Categoricity and amalgamation for AEC and \kappa measurable

se Theorem 1.19 on AEC which is applicable by Conclusion 1.23 and recalling Definition 1.21 and Claim 1.22.

irst, without loss of generality, assume that Hypothesis 1.45 holds.

[Why? If \mathrm{LS}_{\mathfrak{k}} < \kappa then by Claim 1.28(0), without loss of generality \vert \tau_{\mathfrak{k}} \vert \leq 2^{\mathrm{LS}(\mathfrak{k})}, hence \vert \tau_{\mathfrak{k}} \vert < \chi and by Claim 1.42(1), \mathfrak{k} is \mathbf{D}-compact (see Assumption 1.1). So in any case \mathfrak{k} is \mathbf{D}-compact and by Claim 1.43, Hypothesis 1.45(1) holds.

By Claim 1.28(1), (2) also Hypothesis 1.45(2) holds. So Hypothesis 1.45 holds indeed.]

Recall that, in §2-§5 we assume Hypothesis 1.45.

Second, if \lambda is regular, then the desired conclusion holds by §2, that is, by Theorem 2.10.

Third, if \lambda is singular, then the desired conclusion holds by §5, that is, by Corollary 5.6.

y [Sh:88r, 1.7].

ainly, this holds by Fact 1.10 and Fact 1.11, but see fully in the proof of Claim 1.25.

(1) By Claim 1.20, that is, by [Sh:88r] and classical theorem, see e.g. [Sh:f, Ch. VII].

(2) Just consider Definition 1.24 and the proof of Claim 1.22.

ee Nadel [Na85] and Dickmann [Dic85] or [Sh:c, VII, §5].

s in [Sh:88r, 1.13], [Sh:c, Ch. VII].

or some f, g and \operatorname{Op}, f \colon M \underset{\mathfrak{k}} \rightarrow N, g \colon N \underset{\mathfrak{k}} \rightarrow \operatorname{Op}(M) and g f = f_{\operatorname{Op}}. Now g \colon M' \underset{\mathfrak{k}} \rightarrow \operatorname{Op}(M) (since M' \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N) and gf = f_{\operatorname{Op}} so that M \underset{\rm{nice}} \leq M'.

ike the proof of Remark 1.31(2). For each i<\delta, there is a \mathbf{u}_{i} as in Definition 1.32 which witnesses M_i\underset{\text{nice}} \le M_{i+1} and and let Y_{i} = Y_{\mathbf{u}_{i}} for i < \delta. Without loss of generality, \langle Y_{i} \colon i < \delta \rangle are pairwise disjoint. We define \mathbf{u} by:

1. (a) Y = \bigcup \{ Y_{i} \colon i < \delta \},

2. (b) s <_{y} t iff \bigvee_{i < \delta} s <_{i} t or s \in Y_{\mathbf{u}_{i}} \wedge t \in Y_{\mathbf{u}_{j}} \wedge i<j,

3. (c) D_{j} = D_{\mathbf{u}_{i}, s} when s \in Y_{\mathbf{u}_{i}} for i < \delta.

This is enough and the rest should be clear.

s \mathfrak{k} is \mathbf{D}-compact, by Assumption 1.2(2) no M \in K_{\geq \kappa} is \leq_{\mathfrak{k}}-maximal, so by Definition 1.17 we are done.

(1) By 1.25 and part (c).

(2), (3), (4) Easy.

traightforward.

here are g and \operatorname{Op} such that g \colon M_1 \underset{\mathfrak{k}} \rightarrow \operatorname{Op}(M), g f_1 = f_{\operatorname{Op}, M}. Now, f_{2} induces an \leq_{\mathfrak{k}}-elementary embedding f^\ast_2 of \operatorname{Op}(M) into \operatorname{Op}(M_2) such that f^\ast_2 f_{\operatorname{Op}}^{M} = f_{\operatorname{Op}}^{M_{2}} f_2. Let g_1 = f^\ast_2 g and g_2 = f_{\operatorname{Op}, M_{2}}. By Fact 1.11 one finds N \in K_{\le_\mu} such that \mathrm{rng}(g_1) \cup \mathrm{rng}(g_2) \subseteq N \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} \operatorname{Op}(M_2). Now N is an amalgam of M_1, M_2 over M with respect to f_1, f_2 since g_1 f_1 = f^\ast_2 g f_1 = f^\ast_2 f_{0_p, M} = f_{\operatorname{Op}, M_{2}} f_2 = g_2 f_2. The last phrase in the lemma is easy by properties of \operatorname{Op}.

y the assumption, there is g \colon N \underset{\mathfrak{k}} \rightarrow \operatorname{Op}(M) such that g f = f_{\operatorname{Op}, M}. Recall M is a \mu- c.a.b., so for some M_i \in K_{\le \mu} and f_i \colon M \underset{\mathfrak{k}} \rightarrow M_i (for i = 1,2) there is no amalgam of M_1, M_2 over M w.r.t. f_1, f_2. Let f^\ast_i be the \leq_{\mathfrak{k}}-elementary embedding from \operatorname{Op}(M) into \operatorname{Op}(M_i) induced by f_i (note that f^\ast_i f_{\operatorname{Op}, M} = f_{\operatorname{Op}, M_{i}} f_i, i = 1,2). Choose N_i of power || N || such that M_i \cup \mathrm{rng}(f^\ast_i g) \subseteq N_i \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} \operatorname{Op}(M_i). Note that f^{\ast}_{i} g \colon N \underset{\mathfrak{k}} \rightarrow N_i. It suffices to show that there is no amalgam of N_1, N_2 over N w.r.t. f^\ast_1 g, f^\ast_2 g.

Well, suppose that one could find an amalgam N^\ast and h_i \colon N_i \underset{\mathfrak{k}} \rightarrow N^\ast, i = 1,2, with h_1 (f^\ast_1 g) = h_2 (f^\ast_2 g). Using Fact 1.11 choose M^\ast, || M^\ast|| \le \mu, M^\ast \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N^\ast, \mathrm{rng}(h_1 f_{\operatorname{Op}} \upharpoonright M_1) \cup \mathrm{rng}(h_2 f_{\operatorname{Op}} \upharpoonright M_2) \subseteq | M^\ast|. Set g_i = h_i f_{\operatorname{Op}} \upharpoonright M_i, for i = 1,2, and note that:

In other words, M^\ast is an amalgam of M_1, M_2 over M w.r.t. f_1, f_2-contradiction. It follows that N is a \| N \|-c.a.b.

s \| M \| \ge \kappa, for some appropriate \operatorname{Op} one has || \operatorname{Op}(M) || \ge \lambda, and by Fact 1.11 one finds M^\ast \in K_\lambda such that M \subseteq M^\ast \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} \operatorname{Op}(M), hence M \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} M^{\ast}. Let us check that M^\ast works in (\ast). Take M' \in K_{< \lambda}, M \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} M' \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} M^\ast; so M \underset{\text{nice}} \leq M' since M^\ast \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} \operatorname{Op}(M), see Observation 1.38; hence by Lemma 2.2, M' is a || M'||-c.a.b.

y an assumption \mathfrak{k}_{< \lambda} fails AP, so for some \mu \in [\chi, \lambda) and M \in K_{\leq \mu}, M is a \mu-c.a.b. recalling Definition 1.15. By Lemma 2.2 and Claim 1.40 without loss of generality M\in K_{\mu}. Choose by induction a continuous strictly increasing \leq_{\mathfrak{k}}-chain \langle N_i \in {\text{K}}_{< \lambda} \colon i < \lambda \rangle as follows:

N_0 = M; at a limit ordinal i, take the union; at a successor ordinal i = j +1, if there is N \in K_{< \lambda} such that N_j \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N and N_j \underset{\text{nice}} \nleq N (so necessarily N_{j} <_{\mathfrak{k}} N), choose N_i = N, otherwise choose for N_i any non-trivial \leq_{\mathfrak{k}}-elementary extension of N_j of power less than \lambda. Next, we prove:

1. \boxplus (\exists j_0 < \lambda)(\forall j \in (j_0, \lambda)) (N_j is a || N_j ||-c.a.b.).

Why \boxplus holds? Suppose not. So one has a strictly increasing sequence \langle j_i \colon i < \lambda \rangle such that for each i < \lambda, N_{j_i} is not a \| N_{j_i} \|-c.a.b. Let N_\ast = \underset{i < \lambda} \cup N_{j_i}. So \| N_\ast \| = \lambda. Applying 2.3 one can find M^\ast \in K_\lambda and M \in K_{< \lambda} such that M \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} M^{\ast} and whenever M' \in K_{< \lambda} and M \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} M' \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} M^\ast, then M' is a \| M'\|-c.a.b.

Since \mathfrak{k} is \lambda-categorical, there is an isomorphism g of N_\ast onto M^\ast. Let N = g^{-1} (M) and M_i = g^{-1} (N_i) for i < \lambda. Now, || N || = \mu < \mathrm{cf}(\lambda) = \lambda, so there is i_0 < \lambda such that N \subseteq N_{j_{i_0}}.

In fact N_{j_{i_0}} is a || N_{j_{i_0}} ||-c.a.b. [Otherwise, consider M_{j_{i_0}}. Since M \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} M_{j_{i_0}} \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} M^\ast and \| M_{j_{i_0}} \| < \lambda, M_{j_{i_0}} is a \| M_{j_{i_0}} \|-c.a.b., so there are f_\ell\colon M_{j_{i_0}} \underset{\mathcal F} \rightarrow M'_\ell, (\ell = 1,2), with no amalgam of M'_1, M'_2 over M_{j_{i_0}} w.r.t. f_1, f_2. If N_{j_{i_0}} is not a || N_{j_{i_0}} ||-c.a.b., then one can find an amalgam N^+ \in K_{\le || N_{j_{i_0}} ||} of M'_1, M'_2 over N_{j_{i_0}} w.r.t. f_1 g, f_2 g such that h_\ell \colon M'_\ell \underset{\mathfrak{k}} \rightarrow N^+ and h_1 (f_1 g) = h_2 (f_2 g); so h_1 f_1 = h_2 f_2 and N^+ is thus an amalgam of M'_1, M'_2 over M_{j_{i_0}} w.r.t. f_1, f_2, \| N^+ \| \le \| N_{j_{i_0}} \| = || M_{j_{i_0}} ||-contradiction.] This contradicts the choice of N_{j_{i_0}}. So the statement \boxplus is correct.

It follows that for each j \in (j_0, \lambda) there are N^1_j, N^2_j in {\text{K}}_{< \lambda} and f_\ell \colon N_j \to_{\mathfrak{k}} N^\ell_j such that no amalgam of N^1_j, N^2_j over N_j w.r.t. f_1, f_2 exists. By Lemma 2.1 for both \ell \in \{ 1,2 \}, N_j \underset{\rm{nice}}{\nleq} N^\ell_{j+1}. So by the inductive choice of \langle N_{j +1} \colon j < \lambda \rangle, \forall j \in (j_0, \lambda) (N_j \underset{\text{nice}} \nleq N_{j+1}). Taking N^\ast = \underset {j_0 < j < \lambda} \cup N_j, one completes the proof (of course for j_0 < j < \lambda, N_j \underset{\text{nice}} \nleq N^\ast: if N_j \underset{\mathrm{nice}}{\leq} N^\ast \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} \operatorname{Op} (N_j), then by Observation 1.38 N_j \underset{\text{nice}} \leq N_{j+1}-contradiction).

o there is a suitable ultra-limit == = =^{\number\footmarkcount@}=100 == = ==== ^{\number\footmarkcount@} by 1 "^{\number\footmarkcount@}=100 == = ==== ^{\number\footmarkcount@} by 1 ^{\number\footmarkcount@}=100 == = ==== ^{\number\footmarkcount@} by 1 ^{\number\footmarkcount@}=100 == = ==== ^{\number\footmarkcount@} \strut}\global\advance\footmarkcount@ by 1 ^{\number\footmarkcount@}=100 == = ==== ^{\number\footmarkcount@} by 1 ^{\number\footmarkcount@}=100 == = ==== ^{\number\footmarkcount@} We write I_{\mathbf{u}} = I(\mathbf{u}) to distinguish it from (I, <_{I}). by 1 parameter \mathbf{u} = (Y, <_{Y}, \bar{I}, \bar{D}, I_{\mathbf{u}}, E, G) witnessing (I, <_{I}) \underset{\mathrm{nice}}{\subseteq} (J, <_{J}), that is, we have (I, \leq_{I}) \subseteq \operatorname{Op}_{I, D, G}((I, <_{I})) and (J, <) is isomorphic over (I, \leq) to some (J', <) such that (I, <_{I}) \subseteq (J', <) \subseteq \operatorname{Op}_{I, D, G}((I, <)) and let \pi be such isomorphism.

So for each t \in J, there exists f_t \in {}^{I(\mathbf{u})} I such that \pi(t) = f_t / D. Note that if t \in I, then f_t / D = f_{\operatorname{Op}} (t) so that without loss of generality for all i \in I_{\mathbf{u}}, f_t (i) = t. Define a map h from \operatorname{EM}(J) into \operatorname{Op}(\operatorname{EM}(I)) as follows. An element of \operatorname{EM}(J) has the form

where t_1, \dots, t_n \in J, \sigma an \tau_{\Phi}-term. Define, for t \in J, g_t \in {}^I \operatorname{EM}(I) by g_t (i) = a_{f_t (i)}.

Note that f_t (i) \in I, so that a_{f_t (i) } \in \operatorname{EM}(I) and so g_t / D \in \operatorname{Op}(\operatorname{EM}(I) ). Let h ( \sigma^{\operatorname{EM}' (J) } (a_{t_1}, \dots, a_{t_n} ) ) = \sigma^{\operatorname{Op}(\operatorname{EM}' (I) ) } (g_{ t_1} / D, \dots, g_{t_n} / D) which is an element in \operatorname{Op}(\operatorname{EM}(I)). The reader is invited to check that h is an \leq_{\mathfrak{k}}-elementary embedding of \operatorname{EM}(J) into \operatorname{Op}(\operatorname{EM}(I)), and consequently \operatorname{EM}(I) \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} \operatorname{EM}(J), but we elaborate. Prove by induction on n < \omega that:

1. \oplus if \bar{s} = \langle s_{i} \colon i < n \rangle is <_{Y}-increasing then let m \leq n and N_{\bar{s}} \coloneqq M_{2} \restriction \{ f \in {}^{H}M \colon \mathrm{eq}(f) is refined by \mathrm{eq}_{\bar{s} \restriction m} = \{ (h_{1}, h_{2}) \colon h_{1}, h_{2} \in \prod_{s \in I} I_{s} and \ell < m \Rightarrow h_{1}(s_{\ell}) \geq h_{2}(s_{\ell}) \} \},

1. \boxplus for \bar{s} = \langle s_{\ell} \colon \ell < n \rangle as above, N_{\bar{s} \restriction m} \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N_{\bar{s}}.

[Why? Prove by induction on n that it suffices to conclude that m = n -1 and now read the Definition.]

1. \boxplus if \bar{s} is as above and \bar{t} is a sub-sequence of \bar{s} then N_{\bar{t}} \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N_{\bar{s}}.

Why? By Ax. V of AEC (see Definition 1.17): The rest should be clear.

Finally note that if b = \sigma^{\operatorname{EM}' (I)} (a_{t_1}, \dots, a_{t_n}) \in \operatorname{EM}(I), t_1, \dots, t_n \in I, then h(a) = \sigma^{\operatorname{Op}(\operatorname{EM}'(I))} (g_{ t_1} / D, \dots, g_{t_n} / D) = \sigma^{\operatorname{Op}(\operatorname{EM}' (I))} ( \langle a_{f_{t_{i}(i)}}\colon i < \mu \rangle / D, \dots, \langle a_{f_{t_{n}(i)}} \colon i < \mu \rangle / D) = f_{\operatorname{Op}} (\sigma^{\operatorname{EM}' (I)} (a_{t_1}, \dots, a_{t_n})) = f_{\operatorname{Op}} (b). Thus \operatorname{EM}(I) \underset{\text{nice}} \leq \operatorname{EM}(J).

et us list some general facts which facilitate the proof.

Fact (A): Let \underline{\kappa} denote the linear order (\kappa,<) where < is the usual order \in \upharpoonright \kappa \times\kappa. If J_1=\underline\kappa+J_0, then \underline\kappa {\underset{\text{nice}} \subseteq} J_1 (+ is the addition of linear orders in which all elements in the first order precede those in the second).

Fact (B): If \underline\kappa \subseteq (I,<), \underline\kappa is unbounded in (I,<) and J_1=I+J_0, then I\underset{\rm{nice}} \subseteq J_1.

Fact (C): If I\underset{\rm{nice}} \subseteq J, then I+J_1\underset{\rm{nice}} \subseteq J+J_1.

Fact (D): I\underset{\rm{nice}} \subseteq J iff (J<)^*\underset{\rm{nice}} \subseteq (I,<)^*.

Fact (E): If \langle I_{\alpha} \colon\alpha \le \delta\rangle is a continuous increasing sequence of linear orders and for \alpha<\delta, I_{\alpha}\underset{\rm{nice}} \subseteq I_{\alpha +1}, then I_\alpha\underset{\rm{nice}} \subseteq I_{\delta}.

Now using these facts, let us prove the criterion. Define an equivalence relation E on J\setminus I as follows: tEs iff t and s define the same Dedekind cut in (I,<). Let \{ t_{\alpha} \colon \alpha<\delta \} be a set of representatives of the E-equivalence classes. For each \beta \le \delta, define

so I_0=I, I_{\delta}=J and \langle I_{\alpha} \colon\alpha \le \delta\rangle is a continuous increasing sequence of linear orders. By Fact (E), to show that I \underset{\rm{nice}} \subseteq J, it suffices to show that I_{\alpha}\underset{\rm{nice}} \subseteq I_{\alpha+1} for each \alpha <\delta.

Fix \alpha <\delta. Now t_{\alpha} belongs to J\setminus I, so by (*), (\aleph) or (\beth) holds. By Fact (D), it is enough to treat the case (\aleph). So without loss of generality \operatorname{Op} \big( (I,<)\upharpoonright \{ s\in I \colon (J,<)\models s<t_{\alpha}\}\big)=\kappa.

Let

Note that I_{\alpha}=I^a_{\alpha}+I^c_{\alpha} and I_{\alpha+1}=I^b_{\alpha}+I^c_{\alpha}. Recalling Fact (C), it is now enough to show that I^a_{\alpha}\underset{\rm{nice}} \subseteq I^b_{\alpha}. Identifying isomorphic orders and using (\aleph), one has that \underline\kappa is unbounded in I_{\alpha}^a and I_{\alpha}^b=I^a_{\alpha}+ (I_{\alpha}^b\setminus I_{\alpha}^a) so by Fact (B), I_{\alpha}^a\underset{\rm{nice}} \subseteq I_{\alpha}^b as required.

et I = (\lambda \dotplus 1) \times \kappa and define <_I on I\colon (i_1, \alpha_1) <_I (i_2, \alpha_2) iff i_1 < i_2 or (i_1 = i_2 and \alpha_1 > \alpha_2). For each i \le \lambda, let A_i = \{ i \} \times \kappa. Let us check (\ast) of Criterion 2.6: suppose that \lambda \in X \subseteq \lambda + 1. Write I_X = I \upharpoonright \left( \bigcup_{i \in X} A_{i} \right). To show that I_X \underset{\text{nice}} \subseteq I, we can assume without loss of generality that I_{X} \neq I and then one employs Criterion 2.6. Consider t \in I - I_X, say t = (i, \alpha) (note that \alpha < \kappa and i < \lambda, since \lambda \in X) and i \notin X. Let j = \min (X -i); note that j is well-defined, since \lambda \in X -i, and j \neq i. For every \beta < \kappa, one has t <_I (j, \beta) and (j, \beta) \in I_X. Also if s \in I_X and t <_I s, then for some \beta < \kappa (j, \beta) <_I s. Thus \langle (j, \beta)\colon \beta < \kappa \rangle is a cofinal sequence in ( I_X \upharpoonright \{ s \in I\colon t <_I s \})^\ast. By the criterion, I_X \underset{\text{nice}} \subseteq I.

y Fact (B) of Criterion 2.6, one has that \delta\underset{\rm{nice}} \subseteq \lambda; so by Theorem 2.5, \operatorname{EM}(\delta) {\underset{\text{nice}} \leq} \operatorname{EM}(\lambda).

uppose that \mathfrak{k}_{< \lambda} fails AP. Note that \| \operatorname{EM}(\lambda) \| = \lambda. Apply Theorem 2.4 to find M^\ast \in K_\lambda and \langle M_i \colon i < \lambda \rangle satisfying Theorem 2.4(1) and Theorem 2.4 (2). Since \mathfrak{k} is \lambda-categorical, M^\ast \cong E M (\lambda), so without loss of generality \operatorname{EM}(\lambda) = \underset{i < \lambda} \cup M_i. C = \{ i < \lambda\colon M_i = \operatorname{EM}(i) \} is a club of \lambda. Choose \delta \in C, \mathrm{cf}(\delta) = \kappa. By Theorem 2.9, \operatorname{EM}(\delta) \underset{\text{nice}} \leq \operatorname{EM}(\lambda), so M_\delta \underset{\text{nice}} \leq M^\ast. But of course by Theorem 2.4(2) M_\delta \underset{\text{nice}} \nleq M^\ast-contradiction.

1) Let \langle I, \langle A_i \colon i \le \lambda \rangle \rangle be as in Fact 2.8. Let M = \operatorname{EM}(I). Suppose that N \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} M, \| N \| < \lambda. Then there exists J \subseteq I, |J| < \lambda such that N \subseteq \operatorname{EM}(J) so by Fact 2.8 there exists X \subseteq \lambda + 1 such that \lambda \in X, \vert X \vert < \lambda and J \subseteq \underset{i \in X} \cup A_i.

Note that \left| \underset{i \in X} \cup A_i \right| \le \vert X \vert \cdot \kappa < \lambda. Now N' = \operatorname{EM}(I \upharpoonright \underset{i \in X} \cup A_i) is as required, since I \upharpoonright \underset{ i \in X} \cup A_i \underset{\text{nice}} \leq I and so by Theorem 2.5 \operatorname{EM}(I \upharpoonright \left( \bigcup_{i \in X} A_{i} \right)) \underset{\text{nice}} \leq \operatorname{EM}(I). This proves (1).

(2) We expand M = \operatorname{EM}(I) with skeleton \langle a_{s} \colon s \in I \rangle as follows:

1. (a) by all functions of \operatorname{EM}'(I),

2. (b) by the unary functions f_\ell(\ell<n) which are chosen as follows: we know that for each b \in M there is \sigma_b an \tau_1-term (\tau_1-the vocabulary of \operatorname{EM}'(I)) and t(b,0) < t(b,1) < \ldots < t(b,n_{\sigma_b}-1) from I such that

   b=\sigma_b(a_{t(b,0)}, a_{t(b,1)}, \dots, a_{t(b, n_{\sigma_{b}}-1)})

   (it is not unique, but we can choose one; really if we choose it with n_b minimal it is almost unique). We let

   f_\ell(b) = \begin{cases} a_{t((b,\ell))}, &\text{ if } \ell<n_{\sigma_b},\\ b, &\text{ if } \ell\ge n_{\sigma_b}.\\ \end{cases}

3. (c) by unary functions g_\alpha, g^\alpha for \alpha<\kappa such that if t < s are in I, \alpha = \mathrm{otp}[(t,s)^*_I] then g^\alpha(a_t)=a_s, \bigvee\limits_{\beta< \kappa}g_\beta(a_s)=a_t (more formally g^\alpha(a_{(i, \beta)})=a_{(i, \beta+\alpha)} and g_\alpha(a_{(i, \beta)}) = a_{(i, \alpha)}) in the other cases g^\alpha(b)=b, g_\alpha(b)=b.

4. (d) by individual constants c_\alpha=a_{(\lambda,\alpha)} for \alpha<\kappa.

Call the expanded model M^{+}. Now suppose N^+ is a sub-model of M^+ and N its \tau-reduct. Let J\mathop=\limits^{\hbox{\rm def}}\{t\in I\colon a_t\in N\}, now J is a subset of I of cardinality \le||N|| as for t\not=s from J, a_t\not= a_s. Also if b\in N by clause (b), a_{t(b,\ell)}\in N hence b\in \operatorname{EM}(J); on the other hand if b\in \operatorname{EM}(J) then by clause (b) we have b\in N; so we can conclude N=\operatorname{EM}(J). So far this holds for any linear suborder of I.

By clause (c) J=\bigcup\limits_{i\in X}A_i for some X\subseteq \lambda+1, and by clause (d), \lambda \in X.

Now \operatorname{EM}(J) \underset{\rm{nice}}{\leq} \operatorname{EM}(I) = M by Fact 2.8.

rite M_{\theta^+} = \underset{i < \theta^+} \cup M_i. Choose an operation \operatorname{Op} such that for all i < \theta^+, \, \| \operatorname{Op}(M_i) \| \ge \lambda. Let M^\ast_i = \operatorname{Op}(M_i), hence M_{i} \underset{\mathrm{nice}}{\leq} M_{i}^{\ast}. Applying Fact 1.11 for non-limit ordinals, Fact 1.10 for limit ordinals, one finds inductively an increasing continuous \leq_{\mathfrak{k}}-chain \langle N_i \colon i \le \theta^+ \rangle such that for i < \theta^+, M_i \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N_i \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} M^\ast_i, \| N_i \| = \lambda, so M_{i} \underset{\mathrm{nice}}{\leq} N_{i} and N_{\theta^+} = \underset{i < \theta^+} \cup N_i. Note that \| N_{\theta^+} \| = \theta^+ \cdot \lambda = \lambda.

Since \mathfrak{k} is \lambda-categorical, N_{\theta^+} \cong \operatorname{EM}(I) where Fact 2.8 furnishes I of power \lambda. By Theorem 2.11(2), there is an expansion N^+_{\theta^+} of N_{\theta^+} by at most \kappa + | \tau_{\mathfrak{k}} | functions such that if A \subseteq |N^+_{\theta^+}| is closed under the functions of N^+_{\theta^+}, then (N^+_{\theta^+} \upharpoonright \tau _{\mathfrak{k}} ) \upharpoonright A \underset{\text{nice}} \leq N_{\theta^+}.

Choose a set A_i and an ordinal j_i, by induction on i < \theta^+, satisfying:

(1) A_i \subseteq |N_{\theta^+}|, |A_i| \le \theta;\langle A_i\colon i < \theta^+ \rangle is continuous increasing,

(2) \langle j_i \colon i < \theta^+ \rangle is continuous increasing,

(3) A_i is closed under the functions of N^+_{\theta^+},

(4) A_i \subseteq |N_{j_{i + 1}} |,

(5) |M_i| \subseteq A_{i+1}.

This is possible: for zero, let A_{0} \coloneqq \emptyset, j_{0} \coloneqq 0 and for limit ordinals unions work; for i +1 choose j_{i+1} to satisfy (2) and (4), and A_{i+1} to satisfy (1), (3) and (5).

By (2), C = \{ i < \theta^+ \colon i is a limit ordinal and j_i = i \} is a club of \theta^+ i.e. C \in D_{\theta^+}.

Fix i \in C. Note that |M_i | \subseteq A_i and A_i \subseteq |N_i| (since |M_i| = \underset{j < i} \cup | M_j | \subseteq \underset {j < i} \cup A_{j +1} = A_i = \underset{i' < i} \cup A_{i'} \subseteq \underset{i' < i} \cup | N_{ j_{i' + 1}} | = N_{j_i} = N_i (using (5), (1), (4), (2) and j_i = i)) and so M_i \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} (N^+_{\theta^+} \upharpoonright \tau _{\mathfrak{k}} )\upharpoonright A_i \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N_i \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} M^\ast_i = \operatorname{Op}(M_i), so that M_i \underset{\text{nice}} \leq (N^+_{\theta^+} \upharpoonright \tau _{\mathfrak{k}} ) \upharpoonright A_i. However by (3) and the choice of N_{\theta^+} and N^+_{\theta^+} one has also that (N^+_{\theta^+} \upharpoonright \tau _{\mathfrak{k}} ) \upharpoonright A_i \underset{\text{nice}} \leq N_{\theta^+}. So by transitivity of \underset{\text{nice}} \leq, one obtains M_i \underset{\text{nice}} \leq N_{\theta^+}.

Finally remark that M_{\theta^+} \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N_{\theta^+} since M_i \underset{\text{nice}} \leq N_i \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N_{\theta^+} for every i < \theta^+. Hence i \in C \Rightarrow M_{i} \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} M_{\theta^{+}} \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N_{\theta^{+}}, so recalling i \in C \Rightarrow M_{i} \underset{\mathrm{nice}}{\leq} N_{\theta} we have i \in C \Rightarrow M_{i} \underset{\mathrm{nice}}{\leq} M_{\theta^{+}}; so C \subseteq \left \{ i < \theta^+\colon M_i \underset{\text{nice}} \leq M_{\theta^+} \right \} \in D_{\theta^+}.

uppose otherwise. We’ll define a continuous increasing \leq_{\mathfrak{k}}-chain \langle M_i \in K_\theta\colon i < \theta^+ \rangle such that for j < \theta^+:

1. (*)_{j} M_j \underset{\text{nice}} \nleq M_{j +1}.

For i = 0, put M_0 = M; if i is a limit ordinal, put M_i = \underset{j < i} \cup M_j; if i = j +1, then since Theorem 3.4 is assumed to fail, M_{j +1} exists as required in (\ast)_j (otherwise M_j works as N in Theorem 3.4). But now \langle M_i \colon i < \theta^+ \rangle yields a contradiction to Theorem 3.1, since C = \{ i < \theta^+ \colon M_i \underset{\mathrm{nice}}{\leq} \underset{ j < \theta^+} \cup M_j \} \in D_{\theta^+} by Theorem 3.1 so that choosing j from C one has M_j \underset{\text{nice}} \leq M_{j +1} by Observation 1.38, contradicting (\ast)_j.

hoosing an appropriate \operatorname{Op} and using Fact 1.11 one finds N_1 such that N \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N_1 and \| N_1 \| = \lambda. Find M'_1 \underset{\text{nice}} \leq N_1 by Theorem 2.11(2) such that \mathrm{rng}(f) \subseteq |M'_1|, \| M'_1 \| = \theta. So M'_1 \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N_1 and therefore N_{1} \, {\restriction} \, \mathrm{rng}(f) \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} M'_1. Recall M is nice, so f \colon M \underset{\text{nice}} \rightarrow M'_1. Now M'_1 \underset{\text{nice}} \leq N_1, therefore f\colon M \underset{\text{nice}} \rightarrow N_1. So there are \operatorname{Op} and g \colon N_1 \underset{\mathfrak{k}} \rightarrow \operatorname{Op}(M) satisfying gf = f_{\operatorname{Op}}. Since N \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N_1 it follows that f \colon M \underset{\text{nice}} \rightarrow N as required.

y Definition 3.5 f_i \colon M \underset{\text{nice}} \rightarrow M_i (i =1, 2). Hence by Lemma 2.1 there is an amalgam N \in K_{\le \lambda} of M_1, M_2 over M w.r.t. f_1, f_2.

e choose I such that:

1. (\ast)

   1. (a) I is a linear order of cardinality \lambda,

   2. (b) if \partial \in [\aleph_0,\lambda), J_0\subseteq I, |J_0|= \partial then there is J_1 satisfying J_0\subseteq J_1\subseteq I, |J_1|= \partial, and for every J^*\subseteq I of cardinality \le \partial there is an order-preserving (one to one) mapping from J_0\cup J^* into J_0\cup J_1 which is the identity on J_0.

Essentially the construction follows Laver [Lv71] and [Sh:220, Appendix], see more in [Sh:E62]; but for our present purpose let I=({\;}^{\omega>}\lambda,<_{\ell \rm{e x}}); given \theta and J_0 we can increase J_0 so without loss of generality J_0={\;}^{\omega>}A, A\subseteq \lambda, |A|=\theta. Define an equivalence relation E on I\setminus J_0: \eta E \nu\Leftrightarrow (\forall \rho \in J_0)(\rho<_{\ell \rm{ex}}\eta \equiv \rho<_{\ell \rm{ex}}\nu), easily it has \le\theta equivalence classes, so let \{\eta^*_i \colon i<i^*\le\theta\} be a set of representatives each of minimal length, so \eta_{i}^*\upharpoonright(\lg\eta^*_i-1) \in J_0, \eta^*_i(\lg \eta^*_i-1)\in \lambda\setminus A.

Let J_1=I\cup\{\eta^*_i{\;}^{\hat{\; }}\nu\colon \nu\in{\;}^{\omega>}\theta and i<i^*\}, so clearly J_0\subseteq J_1\subseteq I, |J_1 \vert =\theta. Suppose J_0\subseteq J\subseteq I, |J|\le\theta, and we should find the required embedding h. As before without loss of generality J={\;}^{\omega>}B, |B|=\theta and A\subseteq B. Now h\upharpoonright J_0=\rm{id}_{J_0} so it is enough to define h\upharpoonright (J_1\cap(\eta^*_i/E)), hence it is enough to embed J_1\cap(\eta^*_i/E) into \{\eta_1^*{\;}^{\hat {\; }} \nu\colon \nu\in{\;}^{\omega>}\theta\} (under <_{\ell \rm{ex}}).

Let \gamma = \mathrm{otp}(B), so it is enough to show ({\;}^{<\omega}\gamma,<_{\ell \rm{ex}}) can be embedded into {\;}^{\omega>}\theta, where of course |\gamma|\le\theta. This is proved by induction on \gamma.

Since \mathfrak{k} is \lambda-categorical and \operatorname{EM}(I) is a model of \mathfrak{k} of power \lambda, there is an isomorphism g from \operatorname{EM}(I) onto N. It follows from (\ast) that M^+ = g^{''}(\operatorname{EM}(J)) \in K_\theta satisfies (1) and (2). (Analogues of (1) and (2) are checked in more detail in the course of the proof of Corollary 3.14.)

pply Lemma 3.10 for M_0 \in K_\theta and N_{\theta^+} = \underset{i < \theta^+} \cup N_i \in K_\lambda (noting that M_0 \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N_0 \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N_{\theta^+}) to find M^+ \in K_\theta such that M_0 \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} M^+ \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N_{\theta^+} and M^+ is universal over M_0 in N_{\theta^+}.

For some i (\ast) < \theta^+, M^+ \subseteq N_{i (\ast)} and so M^+ \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N_{i (\ast)}. If i \in (i (\ast), \theta^+), then M_{i +1} \in K_\theta and M_0 \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} M_{i +1} \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N_{i +1} \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N_{\theta^+}, so there is an \leq_{\mathfrak{k}}-elementary embedding f \colon M_{i +1} \underset{\mathfrak{k}} \rightarrow M^+ and f \upharpoonright M_0 is the identity. Now M^+ \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N_{i (\ast)} \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N_i, so f\colon M_{i +1} \underset{\mathfrak{k}} \rightarrow N_i. Hence (i (\ast), \; \theta^+) \subseteq C as required.

efine by induction on i < \theta^+ continuous \prec_{\mathfrak{k}}-chains \langle M_i \in K_\theta \colon i < \theta^+ \rangle, \, \langle N_i \in K_\lambda\colon i < \theta^+ \rangle such that:

(0) M_0 = M,

(1) M_i \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N_i,

(2) if (\ast)_i holds, then M_{i +1} cannot be \leq_{\mathfrak{k}}-elementarily embedded into N_i over M_0, where (\ast)_i is the statement:

1. (*)_{i} there are M' \in K_\theta and N' \in K_\lambda such that M_i \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} M', N_i \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N', M' \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N' and M' cannot be \leq_{\mathfrak{k}}-elementarily embedded into N_i over M_0,

(3) M_{i +1} \underset{\text{nice}} \leq N_{i +1}.

This is possible. N_0 is obtained by an application of Fact 1.11 to an appropriate \operatorname{Op}(M_0) of power at least \lambda. At limit stages, continuity dictates that one take unions. Suppose that M_i, N_{i} have been defined. If (\ast)_i does not hold, by Theorem 2.11(2) there is M''\in K_{\theta}, M_i \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} M'' \underset{\rm nice} \leq N_i. Let M_{i +1} = M'', \; N_{i +1} = N_i. If (\ast)_i does hold for M', N', let N_{i +1} = N'; note that by Theorem 2.11(2) there exists M^{''} \in K_\theta , M' \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} M^{''} \underset{\text{nice}} \leq N'; now let M_{i +1} = M^{''}. Note that in each case, (3) is satisfied.

Find i (\ast) < \theta^+ and C as in Lemma 3.11 and choose i \in C. By (1), we have M_{i +1} \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N_{i +1} so by Lemma 3.10 there exists M^- \in K_\theta such that M_{i +1} \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} M^- \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N_{i +1} and M^- is weakly universal over M_{i +1} in N_{i +1}. By Theorem 3.4 one can find M^+ \in K_\theta such that M^- \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} M^+ and M^+ is nice. So M^+ satisfies (\aleph). It remains to show that M^+ is weakly universal over M. Suppose not and let g\colon M^+ \underset{\mathfrak{k}} \rightarrow M^\ast \in K_\theta where M^\ast cannot be \leq_{\mathfrak{k}}-elementarily embedded in M^+ over M hence cannot be \leq_{\mathfrak{k}}-elementarily embedable in M^- over M, hence in N_{i+1} over M. M_{i +1} \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} M^\ast\in K_\theta and by (3) M_{i +1} \underset{\text{nice}} \leq N_{i +1}\in K_\lambda, so by 2.1 there is an amalgam N^\ast \in K_\lambda of M^\ast, \; N_{i +1}. The existence of M^\ast, N^\ast implies that (\ast)_{i +1} holds since M^\ast cannot be \leq_{\mathfrak{k}}-elementarily embedded into N_{i +1} over M_0, hence M_{i +2} cannot be \leq_{\mathfrak{k}}-elementarily embedded into N_{i +1} in contradiction to the choice of i as by Lemma 3.10 i +1 is in C.

y Theorem 3.12 and Remark 3.8.

y 3.4 it suffices to find a universal model of power \theta, noting that universality is preserved under \leq_{\mathfrak{k}}-elementary extensions in the same power. As in the proof of 3.10, there is a linear order (I, <_I) of power \lambda and J \subseteq I, |J| = \theta, such that:

1. (*) ( \forall J' \subseteq I) (if | J'| \le \theta, then there is an order-preserving injective map g from J' into J).

To finish the proof it suffices to prove:

1. \boxplus \operatorname{EM}(J) \in K_\theta is universal.

Why \boxplus holds? \operatorname{EM}(J) is a model of power \theta since max(|J|, \chi) \le \theta and \theta = |J| \le \| \operatorname{EM}(J) \|. Let us show that \operatorname{EM}(J) is universal. Suppose that N \in K_\theta. Applying Fact 1.11 to a suitably large \operatorname{Op}(N) find M \in K_\lambda, N \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} M, so that by \lambda-categoricity of \mathfrak{k}, M \cong \operatorname{EM}(I). There is a surjective \leq_{\mathfrak{k}}-elementary embedding h\colon N \underset{\mathfrak{k}} \rightarrow N' \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} \operatorname{EM}(I) and there exists J' \subseteq I, \, | J'| \le \| N' \| + \chi = \theta, such that N' \subseteq \operatorname{EM}(J'). So by (\ast) there is an order preserving injective map g from J' into J. Now g induces an \leq_{\mathfrak{k}}-elementary embedding \hat g from \operatorname{EM}(J') into \operatorname{EM}(J). Let f = \hat g h, then f\colon N \underset{\mathfrak{k}} \rightarrow \operatorname{EM}(J) is as required.

et B\in K_{\theta}, M \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} B and we show that M \underset{\rm{nice}}{\leq} B. Well, since M \underset{\rm{nice}}{\leq} N and M \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} B, by 2.1 there exists an amalgam M^* \in K_{<\lambda} of N, B over M. Without loss of generality by 1.16 \Vert M^*||=||N||. But N is nice, hence N \underset{\rm{nice}}{\leq} M^*. Since M\underset{\rm{nice}} \leq N, it follows by 1.34 that M \underset{\rm{nice}}{\leq} M^*. Since M \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} B \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} M^*, it follows by 1.39 that M \underset{\rm{nice}}{\leq} B.

ne proves (1), (2), and (3) simultaneously by induction on \partial.

Ad (1). Choose a continuous \leq_{\mathfrak{k}}-chain \langle M_i \in K_\theta\colon i < \partial \rangle of nice models by induction on i as follows. For i = 0, apply 3.14 to find a nice universal model M_0 \in K_\theta. For i = j +1, note that M_j is an a.b. by 3.6 (since M_j is nice), hence by 3.13 there exists a nice model M_i \in K_\theta, M_j \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} M_i, M_i universal over M_j. For limit i, let M_i = \underset{j < i} \cup M_j. Note that by the inductive hypothesis (3) on \partial for i < \partial, since M_i is (\theta, i)-saturated, M_i is nice. Thus M = \underset{i < \partial} \cup M_i is (\theta, \partial)-saturated (witnessed by \langle M_i \colon i < \partial \rangle). Note that M is universal since \langle M_i \colon i < \partial \rangle is continuous and M_0 is universal.

Ad (2). Recall that each M_{i} is an amalgamation base by \ref{X2.1}. As \partial is a limit ordinal standard back-and-forth argument shows that if M and N are (\theta, \partial)-saturated models, then M and N are isomorphic.

Ad (3). By the uniqueness (i.e. by Ad(2)) it suffices to prove that some (\theta, \partial)-saturated model is nice. Suppose that M is (\theta, \partial)-saturated. We’ll show that M is nice.

If \mathrm{cf}(\partial) < \partial, then M is also (\theta, \mathrm{cf}(\partial))-saturated and hence by the inductive hypothesis (3) on \partial for cf(\partial), M is nice. So we’ll assume that cf(\partial) = \partial. Choose a continuous \leq_{\mathfrak{k}}-chain \langle M_i \in K_\theta \colon i < \theta^+ \rangle such that: M_0 is nice and universal (possible by 3.14); if M_i is nice, then M_{i +1} \in K_\theta is nice and universal over M_i (possible by 3.6 and 3.13); if M_i is not nice (so necessarily i is a limit ordinal), then M_{i +1} \in K_\theta, M_i \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} M_{i +1} and M_i \underset{\text{nice}} \nleq M_{i +1}. By 3.1 and 1.38 there is a club C of \theta^+ such that if i \in C, then M_i \underset{\text{nice}} \leq M_{i +1}. So by the choice of \langle M_i \colon i < \theta^+ \rangle, if i \in C, then M_i is nice. Choose i \in C, i = \sup (i \cap C), \mathrm{cf}(i) = \partial. It suffices to show that M_i is (\theta, \partial)-saturated (for then by (2) M_i is isomorphic to M and so M is nice). Choose a continuous increasing sequence \langle \alpha_\zeta\colon \zeta < \partial \rangle \subseteq C such that i = \bigcup \{ \alpha_{\zeta}\colon \zeta < \partial \} (recall that i = \sup (i \cap C), \mathrm{cf}(i) = \partial). Now M_i = \underset{\zeta < \partial} \cup M_{\alpha_\zeta}. Of course M_{\alpha_0} is universal (since M_0 is universal and M_0 \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} M_{\alpha_0}), M_{\alpha_{\zeta+1}} is universal over M_{\alpha_\zeta} since M_{\alpha_\zeta +1} is universal over M_{\alpha_\zeta} and M_{\alpha_\zeta} \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} M_{\alpha_\zeta +1} \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} M_{\alpha_{\zeta + 1}}. Also M_{\alpha_\zeta} is nice for each \zeta < \partial since \alpha_\zeta \in C. Hence M_i is (\theta, \partial)-saturated, recall that M_{i} is nice because i \in C, so we are done.

rite M=\bigcup\limits_{i<\theta^+}M_i. Note that if \langle M'_i\in K_{\theta} \colon i<\theta^+ \rangle is any other continuous \leq_{\mathfrak{k}}-chain of nice models such that M'_{i+1} is universal over M'_i then \bigcup\limits_{i<\theta^+}M'_i \cong M (use again the back and forth argument recalling that M_{0}, is an a.b., so as M_{j} is universal over M_{0}, it is universal).

By Theorem 4.2 there exists a (\theta^+,\theta^+)-saturated model N which is unique and nice. In particular ||N||=\theta^+ and there exists a continuous \leq_{\mathfrak{k}}-chain \langle N_i\in K_{\theta^+}\colon i< \theta^+\rangle such that:

1. (i) N_0 is nice and universal,

2. (ii) N_{i+1} is universal over N_i,

3. (iii) N_i is nice,

4. (iv) N=\bigcup\limits_{i<\theta^+}N_i.

It suffices to prove that M and N are isomorphic models.

Without loss of generality |N|=\theta^+. By Fact 1.11, the set C_1=\{ \delta < \theta^+ \colon N\upharpoonright\delta \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N \} contains a club of \theta^+. By 3.1 there exists a club C_2 \subseteq C_{1} of \theta^+ such that for every \delta\in C_2, N\upharpoonright \delta \underset{\rm{nice}}{\leq} N. Since \{ |N_i| \colon i < \theta^+ \} is a continuous increasing sequence of subsets of \theta^+, it follows that C_3=\{ \delta<\theta^+ \colon \delta \subseteq |N_{\delta}|\} is a club of \theta^+. Hence there is a club C_4 of \theta^+ such that C_4\subseteq C_1\cap C_2 \cap C_3\cap [\theta, \theta^+). Note that for \delta\in C_4 one has N\upharpoonright \delta \underset{\rm{nice}} \leq N, |N\upharpoonright \delta|= \delta \subseteq |N_{\delta}| and N_{\delta} \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N, so that N\upharpoonright \delta \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N_{\delta} \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N and so by 1.38 N\upharpoonright \delta \underset{\rm{nice}} \leq N_\delta. \langle N_{\delta} \colon \delta\in C_4\rangle is a continuous increasing \prec_{\mathfrak{k}}-chain, N_{\delta}\in K_{\theta^+} and N\upharpoonright \delta\in K_{\theta}.

By 3.15 N\upharpoonright\delta is nice since N_{\delta} is nice (by (iii)). So by 3.13 N\upharpoonright{\delta} has a nice \leq_{\mathfrak{k}}-extension B_{\delta}\in K_{\theta} which is universal over N\upharpoonright \delta, without loss of generality N\upharpoonright \delta \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} B_{\delta} \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N.

[Why? since N\upharpoonright \delta \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} B_{\delta} (in fact N\upharpoonright \delta \underset{\rm{nice}} \leq B_{\delta}) and N\upharpoonright \delta\underset{\rm{nice}} \leq N_{\delta}, by 2.1 there exists an amalgam A_{\delta}\in K_{\le \theta^+} of B_{\delta}, N_{\delta} over N\upharpoonright \delta. Let f_{\delta} : B_{\delta} \underset{\mathfrak{k}} \to A_{\delta} be a witness. But N_{\delta+1} is universal over N_{\delta} (by (ii)), so A_{\delta} can be \leq_{\mathfrak{k}}-elementarily embedded into N_{\delta+1} over N_{\delta} (say by g_{\delta}), hence B_{\delta} can be \leq_{\mathfrak{k}}-elementarily embedded into N (using g_{\delta}f_{\delta}).]

Let C_5=\{\delta\in C_4\colon \text{if } \alpha \in C_4\cap \delta, then |B_{\alpha}|\subseteq \delta\}. Note that C_5 is a club of \theta^+ since ||B_{\alpha}||=\theta. [For \alpha \in C_4, let E_{\alpha}=(\sup |B_{\alpha}|, \theta^+)\cap C_4, let E_{\alpha}=\theta^+ for \alpha\not\in C_4 and let E be the diagonal intersection of \langle E_{\alpha} \colon \alpha <\theta^+\rangle, i.e. E=\{ \delta<\theta^+\colon (\forall \alpha <\delta)(\delta\in E_{\alpha})\}. Note that E is a club of \theta^+ and C_5 \supseteq E\cap C_4 which is a club of \theta^+.]

Thus \langle N\upharpoonright\delta\colon \delta\in C_5\rangle is a continuous \leq_{\mathfrak{k}}-chain of nice models, each of power \theta. If \delta_1\in C_5 and \delta_2=\min(C_5\setminus (\delta_1+1)), then N\upharpoonright \delta_1 \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} B_{\delta_1} \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N\upharpoonright \delta_2. Hence N\upharpoonright \delta_2 is universal over N\upharpoonright\delta_1 (since B_{\delta_1} is universal over N\upharpoonright\delta_1). Let \{\delta_i \colon i<\theta^+\} enumerate C_5 and set M'_i=N\upharpoonright\delta_i. Note that N=\bigcup\limits_{i<\theta^+}M'_i. Then \langle M'_i\in K_{\theta}\colon i< \theta^+\rangle is a continuous \leq_{\mathfrak{k}}-chain of nice models, M'_{i+1} is universal over M'_i. Therefore N and M are isomorphic (as said at the beginning of the proof), as required.

et \theta = \sup(\bar{\theta}). By 4.10(1) and the uniqueness of \overline\theta-saturated models 4.10(2), without loss of generality one may assume that \lg(\overline\theta) = \mathrm{cf}(\sup (\overline\theta)) = \mathrm{cf}(\theta). Now, by 4.7, we know (\mathrm{cf}(\theta))^+<\theta \ (= \sup(\bar{\theta})), so by [Sh:420, 1.16 + Fact 1.11(1)] there exists \langle S, \langle C_{\alpha} \colon \alpha \in S\rangle\rangle such that:

• (\alpha) S\subseteq \theta^+ is a set of ordinals; 0 \notin S,

• (\beta) S_1=\{ \alpha\in S\colon \mathrm{cf}(\alpha)= \mathrm{cf} (\theta)\} is a stationary subset of \theta^+,

• (\gamma) if \alpha \in S then \alpha=\sup (C_{\alpha}) and, if \alpha\in S \setminus S_{1} then \rm{otp}(C_{\alpha}) < \mathrm{cf} (\theta),

• (\delta) if \beta \in C_{\alpha}, then \beta \in S and C_{\beta}=C_{\alpha}\cap \beta,

• (\epsilon) C_{\alpha} is a set of successor ordinals.

[Note that the existence of \langle S,\langle C_{\alpha} \colon \alpha \in S\rangle\rangle is provable in ZFC.]

Without loss of generality S\setminus S_1=\cup\{C_\alpha \colon \alpha\in S_1\}. We shall construct the required model by induction, using \langle C_{\alpha} \colon \alpha \in S\rangle. Remember \bar \theta=\langle \theta_\zeta\colon \zeta< \mathrm{cf}(\theta)\rangle. Let us start by defining by induction on \alpha<\theta^+ the following entities: M_{\alpha}, M_{\alpha, \xi} (for \alpha<\theta^+, \xi < \mathrm{cf}(\theta)), and N_\alpha (only when \alpha\in\bigcup\limits_{\beta\in S}C_\beta) such that:

et \langle M_\alpha\colon \alpha<\theta^+\rangle be as in the proof of 4.11. By 3.1 there exists a club C of \theta^+ such that for every \alpha\in C, M_{\alpha} \underset{\rm{nice}}{\leq} \bigcup \limits_{\beta< \theta^{+}} M_{\beta} hence by the construction M_{\alpha} is nice. So if \alpha, \beta\in C and \alpha<\beta, then M_{\beta} is a universal extension of M_{\alpha} and for \gamma=\sup(\gamma\cap C), \gamma \in C, one has that M_{\gamma} is (\theta, \mathrm{cf}(\gamma))-saturated. Choose \gamma\in S_1\cap C and \sup(\gamma\cap C)=\gamma. So M_{\gamma} is (\theta, \mathrm{cf}(\theta))-saturated and also \bar\theta-saturated (see proof of 4.11). Together we finish.

et I=(\{0\}\times \mu)\cup(\{1\}\times\kappa), I_i=(\{0\}\times \mu_i)\cup (\{1\}\times \kappa) ordered by:

s \lambda is a limit cardinal, choose a continuous increasing sequence \langle \mu_i \colon i < \mathrm{cf}(\lambda) \rangle, \lambda = \underset{i < \mathrm{cf}(\lambda)} \sup \mu_i, \kappa +|T| \le \mu_0 < \lambda. Let \langle I, \langle I_i \colon i < \mathrm{cf}(\lambda) \rangle \rangle be as in 5.1. By \lambda-categoricity of \mathfrak{k} without loss of generality M = \operatorname{EM}(\lambda). Let M_i = \operatorname{EM}(I_i) for i < \mathrm{cf}(\lambda). Clearly (a), (b), and (c) hold. To obtain (d), observe that by 2.6 and 3.6 it suffices to remark that by demand (c) from 5.1 on \langle I_i \colon i < \mathrm{cf}(\lambda) \rangle clauses (\aleph) or (\beth) in 2.6 holds for each t \in I \setminus I_i.

he proof is by induction on \mu.

Case 1: \mu = \chi. By 3.4 there is M' \in K_\mu, \, M \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} M' and M' is nice. Given A \subseteq | M'| let N = M' and note that N is as required in (\ast)_{M'}.

Case 2: \chi < \mu. Without loss of generality, one can replace M by any \leq_{\mathfrak{k}}-extension in K_\mu. Choose a continuous increasing sequence \langle \mu_i \colon i < \mathrm{cf}(\mu) \rangle such that if \mu is a limit cardinal it is a strictly increasing sequence with limit \mu; if \mu is a successor, use \mu_i^+=\mu for every i < \mathrm{cf}(\mu), and in both cases \chi \le \mu_i < \mu. Find \bar M=\langle M_i \colon i < \mathrm{cf}(\mu) \rangle such that:

1. (a) M \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} \bigcup\limits_{i< \mathrm{cf}(\mu)}M_i,

2. (b) ||\bigcup\limits_{i< \mathrm{cf}(\mu)}M_i||=\mu,

3. (c) ||M_i||=\mu_i,

4. (d) M_i \underset{\rm{nice}}{\leq} \bigcup\limits_{j< \mathrm{cf}(\mu)}M_j.

Why does \bar M exist? If \mu=\lambda by 5.2, otherwise by 4.4 (\mu regular) and 4.12 (\mu singular).

Choose by induction on i < \mathrm{cf}(\mu) models L^0_i, L^1_i, L^2_i in that order such that:

• (\alpha) M_i \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} L^0_i \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} L^1_i \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} L^2_i \in K_{\mu_i},

• (\beta) j<i \Rightarrow L^2_j \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} L_{i}^0,

• (\gamma) (\ast)_{L^1_i} holds , i.e. for each A \subseteq |L^1_i|, there is N \in K_{\le \kappa + |T| + |A|} such that A \subseteq N \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} L^1_i and N is nice (so in particular L^1_i is nice, letting A = |L^1_i|),

• (\delta) L^2_i is nice and \mu_i-universal over L^1_i,

• (\varepsilon) L^0_i is \leq_{\mathfrak{k}}-increasing continuous,

• (\zeta) L_{i}^{\ell} \cap \bigcup_{j < \mathrm{cf}(\mu)} M_{j} = M_{i} (or use system of \leq_{\mathfrak{k}}-embeddings).

For i = 0, let L_{i}^{0} = M_{0}. For i = j +1, note that by 2.1 there is an amalgam L_{i}^{0} \in K_{\mu_{i}} of M_{i}, L_{j}^{2} over M_{j} since M_{j} \underset{\mathrm{nice}}{\leq} M_{i} and M_{j} \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} L_{j}^{2} (use last phrase of Fact 1.11 for clause (\zeta)); actually not really needed. For limit i, continuity necessitates choosing L_{i}^{0} = \bigcup_{j < i} L_{j}^{0} (note that in this case L_{i}^{0} = \bigcup_{j < i}L_{j}^{2}). To choose L_{i}^{1} apply the inductive hypothesis with respect to \mu_{i}, L_{i}^{0} to find L_{i}^{1} so that L_{i}^{0} \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} L_{i}^{1} and (\gamma)(\ast)_{(L_{i}^{1})} holds. To choose L_{i}^{2} apply 3.10 to L_{i}^{1} \in K_{\mu_{i}} giving L_{i}^{1} \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} L_{i}^{2}, L_{i}^{2} is nice and \mu_{i}-universal over L_{i}^{1} (so (\delta) holds).

Let L = \bigcup_{i < \mathrm{cf}(\mu)} L_{i}^{0} = \bigcup_{i < \mathrm{cf}(\mu)} L_{i}^{1} = \bigcup_{i < \mathrm{cf}(\mu)} L_{i}^{2}, and let L _i= L _i^0 if i is a limit, L _i^1 otherwise. Now show by induction on i < \mathrm{cf}(\mu) that L _i is nice.

[Why? show by induction on i for i=0 or i successor that L _i = L ^1_i hence use clause (\gamma), if i is limit then L _i is (\bar \theta \upharpoonright i)-saturated, hence L _i is nice by 4.9, 4.11.]

Now \langle L _i \colon i < \mathrm{cf}(\mu) \rangle witnesses that if \mu is regular, L is (\mu,\mu)-saturated by 4.4, if \mu is singular, L is \bar\mu-saturated; in all cases L is \bar\mu-saturated of power \mu, hence by the results of section 4 (i.e. 4.9, 4.11) if \mu<\lambda then L is nice. Claim 5.4 below provides the desired model M', so we are done.

M _k i < cf() M_i _k i < cf() L^0_i = L K_. Suppose thatA |L|. If|A| = , then necessarily<and we takeN = L. So without loss of generality,|A| < . If= cf()or|A| < cf(), then there isi < cf()such thatA L^1_iand, by(), ()_L^1_iholds, so there isN K_+ LST(k) + |A|, A N _k L^1_i, Nis nice andN _k Las required. So suppose thatcf() |A| < . Choose by induction oni < cf()modelsN^0_i, N^1_i, N^2_iin that order such that: \begin{enumerate} \item[()]N_i^0 _k N_i^1 _k N_i^2,\item[()]N_i^2 _k N_i+1^0,\item[()]A L_i^0 N_i^0 _k L_i^0,\item[()]N^1_i _k L^1_iand N^1_iis nice, \item[()]N^2_i _k L^2_i, N^2_iis nice and universal overN^1_i,\item[()]N^0_i, N^1_i, N^2_ihave power at most{+ |A|, _i}. \end{enumerate} Fori =0, apply Fact \ref{X1.2} forA L^0_0, L^0_0; fori = j +1, apply Fact \ref{X1.2} to findN^0_i K__i, (A L^0_i) N^2_j N^0_i _k L^0_i(in particularN^2_j _k N^0_i); for limiti, N^0_i = j < i N^0_j. To chooseN^1_i, use()_L^1_ifor the setA_i = N^0_ito find a niceN^1_i K_+ |A|, N^0_i _k N^1_i _k L^1_i. Note that N^1_i _i. Finally to chooseN^2_inote that by Lemma \ref{X3.9} the modelN^1_ihas a nice extensionN^+_i(of power N^1_i ) weakly universal overN^1_i. NowN^1_iis nice, henceN_i^+is universal overN^1_i(by \ref{X3.6}A(5)) and by Lemma \ref{X2.1} there is an amalgamN_iofN^+_i, L^1_ioverN^1_isuch that N_i _i. SinceL^2_iis universal overL^1_ione can find an_k-elementary sub-modelN^2_iofL^2_iisomorphic toN_i. LetN_ibeN_i^0ifiis a limit,N_i^1otherwise; prove by induction onithatN_iis nice (by Theorem \ref{X4.2}). Nowi < cf() N^0_iis an_k-elementary sub-model ofLof power at most+ |T| + |A|, includingA(by()) andi < cf() N^0_iis(+ |A|, cf())$-saturated, hence (by Theorem 4.2) nice, as required.

uppose otherwise and let N_0 \in K_{< \lambda} be a model which is not nice. Choose a suitable \operatorname{Op} such that \| \operatorname{Op}( N_0 ) \| \ge \lambda and by Fact 1.11 find M_0 \in K_\lambda, N_0 \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} M_0 \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} \operatorname{Op} (N_0) i.e. N_0 \underset{\rm{nice}}{\leq} M_0. It follows that:

1. \boxplus if N_0 \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} M_0 and N \in K_{< \lambda} then N is not nice.

[Why? By 4.3; alternatively, suppose contrariwise that N is nice. So there is N_1 \in K_{< \lambda}, N_0 \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N_1, N_0 \underset{\rm{nice}}{\leq} N_1, so N_0 \underset{\text{nice}} \leq N since N_0 \underset{\text{nice}} \leq M_0 and N \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} M_0, hence there is an amalgam N' \in K_{< \lambda} of N_1, N over N_0. But N is nice, so N \underset{\text{nice}} \leq N'; N_0 \underset{\text{nice}} \leq N, so N_0 \underset{\text{nice}} \leq N' and so N_0 \underset{\rm{nice}}{\leq} N_1 contradiction.]

On the other hand, applying 5.3 for \mu = \lambda there exists M' \in K_\lambda satisfying (\ast)_{M'}. By \lambda-categoricity of \mathfrak{k} without loss of generality, (\ast)_{M_0} holds (see 5.3) and A = |N_0| yields a nice model N \in K_{\kappa + |T| + \| N_0 \|} such that N_0 \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} N \leq_{\mathfrak{k}} M_0 contradicting \boxplus.

s every nice M \in K_{< \lambda} is an amalgamation base (by 3.6) we are done by the previous corollary.