FORCING A BOOLEAN ALGEBRA WITH PREDESIGNED AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

Tapani Hyttinen and Saharon Shelah

Abstract For suitable groups G we will show that one can add a Boolean algebra B by forcing in such a way that Aut(B) is almost isomorphic to G . In particular, we will give a positive answer to the following question due to J. Roitman: Is a possible number of automorphisms of a rich Boolean algebra?

modified:2001-05-31

revision:2001-05-30

In [Ro], J. Roitman asked, is a possible number of automorphisms of a rich Boolean algebra? A Boolean algebra is rich if the number of automorphisms is greater than the size of the algebra and possible means consistent with ZFC (since GCH implies trivially that the answer is no). We will answer this question positively. For this we will give a method for adding a Boolean algebra by forcing in such a way that we have a lot of control on the automorphism group of the Boolean algebra. Notice that by [Mo] Theorem 4.3, one can not hope of giving a positive answer to Roitmans question from the assumption that 2 > . Partially, our methods are similar to those in [Ro]. We say that a po-set P is -Knaster if for all pi P , i < , there is a set Z of power such that for all i, j Z , pi and pj are compatible.

Classication: primary 06E05, secondary 03E35. Partially supported by the Academy of Finland, grant 40734, and the MittagLeer Institute. This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation founded by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Publ. 756 1

756

Theorem 1. Assume that = < is an innite cardinal. Let (I, ) be a partial order, Gt , t I , be groups of power and s,t : Gt Gs , s < t I , be homomorphisms such that (a) I is + -directed, every pair of elements of I has the least upper bound and for all t I , |{s I| s t}| , (b) for all r < s < t I , r,t = r,s s,t . Then there is a -closed, + -Knaster po-set P such that in V P the following holds: There is a Boolean algebra B such that (i) B is atomic with |I| + atoms, (ii) |B| = + + |I| , (iii) if G is the inverse limit of (Gt , s,t |s < t I) , then G can be embedded into Aut(B) , |Aut(B)| + |I| |G | and if for all t I , Gt is the one element group, then |Aut(B)| = |I| . Note: We will show that Aut(B) is not very far from G . In particular, we will show that for all f Aut(B) there is g G such that excluding a small error, f is the same as the image of g under the embedding. Proof. For t I , let Xt = {t} Gt , Xt = st Xs and X = tI Xt . We dene P to be the set of all tuples p = (U, T, V, Y ) = (U p , T p , V p , Y p ) such that (1) U X is of power < , (2) T I is of power < , p (3) V = (vt | t T ) = (vt | t T ) , where each vt + is of power < , p (4) Y = (yt, | t T, vt ) = (yt, | t T, vt ) , where yt, U Xt . We order P so that p q ( q is stronger than p ) if (5) U p U q , (6) T p T q , p q (7) vt vt for t T p , p q p (8) yt, = yt, U p for t T p and vt . Clearly P is -closed and < = implies by the usual -lemma argument that P is + -Knaster. p Let H be P -generic over V . We let Yt, = {yt, | p H} . Below, we will not distinguish these and other objects from their names, it will be clear from the context which we mean. Let G be as in the theorem i.e. G consists of all g : I tI Gt such that for all s < t I , s,t (g(t)) = g(s) . If g G and x = (t, z, ) Xt , then we write also g(x) for (t, g(t)z, ) and dene Yt,,g = {g(x)| x Yt, } . By a Boolean term (Y0 , ..., Yn1) taken inside Y we mean a term of the form i<n Zi , where each Zi is either Y Yi or Y Yi . If Zi = Y Yi we say that Yi appears in positively. A general Boolean term is a nite union of Boolean terms. 1.1 Claim. Let (Y0 , ..., Yn1) be a Boolean term taken inside Xt , t I and for i < n , ti I , i < + and gi G . Assume that there is t I such that (a) t t , (b) if Yi appears in positively, then t ti , 2

756

revision:2001-05-30

modified:2001-05-31

(c) if Yi appears in positively and Yj does not appear positively in , then (ti , i , gi (t )) = (tj , j , gj (t )) . Then (Yt0 ,0 ,g0 , ..., Ytn1 ,n1 ,gn1 ) Xt has power . On the other hand, if such a t does not exist, then (Yt0 ,0 ,g0 , ..., Ytn1,n1 ,gn1 ) = . Proof. An easy density argument using the fact that the actions of two distinct elements of a group dier on each element of the group. Claim 1.1 Now we can dene the Boolean algebra B . We let B be the subalgebra of P(X) generated by [X]< {Yt,,g | t I, < + , g G } , where [X]< is the set of all subsets of X of power < . 1.2 Claim. into Aut(B) . Items (i) and (ii) from Theorem 1 hold and G can be embedded

modified:2001-05-31

Proof. (i) is clear. For (ii), notice that Yt,,g is determined by Yt, and g(t) . Finally, it is easy to check that the function which takes g G to g is the required embedding of G into Aut(B) , where g is such that it maps each A B to {g(z)| z A} . Claim 1.2. So we are left to prove the second half of (iii) from Theorem 1: For all 0 < m < t,m and t I , let i (Y0 , ..., Ym1) , i < 2m , list all Boolean terms in m variables t,m taken inside Xt so that 0 (Y0 , ..., Ym1) = k<m (Xt Yk ) and for m = 0 , we t,m let 0 = Xt . Let h Aut(B) . By the denition of B , h is determined by h {{x}| x X} . In order to simplify the notation, for x X , we write h(x) for the unique z X such that h({x}) = {z} . We will frequently consider such a h as if it is a permutation of X . 1.3 Claim. In V P , if h Aut(B) and t I , then there are u Xt , m < , for i < m , ti I , i < + and gi G and for j < 2m , fj G such that (i) |u| < , t,m (ii) either for all j < 2m and x j (Yt0 ,0 ,g0 , ..., Ytm1,m1 ,gm1 ) u , h(x) = t,m fj (x) or for all j < 2m and x j (Yt0 ,0 ,g0 , ..., Ytm1,m1 ,gm1 ) u , h1 (x) = fj (x) . Proof. For a contradiction, assume that p forces that h and t are a counter example. For all x Xt , let (px,i )i< be a maximal antichain such that for all i < , px,i p or px,i is incompatible with p and px,i decides both h(x) p and h1 (x) . Choose < + so that {vt x,i | x Xt , i < } . Choose q p so that it decides both h(Yt, ) and h1 (Yt, ) i.e. it forces h(Yt, ) to be, say, (u0 (Yt0 ,0 ,g0 , ..., Ytk1,k1 ,gk1 )) u1 and h1 (Yt, ) to be (u 0 < and and (Yt0 ,0 ,g0 , ..., Ytk1,k1 ,gk1 )) u1 , where u0 , u1 , u1 , u2 [X] are general Boolean terms taken inside X . (Notice that Yt, = Yt, ,1 .) In particular, q is chosen so that it decides values for gi (ti ) and gi (t) , i < k . Clearly we may assume that ( q forces that) in ((t0 , 0 , g0 (t0 )), ..., (tk1, k1 , gk1 (tk1 ))) there is no repetition, and for some k k , {i < k| (ti , i ) = (t, )} = k . We write Y <k for (Yt0 ,0 ,g0 , ..., Ytk1 ,k 1 ,gk 1 ) and Y k for (Ytk ,k ,gk , ..., Ytk1,k1 ,gk1 ) . 3

756

revision:2001-05-30

If we can nd x Xt U q and q q such that q forces that for all i < k , gi (x) = h(x) and that h(x) u0 u1 , we get an easy contradiction. The contradiction is got the same way as we get a contradiction after the proof of Subclaim 1.3.1 (we can nd q q so that it forces h(x) h(Yt, ) h(x) (Y ) .) Similarly, if we can nd x Xt U q and q q such that q forces that for all i < k , gi (x) = h1 (x) and that h1 (x) u u , we get an easy contradiction. 0 1 So we assume the following: (*) For all x Xt U q , q forces that h(x) u0 u1 or for some i < k , h(x) = gi (x) and that h1 (x) u u or for some i < k , h1 (x) = gi (x) . 0 1 Notice that (*) implies that for all t t , q forces that excluding a small error, h is a permutation of Xt . By (*) above and the choice of p , h and t , and by making q stronger if necessary, we may assume that there are Boolean terms and taken inside Xt such that ( ) q forces that for all g G there are many x Xt such that g(x) = h(x) (Y <k ) (Y k ) , ( ) q forces that (Y <k ) (Y k ) = , ( ) every condition forces that (Y <k ) (Y k ) (Y ) . Instead of item ( ), we may have (Y <k ) (Y k ) Xt (Y ) . This is a symmetric case and we skip it. 1.3.1 Subclaim. There are x1 , x2 Xt , d1 , d2 Xt , q q and nonempty W1 , W2 k such that (1) W1 W2 = , (2) q forces that for all n {1, 2} , h(xn ) = dn , (3) q forces that for all n {1, 2} , dn (Y k ) (u0 u1 ) , (4) q forces that for all n {1, 2} and i < k , dn = gi (xn ) i i Wn , (5) if d1 Xv1 and d2 Xv2 , then v1 v2 , (6) for all n {1, 2} and i < k , (gi )1 (dn ) U q and {(gi )1 (d1 )| i < k } {(gi )1 (d2 )| i < k } = . Proof. Let I I be the set of those t t such that Xt (Y k ) = . Notice that by Lemma 1.1, q decides I and I is closed under the least upper bounds. By ( ) above, I = . For t I , we write It for {v I | v t } . Then for all t I there are W k and q q , such that q forces that excluding < many x if h(x) (Y k ) (u0 u1 ) and x Xv for some v It , then h(x) = gi (x) for some i W . We choose these so that |W | is minimal. There are two cases: (I) |W | > 1 : Now it is easy to choose v1 , v2 It , x1 Xv1 , x2 Xv2 , d1 , d2 Xt , i W and q q so that v2 v1 , for n {1, 2} , q forces that h(xn ) = dn , h(xn ) (Y k ) (u0 u1 ) , h(x1 ) = gi (x1 ) and h(x2 ) = gi (x2 ) . Then we let W1 = {j < k |gj (x1 ) = d1 } and W2 = {j < k |gj (x2 ) = d2 } . By the choice of W , these can be chosen so that in addition (6) holds. These are as wanted ( v2 v1 and h(x1 ) = gi (x1 ) imply (1)). (II) |W | = 1 : Let i be the only element of W . By ( ) above, we can nd q q , x1 Xt U q and d1 Xt , so that q forces that h(x1 ) = d1 , 4

756

revision:2001-05-30

modified:2001-05-31

modified:2001-05-31

h(x1 ) (Y k ) (u0 u1 ) and h(x1 ) = gi (x1 ) . Let v1 I be such that x1 Xv1 and let v2 be the least upper bound of v1 and t . By the assumption (*) above, d1 Xv1 and so v2 It . Then by Claim 1.1 and the assumption that |W | = 1 , there are x2 Xv2 , d2 Xt and q q such that q forces that h(x2 ) = d2 = gi (x2 ) and h(x2 ) (Y k ) (u0 u1 ) . Then we can let W1 = {j < k |gj (x1 ) = d1 } and W2 = {j < k |gj (x2 ) = d2 } . By ( ) and the choice of W , these can be chosen so that in addition (6) holds. These are as wanted. Subclaim 1.3.1. By the choice of the conditions px,i , we can nd r q and i, i < so that px1 ,i , px2 ,i r . We dene a condition r as follows: (a) U r = U r {(gi )1 (dn )| i < k, n {1, 2}} , (b) T r = T r {t} , r r (c) vs = vs { } , r r (d) if (s, ) = (t, ) , then ys, = ys, , q r 1 (e) yt, = yt,a {(gi ) (dn )| i W1 , n {1, 2}} . Then r q, px1 ,i , px2 ,i , in particular r forces that h(x1 ) = d1 and h(x2 ) = d2 . Let (Y0 , ..., Yk1 ) be a boolean term taken inside Xt so that Yi appears in positively i i W1 . Then using Subclaim 1.3.1, it is easy to check that r forces that d1 (Y <k ) (Y k ) (u0 u1 ) and d1 h(Yt, ) . Since r q , this implies that r forces that (Y <k ) (Y k ) u1 (Y ) u1 h(Yt, ) . On the other hand, using Subclaim 1.3.1 (1), (4) and (5), r forces that d2 (Y <k ) (Y k ) (u0 u1 ) and d2 h(Yt, ) , a contradiction. Claim 1.3. From now on we work in V P . 1.4 Claim. Suppose h Aut(B) . There are h , s I u Xs , m < , s s for i < m , ts I , s < + , gi G , for 0 < j < 2m , fj G and f G i i such that if we write Y = (Yts ,s ,g s , ..., Yts ,s ,g s ) , then the following 0 0 0 m 1 m 1 m 1 holds: (i) h = h or h = h1 , s s (ii) for all 0 < j < 2m and x j ,m (Y ) u , h (x) = fj (x) ,
s (iii) for all x (X Xs ) (0 (iv) for all i < m , ts s , i (v) |u | < .

,m

(Y ) u ) , h (x) = f (x) ,

revision:2001-05-30

s s Proof. For every s I , choose us , ms , ts , s , gi and fj , i < ms and i i s j < 2m , as in Claim 1.3. We let I to be the set of all s I such that for all s s,ms s s s j < 2m and x j (Yts ,s ,g0 , ..., Yts s 1 ,s s 1 ,gms 1 )us , h(x) = fj (x) . We may 0 0 m m assume that I is unbounded in I (the case when I I is unbounded is similar) and we let h = h . We may also assume that these are chosen so that in addition ms and us are minimal (in this order). We write E(s) , s I , for the set of all (t, ) such that for some i < ms , t = ts and = s . i i

756

1.4.1 Subclaim. If r, s I and r < s , then (a) E(r) E(s) , r s (b) for all j < 2m , k < 2m and t r , if
r,m r r j (Ytr ,r ,g0 , ..., Ytr r 1 ,r r 1 ,gmr 1 ) 0 0 m m s,m s s k (Yts ,s ,g0 , ..., Yts s 1 ,s s 1 ,gms 1 ) Xt = , 0 0 m m r s then fj (t) = fk (t) .
s r

Proof. We will prove (a), (b) is immediate by Lemma 1.1. For a contradiction, assume that (1) (tr , r ) E(s) . 0 0 r r r r r We will write Y = (Ytr ,r ,g0 , ..., Ytr r 1 ,r r 1 ,gmr 1 ) and Y = (Ytr ,r ,g1 , ..., 0 0 1 1 m m r Ytr r 1 ,r r 1 ,gmr 1 ) and similarly for s instead of r . m m We will show that, we can nd a, b < 2m , t r and a Boolean term taken inside Xr such that r r (2) fa (t) = fb (t) , r r r r r,m r,mr r (3) a (Y ) = (Xr Ytr ,r ,g0 ) (Y ) and Xt a (Y ) = , 0 0 r r r r,mr r,mr r (4) b (Y ) = (Xr Ytr ,r ,g0 ) (Y ) and Xt b (Y ) = . 0 0 r r,mr If not, then for all i < 2m 1 , we dene fi G so that for all x i 1 (Yr )ur , h(x) = fi (x) , this contradicts the minimality of mr . r r,mr Let J be the set of all t tr such that Xt i 1 (Y ) = . Notice that by 0 r Lemma 1.1, J is closed under the least upper bounds. rLet c, d < 2m be such that r r r r r r,m r,m r,m r r c (Y ) = (Xr Ytr ,r ,g0 ) i 1 (Y ) and d (Y ) = (Xr Ytr ,r ,g0 ) 0 0 0 0 r r r r r,m 1 r,m i (Y ) . Let Jc be the set of all t J such that Xt c (Y ) = . Jd is dened similarly. Then either Jc or Jd is conal in J . If Jd is conal, then we let r r fi = fd and otherwise we let fi = fc . We show that fi is as wanted. We may assume that Jd is not conal, the other case is easy. Then since J is closed under the least upper bounds, J Jd is conal. By Lemma 1.1, this means that there is 0 < k < mr such that for all t J Jd , r r,mr r r r (tr , r , gk (t)) = (tr , r , g0 (t)) and Ytr ,r ,gk appears positively in i 1 (Y ) . But 0 0 k k k k
r,m r then i 1 (Y ) Ytr ,r ,g0 and so fi is as wanted. 0 0 We have shown the existence of a, b, t and . s s s,ms By Claim 1.1 and the fact that s r , there is c < 2m such that c (Y ) r s r r,mr r,mr s,ms a (Y ) Xt us . But then, by (1) above and Claim 1.1, c (Y ) b (Y ) Xt us . This contradicts (2). Subclaim 1.4.1. Since I is + -directed, also I is + -directed and so Subclaim 1.4.1 implies that there is s such that E(s ) is maximal and for all i < m = ms , ts s . i By the choice of us , s I , it is easy to see that if r, s I and s r s , then ur us . So s can be chosen so that, in addition, for all s r I , ur = us = u . By Claim 1.1 and Subclaim 1.4.1, there is f G such that for all s s I , f0 (s) = f (s) . These are as wanted. Claim 1.4.
r r

modified:2001-05-31

revision:2001-05-30

756

Now it follows immediately from Claim 1.4 that |Aut(B)| + |I| |G | and if for all t I , Gt is the one element group, then |Aut(B)| |I| . Finally, for |Aut(B)| |I| , notice that every permutation of X which is the identity on every element except on < many, can be lifted to an automorphism of B . 2 Remark. Notice that in the proof of Theorem 1, one can add > + subsets for the sets Xt making the Boolean algebra larger, and the proof still works giving |G | |Aut(B)| |I| |G | . Our aim was to use Theorem 1 to solve questions on the number of automorphisms of Boolean algebras. We start by proving rst a result from [Ro]. 3 Conclusion. ([Ro]) Assume that < = . Then there is a -closed, + Knaster po-set P of power + such that in V P there is an atomic Boolean algebra B of power + with |Aut(B)| = . Proof. Just choose I = {0} and G0 to be the one element group and apply Theorem 1 (with these choices of I and G0 , our proof is essentially the same as the related proof in [Ro]). We say that T is a -tree if it is a tree of power and of height . We write T for {t T | otp({s T | s < t}) = } and say that a -tree T is narrow if for all < , |T | < . We say that b is a branch in a tree T , if b is a linearly ordered downwards closed subtree of T and the height of b is the same as that of T .
modified:2001-05-31

4 Corollary. Assume that < = and that there is a narrow + -tree with > 0 branches. Then there is a -closed, + -Knaster po-set P of power + with the following property: in V P there is an atomic Boolean algebra B of power + such that |Aut(B)| + . Proof. We apply Theorem 1: Clearly we may assume that every element of T belongs to some branch. Then we let I = + and for each I , let G be the free group generated by T . Finally, let , be the natural projection along the branches of T . Then by Theorem 1, it is enough to show the following: 4.1 Claim. The cardinality of the inverse limit of the system is (in V P ).

revision:2001-05-30

Proof. It is enough to show that the forcing does not add branches to T (since cf ( ) > , the inverse limit is the free group generated by the branches of T ). For a contradiction assume that p forces that b is a new branch in T . For all < + , choose p p and t T so that p forces that t b . Since P is + -Knaster, there is Z + of power + such that for all , Z , p and p are compatible (and so if < , then t < t ). Then there are no Z so that p forces that there are + many Z such that p is in the generic set. So for every < + we can nd i < + and q pi such that i Z , if < , then i < i and for all j i+1 , if j Z , then q forces that pj does not belong to the generic set. But then {q | < + } is an antichain, a contradiction. Claim 4.1.
+

756

5 Conclusion. Con(ZFC) implies the consistency of ZFC together with the following: there is an atomic Boolean algebra B of power 1 such that |Aut(B)| = (and if one wants 20 > ). Proof. By Corollary 4 it is enough to show that Con(ZFC) implies the consistency of ZFC together with the following: ( 20 > , if wanted, and) there is a narrow 1 -tree T with branches. This is standard but let us sketch the proof: p Assume CH. Let P consist of four-tuples p = (p , T p , up , {i | i up }) such that p < 1 , T p is a downwards closed countable subtree of p , up is a countable p non-empty subset of and for all i up , i is a branch in T p . The order is the obvious one: p < q if p < p , T q p + 1 = T p etc. Then P is 1 -closed and by CH, it has 2 -cc. P also adds the required tree T . (There are no other branches p than i = pG i , i < , because if p forces that b is a linearly ordered subtree of T and for all i < , b = i , then by using the fact that P is 1 -closed, we can q nd q > p such that q decides b q , b q = i q for all i uq and no t T q is on top of b q . Then q forces that the height of b is q .) Now, if we want, we can add > Cohen reals. As in the proof of Claim 4.1, we can see that this does not add branches to T . References [Ro] J. Roitman, The number of automorphism of an atomic Boolean algebra, Pacic Journal of Mathematics, vol. 94, 1981, 231-242. [Mo] J. D. Monk, Automorphism groups, in: J. D. Monk and R. Bonnet (ed.) Handbook of Boolean Algebras, vol. 2, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1989, 517-546. Department of mathematics P.O. Box 4 00014 University of Helsinki Finland thyttine@helsinki. Institute of Mathematics The Hebrew University Jerusalem Israel shelah@math.huji.ac.il Rutgers University Department of Mathematics New Brunswick, NJ USA

revision:2001-05-30

modified:2001-05-31

756