Arxiv:1909.06704V4 [Math.LO] 19 Apr 2021

Home , Kenneth Kunen, Matthew Foreman

arXiv:1909.06704v4 [math.LO] 19 Apr 2021 fLeyadSle hta that Silver Lévy and of fnnttoayst;ta s nmdr alne esythat say we parlance, modern in is, that sets; nonstationary of hwdta nexactly an that showed skonntt be to not known is a 1]ta fSHfisa iglrcria,te h rtsnua card singular first the then cardinal, singular a cofinality. at countable fails SCH if that Ult( [16] ultrapower wellfounded a induces i.e. ooa’ hoe using theorem Solovay’s ai n[3,wt ekycmatbigcmail with compatible being compact weakly with [13], in Paris eut eeaewl-salse n opeesv.Teexistenc The comprehensive. and well-established are here Results asbr,adSea;asmayadtepofo h case the of proof the and summary a Shelah; and Matsubara, daso inaccessible on ideals aiu,cf 7)for [7]) c.f. Maximum, that lrpwrUlt( ultrapower ttoayi Ult( in stationary ocn a the has forcing V ti lsia euto ooa 1]ta h osainr ideal nonstationary the that [17] Solovay of result classical a is It oee,teeaesilueu ruet htcnb written be can that arguments useful still are there However, rmr 30,0E5 35,03E65 03E55, 03E35, 03E05, D Primary Foreman’s forcing, iterated presaturation, saturation, ideals, n a loakwehrteeis there whether ask also can One ooa hnakdwhether asked then Solovay ETOIGSTRTO HL RSRIGPEAUAINA A AT PRESATURATION PRESERVING WHILE SATURATION DESTROYING gnrcfilter -generic NS ln niacsil adnl n noigFrmnsDua Foreman’s invoking and cardinal, inaccessible Tay and an Baumgartner along of version generalized a que iterating a by so both answering presaturation, their preserving while Abstract. κ snot is κ ,G V, cancniinadhence and condition -chain κ ,G V, G NCESBE NIEAE OCN ARGUMENT FORCING ITERATED AN INACCESSIBLE: + epoeta ag ls fpeauae dasa inacces at ideals presaturated of class large a that prove We strtd xetwhen except -saturated, .Utaoe ruet hnyedasainr set stationary a yield then arguments Ultrapower ). o ( for κ + ,hnei osainr in nonstationary is hence ), κ strtdunless -saturated κ NS r qiossetwt esrbecria.Ti a rtsonb shown first was This cardinal. measurable a with equiconsistent are eei ultrapowers generic P + κ ( strtdielon ideal -saturated strtdielon ideal -saturated κ ω 1 ) /NS obe to NS κ κ any \ is ω [ κ ∅ 2 strtd ieie h osainr da on ideal nonstationary the Likewise, -saturated. ] + , da on ideal strtd n usqetwr yGtkadSea n[2 showed [12] in Shelah and Gitik by work subsequent and -saturated, ⊇ κ NS ,G V, ups o aeo otaito that contradiction of sake for Suppose . = 1. S κ κ κ κ OHSCHOEM NOAH λ sa is ) = utb ttoayin stationary be must .Frisac,ti ipie ivrsoiia ruetin argument original Silver’s simplifies this instance, For ). Introduction prevents a xs tannwal compact non-weakly a at exist can κ = ω V htis that 1 ω ee ti osset(..i h rsneo Martin’s of presence the in (e.g. consistent is it Here, . [ G V 1 1 hswsdet uk,Frmn ii,Magidor, Gitik, Foreman, Burke, to due was This . .Btsince But ]. - κ -complete κ κ κ to fFrmnado o n se.W do We Eskew. and Cox of and Foreman of stion -saturated, rmbigwal opc) usqety Boos Subsequently, compact). weakly being from iyTheorem. lity + o’ ocn oadacu ihfiieconditions finite with club a add to forcing lor’s strto adi a nw ic al work early since known was it (and -saturation κ just = aiyTheorem uality NS NS λ fexactly of e V NS suigthat assuming = -normal V κ il adnl a ede-saturated be can cardinals sible κ κ κ ω [ + G snot is a sue obe to assumed was 1 strtd ree utprecipitous. just even or -saturated, lashsa has always nla hc C al uthave must fails SCH which at inal ;ti sacontradiction. a is this ]; a efudi [10]. in found be can S V κ ⊆ utale ihwellfounded with -ultrafilter κ strtd n a argue can One -saturated. strtdor -saturated κ NS κ P in ( n[] sfrsuccessor for As [3]. in κ κ κ ) szddson family disjoint -sized V /NS is P hti olonger no is that κ κ κ strtd then -saturated; ( κ strtd our -saturated, λ is (for ) ue and Kunen y κ + precipitous -saturated λ N ≥ κ ) , 2 NOAH SCHOEM

cardinals, the consistency results are more striking. Certain arguments show that if κ carries a κ-saturated ideal, then κ must be weakly Mahlo, and hence not a successor. Proofs can be found in [2] and [18]. However, κ+-saturated ideals can occur at successor κ; the known ways to achieve this come from forcing over models with huge cardinals as done by Kunen in [14] and Laver in [15]. Ideals on arbitrary sets Z project downwards to subsets Z′ of Z, and it is natural to ask whether regularity of the inverse embedding implies nice saturation properties of the projected ideal:

Question 1.1 ([8], Question 13 of Foreman). Let n ∈ ω and let J be an ideal on Z ⊆ P(κ+(n+1)). Let I be the projection of J from Z to some Z′ ⊆ P(κ+n). Suppose that the canonical homomorphism from P(Z′)/I to P(Z)/J is a regular embedding. Is I κ+(n+1)-saturated?

The answer is no; prior work by Cox and Zeman in [6] established counterexamples. Later work by Cox and Eskew provided a template for ﬁnding counterexamples as follows. We observe that I a κ+n+1-saturated ideal on κ+n induces a wellfounded generic ultrapower and preserves κ+n+1. So we will say that an ideal I on κ+n is κ+n+1-presaturated if I induces a wellfounded generic ultrapower and preserves κ+n+1. Our template is then:

Fact 1.1 ([4], corollary of Theorem 1.2). Any κ+n+1-presaturated, non-κ+n+1 saturated ideal on κ+n provides a counterexample to Question 1.1.

To construct such ideals for successor cardinals κ = µ+ (with µ regular and mild assumptions on cardinal arithmetic), Cox and Eskew in [4] generalized a forcing of Baumgartner and Taylor in [1] to add a club subset C of κ with < µ-conditions. (Baumgartner and Taylor’s original version in [1] was for µ = ω.) This C prevented κ+-saturated ideals on κ from existing in the generic extension. At the same time, their forcing was strongly proper; with use of Foreman’s Duality Theorem [8], a powerful tool for computing properties of ideals in generic extensions, Cox and Eskew were then able to argue that their forcing preserved the κ+-presaturation of a large class of ideals (including κ+-saturated ideals) in the generic extension. This results in the following:

Fact 1.2. Let V be a universe admitting κ-complete, κ+-saturated ideals at κ the successor of a regular cardinal. Then there is a forcing P such that V P admits no κ+-saturated ideals, however if I is a κ+-saturated + ideal on κ in V , then in V P there is an S ∈ I 1 such that I ↾ S is κ+-presaturated.

It remained open as to whether the above could be done for κ an inaccessible cardinal; this was the content of Question 8.5 of [4] and further clariﬁcations provided in [5]. This paper’s central result establishes that Question 1.1 is consistently false at κ inaccessible, by way of partially extending the arguments and results of Theorem 4.1 of [4]:

P 1where I is the ideal induced in V P by I and is deﬁned by I = {A ∈ PV (κ) | ∃N ∈ I A ⊆ N}. DESTROYING SATURATION WHILE PRESERVING PRESATURATION AT AN INACCESSIBLE 3

Theorem 1.3. Suppose V is a universe of ZFC with an inaccessible cardinal κ admitting κ-complete, normal, + + κ -saturated ideals on κ concentrating on inaccessible cardinals below κ (i.e. such that Inaccκ ∈ I ). Then there is a poset Q such that:

(i) V Q |=“there are no κ-complete, κ+-saturated ideals on κ concentrating on inaccessible cardinals” (ii) If I ∈ V is a κ-complete, normal, κ+-saturated ideal on κ concentrating on inaccessible cardinals, then V Q |=“I is κ+-presaturated”

Q where I = {A ∈ PV (κ) | ∃N ∈ I A ⊆ N}.

We can further generalize Theorem 1.3(ii) as follows:

Theorem 1.4. With the same assumptions, there is a Q such that if δ ≥ κ is an inaccessible cardinal, I ∈ V is normal, ﬁne, precipitous, δ+-presaturated ideal of uniform completeness κ on some algebra of sets Z such that:

• BI := Z/I preserves the regularity of both κ and δ; + ˙ ˙ ˙ • BI δ ≤ |jI (κ)| = δ < jI (κ) where jI is a name for the generic elementary embedding jI : V → M; + • BI is δ -proper on IA<δ+ ; then in V Q,

• I is not δ+-saturated • but I is δ+-presaturated where I is as above.

Here, IA<δ is the collection of internally approachable structures of length < δ; we will give a precise deﬁnition later in Section 2.

Remark 1.5. It will turn out that the same Q will work for both Theorem 1.3 and Theorem 1.4.

+ Remark 1.6. In [4], the analogous theorem (Theorem 4.1(2)) argued that there is an S ∈ I such that I ↾ S is not δ-saturated, but it is δ-presaturated. The use of such an S was required there due to the forcing involved not being κ-cc.

This paper is structured as follows. Section 2 presents the preliminary deﬁnitions and facts pertinent to this paper. Section 3 introduces the forcing iteration Q of Theorems 1.3(i), 1.3(ii), and 1.4. Section 4 shows that several saturated ideals are sundered from V Q. Section 5 proves that a portion of presaturated posets remain presaturated in V Q. Section 6 concludes and catalogs some conjectures.

2. Preliminaries and notations

Here are some deﬁnitions, theorems, and notations we use.

For a cardinal κ, we will write Regκ for the set of regular cardinals below κ, and cof(κ) for the proper class of cardinals of coﬁnality κ. 4 NOAH SCHOEM

If P is a notion of forcing in V , we will variously use V P or V [G] to refer to the generic extension of V by P. We will further take for granted that the reader is familiar with forcing, iterated forcing, and ultrapowers.

Deﬁnition 2.1 (ideals). Let κ be a cardinal. An ideal I on κ is a subset of P(κ) such that:

(1) ∅ ∈ I, κ∈ / I (2) If A ∈ I and B ⊆ A then B ∈ I (3) If A, B ∈ I then A ∪ B ∈ I

For µ ∈ Regκ, the ideal I is said to be µ-complete if whenever λ ∈ Regµ and hAα | α < λi⊆ I then

A [ α α<λ

is also in I.

The ideal I is said to be normal if whenever hAα | α<κi⊆ I, we have that the diagonal union

∇α<κAα := {β<κ | ∃α<ββ ∈ Aα} is also in I.

An ideal is principal if it contains a coﬁnite set; for our purposes, ideals are always assumed to be nonprincipal. For an ideal I on κ, we deﬁne I+ := {S ⊆ κ | S/∈ I}.

For example, NSκ, the collection of nonstationary sets on κ, forms a normal ideal; its dual ﬁlter is the + club ﬁlter on κ, and (NSκ) is the collection of stationary sets on κ.

Deﬁnition 2.2. If I is an ideal on κ then we may deﬁne an equivalence relation ≃I on P(κ) by A ≃ B if and only if (A \ B) ∪ (B \ A) ∈ I.

We say that A ≤I B if A \ B ∈ I.

We may consider the equivalence classes P(κ)/I := {[A]≃I | A ⊆ κ} as a poset with partial order ≤I .

Given I an ideal on κ, we will write BI := (P(κ)/I) \ [∅]≃I ; when thinking of BI as a poset, we will

implicitly use the partial ordering ≤I and in many cases, BI will be a separative notion of forcing (or even a complete Boolean algebra). The above two definitions are Definitions 2.1, 2.17, and 2.182 of [8]. The following definition summarizes some forcing properties of posets that will come in handy:

Deﬁnition 2.3 (Chain condition, presaturation, and closure). Let (P, ≤) be a poset. We say that:

2In [8], a diﬀerent version of normality is taken to be deﬁnitional, and the equivalence of these two versions is Proposition 2.19 of [8]. DESTROYING SATURATION WHILE PRESERVING PRESATURATION AT AN INACCESSIBLE 5

(i) ([1], as Theorem 4.2) P is µ-presaturated if for every λ<µ and every family hAα | α < λi of

antichains, there are densely many p ∈ P such that for all α, {q ∈ Aα | p k q} has cardinality < µ. Note that µ-cc implies µ-presaturation.

(ii) P is <κ-closed if whenever τ <κ and hpα | α < τi is a ≤-decreasing sequence in P, there is a p ∈ P

such that p ≤ pα for all α < τ (iii) P is <κ-directed closed (<κ-dc) if whenever D ⊆ P is a directed set3 with |D| <κ, there is a q ∈ P such that whenever p ∈ D, q ≤ p (iv) P is µ-preserving (for µ a V -cardinal) if V P |= “ˇµ is a cardinal”

Some of these properties have analogues for ideals as well. To begin with, if I is a κ-complete ideal on κ then a BI -generic object induces a V -κ-complete ultraﬁlter U on κ from which the ultraﬁlter Ult(V,U) may be formed. If I is additionally normal, then U will be V -normal.

Deﬁnition 2.4 (Deﬁnition 2.4 of [8]). An ideal I is said to be precipitous if whenever U is a BI -generic object over V , Ult(V,U) is well-founded.

For I an ideal on κ, we will say that I is deﬁned to be µ-saturated if BI has the µ-cc. It is well known B that a µ-saturated ideal is precipitous and µ-preserving, i.e. that V I |= “µ is a cardinal”. However, we make the following caveat:

Caveat. In contrast to the above deﬁnition, an ideal I is deﬁned to be µ-presaturated if I is precipitous and µ-preserving.

Only for precipitous ideals I is it the case that I is µ-presaturated if and only if BI is µ-presaturated as a forcing poset.

Presaturation can be pushed downwards through an iteration:

Lemma 2.5 (Lemma 2.12 of [4]). If P ∗ Q˙ is κ-presaturated then P is κ-presaturated and 1P Q˙ is κ- presaturated.

Whether the converse holds is currently an open problem; this appears as Question 8.6 of [4]. Next we go over the notion of properness and relate properness and closedness to presaturation. Let δ be ∗ regular uncountable, and let H ) δ. Then we write Pδ(H) for all subsets of H of size < δ, and Pδ (H) to denote the set of all x ∈ Pδ(H) such that x ∩ δ ∈ δ.

Deﬁnition 2.6. Let P be a notion of forcing, θ suﬃciently large so that P ∈ Hθ, and M ≺ (Hθ, ∈, P). We say that p ∈ P is an (M, P)-master condition if for every dense D ∈ M, D ∩ M is predense below p; equivalently, p P M[G˙ P] ∩ V = M. Additionally, we say that p is an (M, P)-strong master condition if for every p′ ≤ p, there is some ′ ′ ′ 4 pM ∈ M ∩ P such that every extension of pM in M ∩ P is compatible with p .

3that is, for all p,q ∈ D, there is an r ∈ D such that r ≤ p,q 4It is straightforward to see that strong master conditions are also master conditions. 6 NOAH SCHOEM

Further, P is (strongly) proper with respect to M if every p ∈ M ∩ P has a q ≤ p such that q is an (M, P)-(strong) master condition. ∗ We say that P is (strongly) δ-proper on a stationary set if there is a stationary subset S of Pδ (Hθ) such that for every M ∈ S, M ≺ (Hθ, ∈, P) and P is (strongly) proper with respect to M.

∗ ∗ Note that {M ∈ Pδ (Hθ) | M ≺ (Hθ, ∈, P)} is a club subset of Pδ (Hθ); so a forcing being δ-proper on a stationary set really only depends on the properness condition.

Fact 2.7. If P is δ-proper on a stationary set, then P is δ-presaturated.

This fact appears as Fact 2.8 of [4], with proof; their proof, in turn, generalizes a result of Foreman and

Magidor in the case of δ = ω1 (namely, Proposition 3.2 of [9]). For the posets we will be working with, we will have a speciﬁc stationary subset witnessing δ-properness:

∗ Deﬁnition 2.8. For δ regular and θ >>δ, we say that IA<δ ⊆ Pδ (Hθ), the “internally approachable sets ∗ of length < δ”, is the collection of all M ∈ Pδ (Hθ), with |M| = |M ∩ δ|, that are internally approachable,

i.e. such that there is a ζ<δ and a continuous ⊆-increasing sequence hNα | α < ζi whose union is M, such that N~ ↾ α ∈ M for all α < ζ.

In a sense, internal approachability is preserved by any generic extension:

Fact 2.9. Suppose P is a poset, M ≺ (Hθ, ∈, P), hNα | α < ζi witnesses that M ∈ IA<δ, and G is (V, P)-

generic. Then in V [G], hNα[G] | α < ζi witnesses that M[G] ∈ IA<δ. (Without loss of generality, we may

assume that P ∈ N0.)

It is a standard fact that IA<δ is stationary. The following lemma makes clear its utility:

Lemma 2.10. Let δ be regular and uncountable. Then:

∗ (i) If P is δ-cc and M ≺ (Hθ, ∈, P) is an element of Pδ (Hθ) (i.e. if M ∩ δ ∈ δ), then 1P is an (M, P)- ∗ master condition; in particular P is δ-proper on Pδ (Hθ).

(ii) If Q is <δ-closed then Q is δ-proper on IA<δ.

(iii) If P is δ-proper on IA<δ and P “Q˙ is δ-cc or P “Q˙ is <δ-closed then P ∗ Q˙ is δ-proper on IA<δ.

This is roughly Fact 2.9 out of [4]. The following proof is largely reproduced from [4] as well.

Proof. For part (i), let A ∈ M be a maximal antichain in P. Since |A| < δ and M ∩ δ ∈ δ, we have that

A ⊆ M. Thus 1P M[G˙ ] ∩ Vˇ = M, so 1P is a master condition for M. Part (ii) is due to Foreman and Magidor in [9].

As for part (iii), let G be P-generic over V . Suppose that M ≺ (Hθ, ∈, P ∗ Q˙ ) and M ∈ IA<δ. By Fact 2.9, combined with (i) and (ii), P forces that Q˙ is proper with respect to M[G˙ ]. Hence P ∗ Q˙ is proper with respect to M. DESTROYING SATURATION WHILE PRESERVING PRESATURATION AT AN INACCESSIBLE 7

Presaturation comes with some partial coﬁnality preservation:

Fact 2.11. If P is λ-presaturated for λ regular then

V V [G˙ ] P cof (≥ λ) = cof (≥ λ)

The above fact has a partial converse. We will not make use of it, but it is another known way to argue that certain iterations of presaturated forcings are presaturated:

+ω Fact 2.12. If P is λ -cc for some regular λ ≥ ω1 and

V [G˙ ] +n V ∀n ∈ ω P cf λ ≥ λ then P is λ-presaturated.

This appears as Fact 2.11 in [4], which in turn is a generalization of Theorem 4.3 of [1].

+ Fact 2.13. For a κ-complete, κ -saturated ideal I ∈ V , if U is a BI -generic ﬁlter over V then in V [U], κ Ult(V,U) ⊆ Ult(V,U); that is, Ult(V,U) is closed under κ-sequences from V [U].

This follows from Propositions 2.9 and 2.14 of [8].

We will sometimes write Ult(V, I) to denote Ult(V,U), and will also write jI to denote jU : V → Ult(V,U). If I ∈ V is an ideal on κ and P is a notion of forcing understood from context, then we will write PV P I := nN ∈ (κ) | ∃A ∈ IN ⊆ Ao. The following two simpliﬁed versions of Foreman’s Duality Theorem will be useful later:

+ + Q ˙ Lemma 2.14. For a κ-complete, κ saturated I ∈ V , I is κ -saturated in V if and only if BI jI (Q) is κ+-cc.

This appears as Corollary 7.21 in [8].

Theorem 2.15. Let I be a κ-complete normal precipitous ideal in V and Q be a κ-cc poset. Then I is precipitous and there is a canonical isomorphism witnessing that

B (Q ∗ B ) =∼ B BI ∗ j˙I (Q) I where B(P) refers to the Boolean completion of P.

This statement appears in [4] as Fact 2.24, and is a corollary of Theorem 7.14 of [8].

3. The Forcing Iteration

Through the rest of this paper, ﬁx κ to be a Mahlo cardinal. We do this because by assuming that V admits a κ-complete, normal, κ+-saturated ideal on κ concentrating on regular cardinals below κ, we have that κ is Mahlo. 8 NOAH SCHOEM

Over cardinals below κ, we will deﬁne a forcing iteration that will destroy κ+-saturation but preserve κ+-presaturation for ideals on κ, concentrating on regulars by adding, for each µ<κ, µ inaccessible, a club + subset Cµ of µ using < µ-conditions. This club Cµ will fail to contain certain ground model sets, in the sense that if X ∈ V and |X|≥ µ then X 6⊆ Cµ.

Although our iteration will only be active at inaccessibles, the forcing P(µ) to add Cµ is well-behaved under milder cardinal arithmetic assumptions, so we deﬁne P(µ) in this more general context:

Deﬁnition 3.1. Let µ<κ be a regular cardinal such that |[µ+]<µ| = µ. Let P(µ) be the collection of all conditions (s,f) such that:

(1) s ∈ [µ+ \ µ]<µ (2) f : s → [µ+ \ µ]<µ and if ξ, ξ′ ∈ s with ξ < ξ′ then f(ξ) ⊆ ξ′.

We say (s,f) ≤ (t,g) if s ⊇ t and whenever ξ ∈ t, f(ξ) ⊇ g(ξ).

For each (s,f) ∈ P(µ), s can be thought of as approximating C˙µ, in the sense that (s,f) s ⊆ C˙µ (in fact, we will later deﬁne Cµ = s, for G a P(µ)-generic ﬁlter over V ). S(s,f)∈G Additionally, f can be thought of as “banning” certain ordinals from ever appearing in C˙µ, in the sense that if α ∈ s, β > α, and f(α) ∋ β, then:

• it must be the case that s ∩ (α, β] = ∅. Otherwise, if γ ∈ s ∩ (α, β], we would have that β ∈ f(α) and β∈ / γ. Hence f(α) 6⊆ γ, contradicting conditionhood of (s,f).

• Additionally, (s,f) C˙µ ∩ (α, β] = ∅. This is since for every (t,g) ≤ (s,f), β ∈ g(α); hence t ∩ (α, β]= ∅.

Lemma 3.2. If µ is a regular cardinal, then P(µ) has the following properties:

(1) |P(µ)| = µ+ hence P(µ) has the µ++-cc. (2) P(µ) is <µ-directed closed. ++ + + + (3) If θ ≥ µ , M ≺ (Hθ, ∈,µ ), and M ∩ µ ∈ µ ∩ cof(µ), then P(µ) is strongly proper for M. Hence P(µ) preserves µ+. (4) If G is P(µ)-generic over V , then in V [G], we have that

C := s µ [ (s,f)∈G

+ V is a club subset of µ such that if X ∈ V and |X| ≥ µ, then X 6⊆ Cµ. (5) P(µ) is not µ+-cc below any condition.

Proof. The proofs are exactly as in Lemma 4.4 in [4]. For the sake of clarity, we will prove (3) and (4). ++ + + + To see that (3) holds, let θ ≥ µ , M ≺ (Hθ, ∈,µ ), and M ∩ µ ∈ µ ∩ cof(µ); suppose that (s,f) ∈ <µ + + + <µ + P(µ) ∩ M. Observe that µ = µ and M ≺ (Hθ, ∈,µ ,µ). Let δ = M ∩ µ ; since (µ ) = µ as witnessed + + <µ in Hθ, we have that there is a bijection φ : µ → [µ ] such that φ ∈ M. Without loss of generality, we may assume that for each β<µ+ with cf(β)= µ, φ ↾ β surjects onto [β]<µ. DESTROYING SATURATION WHILE PRESERVING PRESATURATION AT AN INACCESSIBLE 9

We wish to show that <µ(M ∩µ+) ⊆ M. Let δ = M ∩µ+ and suppose that b ∈ [δ]<µ. Since cf(δ)= µ, we have that sup b<δ. But then by choice of φ, there is an α< sup b such that φ(α)= β, and since sup b<δ, α ∈ M. Thus b ∈ M, and so we have shown

<µ(M ∩ µ+) ⊆ M

Since |s| <µ ⊆ M ∩ µ+, we thus have that s ⊆ M and hence M ∩ µ+ ∈/ s = dom(f). Further, if ξ ∈ s then f(ξ) ∈ M ∩ [µ+]<µ; since µ ⊆ M and θ is suﬃciently large, f(ξ) ⊆ M ∩ µ+. Thus the following condition (s′,f ′) extends (s,f):

(s′,f ′) := s ⌢ M ∩ µ+ , f ⌢ M ∩ µ+ 7→ {M ∩ µ+}

We now must argue that (s′,f ′) is a strong master condition for (M, P(µ)). Let (t,h) ≤ (s′,f ′). Then + ′ ′ tM := t ∩ M is a < µ-sized subset of M ∩ µ , hence tM ∈ M. Further, since (t,h) ≤ (s ,f ), we have that + M ∩ µ ∈ t. Hence, as (t,h) is a condition in P(µ) (namely, by part (2) of Deﬁnition 3.1), (h ↾ tM ): tM → + <µ [M ∩ µ ] . Thus (tM ,h ↾ tM ) ∈ M ∩ P(µ).

To complete the proof of strong properness, let (u,g) ∈ M ∩ P(µ), (u,g) ≤ (tM ,h ↾ tM ). Then let F : u ∪ t → [µ+]<µ, F (ξ) = g(ξ) if ξ ∈ u, and F (ξ) = h(ξ) otherwise. Then (u ∪ t, F ) ∈ P(µ) and

(u ∪ t, F ) ≤ (u,g), (t,h). Since (u,g) was arbitrary, we have shown that every extension of (tM ,h ↾ tM ) in P(µ) ∩ M is compatible with (t,h). Thus (s′,f ′) is a strong master condition. This completes our proof of (3). To see that (4) holds, we have three things to show:

+ (i) Cµ is unbounded in µ

(ii) Cµ is closed V (iii) If X ∈ V and |X| ≥ µ then X 6⊆ Cµ

To see (i), let (s,f) ∈ P(µ) and let α<µ+. By deﬁnition of P(µ), |s| < µ and for each β ∈ s, f(β) is a + + + <µ-sized subset of µ . Hence supβ∈s sup f(β) <µ , so let δ be such that supβ∈s sup f(β) <δ<µ . Then

p := (s ⌢ δ, f ⌢ (δ 7→ ∅))

is a condition below (s,f) such that p δ ∈ C˙µ; thus Cµ is unbounded. To see (ii), we argue contrapositively. Let β ∈ µ+ \ (µ + 1) and suppose (s,f) ∈ P(µ) is such that

(s,f) βˇ ∈ / C˙µ. We will argue that (s,f) βˇ ∈ / Lim(C˙µ). Observe that there must be an α ∈ s ∩ β such that f(α) 6⊆ β; for otherwise, we would have that for all α ∈ s ∩ β, f(α) ⊆ β, hence (s⌢β,f ⌢ (β 7→ ∅))

would be a condition below (s,f) forcing β ∈ C˙µ. By conditionhood of (s,f), there is a unique such α and α is the largest element of s ∩ β. Additionally, no extension (t,g) of (s,f) can have that t ∩ (α, β) 6= ∅, and

hence (s,f) “ˇα is the largest element of C˙µ ∩ βˇ”. Thus (s,f) βˇ ∈ / Lim(C˙µ). To see (iii), let X ∈ V with |X|V ≥ µ and let (s,f) ∈ P(µ). Observe that without loss of generality we may assume that X ⊆ µ+ \ (µ + 1). Further, by taking an initial segment of X we may assume that 10 NOAH SCHOEM

otp(X) = µ and hence that cf(sup(X)) = µ. Since |s| < µ and sup(X) has coﬁnality µ, s ∩ sup(X) is bounded below sup(X). Now we have two cases. If there is a ξ ∈ s ∩ sup(X) such that f(ξ) 6⊆ sup(X), let ρ ∈ f(ξ) \ sup(X). Then

(s,f) C˙µ ∩ (ξ,ρ]= ∅ and hence (s,f) “C˙µ ∩ Xˇ is bounded below sup(Xˇ)”. Thus X 6⊆ Cµ. Otherwise, let ζ = sup{sup f(ξ) | ξ ∈ s∩sup(X)}. Since each f(ξ) ⊆ sup(X) and µ is regular, ζ < sup(X).

Let p = (s⌢ζ,f ⌢ (ζ 7→ {sup(X)})). Then p ≤ (s,f) and p max(C˙µ ∩ sup(X)) = ζ. Hence p X 6⊆ C˙µ.

Thus X 6⊆ Cµ. This completes our proof of (4).

Deﬁnition 3.3. We deﬁne an Easton support iteration forcing Q = hQµ ∗ C˙ (µ) | µ<κi as follows: For each µ<κ, if µ is inaccessible in V Qµ , let C(µ)= P(µ) as above, and otherwise let C(µ) be the trivial forcing.

Proposition 3.4. If ν ≤ κ is regular in V , then ν is still regular in V Qν .

Proof. This breaks into three cases:

(1) ν = τ +, for τ a regular cardinal (2) ν = λ+, for λ a singular cardinal (3) ν is inaccessible

+ If ν = τ where τ is regular, we may decompose Qν as

Qτ ∗ C˙ (τ)

Since τ is regular, |Qτ |≤ τ hence is ν-cc. Thus Qτ preserves ν. By Lemma 3.2(3), C˙ (τ) preserves ν. Thus

Q˙ ν preserves ν. + If ν = λ where λ is singular, we have that Qν = Qλ since none of the ordinals in [λ, ν) are regular. Here, cf(λ) the situation is more complicated, since now |Qλ| = λ ≥ ν. So we must verify more directly that ν is preserved. Q So observe that if ν is collapsed, then V λ |= |ν| ≤ |λ| and since λ is singular, we would have a Qλ-name f˙ : δˇ → νˇ for a coﬁnal sequence inν ˇ for some regular cardinal δ < λ.

But we may decompose Qλ into

Qδ ∗ C˙ (δ) ∗ Q˙ >δ+

+ Now, Q˙ >δ+ is <δ -directed closed, so Q˙ >δ could not have added such an f. Additionally, C˙ (δ) satisﬁes the ++ + δ -cc, hence is ν-cc. Thus C˙ (δ) also could not have added f. Finally, |Qδ| = δ so Qδ satisﬁes the δ -cc, hence is also ν-cc. Thus Qδ could not have added such an f either.

As in the successor of a regular case, C˙ (ν) and Q˙ ≥ν preserve ν as well.

Qν And in the case where ν is inaccessible, suppose that in V that cf(ˇν)= δˇ < νˇ. Then Qν decomposes, as in the successor of a singular case, into

Qδ ∗ C˙ (δ) ∗ Q˙ >δ+ DESTROYING SATURATION WHILE PRESERVING PRESATURATION AT AN INACCESSIBLE 11

The analysis is exactly as in the successor of a singular case.

This shows that whenever ν is regular in V , ν remains regular in V Qν and we will now write P(ν) rather than C(ν).

Corollary 3.5. Q preserves cardinals.

Proof. Since κ is Mahlo, Q = Qκ is κ-cc hence preserves κ preserves cardinals ≥ κ.

For ν<κ regular, we have that Q = Qν ∗ P˙ (ν) ∗ Q˙ >ν . By the preceding proposition, Qν preserves ν. By + Lemma 3.2(3), P˙ (ν) preserves ν. And by Lemma 3.2(2), Q˙ >ν is <ν -directed closed hence preserves ν.

4. Destroying Saturation

Since Q projects to each Qµ ∗ P˙ (µ), µ<κ inaccessible, we may, for each such µ, let Gµ be the restriction of the Q-generic G to P(µ) and deﬁne Cµ = {ξ | ∃(s,f) ∈ Gµ ξ ∈ s}. By Lemma 3.2(4), Cµ is a club subset

+ Qµ∗P˙ (µ) Qµ + Qµ of µ in V and for every X ∈ V such that X ⊆ [µ,µ ) and X has V -cardinality ≥ µ, X 6⊆ Cµ. As a warmup to proving Theorem 1.3(i), we argue the following:

+ Proposition 4.1. Suppose that I ∈ V is κ-complete, normal, κ -saturated, and concentrates on Regκ. Then in V Q, I is not κ+-saturated.

Before we prove this, it will be helpful to isolate a lemma on what jI (Q) looks like in Ult(V, I):

Lemma 4.2. Let I be a κ-complete, normal, ﬁne precipitous ideal concentrating on inaccessibles. Then in

Ult(V, I), jI (Q) =∼ Q ∗ R˙ , where R˙ is a name for an Easton support iteration hRα ∗ C˙ (α) | α ∈ [κ, j(κ))i, such that if α is inaccessible, C(α)= P(α), and C(α) is the trivial forcing otherwise.

Proof. This follows from the elementarity of jI , and since I concentrates on regulars, κ is regular in Ult(V, I).

And we remark on how Ult(V, I) computes κ+:

+ Lemma 4.3. Let I be as in Lemma 4.2, with G a BI -generic over V . Then if I is κ -saturated, then (κ+)Ult(V,I) = (κ+)V [G].

Thus for κ+-saturated ideals, we will just write κ+ to mean (κ+)V = (κ+)V [G] = (κ+)Ult(V,I).

+ + + V + V [G] + Ult(V,I) Proof. Since I is κ -presaturated, forcing with BI preserves κ , hence (κ ) = (κ ) ≥ (κ ) . To see that (κ+)V [G] = (κ+)Ult(V,I), suppose that α ∈ [κ, (κ+)V [G]). Let this be witnessed by some κ-sequence f : κ → α a bijection. Since I is κ+-saturated, we have from Fact 2.13 that Ult(V, I) is closed under κ-sequences from V [G], and so f ∈ Ult(V, I). Thus α is not a cardinal in Ult(V, I).

Remark 4.4. As with ultrapowers from a measurable cardinal, we will have that if I is a κ-complete normal

BI κ precipitous ideal in V , then in V , |jI (κ)| =2 . However, by elementarity, in Ult(V, I), jI (κ) is inaccessible. 12 NOAH SCHOEM

Remark 4.5. This is unlike a λ-complete, λ+-saturated ideal J on λ a successor cardinal; for λ a successor + cardinal, we would have that jJ (λ)= λ . The argument can be found in [8].

BI Proof of Proposition 4.1. By Lemma 4.2, in V , j˙I (Q) =∼ Q ∗ R˙ , where R˙ is an Easton support iteration

hRα ∗ C˙ (α) | α ∈ [κ, jI (κ))i as in the lemma. Since I concentrates on inaccessibles below κ, κ is still inaccessible in Ult(V, I). Thus C(κ)= P(κ) which + + is not κ -cc. So jI (Q) is not κ -saturated. So by Lemma 2.14, in V Q, I is not κ+-saturated.

We now prove Theorem 1.3(i).

Proof of Theorem 1.3(i). Let G be Q-generic, and suppose that in V [G] there is a κ-complete, κ+-saturated ideal J on κ concentrating on regular cardinals below κ. Let U be P (κ)/J-generic over V [G], and let j : V [G] → Ult(V [G],U) be the generic ultrapower. ′ ′ Let N = j(Vα). Then j(Q) ∈ N and hence Ult(V [G],U)= N[g ] for some g ∈ V [G ∗ U] which Sα∈ORD is j(Q)-generic over N. Observe that κ is still inaccessible in N[g′] by inaccessibility in V [G], by being the critical point of j, and ′ since J concentrates on regulars. Since j(κ) >κ and j(κ) is a cardinal in N[g′], j(κ) > (κ+)N[g ] ≥ (κ+)V [G] (by κ-closure and κ+-saturation of J). Further, by the usual ultrapower argument, |j(κ)| =2κ. So j(κ) is not a cardinal in V , but by Fact 2.13, N[g′] is closed under κ-sequences from V [G]. Work in N[g′]. Let g′ be the projection of j(Q) to P(κ), and let

C = s κ [ (s,f)∈g′

Then

′ + N (1) N[g ] |= Cκ is club in κ and ∀X ∈ N|X| ≥ κ, X 6⊆ Cκ

Since V [G ∗ U] is a κ+-cc extension of V , we may let D ∈ V be such that in V [G ∗ U], D is a club subset V of Cκ. Let E ⊆ D be in V , (o.t.(E)) = κ, α = sup E; since cf(α)= κ, let φ : κ → α be a normal increasing sequence. Let E′ = lim(E) ∩ ran(φ). Then E′ ⊆ D and |E′|V = κ since κ is inaccessible. Further, j(φ) ∈ N and j(φ) ↾ κ : κ → j”α is also in N. Thus ran(j(φ) ↾ κ) ∈ N and j”E′ ⊆ ran(j(φ) ↾ κ) ⊆ j”α. But j”E′ = ran(j(φ) ↾ κ) ∩ j(E′) ∈ N; and since E′ = {β ∈ ran(φ) | j(β) ∈ j(E′)}, we have that E′ is a ′ N ′ + subset of Cκ with |E | = κ and E ⊆ [κ,κ ). This contradicts Statement (1), and hence J cannot be κ+-saturated.

5. Preserving Presaturation

We now prove Theorem 1.3(ii). DESTROYING SATURATION WHILE PRESERVING PRESATURATION AT AN INACCESSIBLE 13

Proof of Theorem 1.3(ii). Let I ∈ V be a κ-complete, normal, κ+-saturated ideal in V concentrating on

BI inaccessibles. Work in V and let U be the generic ultrafilter. Since I is κ-complete, crit(j˙I ) = κ and j˙I ↾ κ = id. ˙ Thus, in Ult(V,U), by Lemma 4.2, j˙I (Q) =∼ Q∗P(κ)∗R˙ , where R˙ is an Easton support iteration hRα ∗C(α) | + α ∈ [κ , jI (κ))i, such that if α is inaccessible, C(α)= P(α), and C(α) is the trivial forcing otherwise. + + We will argue that BI ∗ j˙I (Q) is κ -proper on a stationary set, and hence is κ -presaturated. + + Observe that BI is κ -cc. Hence, in V [U] so also in Ult(V,U), Q is still κ -cc. Thus, in Ult(V,U), BI ∗ Q + + P∗ is κ -cc and hence is κ -proper on κ+ (Hθ) for all sufficiently large θ. The difficulty comes in assuring P(κ) ∗ R˙ preserves the properness on a stationary set. We will do this by + arguing that P(κ) ∗ R˙ is forced by BI ∗ Q to be κ -proper on IA<κ˙ + . Once we have that, since BI ∗ Q is + + + κ -cc and forces P(κ) ∗ R˙ is κ -proper on a stationary set, the full forcing BI ∗ j˙I (Q) is then κ -proper on a stationary set. Work in Ult(V,U)Q. Here, P(κ) is proper on

+ + + S := {M ≺ (Hθ, ∈,κ ) | |M| = |M ∩ κ | = κ and M ∩ κ ∈ cof(κ)}

+ ˙ ˙ ˇ and by the < κ -directed closedness of R and Fact 2.9, P(κ) R proper on IA<κ+ . But not only is S ∗ S P S + stationary, is a club subset of κ+ (Hθ) ↾ cof(κ), and hence ∩ IA<κ is also stationary. + Thus, by Lemma 2.10, after forcing with BI ∗ j˙I (Q), we have that P(κ) ∗ R˙ is κ -proper on the stationary set S ∩ IA<δ+ . B ˙ + P∗ V + Therefore, I ∗ jI (Q) is κ -proper on a stationary subset of κ+ (Hθ) , hence is κ -presaturated. But ˙ ∼ ˙ + by Theorem 2.15, BI ∗ jI (Q) = Q ∗ BI ; then by Lemma 2.5, I is κ -presaturated.

A more general argument will prove Theorem 1.4:

Proof of Theorem 1.4. In V , let δ ≥ κ be an inaccessible cardinal, and let I be a normal, precipitous, ﬁne, + δ -presaturated ideal of uniform completeness κ on some algebra of sets Z such that BI preserves the + + ˙ ˙ + inaccessibility of κ and δ in Ult(V, I); BI δ ≤ |jI (κ)| < j(κ); and BI is δ -proper on IA<δ . Q + + We wish to show that in V , BI is not δ -saturated, but is δ -presaturated.

Recall that Q is κ-cc since Q is an Easton support iteration of κ-cc posets and κ is Mahlo. Since BI is precipitous, by Theorem 2.15,

(2) B BI ∗ j˙I (Q) =∼ B (Q ∗ B ) I

Also, since I is κ-complete, crit(jI )= κ and thus jI ↾ κ = id. Since BI preserves the regularity of κ, we get

that j˙I (Q) ↾ κ = Q.

Therefore, jI (Q) = Q ∗ hRα ∗ C(α) | α ∈ [κ, jI (κ))i, where each Rα is an Easton support iteration, such that if α is inaccessible, C(α)= P(α), and C(α) is the trivial forcing otherwise. + Since Ult(V, I) |= “δ inaccessible”, we get that C(δ) = P(δ) which is not δ -cc. Thus (Q ∗ BI ) is not + + + δ -cc, and since Q is clearly δ -cc, BI cannot be δ -saturated. 14 NOAH SCHOEM

+ ˙ + As for the δ -presaturation of BI , by 2 it suﬃces to show that BI ∗ jI (Q) is δ -presaturated.

Work in Ult(V, I). Since BI preserves the regularity of κ, we decompose j˙I (Q) as

j˙I (Q)= Q ∗ j˙I (Q) ↾ [κ,δ) ∗ j˙I (Q) ↾ [δ, jI (κ)) and further j˙ (Q)(δ)= P˙ (δ), so we decompose j˙ (Q) ↾ [δ, j (κ)) as P˙ (δ) ∗ j˙ (Q) ↾ [δ+, j (κ)) . I I I I I So we may further decompose j˙I (Q) as

j˙ (Q)= Q ∗ j˙ (Q) ↾ [κ,δ) ∗ P˙ (δ) ∗ j˙ (Q) ↾ [δ+, j (κ)) I I I I and we will argue the following items in Ult(V, I):

• Q is δ+-cc + • j˙I (Q) ↾ [κ,δ) is δ -cc ˙ + • P(δ) is δ -proper on a stationary set S such that S ∩ IA<δ+ is stationary + + • j˙I (Q) ↾ [δ , jI (κ)) is δ -directed closed and thus is δ-proper on IA + <δ + in such a way that we may conclude that BI ∗ j˙I (Q) is δ -proper on a stationary set. We have that Q is κ-cc, hence is δ+-cc. + If δ = κ, then j˙I (Q) ↾ [κ,δ) is trivial so is δ -cc. Otherwise, δ>κ, and since δ is inaccessible in Ult(V, I), j˙I (Q) ↾ [κ,δ) is a δ-length direct limit iteration of posets of size < δ. Thus j˙I (Q) ↾ [κ,δ) has size δ, and so is δ+-cc. + + ∗ Therefore BI ∗ Q ∗ j˙I (Q) ↾ [κ,δ) is δ -cc, so by Lemma , is δ -proper on P + (Hθ). δ ∗ As in the proof of Theorem 1.3(ii), P(δ) is proper on a club subset of Pδ+ (Hθ) ∩ cof(δ) and so BI ∗ + + + Q ∗ j˙I (Q) ↾ [κ ,δ) ∗ P(δ) is δ -proper on the stationary set IA + ∩ cof(δ). Finally, j˙I (Q) ↾ [δ , jI (κ)) <δ + BI is δ -directed closed and therefore is proper on IA<δ+ , which by Fact 2.9, is absolute between V and B ˙ + V I ∗Q∗(jI (Q)↾[κ ,δ))∗P(δ). + + Thus BI ∗ j˙I (Q) is δ -proper on the stationary subset IA<δ+ ∩ cof(δ), and therefore is δ -presaturated. + Q + But then Q∗BI is δ -presaturated as well, and therefore by Lemma 2.5, V |=“BI is δ -presaturated”.

6. Conclusions and Questions

We thus have that in V Q, certain κ+-saturated ideals on κ in V are no longer κ+-saturated, but remain κ+-presaturated. As a consequence, we have counterexamples to Question 1.1 at inaccessible cardinals. Using Fact 2.12, Cox and Eskew argued in [4] that their forcing P preserved the κ+-presaturation of a +ω much larger class of ideals on κ; this was possible because in their context, jI (P) was δ -cc. This naturally leads to the following question

Question 6.1. Does Q preserve the δ-presaturation of all δ-presaturated ideals on κ concentrating on regular cardinals?

+ω However, for us, jI (Q) will not be δ -cc, so Fact 2.12 does not apply. This is why we only show that

ideals that are δ-proper on IA<δ remain δ-presaturated; δ-saturated ideals are δ-proper on IA<δ, so this DESTROYING SATURATION WHILE PRESERVING PRESATURATION AT AN INACCESSIBLE 15

was suﬃcient for our purposes. We would need more powerful tools to argue that all κ+-presaturated ideals in V remain κ+-presaturated in V Q. Perhaps the more signiﬁcant open questions are:

Question 6.2. Does Q preserve the δ-presaturation of all δ-presaturated ideals on κ?

The diﬃculty in this question, beyond the issues already raised, lies in the fact that here may be κ+- saturated ideals at an inaccessible concentrating on cof(µ), for some µ<κ; in particular, as per [11], it is consistent that this is true for NSκ ↾ S, where S is some stationary subset of κ ∩ cof(µ). Forcing with such an ideal I singularizes κ, and hence the following complications arise:

(1) jI (Q) ↾ κ will be an inverse limit, so it is not clear that jI (Q) will be proper on a stationary subset ∗ + of Pκ(κ ) as would be required to mimic the above arguments.

(2) jI (Q)(κ) will be trivial, so the iteration would need to be modiﬁed to be active at singular stages.

The second complication motivates the following questions:

Question 6.3. Is there a forcing that preserves the above presaturation but additionally forces there to be no δ-saturated ideals at all?

Doing so may be feasible if jI (Q)(κ) is nontrivial and adds a club as in Deﬁnition 3.1:

Question 6.4. Let λ be singular and assume GCH. Is there a cardinal preserving, λ+-proper on a stationary set (or even just λ+-presaturated) poset Ps(λ) that adds a club subset C of λ+ such that whenever X ∈ V , |X|V ≥ λ, we have that X 6⊆ C?

Attempting to tackle Questions 6.2 warrants using more general versions of Foreman’s Duality Theorem that apply even to non-κ-cc forcings; these more powerful formulations can be found in [8].

7. Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Dima Sinapova, his thesis advisor, for many helpful discussions, and Sean Cox and Monroe Eskew for guidance and focus on extending their results. It is not clear whether generalizations of Theorems 1.3(i), 1.3(ii), and 1.4 apply for ideals not concentrating on regulars; the author wishes to thank the referee for pointing out this problem in earlier versions of the paper, among other corrections.

References

[1] James E. Baumgartner and Alan D. Taylor. Saturation Properties of Ideals in Generic Extensions.II. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 271(2):587, jun 1982. [2] James E. Baumgartner, Alan D. Taylor, and Stanley Wagon. On splitting stationary subsets of large cardinals. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 42(2):203–214, 1977. [3] William Boos. Boolean extensions which eﬀace the Mahlo property. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 39(2):254–268, jun 1974. 16 NOAH SCHOEM

[4] Sean Cox and Monroe Eskew. Strongly proper forcing and some problems of Foreman. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 371(7):5039–5068, dec 2018. [5] Sean Cox and Noah Schoem. Reference request: destroying saturation at an inaccessible? https://mathoverflow.net/q/315754, 2018. [6] Sean Cox and Martin Zeman. Ideal Projections and Forcing Projections. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 79(4):1247–1285, dec 2014. [7] M. Foreman, M. Magidor, and S. Shelah. Martin’s Maximum, Saturated Ideals, and Non-Regular Ultraﬁlters. Part I. The Annals of Mathematics, 127(1):1, jan 1988. [8] Matthew Foreman. Ideals and Generic Elementary Embeddings. In Handbook of Set Theory, pages 885–1147. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2010. [9] Matthew Foreman and Menachem Magidor. Large cardinals and deﬁnable counterexamples to the continuum hypothesis. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 76(1):47–97, nov 1995. [10] Matthew Foreman and Menachem Magidor. Mutually stationary sequences of sets and the non-saturation of the non-

stationary ideal on Pκ(λ). Acta Math., 186(2):271–300, 2001. [11] Moti Gitik. Changing coﬁnalities and the nonstationary ideal. Israel Journal of Mathematics, 56(3):280–314, oct 1986. [12] Moti Gitik and Saharon Shelah. Less saturated ideals. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 125(05):1523– 1531, may 1997. [13] K. Kunen and J. B. Paris. Boolean extensions and measurable cardinals. Annals of Mathematical Logic, 2(4):359–377, 1971. [14] Kenneth Kunen. Saturated Ideals. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 43(1):65–76, 1978. [15] Richard Laver. Saturated Ideals and Nonregular Ultraﬁlters. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, 109:297– 305, jan 1982. [16] Jack Silver. On the singular cardinals problem II. Israel Journal of Mathematics, 28(1-2):1–31, mar 1977. [17] Robert M. Solovay. Real-valued measurable cardinals. pages 397–428. 1971. [18] Stanis law Ulam. On measure theory in general set theory (doctoral dissertation). Wiadom. Mat., 33:155–168, 1997.