4

5
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
3
0







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
3
0


Martins Axiom and
2
1
well-ordering of the
reals
Uri Abraham
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
Ben Gurion University, Beer-Sheva, Israel;
Saharon Shelah

Institute of Mathematics
The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
October 6, 2003
Abstract
Assuming an inaccessible cardinal , there is a generic extension
in which MA+ 2

0
= holds and the reals have a
2
1
well-ordering.
1 Introduction
The aim of this paper is to describe a technique that allows the encoding
of an arbitrary set of ordinals by a
2
1
formula in a generic extension which
is conality preserving. This encoding is robust enough to coexist with MA
(Martins Axiom). Specically, we will show, for any model of ZFC set theory
with an inaccessible cardinal , the existence of a cardinal preserving generic
extension in which 2

0
= +MA+ there is a
2
1
well-ordering of R.

Partially sponsored by the Edmund Landau Center for research in Mathematical Anal-
ysis, supported by the Minerva Foundation (Germany), p.n. 458
1
4
5
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
3
0







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
3
0


Let us explain what is meant by a
2
1
well-order. We refer here to
the structure H, ) where H = H(
1
) is the collection of all hereditar-
ily countable sets. A
2
k
formula is a second-order formula of the form
X
1
H X
2
H . . . (X
1
, . . . , X
k
, a
1
. . . , a
n
) with k alternations of
set quantiers (unary predicates, X
i
), and where is a rst-order formula
(in which quantication is over H) with predicate names X
1
, . . . , X
k
, and
variables a
1
, . . . , a
n
(which vary over H). A
2
k
formula is one that is equiv-
alent to a
2
k
and to a
2
k
formula. A
2
1
well-ordering is one that is given
by a
2
1
formula (x, y) that denes a well-ordering of R. Obviously, a
2
1
linear ordering of R is also a
2
1
ordering.
An alternative denition of
2
k
formulas, which connects to the usual
denition of
1
n
(projective) sets, is to look at third-order formulas over
N, +, . . .), that is, second order formulas over R.
Our result cannot be improved to give a projective well-ordering of R
because of a theorem of Shelah and Woodin [4] which proves that there is no
well-ordering of R in L(R), assuming some large cardinal. Since any projective
order is in L[R], and as a small extension, such as the one described here, will
not destroy any large cardinal above , the
2
1
well-order cannot be improved
to a projective well-order.
Though this paper can be read independently, it is a continuation of our
[1] work where another coding technique is described which does not add any
new reals. Both that work and the present are motivated by a theorem of
Woodin [5] which shows that if CH holds and there is a measurable cardinal
which is Woodin, then there is no
2
1
well-order of the reals. In view of this
result, a natural question is what happens if the CH is removed? Woodin
has obtained the following result: Assuming an inaccessible cardinal , there
is a c.c.c. forcing extension in which = 2

0
and
1. there is a
2
1
well-ordering of R.
2. Martins axiom holds for -centered posets.
Since the poset used to get this extension has cardinality , it does not
destroy whatever large cardinal properties the ground model has above ,
and hence the assumption of CH is necessary for Woodins theorem.
The theorem proved in this paper is a slight improvement of this theorem
in that MA replaces the restricted version for -centered posets, but our main
point is to describe a dierent encoding technique.
2
4
5
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
3
0







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
3
0


We were also motivated by the following related result of Solovay:
There is a forcing poset of size 2
2

0
such that the following holds in the
extension
1. 2

0
= 2

1
=
2
.
2. MA for -centered posets,
3. there is a
2
1
well-ordering of the reals.
Let us emphasize that no inaccessible cardinal is needed for Solovays
result. Let us also mention here the main result of Abraham and Shelah [1]
There is a generic extension that adds no new countable sets in
which there exists a
2
2
well-order of R.
The theorem proved in this paper will now be formally stated.
Theorem. Let be an inaccessible cardinal, and assume GCH holds below
. Then there is a forcing extension that changes no conalities and in which
1. 2

0
= + Martins Axiom, and
2. there is a
2
1
well-ordering of R.
In a forthcoming work [2] we will show that the inaccessible is dispensable
(but the continuum is
2
in this work).
2 Overview
The idea of the proof is quite simple, and we rst give a general description.
The generic extension is a length mixedsupport iteration consisting of
two components: The rst component iterates c.c.c. posets with the aim of
nally obtaining Martins Axiom. The second component is doing the coding.
Quite arbitrarily, we have chosen the set (called lim) of limit ordinals below
to be the support of the c.c.c. component, and the set of successor ordinals
(succ) to support the coding component. The iteration is a nite/Easton
iteration. This means that the domain of each condition is nite on the limit
ordinals, and has cardinality < below every inaccessible cardinal .
3
4
5
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
3
0







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
3
0


For a regular cardinal , F

denotes the club lter on . We say that

a family H F

generates F

i C F

D H(D C). The least

cardinality of a generating family for F

is called here the generating number

for . A crucial question (in this paper) to ask about a regular cardinal
is whether its generating number is
+
or higher: it is through answers to
these questions that the encoding works.
If 2

=
+
, then the generating number for is
+
of course, but it is
easy to increase it by forcing, say,
++
new subsets of with conditions of
size < . We denote with C(, ) the poset that introduces subsets to
with conditions of size < .
C(, ) = f[dom(f) , range(f) = 2, [ f [<
where [ f [ is the cardinality of the function f. Equivalently, one can demand
dom(f) in the denition. Clearly C(, ) is -closed, and if
<
= ,
then it satises the
+
c.c.
The closure in of each generic subset of is a closed unbounded set
that contains no old club set. We will iterate such posets, varying , and
taking care of MA as well.
In the nal generic extension, 2

0
= , Martins Axiom holds, and the
sequence of answers to the questions about the generating numbers for <
encodes a well-ordering of R which is
2
1
. As will be explained below,
these questions are asked only for even (innite) successors below , that is,
cardinals of the form
+2n
where > 0 is a limit ordinal and 1 n < (call
this set of even successor cardinals es). It is convenient to use an enumeration
of es that uses all the successor ordinals as indices: es =
j
[ j < is a
successor ordinal. So
1
=
2
is the rst innite even successor,
2
=

4
, . . . ,
+1
=
+2
,
+2
=
+4
etc. In general,
if = +n + 1 where lim and n < , then

=
+2(n+1)
. (1)
In the nal model, the well-ordering of R is the sequence of reals r

[ < )
where r

is encoded by setting = and

n r

i the generating number for =

+n+1
is
++
.
Why is it necessary to skip cardinals and to space the

s two cardinals
apart? Suppose that r is the rst real we want to encode. If 0 r, then
4
4
5
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
3
0







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
3
0


the rst coding poset is C(
2
,
4
). Recall that GCH is assumed, and hence
cardinals are not collapsed, and 2

2
=
4
after this forcing. Now if 1 r, we
may want to continue forcing with c(
3
,
5
), but this will collapse
4
since
2

2
=
4
. Thus we must start the next iteration at least two cardinals apart,
and forcing with C(
4
,
6
) is ne. In general,
+1
=
++

, enables the proof

that cardinals are not collapsed in the extension.
The coding component of our forcing will be an iteration of posets of
type C(

,
++

) for well chosen s. This choice will be made to obtain the

desired coding by determining the generating number for es.
Let us take a closer, but still informal, view of the forcing poset. If we
denote with P

the th stage of the iteration, then our nal poset is P

.
For limit s, P

is the mixed support limit of P

i
[i < ) with nite/Easton
support. This means that f P

i f is a partial function dened on

such that f i P
i
for every i < , and dom(f) contains only nitely many
limit ordinals (this is the c.c.c. component), and [dom(f) [ < for any
inaccessible cardinal (this is the Easton support requirement of the coding
component). At successor stages P
j+1

= P
j
Q
j
is a two-step iteration, where
Q
j
is a poset in V
P
j
characterized by the following. For limit j < , Q
j
is
in V
P
j
a c.c.c. forcing. And for successor j < of the form + i, where
i and lim, Q
j
is either the trivial poset, or C(
j
,
++
j
) which is the
poset for adding
++
j
many subsets to
j
=
+2i
. The decision as to the
character of Q
j
will be described later; the role of Q
j
is to encode one bit of
information about some real. This decision is made generically, in V
P
j
, and
it depends on the real in V
P
j
that is being encoded.
So P
1
is some c.c.c. poset, and P
2
is P
1
followed by either the trivial poset
or by C(
2
,
++
2
). In the latter case, forcing with P
2
makes 2

2
=
4
.
The iteration continues in a similar fashion. To illustrate one of the main
points, let us see (only intuitively now) why
1
is not collapsed. We will
show that every f :
1
On in V
P
(where On is the class of ordinals) has
a countable approximation in V , that is, a function f

such that, for every

1
, f() f

() where f

() is a countable set of ordinals.

Observe rst that the Easton component of P

is <
2
closed. This means
that if an increasing sequence p
i
[i <
1
) of conditions in P

have the same

c.c.c. component (p
i
lim = p
j
lim, then there is an upper bound in
P

to the sequence. We say that p is a pure extension of q if p extends q

and both have the same restriction to lim (same c.c.c. component). Now, if
f :
1
On is a function in V
P
, we dene an increasing sequence p
i
[i <
1
)
5
4
5
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
3
0







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
3
0


of conditions in P

such that i < j p

j
is a pure extension of p
i
: To obtain
p
i+1
extend p
i
in countably many steps; at each step nd rst an extension
q

of the previous step q that forces a new value for f(i) (if there is one)
and then take only the pure extension of q imposed by q

. It turns out that

this process will never take more than countably many steps, or else we get a
contradiction to the assumption that at limit stages c.c.c. posets are iterated.
The upper bound p P

of this pure increasing sequence knows, for each

i <
1
, all the countable many possible values for f(i).
We arrange the iteration in such a way that for every real r V
P
there
is a unique limit ordinal = (r) so that, for every k , k r i the
generating number for =
+(k+1)
is
++
(by 1) =
+2(k+1)
).
Now the well-ordering on R is dened by
r
1
r
2
i (r
1
) < (r
2
).
This formula is certainly rst-order expressible in H() (the collection of sets
o cardinality hereditarily < in the extension), but why is it
2
1
? Why can
we reduce it to secondorder quantication over H9
1
)? The point is that
2

0
= + MA, and we can speak correctly within H(
1
) about H(), and
it takes a single second-order quantication to do that (this trick was used
by Solovay in his theorem cited above; we will outline it now, and it will be
explained in more detail later.) To express r
1
r
2
, just say:
There is a relation R over H = H(
1
), such that (H, R) satises
enough of set theory (when R interprets the membership rela-
tion ), such that R is well-founded and such that every real is
found in (H, R); moreover, (H, R) satises the following state-
ment: every limit ordinal has the form (r) for some real r, and
( r
1
) < ( r
2
), where r is the construction of r in the model
(H, R).
Since R is well-founded, (H, R) is collapsed to some structure, M, which
turns out to be H() as we want. The main points to notice in order to prove
this are that (1) M cannot contain less than ordinals because it contains
all the reals, and a denable well-ordering of R. (2) What M considers to
be a cardinal is really a cardinal, because any possible collapsing function
in H() can be encoded by a real (with the almost disjoint set technique
which is applicable because of Martins Axiom). Since this encoding real is
6
4
5
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
3
0







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
3
0


in M, H() is included in M. (3) M does not contain more ordinals than
. This is so since every limit ordinal is connected to a single real which
is encoded along the segment [
+2
,
+
) by the characteristic of the club
lters. Thus M is H().
The details of this proof are written in the sequel.
3 Mixed support iteration
In this section we describe how to iterate, with mixed support (Mitchells
type support), c.c.c. posets and -complete posets, where the support of the
c.c.c. component is nite, and the support of the complete component is of
Easton typebounded below inaccessibles.
Let be an inaccessible cardinal, and < a regular cardinal >
1
.
The non c.c.c posets in the iteration are all assumed to be closed. For
deniteness we have chosen the support of the c.c.c. posets to be the limit
ordinals below , denoted here lim (0 is in lim), and the -complete forcings
are supported by the successors below , denoted succ.
For an ordinal , a mixed support iteration of length is dened here
to be a sequence of posets P
i
[i ) such that
1. The members of each P
i
are partial functions dened on i.
2. For limit , P

is the mixed support limit of P

i
[i < ). This
means the following. P

consists of all the partial functions f dened

on such that
(a) f i P
i
for every i < .
(b) Dom(f) lim is nite.
(c) In case is inaccessible, [Dom(f) succ[ < .
The partial order on P

is dened by f g i for all i < f i g i

in P
i
.
3. For successors + 1 , P
+1
P

where Q

is a name of a
poset in the universe of terms V
P
. So f P
+1
i f P = P

and
f
P
f() Q

. The partial order on P

+1
is dened as usual.
7
4
5
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
3
0







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
3
0


4. For any limit ordinal < , Q

is in V
P

a c.c.c. forcing (i.e., the empty

condition in P

forces that). For successors < , Q

is -closed in
V
P
(closed under sequences of length < ).
The notation

can be used for

P
. It is convenient to dene two
conditions p and q in P to be equivalent i they are compatible with the
same conditions in P. However, it is customary not to deal with equivalence
classes, and to write p = q instead of [p] = [q], and we shall accept this
convention.
For i < ( is the length of the iteration) the restriction map f f i
is a projection of P

onto P
i
. But for an arbitrary set A i, f A is not
necessarily a condition, and, even when it is a condition, it is possible that
[f] = [g] and f A ,= g A. Therefore, the notation f A refers to the
function f itself and not to its equivalence class.
The set of functions f lim, for f P

, is called the c.c.c. component of

P

. And the functions of the form f succ form the complete component
of P

. Let us say that f

2
is a pure extension of f
1
in P

i f
1
f
2
and
f
1
lim = f
2
lim. Thus, a pure extension of f
1
does not touch the c.c.c.
component. (This denition refers to the functions f
1
and f
2
and not to their
equivalence classes in P

.)
The following lemma is an obvious consequence of the assumed -completeness
of the posets in the complete component.
Lemma 3.1 P

is < pure closed. That is, any purely increasing sequence

q
i
[i < ) of length < (q
j
is a pure extension of q
i
for i < j) has a least
upper bound in P

, which is a pure extension of each q

i
.
Suppose now that q P

, and r is in the c.c.c. component of P

. Then the
sum h = q +r is the function dened by
h(i) =

r(i) if i dom(r)
q(i) if i dom(q) dom(r)
.
Whenever the notation h = q +r is used, it is tacitly assumed that for every
i, h i
i
h(i) Q
i
and r(i) extends q(i). Hence q +r P

extends q. We
have the following two easy lemmas on pure extensions given with no proof.
8
4
5
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
3
0







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
3
0


Lemma 3.2 If p
1
p
2
in P

, then there is a pure extension q of p

1
such
that, setting r = p
2
lim, we have
p
2
= q +r.
Thus any extension is a combination of a pure extension with a nitely sup-
ported c.c.c. component.
Lemma 3.3 If p
0
+ r is a condition and p
1
is a pure extension of p
0
, then
p
1
+r is a condition that extends p
0
+r.
The c.c.c. component of P

is certainly not a c.c.c. iteration, but the fol-

lowing quasi c.c.c. property still carries over from the usual argument that
iteration with nite support of c.c.c. posets is again c.c.c.
Lemma 3.4 Assume that
1
is preserved by P

for every

< . Let
r

[ <
1
be an uncountable subset of the c.c.c. component of P

. If
q P

is such that q +r

can be formed for every <

1
, then
1. For some
1
,=
2
, q +r

1
and q +r

2
are compatible in P

.
2. There is some r in the c.c.c. component of P

such that q +r P

and
q +r

there are unboundedly many <

1
with q +r

G (the generic lter).

Proof. Obviously, (2) implies (1) (because the posets are separative, and
p q +r

G implies p

p). So we will only prove (2), by induction on

.
Recall rst that for any c.c.c. poset Q and uncountable subset A Q
there is a condition a A such that a
Q
A G is uncountable. (Obvious
warning: This does not mean there are uncountably many a

A with
a

a.)
If is limit, there is no problem in using the familiar -argument in the
case cf() =
1
, and the obvious application of the inductive assumption
when cf() ,=
1
. For example, in case cf() =
1
, form a -system out of
9
4
5
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
3
0







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
3
0


dom(r

), <
1
, and let d i
0
< be the xed nite core of the system.
Then apply the inductive assumption to q i
0
and to r

= r

d, for in the
system. This gives some r
0
in the c.c.c. component of P
i
0
which satises 2
above for q i
0
and the conditions r

. It is not too dicult to see that q +r

0
is as required (use the fact that the c.c.c component of every condition has
a nite support).
In case = j + 1 and j is a limit ordinal (for this is the interesting cse),
then P

P
j
Q(j), where Q(j) is a c.c.c. poset in V
P
j
. Set q

= q j, and
r

= r

j. Apply induction to nd r

such that
q

+r

j
for unboundedly many <
1
,
q

+r

G
j
(the generic lter over P
j
).
Then dene a name in V
P
j
of a subset of
1
such that
[q

j
] i q

+r

G
j
.
Since
(1) q

+r

forces that is unbounded in

1
,
(2)
1
is not collapsed in V
P
j
by our assumption,
(3) Q(j) is c.c.c.,
there is, by the remark made at the beginning of the proof, a name a V
P
j
such that q

+ r

j
a is some r

(j) for r

in G
j
such that a
Q(j)
(for
unboundedly many , r

(j) H) . (H is the Q(j) generic lter.

Now it is immediate to combine r

and a to a function r which is as

required.
The main property of the mixed support iteration is the following.
Lemma 3.5 Assume P

is a mixed support iteration as described above of

c.c.c. and -complete posets. For every cardinal

< , every f :

On
in V
P
has a countable approximation in V (that is, a function g dened on

such that for every <

, g() is countable and f() g().)

Proof. By induction on . Observe rst that the lemma implies that any set
of innite cardinality

< in the extension is covered by a ground model

set of the same cardinality. Hence cardinals are not collapsed in V
P
.
The lemma also implies that, for regular uncountable

< , any club subset

of

in V
P
contains an old club set in V .
10
4
5
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
3
0







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
3
0


It is obvious that any c.c.c. extension or -complete extension has the
property described in the theorem, namely that functions on

have count-
able approximations. Hence, in case =
0
+1, the theorem is obvious: First
get the approximation in V
P
0
(assume without loss of generality that the
rst approximation has the form g :

0
On, and then use induction
to get a second approximation in V .
So assume that is a limit ordinal, and f V
P
is a function dened on

< . We are going to dene a pure increasing sequence q

[ <

) in P

such that for every <

there is a countable set g() and

q
+1
f() g().
If this construction can be carried on, then use the < pure completeness
of P

to nd an upper bound q to this sequence. Then q g is a countable

approximation to f.
The denition of q
+1
is done by dening a pure increasing sequence
q()[ <
0
) where q(0) = q

, and for each , a nite function r

in the
c.c.c. component of P

so that, for ,=

, q() + r

and q(

) + r

force
dierent values for f(). The denition of this sequence is continued as long
as possible, and the following argument shows that it must stop for some

0
<
1
, and then q
+1
is the pure supremum of this countable sequence,
and g() is the set of all values forced there to be f(). Indeed, otherwise,
q() can be dened for every <
1
and we let q be the upper bound of
this pure increasing sequence (recall that
1
< ). Then q + r

is in P

for
every <
1
and it forces dierent values for f(). This contradicts the
quasi c.c.c. lemma 3.4.
4 Denition of the forcing extension
The description of the poset P

, used for the coding proof, is given in this sec-

tion by dening a mixed-support iteration P

[ ) as outlined in Section
2.
At successor stages: P
+1

= P

where Q

is a poset in V
P
dened
thus. If = lim, then Q

is in V
P

a c.c.c. poset of cardinality, say,

. (P
1
is a c.c.c. poset, say the countable Cohen poset.) The choice
of Q

is determined by some bookkeeping function, aimed to ensure that

11
4
5
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
3
0







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
3
0


Martins Axiom holds in V
P
. (The cardinality limitation is to ensure the
right cardinalities to show that cardinals are not collapsed.)
For successor ordinals of the form j = + i where is limit and 0 < i <
, Q
j
is dened to be in V
P
j
either the trivial poset (containing a single
condition) or the poset C(
j
,
++
j
), where
j
=
+2i
. To determine which
alternative to take, dene a function g that gives, for every limit < ,
a name g() V
P

such that, for every < , every real in V

P
is some
g() for . Suppose that g() is interpreted as r in V [G

] (the
generic extension via P

); then this determines Q

j
, for every j in the interval
(, +), which has the form j = +i
0
+ 1, by
Q
j
is non-trivial i i
0
r.
In order to prove that P

possesses the required properties (such as not

collapsing cardinals), we decompose P

at any stage < , and write P

=
P

, where P

is the iteration up to , and P

is the remainder of the

iteration. It is not hard to realize that P

is just like P

except that
1
=
2
is replaced with
+1
=
+2
. For this reason, we must rst describe P

and
analyze its properties.
For each ordinal < a mixed support iteration P

[ ) will be
dened by induction on . The poset used to obtain the theorem is P
0

, but
the P

are necessary as well since the decomposition P

0

P
0

(P

)
V
P
0

is
used to show the desirable properties of the iteration. This may also explain
why we choose the index of P

to start from and not from 0. The

conditions in P

are functions dened on the ordinal interval [, ).

To begin with, P

is the trivial poset containing only one condition

(the empty function). The denition of P

j+1
P

j
Q

(j) depends on
whether j lim or j succ. If j lim then Q

(j) is in V
P

j
a c.c.c. poset
of cardinality
j
(for deniteness). The choice of Q

(j) for j lim is

determined by some bookkeeping function which we do not specify now, the
aim of which is to obtain Martins Axiom in V
P
0

.
If j is a successor ordinal of the form j = + i where is limit and
0 < i < , we require that Q

(j) is in V
P

j
either the trivial poset, or
C(
j
,
++
j
) where
j
=
+2i
(all in the sense of V
P

j
). The exact description
of Q

(j) (i.e., the decision as to whether it is the trivial poset or the one that
introduces
++
j
club subsets to
j
) is not needed to prove that cardinals are
not collapsed.
12
4
5
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
3
0







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
3
0


Lemma 4.1 For every successor , P

is

pure closed.
Proof. The complete component of P

consists of posets of the formC(

j
,
++
j
)
which are
j
closed. Since

j
for all these js, the lemma follows.
Lemma 4.2 For every such that , P

changes no conalities
and hence preserves cardinals. In fact, this is deduced from the following
properties of the mixed support iteration P

.
1. For limit , the cardinality of P

is
+

, and if > is
inaccessible, then [P

[ =

.
2. If is successor, = j + 1, then P

satises the
+
j
-c.c. and its
cardinality is
++
j
(where
j
=
+2i
if j = + i for limit and
0 i < ). Thus the GCH continues to hold in V
P

for
+
j
and higher
cardinals.
3. For each i such that < i < P

= P

i
(P
i

)
V

where V

is V
P

i
.
Proof. Let us see rst how 1,2,3 are used to show by induction that P

preserves conalities. So let g : be a conal function in V

P

where
is a regular cardinal. We have to show that cf() in V as well. Assume
rst = j + 1 is a successor ordinal, and then P

= P

j
Q

(j). The case

j lim is obvious since Q

(j) is then a c.c.c. poset. So assume that j is

a successor ordinal now, and

j
is thus dened. The case
j
follows
from the
+
j
-c.c of P

. In case
j
> use the
j
completeness of Q

(j) and
induction.
Now assume that is limit. The proof divides into two cases. Suppose,
for some successor j with j < , <
j
. Then P

= P

j
(P
j

)
V

where
V

is V
P

j
. Lemma 3.5 was formulated for quite a general mixed support
iteration, and it can be applied in V

to P
j

to yield that the function g has a

countable approximation in V

. We may apply the inductive hypothesis and
nd an approximation of g in V .
In case
j
for all such js,

. Apply cardinality or chain

condition arguments: It follows in this case that P

satises the
+
-c.c. and
hence the conality of in V is .
So now we prove the three properties by induction on . The proof of
1 and 2 are fairly standard, and uses, besides the denition of the Easton
13
4
5
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
3
0







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
3
0


support, the inductive assumptions and the restrictions on the cardinalities
of the posets.
To prove 3, we shall dene a map f f i, f/i ) of P

into P

i
(P
i

)
V

as follows. Clearly, f i P

i
. To dene the name f/i in V
P

i
, we assume a
V generic lter, G, over P

i
, place ourselves in V [G], and dene the function
(f/i)[G] which interprets f/i (for every dom(f), f/i[G]() is a name
in (P
i

)
V [G]
naturally dened). Let us check that this map is onto a dense
subset of the two-step iteration. So let h, ) P

i
(P
i

)
V

. By extending
h we may assume that h knows the nite domain of the c.c.c. component
of . That is, for some nite set E
0
, h
i
dom () lim = E
0
. Let
E
1
= succ [ some extension of h in P

i
forces dom(). Because
the cardinality of P

i
is <
i+
, E
1
is bounded below inaccessible cardinals,
and can serve as Easton support of a condition. Now f P

can be dened
on E
0
E
1
, so that h, f/i ) extends h, ).
5 The proof of the theorem
All the technical machinery is assembled, and we only have to apply it. The
iteration has the form P
0

and the denition of the function h that decides

the value of Q(j) is made so that Martins Axiom holds in V
P
0

, and for every

real r in V
P
0

there is a unique limit ordinal (r) such that

i r i for j = (r) +i + 1, Q(j) is C(
j
,
++
j
).
Lemma 5.1 For every successor j < , Q(j) is C(
j
,
++
j
) i the club lter
on
j
in V
P
0

has generating number

++
j
.
To prove the lemma, observe that any function f :
j
On has a countable
approximation in P
0
j+1
. This is so by Lemmas 4.1 and 3.5, because P
0

=
P
0
j+1
(P
j+1

)
V

, and P
j+1

is in V

a mixed uspport iteration of c.c.c. and

j+1
-closed posets. So every club subset of
j
in V
P
0

contains a club in
P
0
j
Q(j), and then the generating number of
j
in V
P
0

and V
P
0
j+1
are the
same. But in V
P
0
j
, 2

j
=
+
j
(by Lemma 4.2(2)), and hence the generating
number in V
P
0

is determined in P
0
j
Q(j) as follows. If Q(j) is trivial,
14
4
5
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
3
0







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
3
0


then the generating number remains
+
j
, and if Q(j) is C(
j
,
++
j
), then the
generating number is
++
j
of course.
The denition of the well-ordering of R in V
P
0

is now clear: r
1
r
2
i
(r
1
) < (r
2
). Why is a
2
1
relation? The answer was outlined in Section
2, and now more details are given.
The almost disjoint sets encoding technique was introduced by Solovay
in [3], and the reader can nd there a detailed exposition; we only give an
outline. Assume is a cardinal, and s = s

[ < ) a collection of pairwise

almost disjoint subsets of . Let X be any subset. Then the following
c.c.c. poset P introduces a real a such that, together with s, a encodes
X. In fact, X i s

a is nite.
A condition (e, c) P is a pair such that e is a nite partial function from
to 2, and c X is nite. The order relation expresses the intuition that
e gives nite information on a, and c is a promise that for c the generic
subset will not add any more members of a s

. So (e
1
, c
1
) extends (e
2
, c
2
)
i e
2
e
1
, c
2
c
1
, and for c
2
, s

E
1
E
2
(where E
i
= k[e
i
(k) = 1).
The intuitive meaning of this order relation becomes clear by the following
denition. Let G P be generic; then set
a = k[e(k) = 1 for some (e, c) G.
It can be seen that, a s

is nite for X, and is innite for , X.

This almost disjoint set encoding is used to prove that the
2
1
denition
given in Section 2 is really equivalent to the well ordering . The main point
is this. Suppose Martins Axiom +2

0
= , and M is a transitive model of
some part of ZFC containing all the reals and a well-order of them (which is
a class in M). Then M contains all the bounded subsets of as well. Why?
Well, let X < be any bounded set. Since M contains a set of reals,
it also contains a sequence of pairwise almost disjoint subsets of (taken,
for example, as branches of 2

). By Martins Axiom, there is a set a

that encodes X. As a M, X M as well.
6 A weakening of the GCH assumption
The theorem required GCH (below ) to ensure that cardinal are not col-
lapsed. In this section this assumption is weakened somewhat in demanding
that 2

=
+
only on some closed unbounded set of cardinals < .
15
4
5
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
3
0







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
3
0


To see this, let
i
[ i < ) be an enumeration of a club set of limit
cardinals, such that 2

i
=
+
i
, and cf(
i+1
) >
+
i
, and (
i+1
)

i
=
i+1
.
The construction is basically the same as before, but
i
replaces
i
and
the main point is this: For a successor j = + i, where < is limit and
0 < i < , P
i+1
= P
i
Q(j) where Q(j) is now a poset that adds either

j
or
j+1
subsets to
+
j
. Now if M is as before a transitive model that
contains all the reals, then the club sequence can be reconstructed by asking
the questions about the generating numbers. If one starts with
0
, then the
original sequence is reconstructed; starting with another cardinal may result
in another club. However, this club intersects the original sequence of the

i
s, and hence both sequences have an equal end-section. Hence we must
demand that the well-ordering of R is determined by any end section of the
club.
References
[1] U. Abraham and S. Shelah, A
2
2
well-order of the reals and incompact-
ness of L(Q
MM
), Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 59 (1993) 1-32.
[2] U. Abraham and S. Shelah, Coding with ladders a well ordering of the
reals. To appear.
[3] R. B. Jensen and R. M. Solovay, Some applications of almost disjoint
sets, in: Y. Bar-Hillel, ed., Mathematical Logic and Foundation of Set
Theory (North-Holland Publ. Co., Amsterdam, 1970) 84-104.
[4] S. Shelah and H. Woodin, Large cardinal imply every reasonably den-
able set is measurable, Israel J. Math. 70 (1990) 381-394.
[5] H. Woodin, Large Cardinals and Determinacy, in preparation.
16