5
8
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
1

1
2

1
3
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
1

1
2

1
4
NOWHERE PRECIPITOUSNESS OF THE
NONSTATIONARY IDEAL OVER T
Yo Matsubara
1
and Saharon Shelah
2
Abstract. We prove that if is a strong limit singular cardinal and a regular
uncountable cardinal < , then NS
. NS
is the
minimal complete normal ideal over T
. If X is a stationary subset of T
, then
NS
and T
X. We refer the reader to Kanamori [6, Section 25] for basic facts about
the combinatorics of T
.
Large cardinal properties of ideals have been investigated by various authors.
One of the problems studied by these set theorists was to determine which large
cardinal properties can NS
or NS
. In
the course of this investigation, special interest has been paid to two large cardinal
properties, namely precipitousness and saturation.
If NS
is nowhere precipitous. In
2 we extend this result by showing that NS
is nowhere precipitous if is a
strong limit singular cardinal.
In [10] Menas conjectured the following:
Menas Conjecture. Every stationary subset of T
[X cannot be
<
saturated for every station
ary X T
. Our result shows that GCH must fail in such a model of a nonsplittable
stationary subset of T
if is singular.
We often consider the poset P
I
of Ipositive subsets of T
i.e. subsets of T
. If there is a proper
+
complete
normal ideal over T
+ then NS
1
is precipitous.
It is not known whether NS
is nowhere pre
cipitous.
Theorem 2. If is a strong limit singular cardinal, then every stationary subset
of T
, then
(i) NS
is nowhere precipitous
(ii) every stationary subset of T
respectively so that X
n
Y
n
X
n+1
for
n = 1, 2, . . . . After moves, Empty wins G(I) if
n{0}
X
n
= . See [3] for a
proof of the following characterization.
Proposition. I is nowhere precipitous if and only if Empty has a winning strategy
in G(I).
Let f
[ < 2
. For a function
f :
<
T
, we let C(f) = s T
[
f
s
<
s. For X T
, X is
stationary if and only if C(f
.
We now describe Emptys strategy in G(NS
<
= 2
. Suppose that X
1
is Nonemptys rst move. Choose s
1
[ < 2
), a
sequence of elements of X
1
by induction on in the following manner: Let s
1
0
be
any element of X
1
C(f
0
). Suppose we have s
1
. Since
s
1
, X
1
s
1
[ <
is stationary. Pick an element from (X
1
s
1
[ < ) C(f
) and call it s
1
.
Let Empty play Y
1
= s
1
[ < 2
[ < 2
. Choose s
n+1
[ < 2
), a
sequence from X
n+1
in the following manner: Let s
n+1
0
be any element of (X
n+1
s
n
0
) C(f
0
). Suppose we have s
n+1
. Pick an element
of the stationary set (X
n+1
C(f
)) (s
n+1
[ < s
n
[ ) and call it
s
n+1
[ < 2
) where
Empty followed the above strategy. We want to show that
n{0}
Y
n
= .
Suppose otherwise. Let t be an element of
n{0}
Y
n
. Then for each m 0,
there is a unique ordinal
m
< 2
such that s
m
m
= t. But by the way the s
n
s are
chosen, s
0
0
= s
1
1
= s
2
2
= implies
0
>
1
>
2
> . This is impossible.
Thus we must have
n{0}
Y
n
= .
End of proof of Lemma 3 (i).
We now prove Theorem 2 using Lemma 3 and Theorem 1.
Proof of Theorem 2. Let be a strong limit singular cardinal. If cf < then by
Lemma 3 (ii), we are done. So assume cf . In this case we have
<
= .
Therefore it is enough to show that NS
[X cannot be
+
saturated for every stationary X T
.
We need some preparation to present the proof of Theorem 1. Let be a strong
limit singular cardinal and be a regular uncountable cardinal < . If cf <
then by Lemma 3 we conclude that NS
is nowhere precipitous.
7
5
8
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
1

1
2

1
3
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
1

1
2

1
4
4 YO MATSUBARA
1
AND SAHARON SHELAH
2
From now on let us assume that is a strong limit cardinal with cf < .
Let
[ < 2
, then X is nonstationary.
Proof of Lemma 4. Since t X [ sup(t) / t is a club subset of T
, without loss
of generality we may assume that sup(t) / t for every t in X. For each < cf
with cf < , we let X
= t X [ sup(t) =
) = 2
for every C.
The proof of the above fact can be obtained from 5.15 of [12] or by combining
Conclusion XI 5.13 [11, page 414], Corollary VIII 1.6(2) [11, page 321], and Conclu
sion II 5.7 [11, page 94]. [12] contains updates and corrections to [11]. The reader
can look at HolzSteensWeitz [5] for the pcf theory, particularly Theorem 9.1.3
[5, page 271].
For each C with cf < , let a
such that
(a) every member of a
is above cf
(b) [a
[ = cf
, and
(c)
> [X
[ [
pcf (a
)]
Let a =
a
[ C cf < . Let f
we dene g
t
a by letting g
t
() = supf
() + 1 [
t dom(f
), if
t
domain(f
), and g
t
() = 0 otherwise. Note that
[t[ < cf < min(a) guarantees g
t
s
and the fact that g
t
a
[ t X
is a subset of
a
of cardinality [X
[ <
pcf(a
), there is some h
such that t X
[g
t
a
<
J
<
(a)
h
].
(For the denition of J
<
(a
[g
t
() < h
()]
holds. As min(a) > cf and a =
[ C cf < , there is h
a such
that h
< h a
.
Claim. X W = .
Proof of Claim. Suppose otherwise, say t X W. By (i) in the denition of W,
t X
[g
t
() < h
()].
Since sup(t) =
().
By the denition of g
t
we have f
() < g
t
(). From h
< h a
, we know
h
() < g
t
() contradicting (2).
7
5
8
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
1

1
2

1
3
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
1

1
2

1
4
NOWHERE PRECIPITOUSNESS OF THE NONSTATIONARY IDEAL OVER P 5
End of proof of Lemma 4.
For each < cf with cf < , let us x a sequence f
[ < 2
) that
enumerates members of f [ f is a function such that domain(f)
<
and
range(f)
and
range(f)
, we let C
[f] = t T
[ t
<
domain(f), sup(t) =
, and t is
closed under f. We need the following lemma to present the proof of Theorem 1.
Lemma 5. Suppose X is a stationary subset of T
. For every Y s T
[
s , if for each < cf with cf < the following condition () holds, then
Y is stationary.
() < 2
([C
[f
] X[ = 2
[f
] Y ,= )
Proof of Lemma 5. Since s for every s Y , to show that Y is stationary
it is enough to show that Y C[g] ,= for every function g :
<
where C[g]
denotes the set t T
[ g
t
<
t. For the proof of this fact, we refer the reader
to ForemanMagidorShelah [2, Lemma 0]. Let us x a function g :
<
. Now
we let E = < cf [ cf < and for each E we let W
= s T
[
sup(s) =
/ s. Note that
E
W
is a club subset of T
. For each
E, we let g
denote g (
<
where
E
+
= E [ [C
[g
] X[ = 2
and
E
= E [ [C
[g
] X[ < 2
.
We need the following:
Claim. X
[ E
is nonstationary.
Proof. It is enough to show that Z = C[g] X
[ E
is nonstationary.
Note that for each E
+
, ZW
, ZW
[g
] X.
Therefore [Z W
[ < 2
[ E
+
is stationary. Pick an element
from E
+
. Consider the partial function g
(= g (
<
)). Let
< 2
be such that f
= g
. Since
E
+
, we have [C
[g
] X[ = 2
. Since
f
= g
[g
] Y ,= . Therefore
C[g] Y ,= showing that Y is stationary.
End of proof of Lemma 5.
Finally we are ready to complete the proof of Theorem 1. To present a winning
strategy for Empty in the game G(NS
between Nonempty
and Empty as follows: Nonempty and Empty alternately choose sets X
n
, Y
n
W
= s T
[ sup(s) =
/ s respectively so that X
n
Y
n
X
n+1
and
< 2
([C
[f
] X
n
[ = 2
[f
] Y
n
,= ) for n = 1, 2, . . . . Empty wins
G
n{0}
Y
n
= .
By the same argument as the proof of Lemma 3 (i), we know that Empty has
a winning strategy, say
, in the game G
).
Suppose X
1
is Nonemptys rst move in G(NS
). We let X
1
= X
1
s T
[
s
[ E. Since s T
[ s
[ E is a club
subset of T
, X
1
is stationary in T
is X
1
W
.
Let Empty play her strategy
(X
1
W
)). Now in
the game G(NS
(X
1
W
)) [ E. Lemma 5
guarantees that Y
1
is stationary in T
. In general if X
1
, Y
1
, X
2
, Y
2
, . . . , X
n
) is
a run of G(NS
(X
1
W
, X
2
W
, . . . , X
n
W
is a winning strategy in G
we
have
n{0}
(X
1
W
, X
2
W
, . . . , X
n
W
)) = .
Because the W
. If s T
[ cf(s ) =
/ I for some cardinal satisfying
+
< , then I is not proper.
Note that if is the successor cardinal of a singular cardinal, then every 
complete normal ideal over T
[ <
+
be a family of pairwise disjoint stationary subsets of
< [ cf =
0
. For each < with cf = , there must be a club subset of
7
5
8
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
1

1
2

1
3
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
1

1
2

1
4
NOWHERE PRECIPITOUSNESS OF THE NONSTATIONARY IDEAL OVER P 7
with cardinality . Therefore for such an ordinal , there is some
<
+
such
that E
<
+
such that X = < [ cf =
/ I. If we let E = E
, then E is
nonstationary for every in X.
For each from X, let c
E = . Let
C denote
c
: X by f
() = Min(c
) if
> , and f
N for each N .
For each < , we let T
= X [ f
[ < , T
/ I is a maximal
antichain below X in P
I
. Let
T
= T
[ < , T
N for N .
Since Y is (N, P
I
)generic, for N T
[ N T
/ I is
predense below Y in P
I
. So we must have Y
[ N T
/
I I for each N . Let Y
= Y
[ N T
/ I. We
have
N
Y
I. This implies Y
N
Y
/ I. Let
be an element of
Y
N
Y
with
Y Y
for each N .
Hence if N , then there exists
N such that
. Thus
f
) =
) N
for each N , showing c
N is unbounded in sup(N ).
Since sup(N ) <
E which contradicts c
Y X.
This contradiction shows that Y cannot be (N, P
I
)generic.
End of proof of Theorem 6.
References
1. D. Burke and Y. Matsubara, The extent of strength of the club lters, Israel Journal of
Mathematics 114 (1999), 253263.
2. M. Foreman, M. Magidor and S. Shelah, Martins Maximum, saturated ideals, and nonregular
ultralters. Part I, Annals of Mathematics 127 (1988), 147.
3. F. Galvin, T. Jech and M. Magidor, An ideal game, Journal of Symbolic Logic 43 (1978),
284292.
4. M. Gitik, Nonsplitting subset of P(
+
), Journal of Symbolic Logic 50 (1985), 881894.
5. M. Holz, K. Steens and E. Weitz, Introduction to Cardinal Arithmetic, Birkhauser, 1999.
6. A. Kanamori, The Higner Innite, SpringerVerlag, 1994.
7. Y. Matsubara, Consistency of Menas conjecture, Journal of the Mathematical Society of
Japan 42 (1990), 259263.
8. Y. Matsubara and M. Shioya, Nowhere precipitousness of some ideals, Journal of Symbolic
Logic 63 (1998), 10031006.
7
5
8
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
1

1
2

1
3
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
1

1
2

1
4
8 YO MATSUBARA
1
AND SAHARON SHELAH
2
9. Y. Matsubara, Proper ideals over P.
10. T. Menas, On strong compactness and supercompactness, Annals of Mathematical Logic 7
(1974), 327359.
11. S. Shelah, Cardinal Arithmetic, Oxford Science Publications, 1994.
12. S. Shelah, Analytical guide and updates for cardinal arithmetic E12.
13. S. Shelah, Proper and Improper Forcing, SpringerVerlag, 1998.