7

1
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2


On equivalence relations second order denable over
H()
Saharon Shelah

Pauli V ais anen

October 6, 2003
Abstract
Let be an uncountable regular cardinal. Call an equivalence re-
lation on functions from into 2 second order denable over H()
if there exists a second order sentence and a parameter P H()
such that functions f and g from into 2 are equivalent i the struc-
ture H(), , P, f, g satises . The possible numbers of equivalence
classes of second order denable equivalence relations contains all the
nonzero cardinals at most
+
. Additionally, the possibilities are closed
under unions and products of at most cardinals. We prove that these
are the only restrictions: Assuming that GCH holds and is a cardinal
with

= , there exists a generic extension, where all the cardinals

are preserved, there are no new subsets of cardinality < , 2

= , and
for all cardinals , the number of equivalence classes of some second
order denable equivalence relation on functions from into 2 is i
is in , where is any prearranged subset of such that 0 ,
contains all the nonzero cardinals
+
, and is closed under unions
and products of at most cardinals.
1
1 Introduction
We deal with equivalence relations which are second order denable over
H(), where is an uncountable regular cardinal. We show that it is possible

Research supported by the United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation. Pub-

lication 719.

The research was partially supported by Academy of Finland grant 40734

1
2000 Mathematics Subject Classication: primary 03E35; secondary 03C55, 03C75.
Key words: second order denable equivalence relations, number of models, innitary
logic.
1
7
1
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2


to have a generic extension, where the numbers of equivalence classes of such
equivalence relations are in a prearranged set. This is applied to the problem
of the possible numbers of strongly equivalent non-isomorphic models of
weakly compact cardinality in [SV]. Namely, for a weakly compact cardinal
, there exists a model of cardinality with strongly equivalent non-
isomorphic models if, and only if, there exists an equivalence relation which
is
1
1
-denable over H() and it has equivalence classes (for an explanation
of
1
1
see Denition 3.1). The paper [SV] can be read independently of this
paper, if the reader accepts the present conclusion on faith. For a history
and other applications of this type of equivalence relations see [Sheb, Shea].
For every nonzero cardinals or = 2

, there is an equivalence relation

1
1
-denable over H() with equivalence classes. There is also a
1
1
-
equivalence relation having
+
classes (Lemma 3.2). Furthermore, by a
simple coding, the possible numbers of equivalence classes of
1
1
-equivalence
relations are closed under unions of length and products of length < .
In other words, assuming that and
i
, i < , are cardinals such
that for each i < , there is a
1
1
-equivalence relation having
i
equivalence
classes, there exists a
1
1
-equivalence relation having

i<

i
equivalence
classes. Similarly, if < , there exists also a
1
1
-equivalence relation with
card(

i<

i
) equivalence classes (Lemma 3.4).
What are the possible numbers of equivalence classes between
+
and 2

?
The existence of a tree T H() with branches of length through it
implies that there is a
1
1
-equivalence relation having equivalence classes
(Lemma 3.2). Therefore, existence of a Kurepa tree of height with more
than
+
and less than 2

branches of length through it presents an ex-

ample of a
1
1
-equivalence relation with many equivalence classes, but not
the maximal number. On the other hand, in an ordinary Cohen extension
of L, in which 2

>
+
, there is no denable equivalence relation having
dierent equivalence classes when
+
< < 2

(a proof of this fact is in-

volved in the proof of the main theorem, see the comment in the beginning
of Subsection 4.4).
We show that, consistency wise, the closure properties mentioned are the
only restrictions concerning the possible numbers of equivalence classes of
second order denable equivalence relations (Theorem 1). Namely, the con-
clusion will be the following: Suppose satises
<
= and 2

=
+
. Let
>
+
be a cardinal with

= and be a xed sequence of cardinals

between
+
and . Let P denote the forcing adding, for every , a
Kurepa tree of height with branches of length through it. Then in
2
7
1
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2


the generic extension by P, there is an equivalence relation, which is second
order denable over H() with equivalence classes if, and only if, is
a nonzero cardinal in

, where

is the smallest set containing all the
nonzero cardinals and which is closed under union and product of
cardinals. Note that in this generic extension the possible numbers of equiv-
alence classes of second order denable equivalence relations are determined
by the
1
1
-denable equivalence relations.
In order to make this paper self contained, we introduce the standard way
to add a Kurepa tree and give some basic facts concerning that forcing
(Section 2). The essential points are the following. Firstly, if one adds several
new Kurepa trees, the addition of new trees does not produce new -branches
of the old trees. Secondly, permutations of the labels of the -branches
of the generic Kurepa trees, determine many dierent automorphisms of
the forcing itself. These kind of automorphisms can be used to copy two
dierent equivalence classes of a denable equivalence relation to several
dierent equivalence classes. In fact, this way it is possible to show that
in a Cohen extension of L, a denable equivalence relation has either at
most
+
equivalence classes, or the maximal number of equivalence classes,
namely 2

. The main dierence to the proof presented in Section 4 is that

the -lemma cannot be applied in the same straightforward manner as in
the standard Cohen case.
In Section 3 we briey sketch proofs for the basic facts that the possible
numbers of equivalence classes of
1
1
-equivalence relations contains all small
cardinals and the possible numbers are closed under small unions and prod-
ucts.
The main theorem is stated and proved in Section 4. The proof is divided
into several subsections. First in Subsection 4.1 we present a proof for the
crucial fact that a second order denable equivalence relation is absolute for
generic extensions by the introduced Kurepa tree forcing (Lemma 4.2).
The main ideas in the remaining three subsections are the following. We
x a second order denable equivalence relation
,R
and consider forcing
extensions by the partial order dened in Section 2. The forcing adds
dierent Kurepa trees. However, we may assume that the forcing name of
the parameter has cardinality , and thus, there are only trees which really
has eect on the number of classes of the xed equivalence relation. So
we restrict ourselves to the subforcing consisting of the addition of these
critical trees. (Note, in Lemma 4.3 we introduce a subforcing consisting
of addition of
+
trees, but right after that in Subsection 4.3, we dene
3
7
1
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2


isomorphism classes of names in order to concentrate only on generic
trees.) Then, as explained in Subsection 4.3, it follows from the assumptions
on the cardinal arithmetic that either 1) the xed equivalence relation has
classes, where is a union or a product of cardinals in the prearranged set

, or otherwise, 2) the number of equivalence classes really depends on
trees, not less than . The latter case is the most dicult and it is presented
in Subsection 4.4. There we notice that the xed equivalence relation must
have classes, where is a union of products of cardinals in

.
In Section 5 we present some remarks.
2 Adding Kurepa trees
Throughout of the paper we assume that is an uncountable regular cardinal
and
<
= . For sets X and Y we denote the set of all functions from X
into Y by
X
Y . For a cardinal , we let [X]

be the set of all subsets of X

having cardinality .
The following forcing is the standard way to add a Kurepa tree [Jec71,
Jec97].
Denition 2.1 Let be a cardinal . Dene a forcing P

as follows.
It consists of all pairs p =

T
p
, b
p

|
p
)
_
, where
for some < , T
p
is a subset of |

2 and < such that it
is of cardinality < and closed under restriction;

p
is a subset of having cardinality < and each b
p

is an -branch
trough T
p
when T
p
is ordered by the inclusion.
For all p, q P

, we dene that q p if
T
q
is an end-extension of T
p
;

p

q
;
for every
p
, b
q

is an extension of b
p

.
Fact 2.2
(a) P

is -closed and (assuming

<
= ) it satises
+
-chain condition.
4
7
1
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2


(b) Suppose G is a P

-generic set over V. In V[G], T

G
=

pG
T
p
is a tree
of height and each of its level has cardinality < .
Lemma 2.3 Let

Q be such that 1
P


Q is a -closed forcing notion.
Suppose G is a P

-generic set over V and H is Q-generic set over V[G].

Then, in V[G][H], the -branches trough the tree T
G
=

pG
T
p
are the
functions b
G

, < , having domain and satisfying for every < that

b
G

() = b
p

() for some p G with

p
and dom(b
p

).
Proof. The idea of the proof is the same as in [Jec71]. Suppose p
0
, q
0
) is a
condition in P

Q and

t is a name such that
p
0
, q
0
)
P

t is a -branch through

T
G
and

t ,

b
G

| < .
Since 1
P

Q
is a regular cardinal, it follows that every condition be-
low p
0
, q
0
) forces that for all X []
<
and < , there is > with

t() ,

b
G

() | X.
Let
0
be the height of T
p
0
. Choose conditions p
n
, q
n
) from P

Q and
ordinals
n
, 1 < n < , so that for every n < , the height of the tree T
p
n+1
is greater than
n
, p
n+1
, q
n+1
) p
n
, q
n
), and
(A) p
n+1
, q
n+1
)
(P

Q)

t(
n+1
) ,

b
G

(
n+1
) |
pn
.
Dene r to be the condition in P

satisfying T
r
=

n<
T
pn
,
r
=

n<

pn
,
and for every
r
, b
r

=

n(m)
b
pn

, where m is the smallest index with

pm
. Then T
r
is of height =

n<

n
. In order to restrict the
th
level of the generic tree, abbreviate the function

<
b
r

(),
r
, by f

,
and dene r

to be the condition in P

with T
r

= T
r
f

|
r
,

=
r
, and for every
r

and ,
b
r

() =
_
b
r

() if < ;
f

if = .
Now r

forces that the

th
level of the generic tree

T
G
consist of the elements
f

,
r

.
Since r

forces

Q to be -closed and q
n
| n < ) to be a decreasing sequence
of conditions, there is q

so that r

, q

) p
n
, q
n
) for every n < . Since
r

, q

) forces that

t() f

|
r

, there are
r

and a condition
5
7
1
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2


r

, q

) r

, q

) in P

Q forcing that

t() = f

. However, if n is the
smallest index with
pn
, then r

, q

) forces that

t(
n+1
) = f

n+1
= b
r

(
n+1
) = b
r

(
n+1
) =

b
G

(
n+1
),
contrary to (A). 2.3
Denition 2.4 Suppose >
+
is a cardinal with

= . Let =

|
< ) be a xed sequence of cardinals such that <

and for every

| < , the set < |

= has cardinality . We
dene P( ) to be the product of P

forcings:
P( ) is the set of all functions p such that dom(p) is a subset of with
cardinality < , and for every dom(p), p() is a condition in P

;
the order of P( ) is dened coordinate wise, i.e., for p, q P( ), q p
if dom(p) dom(q) and for every dom(p), q() p().
The weakest condition in P( ) is the empty function, denoted by 1. For each
p P( ) and dom(p), we let the condition p() be the pair T
p

, b
p
,
|

p

)). From now on,

p
denotes the set , ) | dom(p) and

.
Fact 2.5
(a) The forcing P( ) is -closed and it has
+
-c.c..
(b) Suppose G is a P( )-generic set over V. In V[G], for every < , the
-branches through the tree T
G

=

pG
T
p

are b
G
,
| <

, where
each b
G
,
is the function
_
b
p
,
| p G, dom(p) and
p

.
Proof. (b) Since 1
P( (+1))
P( ( ( + 1))) is -closed, the claim
follows from Lemma 2.3.
Denition 2.6 For all P( )-names , dene that

=
_

p
| condition p appears in .
Let

1st
denote the set | , )

and

denote the set | , )

.
6
7
1
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2


Denition 2.7 We denote by Sqs( ) the set of all sequences z = z

|
Z) such that Z and for each Z, z

is a subset of

of cardinality
at least . In order to keep our notation coherent, let
z
be a shorthand for
the set

Z
z

. For every z Sqs( ) dene

P( z) =
_
p P( ) |
p

z
_
.
A forcing Q is a complete subforcing of P if every maximal antichain in Q
is also a maximal antichain in P (a set X of conditions is an antichain in Y
if all p ,= q in X are incompatible, i.e., there is no r Y with r p, q). The
following basic facts are needed later on.
Fact 2.8
(a) Every subforcing P( z) with z Sqs( ) is a complete subforcing of P( ).
(b) For every p P( ), the restriction q P( ) | q p is a forcing
notion which is equivalent to P( ).
The following two denitions will be our main tools. Namely, every per-
mutation of the indices of the labels of the branches in the generic trees
added by P( ) determines an automorphism of P( ). This means that for
every condition p in P( ) and P( )-name there are many isomorphic
copies of p and inside P( ). Naturally, the copies (p) and () of p and
, respectively, satises all the same formulas (see (2.1) below).
Denition 2.9 We dene Mps( ) to be the set of all mappings which
can be dened as follows. The domain of is
y
for some y = y

| Y )
in Sqs( ). In addition, there exists an injective function
1st
from Y into
and injective functions

from y

into

, for all Y , such that for all

, ) dom(),
, ) =
1st
(),

()).
For every z Sqs( ), Mps( z) is the collection
_
Mps( ) | dom()

z
_
.
Denition 2.10 For every p P( ) and Mps( ) with
p
dom(),
we let (p) denote the condition q in P( ) for which
dom(q) =
1st
[dom(p)],
for every dom(q), T
q

= T
p

and
q

[
p

], where = (
1st
)
1
();
7
7
1
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2


for every , )
q
, b
q
,
= b
p
,
, where , ) =
1
, ).
When is a P( z)-name and a mapping in Mps( ) with

dom(),
() denotes the P( z)-name which is result of recursively replacing every
condition p in with (p), i.e.,
() = (), (p)) | , p) .
Analogously, for sequences z = z

| Z) with
z
dom(), we let ( z)
denote the sequence z

| Z

), where Z

=
1st
[Z] and for each Z

,
z

[z

] with = (
1st
)
1
().
Fact 2.11 For every subforcing P( z) and Mps( z) with dom() =
z
,
the mapping p (p) is an isomorphism between P( z) and P(( z)).
Suppose P( z) is a subforcing of P( ). The isomorphism determined by some
Mps( z) is denoted by . It follows that if dom() =
z
, p P( z),
(x
1
, . . . , x
n
) with n < is a formula, and
1
, . . . ,
n
are P( z)-names then
(2.1) p
P( z)
(
1
, . . . ,
n
) i (p)
P(( z))
( (
1
), . . . , (
n
)).
Particularly, a mapping in Mps( z) determines an automorphism of P( z)
when
1st
is a permutation of Z and each

is a bijection from z

onto
z

1st
()
.
3 Basic facts on
1
1
-equivalence relations
Recall that we assume to be an uncountable regular cardinal. We let H()
denote the set of all sets having transitive closure of cardinality < .
Denition 3.1 We say that denes an equivalence relation
,R
on

2
with a parameter R H() when
is a second order sentence in the vocabulary consisting of , one
unary relation symbol S
0
, and binary relation symbols S
1
and S
2
;
the following denition gives an equivalence relation on

2: for all
f, g

2
f
,R
g i H(), , R, f, g) [= ,
where R, f, and g are the interpretations of the symbols S
0
, S
1
, and
S
2
respectively.
8
7
1
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2


An equivalence relation is
1
1
-denable, if denes it and is of the form
X(S
0
, S
1
, S
2
, X), where X is the only second order variable appearing in
.
We abbreviate card
_
f/
,R
| f

2
_
by No(
,R
).
Lemma 3.2
(a) For every nonzero cardinal , 2

, there exists a
1
1
-equivalence
relation
,R
on

2 with No(
,R
) = .
(b) There exists a
1
1
-equivalence relation
,R
on

2 with No(
,R
) =
+
.
(c) If T is a tree with card(T) = , then there exists a
1
1
-equivalence rela-
tion
,R
on

2 with No(
,R
) = card(Br

(T)) + 1.
Proof. Let be a xed denable bijection from onto . For a binary
relation R, we denote the set () | for some < , , 1) R by (R).
(a) In the cases , the parameter can code a list of nonequiv-
alent functions. In the case No(
,R
) = 2

all the functions in

2 can be
nonequivalent.
(b) A sentence (R
1
, R
2
, R
3
) saying
(both (R
1
) and (R
2
) are well-orderings of , and (R
3
) is
an isomorphism between them) or (neither (R
1
) nor (R
2
) is a
well-ordering of )
denes a
1
1
-equivalence relation as wanted.
(c) We may assume, without loss of generality, that the elements of T are
ordinals below . Using T, <) as a parameter, let a sentence (R
0
, R
1
, R
2
)
say that
((R
1
) = (R
2
) is a -branch in R
0
) or (neither (R
1
) nor (R
2
)
is a -branch in R
0
).
Then R
2
(R
0
, R
1
, R
2
) denes a
1
1
-equivalence relation as wanted.
9
7
1
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2


Conclusion 3.3 Let G be a P( )-generic set over V. Then in V[G], for
every nonzero cardinal in ,
+
, 2

| < , there exists a

1
1
-equivalence relation
,R
with No(
,R
) = .
Proof. The claim follows from Fact 2.5 together with Lemma 3.2.
In the next section we shall need the following properties of
1
1
-equivalence
relations.
Lemma 3.4 Suppose and
i
, i < , are nonzero cardinals such that

i
denes a
1
1
-equivalence relation on

2 with the parameter R
i
and it has

i
equivalence classes.
(a) There exists a
1
1
-equivalence relation
,R
on

2 with No(
,R
) =

i<

i
.
(b) There exists a
1
1
-equivalence relation
,R
on

2 with No(
,R
) =
card(

i<

i
).
Proof. Both of the claims are simple corollaries of the fact that there are a
parameter R H() and a formula (x) such that for all f, g, h

2
H(), , R, f, g, h) [= (i)
if, and only if,
H(), , R[i], f[i], g[i], h[i]) [=
i
,
where R[i], f[i], g[i], and h[i] are the i
th
parts of R, f, g, and h respectively,
in some denable coding. Furthermore R[i] = R
i
holds for every i < .
4 Possible numbers of equivalence classes
Our goal is to show the consistency of the claim: the closure under unions
and products in Lemma 3.4 are the only restrictions on the possible numbers
of equivalence classes of equivalence relations on 2

, which are second order

denable over H().
The following notation is used in the theorem.
Denition 4.1 Suppose =

| < ) is a sequence of cardinals.

Dene

to be the smallest set of cardinals satisfying that
10
7
1
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2


every nonzero cardinal
+
is in

;

| <

;
if and
i
, i < , are cardinals in

, then both

i<

i
and
card(

i<

i
) are in

.
Theorem 1 Suppose that
is an uncountable cardinal with
<
= and 2

=
+
;
>
+
is a cardinal with

= ;
=

| < ) and P( ) are as in Denition 2.4;

is as in Denition 4.1;
for every

with >
+
and < , the inequality

+
holds.
Then for every P( )-generic set G, the extension V[G] satises that all car-
dinals and conalities are preserved, there are no new sets of cardinality
< , 2

= and for all cardinals , the following conditions are equivalent:

(A)

;
(B) there is a sentence dening a
1
1
-equivalence relation
R,
on

2 with
a parameter R H() such that the number of equivalence classes of

R,
is ;
(C) there is a second order sentence dening over H() an equivalence
relation
,R
on

2 with a parameter R such that the number of equiv-
alence classes of
,R
is .
Remark. Because P( ) does not add new subsets of cardinality < , the
denition of

yields the same sets in the ground model and in the generic
extension.
The rest of this section is devoted to the proof of this theorem. Because of
Conclusion 3.3 and Lemma 3.4 it remains to show that if

R is a P( )-name
for a subset of H() and is a second order sentence such that in every
generic extension, denes over H() an equivalence relation
,R
on 2

,
then
1
P( )
No(
,

R
)

.
11
7
1
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2


By Fact 2.8(b), we may assume that

R is chosen so that for xed cardinal
the following holds:
(4.1) 1
P( )
No(
,

R
) = .
Without loss of generality the name

R has cardinality . Of course we may
assume that >
+
, otherwise the claim follows from Lemma 3.2.
We prove that has the desired form, i.e., it is in

. The rst thing to
show is that No(
,

R
) depends only on the coordinates appearing in

R
with

in the following way: there exists a small subforcing P( z)

of P( ) (dom( z) has cardinality
+
and the union of the sets in ran( z) has
cardinality ) so that and

R yields an equivalence relation with classes
already in V
P( z)
. This will be an application of Lemma 4.2, which provides
the fact that the truth of an second order sentence in H() is absolute
between a middle extension V
P( y)
and the full extension V
P( )
. The formal
details are presented in Subsection 4.1.
How the small subforcing is applied? We are going to x a sequence z as
in Lemma 4.3 and a list

| < ) of P( z)-names for representatives

of dierent
,

R
classes. From the choice of the small z it follows that the
number of nonisomorphic names in the xed list is at most
+
. Here an
isomorphism class of

, roughly speaking, consist of all names

which
are images of

under some Mps( z) xing

R. Because >
+
, must
be the supremum of cardinalities of the isomorphism classes of the names

, < . Hence to study what form has, it suces to look at what

are the cardinalities of the isomorphism classes of

s. In the beginning of
Subsection 4.2 this is explained more formally.
So we x a name

from the list of representatives and consider the cardi-

nality of the isomorphism class of this name. The study is divided into two
parts presented in Subsection 4.3 and Subsection 4.4. Firstly, we assume
that the number of so called critical indices is strictly less than . From the
assumption that

+
holds for every

+
and < , it follows
that the cardinality of the isomorphism class of

is a small product or a
small union of cardinals in

.
Secondly, we assume that the number of critical indices is . Our assumption
on cardinal arithmetic in the ground model yields that all the products of
less than critical cardinals has smaller cardinality than the cardinality
of the isomorphism class under consideration. (Note that by the assumption

<
= , the number of such products is .) So the cardinality of the xed
isomorphism class is at least the supremum of all this type of products. On
12
7
1
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2


the other hand, the cardinality of the isomorphism class cannot exceed this
union. A reason for this is that if the cardinality of the isomorphism class
is even larger than the supremum of all small products, then there are, by
-lemma, coherent names for nonequivalent functions in the isomorphism
class (Lemma 4.9). Roughly speaking, such coherent names can be copied
by automorphisms of P( z) (xing the name for a parameter). This yields
more than names for nonequivalent functions. To prove all the details, we
introduce some technical tools in the beginning of Subsection 4.4.
4.1 Choice of a small subforcing
In this subsection we prove that there is a subforcing P( z) of P( ) such that
the cardinality of P( z) is , there are at most
+
coordinates in P( z), and
already P( z) produces dierent equivalent classes of
,

R
.
As mentioned above, the rst lemma will play a central role in the proof of
the main lemma of this subsection, Lemma 4.3.
For a regular cardinal , let Col(
+
, ) denote the standard
+
-closed forc-
ing notion collapsing the cardinality of to
+
.
Lemma 4.2
2
Suppose z Sqs( ) is such that dom( z) and each element in
ran( z) have cardinality
+
.
(a) Assume that y z, , q P( y), and
1
, . . . ,
n
are P( y)-names
with n < and q
P( y)

1
, . . . ,
n
H(). Then for all Col(
+
, )-
generic lters K and for all second order sentences in vocabulary
, R
1
, . . . , R
n
:
_
q
P( y)
H(), ,
1
, . . . ,
n
) [=
_
V
i
_
q
P( y)
H(), ,
1
, . . . ,
n
) [=
_
V[K]
.
(b) Suppose is a P( z)-name, 1
P( z)
H(), is a mapping in Mps( )
such that card() , ran()
z
, and is identity on dom()

.
Let p be a condition in P( ) and a P( )-name such that p
P( )

2
The authors wish to thank the anonymous referee for pointing out that instead of

1
1
-denable equivalence relations one can consider arbitrary second order denable equiv-
alence relations.
13
7
1
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2


H() (w.l.o.g. both and have cardinality ). Then there exists
in Mps( ) of cardinality extending such that the domain of
contains
p

, ran()
z
, is identity on

, and for all

second order sentences in vocabulary , R
1
, R
2
:
p
P( )
H(), , , ) [=
i
(p)
P( z)
H(), , , ()) [= .
(c) For every P( )-generic set H over V, G = H P( z) is P( z)-generic set
over V, V[G] V[H], and for all (R H())
V
, f, g (

2)
V[G]
, and
second order sentences in vocabulary , R
1
, R
2
, R
3
:
_
H(), , R, f, g) [=
_
V[G]
i
_
H(), , R, f, g) [=
_
V[H]
.
Proof. (a) Recall that we assume
<
= and hence P( y) has
+
-c.c. in
V. Since Col(
+
, ) is
+
-closed, cardinals
+
are preserved, (P( y))
V
=
(P( y))
V[K]
, and (H(
+
))
V[K]
= (H(
+
))
V
. Moreover,
<
= holds in
V[K], and hence P( y) has
+
-c.c. in V[K] too.
For any P( y)-name and q P( y), if q
P( y)
H(), then there exists
a nice P( y)-name such that card() and q
P( y)
= . So for any
P( y)-name in V[K] and q P( y) with q
P( y)
H(), there exists a
P( y)-name in V with q
P( y)
= .
By the preservation of
+
-c.c., for any A P( y): A is an antichain in V i A
is an antichain in V[K]. But the denition of q
P( y)
H(), ,
1
, . . . ,
n
) [=
depends only on possible antichains of P( y) and possible nice names for
subsets of H(). Hence the claim follows from the fact that V and V[K]
have the same antichains and the same nice names for subsets of H().
(b) Suppose that (p
P( )
H(), , , ) [= )
V
holds. By (a), (p
P( )
H(), , , ) [= )
V[K]
holds. Inside the generic extension V[K] there
exists a mapping in Mps( ) extending such that
1st
is a bijection from
dom( ) = into dom( z) which is identity on

1st
. Moreover, for every
dom( z),

is a bijection from

into z

which is identity on

(all
the cardinals between
+
and
+
are collapsed to
+
). Then determines
an isomorphism between P( ) and P( z). Therefore, ((p)
P( z)
H(),
14
7
1
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2


, (), ()) [= )
V[K]
holds. Choose so that card() and
p

dom(). Note that is in V. Now ((p)

P( z)
H(), , , ()) [=
)
V[K]
holds, and by (a), ((p)
P( )
H(), , , ()) [= )
V
holds.
The other direction follows in the same manner from (a).
(c) Let

R,

f, and g be P( z)-names for R, f, and g respectively.
If p G is a condition forcing the left hand side to be true, then p is in H
and p forces the right hand side to be true, since in (b) one may choose
to be identity on
p

f

g
.
Suppose p H is a condition forcing the right hand side to be true. By (b)
there is a condition q P( z) forcing the left hand side to be true and q is
determined by a map in Mps( ) which is identity on

f

g
. The
only small problem is that we should have q G. However, the set of qs
like that is predense below p (i.e. each r p is compatible with some q like
that). The reason for this is that for any r P( ) with r p, r and (r)
are compatible, provided that for every , )
r
, either (, ) = , ) or
(, ) ,
r
. So given arbitrary r p, both and in (b) can be chosen
so that r and (r) are compatible. Therefore there must be some r p and
xing

R,

f, and g such that (r) H. Hence (r) is in G. 4.2
Remark. Even though the use of Col(
+
, ) provided an easy proof of the
previous lemma, the same idea cannot be applied in the proof of the next
lemma: might be a singular cardinal of conality
0
and hence Col(, )
is not even
1
-closed.
Lemma 4.3 Recall that we assume >
+
and (4.1) on page 12 holds,
i.e.,
1
P( )
No(
,

R
) = .
Suppose P( z) is a subforcing of P( ) such that
z = z

| Z);
Z is a subset of satisfying card(Z) =
+
and

R
1st
Z;
for each

R
1st
, z

if

, and otherwise, z

_
y [

+
|

y
_
.
Z

R
1st
is of cardinality
+
(follows from the choice of

R);
15
7
1
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2


for every Z

R
1st
,

> and z

is some set in [

+
.
Then 1
P( z)
No(
,

R
) = .
Proof. Let

T
z
be a P( z)-name for the set of all functions from into 2, i.e.,
it satises that 1
P( z)

T
z
=

2. We prove that
(A) 1
P( )
for every f

2 there is g

T
z
with f
,

R
g.
This suces since then
1
P( )
card(

T
z
/
,

R
) card(

2/
,

R
) = No(
,

R
) = ,
and by Lemma 4.2, we can conclude
1
P( z)
No(
,

R
) = card(

T
z
/
,

R
) = .
Now assume, contrary to (A), that (4.1) on page 12 holds and there are a
condition p in P( ) together with a P( )-name for a function from into
2 such that
(B) p
P( )
for all g

T
z
, ,
,

R
g .
Without loss of generality, the name has of cardinality . By Lemma 4.2,
and since each cardinal in is listed times, we may choose p and the name
so that the coordinates appearing in adds a tree with the same number
of -branches as some coordinate in dom( z) does, i.e., for every

1st
,
there is dom( z) with

. This property will be essential in the

choice of automorphisms.
Our strategy will be the following.
(i) We dene a name

so that 1
P( )

T
z
. Hence, by applying (B),
we get
p
P( )
,
,

.
(ii) We dene P( )-names

| <
+
) for functions from into 2, and
conditions q

| <
+
) in P( ).
(iii) For every <

<
+
we dene a mapping
,

in Mps( ) such that

determines an automorphism
,

of P( ) with the following

properties:
,

(

R) =

R,
,

(p) = q

,
,

() =

, and
,

) =

. Hence it follows from (i) that

q

P( )

,
,

.
16
7
1
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2


(iv) Finally, we x a P( )-generic set G over V and, by applying a stan-
dard density argument, we show that for some B [
+
]

+
, all the
conditions q

, B, are in the generic set G. It follows from (iii)

that in V[G], No(
,R
)
+
contrary to (4.1) on page 12.
As can be guessed from the demands on the sequence z, there are three
dierent kind of indices which we have to deal with:

R
1st
|

>
=

R
1st
|

> ;

R
1st
.
Remark. Of course we would like to have that q

=
,

(p) = p for every

<

<
+
. Unfortunately, that is not possible since it might be the case
that for some
>
,

, z

(and we really need later the restriction

card(z

) < ).
(i) We dene the name

to be () for a mapping in Mps( ) which

satises the following conditions:
dom() =

;
ran()
z
;
for every dom(
1st
),
(
1st
())
=

R
is identity (implying
1st
(

>
) is identity);
for every dom(
1st
)

is identity;
for every dom(
1st
)
>
and dom(

() ,
p

;
for every dom(
1st
)

,
1st
() , dom(p)

R
1st

1st
and

is
some injective function having range z

.
It is possible to fulll these conditions by the choice of , because of the
cardinality demands on z, and since
p

has cardinality . Since

1
P( )


2 and can be extended so that the extension determines
17
7
1
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2


an automorphism of P( ), we have that 1
P( )

2. However,

is a
P( z)-name, so 1
P( )

T
z
holds, too.
(ii) For every <
+
, we dene a mapping

Mps( ) so that the desired

name

is

() and the condition q

is

(p). Since we do NOT demand

that ran(

)
z
, when <
+
, it is possible to choose

so that all the

following demands are fullled:
dom(

) =

R
is identity;
for every dom(

1st
),
(

1st
())
=

;
for every dom(

1st
) (

),

is identity;
for all dom(

1st
)
>
, the sets (

) and ran(

, for all <

+
, are pairwise disjoint;
the sets (

R
1st

1st

1st
dom(p)) and ran(

1st
)

R
1st
, for all
<
+
, are pairwise disjoint.
(iii) Fix indices <

<
+
. Consider the set of pairs x, y) satisfying that
x dom(

) and

(x) = y, or
there is z dom() =

such that (z) = x and

(z) = y.
Because of the conditions given above, we have that
for all dom(

1st
) = dom(

1st
),

1st
() =

1st
() i
1st
() = ;
for all , ) dom(

) = dom(

),

() =

() i

() = ;
for all ,= dom(

1st
),

() ,=

();
for all , ) ,= , ) dom(

),

() ,=

().
18
7
1
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2


Hence the set of pairs we considered is the following well-dened injective
function from Mps( ):
=

_
(

dom()) ()
1
_
.
We let the mapping
,

be any extension of satisfying that

,

Mps( ),
dom(
,

1st
) = , and for each < , dom(
,

) =

. It follows that

,

(

R) = (

R) =

(

R) =

(

R) =

R;

,

(p) =

(p) = q

(note, that ran() (

p

R
) = );

,

() =

() =

(note, that ran() (

R
) = );

,

) =

1
(

)
_
=

() =

(remember, that () =

).
(iv) Our demands on the mappings

, <
+
, ensure that for each , )

p
, if , )
(q

)
then b
(q

)
,
= b
p
,
. Therefore, p and q

are compatible
conditions. Moreover, for every <
+
, the set
D

= r P( ) | for some > , r q

is a dense set below the condition p (which means that for every s p there
is r s with r D

). Since p G, D

G is nonempty for every <

+
.
Consequently, the set B = <
+
| q

G must be conal in
+
. So B
has cardinality
+
. 4.3
4.2 Isomorphism classes of names
First of all we x z so that the subforcing P( z) of P( ) satises the assump-
tions of Lemma 4.3. Secondly we x P( z)-names

| < ) for functions

from into 2 so that for all ,= < ,
(4.2) 1
P( z)

,
,

.
Since P( z) has
+
-c.c., we may assume that each of the names

has car-
dinality .
Denition 4.4 For every < we x an enumeration

i
,

i
) | i < )
of

without repetition. Names

and

are said to be isomorphic,

written

, if the following conditions are met:

19
7
1
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2


for every i < ,

i
=

i
;
for every i < and =

i
=

i
, if

> then also

i
=

i
;
for all , )

R
and i < ,

i
,

i
) = , ) i

i
,

i
) = , ).
(

) =

when Mps( z) is the mapping with dom() =

and

i
,

i
) =

i
,

i
) for each i < .
For every < we denote the set < |

by

. Now by the
choice of P( z), and the assumptions
<
= and 2

=
+
, the number of
nonisomorphic names in

| < is
+
, i.e., the cardinality of the
family

| < is at most
+
.
Let be a subset of such that card()
+
and

| is a set
of representatives of the isomorphism classes. Since >
+
, the following
equation holds:
(4.3) =
_

card(

).
Dene the set of all small cardinals to be
SC(

R) =

R
1st
and

.
Note that this set might be empty. Anyway, we know that
(4.4) max
++
, supSC(

R).
To prove that is a cardinal in

we shall show that for every ,
the cardinality of

is strictly smaller than the lower bound given in (4.4)

above, or otherwise, we can nd a subset I

of so that card(

) has one
of the following form: either card(I

) < and
(4.5) card(

)
_
_
iI

i
_

_

iI

i
_
(Subsection 4.3),
or else, card(I

) = and
(4.6) card(

) =
_
K[I

]
<
card
_

iK

i
_
(Subsection 4.4) .
This suces, since we may ensure that for every and for each i I

,
the cardinal

i
is in SC(

R). This means that only those small cardinals are
20
7
1
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2


used whose coordinates appear in the name

R. It follows that there occurs
at most dierent cardinals in the union (4.3). Hence, for some sequence
X
k
| k < ) of sets in [SC(

R)]
<
,
=
_
k<
card
_

X
k

_


.
Remark. From our assumption that for every (


++
) and <
, the inequality

+
holds, it follows that is either supSC(

R) or
card
_

X

_
for some subset X of SC(

R) with card(X) < .
4.3 Case 1: The parameter depends on less than coordi-
nates
For the rest of the proof, let

be a xed ordinal so that the number of

names in

| < , which are isomorphic to the representative

, is
greater or equal to the lower bound given in (4.4) on the preceding page,
i.e.,

and card(

) is at least max
++
, supSC(

R).
To simplify our notation, let

i
| i < ) and

i
| i < ) denote
the sequences

and

respectively, and abbreviate

by

.
Dene the set of all critical indices of the isomorphism class of

to be
(4.7) J

= i < |

i
and

i
,

i
) ,

R
.
Note that for every

, the equations

and

( J

) =

(J

) hold. Note also, that by the choice of P( z), J

i < | z

i
=

i
i < |

R
1st
. Thus

i
| i J

SC(

R) holds, too.
The set J

must be nonempty, since otherwise there are ,= in

such
that

is the same name as

, contrary to the choice that

and

are
names for nonequivalent functions ((4.2) on page 19). For a similar reason
card
_
iJ

i
_
card(

) holds.
Now suppose that already some subset K of J

having cardinality <

satises the following inequality:
card
_

iK

i
_
card(

).
21
7
1
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2


If card(

) = card(

iK

i
) we can dene I

to be K. Otherwise, our
assumption on the cardinal arithmetic gives
card
_

iK

i
_
=
_
_
iK

i
_
+
> card(

).
By the choice of

, card(

) supSC(

R)

iK

i
. Hence card(

) =

iK

i
and again we can choose I

to be K.
It follows, that when card(J

) < we can nd I

satisfying (4.5) on
page 20.
4.4 Case 2: The parameter depends on coordinates
Remark. If is such that each

is
+
or , we have so far proved that
must be either
+
or = .
For the rest of the proof we assume that the set J

, given in (4.7) on the

page before, has cardinality and for every K [J

]
<
, card
_
iK

i
_
<
card(

). So

card(

) holds, where

=
_
K[J

]
<
card
_

iK

i
_
.
We prove that card(

holds too, and thus, (4.6) on page 20 is

fullled. The intuition behind the forthcoming technical tools is simple
and explained in the beginning of this section (right before Subsection 4.1).
As mentioned in that introduction, we need to dene coherent names.
But it is easier to look at list of indices than the real names, and dene
that a neat pair of lists produces coherent names (Denition 4.5). The
fact that coherent names can be copied copied by automorphisms of P( z)
is presented in Lemma 4.6.
Denition 4.5 Dene c

to be the set of all sequences =

i
| i < )
such that
for each i J

,
i

i
,
for each i J

,
i
=

i
, and
for every i < j < ,

i
,
i
) ,=

j
,
j
).
22
7
1
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2


Again, to simplify our notation, we write (

) for the sequence

i
(
i
) |
i < ) when

is in c

and in Mps( z) satises that

i
,
i
) | i <
dom(),
Every sequence in c

determines a P( z)-name

for a function from
into 2. Namely, we dene

to be the name (

) where is the mapping

in Mps( z) satisfying that dom() =

i
,

i
) | i < and (

) = .
A pair

, ) of sequences in c

is called a neat pair if for all i < j < ,

i
,
i
) ,=

j
,
j
).
Denote the set i J

|
i
=
i
, for

, c

, by A(

, ).
The sequence

is in c

when

. Also

is the name

for every

. In fact,

| c

is the collection of all the P( z)-names which

are isomorphic to the xed representative

.
Lemma 4.6 Suppose

1
,

2
,
1
,
2
c

are such that both

1
,
1
) and

2
,
2
) are neat, and moreover, A(

1
,
1
) = A(

2
,
2
) holds. Then there is an
automorphism of P( z) such that (

R) =

R, (

1 ) =

2 and (

1) =

2.
Hence for every p P( z),
p
P( z)

1
,

R


1 i (p)
P( z)

2
,

R


2.
Proof. There is a mapping in Mps( z) such that (

1
) =

2
and (
1
) =
2
,
because the sequences in c

are without repetition, both of the pairs are

neat, and the equation A(

1
,
1
) = A(

2
,
2
) holds. Furthermore, can be
chosen so that

R
is identity and each

i
is a permutation of z

i
. Hence
determines an automorphism as wanted.
For technical reasons we dene
/

=
_
I | there are ,=

such that

) is neat and I A(

)
_
.
The next lemma explains why we closed the set /

under subsets: all the

names

, are forced to be nonequivalent, and moreover, all those

names are forced to be nonequivalent, which are determined by a neat pair
of sequences agreeing in a smaller set than some pair of the xed sequences

.
23
7
1
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2


Lemma 4.7 For all

, c

, if

, ) is neat and A(

, ) is in /

, then
1
P( z)

,
,

R


.
Proof. First we x ,=

and I such that

) is neat and I =
A(

, ) A(

). Let

be a sequence in c

which satises that

I =

I and for all i J

I,

i
,

j
| j < . Then the pair

) is neat
and A(

) = I. We want to show that 1

P( z)

,
,

, because then
it follows from Lemma 4.6 that 1
P( z)

,
,

R


.
Suppose, contrary to this claim, that p P( z) satises
p
P( z)

.
Let J denote the set A(

) and choose a sequence

from c

so that

J =

J and for all i J

J,

i
,
p

j
| j <

j
| j < .
Then the pair

) is neat and A(

) = J. By the choice of the names

and

, i.e., by (4.2) on page 19, 1

P( z)

,
,R

. Once more, it
follows from Lemma 4.6 that
1
P( z)

,
,R


.
Choose from Mps( z) so that (

R) =

R, (

) =

, (

) =

,
_
[
p
]

p
_
is identity, and determines an automorphism of P( z). This is
possible by the choice of the sequence

. Since A(

) = A(

) and

) is a neat pair, it follows from Lemma 4.6 that

(p)
P( z)

R


.
Now there is q P( z) satisfying q p and q (p). Since
,

R
is a name
for an equivalence relation, q
P( z)

R


, a contradiction.
Next we want to show that there is always a small set of indices outside of
/

.
Lemma 4.8 When J

has cardinality there are p P( z) and a neat pair

, ) of sequences in c

satisfying that
A(

, ) [J

]
<
and p
P( z)

R


.
24
7
1
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2


Proof. First of all, for every i J

and
i
2 we x an ordinal

from

i
so that for all i, j J

,
i
2, and
j
2,

i i = j
and = . Fix also a coordinate < so that

> and , Z ( is
outside of P( z)). Suppose G is a P

-generic set over V. For any function

u (

2)
V[G]
, let

u
denote the following sequence:

u
=
u
i
| i < ),

u
i
=
ui
if i J

, and
u
i
=

i
otherwise. Then each of the sequences

u
is
in (c

)
V[G]
. Moreover,

u
,

v
) is a neat pair of for all u and v in (

2)
V[G]
.
Let H be a P( z)-generic set over V[G]. In V[G], there are at least

dierent
functions from into 2. By the assumption (4.1) on page 12 and Lemma 4.2,
there are only equivalence classes of
,R
in V[G][H]. It follows, that for
some p H and u ,= v (

2)
V[G]
the following holds in V[G],
p
P( z)

u
,

v .
By the denition of the ordinals

, we have that A(

u
,

v
) = i J

|
ui = vi [J

]
<
, and hence A(

u
,

v
) is in V.
Now, in V, we can x a neat pair
1
,
2
) of sequences in c

such that
A(
1
,
2
) = A(

u
,

v
). Let (Mps( z))
V[G]
be such that it determines,
in V[G], an automorphism of P( z) satisfying (

R) =

R, (

u
) =
1
, and
(

v
) =
2
. For such a in V[G], we have that (p)
P( z)


1
,

R


2. Note,
that the condition q = (p) is in V. From the equivalence of the forcings
P

P( z) and P( z) P

, together with Lemma 4.2, it follows that already

in V,
q
P( z)


1
,

R


2.

Finally, we claim that card(

) =

, and thus we can satisfy (4.6) on

page 20. Suppose, contrary to this claim, that card(

) >

. In the lemma
below, we show that then all the subsets of J

of cardinality < are in /

.
It follows from Lemma 4.7, that for all

, c

, if

, ) is neat and A(

, )
is of cardinality < , then 1
P( z)

,
,

R


. By Lemma 4.8, this leads to
a contradiction. So it remains to prove the following last lemma.
Lemma 4.9 If card(

) >

then [J

]
<
/

.
Proof. Fix a set K from [J

]
<
. Since
card(

) >

card
_

iK

i
_
2

,
25
7
1
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2


there is X
1

of cardinality (2

)
+
such that for all ,= X
1
, K
A(

). By -lemma one can nd X

2
[X
1
]
(2

)
+
such that for all ,=
X
2
, the intersection

i
| i <

i
| i < is some xed set
. There are also I and X
3
[X
2
]
(2

)
+
such that for all X
3
,
i < |

i
= I. Hence there is ,= X
3
with

I =

I and

i
| i I

i
| i I = , i.e.,

) forms a neat pair with

K I = A(

). 4.9
5 Remarks
The following facts are also useful to know, when applying the theorem
proved. Write Fn(, 2, ) for the ordinary Cohen-forcing which adds a
generic subset of , i.e., the forcing
| is a partial function from into 2 and card() <
ordered by reverse inclusion.
Fact 5.1
(a) There is a dense subset Q Fn(, 2, ) and a dense embedding of Q
into P

(where P

is the forcing adding a tree with branches through

it, see Denition 2.1).
(b) Every subforcing P( z) of P( ) is equivalent to Fn(, 2, ) provided that
the length of z is at most and each z

has cardinality .
(c) The forcing P( ) is locally Cohen, i.e., every subset Q of P( ) of
size is included in a complete subforcing Q

of P( ) so that Q

is
equivalent to Fn(, 2, ).
(d) Assume that is a weakly compact cardinal, and V is such that re-
mains weakly compact after forcing with Fn(, 2, ). Then every locally
Cohen forcing preserves weakly compactness of .
Note, that if is a weakly compact cardinal then, using upward Easton
forcing, it is possible to have a generic extension V[H] such that is weakly
compact in V[H] and remains weakly compact in all extensions V[H][G],
where G is Fn(, 2, )-generic over V[H] (an unpublished result by Silver).
These facts are applied in [SV].
26
7
1
9


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
2
-
0
1
-
1
2


References
[Jec71] Thomas J. Jech. Trees. J. Symbolic Logic, 36:114, 1971.
[Jec97] Thomas Jech. Set theory. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, second edition,
1997.
[Shea] Saharon Shelah. On nice equivalence relations on 2

. Preprint, No.
724 in the list of Shelahs publications.
[Sheb] Saharon Shelah. Strong dichotomy of cardinality. Results in Math-
ematics, to appear.
[SV] Saharon Shelah and Pauli Vaisanen. The number of L

-equivalent
non-isomorphic models for weakly compact. Fund. Math. To
appear. No. 718 in the list of Shelahs publications.
Saharon Shelah:
Institute of Mathematics
The Hebrew University
Jerusalem, Israel
Department of Mathematics
Rutgers University
New Brunswick
NJ, USA
shelah@math.rutgers.edu
Pauli Vaisanen:
Department of Mathematics
University of Helsinki
Finland
pauli.vaisanen@helsinki.fi
27