-
8/3/2019 Renling Jin and Saharon Shelah- Essential Kurepa Trees Versus Essential Jech-Kunen Trees
1/28
498
re
vision:1994-01-29
modified:2002-07-16
Essential Kurepa Trees Versus
Essential JechKunen Trees1
Renling Jin2 & Saharon Shelah3
AbstractBy an 1tree we mean a tree of size 1 and height 1. An 1tree iscalled a Kurepa tree if all its levels are countable and it has more than 1branches. An 1tree is called a JechKunen tree if it has branches forsome strictly between 1 and 2
1. A Kurepa tree is called an essentialKurepa tree if it contains no JechKunen subtrees. A JechKunen tree iscalled an essential JechKunen tree if it contains no Kurepa subtrees. Inthis paper we prove that (1) it is consistent with CH and 21 > 2 thatthere exist essential Kurepa trees and there are no essential JechKunentrees, (2) it is consistent with CH and 21 > 2 plus the existence of aKurepa tree with 21 branches that there exist essential JechKunen trees
and there are no essential Kurepa trees. In the second result we require theexistence of a Kurepa tree with 21 branches in order to avoid triviality.
0. Introduction
Our trees are always growing downward. We use T for the th level of T and use
T for
-
8/3/2019 Renling Jin and Saharon Shelah- Essential Kurepa Trees Versus Essential Jech-Kunen Trees
2/28
498
re
vision:1994-01-29
modified:2002-07-16
2
to be countable. An 1tree T is called a Kurepa tree if every level of T is countable
and T has more than 1 branches. An 1tree T is called a JechKunen tree ifT has
branches for some strictly between 1 and 21. We call a Kurepa tree thick if it
has 21 branches. Obviously, a Kurepa non-JechKunen tree must be thick, and a
JechKunen tree with every level countable is a Kurepa tree.
While Kurepa trees are better studied, JechKunen trees are relatively less popular.
It is K. Kunen [K1][Ju], who brought JechKunen trees to peoples attention by
proving that: under CH and 21 > 2, the existence of a compact Hausdorff space
with weight 1 and size strictly between 1 and 21 is equivalent to the existence
of a JechKunen tree. It is also easy to observe that: under CH and 21 > 2, the
existence of a (Dedekind) complete dense linear order with density 1 and size strictly
between 1 and 21 is also equivalent to the existence of a JechKunen tree. Above
results are interesting because those compact Hausdorff spaces and complete denselinear orders cannot exist if we replace 1 by , while the existence of a JechKunen
tree is undecidable. In this paper we would like to consider JechKunen trees only
under CH and 21 > 2 .
The consistency of a JechKunen tree was given in [Je1], in which T. Jech con-
structed a generic Kurepa tree with less than 21 branches in a model of CH and
21 > 2. By assuming the consistency of an inaccessible cardinal, K. Kunen proved
the consistency of nonexistence of JechKunen trees with CH and 21 > 2 (see [Ju,
Theorem 4.8]). In Kunens model there are also no Kurepa trees. Kunen proved
(see [Ju, Theorem 4.10]) also that the assumption of an inaccessible cardinal above
is necessary. The differences between Kurepa trees and JechKunen trees in terms
of the existence have been studied in [Ji1] [Ji2] [Ji3] [SJ1] [SJ2]. It was proved that
the consistency of an inaccessible cardinal implies (1) it is consistent with CH and
21 > 2 that there exist Kurepa trees but there are no JechKunen trees [SJ1], (2) it
is consistent with CH and 21 > 2 that there exist JechKunen trees but there are
no Kurepa trees [SJ2].
What could we say without the presence of large cardinals? In stead of killing
all Kurepa trees, which needs an inaccessible cardinal, while keeping some Jech
Kunen trees alive, or killing all JechKunen trees, which needs again an inaccessible
cardinal, while keeping some Kurepa trees alive, we can kill all Kurepa subtrees of a
JechKunen tree or kill all JechKunen subtrees of a Kurepa tree without using large
cardinals. Lets call a Kurepa tree T essential if T has no JechKunen subtrees, and
-
8/3/2019 Renling Jin and Saharon Shelah- Essential Kurepa Trees Versus Essential Jech-Kunen Trees
3/28
498
re
vision:1994-01-29
modified:2002-07-16
3
call a JechKunen tree T essential if T has no Kurepa subtrees. In [Ji1], the first
author proved that it is consistent with CH and 21 > 2 , together with Generalized
Martins Axiom and the existence of a thick Kurepa tree, that no essential Kurepa
trees and no essential JechKunen trees. We required the presence of thick Kurepa
trees in the model in order to avoid triviality. In [Ji3], the first author proved that it
is consistent with CH and 21 > 2 that there exist both essential Kurepa trees and
essential JechKunen trees. A weak version of this result was proved in [Ji1] with
help of an inaccessible cardinal. This paper could be considered as a continuation of
the research done in [Ji1] [Ji2] [Ji3] [SJ1] [SJ2].
In 1, we prove that it is consistent with CH and 21 > 2 that there exist essential
Kurepa trees but there are no essential JechKunen trees. In 2, we prove that it
is consistent with CH and 21 > 2 plus the existence of a thick Kurepa tree that
there exist essential JechKunen trees but there are no essential Kurepa trees. In 3,we simplify the proofs of two old results by using the forcing notion for producing a
generic essential JechKunen tree defined in 2.
We write a in the ground model for a name of an element a in the forcing extension.
If a is in the ground model, we usually write a itself as a canonical name of a. The
rest of the notation will be consistent with [K2] or [Je2].
1. Yes Essential Kurepa Trees, No Essential JechKunen Trees.
In this section we are going to construct a model of CH and 21 > 2 in which
there exist essential Kurepa trees and there are no essential JechKunen trees. Our
strategy to do this can be described as follows: first, we take a model of CH and
21 > 2 plus GMA (Generalized Martins Axiom) as our ground model, so that in
the ground model there are no essential JechKunen trees, then, we add a generic
Kurepa tree which has no JechKunen subtrees. The hard part is to prove that the
forcing adds no essential JechKunen trees.
Let P is a poset. A subset S of P is called linked if any two elements in S is
compatible in P. A poset P is called 1linked ifP is the union of 1 linked subsets
ofP. A subset S ofP is called centered if every finite subset of S has a lower bound
in P. A poset P is called countably compact if every countable centered subset ofP
has a lower bound in P. Now GMA is the following statement:
-
8/3/2019 Renling Jin and Saharon Shelah- Essential Kurepa Trees Versus Essential Jech-Kunen Trees
4/28
498
re
vision:1994-01-29
modified:2002-07-16
4
Suppose P is an 1linked and countably compact poset. For any
< 21, if D = {D : < } is a collection of dense subsets ofP,
then there exists a filter G ofP such that G D = for all < .
We choose the form ofGMA from [B], where a model ofCH and 21 > 2 plus GMA
can be found.
Let I be any index set. We write KI for a poset such that p is a condition in KI
iff p = (Ap, lp) where Ap is a countable subtree of ( 1, then TG will be a Kurepa tree with |I|
branches in M[G]. KI is the poset used in [Je1] for creating a generic Kurepa tree.
All those facts above can also be found in [Je1] or [T].
For convenience we sometimes view KI as an iterated forcing notion
KI F n(I I, TGI
, 1),
for any I I, where GI is a KIgeneric filter over the ground model and F n(I
I, TGI , 1), in M[GI], is the set of all functions from some countable subset of I I
to TGI with the order defined by letting p q iff dom(q) dom(p) and for any
i dom(q), p(i) q(i). The poset F n(J, TG, 1) is in fact the countable supportproduct of |J|copies of TG. We call two posets P and Q are forcing equivalent if
there is a poset R such that R can be densely embedded into both P and Q. The
posets KI and KI F n(I I, TGI
, 1) are forcing equivalent because the map
F : KI KI F n(I I, TGI , 1)
-
8/3/2019 Renling Jin and Saharon Shelah- Essential Kurepa Trees Versus Essential Jech-Kunen Trees
5/28
498
re
vision:1994-01-29
modified:2002-07-16
5
such that for every p KI,
F(p) = ((Ap, lp I), lp I I
)
is a dense embedding.
Lemma 1 (K. Kunen). LetM be a model of CH. Suppose that > 2 is a cardinal
in M andK M. Suppose G is aKgeneric filter over M and TG =pG
Ap.
Then inM[G] the tree TG is a Kurepa tree with branches andTG has no subtrees
with branches for some strictly between 1 and .
Proof: Assume that T is a subtree of TG with more than 1 branches in M[G].
We want to show that T has branches in M[G]. Since |T| = 1, then there exists
a subset I in M with cardinality 1 such that T M[GI], where
GI = {p G : dom(lp) I}.
Notice that TG = TGI (in fact TG = TG). Since in M[GI] the tree TGI has only |I|
branches, then the tree T can have at most 1 branches in M[GI]. Let B be a branch
of T in M[G] which is not in M[GI]. Since |B| = 1, there exists a subset J of I
with cardinality 1 such that B M[GI][HJ], where HJ is a F n(J, TGI , 1)generic
filter over M[GI]. Now I can be partitioned into many subsets of cardinality 1
and for every subset J (I J) of cardinality 1 the poset PJ = F n(J, TGI , 1)
is isomorphic to the poset PJ = F n(J, TGI , 1) through an obvious isomorphism
induced by a bijection between J and J. Let B be a PJname for B. Then (B)
is a PJname for a new branch of T. Forcing with PJ PJ will create two different
branches BHJ and ((B))HJ . Hence forcing with F n( I, TGI , 1) will produce at
least new branches of T.
Next lemma is a simple fact which will be used later.
Lemma 2. Suppose P is an 1closed poset of size 1 (hence CH must hold). Then
the tree ( 2 plus GMA and letP = (
-
8/3/2019 Renling Jin and Saharon Shelah- Essential Kurepa Trees Versus Essential Jech-Kunen Trees
6/28
498
re
vision:1994-01-29
modified:2002-07-16
6
Proof: Let T be a JechKunen tree in M[G] with branches for 1 < < = 21.
Without loss of generality we can assume that there is a regular cardinal such that
1 < and for every t T there are at least branches ofT passing through t in
M[G]. Again in M[G] let f : B(T) be a one to one function such that for every
t T and for every < there exists an such that t f(). Without loss
of generality let us assume that
1P (T is a JechKunen tree and f : B(T)
is a one to one function such that (t T)( )( )(t f())).
We want now to construct a poset R in M such that a filter H of R obtained by
applying GMA in M will give us a Pname for a Kurepa subtree of T in M[G].
Let r be a condition ofR iff r = (Ir,Pr, Ar, Sr) where Ir is a countable subtree of
(
-
8/3/2019 Renling Jin and Saharon Shelah- Essential Kurepa Trees Versus Essential Jech-Kunen Trees
7/28
498
re
vision:1994-01-29
modified:2002-07-16
7
Claim 3.2 The poset R is countably compact.
Proof of Claim 3.2: Suppose that R is a countable centered subset ofR. Notice
that for any finite R0 R and for any t
{Ir : r R
0} all p
rt s are same and all
Art are same for r R0 because R
0 has a common lower bound in R. We now want
to construct a condition r R such that r is a common lower bound ofR. Let
(1) Ir =
rR Ir,
(2) Pr = prt : t Ir where prt = p
rt for some r R
such that t Ir,
(3) Ar = Art : t Ir where A
rt = A
rt for some r R
such that t Ir,
(4) Sr = Srt : t Ir where Srt =
st Ss and Ss =
{Srs : (r R)(s Ir)}.
Notice that from the argument above all prt s, Art s and S
rt s are welldefined. We
need to show r R. It is obvious that r is a common lower bound of all elements in
R if r R.
It is easy to see that r satisfies (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) in the definition of acondition in R. Lets check (6).
Suppose t Ir and Srt . We want to show that there exists an a (Art )rt such
that prt a f(). Let r R be such that t Ir, let r R and s Ir be such
that s t and Sr
s . Since r and r are compatible, then there exists an r R
such that r r and r r. By the facts that
prt = prt = p
r
t , Art = A
rt = A
r
t , Sr
s Sr
s Sr
t
and r R we have now that there exists an a (Art )rt such that prt a f().
(Claim 3.2)
Next we are going to apply GMA in M to the poset R to construct a P-name for a
Kurepa subtree in M[G].
For each t )}.
For each < define
O = {r R : (s Ir)(t Ir)(s t and [, ) Srt = )}.
-
8/3/2019 Renling Jin and Saharon Shelah- Essential Kurepa Trees Versus Essential Jech-Kunen Trees
8/28
498
re
vision:1994-01-29
modified:2002-07-16
8
Claim 3.3 All those Dt, Ep, F and Os are dense in R.
Proof of Claim 3.3: Let r0 be an arbitrary element in R.
We show first that for every t
-
8/3/2019 Renling Jin and Saharon Shelah- Essential Kurepa Trees Versus Essential Jech-Kunen Trees
9/28
498
re
vision:1994-01-29
modified:2002-07-16
9
and s Ir0 be such that Sr0s . Then for any s Ir0 such that s
s t0 there
exists an as, (Ar0s )r0s such that p
r0s as, f(). Now let
a =
{as, : s s t0 and s Ir0}
and let
At0 = At0
{a : St0}.
It is easy to see that
(1) the height of At0 is a successor ordinal,
(2) for every s t0 the tree At0 is an endextension of Ar0s , i.e.
At0 ht(Ar0s ) = A
r0s ,
(3) for every St0 there exists an a in the top level of At0 such that
pt0 a f().
Now for every s Ir, if r Ir0, then let
prs = pr0s , A
rs = A
r0s and S
rs = S
r0s .
Otherwise let
prs = ps, Ars = At0 and S
rs = St0 .
It is easy to see that r Dt and r r0.
We show now that for every p P the set Ep is dense in R. We want to find an
r Ep such that r r0. If there exists an t Ir0 such that pr0t p, then r0 Ep.
Lets assume that for every t Ir0 pr0t p. Let
t0 =
{t Ir0 : p pr0t }.
Case 1: t0 Ir0 .
Let t = t0 0, i.e. t is a successor oft0. It is clear that t
Ir0. Let Ir = Ir0 {t}.
For every t Ir, if t = t, then let
prt = p, Art = A
r0t0
and Srt = Sr0t0
.
Otherwise let
prt = pr0t , A
rt = A
r0t and S
rt = S
r0t .
Then we have r Ep and r r0.
Case 2: t0 Ir0 .
-
8/3/2019 Renling Jin and Saharon Shelah- Essential Kurepa Trees Versus Essential Jech-Kunen Trees
10/28
498
re
vision:1994-01-29
modified:2002-07-16
10
Let Ir = Ir0 {t0}. We construct St0, At0
and then At0 exactly same as we did in
the proof of Case 2 about the denseness of the set Dt. For every t Ir, ift = t0, then
let
prt = p, Art = At0 and S
rt = St0.
Otherwise let
prt = pr0t , A
rt = A
r0t and S
rt = S
r0t .
Now r Ep and r r0. Notice also that Ep is open, i.e.
(p, p P)(p p p Ep p Ep).
We show next that for every 1 the set F is dense in R. We need to find an
r F such that r r0.
Let Ir Ir0 be such that Ir is a countable subtree of
-
8/3/2019 Renling Jin and Saharon Shelah- Essential Kurepa Trees Versus Essential Jech-Kunen Trees
11/28
498
re
vision:1994-01-29
modified:2002-07-16
11
By imitating the proof of the denseness of F we can find an r r0 such that
Ir Ir0 is an antichain and for every s Ir there exists an t Ir Ir0 such that
s t. For every t Ir Ir0 fix a t which is an successor of t (for example t = t 0).
Let
Ir = Ir {t : t Ir Ir0}.
For every t Ir let
prt = pr
t , Art = A
r
t and Srt = S
r
t .
For every t with t Ir Ir0 we want to construct prt , A
rt and S
rt . If there is a S
r
t
which is greater than , then let prt be any proper extension ofprt , let A
rt = A
r
t and let
Srt
= Sr
t . Otherwise, first, pick an a in the top level of Ar
t , then choose a
and a p pr
t such that p a f(). This can be done because
1P (t T)( )( )(t f())
is true in M. Now let
prt = p, Art = A
r
t and Srt = S
r
t {}.
It is easy to see that r O and r r0. (Claim 3.3)
By applying GMA in M we can find an Rfilter H such that HDt = , HF =
and H Ep O = for each t
-
8/3/2019 Renling Jin and Saharon Shelah- Essential Kurepa Trees Versus Essential Jech-Kunen Trees
12/28
498
re
vision:1994-01-29
modified:2002-07-16
12
Claim 3.4 For each t IH the set {pt : 1} is a maximal antichain below
pt in P.
Proof of Claim 3.4: Let and be two ordinals in 1. Since IH = . Then for
every t IH, s t, there is an t IH, t t
, such that
pt a f()
for some a (At)ht(At). This shows that
ps f() is a branch of TG,
which contradicts ps p and
p ( )(f() is not a branch of TG).
Hence TG has at least branches in M[G]. (Claim 3.5)
Now we conclude that M[G] |= T has a Kurepa subtree TG.
-
8/3/2019 Renling Jin and Saharon Shelah- Essential Kurepa Trees Versus Essential Jech-Kunen Trees
13/28
498
re
vision:1994-01-29
modified:2002-07-16
13
Theorem 4. It is consistent with CH and 21 > 2 that there exist essential Kurepa
trees and there are no essential JechKunen trees.
Proof: Let M be a model of CH and 21 = > 2 plus GMA. Let K M.
Suppose G is a Kgeneric filter over M. We are going to show that M[G] is amodel of CH and 21 > 2 in which there exist essential Kurepa trees and there are
no essential JechKunen trees.
It is easy to see that M[G] satisfies CH and 21 > 2 . Lemma 1 implies that
there exist essential Kurepa trees. We need only to show that in M[G] there are no
essential JechKunen trees.
Assume T is a JechKunen tree in M[G]. We need to show that T has a Kurepa
subtree in M[G]. Since |T| = 1, then there is an I of cardinality 1 in M such
that T M[GI], where
GI = {p G : dom(lp) I}.
We claim that
B(T) M[G] M[GI].
If the claim is true, then T is a JechKunen tree in M[GI]. Suppose that B
B(T) (M[G]M[GI]). Then there is a J I such that B M[GI][HJ] where
HJ is a F n(J, TGI , 1)generic filter over M[GI]. Let B be a F n(J, TGI , 1)name for
B. For any J (I J) such that |J| = |J| there is an isomorphism from
F n(J, TGI , 1) to F n(J
, TGI , 1) induced by a bijection between J and J
. Sincein M[G], the branches (B)HJ and ((B))HJ are different, then T has at least
branches. This contradicts that T is a JechKunen tree. Let T have branches in
M[GI]. Since KI has size 1 and is 1closed, then it contains a dense subset which
is isomorphic to P = ( 2 plus the existence of
a thick Kurepa tree, in which there are essential JechKunen trees and there are no
essential Kurepa trees. The arguments in this section are a sort of symmetric to
the arguments in the last section.
-
8/3/2019 Renling Jin and Saharon Shelah- Essential Kurepa Trees Versus Essential Jech-Kunen Trees
14/28
498
re
vision:1994-01-29
modified:2002-07-16
14
We first take a model M of CH and 21 = > 2 plus a thick Kurepa tree, where
2 plus GMA by a stage iterated forcing (see [B] for the model
and forcing). It has been proved in [Ji1] that in M[G] there are neither essential
JechKunen trees nor essential Kurepa trees. In stead of taking a model of GMA as
our ground model like we did in 1, we consider this stage iterated forcing as a part
of our construction because it will be needed later (see also [Ji1, Theorem 5]). Next
we force with a 1closed poset JS, in M[G] to create a generic essential JechKunen
tree, where S is a stationarycostationary subset of 1. Again, the hard part is to
prove that forcing with JS, over M[G] will not create any essential Kurepa trees.
Recall that for T, a tree, m(T) denote the set
{t T : (s T)(s T t s = t)}.
Let I be any index set and let S be a subset of 1. We define a poset JS,I such that
p is a condition in JS,I iff p = (Ap, lp) where
(1) Ap is a countable subtree of
-
8/3/2019 Renling Jin and Saharon Shelah- Essential Kurepa Trees Versus Essential Jech-Kunen Trees
15/28
498
re
vision:1994-01-29
modified:2002-07-16
15
Define a condition p JS,I such that
Ap = A {l(i) : i D} and lp = l.
We claim that p is a lower bound of the sequence {pn : n }. It suffices to show
that for any n and for any t Ap Apn either there exists an s m(Apn) such thats t or that < ht(Apn) and is a limit ordinal imply
=
{ht(s) : s Apn and s t} S.
Ift A, then there is an k > n such that t Apk . Hence either there is an s m(Apn)
such that s t or that < ht(Apn) and is a limit ordinal imply
=
{ht(s) : s Apn and s t} S
because pk pn. If t = l(i) for some i D, then because oft Apn , there is a k > nand there is a t Apk Apn such that t
t. Hence either there is an s m(Apn)
such that s t t or that < ht(Apn) and is a limit ordinal imply
=
{ht(s) : s Apn and s t} S
because pk pn.
Remark: Again, we may consider the poset JS,I as a twostep iterated forcing
JS,I F n(I I, TGI , 1), where I is a subset of I, TGI =
{Ap : p GI} for a
generic filter GI of JS,I and F n(I I, TGI , 1) is a countable support product of
|I I|copies of TGI . The map
p = (Ap, lp) ((Ap, lp I), lp I I
)
is a dense embedding from JS,I to JS,I F n(I I, TGI
, 1).
We now define Scompleteness of a tree T. Let be a limit ordinal and let T be
a tree with ht(T) = . Let S be a subset of . Then T is called Scomplete if for
every limit ordinal S and every B B(T ) the union
B T, i.e. everystrictly decreasing sequence of T has a greatest lower bound b in T if ht(b) S.
Lemma 6. LetM be a model ofCH and letJS,I M where S 1 and I is an index
set in M. Suppose G is aJS,Igeneric filter over M. Then the tree TG =pG Ap is
(1 S)complete in M[G].
-
8/3/2019 Renling Jin and Saharon Shelah- Essential Kurepa Trees Versus Essential Jech-Kunen Trees
16/28
498
re
vision:1994-01-29
modified:2002-07-16
16
Proof: Let 1 S be a limit ordinal and let B be a branch ofTG . We need
to show that t =
B TG. The set B is in M because JS,I is 1closed and B is
countable. Let p0 G be such that B Ap0. It is clear that
p0 B TG
.
Let
DB = {p JS,I : p p0 and t =
B Ap}.
Then DB is dense below p0 because for any p p0 the element p = (Ap {
B}, lp)
is a condition in JS,I and p p (here we uses the fact that 1S). Since p0 G,
then there is a p G DB. Hence t =
B TG.
Lemma 7. Let M be a model of CH. In M let U be a stationary subset of 1, let
T be an 1tree which is Ucomplete and let I be any index set. Let K M be any
1tree such that every level of K is countable. Suppose P = F n(I , T , 1) M and
G is aPgeneric filter over M. Then
B(K) M[G] M,
i.e. the forcing adds no new branches of K.
Proof: Suppose that B is a branch of K in M[G]M. Without loss of generality,
lets assume that
1P
B (B(K)M).By a standard argument (see [K2, p. 259]) the statements
(p P)( 1)(t 1 )(p
p)(p t B)
and
(p P)( 1)(t 1 )(p t B
( 1 )( 1 )(tj 1 )(t0 = t1)(pj p)(pj tj B))
for j = 0, 1, are true in M.
Lets work in M. Let be a large enough cardinal and let N be a countable
elementary submodel of (H(), ) such that K,P, B N. Let = N 1 U (such
N exists because U is stationary). In M we choose an increasing sequence of ordinals
{n : n } such that
n n = . Again in M we construct a set
{ps : s 2
-
8/3/2019 Renling Jin and Saharon Shelah- Essential Kurepa Trees Versus Essential Jech-Kunen Trees
17/28
498
re
vision:1994-01-29
modified:2002-07-16
17
and a set
{ts : s 2
-
8/3/2019 Renling Jin and Saharon Shelah- Essential Kurepa Trees Versus Essential Jech-Kunen Trees
18/28
498
re
vision:1994-01-29
modified:2002-07-16
18
It is easy to see that if f, f 2 are different, then tf and tf are different. Hence
K is uncountable, a contradiction.
Lemma 8. LetM be a model of CH and 21 = > 2 and letJS, M where is
a cardinal in M such that 1 < < and S is a stationary subset of 1. Supposethat G is a JS,generic filter over M. Then in M[G] the tree TG =
pG Ap is an
essential JechKunen tree with branches.
Proof: It is easy to see that TG is an 1 tree. We will divide the lemma into two
claims.
Claim 8.1 For every let
B() =
{lp() : p G and dom(lp)}.
Then
B(TG) = {B() : }
and for any two different and in the branches B() and B( ) are different.
Proof of Claim 8.1: Since in M, for every and for every 1 the set
D, = {p JS, : dom(lp) and ht(lp()) > }
is dense in JS,, then B() is a branch of TG. For any two different , the set
D, = {p JS, : , dom(lp) and lp() = lp(
)}
is also dense in JS,. So the branches B() and B() are different.
We now want to show that all branches of TG in M[G] are exactly those B()s.
Suppose that in M[G] the tree TG has a branch B which is not in the set
{B() : }.
Without loss of generality, let us assume that
1JS, B (B(TG) {B() : }).
Work in M. Let be a large enough cardinal and let N be an elementary submodel
of (H(), ) such that ,S, B, B = {B() : }, JS, N and if p N JS,, then
dom(lp) N. Let = N 1 S. In M we choose an increasing sequence of
countable ordinals {n : n } such that =
n . We now want to find a
decreasing sequence {pn : n } JS, N such that p0 = 1JS, and for each n
(1) ( dom(lpn))(t Apn+1)(pn+1 t B() B),
-
8/3/2019 Renling Jin and Saharon Shelah- Essential Kurepa Trees Versus Essential Jech-Kunen Trees
19/28
498
re
vision:1994-01-29
modified:2002-07-16
19
(2) ( dom(lpn+1))(t Apn+1 Apn)(ht(t) ht(Apn) and pn+1 t B),
(3) ht(Apn) n.
Assume we have found {p0, p1, . . . , pn}. We now work in N. Let
dom(lp) = {k : k }
which is an enumeration in N. Choose q0 = pn q1 such that for every k 1
there is a t Aqk such that
qk t B(k) B.
Assume, in N, that we have found {q0, q1, . . . , qk}. Since the sentence
qk (t TG)(t B(k) B)
is true in N (because it is true in H() and k N), then there is a t (
-
8/3/2019 Renling Jin and Saharon Shelah- Essential Kurepa Trees Versus Essential Jech-Kunen Trees
20/28
498
re
vision:1994-01-29
modified:2002-07-16
20
and
Ap = (
n
Apn) {a : dom(lp)}.
By the construction of pns we have
{ht(t) : t Ap and p t B} = S.
Pick any t Ap. If t = a for any dom(lp), then we can find a 1 such that
t Ap. Extend t to t delta1 . Define p such that
Ap = Ap {u : t u t}
and lp = lp. If t = a for some dom(lp), then simply extend t to b 1 (if
ht(a) = , then b = a). Define p such that
Ap = Ap {u : t u b}
and
lp = (lp (dom(lp) {})) {(, b)}.
It is easy to see that p p and ht(Ap) = + 1. Let
a =
{t Ap : p t B}.
It is also easy to see that for any q p the element a is not in Aq. Here we use the
fact S, is a limit ordinal and ht(Ap) > . Hence
p B TG B Ap.
This contradicts that
p B is a branch of TG.
(Claim 8.1)
Claim 8.2 TG has no Kurepa subtree in M[G].
Proof of Claim 8.2: Suppose that TG has a Kurepa subtree K in M[G]. Since
|K| = 1, then there is an I such that |I| 1 and K M[GI], where
GI = {p G : dom(lp) I}.
Notice that GI is a JS,Igeneric filter over M. Since JS, is forcing equivalent to
JS,I F n( I, TGI , 1) and TGI is (1S)complete in M[GI] (notice that S is still
stationarycostationary), then by Lemma 7, the set of all branches of K in M[GI] is
same as the set of all branches of K in M[G]. Hence K is a Kurepa tree in M[GI].
But by Claim 8.1, the tree TG = TGI has only |I| branches in M[GI] and K is a
-
8/3/2019 Renling Jin and Saharon Shelah- Essential Kurepa Trees Versus Essential Jech-Kunen Trees
21/28
498
re
vision:1994-01-29
modified:2002-07-16
21
subtree of TG. Hence K has at most 1 branches in M[GI]. This contradicts that K
is a Kurepa tree in M[GI].
Lemma 9. Let M be a model of CH and 21 = > 2 with
-
8/3/2019 Renling Jin and Saharon Shelah- Essential Kurepa Trees Versus Essential Jech-Kunen Trees
22/28
498
re
vision:1994-01-29
modified:2002-07-16
22
For any r, r R, let r r iff Ir Ir, and for every t Ir
pr
t = prt , A
r
t = Art and S
r
t Srt .
Claim 9.1 The poset R is 1linked.
Proof of Claim 9.1: Same as the proof of Claim 3.1. (Claim 9.1)
Claim 9.2 The poset R is countably compact.
Proof of Claim 9.2: Same as the proof of Claim 3.2. (Claim 9.2)
For each t )}.
For each < 2 define
O = {r R : (s Ir)(t Ir)(s t and [, 2) S
rt = )}.
Claim 9.3 All those Dt, E
p, F
and O
s are dense in R.
Proof of Claim 9.3: Same as the proof of Claim 3.3. (Claim 9.3)
Note that |R| = 2. Also note that M[G][H] = M[H][G] because P is 1
closed. By the construction ofP there exists an < such that those dense sets
Dt, Ep, F and O are in M[G], the tree T is in M[G][H] or T is in M[G] and
1P Q = R,
i.e. R is the poset used in th step forcing in the stage iteration.
LetH be a Qgeneric filter over
M[G] such that
G
H =
G+1.
Since Dt is dense for every t
-
8/3/2019 Renling Jin and Saharon Shelah- Essential Kurepa Trees Versus Essential Jech-Kunen Trees
23/28
498
re
vision:1994-01-29
modified:2002-07-16
23
and let
AH =
{Ar : r H}.
Notice that for any r, r H and for any t Ir Ir we have prt = pr
t and Art = A
r
t
because r and r are compatible. So now for every t IH we can define pt = prt for
some r H and define At = Art for some r H. It is clear that the map t pt is
an isomorphism between IH and PH , i.e. for any s, t IH we have s t iffpt ps.
It is also clear that the map t At is a homomorphism from IH to AH , i.e. for
any s, t IH we have s t implies (At)ht(As) = As.
Claim 9.4 For each t IH the set {pt : 1} is a maximal antichain below
pt in P.
Proof of Claim 9.4: Same as the proof of Claim 3.4.
The next claim is something different from Lemma 3. Let TH = {At : pt H}
where H is the Pgeneric filter over M[G].
Claim 9.5 TH is a JechKunen subtree of T in M[G][H].
Proof of Claim 9.5: By the proof of Claim 3.5, we know that TH is a subtree ofT
with more than 1 branches. It suffices to show that TH has exactly 2 branches.
Suppose that TH has more than 2 branches then there is a branch B in M[G][H]
which is not in the range of the function f. Without loss of generality, lets assume
that1P ( 2)(B = f()).
Let B be a Pname for B and let
DB = {r R : (s Ir)(t Ir)(s t and ht(B A
rt ) < ht(A
rt ))}.
Since M[G][H] = M[G][H][G] and P is 1closed in M[G][H], then B is in
M[G][H] because any 1closed forcing will not add any new branches to the Kurepa
tree T. We assume also that the Pname B is in M[G]. Hence the set DB is in M[G].
Let
EB = {prt PH : r DB H and p
rt ht(B A
rt ) < ht(A
rt )}.
Subclaim 9.5.1 DB is dense in R.
Proof of Claim 9.5.1: Let r0 be any element in R. It suffices to show that there
is an element r in DB such that r r0. Lets first extend r0 to r such that for every
-
8/3/2019 Renling Jin and Saharon Shelah- Essential Kurepa Trees Versus Essential Jech-Kunen Trees
24/28
498
re
vision:1994-01-29
modified:2002-07-16
24
s Ir0 there is a t m(Ir) such that s t. Let t m(Ir). For every Sr
t let
a (Ar
t )rtsuch that pr
t a f(). Since we have
pr
t (u T)(u f() B)
and P is 1closed, then there is a u a in 2 plus the existence of a thick
Kurepa tree that there exist essential JechKunen trees and there are no essential
Kurepa trees.
-
8/3/2019 Renling Jin and Saharon Shelah- Essential Kurepa Trees Versus Essential Jech-Kunen Trees
25/28
498
re
vision:1994-01-29
modified:2002-07-16
25
Proof: Let M be a model of CH and 21 = > 2 such that in M, 2 + GMA.
In M[G] let be a cardinal such that 2 < and let S be a stationary
costationary subset of 1. Suppose that H is a JS,generic filter over M[G]. Then
by Lemma 8, the tree TH =
{Ap : p H} is an essential JechKunen tree in
M[G][H]. It is obvious that the thick Kurepa trees in M are still thick Kurepa
trees in M[G][H]. We need only to show that there are no essential Kurepa trees in
M[G][H].
Suppose that K is an essential Kurepa tree in M[G][H]. Since |K| = 1, then
there exists an I such that |I| = 1 and K M[G][HI], where
HI = H JS,I = {p H : dom(lp) I}.
Since JS, is forcing equivalent to
JS,I F n( I, THI , 1))
and by Lemma 6, the tree THI is (1 S)complete, then by Lemma 7, there are nonew branches of K in M[G][H] which are not in M[G][HI]. So K is still a Kurepa
tree in M[G][HI]. But the poset JS,I is 1closed and has size 1. So by Lemma 2,
the poset JS,I is forcing equivalent to ( 2 in which there exist
essential JechKunen trees and there are no essential Kurepa tree without requiring
the existence of a thick Kurepa tree. Let M be a model ofGCH. First, increase 21 to
3 by an 1closed Cohen forcing. Then, force with the poset JS,2. In the resulting
model CH and 21 = 3 hold and there is an essential JechKunen tree. It can be
-
8/3/2019 Renling Jin and Saharon Shelah- Essential Kurepa Trees Versus Essential Jech-Kunen Trees
26/28
498
re
vision:1994-01-29
modified:2002-07-16
26
shown easily that there are no thick Kurepa trees in the resulting model. Hence it is
trivially true that there are no essential Kurepa trees in that model.
3. New Proofs of Two Old Results.
In [SJ1], we proved that, assuming the consistency of an inaccessible cardinal, it is
consistent with CH and 21 > 2 that there exist JechKunen trees and there are no
Kurepa trees. The model for that is constructed by taking Kunens model for non
existence of JechKunen trees as our ground model and then forcing with a countable
support product of2 copies of a carefully pruned tree T. The way that the tree T
is pruned guarantees that (1) the forcing is distributive, (2) forcing does not add
any Kurepa trees, (3) T becomes a JechKunen tree in the resulting model. In [Ji3],
this pruning technique was also used to construct a model ofCH and 21 > 2 in which
there exist essential Kurepa trees and there exist essential JechKunen trees. Here
we realize that the JechKunen tree obtained by forcing with that carefully pruned
tree in [SJ1] and [Ji3] can be replaced by a generic JechKunen tree obtained by
forcing with JS,, the poset defined in 2. So now we can reprove those two results in
[SJ1] and [Ji3] without going through a long and tedious construction of a carefully
pruned tree.
Let Lv(, 1), the countable support Levy collapsing order, denote a poset defined
by letting p Lv(, 1) iff p is a function from some countable subset of 1 to 2
such that p(, ) for every (, ) dom(p) and orderd by reverse inclusion.Let F n(, 2, 1), the countable support Cohen forcing, denote a poset defined by
letting p F n(, 2, 1) iff p is a function from some countable subset of to 2 and
ordered by reverse inclusion.
Theorem 11. Let and be two cardinals in a model M such that is strongly
inaccessible and > is regular inM. LetS M be a stationarycostationary subset
of 1 and letJS, M be the poset defined in 2. LetLv(, 1) and F n(, 2, 1) be in
M. Suppose that G H F is a (Lv(, 1) F n(, 2, 1) JS,)generic filter over
M. ThenM[G][H][F] |= (CH+ 21 > 2 + there exist JechKunen trees + there are
no Kurepa trees ).
Proof: It is easy to see that
M[G][H][F] |= (CH + 21 = > = 2).
-
8/3/2019 Renling Jin and Saharon Shelah- Essential Kurepa Trees Versus Essential Jech-Kunen Trees
27/28
498
re
vision:1994-01-29
modified:2002-07-16
27
It is also easy to see that 1 and all cardinals greater than or equal to in M are
preserved. By Lemma 8, the tree TF =pF Ap is a JechKunen tree. We now
need only to show that there are no Kurepa trees in M[G][H][F]. Suppose that K
is a Kurepa tree in M[G][H][F]. Since |K| = 1, then there exists an I with
|I| = 1 such that K M[G][H][FI] where FI = F JS,I (recall that the poset JS,
is forcing equivalent to JS,I F n( I, TFI , 1)). By Lemma 7, the tree K is still a
Kurepa tree in M[G][H][FI]. Since the poset JS,I is 1closed and has size 1, then
by Lemma 2, JS,I is forcing equivalent to F n(1, 2, 1). By a standard argument we
know that F n(, 2, 1) F n(1, 2, 1) is isomorphic to F n(, 2, 1). Hence there is a
F n(, 2, 1)generic filter H over M[G] such that M[G][H][FI] = M[G][H
]. But it
is easy to see that in M[G][H] there are neither Kurepa trees nor JechKunen trees.
So we have a contradiction that K is a Kurepa tree in M[G][H].
Theorem 12. Let M be a model of GCH. Let and be two regular cardinals in
M such that > > 1 and let S be a stationary subset of 1 in M. In M letK
and JS, be two posets defined in 1 and 2, respectively. Suppose that G H is a
K JS,generic filter over M. Then
M[G H] |= (CH + 21 = > > 1 +
there exist essential Kurepa trees + there exist essential JechKunen trees ).
Proof: It is easy to see that M[G H] is a model of CH and 21
= > > 1.Since K and JS, are 1closed, then K is absolute with respect to M, and M[H] and
JS, is absolute with respect to M and M[G]. By Lemma 8, the tree TH =pHAp
is an essential JechKunen tree in M[G][H]. By Lemma 1, the tree TG =pG Ap is
an essential Kurepa tree because M[G][H] = M[H][G].
References
[B] J. Baumgartner, Iterated forcing, pp. 159 in Surveys in Set Theory, ed. by A. R. D.Mathias, Cambridge University Press, 1983.
[Je1] T. Jech, Trees, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 36 (1971), pp. 114.[Je2] , Set Theory, Academic Press, New York, 1978.[Ji1] R. Jin, Some independence results related to the Kurepa tree, Notre Dame Journal of Formal
Logic, 32, No 3 (1991), pp. 448457.[Ji2] , A model in which every Kurepa tree is thick, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic,
33, No 1 (1992), pp. 120125.[Ji3] , The differences between Kurepa trees and JechKunen trees, Archive For Mathe-
matical Logic, to appear.
-
8/3/2019 Renling Jin and Saharon Shelah- Essential Kurepa Trees Versus Essential Jech-Kunen Trees
28/28
re
vision:1994-01-29
modified:2002-07-16
28
[Ju] I. Juhasz, Cardinal functions II, pp. 63110 in Handbook of Set Theoretic Topology,ed. by K. Kunen and J. E. Vaughan, NorthHolland, Amsterdam, 1984.
[K1] K. Kunen, On the cardinality of compact spaces, Notices of the American MathematicalSociety, 22 (1975), 212.
[K2] , Set Theory, an introduction to independence proofs, NorthHolland, Amsterdam,1980.
[SJ1] S. Shelah and R. Jin, A model in which there are JechKunen trees but there are no Kurepatrees, Israel Journal of Mathematics, to appear.
[SJ2] , Planting Kurepa trees and killing JechKunen trees in a model by using one inac-cessible cardinal, Fundamenta Mathematicae, to appear.
[T] S. Todorcevic, Trees and linearly ordered sets, pp. 235293 in Handbook of Set TheoreticTopology, ed. by K. Kunen and J. E. Vaughan, NorthHolland, Amsterdam, 1984.
Department of Mathematics
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720
e-mail: [email protected]
Institute of Mathematics,
The Hebrew University,
Jerusalem, Israel.
Department of Mathematics,
Rutgers University,
New Brunswick, NJ, 08903, USA.
Sorting: The first address is the first authors and the last two are the second
authors.