Borel sets with large squares

heck, [e.g. for part (8), we can use function F such that (\forall \alpha<\kappa)(F(0) \ne F(1+\alpha)].

) For \beta < \alpha, n < \omega, a quantifier free formula \varphi = \varphi(x_0,\ldots,x_{n-1}) and k<n let

Check (or see more details in the proof of 1.10 below).

2) Similarly.

3) The proof should be clear (for (b), looking at Definition 1.1 case 3 the graph is \{(i,j): clause (a) there holds\}).

) Prove by induction on \alpha<\kappa^+, for \alpha=0 use a model in which every element is definable (e.g. an individual constant) so \mathrm{rk}(w;M)=-1 for w \in [M]^* and hence \mathrm{rk}^\ell(M)=0 and consequently \mathrm{NPr}_1^\ell(\kappa;\kappa); for \alpha limit use part (2) and for \alpha successor use part (3).

2) Let M_\beta witness \mathrm{NPr}_\beta (\lambda_\beta;\kappa) for \beta < \alpha, i.e. \mathrm{rk}^\ell(M_\beta;\kappa) < \beta and M_\beta has universe \lambda_\beta and |\tau(M_\beta)| \le \kappa. Without loss of generality \langle \tau(M_\beta): \beta< \alpha\rangle are pairwise disjoint and disjoint to \{P_\beta: \beta< \alpha\}. Let M have universe \lambda := \sum\limits_{\beta <\alpha} \lambda_\beta, P^M_\beta = \lambda_\beta, and M \restriction \lambda_\beta expand M_\beta and |\tau(M)| \le |\alpha|+ \sum\limits_{\beta \le \alpha} |\tau(M_\beta)| \le \kappa. By 1.2(3),(4), for w \in [\lambda_\beta]^*, \mathrm{rk}^\ell(w,M;\kappa)\le \mathrm{rk}^\ell(w,M_\beta;\kappa)< \beta \le \alpha. But w \in\big[|M|\big]^* implies \bigvee\limits_{\beta < \alpha} w \in [\lambda_\beta]^*. Clearly \mathrm{rk}(M;\kappa) \le \alpha and hence \mathrm{NPr}_{\alpha+1}^\ell(\lambda;\kappa).

3) We define M^+ such that each \gamma \in [\lambda,\lambda^+) codes on \{\zeta:\zeta < \gamma\} an example for \mathrm{NPr}_\alpha (|\gamma|;\kappa). More elaborately, let M be a model with the universe \lambda such that \mathrm{rk}^\ell(M;\kappa)<\alpha. Let \tau(M) be \{R_i:i < i^* \le \kappa\},R_i an n(i)-place predicate (as we replace function symbols and individual constants by predicates), R_0 is a 0-nary predicate representing “the truth”. For \gamma\in [\lambda,\lambda^+) let f_\gamma be a one-to-one function from \gamma onto \lambda. Define \tau^+=\{R_i,Q_i : i < i^* \le \kappa\}, R_i is n(i)-place, Q_i is (n(i)+1)-place. So |\tau^+| \le \kappa. We define a \tau^+-model M^+: the universe is \lambda^+, R^{M^+}_i=R^M_i, Q^{M^+}_i = \{\langle\alpha_0,\ldots,\alpha_{n(i)}\rangle: \alpha_{n(i)}\in [\lambda,\lambda^+) and \bigwedge\limits_{\ell < n(i)} \alpha_\ell < \alpha_{n(i)} and \langle f_{\alpha_{n(i)}}(\alpha_0), \ldots,f_{\alpha_{n(i)}}(\alpha_{n(i)-1})\rangle \in R^M_i\} (so Q_0^{M^+}=[\lambda,\lambda^+)).

Now note that:

1. (a) for w \in[\lambda]^*, \mathrm{rk}^\ell(w,M^+;\kappa) \le \mathrm{rk}^\ell(w,M; \kappa)

2. (b) if w \subseteq \gamma\in [\lambda,\lambda^+), w \ne \varnothing then \mathrm{rk}^\ell(w \cup\{\gamma\},M^+;\kappa) \le \mathrm{rk}^\ell(f_\gamma''[w],M;\kappa).

(Easy to check). So if \gamma<\lambda^+ then

1. (*)_1 \gamma < \lambda \Rightarrow \mathrm{rk}^\ell(\{\gamma\},M^+; \kappa) \le \mathrm{rk}^\ell(\{\gamma\},M;\kappa) < \mathrm{rk}^\ell(M;\kappa)

2. (*)_2 \gamma \in[\lambda,\lambda^+)\ \&\ \beta \ge \mathrm{rk}^\ell(M; \kappa)\ \Rightarrow\ \mathrm{rk}^\ell(\{\gamma\},M^+; \kappa) \le \beta.

[Why (*)_2? Assume not and let \kappa^0=2, \kappa^2=\kappa^4=\kappa^+. If \langle \gamma_i: i< \kappa^l\rangle strictly increasing witnesses \mathrm{rk}^\ell(\{\gamma\}, M^+) \ge \beta+1 for the formula Q_0(x) then for some i< j < \kappa^l we have \mathrm{rk}^\ell(\{\gamma_i,\gamma_j\}, M^+) \ge \beta and applying (b) with \{\gamma_i\}, \gamma_j here standing for w, \gamma there we get \mathrm{rk}^\ell(\{f_{\gamma_j}(\gamma_i)\},M) \ge \beta hence \beta+1 \le \mathrm{rk}^\ell(M), contradiction.]

Hence

1. (*)_3 \mathrm{rk}^\ell(M^+;\kappa) \le \mathrm{rk}^\ell(M; \kappa)+1.

As \mathrm{rk}^\ell(M^+; \kappa)< \alpha clearly M^+ witnesses \mathrm{NPr}_{\alpha+1}(\lambda^+; \kappa).

4) Like (3).

e can concentrate on 1), anyhow let \ell=\{3,5\} (for part (1) we use \ell=3, for part (2) we shall use \ell=5, we shall return to it later). Assume \Pr^3_\alpha(\lambda;\kappa) fails in \mathbf{V}^\mathbf{P}. So for some p^*\in \mathbf{P} and \alpha_0<\alpha we have:

Without loss of generality, every quantifier free formula \varphi(x_0,\dots,x_{n-1}) is equivalent to one of the form R(x_0,\dots,x_{n-1}) and without loss of generality \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth} = \{R_{n,\zeta}: n< \omega,\zeta < \kappa\} with R_{n,\zeta} an n-place predicate. Note that necessarily \alpha_0< \kappa^+ hence |\alpha_0|\leq \kappa.

As we can replace \mathbf{P} by \mathbf{P} \restriction \{q \in \mathbf{P}:p^* \le q\}, without loss of generality p^* is the minimal member of \mathbf{P}. Now for non zero n< \omega, k < n, \zeta < \kappa and \beta < \alpha_0 (or \beta=-1) we define an n-place relation R_{n,\zeta,\beta,k} on \lambda:

Let M^+ = (\lambda,\dots,R_{n,\zeta,\beta,k},\dots)_{n<\omega,\zeta<\kappa, \beta<\alpha_0, k<n}, so M^+ is a model in \mathbf{V} with the universe \lambda and the vocabulary of cardinality \le \kappa. It suffices to prove that for \beta < \alpha_0:

1. \otimes_\beta if w = \{a_0,\ldots,a_{n-1}\} \in [M^+]^*, M^+ \models R_{n,\zeta,\beta,k} [a_0,\dots,a_{n-1}]
   then \mathrm{rk}^\ell(\{a_0,\dots,a_{n-1}\},\;M^+;\kappa) \le \beta.

(Note that by the choice of \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3M\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth} and R_{n,\zeta,\beta,k}, if w\in [M^+]^* then for some n,\zeta,\beta,k we have M^+\models R_{n,\zeta,\beta,k}[a_0,\ldots,a_{n-1}]). This we prove by induction on \beta, so assume the conclusion fails; so

(and eventually we shall get a contradiction). By the definition of \mathrm{rk}^3 applied to \varphi = R_{n,\zeta,\beta,k},\beta and k we know that there are a^i_m (for m<n,i< \kappa^+) as in Definition 1.1(3) case \ell=3. In particular M^+\models R_{n,\zeta,\beta,k}[a^i_0,\ldots, a^i_{n-1}]. So for each i<\kappa^+ by the definition of R_{n,\zeta,\beta,k} necessarily there is p_i\in\mathbf{P} such that p_i \Vdash_{\mathbf{P}} ``\let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3M\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth} \models R_{n,\zeta}[a_0^i,\dots, a_{n-1}^i] and \mathrm{rk}^\ell(\{a^i_0,\dots,a^i_{n-1}\},\let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3M\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth};\kappa) =\beta and [not \mathrm{rk}^\ell (\{a_0^i,\dots,a_{n-1}^i\},\let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3M\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth};\kappa) \ge \beta +1] is witnessed by \varphi = R_{n,\zeta} and k".

For part (1), as \mathbf{P} satisfies the \kappa^+-cc, for some q \in \mathbf{P},q \Vdash ``\let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3Y\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth} = \{i:p_i \in \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3G\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_\mathbf{P}\} has cardinality \kappa^+" (in fact, p_i forces it for every large enough i). Looking at the definition of the rank in \mathbf{V}^\mathbf{P} we see that \langle\langle a^i_0,\ldots, a^i_{n-1}\rangle:i\in\let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3Y\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth} \rangle cannot be a witness for “the demand for \mathrm{rk}^3(\{a_0^{i_0},\ldots,a_{n-1}^{i_0}\},\let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3M\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth};\kappa)> \beta for R_{n,\zeta,k} hold" for any (or some) i_0 \in \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3Y\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}, so for part (1)

1. (*) q \Vdash_\mathbf{P} “for some i \ne j in \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3Y\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth} we have \mathrm{rk}^3(\{a^i_0,\dots,a^i_{n-1},a^j_k\},\let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3M\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth};\kappa) < \beta" (as the demand on equalities holds trivially).

As we can increase q, without loss of generality q forces a value to those i,j, hence without loss of generality for some n(*)=n+1 < \omega,\zeta(*)< \kappa and \beta(*) < \beta and for k(*)<n+1 we have

Hence by the definition of R_{n(*),\zeta(*),\beta(*),k(*)} we have

As \beta(*) < \beta by the induction hypothesis \otimes_{\beta(*)} holds hence

but this contradicts the choice of a^i_m(m<n,\; i<\kappa^+) above (i.e. clause (a) of Definition 1.1(3) case \ell=3). This contradiction finishes the induction step in the proof of \otimes_\beta hence the proof of 1.10(1).

For part (2), we have \langle p_i: i< \kappa^+\rangle as above. In \mathbf{V}^\mathbf{P}, if \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3Y\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}=\{i: p_i\in G_\mathbf{P}\} has cardinality \kappa^+, then \langle \langle a_0^i,\ldots,a^i_{n-1}\rangle:i \in \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3Y\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth} \rangle cannot witness \mathrm{rk}^5(\{a_0,\ldots,a_{n-1}\},M; \kappa) \ge \beta+1 so there is a function \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3F\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}^0: \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3Y\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth} \rightarrow \kappa witnessing it; i.e. \Vdash_\mathbf{P} “if |\let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3Y\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}|=\kappa^+ then i,j \in \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3Y\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}, i \ne j and \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3F\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}^0(i)= \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3F\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}^0(j) \Rightarrow \beta > \mathrm{rk}^5(\{a^i_0,\ldots,a^i_{n-1}\} \cup\{a^j_0,\ldots,a^j_{n-1}\},M;\kappa)".

If |\let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3Y\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}| \le \kappa, let \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3F\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}^0: \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3Y\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth} \rightarrow \kappa be one to one. Let p_i \le q_i \in \mathbf{P},q_i \Vdash \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3F\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}^0(i)=\gamma_i. As \mathbf{P} is \kappa^+-2-linked, for some function F^1: \kappa^+ \rightarrow \kappa we have (\forall i, j < \kappa^+) (F^1(i)= F^1(j) \Rightarrow q_i, q_j are compatible in \mathbf{P}). We now define a function F from \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3Y\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth} to \kappa by F(i) =\mathrm{pr} (\gamma_i, F^1(i)) (you can use any pairing function \mathrm{pr} on \kappa). So if i< j< \kappa^+ and F(i)=F(j) then there is q_{i,j} such that \mathbf{P} \models ``q_i \le q_{i,j} and q_j \le q_{i,j}", hence q_{i,j} \Vdash_\mathbf{P} ``\mathrm{rk}^5(\{a^i_0,\ldots,a^i_{n-1},a^j_k\}, \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3M\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth};\kappa)< \beta", so possibly increasing q_{i,j}, for some \beta_{i,j} < \beta and \zeta_{i,j} < \kappa and k_{i,j} < n we have q_{i,j} \Vdash ``\mathrm{rk}^5(\{a^i_0,\ldots,a^i_{n-1},a^j_k\},\let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3M\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}; \kappa)=\beta_{i,j} and \mathrm{rk}^5(\{a^i_0,\ldots,a^i_{n-1},a^j_k\}) \ngeq \beta_{i,j}+1 is witnessed by \varphi=R_{n+1,\zeta_{i,1}}(x_0,\ldots,x_n) and k_{i,j}".

Hence by the definition of R_{n+1, \zeta_{i, j}, \beta_{i, j}, k_{i,j}} we have

but \beta_{i,j} < \beta hence by the induction hypothesis

So F contradicts the choice of \langle \langle a^i_0,\ldots,a^i_{n-1}\rangle:i< \kappa^+\rangle i.e. clause (a)^- of Definition 1.1 Case 5.

ou can apply the results of section 2 to prove 1.12; specifically 2.1 (1)\Rightarrow(2) proves parts (1),(2) and 2.4(1) proves part 3. of 1.12; those results of §2 say more hence their proof should be clearer.

However, we give a proof of part (1) here for the reader who is going to read this section only. Suppose that B \subseteq {}^\omega 2 \times {}^\omega 2 is a Borel or even analytic set containing a \lambda-square. Let T be a (2,2,\omega)-tree such that

and let \{\eta_\alpha:\alpha<\lambda\} \subseteq {}^\omega 2 be such that the square determined by it is contained in B and \alpha<\beta<\lambda \Rightarrow \eta_\alpha \ne \eta_\beta. For \alpha,\beta <\lambda let F(\alpha,\beta) \in {}^\omega \omega be such that (\eta_\alpha,\eta_\beta,F(\alpha,\beta)) \in \lim(T). Define a model M with the universe \lambda and the vocabulary \tau = \{R_{\nu_0,\nu_1,\nu},Q_{\nu_0,\nu}:\nu_0,\nu_1 \in {}^{\omega >}2 and \nu\in {}^{\omega >} \omega\}, each R_{\nu_0,\nu_1,\nu} a binary predicate, Q_{\nu_0,\nu} a unary predicate and

By \Pr_{\omega_1}(\lambda) we know that \mathrm{rk}^0(M) \ge \omega_1.

A pair (u,h) is called an n-approximation if u\subseteq {}^n2, h: u\times u\rightarrow {}^n \omega and for every \gamma < \omega_1 there is w \in [\lambda]^* such that:

1. (\oplus_1) u = \{\eta_\alpha\restriction n:\alpha\in w\} and \eta_\alpha\restriction n \ne \eta_\beta \restriction n for distinct \alpha,\beta \in w

2. (\oplus_2) \mathrm{rk}^0(w,M) \ge \gamma

3. (\oplus_3) F(\alpha,\beta)\restriction n= h(\eta_\alpha\restriction n,\eta_\beta \restriction n) for \alpha,\beta \in w; hence

   M \models R_{\eta_\alpha\restriction n,\eta_\beta \restriction n, h(\eta_\alpha\restriction n,\eta_\beta \restriction n)}[\alpha,\beta]

   for \alpha,\beta \in w.

Note that (\{\langle\ \rangle\},\{((\langle\ \rangle,\langle\ \rangle), \langle\ \rangle)\}) is a 0-approximation.

Moreover

1. (*)_0 if (u,h) is an n-approximation and \nu^* \in u then there are m>n and an m-approximation (u^+,h^+) such that:

   1. (i) \nu \in u\setminus \{\nu^*\}\ \Rightarrow\ (\exists! \nu^+)(\nu\triangleleft \nu^+\in u^+),

   2. (ii) (\exists^{!2}\nu^+)(\nu^*\triangleleft \nu^+\in u^+) (where \exists^{!2} x means “there are exactly 2 x’s)

   3. (iii) \nu \in u^+\ \Rightarrow\ \nu\restriction n\in u and

   4. (iv) if \nu_1,\nu_2 \in u^+ then [h(\nu_1 \restriction n,\nu_2\restriction n) \triangleleft h^+(\nu_1,\nu_2) or (\nu_1 \restriction n=\nu_2\restriction n=\nu^* and \nu_1 \ne \nu_2)].

[Why? For each \gamma < \omega_1 choose w_\gamma satisfying (\oplus_1), (\oplus_2) and (\oplus_3) for \gamma+1, now apply the definition of \mathrm{rk}^0 (if w_\gamma=\{\alpha^\gamma_\ell:\ell < |w_\gamma|\}, \nu^*\triangleleft \eta_{\alpha^\gamma_k}, k<|w_\gamma| we apply it to k) to get w^+_\gamma= w_\gamma\cup \{\alpha_\gamma\} satisfying (\oplus_1), (\oplus_2) and (\oplus_3) for \gamma, then choose m_\gamma\in (n, \omega) such that \langle \eta_\alpha \restriction m_\gamma: \alpha\in w^+_\gamma\rangle is with no repetitions.

Lastly, as there are only countably many possibilities for

for \gamma<\omega_1, so one value is obtained for uncountably many \gamma. Let \gamma^* be one of them. Choose m=m_{\gamma^*}, u^+=\{\eta_\alpha \restriction m: \alpha\in w^+_\gamma\} and define h^+ to satisfy (\oplus_3).]

Repeating |u|-times the procedure of (*)_0 we get:

1. (*)_1 if u = \{\nu_\ell:\ell< k\} \subseteq {}^n2 (no repetition), (u,h) is an n-approximation, then there are m,u^+ = \{\nu_\ell^+:\ell< 2k\} and h^+ such that (u^+,h^+) is an m-approximation for some m>n and

   1. (i) \nu_l\triangleleft \nu_{2l}^+, \nu_\ell \triangleleft \nu_{2\ell+ 1}^+, \nu_{2 \ell}^+ \ne \nu_{2\ell+1}^+,

   2. (ii) if \ell<k, i<2 then h(\nu_\ell,\nu_\ell) \triangleleft h^+(\nu_{2 \ell+i}^+,\nu_{2 \ell+i}^+) and

   3. (iii) if \ell_1 \ne \ell_2, \ell_1,\ell_2 < k and i,j<2 then h(\nu_{\ell_1},\nu_{\ell_2}) \triangleleft h^+(\nu_{2 \ell_1+i}^+,\nu_{2 \ell_2+j}^+).

Consequently we have:

1. (*)_2 there are sequences \langle n_i: i<\omega\rangle\subseteq \omega and \langle (u_i,h_i):i \in \omega \rangle such that n_i<n_{i+1}, (u_i,h_i) is an n_i-approximation and (u_i,h_i),(u_{i+1},h_{i+1}) are like (u,h),(u^+,h^+) of (*)_1.

Now, let \langle n_i : i < \omega \rangle and \langle (u_i,h_i): i \in \omega \rangle be as in (*)_2. Define

By (*)_1 for (u_{i+1}, h_{i+1}) we know that {\mathscr{P}} is a perfect set. We claim that {\mathscr{P}} \times {\mathscr{P}} \subseteq B. Suppose that \eta',\eta''\in {\mathscr{P}} and \eta' \ne \eta''. Then \eta'\restriction n_{i(*)} \neq \eta''\restriction n_{i(*)} for some i(*) < \omega and the sequence \langle h_i(\eta'\restriction n_i,\eta''\restriction n_i):i(*) \le i< \omega \rangle is \triangleleft-increasing and (as (u_i,h_i) are approximations) (\eta'\restriction n_i,\eta''\restriction n_i, h_i(\eta'\restriction n_i,\eta''\restriction n_i)) \in T is increasing for i\in [i(*),\omega). The case \eta'=\eta'' \in {\mathscr{P}} is easier. The claim is proved.

Stage A: Clearly for some \alpha(*) < \omega_1 we have \mathrm{NPr}^1_{\alpha(*)}(\lambda). Let M be a model with universe \lambda and a countable vocabulary such that \mathrm{rk}^1(M)< \alpha(*) say with <^\mu the usual order. Let functions \varphi^M,k^M with domains

be such that: if u=\{\alpha_0,\dots,\alpha_{n-1}\} \in [\lambda]^* increasing for definiteness, \beta = \mathrm{rk}^0(u,M) (<\alpha(*)) then \varphi^M(u) is a quantifier free formula in the vocabulary of M in the variables x_0,\ldots,x_{n-1} for simplicity saying x_0<x_1<\ldots < x_{n-1}, k^M(u) is a natural number < n=|u| such that \varphi^M(u), k^M(u) witness “not \mathrm{rk}^1(u,M)\ge \beta +1" (the same definition makes sense even if \beta =-1). In particular

We define the forcing notion \mathbf{P}. We can put the diagonal \{(\eta,\eta):\eta\in {}^\omega 2\} into B so we can ignore it. We want to produce (in \mathbf{V}^\mathbf{P}) a Borel set B = \bigcup\limits_{n< \omega} B_n, each B_n (\subseteq {}^\omega 2 \times {}^\omega 2) closed (in fact perfect), so it is \lim (T_n) for some (2,2)-tree T_n, B_0 is the diagonal, and \bar{\eta}= \langle \eta_\alpha:\alpha<\mu\rangle as witnesses to 2^{\aleph_0} \ge \mu and such that \{\eta_\alpha:\alpha < \lambda\} gives the desired square. So for some 2-place function g from \lambda to \omega, \alpha \ne \beta \Rightarrow (\eta_\alpha,\eta_\beta) \in \lim (T_{g(\alpha,\beta)}), all this after we force. But we know that we shall have to use M (by 1.12). In the forcing our problem will be to prove the c.c.c. which will be resolved by using M (and rank) in the definition of the forcing. We shall have a function f which puts the information on the rank into the trees to help in not having a perfect square. Specifically the domain of f is a subset of

(the functions h above are thought of as indexing the B_n’s). The function f will be such that for any distinct \alpha_0,\ldots,\alpha_{n-1}< \lambda, if \langle\eta_{\alpha_t} \restriction \ell: t<n\rangle are pairwise distinct, u=\{\eta_{\alpha_t} \restriction \ell: t<n\}, h(\eta_{\alpha_t}\restriction \ell,\eta_{\alpha_s}\restriction \ell) = g(\alpha_t,\alpha_s) and (u,h) \in \mathrm{Dom}(f) then \mathrm{rk}^1(\{\alpha_\ell:\ell < n\},M)=f_0(u,h) and f_1(u,h) is \eta_{\alpha_k}\restriction l, where k=k^M(\{\alpha_t:t<n\}), f_2(u,h)= \varphi^M(\{\alpha_\ell:\ell < n\}) writing the variable as x_\nu, \nu\in u and f(u,h)=(f_0(u,h),f_1(u,h),f_2(u,h)). (Note: f is a way to say \bigcup\limits_{n} \lim (T_n) contains no perfect square; essentially it is equivalent to fixing appropriate rank.) All this was to motivate the definition of the forcing notion \mathbf{P}.

A condition p (of \mathbf{P}) is an approximation to all this; it consists of:

1. u^p = u[p], a finite subset of \mu

2. n^p = n[p] < \omega and \eta^p_\alpha = \eta_\alpha[p] \in {}^{n[p]}2 for \alpha\in u[p] such that \alpha \ne \beta \Rightarrow \eta^p_\alpha \ne \eta^p_\beta. To clarify let t^p_* = \{\eta_\alpha \restriction \ell:\alpha \in u^p,\ell \le n_p\} is a full subtree of {}^{n[p]\ge}2, i.e. maximal nodes in {}^{n[p]}2 only (not really necessary)(Added for transparency; it is definable from \langle \eta^p_\alpha : \alpha \in u^p\rangle; the intention was p \le q \Rightarrow t^p_* = t^1_* \cap {}^{n[p]} 2 not stated we may wonder about (u,h) \in \mathrm{Dom}(f^p),u \subseteq 2^\ell \wedge u \nsubseteq t^p_*. We now exclude them but the relation R excludes them (well when we have two members but recall |u| \ge 1000. Alternatively demand {}^{n[p]}2 = \{\eta_\alpha \restriction n^p:\alpha \in u^p\} which requires a little more in some places.)

3. \mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mum\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu^p=\langle m^p_\ell:\ell \le n^p\rangle is a strictly increasing sequence of natural numbers with last element m^p_{n[p]}=m^p=m[p]. For m<m[p], we have t^p_m = t_m[p] \subseteq \bigcup\limits_{\ell \le n[p]} ({}^\ell 2\times {}^\ell 2) which is downward closed (i.e., if (\nu_0,\nu_1)\in t^p_m \cap ({}^\ell 2 \times {}^\ell 2) then (\nu_0,\nu_1) \restriction k = (\nu_0\restriction k,\nu_1 \restriction k)\in t^p_m for all k < \ell). Also, (\langle\ \rangle, \langle\ \rangle)\in t^p_m, and defining \triangleleft naturally we have: if (\eta_0,\eta_1)\in t^p_m \cap ({}^\ell 2 \times {}^\ell 2) and \ell < m^p then

   (\exists \nu_0,\nu_1) \big[ (\eta_0,\eta_1) \triangleleft(\nu_0,\nu_1) \in t^p_m \cap ({}^{\ell+1} 2 \times {}^{\ell+1} 2) \big].

4. a function f^p=f[p] satisfying:

   1. its domain is a subset of

      \big\{(u,h) : \exists\ell \le n[p],\ u \subseteq t^p_* \subseteq {}^\ell 2,\ |u| \ge 1,\ h : u \times u \to m[p]\big\}

      such that for all \eta,\nu \in u:

      1. h(\eta,\eta) = 0

      2. \eta \ne \nu \Rightarrow 0 < h(\eta,\nu) < m_\ell^p [the upper bound is necessary]

      3. (\eta,\nu) \in t^p_{h(\eta,\nu)}

   2. f^p is such that

      f^p(u,h) = \big( f^p_0(u,h), f^p_1(u,h), f^p_2(u,h) \big) \in [-1,\alpha(*)) \times u\times \mathbb{L}_{\omega,\omega}(\tau(M)).

5. a function g=g^p with domain \{(\alpha,\beta):\alpha,\beta from u^p \cap \lambda\} such that:

   1. g(\alpha,\alpha)=0

   2. \alpha \ne \beta \Rightarrow 0< g (\alpha,\beta) < m^p

   3. (\eta^p_\alpha,\eta^p_\beta) \in t^p_{g(\alpha,\beta)} \cap ({}^{n(p)} 2 \times {}^{n(p)} 2)

6. t^p_0=\{(\eta,\eta):\eta \in {}^{n^p \ge}2\}

7. If u \subseteq {}^\ell 2, |u| \ge 1, f^p(u,h) = (\beta^*,\rho^*,\varphi^*), and \ell < \ell(*) \le n^p, e_i are functions with domain u (for i=0,1) such that

   1. For all \rho \in u, \rho \triangleleft e_i(\rho) \in {}^{\ell(*)} 2 and e_0(\rho)= e_1(\rho) \Leftrightarrow \rho \ne \rho^*.

   2. u' =\mathrm{Rang}(e_0 \restriction u) \cup \mathrm{Rang}(e_1 \restriction u)

   3. h(\eta,\nu) = h'(e_i(\eta),e_i(\nu)) for \eta \ne \nu in u and f^p(u',h') = (\beta',\rho',\varphi') (so is well defined)

   then \beta' < \beta^*

8. If \ell \le n^p, w \subseteq u^p \cap \lambda is nonempty, the sequence \langle \eta^p_\alpha \restriction \ell:\alpha \in w \rangle is with no repetitions and h is defined by h(\eta^p_\alpha \restriction \ell,\eta^p_\beta \restriction \ell) = g^p(\alpha,\beta) for \alpha \ne \beta from w (and h(\eta^p_\alpha \restriction \ell,\eta^p_\alpha \restriction \ell) = 0) and u = \{\eta^p_\alpha \restriction \ell: \alpha \in w\}, then f^p(u,h) is well-defined hence [\alpha \ne \beta \in u \Rightarrow g(\alpha,\beta) < m^p_\ell], f^p_2(u,h) = \varphi^M(w), f^p_1(u,h) = \eta^p_\alpha \restriction \ell where \alpha is the k^M(w)-th member of w and f^p_0(u,h)=\mathrm{rk}^1(w,M); of course in f^p_2(u, h)=\varphi^M(w) the variable x_\nu in f^p_2(u, h) corresponds to x_{|\alpha\cap w|} if \eta_\alpha \restriction l=\nu (see last clause of \oplus_p below)

9. if (u,h) \in \mathrm{Dom}(f^p) then for some w and \ell, f^p(u,h) is obtained as in clause (8)

10. if \eta_1 \ne \eta_2 are in {}^\ell 2, \ell \le n^p and (\eta_1,\eta_2)\in t^p_m, 0 < m < m^p then for some \alpha_1 \ne \alpha_2 from u^p \cap \lambda we have g^p(\alpha_1,\alpha_2) = m and \eta_1 \trianglelefteq \eta^p_{\alpha_1}, \eta_2 \trianglelefteq \eta^p_{\alpha_2}.

The order is the natural one (including the following requirements: p \le q iff (p,q \in \mathbf{P} and) n^p \le n^q, m^p \le m^q, \mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mum\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu^p = \mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mum\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu^q \restriction (n^p+1), u^p \subseteq u^q, \eta^q_\alpha \restriction n^p = \eta^p_\alpha for \alpha\in u^p, t^p_* = t^1_* \cap {}^{n[p] \ge} 2, t^p_m=t^q_m\cap \bigcup\limits_{\ell \le n[p]} ({}^\ell 2 \times {}^\ell 2) for m < m^p, g^p = g^q \restriction u^p and f^p = f^q \restriction \{(u,h) \in \mathrm{Dom}(f^q) : u \subseteq {}^{n^p\ge}2\}, so if (u,h) \notin \mathrm{Dom}(f^p), u \subseteq{}^{n^p\ge}2 then (u,h) \notin \mathrm{Dom}(f^q)).

he first clause implies the second clause by 1.12. If the second clause holds, let \mu\leq \lambda_\alpha(\aleph_0) and \alpha< \omega_1, by 3.2(6) letting \eta_i\in {}^\omega 2 for i< \mu be pairwise distinct we can find an \omega-sequence of (2, 2)-trees \mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5muT\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu such that (\eta_i, \eta_j)\in \bigcup\limits_n (\lim T_n) for i, j<\mu and \mathrm{degsq} (\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5muT\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu)=\alpha (just use A=\{(\eta_i, \eta_j): i, j<\mu\} there). By 3.2(3) the set \bigcup\limits_{n} (\lim T_n) contains no \lambda_{\alpha+1}(\aleph_0)-square.

traight as in the (last) stage G of the proof of theorem 1.13 (except that no relevance of (7) of Stage A there).

Let \mathbf{P} be adding \langle \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3r\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_\alpha: \alpha< \mu\rangle, assume p \in \mathbf{P} forces that: \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3B\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth} a Borel set, \langle \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_\alpha: \alpha < \kappa\rangle are as in clause (a), (b) above. Let \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_\alpha be names in \mathbf{P}_{v_\alpha}= \mathbf{P} \restriction \{\let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3r\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_\beta: \beta\in v_\alpha\}, and \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3B\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth} be a name in \mathbf{P}_v = \mathbf{P}\restriction \{\let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3r\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_\beta: \beta\in v\} where v, v_\beta are countable subsets of \kappa. Without loss of generality, \langle v_\alpha: \alpha< (2^{\aleph_0})^+\rangle is a \Delta-system with heart v and \mathrm{otp}(v_\alpha \setminus v)=\mathrm{otp}(v_0\setminus v). In \mathbf{V}^{\mathbf{P}_v} we have \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3B\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth} and 2^{\aleph_0}= (2^{\aleph_0})^\mathbf{V}, so without loss of generality v = \varnothing and \mathrm{otp}(v_\alpha) does not depend on \alpha.

Without loss of generality the order preserving function f_{\alpha,\beta} from v_\alpha onto v_\beta maps \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_\alpha to \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_\beta. So for Q=Cohen in the Cohen case we have a name \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth} such that \Vdash_{\mathrm{Cohen}} ``\let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}(\let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3r\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth})\in {}^\omega 2 is new", \Vdash_{\mathrm{Cohen} \times \mathrm{Cohen}} ``(\let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}(\let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3r\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_1); \let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}(\let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3r\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_2))\in B", and we can finish easily. The random case is similar.

asy to check.

) (a) \Rightarrow (b)

Like the proof of 2.1, (1) \Rightarrow (2), applied to (M,c)_{c\in R^M_0} but the set M_0\cap R^M_0 is chosen by finite approximation i.e. (letting Y be as there and \tau=\tau(M)) we let Z = \big\{(v,\varphi(\ldots, x_\eta, \ldots)_{\eta\in v}, A): v\in Y, \varphi a quantifier free formula in L_{\omega,\omega}(\tau) with set of free variables included in \{x_\eta:\eta\in v\} and parameters from A. A is a finite subset of R^M_0, and for every ordinal \alpha< \kappa^+ there are a^\alpha_\eta \in R^M for \eta\in v such that [\eta \ne \nu from v \Rightarrow a^{\alpha}_\eta \ne a^{\alpha}_\nu] and \mathrm{rk}(\{a^\alpha_\eta : \eta\in v\},M) \ge \alpha and M \models \varphi[\ldots,a^\alpha_\eta,\ldots]_{\eta\in v}\big\}.

We need here the “for every \alpha< \kappa^+" because we want to fix elements of R^M_0, and there are possibly \kappa choices.

\neg (a) \Rightarrow \neg (b):

Like the proof of 2.3; assume \mathrm{NPr}_\alpha (\lambda; \kappa), \alpha< \kappa^+, let M witness it, choose R_0=\alpha+1, R=\lambda, without loss of generality \tau (M)=\{R_{n,\zeta} : n < \omega,\ \zeta < \kappa\}, R_{n,\zeta} is n-place, in M every quantifier free formula is equivalent to some R_{n,\zeta}. Let R^*_{n, k} := \Big\{(i_0,\ldots,i_{n-1},\beta,\zeta): M \models R_{n, \zeta }(i_0, \ldots ,i_{n-1}), \{i_0, \ldots , i_{n-1}\} is with no repetition, increasing for simplicity, and \mathrm{rk}(\{ i_0, \ldots, i_{n-1}\}, M; \kappa)=\beta, with \mathrm{rk}(\{i_0, \ldots, i_{n-1}\}, M; \kappa) \not\ge \beta+1 being witnessed by \varphi(\{i_0, \ldots, i_{n-1}\})=R_{n, \zeta}, k(\{i_0,\ldots, i_{n-1}\})=k\Big\} where the functions \varphi, k are as in the proof of 1.13. Let M be (\lambda, <, R, R_0, R^*_{n,k})_{n\in (0, \omega), k<n} expanded by Skolem functions. So assume toward contradiction that (b) holds, hence for this model M there are models M_0, M_1 and a_\eta\in M_1 for \eta\in {}^\omega 2 as required in clauses (i) – (v) of (b) of claim 2.5. Choose a non-empty finite subset w of ^\omega 2 and \beta and \zeta such that letting w=\{\eta_0, \ldots, \eta_{m-1}\} with a_{\eta_\ell} <^{M_1} a_{\eta_{\ell+1}}, we have:

1. (\alpha) M_1 \models R^*_{m,k}(a_{\eta_0},\ldots,a_{\eta_{m-1}}, \beta, \zeta)

2. (\beta) \beta\in R^{M_0}_0 (\subseteq \alpha)

3. (\gamma) \beta minimal under those constraints.

Note that there are m, \eta_0, \ldots, \eta_{m-1}, \beta, \zeta such that (\alpha) holds: for every non-empty w\subseteq {}^\omega 2, as M_1 is elementarily equivalent to M there are \beta, \zeta as required in (\alpha). Now (\alpha) implies \zeta\in R^{M_1}_0, but R^{M_1}_0 = R^{M_0}_0, so clause (\beta) holds too, and so we can satisfy (\gamma) too as the ordinals are well ordered. Let \varphi'=\varphi(x_0, \ldots, x_{m-1}, \beta, \zeta), note the parameters are from R^{M_1}_0 (as M_1 is elementarily equivalent to M) hence from R^{M_0}_0\subseteq M, and clause (v) (of (b) of 2.5) applies to \varphi', \langle \eta_0, \ldots, \eta_{m-1}\rangle giving n^*< \omega. We can find \eta'_k\in {}^\omega 2, \eta'_k \neq \eta_{k}, \eta'_k \restriction n^* = \eta_k \restriction n^*, and easily for w'=\{\eta_, \ldots, \eta_{m-1}, \eta'_k\} we can find \beta' < \beta, \zeta'< \kappa and k such that M_1\models R_{m+1, k'} (a_{\eta_0}, \ldots, a_{\eta_{m-1}}, a_{\eta'_k}, \beta', \zeta') and then if \beta \geq 0 we get contradiction to clause (\gamma) above. If \beta=0 we use clause (i) to copy the situation to M and get a contradiction.

2) Similar proof.

se indiscernibility and Erdős-Rado as in the proof of 1.8(1).

In more details. The induction hypothesis on \alpha is, assuming \zeta(*) < \omega: if A\subseteq R^M,\bigwedge\limits_{\zeta< \zeta(*)} |A \cap R^M_\zeta| \ge \beth_{\omega\times \alpha} then for every \beta<\alpha, k<\omega and every \mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mum\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu=\langle m_\zeta: \zeta<\zeta(*)\rangle, m_\zeta\in (0,\omega) for some w \subseteq A we have \bigwedge\limits_{\zeta}|w \cap R^M_\zeta|= m_\zeta and \mathrm{rk}(w;M,\bar\lambda) \ge \omega \times \beta+k. Then for \alpha=\gamma+1, choose distinct a^\zeta_i\in A\cap R^M_\zeta (i<\beth_{\omega\times\gamma+m+ m_\zeta}) and use polarized partition (see Erdős, Hajnal, Mate, Rado [EHMR]) on \langle\langle a^\zeta_i: i< \beth_{\omega \times \alpha}\rangle: \zeta<\zeta(*)\rangle. For \zeta(*) infinite use A\subseteq R^M such that w_A=\{\zeta: A\cap R^M_\zeta \ne \varnothing\} is finite non-empty, \zeta\in w_A \Rightarrow |A\cap R^M_\zeta| \ge \beth_{\omega \times \alpha} and proceed as above.

traight if you have read [Sh:8], [Sh:18], [Sh:37] or read the proof of 2.12 below (only that now the theory is not necessary countable, no types omitted, and by compactness it is enough to deal with the case \zeta(*) is finite).

or simplicity, again like [Sh:8], [Sh:18], [Sh:37]. Let M_\varepsilon be a \bar \lambda^\varepsilon model of \psi for \varepsilon< \omega_1. By expanding the M_\varepsilon’s, by a pairing function and giving names of subformulas of \psi we have a countable first order theory \mathbf{T} with Skolem functions, a countable set \Gamma of 1-types and M^+_\varepsilon such that:

1. (a) M^+_\varepsilon is a \bar \lambda^\varepsilon-model of \mathbf{T} omitting each p\in \Gamma

2. (b) if M is a model of \mathbf{T} omitting every p \in \Gamma then M is a model of \psi.

Now as in the proof of 2.1 we can find a model M^+ and a^\zeta_\eta for \zeta< \zeta(*), \eta\in {}^\omega 2 such that

1. (\alpha) M^+ a model of \mathbf{T}

2. (\beta) a^\zeta_\eta\in R^M_\zeta and \eta \ne \nu \Rightarrow a^\zeta_\eta \ne a^\zeta_\nu

3. (\gamma) for every first order formula \varphi(x_0,\ldots, x_{n-1})\in L_{\omega, \omega}(\tau(\mathbf{T})) and \zeta(0), \ldots, \zeta(n-1)< \zeta(*) ordinals, there is k< \omega such that: if \eta_0, \ldots, \eta_{n-1}\in {}^\omega 2, \nu_0, \ldots, \nu_{n-1}\in {}^\omega 2 and \langle \eta_\ell \restriction k: \ell< n\rangle is with no repetitions and \eta_\ell\restriction k= \nu_\ell \restriction k then M^+ \models \varphi (a^{\zeta(0)}_{\eta_0}, \ldots, a^{\zeta(n-1)}_{\eta_{n-1}}) \equiv \varphi (a^{\zeta(0)}_{\nu_0}, \ldots, a^{\zeta(n-1)}_{\eta_{n-1}})

4. (\delta) if \sigma (x_0,\ldots,x_{n-1}) is a term of \tau (\mathbf{T}) and \zeta(0), \ldots, \zeta(n-1) < \zeta(*), and p\in \Gamma then for some k< \omega for any \rho_0,\ldots,\rho(n-1)\in {}^k 2 pairwise distinct there is \varphi(x)\in p(x) such that:

   1. (*) \rho_\ell \triangleleft \eta_\ell \in {}^\omega 2 \Rightarrow M^+ \models \neg \varphi (a^{\zeta(0)}_{\eta_0}, \ldots, a^{\zeta(n-1)}_{\eta_{n-1}}) (i.e. this is our way to omit the types in \Gamma)

5. (\varepsilon) if \zeta(0), \ldots, \zeta(n-1) < \zeta(*), \sigma( x_0, \ldots, x_{n-1}) is a term of \tau(\mathbf{T}), and m<n, then for some k< \omega, we have

   1. (*) if \eta_0, \ldots, \eta_{n-1}\in {}^\omega 2, and \nu_0, \ldots, \nu_{n-1}\in {}^\omega 2 and \eta_\ell \restriction k = \nu_\ell \restriction k and \langle \eta_\ell \restriction k: \ell< \omega \rangle is without repetitions and \zeta(\ell) < \zeta(m) \Rightarrow \eta_\ell = \nu_\ell then M^+ \models Q_{\zeta(m)} (\sigma(a^{\zeta(0)}_{\eta_0}, \ldots, a^{\zeta(n-1)}_{\eta_{n-1}})) and Q_{\zeta(m)}(\sigma(a^{\zeta(0)}_{\nu_0},\ldots, a^{\zeta(n-1)}_{\nu_{n-1}}) \Rightarrow \sigma(a^{\zeta(0)}_{\eta_0},\ldots,a^{\zeta(n-1)}_{\eta_{n-1}}) = \sigma (a^{\zeta(0)}_{\nu_0},\ldots,a^{\zeta(n-1)}_{\nu_{n-1}}).

Now choose Y_\zeta \subseteq {}^\omega 2 of cardinality \lambda^{\omega_1}_\zeta and let M^* be the \tau(M)-reduct of the Skolem hull in M^+ of \{a^\zeta_\eta:\zeta< \zeta(*) and \eta\in Y_\zeta\}. This is a model as required.

asy to prove. E.g.

3) Let \lambda=\lambda_{\alpha(*)+1}(\aleph_0) and assume \{\eta_i: i<\lambda\} \subseteq {}^\omega 2, [i<j\Rightarrow \eta_i \ne \eta_j] and (\eta_i,\eta_j)\in \bigcup\limits_{n}\lim (T_n) and let (\eta_i, \eta_j)\in \lim (T_{g(\eta_i, \eta_j)}). For (u,f) \in \mathrm{pfap}_{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5muT\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}, u=\{\nu_0,\ldots, \nu_{k-1}\} (with no repetition, <_{lx}-increasing) let R_{(u,f)}=\{(\alpha_0,\ldots, \alpha_{k-1}): \alpha_\ell<\lambda and \nu_\ell\triangleleft\eta_{\alpha_\ell} for \ell<k and f(\nu_\ell, \nu_m)= g(\eta_{\alpha_\ell}, \eta_{\alpha_m}) for \ell, m<k\}. Let M=(\lambda, R_{(u,f)})_{(u,f)\in\mathrm{pfap}_{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5muT\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}}. Clearly if we have \alpha_0,\ldots,\alpha_{k-1}<\lambda and n such that \langle \eta_{\alpha_\ell}\restriction n: \ell<k\rangle is with no repetition, g(\eta_{\alpha_{\ell(1)}}, \eta_{\alpha_{\ell(2)}})= f(\eta_{\alpha_{\ell(1)}}\restriction n,\ \eta_{\alpha_{\ell(2)}}\restriction n) then R_{(u,f)} (\alpha_0,\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{k-1}) and we can then prove

(by induction on the left ordinal). But M is a model with countable vocabulary and cardinality \lambda=\lambda_{\alpha(*)+1}(\aleph_0). Hence by the definition of \lambda_{\alpha(*)+1} we have \mathrm{rk}(M) \geq \alpha(*)+1, so \alpha(*)+1 \le \mathrm{rk}(M) \le \mathrm{degsq}(\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5muT\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu) \le \alpha(*) (by previous sentence, earlier sentence and a hypothesis respectively). Contradiction.

4) Let W=\{\eta:\eta is a (strictly) decreasing sequence of ordinals, possibly empty\}.

We choose by induction on i<\omega, n_i and an indexed set \langle (u^i_x, f^i_x, \alpha^i_x): x\in X_i\rangle such that:

1. (a) n_i< \omega, n_0=0, n_i< n_{i+1}

2. (b) X_i finite including \bigcup\limits_{j< i}X_j

3. (c) for x\in X_i, u^i_x \subseteq {}^{n_i}2, f^i_x a two place function from u^i_x to \omega and \alpha^i_x \in w_i

4. (d) for some x\in X_i, u^i_x =\{0_{n_i}\}

5. (e) h_i is a function from X_i into W and h_i\subseteq h_{i+1}

6. (f) |X_0|=1, and h_0 is constantly \langle\ \rangle

7. (g) if x\in X_i then: \alpha^{i+1}_x= \alpha^i_x and the function \nu \mapsto \nu\restriction n_i is one to one from u^{i+1}_x onto u^i_x and \nu \in u^{i+1}_x \Rightarrow \nu\restriction [n_i, n_{i+1}) = 0_{[n_i, n_{i+1})} and \eta, \nu \in u^{i+1}_x \Rightarrow f^{i+1}_x (\eta, \nu) = f^i_x (\eta \restriction n_i, \nu \restriction n_i)

8. (h) for some x=x_i\in X_i, \beta = \beta_i \in w_{i+1} \cap \alpha^i_x and \rho^*=\rho^*_i \in u^i_x and \Upsilon_i \in W such that h_i(x_i)\triangleleft \Upsilon_i we can find y= y_i such that:

   1. (\alpha) X_{i+1} = X_i \cup \{y_i\}, y_i \notin X_i

   2. (\beta) \alpha^{i+1}_y = \beta

   3. (\gamma) the function \nu \mapsto \nu \restriction n_i is a function from u^{i+1}_y onto u^i_x, almost one to one: \rho^* has exactly two predecessors say \rho^y_1, \rho^y_2, and any other \rho\in u^i_x \setminus \{\rho^*\} has exactly one predecessor in u^{i+1}_y

   4. (\delta) for \nu, \eta\in u^{i+1}_y if (\nu, \eta)\ne (\rho^y_1, \rho^y_2) and (\nu, \eta) \ne (\rho^y_2, \rho^y_1) then f^{i+1}_{y_i}(\eta, \nu) = f^i_x (\eta\restriction n_i, \nu\restriction n_i)

   5. (\varepsilon) h_{i+1} = h_i \cup \{(y_i, \Upsilon_i)\}

9. (i) if x_1, x_2\in X_i and u^i_{x_1}\cap u^i_{x_2} \neq \varnothing then u^i_{x_1} \cap u^i_{x_2} = \{ 0_{n_i}\}

10. (j) if x \in X_i, \beta\in w_i \cap \alpha^i_x, \rho^*\in u^i_x and h(x) \triangleleft \Upsilon\in W, then   for some j \in (i,\omega) we have x_j = x, \beta_j=\beta, \rho^*\trianglelefteq \rho^*_j and \Upsilon_j= \Upsilon

11. (k) the numbers f^{i+1}_{y_i}(\rho^{y^1}_1, \rho^{y^1}_2), f^{i+1}_{y_i}(\rho^{y^2}_2, \rho^{y^2}_1) are distinct and do not belong to \bigcup\{\mathrm{Rang} (f^i_x):x \in X_i\}.

There is no problem to carry the definition.

We then let

and \mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5muT\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu = \langle T_n: n< \omega\rangle. Now it is straight to compute the rank.

5) By the completeness theorem for L_{\omega_1, \omega}(Q) (see Keisler [Ke71])

6) By the proof of 1.13.

) Easy.

2) Assume \mathrm{degsq}(T) = \infty, and note that \alpha^* = \{\mathrm{degsq}_T(u,f): (u,f) \in \mathrm{set}(T) and \mathrm{degsq}_T(u,f) < \infty\} \setminus \{\infty\} is an ordinal so (u,f) \in \mathrm{set}(T) and \mathrm{degsq}_{T}(u,f) \ge \alpha^* \Rightarrow \mathrm{degsq}_T(u,f) = \infty (in fact any ordinal \alpha \ge \sup\{\mathrm{degsq}_T(u,f)+1:(u,f) \in \mathrm{set}(T)\} will do). Let \mathrm{set}^\infty(T)= \{(u,f) \in \mathrm{set}(T): \mathrm{degsq}_T(u,f) = \infty\}.

Now

1. (*)_1 there is (u,f) \in \mathrm{set}^\infty(T)

2. (*)_2 for every (u,f) \in \mathrm{set}^\infty(T) and \rho \in u we can find (u^+,f^+) \in \mathrm{set}^\infty(T) and for e=1,2,h_e: u \rightarrow u^+ such that (\forall \eta\in u) (\eta \triangleleft h_e(\eta)), (\forall \eta, \nu \in u) (f(\eta, \nu) \triangleleft f^+(h_e(\eta), h_e(\nu)), (\forall \eta\in u)[h_1(\eta)= h_2(\eta) \Leftrightarrow \eta=\rho].

[Why? As \mathrm{degsq}_{T}(u, f)=\infty it is \ge \alpha^*+1 so by the definition we can find (u^+, f^+), h_1, h_2 as above but only with \mathrm{degsq}_{T}(u^+, f^+) \ge \alpha^*, but this implies \mathrm{degsq}_{T}(u^+, f^+)=\infty.]

1. (*)_3 for every (u, f) \in \mathrm{set}^\infty(T) with u=\{\eta_\rho: \rho\in {}^n 2\}\subseteq {}^{(n_1)}2 (no repetition) we can find n_2> n_1 and (u^+,f^+) \in \mathrm{set}^\infty(T) with u^+ = \{\eta_\rho: \rho \in {}^{n+1}2\}\subseteq {}^{(n_2)}2 (no repetitions) such that

   1. (i) \rho\in {}^{n+1}2 \Rightarrow \eta_{\rho \restriction n} \triangleleft \eta_\rho

   2. (ii) for \rho_1, \rho_2\in {}^{n+1} 2, \rho_1\restriction n \ne \rho_2 \restriction n \Rightarrow f(\eta_{\rho_1\restriction n}, \eta_{\rho_2 \restriction n}) \triangleleft f^+(\eta_{\rho_1}, \eta_{\rho_2})

   3. (iii) for \rho\in {}^{n+1} 2, f(\eta_{\rho \restriction n}, \eta_{\rho\restriction n}) \triangleleft f(\eta_\rho,\eta_\rho).

[Why? Repeat (*)_2 2^n times.]

So we can find \langle \eta_\rho: \eta \in {}^n 2\rangle, f_n by induction on n such that \langle \eta_\rho: \rho\in {}^n2\rangle is with no repetition, \mathrm{degsq}_{T} (\{\eta_\rho: \rho\in {}^n 2\}, f_n)=\infty, and for each n clauses (i), (ii), (iii) of (*)_3 hold, i.e. \rho_1, \rho_2 \in {}^{n+1} 2, \rho_1 \restriction n \ne \rho_2\restriction n \Rightarrow f_n(\eta_{\rho_1 \restriction n}, \eta_{\rho_2\restriction n}) \triangleleft f_{n+1} (\eta_{\rho_1}, \eta_{\rho_2}) and for \rho\in {}^{n+1}2 we have f_n(\eta_{\rho\restriction n}, \eta_{\rho\restriction n}) \triangleleft f_{n+1}(\eta_\rho, \eta_\rho) and of course \{\eta_\rho: \rho\in {}^m 2\}\subseteq {}^{(k_n)}2, k_n< k_{n+1}< \omega.

So we have proved that the first clause implies the second (about the forcing: the \mathrm{degsq}(T)=\infty is absolute so holds also in \mathbf{V}^\mathbf{P} for any forcing notion \mathbf{P}). Trivially the second clause implies the third and fourth.

So assume the third clause and we shall prove the first. By 1.8 \lambda^2_{\kappa^+}(\kappa) is well defined (e.g. \le \beth_{\kappa^+}), but \lambda^3_{\kappa^+}(\kappa)= \lambda^2_{\kappa^+}(\kappa) by 1.5(3), let \mathbf{P} be the forcing notion adding \lambda^2_{\kappa^+}(\kappa) Cohen reals. By 1.1(2) in \mathbf{V}^\mathbf{P}, \lambda_{\kappa^+}(\kappa) \le \lambda^2_{\kappa^+}(\kappa) \le 2^{\aleph_0}, and so there are pairwise disjoint \eta_i\in {}^\omega 2 for i< \lambda_{\kappa^+}(\kappa) such that (\eta_i, \eta_j) \in \mathrm{prj} \lim(T) for i, j< \lambda_{\kappa^+}(\kappa).

Lastly, we prove forcing implies first in \mathbf{V}^\mathbf{P}. By part (3) of the claim proved below we get for every \alpha< \kappa^+, as \lambda_\alpha(\kappa) \le \lambda_{\kappa^+}(\kappa) that \neg[\alpha = \mathrm{degsq} (T)]. Hence \mathrm{degsq}(T) \ge \kappa^+, but by part (1) this implies \mathrm{degsq}(T)=\infty.

3) Just like the proof of 3.2(3).

et M be a model of cardinality \lambda with a countable vocabulary and \mathrm{rk}^1(M)<\alpha(*). Without loss of generality, it has the universe \lambda, has the relation < and individual constants c_\alpha for \alpha \le \omega. Let k^M, \varphi^M be as in the proof of 1.13.

Let \mathbf{P} be the set of triples (u,f,\mathbf{w}) such that:

1. (a) u is a finite subset of \lambda

2. (b) f is a symmetric two place function from u to \omega

3. (c) w is a family of nonempty subsets of u

such that

1. (d) if \alpha \in u then \{\alpha\} \in {\mathbf{w}}

2. (e) if w=\{\alpha_0,\ldots,\alpha_{n-1}\}\in \mathbf{w} (the increasing enumeration), k=k^M(w), \alpha\in u\setminus w and (\forall \ell)[\ell < n and \ell \ne k \Rightarrow f(\alpha_\ell,\alpha) = f(\alpha_\ell,\alpha_k)], then w\cup\{\alpha\} belongs to w, (\forall m \ne k) (\alpha<\alpha_m \Leftrightarrow \alpha_k<\alpha_m) and k=k^M(w\cup\{\alpha\} \setminus\{\alpha_k\}) and M\models\varphi^M(w)[\alpha_0,\ldots,\alpha_{k-1},\alpha, \alpha_{k+1},\ldots,\alpha_{n-1}]

3. (f) if w^i=\{\alpha^i_0,\ldots,\alpha^i_{n-1}\}\subseteq u (increasing enumeration, so with no repetition), i=0,1, and (\forall \ell < k<n)[f(\alpha^0_l,\alpha^0_k)=f(\alpha^1_\ell,\alpha^1_k)] then w^0 \in {\bf w} \Leftrightarrow w^1\in {\bf w} and if w^i \in \mathbf{w} then \varphi^M(w^0)=\varphi^M(w^1), k^M(w^0)=k^M(w^1) and \mathrm{rk}^1(w^0,M)= \mathrm{rk}^1(w^1, M).

The order is the natural one.

It is easy to check that:

1. \oplus_1 \mathbf{P} satisfies the c.c.c.

2. \oplus_2 for every \alpha < \lambda,\mathscr{L}_\alpha=\{(u,f,{\bf w})\in \mathbf{P}:\alpha\in u\} is dense.

Hence there is a directed G \subseteq \mathbf{P} not disjoint from \mathscr{L}_\alpha for every \alpha< \lambda. Let F = \bigcup\{f: for some u, w we have (u,f,{\bf w}) \in G\}. We shall show that it is as required. Clearly F is a symmetric two place function from \lambda to \omega; so the only thing that can fail is if there is a symmetric two place function F' from \mu to \omega such that (**) of 3.7 holds. By the compactness theorem for propositional logic, there is a linear order <^* of \mu such that

1. (*)' for every n < \omega and \beta_0 <^* \dots <^* \beta_{n-1} from \mu there are \alpha_0 < \dots <\alpha_{n-1} <\lambda such that \bigwedge_{k< \ell <n} F'(\beta_k,\beta_\ell) = F(\alpha_k,\alpha_\ell).

Let

Let N = (\lambda,R_n)_{n< \omega} where R_n=\{(\alpha,\beta): F(\alpha,\beta)=n\}, so \mathrm{rk}^1(w,N) for w\in [\lambda]^* is well defined; in fact we can restrict ourselves to formulas of the form \varphi(x_0,\ldots,x_{n-1}) = \bigwedge\limits_{\ell<k<n}F(x_\ell,x_k)=c_{m(\ell,k)}. Let N'=(\mu,R_n')_{n< \omega}, where R_n'=\{(\alpha,\beta): F'(\alpha,\beta)=n\}.

Now first note that

1. \otimes_1 If w \in \mathbf{W} \text{ then } \mathrm{rk}^1(w,N) \le \mathrm{rk}^1(w,M).

(This is the role of clause (e) in the definition of \mathbf{P}; we prove it by induction on \mathrm{rk}^1(w,M) using the same “witness" k^M.)

Secondly,

1. \otimes_2 For \alpha < \lambda we have \{\alpha\} \in \mathbf{W}.

(This is the role of clause (d) in the definition of \mathbf{P}.) Hence we conclude (by 1.1(2), \otimes_1, \otimes_2):

1. \otimes_3 \mathrm{rk}^1(N) < \alpha(*).

Lastly

1. \otimes_4 If \alpha_0 <^* \ldots <^* \alpha_{m-1} < \mu, \beta_0 < \ldots < \beta_{m-1} <\lambda, \bigwedge\limits_{k < \ell<m} F'(\alpha_k,\alpha_l) = F(\beta_k,\beta_l) and \{\beta_0,\ldots,\beta_{m-1}\} \in \mathbf{W}, then

   \mathrm{rk}^1(\{\alpha_0,\ldots,\alpha_{m-1}\},N') \le \mathrm{rk}^1(\{\beta_0, \ldots,\beta_{m-1}\},N)

(again it can be proved by induction on \mathrm{rk}^1(\{\beta_\ell,\ldots,\beta_{m-1}\},N), the choice of N' and our assumption toward contradiction that (**) from the claim holds). Now by \otimes_3, \otimes_4 and 1.1(2) (and \otimes_2) we have \mathrm{rk}^1(N') \le \mathrm{rk}^1(N)<\alpha(*) but this contradicts \|N'\|=\mu=\lambda_{\alpha(*)}(\aleph_0).

ithout loss of generality, \mathrm{cf}(\lambda)>\aleph_0 (otherwise combine \omega examples).

Let F be a symmetric two place function from \lambda to \omega such that (*)_{\lambda,\mu,F}. For simplicity let f^*:\omega \rightarrow \omega be such that \forall n \exists^\infty m f^* (m) =n. We define a forcing notion \mathbf{P} as in 1.13 except that we require in addition for p \in \mathbf{P}:

1. \otimes_1 f^*(g^p (\alpha,\beta)) = F(\alpha,\beta)

2. \otimes_2 if \alpha' \ne \beta',\alpha'' \ne \beta'' are from u^p,k<\omega,\eta_{\alpha'}^p \restriction k= \eta_{\alpha''}^p \restriction k \ne \eta_{\beta'}^p \restriction k=\eta_{\beta''}^p \restriction k both not constantly 1 then F(\alpha',\beta') = F(\alpha'',\beta'')

3. \otimes_3 if \eta,\nu\in {}^{n[p]}2 then for at most one m<m[p] we have (\eta,\nu)\in t^p_m

4. \otimes_4 iff n< \omega, n>1,\;\eta_0<_{lx} \dots <_{lx} \eta_{n-1} are pairwise distinct members of {}^{n(p)}2 and k < \ell \Rightarrow (\eta_k,\eta_\ell) \in t^p_{g(k,\ell)},then for some pairwise distinct \alpha_0,\dots, \alpha_{n-1} from u[p^n], we have \bigwedge\limits_{k< \ell <n} f^*(h(k,\ell))= F(\alpha_k,\alpha_\ell).

We have

1. \oplus_1 if \alpha< \beta <\lambda, there is a unique n < \omega such that (\let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_\alpha,\let\theaccent\tilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_\beta) \in \lim \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3T\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_n.

Thus \bigcup\limits_{n\in\omega} T_n contains a \lambda-square. In proving that it does not contain a \mu-square we apply (*)_{\lambda,\mu,F}. For this the crucial fact is:

1. \oplus_2 if n< \omega, \eta_0,\dots,\eta_{n-1} \in {}^\omega 2 are distinct, (\eta_k,\eta_\ell) \in \lim (T_{h(k,\ell)}), then for some pairwise distinct \alpha_0,\dots,\alpha_{n-1} < \lambda

   \bigwedge\limits_{k<\ell<n}f^*(h(k,\ell))=F(\alpha_k,\alpha_\ell).

Instead of “\mathcal{I}^3_\alpha is dense" it is enough to show

1. \oplus_3 for some p \in \mathbf{P}, p \Vdash “the number of \alpha<\lambda such that for some q \in \let\theaccent\widetilde\skewfactor- \mathpalette\oalign{3G\crcr\hidewidth \vbox to.2ex{\hbox{3}\vss}\hidewidth}_\mathbf{P} \alpha \in u^q is \lambda".

(B)^- \Rightarrow (A):

Toward contradiction assume \mathrm{NPrrd}_{\kappa^+}(\lambda_1, \lambda_2; \kappa) hence there is a model M' witnessing it, so |\tau(M')| \le \kappa. So c \in Q^M \Rightarrow \mathrm{rkk}^1(M', c; \kappa) < \kappa^+ (note that \mathrm{Prrd} was defined by cases of \mathrm{rkk}(M, c, \kappa)).

Let \{\varphi_i(x,y):i<\kappa\} list the quantifier free formulas in L_{\omega, \omega}(\tau(M')) with free variables x,y. Let \{u_i:i<\kappa\} list the finite subsets of \kappa. For c\in Q^{M'} and a_0,\ldots,a_{\ell(*)-1}\in R^{M'}_1, b_0,\ldots,b_{m(*)-1}\in R^{M'}_2 (\bar{a}=\langle a_0,\ldots,a_{\ell(*)-1}\rangle, \bar{b}=\langle b_0,\ldots,b_{m(*)-1}\rangle and for notation let a_{n+1+\ell}=b_\ell) let

and k_{c,\bar{a},\bar{b}},\varphi_{c,\bar{a},\bar{b}} be witnesses for \mathrm{rkk}^1((\bar{a},\bar{b}),M',c;\kappa,\theta) \ngeq \alpha_{c,\bar{a},\bar{b}}+1. Let i(c,\bar{a},\bar{b})<\kappa be such that \varphi_{c,\bar{a},\bar{b}} is a conjunction of formulas of the form \varphi_j(x_\ell,y_m) for j\in u_{i(c,\bar{a},\bar{b})}.

We define M:

the universe is |M'|,

the function F^{M'}, relations R^{M'}_1,R^{M'}_2,Q^{M'},P^{M'}, the pairing function on ordinals,

and let H_c be one to one from \omega \times \mathrm{rkk}(M',c; \kappa, \theta)\times \kappa into \kappa; we define the function G: G_c(\bar{a},\bar{b})= H(G_{c,0}(\bar{a},\bar{b}), G_{c,1}(\bar{a},\bar{b}), G_{c,2}(\bar a, \bar b)) = H(k_{c,\bar{a},\bar{b}},\alpha_{c,\bar{a},\bar{b}}, i_{c,\bar a, \bar b}).

Now we can apply statement (B)-of 4.6 which we are assuming and get M_0, N, c^*, a_\eta, b_\eta (for \eta \in {}^\omega 2) satisfying clauses (i)—(vii) there. So c^*\in M_0\subseteq M'\cap N, so \beta^*= \mathrm{rkk}(M',c ; \kappa) satisfies \beta^*<\infty, even < \kappa^+. Clearly \mathrm{rkk}^1(N, c^*; \kappa) \le \beta^*.

Consider all sequences \langle \langle \eta_\ell: \ell< \ell(*)\rangle, \langle \nu_m: m< m(*)\rangle,d_1,\bar d,\langle \varphi_{\ell, m}: \ell< \ell(*), m< m(*)\rangle,\langle a_\ell: \ell< \ell(*)\rangle, \langle b_m: m< m(*)\rangle \big\rangle which are as in clause (vi) of (B).

Among those tuples choose one with \alpha^* = \mathrm{rkk}^1(\{a_\ell: \ell< \ell(*)\}, \{b_m: m< m(*)\}, N, c^*; \kappa) minimal. Let this rank not being \ge \alpha^*+1 be exemplified by \varphi and k< \ell(*)+ m(*), so by symmetry without loss of generality k< \ell(*).

Choose k^*< \omega large enough for clause (vi) of (B) for all formulas \varphi(x, y) appearing in \{\varphi_j(x, y):j \in u_{i_{c^*, \bar a, \bar b}}\} where i_{c^*, \bar a, \bar b}= G_{c^*, 2}(\bar a, \bar b) and \langle \eta_\ell \restriction k^*: \ell < \ell(*)\rangle, \langle \nu_m \restriction k^*: m< m(*)\rangle and with no repetition. Choose \eta_{\ell(*)}\in 2^\omega \setminus \{\eta_k\} such that \eta_{\ell(*)} \restriction k^* = \eta_k \restriction k^*. Now apply clause (vi) of (B)-to \bar \eta'=\langle \eta_\ell: \ell \le \ell(*)\rangle, \bar \nu'=\langle \nu_m: m< m(*)\rangle, \bigwedge\limits_{m} \varphi_{\ell(*), m}(x_{\ell(*)}, x_m),d'_1, \bar d'.

By the choice of \varphi, these clearly satisfy \mathrm{rkk}^1(\{a'_\ell: \ell< \ell(*)\},\{b'_m:m< m(*)\}, N, c^*;\kappa, \bar \theta)< \mathrm{rkk}^1(\{a_\ell: \ell< \ell(*)\}, \{b_m: m< m(*)\}, N, c^*; \kappa, \bar \theta) = \alpha^*, but by this we easily contradict the choice of \alpha^* as minimal.

(A) \Rightarrow (B)

As in the proof of 2.5, 2.1 (choosing a fixed c).

(B) \Rightarrow (B)^-

Trivial.

et \varphi_i(\eta, \nu) = (\exists \rho) [(\eta, \nu, \rho)\in \lim(T_i)] where T_i is a (2,2, \kappa)-tree. Let M be ({\mathscr{H}}(\chi),\in, <^*_\chi, \langle T_i: i< \theta\rangle, h, \Upsilon, \lambda_1, \lambda_2, R_1, R_2, Q, n)_{n< \omega} expanded by Skolem functions, where Q^M= \theta and choosing \eta_i\in {}^\omega 2 for i< \lambda_1 pairwise distinct, \nu_j \in {}^\omega 2 for j< \lambda_2 are pairwise distinct, R^M_1=\{\eta_i: i< \lambda_1\}, R^M_2=\{\nu_j: j< \lambda_2\} and let \Upsilon, h be functions such that (\eta_i, \nu_j, \Upsilon(\eta_i, \nu_j))\in \lim (T_{h(\eta_i, \nu_j)}). So let N, M_0, c^*, a_\eta (for \eta\in {}^\omega 2), b_\eta (for \eta\in {}^\omega 2) be as in clause (B) of 4.6. Now M has elimination of quantifiers, so there are quantifier free formulas \varphi^\ell_n(x) saying (in M) that x\in R_\ell\ \&\ x(n)=1, and H_n(x, y) be such that x\in R^M_1\ \&\ y\in R^M_2 \Rightarrow (\Upsilon(x, y))(n) = H_n(x, y)\in \kappa= P^M.

So for \eta\in {}^\omega 2 we can define \sigma^1_{\eta} \in {}^\omega 2 by \sigma^1_\eta(n)=1 \Leftrightarrow N\models \varphi^1_n(a_\eta) and \sigma^1_\eta \in {}^\omega 2 by \sigma^2_\eta (n)=1 \Leftrightarrow N\models \varphi^2_n(b_\eta) and we define, for \eta, \nu\in {}^\omega 2, a sequence \sigma_{\eta, \nu} \in {}^{\omega >}(P^{M_0})\subseteq {}^{\omega >} \kappa by \sigma_{\eta, \nu (n)} = H_n(a_\eta,b_\nu).

Now A=:\{\sigma^1_\eta: \eta\in {}^\omega 2\}, B=:\{\sigma^2_\eta: \eta\in {}^\omega 2\} are perfect and for \eta, \nu\in {}^\omega 2, (\sigma^1_\eta, \sigma^2_\eta, \sigma_{\eta, \nu})\in \lim (T) hence A\times B is a perfect rectangle inside \mathrm{prj} \lim (T).

) Easy.

2) Let \neg \varphi be represented as \mathrm{prj} \lim(T), T a (2,2,\kappa)-tree.

Now \varphi(\eta,\nu) iff T_{(\eta,\nu)} = \{\rho: for some n,(\eta\restriction n, \nu\restriction n, \rho)\in T\} is well founded which is equivalent to the existence of \alpha< \kappa^+, f: T_{(\eta, \nu)} \rightarrow \alpha such that \rho_1< \rho_2\in T \Rightarrow f(\rho_1)> f(\rho_2). For each \alpha< \kappa^+, this property is \kappa-Borel.

), 2), 3) Left to the reader.

4) Follows from part 5).

5) Let \lambda = \lambda \mathrm{rc}_{\alpha(*)+1}(\theta), and let \mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5muT\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu=\langle T_i: i<\theta\rangle, \mathrm{degrc}(T_i) \le \alpha(*) and A = \bigcup\limits_{i<\theta} \lim(T_i). Let \{\eta_\alpha: \alpha<\lambda\} \times \{\nu_\beta:\beta< \lambda\}\subseteq A where \alpha< \beta \Rightarrow \eta_\alpha \ne \eta_\beta and \nu_\alpha \ne \nu_\beta, and for simplicity \{\eta_\alpha: \alpha< \lambda\}\cap \{\nu_\beta:\beta<\lambda\}=\varnothing.

We define a model M, with universe {\mathscr{H}}((2^{\aleph_0})^+) and relation: all those definable in ({\mathscr{H}}((2^{\aleph_1})^+), \in, <^*, R_1, R_2, g, \mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5muT\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu, i)_{i \le \theta} where R^M_1 = \{\eta_\alpha: \alpha< \lambda\}, R^M_2 = \{\nu_\beta : \beta < \lambda\}, g(\eta_\alpha, \nu_\beta) = \min\{i \le \theta : (\eta_\alpha, \nu_\beta)\in \lim(T_i)\}.

Next we prove

1. (*) if w_\ell \in [R^M_\ell] for \ell=1,2, then

   \begin{array}{clcr} \mathrm{rkk}(\langle w_1,w_2\rangle,M) \le \min\{&\mathrm{degrc}_{T_i}(\{\eta_\alpha \restriction k:\alpha \in u_1\},\{\nu_\beta\restriction k: \beta\in u_2\}):\\ &u_1\subseteq w_1,\ u_2\subseteq w_2,\ u_1 \ne \varnothing,\ u_2 \ne \varnothing, k < \omega \text{ and} \\ &\langle \eta_\alpha\restriction k:\alpha\in u_1\rangle \text{ is with no repetitions, and } \\ &\langle\nu_\beta\restriction k:\beta\in u_2\rangle \text{ is with no repetitions}\}. \end{array}

We prove (*) by induction on the left side of the inequality. Now by the definitions we are done.

) We define the forcing for part 2. and delay the others to [Sh:532].

2) It is enough to do it for successor \alpha(*), say \beta(*)+1. It is like 1.13; we will give the basic definition and the new points. Let M be a model as in Definition 4.1, |R^M_\ell| = \lambda_\ell,\mathrm{rkk}^1(M)<\alpha(*) so \mathrm{rkk}^1(M) \le \beta(*). We assume that R^M_1, R^M_2 are disjoint sets of ordinals. For non empty \bar{a}_l\subseteq R^M_l (l<2; no repetition inside \bar a_l), let \varphi^M(\bar{a}_1, \bar{a}_2), k^M(\bar{a}_1,\bar{a}_2)\in \mathrm{Rang}(\bar{a}_1)\cup\mathrm{Rang}(\bar{a}_2) be witnesses to the value of \mathrm{rkk}^1(\bar{a}_1,\bar{a}_2,M) which is < \alpha(*).

We define the forcing notion \mathbf{P}: a condition p consists of:

1. \bar{u}^p = \langle u^p_0,u^p_1\rangle and u^p_\varepsilon = u_\varepsilon[p] is a finite subset of R^M_\varepsilon for \varepsilon<2,

2. n^p = n[p] < \omega and \eta^p_\alpha = \eta_\alpha[p]\in{}^{n[p]} \omega for \alpha\in u^p_\varepsilon such that \alpha \ne \beta\in u^p_\varepsilon \Rightarrow\ \eta^p_\alpha \ne \eta^p_\beta,

3. 0<m^p<\omega and t^p_m\subseteq \bigcup\{{}^\ell \omega \times {}^\ell \omega: \ell \le n^p\} closed under initial segments and such that the \triangleleft-maximal elements have the length n^p and \langle\rangle\in t^p,

4. the domain of f^p is \{\bar{u}=(u_1,u_2): for some \ell= \ell(u_1, u_2) \le n^p and m=m(u_1,u_2)<m^p we have u_\varepsilon \subseteq t^p_\varepsilon \cap{}^\ell \omega and if \alpha_1\in u_1,\alpha_2\in u_2, \eta^p_{\alpha_1}\restriction l\in u_1, \eta^p_{\alpha_2}\restriction l\in u_2 then g^p(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)=m\} and f^p(\bar{u})=(f^p_0(\bar{u}),f^p_1(\bar{u}),f^p_2(\bar{u}))\in \alpha(*)\times (u_1\cup u_2)\times L_{\omega_1,\omega}(\tau(M)),

5. a function g^p: u^p_1 \times u^p_2\rightarrow\{0,\ldots,m^p-1\}, m^p<\omega,

6. t^p_m \cap {}^{(n^p)}\omega= \{(\eta^p_\alpha, \eta^p_\beta): \alpha\in u^p_0, \beta\in u^p_1 and m=g^p(\alpha,\beta)\}

7. if \varnothing \ne u_\varepsilon \subseteq t_\varepsilon \cap {}^\ell \omega, f^p(u_1,u_2)=(\beta^*,\rho^*,\varphi^*), \ell < \ell(*) \le n^p, for i=0,1 a function e_{i,\varepsilon} has the domain u_\varepsilon, [(\forall l)(\rho\in u_\varepsilon \Rightarrow \rho\triangleleft e_{i,\varepsilon}(\rho)\in t^p_\varepsilon\cap {}^{\ell(*)} \omega)], [\rho^*\notin u_\varepsilon and \rho\in u_\varepsilon \Rightarrow e_{0,\varepsilon} (\rho)=e_{1,\varepsilon}(\rho)],[\rho^*\in u_\varepsilon \Rightarrow e_{0,\varepsilon}(\rho^*)\ne e_{1,\varepsilon}(\rho^*)] and f^p(e_{0,1}(u_1)\cup e_{1,1}(u_1),e_{0,2}(u_2)\cup e_{1,2}(u_2)) =(\beta',\rho',\varphi') (so well defined), then \beta'<\beta^*,

8. if \ell \le n^p, for \varepsilon =1,2 we have u_\varepsilon \subseteq u^p_\varepsilon are non empty, the sequence \langle \eta^p_\alpha\restriction \ell: \alpha\in u_\varepsilon\rangle is with no repetition, and u_\varepsilon' = \{\eta^p_\alpha \restriction \ell: \alpha\in u_\varepsilon\} and f^p(u_1',u_2') is well defined, then

   1. f^p_2(u_1',u_2')=\varphi^M(u_1,u_2),

   2. f^p_1(u_1',u_2')=\eta^p_\alpha\restriction l

   3. where \alpha is k^M(u_1,u_2) and

   4. f^p_0(u_1',u_2',h)=\mathrm{rkk}(u_1,u_2,M),

9. if (u'_1,u'_2)\in \mathrm{Dom}(f^p) then there are l,u_1,u_2 as above,

10. if (\eta_1,\eta_2)\in t^p_m \cap ({}^{n}2 \times{}^n2) then for some \alpha_1\in u^p_1, \alpha_2\in u^p_2 we have g^p(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)=m and \eta_1\trianglelefteq\eta^p_{\alpha_1}, \eta_2\trianglelefteq\eta^p_{\alpha_2}.