7

3
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
1
1
-
0
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
1
1
-
1
4


MARTINS AXIOM IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTENCE OF NOWHERE
TRIVIAL AUTOMORPHISMS
SAHARON SHELAH AND JURIS STEPR

ANS
Abstract. Martins Axiom does not imply that all automorphisms of P(N)/[N]
<0
are somewhere triv-
ial. An alternate method for obtaining models where every automorphism of P(N)/[N]
<0
is somewhere
trivial is explained.
1. Introduction
In [5] Velickovic constructed a model of Martins Axiom in which there is a non-trivial automorphism
of T(N)/[N]
<
0
. As well as answering a question posed in [4], this put into context another result
of the [5] showing that the conjunction of MA and OCA implies that all automorphisms are trivial.
However, the non-trivial automorphims constructed by Velickovic is trivial on many innite subsets
of the integers. Indeed, it was shown in [3] that this is unavoidable since every automorphism of
T(N)/[N]
<
0
is somewhere trivial in Velickovics model of [5].
Hence, the question arises of whether or not Martins Axiom alone is sucient to imply that, while
there may be non-trivial automorphisms, nevertheless, all automorphisms of T(N)/[N]
<
0
are somewhere
trivial. The main result of this paper is that this is not the case.
The last section presents a simple, alternate method for obtaining models where all automorphisms
are somewhere trivial. It has the advantage that it can produce models where d =
1
whereas the oracle
chain condition method adds Cohen reals and so does not achieve this.
2. Martins Axiom and a nowhere trivial automorphism
If and are ordinals then the notation [, ) will be used to denote the set . The relations

and

will have the usual meaning as relations on subsets of the integers modulo a nite set.
The convention on forcing partial orders will be that larger conditions force more information.
Denition 2.1. If W is a set of ordinals then the indexed family S = (A

, F

, B

)
W
will be said
to be a tower of permutations if
(1) A

N and F

is a permutation of N for each

(2) F

m is a permutation of m for each m in A

(3) B

is a nite subalgebra of T(N) for each

(4) if then B

and A

(5) if then F

(B)

(B) for each B B

.
Dene Q(S) to be the set consisting of all quadruples p = (a
p
, f
p
,
p
, B
p
) such that
(1) a
p
N is a nite subset
(2) f
p
m is a permutation of m for each m a
p
and the domain of f
p
is max(a
p
)
(3)
p
W
The research of the rst author was supported by The Israel Science Foundation founded by the Israel Academy of
Sciences and Humanities, and by NSF grant No. NSF-DMS97-04477. Research of the second author for this paper was
partially supported by NSERC of Canada. This is paper number 735 in the rst authors personal listing.
1
7
3
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
1
1
-
0
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
1
1
-
1
4


2 S. SHELAH AND J. STEPR

ANS
(4) max(a
p
) A

p
and the relation on Q(S) is dened by p q if and only if
(2.1) a
p
a
q
, (max(a
p
) + 1) a
q
= a
p
, f
p
f
q
, B
p
B
q
,
p

q
(2.2) (A

q max(a
q
)) (a
q
a
p
) A

p
and, for each B belonging to B
p
B

p, the following two conditions hold:

(2.3) (n, m [a
q
max(a
p
)]
2
)f
q
(B [m, n)) = F

p(B [m, n))

(2.4) (n, m [A

q max(a
q
)]
2
)F

q (B [m, n)) = F

p(B [m, n)).

If G is generic for Q(S) then dene A
S
[G] =

pG
a
p
and F
S
[G] to be

pG
f
p
.
Lemma 2.1. For any tower of permutations S the structure (Q(S), ) is a partial order.
Proof. That (Q(S), ) is reexive and antisymmetric is obvious. To prove transitivity suppose that
p q and q r. The condition 2.1 for p r is easily seen to be satised. To see that condition 2.2 for
p r is satised note that
A

r max(a
r
) A

q max(a
r
) A

q max(a
q
) A
p
and that
a
r
a
p
(a
r
a
q
) (a
q
a
p
) A

q max(a
q
) A

p A

p
which shows that (A

r max(a
r
)) (a
r
a
p
) A

p, as required.
To show that conditions 2.3 and 2.4 hold, let B B
p
B

p. Given any pair n, m [a

r
max(a
p
)]
2
, it
may, without loss of generality be assumed that n and m are successive elements of a
r
max(a
p
). Hence,
either n, m [(a
r
max(a
q
)]
2
or n, m [(a
q
max(a
p
)]
2
. In the second case, it follows immediately
from the fact that p q that f
q
(B [n, m)) = F

p(B[n, m)). Since q r it follows that f

q
f
r
and
so f
r
(B[n, m)) = F

p(B[n, m)). On the other hand, in the rst case f

r
(B[n, m)) = F

q (B[n, m))
since q r and B

p B

q . Moreover, using condition 2.4 and p q it is possible to conclude that

F

q (B [n, m)) = F

p(B [n, m)). Hence, in either case f

r
(B [n, m)) = F

p(B [n, m)) which

establishes that condition 2.3 holds for p r.
To see that condition 2.4 holds for p r let n, m [A

r max(a
r
)]
2
. It follows from p q and q r
that F

q (B[n, m)) = F

r (B[n, m)) and, since n, m A

r max(a
r
) A

q max(a
q
), that F

q (B
[n, m)) = F

p(B [n, m)). Hence, F

r (B [n, m)) = F

p(B [n, m)) establishing condition 2.4.

Lemma 2.2. Given a tower of permutations S = (A

, F

, B

)
W
, an integer n, B

W
B

and
W the following sets are dense in Q(S):
(2.5) p Q(S) : max(a
p
) > n
(2.6) p Q(S) :
p

(2.7) p Q(S) : B B
p

Proof. To prove that the set 2.5 is dense let p Q(S) and n be given. Let k A

p
be such that k > n.
Using Condition 4 of Denition 2.1 it follows that max(a
p
) A

p and, hence, F
p
[max(a
p
), k) is a
permutation of [max(a
p
), k). Letting q = (a
p
k, f
p
F
p
[max(a
p
), k),
p
, B
p
) it follows that q p.
Observe for later reference, that is has actually been shown that
(2.8) (p Q(S))(n N)(q p)max(a
q
) > n and
q
=
p
and B
p
= B
q
.
7
3
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
1
1
-
0
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
1
1
-
1
4


NOWHERE TRIVIAL AUTOMORPHISMS 3
To prove that the set 2.6 is dense let p Q(S) and W be given. Since it may as well be assumed
that >
p
, it is possible to nd n so large that A

n A

p and for all i, j [A

n]
2
and B B
p
F

(B [i, j)) = F

p(B [i, j)).

Using the set 2.5 of Lemma 2.2 choose q such that p q and n < max(a
q
). From 2.8 it can be assumed
that B
q
= B
p
and that
q
=
p
. Now, let r = (a
q
, f
q
, , B
p
). That conditions 2.2 and 2.4 for the
relation q r is satised follows from the choice of n while condition 2.1 is obvious. Condition 2.3 has
no content in the case of q r since a
q
= a
r
. Now use transitivity and the fact that p q. Observe for
later reference, that is has actually been shown that
(2.9) (p Q(S))( >
p
)(q p)
q
= .
There is no problem in proving that the set 2.7 is dense.
Lemma 2.3. If S = (A

, F

, B

)
W
is a tower of permutations and p Q(S) then
(2.10) p
Q(S)
A
S
[G] max(a
p
) A

p
(2.11) p
Q(S)
(B B
p
B

p)(n, m [A

p max(a
p
)]
2
)F
S
[G](B [n, m)) = F

p(B [n, m))

Proof. This is standard using condition 2.2 for 2.10 and condition 2.3 for 2.11.
Let be a regular uncountable cardinal and let C be any set containing 0 and closed under
limits of increasing
1
-sequences such that C is also unbounded. Now dene P

, as well as a P

-name
for a tower of permutations S

= (A

, F

, B

)
C
, by induction on . Let A
0
[N]

0
and F
0
be
arbitrary subject to the fact that F
0
is a permutation of N such that F
0
[n, m) is a permutation for
each n, m A
0
. Let B
0
= T(N) in the sense of the ground model. Then let S
1
= (A
0
, F
0
, B
0
) and
let P
1
= Q
0
be Cohen forcing. If is a limit then P

is simply the nite support limit of P

and
S

C
S

. If / C then P
+1
= P

where Q

is a ccc partial order chosen according to some

bookkeeping scheme which will guarantee that Martins Axiom holds at stage . In this case S
+1
= S

.
If C 0 then P
+1
= P

Q(S

) and A

is dened to be A
S
[G], F

is dened to be F
S
[G] where
G is the canonical name for the generic set on Q(S

). In this case S
+1
= S

(A

, F

, T(N) V
P
).
As usual, if p P

then p
P
p() Q

.
Denition 2.2. Let P
w

consist of all those p P

such that there are k N, [C ]

<
0
and
(a

, f

such that
= domain(p) C 0
0
if then p
P
p() = ( a

,

f

, B

) for some B

for each
if then max(a

) = k
if and

are in and

< then p
P
B

= B

.
The pair (k, (a

, f

) will be said to witness that p P

w

. Let P

consist of all those p P

w

such that, in addition to the other requirements,

= max( ) for each .

Lemma 2.4. If p P
w

and this is witnessed by (k, (a

, f

) then
if then p + 1
P
+1
A

(A

k)
if then p + 1
P
+1
(B B

)(n, m [A

k]
2
)F

(B [n, m)) =
F

(B [n, m))
Proof. This is an immediate consequence of Lemma 2.3.
7
3
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
1
1
-
0
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
1
1
-
1
4


4 S. SHELAH AND J. STEPR

ANS
Denition 2.3. If p P
w

is witnessed by (k, (a

, f

) then dene p
+
P

by
p
+
() =

p() if /
(a

, f

, max( ), B
p()
) if .
Lemma 2.5. If p P
w

then p
+
p.
Proof. Proceed by induction on to show that p
+
p . Note that the cases = 0 or a
limit pose no problem. Given that p
+
p let be enumerated, in order, by
1
,
2
, . . .
n
.
If follows directly from Lemma 2.4 and the denition of p
+
that
p
+

P

k (A

k) . . . (A
n

k)
p
+

P

(B B

j
B

i
)(m, m

k)F

j
(B[m, m

)) = F

i
(B[m, m

)) if i j.
In particular, noting that there is some i such that

=
i
,
p
+

P

k A
n

and
p
+

P

(B B

B
n
)(m, m

k)F

(B [m, m

)) = F
n
(B [m, m

)).
Hence, p
+
+ 1 p + 1.
Lemma 2.6. For each the subset P
w

is dense in P

.
Proof. Proceed by induction on noting that the cases 1 and a limit are trivial. Therefore,
suppose that Lemma 2.6 has been established for and that p P
+1
. Without loss of generality it may
be assumed that C. Choose p

p and (a, f, ) such that and p

p() = ( a,

f,

, B)
and, moreover, p

B = B
i

im
and, for each i m the condition p

decides the value of the

least ordinal (i) such that B
i
B
(i)
. Furthermore, it may, without loss of generality be assumed
that (i)
im
domain(p

) and that p

(i)
P
(i)
B
i
B
p

((i))
for i m. Then use
the induction hypothesis to nd p

P
w

extending p

and such that (k, (a

, f

) witnesses that
p

P
w

. Without loss of generality, k max(a). Now, the fact that max(a), k A

implies that
F

[max(a), k) is a permutation of [max(a), k). Hence it is possible to dene f

= f F

[max(a), k)
and a

= a k. Then dene q so that

q() =

() if
(a

, f

, , B

B
p

()
) if =
and note that q P
w
+1
and q p.
Corollary 2.1. For each the subset P

is dense in P

.
Proof. This is immediate from Lemma 2.6 and Lemma 2.5.
Lemma 2.7. Given that p P
w

and that this is witnessed by (k, (a

, f

) and (C )
domain(p) then the following condition p) extends p and is also in P
w

:
p)()

p() if ,=
(k, (j, j)
jk
, 0,

B
p()
) if = .
Proof. Notice that since / domain(p) the restrictions on extension do not apply and it is easy to check
that the condition (k, (j, j)
jk
, max( ),

B
p()
) belongs to Q

. Since p P
w

it follows
that k A
0
and, hence, that p) P
w

. That p) p is immediate from the denition.

7
3
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
1
1
-
0
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
1
1
-
1
4


NOWHERE TRIVIAL AUTOMORPHISMS 5
Lemma 2.8. Suppose that p and q are conditions in P

such that:
p P

is witnessed by (k, (a

p
, f

p
)
p
)
q P

is witnessed by (k, (a

q
, f

q
)
q
)
max(domain(p)) = max(domain(q)) =
p

q
(a

q
, f

q
) = (a

p
, f

p
)
max(domain(q)) < min(domain(p) 0)
p(0) and (0) are compatible.
Under these conditions p and q are compatible.
Proof. Let the maximum member of
q
. Dene q . p by
(q . p)() =

q() if domain(q) (
q
)
p() if domain(p) (
p
)
(a
q()
, f
q()
,
q()
, (B
p
B
0
) B
q()
) if
q
(a
p()
, f
p()
,
p()
, B
p()
B
q()
) if
p
(a
p( )
, f
p( )
,
q
( ), B
p( )
B
q( )
) if =
and dene p . q by
(p . q)() =

q() if domain(q) (
q
)
p() if domain(p) (
p
)
(a
q()
, f
q()
,
q()
, (B
p
B
0
) B
q()
) if
q
(a
p()
, f
p()
,
p()
, B
p()
B
q()
) if
p
(a
p( )
, f
p( )
,
p
( ), B
p( )
B
q( )
) if =
(The only dierence is to be found in the last lines of the two denitions.) It is easy to check that
p p . q and q q . p and that both p . q and q . p belong to P
w

. Moreover (p . q)
+
= (q . p)
+
.
Hence q and p are compatible.
Lemma 2.9. If the conality of C is not
1
and S = (A

, F

, B

)
C
is a tower of permutations
then Q(S) has property K.
Proof. This is standard. If the conality of C is less than
1
then choose a countable, conal subset
C

of C. Using observation 2.9 of Lemma 2.2 it follows that the set of all p Q(S) such that

p
C

is dense. It follows that Q(S) has a -centred dense subset.

On the other hand, if the conality of C is greater than
1
and p

1
Q(S) it is possible to
choose C such that
p

< for each . Using observation 2.9 of Lemma 2.2 it may be assumed,
by extending each condition, that
p

= for each . Now there are a and f and an uncountable set of

such that a
p

= a and f
p

= f. Any two of these are easily seen to be compatible.

The fact that the tower of permutations needs to be generic, or at least some other condition must
be satised, in order for Lemma 2.9 to hold has been observed in Theorem 2 of [2].
Lemma 2.10. P

has the countable chain condition for each .

Proof. Proceed by induction on . If = 1 the result is immediate and if is a limit the result
follows from the induction hypothesis and the nite support of the iteration. Therefore consider the
case = + 1 and assume that the countable chain condition has already been established for P

.
Next, observe that if C is not conal in then the induction hypothesis is easily applied since, in
this case, C has a maximal element below and so Q

has the countable chain condition by Lemma 2.9.

7
3
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
1
1
-
0
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
1
1
-
1
4


6 S. SHELAH AND J. STEPR

ANS
If C has conality dierent from
1
then, once again Lemma 2.9 implies that Q

has the countable

chain condition; therefore, in either case, so does P
+1
. Hence it remains to consider the case that C
is conal in and has conality
1
. From the hypothesis on C, and the fact that must be the limit of
C it follows that C. By appealing to Lemma 2.6 and extending the conditions in question, it is
possible to guarantee that each p

is in P

and that this is witnessed by (k

, (a

, f

) As well, by
thinning out, it may be assumed that there is k such that k

= k for each , and there is a pair (a, f)

such that (a

, f

) = (a, f) for each and that domain(p

1
form a -system with root . Using
the fact that is a limit, choose some C such that there is some uncountable
1
such that
if , []
2
and then max(domain(p

)) < min(domain(p

[, ))). It may as well be

assumed that / domain(p

) for each . Then use Lemma 2.7 to extend each p

to some p

)
+
.
Now, using the induction hypothesis, nd , []
2
such that and p

)
+
+ 1 is
compatible with p

)
+
+ 1. Choose r P
+1
extending both p

)
+
+ 1 and p

)
+
+ 1.
Let G P
+1
be generic over V and containing r. Observe that P

/P
+1
as interpreted in V [G] is a
partial order like P

in V except that the rst factor of P

/P
+1
is Q((A

, F

, T(N) V [G])). Since

r
P
+1
k A

it follows that k A

, in V [G]. It follows that (p

)
+
[, )) and (p

)
+
[, ))
belong to (P

/P
+1
)

. Now use Lemma 2.8 in V [G] to conclude that (p

)
+
[, )) and (p

)
+

[, )) are compatible. Hence, so are p

and p

.
Lemma 2.11. Let S = (A

, F

, B

)
W
be a tower of permutations and suppose that A [N]

0
and
is a one-to-one function from A to N. Then Q(S) forces that there are innitely many a A such
that F
S
[G](a) ,= (a).
Proof. Let p Q(S) and suppose that p
Q(S)
(a

A

k)(a) = F
S
[G](a) for some integer k.
From Lemma 2.2 it can be assumed that k max(a
p
). Now choose m A

p so large that there exist

distinct integers i and j in [max(a
p
), m) A such that i B if and only if j B for all B B
p
. It is
possible to choose a bijection g : i, j F

p(i), F

p(j) such that g ,= i, j. However, letting

f = F

p ([max(a
p
), m) i, j) g it follows that f(B [max(a
p
), m)) = F

p(B [max(a
p
), m)) for
each B B
p
. Hence p q = (a
p
m, f
p
f,
p
, B
p
) and q
Q(S)

i) ,= F
S
[G](

i).
Lemma 2.9 and Lemma 2.11, in the case case when C has the maximal element, together imply
that there is a trivial automorphism of T(N)/[N]
<
0
and a -centred forcing P such that can be
extended to a trivial automorphism of T(N)/[N]
<
0
in two dierent ways in the generic extension by P.
Hence, these lemmas can be thought of as strengthening the folklore result that certain automorphisms
such as the identity can be extended to generic trivial automorphisms by the natural -centred
forcing; in other words, the forcing which approximates the generic permutation by nite permutations
and promises to respect the identity on certain, nitely many, innite sets.
Lemma 2.12. Let S = (A

, F

, B

)
W
be a tower of permutations such that W has a maximal
element . If A belongs to [N]

0
, but not necessarily to B

, and G is Q(S) generic over V then there

are innitely many integers j A such that F
S
[G](j) = F

[H](j).
Proof. This is a standard use of genericity.
Theorem 2.1. Given any regular, uncountable cardinal , it is consistent relative to the consistency
of set theory that Martins Axiom holds, 2

0
= and there is a nowhere trivial automorphism of T(N)
modulo the nite sets.
Proof. Let C be a closed unbounded set such that C is unbounded. Construct a nite support
iteration P

C
so that Martins Axiom is forced to hold by the iteration on C and such that a tower
of permutations (A

, F

, B

is generically constructed along C such that B

= T(N) V [P

G]
7
3
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
1
1
-
0
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
1
1
-
1
4


NOWHERE TRIVIAL AUTOMORPHISMS 7
where G is P

generic over V . Then let be the automorphism of T(N)/[N]

<
0
dened by ([A]) = [B]
if and only if there is some such that F

(A)

B and A B

. To see that is nowhere trivial

suppose that is induced by on A. Let C be an ordinal large enough that A and both
belong to V [GP

]. Using Lemma 2.11 it is possible to nd in V [GP

+1
] an innite set Z such that
(Z) F

(Z) = . However, there is no guarantee that Z belongs to B

. Let be the rst member

of C greater than . Then Z does belong to B

. From Lemma 2.12 it follows that F

(j) = F

(j) for
innitely many j belonging to Z. Therefore F

(Z) (Z) is innite contradicting that induces on

A and [F

(Z)] = ([Z]).
It should be noted that Theorem 2.1 would be of interest even if Martins Axiom did not hold in
the model constructed since it would still provide a method for constructing models of set theory with
nowhere trivial automorphisms of T(N)/[N]
<
0
and the continuum arbitrarily large.
3. Ruining automorphisms with Silver reals
Denition 3.1. Suppose that Q and P are partial orders such that Q is completely embedded in P
and that Q is Suslin (see [1]). Then P will be said to be suciently Suslin over Q if for every P-name
g for a function from to 2 there is a dense set of p P such that,

(q, f) Q2

[(p

P)p

q and p

p and p

P
g =

f

is analytic.
Lemma 3.1. Any countable support iteration of a combination of Silver reals and Sacks reals is su-
ciently Suslin over its rst coordinate.
Proof. Let the iteration be obtained from the sequence P

where each successor stage is constructed

by using one of the mentioned partial orders and let the P

-name g be given. Let M (H([P

[
+
), )
be a countable elementary submodel containing P

and g. Let M = , let

i

i
enumerate and
let
j
=
i

ij
. Standard fusion arguments will allow the construction of a family p

:n2
<n such
that:
(1) If ()

() for each then p

.
(2) If :
n
2
<n
then p

decides the value of g(n).

(3) If p() is dened to be

:n2
<n
and p G
p

then p P.
It follows that, for each q P
0
there is some p

p such that p

(0) q and p

P
g =

f if and only
if, letting S(f, n) = [ :
n
2
<n
and p

P
g(n) =

f( n) and p

(0) q, the set of conditions

S(f,n)
p

n
has a proper lower bound. For Silver and Sacks forcings checking for a lower bound
is easily seen to be
1
1
in the parameter dening the fusion sequence; in fact, it is Borel.
Lemma 3.2. If P is as in lemma 3.1 and is an automorphism of T(N)/[N]
<
0
which is not trivial
on any member of []

0
then it is not possible to extend to an automorphism of T(N)/[N]
<
0
in any
generic extension by S P.
Proof. Assuming the lemma is false, it is possible to nd a condition (s, p) S P and an S P-name
for a set of integers Z such that
(s, p)
SP

is a lifting of an extension of and

(X
G
) = Z
7
3
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
1
1
-
0
9







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
1
1
-
1
4


8 S. SHELAH AND J. STEPR

ANS
where X
G
is a name for the generic subset of added by S. Let g =
Z
be the characteristic function
of Z. Using the fact that S P is suciently Suslin, nd (s

, p

) S P such that (s

, p

) (s, p) and

( s, f) S 2

[(q S P)q(0) s and q (s

, p

) and q
SP
g =

f

is analytic. Let A be an innite set of integers disjoint from the domain of s

such that domain(s

)A has
innite complement in the integers. It follows that if Ris dened to be

(t, f) 2
A
2

: (q (t s

, p

))q
SP
g =

f

then R is analytic.
There are two possibilities. First, suppose that the domain of R is all of 2
A
. In this case it is possible
to nd a continuous function S dened on a comeagre subset of T(A) such that R(t, S(t
1
1)) holds
for all t in the domain of R. Now let : domain(S) T(

(A)) be dened by
(W) = n

(A) : S(W)(n) = 1
and observe that is continuous. Furthermore, (W)

(W). To see this, let q S P be any

condition witnessing that R(
W
A, S(W)) holds. Observe that not only does q force X
G
A = W but
also q
SP
Z

(A) = (W). Hence, q

SP
(W) =

(X
G
)

(A)

(X
G
A)

(W).
Therefore, since (W) and

(W) are sets in the ground model, it follows from the absoluteness of

that (W)

(W). But now it follows that is trivial on A by Lemma 1 of [4].

In the other case there is some t : A 2 such that there is no f such that R(t, f) holds. This
implies that for every q (s

t, p

) there are innitely many integers in

(A) whose membership in

Z is not decided by q. Genericity implies that (s

t, p

)
SP
Z

(A) ,

(t
1
1) which is a
contradiction to the assumption that (s, p)
SP

(X
G
) = Z.
Theorem 3.1. Let V be a model of 2

0
=
1

If P

2
is the countable support iteration of partial orders
as in Lemma 3.1 such that P
+1
= P

S for a stationary set of

2
then V [G] is a model where
every automorphism of T(N)/[N]
<
0
is somewhere trivial for every G P

2
which is generic over V .
(Hence, it is consistent that every automorphism of T(N)/[N]
<
0
is somewhere trivial and d =
1
.)
Proof. Any automorphism can be reected on a closed unbounded subset of
2
consisting of ordinal of
uncountable conality. If is any such ordinal such that P
+1
= P

S then Lemma 3.2 can be applied

to show that the automorphism can not be extended any further.
Finally, it should be remarked that the hypothesis of Lemma 3.1 can be extended to include various
other partial orders. However, in light of the lack of immediate applications and the technical diculties
required to establish this, the proof will be provided elsewhere.
References
[1] Tomek Bartoszy nski and Haim Judah. Set Theory On the structure of the real line. A K Peters, 1995.
[2] S. Shelah and J. Stepr ans. Non-trivial homeomorphisms of N \ N without the Continuum Hypothesis. Fund. Math.,
132:135141, 1989.
[3] S. Shelah and J. Stepr ans. Somewhere trivial autohomeomorphisms. J. London Math. Soc. (2), 49:569580, 1994.
[4] B. Velickovic. Denable automorphisms of P()/fin. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 96:130135, 1986.
[5] Boban Velickovic. oca and automorphisms of P()/n. Topology Appl., 49(1):113, 1993.
Department of Mathematics, Rutgers University, Hill Center, Piscataway, New Jersey, U.S.A.
08854-8019
Current address: Institute of Mathematics, Hebrew University, Givat Ram, Jerusalem 91904, Israel
E-mail address: shelah@math.rutgers.edu
Department of Mathematics, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J
1P3
E-mail address: steprans@yorku.ca