Saharon Shelah - Borel Sets With Large Squares

(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

BOREL SETS WITH LARGE SQUARES
SAHARON SHELAH
Abstract. For a cardinal we give a sucient condition (involving
ranks measuring existence of independent sets) for:
: if a Borel set B R R contains a -square (i.e. a set of the
form A A, |A| = ) then it contains a 2
0
-square and even a
perfect square.
And also for
: if L
1
, has a model of cardinality then it has a model of
cardinality continuum generated in a nice, absoluteway.
Assuming MA+2
0
> for transparency, those three conditions (,
and
) are equivalent, and by this we get e.g.

V
<
1
[2
], and also min{ : }, if < 2
0
, has conality 1.
We deal also with Borel rectangles and related model theoretic prob-
lems.
Annotated Content
0 Introduction.
[We explain results and history and include a list of notation.]
1 The rank and the Borel sets.
[We dene some version of the rank for a model, and then
() is the rst such that there is no model with universe

, vocabulary of cardinality and rank < . Now we
prove that forcing does not change some ranks of the model,
can only decrease others, and c.c.c. forcing changes little.
Now: (1.12) if a Borel or analytic set contains a
1
(
0
)-
square then it contains a perfect square; clearly this gives
something only if the continuum is large, that is at least
1
(
0
). On the other hand (in 1.13) if =
0
<
1
(
0
)
we have in some c.c.c. forcing extension of V : the continuum
is arbitrarily large, and some Borel set contains a -square
Date: August 17, 2011.
1991 Mathematics Subject Classication. Primary: 03E05, 03E15; Secondary: 03E35,
03C55.
The research was partially supported by Israeli science Foundation, founded by the
Israeli Academy of Science and HUmmanities. Publication 522.
1
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

2 SAHARON SHELAH
but no
+
-square. Lastly (in 1.15) assuming MA holds we
prove exact results (e.g. equivalence of conditions).]
2 Some model theoretic problems.
[When we restrict ourselves to models of cardinality up to the
continuum,
1
(
0
) is the Hanf number of L
1
,
(see 2.1).
Also (in 2.4) if L
1
,
has a model realizing many types
(say in the countable set of formulas, many means
1
(
0
))
even after c.c.c. forcing, then
p : p a complete -type realized in M : M [=
has two to the continuum members.
We then (2.5) assume L
1
,
has a two cardinal model,
say for (, ) and we want to nd a (
,
0
)-model, we need
1
() . Next, more generally, we deal with

-cardinal
models (i.e. we demand that P
M
have cardinality
). We
dene ranks (2.8), from them we can formulate sucient con-
ditions for transfer theorem and compactness. We can prove
that the relevant ranks are (essentially) preserved under c.c.c.
forcing as in 1, and the sucient conditions hold for
1
un-
der GCH.]
3 Finer analysis of square existence.
[We (3.1, 3.2) dene for a sequence

T = T
n
: n < ) of trees
(i.e. closed sets of the plane) a rank, degsq, whose value is a
bound for the size of the square it may contain. We then (3.3)
deal with analytic, or more generally -Souslin relations, ??
patience incomplete-what has?? and use parallel degrees. We
then prove that statements on the degrees are related to the
existence of squares in -Souslin relations in a way parallel
to what we have on Borel, using
(). We then (3.7 3.11)

connect it to the existence of identities for 2-place colourings.
In particular we get results of the form there is a Borel set
B which contains a -square i <
(
0
) when MA +
(
0
) < 2
0
.]
4 Rectangles.
[We deal with the problem of the existence of rectangles
in Borel and -Souslin relations. The equivalence of the
rank (for models), the existence of perfect rectangles and the
model theoretic statements is more delicate, but is done.]
0. Introduction
We rst review the old results (from 1, 2). The main one is
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

BOREL SETS WITH LARGE SQUARES 3
()
1
it is consistent, that for every successor ordinal <
1
, there is
a Borel subset of

2

2 containing an
-square but no perfect

square.
In fact
()
+
1
the result above follows from MA+2
0
>
1
.
For this we dene (Denition 1.1) for any ordinal a property Pr
(; ) of
the cardinals , . The maximal cardinal with the property of
1
(i.e. for
every small cardinal, c.c.c. forcing adds an example as in ()
1
) is charac-
terized (as
1
(
0
) where
() = min : Pr
(; )); essentially it is not

changed by c.c.c. forcing; so in ()
1
:
()
1
if in addition V = V
P
0
, where P is a c.c.c. forcing then
1
(
0
)
(
1
)
V
0
.
We will generally investigate Pr
(; ), giving equivalent formulations

(1.1 1.6), seeing how fast
() increases, e.g.
+
<
()
()
(in 1.7, 1.8). For two variants we show: Pr
2
(;
+
) (
+
) is preserved
by
+
-c.c. forcing, Pr
l
(;
+
) Pr
(;
+
) and Pr
(;
+
) is preserved
by any extension of the universe of set theory. Now Pr
1
(;
0
) implies that
there is no Borel set as above (1.12) but if Pr
1
(;
0
) fails then some c.c.c.
forcing adds a Borel set as above (1.13). We cannot in ()
1
omit some set
theoretic assumption even for
2
- see 1.15, 1.16 (add many Cohen reals
or many random reals to a universe satisfying e.g. 2
0
=
1
, then, in the
new universe, every Borel set which contains an
2
-square, also contains a
perfect square). We can replace Borel by analytic or even -Souslin (using
Pr
+()).
In 2 we deal with related model theoretic questions with less satisfactory
results. By 2.1, 2.3, giving a kind of answer to a question from [Sh 49],
()
2
essentially =
1
(
0
) is the Hanf number for models of sentences
in L
1
,
when we restrict ourselves to models of cardinality 2
0
.
(What is the meaning of essentially? If
1
(
0
) 2
0
this fails,
but if
1
(
0
) < 2
0
it holds.)
In 2.4 we generalize it (the parallel of replacing Borel or analytic sets by
-Souslin). We conclude (2.4(2)):
()
3
if L
1
,
(
1
),
0

1
are countable vocabularies, (x) :
L
1
,
(
0
) is countable and has a model which realizes
1
(
0
) complete (, 1)-types then [(M
0
)/

=: M [= , |M| =
[ min2
,
2
(for any ), as we have models as in [Sh a, VII
4]=[Sh c, VII 4].
If we allow parameters in the formulas of , and 2
0
< 2
1
then ()
3
holds
too. However even in the case 2
= 2
0
we prove some results in this
direction, see [Sh 262] (better [Sh e, VII,5]. We then turn to three cardinal
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

4 SAHARON SHELAH
theorems etc. trying to continue [Sh 49] (where e.g. (
,
0
) (2
0
,
0
)
was proved).
We knew those results earlier than, or in 1980/1, but failed in eorts
to prove the consistency of ZFC +
1
(
0
) >
1
(or proving ZFC
1
(
0
) =
1
). By the mid seventies we knew how to get consistency
of results like those in 2 (forcing with P, adding many Cohen reals i.e. in
V
P
getting ()
3
for = (
1
)
V
). This (older proof, not the one used) is
closely related to Silvers proof of every
1
1
-relation with uncountably many
equivalence classes has a 2
0
ones (a deeper one is the proof of Harrington
of the Lauchli-Halpern theorem; see a generalization of the Lauchli-Halpern
theorem, a partition theorem on
>
2, large by [Sh 288] 4).
In fact, about 88 I wrote down for W. Hodges proofs of (a) and (b) stated
below.
(a) If, for simplicity, V satises GCH, and we add >
1
Cohen reals
then the Hanf number of L
1
,
below the continuum is
1
.
(b) If L
1
,
(
1
) and some countable (x) : L
1
,
(
0
) sat-
ises: in every forcing extension of V, has a model which realizes
2
0
(or at least min2
0
,
1
) complete -types then the conclusion
of ()
3
above holds.
Hodges had intended to write it up. Later Hrushovski and Velickovic
independently proved the statement (a).
As indicated above, the results had seemed disappointing as the main
question is
1
(
0
) =
1
? is not answered. But Hjorth asked me about
(essentially) ()
1
which was mentioned in [HrSh 152] and urged me to write
this down.
In 3 we dene degree of Borel sets of the forms
n<
limT
n

2

2
measuring how close are they to having perfect squares, similarly we dene
degrees for -Souslin relations, and get results similar to earlier ones under
MA and nail the connection between the set of cardinalities of models of
L
1
,
and having squares. In 4 we deal with the existence of rectangles.
We can replace R
2
by R
3
without any diculty.
In a subsequent paper [Sh 532] which we are writing, we intend to con-
tinue the present work and in ??[Sh 202] 5 and deal with: consistency of
the existence of co--Souslin (and even
1
2
-) equivalence relations with many
equivalence classes relationship of
1
1
,
1
1
etc., and also try to deal with in-
dependence (concerning 2.11 and 4.11(1)) and the existence of many disjoint
sections.
I thank Andrzej Roslanowski for great improvement of the presentation
and pointing out gaps, and Andres Villaveces for more corrections.
Notation:
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

Set theory:
B
A = f : f is a function from B to A, the set of reals is

2.
o
<
(A) = [A]
<
= B A : [B[ < .
By a Borel set B we mean the set it denes in the current universe. A
-square (or a square of size ) is a set of the form A A, where A
2, [A[ = . A (
1
,
2
)-rectangle (or rectangle of size (
1
,
2
)) is a set of
the form A
1
A
2
, for some A
l

2, [A
l
[ =
l
(for l = 0, 1). A perfect
square is T T, T

2 perfect. A perfect rectangle is T
1
T
2
, T
l

2
perfect. Note: A perfect rectangle is a (2
0
, 2
0
)-rectangle. Note: A perfect
square is a 2
0
-square.
T, Q denote perfect sets; P, Q denote forcing notions; P, Q, R denote
predicates.
A -Souslin set is

2 : for some we have (, ) lim(T) for some
(2, )-tree T (see below). A -Souslin relation (say an n-place relation) is
dened similarly.
For

=
: < ()), a

-tree is
T
_
n
<()
n
(
), ordered by
<()
are right ne now
.
We usually let =
: < ()).
For a

-tree T we dene
lim(T) =
<()
) : n < n T
(where
: < ()) n =
n : < ())) and

lim
(T) =

<()
) : (
limT)(k < )
(
_
<()
[k, ) =
[k, )).
We will use mainly (2, 2)-trees and (2, 2, )-trees.
Let
n
mean that , sequences of ordinals, g() = g() and
(k)[n k < g() (k) = (k)].
For a tree T as above, u () and n < let
T
(n,u)
= : (k)( lim(T))[
<()
) &
<()
k
(
)
& ( u)(
k)].
Let Fr
n
(, , ) mean:
if F
are n-place functions from to (for < ) then for

some A []
we have
for distinct a
0
, . . . , a
n
A and < we have
a
n
,= F
(a
0
, . . . , a
n1
).
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

6 SAHARON SHELAH
Model theory:
Vocabularies are denoted by , so languages are denoted by e.g L
,
(),
models are denoted by M, N. The universe of M is [M[, its cardinality
|M|. The vocabulary of M is (M) and the vocabulary of T (a theory or
a sentence) is (T). R
M
is the interpretation of R in M (for R (M)).
For a model M, and a set B M we have: a cl
<
(B, M) i for some
quantier free = (y, x
1
. . . x
n
), and b
1
, . . . , b
n
B we have
M [= [a, b
1
, . . . , b
n
] & (
<
x)(x, b
1
, . . . , b
n
).
Let cl
(B, M) = cl
<
+(B, M) and cl(B, M) = cl
<2
(B, M). (Note: if M
has Skolem functions then cl
<
0
(B, M) = cl
<2
(B, M) for every B [M[.)
If is an ordinal we mean [[ ?unclear explanation added (needed just for
phrasing absoluteness results that is if we use a cardinal is a universe V ,
and then deal with a generic extension V
P
maybe in V
P
, is no?? longer
a cardinal but we like to still use it as a parameter). Let T denote a theory,
rst order if not said otherwise.
1. The rank and the Borel sets
Denition 1.1. (1) For l < 6, and cardinals , and an ordinal ,
let Pr
l
(; < , ) mean that for every model M with the universe

and vocabulary of cardinality , rk
l
(M; < ) (dened below)
and let NPr
l
(; < , ) be the negation. Instead of <

+
we
may write (similarly below); if =
+
we may omit it (so e.g.
Pr
l
(; ) means Pr
l
(; <
+
, )); if =
0
, =
1
we may omit
them. Lastly let
l
(< , ) = min : Pr
l
(; < , ).
(2) For a model M,
rk
l
(M; < ) = suprk
l
(w, M; < ) + 1 : w [M[ nite non empty
where rk
l
is dened below in part (3).
(3) For a model M, and w [M]
def
= u : u [M[ is nite nonempty
we shall dene below the truth value of rk
l
(w, M; < ) by
induction on the ordinal (note: if cl
<
(w, M) = cl
2
(w, M) for
every w [M]
then for l = 0, 1, can be omitted). Then we can

note
()
0
& rk
l
(w, M; < ) rk
l
(w, M; < )
()
1
rk
l
(w, M; < ) ( limit ) i
_
<
rk
l
(w, M; < )
()
2
rk
l
(w, M; < ) 0 i w [M]
and no a w is in cl
<
(w
a, M).
So we can dene rk
l
(w, M; < ) = as the maximal such that
rk
l
(w, M; < ) , and if this holds for every (and 1
whenever rk
l
(w, M; < ) , 0).
Now the inductive denition of rk
l
(w, M; < ) was already done
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

above for = 0 (by ()
2
) and limit (by ()
1
), so for = +1 we
let
()
3
rk
l
(w, M; < ) +1 i (letting n = [w[, w = a
0
, . . . , a
n1
)
for every k < n and a quantier free formula (x
0
, . . . , x
n1
)
(in the vocabulary of M) for which M [= [a
0
, . . . , a
n1
] we
have:
Case 1: l = 1. There are a
i
m
M for m < n, i < 2 such that :
(a) rk
l
(a
i
m
: i < 2, m < n, M; < ) ,
(b) M [= [a
i
0
, . . . , a
i
n1
] (for i = 1, 2), so wlog there is no
repetition in a
i
0
, . . . , a
i
n1
(c) a
0
k
,= a
1
k
but for m ,= k (such that m < n) we have
a
0
m
= a
1
m
.
Case 2: l = 0. As for l = 1 but in addition
(d)
_
m
a
m
= a
0
m
Case 3: l = 3. We give to an additional role and the denition is like case
1 but i < ; i.e. there are a
i
m
M for m < n, i < such that
(a) for i < j < we have rk
l
(a
i
m
, a
j
m
: m < n, M; < )
(b) M [= [a
i
0
, . . . , a
i
n1
] (for i < ; so wlog there are no
repetitions in a
i
0
, . . . , a
i
n1
)
(c) for i < j < , a
i
k
,= a
j
k
but for m ,= k (such that m < n)
we have
_
i,j<
a
i
m
= a
j
m
Case 4: l = 2. Like case 3 but in addition
(d) a
m
= a
0
m
for m < n
Case 5: l = 5. Like case 3 except that we replace clause (a) by
(a)
for every function F, Dom (F) = , [Rang(F)[ < for

some i < j < we have F(i) = F(j) and
rk
l
(a
i
m
, a
j
m
: m < n, M; < ) .
Case 6: l = 4. Like case 4 (i.e. l = 2) using clause (a)
instead of clause (a).

We will actually use the above denition for l = 0 mainly. As the cardinal
(<
1
,
0
) =
l
(for l < 2) may increase when the universe of set theory

is extended (new models may be added) we will need some upper bounds
which are preserved by suitable forcing. The case l = 2 provides one (and it
is good: it does not increase when the universe is extended by a ccc forcing).
The case l = 4 shows how much we can strengthen the denition, to show
for which forcing notions lower bounds for the rank for l = 0 are preserved.
Odd cases show that variants of the denition are immaterial.
Claim 1.2.
(1) The truth of each of the statements of Pr
l
(; < , ), rk
l
(M; < )
, rk
l
(w, M; < ) is preserved if we replace l = 0, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 5, 4
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

8 SAHARON SHELAH
by l = 1, 3, 1, 0, 1, 4, 5, 1, 5 respectively (i.e. 2 4, 3 5 1,
0 1, 2 3, 4 5, 3 1, 2 0, 2 1) and also if we decrease
, , or increase (the last two only when M is not a parameter).
So the corresponding inequality on
l
(< , ) holds.
(2) Also rk
l
(w
1
, M; < ) rk
l
(w
2
, M; < ) for w
1
w
2
from [M]
.
(3) Also if we expand M, the ranks (of w [M]
, of M) can only
decrease.
(4) If A M is dened by a quantier free formula with parameters from
a nite subset w
of M, M
+
is M expanded by the relations dened
by quantier free formulas with parameters from w
, M
= M
+
A
(for simplicity M
has relations only) then for w [A]
such that
w , w
we have rk
l
(w, M
; < ) rk
l
(w w
, M; < ). Hence if
w
= , rk
l
(M
; < k) rk
l
(M; < )
(5) In 1.1(3)()
2
, if in the denition of cl
<
we allow any rst order
formula, this means just expanding M by relations for any rst order
formula ( x).
(6) For l odd, rk
l
(w, M; < ) ([(M)[ +
0
)
+
implies rk
l
(u, M; < ) =
.
(7)
(< , ) increases () with , and decreases with .

(8) There is no dierence between l = 4 and l = 5.
Proof : Check [e.g. for part (8), we can use function F such that
( < )(F(0) ,= F(1 +)].
1.2
1.2
Claim 1.3. (1) For l = 0, if = rk
l
(M; < ) (< ) then for some
expansion M
+
of M by
0
+[[ relations, for every w [M]
we
have:
rk
l+1
(w, M
+
; < ) rk
l
(w, M; < ).
(2) Similarly for l = 2, 4
(3) If V
0
is a transitive class of V
1
(both models of ZFC) and M V
0
is a model then
(a) for l < 4
() [rk
l
(w, M; < )]
V
0
[rk
l
(w, M; < )]
V
1
for w [M]
() [rk
l
(M; < )]
V
0
[rk
l
(M; < )]
V
1
() if l = 0, 1 equality holds in (), ()
() [
l
()]
V
0
[
l
()]
V
1
if l = 0, 1.
(b) Assume
(i) for every f : Ord from V
1
there is A []
such that
f A V
0
, or at least
(ii) every graph H on from V
0
which in V
1
has a complete
subgraph of size , has such a subgraph in V
0
, which holds if
(ii)
+
V
1
= V
P
0
where P is a forcing notion satisfying the
-Knaster Condition.
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

Then for l = 2, 3, in (), () (of (a)) above equalities hold and
the inequality in () holds.
(c) Assume V
1
= V
P
0
where P is 2-linked. Then for l = 4, 5
in clauses (), () (of (a)) above we have equality and the in-
equality in () holds.
Proof 1) For < , n < , a quantier free formula = (x
0
, . . . , x
n1
)
and k < n let
R
n
= a
0
, . . . , a
n1
) : a
m
M for m < n and
= rk
l
(a
0
, . . . , a
n1
, M; < ),
R
n,k
,
= a
0
, . . . , a
n1
) R
n
: M [= [a
0
, . . . , a
n1
]
for no a
1
k
[M[ a
0
, . . . , a
n1
we have
() M [= [a
0
, . . . , a
k1
, a
1
k
, a
k+1
, . . . , a
n1
]
() rk
l
(a
m
: m < n a
1
k
, M; < ) ,
M
+
= (M, . . . R
n
, R
n,k
,
. . . )
<,n<,k<n,
Check (or see more details in the proof of 1.10 below).
2) Similarly.
3) The proof should be clear (for (b), looking at Denition 1.1 case 3 the
graph is (i, j) : clause (a) there holds ).
1.3
claim1.3
Remark 1.4. (1) In 1.3(1) we can omit = rk
l
(M; < ) but then
weaken the conclusion to
rk
l+1
(w, M
+
; < ) rk
l
(w, M; < ) or both are > .
(2) Similarly in 1.3(2).
Conclusion 1.5. (1) Pr
0
1
() Pr
1
1
() Pr
4
1
() Pr
5
1
() Pr
2
1
()
Pr
3
1
()
(2) If
+
then Pr
0
(; ) Pr
1
(; ) Pr
4
(; ) Pr
5
(; )
Pr
2
(; ) Pr
3
(; ).
(3) For
+
,
l
() =
l+1
() for l = 0, 2, 4, and
0
()
4
()
().
(4) For
+
and l = 0, 2, 4 we have
l+1
() =
l+1
+
().
Proof 1) By 2).
2) For =
+
it follows from its holding for every <
+
. For <
+
;
for l = 0, 2, 4 we know that NPr
l
(; ) NPr
l+1
(; ) by 1.3(1),(2), and
Pr
l
(; ) Pr
l+1
(; ) by 1.2(1); together Pr
l
(; ) Pr
l+1
(; ). Now
Pr
3
(; ) Pr
5
(; ) Pr
1
(; ) by 1.2(1), together we nish. (By 2.1

we know more.)
3) Follows from part (2) and the denition.
4) By 1.2(6).
1.5
1.4
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

10 SAHARON SHELAH
Convention 1.6. Writing Pr
(; ) for
+
(omitting l) we mean l = 0.
Similarly
(< , ) and so
() etc.
Claim 1.7. Let l 0, 2, 4.
(1) NPr
l
+1
(
+
; )
(2) If is a limit ordinal <
+
(in fact
0
cf () <
+
suce), and
NPr
; ) for <
then NPr
l
+1
(
<
; )
(3) If NPr
l
(; ) then NPr
l
+1
(
+
; )
(4) If NPr
l
(; ) for every < then NPr

l
+1
(; )
Proof 1) Prove by induction on <
+
, for = 0 use a model in which
every element is denable (e.g. an individual constant) so rk(w; M) = 1
for w [M]
and hence rk
l
(M) = 0 and consequently NPr
l
1
(; ); for
limit use part (2) and for successor use part (3).
2) Let M
witness NPr
; ) for < , i.e. rk

l
(M
; ) < and M
has universe
and [(M
)[ . Without loss of generality (M
) :
< ) are pairwise disjoint and disjoint to P
: < . Let M have

universe
def
=
<
, P
M
, and M
expand M
and [(M)[
[[ +
[(M
)[ . By 1.2 (3),(4), for w [
, rk
l
(w, M; )
rk
l
(w, M
; ) < . But w [[M[]
implies
_
<
w [
. Clearly
rk(M; ) and hence NPr
l
+1
(; ).
3) We dene M
+
such that each [,
+
) codes on : < an exam-
ple for NPr
([[; ). More elaborately, let M be a model with the universe

such that rk
l
(M; ) < . Let (M) be R
i
: i < i
, R
i
an n(i)-place
predicate (as we replace function symbols and individual constants by predi-
cates), R
0
is a 0-nary predicate representing the truth. For [,
+
) let
f
be a one-to-one function from onto . Dene

+
= R
i
, Q
i
: i < i
,
R
i
is n(i)-place, Q
i
is (n(i) + 1)-place. So [
+
[ . We dene a
+
-model
M
+
: the universe is
+
, R
M
+
i
= R
M
i
, Q
M
+
i
=
0
, . . . ,
n(i)
) :
n(i)

[,
+
) and
_
l<n(i)
l
<
n(i)
and f
n(i)
(
0
), . . . , f
n(i)
(
n(i)1
)) R
M
i

(so Q
M
+
0
= [,
+
)). Now note that:
(a) for w []
, rk
l
(w, M
+
; ) rk
l
(w, M; )
(b) if w [,
+
), w ,= then rk
l
(w, M
+
; ) rk
l
(f
[w], M; )
(easy to check). So if <
+
then
()
1
< rk
l
(, M
+
; ) rk
l
(, M; ) < rk
l
(M; )
()
2
[,
+
) & rk
l
(M; ) rk
l
(, M
+
; ) .
(Why ()
2
? Assume not and let
0
= 2,
2
=
4
=
+
. If
i
: i <
l
)
strictly increasing witnesses rk
l
(, M
+
) + 1 for the formula Q
0
(x)
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

then for some i < j <
l
we have rk
l
(
i
,
j
, M
+
) and applying (b)
with
i
,
j
here standing for w, there we get rk
l
(f
j
(
i
), M)
hence + 1 rk
l
(M), contradiction.)
Hence
()
3
rk
l
(M
+
; ) rk
l
(M; ) + 1.
As rk
l
(M
+
; ) < clearly M
+
witnesses NPr
+1
(
+
; ).
4) Like (3).
1.7
1.6
Conclusion 1.8. Remembering that
() = min : Pr
(; ) we have:
(1) for a limit ordinal
()
() and even
2
()
().
(2) for l even
l
() : 0 < < ) is strictly increasing, and for a limit

ordinal ,
() = sup
<
().
(3)
0
() =
1
() = ,
2
() =
+
,
+n

n
() <
+
and
() =
+
.
Remark 1.9. [[Saharon
2
()
() ]]
2
()
() is proved
below essentially like the Morley omitting types theorem (see [Mo] or see
[CK] or [Sh a, VII 5] = [Sh c, VII 5]).
Proof 1) We prove by induction on , that for every ordinal < ,
model M, [(M)[ , and A [M[, [A[
(), and m, n < there is

w A, [w[ = n such that rk
2
(w, M; ) +m.
For = 0, limit this is immediate. For = + 1 (and M, A, , n,
m as above), applying Erdos-Rado theorem we can nd distinct a
i
A for
i <
()
++
such that:
(a) for all i
0
< . . . < i
m+n
the quantier free type a
i
0
, . . . , a
i
n+m
) in M
is the same
(b) for each k m + n for every i
0
< . . . < i
n+mk
<
(), the
ordinal
min , rk
2
(a
i
0
, . . . , a
i
n+mk
, M; ) is the same
By the induction hypothesis, in clause (b) the value is . Hence we
can prove, by induction on k m+n, that rk
2
(a
i
0
, . . . , a
i
n+mk
, M; )
+ k whenever i
0
< . . . < i
m+nk
<
(). For k = 0 this holds

by the previous sentence, for k + 1 use the denition and the induction
hypothesis, for rk
2
note that by clause (b) w.l.o.g. i
l
+
+
< i
l+1
and a
i
l
+
for <
+
are well dened. For k = m we are done.
2) It is increasing by 1.2(1), strict by 1.7(4), continuous because, for limit
, as on the one hand
l
() sup
<
() as
l
()
l
() for < , and on

the other hand if M is a model with universe := sup
<
() and [(M)[
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

12 SAHARON SHELAH
then < rk
l
(M; ) rk
l
(M
; ) hence rk
l
(M; ) . So
Pr
(; ) hence
l
() so sup
<
() =
l
, together we are done.

3) By [Sh 49] (for the last two clauses, the rst two clauses are trivial),
will not be really used here.
1.8
1.7
Claim 1.10. (1) Assume P is a forcing notion satisfying the
+
c.c..
If Pr
3
(; ) and
+
, then this holds in V
P
too.
(2) If P is a
+
2-linked forcing notion (or just: if p
i
P for i <
+
then for some F :
+
, F(i) = F(j) p
i
, p
j
compatible), and

+
and Pr
5
(; ) then this holds in V

P
too.
Remark 1.11. (1) NPr
(; ) is of course preserved by any extension

as the ranks rk
l
(M; ), rk
l
(w, M; ) are absolute for l = 0, 1 (see
1.3(3)). But the forcing can add new models.
(2) So for
+
,
()
4
()
2
() and a
+
-c.c. forcing notion
can only increase the rst (by 1.3(3)(a)()) and decrease the third
by 1.10(1); a
+
2-linked one xes the second and third (as it can
only decrease it by 1.10(1) and can only increase it by 1.3(3)(c)(a)()
+ (b)()).
[Of course ] We can deal similarly with Pr
l
(; < , ), here and in 1.3 1.8.

Proof We can concentrate on 1), anyhow let = 3, 5 (for part (1)
we use = 3, for part (2) we shall use = 5, we shall return to it later).
Assume Pr
3
(; ) fails in V
P
. So for some p
P and
0
< we have:
p
P
M
is a model with universe , vocabulary
of cardinality
and rk
(M
; ) =
0
.
Wlog every quantier free formula (x
0
, . . . , x
n1
) is equivalent to one of
the form R(x
0
, . . . , x
n1
) and wlog
= R
n,
: n < , < with R
n,
an
n-place predicate. Note that necessarily
0
<
+
hence [
0
[ .
As we can replace P by Pq P : p
q, wlog p
is the minimal
member of P. Now for non zero n < , k < n, < and <
0
(or
= 1) we dene an n-place relation R
n,,,k
on :
R
n,,,k
= a
0
, . . . , a
n1
) : a
m
with no repetitions and
for some p P,
p
P

_
M
[= R
n,
[a
0
, . . . , a
n1
] & rk
(a
0
, . . . , a
n1
, M
; ) = ,
where not rk
3
(a
0
, . . . , a
n1
, M; ) + 1 is witnessed
by = R
n,
and k
.
Let M
+
= (, . . . , R
n,,,k
, . . . )
n<,<,<
0
,k<n
, so M
+
is a model in V
with the universe and the vocabulary of cardinality . It suces to
prove that for <
0
:
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

if w = a
0
, . . . , a
n1
[M
+
]
, M
+
[= R
n,,,k
[a
0
, . . . , a
n1
]
then rk
(a
0
, . . . , a
n1
, M
+
; )
(note that by the choice of M
and R
n,,,k
, if w [M
+
]
then for some

n, , , k we have M
+
[= R
n,,,k
[a
0
, . . . , a
n1
]). This we prove by induction
on , so assume the conclusion fails; so
rk
(a
0
, . . . , a
n1
, M
+
; ) + 1
(and eventually we shall get a contradiction). By the denition of rk
3
applied
to = R
n,,,k
, and k we know that there are a
i
m
(for m < n, i <
+
) as
in Denition 1.1(3) case l = 3. In particular M
+
[= R
n,,,k
[a
i
0
, . . . , a
i
n1
].
So for each i <
+
by the denition of R
n,,,k
necessarily there is p
i
P
such that
p
i

P
M
[= R
n,
[a
i
0
, . . . , a
i
n1
] and rk
(a
i
0
, . . . , a
i
n1
, M
; ) =
and [not rk
(a
i
0
, . . . , a
i
n1
, M
; ) +1] is witnessed by
= R
n,
and k.
For part (1), as P satises the
+
cc, for some q P, q Y
= i :
p
i
G
P
has cardinality
+
(in fact p
i
forces it for every large enough i).
Looking at the denition of the rank in V
P
we see that a
i
0
, . . . , a
i
n1
) : i
Y
) cannot be a witness for the demand for rk

3
(a
i
0
0
, . . . , a
i
0
n1
, M
; ) >
for R
n,,k
hold for any (or some) i
0
Y
, so for part (1)

() q
P
for some i ,= j in Y
we have rk
3
(a
i
0
, . . . , a
i
n1
, a
j
k
, M
; ) <
(as the demand on equalities holds trivially).
As we can increase q, wlog q forces a value to those i, j, hence wlog for
some n() = n + 1 < , () < and () < and for k() < n + 1 we
have
q
P
rk
3
(a
i
0
, . . . , a
i
n1
, a
j
k
, M
; ) = (), and
rk
3
(a
i
0
, . . . , a
i
n1
, a
j
k
, M; ) , () + 1 is witnessed by
= R
n(),()
(x
0
, . . . , x
n
) and k() .
Hence by the denition of R
n(),(),(),k()
we have
M
+
[= R
n(),(),(),k()
[a
i
0
, . . . , a
i
n1
, a
j
k
].
As () < by the induction hypothesis
()
holds hence
rk
3
(a
i
0
, . . . , a
i
n1
, a
j
k
, M
+
; ) (),
but this contradicts the choice of a
i
m
(m < n, i <
+
) above (i.e. clause (a)
of Denition 1.1(3) case l = 3). This contradiction nishes the induction
step in the proof of
hence the proof of 1.10(1).

For part (2), we have p
i
: i <
+
) as above. In V
P
, if Y
= i :
p
i
G
P
has cardinality
+
, then a
i
0
, . . . , a
i
n1
) : i Y
) cannot wit-
ness rk
5
(a
0
, . . . , a
n1
, M; ) + 1 so there is a function F
0
: Y

(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

14 SAHARON SHELAH
witnessing it; i.e.
P
if [Y
[ =
+
then
i Y
& j Y
& i ,= j & F
0
(i) = F
0
(j)
> rk
5
(a
i
0
, . . . , a
i
n1
a
j
0
, . . . , a
j
n1
, M; ).
If [Y
[ , let F
0
: Y
be one to one. Let p

i
q
i
P, q
i
F
0
(i) =
i
.
As P is
+
-2-linked, for some function F
1
:
+
we have (i, j <
+
)(F
1
(i) = F
1
(j) q
i
, q
j
are compatible in P). We now dene a function
F from Y
to by F(i) = pr(
i
, F
1
(i)) (you can use any pairing function pr
on ). So if i < j <
+
and F(i) = F(j) then there is q
i,j
such that P [=
q
i
q
i,j
& q
j
q
i,j
, hence q
i,j

P
rk
5
(a
i
0
, . . . , a
i
n1
, a
j
k
, M
; ) < , so
possibly increasing q
i,j
, for some
i,j
< and
i,j
< and k
i,j
< n we have
q
i,j
rk
5
(a
i
0
, . . . , a
i
n1
, a
j
k
, M
; ) =
i,j
and rk
5
(a
i
0
, . . . , a
i
n1
, a
j
k
) ,
i,j
+ 1 is witnessed by = R
n+1,
i,1
(x
0
, . . . , x
n
) and k
i,j
.
Hence by the denition of R
n+1,
i,j
,
i,j
,k
i,j
we have
M
+
[= R
n+1,
i,j
,
i,j
,k
i,j
[a
i
0
, . . . , a
i
n1
, a
j
k
],
but
i,j
< hence by the induction hypothesis
rk
5
(a
i
0
, . . . , a
j
n1
, a
j
k
, M
+
; )
i,j
.
So F contradicts the choice of a
i
0
, . . . , a
i
n1
) : i <
+
) i.e. clause (a)
of
Denition 1.1 Case 5.
1.10
1.8
Claim 1.12. Let B

2
2 be a Borel or even analytic set and Pr
1
().
(1) If B contains a -square then B contains a perfect square.
(2) If B contains a (, )-rectangle then B contains a perfect rectangle.
(3) We can replace analytic by -Souslin if Pr
+(; ). (This applies to
1
2
sets which are
1
-Souslin).
Proof You can apply the results of section 2 to prove 1.12; specically
2.1 (1) (2) proves parts (1),(2) and 2.4(1) proves part 3. of 1.12; those
results of 2 say more hence their proof should be clearer.
However, we give a proof of part (1) here for the reader who is going to read
this section only. Suppose that B

2
2 is a Borel or even analytic set

containing a -square. Let T be a (2, 2, )-tree such that
B = (
0
,
1
)

2
2 : (

)[(
0
,
1
, ) lim(T)],
and let
: <

2 be such that the square determined by it is
contained in B and < <
,=
. For , < let F(, )

be
such that (
, F(, )) lim(T). Dene a model M with the universe

and the vocabulary = R
0
,
1
,
, Q
0
,
:
0
,
1

>
2 and
>
, each
R
0
,
1
,
a binary predicate, Q
0
,
a unary predicate and
Q
M
0
,
= < :
0

& F(, ),
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

R
M
0
,
1
,
= (, ) :
0

&
1

& F(, ).
By Pr
1
() we know that rk
0
(M)
1
.
A pair (u, h) is called an n-approximation if u
n
2, h : u u
n
and
for every <
1
there is w []
such that:
(
1
) u =
n : w and
n ,=
n for distinct , w
(
2
) rk
0
(w, M)
(
3
) F(, ) n = h(
n,
n) for , w; hence
M [= R
n,
n,h(n,
n)
[, ]
for , w.
Note that (), ((), )), ))) is a 0-approximation. Moreover
()
0
if (u, h) is an n-approximation and
u
then there are m > n and an m-approximation (u
+
, h
+
) such that:
(i) u
(!
+
)(
+
u
+
),
(ii) (
!2
+
)(

+
u
+
) (where
!2
x means there are exactly 2
xs)
(iii) u
+
n u and
(iv) if
1
,
2
u
+
then
[h(
1
n,
2
n) h
+
(
1
,
2
) or (
1
n =
2
n =
&
1
,=
2
)]
[Why? For each <
1
choose w
satisfying (
1
), (
2
) and (
3
) for +1,
now apply the denition of rk
0
(if w
l
: l < [w
[,
k
, k < [w
[
we apply it to k) to get w
+
= w
satisfying (
1
), (
2
) and (
3
)
for , then choose m
(n, ) such that
: w
+
) is with
no repetitions. Lastly as there are only countably many possibilities for
m
: w
+
, (
, F(, ) m
) : , w
+
)
for <
1
, so one value is gotten for uncountably many , let
be one of
them. Choose m = m
, u
+
=
m : w
+
and dene h
+
to satisfy
(
3
).]
Repeating [u[-times the procedure of ()
0
we get
()
1
if u =
l
: l < k
n
2 (no repetition), (u, h) is an n-approximation
then there are m, u
+
=
+
l
: l < 2k and h
+
such that (u
+
, h
+
) is
an m-approximation for some m > n and
(i)
l

+
2l
,
l

+
2l+1
,
+
2l
,=
+
2l+1
,
(ii) if l < k, i < 2 then h(
l
,
l
) h
+
(
+
2l+i
,
+
2l+i
) and
(iii) if l
1
,= l
2
, l
1
, l
2
< k and i, j < 2 then h(
l
1
,
l
2
)h
+
(
+
2l
1
+i
,
+
2l
2
+j
).
Consequently we have:
()
2
there are sequences n
i
: i < ) and (u
i
, h
i
) : i ) such that
n
i
< n
i+1
, (u
i
, h
i
) is an n
i
-approximation and (u
i
, h
i
), (u
i+1
, h
i+1
)
are like (u, h), (u
+
, h
+
) of ()
1
.
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

16 SAHARON SHELAH
Now, let n
i
: i < ) and (u
i
, h
i
) : i ) be as in ()
2
. Dene
T =

2 : (i )(n
i
u
i
).
By ()
1
for (u
i+1
, h
i+1
) we know that T is a perfect set. We claim that
T T B. Suppose that
T and
,=
. Then
n
i()
,=
n
i()
for some i() < and the sequence h
i
(
n
i
,
n
i
) : i() i < ) is -
increasing and (as (u
i
, h
i
) are approximations) (
n
i
,
n
i
, h
i
(
n
i
,
n
i
))
T is increasing for i [i(), ). The case
T is easier. The claim

is proved.
1.12
1.9
Theorem 1.13. Assume NPr
1
() and =
0
. Then for some c.c.c.
forcing notion P, [P[ = and
P
2
0
= and in V
P
we have:
(*) there is a Borel set B

2
2 such that :
(a) it contains a -square. i.e. there are pairwise distinct

2
for < such that (
) B for , <
(b) let V [=
0
=
1
; B contains no
+
1
-square, i.e. there are
no

2 (for <
+
1
) such that [ ,=
,=
] and
(
) B for , <
+
(c) B contains no perfect square.
Actually B is a countable union of closed sets.
Proof Stage A: Clearly for some () <
1
we have NPr
1
()
(). Let M
be a model with universe and a countable vocabulary such that rk
1
(M) <
() say with <
the usual order. Let functions

M
, k
M
with domains
[]
= u : u , u is nite and u ,=
be such that:
if u =
0
, . . . ,
n1
[]
increasing for deniteness, =

rk
0
(u, M) (< ()) then
M
(u) is a quantier free formula in
the vocabulary of M in the variables x
0
, . . . , x
n1
for sim-
plicity saying x
0
< x
1
< . . . < x
n1
, k
M
(u) is a natural
number < n = [u[ such that
M
(u), k
M
(u) witness not
rk
1
(u, M) + 1
(the same denition makes sense even if = 1). In particular
M [=
M
(u)[. . . , a, . . . ]
au
.
We dene the forcing notion P. We can put the diagonal (, ) :
2 into B so we can ignore it. We want to produce (in V

P
) a Borel set
B =
n<
B
n
, each B
n
(

2
2) closed (in fact perfect), so it is lim(T

n
) for
some (2, 2)-tree T
n
, B
0
is the diagonal, and =
: < ) as witnesses
to 2
0
and such that
: < gives the desired square. So for

some 2-place function g from to , ,= (
) lim(T
g(,)
), all
this after we force. But we know that we shall have to use M (by 1.12). In
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

the forcing our problem will be to prove the c.c.c. which will be resolved
by using M (and rank) in the denition of the forcing. We shall have a
function f which puts the information on the rank into the trees to help in
not having a perfect square. Specically the domain of f is a subset of
(u, h) : (l )(u [
l
2]
) and h : u u
(the functions h above are thought of as indexing the B
n
s). The function
f will be such that for any distinct
0
, . . . ,
n1
< , if
t
l : t < n)
are pairwise distinct, u =
t
l : t < n, h(
t
l,
s
l) = g(
t
,
s
)
and (u, h) Dom(f) then rk
1
(
l
: l < n, M) = f
0
(u, h) and f
1
(u, h) is
k
l, where k = k
M
(
t
: t < n), f
2
(u, h) =
M
(
l
: l < n) writing the
variable as x
, u and f(u, h) = (f
0
(u, h), f
1
(u, h), f
2
(u, h)). (Note: f is a
way to say
n
lim(T
n
) contains no perfect square; essentially it is equivalent
to xing appropriate rank.) All this was to motivate the denition of the
forcing notion P.
A condition p (of P) is an approximation to all this; it consists of:
(1) u
p
= u[p], a nite subset of
(2) n
p
= n[p] < and
p
[p]
n[p]
2 for u[p] such that ,=
,=
p
.
(3) m
p
= m
p
l
: l n
p
) is a strictly increasing sequence of natural
numbers with last element m
p
n[p]
= m
p
= m[p] and for m < m[p],
we have t
p
m
= t
m
[p]

ln[p]
(
l
2
l
2) which is downward closed (i.e.,
(
0
,
1
) t
p
m
(
l
2
l
2) & k < l (
0
,
1
)k = (
0
k,
1
k) t
p
m
),
also (), )) t
p
m
and dening naturally we have:
if (
0
,
1
) t
p
m
(
l
2
l
2) and l < n
p
then (
0
,
1
)[(
0
,
1
) (
0
,
1
) t
p
m
(
l+1
2
l+1
2)].
(4) a function f
p
= f[p], its domain is a subset of:
(u, h) : for some l n[p], u
l
2, [u[ 1, h is a 2-place
function from u to m[p] such that : [ u h(, ) = 0]
and [, u (, ) t
p
h(,)
]
and f
p
is such that
f
p
(u, h) = (f
p
0
(u, h), f
p
1
(u, h), f
p
2
(u, h)) [1, ()) u L
,
((M)).
(5) a function g = g
p
with domain (, ) : , from u
p
such
that g(, ) = 0 and if ,= 0 < g(, ) < m
p
and (
p
,
p
)
t
p
g(,)
(
n(p)
2
n(p)
2)
(6) t
p
0
= (, ) :
n
p
2
(7) if u
l
2, [u[ 1, f
p
(u, h) = (
), and l < l() n

p
, e
i
are functions with domain u (for i = 0, 1) such that ()[ u
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

18 SAHARON SHELAH
e
i
()
l()
2]) and ( u)[e
0
() = e
1
() ,=
], u
=
Rang(e
0
u) Rang(e
1
u), and h(, ) = h
(e
i
(), e
i
()) for ,= in
u and f
p
(u
, h
) = (
) (so is well dened) then
<
(8) if l n
p
, w u
p
is non empty, the sequence
p
l : w) is with
no repetitions and h is dened by h(
p
l,
p
l) = g
p
(, ) < m
p
l
for
,= from w (and h(
p
l,
p
l) = 0) and u =
p
l : w
then f
p
(u, h) is well-dened, f
p
2
(u, h) =
M
(w), f
p
1
(u, h) =
p
l
where is the k
M
(w)-th member of w and f
p
0
(u, h) = rk
1
(w, M); of
course in f
p
2
(u, h) =
M
(w) the variable x
in f
p
2
(u, h) corresponds
to x
|w|
if
l = (see last clause of

p
below)
(9) if (u, h) Dom(f
p
) then for some w and l, f
p
(u, h) is gotten as in
clause (8).
(10) if
1
,=
2
are in
l
2, l n
p
and (
1
,
2
) t
p
m
, 0 < m < m
p
then for
some
1
,=
2
from u
p
we have g
p
(
1
,
2
) = m and
1

p
1
,
2

p
2
.
The order is the natural one (including the following requirements: if
p q then n
p
n
q
, m
p
m
q
, m
p
= m
q
(n
p
+ 1), u
p
u
q
,
q
n
p
=
p
for u
p
, t
p
m
= t
q
m

n[p]
(
2

2) for m < m
p
, g
p
= g
q
u
p
and
f
p
= f
q
(u, h) Dom (f
q
) : u
n
p
2, so if (u, h) / Dom (f
p
), u
n
p
2
then (u, h) / Dom (f
q
)).
Explanation: The function f
p
of a condition p P carries no additional
information. It is determined by the function g
p
and functions
M
, k
M
and
the rank. Conditions 8, 9 are to say that
p
if w
0
, w
1
u
p
, l n
p
, u =
p
l : w
0
=
p
l : w
1
(no repetitions) are non empty and h : u u m

p
is such that if
either , w
0
or , w
1
then h(
p
l,
p
l) = g
p
(, )
then rk
1
(w
0
, M) = rk
1
(w
1
, M),
M
(w
0
) =
M
(w
1
), k
M
(w
0
) =
k
M
(w
1
),
and if
i
,
i
w
i
for i = 0, 1 and
0
l =
1
l,
0
l =
1
l
then
0
<
1

0
<
1
.
Moreover, condition 7 gives no additional restriction unless f
p
0
(u, h) = 1.
Indeed, suppose that u
l
2, [u[ 1, l < l() n
p
, e
i
: u
l()
2, h,
u, u
and h
are as there and f

p
0
(u, h) 0. As f
p
(u
, h
) is dened we
nd w u
p
,
0
,
1
w (
0
,=
1
) such that u
=
p
l() : w,
h
(
p
l(),
p
l()) = g
p
(, ) < m
p
l
and e
i
(
) =
p
i
l() (for i = 0, 1).
Looking at w
0
, w
1
and (u, h) we see that
0
= k
M
(w
1
),
M
(w
0
) =
M
(w
1
) and
rk
1
(w
1
, M) = f
p
0
(u, h) 0.
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

By the denition of the rank and the choice of
M
, k
M
we get rk
1
(w, M) =
f
p
0
(u, h) and hence f
p
0
(u
, h
) < f
p
0
(u, h).
If f
p
0
(u, h) = 1 then clause 7 says that there are no respective e
0
, e
1
intro-
ducing a ramication.
Stage B: P satises the c.c.c. Let p
i
P for i <
1
; let u[p
i
] = a
i
l
:
l < [u[p
i
][ increasing, so with no repetition. Wlog [u[p
i
][ does not depend
on i, and also n[p
i
],
p
i
a
i
l
, m
p
i
, t
p
i
m
: m < m
p
i
), g
p
i
(a
i
l
1
, a
i
l
2
), f[p
i
], and for a
nonempty v [u[p
i
][ such that
_
lv
a
i
l
< , rk
1
(a
i
l
: l v, M),
M
(a
i
l
:
l v), k
M
(a
i
l
: l v) and the truth value of a
i
l
do not depend on i.
Note that writing [w] we always assume that carries an information on
the order of w.
Also by the -system argument w.l.o.g.
a
i
1
l
1
= a
i
2
l
2
& i
1
,= i
2
l
1
= l
2
&
i,j
a
i
l
1
= a
j
l
2
.
We shall show that p
0
, p
1
are compatible by dening a common upper
bound q:
(i) n
q
= n[p
i
] + 1
(ii) u
q
= a
i
l
: l < [u[p
i
][, i < 2
(iii)
q
a
i
l
is:
p
0
a
0
l
0) if i = 0,
p
0
a
0
l
1) =
p
1
a
1
l
1) if i = 1, a
0
l
,= a
1
l
(iv) m[q] = m[p
0
] + 2 [ u[p
0
] u[p
1
][
2
, m
q
= m
p
0
m[q])
(v) g
q
g
p
0
g
p
1
is such that g
q
assignes new (i.e. in [m
p
, m
q
)) distinct
values to new pairs (, ) with ,= i.e. pairs from ( )
(u
q
u
q
) u
p
0
u
p
0
u
p
1
u
p
1
.
(vi) the trees t
q
m
(for m < m[q]) are dened as follows:
if m = 0 see clause 6,
if m < m[p
0
], m > 0 then
t
q
m
= t
p
0
m
(
q
a
l
1
,
q
a
l
2
) : 0, 1 and distinct l
1
, l
2
< [u[p
0
][
satisfying g
p
0
(a
0
l
1
, a
0
l
2
) = m
and if m [m[p
0
], m[q]), m = g
q
(, ) and ,= then
t
q
m
= (
q
l,
q
l) : l n
q
(vii) if m [m[p
0
], m[q]) then for one and only one pair (, ) we have
m = g
q
(, ) and for this pair (, ) we have ,= , , , u[p
0
]
and , , u[p
1
]
(viii) The function f
q
is determined by the function g
p
and clauses 8, 9 of
stage A.
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

20 SAHARON SHELAH
Of course we have to check that no contradiction appears when we dene f
q
(i.e. we have to check
q
of the Explanation inside stage A for q). So suppose
that w
0
, w
1
u[q], l n[q], u, h are as in
q
. If w
0
u[p
i
] (for some
i < 2) then g
q
(, ) < m[p
0
] for , w
0
and hence g
q
[w
1
w
1
] m[p
0
].
Consequently either w
1
u[p
0
] or w
1
u[p
1
]. If l = n
q
then necessarily
w
0
= w
1
so we have nothing to prove. If l < n
q
then (u, h) Dom (f
p
0
)
(and f
p
0
= f
p
1
) and clause 8 of stage A applies.
If w
0
is contained neither in u[p
0
] nor in u[p
1
] then the function g
q
satises
g
q
(, ) [m[p
0
], m[q]) for some , w
0
hence l = n
q
and so as
q
l :
w
0
=
q
l : w
1
clearly w
0
= w
1
, so we are done.
Next we have to check condition 7. As we remarked (in the Explanation
inside Stage A) we have to consider cases of (u, h) such that f
q
(u, h) = 1
only. Suppose that u, l < l() n
q
, e
i
, h,
u, u
and h
are as
in 7 (and f
q
(u, h) = 1). Let w u[q] ,
0
,
1
w be such that
u
=
q
l() : w, e
i
(
) =
q
i
l() (for i = 0, 1). If w u[p
i
]
for some i < 2 then we can apply clause 7 for p
i
and get a contradiction
(if l() = n
q
then note that
q
n
p
: w are already distinct). Since
w
0
,
1
implies g
q
(,
0
) = g
q
(,
1
) (by the relation between h and
h
) we are left with the case w

0
,
1
u[p
0
] u[p
1
],
0
u[p
0
] u[p
1
],
1
u[p
1
] u[p
0
] (or conversely). Then necessarily
0
= a
0
k
0
,
1
= a
1
k
1
for
some k
0
, k
1
[0, [u[p
0
][). Now k
1
= k
M
(w
0
) = k
M
(w
1
) = k
0
by
the requirements in condition 7. Now we see that for each i <
1
M [=
M
(w
0
)[w
0
,
1
a
i
k
1
]
and this contradicts the fact that
M
(w
0
),
1
witness rk
1
(w
0
, M) =
1.
Stage C: [P[ = hence
P
2
0
. We shall get the equality by
clause () at stage E below.
Stage D: The following subsets of P?? are dense (for m, n < , < ):
1
1
m
= p P : m[p] m
1
2
n
= p P : n
p
n
1
3
= p P : u[p]
Proof Let p P,
0
u[p] be given, we shall nd q, p q
1
1
m[p]+1
1
2
n[p]+1
1
3
0
: this clearly suces. We may assume that u[p] ,=
and
0
< . Let
(a) n
q
= n
p
+1, m
q
= m
p
+2[(u[p])[, m
q
= m
p
m
q
), u
q
= u
p
0
,
(b) for u
p
we let
q
=
p
0),
q
0

(n
p
+1)
2 is the sequence con-
stantly equal 1,
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

(c) g
q
is any two place function from u
q
to m
q
extending g
p
such
that g
q
(, ) = 0, g
q
(, ) ,= 0 for ,= and
g
q
(, ) = g
q
(
) & (, ) ,= (
)
(, ) u
p
u
p
& (
) u
p
u
p
(d) t
q
m
is dened as follows:
() if m < m
p
, m ,= 0 then t
q
m
= t
p
m
(
0
0),
1
0)) : (
0
,
1
)
t
p
m
(
n[p]
2
n[p]
2)
() if m [m
p
, m
q
), m = g
q
(, ), ,= then t
q
m
= (
q
l,
q
l) :
l n
q
(e) f
q
extends f
p
and satises 7,8 and 9 of stage A (note that f
q
is
determined by g
q
)
Now check [similarly as at stage B].
Stage E: We dene some P-names
(a)
: p G
P
for <
(b) T
m
=
t
p
m
: p G
P
for m <
(c) g
g
p
: p G
Clearly it is forced (
P
) that
() g
is a function from (, ) : , < to

(Why? Because 1
3
are dense subsets of P and by clause 5 of stage

A)
()

2
(Why? Because both 1
2
n
and 1
3
are dense subsets of P)

()
,=
for ,= (< )
(Why? By clause 2. of the denition of p P.)
() T
l<
(
l
2
l
2) is an (2, 2)-tree
(Why? By clause 3. of the denition of p P and density of
1
1
m
, 1
2
n
.)
() (
) lim(T
(,)
) = (
0
,
1
)

2
2 : (l < )((
0
l,
1
l)
T
(,)
) (for , < ).
(Why? By clause 5. of the denition of p P and () + ()
above.)
() if , are < then (
) / lim(T
m
) when m ,= g(, ) (and
m < )
(Why? By clauses 2. + 10. of the denition of P if m ,= 0 and
clause 5. if m = 0.)
Note that by clause () above the Borel set B
m<
lim(T
m
)

2

2
satises requirement () (a) of the conclusion of 1.10. Moreover, by clause
() above we have
P
2
0
completing stage C (i.e.
P
2
0
= )
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

22 SAHARON SHELAH
Stage F: We want to show (*)(c) of the conclusion of 1.13. Let P
=
p P : u[p] . Clearly P
< P. Moreover g
, T
m
, B
are P
-names.
Since B
contains a perfect square is a

1
2
-formula, so absolute, it is enough
to prove that in V
P
the set B
contains no perfect square.

Suppose that a P
-name T
for a perfect tree and a condition p P
are
such that
p
P
(limT
) (limT
) B
.
We have then (a name for) a function m
: lim(T
) (limT
) such
that:
p
P
if
0
,
1
limT
then (
0
,
1
) T
(
0
,
1
)
.
By shrinking the tree T
we may assume that p forces (

P
) the following:
if
0
,
1
,
0
,
1
limT
,
0
l =
0
l ,=
1
l =
1
l
then m
(
0
,
1
) = m
0
,
1
).
Consequently we may think of m
as a function from T
to (with
a convention that if
0
,
1
T
are -comparable then m
(
0
,
1
) = 0 and
)
(), 1 )) = m
,
1
) and if g(
1
) = g(
2
)
then (
1
,
2
) T
m(
1
,
2
)
).
Choose an increasing sequence n
i
: i ) of natural numbers and se-
quences p
i
: i ) P
, (t
i
, m
i
) : i ) such that:
(1) p
0
p
1
. . . p
i
p
i+1
. . .
(2) t
i

n
i
2 is a perfect tree, (i.e. [ t

i

n
i
2 t
i
], ) t
0
,
[
n
i
>
2 t
i

_
<2
) t
i
]) and m
i
: (t
i

n
i
2)
2

(3) t
i
t
i+1
is an end extension (i.e. t
i
= (
n
i
2) t
i+1
) such that
each node from t
i

n
i
2 ramies in t
i+1
(i.e. has - incomparable
extensions)
(4) p
i

P
n
i
2 = t
i
& m
(t
i
n
i
2)
2
= m
i
(5) n[p
i
] > n
i
, m[p
i
] > max Rang(m
i
).
Since p
i

P
(
0
,
1
) T
m
i
(
0
,
1
)
for
0
,
1
t
i

n
i
2 we easily get (by
clause 8 of the denition of P, stage A) that (t
i
n
i
2, m
i
) Dom(f
p
i
). By
clause 7 (of the denition of P) (and 1.2(2)+ clause 8 of the denition of
P) we deduce that
f
p
i+1
0
(t
i+1

n
i+1
2, m
i+1
) < f
p
i
0
(t
i

n
i
2, m
i
)
for each i < and this gives a contradiction (to the ordinals being well
ordered).
Stage G: To prove ()(b) of theorem 1.13 we may assume that V [=
0
=
1
< . Let P
1
= p P : u[p]
1
< P. Note that the
rest of the forcing (i.e. P/P
1
) is the forcing notion for adding Cohen
reals so for v
1
the forcing notion P
v
is naturally dened as well
as P
1
v
. By stages C, E we know that V
P
1
[=2
0
=
1
and by stage
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

F we have V
P
1
[=the Borel set B
does not contain a perfect square.

Suppose that after adding Cohen reals (over V
P
1
) we have a
+
1
-square
contained in B
. We have
+
1
-branches
( <
+
1
), each is a P
v
-name for
some countable v

1
. By the -system lemma wlog we assume that
,= v
= v
. Working in V
P
1
v
we see that P
v\v
is really the
Cohen forcing notion and
is a P
v\v
-name. Without loss of generality
v
= [
1
,
1
+ ), v
= v

1
+ + and all names
are the same

(under the natural isomorphism). So we have found a Cohen forcing name
V
P
1
+
such that:
if c
0
, c
1
are (mutually) Cohen reals over V
P
1
+
then V
P
1
[c
0
, c
1
] [= (
c
0
,
c
1
) B
&
c
0
,=
c
1
.
But the Cohen forcing adds a perfect set of (mutually) Cohen reals. By
absoluteness this produces a perfect set (in V
P
1
) whose square is contained
in B
. Once again by absoluteness we conclude that B
contains a perfect
square in V
P
already, a contradiction.
1.13
1.10
Remark 1.14. Note that if B is a subset of the plane (
) which is G
(i.e.
n<
U
n
, U
n
open, without loss of generality decreasing with n) and it
contains an uncountable square X X (so X

is uncountable) then it
contains a perfect square. Why? Let
X
= X : (n)(
1
)( X & n = n.
Let
K = (u, n) : for some called (u, n), u

, and
, u &

&
) U
n
and u &
) U
n
= (u, n) K : for some =
: u) we have
So
(a) K
,= , in fact if
1
, . . . ,
m
X
are pairwise distinct, n < , then

for any large enough (
i
: i = 1, . . . , m, n) K,
(b) if (u, n) K
as exemplied by =
: u) and
then for any
(, ) and n
> n,
large enough, we have (
: u
, n
) K
.
The following depends on 3:
Theorem 1.15. Assume MA and 2
1
(
0
) or 2
0
> . Then: there
is a Borel subset of the plane with a -square but with no perfect square i
<
1
(
0
).
Proof The rst clause implies the second clause by 1.12. If the second
clause holds, let
(
0
) and <
1
, by 3.2(6) letting
i

2 for i <
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

24 SAHARON SHELAH
be pairwise distinct we can nd an -sequence of (2, 2)-trees

T such that
(
i
,
j
)
n
(limT
n
) for i, j < and degsq(
T) = (just use A = (
i
,
j
) :
i, j < there). By 3.2(3) the set
n
(limT
n
) contains no
+1
(
0
)-square.
1.15
th1.12
Fact 1.16. Assume P is adding > Cohen reals or random reals and
> 2
0
. Then in V
P
we have
()
there is no Borel set (or analytic) B

2
2 such that
(a) there are

2 for < such that [ ,=
,=
], and
(
) B for , < .
(b) B contains no perfect square.
Proof Straight as in the (last) stage G of the proof of theorem 1.13
(except that no relevance of (7) of Stage A there).
Let P be adding r
: < ), assume p P forces that: B
a Borel
set,
: < ) are as in clause (a), (b) above. Let
be names in
P
v
= P r
: v
, and B
be a name in P
v
= P r
: v where
v, v
are countable subsets of . Wlog v
: < (2
0
)
+
) is a -system with
heart v and otp(v
v) = otp(v
0
v). In V
Pv
we have B
and 2
0
= (2
0
)
V
,
so wlog v = and otp(v
) does not depend on .

Without loss of generality the order preserving function f
,
from v
onto
v
maps
to
. So for Q=Cohen in the Cohen case we have a name
such that
Cohen

(r
)

2 is new,
CohenCohen
(
(r
1
);
(r
2
)) B,
and we can nish easily. The random case is similar.
1.16
1.13
Conclusion 1.17. (1) For (
1
,
1
) the statement ()
of 1.16 is not
decided by ZFC +2
0
>
1
(i.e. it and its negation are consistent
with ZFC).
(2) 1.16 applies to the forcing notion of 1.13 (with instead of 2
0
)
Proof 1) Starting with universe V satisfying CH, fact 1.16 shows the
consistency of yes. As by 1.7(1) we know that
1
(
0
)
1
and
1
>
(by assumption), Theorem 1.15 (with the classical consistency of MA
+2
0
>
1
) gives the consistency of no (in fact in both cases it works for
all simultaneously).
2) Left to the reader.
2. Some model theoretic related problems
We turn to the model theoretic aspect: getting Hanf numbers below the
continuum i.e. if L
1
,
has a model of cardinality
1
(
0
) then it
has a model of cardinality continuum. We get that Pr
1
() is equivalent
to a statement of the form if L
1
,
has a model of cardinality then
it has a model generated by an indiscernible set indexed by

2 (the
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

indiscernibility is with respect to the tree (
2, , , <
lx
, <
g
), where is
being initial segment, = maximal , & , <
lx
is lexicographic
order, <
lx
i g() < g()). This gives sucient conditions for having
many non-isomorphic models and also gives an alternative proof of 1.12.
We also deal with the generalization to

-models i.e. xing the cardinal-
ities of several unary predicates (and point to -like models).
Claim 2.1. The following are equivalent for a cardinal :
(1) Pr
1
()
(2) If L
1
,
has a model M with [R
M
[ (R is a unary pred-
icate) then has a model of the cardinality continuum, moreover
for some countable rst order theory T
1
with Skolem functions such
that () (T
1
) and a model M
1
of T
1
and a
R
M
1
for

2
we have:
()
0
M
1
[=
()
1
M
1
, a
(

2) are as in [Sh a, VII, 4]=[Sh c, VII, 4], i.e.:
(a) M
1
is the Skolem hull of a
:

2 and ,= a
,=
a
(b) for every n < and a rst order formula = (x

0
, . . . , x
n1
)
L(T
1
) there is n
< such that :

for every k (n
, ),
0
, . . . ,
n1

2 and
0
, . . . ,
n1

2 satisfying
m<n
m
k =
m
k and
m<l<n
m
k ,=
l
k
we have
M
1
[= [a
0
, . . . , a
n1
] [a
0
, . . . , a
n1
].
Note that necessarily a
/ Skolem Hull
M
1
a
:

2
.
(c) a
R
M
1
.
Remark 2.2. We can prove similarly with replacing by for arbitrarily
large
< here and elsewhere; i.e. in 2) we replace the assumption by

If L
1
,
has, for every
< , a model M with [R

M
[
then . . .
(and still the new version of 2) is equivalent to 1)).
Proof 1. 2.
Just as in [Sh 37]+ [Sh 49]: wlog |M| = and moreover [M[ = . Let M
1
be an expansion of M by names for subformulas of , a pairing function,
and then by Skolem functions. Let T
1
be the rst order theory of M
1
. There
is (see [Ke71]) a set of countably many types p(x) such that: M
1
omits
every p(x) and if M
1
is a model of T
1
omitting every p(x) then M
1
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

26 SAHARON SHELAH
is a model of (just for each subformula
_
n<
n
( x) of , we have to omit a
type; we can use 1-types as we have a pairing function). Let us dene
Y = v
>
2 : v is nite nonempty and its members are pairwise -
incomparable and for some n, v
n
2
n+1
2.
Z = (v, (. . . , x
, . . . )
v
) : v Y, a formula in T
1
with the set of
free variables included in x
: v and for every <

1
there
are a
R
M
for v such that : [ ,= from v a
,= a
] and
rk
0
(a
: v, M) and M [= [. . . , a
, . . . ]
v
.
We say for (v
l
,
l
) Z (l = 1, 2) that (v
2
,
2
) succ(v
1
,
1
) if for some
v
1
(called (v
1
, v
2
)) we have v
2
= (v
1
) 0), 1) and letting
for i < 2 the function h
i
: v
1
v
2
be h
i
() is if ,= and it is i) if
= , we demand for i = 0, 1:
2

1
(. . . , x
h
i
()
, . . . )
v
1
.
Choose inductively (v
l
,
l
) : l < ) such that (v
l+1
,
l+1
) succ(v
l
,
l
) is
generic enough, i.e.:
()
1
if = (x
0
, . . . , x
k1
) L(T
1
) then for some l < for every
m [l, ) and
0
, . . . ,
k1
v
m
we have:
m
(x
0
, . . . , x
k1
) or
m
(x
0
, . . . , x
k1
)
()
2
for every p(x) and for every function symbol f = f(x
0
, . . . , x
n1
)
(note: in T
1
denable function is equivalent to some function sym-
bol), for some l < for every m [l, ), for every
0
, . . . ,
n
1
v
m
for some (x) p(x) we have
m
(f(x
0
), . . . , f(x
n1
))
It is straightforward to carry the induction (to simplify you may demand
in ()
1
, ()
2
just for arbitrarily large m [, ), this does not matter
and the stronger version of ()
1
, ()
2
can be gotten (replacing the
>
2 by
a perfect subtree T and then renaming a
for lim(T) as a
for

2)).
Then dene the model by the compactness.
2. 1.
If not, then NPr
1
() hence for some model M with vocabulary , [[
0
, cardinality we have ()
def
= rk
0
(M) <
1
. Let
()
L
1
,
() be
as in 2.3 below, so necessarily M [=
()
. Apply to it clause (2) which
holds by our present assumption (with R
M
= ), so
()
has a model M
1
as there, (so M
1
[=
()
). But a
:

2 easily witnesses rk
0
(M
1
) = ,
moreover, for every nonempty nite w a
:

2 and an ordinal we
have rk
0
(w, M) . This can be easily proved by induction on (using
()
2
(b) of (2) (and ,=

2 a
,= a
of ()
2
(a))).
2.1
2.1
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

Fact 2.3. (1) For every <
+
and vocabulary , [[ , there is
a sentence
+
,
[] (of quantier depth ) such that for any
-model M:
M [=
i rk
0
(M; <
0
) = .
(2) For every <
+
, l 0, 1 and vocabulary , [[ there is a
sentence L
+
,
(
)[] (
is the quantier there are

many xs) such that for any -model M: M [=
l
i rk
l
(M; <
, ) = .
Proof Easy to check.
2.3
2.2
Hence (just as in [Sh a, VIII, 1.8(2)]):
Conclusion 2.4. Assume is a countable vocabulary. If L
1
,
(), R is
a unary predicate,
0
, (x) : L
1
,
(
0
) is countable and for
some transitive model V
1
of ZFC (may be a generic extension of V or an
inner model as long as , V
1
and V
1
[= L
1
,
(), (x) :
L
1
,
(
0
)) we have
V
1
[= Pr
1
(), and has a model M with
[(x) : M [= [a], (x) : a R
M
[.
Then
(1) we can nd a model N of with Skolem functions and a
R
N
for
< 2
0
such that for each < 2
0
the type p
= (x) : N [=
[a
] and (x) is not realized in the Skolem hull of

a
: < 2
0
and ,= .
(2) Hence M/ : M [= , |M| = [ min2
,
2
; really (M
0
)/ :
M [= and M has cardinality has cardinality min2
,
2
.
Moreover we can nd such a family of models no one of them ??we
have embeddable into another by an embedding preserving (x)
for .
2.4
2.3
A natural generalization of 2.1 is
Claim 2.5. (1) For cardinals >
0
the following are equivalent
(a) Pr
+(; )
(b) If M is a model, (M) countable, R, R
0
(M) unary predi-
cates, [R
M
0
[ , [R
M
[ then we can nd M
0
, M
1
, a
(

2)
such that
(i) M
1
is a model of the (rst order) universal theory of M
(and is a (M)-model)
(ii) a
R
M
1
for

2 are pairwise distinct
(iii) M
1
is the closure of a
:

2M
0
under the functions
of M
1
(so
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

28 SAHARON SHELAH
() M
1
also includes the individual constants of M; in
general |M
1
| = 2
0
() if (M) has predicates only then [M
1
[ = a
2 [M
0
[)
(iv) M
0
is countable, M
0
M, M
0
M
1
, M
0
= cl
M
(M
0

R
M
0
), R
M
1
0
= R
M
0
0
( R
M
0
); in fact we can have:
(*) (M
1
, c)
cM
0
is a model of the universal theory of
(M, c)
cM
0
(v) for every n < and a quantier free rst order formula
= (x
0
, . . . , x
n1
) L((M)) there is n
< such
that: for every k (n
, ) and
0
, . . . ,
n1

2,
0
, . . . ,
n1

2 satisfying
m<n
m
k =
m
k and
m<l<n
m
k ,=
l
k
we have
M
1
[= [a
0
, . . . , a
n1
] [a
0
, . . . , a
n1
],
we can even allow parameters from M
0
in (but k de-
pends on them).
(2) For cardinals >
0
the following are equivalent
(a)
Pr
1
(; )
(b)
like (b) above, but we omit M

0
M
.
Remark 2.6. (1) See 4.6, 4.7 how to use claim 2.5.
(2) In (b), if M has Skolem functions then we automatically get also:
(i)
+
M
1
a model of the rst order theory of M
(iii)
+
M
1
is the Skolem hull of a
:

2 M
0
(iv)
+
M
0
M, M
0
M
1
, M
0
countable (and R
M
1
0
= R
M
0
0
R
M
0
),
(v)
+
clause (v) above holds even for any (rst order) formula of
L
,
((M)).
Proof 1) (a) (b) Like the proof of 2.1 (1) (2), applied to (M, c)
cR
M
0
but the set M
0
R
M
0
is chosen by nite approximation i.e. (letting Y be as
there and = (M)) we let
Z = (v, (. . . , x
, . . . )
v
, A) : v Y, a quantier free formula
in L
,
() with set of free variables included in x
: v
and parameters from A, A is a nite subset of R
M
0
,
and for every ordinal <
+
there are a
R
M
for v
such that [ ,= from v a
,= a
] and
rk(a
: v, M) and M [= [. . . , a
, . . . ]
v
.
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

We need here the for every <
+
because we want to x elements of
R
M
0
, and there are possibly choices.
(a) (b) Like the proof of 2.3; assume NPr
(; ), <
+
, let M wit-
ness it, choose R
0
= +1, R = , w.l.o.g (M) = R
n,
: n < , < , R
n,
is n-place, in M every quantier free formula is equivalent to some R
n,
, let
R
n,k
=: (i
0
, . . . , i
n1
, , ) : M [= R
n,
(i
0
, . . . , i
n1
), i
0
, . . . , i
n1
is with
no repetition, increasing for simplicity, and rk(i
0
, . . . , i
n1
, M; ) = ,
with rk(i
0
, . . . , i
n1
, M; ) , +1 being witnessed by (i
0
, . . . , i
n1
) =
R
n,
, k(i
0
, . . . , i
n1
) = k where the functions , k are as in the proof
of 1.13. Let M be (, <, R, R
0
, R
n,k
)
n(0,),k<n
expanded by Skolem func-
tions. So assume toward contradiction that (b) holds, hence for this model
M there are models M
0
, M
1
and a
M
1
for

2 as required in clauses
(i) (v) of (b) of claim 2.5. Choose a non-empty nite subset w of

2 and
and such that letting w =
0
, . . . ,
m1
with a
<
M
1
a
+1
, we have
() M
1
[= R
m,k
(a
0
, . . . , a
m1
, , )
() R
M
0
0
( )
() minimal under those constrains
Note that there are m,
0
, . . . ,
m1
, , such that () holds: for every
non-empty w

2, as M
1
is elementarily equivalent to M there are ,
as required in (). Now () implies R
M
1
0
, but R
M
1
0
= R
M
0
0
, so clause
() holds too, and so we can satisfy () too as the ordinals are well ordered.
Let
= (x
0
, . . . , x
m1
, , ), note the parameters are from R
M
1
0
(as M
1
is
elementarily equivalent to M) hence from R
M
0
0
M, and clause (v) (of (b)
of 2.5) applies to
,
0
, . . . ,
m1
) giving n
< . We can nd
k

2,
k
,=
k
,
k
n
=
k
n
, and easily for w
=
,
. . . ,
m1
,
k
we can
nd
< ,
< and k such that M

1
[= R
m+1,k
(a
0
, . . . , a
m1
, a
k
,
)
and then if 0 we get contradiction to clause () above. If = 0 we use
clause (i) to copy the situation to M and get a contradiction.
2) Similar proof.
2.5
2.4
Notation 2.7. Let

denote a nite (or countable) sequence of pairs of innite
cardinals (
) : < ()) such that
increases with , so e.g.

=
(
) : <
()). We shall identify a strictly increasing =
:
()) with (
+1
;
) : < ()).
Let R, R
0
, Q
0
, . . . , R
()1
, Q
()1
be xed unary predicates and

R =
(R
, Q
) : < ()).
A

-model M is a model M such that : R, R
, Q
(M) are all unary

predicates, [R
M
[ =
, [Q
M
[ =
for < (), Q

M
R
M
and R
M
: <
()) are pairwise disjoint, and R
M
=
<()
R
M
.
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

30 SAHARON SHELAH
For a R
M
let (a) be the such that a R
M
(e.g. R
M

<
+1
=
). For a

-model M we say that a cl
(A, M) if A a
M and for some n < , and quantier free formula (x
1
, y
1
, . . . , y
n
) and
b
1
, . . . , b
n
A we have
M [= (a, b
1
, . . . , b
n
) & (
x)(x, b
1
, . . . , b
n
).
Denition 2.8. (1) For l < 6,

as in Notation 2.7, and an ordinal
let Pr
l
; ) mean that for every

-model M, with [(M)[ we
have rk
l
(M,
) (and NPr
l
, ) is the negation, if is omitted

it means
0
, remember

= (
) : < ())) where the rank is

dened in part (2) below.
(2) For a

-model M, rk
l
(M,
) = suprk
l
(w, M,

) + 1 : w [

R
M
]
where the rank is dened in part (3) below and:

() if () is nite,
[

R
M
]
= w : w a nite subset of R
M
not disjoint to any R
M

() if () is innite,
[

R
M
]
= w : w a nite non-empty subset of R

M
(3) For a

-model M, and w [R
M
]
we dene the truth value of

rk
l
(w, M;

) by induction on :
Case A = 0
rk
l
(w, M;

) i no a wR
M
belongs to cl
(a)
(wa, M)
Case B is a limit ordinal
rk
l
(w, M;

) i rk
l
(w, , M;

) for every ordinal <
Case C = + 1
We demand two conditions
() exactly as in Denition 1.1(3) ()
3
except that when l =
2, 3, 4, 5 we use =
+
(a
k
)
,
() if < () and w R
M
= then for some a R

M
,
rk
(w a, M; ) .
Claim 2.9. The parallel of the following holds: 1.2 (+ statements in 1.1)
also 1.3 (use <
+
0
), 1.5(2) (for
+
0
), 1.10 (satisfying
+
0
-c.c.) and
we adapt 1.6.
Claim 2.10. If is a limit ordinal and
) for every < ()

then Pr
).
Proof Use indiscernibility and Erdos-Rado as in the proof of 1.8(1).
In more details. The induction hypothesis on is, assuming () < : if
A R
M
,
_
<()
[A R
M
then for every < , k < and every

(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

m = m
: < ()), m
(0, ) for some w A we have

_
[w R
M
[ =
m
and rk(w; M,
) + k. Then for = + 1, choose distinct

a
i
A R
M
(i <
+m+m
) and use polarized partition (see Erdos,

Hajnal, Mate, Rado [EHMR]) on a
i
: i <
) : < ()). For ()

innite use A R
M
such that w
A
= : A R
M
,= is nite non-empty,
w
A
[A R
M
and proceed as above.

2.10
2.8
Claim 2.11. Let () < ,
0
< <
()
,

= (
+1
,
) : < ())
(for ).
(1) If Pr
n
(
n
) for n < , and for some
0
there is a tree T
>
(
0
)
of cardinality
0
with
()
-branches then:
every rst order sentence which has a

n
-model for each n, also
has a

-model
moreover, if T is a rst order theory of cardinality
0
and
every nite T
T has a

n
-model for each n then T has a
-model
(2) So if

=

for are as above then we have
0
-compactness
for the class of

-models. Where
() a class K of models is -compact when for every set T of
rst order sentences, if every nite subset of T has a model in
K then T has a model in K.
(3) In part (1) we can use

n
with domain
n
, if
n

n+1
and () =
w
n
: n < .
Proof Straight if you have read [Sh 8], [Sh 18], [Sh 37] or read the proof
of 2.12 below (only that now the theory is not necessary countable, no types
omitted, and by compactness it is enough to deal with the case () is nite).
2.11
2.9
Claim 2.12. Let () <
1
,

= (
+1
,
) : < ()) for each

1
(and
strictly increasing with ). If Pr
) for every <

1
and
0
and L
1
,
and for each <
1
there is a

-model satisfying then

there is a

1
-model satisfying .
Proof For simplicity, again like [Sh 8], [Sh 18], [Sh 37]. Let M
be a

model of for <

1
. By expanding the M
s, by a pairing function and

giving names of subformulas of we have a countable rst order theory T
with Skolem functions, a countable set of 1-types and M
+
such that
(a) M
+
is a

-model of T omitting each p

(b) if M is a model of T omitting every p then M is a model of .
Now as in the proof of 2.1 we can nd a model M
+
and a
for < (),

2 such that
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

32 SAHARON SHELAH
() M
+
a model of T
() a
R
M
and ,= a
,= a
() for every rst order formula (x

0
, . . . , x
n1
) L
,
((T)) and (0), . . . ,
(n 1) < () ordinals, there is k < such that: if
0
, . . . ,
n1

2,
0
, . . . ,
n1

2 and
k : < n) is with no repeti-

tions and
k =
k then M
+
[= (a
(0)
0
, . . . , a
(n1)
n1
)
(a
(0)
0
, . . . , a
(n1)
n1
)
() if (x
0
, . . . , x
n1
) is a term of (T) and (0), . . . , (n 1) < (),
and p then for some k < for any
0
, . . . , (n1)
k
2 pairwise
distinct there is (x) p(x) such that:
()

2 M
+
[= (a
(0)
0
, . . . , a
(n1)
n1
).
(i.e. this is our way to omit the types in )
() If (0), . . . , (n 1) < (), (x
0
, . . . , x
n1
) is a term of (T), and
m < n, then for some k < , we have
() if
0
, . . . ,
n1

2, and
0
, . . . ,
n1

2 and
k =
k
and
k : < ) is without repetitions and () < (m)
then
M
+
[= Q
(m)
((a
(0)
0
, . . . , a
(n1)
n1
)) & Q
(m)
((a
(0)
0
, . . . , a
(n1)
n1
)
(a
(0)
0
, . . . , a
(n1)
n1
) = (a
(0)
0
, . . . , a
(n1)
n1
).
Now choose Y

2 of cardinality
and let M
be the (M)-
reduct of the Skolem hull in M
+
of a
: < () and Y
. This
is a model as required.
2.12
2.10
Conclusion 2.13. If V
0
[= GCH, V = V
P
0
for some c.c.c. forcing notion
P then e.g.
() if
3
< 2
0
,
0
,
,
+
)
,
+
,
++
) (see [Sh 8]) i.e.,
letting
0
= (
0
,
), (
,
+
)), and

1
= (
,
+
), (
+
,
++
)),
for any countable rst order T, if every nite T
T has a

0
-model
then T has a

1
-model.
()
: ())
: ()) if
_

+1
and
()
2
0
(and versions like 2.11(1)).
Proof Why? By 2.10 if

= (
) : < ()),
) then
Pr
n
(
) (really

k
(
) for k depending on n only suces, see [EHMR]).

Now ccc forcing preserves this and now apply 2.11. Similarly we can use
+
-cc forcing P and deal with cardinals in the interval (, 2
) in V
P
.
2.13
2.11
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

Remark 2.14. We can say parallel things for the compactness of (
), for
singular 2
0
(or +[T [ < number of -branches of T ), e.g. we get
the parallel of 2.13.
In more details, if V
0
= V
P
, P satises the
+
-c.c. then
() in V
P
0
, for any singular (, 2
) such that V
0
[= is strong
limit we have
() the class
(, <, R
. . . )
<
: R
an n
-relation, (, <) is -like

of models is -compact, and we can axiomatize it.
There are also consistent counterexamples, see [Sh 532].
The point of proving () is
for a vocabulary of cardinality , letting T
sk
be a rst order
theory with Skolem functions (T
sk
) (but the Skolem functions are

new), then TFAE for a rst order T L
,
()
(a) T has a -like model
(b) the following is consistent
TT
sk
(. . . , x
n()
, y
n()
, . . . )
<k
= (. . . , x
n()
, y
n()
, . . . )
<k

(. . . , x
n()
, y
n()
. . . ) > y
n
: n() < ,

2, and for some
j < ,
j : < k) is with no repetition,
j =
j,
n() < n
(. . . , x
n()
, y
n()
, . . . ) < y
n
: n() < n
and

2.
3. Finer analysis of square existence
Denition 3.1. (1) For an -sequence

T = T
n
: n < ) of (2,2)-trees,
we dene a function degsq (square degree). Its domain is
pfap = pfap
T
= (u, g) : (n)(u [
n
2]
, g is a 2-place function
from u to )
and its values are ordinals (or or 1). For this we dene the truth
value of degsq
T
(u, g) by induction on the ordinal .
Case 1 = 1
degsq
T
(u, g) 1 i (u, g) pfap
T
and , u (, )
T
g(,)
Case 2 is limit
degsq
T
(u, g) i degsq
T
(u, g) for every <
Case 3 = + 1
degsq
T
(u, g) i for every
u, for some m, u
m
2,
g
and functions h
0
, h
1
, we have:
h
i
: u u
,
( u) h
i
()
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

34 SAHARON SHELAH
( u)[h
0
() = h
1
() ,=
]
u
= Rang(h
0
) Rang(h
1
)
g
is a 2-place function from u
to
g
(h
i
(), h
i
()) = g(, ) for i < 2 and ,
u
degsq
T
(u
, g
) (so (u
, g
) pfap).
(2) We dene degsq
T
(u, g) = i
for every ordinal , degsq(u, g)
(so = 1, = are legal values).
(3) We dene degsq(
T) =
degsq
T
(u, g) + 1 : (u, g) pfap
T
.
Claim 3.2. Assume

T is an -sequence of (2,2)-trees.
(1) For every (u, g) pfap
T
, degsq
T
(u, g) is an ordinal, or 1. Any
automorphism F of (
2, ) preserves this (it acts on

T too, i.e.
degsq
T
(u, g) = degsq
F(Tn):n<
(F(u), g F
1
)).
(2) degsq(
T) = i degsq(
T)
1
i there is a perfect square con-
tained in
n<
lim(T
n
) i for some ccc forcing notion P,
P
n<
lim(T
n
)
contains a
1
(
0
)-square (so those properties are absolute).
(3) If degsq(
T) = () <
1
then
n<
lim(T
n
) contains no
()+1
(
0
)-
square.
(4) For each () <
1
there is an -sequence of (2, 2)-trees

T = T
n
:
n < ) with degsq(
T) = ()
(5) If

T = T
n
: n < ) is a sequence of (2,2)-trees then the existence of
an
1
-square in
n<
lim(T
n
) is absolute.
(6) Moreover for () <
1
we have: if <
()
(
0
), A,B disjoint
subsets of

2
2 of cardinality , then some c.c.c. forcing notion

P adds

T as in (4) (i.e. an -sequence of (2, 2)-trees

T = T
n
:
n < ) with degsq
T
(
T) = ()) such that: A
n<
lim[f(T
n
)],
B
n<
lim[f(T
n
)] = .
Proof Easy to prove.
E.g. 3) Let =
()+1
(
0
) and assume
i
: i <

2, [i < j
i
,=
j
] and (
i
,
j
)
n
lim(T
n
) and let (
i
,
j
) lim(T
g(
i
,
j
)
). For (u, f)
pfap
T
, u =
0
, . . . ,
k1
(with no repetition, <
lx
-increasing) let R
(u,f)
=
(
0
, . . . ,
k1
) :
< and
for < k and f(
,
m
) = g(
,
m
) for
, m < k. Let M = (, R
(u,f)
)
(u,f)pfap
T
. Clearly if we have
0
, . . . ,
k1
<
and n such that
n : < k) is with no repetition, g(
(1)
,
(2)
) =
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

f(
(1)
n,
(2)
n) then R
(u,f)
(
0
,
1
, . . . ,
k1
) and we can then prove
rk(
0
, . . . ,
k1
, M) degsq
T
(u, f)
(by induction on the left ordinal). But M is a model with countable vocab-
ulary and cardinality =
()+1
(
0
). Hence by the denition of
()+1
we
have rk(M) ()+1, so ()+1 rk(M) degsq(
T) () (by previous
sentence, earlier sentence and a hypothesis respectively). Contradiction.
4) Let
W = : is a (strictly) decreasing sequence of ordinals, possibly empty.
We choose by induction on i < , n
i
and an indexed set (u
i
x
, f
i
x
,
i
x
) : x
X
i
) such that
(a) n
i
< , n
0
= 0, n
i
< n
i+1
(b) X
i
nite including
j<i
X
j
(c) for x X
i
, u
i
x

n
i
2, f
i
x
a two place function from u
i
x
to and
i
x
w
i
(d) for some x X
i
, u
i
x
= 0
n
i
(e) h
i
is a function from X
i
into W and h
i
h
i+1
(f) [X
0
[ = 1, and h
0
is constantly )
(g) if x X
i
then:
i+1
x
=
i
x
and the function n
i
is one to
one from u
i+1
x
onto u
i
x
and u
i+1
x
[n
i
, n
i+1
) = 0
[n
i
,n
i+1
)
and
, u
i+1
x
f
i+1
x
(, ) = f
i
x
( n
i
, n
i
)
(h) for some x = x
i
X
i
, =
i
w
i+1

i
x
and
i
u
i
x
and
i
W such that h
i
(x
i
)
i
we can nd y = y
i
such that
() X
i+1
= X
i
y
i
, y
i
/ X
i
()
i+1
y
=
() the function n
i
is a function from u
i+1
y
onto u
i
x
, almost
one to one:
has exactly two predecessors say

y
1
,
y
2
, and any
other u
i
x

has exactly one predecessor in u

i+1
y
.
() for , u
i+1
y
if (, ) ,= (
y
1
,
y
2
) and (, ) ,= (
y
2
,
y
1
)
then f
i+1
y
i
(, ) = f
i
x
( n
i
, n
i
)
() h
i+1
= h
i
(y
i
,
i
)
(i) if x
1
, x
2
X
i
and u
i
x
1
u
i
x
2
,= then u
i
x
1
u
i
x
2
= 0
n
i
(j) if x X
i
, w
i

i
x
,
u
i
x
and h(x) W then for some
j (i, ) we have x
j
= x,
j
= ,
j
and
j
=
(k) the numbers f
i+1
y
i
(
y
1
1
,
y
1
2
), f
i+1
y
i
(
y
2
2
,
y
2
1
) are distinct and do not
belong to
Rang(f
i
x
) : x X
i
There is no problem to carry the denition.

(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

36 SAHARON SHELAH
We then let
T
n
= (, ) : for some i < and x X
i
and
u
i
x
we have
f
i
x
(
) = n
and for some n
i
we have (, ) = (
)
and

T = T
n
: n < ). Now it is straight to compute the rank.
5) By the completeness theorem for L
1
,
(Q) (see Keisler [Ke71])
6) By the proof of 1.13.
3.2
3.2
* * *
Now we turn to -Souslin sets.
Denition 3.3. Let T be a (2, 2, )-tree. Let set(T) be the set of all pairs
(u, f) such that
(n = n(u, f))[u
n
2 & f : u u
n
& , u (, , f(, )) T].
We want to dene degsq
T
(x) for x set(T). For this we dene by induction
on the ordinal when degsq
T
(x) :
Case 1 = 1
degsq
T
(u, f) i (u, f) set(T)
Case 2 limit
degsq
T
(u, f) i degsq
T
(u, f) for every <
Case 3 = + 1
degsq
T
(u, f) i for every
u, for some m > n(u, f) there

are (u
, f
) set(T) and functions h

0
, h
1
such that degsq
T
(u
, f
)
and
(i) n(u
, f
) = m
(ii) h
i
is a function from u to
m
2
(iii) h
i
() for i < 2
(iv) for u we have h
0
() ,= h
1
() =
(v) for
1
,=
2
u, i < 2 we have f(
1
,
2
) f
(h
i
(
1
), h
i
(
2
))
(vi) for u
we have f(n, n) f
(, )
Lastly, degsq
T
(u, f) = i for every ordinal we have [
degsq
T
(u, f) ]
Also let degsq(T) = degsq
T
(), < ), ) >).
Claim 3.4. (1) For a (2, 2, )-tree T, for (u, f) set(T), degsq
T
(u, f)
is an ordinal or innity or = 1. And similarly degsq(T). All are
absolute. Also degsq(T)
+
implies degsq(T) = and similarly
for degsq
T
(u, f).
(2) degsq(T) = i
P
prj limT (= (, )

2
2 : for some

,
_
n<
(n, n, n) T) contains a perfect square for
every forcing notion P including a trivial one i.e. V
P
= V i [=
P
prj lim(T) contains a 2
0
-square for the forcing notion P which
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

is adding Cohen reals for =
??
1
() some i for some P,
P
prj lim(T) contains ??
+(
0
)-square. .
(3) If () = degsq(T) <
+
, then prj lim(T) does not contain a
()+1
()-
square.
Proof 1) Easy.
2) Assume degsq(T) = , and note that
= degsq
T
(u, f) : (u, f)
set(T) and degsq
T
(u, f) < is an ordinal so (u, f) set(T) & degsq
T
(u, f)
degsq
T
(u, f) = (in fact any ordinal supdegsq
T
(u, f) + 1 :
(u, f) set(T) will do). Let set
(T) = (u, f) set(T) : degsq

T
(u, f) =
. Now
()
1
there is (u, f) set
(T)
()
2
for every (u, f) set
(T) and u we can nd (u

+
, f
+
)
set
(T) and for e = 1, 2 h

e
: u u
+
such that ( u)( h
e
()),
(, u)(f(, ) f
+
(h
e
(), h
e
()), ( u)[h
1
() = h
2
() =
].
[Why? As degsq
T
(u, f) = it is
+ 1 so by the denition we can

nd (u
+
, f
+
), h
1
, h
2
as above but only with degsq
T
(u
+
, f
+
)
, but this
implies degsq
T
(u
+
, f
+
) = .]
()
3
for every (u, f) set
(T) with u =
:
n
2
(n
1
)
2 (no
repetition) we can nd n
2
> n
1
and (u
+
, f
+
) set
(T) with u
+
=
:
n+1
2
(n
2
)
2 (no repetitions) such that
(i)
n+1
2
n

(ii) for
1
,
2

n+1
2,
1
n ,=
2
n f(
1
n
,
2
n
)f
+
(
1
,
2
)
(iii) for
n+1
2, f(
n
,
n
) f(
)
[Why? Repeat ()
2
2
n
times.]
So we can nd
:
n
2), f
n
by induction on n such that
:
n
2) is
with no repetition, degsq
T
(
:
n
2, f
n
) = , and for each n clauses (i),
(ii), (iii) of ()
3
hold, i.e.
1
,
2

n+1
2,
1
n ,=
2
n f
n
(
1
n
,
2
n
)
f
n+1
(
1
,
2
) and for
n+1
2 we have f
n
(
n
,
n
) f
n+1
(
) and of
course
:
m
2
(kn)
2, k
n
< k
n+1
< .
So we have proved that the rst clause implies the second (about the
forcing: the degsq(T) = is absolute so holds also in V
P
for any forcing
notion P). Trivially the second clause implies the third and fourth. So
assume the third clause and we shall prove the rst. By 1.8
2
+
() is well
dened (e.g.
+), but
3
+
() =
2
+
() by 1.5(3), let P be the forcing
notion adding
2
+
() Cohen reals. By 1.1(2) in V
P
,
+()
2
+
()
2
0
, and so there are pairwise disjoint
i

2 for i <
+() such that

(
i
,
j
) prj lim(T) for i, j <
+(). Lastly we prove forcing implies rst

in V
P
. By part (3) of the claim proved below we get for every <
+
, as
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

38 SAHARON SHELAH
()
+() that [ = degsq(T)]. Hence degsq(T)

+
, but by part
(1) this implies degsq(T) = .
3) Just like the proof of 3.2(3).
3.4
3.4
We shall prove in [Sh 532]
Claim 3.5. Assume () <
+
and <
()
().
(1) For some ccc forcing notion P, in V
P
there is a -Souslin subset
A = prj lim(T) (where T is a (2, 2, )-tree) such that
() A contains a -square but degsq(T) ()
(2) For given B (
2)
V
of cardinality we can replace () by
()
A (
2)
V
= B but degsq(T) ().
Remark 3.6. The following says in fact that colouring of pairs is enough:
say for the Hanf number of L
1
,
below the continuum, for clarication see
3.8.
Claim 3.7 (MA). Assume < 2
0
and () <
1
is a limit ordinal, <
def
=
()
(
0
). Then for some symmetric 2-place function F from to
we have
()
,,F
for no two place (symmetric) function F
from to do we have:
() for every n < , and pairwise distinct
0
, . . . ,
n1
< there
are pairwise distinct
0
, . . . ,
n1
< such that
k<l<n
F
(
k
,
l
) = F(
k
,
l
).
Remark 3.8. (1) This is close to Gilchrist Shelah [GcSh 491]
(2) The proof of 3.7 says that letting R
n
= (, ) : F(, ) = n, and
N = (, R
n
)
n<
, we have rk(N) < ().
(3) So 3.7 improves 2 by saying that the examples for the Hanf number
of L
1
,
below the continuum being large can be very simple, speak-
ing only on nite patterns of colouring pairs by countably many
colours.
Proof Let M be a model of cardinality with a countable vocabulary
and rk
1
(M) < (). Wlog it has the universe , has the relation < and
individual constants c
for . Let k
M
,
M
be as in the proof of 1.13.
Let P be the set of triples (u, f, w) such that :
(a) u is a nite subset of
(b) f is a symmetric two place function from u to
(c) w is a family of nonempty subsets of u
such that
(d) if u then w
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

(e) if w =
0
, . . . ,
n1
w (the increasing enumeration), k =
k
M
(w), u w and (l)[l < n & l ,= k f(
l
, ) = f(
l
,
k
)]
then w belongs to w, (m ,= k)( <
m

k
<
m
) and k =
k
M
(w
k
) and M [=
M
(w)[
0
, . . . ,
k1
, ,
k+1
, . . . ,
n1
]
(f) if w
i
=
i
0
, . . . ,
i
n1
u (increasing enumeration, so with no
repetition), i = 0, 1, and (l < k < n)[f(
0
l
,
0
k
) = f(
1
l
,
1
k
)]
then w
0
w w
1
w and if w
i
w then
M
(w
0
) =
M
(w
1
),
k
M
(w
0
) = k
M
(w
1
) and rk
1
(w
0
, M) = rk
1
(w
1
, M).
The order is the natural one.
It is easy to check that:
1
P satises the ccc
2
for every < , L
= (u, f, w) P : u is dense.
Hence there is a directed G P not disjoint from L
for every < . Let

F =
f : for some u, w we have (u, f, w) G . We shall show that it

is as required. Clearly F is a symmetric two place function from to ; so
the only thing that can fail is if there is a symmetric two place function F
from to such that () of 3.6 holds. By the compactness theorem for

propositional logic, there is a linear order <
of such that
()
for every n < and

0
<
<
n1
from there are
0
< <
n1
< such that
_
k<l<n
F
(
k
,
l
) = F(
k
,
l
).
Let
W =
_
w : for some u, f we have (u, f, w) G.
Let N = (, R
n
)
n<
where R
n
= (, ) : F(, ) = n, so rk
1
(w, N) for
w []
is well dened; in fact we can restrict ourselves to formulas of the

form (x
0
, . . . , x
n1
) =
_
l<k<n
F(x
l
, x
k
) = c
m(l,k)
. Let N
= (, R
n
)
n<
,
where R
n
= (, ) : F
(, ) = n. Now rst note that
1
if w W then rk
1
(w, N) rk
1
(w, M)
(this is the role of clause (e) in the denition of P; we prove it by induction
on rk
1
(w, M) using the same witness k
M
). Secondly
2
for < we have W
(this is the role of clause (d) in the denition of P). Hence we conclude (by
1.1(2),
1
,
2
):
3
rk
1
(N) < ().
Lastly
4
if
0
<
. . . <
m1
are < ,
0
< . . . <
m1
< ,
_
k<l<m
F
(
k
,
l
) = F(
k
,
l
) and
0
, . . . ,
m1
W
then rk
1
(
0
, . . . ,
m1
, N
) rk
1
(
0
, . . . ,
m1
, N)
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

40 SAHARON SHELAH
(again it can be proved by induction on rk
1
(
l
, . . . ,
m1
, N), the choice of
N
and our assumption toward contradiction that () from the claim holds).
Now by
3
,
4
and 1.1(2) (and
2
) we have rk
1
(N
) rk
1
(N) < () but
this contradicts |N
| = =
()
(
0
).
3.7
3.6
Claim 3.9 (MA). If , , F are as in 3.7 (i.e. ()
,,F
holds) then some
Borel set B

2
2 (actually of the form
n<
lim(T
n
)) has a -square but
no -square.
Remark 3.10. (1) The converse holds too, of course.
(2) Instead of we can use all < .
Proof Wlog cf () >
0
(otherwise combine examples). Let F be a
symmetric two place function from to such that ()
,,F
. For simplicity
let f
: be such that n
mf
(m) = n. We dene a forcing notion

P as in 1.13 except that we require in addition for p P:
1
f
(g
p
(, )) = F(, )
2
if
,=
,=
are from u
p
, k < ,
p
k =
p
k ,=
p
k =
k both not constantly 1 then F(
) = F(
3
if ,
n[p]
2 then for at most one m < m[p] we have (, ) t
p
m
4
if n < , n > 1,
0
<
lx
<
lx

n1
are pairwise distinct members
of
n(p)
2 and k < l (
k
,
l
) t
p
g(k,l)
then for some pairwise distinct
0
, . . . ,
n1
from u[p
n
], we have
_
k<l<n
f
(h(k, l)) = F(
k
,
l
)
We have
1
if < < , there is a unique n < such that (
) limT
n
.
Thus
n
T
n
contains a -square. In proving that it does not contain a
-square we apply ()
,,F
. For this the crucial fact is
2
if n < ,
0
, . . . ,
n1

2 are distinct, (
k
,
l
) lim(T
h(k,l)
) then
for some pairwise distinct
0
, . . . ,
n1
<
k<l<n
f
(h(k, l)) = F(
k
,
l
).
Instead of 1
3
is dense it is enough to show
3
for some p P, p the number of < such that for some q G
P
u
q
is .
3.9
3.7
Similarly we can show
Claim 3.11 (MA). Assume
0
< < 2
0
. Then TFAE:
(a) For some symmetric 2-place functions F
from to (for < )

we have
()
F:<
for no two place function F
from to do we have:
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

() for every n < and pairwise distinct
0
, . . . ,
n1
< there
are < and pairwise distinct
0
, . . . ,
n1
< such that
k<l<n
F
(
k
,
l
) = F
(
k
,
l
)
(b) Some Borel subset of

2
2 contains a -square i < (in

fact B is an F
set).
4. Rectangles
Simpler than squares are rectangles: subsets of

2
2 of the formX
0
X
1
,
so a pair of cardinals characterize them:
0
,
1
) where
= [X
[. So we
would like to dene ranks and cardinals which characterize their existence
just as rk
(w, M; ),
(),degsq
T
(), degsq
T
() have done for squares.
Though the demands are weaker, the formulation is more cumbersome: we
have to have two kinds of variables one corresponding to
0
one to
1
.
So the models have two distinguished predicates, R
0
, R
1
(corresponding to
X
0
, X
1
respectively) and in the denition of rank we connect only elements
from distinct sides (in fact in 33944 we already concentrate on two place
relations explaining not much is lost). This is very natural as except for
inequality nothing connects two members of X
0
or two members of X
1
.
Denition 4.1.
We shall dene Prrc
l
(
1
,
2
; < ,
0
,
1
), rkrc
l
((w
1
, w
2
), M,
1
,
2
; ,
0
,
1
)
as in 1.1 (but w
l
[R
M
l
]
and [R
M
l
[ =
l
), replacing rk by rkrc etc. Let
= (
1
,
2
), w = (w
1
, w
2
).
(1) For l < 6, and cardinals

= (
1
,
2
),
1
,
2
and

= (
0
,
1
),
0

1
<
1
,
2
and an ordinal let Prrc
l
; < ,

) mean that:
for every model M with vocabulary of cardinality
0
, such that
2
_
i=1
[R
M
i
[ =
i
, R
M
1
R
M
2
= , F
M
is a two place function with range
included in
1
= Q
M
, we have rkrc
l
(M; < ) (dened below).
Let NPrrc
l
; < ,

) be the negation. Instead of <
+
we may
write ; if =
+
0
we may omit
0
; if
0
=
0
, =
1
, we may omit
them. We may write
0
,
1
instead

= (
0
,
1
) and similarly for

.
Lastly we let rc
l
(,

) = min : Prrc
l
(, ; < ,

).
(2) For a model M,
rkrc
l
(M; < ) = suprkrc
l
( w, M; < ) + 1 : w = w
1
, w
2
) where
w
i
R
M
i
are nite non empty for i = 1, 2 and
(c Q
M
)(a, b)[a w
1
& b w
2
F(a, b) = c]
where rkrc is as dened in part (3) below.
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

42 SAHARON SHELAH
(3) For a model M, and
w [M]
def
= u : u = (u
1
, u
2
), u
i
R
M
i
are nite nonempty and
(c)(a, b)[a u
1
& b u
2
F(a, b) = c]
we shall dene the truth value of rkrc
l
( w, M; < ) by induction
on the ordinal (for l = 0, 1, can be omitted). If we write w
instead of w
1
, w
2
we mean w
1
= w R
M
1
, w
2
= w R
M
2
(here
R
M
1
R
M
2
= helps). Then we can note
()
0
& rkrc
l
( w, M; < ) rkrc
l
( w, M; < )
()
1
rkrc
l
( w, M; < ) ( limit ) i
_
<
rkrc
l
( w, M; < )
()
2
rkrc
l
( w, M; < ) 0 i w [M]
So we can dene rkrc

l
( w, M; < ) = for the maximal such that
rkrc
l
( w, M; < ) , and if this holds for every (and 1 if
rkrc
l
( w, M; < ) , 0).
Now the inductive denition of rkrc
l
( w, M; < ) was already
done above for = 0 and limit, so for = + 1 we let
()
3
rkrc
l
( w, M; < ) + 1 i (letting w = w
1
w
2
, n = [w[,
w = a
0
, . . . , a
n1
), we have: for every k < n and quantier
free formula
(x
0
, . . . , x
n1
) =
_
i<j
x
i
,= x
j
&
_
R
1
(x
i
) R
2
(x
j
)
i,j
(x
i
, x
j
) : R
1
(a
i
) & R
2
(a
j
)
(in the vocabulary of M) for which M [= [a
0
, . . . , a
n1
] we
have:
Case 1: l = 1. There are a
i
m
M for m < n, i < 2 such that :
(a) rkrc
l
(a
i
m
: i < 2, m < n, M; < ) ,
(b) M [= [a
i
0
, . . . , a
i
n1
] (for i = 1, 2), so there is no repe-
tition in a
i
0
, . . . , a
i
n1
and [a
i
m
R
M
j
a
m
R
M
j
] for
j = 1, 2
(c) a
0
k
,= a
1
k
but if m < n and (a
m
R
M
1
a
k
/ R
M
1
) then
a
0
m
= a
1
m
.
(d) if a
m
1
R
M
1
, a
m
2
R
M
2
then for any i, j ( 1, 2) we
have F
M
(a
i
m
1
, a
j
m
2
) = F
M
(a
m
1
, a
m
2
).
Case 2: l = 0. As for l = 1 but in addition
(e)
_
m
a
m
= a
0
m
Case 3: l = 3. The denition is like case 1 but i < ; i.e. there are a
i
m
M
for m < n, i < such that
(a) for i < j < we have rkrc
l
(a
i
m
, a
j
m
: m < n, M; < )
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

(b) M [= [a
i
0
, . . . , a
i
n1
] (for i < ; so there are no repeti-
tions in a
i
0
, . . . , a
i
n1
)
(c) for i < j < , a
i
k
,= a
j
k
but if m < n and (a
m
R
M
1

a
k
/ R
M
1
) then a
i
m
= a
j
m
(d) if a
m
1
R
M
1
, a
m
2
R
M
2
then for any i, j, F
M
(a
i
m
1
, a
j
m
2
) =
F
M
(a
m
1
, a
m
2
).
Case 4: l = 2. Like case 3 but in addition
(e) a
m
= a
0
m
for m < n
Case 5: l = 5. Like case 3 except that we replace clause (a) by
(a)
for every function H, Dom(H) = , [Rang(H)[ < for

some i < j < we have H(i) = H(j) and
rkrc
l
(a
i
m
, a
j
m
: m < n, M; < ) .
Case 6: l = 4. Like case 4 using clause (a)
instead (a).
(4) For M as above and c Q
M
we dene rkrc
(M, c; < ) as
suprkrc
( w, M; < ) + 1 : w [M]
and
(a w
1
)(b w
2
)[F(a, b) = c].
(5) Let Prrd
, ,

) mean rkrc
(M, c; < ,

) for every M for some
c M when M is such that [R
M
1
[ =
1
, [R
M
2
[ =
2
, [(M)[
0
,
F
M
: R
M
1
R
M
2
Q
M
, [Q
M
[ =
1
. Let NPrrd
, ,

) mean its
negation and rd
(,

) be the minimal such that Prrd
(, , ,

).
Remark 4.2. The reader may wonder why in addition to Prrc we use the
variant Prrd. The point is that for the existence of the rectangle X
1
X
2
with F (X
1
X
2
) constantly c
, this constant plays a special role. So in

our main claim 4.6, to get a model as there, we need to choose it, one out of
1
, but the other choices are out of . So though the dierence between the
two variants is small (see 4.5 below) we actually prefer the Prrd version.
Claim 4.3. The parallels of 1.2 (+statements in 1.1), also 1.3, 1.5(2), 1.6,
1.10 hold.
Claim 4.4. (1) If w
i
[R
M
i
]
for i = 1, 2 then
rkrc
l
(w
1
, w
2
), M; ) rk
l
(w
1
w
2
, M; ).
(2) If R
M
1
= R
M
2
(abuse of the notation) then rkrc
l
(M; < ) rk
l
(M; ).
(3) If
1
=
2
= then Pr
(, ) Prrc
(
1
,
2
; , ).
Claim 4.5. rd
(, ) = rc
(, ) if is a successor ordinal or cf () > .

Claim 4.6. Assume <
1
,
2
. Then the following are equivalent:
A. Prrd
1
+
(
1
,
2
; , )
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

44 SAHARON SHELAH
B. Assume M is a model with a countable vocabulary, [R
M
l
[ =
l
for
l = 1, 2, P
M
= , Q
M
= , and F
M
a two-place function (really
just F(R
M
1
R
M
2
) interests us) and the range of F(R
M
1
R
M
2
) is
included in Q
M
and G is a function from [R
M
1
]
[R
M
2
]
to P
M
.
Then we can nd (M)-models M
0
, N and elements, c
, a
, b
(for

2) such that :
(i) N is a model with the vocabulary of M (but functions may be
interpreted as partial ones, i.e. as relations)
(ii) a
R
N
1
, b
R
N
2
are pairwise distinct and F
N
(a
, b
) = c
(
N)
(iii) M
0
countable, M
0
M, c
Q
M
, M
0
is the closure of (M
0
P
M
) c
in M, in fact for some M
0
M we have M
0
=
closure of P
M
0
c
, c
0
,
(iv) M
0
N, P
M
0
= P
N
,
(v) [N[ = (a
, b
,

d) : is a (M)term ,

2,

2 and

d
M
0
(vi) for
l
: l < l(),
m
: m < m()

2 (both without repeti-
tions non-empty) there is d
1
P
M
0
such that if

d P
M
0
and
quantier free formulas
l,m
are such that
N [=
l<l(),m<m()
l,m
[a
l
, b
m
,

d]
then for some a
l
: l < l() R
M
1
, b
m
: m < m() R
M
2
(both with no repetition) we have M [=
_
l<l(),m<m()
l,m
[a
l
, b
m
,

d]
and G(a
l
: l < l(), b
m
: m < m()) = d
1
.
(vii) for every quantier free rst order = (x, y, z
0
, . . . ) L((M))
and d
0
, . . . M
0
there is k < such that: for every
1
,
2
,
1
,
2

2 such that
1
k =
2
k,
1
k =
2
k we have
N [= [a
1
, b
1
, d
1
, . . . ] = [a
2
, b
2
, d
1
, . . . ].
moreover
(vii)
+
for every n < , rst order = (x
0
, . . . , x
n1
) L((M))
quantier free and d
2
, d
3
, . . . M
0
there is n
< such that:

for every k (n
, ),
0
,
1

2,
0
,
1

2 satisfying
0
k =
1
k and
0
k =
1
k
we have
N [= [a
0
, b
0
, d
2
, . . . ] [a
1
, b
1
, d
2
, . . . , ]
(viii) If is an existential sentence in (M) satised by N then is
satised by M.
B
. Like B omitting (vii)

+
, (viii).
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

Proof (B)
(A) Toward contradiction assume NPrrd
+(
1
,
2
; )
hence there is a model M
witnessing it, so [(M
)[ . So c Q
M
rkrc
1
(M
, c; ) <
+
(note that Prrd was dened by cases of rkrc(M, c, )).
Let
i
(x, y) : i < list the quantier free formulas in L
,
((M
)) with
free variables x, y. Let u
i
: i < list the nite subsets of . For c Q
M
and a
0
, . . . , a
()1
R
M
1
, b
0
, . . . , b
m()1
R
M
2
( a = a
0
, . . . , a
()1
),
b = b
0
, . . . , b
m()1
) and for notation let a
n+1+
= b
) let
c, a,
b
= rkrc
1
((a
0
, . . . , a
()1
, b
0
, . . . , b
m()1
), M
, c; ),
and k
c, a,
b
,
c, a,
b
be witnesses for rkrc
1
(( a,
b), M
, c; , ) ,
c, a,
b
+ 1. Let
i(c, a,
b) < be such that

c, a,
b
is a conjunction of formulas of the form
j
(x
l
, y
m
) for j u
i(c, a,
b)
. We dene M:
the universe is [M
[,
the function F
M
, relations R
M
1
, R
M
2
, Q
M
, P
M
, the pairing
function on ordinals,
R
n
=
_
(i, a, b) : a R
M
1
, b R
M
2
and
if [u
i
[ > n then M [=
j
[a, b]
where j is the n-th member of u
i
_
and let H
c
be one to one from rkrc(M
, c; , ) into
; we dene the function G:
G
c
( a,
b) = H(G
c,0
( a,
b), G
c,1
( a,
b), G
c,2
( a,
b)) = H(k
c, a,
b
,
c, a,
b
, i
c, a,
b
).
Now we can apply statement (B)-of 4.6 which we are assuming and get
M
0
, N, c
, a
, b
(for

2) satisfying clauses (i)(vii) there. So c
M
0
M
N, so
= rkrc(M
, c; ) satises
< , even <

+
. Clearly
rkrc
1
(N, c
; )
.
Consider all sequences
: < ()),
m
: m < m()), d
1
,

d,
,m
: < (), m < m()),
a
: < ()), b
m
: m < m())
_
which are as in clause (vi) of (B).
Among those tuples choose one with
= rkrc
1
(a
: < (), b
m
: m <
m(), N, c
; ) minimal. Let this rank not being
+ 1 be exemplied
by and k < () +m(), so by symmetry wlog k < ().
Choose k
< large enough for clause (vi) of (B) for all formulas (x, y)
appearing in
j
(x, y) : j u
i
c
, a,
b
where i
c
, a,
b
= G
c
,2
( a,
b) and
: < ()),
m
k
: m < m()) and with no repetition. Choose
()
2

k
such that
()
k
=
k
k
. Now apply clause (vi) of

(B)-to
: ()),
=
m
: m < m()),
_
m
(),m
(x
()
, x
m
), d
1
,

d
.
By the choice of , these clearly satisfy rkrc
1
(a
: < (), b
m
: m <
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

46 SAHARON SHELAH
m(), N, c
; ,

) < rkrc
1
(a
: < (), b
m
: m < m(), N, c
; ,

) =
, but by this we easily contradict the choice of
as minimal.
(A) (B)
As in the proof of 2.5, 2.1 (choosing a xed c).
(B) (B)
Trivial.
4.6
4.4
Discussion 4.7. 1. When applying 4.6 (1) (2), or 2.5 we can use M
which is an expansion of (H(), , <
) by Skolem functions, P
M
= ,
large enough, so for ,

2, N
,
def
= cl
N
(M
0
a
, a
) is a model of ZFC,
not well founded but with standard and more: its i : i < is a part of
the true . In [Sh 532] we will have as in 2.1 M
0
N, M
0
M, M
0
N
,
,
and if N
,
[= (, ), , are (essentially) in

2, M
0
a -Souslin
relation, then V [= (, ).
2. We can give a rank to subsets of
1
2
and have parallel theorems.
Claim 4.8. If

2

2 is
_
i<
i
, each
i
is -Souslin, contains a
(
1
,
2
)-rectangle, and Prrd
1
+
+1
(
1
,
2
; ) then contains a perfect rectan-
gle.
Proof Let
i
(, ) = ()((, , ) lim(T
i
)) where T
i
is a (2, 2, )-tree.
Let M be (H(), , <
, T
i
: i < ), h, ,
1
,
2
, R
1
, R
2
, Q, n)
n<
expanded
by Skolem functions, where Q
M
= and choosing
i

2 for i <
1
pairwise
distinct,
j

2 for j <
2
are pairwise distinct, R
M
1
=
i
: i <
1
,
R
M
2
=
j
: j <
2
and let , h be functions such that (
i
,
j
, (
i
,
j
))
lim(T
h(
i
,
j
)
). So let N, M
0
, c
, a
(for

2), b
(for

2) be as in clause
(B) of 4.6. Now M has elimination of quantiers, so there are quantier free
formulas
n
(x) saying (in M) that x R
& x(n) = 1, and H

n
(x, y) be such
that x R
M
1
& y R
M
2
((x, y))(n) = H
n
(x, y) = P
M
.
So for

2 we can dene
1

2 by
1
(n) = 1 N [=
1
n
(a
) and

2 by
2
(n) = 1 N [=
2
n
(b
) and we dene, for ,

2, a
sequence
,

>
(P
M
0
)
>
by
,(n)
= H
n
(a
, b
).
Now A =:
1
:

2, B =:
2
:

2 are perfect and for ,

2,
(
1
,
2
,
,
) lim(T) hence A B is a perfect rectangle inside prj lim(T).
4.8
4.6
Fact 4.9. (1) Assume that

2

2 is
1
-Souslin, <
1
, =
cf (S
(
1
), ). Then can be represented as
_
i<
i
, each
i
is
-Souslin.
(2) If is co--Souslin, then it can be represented as
_
i<
+
i
, each
i
is
-Borel (i.e. can be obtained from clopen sets by unions and inter-
sections of size ).
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

Proof 1) Easy.
2) Let be represented as prj lim(T), T a (2, 2, )-tree.
Now (, ) i T
(,)
= : for some n, ( n, n, ) T is well
founded which is equivalent to the existence of <
+
, f : T
(,)
such
that
1
<
2
T f(
1
) > f(
2
). For each <
+
, this property is
-Borel.
4.9
4.7
Conclusion 4.10. If is an
n
-Souslin subset of

2
2 containing a
(rd
1
(
n
), rd
1
(
n
))-rectangle then it contains a perfect rectangle. (Note:
n
can replaced by if cf (S
0
(), ) = e.g.
4
, by [Sh g, IX, 4].)
Conclusion 4.11. (1) For l < 6, Prrc
l
(
+
, (2
+
)
+
; ).
(2) If V = V
P
0
, P [= c.c.c. and V
0
[=GCH then Prrc
1
(
1
,
3
).
Proof 1) For a model M, letting (
1
,
2
) = (
+
, (2
+
)
+
) choose (for
m = 1, 2) a
m
i
a nonempty sequence from R
M
m
for i <
m
, a
m
i
: i <
m
pairwise disjoint. For (i, j)

1

2
let
i,j
= rkrc( a
1
i
, a
2
j
, M) with wit-
nesses k
M
( a
1
i
, a
2
j
),
M
( a
1
i
, a
2
j
) for rkrc
1
( a
1
i
, a
2
j
, M) >
i,j
. As
2
= (2
1
)
+
,
[(M)[ , for some B
2

2
, [B
2
[ =
2
and for every i <
1
the following
does not depend on j B
2
:
k
M
( a
1
i
, a
2
j
),
M
( a
1
i
, a
2
j
).
Similarly, there is B
1

1
, [B
1
[ =
1
(=
+
) such that for j = min(B
2
) the
values
k
M
( a
1
i
, a
2
j
),
M
( a
1
i
, a
2
j
)
are the same for all i B
1
; but they do not depend on j B
2
either. So for
(i, j) B
1
B
2
we have k
M
( a
1
i
, a
2
j
) = k
,
M
( a
1
i
, a
2
j
) =
. Let k
speak
on a
1
i
, for deniteness only. Choose distinct i
in B
1
(for <
+
). Wlog
rkrc
1
( a
1
i
0
, a
1
j
, M) rkrc
1
( a
1
i
, a
1
j
, M).
Now a
1
give contradiction to rkrc

l
( a
1
i
0
, a
2
j
, M) ,>
i
0
,j
.
2) This can be proved directly (or see [Sh 532] through preservation by
c.c.c. forcing notion of rank which are relations of rkrc similarly to 1.10.
Remark 4.12. 1) If T is an (, )-tree and AB lim(T), with A, B

uncountable (or just not scattered) then lim(T) contains a perfect rectangle.
Instead lim(T) (i.e. a closed set) we can use countable intersection of open
sets. The proof is just like 1.17.
2) We can dene a rank for (2, 2, )-trees measuring whether prj lim(T)
2 contains a perfect rectangle, and similarly for (, )-tree T measuring

whether lim(T) contains a perfect rectangle. We then have theorems parallel
to those of 1. See below and in [Sh 532].

The use of

below is just notational change.
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

48 SAHARON SHELAH
Denition 4.13. For T a (, )-tree we dene a function degrc
T
(rectangle
degree). Its domain is rcpr(T)
def
= (u
1
, u
2
) : for some l < , u
1
, u
2
are
nite nonempty subsets of
l
and g a function from u
1
u
2
to such that
(
0
,
1
) T for
i
u
i
. Its value is an ordinal degrc
T
(u
1
, u
2
) (or 1 or
). For this we dene the truth value of degrc
T
(u
1
, u
2
) by induction
on the ordinal .
case 1 = 1
degrc
T
(u
1
, u
2
) 1 i (u
1
, u
2
) is in rcpr(T)
case 2 limit
degrc
T
(u
1
, u
2
) i degrc
T
(u
1
, u
2
) for every <
case 3 = + 1
degrc
T
(u
1
, u
2
) i for k 1, 2,
u
k
we can nd
l() < , and functions h
0
, h
1
, such that :
Dom (h
i
) = u
1
u
2
, [ u
1
u
2
h
i
()
l()
]
such that h
0
(
) ,= h
1
(
), u
1k
h
0
() =
h
1
() and letting u
1
i
= Rang(h
0
u
i
) Rang(h
1
u
i
)
we have degrc
T
(u
1
0
, u
1
1
) .
Lastly dene: degrc
T
(u
0
, u
1
) = i
_
[degrc
T
(u
0
, u
1
) ] (
an ordinal or ).
Also degrc(T) = degrc
T
(), )).
Claim 4.14. Assume T is in an (, )-tree.
(1) For every (u
0
, u
1
) rcpr(T), degrc
T
(u
0
, u
1
) is an ordinal or or
1; if f is an automorphism of (
>
, )
then degrc
T
(u
0
, u
1
) = degrc
f(T)
(f(u
0
), f(u
1
)).
(2) degrc(T) = i there is a perfect rectangle in lim(T) i
degrc
T
(u
0
, u
1
)
1
for some (u
0
, u
1
) (so those statements are ab-
solute)
(3) If degrc(T) = () <
1
then lim(T) contains no
_
rc
()+1
(
0
), rc
()+1
(
0
)
_
-rectangle.
(4) If

T = T
n
: n < ) is a sequence of (, )-trees and degrc(T
n
)
(), and A =
n<
lim(T
n
) then
A contains no (rc
()+1
(
0
), rc
()+1
(
0
)-rectangle.
(5) In part 4. we can replace by any innite cardinal .
Proof 1), 2), 3) Left to the reader.
4) Follows from part 5).
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

5) Let = rc
()+1
(), and let

T = T
i
: i < ), degrc(T
i
) () and
A =
i<
lim(T
i
). Let
: <
: < A where <
,=
&
,=
, and for simplicity
: <
: < = .
We dene a model M, with universe H((2
0
)
+
) and relation: all those
denable in (H((2
1
)
+
), , <
, R
1
, R
2
, g,

T, i)
i
where R
M
1
=
: < ,
R
M
2
=
: < , g(
) = mini : (
) lim(T
i
).
Next we prove
() if w
[R
M
] for = 1, 2, then
rkrc(w
1
, w
2
), M) mindegrc
T
i
(
k : u
1
,
k : u
2
) :
u
1
w
1
, u
2
w
2
, u
1
,= , u
2
,= , k < and
k : u
1
) is with no repetitions, and
k : u
2
) is with no repetitions.
We prove () by induction on the left side of the inequality. Now by the
denitions we are done.
4.14
4.11
Claim 4.15. (1) For each () <
1
, there is an -sequence

T = T
n
:
n < ) of (, )-trees such that:
() for every < rc
()
(
0
), some c.c.c. forcing notion adds a
(, )-rectangle to
n<
lim(T
n
),
() degrc(T
n
) = ().
(2) If NPrrc
()
(
1
,
2
;
0
) then for some (, )-tree T:
some c.c.c. forcing notion adds a (
1
,
2
)-rectangle to lim(T)
such that () = degrc(
T)
(consequently, if Prrc
()
(
1
,
1
;
0
) then there is no (
1
,
1
)rectangle
in lim(T)).
(3) Moreover, we can have for the tree T of (4): if < rc
()
(
0
),
A, B disjoint subsets of

2
2 of cardinality , then some c.c.c.

forcing notion P, adds an automorphism f of (
>
, ) such that :
A lim
[f(T)], B lim
[f(T)] = (the lim
means closure under

nite changes).
Proof We dene the forcing for part 2. and delay the others to [Sh 532].
2) It is enough to do it for successor (), say () +1. It is like 1.13; we
will give the basic denition and the new points. Let M be a model as in
Denition 4.1, [R
M
l
[ =
l
, rkrc
1
(M) < () so rkrc
1
(M) (). We assume
that R
M
1
, R
M
2
are disjoint sets of ordinals. For non empty a
l
R
M
l
(l < 2;
no repeatition inside a
l
), let
M
( a
1
, a
2
), k
M
( a
1
, a
2
) Rang( a
1
) Rang( a
2
)
be witnesses to the value of rkrc
1
( a
1
, a
2
, M) which is < ().
We dene the forcing notion P:
a condition p consists of:
(1) u
p
= u
p
0
, u
p
1
) and u
p
= u
[p] is a nite subset of R

M
for < 2,
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

50 SAHARON SHELAH
(2) n
p
= n[p] < and
p
[p]
n[p]
for u
p
such that ,=
u
p
,=
p
,
(3) 0 < m
p
< and t
p
m

l

l
: l n
p
closed under initial
segments and such that the -maximal elements have the length n
p
and ) t
p
,
(4) the domain of f
p
is u = (u
1
, u
2
) : for some l = l(u
1
, u
2
) n
p
and m = m(u
1
, u
2
) < m
p
we have u
t
p

l
and if
1
u
1
,
2
u
2
,
p
1
l u
1
,
p
2
l u
2
then g
p
(
1
,
2
) = m and
f
p
( u) = (f
p
0
( u), f
p
1
( u), f
p
2
( u)) () (u
1
u
2
) L
1
,
((M)),
(5) a function g
p
: u
p
1
u
p
2
0, . . . , m
p
1, m
p
< ,
(6) t
p
m

(n
p
)
= (
p
,
p
) : u
p
0
, u
p
1
and m = g
p
(, )
(7) if , = u
l
, f
p
(u
1
, u
2
) = (
), l < l() n
p
, for i = 0, 1
a function e
i,
has the domain u
, [(l)( u
e
i,
() t
p

l()
)], [
/ u
& u
e
0,
() = e
1,
()], [
e
0,
(
) ,=
e
1,
(
)] and f
p
(e
0,1
(u
1
) e
1,1
(u
1
), e
0,2
(u
2
) e
1,2
(u
2
)) = (
)
(so well dened)
then
<
,
(8) if l n
p
, for = 1, 2 we have u
u
p
are non empty, the sequence
l : u
) is with no repetition, and u
=
p
l : u
and
f
p
(u
1
, u
2
) is well dened,
then
f
p
2
(u
1
, u
2
) =
M
(u
1
, u
2
),
f
p
1
(u
1
, u
2
) =
p
l
where is k
M
(u
1
, u
2
) and
f
p
0
(u
1
, u
2
, h) = rkrc(u
1
, u
2
, M),
(9) if (u
1
, u
2
) Dom (f
p
) then there are l, u
1
, u
2
as above,
(10) if (
1
,
2
) t
p
m
(
n
2
n
2) then for some
1
u
p
1
,
2
u
p
2
we have
g
p
(
1
,
2
) = m and
1

p
1
,
2

p
2
.
4.14
4.11
Remark 4.16. We can generalize 4.13, 4.14, 4.15 to Souslin relations.
References
[CK] Chen C. Chang and Jerome H. Keisler. Model Theory, volume 73 of Studies in
Logic and the Foundation of Math. North Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam,
1973.
[EHMR] Paul Erdos, Andras Hajnal, A. Mate, and Richard Rado. Combinatorial set
theory: Partition Relations for Cardinals, volume 106 of Studies in Logic and
the Foundation of Math. North Holland Publ. Co, Amsterdam, 1984.
[GcSh 491] Martin Gilchrist and Saharon Shelah. Identities on cardinals less than .
Journal of Symbolic Logic, 61:780787, 1996.
(
5
2
2
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
4
-
0
9
-
1
4

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
-
1
7

[HrSh 152] Leo Harrington and Saharon Shelah. Counting equivalence classes for co--
Souslin equivalence relations. In Logic Colloquium 80 (Prague, 1980), vol-
ume 108 of Stud. Logic Foundations Math, pages 147152. North-Holland,
Amsterdam-New York, 1982. eds. van Dalen, D., Lascar, D. and Smiley, T.J.
[Ke71] H. Jerome Keisler. Model theory for innitary logic. Logic with countable con-
junctions and nite quantiers, volume 62 of Studies in Logic and the Foun-
dations of Mathematics. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam-London,
1971.
[Mo] Michael Morley. Omitting classes of elements. In The theory of models, page
265. North Holland Publ. Co., 1965.
[Sh a] Saharon Shelah. Classication theory and the number of nonisomorphic mod-
els, volume 92 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics. North-
Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam-New York, xvi+544 pp, $62.25, 1978.
[Sh c] Saharon Shelah. Classication theory and the number of nonisomorphic mod-
els, volume 92 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics. North-
Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, xxxiv+705 pp, 1990.
[Sh e] Saharon Shelah. Nonstructure theory. Oxford University Press, in prepara-
tion.
[Sh g] Saharon Shelah. Cardinal Arithmetic, volume 29 of Oxford Logic Guides. Ox-
ford University Press, 1994.
[Sh 8] Saharon Shelah. Two cardinal compactness. Israel Journal of Mathematics,
9:193198, 1971 ,Notice ??18 (197).
[Sh 18] Saharon Shelah. On models with power-like orderings. Journal of Symbolic
Logic, 37:247267, 1972.
[Sh 37] Saharon Shelah. A two-cardinal theorem. Proceedings of the American Math-
ematical Society, 48:207213, 1975.
[Sh 49] Saharon Shelah. A two-cardinal theorem and a combinatorial theorem. Pro-
ceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 62:134136, 1976.
[Sh 202] Saharon Shelah. On co--Souslin relations. Israel Journal of Mathematics,
47:139153, 1984.
[Sh 262] Saharon Shelah. The number of pairwise non-elementarily-embeddable mod-
els. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 54:14311455, 1989.
[Sh 288] Saharon Shelah. Strong Partition Relations Below the Power Set: Consistency,
Was Sierpi nski Right, II? In Proceedings of the Conference on Set Theory and
its Applications in honor of A.Hajnal and V.T.Sos, Budapest, 1/91, volume 60
of Colloquia Mathematica Societatis Janos Bolyai. Sets, Graphs, and Numbers,
pages 637638. 1991.
[Sh 532] Saharon Shelah. More on co--Souslin equivalence relations. in preparation.
Institute of Mathematics, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem 91904, Israel,
and Rutgers University, Mathematics Department, New Brunswick, NJ 08854,
USA
E-mail address: shelah@math.huji.ac.il

Saharon Shelah - Borel Sets With Large Squares

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

Saharon Shelah - Borel Sets With Large Squares

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(

) are equivalent, and by this we get e.g.

], and also min{ : }, if < 2

() is the rst such that there is no model with universe

(). We then (3.7 3.11)

-square but no perfect

(; )); essentially it is not

(; ), giving equivalent formulations

are right ne now

n : < ())) and

are n-place functions from to (for < ) then for

(; < , ) mean that for every model M with the universe

(; < , ) be the negation. Instead of <

then for l = 0, 1, can be omitted). Then we can

for every function F, Dom (F) = , [Rang(F)[ < for

instead of clause (a).

(for l < 2) may increase when the universe of set theory

has relations only) then for w [A]

(< , ) increases () with , and decreases with .

(; ) by 1.2(1), together we nish. (By 2.1

(; ) for every < then NPr

; ) for < , i.e. rk

)[ . Without loss of generality (M

: < . Let M have

)[ . By 1.2 (3),(4), for w [

; ) < . But w [[M[]

([[; ). More elaborately, let M be a model with the universe

be a one-to-one function from onto . Dene

() : 0 < < ) is strictly increasing, and for a limit

(), and m, n < there is

(). For k = 0 this holds

() for < , and on

, together we are done.

(; ) then this holds in V

(; ) is of course preserved by any extension

(; < , ), here and in 1.3 1.8.

is a model with universe , vocabulary

then for some

) cannot be a witness for the demand for rk

, so for part (1)

hence the proof of 1.10(1).

be one to one. Let p

2 be a Borel or even analytic set and Pr

+(; ). (This applies to

2 is a Borel or even analytic set

. For , < let F(, )

, F(, )) lim(T). Dene a model M with the universe

(n, ) such that

T is easier. The claim

the usual order. Let functions

increasing for deniteness, =

2 into B so we can ignore it. We want to produce (in V

2) closed (in fact perfect), so it is lim(T

: < gives the desired square. So for

), and l < l() n

) (so is well dened) then

l = (see last clause of

(no repetitions) are non empty and h : u u m

are as there and f

) we are left with the case w

is a function from (, ) : , < to

are dense subsets of P and by clause 5 of stage