :
In a similar fashion the other claims are proved by just adapting the proofs of the
corresponding claims for Qmax .
Because of the requirement (2) in the denition of M Qmax , (5) is immediate
from (1).
(4) is an immediate consequence of (1) and the denition of the order on M Qmax .
(6) follows from (4) by the denition of YA .FG ; INS /.
t
u
418
6 Pmax variations
There is a version of M Qmax analogous to Qmax for which the analysis can be carried
out just assuming ADL.R/ . This version is a little tedious to dene and we leave the
details to the reader. The net effect of this is the following theorem that M Qmax is
suitably nontrivial just assuming ADL.R/ . This is analogous to Theorem 6.80.
Theorem 6.133. Assume ADL.R/ . Then for each set A R with A 2 L.R/ there
exists
such that
(1) hH.!1 /M ; A \ H.!1 /M ; 2i hH.!1 /; A; 2i,
t
u

Combining the two previous theorems we obtain the following theorem.
Theorem 6.134. Assume ADL.R/ . Suppose
G M Qmax
L.R/G ZFC
and in L.R/G:
(1) the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !1 -dense;
(2) ++ .!1<! / holds;
(3) there is a sequence hB W < !1 i of borel subsets of 0;1 such that each B
is of measure 1 and such that if B 0;1 is set of measure 1 then B B for
t
u
some < !1 .
There are absoluteness theorems for M Qmax analogous to the absoluteness theorems
for Qmax . These require the following preliminary lemmas. With these lemmas in hand
the proof of the absoluteness theorem, Theorem 6.139, is an easy variation of the proof
of the corresponding theorem for Qmax , Theorem 6.85. We leave the details as an
exercise.
We generalize the denition of YA .F; INS / to the setting of the stationary tower.
Suppose that is strongly inaccessible and that
F W !1 ! P .0;1/:
Let YA .F; / be the set of all pairs .S; P / such that the following hold.
(1) S 2 Q< and !1 [S .
(2) P 0;1 and P 2 A.
419
(3) Suppose hPk W k < !i is a maximal antichain in A below P . Then

a 2 S j F .a \ !1 / 6 Pk for all k < !
is not stationary in S .
(4) If Q P is a perfect set of measure > 1=2 then
a 2 S j F .a \ !1 / Q
is stationary in S .
(5) For all a 2 S , .Q/ D 1=2 where Q D F .a \ !1 /.
The relationship between YA .F; INS / and YA .F; / is summarized in the following
lemma which is an immediate consequence of the denitions.
Lemma 6.135. Suppose that is strongly inaccessible and that
F W !1 ! P .0;1/:
Then
YA .F; INS / D .S; P / j .S; P / 2 YA .F; / and S !1 :
t
u
The next two lemmas, Lemma 6.136 and Lemma 6.137, are used to prove the
iteration lemma, Lemma 6.138, just as Lemma 6.125 and Lemma 6.129 are used to
prove the basic iteration lemmas for M Qmax , Lemma 6.130.
Lemma 6.136. Suppose is strongly inaccessible
F W !1 ! P .0;1/
is a function such that YA .F; / is nonempty. Suppose .S1 ; P1 / 2 YA .F; /.
(1) Suppose P2 is a perfect subset of P1 and P2 2 A. Let
S2 D a 2 S1 j F .a \ !1 / P2 :
Then .S2 ; P2 / 2 YA .F; /.
(2) Suppose that S2 S1 in Q< . Then there exists .S3 ; P3 / 2 YA .F; / such that
S3 S 2 .
Proof. This is the analog of Lemma 6.125. The proof is similar. For (2) one uses the
generic ultrapower associated to Q< in place of the generic ultrapower associated to
t
u
P .!1 /=I .
Lemma 6.137. Suppose .M; I/ is a countable iterable structure such that
(i) M ZFC,
cardinal in M .
420
6 Pmax variations
Suppose f 2 M is a function such that

.YA .f; //M ;
and let Y D .YA .f; //M . Suppose .S; P / 2 Y and
.Q \ P / > 1=2:
Suppose that A 2 M ,
A .Q< /M ;
and A is open, dense in .Q< /M below S . Then there exists

.S ; P / 2 Y
such that
.Q \ P / > 1=2
and such that S 2 A.
Proof. Fix .S; P / 2 Y and x Q 0;1 such that
.Q \ P / > 1=2:
By Lemma 6.136, the set
D D P j .S ; P / 2 Y for some S 2 A
is open dense in AM below P .
Let hPi W i < !i 2 M be maximal antichain of conditions below P such that
Pi 2 D for all i < !. M is wellfounded and so by absoluteness hPi W i < !i is a
maximal antichain in A below P . Therefore for some i < !,
.Q \ Pi / > 1=2:
Since Pi 2 D, there exists S 2 A such that

.S ; Pi / 2 Y:
t
u
Using Lemma 6.137 the basic iteration lemma is easily proved. The proof follows
that of Lemma 6.130 using Lemma 6.137 in place of Lemma 6.129.
Lemma 6.138. Suppose
F W !1 ! P .0;1/
is a function such that .!1 ; 0;1/ 2 YA .F; INS /. Suppose
H W !1 ! H.!1 /
is a function which witnesses .!1<! /.
Suppose .M; I/ is a countable iterable structure such that
+
(i) M ZFC,
cardinal in M .
6.3 Nonregular ultralters on !1
421
Suppose f 2 M is a function such that

.!1M ; 0;1M / 2 .YA .f; INS //M :
Suppose h 2 M , h witnesses + .!1<! / in M and for all p 2 .!1<! /M the set
< !1M j p 2 h./
is stationary within M . Then there is an iteration
j W .M; I/ ! .M ; I /
(1) H D j.h/ on a club in !1 ;
(2) j.Y / = YA .F; INS / \ M where
Y D .YA .f; INS //M :
t
u
Theorem 6.139 is an absoluteness theorem for M Qmax . Again the proof is an easy
adaptation of earlier arguments and stronger absoluteness theorems can be proved.
For this theorem one uses the iteration lemma, Lemma 6.138, modifying the proof
of the corresponding absoluteness theorem for Qmax , Theorem 6.85. The situation here
is simpler since there are no restricted 2 sentences to deal with.
Theorem 6.139 (+ .!1<! /). Suppose that there are ! many Woodin cardinals with a
measurable above them all and that there is a sequence hB W < !1 i of borel subsets
of 0;1 such that each B is of measure 1 and such that if B 0;1 is set of measure 1
then B B for some < !1 .
hH.!2 /; X; 2 W X R; X 2 L.R/i
and that
hH.!2 /; X; 2 W X R; X 2 L.R/i :
Then
MQ
hH.!2 /; X; 2 W X R; X 2 L.R/iL.R/
6.3
max
:
t
u
Nonregular ultralters on !1
We consider ultralters on !1 .
Denition 6.140. Suppose that U is a uniform ultralter on !1 .
(1) The ultralter U is nonregular if for each set W U of cardinality !1 there
exists an innite set Z W such that
\Z ;:
422
6 Pmax variations
(2) The ultralter U is weakly normal if for any function

f W !1 ! !1 ;
either j f ./ 2 U or there exists < !1 such that
j f ./ < 2 U:
t
u
We begin with the basic relationship between the existence nonregular ultralters
on !1 and the existence of weakly normal ultralters on !1 . This relationship is summarized in the following theorem of Taylor .1979/. This theorem is the analog for !1
of the theorem that if is measurable then there is a normal measure on .
Theorem 6.141 (Taylor). Suppose that U is a uniform ultralter on !1 .
(1) Suppose that U is weakly normal. Then U is nonregular.
(2) Suppose that U is nonregular. Then there exists a function
f W !1 ! !1
such that U is weakly normal where
U D A !1 j f 1 A 2 U :
t
u
The relative consistency of the existence of nonregular ultralters on !1 rst established by Laver. Laver proved that if there exists an !1 -dense uniform ideal on !1 and
holds, then there exists a nonregular ultralter on !1 .
Huberich improved Lavers theorem proving the theorem without assuming .
Thus in L.R/Qmax there is a nonregular ultralter on !1 .
The basic method for producing nonregular ultralters on !1 is to produce them
from suitably saturated normal ideals on !1 . The approach is due to Laver and involves
the construction of indecomposable ultralters on the quotient algebra,
P .!1 /=I:
Denition 6.142. Suppose that B is a countably complete boolean algebra. An ultralter
U B
is indecomposable if for all X B,
_X 2 U
if and only if
_Y 2 U
for some countable set Y X .
t
u
The fundamental connection between normal ideals on !1 and nonregular ultralters on !1 is given in the following lemma due to Laver.
423
Lemma 6.143 (Laver). Suppose I P .!1 / is a normal uniform ideal. Let

B D P .!1 /=I:
(1) Suppose that U B is an ultralter which is indecomposable. Let
W D A !1 j AI 2 U :
Then W is a weakly normal ultralter on !1 .
(2) Suppose that W is a weakly normal ultralter on !1 such that W \ I D ;. Let
U D AI j A 2 W :
Then U is an indecomposable ultralter on B.
t
u
The following theorem was rst proved by Laver assuming and then by Huberich,
.Huberich 1996/, without any additional assumptions.
Theorem 6.144 (Huberich). Let
B D RO.Coll.!; !1 //:
Then there is an ultralter U on B which is indecomposable.
t
u
We prove the following stronger version. Suppose is an ordinal. Then Add.!; /

is the Cohen partial order for adding many Cohen reals.
Theorem 6.145. Let be an ordinal and let
B D RO .Coll.!; !1 / Add .!; // :
Then there is an ultralter U on B which is indecomposable.
Proof. Let P D Coll.!; !1 / Add .!; /.
More formally P is the set of pairs .f; g/ such that f is a nite partial function
from ! to !1 and g is a nite partial function from ! to 0;1. For each q D .f; g/
in P let q be the largest ordinal in the range of f .
Fix a cardinal such that !1 ; < . For each countable elementary substructure
X V such that P 2 X let PX D P \ X . Thus PX is a countable partial order. For
each such X V let
FX D _D j D PX and D is dense
where the join, _D, is computed in B.
Let
F D [FX j X V ; X 2 P!1 .V / and P 2 X :
We prove that if S F is nite then ^S 0 in B. Suppose hb0 ; : : : ; bn i is a nite
sequence of elements of F . For each i n let Xi V be a countable elementary
substructure containing P and let Di PXi be a dense subset such that bi D _Di . By
424
6 Pmax variations
reordering if necessary we may assume that

Xi \ !1 Xj \ !1 :
for all i j .
The key point is the following. Suppose X V , X is countable and P 2 X .
Suppose q 2 P and q < X \ !1 . Here q is the ordinal dened above. Then there is
a condition q0 2 PX such that if q1 < q0 and q1 2 PX then there is a condition p 2 P
such that p < q, p < q1 and p < X \ !1 .
Using this it is straightforward to construct a sequence h.p0 ; q0 /; : : : ; .pn ; qn /i of
pairs of conditions in P such that for all i j :
(1.1) pi < qi ;
(1.2) qi 2 Di ;
(1.3) pi < Xi \ !1 ;
(1.4) pj pi .
Thus pn ^bi j i n.
Let F be the lter in B generated by the nite meets of elements of F . Let U be an
ultralter on B extending F . We prove that U is indecomposable. Suppose X B and
_X 2 U . Let Y be the set of conditions q 2 P such that q b for some b 2 X. Let W
be the set of conditions q 2 P such that q ^ b D 0 in B for all b 2 X. Let D D Y [ W .
Thus D is dense in P . Let Z V be a countable elementary substructure such that
P ; D Z. Let D D D \ Z. Thus D is dense in PZ and so _D 2 F U . Let
b D _.Y \ Z/ and let c D _.W \ Z/ Thus _D D b _ c. Further c _W and
._W /^._X/ D 0. Thus c U and so b 2 U . But b D _.Y \Z/ and Z is countable.
Therefore b _X for some countable set X X.
Thus U is indecomposable.
t
u
An immediate corollary of Lemma 6.143 is the following theorem of .Huberich
1996/.
Theorem 6.146 (Huberich). Assume there is an !1 -dense ideal on !1 . Then there is a

t
u
nonregular ultralter on !1 .
Corollary 6.147. Assume there is an !1 -dense ideal on !1 . Suppose is a cardinal
and that G Add .!; / is V -generic. Then in V G there is a nonregular ultralter
t
u
on !1 .
425
The following theorem is now immediate.

Theorem 6.148. Assume ZF C AD is consistent. Then so are
(1) ZFC C The nonstationary ideal on !1 is !1 -dense.
(2) ZFC C There is a nonregular ultralter on !1 .
(3) ZFC C There is a nonregular ultralter on !1 C 2@0 is large.
t
u
The following theorem, in conjunction with Theorem 6.148, completes the analysis of
the consistency strength of the assertion that there exists an !1 -dense ideal on !1 . The
proof of this theorem involves the core model induction which is also the method used
to prove Theorem 5.111 and as noted is beyond the scope of this book.
Theorem 6.149. Suppose that I is a normal, uniform, ideal on !1 such that I is !1 dense. Then
L.R/ AD:
t
u
Corollary 6.150. The following are equiconsistent:
(1) ZF C AD.
(2) ZFC C INS is !1 -dense.
(3) ZFC C There is a normal, uniform, !1 -dense ideal on !1 .
t
u
The consistency strength of the existence of a nonregular ultralter on !1 is not

known.
Chapter 7
Conditional variations
In this chapter we dene two conditional variations of Pmax . The models obtained are
in essence simply conditional versions of the Pmax -extension, i. e. the models maximize
the collection of 2 sentences which can hold in the structure
hH.!2 /; INS ; 2i
given that some specied sentence holds.
The Qmax -extension is an example of such a variation. It conditions the extension
on the assertion that the nonstationary ideal is !1 -dense.
There is an analogy for these conditional variations with variations of Sacks forcing. Suppose is a 13 sentence which is true in V and that there is a function
f W ! ! ! which eventually dominates all those functions which are constructible.
Then is true in LP where P is Laver forcing. This can be proved by a modication of Manselds argument. Thus the Laver extension of L realizes all possible 13
sentences conditioned on the existence of fast functions.
These variations of Pmax also yield models in which conditional forms of Martins
Maximum hold. For example we shall dene a variation Bmax such that in L.R/Bmax
the Borel Conjecture holds together with a large fragment of Martins Axiom.
7.1
Suslin trees
Throughout this section, a tree, T , is a Suslin tree if T is an !1 -Suslin tree; i. e. if T is

an .!1 ; !1 /-tree which satises the countable chain condition.
We dene a variation of Pmax which we shall denote Smax . Our goal is to have that
Suslin trees exist in the resulting generic extension of L.R/.
We give the sentence relative to which we shall condition the nal model.
Denition 7.1. S : For all X !1 there is a transitive model M such that
(1) M ZFC ,
(2) holds in M ,
(3) X 2 M ,
(4) for every tree T 2 M , if T is a Suslin tree in M then T is a Suslin tree in V . u
t
The sentence S is implied by and it will hold after any (sufciently long) forcing
iteration where conally often holds and Suslin trees are preserved. In the model
which we obtain, a strong form of S actually holds.
7.1 Suslin trees
427
Denition 7.2. C
S : For every set X !1 there exists Y !1 such that X 2 LY
and such that every tree T 2 LY which is a Suslin tree in LY is a Suslin tree in
V.
t
u
This strong version of S seems quite subtle in the context of large cardinals. For
example assuming for all A !1 , A# exists; it is not obvious that it can even hold. We
prove that if for all A !1 , A# exists then C
S implies :CH.
Lemma 7.3. Suppose that A !1 is a set such that R LA and such that A#
exists. Then there is a tree T 2 LA such that T is a Suslin tree in LA and such that
T has a conal branch.
Proof. We naturally view any .!1 ; !1 / tree as an order on !1 ! such that for each
2 !1 , ! is the set of nodes in T on the th level. We restrict our considerations
to trees with only innite levels and which are splitting.
We may suppose that for all < !1 ,
!1LA\ :
Let
T D .!1 !; <T /
be such a tree such that T 2 LA and such that T satises the following condition.
For each < !1 we let T< denote the restriction of T to the rst levels. Thus
T< D . !; <T j . !//:
The condition is:
(1.1) For all < !1 , the set of conal branches of T< with upper bounds in T is
exactly the set of branches of T< which are LA \ ; T< -generic for T<
and which belong to L.A \ ; T< /# .
We prove that such a tree exists in LA. The point is that since R LA, and
since A# exists, for all x 2 R \ LA, x # 2 LA. The tree T is easily constructed in
LA by induction on the levels of T provided we verify the following claim.
Suppose that T< is given and that (1.1) holds for all < . Then for all p 2 T<
there is an LA \ ; T< -generic branch of T< such that p 2 b and such that
b 2 L.A \ ; T< /# :
There are 2 cases. First suppose that is countable in L.A \ ; T< /# . Then it
follows that
P ./ \ LA \ ; T<
is countable in L.A \ ; T< /# . The existence of the generic branch b is immediate.
The second case is that
#
D .!1 /L.A\;T< / :
428
It follows that T< is a Suslin tree in LA \ ; T< and that there is a conal branch
b T< such that p 2 b and such that
b 2 L.A \ ; T< /# :
However T< is a Suslin tree in LA \ ; T< and so the branch b is necessarily
LA \ ; T< -generic.
This veries the claim and so it follows that the tree T exists. Necessarily T is a
Suslin tree in LA and repeating the argument for the claim, T has a conal branch in
t
u
LA# .
We now dene the partial order Smax . It in essence is just Pmax with a more restrictive ordering though we modify the fragment of MA which is to hold in the models
occurring in the conditions. Recall that a partial order P is -centered if P is the
countable union of sets, S P , with the property that if a S is nite then there
exists q 2 P such that q p for all p 2 a. For example if P the union of countably
many lters then P is -centered. MA!1 . -centered/ is the variant of Martins Axiom
which asserts that if P is -centered and if D is a collection of dense subsets of P with
jDj !1 then there is a lter F P which is D-generic.
We note that Lemma 4.35 holds for countable transitive models M such that
M ZFC C MA!1 . -centered/:
Thus if .M; I / is iterable and if a !1M is such that a 2 M and such that
!1M D .!1 /L a
where D M \ Ord, then iterations of .M; I / are uniquely determined by the image
of a.
Denition 7.4. Let Smax be the set of pairs h.M; I /; ai such that:
(1) M is a countable transitive model of ZFC C MA!1 . -centered/;
(2) I 2 M and M I is a normal uniform ideal on !1 ;
(3) .M; I / is iterable;
(4) a !1M ;
(5) a 2 M and M !1 D !1Lax for some real x.
Dene a partial order on Smax as follows.
h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i < h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i
j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
such that:
(1) j.a0 / D a1 ;
(2) M0 2 M1 and j 2 M1 ;
(3) I1 \ M0 D I0 ;
(4) For any T 2 M0 , if T is a Suslin tree in M0 then T is a Suslin tree in M1 .
t
u
7.1 Suslin trees
429
Lemma 7.7 is the iteration lemma that essentially allows the proofs for Pmax to
generalize in a straightforward fashion. As usual it is really the proof of the lemma
that is important.
Before proving Lemma 7.7 we prove two useful technical lemmas.
Lemma 7.5. Suppose that I is a normal uniform ideal on !1 , S !1 is I -positive
and that T is a Suslin tree. Suppose that
f WS !T
is a function such that for all for all 2 S ,
f ./ 2 T ;
where T denotes the
with a < b,
th
level of T . Then there exists a 2 T such that for all b 2 T

2 S j b < f ./
is I -positive.
Proof. For each b 2 T let
Sb D 2 S j b < f ./;
and let
D D b 2 T j Sb 2 I :
For each < !1 let T< be the subtree of T obtained by restricting T to the rst
many levels of T ; i. e.
T< D [T j < :
Let
S D 2 S j Sb for all b 2 D \ T :
Since the ideal I is normal it follows that
S n S 2 I:
Assume toward a contradiction that D is dense in T .
Suppose < !1 and that a 2 T . Let ba be the conal branch of T< dened
by a.
Since T is a Suslin tree it follows that
< !1 j for all a 2 T ; D \ ba ;
Therefore there exists 2 S such that bf ./ \ D ; which is a contradiction.
Therefore D is not dense and this proves the lemma.
t
u
430
As an immediate corollary to Lemma 7.5, we obtain the following iteration lemma.

Lemma 7.6. Suppose .M0 ; I0 / is a countable iterable model of ZFC , T 2 M0 , T is
a Suslin tree in M0 , and that T is dense. Then there is an iteration of length 1
.i. e. a generic ultrapower/,
j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M1 ; I1 /
such that is predense in j.T /.
Proof. The key point is the following which is an immediate consequence of
Lemma 7.5. Suppose A 2 M0 , A !1M0 and A is I0 -positive. Suppose that 2 M0
is a term for a node of j.T / above !1M0 . Then there is B A such that B is I0 -positive
and there is t 2 such that B t < .
From this the lemma easily follows. Construct the M0 -generic lter in ! steps
ensuring that every node of j.T / above !1M0 is above some element of . This proves
the lemma.
t
u
Lemma 7.7 (ZFC). Assume . Suppose .M; I / is a countable transitive iterable
model where I 2 M is a normal uniform ideal on !1M and M ZFC . Suppose
J is a normal uniform ideal on !1 . Then there exists an iteration
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
(1) j.!1M / D !1 .
(2) J \ M D I .
(3) Suppose T 2 M and T is a Suslin tree in M . Then T is a Suslin tree.
Proof. Note there is a stationary set S !1 such that .S / holds and such that !1 n S
is J -positive. The relevant point here is that assuming if !1 D S1 [ S2 then .S1 /
holds or .S2 / holds.
Fix S and let
hk W 2 S i
be a diamond sequence on S .
We modify the proof of Lemma 4.36.
The proof of the lemma is simply a dovetailing of the construction of the iteration
given in the proof of Lemma 4.36 together with the construction of a Suslin tree using
. This is straightforward using Lemma 7.6.
Let x be a real which codes M and let
C !1
be a closed unbounded set of ordinals which are admissible relative to x.
7.1 Suslin trees
431
Fix a sequence hAk; W k < !; < !1 i of J positive sets which are pairwise
disjoint and disjoint from S . The ideal J is normal hence each Ak; is stationary in
!1 .
Fix a function
f W ! !1M ! M
such that
(1.1) f is onto,
(1.2) for all k < !, f jk !1M 2 M,
(1.3) for all A 2 M if A has cardinality !1M in M then A ran.f jk !1M / for
some k < !.
The function f is simply used to anticipate elements in the nal model.
Suppose
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
j.f / D [j.f jk !1M / j k < !
and it is easily veried that M is the range of j.f /. This follows from (1.3).
We construct an iteration of M of length !1 using the function f to provide a
book-keeping device for all of the subsets of !1 which belong to the nal model and
do not belong to the image of I in the nal model. Implicit in what follows is that for
2 C if
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
is an iteration of length then j.!1M / D . This is a consequence of Lemma 4.6(1).
More precisely construct an iteration h.M ; I /; G ; j; W < !1 i such that
for each < !1 , if
(2.1) 2 Ak; \ C ,
(2.2) < ,
(2.3) j0; .f /.k; / ,
(2.4) j0; .f /.k; / I ,
then j0; .f /.k; / 2 G .
These requirements place no constraint on the choice of G for 2 S \ C . For
2 C \ S choose G such that if codes .k; ; T; / where
(3.1) < ,
(3.2) T is a Suslin tree in M ,
(3.3) j0; .f /.k; / D T ,
(3.4) is dense in T ,
then is predense in j; C1 .T /. Lemma 7.6 shows G exists.
432
Thus J \ M!1 D I!1 as in the proof of Lemma 4.36. Further since

h W 2 S i
is a diamond sequence it follows that if T 2 M!1 and T is a Suslin tree in M!1 then
T is a Suslin tree.
t
u
Corollary 7.8. Assume S . Suppose .M; I / is a countable transitive iterable model
where I 2 M is a normal uniform ideal on !1M and M ZFC . Suppose J is a
normal uniform ideal on !1 . Then there exists an iteration
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
(1) j.!1M / D !1 .
(2) J \ M D I .
(3) Suppose T 2 M and T is a Suslin tree in M . Then T is a Suslin tree.
Proof. Let .T0 ; T1 / be a partition of !1 into J -positive sets and let hS W < !1 i be a
sequence of pairwise disjoint subsets of !1 such that for < !1 ,
T 0 \ S J
and
T1 \ S J:
By S there exists a transitive model M such that
(1.1) M ZFC ,
(1.2) holds in M ,
(1.3) M 2 M ,
(1.4) hS W < !1 i 2 M , .T0 ; T1 / 2 M , and !1M D !1 ,
(1.5) for every tree T 2 M , if T is a Suslin tree in M then T is a Suslin tree in V .
Thus in M , either .T0 / holds or .T1 / holds. Suppose that .T0 / holds in M .
Fix a bijection g W !1 ! ! !1 such that f 2 M . Let
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
be the iteration constructed in M as in the proof of Lemma 7.7, with S D T0 and with
Ak; D T1 \ S
where D g.k; /.
Thus if T 2 M is a Suslin tree in M , then T is a Suslin tree in M . Hence by the
choice of M , T is a Suslin tree in V .
Suppose a 2 M is I -positive. Then there exists a club C !1 such that
C \ Ak; a
for some .k; / 2 ! !1 .
t
u
Therefore J \ M D I .
7.1 Suslin trees
433
The analysis of the Smax -extension requires the generalization of Corollary 7.8 to
sequences of models. This in turn requires the generalization of Lemma 7.6 to sequences of models.
Lemma 7.9 (ZFC). Suppose h.Mk ; Ik / W k < !i is an iterable sequence of countable
structures such that for all k < !;
(i) Mk is a countable transitive model of ZFC,
(ii) Mk 2 MkC1 ,
(iii) jMk jMkC1 D .!1 /MkC1 ,
Mk
(iv) !1
MkC1
D !1
(vi) suppose Ak 2 Mk ,
Ak P .!1 k / \ Mk n Ik
and that Ak is predense, then Ak is predense in
.P .!1 / n IkC1 ; /MkC1 :
Suppose that
T 2 [Mk j k < !
is a Suslin tree in [Mk j k < !, and that
T
is a dense subset of T . Then there is an iteration
of length 1 such that is predense in j.T /.
Proof. We suppose that T 2 M0 . For each
< !1M0
let T denote the th level of T .
Let
hxk W k < !i
be an enumeration of [Mk j k < ! such that for all k < !, xk 2 Mk . By successive
applications of Lemma 7.5 there exists a sequence
hsk W k < !i
such that for each k < !,
(1.1) skC1 sk ,
434
(1.2) sk !1M0 ,
(1.3) sk 2 Mk n Ik ,
(1.4) if xk !1M0 then sk D xk or sk D !1M0 n xk ,
(1.5) if xk is a predense subset of
then sk s for some s 2 xk ,
(1.6) if xk is a function
f W !1M0 ! T
such that for all < !1M0 ,

then for some b 2 ,
.P .!1 /Mk n Ik ; /
f ./ 2 T ;
sk < !1M0 j f ./ > b:
Let
G D sk j k < !:
By (1.4) and (1.5), for each k < !, G \ Mk is Mk -generic for .P .!1 / n Ik /Mk .
Since the sequence, h.Mk ; Ik / W k < !i, is iterable, G denes an iteration
of length 1 where for each k < !, Mk is transitive.
By (1.6), is predense in j.T /.
t
u
Lemma 7.10 (ZFC). Assume S . Suppose J is a normal uniform ideal on !1 . Suppose that h.M; Ik / W k < !i is a sequence such that for each k < !, Mk is a countable
transitive model of ZFC, Ik 2 Mk and such that in Mk , Ik is a uniform normal ideal
M
on !1 k . Suppose that for all k < !,
(i) Mk 2 MkC1 ,
Mk
(iii) !1
MkC1
D !1
(v) .Mk ; Ik / is iterable,
(vi) suppose Ak 2 Mk ,
Ak P .!1 k / \ Mk n Ik
and that Ak is predense, then Ak is predense in
.P .!1 / n IkC1 ; /MkC1 ;
(vii) if C 2 Mk is closed and unbounded in !1M0 then there exists D 2 MkC1 such
D 2 Lx
7.1 Suslin trees
435

(1) j.!1M0 / D !1 .
(2) For all k < !,
J \ Mk D Ik :
(3) Suppose that T 2 [Mk j k < ! and that for all k < !, if T 2 Mk then T is
a Suslin tree in Mk . Then T is a Suslin tree.
is iterable.
The lemma follows by a construction essentially the same as that given in the
proof of Corollary 7.8. For this proof the construction uses Lemma 7.9 in place of
Lemma 7.6.
t
u
As we have indicated, the nontriviality of Smax is an immediate corollary to nontriviality of Pmax . However we shall need a slightly stronger version of this. The reason is
simply that the iteration lemmas for Smax require additional assumptions. The situation
here, though much simpler, is reminiscent of that in Section 6.2.5 where we analyzed
KT
Qmax . Smax is a renement of Pmax which is analogous to KT Qmax as a renement of
Qmax .
Lemma 7.11. Assume AD holds in L.R/. Suppose X R and that
X 2 L.R/:
Then there is a condition h.M; I /; ai 2 Smax such that
(1) M S ,
(2) X \ M 2 M,
(3) hH.!1 /M ; X \ Mi hH.!1 /; X i,
(4) .M; I / is X -iterable,
and further the set of such conditions is dense in Smax .
Proof. The proof is identical to the proof of Lemma 4.40 with one slight change.
We use the notation from that proof. The modication concerns the choice of the
partial order Q 2 N . For this proof one chooses Q 2 N such that
N Q ZFC C MA!1 . -centered/:
436
and such that Q D Coll.!; < / P where

P 2 N Coll.!;</
and in N Coll.!;</ , P is obtained as the result of an iteration of -centered partial
orders of cardinality !1 (with nite support).
We claim that
N Q S :
Suppose g Coll.!; < / is N -generic and that h P is N g-generic.
is measurable in N and so holds in N ga for any a such that
a 2 N gh.
Finally suppose a and that a 2 N gh. Then there exists b such that
a 2 N gb and such that N gh is a -centered forcing extension of N gb. This
is because P is an iteration of -centered partial orders. Therefore Suslin trees in
N gb remain Suslin trees in N gh.
This veries that
N Q S :
With this choice of Q the construction of the proof of Lemma 4.40 will yield the
desired condition.
t
u
Suppose G Smax is L.R/-generic. We assume ADL.R/ so that Smax is nontrivial.
We associate to the generic lter G a subset of !1 , AG , and an ideal, IG . This is just
as in case of Pmax .
AG D [a j h.M; I /; ai 2 G for some .M; I /:
For each h.M; I /; ai 2 G there is an iteration j W .M; I / ! .M ; I / such
that j.a/ D AG . This iteration is unique because M MA. -centered/. We let
I D j.I /. Dene
IG D [I j h.M; I /; ai 2 G
and let
P .!1 /G D [P .!1 /M j h.M; I /; ai 2 G:
Finally dene a set A !1 to be L.R/-generic for Smax is there exists an L.R/-generic

lter G Smax such that A D AG .
The next theorem gives the basic analysis of Smax .
Theorem 7.12. Assume AD L.R/ . Then Smax is !-closed and homogeneous. Suppose
G Smax is L.R/-generic. Then
L.R/G ZFC
and in L.R/G:
(1) P .!1 /G D P .!1 /;
7.1 Suslin trees
437

(4) the sentence AC holds;
(5) the sentence C
S holds;
(6) suppose A !1 and A L.R/, then A is L.R/-generic for Smax and
L.R/G D L.R/A:
Proof. The proof that Smax is !-closed is a routine adaptation of the proof of
Lemma 4.37 to prove the analog of Corollary 7.8 for iterable sequences of models.
The !-closure of Smax then follows from the fact that for all x 2 R there exists a
condition
h.M; I /; ai 2 Smax
such that x 2 M and S holds in M. This fact is an immediate corollary of
Lemma 7.11.
With the exception of part (5) the remaining claims of the theorem are proved by
arguments essentially identical to those used to prove the corresponding claims about
Pmax . We leave the details to the reader and just sketch the proof for (5). This proof is
quite similar to the proof of Theorem 6.108(5).
Fix X0 !1 with X0 2 L.R/G. By (1) there is a condition
h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i 2 G
and a set b0
!1M0
such that b0 2 M0 and j.b0 / D X0 where

j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
is the unique iteration such that j.a0 / D AG . We work in L.R/ and we assume that
the condition h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i forces that X0 D j.b0 / is a counterexample to (5).
Let z 2 R be any real such that M0 2 Lz and M0 is countable in Lz. For each
i ! let i be the i th Silver indiscernible of Lz. Let
k W L! z ! L! z
be the canonical embedding such that cp(k) = 0 and let
L! z D k.f /.0 / j f 2 L! z:
Let U be the L! z-ultralter on 0 given by k,
U D A 0 j A 2 L! z; 0 2 k.A/:
Thus
L! z Ult.L! z; U /
and k is the associated embedding. For each X P .0 / \ L! z if X 2 L! z and
jX j 0 in L! z then U \ X 2 L! z. Therefore .L! z; U / is naturally iterable.
Let g Coll.!; <0 / be L! z-generic. Let N D L! zg. Therefore
0 D !1N and the ultralter U denes an ideal I on !1N with I N . Further for
each X 2 N if jX j !1N in N then I \ X 2 N .
438
As in the proof of Theorem 6.64, if S then Coll .!; S / the restriction of

Coll.!; < / to S . Thus if < then
Coll.!; </ Coll.!; </ Coll .!; ; //:
Suppose that
k W .L! z; U / ! .k.L! z/; k.U //
h Coll .!; 0 ; k.0 ///
is k.L! z/g-generic. Then k lifts to dene an elementary embedding
kQ W N ! NQ
where NQ D k.L! z/gh.
kQ is naturally interpreted as an iteration of .N; I /. We abuse our conventions and
shall regard .N; I / as an iterable structure restricting to elementary embeddings arising
in this fashion. This situation here is identical to that in the proof of Theorem 6.108(5).
For any set S !1N , if S is stationary in N then holds in N on S .
We view the generic lter g as a function
g W !1N ! N
such that for all < !1N ,
g./ W ! ! 1 C
is a function with range .
For each < !1N let T D j g./.0/ D . Thus hT W < !1N i 2 N and
hT W < !1N i is a sequence of pairwise disjoint sets which are positive relative to
I . Fix a set S 0 such that S 2 L! z, S is stationary in L! z and S U .
Thus S !1N , S 2 N , S is stationary in N , and S I . For each < !1N , let
S D T n S . Thus hS W < !1N i is a sequence in N of pairwise disjoint I -positive
sets each disjoint from S .
j0 W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M1 ; I1 /
such that j0 2 N and such that:
(1.1) for each s !1M1 , if s I1 then S n s 2 INS for some < !1 ;
(1.2) if T 2 M1 is a Suslin tree in M1 then T is a Suslin tree in N .
Thus I \ M1 D I1 . Let a1 D j0 .a0 / and let b1 D j0 .b0 /.
7.1 Suslin trees
439
We come to the key points:

(2.1) N D L! y1 where y1 !1N ;
(2.2) Suppose that .N ; I / is an iterate of .N; I /. Suppose that T 2 N is a Suslin
tree (in N ),

S 2 .P .!1 //N n I
and that
f WS !T
is a function such that f 2 N and such that for all for all 2 S ,
f ./ 2 T ;
where T denotes the
b 2 T with a < b,
th
level of T . Then there exists a 2 T such that for all

2 S j b < f ./
is I -positive.
Thus the proof Lemma 7.7 can be applied to .N; I /.
Let h.M2 ; I2 /; ai be any condition in Smax such that N 2 M2 , N is countable in
M2 and such that holds in M2 . Then there is an iteration
k W .N; I / ! .N ; I /
in M2 such that
(3.1) k .!1N / D .!1 /M2 ,
(3.2) I2 \ N D I ,
(3.3) if T 2 N and if T is a Suslin tree in N then T is a Suslin tree in M2 .
Let a2 D k .a1 /, b2 D k .b1 / and let y2 D k .y1 /. Thus
(4.1) h.M2 ; I2 /; a2 i < h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i,
(4.2) b2 D j.b0 / where j is the embedding given by the iteration of .M0 ; I0 / which
sends a0 to a2 ,
(4.3) b2 .!1 /M2 ,
(4.4) y2 .!1 /M2 ,
(4.5) b2 2 .Ly2 /M2 ,
(4.6) if T 2 Ly2 is a Suslin tree in Ly2 then T is a Suslin tree in M2 .
440
Now suppose G Smax is L.R/-generic and that h.M2 ; I2 /; a2 i 2 G. Let

X0 D j.b0 / where j is the elementary embedding given by the iteration of .M0 ; I0 /
which sends a0 to AG . Similarly let Y0 D j.y2 / where j is the embedding given by
the iteration of .M2 ; I2 / which sends a2 to aG . It follows by part (1) of the theorem
that if T 2 LY0 and T is a Suslin tree in LY0 then T is a Suslin tree in L.R/G.
t
u
This is a contradiction since X0 2 LY0 and Y0 !1 .
Remark 7.13. (1) C
S is a very strong version of S and it is analogous to the consequence of the axiom ./ given in part (5) of Theorem 5.73. As we have noted,
#
C
S is not obviously consistent with any large cardinals (above 0 ), however by
forcing with Smax over stronger models of AD one can show that it is consistent
with existence of measurable cardinals and quite a bit more. By Lemma 7.3, if
there is a measurable cardinal then C
S implies :CH.
(2) Suppose A !1 and that 0 is least such that
L0 A T0
and such that !1 < 0 , where T0 ZFC. Then by an argument similar to the
proof of Lemma 7.3, there exists a tree T 2 L0 A such that T is a Suslin tree
in L0 A and such that T has a conal branch (in LA). Thus Theorem 7.12(5)
cannot really be strengthened.
t
u
The absoluteness theorem corresponding to Smax is the natural variation of the absoluteness theorem for Pmax . Using Corollary 7.8, the proof is a straightforward modication of the proof of Theorem 4.73.
We leave the details to the reader noting one key difference in the present situation.
We now add to the structures an additional predicate identifying the Suslin trees. We
shall let T denote the set of .T; / 2 H.!2 / such that .T; / is a Suslin tree.
Theorem 7.14. Assume S holds and that there are ! many Woodin cardinals with a
measurable above. Suppose is a 2 sentence in the language for the structure
hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; T ; X I X 2 L.R/; X Ri
where T is the set of .T; / 2 H.!2 / such that .T; / is a Suslin tree.
Suppose that
hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; T ; X I X 2 L.R/; X Ri :
Then
Smax
hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; T ; X I X 2 L.R/; X RiL.R/
:
t
u
As in the case of Pmax the converse also holds in the sense of Theorem 4.76. The
proof requires the version of Lemma 4.74 for conditions in Smax .
for the structure
hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; T ; X I X 2 L.R/; X Ri
7.2 The Borel Conjecture
if
Smax
hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; T ; X I X 2 L.R/; X RiL.R/
441
then
hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; T ; X I X 2 L.R/; X Ri :
Then L.P .!1 // D L.R/G for some G Smax which is L.R/-generic.
7.2
t
u
The Borel Conjecture
We dene a variation of Pmax to produce a forcing extension of L.R/ in which both

the Borel Conjecture holds and the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated. We
denote this variation Bmax . We shall use Bmax to obtain the consistency of the Borel
Conjecture with a large fragment of Martins Axiom. The relative consistency of the
Borel Conjecture with ZFC is due to R. Laver, .Laver 1976/.
We shall require that the models occurring in the Bmax conditions be models of
ZFC instead of the usual requirement that they simply be models of ZFC .
The iteration lemmas necessary for the analysis of the Bmax extension are most
easily proved assuming CH. Therefore we shall require that the models appearing in
the conditions satisfy CH. We must as a consequence either add to the conditions
(T)
, use sequences of models as we did
historical record as we did in the denition of Pmax

in the denition of Pmax , or impose some condition which enables the iterations to be
recovered uniquely from the iterates. The latter course is how we shall proceed. The
only penalty for adopting this option is that the existence of suitable iterable structures
is slightly more difcult to establish. The additional condition is AC relativized to an
ideal.
Denition 7.16.
AC .I /:
(1) I is a normal, uniform, ideal on !1 .

(2) Suppose S !1 and T !1 are such that
S; !1 n S; T; !1 n T \ I D ;:
Then there exist < !2 , a bijection
W !1 ! ;
and a set A !1 such that
!1 n A 2 I
and such that

< !1 j ordertype./ 2 T \ A D S \ A:
Remark 7.17.
though is that
AC .I /
AC .I /
is the obvious relativization of

is consistent with CH, unlike AC .
AC
t
u
to I . A key difference
t
u
442
The following theorem is a slight variation of Theorem 2.65. We shall use Theorem 7.18 to construct conditions in Bmax .
G Coll.!1 ; </
is V -generic. Then in V G there is a normal, uniform, ideal I on !1 such that
(1) I \ V D .INS /V ,
(2) I is !2 -saturated in V G,
(3) V G
AC .I /.
Proof. The proof is quite similar to that of Theorem 2.65. We sketch the argument.
As before the ideal I is rather easy to dene. Suppose that
G Coll.!1 ; </
is V -generic. For each < let
G D G \ Coll.!1 ; </:
Let mc.V / be the set of < such that is a measurable cardinal in V . For each
2 mc.V / we dene a normal ideal
I 2 V GC1
as follows by induction on . Fix a wellordering, in V , of V .
There are two cases. We rst suppose that 2 mc.V / and that is not a successor
element of mc.V /.
In this case we dene
J 2 V GC1
to be the set of A !1 such that for some
f W !1 ! P .!1 / n INS ;
(1.1) A D < !1 j f ./ for all < ,
(1.2) if A D f ./ j < !1 then
A 2 V G ;
and A is semiproper in V G .
I is the normal ideal in V GC1 generated by
J [ I<
where
I< D [I j 2 \ mc.V /:
The second case is that 2 mc.V / and that
mc.V / \
443
has a maximum element, . If

V G C1
AC .I /
then I is the normal ideal in V G generated by I so that in this (vacuous) subcase

the ideal I is easily dened. Otherwise let
.S; T / 2 V G C1
be the least counterexample to
AC .I /
and let
f W !1 !
be a surjection with f 2 V GC1 . The pair .S; T / is chosen using the wellordering
of V G induced by the chosen wellordering of V .
Let A D A0 [ A1 where
A0 D 2 !1 j 2 S and ordertype.f / T
and
A1 D 2 !1 j S and ordertype.f / 2 T :
We dene I to be the normal ideal in V GC1 generated by
I [ A:
Let I be the normal ideal generated in V G by
[I j 2 mc.V /:
Here as in the proof of Theorem 2.65, the only difculty is to verify that I is a proper
ideal. If I is a proper ideal then arguing as in the proof of Theorem 2.65, I is a
saturated ideal and further it follows easily that
V G
AC .I /:
To show that I is proper we work in V . Let M D H. C /, thus

M V M:
Fix
0 2 mc.V / [
such that for any V -generic lter
G Coll.!1 ; </;
and for any
2 mc.V / \ 0 ;
the normal ideal generated by I in V GC1 is a proper ideal.
By the construction of an elementary chain there exists a countable elementary
substructure (containing the designated wellordering of V ),
X M;
and a condition p 2 Coll.!1 ; <0 C 1/ such that the following hold.
444
(2.1) p is X -generic; i. e. the set

q 2 X \ Coll.!1 ; <0 C 1/ j p < q
is X -generic.
(2.2) Suppose that 2 X \ .0 C 1/ \ mc.V / and that
\ mc.V /
has no maximum element. Suppose that
2 V Coll.!1 ;</ \ X
is a term for a semiproper subset of P .!1 / n INS . Then there is a term for a
subset of !1 such that 2 X ,
p 2
and such that
p X \ !1 2 :
(2.3) Suppose that 2 X \mc.V /, < 0 and that is the least element of mc.V /
above . Suppose that q 2 X \ Coll.!1 ; < C 1/, p < q, and that .S ; T / is
a pair of terms in
V Coll.!1 ;< C1/ \ X
such that if
g Coll.!1 ; < C 1/
is V -generic and q 2 g then
V g :
AC .I /
and in V g, .S; T / is the least counterexample to AC .I / where S is the

interpretation of S by g and T is the interpretation of T by g. Then either
a) p X \ !1 2 S and p 2 T , or
b) p X \ !1 S and p T ,
where D ordertype.X \ /.
One constructs .X; p/ by dening a chain
hX W 2 X \ .0 C 1/ \ mc.V /i
of elementary substructures of M and a decreasing sequence
hp W 2 X \ .0 C 1/ \ mc.V /i
of conditions in Coll.!1 ; <0 C 1/ such that for all 2 X \ .0 C 1/ \ mc.V /,
(3.1) 2 X ,
(3.2) for all 2 X \ .0 C 1/ \ mc.V /, if > then
X \ D X \ ;
445
(3.3) p 2 Coll.!1 ; < C 1/,

(3.4) the set
q 2 Coll.!1 ; < C 1/ j p < q
is X -generic,
(3.5)
a) if
\ mc.V /
has no maximum element then (2.2) is satised by X at , otherwise,
b) (2.3) is satised by X at .
For the construction of this elementary chain we note that the requirements corresponding to the desired properties, (3.5(a)) and (3.5(b)), do not conict. The requirement
which yields (3.5(a)) is easily handled using the denition of a semiproper subset of
P .!1 / n INS . The requirement for (3.5(b)) is handled using the following observation.
Suppose
Y M
is a countable elementary substructure and that 2 Y \ is a measurable cardinal.
Then there exists a closed unbounded set
C !1
such that for each 2 C there exists
Y M
such that Y Y , such that Y \ is an initial segment of Y \ and such that
Y \
has ordertype . Now suppose that
2 V Coll.!1 ;< C1/
is a term for a stationary, co-stationary subset of !1 and that
q 2 Coll.!1 ; < C 1/:
Then for conally many 2 C there is a condition q < q such that
q 2
and for conally many 2 C there is a condition q < q such that
q :
With this observation (3.5(b)) is easily achieved.
Now suppose
G Coll.!1 ; </
is V -generic and that p 2 G .
Since
q 2 X \ Coll.!1 ; <0 C 1/ j p < q
446
is X -generic it follows that there exists

Y M G0 C1
such that X D Y \ M . By (2.2) and (2.3) it follows that for each set A 2 I0 ,
Y \ !1 A:
This implies that I0 is a proper ideal in V G0 C1 and so the normal ideal in V G
generated by I0 is also proper.
Finally by modifying the choice of .X; p/ it is possible to require p < p0 for any
specied condition and given a stationary set S !1 , it is also possible to arrange that
S 2 X and that
X \ !1 2 S:
Thus in V G, I0 \ V D .INS /V . Therefore it follows that
I \ V D .INS /V ;
t
u
and so the ideal I is as required.
We prove that AC .I / does allow one to recover iterations from iterates. The proof
is quite similar to that of Lemma 5.15.
We state the lemma only in the special form that we shall need.
Lemma 7.19. Suppose M is a countable transitive set such that
M ZFC C
where I 2 M is in M, a normal ideal on
!1M .
AC .I /
Suppose a 2 M,
a !1M ;
and for some x 2 M \ R,
M !1 D !1La;x :
Suppose
j1 W .M; I / ! .M1 ; I1 /
and
j2 W .M; I / ! .M2 ; I2 /
are iterations of M such that M1 is transitive, M2 is transitive and such that
j1 .a/ D j2 .a/:
Proof. Fix a and x. Clearly we may suppose that either j1 or j2 is not the identity.
Therefore since M contains precipitous ideals,
M For every set A !1 , A# exists:
Therefore
447
sup.a/ D !1M
and so, since j1 .a/ D j2 .a/, j1 .!1M / D j2 .!1M /.

Let N be the transitive set
N D L! M .a; x/:
1
Thus N 2 M,
!1M D !1N
and
j1 .N / D j2 .N /:
Let b
!1M
be a set such that b is denable in N from parameters; i. e.

b 2 L! M .a; x/;
1
and such that both b I and !1M n b I .

Since j1 .N / D j2 .N / it follows that
j1 .b/ D j2 .b/:
Arguing exactly as in the proof of Lemma 5.15, it follows that M1 D M2 and that
j1 D j 2 :
t
u
We recall the basic denitions.
Denition 7.20. A set
X .0;1/
is a strong measure 0 set if for any sequence hzk W k < !i of positive reals there is a
sequence hIk W k < !i of open intervals such that
X [Ik j k < !
and such that .Ik / < zk for all k < !.
t
u
The Borel Conjecture asserts that every strong measure 0 set is countable.
Denition 7.21. (1) Suppose h 2 ! ! . A set X .0;1/ is h-small if there is a
sequence hIk W k < !i of open intervals such that
X [Ik j k < !
and such that for all k < !, .Ik / < 1=.h.k/ C 1/.
(2) Suppose Z ! ! . A set X .0;1/ is Z-small if X is h-small for all h 2 Z. u
t
Lemma 7.22. Suppose Z ! ! is such that for all h 2 Z there exists f 2 Z with the
property that for all k 2 !,
h.n/ < f .k/
for all n 2k . Then
X .0;1/ j X is Z-small
is an ideal and the ideal is closed under countable unions.
448
Proof. Fix h 2 Z and a sequence hXi W i < !i of Z-small sets.

Let hhi W i < !i be a sequence of functions in Z such that h0 D h and such that
for all i < !, for all k < !,
hi .n/ < hiC1 .k/
for all n 2k .
The key point is that if X and Y are hiC1 -small then X [ Y is hi -small. This is
easily veried by merging the two sequences of intervals, witnessing X is hiC1 -small
and Y is hiC1 -small.
A similar, though slightly more complicated merging, shows that
[Xi j i < !
t
u
is h0 -small.
The denition of the partial order Bmax is motivated by the following reformulation
of the Borel Conjecture:
Suppose X .0;1/ is uncountable, then there exists h W ! ! ! and there
exists a function f W !1 ! X such that if O .0;1/ is open and h-small then
j f ./ O is stationary.
That this is a reformulation of the Borel Conjecture is a corollary to the following
theorem due to J. Zapletal.
Theorem 7.23 (Zapletal). Suppose that
I P .0;1/
is a -ideal and that X 0;1 is a set of cardinality @1 such that X I .
f W !1 ! X
such that for all Y 2 I
2 !1 j f ./ Y
is stationary.
Proof. Fix a surjection
W !1 ! X
and dene
W !1 ! P!1 .X /
by
./ D ./ j :
Thus since X I , for all Y 2 I ,
2 !1 j ./ Y
is countable.
449
Choose functions
fi W !1 ! X
for each i < !, such that for all < !1 ,
./ D fi ./ j i < !:
We claim that one of the functions fi is as desired. Otherwise for each i < ! there
exist Yi 2 I and a club Ci !1 such that
Ci < !1 j fi ./ 2 Yi :
Let
C D \Ci j i < !;
and let
Y D [Yi j i < !:
Since I is a -ideal, Y 2 I . However for each 2 C , ./ Y . Therefore
X Y
t
u
which is a contradiction.
A similar argument proves the following theorem.
Theorem 7.24. Suppose X .0;1/ is of cardinality !1 and not of strong measure 0.

f W !1 ! X
and there exists h W ! ! ! such that if O .0;1/ is open and h-small then
2 !1 j f ./ O
is stationary.
Proof. The proof is quite similar to the proof of Theorem 7.23. Fix a surjection
W !1 ! X
and dene
W !1 ! P!1 .X /
by
./ D ./ j :
Fix a countable set Z ! such that X is not Z-small and such that
!
I D Y 0;1 j Y is Z-small
is a -ideal. The set Z exists by Lemma 7.22.
Thus since X I , for all Y 2 I ,
2 !1 j ./ Y
is countable.
450
Choose functions
fi W !1 ! X
for each i < !, such that for all < !1 ,
./ D fi ./ j i < !:
Let hhj W j < !i enumerate Z.
We claim that for some i; j 2 ! the pair .fi ; hj / is as desired. Otherwise for each
.i; j / 2 ! ! there exist Yi;j 0;1 and a club Ci;j !1 such that
Ci;j < !1 j fi ./ 2 Yi;j
and such that Yi;j is hj -small.
For each i < ! let
Ci D \Ci;j j j < !;
and let
Yi D \Yi;j j j < !:
Thus for each i < !, Yi is Z-small and
Ci < !1 j fi ./ 2 Yi :
Finally let
C D \Ci j i < !;
and let
Y D [Yi j i < !:
Since I is a -ideal, Y 2 I and so Y is Z-small. However for each 2 C ,
./ Y . Therefore
X Y
which is a contradiction since X is not Z-small.
t
u
Remark 7.25. We originally proved Theorem 7.24 with the additional hypothesis that
t
u
the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated.
Suppose h 2 ! ! . Let hE be the set of functions f 2 ! ! such that for some
i; j 2 !,
h.i C k/ D f .j C k/
for all k 2 !. Thus X 0;1 is hE -small if and only if X is h.m/ j m < !-small
where for each m < !,
h.m/ .k/ D h.m C k/
for k < !.
Denition 7.26. Suppose I is a uniform normal ideal on !1 . ZBC .I / is the set of all
pairs
.h.fi ; hi / W i < ni; S /
451
(1) For all i < n, fi W !1 ! .0;1/ and hi W ! ! !.

(2) S !1 and S I .
(3) If hOi W i < ni is a sequence of open subsets of .0;1/ such that for all i < n, Oi
is hi -small then
2 S j fi ./ Oi for all i < n I:
(4) For all i < n if B is a borel set such that B is hi E -small then
2 S j fi ./ 2 B 2 I:
t
u
We thin ZBC .I / and dene YBC .I /.

Denition 7.27. Suppose I is a uniform normal ideal on !1 . YBC .I / is the largest
subset of ZBC .I / such that if
.h.fi ; hi / W i < ni; S / 2 YBC .I /
then:
(1) For each i < n there exists g 2 ! ! such that .h.fi ; g/i; S / 2 YBC .I / and such
that for sufciently large k 2 !,
g.j / hi .k/
k
for all j < 5 ;

(2) For some p 2 ! ! ,
.h.fi ; hi / W i < ni; S / 2 YBC .I /
where:
a) p.0/ D 0 and p.k/ < p.k C 1/ for all k < !;
b) for some m 2 !, m > 1 and p.k/ D k m for all sufciently large k < !;
c) for all i < n and for all j < !,
hi .j / D hi .k/
where k < ! is such that p.k/ j < p.k C 1/.
t
u
We dene a slightly weaker renement as follows.

.I / is the largest
Denition 7.28. Suppose I is a uniform normal ideal on !1 . YBC
subset of ZBC .I / such that if

.I /
.h.fi ; hi / W i < ni; S / 2 YBC
then for some p 2 ! ! ,

.I /
452
where:
(1) p.0/ D 0 and p.k/ < p.k C 1/ for all k < !;
(2) for some m 2 !, m > 1 and p.k/ D k m for all sufciently large k < !;
(3) for all i < n and for all j < !,
hi .j / D hi .k/
t
u
Remark 7.29. In Denition 7.27, condition (2) can be replaced by

for each m 2 ! there exists p 2 ! ! such that:
(1) p.0/ D 0 and p.k/ < p.k C 1/ for all k < !;
(2) p.k/ D k m for all sufciently large k < !;
(3)
.h.fi ; hi / W i < ni; S / 2 YBC .I /;

where for all i < n and for all j < !, if k 2 ! and p.k/ j < p.k C 1/
then
hi .j / D hi .k/:
The analogous remark applies to Denition 7.28.

We record in the following lemma sufcient conditions for membership in YBC .I /.
Lemma 7.30. Suppose I is a uniform normal ideal on !1 .
Suppose that
.h.fi ; hi / W i < ni; S / 2 ZBC .I /
is such that
(1) for all i < n, .h.fi ; hi /i; S / 2 YBC .I /,

(2) .h.fi ; hi / W i < ni; S / 2 YBC
.I /.
Then
.h.fi ; hi / W i < ni; S / 2 YBC .I /:
Proof. Dene for each ordinal , a subset
ZBC
.I /
as follows.
0
ZBC
.I / D ZBC .I / and if is a limit ordinal then
.I / D \ZBC
.I / j < :
ZBC
C1
Finally for each ordinal , ZBC
.I / is the set of
.h.fOi ; hO i / W i < ni;

O SO / 2 ZBC
.I /
t
u
453
such that:
.I / and such
(1.1) for each i < nO there exists g 2 ! ! such that .h.fOi ; g/i; SO / 2 ZBC
that for sufciently large k 2 !,
g.j / hO i .k/
for all j < 5k ;
(1.2) for some p 2 ! ! ,
O SO / 2 ZBC
.I /
.h.fOi ; hO i / W i < ni;
where:
a) p.0/ D 0 and p.k/ < p.k C 1/ for all k < !;
b) for some m 2 !, m > 1 and
p.k/ D k m
for all sufciently large k < !;
c) for all i < nO and for all j < !,
hO i .j / D hO i .k/
Thus for for sufciently large ,
.I / D YBC .I /:
ZBC
Fix
.h.fi ; hi / W i < ni; S / 2 ZBC .I /
satisfying the conditions of the lemma and assume toward a contradiction that
.h.fi ; hi / W i < ni; S / YBC .I /:
Thus for some ordinal ,
.I /:
.h.fi ; hi / W i < ni; S / ZBC
We may suppose that the choice of .h.fi ; hi / W i < ni; S / minimizes . Thus is
a successor ordinal. Let 0 be such that D 0 C 1.
Let p 2 ! ! be a function such that

.I /
where:
(2.1) p.0/ D 0 and p.k/ < p.k C 1/ for all k < !;
(2.2) for some m 2 !, m > 1 and
p.k/ D k m
454
(2.3) for all i < n and for all j < !,

hi .j / D hi .k/
We claim that for all i < n,
.h.fi ; hi /i; S / 2 YBC .I /:
Fix i < n. Since

.I /
.h.fi ; hi /i; S / 2 YBC
it follows that the elements of YBC .I / which witness

.h.fi ; hi /i; S / 2 YBC .I /
can be used to witness that
.h.fi ; hi /i; S / 2 YBC .I /:
Thus .h.fi ; hi / W i < ni; S / satises the conditions of the lemma and so,
0
.h.fi ; hi / W i < ni; S / 2 ZBC
.I /:
But this implies that

0 C1
.h.fi ; hi / W i < ni; S / 2 ZBC
.I /;
t
u
a contradiction.
Denition 7.31. Bmax consists of nite sequences h.M; I /; a; Y i such that the following hold.
(2) M CH.
(3) I 2 M and M I is a normal uniform ideal on !1 .
(4) M
AC .I /.

(6) Y 2 M is the set YBC .I / as computed in M.
(7) a 2 M, a !1M and M !1 D !1Lax for some real x.
The order on Bmax is dened as follows. Suppose that h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 ; Y1 i and
h.M2 ; I2 /; a2 ; Y2 i are conditions in Bmax . Then
h.M2 ; I2 /; a2 ; Y2 i < h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 ; Y1 i
if
M1 2 H.!1 /M2
455
and there exists an iteration

j W .M1 ; I1 / ! .M1 ; I1 /
such that
(1) j.a1 / D a2 ,
(2) I1 D I2 \ M1 ,
(3) j.Y1 / D Y2 \ M1 .
t
u
Remark 7.32. (1) The only reason for requiring that the models occurring in the
Bmax conditions actually be models of ZFC instead of ZFC is so that (6) in the
denition of Bmax is unambiguous. The trivial point is that ZFC does not prove
that YBC .I / exists.
(2) There is actually a parameterized family of generalizations of Bmax . Fix a function h 2 ! ! . Let Bmax .h/ be the suborder of Bmax consisting of those conditions
h.M; I /; a; Y i such that if g 2 ! ! and g occurs in Y then for sufciently large
i 2 !, h.i / < g.i /.
t
u
We prove the basic iteration lemmas for Bmax . There are two iteration lemmas, one
for models and one for sequences of models. The latter is necessary to show that Bmax
is !-closed and its proof is an intrinsic part of the analysis of Bmax just as in the case
of Pmax .
We need several preliminary lemmas. For all m 2 ! and for all h 2 ! ! , let h.m/
be the function obtained by shifting h,
h.m/ .k/ D h.m C k/
for k 2 !. Thus a set X 0;1 is hE -small if and only if X is h.m/ j m < !-small.
We note that if
.h.fi ; hi / W i < ni; S / 2 ZBC .I /
then for all m 2 !,
.h.fi ; h.m/
i / W i < ni; S / 2 ZBC .I /:
This is immediate from the denition of ZBC .I /.

We claim that if
.h.fi ; hi / W i < ni; S / 2 YBC .I /
then for all m 2 !,
.h.fi ; h.m/
i / W i < ni; S / 2 YBC .I /:
This is easily veried noting the following. Suppose g 2 ! ! and h 2 ! ! are such that
for all k m0 ,
g.j / h.k/
456
for all j < 5k . Then for any m 2 !,

g .m/ .j / h.m/ .k/
for all j < 5k and for all k maxm0
m; 0.
One reason for thinning ZBC .I / to obtain YBC .I / is the following. Suppose that
.h.fi ; hi / W i < ni; S / 2 YBC .I /
and x i < n. Fix g 2 ! ! such that
.h.fi ; g/i; S / 2 YBC .I /
and such that for sufciently large k 2 !,
g.j / hi .k/
for all j < 5k .
Fix m0 such that for all k > m0 , g.j / hi .k/ if j < 5k .
For each m 2 ! let Hm 2 ! ! be such that for all j 2 !,
Hm .j / D hi .k C m/
where k is such that 2 j C 1 < 2kC1 .
Suppose that for each m 2 !, Om is Hm -small.
For each m1 > m0 let
k
Xm1 D [Om j m > m1 :

Then Xm1 is g .m1 / -small. This observation, which we prove in the next lemma, is the
key to proving the subsequent lemmas.
Lemma 7.33. Suppose g 2 ! ! , h 2 ! ! , and
h.k/ g.j /
for all j < 5k . For each m 2 ! let Hm 2 ! ! be such that for all j 2 !,
Hm .j / D h.k C m/
where k is such that 2k j C 1 < 2kC1 . Suppose that for each m 2 !, Om is
Hm -small. For each n 2 ! let
Xn D [Om j m > n:
Then for each n 2 !, Xn is g .n/ -small.
Proof. For each m 2 ! let hIjm W j < !i be a sequence of open intervals which
witnesses that Om is Hm -small, so that for each m 2 !,
.Ijm / < 1=.Hm .j / C 1/;
for each j 2 !.
457
Fix n 2 !.
It sufces to show that
Ijm j m > n; j 2 !
witnesses that Xn is g .n/ -small.
We note that for each a 2 ! with a > n,
X
2k D
kCmDa;am>n
a.nC1/
X
2k D 2an
1 2aC1
n
kD0
and so for each a 2 !,

jIjm j 2k j C 1 < 2kC1 where k D a
m and a m > nj 2aC1
n:
For each a 2 ! such that a > n let
Ja D Ijm j 2k j C 1 < 2kC1 where k D a
m and a m > n:
Thus
[Ja j a 2 !; a > 0 D Ijm j m > n; j 2 !:
Each interval I 2 Ja has length at most 1=.h.a/ C 1/.
For each a 2 ! such that a > n,
g .n/ .j / h.a/
for all j such that 5a1 n C j < 5a .
If a > n,
jj j 5a1 n C j < 5a j 4 5a1
n
and so
jJa j jj j 5a1 n C j < 5a j;
noting that since a > n,
jJa j 2aC1
n:
Thus
Ijm j m > n; j 2 !
t
u
witnesses that Xn is g .n/ -small.

Lemma 7.34. Suppose I is a uniform normal ideal on !1 , g 2 ! ! , and
.h.f; h/i; S / 2 ZBC .I /;
where for all j 2 !, if k 2 ! and 2k j C 1 < 2kC1 then
h.j / D g.k/:
Then

.I /:
.h.f; g/i; S / 2 YBC
Proof. This is immediate from the denitions.
t
u
458
Lemma 7.35. Suppose I is a uniform normal ideal on !1 . Suppose

.h.f0 ; h0 /i; S / 2 YBC .I /;
and that T S is a set such that T I . Then there exists m < ! such that
.h.f0 ; h.m/
0 /i; T / 2 YBC .I /:
Proof. For each m 2 ! let Hm 2 ! ! be such that for all j 2 !,
Hm .j / D h0 .k C m/
k
We rst prove that for some m 2 !,
.h.f0 ; Hm /i; T / 2 ZBC .I /:
If this fails then there is a sequence
hOm W m < !i
of open sets such that
(1.1) T n 2 T j f0 ./ 2 Om 2 I ,
(1.2) for all m < !, Om is Hm -small.
Let g 2 ! ! be such that
(2.1) .h.f0 ; g/i; S / 2 ZBC .I /,
(2.2) for sufciently large k 2 !, g.j / h0 .k/ if j < 5k .
By Lemma 7.33, for sufciently large k 2 !,
[Om j m > k
.k/
is g -small.
Let
B D \[Om j m > k j k 2 !
and so B is gE -small. However by (1.1)
2 T j f0 ./ 2 B I
which is a contradiction since T S .
Fix m0 2 ! such that
.h.f0 ; Hm0 /i; T / 2 ZBC .I /:
By Lemma 7.34,

0/
.h.f0 ; h.m
/i; T / 2 YBC
.I /:
0
For each h 2 ! ! and for each s 2 ! <! let s h be the perturbation of h by s,
s.k/ if k < m,
s h.k/ D
h.k/ if k m,
where m D dom.s/.
Suppose g0 2 ! ! and that
.h.f0 ; g0 /i; S / 2 YBC .I /:
459
For each m 2 ! let Gm 2 ! ! be such that for all j 2 !,

Gm .j / D g0 .k C m/
We prove that there exists s 2 ! <! such that
k
.h.f0 ; s Gm0 /i; T / 2 ZBC .I /:

Fix g1 2 ! ! such that
.h.f0 ; g1 /i; S / 2 YBC .I /
and such that for sufciently large k 2 !, g1 .j / g0 .k/ if j < 5k .
Arguing as above there exists m1 2 ! such that
.h.f0 ; Gm1 /i; T / 2 ZBC .I /:
By increasing m1 if necessary we may suppose that for all k m1 ,
g1 .j / g0 .k/
if j < 5k .
Let m2 D 2m1 C2 . For each n 2 ! let sn 2 ! m2 be the constant function taking
value n.
We claim that
.h.f0 ; sn Gm0 /i; T / 2 ZBC .I /
for some n 2 !.
If not then for each n 2 ! there exists an open set Un such that Un is sn Gm0 -small
and such that
2 T j f0 ./ Un 2 I:
Each set Un can be partitioned into open sets Un0 and Un1 such that Un0 is sn -small
.m2 /
-small.
and such that Un1 is Gm
0
Thus for sufciently large n, Un is g1 -small. This contradicts
.h.f0 ; g1 /i; S / 2 YBC .I /:
Therefore there exists n such that
(3.1) .h.f0 ; sn Gm0 /i; T / 2 ZBC .I /,

(3.2) .h.f0 ; sn .g0.m0 / //i; T / 2 YBC
.I /.
Thus for each g 2 ! ! such that

h.f0 ; g/; S i 2 YBC .I /
there exists s 2 !
<!
such that

h.f0 ; s .g .m0 / //; T i 2 YBC
.I /:
460
Let Z be the set of .h.f0 ; s .h.m0 / //i; T / such that

(4.1) .h.f0 ; h/i; S / 2 YBC .I /,
(4.2) s 2 ! <! ,

(4.3) .h.f0 ; s .h.m0 / //i; T / 2 YBC
.I /.
The elements of Z provide the witnesses necessary to show that

0/
.h.f0 ; h.m
/i; T / 2 YBC .I /:
0
t
u
Lemma 7.36. Suppose I is a uniform normal ideal on !1 . Suppose

.h.fi ; hi / W i < ni; S / 2 YBC .I /;
.h.fn ; hn /i; S / 2 YBC .I /;
and that T S is a set such that T I . Then there exists m < ! such that
.h.fi ; h.m/
i / W i < n C 1i; T / 2 YBC .I /:
Proof. For each .i; m/ 2 .n C 1/ ! dene Hi;m 2 ! ! by
Hi;m .j / D hi .k C m/
By Lemma 7.35, we can suppose that for each i < n C 1, and for each m < !,
k
.h.fi ; h.m/
i /i; T / 2 YBC .I /:
Assume the lemma fails.
Thus by Lemma 7.30, for each m 2 !,

.h.fi ; h.m/
i / W i < n C 1i; T / YBC .I /:

.I / as a renement of ZBC .I /,
Therefore as a consequence of the denition of YBC
for each m 2 ! there exists a sequence
hOim W i < n C 1i
of open sets such that
(1.1) T n 2 T j fi ./ 2 Oim for some i < n C 1 2 I ,
(1.2) for all i < n C 1, Oim is Hi;m -small.
The ideal I is countably complete and so there is a set T1 T such that T nT1 2 I
and such that for all m 2 ! and for all 2 T1 ,
fi ./ 2 Oim
for some i < n C 1.
461
For each i < n C 1 let gi 2 ! ! be such that

(2.1) .h.fi ; gi /i; S / 2 ZBC .I /,
(2.2) for sufciently large k 2 !, gi .m/ hi .k/ if m < 5k .
By Lemma 7.33, for each i < n C 1 and for sufciently large k 2 !,
[Oim j m > k
is gi.k/ -small. For each i < n C 1 let
Bi D \[Oim j m > k j k 2 !
and so for each i < n C 1, Bi is gi E -small. Therefore, since for each i < n C 1,
.h.fi ; gi /i; S / 2 ZBC .I /;
there is a set T2 T1 such that T1 n T2 2 I and such that for all i < n C 1 and for all
2 T2 , fi ./ Bi .
Fix 2 T2 . Then 2 T1 and so for all m 2 !, fi ./ 2 Oim for some i < n C 1.
Thus for some i < n C 1, the set
m 2 ! j fi ./ 2 Oim
is innite and so fi ./ 2 Bi which is a contradiction.
Therefore for some m 2 !, .h.fi ; h.m/
i / W i < n C 1i; T / 2 YBC .I /.
t
u
Lemma 7.36 can be recast as follows. This reformulation is in essence what is

required to prove the iteration lemmas.
Lemma 7.37. Suppose that h.M; I /; a; Y i 2 Bmax , .h.fi ; hi / W i < ni; S / 2 Y ,
.h.fn ; hn /i; S / 2 Y , and that hOi W i < ni is a nite sequence of open sets such that
each Oi is hi -small. For each i < n let
hIki W k < !i
be a sequence of open intervals in .0;1/ with rational endpoints such that the sequence
witnesses that Oi is hi -small. Suppose A 2 M,
A .P .!1 / n I /M ;
and A is dense below S in .P .!1 / n I; /M . Suppose m0 2 !. There exists m > m0
and there exists T 2 A such that
(1) T S ,
(2) .h.fi ; h.m/
i / W i < n C 1i; T / 2 Y ,
(3) fi ./ Iki for all k < m, for all i < n, and for all 2 T .
Proof. This follows from Lemma 7.36 by absoluteness. Fix m0 2 !. Let T be the tree
of attempts to build the sequences hIki W k < !i to refute the lemma. So T is the set of
hti W i < ni such that for some m > m0 :
462
(1.1) For all i < n, ti D h.rki ; ski / W k < mi where for all k < m,
a) 0 rki < ski 1,
b) rki 2 Q,
c) ski 2 Q,
d) .ski
rki / < 1=.hi .k/ C 1/.
(1.2) For all T S with T 2 A, either
.h.fi ; h.m/
i / W i < n C 1i; T / Y;
or for some i < n and for some 2 T ,
fi ./ 2 [.rki ; ski / j k < m:
The ordering on T is by (pointwise) extension,
hsi W i < ni hti W i < ni
if ti si for all i < n.
Clearly T 2 M.
Suppose T has an innite branch. Then by absoluteness, T has an innite branch
in M. We work in M and assume toward a contradiction that T has an innite branch.
Any such branch yields for each i < n a sequence
h.rki ; ski / W k < !i
of open intervals in .0;1/ with rational endpoints such that for all i < n and for all
k < !,
jski
rki j < 1=.hi .k/ C 1/:
These sequences have the additional property that for all T 2 A such that T S and
for all m < ! either
.h.fi ; h.m/
i / W i < n C 1i; T / Y;
or for some i < n and for some 2 T ,
fi ./ 2 [.rki ; ski / j k < m:
For each i < n let
OQ i D [.rki ; ski / j k < !:
Thus for each i < n, OQ i is hi -small.
Let
T0 D 2 S j fi ./ OQ i for all i < n:
Since .h.fi ; hi / W i < ni; S / 2 Y ,
T0 I:
A is dense below S and so there exists T 2 A such that T T0 . By Lemma 7.36,

there exists m < ! such that
.h.fi ; h.m/
i / W i < n C 1i; T / 2 Y:
This is a contradiction and so T is wellfounded in M. Hence T is wellfounded in V .
t
u
463
The iteration lemmas are proved using the following lemmas which in turn follow
rather easily from the previous lemmas.
Lemma 7.38. Suppose h.M; I /; a; Y i 2 Bmax . Suppose .h.fi ; hi / W i < ni; S / is an
element of Y and suppose
h.fi ; hi ; Si / W i < !i
is a sequence extending h.fi ; hi ; S / W i < ni such that for each i < ! if i n then
.h.fi ; hi /i; Si / 2 Y . Suppose
hBi W i < !i
is a sequence of borel sets such that each i < !, if i < n then Bi is hi -small and if
i n then Bi is hi E -small. Then there is an iteration
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
(1) for all i < !, if !1M 2 j.Si / then j.fi /.!1M / Bi ,
(2) !1M 2 j.S /.
Proof. Let hAi W n i < !i enumerate the sets in M which are dense in
.P .!1 / n I /M .
Using Lemma 7.37 it is straightforward to build sequences
hTi W i < !i;
hIji W i; j < !i;
and
hNi W i < !i
such that for all i < ! the following hold.

Let
Z D i < ! j Si \ Ti ;:
(1.1) Ni D 0 and Ti D S for i < n.
(1.2) If i n then Ti 2 Ai and either Ti Si or Ti \ Si D ;.
(1.3) If i n then TiC1 Ti S , Ni 2 ! and Ni < NiC1 .
(1.4) Iji is an open interval with rational endpoints and
.Iji / < 1=.hi .Ni C j / C 1/:
(1.5) Bi [Iji j j < !.
.Ni /
(1.6) .h.fj ; hj
/ W j 2 Z \ i i; Ti / 2 Y .
(1.7) If i < n then for all 2 Tn , for all j < i ,

fj ./ [Ikj j k < Nn :
(1.8) If i n then for all 2 TiC1 , for all j < i , if j 2 Z then
fj ./ [Ikj j k < NiC1 :
464
We rst construct
hTi W i ni;
hIji W i < n; j < !i;
and
hNi W i ni:
For this we need only specify

Tn and Nn .
For each i < n let hIji W j < !i be a sequence of open intervals with rational
endpoints such that
Bi [Iji j j < !
and such that for all j < !,
.Iji / < 1=.hi C 1/:
By Lemma 7.37, there exist L0 2 ! and T 0 2 An such that
(2.1) T 0 Sn or T 0 \ Sn D ;,
(2.2) T 0 S ,
0
(2.3) .h.fi ; hi.L / / W i < ni; T 0 / 2 Y ,

(2.4) for all k < L0 , for all i < n, fi ./ Iki for all 2 T 0 .
Let Tn D T 0 and let Nn D L0 .
We next suppose m n and that
hTi W i mi;
hIji W i < m; j < !i;
and
hNi W i mi
i
are given. For each i < m and k < ! let Jki D IkCN
. Therefore
m
m/
/ W i 2 Z \ mi; Tm / 2 Y
.h.fi ; h.N
i
and for each i < m, the sequence hJki W k < !i witnesses that Oi is .hi.Nm / /-small
where
Oi D [Jki j k < !:
By Lemma 7.37, there exist L0 2 ! and T 0 2 AmC1 such that
(3.1) T 0 SmC1 or T 0 \ SmC1 D ;,
(3.2) T 0 Tm ,
0
m / .L /
/ / W i 2 Z \ mi; T 0 / 2 Y ,
(3.3) .h.fi ; .h.N
i
(3.4) for all k < L0 , for all i 2 Z \ m, fi ./ Jki for all 2 T 0 .
465
By Lemma 7.37 again, there exist L00 2 ! and T 00 2 AmC1 such that
(4.1) T 00 T 0 ,
00
m / .L /
/
/ W i 2 Z \ m C 1i; T 00 / 2 Y ,
(4.2) .h.fi ; .h.N
i
Of course if T 0 \ SmC1 D ; then one can simply let T 00 D T 0 and L00 D L0 .
Set TmC1 D T 00 and NmC1 D Nm C L00 . Choose a sequence hJk W k < !i such
.N
/
that hJk W k < !i witnesses that Bm is hm mC1 -small. The sequence exists since Bm
is hm E -small. For each k < ! set Ikm D Jk .
Therefore by induction the sequences exist.
Let G be the lter generated by Ti j i < !. Thus G is M-generic. Let
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
be the associated iteration of length 1. It follows from (1.5), (1.7), and (1.8) that for all
t
u
i < !, if !1M 2 j.Si / then j.fi /.!1M / Bi .
There is an analogous version of the previous lemma for sequences of models. We
shall apply this lemma only to sequences which are iterable. However the lemma holds
for sequences which are not necessarily iterable and it is this more general version
which we shall prove, (for no particular reason).
Lemma 7.39. Suppose that h.Mk ; Ik / W k < !i is a sequence such that for each
k < !, Mk is a countable transitive model of ZFC, Ik 2 Mk and such that in Mk , Ik
M
is a uniform normal ideal on !1 k .
For each k < ! let
Yk D .YBC .Ik //Mk :
Suppose that for all k < !,
(i) Mk 2 MkC1 ,
Mk
(iii) !1
MkC1
D !1
(v) Yk D YkC1 \ Mk ,
M
(vi) for each A 2 Mk such that A P .!1 k / \ Mk n Ik , if A is predense in

.P .!1 / n Ik /Mk then A is predense in .P .!1 / n IkC1 /MkC1 .
466
Suppose .h.fi ; hi / W i < ni; S / is an element of Y0 and suppose

h.fi ; hi ; Si / W i < !i
is a sequence extending h.fi ; hi ; S / W i < ni such that for each i < ! if i n then
.h.fi ; hi /i; Si / 2 Yi . Suppose
hBi W i < !i
is a sequence of borel sets such that each i < !, if i < n then Bi is hi -small and if
i n then Bi is hi E -small. Then there is an iteration
(1) for all i < !, if !1M0 2 j.Si / then j.fi /.!1M0 / Bi ,
(2) !1M0 2 j.S /.
Proof. Let hAi W n i < !i enumerate the sets
A 2 [Mk j k 2 !
such that if A 2 Mk then
A .P .!1 / n Ik /Mk
and A is predense in
.P .!1 / n Ik ; /Mk :
By (vi) in the hypothesis of the lemma we can suppose that for each i < !,
Ai 2 Mi :
Following the proof of Lemma 7.38 it is straightforward, using Lemma 7.37
and (v), to build sequences hTi W i < !i, hIji W i; j < !i and hNi W i < !i such
that for all i < ! the following hold. Let
Z D i < ! j Si \ Ti ;:
(1.1) Ni D 0 and Ti D S for i < n.
(1.2) If i n then Ti 2 Ai and either Ti Si or Ti \ Si D ;.
(1.3) If i n then TiC1 Ti S , Ni 2 ! and Ni < NiC1 .
(1.4) Iji is an open interval with rational endpoints and
.Iji / < 1=.hi .Ni C j / C 1/:
(1.5) Bi [Iji j j < !.
.Ni /
(1.6) .h.fj ; hj
/ W j 2 Z \ i i; Ti / 2 Yi .
467
(1.7) If i < n then for all 2 Tn , for all j < i ,

fj ./ [Ikj j k < Nn :
(1.8) If i n then for all 2 TiC1 , for all j < i , if j 2 Z then
fj ./ [Ikj j k < NiC1 :
We rst construct
hTi W i ni;
and hNi W i ni:
For this we need only specify

Tn and Nn .
For each i < n let hIji W j < !i be a sequence of open intervals with rational
endpoints such that
Bi [Iji j j < !
and such that for all j < !,
.Iji / < 1=.hi C 1/:
By Lemma 7.37, there exist L0 2 ! and T 0 2 An such that
(2.1) T 0 Sn or T 0 \ Sn D ;,
(2.2) T 0 S ,
0
(2.3) .h.fi ; hi.L / / W i < ni; T 0 / 2 Yn ,

(2.4) for all k < L0 , for all i < n, fi ./ Iki for all 2 T 0 .
Let Tn D T 0 and let Nn D L0 .
We next suppose m n and that
hTi W i mi;
hIji W i < m; j < !i;
and
hNi W i mi
i
are given. For each i < m and k < ! let Jki D IkCN
.
m
Therefore
m/
.h.fi ; h.N
/ W i 2 Z \ mi; Tm / 2 Ym
i
and for each i < m, the sequence hJki W k < !i witnesses that Oi is .hi.Nm / /-small
where
Oi D [Jki j k < !:
By (v),
Ym D YmC1 \ Mm
and so
m/
.h.fi ; h.N
/ W i 2 Z \ mi; Sm / 2 YmC1 :
i
468
By Lemma 7.37, there exist L0 2 ! and T 0 2 MmC1 such that

(3.1) T 0 !1M0 and T 0 a for some a 2 AmC1 ,
(3.2) T 0 SmC1 or T 0 \ SmC1 D ;,
(3.3) T 0 Tm ,
0
m / .L /
(3.4) .h.fi ; .h.N
/ / W i 2 Z \ mi; T 0 / 2 Ym ,
i

By Lemma 7.37 once more, there exist L00 2 ! and T 00 2 MmC1 such that
(4.1) T 00 T 0 ,
00
m / .L /
/
/ W i 2 Z \ m C 1i; T 00 / 2 YmC1 ,
(4.2) .h.fi ; .h.N
i
Of course, as in the proof of Lemma 7.38, if T 0 \ SmC1 D ; then one can simply let
T 00 D T 0 and L00 D L0 .
Set TmC1 D T 00 and NmC1 D Nm C L00 . Choose a sequence hJk W k < !i such
.N
/
that hJk W k < !i witnesses that Bm is hm mC1 -small. The sequence exists since Bm
is hm E -small. For each k < ! set Ikm D Jk .
Therefore by induction the sequences exist.
Let G be the lter generated by Ti j i < !. Thus G is [Mi j i < !-generic.
Let
be the associated iteration of length 1. It follows from (1.5), (1.7) and (1.8) that for all
t
u
i < !, if !1M0 2 j.Si / then j.fi /.!1M0 / Bi .
With these lemmas the main iterations lemmas are easily proved. As usual it is
really the proofs of these iteration lemmas which are the key to the analysis of Bmax .
Lemma 7.40 (CH). Suppose h.M; I /; a; Y i 2 Bmax and that J is a normal uniform
ideal on !1 . Then there is an iteration
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
such that
(1) J \ M D I ,
(2) j.Y / D YBC .J / \ M .
469
Proof. Let hSk; W k < !; < !1 i be a sequence of pairwise disjoint J -positive sets
such that
!1 D [Sk; j k < !; < !1 :
Let hs W < !1 i be an enumeration (with repetition) of all nite sequences of open
subsets of .0;1/ such that for each nite sequence s of open subsets of .0;1/, and for
each .k; / 2 ! !1 ,
2 Sk; j s D s
is a set which is J -positive.
Let hB W < !1 i be an enumeration of all the borel subsets of .0;1/.
Let x be a real which codes M and let
C !1
be a closed unbounded set of ordinals which are admissible relative to x.
Fix a function
F W ! !1M ! M
such that
(1.1) F is onto,
(1.2) for all k < !, F jk !1M 2 M,
(1.3) for all A 2 M if A has cardinality !1M in M then A ran.F jk !1M / for
some k < !.
The function F is simply used to anticipate elements in the nal model. Our situation is similar to that in the proof of Lemma 7.7.
Suppose
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
j.F / D [j.F jk !1M / j k < !
and it is easily veried that M is the range of j.F /. This follows from (1.3).
Implicit in what follows is that for 2 C if
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
is an iteration of length then j.!1M / D . This is a consequence of Lemma 4.6(1).
We construct an iteration
h.M ; I /; G ; j; W < !1 i
of M of length !1 using the function F to provide a book-keeping device for dealing
with elements of
j0;!1 ..P .!1 / n I /M /
and for dealing with elements of j0;!1 .Y /.
470
More precisely construct by induction, an iteration

h.M ; I /; G ; j; W < !1 i
as follows.
Suppose < !1 and that
h.M ; I /; G ; j; W < i:
Fix .k; / 2 ! !1 such that 2 Sk; . If C or if then choose G to be
any M -generic lter.
If 2 C and if < there are three cases.
We rst suppose that
j0; .F /.k; / D .h.fi ; hi / W i < ni; S /
and that .h.fi ; hi / W i < ni; S / 2 j0; .Y /. Suppose
s D hOi W i < ni
is a sequence of length n such that for each i < n, Oi is hi -small.
Let h.fi ; hi ; Si / W i < !i be a sequence extending the sequence
h.fi ; hi ; S / W i < ni
.h.fi ; hi /i; Si / 2 j0; .Y /
and such that for all
.h.f 0 ; h0 /i; S 0 / 2 j0; .Y /;
.h.f 0 ; h0 /i; S 0 / D .h.fi ; hi /i; Si / for innitely many i < !.

Let hBi0 W i < !i be a sequence of borel sets extending hOi W i < ni such that for
all i n, Bi0 is hi E -small and such that for all < if
.h.f 0 ; h0 /i; S 0 / 2 j0; .Y /
and if B is h0 -small then for some j > n, B D Bj0 and
.h.f 0 ; h0 /i; S 0 / D .h.fj ; hj /i; Sj /:
j W .M ; I / ! .MC1 ; IC1 /
M
(2.1) for all i < !, if !1

M
(2.2) !1
2 j.Si / then j.fi /.!1 / Bi0 ,
2 j.S /.
Let j;C1 D j and let G be the associated M -generic lter.

The remaining cases are similar. Choose
j W .M ; I / ! .MC1 ; IC1 /
471
of length 1 such that for all

.h.f 0 ; h0 /i; S 0 / 2 j0; .Y /
if
!1
then
2 j.S 0 /
M
j.f 0 /.!1 / B
for all < such that B is h0 -small. Let j;C1 D j and let G be the associated
M -generic lter. If
j0; .F /.k; / 2 .P .!1 / n I /M ;
then choose j such that in addition to the requirement above,
M
!1
2 j.S /
where S D j0; .F /.k; /.

In each of these last two cases j exists by Lemma 7.38.
This completes the inductive construction of the iteration
h.M ; I /; G ; j; W < !1 i:
It is straightforward to verify that this iteration is as required.
The rst case of the construction at the inductive step guarantees that
j0;!1 .Y / ZBC .J /
and this implies that
j0;!1 .Y / YBC .J /:
The second case guarantees
J \ M!1 D I!1
and so
j0;!1 .Y / D YBC .J / \ M!1 :
t
u
The analysis of the Bmax -extension requires the generalization of Lemma 7.40 to
sequences of models. We state this lemma only for the sequences that arise, specically
those sequences of structures coming from descending sequences of conditions in Bmax .
Suppose that hpk W k < !i is a sequence of conditions in Bmax such that for all
k < !,
pkC1 < pk :
We let hpk W k < !i be the associated sequence of conditions which is dened as
follows. For each k < ! let
h.Mk ; Ik /; ak ; Yk i D pk
and let
jk W .Mk ; Ik / ! .Mk ; Ik /
472
be the iteration obtained by combining the iterations given by the conditions pi for
i > k. Thus jk is uniquely specied by the requirement that
jk .ak / D [ai j i < !:
For each k < !,
pk D h.M ; Ik /; jk .ak /; jk .Yk /i:
We note that by Corollary 4.20, the sequence
is iterable (in the sense of Denition 4.8).
Lemma 7.41 (CH). Suppose hpk W k < !i is a sequence of conditions in Bmax such
that for each k < !
pkC1 < pk :
Let hpk W k < !i be the associated sequence of Bmax conditions and for each k < !
let
h.Mk ; Ik /; ak ; Yk i D pk :
Suppose that J is a normal uniform ideal on !1 . Then there is an iteration
such that for all k < !;
(1) J \ Mk D Ik ,
(2) YBC .J / \ Mk D j.Yk /.
Proof. By Corollary 4.20, the sequence
is iterable.
The lemma follows by a routine modication of the proof of Lemma 7.40 using
Lemma 7.39 in place of Lemma 7.38.
t
u
Theorem 7.43 establishes the nontriviality of Bmax in the sense required for the
analysis of L.R/Bmax . The proof requires Theorem 7.18, Theorem 7.42 and the transfer
principle supplied by Theorem 5.36.
473
Theorem 7.42. Suppose that is a Woodin cardinal. Suppose A R and that every
set of reals which is projective in A is C -weakly homogeneously Suslin. Then there is
an iterable structure .M; I / such that
M ZFC C CH
and such that
(1) M
AC .I /,
(2) A \ M 2 M,
(3) hH.!1 /M ; A \ Mi hH.!1 /; Ai,
Proof. Suppose that
G Coll.!1 ; </
is V -generic. By Theorem 7.18, in V G there exists a normal uniform saturated ideal
IG on !1 such that
IG \ V D .INS /V
and such that
V G
AC .IG /:
Trivially, RV D RV G . Thus in V G every set of reals which is projective in A is

weakly homogeneously Suslin. This is witnessed by the trees in V which witness that
every set which is projective in A is C -weakly homogeneously Suslin.
Let be the least strongly inaccessible cardinal in V G. As usual necessarily
exists (otherwise in V G every weakly homogeneously Suslin set is
11 ).
Let
X V G
IG ; A X:
Let M be the transitive collapse of X and let I be the image of IG under the collapsing
map.
Thus A \ M 2 M and
hH.!1 /M ; A \ Mi hH.!1 /; Ai:
By Lemma 6.26, .M; I / is A-iterable. Finally
.M; I / 2 V
since R D R
V
V G
As an immediate corollary we obtain the nontriviality of Bmax .
t
u
474
Theorem 7.43. Assume AD holds in L.R/. Suppose A R and that

A 2 L.R/:
Then there is a condition h.M; I /; a; Y i 2 Bmax such that
(1) A \ M 2 M,
(2) hH.!1 /M ; A \ Mi hH.!1 /; Ai,
and further the set of such conditions is dense in Bmax .
Proof. By Theorem 5.36, there exist a transitive set M and an ordinal 2 M such that
(1.1) M ZFC,
(1.2) A \ M 2 M and
hH.!1 /M ; A \ M; 2i hH.!1 /; A; 2i;
(1.3) is a Woodin cardinal in M ,
(1.4) B is C -weakly homogeneously Suslin in M for each set B 2 P .R/M such
that in M , B is projective in A \ M .
By Theorem 7.42 there exists
.M; I / 2 H.!1 /M
such that
(2.1) M ZFC C CH,
(2.2) I 2 M and in M, I is a normal uniform saturated ideal on !1 ,
(2.3) M
AC .I /,
(2.4) A \ M 2 M and
hH.!1 /M ; A \ M; 2i hH.!1 /M ; A \ M; 2i;
(2.5) .M; I / is A \ M -iterable in M .
Thus
hH.!1 /M ; A \ M; 2i hH.!1 /; A; 2i;
and in V , .M; I / is A-iterable.

Let
Y D .YBC /M
and let a !1M be any set in M such that

!1La;x D !1M
for some x 2 R \ M. Thus
h.M; I /; a; Y i 2 Bmax
and is as desired. The density of such conditions follows abstractly by standard argut
u
ments using the iteration lemmas for Bmax , cf. the proof of Theorem 4.40.
475
The analysis of Bmax is now a straightforward generalization of that of Pmax . Suppose G Bmax is L.R/-generic. Then for each h.M; I /; a; Y i 2 G there corresponds
a unique iteration
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
such that j .!1M / D !1 . This iteration is constructed by combining the countable
iterations of .M; I / given by conditions p 2 G such that
p < h.M; I /; a; Y i:
Let
(1) YG D [j .Y / j h.M; I /; a; Y i 2 G,
(2) IG D [j .I / j h.M; I /; a; Y i 2 G,
(3) AG D [j .a/ j h.M; I /; a; Y i 2 G,
(4) P .!1 /G D [P .!1 /M j h.M; I /; a; Y i 2 G.

Theorem 7.44. Assume AD L.R/ . Then Bmax is !-closed and homogeneous.
Suppose G Bmax is L.R/-generic. Then
L.R/G ZFC
and in L.R/G:
(1) P .!1 / D P .!1 /G ;
(4) the sentence AC holds;
(5) YG D YBC .INS /.
Proof. We leave the details to the reader.
(1)(4) follow from the iteration lemmas for Bmax by arguments analogous to those
for Pmax . The only difference in the present situation is that the iteration lemmas require
the additional assumption of CH. But the models occurring in the conditions of Bmax
are required to satisfy CH and so the iteration lemmas for Bmax hold in these models.
Finally (5) follows from (1) and the denition of order relation between conditions
t
u
in Bmax .
Assume ADL.R/ . Suppose that A !1 . Then the set A is L.R/-generic for Bmax
if there exists an L.R/-generic lter
G Bmax
such that AG D A.
The analog of Theorem 4.60 also holds for the Bmax -extension. The proof requires
the version of Lemma 4.59 for Bmax . This is easily proved following the proof of
Lemma 4.59 and using Lemma 4.57. The proof of Theorem 4.60 then adapts to establish to the case of Bmax , using Lemma 7.19 in place of Lemma 4.35 (these are the
lemmas regarding uniqueness of iterations).
476
Theorem 7.45. Assume AD holds in L.R/. Suppose G Bmax is L.R/-generic.

Suppose A !1 , A 2 L.R/G n L.R/. Then A is L.R/-generic for Bmax and
L.R/G D L.R/A:
t
u
Lemma 4.52 and Theorem 4.53 also generalize to the Bmax -extension.
Theorem 7.46. Assume AD L.R/ . Suppose G Bmax is L.R/-generic. Then in
(1) Suppose B R and B 2 L.R/. Then the set
(2) Suppose S !1 is stationary and f W S ! Ord. Then there is a function
g 2 L.R/ such that
2 S j g./ D f ./
is stationary.
Proof. (1) follows by an argument essentially identical to the proof of Lemma 4.52.
The application of the argument requires
P .!1 /G D P .!1 /
which is true by Theorem 7.44.
(2) follows from (1) and Theorem 3.42 using a chain condition argument to reduce
to the case that
f WS !
for some < L.R/ , cf. the proof of Theorem 4.53.
t
u
To prove that the Borel Conjecture holds in L.R/Bmax we use the following lemmas.
Suppose U is a free ultralter on !. Recall that the ultralter U is selective if for
all partitions hk W k < !i of ! either k 2 U for some k < ! or there exists 2 U
such that
j \ k j 1
for all k < !.
Let PU denote the partial order dened as follows. This is Prikry forcing adapted
to U .
PU consists of pairs .s; / such that s is a nite subset of ! and 2 U . The order
is dened by,
.s1 ; 1 / .s0 ; 0 /
if s0 s1 , 1 0 and
s1 n s0 0 :
Selective ultralters satisfy the following condition. Suppose

W !<! ! U:
477
is a function where !<! denotes the set of nite subsets of !. There exists a set
2 U such that for all k 2 , n .k C 1/ .a/ for all a k C 1.
Given this the usual analysis of Prikry applies. We give the results of this in the
next lemma. The Prikry Property is due essentially to Prikry and the Geometric Condition is due to Mathias. Prikry was concerned with the standard formulation of Prikry
forcing which is dened from a normal measure, however the proofs in that case immediately generalize to this case. A good reference for generalizations of Prikry forcing to
more general ultralters is Blass .1988/ to which we also refer the reader for historical
remarks.
Lemma 7.47. Suppose U is a selective ultralter on !.
(1) (Prikry property) Suppose .s; / 2 PU and b 2 RO.PU /. Then there exists
2 U such that .s; / b or such that .s; / b 0 .
(2) (Geometric condition) Suppose a ! is an innite set such that a n is nite
for all 2 U . Let
Ga D .a \ k; / 2 PU j k < ! and a .a \ k/ [ :
Then Ga is a V -generic lter in PU .
t
u
Suppose G PU is V -generic. Suppose B .0;1/ is a borel set in V . Let BG

denote the borel set dened by interpreting B in V G.
Lemma 7.48. Suppose U is a selective ultralter on ! and that h 2 ! ! . Suppose
p 2 ! ! is such that
(1) p.0/ D 0,
(2) p.k/ < p.k C 1/ for all k 2 !,
(3) limk!1 .p.k C 1/
p.k// D 1.
Let h 2 ! ! be the function such that for all j 2 !,
h .j / D h.k/
where k 2 ! and p.k/ j < p.k C 1/. Suppose that
G PU
is V -generic and that O 2 V G is an open set such that
O .0;1/
and O is h-small. Then there exists an open set W 2 V such that in V , W is h -small
and such that in V G,
O WG :
478
Proof. Let 0 be a term for O. We work in V .

We may suppose that
.;; !/ 0 .0;1/
and that
.;; !/ 0 is h-small:
Let 1 be a term for an h-small cover of . Again we may suppose that
.;; !/ 1 is an h-small cover of 0 :
We prove that there exists an open set W .0;1/ such that W is h -small and such
that
.;; / 0 WG
for some 2 U . By homogeneity this sufces.
Let I be the set of open subintervals of .0;1/.
By Lemma 7.47, for each s 2 !<! , there exists a function
Hs W ! ! I
such that for each k 2 !, there exists 2 U such that
.s; / 1 .k/ Hs .k/
and
.Hs .k// 2=.h.k/ C 1/:
For each k 2 ! n 0 let Nk 2 ! be such that for all j Nk ,
p.j C 1/
p.j / > 3 2kC2 :
Let N0 D 0. By increasing the Nk , k > 0, if necessary, we may suppose that for all
k < !,
Nk < NkC1 :
For each m 2 ! let m 2 U be such that
.t; m / 1 .k/ H t .k/
for all t m C 1 and for all k NmC1 .
The ultralter U is selective and so there exists 2 U such that for all k 2 !,
j \ Nk ; NkC1 /j 1;
and such that for all s 2 <! ,
k 2 j k > m m
where m D [s.
For each k 2 ! let ak be the least element of n Nk .
Let J be the set of intervals of the form Hs .j / such that for some k 2 !,
Nk j < NkC1
and such that
s .NkC1 \ / [ akC1 :
Let W D [J.
We claim that W is h -small and that
.;; / 0 WG :
We rst prove that
Suppose
.;; / 0 WG :
.s; / .;; /
and that j < [s. Let k 2 ! be such that

Nk j < NkC1 :
We may suppose that
k 2 j k > [s:
There are two cases. First, suppose that

akC1 2 s:
Then
.s; / 1 .j / H t .j /
where t D s \ .akC1 C 1/. However H t .j / 2 J and so
.s; / 1 .j / WG :
Second, suppose that
akC1 s:
Then
.s; / 1 .j / H t .j /
where t D s \ akC1 . Again H t .j / 2 J and so again
.s; / 1 .j / WG :
Thus
.;; / 0 WG :
We nish by proving that W is h -small. We note that since for all k 2 !,

j \ Nk ; NkC1 /j 1;
it follows that for all k 2 !,
jP . \ NkC1 /j 2kC1 :
Suppose m 2 ! and let k 2 ! be such that
Nk m < NkC1 :
Let Jm be the set of intervals of the form Hs .m/ such that
s .NkC1 \ / [ akC1 :
Thus
J D [Jm j m 2 !:
479
480
Further for each m 2 !,
jJm j 2kC2
and each interval in Jm has length at most

2=.h.m/ C 1/
where k 2 ! is such that
Nk m < NkC1 :

be the collection of intervals
For each m 2 !, let Jm

interval .a; b/ 2 Jm , Jm contains the intervals,
.a; .a C b/=2/;
Let J D

[Jm
obtained as follows. For each
.a C .b
a/=4; b
.b
a/=4/;
and
..a C b/=2; b/:
j m < !. Thus
W D [J :
Suppose m 2 ! and let k 2 ! be such that

Nk m < NkC1 :
Each interval in

Jm
has length at most 1=.h.m/ C 1/ and

j 3 2kC2 :
jJm
For each j 2 ! such that
p.m/ j < p.m C 1/;
we have that h .j / D h.m/. Further since m Nk ,

p.m C 1/
p.m/ 3 2kC2 :
It follows that W is h -small.
t
u
Suppose G PU is V -generic. Let

aG D [s j .s; / 2 G
and let
hG W ! ! !
be the enumeration function of aG .
We note the following. Suppose that I is a normal, uniform, ideal on !1 and that
P is ccc. Suppose that G P is V -generic. Then in V G the ideal I denes three
ideals,
(1) I0 which is the ideal generated by I ,
I0 D A !1 j A B for some B 2 I ;
(2) I1 which is the -ideal generated by I0 ,
(3) I2 which is the normal ideal generated by I0 .
Under certain circumstances, these three ideals can coincide.
481
Lemma 7.49. Suppose U is a selective ultralter on ! and that for all X U , if

jX j D !1 then there exists 2 U such that n is nite for all 2 X . Suppose I is
a normal uniform ideal on !1 . Suppose
G PU
is V -generic. Let I.G/ be the ideal generated by I in V G. Then in V G:
(1) I.G/ is a normal uniform ideal on !1 ;
(2) suppose f W !1 ! .0;1/ is an injective function such that f 2 V , then
V G
.h.f; h.n/
G /i; !1 / 2 .YBC .I.G/ //
for some n 2 !.
Proof. Suppose F 2 V G is a function,
F W !1 ! !1
such that F ./ < for all > 0.
Suppose A !1 , A 2 V G and A I.G/ . We may suppose 0 A.
We must show that there exists B such that B A, B I.G/ and such that F jB is
constant.
Let F 2 V PU be a term for the function F and let A 2 V P be a term for the set
A.
Fix a condition .s0 ; 0 / 2 G. We may suppose that
.s0 ; 0 / A I.G/ :
We work in V . Let A be the set of < !1 such that there exists a condition
.s; / < .s0 ; 0 / with the property that
.s; / 2 A :
Since
.s0 ; 0 / A I.G/ ;
it follows that A I .
For each 2 !1 choose a condition .s ; / < .s0 ; 0 / and an ordinal <
such that
.s ; / ./ D ;
and such that if 2 A then
.s ; / 2 A ;
and if A then
.s ; / A :
Let 2 U be such that for all 2 A,

\ .! n /
is nite.
482
For each 2 A let n 2 ! be such that n n . The ideal I is normal.

Therefore there exists a set B A such that B I and there exists
.s; n; / 2 !<! ! !1
such that
.s; n; / D .s ; n ; /
for all 2 B.
Thus for all 2 B,
.s; n n/ ./ D :
By the genericity of G we may suppose that

.s; n n/ 2 G:
This proves (1).
We prove (2). Fix a function f W !1 ! .0;1/ such that f 2 V and such that f is
injective.
Assume that for each n 2 !,
V G
:
.h.f; h.n/
G /i; !1 / 62 .ZBC .I.G/ //
Then for each n 2 ! there exist an open set On and a set An 2 I.G/ such that On is
h.n/
G -small and such that
< !1 j f ./ On An :
I.G/ is the ideal generated by I and PU is ccc. Therefore there must exist A 2 I
such that for all n < ! and for all 2 !1 n A, f ./ 2 On .
Let X D f ./ j 2 A. Thus X 2 V , jX j D !1 and X is hG E -small in V G.
This is a contradiction.
Therefore for some n 2 !,
V G
:
.h.f; h.n/
G /i; !1 / 2 .ZBC .I.G/ //
A similar argument shows the following. Suppose that p 2 ! ! \ V and that

(1.1) p.0/ D 0,
(1.2) p.k/ < p.k C 1/ for all k 2 !,
(1.3) limk!1 .p.k C 1/
p.k// D 1.
Let hG;p 2 ! ! be the function such that for all j 2 !,
hG;p .j / D h.k/
where k 2 ! and p.k/ j < p.k C 1/. Then for some n < !,
V G
.h.f; h.n/
:
G;p /i; !1 / 2 .ZBC .I.G/ //
It follows that for some n 2 !,

V G
:
.h.f; h.n/
G /i; !1 / 2 .YBC .I.G/ //
t
u
483
Lemma 7.50. Suppose U is a selective ultralter on ! and that I is a normal uniform

ideal on !1 . Suppose
G PU
is V -generic. Let I.G/ be the normal ideal generated by I in V G. Then in V G:
(1) I.G/ \ V D I ;
(2) .YBC .I //V D V \ .YBC .I.G/ //V G ;
(3) suppose f W !1 ! .0;1/ is an injective function such that f 2 V , then
V G
.h.f; h.n/
G /i; !1 / 2 .YBC .I.G/ //
for some n 2 !.
Proof. (1) is an immediate consequence of the fact that PU is ccc.
We prove (2). Suppose B .0;1/ is a borel set in V . Let BG be the interpretation
of B in V G.
It sufces to prove that for all
.h.fi ; hi / W i < ni; S / 2 .YBC .I //V ;
.h.fi ; hi / W i < ni; S / 2 .ZBC .I.G/ //V G :
Granting this (2) follows from the denition of
.YBC .I.G/ //V G
as a subset of .ZBC .I.G/ //V G .
The claim that
.YBC .I //V .ZBC .I.G/ //V G
follows from Lemma 7.48. To illustrate how we suppose
.h.f; h/i; S / 2 .YBC .I //V
and prove that
.h.f; h/i; S / 2 .ZBC .I.G/ //V G :
Fix p0 2 ! ! such that
.h.f; h /i; S / 2 .YBC .I //V
where:
(1.1) p0 .0/ D 0 and p0 .k/ < p0 .k C 1/ for all k < !;
(1.2) for some m 2 !, m > 1 and
p0 .k/ D k m
484
(1.3) for all i < n and for all j < !,

hi .j / D hi .k/
where k < ! is such that p0 .k/ j < p0 .k C 1/.
Suppose O 2 V G is an open set such that O is h-small. By Lemma 7.48, there
exists an open set W 2 V such that W is h -small and such that
O WG :
In V ,
2 S j f ./ W
is I -positive.
Hence in V G,
2 S j f ./ O
is I.G/ positive since by (1)
I.G/ \ V D I:
Therefore
.h.f; h/i; S / 2 .ZBC .I.G/ //V G :
The general case is similar.
Finally we prove (3). Fix
f W !1 ! .0;1/
such that f is injective and such that f 2 V .
Suppose V G0 is a ccc extension of V such that
V G0 MA C .2@0 /V < 2@0 :
Let U0 2 V G0 be a selective ultralter such that U U0 and such that in V G0 , for
all X U0 , if jX j D !1 then there exists 2 U0 such that \ .! n / is nite for all
2 X.
Suppose G1 PU0 is V G0 -generic. By Lemma 7.47(2), G1 \ PU is V -generic.
Therefore without loss of generality we may suppose that G1 \ PU D G.
Let I.G0 / be the normal ideal generated by I in V G0 and let I.G0 ;G1 / be the ideal
generated by I.G0 / in V G0 G1 .
By Lemma 7.49, there exists n 2 ! such that
V G0 ;G1
:
.h.f; h.n/
G /i; !1 / 2 .YBC .I.G0 ;G1 / //
Therefore
V G
.h.f; h.n/
G /i; !1 / 2 .YBC .I.G/ //
since I.G/ I.G0 ;G1 / .

Combining Theorem 7.44 and Lemma 7.50 we obtain the following corollary.
t
u
485

L.R/Bmax ZFC C Borel Conjecture:
Proof. By Theorem 7.44 it sufces to prove the following.
Suppose
h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 ; Y0 i 2 Bmax
and that
f0 W !1M0 ! .0;1/
is an injective function such that f0 2 M0 .

Then there exists a condition
h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 ; Y1 i 2 Bmax
such that
h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 ; Y1 i < h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 ; Y0 i
and such that for some h 2 M1 ,
.h.j.f0 /; h/i; !1M1 / 2 Y1 ;
where j is the iteration of .M0 ; I0 / such that j.a0 / D a1 .
Fix f0 and h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 ; Y0 i.
Let z 2 R code M0 and let N be a transitive inner model of ZFC C CH such that
Ord N , z 2 N and such that for some < !1 ,
N is a Woodin cardinal:
We also require that !1 is strongly inaccessible in N . Since AD holds in L.R/, N
exists by Theorem 5.34.
j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
such that j 2 N and such that
(1.1) .INS /N \ M0 D I0 ,
(1.2) j.Y / D .YBC .INS //N \ M0 .
Let U 2 N be a selective ultralter on ! and let G0 .PU /N be N -generic.
Let
G1 .Coll.!1 ; <//N G0
be N G0 -generic. By Theorem 7.18, in N G0 G1 there exists a normal ideal I1 such
that
I1 \ N G0 D .INS /N G0
and such that
N G0 G1
AC .I1 /:
Let < !1 be such that < and such that N ZFC. Finally let
M1 D N G0 G1 ;
486
let,
Y1 D .YBC .I1 //N G0 G1 ;
and let
a1 D j.a0 /:
We claim that h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 ; Y1 i 2 Bmax and is as desired. By Lemma 4.4 and
Lemma 4.5, .M1 ; I1 / is iterable.
By Lemma 7.50,
.YBC .INS //N D .YBC .INS //N G0 \ N;
and for some n < !,
N
N G0
.h.j.f0 /; h.n/
:
G0 /i; !1 / 2 .YBC .INS //
Since
.Coll.!1 ; <//N G0
is !-closed in N G0 , and since
I1 \ N G0 D .INS /N G0 ;
it follows that
.YBC .INS //N G0 D .YBC .I1 //N G0 G1 \ N G0 :
Thus
and for some h 2 M1 ,
j.Y / D Y1 \ M0
.h.j.f0 /; h/i; !1M1 / 2 Y1 :
This veries that h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 ; Y1 i has the desired properties.
t
u
We shall use the following lemma to show that in L.R/Bmax , every set X R of
cardinality !1 has Lebesgue measure 0. We thank A. Miller for revealing the lemma
to us.
Lemma 7.52. Suppose that U is a selective ultralter on ! and that
G PU
is V -generic. Then in V G,
V \R
has Lebesgue measure 0.
Proof. We work in V G and prove that
V \ 2!
has Lebesgue measure 0. For each set a ! let
fa W ! ! 0;1
487
be the characteristic function of a. Trivially

V \ 2! D fa j a 2 P .!/ \ V \ 2! :
Let ! be the set given by the generic lter G,
D [s j .s; / 2 G:
For each n < ! let
Xn D fa j a ! and either n n a or a \ n:
Both and ! n are innite and so for each n < !, Xn has Lebesgue measure 0.
However by the genericity of G, for each a ! such that a 2 V , either a \ is
nite or n a is nite. Therefore
V \ 2! [Xn j n < !
and so V \ 2! has Lebesgue measure 0.
t
u
Combining Theorem 7.44, Lemma 7.50, and Lemma 7.52 we obtain the following
additional corollary. The proof is quite similar to that of Theorem 7.51.
L.R/Bmax Every set of reals of cardinality @1 has measure 0:
t
u
We dene the sentence, BC , relative to which the absoluteness theorem for

L.R/Bmax holds.
Denition 7.54. BC : For all X !1 there is a transitive model M such that
(1) M ZFC C CH,
(2) X 2 M ,
(3) .YBC .INS //.M / D M \ YBC .INS /.
t
u
Note that (3) is equivalent to the condition

.YBC .INS //.M / ZBC .INS /:
L.R/Bmax BC :
Proof. This is an immediate consequence of Theorem 7.44(1) and the denition of the
t
u
order on Bmax .
The absoluteness theorems for Bmax are analogous to those for Smax . We state one,
leaving the proof as an exercise, noting that the main iteration lemmas for Bmax are an
immediate consequence of BC .
488
Theorem 7.56. Assume BC holds and that there are ! many Woodin cardinals with
a measurable above. Suppose is a 2 sentence in the language for the structure
hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; YBC .INS /; X I X 2 L.R/; X Ri:
Suppose that
hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; YBC .INS /; X I X 2 L.R/; X Ri :
Then
Bmax
hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; YBC .INS /; X I X 2 L.R/; X RiL.R/
:
t
u
Assume ADL.R/ . Then L.R/Bmax satises a conditional form of Martins Maximum

for posets of size !1 .
Denition 7.57.
that
(1) Let BCFA denote the forcing axiom: Suppose P is a poset such
P
YBC .INS / D V \ .YBC .INS //V :

Suppose D is a set of dense subsets of P and jDj !1 . Then there exists an
D-generic lter F P , i. e. such that
F \d ;
for all d 2 D.
(2) Let BCFACC denote the following variation of BCFA: Suppose P is a partial
order which satises the requirements of BCFA and that 2 V P is a term for a
subset of YBC .INS / of cardinality @1 . Suppose D is a set of dense subsets of P
and jDj !1 . Then there is an D-generic lter G P which interprets as a
subset of YBC .INS /.
(3) BCFACC . / denotes the restriction of BCFACC to posets of size .
t
u
BCFACC analogous to Martins MaximumCC .

We note that the preservation condition,
YBC .INS / D V \ .YBC .INS //V
is equivalent to the requirement,

P
YBC .INS / .ZBC .INS //V :

The following lemma is an immediate consequence of Lemma 7.50 and the denitions.
Lemma 7.58. Assume BCFACC .c/. Then
(1) the Borel Conjecture holds,
(2) BC holds.
We let BC abbreviate Borel Conjecture.
t
u
489
Theorem 7.59 shows that BCFACC .!1 / holds in L.R/Bmax . An amusing question
is whether there are any partial orders in L.R/Bmax satisfying (in L.R/Bmax ) the preservation requirements of BCFA and of cardinality !1 . A natural conjecture is that there
are none. It seems likely that in L.R/Bmax , any nontrivial partial order of cardinality !1
adds a Cohen real. Nevertheless the proof of Theorem 7.59 does generalize to prove
a non-vacuous version of the theorem, cf. Theorem 9.42. The proof also quite easily
adapts to prove, from suitable assumptions, that
.c/
L.R/Bmax BCFACC
ZF
where BCFAZF .c/ is the version of BCFA.c/ analogous to Martins MaximumZF .c/, see
Denition 2.51.
Theorem 7.59. Assume ADL.R/ . Suppose G Bmax is L.R/-generic.
Then
L.R/G ZFC C BC C BCFACC .!1 /:
Proof. Suppose that
P 2 L.R/G
is a partial order satisfying the requirements for BCFA.!1 /. We view P D .!1 ; P /.
It sufces to prove the following: Suppose that
!1 !1
denes a term for a subset of !1 which codes a subset of YBC .INS / as computed in
L.R/GP . For each < !1 let
A D < !1 j .; / 2 :
Suppose that
!1 !1
is such that for each < !1 , D is dense in P where
D D < !1 j .; / 2 :
Then there is a lter F in P such that for all < !1 ,
F \ D ;
and such that X codes a subset of YBC .INS / where
X D 2 !1 j A \ F ;:
By Theorem 7.44, there exists a condition
h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 ; Y0 i 2 G
such that
where
P ; ; 2 M0
j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
490
is the iteration of .M0 ; I0 / given by G. Thus there exists P0 2 M0 such that

j.P0 / D P and there exists .0 ; 0 / 2 M0 such that j..0 ; 0 // D .; /.
By genericity we can suppose that for all
h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 ; Y1 i 2 Bmax
such that
h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 ; Y1 i < h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 ; Y0 i;
if I1 D .INS /M1 then:
(1.1) j1 .P0 / satises in M1 the preservation requirements for BCFA and further that
j1 .0 / is a term for a subset of !1M1 which codes a subset of
YBC .INS /
as computed in
M1j1 .P0 / ;
(1.2) for each < !1M1 ,
< !1M1 j .; / 2 j1 .0 /
is dense in j1 .P0 /;
where j1 is the (unique) iteration
j1 W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
such that j1 .a0 / D a1 .
Fix h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 ; Y0 i, P0 and .0 ; 0 /. We work in L.R/.
As in the proof of Theorem 7.51, let z 2 R code M0 and let N be a transitive inner
model of ZFC C CH such that Ord N , z 2 N and such that for some < !1 ,
N is a Woodin cardinal:
We also require that !1 is strongly inaccessible in N . Since AD holds in L.R/, N
exists by Theorem 5.34.
Let < !1 be such that < and such that
N ZFC:
j0 W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
such that j0 2 N and such that
(2.1) .INS /N \ M0 D I0 ,
(2.2) j0 .Y / D .YBC .INS //N \ M0 .
Thus j0 .P0 / is a partial order on !1N .
We claim the following hold in N .
491
(3.1) j0 .P0 / satises the preservation requirements of BCFA.

(3.2) j0 .0 / denes a term in V j0 .P0 / for a subset of !1 which codes a subset of
YBC .INS / as computed in V j0 .P0 / .
(3.3) For each < !1 ,
< !1 j .; / 2 j0 .0 /
is dense in j0 .P0 /.
To verify this claim let g .Coll.!1 ; <//N be N -generic. We can suppose
g 2V.
By Theorem 7.18 there exists I1 2 N g such that in N g, I1 is a normal saturated
ideal on !1 ,
N
D I1 \ N;
INS
and such that
N g
AC .I1 /:
Let M1 D N g , a1 D j0 .a0 /, and let

Y1 D .YBC .INS //N g :
By Lemma 4.4 and Lemma 4.5, since I1 is a saturated ideal in N g, the structure
.M1 ; I1 / is iterable.
Thus
h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 ; Y1 i 2 Bmax
and
h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 ; Y1 i < h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 ; Y0 i:
If (3.1), (3.2) or (3.3) fail in N then they fail in M1 which is a contradiction.
Finally let h1 j0 .P0 / be an N -generic lter. Let b !1N be the interpretation
of j0 .0 / by h1 .
By (3.1),
.YBC .INS //N D N \ .YBC .INS //N h1 ;
and by (3.2), b codes a subset of YBC .INS /N h1 .
Let Yb be the set coded by b.
Let
g1 .Coll.!1 ; <//N h1
be N h1 -generic.
Let M1 D N h1 g1 , I1 D .INS /N h1 g1 ,
a1 D j0 .a0 /
and let
Y1 D .YBC .INS //N h1 g1 :
Arguing as above, .M1 ; I1 / is iterable.
492
Thus
h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 ; Y1 i 2 Bmax :
Clearly
.YBC .INS //N h1 D N h1 \ .YBC .INS //N h1 g1 ;
and so by (3.2) and the choice of j0 ,
j0 .Y0 / D M0 \ .YBC .INS //N h1 g1 :
Thus Yb Y1 and
h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 ; Y1 i < h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 ; Y0 i:
By genericity we can suppose that
h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 ; Y1 i 2 G:
Let
k W .M1 ; I1 / ! .M1 ; I1 /
be the iteration of .M1 ; I1 / given by G. It follows that in L.R/G,

k.h1 / P
is a lter and that for each < !1 ,
k.h1 / \ < !1 j .; / 2 ;:
Further k.b/ is the interpretation of by k.h1 /, k.b/ codes k.Yb /, and
k.Yb / k.Y1 /:
However in L.R/G,
k.Y1 / D YBC .INS / \ M1
and so in L.R/G, k.b/ codes a subset of YBC .INS /.
t
u
Chapter 8
| principles for !1
For our next example of a Pmax variation, we consider versions of the principle |. Our
purpose, in part, is to illustrate degrees of freedom in the analysis of a Pmax variation
which we have not yet had to exploit.
We x some notation. Suppose are ordinals. Then

denotes the set of all subsets of of ordertype and
<
denotes the set of all subsets of of ordertype less than .
Denition 8.1 (Ostaszewski). |: There is a sequence
h W < !1 i
satisfying the following conditions.
(1) For each limit ordinal 0 < < !1 , 2 ! and is conal in .
(2) For each conal set A !1 , the set < !1 j A is stationary.
t
u
The principle | was introduced by Ostaszewski .1975/ as a weakening of . Assuming CH it is equivalent to and it easily veried that | implies that the nonstationary ideal is not saturated. One natural question, which plausibly can be answered
by the techniques of this section, is the following:
Assume |. Can INS be semi-saturated?
The underlying question is whether | can be obtained in a variation of a Pmax extension.
We dene two variations of |.
Denition 8.2. |0NS : There is a sequence
h W < !1 i
(1) For each limit ordinal 0 < < !1 , 2 ! and is conal in .
(2) For each closed, conal set C !1 , the set
< !1 j n C is nite
contains a closed, conal subset of !1 .
t
u
494
The principle |0NS weakens | in that only closed, conal, subsets of !1 are guessed,
and the anticipation is not as strong, being modulo a nite set. However this must
happen on a closed unbounded subset of !1 rather than just on a stationary subset of
!1 . This requires weakening how sets are guessed.
The proof of the forthcoming Lemma 8.25 can easily be modied to prove the
following lemma.
Lemma 8.3. Suppose that h W < !1 i is a sequence witnessing |0NS . Then there
exists a co-stationary set S !1 such that
< !1 j n S is nite
t
u
We strengthen |0NS by requiring in addition that every subset of !1 is measured by

the tail lter associated to , on a closed unbounded set.
Denition 8.4. |NS : There is a sequence
h W < !1 i
(1) For each limit ordinal 0 < < !1 ,
2 !
and is conal in .
(2) For each closed, conal set C !1 , the set
< !1 j n C is nite
contains a closed, conal subset of !1 .
(3) For each set A !1 , there is a closed, conal, set C !1 such that for each
2 C either
n A
is nite or
A \
is nite.
(4) For each set A !1 , there is a stationary set S !1 such that for each 2 S
either
A
or
A \ D ;:
t
u
495
It is easily checked that |NS holds in L, though unlike |, |NS is not implied
by . |NS seems more closely related to C though we do not know if it is implied
by C . Building nontrivial models in which |0NS holds seems difcult using the standard methods of iterated forcing, see .Shelah 1998/ for related results and additional
references. In particular a natural question is whether either |0NS or |NS implies that
INS is not saturated.
|NS
and we shall prove that if
We shall dene a partial Pmax
L.R/ AD
|NS
Pmax
|NS
Pmax
then
2 L.R/,
is L.R/-generic then
NS
NS
is !-closed and Pmax
is homogeneous. Further if G Pmax
L.R/G ZFC C |NS :

We also shall prove that the nonstationary ideal is saturated in L.R/G. Finally we
C
CC
shall introduce two further renements of |NS , |NS and |NS , and prove an absolute|
NS
ness theorem for the Pmax
-extension. The absoluteness theorem we prove is somewhat
technical and very likely more elegant versions are possible.
|NS
-extension will require, as usual, proving several iteration
The analysis of the Pmax
lemmas. We shall prove these by working in L-like models, i. e. models in which very
strong condensation principles hold. This degree of freedom has always been available
but until now it has not been particularly useful. One purpose of this chapter is simply
to illustrate this approach.
There is another potential feature of the Pmax variations which is illustrated by the
|NS
|NS
which we give. It is only after the initial analysis of Pmax
that we
analysis of Pmax
|NS
NS
are able to prove that INS is !2 -saturated in L.R/Pmax . More precisely if G Pmax
is L.R/-generic then as a result of the initial analysis we obtain (assuming ADL.R/ );
L.R/G ZFC,
P .!1 /L.R/G D P .!1 /G ,
where P .!1 /G is dened from the lter G in the usual fashion.
|NS
|NS
, of Pmax
, obtaining a new family
We then extend this analysis to a variant, Umax
of iterable structures, which are generated from countable elementary substructures of
|NS
is L.R/-generic and
L .R/G where G Umax
L .R/G ZFC C ZC C 1 -Replacement:
|
NS
By considering iterations of these structures we are then able to prove that if G Pmax
L.R/
is L.R/-generic then (assuming AD
)
L.R/G INS is !2 -saturated:

In our previous examples, the proof that INS is saturated in the resulting extension has
always been possible as part of the initial analysis: the iteration lemmas needed for the
initial analysis have always sufced.
496
8.1
Condensation Principles
We briey discuss the condensation principle we shall use to prove the iteration lemmas
|NS
required for the analysis of the Pmax
-extension.
We begin with the denition of a generalized condensation axiom.
Denition 8.5. Suppose that A and that
F W <! !
where is an uncountable ordinal. The function F witnesses condensation for the set
A if for all X such that X is set generic over V , if F X <! X then
hX ; AX ; 2i 2 V
where hX ; AX ; 2i is the transitive collapse of the structure hX; A; 2i.
t
u
We say that condensation holds for a set A Ord if there is a function which
witnesses condensation for A. The Axiom of Condensation asserts that for every set of
ordinals there exists a function witnessing condensation for the set.
We give in the next three theorems some of the elementary consequences of the Axiom of Condensation. The rst shows that in testing whether a function F is a witness
for condensation one need only consider elementary substructures which lie in a simple Cohen extension of V . The second of these theorems gives the key absoluteness
results relating to condensation and the third shows that the Axiom of Condensation
implies GCH.
Theorem 8.6. Suppose that A and that
F W <! !
where is an uncountable ordinal. Suppose that M is a transitive model of ZC such
that
(1) A; F M and R n M ;,
(2) for all X , if F X <! X then
hX ; AX ; 2i 2 M
where hX ; AX ; 2i is the transitive collapse of the structure hX; A; 2i.
Then F witnesses condensation for A.
t
u
Theorem 8.7. Suppose that A and that F W <! ! where is an uncountable

ordinal. Suppose that M is a transitive inner model such that
(1) M ZC C 1 -Replacement,
(2) A; F M ,
(3) M F witnesses condensation for A.
Suppose that X and that F X <! X . Then
hX ; AX ; 2i 2 M
where hX ; AX ; 2i is the transitive collapse of the structure
hX; A; 2i:
t
u
8.1 Condensation Principles
497
Corollary 8.8. Suppose that M is a transitive model of ZFC and that

j WM !N
is an elementary embedding of M into a transitive set N . Suppose that
M Axiom of Condensation:
Then M N .
t
u
Corollary 8.9 (Axiom of Condensation). Suppose that

j W V ! M V G
is a generic elementary embedding. Then
V DM
t
u
and j is the identity.

Theorem 8.10. Suppose that A and that condensation holds for A.
(1) Suppose that B and that B 2 LA. Then condensation holds for B.
(2) Suppose that
P ./ LA:
j j
Then 2
D jj .
t
u
Corollary 8.11. Assume the Axiom of Condensation holds in V . Then GCH holds. u
t
D. Law has improved Corollary 8.11, proving that follows from the Axiom of
Condensation, Law .1994/. The proof yields a different proof of Corollary 8.11; the
original proof used Namba forcing.
Theorem 8.12 (Law). Assume the Axiom of Condensation holds in V . Then holds.
Proof. Suppose that
j WM !N
is an elementary embedding such that
(1.1) M and N are transitive,
(1.2) M ZC C 1 -Replacement,
(1.3) N D j.f /.!1M / j f 2 M ,
(1.4) .H.!2 //M 2 N .
498
Then
M :
To see this x
f0 W !1M ! M
such that f0 2 M and such that
h.H.!2 //M ; <0 i D j.f0 /.!1M /
where <0 is a wellordering of .H.!2 //M such that <0 2 N .
Working in M , one can dene, in the usual fashion using f0 , a sequence.
Now x 2 Ord such that
V ZC C 1 -Replacement;
and such that cof./ > !1 . Let
X V
be a countable elementary substructure. Fix < and A such that
(2.1) 2 X ,
(2.2) A 2 X ,
(2.3) H.!2 / 2 L A.
By elementarity there exists a function
W <! !
such that 2 X and such that witnesses condensation for A.
Let
Y D f .X \ !1 / j f 2 X :
Hence
(3.1) X Y V ,
(3.2) Y \ is closed under .
Finally let M be the transitive collapse of X , let N be the transitive collapse of Y and
let
j WM !N
be the elementary embedding, given by the image of the inclusion map from X to Y .
Thus
(4.1) M and N are transitive,
(4.2) M ZC C 1 -Replacement,
(4.3) N D j.f /.!1M / j f 2 M .
8.1 Condensation Principles
499
Let .AX ; X ; X / be the image of .A; ; / under the transitive collapse of X . The key
point is that j.X / witnesses condensation in N for j.AX / and so by absoluteness,
AX 2 N;
since j./ j < X is closed under j.X /. But this implies that
.H.!2 //M 2 N
since .H.!2 //M 2 LX AX .
Thus .N; M; j / satises (1.1)(1.4) and so
M
which implies that holds in V .
t
u
Remark 8.13. The proof of Theorem 8.12 easily adapts to prove directly that the Axiom of Condensation implies that for any (uncountable) regular cardinal , holds at
on any stationary subset of .
It is open whether the Axiom of Condensation implies C or whether it implies
t
u
principles such as !1 .
Natural models in which the Axiom of Condensation holds are provided by AD.
Theorem 8.14. Assume AD holds in L.R/ and let
M D H.!1 / \ .HODx/L.R/
where x 2 R. Then
M ZFC C Axiom of Condensation:
t
u
We shall need a strong form of condensation. This we now dene.

Denition 8.15. Suppose that M is a transitive set closed under the Godel operations
and that
F W Ord \ M ! M
is a bijection. The function F witnesses strong condensation for M if for any
X hM; F; 2i;
FX D F j.Ord \ MX /
where FX and MX are the images of F and M under the transitive collapse of X .
t
u
We say that strong condensation holds for M if there exists a function

F W Ord \ M ! M
which witnesses strong condensation for M . The Axiom of Strong Condensation is the
axiom which asserts that strong condensation holds for H. / for all uncountable .
500
Remark 8.16. (1) The denition of strong condensation imposes some unnecessary requirements on M . A slightly more general denition could be given by
specifying as a witness, a wellordering of M .
(2) We shall essentially only be concerned with strong condensation for transitive
sets of the form H./ where is an uncountable cardinal (actually !3 in most
cases).
t
u
We note that in the denition of a witness for strong condensation it is necessary
only to consider elementary substructures which lie in V as opposed to the case of
witnesses for condensation where it is necessary to consider elementary substructures
which are generic over V . This is veried in the following theorem.
Theorem 8.17. Suppose that M is a transitive set closed under the Godel operations
and that
F W Ord \ M ! M
is a bijection. Suppose that N is a transitive inner model such that
(1) N ZC C 1 -Replacement,
(2) M; F N ,
(3) F witnesses strong condensation for M in N .
Then F witnesses strong condensation for M .
t
u
As an immediate corollary of Theorem 8.6 and Theorem 8.17 one obtains;

Corollary 8.18. Suppose that M is a transitive set closed under the Godel operations
and that
F W Ord \ M ! M
is a bijection which witnesses strong condensation for M . Suppose that A Ord and
that A 2 M . Then condensation holds for A.
t
u
Suppose that strong condensation holds for H. / for some cardinal > !1 . Then
X j ordertype.X / D !1
is not stationary in P . /. Therefore there are no Ramsey cardinals below . This is in
contrast to condensation which can hold below the least measurable cardinal.
Theorem 8.19. Assume AD holds in L.R/ and that x 2 R. Let
N D HODL.R/ x:
Suppose that is an uncountable cardinal of N which is below the least weakly comt
u
pact cardinal of N . Then strong condensation holds for .H. //N in N .
NS
8.2 Pmax
501
Remark 8.20. (1) Theorem 8.19 generalizes to other inner models of AD, satisfying V D L.P .R//, provided that a particular form of AD is assumed, see
Theorem 9.9.
(2) Suppose that the Axiom of Condensation holds. Does strong condensation hold
for H.!2 /?
(3) Suppose that A Ord and that for each uncountable cardinal of LA, strong
condensation holds in LA for H. /LA . Suppose that A# exists. Then there
exists < !1 and a set A such that
LA D LA :
(4) Does condensation or strong condensation capture the combinatorial essence of
inner models like L? One test question is the following.
Suppose that N is a transitive inner model of ZFC containing the ordinals
such that for each uncountable cardinal of N , strong condensation holds
in N for H. /N . Suppose that covering fails for N in V . Must there exist
a real x such that
N Lx
Note that if N D LA for some A Ord, then by (3) and Jensens Covering
Lemma, the answer is yes.
t
u
NS
8.2 Pmax
|
NS

We dene Pmax
as a variation of Pmax
. For this denition and the subsequent analysis we shall use a generalization of the partial orders PU to the case where U is an
ultralter on !1 , cf. the discussion preceding Lemma 7.47.
Denition 8.21. Suppose that U is an ultralter on !1 . PU is the set of pairs

.s; f /
such that s !1 is nite and such that f W !1 <! ! U . Suppose that .s1 ; f1 / 2 PU
and that .s2 ; f2 / 2 PU . Then
.s2 ; f2 / .s1 ; f1 /
if
(1) s1 s2 ,
(2) s1 D s2 \ where D min j s1 ,
(3) for all 2 s2 n s1 , 2 f1 .s2 \ /,
(4) for all s 2 !1 <! , f2 .s/ f1 .s/.
t
u
502
Thus PU is a generalization of Prikry forcing to the case of ultralters on !1 .

The standard properties of Prikry forcing, suitably rephrased, hold for PU . This is
summarized in the following lemmas which generalize Lemma 7.47.
Lemma 8.22 (Prikry property). Suppose that U is an ultralter on !1 . Suppose that
.s; f / 2 PU and b 2 RO.PU /. Then there exists .s; f / 2 PU such that .s; f / b
t
u
or such that .s; f / b 0 .
Lemma 8.23 (Geometric Condition). Suppose that M is a transitive model of ZC,
U 2 M and that
M U is a uniform ultralter on !1 :
M
Suppose !1 is an innite conal set of ordertype !. Suppose that for all
f W !1M <! ! U
such that f 2 M , there exists 2 such that for all 2 n ,
2 f . \ /:
Let
Ga D . \ ; f / 2 PUM j 2 and for all 2 n ; 2 f . \ /:
Then Ga is a M -generic lter in PUM .
t
u
Suppose that U is a uniform ultralter on !1 , I is a normal uniform ideal on !1
and that
W RO.PU / B
is a boolean isomorphism where B is an !2 -complete boolean subalgebra of P .!1 /=I .
It is straightforward to show that the isomorphism is induced by a function
F W !1 ! !1 !
where for all (nonzero) limit ordinals < !1 , F ./ is a conal subset of with
ordertype !.
The function F induces such an isomorphism if and only if it satises the following
|-like requirements. This is easily veried using Lemma 8.22 and Lemma 8.23.
(1) Suppose that
h W !1 <! ! U:
Let Z be the set of < !1 such that for some 2 F ./,
2 h.F ./ \ /
for all 2 F ./ n . Then !1 n Z 2 I .
(2) Suppose that .; h/ 2 PU and let
D max C 1 j 2 :
Let Z be the set of < !1 such that:
a) F ./ \ D ;
b) For all 2 F ./ n , 2 h.F ./ \ /.
Then Z I .
NS
8.2 Pmax
503
We note that by Theorem 6.28 it is possible for the following to hold.

For each uniform ultralter U on !1 there exists a normal saturated ideal I on
!1 such that
RO.PU / P .!1 /=I:
The most elegant method for achieving |0NS would be to obtain the following.
For some ultralter U on !1 , U extends the club lter and
RO.PU / P .!1 /=INS :
Unfortunately this is not possible.
Lemma 8.24. Suppose that I is a normal ideal on !1 , U is a uniform ultralter on !1
and that
RO.PU / P .!1 /=I:
Then I \ U ;.
t
u
A weaker requirement would be that for some ultralter U on !1 , U extends the

club lter and
RO.PU / B
where B is an !2 -complete boolean subalgebra of P .!1 /=INS . Even this is not possible.
Lemma 8.25. Suppose that I is a normal ideal on !1 , U is a uniform ultralter on !1
and that
RO.PU / B
where B is an !2 -complete boolean subalgebra of P .!1 /=I .
Then I \ U ;.
Proof. Fix a function
F W !1 ! !1 !
such that F induces the given isomorphism
RO.PU / B P .!1 /=I:
We may suppose that for each limit ordinal < !1 , F ./ is conal in .
For each ordinal , let
F P ./
be the tail lter given by F ./.
Let
M D L F; U
where is least such that !1 < and such that
L F; U ZC:
504
Similarly for each < !1 let

M D L F j; F
where is least such that < and such that
L F j; F ZC:
Clearly, for all < !1 , < !1 .
Suppose that G .P .!1 / n I; / is V -generic. Then the generic ultraproduct
Y
hM ; F i=G hM; U i:
Thus there exists a set A !1 such that
!1 n A 2 I
and such that for all 2 A,
(1.1) < !1 ,
(1.2) D .!1 /M .
Therefore for any formula .x0 ; x1 /,
M F; U \ LF; U
if and only if
j M F j; U I;
where for each limit ordinal < !1 ,
U D M \ F :
Let F be the lter dual to I . Assume toward a contradiction that
F U:
Then for any formula .x0 ; x1 /,
M F; U \ LF; U
if and only if
j M F j; U 2 U:
This contradicts Tarskis theorem on the undenability of truth.
t
u
These lemmas however do not rule out the following. There is a set Y of triples
.U; I; B/ such that
(1) U is a uniform ultralter on !1 which extends the club lter,
(2) I is a normal uniform saturated ideal on !1 ,
(3) B is an !2 -complete boolean subalgebra of P .!1 /=I ,
(4) RO.PU / B,
NS
8.2 Pmax
505
and such that Y satises the condition,

INS D \I j .U; I; B/ 2 Y :
If the isomorphisms witnessing (4) are induced by a single function
F W !1 ! !1 !
then this function yields a function witnessing |NS .
|
NS
This is how we shall obtain |NS in the Pmax
-extension except the ultralters U
will be generic over the model, see Theorem 8.84. In fact there will exist an .!1 ; 1/distributive partial order PF (dened from F ) for adding U such that
RO.PF PU / B P .!1 /=INS ;

see Lemma 8.76 and Corollary 8.88.
We continue to x some notation.
F W !1 ! !1 !
and that U is a uniform ultralter on !1 .
(1) For each function
h W !1 <! ! U;
let Zh;F be the set of < !1 such that
a) F ./ and F ./ is conal in ,
b) there exists 2 F ./ with
2 h.F ./ \ /
for all 2 F ./ n .
(2) Suppose that p 2 PU and that p D .; h/. Let Zp;F be the set of 2 Zh;F such
that
a) F ./ \ D ,
b) for all 2 F ./ n ,
2 h.F ./ \ /;
where D max C 1 j 2 .
(3) Let IU;F be the normal ideal generated by
!1 n Zh;F j h W !1 <! ! U :
t
u
506
Suppose that F and U are as in Denition 8.26. In general IU;F is not a proper
ideal. Suppose that IU;F is a proper ideal and that
F P .!1 / n IU;F
is a V -normal ultralter (occurring in a set generic extension of V ).
Let .M; E/ D Ult.V; F / and let
j W V ! .M; E/
be the corresponding elementary embedding.
Since IU;F is a normal ideal, !2V OrdM ; i. e. !2V is contained in the wellfounded
part of M . Thus
j.F /.!1V / 2 !1V ! :
The key point is that by Lemma 8.23, it follows that j.F /.!1V / is V -generic for PU .
Let GF denote the V -generic lter
GF PU
determined by
j.F /.!1V /.
Thus
GF D p 2 PU j Zp;F 2 F :
This motivates the next denition.

F W !1 ! !1 ! ;
U is a uniform ultralter on !1 , and that IU;F is a proper ideal. Let RU;F be the set of
pairs .S; p/ such that
(1) S !1 and S IU;F ,
(2) p 2 PU ,
(3) if G PU is V -generic and p 2 G then there exists a V -normal ultralter
F P .!1 / n IU;F
such that S 2 F , such that F is set generic over V G and such that
G D GF :
t
u
The following lemma is an immediate consequence of the denitions.

F W !1 ! !1 !
and U is a uniform ultralter on !1 such that IU;F is a proper ideal. Suppose that
F P .!1 / n IU;F
is a V -normal ultralter which is set generic over V . Then for each S 2 F there exists
p 2 GF such that
V
:
.S; p/ 2 RU;F
NS
8.2 Pmax
507
Proof. Fix S 2 F . Since GF PU is V -generic, either there exists p 2 GF as

desired or the following must hold,
(1.1) if
FO P .!1 / n IU;F
is a V -normal ultralter, set generic over V , such that S 2 FO , then

GFO GF :
The relevant point is that (1.1) is a rst order property of the pair .S; GF /.
But F is a counterexample to this.
t
u
The next lemma gives a simple characterization of RU;F .

F W !1 ! !1 !
and U is a uniform ultralter on !1 such that IU;F is a proper ideal.
Suppose that S 2 P .!1 / n IU;F and that p 2 PU . Then
.S; p/ 2 RU;F
if and only if for all q p,
Zq;F \ S IU;F :
Proof. The lemma easily follows from the denitions and Lemma 8.23 which gives the
geometric condition which characterizes when a conal ! sequence in !1V is V -generic
for PU .
If .S; p/ 2 RU;F then it is immediate that for all q p,
Zq;F \ S IU;F :
Now suppose that .S; p/ RU;F . Then by the denability of forcing, there must exist
q0 p such that if
G PU
is a V -generic lter, with q0 2 G, then G GF for any V -normal ultralter, F , such
that
(1.1) F .P .!1 / n IU;F /V ,
(1.2) S 2 F ,
(1.3) F is set generic over V .
It follows that in V , Zq0 ;F \ S 2 IU;F .
|
t
u
NS

We dene Pmax
. The denition is closely related to that of Pmax
which is given as
Denition 5.41.
508
|
NS
Denition 8.30. Pmax
is the set of pairs
.h.Mk ; Yk / W k < !i; F /

such that
hMk W k < !i
is iterable and such that the following hold for all k < !.
(1) Mk is a countable transitive model of ZFC.
Mk
MkC1
(2) Mk 2 MkC1 ; !1
D !1
(3) [Mk j k 2 !

AC .
(4) Strong condensation holds in Mk for Mk \ V where is the least inaccessible

cardinal of Mk .
(5) F 2 M0 and
F W !1M0 ! !1M0 ! :
(6) For each (nonzero) limit ordinal < !1 ,

sup.F .// D :
(7) Yk 2 Mk and
Mk
a) for each U 2 Yk , U is a uniform ultralter on !1

b) for each U 2 Yk , .IU;F /
Mk
in Mk ,
is a proper ideal and
M
.!1 k ; p/
2 .RU;F /Mk
where p D .1PU /Mk .

(8) Yk D U \ Mk j U 2 YkC1 .
(9) For each U 2 YkC1 ,
a) .IU;F /MkC1 \ Mk D .IW;F /Mk ,
b) .RU;F /MkC1 \ Mk D .RW;F /Mk ,
where W D U \ Mk .
(10) \.IU;F /Mk j U 2 Yk D Mk \ .INS /MkC1 .
Mk
(11) Let Ik 2 Mk be the ideal on !1
which is dual to the lter,
Fk D \U j U 2 Yk :
Then
\.IU;F /Mk j U 2 Yk Ik :
NS
8.2 Pmax
509
NS
is dened as follows. A condition
The ordering on Pmax
O
O
.h.Mk ; Yk / W k < !i; FO / < .h.Mk ; Yk / W k < !i; F /
if hMk W k < !i 2 MO 0 , hMk W k < !i is hereditarily countable in MO 0 and there exists
(1) j.F / D FO ;
(2) hMk W k < !i 2 M0 and j 2 M0 ;
(3) For all k < !,
j.Yk / D U \ Mk j U 2 YO0
and
M
INS kC1 \ Mk D .INS /M1 \ Mk I

(4) For each U 2 YO0 ,
O
a) .IU;FO /M0 \ Mk D .IW;FO /Mk ,

O
b) .RU;FO /M0 \ Mk D .RW;FO /Mk ,

where W D U \ Mk .
Remark 8.31.
t
u
(1) Suppose that

|
NS
.h.Mk ; Yk / W k < !i; F / 2 Pmax
:
Then for all k < !,

.INS /MkC1 \ Mk D .[.INS /Mi j i < !/ \ Mk :
(2) An immediate consequence of condition (6) is that
!1LF D !1M0 :
Therefore if
NS
.h.Mk ; Yk / W k < !i; F / 2 Pmax
and if
is a countable iteration, then j is uniquely determined by j.F /. This is by

condition (3) and by Lemma 5.43.
u
t
|
NS
is suitably nontrivial assuming ADL.R/ by proving an
We shall prove that Pmax
iteration lemma for structures of the form .M; I/ where
I D .Q< /M
for some 2 M which is a Woodin cardinal in M.
For this we x some additional notation.
510
Suppose that I is a set of normal uniform ideals on !1 . Let aI be the set of

countable elementary substructures
X H.!2 / [ I
such that for some J 2 I \ X ,
J \ X A !1 j A 2 X and X \ !1 A:
Lemma 8.32. Suppose that I is a set of normal uniform ideals on !1 . Then the set aI
is a stationary subset of
P!1 .H.!2 / [ I/:
Proof. Fix an ideal J 2 I. Since J is a uniform normal ideal it follows that
X 2 P!1 .H.!2 // j J \ X A !1 j A 2 X and X \ !1 A
is stationary in P!1 .H.!2 //. The lemma is an immediate consequence of this.
t
u
We continue to x some notation. Again suppose that

F W !1 ! !1 ! :
Suppose that U is a uniform ultralter on !1 and that IU;F is a proper ideal. Let aU;F
be the set of
X H.!2 /
such that X is countable and such that for all A 2 IU;F \ X , X \ !1 A. Thus
aU;F D X \ H.!2 / j X 2 aJ
where J D IU;F .
Suppose that p 2 PU and that p D .; h/. Let ap;U;F be the set of X 2 aU;F such
that X \ !1 2 Zp;F .
Suppose that Y is a set of uniform ultralters on !1 such that for each U 2 Y , the
corresponding normal ideal IU;F is a proper ideal. Let
I D IU;F j U 2 Y :
Then aI is stationary.
Suppose is a Woodin cardinal and that G Q< is a V -generic lter with
aI 2 G. Let
j W V ! M V G
be the induced generic elementary embedding. Since aI 2 G it follows that aU;F 2 G
for some U 2 Y . We come to a key point. From the denition of the ideal IU;F and
the geometric criterion for genericity given in Lemma 8.23, j.F /.!1V / is V -generic
for PU (in the obvious sense). Let
GU PU
be the associated generic lter. Then
GU D p 2 PU j ap;U;F 2 G D p 2 PU j Zp;F 2 G:
NS
8.2 Pmax
511
NS
, are of
The structures we shall iterate in order to establish the nontriviality of Pmax
the form .M; I; a/ where for some 2 M, is a Woodin cardinal in M, where I is
the directed system, .I< /M , of ideals associated to the stationary tower .Q< /M , and
where
a 2 .Q< /M :
The iterations will be restricted so that the generic lters contain the images of a.
Denition 8.33. Suppose M is a countable transitive model of ZFC, 2 M and that
is a Woodin cardinal in M. Suppose that .M; I/ is iterable where I is the directed
system of nonstationary ideals,
.I< /M
and suppose that a 2 .Q< /M .
A sequence
h.M ; I ; a /; G ; j; W < i
is an iteration of .M; I; a/ if
(1) h.M ; I /; G ; j; W < i is an iteration of .M; I/,
(2) a0 D a,
(3) for all , j0; .a/ D a ,
(4) for all < , a 2 G .
t
u
We dene the collection of structures which are the subject of the rst iteration
lemma.
Denition 8.34. M|NS is the set of triples
h.M; I; a/; Y; F i
(2) Strong condensation holds in M for M where is the least inaccessible cardinal
of M.
(3) I 2 M and I D I< as computed in M for some 2 M such that is a Woodin
cardinal in M.
(5) F 2 M and
F W !1M ! !1M ! :
(6) For each (nonzero) limit ordinal < !1 ,

sup.F .// D :
512
(7) Y 2 M, Y ;, and for each U 2 Y , U is a uniform ultralter on !1M in M.

(8) For each U 2 Y , .IU;F /M is a proper ideal and
.!1M ; p/ 2 .RU;F /M
where p D .1PU /M .
(9) Let I 2 M be the ideal on !1M which is dual to the lter,
F D \U j U 2 Y ;
then
\.IU;F /M j U 2 Y I:
(10) a D .aI /M where
I D .IU;F /M j U 2 Y :
t
u
We generalize Denition 8.27 to the stationary tower.

F W !1 ! !1 ! ;
U is a uniform ultralter on !1 , and that IU;F is a proper ideal.
Suppose that is a Woodin cardinal.
./
Let RU;F
be the set of pairs .b; p/ such that
(1) b 2 Q< j ap;U;F ,
(2) p 2 PU ,
(3) if G PU is V -generic and p 2 G then there exists a V -generic lter
H Q<
such that b 2 H and such that
G D j.F /.!1V /
where
j W V ! M V H
is the generic elementary embedding given by H and G 2 !1V ! is the conal
t
u
subset of !1V given by G.
The next two lemmas show that if .M; I/ is a countable structure which satises
(1)(4) of Denition 8.34, then there exists .a; Y; F / 2 M such that
h.M; I; a/; Y; F i 2 M|NS :
The proof of the rst lemma is the prototype for the proofs of the subsequent iteration
lemmas we shall need.
NS
8.2 Pmax
513
Lemma 8.36. Suppose that strong condensation holds for H.!3 /. Then there is a
function
F W !1 ! !1 !
such that for every uniform ultralter, U , on !1 , the normal ideal IU;F is proper and
.!1 ; 1PU / 2 RU;F :
h W !3 ! H.!3 /
which witnesses strong condensation for H.!3 /.
For each < !3 let
M D h./ j <
and let
h D hj:
Let S be the set of < !3 such that
(1.1) M is transitive,
(1.2) h 2 M for all < ,
(1.3) hM ; h ; 2i ZFC n Powerset,
(1.4) .!2 /M exists and .!2 /M 2 M .
The key point is that for many constructions one can use the sequence
h.M ; h / W 2 S \ !1 i
exactly as one uses the sequence h.L ; <L / W < !1L i for an analogous construction
within L.
For each elementary substructure
X hH.!3 /; h; 2i;
let MX be the transitive collapse of X and let
X D MX \ Ord:
Since the function h witnesses strong condensation for H.!3 /, hjX is the image of
h under the collapsing map. Thus the transitive set MX is uniquely determined by the
ordinal X . If X is countable then X 2 S \ !1 and
MX D MX :
We construct the function
F W !1 ! !1 ! ;
dening F j by induction on . The construction is uniform and so since for each
2 S \ !1 ,
.S \ .!1 /M ; hj.!1 /M / 2 M ;
514
it will follow that for each 2 S ,

F j.!1 /M 2 M :
Suppose that < !1 and that F j is dened. Let
f D F j:
We may suppose that is a limit ordinal for otherwise we simply dene
F ./ D !:
There are two cases.
First suppose that for each 2 S , if
D .!1 /M ;
then f satises the requirements of the lemma within the model M . Then
F ./ D h. /
where is least such that
h. / 2 !
and such that
sup.h. // D :
Now let 0 2 S be least such that
D .!1 /M0
and such that f fails to satisfy the requirements of the lemma in M 0 .
Let 0 be least such that h.0 / 2 M 0 witnesses that f fails to satisfy the lemma
in M 0 . Let U D h.0 /. Thus in M 0 , U is an ultralter on !1 such that either
(2.1) IU;f is not a proper ideal, or
(2.2) .!1 ; 1PU / RU;f .
Let 0 < !1 be least such that
h.0 / 2 !
and such that
(3.1) h.0 / is M 0 -generic for .PU /M0 ,
(3.2) h.1 / 2 h.0 / where 1 is least such that
h.1 / 2 .PU /M0
and such that
.Zp;f /M0 2 .IU;f /M0 ;
NS
8.2 Pmax
515
where p D h.1 /. Note that by Lemma 8.29, 1 is dened if (2.2) holds. 1 is trivially
dened if (2.1) holds.
Dene F ./ D h.0 /.
This completes the denition of the function F . We verify that F has the desired
properties. If this fails then there exist
!1 < 0 < 0 < !2
such that
(4.1) 0 2 S ,
(4.2) in M 0 , h.0 / is an ultralter on !1 such that either
a) .IU;F /M0 is not a proper ideal in M 0 , or
b) .!1 ; 1PU /M0 .RU;F /M0 ,
where U D h.0 /.
We suppose that .0 ; 0 / is as small as possible (with !1 < 0 ) and we set
U D h.0 /. In either case, (4.1(a)) or (4.2(b)), there must exist
p 2 .PU /M0
such that
.Zp;F /M0 2 .IU;F /M0 I
if (4.1(a)) holds this is trivial and if (4.2(b)) holds this follows by Lemma 8.29.
Let 1 be least such that
.Zp;F /M0 2 .IU;F /M0 ;
where we set p D h.1 /.
We rst prove that .IU;F /M0 is a proper ideal in M 0 . The function h witnesses
strong condensation for H.!3 / and so it follows from the denition of F that for each
function
e W !1 <! ! U
such that e 2 M 0 ,
!1 n Ze;F 2 INS :
Therefore
.IU;F /M0 INS
and so .IU;F /M0 is a proper ideal in M 0 .
A similar argument shows that
!1 n .Zp;F /M0 2 INS
which contradicts
.Zp;F /M0 2 .IU;F /M0
since
.IU;F /M0 INS :
t
u
516

F W !1 ! !1 !
is a function such that for every uniform ultralter, U , on !1 , the normal ideal IU;F is
proper. Then there is a normal uniform ideal I on !1 such that
I D \IU;F j U 2 Y ;
where Y is the set of uniform ultralters on !1 which are disjoint from I .and so extend
the lter dual to I /.
Proof. Let !1 denote the set of all uniform ultralters on !1 .
We dene by induction on a normal ideal I as follows:
I0 D \IU;F j U 2 !1
and for all > 0,
I D \IU;F j U 2 !1 and for all < , I \ U D ;:
It follows easily by induction that if 1 < 2 then
I1 I2 :
Thus for each , I is unambiguously dened as the intersection of a nonempty set of
uniform normal ideals on !1 . The sequence of ideals is necessarily eventually constant.
Let be least such that I D IC1 and let I D I . Thus I is a uniform normal ideal
on !1 such that
I D \IU;F j U 2 Y ;
where Y is the set of uniform ultralters on !1 which extend the lter dual to I .
t
u
We note the following lemma which is an immediate corollary of Denition 8.35.

h.M0 ; I0 ; a0 /; Y0 ; F0 i 2 M|NS
and that W 2 Y0 . Let 0 2 M0 be the Woodin cardinal associated to I0 and let
Q0 D .Q<0 /M0 :
Suppose that
2 !1M0 !
and that is M0 -generic for .PW /M0 . Let g .PW /M0 be the M0 -generic lter
given by . Suppose that p 2 g and that
.0 / M0
.p; b/ 2 .RW;F
/ :
0
Then there exists an M0 -generic lter G Q0 such that
(1) b 2 G,
(2) D j.F0 /.!1M0 /,
where j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 / is the iteration of length 1 given by G.
Suppose
a P!1 .[a/
t
u
NS
8.2 Pmax
517
and
b P!1 .[b/:
Let
X D .[a/ [ .[b/:
Then a and b are equivalent if there exists a set C P!1 .X /, closed and unbounded
in P!1 .X /, such that for each Z 2 X ,
Z \ .[a/ 2 a
if and only if
Z \ .[b/ 2 b:
Thus if a and b are stationary then a and b are equivalent if they dene the same
elements of RO.Q< / where is any ordinal such that
a; b V :
Remark 8.39. Suppose that
a P!1 .[a/;
and that [a has cardinality !1 .
(1) Suppose that a is stationary. Then there is a stationary set S !1 such that S
and a are equivalent. Further if T !1 is a stationary set which is equivalent to
a then
S M T 2 INS :
(2) Suppose that a is nonstationary. Then a is equivalent to each set T !1 such
t
u
that T 2 INS .
h.M0 ; I0 ; a0 /; Y0 ; F0 i 2 M|NS
and that strong condensation holds for H.!3 /. Let 0 2 M0 be the Woodin cardinal
in M0 associated to I0 and let
Q0 D .Q<0 /M0
be the associated stationary tower.
Let
J0 D \.IU;F /M0 j U 2 Y0
and suppose that h.S ; T / W < !1M0 i 2 M0 is such that
S ; T j < !1M0 P .!1 /M0 n J0 :
j W .M0 ; I0 ; a0 / ! .M0 ; I0 ; a0 /
of length !1 such that the following hold where F D j.F0 /.
518
(1) For each uniform ultralter U on !1 if

U \ M0 2 j.Y0 /
then
a) the ideal IU;F is proper,
b) .!1 ; 1PU / 2 RU;F ,
c) suppose that p 2 .PW /M0 , and

.j.0 // M0
/ ;
.p; b/ 2 .RW;F
then b is stationary and

.p; S / 2 RU;F
M0
where W D
equivalent to b.
\ U and where S !1 is a stationary set which is
h W < !1 i
C D < !1 j D :
2 S
if and only if
C 2 T :
Proof. The proof is quite similar to the proof of Lemma 8.36.

Fix a function
h W !3 ! H.!3 /
For each < !3 let
M D h./ j <
and let
h D hj:
(1.2) h 2 M for all < ,
M
(1.4) !2
M
exists and !2
(1.5) M0# 2 H.!1 /M .
2 M ,
NS
8.2 Pmax
519
Let FS 2 M0 be the function

FS W !1M0 ! M0
dened by FS ./ D S and let FT be the function
FT W !1M0 ! M0
dened by FT ./ D T .
We dene the iteration
h.M ; I ; a /; G ; j; W < !1 i
of .M0 ; I0 ; a0 / by induction, dening
hG W < i
by induction on such that:
(2.1) For all 2 C and for all < ,
j0;C .FT /./ 2 GC
if and only if
j0; .FS /./ 2 G :
The requirement (2.1) guarantees that condition (2) of the lemma will be satised.
This requirement places no constraint on the choice of G whenever 2 C and so this
requirement places no constraint on the choice of G whenever
D .!1 /M
for some 2 S.
For each we let
Q D j0; .Q0 /:
The denition is uniform and so for each 2 S,
M
h.M ; I ; a /; G ; j; W < !1 ij!1
2 M :
Suppose that
hG W < 0 i
is given. Let
h.M ; I ; a /; G ; j; W < 0 i
be the corresponding iteration.
We rst suppose that for all 2 S if
0 D .!1 /M ;
then the iteration
h.M ; I ; a /; G ; j; W < 0 i
satises the requirements of the lemma in M .
520
Then
G0 D h.0 /
where 0 is least such that
h.0 / Q0 ;
a0 2 h.0 /, h.0 / is M0 -generic, and such the corresponding iteration
h.M ; I ; a /; G ; j; W < 0 C 1i
satises (2.1).
This denes G0 in this case (which we note includes the case that
0 .!1 /M
for all 2 S).
For the remaining cases let 0 2 S be least such that
0 D .!1 /M0
and such that the iteration
h.M ; I ; a /; G ; j; W < 0 i
fails to satisfy the requirements of the lemma in M 0 .
We shall extend the iteration dening G0 , attempting to eliminate the least counterexample. There are several cases depending on how the iteration
h.M ; I ; a /; G ; j; W < 0 i
fails to satisfy the requirements of the lemma within M 0 . Let 0 D j0;0 .0 /.
Because the iteration satises (2.1) necessarily requirement (2) of the lemma is
satised in M 0 . Therefore (1) must fail.
Let 0 be least such that:
(3.1) h.0 / 2 M 0 ;
(3.2) M 0 h.0 / is a uniform ultralter on !1 ;
(3.3) h.0 / \ M0 2 j0;0 .Y0 /;
(3.4) Let U D h.0 /. Either
a) .IU;F /M0 is not a proper ideal, or
b) there exists
. /
.p; b/ 2 .RW;F0 /M0

such that .p; Sb / .RU;F /M0 where
Sb 2 .P .!1 //M0 , and in M 0 , b and Sb are equivalent,
F D j0;0 .F0 /,
W D h.0 / \ M0 .
NS
8.2 Pmax
521
Fix (as in (3.4)), U D h.0 / and, F D j0;0 .F0 /. Let W D U \ M0 .

Suppose that (3.4(a)) holds. Then
G0 D h.0 /
where 0 is least such that h.0 / is an M0 -generic lter for Q0 , containing a0 and
(4.1) j0;0 C1 .F0 /.0 / denes an M 0 -generic lter
g .PU /M0
where for each 0 ,
j;0 C1 W .M ; I ; a / ! .M0 C1 ; I0 C1 ; a0 C1 /
is the induced generic elementary embedding.
Suppose that (3.4(a)) fails and that (3.4(b)) holds.
h.1 / D .p; b; Sb /
where .p; b; Sb / witnesses that (3.4(b)) holds, and let 2 be least such that
h.2 / D q
where
(5.1) q 2 .PU /M0 ,
(5.2) q p,
(5.3) .Zq;F /M0 \ Sb 2 .IU;F /M0 .
Dene
G0 D h.0 /
where 0 is chosen to be least such that:
(6.1) h.0 / satises (4.1),
(6.2) b 2 h.0 /,
(6.3) q belongs to the induced M 0 -generic lter for .PU /M0 .
By Lemma 8.38, in each case 0 exists as desired.
This completes the inductive denition of the iteration.
It is easily veried that for each 2 S,
M
h.M ; I ; a /; G ; j; W < !1 ij!1
2 M
We prove that this iteration satises the conditions of the lemma. Clearly this
iteration satises (2) in the statement of lemma. We prove that (1) is also satised.
If not let 0 2 S be least such that
!1 D .!1 /
M
0
522
and such that the iteration fails to satisfy the conditions of the lemma interpreted in
M 0 . There are several cases to consider depending on how the iteration fails to satisfy
the requirements of the lemma in M 0 .
Let 0 be least such that (3.1)(3.4) hold; i. e. 0 is least such that h.0 / 2 M 0
and witnesses that the iteration fails to satisfy the (1) of the lemma. Let U D h.0 /.
Suppose
X hH.!3 /; h; 2i
is a countable elementary substructure containing M0 . The iteration is denable in the
structure
hH.!1 /; hj!1 ; 2i
from M0 and so 0 ; 0 2 X . Let hMX ; hX ; 2i be the transitive collapse of X . Thus
hX D hj!1MX D hj.X \ !1 /
and MX \Ord 2 S. Let 0X D !1MX and let 0X be the image of 0 under the collapsing
map. Let UX be the image of U under the collapsing map, thus
hX .0X / D h.0X / D UX :
X
Let X
0 D MX \ Ord. Thus 0 2 S and
MX D M X :
0
Further for each 2 S \ X

0 if
.!1 /M D .!1 /
X
0
then the iteration

M
h.M ; I ; a /; G ; j; W < !1 ij!1
2 M
satises the requirements of the lemma in M . Therefore GX is chosen using M X .

Let X D F .0X /. Thus
X D j0;X C1 .F0 /.0X /

0
MX
and X is MX -generic for .PUX / .

This must hold for every countable elementary substructure
X hH.!3 /; h; 2i
which contains M0 , thus
.IU;F /
M
M
0
INS :
Therefore .IU;F / 0 is necessarily a proper ideal in M 0 and so (3.4(b)) must hold.

h.1 / D .p; b; Sb /
where .p; b; Sb / witnesses that (3.4(b)) holds, and let 2 be least such that
h.2 / D q
NS
8.2 Pmax
523
where
(7.1) q 2 .PU /M0 ,
(7.2) q p,
(7.3) .Zq;F /M0 \ Sb 2 .IU;F /M0 .
We obtain a contradiction by reection. Again let
X hH.!3 /; h; 2i
be a countable elementary substructure and let hMX ; hX ; 2i be the transitive collapse
of X . Let 0X be the image of 0 under the collapse. Thus
h.0X / D hX .0X /:
Let
0X D .!1 /MX D X \ !1
and let .UX ; qX ; bX ; qX SX / be the image of .U; p; b; q; Sb / under the collapsing map.
Arguing as above, GX is chosen using MX and so
0
(8.1) bX 2 GX ,
0
(8.2) F .0X / is MX -generic for .PUX /MX and qX belongs to the corresponding MX generic lter.
Further
jX ;!1 .bX / D b
0
since b 2 M!1 .
Therefore b is closed and unbounded in P!1 .[b/.
Similarly
M
!1 n .Zq;F / 0 2 INS
and
.Zq;F /
M
0
\ Sb 2 .IU;F /
M
0
Finally as above,
.IU;F /
M
INS :
The key point is that b and Sb are equivalent in V since

.b; Sb / 2 H.!2 /
M
0
and since R M 0 . This implies that

.Zq;F /
M
0
\ Sb
contains a closed unbounded set, which is a contradiction.
t
u
As an immediate corollary we obtain the iteration lemma for structures in M|NS .
524

h.M0 ; I0 ; a0 /; Y0 ; F0 i 2 M|NS
and that strong condensation holds for H.!3 /. Let 0 2 M0 be the Woodin cardinal
in M0 associated to I0 and let
Q0 D .Q<0 /M0
Let
J0 D \.IU;F /M0 j U 2 Y0
and suppose that h.S ; T / W < !1M0 i 2 M0 is such that
S ; T j < !1M0 P .!1 /M0 n J0 :
j W .M0 ; I0 ; a0 / ! .M0 ; I0 ; a0 /
of length !1 and a set
Y U P .!1 / j U is a uniform ultralter on !1
such that the following hold where F D j0 .F0 /.
(1) For each U 2 Y , U \ M0 2 j.Y0 /.
(2) For each U 2 Y , the ideal IU;F is proper and .!1 ; 1PU / 2 RU;F .
(3) Suppose that U 2 Y , p 2 .PW /M0 , and

.j.0 // M0
.p; b/ 2 .RW;F
/ ;
where W D M0 \ U . Then

a) b is stationary,
b) .p; S / 2 RU;F where S !1 is a stationary set which is equivalent to b.
(4) Let I be the ideal on !1 which is dual to the lter,
F D \U j U 2 Y ;
then
\IU;F j U 2 Y I:
(5) Suppose that U0 is a uniform ultralter on !1 such that
U0 \ M0 2 j.Y0 /:
a) There exists U1 2 Y such that
U0 \ M0 D U1 \ M0 :
b) Suppose that, in addition,
\U j U 2 Y U0 :
Then U0 2 Y .
NS
8.2 Pmax
525
h W < !1 i
C D < !1 j D :
2 S
if and only if
C 2 T :
Proof. Note that (3) implies (2).

Let
j W .M0 ; I0 ; a0 / ! .M0 ; I0 ; a0 /
be an iteration of length !1 such that the following hold where F D j.F0 /.
(1.1) for each uniform ultralter U on !1 if
U \ M0 2 j.Y0 /
then
the ideal IU;F is proper,
suppose that p 2 .PW /M0 , and

b 2 j.Q0 /j.ap;W;F /M0 ;

where W D M0 \ U , then
b is stationary,
.p; S / 2 RU;F where S !1 is a stationary set which is equivalent
to b.
(1.2) Suppose that h.S ; T / W < !1 i D j.h.S ; T / W < !1M0 i/: Then for all
2 C and for all < ,
2 S
if and only if
C 2 T :
The iteration exists by Lemma 8.40.

Using the function F the remainder of the proof is essentially identical to that of
Lemma 8.37.
Let Z be the set of uniform ultralters U on !1 such that
U \ M0 2 j.Y0 /:
526
We dene by induction on a normal ideal J as follows:

J0 D \IU;F j U 2 Z
and for all > 0,
J D \IU;F j U 2 Z and for all < , J \ U D ;:
J1 J2 :
Thus for each , J is unambiguously dened as the intersection of a nonempty set of
uniform normal ideals on !1 .
The sequence of ideals is necessarily eventually constant. Let be least such that
J D JC1
and let
J D J :
Thus J is a uniform normal ideal on !1 .
Let Y be the set of U 2 Z such that U \ J D ; and let I be the ideal dual to the
lter
F D \U j U 2 Y :
Then
\IU;F j U 2 Y I;
t
u
and therefore the iteration is as required.

|
NS
As a corollary to Lemma 8.41, if AD holds in L.R/ then Pmax
is suitably nontrivial. For this we require the following renement of Theorem 5.36.
Theorem 8.42. Assume AD holds in L.R/. Suppose A R and A 2 L.R/. Then

there exist a countable transitive model M and an ordinal 2 M such that the following hold.
(1) M ZFC.
(2) is a Woodin cardinal in M .
(3) A \ M 2 M and hV!C1 \ M; A \ M; 2i hV!C1 ; A; 2i.
(5) Suppose is the least inaccessible cardinal of M . Then strong condensation
holds for M in M .
Proof. We sketch the proof which is in essence identical to the proof of Theorem 5.36.
We work in L.R/. If the theorem fails then there is a counterexample A R such
that A is 21 .
Following the proof of Theorem 5.36 there exists a transitive inner model of ZFC
NS
8.2 Pmax
527
(1.1) HOD N .
(1.2) There exist two Woodin cardinals in N below !1V .
(1.3) Let be the least inaccessible cardinal of N . Then
P . / \ N D P . / \ HOD:
We briey indicate how to obtain N . For each pair .x; y/ of reals with x 2 HODy
let Nx be the inner model,
0 x
HODLZ
Z0
and let Nx;y be the inner model
x y
HODN
:
Nx
where Z0 Ord such that
HOD D LZ0 :
By the arguments given in the proof of Theorem 5.36, there exists x0 2 R such
that for all x 2 R if x0 2 HODx then there exists y0 2 R such that for all y 2 R if
y0 2 HODy then the inner model Nx;y satises (1.1)(1.3).
Let 0 be the least Woodin cardinal of N and let 1 be the next Woodin cardinal
of N .
The set A is 21 and so there exist trees
S .! 21 /<!
and
T .!
21 /<!
such that S; T HOD and such that
pS D R \ pT :
Thus by Theorem 2.32, S and T are <1 weakly homogeneous in N .
Again since A is 21 , by (1.1)
hV!C1 \ N; A \ N; 2i hV!C1 ; A; 2i:
This follows by standard arguments using the fact that every 21 set is the projection of
a denable tree; i. e. a tree in HOD.
Finally let be the least strongly inaccessible cardinal of N . By Theorem 8.19 and
(1.3), strong condensation holds for N in HOD. By Theorem 8.17, strong condensation holds for N in N . Let be the least strongly inaccessible cardinal of N above 1
and let
M D N :
Thus M witnesses that A is not a counterexample to the theorem, a contradiction.
t
u
In fact the next theorem shows that must less determinacy is required to obtain the
|NS
nontriviality of M|NS from which the nontriviality of Pmax
follows. The rst theorem
is in essence a lightface version of Theorem 8.19.
528
Theorem 8.43. Suppose that x 2 R, y 2 R, x 2 Ly, and that

Ly 12 .x/-Determinacy:
Then:
(1) !2Ly is a Woodin cardinal in HODLy
.
x
(2) Let be the least inaccessible cardinal of HODLy
. Then strong condensation
x
Ly
Ly
holds for .HODx / in HODx .
t
u
Remark 8.44. The hypothesis
For each x 2 R there exists
h.M; I; a/; Y; F i 2 M|NS
with x 2 M,
t
u
1
is equivalent to
2 -Determinacy.
From Theorem 8.43 one obtains a little more than just that for every x 2 R there
exists
h.M; I; a/; Y; F i 2 M|NS
with x 2 M. One can require for example that modest large cardinals exist in M,
above the Woodin cardinal of M associated to I.
1
Theorem 8.45 (
2 -Determinacy). For each x 2 R there exists
.M; I; / 2 H.!1 /
such that
(1) x 2 M,
(2) M is transitive and M ZFC C is a Woodin cardinal,
(3) I D .I< /M ,
(4) .M; I/ is iterable,
(5) M L.M/,
(6) strong condensation holds in M for M where is the least inaccessible cardinal of M.
t
u
As a corollary to the previous lemmas we obtain the following lemma, which is a
variation of Lemma 5.23.
NS
8.2 Pmax
529

h.M0 ; I0 ; a0 /; Y0 ; F0 i 2 M|NS
and that for some ,
X0 V
M0 D MX0
where MX0 is the transitive collapse of X0 . Then there exists
|NS
.h.MO k ; YOk / W k < !i; FO / 2 Pmax
such that
(1) there exists a countable iteration
j W .M0 ; I0 ; a0 / ! .M0 ; I0 ; a0 /
such that j.F0 / D FO and such that
.M0 ; j.Y0 // D .MO 0 ; YO0 /;
(2) hMO k W k < !i is A-iterable for each set A 2 X0 such that every set of reals
which is projective in A is C -weakly homogeneously Suslin.
Proof. Let 2 X0 be the Woodin cardinal whose image under the transitive collapse
of X0 is the Woodin cardinal in M0 associated to I0 .
We dene by induction on k a sequence
hh.Mk ; Ik ; ak /; Yk ; Fk i W k < !i
|NS
of elements of M
together with iterations

jk W .Mk ; Ik ; ak / ! .Mk ; Ik ; ak /
and elements .Fk.S/ ; Fk.T / / 2 Mk as follows. We simultaneously dene an increasing

sequence hXk W k < !i of countable elementary substructures of V such that for each
k < !, Mk is the transitive collapse of Xk .
h.M0 ; I0 ; a0 /; Y0 ; F0 i and X0 are as given.
Suppose that Xk and h.Mk ; Ik ; ak /; Yk ; Fk i have been dened. We dene
h.MkC1 ; IkC1 ; akC1 /; YkC1 ; FkC1 i
.Fk.S/ ; Fk.T / /, jk , and XkC1 .
Let k 2 Mk be the Woodin
cardinal of Mk corresponding to Ik and let

Qk D .Q<k /Mk ;
be the associated stationary tower. Let hk W < !1 i be the increasing enumeration
of the ordinals 2 !1 n Mk such that is a cardinal in L.Mk /. Let
Ck D j k D
and let
Jk D \.IU;F /Mk j U 2 Yk :
530
Choose .Fk.S/ ; Fk.T / / 2 Mk such that

(1.1) Fk.S/ W .!1 /Mk ! P .!1 /Mk n Jk ,
(1.2) Fk.T / W .!1 /Mk ! P .!1 /Mk n Jk .
By Lemma 8.41 there is an iteration
jk W .Mk ; Ik ; ak / ! .Mk ; Ik ; ak /
such that the following hold where F D jk .Fk /.
(2.1) For each U 2 Y , U \ Mk 2 jk .Yk /.
(2.2) For each U 2 Y ,
a) the ideal IU;F is proper,
b) .!1 ; 1PU / 2 RU;F ,
c) suppose that p 2 .PW /Mk , and

.jk .k // Mk
;
.p; b/ 2 RW;F
where W D Mk \ U , then
b is stationary,
.p; S / 2 RU;F where S !1 is a stationary set which is equivalent
to b.
(2.3) jk .Yk / D U \ Mk j U 2 Y .
(2.4) Let I be the ideal on !1 which is dual to the lter,
F D \U j U 2 Y ;
then
\IU;F j U 2 Y I:
(2.5) For all 2 Ck and for all < ,
C 2 .jk /0;CC1 .Fk.T / /./
if and only if
2 .jk /0;C1 .Fk.S/ /./:
NS
8.2 Pmax
Let a D aI where
531
I D IU;F j U 2 Y :

XkC1 V
such that
.Xk ; jk ; Y / 2 XkC1 :
Let MkC1 be the transitive collapse of XkC1 and let .IkC1 ; akC1 ; YkC1 ; FkC1 / be the
image of .I; a; Y; jk .Fk // under the collapsing map. Thus
h.MkC1 ; IkC1 ; akC1 /; YkC1 ; FkC1 i 2 M|NS :
This completes the denition of
(3.1) hh.Mk ; Ik ; ak /; Yk ; Fk i W k < !i,
(3.2) h.Fk.S/ ; Fk.T / / W k < !i,
(3.3) hjk W k < !i,
(3.4) hXk W k < !i,
except that we require that .jk .Fk.S/ /; jk .Fk.T / // j k < ! is equal to the set of all
possible pairs of functions from the set,
[
M
M
jk .f / j f W !1 k ! P .!1 k / \ Mk n Jk and f 2 Mk j k < !
which is easily achieved.
Let X D [Xk j k < ! and for each k < ! let
.MO k ; YOk /
be the image of .Mk ; jk .Yk // under the transitive collapse of X . Let
FO D [Fk j k < !:
We claim that
|NS
and is as desired. The verication is straightforward. The sequence

hMO k W k < !i
satises the hypothesis of Lemma 4.17 and so by Lemma 4.17 it is iterable, cf. the
proof of Lemma 5.32.
|NS
The remaining conditions of the denition of Pmax
, Denition 8.30, are an immediate consequence of the denition of .h.MO k ; YOk / W k < !i; FO /. The key requirement
that for each U 2 YOkC1 ,
O
O
.RW;FO /Mk D .RU;FO /MkC1 \ MO k
is guaranteed by (2.2(c)).
t
u
532
As an immediate corollary of Lemma 8.46 and Theorem 8.42 we obtain the req|NS
. The statement of this
uisite theorem regarding the existence of conditions in Pmax

. The reason is that we have not
theorem is weaker than that of its counterpart for Pmax
|
NS
yet established the iteration lemmas for Pmax
and so we cannot conclude that the set
|NS
.
of conditions indicated in Theorem 8.47 is dense in Pmax
Theorem 8.47. Assume AD holds in L.R/. Then for each set A R with
A 2 L.R/;
there is a condition
|NS
such that
(1) A \ MO 0 2 MO 0 ,
O
(2) hH.!1 /M0 ; A \ MO 0 i hH.!1 /; Ai,

(3) hMO k W k < !i is A-iterable.
Proof. Fix A and let B be the set of x 2 R such that x codes an element of the rst
order diagram of the structure
hV!C1 ; A; 2i:
Thus B 2 L.R/.
By Theorem 8.42, there exist a countable transitive model M and an ordinal 2 M
(1.1) M ZFC.
(1.3) B \ M 2 M and
hV!C1 \ M; B \ M; 2i hV!C1 ; B; 2i:
(1.4) B \ M is -weakly homogeneously Suslin in M .

(1.5) Suppose is the least inaccessible cardinal of M . Then strong condensation
holds for M in M .
Let be the least strongly inaccessible cardinal of M above . By .1:3/, B \ M is
1
not
1 in M and so by (1.4), exists.
Let
X0 M
be an elementary substructure structure such that X0 2 M , B \ M 2 X0 , and such
that X0 is countable in M . Let M0 be the transitive collapse of X0 .
By Lemma 8.36 and Lemma 8.37, there exists .a0 ; Y0 ; F0 / 2 M0 such that
h.M0 ; I0 ; a0 /; Y0 ; F0 i 2 .M|NS /M :
|NS M
/
.h.MO k ; YOk / W k < !i; FO / 2 .Pmax
such that in M ,
NS
8.2 Pmax
533

j W .M0 ; I0 ; a0 / ! .M0 ; I0 ; a0 /
.M0 ; j.Y0 // D .MO 0 ; YO0 /;
(2.2) hMO k W k < !i is B \ M -iterable.
By (1.3), (1.4) and (2.1),
hV!C1 \ MO 0 ; A \ MO 0 ; 2i hV!C1 \ M; A \ M; 2i:
Therefore since
hV!C1 \ M; B \ M; 2i hV!C1 ; B; 2i:
it follows that
(3.1) hV!C1 \ MO 0 ; A \ MO 0 ; 2i hV!C1 ; A; 2i,
|NS
,
(3.2) .h.MO k ; YOk / W k < !i; FO / 2 Pmax
(3.3) hMO k W k < !i is A-iterable.
t
u
|
NS
The next iteration lemma we shall prove concerns conditions in Pmax
. This involves iterating sequences of models. We shall need the following lemma.

|
NS
:
.h.Mk ; Yk / W k < !i; F / 2 Pmax
Suppose that hUk W k < !i is a sequence such that for each k < !,
(1) Uk 2 Yk ,
(2) Uk UkC1 .
Suppose that
2 !1M0 !
and that for each k < !, is Mk -generic for .PUk /Mk . Then there exists an iteration
Proof. For each k < ! let
D j.F /.!1M0 /:
Gk .PUk /Mk
be the Mk -generic lter corresponding to .

The key point is the following. Fix k < !.
534
Suppose that
.S0 ; p0 / 2 .RUk ;F /Mk
and that p0 2 Gk . Suppose that

f W !1M0 ! !1M0
is a function such that f 2 Mk and such that
f ./ < 1 C
for all <
!1M0 .
Then there exist p1 2 Gk and < !1M0 such that

.S1 ; p1 / 2 .RUk ;F /Mk ;
where S1 D f 1 ./. Otherwise there must exist q0 2 Gk such that q0 < p0 and q0
M
forces that this fails; i. e. for all < !1 k ,
.f 1 ./; q1 / .RUk ;F /Mk
for any q1 q0 . However q0 < p0 and so
.S0 ; q0 / 2 .RUk ;F /Mk :
This is a contradiction; let U be a Mk -normal ultralter such that
U .P .!1 / n RUk ;Fk /Mk
and such that q0 2 gU where
gU .PUk /Mk
is the associated Mk -generic lter.

Since
.S0 ; q0 / 2 .RUk ;F /Mk ;
we can choose U such that S0 2 U , and since U is Mk -normal there must exist
0 < .!1 /Mk such that f 1 .0 / 2 U . By Lemma 8.28, there must exist q 2 gU such
that q < q0 and such that
.f 1 .0 /; q/ 2 .RUk ;F /Mk ;
which contradicts the choice of q0 .
Let hfk W k < !i enumerate all functions
f W !1M0 ! !1M0
such that f 2 [Mk j k < ! and such that f ./ < 1 C for all < !1M0 . We also
assume that for all k < !, fk 2 Mk .
Dene by induction on k a sequence h.Sk ; pk / W k < !i such that for all k < !,
(1.1) .Sk ; pk / 2 .RUk ;F /Mk ,
(1.2) fk jSk is constant,
(1.3) pk 2 Gk ,
(1.4) SkC1 Sk .
By the remarks above this sequence is easily dened.
NS
8.2 Pmax
535
For each k < ! let

Fk D S !1M0 j S 2 Mk and Si S for some i:
Thus Fk is an Mk -normal ultralter.
The sequence hFk W k < !i denes an iteration
D j.F /.!1M0 /:
t
u
As an easy corollary to Lemma 8.48 and to the proof of Lemma 8.40 we obtain the
generalization of Lemma 8.40 to sequences of structures. We leave the details to the
reader.
Lemma 8.49. Suppose that strong condensation holds for H.!3 / and that
|
NS
:
.h.Mk ; Yk / W k < !i; F / 2 Pmax

of length !1 such that for each uniform ultralter U on !1 if
U \ Mk 2 j.Yk /
for each k < !, then:
(1) the ideal IU;j.F / is proper;
(2) .!1 ; 1PU / 2 RU;j.F / ;
(3) for each k < !,
a) IU;j.F / \ Mk D .IW;j.F / /Mk ,

b) RU;j.F / \ Mk D .RW;j.F / /Mk ,

where W D U \ Mk .
t
u
|
NS
,
The next lemma when combined with Lemma 8.49 yields the !-closure of Pmax
|NS
with the appropriate assumptions on the nontriviality of Pmax .

|
NS
.h.Mk ; Yk / W k < !i; F / 2 Pmax
and that
is an iteration of length !1 such that for each uniform ultralter U on !1 if

U \ Mk 2 j.Yk /
536
for each k < !, then

(i) the ideal IU;j.F / is proper,
(ii) .!1 ; 1PU / 2 RU;j.F / ,
(iii) for each k < !,
IU;j.F / \ Mk D .IW;j.F / /Mk

and
RU;j.F / \ Mk D .RW;j.F / /Mk ;
where W D U \ Mk .
Then there exists a set Y of uniform ultralters on !1 such that
(1) for any sequence hUk W k < !i such that for all k < !, Uk 2 j.Yk / and
Uk UkC1 , there exists U 2 Y such that
U \ Mk D Uk
for all k < !,
(2) let I be the ideal dual to the lter
F D \U j U 2 Y ;
then
\IU;j.F / j U 2 Y I;
(3) if U0 is an ultralter on !1 such that
\U j U 2 Y U0 ;
U0 \ Mk 2 j.Yk /;
then U0 2 Y .
Proof. Using the function j.F / the proof is essentially identical to that of Lemma 8.37.
Let Z be the set of uniform ultralters U on !1 such that for all k < !,
U \ Mk 2 j.Yk /:
J0 D \IU;j.F / j U 2 Z
and for all > 0,
J D \IU;j.F / j U 2 Z and for all < , J \ U D ;:
J1 J2 :
NS
8.2 Pmax
537

J D JC1
and let
J D J :
lter
F D \U j U 2 Y :
Thus
\IU;j.F / j U 2 Y I;
and so Y satises the second requirement. The third requirement is an immediate
consequence of the denition of Y .
Finally it follows by induction that for each , the ideal J has the property:
(1.1) For any sequence hUk W k < !i such that for all k < !, Uk 2 j.Yk / and
Uk UkC1 , there exists U 2 Z such that
U \ J D ;;
and such that
U \ Mk D Uk
for all k < !.
t
u
Therefore the set Y satises the rst requirement.

|
NS
We introduce the following notation for the constituents of a condition p 2 Pmax
:
p D .h.M.p;k/ ; Y.p;k/ / W k < !i; F.p/ /:
NS
NS
1
Corollary 8.51 (
2 -Determinacy). For each p0 2 Pmax there exists p1 2 Pmax such
that p1 < p0 and such that for each sequence
hWk W k < !i 2 M.p1 ;0/ ;
if

2 j.Y.p0 ;k/ /
Wk \ M.p
0 ;k/
for all k < !, then there exists U 2 Y.p1 ;0/ such that for all k < !,

I
Wk D U \ M.p
0 ;k/
where

W k < !i
j W hM.p0 ;k/ W k < !i ! hM.p
0 ;k/
is the .unique/ iteration such that j.F.p0 / / D F.p1 / .
Proof. Let x 2 R code p0 and let
.M; I; ; / 2 H.!1 /
538
be such that
(1.1) x 2 M,
(1.2) M is transitive and M ZFC C is a Woodin cardinal,
(1.3) I D .I< /M ,
(1.4) .M; I/ is iterable,
(1.5) < and M M,
(1.6) strong condensation holds in M for M where is the least inaccessible cardinal of M.
The existence of .M; I; ; / follows from
12 -Determinacy, by Theorem 8.45.
|
NS M
Thus p0 2 .Pmax
/ and so by Lemma 8.49, there exists an iteration
j0 W hM.p0 ;k/ W k < !i ! hj0 .M.p0 ;k/ / W k < !i
with j0 2 M and such that the following hold in M.
(2.1) j0 has length !1 .

(2.2) For each uniform ultralter U on !1 if
U \ j0 .M.p0 ;k/ / 2 j0 .Y.p0 ;k/ /
for each k < !, then:
the ideal IU;j0 .F.p0 / / is proper;
.!1 ; 1PU / 2 RU;j0 .F.p0 / / ;
for each k < !,
j .M

/
IU;j0 .F.p0 / / \ j0 .M.p0 ;k/ / D IW;j0 .F.p0 / / 0 .p0 ;k/ ,
j .M

/
RU;j0 .F.p0 / / \ j0 .M.p0 ;k/ / D RW;j0 .F.p0 / / 0 .p0 ;k/ ,
where W D U \ j0 .M.p0 ;k/ /.

By Lemma 8.50, there exists Y 2 M such that in M, Y is a set of uniform ultralters on !1 and (in M),
(3.1) for any sequence hUk W k < !i such that for all k < !, Uk 2 j0 .Y.p0 ;k/ / and
Uk UkC1 , there exists U 2 Y such that
U \ j0 .M.p0 ;k/ / D Uk
for all k < !,
(3.2) let I be the ideal dual to the lter
F D \U j U 2 Y ;
then
\IU;j0 .F.p0 / / j U 2 Y I;
NS
8.2 Pmax
539
(3.3) if U0 is an ultralter on !1 such that

\U j U 2 Y U0 ;
U0 \ j0 .M.p0 ;k/ / 2 j0 .Y.p0 ;k/ /;
then U0 2 Y .
Thus there exists a 2 M such that
h.M; I; a/; Y; j0 .F.p0 / /i 2 M|NS :
Let
X0 M
be an elementary substructure such that
(4.1) X0 2 M,
(4.2) jX0 jM D !,
(4.3) ; p0 ; a; Y; j0 2 X0 ,
let M0 be the transitive collapse of X0 and let
I0 ; a0 ; Y0 ; F0
be the image of I; a; Y; j0 .F.p0 / / under the collapsing map. Thus
h.M0 ; I0 ; a0 /; Y0 ; F0 i 2 .M|NS /M
Thus by Lemma 8.46, there exists
|NS M
/
such that in M there exists a countable iteration

j W .M0 ; I0 ; a0 / ! .M0 ; I0 ; a0 /
satisfying
(5.1) j.F0 / D FO ,
(5.2) .M0 ; j.Y0 // D .MO 0 ; YO0 /.
Let
p1 D .h.MO k ; YOk / W k < !i; FO /:

|
NS M
NS
Thus, since p1 2 .Pmax
/ , p1 2 Pmax
. By the properties of j0 and by (5.1) and (5.2),
p1 < p0
and satises the requirements of the lemma.
t
u
540
1
Corollary 8.52 (
2 -Determinacy). Suppose that hpk W k < !i is a sequence of ele|
NS
ments of Pmax
pkC1 < pk :
Then there exists p 2
|NS
Pmax

p < pk :
Proof. For each k < ! let

.h.Mik ; Yik / W i < !i; Fk / D pk :
Let
F D [Fk j k < !
jk W hMik W i < !i ! hMO ik W i < !i
jk .Fk / D F:
By Lemma 5.43, since
[Mik j i 2 !

AC ;
the iteration jk is unique.

Let
q D .h.MO kk ; jk .Ykk // W k < !i; F /:
It follows from the denitions that if
hMO kk W k < !i
|
NS
is iterable then q 2 Pmax
.
k
O
The sequence hMk W k < !i satises the hypothesis of Lemma 4.17 and so it is
iterable, cf. the proof of Lemma 5.32.
|NS
such that p < q. It follows that
By Corollary 8.51 there exists p 2 Pmax
p < pk
for each k < !.
t
u
For each of the previously considered Pmax variations the proof that !1 -DC holds
in the extension has been a routine adaptation of the proof for the Pmax -extension using
|NS
this is Lemma 8.49
the appropriate analogs of Lemma 4.36 and Lemma 4.37; for Pmax
|NS
combined with Lemma 8.50. The situation for the Pmax -extension is different. Our
third iteration lemma establishes what is required to prove that !1 -DC holds in the
|NS
-extension.
Pmax
|NS
It is convenient to adapt Denition 4.44 to Pmax
.
NS
8.2 Pmax
541
NS
is semi-generic if for all < !1 there exists a
Denition 8.53. A lter G Pmax
condition
p2G
such that < .!1 /M.p;0/ .

|NS
is semi-generic. Dene FG by
Suppose G Pmax
FG D [F.p/ j p 2 G
For each p 2 G let

W k < !i
is the (unique) iteration such that j.F.p/ / D FG .
Let

(1) P .!1 /G D [P .!1 / \ M.p;0/
j p 2 G,

(2) IG D [M.p;0/
\ .INS /M.p;1/ j p 2 G,
(3) YG be the set of uniform ultralters on !1 such that

2 jp;G .Y0 /
U \ M.p;0/
for all p 2 G.
t
u
We note that in Denition 8.53, if

P .!1 /G D P .!1 /
|
NS
-extension) then the denition of YG is the natural choice.
(which will hold in the Pmax
|NS
We caution though that for an arbitrary semi-generic lter G Pmax
, the set YG is in
most cases empty. For example, we shall see that if ADL.R/ holds and
NS
G Pmax
is L.R/-generic then in L.R/G the set YG is empty.
The possibility that
YG D ;
NS
-extension is not simply a routine
is one reason that the proof of !1 -DC in the Pmax
application of our current iteration lemmas.
For the proof of Lemma 8.55 it is useful to make the following denition.

hpk W k < !i
is a sequence of conditions in
|NS
Pmax
such that for all k < !, pkC1 < pk . Let

FO D [F.pk / j k < !
and for each k < !, let

W i < !i
jk W hM.pk ;i/ W i < !i ! hM.p
k ;i/
be the (unique) iteration such that jk .F.p / / D FO . Then
k

; jk .Y.pk ;k/ // W i < !i; FO /
.h.MO k ; YOk / W k < !i; FO / D .h.M.p
k ;k/
is the condition associated to the sequence hpk W k < !i.
t
u
542
Thus the condition associated to the sequence hpk W k < !i is precisely the condi|NS
is !-closed.
tion constructed in the proof of Corollary 8.52; i. e. that Pmax
1
Lemma 8.55 (
hD W < !1 i
|
NS
NS
is a sequence of dense subsets of Pmax
and that q0 2 Pmax
. Suppose that strong
condensation holds for H.!3 /. Then there is a semi-generic lter
NS
G Pmax
such that the following hold where for each p 2 G,

W k < !i
is the iteration given by G.

(1) q0 2 G.
(2) For each < !1 ,
G \ D ;:
(3) Suppose that .p; k/ 2 G !. For each W 2 jp;G .Y.p;k/ /, there exists U 2 YG
such that

D W:
U \ M.p;k/
(4) For each U 2 YG , the normal ideal IU;FG is proper.
(5) Suppose that .p; k/ 2 G !. For each U 2 YG ,

D .IW;FG /M.p;k/ ,
a) IU;FG \ M.p;k/

b) RU;FG \ M.p;k/
D .RW;FG /M.p;k/ ,

.
where W D U \ M.p;k/
|
NS
Proof. Since Pmax
is !-closed, we can easily build a decreasing sequence
hp W < !1 i
of conditions in
associated lter
|NS
Pmax
,
below q0 , such that p 2 D for each < !1 . Thus the

|
NS
G D p 2 Pmax
j p < p for some < !1
NS
is a semi-generic lter in Pmax
. The minor problem is that the set YG may be empty;
there may be no ultralters on !1 such that

U \ M.p;0/
2 jp;G .Y.p;0/ /
for all p 2 G.
NS
8.2 Pmax
543
The solution is to ensure that for each nonzero limit ordinal , the set
Y.p ;0/
is suitably large. Conditions (4) and (5) will be achieved by consideration of least
counterexamples as in the proofs of Lemma 8.40 and Lemma 8.49.
Fix a function
f W !3 ! H.!3 /
Dene a function
h W !3 ! H.!3 /
as follows.
Let X be the set of t ! such that t codes a pair .; p/ where < !1 and
|NS
.
p 2 Pmax
For each < !3 let D ! . Thus
h W < !3 i
is the increasing enumeration of the limit ordinals (with 0) less than !3 .
Suppose < !3 then for each k < !,
h. C k C 1/ D f ./:
Suppose < !3 and f ./ X . Then
h. / D f ./:
Suppose < !3 and f ./ 2 X . Let .; p/ be the pair coded by f ./. Then
h. / D f . /
where is least such that f . / 2 D and such that f . / p.
Since f witnesses strong condensation for H.!3 / it follows that h also witnesses
strong condensation for H.!3 /. The verication is straightforward, note that f is
trivially denable from h in H.!3 /.
For each < !3 let
M D h./ j <
and let
h D hj:
(1.2) h 2 M for all < ,
M
(1.4) !2
M
exists and !2
2 M ,
(1.5) q0 2 H.!1 /M ,

M
(1.6) H.!1 /M D h./ j < !1 .
544
The reason for modifying f to obtain h is in order to achieve the following. Suppose 2 S. Then
M
(2.1) hD \ H.!1 /M W < !1 i 2 M ,

|
NS M
NS M
(2.2) for each < !1 , D \ .Pmax
/ is dense in .Pmax
/ .
We dene by induction on < !1 a (strictly) decreasing sequence

hp W < !1 i
|
NS
of conditions in Pmax
below q0 such that for all < !1 , p 2 D . The lter generated
by the set p j < !1 will have the desired properties. By (2.1) and (2.2) it will
follow that for each 2 S,
hp W < .!1 /M i 2 M :

Suppose hp W < i has been dened and that is a nonzero limit ordinal. The
case that D 0 or that is a successor ordinal is similar.
We rst suppose that for all 2 S,
.!1 /M :
We dene three ordinals 0 , 1 and 2 . These will depend on . Let 0 be least
such that
h.0 / D hk W k < !i
where hk W k < !i is an increasing conal sequence in . Let 0 < !1 be least such
that
(3.1) M 0 is transitive,
(3.2) h 2 M 0 for all < 0 ,
(3.3) hM 0 ; h 0 ; 2i ZFC n Powerset,
M0
(3.4) !1
M0
exists and !1
2 M 0 ,
M0
(3.5) H.!1 /M0 D h./ j < !1
(3.6) hpk W k < !i 2 H.!1 /M0 .

|
NS
NS
be the condition in Pmax
which is associated to the sequence
Let q 2 Pmax
hpk W k < !i.
NS
8.2 Pmax
545
NS
and such that the following hold where
Let 1 be least such that h.1 / 2 Pmax
p D h.1 /:
(4.1) M 0 2 H.!1 /M.p;0/ ;

(4.2) p < q and for each increasing sequence
hWk W k < !i 2 M.p;0/ ;
if
Wk 2 j.Y.q;k/ /
for all k < !, then there exists U 2 Y.p;0/ such that for all k < !,

;
Wk D U \ M.q;k/
where

W k < !i
j W hM.q;k/ W k < !i ! hM.q;k/
is the (unique) iteration such that j.F.q/ / D F.p/ .

Finally let 2 be least such that h.2 / 2 D and such that
h.2 / < h.1 /:
We nish the denition of p setting
p D h.2 /:
In the case that D 0 or D C 1, we dene p in a similar fashion using q0 or
p in place of q.
The remaining case is that for some 2 S,
D .!1 /M :
Let
NS M
/
j p < p for some < ;
g D p 2 .Pmax
let
Fg D [F.p/ j p 2 g
and for each p 2 g let

W k < !i
jp;g W hM.p;k/ W k < !i ! hM.p;k/
be the unique iteration such that j.F.p/ / D Fg . Let

H.!1 /g D [M.p;0/ j p 2 g:
For each 2 S with the property that
D .!1 /M ;
|
NS M
/ . This is because for each such ,
g is a semi-generic lter in .Pmax
H.!1 /M D M D H.!1 /g :

Let 0 2 S be least such that
D .!1 /M0
546
and such that g fails to satisfy the requirements of the lemma as interpreted in M 0
relative to the sequence
hD \ M W < i:
If 0 does not exist then choose p as above. Similarly if
.Yg /M0 D ;
then again choose p as above. In fact it will follow by induction that .Yg /M0 ;
and further that g satises (3) in M 0 .
Therefore g fails to satisfy (4) or (5).
Otherwise let .0 ; 1 / be least such that
h.0 / 2 .Yg /M0 ;
h.1 / 2 g !, and such that either
(5.1) .IU;F /M0 is not a proper ideal, or
(5.2) .p; k/ 2 g ! and either

a) .IW;F /M.p;k/ .IU;F /M0 \ M.p;k/
, or

b) .RW;F /M.p;k/ .RU;F /M0 \ M.p;k/
,
where we set
F D .Fg /M0 ;
U D h.0 /;

W D h.0 / \ M.p;k/
;
and .p; k/ D h.1 /.
We shall again dene three ordinals 0 , 1 and 2 . These will depend on . Let 0
be least such that
h.0 / D hk W k < !i
where hk W k < !i is an increasing conal sequence in . Let 1 < !1 be least such
that
hpk W k < !i 2 H.!1 /M1 :
Let
q D .h.Mk ; Yk / W k < !i; F /
|
NS
be the condition in Pmax
associated to the sequence hpk W k < !i.
We shall dene an iteration of hMk W k < !i as follows. There are three cases.
Suppose rst that (5.1) holds. Let 2 be least such that h.2 / D j where

is an iteration of length 1 such that j.F /./ is M 0 -generic for .PU /M0 .
NS
8.2 Pmax
547
Next suppose that (5.1) fails. Then (5.2) holds. If (5.2(a)) holds then let 0 be least
such that

n .IW;F /M.p;k/ :
h.0 / 2 .IU;F /M0 \ M.p;k/
Let 2 be least such that h.2 / D j where
is an iteration of length 1 such that j.F /./ is M 0 -generic for .PU /M0 and such that
!1M0 2 j.h.0 //:
If (5.2(a)) fails then (5.2(b)) holds.
Let 0 be least such that h.0 / D .S0 ; .s0 ; f0 /; .s1 ; f1 // where
.S0 ; .s0 ; f0 // 2 .RW;F /Mk ;

.s1 ; f1 / 2 .PU /M0 ;
.s1 ; f1 / < .s0 ; f0 / in .PU /M0 , and
S0 \ .Z.s1 ;f1 /;F /M0 2 .IU;F /M0 :
The existence of 0 follows from Lemma 8.29.
Let 2 be least such that h.2 / D j where
is an iteration of length 1 such that j.F /./ is M 0 -generic for .PU /M0 , .s1 ; f1 /
belongs to the corresponding M 0 -generic lter, and such that
!1M0 2 j.S0 /:
This denes the iteration j D h.2 / in each case. Let
q D .h.Mk ; j.Yk // W k < !i; j.F //
The denition of 1 and of 2 is as above with q in place of q: Let 1 be least
|NS
and such that the following hold where p D h.1 /:
such that h.1 / 2 Pmax
(6.1) M 1 2 H.!1 /M.p;0/ ;
(6.2) p < q and for each increasing sequence
hWk W k < !i 2 M.p;0/ ;
if
Wk 2 j.Y.q0 ;k/ /
for all k < !, then there exists U 2 Y.p;0/ such that for all k < !,

Wk D U \ M.q
;k/ ;
where

j W hM.q ;k/ W k < !i ! hM.q
;k/ W k < !i
is the (unique) iteration such that j.F.q / / D F.p/ .
548
Let 2 be least such that h.2 / 2 D and such that

h.2 / < h.1 /:
Finally we nish the denition of p setting
p D h.2 /:
This completes the inductive denition of the sequence
hp W < !1 i:
Let
NS
G D p 2 Pmax
j p < p for some < !1
NS
be the associated lter. Thus q0 2 G, G is a semi-generic lter in Pmax
, and for each
< !1 , G \ D ;.
We next prove that the set YG is nonempty. This is a consequence of the following
property of the sequence we have dened. For each < !1 let
.h.M;k ; Y;k / W k < !i; F / D p

and for each < < !1 let
W k < !i
j; W hM;k W k < !i ! hM;k
be the unique iteration such that j; .F / D F .

Suppose < !1 , is a limit ordinal, 0 and that
D sup.!1 /M j 2 S \ :
Let be least
(7.2) h 2 M for all < ,
M
(7.4) !1
M
exists and !1
2 M ,
M
(7.5) H.!1 /M D h./ j < !1

M
(7.6) < !1
Suppose hU W < i 2 M and that

(8.1) all < , U 2 Y.p ;0/ ,
(8.2) for all 0 < 1 < ,
j0 ;1 .U0 / U1 :
NS
8.2 Pmax
549
Then there exists U 2 Y.p ;0/ such that for all < ,
U \ j; M.p ;0/ D j; .U /:
Using this property of the sequence it is straightforward to prove that for each
p 2 G, if
W 2 jp;G .Y.p;0/ /
then there exists U 2 YG such that
U \ jp;G .M.p;0/ / D W:
We now prove that (4) and (5). The argument is by reection and is quite similar
to that given in the proof of Lemma 8.40. We note that for all 2 S such that > !1 ,
G 2 M
and in M , G satises all of the requirements of the lemma except possibly (4) or (5).
If either (4) or (5) fail let 0 2 S be least such that
M0
!1
D !1
and such that in M 0 , (4) or (5) fails to be satised by G.

We prove that G satises (4) and (5) in M 0 . Assume otherwise. Let 0 be least
such that
h.0 / 2 .YG /M0
and such that h.0 / witnesses in M 0 the failure of either (4) or (5) for G. Set
U D h.0 /. Arguing as in the proof of Lemma 8.40 using countable elementary
substructures of
hM 0 ; hj0 ; 2i
it follows that
.IU;FG /M0 INS
and so (4) must hold for .U; G/ in M 0 . Therefore (5) fails for .U; G/ in M 0 . Let 1
be least such that
h.1 / 2 G !
and such that either

.IW;FG /M.p;k/ , or
(9.1) .IU;FG /M0 \ M.p;k/

.RW;FG /M.p;k/ ,
(9.2) .RU;FG /M0 \ M.p;k/
where .p; k/ D h.1 / and where

W k < !i

We rst assume that (9.1) holds. Let 0 be least such that

h.0 / 2 .IU;FG /M0 \ M.p;k/
n .IW;FG /M.p;k/ :
550
Using countable elementary substructures of

hM 0 ; hj0 ; 2i
it follows that
!1 n h.0 / 2 INS ;
cf. the proof of Lemma 8.40. This is a contradiction since .IU;FG /M0 INS .
Finally we assume that (9.2) holds.
Let 0 be least such that h.0 / D .S0 ; .s0 ; f0 /; .s1 ; f1 // where

.S0 ; .s0 ; f0 // 2 .RW;F /M.p;k/ ;
.s1 ; f1 / 2 .PU /M0 ;
M0
.s1 ; f1 / < .s0 ; f0 / in .PU /
, and
S0 \ .Z.s1 ;f1 /;F /M0 2 .IU;F /M0 :
The existence of 0 follows from Lemma 8.29.
Again using countable elementary substructures of
hM 0 ; hj0 ; 2i
it follows that
!1 n S0 2 INS
and that
!1 n .Z.s1 ;f1 /;F /M0 2 INS :
This contradicts .IU;FG /M0 INS .
Thus G satises (4) and (5) in M 0 and so the semi-generic lter G satises the
requirements of the lemma.
t
u
1
Lemma 8.56 (
|
NS
G Pmax
is a semi-generic lter and that

Y0 YG
is a set such that the following hold where for each p 2 G,

W k < !i
(i) For each .p; k/ 2 G !, and for each W 2 jp;G .Y.p;k/ /, there exists U 2 Y0
such that

D W:
U \ M.p;k/
(ii) For each U 2 Y0 ,
a) the ideal IU;FG is proper,
b) for each .p; k/ 2 G !,

.IW;FG /M.p;k/ D IU;FG \ M.p;k/
and

;
.RW;FG /M.p;k/ D RU;FG \ M.p;k/

where W D M.p;k/ .
NS
8.2 Pmax
551
(iii) Suppose that U0 2 YG , U1 2 Y0 and that

U0 \ P .!1 /G D U1 \ P .!1 /G :
Then U0 2 Y0 .
Then there exists a set Y Y0 such that:
(1) for each U 2 Y0 there exists U 2 Y such that for all .p; k/ 2 G !,

D U \ M.p;k/
I
U \ M.p;k/
(2) let I be the ideal dual to the lter

F D \U j U 2 Y ;
then
\IU;FG j U 2 Y I:
Proof. The proof is essentially identical to that of Lemma 8.50. We dene by induction
on a normal ideal J as follows:
J0 D \IU;F j U 2 Y0
and for all > 0,
J D \IU;F j U 2 Y0 and for all < , J \ U D ;:
It follows easily by induction that if 1 < 2 then J1 J2 . Thus for each , J is
unambiguously dened as the intersection of a nonempty set of uniform normal ideals
on !1 . The sequence of ideals is necessarily eventually constant. Let be least such
that J D JC1 and let J D J . Thus J is a uniform normal ideal on !1 .
Let Y be the set of U 2 Y0 such that U \ J D ; and let I be the ideal dual to the
lter
F D \U j U 2 Y :
Then
\IU;F j U 2 Y I;
and so Y satises the second requirement.
Finally it follows by induction that for each , the ideal J has the property: For
each U0 2 Y0 there exists U1 2 Y0 such that
U1 \ J D ;;
and such that
U0 \ P .!1 /G D U1 \ P .!1 /G :
Therefore the set Y satises the rst requirement.
t
u
As a corollary to Lemma 8.55 and Lemma 8.56 we obtain the following lemma with
|NS
which the basic analysis of the Pmax
-extension is easily accomplished. Lemma 8.57 is
analogous to Lemma 4.46, though this formulation is more efcient.
552
Lemma 8.57 (ADL.R/ ). Suppose that A R and that A 2 L.R/. Then for each
|NS
|NS
there exists p0 2 Pmax
such that p0 < q0 and such that:
q0 2 Pmax
(1) hM.p0 ;k/ W k < !i is A-iterable;
(2) hV!C1 \ M.p0 ;0/ ; A \ M.p0 ;0/ ; 2i hV!C1 ; A; 2i;
|
NS
(3) Suppose that D Pmax
is a dense set which is denable in the structure
hH.!1 /; A; 2i
M.p0 ;0/
from parameters in H.!1 /
. Then
D \ p > p0 j p 2 M.p0 ;0/ ;:
Proof. Fix A and let B be the set of x 2 R such that x codes an element of the rst
order diagram of the structure
hV!C1 ; A; 2i:
Let B be the set of x 2 R such that x codes an element of the rst order diagram of
the structure
hV!C1 ; B; q0 ; 2i:
Thus B 2 L.R/.
By Theorem 8.42 applied to B , there exist a countable transitive model M and an
ordinal 2 M such that the following hold.
(1.1) M ZFC.
(1.3) B \ M 2 M and hV!C1 \ M; B \ M; 2i hV!C1 ; B ; 2i.
(1.4) B \ M is C -weakly homogeneously Suslin in M .
holds for M in M .
|
NS M
/ .
(1.6) q0 2 .Pmax
Let
hD W < !1M i
|
NS M
enumerate all the dense subsets of .Pmax
/ which are rst order denable in the structure
hH.!1 /M ; A \ M; 2i:
By Lemma 8.55 there exists a lter

|
NS M
g .Pmax
/
such that the following hold in M where for each p 2 g,

W k < !i
is the iteration given by p.
NS
8.2 Pmax
553
(2.1) q0 2 g.
(2.2) For each < !1M ,
g \ D ;:
(2.3) Suppose that p 2 g. For each W 2 jp;g .Y.p;k/ /, there exists U 2 Yg such that

U \ M.p;k/
D W:
(2.4) For each U 2 Yg , the normal ideal IU;Fg is proper.

(2.5) Suppose that .p; k/ 2 g !. For each U 2 Yg ,

a) IU;Fg \ M.p;k/
D .IW;Fg /M.p;k/ ,

D .RW;Fg /M.p;k/ ,
b) RU;Fg \ M.p;k/

.
By Lemma 8.56, there exists Y 2 M such that

Y Yg
and such that in M :
(3.1) For each U 2 Yg there exists U 2 Y such that for all .p; k/ 2 g !,

U \ M.p;k/
D U \ M.p;k/
I
(3.2) Let I be the ideal dual to the lter

F D \U j U 2 Y ;
then
\IU;Fg j U 2 Y I:
Let a D .aI /M where
I D .IU;Fg /M j U 2 Y :
Let be the least strongly inaccessible cardinal of M above . By .1:3/, B \ M
1
is not
1 in M and so by (1.4), exists. and let
X0 M
be an elementary substructure such that X0 2 M , X0 is countable in M and such that

B \ M; Y; g 2 X0 :
Let M0 be the transitive collapse of X0 . Let .a0 ; Y0 ; F0 ; g0 / be the image of
.a; Y; Fg ; g/ under the collapsing map and let I0 be the image of .I< /M . Thus
h.M0 ; I0 ; a0 /; Y0 ; F0 i 2 .M|NS /M :
|NS M
/
such that in M ,
554

j W .M0 ; I0 ; a0 / ! .M0 ; I0 ; a0 /
.M0 ; j.Y0 // D .MO 0 ; YO0 /;
By (1.3), (1.4) and (4.1),
Therefore since
hV!C1 \ M; B \ M; 2i hV!C1 ; B; 2i:
it follows that
hV!C1 \ MO 0 ; A \ MO 0 ; 2i hV!C1 ; A; 2i;

|NS
;
and that hMO k W k < !i is A-iterable.

Let
p0 D .h.MO k ; YOk / W k < !i; FO /:
By (4.1) it follows that for each p 2 j.g0 /, p0 < p.
|NS
Suppose that D Pmax
hH.!1 /; A; 2i
O
from parameters in H.!1 /M0 . Then again by (4.1) it follows that there exists p 2 j.g/
such that p 2 D.
Therefore p0 is as desired.
t
u
|
NS
-extension follows easily from the iteration lemmas by
the usual arguments.
NS
L.R/G !1 -DC
and in L.R/G:
(1) P .!1 /G D P .!1 /;
(2) the sentence
AC
holds;
(3) FG witnesses |NS .
NS
8.2 Pmax
555
NS
is !-closed. By Theorem 8.47, for each x 2 R, there
Proof. By Corollary 8.52, Pmax
|NS
exists p 2 Pmax such that
x 2 M.p;0/ ;
NS
by Corollary 8.51, these conditions are dense in Pmax
.
Fix q0 2 G.
|NS
Suppose that 2 L.R/Pmax is a term for a subset of !1 .

Let Z
be the set of triples .p; a; / such that
p a D \ :
Let A be the set of reals x which code an element of Z
.
|NS
By Lemma 8.57 there exists there exists p0 2 Pmax
such that p0 < q0 and such
that:
(1.1) hM.p0 ;k/ W k < !i is A-iterable;
(1.2) hV!C1 \ M.p0 ;0/ ; A \ M.p0 ;0/ ; 2i hV!C1 ; A; 2i;
|
NS
(1.3) Suppose that D Pmax
hH.!1 /; A; 2i
from parameters in H.!1 /
M.p0 ;0/
. Then
D \ p > p0 j p 2 M.p0 ;0/ ;:

By genericity we may suppose that p0 2 G.
Let B !1 be the interpretation of by G,
|
NS
\ M.p0 ;0/ j p0 < p 2 M.p0 ;1/
p 2 Pmax
and so by (1.2) and (1.3),
M.p0 ;0/
B \ !1
Let
2 M.p0 ;1/ :

jp0 ;G W hM.p0 ;k/ W k < !i ! hM.p
W k < !i
0 ;k/
be the iteration given by G. By (1.1)(1.3), again using the fact that

|
NS
p 2 Pmax
\ M.p0 ;0/ j p0 < p 2 M.p0 ;1/
it follows that
B D jp0 ;G .b/
M.p
;0/
where b D B \ !1 0 .
This proves (1). A similar argument shows that
L.R/G !1 -DC:
The remaining claims, (2) and (3), are immediate consequences of (1) and the deni|NS
tion of the order on Pmax
.
t
u
556
|
NS
We now begin the analysis of the nonstationary ideal on !1 in the Pmax
-extension.
Our goal is to show that the ideal is saturated. We begin with the following lemma
|NS
-extension.
which is the analog of Lemma 6.77 for the Pmax

|
NS
G Pmax
Proof. The proof is identical to that of Lemma 6.77 using the basic analysis provided
by Theorem 8.58 (i. e. using Theorem 8.58 in place of Theorem 6.74) and using the
|NS
is !-closed (Corollary 8.52 in place of Theorem 6.73).
t
u
fact that Pmax
Remark 8.60. An immediate corollary of Lemma 8.59 is the following. Assume AD
|NS
is L.R/-generic. Then in L.R/G, INS is semiholds in L.R/ and that G Pmax
saturated. The verication is a routine application of Lemma 4.24.
t
u
Assume AD holds in L.R/ and that
|
NS
G Pmax
is L.R/-generic. Then it is not difcult to show that in L.R/G, the set YG is empty.
However one can force over L.R/G to make YG nonempty. The resulting model is
|NS
. We shall dene and briey
itself a generic extension of L.R/ for a variant of Pmax
|NS
analyze this variant which we denote Umax .
|NS
The basic property of Umax
is the following. Suppose that AD holds in L.R/ and
that
|NS
G Umax
L.R/G D L.R/gY
where in L.R/G;
|
NS
is L.R/-generic,
(1) g Pmax
(2) L.R/g is closed under !1 sequences in L.R/G,

(3) Y D Yg ,
(4) INS D \IU;Fg j U 2 Y ,
(5) for all U 2 Y , INS \ U D ;.
|
NS
.
We now dene Umax
NS
8.2 Pmax
557
NS
is the set of pairs .p; f / such that
Denition 8.61. Umax
NS
,
(1) p 2 Pmax
(2) f 2 M.p;0/ and f W .!3 /M.p;0/ ! Y.p;0/ is a surjection.

|
NS
The ordering on Umax
is dened as follows:
.p1 ; f1 / < .p0 ; f0 /

|
NS
if p1 < p0 in Pmax
and for all 2 dom.f0 /,

j.f0 .// D f1 .j.// \ M.p
0 ;0/
where
j W hM.p0 ;k/ W k < !i ! hM.p0 ;k/ W k < !i
is the unique iteration such that j.F.p0 / / D F.p1 / .
t
u
NS
NS
Suppose that G Umax
is a lter. Then G projects to dene a lter FG Pmax
.
|NS
The lter G is semi-generic if the projection FG is a semi-generic lter in Pmax . We
|NS
is a semi-generic lter. Let
x some more notation. Suppose that G Umax
fG D jp;FG .f / j .p; f / 2 G:
Thus fG is a function with domain,
dom.fG / D sup!2LA j A 2 P .!1 /FG :
For each 2 dom.fG /,
fG ./ P .!1 /FG
and fG ./ is an ultralter in P .!1 /FG .

|
NS
-extension of L.R/ is a routine generalization of the analThe analysis of the Umax
|NS
ysis of the Pmax -extension of L.R/. We summarize the basic results in the next theorem the proof of which we leave as an exercise for the dedicated reader.
NS
Theorem 8.62. Assume AD L.R/ . Suppose G Umax
is L.R/-generic.
F D FFG and let
Y D .YFG /L.R/G :
Then in L.R/G:
|
NS
;
(1) FG is L.R/-generic for Pmax
(2) P .!1 /FG D P .!1 /;

(3) dom.fG / D !2 ;
(4) for all < !2 , f ./ 2 Y ;
Let
558
(5) for each U 2 Y , IU;F is a proper ideal and

.!1 ; p/ 2 RU;F
where p D 1PU ;
(6) INS D \IU;F j U 2 Y ;
(7) for each U 2 Y , INS \ U D ;.
t
u
|
NS
Suppose that for each x 2 R there exists p 2 Pmax
such that
x 2 M.p;0/ :
We x some more notation. Suppose that
|
NS
G Pmax

IG D [M.p;0/
\ .INS /M.p;1/ j p 2 G
where for each p 2 G,

W k < !i
is the iteration given by G. A set

|
NS
Pmax
H.!1 /
denes a term for a dense subset of .P .!1 /G n IG ; / if the following conditions are
satised.
(1) is a set of pairs .p; b/ such that
M.p;0/
b !1
and such that
b 2 M.p;0/ n .INS /M.p;1/ :

|
NS
(2) For each .p0 ; b0 / 2 Pmax
H.!1 / such that
M.p0 ;0/
b0 !1
and such that
b0 2 M.p0 ;0/ n .INS /M.p0 ;1/ ;
there exists .p1 ; b1 / 2 such that p1 < p0 and such that b1 j.b0 / where

j W hM.p0 ;k/ W k < !i ! hM.p
W k < !i
0 ;k/
is the (unique) iteration such that j.F.p0 / / D F.p1 / .

|
NS
Suppose G Pmax
G D jp;G .b/ j p 2 G and .p; b/ 2 :

If the lter G is sufciently generic then G is dense in the partial order,
.P .!1 /G n IG ; /:
NS
8.2 Pmax
559
NS
1
Lemma 8.63 (
2 -Determinacy). Suppose that Pmax H.!1 / denes a term
NS
for a dense subset of .P .!1 /G n IG ; / and that q0 2 Pmax
. Suppose that strong
condensation holds for H.!3 /. Then there is a semi-generic lter
NS
G Pmax
and a set
Y0 YG
such that the following hold where for each p 2 G,

W k < !i

(1) q0 2 G.
(2) For each U 2 Y0 ,
G n IU;FG
is dense in .P .!1 /G n IU;FG ; /.

(3) Suppose that .p; k/ 2 G !. For each W 2 jp;G .Y.p;k/ /, there exists U 2 Y0
such that

D W:
U \ M.p;k/
(4) For each U 2 Y0 , the normal ideal IU;FG is proper.
(5) Suppose that .p; k/ 2 G !. For each U 2 Y0 ,

D .IW;FG /M.p;k/ ,
a) IU;FG \ M.p;k/

b) RU;FG \ M.p;k/
D .RW;FG /M.p;k/ ,

.
(6) Suppose that U0 2 YG , U1 2 Y0 and that

U0 \ P .!1 /G D U1 \ P .!1 /G :
Then U0 2 Y0 .
f W !3 ! H.!3 /
Dene a function
h W !3 ! H.!3 /
as follows.
Let
hD W < !i
560
NS
enumerate all the dense subsets of Pmax
which are rst order denable in the structure
hH.!1 /; ; 2i:
We require that for each limit ordinal ,
D j <
contains all the dense sets which are denable with parameters from
f ./ j < :
Let X be the set of t ! such that t codes a pair .; p/ where < !1 and
|NS
.
p 2 Pmax
For each < !3 let D ! . Thus
h W < !3 i
is the increasing enumeration of the limit ordinals (with 0) less than !3 .
Suppose < !3 then for each k < !
h. C k C 2/ D f ./:
Suppose < !3 and f ./ X . Then
h. / D f ./:
Suppose < !3 and f ./ 2 X . Let .; p/ be the pair coded by f ./. Then
h. / D f . /
where is least such that f . / 2 D and such that f . / p.
Finally for each < !3 ,
1 if f ./ 2 ;
h. C 1/ D
0 otherwise.
Just as in the proof of Lemma 8.55, h witnesses strong condensation for H.!3 /.
The additional feature we have obtained here is that (using the notation from the proof
of Lemma 8.55) for each 2 S,
\ M 2 M :
Let
hp W < !1 i
be as constructed in the proof of Lemma 8.55 using the function h and the sequence
hD W < !1 i:
Let G
|NS
Pmax
be the lter,
|
NS
j for some < !1 ; p < p:
G D p 2 Pmax
Thus G is a semi-generic lter, YG ;, and the following hold.

(1.1) Suppose that .p; k/ 2 G !. For each W 2 jp;G .Y.p;k/ /, there exists U 2 YG
such that

D W:
U \ M.p;k/
NS
8.2 Pmax
(1.2) For each U 2 YG , the normal ideal IU;FG is proper.

(1.3) Suppose that .p; k/ 2 G !. For each U 2 YG ,

D .IW;FG /M.p;k/ ,
a) IU;FG \ M.p;k/

D .RW;FG /M.p;k/ ,
b) RU;FG \ M.p;k/

.
Let Y0 be the set of U 2 YG such that

G n IU;FG
Y0 satises the requirements of the lemma provided for each p 2 G,

jp;G .Y.p;0/ / D U \ M.p;0/
j U 2 Y0 :
For each < !3 let
M D h./ j <
and let
h D hj:
(2.2) h 2 M for all < ,
M
(2.4) !2
M
exists and !2
2 M ,
(2.5) q0 2 H.!1 /M ,

M
(2.6) H.!1 /M D h./ j < !1 .

Let
Q D [jp;G .Y.p;k/ / j .p; k/ 2 G !:
Dene a partial order on Q by
W1 < W2
if W2 W1 .
Suppose that U 2 YG . Then
W 2 Q j W U
is a maximal lter in Q.
Suppose that 2 S and !1 < < !2 . Then
Q 2 M :
561
562
Suppose that
F Q
is a lter which is M -generic and let U D UF . We shall prove that
G n IU;FG
We rst prove that the relevant lters exists. More precisely suppose that
D P .Q/
is set of dense subsets of Q such that jDj !1 . We prove that there exists a lter
F Q
such that W 2 F and such that F is D-generic. The proof is essentially the same as
the proof that YG ;.
Fix D and let
X hH.!3 /; h; 2i
be the elementary substructure of elements which are denable in the structure with
parameters from !1 [ D. For each < !1 let
X D f .s/ j f 2 X and s 2 <! ;
let 2 S be such that
and let G
Let
|NS M
.Pmax
/
hX ; h; 2i hM ; h ; 2i;
be the lter generated by the set, p j < .
C D X \ !1 j < !1
and for each < < !1 , let

; W M ! M
be the elementary embedding which corresponds to the inclusion map, X X .
Finally for each < !1 let be least such that
(3.2) h 2 M for all < ,
M
(3.4) !1
M
exists and !1
(3.5) H.!1 /
M
M
(3.6) < !1
2 M ,
M
D h./ j < !1
.
NS
8.2 Pmax
563
Clearly C is a closed unbounded subset of !1 . The key point is that if is a limit

point of C then
hM W < i 2 M
and
h; W < < i 2 M :
For each < !1 let
and let
Y D Y.p ;0/
. /
j; W M.p ;0/ ! M.p
;0/
be the elementary embedding corresponding to the iteration which witnesses p < p .

If D !1 then
j;!1 D jp ;G jM.p ;0/ :
Thus if hW W < i is any sequence such that:
(4.1) hW W < i 2 M ;
(4.2) for each < < , j; .W / W ;
(4.3) for each < ,
W 2 Y :
Then there exists W 2 Y.p / such that
j; .W / W
for all < .
It is now straightforward to construct a sequence hW W < !1 i such that:
(5.1) for all < < !1 ,
W 2 Y
and j; .W / W ;
(5.2) the lter F Q generated by the set jp ;G .W / j < !1 is D-generic.
Clearly one can require that any given element of Q belong to F .
Let 0 2 S be least such that !1 < 0 . Thus G 2 M 0 . Suppose that F0 Q is a
lter which is M 0 -generic and let U0 2 YG be such that
[F0 U0 :
We prove that
G n IU0 ;FG
is dense in .P .!1 /G n IU0 ;FG ; /. This is an immediate consequence of the genericity
of F0 . To see this suppose that p 2 G, W 2 jp;G .Y.p;0/ / and that W 2 F0 .
INS \ P .!1 /G D .\IU;FG j U 2 YG / \ P .!1 /G :
564
Let A be the diagonal union of .IW;FG /M.p;0/ where

W k < !i:
The set A is unambiguously dened modulo a nonstationary set. By modifying the

choice of A we can suppose that A 2 P .!1 /G .
Suppose that U 2 YG . Then for some W1 2 jp;G .Y.p;0/ /,
W1 D U \ P .!1 /M.p;0/ :
If W 6 U then W W1 and it follows that for each U 2 YG either W U or
.!1 n A/ 2 IU;FG .
Now suppose that B 2 P .!1 /G , B \ A D ;, and that B is stationary; i. e. that
B .\IU;FG j U 2 YG / \ P .!1 /G :
Let U 2 YG be such that B IU;FG . The ultralter U must exist since
INS \ P .!1 /G D .\IU;FG j U 2 YG / \ P .!1 /G :
Necessarily W U . Therefore there exists q 2 G such that
(6.1) q < p,
(6.2) B 2 P .!1 /M.q;0/ ,

where

W k < !i:
jq;G W hM.q;k/ W k < !i ! hM.q;k/

. Thus W1 2 jq;G .Y.q;0/ / and W W1 . Suppose that
Let W1 D U \ M.q;0/
F Q is any M 0 -generic lter containing W1 and that U 2 YG is any ultralter
such that [F U . It follows that B IU;FG .
It follows by the M 0 -genericity of F0 that
G n IU0 ;FG
is dense in .P .!1 /G n IU0 ;FG ; /. Thus Y0 satises the requirements of the lemma. u
t
Lemma 8.63 yields the following variation of Lemma 8.57.
|
NS
H.!1 / denes a term for a dense
Lemma 8.64 (ADL.R/ ). Suppose that Pmax
subset of P .!1 / n IG and that
2 L.R/:
NS
Let A be the set of x 2 R which code an element of . Then for each q0 2 Pmax
there
|NS
exists p0 2 Pmax such that p0 < q0 and such that:

(2) hV!C1 \ M.p0 ;0/ ; A \ M.p0 ;0/ ; 2i hV!C1 ; A; 2i;
NS
8.2 Pmax
565
NS
\ M.p0 ;0/ such that g0 2 M.p0 ;0/ , such that
(3) There exists a lter g0 Pmax
p0 < p
for each p 2 g0 , and such that in M.p0 ;0/ ;
a) g0 is semi-generic and F D Fg0 ,
b) for each U 2 Y.p0 ;0/ ,
. \ H.!1 /M.p0 ;0/ /g0 n IU;F
is dense in .P .!1 /g0 n IU;F ; /,
where F D F.p0 / .
Proof. The proof is in essence identical to the proof of Lemma 8.57, using Lemma 8.63
in place of Lemma 8.55.
Let B be the set of x 2 R such that x codes an element of the rst order diagram
of the structure
hV!C1 ; A; 2i:
Let B be the set of x 2 R such that x codes an element of the rst order diagram of
the structure
hV!C1 ; B; q0 ; 2i:
Thus B 2 L.R/.
By Theorem 8.42 applied to B , there exist a countable transitive model M and an
ordinal 2 M such that the following hold.
(1.1) M ZFC.
(1.3) B \ M 2 M and hV!C1 \ M; B \ M; 2i hV!C1 ; B ; 2i.
(1.4) B \ M is C -weakly homogeneously Suslin in M .
holds for M in M .
|
NS M
/ .
(1.6) q0 2 .Pmax
By Lemma 8.63 there exist, in M , a lter

|
NS M
/
g .Pmax
and a set Y0 .Yg /M such that the following hold where for each p 2 g,

W k < !i
is the iteration given by g. We let

. /M D \ H.!1 /M :
566
(2.1) q0 2 g.
(2.2) Suppose that p 2 g. For each W 2 jp;g .Y.p;k/ /, there exists U 2 Y0 such that

D W:
U \ M.p;k/
(2.3) For each U 2 Y0 , the normal ideal IU;Fg is proper.

(2.4) For each U 2 Y0 ,
../M /g n IU;Fg
is dense in .P .!1 /g n IU;Fg ; /.

(2.5) Suppose that .p; k/ 2 g !. For each U 2 Y0 ,

D .IW;Fg /M.p;k/ ,
a) IU;Fg \ M.p;k/

D .RW;Fg /M.p;k/ ,
b) RU;Fg \ M.p;k/

.
(2.6) Suppose that U0 2 Yg , U1 2 Y0 and that

U0 \ P .!1 /g D U1 \ P .!1 /g :
Then U0 2 Y0 .
By (2.2)(2.6), g and Y0 satisfy (in M ) the requirements of the hypothesis of
Lemma 8.56 and so by Lemma 8.56 there exists Y 2 M such that
Y Y0
and such that in M ,
(3.1) for each U0 2 Y0 there exists U1 2 Y such that for all .p; k/ 2 g !,

D U1 \ M.p;k/
;
U0 \ M.p;k/
(3.2) let I be the ideal dual to the lter

F D \U j U 2 Y ;
then
\IU;Fg j U 2 Y I:
Let a D .aI /M where
I D .IU;Fg /M j U 2 Y :
Let be the least strongly inaccessible cardinal of M above . By .1:3/, B \ M
1
is not
1 in M and so by (1.4), exists. and let
X0 M
be an elementary substructure such that X0 2 M , X0 is countable in M and such that

B \ M; Y; g 2 M:
NS
8.2 Pmax
567
Let M0 be the transitive collapse of X0 . Let .a0 ; Y0 ; F0 / be the image of .a; Y; Fg /

under the collapsing map and let I0 be the image of .I< /M . Thus
h.M0 ; I0 ; a0 /; Y0 ; F0 i 2 .M|NS /M :
|NS M
/
such that in M ,
j W .M0 ; I0 ; a0 / ! .M0 ; I0 ; a0 /
.M0 ; j.Y0 // D .MO 0 ; YO0 /;
By (1.3), (1.4) and (4.1),
Therefore since
hV!C1 \ M; B \ M; 2i hV!C1 ; B; 2i:
it follows that
(5.1) hV!C1 \ MO 0 ; A \ MO 0 ; 2i hV!C1 ; A; 2i,
|NS
,
(5.2) .h.MO k ; YOk / W k < !i; FO / 2 Pmax
(5.3) hMO k W k < !i is A-iterable.

Let
p0 D .h.MO k ; YOk / W k < !i; FO /:
By (4.1) it follows that for each p 2 j.g/, p0 < p.

Finally j is an elementary embedding and
j.A \ M0 / D A \ MO 0 :
Therefore for each U 2 YO0 , we have that in MO 0 ;
O
../M0 /j.g/ n IU;FO

is dense in .P .!1 /j.g/ n IU;FO ; /, where
O
. /M0 D \ H.!1 /M0 :

Let g0 D j.g/. Thus p0 and g0 are as required.
t
u
As a corollary to Lemma 8.64 we obtain the following theorem which we shall use
|NS
to prove that the nonstationary ideal is !2 -saturated in the Pmax
-extension of L.R/.
568
Theorem 8.65. Assume AD L.R/ and that

V D L.R/G
where G
|NS
Umax
NS
is L.R/-generic. Let FG be the induced lter on Pmax
and let
F D FFG :
Suppose that D 2 L.R/FG is dense in
.P .!1 / n INS ; /:
Then for each ultralter
U 2 YFG ;
the set D n IU;FG is dense in
.P .!1 / n IU;FG ; /:
Proof. This is immediate. Let
|
NS
H.!1 /
Pmax
be a set in L.R/ which denes a term for D. Let A be the set of x 2 R which code an
element of .
Fix U 2 YFG and x a set
S 2 P .!1 / n IU;FG :
By Theorem 8.62, there exists a condition .p; f / 2 G such that for some s 2 M.p;0/
and for some u 2 Y.p;0/ ,
S D jp;FG .s/
and
where

jp;FG .u/ D U \ M.p;0/
;

jp;FG W hM.p;k/ W k < !i ! hM.p;k/
W k < !i
is the iteration given by FG .

By Lemma 8.64 and the genericity of G we can suppose that:
(1.1) A \ M.p;0/ 2 M.p;0/ ;
(1.2) hM.p;k/ W k < !i is A-iterable;
|
NS
(1.3) There exists a lter g0 Pmax
\ M.p;0/ such that g0 2 M.p;0/ , such that
p<q
for each q 2 g0 , and such that in M.p;0/ ;
a) g0 is semi-generic,
b) F0 D Fg0 ,
NS
8.2 Pmax
569
c) for each U0 2 Y.p;0/ ,

../M.p;0/ /g0 n IU0 ;F0
is dense in .P .!1 /g0 n IU0 ;F0 ; /,
where F0 D F.p/ and where
. /M.p;0/ D \ H.!1 /M.p;0/ :
Let
d D ../M.p;0/ /g0 n Iu;F0
as computed in M.p;0/ with F0 D F.p/ . By (1.3c) there exists b 2 d such that b a.

Since p 2 FG ,
jp;FG .g0 / FG :
Finally hM.p;k/ W k < !i is A-iterable and

.Iu ;F /M.p;0/ D IU;F \ M.p;0/
where u D jp;FG .u/. Therefore

jp;FG .d / D n IU;F
which implies that
jp;FG .b/ 2 D n IU;F :
However b a and so
jp;FG .b/ A:
t
u
To apply Theorem 8.65 we need the following lemma which is an immediate corollary
of Lemma 8.59.
|
NS
G Umax
|
NS
Proof. Let FG Pmax
be the L.R/-generic lter given by G. By Theorem 8.62(2),
H.!2 /L.R/G D H.!2 /L.R/FG :

Using this, the lemma is an immediate corollary of Lemma 8.59.
It is convenient to introduce some more notation.
|
Denition 8.67. M0 NS is the set of nite sequences

h.M; I/; g; Y; F i
t
u
570
(1) M is a countable transitive set such that

M ZFC C ZC C 1 -Replacement:
(2) L.R/M AD.
|
NS
(3) g Umax
\ M, g is L.R/M -generic and
M D L.R/M g:
(4) F D .Fg /M .
(5) Y D .Yg /M .
(6) I D .IU;F /M j U 2 Y .
t
u
|
The fundamental iteration lemma (Lemma 8.41) generalizes to structures in M0 NS .

|
h.M0 ; I0 /; g0 ; Y0 ; F0 i 2 M0 NS
and that strong condensation holds for H.!3 /. Then there is an iteration
j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
such that the following hold where F D j0 .F0 /.
(1) For each U 2 Y , U \ M0 2 j.Y0 /.
(2) For each U 2 Y , the ideal IU;F is proper,
.RW;F /M0 D RU;F \ M0 ;

and
.IW;F /M0 D IU;F \ M0 ;
where W D M0 \ U .
F D \U j U 2 Y ;
then
\IU;F j U 2 Y I:
U0 \ M0 2 j.Y0 /:
a) There exists U1 2 Y such that
U0 \ M0 D U1 \ M0 :
b) Suppose that
\U j U 2 Y U0 :
Then U0 2 Y .
t
u
NS
8.2 Pmax
571
Lemma 8.68 combined with Lemma 8.46 easily yields the following version of
|
Lemma 8.46 for M0 NS .
Theorem 8.69. Assume AD holds in L.R/ and that A R is a set in L.R/. Suppose
that
|
h.M0 ; I0 /; g0 ; Y0 ; F0 i 2 M0 NS :
Then there is a condition
|NS
and an iteration
j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
such that
(1) hMO k W k < !i is A-iterable,
(2) j 2 MO 0 ,
(3) j.F0 / D FO ,
(4) j.Y0 / D U \ M0 j U 2 YO0 ,
(5) for each U 2 YO0 ,
and
where W D M0 \ U .
.RW;FO /M0 D RU;FO \ M0 ;

.IW;FO /M0 D IU;FO \ M0 ;

t
u
Lemma 8.66 yields the following strengthening of Lemma 8.64. The difference is
in the statement of (3b).
|
NS
Lemma 8.70 (ADL.R/ ). Suppose that Pmax
H.!1 / denes a term for a dense
subset of P .!1 / n IG . Let A be the set of x 2 R which code an element of . Then for
|NS
|NS
there exists p0 2 Pmax
such that p0 < q0 and such that:
each q0 2 Pmax

(2) hV!C1 \ M.p0 ;0/ ; A \ M.p0 ;0/ ; 2i hV!C1 ; A; 2i;
|
NS
(3) There exists a lter g0 Pmax
\ M.p0 ;0/ such that g0 2 M.p0 ;0/ , such that
p0 < p
for each p 2 g0 , and such that in M.p0 ;0/ ;
a) g0 is semi-generic and F D Fg0 ,

b) for each U 2 Y.p0 ;0/ ,
../M.p0 ;0/ /g0 n IU;F
is predense in .P .!1 / n IU;F ; /,
where F D F.p0 / and where ./M.p0 ;0/ D \ H.!1 /M.p0 ;0/ .
572
|
NS
NS
Proof. Fix q0 2 Pmax
. Suppose G Umax
is L.R/-generic such that
q0 2 FG
|NS
Pmax
where FG
is the induced L.R/-generic lter.
We work in L.R/G. Let be least such that
L .R/G 2 L.R/G
and let N D L .R/G.
We claim that by Lemma 8.66 and Lemma 4.24, the set
X N j X is countable and NX is strongly iterable
is stationary in P!1 .N /. Here NX is the transitive collapse of X . To see this note that
in L.R/G,
L.R/ D !3 :
Therefore by Lemma 4.24, if M is a transitive set of cardinality !2 such that
M ZFC ;
and such that H.!2 / M , then the set
X M j X is countable and MX is strongly iterable
contains a club in P!1 .M / where for each X M , MX is the transitive collapse of
X.
Now x a function
H W N <! ! N
and let
ZN
be an elementary substructure of cardinality !2 such that
H Z <! Z
and such that H.!2 / Z.
Let M be the transitive collapse of Z. Let
HZ W M <! ! M
be the image of H under the collapsing map.
Thus there exists a countable elementary substructure
X M
such that MX is strongly iterable and such that
HZ X <! X:
Let X be the preimage of X under the transitive collapse of Z. Thus
X N;
H .X /<! X and
MX D MX
NS
8.2 Pmax
573
where MX is the transitive collapse of X . Therefore MX is strongly iterable and so

the set
X N j X is countable and NX is strongly iterable
is stationary in P!1 .N /.
Let
X0 N
(1.1) q0 ; G; A X0 ,
(1.2) N0 is strongly iterable,
where N0 is the transitive collapse of X0 .
Let Z0 D X0 \ H.!2 / and let M0 be the transitive collapse of Z0 . Thus
M0 D .H.!2 //N0 :
Let
S D X hH.!2 /; A; 2i j MX is A-iterable and X is countable
where MX is the transitive collapse of X . By Lemma 8.66 there exists a function
W H.!2 /<! ! H.!2 /
such that
X 2 P!1 .H.!2 // j X <! X S:
Since
X0 N 2 L.R/G
and A 2 X0 , we can choose 2 X0 . Therefore
Z0 2 S;
and so M0 is A-iterable.
Any iteration of M0 denes uniquely a semi-iteration of N0 and conversely any
semi-iteration of N0 denes uniquely an iteration of M0 .
Therefore if
j W N0 ! N0
is a countable semi-iteration then
j.A \ N0 / D A \ N0 :
Let
D P .!1 / n INS
be the dense set given by FG and . Thus
D D FG :
Thus for each U 2 YFG ,
D n IU;FG
is dense in .P .!1 / n INS ; /. Let

J D IU;FG j U 2 YFG :
574
Thus:
(2.1) INS D \I j I 2 J.
(2.2) Suppose that I0 2 J, I1 2 J and that for some A !1 ,
a) I0 B !1 j B \ A 2 I1 ,
b) !1 n A I1 .
Then I0 D I1 .
Let G0 ; F0 ; F0 ; J0 ; Y0 be the image of G; FG ; FG ; J; YFG under the transitive collapse of X0 .
|NS
The partial order Umax
is !-closed and so
N0 ; F0 ; G0 ; F0 ; D0 ; Y0 2 L.R/:
Further
h.N0 ; J0 /; G0 ; Y0 ; F0 i 2 M0 NS :
We now work in L.R/.
|
NS
and an iteration
j W .N0 ; J0 / ! .N0 ; J0 /
such that
(3.1) hMO k W k < !i is A-iterable,
(3.2) j 2 MO 0 ,
(3.3) j.F0 / D FO ,
(3.4) j0 .Y0 / D U \ N0 j U 2 YO0 ,
(3.5) for each U 2 YO0 ,
.RW;FO /N0 D RU;FO \ N0
and
.IW;FO /N0 D IU;FO \ N0 ;
where W D N0 \ U .
Let
p0 D .h.MO k ; YOk / W k < !i; FO /
and let g0 D j.F0 /.

We claim that p0 and g0 satisfy the requirements of the lemma. We verify (3(b)),
the other requirements are immediate.
NS
8.2 Pmax
575
Suppose that U 2 YO0 and let

W D U \ N0 :
Since
h.N0 ; J0 /; G0 ; Y0 ; F0 i 2 M0 NS ;
it follows that
h.N0 ; J0 /; G0 ; Y0 ; FO i 2 M0 NS
where hG0 ; Y0 i D j.hG0 ; Y0 i/.

|
By the denition of M0 NS , in N0 ,

. \ N0 /g0 n IW;FO
is dense in .P .!1 / n IW;FO ; /. Let
D0 D ../N0 /g0 n IW;FO ;

where as usual, . /N0 D \ H.!1 /N0 .

We work in MO 0 . .N0 ; J0 / is an iterate of .N0 ; J0 / and IU;FO is a normal uniform
ideal on !1 such that
IU;FO \ N0 2 J0 :
Therefore by (2.2) and Lemma 4.10,
!1 n .5D0 / 2 IU;FO :
t
u
This veries (3b).

|
NS
is L.R/-generic. Then in
L.R/G,
(1) IG is !2 -saturated,
(2) INS D IG .
Proof. By Theorem 8.58,
P .!1 / D P .!1 /G
and IG D INS . Therefore it sufces to show that if
D P .!1 /G n IG
is dense then there exists a set
D0 D
such that D0 is predense in .P .!1 /G n IG ; / and such that jD0 j !1 .
|NS
Let Pmax
H.!1 / be a set in L.R/ which denes a term for D. Let A R
be the set of x 2 R such that x codes an element of .
576
By Lemma 8.70 and genericity there exists p0 2 G such that:

(1.1) hM.p0 ;k/ W k < !i is A-iterable;
(1.2) hV!C1 \ M.p0 ;0/ ; A \ M.p0 ;0/ ; 2i hV!C1 ; A; 2i;
|
NS
(1.3) There exists a lter g0 Pmax
\ M.p0 ;0/ such that g0 2 M.p0 ;0/ , such that for
each p 2 g0 ,
p0 < p;
and such that in M.p0 ;0/ ;

a) g0 is semi-generic,
b) F.p0 / D Fg0 ,
c) for each U 2 Y.p0 ;0/ ,
../M.p0 ;0/ /g0 n IU;Fg0
is predense in .P .!1 / n IU;Fg0 ; /, where
./M.p0 ;0/ D \ H.!1 /M.p0 ;0/ :
A key point is that in M.p0 ;0/ ; for each U 2 Y.p0 ;0/ ,
j../M.p0 ;0/ /g0 j !1 ;
and so (1.3c) asserts that
!1 n A 2 IU;Fg0
where
Let
A D 5S j S 2 ../M.p0 ;0/ /g0 n IU;Fg0 :

jp0 ;G W hM.p0 ;k/ W k < !i ! hM.p
W k < !i
0 ;k/
be the iteration given by G. It follows that

jp0 ;G .g0 / G
and that in L.R/G, jp0 ;G .g0 / is a semi-generic lter. Let g0 D jp0 ;G .g0 / and let

D0 D g0 \ M.p
:
0 ;0/
Thus D0 D and
jD0 j !1 :
By (1.3) it follows that
5D0
contains the critical sequence of the iteration dening jp0 ;G and so D0 is necessarily
predense in .P .!1 /G n IG ; / since
.P .!1 /G n IG ; / D .P .!1 / n INS ; /:
t
u
CC
8.3 The principles, |NS and |NS
577
As an immediate corollary of Theorem 8.71 we obtain the following.

|
NS
Corollary 8.72. Assume AD L.R/ . Suppose G Pmax
is L.R/-generic.
Then in L.R/G,
YG D ;:
Proof. We note that the following must hold in L.R/G. Suppose that S !1 is
stationary. Then there exists a set A !1 such that both
2 S j A n F ./ is nite
and
2 S j A \ F ./ is nite
are stationary.
Suppose YG ; and let U 2 YG . Thus, since
P .!1 / D P .!1 /G ;
it follows that IU;FG is a proper ideal. But INS is !2 -saturated and so for some stationary set S !1 ,
IU;FG D INS jS D T !1 j T n S 2 INS :
t
u
This contradicts the claim above.

|
PmaxNS
. This lemma will

We end this section with one last lemma regarding the L.R/
be relevant to the absoluteness theorem we shall prove, see Theorem 8.99.
|
NS
Lemma 8.73. Assume AD L.R/ . Suppose G Pmax
is L.R/-generic. Let F D FG .
Then in L.R/G the following holds. There exists a co-stationary set S !1 such
that for all ultralters U P .!1 /, if p 2 PU and
Zp;F INS ;
then
Zp;F \ S INS :
8.3
t
u
CC
The principles, |NS and |NS

|
NS
NS
The Umax
-extension of L.R/ is a generic extension of the Pmax
-extension. The relevant partial order is a product of a partial order PF which is dened in Denition 8.75.
The denition of PF is closely related to two renements of |NS one of which we
|NS
now dene. These renements in turn yield an absoluteness theorem for the Pmax
extension. It is not clear if the version we prove is optimal and as we have indicated,
more elegant versions are likely possible.
578
We rst x some notation. Suppose that

F W !1 ! !1 !
is a function witnessing that |NS holds. For each
S 2 P .!1 / n INS
let FS;F denote the set of A !1 such that there exists a club C !1 such that for
all 2 C \ S ,
F ./ n A
is nite. Clearly FS;F is a lter on !1 which extends the club lter. The denition of
C
|NS involves Zh;F which is dened in Denition 8.26.
C
Denition 8.74. |NS : There is a function

F W !1 ! !1 !
(1) F witnesses |NS .
(2) Suppose X P .!1 / has cardinality !1 and that S !1 is stationary. Then
there exists a stationary set T S and an ultralter U such that:
a) FT;F \ X D U \ X .
b) Suppose that
h W !1 <! ! X \ U:
Then T n Zh;F 2 INS .
t
u

F W !1 ! !1 !
is a function witnessing that |NS holds. Let PF be the partial order dened as follows.
Conditions are sets
X P .!1 /
such that jX j !1 and such that
X FS;F
for some S 2 P .!1 / n INS .
Suppose X; Y 2 PF . Then X Y if Y X .
t
u
The partial order PF is analogous to the partial order PNS which we dened in
Section 6.1. There is however an interesting difference. It is not difcult to show that
assuming ./, the partial order PNS is not !2 -cc. However if INS is !2 -saturated, which
|NS
is the case in L.R/Pmax , then PF is trivially !2 -cc for any function F which witnesses
|NS . More is actually true.
CC
579

F W !1 ! !1 !
is a function which witnesses that |NS holds and that INS is !2 -saturated. Then there
exists a complete boolean subalgebra
B P .!1 /=INS
such that
RO.PF / B:
Proof. Dene
W PF ! P .!1 /=INS
as follows. Suppose X 2 PF . It follows from the !2 -saturation of INS that there exists
a stationary set SX !1 such that
(1.1) X FSX ;F ,
(1.2) for all S 2 P .!1 / n INS , if
X FS;F
then S n SX 2 INS .
Dene .X / D b where b 2 P .!1 /=INS is the element given by SX . The element b
is unambiguously dened.
The function induces the required isomorphism of RO.PF / with a complete
t
u
boolean subalgebra of P .!1 /=INS .
We also note the following reformulation of Corollary 8.72.
|
NS
Lemma 8.77. Assume AD L.R/ . Suppose G Pmax
is a semi-generic lter such that
G is L.R/-generic and such that
P .!1 / D P .!1 /G :
Then
RO.PF /
has no atoms where F D FG .
t
u
C
Lemma 8.76 and Lemma 8.77 suggest the following renement of |NS .
CC
Denition 8.78. |NS : There is a function

F W !1 ! !1 !
C
(1) F witnesses |NS .

(2) PF is !2 -cc.
(3) RO.PF / has no atoms.
t
u
580
Remark 8.79. As we have already remarked, the most elegant manifestation of |NS
would be to have for some ultralter U on !1 ,
(1) U extends the club lter,
(2) the boolean algebra RO.PU / is isomorphic to a complete boolean subalgebra of
P .!1 /=INS .
Any function
F W !1 ! !1 !
CC
inducing the isomorphism for (2), witnesses that |NS holds. However by Lemma 8.25,
CC
(1) and (2) cannot both hold for any ultralter U . |NS in some sense gives the best
possible approximation to (1) and (2); cf. Corollary 8.88.
t
u
There is an interesting question.
Suppose that
F W !1 ! !1 !
C
is a function which witnesses that |NS holds. Can the boolean algebra,
RO.PF /;
be atomic?
|
NS
-extension easily yields,
The basic analysis of the Pmax
NS
CC
L.R/G |NS :
|
NS
, the function FG
Proof. By Theorem 8.58 and the denition of the order on Pmax
witnesses that
L.R/G |NS
and in L.R/G;
P .!1 / D P .!1 /G :
|
NS
that the function FG witnesses that
It follows from the denition of Pmax
C
L.R/G |NS :
By Theorem 8.71, the nonstationary ideal is !2 -saturated in L.R/G and so by
Lemma 8.76, the function FG witnesses that
CC
L.R/G |NS :
|
t
u
|
NS
NS
-extension of L.R/, identifying the Umax
We continue our analysis of the Pmax
|NS
extension of L.R/ as a generic extension of the Pmax -extension of L.R/. The relevant
partial order, as we have indicated, is simply a product of PF .
CC
581

F W !1 ! !1 !
is a function witnessing that |NS holds. Let QF be the product partial order: Conditions are functions
p W ! PF
such that < !2 .
The order is dened pointwise: Suppose that p1 and p2 are conditions in QF .
Then
p2 p1
if
(1) dom.p1 / dom.p2 /,
(2) for all 2 dom.p1 /,
p2 ./ p1 ./
t
u
in PF .
F W !1 ! !1 !
CC
is a function which witnesses that |NS holds. Then the partial order PF is .!1 ; 1/distributive.
Proof. Suppose that g Coll.!2 ; P .!1 // is V -generic. Since g is V -generic for a
partial order which is .< !2 /-closed in V , it follows that in V g, F witnesses that
CC
|NS holds.
Therefore we may assume without loss of generality that 2@1 D @2 .
Suppose that G PF is V -generic. Then, by reorganizing G as a subset of !2 ,
V G D V A
where A
is a set such that A \ 2 V for all < !2V . This is a consequence of
C
the fact that F witnesses |NS in V G, see Denition 8.74(2). Since PF is !2 -cc in V
t
u
it follows that V is closed under !1 -sequences in V G.
!2V
NS
NS
The next four theorems detail the relationship between Pmax
and Umax
. We shall
not need these theorems, we simply state them for completeness. The proofs are not
difcult and we leave the details to the reader.
NS
is L.R/-generic. Let
Theorem 8.83. Assume AD L.R/ . Suppose that G Umax
F D FFG and let
H D p 2 .QF /L.R/FG j for all 2 dom.p/; p./ fG ./:

Then H is an L.R/FG -generic lter and
L.R/G D L.R/FG H :
t
u
582
Theorem 8.84. Assume ADL.R/ and that

V D L.R/g
|NS
Pmax
where g
is L.R/-generic. Let F D Fg be the function witnessing |NS given
by g. Then PF is .!1 ; 1/-distributive and further suppose G PF is V -generic.
Then in V G;
(1) IU;F is a proper ideal,
(2) INS is not saturated,
(3) IU;F D sat.INS /,
(4) IU;F is a saturated ideal,
where U D [G.
t
u
Theorem 8.84 combined with Theorem 8.58 yields the following theorem.
V D L.R/g
|NS
Pmax
where g
by g. Suppose p 2 g and let

j W hM.p;k/ W k < !i ! hM.p;k/
W k < !i
of length !1 such that j.F.p/ / D F . Suppose that G PF is V -generic and let

U P .!1 / be the ultralter, U D [G, given by G. Then in V G the following hold
where

:
W D U \ M.p;0/
(1) W 2 j.Y.p;0/ /.

(2) .IW;F /M.p;0/ D IU;F \ M.p;0/
.

(3) .RW;F /M.p;0/ D RU;F \ M.p;0/
.
t
u

V D L.R/g
|NS
Pmax
where g
by g.
Then QF is .!1 ; 1/-distributive.
Suppose G QF is V -generic and for each < !2 let
U D [p./ j 2 dom.p/ and p 2 G;
and let
Y D U j < !2 :
CC
583
Then in V G:
(1) Y D Yg ;
(2) For each U 2 Y ,
a) IU;F is a proper ideal,
b) IU;F is a saturated ideal;
(3) INS D \IU;F j U 2 Y ;
(4) For each U 2 Y , INS \ U D ;.
t
u
CC
One corollary of Lemma 8.82 is that |NS cannot hold in L. More generally, strong
CC
condensation for H.!2 / implies :|NS .

CC
Corollary 8.87. Assume that strong condensation holds for H.!2 /. Then |NS fails.
Proof. The proof is a modication of the proof of Lemma 8.25. We sketch the argument under the additional hypothesis that V D L. The proof from strong condensation
for H.!2 / is essentially the same.
Suppose that G PF is V -generic and let U 2 V G be the ultralter on !1 given
by G;
U D X j X 2 G:
Since F witnesses |NS in V it follows that U is a V -ultralter on !1V . However F
CC
witnesses |NS in V and so by Lemma 8.82, PF is .!1 ; 1/-distributive in V . This
implies
.P .!1 //V D .P .!1 //V G
and so U is an ultralter on !1 in V G.
Let < !2 be least such that
(1.1) F 2 L ,
(1.2) L ZC,
CC
(1.3) F witnesses |NS in L .

The key point is that G \ L is L -generic for .PF /.L / . This implies that U \ L
is generic over L .
Let
C D X \ !1 j X L ; F 2 X and jX j D !
and for each 2 C let
X L
be the (unique) elementary substructure

X L
such that F 2 X and D X \ !1 .
584
For each 2 C let be the image of under the transitive collapse of X .

Therefore, since U extends the club lter on !1 , for each formula .x0 ; x1 / and
for each < !1 ,
L F;
if and only if
j < and L F j; 2 U:
Finally by the denition of , every element of L is denable in L from paramt
u
eters in !1 [ F . But this contradicts that U \ L is generic over L .
A second corollary of Lemma 8.82 is the following improvement of Lemma 8.76.
The proof, which we leave to the reader, is an easy consequence of the denitions, cf.
the proof of Lemma 8.76.
Corollary 8.88. Suppose that
F W !1 ! !1 !
CC
is a function which witnesses that |NS holds and that INS is !2 -saturated. Then there
exists a complete boolean subalgebra
B P .!1 /=INS
such that
RO.PF PU / B;
where U 2 V PF is the ultralter on !1 given by the generic lter for PF .
t
u
NS
We now come to the absoluteness theorem for the Pmax
-extension. We rst prove
|NS
a strong version of the homogeneity of Pmax . This is a corollary of the following
iteration lemma.

|
h.M0 ; I0 /; g0 ; Y0 ; F0 i 2 M0 NS ;
|
h.M1 ; I1 /; g1 ; Y1 ; F1 i 2 M0 NS ;
and that strong condensation holds for H.!3 /. Then there exist iterations
j0 W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
and
j1 W .M1 ; I1 / ! .M1 ; I1 /
of length !1 and a bijection
W j0 .Y0 / ! j1 .Y1 /
such that:
(1) !1 n < !1 j j0 .F0 /./ D j1 .F1 /./ 2 INS .
(2) Suppose that W0 2 j0 .Y0 / and W1 D .W0 /. Then for all A0 2 W0 and for all
A1 2 W1 ,
A0 \ A1 INS :
CC
585
(3) Suppose that U P .!1 / is an ultralter such that U \ M0 2 j0 .Y0 / and such
that
U \ M1 2 j1 .Y1 /:
a) The ideal IU;F is proper.
b) For each i 2 0;1,
.RW;F /Mi D RU;F \ Mi ;

and
.IW;F /Mi D IU;F \ Mi ;
where W D Mi \ U and where F D ji .Fi /.

Proof. The proof is quite similar to that of Lemma 8.40 except we do not need to

.
enforce AC
Fix a function
h W !3 ! H.!3 /
For each < !3 let
M D h./ j <
and let
h D hj:
(1.2) h 2 M for all < ,
M
(1.4) !2
M
exists and !2
2 M ,
(1.5) M0# 2 H.!1 /M .

We construct j0 as the limit of an iteration
0
W < !1 i
h.M0 ; G0 /; j;
and j1 as the limit of an iteration

1
W < !1 i:
h.M1 ; G1 /; j;
Simultaneously we construct a sequence h W !1 i of bijections

0
1
.Y0 / ! j0;
.Y1 /
W j0;
0
such that for all < !1 , and for all W 2 j0;
.Y0 /,
0
1
.j;
.W // D j;
. .W //:
586
Thus everything is completely determined by h.G0 ; G1 ; / W < !1 i. We say

that this sequence satises the conditions of the lemma if the corresponding iterations
0
1
and j0;!
) together with the map !1 satisfy the requirements of the lemma.
(j0;!
1
1
Similarly if 2 S then
h.G0 ; G1 ; / W < .!1 /M i
0
1
satises the requirements of the lemma in M if both .j0;
; j0;
; / 2 M and
0
1
.j0; ; j0; ; / satises the requirements of the lemma interpreted in M where
D .!1 /M .
We construct h.G0 ; G1 ; / W < i by induction on , following the proof of
Lemma 8.40, eliminating potential counterexamples. The construction is uniform and
so for each 2 S,
h.G0 ; G1 ; / W < .!1 /M i 2 M :
Suppose that h.G0 ; G1 ; / W < 0 i is given. If 0 is a successor ordinal then

.G00 ; G10 ; 0 / D h.0 /
where 0 is least such that h.0 / satises the minimum necessary conditions.
Thus we may suppose that 0 is a (nonzero) limit ordinal. The function 0 is
uniquely specied. We must dene G00 and G10 . This we do by cases.
The rst case is that for all 2 S, either
0 .!1 /M ;
0
1
; j0;
; 0 / satises the requirements of the lemma interpreted in M .
or .j0;
0
0
There are two subcases. If for all 2 S,
0 .!1 /M ;
then let 0 be least such that h.0 / D .g0 ; g1 / and
0
.I0 /,
(2.1) for some I 2 j0;
0
g0 .P .0 / \ M00 n I /
and g0 is M00 -generic,
1
.I1 /,
0
g1 .P .0 / \ M10 n I /
and g1 is M10 -generic.
Let
.G00 ; G10 / D h.0 / D .g0 ; g1 /:
Otherwise let 0 2 S be least such that
0 D .!1 /M0 :
Let 0 be least such that h.0 / D .g0 ; g1 / and
CC
587
0
.I0 /,
0
g0 .P .0 / \ M00 n I /
1
.I1 /,
0
g1 .P .0 / \ M10 n I /
0
1
.F0 /.0 / D j0;
.F1 /.0 /.
(3.3) j0;
0 C1
0 C1
0
1
Since .j0;
; j0;
; 0 / satises the requirements of the lemma interpreted in M 0 , 0
0
0
exists. Let
.G00 ; G10 / D h.0 / D .g0 ; g1 /:

Finally let 0 2 S be least such that
0 D .!1 /M0 ;
0
1
and .j0;
; j0;
; 0 / fails to satisfy the requirements of the lemma interpreted in
0
0
M 0 .
As in the analogous stage of the proof of Lemma 8.40, we shall extend the iterations, dening .G00 ; G10 /, attempting to eliminate the least counterexample, ignoring
the requirement (1).
We rst suppose (2) fails. There are two subcases.
First suppose that there exists .W0 ; W1 / 2 0 such that for some A0 2 W0 and for
some A1 2 W1 ,
A0 \ A1 D ;:
Let 0 be least such that h.0 / is such a pair .W0 ; W1 / 2 0 and let 1 be least such
that h.1 / D .A0 ; A1 / with A0 2 W0 , A1 2 W1 and
A0 \ A1 D ;:
(4.1) (2.1)(2.2) hold,
(4.2) A0 2 g0 and A1 2 g1 .
Let
.G00 ; G10 / D h.0 / D .g0 ; g1 /:
588
Otherwise let 0 be least such that for some .W0 ; W1 / 2 0 ,

(5.1) h.0 / D .W0 ; W1 /,
(5.2) there exist A0 2 W0 , A1 2 W1 , such that
A0 \ A1 .INS /M0 :
Let 1 be least such that h.1 / D .A0 ; A1 / witnessing (5.2). Let 0 be least such that
h.0 / D .g0 ; g1 / and
(6.1) (2.1)(2.2) hold,
0
1
.F0 /.0 / D j0;
.F1 /.0 /,
(6.2) j0;
0 C1
0 C1
(6.3) A0 2 g0 and A1 2 g1 .
We can ensure (6.2) holds because in M 0 , W0 [ W1 can be extended to an ultralter.
Let
.G00 ; G10 / D h.0 / D .g0 ; g1 /:
0
1
Finally we suppose that in M 0 , (3) fails for .j0;
; j0;
; 0 /.
0
0
Let 0 be least such that:
(7.1) h.0 / 2 M 0 ;
(7.2) M 0 h.0 / is a uniform ultralter on !1 ;
0
(7.3) h.0 / \ M00 2 j0;
.Y0 /;
0
1
(7.4) h.0 / \ M10 2 j0;
.Y1 /;
0
(7.5) Let U D h.0 /. Either

a) .IU;F /M0 is not a proper ideal, or
b) there exists
.p; S / 2 .RW0 ;F /M0

such that .p; S / .RU;F /M0 where
0
F D j0;
.F0 /,
0
W0 D h.0 / \ M00 ,
c) there exists
.p; S / 2 .RW1 ;F /M1

such that .p; S / .RU;F /M0 where
1
F D j0;
.F1 /,
0
W1 D h.0 / \ M10 .
CC
589
Let
(8.1) U D h.0 /,
(8.2) W0 D U \ M00 ,
0
0
(8.3) I0 D .IW0 ;F /M0 where F D j0;
.F0 /,
0
(8.4) W1 D U \ M10 ,
0
0
(8.5) I1 D .IW1 ;F /M1 where F D j0;
.F1 /.
0
There are several subcases. First suppose that (7.5(a)) holds. Let 0 be least such
that h.0 / D .g0 ; g1 / and
(9.1) g0 .P .0 / \ M00 n I0 / and g0 is M00 -generic,
(9.2) g1 .P .0 / \ M10 n I1 / and g1 is M10 -generic,
0
1
(9.3) j0;
.F0 /.0 / D j0;
.F1 /.0 /,
0 C1
0 C1
0
.F0 /.0 / is M 0 -generic for .PU /M0 .
(9.4) j0;
0 C1
Let
.G00 ; G10 / D h.0 / D .g0 ; g1 /:
Otherwise (7.5(a)) fails. Hence either (7.5(b)) holds or (7.5(c)) holds. We next suppose
that (7.5(b)) holds. Let 1 be least such that h.1 / D .p; S / witnessing (7.5(b)). Let 2
be least such that h.2 / D q and
(10.1) q 2 .PU /M0 ,
(10.2) q p,
(10.3) .Zq;F /M0 \ S 2 .IU;F /M0 ,
0
where F D j0;
.F0 /.
0
(11.1) (9.1)(9.4) hold,

(11.2) S 2 g0 ,
(11.3) q belongs to the M 0 -generic lter for .PU /M0 given by 0 ,
where
0
1
0 D j0;
.F0 /.0 / D j0;
.F1 /.0 /:
0 C1
0 C1
Let
.G00 ; G10 / D h.0 / D .g0 ; g1 /:
The nal case is that both (7.5(a)) and (7.5(b)) fail. In which case (7.5(c)) holds.
This is essentially the same as the case that (7.5(b)) holds: Let 1 be least such that
h.1 / D .p; S / witnessing (7.5(c)). Let 2 be least such that h.2 / D q and
590
(12.1) q 2 .PU /M0 ,

(12.2) q p,
(12.3) .Zq;F /M0 \ S 2 .IU;F /M0 ,
1
where F D j0;
.F1 /.
0
(13.1) (9.1)(9.4) hold,

(13.2) S 2 g0 ,
(13.3) q belongs to the M 0 -generic lter for .PU /M0 given by 0 ,
where
0
1
0 D j0;
.F0 /.0 / D j0;
.F1 /.0 /:
0 C1
0 C1
Let
.G00 ; G10 / D h.0 / D .g0 ; g1 /:
This completes the inductive denition of h.G0 ; G1 ; / W < !1 i.
Let
.j0 ; j0 ; / D .j00;!1 ; j10;!1 ; !1 /:
We claim that .j0 ; j0 ; / satises the requirements of the lemma.
We prove (1) holds. For this we rst prove that for all .W0 ; W1 / 2 , if A0 2 W0
and if A1 2 W1 then
A0 \ A1 ;:
Suppose this fails. Let 0 be least such that h.0 / is such a pair .W0 ; W1 / 2 and
let 1 be least such that h.1 / D .A0 ; A1 / with A0 2 W0 , A1 2 W1 and
A0 \ A1 D ;:
Suppose
X hH.!3 /; h; 2i
is a countable elementary substructure with 2 X .
Let 0 D X \ !1 and let MX be the transitive collapse of X . Thus
MX D M
where D MX \ Ord and so 2 S. Let .0X ; 1X / be the image of .0 ; 1 / under the
collapsing map. Thus
h.1X / D .X \ A0 ; X \ A1 /:
It follows that .G00 ; G10 / was dened at stage 0 using .0X ; 1X / choosing 0 least
such that h.0 / D .g0 ; g1 / and
(14.1) (2.1)(2.2) hold,
(14.2) A0 \ X 2 g0 and A1 \ X 2 g1 ,
CC
591
and dening
.G00 ; G10 / D h.0 / D .g0 ; g1 /:
Thus A0 \ X 2 G00 and A1 \ X 2 G10 . But this implies 0 2 A0 \ A1 which is a
contradiction.
This proves that for all .W0 ; W1 / 2 , W0 [ W1 has the nite intersection property.
Therefore there is a closed unbounded set C !1 to which this reects; if 0 2 C
then for all .W0 ; W1 / 2 0 , W0 [ W1 has the nite intersection property. Therefore,
by inspection of the inductive construction, for all 0 2 C , if there exists 2 S such
that
0 D .!1 /M ;
then
0
1
j0;
.F0 /.0 / D j0;
.F1 /.0 /:
0 C1
0 C1
This proves (1).

The verication that (2) and (3) hold is by similar reection arguments. These
arguments are essentially identical to arguments for the analogous claims given at the
end of the proof of Lemma 8.40.
t
u
|
h.M0 ; I0 /; g0 ; Y0 ; F0 i 2 M0 NS ;
|
h.M1 ; I1 /; g1 ; Y1 ; F1 i 2 M0 NS ;
and that strong condensation holds for H.!3 /. Then there exist iterations
j0 W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
and
j1 W .M1 ; I1 / ! .M1 ; I1 /

such that
!1 n < !1 j j0 .F0 /./ D j1 .F1 /./ 2 INS
and such that for each i 2 0;1, the following hold.
(1) For each U 2 Y , U \ Mi 2 j.Yi /.
(2) For each U 2 Y , the ideal IU;ji .Fi / is proper,
.RW;ji .Fi / /Mi D RU;ji .Fi / \ Mi ;

and
where W D Mi \ U .
.IW;ji .Fi / /Mi D IU;ji .Fi / \ Mi ;
592

F D \U j U 2 Y ;
then
\IU;ji .Fi / j U 2 Y I:
(4) j.Yi / D U \ Mi j U 2 Y .
Proof. Let
j0 W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
and
j1 W .M1 ; I1 / ! .M1 ; I1 /
be iterations of length !1 , and let

W j0 .Y0 / ! j1 .Y1 /
be a bijection such that :
(1.1) !1 n < !1 j j0 .F0 /./ D j1 .F1 /./ 2 INS .
(1.2) Suppose that W0 2 j0 .Y0 / and W1 D .W0 /. Then for all A0 2 W0 and for all
A1 2 W1 ,
A0 \ A1 INS :
(1.3) Suppose that
U P .!1 /
is an ultralter such that
U \ M0 2 j0 .Y0 /
and such that
U \ M1 2 j1 .Y1 /:

b) For each i 2 0;1,
.RW;F /Mi D RU;F \ Mi ;

and
.IW;F /Mi D IU;F \ Mi ;
where W D Mi \ U .
By Lemma 8.89, .j0 ; j1 ; / exists.
Let F D j0 .F0 /.
The desired set of ultralters Y is obtained just as in the proof of Lemma 8.41.
Let Z be the set of uniform ultralters U on !1 such that
U \ M0 2 j0 .Y0 /
CC
and such that
593
U \ M1 2 j1 .Y1 /:

J0 D \IU;F j U 2 Z
and for all > 0,
J D \IU;F j U 2 Z and for all < , J \ U D ;:
J1 J2 :
J D JC1
and let
J D J :
lter
F D \U j U 2 Y :
Then it follows that
\IU;F j U 2 Y I:
Similarly
and
j0 .Y0 / D U \ M0 j U 2 Y
j1 .Y1 / D U \ M1 j U 2 Y :
|
t
u
NS
is an immediate corollary. We isolate the relevant fact
The homogeneity of Pmax
in the following lemma.
Lemma 8.91. Suppose that for each x 2 R, there exists

|
h.M; I/; g; Y; F i 2 M0 NS
|
NS
NS
such that x 2 M. Suppose that p0 2 Pmax
and p1 2 Pmax
. There exist
NS
.h.Mk ; Yk / W k < !i; F / 2 Pmax
and functions F0 , F1 such that

|
NS
(1) .h.Mk ; Yk / W k < !i; F0 / 2 Pmax
and .h.Mk ; Yk / W k < !i; F0 / < p0 ,
NS
(2) .h.Mk ; Yk / W k < !i; F1 / 2 Pmax
and .h.Mk ; Yk / W k < !i; F1 / < p1 ,
(3) < !1M0 j F0 ./ F1 ./ 2 .INS /M0 .
594
Proof. Let x 2 R code the pair .p0 ; p0 / and let

|
h.M; I/; g; Y; F i 2 M0 NS
be such that x 2 M. Thus
NS M
/ :
p0 ; p1 .Pmax
Let N D .L.R//M and for i 2 0;1 let

|
NS N
/
gi .Umax
be N -generic with pi 2 Fgi where

|
NS N
/
Fgi .Pmax
NS N
is the induced N -generic lter on .Pmax
/ .
Let
hYi ; Fi i D hYgi ; Fgi iN gi
and let
Ii D .IU;Fi /N gi j U 2 Yi :
A key point is that since .M; I/ is iterable it follows by Lemma 8.66 and Theorem 3.46,
that for each i 2 0;1, the structure .N gi ; Ii / is also iterable and so
|
h.Mi ; Ii /; gi ; Yi ; Fi i 2 M0 NS ;
where Mi D N gi . Strictly speaking Lemma 8.66 and Theorem 3.46 cannot be
applied in N g since we have only
N g ZFC C ZC C 1 -Replacement;
but both are easily seen to hold in this case.
Let y 2 R code .N ; g0 ; g1 / and let
O I;
O ; / 2 H.!1 /
.M;
be such that
O
(1.1) x 2 M,
(1.2) MO is transitive and MO ZFC C is a Woodin cardinal,
O
(1.3) IO D .I< /M ,
O I/
O is iterable,
(1.4) .M;
O
(1.5) < and MO M,
(1.6) strong condensation holds in MO for MO where is the least inaccessible cardiO
nal of M.
CC
595
O I;
O ; / follows from 1 -Determinacy, by Theorem 8.45. We
The existence of .M;
2
note that since for each x 2 R, there exists
|
h.M; I/; g; Y; F i 2 M0 NS
such that x 2 M, necessarily
12 -Determinacy holds. This follows by absoluteness.
Thus
|
h.M0 ; I0 /; g0 ; Y0 ; F0 i; h.M1 ; I1 /; g1 ; Y1 ; F1 i; .M0 NS /M

O
and so by Lemma 8.90, Then there exist iterations in M,
j0 W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
and
j1 W .M1 ; I1 / ! .M1 ; I1 /

O
of length !1M and a set

O
Y U P .!1 / j U is a uniform ultralter on !1 M

O
such that Y 2 M,
O
!1M n < !1M j j0 .F0 /./ D j1 .F1 /./ 2 .INS /M ;

O
and such that for each i 2 0;1, the following hold in M.
(2.1) For each U 2 Y , U \ Mi 2 j.Yi /.
(2.2) For each U 2 Y , the ideal IU;ji .Fi / is proper,
.RW;ji .Fi / /Mi D RU;ji .Fi / \ Mi ;

and
.IW;ji .Fi / /Mi D IU;ji .Fi / \ Mi ;
where W D Mi \ U .
(2.3) Let I be the ideal on !1 which is dual to the lter,
F D \U j U 2 Y ;
then
\IU;ji .Fi / j U 2 Y I:
(2.4) j.Yi / D U \ Mi j U 2 Y .
Let F D j0 .F0 /. Thus there exists a 2 MO such that
O I; a/; Y; F i 2 M|NS :
h.M;
Let
X0 MO
be an elementary substructure such that
596
O
(3.1) X0 2 M,
O
(3.2) jX0 jM D !,
(3.3) ; a; Y; j0 ; j1 2 X0 ,
let MO X0 be the transitive collapse of X0 and let
IOX0 ; aX0 ; YX0 ; FX0 ; FX10
O a; Y; F; j1 .F1 / under the collapsing map. Thus
be the image of I;
O
h.MO X0 ; IOX0 ; aX0 /; YX0 ; FX0 i 2 .M|NS /M
Therefore by Lemma 8.46, there exists

|NS M
O
/
.h.MQ k ; YQk / W k < !i; FQ / 2 .Pmax
such that in MO there exists a countable iteration

j W .MO X0 ; IOX0 ; aX0 / ! .MO X 0 ; IOX 0 ; aX 0 /
satisfying
(4.1) j.FX0 / D FQ ,
(4.2) .MO X 0 ; j.YX0 // D .MQ 0 ; YQ0 /.
Let
p D .h.MQ k ; YQk / W k < !i; FQ /:
Thus, since p 2
|NS M
O
/ ,
.Pmax
NS
p 2 Pmax
. Clearly
p < p0
Q
(since F D j.FX0 / and F D j0 .F0 /.)
Let
FQ1 D j.FX10 /:
Then
|NS
,
(5.1) .h.MQ k ; YQk / W k < !i; FQ1 / 2 Pmax
(5.2) .h.MQ k ; YQk / W k < !i; FQ1 / < p1 ,

Q
(5.3) < !1M0 j FQ ./ FQ1 ./ 2 .INS /M0 .

t
u
This proves the lemma.

The following corollary is immediate from Lemma 8.91.
Corollary 8.92. Suppose that for each x 2 R, there exists
|
h.M0 ; I0 /; g0 ; Y0 ; F0 i 2 M0 NS
|
NS
such that x 2 M0 . Then Pmax
is homogeneous.
t
u
CC
597
Lemma 8.91 combined with Theorem 8.69 yields the following theorem.
|
NS
Theorem 8.93. Assume ADL.R/ and that V D L.R/g where g Pmax
is L.R/generic. Let F D Fg be the function witnessing |NS given by g. Suppose that
h.M0 ; I0 /; g0 ; Y0 ; F0 i 2 M0 NS :
j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
(1) .INS /M0 D INS \ M0 .

(2) !1 n < !1 j j.F0 /./ D F ./ 2 INS .
(3) Suppose that G PF is V -generic and let U P .!1 / be the ultralter,
U D [G, given by G. Then in V G the following hold where W D U \ M0 .
(1) W 2 j.Y0 /.
(2) .IW;j.F0 / /M0 D IU;F \ M0 .

(3) .RW;j.F0 / /M0 D RU;F \ M0 .

Proof. By Theorem 8.69 there exists a condition
|
NS
and an iteration
j0 W .M0 ; I0 / ! .j0 .M0 /; j0 .I0 //
such that
(1.1) j0 2 MO 0 ,
(1.2) j0 .F0 / D FO ,
(1.3) j0 .Y0 / D U \ j0 .M0 / j U 2 YO0 ,
(1.4) for each U 2 YO0 ,
.RW;FO /j0 .M0 / D RU;FO \ j0 .M0 /
and
.IW;FO /j0 .M0 / D IU;FO \ j0 .M0 /;
where W D j0 .M0 / \ U .
Let
p0 D .h.MO k ; YOk / W k < !i; FO /:
By Lemma 8.91 there exists an L.R/-generic lter

|
NS
g0 Pmax
such that
598
(2.1) L.R/g0 D L.R/g,

(2.2) p0 2 g0 ,
(2.3) < !1 j Fg ./ Fg0 ./ 2 .INS /L.R/g .
Let
j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /

be the iteration of length !1 such that j.FO / D Fg0 . It follows from Theorem 8.85 that
j is as required.
t
u
Theorem 8.93 suggests the following denition.
F W !1 ! !1 !
CC
is a function which witnesses |NS . The function F is universal if for each

.M; f / 2 H.!1 /
such that
(i) M is transitive and
CC
M ZFC C ZC C 1 -Replacement C |NS ;

(ii) M is iterable,
CC
(iii) f witnesses |NS in M,

there exists an iteration
j W M ! M

(1) .INS /M D INS \ M .

(2) !1 n < !1 j j.f /./ D F ./ 2 INS .
(3) Suppose that G PF is V -generic and let U P .!1 / be the ultralter,
U D [G, given by G. Then in V G the following hold where
W D U \ M :
a) .IW;F /M W D IU;F \ M W .

b) .RW;F /M W D RU;F \ M .
t
u
Suppose that
F W !1 ! !1 !
CC
is a function which witnesses |NS . With the following iteration lemma, several equivalent formulations for the notion that F is universal are easily identied. There may
well be fairly natural combinatorial properties of F which imply that F is universal. If
|NS
.
so this would lead to more elegant absoluteness theorems for Pmax
CC
599

.M; f; Ff / 2 H.!1 /
and that
CC

(ii) M is iterable,
CC
(iii) f witnesses |NS in M,

(iv) Ff D a 2 .P .!1 //M j !1M n a z for all z 2 .Pf /M .
Suppose that strong condensation holds for H.!3 / and that
h.S ; T / W < !1M i 2 M
is such that
S ; T j < !1M P .!1 /M n .INS /M :
j W M ! M
of length !1 and a set Y of uniform ultralters on !1 such that the following hold
where F D j.f / and where Y be the set of lters
W .P .!1 //M
such that
z 2 .Pj.f / /M j z W
is M -generic.
(1) Y D U \ M j U 2 Y .
(2) For each U 2 Y :
b) .!1 ; 1PU / 2 RU;F .
c) Let W D M0 \ U . Then
.IW;F /M D IU;F \ M
and
.RW;F /M D RU;F \ M :

F D \U j U 2 Y ;
then \IU;F j U 2 Y I .
600

U0 \ M 2 Y :
a) There exists U1 2 Y such that U0 \ M D U1 \ M .
b) Suppose that, in addition, \U j U 2 Y U0 . Then U0 2 Y .
(5) Suppose that h.S ; T / W < !1 i D j.h.S ; T / W < !1M i/: Let
h W < !1 i
be the increasing enumeration of the ordinals 2 !1 n .M \ Ord/ such that is
a cardinal in L.M/. Let
C D < !1 j D :
2 S
if and only if
C 2 T :
Proof. Following the proof of Lemma 8.40 there exists an iteration
j W M ! M
of length !1 such that the following hold where
F D j.f /
and where Y is the set of lters
W .P .!1 //M
such that
z 2 .Pj.f / /M j z W
is M -generic.
(1.1) Suppose that U is an ultralter on !1 such that U \ M 2 Y . Then:
b) .!1 ; 1PU / 2 RU;F .
c) Let W D M0 \ U . Then
.IW;F /M D IU;F \ M
and
.RW;F /M D RU;F \ M :
CC
601
(1.2) Suppose that h.S ; T / W < !1 i D j.h.S ; T / W < !1M i/: Let
h W < !1 i
be the increasing enumeration of the ordinals 2 !1 n .M \ Ord/ such that
is a cardinal in L.M/. Let
C D < !1 j D :
2 S
if and only if
C 2 T :
We note the following. Suppose that

k W M ! M
is an (arbitrary) iteration of length !1 . Then for each z 2 .Pk.f / /M
lter

g .Pk.f / /M
there exists a
such that z 2 g and such that g is M -generic. To see this note that if
g0 .Pf /M
is an M-generic lter (which must exist since M is countable) then
k.t / j t 2 g0
generates an M -generic lter. Clearly we can suppose that z D k.t / for some t 2 M
by passing to a countable iterate of M if necessary. Thus we can choose g0 with t 2 g0
in which case the M -generic lter generated by the image of g0 contains z as desired.
Thus for the iteration specied above, necessarily
j.Ff / D \Y :
This combined with the usual thinning arguments, as in the proof of Lemma 8.41,
yields the set Y as required.
t
u
Lemma 8.95 combined with Lemma 8.46 yields the following lemma.
1
Lemma 8.96 (
.M; f / 2 H.!1 /
and that
CC

(ii) M is iterable,
CC
(iii) f witnesses |NS in M.
602
Then there is a condition

|
NS
and an iteration j W M ! M such that:

(1) j 2 MO 0 .
(2) j.f / D FO .
(3) Let Y be the set of W 2 MO 0 such that
a) W .P .!1 //M and W is a lter,

b) the set z 2 .PFO /M j z W is M -generic.

Then Y D U \ M j U 2 YO0 .
(4) For each U 2 YO0 ,
.RW;FO /M D .RU;FO /M0 \ M ;

and
.IW;FO /M D .IU;FO /M0 \ M ;
where W D M \ U .
t
u
Suppose that
F W !1 ! !1 !
CC
is a function witnessing |NS . We give in the next two lemmas, universality properties
of F which are each equivalent to the property that F is universal.
Lemma 8.97 (ADL.R/ ). Suppose that
F W !1 ! !1 !
CC
is a function witnessing |NS . The following are equivalent.

(1) F is universal.
(2) Suppose that
h.M0 ; I0 ; a0 /; Y0 ; F0 i 2 M|NS :
Let 0 2 M0 be the Woodin cardinal in M0 associated to I0 , and let

Q0 D .Q<0 /M0
be the associated stationary tower. Then there is an iteration
j W .M0 ; I0 ; a0 / ! .M0 ; I0 ; a0 /
a) Suppose b 2 j.Q0 ja0 /. Then b is stationary.
b) !1 n < !1 j j.F0 /./ D F ./ 2 INS .
CC
603
c) Suppose that G PF is V -generic and let U P .!1 / be the ultralter,

W D U \ M0 :
(i) W 2 j.Y0 /.

(ii) Suppose that p 2 .PW /M0 , and
.j.0 // M0
/ ;
.p; b/ 2 .RW;F
then .p; S / 2 RU;F where S !1 is a stationary set which is equivalent to b.

Proof. We rst prove that (1) implies (2).
Fix
h.M0 ; I0 ; a0 /; Y0 ; F0 i 2 M|NS :
Let 0 2 M0 be the Woodin cardinal in M0 associated to I0 , and let
Q0 D .Q<0 /M0
|
NS
such that
j W .M0 ; I0 ; a0 / ! .M0 ; I0 ; a0 /
.M0 ; j.Y0 // D .MO 0 ; YO0 /:
Let
h.M; I/; g; Y; f i 2 M0 NS
be such that
.h.MO k ; YOk / W k < !i; FO / 2 Fg

|
NS M
where Fg .Pmax
/ is the associated .L.R//M -generic lter.
The existence of h.M; I/; g; Y; f i follows from the assumption of ADL.R/ . To see
this suppose that
|NS
G Umax
is L.R/-generic with
.h.MO k ; YOk / W k < !i; FO / 2 FG
NS
where FG Pmax
is the induced L.R/-generic lter. Let be least such that
L .R/G ZFC C ZC C 1 -Replacement:
604
By Lemma 8.66 and Lemma 4.24, the set of countable elementary substructures,
X L .R/G
such that MX is iterable where MX is the transitive collapse of X , is closed and unbounded in
P!1 .L .R/G/:
Choose such an elementary substructure with
.h.MO k ; YOk / W k < !i; FO /; G 2 X:
The transitive collapse of X yields
|
h.M; I/; g; Y; f i 2 M0 NS
as required.
Since F is universal there exists an iteration
jO W M ! M
(2.1) .INS /M D INS \ M .

(2.2) !1 n < !1 j jO.f /./ D F ./ 2 INS .
(2.3) Suppose that G PF is V -generic and let U P .!1 / be the ultralter,
W D U \ M :
a) .IW;jO.f / /M
W
b) .RW;jO.f / /M
Finally let
W
D IU;F \ M W .
D RU;F \ M .
jg W hMO k W k < !i ! hMO k W k < !i
be the iteration (in M) such that jg .FO / D f .

Thus
jO.jg .j // W .M0 ; I0 ; a0 / ! .M0 ; I0 ; a0 /
is an iteration of length !1 , which is as required.
The proof that (2) implies (1) is similar. Given
.M; f / 2 H.!1 /
and that
(3.1) M is transitive and
CC

(3.2) M is iterable,
CC
(3.3) f witnesses |NS in M.
CC
there exists, by Lemma 8.96, a condition

|
NS
and an iteration
j W M ! M
such that:
(4.1) j 2 MO 0 .
(4.2) j.f / D FO .
(4.3) Let Y be the set of W 2 MO 0 such that
a) W .P .!1 //M and W is a lter,

b) the set
z 2 .PFO /M j z W
is M -generic.
Then
Y D U \ M j U 2 YO0 :
(4.4) For each U 2 YO0 ,
.RW;FO /M D .RU;FO /M0 \ M ;

and
.IW;FO /M0 D .IU;FO /M0 \ M0 ;
where W D M0 \ U .
By Lemma 8.49 and Lemma 8.50, there exists
h.M0 ; I0 ; a0 /; Y0 ; F0 i 2 M|NS
and an iteration
jO W hMO k W k < !i ! hMO k W k < !i
such that
(5.1) jO.FO / D F0 ,
(5.2) for each k < !, jO.YOk / D U \ MO k j U 2 Y0 ,
(5.3) for each U 2 Y0 , for each k < !,
.IWk ;F0 /Mk D .IU;F0 /M0 \ Mk

and
.RWk ;F0 /Mk D .RU;F0 /M0 \ Mk ;
where for each k < !, Wk D U \ Mk .
605
606
Let
j0 W .M0 ; I0 ; a0 / ! .M0 ; I0 ; a0 /
be as given by (2). The induced iteration
j0 .jO.j // W M ! M
is of length !1 and is easily veried to witness that F is universal.
t
u
The proof of Lemma 8.97 easily adapts to prove Lemma 8.98 which gives another
CC
characterization of when a function witnessing |NS is universal. This characterization
|
NS
involves conditions in Pmax
.
Lemma 8.98 (ADL.R/ ). Suppose that

F W !1 ! !1 !
CC
is a function witnessing |NS . The following are equivalent.

(1) F is universal.
(2) Suppose that
|
NS
:
.h.Mk ; Yk / W k < !i; F0 / 2 Pmax

a) For each k < !, .INS /MkC1 \ Mk D INS \ Mk .

b) !1 n < !1 j j.F0 /./ D F ./ 2 INS .
c) Suppose that G PF is V -generic and let U P .!1 / be the ultralter,
U D [G, given by G. Then in V G the following hold where for each
k < !,
Wk D U \ Mk :
(i) Wk 2 j.Yk /.

(ii) IU;F \ Mk D .IWk ;j.F / /Mk .
(iii) RU;F \ Mk D .RWk ;j.F / /Mk .
t
u
Suppose that
F W !1 ! !1 !
CC
is a function witnessing |NS and that F is universal. Then (assuming ADL.R/ ) F

must satisfy a number of additional combinatorial facts. For example as a corollary of
Lemma 8.73 we obtain that the conclusion of Lemma 8.73 must hold:
CC
607
There exists a stationary set S !1 such that for all ultralters U P .!1 /, if
p 2 PU and
Zp;F INS ;
then
Zp;F \ S INS :
Suppose F1 W !1 ! !1 ! and F2 W !1 ! !1 ! . Then we dene F1 DE F2 if
j F1 ./ M F2 ./ is innite 2 INS :
Let F1 E be the equivalence class of F1 .
Theorem 8.99. Suppose that there are ! many Woodin cardinals with a measurable
above. Suppose that
F W !1 ! !1 !
is a function such that the following hold.
CC
(i) F witnesses |NS .

(ii) F is universal.
hH.!2 /; 2; F E ; INS ; X I X 2 L.R/; X Ri
and that
hH.!2 /; 2; F E ; INS ; X I X 2 L.R/; X Ri :
Then
|NS
Pmax
hH.!2 /; 2; FG E ; INS ; X I X 2 L.R/; X RiL.R/

F W !1 ! !1 !
CC
witnessing |NS and such that F is universal.

There are two relevant claims. First suppose that
|
NS
.h.Mk ; Yk / W k < !i; f / 2 Pmax
:
Then there exists an iteration

(1.1) !1 n j F ./ D j.f /./ 2 INS .
(1.2) For each k < !, Mk \ INS D Mk \ .INS /MkC1 .
:
608
(1.3) Suppose that G PF is V -generic. Let U D [G and for each k < ! let
Wk D U \ Mk . Then for each k < !,
a) Wk 2 j.Yk /,
b) .IWk ;j.f / /Mk D IU;j.f / \ Mk ,

c) .RWk ;j.f / /Mk D RU;j.f / \ Mk .

This claim is an immediate corollary of Lemma 8.98.
The second claim is the following. Let 0 be the least Woodin cardinal and let I<0
be the directed system ideals associated to stationary tower Q<0 . Let 0 be the least
strongly inaccessible cardinal above 0 and suppose that
X V0
is a countable elementary substructure. Let M be the transitive collapse of X and let I
be the image of I<0 under the collapsing map. Let FX D F \ X be the image of F
under the collapsing map.
By Lemma 5.23, .M; I/ is A-iterable for each set
A 2 P .R/ \ L.R/ \ X:
By Lemma 8.96 there exist
|NS
.h.MO k ; YOk / W k < !i; fO/ 2 Pmax
and an iteration
j W .M; I/ ! .M ; I /

O
(2.1) M 2 MO 0 with jM jM0 D !.

(2.2) j 2 MO 0 .

O
(2.3) .INS /M D M \ I where I D \.IW;fO /M0 j W 2 YO0 .
(2.4) fO D j.FX /.
(2.5) Suppose that U 2 YO0 and let W D U \ M . Then
a) W is M -generic for .PW /M ,

b) .IW;fO /M D .IU;fO /M0 \ M ,

c) .RW;fO /M D .RU;fO /M0 \ M .

The remainder of the proof of Theorem 8.99 is a routine adaptation of the proof
of Theorem 6.85, the absoluteness theorem for Qmax . There are no restrictions on the
2 formulas here as there are in Theorem 6.85, essentially because of the denition of
universality.
t
u
Chapter 9
Extensions of L.; R/
The main goal in this chapter in the basic analysis of the Pmax and Qmax extensions
of models larger than L.R/. One class of examples of models in which we shall be
interested are those of the form L.; R/ where P .R/ is a pointclass closed under
continuous preimages. If G Pmax is L.; R/-generic and if, for example,
then
.L.P .!1 ///L.;R/G D L.R/G
and so L.; R/G ./. Thus by forcing with Pmax over larger models of AD we are
creating models of ./ with more subsets of !2 . In this fashion we can create models
in which ./ holds and in which P .!2 / is reasonably closed.
For a suitable choice of , the Pmax -extension of L.; R/ yields a model in which
Martins MaximumCC .c/ holds and in which !2 exhibits some interesting combinatorial features.
In Section 9.6 we shall consider the Pmax extension of even larger inner models
which are of the form,
L.S; ; R/
where S Ord and where, as above, P .R/. Applications include producing
extensions in which ./ holds and in which Strong Changs Conjecture holds. One
reason we consider the problem of obtaining extensions in which Strong Changs Conjecture holds is that since Strong Changs Conjecture is not generally expressible in
L.P .!2 //, it is not immediately obvious that such extensions can even exist.
In the second section of the next chapter, Section 10.2, we shall dene several more
variations of Pmax and Qmax , and consider the induced extensions of L.S; ; R/. One
application will be to show that
together with all the 2 sentences true in
Pmax
hH.!2 /; 2; A W A 2 P .R/ \ L.R/iL.R/
does not imply ./.

The analysis of these extensions is facilitated by the assumption that a particular
form of AD hold in the inner models, L.S; ; R/.
We discuss this renement of AD in Section 9.1 where we give a brief summary of
some of the basic results for ADC .
However we note the following theorem which shows that an alternate approach is
certainly possible (in some cases). This theorem is an easy corollary of Theorem 4.41
and the analysis of L.R/Pmax .
610
Theorem 9.1. Suppose that A R and that every set B 2 P .R/ \ L.A; R/ is weakly
homogeneously Suslin. Then

t
u
L.A; R/Pmax ZFC C :
The following is an interesting open question.
Suppose that A R and that every set B 2 P .R/ \ L.A; R/ is weakly homogeneously Suslin. Does
L.A; R/ ADC
9.1
ADC
We begin with some denitions.

Denition 9.2. Suppose A R. The set A is
2 Ord, and a formula .x0 ; x1 / such that
-borel if there exist a set S Ord,
There are many equivalent denitions of the
formula , for each set S Ord, the set
t
u
-borel sets, for example given a
A D y 2 R j LS; y S; y;

1
is easily seen to be -borel.

Another alternate denition is that a set A R is 1 -borel if A has a transnite
borel code. This denition (though more descriptive) is tedious to formalize. It is
important that the transnite borel code be effective; i. e. that it be a set of ordinals.
Assuming AD C DC there is yet another equivalent denition.
Lemma 9.3 (AD + DC). Suppose A R. The following are equivalent.
(1) A is 1 -borel.
(2) There exists S Ord such that
A 2 L.S; R/:
t
u
Suppose
2 Ord and that A
! . The set A is determined if there exists a
winning strategy for Player I or for Player II in the game on
corresponding to the set
A.
The following lemma is an easy exercise.
Lemma 9.4 (ZF). There exists a set A !1! such that A is not determined.
t
u
9.1 ADC
611
Suppose T is a tree on !
. We use the notation from Section 2.1 and dene
a set AT ! ! as follows. x 2 AT if Player I has a winning strategy in the game
corresponding to Bx
! where
Bx D Tx D f 2
! j .x; f / 2 T :
The set AT is easily veried to be 1 -borel. If the set
T ! !
!
is clopen in the product space, ! !
! , we shall say that T is an 1 -borel code of
AT . Note that in the case that
D !, if T is clopen then AT is borel. Without the
1
requirement that T be clopen, one can only deduce that AT is
1 . It is not difcult
1
1
to show that every -borel set has an -borel code.
One important feature of the 1 -borel sets is that assuming AD the property of being
1
-borel is a local property. One manifestation of this is given in the following lemma.
Suppose P .R/ is a pointclass which contains the borel sets, such that is closed
under continuous preimages, nite unions and complements. Recall from Section 2.1
that we have associated to two transitive sets, M and N , see Denition 2.18.
Lemma 9.5 (ZF + AD + DCR ). Suppose A R and that A is 1 -borel. Let be the
pointclass of sets which are projective in A. Then there exists
T 2 M
such that T is an
-borel code for A.
t
u
Assuming AD many ordinal games are determined and this is closely related to the
existence of Suslin representations for sets of reals.
We now give the denition of ADC . Recall that is the least ordinal which is not
the range of a function with domain R. The Axiom of Choice implies D c C . Using
the notation above, is the least ordinal such that M where D P .R/.
Denition 9.6 (ZF + DCR ). ADC :
(1) Suppose A R. Then A is 1 -borel.
(2) Suppose
< and W
! ! ! ! is a continuous function. Then for each
t
u
A R the set 1 A is determined.
The next theorem shows that assuming ADC C V D L.P .R// the basic analysis
of L.R/ generalizes.
Theorem 9.7 (ZF + DCR ). Assume ADC C V D L.P .R//. Then:
(1) The pointclass 21 has the scale property.
(2) Suppose A R is 21 . Then A D pT for some tree T 2 HOD.
(3) M2 1 L.P .R//.
1
t
u
612
Remark 9.8. (1) We note that Theorem 9.7(1) follows from Theorem 9.7(2) and
Theorem 9.7(3) just assuming AD C DCR .
(2) Over the base theory of AD C DCR , ADC is equivalent to the assumption that
Theorem 9.7(2) and Theorem 9.7(3) both hold.
t
u
Also Theorem 8.19 generalizes.
Theorem 9.9. Assume ADC C V D L.P .R//. Suppose that x 2 R and let
N D HODL.P .R// x:
Suppose that is an uncountable cardinal of N which is below the least weakly compact cardinal of N .
t
u
Then strong condensation holds for .H. //N in N .
One important feature of ADC is that it is downward absolute.
Theorem 9.10 (ZF + DCR ). Assume ADC and that M is a transitive inner model of
ZF such that R M . Then
M ADC :
Proof. Suppose < M . Then by the Moschovakis Coding Lemma,
P ./ M:
t
u
The theorem follows.
At present it is unknown whether or not AD C :ADC is consistent. The axiom

AD is analogous to the axiom V D K. Given this analogy it might seem likely that
AD C :ADC is consistent. However as indicated by the next theorem, the situation
for AD is rather special.
C
Theorem 9.11 (ZF + DCR ). Assume AD and that

V D L.P .R//:
Suppose that A R. Then V D L.A; R/ or A# exists.
t
u
Let Uniformization abbreviate the assumption that for all

ARR
there exists a function F W R ! R such that for all x 2 R, if .x; y/ 2 A for some
y 2 R then
.x; F .x// 2 A:
AD R , which is a strengthening of AD, is the assertion that every real game of length
! is determined.
Uniformization is a trivial consequence of AD R .
9.1 ADC
613
Theorem 9.12 (ZF + DC). The following are equivalent.

(1) AD C Uniformization.
(2) ADR .
(3) AD C Every set of reals is Suslin.
t
u
Theorem 9.13 (ZF + DC). Assume

AD C Uniformization:
Then ADC .
t
u
Theorem 9.14 (ZF + AD + DCR ). Dene

D A R j L.A; R/ ADC
Then:
(1) L.; R/ ADC ;
(2) Suppose that P .R/ .i. e. that ADC fails/ then
L.; R/ ZF C DC C ADR :
t
u
Corollary 9.15. Suppose R# exists and that

L.R# / AD:
Then
L.R# / ADC :
Proof. This is an immediate corollary to Theorem 9.14 and Theorem 9.11.
t
u
Remark 9.16. The consequences of ADC given in Theorem 9.7 are abstractly what
is needed to generalize the analysis of L.R/Pmax to the analysis of L.; R/Pmax where
P .R/ is a pointclass, closed under continuous preimages, such that
L.; R/ ADC :
t
u
A fundamental notion is that of a Suslin cardinal rst isolated by A. Kechris.

Denition 9.17 (AD). A cardinal is a Suslin cardinal if there exists a set A R
such that
(1) A is -Suslin,
(2) A is not -Suslin for all < .
t
u
The Suslin cardinals play an important role in descriptive set theory. We note the
following two theorems.
614
Theorem 9.18 (SteelWoodin, .ZF C DCR C AD/). Let

D sup j is a Suslin cardinal:
Then the set of Suslin cardinals is a closed subset of .
t
u
Theorem 9.19 (ADC ). The set of Suslin cardinals is a closed subset of .
t
u
The strengthening of Theorem 9.19 over Theorem 9.18 is exactly the difference
between AD and ADC .
(1) ZF C DCR C ADC .
(2) ZF C DCR C AD C The set of Suslin cardinals is closed below .
t
u
Remark 9.21. Assume ZF C DCR C AD. Then it is easily veried that the following
are equivalent,
(1) Every set is Suslin.
(2) The Suslin cardinals are conal in .
Thus the essential content of Theorem 9.20 is simply that if, assuming
ZF C DCR C AD
there is a largest Suslin cardinal below , then ADC .
t
u
Theorem 9.22 (ADC ). The following are equivalent.

(1) AD R fails.
(2) There exists S Ord such that
L.P .R// D L.S; R/:
t
u
Suppose that R is a pointclass closed under continuous preimages such that

L.; R/ ADC :
It is convenient in many situations to dene a sequence h W < i of approximations to . The denition, in the context of ADR and in a slightly different form, is
due to Solovay.
Denition 9.23 (Solovay). Assume ADC and that
V D L.P .R//:
The sequence h W i is the shortest sequence such that
9.1 ADC
615
(1) 0 is the supremum of the ordinals for which there exists map
WR!
which is onto and ordinal denable.
(2) C1 is the supremum of the ordinals for which there exists map
W P . / !
which is onto and ordinal denable.
(3) If is a nonzero limit ordinal then D sup. j < /.
(4) D .
t
u
Within the theory of ADC the ordinal and the sequence h W 0.
t
u
The next theorem, Theorem 9.27, is the original motivation for the denition of
h W < i:
It is due to Solovay. Recall that HODX is the class of sets which are hereditarily ordinal
denable from parameters in X [ X .
It is convenient, but not really necessary, to state Theorem 9.27 using the Wadge
prewellordering on P .R/. The denition of h W < i in the context of AD (as
opposed to ADC ) uses the Wadge prewellordering. This is Solovays original denition
of h W < i.
Denition 9.25. Assume AD.
(1) (Wadge) Suppose that A ! ! and that B ! ! . Then A <w B if:
A and ! ! n A are each continuous preimages of B.
B is not a continuous preimage of A.
(2) (Martin) Suppose A ! ! . The Wadge rank of A, denoted w.A/, is the ordinal
rank of the relation
t
u
.C R j C <w A; <w /:
It is a theorem of Wadge that, assuming AD, A <w B if and only if A is a continuous preimage of B and B is not a continuous preimage of A.
Dene for sets of reals, A and B, A w B, if
A is a continuous preimage of B,
B is a continuous preimage of A.
616
The induced equivalence classes, Aw , are Wadge equivalence classes.

Assuming AD, if A is a continuous preimage of B then either
(1) A <w B, or
(2) A w B, or
(3) A w ! ! n B.
Thus the relation <w induces a preordering on P .! ! /, the associated equivalence
classes are either of the form Aw or the (disjoint) union of the two Wadge equivalence
classes Aw and ! ! n Aw , depending on whether the Wadge equivalence class, Aw ,
is closed under complements.
It is a theorem of Martin that the relation <w is wellfounded, again assuming AD.
This justies Denition 9.25(2), the denition of the Wadge rank of a set. It follows
that assuming AD,
D rank.P .! ! /; <w /:
Remark 9.26. (1) Generally we have not been concerned with the various possible
presentations of R. However the notion of continuous reducibility is quite sensitive to this. It is easy to see that in the Euclidean space, .
1; 1/, if A and its
complement are both dense, then A is not the continuous preimage of any set B
which is nowhere dense.
For this reason we shall generally, when dening a pointclass using Wadge ranks,
explicitly refer to subsets of ! ! .
(2) Suppose that 2 Ord is such that the pointclass
D A ! ! j w.A/ <
is closed under continuous images. Then is unambiguous (as a function of )
dened on any space which is homeomorphic to an (uncountable) borel subset
of ! ! . Further
D A ! ! j 11 .A/ < ;
and so the pointclass is easily dened without reference to Wadge rank.
t
u
Theorem 9.27. Assume ADC and that V D L.P .R//. Let h W < i be the
-sequence of L.P .R//. Suppose that < and let
D A ! ! j w.A/ < :
Then
(1) L. ;R/ D ,
(2) D P .R/ \ HOD .
t
u
9.2 The Pmax -extension of L.; R/
617
Remark 9.28. One route to dening strong forms of ADC is through assertions about
. The base theory is
ZF C ADC C V D L.P .R//:
Some examples in increasing (consistency) strength:
D and that is regular.
This is equivalent to the assertion that ADR holds and that is a regular
cardinal.
D and is Mahlo in HOD.
is a limit of regular cardinals such that D .
D and is Mahlo.
D C 1 and is the largest Suslin cardinal.
In this case it is necessarily the case that D .
t
u
By the results of .Sargsyan 2009/ all of these strengthenings are very likely fairly
weak as measured by the large cardinal hierarchy. This is sharp contrast to what was
previously believed.
t
u
9.2
The Pmax -extension of L.; R/
This section is devoted to the analysis of L.; R/G where

(1) P .R/ is a pointclass closed under continuous preimages such that
L.; R/ ADC ;
(2) G Pmax is L.; R/-generic.
In Section 9.2.1 we consider the general case. In Section 9.2.2 we consider the case
that
L.; R/ ADR C is regular:
The main result is that
L.; R/G Martins MaximumCC .c/:
618
9.2.1 The basic analysis

Suppose P .R/ is a pointclass closed under continuous preimages such that
L.; R/ ADC
and suppose G Pmax is L.; R/-generic. The basic analysis of L.R/G given
in Chapter 4 generalizes to L.; R/G. This analysis requires the appropriate existence theorems for conditions. The requisite existence theorem is a corollary to Theorem 9.30. The proof of Theorem 9.30 follows closely the proof of Theorem 5.36 using
Theorem 9.7, Theorem 5.34 and the following generalization of Theorem 5.35.
Theorem 9.29. Suppose P .R/ is a pointclass closed under continuous preimages such that
L.; R/ ADC :
Suppose a !1 is a countable set. Then in L.; R/:
HODa D HODa:
t
u
L.; R/ ADC :
Suppose A R and A 2 L.; R/. Then for each n 2 ! there exist a countable
transitive model M and an ordinal 2 M such that the following hold.
(1) M ZFC.
(2) is the nth Woodin cardinal in M .
(3) A \ M 2 M and hV!C1 \ M; A \ M; 2i hV!C1 ; A; 2i.
t
u
L.; R/ ADC :
Then for each set X R such that
X 2 L.; R/
there is a condition
h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax
such that
(1) X \ M 2 M,
(2) hH.!1 /M ; X \ Mi hH.!1 /; X i,
Proof. This is a corollary of Theorem 4.41 and Theorem 9.30.
619
t
u
The basic analysis of Pmax now easily generalizes to produce the following theorem.
L.; R/ ADC :
Suppose G Pmax is L.; R/-generic. Then in L.; R/G:
(1) P .!1 /G D P .!1 /;
(2) P .!1 / L.R/G;
(4) for every set B 2 P .R/ \ L.; R/ the set
Proof. (2) and (3) are immediate consequences of (1), Theorem 4.50, and the denitions. (1) follows from an analysis of terms using the technical lemma, Lemma 4.46.
The proof of (1) is identical to the proof of Theorem 4.49(1) using Theorem 9.31 to
obtain the necessary conditions in G. By (1) it follows that in L.; R/G,
P .!2 / [L.A; R/G j A 2 :
Thus it sufces to prove that for each A 2 , (4) holds in L.A; R/G.
Fix A 2 . By (2),
L.A; R/G ZFC:
The proof that (4) holds in L.A; R/G is identical to the proof of Lemma 4.52.
t
u
Theorem 9.32 generalizes to the all of the variations of Pmax that we have discussed.
We state the appropriate version for Bmax . We shall consider the Qmax extensions in
Section 9.3.
L.; R/ ADC :
Suppose G Bmax is L.; R/-generic. Then in L.; R/G:
(1) P .!1 / L.R/G;
(2) for every set B 2 P .R/ \ L.; R/, the set
t
u
620
In the special case that

L.; R/ D L.A; R/
for some A R one obtains a little more information.
Theorem 9.34. Suppose A R and that
L.A; R/ ADC :
Suppose G Pmax is L.A; R/-generic. Then in L.A; R/G:
(1) L.A; R/G ZFC;
(2) IG is a normal saturated ideal in L.A; R/G;
(3) suppose S !1 is stationary and f W S ! !3 , then there is a function
g 2 L.A; R/ such that
2 S j g./ D f ./
is stationary.
.P .!1 //L.A;R/G L.R/G:
Therefore by Corollary 5.7,
L.A; R/G AC :
This proves (1). (2) follows by adapting the proof that IG is a saturated ideal in
L.R/G. (3) follows from Theorem 9.32 and Theorem 3.42.
u
t
Suppose P .R/ is a pointclass closed under continuous preimages such that
L.; R/ ADC
and that G Pmax is L.; R/-generic.
One can show that
L.; R/G AC
if and only if
L.; R/ D L.S; R/
for some S Ord.
L.; R/ ADC C is regular:
Suppose G Pmax is L.; R/-generic. Then
L.; R/G !2 -DC:
621
Proof. If
P .R/ \ L.; R/
then by Wadge determinacy,
L.; R/ D L.A; R/
for some A 2 P .R/ \ L.; R/.
In this case L.; R/G ZFC.
D P .R/ \ L.; R/;
and so
L.; R/ V D L.P .R// :
For each set A 2 let w.A/ denote the Wadge rank of A. Let denote as
computed in L.; R/.
Suppose R 2 L.; R/G is a binary relation. Let 2 L.; R/ be a term for R.
Fix an ordinal such that 2 L .; R/ and such that
L .; R/ Powerset C 1 -Replacement:
For each < let Z be the set of a 2 L .; R/ such that a is 1 denable in
L .; R/ from .; B/ for some set B 2 with w.B/ < .
Since
L.; R/ ADC + is regular;
there exists < such that
Z \ D
and such that in L.; R/, has conality !2 .

A key point is that for this choice of ,
Z 1 L .; R/:
Since Pmax H.!1 /,
Z G 1 L .; R/G:
Let N be the transitive collapse of Z . Let N be the image of under the collapsing map. Let RN be the interpretation of N . Therefore N G is the transitive collapse
of Z G and RN is the image of R under the transitive collapse of Z G.
Fix A 2 n Z . Thus w.A/ and it follows that N 2 L.A; R/.
By Theorem 9.34(3), has conality !2 in L.A; R/G. It follows that
N G!1 N G
in L.A; R/G.
Let
W N G ! L .; R/G
be the inverse of the collapsing map. is a 1 elementary embedding with
cp./ D D ./N D .!3 /N :
622
L.A; R/G ZFC and so either for some !1 there is an increasing sequence
ha W < i of elements of RN which is not bounded above or there is an increasing
sequence ha W < !2 i.
In the rst case, ha W < i 2 N G and so .ha W < i/ is a increasing
sequence of elements of R which is not bounded above. In the second case,
h.a / W < !2 i
t
u
is an !2 increasing sequence of elements of R.
The proof of Theorem 9.35 also yields a proof of the following generalization
which we shall require.
Theorem 9.36. Suppose P .R/ is a pointclass closed under continuous preimages, S Ord, and that
L.S; ; R/ ADC C is regular:
Suppose G Pmax is L.S; ; R/-generic. Then
t
u
L.S; ; R/G !2 -DC:
9.2.2 Martins MaximumCC .c/

In Theorem 9.39 we examine the Pmax extension of L.; R/ where is a pointclass
closed under continuous preimages such that
L.; R/ AD R + is regular:
By Theorem 9.13,
L.; R/ ADC
and so the previous results apply. The proof of Theorem 9.39 requires the following
theorem.
L.; R/ ADC :
Then in L.; R/ the following holds. Suppose X is a set of ordinals. Then there is a
set of ordinals Y such that:
(1) X 2 LY ;
(2) if t is a countable sequence of reals then there is a transitive model N such that,
a) N ZFC,
b) LY; t N ,
c) N D LY; t \ V where is the least .strongly/ inaccessible cardinal of
LY; t ,
d) there is a countable ordinal which is a Woodin cardinal in N .
t
u
Theorem 9.37 is easily proved using Theorem 5.34 and the following generalization
of Theorem 9.29
623
L.; R/ ADC :
Suppose X Ord, X 2 L.; R/, and that a !1 is a countable set. Then in L.; R/:
HODX;a D HODX a:
t
u
The forcing axiom Martins MaximumCC .c/ is dened in Denition 2.47. It is the
restriction of Martins MaximumCC to partial orders of cardinality c.
L.; R/ AD R C is regular:
Suppose G0 Pmax is L.; R/-generic. Suppose
H0 Coll.!3 ; H.!3 //L.;R/G0
is L.; R/G0 -generic. Then
L.; R/G0 H0 ZFC C Martins MaximumCC .c/:
L.; R/ ADC
and so by Theorem 9.32 the following hold in L.; R/G0 .

(1.1) P .!1 / D [P .!1 /M j h.M; I /; ai 2 G0 .

(1.2) P .!1 / L.R/G0 .
Further by Theorem 9.35,
L.; R/G0 !2 -DC:
Therefore
P .R/L.;R/G0 H0 D P .R/L.;R/G0
and so it sufces to prove that
L.; R/G0 Martins MaximumCC .c/:
Since is a pointclass closed under continuous preimages and since
L.; R/ AD R ;
it follows that
D P .R/ \ L.; R/:
It is convenient to work in L.; R/ and so for the remainder of the proof we assume
V D L.; R/. Thus V D L.P .R// and by Theorem 9.12, every set of reals is Suslin.
624
We must show the following.

Suppose that G Pmax is L.P .R//-generic. Suppose that P 2 L.P .R//G
is a poset of cardinality !2 and that in L.P .R//G, forcing with P preserves
stationary subsets of !1 . Suppose that
S D hS W < !1 i
is an !1 sequence of terms in
L.P .R//GP
for stationary subsets of !1 and that
D D hD W < !1 i
is a sequence of dense subsets of P . Then there is a lter F P such that
(2.1) F 2 L.P .R//G,
(2.2) for all < !1 , D \ F ;,
(2.3) for all < !1 , the set
j p 2 S for some p 2 F
is stationary in L.P .R//G.
Let P be a term for P , let S be a term for S and let D be a term for D. We may
assume that P is a term for a partial order on !2 so that P is a term for a subset of
!2 !2 . We then can assume D is a term for a subset of !1 !2 and that S is a term
for a subset of !1 !1 !2 .
We x a reasonable coding of elements of H.!2 / by reals. Suppose
A 2 H.!2 /:
First code A by a set B !1 in the usual fashion. Let x be a real and let be a
formula such that
B D j Lx x; :
Let y 2 R code the pair .x # ; /. The real y is a code of A.
625
Let
(3.1) P be the set of x such that x codes .p; ; / and
a) p 2 Pmax ,
b) .; / 2 !2 !2 ,
c) p .; / 2 P ;
(3.2) S be the set of x such that x codes .p; ; ; / and
a) .; ; / 2 !1 !1 !2 ,
b) p 2 Pmax ,
c) p .; ; / 2 S ;
(3.3) let D be the set of x such that x codes .p; ; / and
a) .; / 2 !1 !2 ,
b) p 2 Pmax ,
c) p .; / 2 D .
Suppose that M is a transitive model of ZF. Suppose that
z 2 P \ M
and z codes .p; ; /. Then by a simple absoluteness argument M decodes z as a triple
.p; ; / where ; < !2M . If !1M D !1 then D and D .
Similarly suppose that
z 2 S \ M
and z codes .p; ; ; /. Then M decodes z as a 4-tuple .p; ; ; / where < !1M ,
< !1M and < !2M . Again if !1M D !1 then D .
Now suppose M is a transitive model of ZF containing !1 so that
Pmax \ .H.!1 //M D .Pmax /M :
Assume that for all x 2 M \ R, x 2 M . Thus Pmax is nontrivial in M . Suppose that
.P S D / \ M 2 M:
Then P \ M denes in M a term PM for a subset of !2M !2M . Similarly D \ M
denes in M a term for a subset of !1M !2M and S \ M denes in M a term for a
subset of !1M !1M !2M . Let SM be the term given by S \ M and let DM be the
term given by D \ M .
These are terms in the forcing language dened in M for Pmax \ M . If
G Pmax \ M is a lter (not necessarily generic) then PM denes a subset of
!2M !2M . Similarly DM denes from G a subset of !1M !2M and SM denes
from G a subset of !1M !1M !2M . We shall say these are the sets dened by P \ M
and G, dened by D \ M and G, and dened by S \ M and G, respectively.
626
Let T0 be a tree whose projection is the set of reals which code elements of
P S D :
Let T1 be a tree which projects to the complement of the projection of T0 . We shall use
the following. Suppose M is a transitive model of ZF and that T0 ; T1 2 M . Suppose
j W M ! M is an elementary embedding of M into a transitive model M . Then
the trees T0 and j.T0 / have the same projection in V .
By Theorem 9.37 there exists a set of ordinals S such that:
(4.1) .T0 ; T1 / 2 LS ;
(4.2) if t is a countable sequence of reals then there is a transitive model N such that,
a) N ZFC,
b) LS; t N ,
c) N D LS; t \ V where is the least (strongly) inaccessible cardinal of
LS; t ,
d) there is a countable ordinal which is a Woodin cardinal in N .
Let be the club measure on P!1 .R/. AD R implies is a measure. The normality
condition satised by is the following. Suppose
F W P!1 .R/ ! P!1 .R/
and
j F . / and F . / ; 2 :
Then there exists x 2 R such that j x 2 F . / 2 .
Let S be the ultrapower of S by , let T0 be the ultrapower of T0 by and let
T1 be the ultrapower of T1 by . By the remarks above the trees T0 ; T0 have the same
projection. Further T0 2 LS and so
P ; S ; D 2 L.S ; R/:
Suppose G Pmax is L.S ; R/-generic. Then in L.S ; R/G:
(5.1) ZFC holds;
(5.2) the axiom ./ holds;
(5.3) P denes a partial order on !2 and forcing with this partial order preserves
stationary subsets of !1 ;
(5.4) S denes an !1 sequence of terms for stationary subsets of !1 ;
(5.5) D denes an !1 sequence of dense subsets of the partial order given by P .
The normality condition satised by shows
Y
L.S; /=
L.S ; R/ D
2P!1 .R/
and that os lemma applies. Thus there is a countable set R such that
D L.S; / \ R
627
and such that if G Pmax \ L.S; / is L.S; /-generic then in L.S; /G:
(6.1) ZFC holds;
(6.2) the axiom ./ holds;
(6.3) P \ L.S; / denes a partial order on !2 and forcing with this partial order
preserves stationary subsets of !1 ;
(6.4) S \ L.S; / denes an !1 sequence of terms for stationary subsets of !1 ;
(6.5) D \ L.S; / denes an !1 sequence of dense subsets of the partial order given
by P .
Fix such a countable set and x G Pmax \ L.S; / that is L.S; /-generic. Let
t 2 L.S; /G be an enumeration of the reals. Thus
L.S; /G D LS; t
and so there is a transitive inner model N and a countable ordinal such that is a
Woodin cardinal in N , LS; t N and N D LS; t \ V where is the least
strongly inaccessible cardinal of LS; t . Fix and N .
Let aG be the subset of the !1 of L.S; /G dened by G. We are using the
notation from Denition 4.44.
Let
PG !2N !2N
be the set in L.S; /G dened by P \ L.S; / and G.
Similarly let
SG !1N !1N !2N
and let
DG !1N !2N
be the sets in L.S; /G dened by G and S , and by G and D .
By the agreement between N and L.S; /G we have,
(7.1) PG is a partial order such that
.INS /N D .INS /N
(7.2) for each < !1N ,
denes a term in N
(7.3) for each < !1N ,
is dense in PG .
PG
\ N;
.; / j .; ; / 2 SG
PG
for a stationary subset of !1N ,

j .; / 2 DG
628
Let H P be N -generic and let

g Coll.!1N ; </
be N H -generic where !1N is the ordinal !1 as computed in N . Let be the least
strongly inaccessible cardinal in N above . Thus is a countable ordinal in V .
We now come to the main points. By (7.1)
.INS /N D .INS /N H \ N D .INS /N H g \ N:
Further by Theorem 2.61, .INS /N H g is presaturated in N H g.
Let N H gh be a ccc extension of N H g in which MA holds and in which
is still strongly inaccessible (i. e. use a small poset). Let
I D .INS /N H gh :
Standard arguments show that the ideal I is precipitous in N H gh. N H gh
contains the ordinals and so any countable iteration of .N H gh; I / is wellfounded.
Suppose .N1 ; I1 / is an iterate of .N H gh; I / and let
j W N H gh ! N1
be the corresponding elementary embedding. .T0 ; T1 / 2 N H gh and so it follows
that
X \ N1 D j.X \ N H gh/
where
X D P S D :
Further:
(8.1) j.G/ is a lter in Pmax \ N1 ;
(8.2) j.PG / is the set of .; / 2 !2N1 !2N1 such that for some p 2 j.G/,
p .; / 2 P I
(8.3) j.SG / is the set of .; ; / 2 !1N !1N1 !2N1 such that for some p 2 j.G/,
p .; ; / 2 S I
(8.4) j.DG / is the set of .; / 2 !1N1 !2N1 such that for some p 2 j.G/,
p .; / 2 D I
(8.5) j.H / is a lter in j.PG /;
(8.6) for each < !1N1 , < !1N1 j .; ; / 2 j.SG / for some 2 H is a
stationary set in N1 ;
(8.7) for each < !1N1 ,
j.H / \ < !2N1 j .; / 2 DG ;:
629
Let M D .N H gh/ \ V . Thus M is a countable transitive set and

M ZFC C MA!1 :
Iterations of .M; I / are rank initial segments of iterations of
.N H gh; I /;
this is by Lemma 4.4. By Lemma 4.5, .N H gh; I / is iterable and so .M; I / is
iterable.
Note that since the axiom ./ holds in N it follows that in N , !1 D !1LaG ;x for
some x 2 R. Since .M; I / is iterable, h.M; I /; aG i 2 Pmax .
Suppose that
h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i 2 G:
There is an iteration (necessarily unique),
j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
in M such that j.a0 / D aG and I0 D M \ I . Thus h.M; I /; aG i < p for all p 2 G.
Iterations of .M; I / lift iterations of .N H gh; I / and so (8.1)(8.7) hold for
countable iterations of .M; I /.
We claim that h.M; I /; aG i forces that there is a D -generic lter on P which
interprets S as an !1 sequence of stationary sets.
This is now straightforward to verify. Suppose G Pmax is L.P .R//-generic and
that h.M; I /; aG i 2 G. Let
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
be the iteration such that j.aG / D AG where AG is the subset of !1 dened by the
generic G .
Let PG be the partial order (on !2 ) dened by P and G , let
SG !1 !1 !2
be the set dened by S and G , and let
DG !1 !2
be the set dened by D and G .
Finally j.G/ G and
I D .INS /L.R/G \ M :
Therefore:
(9.1) j.PG / PG ;
(9.2) j.SG / SG ;
(9.3) j.DG / DG ;
(9.4) j.H / is a lter in j.PG /;
(9.5) For each < !1 ,
j.H / \ < !2 j .; / 2 j.DG / ;I
(9.6) For each < !1 , < !1 j .; ; / 2 j.SG / for some 2 j.H / is a
stationary subset of !1 .
630
Thus j.H / is an DG -generic lter on PG which interprets SG as an !1 sequence

stationary sets.
Finally we can choose M and G such that G contains any given condition.
t
u
The following is an immediate corollary of the proof of Theorem 9.39; the forcing
axiom, Martins Maximum ZF .c/, is dened in Denition 2.51.
Corollary 9.40. Suppose P .R/ is a pointclass closed under continuous preimages such that
L.; R/ AD R :
L.R/G ZFC C Martins Maximum ZF .c/:
t
u
The conclusion of Corollary 9.40 follows from signicantly weaker assumptions,

see Theorem 9.59. These results suggest that perhaps one does not need the full
strength of
L.; R/ AD R C is regular;
in order to prove that
L.; R/Pmax Martins Maximum.c/:
However in Section 9.5 we shall sketch the proof of the following theorem.
Theorem 9.41. Suppose that P .R/ is a pointclass, closed under continuous
preimages, such that
L.; R/ ADC C is regular
and such that
Then
L.; R/ AD R :
t
u
Combining the arguments for Theorem 9.39 and for Theorem 7.59 one obtains the
following generalization of Theorem 7.59. This also requires Theorem 9.33.
Recall that BCFACC .c/ denotes the restriction of BCFACC to posets of size c.
Suppose G0 Bmax is L.; R/-generic. Suppose
H0 Coll.!3 ; H.!3 //L.;R/G0
L.; R/G0 H0 ZFC C BCFACC .c/:
t
u
631
As a corollary to Theorem 9.39 and Theorem 9.42 we obtain the following consistency result.
is consistent. Then the following are consistent.
(1) ZFC C Martins MaximumCC .c/.
(2) ZFC C Borel Conjecture C BCFACC .c/.
t
u
Another corollary of Theorem 9.39 concerns Martins Maximum and the determinacy of sets of reals which are ordinal denable.
We rst consider the closely related problem of the relationship between Martins
Maximum and quasi-homogeneous ideals.
The proof of Theorem 5.67 easily generalizes to prove the following theorem.

L.; R/G :
t
u
We obtain as a corollary the consistency Martins MaximumCC .c/ with the existence of a quasi-homogeneous saturated ideal.
is consistent. Then
ZFC C Martins MaximumCC .c/
C The nonstationary ideal is quasi-homogeneous

t
u
is consistent.
The generic extension
L.; R/G0 H0
indicated in Theorem 9.39 is a homogeneous forcing extension of L.; R/ and so the

following theorem is an immediate corollary.
is consistent. Then
ZFC C Martins MaximumCC .c/
C Every set of reals which is ordinal denable from a real is determined

is consistent.
t
u
632
There is an interesting question.

Question. Assume Martins Maximum.
reals?
Is there a denable wellordering of the

t
u
In .Woodin 2010b/ a strong version of the following conjecture is discussed.

A consequence of either conjecture is that Martins Maximum does in fact imply the
existence of a denable wellordering of the reals, see Remark 9.47(4) below.
Conjecture (ZFC). There is a regular cardinal for which there is a denable partition
of
j < and cof./ D !
t
u
into innitely many stationary sets.
Remark 9.47. (1) By the previous theorem Martins MaximumCC .c/ does not imply there is a denable wellordering of the reals.
(2) Suppose P is a partial order such that Martins Maximum holds in V P . Suppose forcing with P adds a new subset to !1 . Then P is not homogeneous.
This is implicit in .Foreman, Magidor, and Shelah 1988/. This rules out an obvious approach to producing a model of Martins Maximum with no denable
wellordering of the reals.
(3) Martins Maximum + Conjecture implies there is a denable wellordering of the
reals. This is by the results of .Foreman, Magidor, and Shelah 1988/. In fact,
assuming Martins Maximum, the following are equivalent:
There is a denable wellordering of the reals.
There is a denable partition of
j < !2 and cof./ D !
There is a denable partition of !1 into innitely many stationary sets.
There is a denable !1 -sequence of distinct reals.
(4) Todorcevic has proved that assuming the Proper Forcing Axiom then the following are equivalent:
There is a denable wellordering of the reals.
There is a denable increasing sequence
hf W < !2 i
!
in the partial order, .! ; <F /. The order is the pointwise order modulo
nite sets.
9.3 The Qmax -extension of L.; R/
633
(5) If the conjecture fails in V then every (uncountable) regular cardinal is measurable in HOD. Thus the consistency strength of the failure of the conjecture is
very likely beyond that of the existence of a supercompact cardinal.
(6) It looks even harder to obtain the failure of the conjecture in the presence of a
supercompact cardinal. Therefore modulo nding a new consistency proof for
Martins Maximum, the problem of nding a model of Martins Maximum in
which the conjecture fails looks quite hard.
t
u
9.3
The Qmax -extension of L.; R/
We examine the Qmax -extension of L.; R/ where P .R/ is a pointclass closed

under continuous preimages such that
L.; R/ ADC :
As a corollary to Lemma 5.23 and Theorem 9.30 we obtain the following generalization of Theorem 6.62.
L.; R/ ADC :
Suppose A R and A 2 L.; R/. Then for each n 2 !, there exists
.M; I/ 2 H.!1 /
such that
(1) .M; I/ is strongly A-iterable,
(2) the Woodin cardinal of M associated to I is the nth Woodin cardinal of M .
t
u
L.; R/ ADC :
Suppose A R and A 2 L.; R/. Then there is a condition .hMk W
k < !i; f / 2 Qmax such that
(1) A \ M0 2 M0 ,
(2) hH.!1 /M0 ; A \ M0 i hH.!1 /; Ai,
(3) hMk W k < !i is A-iterable.
Proof. This is an immediate by Theorem 6.64 and Theorem 9.48
t
u
634
Using Theorem 9.49, the analysis of L.R/Qmax easily generalizes to the case of

L.; R/Qmax where is a pointclass closed under continuous preimages such that
L.; R/ ADC :
Suppose G Qmax is L.; R/-generic. Then
L.; R/G !2 -DC
and in L.; R/G:
(1) P .!1 / L.R/G;
(2) for every set B 2 P .R/ \ L.; R/, the set
t
u
Because of the equivalence of Qmax and Qmax in L.R/ as forcing notions, Theorem 9.50 immediately gives the following version for Qmax -extensions.
Suppose G Qmax is L.; R/-generic. Then
L.; R/G !2 -DC
and in L.; R/G:
(1) P .!1 / L.R/G;
(2) for every set B 2 P .R/ \ L.; R/ the set
t
u
As a corollary to Theorem 9.51 we obtain the following generalization of Theorem 6.78.

L.A; R/ ADC :
Suppose G Qmax is L.A; R/-generic. Then in L.A; R/G the following holds.
Suppose > !2 ,
L .A; R/G ZFC ;
9.3 The Qmax -extension of L.; R/
635
and that
L .A; R/ 1 L.A; R/:
Suppose
X L .A; R/G
of Y and let
IX D .INS /MX :
Then for each B R such that B 2 X \ L.A; R/, .MX ; IX / is B-iterable.
Proof. The proof is essentially the same as that of Theorem 6.78, using Theorem 9.51
in place of Theorem 6.77.
t
u
Another corollary of Theorem 9.51 generalizes Theorem 6.81.
L.A; R/ ADC :
Suppose G Qmax is L.A; R/-generic. Then in L.A; R/G the following hold.
(1) L.A; R/ ZFC.
(2) IG D INS and IG is is an !1 -dense ideal.
f W S ! Ord:
Then there exists g 2 L.A; R/ such that 2 S j f ./ D g./ is stationary.
.P .!1 //L.A;R/G L.R/G:
Therefore by Theorem 6.81,
L.A; R/G AC ;
IG D INS , and IG is a normal !1 -dense ideal in L.A; R/G.
This proves (1) and (2).
(3) follows from Theorem 9.51 and Theorem 3.42, by reducing to the case that the
t
u
range of f is bounded in L.A;R/ , cf. the proof of Lemma 6.79(3).
Suppose that P .R/ is a pointclass closed under continuous preimages such
that
We generalize Theorem 9.39, showing that if G Qmax is L.; R/-generic, then in

L.; R/G a fragment of Martins Maximum holds.
As usual this requires some preliminary denitions.
636
Let Z..!1<! // denote the set of all functions

f W !1 ! H.!1 /
which witness .!1<! /. Thus if I is a normal !1 -dense ideal on !1 ,
YColl .I / Z..!1<! //:
Let FA..!1<! //c denote the following forcing axiom:
Suppose that P is a partial order of cardinality c such that
P
.Z..!1<! ///V D V \ .Z..!1<! ///V :

Suppose that D is a family of dense subsets of P such that jDj D @1 . Then
there is a lter G P such that
G\D ;
for all D 2 D.
Combining the proofs of Theorem 9.39 and the absoluteness theorem, Theorem 6.85, for the Qmax -extension yields the following version of Theorem 9.39 for
Qmax . We note that FAC ..!1<! //c, which is the analog of Martins MaximumC .c/
for FA..!1<! //c, implies that INS is not !1 -dense and so must fail in the Qmax extension.
Suppose G0 Qmax is L.; R/-generic. Suppose
H0 Coll.!3 ; H.!3 //L.;R/G0
L.; R/G0 H0 ZFC C FA..!1<! //c:
t
u
Remark 9.55. As formulated, FA..!1<! //c implies .!1<! /. In fact it implies that
for each stationary set S !1 there exists a function
f W !1 ! H.!1 /
which witnesses that .!1<! / holds such that
f ./ D ;
for all 2 !1 n S . This slight strengthening of .!1<! / is easily seen to follow from
t
u
+ .!1<! /.
9.4 Changs Conjecture
9.4
637
Changs Conjecture
There is a curious metamathematical possibility. Perhaps there is an interesting combinatorial statement whose truth in
L.R/Pmax
cannot be proved just assuming
L.R/ AD;
but can be proved from a stronger hypothesis.
We recall the statement of Changs Conjecture.
Denition 9.56. Changs Conjecture: The set
X !2 j ordertype.X / D !1
t
u
is stationary in P .!2 /.
D. Seabold has proved the following theorem.
Theorem 9.57 (Seabold). Suppose P .R/ is a pointclass closed under continuous

preimages such that
L.; R/G Changs Conjecture:
t
u
A corollary of Seabolds theorem is that from suitable determinacy hypotheses one

obtains that
L.R/Pmax Changs Conjecture:
The proof can be rened to establish the following theorem which identies a sufcient
condition which is rst order in L.R/.
Theorem 9.58. Suppose
L.R/ AD
and that there exists a countable set R such that
HODL.R/ . / \ R D
and
HODL.R/ . / AD C DC:
L.R/G Changs Conjecture:
The proofs adapt to prove the following improvement of Corollary 9.40.
t
u
638

L.R/ AD
HODL.R/ . / \ R D
and
L.R/G ZFC C Martins Maximum ZF .c/:
t
u
Our goal in this section is to sketch the proof of the generalization of Theorem 9.58
to the Qmax -extension;
L.R/ AD
HODL.R/ . / \ R D
and
Suppose G Qmax is L.R/-generic. Then
t
u
The following theorem, in conjunction with Theorem 6.149, shows that

L.R/Qmax Changs Conjecture
cannot be proved just assuming
L.R/ AD:
Pmax
The analogous question for L.R/
is open.

ZFC C There is a normal, uniform, ideal on !1 which is !1 -dense
C Changs Conjecture
is consistent. Then
C There are innitely many Woodin cardinals
is consistent.
t
u
Steel has generalized the analysis of scales in L.R/ to iterable MitchellSteel modQ i. e. MitchellSteel models relativized to R. With this machinels of the form L.R; E/;
ery the method of the core model induction used to prove Theorem 6.149 on page 425,
generalizes to prove the following theorem.
639
Theorem 9.62. Suppose there is a normal, uniform, ideal on !1 which is !1 -dense

and that Changs Conjecture holds. Then there exists a countable set R such that
t
u
Corollary 9.63. Suppose there is a normal, uniform, ideal on !1 which is !1 -dense

and that Changs Conjecture holds. Then
L.R/Qmax Changs Conjecture:
Remark 9.64.
t
u
(1) The hypothesis of Theorem 9.58 is equiconsistent with

ZFC C There are ! C ! many Woodin cardinals:
Thus Theorem 9.62 implies that

ZFC C There are ! C ! many Woodin cardinals
is equiconsistent with
C Changs Conjecture:
(2) We do not know if Theorem 9.62 can be generalized to ./. More precisely:
Suppose that ./ and Changs Conjecture hold. Is there a countable set
R such that
HODL.R/ . / AD C DC
u
t
We need a technical lemma which is a variant of Theorem 9.52.
Lemma 9.65. Suppose A R and that
L.A; R/ ADC :
Suppose G Qmax is L.A; R/-generic. Then in L.A; R/G the following holds.
Suppose > !2 ,
L .A; R/G ZFC ;
and that
L .A; R/ 2 L.A; R/:
Then for each
a 2 L .A; R/G
there exists a countable elementary substructure,
X L .A; R/G
such that fG ; a; A X and such that the following hold:
(1) h.MX ; IX /; fX i 2 G;
(2) for all 2 C , fG ./ is L.MX ; fG j/-generic for Coll.!; /;
640
where MX is the transitive collapse of X , fX is the image of fG under the collapsing

map,
IX D .INS /MX ;
and where C is the critical sequence of the iteration
j W .MX ; IX / ! .MX ; IX /
such that j.fX / D fG .
Proof. Fix p0 2 G and x a term 2 L .A; R/ for a.
We work in L.A; R/.
Fix
W R ! L .A; R/
such that
R L .A; R/
and such that ; A R. Let x0 2 R be such that .x0 / D and let x1 be such
that .x1 / D A.
Let B R code the set of pairs
.ha0 ; : : : ; an i; .z0 ; : : : ; zn //
such that ha0 ; : : : ; an i 2 R
<!
, is a formula and
L .A; R/ .a0 /; : : : ; .an /:

Let T be the theory of L .A; R/; i. e. a reasonable fragment of
ZF C AD C DC C V D L.A; R/
containing ZFC .
By Lemma 9.52 there exists a countable transitive set N and a lter H QN
max
such that
(1.1) N T,
(1.2) p0 ; x0 ; x1 N ,
(1.3) p0 2 H ,
(1.4) H is N -generic,
(1.5) B \ N 2 N and hH.!1 /N ; B \ N; 2i hH.!1 /; B; 2i,
(1.6) .N H ; .INS /N H / is B-iterable.
Thus
N H
/; f i 2 Qmax
h.N H ; INS
and
N H
/; f i < p0
h.N H ; INS
where
641
f D fHN H D [f1 j h.M1 ; I1 /; f1 i 2 H :
By genericity we can suppose that

N H
h.N H ; INS
/; f i 2 G
and that for all 2 D, fG ./ is L.N H ; fG j/-generic for Coll.!; / where D is

the critical sequence of the iteration
N H
j W .N H ; INS
/ ! .N ; I /
such that j .f / D fG .
N H
Since h.N H ; INS
/; f i 2 G, H G.
Let
X L .A; R/G
be the set of b 2 L .A; R/G such that b is denable in L .A; R/G from parameters
in R \ N [ fG .
Thus X L .A; R/G. Further a 2 X since x0 2 N .
H G
and
hH.!1 /N ; B \ N; 2i hH.!1 /; B; 2i;
for these imply that
X \ L .A; R/ D R \ N :
Let MX be the transitive collapse of X , let FX be the image of fG under the collapsing map and let IX D .INS /MX . Thus
(2.1) .H.!2 //MX D H.!2 /N H ,
(2.2) IX D .INS /N H ,
(2.3) f D fX .
Therefore by Theorem 9.52, .MX ; IX / is iterable, and so
h.MX ; IX /; fX i 2 Qmax :
However,
N H
/; f i 2 G:
h.N H ; INS
N H
/; f i 2 G induces an iteration witTherefore the iteration witnessing h.N H ; INS
nessing
h.MX ; IX /; fX i 2 G
and this iteration has the same critical sequence, D.

Therefore since MX 2 N H , it follows that for all 2 D, fG ./ is
t
u
L.MX ; fG j/-generic for Coll.!; /.
642
Lemma 9.66. Suppose P .R/ is a pointclass closed under continuous preimages

such that
L.; R/ ADC C is regular :
Suppose G Qmax is L.; R/-generic. Then in L.; R/G the following holds.
Suppose N is a transitive set such that
N ZFC
and such that
N !1 N:
There exists a function
h W !1 ! N
such that for all limit ordinals 0 < < !1 ,
(1) h N ,
(2) h,
(3) fG ./ fG . / is N -generic for
Coll.!; fG .// Coll.!; fG . //
N
where N is the transitive collapse of h and D !2 .

L.; R/G !2 -DC:
Therefore there exists
ZN
such that Z Z and such that jZj D !2 .
Let NZ be the transitive collapse of Z.
Thus we can suppose, by replacing N by NZ if necessary, that jN j D !2 . Fix a
bijection
F W !2 ! N:
!1
Thus for some A R with A 2 L.; R/,

.F; N / 2 L.A; R/G:
Fix 2 Ord such that
L .A; R/ ZFC
and such that

L .A; R/ 2 L.A; R/:
By Lemma 9.65 there exists a countable elementary substructure
X L .A; R/G
such that A; F; N; fG X and such that the following hold:
643
(1.1) h.MX ; IX /; fX i 2 G;
(1.2) for all 2 C , fG ./ is L.MX ; fG j/-generic for Coll.!; /;
where MX is the transitive collapse of X , fX is the image of fG under the collapsing
map,
IX D .INS /MX ;
and where C is the critical sequence of the iteration
j W .MX ; IX / ! .MX ; IX /
such that j.fX / D fG .
Let
hM ; G ; j; W < !1 i
be the iteration of .MX ; IX / such that j0;!1 .fX / D fG .
Dene a sequence hX W !1 i of countable elementary substructures by induction on such that
(2.1) X0 D X ,
(2.2) XC1 D f .X \ !1 / j f 2 X ,
(2.3) if !1 is a limit ordinal then
X D [X j < :
For each !1 let M be the transitive collapse of X , let
W M ! X
be the inverse of the collapsing map, and let
G D a 2 .P .!1 //M j X \ !1 2 .a/:

Thus G is simply the image of
S 2 P .!1 / \ X j X \ !1 2 S
in the transitive collapse of X .
For each < !1 let

j;
W M ! M
be the elementary embedding such that for all a 2 M ,

.a//:
.a/ D .j;
Thus

hM ; G ; j;
W < !1 i

is an iteration of .MX ; IX / such that j0;!
.fX / D fG .
1
Therefore

hM ; G ; j; W < !1 i D hM ; G ; j;
W < !1 i:
644
For each !1 let
NQ D X \ N
and let N be the transitive collapse of NQ . Thus N 2 M and
NQ D .N /:
Further for each !1 ,
N D j0; .N0 /:
M
Thus for each < !1 , fG .!1 / is L.M0 ; fG j!1 /-generic.

However for each < !1 ,
M
hM ; G ; j; W < i 2 L.M0 ; fG j!1 /

MC1
and so for each < !1 , fG .!1
/ is L.N /-generic. Further
MC1
!1
M
D !2
D !2 :
Let
h W !1 ! N
be such that for all limit ordinals < !1 ,
h D NQ :
t
u
The function h is as desired.

The application of Lemma 9.66 requires the following additional lemma.
Lemma 9.67. Suppose
L.R/ AD
and that R is a countable set such that
HODL.R/ . / \ R D
and
HODL.R/ . / ZF C AD C DC
Then
HODL.R/ . / ADC :

L.R/ AD
HODL.R/ . / \ R D
and
Suppose G Qmax is L.R/-generic. Then
t
u
645
Proof. We work in L.R/G.

Fix
F W !2<! ! !2 :
We must show that there exists Z !2 such that Z has ordertype !1 and such that
F Z <! Z:
Let 2 L.R/ be a term for F .
Dene a function
W R ! H.!2 / \ L.R/
as follows.
1
Let U R R be a 11 set which is universal for
1 sets. For each x 2 R let
Ux D y 2 R j .x; y/ 2 U
be the section of U given by x.
For each countable ordinal let C be the set of reals which code and for each
x 2 R let
Ax D < !1 j Ux \ C ;:
Finally for each x 2 R if the set Ax codes a set B then
.x/ D B
otherwise .x/ D ;.
Since AD holds in L.R/, for each a 2 H.!2 / \ L.R/, a 2 Lx for some a 2 R.
It follows that is a surjection.
Suppose M is a transitive model of ZFC such that for each x 2 M , x # 2 M . Let
M
be the interpretation of in M . A key property of is that if !1 D !1M then
M D j.R \ M /:
Let A
be the set of x 2 R such that
.x/ D .p; s; /
where p 2 Qmax , s 2
!2<! ,
< !2 and in L.R/,

p Qmax .s/ D :
If Changs Conjecture fails in L.R/G then there is a function F and a corresponding term such that F is a counterexample and such that A
is 21 in L.R/.
This follows by the usual reection arguments and the fact that the pointclass
.21 /L.R/ has the scale property, Theorem 2.3.
Again by the scale property of .21 /L.R/ there must exist a condition
p0 2 Qmax \ HODL.R/
such that p0 forces that is a term for a counterexample to Changs Conjecture.
Fix a countable set R such that
HODL.R/ . / \ R D
646
and
HODL.R/ . / ZF C AD C DC:
By Lemma 9.67, we can suppose that
HODL.R/ . / ADC :
Let S Ord be a set such that
LS D HODL.R/ :
It is easy to see that such a set S exists, essentially by Vopenkas argument. In fact one
can choose S to be a subset of L.R/ .
Let
N D L.S; /
and let
D P . / \ N:
Thus
L.; / ADC C is regular
and
D R \ L.; /:
Let g0 Qmax \ L.; / be L.; /-generic such that p0 2 g0 and let
f0 D [f j h.M; I /; f i 2 g0 :
Thus g0 is N -generic and
P . / \ N g0 D P . / \ L.; /g0 :
Therefore by Theorem 6.81 and Theorem 9.51, the following hold in N g0 .
(1.1) AC .
(1.2) The nonstationary ideal on !1 is !1 -dense.
(1.3) f0 witnesses ++ .!1<! /.
(1.4) For each p 2 Coll.!; !1 /, the set
< !1 j p 2 f0 ./
is stationary.
By modifying f0 if necessary we can suppose that for all < !1N g0 ,
f0 ./ Coll.!; /:
By (1.1) and since N0 D L.S; /,
N g0 ZFC
and further for some a0 !3N g0 ,
L.; /g0 D La0 :
647
By Theorem 5.35,
L.R/
HODa
D HODL.R/ a0 D LS; a0 D N g0 :
0
By Theorem 5.34, there exists x0 2 R such that for all x 2 R, if

x0 2 LS; a0 ; x
then
!2LS;a0 ;x
0 ;x
:
HODLS;a
S;a0
However for each < !1 , there exists x1 2 R such that for all x 2 R, if
x1 2 LS; a0 ; x then
0 ;x
HODL.R/
LS; a0 ;
P ./ \ HODLS;a
S;a0
S;a0
since HODL.R/ D LS .
Therefore there exist a transitive inner model M , containing the ordinals, and
0 < !1 such that
M ZFC;
S; a0 M ,
P .!3N g0 / \ N g0 D P .!3N g0 / \ M;
and such that 0 is a Woodin cardinal in M .

Thus (1.1)(1.4) hold in M .
Let M0 D M \ V where is the least ordinal such that > 0 and such that is
strongly inaccessible in M . Since M ZFC and since M L.R/, exists.
M0
.
Since Ord M , the structure .M0 ; I0 / is iterable where I0 D INS
Since (1.1)(1.4) hold in M , (1.1)(1.4) hold in M0 .
Therefore
h.M0 ; I0 /; f0 i 2 Qmax
and it follows that
h.M0 ; g0 /; f0 i < p
for all p 2 g0 .
j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
such that
< !1 j j.f0 /./ D fG ./
By Theorem 6.34 there is an L.R/-generic lter G Qmax such that
fG D fG
and such that
L.R/G D L.R/G:
648
Thus it follows that
h.M0 ; I0 /; f0 i 2 G :
We now come the key claim, which is a consequence of Lemma 9.66.

Let P0 be the partial order given by the stationary tower
.P<0 /M
and let J0 be the associated directed system of ideals.
Suppose h0 Coll.!; !1M / is M -generic and that h Coll.!; !2M / is M h0 generic.
Then there exists a generic lter G0 P0 , such that
(2.1) !2M 2 G0 ,
(2.2) h0 is M1 -generic,
(2.3) j.f0 /.!2M / D h
where
j W M1 ! M1 M1 h0
is the generic elementary embedding corresponding to the generic ultrapower deterM1

. M1 is the generic ultrapower of M determined by G0 . Thus
mined by h0 , f0 and INS
M1 M G0 and there is a generic elementary embedding
j1 W M ! M1 M G0 :
Since
2 G0 , the critical point of j1 is !2M and so (1.1)(1.4) hold in M1 .
The verication of this claim is a routine from the denitions, Lemma 9.66 ensures
that the requisite set belongs to P0 ; i. e. that this set is stationary.
By the choice of and since M0 D V \ M , the claim above holds for M0 . By the
denability of forcing, this claim is a rst order property of M0 .
Again since Ord M , the structure .M0 ; J0 / is iterable where the denition of
iterability is the obvious generalization of Denition 5.18.
There is a key difference between iterations of .M0 ; J0 / and previously considered
iterations. The critical point need not be !1M0 . This is a central point of what follows.
Let h0 D fG .!1M0 /. Since
!2M
h.M0 ; I0 /; f0 i 2 G ;
h0 Coll.!; !1M / and h0 is M0 -generic.
Therefore there exists an iteration
h.M ; J /; G ; j; W < < !1 i
such that for all < !1 ,
M
(3.1) !2
2 G ,
(3.2) h0 is M C1 -generic,
649
(3.3) if fG ./ is M C1 h0 -generic then

j.f0 /./ D fG ./
M
where D !2
and
j W M C1 ! MC1 M C1 h0
M C1
is the generic elementary embedding corresponding to f0 ; INS
, and h0 .
We note that by (3.1), for all < < !1 , the critical point of j; is !2M and so
for all < !1 , j0; .f0 / D f0 .
Let
j0 W .M0 ; I0 / ! .MQ 0 ; IQ0 /
be the limit embedding of the iteration.
Thus
Q
!2M0 D !1
since
j0 .!2M0 / D !1 :
We come to the nal points.

First h0 is MQ 0 -generic. Let
k0 W MQ 0 ! MQ 0 MQ 0 h0
Q
M0
, and h0 .
be the generic elementary embedding corresponding to f0 ; INS
<!
+
Thus by (3.3) and since fG witnesses .!1 /,
< !1 j k0 .f0 /./ D fG ./

By Theorem 6.34, there is an L.R/-generic lter G Qmax , such that
L.R/G D L.R/G D L.R/G;
and such that k0 .f0 / D fG .
We now come the second point. Note
f0 D [f j h.M; I /; f i 2 j0 .g0 /
since
f0 D [f j h.M; I /; f i 2 g0
and so
k0 .f0 / D [f j h.M; I /; f i 2 k0 j0 .g0 /:
Therefore, this is the second point,
g0 j0 .g0 / k0 j0 .g0 / G :
Let
F W !2<! ! !2
650
be the interpretation of by G . Since g0 G , p0 2 G . Therefore F is a

counterexample to Changs Conjecture.
Let 0 be the interpretation of in M0 .
Dene
F0 W !2M0 ! !2M0
by F0 .s/ D if for some x 2 R \ M0 , 0 .x/ D .p; s; / for some p 2 g0 .
By the denition of M0 ,
R \ M0 D D R \ HODL.R/ :
Therefore since A
is 21 , A
\ M0 2 M0 and further
hV!C1 \ L.; /; A
\ ; 2i hV!C1 ; A
; 2i:
Therefore since g0 is L.; /-generic, this denition of F0 does yield a function.
Let
Q
Q
Z D k0 !2M0 D k0 ./ j < !2M0 :
Q
Since !2M0 D !1 , Z has ordertype !1 . Further by elementarity,

k0 .j0 .F0 //Z <! Z:
Q
M
By the choice of and since !1 D !1 0 ,

k0 j0 .0 / D j.R \ MQ 0 /:
The nal point is that
k0 j0 .A
\ M0 / D A
\ MQ 0
and so since k0 j0 .g0 / G , k0 j0 .F0 / F .
But then Z witnesses that F is not a counterexample to Changs Conjecture, a
contradiction.
We verify this nal point which amounts to a certain form of A
-iterability.
Since M0 D V \ M it follows that the elementary embedding j0 lifts to dene an
elementary embedding
j W M ! MQ L.R/:
It follows that
MQ 0 D j.M0 / D Vj. / \ MQ :
Therefore the elementary embedding k0 lifts to dene an elementary embedding

k W MQ ! MQ MQ h0 :
We must show that k j.A
\ M / D A
\ MQ .
The set A
is 21 is L.R/.
Therefore there exist trees T0 2 HODL.R/ and T1 2 HODL.R/ such that
A
D pT0
and
R n A
D pT1 :
651
Since HODL.R/ M , T0 2 M and T1 2 M .

Thus
k j.A
\ M / D pk j.T0 / \ MQ :
Clearly
pT0 pk j.T0 /
and
pT1 pk j.T1 /:
However by absoluteness
pk j.T0 / \ pk j.T1 / D ;:
Therefore pT0 D pk j.T0 / and so
k j.A
\ M / D A
\ MQ
as desired.
9.5
t
u
Weak and Strong Reection Principles
A natural question is the following. Suppose P .R/ is a pointclass, closed under

continuous preimages, such that
Suppose that
Must
L.; R/ ADR
As we have previously noted (Theorem 9.41), the answer to this question is yes.
One goal of this section is to sketch a proof of a stronger theorem, Theorem 9.87.
The following theorems show that some condition on is necessary.
Theorem 9.69. Assume Martins Maximum.c/. Then for each set A !2 , A#
exists.
t
u
Theorem 9.70. Suppose that Martins Maximum.c/ holds and that P is a partial order of cardinality !2 . Suppose G P is V -generic. Then
V G PD:
t
u
We shall obtain Theorem 9.69 as a corollary of a slightly stronger theorem, Theorem 9.75, that involves a specic consequence of Martins Maximum.c/.
This consequence is a reection principle for stationary subsets of P!1 .!2 / which
is a special case of the reection principle WRP of .Foreman, Magidor, and Shelah
1988/. This and a generalization formulated in .Todorcevic 1984/ are discussed briey
in Section 2.6, see Denition 2.54. The special cases of interest to us here are given
in the following denition. The actual formulation of Denition 9.71(3) is taken from
.Feng and Jech 1998/. This formulation is more elegant than the original.
652
(1) (ForemanMagidorShelah) WRP.!2 /: Suppose that

S P!1 .!2 /
is stationary in P!1 .!2 /. Then there exists !1 < < !2 such that
S \ P!1 ./
Denition 9.71.
(2) (ForemanMagidorShelah) WRP.2/ .!2 /: Suppose that

S1 P!1 .!2 /
and
S2 P!1 .!2 /
are each stationary in P!1 .!2 /. Then there exists !1 < < !2 such that
S1 \ P!1 ./
and
S2 \ P!1 ./
are each stationary in P!1 ./.
(3) (Todorcevic) SRP.!2 /: Suppose that
S P!1 .!2 /
and that for each stationary set T !1 , the set
2 S j \ !1 2 T
is stationary in P!1 .!2 /. Then there exists !1 < < !2 such that
S \ P!1 ./
contains a closed, unbounded, subset of P!1 ./.
Lemma 9.72 (Todorcevic).
SRP.!2 / holds.
(1) Assume that Martins Maximum.c/ is true. Then
(2) Assume SRP.!2 /. Then WRP.2/ .!2 / holds.

Lemma 9.73 (Todorcevic).
t
u
t
u
(1) Assume WRP.!2 /. Then 2@0 @2 .
(2) Assume SRP.!2 /. Then 2@1 D @2 .
t
u
Remark 9.74. (1) It is not difcult to show that WRP.!2 / is consistent with
2@1 > @2 and WRP.!2 / is consistent with CH. Thus Lemma 9.73(1) cannot
really be improved.
(2) We shall prove that SRP.!2 / implies 12 D !2 and so SRP.!2 / implies c D @2 ,
see Theorem 9.79.
(3) In fact, SRP.!2 / implies AC , as we shall note below. This gives a different
t
u
proof that SRP.!2 / implies c D @2 .
At the heart of Theorem 9.69 is the following theorem from which one can obtain
Theorem 9.69 as a corollary.
653
Theorem 9.75. Assume WRP.2/ .!2 / and that for each set A !1 , A# exists. Then
for each set A !2 , A# exists.
Proof. Fix a set A !2 . We must prove that A# exists. Clearly we may suppose that
A is conal in !2 .
For each countable set !2 let be the ordertype of and let
A
be the image of A under the transitive collapse of . Let
W !
be the collapsing map.
For each i < ! let i D !2Ci . Thus for each bounded set b !2 , i is a Silver
indiscernible of Lb.
For each formula .x0 ; y0 ; z0 / and for each pair
.s; t / 2 !2 <! i j i < !<!
of nite sets, let S.;s;t/ be the set of 2 P!1 .!2 / such that
LA A ; s; t :
Thus
P!1 .!2 / D S.;s;t/ [ S.:;s;t/ :
Fix 0 , s0 and t0 . We claim that not both S.0 ;s0 ;t0 / and S.:0 ;s0 ;t0 / are stationary in P!1 .!2 /. Assume toward a contradiction that each are stationary. Then by
WRP.2/ .!2 / there exists < !2 such that
(1.1) A \ is conal in ,
(1.2) s0 ,
(1.3) S.0 ;s0 ;t0 / \ P!1 ./ is stationary in P!1 ./,
(1.4) S.:0 ;s0 ;t0 / \ P!1 ./ is stationary in P!1 ./.
The key point is that .A \ /# exists. Therefore if
X H.!2 /
is a countable elementary substructure with A \ 2 X then .A \ /# 2 X . Let MX
be the transitive collapse of X . Thus the image of A \ under the collapsing map is
exactly A where D X \ . But the image of .A \ /# under the collapsing map is
.A /# . Thus if s0 2 X then
X \ 2 S.;s0 ;t0 /
if and only if
LA \ A \ ; s0 ; t0 :
Therefore if
LA \ A \ ; s0 ; t0
654
then S.:;s0 ;t0 / \ P!1 ./ is not stationary in P!1 ./. Similarly if

LA \ :A \ ; s0 ; t0 :
then S.;s0 ;t0 / \ P!1 ./ is not stationary in P!1 ./. This contradicts the choice of
and so proves our claim.
Let T be the set of .; s; t / such that S.;s;t/ contains a closed unbounded subset
of P!1 .!2 /. T is naturally interpreted as a complete theory in the language with additional constants for A, the ordinals less than !2 , and for the i . It follows easily that
this theory is A# since every countable subset of this theory can be embedded into A#
for almost all (in the sense of the lter generated by the closed unbounded subsets
t
u
of P!1 .!2 /).
Magidor has noted the following:
Suppose that is weakly compact and that
G Coll.!1 ; < /
is V -generic. Then (by reection)
V G WRP.2/ .!2 /:
Thus WRP.2/ .!2 / does not imply, for example, that 0# exists.
Lemma 9.76 (Todorcevic). .SRP.!2 // INS is !2 -saturated.
t
u
One corollary of Lemma 9.76 and the proof of Theorem 5.13 is that SRP.!2 /
implies AC . This result, obtained independently by P. Larson, gives yet another proof
that SRP.!2 / implies c D @2 .
Corollary 9.77 (SRP.!2 /).
AC
holds.
t
u
Theorem 9.69 is an immediate consequence of the following corollary of both

Lemma 9.76 and Theorem 9.75.
Corollary 9.78. Assume SRP.!2 /. Then for each set A !2 , A# exists.
Proof. By Lemma 9.72(2), WRP.2/ .!2 / holds. By Lemma 9.76, for every set A !1 ,
t
u
A# exists. Therefore by Theorem 9.75, for every set A !2 , A# exists.
Another corollary is the following theorem which shows that SRP.!2 / implies that
12 D !2 .
Theorem 9.79. Assume SRP.!2 /. Then 12 D !2 .
Proof. We have by Lemma 9.76 and Corollary 9.78 the following.
(1.1) INS is !2 -saturated and that for each A !2 , A# exists.
655
We claim that (1.1) implies that

12 D !2 . This is an immediate corollary of
Theorem 3.17 if one assumes in addition that 2@1 D @2 which in fact is a consequence
of SRP.!2 /.
However this additional assumption is unnecessary. Choose
A !2
such that
(2.1) .!2 /LA D !2 ,
(2.2) .H.!2 //LA H.!2 /.
This is easily done, it is theorem of ZFC that such a set A exists.
Thus (by (2.2)) for all < !2 ,
.A \ /# 2 LA
and so
P .!1 / \ LA D P .!1 / \ LA# :
Therefore
.H.!2 //LA H.!2 /;

which implies that
LA# INS is !2 -saturated
#
since !2 D .!2 /LA . But

LA# P .!1 /# exists.
Thus by Theorem 3.17, which can be applied in the inner model LA# ,
LA# 12 D !2
and so
12 D !2 .
t
u
Corollary 9.78 can be strengthened considerably, for example if SRP.!2 / holds

then for every set A !2 , A exists.
Another generalization of Theorem 9.75 is given in the following theorem whose
proof is closely related to the proof of Theorem 9.87.
Theorem 9.80. Suppose that WRP.2/ .!2 / holds and that if g Coll.!; !1 / is
V -generic then in V g:
(i) L.R/ AD;
(ii) R# exists.
Suppose that G Coll.!; !2 / is V -generic. Then in V G:
(1) L.R/ AD;
(2) R# exists.
t
u
656
An easier version of Theorem 9.80 is the following theorem. Recall that PD is the
assertion that all projective sets are determined.
Theorem 9.81. Suppose that WRP.2/ .!2 / holds and that if g Coll.!; !1 / is
V -generic then
V g PD:
Suppose that
G Coll.!; !2 /
is V -generic. Then
V G PD:
t
u
The method of proving Theorem 9.81 amplied by some of the machinery behind
the proof of Theorem 5.104 yields the following improvements of Theorem 9.81.
Theorem 9.82. Suppose that WRP.2/ .!2 / holds and that INS is !2 -saturated. Suppose
that G Coll.!; !2 / is V -generic. Then
V G PD:
t
u
Corollary 9.83. Suppose that SRP.!2 / holds and that P is a partial order of cardinality !2 . Suppose G P is V -generic. Then
V G PD:
t
u
Remark 9.84. Theorem 9.82, and therefore Corollary 9.83, can be be strengthened
to obtain more determinacy. The main results of Steel and Zoble .2008/ improve the
results by obtaining ADL.R/ .
The proof of Theorem 9.82 can be implemented using a weakened version of
SRP.!2 /, see Theorem 9.95. This version is dened in Denition 9.88(2). Theorem 9.99 shows that this weakened version together with the assertion that INS is !2 t
u
saturated cannot imply signicantly determinacy signicantly past ADL.R/ .
WRP.!2 / implies a weak variation of Changs Conjecture.
Lemma 9.85 (WRP.!2 /). Suppose that
F W !2<! ! !2
and let CF be the set of 2 P!1 .!2 / such that there exists 2 P!1 .!2 / satisfying;
(i) and \ !1 D \ !1 ,
(ii) n ;,
(iii) F <! .
Then CF contains a closed unbounded subset of P!1 .!2 /.
657
Proof. Let
S D P!1 .!2 / n CF :
Assume toward a contradiction that S is stationary in P!1 .!2 /. Thus by WRP.!2 /
there exists !1 < < !2 such that S \ P!1 ./ is stationary in P!1 ./.
Let
Z H.!3 /
(1.1) F 2 Z,
(1.2) 2 Z,
(1.3) Z \ 2 S .
The requirement (1.3) is easily arranged since S \ P!1 ./ is stationary in P!1 ./. By
(1.2)
Z \ Z \ !2 :
But Z \ !2 is closed under F and so Z \ !2 witnesses that Z \ 2 CF which
contradicts that Z \ 2 S .
t
u
An immediate corollary of the next lemma is that WRP.!2 / must fail in
L.A; R/Pmax where A R is such that
L.A; R/ ADC :
V D LA
for some set A !2 and that for each set B !1 , B # exists. Then WRP.!2 / fails.
Proof. Consider the structure
h!2 ; A; 2i:
For each countable elementary substructure
X h!2 ; A; 2i
let AX be the image of A under the transitive collapse.
Let S be the set of X 2 P!1 .!2 / such that !1 \ X is countable in LAX . We
claim that that S is stationary in P!1 .!2 /. If not let Y0 be the set of a 2 H.!3 / such
that a is denable in the structure
hH.!3 /; A; 2i:
Thus Y0 H.!3 / and so S 2 Y0 . Since S is not stationary it follows that
Y0 \ !2 S:
Let M0 be the transitive collapse of Y0 and let A0 be the image of A under the transitive
collapse. Thus every element of M0 is denable in the structure
hM0 ; A0 ; 2i:
658
However
M0 V D LA0
and so M0 2 LA0 . Therefore M0 is countable in LA0 and so Y0 \ !2 2 S ,
a contradiction.
Thus S is stationary in P!1 .!2 /.
We now assume toward a contradiction that WRP.!2 / holds.
Fix !1 < < !2 such that S \ P!1 ./ is stationary in P!1 ./.
Thus there exists
Z H.!3 /
such that
(1.1) Z \ 2 S ,
(1.2) A \ 2 Z.
However .A \ /# exists and so .A \ /# 2 Z.
Let Z0 D Z \ . Let MZ be the transitive collapse of Z and let AZ be the image
of A under the transitive collapse. Let AZ0 be the image of A \ under the transitive
collapse of Z0 . Trivially AZ0 is the image of A \ under the transitive collapse of Z.
However
Z \ !1 D Z0 \ !1
and so since Z0 2 S ,
V!C1 \ LAZ0 6 MZ :
The key point is that since

.A \ /# 2 Z;
it follows that .AZ0 /# 2 MZ . This in turn implies that
V!C1 \ LAZ0 MZ ;
t
u
By Lemma 9.72, Martins Maximum.c/ implies WRP.!2 / and so Theorem 9.41 is

an immediate corollary of the next theorem. The proof requires more of the descriptive
set theory associated to ADC and so we shall only sketch the argument. The proof is
in essence a generalization of the proof of Lemma 9.86.
and such that
L.; R/Pmax WRP.!2 /:
Then
L.; R/ AD R :
659
Proof. We assume toward a contradiction that

L.; R/ 6 AD R :
Fix G Pmax such that G is L.; R/-generic. We work in L.; R/G. By Theorem 9.22, since
L.; R/ 6 AD R ;
there exists a set S Ord such that
L.; R/ D L.S ; R/:
Thus, since L.R/G ZFC,
L.; R/G ZFC:
Let .0 ; 0 / be the least (lexicographical order) such that
(1.1) 0 is a boolean pointclass closed under continuous preimages,
(1.2) 0 2 Ord and
L0 .0 ; R/ ZF n Replacement C 1 -Replacement;
(1.3) L0 .0 ; R/ ADC C is regular,
(1.4) L0 .0 ; R/G WRP.!2 /,
(1.5) L0 .0 ; R/ 6 AD R .
It follows that
0 D P .R/ \ L0 .0 ; R/;
for otherwise
L0 .0 ; R/G D L0 A
for some A !2 which, by (1.4), contradicts Lemma 9.86. By (1.5) there is a largest
Suslin cardinal (in L0 .0 ; R/),
0 < ./L0 .0 ;R/ :
Let 0 be the pointclass of sets A R such that A is Suslin and co-Suslin in
L0 .0 ; R/:
It follows that there exists a tree T on ! 0 such that
(2.1) T 2 L0 .0 ; R/,
(2.2) let 0 be the set of A R such that A is 1 -denable in the structure
hM0 ; T; 2i
with parameters from R, then T is the tree of 0 -scale on the universal 0 set,
(2.3) 0 .HODT .R//L0 .0 ;R/ .
The key consequence of ADC is the following.
660
(3.1) Suppose that A 2 0 is denable in L0 .0 ; R/ from .T; x/ where x 2 R.

Then there is a scale on A (in L.; R/) each norm of which is denable in
L0 .0 ; R/ from .T; x/.
In particular, and this is all we require,
(4.1) every set in 0 is Suslin in L.; R/.
Consider the structure
hM0 G; T; 2i:
For each countable elementary substructure
X hM0 G; T; 2i
let NX be the transitive collapse of X .
Let S be the set of countable
X hM0 G; T; 2i
such that !1 \ X is countable in LT; NX . We claim that in L0 .0 ; R/G, the set S
is stationary in P!1 .M0 G/. If not let Y0 be the set of a 2 M0 G such that a is
denable in the structure
hM0 G; 0 ; T; 2i
from G.
Note that
jM0 GjL0 .0 ;R/G D !2
and
.H.!3 //L0 .0 ;R/G D M0 G:
Therefore, by (2.3), there is a wellordering of M0 which is denable in
hM0 G; 0 ; T; 2i
from G. Thus Y0 M0 G and so it follows that S 2 Y0 . Since S is not stationary it
follows that
Y0 \ M0 G S:
Let M0 be the transitive collapse of Y0 and let N0 be the image of hM0 G; T; 2i
under the transitive collapse. The key point is that
M0 2 LT; N0 :
This is another consequence of ADC , it is closely related to the proof of (2.3).
Thus N0 is countable in LT; N0 which contradicts that
Y0 \ M0 G S:
Therefore S is stationary in P!1 .M0 G/.
We show this contradicts that
L0 .0 ; R/G WRP.!2 /:
661
Fix a bijection
W !2 ! M0 G
with 2 L0 .0 ; R/G. This exists since
jM0 Gj D !2
in L0 .0 ; R/G.
Therefore, by WRP.!2 /, there exists < !2 such that
(5.1) M0 G,
(5.2) !1 ,
(5.3) X 2 P!1 ./ j X 2 S is stationary in P!1 ./.
H.!2 /L.;R/G D H.!2 /L0 .0 ;R/G
and so in L.; R/G, the set X 2 P!1 ./ j X 2 S is stationary in P!1 ./.
Let B 2 0 be the set of x 2 R such that x codes a triple .; a; b/ such that
(6.1) < !1 ,
(6.2) a ,
(6.3) b D P ./ \ LT; a.
The set B is Suslin in L.; R/. Let TB 2 M be a tree such that
B D pTB :
Let
TB D f W !1 ! TB j f 2 M =
be the ultrapower computed in L.; R/ of TB by the measure on !1 generated by

the closed unbounded subsets of !1 . Thus if
g .P .!1 / n INS ; /L.;R/G
is L.; R/G-generic then
TB D j.TB /
where
j W L.; R/G ! N L.; R/Gg
is the associated generic elementary embedding.
Since in L.; R/G, the set X 2 P!1 ./ j X 2 S is stationary in P!1 ./,
there exists
Z hM G; ; 2i
such that
(7.1) T; TB ; 0 ; ; 2 Z,
(7.2) Z \ 2 S .
662
Let M0 be the transitive collapse of Z and let N0 be the transitive collapse of Z \ .
By (5.2),
.!1 /M0 D .!1 /N0 D Z \ !1 :
Since TB 2 Z it follows that
P .N0 / \ LT; N0 M0 :
However Z \ 2 S and so this implies that Z \ !1 is countable in M0 , a contradiction.
t
u
There are natural weakenings of the principles, WRP.!2 / and SRP.!2 /. We discuss these briey and state some theorems. Our purpose is to illustrate how possibly
subtle variations are stratied, in the context of Pmax -extensions, by the strength of the
underlying model of ADC .
Suppose that
I P .P!1 .!2 //
is an ideal. Recall that the ideal I is normal if for all functions
F W !2 ! I;
SF 2 I where
SF D 2 P!1 .!2 / j 2 F ./ for some 2 :
The ideal is ne if for each 2 P!1 .!2 /,
2 P!1 .!2 / j 6 2 I:
(1) WRP .!2 /: There is a proper normal, ne, ideal
I P .P!1 .!2 //
such that for all T 2 P .!1 / n INS ,
X 2 P!1 .!2 / j X \ !1 2 T I
and such that if
S P!1 .!2 /
Denition 9.88.
is I -positive then there exists !1 < < !2 such that

S \ P!1 ./
(2) SRP .!2 /: There is a proper normal, ne, ideal
I P .P!1 .!2 //
such that for all T 2 P .!1 / n INS ,
X 2 P!1 .!2 / j X \ !1 2 T I;
and such that if S P!1 .!2 / is a set such that for each T 2 P .!1 / n INS ,
X 2 S j X \ !1 2 T I;
then there exists !1 < < !2 such that
S \ P!1 ./
contains a closed, unbounded, subset of P!1 ./.
t
u
663
Remark 9.89. WRP .!2 / simply asserts that the set of counterexamples to WRP.!2 /
t
u
generates a normal, ne, ideal which is proper on each stationary subset of !1 .
One connection between these weakened versions is given in the following lemma.
Lemma 9.90. Assume that INS is !2 -saturated and that SRP .!2 / holds. Let
I P .P!1 .!2 //
be a normal ideal witnessing that SRP .!2 / holds. Suppose that
S1 P!1 .!2 /
and
S2 P!1 .!2 /
are each I -positive. Then there exists !1 < < !2 such that S1 \ P!1 ./ and
S2 \ P!1 ./ are each stationary in P!1 ./.
Proof. Let J1 P .!1 / be the set of A !1 such that
X 2 S1 j X \ !1 2 A 2 I:
It is easily veried that J1 is a normal (uniform) ideal and so since INS is !2 -saturated,
there exists A1 2 P .!1 / n INS such that
J1 D A !1 j A \ A1 2 INS :
Similarly there exists A2 2 P .!1 / n INS such that
J2 D A !1 j A \ A2 2 INS ;
where J2 is the set of A !1 such that
X 2 S2 j X \ !1 2 A 2 I:
Choose stationary sets B1 A1 and B2 A2 such that B1 \ B2 D ;. Dene
S P!1 .!2 / to be the set of X such that;
(1.1) X 2 S1 if X \ !1 2 B1 ,
(1.2) X 2 S2 if X \ !1 2 B2 .
It follows that for each stationary set T !1 ,
X 2 S j X \ !1 2 T I:
Thus since I witnesses SRP .!2 / there exists !1 < < !2 such that
S \ P!1 ./
is closed, unbounded, in P!1 ./. This implies that both S1 \ P!1 ./ and S2 \ P!1 ./
t
u
are stationary in P!1 ./.
The following lemmas show that while WRP .!2 / is a signicant weakening of
WRP.!2 /, it is plausible that SRP .!2 / is not as signicant a weakening of SRP.!2 /.
664
Lemma 9.91 (2@1 D @2 ). Assume WRP.!2 / and suppose that A !2 is a set such
that
H.!2 / LA:
Then
LA WRP .!2 /:
Proof. Let I be the normal ideal dened in LA, generated by sets S P!1 .!2 / such
that
(1.1) S 2 LA,
(1.2) for all !1 < < !2 , S \ P!1 ./ is not stationary in P!1 ./.
Since WRP.!2 / holds in V , I is contained in the ideal of nonstationary subsets
of P!1 .!2 /. Therefore I is a proper ideal in LA and so I witnesses WRP .!2 / in
LA.
t
u
The proof of Theorem 9.75 easily adapts, using Lemma 9.90 in place of
WRP2 .!2 /, to prove the following variation of Theorem 9.75.
Lemma 9.92. Assume SRP .!2 / and that INS is !2 -saturated. Then for each A !2 ,
t
u
A# exists.
As an immediate corollary we obtain a weak version of Theorem 9.87.
Corollary 9.93. Suppose that P .R/ is a pointclass, closed under continuous
and such that
L.; R/Pmax SRP .!2 /:
Then for each A 2 P .R/ \ L.; R/, A# 2 L.; R/.
t
u
The situation for WRP .!2 / seems analogous to that for Changs Conjecture.
L.R/ AD
HODL.R/ . / \ R D
and
L.R/G WRP .!2 /:
t
u
665
The proof of Theorem 9.82 actually proves the following theorem.

Theorem 9.95. Suppose that SRP .!2 / holds and that INS is !2 -saturated. Suppose
that G Coll.!; !2 / is V -generic. Then
V G PD:
t
u
Some information about SRP .!2 / is provided by Theorem 9.99. This theorem
places an upper bound on the consistency strength of the theory
ZFC C SRP .!2 / C INS is !2 -saturated
which is not far beyond the lower bound established by Theorem 9.95, and signicantly
below the known upper bounds for SRP.!2 /.
Theorem 9.99 involves the following determinacy hypothesis:
(ZFC) Let F be the club lter on P!1 .R/. Then
(1) F jL.R; F / is an ultralter,
(2) L.R; F / ADC .
We note the following corollary of Theorem 9.14.
Theorem 9.96. Let F be the club lter on P!1 .R/. Suppose that
L.R; F / AD:
C
t
u
Then L.R; F / AD .
The proof of Theorem 9.99 is relatively straightforward using the following theorem.
F jL.R; F /
is an ultralter and that
L.R; F / AD:
Let D
2 L.R;F /
.
.
1 /
Then:
(1) Suppose A R! and that A 2 M . The real game corresponding to A is

determined in L.R; F /.
(2) hM ; F \ M ; 2i 1 hL.R; F /; F \ L.R; F /; 2i.
Remark 9.98. Theorem 9.97 might seem to suggest that the hypothesis:
(ZFC) Let F be the club lter on P!1 .R/. Then
(1) F jL.R; F / is an ultralter,
(2) L.R; F / ADC ;
t
u
666
is very strong, close in strength to

ZF C ADR :
However the hypothesis is in fact equiconsistent with
ZFC C There are ! 2 many Woodin cardinals
and ADR is considerably stronger; ADR implies there are inner models in which there
are measurable cardinals which are limits of Woodin cardinals, and much more.
t
u
F jL.R; F /
L.R; F / AD:
Suppose that G Pmax is an L.R; F /-generic lter. Then
L.R; F /G SRP .!2 /:
t
u
We conjecture that Theorem 9.87 holds for SRP .!2 /. This conjecture is not refuted by Theorem 9.99. The explanation lies in the subtle, but important, distinction
between models of ADC of the form L.; R/ versus models of the form L.S; ; R/
where S is a set of ordinals and is a pointclass (closed under continuous preimages).
We discuss below an example which illustrates this point.
Let F be the club lter on P!1 .R/. Suppose that, as in Theorem 9.99,
F jL.R; F /
L.R; F / AD:
Thus
L.R; F / There is a normal ne measure on P!1 .R/:
The basic theory of ADC applied to L.R; F / shows that
L.R; F / D HODL.R;F / .R/:
Thus L.R; F / is of the form L.S; ; R/ with D ;.
However the basic theory of ADC also yields the following theorem.
L.; R/ ADC
and that
L.; R/ There is a normal ne measure on P!1 .R/:
Then
L.; R/ ADR :
t
u
Thus to obtain a model of ADC in which there is a normal ne measure on P!1 .R/,
the distinction between models of the form L.; R/ and of the form L.S; ; R/ is an
important one. We conjecture that the situation is similar for SRP .!2 /. Of course
for the other principles (SRP.!2 /, WRP.!2 /, WRP.2/ .!2 /, and WRP .!2 /) the distinction is not important. The reason is simply that these other principles are absolute
between V and L.P .!2 //.
9.6 Strong Changs Conjecture
9.6
667
Strong Changs Conjecture
We briey discuss the following strengthenings of Changs Conjecture. One of these

is Strong Changs Conjecture which is discussed in .Shelah 1998/.
Denition 9.101 (ZF C DC).
(1) Changs ConjectureC : Suppose that

F W !2<! ! !2 :
Then there exists

G W !2<! ! !2
such that for all X 2 P!1 .!2 /; if
GX <! X
then F X <! X and there exists Y 2 P!1 .!2 / such that
a) X Y ,
b) GY <! Y ,
c) X \ !1 D Y \ !1 .
(2) Strong Changs Conjecture: Suppose that M is a transitive set such that
M H.!3 / M
and that X M is a countable elementary substructure. Then there exists a
countable elementary substructure
Y M
such that
a) X Y ,
b) X \ !1 D Y \ !1 ,
c) X \ !2 Y \ !2 .
t
u
Remark 9.102. In general we shall only consider Strong Changs Conjecture in the
situation that
L.P .!2 // !2 -DC:
u
t
Lemma 9.103 (ZFC). The following are equivalent:
(1) Strong Changs Conjecture.
(2) There exists a function
F W H.!3 / ! H.!3 /
such that if X H.!3 / is countable and closed under F , then there exists
Y H.!3 / such that
668
a) F Y Y ,
b) X Y ,
c) X \ !1 D Y \ !1 ,
d) X \ !2 Y \ !2 .
(3) There exists a function
F W H.!3 / ! H.!3 /
such that if X H.!3 / is countable and closed under F , then there exists
Y H.!3 / such that
a) X Y ,
b) X \ !1 D Y \ !1 ,
c) X \ !2 Y \ !2 .
(4) There exists a transitive inner model N such that
a) P .!2 / N ,
b) N ZF C DC C Strong Changs Conjecture.
Proof. It is straightforward to show that (1) implies (2), the relevant observation is the
following. Suppose that M is a transitive set such that
M H.!3 / M:
Then there exist a countable elementary substructure
X0 M
and a function
F0 W H.!3 / ! H.!3 /
such that the following holds. Suppose that X H.!3 / is countable,
X0 \ H.!3 / X;
and X is closed under F0 . Then there exists
Y M
such that X0 Y and Y \ H.!3 / D X .
Thus it sufces to prove that (4) implies (3) and that (3) implies (1).
We rst prove that (3) implies (1), noting that for this implication one only needs
!2 -DC.
Let M be a transitive set such that
M H.!3 / M
and let X M be a countable elementary substructure. Since H.!3 / is denable in
M , there exists
F W H.!3 / ! H.!3 /
669
such that F 2 X and such that F witnesses (3). Let Y H.!3 / be a countable
elementary substructure closed under F such that
(1.1) X Y ,
(1.2) X \ !1 D Y \ !1 ,
(1.3) X \ !2 Y \ !2 ,
and let
Z D f .a/ j f W !2 ! M; f 2 X; and a 2 Y \ !2 <! :
Since M !2 M (and since !2 -DC holds),
(2.1) Z M ,
(2.2) Z \ !2 D Y \ !2 .
We nish by proving that (4) implies (3). Fix a transitive inner model N such that
(3.1) P .!2 / N ,
(3.2) N ZF C DC C Strong Changs Conjecture.
Let be a strong limit cardinal with
cof. / > jH.!3 /j;
and let M D N . Thus
M H.!3 / M
in N . Let
F W H.!3 / ! H.!3 /
be a function (in V ) such that if X H.!3 / is a countable set closed under F then
there exists
X M
such that X \ H.!3 / D X . We claim that F witnesses (3). Assume toward a
contradiction that this fails and let X H.!3 / be a countable set, closed under F ,
which witnesses that F fails to satisfy (3). However X 2 N (since H.!3 / N ) and so
by absoluteness and the choice of F , there exists a countable elementary substructure
X M
such that X 2 N and X \ H.!3 / D X . Therefore since
N Strong Changs Conjecture;
there exists a countable elementary substructure
Y M
such that
670
(4.1) X Y ,
(4.2) X \ !1 D Y \ !1 ,
(4.3) X \ !2 Y \ !2 .
Finally Y \ H.!3 / contradicts the choice of X .
t
u
The next lemma is an immediate consequence of the denitions.

Lemma 9.104 (ZF C !2 -DC). (1) Assume Strong Changs Conjecture holds. Then
Changs ConjectureC holds.
(2) Assume Changs ConjectureC holds. Then Changs Conjecture holds.
Proof. (2) is immediate, we prove (1). Fix a function
F W !2<! ! !2 :
Let M be a transitive set such that
(1.1) M P .!2 / M ,
(1.2) F 2 M .
The relevant claim is the following. Suppose that
Z !2 M
is denable from parameters in the structure hM; 2i. Then exists a function
f W !2 ! M
such that for all < !2 , if
b 2 M j .; b/ 2 Z ;;
then .; f .// 2 Z.
The existence of f follows from !2 -DC. By (1.1), f 2 M .
Fix a countable elementary substructure
Z0 M
such that F 2 Z0 . For each set X !2 let XZ0 M be the set of elements of M
which are denable in M with parameters from X [ Z0 .
The key point, which follows from the claim above, is that for each set X !2 ,
XZ0 M:
By !2 -DC there exists
G W !2<! ! !2
such that for all X !2
if and only if X ; and
XZ0 \ !2 D X \ !2
GX <! X:
Finally since Strong Changs Conjecture holds, the function G is as required.
t
u
671
The primary goal of this section is to sketch the construction of a model in which
./ holds and in which Strong Changs Conjecture holds. This improvement of Theorem 9.57 will require an even stronger determinacy hypothesis. The formulation involves the sequence h W < i which is discussed at the end of Section 9.1.
The proof of Theorem 9.114 requires the following theorems concerning models
of ADC .
Theorem 9.105. Suppose that P .R/ is a pointclass closed under continuous
preimages such that
L.; R/ ADC :
Let h W < i be the -sequence of L.; R/. Suppose that either
(i) is a limit ordinal, or
(ii) if D C 1 then < where
D max < j is a Suslin cardinal in L.; R/:
Then there is a surjection
W ! \ V ! P .R/ \ L.; R/
such that is 1 -denable in L.; R/ from R.
Remark 9.106.
t
u
(1) We shall only use Theorem 9.105 when

In this situation D and so the hypothesis of Theorem 9.105 is satised.

(2) Suppose that P .R/ is a pointclass closed under continuous preimages such
that
L.; R/ ADC :
We do not know if the conclusion of Theorem 9.105 must hold in general. However the assumption that both (i) and (ii) fail; i. e. that D C 1 where
is the largest Suslin cardinal in L.; R/, is far stronger than any determinacy
hypothesis we shall require in this book.
t
u
The second theorem we shall require generalizes Theorem 9.29. Note that as an
immediate corollary one obtains, with notation from the statement of Theorem 9.107,
that
.HODa /L.;R/ D .HOD/L.;R/ .a/;
for each
a 2 P!1 .! / \ V :
672
L.; R/ ADC :
Let D ./L.;R/ and suppose that
A ! \ V
is ordinal denable in L.; R/. Then there exist a formula .x; y/ and a set
b 2 P ./ \ HOD such that for all
a 2 ! \ V ;
a 2 A if and only if
La; b a; b:
t
u
Theorem 9.107 easily yields the following corollary which is what we shall require.
Corollary 9.108. Suppose P .R/ is a pointclass closed under continuous preimages such that
L.; R/ ADC :
Let D ./L.;R/ and suppose that
a 2 P!1 .! / \ V :
Suppose that
P 2 HODL.;R/ .a/
is a partial order which is countable in V and that X is a comeager set of lters in P
such that X is ordinal denable in L.; R/ with parameters from a [ a. Suppose
that g P is a lter which is HODL.;R/ .a/-generic. Then g 2 X .
Proof. Fix 2 Ord such that a 2 V , jV j D , and such that X is denable in
L .; R/ with parameters from a [ a.
Let Y be the set of all nite sequences
ha0 ; b0 ; P0 ; 0 ; g0 i
such that:
(1.1) a0 2 P!1 .! / \ V .
(1.2) P0 is a partial order.
(1.3) P0 2 H.!1 / \ HODL.;R/ .a0 /.
(1.4) b0 2 a0<! .
(1.5) Let
X0 D g j L .; R/ 0 a0 ; b0 ; g:
Then g0 2 X0 and X0 is a comeager set of lters in P0 .
673
Thus Y is ordinal denable and nonempty. Fix a reasonable coding of elements of

.P!1 .! / \ V / .! \ V /<! H.!1 / V! H.!1 /
by elements of ! \ V , this denes a surjection
W ! \ V ! .P!1 .! / \ V / .! \ V /<! H.!1 / V! H.!1 /:
All that we require of are the following.
(2.1) is ordinal denable (and a surjection).
(2.2) For each
t 2 .P!1 .! / \ V / .! \ V /<! H.!1 / V! H.!1 /
there exists a partial order Q 2 L.t /\H.!1 / such that if h Q is L.t /-generic
then there exists s 2 L.t /h such that .s/ D t .
Let
Z D s 2 ! \ V j .s/ 2 Y :
Thus Z is ordinal denable. By Theorem 9.107 there exist a formula .x; y/ and a set
B 2 P ./ \ HOD such that for all
s 2 ! \ V ;
s 2 Z if and only if
Fix b 2 a
<!
LB; s B; s:
and a formula such that

X D g j L .; R/ a; b; g:
Now suppose that g P is a lter which is HOD.a/-generic. Since

(3.1) B 2 HOD,
(3.2) X is a comeager set of lters in P ,
it follows by the denability of forcing that there must exist a partial order
Q 2 HOD.a/g \ H.!1 /
such that if h Q is HOD.a/g-generic then there exists s 2 HOD.a/gh such that
.s/ D ha; b; P ; ; gi:
Thus X must contain all HOD.a/-generic lters.
t
u
The next theorem which we shall require generalizes Theorem 9.7. Recall that if
P .R/ is a pointclass closed under continuous images, continuous preimages, and
complements, then we have associated to a transitive set M constructed from those
sets, X , which are coded by an element of , see Denition 2.18.
674
Let h W < i be the -sequence of L.; R/. For each < let
D sup < j is a Suslin cardinal
and let D A ! ! j w.A/ < . Then M 1 L.; R/.
t
u
Remark 9.110. By Theorem 9.19, the Suslin cardinals are closed below . Thus the
essential content of Theorem 9.109 is in the case that
< :
This is the case that is the largest Suslin cardinal below . For example if D 0
21 .
u
t
then D
We shall also need the following theorem concerning generic elementary embeddings. For this theorem it is useful to dene in the context of DC, a partial embedding,
jU , for each countably complete ultralter U .
Denition 9.111 (DC). Suppose that X ; and that U P .X / is a countably
complete ultralter. Let
jU W [LS j S Ord ! V
be dened as follows: Suppose that S Ord. Then
[jU .a/ j a 2 LS
is the transitive collapse of the ultrapower,
f W X ! LS j f 2 V =U;
and jU jLS W LS ! LjU .S / is the associated (elementary) embedding.
t
u
It is clear from the denition that jU .S / is unambiguously dened.

Suppose that G Coll.!; R/ is L.; R/-generic. Then there exists a generic elementary embedding
jG W L.; R/ ! N L.; R/G
such that:
(1) N ! N in L.; R/G;
(2) for each set S Ord with S 2 L.; R/,
jG jLS D j jLS
where 2 L.; R/ is the measure on P!1 .R/ generated by the closed unt
u
bounded subsets of P!1 .R/.
675
The last of the theorems which we shall need is in essence a corollary of Theorem 5.34.
Let h W < i be the -sequence of L.; R/. Then for each < ,
HODL.;R/ C1 is a Woodin cardinal:
t
u
Theorem 9.114(2) species conditions on a pointclass which imply that

L.; R/Pmax Changs ConjectureC :
We do not know if the hypothesis,
of Theorem 9.39 actually sufces. Nevertheless the requirements of Theorem 9.114(2)
are implied by a number of much simpler assertions. For example the assertion,
L.; R/ AD R C is Mahlo;
sufces.
D A ! ! j w.A/ <
and let
N D HODL.;R/ . /:
Let W be the set of < such that
(i) D ,
(ii) N is regular.
Suppose G0 Pmax is L.; R/-generic.
(1) Suppose that 2 W . Then
N G0 ZF C !2 -DC C Strong Changs Conjecture:
(2) Suppose that W is conal in . Then
L.; R/G0 Changs ConjectureC :
676
Proof. By Lemma 9.104, (2) is an immediate corollary of (1). We prove (1). Fix
D ./L.;R/ :
Let G1 Coll.!; R/ be L.; R/-generic and let
j1 W L.; R/ ! L. 1 ; R1 / L.; R/G1
be the associated embedding as given by Theorem 9.112. Thus for each set S Ord
with S 2 L.; R/,
j1 jLS D j jLS
where 2 L.; R/ is the measure on P!1 .R/ generated by the closed unbounded
subsets of P!1 .R/.
It is convenient to work in L.; R/G1 .
Fix G0 Pmax such that G0 is L.; R/-generic and such that G0 2 L.; R/G1 .
We begin by observing that a very weak version of Changs ConjectureC does hold.
Suppose that
F W !2<! ! !2
is a function in L.; R/G0 . Let CF be the set of 0 2 P!1 .!2 / such that there exists
1 2 P!1 .!2 / satisfying;
(1.1) 0 1 ,
(1.2) 0 \ !1 D 1 \ !1 ,
(1.3) F 1<! 1 .
Then in L.; R/G0 the set
P!1 .!2 / n CF
is not stationary in P!1 .!2 /; i. e. the set CF contains a closed unbounded subset.
This is an immediate corollary of Lemma 9.85 since by Theorem 9.39 and
Lemma 9.72,
L.; R/G0 WRP.!2 /:
In fact, there is a straightforward and more direct proof of this last claim which does
not require Theorem 9.39. We leave this as an exercise for the interested reader. The
alternate approach makes the generalization of this theorem to the Pmax variations we
have considered essentially routine.
Fix a surjection
W R ! H.!2 / \ L.R/
which is denable in the structure hH.!2 / \ L.R/; 2i; i. e. that is simple.
Suppose that 2 L.; R/Pmax is a term for a function
F W !2<! ! !2 :
We suppose that
1 W !2<! ! !2 :
Then since ADR holds in L.; R/ it follows that there exists a function
h W R<! ! R
677
such that:
(2.1) h 2 L.; R/;
(2.2) Suppose 2 P!1 .R/ and h <! . Then for a comeager set of lters
g Pmax \ , if p0 2 Pmax is a condition such that p0 < q for each q 2 g
then there exist a condition p 2 Pmax and a countable set Z !2 such that
a) \ !2 Z,
b) \ !1 D Z \ !1 ,
c) p Z <! Z,
d) p < p0 .
The function h is easily dened from a winning strategy for Player II in the game
dened as follows. The players alternate choosing pairs of reals dening a sequence
h.xi ; yi / W i < !i after ! many moves. As usual Player I begins by choosing .x0 ; y0 /.
The rules are that for each i < !, .xi / 2 Pmax and that
.xiC1 / < .xi /:
The rst player to violate the rules loses, otherwise Player II wins if for each p0 2 Pmax
such that
p0 < .xi /
for all i < !, there exist p 2 Pmax and a countable set Z !2 such that (2.2a)(2.2d)
hold where
D xi ; yi j i < !:
The game is determined in L.; R/ and by the weak version of Changs Conjecture
described above, Player I cannot have a winning strategy in this game.
We shall need to code terms in L.; R/Pmax for functions
F W !2<! ! !2
by sets of reals. Suppose that 2 L.; R/Pmax is a term such that
1 W !2<! ! !2 :
Let A
be the set of x 2 R such that .x/ D .p; s; / where
(3.1) p 2 Pmax ,
(3.2) s 2 !2<! ,
(3.3) < !2 ,
(3.4) p .s/ D .
678
We let A
be the code of . Let be the set of A 2 such that A D A
for some
term .
Fix a surjection
W ! !
such that is 1 denable in L.; R/, such a function exists by Theorem 9.105.
We now come to the rst key point. Suppose that A 2 and that 2 L.; R/Pmax
is a term such that A D A
. Suppose in addition that s 2 ! is such that both A and
R n A have scales which are 11 .B/ where B D .s/. Let
D R \ HODL.;R/ s:
The key claim is that for every lter
g HODL.;R/ s \ Pmax ;
if g is HODL.;R/ s-generic and if p0 2 Pmax is a condition such that p0 < q for each
q 2 g, then there exist a condition p 2 Pmax and a countable set Z !2 such that
(4.1) \ !2 Z,
(4.2) \ !1 D Z \ !1 ,
(4.3) p Z <! Z,
(4.4) p < p0 .
This follows from Corollary 9.108 by Theorem 9.109 and Theorem 9.105.
More generally suppose that X ! is a countable set such that every set
A 2 X has a scale in X . Let
D R \ HODL.;R/ .X /:
Let Y L.; R/Pmax be a countable set of terms such that
\ X D A
j 2 Y :
Finally suppose that
g HODL.;R/ .X / \ Pmax
is a lter which is HODL.;R/ .X /-generic and p0 2 Pmax is a condition such that
p0 < q for each q 2 g. Then there exist a condition p 2 Pmax and a countable set
Z !2 such that
(5.1) \ !2 Z,
(5.2) \ !1 D Z \ !1 ,
(5.3) for each term 2 Y ,
(5.4) p < p0 .
p Z <! Z;
679
This too follows from Corollary 9.108, using Theorem 9.109 and Theorem 9.105.
We now x 2 W . We rst apply this last claim in L. 1 ; R1 / where
j1 W L.; R/ ! L. 1 ; R1 / L.; R/G1
is the generic elementary embedding associated to G1 .
Let
HOD1 D j1 .HODL.;R/ /
and let
1 D j1 .s/ j s 2 ! \ L.; R/:
Let Y M be the set of all terms

2 M \ L.; R/Pmax
such that
1 W !2<! ! !2 :
Therefore D A
j 2 Y . Thus:
(6.1) Suppose p0 2 j1 .Pmax / is a condition such that p0 < q for each q 2 G0 .
Then there exist a condition p 2 j1 .Pmax / and a set
Z 2 j1 .P!1 .!2 //
such that
a) j1 !2L.;R/ Z,
b) !1L.;R/ D Z \ j1 .!1L.;R/ /,
c) for each term 2 Y ,
p j1 Z <! Z;
d) p < p0 .
Fix a set S Ord such that
LS D .HOD/L.;R/ :
Thus
N D L.S; ; R/:
By Theorem 9.36, since
D ./N
and since is regular in N ,
N G0 !2 -DC:
Let
M0 D f W !2<! ! !2 j f 2 N G0 [ H.!2 /N G0 :
Dene, in N G0 , a set
as follows. T is the set of
T P!1 .M0 /
2 P!1 .M0 /
such that there exists Z !2 such that
680
(7.1) \ !2 Z,
(7.2) \ !1 D Z \ !1 ,
(7.3) f Z <! Z for each function
f W !2<! ! !2
such that f 2 .
We caution, and emphasize, that in dening P!1 .M0 / we are working in N G0 . If
for example has countable conality in L.; R/ then
.P!1 .M0 //N G0 .P!1 .M0 //L.;R/G0 :
Let
S D P!1 .M0 / n T :
Suppose that
H0 Coll.!3 ; P .!2 //N G0
is N G0 -generic with H0 2 L.; R/G1 . Thus
N G0 H0 ZFC:
We prove that in N G0 H0 , the set S is not stationary in P!1 .M0 /. (1) follows from
this claim.
We shall need to use the stationary tower Q< as dened in N G0 H0 where
D C1 :
By Theorem 9.113, is a Woodin cardinal in
HODL.;R/
and so since N G0 H0 is a generic extension of HODL.;R/ for a partial order P
with
L.;R/
< ;
jP jHOD
it follows that is a Woodin cardinal in N G0 H0 .
Assume toward a contradiction that S is stationary in P!1 .M0 /. We shall prove
that this contradicts (6.1).
Let
GS .Q< /N G0 H0
be N G0 H0 -generic with S 2 GS and let
g0 Coll.!; P ./ \ N G0 H0 /
be an N G0 H0 -generic lter with
g0 2 N G0 H0 GS :
We choose GS 2 L.; R/G1 . Note that since
N D HODL.;R/ . /;
681
it follows that
N g0 ZFC:
Let
jS W N G0 H0 ! N .S/ N G0 H0 GS
be the associated generic elementary embedding. Thus since M0 D [S and since
S 2 GS ,
jS M0 2 jS .S/:
From the denition of S it follows that the following must hold in jS N G0 :
(8.1) There exists p0 2 jS .G0 / such that p0 < p for all p 2 G0 and such that for
all sets
Z 2 jS .P!1 .!2 //
if
a) jS !2L.;R/ Z,
b) !1L.;R/ D Z \ jS .!1L.;R/ /,
then there exist p 2 jS .G0 / and 2 Y such that
a) p jS . /Z <! 6 Z,
b) p < p0 .
This we will show contradicts (6.1).
Suppose A 2 . Let SA and TA be trees on ! such that in N ;
A D pTA D R n pSA :
1
Let TA D j1 .TA / D j .TA /. Note that TA1 2 N . We suppose that the set
.A; TA ; SA / j A 2 2 N G0 H0 ;
this is possible since N G0 H0 ZFC.
For each A 2 let A1 be the set pTA1 as dened in L.; R/G1 . The rst
key points are:
(9.1) A1 D j1 .A/;
(9.2) jS .A/ D j1 .A/ \ N .S/ .
Let hAi W i < !i be the N G0 H0 -generic enumeration of dened by g0
in the natural fashion. Dene in L.; R/G1 , B to be the set of x 2 R1 such that
x codes hxi W i < !i such that for each i < !, xi 2 pTA1i . Merging the trees
hTA1i W i < !i denes in a natural fashion a tree
T 1 2 N G0 H0 g0
such that in L.; R/G1 ;
B D pT 1 :
A key point is that the tree T 1 is < weakly homogeneous in N G0 H0 g0 and
that is a limit of Woodin cardinals in N G0 H0 g0 where D L.;R/ . Thus it
follows that:
682
(10.1) B \ N .S/ 2 N .S/ ,

(10.2) hH.!1 /N
.S/
; B \ N .S/ ; 2i hH.!1 /L.;R/G1 ; B; 2i.
Finally, (6.1) is naturally expressible in the structure

hH.!1 /L.;R/G1 ; B; 2i
by a formula in the language for this structure involving G0 . This is because
G0 2 H.!1 /L.;R/G1 :
However (8.1) is expressible in the structure
.S/
hH.!1 /N ; B \ N .S/ ; 2i;
by the negation of this formula since
.S/
G0 2 H.!1 /N :
This contradicts (10.2).
Thus, in N G0 H0 , the set S is not stationary in P!1 .M0 /. This proves that
N G0 H0 ZFC C Strong Changs Conjecture;
which is equivalent to (1).
t
u
As an immediate corollary of Theorem 9.114, we obtain the following improvement of Theorem 9.39.
D A ! ! j w.A/ <
and let
N D HODL.;R/ . /:
Let W be the set of < such that
(i) D ,
(ii) N is regular,
(iii) cof./ > !:
Suppose that 2 W , G0 Pmax is N -generic and that
H0 .Coll.!3 ; P .!2 ///N G0
is N G0 -generic. Then
(1) N G0 H0 ZFC C Martins MaximumCC .c/,
(2) N G0 H0 Strong Changs Conjecture.
N G0 ZF C Strong Changs Conjecture:
Further
P .!2 /N G0 D P .!2 /N G0 H0 :
There by Lemma 9.103,
N G0 H0 Strong Changs Conjecture:
t
u
9.7 Ideals on !2
9.7
683
Ideals on !2
Let JNS be the nonstationary ideal on !2 restricted to the ordinals of conality !. We

shall consider several potential properties of JNS which approximate !3 -saturation.
The rst is the property of !-presaturation. This notion (for an arbitrary normal ideal)
originates in Baumgartner and Taylor .1982/.
Denition 9.116. The ideal JNS is !-presaturated if for all S 2 P .!2 / n JNS and for
all sequences hDi W i < !i of subsets of P .!2 / n JNS such that for each i < !, Di is
predense in
.P .!2 / n JNS ; /I
there exists a stationary set T S such that for each i < !,
jA 2 Di j A \ T JNS j !2 :
t
u
For the denition of the second saturation property for JNS that we shall dene it is
convenient to dene the notion of a canonical function.
Denition 9.117. Suppose h W !2 ! !2 . Then h is a canonical function if there exists
an ordinal < !3 and a surjection
W !2 !
such that
!2 n < !2 j f ./ D ordertype./
t
u
is not stationary in !2 .
Denition 9.118. The ideal JNS is weakly presaturated if for every function
f W !2 ! !2
and for every set S 2 P .!2 / n JNS , there exists a canonical function h W !2 ! !2 such
that
2 S j f ./ h./ JNS :
t
u
Remark 9.119. Suppose that JNS is weakly presaturated and that
G .P .!2 / n JNS ; /
is V -generic. Let
j W V ! .M; E/ V G
be the associated generic elementary embedding. Then j.!2V / D !3V .
t
u
It is a theorem of Shelah that JNS is not presaturated. This is a corollary of the

following lemma of .Shelah 1986/.
684
Lemma 9.120 (Shelah). Suppose that is a regular cardinal and that P is a partial
order such that
V P cof. / < cof.j j/:
Then C is not a cardinal in V P .
t
u
Theorem 9.121 (Shelah). JNS is not presaturated.

Proof. Let
P D .P .!2 / n JNS ; /:
Assume toward a contradiction that JNS is presaturated and let G P be V -generic.
Let
j W V ! M V G
be the associated generic elementary embedding. Since JNS is presaturated in V ,
(1.1) j.!2V / D !3V ,
(1.2) !1V D !1V G ,
(1.3) N !1 N in V G.
By (1.3),
!3V D !2V G :
In V G, N is the the V -ultrapower of V by a V -normal, V -ultralter disjoint from
V
JNS
and so cof.!2V / D ! in N . Therefore
! D .cof.!2V //V G < .cof.j!2V j//V G D !1V G :
By Lemma 9.120, !3V is not a cardinal in V G which is a contradiction.
t
u
In contrast, by the results of .Foreman, Magidor, and Shelah 1988/ if is supercompact and if G Coll.!2 ; < / is V -generic then in V G, JNS is !-presaturated.
The same theorem is true with only the assumption that is a Woodin cardinal.
If GCH holds then JNS is not weakly presaturated. In fact if GCH holds then there
is a single function
f W !2 ! !2
such that if G .P .!2 / n JNS ; / is V -generic then !3V < j.f /.!2V /.
An even easier argument proves the following lemma which shows that Martins
Maximum does not imply that JNS is weakly presaturated.
Lemma 9.122. Assume that JNS is weakly presaturated. Suppose that N is a transitive
inner model containing the ordinals such that
(i) N ZFC,
(ii) !2V is inaccessible in N .
Let D !2V . Then . C /N < !3 .
9.7 Ideals on !2
685
Proof. Dene
f W !2 ! !2
by f ./ D .jjC /N .
Let
D ..!2V /C /N . For each <
let
W !
be a surjection such that 2 N . Dene
f W !2 ! !2
Thus for each <
there exists a closed unbounded set C !2 such that
f ./ < f ./
for all 2 C .
Suppose G .P .!2 / n JNS ; / is V -generic and let
j W V ! M V G
be the associated generic elementary embedding. Thus for each <
,
D j.f /.!2V / < j.f /.!2V /:
Therefore
j.f /.!2V / < j.!2V / D !3V :
t
u
We dene a natural strengthening of the notion that JNS is weakly presaturated.

This we shall dene for an arbitrary normal ideal I P .!2 /, though we shall be
primarily interested only in those ideals which extend JNS . This denition requires the
obvious generalization of Denition 4.13.
Denition 9.123. Suppose that U .P .!2 //V is a uniform ultralter which is setgeneric over V . The ultralter U is V -normal if for all functions
f W !2V ! !2V
with f 2 V , either
< !2V j f ./ 2 U
or there exists < !2V such that

< !2V j f ./ D 2 U:
t
u
We now generalize the notion of a semi-saturated ideal to ideals on !2 .

Denition 9.124. Suppose that I P .!2 / is a normal uniform ideal. The ideal I is
semi-saturated if the following holds.
Suppose that U is a V -normal ultralter which is set generic over V and such that
U P .!2 / n I:
Then Ult.V; U / is wellfounded.
t
u
686
Remark 9.125. In light of Shelahs theorem that no normal ideal extending JNS can be
presaturated, semi-saturation (together with !-presaturation) is perhaps the strongest
saturation property that such an ideal can have. It implies, for example, that every
t
u
normal ideal which extends JNS is precipitous and much more.
The next theorem, which is essentially an immediate consequence of the denitions, shows, in essence, that semi-saturated ideals on !2V in V correspond to semisaturated ideals on !1V g in V g where g Coll.!; !1V / is V -generic. We state the
theorem only for the nonstationary ideal, the general version is similar.
Theorem 9.126. Suppose that g Coll.!; !1 / is V -generic. The following are
equivalent.
(1) V The nonstationary ideal on !2 is semi-saturated.
(2) V g The nonstationary ideal on !1 is semi-saturated.
t
u
Theorem 9.127 and Lemma 9.128 correspond to Lemma 4.27 and Corollary 4.28
respectively. The proofs are similar, we leave the details to the reader.
Theorem 9.127. Suppose that I P .!2 / is a normal uniform ideal such that the
ideal I is semi-saturated. Suppose that U is a V -normal ultralter which is set generic
over V and such that
U P .!2 / n I
and let
j W V ! M V U
be the associated embedding. Then j.!2V / D !3V .
t
u
The next lemma is an immediate corollary of Theorem 9.127. This lemma shows,
for example, that if JNS is semi-saturated then every function
f W !2 ! !2
is bounded by a canonical function modulo JNS . Thus ! .!2 / implies that JNS is not
semi-saturated and so by Shelahs theorem on ! .!2 / .Shelah 2008/, if 2!1 D !2
then JNS is not semi-saturated.
Lemma 9.128. Suppose that I P .!2 / is a normal uniform ideal such that the
ideal I is semi-saturated. Suppose that
f W !2 ! !2 :
Then there exists a canonical function
h W !2 ! !2
such that
< !2 j h./ < f ./ 2 I:
t
u
9.7 Ideals on !2
687
Corollary 9.129. Assume 2!1 D !2 . Then JNS is not semi-saturated.
t
u
If ./ holds then every (normal) semi-saturated ideal on !2 must properly extend
JNS . Therefore we shall only be considering ideals which properly extend JNS but we
note that there are several obvious questions concerning the general case of arbitrary
normal ideals on !2 , with no restriction on 2!1 .
(1) Can JNS be semi-saturated?
(2) Is is possible for every function
f W !2 ! !2
to be bounded by a canonical function pointwise on a closed unbounded set?
(3) Can the nonstationary ideal on !2 be semi-saturated?
(4) Let I be the nonstationary ideal on !2 restricted to the ordinals of conality !1 .
Can the ideal I be semi-saturated?
(5) Suppose that there exists a normal uniform ideal
I P .!2 /
such that I is semi-saturated and contains JNS . Suppose that J P .!2 / is a
normal uniform semi-saturated ideal. Must
JNS J
Remark 9.130. (1) It is plausible that if there is a huge cardinal, then in a generic
extension of V one can arrange that every function
f W !2 ! !2
is bounded pointwise on an !1 -club by a canonical function. Granting this, a
negative answer to the rst question would in effect be an interesting dichotomy
theorem.
(2) The likely answer to the second question is no. Theorem 9.131 shows that if
P .!2 /# exists and if the nonstationary ideal on !2 is semi-saturated, then a
generalization of Theorem 3.19(4) to !2 must hold. This seems impossible.
(3) Let I be the nonstationary ideal on !2 restricted to the ordinals of conality !1 .
It is not known whether the ideal I can be !3 -saturated. This is a well known
problem. Question (3) is a weaker question, possibly signicantly weaker as the
t
u
results concerning JNS show.
Theorem 9.131. Assume P .!2 /# exists. Let I be the nonstationary ideal on !2 . Suppose that I is semi-saturated and that C !2 is closed and unbounded. Then there
exists a set A !1 such that
j !1 < < !2 and L A is admissible C:
688
Proof. Fix C !2 such that C is closed and unbounded in !2 .

Suppose that g Coll.!; !1 / is V -generic. Then by Theorem 9.126,
V g INS is semi-saturated:
Further since P .!2 /# exists in V ,
V g P .!1 /# exists:
Thus by Theorem 3.19 and Theorem 4.29, there exists x 2 RV g , such that
Let A !1 code a term for x. It follows that
j !1 < < !2 and L A is admissible C:
t
u
The next theorem, which is a corollary of Theorem 9.126, shows that if the nonstationary ideal on !2 is semi-saturated then one formulation of the Effective Continuum
Hypothesis must hold.
Theorem 9.132. Let I be the nonstationary ideal on !2 . Suppose that I is semisaturated. Suppose that M is a transitive inner model containing the reals such that
M ZF C DC C AD
and such that every set X 2 P .R/ \ M is weakly homogeneously Suslin in V . Then
M !2 :
Proof. Assume toward a contradiction that
M > !2 :
Let A 2 P .R/ \ M be such that
!2
11 .A/
and let 2 Ord be least such that
L .A; R/ ZF C DC:
We note that the existence of is immediate since (trivially) there must exist a
measurable cardinal in V . By the choice of A,
!2 < :
Fix a partial map
W R ! !2
such that:
(1.1) 2 L .A; R/;
(1.2) .t / j t 2 dom./ D !2 ;
1
(1.3) .x; y/ j .x/ .y/ 2
1 .A/;
1
(1.4) Suppose Z dom./ is
1 , then
.t / j t 2 Z
is bounded in !2 .
Such a function exists by Steels theorem, Theorem 3.40.
9.7 Ideals on !2
689
By the minimality of , every element of L .A; R/ is denable in L .A; R/ with

parameters from A [ R. Let B be the set of x 2 R such that x codes a pair
..x0 ; x1 /; t / such that .x0 ; x1 / is a formula, t 2 R and such that
L .A; R/ A; t :
Thus B naturally codes L .A; R/ and B 2 M .
Let TA be a weakly homogeneous tree such that A D pTA and let TB be a weakly
homogeneous tree such that B D pTB . Let T be a weakly homogeneous tree such
that dom./ D pT .
Suppose that g Coll.!; !1 / is V -generic. Then by Theorem 9.126,
V g INS is semi-saturated:
Let (in V g),
Ag D pTA
and
Bg D pTB :
Let g be the least ordinal such that
Lg .Ag ; Rg / ZF;
where Rg D .R/V g .
In V , every set which is projective in B is weakly homogeneously Suslin. Therefore by Lemma 2.28 it follows that in V g, Bg codes Lg .Ag ; Rg / and that the natural
map
jg W L .A; R/ ! Lg .Ag ; Rg /
is elementary. Let g D jg ./. Thus
g W dom.g / ! jg .!2V /
is a surjection and dom.g / D pT V g . Let
X D jg ./ j < !2V :
Thus in V g, jX j D !1 . However in V g:
(2.1) Lg .Ag ; Rg / ZF C DC C AD;
(2.2) X is a bounded subset of Lg .Ag ;Rg / ;
(2.3) Every set D 2 P .Rg / \ Lg .Ag ; Rg / is weakly homogeneously Suslin;
(2.4) INS is semi-saturated.
Therefore by Theorem 4.32 there exists a set
Y 2 Lg .Ag ; Rg /
such that
690
(3.1) X Y jg .!2V /,
(3.2) jY j D !1 in Lg .Ag ; Rg /.
Let
D sup.X /:
By (3.1) and (3.2), is singular in Lg .Ag ; Rg / and so since by the elementarity of
jg , jg .!2V / is a regular cardinal in Lg .Ag ; Rg /, it follows that
< jg .!2V /:
Fix t 2 jg .dom.// such that
Let 2 V
in V ,
Coll.!;!1 /
g .t / D :
be a term for t . We may suppose without loss of generality that
1 2 dom.g / and g ./ D supjg ./ j < !2V ;

which implies that in V ,
1 2 pT :
We now work in V . Fix
2 Ord such that
V ZFC
and such that
; TB ; T 2 V :
Let
Z0 V
; TB ; T 2 Z0 :
For each !1 let
Z D Z D f .s/ j f 2 Z0 and s 2 <! :
Thus hZ W !1 i is an elementary chain with
!1 Z!1 V :
For each !1 let M be the transitive collapse of Z and let . ; T / be the image
of .; T / under the collapsing map.
M
Suppose that < !1 and suppose g Coll.!; !1 / is M -generic. Let tg be the
interpretation of by g. Thus tg 2 pT and so necessarily tg 2 pT ; i. e.
tg 2 dom./:
For each < !1 let
This Y is
1
Y D pT :
and
Y D pT pT D dom./:
9.7 Ideals on !2
691
Thus by (1.4) there exists < !2 such that

.z/ <
for all z 2 Y .
Therefore there exists t0 2 dom./ such that
.z/ < .t0 /
for all z 2 [Y j < !1 .
However
1 2 dom.g / and g ./ D supjg ./ j < !2V ;
and so
1 g .t0 / < g ./:
Note that !1 Z!1 and so
1 2 pT!1 :
This is a contradiction for choose

Z0 V
such that Z0 is countable and such that Z0 ; t0 2 Z0 . Thus
hM W !1 i 2 Z0 :
Let M0 be the transitive collapse of Z0 and let T0 be the image of T!1 under the
M
collapsing map and let 0 be the image of . Finally suppose that g Coll.!; !1 0 /
is M0 -generic and let tg be the interpretation of 0 by g . Thus tg 2 dom./ and
by absoluteness,
.t0 / < .tg /:
But tg 2 pT0 and T0 D T where
M0
D !1
D Z0 \ !1 :
Therefore tg 2 [Y j < !1 which contradicts the choice of t0 .
t
u
There are three closely related results which improve slightly on the results of
.Foreman and Magidor 1995/; these are stated as Theorem 9.134, Theorem 9.135
and Theorem 9.136 below. These theorems are straightforward corollaries of Theorem 10.62, Theorem 10.63, and Lemma 10.65. We leave the details to the interested
reader.
Remark 9.133. (1) The condition (iii) of Theorem 9.134 is trivially implied by, for
example, the hypothesis that 2@2 < @! .
(2) The condition (ii), that the ideal I be !-presaturated, is certainly easier to
achieve than the condition that I be presaturated. If is a Woodin cardinal
and
G Coll.!2 ; </
692
is V -generic, then in V G, the nonstationary ideal on !2 is precipitous and JNS

is !-presaturated.
By Shelahs theorem, Theorem 9.121, JNS cannot be presaturated and by Theorem 9.136 one cannot hope to provably strengthen (a). For example if
12 D !2
in V and there is a measurable cardinal above , then in V G there can be no
normal, uniform, !-presaturated ideal on !2 which does not contain JNS . In fact
if I 2 V G is any normal uniform ideal which contains the set
S! .!2 / D < !2 j cof./ D !;
then forcing over V G with the quotient algebra P .!2 /=I must collapse !1 . u
t
Theorem 9.134. Suppose that I P .!2 / is a normal, uniform, ideal such that
(i) < !2 j cof./ D ! 2 I ,
(ii) I is !-presaturated,
(iii) P .!2 /=I is @! -cc.
Suppose that M is a transitive inner model containing the reals such that
M ZF C DC C AD
and such that every set X 2 P .R/ \ M is weakly homogeneously Suslin in V . Then
M !2 .
t
u
Proof. By Lemma 10.65(2) and Theorem 10.63.
Theorem 9.135. Assume that there is a measurable cardinal and that there is a normal, uniform, !3 -saturated ideal on !2 . Then 12 < !2 .
t
u

Theorem 9.136. Assume that there is a measurable cardinal and suppose that
I P .!2 /
is a normal uniform ideal such that < !2 j cof./ D ! 2 I . Suppose that

2@2 D @3 and that
.!1 /V D .!1 /V
where P D .P .!2 / n I; /. Then 12 < !2 .

t
u
9.7 Ideals on !2
693
We end this chapter with two consistency results which can be obtained. As we
have previously noted, .Shelah 2008/ proves that ! .!2 / follows from 2!1 D !2 and
so in particular if 2!1 D !2 then by Theorem 9.127, JNS cannot be semi-saturated. Our
original motivation for obtaining the kind of results below concerned the consistency
strength of
ZF C ADR C is regular:
The point is that the existence of a !3 -saturated ideal on !2 seems likely to be quite
strong beyond the level of superstrong cardinals and so obtaining approximations
starting from a model of ADR in which is regular might provide evidence that this
theory is also quite strong with consistency strength beyond that of superstrong cardinals. However recent results of .Sargsyan 2009/ have shown that the consistency
strength of
is below that of a Woodin cardinal which is a limit of Woodin cardinals.
L.S; ; R/ AD R C is regular:
Suppose G0 Pmax is L.S; ; R/-generic. Suppose
H0 Coll.!3 ; H.!3 //L.S;;R/G0
is L.S; ; R/G0 -generic. Then in L.S; ; R/G0 H0 the following hold.
(1) Martins MaximumCC .c/.
(2) JNS is precipitous.
(3) JNS is weakly presaturated.
t
u
L.S; ; R/ AD R C is regular:
Suppose that G0 Pmax is L.S; ; R/-generic and that
H0 Coll.!3 ; H.!3 //L.S;;R/G0
is L.S; ; R/G0 -generic. Then in L.S; ; R/G0 H0 :
(1) Martins MaximumCC .c/.
(2) For each stationary set S < !2 j cof./ D ! there is a normal uniform
ideal I P .!2 / such that
a) JNS I and S I ,
b) I is semi-saturated.
t
u
Chapter 10
Further results
One fundamental open question is the consistency of Martins Maximum with the axiom ./. The results of Section 10.2 strongly suggest that Martins Maximum does not
imply ./ even in the context of large cardinal assumptions. The situation for Martins
MaximumCC seems more subtle, these issues are discussed briey at the beginning of
Section 10.2.4.
However we shall also prove in Section 10.2 that the axiom ./ is independent of
Martins MaximumCC .c/. This will follow from Theorem 9.39 and Theorem 10.70.
Nevertheless the axiom ./ can be characterized in terms of a bounded form of
Martins Maximum, this is main result of Section 10.3. Such variations of Martins
Maximum were introduced by Goldstern and Shelah.
Theorem 2.53 shows that forcing axioms can be reformulated as reection principles. A natural question therefore is whether Martins Maximum is implied by the
axiom ./ together with some natural reection principle such as the principle SRP of
Todorcevic.
Theorem 10.1 (Larson (Martins Maximum)). Suppose that axiom ./ holds. Then
there is an .!1 ; 1/-distributive partial order P such that
V P ZFC C SRP C :Martins Maximum C Axiom./:
t
u
A stronger reection principle is Martins Maximum./ where is the class of

.!; 1/-distributive partial orders P such that
.INS /V D .INS /V
\ V:
This special case of Martins Maximum has been studied by Q. Feng, he denes this as
the Conal Branch Principle (CBP). It is easily veried that CBP implies SRP.
Theorem 10.2 (Larson (Martins Maximum)). Suppose that axiom ./ holds. Then
there is an .!1 ; 1/-distributive partial order P such that
V P ZFC C CBP C :Martins Maximum C Axiom./:
t
u
10.1 Forcing notions and large cardinals

The question of the relationship between Martins MaximumCC and the axiom ./
leads to a deeper question. This concerns what can be (provably) accomplished (using
large cardinals) by forcing notions which preserve !1 . If one drops the requirement that
695
the forcing notions preserve !1 then once there are Woodin cardinals then essentially
anything can be accomplished (at least if V is any of the current inner models). We
give some denitions and state without proof some results relevant to this somewhat
general question.
Suppose M is a countable transitive model of ZFC. Suppose that is a Woodin
cardinal in M and that EQ D hE W < i is a weakly coherent Doddage in M such
that the sequence is in M and the sequence witnesses that is a Woodin cardinal in M .
More precisely:
(1) For each < , E is a set of . ; /-extenders which are -strong and of
hypermeasure type; i. e. for each E 2 E , cp.jE / D and jE . / .
(2) is strongly inaccessible and < if < < .
(3) E 2 M and EQ 2 M .
Q \ V D EQ \ V for each E 2 E .
(4) (Weak coherence) jE .E/
(5) For each A 2 M; A M there exists < such that for all
<
jE .A/ \
D A \
for some extender E 2 [E j < with cp.jE / D .

Here for each extender E 2 M ,
jE W M ! N
is the corresponding elementary embedding.
Q is a partial function
An iteration scheme for .M; E/
I W H.!1 / ! H.!1 /
Q of limit length and if T is consuch that if T is a countable iteration tree on .M; E/
sistent with I then T is in the domain of I and I.T / is a conal wellfounded branch
for T . T is consistent with I if for every limit ordinal < length.T /, T j is in the
domain of I and I.T j/ is the branch dened by T j. C 1/. We also require that for
Q which are consistent with I , every model occurring in
all iteration trees T on .M; E/
T is wellfounded.
Remark 10.3. (1) There are various notions of coherence one can use. The notion
used here is a weakening of the conventional notion.
(2) Note that if is a Woodin cardinal then the trivial Doddage is weakly coherent and witnesses that is a Woodin cardinal. For the trivial Doddage
h. ; / W < i is the standard enumeration and E is the set of all . ; /extenders which are -strong (and of hypermeasure type). The standard enumeration is dened by using the lexicographical order on hmax.; /; ; i.
696
10 Further results
(3) We restrict to iteration trees which are nonoverlapping and normal in the sense
of .Martin and Steel 1994/. The notion of an iteration scheme is dened there in
terms of winning strategies in iteration games.
t
u
We say that an iteration scheme I is < -weakly homogeneously Suslin if the associated set of reals I is < -weakly homogeneously Suslin. The set of reals I is
dened by xing a surjection W R ! H.!1 / which is denable in hH.!1 /; 2i. I is
the preimage of I under . The canonical choice for is 1 denable in hH.!1 /; 2i.
Denition 10.4. Weakly Homogeneous Iteration Hypothesis (WHIH):
(1) There is a proper class of Woodin cardinals.
(2) There exist a Woodin cardinal and a weakly coherent Doddage
hE W and is inaccessible
then there exists a countable elementary substructure
X V
such that
Q 2 X,
a) ; E
b) hM; EQM i has a iteration scheme which is 1 -homogeneously Suslin,
where M is the transitive collapse of X and EQM is the image of EQ under the
collapsing map.
u
t
WHIH holds in all of the current inner models in which there is a proper class of
Woodin cardinals.
The existence of 1 -weakly homogeneously Suslin iteration schemes for a countQ trivializes the question of what can happen in set generic extenable structure hM; Ei
sions of M . If M elementarily embeds into a rank initial segment of V then similarly
essentially anything can happen in some generic extension of V .
Q is a countable structure where EQ is a weakly coherent
Theorem 10.5. Suppose hM; Ei
Doddage in M witnessing that is a Woodin cardinal for some 2 M . Suppose there
Q which is 1 -weakly homogeneously Suslin. Then
is a an iteration scheme for hM; Ei
any sentence true in a rank initial segment of V is true in a rank initial segment of a
set generic extension of M .
t
u
Theorem 10.6. Suppose there are ! 2 many Woodin cardinals less than . Suppose
Q is a countable structure where EQ is a weakly coherent Doddage in M witnesshM; Ei
ing that is a Woodin cardinal for some 2 M . Suppose there is a an iteration scheme
Q which is < -weakly homogeneously Suslin. Then there is a set R such
for hM; Ei
that M. / is a symmetric extension of M for set forcing and
t
u
M. / ADC :
697
Since the symmetric extension M. / is a model of ADC , the analysis of both Pmax
and Qmax can be carried out in M. /. This yields the following corollary.
Theorem 10.7. Suppose there are ! 2 many Woodin cardinals less than . Suppose
Q is a countable structure where EQ is a weakly coherent Doddage in M witnesshM; Ei
ing that is a Woodin cardinal for some 2 M . Suppose there is a an iteration scheme
Q which is < -weakly homogeneously Suslin. Then:
for hM; Ei
(1) There is a set generic extension of M in which the axiom ./ holds.
(2) There is a set generic extension of M in which the nonstationary ideal on !1 is
t
u
!1 -dense.
As a corollary we obtain, for example:
Theorem 10.8 (WHIH). There exists a partial order P such that
V P ./:
t
u
We now generalize the notion of an iteration scheme to allow the use of generic
elementary embeddings in the construction of the iterations.
Suppose M is a countable transitive model of ZFC. Suppose that 0 ; 1 are Woodin
cardinals in M with 0 < 1 . Suppose hE W < 1 i is a weakly coherent Doddage of
sets of extenders in M1 such that the sequence is in M and the sequence witnesses that
Q is a function
1 is a Woodin cardinal in M . A mixed iteration scheme for hM; 0 ; Ei
which assigns to each countable generic iteration
hM ; G ; j; W < i
an iteration scheme for .M ; EQ / where:
(1) M0 D M , G0 is M -generic for the stationary tower forcing P<0 dened in M .
(2) j W M ! M is a commuting system of elementary embeddings.
(3) G is M -generic for the stationary tower forcing j0; .P<0 /.
(4) MC1 is the generic ultrapower of M given by G and j;C1 is the corresponding elementary embedding.
(5) For each limit ordinal 0 < , M is the direct limit of hM W < i.
Q
(6) EQ D j0; .E/.
We can view a mixed iteration scheme as a partial function
I W H.!1 / ! H.!1 /:
698
10 Further results
We formulate a mixed iteration hypothesis (MIH) in the following denition.

Denition 10.9 (MIH).
(2) There exist a Woodin cardinals 0 < 1 and a weakly coherent Doddage
EQ D hE W < 1 i
which witnesses 1 is a Woodin cardinal such that if 1 < and if is inaccessible then there exists a countable elementary substructure,
X V
containing 0 ; 1 and EQ such that
hM; 0M ; EQM i
has a mixed iteration scheme which is 1 -homogeneously Suslin. Here M is
Q under the
the transitive collapse of X and .0M ; EQM / is the image of .0 ; E/
collapsing map.
t
u
A variant of MIH which we denote by MIH is obtained by modifying part (2)
replacing 0 by !1 , adding the assumption that the nonstationary ideal on !1 is precipitous and considering mixed iterations where rst one iterates by generic ultrapowers
using the nonstationary ideal instead of using the stationary tower.
All of the large cardinals within reach of the current inner model theory are (relatively) consistent with the existence of a wellordering of the reals which is
21 .1 -WH/,
over the base theory
ZFC C There is a proper class of Woodin cardinals:
A natural conjecture is that any large cardinal with an inner model theory is consistent
2 1
with a
1 . -WH/ wellordering of the reals. This can be proved with certain general
assumptions on the inner models.
2 1
t
Theorem 10.10 (MIH or MIH ). There is no
1 . -WH/ wellordering of the reals. u
A weaker requirement is simply that for all x 2 R, x is OD if and only if there

exists A 2 1 such that x is OD in L.A; R/ This, which essentially asserts there is a
good wellordering of the reals in HOD, is not violated by MIH.
It may seem unlikely that any reasonable large cardinal hypothesis will actually
imply MIH. Nevertheless one can show that MIH is consistent. In fact there are fairly
Q which
general circumstances under which there exist countable structures hM; 0 ; Ei
do have mixed iteration schemes that are 1 -homogeneously Suslin.
Lemma 10.11. Assume there is a proper class of Woodin cardinals. Then there is a
Q for which there is a mixed iteration scheme which is
countable structure hM; 0 ; Ei
1
-homogeneously Suslin.
t
u
699
A more general version of this is given in the next theorem.

Theorem 10.12. Assume there is a proper class of measurable cardinals which are
limits of Woodin cardinals. Then for each ordinal there exists a transitive inner
model containing the ordinals such that
(1) V N ,
(2) N ZFC C MIH,
WH N
WH
(3) .1
/ 1
.
t
u
The existence of 1 -homogeneously Suslin mixed iteration schemes for a countable

Q trivializes the question of what can happen in set generic extenstructure hM; 0 ; Ei
sions of M which preserve !1M .
Q is a countable structure for which there is a
Theorem 10.13. Suppose hM; 0 ; Ei
1
mixed iteration scheme which is -homogeneously Suslin. Then any sentence true
in a rank initial segment of V is true in a rank initial segment of a set generic extension
t
u
of M which preserves stationary subsets of !1M .
Thus for example; assuming MIH anything true in a rank initial segment of a set
generic extension of V is true in a rank initial segment of a set generic extension of V
which preserves stationary subsets of !1 . This also follows from MIH .
By Theorem 10.7:
Theorem 10.14. Assume MIH or MIH . Then:
(1) There is a set generic extension of V preserving stationary subsets of !1 in which
the axiom ./ holds.
(2) There is a set generic extension of V preserving stationary subsets of !1 in which
t
u
the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !1 -dense.
Posets which preserve stationary subsets of !1 are semiproper assuming Martins
Maximum.
Theorem 10.15 (MIH or MIH ). Assume Martins MaximumCC . Then the axiom ./
holds.
t
u
We end this section with three more theorems. The rst two give fairly general examples of situations where essentially any sentence can be forced to hold by stationary
set preserving forcing notions. The third gives a specic situation where this fails.
Suppose that S !1 is a stationary set. Let P .S / be the partial order of countable closed subsets of S ordered by extension (Harrington forcing). Suppose that
X P .!1 / n INS . Let
Y
Q.X / D
P .S /
S2X
700
10 Further results
where the product is computed with countable support. If the normal lter generated
by X is proper then Q.X / is .!; 1/-distributive.
Theorem 10.16. Suppose that there is a proper class of Woodin cardinals. Suppose
that is a measurable cardinal, is a normal ultralter on and that
G Coll.!; </ Q. /
is V -generic. Suppose that is a 2 sentence and that there exists a partial order
P 2 V such that
V P :
Then there exists a partial partial order Q 2 V G such that
Q
(1) .INS /V G D V G \ .INS /V G ,

(2) V GQ .
t
u

preimages such that
L.; R/ ZF C DC C ADR
and such that every set in is 1 -homogeneously Suslin. There exists a countable set
a0 !1 such that
L.;R/ a
0
a0 !1HOD
and such that the following holds where
M D HODL.;R/ a0 :
Suppose that is a 2 -sentence such that for some partial order P ,
V P :
Then there exists a countable set a !1 such that
(1) .INS /M D M \ .INS /M a ,
(2) M a .
t
u
Note that the set a indicated in Theorem 10.17 is set generic over M (by Vopenkas
Theorem).
preimages such that
L.; R/ ZF C DC C ADR :
There exists a 2 -sentence such that the following hold where
M D HODL.;R/
and where D .0 /L.;R/ .
10.2 Coding into L.P .!1 //
701
(1) M a for some countable set a !1 .

(2) Suppose that G Coll.!; / is V -generic and b is a set in M G such that
M b :
Let F be the closed, unbounded, lter on .!1 /M b as computed in M b. Then
for each x 2 .R/M b ,
F \ .M xF /
t
u
is an ultralter.

In this section we dene three Pmax variations for obtaining extensions in which previously specied sets of reals are coded into the structure
hH.!2 /; 2i:
Q.X/
max ,
One of these variations,

is actually a variation of Qmax and in the resulting
extension, the nonstationary ideal is !1 -dense. This we use to show that it is possible
for the nonstationary ideal to be !1 -dense simultaneously with, for example,
R# 2 L.P .!1 //:
.;/
The second, Pmax
, is a special case of the corresponding variation of Pmax . One appli.;/
cation of Pmax will be the construction of a model in which Martins MaximumCC .c/
holds and in which the axiom ./ fails; in fact we shall show that

hH.!2 /; Y; 2 W Y R; Y 2 L.R/i
does not imply ./.
.;;B/
The third variation, Pmax
, involves a parameter B R. The main application of
this variation will be to show that given Y0 R with Y0 2 L.R/,
hH.!2 /; INS ; Y0 ; 2i
does not imply ./.
These results show that Theorem 4.76, which characterizes when ./ holds in terms
of absoluteness, is optimal in that the structure
hH.!2 /; INS ; Y; 2 W Y R; Y 2 L.R/i
cannot be simplied in any essential way.
702
10 Further results
One obvious approach to coding information into L.P .!1 // is indicated in the
next lemma.
Lemma 10.19. Suppose that for each set A R there exists a sequence
hB; W < < !1 i
of borel sets such that
AD
[ \

B; :
>
Then:
(1) P .R/ L.P .!1 //.
(2) For each function f W R ! R there exists a set a !1 such that for all x 2 R,
f \ L.a; x/ 2 L.a; x/:
t
u
The following theorem is well known. The proof is an easy exercise using Solovays
method for generically coding information using almost disjoint families in P .!/.
Theorem 10.20. There is a -centered boolean algebra B such that if
GB
is V -generic then in V G the following holds. Suppose A R. Then there exists a
sequence hB; W < < !1 i of borel sets such that

[ \
AD
t
u
B; :
>
There is a Pmax version of Theorem 10.20, involving quite different methods. The
effect is similar in that one can arrange for example in the resulting extension that there
exists a sequence, hB; W < < !1 i, of borel sets such that

[ \
R# D
B; :
>
This, together with the assertion that

L.R/ AD C ;
is expressible by a 2 sentence in hH.!2 /; 2i. There must exist a choice of such
that L.R/ and such that this 2 sentence cannot be realized in the structure
P
hH.!2 /; 2iL.R/
for any partial order P 2 L.R/. Of course this is a trivial claim if P is .!; 1/distributive in L.R/. The general case, for arbitrary partial orders P 2 L.R/, is more
subtle. It is a plausible conjecture that if
L.R/ AD
703
then there exists a partial order P 2 L.R/ such that

L.R/P ZFC C R# exists:
It is not difcult to show that if INS is !2 -saturated and if B is any -centered
boolean algebra, then INS is !2 -saturated in V B . Thus obtaining models in which INS
is !2 -saturated and in which L.P .!1 // is large is straightforward. However if one
requires that INS be !1 -dense then the problem appears to be far more subtle. One
indication is provided by the theorem of Shelah (see Theorem 3.50); if INS is !1 -dense
then 2@0 D 2@1 . Therefore if INS is !1 -dense then necessarily there exists a set A R
which is not !1 -borel. Nevertheless one can probably dene a variation of Qmax via
which one obtains extensions of, say L.R# /, in which INS is !1 -dense and in which R#
is !1 -borel.
Finally our particular approach to coding sets into L.P .!1 // is chosen with the
.;/
.;;B/
particular kind of applications discussed above in mind, (involving Pmax
and Pmax
).
.;/
.X/
One can easily dene the general version of Pmax
obtaining Pmax
corresponding to
.X/
Q.X/
max . Using Pmax one can show that it is possible to realize all the 2 consequences
of ./ for the structure
hH.!2 /; Y; 2 W Y R; Y 2 L.R/i
and yet have R 2 L.P .!1 //.
However suppose that
#
L.R/ AD
and that for each 2 -sentence , if
Pmax
hH.!2 /; INS iL.R/
then hH.!2 /; 2i . Then it is easily veried that R# is not !1 -borel.
10.2.1 Coding by sets, SQ

We dene our basic coding machinery. For this we recall Denition 5.2, which for
each set S !1 denes SQ to be the set of < !2 such that
(1) !1 ,
(2) if h W !1 ! is a surjection then
j ordertype.h/ S 2 INS :
Suppose < !2 , !1 and that A . The set A is stationary in if
A\C ;
for each C such that C is closed and conal in . Of course if A is stationary in
then has conality !1 . We caution that this notion that A is stationary in does not
coincide with the notion that a is stationary in b as dened in Denition 2.33 unless
D !1 .
704
10 Further results
Suppose hSi W i < !i is a sequence of pairwise disjoint subsets of !1 . For each

< !2 let
b D i < ! j SQi \ is stationary in :
Given X P .!/, the most natural way to have X denable in H.!2 / would be to
have
X [ ; D b j < !2
for a suitable choice of hSi W i < !i. This we cannot quite arrange. For technical
reasons we shall thin the sequence hb W < !2 i and, in essence, obtain
X [ ; D b j < !2
for a suitable choice of hSi W i < !i. This thinning will be denable in H.!2 / and
more precisely
X [ ; D c j < !2
where for each < !2 ,
c D i j 2iC1 2 b :
Suppose Y P .!/. An ordinal is a Y -uniform indiscernible if is an indiscernible of La for each a 2 Y . We caution that the Y -uniform indiscernibles are
not necessarily Y Y -uniform indiscernibles. However the following lemma is easily
proved.
Lemma 10.21. Suppose that R is a nonempty set such that for all a 2 <! ,
a# 2 Lx for some x 2 . Suppose that and that
min 2 S
j > !1 D min 2 S j > !1
where
(i) !1 D sup.!1 /Lx j x 2 ,
(ii) S is the set of -uniform indiscernibles,
(iii) S
is the set of -uniform indiscernibles.
Then S
n !1 D S .
t
u
Denition 10.22. Suppose that hSi W i < !i is a sequence of pairwise disjoint stationary subsets of !1 and suppose that z !. Let S D hSi W i < !i. We associate to the
pair .S; z/ two subsets of P .!/;
X(Code) .S; z/ D [X j <
and
Y(Code) .S; z/ D [Y j <
where
S(Code) .S; z/ D h. ; X ; Y / W < i
is the maximal sequence generated from .S; z/ as follows.
705
(i) Y0 D z, X0 D ;, and 0 is the least indiscernible of Lz above !1 .

(ii) For all a 2 Y , a# exists and is the least Y -uniform indiscernible, , such
that < for all < .
(iii) Suppose is not the successor of an ordinal of conality !1 . Then
X D [X j <
and
Y D [Y j < :
(iv) Suppose has conality !1 and let
b D i < ! j SQi is stationary in :
iC1
2 b and let d D i < ! j 3iC1 2 b.
Let c D i < ! j 2
a) YC1 D Y [ d ,
b) suppose that < where is the least indiscernible of Ld above !1 ,
then
XC1 D X [ c;
otherwise XC1 D X .
(v) < !2 .
Suppose M is a countable transitive model of ZFC, S 2 M, and that
S D hSi W i < !i
is a sequence of pairwise disjoint sets such that for all i < !,
Si 2 .P .!1 / n INS /M :
Suppose z ! and z 2 M. Let
S(Code) .M; S; z/ D .S(Code) .S; z//M ;
let
X(Code) .M; S; z/ D .X(Code) .S; z//M ;
and let
Y(Code) .M; S; z/ D .Y(Code) .S; z//M :
t
u
Remark 10.23. (1) It might seem more natural to dene the set b ! in (iv) using
the rst ! many uniform Y -uniform indiscernibles. This would allow the use of
single stationary set S in the decoding process instead of a sequence hSi W i < !i
of stationary sets. In fact such an approach is possible, the details are quite
similar. One advantage is that with further modications the coded set, X, is 1
denable, from parameters, in the structure
hH.!2 /; 2i;
instead of the expanded structure, hH.!2 /; INS ; 2i. For our applications this
feature is at best more difcult to achieve; cf. Theorem 10.55, and there are
more elegant ways to achieve this (by simply making the coded set !1 -borel).
706
10 Further results
However one can, by further renements, arrange in the resulting extension that
there exists A !1 such that if N is any transitive set such that
A 2 N,
.INS /N D INS \ N ,
N ZFC ,
then N 2@0 D @2 .
This yields a 2 sentence in the language of the structure,
hH.!2 /; INS ; 2i;
which if true implies c D !2 .
(2) The sequence h W < i can be generated in a variety of ways rather just using
the Y -uniform indiscernibles. Similarly the condition (iv)(b) can be modied
to further thin the sequence. This in effect we shall do in Section 10.2.4, see
Denition 10.72 and and the subsequent Remark 10.73.
(3) If for every x 2 R, x # exists, then S(Code) .S; z/ has length !2 .
(4) The requirement that X0 D ;, rather than X0 D ;, is just for convenience. u
t
We extend these notions to sequences of models.
hMk W k < !i
is a sequence such that for all k < !,
(1) for each t 2 R \ Mk , t # 2 MkC1 ,
(2) Mk is countable, transitive and
Mk ZFC;
(3) Mk MkC1 and
.!1 /Mk D .!1 /MkC1 ;

Suppose S 2 M0 ,
S D hSi W i < !i
and that S is a sequence of pairwise disjoint sets such that for all i < !,
Si 2 .P .!1 / n INS /M1 :
Suppose z ! and z 2 M0 .
Let
S(Code) .hMk W k < !i; S; z/ D h. ; X ; Y / W < i;
707
let
X(Code) .hMk W k < !i; S; z/ D [X j < ;
and let
Y(Code) .hMk W k < !i; S; z/ D [Y j < ;
where h. ; X ; Y / W n.
Suppose that hMk W k < !i is a sequence of countable transitive sets satisfying the
conditions in Denition 10.24. We note that since for all k < !,
.INS /MkC1 \ Mk D .INS /MkC2 \ Mk
M
the following holds. Suppose k < !, S 2 .P .!1 //M0 and that < !2 k . Then for
all i > k,
Q MkC1 :
.SQ /Mi \ D .S/
This observation yields the following important corollary which concerns the behavior
of X(Code) .hMk W k < !i; S; z/ under iterations. Suppose that
is an iteration. Then
j X(Code) .hMk W k < !i; S; z/ X(Code) .hMk W k < !i; j.S/; z/
and
j Y(Code) .hMk W k < !i; S; z/ Y(Code) .hMk W k < !i; j.S/; z/:
In many situations if one denes

j.S(Code) .hMk W k < !i; S; z// [j.S(Code) .hMk W k < !i; S; z/j / j < :
then one actually obtains
j.X(Code) .hMk W k < !i; S; z// D X(Code) .hMk W k < !i; j.S/; z/
and
j.Y(Code) .hMk W k < !i; S; z// D Y(Code) .hMk W k < !i; j.S/; z/:
These claims are easily veried using the properties (1)(3) of Denition 10.24.
It certainly can happen that
X(Code) .hMk W k < !i; S; z/ 2 M0 :
Thus if
is an iteration it may be that j.X(Code) .hMk W k < !i; S; z// does not coincide with the
denition given above. In the cases we shall be interested in,
X(Code) .hMk W k < !i; S; z/ 2 M0
and the two possible denitions of j.X(Code) .hMk W k < !i; S; z// coincide, cf. Remark 10.27(5).
708
10 Further results
10.2.2 Q.X/
max
Suppose the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !1 -dense and there are innitely many
Woodin cardinals with a measurable cardinal above. The covering theorems show that
L.P .!1 // is close to L.R/ below L.R/ . A natural question is whether it must necessarily be the case that L.P .!1 // is a generic extension of L.R/ or whether covering
must hold between L.P .!1 // and L.R/. We note that assuming AD
L.R/ D L.P .!1 //
and so covering trivially holds between these inner models in this case.
We focus on the case when the nonstationary ideal is !1 -dense since this case is
the most restrictive. It eliminates the possibility that sets appear in L.P .!1 // because
they are coded into the structure of the boolean algebra
P .!1 /=INS :
Suppose that X P .!/ is a set such that
L.X; R/ ADC :
.X/
We dene a variation, Q.X/
max , of Qmax such that if G Qmax is L.X; R/-generic
then in L.X; R/G, the nonstationary ideal is !1 -dense and X 2 L.P .!1 //. In fact in
L.X; R/G, X is a denable subset of H.!2 /. Thus, for example, if X codes R# then
in L.X; R/G,
R# 2 L.P .!1 //:

Before dening Q.X/
max it is convenient to dene a renement of Qmax .
Denition 10.25. Q

max is the set of
.hMk W k < !i; f / 2 Qmax
for which the following holds.
For all k < ! there exists x 2 R \ MkC1 such that for all C !1M0 if C 2 Mk
and if C is closed and unbounded in !1M0 , then
D \ .!1M0 n C /
is bounded in !1M0 where D !1M0 is the set of < !1M0 such that is an indiscernible of Lx.
t
u
Suppose
f W !1 ! H.!1 /
be a function such that for all < !1 , f ./ is a lter in Coll.!; /.
Let Sf be the sequence hSi W i < !i where for each i < !,
Si D < !1 j .0; i / 2 f ./:
709

X P .!/:
Q.X/
max
is the set of triples

.hMk W k < !i; f; z/

(1) .hMk W k < !i; f / 2 Q
max .
(2) For all k < !, Mk ZFC C CH.
(3) z ! and z # 2 M0 .
(4) Let
h. ; X ; Y / W < i D S(Code) .hMk W k < !i; Sf ; z/
be the associated sequence. Then there exist sequences
hi W i < !i
and
hxi W i < !i
such that D supi j i < ! and for all i < !
a) 0 < !2M0 and iC1 D i C !1M0 ,
b) xi !, xi 2 Mi and xi# Mi ,
c) S(Code) .hMk W k < !i; Sf ; z/ji D S(Code) .Mi ; Sf ; z/ji ,
d) Ord \ Mi < where is the least indiscernible of Lxi above !1M0 ,
e) Xi D X0 ,
f) Y.i C1/ D Y0 [ xj j j i .
(5) Suppose
is a countable iteration of .hMk W k < !i; f /. Then
j.X(Code) .hMk W k < !i; Sf ; z// X [ ;:
The order is dened as follows:
.hNk W k < !i; g; y/ < .hMk W k < !i; f; z/
if
.hNk W k < !i; g/ < .hMk W k < !i; f /
in
Qmax
and y D z.
t
u
710
10 Further results
Remark 10.27. (1) There are natural Q.X/

max variations for each Pmax -variation we
.;/
have considered. We shall consider Pmax
in Section 10.2.3. We analyze the
Q.X/
max -extension rst because the analysis is a little more subtle than that of the
.;/
Pmax
-extension. We also shall use the results of this analysis to simplify presen.;/
tation of Pmax
, but this of course is not essential.
(2) Suppose
.hMk W k < !i; f; z/ 2 Q.X/
max :

Then since .hMk W k < !i; f / 2 Qmax it follows that for all x 2 R \ Mk ,
x # 2 MkC1 .
(3) By (4(d)) and (4(f)),
[Mk \ Ord j k < !
is the least .[P .!/ \ Mk j k < !/-uniform indiscernible above !1M0 .
(4) By (4(f)), Ord \ Mi < .i C1/ . Thus
S(Code) .M0 ; Sf ; z/ D S(Code) .hMk W k < !i; S; z/j0 :
(5) By (4(g)), X(Code) .hMk W k < !i; S; z/ 2 M0 and further if
is an iteration, then the two possible interpretations of
j.X(Code) .hMk W k < !i; S; z//
coincide.
t
u
We note the following corollary to Lemma 10.21.

.hMk W k < !i; f; z/ 2 Q.X/
max :
Let
h. ; X ; Y / W < i D S(Code) .hMk W k < !i; Sf ; z/
be the associated sequence and let
Y D [Y j < :
Let
Z D [P .!/ \ Mk j k < !:
Let IY be the set of Y -uniform indiscernibles, , such that
!1M0
and let IZ be the set of Z-uniform indiscernibles. Then
IY D IZ :
t
u
Q.X/
max .
We now come to the main theorem for the existence of conditions in

This
theorem is much weaker than the existence theorems we have proved for the other
Pmax variations we have analyzed. The reason for this difference lies in the nature of
the Q.X/
max conditions. Suppose
.hMk W k < !i; f; z/ 2 Q.X/
max :
711
Then there must exist x 2 M0 \ R such that x # M0 . Therefore

hH.!1 /M0 ; 2i 6 hH.!1 /; 2i:
This rules out the forms of A-iterability which we have used for the analysis of these
other Pmax variations. We will of course use A-iterable structures in the analysis of the
Q.X/
max -extension, but the actual details of this use will differ slightly when compared to
previous instances. One could quite easily develop the analysis of the Pmax -extension
along these lines and so these differences are not really fundamental.
Theorem 10.29. Suppose that X P .!/ and that for each t 2 R, t # exists. Suppose
x0 2 X and x1 2 R. Then there exists
.hMk W k < !i; f; z/ 2 Q.X/
max
such that
(1) .x0 ; x1 / 2 Lz,
(2) Gf is Lz-generic where Gf Coll.!; <!1M0 / is the lter determined by f ,
(3) x0 2 X(Code) .hMk W k < !i; Sf ; z/.
Proof. The proof is a reworking of the proof of Theorem 6.64, though actually the
argument here is simpler.
We recall some notation used in the proof of Theorem 6.64. Suppose S is a set of
ordinals then
Coll .!; S /
is the restriction of the Levy collapse to conditions with domain included in ! S .
Let z0 ! be a code of the pair .x1# ; x0 / and continue by induction to dene
zkC1 ! which codes zk# .
For each k < ! let CkC1 be the set of < !1 such that is the th indiscernible
of Lzk . Let C0 D !1 .
Fix
0 < !1 such that
0 is the least zk j k < !-uniform indiscernible and let
1 be the least zk j k < !-uniform indiscernible above

0 . These are the least two
elements of \Ck j k < !.
For each k < ! let k be the least element of CkC1 . Therefore
0 D supk j k < !:
Construct by induction a sequence hgk ; hk W k < !i of generics such that
(1.1) gk Coll .!; Ck \ k /, gk is Lzk -generic, and gk 2 LzkC1 ,
(1.2) hk Coll .!; k / hk is Lzk gk -generic, and hk 2 LzkC1 .
Construct by induction a sequence hGk W k < !i of generics such that the following
conditions are satised. As in the proof of Theorem 6.64 these conditions uniquely
specify the generics. For each k < ! let
bk D 2iC1 j i 2 x0 [ 3iC1 j i 2 zk :
712
10 Further results
(2.1) Gk Coll .!; Ck \

0 / and Gk is Lzk -generic.
(2.2) Gk \ Coll .!; Ck \ k / D gk .
(2.3) Gk \ Coll .!; k / D hk .
(2.4) For all 2 CkC1 \
0 ,
Gk \ Coll .!; .; //
is the LzkC1 gh-least lter, F , such that
a) F is Lzk gh-generic,
b) for all < and for all i 2 bkC1 ,
.0; i / 2 F jColl .!; / $ .0; i / 2 G0 jColl .!; /;
c) for all < and for all i bkC1 ,
.0; !/ 2 F jColl .!; / $ .0; i / 2 G0 jColl .!; /;
where g D Gk \ Coll .!; Ck \ /, h D GkC1 \ Coll .!; /, is the least
element of CkC1 above , and for each < , is the th indiscernible of
Lzk above .
Dene
f W !1LG0 ! H.!1 /LG0
as follows. Suppose < !1LG0 . Then

f ./ D p 2 Coll.!; / j p 2 G0
where for each p 2 Coll.!; /, p is the condition in Coll .!; / such that
dom.p / D dom.p/
and such that p .k; / D p.k/ for all k 2 dom.p/.
For each k < ! let
Mk D L1 zkC1 GkC1 D L1 zkC1 G0 :
Thus just as in the proof of Theorem 6.64,
.hMk W k < !i; f / 2 Qmax :
Let
S(Code) .hMk W k < !i; Sf ; z0 / D h. ; X ; Y / W < i:
Thus D
0 !.
For each <
0 , X D ;, Y D z0 and is the th indiscernible of Lz0
above
0 . Further for each i < ! and for each <
0 ,
(3.1) X D x0 ,
(3.2) Y D zk j k i C 1,
(3.3) is the th indiscernible of LziC1 above
0 ,
where D .
0 .i C 1// C . These follow in a straightforward fashion from the
denitions of the generics Gk .
713
Therefore
.hMk W k < !i; f; z0 / 2 Q.X/
max
t
u
and is as required.
.hNk W k < !i; g; z/ < .hMk W k < !i; f; z/
in
Q.X/
max
and let
be the .unique/ iteration such that j.f / D g.

(1) X(Code) .hMk W k < !i; Sf ; z/ X(Code) .hNk W k < !i; Sg ; z/.
(2) Suppose that h 2 M0 is a function such that
< !1M0 j h./ f ./ 2 .INS /M1
and suppose that x 2 M0 is a subset of ! such that
.hMk W k < !i; h; x/ 2 Q.X/
max :
Then .hNk W k < !i; j.h/; x/ 2 Q.X/
max and
.hNk W k < !i; j.h/; x/ < .hMk W k < !i; h; x/:
Proof. By the denition of the order in Q.X/
max ,
.hNk W k < !i; g/ < .hMk W k < !i; f /
in
Qmax .
Therefore, since
.j; hMk W k < !i; hMk W k < !i/ 2 N0 ;
for all k < !,
M
N0
N1
\ Mk D INS
\ Mk :
INS kC1 \ Mk D INS
From this it follows from the denitions that for all i < !,
S(Code) .hMk W k < !i; Sg ; z/
is an initial segment of S(Code) .Ni ; Sg ; z/. Therefore
S(Code) .hMk W k < !i; Sg ; z/
is an initial segment of
S(Code) .hNk W k < !i; Sg ; z/:
The rst claim of the lemma, (1), follows by the elementarity of j .
We prove (2). Note that .hNk W k < !i; j.h/; x/ 2 Q
max and
.hNk W k < !i; j.h/; x/ < .hMk W k < !i; h; x/
in
Q
max .
714
10 Further results
Let
h. ; X ; Y / W < i D S(Code) .Ni ; Sg ; z/:
and let 0 be such that for all i < !,
S(Code) .hMk W k < !i; j.Sf /; z/ D S(Code) .Ni ; j.Sf /; z/j0 :
Since
.hMk W k < !i; h; x/ 2 Q.X/
max
it follows that
.hMk W k < !i; j.h/; x/ 2 Q.X/

max :
By an argument similar to that just given, for all i < !,

S(Code) .hMk W k < !i; j.Sh /; x/
is an initial segment of S(Code) .Ni ; j.Sh /; x/. Let
h. 0 ; X0 ; Y0 / W < 0 i D S(Code) .hNk W k < !i; j.Sh /; x/
and let 00 be such that for all i < !,
S(Code) .hMk W k < !i; j.Sh /; x/ D S(Code) .Ni ; j.Sh /; x/j00 :
Let 0 be such that
Y.0 0 C1/ D Y00 [ t
for some t 2 M0 such that t # M0 .

This uniquely species 0 as the witness for
.hMk W k < !i; j.h/; x/ 2 Q.X/
max
to clause (4) in the denition of Q.X/
max .
Thus
00 D 0 C !1N0 !
and so 00 has conality !. Necessarily 0 > 00 .
Let
Z D [P .!/ \ Mk j k < !
and let
Z D [P .!/ \ Mk j k < !:
Since .hMk W k < !i; j.f // is an iterate of .hMk W k < !i; f / and since
.hMk W k < !i; f / 2 Q
max ;
it follows that the Z -uniform indiscernibles above !1N0 coincide with the Z-uniform
indiscernibles above !1N0 . Since
.hMk W k < !i; j.h/; x/ 2 Q.X/
max
it follows that the Y0 0 -uniform indiscernibles above !1N0 coincide with the Z -uniform
indiscernibles above !1N0 . Further these coincide with the Y0 -uniform indiscernibles
above !1N0 .
715
Finally j.h/./ D g./ for all < !1N0 such that is a Z-uniform indiscernible
and such that > !1M0 .
Therefore by induction on it follows that if 0 C < then
0
Y.0 C / n Y0 D Y.
n Y0 0
0
C /
0
and
0
X.0 C / n X0 D X.
n X0 0 :
0
C /
0
t
u
(2) follows.

Remark 10.31. There is an important difference between Q.X/
max and Qmax . Suppose
.hMk W k < !i; f; z/ 2 Q.X/

max ;
and h 2 M0 is a function such that
< !1M0 j h./ f ./ 2 .INS /M1 :
Then in general
.hMk W k < !i; h; x/ Q.X/
max
for any choice of x. This will cause problems in the analysis that follows. This difculty does not arise in the case of Qmax .
t
u
Lemma 10.32. Suppose that X P .!/. Suppose that
.hNk W k < !i; g; x/ 2 Q.X/
max ;
.hMk W k < !i; f; z/ 2 Q.X/
max ;
and t ! codes hMk W k < !i. Suppose t 2 Lx and G is Lx-generic where
G Coll.!; <!1N0 /
is the lter determined by g. Then there exists an iteration
such that j 2 N0 and such that:
(1) for each < !1N0 , if is an indiscernible of Lt then
j.f /./ D g./I
(2) .hNk W k < !i; j.f /; z/ 2 Q.X/
max ;
(3) .hNk W k < !i; j.f /; z/ < .hMk W k < !i; f; z/;
(4) X(Code) .hNk W k < !i; j.Sf /; z/ is precisely the set
X(Code) .hNk W k < !i; Sg ; x/ [ X(Code) .hMk W k < !i; j.Sf /; z/
D X(Code) .hNk W k < !i; Sg ; x/ [ j.X(Code) .hMk W k < !i; Sf ; z//.
716
10 Further results
Proof. (3) is an immediate consequence of (2) and the denition of the order on Q.X/
max .
(2) follows from (4) since
.hMk W k < !i; f; z/ 2 N0 :
To see this suppose
k W hNk W k < !i ! hk.Nk / W k < !i
is a countable iteration. Then by elementarity it follows that
k.X / D k.X(Code) .hNk W k < !i; Sg ; x// [ k.j.X(Code) .hMk W k < !i; Sf ; z///
where
X D X(Code) .hNk W k < !i; j.Sf /; z/:
Therefore k.X / X.
We construct the iteration j to satisfy (1) and (4).
Fix c0 2 X(Code) .hMk W k < !i; Sf ; z/ and let
b0 D 2iC1 j i 2 c0 [ 3iC1 j i 2 x:
Dene a function
g0 W !1N0 ! N0
by perturbing g as follows. Let C be the set of uniform [P .!/ \ Mk j k < !indiscernibles below !1N0 and above !1M0 . Let D C be the set of 2 C such that
C \ has ordertype .
For each < !1N0 , g0 ./ D g./ unless D C where 2 D, < and
is the th element of C past . In this case
g0 ./ D g./
if .0; i / 2 f ./ and i 2 b0 , otherwise
g0 ./ D .0; !/ _ p j p 2 g./:
Let
be the iteration of length .!1 /N0 determined by g0 . Clearly j 2 LxG.
We come to the key claims. Let
S(Code) .hMk W k < !i; Sf ; z/ D h ; X ; Y W < i;
let
j.S(Code) .hMk W k < !i; Sf ; z// D h ; X ; Y W < i;
and let
S(Code) .hNk W k < !i; j.Sf /; z/ D h ; X ; Y W < i:
717
The claims are the following:

(1.1) For all ,
. ; X ; Y / D . ; X ; Y /:
(1.2) S(Code) .hNk W k < !i; Sg ; x/ is the sequence,

h
i:
C ; X C n X ; .Y C n Y / [ x W C <
The rst claim is immediate. The point is that

[j..INS /Mk / j k < ! D .INS /N1 \ .[Mk j k < !/
and that
[Mk \ Ord j k < !
is the least [P .!/ \ Mk j k < !-uniform indiscernible above !1N0 . The latter
implies that
sup j < D [Mk \ Ord j k < !
by clause (4(h)) in the denition of Q.X/
max .
We prove the second claim. From the rst claim

Y
D [Y j <
and

D [Mk \ Ord j k < !:
Let
Y D [Y j < :
Q.X/
max ,
it follows that the Y -uniform indiscernibles are exactly

From the denition of
the [R \ Mk j k < !-uniform indiscernibles.
For each < !1N0 , let be the th Y -uniform indiscernible above !1N0 . The key
point is that the Y -uniform indiscernibles above !1N0 coincide with the Y
-uniform
N0
N0
indiscernibles above !1 . Therefore for each < !1 , if 0 then
D
C :
The iteration giving j was constructed using the function g0 , therefore j.f / and
g0 agree on the critical sequence of the iteration. However the critical sequence of the
iteration is exactly the set of Y -uniform indiscernibles between !1M0 and !1N0 and this
is the set C specied above in the denition of g0 . Thus for each 2 C ,
g./ D g0 ./ D j.f /./:
This proves (1).
For each i ! let
Si D j .0; i / 2 g./
and let
Ti D j .0; i / 2 j.f /./:
718
10 Further results
For each i !, let SQi be the set computed from Si and let TQi be the set computed
from Ti , each computed relative to [Nk j k < !. Thus for each < !1N0 and for
each i < !, if i 2 b0 and if 2 Ti then 2 TQi otherwise 2 TQ! .
For each i < !, Ti is stationary in [Nk j k < ! and so putting everything
together, if D C !1N0 then

(2.1) YC1
D Y
[ x,

D X
(2.2) XC1
[ c0 ,

(2.3) C1
is the least indiscernible of Lx above !1N0 ,
(2.4) for each i !,
SQi \ Z D TQi \ Z
where Z is the set of indiscernibles of such that is an indiscernible of Lx
and such that
2 [Nk j k < !:
Thus j has the desired properties and this proves the lemma.
t
u
The proof of Lemma 10.32 adapts to prove that Q.X/

max is !-closed.
Lemma 10.33. Suppose that X P .!/ and that for all t 2 R, t # exists. Then Q.X/
max
is !-closed.
Proof. Suppose hpi W i < !i is a strictly decreasing sequence of conditions in Q.X/
max
and that for each i < !,
pi D .hMki W k < !i; fi ; z/:
Let f D [fi j i < !. For each i < ! let
ji W hMki W k < !i ! hMO ki W k < !i
be the iteration such that ji .fi / D f . This iteration exists since hpi W i < !i is a
strictly decreasing sequence in Q.X/
max .
We note the following properties of .hMO kk W k < !i; f; z/.
(1.1) .hMO kk W k < !i; f / 2 Q
max .
(1.2) Let
Then
Y D Y(Code) .hMO kk W k < !i; f; z/:

[MO kk \ Ord j k < !
0
is the least Y -uniform indiscernible above .!1 /M0 .

(1.3) Suppose that
j W hMO kk W k < !i ! hj.MO kk / W k < !i

is a countable iteration, then
X(Code) .hj.MO kk / W k < !i; j.f /; z/ X [ ;:
719
By Theorem 10.29 there exists

.hNk W k < !i; g; x/ 2 Q.X/
max
such that x codes hMO kk W k < !i and such that the lter
H Coll.!; <!1 /
given by g is Lx-generic.
We would like to apply Lemma 10.32 to obtain a suitable iteration
j W hMO k W k < !i ! hj.MO k / W k < !i:
k
The difculty is that,
.hMO kk W k < !i; f; z/ Q.X/

max :
Nevertheless the properties (1.1)(1.3) sufce to implement the proof of Lemma 10.32.
This yields an iteration
j W hMO k W k < !i ! hj.MO k / W k < !i
k
such that
(2.1) j 2 N0 ,
(2.2) for all k < !,
Ok
.INS /j.Mk / D j.MO kk / \ .INS /N1 ;

(2.3) .hNk W k < !i; j.f /; z/ 2 Q.X/
max .
Thus
.hNk W k < !i; j.f /; z/ < pi
t
u
for all i < !.

One corollary of Lemma 10.30 and Lemma 10.32 is that Q.X/
max is homogeneous.
Lemma 10.34. Suppose that X P .!/ and that for all t 2 R, t # exists. Then Q.X/
max
is homogeneous.
Proof. This follows by Lemma 10.30(2).
Suppose that
.hMk W k < !i; f; z/ 2 Q.X/
max
and that
.hMk0 W k < !i; f 0 ; z 0 / 2 Q.X/

max :
Let t 2 R code the pair .hMk W k < !i; hMk0 W k < !i/.
By Theorem 10.29, there exists
.hNk W k < !i; g; x/ 2 Q.X/
max
such that t 2 Lx and such that the lter
G Coll.!; <!1 /N0
given by g is Lx-generic.
720
10 Further results
By the iteration lemma, Lemma 10.32, there exist iterations

j W hMk W k < !i ! hj.Mk / W k < !i
and
j 0 W hMk0 W k < !i ! hj 0 .Mk0 / W k < !i
such that
.hNk W k < !i; j.f /; z/ 2 Q.X/
max ;
such that
.hNk W k < !i; j 0 .f 0 /; z 0 / 2 Q.X/

max ;
and such that for each < !1N0 , if is an indiscernible of Lt then

j.f /./ D g./ D j 0 .f 0 /./:
For each q 2 Q.X/
max let
.X/
Q.X/
max jq D p 2 Qmax j p < q:
By Lemma 10.30(2) the partial orders

Q.X/
max j.hNk W k < !i; j.f /; z/;
0
0
0
Q.X/
max j.hNk W k < !i; j .f /; z /;
and
Q.X/
max j.hNk W k < !i; g; x/
are isomorphic.
Finally
.hNk W k < !i; j.f /; z/ < .hMk W k < !i; f; z/
and
.hNk W k < !i; j 0 .f 0 /; z 0 / < .hMk0 W k < !i; f 0 ; z 0 /:
t
u
We x some additional notation. Suppose p 2 Q.X/

max and
p D .hMk W k < !i; f; z/:
Then
P .!/.p/ D [Mk \ P .!/ j k < !:
Another corollary of Lemma 10.32 is the following lemma.
Lemma 10.35. Suppose that X P .!/ and that for all t 2 R, t # exists. Suppose that
.hMk W k < !i; f; z/ 2 Q.X/
max
and that x0 2 X. Then there exists
.hNk W k < !i; g; z/ 2 Q.X/
max
such that
and such that x0 2 X(Code) .hNk W k < !i; Sg ; z/.
721
Proof. Let t 2 R code the pair .hMk W k < !i; x0 /.

.hNk W k < !i; g; x/ 2 Q.X/
max
such that
(1.1) t 2 Lz,
(1.2) G is Lz-generic where
G Coll.!; <!1N0 /
is the lter determined by g,
(1.3) x0 2 X(Code) .hNk W k < !i; Sg ; x/.
such that j 2 N0 , such that
.hNk W k < !i; j.f /; z/ < .hMk W k < !i; f; z/;
and such that
X(Code) .hNk W k < !i; Sg ; x/ X(Code) .hNk W k < !i; j.Sf /; z/:
Therefore
x0 2 X(Code) .hNk W k < !i; j.Sf /; z/
and .hNk W k < !i; j.f /; z/ is as required.
t
u
A similar, though easier, argument establishes:

Lemma 10.36. Suppose that X P .!/ and that for all t 2 R, t # exists. Suppose that
.hMk W k < !i; f; z/ 2 Q.X/
max
and that y0 !. Then there exists
.hNk W k < !i; g; z/ 2 Q.X/
max
such that
and such that y0 2 Y(Code) .hNk W k < !i; g; z/.
t
u

hD W < !1 i
is a sequence of dense subsets of Q.X/
max . Let Y R be the set of reals x such that x
codes a pair .p; / with p 2 D . Suppose that .M; T; / 2 H.!1 / is such that:
(i) M is transitive and M ZFC.
(ii) 2 M \ Ord, and is strongly inaccessible in M .
722
10 Further results
(iii) T 2 M and T is a tree on ! .

(iv) Suppose P 2 M is a partial order and that g P is an M -generic lter with
g 2 H.!1 /. Then
hM g \ V!C1 ; pT \ M g; 2i hV!C1 ; Y; 2i:
Suppose that hp W < !1M i is a sequence of conditions in Q.X/
max such that
(v) hp W < !1M i 2 M ,
(vi) for all < !1M , p 2 D ,
(vii) for all < < !1M ,
p < p :
Suppose g
Coll.!; !1M /
is M -generic and let

Z D [Z j < !1M
where for each < !1M , Z D P .!/.p / . Suppose is a Z-uniform indiscernible,
!1M < < !2M
and that
hAi W i < !i 2 M g
is a sequence of subsets of !1M . Then for each
q 2 Coll.!; /
there exists a condition
.hMk W k < !i; h; z/ 2 D! M
1

(1) .hMk W k < !i; h; z/ 2 M g;
(2) < !1M0 ;
(3) q 2 h./;
(4) For each i < !, for each < !1M , and for each k < !,
2 Ai
if and only if
2 .SQi /Mk
where
Si D < !1M0 j .0; i / 2 h./
and where for each < !1M , is the th Z-uniform indiscernible above !1M0 ;
(5) h.!1M / D g;
(6) For all < !1M ,
(7) hp W < !1M i 2 M0 .
.hMk W k < !i; h; z/ < p I
723
Proof. We work in M g. For each < !1M let

.hMk W k < !i; f ; z/ D p
and let
j W hMk W k < !i ! hMQ k W k < !i
the iteration of hMk W k < !i determined by

f D [f j < !1M :
Let hk W k < !i be a strictly increasing sequence which is conal in !1M such
that
hk W k < !i 2 M g:
For each k < ! let
Thus
Let
Nk D MQ 0 k :
.hNk W k < !i; f / 2 Q

max :
j W hNk W k < !i ! hNOk W k < !i
be a countable iteration, of limit length, such that j.!1N0 / > and such that
q 2 j.f /./:
The iteration exists since the critical sequence of any iteration of
hNk W k < !i
is an initial segment of the Z-uniform indiscernibles above !1N0 . Let hi W i < !i be
O
an increasing sequence of elements of Z n , conal in !1N0 .

For each i < ! let
ki W hM i W k < !i ! hMO i W k < !i

k
be the (unique) iteration such that ki .fi / D j.f /ji , and let
pOi D .hMO k i W k < !i; fOi ; z/
be the corresponding condition in Q.X/

max .
Note that for all < i < !1M ,
pOi < p :
Now choose a condition p 2
Q.X/
max
\ M g such that for all i < !,

p < pOi
and such that hAk W k < !i 2
M0.p/
where we let
.hMk.p/ W k < !i; f.p/ ; z/ D p:

Let
Z D [P .!/ \ hMO 0 i j i < !:
724
10 Further results
Let IZ be the class of Z-uniform indiscernibles and let IZ be the class of Z -uniform
indiscernibles. Thus
N
IZ D IZ n !1 0 :
Further Z 2 M0.p/ and Z is countable in M0.p/ .
The key point is the following. Let
M
.p/
h W < !1 0 i
be the increasing enumeration of IZ and let
I D C j D and 0 < < !1M :
Suppose that fO 2 M.p/ is a function such that
0
.p/
M
(1.1) dom.fO/ D !1 0 ,
.p/
M0
(1.2) for all < !1
fO./ Coll.!; /
and fO./ is a lter,

.p/
M0
(1.3) for all 2 !1

Then
n I,
f.p/ ./ D fO./:
.hMk.p/ W k < !i; fO; z/ 2 Q.X/

max
and for each i < !,
.hMk.p/ W k < !i; fO; z/ < pOi :
Since hAk W k < !i 2 M0.p/ , we can choose fO so that requirement (4) of the lemma
is satised by the condition .hMk.p/ W k < !i; fO; z/ by modifying fOjI if necessary.
But this implies that requirement (4) is satised by any condition q 2 Q.X/
max such that
.p/
O
q < .hM W k < !i; f ; z/:
k
Let pO D .hMk.p/ W k < !i; fO; z/.

Finally by (vi),
and so
M g \ D! M
1
is dense in
Q.X/
max
\ M g. Let
.hMk W k < !i; h; z/ 2 D! M \ M g
1
be a condition such that

O
.hMk W k < !i; h; z/ < p:
The condition .hMk W k < !i; h; z/ is as required.
t
u
725

hD W < !1 i
is a sequence of dense subsets of Q.X/
max . Let Y R be the set of reals x such that x
codes a pair .p; / with p 2 D and suppose that
.M; I/ 2 H.!1 /
is such that .M; I/ is strongly Y -iterable. Let 2 M be the Woodin cardinal associated
to I. Suppose t !, t codes M and
.hNk W k < !i; f; z/ 2 Q.X/
max ;
is a condition such that t 2 Lz. Let 2 M be a normal .uniform/ measure and let
.M ; / be the !1N0 -th iterate of .M; /. Suppose that Gf is Lz-generic where
Gf Coll.!; <!1N0 /
is the lter determined by f . Then there exists a sequence
hp W < !1N0 i 2 N0
and there exists .h; x; G/ 2 N0 such that the following hold.
(1) .hNk W k < !i; h; x/ 2 Q.X/
max .
(2) For all < !1N0 , p 2 D , and
.hNk W k < !i; h; x/ < p :
(3) G Coll.!; <!1N0 / and
a) G is M -generic,
b) hp W < !1N0 i 2 M G.
(4) Suppose that
is an iteration and let

hp W < .!1 /N0 i D j.hp W < !1N0 i/:

Then for all < .!1 /N0 , p 2 D .

Proof. We x some notation. Suppose that
F Coll.!; </
is a maximal lter and that < . Then
F jColl.!; /
denotes the induced lter,
F jColl.!; / D p 2 Coll.!; / j p 2 F
726
10 Further results
where for each p 2 Coll.!; /, p is the corresponding condition in Coll.!; </:

dom.p / D dom.p/

and p .k; / D p.k/ for all k 2 dom.p/.
Let
2 M be the measurable cardinal associated to .
Let 2 M Coll.!;</ be a term such that if
G Coll.!; <
/
is M -generic then denes in M G a sequence
hp W <
i
such that the following hold where for each <
,
.hMk W k < !i; f ; z/ D p ;
and
Z D [P .!/ \ Mk j k < !; < :
Note that by (1.2), for all <
,
< .!1 /M0

and so 2 dom.f /.
(1.1) For each <
, p 2 D .
(1.2) For each < <
, p < p .
(1.3) For each <
such that is strongly inaccessible in M :
a)
b)
c)
d)
hp j < i 2 M Gj ;
[P .!/.p / j < D P .!/ \ M Gj ;
f . / D GjColl.!; /;
Suppose that
.0; / 2 GjColl.!; . C /M /;
< < . C /M , and that for each < , is a P .!/.p / -uniform
indiscernible.

Then < .!1 /M0 and
.0; !/ 2 f ./:
(1.4) Suppose that <

and that is strongly inaccessible in M . For each i < !
let
Ai D < j .0; i / 2 GjColl.!; C 1/:
Then for each i < !, for each < , and for each k < !,
2 Ai
if and only if

2 .SQi /Mk
where

M
Si D < !1 0 j .0; i / 2 f ./
M
and where for each < , is the th Z -uniform indiscernible above !1 0 .
727
Let T 2 M be a tree on ! such that for all M -generic lters,

g .Q< /M ;
with g 2 H.!1 /, pT \ M g D Y \ M g and
hV!C1 \ M g; pT \ M g; 2i hV!C1 ; Y; 2i
The existence of the tree T follows from Lemma 6.58 and Lemma 6.59.
By Lemma 10.37, the term is easily constructed in M using the tree T .
Let .M ; / be the .!1N0 /th iterate of .M; /. Let
j W .M; / ! .M ; /

be the iteration yielding M and let D j. /.
M 2 Lt and so Gf is M -generic for Coll.!; <!1N0 /. Let C be the critical
sequence of the iteration which sends M to M .
Fix c0 2 M \ X and let
b0 D 2iC1 j i 2 c0 [ 3iC1 j i 2 z:
For each i < ! let
Si D < !1N0 j .0; i / 2 f ./:
We modify Gf to obtain a lter
G0 Coll.!; <!1N0 /
as follows. Fix a sequence
hBk W k < !i 2 N0
of pairwise disjoint subsets of C such that
C D Bk j k < !
and such that for each k < !,
Bk 2 .INS /N1
if and only if k 2 b0 .
For each < !1N0 , if D C 1 for some 2 Bk then
G0 jColl.!; / D .0; k/ _ p j p 2 f ./;
otherwise
G0 jColl.!; / D f ./:
Since for each k < !,
Bk C;
it follows that G0 is M -generic.

We further modify G0 to obtain G1 . Let
D .!1N0 /C
as computed in M and let
F W !1N0 ! .!1N0 ; /
be the Lt -least function such that F is onto.

Let D C be the set of 2 C such that is the ordertype of C \ . Let E be the
set of < !1N0 such that for some ,
728
10 Further results
(2.1) L t ZFC,
(2.2) is an inaccessible cardinal in .!1 /L t .
Since t codes .M; /, E D. Further E 2 Lt and in Lt , E contains a subset
which is a club in !1N0 .
For each 2 E let be the least ordinal, , satisfying (2.1)(2.2), and let F be
the function F as computed in L t .
The point of all of this is reection. Let > be an ordinal such that
L t ZFC
and suppose
X L t
is a countable elementary substructure containing t and F . Let D X \ !1N0 . Then
2 E and F is the image of F under the collapsing map.
For each < ! N0 let
T D 2 E j .0; / 2 f . /:
Thus
hT j < !1N0 i 2 LzGf
and for each < !1N0 , T .INS /N1 .

We modify G0 to obtain G as follows.
For each < !1N0 ,
GjColl.!; / D G0 jColl.!; /;
unless D . C /
M
for some 2 E. In this case

GjColl.!; / D p _ q j q 2 G0 jColl.!; /:
where p D .0; F .// and 2 T .

For each 2 C such that C \ is bounded in ,
GjColl.!; / D G0 jColl.!; /
for all but at most one in the interval ; where is the largest element of C \ .
Further for this one possible exception,
GjColl.!; / D p _ q j q 2 G0 jColl.!; /
for some condition p 2 Coll.!; /. Finally
G0 j0 D Gj0
where 0 is the least element of C .
Thus by induction on 2 C it follows that for all 2 C ,
Gj
is M -generic for Coll.!; < /. Therefore G is M -generic for Coll.!; <!1N0 /.
Let
729
hp W < !1N0 i
be the interpretation of by G. For each < !1N0 let

.hMk W k < !i; f ; z / D p :
For all < , p < p . Therefore for all < ,
z D z
and
f f :
Let x D z0 and let h D [f j < !1N0 .
We nish by proving
(3.1) .hNk W k < !i; h; x/ 2 Q.X/
max ,
(3.2) for all < !1N0 , p 2 D and
.hNk W k < !i; h; x/ < p :
(3.2) is an immediate consequence of (3.1) and the denitions. We prove (3.1).
Let
Z D [P .!/.p / j < !1N0 :
Thus by (1.3)(b),
Z D P .!/ \ M G:
For each k < ! let
Ak D < j .0; k/ 2 GjColl.!; C 1/
and let
Sk D < j .0; k/ 2 GjColl.!; /:
Fix k < ! and as above let be the successor cardinal of !1N0 as computed in M .
From the denition of G0 , it follows that for each 2 C ,
2 .SQk /N0
if and only if 2 Bk where is the th Z-uniform indiscernible above .
By the modication of G0 to produce G,
.SQk /N0 \ .!1N0 ; / D ;:
For each < !1N0 let
j W hMk W k < !i ! hMO k W k < !i
be the iteration such that j.f / D h. For each < < !1N0 , p < p and so
S(Code) .hMO k W k < !i; Sh ; x/ S(Code) .hMO k W k < !i; Sh ; x/:
730
10 Further results
For each < !1N0 , let

h ; X ; Y W < i D S(Code) .hMO k W k < !i; Sh ; x/
and let
D sup j < !1N0 D Ord \ .[MO 0 j < !1N0 /:
Since h D [f j < !1N0 and since for all 2 C ,

f . / D h. /;
it follows that for each <
!1N0 ,
S(Code) .hNk W k < !i; Sh ; x/j D h ; X ; Y W < i:

Let
h ; X ; Y W < i D S(Code) .hNk W k < !i; Sh ; x/:
The key point is that for D C !1N0 C 1,

Y D [Y j < [ z
and is less than the least indiscernible of Lz above !1N0 . Note
(4.1) f jC D hjC ,
(4.2) .hNk W k < !i; f; z/ 2 Q.X/
max .
Thus .hNk W k < !i; h; x/ 2 Q.X/
max .
Finally (4) follows from (3). To see this let
be an iteration and let
hp W < .!1 /N0 i D j.hp W < !1N0 i/:

By (3) and the elementarity of j ,
(5.1) j.G/ is j.M /-generic,
(5.2) hp W < .!1 /N0 i 2 j.M /j.G/,

N
(5.3) .j.M /; j. // is the !1 0 -th iterate of .M; /.

Let
k W .M; / ! .j.M /; j. //
be the iteration map corresponding to (5.3) and let T D k.T / where T 2 M is the
tree on ! used to dene . The key point is that since .M; I/ is strongly Y -iterable
it follows that
hV!C1 \ j.M /j.G/; pT \ j.M /j.G/; 2i hV!C1 ; Y; 2i:
The proof of this claim involves noting that if
kO W .M; / ! .MO ; /
O
731
is any (countable) iteration then there exists a countable iteration,

j0 W .M; I/ ! .M0 ; I0 /
and there exists an elementary embedding
k0 W MO ! M0
O i. e. any (countable) iteration of .M; / can be absorbed by an
such that j0 D k0 k;
iteration of .M; I/.
Thus (4) follows from (3) and the strong Y -iterability of .M; I/.
t
u
X 2 L.; R/:
Then for each set Y 2 there exists
.M; I/ 2 H.!1 /
such that .M; I/ is strongly Y -iterable.
Proof. The theorem follows from Theorem 9.48.
t
u
We adopt the usual notational conventions. Suppose that X P .!/. A lter

G Q.X/
max
is semi-generic if for each < !1 there exists .hMk W k < !i; f; z/ 2 G such that
< .!1 /M0 .
Suppose that G Q.X/
max is semi-generic. Then
(1) zG D z where z occurs in p for some p 2 G,
(2) fG D [f j .hMk W k < !i; f; z/ 2 G,
(3) IG D [j ..INS /M0 / j .hMk W k < !i; f; z/ 2 G,

(4) P .!1 /G D [M0 \ P .!1 / j .hMk W k < !i; f; z/ 2 G,
where for each .hMk W k < !i; f; z/ 2 G,
Of course zG must occur in every condition in G.
732
10 Further results
X 2 L.; R/:
Q.X/
max

Then
Suppose G Q.X/
max is L.; R/-generic.
Then
L.; R/G !2 -DC
and in L.; R/G:
(1) P .!1 /G D P .!1 /;
(2) P .!1 / L.X; R/AG ;
(4) IG is !1 -dense;
(5) X(Code) .SfG ; zG / D X [ ; and Y(Code) .SfG ; zG / D P .!/;
(6)
AC
holds.
.X/
Proof. By Lemma 10.34, Q.X/
max is homogeneous, by Lemma 10.33, Qmax is !-closed.
The claim that
L.; R/G !2 -DC
follows from (5) since (5) implies that R can be wellordered in L.; R/G.
We work in L.; R/G and prove (1)(5).
(1) is immediate, G is the set of
.hMk W k < !i; f; z/ 2 Q.X/
max
such that z D zG , there is an iteration
such that j.f / D fG . This iteration is uniquely specied by fG and the requirement
that j.f / D fG .
(2) follows from Lemma 10.38, using Theorem 10.39 and Theorem 10.29 to supply
the necessary conditions.
(3) and (4) follow from (2) and the denitions.
Finally by (2)(4),
X(Code) .SfG ; zG / D [j .X(Code) .hMk W k < !i; Sf ; z// j .hMk W k < !i; f; z/ 2 G
where as above, for each .hMk W k < !i; f; z/ 2 G,
733
Therefore
X(Code) .SfG ; zG / X [ ;:
By the genericity of G and by Lemma 10.35,
X [ ; [j .X(Code) .hMk W k < !i; Sf ; z// j .hMk W k < !i; f; z/ 2 G
and so X(Code) .SfG ; zG / D X [ ;. A similar argument, using Lemma 10.36, proves
that Y(Code) .SfG ; zG / D P .!/.
Finally (6) follows by an argument essentially identical to the proof that AC holds
t
u
in the Qmax -extension.
Lemma 10.41. Suppose P .R/ is a pointclass closed under continuous preimages such that
X 2 L.; R/:
Suppose that
G Q.X/
max
is L.; R/-generic.
Then in L.; R/G, for every set A 2 P .R/ \ L.; R/ the set
Proof. The proof is a modication of the proof of Lemma 5.107.
We cannot really use the proof of Lemma 6.77, which is the version of this lemma

for Qmax . The minor difculty is that Q.X/
max Qmax , and so there are no conditions
.hMk W k < !i; f; z/ 2 Q.X/
max
such that
hV!C1 \ M0 ; A \ M0 ; 2i hV!C1 ; A; 2i:
This fact accounts for the various differences between the presentation of the anal
ysis of the Q.X/
max -extension and that of the Qmax -extension.
We work in L.; R/G.
Let

H.!2 /G D [H.!2 /M0 j .hMk W k < !i; f; z/ 2 G
where for each .hMk W k < !i; f; z/ 2 G,
By Theorem 10.40(1),
P .!1 / D P .!1 /G ;
734
10 Further results
and so
H.!2 / D H.!2 /G :
This is the key to the proof, just as it was the for the proof of Lemma 5.107.
Let
F W H.!2 /<! ! H.!2 /
be a function such that for all Z H.!2 / if F Z Z then
hZ; A \ Z; G \ Z; 2i hH.!2 /; A; G; 2i:
Suppose X H.!2 / is a countable subset such that
hX; F \ X; G \ X; 2i hH.!2 /; F; G; 2i:
Let MX be the transitive collapse of X . We prove that MX is A-iterable.
Let hsi W i < !i enumerate X .
Let hNi W i < !i be a sequence of elements of X such that the following hold for
all i < !.
(1.1) !1 N0 .
(1.2) Ni 2 NiC1 .
(1.3) si 2 Ni .
(1.4) hNi ; A \ Ni ; G \ Ni ; 2i hH.!2 /; A; G; 2i.
Since !1 N0 , for each i < !, Ni is transitive.
Since
H.!2 /G D H.!2 /;
there exist sequences
h.hMki W k < !i; fi ; z/ W i < !i;
hai W i < !i;
and
hbi W i < !i
(2.1) .hMki W k < !i; fi ; z/ 2 G \ NiC1 \ X ,
(2.2) .hMkiC1 W k < !i; fiC1 ; z/ < .hMki W k < !i; fi ; z/,
(2.3) ai 2 M0i ,
(2.4) for all p 2 Zi \ G,
.hMkiC1 W k < !i; fiC1 ; z/ < p;
(2.5) ji .ai / D Ni ,
(2.6) ji .bi / D si ,
735
where Zi is the closure of ai under F and where

ji W hMki W k < !i ! hji .Mki / W k < !i
is the iteration such that ji .fi / D fG .
For each i < ! let
Xi D ji ai D ji .b/ j b 2 ai :
Thus for each i < !, Xi X and further
X D [Xi j i < !:
We note that for each i < !, since ji .ai / D Ni ,
ji .A \ ai / D A \ Ni :
For each i < ! and let Di be the set of
.hMk W k < !i; f; z/ < .hMki W k < !i; fi ; z/
such that
j .A \ ai / D A \ j .ai /
and such that for all countable iterations

j W hMk W k < !i ! hj.Mk / W k < !i;
it is the case that j.A \ j .ai // D A \ j.j .ai //, where
j W hMki W k < !i ! hj .Mki / W k < !i
is the iteration such that j .fi / D f .
We claim that for some q 2 G,
p < q j p 2 Q.X/
max Di :
Assume toward a contradiction that this fails. Then for all q 2 G there exists p 2 G
such that p < q and p Di .
However G is L.; R/-generic and so there must exist
.hMk W k < !i; f; z/ 2 G
and an iteration
such that
(3.1) .hMk W k < !i; f; z/ < .hMki W k < !i; fi ; z/,
(3.2) j.A \ j .ai // A \ j.j .ai // where
j W hMki W k < !i ! hj .Mki / W k < !i
is the iteration such that j .fi / D f ,
(3.3) .hj.Mk / W k < !i; j.f /; z/ 2 G.
736
10 Further results
But this contradicts the fact that ji .A \ ai / D A \ Ni .

Therefore for some q 2 G,
p < q j p 2 Q.X/
max Di :
Note that Di is denable in the structure
hH.!2 /; A; G; 2i
from ai . Therefore Di \ Zi ; and so
.hMkiC1 W k < !i; fiC1 ; z/ 2 Di :
For each i < n < !, let
ji;n W hMki W k < !i ! hji;n .Mki / W k < !i
ji;n .fi / D fn
and let
ji;! W hMki W k < !i ! hji;! .Mki / W k < !i
ji;! .fi / D [fn j n < !:
Thus for all i < !,
hji;! .Mki / W k < !i 2 jiC1;! .M0iC1 /:
MX D [ji;! .Mki / j i; k < ! D [ji;! .ai / j i < !:
and that for each i < !,
ji;! .ai / D NiX
where NiX is the image of Ni under the collapsing map.
These identities are easily veried from the denitions.
Finally suppose
jO W MX ! MO X
For each i < !,
jO.hjiC1;! .MkiC1 / W k < !i/
is an iterate of hMkiC1 W k < !i. Further for each i < !,

hMkiC1 W k < !i 2 Di :
Therefore for each i < !,
jO.A \ NiX / D jO.jiC1;! .A \ ji;iC1 .ai ///
D A \ jO.jiC1;! .ji;iC1 .ai ///
D A \ jO.NiX /:
737
X
However for each i < !, NiX is transitive and NiX 2 NiC1
. Further
MX D [NiX j i < !:
Therefore
and so
MO X D [jO.NiX / j i < !
jO.A \ MX / D A \ MO X :
t
u
Therefore MX is A-iterable.
The motivation for considering Q.X/

max was to investigate whether the assumption
that the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !1 -dense implies that the inner model L.P .!1 //
is close to the inner model L.R/ as the covering theorems might suggest. The next
theorem shows that this is not the case. Note that (5) in the statement of the theorem is
marginally stronger than the conclusions of the covering theorems.
X 2 L.; R/:
Q.X/
max
is !-closed and homogeneous. Further, suppose G Q.X/

Then
max is L.; R/generic. Then for each A 2 ,
L.A; X; R/G ZFC
and in L.A; X; R/G the following hold.
(1) The nonstationary ideal on !1 is !1 -dense.
(2) L.P .!1 // D L.X; R/G.
(3) X is a denable (as a predicate) in the structure
hH.!2 /; 2i
from fG .
(4) 12 D !2 .
f W S ! Ord:
Then there exists g 2 L.A; X; R/ such that 2 S j f ./ D g./ is stationary.
738
10 Further results
Proof. (1)(4) follow from Theorem 10.40. (5) follows from (1), Lemma 10.41 and
from Theorem 3.42 using the chain condition of Q.X/
max to reduce to the case that
f WS !
where < L.A;X;R/ , cf. the proof of Lemma 6.79.
t
u
Perhaps our covering theorems do not capture all the covering consequences of the
assumption that the nonstationary ideal is !1 -dense, particularly if in addition large
cardinals are assumed to exist. Theorem 10.44 is the version of Theorem 10.42 which
addresses this question.
L.; R/ ADR :
Then for each set A 2 there exists an inner model L.S; R/ such that
(1) S Ord and A 2 L.S; R/,
(2) HODSL.S;R/ There is a proper class of Woodin cardinals.
t
u

preimages such that
L.; R/ DC C ADR :
X 2 L.; R/:
Suppose that G Q.X/
max is L.; R/-generic. Then there is an inner model
N L.; R/G
containing the ordinals, R and G such that:
(1) N ZFC C There is a proper class of Woodin cardinals;
(2) N INS is !1 -dense;
(3) X 2 N and X is 1 -weakly homogeneously Suslin in N ;
(4) N X 2 L.P .!1 //.
t
u
739
.;/
10.2.3 Pmax
.;/
We dene and briey analyze Pmax
which is the version of Q.X/
max which corresponds to
.;/
Pmax but with X D ;. Our interest in Pmax lies in Theorem 10.70. This theorem shows
that

hH.!2 /; Y; 2 W Y R; Y 2 L.R/i
does not imply ./. One corollary is that for the characterization of ./ using the
converse of the absoluteness theorem (Theorem 4.76), it is essential that the predicate
INS be added to the structure. For this application we need only consider the case when
X D ;; i. e. we are in effect just dening the version of Q.;/
max which corresponds
to Pmax . However all the results, including the absoluteness theorem (Theorem 10.55),
.X/
in the obvious fashion. We have chosen to concentrate on the special
generalize to Pmax
.;/
case of Pmax because this case sufces for our primary applications (and the notation
is slightly simpler). Strong Changs Conjecture is discussed in Section 9.6.
.;/
extension of L.R/ are
The iteration lemmas necessary for the analysis of the Pmax
.;/
actually simpler to prove than those for Qmax . Further the iteration lemmas necessary
for the analysis of the Q.;/
max extension of L.R/ are in turn (slightly) simpler than those
required for the analysis of the Q.X/
max extensions for general X.
We shall use the notation from Section 10.2.1. Suppose that A !1 . Let SA
denote the sequence hSi W i < !i where for each i < !, Si is the set of < !1 such
that
(1) is a limit ordinal,
(2) C i C 1 2 A,
(3) i D minj < ! j C j C 1 2 A.
Thus SA is a sequence of pairwise disjoint subsets of !1 .
.;/
Denition 10.45. Pmax
hM; a; zi
M ZFC C ZC:
(2) M is iterable.
(3) M
AC .
740
10 Further results
(4) Let hSi W i < !i D .Sa /M . For each i < !, Si .INS /M .

(5) Suppose that C !1M is closed and unbounded with C 2 M. Then there exists
a closed conal set D C such that D 2 Lx for some x 2 R \ M.
(6) X(Code) .M; Sa ; z/ D ;.
(7) Y(Code) .M; Sa ; z/ D P .!/ \ M.
hM1 ; a1 ; z1 i < hM0 ; a0 ; z0 i
if z1 D z0 and there exists an iteration
j W M0 ! M0
such that
(1) j.a0 / D a1 ,
(2) .INS /M0 D .INS /M1 \ M0 .
t
u
.;/
.;/
The nontriviality of Pmax
is an immediate corollary of the analysis of L.; R/Qmax
where
P .R/
is a pointclass closed under continuous preimages such that

Remark 10.46. The use of the analysis of the Q.;/
max -extension (Theorem 10.42) to
.;/
.;/
is for expediency. If one denes Pmax
using sequences of
obtain conditions in Pmax
.;/
models (as in the denition of Qmax ) then it is much easier to produce conditions. The
conditions can be constructed directly without reference to Q.;/
t
u
max .
Theorem 10.47. Suppose that A R and that
L.A; R/ ADC :
Then there exists
.;/
hM; a; zi 2 Pmax
such that
(1) A \ M 2 M and hM \ V!C1 ; A \ M; 2i hV!C1 ; A; 2i,
(2) M is A-iterable,
(3) X(Code) .M; a; z/ D ;.
741
Proof. Let G Q.X/

max be L.A; R/-generic where X D ;. Fix 0 to be least such that
L 0 .A; R/G ZFC C ZC;
and let B 2 P .R/ \ L.A; R/ be such that
11 .B/ > 0 . By Theorem 10.40 and
Lemma 10.41,
L.A; R/G ZFC
and further the following hold in L.A; R/G.
(1.1) X(Code) .SfG ; zG / D ;.
(1.2) Y(Code) .SfG ; zG / D P .!/.
(1.3)
AC
holds.
(1.4) The set

(1.5) The set
Let SfG D hSi W i < !i and let
AG D C i C 1 j is a limit ordinal and 2 Si :
Thus SAG D hSi \ C W i < !i where C is the set of countable limit ordinals and so
by (1.1), in L.A; R/G,
X(Code) .SAG ; zG / D ;:
By (1.4) and Lemma 4.24, the set of
Y L 0 .A; R/G j Y is countable and MY is strongly iterable
contains a club in P!1 .M /. Here MY is the transitive collapse of Y .
Thus, by (1.5), there exists a countable elementary substructure,
X L 0 .A; R/G;
such that
.;/
hM; a; zi 2 Pmax
and satises the requirements of the lemma, where

(2.1) z D zG ,
(2.2) M is the transitive collapse of X ,
(2.3) a D AG \ X \ !1 D AG \ .!1 /M .
t
u
742
10 Further results
.;/
It is convenient to organize the analysis of Pmax
following closely that of Q.X/
max . The
reason is simply that most of the proofs adapt easily to the new context. The next four
lemmas summarize the basic iteration facts that one needs. These lemmas are direct
analogs of the lemmas we proved as part of the analysis of Q.X/
max . We leave the details
to the reader.
.;/
, such as the !-closure
The rst two easily yield elementary consequences for Pmax
.;/
and homogeneity of Pmax , the latter two allow one to complete the basic analysis.

hM1 ; a1 ; z1 i < hM0 ; a0 ; z0 i
in
.;/
Pmax
and let
j W M0 ! M0
be the .unique/ iteration such that j.a0 / D a1 .

(1) X(Code) .M0 ; Sa0 ; z0 / X(Code) .M1 ; Sa1 ; z1 /.
(2) Suppose that b0 2 M0 is such that for each i < !,
Sia0 M Sib0 2 .INS /M0 ;
where hSia0 W i < !i D .Sa0 /M0 and hSib0 W i < !i D .Sb0 /M0 . Suppose that
x0 2 M0 is a subset of ! such that
.;/
:
hM0 ; b0 ; x0 i 2 Pmax
.;/
Then hM1 ; j.b0 /; x0 i 2 Pmax
and hM1 ; j.b0 /; x0 i < hM0 ; b0 ; x0 i.
t
u
.;/
As we have indicated, the iteration lemmas required for the analysis of Pmax
are
.;/
.;/
routine generalizations of those for Qmax . The situation for Pmax is actually quite a bit
.;/
conditions are simpler and there is more freedom in
less complicated since the Pmax
constructing iterations.

.;/
;
hM1 ; a1 ; z1 i 2 Pmax
.;/
;
t ! codes M0 , and that t 2 Lz1 . Let

hSia0 W i < !i D .Sa0 /M0 ;
hSia1 W i < !i D .Sa1 /M1 ;
and let C be the set of < !1M1 such that is an indiscernible of Lt . Then there
exists an iteration j W M0 ! M0 such that j 2 M1 and such that:
(1) for each i < !, C \ j.Sia0 / D C \ Sia1 ;
.;/
(2) hM1 ; j.a0 /; z0 i 2 Pmax
;
(3) hM1 ; j.a0 /; z0 i < hM0 ; a0 ; z0 i.
t
u
743

hD W < !1 i
.;/
. Let Y R be the set of reals x such that x
codes a pair .p; / with p 2 D . Suppose that .M; T; / 2 H.!1 / is such that:

g 2 H.!1 /. Then
.;/
Suppose that hp W < !1M i is a sequence of conditions in Pmax
such that
(v) hp W < !1M i 2 M ,

(vi) for all < !1M , p 2 D ,
(vii) for all < < !1M ,
p < p :
Suppose g Coll.!; !1M / is M -generic and let
Z D [Z j < !1M
where for each < !1M , Z D P .!/ \ M and hM ; a ; z0 i D p . Suppose is a
Z-uniform indiscernible,
!1M < < !2M
and that hAi W i < !i 2 M g is a sequence of subsets of !1M . Then for each m < !,
hN ; a; zi 2 D! M
1
such that the following hold where

hSi W i < !i D .Sa /N ;
and where for each < !1M , is the th Z-uniform indiscernible above !1N .
(1) hN ; a; zi 2 M g.
(2) < !1N and 2 Sm .
(3) For each i < ! and for each < !1M , 2 Ai if and only if 2 .SQi /N .
(4) For all < !1M , hN ; a; zi < p .
(5) hp W < !1M i 2 N .
t
u
744
10 Further results

hD W < !1 i
.;/
codes a pair .p; / with p 2 D and suppose that
.M; I/ 2 H.!1 /
.;/
hN ; a; zi 2 Pmax
;
.M ; / be the !1N -th iterate of .M; /. Then there exists a sequence
hp W < !1N i 2 N
and there exists .b; x/ 2 N such that
.;/
(1) hN ; b; xi 2 Pmax
,
(2) for all < !1N , p 2 D and

hN ; b; xi < p ;
(3) there exists an M -generic lter g Coll.!; <!1N / such that g 2 N and
t
u
hp W < !1N i 2 M g.
.;/
is !-closed.
Lemma 10.52. Suppose that L.R/ ADC . Then Pmax
t
u
.;/
is homogeneous.
Lemma 10.53. Suppose that L.R/ ADC . Then Pmax
t
u
We adopt the usual notational conventions. A lter

.;/
G Pmax
is semi-generic if for all < !1 there exists a condition

hM; a; zi 2 G
such that <
!1M .
.;/
Suppose that G Pmax

(2) AG D [a j hM; a; zi 2 G,
(3) IG D [.INS /M j hM; a; zi 2 G,

(4) P .!1 /G D [M \ P .!1 / j hM; a; zi 2 G,
where for each hM; a; zi 2 G,
j W M ! M
is the (unique) iteration such that j.a/ D AG . Of course, as for Q.;/
max , zG must occur
in every condition in G.
745
Theorem 10.54. Suppose that

L.R/ AD:
.;/
Pmax

Then
Suppose
.;/
G Pmax
L.R/G ZFC
and in L.R/G:
(1) L.R/G D L.R/AG ;
(2) P .!1 /G D P .!1 /;
(3) IG is a normal !2 -saturated ideal on !1 ;
(5) X(Code) .SAG ; zG / D ; and Y(Code) .SAG ; zG / D P .!/;
(6)
AC
holds.
.;/
.;/
Proof. By Lemma 10.52, Pmax
is !-closed and by Lemma 10.53, Pmax
is homogeneous.
By the usual arguments, (2) and the assertion that
L.R/G ZF C !1 -DC
each follow from Lemma 10.51 using Theorem 10.47 to supply the necessary conditions.
.;/
. (5) implies
(4), (5) and (6) follow from (2) and the denition of the order on Pmax
that R can be wellordered in L.R/G and so
L.R/G ZFC:
By (2), if C !1 is closed, unbounded, then C contains a closed, unbounded, subset
which is constructible from a real. Thus
.INS /L.R/AG D .INS /L.R/G \ L.R/AG :
This implies that
.S(Code) .SAG ; zG //L.R/AG D .S(Code) .SAG ; zG //L.R/G ;
and so L.R/Ag ZFC.
The generic lter G can be dened in L.R/Ag as the set of all
.;/
hM; a; zG i 2 Pmax
such that there exists an iteration

j W M ! M
satisfying:
746
10 Further results
(1.1) j.a/ D AG ,
(1.2) j 2 L.M; AG /,
(1.3) .INS /M D .INS /L.R/AG \ M .

Note that (1.2) follows from (1.1) since
M AC :
Finally (3) can be proved by adapting the proof of the analogous claim for Pmax .
A slightly more elegant approach is the following. First standard arguments show
that in L.R/G, for each set
B 2 L.R/ \ P .R/
there exists a countable elementary
X hH.!2 /; B; 2i
such that MX is B-iterable, where MX is the transitive collapse of X . This implies, by
Lemma 3.34 and Lemma 4.24, that for each < L.R/ if
L .R/G ZFC
then for a closed, unbounded, set of countable elementary substructures,
Y L .R/G;
the transitive collapse of Y is B-iterable for each B 2 Y \ L.R/ \ P .R/.
Now assume toward a contradiction that INS is not saturated in L.R/G. Let 0 be
least such that
(2.1) L 0 .R/G ZFC C ZC,
(2.2) there exists a predense set
A P .!1 / n INS
of cardinality !2 such that for all S; T 2 A if S T then S \ T 2 INS .
Let 2 L 0 .R/ be a term for A. Let be the set of pairs .hM; a; zi; b/ such that
.;/
(3.1) hM; a; zi 2 Pmax
,
(3.2) b 2 .P .!1 / n INS /M ,

(3.3) hM; a; zi j .b/ 2 .
Let B be the set of x 2 R which code an element of .
Fix p 2 G such that p forces that is a term for an antichain in .P .!1 / n INS ; /
of cardinality !2 . Finally choose a countable elementary substructure
Y0 L 0 .R/G;
such that
(4.1) B; p; G 2 Y ,
(4.2) the transitive collapse of Y0 is B-iterable.
Let M0 be the transitive collapse of Y0 and let a0 be the image of AG under the collapsing map. Similarly let A0 be the image of A under the collapsing map.
747
Thus
.;/
hM0 ; a0 ; zG i 2 Pmax
and hM0 ; a0 ; zG i < p. Suppose
.;/
G0 Pmax
is L.R/-generic with hM0 ; a0 ; zG i 2 G0 . We work in L.R/G0 . Let

j W M0 ! M0
be the iteration such that j .a0 / D AG0 .
Let AG0 be the interpretation of be G0 . Since p 2 G0 , AG0 is an antichain in
.P .!1 / n INS ; / of cardinality !2 .
However A0 is predense in
.P .!1 / n INS ; /M0 ;
and so
5j .A0 /
must contain a club in !1 . Since M0 is B-iterable,

j .A0 / AG0 ;
t
u
.;/
There is an interesting absoluteness theorem for Pmax
.

L.R/ AD:
hH.!2 /; 2; Y W Y 2 L.R/; Y Ri;
and that
Pmax
hH.!2 /; 2; Y W Y 2 L.R/; Y RiL.R/

Then
.;/
Pmax
hH.!2 /; 2; Y W Y 2 L.R/; Y RiL.R/
:
:
Proof. Fix the 2 sentence . We give the proof in the case that none of the predicates
for the sets Y occur in . The general case is similar.
As usual we may suppose that
D .8x0 .9x1 .x0 ; x1 ///
where
.x0 ; x1 / is a 0 formula. Fix a condition

.;/
hM; a; zi 2 Pmax
and x a set b0 2 H.!2 /M . We prove there exists a condition

O a;
hM;
O zi
O 2 P .;/
max
748
10 Further results
O
and a set b1 2 H.!2 /M such that:

O a;
(1.1) hM;
O zi
O < hM; a; zi.
(1.2) Let
j W M ! M
be the iteration such that j.a/ D a.

O Then
O
H.!2 /M
j.b0 /; b1 :
The theorem follows easily from this.

Suppose that G Pmax is a L.R/. We work in L.R/G.
Fix a sequence hTk W k < !i of pairwise disjoint stationary subsets of !1 and x
< ./L.R/
such that
L .R/ ZFC :
.;/
We claim there exists a semi-generic lter F Pmax
such that the following hold
where
hSi W i < !i D SAF :
(2.1) hM; a; zi 2 F .
(2.2) There exists
Y L .R/
.;/
such that !1 Y and such that F \ Y is Y -generic for Pmax
.
(2.3) IF D P .!1 /F \ INS .

(2.4) Let P .!/F D P .!1 /F \ P .!/. Let Z be the rst !1 many P .!/F -uniform
indiscernibles above !1 .
a) For each k < !,
hZ; SQi \ Z; 2i h!1 ; Ti ; 2i;
b) For each S 2 P .!1 /F n INS ,

Tk \ S j k < ! P .!1 / n INS :
The potential difculty in constructing F is arranging that (2.4) holds, we deal with
this by in effect choosing Z before constructing F .
Let
X0 L .R/
be a countable elementary substructure with
hM; a; zi 2 X0 :
Let L 0 .0 / be the transitive collapse of X0 where 0 D X0 \ R.
749
.;/ L .0 /
Let g0 .Pmax
/ 0
be an L 0 .0 /-generic lter with
.hMk W k < !i; a; z/ 2 g0 :

Thus
L 0 .0 /g0 ZFC ;
L 0 .0 /g0 is iterable and the critical sequence of any iteration of L 0 .0 / is an initial

segment of the .P .!/ \ X0 /-uniform indiscernibles.
We require that X0 is chosen such that L 0 .0 /g0 is A-iterable where A codes
the rst order diagram of
hL .R/; 2i:
The existence of X0 follows from the fact that
L.R/ AD
using Theorem 9.7 and reection arguments: cf. the proof of Lemma 4.40.
It is now straightforward to construct an iteration
j W L 0 .0 /g0 ! L 0 .0 /g0
of length !1 such that the semi-generic lter generated by j.g0 / is as desired, noting
that with
.;/
j p < q for some p 2 j.g0 /
F D q 2 Pmax
then
(3.1) AF D j.Ag0 /,
(3.2) P .!1 /F D P .!1 / \ L 0 .0 /g0 ,
(3.3) IF D .INS /
L .0 /g0

0
(3.4) the P .!/F uniform indiscernibles above !1 are exactly the .P .!/ \ X0 /uniform indiscernibles above !1 ,
where as above, P .!/F D P .!1 /F \ P .!/.
.;/
Fix a semi-generic lter F Pmax
which satises (2.1)(2.4). Let
B0 D j1 .b0 /
where
j1 W M ! M
is the (unique) iteration such that j1 .a/ D AF .

Choose
X1 L .R/G
such that X1 is countable,
0 ; hTk W k < !i; F ; B0 X1
and such that N is iterable where N is the transitive collapse of X1 . By the remarks
above, X1 exists. Let .a0 ; F0 / be the image of .AF ; F / under the collapsing map.
750
10 Further results
Similarly let hTk0 W k < !i be the image of hTk W k < !i under the collapsing map and
let B00 be the image of B0 .
Fix t0 ! which codes N . Let
.;/
O d; zi
hM;
O 2 Pmax
be such that t0 is recursive in z.
O
Let
j2 W N ! N
O
be an iteration of length !1M such that

O
j2 2 M;
O
and such that the following hold in M where .a0 ; F0 / D j2 ..a0 ; F0 //.
(4.1) Let
Sa D hSi W i < !i
and let
Sa0 D hSi W i < !i:
Then for each i < !,
Si \ C D Si \ C;
O
where C is the set of < !1 such that is an indiscernible of Lz.
(4.2) IF0 D P .!1 /F0 \ INS .
(4.3) Let be the !1th .X \ P .!//-uniform indiscernible. Then
3iC1 j i 2 zO D i < ! j .Si / \ is stationary:
O Note that we do not require that
Such an iteration is easily constructed in M.
.INS /N D .INS /M \ N :
We now come to the key points. First
.;/
O j2 .a0 /; zi
O 2 Pmax
hM;
and
O j2 .a0 /; zi
O < hM; a; zi:
hM;
This follows from (4.1)(4.3). The second key point is that

O
where b 2 H.!2 /N
H.!2 /M j2 .B00 /; j2 .b/

is such that
H.!2 /N B00 ; b:
Note then since

X1 L .R/G;
the witness b must exist. Thus
is as desired. The theorem follows.
O j2 .a0 /; zi
O
hM;
t
u
751
.;/
As we have indicated, our interest in Pmax
lies in Theorem 10.70 which shows that

hH.!2 /; 2i
does not imply ./. The failure of ./ in the resulting extension is an immediate
corollary of the following lemma.
Lemma 10.56. Assume ./. Suppose that
S D hSi W i < !i
is a sequence of pairwise disjoint stationary subsets of !1 . Then for each z 2 P .!/,
X(Code) .S; z/ D P .!/:
Proof. Assume toward a contradiction that
X(Code) .S; z/ P .!/;
and x t 2 P .!/ n X(Code) .S; z/.
Fix a lter G Pmax such that
(1.1) G is L.R/-generic,
(1.2) L.P .!1 // D L.R/G.
By the genericity of G there exists h.M; I /; ai 2 G and there exists hsi W i < !i 2 M
such that
(2.1) I D .INS /M ,
(2.2) M ZC C 1 -Replacement C ./,
(2.3) .z; t / 2 M,
(2.4) j.hsi W i < !i/ D hSi W i < !i, where
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
is the iteration such that j.a/ D AG .
By Lemma 10.21, the .M \ P .!//-uniform indiscernibles above !1 coincide with
the .M \ P .!//-uniform indiscernibles above !1 . Let h W < !2 i be the increasing enumeration of the .M \ P .!//-uniform indiscernibles above !1 .
Let
b D i < ! j SQi is stationary in !1 :
Let
c D i < ! j 2iC1 2 b
752
10 Further results
and let
d D i < ! j 3iC1 2 b:
By the genericity of G again, we can suppose that c D t and that d codes M.
Let
S(Code) .S; z/ D h. ; X ; Y / W < !2 i:
Since M ./, 0 D .!2 /M and

.S(Code) .S; z//M D S(Code) .S; z/j0 :

Therefore if D !1 ,
(3.1) Y D .Y(Code) .S; z//M ,

(3.2) D !1 ,
(3.3) b D i < ! j SQi is stationary in .
Since d codes M, the least indiscernible of Ld is above . This implies that
t 2 XC1 which is a contradiction.
t
u
The proof of Theorem 10.70 requires the following adaptation of Theorem 9.32
and Theorem 9.35, as well as Theorem 10.69 which is the generalization of Theorem 9.39. Among these theorems it is only Theorem 10.69, which concerns obtaining
from suitable assumptions on P .R/ that
.;/
L.; R/Pmax Martins MaximumCC .c/;

which requires any additional work to prove.
.;/
.;/
Then Pmax
is !-closed and homogeneous. Further, suppose G Pmax
is L.; R/generic. Then
L.; R/G !2 -DC
and in L.; R/G:

(1) P .!1 /G D P .!1 /;
(2) P .!1 / L.R/AG ;
(4) X(Code) .SAG ; zG / D ; and Y(Code) .SAG ; zG / D P .!/.
The absoluteness theorem, Theorem 10.55 also easily generalizes.
t
u
753
hH.!2 /; 2; Y W Y 2 L.; R/; Y Ri;
and that
Pmax
hH.!2 /; 2; Y W Y 2 L.; R/; Y RiL.;R/
:
Then
.;/
Pmax
hH.!2 /; 2; Y W Y 2 L.; R/; Y RiL.;R/
:
t
u
The proof of Theorem 9.39, which shows that

L.; R/Pmax Martins MaximumCC .c/;
if
.;/
using the following techgeneralizes to to establish the corresponding version for Pmax
nical lemma. This lemma is closely related to the results of .Foreman and Magidor
1995/.
Lemma 10.59. Suppose that P is a partial order such that:

(i) P is !3 -cc,
P
(ii) .!1 /V D .!1 /V .

Suppose that jP j D and that for each set A , A# exists.
Then
P
.12 /V D .12 /V :
t
u
We shall obtain this as corollary of a slightly more general theorem, Theorem 10.62, which requires the following generalization of one of the main denitions
of .Foreman and Magidor 1995/.
Denition 10.60. Suppose that P is a partial order. P is weakly proper if for every
ordinal ,
.P!1 .//V
is conal in
P
.P!1 .//V :
t
u
754
10 Further results
Remark 10.61. Foreman and Magidor dene a partial order P to be reasonable if for
every ordinal ,
.P!1 .//V
is stationary in
P
.P!1 .//V :
It is not difcult to show that this notion is strictly stronger than that of being weakly
proper. Recall that P is proper if for every and for every set S P!1 ./, if S is
stationary then S is stationary in V P . Foreman and Magidor, .Foreman and Magidor
1995/, prove Theorem 10.62 and (implicitly) a strong version of Theorem 10.63 for
reasonable partial orders; this version does not require the hypothesis,
L.A; R/ AD:
The special case of L.R/; i. e. A D ;, has also been examined by Neeman and Zapletal,
but, as here, in the context of the relevant determinacy hypothesis.
t
u
Theorem 10.62. Suppose that P is a partial order such that P is weakly proper. Suppose that jP j D and that for each set A , A# exists. Then
P
.12 /V D .12 /V :
Proof. There exists a tree T on ! 2 such that if g P is V -generic then in V g;
pT D x # j x 2 R:
It is convenient to work in V g. Since jP jV !2V , !3V is a cardinal in V g.
.12 /V < .12 /V g :
Fix x0 2 RV g such that
.12 /V < 0
where 0 is the least ordinal above !1V such that L 0 x0 is admissible.
Thus x0# 2 pT . Since P is weakly proper, there exists a subtree S0 T such that
(1.1) S0 2 V ,
(1.2) jS0 jV D !,
(1.3) x0# 2 pS0 .
Let S be the transitive collapse of S0 so that S is a tree on ! for some countable
ordinal, which is isomorphic to the tree S0 . Let x 2 RV code S and for each !1
let be the least ordinal above such that L x is admissible.
Thus in V the following hold,
(2.1) for all t 2 pS , t D z # for some z 2 R,
(2.2) for all < !1 and for all t 2 pS ,
rank.M.z # ; ! C // <
where z # D t and where M.z # ; ! C / is the ! C model of z # .
We note that (2.2) holds by boundedness.
755
By absoluteness, (2.1) and (2.2) hold in V g. Therefore in V g, for all < !1 ,
rank.M.x0# ; ! C // < :
By reection
rank.M.x0# ; !1 // < !1 ;
which contradicts the choice of x0 since necessarily
!1 < .12 /V :
t
u
There is a closely related theorem. Recall the following which is formally stated
as Theorem 2.30. Suppose that A R is such that every set in P .R/ \ L.A; R/
is -weakly homogeneously Suslin and that P is a partial order such that P 2 V .
Suppose that T is a -weakly homogeneous tree such that
A D pT :
Finally, suppose that G P is V -generic. Then there is a generic elementary embedding
such that
(1) jG .A/ D AG D pT V G ,
(2) RG D RV G ,
(3) L.AG ; RG / D jG .f /.a/ j a 2 RG ; f W R ! L.A; R/ and f 2 L.A; R/.
Further the properties (1)(3) uniquely specify jG .
Theorem 10.63. Suppose that A R,
L.A; R/ AD;
and that every set in P .R/ \ L.A; R/ is -weakly homogeneously Suslin. Suppose
that P 2 V is a partial order such that P is weakly proper. Suppose that G P is
V -generic and let
be the associated generic elementary embedding. Then
jG ./ D
for all 2 Ord.
Proof. Assume toward a contradiction that for some 2 Ord,
jG ./ :
Let be the least ordinal such that jG ./ ; i. e. the critical point of jG . Necessarily,
< L.A;R/ :
Let
W dom./ !
756
10 Further results
be a surjection such that

(1.1) 2 L.A; R/,
(1.2) dom./ R,
(1.3) if Z dom./ is
11 then
sup.t / j t 2 Z < :
The existence of follows from Theorem 3.40 noting that since is the critical point
of jG , is an uncountable regular cardinal of L.A; R/, below L.A;R/ . This theorem
of Steel was the key to the proofs of the covering theorems.
Fix a weakly homogeneous tree such that
dom./ D pT :
Thus
pT V G D jG .dom.//:
By the choice of ,
jG . / ;
and jG ./ D for all < .
Therefore there exists t0 2 dom.jG .// such that
jG ./.z/ < jG ./.t0 /
for all z 2 dom./.
Thus in V G, t0 2 pT . Since P is weakly proper in V , there exists a subtree
T0 T such that
(2.1) T0 2 V ,
(2.2) jT0 jV !,
(2.3) t0 2 pT0 .
1
By (1.3), since in V , pT0 is a
1 set, there exists x0 2 dom./ such that in V ,
.z/ < .x0 /

for all z 2 pT0 . Therefore by the elementarity of jG ,
jG ./.z/ < jG ./.x0 /
for all z 2 pT0
V G
. But t0 2 pT0 V G and so

jG ./.t0 / < jG ./.x0 /;
which contradicts the choice of t0 .
t
u
The technical lemma, Lemma 10.59, which we require for the proof of Theorem 10.69 is an immediate corollary of the next theorem.
757
Theorem 10.64. Suppose P is a partial order such that P is !3 -cc and such that
P
.!1 /V D .!1 /V . Then P is weakly proper.
Proof. By the chain condition of P , !3V is a cardinal in V P and so both !1V and !3V
are cardinals in V P . Therefore by Lemma 9.120,
.cof.!2V //V
> !:
Again by the chain condition of P , it sufces to prove that

.P!1 .//V
is conal in
.P!1 .//V ;
where D !2V . But this is immediate.
t
u
Theorem 9.134, Theorem 9.135, and Theorem 9.136 (these are the theorems of
Section 9.7 concerning ideals on !2 ) are immediate corollaries of the boundedness
theorems, Theorem 10.62 and Theorem 10.63, together with the next lemma.
Lemma 10.65. Suppose that I P .!2 / is a normal uniform ideal such that
j cof./ D ! 2 I:
Let P D hP .!2 / n I; i. Suppose that either
(1) I is !3 -saturated, or
(2) I is !-presaturated and that P is @! -cc, or
(3) 2@2 D @3 and
.!1 /V D .!1 /V :
Then P is weakly proper.
Proof. (1) is an immediate corollary of Theorem 10.64. The proof of (2) is straightforward. The relevant observation is that since the ideal I is !-presaturated and since
< !2 j cof./ D ! 2 I;
it follows that for each k < !,
V
//V
.cof.!kC1
> !:
Since P is @! -cc, every countable set of ordinals in V P is covered by a set in V of

cardinality (in V ) less than @! . This combined with the observation above, yields (2).
The proof of (3) is a straightforward adaptation of the proof of Theorem 10.64,
again one shows that for each k < !,
V
.cof.!kC1
//V
> !;
and of course one is only concerned with those values of k < ! such that P is not
!kC1 -cc; i. e. with cardinals below the chain condition satised by P .
758
10 Further results
Since 2@2 D @3 , P is !4 -cc in V and so all cardinals above !3V are preserved.
Therefore we need consider only the cases k 2. For k D 0 this is immediate and the
case k D 1 follows by appealing to the generic ultrapower associated to the V -generic
lter G P . This leaves the case k D 2; i. e. !3V . But this case now follows by
Lemma 9.120.
t
u
Lemma 10.68, below, isolates the application of Lemma 10.59 within the proof of
Theorem 10.69. This lemma in turn requires the following two lemmas.
Lemma 10.66. Suppose that hS W < !1 i is a sequence of stationary subsets of
!1 and that h W !1 i is a closed increasing sequence of cardinals such that for
each < !1 , C1 is measurable and such that !1 <
. Suppose that S !1 is
stationary and let Z be the set of X 2 P!1 .
/ such that
(1) X \ !1 2 S ,
(2) For each X \ !1 ,
ordertype.X \ / 2 S :
Then Z is stationary in P!1 .
/.
Proof. Suppose T !1 is stationary. Let GT be the game played on !1 for T :
The players alternate choosing countable ordinals, i , for i < ! with Player I
choosing i for i even. Player I wins if
supi j i < ! 2 T:
Since T is stationary, Player II cannot have a winning strategy.
For each < !1 let G be the game of length ! .1 C / dened as follows. A play
of the game is an increasing sequence
h W < ! .1 C /i
of countable ordinals. Player I chooses for even and Player II chooses for
odd.
Player II wins if for some ,
sup j < ! .1 C / S :
We claim that for each , Player II cannot have a winning strategy in G . This
is easily proved by induction on . Let 0 be least such that Player II has a winning
strategy in G0 and let
W !1<!.1C0 / ! !1
be a winning strategy for Player II. Clearly we may suppose that 0 is least for all
possible choices of hS W 0 i.
If 0 D 0 or if 0 is a successor ordinal then one obtains a contradiction by producing a winning strategy for Player II in GS0 .
759
If 0 is a limit ordinal then again one can construct a winning strategy for Player II
in the game GS0 by using an increasing ! sequence conal in 0 . One constructs a
strategy
W !1<! ! !1
for Player II in GS0 such that if hi W i < !i is a play against then there exists a
play,
h W < ! .1 C 0 /i;
against such that
(1.1) for all < 0 ,
sup j < ! .1 C / 2 S ;
(1.2) supi j i < ! D sup j < ! .1 C 0 /:

The rst condition, (1.1), is arranged by appealing to the induction hypothesis; i. e. that
Player II does not have a winning strategy in G for any < 0 and for any choice of
hS W i.
This proves the claim that for each , Player II cannot have a winning strategy in
G .
Fix a countable elementary substructure
X H.
C /
such that X \ !1 2 S and such that
h W < !1 i 2 X:
We claim there exists
Y H.
C /
such that
(2.1) X Y ,
(2.2) X \ !1 D Y \ !1 ,
(2.3) for each X \ !1 ,
ordertype.Y \ / 2 S :
If not then Player II has a winning strategy in G where D X \ !1 . This follows
from the following observation. Suppose
Z H.
C /
is a countable elementary substructure and 2 Z is a measurable cardinal. Let 2 Z
be a normal measure on and let
2 \A 2 Z j A 2 :
Let
Z D f ./ j f 2 Z:
760
10 Further results
Then
(3.1) Z H.
C /,
(3.2) Z \ V D Z \ V .
Using this it is straightforward to prove the claim above; if Y H.!2 / does not exist
then Player II has a winning strategy in G where D X \ !1 .
Thus Y H.
C / exists as required and the lemma follows.
t
u
Lemma 10.67. Suppose that hSi W i < !i is a sequence of pairwise disjoint stationary
subsets of !1 and that there exist !1 many measurable cardinals. Then there is a
partial order P such that P is .!; 1/-distributive and such that if G P is V -generic
then
.INS /V D .INS /V G \ V
and in V G there exists a sequence
hTi W i < !i
of pairwise disjoint subsets of !1 and an ordinal such that:
(1) For each i < !, Ti !1 and for each S 2 P .!1 / \ V n INS , both S \ Ti INS
and S n Ti INS .
(2) !1 < < !2 and cof. / D !1 .
(3) There exists a closed conal set C such that for each i < !,
hC; SQi \ C; 2i h!1 ; Ti ; 2i:
(4) Suppose that
W !1 !
is a surjection and that < .
a) Suppose that i < !,
S D < !1 j ordertype./ 2 Si ;
and that S is stationary. Then for each k < !, both S \ Tk and S n Tk are
stationary in !1 .
b) Suppose that cof./ D !1 , C is closed and conal, S !1 is
stationary and that for some i < !,
hC; SQi \ C; 2i h!1 ; S; 2i:
Then for each k < !, both S \ Tk and S n Tk are stationary in !1 .
761
Proof. Suppose that is a cardinal and that S !1 is stationary. Let P . ; S / denote

the partial order where:
(1.1) P . ; S / is the set of pairs .f; c/ such that
a) c !1 , c is closed, and c is countable,
b) f W max.c/ ! and for all 2 c,
ordertype.f / 2 S:
(1.2) .c0 ; f0 / .c1 ; f1 / if
a) c0 D c1 \ .max.c0 / C 1/,
b) f0 f1 .
Suppose that is measurable or a countable limit of measurable cardinals.
Suppose that
A !1
is stationary and that
g P . ; S /
is V -generic then in V g:
(2.1) V ! V .
(2.2) 2 SQ .
(2.3) A is stationary in !1 .
This follows from Lemma 10.66. The key point is that by Lemma 10.66,
X 2 P!1 . / j X \ 2 A and ordertype.X / 2 S
is stationary in P!1 . /.
More generally suppose h W < !1 i is a closed increasing sequence of cardinals
such that for each < !1 , C1 is measurable. Suppose that hA W < !1 i is a
sequence of stationary subsets of !1 and that
Y
g
P . ; A /
<!1
is V -generic where the product partial order is computed with countable support. Then
in V g:
(3.1) V ! V .
(3.2) For each < !1 , 2 AQ .
(3.3) For each < !1 let
g D g \
P . ; A /:
<
Then
.INS /V gC1 D .INS /V g \ V g C1 :
762
10 Further results
Again the verication is straightforward using Lemma 10.66. Let

D sup j < !1 :
The key point is that, by Lemma 10.66, for each stationary set A !1 ,
SA P!1 . /
is stationary in P!1 . / where SA is the set of X 2 P!1 . / such that
(4.1) X \ !1 2 A,
(4.2) For each X \ !1 ,
ordertype.X \ / 2 A :
The rst claim, (3.1), follows from this as does
.INS /V D .INS /V g \ V;
which is a weak version of the third claim, (3.3). Note that by (3.1),
Y
V
Y
V gC1
P . ; A /
D
P . ; A /
;
2!1 n
2!1 n
where D C 1, and so
V g D V g C1 g C1;!1
where
g C1;!1 D g \
Y
V
P . ; A /
2!1 n
where D C 1.
Thus (3.3) follows by applying Lemma 10.66 in V g C1 and arguing as above.
Let G0 Coll.!1 ; !1 / be V -generic and in V G0 let for each k < !,
Tk D fG1
.k/
0
where fG0 W !1 ! !1 is the function given by G0 .
For each i < ! let i be the i th measurable cardinal. For each (nonzero) limit
ordinal < !1 let CiC1 be the . C i /th -measurable cardinal where i < ! and let
D sup j < :
Let Q0 be the product partial order, dened in V G:
Y
P . ; Si /;
Q0 D
2Z
where
(5.1) Z D [Tk j k < !,
(5.2) for each 2 Z, i D k where
2 Tk :
763
As above, the product is dened with countable support.

Let
P D Coll.!1 ; !1 / Q0 :
We claim that P is as required. The required properties, (1)(3), follow from the
denitions. We must verify (4). Let G P be V -generic and that
V G D V G0 H0
where H0 Q0 is V G0 -generic.
For each < !1
V G0 H0 D V G0 H0 H ;!1
where
D H0 \
H0
Y
V G0
P . ; Si /
2Z\
and where
H0;!1
D H0 \
Y
P . ; Si /
V G0 H0
:
2Zn

Y
V
P . ; Si /
2Z\
Y
V G0
P . ; Si /
2Z\
since V ! V in V G0 . Therefore it follows that for each < !1 , G0 is V H0 generic for Coll.!1 ; !1 /.
Thus for each < !, if
C1
S 2 .P .!1 / n INS /V H0
H0C1 G0 ,
then in V
for each k < !, both S \ Tk and S n Tk are stationary. Both
(4(a)) and (4(b)) follow from this.
t
u
Lemma 10.68. Suppose that V D L.S; A; R/G and
(i) L.S; A; R/ ADC ,
(ii) S Ord and A R,
.;/
(iii) G Pmax
is an L.S; A; R/-generic lter.
Suppose 2 Ord,
L.S; A; R/G is a Woodin cardinal;
and that
L.S; A; R/G There is a measurable cardinal above :
Suppose that 2 Ord is such that < , S 2 V , and such that
V 2 V:
764
10 Further results
Suppose that
Y L .S; A; R/G
is a countable elementary substructure with G; S; A; Y , let M0 be the transitive collapse of Y , and let .0 ; g0 / be the image of .; G/ under the collapsing map.
Suppose that P0 2 M0 g0 is a partial order such that
M0 g0 P0 is !2 -cc and jP0 j D !2
and such that
M0 g0 INS D .INS /V
P0
\ V :
Let h0 P0 be an M0 g0 -generic lter. Then there exists a partial order

P1 2 V0 \ M0 g0 h0 such that if h1 P1 is an M0 g0 h0 -generic lter and
if
I0 D .I<0 /M0 g0 h0 h1 ;
then the following hold.
(1) .INS /M0 g0 h0 D .INS /M0 g0 h0 h1 \ M0 g0 h0 .
(2) There exist
.;/
hN ; a; zi 2 Pmax
and an iteration
j W .M0 g0 h0 h1 ; I0 / ! .M0 j.g0 /j.h0 /j.h1 /; j.I0 //
of length !1N such that
a) j 2 N ,
b) j..INS /M0 g0 h0 / D .INS /N \ M0 j.g0 /j.h0 /,
c) for each p 2 j.g0 /, hN ; a; zi < p.
Proof. The key point is that, by Theorem 10.64,
M g0 P0 is weakly proper
and so by Lemma 10.67,
.12 /M0 g0 D .12 /M0 g0 h0 :
Let a0 D .Ag0 /M0 g0 and let z0 D .zg0 /M g0 . Thus
X(Code) .M g0 ; Sa0 ; z0 / D X(Code) .M g0 h0 ; Sa0 ; z0 /
since by Theorem 10.54(5),
P .!/ \ M0 D Y(Code) .M0 g0 ; Sa0 ; z0 /:
Here is the second place we make full use of the thinning requirement, Denition 10.22(iv(b)), the rst place was in the proof of Theorem 10.55.
Let
hsi0 W i < !i D .Sa0 /M0 g0
765
Note that it is certainly possible that

h..si0 / /M0 g0 W i < !i h..si0 / /M0 g0 h0 W i < !i:
Let
0 D .!2 /M0 g0 D .12 /M0 g0 D .12 /M0 g0 h0 :
Note that S(Code) .M0 g0 ; Sa0 ; z0 / has length 0 .
By the preservation properties of P0 ,
.INS /M0 g0 D .INS /M0 g0 h0 \ M0 g0 :
Thus
S(Code) .M0 g0 h0 ; Sa0 ; z0 /j0 D S(Code) .M0 g0 ; Sa0 ; z0 /:
For each < !1M0 let 0 be the th measurable cardinal of M0 g0 h0 and let
0 D sup 0 j < !1M0 :
Let P1 2 V0 \M0 g0 h0 satisfy in V0 \M0 g0 h0 the conclusions of Lemma 10.67
relative to hsi0 W i < !i. Let
h1 P1
be an M0 g0 h0 -generic lter.
Let
hti0 W i < !i 2 M0 g0 h0 h1
be the sequence of subsets of !1M0 given by h1 .
Thus the following hold in M0 g0 h0 h1 .
(1.1) For each i < !, ti0 !1 and for each S 2 .P .!1 / n INS /M0 g0 h0 , both S \ tk0
and S n tk0 are stationary in !1 .
(1.2) M0 g0 h0 ! M0 g0 h0 .
(1.3) !1 < 0 < !2 (and so cof.0 / D !1 ).
(1.4) There exists a closed conal set C 0 such that for each i < !,
hC; .si0 / \ C; 2i h!1 ; ti0 ; 2i:
(1.5) Suppose that
W !1 !
is a surjection and that < 0 .
S D < !1 j ordertype./ 2 si0 ;
and that S is stationary. Then for each k < !, both S \ tk0 and S n tk0 are
stationary in !1 .
766
10 Further results

stationary and that for some i < !,
hC; C \ .si0 / ; 2i h!1 ; S; 2i:
Then for each k < !, both S \ tk0 and S n tk0 are stationary in !1 .
Fix t ! such that t codes M0 g0 h0 h1 and let
.;/
hN ; b; zi 2 Pmax
be such that t # 2 Lz.
By Lemma 5.37, .M0 g0 h0 h1 ; I0 / is iterable where
I0 D .I<0 /M0 g0 h0 h1 :
Let
j W .M0 g0 h0 h1 ; I0 / ! .M0 g0 h0 h1 ; I0 /
be an iteration of length .!1 /N such that j 2 N and such that the following hold in
N.
(2.1) Let
Sb D hSib W i < !i:
For each i < !, j.si0 /\C D Sib \C where C .!1 /N is the set of < .!1 /N
such that is an indiscernible of Lz.
(2.2) .INS /M0 g0 h0 D INS \ M0 g0 h0 .

(2.3) Suppose that
W !1 !
is a surjection and that < j.0 /.
S D < !1 j ordertype./ 2 j.si0 /;
and that S is stationary in M0 j.g0 /j.h0 /j.h1 /. Then S is stationary.
stationary in M0 j.g0 /j.h0 /j.h1 /, and that for some i < !,
hC; C \ .si0 / ; 2i h!1 ; S; 2i:
Then S is stationary.
(2.4) 3iC1 j i 2 z D i j j.ti0 / INS .
By (2.3) and (2.4),
3iC1 j i 2 z D i j ..j.si0 // /N \ j.0 / .INS /N :
We now come to the essential points. Let
j.S(Code) .M0 g0 ; Sa0 ; z0 // D h. ; X ; Y / W < j.0 /i;
and
S(Code) .N ; j.Sa0 /; z0 / D h. ; X ; Y / W < i:
767
Then,
(3.1) j.0 / < ,
(3.2) S(Code) .N ; j.Sa0 /; z0 /jj.0 / 2 M0 j.g0 /j.h0 /j.h1 /,

D X D ;,
(3.3) Xj.
0/

(3.4) Yj.
D Yj.
[ z.
0 /C1
0/
Let
S(Code) .N ; Sj.a0 / ; z/ D h. ; X ; Y / W < i:
(4.1) D j.0 / C .

.
(4.2) For each < , D j.
0 /C1C
(4.3) For each < ,

.Xj.
; Yj.
/ D .X [ Xj.
; Y [ Yj.
/:
0 /C1C
0 /C1C
0/
0/
t
u
.;/
Suppose G0 Pmax
is L.; R/-generic. Suppose
H Coll.!3 ; H.!3 //L.;R/G0
Proof. Using Lemma 10.68, the proof is quite similar to the proof of Theorem 9.39. u
t
Combining Theorem 10.55, Theorem 10.57, Theorem 10.69, and Lemma 10.56 we
obtain the following theorem. The proof follows closely that of Theorem 9.114 which
is outlined in Section 9.6 where the hypothesis is discussed. This theorem shows that
for Theorem 4.76 it is essential that the predicate INS be part of the structure.
D A ! ! j w.A/ <
and let
N D HODL.;R/ . /:
Let W be the set of < such that D and such that N is regular.
.;/
Suppose that 2 W , G0 Pmax
is L.; R/-generic and that
H0 .Coll.!3 ; P .!2 ///N G0
is N G0 -generic. Let M D N G0 H0 . Then:
768
10 Further results
(1) M Martins MaximumCC .c/ C Strong Changs Conjecture;

(2) Suppose .x0 / is a 2 sentence in the language for the structure
hH.!2 /; Y; 2 W Y R; Y 2 L.R/i;
and that
Pmax
hH.!2 /; Y; 2 W Y R; Y 2 L.R/iL.R/
:
Then
hH.!2 /; Y; 2 W Y R; Y 2 L.R/iM I
(3) M :./.
Proof. The claim that
M Martins MaximumCC .c/
follows by Theorem 10.69 and (2) follows by Theorem 10.55. By Theorem 10.57,
X(Code) .SAG ; zG / D ;
and so (3) follows from Lemma 10.56.
The proof that
M Strong Changs Conjecture
requires adapting the proof of Theorem 9.114. This is straightforward, we leave the
details to the reader.
u
t
.;;B/
10.2.4 Pmax
It is not difcult to prove the following theorem. One uses the proof that Martins
Maximum implies ! .!2 / (Theorem 5.11 from the rst edition) together with the fact
that, assuming Martins Maximum, if G is V -generic for Namba forcing then
.12 /V < .12 /V G :
Theorem 10.71. Assume Martins Maximum. Suppose that
S D hSi W i < !i
is a sequence of pairwise disjoint stationary subsets of !1 . Then for each z 2 P .!/,
X(Code) .S; z/ D P .!/:
t
u

.S; z/,
It is straightforward to dene minor variations of X(Code) .S; z/, say X(Code)
for which it seems very unlikely that Theorem 10.71 holds; i. e. for which it is unlikely
that Martins Maximum implies

X(Code)
.S; z/ D P .!/:
For example one could simply add the requirement, in the calculation of
X(Code) .S; z/, that at every stage the stationary subsets of !1 given by SQi \ be independent from all the previous stationary sets (cf. Denition 10.22(iv)). This gives a
769
plausible approach to showing that Martins Maximum does not imply ./, even if one
assumes in addition that large cardinals are present.
The situation for Martins MaximumCC is more subtle. Indeed the question of
whether Martins MaximumCC implies ./ assuming some additional large cardinal
hypothesis, is in essence the question of whether some large cardinal hypothesis implies that there exists a semiproper partial order P such that
V P ./:
However there is a natural modication in Denition 10.22 which plausibly yields an
approach to showing that Martins MaximumCC does not imply ./ outright. This in
.;;B/
.;/
turn yields another variation of Q.X/
max which we denote Pmax . As is the case for Pmax ,
.;;B/
.;/
Pmax is in essence a variation of Qmax , but with a new parameter B R.
.;;B/
-extension yields the following result.
The analysis of the Pmax
Fix B R with B 2 L.R/. Then
hH.!2 /; INS ; B; 2i
does not imply ./. Thus for the characterization of ./ (Theorem 4.76), using the
converse of the absoluteness theorem, it is essential that predicates be added for
conally many sets Y R with Y 2 L.R/. This result complements the results of the
previous section which show that the predicate for INS must be added.
Denition 10.72. Suppose that hSi W i < !i is a sequence of pairwise disjoint stationary subsets of !1 Suppose that z ! and that B R. Let S D hSi W i < !i and
let
ES D C i C 1 j < !1 ; is a limit ordinal and 2 Si :
Let
A(Code) .S; z; B/ D [A j <
where S(Code) .S; z/ D h. ; X ; Y / W < i and hA W < i is the sequence:
(i) A0 D ;.
(ii) Suppose is not the successor of an ordinal of conality !1 . Then
A D [A j < :
(iii) Suppose has conality !1 and let
b D i < ! j SQi is stationary in :
Let d D i j 3
iC1
2 b and let a D i j 2iC1 2 b. Let be least such that

L .Y ; B \ L .Y // ZF n Powerset
and let N D L .Y ; B \ L .Y //. Suppose that
770
10 Further results
a) < where is the least indiscernible of Ld above !1 ,

b) Y D P .!/ \ N ,
c) hV!C1 \ N ; B \ N ; 2i hV!C1 ; B; 2i,
d) is the least Y -uniform indiscernible above !1 ,
e) N ADC and ES is N -generic for Pmax ,
f) .INS /N ES D INS \ N ES .
Then AC1 D A [ a. Otherwise AC1 D A .
t
u
Remark 10.73. (1) Thus, with notation from Denition 10.72, new elements are
added to A(Code) .S; z; B/ only at stages when new elements could be added to
X(Code) .S; z/ and various additional side conditions are satised. Again this can
be modied. For example one could replace (iii(e)) with the condition that
N ADC
and ES is N -generic for P ; where P D Smax , or P D Bmax etc.
More subtle effects can be achieved by modifying (iii(f)). For example if one replaces Pmax by Smax in (iii(e)) then in light of the absoluteness theorem for Smax ,
it would be natural to make the analogous change in (iii(f)) requiring in addition
that Suslin trees be preserved. This is the correct analog of A(Code) .S; z; B/ for
Smax .
(2) Note that A(Code) .S; z; B/ X(Code) .S; z/. This is because we have dened
a D 2iC1 j i 2 b:
We could easily decouple A(Code) .S; z; B/ and X(Code) .S; z/ by setting
a D 5iC1 j i 2 b:
However by adopting the former approach, certain aspects of the analysis of the
.;;B/
.;/
-extension can be reduced to the analysis of the Pmax
-extension.
Pmax
(3) By (iii(b)), (iii(e)), (iii(f)), and (essentially) Lemma 10.56,
a) !1 D .!1 /N ,
b) D D .!2 /N ,
c) S(Code) .S; z/j D .S(Code) .S; z//N ES .
t
u
Lemma 10.56, which analyzes X(Code) .S; z/ in the context of ./, generalizes to
characterize ./ in terms of the behavior of A(Code) .S; z; B/.
771
Lemma 10.74. The following are equivalent.

(1) ./.
(2) Suppose that hSi W i < !i is a sequence of pairwise disjoint stationary subsets
of !1 and that z !. For each B 2 P .P .!// \ L.R/,
A(Code) .hSi W i < !i; z; B/ D P .!/:
(3) Suppose that hSi W i < !i is a sequence of pairwise disjoint stationary subsets
of !1 and that z !. For each B 2 P .P .!// \ L.R/,
A(Code) .hSi W i < !i; z; B/ ;:
Proof. (1) implies (2) by a straightforward analysis which we leave to the reader.
Trivially (2) implies (3).
Finally (3) implies (1) essentially from the denitions. To see this x a set A !1
such that
!1 D .!1 /LA ;
and let hAi W i < !i be an innite sequence of subsets of !1 with A0 D A. Let
hSi W i < !i be a sequence of pairwise disjoint stationary subsets of !1 such that for
each i < !,
Ai D j ! 2 C ! 2 Si
and let
ES D C i C 1 j < !1 ; is a limit ordinal and 2 Si :
Fix z ! and B R with B 2 L.R/. Since
A(Code) .hSi W i < !i; z; B/ ;;
there exists a transitive set N such that
(1.1) N ZF n Powerset,
(1.2) B \ N 2 N ,
(1.3) hV!C1 \ N ; B \ N ; 2i hV!C1 ; B; 2i,
(1.4) N ADC and ES is N -generic for .Pmax /N ,
(1.5) .INS /N ES D INS \ N ES .
Note that A 2 L!1 C1 ES and so by (1.4), A is N -generic for .Pmax /N .
By (1.3) and (1.4),
L.R/ AD:
By varying the choice of hAi W i < !i it follows that if C !1 is closed and unbounded then C contains a closed, unbounded, subset which is constructible from a
real. Thus there exists a countable elementary substructure,
X hH.!2 /; 2i;
such that MX is iterable where MX is the transitive collapse of X .
772
10 Further results
Let FA be the set of

h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
such that
(2.1) j .a/ D A,
(2.2) .INS /M D INS \ M .

By Lemma 4.74, the elements of FA are pairwise compatible in Pmax .
Let GAN .Pmax /N be the N -generic lter given by A. Thus
GAN FA
and
FA \ D ;
for each dense set D Pmax which is denable in the structure
hH.!1 /; B; 2i
from z. By varying the choice of B it follows that
FA \ D ;
for each dense set D Pmax such that D 2 L.R/. Thus FA is a lter in Pmax which is
t
L.R/-generic; i. e. the set A is L.R/-generic for Pmax . This implies that ./ holds. u
Thus the question of whether Theorem 10.71 generalizes to show that Martins
MaximumCC implies that for each sequence hSi W i < !i of pairwise disjoint stationary subsets of !1 and for each z !,
A(Code) .hSi W i < !i; z; B/ D P .!/
for each B 2 L.R/; is in essence the question of whether Martins MaximumCC
implies ./.
Denition 10.75. Suppose M is a countable transitive model of ZFC, S 2 M, and
that
S D hSi W i < !i
is a sequence of pairwise disjoint sets such that for all i < !,
Si 2 .P .!1 / n INS /M :
Suppose z !, B P .!/ and .z; B/ 2 M. Then
S(Code) .M; S; z; B/ D .S(Code) .S; z; B//M :
t
u
773

B R:
.;;B/
Pmax

hM; a; zi

M ZFC C ZC:
(2) M is B-iterable.
(3) M
AC .
(4) Let hSi W i < !i D .Sa /M . For each i < !, Si .INS /M .

(5) Suppose that C !1M is closed and unbounded with C 2 M. Then there exists
a closed conal set D C such that D 2 Lx for some x 2 R \ M.
(6) A(Code) .M; Sa ; z; B \ M/ D ;.
(7) Y(Code) .M; Sa ; z/ D P .!/ \ M.
hM1 ; a1 ; z1 i < hM0 ; a0 ; z0 i
if z1 D z0 and there exists an iteration
j W M0 ! M0
such that
(1) j.a0 / D a1 ,
(2) .INS /M0 D .INS /M1 \ M0 .
t
u
.;/
.;/
Remark 10.77. Let P Pmax
be the suborder of Pmax
dened by
.;/
j M is B-iterable:
P D hM; a; zi 2 Pmax
.;;B/
. This is because we have dened A(Code) .S; z; B/ so
Then P is a suborder of Pmax
that
A(Code) .S; z; B/ X(Code) .S; z/:
This observation which we have discussed in Remark 10.73, allows one to infer the
.;;B/
.;/
from that of Pmax
.
u
t
nontriviality of Pmax
774
10 Further results
Theorem 10.78. Suppose that A R and that

L.A; R/ ADC :
Suppose that B R and that B 2 L.A; R/.
Then there exists
.;;B/
hM; a; zi 2 Pmax
such that
(1) A \ M 2 M and hM \ V!C1 ; A \ M; 2i hV!C1 ; A; 2i,
(2) M is A-iterable.
t
u
.;/
.;;B/
As for the analysis of Pmax
it is convenient to organize the analysis of Pmax
fol.X/
.;/
lowing closely that of Qmax (and Pmax ). Again the reason is simply that the proofs
.;;B/
adapt easily to prove the corresponding lemmas for the Pmax
analysis. The next four
lemmas give the basic iteration facts one needs.
Lemma 10.79. Suppose that B R. Suppose

hM1 ; a1 ; z1 i < hM0 ; a0 ; z0 i
.;;B/
in Pmax
and let
j W M0 ! M0
be the .unique/ iteration such that

j.a0 / D a1 :
Suppose that b0 2 M0 is such that for each i < !,
Sia0 M Sib0 2 .INS /M0 ;
where
hSia0 W i < !i D .Sa0 /M0
and
hSib0 W i < !i D .Sb0 /M0 :
Suppose that x0 2 M0 is a subset of ! such that
.;;B/
:
hM0 ; b0 ; x0 i 2 Pmax
.;;B/
and
Then hM1 ; j.b0 /; x0 i 2 Pmax
hM1 ; j.b0 /; x0 i < hM0 ; b0 ; x0 i:
t
u
.;;B/
are routine
The remaining iteration lemmas required for the analysis of Pmax
.;/
generalizations of those for Pmax
.
775
Lemma 10.80. Suppose that B R. Suppose that

.;;B/
;
.;;B/
;
t ! codes M0 , and that

t 2 Lz1 :
Let hSia0 W i < !i D .Sa0 /M0 , let hSia1 W i < !i D .Sa1 /M1 , and let C be the set of
< !1M1 such that is an indiscernible of Lt . Then there exists an iteration
j W M0 ! M0
such that j 2 M1 and such that:
(1) for each i < !, C \ j.Sia0 / D C \ Sia1 ;
.;;B/
(2) hM1 ; j.a0 /; z0 i 2 Pmax
;
(3) hM1 ; j.a0 /; z0 i < hM0 ; a0 ; z0 i.
t
u
Lemma 10.81. Suppose that B R and that

hD W < !1 i
.;;B/
codes a triple .p; ; y/ with p 2 D and y 2 B. Suppose that .M; T; / 2 H.!1 / is
such that:

g 2 H.!1 /. Then
.;;B/
Suppose that hp W < !1M i is a sequence of conditions in Pmax
such that
(v) hp W < !1M i 2 M ,

(vi) for all < !1M , p 2 D ,
(vii) for all < < !1M , p < p .
776
10 Further results
Suppose g Coll.!; !1M / is M -generic and let

Z D [Z j < !1M
where for each < !1M ,
Z D P .!/ \ M
and hM ; a ; z0 i D p . Suppose is a Z-uniform indiscernible,

!1M < < !2M
and that hAi W i < !i 2 M g is a sequence of subsets of !1M . Then for each m < !,
hN ; a; zi 2 D! M
1
such that the following hold where

hSi W i < !i D .Sa /N ;
and where for each < !1M , is the th Z-uniform indiscernible above !1N .
(1) hN ; a; zi 2 M g, < !1N , and 2 Sm .
(2) For each i < ! and for each < !1M , 2 Ai if and only if 2 .SQi /N .
(3) For all < !1M , hN ; a; zi < p .
(4) hp W < !1M i 2 N .
t
u
Lemma 10.82. Suppose that B R and that

hD W < !1 i
.;;B/
codes a triple .p; ; y/ with p 2 D and y 2 B. Suppose that
.M; I/ 2 H.!1 /
.;;B/
;
hN ; a; zi 2 Pmax
.M ; / be the !1N -th iterate of .M; /. Then there exists a sequence
hp W < !1N i 2 N
and there exists .b; x/ 2 N such that
.;;B/
(1) hN ; b; xi 2 Pmax
,
(2) for all < !1N , p 2 D and hN ; b; xi < p ,

(3) there exists an M -generic lter g Coll.!; <!1N / such that g 2 N and
t
u
hp W < !1N i 2 M g.
777
From Lemma 10.79 and Lemma 10.80 one easily obtains the homogeneity and the
.;;B/
!-closure of Pmax
.
.;;B/
is
Lemma 10.83. Suppose that B R and that L.B; R/ ADC . Then Pmax
!-closed.
t
u
.;;B/
Lemma 10.84. Suppose that B R and that L.B; R/ ADC . Then Pmax
is
homogeneous.
t
u
We adopt the usual notational conventions. Suppose that B R. A lter

.;;B/
G Pmax
is semi-generic if for all < !1 there exists a condition

hM; a; zi 2 G
such that <
!1M .
.;;B/
Suppose that G Pmax

(2) AG D [a j hM; a; zi 2 G,
(3) IG D [.INS /M j hM; a; zi 2 G,

(4) P .!1 /G D [M \ P .!1 / j hM; a; zi 2 G,
where for each hM; a; zi 2 G,
j W M ! M
.;/
is the (unique) iteration such that j.a/ D AG . Of course, as for Pmax
, zG must occur
in every condition in G.
.;;B/
is given in the following theorem. The proof
is a straightforward adaptation of the arguments for the analysis of Pmax , using
Lemma 10.82 and Theorem 10.78.

L.R/ AD
.;;B/
and that B 2 P .R/ \ L.R/. Then Pmax
is !-closed and homogeneous. Further,
suppose
.;;B/
G Pmax
L.R/G ZFC
and in L.R/G:
(1) L.R/G D L.R/fG ;
(2) P .!1 /G D P .!1 /;
778
10 Further results
(3) IG is a normal !2 -saturated ideal on !1 ;

(5) A(Code) .SAG ; zG ; B/ D ; and Y(Code) .SAG ; zG / D P .!/.
Proof. We sketch the argument essentially reproducing the proof of Theorem 10.54.
.;/
.;/
is !-closed and by Lemma 10.84, Pmax
is homogeneous.
By Lemma 10.83, Pmax
By the usual arguments, (2) and the assertion that
L.R/G ZF C !1 -DC
each follow from Lemma 10.82 using Theorem 10.78 to supply the necessary conditions.
.;/
. (5) implies that
(4) and (5) follow from (2) and the denition of the order on Pmax
R can be wellordered in L.R/G and so
L.R/G ZFC:
By (2), if C !1 is closed, unbounded, then C contains a closed, unbounded, subset
which is constructible from a real. Thus
.INS /L.R/AG D .INS /L.R/G \ L.R/AG :
This implies that
.S(Code) .SAG ; zG //L.R/AG D .S(Code) .SAG ; zG //L.R/G ;
and so L.R/Ag ZFC.
The generic lter G can be dened in L.R/Ag as the set of all
.;;B/
hM; a; zG i 2 Pmax

j W M ! M
satisfying:
(1.1) j.a/ D AG ,
(1.2) j 2 L.M; AG /,
(1.3) .INS /M D .INS /L.R/AG \ M .

Note that (1.2) follows from (1.1) since
M
AC :
Finally (3) can be proved by adapting the proof of the analogous claim for Pmax . As in
.;/
the case of Pmax
, (3) can also be proved by rst proving that for each set
Z 2 L.R/ \ P .R/
there exists a countable elementary
X hH.!2 /; Z; 2i
such that MX is Z-iterable, where MX is the transitive collapse of X . See the proof of
Theorem 10.54(3).
t
u
779

L.R/ AD
.;;B/
is L.R/-generic. Let FG be
and that B 2 P .R/ \ L.R/. Suppose that G Pmax
the set of h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax such that in L.R/G there exists an iteration
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
Then
(1) FG is a lter in Pmax ,
(2) FG \ D ; for each dense set D Pmax which is denable in hH.!1 /; B; 2i
from parameters in H.!1 /,
(3) P .!1 /G D P .!1 /FG .
Proof. By Theorem 10.85, the hypothesis of Lemma 4.74 holds in L.R/G and so by
Lemma 4.74, FG is a lter in Pmax .
We assume toward a contradiction that (2) fails and we x t 2 R such that there is
a dense set D t Pmax such that
(1.1) FG \ D t D ;,
(1.2) D t is denable in the structure
hH.!1 /; B; 2i
from t .
Fix a condition hM; a; zi 2 G which forces (1.1).
Let M0 be a countable transitive set such that
(2.1) M0 ZFC C 1 -Replacement,
(2.2) R \ M0 2 M0 ,
(2.3) B \ M0 2 .L.R//M0 ,
(2.4) hV!C1 \ M0 ; B \ M0 ; 2i hV!C1 ; B; 2i,
(2.5) M0 is B-iterable,
(2.6) M 2 .H.!1 //M0 ;
and such that M0 \ Ord is a small as possible.
780
10 Further results
Fix x 2 P .!/ \ M0 such that x codes M and x a sequence hTi W i < !i 2 M0

of pairwise disjoint subsets of !1M0 such that
x D i j T3i C1 .INS /M0 :
For each < .!1 /M0 let be the th .M \ P .!//-uniform indiscernible above !1M0 .
Let
C D < .!1 /M0 j is a cardinal in L.M/ n M:
Let .Sa /M D hsi W i < !i and let
j W M ! M
be an iteration such that:
(3.1) j 2 M0 and has length .!1 /M0 .
(3.2) .INS /M D .INS /M0 \ M .

(3.3) For each 2 C ,
2 ..j.si // /M0
if and only if 2 Ti .
Let a D j.a/ and let
h. ; X ; Y / W < i D .S(Code) .Sa ; z//M0 :
It follows from (3.1) and (3.2) that
h. ; X ; Y / W < .!2 /M i D .S(Code) .Sa ; z//M :

Since M ./,
.Y(Code) .Sa ; z//M D P .!/ \ M

and so Y0 D P .!/ \ M , where 0 D .!2 /M . Thus for each < !1M0 ,
0 C D ;
and so if 1 D 0 C .!1 /M0 then
Y1 D Y0 [ x:
Therefore by the choice of M0 , minimizing M0 \ Ord,
.A(Code) .Sa ; z; B//M0 D ;
.;;B/
and
and so hM0 ; a ; zi 2 Pmax
hM0 ; a ; zi < hM; a; zi:

By the genericity of G we can suppose
hM0 ; a ; zi 2 G:
Let
jG W M0 ! M0
781
be the iteration such that jG .a / D AG . Let

g0 .Pmax /M0
be the .L.R//M0 -generic lter given by a ; i. e. such that a D .Ag0 /M0 . From the
denition of FG and the elementarity of jG , it follows that
g0 FG :
However D t \ M0 2 .L.R//M0 and D t \ M0 is dense in .Pmax /M0 . Therefore
g0 \ D t ;
which implies that FG \ D t ; this contradicts the choice of D t .
Finally a similar argument proves (3). If (3) fails then there exist hM; a; zi 2 G
and a set b 2 .P .!1 //M such that
jO.b/ P .!1 /FG
where
jO W M ! MO
is the (unique) iteration such that jO.a/ D AG . Clearly we may assume that the condition hM; a; zi forces this. Repeating the construction given above yields a contradiction.
t
u
.;;B/
As an immediate corollary we obtain the desired absoluteness theorem for Pmax
.

L.R/ AD
and that B 2 P .R/ \ L.R/. Suppose is a sentence in the language for the structure
hH.!2 /; INS ; B; 2i
and that
Pmax
hH.!2 /; INS ; B; 2iL.R/
:
Then
.;;B/
Pmax
hH.!2 /; INS ; B; 2iL.R/
:
.;;B/
Proof. Suppose that G Pmax
is L.R/-generic.
Let FG be the set of h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax such that in L.R/G there exists an
iteration
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /

782
10 Further results
Then by Theorem 10.86,

(1.1) FG is a lter in Pmax ,
(1.2) FG \ D ; for each dense set D Pmax which is denable in hH.!1 /; B; 2i
from parameters in H.!1 /,
(1.3) P .!1 /G D P .!1 /FG .
By Theorem 10.85,
.P .!1 //L.R/G D P .R/G
and so by (1.3), .P .!1 //L.R/G D P .!1 /FG . The theorem follows, in fact one obtains
Pmax
hH.!2 /; INS ; B; 2iL.R/
z
if and only if
.;;B/
Pmax
hH.!2 /; INS ; B; 2iL.R/
z
for all z 2 R and for all formulas .

.;;B/
The basic analysis of L.R/Pmax

fashion.
t
u
.;;B/
easily generalizes to L.; R/Pmax
in the usual
.;;B/
and that B 2 \ L.R/. Then Pmax
is !-closed and homogeneous. Further, suppose
.;;B/
G Pmax is L.; R/-generic. Then
L.; R/G !2 -DC

and in L.; R/G:
(1) P .!1 /G D P .!1 /;
(2) P .!1 / L.R/AG ;
(4) A(Code) .SAG ; zG ; B/ D ; and Y(Code) .SAG ; zG / D P .!/.
t
u
The proof of Theorem 10.69 easily adapts to prove the corresponding version for
.;;B/
.;;B/
Pmax
. One uses Lemma 10.67 to produce the analog of Lemma 10.68 for Pmax
in
essentially the same manner.
783
L.; R/ AD R C is regular
and that B 2 \ L.R/.
.;;B/
Suppose G0 Pmax
is L.; R/-generic. Suppose
H Coll.!3 ; H.!3 //L.;R/G0
t
u
Putting everything together we obtain Theorem 10.90. The proof of Theorem 10.90(2) follows closely that of Theorem 9.114 which is outlined in Section 9.6
where the hypothesis is discussed. This theorem shows that for Theorem 4.76 predicates for conally many sets in P .R/ \ L.R/ must be added to the structure
hH.!2 /; INS ; 2i.
D A ! ! j w.A/ <
and let
N D HODL.;R/ . /:
Let W be the set of < such that D and N is regular. Suppose that
.;;B/
B 2 P .R/ \ L.R/, 2 W , G0 Pmax
is L.; R/-generic, and that
H0 .Coll.!3 ; P .!2 ///N G0
is N G0 -generic. Let M D N G0 H0 . Then:
(1) M Martins MaximumCC .c/;
(2) M Strong Changs Conjecture;
(3) Suppose is a sentence in the language for the structure
hH.!2 /; INS ; B; 2i;
L.R/Pmax
. Then hH.!2 /; INS ; B; 2iM ;
and that hH.!2 /; INS ; B; 2i
(4) M :./.
Proof. (1) follows by Theorem 10.89 and as we have indicated above, (2) is proved by
the methods of Section 9.6.
(3) is an immediate corollary of Theorem 10.87 since
P .!1 /M D P .!1 /G :
Similarly, by Theorem 10.88,
.A(Code) .hSi W i < !i; zg ; B//M D ;
where hSi W i < !i D SAG . Therefore (4) follows by the equivalences to ./ given in
Lemma 10.74.
t
u
784
10 Further results
10.3 Bounded forms of Martins Maximum

Goldstern and Shelah introduced a bounded form of Martins Maximum.
Denition 10.91 (Goldstern, Shelah). (1) Bounded Martins Maximum: Suppose
that P is a partial order such that
.INS /V D .INS /V
\ V:
Suppose that D P .P / is a collection of predense subsets of P , each with

cardinality !1 , such that jDj !1 . Then there exists a lter F P such that
F \ D ; for all D 2 D.
(2) Bounded Martins MaximumC : Suppose that P is a partial order such that
.INS /V D .INS /V
\ V:

cardinality !1 , such that jDj !1 . Suppose that 2 V P is a term for a
stationary subset of !1 . Then there exists a lter F P such that:
a) for all D 2 D, F \ D ;;
b) < !1 j for some p 2 F ; p 2 is stationary in !1 .
(3) Bounded Martins MaximumCC : Suppose that P is a partial order such that
.INS /V D .INS /V
\ V:

cardinality !1 , such that jDj !1 . Suppose that h W < !1 i is a sequence of
terms for stationary subsets of !1 . Then there exists a lter F P such that:
b) For each < !1 ,
t
u
Remark 10.92. It follows from the results of this section and the preceding section
that Bounded Martins Maximum does not imply Bounded Martins MaximumCC . This
can easily be strengthened to show both:
(1) Bounded Martins Maximum does not imply Bounded Martins MaximumC ;
(2) Bounded Martins MaximumC does not imply Bounded Martins MaximumCC .
t
u
The following lemmas of Bagaria give useful reformulations of Bounded Martins
Maximum and of Bounded Martins MaximumCC .
785
Lemma 10.93 (Bagaria). The following are equivalent.

(1) Bounded Martins Maximum.
(2) Suppose that P is a partial order which is stationary set preserving. Then
P
hH.!2 /; 2i 1 hH.!2 /; 2iV :
t
u
Lemma 10.94 (Bagaria). The following are equivalent.

(1) Bounded Martins MaximumCC .
(2) Suppose that P is a partial order which is stationary set preserving. Then
P
hH.!2 /; INS ; 2i 1 hH.!2 /; INS ; 2iV :
t
u
The analysis of the consequences of Bounded Martins Maximum seems subtle.

For example we shall see that Bounded Martins Maximum does not imply (even in the
context of large cardinals) that INS is !2 -saturated, see Doebler and Schindler .2009/
and Claverie and Schindler .2010/ for more recent related results.
Lemma 10.95 (Bounded Martins Maximum). Suppose that either:
(i) There is a measurable cardinal, or
(ii) INS is precipitous.
Then:
(1)
AC
holds.
(2) Every function, f W !1 ! !1 , is bounded on a club by a canonical function.

Proof. We consider AC , the proofs for (2) are similar.
To establish that AC holds in the context of Bounded Martins Maximum it sufces
to show that for each pair .S0 ; T0 / of stationary, co-stationary subsets of !1 there exists
an ordinal such that:
(1.1) !1 < .
(1.2) For each stationary set S !1 let ZS be the set of
X 2 P!1 ./
such that
a) X \ !1 2 S ,
b) X \ !1 2 S0 if and only if ordertype.X / 2 T0 .
Then ZS is stationary in P!1 ./.
To see this sufces let P be the partial order (conditions are initial segments) which
generically creates a surjection
W !1 !
786
10 Further results
and a closed, unbounded, set C !1 such that

C \ T0 D C \ < !1 j 2 S0 :
Then by (1.2), P is stationary set preserving. Applying Bounded Martins Maximum
to P yields the necessary witnesses for AC .
If is measurable then it is straightforward to show that (1.2) holds.
If the nonstationary ideal is precipitous let
D jP .P .!1 //jC :
We claim that (1.2) holds for . This follows by an absoluteness argument. Fix a
stationary set S !1 and x a function
H W <! ! :
Let D jH.!2 /j and let
G Coll.!; H. C //
be V -generic. Thus D .!1 /V G . We work in V G. Let
j WV !M
be an iteration of length such that
(2.1) !1V 2 j.S /,
(2.2) both j.S0 / and j.!1 n S0 / are stationary in .
The iteration exists in V G by Lemma 4.36, noting that in V G, H. C /V is iterable
by Lemma 3.10. The point is that by Lemma 3.8, any iteration of H. C /V constructed
in V G induces an iteration of V which by Lemma 3.10 is necessarily wellfounded.
Thus in V G there exists a countable set
X j./
such that
(3.1) X \ j.!1 / 2 j.S /,
(3.2) X is closed under j.H /,
(3.3) X \ j.!1 / 2 j.T0 / if and only if ordertype.X / 2 j.S0 /.
The point here is that X can be chosen as an initial segment of j , the pointwise
image of under j .
By absoluteness such a set X must exist in M and so by elementarity, there exists
X 2 ZS such that X is closed under H . Thus ZS is stationary in P!1 ./.
t
u
implies that
2@0 D 2@1 D @2 ;
and so the following is an immediate corollary of Lemma 10.95. Of course it is a trivial
consequence of Bounded Martins Maximum that
2@0 D 2@1
since Bounded Martins Maximum implies MA!1 and so the issue here is simply the
size of 2@0 .
By Lemma 5.14,
AC
787
Corollary 10.96 (Bounded Martins Maximum). Suppose that either:

(i) There is a measurable cardinal, or
(ii) INS is precipitous.
Then 2@0 D 2@1 D @2 .
t
u
In the presence of large cardinals, Bounded Martins Maximum implies that

12 D !2 . This is an immediate corollary of the results of Chapter 3.
Lemma 10.97 (Bounded Martins Maximum). Assume there is a Woodin cardinal
with a measurable above. Then
12 D !2 .
Proof. Let be the least Woodin cardinal.
By Shelahs theorem, Theorem 2.64, there exists a semiproper partial order P of
cardinality such that
V P INS is !2 -saturated:
Clearly
V P There is a measurable cardinal ;
and so by Theorem 3.17,
V P 12 D !2 :
The lemma follows by applying Bounded Martins Maximum to P .
t
u
The axiom ./ implies a very strong form of Bounded Martins MaximumCC . This
is the content of the next theorem, Theorem 10.99, which in essence is simply a reformulation of the fundamental absoluteness theorem, Theorem 4.64, for Pmax .
Remark 10.98. The requirement on N , in Theorem 10.99, that for each partial order
P 2 N,
1
N P
2 -Determinacy;
can be reformulated in terms of large cardinals. In fact, since R N , it is equivalent
to the assertion that for each set a 2 N , with a Ord, .M1 .a//# 2 N where M1 .a/ is
computed in V . M1 .a/ denotes the minimum (iterable) ne structure model of
containing the ordinals and constructed relative to the set a. The formal denition
involves the ne structure theory of Mitchell and Steel .1994/.
t
u
Theorem 10.99 (Axiom ./). Suppose that for each partial order P ,
1
V P
2 -Determinacy:
788
10 Further results
Suppose that N is a transitive inner model such that

(i) P .!1 / N ,
(ii) N ZFC,
(iii) for each partial order P 2 N ,
1
N P
2 -Determinacy:
Then N Bounded Martins MaximumCC .

Proof. By Lemma 10.94, Bounded Martins MaximumCC is equivalent to the following:
(1.1) Suppose that P is a partial order such that
.INS /V D .INS /V
\VI
i. e. such that P is stationary set preserving. Then

P
hH.!2 /; INS ; 2iV 1 hH.!2 /; INS ; 2iV :

Thus it sufces to show that (1.1) holds in N . In fact this follows by an argument
which is essentially identical to that used to prove Theorem 4.69.
Fix a 1 formula .x0 / in the language for the structure
hH.!2 /; INS ; 2i
and x a set A !1 such that
hH.!2 /; INS ; 2i A:
Clearly we may suppose that A L.R/ and so by Theorem 4.60, A is L.R/generic for Pmax . Let GA Pmax be the L.R/-generic lter given by A.
Thus by Theorem 4.67 there is a condition h.M; I /; ai 2 GA such that the following holds.
(2.1) Suppose
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
is a countable iteration and let a D j.a/. Let N be any countable, transitive,

model of ZFC such that:
a) .P .!1 //M N ;
b) !1N D !1M ;
c) Q3 .S / N , for each S 2 N such that S !1N ;
d) If S !1N , S 2 M and if S I then S is a stationary set in N .
Then
hH.!2 /; 2; INS iN a :
789
It follows that (2.1) is expressible as a 13 statement about t where t 2 R codes

h.M; I /; ai.
The theorem now follows by a simple absoluteness argument, noting that from the
hypothesis that for every partial order P ,
1
NP
2 -Determinacy;
it follows that for every partial order P ,
N 1 N P I
4
1
i. e. that 4 statements with parameters from V are absolute between N and N P . Fix
a set E Ord such that E 2 N and such that
H. /N 2 LE
where D .jP [ H.!2 /jCC /N .
Suppose that G P is N -generic and assume toward a contradiction
hH.!2 /; INS ; 2i .:/A:
Let g Coll.!; sup.E// be N G-generic. Then E # together with the iteration
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
which sends a to A, witness that (2.1) fails in N Gg which contradicts
N 1 N Gg:
4
t
u
Remark 10.100. One corollary of Theorem 10.99 is that the consistency of Bounded
Martins MaximumCC is relatively weak even in conjunction with large cardinal axioms. For example if
ZFC C There is a proper class of Woodin cardinals
is consistent then so is
C Bounded Martins MaximumCC :
In contrast,
ZFC C There is a measurable cardinal
C Martins Maximum
implies the consistency of
and much more. The latter is by results of Steel combined with results of Schimmerling.
t
u
Suppose that P .R/ is a pointclass closed under continuous preimages such
that
790
10 Further results
2P
max
The basic analysis of L.R/
2P
max
generalizes to L.; R/
. In particular,

L.A; R/ ADC :
Suppose G 2 Pmax is L.A; R/-generic. Then
L.A; R/G ZFC
and in L.A; R/G,
(1) ./ holds,
(2) INS is not !2 -saturated.
t
u
The next lemma is an immediate corollary of the analysis of Pmax as summarized

in Theorem 10.101.
2
Lemma 10.102. Suppose that P .R/ is a pointclass closed under continuous

preimages such that
L.; R/ AD R :
Suppose that G 2 Pmax is L.; R/-generic.
N L.; R/G containing R [ G such that
Then there is an inner model
(1) N ZFC C ./,

(2) for all partial orders P 2 N ,
1
N P
2 -Determinacy;
(3) N INS is not !2 -saturated.
Proof. By Theorem 9.14 there exists a pointclass 0 such that
L.0 ; R/ ADC C AD R :
Therefore, and this is all we require, there exists A 2 such that
(1.1) L.A; R/ ADC ,
(1.2) .0 /L.A;R/ < ./L.A;R/ .
Let D ./L.A;R/ and let
M D .HOD/L.A;R/ \ V :
By Theorem 9.113, is a Woodin cardinal in .HOD/L.A;R/ and so
M ZFC:
It follows that for each partial order P 2 M ,
1
M P
2 -Determinacy;
and further that M.R/ is a set (symmetric) extension of M . The latter is easily proved
by a variation of Vopenkas argument that every set of ordinals is set generic over HOD.
Let
N D M.R/G:
Thus N is a set generic extension of M . It follows that N is as required.
t
u
791
By altering the choice of the inner model, N , in the proof of Lemma 10.102, one
can also prove the following variation.
Lemma 10.103. Suppose that P .R/ is a pointclass closed under continuous
preimages such that
L.; R/ AD R :
Suppose that G 2 Pmax is L.; R/-generic.
N L.; R/G containing R [ G such that
Then there is an inner model
(1) N ZFC C ./,

(2) N There exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals ,
t
u
As an immediate corollary of Theorem 10.99 and Lemma 10.103 it follows that

Bounded Martins MaximumCC does not imply that INS is !2 -saturated.
The basic method can be used to show that a number of consequences of Martins
Maximum are not implied by Bounded Martins Maximum. Two interesting questions
are:
Assume Bounded Martins MaximumCC and that there exists a proper class of
Woodin cardinals.
Must INS be semi-saturated?
Must INS be precipitous?
Corollary 10.104. Suppose that P .R/ is a pointclass closed under continuous
preimages such that L.; R/ AD R . Suppose that G 2 Pmax is L.; R/-generic.
Then there is an inner model N L.; R/G containing R [ G such that
(1) N Bounded Martins MaximumCC ,
(2) N There exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals ,
Proof. By the MartinSteel Theorem, for all partial orders P 2 N ,
1
N P
2 -Determinacy:
The corollary follows from this, Theorem 10.99 and Lemma 10.103.
t
u
The closure on N , in Theorem 10.99(iii), cannot be signicantly weakened, though

it can be weakened slightly. We state two closely related theorems which illustrate this.
We require a denition.
792
10 Further results
1
Denition 10.105. ZF
2 -Determinacy:
(1) For all x 2 R, x # exists.

(2) Suppose 1 .x; y/ and 2 .x; y/ are 12 formulas and a 2 R are such that for all
transitive models, M , of ZF, if a 2 M then
b 2 R \ M j M 1 a; b D .R \ M / n b 2 R \ M j M 2 a; b:
Then the set b 2 R j 1 a; b is determined.
t
u
Remark 10.106. Of course, (2) of Denition 10.105 implies (1), and so an equivalent
notion is obtained by eliminating (1) from the denition.
t
u
Theorem 10.107. Suppose that for each partial order P ,
1
V P
2 -Determinacy:
Then there exists a transitive inner model N containing the ordinals such that
(1) P .!1 / N ,
(2) N ZFC,
1
(3) for each partial order P 2 N ,N P ZF
2 -Determinacy,
(4) N Bounded Martins Maximum fails.

Proof. For each set a Ord let
L# .a/
denote the minimum inner model M such that
(1.1) M ZFC,
(1.2) Ord M ,
(1.3) a 2 M ,
(1.4) for all b 2 M , b # 2 M .
We prove that
N Bounded Martins Maximum fails
where, abusing notation slightly,
N D L# .P .!1 //:
The proof of the theorem is similar.
793
Let
G0 Coll.!1 ; H.!2 //
be N -generic. Thus there exists A !1 such that A 2 N G0 and such that
N G0 D L# .A/:
Let
A D < !1 j jjL
# .A\/
D !:
The key point is that for each S 2 .P .!1 / n INS /N ,

A \ S .INS /N G0 :
Let C0 A be N G0 -generic for PA where PA is the partial order of countable
subsets of A , which are closed in !1 , ordered by extension (Harrington forcing).
Thus in N G0 C0 :
(2.1) C0 !1 , and C0 is closed and unbounded.
(2.2) For each 2 C0 ,
jjL
# .A\/
D !:
However, for each S 2 .P .!1 / n INS /N ,

A \ S .INS /N G0 ;
and so
.INS /N D N \ .INS /N G0 C0 :
N Bounded Martins Maximum:
Therefore by Lemma 10.93,
hH.!2 /; 2iN 1 hH.!2 /; 2iN G0 C0 :
But this implies, by (2.1) and (2.2), that in N there exist AO !1 and CO !1 such
that:
(3.1) CO !1 , and CO is closed and unbounded.
(3.2) For each 2 CO ,
jjL
# .A\/
O
D !:
O exists, which is a contradiction.

But by the hypothesis of the lemma, .CO ; A/
t
u
The second theorem, Theorem 10.108, is closely related Theorem 9.75 and Theorem 9.81, which show that closure properties of P .!1 / transfer upwards to closure
properties of P .!2 /, assuming WRP.2/ .!2 /.
1
V Coll.!;!1 /
2 -Determinacy:
794
10 Further results
Suppose that N is a transitive inner model such that

(i) P .!1 / N ,
(ii) N ZFC,
(iii) N Bounded Martins MaximumCC .
Then for each partial order P 2 N ,
1
N P ZF
2 -Determinacy:
Proof. We prove that for each set a Ord, if a 2 N then a# 2 N ; i. e. that for each
partial order P 2 N ,
1
NP
1 -Determinacy:
The proof of the theorem is similar.
Fix a Ord with a 2 N . Assume toward a contradiction that
a# N:
Let D sup.a/ and suppose that
G0 Coll.!1 ; /
be N -generic. Thus there exists A !1 such that
A 2 N G0
and such that A# N G0 . Therefore there exists b0 2 H.!1 / such that in N G0 ,
< !1 j b0 2 .A \ /#
is stationary and co-stationary in !1 . However
.INS /N D .INS /N G0 \ N
and so by Lemma 10.94,
hH.!2 /; INS ; 2iN 1 hH.!2 /; INS ; 2iN G0
since N Bounded Martins MaximumCC .
Therefore there exists AO !1 such that AO 2 N and such that
< !1 j b0 2 .A \ /#
is stationary and co-stationary in !1 . But by the hypothesis of the lemma, AO# exists
and so the set
< !1 j b0 2 .A \ /#
cannot be both stationary and co-stationary. This is a contradiction.
t
u
Theorem 10.99 can be improved to provide a characterization of ./. First we

.;;B/
note the following corollary of the analysis of Pmax
which rules out one possible
characterization.
795
.;;B/
Let B R be a set in L.R/. Suppose that G0 Pmax
is L.; R/-generic and let
L.;R/
M D a 2 .HOD/
RG0 j j rank.a/ <
where D ./L.;R/ . Then:
(1) For each partial order P 2 M ,
M P ADL.R/ :
(2) M :./.
(3) Suppose that N M is a transitive inner model such that
a) P .!1 /M N ,
b) N ZFC,
1
c) For each partial order P 2 N , N P
2 -Determinacy.
Then N Bounded Martins MaximumCC .
t
u
Denition 10.110 (FengMagidorWoodin). Suppose that A R. Then A is universally Baire if for any compact Hausdorff space X and any continuous function,
W X ! R;
the set a 2 X j .a/ 2 A has the property of Baire in X .
t
u
The next theorem gives a useful characterization of the sets A R which are
universally Baire.
Theorem 10.111 (FengMagidorWoodin). Suppose A R.
equivalent.
The following are
(1) A is universally Baire.

(2) Suppose that P is an innite partial order and let
D 2jP j :
Then there exist trees S; T on ! such that A D pT and such that if G P
is V -generic then in V G,
pT V G D RV G n pS V G :
u
t
Thus if A R is universally Baire and P is a partial order, then A has an unambiguous
interpretation in V P . If G P is V -generic then we let AG denote the interpretation
of A in V G. It is easily veried that
AG D [pT V G j T 2 V and A D pT V :
In the presence of suitable large cardinals, the universally Baire sets are exactly
the sets which are 1 -homogeneously Suslin. This is a corollary of Theorem 2.32,
Theorem 10.111, and the principal theorem of .Martin and Steel 1989/.
796
10 Further results
Theorem 10.112. Suppose there is a proper class of Woodin cardinals and that
A R. Then following are equivalent.
(1) A is universally Baire.
(2) A is 1 -weakly homogeneously Suslin.
(3) A is 1 -homogeneously Suslin.
t
u
The following lemma is an immediate corollary of the denition of a universally

Baire set.
Lemma 10.113. Let P .R/ be the set of universally Baire sets. Then is a
-algebra closed under continuous preimages.
u
t
1
12 -sets is answered by
Clearly every
1 -set is universally Baire. The situation for
the following theorem of .Feng, Magidor, and Woodin 1992/.
Theorem 10.114 (FengMagidorWoodin). The following are equivalent.

(1) For every set X , X # exists.
1
(2) Every
2 -set is universally Baire.
t
u
Corollary 10.115. Suppose A R. Then the following are equivalent.

(1) .A; R/# exists and .A; R/# is universally Baire.
(2) Each set B 2 L.A; R/ \ P .R/ is universally Baire.
Proof. Every set B 2 L.A; R/\P .R/ is a continuous preimage of .A; R/# . Therefore
(1) implies (2).
Suppose that (2) holds. By Theorem 10.114, .A; R/# exists. Note that .A; R/# is
naturally a countable union of sets in L.A; R/ and so by Lemma 10.113, .A; R/# is
universally Baire.
t
u
It is open whether the assumption that every projective set in universally Baire
implies generic absoluteness for projective statements. The following theorem gives
a sufcient condition which is implied in many cases by an appropriate determinacy
hypothesis.
Theorem 10.116. Suppose that A R and that for each set B R R, if B is
denable in the structure
hH.!1 /; A; 2i
then there exists a choice function
f WR!R
such that
797
(i) for all x 2 R if .x; y/ 2 B for some y 2 R then .x; f .x// 2 B,

(ii) f 1 O is universally Baire for each open set O.
Suppose that P is a partial order and that G P is V -generic. Then
hH.!1 /; A; 2iV hH.!1 /; AG ; 2iV G :
t
u
Lemma 10.117 (FengMagidorWoodin). Suppose that for each partial order P ,

V P ADL.R/ :
Then R# is universally Baire.
t
u
There are two approximate converses to Lemma 10.117.

L.R/ AD
and that R# is universally Baire. Then for each partial order P ,
V P ADL.R/ :
t
u

(1) For each partial order P ,
V P ADL.R/ :
(2) R# is universally Baire and for each partial order P , if G P is V -generic then
.R# /G D .R# /V G :
t
u
Remark 10.120. (1) Theorem 10.119 is proved using basic method for proving
Theorem 5.104; i. e. the proof uses core model methods. We note that the theorem is false at the projective level.
(2) It is open whether the actual converse to Theorem 10.117 holds.
We shall need the generalization of Lemma 10.117 to L.R# /.
Lemma 10.121. Suppose that for each partial order P ,
V P ADL.R / :
#
Then .R# /# is universally Baire.
t
u
798
10 Further results
Denition 10.122. A-Bounded Martins Maximum:

(1) A R is universally Baire.
(2) Suppose that P is a partial order such that
.INS /V D .INS /V
\ V:

terms for elements of AG . Then there exists a lter F P such that:
b) For each < !1 ,
.i; j / 2 ! ! j for some p 2 F ; p .i; j / 2 2 A:
t
u
Denition 10.123. A-Bounded Martins MaximumCC :

(1) A R is universally Baire.
(2) Suppose that P is a partial order such that
.INS /V D .INS /V
\ V:

terms for stationary subsets of !1 and that h W < !1 i is a sequence of terms
for elements of AG . Then there exists a lter F P such that:
b) For each < !1 ,
.i; j / 2 ! ! j for some p 2 F ; p .i; j / 2 2 AI
c) For each < !1 ,
t
u
As an immediate corollary of Theorem 10.111 we obtain the following.

Theorem 10.124. (1) (Martins Maximum) Suppose that A R is universally
Baire. Then A-Bounded Martins Maximum holds.
(2) (Martins MaximumCC ) Suppose that A R is universally Baire. Then
t
u
A-Bounded Martins MaximumCC holds.
799
Theorem 10.127 provides an equivalence to ./ in terms of a strong form of

Bounded Martins Maximum. We shall prove several versions.
Suppose that A R. We denote by
1! .A/ the pointclass of all sets B R such
that B is denable in the structure
hV!C1 ; A; 2i
from real parameters; these are the sets B R which are projective in A.
The nal theorem we shall need for the proof of Theorem 10.127 is the following.
Theorem 10.125. Assume R# exists and that every set which is
1! .R# / is determined.
Suppose that A0 R, A0 2 L.R/ and that A0 is denable in L.R/ from x0 and
indiscernibles of L.R/. Suppose that M0 is a countable transitive model of ZFC such
that:
(i) Suppose that g Coll.!; H.!2 /M0 / is an M0 -generic lter with g 2 H.!1 /.
Then
R# \ M0 g D .R# /M0 g
and hM0 g \ V!C1 ; R# \ M0 g \ V!C1 ; 2i hV!C1 ; R# ; 2i.
(ii) x0 2 M0 .
Then there exists .M1 ; I1 ; / 2 H.!1 / such that
(1) M1 is transitive and M1 ZFC C is a Woodin cardinal,
(2) I1 D .I< /M1 and .M1 ; I1 / is A0 -iterable,
(3) H.!2 /M1 D H.!2 /M0 .
t
u
The following is an immediate corollary of Theorem 10.12.

limits of Woodin cardinals. Then there exists a transitive inner model containing the
ordinals such that
(1) P .!1 / N ,
(2) N ZFC C MIH,
WH N
WH
/ 1
.
(3) .1
t
u
As a corollary of Theorem 10.126 we obtain the following characterization of ./.
800
10 Further results
limits of Woodin cardinals. Then the following are equivalent.
(1) ./.
(2) Suppose that N is a transitive set such that
a) P .!1 / N ,
b) N ZFC,
c) N Every set which is
1! .R# / is universally Baire.
Then for each set A 2 L.R/ \ P .R/,
N A-Bounded Martins MaximumCC :
Proof. We rst prove that (2) follows from ./. The proof is a generalization of the
proof of Theorem 10.99.
Fix A R with A 2 L.R/ and suppose that N is a transitive set such that
(1.1) P .!1 / N ,
(1.2) N ZFC,
1
#
(1.3) N Every set which is
! .R / is universally Baire.
We note that
N A-Bounded Martins MaximumCC
if and only if for each partial order P 2 N , if G P is N -generic with

.INS /N D .INS /N G \ N
then
hH.!2 /; INS ; A; 2iN 1 hH.!2 /; INS ; AG ; 2iN G :
Fix a 1 formula .x0 / in the language for the structure
hH.!2 /; A; INS ; 2i
and x a set B !1 such that
hH.!2 /; A; INS ; 2i B:
Clearly we may suppose that B L.R/ and so by Theorem 4.60, B is L.R/generic for Pmax . Let GB Pmax be the L.R/-generic lter given by B.
Thus there is a condition h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i 2 GB such that the following holds.
(2.1) .M0 ; I0 / is A-iterable.
(2.2) A \ M0 2 M0 and
hV!C1 \ M0 ; A \ M0 ; 2i hV!C1 ; A; 2i:
801
(2.3) Suppose that h.M1 ; I1 /; a1 i < h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i, .M1 ; I1 / is A-iterable, and that
A \ M1 2 M1 . Let
j W .M0 ; I0 / ! .M0 ; I0 /
be the iteration such that a1 D j.a0 /. Then
hH.!2 /; A \ M1 ; I1 ; 2iM1 a1 :
Now suppose P 2 N is a partial order and that G0 P is N -generic with
.INS /N D .INS /N G0 \ N:
Let be the least strongly inaccessible cardinal of N such that
P 2 N :
Let G1 Coll.!; / be N G0 -generic. We work in N G0 G1 D N G. The key
point is that since R# is universally Baire in N and since
L.R/ AD;
it follows, by Theorem 10.118 and by Theorem 10.119, that .R# /N G D .ZG /N G
where Z D .R# /N , and so
hH.!1 /; A; 2i hH.!1 /; AG ; 2iN G
where AG is the interpretation of A in N G;
AG D [pT j T 2 N and A D pT \ N :
Thus if N H is a set generic extension of N with H 2 N G, then in N G,
.R# /N H D .R# /N G \ N H :
We can now apply Theorem 10.125, to obtain in N G a structure
.M1 ; I1 ; / 2 H.!1 /N G
such that
(3.1) M1 is transitive,
(3.2) M1 ZFC C is a Woodin cardinal,
(3.3) I1 D .I< /M1 ,
(3.4) .M1 ; I1 / is AG -iterable,
(3.5) H.!2 /M1 D H.!2 /N .
N G
By Lemma 4.40, there exists a condition h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax
such that
(4.1) M1 2 .H.!1 //M ,

(4.2) AG \ M 2 M,
(4.3) .M; I / is AG -iterable.
802
10 Further results
Thus there exists an iteration

j W .M1 ; I1 / ! .M1 ; I1 /
such that
(5.1) j 2 M,
(5.2) I \ M1 D .INS /M1 .

However
(6.1) hM; I; AG \ M; 2i :j.B/,
(6.2) h.M; I /; j.B/i 2 .Pmax /N G ,
(6.3) h.M; I /; j.B/i < h.M0 ; I0 /; a0 i.
Thus (2.3) fails in N G for AG . However
hH.!1 /; A; 2iN hH.!1 /; AG ; 2iN G
We nish by proving that (2) implies ./. This implication is an immediate corollary of Theorem 10.126 and Theorem 10.14. By Theorem 10.126 there exists a transitive inner model containing the ordinals such that
(7.1) P .!1 / N ,
(7.2) N ZFC C MIH,
WH N
WH
(7.3) .1
/ 1
.
By Theorem 10.14, there exists a partial order P 2 N such that if G P is N -generic

then
(8.1) .INS /N D .INS /N G \ N ,
(8.2) N G ./.
We work in N G. For each A 2 P .R/ \ L.R/,
Thus
(9.1) for each A 2 P .R/ \ L.R/,
hH.!2 /; INS ; A; 2iN 1 hH.!2 /; INS ; AG ; 2iN G :
Fix a set X !1 with X 2 N n L.R/. Let FX Pmax be the set of conditions
h.M; I /; ai 2 Pmax such that there exists an iteration
j W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
such that
803
(10.1) j.a/ D X ,
(10.2) I D INS \ M .
By (9.1), X Lt for each t 2 RN G and so since
N G ./;
it follows by Theorem 4.60, that the set X is L.R/N G -generic for .Pmax /N G . Let
GX .Pmax /N G be the L.RN G /-generic lter given by X . By (9.1),
FX D GX \ N:
Suppose that D Pmax is dense with D 2 L.RN /. Let A be the set of t 2 RN such
N G
that t codes an element of D. Let DG be the set of p 2 Pmax
such that there exists
#
t 2 AG which codes p. Since R is universally Baire in N it follows that
.R# /N G D ..R# /G /N G :
N G
and further, by (9.1), that
Thus it follows that DG is dense in Pmax
hH.!2 /; INS ; D; 2iN 1 hH.!2 /; INS ; DG ; 2iN G :

Thus FX \ D ; and so X is L.RN /-generic for .Pmax /N ; i. e. X is L.R/-generic
for Pmax .
Therefore every set X 2 P .!1 / n L.R/ is L.R/-generic for Pmax . But, as in the
proof of Theorem 4.76, this implies ./.
t
u
With slightly more efcient denitions one can improve Theorem 10.127 to the
following.
V P ADL.R / :
#

(1) ./.
a) P .!1 / N ,
b) N ZFC,
With more work one can further rene the requirements on N .
t
u
804
10 Further results

V P ADL.R / :
#

(1) ./.
(2) Suppose that N is a transitive set and 2 Ord \ N are such that
a) P .!1 / N ,
b) N ZFC,
c) N R# is universally Baire,
d) N is a Woodin cardinal.
t
u
The requirement on N in Theorem 10.129 can be reformulated in terms of a closure

condition which generalizes the closure condition indicated in Remark 10.98. These
conditions are each natural generalizations of the requirement that N be closed under
sharps (for arbitrary sets), to the realm of Woodin cardinals.
Denition 10.130 (Steel). (For every set X , X # exists) For each set a Ord, M! .a/
is the minimum MitchellSteel ne structure model such that
(1) Ord M! .a/,
(2) a 2 M! .a/,
(3) each extender on the sequence of M! .a/ has critical point above [a,
(4) M! .a/ is (transnitely) iterable.
t
u

(1) For every partial order P , V P ADL.R/ .
(2) For every set a Ord, M! .a/ exists.
t
u
(3) M! .;/ exists.
The set .M! .a//# , if it exists, is a generalization of 0# , 0 etc. If a !, it is

naturally a subset of ! which up to Turing degree is simply the theory of the structure
hL.R/; a; k ; 2 W k < !i
k th
Silver indiscernible of L.R/.

where k is the
We caution that, for a !, it is possible for .M! .a//# to exist in V and for there
to exist an inner model N containing the ordinals such that
805
N ZFC C .M! .a//# exists.

.M! .a//# 2 N ,
.M! .a//# ..M! .a//# /N .
However if, more generally, a Ord and if
H.!2 / N;
then necessarily .M! .a//# D ..M! .a//# /N .
V P ADL.R/ :
Suppose that N is a transitive set such that P .!1 / N and N ZFC. Then the
following are equivalent.
(1) For each set a Ord, if a 2 N then .M! .a//# 2 N .
(2) N R# is universally Baire.
t
u
Thus Theorem 10.129 can be reformulated as follows.

Theorem 10.133. Suppose that there exist a proper class of Woodin cardinals. Then
the following are equivalent.
(1) ./.
(2) Suppose that N is a transitive set and 2 Ord \ N are such that
a) P .!1 / N and N ZFC,
b) for each set a Ord, if a 2 N then .M! .a//# 2 N ,
c) N is a Woodin cardinal.
t
u
We briey discuss a slight renement of Theorem 10.133 which is very likely

nearly optimal. The issue is the precise closure necessary on N .
Denition 10.134. Assume there exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals. Suppose
that a Ord. Then Q1! .a/ is the set of all b [a such that b 2 N for each transitive
inner model N containing the ordinals, such that for some 2 Ord,
(1) a 2 N and N ZFC,
(2) for each z Ord, if z 2 N then M! .z/# 2 N ,
(3) is a Woodin cardinal in N ,
(4) N is a MitchellSteel model relative to a which is (transnitely) iterable.
The following theorem shows that for large sets a Ord,
a manner analogous to Q3 .a/.
Q1! .a/
t
u
can be dened in
806
10 Further results
Theorem 10.135. Assume there exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals. Suppose
that a Ord and that
R La:
Suppose that b [a. Then the following are equivalent.
(1) b 2 Q1! .a/.
(2) b 2 N for each transitive inner model of ZFC such that for some 2 Ord;
a) a 2 N ,
b) for each z Ord, if z 2 N then M! .z/# 2 N ,
c) is a Woodin cardinal in N .
t
u
Corollary 10.136. Assume there exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals and that N
is a transitive inner model of ZFC with
P .!1 / [ Ord N:
Suppose that is a Woodin cardinal in N and that
N R# is universally Baire:
Then for each a 2 N \ P ./,
Q1! .a/ N:
t
u
Theorem 10.137 gives our nal characterization of ./. It is quite likely that the
closure requirements on N cannot be signicantly weakened, more precisely that the
requirement:
for each set a Ord, if a 2 N then .M! .a//# 2 N ,
does not sufce.
Theorem 10.137. Suppose that there exist a proper class of Woodin cardinals. Then
(1) ./.
a) P .!1 / N ,
b) N ZFC,
c) for each set a Ord, if a 2 N then Q1! .a/ N .
t
u
.;;B/
The following corollary of the analysis of Pmax
shows that the equivalences given
in Theorem 10.128 and Theorem 10.133 are essentially the best possible.
10.4 -logic
807
.;;B/
Suppose that B R is a set in L.R/. Suppose that G0 Pmax
is L.; R/-generic
and let
M D a 2 .HOD/L.;R/ RG0 j rank.a/ <
where D ./L.;R/ . Then:

(1) For each partial order P 2 M ,
M P ADL.R / :
#
(2) M There exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals .

(3) M :./.
(4) Suppose that N M is a transitive inner model such that
a) P .!1 /M N ,
b) N ZFC,
Then N B-Bounded Martins MaximumCC .
t
u
10.4 -logic
The absoluteness theorems associated to Pmax and its variations can more naturally
be formulated using -logic this strengthening of !-logic was introduced in the
rst edition of this book. The presentation given in this edition reects a number of
expository changes, specically what was -logic in that edition, is now the logical
relation for -logic, T and it is with this denition that we begin. An equivalent
denition based on the generic-multiverse generated by V is given in .Woodin 2009/.
Denition 10.139. Suppose that:
(i) There exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals.
(ii) T is a theory containing ZFC.
(iii) is a sentence.
Then T if for all partial orders P and for all 2 Ord, if VP T then
t
u
VP .
808
10 Further results
Using the generic elementary embeddings associated to the stationary tower one
can prove the following absoluteness theorem. This requires using the full stationary
tower, P< , rather than the restricted tower, Q< , which we have used almost exclusively up to this point.
Theorem 10.140. Suppose that there exist a proper class of Woodin cardinals. Suppose that T is a theory containing ZFC and is a sentence. Then
T
if and only if for each partial order P , V P T .
The previous theorem strongly suggests that the validities of ZFC in -logic which
are 2 -sentences somehow capture the extent of the inuence of large cardinals. This
intuition leads to the denition of the proof relation for -logic and to the Conjecture.
A central aspect of this denition of the proof relation for -logic involves the notion of an A-closed model where A R is universally Baire. Recall that if A R is
universally Baire then A has a canonical interpretation, AG , in any set generic extension, V G, of V ;
AG D [pT j T 2 V and A D pT V :
The denition we shall give of when a transitive set M is A-closed involves AG . However this can be dened without reference to AG . For example if
M ZFC
then there is a very natural reformulation using the Stone spaces, XP , dened in V
from partial orders P 2 M .
Denition 10.141. Suppose that A R and that A is universally Baire. A transitive
set M is A-closed if for each partial order
P 2 M;
P
and for each term 2 M ,

p 2 P j p V 2 AG 2 M:
t
u
Suppose that M is a countable transitive set such that

M ZFC:
1
Suppose that S 2 M is an -borel code. Then, since M is countable, S is a code

in V for a borel set A. By absoluteness, M is A-closed. This is the essence of the
denability of forcing.
Remark 10.142. A-closure can easily be dened for any ! model .M; E/. Note that
if
.M; E/ ZFC
then .M; E/ is wellfounded if and only if .M; E/ is A-closed for each 11 set A.
t
u
10.4 -logic
809
We have dened in Denition 4.66, Q3 .a/ for each set a 2 H.!1 /. A similar
denition applies to dene Q3 .a/ for an arbitrary set a provided for example that there
exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals (much less is required): Let b be the transitive
closure of a. Then Q3 .a/ is the set of all Y b such that the following hold.
(1) There exists a transitive inner model M of ZFC such that:
a) Ord M;
b) a 2 M;
c) for some ; a 2 V , 2 M and is a Woodin cardinal in M;
d) Y 2 M.
(2) Suppose that M is a transitive inner model of ZFC such that:
a) Ord M;
b) a 2 M;
c) for some ; a 2 V , 2 M and is a Woodin cardinal in M.
Then Y 2 M.
Remark 10.143. Suppose there exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals and that M
is a transitive set such that, M ZFC. Then the following are equivalent:
(1) M is A-closed for each 13 set A.
(2) For each set a Ord if a 2 M then Q3 .a/ M .
t
u
Remark 10.144. Suppose there exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals and that M
is a transitive set such that, M ZFC. Then the following are equivalent:
(1) M is R# -closed.
(2) For each set a Ord if a 2 M then M! .a/# 2 M .
t
u
A reformulation of A-closure is given in the following lemma, which we leave as

an easy exercise.
Lemma 10.145. Suppose that A R is universally Baire and that M is a transitive
set such that M ZFC. Then the following are equivalent.
(1) M is A-closed.
(2) Suppose P 2 M is a partial order and that G P is V -generic. Then in V G;
AG \ M G 2 M G:
t
u
We shall dene T ` only for the language of set theory and for theories T
containing the axioms of ZFC. More general denitions are naturally possible.
810
10 Further results
Denition 10.146. Suppose that:

(i) There exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals.
(ii) T is a theory containing ZFC.
(iii) is a sentence.
Then T ` if there exists a universally Baire set A R such that if M is any
countable transitive set satisfying
(1) M ZFC,
(2) M is A-closed,
(3) M T ,
then M .
t
u
We note that the proof relation for -logic can be dened without reference to
the universally Baire sets, referring instead to iterable structures. In this approach,
A closure, for the relevant universally Baire sets, is reformulated in terms of closure
under the (unique) iteration strategies of canonical countable structures.
Remark 10.147. One very natural generalization of -logic would allow additional
unary predicates to be interpreted by designated universally Baire sets. This in fact
will be implicit in some of what follows; cf. Theorem 10.169.
t
u
One application of the basic descriptive set theory of ADC is the following important absoluteness theorem, the relevant theorem of ADC is Theorem 9.7.
Theorem 10.148. Suppose that there exist a proper class of Woodin cardinals.
Suppose that T is a theory containing ZFC and is a sentence. Then
T `
if and only if for each partial order P ,
V P T ` .
t
u
The following soundness theorem is easily proved from the denitions using either
the generic elementary embeddings associated with the stationary tower, I< , where
is a Woodin cardinal, or by using the closure properties of the pointclass of all universally Baire sets.
Theorem 10.149. Suppose that there exist a proper class of Woodin cardinals, is a
sentence, and ZFC ` : Then ZFC .
The Conjecture is the conjecture that the converse of Theorem 10.149 holds, in
effect this is simply the conjecture that the Completeness Theorem holds.
10.4 -logic
811
Denition 10.150 (The Conjecture). Suppose that there is a proper class of Woodin
t
u
cardinals. Then for all sentences , ZFC ` if and only if ZFC .
The following theorem shows that the Conjecture is a consequence of iteration
hypotheses.
Theorem 10.151 (WHIH). Suppose that T is a theory containing ZFC and that is a
sentence. Then the following are equivalent:
(1) T ` .
t
u
(2) T .
As we have indicated, many of the theorems relating to Pmax and its variations are
more naturally presented in the context of -logic. For example the general existence

can be strengthened as follows.
theorem, Theorem 5.49, for conditions in Pmax
Theorem 10.152. Suppose that there exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals and
that A R is universally Baire. Suppose that is a 2 sentence such that
ZFC C

is -consistent. Then there is a condition .hMk W k < !i; a/ 2 Pmax
such that
M0 ZFC C ;
and such that
(1) A \ M0 2 M0 ,
(2) hH.!1 /M0 ; A \ M0 i hH.!1 /; Ai,

.
t
u
Similarly, we can reformulate the absoluteness theorem for Pmax .

Theorem 10.153. Suppose that there exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals. Suppose that is a 2 sentence in the language for the structure hH.!2 /; 2; INS i and
that
ZFC C hH.!2 /; 2; INS i
is -consistent. Then
Pmax
hH.!2 /; 2; INS iL.R/
:
t
u
In fact by Theorem 4.76, one has the following equivalence for ./. This reformulation does not involve forcing at all. Of course the denition of -logic that we have
given does implicitly involve forcing. However, as we have noted, there is another
denition of -logic in terms of iterable structures which does not involve forcing either. Further this equivalence for ./ still holds if one weakens -logic by restricting
the collection of test models to just R# -closed models. As noted in Remark 10.144,
R# -closure has a reformulation purely in ne structural terms.
812
10 Further results
Theorem 10.154. Suppose that there exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals. Then
(1) ./.
(2) For each 2 sentence in the language for the structure
hH.!2 /; INS ; 2; A W A 2 P .R/ \ L.R/i;
if
ZFC C hH.!2 /; INS ; 2; A W A 2 P .R/ \ L.R/i
is -consistent, then
hH.!2 /; INS ; 2; A W A 2 P .R/ \ L.R/i :
t
u
The discussion of Section 10.1 can also naturally be recast in terms of -logic, for
example we note the following reformulation of Theorem 10.17.
Theorem 10.155. Suppose that there exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals. Suppose that P .R/ is a pointclass closed under continuous preimages such that
L.; R/ ZF C DC C ADR
and such that every set in is universally Baire. There exists a countable set a0 !1
such that
L.;R/ a
0
a0 !1HOD
and such that the following holds where
M D HODL.;R/ a0 :
Suppose that is a 2 -sentence such that
ZFC C
is -consistent. Then there exists a countable set a !1 such that
(1) .INS /M D M \ .INS /M a ,
(2) M a .
t
u
The absoluteness results associated to large cardinal axioms can be reformulated

as follows, the key, of course, are the scale theorems of Moschovakis.
Theorem 10.156. Assume there exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals. Then for
each sentence , either
(1) ZFC ` H.!1 / , or
(2) ZFC ` H.!1 / :.
t
u
With the analogous results for the universally Baire sets this theorem can easily be
generalized to yield the following.
10.5 -logic and the Continuum Hypothesis
813
Theorem 10.157. Assume there exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals and that
A R is universally Baire. Then for each sentence , either
(1) ZFC ` L.A; R/ , or
(2) ZFC ` L.A; R/ :.
t
u
Thus a natural question arises.

To what extent can Theorem 10.156 be generalized to H.!2 /?
The limitations imposed by forcing require the some axiom be added to ZFC.
Can there exist a sentence such that for all either
ZFC C ` H.!2 / , or
ZFC C ` H.!2 / :;
and such that ZFC C is -consistent?
Of course, by the results of this book, the answer is yes, the axiom ./ is one example. In fact each (homogeneous) Pmax -variation yields an axiom which also works.
Can this happen for H.!3 /? This is an interesting variation of the question,
Assume ADL.R/ . Must ./L.R/ !3 ?
More precisely,
Can there exist a sentence such that for all either
ZFC C ` H.!3 / , or
ZFC C ` H.!3 / :;
and such that ZFC C is -consistent?

There is at least one analog of Pmax for CH. Under suitable assumptions it is simply
the partial order
Coll.!1 ; R/:
We shall make this claim more precise, but rst we consider the problem of mutual
compatibility for 2 sentences in the structure,
hH.!2 /; 2i:
This is closely related to
mulated as follows.
21
absoluteness which in the context of WHIH can be refor-
814
10 Further results
Theorem 10.158 (WHIH). Suppose there exists a proper class of measurable Woodin
cardinals. Then for each 1 sentence , either
(1) ZFC C CH ` hH.!2 /; R; 2i , or
(2) ZFC C CH ` hH.!2 /; R; 2i :.
t
u
We state two theorems though they are not really optimal. The rst involves the
stationary tower and it is a corollary of a strengthened version of the 21 absoluteness
theorem of .Woodin 1985/, which deals with integer games of length !1 . The second theorem involves weakly homogeneous iteration schemes and the conclusion is
stronger.
Theorem 10.159. Suppose that there is a proper class of measurable Woodin cardinals. Then there is a set A !1 such that
hH.!2 /; 2iLA
where is any 2 sentence such that
ZFC C hH.!2 /; 2i
t
u
is -satisable.
Theorem 10.160. Suppose that there exits a proper class of Woodin cardinals.
Suppose M is a countable transitive model of ZFC and
hE W < i 2 M
is a weakly coherent Doddage in M such that;
(i) is a Woodin cardinal in M ,
(ii) hE W < i M ,
(iii) hE W < i witnesses that is a Woodin cardinal in M ,
(iv) there exists 2 M such that < and such that is a measurable Woodin
cardinal in M .
Q has an iteration scheme in V which is
Suppose .M; E/
Suslin. Then there is a set
A 2 .P .!1 //M
-weakly homogeneously
such that
hH.!2 /; 2iLA
where is any 2 sentence such that
ZFC C hH.!2 /; 2i
is -consistent.
t
u
815
These theorems shows that under fairly general circumstances there cannot be
(nontrivial) consistent 2 sentences for hH.!2 /; 2i which are mutually inconsistent.
The correct version of these theorems is given in the following conjecture:
Conjecture: Suppose there exists a measurable Woodin cardinal and CH holds. Then
there exists A !1 such that for all B !1 , if
A 2 LB
then
Th.LA/ D Th.LB/:
t
u
This conjecture is a corollary of a slightly more general conjecture which asserts

that if there exists a measurable Woodin cardinal then a wide class of integer games of
length !1 are determined. A brief discussion of this is given in Section 10.6 where the
axiom ./C is introduced, see Remark 10.195 and Theorem 10.196.
Remark 10.161. By Theorem 5.73(5), if ./ holds then the conclusion of the conjecture must fail; if ./ holds then for all A !1 there exist B0 !1 and B1 !1 such
that
(1) A 2 LB0 and A 2 LB1 ,
(2) there exists x 2 R \ LB0 such that x # LB0 ,
(3) for all x 2 R \ LB1 , x # 2 LB1 .
Thus the assumption of CH in the statement of the conjecture is important.
t
u
Theorem 10.166 supports our claim that the partial order Coll.!1 ; R/ is an analog
of Pmax for CH. The theorem requires the notion of weakly A-good iteration schemes.
Q / 2 H.!1 /
.M; E;
and that
(1) M ZFC,
(2) EQ 2 M is a weakly coherent Doddage (in M) witnessing is a Woodin cardinal
in M.
Suppose that A is universally Baire and that M is A-closed.
Q / is weakly A-good if every iterate of M conAn iteration scheme, I , for .M; E;
structed according to I , is A-closed.
t
u
816
10 Further results
Remark 10.163. Implicit in Denition 10.162 is the denition of an A-good iteration

scheme. One requires in addition that if
j W M ! M
is an elementary embedding obtained from the iteration strategy, then j is elementary
with respect to the predicates witnessing A-closure of M and M . In many (but not
all) cases this in fact must be the case.
t
u
Denition 10.164. Weakly Homogeneous Iteration HypothesisC (WHIHC ):
(2) Suppose A is universally Baire. There exist a Woodin cardinal and a weakly
coherent Doddage
hE W and is inaccessible
then there exists a countable elementary substructure
X V
Q A such that hM; EQM i has a weakly A-good iteration scheme
containing ; E;
1
which is -homogeneously Suslin. Here M is the transitive collapse of X and
t
u
EQM is the image of EQ under the collapsing map.
The following theorem shows that in many cases, WHIH implies WHIHC . Recall
that if there exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals then a set A R is universally
Baire if and only if it is 1 -homogeneously Suslin.
Theorem 10.165. Suppose that there exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals. Suppose that
Q / 2 H.!1 /
.M; E;
and that
(i) M ZFC,
(ii) EQ 2 M is a weakly coherent Doddage (in M) witnessing is a Woodin cardinal
in M,
(iii) there exist 2 Ord and X V such that M is the transitive collapse of X .
Q / which is universally Baire.
Suppose that I is an iteration scheme for .M; E;
Suppose that A R is universally Baire and that B R is
21 -denable in
L.A; R/ with parameters from M.
Then the iteration scheme, I , is weakly B-good.
t
u
Having made the requisite denitions we can now state the rst theorem regarding
Coll.!1 ; R/ as an analog of Pmax in the context of CH.
817
Theorem 10.166. Suppose that there exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals. Let
be the set of A R such that A is universally Baire. Suppose that 0 is a
pointclass such that:
(i) L.0 ; R/ \ P .R/ D 0 .
(ii) For each A 2 0 there exists
Q / 2 H.!1 /
.M; E;
such that
a) M ZFC,
b) EQ 2 M is a weakly coherent Doddage (in M) witnessing is a Woodin
cardinal in M,
c) in M there is a measurable Woodin cardinal above ,
d) M is A-closed,
Q has an iteration scheme in M which is weakly A-good.
e) .M; E/
0
Suppose that is a 2 sentence in the language for the structure
hH.!2 /; INS ; 2; A W A 2 0 i
and that
Coll.!1 ;R/

ZFC C hH.!2 /; INS ; 2; A W A 2 0 iV
is -consistent. Suppose that G Coll.!1 ; R/ is V -generic. Then
hH.!2 /; INS ; 2; A W A 2 0 iL.0 ;R/G :
t
u
Remark 10.167.
(1) In Theorem 10.166, if in addition one requires

L.0 ; R/ ADR C is regular;
then L.0 ; R/G !1 -DC, and so one can further force over L.0 ; R/G to
obtain ZFC without adding new subsets of !1 .
(2) It seems quite likely that if there exists a proper class of measurable Woodin
cardinals then the pointclass of the universally Baire sets necessarily satises
the requirement (ii) of Theorem 10.166.
t
u
We note the following theorem.
Q / 2 H.!1 / such that
that A R is universally Baire. Then there exists .M; E;
(1) M ZFC and M is A-closed,
(2) EQ 2 M is a weakly coherent Doddage (in M) witnessing is a Woodin cardinal
in M,
Q has a weakly A-good iteration scheme in M where P .R/ is the
(3) .M; E/
pointclass of all universally Baire sets.
u
t
818
10 Further results
Another, though weaker, version of Theorem 10.166 is:

Theorem 10.169. Suppose that there exists a proper class of measurable Woodin cardinals and that for each partial order P ,
V P WHIHC :
Let be the set of A R such that A is universally Baire and suppose that
L.; R/ \ P .R/ D :
Suppose that is a 2 sentence in the language for the structure
hH.!2 /; INS ; 2; A W A 2 i
and that
ZFC C hH.!2 /; INS ; 2; A W A 2 iV
Coll.!1 ;R/

is -consistent. Suppose that G Coll.!1 ; R/ is V -generic. Then

hH.!2 /; INS ; 2; A W A 2 iL.;R/G :
t
u
The requirement in Theorem 10.169 that

L.; R/ \ P .R/ D
where is the pointclass of all universally Baire sets is not difcult to achieve. With
additional (substantial) large cardinal assumptions one can also require,
see Remark 10.167.
that is an inaccessible limit of strong cardinals.
Suppose that
G Coll.!; < /
1
be the pointclass of all universally Baire sets as dened in V G.
is V -generic. Let G
Then in V G:

1
1
; RG / \ P .RG / D G
.
(2) L.G
(3) Suppose that in V , is the critical point of an elementary embedding

j W VC1 ! VC1 :
Then (in V G)
1
; RG / ADR C is regular:
L.G
We note the following theorem which is a variation of Theorem 4.79.
t
u
819
Theorem 10.171. Suppose that there exists a model hM; Ei such that
hM; Ei ZFC C CH;
hH.!2 /; 2iV
VP
where Q D .Coll.!1 ; R//
P Q
;
, then
hH.!2 /; 2ihM;E i :
Assume there exists a proper class of inaccessible cardinals. Then for all partial orders P ,
V P ADL.R/ :
u
t
Remark 10.172. The proof of Theorem 10.171 uses the core model induction, this
is the machinery used to prove Theorem 5.104 and Theorem 6.149; and the conclusion can be strengthened. A plausible upper bound in the consistency strength of the
hypothesis is an inaccessible limit of Woodin cardinals which are limits of Woodin
cardinals. Of course without the assumption that
hM; Ei CH;
the hypothesis is relatively weak, the upper bound, eliminating the inaccessibles, being
the consistency strength of
1
ZFC C ./ C For all P , V P
2 -Determinacy;
by Theorem 4.69.
t
u
We generalize the notion of a mixed iteration scheme to weakly A-good mixed

iteration schemes, and similarly we formulate the analogous mixed iteration hypothesis. These denitions allow us to state Theorem 10.175 which is the corresponding
generalization of Theorem 10.12. With the version of Theorem 10.12 given here, it is
possible to prove various generalizations of Theorem 10.128. But this we shall not do.
Q 1 / 2 H.!1 /
.M; 0 ; E;
and that
(1) M ZFC,
(2) 0 < 1 and each is a Woodin cardinal in M,
(3) EQ 2 M is a weakly coherent Doddage (in M) witnessing 1 is a Woodin cardinal
in M.
Suppose that A is universally Baire and that M is A-closed.
Q 1 / is weakly A-good if every iterate
A mixed iteration scheme, I , for .M; 0 ; E;
of M constructed according to I , is A-closed.
t
u
820
10 Further results
Denition 10.174 (MIHC ).
(2) There exist a Woodin cardinals 0 < 1 and a weakly coherent Doddage
EQ D hE W < 1 i
which witnesses 1 is a Woodin cardinal such that if 1 < and if is inaccessible then there exists a countable elementary substructure,
X V
containing 0 ; 1 and EQ such that
hM; 0M ; EQM ; 1M i
has a mixed iteration scheme which is 1 -homogeneously Suslin and weakly
A-good for each universally Baire set A 2 X . Here M is the transitive collapse
Q 1 / under the collapsing map. u
t
of X and .0M ; EQM ; 1M / is the image of .0 ; E;
limits of Woodin cardinals. Then for each ordinal there exists a transitive inner
model containing the ordinals such that
(1) V N ,
(2) N ZFC C MIHC ,
WH N
WH
(3) .1
/ 1
.
t
u
There are two natural candidates for canonical models of the form, L.P .!1 //, in
the context of CH.
(I) Suppose that 0 is 1 -huge. Suppose that
G0 Coll.!; < 0 /
G1 .Coll.!1 ; < 1 //V G0
is V G0 -generic. The rst candidate is
L.P .!1 //V G1 :
(II) Suppose that P .R/ is a pointclass, closed under continuous preimages,
such that
L.; R/ ZF C ADR C is regular:
Suppose that G Coll.!1 ; R/ is L.; R/-generic. The second candidate is
L.P .!1 //L.;R/G :
The rst class of models, or at least the background models V G1 , have two interesting
features. These models were the subject of Theorem 6.28, which shows that a much
stronger version of (1) below actually holds.
821
(1) In V G1 there is a normal, uniform, !1 -dense ideal on !1 .

(2) There is a stationary set S !1V G1 such that if C !1V G1 is a V G1 -generic
club contained in S then
hH.!2 /; 2iV G1 C
where is any 2 -sentence such that
ZFC C CH C hH.!2 /; 2i
is -satisable in V1 .
A very interesting question is:
Can ODR -Determinacy hold in L.P .!1 //V G1 ?
The second class of models have strong homogeneity properties and also a plethora of
saturated ideals.
(1) Suppose that
H Coll.!2 ; /L.;R/G
is L.; R/G-generic. Then in L.; R/GH , there is a normal, uniform, !1 dense ideal on !1 .
(2) .INS /L.;R/G is quasi-homogeneous in L.; R/G.
(3) Suppose that P 2 L.; R/G is an .!; 1/-distributive partial order, in
L.; R/G, of cardinality !1 . Suppose that g P is L.; R/G-generic.
Then
.L.P .!1 ///L.;R/G .L.P .!1 ///L.;R/Gg :
An appealing conjecture is that these models, with the proper choices of the underlying
ground models, do yield generalizations of ./ to the context of CH. Theorem 10.166
and Theorem 10.169 offer some evidence for this in the case of the second class of
models.
We end this section by stating several theorems which impose a rather fundamental
limit on possible generalizations of Pmax to the context of CH. These theorems are
conditioned on the following conjecture from .Woodin 2010b/.
Denition 10.176 (ADC Conjecture). Suppose that L.A; R/ and L.B; R/ each satisfy
ADC . Suppose that every set
X 2 .L.A; R/ [ L.B; R// \ P .R/
is !1 -universally Baire.
2 L.A;R/
2 L.B;R/
2 L.B;R/
2 L.A;R/
Then either .
.
or .
.
.
1 /
1 /
1 /
1 /
There is a stronger version of this conjecture.
t
u
822
10 Further results
Denition 10.177 (Strong ADC Conjecture). Suppose that L.A; R/ and L.B; R/
each satisfy ADC . Suppose that every set
X 2 .L.A; R/ [ L.B; R// \ P .R/
is !1 -universally Baire. Then either A 2 L.B; R/ or B 2 L.A; R/.
t
u
Theorem 10.178. Assume there exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals. Let 1 be
the pointclass of all A R such that A is universally Baire and let T D Th.H.!2 //
Then following are equivalent.
(1) There exists a sentence such that
V ZFC C
for some , and such that for each sentence , either
a) ZFC C ` H.!2 / , or
b) ZFC C ` H.!2 / :.
(2) T is is 1 denable (equivalently 1 -denable) in the structure
hM 1 ; 2; Ri:
t
u
Remark 10.179. (1) First order logic is denable in V! and as a result the theory of
V! cannot be nitely axiomatized over ZFC in rst order logic. This of course
is the essence of the incompleteness theorems of Godel.
The key question raised by Theorem 10.178 concerns the intrinsic complexity of
-logic; i. e. of the set:
0 D j ZFC `
for this places a limit on how large a fragment of V one can consistently assert has a theory which is nitely axiomatized over ZFC in -logic. The only
immediate upper bound is V where is the second Woodin cardinal, noting
that Wadge determinacy holds in this case for the sets A R which are homogeneously Suslin for each < . Neeman has proved that if there is a
Woodin cardinal then all universally Baire sets are determined and using this
result, the set 0 is denable in V0 C1 where 0 is the least Woodin cardinal.
The set 0 cannot be dened in H.!1 / and assuming ./ it cannot be dened in
H.!2 /.
(2) Assume there exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals. Let 1 be the pointclass of all A R such that A is universally Baire. Then 0 has the same Turing
degree as the 1 -theory of the structure
hM 1 ; 2; RiI
in fact each is recursively reducible to the other. Thus the complexity of -logic
t
u
is the same as that of the complete 21 . 1 / subset of !.
823
Theorem 10.180 (CH C ADC Conjecture). Assume there exists a proper class of
Woodin cardinals. Let 1 be the pointclass of all A R such that A is universally
Baire. Let T be the 1 theory of hM 1 ; 2; Ri. Then either
(1) T is 2 denable in the structure; hH.!2 /; INS ; 2i; or
(2) T is 2 denable in the structure; hH.!2 /; INS ; 2i:
t
u
There is a version of Theorem 10.180 which is not dependent on the ADC Conjecture. This theorem is proved using the core model induction.
Theorem 10.181. Assume there exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals and that
either Martins Maximum.c/ holds or there is an !1 -dense ideal on !1 .
Let 1 be the pointclass of all A R such that A is universally Baire and let T
t
u
be the 1 theory of hM 1 ; 2; Ri. Then T is denable H.c C /.
As a corollary of Theorem 10.180, using Tarskis theorem on the undenability of
truth, one obtains the rst theorem regarding CH. This theorem shows that the most
optimistic possibility of a version of Pmax for CH must fail.
Theorem 10.182 (ADC Conjecture). Suppose that there exist a proper class of Woodin
cardinals and that is a sentence such that
V
for some strongly inaccessible cardinal, . Suppose that for each sentence , either
(i) ZFC C ` H.!2 / , or
(ii) ZFC C ` H.!2 / :.
t
u
Then CH is false.
The axiom ./ is a natural example of an axiom which axiomatizes the theory of
H.!2 / in -logic. An immediate consequence of ./ is that there exists a surjection
W R ! !2
such that the induced prewellordering,
.x; y/ j .x/ .y/
is 13 .
Let express: There exists a surjection W R ! !2 such that
is 2 -denable in the structure
hH.!2 /; INS ; 2i;
(without parameters),
824
10 Further results
if there exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals then

the relation
R D .x; y/ j .x/ < .y/
is universally Baire, moreover
there exists a universally Baire set A such that R is .21 /L.A;R/ .
We require the following generalization of Theorem 10.180. Under a variety of
additional assumptions, alternative (2) can be eliminated. For example if either of the
following hold:
There is a normal, uniform, !2 -saturated ideal on !1 ;
Changs Conjecture;
then it can be eliminated.
Theorem 10.183 (ADC Conjecture). Assume there exists a proper class of Woodin
cardinals. Let 1 be the pointclass of all A R such that A is universally Baire.
Let T be the 1 theory of hM 1 ; 2; Ri. Then either
(1) T is 2 denable in the structure, hH.!2 /; INS ; 2iI or
(2) T is 2 denable in the structure, hH.!2 /; INS ; 2iI or
(3) there exists a universally Baire set A R and a surjection
W R ! !2V
such that is 2 -denable in the structure
hH.!2 /; INS ; 2i
and such that the prewellordering
R D .x; y/ j .x/ .y/
t
u
is .21 /L.A;R/ .
The second theorem regarding CH generalizes the fact that ./ implies
12 D !2 .
It is a corollary of Theorem 10.183.
Theorem 10.184 (ADC Conjecture). Suppose that there exist a proper class of Woodin
cardinals and that is a sentence such that
V
for some strongly inaccessible cardinal, . Suppose that for each sentence , either
(i) ZFC C ` H.!2 / , or
(ii) ZFC C ` H.!2 / :.
Then holds.
t
u
825
We note the following theorem which shows that Theorem 10.184 is essentially the
strongest possible. This theorem was independently proved by Neeman.
Theorem 10.185. Assume there exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals. Suppose
that A R is universally Baire, 0 is sentence and
(i) L.A; R/ 0 ,
(ii) for all B 2 L.A; R/ \ P .R/, either L.B; R/ D L.A; R/, or L.B; R/ :0 .
Let A D ./L.A;R/ . Then there exists a sentence such that:
(1) For each sentence , either
a) ZFC C ` H.!2 / , or
b) ZFC C ` H.!2 / :.
(2) ZFC C is -consistent.
t
u
(3) ZFC C ` A < !2 :
In the fall of 2009, Aspero, Larson, and Moore showed that there are 2 -sentences
1 and 2 such that both 1 and 2 can be forced to hold with CH but .1 ^2 / implies
the :CH. The main question which remains is:
Question. Can there exist a sentence such that for all 2 sentences, , either
(1) ZFC C CH C ` H.!2 / , or
(2) ZFC C CH C ` H.!2 / :;
and such that ZFC C CH C is -consistent?
t
u
Remark 10.186. (1) A natural conjecture is that if the answer to the question above
is yes, then under suitable large cardinal hypotheses, or suitable determinacy
hypotheses, the witness for , is simply the sentence:
H.!2 / 2 H.!2 /V
Coll.!1 ;R/
which is a generic form of , see Theorem 10.198.

(2) As indicated in Remark 10.194 of the next section, one of the statements (Version III) preceding Remark 10.194 gives an example of a 2 sentence in the
language for the structure hH.!2 /; INS ; 2i which looks quite difcult to obtain
(together with CH) except by forcing over a suitable model of ZF C ADC .
826
10 Further results
(3) We note the following corollary of Theorem 10.171. Suppose that CH holds in
V and that if is a 2 sentence for which there exists a partial order P such that
hH.!2 /; 2iV
CH C ;
then H.!2 / . Assume there exists a proper class of inaccessible cardinals.

Then for all partial orders P ,
V P ADL.R/ :
t
u
Finally if the Conjecture is false (and there is a proper class of Woodin cardinals)
then a very interesting question is the following.
Question. Can there exist a sentence such that for all either
(1) ZFC C CH C H.!2 / , or
(2) ZFC C CH C H.!2 / :;
and such that ZFC C CH C is -satisable?
t
u
The next theorem, in conjunction with Theorem 10.184, shows that this question must have a negative answer in any sufciently iterable model provided that
ZFC C CH C is -consistent in V .
that
Q / 2 H.!1 /
.M; E;
is such that:
M ZFC C There exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals:
(ii) M is a Woodin cardinal.
(iii) E 2 M and in M is a weakly coherent Doddage witnessing that is a Woodin
cardinal.
Q has an iteration scheme which is universally Baire.
(iv) .M; E/
Suppose that T 2 M is a theory containing ZFC, is a sentence and that
M T :
Then T ` .
t
u
10.6 The Axiom ./C
827
10.6 The Axiom ./C

The results of Section 9.2 suggest the following variations of the axiom ./.
Denition 10.188. Axiom ./C : For each set X R there exists a set A R such
that
(1) L.A; R/ ADC ,
(2) there is an L.A; R/-generic lter, g Pmax , such that
X 2 L.A; R/g:
t
u
Denition 10.189. Axiom ./CC : There exists a pointclass P .R/ and a lter
g Pmax such that
(1) L.; R/ ADC ,
(2) g is L.; R/-generic,
(3) P .R/ L.; R/g.
t
u
The successful extension of the ne structural analysis of HODL.R/ to the analysis

of HODL.A;R/ for all sets A R such that L.A; R/ ADC should yield a proof of
the following conjecture.
Denition 10.190 (The Conality Conjecture). Suppose that L.A; R/ and L.B; R/
are Wadge incomparable inner models of ADC . Let
D supL.C;R/ j C 2 P .R/ \ L.A; R/ \ L.B; R/:
t
u
Then cof./ D !1 .
Assuming Conality Conjecture an argument using the core model induction and
which is quite similar to the proof of Theorem 10.181 yields the following theorem and
it is a corollary of this theorem that the two axioms, ./C and ./CC , are equivalent.
The statement of the theorem involves the following notation for each set A R,
./A abbreviates:
(1) L.A; R/ ADC ,
(2) L.P .!1 /; A/ D L.A; R/G, for some L.A; R/-generic lter G Pmax .
Theorem 10.191 (Conality Conjecture). Let be the pointclass of sets A R such
that ./A holds and suppose that A and B are in . Then
L.A; B; R/ ADC :
t
u
828
10 Further results
Related to the problem of Martins Maximum vs. ./ is the following question: Is
ZFC C Martins Maximum C ./CC
consistent?
A simpler question concerns the value of
12 in V g where g is V -generic for
Namba forcing. Note that if
1 D !2
2
then necessarily,
.12 /V < .12 /V g :
A bound for .12 /V g is provided by the following theorem.
Theorem 10.192. Assume that for all A !2 , A exists. Suppose that g is V -generic
for Namba forcing. Then in V g:
(1) For all x 2 R, x # exists;
(2) 12 !3V .
Proof. We sketch the proof. Let P be the Namba partial order.
The elements of P are pairs .s; t / such that
(1.1) t !2<! and t is closed under initial segments,
(1.2) s 2 t ,
(1.3) for all a 2 t if s a then
j < !2 j a _ 2 t j D !2 :
The order on P is dened in the natural fashion:
.s ; t / .s; t /
if s s and t t .
As usual we identify the generic g with the corresponding function
[s j .s; t / 2 g;
which is a conal function from ! to !2V .
Fix x 2 RV g and let P be a term for x. By the usual fusion arguments there
exist a condition .s; t / 2 g and a function
W t ! ! <!
such that for all a 2 t and for all b 2 t ,
(2.1) .a/ 2 ! dom.a/ ,
(2.2) if a b then .a/ .b/
10.6 The Axiom ./C
829
and such that

x D [.gjk/ j k < !:
Let A Ord be a set such that
(3.1) .!2 /LA D !2 ,
(3.2) ; .s; t / 2 LA,
(3.3) !3 is a measurable cardinal in LA.
Let PA D P \ LA. By (3.1), PA is simply the partial order for Namba forcing as
dened in LA. denes a term A 2 LAPA for a real. Since there is a measurable
cardinal in LA,
LAPA For all y 2 R, y # exists:
Let be the least strongly inaccessible cardinal in LA. Thus
< !3V :
Fix a tree T 2 LA on ! such that if g PA is LA-generic then in LAg ,
pT D .y; y # / j y 2 RLAg :
As usual we regard the innite branches of T as triples .y; z; f / where y 2 ! ! ,
z 2 ! ! and f 2 ! .
Thus working in LA there exists a condition
.s ; t / .s; t /
in PA and a function
W t ! T
such that if b is an innite branch of t then [ .bjk/ j k < ! is an innite branch

.y; z; f / of T such that y D [.bjk/ j k < !.
The condition .s ; t / 2 PA and the function are constructed by a fusion argument, analogous to the construction of .s; t / and . Here though one cannot require
that is length preserving.
We return to V g. By genericity we may suppose that .s ; t / 2 g.
We now prove that in V g, x # exists and further that !3V is an indiscernible of
Lx.
Since .s ; t / 2 g, there exists z 2 RV g such that .x; z/ 2 pT . By absoluteness
it follows that
z D x#
for otherwise in LA there must exist .x ; z / 2 pT such that z .x /# contradicting the choice of T .
This proves x # exists in V g. We nish by proving that !3V is an indiscernible
of Lx. In fact a simple boundedness argument shows that for each ordinal , the
. C 1/th indiscernible of Lx is below the least ordinal above which is admissible
relative to T , cf. the proof of Theorem 10.62. However !3V is a cardinal in LT so it
follows that !3V is an indiscernible of Lx.
830
10 Further results
In summary we have proved that in V g, for all x 2 RV g , x # exists and that !3V
is an indiscernible of Lx. However
!1V g D !1V
and so it follows that .12 /V g !3V .
t
u
Theorem 10.193 (Axiom ./CC ). Suppose that for each A !2 , A exists. Suppose
that g is V -generic for Namba forcing. Then
.12 /V g D .!3 /V :
Proof. Clearly
!3 D ./L.;R/ :
Recall that AG denotes the set [a j h.M; I /; ai 2 G. By modifying G if necessary
we can suppose that
!1 D .!1 /LAG
and so, since AC holds, there exists a surjection
W !2 ! R
which is 1 denable in the structure
hH.!2 /; INS ; 2i
from AG .
Fix an ordinal 2 !3 n !2 and x a set B 2 such that B codes a a surjection
W R ! :
Let F G be the set of
h.M; I /; ai 2 G
such that
(1.1) M ZFC C ./,
(1.2) B \ M 2 M,
(1.3) .M; I / is B-iterable,
(1.4) hV!C1 \ M; B \ M; 2i hV!C1 ; B; 2i.
By Lemma 4.52 and Lemma 4.56, F is dense in G.
Suppose that h.M; I /; ai 2 F and let
jG W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
be the (unique) iteration such that
jG .a/ D AG :
It follows from (1.1)(1.4) that
hV!C1 \ M ; 2i hV!C1 ; 2i
10.6 The Axiom ./C
831
and so by (1.1) it follows that

hH.!2 /M ; 2i hH.!2 /; 2i:

Therefore j.!2 /M 2 M .
Now suppose that hh.Mk ; Ik /; ak i W k < !i is a decreasing sequence in F and for
each k < ! let
jGk W .Mk ; Ik / ! .Mk ; Ik /
be the (unique) iteration such that
jGk .ak / D AG :
Let x 2 R code hh.Mk ; Ik /; ak i W k < !i. Then
(2.1) supMk \ Ord j k < ! D [R \ Mk j k < !,
(2.2) ordertype. ./ j 2 [Mk \ Ord j k < !/ x where x is the least
ordinal, , above !1 such that L x is admissible.
The theorem easily follows. Dene
f W !2<! ! F
such that:
(3.1) Suppose s 2 !2<! and that
f .s/ D h.M; I /; ai:
Then s 2 M where
jG W .M; I / ! .M ; I /
is the iteration such that j.a/ D AG .

(3.2) Suppose s 2 !2<! , t 2 !2<! and that s t . Then f .t / < f .s/.
Suppose that g is V -generic for Namba forcing and let
hg W ! ! !2V
be the associated (conal) function. For each k < ! let
h.Mk ; Ik /; ak i D f .hg jk/
jGk W .Mk ; Ik / ! .Mk ; Ik /
be the (unique) iteration such that jGk .ak / D AG .
Thus hh.Mk ; Ik /; ak i W k < !i is a decreasing sequence in F and
!2V D supMk \ Ord j k < !:
Let xg 2 RV g code hh.Mk ; Ik /; ak i W k < !i and let xg be the least ordinal, ,
above !1 such that L xg is admissible.
By the genericity of g, the range of fg is conal in !2V and so
!2V D [Mk \ Ord j k < !:
By (2.1) and (2.2) it follows, by absoluteness, that
xg < .12 /V g :
Thus !3V D .12 /V g .
t
u
832
10 Further results
There are three analogs of ./C in the context of CH:

Version I: Suppose that X !1 . Then there exists a set A R such that
L.A; R/ ADC ,
there is a lter g Coll.!1 ; R/ such that
(1) g is L.A; R/-generic,
(2) X 2 L.A; R/g.
t
u
Version II: Suppose that X !1 . Then there exists a pointclass P .R/ such that
L.; R/ ZF C DC C ADR ,
(2) X 2 L.; R/g.
t
u
Version III: Suppose that X !1 . Then there exists a pointclass P .R/ such
that
(2) X 2 L.; R/g,
(3) .INS /L.;R/g D INS \ L.; R/g.
t
u
Remark 10.194. Clearly, assuming CH, (Version I) and (Version II) are each expressible by a 2 sentence in the structure
hH.!2 /; 2i:
Further (Version III) is expressible by a 2 sentence in the structure
hH.!2 /; INS ; 2i:
It is a corollary of the proof of Theorem 10.180 that (Version III) cannot be implied by
CH in -logic. In fact one can show that the sentence
There exists a partial order P such that RV D .R/V
V
cannot be a validity of -logic.
and such that
(Version III)
t
u
10.6 The Axiom ./C
833
We conjecture that (Version I) is implied by CH if there exists a measurable Woodin

cardinal. This conjecture is implied by the following stronger conjecture for which we
make the following denition. Suppose that
G H.!1 /:
Let G be the set of b 2 H.!2 / such that for all countable

X hH.!2 /; G ; 2i;
if b 2 X then bX 2 G where bX is the image of b under the transitive collapse of X .
The stronger conjecture is:
(Long Game Conjecture) Assume that is a measurable Woodin cardinal and
that
AR
is -homogeneously Suslin. Suppose that G H.!1 / and that G 2 L.A; R/.
Then there exists a set B R such that
(1) B is -homogeneously Suslin,
(2) A 2 L.B; R/,
(3) in L.B; R/Pmax , the integer game of length !1 given by G is determined
t
u
where G is as dened in L.B; R/Pmax .
Remark 10.195. (1) It is not difcult to show that assuming ./, there is denable
integer game of length !1 which is not determined.
(2) It is a corollary of Long Game Conjecture that if is a measurable Woodin
cardinal then for every set A R, if A is -homogeneously Suslin and if
G 2 P .H.!1 // \ L.A; R/;
then the integer game of length !1 given by G is determined (no assumption
concerning CH is made). The Long Game Conjecture is true if this corollary is
provable from the existence of a measurable Woodin cardinal, provided certain
iterability assumptions hold in V .
(3) Neeman has shown that if there is a measurable Woodin cardinal then the Long
Game Conjecture follows directly from iterability assumptions for V , Neeman
.2004/.
t
u
Theorem 10.196 (Long Game Conjecture). Assume there exists a proper class of
measurable Woodin cardinals. Then there exists a universally Baire set A R such
that the following holds. Suppose that X !1 , Y !1 and that
!1 D .!1 /LX D .!1 /LY :
Suppose that A \ LX 2 LX and that A \ LY 2 LY . Then
LX LY :
t
u
834
10 Further results
Theorem 10.197 (Long Game Conjecture, CH). Assume there exists a proper class of
measurable Woodin cardinals. Suppose that X !1 . Then there exists a set A R
such that
(1) L.A; R/ ADC ,
(2) there is a lter g Coll.!1 ; R/ such that
a) g is L.A; R/-generic,
b) X 2 L.A; R/g.
t
u
We now consider the problem of obtaining (Version II) from CH. This is closely
related to the question concerning CH, listed at the end of the previous section:
Does there exist a sentence such that
ZFC C CH C
is -consistent and such that for all 2 sentences, , either
ZFC C CH C ` H.!2 / , or
ZFC C CH C ` H.!2 / :?
It is convenient to dene a slight strengthening of (Version II).
(Version II)C : Suppose that X !1 and that A R is universally Baire. Then there
exists a pointclass P .R/ such that
A 2 ,
(2) X 2 L.; R/g.
t
u
We remark that the assumptions (i)(iii) of Theorem 10.198 should hold in any
ne structural inner model in which there exists a proper class of measurable Woodin
cardinals. Further it seems quite plausible that (i), (iii) and a sufcient fragment of (ii)
are provable consequences of the existence of a proper class of measurable Woodin
cardinals; i. e. that the stronger theorem, obtained by eliminating the assumptions (i)
(iii), is actually true.
Theorem 10.198. Assume there exists a proper class of measurable Woodin cardinals
and that:
(i) Long Game Conjecture holds;
(ii) WHIHC holds;
835
(iii) For each universally Baire set, A R, there exists

Q / 2 H.!1 /
.M; E;
such that
a) M ZFC,
b) EQ 2 M is a weakly coherent Doddage (in M) witnessing is a Woodin
cardinal in M,
c) in M there is a measurable Woodin cardinal above ,
d) M is A-closed,
Q has a universally Baire iteration scheme which is weakly A-good.
e) .M; E/
(1) ZFC C CH (Version II)C .
(2) For each 2 sentence, , either
a) ZFC C CH C H.!2 / 2 H.!2 /V
b) ZFC C CH C H.!2 / 2 H.!2 /
Coll.!1 ;R/
V Coll.!1 ;R/
` H.!2 / , or
` H.!2 / :.
t
u
Suppose that LE is a MitchellSteel inner model with a superstrong cardinal, and
a proper class of Woodin cardinals, in which the countable initial segments of LE are
-iterable for every . Then one can show that in LE, the 2 theory of H.!2 / is not
nitely axiomatized over ZFC in -logic. With additional assumptions one can also
show that in LE, (Version II) must fail.
Thus any attempt to prove (Version II) from CH would seem to require large cardinals beyond superstrong.

Assume there is a proper class of Woodin cardinals. Suppose
is an uncountable cardinal and that g Coll.!;
/ is V -generic. Suppose in V g there exists a prewellordering .RV g ; g / such that in V g:
(1) g is 1 -homogeneously Suslin;
(2) g has length !2 .
Must there exist in V an 1 -homogeneously Suslin prewellordering of length
CC ?
By Theorem 9.132, if there is a proper class of Woodin cardinals and if the nonstationary ideal on !2 is semi-saturated then the answer is no, with
D !1 .
The case when
is a singular strong limit cardinal seems particularly interesting.
A positive answer is an effective form of the Singular Cardinals Hypothesis.
836
10 Further results
Denition 10.199. Effective Singular Cardinals Hypothesis: Assume there is a proper

class of Woodin cardinals. Suppose that
is a singular strong limit cardinal and that
g Coll.!;
/ is V -generic. Suppose that
M V g
is a transitive inner model such that in V g:
(1) R M ;
(2) M ZF C AD;
(3) Every set A 2 P .R/ \ M is 1 -homogeneously Suslin.
Then M < .
CC /V .
t
u
Remark 10.200. There are two natural variations of the Effective Singular Cardinals
Hypothesis:
(1) One could require that GCH holds below
, or
(2) that the Effective Generalized Continuum Hypothesis holds below
.
The Effective Generalized Continuum Hypothesis is the obvious variation of Effective
Singular Cardinals Hypothesis:
Suppose that
is an innite cardinal and that g Coll.!;
/ is V -generic.
Suppose that
M V g
is a transitive inner model such that in V g:
R M;
M ZF C AD;
Every set A 2 P .R/ \ M is 1 -homogeneously Suslin.
Then M < .
CC /V .
t
u
We give a brief summary of a few relevant results and which are proved in Chapter 7
of .Woodin 2010b/. These results are primarily concerned with the following related
problem. Suppose
is a singular strong limit cardinal and that
2 V Coll.!;/
1
is a term for an -homogeneously Suslin set of reals. Must be equivalent to a term

which is denable from parameters in H.
C /?
It is convenient to introduce the notion of a term relation.
is a cardinal and that
2 V Coll.!;/
is a term for a subset P .!/. The term relation of is the set of pairs .p; / such that
837
(1) ! Coll.!;
/,
(2) p 2 Coll.!;
/,
(3) p x 2 ,
where x 2 V Coll.!;/ is the term for a subset of ! given by ;
n 2 x D _q 2 Coll.!;
/ j .n; q/ 2 :
t
u
The case when

has uncountable conality is easily dealt with.
is a strong limit cardinal of uncountable conality.
Suppose that
2 V Coll.!;/
is a term for an 1 -homogeneously Suslin subset of P .!/. Then the term relation for
is denable, from parameters, in the structure
hH.
C /; 2i:
Proof. Without loss of generality we may suppose that H.
C /.
Let T
be a term for a weakly homogeneous tree in V Coll.!;/ with projection
and let F
be term for a function which witnesses that T
is weakly homogeneous.
Since every every countably complete measure in V Coll.!;/ which concentrates on
nite sequences of ordinals extends uniquely a measure in V , there exists (uniquely) a
partial function
W .s; t; q/ j s 2 ! <! ; t 2 ! <! ; and q 2 Coll.!;
/ ! V
such that for all .s; t; q/
.s; t; q/ 2 dom./ and .s; t; q/ D
if and only if
q .s; t / 2 dom.F
/ and F
.s; t / \ V D :
Suppose g Coll.!;
/ is a lter. Let
g W ! <! ! <! ! V
be the partial function obtained from and g,
g .s; t / D
if and only if for some q 2 g, .s; t; q/ D . The function g naturally denes a
weakly homogeneously Suslin set which we denote by A g .
P .P!1 .H.
/// H.
C /:
838
10 Further results
Let G be the set of countably generated lters g Coll.!;

/. Thus G 2 H.
C / as is
the function
W G ! P .R/
dened by .g/ D A g .
Let R
be the term relation for . Then is is easily veried that .p; / 2 R
if
and only if S is stationary in P!1 .H.
// where S is the set of countable elementary
substructures
Y hH.
/; 2i
such that for some set D Y \ Coll.!;
/,
(1.1) p 2 Y ,
(1.2) D is dense in Y \ Coll.!;
/,
(1.3) if g 2 G , p 2 g, and D \ g ;, then
Ig . / 2 A g :
Thus R
is denable in H.
C / from .G ; /.
t
u
As one might expect, the case when

has conality ! is more subtle.
Theorem 10.203. Let
be a singular strong limit cardinal of conality !. Suppose
that there exists an elementary embedding
j W L.VC1 / ! L.VC1 /
. Then there exists a closed conal set C
such that:
(1) j.C / D C ;
(2) Suppose 2 C and cof. / D !. Then jV j D and there exists a term
2 V Coll.!;/ for a subset of P .!/ such that,
a) is a term for a set which is <
-weakly homogeneously Suslin,
b) every set in L .VC1 / \ P .VC1 / is 1 denable from parameters in the
structure,
hH. C /; R
; 2i;
where R
is the term relation of .
Remark 10.204. The large cardinal hypothesis:
There exists an elementary embedding
j W L.VC1 / ! L.VC1 /
,
t
u
839
yields a structure theory for L.VC1 / which in many aspects is analogous to the structure theory for L.R/ in the context of ADL.R/ . Note that by Kunens theorem on the
nonexistence of an elementary embedding of V to V ,
must be the ! th element of the
critical sequence of j .
The next theorem shows that from this hypothesis one obtains a weak failure of
the Effective Singular Cardinals Hypothesis. The proof of this theorem and of related
theorems can be found in Chapter 7 of .Woodin 2010b/.
t
u
Theorem 10.205. Suppose that there exists an elementary embedding
j W L.VC1 / ! L.VC1 /
and that g Coll.!;
/ is V -generic. Then in V g there
exists a transitive inner model
M L.VC1 /g
such that
(1) RV g M ,
(2) M ZF C ADC ,
(3) .
CC /L.VC1 / < M .
t
u
Remark 10.206. It is a natural conjecture that the inner model M of Theorem 10.205
can be chosen such that
./L.VC1 /g D M :
It is immediate that ./L.VC1 /g is simply the least ordinal such that in L.VC1 /,
is not the surjective image of VC1 . We denote this ordinal by L.VC1 / , this is the
natural generalization of L.R/ to L.VC1 /.
This in turn suggests the following problem. Suppose there exists an elementary
embedding
j W L.VC1 / ! L.VC1 /
. Must
L.VC1 / <
CC
t
u
Chapter 11
Questions
The following is a list of questions, including many which have appeared in earlier
chapters. The order simply reects roughly the place within the book where the question is discussed, either explicitly or implicitly, and there is signicant overlap among
various of these questions. Comments have been asserted in italics for those questions
which either have been solved or otherwise affected by developments of which I am
aware since the rst edition.
(1) Assume L.R/ AD. Must L.R/ !3 ?
(2) Can there exist countable transitive models M and M such that
M ZFC C The nonstationary ideal on !1 is saturated;
M is an iterate of M , and such that M 2 M ?

(3) Suppose that the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !2 -saturated and that
L.R/ AD:
Must 12 D !2 ?
(4) Suppose that N is a transitive inner model containing the ordinals such that
N ZFC
and such that for each countable set N there exists a set 2 N with
jjN D !
and such that .
a) Suppose that for each set X , X # exists. Must
1 D .12 /N
2
b) Suppose that for each partial order P ,

V P ADL.R/ :
Must
.HOD/L.R/ D .HOD/L.R
N/
(5) Suppose that INS is !2 -saturated and that P .!1 /# exists. Suppose that A !1
and let
A D sup.!2 /LZ j Z !1 ; A 2 LZ; and RLA D RLZ :
Must A < !2 ?
11 Questions
841
(6) Assume there exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals. Do either of the following imply :CH?
a) Every function f W !1 ! !1 is bounded on a closed conal subset of !1
by a canonical function.
b) Suppose that A R is universally Baire and that
f W !1 ! A:
Then there exists a tree T on ! !1 such that that A D pT and such that
< !1 j f ./ 2 pT j
contains a closed conal subset of !1 .
Solved by Larson and Shelah: The answer is no.
(7) Suppose the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !1 -dense.
a) Must c D !2 ?
b) Must
12 D !2 ?
c) Must L.R/ !3 ?
(8) Assume Martins Maximum.c/. Suppose that P .R/ is a pointclass, closed
under continuous preimages, such that
a) L.; R/ ADC ,
b) !3 D ./L.;R/ .
Suppose that G Pmax is an L.; R/-generic lter such that G 2 V and such
that
P .!1 / D P .!1 /G :
Must
L.; R/G ADR
(9) Assume ./. Suppose
W !1 2 ! 0;1
is a partition with no homogeneous rectangle for 0 of (proper) cardinality @1 .
Must there exist a set X !1 such that E .3/ X is nonstationary in !1 ?
Justin Moore has proved that the associated partition relation is false .Moore
2006/, but the status of this question remains unclear.

(10) Assume .
a) Must INS be semi-saturated?
b) Must HODR AD?
842
(11)
11 Questions
a) Suppose that the Axiom of Condensation holds. Does strong condensation

hold for H.!2 /?
b) Suppose that N is a transitive inner model of ZFC in which the Axiom of
Strong Condensation holds and that covering fails for N . Must
N Lx
for some x 2 R?
(12) (Conjecture) The following are equiconsistent.

a) ZFC C Martins Maximum.c/ C JNS is weakly presaturated.
b) ZFC C CH C INS jS is !1 -dense for a dense set of S 2 P .!1 / n INS .
c) ZF C ADR C is regular.
(13) Assume there is a measurable cardinal.
a) Is is possible for every function
f W !2 ! !2
to be bounded by a canonical function pointwise on a closed unbounded
set?
b) Can the nonstationary ideal on !2 be semi-saturated?
c) Let I be the nonstationary ideal on !2 restricted to the ordinals of conality
!1 . Can the ideal I be semi-saturated?
d) Suppose that there exists a normal uniform ideal
I P .!2 /
such that I is semi-saturated and contains JNS . Suppose that J P .!2 /
is a normal uniform semi-saturated ideal. Must
JNS J
The motivation for this question is rendered irrelevant by Shelahs theorem on
! .!2 /. The natural conjecture now is that the answer to (a)(c) is negative.
(14) Is Martins Maximum + MIH consistent?
(15) Assume Martins Maximum.
a) Can ./C hold?

?

c) Can L.P .!! // ?
b) Can L.P .!3 //
11 Questions
843
(16) (Conjectures)
a) There exists a regular (uncountable) cardinal and a denable partition of
< j cof./ D !
b) Suppose that there is a proper class of supercompact cardinals. Then (a)
holds.
c) Assume Martins Maximum. There is a denable wellordering of the reals.
These conjectures are all implied by the HOD-Conjecture of .Woodin 2010b/
where a number of relevant results are proved.
(17) Suppose that P .R/ is a pointclass closed under continuous preimages such
that
L.; R/ ADC
and let M D .HOD/L.;R/ .
Suppose that a !1 is a countable set such that
M a ./:
Must .!1 /
< .!1 /
M a
(18) Assuming the existence of some large cardinal:

a) Must there exist a semiproper partial order P such that
V P ./
b) Must there exist a semiproper partial order P such that
V P INS is !1 -dense
(19) Suppose that 1 and 2 are 2 sentences such that both
ZFC C 1
and
ZFC C 2
are each -consistent. Is
ZFC C 1 C V P 2 for some semiproper P
-consistent?
(20) Suppose that 0 is 1 huge. Suppose that
G0 Coll.!; < 0 /
G1 .Coll.!1 ; < 1 //V G0
is V G0 -generic. Can ODR -Determinacy hold in L.P .!1 //V G1 ?
844
11 Questions
(21) Suppose that 1 and 2 are 2 sentences (in the language for the structure
hH.!2 /; INS ; 2i) such that both
ZFC C CH C hH.!2 /; INS ; 2i 1
and
ZFC C CH C hH.!2 /; INS ; 2i 2
are -consistent. Let D .1 ^ 2 /. Is
ZFC C CH C hH.!2 /; INS ; 2i
-consistent?
Solved by Aspero, Larson, and Moore in fall, 2009: The answer is no.
(22) Can there exist a sentence such that for all 2 sentences, , either
ZFC C CH C ` H.!2 / , or
ZFC C CH C ` H.!2 / :;
and such that ZFC C CH C is -consistent? The reformulation with CH C
replaced by either generic- or , is also open and discussed in Woodin .2003/.
(23) (Conjecture) Assume there exists a proper class of Woodin cardinals. Let be a
2 sentence. Then the following are equivalent.
a) ZFC C is -consistent.
b) There exists a partial order P such that V P .
This is the Conjecture.
(24) Are the following mutually consistent?
a) .ZF C DC/ There exists a cardinal such that for every cardinal
, there
exists an elementary embedding
j WV !V
with cp.j / D and j. / >
.
b) .ZF C DC/ For all x 2 R, x is OD if and only if for some A 2 1 , x is
OD in L.A; R/.
(25) Assume there exists an elementary embedding
j W L.VC1 / ! L.VC1 /
. Dene L.VC1 / to be;
sup 2 Ord j there exists a surjection, f W P .
/ ! , with f 2 L.VC1 /:
Must
L.VC1 / <
CC
Bibliography
Baumgartner, J. E. and A. D. Taylor (1982). Saturation properties of ideals in generic

extensions. I. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 270, 557574.
Blass, A. (1988). Selective ultralters and homogeneity. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 38,
215255.
Claverie, B. and R. Schindler (2010). Woodins axiom ./, bounded forcing axioms,
and precipitous ideals on !1 . Preprint.
Devlin, K. and S. Shelah (1978). A weak version of which follows from a weak
version of 2@0 < 2@1 . Israel J. Math. 29, 239247.
Doebler, P. and R. Schindler (2009). 2 consequences of BMM + INS is precipitous
and the semiproperness of stationary set preserving forcings. Preprint.
Feng, Q. and T. Jech (1998). Projective stationary sets and strong reection principle.
J. London Math. Soc. 58(2), 271283.
Feng, Q., M. Magidor, and W. H. Woodin (1992). Universally Baire sets of reals. In
H. Judah, W. Just, and H. Woodin (Eds.), Set Theory of the Continuum, Volume 26
of Mathematical Sciences Research Institute Publications, Heidelberg, pp. 203242.
Springer-Verlag.
Foreman, M. (2010). Ideals and generic elementary embeddings. In M. Foreman and
A. Kanamori (Eds.), Handbook of Set Theory volume 2, Volume XIV, pp. 1951
2120. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Foreman, M. and A. Kanamori (Eds.) (2010). Handbook of Set Theory three volumes, Volume XIV. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Foreman, M. and M. Magidor (1995). Large cardinals and denable counterexamples
to the continuum hypothesis. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 76, 4797.
Foreman, M., M. Magidor, and S. Shelah (1988). Martins maximum, saturated ideals
and non-regular ultralters I. Ann. of Math. 127, 147.
Hjorth, G. (1993). The inuence of u2 . Ph. D. thesis, U. C. Berkeley.
Huberich, M. (1996). A note on Boolean algebras with partitions modulo some lter.
Archive of Math. Logic Quarterly. 42, 172174.
Jackson, S. (1988). AD and the projective ordinals. In Cabal Seminar 8185, Volume 1333 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, pp. 117220. Springer-Verlag.
846
Bibliography
Jech, T. and W. Mitchell (1983). Some examples of precipitous ideals. Ann. Pure
Appl. Logic 24(2), 99212.
Kanamori, A. (2008). The higher innite. Perspectives in Mathematical Logic. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag. Large cardinals in set theory from their beginnings; second edition.
Kechris, A., D. A. Martin, and R. Solovay (1983). An introduction to Q theory.
In Cabal Seminar 7981, Volume 1019 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics. SpringerVerlag.
Ketchersid, R., P. Larson, and J. Zapletal (2007). Increasing
12 by Nambia-style
forcing. JSL 72, 13721378.
Koellner, P. and W. H. Woodin (2010). Large cardinals from determinacy. In M. Foreman and A. Kanamori (Eds.), Handbook of Set Theory-volume 3, Volume XIV,
pp. 19512120. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Larson, P. (2004). The Stationary Tower: Notes on a Course by W. Hugh Woodin.
University Lecture Series (American Mathematical Society). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford
University Press.
Laver, R. (1976). On the consistency of Borels conjecture. Acta Math. 137, 151169.
Law, D. (1994). An abstract condensation property. Ph. D. thesis, Caltech.
Levy, A. and R. Solovay (1967). Measurable cardinals and the continuum hypothesis.
Israel J. Math. 5, 234248.
Martin, D. A. and J. Steel (1983). The extent of scales in L.R/. In Cabal Seminar
7981, Volume 1019 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag.
Martin, D. A. and J. Steel (1989). A proof of projective determinacy. J. Amer. Math.
Soc. 2, 71125.
Martin, D. A. and J. R. Steel (1994). Iteration trees. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 7(1), 173.
Mitchell, W. J. and J. R. Steel (1994). Fine structure and iteration trees. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag.
Moore, J. (2006). A solution to the L space problem. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 19(3),
717736.
Moschovakis, Y. N. (1980). Descriptive set theory. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co.
Neeman, I. (2004). The determinacy of long games, Volume 7 of de Gruyter Series
in Logic and its Applications. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
Ostaszewski, A. J. (1975). On countably compact perfectly normal spaces. Journal
of the London Mathematical Society 14(2), 505516.
Bibliography
847
Sargsyan, G. (2009). A tale of hybrid mice. Ph. D. thesis, U. C. Berkeley.

Shelah, S. (1986). Around classication theory of models, Volume 1182 of Lecture
Notes in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag.
Shelah, S. (1987). Iterated forcing and normal ideals on !1 . Israel J. Math. 60,
345380.
Shelah, S. (1998). Proper forcing and Improper Forcing. Perspectives in Mathematical Logic. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Shelah, S. (2008). Diamonds. Shelah archive 922, http://shelah.logic.at.
Shelah, S. and W. H. Woodin (1990). Large cardinals imply that every reasonable
denable set is Lebesque measurable. Israel J. Math. 70, 381394.
Shelah, S. and J. Zapletal (1999). Canonical models for @1 combinatorics. Ann. Pure
Appl. Logic 98, 217259.
Steel, J. and R. VanWesep (1982). Two consequences of determinacy consistent with
choice. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 272, 6785.
Steel, J. and S. Zoble (2008). Determinacy from strong reection. Preprint.
Steel, J. R. (1981). Closure properties of pointclasses. In A. S. Kechris, D. A. Martin,
and Y. N. Moschovakis (Eds.), Cabal Seminar 7779, Volume 839 of Lecture Notes
in Mathematics, pp. 147163. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Steel, J. R. (1996). The core model iterability problem. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Taylor, A. (1979). Regularity properties of ideals and ultralters. Ann. Math. Logic
16, 3355.
Todorcevic, S. (1984). Strong reection principles. Circulated Notes.
Woodin, W. H. (1983). Some consistency results in ZFC using AD. In Cabal Seminar
7981, Volume 1019 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, pp. 172198. Springer-Verlag.
Woodin, W. H. (1985, May). 21 absoluteness. Circulated Notes.
Woodin, W. H. (2003). Beyond 21 Absoluteness. In Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Beijing, 2002, Volume I, pp. 515524. Higher
Education Press.
Woodin, W. H. (2009). The Continuum Hypothesis, the generic-multiverse of sets,
and the Conjecture. In press.
Woodin, W. H. (2010a). The ne structure of suitable extender sequences I. Preprint.
Woodin, W. H. (2010b). Suitable extender sequences. Preprint.
Index
A-Bounded Martins Maximum, 798

A-Bounded Martins MaximumCC , 798
A(Code) .S; z; B/, 769
A-closed structure, 808
ADC Conjecture, 821
ADC , 611
A-iterable model, M , 73
A-iterable structure, hMk W k < !i, 224
Axiom of Strong Condensation, 499
Axiom ./, 184
Axiom ./C , 827
Axiom ./ CC , 827
Axiom , 241
, 493
< , 493
Bmax , 454
Bounded Martins Maximum, 784
Bounded Martins MaximumC , 784
Bounded Martins MaximumCC , 784
Borel Conjecture, 447
BCFA, 488
canonical function, 683
|, 493
Changs Conjecture, 637
|NS , 494
|0NS , 493
C
|NS , 578
CC
|NS , 579
Changs ConjectureC , 667
closed set (general), 34
closed, unbounded (general), 34
M|NS , 511
|
M0 NS , 569
coding elements of H.!1 /, 21
coding elements of H.c C /, 21
The Conality Conjecture, 827

Coll .!; S /, 341
condensation, 496
Axiom of Condensation, 496
condensation-strong, 499
11 .A/, 129
-homogeneously Suslin, 26
4, 121
diagonal intersection, 4, 121
5, 121
diagonal union,5, 121
.!1<! /, 323
+ .!1<! /, 323
++ .!1<! /, 325
Q 112
,
QQ 112
,
-weakly homogeneously Suslin, 26
Effective Singular Cardinals
Hypothesis, 836
.3/
E X , 262
E .3/ X; A, 263
F .3/ X , 268
F .3/ X; A, 269
full iteration, 205
H , 27
WH , 27
homogeneously Suslin, 26
homogeneous tree, 25
-homogeneous tree, 25
<-homogeneous tree, 25
h-small set X .0;1/, 447
850
Index
I< , 199
I _ S , 288
indecomposable ultralter, 422
1
-borel set A, 610
INS , 2
iterable structure, 53
iteration of a structure,
h.Nk ; Jk / W k < !i, 119
hNk W k < !i, 124
h.Mk ; Ik / W k < !i, 201
iteration (full), 205
iteration scheme, 695
iteration scheme (mixed), 697
iterations by stationary tower, 200
.M; I; a/, 511
iteration of a structure, .M; I/, 116
IU;F , 505
JNS , 683
Long Game Conjecture, 833
MIH, 698
MIHC , 820
mixed iteration scheme, 697
Martins Maximum, 38
Martins MaximumZF .c/, 40
Martins MaximumC , 38
Martins MaximumC .c/, 39
Martins MaximumCC , 39
Martins MaximumCC .c/, 39
M -normal ultralter, 124
M , 29
M3 .a/, 262
M! .a/, 804
nonregular ultralter, 421
N , 29
!1 -dense ideals
and Suslin trees, 331
-Conjecture, 810
-logic, 807
!1 -dense ideal, 306
-proof, 809
!-presaturated ideal, 683
PF , 578
PFA; Proper Forcing Axiom, 37
AC , 185
BC , 487
, 398
C
, 400
S , 426
C
S , 427
Pmax , 136
0
Pmax
, 233
|
NS
Pmax
, 508
2
Pmax , 290

, 221
Pmax
(T)
Pmax
, 207
PNS , 288
pointclass, 22
projection for measures, 24
proper partial order, 36
Proper Forcing Axiom; PFA, 37
weakly proper partial order, 753
AC , 193
AC .I /, 441

AC , 221
P< , 35
PU , for ultralters on !, 476
PU , for ultralters on !1 , 501
.;/
, 739
Pmax
.;;B/
Pmax
, 773
QF , 581
Qmax , 307
KT
Qmax , 384
KT
Qmax , 391
M
Qmax , 408
2
Qmax , 371
Q
max , 708
Qmax , 334
Q< , 35
Q3 .X /, 172
Index
quasi-homogeneous ideal, 278

Q.X/
max , 709
R, 21
RU;F , 506
./
, 512
RU;F
sat.I /, 294
S(Code) .S; z/, 704
scale, 23
-scale, 23
scale property, 23
Strong Changs Conjecture, 667
strong condensation, 499
semiproper antichain, 44
|NS
semi-generic lter, Pmax
, 541
semi-generic lter, Pmax , 147
0
semi-generic lter, Pmax
, 234
semi-iteration, 128
semi-iterable structure, 128
semiproper partial order, 37
Semiproper Forcing Axiom; SPFA, 38
semi-saturated ideal on !2 , 685
semi-saturated ideal, 130
Sg , a stationary set
associated to g, 238
11 .A/;
11 .A/, 73
-centered, 428
2
1 ./, 31
2
1 .< -WH/, 31
2 1
1 . -WH/, 31
Smax , 428
Suslin cardinal, 613
Suslin sets of reals, 22
SPFA; Semiproper Forcing Axiom, 38
SRP.!2 /, 652
SRP .!2 /, 662
stationary set (general), 34
stationary subset (general), 34
stationary tower, 35
SQ , 184
Strong ADC Conjecture, 822
strongly A-iterable structure, 336

strongly iterable, 129
strong measure 0, 447
SRP, 43
Suslin trees from
an !1 -dense ideal, 331
h W i, 614
tower of measures, 24
tower, countably complete, 24
trees for Suslin representations, 21
|
NS
Umax
, 557
universal function, F , 598
universally Baire set A, 795
U -restricted 2 formula, 363
V -normal ultralter on !2 , 685

Wadge order, 615
w.A/, 615
weak Kurepa tree, 112
Weak Kurepa Hypothesis
from ./, 401
weakly coherent Doddage, 695
weakly homogeneous tree, 25
-weakly homogeneous tree, 25
<-weakly homogeneous tree, 25
weakly normal ultralter, 422
weakly presaturated; JNS , 683
weakly special tree, 400
weakly proper partial order, 753
WHIH, 696
WHIHC , 816
WRP, 42
WRP.!2 /, 652
WRP.2/ .!2 /, 652
WRP .!2 /, 662
X(Code) .S; z/, 704
X -iterable structure, .M; I/, 117
X -iterable structure,
.hMk W k < !i; f /, 336
851
852
Index
YA .F; I /, 404
YA .F; /, 418
YBC .I /, 451
YBC .I /, 451
Y(Code) .S; z/, 704
YColl .I /, 307
ZBC .I /, 450
ZFC , 52
ZFC , 404
Zh;F , 505
Zp;F , 505

Woodin - The Axiom of Determinacy, Forcing Axioms and The Non-Stationary Ideal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Woodin - The Axiom of Determinacy, Forcing Axioms and The Non-Stationary Ideal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

de Gruyter Series in Logic and Its Applications 1

Editors: Wilfrid A. Hodges (London)

The Axiom of Determinacy,

Second revised edition

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

3 The nonstationary ideal

The nonstationary ideal on !1

We begin with the following question.

1.1 The nonstationary ideal on !1

Steel and VanWesep proved the consistency of

1.1 The nonstationary ideal on !1

The partial order Pmax

1.2 The partial order Pmax

Further if is a 2 sentence in the language for the structure

hH.!2 /; 2; INS iL.R/

Assume there is an inaccessible cardinal. Then

One can strengthen Theorem 1.4 by expanding the structure

hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; X I X 2 L.R/; X  RiL.R/

We note that since Pmax is !-closed, the structure

hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; X I X 2 L.R/; X  RiL.R/

hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; X I X 2 L.R/; X  RiL.R/

1.2 The partial order Pmax

1.3 Pmax variations

1.3 Pmax variations

The statement that the nonstationary ideal on !1 is !1 -dense is a 2 sentence in

1.4 Extensions of inner models beyond L.R/

Extensions of inner models beyond L.R/

1.5 Concluding remarks the view from Berlin in 1999

together with all the 2 consequences of ./ for the structure

Concluding remarks the view from Berlin in 1999

The following question resurfaces with added signicance.

1.5 Concluding remarks the view from Berlin in 1999

hH.!2 /; 2; INS iL.R/

The view from Heidelberg in 2010

1.5 The view from Heidelberg in 2010

(1) There is a supercompact cardinal.

Weakly homogeneous trees and scales

(1) s 2 ! <! and t 2 <! ,

Thus for each x 2 ! , Tx is a tree on . We let

T  D .x; f / j x 2 ! ! ; f 2 ! ; and for all k 2 !; .xjk; f jk/ 2 T

2.1 Weakly homogeneous trees and scales

Suppose that is a pointclass. Then : denotes the pointclass obtained from

The notion of a scale is closely related to Suslin representations.

Recall that a set A 2 P .R/ \ L.R/ is 21 -denable in L.R/ if and only if it is 1

2.1 Weakly homogeneous trees and scales

Lemma 2.6. Suppose that T is a tree on ! . Then T is -weakly homogeneous

2.1 Weakly homogeneous trees and scales

(1) H is closed under continuous preimages and countable intersec-

If is a limit of Woodin cardinals then much stronger closure conditions hold.

where is the least ordinal such that

and further there exists < such that

Putting everything together we obtain the following theorem.

2.1 Weakly homogeneous trees and scales

Denition 2.18. Suppose that is a pointclass which is a boolean subalgebra of P .R/

(1) If D P .R/ then

(2) If D P .R/ \ L.R/ then

of the reals onto .

The following theorems summarize some of the relationships between M and N .

2.2 Generic absoluteness

(3) Generally we shall only be interested in M \ P .Ord/ unless in fact satises

1 ./ is the set of all Y  R such that Y is 1 denable in the structure

from real parameters.

hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; X I X 2 L.R/; X RiL.R/

hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; X I X 2 L.R/; X RiL.R/

hH.!2 /; 2; INS ; X I X 2 L.R/; X RiL.R/

T D .x; f / j x 2 ! ! ; f 2 ! ; and for all k 2 !; .xjk; f jk/ 2 T

The following theorems summarize some of the relationships between M and N .

(3) Generally we shall only be interested in M \ P .Ord/ unless in fact satises

1 ./ is the set of all Y R such that Y is 1 denable in the structure

1 ./ is the set of all Y R such that Y is 1 denable in the structure

Suppose A R and let

B D t 2 R j hH.!1 /; A; 2i t; a:

there exists b 2 a such that f b <! b.

hH.!2 /; 2i 1 hH.!2 /; 2iV :

hH.!2 /; INS ; 2i 1 hH.!2 /; INS ; 2iV :

H X <! X , and g is X -generic. Let

Choose .0 ; 0 ; 0 / minimal relative to the lexicographical order.

and for each < !1 let j; W N ! N the elementary embedding obtained

(3) For every countable X H.!2 /, the transitive collapse of X is iterable.

where is the least element of C greater than . Let D C be a closed unbounded