Corrected Iteration

ollows from 1.18 below.

traightforward. For t \in L^+_{\mathbf m}, by induction on {\rm dp}_{\mathbf m}(t), define {\mathbb P}_t and prove the relevant parts of (a),(b),(c),(d),(e).

ust define {\mathbf B}'(\bar{\eta}) as {\mathbf B}(\bar{\eta}) if {\mathbf B}(\bar{\eta}) \in {\mathbb Q}_{\bar{\theta}} and the trivial condition (\langle \rangle, 0_{\lambda}) otherwise.

e prove all parts simultaneously by induction on {\rm dp}_{\mathbf m}.

1) For clause (\alpha) for each \mathbf m, using the induction hypothesis and 1.13(e), the problem is only when {\rm dp}_{\mathbf m}(t) = {\rm dp}_{\mathbf m}-1 and use part (5A) proved below (and 1.13(c)(\zeta )). For clause (\beta) use also part (6A) for {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m(<t)} proved below in 1.13(c)(\zeta ). In both cases the proof of the parts quoted does not rely on part (1), (but may depend on the induction hypothesis).

2) Recall that \lambda is strongly inaccessible. If p_\varepsilon \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m} for \varepsilon < \lambda^+ then we can find by the \Delta-system lemma a set u and unbounded S \subseteq \lambda^+ such that \varepsilon \ne \zeta \in S \Rightarrow {\rm dom}(p_\varepsilon) \cap {\rm dom}(p_\zeta) = u and \langle {\rm tr}(p_\varepsilon(\beta)):\beta \in u \rangle is the same for all \varepsilon \in S. Now p_\varepsilon,p_\zeta has a common upper bound for every \varepsilon,\zeta \in u, i.e. we define r by:

1. \bullet {\rm dom}(r) = {\rm dom}(p_\varepsilon) \cup {\rm dom}(p_\zeta),

2. \bullet r(s) = p_\varepsilon(s) is s \in {\rm dom}(p_\varepsilon) \backslash {\rm dom}(p_\zeta),

3. \bullet r(s) = p_\zeta(s) if s \in {\rm dom}(p_\zeta) \backslash {\rm dom}(p_\varepsilon),

4. \bullet if s \in {\rm dom}(p_\varepsilon) \cap {\rm dom}(p_\zeta) then   r(s) = ({\rm tr}(p_\varepsilon(s)), \max\{\let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3f\cr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_{p_\varepsilon(s)},\let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3f\cr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_{p_\zeta(s)}\}).

3) By (4), the second sentence + (5B) below which use only the induction hypothesis.

3A) We define p by:

1. \bullet {\rm dom}(p) = \cup\{{\rm dom}(p_i):i < \delta\}

2. \bullet {\rm tr}(p(s)) = \cup\{{\rm tr}(p_i(s)):i < \delta satisfies s \in {\rm dom}(p_i)\}

3. \bullet \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3f\cr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_{p(s)} = \sup\{\let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3f\cr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_{p_i(s)}:i < \delta satisfies s \in {\rm dom}(p_i)\}.

Note that here having to really start with \langle \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3f\cr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_{p_i(s),\iota}:\iota < \iota(p_i(s))\rangle and get \langle \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3f\cr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_{p(s),\iota}:\iota < \iota(p(s))\rangle, see 1.10(c)(\gamma) causes no problem, similarly in the proof of part (2) - just take the union.

3B) Obvious by the definition of {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m} and 1.13(c), recalling that \mathbb{P} _{\mathbf{m} (< s)} is (< \lambda )-strategically complete, that is part (4) and (5B).

3C) The proof is by induction on \rm{dp}_{{\mathbf m}} and is splitted in cases:

Case 1: {\rm dp}_{\mathbf m} is zero:

So L_ \mathbf{m} is empty.

Case 2: {\rm dp}_{\mathbf m} = \alpha +1:

Hence L_2 = \{s \in L:{\rm dp}_{\mathbf m}(s)=\alpha\} is non-empty and letting L_1 = L_{\mathbf m} \backslash L_2; clearly s \in L_1 \Rightarrow {\rm dp}_{\mathbf m}(s) < \alpha, so {\rm dp}_{\mathbf m {\restriction} L_1} \le \alpha. Let \zeta_* = \sup(\{\ell g({\rm tr}(p(s))+1:s \in {\rm dom}(p)\} \cup \{\zeta +1\}). Hence applying parts (3) and (5B) to \mathbf m {\restriction} L_1, i.e. the induction hypothesis we can find q_1 such that {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m {\restriction} L_1} \models ``p {\restriction} L_1 \le q_1" and [s \in {\rm dom}(q_1) \Rightarrow \ell g({\rm tr}(q_1(s)) > \zeta_*] and q_1 forces a value to \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3f\cr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_{p(s)} {\restriction} \zeta_*, call it \rho_{s} for s \in {\rm dom}(p) \cap L_2.

Define q \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m} by {\rm dom}(q) = {\rm dom}(q_1) \cup (L_2 \cap {\rm dom}(p)), q {\restriction} L_1 = q_1 and if s \in L_2 \cap {\rm dom}(p) then q(s) = (\rho_s,\rho_s \char 94 (\let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3f\cr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_{p(s)} {\restriction} [\zeta_*,\lambda)), fully \iota(q(s)) = \iota(p(s)), \bar{s}_{q(s), \iota} = \bar{s}_{p(s), \iota} and {\mathbf B}_{q(s), \iota} is like {\mathbf B}_{p(s), \iota} only restricting the range to (\Pi_{{\varepsilon} < \lambda} \theta_{{\varepsilon}})^{{\rm{tr}(q(s))}}

Easily q is as required.

Case 3: \delta = {\rm dp}_{\mathbf m} is a limit ordinal of cofinality \ge \lambda:

So \alpha = \sup\{{\rm dp}_{\mathbf m}(s)+1:s \in {\rm dom}(p)\} is an ordinal < \delta and let L = \{s \in L_{\mathbf m}:{\rm dp}_{\mathbf m}(s) < \alpha\}, so L is an initial segment of L_{\mathbf m} and applying the induction hypothesis to \mathbf m {\restriction} L,p we get q as required in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m {\restriction} L} hence in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}.

Case 4: \delta = {\rm dp}_{\mathbf m} is a limit ordinal of cofinality < \lambda:

Let \langle \alpha_i:i < {\rm cf}(\delta)\rangle be increasing continuous with limit \delta, let \alpha_{{\rm cf}(\delta)} = \delta and for i \le {\rm cf}(\delta) let L_i := \{s \in L_{\mathbf m}:{\rm dp}_{\mathbf m}(s) < 1 + \alpha_i\}.

Now we choose (p_i,\zeta_i) by induction on i < {\rm cf}(\delta) such that:

1. (a) p_i \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m {\restriction} L_i},

2. (b) {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m {\restriction} L_i} \models ``(p {\restriction} L_i) \le p_i and p_j \le p_i" when j<i,

3. (c) if i is a limit ordinal then p_i is gotten from \langle p_j:j<i\rangle as in part (4),

4. (d) if s \in {\rm dom}(p_i) then \ell g({\rm tr}(p_i(s))) \ge \zeta_i,

5. (e) \langle \zeta_j:j < i\rangle is an increasing continuous sequence of ordinals < \lambda and if i is non-limit then \zeta_i is > \zeta and \ge |{\rm dom}(p)| and > \sup(\{\ell g({\rm tr}(p_j(s))):j<i and s \in p_j\} \cup \{\ell g({\rm tr}(p(s))):s \in {\rm dom}(p)\}).

Using 1.13 and the induction hypothesis this is easy.

4) For transparency assume \Vdash ``\let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3y\cr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth} \in \prod\limits_{\varepsilon < \lambda} \theta_\varepsilon" or just \in {}^\lambda \mathbf V. By parts (4) + (5B), i.e. part (3), for each \zeta < \lambda the following subset of {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m,t} is open and dense: {\mathscr I}_\zeta = \{p \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m,t}: for some \nu \in \prod\limits_{\varepsilon < \zeta} \theta_\varepsilon or \in {}^\zeta \mathbf V (from \mathbf V!) we have p \Vdash_{{\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m,t}} ``\let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3y\cr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth} {\restriction} \zeta = \nu"\}. Clearly there is a maximal antichain \langle p_{\zeta,\varepsilon}:\varepsilon < \xi_\zeta\rangle of {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m,t} included in {\mathscr I}_\zeta and by part (2) without loss of generality   \xi_\zeta \le \lambda, the rest should be clear. In the general case we can code \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3y\cr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth} as a subset of \lambda, etc.

4A) This too should be clear as {\mathbb P}_t satisfies the \lambda^+-c.c.

5) Look at the definitions.

6) Using parts (4) and (5B) and the definition this is easy.

7) Suppose toward contradiction that \mathbf G_1 \ne \mathbf G_2 are generic subsets of {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m} but s \in L_{\mathbf m} \Rightarrow \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3\cr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_s[\mathbf G_1] = \eta_s = \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3\cr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_s[\mathbf G_2].

Let p_1 \in \mathbf G_1 \backslash \mathbf G_2 hence there is p_2 \in \mathbf G_2 such that p_2 \Vdash_{{\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}} ``p_1 \notin \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3G\cr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_2" hence p_1,p_2 are incompatible. Let L_* = \{s \in L_{\mathbf m}:\mathbf G_1 \cap {\mathbb P}_{\le s} = \mathbf G_2 \cap {\mathbb P}_{\le s}\} so L_* is an initial segment of L_{\mathbf m}. If L_* = L_{\mathbf m} we can easily get a contradiction, so L_* \ne L_{\mathbf m} and let r \in L_{\mathbf m} \backslash L_* be such that L_{ {\mathbf m}(< r)} \subseteq L_*. Now as in part (8) we can get a contradiction having found a common upper bound to p_1,p_2.

Alternatively use part (6).

8), 9), 10) Easy too.

asy.

1) Obvious.

2) Why is L_{\mathbf m_\delta} := \cup\{L_{\mathbf m_\alpha}: \alpha < \delta\} well founded? Toward contradiction assume \bar t = \langle t_n:n < \omega\rangle is <_{L_{\mathbf m_\delta}}-decreasing. We can replace \bar t by any infinite sub-sequence. So without loss of generality:

1. (*) either (\alpha) or (\beta), where:

   1. (\alpha) for every n < m there is s_{n,m} \in M_{\mathbf m_0} such that t_m <_{L_\delta} s_{n,m} <_{L_\delta} t_n,

   2. (\beta) for no n < m this holds.

If clause (\alpha) holds, then \langle s_{n,n+1}:n < \omega\rangle is a <_{M_{{\mathbf m}_0}}-decreasing sequence contradiction. If clause (\beta) holds, then for n < \omega, let \alpha(n) = \min\{\alpha:t_n \in L_{\mathbf m_\alpha}\}; without loss of generality   the sequence \langle \alpha ( n ) : n < \omega \rangle is monotonically increasing or constant; so as M_{\mathbf m_{\alpha(n)}} = M_{\mathbf m_0}, by 1.19(1)(e) we get t_n/E_{\mathbf m_{\alpha(n+1)}} = t_{n+1}/E_{\mathbf m_{\alpha(n+1)}} (recalling part (1)), hence t_{n+1} \in L_{\mathbf m_{\alpha(n)}} hence \alpha(n+1) \le \alpha(n). So \{t_n:n < \omega\} \subseteq M_{{\mathbf m}_{\alpha(0)}} hence as L_{\mathbf m_{\alpha(n)}} is well founded we are done.

The proofs of (2A) and (2B) are easy too.

Finally for (3), (4) and (5), see the proof of \boxplus_\alpha in the proof of 1.26.

ote that by clause (e)(\gamma) of Definition 1.5 and clause (e) of Definition 1.19(1):

1. (*)_1 assume (s_1 \in L_{\mathbf m_1} \backslash L_{\mathbf m_0}) \wedge (s_3 \in L_{\mathbf m_2} \backslash L_{\mathbf m_0}) and s_2 \in L_{\mathbf m_0};

   1. \bullet if (s_1 <_{\mathbf m_1} s_2) \wedge (s_2 <_{\mathbf m_2} s_3), then   for some s'_1,s'_2 \in M_{\mathbf m_0} we have s_{1}' \in (s / E_{{\mathbf m}}') \cap M_{{\mathbf m}}, s_{3}' \in t / E_{{\mathbf m}}' \cap M_{{\mathbf m}}, s_1 < _{\mathbf m_1} s'_1 \le_{\mathbf m_0} s_2 and s_2 \le _{\mathbf m_1} s'_2 < _{\mathbf m_2} s_3,

   2. \bullet if s_3 <_{\mathbf m_2} s_2 \wedge s_2 <_{\mathbf m_1} s_1, then   for some s'_1,s'_2 \in M_{\mathbf m_0} we have s_{1}' \in (s / E_{{\mathbf m}}') \cap M_{{\mathbf m}}, s_{3}' \in (t / E_{{\mathbf m}}') \cap M_{{\mathbf m}}, s_3 < _{\mathbf m_2} s'_2 \le _{\mathbf m_1} s_2 and s_2 \le _{\mathbf m_2} s'_1 <_{\mathbf m_1} s_1.

We now define \mathbf m by:

1. (*)_2

   1. (a)

      1. (\alpha) t \in L_{\mathbf m} iff t \in L_{\mathbf m_1} \vee t \in L_{\mathbf m_2},

      2. (\beta) M_{\mathbf m} = M_{\mathbf m_0} and M_{{\mathbf m}}^{\rm{fat}} = M_{{\mathbf m}_{0}}^{\rm{fat}}, M_{{\mathbf m}}^{\rm{lean}} = M_{{\mathbf m}_{0}}^{\rm{lean}}.

   2. (b) s <_{\mathbf m} t iff   one of the following occurs:

      1. (\alpha) s <_{\mathbf m_1} t,

      2. (\beta) s <_{\mathbf m_2} t,

      3. (\gamma) s \in L_{\mathbf m_1} \backslash L_{\mathbf m_0} and t \in L_{\mathbf m_2} \backslash L_{\mathbf m_0} and for some r \in M_{\mathbf m_0}, s \le_{\mathbf m_1} r \wedge r \le_{\mathbf m_2} t,

      4. (\delta) s \in L_{\mathbf m_2} \backslash L_{\mathbf m_0} and t \in L_{\mathbf m_1} \backslash L_{\mathbf m_0} and for some r \in M_{\mathbf m_0},s \le_{\mathbf m_2} r \wedge r \le_{\mathbf m_1} t.

   3. (c) u_{\mathbf m,t} is:

      1. (\alpha) u_{\mathbf m_1,t} \cup u_{\mathbf m_2,t} if(but recall that for {\ell} \in \{ 1,2\} we have: t \in L_{\mathbf m_0} \backslash M_{\mathbf m_0} \Rightarrow u_{\mathbf m_\ell,t} = u_{\mathbf m_0,t} \wedge {\mathscr P}_{\mathbf m_\ell,t} = {\mathscr P}_{\mathbf m_0,t}.) t \in L_{\mathbf m_0},

      2. (\beta) u_{\mathbf m_1,t} if t \in L_{\mathbf m_1} \backslash L_{\mathbf m_0}.

      3. (\gamma) u_{\mathbf m_2,t} if t \in L_{\mathbf m_2} \backslash L_{\mathbf m_0}.

   4. (d) E'_{\mathbf m} = E'_{\mathbf m_1} \cup E'_{\mathbf m_2}.

   5. (e) {\mathscr P}_{{\mathbf m}, t} is:

      1. (\alpha) {\mathscr P}_{{\mathbf m}_{1}, t} if t \in L_{{\mathbf m}_{1}} \setminus L_{{\mathbf m}_{0}},

      2. (\beta) {\mathscr P}_{{\mathbf m}_{2}, t}, if t \in L_{{\mathbf m}_{2}} \setminus L_{{\mathbf m}_{0}},

      3. (\gamma) {\mathscr P}_{{\mathbf m}_{1}, t} \cup {\mathscr P}_{{\mathbf m}_{1}, t}, if t \in M_{{\mathbf m}_{0}}^{\rm{lean}},

      4. (\delta) \{ u_{1} \cup u_{2}: u_{1} \in {\mathscr P}_{{\mathbf m}_{1}, t}, u_{2} \in {\mathscr P}_{{\mathbf m}_{2}, t} \} if t \in M_{{\mathbf m}_{0}}^{\rm{fat}},

      5. ({\varepsilon}) {\mathscr P}_{{\mathbf m}_{1}, t} \cup {\mathscr P}_{{\mathbf m}_{1}, t} if t \in {\mathbf M}_{{\mathbf m}}^{\rm{non}}.

Clearly,

1. \odot \mathbf m \in \mathbf M and \mathbf m_1 \le_{\mathbf M} \mathbf m and \mathbf m_2 \le_{\mathbf M} \mathbf m.

So we are done proving the existence of \mathbf{m}, the uniqueness is obvious.

) Easy but we shall elaborate.

Let p, q \in \mathbb{P} _ \mathbf{m}. If p \le q then clearly {\rm dom}(p) \subseteq {\rm dom}(q) and q \Vdash _{\mathbb{P} _ \mathbf{m}} {\text{`}\text{`}} p \in \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3 G \cr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}", that is q is essentially above p.

For the other direction assume {\rm dom}(p) \subseteq {\rm dom}(q) but \mathbb{P} _ \mathbf{m} \models \neg ( p \le q ) and we shall prove that q is not essentially above p, this suffices. By the present assumption there is s \in {\rm dom}(p) (hence s \in {\rm dom}(q)) but q {\restriction} L_{ {\mathbf m} (< s)} \not\Vdash {\text{`}\text{`}} p(s) \le q(s)".

Hence there is q_{1} \in {\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m} (< s)} above q {\restriction} L_{{\mathbf m}(<s)} such that q_{1} \Vdash_{{\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m}}(< s)}“\neg (p(s) \leq q(s))”. By the properties of {\mathbb Q}_{\bar{\theta}} (and {\mathbb Q}_{s}', 1.16(6)) there are q_{2}, q' such that:

• (*)_{1}

  1. (a) q' \in {\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m}}, {\rm dom}(q') = \{ s\},

  2. (b) q_{1} \leq q_{2} in {\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m} (< s)},

  3. (c) q_{2} \Vdash_{{\mathbb P}{{\mathbf m}(s)}}“q(s) \leq q'(s) but q'(s), p(s) are incompatible”

Lastly, choose the function q_{3} by:

• (*)_{2}

  1. (a) {\rm dom}(q_{3}) = {\rm dom}(q_{2}) \cup {\rm dom}(q),

  2. (b) q_{3} {\restriction} {\rm dom}(q_{2}) = q_{2},

  3. (c) q_{3}(s) = q'(s),

  4. (d) q_{2}(t) = q(t) if t \in {\rm dom}(p) \setminus ({\rm dom}(q_{2}) \cup \{ s \}).

Clearly q_{3} \in {\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m}}, q \leq q_{3} and q_{3} \Vdash_{{\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m}}}“p \notin \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3Q\cr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_{{\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m}}}” so we are done.

2) (a) implies (c):

By the choice of q^+ we have q \le q^+, so clause (a) implies that q is essentially above p hence by part (1) in \mathbb{P} _\mathbf{m} we have p \le q^+ so clearly clause (c) holds.

(c) implies (a):

Easy.

(c) iff (b):

Obvious recalling the properties of {\mathbb Q}_{\bar\theta}.

s {\rm dp}_{\mathbf m}(L_1) < \infty it suffices to prove by induction on the ordinal \gamma that:

1. \boxplus_\gamma if \langle L_\ell:\ell \le 3\rangle satisfies (*) of the claim and {\rm dp}_{\mathbf m}(L_1) \le \gamma then:

   1. \bullet_1 we have p_1 \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_1) and p_1 \le q_1 \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_1) \Rightarrow p_3,q_1 are compatible in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_3) when:

      1. (a) p_3 \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_3),

      2. (b) p_0 \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_0),

      3. (c) if p_0 \le q_0 \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_0) then   p_2 := p_3 {\restriction} L_2 and q_0 are compatible in P_{\mathbf m}(L_2),

      4. (d) p_1 = p_0 \cup (p_3 {\restriction} (L_1 \backslash L_0)).

   2. \bullet_2 {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_1) \lessdot {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_3).

Why this holds? Assume we have arrived to \gamma.

Clause \bullet_1: (notice that here we do not use the induction hypothesis): Recalling clause (f) of the assumption, indeed, p_1 = p_0 \cup (p_3 {\restriction} (L_1 \backslash L_0)) \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_1) by the definitions (clauses \bullet_1 (a)), (b), (d) of \boxplus_\gamma), e.g. why {\rm fsupp}(p_1) \subseteq L_1? Note that if s \in {\rm dom}(p_3 {\restriction} (L_1 \backslash L_0) then s \in L_1 \backslash L_0 \subseteq L_1 and \{r_{p_3(s)}(\zeta):\zeta < \xi_{p(s)}\} is included in L_3 because p \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_3) and in L_{<s} by Definition 1.10. As s \in L_1 \backslash L_0 by (*)(e) we have s \notin M_{\mathbf m} hence by Definition 1.10 we have \{r_{p_3(s)}(\zeta):\zeta < \xi_{p(s)}\} \subseteq u_s \subseteq s/E_{\mathbf m}. By (*)(f) we have (s/E_{\mathbf m}) \cap L_{\mathbf m <t} \subseteq L_1 hence together \{r_{p_3(s)}(\zeta):\zeta < \xi_{p(s)}\} \subseteq L_1, and we are done proving {\rm fsupp}(p_1) \subseteq L_1.

So the first statement in \boxplus_\gamma \bullet_{1} holds; what about the second? Toward contradiction assume q_1 contradicts the desired conclusion. Then by 1.16(6) there are s and p^+_3 such that:

1. \oplus (a) \quad s \in {\rm dom}(q_1) \cap {\rm dom}(p_3),

2. {{}} (b) \quad p^+_3 \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_{\mathbf m,<s}),

3. {{}} (c) \quad p^+_3 is above p_3 {\restriction} L_{\mathbf m,<s} and above q_1 {\restriction} L_{\mathbf m,<s},

4. {{}} (d) \quad p^+_3 \Vdash_{{\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m,<s}} ``p_3(s),q_1(s) \in {\mathbb Q}_{\bar\theta} are incompatible (in {\mathbb Q}_{\bar\theta})".

So s \in {\rm dom}(q_1) \subseteq L_1 and as L_2 is an initial segment of L_{\mathbf m} and clause (c) of \bullet _2 (of \boxplus_\gamma), clearly s \in L_0 is impossible, so s \in {\rm dom}(q_1) \backslash L_0 \subseteq L_1 \backslash L_0. As {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m} \models ``p_1 \le q_1", necessarily q_1 {\restriction} L_{\mathbf m,<s} \Vdash_{{\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m,<s}} ``p_1(s) \le q_1(s)", so as q_1 {\restriction} L_{\mathbf m,<s} \le p^+_3 {\restriction} L_{\mathbf m,<s} (by \oplus(c)), also p^+_3 {\restriction} L_{\mathbf m,<s} \Vdash_{{\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m,<s}} ``p_1(s) \le q_1(s)". As s \notin L_0 clearly p_1(s) = p_3(s) by clauses \boxplus_\gamma \bullet _2 (b), (d), so p^+_3 {\restriction} L_{\mathbf m,<s} \Vdash_{{\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m,<s}} ``p_3(s) \le q_1(s)" and again easy contradiction to \oplus(d).

Clause \bullet_2:

Clearly {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_1) \subseteq {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_3) as quasi orders. Next we shall prove {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_1) \le_{{\rm ic}} {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_3), so assume q_1,q_2 \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_1) has a common upper bound p_3 in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_3), and we should find one in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_1). Hence (see 1.10(e)(\beta)) we have {\rm dom}(q_1) \cup {\rm dom}(q_2) \subseteq {\rm dom}(p_3).

As p_3 {\restriction} L_2 \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_2) by (*)(a) and we are assuming {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_0) \lessdot {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_2), see (*)(d) there is p_0 \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_0) such that p_0 \le q \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_0) \Rightarrow q,p_3 {\restriction} L_2 are compatible in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_2) and let p_1 = p_0 \cup (p_3 {\restriction} (L_1 \backslash L_0)). By \boxplus_\gamma(b), which we have proved noting that clauses (a)-(d) of \boxplus_\gamma \bullet _2 holds, we know that p_1 \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_1) and p_1 \le p'_1 \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_1) \Rightarrow p_3,p'_1 are compatible in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_3). It suffices to prove that p_1 is a common upper bound of q_1,q_2.

We could have replaced p_0 by p'_0 whenever p_0 \le p'_0 \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_0). So without loss of generality   for \ell=1,2 we have {\rm dom}(q_\ell) \cap L_0 \subseteq {\rm dom}(p_0) hence \subseteq {\rm dom}(p_1), also recall {\rm dom}(q_\ell) \backslash L_0 \subseteq {\rm dom}(p_3) \cap L_1 \backslash L_0 and by the choice of p_1 we have {\rm dom}(p_3) \cap L_1 \backslash L_0 \subseteq {\rm dom}(p_1) \backslash L_0.

So recalling {\rm dom}(q_\ell) \subseteq L_1 together {\rm dom}(q_\ell) \subseteq {\rm dom}(p_1).

As we are assuming {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_0) \lessdot {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_2) without loss of generality   p_0 is above(Why? It suffices to prove that there is p'_0 \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_0) above p_0 and above q_\ell {\restriction} L_0. So toward contradiction assume this fails hence there is p^+_0 \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_0) above p_0 incompatible with q_\ell {\restriction} L_0. By the choice of p_0 we know that p^+_0,(p_3 {\restriction} L_2) are compatible, so let p^+_3 \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_2) be a common upper bound. Now L_2 is an initial segment of L_{\mathbf m} by (*)(a) and p_3 is above q_\ell hence p_3 {\restriction} L_2 is above q_\ell {\restriction} L_2 and as q_\ell \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_1),L_0 = L_1 \cap L_2 we have q_\ell {\restriction} L_2 = q_\ell {\restriction} L_0,p_3 {\restriction} L_2 is above q_\ell {\restriction} L_0 but p^+_3 is above p_3 {\restriction} L_2 hence p^+_3 is above q_\ell {\restriction} L_2. Also p^+_3 is above p^+_0 which forces q_\ell {\restriction} L_0 \notin \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3G\cr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_{{\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_0)}, equivalently q_\ell {\restriction} L_0 \notin \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3G\cr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_{{\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_2)}, contradiction.) q_\ell {\restriction} L_0. If toward contradiction we assume that \ell \in \{1,2\} and q_\ell \nleq p_1 then for some s \in {\rm dom}(q_\ell) we have (q_\ell {\restriction} L_{\mathbf m,<s}) \le (p_1 {\restriction} L_{\mathbf m,<s}) but p_1 {\restriction} L_{\mathbf m,<s} \nVdash_{{\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_{\mathbf m,<s})} ``q_\ell(s) \le p_1(s)". Clearly, s \in L_0 is impossible so s \in L_1 \backslash L_0 hence s \notin M_{\mathbf m} by clause (*)(e).

Let L'_0 = L_0,L'_1 = L_0 \cup (L_1 \cap L_{\mathbf m,<s}),L'_2 = L_2,L'_3 = L_3 so (L'_0,L'_1,L'_2,L'_3) satisfies the assumptions of the present claim and {\rm dp}_{\mathbf m}(L'_1) < \gamma, hence by the induction hypothesis, {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L'_1) \lessdot {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L'_3).

Recall s \in L_1 \backslash L_0 hence (s/E_{\mathbf m}) \cap L_{\mathbf m,<s} \subseteq L_1 by clause (f) of the assumption of the claim, so {\rm fsupp}(p_1 {\restriction} \{s\}) \backslash \{s\},{\rm fsupp}(q_\ell {\restriction} \{s\}) \backslash \{s\} are \subseteq L'_1 hence p_1(s),q_\ell(s) are {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L'_1)-names. So recalling p_1 {\restriction} L_{\mathbf m,<s} \nVdash_{{\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_{\mathbf m,<s})} ``q_\ell(s) \le p_1(s)" and {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L'_1) \lessdot {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L'_3) and L_{\mathbf m,<s} \subseteq L_3 = L'_3 we have p_1 {\restriction} L'_1 \nVdash_{{\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L'_1)} ``q_\ell(s) \le p_1(s)". Hence there is p^+_1 such that p_1 {\restriction} L'_1 \le p^+_1 \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L'_1) such that p^+_1 \Vdash_{{\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L'_1)} ``q_\ell(s) \nleq p_1(s)" so recalling {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L'_1) \lessdot {\mathbb P}(L'_3) we have p^+_1 \Vdash_{{\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L'_3)} ``q_\ell(s) \nleq p_1(s)".

But by \boxplus_{\gamma_1} \bullet _2 for \gamma_1 = {\rm dp}_{\mathbf m}(L'_1), we know that p^+_1 and p_3 {\restriction} L_{\mathbf m,<s} are compatible (in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}, equivalently {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_{\mathbf m,<s})) so let p^+_3 \in {\mathbb P}_\mathbf{m} (L_{\mathbf m,<s}) be a common upper bound of p^+_1,p_3 {\restriction} L_{\mathbf m,<s}. Now p^+_3 \Vdash_{{\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L'_3)} ``q_\ell(s) \le p_1(s)" because: q_\ell \le p_3 by the choice of p_3; p_1(s) = p_3(s) by the choice of p_1 and p_3 \le p^+_3, see above. However, p^+_3 \Vdash_{{\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L'_3)} ``q_\ell(s) \nleq p_1(s)" as p^+_1 \le p^+_3, see above.

So we have proved {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_1) \le_{{\rm ic}} {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_3).

To finish proving clause \boxplus_\gamma \bullet_{1}, that is, {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_1) \lessdot {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_3) note that clause \boxplus_\gamma \bullet_{1} does this as for every p_3 \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_3) there is p_0 as in \boxplus_\gamma \bullet _1 (b), (c) by clause (d) of the claim’s assumption and let p_1 be as defined in \boxplus_\gamma \bullet_{1} (d).

or \ell \in \{1,2\} let \bar L_\ell = \langle L_{\ell,i}:i < 4 \rangle be defined by:

1. \oplus_1 (a) \quad L_{\ell,0} = L_0,

2. {{}} (b) \quad L_{\ell,1} = L_1,

3. {{}} (c) \quad L_{\ell,2} = \{s \in L_{\mathbf m_\ell}:s \le_{\mathbf m_\ell} t for some t \in L_0\},

4. {{}} (d) \quad L_{\ell,3} = L_{\mathbf m_\ell}.

Clearly,

1. \oplus_2 (a) \quad (\mathbf m_\ell,\bar L_\ell) satisfies the assumptions of 1.24 hence,

2. {{}} (b) \quad {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_\ell}(L_{\ell,1}) \lessdot {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_\ell}(L_{\ell,3}) which means {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_\ell}(L_1) \lessdot {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_\ell} for \ell=1,2.

Why \oplus_2? Clearly it suffices to prove clause (a), so we just have to check clauses (*)(a)-(f) of 1.24.

Clause (*)(a):

By \oplus_1(d),L_{\ell,3} = L_{\mathbf m_\ell} hence is an initial segment of L_{\mathbf m_\ell} and by \oplus_1(c),L_{\ell,2} is an initial segment of L_{\mathbf m_\ell} which is L_{\ell,3} so L_{\ell,2} \subseteq L_{\ell,3}.

Clause (*)(b):

For the first statement, L_{\ell,1} \subseteq L_{\ell,3} is trivial by \oplus_1(d) + \oplus_1(b) + \boxdot(a),(b). The second statement says L_{\ell,0} = L_{\ell,1} \cap L_{\ell,2}. Now L_{\ell,0} \subseteq L_{\ell,1} by \boxdot(a),(b) of the claim and \oplus_1(a),(b). Also L_{\ell,0} \subseteq L_{\ell,2} holds by \oplus_1(c) (and \oplus_1(a)). Together L_{\ell,0} \subseteq L_{\ell,1} \cap L_{\ell,2}; to prove the inverse inclusion assume s \in L_{\ell,2} \cap L_{\ell,1}, so as s \in L_{\ell,2} by \oplus_1(c) there is t \in L_0 such that s \le_{\mathbf m_\ell} t. But s \in L_{\ell,1} = L_1 so by \boxdot(c) of the claim we have s \in L_0 = L_{\ell,0} as promised.

Clause (*)(c):

Holds by condition \boxdot(c) of the claim.

Clause (*)(d):

By clause \boxdot(f) of the claim and \oplus_1(c),L_{\ell,2} is an initial segment of L_{\mathbf m_\ell}, hence by 1.13(e) we have {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_\ell}(L_{\ell,2}) \lessdot {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_\ell} = {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_\ell}(L_{\ell,3}). By \boxdot(e) \, {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_0}(L_{\ell,0}) \lessdot {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_\ell}; so together as L_{\ell,0} \subseteq L_{\ell,2}, we have {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_\ell}(L_0) \lessdot {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_\ell}(L_{\ell,2}).

Clauses (*)(e),(f):

Hold by condition \boxdot(f) of the claim.

So \oplus_2 holds indeed. So now we deal with the other half.

Proof of: {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_1}(L_1) = {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_2}(L_1).

Let \langle s_\alpha:\alpha < \alpha(*)\rangle list L_1 \backslash L_0 such that s_\alpha \le_{L_{\mathbf m}} s_\beta \Rightarrow \alpha \le \beta. This is possible as L_{\mathbf m_2} is well founded.

Now,

1. \oplus_3 for \ell=1,2 and \alpha \le \alpha(*) let \bar L^*_{\ell,\alpha} = \langle L^*_{\ell,\alpha,i}:i < 4\rangle be (but we can omit \ell) where:

   1. (a) L^*_{\ell,\alpha,0} = L_0,

   2. (b) L^*_{\ell,\alpha,1} = L_0 \cup \{s_\beta:\beta < \alpha\},

   3. (c) L^*_{\ell,\alpha,2} = \{s \in L_{\mathbf m_\ell}:s \le_{\mathbf m_\ell} t for some t \in L_0\},

   4. (d) L^*_{\ell,\alpha,3} = L_{\mathbf m_\ell},

2. \oplus_4

   1. (a) (\bar{\mathbf m}_\ell,\bar L^*_{\ell,\alpha}) satisfies the assumption of 1.24,

   2. (b) {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_\ell}(L^*_{\ell,\alpha,1}) \lessdot {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_\ell}(L^*_{\ell,\alpha,3}).

[Why? Note the \mathbf m_\ell,\langle L^*_{\ell,\alpha,i}:i < 4\rangle satisfies the assumptions of 1.24, hence \oplus_2 holds for \mathbf m_\ell,\bar L_{\ell,\alpha} for \alpha \le \alpha(*).]

Now by induction on \alpha \le \alpha(*) we prove that:

1. \boxplus_\alpha {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_1}(L^*_{\alpha,1}) = {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_2}(L^*_{\alpha,1}).

Case 1: \alpha = 0:

As L^*_{1,\alpha,1} = L_0 = L^*_{2,\alpha,1}, clause \boxdot(d) of the assumption gives \boxplus_\alpha as promised.

Case 2: \alpha a limit ordinal:

Easy by the definition of the iteration. That is, first, if {\rm dom}(p) \in [L_{\mathbf{m} _2}]^{\le \lambda } then we know p \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_1}(L^*_{\alpha,1}) \Leftrightarrow \bigwedge\limits_{\beta < \alpha} [p {\restriction} L^*_{\beta,1} \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_1}(L^*_{\beta,1})] \Leftrightarrow \bigwedge\limits_{\beta < \alpha} [p {\restriction} L^*_{\beta,1} \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_2}(L^*_{\beta,1})] \Leftrightarrow p \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_2}(L^*_{\alpha,1}); second, for p,q \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_1}(L^*_{\alpha,1}) by the definition of the order and the induction hypothesis, {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_1}(L^*_{\alpha,1}) \models ``p \le q" iff   \bigwedge\limits_{\beta < \alpha} [{\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_1}(L^*_{\beta,1}) \models ``p {\restriction} L^*_{\beta,1} \le q {\restriction} L^*_{\beta,1}"] iff   \bigwedge\limits_{\beta < \alpha} [{\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_2}(L^*_{\beta,1}) \models ``p {\restriction} L^*_{\beta,1} \le q {\restriction} L^*_{\beta,1}"] iff   {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_2}(L^*_{\alpha,1}) \models ``p \le q".

So \boxplus_\alpha holds.

Case 3: \alpha = \beta +1:

Clearly,

1. (*)_1 p \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_1}(L^*_{\alpha,1}) \Leftrightarrow p \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_2}(L^*_{\alpha,1}).

Next,

1. (*)_2 assume p,q \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_1}(L^*_{\alpha,1}) and we shall prove that {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_1}(L^*_{\alpha,1}) \models ``p \le q" implies {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_2}(L^*_{\alpha,1}) \models ``p \le q".

[Why? If s_\beta \notin {\rm dom}(p) this is obvious by the induction hypothesis. Hence we can assume s_\beta \in {\rm dom}(p), so as we are assuming {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_1}(L^*_{\alpha,1}) \models ``p \le q", clearly s_\beta \in {\rm dom}(q) hence s_\beta \in {\rm dom}(p) \cap {\rm dom}(q). First, similarly {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_1}(L^*_{\beta,1}) \models ``(p {\restriction} L^*_{\beta,1}) \le (q {\restriction} L^*_{\beta,1})" and (q {\restriction} L^*_{\beta,1}) {\Vdash_{{\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m}_{1} (<s_{\beta})}}} ``p(s_\beta) \le_{{\mathbb Q}_{\bar\theta}} q(s_\beta)" by the definition of {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_1}(L^*_{\beta,1}). Second, as q {\restriction} L^*_{\beta,1} \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_1}(L^*_{\beta,1}) = {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_2}(L^*_{\beta,1}) and {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_1}(L^*_{\beta,1}) \lessdot {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_1 } by \oplus_4 and {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_2}(L^*_{\beta,1}) \lessdot {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_2} by \oplus_4 and p(s_\beta), q(s_\beta) are {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_1}(L^*_{\beta,1})-names (as {\rm fsupp}(p(s_\beta),{\rm fsupp}(q(s_\beta)) \subseteq L^*_{\beta,1}) necessarily we have q {\restriction} L^*_{\beta,1} \Vdash_{{\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_2}} ``p(s_\beta) \le_{{\mathbb Q}_{\bar\theta}} q(s_\beta)". Third, as {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_1}(L^*_{\beta,1}) \models ``p {\restriction} L^*_{\beta,1} \le q {\restriction} L^*_{\beta,1}", by the induction hypothesis {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_2} (L^*_{\beta,1}) \models ``p {\restriction} L^*_{\beta,1} \le q {\restriction} L^*_{\beta,1}. Fourth, by the last two sentence and the definition of the order in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_2} we have {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_2} \models ``p \le q" so the conclusion of (*)_2 holds also in this case.

Note that if s_\beta \in {\rm dom}(p) \backslash {\rm dom}(q) then p \nleq q, so we are done proving (*)_2.]

1. (*)_3 if p,q \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_1} (L^*_{\alpha,1}) and {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_2}(L^*_{\alpha,1}) \models ``p \le q" then {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_1}(L^*_{\alpha,1}) \models ``p \le q".

[Why? Similar to the proof of (*)_2.]

By (*)_1,(*)_2,(*)_3 clearly \boxplus_\alpha holds. So we carried the induction so \boxplus_\alpha holds for every \alpha \le \alpha(*) and for \alpha = \alpha(*) we get {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_1}(L_1) = {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_2}(L_2). Together with \oplus_2(b) in the beginning of the proof we are done.

) Easy.

2) First, concerning (a) \Rightarrow (b), note that for \gamma large enough we have L^{{\rm dp}}_{{\mathbf m}_\ell,\gamma} = L_{{\mathbf m}_\ell} hence {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_\ell}(L^{{\rm dp}}_{\mathbf m_\ell,\gamma}) = {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_\ell}, so clear. Second, assume (b), note that L^{{\rm dp}}_{\mathbf m_\ell,\gamma} is an initial segment of L_{\mathbf m_\ell} hence {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_\ell}(L^{{\rm dp}}_{\mathbf m_\ell,\gamma}) \lessdot {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_\ell} for \ell=1,2 by 1.13(c), hence we have {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_1}(L^{{\rm dp}}_{\mathbf m_1,\gamma}) \lessdot {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_1} \lessdot {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_2}, but \lessdot is transitive, hence {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_1}(L^{{\rm dp}}_{\mathbf m_1,\gamma}) \lessdot {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_2}. Also {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_2}(L^{{\rm dp}}_{\mathbf m_2,\gamma}) \lessdot {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_2} and L^{{\rm dp}}_{\mathbf m_1,\gamma} \subseteq L^{{\rm dp}}_{\mathbf m_2,\gamma} by the definition. Hence by the definition p \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_1}(L^{{\rm dp}}_{\mathbf m_1,\gamma}) \Rightarrow p \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_2}(L^{{\rm dp}}_{\mathbf m_2,\gamma}); but lastly ({\mathbb Q}_1 \lessdot {\mathbb P} \wedge {\mathbb Q}_2 \lessdot {\mathbb P} \wedge (\forall p)(p \in {\mathbb Q}_1 \Rightarrow p \in {\mathbb Q}_2) \Rightarrow {\mathbb Q}_1 \lessdot {\mathbb Q}_2 so we are done.

3) Easy, as {\mathbf m} \in {\mathbf M}_{\rm{ec}} its suffice to find {\mathbf n} such that {\mathbf m} \leq_{{\mathbf M}} {\mathbf n} and {\mathbf n} satisfies the conclusion. So given i_{*}, t, s_{i} such that s_{i} <_{{\mathbf m}} t (for i < i_{*}) we define {\mathbf n} \in {\mathbf M} as follows:

1. (a) the set of elements of L_{{\mathbf n}} are those of L_{{\mathbf m}} and r_{*}, a new element,

2. (b) the order <_{{\mathbf m}} is defined by: r_{1} <_{{\mathbf m}} r_{2} iff r_{1} <_{{\mathbf m}} r_{2} or r_{1} \leq_{{\mathbf m}} s_{i} \wedge r_{2} = r_{*} for some i < i_{*} or r_{1} = r_{\ast} \wedge t \leq_{{\mathbf m}} r_{2},

3. (c) M_{{\mathbf n}} = M_{{\mathbf m}},

4. (d) E_{{\mathbf n}}' = \{ (r_{1}, r_{2}): (r_{1}, r_{2}) \in E_{{\mathbf m}}' \ \text{\underline{or}} \ r_{1} = r_{*} \wedge r_{2} \in \{ s_{i}: i < i_{*} \} \cup \{ t \} \ \text{\underline{or}} \ r_{2} = r_{*} \wedge r_{1} \in \{ s_{i}: i < i_{*} \} \cup \{ t \} \},

5. (e) u_{{\mathbf n}, r} is:

   • u_{{\mathbf m}, r} if r\in L_{{\mathbf m}} \setminus \{ t \},

   • u_{{\mathbf m}, r} \cup \{ r_{\ast} \} if r = t,

   • \{ s_{i}: i < i_{*} \} if r = r_{*}.

6. (f) {\mathscr P}_{{\mathbf n}, r} is:

   • {\mathscr P}_{{\mathbf m}, r} if r \in L_{{\mathbf m}} \setminus \{ t \},

   • {\mathscr P}_{{\mathbf m}, r} \cup \{ \{ r_{*} \} \} if r = t, except when t \in M_{{\mathbf m}}^{\rm{fat}}, in which case it us {\mathscr P}(u_{{\mathbf n}, t}),

   • {\mathscr P}(\{ s_{i}: i < i_{*} \}) if r = r_{*}.

4) Easy by 1.16(1)(\beta).

et x = u for part (1) and x = b for part (2). Let \mathscr{X} = \mathscr{X}_{{\mathbf m}} = \{{\mathbf n}: {\mathbf n} is bounded if x = b; and ({\mathbf m} {\restriction} M_{{\mathbf m}}) \leq_{{\mathbf M}} {\mathbf n} and L_{{\mathbf n}} \setminus M_{{\mathbf m}} = t / E_{{\mathbf n}}'' for some t, hence \Vert L_{{\mathbf n}} \Vert \leq \lambda_{2}\}.

We define a two-place relation {\mathscr E} on {\mathscr X}:

1. (*)_0 \mathbf n_1 {\mathscr E} \mathbf n_2 iff   (\mathbf n_1,\mathbf n_2 \in {\mathscr X} and) there is an isomorphism h from \mathbf n_1 onto \mathbf n_2 over \mathbf m {\restriction} M_{\mathbf m}, that is: an isomorphism from L_{\mathbf n_1} onto L_{\mathbf n_2} over M_{\mathbf m} (as partial orders) such that:

   1. (a) t \in L_{\mathbf n_1} \Rightarrow u_{\mathbf n_2,h(t)} = \{h(s):s \in u_{\mathbf n_1,t}\},

   2. (b) t \in L_{\mathbf n_1} \Rightarrow {\mathscr P}_{\mathbf n_2,h(t)} = \{\{h(s):s \in u\}:u \in {\mathscr P}_{\mathbf n_1,t}\},

   3. (c) s,t \in L_{\mathbf n_1} \Rightarrow (s E'_{\mathbf n_1 } t \Leftrightarrow h(s) E'_{\mathbf n_2 } h(t)).

Clearly {\mathscr E} is an equivalence relation.

By our assumptions \chi \ge 2^{\lambda_2} and \mathbf n \in {\mathscr X} \Rightarrow |L_{\mathbf n}| \le \lambda_2 \wedge (\forall t \in L_{{\mathbf n}})({\mathscr P}_{{\mathbf n}, t} \subseteq [L_{{\mathbf n}, < t}]^{\leq \lambda}), hence recalling \lambda_2 = (\lambda_2)^\lambda clearly {\mathscr E} has \le 2^{\lambda_2} equivalence classes and let \langle \mathbf n_\alpha:\alpha < 2^{\lambda_2} \rangle be a set of representatives (not necessary, but no harm in allowing repetitions).

By 1.20(2) and 1.21 we can find \mathbf n such that:

1. (*)_1 (a) \quad \mathbf m \le_{\mathbf M} \mathbf n \in \mathbf M_\chi,

2. {{}} (b) \quad for every \alpha < 2^{\lambda_2} we can find \langle t_{\alpha,i}:i < \chi\rangle such that:

   1. {{}} (\alpha) \quad t_{\alpha,i} \in L_{\mathbf n} \backslash L_{\mathbf m},

   2. {{}} (\beta) \quad (\alpha \ne \beta) \vee (i \ne j) \Rightarrow t_{\alpha,i}/E_{\mathbf n} \ne t_{\beta,j}/E_{\mathbf n},

   3. {{}} (\gamma) \quad \mathbf n {\restriction} (t_{\alpha,i}/E_{\mathbf n}) is {\mathscr E}-equivalent to \mathbf n_\alpha, see 1.7(0) on t_{\alpha,i}/E_{\mathbf n}.

We shall now prove that \mathbf n is as required. Let \mathbf n \le_{\mathbf M} \mathbf n_1 \le_{\mathbf M} \mathbf n_2, and {\mathbf n}_{1}, {\mathbf n}_{2} are bounded when x = b and define {\mathscr F} as the set of functions f such that some L_1, L_2 satisfy:

1. (*)_2 (a) \quad L_\ell \subseteq L_{\mathbf n_\ell},

2. {{}} (b) \quad M_ \mathbf{m} = M_ \mathbf{n} \subseteq L_1 \cap L_2,

3. {{}} (c) \quad L_\ell has cardinality \le \lambda_2,

4. {{}} (d) \quad L_\ell is E_{\mathbf n_{\ell} }-closed, i.e. M_ \mathbf{m} \subseteq L_{\ell} and t \in L_\ell \backslash M_{\mathbf m} \Rightarrow t/E_{\mathbf n_2} \subseteq L_\ell,

5. {{}} (e) \quad f is an isomorphism from \mathbf n_2 {\restriction} L_1 onto \mathbf n_2 {\restriction} L_2 over M_{\mathbf m}, i.e.:

   1. {{\bullet_1}} \quad f is a one-to-one mapping from L_1 onto L_2,

   2. {{\bullet _2}} \quad f {\restriction} M_{\mathbf m} is the identity,

   3. {{\bullet _3}} \quad f maps \le_{\mathbf n_2} {\restriction} L_1 onto \le_{\mathbf n_2} {\restriction} L_2,

   4. {{\bullet _4}} \quad s E'_{\mathbf{n} _1} t \Leftrightarrow f(s) E'_{\mathbf n_2} f(t),

   5. {{\bullet _5}} \quad for s,t \in L_1 we have s \in u_{\mathbf n_2,t} \Leftrightarrow f(s) \in u_{\mathbf n_2,f(t)}.

   6. \bullet_{6} for t \in L_{1} we have {\mathscr P}_{{\mathbf n}_{2}, f(t)} = \{ \{ f(s): s \in u \}: u \in {\mathscr P}_{{\mathbf n}_{1}, t}, u \subseteq L_{1} \}.

Clearly,

1. (*)_3 if f \in {\mathscr F} and L' \subseteq L_{\mathbf n_1}, L'' \subseteq L_{\mathbf n_2} and |L'| + |L''| \le \lambda_2 then   for some g \in {\mathscr F} extending f we have:

   1. (a) L' \subseteq {\rm dom}(g),

   2. (b) L'' \subseteq {\rm rang}(g),

   3. (c) {\rm rang}(g) \backslash (L'' \cup {\rm rang}(f)) \subseteq L_{\mathbf n_{2}},

   4. (d) {\rm dom}(g) \backslash (L' \cup {\rm dom}(f)) \subseteq L_{\mathbf n_{1}}.

We can finish as in the parallel of the Tarski-Vaught criterion for {\mathbb L}_{\infty,\lambda^+_2} but we shall elaborate. That is, first we can prove by induction on the ordinal \gamma < |L_{\mathbf n_2}|^+ (and in fact just \gamma < \|M_{\mathbf n_2}\|^+) that (*)_4-(*)_6 below holds:

1. (*)_4 letting L_\gamma = L^{{\rm dp}}_{\mathbf n_2,\gamma}, if g \in {\mathscr F} then:

   1. (a) g maps {\rm dom}(g) \cap L_\gamma onto {\rm rang}(g) \cap L_\gamma,

   2. (b) g induces an isomorphism \hat g from {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf n_2}({\rm dom}(g) \cap L_\gamma) onto {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf n_2}({\rm rang}(g) \cap L_\gamma), that is: \hat g(p)=q iff:

      1. (\alpha) p \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf n_2}({\rm dom}(g) \cap L_\gamma),

      2. (\beta) q \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf n_2}({\rm rang}(g) \cap L_\gamma),

      3. (\gamma) g maps {\rm dom}(p) onto {\rm dom}(q) and s \in {\rm dom}(p) \Rightarrow {\rm tr}(p(s)) = {\rm tr}(q(g(s))),

      4. (\delta) if s \in {\rm dom}(g),g(s) = t \in {\rm rang}(g) and \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3f\cr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_{p(s)} = \mathbf B_{p(s)}(\ldots, \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3\cr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_{r_{p(s)}(\zeta)},\ldots)_{\zeta < \xi_{p(s)}} and f_{q(t)} = \mathbf B_{q(t)}(\ldots,\let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3\cr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_{r_{q(t)}(\zeta)},\ldots)_{\zeta < \xi_{q(t)}} then   \xi_{q(t)} = \xi_{p(s)},\mathbf B_{q(t)} = \mathbf B_{p(s)} and \zeta < \xi_{p(s)} \Rightarrow r_{q(t)}(\zeta) = g(r_{p(s)}(\zeta)),

      5. (\varepsilon) moreover in (\delta) we have \iota(s,p) = \iota(t,q) and if \iota < \iota(s,p) then w_{p,s,\iota} = w_{q,t,\iota},\mathbf B_{p(s),\iota} = \mathbf B_{q(t),\iota}.

[Why? We use freely 1.16(9). Let \chi_* be such that \gamma, g, \mathbf{n}, \mathbf{n}_1,\mathbf{n} _2 \in {\mathscr H} (\chi _*). Let \mathfrak{A} \prec ({\mathscr H} (\chi_*), \in ) be such that \gamma, g, \mathbf{n}, \mathbf{n} _1,\mathbf{n} _2 \in \mathfrak{A} , \| \mathfrak{A} \| = \chi , \chi + 1 \subseteq \mathfrak{A} and [\mathfrak{A} ]^{\le \lambda }\subseteq \mathfrak{A}, (hence \mathfrak{A} \prec _{\mathbb{L} _{\lambda ^+, \lambda ^+}} ({\mathscr H} (\chi_*), \in)).

For {\ell} = 1,2 let L^*_ {\ell} = L_{\mathbf{n} _ {\ell} }\cap \mathfrak{A} and \mathbf{n} ^*_{\ell} = \mathbf{n} _ {\ell} \upharpoonright L^*_{\ell}, so by absoluteness \mathbb{P} _{\mathbf{n} ^*_{\ell}} (L_{\mathbf{n} ^*_{\ell}}) = \mathbb{P} _{\mathbf{n} _{\ell} }( L_{\mathbf{n}^* _{\ell} }) hence \mathbb{P} _{\mathbf{n} ^*_{\ell} }(L_{\mathbf{n} ^*_{\ell} }) \lessdot \mathbb{P} _{\mathbf{n} _{\ell} }(L_{\mathbf{n} _{\ell} }). By the choice of \mathbf{n} as very wide and full (see Definition 1.31), also \mathbf{n} \upharpoonright (\mathfrak{A} \cap L_ \mathbf{n} ) is very wide and full of cardinality \chi. But we have \mathbf{n} \upharpoonright (\mathfrak{A} \cap L_ \mathbf{n} ) \le \mathbf{n} _2 \upharpoonright (\mathfrak{A} \cap L_ {\mathbf{n}_2} ) both of cardinality \chi hence also \mathbf{n} ^*_2 is very wide and full (see Definition 1.5) of cardinality \chi. Now easily g can be extended to an automorphism of \mathbf{n} ^*_2. The promised statement now follows.]

Second,

1. (*)_5 {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf n_2}(L_\gamma \cap L_{\mathbf n_1}) \lessdot {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf n_2}(L_\gamma).

[Why? By(Can repeat the proof of (*)_4 but for variety we give another proof.) the definitions and the induction hypothesis {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf n_2} (L_\gamma \cap L_{\mathbf n_1}) \subseteq {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf n_2}(L_\gamma) as quasi orders.

Also if p_1,p_2 \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf n_2}(L_\gamma \cap L_{\mathbf n_1}) are compatible in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf n_2}(L_\gamma) let q \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf n_2}(L_\gamma) be a common upper bound there. We can find an E_{\mathbf n_2}-closed L' \subseteq L_{\mathbf n_1} of cardinality \le \lambda_2 (recalling \mathbf n \in {\mathscr X} \Rightarrow |L_{\mathbf n}| \le \lambda_2) such that p_1,p_2 \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf n_1}(L') and E_{\mathbf n_2}-closed L'' \subseteq L_{{\mathbf n}_{1}} of cardinality \le \lambda_2 such that L' \subseteq L'' and q \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf n_2}(L''). Now we can find f_1 \in {\mathscr F} such that {\rm dom}(f_1) = \cup\{t/E_{\mathbf n_2}:t \in L'\} \cup M_{{\mathbf m}} recalling that t/E_{\mathbf m} \supseteq M_{\mathbf m}, see 1.7(0) and f_1 is the identity. Then by (*)_3 we can find f_2 \in {\mathscr F} extending f_1 with {\rm dom}(f_2) = \cup\{t/E_{\mathbf n_2}:t \in L''\} and {\rm rang}(f_2) \backslash {\rm rang}(f_1) \subseteq L_{\mathbf n_1}. So recalling (*)_4(b) applied to f we have {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf n_2} \models ``(p_1 \le \hat f_2(q)) \wedge (p_2 \le \hat f_2(q))" and \hat f_2(q) \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf n_2}(L_\gamma \cap L_{\mathbf n_1}) recalling (*)_4. So p_1,p_2 are compatible also in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf n_2}(L_\gamma \cap L_{\mathbf n_1}). Obviously, if p_1,p_2 \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf n_2}(L_\gamma \cap L_{\mathbf n_1}) are compatible in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf n_2}(L_\gamma \cap L_{\mathbf n_1 }), say, q witnesses, then q is a common upper bound of p_1,p_2 in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf n_2} (L_\gamma).

So every antichain of {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf n_2}(L_\gamma \cap L_{\mathbf n_1}) is an antichain of {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf n_2}(L_\gamma). Similarly to the above every maximal antichain of {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf n_2}(L_\gamma \cap L_{\mathbf n_1}) is a maximal antichain of {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf n_2}(L_\gamma); similarly for the other direction. So we are done.]

1. (*)_6 {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf n_1}(L_\gamma \cap L_{\mathbf n_1}) = {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf n_2}(L_\gamma \cap L_{\mathbf n_1}) \lessdot {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf n_2}(L_\gamma).

[Why? We prove this by induction on \gamma, as in proving the Tarski-Vaught criterion is sufficient (we shall elaborate later in the proof of 3.20, more specifically \boxplus_4 proves a similar statement in detail with weaker assumptions).]

Hence (using \gamma = |L_{\mathbf n_2}|^+),

1. (*)_7 {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf n_1} \lessdot {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf n_2}.

Hence for every L \subseteq L_{\mathbf n_1} by 1.20(4) we have {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf n_1}(L) = {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf n_2}(L) as required for {\mathbf n} \in {\mathbf M}_{{\rm ec}}, see Definition 1.28.

asy, e.g.

For part (3) we are given {\mathbf m} \in {\mathbf M} and let {\mathbf n} be as constructed above for x = u. Clearly {\mathbf n}^{[{\rm bd}]} is as constructed above for x = b, so we are done.

asy.

) Easy.

2) Follows by part (1) and 1.16.

3) The first statement by their definitions, the second statement by part (1).

For the third clause, {\text{`}\text{`}} \mathbb{P} _ \mathbf{m}[L] \subseteq '\mathbb{P} _\mathbf{m}(L) ", note that:

1. (*)_{1} if p, q \in \mathbb{P}_{\mathbf{m}} (L), then \mathbb{P}_{{\mathbf m}}(L) \models {\text{`}\text{`}} p \le q " iff {\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m}} \models“p \leq q” which implies \mathbb{P}_{\mathbf{m}}[L] \models {\text{`}\text{`}} p \le q " by the definition of \mathbb{P} _ \mathbf{m} [L].

1. (\ast)_{2} if p, q \in {\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m}}(L) and {\rm dom}(p) \subseteq {\rm dom}(q), then {\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m}}(L) \models“p \leq q” iff {\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m}} \models“p \leq q” iff {\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m}}[L] \models“p \leq q”.

[The first “iff” by the definition of {\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m}}(L), the second “iff” by 1.22.]

4), 5), 6) Should be clear recalling 1.16(7).

7) Easy, recalling 1.16(5).

8), 9) Easy.

10) By the definition of \mathbb{P} _ \mathbf{m} [L].

y renaming without loss of generality   M_1 = M_2 call it M and h is the identity and L_{\mathbf m_1} \cap L_{\mathbf m_2} = M. Let \mathbf m_0 = \mathbf m_1 {\restriction} M = \mathbf m_2 {\restriction} M so \mathbf m_0 \le_{\mathbf M} \mathbf m_\ell for \ell=1,2 and L_{\mathbf m_0} = L_{\mathbf m_1} \cap L_{\mathbf m_2}.

By 1.21, there is \mathbf m such that \mathbf m_1 \le_{\mathbf M} \mathbf m and \mathbf m_2 \le_{\mathbf M} \mathbf m. As \mathbf m_1,\mathbf m_2 \in \mathbf M^{{\rm ec}}_\infty by 2.5(9) we have {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_1}[M] = {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}[M] and {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_2}[M] = {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}[M] so together we get the desired conclusion.

) By 1.32, {\mathbb P}^{{\rm cor}}_{\mathbf m}[L] has at least one definition so it suffices to prove uniqueness. So assume \mathbf m \le_{\mathbf M} \mathbf m_\ell \in \mathbf M_{{\rm ec}} for \ell=1,2 and we should prove that {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_1}[L] = {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_2}[L]. Without loss of generality   L_{\mathbf m_1} \cap L_{\mathbf m_2} = L_{\mathbf m}. Now by 1.21 we can find \mathbf n \in \mathbf M such that \mathbf m_1 \le_{\mathbf M} \mathbf n and \mathbf m_2 \le_{\mathbf M} \mathbf n; as \mathbf m_\ell \in \mathbf M_{{\rm ec}} see Definition 1.28 we have {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m_\ell} \lessdot {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf n} for \ell=1,2. As in the end of the proof of 2.7 we are done.

2) By 2.7.

3) Follows from Definition 1.28(2) and 2.8(2).

4) On the one hand, we can find {\mathbf m}_{1} \in {\mathbf M}_{\rm{bec}} such that {\mathbf m} \leq_{{\mathbf M}} {\mathbf m}_{1} by 1.32(2). On the other hand, can find {\mathbf m}_{3} \in {\mathbf M}_{{\rm ec}} such that {\mathbf m}_{1} \leq_{{\mathbf M}} {\mathbf m}_{3} by 1.5(1). Let {\mathbf m}_{2} = {\mathbf m}_{3}^{[{\rm bd}]} and let {\mathbf m}_{0} = {\mathbf m} so {\mathbf m}_{0} \leq_{{\mathbf M}} {\mathbf m}_{1} \leq_{{\mathbf M}} {\mathbf m}_{2} \leq_{{\mathbf M}} {\mathbf m}_{3}. By the choice of {\mathbf m}_{1} we have

• {\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m}_{1}}[L] = {\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m}_{2}}[L] \lessdot {\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m}_{2}}.

As L_{{\mathbf m}_{2}} is an initial segment of L_{{\mathbf m}_{3}}, clearly,

• {\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m}_{2}} \lessdot {\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m}_{3}} so {\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m}_{2}}[L] = {\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m}_{3}}[L].

Lastly as {\mathbf m}_{3} \in {\mathbf M}_{{\rm ec}}, {\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m}_{3}}[L] = {\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m}}^{{\rm cor}}[L]. Together we are done.

5) Similarly to part (4).

6) Easy.

asy.

) Easy but we elaborate. We define \mathbf{m} as follows:

1. (*)_1

   1. (a) L_ \mathbf{m} as a set is L_{\mathbf{m} _1} \cup L _{\mathbf{m}_2},

   2. (b) \le _ \mathbf{m} is the transitive closure of \{ (s,t): L_{\mathbf{m} _1 } \models s < t or L_{\mathbf{m} _2 } \models s < t \},

   3. (c) M_ \mathbf{m} = M_ {\mathbf{m} _1}, M_{{\mathbf m}}^{\rm{lean}} = M_{{\mathbf m}_{1}}^{\rm{lean}}, M_{{\mathbf m}}^{\rm{fat}} = M_{{\mathbf m}_{1}}^{\rm{fat}},

   4. (d) u_{\mathbf{m}, t } is:

      1. (\alpha ) u_{\mathbf{m} _1, t } when t \in L_{\mathbf{m} _1} \setminus L_*, and,

      2. ( \beta ) u_{\mathbf{m} _2, t} when t \in L_{\mathbf{m}_2} \setminus M_{{\mathbf m}_{0}},

      3. (\gamma) u_{{\mathbf m}_{1}, t} \cup u_{{\mathbf m}_{2}, t} if t \in M_{{\mathbf m}_{0}}.

   5. (e) {\mathscr P}_{{\mathbf m}, t} is:

      1. (\alpha) {\mathscr P}_{{\mathbf m}_{1}, t} when t \in L_{{\mathbf m}_{1}} \setminus L_{*} and,

      2. (\beta) {\mathscr P}_{{\mathbf m}_{2}, t} when t \in L_{{\mathbf m}_{2}} \setminus M_{{\mathbf m}_{0}},

      3. (\gamma) [u_{{\mathbf m}, t}]^{\leq \lambda} if t \in M_{{\mathbf m}_{0}}^{{ \rm fat}},

      4. (\delta) {\mathscr P}_{{\mathbf m}_{1}, t} \cup {\mathscr P}_{{\mathbf m}_{2}, t} if t \in M_{{\mathbf m}_{0}} \setminus M_{{\mathbf m}_{\gamma}}^{{ \rm fat}}.

   6. (f) We define E'_\mathbf{m} by: for s,t \in L_ \mathbf{m}, we have s E'_{{\mathbf m}} t iff s E'_{\mathbf{m} _1} t or s E'_{\mathbf{m} _2 } t.

As L _* is an initial segment of L_{\mathbf{m} _1 } we have:

1. (*)_2 L_ \mathbf{m} \models {\text{`}\text{`}} s \le t " iff L_{\mathbf{m} _2} \models {\text{`}\text{`}} s \le t " or s \in L_{\mathbf{m} _2 }, t \in L_{\mathbf{m} _ 1} \setminus L_* and for some r \in L_* we have L_ {\mathbf{m} _2} \models {\text{`}\text{`}} s \le r" and L_{\mathbf{m} _1 }\models {\text{`}\text{`}} r \leq t ".

2. (*)_{3} L_{{\mathbf m}_{2}} is an initial segment of L_{{\mathbf m}}.

Now check that \mathbf{m} is as required.

2) Follows.

3) Easy (changing (\ast)_{1} above naturally).

traightforward (recalling 2.10(4)), i.e.

1) By (2).

2) By (3) and (4).

3) Obvious, see 2.5(8).

4) Clear.

5) Easy.

6) Choose \bar{c} such that:

1. (*)_1

   1. (a) \bar{ c } \in {}^{ \delta } (M_ \mathbf{m}) for some ordinal \delta,

   2. (b) if \alpha < \beta < \delta then c_ \beta \not\le_{M } c_ \alpha,

   3. (c) \bar{ c } lists M_ \mathbf{m},

   4. (d) (follows), if L \subseteq L_ \mathbf{m} has cardinality \le \lambda then for some \alpha < \delta the element c_ \alpha is an upper bound of L, moreover L \in {\mathscr P} _{\mathbf{m}, < c_ \alpha }.

Now we choose fat bounded \mathbf{m}_\alpha by induction on \alpha \le \delta such that:

1. (*)_2

   1. (a) \langle \mathbf{m}_ \beta: \beta \le \alpha \rangle is \le _ \mathbf{M}-increasing continuous,

   2. (b) L_{\mathbf{m}_0 } = M and u_{\mathbf{m}_0, s} = M_{< s }, (hence {\mathscr P}_{\mathbf{m}_0, s }= [u_{\mathbf{m}_0, s }]^{\le \lambda } recalling {\mathbf m}_{0} being fat) for s \in M,

   3. (c) for every s \in L_{ \mathbf{m}_ \alpha } \setminus M for some \beta < \alpha we have L_{\mathbf{m}_ \alpha } \models s \le c_ \beta,

   4. (d) if \gamma \in [ \alpha, \delta ) then u_{\mathbf{m} _ \alpha, c_\gamma} = L_{\mathbf{m} _ \alpha , < c_ \gamma },

   5. (e) if \alpha = \beta + 1 then \mathbf{m}_{\alpha}(< c_ \beta) \in \mathbf{M} _{{\rm ec}},

   6. (f) L_ {\mathbf{m} _ \alpha } has cardinality at most 2^{ \lambda _2} or even \lambda _2, but this does not matter,

   7. (g) if t \in L_{\mathbf{m} _ \alpha} then for some \beta < \alpha we have t/ E''_{\mathbf{m} _ \alpha } \subseteq L_{\mathbf{m} _{\beta + 1}} \setminus L_{{\mathbf m}_{\beta}}.

There is no problem to carry the definition; as:

For \alpha = 0 we have defined \mathbf{m} _0 in clause (b) of (*)_2 above.

For \alpha a limit ordinal use 1.20(1), so in particular L_{\mathbf{m}} = \cup \{ L_{\mathbf{m}_ \beta }: \beta < \alpha\}.

For \alpha = \beta + 1 by 1.32 there is \mathbf{n} _ \beta \in \mathbf{M} _{{\rm ec}} such that \mathbf{m} _ \beta( < c_\beta) \le_ \mathbf{M} \mathbf{n} _ \beta, without loss of generality   we have L_{\mathbf{m}_ \beta } \cap L_{\mathbf{n}_ \beta }= L_{\mathbf{m}( < c_\beta)}.

By 3.22 below without loss of generality   the cardinality of L_ {\mathbf{n} _ \beta} is at most \lambda _2. Now apply 2.16(3) with \mathbf{m} _ \beta , L_{\mathbf{m} _\beta , < c_ \beta}, \mathbf{n}_\beta here standing for \mathbf{m} _2, L_*, \mathbf{m}_1 there.

So we have carried the induction. Now clearly \mathbf{m} _ \delta is as promised, That is, (*)_{\mathbf{m} _\delta } from part (2) of the claim holds, hence \mathbf{m} \in \mathbf{M} _{{\rm ec}} by part (2) being cofinal holds by 1.29; so we are done.

asy e.g.

4) Now if q \in {\mathscr S}_{p} then q has the form (p {\restriction} \{ t \}) \upharpoonleft L where L \in {\mathscr P}_{{\mathbf m}, t} hence \Vdash ``p \in \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3G\cr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth} implies q \in \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3G\cr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}", hence \Vdash“p \in {\mathbf G} implies {\mathscr S}_{p} \subseteq \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3G\cr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}”.

For the other direction assume q \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m} forces {\mathscr S}_p \subseteq \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3G\cr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth} \subseteq {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m} and we shall prove that q is compatible with p, this suffices, so toward contradiction assume q,p are incompatible.

Without loss of generality   {\rm dom}(p) \subseteq {\rm dom}(q) and recalling t \in {\rm dom}(p) \Rightarrow q \Vdash ``p \upharpoonleft (t/E_{\mathbf m}) \in \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3G\cr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}" clearly s \in {\rm dom}(p) \Rightarrow q \Vdash ``{\rm tr}(p(s)) \subseteq \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3\cr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_s" so necessarily s \in {\rm dom}(p) \Rightarrow {\rm tr}(p(s)) \trianglelefteq {\rm tr}(q(s)). Recalling 1.16(6), as p,q are incompatible there are s \in {\rm dom}(p) \cap {\rm dom}(q) and q_1 such that q {\restriction} L_{\mathbf m,< s} \le q_1 \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_{\mathbf m,<s}) and q_1 \Vdash ``q(s),p(s) are incompatible in {\mathbb Q}_{\bar\theta}".

As {\rm tr}(p(s)) \trianglelefteq {\rm tr}(q(s)) this implies q_1 \Vdash ``{\rm tr}(q(s)),p(s) are incompatible, so recalling q \Vdash“{\rm tr}(p(s)) \subseteq \eta_{s}” this implies f_{p(s)} {\restriction} \ell g({\rm tr}(q(s))) \ntrianglelefteq {\rm tr}(q(s))". Recalling Definition 1.10(2)(c)(\gamma), q_1 \Vdash _{\mathbb{P} _{\mathbf{m}, s }} “there is \iota < \iota(s,p) such that f_{p(s),\iota},{\rm tr}(q(s)) are incompatible". Possibly increasing q_1, we can fix \iota. But letting u \in {\mathscr P}_{{\mathbf m}{, s}} be such that \bar r_{p(s),\iota} \subseteq u this implies that q_1 \Vdash ``(p {\restriction} \{ s \}) \upharpoonleft u \notin \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3G\cr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth} or {\rm tr}(q(s)) \nsubseteq \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3\cr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_s". However, q_1,q are compatible and this contradicts the choice of q.

) Holds by the proof of 1.32.

2) Holds by Definition 1.28(1),(2).

3),4) By the proof of 1.32.

) Easy by the definition of wide in 1.31(1) and of {\mathscr F}_{\mathbf m} in 3.1(2), in particular clause (e).

2) Just read the definition of \mathbf m \in \mathbf M and of f \in {\mathscr F}_{\mathbf m}, in particular:

1. (a) if t_1,t_2 \in L_{\mathbf m} \backslash M_{\mathbf m} are not E'_{\mathbf m}-equivalent then (t_1/E_{\mathbf m}) \cap (t_2/E_{\mathbf m}) = M_{\mathbf m} and \le_{\mathbf m} {\restriction} (t_1/E_{\mathbf m} \cup t_2/E_{\mathbf m}) is determined by \le_{\mathbf m} {\restriction} (t_1/E_{\mathbf m}),\le_{\mathbf m} {\restriction} (t_2/E_{\mathbf m}),

2. (b) g {\restriction} M_{\mathbf m} = {\rm id}_{M_{\mathbf m}}.

3) Naturally by the definition.

4) Let g \in {\mathscr F} be as in part (1) and let h = g^{+ \mathbf m} so an automorphism of \mathbf m which extends g as in part (2). So \hat h is an automorphism of {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_{\mathbf m}) and clearly \hat f = \hat h {\restriction} {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}({\rm dom}(f)) is as required.

5) Is clear, see 1.13(f).

ust consider the definition, see 3.1(3) and (*)_4(b) of the proof of 1.32.

) By their definitions.

2) Should be clear, see Definition 3.1(4) and 3.2(3).

y induction on \alpha.

Case 1: \alpha = 0:

Note that the set of elements of {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(M_{\mathbf m} \cup {\rm rang}(\bar s)) has cardinality \le 2^{\lambda_1} (and even \le (\lambda_1)^\lambda) and depends just on \mathbf m {\restriction} (M_{\mathbf m} \cup {\rm rang}(\bar s)) but there are \beth_2(\lambda_1) possibilities for the quasi order on {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_1) and even for {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}[L_1].

Case 2: \alpha is a limit ordinal:

By clause (c) of Definition 3.10, the number of \alpha-equivalence classes is \le \prod\limits_{\beta < \alpha} (the number of \beta-equivalence classes) \le \prod\limits_{\beta < \alpha} \beth_{1 + \beta +1} (\lambda_1) \le (\beth_{1 + \alpha +1}(\lambda_1))^{\beth_{1 + \alpha}} = \beth_{1 + \alpha +1}(\lambda_1).

Case 3: \alpha = \beta +1:

Clearly every \alpha-equivalence class can be coded as a set of \beta-equivalence classes hence the number of \alpha-equivalence classes is \le 2^{\beth_{1 + \beta +1}(\lambda_1)} = \beth_{1 + \beta +2}(\lambda_1) = \beth_{1 + \alpha +1}(\lambda_1), as promised.

) We choose (p_n,q_n,\psi_n) by induction on n such that:

1. \boxplus_n

   1. (a)

      1. (\alpha) ({\rm stt})_{p_n,q_n,\psi_n} holds if n is even,

      2. (\beta) ({\rm stt})_{q_n,p_n,\psi_n} holds if n is odd,

   2. (b) (p_0,q_0,\psi_0) = (p,q,\psi),

   3. (c) if n=2m+1 and s \in {\rm dom}(p_{2m}) \cap M_{\mathbf m}, then   s \in {\rm dom}(q_{2m+1}), and {\rm tr}(p_{2m}(s)) \triangleleft {\rm tr}(q_{2m+1}(s)),

   4. (d) if n=2m+2 and s \in {\rm dom}(q_{2m+1}) \cap M_{\mathbf m}, then   s \in {\rm dom}(p_{2m+2}) and {\rm tr}(q_{2m+1}(s)) \triangleleft {\rm tr}(p_{2m+2}(s)),

   5. (e) if n=m+1 then p_m \le p_n,q_m \le q_n.

Case 1: For n=0 use clause (b).

Case 2: n=2m+1.

So the triple (p_{2m},q_{2m},\psi_{2m}) is well defined, let u_{2m}= {\rm dom}(p_{2m}) \cap M_{\mathbf m} and let \bar\nu = \langle \nu_s:s \in u_{2m}\rangle be defined by \nu_s = {\rm tr}(p_{2m}(s)).

Clearly,

1. (*)_1 \psi_{2m} \Vdash p^*_{s,\nu_s} for s \in u_{2m}.

[Why? Clearly p_{2m} \Vdash_{{\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m}}} p^*_{s,\nu_s}, i.e. p^*_{s,\nu_s} \le p_{2m} in {\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m}}(L_{{\mathbf m}}), hence in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}[L_{\mathbf m}] and therefore, if \psi_{2m} \nVdash p^*_{s,\nu_s}, then \psi' = \psi_{2m} \wedge \neg p^*_{s,\nu_s} \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}[M_{\mathbf m}] is \ge \psi_{2m}, hence compatible with p_{2m}, contradiction, see clause (c) in ({\rm stt})_{p,q,\psi} which holds by \boxplus _{2m}(a)(\alpha ).]

1. (*)_2 there is q'_{2m} \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_{\mathbf m}) which is above q_{2m} and above \psi_{2m} and naturally u_{2m} \subseteq {\rm dom}(q'_{2m}) hence s \in u_{2m} implies \nu_s \subseteq {\rm tr}(q'_{2m}(s)).

[Why? By clause (d) of ({\rm stt})_{p_{2m},q_{2m},\psi_{2m}} which holds by \boxplus_{2m}(a)(\alpha) recalling {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}(L_{\mathbf m}) is dense {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}[L_{\mathbf m}]; the “hence" by (*)_1.]

1. (*)_3 there is \psi'_{2m} \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}[M_m] such that:

   1. (a) if \psi'_{2m} \le \varphi \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}[M_{\mathbf m}] then \varphi,q'_{2m} are compatible in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}[L_{\mathbf m}],

   2. (b) if s \in u_{2m} then \psi'_{2m} \Vdash p^*_{s,\nu_s},

   3. (c) \psi_{2m} \le \psi'_{2m}.

[Why? Obvious using the \lambda^+-c.c., i.e. \psi'_{2m} = \psi_{2m} \wedge \neg(\vee \{\varphi:\varphi \in {\mathscr I}\}) where {\mathscr I} is a maximal anti-chain of members \varphi \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}[M_{\mathbf m}] satisfying \varphi \perp q'_{2m} in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}[L_{\mathbf m}]; see more in 3.14.]

1. (*)_4 without loss of generality   {\rm wsupp}(q'_{2m}) \cap {\rm wsupp}(p_{2m}) \subseteq M_{\mathbf m}.

[Why? As \mathbf m is \mu- wide using an automorphism of \mathbf m which is the identity on {\rm wsupp} ( q_{2m}), i.e. by 3.5. Even if {\mathbf m} is fat this is fine.]

Lastly, let p_n = p'_{2m},q_n = q'_{2m},\psi_n = \psi'_{2m} and check.

Case 3: n=2m+2.

Similar to case 2 with the roles of the p’s and the q’s interchanged.

Having carried the induction we can define p_* as the upper bound of, in fact the union of \{p_n:n < \omega\} as in 1.16(3A), in particular:

1. (*)_7 (a) ({\rm dom}(p_*) = \underset{n}\bigcup \, {\rm dom}(p_n); in fact, also {\rm fsupp}(p_*) = \bigcup\limits_{n} {\rm fsupp}(p_n) and {\rm wsupp} ( p_* ) = \underset{n} \bigcup \, {\rm wsupp} (p_n),

2. (b) if s \in {\rm dom}(p_*) and n is minimal such that s \in {\rm dom}(p_n) then {\rm tr}(p_*(s)) = \bigcup\limits_{k \ge n} {\rm tr}(p_k(s)) and \{ f_{p_* , \iota }: \iota < \iota (p_*)(s)\} is equal to \{{\rm tr}(p_*(s))\cup f_{p_k , \iota }{\restriction} [\lg({\rm tr}(p_*(s))), \lambda ) : \iota < \iota (p_k(s)) for some k \in [n, \omega ) \}.

Similarly let q_* be the upper bound of, in fact the union of \{q_n:n < \omega\} as in 1.16(3A), so again, in particular:

1. (*)_8 (a) {\rm dom}(q_*) = \bigcup\limits_{n} {\rm dom}(q_n), and also {\rm fsupp}(q_*) = \bigcup\limits_{n} {\rm fsupp}(q_n) and {\rm wsupp} (q_*)= \cup _n {\rm wsupp} (q_n),

2. (b) if s \in {\rm dom}(p_*) and n is minimal such that s \in {\rm dom}(q_n) then:

   1. \bullet _1 {\rm tr}(q_*(s)) = \bigcup\limits_{k \ge n} {\rm tr}(q_k(s)),

   2. \bullet _2 \{ f_{q_* , \iota }: \iota < \iota (q_*)(s)\} is equal to \{{\rm tr}(p_*(s))\cup f_{p_k , \iota }{\restriction} [\lg({\rm tr}(p_*(s))), \lambda ) : \iota < \iota (q_k(s)) for some k \in [n, \omega ) \}.

Hence,

1. (*)_9 (\rm{a}) \quad p_*,q_* \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m},

2. {{}} (\rm{b}) \quad {\rm dom}(p_*) \cap {\rm dom}(q_*) \subseteq M_{\mathbf m}, moreover, {\rm wsupp}(p_*) \cap {\rm wsupp}(q_*) \subseteq M_{\mathbf m},

3. {{}} (\rm{c}) \quad {\rm dom}(p_*) \cap M_{\mathbf m} = {\rm dom}(q_*) \cap M_{\mathbf m},

4. {{}} (\rm{d}) \quad if s \in {\rm dom}(p_*) \cap M_{\mathbf m}, equivalently, s \in {\rm dom}(p_*) \cap {\rm dom}(q_*) then: {\rm tr}(p_*(s)) = {\rm tr}(q_*(s)).

[Why? Clause (a) by properties of {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m} and p_n \le p_{n+1},q_n \le q_{n+1} see above, clause (b) as {\rm dom}(p_{2m}) \cap {\rm dom}(q_{2m}) \subseteq M_{\mathbf m} as ({\rm stt})_{p_{2m},q_{2m},\psi_{2m}}. Clause (c) by \boxplus_n(c),(d), the first conclusion and clause (d) by \boxplus_n(c),(d), the second conclusion.]

It follows that p_*,q_* are compatible in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m} but p=p_0 \le p_*,q = q_0 \le q_*, so p,q are compatible as promised.

2) Let \psi_0 \in {\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m}} [M_ \mathbf{m} ] be given. Let p \in {\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m}} be such that p \Vdash_{{\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m}}} ``\psi_0[\let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3G\cr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}] = {\rm true}".

Let {\mathscr I }_0 = \{ \varphi : \varphi \in \mathbb{P} _ \mathbf{m} [ M_ \mathbf{m} ] and \varphi , p are incompatible in \mathbb{P} _ \mathbf{m} [L_ \mathbf{m} ] \} and let {\mathscr I } _ 1 be a maximal set of pairwise incompatible members of {\mathscr I }_0. As \mathbb{P} _ \mathbf{m} [L_ \mathbf{m} ] satisfies the \lambda ^ +-c.c., clearly {\mathscr I } _1 has cardinality at most \lambda and let \psi = \wedge \{ \neg \varphi : \varphi \in {\mathscr I } _1\}. Clearly we have:

1. (*) _ 1 \psi \in {\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m}}[M_{{\mathbf m}}] and:

   1. (a) if \psi \le \varphi \in \mathbb{P} _ \mathbf{m} [M_ \mathbf{m} ], then p, \varphi are compatible in \mathbb{P} _ \mathbf{m} [L_ \mathbf{m} ],

   2. (b) \psi _0 \le \psi in \mathbb{P} _ \mathbf{m}[M_ \mathbf{m}],

   3. (c) \psi \le p in \mathbb{P} _ \mathbf{m} [L].

Let L_0 = \cup\{t/E_{{\mathbf m}}:t \in {\rm fsupp}(p)\} \cup M_ \mathbf{m}, so (L_0 \setminus M_ \mathbf{m} ) /E''_\mathbf{m} has cardinality < \lambda_{0} and as {\mathbf m} is \mu-wide, we can find L_{\varepsilon},({\varepsilon} \in [1, \mu )) as required, that is, choose an automorphism \pi_{\varepsilon} of {\mathbf m} for {\varepsilon} < \mu such that \pi_{\varepsilon} {\restriction} M_{{\mathbf m}} is the identity, \langle \pi_{\varepsilon}(L_0 ) \backslash M_{{\mathbf m}}:{\varepsilon} < \mu \rangle are pairwise disjoint where we let \pi_0 be the identity and so L_{\varepsilon} = \pi_{\varepsilon}(L), and let p_{\varepsilon} = \hat\pi(p) for \varepsilon < \mu. Note:

1. (*)_2 if \varphi_1 \in {\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m}}[L_{{\mathbf m}}], and {\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m}}[L] \models ``\psi \le \varphi_1" then for for all but < \lambda ordinals {\varepsilon} < \mu, the conditions p_{\varepsilon},\varphi_1 are compatible.

[Why? Let q \in {\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m}} (L_{{\mathbf m}}) be above \varphi_1 in \mathbb{P} _ \mathbf{m} [L_ \mathbf{m} ], so the set \{t/E_{{\mathbf m}}:t \in {\rm fsupp}(q)\} has cardinality < \lambda_{0}.

So for every {\varepsilon} < \mu except < \lambda_{0} many, the sets {\rm wsupp}(q) = \cup\{t/E_{{\mathbf m}}:t \in {\rm fsupp}(q)\} and L_{\varepsilon} \backslash M_{{\mathbf m}} are disjoint. Now for every such {\varepsilon}, the triple (p_{\varepsilon},q,\psi) satisfies the assumptions of part (1), hence p_{\varepsilon},q are compatible hence p_{\varepsilon},\varphi_1 are compatible, so (*)_2 holds indeed].

Now clearly \langle (p_{\varepsilon},L_{\varepsilon}): {\varepsilon} < \mu ) satisfies clauses (a)-(f) of part (2), so we are left with clause (g), that is:

• if u \in [\mu]^{\lambda} then \psi,\bigvee\limits_{{\varepsilon} \in u } p_{\varepsilon} are equivalent in {\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m}}[L_{{\mathbf m}}], i.e. \psi \le \bigvee\limits_{{\varepsilon} \in u} p_{\varepsilon} \le \psi.

Why this holds? First by the choice of \psi, that is by (*)_1 clearly p \Vdash _ { \mathbb{P} _ \mathbf{m} [L_ \mathbf{m} ]} `` \psi \in \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3 G \cr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}" hence for \varepsilon < \mu by the choice of p_ \varepsilon also p_ \varepsilon \Vdash _{\mathbb{P} _ \mathbf{m} [L_ \mathbf{m} ]} `` \psi \in \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3 G \cr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}" hence \psi \le p_ \varepsilon in \mathbb{P} _ \mathbf{m} [L_ \mathbf{m} ] hence \psi \le \vee_{ \varepsilon \in u } p_ \varepsilon \mathbb{P}_ \mathbf{m} [L_ \mathbf{m}].

Second, for the other inequality, just note that:

(*)_3 if q \in \mathbb{P} _ \mathbf{m} [L_ \mathbf{m} ] and \mathbb{P} _ \mathbf{m} [L_ \mathbf{m} ] \models `` \psi \le q " then q is compatible with p_ \varepsilon for every \varepsilon < \mu except < \lambda many.

[Why does (*)_3 holds? as in the proof of (*)_2.]

3) We use part (2) on \mathbf{n} = \mathbf{m} \restriction L; so find \psi \in \mathbb{P} _ \mathbf{n} [L_ \mathbf{n} ] above \psi _0 satisfying clauses (a)-(g), but \mathbb{P} _ \mathbf{n} [L_ \mathbf{n} ] = \mathbb{P} _ \mathbf{m} [L_ \mathbf{n} ]= \mathbb{P}_ \mathbf{m} [L], and so clause (h) is obvious and clause (i) holds by the definition of \mathbb{P} _ \mathbf{m} [L_ \mathbf{m} ].

e can for i < i(*) replace L_i by L'_i when M_ \mathbf{m} \subseteq L'_i \subseteq L_i and the parallel of clauses (f), (g) of (*) hold. Hence without loss of generality:

1. (*)_1 the set \{t/E''_\mathbf{m}: t \in L_i \setminus M_ \mathbf{m}\} has cardinality < \lambda_{0}.

As \psi_* \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}[M_{\mathbf m}], there is p \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m} such that p \Vdash_{{\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}} ``\psi_*[\let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3G\cr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth} _{{\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}}]= true". As \mathbf m is \mu-wide, by 3.5 there is an automorphism f of \mathbf m over M_ \mathbf{m} such that i<i(*) \Rightarrow f''({\rm wsupp}(p)) \cap L_i \subseteq M_{\mathbf m}, hence without loss of generality   i<i(*) \Rightarrow {\rm wsupp}(p) \cap L_i \subseteq M_{\mathbf m}. Now we choose p_i by induction on i \le i(*) such that:

1. \boxplus

   1. (a) p_i \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m},

   2. (b) \langle p_j:j \le i\rangle is increasing,

   3. (c) if s \in {\rm dom}(p_i),i<i(*) then   \ell g({\rm tr}(p_{i+1}(s)) > i(*),

   4. (d) p_0 = p,

   5. (e) if i=j+1 then p_i \Vdash ``\psi_j[\let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3G\cr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_{{\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}}]= true",

   6. (f) {\rm wsupp}(p_i) hence also {\rm fsupp}(p_i) is disjoint to \cup\{L_j \backslash M_{\mathbf m}:j \in [i,i(*))\}.

This is sufficient for the claim as p_{i(*)} is as required. So let us carry the induction. For i=0 use clause (d), for i limit by 1.16(3A) we know that \langle p_j:j<i\rangle has a \le_{{\mathbb P}_{\mathbf m}}-upper bound p_i with domain \cup\{{\rm dom}(p_j):j<i\} satisfying {\rm wsupp}(p_i) \subseteq \cup\{{\rm wsupp}(p_j):j<i\} by 1.16(3A), hence p_i is as required, in particular as in clause (f).

Recall p_{j} is above p_{0} = p hence above \psi_{\ast} (in {\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m}}[L_{{\mathbf m}}]). As in the proof of (*)_{3} inside 3.14(1) (or see 4.11(1) below) there is \varphi_{j} \in {\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m}}[M_{{\mathbf m}}] such that:

• \bullet_{1} \psi{*} \leq \varphi_{j},

• \bullet_{2} if \varphi_{j} \leq \varphi \in {\mathbb P}_{{\mathbf m}}[M_{{\mathbf m}}] then p_{j}, \varphi are compatible.

Lastly, assume i=j+1, by (*)(h) there is q_j \in \mathbb{P} _\mathbf{m} above \varphi _j \wedge \psi_{j}. Because \mathbf{m} is \mu-wide there is an automorphism \pi of \mathbf{m} over M_ \mathbf{m} satisfying \pi {\restriction} L_j is the identity, so \pi'' ({\rm dom}(q_j) \setminus M_ \mathbf{m} is disjoint to {\rm wsupp}( p_i ) and to L_ \varepsilon for \varepsilon \in i_* \setminus \{ j\}. So without loss of generality:

1. (*)_2 q_j itself satisfies this.

Now the statement ({\rm stt} )_{p_j, q_j, \varphi_{j}} holds.

[Why? because {\rm wsupp}(p_j) \cap {\rm wsupp}(q_j) \subseteq M_ \mathbf{m} by (*)_2, the choice of \varphi_{j} and q_{j} above.]

Hence by 3.14 p_j,q_j has a common upper bound called p_i. As \mathbf m is wide, for some automorphism \pi of \mathbf{m} over M_\mathbf{m} such that \pi {\restriction} {\rm wsupp}(p_j) is the identity and \pi"{\rm wsupp}(p_j) is disjoint to \cup \{ L_ \varepsilon: \varepsilon \in [i, i_* )\}, hence by renaming without loss of generality:

1. (*)_3 {\rm wsupp}(p_i) \setminus M_ \mathbf{m} is disjoint to \cup \{ L_ \varepsilon: \varepsilon \in [i, i_* )\},

Clearly p_i is as required so we have finished proving (*)_3.

So we have finished proving the last case in the the induction.

So we are done.

enumerate