A premouse inheriting strong cardinals from V

arXiv:1506.04116v1 [math.LO] 12 Jun 2015

Farmer Schlutzenberg1

Abstract
We identify a premouse inner model L[E], such that for any coarsely iterable
background universe R modelling ZFC, L[E]R is a proper class premouse of R
inheriting all strong and Woodin cardinals from R, and iteration trees on L[E]R
lift to coarse iteration trees on R.
We also prove that a slight weakening of (k + 1)-condensation follows from
(k, 1 + 1)-iterability in place of (k, 1 , 1 + 1)-iterability. We also prove that
full (k + 1)-condensation follows from (k, 1 + 1)-iterability and (k + 1)-solidity.
In order to prove these results we introduce structures generalizing bicephali,
and prove some general theorems regarding these structures.
Keywords: bicephalus, condensation, normal iterability, inner model, strong
cardinal
2010 MSC: 03E45, 03E55

1. Introduction
N
Consider fully iterable, sound premice M, N , such that M
= = .
Under what circumstances can we deduce that either M E N or N E M ? This
conclusion follows if is a cutpoint of both models. By [2, Lemma 3.1],1 the
conclusion follows if is a regular uncountable cardinal and there is no premouse
with a superstrong extender. We will show that if

M ||(+ )M = N ||(+ )N
and M, N have a certain joint iterability property, then M = N .
The joint iterability required, and the proof that M = N , is motivated by
the bicephalus argument of [3, 9]. The bicephali of [3] are structures of the
form B = (P, E, F ), where both (P, E) and (P, F ) are active premice. If B is an
iterable bicephalus and there is no iterable superstrong premouse then E = F
(see [3, 9] and [5]); the proof is by comparison of B with itself. In 3, we will
consider a more general form of bicephali, including, for example, the structure
C = (, M, N ), where , M, N are as in the previous paragraph. Given that
Email address: farmer.schlutzenberg@gmail.com (Farmer Schlutzenberg)
paper [2] literally deals with premice with Jensen indexing, whereas we deal with
Mitchell-Steel indexing. However, the same result still holds.
1 The

Preprint submitted to Elsevier

June 15, 2015

C is iterable, a comparison of C with itself will be used to show that, in the

above case, M = N . We will also deal with bicephali ( , M , N ) in which M
or N might fail to be fully sound. However, we will assume that both M , N
project to , are -sound, and M , N agree below their common value for
( )+ . If such a bicehpalus is iterable, it might be that M 6= N , but we will see
that in this situation, M is an ultrapower of some premouse by an extender in
E+ (N ), or vice versa. We will also prove similar results regarding cephalanxes,
a blend of bicephali and phalanxes. The presence of superstrong premice makes
cephalanxes somewhat more subtle than bicephali.
We will give two applications of these results. First, in 4, we consider
proving condensation under a normal iterability hypothesis. Let k < , let
H, M be k-sound premice, let : H M be a near k-embedding2 , let H
k+1
< H
,
and
suppose
that
H
is
-sound
and

cr().
We
wish
to
prove
k
(k + 1)-condensation holds.3 Recall that the standard (phalanx-based) proof of
condensation relies on the (k, 1 , 1 + 1)-iterability of M , through its appeal to
the weak Dodd-Jensen property. We wish to reduce this assumption to (k, 1 +
1)-iterability. Given the latter, and the (k + 1)-solidity of M , we will deduce
the usual conclusion of condensation. Also, without assuming any solidity of
M , we will show that a slight weakening of (k + 1)-condensation still follows
from (k, 1 + 1)-iterability. (But note that the assumption that H is -sound
entails that pH
k+1 \ is (k + 1)-solid for H.) Since we do not have (k, 1 , 1 + 1)iterability, it is natural to consider the circumstance that M fail to be (k + 1)solid. (Though on the other hand, the author believes that, at least if M has
no superstrong initial segments, then it is likely that the (k + 1)-solidity of M
follows from (k, 1 + 1)-iterability; see 6.) Our proof makes use of bicephali
and cephalanxes in place of phalanxes, and avoids using (weak) Dodd-Jensen.4
Next, let N be the output of a typical fully backgrounded L[E]-construction.
Assuming that various structures associated to the construction are sufficiently
iterable, every Woodin cardinal is Woodin in N . However, it seems that
might be strong, but not strong in N . In [10], Steel defined the local K c construction, whose output M inherits both Woodin and strong cardinals. But
this construction requires V to be a premouse, and (an important feature which
helps ensure that strong cardinals are inherited is that) the background extenders used can be partial. As a consequence, when one lifts iteration trees on
M to iteration trees U on V , the tree U might have drops. In 5, we identify
a new form of L[E]-construction C, uniquely definable in any ZFC universe V
which is coarsely iterable in some larger universe W . Letting L[E] be the final
2 Actually

we will work with the more general class of k-lifting embeddings; see 2.1.
H
that is, the version . . . with H
k+1 replacing in [3, pp. 8788], or [2,
Lemma 1.3], though this uses Jensen indexing, or [12, Theorem 9.3.2], though this uses Jensen
indexing and -fine structure.
4 The way we have presented our proof, we do make use of the standard proof of condensation, in proving 2.13, but in circumstances in which Dodd-Jensen is not required. This appeal
to the standard proof can, however, be removed, by arranging things more inductively and
using the main structure of the proof of 4.2 to prove 2.13.
3 Approximately,

model of C, (a) L[E] is a proper class premouse, (b) if is strong (Woodin),

then is strong (Woodin) in L[E], and (c) working in W , L[E] is iterable, with
iteration trees on L[E] lifting to (coarse) trees on V . Thus, we achieve many of
the properties of the the local K c -construction, but with the advantages that
V need not be a premouse, and that trees U on V resulting from lifting trees
on L[E] are such that for all + 1 < lh(U), EU is a total extender in MU . (In
the case of the local K c -construction, locally strong cardinals are also inherited,
but this does not seem to hold for C.)
Conventions & Notation.
General : The reverse of a finite sequence = (x0 , . . . , xn1 ) is =
(xn1 , . . . , x0 ).
The universe N of a first-order structure M = (N, . . .) is denoted M .
Regarding premice and fine structure, we mostly follow [3] and [11], with
some modifications as described below. We also make use of generalized solidity
witnesses; see [12, 1.12].
Premice: We deal with premice and related structures with Mitchell-Steel
indexing, but with extenders of superstrong type permitted on their extender
~ is a sequence such that for
sequence. That is, a super-fine extender sequence E
~
~
each dom(E), E is acceptable at , and if E 6= then either:
~

E is a (, ) pre-extender over JE and E is the trivial completion of

E (E ) and E is not type Z, or
~

JE has largest cardinal and E is a (, ) pre-extender over JE and

iE () = = (E ),
and further, properties 2 and 3 of [11, Definition 2.4] hold. We then define premouse in terms of super-fine extender sequences, in the usual manner. Likewise
for related terms, such as segmented-premouse (see [5, 5]). See [9, 2.12.6,
2.14] for discussion of the modifications of the general theory needed to deal
with these changes.
Let P be a segmented-premouse with active extender F 6= . We say that F ,
or P , has superstrong type iff iF (cr(F )) < lh(F ). (So if F has superstrong type
then iF (cr(F )) is the largest cardinal of P , and then P is a premouse iff the initial
segment condition holds for P .) In [5], all premice are assumed to be below
superstrong type, but certain results there (in particular, [5, 2.17, 2.20]) hold in
our context (allowing superstrong type), by the same proofs, and when we cite
these results, we literally refer to these generalizations. (However, [5, Theorem
5.3] does not go through as stated at the superstrong level; Theorem 3.32 of the
present paper generalizes that result at the superstrong level.) At certain points
we will explicitly restrict our attention to premice below superstrong type.
Let P be a segmented-premouse. We write F P = F (P ) for the active extender of P (possibly F P = ), EP = E(P ) for the extender sequence of P , exP
P
P
cluding F P , and EP
6= we write lh(F P ) = ORP .
+ = E+ (P ) = E b F . If F
P
P
P
(So lh(F ) is the length of F when F is not of superstrong type.) Given
ORP , we write P | for the Q E P such that ORQ = , and write
3

P || = (Q , EQ , ). (We use the same notation for cephals P , given that

P ; see 3.5.) If P has a largest cardinal , lgcd(P ) denotes . If P is
active, (P ) and (F P ) both denote max(lgcd(P ), (F P )). So if P is an active
premouse then (P ) = (F P ). A premouse extender is an extender F P for some
active premouse P .
Given two segmented-premice P, R and an ordinal min(ORP , ORR ),
define
(P R)| P | = R|.
We also use the same notation with more than two structures, and also with
|| replacing |. (We use the same notation for cephals; see 3.5.)
Fine structure: We officially use Mitchell-Steel fine structure, (a) as modified
in [8], and (b) as further modified by using k-lifting embeddings in place of weak
k-embeddings. (Modification (a) involves dropping the objects un , and defining
standard parameters without regard to these objects. The reader who prefers
the original Mitchell-Steel fine structure simply need put the relevant un s into
various hulls and theories. Modification (b) is described in 2.) Let m < and
Q
let Q be an m-sound premouse. For i m + 1 we write p~iQ = (pQ
1 , . . . , pi ). Let
<
q OR(Q) . We say that q is (m + 1)-solid for Q iff for each q,
Q
~m
) Q.
ThQ
rm+1 ( (q\( + 1)) p

Let ORQ . We say Q is -sound iff either (i) Q

0 or (ii) Q is -sound or
Q
Q
(iii) there is k < be such that Q is k-sound and Q
k+1 < k and pk+1 \ is
Q
(k + 1)-solid for Q and Q = HullQ
pk+1
}).
k+1 ( {~
ISC stands for initial segment condition.
Extenders: Given a (long) extender E we write ms(E) for the measure space
of E; that is, the supremum of all +1 such that for some < lh(E), iE () > .
See [5, 2.1] for the definition of semi-close (extender).
Ultrapowers: Let E be a (possibly long) extender over a segmented-premouse
M . We write Ult(M, E) for the ultrapower formed by using functions in M ,
without squashing (so F Ult(M,E) is defined as when M is a type 2 premouse).
A ultrapower of M formed in this way is simple.
For M an n-sound premouse, we write Ultn (M, E) for the degree n ultrapower, with Ultn (M, E) = Ultn (M sq , E)unsq if M is type 3.
For M an active segmented-premouse, UltM and Ult(M ) both denote Ult(M, F M ),
M
and UltM
k = Ultk (M ) denotes Ultk (M, F ).
For a type 3 premouse M , let C1 (M ) = C0 (M ), and for an extender E over
C0 (M ), let and Ult1 (M, E) = Ult0 (M, E).
Embeddings: Given structures X, Y , if context determines an obvious natural
embedding i : X Y we write iX,Y for i.
Let M, N be segmented-premice. A simple embedding : M N is a function with dom() = M and cod() = N , such that is r0 -elementary.
(Note that if M is active then (lgcd(M )) = lgcd(N ), because the amenable
predicates for F M and F N specify the largest cardinal.) If M, N are type
3 premice, a squashed embedding : M N is, literally, a function with
4

dom() = C0 (M ) and cod() = C0 (N ), such that is r0 -elementary (more

correctly, q0 -elementary, but we just use the notation r for both cases).
Let : M N be simple. If M is passive then then denotes . If M is
active then
: Ult(M, F M ) Ult(N, F N )
denotes the simple embedding induced by (using the Shift Lemma).
Let : M N be squashed. Then
: Ult0 (M, F M ) Ult0 (N, F N )
denotes the squashed embedding induced by .
So in all cases.
We say : M N is -preserving iff either M, N are passive or ((F M )) =
(F N ). We say is -preserving iff either M, N are passive or ((F M )) =
(F N ). We say is c-preserving iff for all , if is a cardinal of M then ()
N
is a cardinal of N . We say is pj -preserving iff (pM
j ) = pj . We say is
M
N
pj -preserving iff (~
~
pj ) = p~j .
Iteration trees: Let T be an iteration tree. Then T is maximal iff it is
k-maximal for some k .
2. Fine structural preliminaries
M
2.1 Definition. Let H, M be k-sound premice with H
k , k > . Let L be the
language of H (here if H is passive, we take L = {, E}). We say an embedding
: H M is k-lifting iff is r0 -elementary with respect to L, and if k > 0
then TkH TkM .

(k)

A k-lifting embedding is similar to a 0 -preserving embedding of [12].

2.2 Lemma. Let H, M, k, L be as in 2.1 and let : H M . Then:
1. is k-lifting iff for every rk+1 formula and x H, if either L or
k > 0 then
H |= (x) = M |= ((x)).
2. If is k-lifting and H, M have different types then k = 0, H is passive
and M is active.
3. If k > 0 and is k-lifting then is rk elementary, (k 1)-lifting and
c-preserving.
4. If k > 1 and is rk elementary then is pk2 -preserving and k2 H
preserving, and if H
k1 < 0 then
M
H
(pH
k1 ) = pk1 \(k1 ) and
M
H
sup H
k1 k1 (k1 ).

M
5. If k > 0 and is rk elementary and pk1 -preserving, (pH
k ) pk .

6. The Shift Lemma holds with weak k- replaced by k-lifting, or by k-lifting

c-preserving.
Proof. Parts 13 are straightforward. For part 4, use (k 1)-solidity witnesses
for pk1 . For part 5 use the fact that if t is a k-solidity witness for (H, pH
k ),
then (t) is a generalized k-solidity witness for (M, (pH
)).
k
Part 6: We adopt the notation of [3, Lemma 5.2], but with n replaced by

= Ultk (M
, F ) and U = Ultk (M, F N ). Define
k. Let F = F N and U
) C0 (U )
: C0 (U
as there. It is straightforward to see that is rk -elementary. Suppose k > 0.

and < U be such

Let us observe that TkU TkU . Let t TkU . Let x U
k
that

t = ThU
rk ( {x}).
and a (F )< be such that
Let y M

M
x HullU
k (iF (y) a).

Let < M
k be such that cr(F ) and iF () . Let

u = ThM
rk ( {y}).

Then t is easily computed from u = iM

(u), and by commutativity, (u ) TkU .
F
U
It follows that (t) Tk , as required.
2.3 Remark. Clearly for k < , any rk+1 -elementary embedding is k-lifting.
However, the author does not know whether weak k- implies k-lifting, or
vice versa. We will not deal with weak k-embeddings in this paper.
Standard arguments show that the copying construction propagates k-lifting
c-preserving embeddings. (But this may be false for weak k-embeddings; see
[7].) Almost standard arguments show that k-lifting embeddings are propagated.
That is, suppose : H M is k-lifting, and let T be a k-maximal iteration
tree on H. We can define U = T as usual, assuming it has wellfounded models.
Let H = MT and M = MU . Using the Shift Lemma as usual, we get
: H M
for each < lh(T ), and is degT ()-lifting, and if is c-preserving, then so
is . Let us just mention the extra details when fails to be c-preserving. In
this case, k = 0 and H is passive. Suppose that E0T is total over H, and let
= cr(E0T ). Suppose that (+ )H < ORH but ((+ )H ) is not a cardinal of M .
Then U drops in model at 1, but T does not. Note though that rg() M1U
and : H M1U is 0-lifting (even if M1U is active). So we can still produce
1 : H1 M1 via the Shift Lemma. This situation generalizes to an arbitrary
6

 in place of 0, when T does not drop in model along [0, + 1]T . In all other
respects, the details are as usual. Moreover, if (i) [0, ]T drops in model or (ii)
degT () k 2 or (iii) degT () = k 1 and is pk1 -preserving, then is
a near degT ()-embedding; this uses the argument in [4].
H
2.4 Lemma. Let k 0, let : H M be k-lifting, let H
k+1 k . Then:
M
M
H
1. If pM
k1 , pk rg() and k = sup k then is a k-embedding.

2. If H is -sound and ( ) M and is not a k-embedding, then H, (

H
k ) M.
M
Proof. Part 1: This is fairly routine. By 2.2, we have (pH
k1 ) = pk1 . The
rk+1 elementarity of follows from this, together with the facts that is kH
M
M
lifting, pM
k rg() and k is unbounded in k . Now let (q) = pk . Then
H
H
pk q by 2.2, and q pk by rk elementarity.
M
Part 2: If H
k is bounded in k , use a stratification of rk+1 truth like
that described in [3, 2]. Given the reader is familiar with this, here is a sketch.
Let = sup H
k . Then the theory

t = ThM
pH
rk ( (~
k ))
is in M . Moreover, for any rk+1 formula and ~ < ,
H |= (~ , ~pH
k+1 )

(1)

iff there is < such that

t ( (~
pH
k ))
is above a witness to ((~ ), (~
pH
k+1 )) (see [3, 2]). So the relation in line (1)
is computable from t and . So H M , and a little more work gives that
( H
k ) M.
M
H
M
H
M
Suppose now that (pH
k1 ) = pk1 but (pk ) 6= pk . Then (pk ) pk by
H
M
2.2, so suppose that (pk ) < pk . Then we again get that t M (where t is
defined as above), because t is computable from some k-solidity witness. The
rest of the argument is the same.
M
Now assume that k > 1 and (pH
k1 ) 6= pk1 . By 2.2, we therefore have
H
M
H
(pk1 ) < pk1 . Let = sup k .
Claim. Let be an rk formula, let x H and ~ < . If M |= ((x), ~ )
then there is < M
) < , such that the theory
k1 , with max(~
ThM
~H
rk1 ( {(x, p
k1 )})
is above a witness to ((x), ~ ).
Proof. Let < H
). Let
k be such that () > max(~
v = ThH
~H
rk ( {x} p
k1 ).
7

Note then that for all ~ < ,

~ x, p~H )) v = ( , (,
~ x, p~H )) v,
(, (,
k1
k1
~ x, p~H ) asserts There is < k1 , with max()
~ < , such that the
where (,
k1
H
~ x, p~H ).
rk1 theory in parameters {x} p~k1 is above a witness to (,
k1
But then the same fact holds regarding (v), and since is k-liftng, this proves
the claim.
Now by (k 1)-solidity, we have u M where
M
u = ThM
pH
rk1 (k1 (~
k1 )).

Let t be defined as before. By the claim, from u we can compute t, so t M .

Now the rest is as before.
0 (Q) = C0 (Q), and for
2.5 Definition. Let Q be a k-sound premouse. Let C
k > 0, let
k (Q) = (Q||k (Q), T ),
C
where T = ThQ
~kQ ), and T is given from T by substituting p~kQ for a
rk (k p
constant symbol c.

2.6 Definition. Let k 0. Let Q be a k-sound premouse with Q

k > . We
say that (U, ) is k-suitable for Q iff:
U, Q||Q
k,
U is a k-sound premouse with U
k > , and
k (U ) C
k (Q) is 0 -elementary.
: C

2.7 Remark. Clearly, if (U, ) is k-suitable for Q then extends uniquely

to a p~k -preserving k-lifting : U Q, and moreover,
Q
sup U
k < k .
Q
Conversely, if : U Q is ~pk -preserving k-lifting and sup U
k < k and

= (U ||U
k ) is in Q, then (U, ) is k-suitable for Q.

2.8 Lemma. Let k 0. Then there is an rk+1 formula k such that for all

k-sound premice Q with < Q

k , and all U, Q,
Q |= k (U, , p~kQ )
iff (U, ) is k-suitable for Q.

Proof. We assume k > 0 and leave the other case to the reader.
The most complex clause of k says There is < Q
k such that letting
t = ThQ
pkQ ),
rk ( ~
then for each < U
k , letting
u = ThU
~kU ),
rk ( p
and letting t , u be given from t, u by substituting p~kQ , p~kU for the constant c,
we have (u ) t , and this is rk+1 . The rest is clear.
2.9 Definition. Let m 0 and let M be a segmented-premouse. Then M is
m-sound iff either m = 0 or M is an m-sound premouse.

2.10 Definition. Let r 0 and let R be an r-sound premouse. Then we say

that suitable condensation holds at (R, r) iff for every (H, ), if (H, ) is
r-suitable for R, H is (r + 1)-sound and
cr() = H
r+1 ,
then either H R, or R| is active with extender F and H Ult(R|, F ).
Let m 0 and let M be an m-sound segmented-premouse. We say that
suitable condensation holds below (M, m) iff for every R E M and r <
such that either R M or r < m, suitable condensation holds at (R, r). We say
that suitable condensation holds through (M, m) iff M is a premouse5 and
suitable condensation holds below and at (M, m).

2.11 Lemma. Let m 0. Then there is an rmax(m,1) formula m such

that for all m-sound segmented-premice M , suitable condensation holds below
m
(M, m) iff M |= m (~
pM
m1 ), where p1 = . Moreover, if M is a premouse,
6
then suitable condensation holds through (M, m) iff M |= m+1 (~
pM
m ).
Proof. This follows easily from 2.8.
2.12 Remark. Our proof of condensation from normal iterability (see 4.2) will
use our analysis of bicephali and cephalanxes (see 3). This analysis will, in
turn, depend on the premice involved satisfying enough condensation, at lower
levels (that is, lower in model or degree). We will only have normal iterability
for those premice, so we cant appeal to the standard condensation theorem
for this. One could get arrange everything inductively, proving condensation
and analysing bicephali and cephalanxes simultaneously. However, it is simpler
to avoid this by making use of the following lemmas, which are easy to prove
directly. We will end up generalizing them in 4.2.
5 We could have formulated this more generally for segmented-premice, but doing so would
have increased notational load, and we do not need such a generalization.
6 This clause only adds something because we do not assume that M is (m + 1)-sound.

2.13 Lemma (Condensation for -sound mice). Let h m < and let H, M
be premice. Suppose that:
H is (h + 1)-sound.
M is (m + 1)-sound and (m, 1 + 1)-iterable.
Either M
m+1 = or m h + 5.
There is an h-lifting ~
ph -preserving embedding : H M with cr()
= H
.
h+1
Then either
H = M , or
H M , or
M | is active and H Ult(M |, G).
Proof. Let , etc, be a counterexample. Let = (H||H
h ).
Claim. H M .
Proof. Suppose not. By 2.4, is an h-embedding, and M
h+1 . Note that
M
H
M
(pH
)

p
\
(using
generalized
solidity
witnesses).
If
(p
h+1
h+1
h+1 ) < ph+1 \
M
M
then we are done, so suppose otherwise. Then h+1 ph+1 rg(), so H = M ,
contradiction.
M
Now we may assume that M
pm )
m+1 = , by replacing M with cHullm+1 (~
if necessary: all relevant facts pass to this hull because cr() and by the
claim and by 2.2(1). We can now run almost the usual proof of condensation.
However, in the comparison (T , U) of the phalanx (M, H, ) with M , we form
an (m, h)-maximal tree on (M, H, ), and an m-maximal tree on M . Because
H M , and using the fine-structural circumstances in place of the weak DoddJensen property, this leads to contradiction.

2.14 Lemma (Suitable condensation). Let M be an m-sound, (m, 1 + 1)iterable segmented-premouse. Then suitable condensation holds below (M, m),
and if M is a premouse, through (M, m).
Proof. If M is not a premouse this follows from 2.13. So suppose M is a
premouse. By 2.11, we may assume that M
m+1 = , by replacing M with
M
cHullM
(~
p
)
if
necessary.
So
we
can
argue
as at the end of the proof of
m+1 m
2.13.

10

3. The bicephalus & the cephalanx

3.1 Definition. An exact bicephalus is a tuple B = (, M, N ) such that:
1. M and N are premice.
2. < min(ORM , ORN ) and is a cardinal of both M and N .
3. M ||(+ )M = N ||(+ )N .
4. M is -sound and for some m {1} , we have M
m+1 . Likewise
for N and n {1} .
We say B is non-trivial iff M 6= N . Write B = and M B = M and N B = N ,
and mB , nB for the least m, n as above. Let (+ )B be (+ )M = (+ )N . We say
B has degree (mB , nB ). We say that B is sound iff M is mB + 1-sound and
N is nB + 1-sound.

From now on we will just say bicephalus instead of exact bicephalus. In

connection with bicephali of degree (m, n) with min(m, n) = 1, we need the
following:
3.2 Definition. The terminology/notation (near) (1)-embedding, (1)lifting embedding, Ult1 , C1 , and degree (1) iterability are defined by
replacing 1 with 0. For n > 1 and appropriate premice M , the core
embedding Cn (M ) C1 (M ) is just the core embedding Cn (M ) C0 (M ).
3.3 Definition. Let q < . A passive right half-cephalanx of degree q is
a tuple B = (, , Q) such that:
1. Q is a premouse,
2. is a cardinal of Q and ( + )Q = < ORQ ,
3. Q is -sound,
Q
4. Q
q+1 < q .

An active right half-cephalanx (of degree q = 0) is a tuple B = (, , Q)

such that:
1. Q is an active segmented-premouse,
2. is the largest cardinal of Q and < = ORQ .
A right half-cephalanx B is either a passive, or active, right half-cephalanx.
We write B , B , QB , q B for , , Q, q as above. If B is active, we write S B =
RB = Ult(Q, F Q ). If B is passive, we write S B = Q.

Note that if B = (, , Q) is a right-half cephalanx, then B is active iff Q|

is active. So it might be that B is passive but Q is active.

11

3.4 Definition. Let m {1} and q < . A cephalanx of degree (m, q)

is a tuple B = (, , M, Q) such that, letting B = (, , Q), we have:
1. (, , Q) is a right-half cephalanx of degree q,
2. M is a premouse,
3. = ( + )M < ORM ,

4. M ||(+ )M = S B ||(+ )M ,
5. M -sound,
M
6. M
m+1 < m .

We say that B is active (passive) iff B is active (passive). 7 We write

, B , etc, for , , etc. We write RB for RB , if it is defined, and S B for S B .

B
We say B is exact iff (+ )S = (+ )M .
Suppose B is active. Let R = RB . We say B is non-trivial iff M R. If B
is non-exact, let N B denote the N R such that (+ )N = (+ )M and N
= ,
N
and let nB denote the n {1} such that N
=

<

.
n+1
n
Now suppose B is passive. We say B is non-trivial iff M 5 Q. Let N B
B
denote the N E Q such that (+ )N = (+ )M and N
be the
. Let n
B
B
N
N
n {1} such that n+1 < n .
A pm-cephalanx is a cephalanx (, , M, Q) such that Q is a premouse.
B

3.5 Definition. A cephal is either a bicephalus or a cephalanx. Let B be a

cephal, and let M = M B .
A short extender E is semi-close to B iff cr(E) < B and E is semi-close8
to M .
For B , let B|| = M ||, and for < B , let B| = M | and (+ )B =
+ M
( ) . We write P B iff P B||B . Let C, be such that B , and either
C is a segmented-premouse and ORC , or C is a cephal and C . Then
we define
(B C)|| B|| = C||.
If also < B and either C is a segmented-premouse or < C , we use the
same notation with | replacing ||. We also use the same notation with more
than two structures.

3.6 Remark. Because of the symmetry of bicephali and the partial symmetries
of cephalanxes, we often state facts for just one side of this symmetry, even
though they hold for both.
The proofs of the next two lemmas are routine and are omitted. In 3.73.13
below, the extender E might be long.
7 Note
8 See

that a passive cephalanx (, , M, Q) might be such that M and/or Q is/are active.

[5].

12

3.7 Lemma. Let Q be an active segmented-premouse. Let E be an extender

over Q with ms(E) cr(F Q ) + 1. Let R = UltQ and Q = Ult(Q, E) and

R = UltQ . Then R = Ult(R, E) and the ultrapower embeddings commute.

Moreover, iR
E = iQ .
E

3.8 Lemma. Let Q be an active segmented-premouse. Let E be an extender

over Q with (cr(F Q )+ )Q < cr(E). Let R = UltQ and R = Ult(R, E) and Q =

Ult(Q, E). Then Ult(Q, F Q ) = R and the ultrapower embeddings commute.9

Let : R R be given by the Shift Lemma (applied to id : Q Q and iQ
E ).
Then iR
E = .
3.9 Definition. Let E be a (possibly long) extender over a segmented-premouse
M . We say that E is reasonable (for M ) iff either M is passive, or letting
+ M
++
= cr(F M ), iM
exists then iM
E is continuous at ( ) , and if M |=
E is
++ M
continuous at ( ) .
Given a bicephalus B = (, M, N ), an extender E is reasonable for B iff
E is over B||, if mB 0 then E is reasonable for M , and if nB 0 then E is
reasonable for N .
Given a cephalanx B = (, , M, Q), an extender E is reasonable for B
iff E is over B||, if q B 0 then E is reasonable for Q, if mB 0 then E is
reasonable for M , and if N B is defined and nB 0 then E is reasonable for
N B.

3.10 Lemma. Let Q be an active segmented-premouse and let E be an extender

reasonable for Q. Let Q = Ult(Q, E) and R = UltQ and R = UltQ and

R = Ult(R, E). Let = cr(F Q ) and = (++ )Q . If < ORQ then let
Q

= iQ,R (), = iR
E (), = iE ();

then = iQ ,R ( ). If = ORQ then let = ORR , = ORR and =

ORQ . Then in either case, (R R )| and

Q
iR
E iQ,R (Q|) = iQ ,R iE (Q|).

Moreover, let : R| R | be induced by the shift lemma applied to iQ,Q

(Q|) and iQ,Q . Then = iR
E (R|).
Proof. Let G be the extender derived from E, of length iE (). Let j : Ult(Q, G)
++ UG
since E is reaUlt(Q, E) be the factor embedding. Then cr(j) > (iQ
)
G ()
sonable. Apply 3.7 to G, and then 3.8 to the extender derived from j.
3.11 Definition. Let M be a type 3 premouse. The expansion of M is the
active segmented-premouse M such that M |cr(F M ) = M |cr(F M ), and F M
is the Jensen-indexed version of F M . That is, let F = F M , let = cr(F ), let
= (+ )M , let = iF (), let R = UltM ; then M ||OR(M ) = R|, and F M
is the length iF () extender derived from iF .

9 Note

that in the conclusion, it is Ult(Q, F Q ), not UltQ .

13

The calculations in [3, 9] combined with a simple variant of 3.10 give the
following:
3.12 Fact. Let Q be a type 3 premouse. Let E be an extender over Qsq ,
reasonable for Q. Let Q be the expansion of Q, let U = Ult(Q , E) and
U = Ult0 (Q, E). Suppose U is wellfounded. Then U is wellfounded and U is
its expansion. Moreover, let i : Q U and i0 : Q U be the ultrapower
embeddings (so literally, dom(i ) = Q and dom(i0 ) = Qsq ). Then i0 = i Qsq ,
and i = i0 Q .
3.13 Remark. We will apply 3.10 and 3.12 when E is the extender of an
iteration map iT, , and if is a successor, the map iT, iT
, where (, ]T
T
does not drop and deg () = 0.
3.14 Definition (Ultrapowers of bicephali). Let B = (, M, N ) be a bicephalus
of degree (m, n) and let E be an extender reasonable for B. Let
iM
E : M Ultm (M, E)

M
be the usual ultrapower map, and likewise iN
E and n. Let = sup iE and
define
Ult(B, E) = ( , Ultm (M, E), Ultn (N, E)).

We say that Ult(B, E) is wellfounded iff both Ultm (N, E) and Ultn (N, E) are
wellfounded.

3.15 Definition. Let B be a bicephalus. The associated augmented bicephalus is the tuple
B = (, M, N, M , N )
where if m 0 then M = M , and otherwise M is the expansion of M ; likewise
for N . (Note that if m = 1 then M is type 3 and = (F M ).)
= Ultm (M, E); otherwise let
Let E reasonable for B. If m 0 let M
= Ult(M , E). Likewise for N
. Then we define
M
D
E
,N
.
Ult(B , E) = Ult(B, E) b M

,N
are all wellfounded.
We say that Ult(B , E) is wellfounded iff Ult(B, E), M

3.16 Lemma. Let B = (, M, N ) be a bicephalus. Let E be reasonable for B.

= Ult(B , E) = (U , M U , N U , M
,N
). Suppose that
Let U = Ult(B, E) and U
is wellfounded. Then:
U
= U .
(1 ) U is a bicephalus of degree (m, n) and U
(2 ) U is trivial iff B is trivial.
U

M
M
U
(3 ) iM
E (pm+1 \) = pm+1 \ .

14

+ B
+ B

(4 ) iM
= iN
and iM
and iN
E ( )
E ( )
E
E are continuous/cofinal at
+ B 10
( ) .

(5 ) iM
M .
E = iM
E

(6 ) Suppose E is short and semi-close to B. Then M U is m + 1-sound iff M

U
U
is m + 1-sound and cr(E) < M
is m + 1-sound then M
m+1 . If M
m+1 =
M
MU
M M
sup iM
E m+1 and pm+1 = iE (pm+1 ).
Likewise regarding N, n, E.
Proof. Part (6) is by [5, 2.20], (3) is a standard calculation using generalized
solidity witnesses (see [12]), and (5) is by 3.12 ((5) is trivial when m 0).
Consider (4). Let W = Ult(B||(+ )B , E) and j : B||(+ )B W be the
+ B

ultrapower map. We claim that (): j = iM

= j(),
E ( ) , and letting

||(
M
+ )M = W.

If m 0 this is immediate. If m > 0, then because (+ )B M

m , by [3, 6],
all functions forming the ultrapower M U with codomain (+ )B are in fact in
B||(+ )B , which gives ().
is the expansion of M U .
Now (4) follows from (). Consider (1). By 3.12, M
U
Now we have and by (),

||(
||(
M
+ )M = N
+ )N .

Also if m 0 then < m (M U ). The rest of the proof of (1) is routine.

Now let us prove (2). Assume M 6= N . We may assume m = n. Because
M 6= N and by -soundness, there is some rm+1 formula and < such
that
M |= (pM

N |= (pN
m+1 \, )
m+1 \, ).
N
M
N

Now iM
E and iE are rm+1 -elementary, and by (), iE () = iE (); let =
M
iE (). So by (3),
U

M U |= (pM
m+1 \ , )

N U |= (pN
m+1 \ , ),

and therefore M U 6= N U .
3.17 Definition (Ultrapowers of cephalanxes). Let B = (, , M, Q) be a
cephalanx of degree (m, q) and let E be reasonable for B. Let iM
E be the degree

M
m ultrapower map and let = iM
()
and

=
sup
i
.
If
B
is active then
E
E
we define
Ult(B, E) = ( , , Ultm (M, E), Ult(Q, E)).
10 That

is continuous there; if m 0 and (+ )B =

is, if (+ )B dom(iM
E ) then iE
U

+ B
+ B = OR(M ) then OR((M U ) ) =
then M
= sup iM

0
E ( ) ; if m = 1 and ( )
M
+
B
sup iE ( ) .

M
0

15

(Recall that the ultrapower Ult(Q, E) is simple; it might be that Q is type 3.)
If B is passive then we define
Ult(B, E) = ( , , Ultm (M, E), Ultq (Q, E)).

3.18 Lemma. In the context of 3.17, suppose that B is passive, and that U =
Ult(B, E) is wellfounded. Let = (+ )M . Then:
(1 ) U is a passive cephalanx of degree (m, q).
Q
(2 ) iM
E = iE .

U
(3 ) If C0 (M ) then = iM
E (); otherwise = 0 (M ). Likewise for
Q
Q, iE , QU .

() = iQ () = .
(4 ) iM
E
E

(5 ) If (+ )M dom(iM
) then iM
is continuous at (+ )M ; otherwise M is
E
E
M
M
+ M
passive, OR = ( ) and OR(M U ) = sup iM
E OR .
(6 ) iM
(+ )M = iQ (+ )M .
E
E

(7 )

M
iM
E (pm+1 \)

pM
m+1 \ .

(8 ) Suppose E is short and semi-close to B. Then M U is (m + 1)-sound iff

U
M is (m + 1)-sound and cr(E) < M
is (m + 1)-sound then
m+1 . If M
U
U
M
M
M
M
M M
m+1 = sup iE m+1 and pm+1 = iE (pm+1 ).
(9 ) If B is non-exact then U is non-exact.
(10 ) If B is exact (so N B = Q) but U is not, then 0 nB < q.
(11 ) Suppose that B is non-trivial and that suitable condensation holds below
(Q, q). Let N = N B and n = nB . Then:
(i) U is non-trivial,
(ii) N U = UltnB (N, E) and nU = n,
(iii) Parts (2 )(8 ) hold with M replaced by N and m by n.
U

Q
Q
U
We also have iQ
E (pq+1 \) = pq+1 \ , but we wont need this.

Proof. Parts (2)(8) are much as in the proof of 3.16. (For (6), note that given
A P() M , the value of iM
(A) is determined by the values of iM
(A )
E
E
for < ; likewise for iQ (A).) So (1) follows. Part (9) follows from (5) and
E
(6); part (10) is easy.
Now consider (11). We first deal with the case that B is exact, so assume
this. Part (iii) is just as for M , so consider (i) and (ii). Since B is exact, N = Q.

16

By the proof of 3.16, we have Ultn (Q, E) 6= Ultm (M, E), so it suffices to see
that
Un = Ultn (Q, E) E QU = Ultq (Q, E) = Uq .
We may assume that n < q. If n = 1 then we easily have Un = Uq , so also
assume n 0, and so C0 (Q). We have
Q
Q
Q
Q
q+1 < = q = n+1 < n .

Let : Un Uq be the natural factor map. Let in : Q Un and iq : Q Uq

be the ultrapower maps. Then in = iq , is p~n+1 -preserving n-lifting and
Uq

n
cr() > . Also, Un , Uq are (n + 1)-sound and U
n+1 = = n+1 .
+ Uq
+ Un
Suppose (( ) ) = (( ) ) < cr(). Then
Un
q
U
n = sup n ,

since otherwise, using the previous paragraph and as in the proof of 2.4, otherwise Un Uq , collapsing (( )+ )Uq in Uq . So by 2.4, is an n-embedding, and
in particular, is rn+1 -elementary. Since
U

q
q
n+1
pn+1
rg(),

therefore Un = Uq , which suffices.

Now suppose that (( )+ )Un < (( )+ )Uq . Then much as in the previous
case,
Un
q
U
n > sup n .

n
Let = (Un ||U
n ). By 2.4 we get Un , Uq and (Un , ) is n-suitable
for Uq . Since suitable condensation holds below (Q, q), and by 2.11, and since
Uq | is passive, it follows that Un Uq , which suffices.
Now consider the case that B is non-exact. So N Q. Let Un = Ultn (N, E),
consider the factor embedding

: Un iQ
E (N )
and argue that Un E iQ
E (N ), like before. This completes the proof.
3.19 Lemma. In the context of 3.17, suppose that B is active, and that U =
Ult(B, E) and RU are wellfounded. Let = (+ )M . Then:
(1 ) U is an active cephalanx of degree (m, 0).

U
(2 ) If C0 (M ) then = iM
E (); otherwise = 0 (M ).

(3 ) 3.18(2 ), (4 )(8 ) hold.

(4 ) U is exact iff B is exact.
(5 ) Suppose that B is non-exact and non-trivial and that suitable condensation
holds below (Q, 0). Let N = N B and n = nB . Then:
17

(i) U is non-trivial,
(ii) N U = UltnB (N, E) and nU = n,
(iii) Parts (2 )(3 ) hold with M replaced by N and m by n.
Proof. This follows from 3.10, 3.12 and the proof of 3.18.11
3.20 Lemma. Let C be a cephal of degree (m, k). If C is a bicephalus let
B = C , and otherwise let B = C. Let hE i< be a sequence of short extenders.
Let B0 = B, B+1 = Ult(B , E ), and let B be the direct limit at limit .
Suppose that for each , B is wellfounded and if < then E is semiclose to B .
If C is a bicephalus (passive cephalanx, active cephalanx, respectively) then
the conclusions of 3.16 (3.18, 3.19, respectively) apply to B and B , together
with the associated iteration embeddings, after deleting the sentence Suppose E
is short and semi-close to B. and replacing the phrase cr(E) < M
m+1 with

cr(E ) < M
for
each

<
.
m+1
Proof. If C is a bicephalus, this mostly follows from 3.16, [5, 2.20] and 3.12 by
induction. At limit stages, use [5, 2.20] directly to prove 3.16(6). To see 3.16(4),
replace the iteration used to define C with a single (possibly long) extender E,
and apply 3.16. The cephalanx cases are similar.
3.21 Definition (Iteration trees on bicephali). Let B = (, M, N ) be a bicephalus of degree (m, n) and let OR\{0}. An iteration tree on B, of
length , is a tuple


T = <T , hE i+1< ,
such that there are sequences of models


,
hB , M , N i< & B+1
, M+1
, N+1
+1<
and embeddings
hi, , j, i,< &
and ordinals
h i< &

i+1 , j+1

+1<

cr , , lh , +1 +1< ,

sets B, M , N (specifying types and origins of structures), a function deg

with domain (specifying degrees), and a set D (specifying drops in model),
with the following properties:
1. <T is an iteration tree order on , with the usual properties.
2. B0 = (0 , M0 , N0 ) = B and deg(0) = (m, n) and i0,0 = id and j0,0 = id.
11 In 3.10 we set = (++ )Q , and the reader might wonder why we didnt just use =
(+ )Q . We need the larger value here if Q has superstrong type.

18

3. B, M , N are disjoint and for each < , either

(a) B and B = ( , M , N ) is a bicephalus of degree (m, n) =
deg(), or
(b) M and B = M is a segmented-premouse and N = , or
(c) N and B = N is a segmented-premouse and M = .
4. For each + 1 < :
(i) Either E E+ (M ) or E E+ (N ).
(ii) cr = cr(E ) and = (E ) and lh = lh(E ).
(iii) For all < we have lh lh .
(iv) predT ( + 1) is the least such that cr < .
Fix + 1 < and = predT ( + 1) and = cr .
5. Suppose B and < and E is total over B || . Then deg(+1) =
(m, n) and

= B
) = B+1
(+1 , M+1
, N+1
and

B+1 = Ult(B+1
, E)

and

i+1 : M+1
M+1

is the ultrapower map, and likewise j+1

, and i,+1 and j,+1 are defined
for T + 1 in the obvious manner.

6. Suppose that E E+ (M ). Suppose that either

/ B, or < and

,
= , and j+1
E is not total over B || . Then we set N+1 = N+1

etc, are undefined. We set M+1 E M and deg( + 1), etc, in the manner
for maximal trees. Let k = deg( + 1). Then

M+1 = Ultk (M+1

, E )

and i+1 , etc, are defined in the usual manner. We set B+1
= M+1
and
B+1 = M+1 .

7. Suppose that E
/ E+ (M ) (so E E+ (N )) and B+1 is not defined
through clause 5. Then we proceed symmetrically to clause 6 (interchanging M with N ).

8. + 1 D iff either 6= M+1

M or 6= N+1
N .

9. For every limit < , D [0, )T is bounded in , and B iff [0, )T

B; the models M , etc, and embeddings i, , etc, are defined via direct
limits.
For < lh(T ), B() denotes max(B [0, ]T ).
19

3.22 Lemma. Let T be an iteration tree on a bicephalus of degree (m, n) and

let < lh(T ). We write B = BT , etc. Then:

1. If + 1 < lh(T ) then E is semi-close to B+1

.

2. If + 1 < lh(T ) and + 1

/ B then E is close to B+1
.

3. B is closed downward under <T and if M then N [0, ]T = .

4. If M and [0, ]T D = then m 0.
5. If M , [0, ]T D = , deg() = m and = B() then:
M is -sound, whereas M is -solid but not -sound,
M is the -core of M and i, is the -core embedding,
m+1 (M ) = m+1 (M ),
i, preserves pm+1 \.
6. Suppose M and [0, ]T drops in model or degree. Let k = degT ().
Then the core embedding Ck+1 (M ) M relates to T in the manner
usual for maximal iteration trees.
Proof. Parts 1, 3 and 4 are easy. For part 2, use essentially the proof of [3,
6.1.5], combined with the following simple observation. Let + 1 < lh(T ) be
such that [0, ]T does not drop in model and E = F (M ). Let = predT (+1).
Then [0, + 1]T does not drop in model and is the least [0, ]T such that
cr(F (M )) = cr . We omit further details of the proof of part 2.
Parts 5 and 6 now follow as usual.
3.23 Definition (Iteration trees on cephalanxes). Let B be a cephalanx. The
notion of an iteration tree T on B is defined much as in 3.21. The key
differences are as follows. The models of the tree are all either cephalanxes or
segmented-premice12 , and if B is passive, then the models are all either cephalanxes or premice. We write (M , i, ) and (Q , k, ), etc, for the models and
embeddings above M B and QB respectively. We write B = ( , , M , Q )
when B is a cephalanx, and otherwise B = M 6= or B = Q 6= , and
write Q for the set of such that B = Q . Let = (E ). Other notation is
as in 3.21.
Let + 1 < lh(T ). Then:
Either E E+ (M ) or E E+ (Q ).
Let = cr . Then:
predT ( + 1) is the least such that < .
12 In fact, even for the active cephalanxes B we will produce (all in the proof of 4.2), the
models of all trees on B will be either cephalanxes or premice.

20

Suppose B. Then:
If E E+ (M ) and either < or E is not total over M then

M+1
E M and Q+1 = .
If E
/ E+ (M ) and either < or E is not total over Q then
Q+1 E Q and M+1 = .
Now suppose that < and E is total over B || (so ). Then:

Suppose either < or E E+ (M ). Then B+1

= B .13

If = and E
/ E+ (M )14 then M+1 = and Q+1 = Q .15

The remaining details are like in 3.21.

3.24 Lemma. Let T be an iteration tree on a cephalanx B = (, , M, Q) of

degree (m, q) and let + 1 < lh(T ). Then parts 16 of 3.22, replacing N with
Q, hold. Parts 5 and 6, replacing M with Q, M with Q, m with q,
and with , also hold.
Proof. This is proved like 3.22.
3.25 Definition. Let T be an iteration tree on a cephal B and + 1 < lh(T ).
We write PT for the active segmented-premouse P such that ET = F P and
either
B is a bicephalus and P E MT or P E NT , or
B is a cephalanx and P E MT or P E QT .

3.26 Definition. Let B be a cephal. A potential tree on B is a tuple



T = <T , hE i+1< ,
such that if is a limit then T is an iteration tree on B, and if = + 1 then
T is an iteration tree on B, and T satisfies all requirements of 3.21, except
that we drop the requirement that B be a cephal or premouse, and add the
requirement that M , N , Q , UltM , UltN , and UltQ are all wellfounded (if
defined).

13 Here if = (so E E (M )), one might wonder why we do not just set M
+

+1 =
and Q+1 = Q . This might be made to work, but doing this, it seems that E might not
be close to Q+1 .
14 When this situation arises with one of the active cephalanxes we will produce, Q and Q

must be type 2 premice.

15 In this situation it would have been possible to set B
+1 = B , and the reader might
object that we are dropping information unnecessarily here. But for the cephalanxes we will

= B , and it will turn out

produce, our proof of iterability would break down if we set B+1
that we have in fact carried sufficient information (at least, for our present purposes).

21

The next lemma is easy:

3.27 Lemma. Let T be a potential tree on a cephal B. Then T is an iteration
tree. Moreover, if < < lh(T ) and B T then we can apply 3.20 to B , B
and the sequence of extenders used along (, ]T . Further, assume that if B is
B
an active cephalanx and lgcd(QB ) < (F Q ) then QB is a premouse. Then
every model of T is either a cephal or a premouse.
3.28 Definition (Iterability for cephals). Let B be a bicephalus and OR.
The length iteration game for B is defined in the obvious way: given
T + 1 with + 1 < , player I must choose an extender E , and given T
for a limit < , player II must choose [0, ]T . The first player to break one of
these rules or one of the conditions of 3.21 loses, and otherwise player II wins.
The iteration game for cephalanxes is defined similarly.
We say that a cephal B is -iterable if there is a winning strategy for player
II in the length iteration game for B.

3.29 Lemma. Let B be an (1 + 1)-iterable cephal of degree (m, k). Let T be

an iteration tree on B and < lh(T ). Then:
Suppose MT 6= . If B T let d = m; otherwise let d = degT (). Then
suitable condensation holds through (MT , max(d, 0)).
Suppose B is a cephalanx and QT 6= . If B T let d = k; otherwise
let d = degT (). Then suitable condensation holds below (QT , k), and
if either [0, ]T drops or Q, QT are premice, then suitable condensation
holds through (QT , k).
Proof. If T is trivial, use 2.14 (for example, M B is (m, 1 + 1)-iterable). This
extends to longer trees T by 2.11 and the elementarity of the iteration maps.
3.30 Definition. Let m < and let M be a -sound premouse, where M
m+1
M
M
m , and let < OR . We say that M has an (m, )-good core at iff
< and and letting
H = cHullM
~M
m+1 ( p
m+1 ),
H is -sound and
H||(+ )H = M ||(+ )M ,
and letting : H M be the uncollapse map, cr() = and () and
M
(pH
m+1 \) = pm+1 \.
M
In this context, let Hm,
= H and let GM
m,, be the length extender derived
from .

3.31 Remark. Note that if M has an (m, )-good core at then, with , H as
M
above, we have M
m+1 , M is not (m + 1)-sound, G = Gm,, is semi-close to
H
H, M = Ultm (H, G) and iG = .

22

We can now state and prove a restriction on iterable bicephali.

3.32 Theorem. Let B = (, M, N ) be an (1 + 1)-iterable non-trivial bicephalus. Then B is not sound. Let m = mB and n = nB . Then exactly
one of the following holds:
(a) N is active type 1 or type 3 with largest cardinal , and letting = cr(F N ),
N
then m 0 and M has an (m, )-good core at , and GM
m,, = F .
(b) Vice versa.
Proof. Let B be a counterexample. We may assume that B is countable. We
mimic the self-comparison argument used in [3, 9]. That is, fix an (1 + 1)iteration strategy for B. We form a pair of padded iteration trees (T , U) on
B, each via , by comparison. We will ensure that we never use compatible
extenders in the process, and use this to show that the comparison terminates,
using the ISC and an extra argument. Assuming that B is sound, we will
reach a contradiction by showing that the comparison cannot terminate. If B is
unsound, we will reach the desired conclusion by examining the circumstances
under which the comparison must terminate.
Regarding padding, for each we will have either ET 6= or EU 6= . If
= predT ( + 1) is such that ET = , then = . Likewise for U.
At stage of the comparison, given B T , we may set ET = , and
simultaneously declare that, if T is to later use a non-empty extender, then
letting > be least such that ET 6= , we will have ET E+ (MT ) =
E+ (MT ). Or instead, we may declare that ET E+ (NT ). Toward this, we
define non-empty sets
MT {MT , NT }\{}.
We will require that if ET 6= , then ET E+ (P ) for some P MT . All
models in MT will be non-empty.
We also define sets ST tT {0, 1} for convenience. Let 0 tT iff MT 6= ,
and 1 tT iff NT 6= . Let 0 ST iff MT MT , and 1 ST iff NT MT .
(We will explicitly define either MT or ST , implicitly defining the other.)
The preceding definitions also extend to U.
We now begin the comparison. We start with B0T = B = B0U and S0T =
{0, 1} = S0U .
Suppose we have defined (T , U) for some limit . Then (T , U) + 1 is
determined by , and ST = lim<T ST , and SU is likewise.
Now suppose we have defined (T , U) + 1 and ST and SU ; we determine
what to do next (at stage ).
Case 1. There is OR such that for some Y MT and Z MU
, we have
ORY ORZ and Y | 6= Z|.
Let be least as above and let be the minimum possible value of min((F Y | ), (F Z| ))
over all choices of Y, Z witnessing the choice of .

23

Subcase 1.1. For some choice of Y, Z witnessing the choice of , Y | and Z|

are both active and (F Y | ) = (F Z| ) = .
Fix such Y, Z. We set ET = F Y | and EU = F Z| . This determines (T , U)
U
T
+ 2. Also set S+1
= tT+1 and S+1
= tU
+1 .
Subcase 1.2. Otherwise.
Then take Y, Z witnessing the choice of and such that either:
Y | is active, (F Y | ) = , and if Z| is active then (F Z| ) > ; or
vice versa.
Say Y | is active with (F Y | ) = . Then we set ET = F Y | and EU = . This
T
determines (T , U) + 2. Set S+1
= tT+1 . Now suppose there is X MU

X|
with X| active and (F
) = . Then X| = Y |, so we must be careful to
avoid setting EU = F X| at some > . So we set MU
+1 = {Z}, and set
U
U
S+1
accordingly. If there is no such X then set S+1
= SU . (In any case, later
extenders used in U will be incompatible with ET .) The remaining cases are
covered by symmetry.
Case 2. Otherwise.
Then we stop the comparison at stage .
This completes the definition of (T , U). For < lh(T , U), let S T () be the
largest T such that ST = {0, 1}; here if B T then BT = BT . Let
S U () be likewise.
Claim 1. The comparison terminates at some stage.
Proof. This follows from the ISC essentially as in the proof that standard comparison terminates (using the fact that we observe the restricting sets MT+1 , MU
+1
as described above).
So let be such that the comparison stops at stage .
Claim 2. card(ST ) = card(SU ) = 1 and MT = MU
.
Proof. If B T then BT is non-trivial, by 3.27; likewise for U. So because
Case 2 attains at stage , we do not have ST = SU = {0, 1}.
T
It is not true that () Q P or P Q for some Q MU
and P M . For
suppose () holds; we may assume Q P . Then Q is sound, so by 3.22, B U ,
so by () and Case 2 hypothesis, card(SU ) = 1. Say SU = {0}. Let = S U ().
Then BU = BU and for all [, ), EU = , and ET E+ (NU ). Let = U
.
U

Then lhT (+ )B . So P() P = P() BU , contradicting the fact that

MU = Q P .
Now suppose that ST = {0, 1} but card(SU ) = 1. Let be least such
T
T
that MT | 6= NT |. Let Q MU
. Then Q M || = N ||, so () holds,
T
U
contradiction. So card(S ) = card(S ) = 1, and because () fails, MT =
MU
.
Claim 3. B T B U .
24

Proof. By Claim 2,
/ B T B U , so assume that
/ B T B U . Then
standard calculations using 3.22 give that T , U use compatible extenders, a
contradiction.
Using the previous claims, let us assume that B T \B U , ST = {0} and
= BT is a bicephalus, N U , and MT = NU ; the other
= {1}, so B
cases are almost symmetric. We will deduce that conclusion (a) of the theorem
holds; under symmetric assumptions (b) can hold instead. Let = S T (). Let
Then B
= B T and for all [, ), we have ET = =
= (B).
6 EU and

SU

(
+ )B lhU
.

Claim 4. = + 1 and lhU

+ )B and EU is type 1 or type 3.
= (
Proof. Suppose the claim fails. Then by 3.22, NU is not -sound (recall that if
U
U
T
> + 1 and lhU
-sound.
+1 = lh then E+1 is type 2). But by 3.22, M is
T
U
So M 6= N , contradiction.

= (
,N
) = BT = B T . Since E U E+ (N
), and lhU
Let B
, M
+ )B ,
= (

|(
N
+ )B projects to , so ORN = (
+ )B and F N = EU . Let F = F N and
using the

= cr(F ). It follows that (a) of the theorem holds regarding B;

iteration embeddings we will deduce that B is not sound, and (a) holds regarding
) > OR(N
), or OR(M
) = OR(N
), N
has superstrong
B. Note that either OR(M
N
+ B

type and M is type 2; in either case m 0. Also OR = ( ) and N is active

with F = F N , a preimage of F . Let = cr(F ); so < .

Claim 5. M is not m + 1-sound, so B is not sound.

M
M
Proof. Suppose M is m + 1-sound. Let z = zm+1
and = m+1
. By [5, 2.17],
M
M
z = pm+1 and = m+1 . So

HullM
pM
m+1 ( z ~
m ).

M
M
Let z = zm+1
and = m+1
. By [5, 2.20], z = iT0, (z) and = sup iT0, , so
and

p~M ).
iT0, () HullM
(2)
m+1 ( z
m

= N U . Then M
= N U = Ultm (H,
F ) and = sup iH H , and since
Let H

H
H
, therefore
. Also, z = iH
(z
).
But

/
rg(i
),
so
m+1

F
F

~pM ).

/ HullM
m+1 ( z
m
T
But iT0, = j0,
, so iT0, () =
, contradicting lines (2) and (3).

We can now complete the proof:

Claim 6. Conclusion (a) of the theorem holds.

25

(3)

Proof. Suppose N is type 1. Let p = pM

and
m+1 \

= cHullM
H
p ~pM
m+1 (
m)

M
be the uncollapse. Then H
= NU ,
is
and let
:H
= jU , H
-sound

H
and letting q = pm+1 \
, we have (
q ) = p,

+ )H = M
||(
||(
H||(
+ )M = N
+ )N

and M
H
m = sup
m.
We have , H, defined as in (a); let p = pM
m+1 \. Let hM i<M be the
m

natural stratification of HullM

pM
m+1 ( p ~
m ) (the uncollapsed hull), and let H
be the transitive collapse of M and : H M the uncollapse map. (For
M|
example if m = 0 and M is passive, M = Hull1 ( p). If M is active or
m > 0 use the stratification of rm+1 truth described in [3, 2].) Let = ()
and let E be the (short) extender E of length derived from . Then
M
and
.
H , E M . Let
: H
and E be defined likewise over M

N
+ H

and E F for each ; the former is because

We have (H M )||(
)
|=Lemma 2.13 holds for my proper segments.
by 2.13, N
Let i = iT0, . Since i is an m-embedding and i(, p) = (
, p), for each

< m , i(H ) = Hi() , and i( ) =

and i(E ) = Ei() . Also M
m = sup im

and ORN = sup jORN and i, j are continuous at (+ )N and jF N F N .

It follows easily that (H M )||(+ )H and E F N for each < M
m.
Therefore H||(+ )H = M ||(+ )M and F N is derived from .
It follows that F N is semi-close to H, M = Ultm (H, F N ), and = iM
FN
(because we can factor the embedding : H M through Ultm (H, F N ), and
H
M
M
) = zm+1
, but zm+1
\ = pM
(F N ) = ). So by [5], (zm+1
m+1 \, and therefore
H
H
zm+1 \ = pm+1 \, so H is -sound. This completes the proof assuming that
N is type 1.
If instead, N is type 3, then almost the same argument works.
This completes the proof of the theorem.
We now move on to analogues of 3.32 for cephalanxes.
3.33 Definition. Let B be a passive cephalanx of degree (m, q) and let N =
N B . We say that B has a good core iff m 0 and N is active and letting
F = F N , = cr(F ) and = (F ), we have:
ORN = (+ )M and N is type 1 or 3,
M has an (m, )-good core at ,
GM
m,, = F , and
M
if N is type 1 then Hm,
= Q and m = q.

26

3.34 Theorem. Let B = (, , M, Q) be an (1 +1)-iterable, non-trivial, passive

cephalanx. Then B is not sound, and B has a good core.
Proof. The proof is based on that of 3.32. The main difference occurs in the
rules guiding the comparison, so we focus on these.
We may assume that B is countable. We define padded iteration trees T , U
T
U
on B, and sets ST , SU , MT , MU
, much as before. We start with S0 = S0 =
{0, 1}. At limit stages, proceed as in 3.32. Suppose we have defined (T , U) +1,
ST and SU and if card(ST ) = card(SU ) = 1 then BT 5 BU 5 BT (otherwise
the comparison has already terminated). We just consider enough cases that
the rest are covered by symmetry.
Case 1. card(ST ) = card(SU ) = 1.
Choose extenders as usual (as in 3.32).
Case 2. ST = {0, 1} and if SU = {0, 1} then T U
.
So BT is a cephalanx; let B T = ( T , T , M T , QT ) = BT . Let B U = BU .
T
We will have by induction that for every < , lhT T and lhU
. Since
T T
U T
B is passive, B | and B | are well-defined premice.
Subcase 2.1. B T |T 6= B U |T .
Choose extenders as usual.
Suppose B T |T = B U |T . We say that in T we move into M T to mean
T
that we either set ET 6= and ET E+ (M T ), or set ET = and S+1
= {0}.
T
U
Likewise for move into Q , and likewise with regard to U if S = {0, 1}. In each
case below we will move into some model in T . In certain cases we do likewise for
U. These choices will produce two premice R, S from which to choose ET , EU ,
in the usual manner, given that R 5 S 5 R (for example, if SU = {1} and in
T we move into M T , then R = M T and S = QU ). If R E S or S E R, then
we terminate the comparison, and say that the comparison terminates early. If
B U is a cephalanx and we do not move into any model in U and EU = then
U
we set S+1
= {0, 1}.
Subcase 2.2. card(SU ) = 1 and B T |T = B U |T .
Let P MU
.
If QT E P then in T we move into M T .
If QT 6E P then in T we move into QT .
Subcase 2.3. ST = SU = {0, 1} and B T |T = B U |T .
Let ( U , U , M U , QU ) = B U . So T U .
Suppose QT = QU . Let X {0, 1} be random. Then:16
If T < U or X = 0 then in T we move into M T , and if also M T |U =
B U |U then in U we move into QU .
If T = U and X = 1 then in U we move into M U and in T we move into
QT .
16 We

use the random variable X just for symmetry.

27

If QT QU , then in T we move into M T . (Note that T < U and QT

B ||U , so we do not need to move into any model in U.)
If QU QT then in T we move into QT and in U we move into M U . (Note
that T < U .)
Suppose QT 5 QU 5 QT . Then in T we move into QT . If also QT |U =
U U
B | , then in U we move into QU .
U

The remaining cases are determined by symmetry.

The comparison terminates as usual. We now analyse the manner in which
it terminates.
Claim 1. Let < lh(T , U). Then (i) the comparison does not terminate early at
stage ; (ii) if at stage , in T we move into R, then for every (, lh(T , U)),
R S for any S MU
.
Proof. By induction on . Suppose for example that Subcase 2.2 attains at
stage . We have P MU
.
Suppose QT E P , so in T we move into M T . We have M T |T = P |T and
N T E QT E P and M T 6= N T and
M T ||((T )+ )M

= N T ||((T )+ )N

and both M T , N T project T . So M T 5 P and letting be least such that

M T | 6= N T |, we have
T < min(OR(M T ), OR(N T )).
So the comparison does not terminate early at stage , and since M T projects
T , for no > can we have M T S MU
.
Now suppose QT 5 P , so in T we move into QT . If
/ B U then P = B U is
unsound. Otherwise there is < such that at stage , in U we moved into P .
In either case (by induction in the latter), P QT . So again, the comparison
does not terminate early at stage . Let be least such that QT | 6= P |. Then
T < and since QT projects T , there is no > such that QT S MU
.
The proof is similar in the remaining subcases.
So let + 1 = lh(T , U). As in the proof of 3.32, we have card(ST ) =
card(SU ) = 1 and B T B U . We may assume that B T , so BT =
( , , M , Q ) is a cephalanx and BU is not. Then BU is not sound, so letting
P MT , we have P E BU . But by Claim 1, P BU , so P = BU . Let
= S T ().
Claim 2. ST = {0}.
Proof. Suppose ST = {1}, so Q = P = BU is -sound. At stage , in T we
move into Q . For all [, ), ET = , so EU 6= , and < lhU
, because
B | = BU | , and therefore U , because is a cardinal of Q . But then
BU is not -sound, contradicting the fact that Q = BU .
So M = P = BU . Let N = NT .
28

Claim 3. We have:

OR(N ) = (( )+ )M ,
N is active type 1 or type 3,
= + 1,

EU = F N ,
if N is type 1 then BU = Q .
Proof. Assume, for example, that Subcase 2.2 attains at stage . So N E Q E
BU . We have M 6= N , both M , N project to , and

M ||(( )+ )M = N ||(( )+ )N .

We have ET = , so EU 6= and note that EU E+ (N ) and lhU

> . Since

U
M = B is -sound it follows that = + 1 and = , so E is type 1 or
U

type 3. Therefore N |lhU

projects to , so OR(N ) = lh .

Now suppose further that N is type 1; we want to see that BU = Q . We

have Q E BU and cr(F N ) = and (Q ) and

P( ) Q = P( ) N .

So it suffices to see that predU () = . We may assume that lhU

= for

U
some < . Then is a cardinal of B , so Q B , so Q = B . So BU is

U
-sound, so there is a unique such that lhU
= , and moreover, E is type 3
U
and = + 1. Therefore pred () = , as required.

To complete the proof, one can now argue like in Claim 6 of 3.32.
3.35 Remark. We next proceed to the version of 3.34 for active cephalanxes
B = (, , M, Q). Here things are more subtle for two reasons. First, if Q
is type 3 then we can have such that QT or QU
is not a premouse, and in
particular, its active extender can fail the ISC; this complicates the proof that
the comparison terminates. Second, if Q is superstrong then the comparison
termination proof is complicated further, and more importantly, it seems that
we need not get the analogue of a good core (see 3.44), and moreover, in this case
we do not see how to rule out the possibility that B is exact and M is sound with
M
m+1 = . In fact, it is easy enough to illustrate how the latter might occur.
Let Q be a sound superstrong premouse and = cr(F Q ) and let J be a sound
premouse such that J||(++ )J = Q|(++ )Q and Jm+1 = (+ )Q = (+ )J < Jm .
Let M = Ultm (J, F Q ) and B = (, , M, Q), where = ORQ and is the
largest cardinal of Q. Suppose that M is wellfounded. Then B is an exact,
M
sound bicephalanx. (We have M
m+1 = < m and M is m + 1-sound, and B
++ J
is exact because iJF Q and iQ
) .) It seems that
F Q are both continuous at (
reasonable that such a pair (J, Q) might arise from as iterates of a single model,
29

and so it seems that B might also be iterable. Conversely, we will show that the
kind of example illustrated here is the only possibility (other than that given
by good cores).
3.36 Definition. Let T be an iteration tree on an active cephalanx B and
+ 1 < lh(T ). We say is T -special iff B T and ET = F (QT ).

3.37 Lemma. Let T be an iteration tree on an active cephalanx B and <

lh(T ). Then:
(a) If B T then QT has superstrong type iff Q does.
(b) If (QB ) = B then Q = .
Suppose also that + 1 < lh(T ). Then:
(c) If is T -special then + 1 B T and predT ( + 1) is the least [0, ]T
such that cr(F (QT )) = crT .
(d ) If B is a pm-cephalanx and PT is not a premouse then is T -special (so
PT = QT ) and Q is type 3.
Proof. For (a), recall that in T , we only form simple ultrapowers of QB and its
images.
3.38 Lemma. Let T be an iteration tree on an active pm-cephalanx B =
(, , M, Q). Let < < lh(T ). Let = lhT . Then either:
1.
/ B T and either (i) < OR(BT ) and is a cardinal of BT , or (ii)
= + 1, ET has superstrong type, = OR(BT ) and BT is an active
type 2 premouse; or
2. B T and either (i) < (BT ) and is a cardinal of BT , or (ii)
= +1, ET has superstrong type, = (BT ), and letting = predT (),
crT = (BT ).
Therefore if lhT < lhT then lhT is a cardinal of PT .
Proof. If = + 1 it is straightforward to prove the conclusion. Now suppose
> + 1. If < lhT+1 it is straightforward, so suppose = lhT+1 . Then since
T
the lemma held for = + 1, either E+1
is type 2, in which case things are
straightforward, or +1 is T -special, so letting = crT+1 and = predT (+2),
T
we have that B+2
= BT is a cephalanx and < (BT ), which implies that
T
T
< (B+2 ) and is a cardinal of B+2
. The rest is clear.
3.39 Definition. Let B = (, , M, Q) be an active cephalanx of degree (m, 0).
We say that B is exceptional iff
B is active and exact,
Q has superstrong type, and
30

 either M
m+1 = or M is not -sound.

M
3.40 Lemma. Let M be an m-sound premouse and let M
m+1 < m . Then
M
M
M is -sound iff M = Hullm+1 ( zm+1
p~M
m ).

Proof. This follows from [5, 2.17].

3.41 Lemma. Let B, B be active cephalanxes such that B is an iterate of B.
Then B is exceptional iff B is exceptional.
Proof. By 3.27, 3.37(a) and 3.40 and [5, 2.20].
3.42 Definition. Let B = (, , M, Q) be an active cephalanx of degree (m, 0).
We say that B has a exceptional core iff Q has superstrong type and letting
+ M

F = F Q , = cr(F ), X = iQ
F ( ) , m = max(m, 0),
M
H = cHullM
~M
m +1 (X zm+1 p
m ),

and : H M be the uncollapse, then (+ )H = X and

H||(++ )H = M |(++ )M .

3.43 Lemma. Let B = (, , M, Q) be an active pm-cephalanx of degree (m, 0).

Suppose B has an exceptional core. Let F, , m , H, be as in 3.42. Then:
1. M = Ultm (H, F ) and = iH
F is an m-embedding.
H
M
+ H
M
) = zm+1
and (pH
2. (zm+1
m+1 \( ) ) = pm+1 \.
+ H
H
+ H
3. H
m+1 ( ) < m and H is ( ) -sound.
+ H
4. If H
then M
m+1 = ( )
m+1 = and H, M are (m + 1)-sound.
H
M
5. If H
m+1 then m+1 = m+1 and M is not (m + 1)-sound.
M
6. If M = HullM
pM
m +1 ( zm+1 ~
m ) where < and is least such, then
rg().

Proof. Parts 14 are standard. Part 5: Because H

m+1 , we have m 0.
Since Q is a type 3 premouse and M ||(++ )M = H||(++ )H , F is close to H,
H
so M
m+1 = m+1 . Suppose M is (m + 1)-sound, so
M = HullM
~M
m+1 ( p
m+1 ).
It follows that

M = HullM
m+1 (rg() q)

for some q < . But the generators of F are unbounded in , a contradiction.

Part 6: Suppose there is < such that
M
M = HullM
pM
m +1 ( zm+1 ~
m ).

31

(4)

H
Since is continuous at (+ )H and is rm +1 -elementary and (zm+1
) =
M
+ H
zm+1 , this fact easily reflects to H; i.e. there is < ( ) such that
H
H = HullH
~H
m +1 ( zm+1 p
m ).

Let be least such. Then = () is least such that line (4) holds.
3.44 Definition. Let B = (, , M, Q) be an active cephalanx of degree (m, 0),
with m 0. We say that B has a good core iff the following holds. Either:
(i) B is exact; let F = F Q ; or
(ii) B is not exact and letting N = N B , we have ORN = (+ )M and N is
active type 1 or 3; let F = F N .
Let = cr(F ) and = (F ). Then:
1. M has an (m, )-good core at , and GM
m,, = F .
2. Suppose case (ii) holds and N is type 1; so = . Then:
M
If Q is type 2 then Hm,
= Q.

Suppose Q is not type 2, nor superstrong. Let = cr(F Q ). Then M

Q
has an (m, )-good core at , and GM

m,, = F .
3.45 Remark. It seems that B might have an exceptional core but not a good
core.
3.46 Theorem. Let B = (, , M, Q) be an (1 + 1)-iterable, non-trivial, active
pm-cephalanx, of degree (m, q). Then B is not sound. If B is non-exceptional
then m 0 and B has a good core. If B is exceptional then B has an exceptional
core.
Proof. Suppose first that B is exact and Q is superstrong, but B is not exceptional. Then M
m+1 and M is -sound, as is Q. So C = (, M, Q) is a
non-trivial bicephalus, and note that C is (1 + 1)-iterable. So by 3.32, B has
a good core. So we may now assume that:
If B is exact and Q is superstrong, then B is exceptional.

(5)

Under this assumption, the proof is based on that of 3.34. The main differences occur in the rules guiding the comparison, the proof that the comparison
terminates, and when B is exceptional.
Assume B is countable. We define T , U on B and sets ST , SU , MT , MU
,
much as before. Suppose we have defined (T , U) + 1, ST and SU , but if
card(ST ) = card(SU ) = 1 and R MT and S MU
then R 6E S 6E R. We will
implicitly specify two segmented-premice from which to select ET , EU ; however,
we minimize on (E), rather than (E), when selecting these extenders. (For
example, if ET 6= =
6 EU then T = U
.) We use the terminology terminates
early as before. Let B T = BT , M T = MT , etc.
32

Case 1. card(ST ) = card(SU ) = 1.

Do the obvious thing.
Case 2. ST = {0, 1} and if SU = {0, 1} then T U .
We will have by induction that () for every < , if ET 6= then lhT T
T
T
and T T , and if EU 6= then lhU
and U

. We leave the
T
maintenance of () to the reader. We may assume that B ||T = B U ||T .
We use the terminology in T we move into M T as before. In T , we will not
move into QT (but we might set ET = F (QT )). Likewise with regard to U if
SU = {0, 1}.
We say that is (T , U)-unusual iff either (i) there is < such that
F (QT ) (F (QT )) = EU U ;
or (ii) there are < < such that
= + 1,
T
ST = {0, 1} and ET = and EU = F (QT ) and S+1
= {0},
U
SU = {0, 1} and EU = and ET = F (QU
) and S+1 = {0},

crT = (BT ).
In case (i) (respectively, (ii)) we say that is type (i) (respectively, (ii)). We
define (U, T )-unusual symmetrically.
Subcase 2.1. is not (T , U)-unusual and card(SU ) = 1.
T
T
T
Let P MU
. We have B || = P || .
T
T
If Q E P then in T we move into M (so ET = and EU = F (QT )).
If QT 6E P then we select extenders from QT and P (but do not move into
T
Q in T ).17
Subcase 2.2. is not (T , U)- or (U, T )-unusual and ST = SU = {0, 1}.
If QT E QU then in T we move into M T , and set EU = F (QT ).
If QT 5 QU then we select extenders from QT and QU .
Subcase 2.3. is (T , U)-unusual.
In T we move into M T .
Suppose also that SU = {0, 1} (otherwise we are done); so is type (i). If
U
Q E M T then in U we move into M U ; otherwise select extenders from M T
and QU .
The remaining rules for the comparison are determined by symmetry. We
will observe in Claim 2 below that no ordinal is both (T , U)-unusual and (U, T )unusual, so the definition of (T , U) is reasonably symmetric (although not completely). Now if B is active and Q is type 3, for some , QT might fail the ISC.
So the next claim needs some argument.
17 It might be that P |OR(QT ) is active with extender E and (F (QT )) > (E), in which
T = and E U = E. In this case we keep S T
case E

+1 = {0, 1}. This is because if E is

superstrong, we could end up with F (QT ) active on some S MU
+1 .

33

Claim 1. For all + 1, + 1 < lh(T , U), if ET 6= 6= EU then

ET T 6= EU U .
Proof. Suppose otherwise and let (, ) be the lexicographically least counterexample. Let = lhT .
T
U
Suppose that lhU
= . So E = E , so 6= ; so suppose < . Note that
U
there is [, ) such that E 6= ; let be least such and let G = EU . Then
T
lh(G) = , and since lhU
= , therefore G has superstrong type. So = (G)
and = and ET 6= G. Let = predU ( + 1). By 3.38, + 1 B U and
cr(G) = (BU ). So is not U-special, so G is a premouse extender. Standard
arguments (for example, see [5, 5]) now show that there is < such that
ET = G. But ( , ) <lex (, ), contradiction.
U
So we may assume that = lhT < lhU
; so < . Then P is not a premouse
T
T
because, letting = T , we gave < lh and by 3.38, lh is a cardinal of PU ,
and EU
/ PU . So is U-special. But then is (U, T )-unusual (of type (i)),
U
so E 6= F (QU
), contradiction.
Claim 2. Let be (T , U)-unusual. Then:
Q is type 3 and QT is not a premouse,
is not (U, T )-unusual,
for all B T , cr(F (QT )) 6= T , and
T
for all B U , cr(F (QU
)) 6= .

Suppose is type (i), as witnessed by . Then:

Q is not superstrong,
T
T
= + 1 and lhU
< and E = ,

the trivial completion of EU U is a type 3 premouse extender, and

T
T
T
for each P MU
, P | = Q || .

Suppose that is type (ii), as witnessed by , .

Q is superstrong and B is exact,
= predT (), and
F (QT ) = ET EU .
Proof. The proof is by induction on . We will prove that is not (U, T )unusual at the end. Let B T = BT , M T = MT , etc.
First suppose that is type (i). Let F = F (QT ). We first show that
U
T
U
T
lh < T . Otherwise lhU
= , and so E = F . It follows that E 6= for
some [, ), since otherwise BT = BT , and since ST = {0, 1} = ST , we have
34

QT = PU and EU 6= F , contradiction. So let be least such and let G = ET .

Then as in the proof of Claim 1, G is a superstrong premouse extender also used
in U, contradicting Claim 1.
T
T
Since lhU
< , Q is not a premouse, so Q is type 3. It easily follows that
T
T
lhU
< , since if is a successor cardinal in Q then Q is a premouse.
T
Now suppose Q is superstrong. Then because Q is not a premouse, there
T
T
is <T such that QT is a premouse and cr(j,
) = (BT ) (otherwise j0,
is
B
T
T
U
continuous at so Q is a premouse). So Q fails the ISC. So E is not a
premouse extender and is U-special. But then F (QU
) has superstrong type,
T
so lhU
=

,
a
contradiction.

Since QT is not superstrong, letting = cr(F ), we have iF () > T , and so

U
B+1
|T = QT ||T . Now suppose there is [, ) such that ET 6= . Fix such
a with + 1 [0, ]T . Let = predT ( + 1). So B T and = crT T .
If < (F (QT )) then easily (F ) > U , contradiction. So (F (QT )). But
then standard arguments show that ET is a premouse extender used in both
T , U, a contradiction.
It follows that + 1 = and ET = , so we are done.
Now suppose that is type (ii). Let F = F (QT ) = EU , = cr(F ) and
= crT = (BT ).
Suppose that Q is not superstrong. Let [, ) be such that +1 [0, ]U .
U
Let G = EU and = cr(G). Then < < iG (), so
/ rg(j0,
), but
U
U
= cr(F (Q )), so rg(j0, ), contradiction.
We now observe that = predT (). Let < be such that ET 6= . Then
6= . If < then
T (F (QT )) =
T
(using (); see the begining of Case 2). Since S+1
= {0}, if > then T T .
This suffices.
We now prove that B is exact. Let = predU ( + 1). Then we claim that

+ 1 U & cr(F (QU

)) = .

(6)

U
For B U and cr(F (QU
)) = = . So suppose line (6) fails; then one can
U
U
U
U
show that + 1 B and = and E+1
= F (QU
+1 ); here +1 = .
Then is not (U, T )-unusual, by induction and since U = = cr(F (QT )).
U
So ET = F (QT ). But then + 1 is (U, T )-unusual, so E+1
6= F (QU
+1 ),
contradiction.
T
U
Using line (6) and since EU is total over BU , (++ )Q (++ )B and
T

(QT BU )||(++ )Q .
QT

Since k = iF is continuous at (++ )Q , therefore

T

(++ )Ult(Q ,F ) (++ )B+1

35

and

U
(Ult(QT , F ) B+1
)||(++ )Ult(Q ,F ) .

Now suppose that B is not exact. By 3.27, neither is BT . So

T

(++ )M < (++ )Ult(Q ,F )

and

U
(MT Ult(QT , F ) B+1
)||(++ )M ,
U
but by non-triviality, MT Ult(QT , F ). So MT B+1
. We have ET =
T
T
T
and S+1 = {0} and M+1 = M . So
T

(++ )M = (++ )P = (++ )B = (++ )B+1 > (++ )M ,

U

contradiction. (For similar reasons, (++ )B = (++ )Q .)

We leave to the reader the proof that for any > , if B T then
T
cr(F (QT )) 6= T , and if B U then cr(F (QU
)) 6= .
Finally suppose that is both (T , U)-unusual and (U, T )-unusual. Then
either is type (ii) with respect to both, or type (i) with respect to both, since
this depends on whether or not Q is superstrong. But then = + 1 and
ET = = EU , contradiction.
Claim 3. Let < be such that SU = {0, 1} and EU = and ET = F (QU
)
T
T
T
T
and + 1 B and letting = pred ( + 1), then cr = (B ). Then + 1
is (T , U)-unusual of type (ii).
T
Proof. Suppose not. Then note that is (T , U)-unusual. But cr(F (QU
)) = ,
contradicting Claim 2.

Claim 4. The comparison terminates at some countable stage.

Proof. We may assume that B is active and Q is type 3, since otherwise every
extender used in (T , U) is a premouse extender, and so the usual argument
works.
Suppose that (T , U) reaches length 1 + 1. Let OR be large and let
: X V be elementary with X countable and transitive, and everything
relevant in rg( ). Let = cr( ). Let W = BT1 ||1 = BU1 ||1 . Standard
T
is defined, and if iT,1 is defined then
arguments show that either iT,1 or j,
1
T

MT ||(+ )M = W ||(+ )W
and
iT,1 (W ||(+ )W ) = (W ||(+ )W ),
T
is defined. Likewise for U.
and likewise if j,
1

36

Let +1 = min((, 1 ]T ) and +1 = min((, 1 ]U ). Let us assume that

; in the contrary case the proof is essentially18 the same. Let = min(T , T ).
Then ET = EU .
Subclaim 4.1. We have:
(a) The trivial completion of ET T is a premouse extender.
T
U
T
U
(b) < and T < U
and < and lh < lh .

(c) EU T
/ PU , so PU is not a premouse and is U-special.
Proof. Part (a): We have T U because T U
and by compatibility. So
part (a) follows from a standard argument (i.e. otherwise we get some premouse
extender, which factors into ET , used in both T , U; cf. [5, 5]).
T
U
T
U
Part (b): We have T U
. If = then E = E and < ,
T
U
contradicting Claim 1. So < , and therefore < .
We have T U . But we cant have T = U , by Claim 1 and compatibility.
So T < U .
T
U
U
We have lhT lhU
. Suppose lh = = lh . Let P = P and =
T
T
T
U
lgcd(P ) = lgcd(P ). Then E
/ P . Since < and by part (a), therefore
T
P is not a premouse. So is U-special, so T < = U
. But as
T
U
T
= lgcd(P ), a contradiction. So lh < lh .
Part (c): lhT is a cardinal of P = PU and ET
/ P , by 3.38 and agreement
between models of T and U. Since T < lhT < lhU
and by part (a), P fails the
ISC, and so is U-special.
U
Let <U be largest such that F (QU
) (F (Q )) satisfies the ISC. Let
+ 1 = min((, ]U ). So is not U-special. Let F = F (QU
); then

ET T = F (F ).
T
Let + 1 = min(( + 1, 1 + 1)T ). Let 1 = min(U
, ). Note that

ET 1 = EU 1 .
Then:
Subclaim 4.2. We have:
(a) PU is a premouse.
T
U
T
U
(b) > and T > U
and lh > lh and > .

(c) ET U
/ PT , so PT fails the ISC and is T -special.
18 Only

essentially because our definition of (T , U ) was not quite symmetric.

37

(7)

Proof. This follows from the proof of Subclaim 4.1 and the fact that is not
U-special.
Since is T -special and
= crT > crT =
and + 1 = predT ( + 1), by 3.37(c), B T and cr(F (QT )) and
T
= j,+1
().

But then by line (7), iF () = U . So iF () = U , so QU

and Q have
superstrong type.
It is now easy to see that is (U, T )-unusual of type (ii), and therefore
EU 6= F (QU
), a contradiction. This completes the proof of the claim.
Now that we know the comparison terminates, we must analyse the manner
in which it does. Let + 1 = lh(T , U). Let B T = BT , etc.
Claim 5. Suppose that B is non-exceptional and the comparison does not terminate early. Then:
B T B U and card(S T ) = card(S U ) = 1 and MT = MU .
m 0 and the cephalanx C {B T , B U } has a good core.
Proof. We have:
Either B is non-exact or Q is non-superstrong,

(8)

because B is non-exceptional and by line (5).

We will show later that card(S T ) = card(S U ) = 1; assume this for now. Let
Y MT and Z MU . So Y, Z are the final models of the comparison and either
Y E Z or Z E Y . As in the proof of 3.34, because card(S T ) = card(S U ) = 1
and the comparison does not terminate early, we have B T B U ; we may
assume B T \B U . So Z is unsound and M T = Y E Z. We need to see that
B T has a good core. We have S T = {0}. Let = B T (). We will show later
that M T = Z; assume this for now.
Case I. is (T , U)-unsual.
By line (8) and Claim 2, is type (i), = + 1, and EU is equivalent to
F (QT ), and Q is type 3 but not superstrong. At stage , in T we move into
MT = M T . We have ET = =
6 EU and (M T BU )|T and T < lhU
and
T
U
T
U
T
T
is a successor cardinal of B . So . Since M is -sound, it follows
that there is exactly one ordinal such that and + 1 U , and in fact
+ 1 = . So PU is a premouse, as
/ B U . Since M T is T -sound, therefore
U
T + MT
= and E is type 1 or type 3, with lhU
. It follows that m 0
= (( ) )
T

and B T is non-exact, and letting F = F (N B ) and = cr(F ), we have

T

T
EU = F , and M T has an (m, T )-good core at , and GM
m, ,T = F
38

M
U

and Hm,
is type 1 then predU () = and
/ B U and
= B . Also, if F
BU = BU , and M T has an (m, T )-good core at cr(F (QT )), etc. So B T has a
good core.

Case II. is not (T , U)-unusual.

So EU = F where F = F (QT ).
Subcase II.1. Q is not superstrong.
So F does not have superstrong type. Things work much as in the previous
case, but there are a couple more possibilities, which we just outline. If B is
exact then = + 1, and F is the last extender used in U. If B is non-exact
T
then = + 2 and like above, F = F (N B ) is type 1 or type 3 and is the last
T
extender used in U. In the latter case, if N B is type 1 and QT is type 2 then
QT = BU .
Subcase II.2. Q is superstrong.
So F has superstrong type, and by line (8), B is non-exact. Things work
much as before, but there are some extra details. We just give the details in
one example case. Let = predU ( + 1). So = cr(F ) < U
and
T

(( )+ )Q lhU
.
T

U
U
U
Suppose for example that (( )+ )Q = lhU
. Then E is type 2 and B+1 = P ,
U
U
U
U
and OR(B+1
) = OR(QT ) and B+1
is active type 2, so E+1
= F (B+1
). Note
that
T
U
(QT B+1
)||(( )++ )Q ,

and so by 3.8,
T

U
(Ult(QT , F ) B+2
)||(( T )++ )Ult(Q

,F )

U
and so E+2
= F (N B ), etc. We leave the remaining details to the reader.

This completes the proof under the assumptions made above. Now suppose
the assumptions fail. Then we either have 6= M T Z for all Z MU , or
the reflection of this; suppose the former. Suppose B is non-exact. Arguing as
T
above, if is (T , U)-unusual then N B BU ; otherwise EU = F (QT ) and either
T

U
U
N B B+1
or N B B+2
. But because M T 6= N B this contradicts the fact
T
that M Z. So B is exact, so Q is not superstrong. But then arguing again
T
as above, ((T )+ )Z = ((T )+ )M , again contradicting that M T Z.

The next claim follows immediately from the rules of comparison. It applies
in particular if any is (T , U)- or (U, T )-unusual.
Claim 6. If Q is type 1 or type 3 then for all , ST 6= {1} 6= SU .
Claim 7. Suppose the comparison terminates early (so is either (T , U)- or
(U, T )-unusual). Then:
B is exact.

39

 If is (T , U)-unusual then S U = {0}, and vice versa.

The final models of the comparison are M T = M U .
Proof. We use Claim 2 in what follows.
Suppose is (T , U)-unusual of type (i). Since QT does not have superstrong
type and B T is non-trivial, it is easy to see that M T B U , and B T , B are exact.
But then if S U = {0, 1}, the comparison in fact does not terminate early at stage
. So S U = {0}. Also = + 1 and EU 6= , so
/ B U . So M U is unsound,
so M T = M U .
Now suppose is (T , U)-unusual of type (ii). We adopt the notation used
in the comparison rules and in the proof of Claim 2. Let = (B T ). We have
+ M
T = U
= ( )

= ( + )M

and M U = MU and either M T E M U or M U E M T and M T , M U both project

T . So it suffices to see that
( ++ )M

= ( ++ )M .

Now Q is superstrong and B is exact. As mentioned in the proof of Claim 2,

T

QT

(++ )Q = where = (++ )B , and (QT BU )|. Let iF = iF . So by

exactness, (letting be)
T

= (++ )M = (++ )B+1 = (++ )B = (++ )B = sup iF

(recall that F = F (QT )) and
U
BU B T )|
(MT B+1
QU

and letting G = F (QU

) and iG = iG ,
U

( ++ )M = sup iG
T

and letting H = F (QT ) and iH = iQ

H ,
( ++ )M

= sup iH .

We claim that
iH = iG iF ,
which completes the proof. This claim holds because H = G F and (so)
T

iH (+ )Q = iG iF (+ )Q
T

and iH and iG iF are both continuous at (+ )Q .

40

Claim 8. Suppose that the comparison terminates early and B is non-exceptional.

Then BT has a good core.
Proof. Because B is non-exceptional, by Claim 7 and line (5), is either (T , U)or (U, T )-unusual of type (i). Now argue like in the proof of Claim 5, using Claim
7.
We now move to the case that B is exceptional.
Claim 9. Suppose B is exceptional and the comparison does not terminate
early. Then one of B T , B U is a cephalanx with an exceptional core.
Proof. We consider a few cases:
Case I. Either (a) S T = {0} = S U and M U M T , or (b) S T = {0, 1}.
This case is covered by the next case and symmetry.
Case II. Either (a) S T = {0} = S U and M T M U , or (b) S U = {0, 1}.
If (b) holds, then because the comparison does not terminate early, S T = {0}
and M T B U . So given either (a) or (b), M T B U . So M T is sound, so B T .
T
T
T
Let = S T (). So EU 6= and lhU
. Because M projects , it follows
T
U

T
that lhU
= , so is not (T , U)-unusual and E = F where F = F (Q ).
Also, if > + 1 then + 1 is not (U, T )-unusual, by Claim 2 and since
M T B U . Let = cr(F ) and = predU ( + 1). We split into two subcases:
U
Subcase II.1. B+1
|T is active.
By the discussion above:
U
U
B+1
is type 2 and T = OR(B+1
),
T

U
(+ )Q = OR(B+1
),
U
U
U
EU = F (B+1
) and E+1
= F (B+1
),

= + 2.
U
Let R = B+1
and G = F R = EU . Then
T

(+ )Ult0 (R,G) = (+ )Q = lh(G)

and

(Ult0 (R, G) QT )||(++ )Q ,

but because B T is exact and M T B U and by 3.10,
T

(++ )Ult0 (R,G) > (++ )Q .

T

Let H Ult0 (R, G) and h {1} be such that (++ )H = (++ )Q and
Ult0 (R,G)
H

(H); so
h+1 = lh(G) < H
h . Let H = iF
H Ult0 (Ult0 (R, G), F ).

41

We claim that
Ulth (H, F ) E H .

(9)

If h = 1 this is by the ISC, so suppose h 0. Let

: Ulth (H, F ) H
be the factor map. Arguing as in the proof of 2.13, we get that H, Ult0 (R, G)
and the hypotheses of 2.13 hold (for H, , h, H ). By 2.13, R |=Lemma 2.13
holds for my proper segments. If 6= id then H
h+1 < cr(), and so line (9)
holds.
U
So Ulth (H, F ) B+2
. But
((T )+ )Ulth (H,F

= ((T )+ )M ,

so h = m and M T = Ulth (H, F ). It easily follows that B T has an exceptional

core, and with X as in 3.42,
T

M
H = cHullM
~M
m+1 (X zm+1 p
m ).
U
Subcase II.2. B+1
|T is passive.
U
Then = + 1, so M T B+1
= B U . Let R = BU . If B U then
< (R), so (++ )R is well-defined. In any case, is not the largest cardinal
T
of R. We have (+ )R = (+ )Q and
T

(R Q)||(++ )Q .
T

If (++ )R > (++ )Q then a simplification of the argument in the previous

T
subcase works. Suppose then that (++ )R = (++ )Q . Because M T B U , it is
U
easy enough to see that
/ B , so R is a premouse. If R is active type 3, then
T
+ R
R
U
( ) < (F ), because if (+ )R = (F R ) then OR(B+1
) = ((T )+ )M , a
++ R
contradiction. Let d = degU ( + 1). Then iU
) , and
+1 is discontinuous at (
+ R
R
R
+ R
R
so ( ) = d , so d > 0. Let r < d be such that r+1 = ( ) < r . Then
arguing like in the previous subcase, but using 3.29 instead of 2.13,
U
Ultr (R, F ) B+1
,

so Ultr (R, F ) = M T , and like before, B T has an exceptional core (and m = r).
Case III. S T = {0} = S U and M T = M U .
Then B T B U ; assume B T \B U . Let = S T ().
Subclaim 9.1. is not (T , U)-unusual.
Proof. Suppose otherwise. Let < < witness this. Since the comparison
does not terminate early, and M T is T -sound, it follows that = + 1 and
T

T + M
T = U < lhU
.
= (( ) )

42

So T is not the largest cardinal in M T , and so nor in MU . So PU MU , so

((T )+ )M

< ((T )+ )M .

This contradicts Claim 2.

So EU = F = F (QT ).
Subclaim 9.2. + 1 is not (U, T )-unusual.
Proof. This is like the proof of Subclaim 9.1.
By the subclaim and Claim 3, one of the following holds:
(a) = + 1.
T
U
(b) = + 2 and lhU
+1 = and E+1 is type 2.
T + M
(c) = + 2 and lhU
+1 = (( ) )
type 3.

U
and E+1
is either (i) type 1 or (ii)

T
U
T + M
(d) = + 3 and lhU
and E+1
is type 2 and lhU
+1 =
+2 = (( ) )
U
and E+2 is either type (i) 1 or (ii) type 3.

The same general argument works in each case, but the details vary. We just
discuss cases (a), (b), (c)(i) and sketch (d)(i). In each case let = predU ( + 1)
U
and R = B+1
and = cr(F ).
Consider case (a). We first observe that
+ R
R
R
m+1 = ( ) < m .
+ R
For if R
m+1 > ( ) then

m+1 (M U ) > T m+1 (M T );

U
T
if R
and M U is T -sound, so B T is not excepm+1 then m+1 (M ) <
tional, contradicting 3.41.
T
Let d = degU (). Note that (++ )R = (++ )B and

((T )+ )Ultm (R,F

= ((T )+ )M ,

so arguing like in the proof of 2.13, it follows that

Ultm (R, F ) = Ultd (R, F ) = M T
and the factor map between the ultrapowers is the identity. (We dont need to
use any condensation here.) Letting = iR
F and H = R, then H, are as in
3.42.
Now consider case (b). Note that R = PU , so R is active type 2, and
T
U
ORR = (+ )B . Note that degU ( + 2) = m and cr(F R ) = crU
+1 , so pred ( +
43

U
U
U
2) = predU ( + 1) and B+1
= B+2
and degU ( + 1) = m. Let H = B+1
.
Then
Ultm (H, F ) = M U

and letting = iH
F , then H, are as in 3.42.
Now consider case (c)(i).
U
Subclaim 9.3. In case (c)(i), EU is the preimage of E+1
and
T

++ B
lhU
) .
= (

Proof. We have PU E R and

T

(+ )B = (+ )P = (+ )P = (+ )R < lhU
.
We also have (++ )R (++ )B

and
T

if + 1 B U then (++ )R > (++ )B ;

U
U
the latter is because P+1
6E M T and P+1
projects T .
T

Let P E R and p {1} be such that (++ )B = (++ )P and

T

+ B
< P
P
p+1 ( )
p.

Then like before, using condensation or the ISC, we have

U
Ultp (P, F ) E M+1
.

But

((T )+ )Ultp (P,F ) = ((T )+ )M ,

U
U
and since +1
= T , therefore Ultp (P, F ) = P+1
. So P is type 1 and ORP =
T

+ B
. So if
(++ )B . Therefore EU = F P . Now iU
+1 is continuous at ( )
P
U
U
U
P R then i+1 is continuous at OR , and so i+1 (P ) = P+1 . If P = R then
U
Ultp (P, F ) = M+1
(even if p < degU ( + 1)).
U
Since EU = F P and cr(F P ) = cr(F ), predU ( + 1) = and B+1
= R and
U
U
U
deg ( + 1) = deg ( + 1). Also, pred ( + 2) = + 1 and m = degU ( + 2) =
U
degU ( + 1). Using this, and letting H = B+1
, we get

Ultm (H, F ) = M T
and letting = iH
F , then H, are as in 3.42.
Finally consider case (d)(i). For illustration, assume that + 2
/ B U . Let
U
= predU ( + 2) and S = B+2
and j = degU ( + 2). A combination of the
preceding arguments gives the following:
U
PU is the type 2 preimage of P+1
,

44

U
predU ( + 1) = and B+1
= S and degU ( + 1) = j,
U
U
P+1
is the type 1 preimage of P+2
, under the map defined below,

= predU ( + 2) and degU ( + 2) = 0,

+ 1 = predU ( + 3) and m = degU ( + 3) = 0.
U
U
Let J = B+1
and H = B+2
. Those arguments also give that
U
Ultj (J, F ) = B+2
U
U
and letting = iJF , then (P+1
) = P+2
(as mentioned above), and

Ult0 (H, F ) = M T ,
and etc.
Cases (b)(ii) and (c)(ii) are fairly similar to the preceding cases.
There is just one case left:
Claim 10. Suppose that B is exceptional and the comparison terminates early.
Then B T B U and one of B T , B U has an exceptional core.
Proof. We may assume that is (U, T )-unusual. Let < < witness this.
So EU = F = F (QT ). We have either M T E M U or M U E M T . By Claim 2,
therefore M T = M U . Let H = MU . Then
Ultm (H, F ) = M T ,
and etc.
If B is non-exceptional (exceptional) then by some of the preceding claims,
we have an iterate B of B such that B has a good (exceptional) core. In the
non-exceptional case, the proof of Claim 6 of 3.32 then shows that B has a good
core. So the following claim completes the proof of the theorem:
Claim 11. Suppose that B is exceptional and let B be a non-dropping iterate
of B. Then B has an exceptional core iff B does.
Proof. The proof similar to 3.32, but with some extra argument. We assume
that m 0 and leave the other case to the reader (the main distinction in
that case is that even though m = 1, all ultrapower embeddings are at least
r1 elementary). Fix H, , F, X as in 3.42. Let B = ( , , M , Q ) and fix
H , , F , X as in 3.42 with respect to B . Let i : M M and j : Q Q be
the iteration maps. So i (B||) = j (B||). Note that for each < , we have
X B|| and
i(X ) = X i().
(10)

M
M
Also, i(, zm+1
) = ( , zm+1
). Because B has an exceptional core, we have

HullM
pM
m+1 (X zm+1 ~
m ) = X .

45

From these facts, it follows easily that

M
HullM
~M
m+1 (X zm+1 p
m ) = X.

(11)

It remains to see that

H||(++ )H = M |(++ )M .
Let

M
+ M
Y = HullM
pM
m+1 (X zm+1 ~
m ) ( ) ,

let = iF (++ )M , and Z = rg(). It suffices to see that Y = Z. Let Y , , Z

be defined analogously from B . Because B has an exceptional core, Y = Z .
So the subclaims below immediately give that Y = Z, completing the proof.
They are proven by breaking Y and Z into unions of small pieces.
Subclaim 11.1. For any < (+ )M , Y iff i() Y .

M
M
Proof. If Y then i() Y because iX X and i(zm+1
) = zm+1
.
M
Suppose
/ Y . For < and < m let Y, be the set of all < (+ )M
such that
M
HullM
~M
m ),
m+1 ((X ) zm+1 p

as witnessed by some theory below

ThM
pM
m }).
rm ( {~
(See [3, 2], in particular, the stratification of rm+1 described there, for more
details. If m = 0 or this should be modified appropriately; for example, if
m = 0 and M is passive and ORM is divisible by 2 then instead, the r1 fact

should be true in M |.) Then Y, M . Define Y,

analogously over M . Let
M
I = m . Using line (10), we have

,
i(Y, ) = Yi(),i()

and an easy calculation gives

Y =

i(Y, ).

(,)I

The fact that i()

/ Y follows easily.
Subclaim 11.2. For any < (+ )M , Z iff i() Z .
Proof. Suppose Z. Let = 1 (). We claim that (i()) = i(), which
suffices. For let C (+ )M be a wellorder of (+ )M in ordertype , with C M .
Then (C) M and is a wellorder of B in ordertype . Therefore i(C), i()
and i((C)), i() are likewise. So it suffices to see that (i(C)) = i((C)). But
for any D P() M , we have (i(D)) = i((D)), and so the continuity of
the various maps at (+ )M then easily gives what we want.
46

Now suppose
/ Z; we want to see that i()
/ Z . The proof is similar in
nature to the proof of Subclaim 11.1; we just describe the decomposition of Z.
For < (++ )M let f : (+ )M be a surjection in M . For < (++ )M
and < let
Z, = (f )(X ).
Then Z, M . Now is continuous at (+ )M and note that
[
rg() =
Z, .
,

Define f and Z,
analogously from B ; we may assume that i(f ) = fi()
.
Then we have

i(Z, ) = Zi(),i()
,

and it follows that i()

/ Z . This completes the proof of the theorem.

4. Condensation from normal iterability

Standard (k + 1)-condensation19 gives the following. Let H, M be (k + 1)sound premice, where M is (k, 1 , + 1)-iterable, and let : H M be a near
k-embedding, with cr() = H
k+1 . Then either:
H E M , or
M | is active with extender F and H Ult(M |, F ).

(12)

As discussed in the introduction, the standard proof uses the (k, 1 , 1 + 1)iterability of M . We now give a proof of the above statement, reducing the
iterability hypothesis to just (k, 1 + 1)-iterability. In our proof, we will replace
the phalanx used in the standard proof with a cephal, and avoid any use of
Dodd-Jensen. Much as in [12, 9.3.2], we will also weaken the fine structural
assumptions on , H, M somewhat from those stated above. In particular, as
discussed earlier, we will not assume that M is (k + 1)-solid. Because we drop
this assumption, it seems that we need to weaken a little the conclusion of
condensation in the case that H
/ M (cf. 4.2(1)), compared to the version
stated in [12]. So in this sense we cannot quite prove full condensation.20 In
order to state the weakened conclusion, we need the following definition.
M
4.1 Definition. Let M be a k-sound premouse and let [k+1
, M
k ]. The
-solid-core of M is
M
H = cHullM
~M
k+1 ( zk+1 p
k ),

and the -solid-core map is the uncollapse map : H M .

19 Cf.
20 But

[3, pp. 8788] or [12, Theorem 9.3.2].

see 6.

47

Note that the -solid-core map is a k-embedding, since H

/ M and by 2.4.
4.2 Theorem (Condensation). Let M be a k-sound, (k, 1 + 1)-iterable premouse. Let H be a -sound premouse where is a cardinal of H and H
k+1
< H
.
Suppose
there
is
a
k-lifting
embedding

:
H

M
such
that
cr()
.
k
M
Let = card (). Then either :
1. H
/ M and :
H
M
H
M
(a) k+1
= k+1
and (zk+1
) = zk+1
,

(b) H is the -solid-core of M and is the -solid-core map,

(c) H
/ [, ),
k+1
+ H
+ M
(d ) if H
then M | is active with a superstrong
k+1 = and ( ) < ( )
+ M
extender with critical point and M
< ,
k+1 ( )
M
(e) H
k+1 k+1 ,
M
(f ) if M is (k + 1)-solid then H
k+1 = k+1 ,
M
(g) if H
k+1 = k+1 then H is the -core of M , is the -core map and
H
(pk+1 ) = pM
k+1 ;

or
2. H M and exactly one of the following holds:
(a) H M , or
(b) M | is active with extender F and H Ult(M |, F ), or
(c) M | is passive, M |(+ )H is active with a type 1 extender G and H =
Q
Ultk (Q, G), where Q M is such that ( + )Q = and Q
k+1 = < k ,
or
(d ) k = 0 and H, M are active type 2 and M | is active with a type 2
extender F and letting R = Ult(M |, F ), R|(+ )H is active with a
type 1 extender G and H = Ult0 (M |, G).
4.3 Remark. It is easy to see that if we add the assumption that H, M are both
(k + 1)-sound, then line (12) holds. In fact, it suffices to add the assumption
that if H
/ M then M is -sound, and if H M then H is (k + 1)-sound.
Proof. Recall that by 2.4, if H
/ M then is a k-embedding. This gives:
Claim 1. If (+ )H = (+ )M or H
/ M and is a k-embedding.
k+1 < then H
An easy calculation using the -soundness of H gives (cf. [5, 2.17]):
H
H
Claim 2. k+1
and pH
k+1 \ = zk+1 \.
Claim 3. Suppose that H
/ M and (1)(a),(c) hold. Then so do (1)(b),(e),
(f),(g).

48

Proof. We know is a k-embedding. So part (b) follows easily from Claim 2

H
and (a). Consider (e). Let = H
= P()M then (e) is clear.
k+1 . If P()
If P()H 6= P()M then by (c), = , so because H
/ M , (e) holds. For
H
M
H
(f), because M

,
the
fact
that

follows
from [5, 2.17] and
k+1
k+1
k+1
k+1
M
H
H
H
(a). For (g), suppose k+1 = k+1 . We have k+1 . If M
k+1 = k+1 =
H
H
then because H
/ M , and by the solidity of pk+1 = pk+1 \, we then have
H
pM
=
(p
).
Suppose
k+1
k+1
H
M
k+1 = k+1 = < ,
H
so by (c), < . So P()M = P()H , so pM
k+1 (pk+1 ), and so using the
H
H
M
solidity of pk+1 \, it follows that (pk+1 \) = pk+1 \, and since = id, that
M
(pH
k+1 ) = pk+1 . Now (g) easily follows.

Now there are two main cases overall.

Case 1. (+ )H = (+ )M .
/ M and is a k-embedding. Note that
We will establish (1). By Claim 1, H
H
k+1
. Using generalized solidity witnesses and because P()H = P()M ,
(a) easily follows. Parts (c),(d) are trivial. Now use Claim 3.
Case 2. (+ )H < (+ )M .
In this case we produce an iterable cephal C, which we use to deduce the
required facts. Let = (+ )H . Clearly either cr() = or cr() = . If M |
is passive then let J M be least such that J and ORJ . If M | is
active and < (+ )Ult(M|) then let J Ult(M |) be least such that ORJ
and (J) = . Otherwise leave J undefined. We may assume that if J is
defined then H 6= J, since otherwise (2) holds (it is easy to see that the four
options are mutually exclusive). This ensures that the cephal C we define next
is non-trivial.
If is a cardinal of M , let C = (, H, J). Then C is a bicephalus. Here the
fact that H|| = J||, and therefore that = (+ )J , follows from condensation
for -sound mice, 2.13. If instead is not a cardinal of M (and so < <
( + )M ), let C = (, , H, Q), where Q M is least such that ORQ and
Q
= ; here C is a cephalanx, again using 2.13.
Claim 4. C is a non-trivial, (1 + 1)-iterable cephal.
Assume this claim for now; we will use it to finish the proof.
Claim 5. Suppose that either:
(i) is a cardinal of M , so C = (, H, J) is a bicephalus; or
(ii) is not a cardinal of M and C = (, , H, Q) is a passive cephalanx,
ORJ = and J is type 3.
Then (1) holds.
Proof. Note that in case (ii), N C = J. Using 3.32 or 3.34, and since H 6= J
and J is sound, we have that ORJ = , J is active type 1 or type 3, and letting
49

F = F J and = cr(F ), we have < (as in case (i), = , and in case (ii), J is
type 3), and letting N be the -core of H, N is -sound, N ||(+ )N = H||(+ )H
(so F is semi-close to N ) and H = Ultk (N, F ). So
N ||(+ )N = H||(+ )H = M ||(+ )M .

(13)

N
It follows that H
/ M and is a k-embedding and
k+1 k+1 < , so H
M
H
k+1 k+1 .
N
H
N
Now k+1
N
k+1 since N is -sound. So k+1 = k+1 . But < ,
H
M
H
H
so P() = P() , so (a) follows. Since k+1 k+1 we have (c), and (d) is
trivial.

Claim 6. Suppose that is not a cardinal of M and C = (, , H, Q) is a passive

cephalanx (so N C = J), and if ORJ = then J is not type 3. Then (2)(c) holds.
Q
J
Proof. Using 3.34, ORJ = , J is active type 1, Q
k+1 = cr(F ) = < k ,

H = Ultk (Q, F J ),
Q
and since J E Q, therefore H
k+1 = k+1 = < .

Claim 7. Suppose that is not a cardinal of M and C is an active cephalanx.

Then either (1) or (2)(d) holds.
Proof. We have C = (, , H, Q) where Q = M | is active. Let F = F Q . Apply
3.46 to C.
If C is non-exceptional then C has a good core, and the arguments from
before give that either:
H
k+1 < and (1) holds, or
H
k+1 = and (2)(d) holds.
Now suppose that C is exceptional, so C has an exceptional core. Let
H
K = cHullH
~H
k+1 (X zk+1 p
k ),

where X is defined as in 3.42. Let = cr(F ). By 3.43, K is (+ )K -sound, and

+ K
++ K
K
) = (++ )M , therefore K
/ M . Since Q M and
k+1 ( ) . Since (
+ K
ThK
pK
rk+1 (~
k+1 ( ) )

can be computed from F Q and

ThH
pH
rk+1 (~
k+1 ),
it follows that H
/ M , so is a k-embedding, as is iK
F . So we must verify (1).
+ K
Subclaim 7.1. If K
then (1) holds.
k+1 = ( )

50

Proof. The argument here is similar to that used to illustrate the failure of
K K
solidity for long extender premice. By 3.43, we have H
k+1 = and iF (pk+1 ) =
pH
k+1 and both K, H are (k + 1)-sound. Moreover,
H
pM
k+1 (pk+1 ) b hi

because K
/ M and by the calcuation above. Since H is (k + 1)-solid, therefore
H
pM
k+1 \ = (pk+1 ).

But for ,
< ThM
pH
rk+1 ((~
k+1 ) ) M,

(14)

because (in the case that = ) H

/ M , and (in the case that < ) cr() =
= H
k+1 . But line (14) implies that
H
pM
k+1 = (pk+1 ) b hi .

H
H
Now zk+1
= pH
k+1 and k+1 = , and (1)(a),(c),(d) follow.

Note that in the above case, M is not (k + 1)-solid.

K
Subclaim 7.2. If K
k+1 < k+1 then (1) holds.
K
+ K
Proof. Suppose K
k+1 . Then k+1 < ( ) , since otherwise,
K
ThK
pK
rk+1 (k+1 ~
k+1 ) K,
K
H
K
a contradiction. So suppose that < k+1
< (+ )K . Then zk+1
= iK
F (zk+1 )
H
H
K
K
and k+1 = sup iF k+1 , by [5, 2.20]. So < k+1 < . So to see that (a) holds,
it suffices to see that
H
H
ThM
pM
/ M,
rk+1 ((zk+1 ) k+1 ~
k )

so suppose otherwise. Then because F Q M , we get

K
K
ThK
~K
rk+1 (k+1 zk+1 p
k ) M.

But P()K = P()M , so the above theory is in K, a contradiction.

K
We also have H
k+1 k+1 , so (c) holds, and (d) is trivial.
K
Subclaim 7.3. If k+1
then (1) holds.

Proof. This follows as before since P()K = P()H = P()M .

This completes the proof of the claim.

51

Proof of Claim 4. The basic approach is to lift iteration trees on C to iteration

trees on M . There are some details here that one must be careful with. For
illustration, we assume that C = (, , H, M |) is an active cephalanx. The
other cases are similar (the bicephalus case a little different, but simpler). In
order to keep focus on the main points, we also assume that is c--preserving
(see [6]). By the calculations in [6], this will ensure that all lifting maps we
encounter are c--preserving, keeping the copying process smooth. (If instead,
is not -preserving, one should just combine the copying process to follow
with that given in [6]. In the next section we do provide details of a copying
process, with resurrection, which incorporates those extra details. If is not
c-preserving, one can incorporate the changes sketched in 2.3.)
For a tree T on C and + 1 < lh(T ), we say T lift-drops at + 1 iff
+ 1 Q T , predT ( + 1) B T and [0, + 1]T does not drop in model.
If T lift-drops at + 1 then Q is type 2, and letting = predT ( + 1), we
T
have ET = F (QT ) and cr(j,+1
) = lgcd(QT ).
Let be a (k, 1 +1)-iteration strategy for M . Consider building an iteration
tree T on C, and lifting this to a k-maximal tree U on M , via , inductively on
lh(T ). Having defined (T , U) + 1, then for each , letting B , M , Q
be the models of T , and S = MU , we will have also defined embeddings
and , such that:
1. We have <T = <U . The drop structure of U matches that of T , except
for the following exceptions:
If B T then [0, ]U does not drop in model or degree (so degU () =
k).
If T lift-drops at then U drops in model at .
Moreover, if
/ B T then degU () degT ().
2. If B T then
: C0 (M ) C0 (S )
is a c--preserving k-lifting embedding and letting W = iU
0, (Q),
: Q W
is an r0 -elementary simple embedding. Moreover,
(B ) = .
3. If M T then is undefined and
: C0 (M ) C0 (S )
is a c--preserving degT ()-lifting embedding.

52

4. If Q T then is undefined and

: C0 (Q ) C0 (S )
is a c--preserving degT ()-lifting embedding.
5. Suppose < . Let (, ]. If ET E+ (MT ) let = ; otherwise
let = . Let { , }. Then
lhT
and
(T ) = (T ) = U .
6. Suppose < and let = predT ( + 1) = predU ( + 1).
(a) Suppose T drops in model at + 1. Then so does U. If + 1 M T
T
U
then (M+1
) = S+1
and
U
T
+1 iT
+1 = i+1 C0 (M+1 ).
U
If + 1 Q T then (QT
+1 ) = S+1 and
T
T
+1 j+1
= iU
+1 C0 (Q+1 ).

(b) Suppose T lift-drops at + 1. Then U drops in model at + 1 (but

note that [0, ]U does not drop in model or degree),
U
S+1
= iU
0, (Q) = W ,

and
T
+1 j,+1
= iU
+1 .

7. Suppose < and <T and (, ]T neither drops in model nor

lift-drops. If M is defined then
iT, = iU
, ,
and if Q is defined then
T
j,
= iU
, .

This completes the inductive hypotheses.

We now start the construction. We start with 0 = and 0 = id. Since
cr(0 ) = , we have 0 0 .
Now let E = ET be given. We define F = EU by copying in the usual
manner. That is:
(i) Suppose E E+ (M ). Then:
53

 If E = F (M ) then F = F (S ).
If E 6= F (M ) then F = (E ).
(ii) Suppose E
/ E+ (M ); so E E+ (Q ). Then:
If E = F (Q ) and [0, ]T does not drop or lift-drop then F =
F (W ).
If E = F (Q ) and [0, ]T drops or lift-drops then F = F (S ).
If E 6= F (Q ) then F = (E ).
The agreement hypotheses and the fact that and are c--preserving (if
defined) ensures that this choice of F is legitimate.
Let = predT ( + 1) and = crT . It is routine to propagate the inductive
hypotheses to (T , U) + 2 unless B T and (BT ) and T does not drop
in model at + 1. So suppose this is the case. We have = predU ( + 1) by
property 5.
Case I. + 1 B T .
In this case [0, + 1]U does not drop in model or degree; this is because
is c-preserving and because if E = F (Q ) then crT < (B ). By 2.2 and
properties 2 and 5, we can apply (essentially)21 the Shift Lemma to ( , PT )
and ( , PT ), to produce +1 and +1 . For the latter, we have

: Q W S = S+1
,

and we set

+1 ([a, f ]E ) = [ (a), (f )]F .

It follows easily that +1 +1 . See [6] for the proof that +1 is -preserving
(using the fact that is). (Here -preservation for +1 is immediate because
this embedding is simple). The remaining properties are established as usual.
Case II. + 1 M T .
This case is routine, using the fact that E E+ (M ).
Case III. + 1 Q T .
So T lift-drops at + 1, and so E = F (Q ) and crT = (B ). Therefore
F = F (W ) and crU
= ((B )) is the largest cardinal of W . Therefore

S+1
= W S ,

and in particular, U drops in model at + 1. This is precisely enough to define

+1 . Everything else is routine in this case.
This completes the propagation of the properties to (T , U) + 2.
For limit , everything is routine.
This completes the proof that C is iterable, and so the proof of the theorem.

21 We say essentially because if Q is type 3, is a simple embedding, not an embedding

between squashed premice.

54

5. A premouse inner model inheriting strong cardinals

In this section we define a proper class premouse L[E] which inherits all
Woodin and strong cardinals from V , assuming that V is sufficiently iterable in
some larger universe W . Note here that V need not be a premouse, so in this
sense, our construction is more general than that in [10]. The model will be
produced by a variant of a full background extender construction, in which we
allow certain types of partial background extenders. However, all background
extenders will be total in some ultrapower of V , and moreover, we will be able
to lift iteration trees on L[E] to (non-dropping) iteration trees on V .
Instead of using rank to measure the strength of extenders, we use:
5.1 Definition. Let E be an extender. The strength of E, denoted str(E), is
the largest such that H Ult(V, E).

So str(E) is always a cardinal. The backgrounding we use is described as

follows:
5.2 Definition. Let OR. An ultra-backgrounded construction (of
length ) is a sequence hS i< such that:
1. Each S is a premouse.
2. Given a limit < , S = lim inf < S .
3. Given = + 1 < , either:
(a) S+1 = J (C (S )) ; or
(b) S is passive and there is F and an extender G such that S+1 =
(S , F ) and F (F ) G and str(G) (F ); or
(c) is a limit, S has a largest cardinal , and there is an extender G
such that letting = cr(G), we have:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.

str(G) ,
iG (),
is a cardinal in iG (S ),
(S iG (S ))||OR(S ),
S+1 iG (S ),
(S+1 ) = ,
OR(S ) = (+ )S+1 .

5.3 Definition. Suppose that V is a premouse. A pm-ultra-backgrounded

construction is a sequence hS i< as in 5.2, except that in (3b) and (3c) we
also require that G EV and (G) is a cardinal.

55

5.4 Remark. When we refer to, for example, 5.3(3c), we mean the analogue
of 5.2(3c) for 5.3. We will mostly work explicitly with ultra-backgrounded constructions; the adaptation to pm-ultra-backgrounded is mostly obvious, so we
mostly omit it. For all definitions to follow, we either implicitly or explicitly
make the pm-ultra-backgrounded analogue, denoted by the prefix pm-.
5.5 Definition. Let C = hS i< be an ultra-backgrounded construction. Let
< . Then we say that , or S , is C-standard iff 5.2(2), (3a) or (3b) holds
(for ). We say that is C-strongly standard iff 5.2(3c) does not hold. Given
also n , we say that (, n) is C-relevant iff either (i) is C-standard, or
(ii) = + 1 and n (N+1 ) = (N+1 ).

Clearly C-strongly standard implies C-standard. The next two lemmas are
easy to see:
5.6 Lemma. Let C = hS i be an ultra-backgrounded construction. Let (, n)
S
be C-relevant. Let be a cardinal of S such that n . Let P S be such
P
that = . Then there is < such that C0 (P ) = C (S ).
5.7 Lemma. Let C = hS i be an ultra-backgrounded construction. Suppose
that S+1 is active type 1 or type 3 and (S+1 ) = (F (S+1 )). Then + 1
is C-standard, so F (S+1 ) is backgrounded by a V -extender.
5.8 Definition. Let C = hS i be an ultra-backgrounded construction. Suppose
that + 1 is not C-standard, and let = (S+1 ). An extender G is a Cnice witness for + 1 iff G witnesses 5.2(3c), iG (cr(G)) > , and S+1 is
iG (C)-strongly standard (in Ult(V, G)).

i (C)

G
In 5.8, there is such that S+1 = C (S+1
), by 5.6 and because is a
limit and is a cardinal of iG (S ).

5.9 Lemma. Let C = hS i be an ultra-backgrounded construction. Suppose

that + 1 is not C-standard and let = (S+1 ). Then there is a C-nice
witness for + 1.
Let G be a C-nice witness for + 1. Then:
If cr(G) < then str(G) is the the least cardinal .
If cr(G) = then str(G) = + .
If condensation for -sound mice holds for all proper segments of S then
is not measurable in Ult(V, G).
Proof. Because V is linearly iterable and + 1 is not C-standard, there is an
extender H witnessing 5.2(3c) and such that + 1 is iH (C)-strongly standard,
where + 1 is defined as in 5.8. Letting G = iH (H) H, then G is a nice witness
(S+1 iG (S ) because in Ult(V, H), iH (H) coheres iH (S )).
Now let G be a nice witness. The facts regarding str(G) are easy. Suppose
F is a measure on in U = Ult(V, G). Then by condensation, S+1 iU
F (S+1 ),
contradicting the niceness of G.
56

For pm-ultra-backgrounding, we need to modify the notion of nice witness

a little:
5.10 Definition. Suppose V is a premouse and let C = hS i be a pm-ultrabackgrounded construction. Suppose that + 1 is not pm-C-standard, and let
= (S+1 ). The pm-C-nice witness for + 1 is the extender G such
that, letting G1 be the least witness to 5.3(3c) (that is, the witness with lh(G1 )
minimal), either:
(i) S+1 is pm-iG1 (C)-strongly standard and G = G1 , or
(ii) S+1 is not pm-iG1 (C)-strongly standard and letting G2 be the least witness to 5.3(3c) for (iG1 (C), S+1 ), then G = G2 G1 .

5.11 Lemma. Suppose V is a premouse and let C = hS i be a pm-ultrabackgrounded construction. Suppose that + 1 is not pm-C-standard, let =
(S+1 ) and let G be the pm-C-nice witness for + 1. Suppose that condensation for -sound mice holds for all proper segments of S . Then:
S+1 is pm-iG (C)-strongly standard.
is not measurable in Ult(V, G), so iG (cr(G)) > .
If 5.10(i) attains and is not a cardinal then (G) = + .
If 5.10(i) attains is a cardinal then either (G) = , or G is type 1 and
cr(G) = .
If 5.10(ii) attains then is a cardinal and letting G1 , G2 be as there,
(G1 ) = cr(G2 ) = and G2 is type 1.
Proof. By coherence and the ISC, and using condensation as in 5.9.
5.12 Definition. The ultra-stack construction is the sequence hR iOR
such that R0 = V , the sequence is continuous at limits, and for each <
OR we have the following. Let = OR(R ). Then R+1 is the stack of all
C
sound premice R such that R R and R
= and R = C (S ) for some
ultra-backgrounded construction C and < lh(C), assuming this stack forms a
premouse (if it does not, the construction not well-defined).

Clearly if the ultra-stack construction is well-defined then ROR has height

OR, and for all < OR, R R , and is a cardinal of ROR iff = OR(R )
for some OR.
In order to prove that the ultra-stack construction inherits strong and Woodin
cardinals, we will need to prove that certain pseudo-premice are in fact premice,
just like in [3]. So we make one further definition:
5.13 Definition. Let < OR. An ultra-backgrounded pseudo-construction (of length + 2) is a sequence C = hS i<+2 such that:
C + 1 is an ultra-backgrounded construction and S is passive,
57

 For some F , S+1 = (S , F ) is an active pseudo-premouse, and there is

an extender G such that F (F ) G and str(G) (F ).

5.14 Definition. An almost normal iteration tree U on a premouse P is an

iteration tree as defined in [1],22 such that for all + 1 < + 1 < lh(U), we
have (ET ) (ET ).

5.15 Remark. It is easy to see that if P is a normally iterable premouse then

P is iterable with regard to almost normal trees.
5.16 Theorem. Suppose that V is a class of some universe W , and W |=V
is (1 + 1)-iterable for arbitrary coarse trees. Then:
(a) If C = hS i is an ultra-backgrounded construction then for each < lh(C)
and n < , Cn (S ) exists and is (n, 1 , 1 + 1)-iterable in W .
(b) The ultra-stack construction is well-defined. Let L[E] be its final model.
(c) is strong iff L[E] |= is strong. If is Woodin then L[E] |= is
Woodin.
5.17 Theorem. Suppose that V is a premouse, is a class of some universe W ,
and W |=V is (, 1 , 1 + 1)-iterable. Then the conclusions of 5.16 hold, with
ultra replaced by pm-ultra.
5.18 Remark. Part (c) also holds for A-strong cardinals , for A OR such
that A is a class of L[E]. (Here is A-strong iff for every there is an -strong
extender G such that iG (A) = A .)
However, (c) does not seem to apply to local strength: it seems that we
might have being -strong (some OR) but L[E] |= is not -strong.
Proof. Each part will depend on the sufficient iterability of certain structures
in W , which we will establish in Claim 3 below. Part (a) then follows as usual.
Assuming (a), let us prove (b). Suppose (b) fails. Then it is easy to see that
we have ultra-backgrounded constructions


C = hS i b SC <C
and

D E

= hS i
C
b
SC

<C

and OR such that letting M = SCC and N = SCC :

M = C (M ) and N = C (N ) both exist,
N
M
= = ,

22 The only difference between these and normal trees is that it is not required that lh(E T ) <

lh(ET ) for < .

58

S = M ||(+ )M = N ||(+ )N = M ||(+ )M = N ||(+ )N , but

M 6= N .
It follows that C = (, M, N ) is a sound, non-trivial bicephalus. By Claim 3
below, we have a contradiction to 3.32, completing the proof of (b).
Next, assuming (a) and (b), let us prove (c). The fact that every strong
cardinal of L[E] is strong is by 5.7. So suppose that is strong; we want to see
that is strong in L[E]. Let > be a cardinal of L[E]. Let M be such that
= OR(M ). We will show that is H -strong in L[E]. The key is:
Claim 1. There is > such that if F is any extender with str(F ) > then
iF (M )|| = M .
This follows readily from the definitions (but this claim seems to fail for the
traditional fully backgrounded L[E]-construction). Using the claim, together
with a slight variant of the proof of [3, Lemma 11.4], one can show that is
strong in N , as witnessed by restrictions of extenders in V . The details of the
argument relating to the uniqueness of the next extender are somewhat different,
so we describe the differences. Let F be as in the claim. We adopt the notation
( and G) of [3, 11.4].
Claim 2. [3, 11.4] holds for all < such that G is not type Z.
Proof. Let : Ult(L[E], G) Ult(L[E], F ) be the natural factor map. Let
= (+ )Ult(L[E],G). By 5.16(a), condensation holds for segments of L[E], and so
because of the existence of , either:
(i) L[E]| is passive and Ult(L[E], G)|| = L[E]||, or
(ii) L[E]| is active and Ult(L[E], G)|| = Ult(L[E], F L[E]| )||.
Suppose first that is a cardinal of L[E], and so (i) holds. Then there is an
ultra-backgrounded construction with last model P = (L[E]||, G). It follows
that P
= , so P is fully sound, and therefore that P E L[E].
Now suppose that is not a cardinal of L[E]. Let = cardL[E] (). If
is not a generator of F then the previous argument adapts easily. So suppose
is a generator of F . So cr() = = ( + )Ult(L[E],G). In this case it seems
that there might not be an ultra-backgrounded construction with last model
Ult(L[E], G)||. Let G be the trivial completion of F ( + 1). Let =

(+ )Ult(L[E],G ) . Then Ult(L[E], G )|| = L[E]|| and is the largest cardinal

of L[E]|| . So there is an ultra-backgrounded construction with last model
L[E]|| . Let P = (L[E]|| , G ). Then there is a pseudo-ultra-backgrounded
construction with last model P . By Claim 3 below, P is (0, 1 , 1 + 1)-iterable
in W . So by [3, 10] (combined with the generalization of the latter using the
weak Dodd-Jensen property), P is a premouse. Therefore either G E, or
L[E]| is active and G E(Ult(L[E]|, F L[E]| )), as required.
The fact that every Woodin cardinal is Woodin in L[E] is proved similarly.
We now prove the iterability we have used above.
59

Claim 3. We have:
For any ultra-backgrounded construction C, < lh(C) and n < , Cn (SC )
exists and is (n, 1 , 1 + 1)-iterable in W .
The bicephalus C defined in the proof of (b) is 1 + 1-iterable in W .
For any ultra-backgrounded pseudo-construction C, with last model P , P
is (0, 1 , 1 + 1)-iterable in W .
Proof. We will just prove the iterability of C; the others are simplifications of
this proof. The main difference between the present iterability proof and that for
a standard L[E]-construction is in the resurrection process. The details of this
process will be dealt with in a manner similar to that in [7], and moreover, the
resurrection process of [7] will need to be folded into the present one. We follow
the iterability proof of [7] closely. In one regard, the present proof is slightly
simpler, because in [7], arbitrary standard trees were considered, whereas here
we deal with a more restricted class of trees (roughly, normal trees). In the
pm-ultra-backgrounded setting, i.e. the proof of 5.17, the natural adaptation
of the proof lifts a tree on C to an almost normal tree U on V . We leave the
verification of this to the reader. Likewise, its adaptation to stacks of normal
trees on Cn (SC ) and P produces stacks of almost normal trees on V . This
ensures that we only use the (, 1 , 1 + 1)-iterability of V in this context,
though at the cost of increasing a little the work involved in our proof of 5.16.
In the adaptations for 5.17, one should use background extenders G with lh(G)
minimal (when witnessing 5.3(3b)), and use pm-nice witnesses (but when the
pm-nice witness is as in 5.10(ii), one must literally use the two extenders G1
and G2 in U).
Let V W be an iteration strategy for V . We will describe a strategy B
for player II in the (1 + 1)-iteration game on B. Let T be an iteration tree on
B which is via B . Then by induction, we can lift T to a tree U on V (U is to
be defined), via V , and if T has limit length, use V (U) to define B (T ). Let
us say that an iteration tree U is neat iff U is non-overlapping and such that
U

+ 1 < + 1 < lh(U ) = strM (EU ) strM (EU ).

The tree U may use padding, but the tree U given by removing all padding from
U will be neat. (So in the adaptation to the proof of 5.17, U will be almost
normal.)
We will have lh(U) lh(T ), but in general may have lh(U) > lh(T ). For
U
each node of T , (, 0) will be a node of U, and the model M0
will correspond
directly to BT . However, there may also be a further finite set of nodes (, i) of
U
U, and models Mi
associated to initial segments of MT or NT . For indexing,
let OR = OR ; we order OR lexicographically. We index the nodes of U
with elements of a set dom(U) OR , such that for some sequence hk i<lh(T )
of integers k 1, we have:
dom(U) = {(, i) | < lh(T ) & i < k }.
60

So if lh(T ) > 1 then dom(U) will form a set not closed downward under <.
U
For notational convenience we also allow U to use padding. If E = Ei
= we
U
U
Mi
U
consider str
(E) = OR(Mi ); we do allow pred (, j) = (, i) in this case.
U
U
U
Let stri = strMi (Ei
). If Ei
6= we will also associate an ordinal si stri ,
to be defined below.
We now fix some notation pertaining to T and lifting maps. Let < lh(T ).
We write B = BT , etc. If B T let (m , n ) = degT (). If M T
let m = degT (). If N T let n = degT (). Let Ci = iU
00,i (C) and
U

i = lh(Ci ). Let Ci = i00,i (C) and i = lh(Ci ). When we say, for

U
example, Ci -standard we literally mean Ci -standard in Mi
.
5.19 Definition. Let M be a premouse and ORM . The -dropdown
sequence of M is the sequence = h(Mi , i )ii<n of maximum length such if
= ORM then = , and if < ORM then M0 = M |, and for each i < n,
i = (Mi ), and if i + 1 < n then Mi+1 is the least N such that Mi N M
and (N ) < i .
Suppose M 6= and let OR(M ). The (T , , )-dropdown sequence
of M is defined as follows. Let be the -dropdown sequence of M . If
either M T , or B T and < (B ), then

Otherwise

= b h(M , 0)i .
= b h(M , (B )), (M , 0)i .

If N 6= then for OR(N ), we define the (T , , )-dropdown sequence

of N analogously.

We now state some intentions and introduce more notation. Let < lh(T ).
If M 6= we will define:
0 },
D0 {C0 , C
0 = lh(D0 ),
0 < 0 , where if
/ B T then 0 is D0 -standard,
0
Q0 = SD0
,

and a c-preserving m -lifting 0 : C0 (M0 ) Cm0 (Q0 ),

C
such that if [0, ]T does not drop in model then D0 = C0 and 0 = iU
(00),(0) ( ).
0 ,
0 , 0 , Q
0 and
If N 6= we will define D
0 analogously.
Now suppose + 1 < lh(T ). Let E = E .
Suppose that E E+ (M ). Let be the (T , , lh(E))-dropdown sequence
of M and let be its reverse. Let u + 1 = lh(). Let = h(Mi , i )iiu .
We will have
k = 2lh() 1 = 2u + 1.

Fix i u . Let mi = m if Mi = M and mi = otherwise. If i > 0 then

for each j {2i 1, 2i} we will define:
61

 j },
Dj {Cj , C
j = lh(Dj ),
,j < ,j , such that ,2i is D,2i -standard,
D

,2i1
,
Ri = S,2i1

,2i
,
Qi = S,2i

and a c-preserving mi -lifting embedding i : C0 (Mi ) Cmi (Qi ).

For m n mi let

nm
i
: Cn (Qi ) Cm (Qi )

be the core embedding. Let Q = Qu and

: C0 (PT ) C0 (Q ),
where letting m = mu ,

m0
u .
= u

Let c be the set of infinite cardinals < (E) of PT . Fix c . Let i be

the largest i such that i . Let i = i . Let m be the least m such that
either
Mi = M and m = m , or
m+1 (Mi ) .
Let M = Mi . We define the c-preserving m -lifting embedding
: C0 (M ) Cm (Qi )
nm
by = i
i , where n = mi and m = m . If B T and < and
+ B
=
0 .
( ) < lh(E) then we also define N = N , n = n , and
Now suppose instead that E E+ (N )\E+ (M ). Then we make symmetric
definitions by analogy to the preceding ones. (So for example, we let be the
(T , , lh(E))-dropdown sequence of N , and set u + 1 = lh(), and for i u
i , etc.)
we define Ni and ni , and also define i , Q

Let = or =
, whichever is defined.
Let OR = OR {!}, where !
/ OR (! should be interpreted as undefined ).
~ ~ (OR )2 , and let ~ = (, )
and ~ = (, ).
We write ~ = ~ iff =
Let ,
For OR let max(, !) = max(!, ) = . We write ~ < ~ iff ! ~
and = .
~ max()
~ and either max()
~ < max()
~ or !
~
and max()
/ .
~

Let i = (i , i ).
We will maintain the following conditions by induction on initial segments
of (T , U):

62

1. Let < lh(T ) be such that B is a bicephalus. Then

0 =
0
and so if + 1 < lh(T ) then for all c such that (+ )B < lhT ,
(+ )B .
(+ )B =
2. Let < < lh(T ) and < < lh(T ) and c . Then:

If
If
If
If
If

is defined then (+ )M .

is defined then
(+ )N .
0 is defined then 0 and 0 (T ) (F (Q )).

0 is defined then
0 and
0 (T ) (F (Q )).
,0 and
,0 are both defined then they agree over PT .

We write S
for the restriction of +1,0 or
+1,0 to PT , whichever is defined.
Then = +1<lh(T ) is a function.
3. Let + 1 < lh(T ) and = predT ( + 1) and suppose that + 1 B T .
Then predU ( + 1, 0) = (, 0).
4. Let + 1 < lh(T ) and = predT ( + 1) and suppose that + 1 M T .

Let i u be such that M+1

= Mi , and if B T then i 1. Then
U
pred ( + 1, 0) = (, 2i). Likewise if + 1 N T .
5. Let + 1 < lh(T ) and suppose that E E+ (M ). If 0 i < u then
letting n = mi ,
n0
i
i ,i+1 .
6. The tree given by removing padding from U is neat. Let + 1 < lh(T )
U
and i < k be such that Ei
6= . Let (, k) dom(U). Then:
U
U
si stri and Ult(Mi
, Ei
) has no measurables in [si , stri ).23
U
If (, j) < (, i) and Ej
6= then sj < si .
If (, i) < (, j) and Pi = Qi if i is even and Pi = Ri if i is odd
and Pj is likewise then (Pi Pj )||si .

7. Let < lh(T ). Let = sup< T . Let (, j) dom(U) with < . If

is a limit then
sj < sup
(and note that = 0 or
0 , whichever is defined). If
= + 1, so = T , then
sj ()
(and note that () = 0 () or
0 (), whichever is defined).
23 Since

U is neat, si can be used to determine <U .

63

U
6= and
8. Let + 1 < lh(T ) and suppose that E E+ (M ). Then E,2u

sup T s,2u (T ).
Now suppose also that u > 0. Let be as before. Note that
1 < 2 < . . . < u T .
(Here if u 1 and is a limit we could have = T .) Let i < u and
U
let j {2i, 2i + 1}. If Ej
6= then
sup ,i+1 s,j (,i+1 ).
9. Let < lh(T ) and j < k and k < k and suppose that (, j) =
predU (, k). Then
~
~k iU
j,k (j )
and if < and k 6= 0 then
~
~k < iU
j,k (j ).
Suppose k = 0; so = predT (). Then j = 2i is even and
0 , ~0 ) = iU

~
(D0 , D
j,0 (Dj , Dj , j )
and if M 6= then
m

i
U
0 iT
= ii,0 i

i ,

and if N 6= then
0 jT is likewise.
10. Let < lh(T ) be a limit and let <T be such that (, ]T does
not drop in model and if B T then B T . Then for all , i,
(, 0) U (, i) U (, 0) iff i = 0 and T T . Moreover,

~
iU
(0),(0) (D0 , D0 , 0 ) = (D0 , D0 , 0 )
and if M 6= then letting m = m and n = m ,
mn
0 iT, = iU
0,0 0 0 ,

and likewise if N 6= .
We now begin. Let 00 = C and
00 : C0 (M0 ) Cm0 (Q00 )
be the core embedding. (Note that M0 = M and Q00 = M ; in the notation
m0
that assumes 1 < lh(T ), the core embedding is 00
.) We define 00 and
00
64

analogously. Then 00 0 = id =
00 0 , so the inductive hypotheses are
immediate for T 1 and U (0, 1) (in place of T and U).
Now let be a limit ordinal and suppose that the inductive hypotheses hold
of T and U (, 0); we will define U (, 1) and T + 1 and verify that the
hypotheses still hold.
Note that U (, 0) has limit length and is cofinally non-padded. Let c =
V (U (, 0)). Let M (T ) be the unique branch b such that for eventually
all b, we have (, 0) c. The inductive hypotheses ensure that b is indeed a
well-defined T -cofinal branch, and there are only finitely many drops in model
along b, and there are unique choices for 0 , etc, maintaining the requirements.
Now let = +1 and suppose that the inductive hypotheses hold for T +1
and U (, 1). We will define U ( + 1, 1) and show that they hold for T + 2
and U ( + 1, 1).
Case 1. u = 0 and M T .
So E = F (MT ) and 0 is D0 -standard. Let = sup< lhT . Then
m 0
m (M ), so 0
(sup 0 ) = id, so
= 0 .

(15)

U
Now if T is not a limit cardinal of PT then we choose E0
to be some
U

E M0 witnessing 5.2(3b) for (D0 , Q0 ); we take E of minimal rank in

the Mitchell order, and set s0 = (Q0 ). Suppose T is a limit cardinal of
PT ; in particular E is type 3. Let = sup . Note that is a limit
cardinal of Q0 and so a limit of generators of F (Q0 ). Let Q E Q0 be such

that F Q = F (Q0 ) . Because = (F Q ) is a cardinal of Q0 and by 5.6

U
and 5.7, Q = SD0 for some D0 -standard . So like before, we can let E0
be
U
some E M0
witnessing 5.2(3b) for Q , taking E Mitchell-minimal, and set
s0 = .

Let = crT and = predT ( + 1) and i = i, . Note that M+1

= M and

m = m+1 and N+1

= N and n = n+1 (with each of these equalities,
it is included that the object on the left is defined iff the one on the right is).
We can and do set predU ( + 1, 0) = (, 2i), by properties 68. The identities
+1,0 , +1,0 , +1,0 are determined by property 9. We define +1,0
of D+1,0 , D
and/or
+1,0 as usual. It is routine to show that the inductive hypotheses are
maintained; we just make a couple of remarks. The fact, for example if +1,0
is defined, that
(T ) = +1,0 (T ) s0 ,

follows from our choice of E (this is why we introduced Q earlier). Also, by

+1,0 , we have maintained the
line (15), and because +1,0 and/or
well-definedness of .
Case 2. u = 0 and N T .
By symmetry with the previous case.
Case 3. u > 0 and M T .
Let = 1 ; then is a cardinal of M , so 0 (M ).

65

Subcase 3.1. < 0 (M ).

U
U
U
Set E0
= ; so M1
= M0
. Set D1 = D0 . Let
: C0 (M ) C0 (Q0 )
m 0
be = 0
0 . Let R = (M1 ). Then () is a cardinal of Q0 ( is
c-preserving) and R
= () and 0 is D0 -standard. So we can let = 1 be
such that
C0 (R) = C (SD1 ).

We will set 1 = C0 (M1 ) and will have that C (Q1 ) = C0 (R). (Recall
U
though that Q1 = SD22 ; we will define M2
, D2 and 2 below.)
U
If 1 is D1 -standard we set E1 = , D2 = D1 and 2 = 1 .
U
Suppose that 1 is not D1 -standard. So R = SD11 . We set E1
to be some
G M1 such that G is a D1 -nice witness for R, and set s1 = R
. This is
okay, as by 5.9, if s = str(G) > R
, then Ult(M1 , G) has no measurables in
U
[R
, s). Let (, j) = pred (, 2) be least such that either (i) (, j) = (, 1), or
U
(ii) Ej 6= and < sj . If E E+ (M ) then let F = Dj and = j ,
and if 2i = j then let P = Qi , and if 2i 1 = j then P = Ri . Otherwise let
j , = j and P = Q
i or P = R
i . Let = cr(G) and f = iU
F=D
(j),(2) .
By property 6, (P R)|, and note that P | = SF for some F-standard
< . Since G is a nice witness, f () > (), and so Q1 f (P |), and note
that () is a cardinal of f (P |). We set D2 = f (F), and let 2 be the < f ()
such that
C0 (R) = C (SD2 ).
U
U
Because G is a nice witness, the agreement between M2
and Ult(M1
, G) implies
that 2 is D2 -standard. We defined 1 earlier.
Subcase 3.2. = 0 (M ).
m 0
So M is active type 3. Let : C0 (M ) C0 (Q0 ) be = 0
0 . Let
= .

Subsubcase 3.2.1. () (F (Q0 )).

Proceed as in Subcase 3.1, but using = instead.
Subsubcase 3.2.2. () > (F (Q0 )).
U
Here we proceed as in [7]. Set E = E0
to be a Mitchell-minimal witness
to 5.2(3b) for (D0 , Q0 ) and set s0 = (F (Q0 )). Let F = F (M ) and let
T be the putative iteration tree on C of the form (T + 1) b F . Then

T
M1 M+1
. Let = predT ( + 1) and = cr(F ) and i = i . Let j = 2i
and predU (, 1) = (, j); as in Case 1 this works. Let F, , P, f be defined
from (, j) as in Subcase 3.1. Let D1 = f (F) and R = (M1 ). Then like in
Subcase 3.1, R f (P ) and R = SD1 for some < f (); let 1 be this . Let
1 = C0 (M1 ).
U
Now if is D1 -standard, we set E1
= , etc. Otherwise, proceed as in
Subcase 3.1. Note that in the latter case,
s0 = (F (Q0 )) < () = s1 .
66

U
This completes the definition of U (, 2) in all subcases. If u = 1 we set E2

to be a Mitchell-minimal background for Q , and s2 = (F (Q )). We claim

U
that if E1
6= then s1 < s2 . For certainly s1 (R1 ) = (Q1 ) s2 .
But if s1 = s2 then note that R1 = Q1 is type 1 or type 3, and by 5.7,
U
U
U
1 is D1 -standard, so E1
= , contradiction. Also if E0
6= = E1
, then
s0 < () s2 .
If u > 1 then we now repeat the subcases, working with M2 , 1 , etc, in
place of M1 , 0 , etc. We continue in this manner until producing , Q and
U
E,2u
. This completes the definition of U ( + 1, 1). It is straightforward to

see that the inductive hypotheses are maintained.

Case 4. u > 0 and N T .
By symmetry.
Case 5. u > 0 and B T and E E+ (M ).
This case proceeds mostly like the preceding cases, but the first step is a
U
little different. We set E0
= and D1 = D0 , 1 = 0 , etc. If 1 is
U
D1 -standard then we also set E1
= , etc. Suppose otherwise. We have
U
U
R1 = Q0 = i(00),(1) (M ). We set E1
to be a D1 -nice witness G for R1 , set

s1 = (R1 ), set predU (, 2), F, f like usual, set D2 = f (F), and set 2 to be
the such that R1 = C (SD2 ). So in either case, 2 is D2 -standard. After
this we proceed as before.
Case 6. u > 0 and B T and E
/ E+ (M ).
By symmetry.
This completes the proof of the claim and the theorem.

5.20 Remark. Suppose V is a premouse, iterable in a larger universe. Let L[E]

be the output of the pm-ultra stack construction. Then we have the usual partial
converse to the fact that L[E] inherits Woodins. That is, let be Woodin in
L[E]. Then V | is generic for the extender algebra of L[E] at , and is Woodin
in L[E][V |].
It is also easy to see that stationarity of L[E]-constructions (see, for example, [9]) goes through for the ultra-stack construction, assuming that sufficient
extenders cohere the relevant iteration strategies.
6. Questions
Given that condensation follows from normal iterability, it is natural to ask
the following questions:
Let m < and let M be an m-sound, (m, 1 + 1)-iterable premouse. Is
M (m + 1)-universal? Is M (m + 1)-solid?
Let M be an active, 1-sound, (0, 1 + 1)-iterable premouse. Is M Doddsolid?

67

We conjecture that the answer in each case is yes, at least if M has no

superstrong initial segments. However, it appears less clear how to prove these
things than it is condensation; if one attempts an approach similar to the proof
of condensation (from normal iterability) then, at least navely, structures arise
similar to bicephali B, but the premice involved may fail to be (B)-sound.
Such generalizations of cephalanxes also arise. This lack of soundness makes
the analysis of these structures less clear than those considered in this paper.
One also uses (0, 1 , 1 + 1)-iterability of pseudo-premice to prove that they
satisfy the ISC. It seems that one might get around this by avoiding pseudopremice entirely (in the proof of 5.16), using bicephali and cephalanxes instead.
Extra difficulties also seem to arise here with superstrong premice.
References
[1] S. Jackson, R. Ketchersid, F. Schlutzenberg, and W. H. Woodin. Determinacy and j
onsson cardinals in L(R). The Journal of Symbolic Logic,
79(4):11841198, 2014.
[2] Ronald Jensen, Ernest Schimmerling, Ralf Schindler, and John Steel.
Stacking mice. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 74(1):315335, 2009.
[3] William Mitchell and John R. Steel. Fine structure and iteration trees.
Number 3 in Lectures Notes in Logic. Springer-Verlag, 1994.
[4] Ernest Schimmerling and John R. Steel. Fine structure for tame inner
models. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 61(2):621639, 1996.
[5] Farmer Schlutzenberg. The definability of E in self-iterable mice. To appear.
Arxiv: 1412.0085.
[6] Farmer Schlutzenberg. Reconstructing copying and condensation. To
appear. Available at https://sites.google.com/site/schlutzenberg/home1/research/papers-and-preprints.
[7] Farmer Schlutzenberg. Reconstructing resurrection.
[8] Farmer Schlutzenberg. A simplification of Mitchell-Steel fine structure.
[9] Farmer Schlutzenberg and Nam Trang. Scales in hybrid mice over R.
To appear. Available at https://sites.google.com/site/schlutzenberg/home1/research/papers-and-preprints.
[10] John R. Steel. Local K c constructions. The Journal of Symbolic Logic,
72(3):721737, 2007.
[11] John R. Steel. An outline of inner model theory. In Matthew Foreman and
Akihiro Kanamori, editors, Handbook of set theory, volume 3, chapter 19.
Springer, first edition, 2010.
[12] Martin Zeman. Inner models and large cardinals. De Gruyter, 2001.
68