![Arxiv:2104.09150V1 [Math.LO] 19 Apr 2021 Dokwer](http://data.docslib.org/img/1427ff9863d0e18c1a03227efa022af3-1.webp)
arXiv:2104.09150v1 [math.LO] 19 Apr 2021 Dokwer. ue Line Kunen neapefo Ho rtcutbe oal compact locally countable, first a of CH from example an an hwdta h xsec faSulnte ilsan yields tree Souslin HK2 a HK18, of HK09, existence dlVK04, the DK93, that vDK82, showed [JKR76, co-authors his and eeiayLne¨f hte uhasaeeit a se tth th at Along asked Countryman. was of by exists constructions independently consistent Juh´asz space and and a Hajnal such by Whether Lindel¨of. hereditary uvyo okrsae,w ee h edrt Rd4,[W3,a [SW93], [Rud84], to a reader For the date. refer this we to spaces, Dowker open on remains survey and 1987 Juh´asz around by asked obntra principle combinatorial w eae ae,Blg Bl6 aeaZCcntuto faDowk a of construction ZFC a gave [Bal96] 2 size Balogh later, decades Two faDke pc fsize of space Dokwer a of fsize of h xsec fa of existence the fsc pc a ie yRdn[u5] h osrce Dowk a constructed co who [Rud55], first Rudin The by given spaces. was these size space v of their a characterization of such question useful of the a raised gave [Dow51] Dowker and normal. not is interval osrce nte okrsae hstm nZC n fcardin of and ZFC, in time this space, Dowker another constructed An l oooia pcsudrcnieainaeasmdt be to assumed are consideration under spaces topological All A 2010 S ℵ saewihi okr[u7a.Jhaz ue,adRdn[JKR76] Rudin and Juh´asz, Kunen, [Rud74a]. Dowker is which -space ℵ okrspace Dowker 1 0 S ℵ suigteeitneo osi re ae n n[u7] Rudin [Rud72], in on, Later tree. Souslin a of existence the assuming , ahmtc ujc Classification. Subject Mathematics n omnadSea K9]gv F osrcino Dowker a of construction ZFC a gave [KS98] Shelah and Kojman and , USIGPICPEFO OSI TREE, SOUSLIN A FROM PRINCIPLE GUESSING A ω -space u eCu yecntutoso oooia spaces. topological of suffi constructions be type to shown Caux is de and out features, multi-lad almost-disjointness certain and a of ing existence the asserts principle This ec faSulnte.I sas hw httewaetinst weakest the that shown also is It tree. Souslin a of tence hti hr saSulnte,te hr san is there then tree, Souslin a is there tree. if Souslin that almost an of existence the from follow not Abstract. +1 hsppri eiae otemmr fKnehKnn(1943– Kunen Kenneth of memory the to dedicated is paper This u anrsl ttsta togisacsof instances strong that states result main Our sa plcto,w banasml,d axtp ro fRu of proof type Caux de simple, a obtain we application, an As usinrmiigo oa neetee ic swehrZCpr ZFC whether is since ever interest focal of remaining question A . swl sa xml rmC fafis countable, first a of CH from example an as well as , sarglrtplgclsaewihi eeiaysprbebtnot but separable hereditary is which space topological regular a is IHAPIAIN OTOPOLOGY TO APPLICATIONS WITH small eitoueanwcmiaorlpicpewihw call we which principle combinatoiral new a introduce We sanra oooia pc hs rdc ihteunit the with product whose space topological normal a is ♣ okrsae n fteseks ossetconstructions consistent sleekest the of One space. Dowker SA IO N O SHALEV ROY AND RINOT ASSAF ℵ Whether . 1 S a efudi eCu’ ae d7] suigthe assuming [dC77], paper Caux’s de in found be may sae eefud ayo hc r u oKunen to due are which of many found, were -spaces 1. Introduction ♣ rmr 30,5G0 eodr 33,03E65. 03E35, Secondary 54G20; 03E05, Primary mle h xsec faSulnte was tree Souslin a of existence the implies 1 S saewihi Dowker. is which -space ♣ AD S e ytmwt guess- with system der olwfo h exis- the from follow sae[u7] n even and [Rud72], -space neof ance in o carrying for cient S sae nw sthe as known -space, T i’ result din’s ssetexample nsistent ♣ S 1 2020) AD saewihis which -space n Hausdorff. and d[Sze07]. nd comprehensive r existence, ery er many years e ae1960’s late e ♣ lt ( ality does AD rsaeof space er rsaeof space er ] Rudin 0]. . ℵ space ω gave oves ) ℵ 0 . 2 ASSAFRINOTANDROYSHALEV
MA In the other direction, Kunen [Kun77] proved that, assuming ℵ1 , there are no strong S-spaces (that is, spaces all of whose finite powers are S-spaces), Szent- MA mikl´ossy [Sze80] proved that, assuming ℵ1 , there are no compact S-spaces, and Todorˇcevi´c[Tod83] proved that, assuming PFA, there are no S-spaces whatsoever. For a comprehensive survey on S-spaces, we refer the reader to [Juh80], [Roi84], and [And09]. An O-space is an uncountable regular topological space all of whose uncountable open sets are co-countable. Note that any O-space is an S-space of size ℵ1 all of whose closed sets are Gδ (i.e., the space is perfect), and hence not Dowker (cf. [Wei78, pp. 248], [ER99, §2] and [Juh02, §5]). This class of spaces is named after Adam Ostaszewski who constructed in [Ost76], assuming ♣, a normal, locally compact, non-Lindel¨of O-space. He also showed that, assuming CH, the space can be made countably compact. A few years later, Mohammed Dahroug, who was a Ph.D. student of William Weiss at the University of Toronto, constructed a first-counatble, locally compact, non-Lindel¨of O-space from a Souslin tree. He also showed that, assuming CH, the space can be made countably compact and normal. Dahroug’s work was never typed down. The purpose of this paper is to formulate a combinatorial principle that follows both from ♣ and from the existence of a Souslin tree, and is still strong enough to yield an S-space which is Dowker, as well as a normal O-space. We call it ♣AD. The exact definition may be found in Definition 2.4 below. The main results of this paper read as follows.
Theorem A. (1) For every infinite cardinal λ, if there exists a cf(λ)-complete + λ+ λ -Souslin tree, then for every partition S of Ecf(λ) into stationary sets, ♣AD(S,< cf(λ)) holds. (2) For every regular uncountable cardinal κ, if there exists a regressive κ- κ Souslin tree, then for every partition S of Eω into stationary sets, ♣AD(S,<ω) holds.
Theorem B. Suppose that S is an infinite partition of some non-reflecting sta- tionary subset of a regular uncountable cardinal κ. If ♣AD(S, 2) holds, then there exists a Dowker space of cardinality κ.
λ+ Note that for every infinite regular cardinal λ, Eλ is a non-reflecting stationary subset of λ+.
Theorem C. If ♣AD({ω1}, 1) holds, then there exists a collectionwise normal non- Lindel¨of O-space.
λ+ Theorem D. If ♣AD({Eλ }, 1) holds for an infinite regular cardinal λ, then there exists a collectionwise normal Dowker space of cardinality λ+, having hereditary density λ and Lindel¨of degree λ+.
1.1. Organization of this paper. In Section 2, we formulate the guessing princi- ple ♣AD(S,<θ) and its refinement ♣AD(S,µ,<θ), prove that ♣(S) entails a strong instance of ♣AD(S,<ω), and that it is consistent that ♣AD({ω1}, <ω) holds, but ♣(ω1) fails. It is also shown that the weakest instance ♣AD({κ}, 1, 1) fails for κ weakly compact, and may consistently fail for κ := ω1. The proof of Theorem A will be found there. AGUESSINGPRINCIPLEFROMASOUSLINTREE 3
In Section 3, we present a ♣AD(S, 1, 2)-based construction of a Dowker space which is moreover a ladder-system space. This covers scenarios previously consid- ered by Good, Rudin and Weiss, in which the Dowker spaces constructed were not ladder-system spaces. The proof of Theorem B will be found there. λ+ In Section 4, we present two ♣AD({Eλ }, λ, 1)-based constructions of collection- wise normal spaces of small hereditary density and large Lindel¨of degree. These spaces are not ladder-system spaces, rather, they are de Caux type spaces. The proof of Theorems C and D will be found there. In Section 5, we comment on a construction of Szeptycki of an ℵ2-sized Dowker space with a normal square, assuming that ♦∗(S) holds for some stationary S ⊆ ω2 Eω1 . Here, it is demonstrated that the construction may be carried out from a ω2 weaker assumption which is known to be consistent with the failure of ♣(Eω1 ).
1.2. Notation. The hereditary density number of a topological space X, denoted hd(X), is the least infinite cardinal λ such that each subspace of X contains a dense subset of cardinality at most λ. The Lindel¨of degree of X, denoted L(X) is the least infinite cardinal λ such that every open cover of X has a subcover of cardinality at most λ. For an accessible cardinal κ and a cardinal λ<κ, we write logλ(κ) := min{χ | λχ ≥ κ}. Reg(κ) denotes the set of all infinite regular cardinal below κ. For a set of ordinals C, we write acc+(C) := {α< sup(C) | sup(C ∩ α)= α> 0}, acc(C) := {α ∈ C | sup(C ∩ α)= α> 0} and nacc(C) := C \ acc(C). For ordinals γ γ γ γ γ γ α<γ, denote Eα := {β<γ | cf(β) = α} and define E6=α, E<α, E≤α, E>α, E≥α similarly. For a set A and a cardinal θ, write [A]θ := {B ⊆ A | |B| = θ} and define [A]<θ similarly. For two sets A and B, we write A ⊆∗ B to express that either A = ∅ or A \ α ⊆ B for some α ∈ A. For a poset (P, ⊳) and an element x ∈ P , we ↑ write x↓ := {y ∈ P | y ⊳ x} and x := {y ∈ P | x ⊳ y}. For a family A of subsets of some ordinal, we let mup(A) := sup{min(a) | a ∈ A, a 6= ∅}.
1.3. Conventions. Throughout the paper, κ stands for a regular uncountable car- dinal, and λ stands for an infinite cardinal.
2. A new guessing principle We commence by recalling some classic guessing principles. Definition 2.1. For a stationary subset S ⊆ κ: ∗ (1) ♦ (S) asserts the existence of a sequence hAα | α ∈ Si such that: • for all α ∈ S, Aα ⊆P(α) and |Aα| ≤ |α|; • for every B ⊆ κ, there exists a club C ⊆ κ such that C ∩ S ⊆{α ∈ S | B ∩ α ∈ Aα}. (2) ♦(S) asserts the existence of a sequence hAα | α ∈ Si such that: • for all α ∈ S, Aα ⊆ α; • for every B ⊆ κ, the set {α ∈ S | B ∩ α = Aα} is stationary. (3) ♣(S) asserts the existence of a sequence hAα | α ∈ Si such that: • for all α ∈ S ∩ acc(κ), Aα is a cofinal subset of α of order type cf(α); • for every cofinal subset B ⊆ κ, the set {α ∈ S | Aα ⊆ B} is stationary. (4) ♣J (S) asserts the existence of a matrix hAα,i | α ∈ S, i< cf(α)i such that: • For all α ∈ S ∩ acc(κ), hAα,i | i < cf(α)i is a sequence of pairwise disjoint cofinal subsets of α, each of order-type cf(α); 4 ASSAFRINOTANDROYSHALEV
• For every cofinal subset B ⊆ κ, the following set is stationary:
{α ∈ S | ∀i< cf(α)[sup(B ∩ Aα,i)= α]}. Remark 2.2. The principle ♦∗ was introduced by Kunen and Jensen in [JK69], the principle ♦ was introduced by Jensen in [Jen72], the principle ♣ was introduced by Ostaszewski in [Ost76], and the principle ♣J was introduced by Juh´asz in [Juh88] (under the name (t)). It is not hard to see that for stationary S′ ⊆ S ⊆ κ, ∗ ′ ♦ (S ) =⇒ ♦(S) =⇒ ♣(S) =⇒ ♣J (S). Devlin (see [Ost76, p. 507]) proved <κ that ♦(S) ⇐⇒ ♣(S)+ κ = κ. In [Juh88], Juh´asz proved that ♣J (ω1) is adjoined by the forcing to add a Cohen real, and proved that the former suffices for the construction of an Ostaszewski space. To present our new guessing principle, we shall first need the following definition. Definition 2.3. For a set of ordinals S:
(1) A sequence hAα | α ∈ Si is said to be an AD-ladder system iff the two hold: • For all α ∈ S ∩ acc(κ), Aα is a cofinal subset of α; ′ • For all two distinct α, α ∈ S, sup(Aα ∩ Aα′ ) < α. (2) A sequence hAα | α ∈ Si is said to be an AD-multi-ladder system iff the two hold: • For all α ∈ S ∩ acc(κ), Aα is a nonempty family consisting of pairwise disjoint cofinal subsets of α; ′ ′ • For all two distinct A, A ∈ α∈S Aα, sup(A ∩ A ) < sup(A). Now, we are ready to present the newS guessing principle.
Definition 2.4. For a family S of stationary subsets of κ, ♣AD(S,<θ) asserts the existence of an AD-multi-ladder system A~ = hAα | α ∈ Si such that: (1) For every α ∈ S, |A | = cf(α); α S (2) For every B ⊆ [κ]κ with |B| < θ, and every S ∈ S, the following set is stationary: S
G(S, B) := {α ∈ S | ∀(A, B) ∈ Aα ×B [sup(A ∩ B)= α]}.
Convention 2.5. We write ♣AD(S,θ) for ♣AD(S,<θ + 1), and ♣AD(S) for ♣AD({S}, 1). κ Remark 2.6. For any χ ∈ Reg(κ) and any stationary S ⊆ Eχ, ♣J (S) =⇒ ♣AD(S).
♦(S) ♦(ω1)
♣(S) Cohen real
♣J (S) ∃ℵ1-Souslin Tree
♣AD(S) ∀S ♣AD(S,<ω)
Figure 1. Diagram of implications between the combinatorial principles, at the level of ω1. AGUESSINGPRINCIPLEFROMASOUSLINTREE 5
To motivate Definition 2.3, let us point out two easy facts concerning disjointi- fying AD systems. Proposition 2.7. Suppose that S is a non-reflecting stationary subset of κ, and A~ = hAα | α ∈ Si is an AD-ladder system. Then there exists a sequence of functions hfξ | ξ<κi such that, for every ξ<κ:
(1) fξ is a regressive function from S ∩ ξ to ξ; (2) the sets in hAα \ fξ(α) | α ∈ S ∩ ξi are pairwise disjoint.
Proof. We recursively construct a sequence hfξ | ξ<κi such that for every ξ<κ, Clauses (1) and (2) above hold true. ◮ The cases where either ξ =0 or ξ = β +1 for β∈ / S are straightforward. ◮ Suppose ξ = β + 1 with β ∈ S for which fβ has already been defined. Define g : S ∩ β → β via g(α) := sup(Aβ ∩ Aα). As A~ is an AD-ladder system, g is regressive. In effect, we may define a regressive function fξ : S ∩ ξ → ξ via fξ(α) := max{fβ(α),g(α)} for α ∈ S ∩ β, and fξ(β) := 0. Notice that by the recursive assumption the function fξ is as sought. ◮ Suppose ξ ∈ acc(κ) for which hfβ | β < ξi has already been defined. As S is non-reflecting we may fix a club C ⊆ ξ disjoint from S. For every α < ξ, set α− := sup(C ∩ α) and α+ := min(C \ α). Note that, for every nonzero − + α ∈ S ∩ ξ, α <α<α . Define a regressive function fξ : S ∩ ξ → ξ via − fξ(α) := max{fα+ (α), α }. Notice that by the recursive hypothesis, the function fξ is as sought. κ ~ Proposition 2.8. Suppose that S is a subset of E≥λ and A = hAα | α ∈ Si is an AD-multi-ladder system. For any B ⊆ α∈S Aα with |B| ≤ λ, there exists a function f : B → κ such that: S (1) for every B ∈B, f(B) ∈ B; (2) the sets in hB \ f(B) | B ∈ Bi are pairwise disjoint.
Proof. Given B⊆ α∈S Aα with |B| ≤ λ, fix an injective enumeration hBξ | ξ < |B|i of B. By the hypothesis on A~, for every pair ζ<ξ< |B|, S κ κ sup(Bξ ∩ Bζ ) < sup(Bξ) ∈ E≥λ ⊆ E>ξ, so that supζ<ξ sup(Bξ ∩ Bζ ) < sup(Bξ). It follows that we may define a function f : B → κ via:
min(Bξ), if ξ = 0; f(Bξ) := (min{β ∈ Bξ | sup{sup(Bξ ∩ Bζ ) | ζ < ξ} <β}, otherwise. Evidently, f is as sought. Our next lemma shows, in particular, that for any χ ∈ Reg(κ) and any stationary κ S ⊆ Eχ, ♣(S) =⇒ ♣AD({S}, <ω). The reverse implication does not hold in general, as established by Corollary 2.26 below. The proof of the lemma will make use of the following fact. Fact 2.9 (Brodsky-Rinot, [BR21, §3]). For any stationary S ⊆ κ, all of the fol- lowing are equivalent: (1) ♣(S); (2) there exists a partition hSi | i<κi of S into pairwise disjoint stationary sets such that ♣(Si) holds for each i<κ; 6 ASSAFRINOTANDROYSHALEV
(3) for any (possibly finite) cardinal θ such that κθ = κ, there exists a matrix hAα,τ | α ∈ S, τ ≤ θi such that, for every sequence hAτ | τ ≤ θi of cofinal subsets of κ, the following set is stationary in κ:
{α ∈ S | ∀τ ≤ θ [Aα,τ ⊆ Aτ ∩ α & sup(Aα,τ )= α]}.
(4) there exists a sequence hXα | α ∈ Si such that: <ω • for every α ∈ S ∩ acc(κ), Xα ⊆ [α] with mup(Xα)= α; • for every X ⊆ [κ]<ω with mup(X)= κ, the following set is stationary:
{α ∈ S | Xα ⊆ X}. κ Lemma 2.10. Suppose that ♣(S) holds for some stationary S ⊆ Eχ with χ ∈ Reg(κ). Then there exists a partition S of S into κ many stationary sets for which ♣AD(S,<ω) holds as witnessed by a sequence A~ = hAα | α ∈ Si with otp(A) = χ for all A ∈ α∈S Aα.
Proof. By FactS 2.9(2), fix a partition hSi | i<κi of S into pairwise disjoint sta- tionary sets such that ♣(Si) holds for each i<κ. Set S := {Si | i<κ}. Next, for each i<κ, let hXα | α ∈ Sii be a sequence as in Fact 2.9(4). Fix a surjection h : χ → χ such that |h−1{j}| = χ for all j<χ. To simplify the upcoming argument let us agree to write, for any two nonempty sets of ordinals a,b,“a (1) xζ ∈ Xα, and (2) for every ξ < ζ, (xξ ∪{αζ }) < xζ . Suppose ζ <χ and that hxξ | ξ < ζi has already been defined. Evidently, η := sup({max(xξ) | ξ < ζ}∪{αζ }) is < α. So, as mup(Xα) = α, we may let xζ := x for some x ∈ Xα with min(x) > η. This completes the construction. By Clause (2), hxζ | ζ<χi is <-increasing, and j mup{xζ | ζ<χ} = α. Finally, for every j<χ, let Xα := {xζ | ζ <χ,h(ζ) = j}, j j and Aα := Xα. j Claim 2.10.1.U hAα | j<χi is a sequence of pairwise disjoint cofinal subsets of α, each of order-type χ. Proof. Let j<χ. As mup{xζ | ζ <χ,h(ζ)= j} = α, and as hxζ | ζ <χ,h(ζ)= ji j is a <-increasing cf(α)-sequence of finite sets, we infer that sup(Aα)= α, and that, j j for every β < α, otp(Aα ∩ β) <χ. Altogether, otp(Aα)= χ. j Also, since hxζ | ζ<χi consists of pairwise disjoint sets, the elements of hAα | j<χi are pairwise disjoint. j For every α ∈ S, set Aα := {Aα | j <χ}. It immediately follows from the preceding claim that A~ := hAα | α ∈ Si is an AD-multi-ladder system. Claim 2.10.2. For every finite B ⊆ [κ]κ and every i<κ, the following set is stationary: G(Si, B) := {α ∈ Si | ∀(A, B) ∈ Aα ×B [sup(A ∩ B)= α]}. Proof. Suppose that hBn | n We conclude this subsection by formulating a three-cardinal version of ♣AD, as follows. The principle ♣AD(S,µ,<θ) asserts the existence of a system A~ = hAα | α ∈ Si as in Definition 2.4, but in which, Clause (1) is replaced by the requirement that, for every α ∈ S, |Aα| = µ. We write ♣AD(S,µ,θ) for ♣AD(S,µ,<θ + 1). S It is clear that ♣AD(S,ω,<θ) follows from ♣AD(S,<θ). Also, the following lemma is obvious. S Lemma 2.11. For a family S of stationary subsets of κ, ♣AD(S, 1, 2) holds iff κ there exists an AD-ladder system hAα | α ∈ Si such that, for all B0,B1 ∈ [κ] and S ∈ S, the set {α ∈ S | sup(Aα ∩ B0) = sup(Aα ∩ B1)= α} is stationary. S 2.1. Interlude on Souslin trees. Recall that a poset T = (T, For every x ∈ T , denote ht(x) := otp(x↓, Lemma 2.12 (folklore). Suppose T = (T, Proof. Suppose not. Then there must exist some x ∈ X with w ≤T x. As A is a maximal antichain in X, we may findx ¯ ∈ A which is comparable with x. As ht(¯x) < δ ≤ ht(x), it follows thatx ¯ This completes the proof. Definition 2.13. A κ-Souslin tree T = (T, • normal iff for any x ∈ T and α<κ with ht(x) < α, there exists y ∈ Tα with x • µ-splitting iff every node in T admits at least µ-many immediate successors, that is, for every x ∈ T , |{y ∈ T | x A subset B ⊆ T is said to be an α-branch iff (B, Proof. Suppose T = (T, Recursively define a sequence of injections hπα : Tα → κ | α ∈ Di such that for, every α ∈ D: ′ • For every α ∈ D ∩ α, Im(πα′ ) ∩ Im(πα)= ∅; ′ • {Im(πα′ ) | α ∈ D ∩ (α + 1)} is an ordinal. U AGUESSINGPRINCIPLEFROMASOUSLINTREE 9 Evidently, π := α∈D πα is an injection from T ↾ D onto κ. Let ⊳ := {(π(x), π(y)) | (x, y) ∈ Lemma 2.18. Suppose that T = (T, T is 2-splitting and normal, we may find y 6= z in Tα|t|+1 with x 1Note that, by [She10], for any uncountable cardinal λ, ♦(λ+) holds iff 2λ = λ+. 10 ASSAFRINOTANDROYSHALEV Lemma 2.20. Suppose that T = (T, λ+ Proof. Towards a contradiction, suppose that α ∈ Eχ \ V (T). Fix x ∈ T ↾ α such that every α-branch B with x ∈ B has an upper bound in T . Fix a strictly increasing and continuous sequence of ordinals hαǫ | ǫ<χi that converges to α, and α0 := ht(x). Very much like the proof of Lemma 2.18, we may recursively <χ construct an array hxt | t ∈ λi in such a way that: • x∅ = x; <χ • for all t ∈ λ, xt ∈ Tαdom(t) ; <χ • for all t,s ∈ λ, if t ⊆ s, then xt Remark 2.21. It follows that if T is a normal λ-complete λ-splitting λ+-Souslin λ+ tree, then V (T)= Eλ . 2.2. Deriving our guessing principle from a Souslin tree. Theorem 2.22. Suppose that T = (T, G≥µ(S, B) := {α ∈ S | |Aα|≥ µ & ∀(A, B) ∈ Aα ×B [sup(A ∩ B)= α]}. Proof. As T is χ-splitting and prolific, for each w ∈ T , we may fix an injective sequence hwi | i< max{χ, ht(w)}i consisting of immediate successors of w. <θ As κ = κ, we may fix an injective enumeration hWη | η<κi of all subsets W of T such that: • 0 < |W | <θ, and • ht ↾ W is a constant function whose sole value is in [χ,κ). κ Claim 2.22.1. For every α ∈ Eχ, there exists a cofinal subset Aα of α which is an antichain in T. κ Proof. Fix an arbitrary α ∈ Eχ , and let X be an arbitrary cofinal subset of α of order-type χ. If there exists some ǫ<κ such that |X ∩ Tǫ| = χ, then we are done by letting Aα := X ∩ Tǫ. Thus, hereafter assume this is not the case, and pick a sequence hxj | j<χi of elements of X for which hht(xj ) | j<χi is strictly increasing. For notational simplicity, let us assume that {xj | j<χ} = X. Now, there are two cases to consider: ◮ Suppose that there exists a node w ∈ T such that, for every i<χ, there exists ji ji <χ such that x extends wi. Recalling that hwi | i<χi is an injective sequence ji of immediate successors of w, we infer that Aα := {x | i<χ} is an antichain as sought. AGUESSINGPRINCIPLEFROMASOUSLINTREE 11 j ◮ Suppose not. In particular, for each j<χ (using w := x ), we may fix ij <χ j j such that (x )ij is not extended by any element of X. We claim that Aα := {(x )ij | j<χ} is as sought. j j j+2 j j For every j<χ, we have ht(x ) < ht((x )ij ) < ht(x ), so that x ∈ (x )ij ∈ j+2 x , and hence Aα is yet another cofinal subset of α. To see that Aα is an ′ j antichain, suppose that there exists a pair j < j such that (x )ij is comparable j′ j j j′ j′ with (x )ij′ . As ht((x )ij ) = ht(x )+1 < ht(x ) + 1 = ht((x )ij′ ), it follows that j j′ j j′ (x )ij is extended by (x )ij′ , and in particular, (x )ij is extended by x which is an element of X, contradicting the choice of ij. Next, suppose that we are given a collection S of pairwise disjoint stationary κ subsets of V (T) ∩ Eχ. As T = κ and |T ↾ α| < κ for all α<κ, C := {α<κ | α = T ↾ α} is a club in κ. Let hSη | η<κi be a sequence of pairwise disjoint κ subsets of Eχ ∩ acc(C) satisfying: • For every S ∈ S, Sη ∩ S is stationary; • For every η<κ, min(Sη) is greater than the unique element of {ht(w) | w ∈ Wη}, which we hereafter denote by ǫη. κ Let R := Eχ \ η<κ Sη. For every α ∈ R, we appeal to Claim 2.22.1 and pick a cofinal subset Aα ⊆ α which is an antichainU in T. By possibly thinning out, we may also assume that otp(Aα) =cf(α). Then, we set Aα := {Aα}. Next, let α ∈ η<κ Sη be arbitrary. Let η<κ be the unique ordinal such that α ∈ Sη. As α ∈ V (T), for every w ∈ Wη and every i<ǫη, we may find a subset w U Aα,i of T such that: w (1) Aα,i is a chain with minimal element wi; w (2) {ht(x) | x ∈ Aα,i} = α \ ǫη + 1; w (3) there exists no z ∈ Tα such that, for all x ∈ Aα,i, x Claim 2.22.2. hAα,i | i<ǫηi is a sequence of pairwiseS disjoint cofinal subsets of α. w u Proof. Let w,u ∈ Wη and i,j <ǫη and suppose that x ∈ Aα,i ∩Aα,j . By Clause (1) above, x extends both wi and uj . But wi and uj are predecessors of x at the same level Tǫη+1, so that wi = uj and it easily follows that (w,i) = (u, j). For all w ∈ Wη and i<ǫη, it follows from α ∈ C and Clause (2) above that w Aα,i ⊆ α, so that Aα,i ⊆ α. In addition, as α ∈ acc(C), if we pick any w ∈ Wη, w then it follows from Clause (2) above that sup{β ∈ C | Aα,i ∩ Tβ 6= ∅} = α, and hence Aα,i is cofinal in α. ′ ′ ′ Claim 2.22.3. Let A, A ∈ κ Aα with A 6= A . Then sup(A ∩ A ) < sup(A). α∈Eχ ′ ′ Proof. Let α, α be such thatS A ∈ Aα and A ∈ Aα′ . As the elements of Aα are pairwise disjoint, we may assume that α 6= α′. If α′ < α, then sup(A∩A′) ≤ α′ < α, so assume that α′ > α. ◮ If α′ ∈ R, then otp(A ∩ A′) ≤ otp(α ∩ A′) < otp(A′) = cf(α), so that sup(A ∩ A′) < α. ◮ If α′ ∈/ R and α ∈ R, then A is antichain, while A′ is the union of <θ many chains, so that |A ∩ A′| <θ ≤ χ = cf(α), and again sup(A ∩ A′) < α. 12 ASSAFRINOTANDROYSHALEV ◮ If α, α′ ∈/ R, then let η,ζ,i,j be such that A = Aw and A′ = w∈Wη α,i u A . Since max{|Wη|, |Wζ |} < θ ≤ χ = cf(α), it suffices to show that u∈Wζ α,j S for each w ∈ W and u ∈ W , sup(Aw ∩ Au ) < α. But the latter follows from S η ζ α,i β,j Clause (3) above together with the fact that α ∈ C. Thus, we are left with verifying the following. ′ Claim 2.22.4. Suppose B = {Bτ | τ <θ } is a family of cofinal subsets of κ, with ′ θ < θ. Suppose S ∈ S and µ<κ is some cardinal. Then the set G≥µ(S, B) is stationary. Proof. Recalling Lemma 2.12, for each τ <θ′, we may fix wτ ∈ T such that τ ↑ τ ↑ (w ) ∩ Bτ is cofinal in (w ) . Since T is normal, we may extend the said elements to ensure that ht ↾ {wτ | τ <θ′} is a constant function whose sole value is some ǫ<κ with ǫ ≥ max{χ,µ}. It follows that there exists (a unique) η<κ such that τ ′ Wη = {w | τ <θ }. Next, since T has no antichains of size κ, we may fix a sparse ′ ′ enough club C ⊆ C with min(C ) >ǫη such that, for every pair of ordinals γ<β ′ τ τ ↑ from C and every w ∈ Wη, the set Bτ ∩ ((w ) ) \ (T ↾ γ) contains a maximal antichain in itself which is a subset of T ↾ β. ′ Consider the stationary set Γ := Sη ∩ acc(C ). Now, let α ∈ Γ be arbitrary. ′ By Claim 2.22.2, |Aα| = |ǫη| ≥ µ. Next, let τ <θ and A ∈ Aα be arbitrary. Find i<ǫ such that A = A = Aw . In particular, A ⊇ Awτ . As η α,i w∈Wη α,i α,i ′ ′ wτ sup(C ∩α)= α, it thus suffices to showS that for every γ ∈ C ∩α, sup(Aα,i∩Bτ ) ≥ γ. For this, let γ ∈ C′ ∩ α be arbitrary. Let β := min(C′ \ (γ + 1)). Let x denote wτ τ τ the unique element of Aα,i ∩ Tβ. As w Theorem A now follows immediately. Corollary 2.24. (1) If there exists a cf(λ)-complete λ+-Souslin tree, then for λ+ every partition S of Ecf(λ) into stationary sets, ♣AD(S,< cf(λ)) holds. κ (2) If there exists a regressive κ-Souslin tree, then for every partition S of Eω into stationary sets, ♣AD(S,<ω) holds. Corollary 2.25. If there exists an ω1-Souslin tree, then ♣AD({ω1}, <ω) holds. Corollary 2.26. It is consistent with CH that ♣AD({ω1}, <ω) holds, but ♣(ω1) fails. Proof. Start with a model of GCH+¬♦(ω1) (e.g., Jensen’s model [DJ74] of GCH with no ℵ1-Souslin trees). Now, force to add a single Cohen real and work in the corresponding extension. As this is a countable forcing, CH still holds and ♦(ω1) still fails, so that by Devlin’s theorem (see Remark 2.2), ♣(ω1) fails as well. Finally, by a theorem of Shelah [She84], the forcing to add a Cohen real introduces an ω1-Souslin tree, so that, by the preceding corollary, ♣AD({ω1}, <ω) holds. Corollary 2.27. The assertion that ♣AD(S,<ω) holds for every partition S of ω1 into stationary sets is consistent with any of the two: (1) ♣J (ω1) fails; (2) ♣J (S) fails for some stationary S ⊆ ω1, and CH holds. Proof. For a stationary subset S of ω1, let Unif(S, 2) assert that for every sequence of functions f~ = hfα : Aα → 2 | α ∈ acc(ω1) ∩ Si where each Aα is a cofinal subset of α of order-type ω, there exists a function f : ω1 → 2 that uniformizes f~, i.e., for every α ∈ S ∩ acc(ω1), ∆(f,fα) := {β ∈ Aα | f(β) 6= fα(β)} is finite. Claim 2.27.1. ♣J (S) refutes Unif(S, 2). Proof. Suppose that hAα,i | α ∈ S, i<ωi is as in Definition 2.1(4). In particular, for every α ∈ S ∩ acc(ω1), Aα := Aα,0 ⊎ Aα,1 is a cofinal subset of α of order-type ω, and we may define a function fα : Aα → 2 via fα(β) := 0 iff β ∈ Aα,0. Towards a contradiction, suppose that there exists a function f : ω1 → 2 that uniformizes f~ := hfα | α ∈ S ∩ acc(ω1)i. By the pigeonhole principle, pick j < 2 for which B := {β<ω1 | f(β) = j} is uncountable. Now, fix α ∈ S ∩ acc(ω1) such that sup(B ∩ Aα,i)= α for all i<ω. Let i := 1 − j. Pick β ∈ B ∩ Aα,i \ ∆(f,fα). Then j = f(β)= fα(β)= i. This is a contradiction. (1) As made clear by the proof of [DS78, Theorem 5.2], it is possible to force Unif(ω1, 2) via a finite support iteration of Knaster posets. In particular, if we start with a ground model with an ℵ1-Souslin tree, then we can force Unif(ω1, 2) without killing the tree. Now appeal to Corollary 2.23(1). (2) In [She77, Theorems 2.1 and 2.4], ♦(ω1) is shown to be consistent with the existence of a stationary subset S ⊆ ω1 on which Unif(S, 2) holds. Now, appeal to Fact 2.16(1) and Corollary 2.23(1). We conclude this subsection by stating an additional result, this time concerning the three-cardinal version of ♣AD: Theorem 2.28. Suppose that there exists a κ-Souslin tree. (1) If κ is a successor cardinal, then there exists a cardinal χ ∈ Reg(κ) and a κ partition S of Eχ into κ many stationary sets such that ♣AD(S, 1, 1) holds. 14 ASSAFRINOTANDROYSHALEV (2) If κ carries an amenable C-sequence (see [BR19, Definition 1.3]), then there exists a collection S of κ-many pairwise disjoint stationary subsets of κ, for which ♣AD(S, 1, 1) holds. We omit the proof due to the lack of applications of ♣AD(S, 1, 1), at present. 2.3. The consistency of the negation of our guessing principle. By Lemma 2.10, for a stationary set S consisting of points of some fixed cofinality, ♣(S) entails ♣AD({S}, <ω). The next theorem shows that the restriction to a fixed cofinality is crucial. Theorem 2.29. If κ is weakly compact, then for any S with Reg(κ) ⊆ S ⊆ κ, ♣AD({S}, 1, 1) fails. Proof. Suppose that A~ = hAα | α ∈ Si is a ♣AD({S}, 1, 1)-sequence, with Reg(κ) ⊆ S ⊆ κ. We define a C-sequence hCα | α<κi, as follows: ◮ Let C0 := ∅. ◮ For every α<κ, let Cα+1 := {α}. ◮ For every α ∈ acc(κ) \ Reg(κ), fix a closed and cofinal Cα ⊆ α with otp(Cα)= cf(α) < min(Cα). + ◮ For every α ∈ Reg(κ), let Bα := nacc(Aα) and finally let Cα := Bα⊎acc (Bα). Note that Bα is a cofinal subset of Aα, and that Cα is a closed and cofinal subset of α. Towards a contradiction, suppose that κ is weakly compact. So, by [Tod87, Theorem 1.8], we may fix a club C ⊆ κ such that, for every δ <κ, for some α(δ) <κ, C ∩ δ = Cα(δ) ∩ δ. Consider the club D := {δ ∈ acc(κ) | otp(C ∩ δ)= δ}. Claim 2.29.1. For every δ ∈ D, α(δ) ∈ Reg(κ). Proof. Let δ ∈ D. Since Cα(δ) ∩ δ = C ∩ δ is infinite, α(δ) ∈ acc(κ). Now, if α(δ) ∈ acc(κ) \ Reg(κ), then δ = otp(Cα(δ) ∩ δ) ≤ otp(Cα(δ)) < min(Cα(δ)), which is an absurd. Evidently, B := nacc(C) is a cofinal subset of κ. So, by the choice of A~, G := {δ ∈ S ∩ D | sup(B ∩ Aδ)= δ} is stationary. Pick a pair of ordinals δ0 < δ1 from G. For each i< 2, since α(δi) ∈ Reg(κ), B ∩ δi = nacc(C) ∩ δi = nacc(Cα(δi )) ∩ δi = Bα(δi) ∩ δi ⊆ Aα(δi). ~ As sup(B ∩Aδi )= δi and B ∩δi ⊆ Aα(δi), sup(Aα(δi) ∩Aδi )= δi, so, since A is an AD-ladder system, it must be the case that α(δi)= δi. Altogether, B ∩ δ0 ⊆ Aδ0 ∩ Aδ1 , so that δ0 > sup(Aδ0 ∩ Aδ1 ) ≥ sup(B ∩ δ0)= δ0. This is a contradiction. An ideal I consisting of countable sets is said to be a P-ideal iff every countable family of sets in the ideal admits a pseudo-union in the ideal. That is, for every sequence hXn | n<ωi of elements of I, there exists X ∈ I such that Xn \ X is finite for all n<ω. Definition 2.30 (Todorˇcevi´c, [Tod00]). The P-ideal dichotomy (PID) asserts that for every P-ideal I consisting of countable subsets of some set Z, either: (1) there is an uncountable B ⊆ Z such that [B]ℵ0 ⊆ I, or (2) there is a sequence hBn | n<ωi such that n<ω Bn = Z and, for each n<ω,[B ]ℵ0 ∩ I = ∅. n S AGUESSINGPRINCIPLEFROMASOUSLINTREE 15 PID We denote by ℵ1 the restriction of the above principle to Z := ℵ1. This special case was first introduced and studied by Abraham and Todorˇcevi´cin [AT97], and was denoted there by (∗). PID Lemma 2.31. Suppose that ℵ1 holds and b > ω1. Then, for any stationary S ⊆ ω1, ♣AD({S}, 1, 1) fails. Proof. Towards a contradiction, suppose that S ⊆ ω1 is stationary, and that A~ = hAα | α ∈ Si is a ♣AD({S}, 1, 1)-sequence. Let ≤ℵ0 I := {X ∈ [ω1] | ∀α ∈ acc(ω1) ∩ S[Aα ∩ X is finite]}. It is clear that I is an ideal. Claim 2.31.1. I is a P-ideal. Proof. Let X~ = hXn | n<ωi be a sequence of elements of I. We need to find a pseudo-union of X~ that lies in I. As I is downward closed, we may assume that hXn | n<ωi consists of pairwise disjoint sets. Fix a bijection e : ω ↔ n<ω Xn. Then, for all α ∈ S, define a function fα : ω → ω via U fα(n) := min{m<ω | Xn ∩ Aα ⊆ e“m}. ∗ As b > ω1, let us fix a function f : ω → ω such that fα < f for all α ∈ S. Set X := {Xn \ e[f(n)] | n<ω}. Clearly, for every n<ω, Xn \ X is a subset of e[f(n)], and, in particular, it is finite. U Towards a contradiction, suppose that X/∈ I. Fix α ∈ acc(ω1) ∩ S such that Aα ∩ X is infinite. Since X ⊆ n<ω Xn, but Aα ∩ Xn is finite for all n<ω, we may find a large enough n<ω such that Aα ∩ X ∩ Xn 6= ∅ and fα(n) Claim 2.31.2. Let B ⊆ ω1 be uncountable. (1) There exists X ∈ [B]ℵ0 with X/∈ I; (2) There exists X ∈ [B]ℵ0 with X ∈ I. Proof. As B is uncountable, G := {α ∈ acc(ω1)∩S | sup(Aα ∩B)= α} is stationary. ℵ (1) Fix arbitrary α ∈ G. Then X := Aα ∩ B is an element of [B] 0 \ I. (2) Let hαn | n<ωi be some increasing sequence of elements of G. For every m n<ω, let hαn | m<ωi be the increasing enumeration of some cofinal subset of 0 Aαn ∩ B. Furthermore, we require that, for all n<ω, αn < αn+1. ~ Set β := supn<ω αn. As A is an AD-ladder system, for every α ∈ S ∩ acc(ω1) \ β, we may define a function fα : ω → ω via: m fα(n) := min{m<ω | Aαn ∩ Aα ⊆ αn }. ∗ As b > ω1, let us fix a function f : ω → ω such that fα < f for all α ∈ S. f(n) Set X := {αn | 0 f(n) fα(n) f(n) fα(n) infer that αn ∈ Aαn ∩ Aα ⊆ αn . In particular, αn < αn , contradicting the fact that fα(n) Corollary 2.32. (1) PFA implies that ♣AD({ω1}, 1, 1) fails; (2) ♣AD({ω1}, 1, 1) does not follow from the existence of an almost Souslin tree. PFA PID MA Proof. (1) It is well-known that implies + ℵ1 . In particular, it implies PID ℵ1 together with b >ω1. (2) Almost Souslin trees were defined in [DS79, §3]. In [KT20] and [Kru20] one can find models of PID with p > ω1 (in particular, b > ω1), in which there exists an Aronszajn tree which is almost Souslin. MA Question 2.33. Does ℵ1 imply that ♣AD(ω1) fail? Question 2.34. Is CH consistent with the failure of ♣AD(ω1)? Note that a combination of the main results of [Juh88, ER99] implies that CH is consistent with the failure of ♣J (ω1). 3. A Ladder-system Dowker space In [Goo95b], Good constructed a Dowker space of size κ+ using ♣(S, 2), where S κ+ is a non-reflecting stationary subset of Eω . We won’t define the principle ♣(S, 2), but only mention that, by Fact 2.9(3), it is no stronger than ♣(S). In this sec- tion, a ladder-system Dowker space of size κ is constructed under the assumption of ♣AD(S, 1, 2), where S is an infinite partition of some non-reflecting stationary subset of κ. By Lemma 2.10, ♣(S) implies ♣AD(S,<ω), which surely implies ♣AD(S, 1, 2), so, our construction in particular gives a ladder-system Dowker space in Good’s scenario. It also gives ladder-system Dowker spaces in scenarios consid- ered by Rudin [Rud74b] and Weiss [Wei81], as explained at the end of this section. The constructions in this and in the next section are motivated by the following lemma. Lemma 3.1. Suppose that X = (X, τ) is a normal Hausdorff topological space of size κ, having no two disjoint closed sets of size κ. If there exists a ⊆-decreasing sequence hDn | n<ωi of closed sets of cardinality κ such that n<ω Dn = ∅, then X is Dowker. T Proof. Recall that, by [Dow51], a space is Dowker iff it is Hausdorff, normal and there is a ⊆-decreasing sequence hDn | n<ωi of closed sets with n<ω Dn = ∅, such that, for every sequence hUn | n<ωi of open sets, if Dn ⊆ Un for every n<ω, T then n<ω Un 6= ∅. Now suppose that there exists a ⊆-decreasing sequence hDn | n<ωi of closed T sets of cardinality κ such that n<ω Dn = ∅. Suppose that hUn | n<ωi is a sequence of open sets such that Dn ⊆ Un for every n<ω. T For every n<ω, Fn := X \ Un is a closed set disjoint from Dn, and hence of cardinality <κ. So, as ω < cf(κ)= κ, n<ω Fn has size less then κ. In particular, X \ n<ω Fn 6= ∅. Altogether, n<ω Un = n<ω X \ Fn = X \ n<ω Fn 6= ∅. Recalling that X is normal, we altogetherS infer that X is Dowker. S T T S AGUESSINGPRINCIPLEFROMASOUSLINTREE 17 The space. Suppose that S is a stationary subset of acc(κ), S is a partition of S with |S| = ℵ0, and ♣AD(S, 1, 2) holds. Fix an AD-ladder system hAα | α ∈ Si as in Lemma 2.11. Fix an injective enumeration hSn+1 | n<ωi of S, and let S0 := κ \ S. As hSn | n<ωi is a partition of κ, for each α<κ, we may let n(α) denote the unique n<ω such that α ∈ Sn. For each n<ω, let Wn := i≤n Si. Finally, define ~ a sequence L = hLα | α<κi via: S Wn(α)−1 ∩ Aα, if n(α) > 0 & sup(Wn(α)−1 ∩ Aα)= α; Lα := (∅, otherwise. Lemma 3.2. (1) For all n<ω and α ∈ Sn+1, Lα ⊆ Wn; (2) S¯ := {α ∈ acc(κ) | sup(Lα)= α} is a stationary subset of S; ′ (3) For all α 6= α from S¯, sup(Lα ∩ Lα′ ) < α; κ (4) For all B0,B1 ∈ [κ] , there exists m<ω such that, for every n ∈ ω \ m, the following set is stationary: {α ∈ Sn | sup(Lα ∩ B0) = sup(Lα ∩ B1)= α]}. Proof. (2) This follows from Clause (4). ′ (3) For all α 6= α from S¯, sup(Lα ∩ Lα′ ) ≤ sup(Aα ∩ Aα′ ) < α; (4) Given two cofinal subsets B0,B1 of κ, find m0,m1 < ω be such that |B0 ∩ Sm0 | = |B1 ∩ Sm1 | = κ. Evidently, m := max{n0,n1} + 1 is as sought. Now, consider the ladder-system space X = (κ, τ) which is determined by L~ (equivalently, determined by L~ ↾ S¯). This means that a set U ⊆ κ is τ-open iff, for ∗ ǫ every α ∈ U, Lα ⊆ U. Put differently, if we denote Nα := (Lα \ ǫ) ∪{α}, then, ǫ for every α<κ, every neighborhood of α covers some element from Nα := {Nα | ǫ < α}. Definition 3.3. For any set of ordinals N, denote N − := N ∩ sup(N). − Note that, for all α<κ and N ∈ Nα, N is either empty or a cofinal subset of α. Lemma 3.4. The space X is T1. Proof. Let x be an element of the space X. To see that κ \{x} is τ-open, notice that for every y ∈ X, Ny is a chain such that Ny = {y}. In particular, for every y ∈ X \{x}, there exists Ny ∈ Ny with Ny ⊆ κ \{x}. T Lemma 3.5. (1) κ \ S¯ is a discrete subspace of size κ; (2) For every ξ<κ, ξ is τ-open; (3) For every ξ ∈ κ \ S¯, ξ is τ-closed; (4) For every n<ω, Wn is τ-open. Proof. (4) By Lemma 3.2(1). Lemma 3.6. There are no two disjoint τ-closed subsets of cardinality κ. Proof. Towards a contradiction, suppose that K0 and K1 are two disjoint τ-closed subsets of cardinality κ. Using Lemma 3.2(4), let us fix n<ω such that sup(Lα ∩ K0) = sup(Lα ∩ K1) = α. As both K0 and K1 are τ-closed, this implies that α ∈ K0 and α ∈ K1, contradicting the fact K0 and K1 are disjoint. 18 ASSAFRINOTANDROYSHALEV Following the terminology coined in [Hig51] and [BEG+04], we introduce the following. Definition 3.7. The sequence L~ is said to be almost P0 iff, for every ξ<κ and every function c : S¯ ∩ ξ → ω, there exists a function c∗ : ξ → ω such that, for every ∗ α ∈ S¯ ∩ ξ, c ↾ Lα is eventually constant with value c(α). Lemma 3.8. If L~ is almost P0, then X is normal and Hausdorff. Proof. Suppose that L~ is almost P0. Let K0 and K1 be disjoint τ-closed subsets of κ. By Lemma 3.6, at least one of them is bounded, say K0. Using Lemma 3.5(1), fix a large enough ξ ∈ κ \ S¯ such that K0 ⊆ ξ. Note that by Clauses (2) and (3) of 0 0 Lemma 3.5, ξ is clopen. Now, set K0 := K0 and K1 := K1. n n Claim 3.8.1. Suppose n<ω and that K0 and K1 are disjoint τ-closed sets with n n+1 n+1 n+1 K0 ⊆ ξ. Then there exist disjoint τ-closed sets K0 and K1 with K0 ⊆ ξ such that for all i< 2: n n+1 (1) Ki ⊆ Ki ; n ∗ n+1 (2) for every α ∈ Ki ∩ ξ, Lα ⊆ Ki . ¯ n ~ Proof. For every i< 2, define ci : S ∩ ξ → 2 via ci(α) := 1 iff α ∈ Ki . Now, as L ∗ is almost P0, for each i< 2, we may fix a function ci : ξ → 2 such that, for every ¯ ∗ α ∈ S ∩ ξ, ci ↾ Lα is eventually constant with value ci(α). For each i< 2, set n+1 n n ∗ ∗ Ki := Ki ∪{γ ∈ ξ \ K1−i | ci (γ)=1& c1−i(γ)=0}. n n+1 n+1 n+1 Evidently Ki ⊆ Ki . It is also easy to see that K0 ∩ K1 = ∅. n+1 Let i < 2. To see that Ki is τ-closed, fix an arbitrary nonzero α<κ such n+1 n+1 n n+1 that sup(Ki ∩ Lα)= α, and we shall prove that α ∈ Ki . As Ki ⊆ Ki , we n may avoid trivialities, and assume that α∈ / Ki , so that α belongs to the set n ∗ ∗ {γ ∈ ξ \ K1−i | ci (γ)=1& c1−i(γ)=0}. ¯ n Altogether, α ∈ (S ∩ ξ) \ Ki , which must mean that ci(α) = 0. Fix a large ∗ enough ǫ < α such that ci ↾ (Lα \ ǫ) is eventually constant with value 0. Then n+1 sup(Ki ∩ Lα) ≤ ǫ < α, contradicting the choice of α. n ¯ Finally, to verify Clause (2), fix arbitrary i < 2 and α ∈ Ki ∩ ξ ∩ S. By the definition of the two functions, ci(α) = 1 and c1−i(α) = 0. So, there exists a large ∗ enough ǫ < α such that ci ↾ (Lα \ ǫ) is a constant function with value 1, and ∗ n+1 c1−i ↾ (Lα \ ǫ) is a constant function with value 0. In effect, Lα \ ǫ ⊆ Ki . By an iterative application of the preceding claim, we obtain a sequence of pairs n n n n h(K0 ,K1 ) | n<ωi. Set U0 := n<ω K0 and U1 := (κ \ ξ) ∪ n<ω K1 . By Clause (2) of the preceding claim and the fact that ξ is clopen, Ui is open for each i< 2. Thus, we are left with verifyingS the following. S Claim 3.8.2. U0 ∩ U1 = ∅. Proof. Suppose not, and pick α ∈ U0 ∩ U1. Notice that U0 ⊆ ξ, hence we can find n0 n1 n0,n1 < ω such that α ∈ K0 ∩ K1 . Then, for n := max{n0,n1}, we get that n n n n α ∈ K0 ∩ K1 , contradicting the fact that K0 and K1 are disjoint. This completes the proof of normality. Since X is T1, it also follows that it is Hausdorff. AGUESSINGPRINCIPLEFROMASOUSLINTREE 19 Corollary 3.9. If L~ is almost P0, then X is Dowker. Proof. For every n<ω, set Dn := κ \ Wn. Then hDn | n<ωi is a ⊆-decreasing sequence of closed sets of cardinality κ such that n<ω Dn = ∅. So, by Lemmas 3.8, 3.6 and 3.1, X is Dowker. T Lemma 3.10. Each of the following two imply that L~ is almost P0: (1) MA(<κ) holds and otp(Lα)= ω for all α ∈ S¯; (2) S¯ is a non-reflecting stationary set. Proof. (1) This follows immediately from [She98, §II, Theorem 4.3]. (2) By Lemma 3.2(3) and Proposition 2.7, we may fix a sequence hfξ | ξ<κi such that, for every ξ<κ: • fξ is a regressive function from S¯ ∩ ξ to ξ; • the sets in hLα \ fξ(α) | α ∈ S¯ ∩ ξi are pairwise disjoint. + Now, given a nonzero ξ <κ, let fξ : ξ → ξ denote the function such that + ¯ + ¯ fξ (α) = fξ(α) for all α ∈ S ∩ ξ, and fξ (α) = 0 for all α ∈ ξ \ S. Evidently, for + ¯ every β < ξ, {α < ξ | β ∈ Lα \ fξ (α)} is a subset of S containing at most one element. So, for any function c : S¯∩ξ → ω, we may define a corresponding function c∗ : ξ → ω via: c(α), if β ∈ L \ f +(α); c∗(β) := α ξ (0, otherwise. A moment’s reflection makes it clear that c∗ is as sought. Corollary 3.11. Suppose that S is an infinite partition of some non-reflecting stationary subset of a regular uncountable cardinal κ. If ♣AD(S, 1, 2) holds, then there exists a ladder-system Dowker space of cardinality κ. Remark 3.12. The preceding is the Introduction’s Theorem B. MA c Corollary 3.13. If + ♣(Eω) holds, then there exists a ladder-system Dowker space over c. In particular, if MA holds and c is the successor of a cardinal of uncountable cofinality, then there exists a ladder-system Dowker space over c. Proof. The first part follows from Lemmas 2.10 and 3.10(1). For the second part, note that if MA holds and c = λ+, then 2λ = λ+, so if, moreover, λ is a cardinal λ+ of uncountable cofinality, then by the main result of [She10], ♦(Eω ) holds. In c particular, in this case, ♣(Eω) holds. MA c Remark 3.14. In [Wei81], Weiss proved that if and ♦(Eω) both hold, then there exists a locally compact, first countable, separable, real compact, Dowker space of size c. Corollary 3.15. If there exists a λ-complete λ+-Souslin tree, then there exists a ladder-system Dowker space over λ+. λ+ Proof. By Corollary 2.24, Lemma 3.10(2), and the fact that Eλ is a non-reflecting stationary subset of λ+. Remark 3.16. In [Rud74b], Rudin constructed a Dowker space of size λ+ from a λ+-Souslin tree, for λ regular. 20 ASSAFRINOTANDROYSHALEV Corollary 3.17. If there exist a regressive κ-Souslin tree and a non-reflecting κ stationary subset of Eω, then there exists a ladder-system Dowker space over κ. Proof. By Corollary 2.23 and Lemma 3.10(2). Remark 3.18. It is well-known (see [Jen72] or [BR17a]) that if κ > ℵ0, κ holds and 2κ = κ+, then there exists a regressive κ-Souslin tree and there exists a non- κ+ reflecting stationary subset of Eω . In [Goo95b], Good proved that if κ > ℵ0, κ + + κ holds and 2 = κ , then there exists a Dowker space over κ which is first countable, locally countable, locally compact, zero-dimensional, and collectionwise normal that is of scattered length ω. 4. de Caux type spaces 4.1. Collectionwise normality. In this short subsection, we present a sufficient condition for a certain type of a topological space to be collectionwise normal. This will be used in verifying that the spaces constructed later in this section are indeed collectionwise normal. Definition 4.1. Let X = (X, τ) be a topological space. • A sequence hKi | i<θi of subsets of X is said to be discrete iff for every x ∈ X, there is an open neighborhood U of x such that {i<θ | U ∩Ki 6= ∅} contains at most one point. • The space X is said to be collectionwise normal iff for every discrete se- quence hKi | i<θi of closed sets, there exists a sequence hUi | i<θi of pairwise disjoint open sets such that Ki ⊆ Ui for all i<θ. Remark 4.2. Note that any collectionwise normal space is normal. Let X = (X, τ) be some topological space determined by a pairwise disjoint sequence of weak neighborhoods, hNx | x ∈ Xi. This means that a subset U ⊆ X is τ-open iff for any x ∈ U, there is N ∈ Nx with N ⊆ U. − Definition 4.3. For any point x ∈ X and a set N ∈ Nx, denote N := N \{x}. We suppose that the weak neighborhoods behave nicely, i.e.: (1) Nx is a chain such that Nx = {x}, and (2) for all x 6= y from X, there are Nx ∈ Nx and Ny ∈ Ny with Nx ∩ Ny = ∅. T Notice that Clause (1) implies that the space X is T1, and that Clause (2) is a necessary condition for X to be Hausdorff. Lemma 4.4. Suppose that θ is some nonzero cardinal and that hKi | i<θi is a discrete sequence of τ-closed sets, O is a τ-open set such that Ki+1 ⊆ O for all i with i +1 <θ, and there exists a sequence hNx | x ∈ Xi ∈ x∈X Nx such that: (a) for all x ∈ O, Nx ⊆ O; ′ − − Q (b) for all x ∈ O and x ∈ X \{x}, Nx ∩ Nx′ = ∅; (c) for all x ∈ X and i<θ, if Nx ∩ Ki 6= ∅, then x ∈ Ki. Then there exists a sequence hUi | i<θi of pairwise disjoint τ-open sets such that K0 ⊆ U0, and, Ki+1 ⊆ Ui+1 ⊆ O for all i with i +1 <θ. n Proof. By recursion on n<ω, we construct a matrix hUi | i<θ, n<ωi, as follows: 0 ◮ For each i<θ, set Ui := Ki. AGUESSINGPRINCIPLEFROMASOUSLINTREE 21 n ◮ For every n<ω such that hUi | i<θi has already been defined, set n+1 n Ui := {Nx | x ∈ Ui } for each i<θ. n Evidently, Ui :=S n<ω Ui is an open set covering Ki. Claim 4.4.1. For everyS nonzero i<θ, Ui ⊆ O. n Proof. We have Ui,0 = Ki ⊆ O. In addition, for every n<ω such that Ui ⊆ O n n+1 and every x ∈ Ui , we get that Nx ⊆ O, so that Ui ⊆ O. Claim 4.4.2. For every i<θ, the set Ui is open. n Proof. For each x ∈ Ui, we may find n<ω such that x ∈ Ui , and then Nx is an n+1 element of Nx for which Nx ⊆ Ui ⊆ Ui. Claim 4.4.3. The sets in the sequence hUi | i<θi are pairwise disjoint. ′ Proof. Suppose not. Fix i 6= i in θ such that Ui ∩ Ui′ 6= ∅. Let n := min{k<ω | k ′ n k Ui ∩ Ui′ 6= ∅}, and then let n := min{k<ω | Ui ∩ Ui′ 6= ∅}. Subclaim 4.4.3.1. min{n,n′} > 0. 0 0 ′ Proof. As Ui = Ki is disjoint from Ui′ = Ki′ , we infer that (n,n ) 6= (0, 0). ′ n′ ◮ If n = 0 and n > 0, then let y ∈ Ki ∩ Ui′ . It follows that there exists some n′−1 0 n′−1 x ∈ Ui′ such that y ∈ Ki ∩ Nx. By Clause (c), then, x ∈ Ki. So x ∈ Ui ∩ Ui′ , contradicting the minimality of n′. ′ n ◮ If n > 0 and n = 0, then let y ∈ Ui ∩ Ki′ . It follows that there exists some n−1 n−1 0 x ∈ Ui such that Ki′ ∩ Nx 6= ∅. By Clause (c), then, x ∈ Ki′ . So x ∈ Ui ∩ Ui′ , contradicting the minimality of n. n n′ Subclaim 4.4.3.2. There is no y ∈ Ui ∩ Ui′ . n n−1 − n−1 Proof. Notice that, for all y ∈ Ui , either y ∈ Ui or y ∈ Nx for some x ∈ Ui . n n′ Now, let y ∈ Ui ∩ Ui′ be arbitrary. There are four cases to consider: n−1 n′−1 n−1 (1) y ∈ Ui ∩Ui′ . In this case, Ui ∩Ui′ 6= ∅, contradicting the minimality of n. ′ n′−1 n−1 − − n′ (2) There exists x ∈ Ui′ such that y ∈ Ui ∩ Nx′ . In this case, Nx′ ⊆ Ui′ , n−1 so Ui ∩ Ui′ 6= ∅, contradicting the minimality of n. n−1 − n′−1 − n (3) There exists x ∈ Ui such that y ∈ Nx ∩ Ui′ . In this case, Nx ⊆ Ui , n n′−1 ′ so Ui ∩ Ui′ 6= ∅, contradicting the minimality of n . n−1 ′ n′−1 − − (4) There exist x ∈ Ui and x ∈ Ui′ such that y ∈ Nx ∩Nx′ . In this case, there are two subcases: ′ n−1 n′−1 ◮ If x = x , then x ∈ Ui ∩ Ui′ , contradicting the minimality of n. ◮ If x 6= x′, then, by Claim 4.4.1, either x ∈ O or x′ ∈ O. This is in contradiction with Clause (b). Altogether, {Ui | i<θ} is a family of pairwise disjoint sets as sought. This completes the proof. 22 ASSAFRINOTANDROYSHALEV 4.2. O-space. This subsection is dedicated to proving Theorem C: Theorem 4.5. Suppose that ♣AD({ω1}, ω, 1) holds. Then there exists a collection- wise normal, non-Lindel¨of O-space. Remark 4.6. Note that unlike Dahroug’s construction that defines a topology over the ℵ1-Souslin tree, here the topology will be defined over ω1. Thus, when taken together with Corollary 2.25, this appears to yield the first “linear” construction of an O-space from an ℵ1-Souslin tree. Remark 4.7. The arguments of this subsection immediately generalize to yield a λ+ collectionwise normal higher O-space from ♣AD({Eλ }, λ, 1). The focus on the case λ = ω is just for simplicity. Let hAα | α<ω1i be a ♣AD({ω1}, ω, 1)-sequence. For each α ∈ acc(ω1), fix an injective enumeration {Aα+i | i<ω} of the elements of Aα. For every infinite ξ<ω , as B := {A | ω ≤ β < ξ + ω} is a countable subset of ω1 A , we 1 ξ β α∈Eω α may appeal to Proposition 2.8 to fix a function fξ : Bξ → ω1 such that: S (1) for every B ∈Bξ, fξ(B) ∈ B; (2) the sets in hB \ fξ(B) | B ∈Bξi are pairwise disjoint. Definition 4.8. For every β<ω1, let αβ := min{α ≤ β | ∃i<ω(β = α + i)}. We are now ready to define our topological space X = (ω1, τ). For all β<ω, let ǫ Nβ := {{β}}. For all infinite β<ω1 and ǫ < αβ, denote Nβ := (Aβ \ ǫ) ∪{β}, and ǫ then set Nβ := {Nβ | ǫ < αβ}. Now, a subset U ⊆ ω1 is τ-open iff for any β ∈ U, there is N ∈ Nβ with N ⊆ U. It is easy to check that X is a T1 topological space and that, for every ξ<ω1, ξ is τ-open. Definition 4.9. For any set of ordinals N, denote N − := N ∩ sup(N). − Note that for all β<ω1 and N ∈ Nβ, N is a cofinal subset of αβ. Remark 4.10. The topology of the space from the previous section is such that a set ∗ U is open iff, for every β ∈ U, Lβ ⊆ U, and the topology of the space here is such ∗ that a set U is open iff, for every β ∈ U, Aβ ⊆ U. The approach seems identical, but there is a subtle difference: in the previous section, for every ordinal β, we had sup(Lβ) ∈{0,β}, whereas here, for every ordinal β, we have sup(Aβ )= αβ ∈ β +1. Lemma 4.11. For every α ∈ acc(ω1), cl([α, α + ω)) = ω1 \ α. Proof. Let A := cl([α, α + ω)). We prove by induction on δ ∈ acc(ω1) \ α that [δ, δ + ω) ⊆ A. ◮ For δ = α, trivially [α, α + ω) ⊆ A. ′ ◮ Suppose δ ∈ acc(ω1) \ α and [δ, δ + ω) ⊆ A. Put δ := δ + ω and we shall prove ′ ′ ′ ′ that [δ ,δ + ω) ⊆ A. Let β ∈ [δ ,δ + ω) be arbitrary. For each N ∈ Nβ, we have sup(N ∩ [δ, δ + ω)) = δ + ω, and hence β ∈ cl([δ, δ + ω)) ⊆ A. ◮ Suppose that δ ∈ acc(acc(ω1)\α) and, for every γ ∈ acc(δ)\α,[γ,γ +ω) ⊆ A. Therefore, [α, δ) ⊆ A. For every β ∈ [δ, δ + ω) and N ∈ Nβ, sup(N ∩ [α, δ)) = δ, and hence β ∈ cl([α, δ)) ⊆ A. Corollary 4.12. (1) (ω1, τ) is hereditary separable; (2) Every τ-closed set is either countable or co-countable. AGUESSINGPRINCIPLEFROMASOUSLINTREE 23 Proof. Let B be an arbitrary uncountable subset of ω1. By Clause (2) of Defini- tion 2.4, we can find an α ∈ acc(ω1) such that sup(Aα+i ∩ B) = α for all i<ω. Let D := B ∩ α. If follows that, for every β ∈ [α, α + ω) and every N ∈ Nβ, sup(N ∩ D)= α. So, [α, α + ω) ⊆ cl(D) and hence ω1 \ α = cl([α, α + ω)) ⊆ cl(D). (1) As B \ (ω1 \ α)= D, it follows that cl(B) = cl(D), so that D is a countable dense subset of the subspace B. (2) If B is moreover closed, then (ω1 \ α) ⊆ B, so that B is co-countable. Lemma 4.13. X is Hausdorff and collectionwise normal. Proof. As X is T1, it suffices to verify that it is collectionwise normal. Let K~ = hKi | i<θi be an arbitrary discrete sequence of closed sets, for some nonzero cardinal θ. Claim 4.13.1. θ ≤ ω. Proof. Otherwise, set B := {βi | i<ω1} for some transversal hβi | i<ω1i ∈ K . As B is necessarily uncountable, using Clause (2) of Definition 2.4, we i<ω1 i may fix α ∈ acc(ω ) such that sup(Aα ∩ B)= α. Then any open neighborhood of Q 1 α meets infinitely many elements of K~ , contradicting its discreteness. As θ<ω1, and using Corollary 4.12(2), we may find a large enough ξ ∈ acc(ω1) such that, for all i with i +1 <θ, Ki ⊆ ξ. Claim 4.13.2. There exists a sequence hN | β<ω i ∈ N such that: β 1 β<ω1 β (a) for all β < ξ, Nβ ⊆ ξ; Q ′ − − (b) for all β < ξ and β ∈ ω1 \{β}, Nβ ∩ Nβ′ = ∅; (c) for all β<ω1 and i<θ, if Nβ ∩ Ki 6= ∅ then β ∈ Ki. Proof. There are three cases to consider: ◮ For every β<ω, just set Nβ := {β}. ◮ For every β ∈ ω1 \ (ξ + ω), as αβ > ξ, we may let ǫ := max({ξ, sup(Aβ ∩ K0)} ∩ αβ), ǫ+1 and then set Nβ := Nβ . ◮ Suppose β is not of the above form. In particular, Aβ ∈Bξ and fξ(Aβ) < αβ. As K~ is discrete, let us pick an open neighborhood U of β which for which I := {i<θ | U ∩ Ki 6= ∅} contains at most one point. Find ε < αβ such that Aβ \ ε ⊆ U, and then let max({f (A ),ε}), if I = ∅; ǫ := ξ β (max({fξ(Aβ), ε, sup(Aβ ∩ Ki)} ∩ αβ), if I = {i}. ǫ+1 Finally, set Nβ := Nβ . We omit the proof that hNβ | β<ω1i is as sought, because a similar verification is given in details in the proof of Claim 4.22.1 below. It now follows from Lemma 4.4 that there exists a sequence hUi | i<θi of pairwise open sets such that Ki ⊆ Ui for all i<θ. 24 ASSAFRINOTANDROYSHALEV 4.3. A Dowker space with small hereditary density. In [Rud55], Rudin con- structed a Dowker space of size ℵ1 from a Souslin tree. In [Rud72], she constructed an S-space of size ℵ1 from a Souslin tree. In [Rud74a], she constructed an S-space of size ℵ1 which is Dokwer from a Souslin tree, and in [Rud74b], she constructed a Dowker space of size λ+ from a λ+-Souslin tree, for λ regular. In [dC77], de Caux constructed a Dowker space of size ℵ1 assuming ♣(ω1). Here we roughly follow de Caux’s general approach, but using ♣AD, instead. So this gives a simultaneous generalization of de Caux’s result and Rudin’s result. λ+ Theorem 4.14. Suppose that ♣AD({Eλ }, λ, 1) holds for an infinite regular car- dinal λ. Then there exists a collectionwise normal Dowker space X of cardinality λ+ such that hd(X)= λ and L(X)= λ+. Remark 4.15. The preceding is the Introduction’s Theorem D. λ+ λ+ λ+ Let hAα | α ∈ Eλ i be a ♣AD({Eλ }, λ, 1)-sequence. For each α ∈ Eλ , fix an j,n injective enumeration {Aα+i | i < λ, j ≤ n<ω} of the elements of Aα. For every + j,n ξ ∈ λ \ λ, as Bξ := {Aβ | λ ≤ β < ξ + λ, j ≤ n<ω} is a subset of λ+ Aα α∈Eλ of size λ, we may appeal to Proposition 2.8 to fix a function f : B → ξ such that: ξ ξ S (1) For every B ∈Bξ, fξ(B) ∈ B; (2) The sets in hB \ fξ(B) | B ∈Bξi are pairwise disjoint. + Definition 4.16. For every β < λ , let αβ := min{α ≤ β | ∃i < λ(β = α + i)}. We are now ready to define a topology τ on the set X := λ+ × ω. For all x ∈ λ × ω, just let Nx := {{x}}. For all x = (β,n) in X with β ≥ λ, denote ǫ j,n ǫ Nx := {x} ∪ j≤n((Aβ \ ǫ) ×{j}), and then set Nx := {Nx | ǫ < αβ}. Finally, a subset U ⊆ λ+ × ω is τ-open iff for any x ∈ U, there is N ∈ N with N ⊆ U. It is S x easy to check that X := (X, τ) is a T1 topological space. Definition 4.17. For any subset N ⊆ λ+ × ω, denote: • N − := {(γ, j) ∈ N | ∃(β,n) ∈ N (γ<β)}; • N j := {γ | (γ, j) ∈ N −} for any j<ω. The following is obvious. j Lemma 4.18. For all x = (β,n) in X, N ∈ Nx, and j ≤ n, N is a cofinal subset + of αβ and N ⊆ (β + 1) × (n + 1). In particular, for all δ < λ and n<ω: • δ × n is τ-open; • λ+ × (ω \ n) is τ-closed. So {δ × ω | δ < λ+} witnesses that L(X)= λ+ λ+ Lemma 4.19. For every α ∈ Eλ and k<ω, (λ+ \ (α + λ)) × (ω \ k) ⊆ cl([α, α + λ) ×{k}). Proof. Denote Iα,j := [α, α + λ) ×{j} and Fα,j := cl(Iα,j ). λ+ + Claim 4.19.1. Let α ∈ Eλ and j<ω. Then (λ \ α) ×{j}⊆ Fα,j . λ+ Proof. We prove by induction on δ ∈ Eλ \ α that Iδ,j ⊆ Fα,j . ◮ For δ = α, trivially Iδ,j ⊆ Fα,j . λ+ δ ◮ Suppose that δ ∈ Eλ \ (α + λ) is an ordinal such that, for every γ ∈ Eλ \ α, j Iγ,j ⊆ Fα,j . Therefore, [α, δ)×{j}⊆ Fα,j . Let x ∈ Iδ,j . Since, for all N ∈ Nx, N is a cofinal subset of δ, N ∩([α, δ)×{j}) 6= ∅. Therefore, x ∈ cl([α, δ)×{j}) ⊆ Fα,j . AGUESSINGPRINCIPLEFROMASOUSLINTREE 25 λ+ Let α ∈ Eλ and k<ω. Let j ≥ κ be some integer; we need to prove that + (λ \ (α + λ)) ×{j} ⊆ Fα,k. By the preceding claim, it suffices to prove that Fα+λ,j ⊆ Fα,k. But the latter is a closed set, so it suffices to prove that Iα+λ,j ⊆ k Fα,k. Let x ∈ Iα+λ,j be arbitrary. For each N ∈ Nx, as k ≤ j, N is a cofinal subset of α + λ, and then N ∩ Iα,k 6= ∅. Therefore, x ∈ cl(Iα,k)= Fα,k, as sought. Corollary 4.20. For any B ⊆ X of size λ+: (1) There exists D ⊆ B with |D| = λ such that B ⊆ cl(D); (2) If B is τ-closed, then there is (β, k) ∈ λ+ ×ω such that (λ+ \β)×(ω\k) ⊆ B. Proof. Given B as above, fix some k<ω such that |B ∩ (λ+ ×{k})| = λ+. By λ+ j,n Clause (2) of Definition 2.4, we can find an α ∈ Eλ such that dom((Aα+i×{k})∩B) is cofinal in α for all i < λ and j ≤ n<ω. Let D := B ∩ (α ×{k}). If follows that, for every x ∈ [α, α + λ) ×{k} and every N ∈ Nx, dom(N ∩ D) is cofinal in α. So, [α, α+λ)×{k}⊆ cl(D) and hence (λ+\(α+λ))×(ω\k) ⊆ cl([α, α+λ)×{k}) ⊆ cl(D). (1) As |B \ cl(D)| ≤ |X \ cl(D)| ≤ λ, we see that D ∪ (B \ cl(D)) is a dense subset of B of cardinality λ. (2) If B is τ-closed, then for β := α + λ, (λ+ \ β) × (ω \ k) ⊆ cl(D) ⊆ B. Corollary 4.21. hd(X) ≤ λ and there are no two disjoint closed subspaces of X of cardinality λ+. Proof. By Corollary 4.20(2). Lemma 4.22. The space X is Hausdorff and collectionwise normal. Proof. As X is T1, it suffices to verify that it is collectionwise normal. Fix a nonzero cardinal θ and a discrete sequence K~ = hKi | i<θi of closed sets. It follows from Clause (2) of Definition 2.4 that θ ≤ λ, so, using Corollary 4.21, we may find a λ+ large enough ξ ∈ Eλ such that Ki+1 ⊆ ξ × ω for all i with i +1 < θ. Denote O := ξ × ω, so that O is an open set covering K0. Claim 4.22.1. There exists a sequence hNx | x ∈ Xi ∈ x∈X Nx such that: (a) for all x ∈ O, Nx ⊆ O; ′ − − Q (b) for all x ∈ O and x ∈ X \{x}, Nx ∩ Nx′ = ∅; (c) for all x ∈ X and i<θ, if Nx ∩ Ki 6= ∅ then x ∈ Ki. Proof. Let x = (β,n) in X. Recalling Lemma 4.18, for all N ∈ Nx, N ⊆ O. Thus, we should only worry about requirements (b) and (c). To this end, there are three cases to consider: ◮ If β < λ, then set Nx := {x}. Evidently, requirement (c) is satisfied. ◮ If β ≥ ξ + λ, then αβ > ξ, so we let j,n ǫ := max({ξ, sup(dom[( (A ×{j})) ∩ K0])} ∩ αβ), j≤n β ǫ+1 [ and then set Nx := Nx . Evidently, Nx ∩ O = ∅. In particular, for all i<θ, j,n if Nx ∩ Ki 6= ∅, then i = 0 and sup(dom[( j≤n(Aβ ×{j})) ∩ K0]) = αβ, which means that x ∈ K0, since the latter is closed. So, requirement (c) is satisfied. j,n S j,n ◮ If λ ≤ β < ξ + λ, then Aβ ∈ Bξ for all j ≤ n, so that φx := max{fξ(Aβ ) | j ≤ n} is < αβ ≤ ξ. As K~ is discrete, let us pick an open neighborhood U of β for 26 ASSAFRINOTANDROYSHALEV which I := {i<θ | U ∩ Ki 6= ∅} contains at most one point, and then find a large ε enough ε ∈ αβ \ φx such that Nx ⊆ U. Let ε, if I = ∅; ǫ := j,n (max({ε, sup(dom[( j≤n(Aβ ×{j})) ∩ Ki])} ∩ αβ), if I = {i}, ǫ+1 and then set Nx := Nx . Evidently,S Nx ⊆ U. So, for all i<θ, if Nx ∩Ki 6= ∅, then j,n I = {i} and sup(dom[( j≤n(Aβ ×{j})) ∩ Ki]) = αβ, which means that x ∈ Ki. So, requirement (c) is satisfied. S We are left with verifying that hNx | x ∈ Xi satisfies requirement (b). Fix arbitrary x ∈ O and x′ ∈ X \{x}. Say, x = (β,n) and x′ = (β′,n′). Note that − ′ if β < λ, then Nx is empty, and if β ≥ ξ + λ, then min(dom(Nx′ )) >ξ>β = − − ′ sup(dom(Nx)). Therefore, if Nx ∩ Nx′ 6= ∅, then λ ≤ β,β < ξ + λ. Thus, assume ′ ′ that λ ≤ β,β < ξ + λ, and fix ǫ ≥ φx and ǫ ≥ φx′ such that − j,n • Nx = j≤n((Aβ \ (ǫ + 1)) ×{j}), and ′ − j,n ′ • Nx′ = Sj≤n′ ((Aβ′ \ (ǫ + 1)) ×{j}). ′ − − ′ j,n j,n So, if Nx ∩Nx′S6= ∅, then there exists j ≤ min{n,n } such that (Aβ \φx)∩(Aβ′ \ j,n j,n j,n′ j,n′ φx′ ) 6= ∅. In particular, (Aβ \ fξ(Aβ )) ∩ (Aβ′ \ fξ(Aβ′ )) 6= ∅, contradicting the fact that (β,n) 6= (β′,n′). It now follows from Lemma 4.4 that there exists a sequence hUi | i<θi of pairwise open sets such that Ki ⊆ Ui for all i<θ. Lemma 4.23. The space X is Dowker. + Proof. Denote Dn := λ × (ω \ n). Notice that hDn | n<ωi is a ⊆-decreasing + sequence of λ -sized τ-closed sets such that n<ω Dn = ∅. By Corollary 4.21, there are no two disjoint closed sets of cardinality λ+. So, by Corollary 4.22 and Lemma 3.1, the space (X, τ) is Dowker. T 5. A Dowker space with a normal square ∗ ω2 In [Sze10], Szeptycki proved that, assuming ♦ (S) for a stationary S ⊆ Eω1 , there exists a ladder-system over a subset of S whose corresponding ladder-system space is a Dowker space having a normal square. As seen in Section 3, the hy- ω2 pothesis may be reduced to ♣AD({Eω1 }, 1, 2) and still give a ladder-system whose 2 ω2 corresponding space is Dowker, since Eω1 is a non-reflecting stationary subset of ω2. But what about the normal square? In this short section, we point out that the ♦∗ hypothesis may be reduced to an assumption in the language of the Brodsky-Rinot proxy principle (see Definition 5.2 below). For the rest of this section, let λ denote an infinite regular cardinal. − + λ+ Proposition 5.1. Pλ (λ , 2, λ+ ⊑, λ, {Eλ }) entails the existence of a ladder-system λ+ + over a subset of Eλ whose corresponding ladder-system space (λ , τ) is a Dowker space having a normal square. 2 ω2 ∗ ω2 Recall that by Remark 2.2 and Lemma 2.10, for S ⊆ Eω1 , ♦ (S) =⇒ ♦(Eω1 ) =⇒ ω2 ω2 ω2 ♣(Eω1 ) =⇒ ♣AD(Eω1 ,ω1,<ω) =⇒ ♣AD(Eω1 , 1, 2). AGUESSINGPRINCIPLEFROMASOUSLINTREE 27 λ+ The point is that the hypothesis of the preceding already follows from ♦(Eλ ), but it is also consistent with its failure (see Clauses (1) and (11) of [BR21, Theo- rem 6.1]). Definition 5.2 (Brodsky-Rinot, [BR21]). For a family S⊆P(κ), and a cardinal − θ<κ,Pξ (κ, 2, κ⊑, θ, S) asserts the existence of a sequence hCα | α<κi such that: • for every α ∈ acc(κ), Cα is a club in α of order-type ≤ ξ; • for every S ∈ S and every sequence hBi | i<θi of cofinal subsets of κ, there exist stationarily many α ∈ S such that, for all i<θ, sup{δ ∈ Bi ∩ α | min(Cα \ (δ + 1)) ∈ Bi} = α. λ+ − + Note that for every S ⊆P(Eλ ), any Pλ (λ , 2, λ+ ⊑, θ, S)-sequence witnesses the validity of ♣AD(S, 1,θ). Fact 5.3 (Brodsky-Rinot, [BR21, Theorem 4.15]). For a family S⊆P(κ), and a − cardinal θ<κ, Pξ (κ, 2, κ⊑, θ, S) entails the existence of a sequence hCα | α<κi such that: (1) for every α ∈ acc(κ), Cα is a club in α of order-type ≤ ξ; <ω (2) for every S ∈ S and every sequence hBi | i<θi with Bi ⊆ [κ] and mup(Bi) = κ for all i<θ, there exist stationarily many α ∈ S such that, for all i<θ, mup{x ∈Bi | x ⊆ Cα} = α. For an ordinal α, let us say that a subset x of the product α × α is dominating iff for every (β,γ) ∈ (α, α), there exists (β′,γ′) ∈ x with β ≤ β′ and γ ≤ γ′. Now, we are ready to prove the main lemma. − + λ+ Lemma 5.4. Suppose that Pλ (λ , 2, λ+ ⊑, λ, {Eλ }) holds. Then there exist a + λ+ partition hSn | n<ωi of λ into stationary sets and a sequence hsα | α ∈ Eλ i such that: λ+ (1) For each α ∈ Eλ , sα is either empty or a cofinal subset of α of order-type λ; (2) For all n<ω and α ∈ Sn+1, sα ⊆ i≤n Si; λ+ (3) For every k <ω, every λ-sized subfamilyS F ⊆ [ i≤k Si] , and every n ∈ ω \ (k + 1), the following set is stationary: S {α ∈ Sn | ∀F ∈F [sup(sα ∩ F )= α]}; + + (4) For every two dominating subsets B0,B1 of λ × λ , there exists m<ω such that for every n ∈ ω \ m the following set is stationary: {α ∈ Sn | ∀i< 2 [(sα × sα) ∩ Bi dominates (α, α)]}. ~ + − + + λ+ Proof. Let C = hCα | α < λ i be a Pλ (λ , λ , λ+ ⊑, λ, {Eλ })-sequence. Let I λ+ ~ − + + denote the collection of all T ⊆ Eλ such that C is not a Pλ (λ , λ , λ+ ⊑, λ, {T })- + λ+ sequence. Evidently, I is a λ -complete ideal over Eλ . So, by Ulam’s theorem, + + I is not weakly λ -saturated. This means that exists a sequence hSι | ι < λ i of λ+ + ~ − + + pairwise disjoint subsets of Eλ , such that, for each ι < λ , C is a Pλ (λ , λ , λ+ ⊑ , λ, {Sι})-sequence. In particular, we may fix a family S consisting of ℵ0-many λ+ − + + pairwise disjoint stationary subsets of Eλ such that Pλ (λ , λ , λ+ ⊑, λ, S) holds + and yet S0 := λ \ S is stationary. Fix an injective enumeration hSn+1 | n<ωi S 28 ASSAFRINOTANDROYSHALEV λ+ of S. For every α ∈ Eλ , let n(α) be such that α ∈ Sn(α). For each n<ω, let ~ + − + + Wn := i≤n Si. Now, let D = hDα | α < λ i be a Pλ (λ , λ , λ+ ⊑, λ, {Sn+1 | λ+ n<ω})-sequenceS as in Fact 5.3. For every α ∈ Eλ , let Wn(α)−1 ∩ Dα, if n(α) > 0 & sup(Wn(α)−1 ∩ Dα)= α; sα := (∅, otherwise. λ+ We claim that the sequence hsα | α ∈ Eλ i is as sought. Notice that Clauses (1) λ+ and (2) hold by our very construction, as Dα has order-type λ for every α ∈ Eλ . λ+ Claim 5.4.1. Let k<ω and F ⊆ [Wk] be a family of size λ. For every integer n > k, {α ∈ Sn | ∀F ∈F [sup(sα ∩ F )= α]} is stationary. 1 Proof. Let {Bi | i < λ} be some enumeration of {[F ] | F ∈ F}. Evidently, for + <ω + every i < λ, Bi ⊆ [λ ] and mup(Bi) = λ . Now, by Fact 5.3, Clause (2), for every n<ω, the set Gn of all α ∈ Sn such that, for all i < λ, mup{x ∈Bi | x ⊆ Dα} = α, is stationary. In particular, for all n > k, α ∈ Gn and F ∈F: sup(sα ∩ F ) = sup(Wn(α)−1 ∩ Dα ∩ F )= α. + + Claim 5.4.2. Let B0,B1 be two dominating subsets of λ × λ . Then there exists some m<ω such that for every n ∈ ω \ m the following set is stationary: {α ∈ Sn | ∀i< 2 [(sα × sα) ∩ Bi dominates (α, α)]}. + i i i i Proof. For every ǫ < λ and i< 2, fix (ξǫ, ζǫ) ∈ Bi with min{ξǫ, ζǫ} >ǫ. For every n<ω, let 0 0 1 1 + 0 0 1 1 Bn := {{ξǫ , ζǫ , ξǫ , ζǫ } | ǫ < λ , max{n(ξǫ ),n(ζǫ ),n(ξǫ ),n(ζǫ )} = n}. + By the pigeonhole principle, we may find m<ω such that |Bm| = λ . In particular, + <ω + Bm ⊆ [λ ] and mup(Bm)= λ . Now, by Fact 5.3, Clause (2), for every n<ω, the set Gn of all α ∈ Sn such mup{x ∈Bm | x ⊆ Dα} = α, 2 is stationary. In particular, for all n>m, α ∈ Gn and i < 2, (sα) ∩ Bi = 2 (Dα ∩ Wn(α)−1) ∩ Bi and it dominates (α, α). This completes the proof. At this point, the proof of Proposition 5.1 continues exactly as in [Sze10, The- + orem 4], using the sequences hSn | n<ωi and hsα | α < λ i constructed in the preceding lemma. − Remark 5.5. Lemma 5.4 also implies that Pω (ω1, 2, ω1 ⊑, ω, {ω1}) is a weakening of ♣∗ sufficient for the constructions of [Goo95a]. AGUESSINGPRINCIPLEFROMASOUSLINTREE 29 6. Acknowledgements Some of the results of this paper come from the second author’s M.Sc. thesis written under the supervision of the first author at Bar-Ilan University. We are grateful to Bill Weiss for kindly sharing with us a scan of Dahroug’s handwritten notes with the construction of an Ostaszewski space from a Souslin tree and CH. Our thanks go to Tanmay Inamdar for many illuminating discussions, and to Istv´an Juh´asz for reading a preliminary version of this paper and providing a valuable feedback. Both authors were partially supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grant agreement 2066/18). The first author was also partially supported by the European Research Council (grant agreement ERC-2018-StG 802756). References [And09] Erik Andrejko. Between O and Ostaszewski. ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor, MI, 2009. Thesis (Ph.D.)–The University of Wisconsin - Madison. [AT97] Uri Abraham and Stevo Todorˇcevi´c. Partition properties of ω1 compatible with CH. Fund. Math., 152(2):165–181, 1997. [Bal96] Zoltan T. Balogh. A small Dowker space in ZFC. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 124(8):2555– 2560, 1996. [BEG+04] Zolt´an Balogh, Todd Eisworth, Gary Gruenhage, Oleg Pavlov, and Paul Szeptycki. Uniformization and anti-uniformization properties of ladder systems. Fund. Math., 181(3):189–213, 2004. [BR17a] Ari Meir Brodsky and Assaf Rinot. A microscopic approach to Souslin-tree construc- tions. Part I. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic, 168(11):1949–2007, 2017. [BR17b] Ari Meir Brodsky and Assaf Rinot. Reduced powers of Souslin trees. Forum Math. Sigma, 5(e2):1–82, 2017. [BR19] Ari Meir Brodsky and Assaf Rinot. Distributive Aronszajn trees. Fund. Math., 245(3):217–291, 2019. [BR21] Ari Meir Brodsky and Assaf Rinot. A microscopic approach to Souslin-tree construc- tions. Part II. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic, 172(5):102904, 2021. [dC77] Peter de Caux. A collectionwise normal weakly θ-refinable Dowker space which is neither irreducible nor realcompact. In Topology Proceedings, Vol. I (Conf., Auburn Univ., Auburn, Ala., 1976), pages 67–77, 1977. [DJ74] Keith J. Devlin and H˚avard Johnsbr˚aten. The Souslin problem. Lecture Notes in Math- ematics, Vol. 405. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1974. [DK93] Mirna Dˇzamonja and Kenneth Kunen. Measures on compact HS spaces. Fund. Math., 143(1):41–54, 1993. [dlVK04] Ramiro de la Vega and Kenneth Kunen. A compact homogeneous S-space. Topology Appl., 136(1-3):123–127, 2004. [Dow51] C. H. Dowker. On countably paracompact spaces. Canadian J. Math., 3:219–224, 1951. ℵ ℵ [DS78] Keith J. Devlin and Saharon Shelah. A weak version of ♦ which follows from 2 0 < 2 1 . Israel Journal of Mathematics, 29:239–247, 1978. [DS79] Keith J. Devlin and Saharon Shelah. Souslin properties and tree topologies. Proc. London Math. Soc. (3), 39(2):237–252, 1979. [ER99] Todd Eisworth and Judith Roitman. CH with no Ostaszewski spaces. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 351(7):2675–2693, 1999. [Goo95a] Chris Good. Dowker spaces, anti-Dowker spaces, products and manifolds. Topology Proc., 20:123–143, 1995. [Goo95b] Chris Good. Large cardinals and small Dowker spaces. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 123(1):263–272, 1995. [Hig51] Graham Higman. Almost free groups. Proc. London Math. Soc. (3), 1:284–290, 1951. [HK09] Joan E. Hart and Kenneth Kunen. One-dimensional locally connected S-spaces. Topol- ogy Appl., 156(3):601–609, 2009. [HK18] Joan E. Hart and Kenneth Kunen. Ultra strong S-spaces. Topology Proc., 51:87–132, 2018. 30 ASSAFRINOTANDROYSHALEV [HK20] Joan E. Hart and Kenneth Kunen. Spaces with no S or L subspaces. Topology Proc., 55:147–174, 2020. [Jen72] R. Bj¨orn Jensen. The fine structure of the constructible hierarchy. Ann. Math. Logic, 4:229–308; erratum, ibid. 4 (1972), 443, 1972. With a section by Jack Silver. [JK69] Ronald Jensen and Kenneth Kunen. Some combinatorial properties of l and v. Hand- written notes, 1969. [JKR76] I. Juh´asz, K. Kunen, and M. E. Rudin. Two more hereditarily separable non-Lindel¨of spaces. Canad. J. Math., 28(5):998–1005, 1976. [Juh80] I. Juh´asz. A survey of S- and L-spaces. In Topology, Vol. II (Proc. Fourth Colloq., Budapest, 1978), volume 23 of Colloq. Math. Soc. J´anos Bolyai, pages 675–688. North- Holland, Amsterdam-New York, 1980. [Juh88] Istv´an Juh´asz. A weakening of ♣, with applications to topology. Comment. Math. Univ. Carolin., 29(4):767–773, 1988. [Juh02] Istv´an Juh´asz. HFD and HFC type spaces, with applications. Topology Appl., 126(1- 2):217–262, 2002. [Kru20] John Krueger. A forcing axiom for a non-special Aronszajn tree. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic, 171(8):102820, 23, 2020. [KS98] Menachem Kojman and Saharon Shelah. A ZFC Dowker space in ℵω+1: an application of PCF theory to topology. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 126(8):2459–2465, 1998. [KT20] Borisa Kuzeljevic and Stevo Todorcevic. P-ideal dichotomy and a strong form of the Suslin Hypothesis. Fund. Math., 251(1):17–33, 2020. [Kun77] Kenneth Kunen. Strong S and L spaces under MA. In Set-theoretic topology (Papers, Inst. Medicine and Math., Ohio Univ., Athens, Ohio, 1975-1976), pages 265–268. 1977. [LR19] Chris Lambie-Hanson and Assaf Rinot. A forcing axiom deciding the generalized Souslin Hypothesis. Canad. J. Math., 71(2):437–470, 2019. [Ost76] A. J. Ostaszewski. On countably compact, perfectly normal spaces. J. London Math. Soc. (2), 14(3):505–516, 1976. [Rin17] Assaf Rinot. Higher Souslin trees and the GCH, revisited. Adv. Math., 311(C):510–531, 2017. [Rin19] Assaf Rinot. Souslin trees at successors of regular cardinals. MLQ Math. Log. Q., 65(2):200–204, 2019. [Rin21] Assaf Rinot. On the ideal J[κ]. http://assafrinot.com/paper/51, 2021. Submitted April 2021. [Roi84] Judy Roitman. Basic S and L. In Handbook of set-theoretic topology, pages 295–326. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1984. [Rud55] Mary Ellen Rudin. Countable paracompactness and Souslin’s problem. Canad. J. Math., 7:543–547, 1955. [Rud72] Mary Ellen Rudin. A normal hereditarily separable non-Lindel¨of space. Illinois J. Math., 16:621–626, 1972. [Rud74a] Mary Ellen Rudin. A separable Dowker space. pages 125–132, 1974. [Rud74b] Mary Ellen Rudin. Souslin trees and Dowker spaces. In Topics in topology (Proc. Colloq., Keszthely, 1972), pages 557–562. Colloq. Math. Soc. J´anos Bolyai, Vol. 8, 1974. [Rud84] Mary Ellen Rudin. Dowker spaces. In Handbook of set-theoretic topology, pages 761– 780. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1984. [Rud72] Mary Ellen Rudin. A normal space X for which X × I is not normal. Fund. Math., 73(2):179–186, 1971/72. [She77] Saharon Shelah. Whitehead groups may be not free, even assuming ch. i. Israel Journal of Mathematics, 28:193–204, 1977. [She84] Saharon Shelah. Can you take Solovay’s inaccessible away? Israel J. Math., 48(1):1–47, 1984. [She98] Saharon Shelah. Proper and improper forcing. Perspectives in Mathematical Logic. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, second edition, 1998. [She99] Saharon Shelah. On full suslin trees. Colloquium Mathematicum, 79:1–7, 1999. [She10] Saharon Shelah. Diamonds. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 138(6):2151–2161, 2010. AGUESSINGPRINCIPLEFROMASOUSLINTREE 31 [SW93] Paul J. Szeptycki and William A. R. Weiss. Dowker spaces. In The work of Mary Ellen Rudin (Madison, WI, 1991), volume 705 of Ann. New York Acad. Sci., pages 119–129. New York Acad. Sci., New York, 1993. [Sze80] Z. Szentmikl´ossy. S-spaces and L-spaces under Martin’s axiom. In Topology, Vol. II (Proc. Fourth Colloq., Budapest, 1978), volume 23 of Colloq. Math. Soc. J´anos Bolyai, pages 1139–1145. North-Holland, Amsterdam-New York, 1980. [Sze07] Paul J. Szeptycki. Small dowker spaces. In Elliott Pearl, editor, Open problems in topology. II, pages 233–239. Elsevier B. V., Amsterdam, 2007. [Sze10] Paul J. Szeptycki. Normality in products with a countable factor. Topology Appl., 157(9):1622–1628, 2010. [Tod83] Stevo Todorˇcevi´c. Forcing positive partition relations. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 280(2):703–720, 1983. [Tod87] Stevo Todorˇcevi´c. Partitioning pairs of countable ordinals. Acta Math., 159(3-4):261– 294, 1987. [Tod00] Stevo Todorˇcevi´c. A dichotomy for P-ideals of countable sets. Fund. Math., 166(3):251– 267, 2000. [vDK82] Eric K. van Douwen and Kenneth Kunen. L-spaces and S-spaces in P(w). Topology Appl., 14(2):143–149, 1982. [Wei78] William Weiss. Countably compact spaces and Martin’s axiom. Canadian J. Math., 30(2):243–249, 1978. [Wei81] William Weiss. Small Dowker spaces. Pacific J. Math., 94(2):485–492, 1981. Department of Mathematics, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 5290002, Israel. URL: http://www.assafrinot.com Department of Mathematics, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 5290002, Israel. URL: https://roy-shalev.github.io/