arXiv:1910.05159v3 [math.LO] 21 Sep 2021 rnhsetu srltdt h oe hoei pcrmo ma re By of more spectrum and theoretic 14]. [16] model [13, the in Shelah to L Jin Po´or related and and is by spectrum Shelah given branch by was addressed characterization were complete about spectrum questions this Later, of Hypothesis. Kurepa the of independence ointa dsanwra then real new a adds that notion is ento 1. Definition ec tegho h ojnto fteetosaeet,i.e., statements, two these of interes κ conjunction are We the of cardinal. strength compact tency weakly a of strength consistency 2650-N35. ueates a h ossec tegho niacsil ca inaccessible an of min( strength consistency the has trees) Kurepa itnysrnt,tercmiaini eysrn.I eto w 4 Section h In them of strong. very one is each combination individually their where strength, properties, sistency of types these for ra NSOCmiso n ncoeainwt h Austria the with cooperation in ship and Commission UNESCO trian ias erpaetefis ttmn ytewae assertion weaker the by statement first the replace we dinals, h olcin fbace fsbre f2 Se of Cantor subtrees the of branches of of subsets collections closed the Indeed, combinatorics. infinitary rnhso h rei h otnu,rgrls ftesz fth of size th the particular, of in regardless (and continuum, subtree the tree is a perfect if tree a Equivalently, the is of there branches or branches on tree many binary the of subtrees Krp re n h repoet.Snew r neetdi in in interested are we Since property. tree the and trees -Kurepa ω S 1 o nonal cardinals uncountable For o h ento fnra re e h einn fScin2 fi A 2. Section of beginning the see trees normal of definition the For h eodlse uhrwsspotdb L’OR by supported Fu was author Science second-listed Austrian The by supported was author first-listed The Date re n hi olcin fbace lya motn oei topo in role important an play branches of collections their and Trees EFC UTE RPRYFRWAL COMPACT WEAKLY FOR PROPERTY SUBTREE PERFECT ,ω eemnc n ag Cardinals Large and Determinacy ω S -sentences. κ = etme 2 2021. 22, September : = ) ekycmatadteei ote on tree no is there and compact weakly eso htti ttmn al togy(ntesnethat sense the (in strongly fails statement this that show We tree Abstract. adnl oevr eso htfrawal opc cardin compact weakly a for that show we Moreover, cardinal. efc ute rpryfor Property Subtree Perfect sec fate on tree a of istence { 2 κ ℵ ihexactly with 0 ie,tete rpryat property tree the (i.e., } h spectrum The . Let eivsiaetecnitnysrnt ftestatement: the of strength consistency the investigate We κ earglrcria.The cardinal. regular a be T κ ARHYTADSNR M SANDRA AND HAYUT YAIR S + ⊆ κ κ aybace)i hr sn ne oe ihaWoodin a with model inner no is there if branches) many 2 = ihexactly with <ω {| κ ω h seto max( assertion the , [ a nonal aybace and branches many uncountably has 1. T aif ihtm ihrtete a countably has tree the either - dichotomy a satisfy S κ CARDINALS P ] n ls ihe rn ubrV4 fteFWF. the of V844 number grant Richter Elise and ω mle h ossec fAD of consistency the implies , | | Introduction 1 dsanwbac through branch new a adds T a rtsuidb ivr[7,soigthe showing [17], Silver by studied first was κ κ sanormal a is + 1 for aybace n,i atclr the particular, in and, branches many <ω κ κ A uti,i olbrto ihteAus- the with collaboration in Austria, EAL ´ yteCno-edxo theorem, Cantor-Bendixson the By . ihexactly with ihucutbecfiaiy a the has cofinality) uncountable with rnhSpectrum Branch κ S ULLER -tree ¨ κ = ) cdm fSine Fellow- - Sciences of Academy n d(W)Ls ete grant Meitner Lise (FWF) nd } κ . + κ hr sa is there aybranches. many R al ie,teeaeno are there (i.e., dnl h assertion The rdinal. DC. + h o-xsec of non-existence the κ κ h osbevalues possible the T + h nonex- the e nteconsis- the in ted . 2 t ∈ ilso that show will e ia oesof models ximal / of saml con- mild a as cesbecar- accessible continuum). e S ω P sealed κ ubrof number e κ κ s example rst r exactly are saforcing a is steset the is susual As . is oyand logy 1] the [18], etya cently κ - 2 YAIRHAYUTANDSANDRAMULLER¨

+ the statement κ ∈/ Sκ for a weakly compact cardinal κ implies the consistency of ADR + DC. Trees with (somewhat) absolute sets of branches play a role in the derivation of consistency strength from certain configurations of the branch spectrum in the context of some covering lemma. Indeed, if κ is a regular cardinal and L com- putes κ+ correctly then there is a tree T ⊆ 2<κ with exactly κ+ many branches, and moreover any model in which κ has uncountable cofinality does not have any non-constructible cofinal branch through T . This result, which is a variant of a con- struction due to Solovay, generalizes to the Jensen-Steel core model K below inner models with a Woodin cardinal, replacing absoluteness by set forcing absoluteness. Definition 2. Let κ be a regular cardinal. A normal tree T of height κ is strongly sealed if the set of branches of T cannot be modified by set forcing that forces cf(κ) >ω. Strongly sealed trees with κ many branches exist in ZFC: take T ⊆ 2<κ to be the tree of all x such that {α ∈ dom(x) | x(α)=1} is finite. Thus, our main interest is in strongly sealed κ-trees with at least κ+ many branches. Our constructions are very inner model theoretical, and thus can only produce κ-trees with κ+ many branches, where κ+ is computed correctly in some inner model. Question 1. Is it consistent that there is a strongly sealed κ-tree with κ++ many branches? Note that strongly sealed κ-trees do not exist if there is a Woodin cardinal δ>κ, since Woodin’s stationary tower forcing with critical point κ+ will introduce new branches through any κ-tree T , while preserving the regularity of κ, as well as many large cardinal properties of κ. Thus, in order to get a meaningful notion of sealed trees in the presence of large cardinals we will use a weaker notion. The weakest notion of sealed tree is arguably having no perfect subtree (a perfect subtree is a continuous copy of 2<κ). Lemma 3 (Folklore). Let κ be a cardinal. The following are equivalent for a tree T of height κ: (1) T has a perfect subtree. (2) Every set forcing that adds a fresh subset to κ also adds a branch through T . (3) There is a κ-closed forcing that adds a branch through T . See Lemma 10 for the argument for (3) =⇒ (1). Definition 4. Let κ be an uncountable cardinal. The Perfect Subtree Property (PSP) for κ is the statement that every κ-tree with at least κ+ many branches has a perfect subtree. The Perfect Subtree Property can easily be violated by small forcing by Hamkins’ Gap Forcing argument, [5], see also Proposition 12. In addition, as we will see in Section 4, in the presence of some covering lemma there is a natural counterexample to the PSP in an inner model, providing a lower bound for the consistency of the PSP as well as a natural intermediate notion of sealed tree which is compatible with the existence of Woodin cardinals. In particular, Theorem 7 shows that the existence of a sealed κ-tree is consistent with the existence of Woodin cardinals above κ. Definition 5. Let κ be a regular cardinal. A normal tree T of height κ is sealed if the set of branches through T cannot be modified by set forcing P satisfying the following properties: PERFECT SUBTREE PROPERTY FOR WEAKLY COMPACT CARDINALS 3

(1) P × P does not collapse κ, (2) P × P preserves cf(κ) >ω, and (3) P does not add any new sets of reals. Note that Woodin’s stationary tower forcing with arbitrary critical point does not satisfy these properties. The class of forcings P is designed to preserve inner model theoretic properties such as iterability of mice and some form of condensation. This class of forcings contains κ-closed forcings such as Add(κ, 1) and Col(κ, λ). In particular, if a tree T is sealed then it has no perfect subtree. This notion of being sealed leads to a variant of Question 1 that is also open. The structure of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 we will give a few forcing constructions providing an upper bound for the consistency of PSP at a weakly + compact cardinal as well as κ ∈/ Sκ. These forcing constructions are mostly folklore. In Section 3 we will revisit Solovay’s theorem on the existence of a Kurepa tree in L from [7, Section 4], which is the main ingredient in his proof for the consistency strength of the Kurepa Hypothesis. As noted by Po´or and Shelah [14], a variant of Solovay’s construction from [7, Section 4] provides a strongly sealed Kurepa tree. We conclude that if 0# does not exist then every weakly compact cardinal carries a strongly sealed tree with κ+ many branches. The argument extends to the Jensen-Steel core model K below proper class inner models with a Woodin cardinal: Theorem 6. Assume that there is no proper class inner model with a Woodin cardinal. Then for every regular cardinal κ ≥ ℵ2, there is a strongly sealed κ-tree K with exactly (κ+) many branches. In particular, if κ is weakly compact, then there is a strongly sealed κ-tree with (κ+)V many branches. The abstract construction of such a tree is done in Section 3. Note that with a more elaborate fine structural argument our construction is likely to also yield a + K strongly sealed κ-tree with exactly (κ ) many branches in the case κ = ω1 which is not covered by our proof of Theorem 6 but this is beyond the scope of this paper. In Section 4 we use the abstract construction to prove Theorem 6 as well as the following result: Theorem 7. Let κ be a weakly compact cardinal and assume that there is no non- domestic premouse1. Then there is a sealed κ-tree with exactly κ+ many branches. By Lemma 3, this yields the following corollary. Corollary 8. Let κ be a weakly compact cardinal and suppose the Perfect Subtree Property holds at κ. Then there is a non-domestic premouse. In particular, there is an inner model of ZF + DC + ADR. Our definitions are mostly standard. For facts about forcing and trees we refer the reader to [6, Chapters 9, 14]. For basic facts, definitions and notions related to inner model theory, we refer the reader to [20] with the exception that we are using Jensen indexing as in [10]. This is for example used in [8]. We assume throughout the paper that there is no mouse with a superstrong extender. We would like to thank the anonymous referee for a long list of corrections and suggestions that greatly improved the article.

2. Trees and upper bounds We will use the following definition of Kurepa tree.

1See Definition 23 below. 4 YAIRHAYUTANDSANDRAMULLER¨

Definition 9. Let κ be a cardinal and let T be a tree of height κ. Write [T ] for the set of all cofinal branches through T . Then T is called κ-Kurepa if T is a κ-tree and |[T ]|≥ κ+.

Note that some authors require a Kurepa tree to have exactly κ+ branches. We say that a tree of height κ is binary if it is a subtree of 2<κ, the full binary tree. We say that a tree is normal if every node splits, every node has an arbitrarily high node above it, and at every limit level, each nodes is uniquely determined from the branch below it. When κ is strongly inaccessible, the full binary tree is a normal Kurepa tree. Thus, in those cases the notion of slim Kurepa tree is more suitable but we will not pursue this direction here. We remark that if T is a κ-tree then there is a normal tree S ⊆ T (the pruned subtree of T ) such that |[S]| + κ ≥ |[T ]|. In particular, focusing on trees with at most κ many branches, S and T have the same number of branches. In [17], Silver showed that if µ<κ are cardinals where µ is a successor cardinal and κ is inaccessible, then there are no µ-Kurepa trees in the generic extension by the Levy collapse Col(µ,<κ). We review the argument here, as it is one of the motivations for Definition 4. Let T˙ be a name for a µ-Kurepa tree in the generic extension. Using the chain condition of the Levy collapse, T˙ can be represented as a name with respect to some initial segment of the collapse, Col(µ,<κ¯), forκ<κ ¯ . In the intermediate model, V Col(µ,<κ¯), 2µ ≤ (2κ¯)V <κ, and thus T˙ has at most 2κ¯ many branches. Since this cardinal is collapsed in the full generic extension, in order for T˙ to have more than µ many branches, the quotient forcing Col(µ, [¯κ,κ)) must introduce them. The following lemma is the crucial step in the proof:

Lemma 10. Let T be a tree of height µ and let P be a µ-closed forcing. If P introduces a new branch through T then there is an order preserving injection from the full binary tree 2<µ to T .

Proof. Let b˙ be a name for the new branch. Let us construct by induction for every <µ η ∈ 2 a pair (pη,tη) where pη ∈ P is a condition, tη ∈ T and pη tˇη ∈ b˙. We will ′ assume, by induction, that for every η E η , pη′ is stronger than pη, tη′ is above tη in the tree and tη⌢h0i,tη⌢h1i are on the same level ξη and incompatible. At limit steps, we use the closure of the forcing to define pη as a condition stronger than pη↾α, for all α < lh(η). Since pη is a condition in P and it forces tη↾α ∈ b˙ for all α< lh(η), there is an element of T above all tη↾α and pη forces the ≤T -least such element to be in b˙. At successor steps, we use the assumption that b˙ is new in order to find two dif- ferent extensions of pη that force incompatible values tη⌢h0i,tη⌢h1i for the element of the branch b˙ at some level ξη above lh(tη). 

Notice that for a successor cardinal µ, there is no such embedding of the full binary tree into a µ-tree. Indeed, let ρ be the least cardinal such that 2ρ ≥ µ (necessarily, ρ<µ since µ is a successor cardinal). Let us consider the ρ-th level of the binary tree. By our assumption, it consists of 2ρ ≥ µ many different elements. But since 2<ρ <µ, the levels of the images of the elements of the binary tree below ρ are bounded and by continuity so are their limits, which is a contradiction. The proof shows that for every regular µ, in a generic extension by the forcing Col(µ,<κ), every µ-tree which has µ+ many branches contains a perfect subtree. By essentially the same argument, one can show that if µ is strongly inaccessible then after forcing with Col(µ,<κ) × Add(µ,κ+), every µ-tree either has ≤µ many branches or a perfect subtree, and therefore µ++ many branches. So, in this model PERFECT SUBTREE PROPERTY FOR WEAKLY COMPACT CARDINALS 5

µ µ + Sµ ⊆ µ ∪{µ, 2 } and 2 >µ . If we further assume that µ is weakly compact in µ the generic extension, then Sµ = {µ, 2 }. The only known way to preserve weak compactness after the Levy collapse is to start with a supercompact cardinal and force with some preparation forcing. There is some evidence that this is necessary, see [2, 12]. Altogether, we showed the following: Proposition 11. Let µ be <κ-supercompact, where κ is strongly inaccessible. Then ++ there is a forcing extension in which µ is weakly compact, Sµ = {µ,µ } and the Perfect Subtree Property holds at µ. The next proposition shows that the Perfect Subtree Property does not follow + from µ ∈/ Sµ. We say that a cardinal µ is σ-closed if ρℵ0 <µ for every ρ<µ. Proposition 12. Let µ be a regular cardinal. Adding a single Cohen real forces that the Perfect Subtree Property fails at µ. If we further assume that µ is σ-closed V [G] S ℵ0 SV S and for all λ ∈ µ \ µ, λ = λ then µ = µ , where G is generic for adding a single Cohen real. This immediately gives the following corollary. Corollary 13. Let µ<κ be cardinals such that κ is inaccessible and µ is <κ- ++ supercompact. Then there is a generic extension in which Sµ = {µ,µ } but the Perfect Subtree Property fails at µ. Proof of Proposition 12. The first assertion follows from [5]. Let us address the preservation of the spectrum. A Cohen real cannot add a new cofinal branch through an old tree of regular height ≥ ω1, as it is productively SV [G] SV c.c.c., (see, for example, [21]). Thus, µ ⊇ µ . We need to show that the other inclusion holds as well. We need to show that if there is a µ-Aronszajn tree in V [G], and therefore V [G] 0 ∈ Sµ , then there is a µ-Aronszajn tree in V . It follows that in this case SV SV [G] µ ∩ µ = µ ∩ µ = Card ∩ µ. Moreover, we want to show that if there is a tree with λ many branches in V [G], λ>µ, then there is such a tree in V as well. Fix a name for a µ-tree T˙ with λ many branches. Let us assume that either λ = 0 (so T˙ is µ-Aronszajn tree) or λ ≥ µ. For simplicity, let us assume that T˙ is a binary tree. Let us show that there is a way to construct from the name T˙ a tree in the ground model, T˜, which we call the termspace tree. We will show that T˜ is a µ-tree and bound its set of branches. Let T˜ be the collection of all namesη ˙ for elements of T˙ , such that the height of η˙ is decided by the weakest condition of the forcing. We identify two names if they ′ ′ are forced to be equal and we order them byη ˙ ≤T˜ η˙ if and only if η˙ ≤T˙ η˙ . Letη ˙ ∈ T˜. Then lh(η ˙)=α ˇ, for some α<µ. For each β < α, η˙(βˇ) ∈ 2.ˇ η˙ ˇ 2 Let Aβ,ǫ = {q | q η˙(β)=ˇǫ}, for ǫ ∈ 2. Finally, let gη˙ : α →P(Add(ω, 1)) be the η˙ η˙ function sending each β < α to the corresponding pair (Aβ,0, Aβ,1).

′ ˜ ′ ′ Claim 1. For every η,˙ η˙ ∈ T , η˙ ≤T˜ η˙ iff gη˙ ⊆ gη˙ . ′ ′ Proof. Indeed, if η˙ ≤T η˙ then for every β < α = lhη ˙, η˙(βˇ) = η˙ (βˇ) and thus ′ η˙ η˙ Aβ,ǫ = Aβ,ǫ for all β < α and ǫ ∈ 2. On the other hand, if gη˙ is an initial segment of gη˙′ then clearly for every β < α, there is no condition that forcesη ˙(β) 6=η ˙′(β).  6 YAIRHAYUTANDSANDRAMULLER¨

So, we can identify T˜ with the tree of all functions gη˙ ordered by inclusion. Recall that T˙ is forced to have λ many branches and let {b˙α | α < λ} be a sequence of names which is forced to be an enumeration of the branches through T˙ . By the definition of T˜, for each α < λ and ζ<µ, b˙α ↾ ζ is a member of T˜. By the definition of the tree order, hb˙α ↾ ζ | ζ<µi is a cofinal branch. We need to show that T˜ is a µ-tree and that it does not have more than λ many different branches. Both proofs are similar, and in order to avoid repetitions let us state the following general lemma.

Lemma 14. Let ρ be a cardinal. If {X˙ i | i<ρ} is a sequence of names such that ℵ0 for all i 6= j, 6 X˙ i = X˙ j and |{X˙ i | i<ρ}| = ζˇ, then ζ ≤ ρ ≤ ζ . Proof. If ζ = 0 then ρ =0. If ζ = 1 then ρ = 1, otherwise, there is a condition that forces that X˙ 0 6= X˙ 1. ˙ ˙ G Since the function mapping Xi to Xi is a surjection, ζ ≤ ρ. Let us assume, towards a contradiction that ρ > ζℵ0 . Let {Y˙j | j < ζ} be a name for an enumeration of {X˙ i | i<ρ}. By the chain condition of the forcing, for every i there is a countable set Bi ⊆ ζ such that

∃j ∈ Bˇi, X˙ i = Y˙j .

ℵ0 By our assumption, ζ < ρ so there is a set A of size ρ and B⋆ such that ∀i ∈ A, Bi = B⋆. ′ For every i ζℵ0 ≥ 2ℵ0 , we can apply the Erd˝os- Rado Theorem, [3], and get a homogeneous set H, |H| = ℵ1. Let p be the common color of all pairs in [H]2. ˙ ˙ For every i ∈ H, let ζi ∈ B⋆ be the unique ordinal such that p Xi = Yζi . By ′ the choice of c, for all i 6= i , ζi 6= ζi′ so we obtained an injection from ℵ1 to B⋆ which is countable—a contradiction. 

Let us assume that there are ρ many different elementsη ˙i in the ζ-th level of the tree T˜. The name T˙ is forced to be a µ-tree, so we can enumerate the elements in ˙ ℵ0 the ζ-th level of T by hρ˙i | i˜ 0 then λ> 0, as wanted. 

The proof shows that if the tree property holds at µ then it holds after adding a single Cohen real, assuming that µ is σ-closed. The same statement for the ℵ0 non-σ-closed case (e.g. µ = ℵ2 =2 or µ = ℵω+1) is open.

3. Abstract Construction The following lemma is a reformulation of a simple case of Solovay’s argument for the consistency strength of the Kurepa Hypothesis, [7, Section 4]. A similar construction for κ = ω1 and V = L[A], A ⊆ ω1 appears in [14]. This latter construction generalizes to any successor of a regular cardinal. Lemma 15. Let κ be a regular, uncountable cardinal and let us assume that L (κ+) = κ+. Then there is a strongly sealed tree of height κ. PERFECT SUBTREE PROPERTY FOR WEAKLY COMPACT CARDINALS 7

Proof. Let us define the tree T . An element of T is a pair hM, x¯i where M =∼ L Hull κ+ (ρ ∪{x}), ρ<κ, x ⊆ κ in L, M is transitive andx ¯ is the image of x ′ ′ under the transitive collapse. We order the tree by hM, x¯i≤T hM , x¯ i if M is the ′ transitive collapse of HullM (ρ ∪{x¯′}) for some ordinal ρ andx ¯ is the image ofx ¯′ under the transitive collapse. If κ is a successor cardinal, say κ = λ+, then we can rearrange the tree so that all elements hM, x¯i in the level ρ > λ correspond to models in which M |= |ρ| > λ, or trivial extensions of previous nodes. In this case, M is clearly an initial segment of Lδρ , where δρ is some ordinal such that Lδρ |= |ρ| = λ. Let b = {hMα, xαi | α<κ} be a branch through T in some set forcing extension of L which preserves cf(κ) > ω. Let Rb be the direct limit. Then Rb is well founded as it is a limit of uncountable cofinality of well founded models. Moreover, + Rb |=“V = Lδ” for some δ and therefore Rb =∼ Lδ, for some δ<κ . Letx ˜ be the limit of the values of xα along the branch andκ ˜ be the limit of the values of κα along the branch, where κα is the largest cardinal in Mα. Note thatκ ˜ ≥ κ and it is the largest cardinal in Rb. Sincex ˜ ∈ Rb, it is constructible. In particular, the branch b is in L, since it is definable by the transitive collapses of the models in {HullLδ (ρ ∪{x˜}) | ρ<κ}. 

The sealing property of the tree originated from the fact that every branch in the tree produces its own witness for its constructibility. We would like to imitate this property in the context of models of the form Jα[E], which are compatible with larger cardinals. In the proof of Lemma 15 and below, “Hull” always denotes a fully elementary, i.e., Σω, hull.

Definition 16. Let M = Jα[E] be a premouse with M ∩ Ord > κ. As usual, we write Mkγ for Jγ[E ↾ γ]. Let us assume that κ is the largest cardinal in M. We say a model M¯ is an active node if • there are ordinals ρ,γ and x ∈ (κ2)M such that ρ<κ<γ

Recall that in all interesting cases the set of γ

(1) ρ1(M¯ )= ρ, (2) ρ = crit π, and (3) π(ρ)= κ.

Proof. Since ρ ⊆ HullMkγ (ρ ∪{x}), we have crit π ≥ ρ. On the other hand, since π(¯x)= x and lhx ¯ = ρ, ρ ≥ crit π. So ρ = crit π and π(ρ)= κ. Finally, ρ1(M¯ )= ρ 8 YAIRHAYUTANDSANDRAMULLER¨ easily follows from the full elementarity of π as the statement “κ = ρ1(Mkγ)” is definable.  Lemma 18. Every active node is 1-sound. Proof. Let M¯ be an active node, say M¯ = trcl HullMkγ (ρ ∪{x}) and let π be the uncollapse map. Let p be a good parameter for M¯ . Then π(p) is a good parameter for Mkγ, by elementarity, and thus a very good parameter (by the 1-soundness of Mkγ). Therefore, there is a Σ1-formula ϕ with parameter π(p) defining a surjection from κ onto Mkγ. This is a Π2 statement so by elementarity the same formula defines a surjection from ρ onto M¯ using the parameter p, as desired.  Let us now define the main combinatorial object of this article, the tree T(M). We say a pair hM,¯ x¯i is an active pair if M¯ is an active node andx ¯ ∈ <κ2 with lhx ¯ = ρ1(M¯ ). The elements of T(M) are triples of the form hM,¯ x,s¯ i where hM,¯ x¯i is either an active pair or the pair h∅, ∅i and s ∈ <κ2 is such that s−1({1}) is finite and lh s ≥ lhx ¯. T The order of (M) is defined by hM0, x0,s0i≤T(M) hM1, x1,s1i if and only if:

M1 (1) M0 is the transitive collapse of Hull (ρ1(M0) ∪{x1}) and x0 is the image of x1 under the transitive collapse, or M0 = x0 = ∅, (2) s0 is an initial segment of s1, ′ (3) if hM0, x0i is an active pair, there is no ρ between ρ1(M0) and lh s0 such M1 ′ that hHull (ρ ∪{x1}), x1i collapses to an active pair which is not hM0, x0i, and ′ M1 ′ (4) if hM0, x0i = h∅, ∅i, there is no ρ < lh s0 such that hHull (ρ ∪{x1}), x1i collapses to an active pair. The tree T(M) is derived from the product of two trees. The tree of the active pairs ordered by the relation which is derived from the hulls, and the tree of almost zero sequences. While the tree of active pairs contributes the structural complexity, the tree of the almost zero sequences adds the desirable properties of normality and splitting for free. Lemma 19. Let κ be a cardinal in V of uncountable cofinality. Let M be a pre- mouse such that HullM (κ ∪{p}) 6= M for any p ∈ M. Then T(M) is a tree of height κ with at least (2κ)M many branches. Proof. First, let us verify that T(M) is a tree. We start by verifying that the order ≤T(M) is transitive: Let

hM0, x0,s0i≤T(M) hM1, x1,s1i≤T(M) hM2, x2,s2i, as witnessed by the ordinals ρ0,ρ1 respectively. Then we claim that the transitive M2 collapse of Hull (ρ0 ∪{x2}) is M0 and x0 is the image of x2 under this collapse map. This is true since the Skolem hull of a Skolem hull is a Skolem hull. By ′ ′ the same reason, there is no active pair hM , x i 6= hM0, x0i below hM2, x2i with ′ ρ1(M ) < lh s0, as otherwise, this active pair would also be below hM1, x1i. Let us assume now that hM0, x0,s0i and hM1, x1,s1i are both below hN,y,si in the tree. We claim that they are compatible. We have, N N M0 =∼ Hull (ρ1(M0) ∪{y}) and M1 =∼ Hull (ρ1(M1) ∪{y}).

Assume without loss of generality that ρ1(M0) ≤ ρ1(M1). Then

M1 M0 =∼ Hull (ρ1(M0) ∪{x1}).

Since hM1, x1i is an active pair below hN,yi, lh s0 < ρ1(M1) and thus s0 is an initial segment of s1. PERFECT SUBTREE PROPERTY FOR WEAKLY COMPACT CARDINALS 9

By the same argument, we can verify that below every element in the tree, the branch is well ordered and of length <κ. For each node hM,¯ x,s¯ i in the tree there are at least two incompatible extensions: hM,¯ x,s¯ ah0ii and hM,¯ x,¯ sah1ii. Similarly, each node in the tree has extensions of any larger height: Consider x ∈ κ2∩M, and let γ be the least ordinal ≤ M ∩Ord such that x ∈ Mkγ, Mkγ = HullMkγ (κ∪{x}), and ρ1(Mkγ)= κ. In order to show that there is such an ordinal γ, let us consider the uncollapsed hull N = HullM (κ ∪{x}). By our hypothesis on M, N 6= M. We claim that N = Mkδ for some limit ordinal δ. This holds as κ is the maximal cardinal in M, and therefore for every β ∈ M, there is a definable surjection in M from κ onto β × ω and thus also onto Mkβ. So β ∈ N implies Mkβ ∈ N. In particular, N is an initial segment of M, i.e., N = Mkδ for some limit ordinal δ. But N = HullM (κ ∪{x}) and thus HullN (κ ∪{x}) = N. Clearly, δ + ω ∈ M, so γ = δ + ω is as desired. Mkγ The branch bx is defined by the transitive collapses of Hull (ρ∪{x}) for ρ<κ, together with the images of x under these collapses and the constant sequence of zeros. For club many ρ<κ, the length ofx ¯ is exactly ρ. Therefore, the obtained pair is an active pair. If x, y are distinct elements of κ2 and x(α) 6= y(α), then there are no common active nodes in bx ∩ by above α.  During the proofs of Theorems 6 and 7, we will construct trees of the form T(M) and we will claim that they are sealed. Moreover, we will characterize all branches in terms of x ∈ M, s ∈ <κ2, and certain ordinals of M. In order to do this we will use iterability and maximality of M. The next lemma will help us to exploit these properties. Lemma 20. Let M be a countably iterable2 premouse and let us assume that κ is a cardinal in V of uncountable cofinality. Let b be a cofinal branch in the tree T(M) with unboundedly many active nodes and let Rb be the direct limit of the active nodes on the branch, with xb being the limit of the values of x in the active pairs along the branch. Then Rb is a well founded, countably iterable, sound premouse. Moreover,

ρ1(Rb)= ρω(Rb) = lh xb = κ, and Rbkκ = Mkκ.

Proof. For α<κ, write hMα, xα,sαi for the element of b on level α of the tree. By our assumption on b, the sequence hMα | α<κi is not eventually constant. Let I ⊆ κ be the set of all ordinals α such that ∀β<α,Mα 6= Mβ. Claim 1. Let α be a limit point of I. Then α ∈ I.

Proof. For every β <γ in I, the inverse of the collapse map πβ,γ : Mβ → Mγ is an elementary embedding, and those embeddings commute. Thus, the system hMβ, πβ,γ | β,γ ∈ I ∩α, β ≤ γi is directed. Let M˜ be the direct limit of this system, and letx ˜ be the corresponding limit of xβ, β ∈ I ∩ α. Let α′ ∈ I \ α. Let us verify that

′ Mα M˜ =∼ Hull (α ∪{xα′ }).

For every z ∈ M˜ , there is β ∈ I ∩ α andz ¯ ∈ Mβ such that z = πβ,α(¯z). Let ι: M˜ → Mα′ be defined by ι(z) = πβ,α′ (¯z). It is routine to verify that ι(z) is independent of the choice of β and that ι is an elementary map. Moreover, since hMβ, xβi is an active pair,z ¯ is definable in Mβ using ordinal parameters below β and the parameter xβ. By elementarity of πβ,α′ , ι(z)= πβ,α′ (¯z) is definable in Mα′

2 That means, all countable substructures of M are (ω1,ω1 + 1)-iterable. 10 YAIRHAYUTANDSANDRAMULLER¨ using ordinal parameters below β and xα′ (since crit πβ,α′ ≥ β). We conclude that ′ Mα the image of ι is Hull (α ∪{xα′ }), as desired. In particular, M˜ is well founded, and it makes sense to compute the length ofx ˜. Clearly, lhx ˜ ≥ α. For the other direction, if lhx ˜ > α, then there is some ordinal η ∈ Mβ, for β < α, such that πβ,α(η)= α and η < lh xβ = β. But ι ◦ πβ,α = πβ,α′ , and thus crit πβ,α ≥ crit(ι ◦ πβ,α) ≥ β, which contradicts our choice of η. So ′ Mα M˜ = trcl Hull (α ∪{xα′ }) andx ˜ is the image of xα′ under the collapse. Mkγ ′ Finally, there is a γ

Let us consider Rb. This model is well founded as a limit of uncountable length of well founded models, using the directed system

hMα, πα,β | α, β ∈ I, α ≤ βi.

Let πα,κ denote the corresponding limit maps. The length of xb is κ, by the same argument as above. For every z ∈ Rb, there is β ∈ I andz ¯ ∈ Mβ such that Rb Rb z = πβ,κ(¯z). In particular, z ∈ Hull (β ∪{xb}). Thus, Rb = Hull (κ ∪{xb}).

Claim 2. ρ1(Rb)= κ and Rb is 1-sound. In fact, ρω(Rb)= κ and Rb is sound.

Proof. Pick any α ∈ I. Since Mα is an active node, α = ρ1(Mα) = crit πα,κ. Let us verify that πα,κ(α)= κ. Since κ is a cardinal in V , by acceptability, ρ1(Rb) ≥ κ and in fact ρω(Rb) ≥ κ. For each α ∈ I, since Mα is 1-sound, there is a parameter Mα pα such that Hull1 (α ∪{pα}) = Mα. The minimal such parameter is definable. For every β ∈ I \ α, taking pβ = πα,β(pα),

Mβ Mβ = Hull1 (β ∪{pβ}).

Rb Let pκ = πα,κ(pα). Let us verify that Hull1 (κ ∪{pκ})= Rb. Indeed, for every z ∈ Rb there is β ∈ I such that z = πβ,κ(¯z) for somez ¯ ∈ Mβ. Without loss of generality, Mβ Rb β > α, and thusz ¯ ∈ Hull1 (β ∪{pβ}). In particular, z ∈ Hull1 (β ∪{pκ}). We conclude that Rb Rb = Hull1 (κ ∪{pκ}), so ρ1(Rb) = κ and Rb is 1-sound. As ρω(Rb) ≥ κ, this easily implies ρω(Rb) = κ and hence Rb is sound. 

Claim 3. Rb is countably iterable. Proof. Let θ be a sufficiently large regular cardinal and let N ≺ H(θ) be a countable elementary substructure that contains all relevant objects (and in particular, I). Then δ = sup(N ∩ κ) ∈ κ (since cf(κ) > ω). We argue that N˜ = Rb ∩ N is (ω1,ω1 + 1)-iterable. This suffices by the definition countable iterability. Since I is M closed, δ ∈ I. So Mδ = trcl Hull (δ∪{yδ}), for yδ ∈ M. The model Mδ is countably iterable as an elementary substructure of the countably iterable premouse M. Let j : Rb ∩ N → Mδ be the following embedding. Let a ∈ Rb ∩ N. Then, by the definition of the direct limit, there is some model X = Mα for α ∈ N and some a¯ ∈ X such that a = πα,κ(¯a). Let j(a)= πα,δ(¯a). Let us verify that j is well defined and fully elementary. So, let a ∈ Rb ∩ N and ′ ′ leta, ¯ a¯ be two elements such that πα,κ(¯a) = πβ,κ(¯a ) = a for some ordinals α, β. ′ Then, α,β < sup(N ∩ κ) = δ and in particular πα,δ(¯a)= πβ,δ(¯a ). Thus, j is well defined. PERFECT SUBTREE PROPERTY FOR WEAKLY COMPACT CARDINALS 11

Let us show that j is elementary. So, let a ∈ Rb ∩ N and let us assume that ϕ(a) holds in N˜ = Rb ∩ N. Then ϕ(a) holds in Rb (by the Tarski-Vaught criterion, N˜ is an elementary substructure of Rb). Therefore, if we leta ¯ ∈ Mα be such that πα,κ(¯a) = a, ϕ(¯a) holds in Mα, using the elementarity of πα,κ. Finally, ϕ(j(a)) = ϕ(πα,δ(¯a)) holds in Mδ. We conclude that there is an elementary embedding from N˜ to Mδ and therefore N˜ is (ω1,ω1 + 1)-iterable.  This finishes the proof of Lemma 20.  Lemma 21. Let κ be a regular uncountable cardinal in V . Let M be a sound, countably iterable premouse with largest cardinal κ. Let b,b′ be two cofinal branches of T(M) with unboundedly many active nodes and let hRb, xb,sbi and hRb′ , xb′ ,sb′ i ′ be the direct limits along b and b . Suppose that xb = xb′ and sb = sb′ . Then Rb is an initial segment of Rb′ or vice versa. Proof. Let I be the collection of levels with active nodes in b and let I′ be the corresponding set for b′. Recall that I, I′ are both clubs and in particular, D = I∩I′ ′ ′ is a club. Let ρ ∈ D and let hNρ, x ↾ ρ,s ↾ ρi ∈ b, hNρ, x ↾ ρ,s ↾ ρi ∈ b , where ′ ′ ′ ′ x = xb = xb and s = sb = sb . Let us write N = Nρ and N = Nρ. Let γ

In case that Rb ∈ M, we can conclude that it is one of the branches which were constructed in Lemma 19, up to a different choice of the s part and the ordinal γ. When κ is an inaccessible cardinal, we are done, as T(M) is already a κ-tree. But for successor cardinals κ we need to show that the size of each level is <κ. Lemma 22. Let κ be a regular uncountable cardinal in V . If M is a premouse and M |= “κ is a successor cardinal” then T(M) is a κ-tree. Proof. Say M |= κ = λ+. We analyze the size of each level ρ<κ of T(M) and focus on the interesting case λ<ρ. For every ρ<κ fix some ζρ < κ such that Mkζρ |= |ρ|≤ λ. Every node at level ρ of T(M) is of the form hM ′, x′,si where M ′ is an active ′ ′ ′ node with ρ1(M ) ≤ ρ, x ∈ M , and a binary sequence s given by an element of <ω ′ ′ ρ . Again, we focus on the interesting case, i.e., we suppose λ<ρ1(M ). As M is an active node, ′ Mkγ ′ M = trcl Hull (ρ1(M ) ∪{x}), for some γ

′ ρω(Mkγ) = κ. By the Condensation Lemma, [8, Lemma 1.4], M is an initial segment of Mkγ. In fact, the height of this initial segment is bounded by ζρ < κ ′ ′ since if M would contain Mkζρ then ρ ≥ ρ1(M ) > λ would not be cardinals in ′ M . Therefore, there are ≤ |ζρ| <κ many possible nodes of T(M) at level ρ. 

4. Applications We are now ready for the proof of Theorem 6. Proof of Theorem 6. Using the anti-large cardinal hypothesis that there is no proper class inner model with a Woodin cardinal, we can construct the core model K as in [9] (building on [19]). Let κ ≥ ℵ2 be a regular cardinal and let us consider the tree T = T(Kkκ+). Here we are referring to κ+ as computed in K. Let b be a branch through T in some generic extension V [G]. By the forcing absoluteness of K, KV [G] = KV and in particular, KV is still universal in V [G], as in [19]. Let Rb be the direct limit of the active nodes in b. By Lemma 20, ρω(Rb)= κ, Rb is sound, countably iterable, and Rbkκ = Kkκ. By Schindler’s definition of Kkµ V for µ ≥ ω2 (see [4, Lemma 3.5]), Rb ⊳ K. Since we can recover b (modulo some choice of s) from Rb and xb ∈ Rb as in the proof of Lemma 21, this implies that the tree T(Kkκ+) has exactly (2κ)K = (κ+)K many branches in V [G]. If κ is weakly compact, the Covering Lemma [15, Theorem 3.1] implies that (κ+)K = (κ+)V . 

Let us remark that in a model of PFA, every ω1-tree has at most ℵ1 many branches and is (strongly) sealed, in the sense that it is specialized. So, in this model there are no Kurepa trees. Indeed, it is unknown how to seal a given Kurepa tree without collapsing cardinals. Question 2. Is it possible to obtain a model with a strongly sealed κ-Kurepa tree using forcing? We now turn to the proof of Theorem 7. We first recall the definition of domestic premouse from [1]. Definition 23. A premouse M is called domestic if there is no initial segment N E M with non-empty top extender F N such that crit(F N ) is a limit of Woodin cardinals in N and crit(F N ) is a limit of strong cardinals in Nk crit(F N ). Moreover, we will use Jensen’s notion of a stack of mice from [8]. Definition 24. Let N be a premouse such that N ∩ Ord is an uncountable regular cardinal. Then, if it exists, S(N ) denotes the unique premouse S such that M E S ∗ ∗ iff there is a sound countably iterable premouse M D N with ρω(M )= N ∩ Ord such that M E M∗. In the context that Kc as in [1] exists, there is no premouse with a superstrong extender, and κ is a regular uncountable cardinal S(Kckκ) as defined above exists by [8, Lemma 3.1]. Proof of Theorem 7. Assume that there is no non-domestic premouse and let κ be a weakly compact cardinal. Then Kc as in [1] exists and there is no premouse with a superstrong extender. So we can consider the tree T(S) for S = S(Kckκ) the stack of mice on Kckκ. We claim that T(S) is a sealed tree with exactly κ+ many branches. Claim 1. In V , T(S) has exactly (κ+)V many branches. Proof. By Lemma 19, T(S) has at least (κ+)S := S ∩ Ord many branches. We argue that every branch b through T(S) in V is already in S. By our anti-large cardinal hypothesis, covering holds for S in the sense of [8, Lemma 5.1] (due to PERFECT SUBTREE PROPERTY FOR WEAKLY COMPACT CARDINALS 13

Schindler), i.e., S ∩ Ord = (κ+)V . Therefore it follows that T(S) has (κ+)V many branches, as desired. Let b be an arbitrary branch through the tree T(S) and consider the direct limit hRb, xb,sbi along the branch b given by Lemma 20. Let us argue that Rb E S. This suffices since we can recover b (modulo some choice of s) from Rb and xb ∈ Rb as in the proof of Lemma 21. S is countably iterable by [8, Corollary 2.11]. So Lemma 20 yields that Rb is a sound countably iterable premouse with ρ1(Rb)= ρω(Rb)= κ. Therefore Rb E S by definition of the stack S.  Claim 2. T(S) is sealed. Proof. Let P be a partial order satisfying the conditions in Definition 5 and let G be P-generic over V . By [12, Corollary 3.4], building on Jensen’s results in [8], we have that S = SV [G]((Kckκ)V ), the stack of mice as constructed in V [G] on top of (Kckκ)V . This, or more precisely the generic absoluteness of being in the stack, is where we use the restrictions on the partial orders P in the definition of being sealed. Now let b be an arbitrary branch through T(S) in V [G] and consider the direct limit Rb of the active nodes in b as before. Then Rb ∈ V [G] is a c V [G] c V premouse and K kκ E Rb. Note that S ((K kκ) ) is countably iterable in V [G] by construction. By Lemma 20, Rb is sound and countably iterable in V [G], and V [G] c V ρ1(Rb)= ρω(Rb)= κ. So by the definition of the stack, Rb E S ((K kκ) )= S and hence b ∈ V , as desired.   We would like to end this paper with asking the following question: Question 3. What is the consistency strength of the Perfect Subtree Property at weakly compact cardinals? Until recently, it seemed reasonable that a weakly compact cardinal with the Perfect Subtree Property yields an inner model with a pair of cardinals λ<µ such that λ is <µ-supercompact and µ is inaccessible. By combining our construction in Section 3 with results by Neeman and Steel in [12] we can obtain some justification for this belief. But our belief is seriously questioned by recent results of Larson and Sargsyan [11]. They showed from a Woodin cardinal that is a limit of Woodin cardinals that the Kc construction in [1] (used in [8]) can consistently break down.

References [1] Alessandro Andretta, Itay Neeman, and John Steel. The domestic levels of Kc are iterable. Israel Journal of Mathematics, 125:157–201, 01 2001. [2] Arthur W. Apter and Joel David Hamkins. Indestructible weakly compact cardinals and the necessity of supercompactness for certain proof schemata. Math. Log. Q., 47(4):563–571, 2001. [3] P. Erd¨os. Some set-theoretical properties of graphs. Univ. Nac. Tucum´an. Revista A., 3:363– 367, 1942. [4] Moti Gitik, Ralf Schindler, and Saharon Shelah. PCF theory and Woodin cardinals. In Logic Colloquium ’02, volume 27 of Lect. Notes Log., pages 172–205. Assoc. Symbol. Logic, La Jolla, CA, 2006. [5] Joel David Hamkins. Gap forcing. Israel J. Math., 125:237–252, 2001. [6] T. J. Jech. Set Theory. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer, 2003. [7] Thomas J. Jech. Trees. J. Symbolic Logic, 36:1–14, 1971. [8] Ronald Jensen, Ernest Schimmerling, Ralf Schindler, and John Steel. Stacking mice. J. Sym- bolic Logic, 74(1):315–335, 03 2009. [9] Ronald Jensen and John Steel. K without the measurable. J. Symbolic Logic, 78(3):708–734, 09 2013. [10] Ronald B. Jensen. A New Fine Structure. Handwritten notes. Available at https: // www. mathematik.hu-berlin.de/ ~ raesch/ org/ jensen.html . 14 YAIRHAYUTANDSANDRAMULLER¨

[11] P. Larson and G. Sargsyan. Failure of square in Pmax extensions of Chang models. arXiv:2105.00322, 2021. [12] Itay Neeman and John Steel. Equiconsistencies at subcompact cardinals. Arch. Math. Logic, 55(1-2):207–238, 2016. [13] M´ark Po´or. On the spectra of cardinalities of branches of Kurepa trees. Archive for Mathe- matical Logic, 2021. [14] M´ark Po´or and Saharon Shelah. Characterizing the spectra of cardinalities of branches of Kurepa trees. Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 311(2):423––453, 2021. [15] E. Schimmerling and J. R. Steel. The maximality of the core model. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 351(8):3119–3141, 1999. [16] Saharon Shelah and Renling Jin. Planting Kurepa trees and killing Jech-Kunen trees in a model by using one inaccessible cardinal. Fund. Math., 141(3):287–296, 1992. [17] Jack Silver. The independence of Kurepa’s conjecture and two-cardinal conjectures in model theory. In Axiomatic Set Theory (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Vol. XIII, Part I, Univ. Cali- fornia, Los Angeles, Calif., 1967), pages 383–390. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1971. L [18] Dima Sinapova and Ioannis Souldatos. Kurepa trees and spectra of ω1,ω-sentences. Archive for Mathematical Logic, 59:939––956, 2020. [19] J. R. Steel. The core model iterability problem, volume 8 of Lecture Notes in Logic. Springer- Verlag, Berlin, New York, 1996. [20] J. R. Steel. An Outline of Inner Model Theory. In M. Foreman and A. Kanamori, editors, Handbook of Set Theory. Springer, 2010. [21] Spencer Unger. Fragility and indestructibility II. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic, 166(11):1110–1122, 2015.

(Y. Hayut) Einstein Institute of Mathematics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Jerusalem 91904, Israel Email address: [email protected]

(S. M¨uller) Institut fur¨ Diskrete Mathematik und Geometrie, TU Wien, Wiedner Hauptstraße 8-10/104, 1040 Wien, Austria, and Institut fur¨ Mathematik, Universitat¨ Wien, Kolingasse 14-16, 1090 Wien, Austria Email address: [email protected] URL: http://www.logic.univie.ac.at/~smueller/