text:
# NNR Revisited

## 0. Introduction

One of the major problems in the theory of iterated forcing is to prove some preservation theorems. One example is the preservation of cardinals or cofinalities. By Solovay-Tennenbaum , finite support iteration of c.c.c. forcing notions is c.c.c. and hence it preserves all cardinals and cofinalities. In the case of countable support iterations, Shelah  proved that the countable support iteration of proper forcing notions is again proper, and hence it preserves $`\mathrm{}_1`$.

In this paper we are interested in “not adding new reals”, abbreviated NNR, in the case of countable support iteration of proper forcing notions. There is a lot of work in this direction, see for example \[6, Ch.V,§7, Ch.VIII,§4, Ch.XVIII,§1,§2\], \[9, §3\] and the references there. In this paper we present a more general preservation theorem, and as an application we prove the consistency with ZFC + GCH of Souslin’s hypothesis with non-club guessing. We also prove the consistency with GCH of further cases of “strong failure of club guessing”, in particular, we answer a question of Moore.

There are several limitations in preserving NNR at limit stages of countable support iterations that we will discuss some of them in Section 2. By results of Shelah, if, e.g. $`𝕍=𝕃`$, then the preservation of NNR fails. Indeed, assuming $`𝕍=𝕃`$, Shelah has built a countable support iteration of length $`\omega ^2`$ of NNR forcing notions of size $`\mathrm{}_1`$ such that the limit adds a new real (see \[6, XVIII. Lemma 1.1\]). Justin Moore , solving a problem from \[9, §3\], proved that the continuum hypothesis implies the negation of the forcing axiom for the class of completely proper forcing notions. Indeed he proved in ZFC + CH that some proper forcing notion not adding reals and satisfying a “strong form of the medicine against weak diamond” has no generic, in fact, is a tree with no branches.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 1, we present some definitions and results which are needed for the rest of the paper. In Section 2, we discuss some obstacles about preservation of NNR in countable support iterations and suggest some ideas about how to overcome them.

In Section 3, we present sufficient conditions for countable support iteration of proper forcing notions, not to add reals. For this we define “reasonable parameters $`𝔭`$” and we have two main demands. One (clause (c) of Definition 3.9) is a weakening of “$`\alpha `$-proper for every $`\alpha <\omega _1`$”. This time it has the form (on $`_i`$), $`𝔭`$-proper which informally says that: if $`𝔭N,Y\{MN:M\text{ appropriate}\}`$ is $`\alpha `$-large, then for some $`(N,_i)`$-generic condition $`qp,q`$ forces that {MY:M[𝔾

~
i]𝕍=M}conditional-set𝑀𝑌𝑀delimited-[]subscript𝔾

~
subscript𝑖𝕍𝑀\{M\in Y:M[\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{Q}}_{i}}]\cap\mathbb{V}=M\} is $`\alpha `$-large (the meaning of $`\alpha `$-large depends on $`𝔭`$). The other main demand (clause (d) of Definition 3.9) is a “weak diamond preventive”.

We then show that $`\alpha `$-properness for $`\alpha <\omega _1`$ is sufficient for the first main demand (in Lemma 3.17(3)). The demand on the games for $`𝔭`$ helps to prove the preservation of $`𝔭`$-properness.

The preservation theorem in Section 3 does not, for standard $`𝔭`$, cover shooting a club $`C\omega _1`$ running away for $`C_\delta \delta =sup(C_\delta ),C_\delta `$ small. For this we will use, in Section 4, $`(𝔭,\alpha ,\beta )`$-proper for enough pairs $`\alpha \beta <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$ (so starting from $`\beta `$-large we get $`\alpha `$-large; for many $`\alpha `$ we can choose $`\beta =\alpha `$, but during the inductive proof we pass through cases of $`\alpha <\beta `$). Here we introduce various definitions and basic facts needed.

In Section 5, we present the natural forcing showing $`\kappa =2`$ is interesting (not only $`\kappa =\mathrm{}_0`$) (from \[5, Ch.VIII,§4\]). We show that the natural forcing (see above) for running away from $`C_\delta \delta `$, of small order type (see \[6, Ch.XVIII,§2\]) falls under our framework for delayed properness. We give examples: running away from $`C_{\delta ,0},C_{\delta ,1}:\delta <\omega _1\text{ limit},C_{\delta ,0},C_{\delta ,1}`$ are disjoint closed subsets of $`\delta `$ with no restrictions on their order type so we ask for $`C,CC_{\delta ,0}`$ or $`CC_{\delta ,1}`$ to be bounded in $`\delta `$ and more.

In Section 6, we give a sufficient condition for the limit forcing not to add reals. We here are weakening the demand “$`𝔭`$-proper”, using $`(𝔭,\alpha ,f(\alpha ))`$-proper instead of $`(𝔭,\alpha ,\alpha )`$-proper, what we called delayed properness. The price is that here $`𝔭`$ has length of large cofinality, so essentially we catch our tails on a club of it. Also the results here cover the examples.

In Section 7, we derive some forcing axioms from our preservation theorems and give several examples that fit into our axioms.

Finally in Section 8, we answer a question of Justin Moore, which is related to the failure of weak club guessing at $`\omega _1`$ in the presence of $`\mathrm{CH}`$.

The results and methods in this paper are all due to the second author. The first author’s contribution was to fill in some details and to write the paper.

## 1. Some preliminaries

In this section we present some preliminaries that are needed for the rest of the paper. We assume familiarity with the theory of iterated forcing and countable support iterations. For a forcing notion $``$ and conditions $`p,q,`$ we say $`q`$ is stronger than $`p`$ if $`qp`$.

###### Definition 1.1.

1. $``$ is $`\alpha `$-proper if whenever $`\chi `$ is large enough regular, $`\overline{N}=N_i:i\alpha `$ is an increasing and continuous chain of countable elementary submodels of $`((\chi ),)`$ with $`\alpha ,N_0`$ and $`\overline{N}(i+1)N_{i+1}`$, if $`pN_0`$, then there is $`q,pq`$ such that $`q`$ is $`(N_i,)`$-generic for each $`i\alpha `$.
2. We say $``$ is $`(<\omega _1)`$-proper if $``$ is $`\alpha `$-proper for any $`\alpha <\omega _1`$.
3. We say $``$ is $`(<^+\omega _1)`$-proper if it satisfies clause (1) for any $`\alpha <\omega _1`$ even omitting “$`\alpha N_0`$”.

###### Definition 1.2.

Suppose $``$ is a forcing notion, $`p`$ and $`N`$ is a model with $`N`$. Then

1. $`\mathrm{Gen}(N,)=\{𝔾N:𝔾\text{ is a }N\text{-generic filter over }N\}.`$
2. $`\mathrm{Gen}^+(N,)=\{𝔾\mathrm{Gen}(N,):G`$ has an upper bound in $`\}`$.
3. $`\mathrm{Gen}(N,,p)=\{𝔾\mathrm{Gen}(N,):p𝔾\}`$.

One important notion that is useful in proofs for showing that certain countable support iterations do not add reals is Shelah’s notion of completeness system.

###### Definition 1.3.

(\[6, Ch. V, Definition 5.2\]) A *completeness system* for a forcing notion $``$ is a function $`𝔻`$ such that the following statements hold:

1. For a sufficiently large $`\theta ,`$ the domain of $`𝔻`$ consists of pairs $`(N,p),`$ where $`N(H(\theta ),)`$ is countable, $`N`$ and $`pN,`$
2. For every $`(N,p)\mathrm{dom}(𝔻),`$ $`𝔻(N,p)`$ is a collection of subsets of $`\mathrm{Gen}(N,,p)`$.

###### Definition 1.4.

(\[6, Ch. V, Definition 5.2\]) Suppose $`\kappa `$ is a cardinal. We say $`𝔻`$ is a $`\kappa `$-completeness system for $``$, if it is a completeness system for $``$ and for every $`(N,p)\mathrm{dom}(𝔻),`$ the intersection of fewer than $`1+\kappa `$ elements of $`𝔻(N,p)`$ is nonempty.

###### Definition 1.5.

(\[6, Ch. V, Definition 5.4\]) A completeness system $`𝔻`$ for $``$ is *simple* if there is a second order formula $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ such that $`𝔻(N,p)=\{𝒢_X:XN\}`$, where

$$𝒢_X=\{𝔾\mathrm{Gen}(N,,p):(N,,N)\mathrm{\Psi }(𝔾,X)\}.$$

###### Definition 1.6.

(\[6, Ch. V, Definition 5.3\]) Suppose $`𝔻`$ is a simple completeness system for $``$. Then $``$ is said to be $`𝔻`$-complete, if for every $`(N,p)\mathrm{dom}(𝔻),`$ $`\mathrm{Gen}^+(N,,p)`$ contains an element of $`𝔻(N,p)`$.

The next theorem of Shelah gives a sufficient condition for a countable support iteration of forcing notions to not add new reals.

###### Theorem 1.7.

(\[6, Ch. VIII, Theorem 4.5\]) A countable support iteration of forcing notions which are $`<\omega _1`$-proper and $`𝔻`$-complete with respect to a simple 2-completeness system does not introduce reals.

###### Definition 1.8.

(\[6, Ch. VII, Definition 1.2\]) The forcing notion $``$ satisfies the $`\kappa `$-e.c.c. ($`\kappa `$-extra chain condition), if there is a binary relation $`R`$ on $``$ such that:

* For any sequence $`p_i:i<\kappa `$ of elements of $`,`$ there are pressing down functions $`f_n:\kappa \kappa `$ (i.e., for all $`\alpha <\kappa ,f_n(\alpha )<1+\alpha `$) for $`n<\omega `$ such that for all $`0<i,j<\kappa `$,

$$\underset{n<\omega }{}(f_n(i)=f_n(j))p_iRp_j.$$
* If $`p_i:i\omega `$ and $`q_i:i\omega `$ are increasing sequences in $``$ and for all $`n<\omega ,p_nRq_n`$, then there is an $`r`$ such that for all $`n<\omega ,rp_n,q_n`$.

###### Definition 1.9.

(\[6, Ch. VIII, Definition 2.1\]) The forcing notion $``$ satisfies the $`\kappa `$-pic ($`\kappa `$-properness isomorphism condition), if the following holds for any large enough regular cardinal $`\lambda `$: Suppose $`i<j<\kappa ,N_i,N_j((\lambda ),,_\lambda )`$ (where $`_\lambda `$ is a well-ordering of $`(\lambda )`$) are countable such that $`\kappa ,N_iN_j`$, $`iN_i,jN_j,N_i\kappa j,N_ii=N_jj,pN_i`$ and $`h:N_iN_j`$ is such that $`hN_iN_j`$ is identity and $`h(i)=j.`$ Then there exists $`q`$ such that:

* $`qp,h(p)`$ and for every maximal antichain $`N_i`$ of $``$, we have that $`N_i`$ is predense above $`q`$ and similarly for $`N_j`$,
* for every $`rN_i`$ and $`q^{}q,`$ there is $`q^{\prime \prime }q^{}`$ such that

$$rq^{\prime \prime }h(r)q^{\prime \prime }.$$

See \[6, Ch.VII, §1\] and \[6, Ch.VIII, §2\] for more information about the above two defined notions.

###### Theorem 1.10.

Assume CH holds.

1. If $``$ is a countable support iteration of length at most $`\omega _2`$ whose iterands are $`<\omega _1`$-proper, $`𝔻`$-complete for some $`\mathrm{}_1`$-completeness system from $`𝕍`$ and satisfy the $`\mathrm{}_2`$-e.c.c, then $``$ satisfies the $`\mathrm{}_2`$-c.c. The same result holds if we replace “$`\mathrm{}_1`$-completeness system” by “$`\mathrm{}_0`$-completeness system” or by “2-completeness system”.
2. If $``$ is a countable support iteration of length at most $`\omega _2`$ whose iterands satisfy the $`\mathrm{}_2`$-pic, then $``$ satisfies the $`\mathrm{}_2`$-c.c.

###### Proof.

(1). For the case of $`\mathrm{}_1`$-completeness system see \[6, Ch.VII, Lemmas 1.3\]. The case of $`\mathrm{}_0`$-completeness system follows from \[6, Ch.VII, Lemmas 1.6\] and the case of 2-completeness system follows from the above resuls combined with \[6, Ch.VIII, Theorem 4.5 and Lemma 4.13\].

(2). See \[6, Ch.VIII, Lemma 2.4\]. ∎

## 2. Obstacles for NNR preservation

In this section we give lengthy explanation of the problems and proofs for NNR countable support iterations of proper forcing notions, and suggest some ideas about how to overcome them. These ideas will be made precise in the later sections of the paper.

###### Definition 2.1.

1. Let $`K_0`$ be the family of countable support iterations ¯=i,

~
i:i<α\bar{{\mathbb{Q}}}=\langle{\mathbb{P}}_{i},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i}:i<\alpha\rangle. We denote $`_\alpha =\mathrm{Lim}(\overline{})`$.
2. We say $`\overline{}K_0`$ is proper if for each i<α,i
Q
~
ii<\alpha,~{}\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i}}\text{``}\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i} is proper”. Note that it follows that j/G

~
isubscript𝑗subscript𝐺

~
subscript𝑖{\mathbb{P}}_{j}/\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle G$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle G$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle G$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle G$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i}} is proper for $`i<j\alpha `$ (see  or ).
3. We say $`\overline{}K_0`$ is $`{}_{}{}^{\omega }\omega `$-bounding if for each i<α,i
Q
~
ii<\alpha,~{}\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i}}\text{``}\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i} is $`{}_{}{}^{\omega }\omega `$-bounding” 111The forcing notion $``$ is $`{}_{}{}^{\omega }\omega `$-bounding (in the universe $`𝕍`$) if every $`f({}_{}{}^{\omega }\omega )^𝕍^{}`$ is bounded by some $`g({}_{}{}^{\omega }\omega )^𝕍`$.. It again follows that $`_j/\dot{G}__i`$ is $`{}_{}{}^{\omega }\omega `$-bounding for $`i<j\alpha `$.
4. We say $`\overline{}`$ is NNR if for each $`i<\alpha ,`$ the forcing notion $`_{i+1}`$ adds no reals, or equivalently if for i<α,i
Q
~
ii<\alpha,\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i}}\text{``}\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i} adds no reals” and for each $`\beta <\alpha ,_\beta `$ adds not reals.

It would be nice if also NNR is preserved in limit stages of the iteration. But this is wrong for at least two known reasons, explained below:

1. weak diamond
2. existence of clubs.

Let us explain these obstacles in more details and the way to avoid them.

Weak diamond:

Let us first explain the obstacle arising from weak diamond. Given a stationary set $`S\omega _1,`$ recall that the weak diamond $`\mathrm{\Phi }_S`$ says: for each function $`F:`$$`{}_{}{}^{<\omega _1}22`$, there exists $`g:\omega _12`$ such that for each $`f:\omega _12`$, the set

$$\{\delta S:g(\delta )=F(f\delta )\}$$

is stationary. By Devlin-Shelah  (see also \[5, Ch.XII,§1\] or \[6, AP,§1\]), $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\omega _1}`$ is equivalent to $`2^\mathrm{}_0<2^\mathrm{}_1`$.

Now let $`\overline{\eta }=\eta _\delta :\delta <\omega _1,\delta \text{ limit}`$ be a ladder system, where $`\eta _\delta =\eta _\delta (n):n<\omega `$ is an increasing $`\omega `$-sequence of ordinals cofinal in $`\delta `$. Let $`D`$ be a non-principal ultrafilter on $`\omega `$. For $`f{}_{}{}^{\omega _1}2`$ and a limit ordinal $`\delta <\omega _1`$ let

$$\text{Av}_D(f,\eta _\delta )=\mathrm{}\{n:f(\eta _\delta (n))=\mathrm{}\}D.$$

Consider the following natural question:

###### Question 2.2.

(CH) Given $`\overline{e}=e_\delta :\delta <\omega _1,\delta \text{ limit},e_\delta \{0,1\}`$, is there $`f{}_{}{}^{\omega _1}2`$ such that for a club of $`\delta <\omega _1`$ we have $`e_\delta =\mathrm{Av}_D(f,\eta _\delta )`$?

Naturally, trying to prove the consistency of this statement, we should use a countable support iteration ¯=i,

~
i:i<ω2\bar{{\mathbb{Q}}}=\langle{\mathbb{P}}_{i},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i}:i<\omega_{2}\rangle, where for each $`i<\omega _2`$, for some $`\overline{e}V^_i`$ as in Question 2.2, $`_i`$ is defined in $`V^_i`$ as $`_i=_{\overline{e}}`$, where

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill _{\overline{e}}=\{f:\text{ for some }\zeta <\omega _1,f{}_{}{}^{\zeta }2\text{ and for every limit ordinal}\\ \hfill \delta \zeta \text{ we have }\mathrm{Av}_D(f,\eta _\delta )=e_\delta \}.\end{array}$$

This is a very nice forcing notion, it is proper (even $`<\omega _1`$-proper, see below) and NNR. For example, let us show that $`_{\overline{e}}`$ is NNR.

Thus let $`p_{\overline{e}}`$, τ

~
Ve¯𝜏

~
superscript𝑉subscript¯𝑒\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}\in V^{{\mathbb{Q}}_{\bar{e}}} and p
τ
~
:ωOrd:forces𝑝
τ
~
𝜔Ordp\Vdash\text{``}\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}:\omega\rightarrow{\rm Ord} is a function”. Let $`\chi `$ be a large enough regular cardinal and let $`\overline{N}=N_i:i\omega ^2`$ be an increasing and continuous chain of countable elementary submodels of $`((\chi ),)`$ with e¯,e¯,p,τ

~
N0¯𝑒subscript¯𝑒𝑝𝜏

~
subscript𝑁0{\bar{e}},{\mathbb{Q}}_{\bar{e}},p,\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}\in N_{0} and $`\overline{N}(i+1)N_{i+1}`$. Let $`\delta (i)=N_i\omega _1`$. So $`\delta (i):i\omega ^2`$ is a strictly increasing and continuous sequence of countable ordinals. Since $`\eta _{\delta (\omega ^2)}`$ has order type $`\omega `$,

$$W=\{i<\omega ^2:n(\delta _i\eta _{\delta (\omega ^2)}(n)<\delta _{i+1})\}$$

has order type $`\omega `$ as well. So, for each $`n<\omega ,`$ we can find $`\mathrm{}_n<\omega `$ such that

$$\underset{n<\omega }{}\underset{m<\omega }{}\omega n+\mathrm{}_n+mW.$$

We choose, by induction on $`n<\omega ,p_n_{\overline{e}}`$ and $`a_n\mathrm{Ord}`$ such that:

* $`pp_n,`$
* $`p_{n1}p_n,`$
* $`p_nN_{\omega n+\mathrm{}_n+1},`$
* $`p_n`$ forces some value for τ

~
(n)𝜏

~
𝑛\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}(n), say pnτ

~
(n)=aˇnforcessubscript𝑝𝑛𝜏

~
𝑛subscriptˇ𝑎𝑛p_{n}\Vdash\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}(n)=\check{a}_{n}
* On $`[\delta _{\omega m+\mathrm{}_m},\delta _{\omega (m+1)+\mathrm{}_{m+1}})\mathrm{Rang}(\eta _\delta )\backslash \mathrm{dom}(p)`$, $`p_n`$ agrees with $`e_{\delta (\omega ^2)}`$.

This is easily seen to be possible by the choice of $`\mathrm{}_n`$’s. Then $`q=\underset{n<\omega }{}p_n`$ is a condition in $`_{\overline{e}}`$ and it forces τ

~
=aˇn:n<ωVˇ.\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}=\langle\check{a}_{n}:n<\omega\rangle\in\check{V}.

Also note that for every $`\alpha <\omega _1,_\alpha =\{f_{\overline{e}}:\alpha \mathrm{dom}(f)\}`$ is a dense open subset of $`_{\overline{e}}`$, and hence if $`𝔾`$ is $`_{\overline{e}}`$-generic over $`V`$, then $`f=\underset{f𝔾}{}f:\omega _12`$ is as requested in Question 2.2, for $`\overline{e}`$. But clearly the weak diamond tells us for this case that the answer is no, that is:

$$\overline{e}f{}_{}{}^{\omega _1}2^{\mathrm{stat}}\delta (e_\delta \mathrm{Av}_D(f,\eta _\delta )).$$

In fact this holds for any function $`\mathrm{Av}^{}:\underset{\delta <\omega _1}{}{}_{}{}^{\delta }2\{0,1\}`$. So if $`\overline{}`$ is going to preserve NNR, the desired demand on $`_i`$’s should exclude the $`_{\overline{e}}`$’s. We now explain a way to overcome the above difficulty. Let us first give a definition.

###### Definition 2.3.

1. Let $`K_1`$ be the class of proper $`{}_{}{}^{\omega }\omega `$-bounding iterations $`\overline{}K_0`$.
2. Let $`K_2`$ be the class of NNR iterations $`\overline{}K_1`$.
3. Let $`K_3`$ be the class of $`\overline{}K_2`$ such that if

1. $`\chi `$ is a large enough regular cardinal,
    2. $`N((\chi ),)`$ is countable,
    3. $`\overline{}N`$,
    4. $`i\mathrm{}g(\overline{})N`$,
    5. $`p_{i+1}N`$,
    6. $`q_0,q_1_i`$ are $`(N,_i)`$-generic (i.e. q``N[𝔾

    ~
    i]𝕍=N"forcessubscript𝑞``𝑁delimited-[]subscript𝔾

    ~
    subscript𝑖𝕍𝑁"q_{\ell}\Vdash``N[\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i}}]\cap\mathbb{V}=N"),
    7. q``𝔾

    ~
    iN=𝔾"forcessubscript𝑞``subscript𝔾

    ~
    subscript𝑖𝑁superscript𝔾"q_{\ell}\Vdash``\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i}}\cap N=\mathbb{G}^{*}",
    8. $`piq_{\mathrm{}}`$,

then we can find $`q_0^{},q_1^{}`$ and $`𝔾^{}`$ such that for $`\mathrm{}=1,2`$ we have

1. $`q_{\mathrm{}}q_{\mathrm{}}^{}_{i+1}`$,
    2. $`pq_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$,
    3. q``𝔾

    ~
    i+1N=𝔾"forcessubscriptsuperscript𝑞``subscript𝔾

    ~
    subscript𝑖1𝑁superscript𝔾absent"q^{\prime}_{\ell}\Vdash``\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i+1}}\cap N=\mathbb{G}^{**}",
    4. $`q_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ is $`(N,_{i+1})`$-generic, so $`𝔾^{}_{i+1}N`$ is generic over $`N`$.

Clause (3) of the above definition tries to say the following. We know 𝔾

~
iNsubscript𝔾

~
subscript𝑖𝑁\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i}}\cap N (as being $`𝔾^{}`$) and we are looking at $`N[𝔾^{}]`$ (formally, only its isomorphism type). So we know

~
iN[𝔾]subscriptsuperscript

~
𝑁𝑖delimited-[]superscript𝔾\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{N}_{i}[\mathbb{G}^{*}]. We would like to find 𝔾

~
iN[𝔾]superscript𝔾subscriptsuperscript

~
𝑁𝑖delimited-[]superscript𝔾\mathbb{G}^{\prime}\subseteq\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{N}_{i}[\mathbb{G}^{*}] generic over $`N[𝔾^{}]`$, so that $`𝔾^{},𝔾^{}`$ will determine $`𝔾^{}`$. But we need a guarantee that $`𝔾^{}`$ will have an upper bound in

~
i[𝔾i]subscript

~
𝑖delimited-[]subscript𝔾subscript𝑖\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i}[\mathbb{G}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i}}]. If we know $`𝔾__i`$, this is fine; but in a sense, we are given 2 candidates by $`q_0,q_1`$ and can increase them to $`q_0^{}i,q_1^{}i`$, and have to find $`𝔾^{}`$ “accepted” by both.

The weak diamond obstacle was overcame in \[6, Ch.V,§7\] using $`\mathrm{}_1`$-completeness systems and in \[6, Ch.XVIII,§4\] using 2-completeness systems. Here we show that being in $`K_3`$ is sufficient to overcome this difficulty. Indeed, we will assume something like the following. Many times in some sense $`q_0,q_1_i`$ are $`(N,_i)`$-generic, p

~
iN,qi``𝔾

~
iN=𝔾"formulae-sequence𝑝subscript

~
𝑖𝑁subscriptforcessubscript𝑖subscript𝑞``subscript𝔾

~
subscript𝑖𝑁superscript𝔾"p\in\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i}\cap N,q_{\ell}\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i}}``\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i}}\cap N=\mathbb{G}^{*}" and for some $`𝔾^{},q_0^{}q_0,q_1^{}q_1`$ in $`_{i+1}`$ we have 𝔾(

~
iN)[𝔾]superscript𝔾subscript

~
𝑖𝑁delimited-[]superscript𝔾\mathbb{G}^{\prime}\subseteq(\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i}\cap N)[\mathbb{G}^{*}] and qi``𝔾

~
iN[𝔾]=𝔾"subscriptforcessubscript𝑖subscriptsuperscript𝑞``subscript𝔾

~
subscript𝑖𝑁delimited-[]superscript𝔾superscript𝔾"q^{\prime}_{\ell}\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i}}``\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{Q}}_{i}}\cap N[\mathbb{G}^{*}]=\mathbb{G}^{\prime}" and $`p𝔾^{}`$.

Unfortunately, this is not sufficient to overcome with the other obstacle $`_2`$. There is an example where for some incomparable $`q_0`$ and $`q_1`$ in i,E

~
isubscript𝑖subscript𝐸

~
𝑖{\mathbb{Q}}_{i},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle E$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle E$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle E$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle E$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i} a $`_i`$-name of a club and for some $`\alpha (q_0,q_1)`$ we have:

$$q_{\mathrm{}}q_{\mathrm{}}^{}$$

q``E

~
iδ=EiδEiδ0E1δ1\α(q0,q1) is finite".forcessubscriptsuperscript𝑞``subscript𝐸

~
𝑖𝛿subscriptsuperscript𝐸𝛿𝑖subscriptsuperscript𝐸subscript𝛿0𝑖\subscriptsuperscript𝐸subscript𝛿11𝛼subscript𝑞0subscript𝑞1 is finite"q^{\prime}_{\ell}\Vdash``\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle E$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle E$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle E$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle E$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i}\cap\delta=E^{\delta}_{i}\Rightarrow E^{\delta_{0}}_{i}\cap E^{\delta_{1}}_{1}\backslash\alpha(q_{0},q_{1})\text{ is finite}".
This leads us to suggest another idea to overcome the obstacle which arises from the existence of clubs.

Existence of clubs:

Let us now explain the obstacle that arises from working with clubs. This problem was already overcame either by using $`(<\omega _1)`$-properness or by a kind of “finite powers are proper”.

As is shown in , , $`(<\omega _1)`$-properness is an antidote to such problems, i.e. against $`_2`$. Though this is fine for many applications, like specializing an Aronszajn tree and many others, but this requirement is too strong (see ). For example consider the following question.

###### Question 2.4.

Let $`\overline{C}=C_\delta :\delta <\omega _1,\delta \text{ limit}`$ where $`C_\delta \delta =sup(C_\delta ),\mathrm{otp}(C_\delta )=\omega `$ or at least $`<\delta `$. Is there a club $`E`$ of $`\omega _1`$ such that for each limit ordinal $`\delta <\omega _1,`$ we have $`\delta >sup(C_\delta E)`$ (i.e. is this consistent with CH)?

The natural forcing notion for adding such a club is given by

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill _{\overline{C}}^1=\{f:\text{ for some non-limit }\alpha <\omega _1\text{ we have }f{}_{}{}^{\alpha }2,f^1(\{1\})\\ \hfill \text{is closed and }\delta <\alpha \text{ limit }sup(f^1(\{1\})C_\delta )<\delta \}.\end{array}$$

This forcing notion is not even $`\omega `$-proper, for if $`N_i:i\omega `$ satisfies $`C_{N_\omega \omega _1}=\{N_i\omega _1:i<\omega \}`$, then no $`f_{\overline{c}}^1`$ is $`(N_i,_{\overline{C}}^1)`$-generic, for infinitely many $`i`$’s.

A solution to this problem was suggested in \[6, Ch.XVIII,§2\]) by demanding that each $`_i\times _i`$ is proper for $`i<\mathrm{}g(\overline{})`$. While this is fine for $`_{\overline{C}}^1`$, this seems to exclude specializing an Aronszajn tree without adding reals.

In the proofs, we usually arrive to a situation as follow:

* $`\overline{}N_0N`$,
* $`N_0((\chi ),)`$ and $`N((\chi ),)`$ are countable,
* $`q_{\mathrm{}}`$ is $`(N,_i)`$-generic and $`(N_0,_i)`$-generic (for $`\mathrm{}<2`$),
* $`q_{\mathrm{}}`$ forces that 𝔾

~
iN=𝔾subscript𝔾

~
subscript𝑖𝑁subscript𝔾\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i}}\cap N=\mathbb{G}_{\ell} (for $`\mathrm{}<2`$),
* $`𝔾^{}=𝔾_1N_0=𝔾_2N_0`$,
* $`i,j,pN_0[𝔾^{}],ij\mathrm{}g(\overline{})`$,
* $`pP_j,pi𝔾^{}`$ (and possibly more).

We would like to find $`𝔾^{}_j^N/𝔾^{}`$ generic over $`N_0`$ such that $`q_0`$ and $`q_1`$ both force that it has an upper bound in Pj/𝔾

~
isubscript𝑃𝑗subscript𝔾

~
subscript𝑖P_{j}/\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i}}. If $`j=i+1`$ this means 𝔾

~
i[𝔾]superscript𝔾subscript

~
𝑖delimited-[]superscript𝔾\mathbb{G}^{\prime}\subseteq\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i}[\mathbb{G}^{*}] is generic over $`N_0`$ such that $`q_0,q_1`$ both force that $`𝔾^{}`$ has an upper bound in

~
i[𝔾i]subscript

~
𝑖delimited-[]subscript𝔾subscript𝑖\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i}[\mathbb{G}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i}}].

It is natural to demand $`𝔾^{}N`$, as otherwise the two possible generic extensions (for $`q_0`$ and $`q_1`$) become unrelated. For the case $`j=i+1`$, the medicine against $`_1`$ should help us. But we need it for every $`j`$. Naturally we prove it by induction on $`j`$, and the successor case can be reduced to the case $`j=i+1`$.

But to continue to a limit case, we need $`𝔾^{}N`$ and more: for some intermediate $`N_1`$ with $`N_0N_1N`$, we also need [qN1[𝔾

~
i]𝕍=N1]subscriptdelimited-[]forcessubscript𝑞subscript𝑁1delimited-[]subscript𝔾

~
subscript𝑖𝕍subscript𝑁1\bigwedge\limits_{\ell}[q_{\ell}\Vdash N_{1}[\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i}}]\cap\mathbb{V}=N_{1}]. So the clubs of elementary submodels which $`q_0,q_1`$ induce on $`\{MN:MN\}`$ should have non-trivial intersection. This is a major point and it has always appeared in some form. Here the medicine against $`_2`$ should help, in some way there will be many possible $`N_1`$’s; but its help has a price, that is we have to carry it during the induction. On the other hand the models playing the role of $`N_1`$ may change, we may “consume it and discard it”.

Note that the discussion is on two levels. Necessary limitations of universes with $`\mathrm{CH}`$ on the one hand, and how we try to carry the inductive proof on appropriate iterations on the other hand; the connection though is quite tight.

So we shall try for $`j\mathrm{}g(\overline{})N_0`$ to extend the situation with $`i`$ being replaced by $`j`$ while $`𝔾^{}`$ is being increased to $`𝔾^{}`$. We shall prove by induction some suitable facts, with $`𝔾^{}`$ the object we are really interested in. We are given $`q_1,q_2_i`$ and would like to find suitable $`q_1^{},q_2^{}_j`$ such that $`q_{\mathrm{}}^{}i=q_{\mathrm{}}`$. This last requirement helps us in limit steps to find an upper bound.

So the real action occurs for $`j`$ limit, hence we choose $`\zeta _nN[i,j)`$ such that $`\zeta _0=i,\zeta _n<\zeta _{n+1}`$ (sometimes better to have $`i`$ and each $`\zeta _n`$ non-limit) and $`\underset{n<\omega }{}\zeta _n=sup(jN)`$. You can think of:

1. in each case of limit $`j`$, proving the inductive statement, we choose a
2. “surrogate” for $`N`$ called $`N_1`$, during the induction it serves like $`N`$, in
3. the limit dealing with $`\zeta _0,\zeta _1,\mathrm{}`$ using the induction hypothesis on $`N_1`$
4. we get $`𝔾^{}`$ which may not be in $`N_1`$ but is in $`N`$.

So we try to choose by induction on $`n,`$ the conditions $`q_{0,n},q_{1,n}`$ and $`𝔾_n^{}`$ such that:

* $`q_{\mathrm{},n}_{\zeta _n}`$ is $`(N,_{\zeta _n})`$-generic,
* $`q_{\mathrm{},0}=q_{\mathrm{}},`$
* $`q_{\mathrm{},n+1}\zeta _n=q_{\mathrm{},n},`$
* $`𝔾_n^{}N_1,`$
* $`𝔾_n^{}P_{\zeta _n}N`$ is generic over $`N`$, and
* q,n``𝔾

~
ζnN=𝔾nforcessubscript𝑞𝑛``subscript𝔾

~
subscriptsubscript𝜁𝑛𝑁subscriptsuperscript𝔾𝑛q_{\ell,n}\Vdash``\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\zeta_{n}}}\cap N=\mathbb{G}^{*}_{n}.

The construction of the $`𝔾_n^{}`$ should use little information on the actual $`q_{\mathrm{},n}`$ so that the choices of the $`𝔾_n^{}`$ can be carried say inside $`N_1`$ so that $`𝔾_n^{}:n<\omega N`$. In fact several models will play a role like $`N_1`$.

By the proof of the preservation of $`{}_{}{}^{\omega }\omega `$-bounding we can choose some $`N_1`$ and demand “$`q_{\mathrm{},n}`$ gives to each $`_{\zeta _n}`$-name of an ordinal τ

~
nN1subscript𝜏

~
𝑛subscript𝑁1\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{n}\in N_{1}, only finitely many possibilities”.

Let us now explain how $`(<\omega _1)`$-properness or remaining proper under products can help in such arguments. If the forcings are $`(<\omega _1)`$-proper , then we can assume in the beginning that $`N_{1,\gamma }:\gamma AN`$ is an increasing and continuous chain of countable elementary submodels of some $`(H(\chi ),)`$, $`N_0N_{1,\gamma }N,N_{1,\gamma }:\gamma \beta N_{\beta +1}`$ with $`A=(j+1)N\backslash i`$ and assume $`q_{\mathrm{}}`$ is $`(N_{1,\gamma },_i)`$-generic for $`\gamma A`$ (similarly for $`q_0^{},q_1^{},j`$ in the conclusion) and demand $`q_{\mathrm{},n}`$ is $`(N_{1,\gamma },_{\zeta _n})`$-generic for $`n<\omega `$ and $`\gamma A\backslash \zeta _n`$.

If components of the iteration remain proper under products, then we demand things like “$`(q_0,q_1)`$ is $`(N_1,_i\times _i)`$-generic” so this gives many common $`N_1`$’s, but to preserve this we need more complicated situations. Instead of a “tower” of models of countable length, we have a finite tower of models where on the bottom we are computing $`𝔾^{}_{\zeta _n}`$ and as we go up, less and less is demanded.

In this paper, we will deal with a condition which follows from both “$`(<\omega _1)`$-properness” and (essentially) “the square of the forcing notion is proper”. We call this $`𝔭`$-properness where “$``$ is $`𝔭`$-proper” says that if $`Y`$ is a large family of $`MN`$ and if $`pN`$ and $`N`$, then for some $`q`$ we have $`qp`$ is $`(N,)`$-generic and q``{MY:M[𝔾

~
]𝕍=M}forces𝑞``conditional-set𝑀𝑌𝑀delimited-[]subscript𝔾

~
𝕍𝑀q\Vdash``\{M\in Y:M[\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{Q}}}]\cap\mathbb{V}=M\} is large”.

## 3. Preservation of not adding reals

In this section we define the notion of $`𝔭`$-properness, for a reasonable parameter $`𝔭`$, and prove some preservation theorems.

###### Definition 3.1.

1. A pseudo-filter on a set $`N`$ is a family $`D`$ of subsets of $`N`$ which is closed under supersets. If $`D`$ is a pseudo-filter on $`N`$, then we set $`D^{}=𝒫(N)D`$.
2. If $`D`$ is a filter on $`N`$, then set $`D^+=\{XN:NXD\}`$.

###### Definition 3.2.

We say $`𝔭=(\overline{\chi },\overline{R},\overline{},\overline{D})=(\overline{\chi }^𝔭,\overline{R}^𝔭,\overline{}^𝔭,\overline{D}^𝔭)`$ is a reasonable parameter, when for some ordinal $`\alpha ^{}`$, denoted $`\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$, we have:

1. $`\overline{\chi }=\chi _\alpha :\alpha <\alpha ^{},`$ where $`\chi _\alpha `$ is a regular cardinal and $`((\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}\chi _\beta )^+)(\chi _\alpha )`$.
2. $`\overline{R}=R_\alpha :\alpha <\alpha ^{},`$ where $`R_\alpha (\chi _\alpha )`$.
3. $`\overline{}=_\alpha :\alpha <\alpha ^{}`$, where $`_\alpha [(\chi _\alpha )]^\mathrm{}_0`$ is stationary.
4. $`\overline{D}=D_\alpha :\alpha <\alpha ^{},`$ where $`D_\alpha `$ is a function with domain $`_\alpha ,`$ and for $`a_\alpha ,D_\alpha (a)`$ is a pseudo-filter on $`a`$.
5. for $`\alpha <\alpha ^{}`$ set $`𝔭^{[\alpha ]}=:\overline{\chi }\alpha ,\overline{R}(\alpha +1),\overline{}\alpha ,\overline{D}\alpha `$, so it belongs to $`(\chi _\alpha )`$.
6. if $`a_\alpha `$, then for some countable $`N((\chi _\alpha ),)`$, $`a`$ is the universe of $`N`$, so we may write $`D_\alpha (N)`$ instead of $`D_\alpha (a)`$ and $`N_\alpha `$ instead of $`|N|_\alpha `$.
7. if $`\alpha <\alpha ^{}`$ and $`N_\alpha `$, then $`𝔭^{[\alpha ]}N`$, so $`\alpha N`$.
8. for $`N_\alpha `$ and $`XN`$ we have:

$`XD_\alpha (N)(\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}_\beta )XD_\alpha (N).`$
9. if $`N_\alpha ,XD_\alpha (N),\beta \alpha N`$ and $`yN(\chi _\beta )`$, then for some $`M_\beta X`$ we have $`XMD_\beta (M)`$ and $`yM`$

Let us explain a little about the intended meaning of the above definition. The requirement (a) is just technical. About $`R_\alpha `$, we could require $`R_\alpha `$ is a relation on $`(\chi _\alpha )`$, in a sense it codes a club of $`[(\chi _\alpha )]^\mathrm{}_0`$. In clause (e), we considered $`\overline{R}(\alpha +1)`$ and not $`\overline{R}\alpha `$. This makes it an easy demand on $`_\alpha ,`$ i.e., if $`N_\alpha `$, then $`R_\alpha N`$. Clause (h) says that each $`D_\alpha (N)`$ has concentrated on $`\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}_\beta `$, and the last clause (i) is some kind of density, as it implies that $`N(\chi _\beta )\{M:M_\beta X\}`$.

###### Remark 3.3.

1. Note that $`_\alpha :\alpha <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$ are pairwise disjoint by items (g) and (e), so $`D(N)`$ can be well defined as $`D_\alpha (N)`$ for the unique $`\alpha `$ such that $`N_\alpha `$.
2. Clearly, by clause (h), only $`D_\alpha (N)𝒫(\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}_\beta )`$ matters.

###### Remark 3.4.

Some natural choices for $`D(N)`$ are as follows:

1. $`D(N)`$ is a filter on $`N`$.
2. $`D(N)=\{XN:X\mathrm{}modF\}`$ for some filter $`F`$ on $`N`$.
3. $`D(N)=F^+`$ for a filter $`F`$ on $`N`$.

###### Definition 3.5.

Suppose $`𝔭=(\overline{\chi },\overline{R},\overline{},\overline{D})`$ is a reasonable parameter as in Definition 3.2.

1. We say $`\overline{D}`$ is standard, if for every $`\alpha <\alpha ^{}(=\mathrm{}g(𝔭))`$ and $`N_\alpha `$ we have

$$\begin{array}{cccc}D_\alpha (N)=\{XN:& \text{ for every }\gamma N\alpha \text{ and}\hfill & & \\ & yN\{(\chi _\beta ):\beta N\alpha \},\hfill & & \\ & \text{for some }\beta N(\alpha \gamma )\text{ and}\hfill & & \\ & MX_\beta ,\text{ we have }yM\hfill & & \\ & \text{and }XMD_\beta (M)\}.\hfill & & \end{array}$$
2. We say $`𝔭`$ is standard if $`\overline{D}`$ is standard.
3. We define the partial order $`_𝔭`$ on $`\alpha ^{}=\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$ as follows: $`\alpha _𝔭\beta `$ iff

1. $`\alpha \beta ,`$
    2. $`N_\beta \alpha NN(\chi _\alpha )_\alpha `$,
    3. $`N_\beta \alpha NYD_\beta (N)Y\underset{\gamma <\alpha }{}_\gamma D_\alpha (M)`$, where $`M=N(\chi _\alpha )`$.
4. We say $`𝔭`$ is simple if $`\alpha \beta <\alpha ^{}\alpha _𝔭\beta `$.
5. If $`N((\chi ),)`$ and $`N(\chi _\alpha )_\alpha `$, (hence $`\alpha ,𝔭\alpha ,R_\alpha N`$), then we let $`D_\alpha (N)=D_\alpha ^𝔭(N)`$ to be $`D_\alpha (N(\chi _\alpha ))`$.

When $`𝔭`$ is standard, we may drop $`\overline{D}^𝔭`$ and just write $`𝔭=(\overline{\chi }^𝔭,\overline{R}^𝔭,\overline{}^𝔭)`$. Also if $`𝔭`$ is clear from the context, we may remove the superscript $`𝔭`$. We now define several games related to a reasonable parameter $`𝔭`$.

###### Definition 3.6.

Suppose $`𝔭`$ is a reasonable parameter.

1. For $`0<\alpha <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$ and $`N_\alpha ^𝔭`$, the game $`\mathrm{}_\alpha (N,𝔭)`$ is defined as follows. The play lasts $`\omega `$ moves, in the $`n`$-th move:

1. the challenger chooses $`X_nD_\alpha (N)`$ such that $`m<nX_nX_m`$
    2. the chooser chooses $`M_nX_n`$ and $`Y_nM_nX_n`$ satisfying $`Y_nD(M_n)N`$
    3. the challenger chooses $`Z_nY_n`$ such that $`Z_nD(M_n)`$.

At the end, the chooser wins if $`\{\{M_n\}Z_n:n<\omega \}D_\alpha (N)`$.
2. Assume $`NN^{}((\chi ),)`$, $`𝔭\alpha N^{}`$ and $`NN^{}`$ are countable. The game $`\mathrm{}_\alpha ^{}(N,N^{},𝔭)`$ is defined similar to $`\mathrm{}_\alpha (N,𝔭)`$, but during the $`n`$-th move, we demand that all the chosen objects belong to $`N^{}`$ (this means only then $`X_nN^{}`$), and at the end of the $`n`$-th move, the chooser also chooses $`X_n^{}X_n,X_n^{}D_\alpha (N)N^{}`$ and the challenger in the next move has to satisfy $`X_{n+1}X_n^{}`$.
3. Omitting $`N^{}`$, i.e., writing $`\mathrm{}_\alpha ^{}(N,𝔭)`$ we mean: for any $`N^{}`$ as in (2), the demand $`\mathrm{}_\alpha ^{}(N,N^{},𝔭)`$ holds.
4. We say that $`𝔭`$ is a winner or a $`\mathrm{}`$-winner (resp. $`\mathrm{}^{}`$-winner), if for every $`0<\alpha <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$ and $`N_\alpha ^𝔭`$, the chooser has a winning strategy in the game $`\mathrm{}_\alpha (N,𝔭)`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{}_\alpha ^{}(N,𝔭)`$).
5. We say that $`𝔭`$ is a non-$`\mathrm{}`$-loser (resp. a non-$`\mathrm{}^{}`$-loser) if for $`0<\alpha <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$ and $`N_\alpha `$ the challenger has no winning strategy in $`\mathrm{}_\alpha (N,𝔭)`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{}_\alpha ^{}(N,𝔭)`$).

###### Lemma 3.7.

1. If $`𝔭`$ is a reasonable parameter with the standard $`\overline{D}^𝔭`$, then $`𝔭`$ is a winner.
2. If $`𝔭`$ is a $`\mathrm{}_\alpha `$-winner, then $`𝔭`$ is a $`\mathrm{}_\alpha ^{}`$-winner. If $`𝔭`$ is a $`\mathrm{}`$-winner, then $`𝔭`$ is a $`\mathrm{}^{}`$-winner. Similarly for a non-loser.

###### Proof.

(1). Suppose $`𝔭`$ is a standard reasonable parameter. Let $`0<\alpha <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$ and $`N_\alpha ^𝔭.`$ Let $`y_n:n<\omega `$ be an enumeration of $`N\{(\chi _\beta ):\beta \alpha N\}`$ such that each $`yN\{(\chi _\beta ):\beta \alpha N\}`$ appears infinitely often in the enumeration and let $`\gamma _n:n<\omega `$ be an increasing sequence of ordinals in $`N\alpha `$ with $`\underset{n<\omega }{sup}\gamma _n=sup(N\alpha ).`$ We define the following winning strategy for chooser in the game $`\mathrm{}_\alpha (N,𝔭)`$: in the $`n`$-th move, the challenger chooses some $`X_nD_\alpha ^𝔭(N)`$. In particular, we can find $`\beta _nN\alpha \gamma _n`$ and $`M_nX_n_{\beta _n}^𝔭`$ such that $`y_nM_n`$ and $`M_nX_nD_{\beta _n}^𝔭(M_n)`$. Set also $`Y_n=M_nX_n.`$ Then the challenger choose some $`Z_nY_n.`$

We show that

$$X=\{\{M_n\}Z_n:n<\omega \}D_\alpha ^𝔭(N).$$

Thus let $`\gamma N\alpha `$ and $`yN\{(\chi _\beta ):\beta \alpha N\}`$. Pick $`n<\omega `$ such that $`\gamma _n>\gamma `$ and $`y=y_n`$. Then $`\beta _n`$ and $`M_n`$ are such that $`\beta _nN\alpha \gamma `$, $`M_nX_{\beta _n}^𝔭`$ and we have $`y_nM_n`$ and $`XM_nD_{\beta _n}^𝔭(M_n)`$. Thus $`XD_\alpha ^𝔭(N)`$. Hence the above process defines a winning strategy for chooser, as required.

(2). Suppose $`𝔭`$ is a $`\mathrm{}_\alpha `$-winner. Let $`N_\alpha `$ and assume that $`N^{}`$ is such that $`NN^{}((\chi ),)`$, $`𝔭\alpha N^{}`$ and $`N^{}`$ is countable. We define a winning strategy for chooser in the game $`\mathrm{}_\alpha ^{}(N,N^{},𝔭)`$.

Let $`\sigma `$ be a winning strategy for chooser in the game $`\mathrm{}_\alpha (N,𝔭).`$ By elementarity, we may assume that $`\sigma `$ is in $`N^{}`$. We define the strategy $`\sigma ^{}`$ for chooser in the game $`\mathrm{}_\alpha ^{}(N,N^{},𝔭)`$ as follows. At the $`n`$-th move, the challenger chooses some $`X_nN^{}`$. Then chooser picks the sets $`M_n`$ and $`Y_n`$ via the strategy $`\sigma `$ and he also takes $`X_n^{}`$ to be $`X_n.`$ As $`\sigma `$ is in $`N^{}`$, all these objects are also in $`N^{}`$. Then challenger chooses some $`Z_nN^{}.`$ It is evident that $`\sigma ^{}`$ is a winning strategy for chooser in the game $`\mathrm{}_\alpha ^{}(N,N^{},𝔭)`$, as required. The other cases of the lemma can be proved in a similar way. ∎

###### Definition 3.8.

Assume $`𝔭`$ is a reasonable parameter, $`\alpha <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$, $`N_\alpha ^𝔭,yN`$ and $`N`$ is a forcing notion. Set

[𝔾

~
,N,y]={MN:,yM and
G
~
M is (M)-generic over M},subscriptsubscript𝔾

~
𝑁𝑦conditional-set𝑀𝑁𝑦𝑀subscript and
G
~
𝑀 is 𝑀-generic over 𝑀{{\mathscr{M}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}}[\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}},N,y]=\{M\in N:{\mathbb{P}},y\in M\text{ and }\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}}\cap M\text{ is }({\mathbb{P}}\cap M)\text{-generic over }M\},
where 𝔾

~
subscript𝔾

~
\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}} is the canonical $``$-name for the generic filter.

We consider [𝔾

~
,N,y]subscriptsubscript𝔾

~
𝑁𝑦{{\mathscr{M}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}}[\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}},N,y] as a $``$-name and then $`_{}[𝔾,N,y]`$ is well defined for any $``$-generic filter $`𝔾`$. If $``$ is clear from the context, we may omit it. Note that $`_{}[𝔾,N,y]=_{}[𝔾N,N,y]`$, so we may write $`𝔾N`$ instead of $`𝔾`$. If $`y=\mathrm{}`$ we may omit it.

###### Definition 3.9.

We say $`\overline{}K_0`$ is a $`𝔭`$NNR$`{}_{\mathrm{}_0}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$ iteration if the following conditions are satisfied:

1. ¯=i,

~
i:i<j()\bar{{\mathbb{Q}}}=\langle{\mathbb{P}}_{i},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i}:i<j(*)\rangle is a countable support iteration of proper forcing notions such that $`\overline{},𝒫(\mathrm{Lim}(\overline{}))(\chi _0^𝔭)`$.
2. forcing with $`_{j()}=\mathrm{Lim}(\overline{})`$ does not add reals.
3. (long properness) suppose that:

1. $`(\alpha )ijj(),\alpha <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$,
    2. $`(\beta )N_\alpha ^𝔭,\{i,j,\overline{}\}N`$,
    3. $`(\gamma )`$ the condition $`q_i`$ is $`(N,_i)`$-generic,
    4. $`(\delta )q`$𝔾

    ~
    iN=𝔾subscript𝔾

    ~
    subscript𝑖𝑁𝔾\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i}}\cap N=\mathbb{G}”,
    5. $`(\epsilon )p_jN`$ and $`pi𝔾`$,
    6. $`(\zeta )Y__i[𝔾,N,y]`$ where $`y=\overline{},i,j`$ and $`YD_\alpha ^𝔭(N)`$ 222Note that the ordinal $`i`$ is reconstructible from $`\overline{}`$ and $`𝔾`$.,

then there are $`𝔾^{},q^{}`$ such that:

1. $`(\eta )q^{}_j,pq^{}`$ and $`qq^{}i`$,
    2. $`(\theta )q^{}`$ is $`(N,_j)`$-generic,
    3. $`(\iota )q^{}`$𝔾

    ~
    jN=𝔾subscript𝔾

    ~
    subscript𝑗𝑁superscript𝔾\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{j}}\cap N=\mathbb{G}^{\prime}”,
    4. $`(\kappa )Y__j[𝔾^{},N,y]D_\alpha ^𝔭(N)`$.
4. (anti weak diamond or anti-w.d.) suppose that:

1. $`(\alpha )ijj()`$ and $`\alpha <\mathrm{}g(𝔭),`$
    2. $`(\beta )N_0N_1_\alpha ^𝔭,N_0\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}_\beta ^𝔭,`$
    3. $`(\gamma )\mathrm{otp}(N_0[i,j))<\alpha `$ 333so naturally $`\mathrm{}g(𝔭)=\omega _1`$. We use the parallel of “$`\mathrm{}_0`$-completeness system” rather than “2-completeness system” of  as things are complicated enough anyhow; see Definition 3.14 and Theorem 3.15.,
    4. $`(\delta )n<\omega `$ and for $`\mathrm{}<n`$ we have $`q_{\mathrm{}}_i`$ is $`(N_1,_i)`$-generic,
    5. $`(ϵ)q_{\mathrm{}}`$𝔾

    ~
    iN1=𝔾subscript𝔾

    ~
    subscript𝑖subscript𝑁1superscript𝔾\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i}}\cap N_{1}=\mathbb{G}^{\ell}”,
    6. $`(\zeta )\underset{\mathrm{}<n}{}[𝔾^{\mathrm{}}N_0=𝔾^{}]`$ where $`𝔾^{}_iN_0`$ is generic over $`N_0`$,
    7. $`(\eta )Y=:\underset{\mathrm{}<n}{}__i[𝔾^{\mathrm{}},N_1]D_\alpha ^𝔭(N_1)`$,
    8. $`(\theta )p_jN_0`$ is such that $`pi𝔾^{}`$.

Then:

1. for some $`𝔾^{}_jN_0`$ generic over $`N_0`$ we have $`p𝔾^{}N_1`$ and $`\underset{\mathrm{}<n}{}\underset{qG^{\mathrm{}}}{}[q\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}𝔾^{}`$ has an upper bound in j/𝔾

    ~
    i"]{\mathbb{P}}_{j}/\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i}}"].

###### Remark 3.10.

We may like to phrase clause (c) as a condition on each

~
isubscript

~
𝑖\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i}, for this see Definitions 4.7, 4.9 and 4.12.

We now state and prove the main result of this section.

###### Theorem 3.11.

Assume $`𝔭`$ is a reasonable parameter of length $`\omega _1`$, $`\overline{}`$ is a countable support iteration such that $`\overline{},𝒫(\mathrm{Lim}\overline{})(\chi _0^𝔭)`$, $`\delta =\mathrm{}g(\overline{})`$ is a limit ordinal and for every $`\alpha <\delta ,\overline{}\alpha `$ is a $`𝔭\text{NNR}_\mathrm{}_0^0`$ iteration and $`𝔭`$ is a $`\mathrm{}`$-winner. Then $`\overline{}`$ is a $`𝔭\text{NNR}_\mathrm{}_0^0`$ iteration.

###### Proof.

We show that items (a)-(d) of Definition 3.9 are satisfied by $`\overline{}`$.

Proof of clause (a): This holds trivially by our assumptions.

Proof of clause (b): This follows from clause (d) of Definition 3.9 proved below. To see this, let $`p_\delta =\mathrm{Lim}\overline{},`$   $`r`$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   be a $`_\delta `$-name and suppose that $`p`$  $`r`$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   is a real”. In Definition 3.9(d) set $`i=0,j=\delta ,n=1`$ and pick $`N_0N_1`$ so that the hypotheses in $`()_1`$ are satisfied and r

~
N0𝑟

~
subscript𝑁0\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}\in N_{0}. Thus, by $`()_2,`$ we can find $`𝔾^{}_\delta N_0`$ which is generic over $`N_0`$, $`p𝔾^{}`$ and $`𝔾^{}`$ has an upper bound $`qp`$ in $`_\delta `$. By genericity of $`𝔾^{}`$, $`q`$ decides   $`r`$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   to be a real in $`V`$, and we are done.

We first prove clause (d) and then return to clause (c).

Proof of clause (d): Let $`i,j,\alpha ,N_0,N_1,n,q_0,\mathrm{},q_{n1},G^0,\mathrm{},G^{n1},G^{}`$ and $`p`$ be as in the assumptions of clause (d). Let $`\alpha ^{}=\mathrm{otp}(N_0[i,j))`$. Then $`\alpha ^{}<\omega _1`$, so $`\alpha ^{}N_1`$. If $`j<\delta `$, then by our assumption $`\overline{}j`$ is a $`𝔭`$NNR$`{}_{\mathrm{}_0}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$ iteration and the result follows. Thus assume that $`j=\delta `$. If $`i=j`$, the conclusion is trivial, so assume $`i<j`$.

Let $`i_mN_0j`$ be such that $`i_0=i`$ and $`i_m:m<\omega N_1`$ is an increasing sequence with $`\underset{m<\omega }{}i_m=sup(N_0j)`$. Choose $`M_k:k<5`$ such that:

* $`y^{}:=\{i,j,\alpha ,\alpha ^{},\overline{},N_0,i_m:m<\omega \}M_k`$,
* $`M_k_\alpha ^{}^𝔭N_1\underset{\mathrm{}<n}{}__i[G^{\mathrm{}},N_1]`$,
* $`M_0M_1M_2M_3M_4`$,
* $`\underset{\mathrm{}<n}{}__i[𝔾^{\mathrm{}},M_0,y^{}]D_\alpha ^𝔭(M_0)`$.

Note that for $`\mathrm{}<n`$ and $`k<5`$, $`N_0M_kN_1`$ and $`𝔾^{\mathrm{}}M_k`$ is a generic subset of $`_iM_k`$. Now for $`\mathrm{}<n`$ we can choose $`q_{\mathrm{}}^{}𝔾^{\mathrm{}}M_4`$ such that:

* $`q_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ forces (for $`_{i_0}=_i`$) a value for 𝔾

~
i0M3subscript𝔾

~
subscriptsubscript𝑖0subscript𝑀3\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i_{0}}}\cap M_{3}, which necessarily is $`𝔾^{\mathrm{}}M_3`$,
* $`q_{\mathrm{}}q_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$,
* $`q_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ is $`(M_k,_{i_0})`$-generic, forcing 𝔾

~
i0Mk=𝔾Mksubscript𝔾

~
subscriptsubscript𝑖0subscript𝑀𝑘superscript𝔾subscript𝑀𝑘\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i_{0}}}\cap M_{k}=\mathbb{G}^{\ell}\cap M_{k} for $`k=0,1,2,3`$,
* $`q_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ forces 𝔾

~
i0N0=𝔾subscript𝔾

~
subscriptsubscript𝑖0subscript𝑁0superscript𝔾\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i_{0}}}\cap N_{0}=\mathbb{G}^{*}.

Let $`_m^{}:m<\omega M_0`$ list the maximal antichains of $`_j`$ that belongs to $`N_0`$. We choose, by induction on $`m<\omega `$, the objects $`r_m,p_m,n_m,𝔾_m^{}`$, $`𝔾_m^{\mathrm{}}:\mathrm{}<n_m`$ and $`Y_m`$ such that:

1. $`(a)r_m_{i_m}M_4`$,
2. $`(b)\mathrm{dom}(r_m)[i,i_m)`$,
3. $`(c)r_{m+1}i_m=r_m`$,
4. $`(d)q_{\mathrm{}}^{}r_m_{i_m}`$ and is $`(M_k,_{i_m})`$-generic for $`k=0,1,2,3`$ and is $`(N_0,_{i_m})`$\- generic,444note that $`q_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ and $`r_m`$ have disjoint domains.
5. $`(e)`$ for every predense subset $``$ of $`_{i_m}`$ which belongs to $`M_2`$, for some finite $`𝒥M_2`$, the set $`𝒥`$ is predense above $`q_{\mathrm{}}^{}r_m,`$ for each $`\mathrm{}<n`$,
6. $`(f)n_m<\omega `$ and for $`\mathrm{}<n_m`$ $`𝔾_m^{\mathrm{}}M_1`$ is a subset of $`_{i_m}M_0`$ generic over $`M_0,`$
7. $`(g)`$ if $`\mathrm{}<n_{m+1}`$, then $`𝔾_{m+1}^{\mathrm{}}_{i_m}\{𝔾_m^k:k<n_m\}`$,
8. $`(h)n_0=n`$ and $`𝔾_0^{\mathrm{}}=𝔾^{\mathrm{}}M_0`$,
9. (i)qrmim``𝔾

~
imM0{𝔾m:<nm}subscriptforcessubscriptsubscript𝑖𝑚𝑖subscriptsuperscript𝑞subscript𝑟𝑚``subscript𝔾

~
subscriptsubscript𝑖𝑚subscript𝑀0conditional-setsubscriptsuperscript𝔾𝑚subscript𝑛𝑚(i)\quad q^{\prime}_{\ell}\cup r_{m}\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i_{m}}}``\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i_{m}}}\cap M_{0}\in\{\mathbb{G}^{\ell}_{m}:\ell<n_{m}\}”,
10. $`(j)𝔾_m^{}`$ is a subset of $`_{i_m}N_0`$ generic over $`N_0`$,
11. $`(k)𝔾_m^{}𝔾_m^{\mathrm{}}`$ for $`\mathrm{}<n_m`$,
12. $`(l)p_m`$ is such that:
13. $`(l`$-$`1)p_m_jN_0`$,
14. $`(l`$-$`2)p_mi_m𝔾^{}_m,`$
15. $`(l`$-$`3)p_{m+1}^{}_m,`$
16. $`(l`$-$`4)p_0=p,`$
17. $`(l`$-$`5)p_mp_{m+1}`$.
18. $`(m)Y_m=\underset{\mathrm{}<n_m}{}_{_{i_m}}[G_m^{\mathrm{}},M_0,y^{}]D_\alpha ^{}(M_0)`$ where $`y^{}=\{N_0,i_m:m<\omega ,\overline{},i,j\}`$.

The construction is clear for $`m=0`$. So suppose that we have it for $`m`$ and we shall choose for $`m+1`$. We do this is several steps.

Stage A: Choose $`p_{m+1}N_0_m^{}`$ such that $`p_mp_{m+1}`$ and $`p_{m+1}i_m𝔾_m^{}`$.

Stage B: Choose $`𝔾_{m+1}^{}_{i_{m+1}}N_0`$ generic over $`N_0`$ such that $`𝔾_m^{}𝔾_{m+1}^{}M_0,p_{m+1}i_{m+1}𝔾_{m+1}^{}`$ and

$`\underset{\mathrm{}<n_m}{}\underset{r𝔾_m^{\mathrm{}}}{}[r_{_{i_m}}\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}𝔾_{m+1}^{}`$ has an upper bound in im+1/𝔾

~
im]{\mathbb{P}}_{i_{m+1}}/\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i_{m}}}].

This is easy by applying clause (d) of the Definition 3.9 for $`i_m,i_{m+1},\alpha ^{},p_{m+1}i_m,𝔾_m^{},𝔾_m^{\mathrm{}}:\mathrm{}<n_m,N_0,M_0`$, for the forcing notion $`\overline{}i_{m+1}`$, which is, by induction hypothesis, a $`𝔭NNR_\mathrm{}_0^0`$ iteration, . We also use the fact that $`\mathrm{otp}(N_0[i_m,i_{m+1}))<\mathrm{otp}(N_0[i_m,j))=\alpha ^{}`$.

Stage C: As $`_{i_m}`$ is proper and adds no new reals, 𝔾

~
imM1subscript𝔾

~
subscriptsubscript𝑖𝑚subscript𝑀1\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i_{m}}}\cap M_{1} is a $`_{i_m}`$-name of an object from $`𝕍`$, so

={pim:p forces a value for
G
~
imM1 in 𝕍}conditional-set𝑝subscriptsubscript𝑖𝑚𝑝subscript forces a value for
G
~
subscriptsubscript𝑖𝑚subscript𝑀1 in 𝕍{{\mathscr{I}}}=\{p\in{\mathbb{P}}_{i_{m}}:p\text{ forces a value for }\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i_{m}}}\cap M_{1}\text{ in }\mathbb{V}\}
is a dense open subset of $`_{i_m}`$ and $`M_2`$. By clause $`()_1(e)`$ of the induction hypothesis, there is a finite $`𝒥M_2`$ such that: $`\mathrm{}<n𝒥`$ is predense above $`q_{\mathrm{}}^{}r_m`$. Without loss of generality $`𝒥`$ is minimal. Let $`n_{m+1}=|𝒥|`$.

Let $`𝒥=\{p_m^{\mathrm{}}:\mathrm{}<n_{m+1}\}`$ and for each $`\mathrm{}<n_{m+1}`$ choose $`H_m^{\mathrm{}}M_2`$ such that pm``𝔾

~
imM1=Hmforcessubscriptsuperscript𝑝𝑚``subscript𝔾

~
subscriptsubscript𝑖𝑚subscript𝑀1subscriptsuperscript𝐻𝑚p^{\ell}_{m}\Vdash``\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i_{m}}}\cap M_{1}=H^{\ell}_{m}”. As $`𝒥`$ is minimal, $`H_m^{\mathrm{}}M_0\{𝔾_m^{\mathrm{}}:\mathrm{}<n_m\}`$ so for some $`h:n_{m+1}n_m`$ and every $`\mathrm{}<n_{m+1}`$ we have $`H_m^{\mathrm{}}M_0=𝔾_m^{h(\mathrm{})}`$.

Let $`Y=\underset{\mathrm{}<m_n}{}_{_{i_m}}[𝔾_m^{\mathrm{}},M_0,y^{}]D_\alpha ^{}^𝔭(M_0)`$. Now we choose by induction on $`\mathrm{}n_{m+1}`$ a condition $`r_m^{\mathrm{}}M_1`$ such that:

1. $`(\alpha )r_m^{\mathrm{}}_{i_{m+1}}M_1`$ and $`r_m^{\mathrm{}}i_mH_m^{\mathrm{}}`$,
2. $`(\beta )r_m^{\mathrm{}}`$ is $`(M_0,_{i_m})`$-generic and forces a value for 𝔾

~
imM0subscript𝔾

~
subscriptsubscript𝑖𝑚subscript𝑀0\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i_{m}}}\cap M_{0}, say $`𝔾_{m+1}^{\mathrm{}}`$,
3. $`(\gamma )r_m^{\mathrm{}}`$ is above $`𝔾_{m+1}^{}`$, and moreover above $`p_m^{h(\mathrm{})}`$,
4. $`(\delta )Y\underset{k<\mathrm{}}{}_{_{i_m}}[𝔾_{m+1}^k,M_0,y^{}]D_\alpha ^{}^𝔭(M_0)`$.

The construction can be easily done by applying clause (c) of Definition 3.9 to $`i_m,i_{m+1},\alpha ^{},M_0`$, large enough member of $`H_m^{\mathrm{}},p_m^{h(\mathrm{})}`$ and $`Y_m^{\mathrm{}}=Y\underset{k<\mathrm{}}{}[𝔾_{m+1}^k,M_0,y^{}]M_1,`$ for the $`𝔭NNR_\mathrm{}_0^0`$-iteration $`\overline{}i_{m+1}`$.

Stage D: By \[6, Ch.XVIII, Claim 2.6\], we can choose $`r_{m+1}`$ as required such that $`\{r_m^{\mathrm{}}:\mathrm{}<n_{m+1}\}`$ is predense over it.

This completes the inductive construction. Let us now show that this is sufficient to get clause (d). Let $`^{}N_1`$ be a well-ordering of $`M_4`$. During the construction above we chose inductively members of $`M_4`$ and all the parameters used are from $`M_4`$, so if we always choose the $`^{}`$-first object, the construction is determined and is in $`N_1`$. By clause $`()_1(c)`$, we have

1. Let $`r=\underset{m}{}r_m`$ be the unique $`r_j`$ satisfying $`m<\omega ri_m=r_m`$. Then $`r_jN_1`$.

Also, by the choice of $`_m^{}:m<\omega `$ and clause $`()_1(k)`$, we have

1. $`𝔾^{}=\{p^{}_jN_0:\underset{m<\omega }{}[p^{}p_m]\}`$ belongs to $`M_4`$ and is a subset of $`_jN_0`$ generic over $`N_0`$.

It is also clear from $`()_1(\mathrm{})`$ that

1. $`q_{\mathrm{}}^{}r`$ is above $`𝔾^{}`$ (in $`_j`$).

So we have finished proving clause (d).

Proof of clause (c): We prove this by induction on $`\alpha `$. Let $`i,j,\alpha ,N,p,q`$ and $`Y`$ be as there. If $`j<\delta `$ we can apply “$`\overline{}j`$ is a $`𝔭NNR_\mathrm{}_0^0`$ iteration”, so without loss of generality $`j=\delta `$. If $`i=j`$ the statement is trivial, so assume $`i<j`$.

Choose $`i_nNj`$, for $`n<\omega `$, such that $`i_0=i,i_n<i_{n+1}`$ and $`\underset{n<\omega }{}i_n=sup(jN)`$. Let $`(y_n,\beta _n):n<\omega `$ list the pairs $`(y,\beta )N\times (\alpha N)`$ such that $`y(\chi _\beta ^𝔭)`$. Let $`\sigma `$ be a winning strategy for the chooser in the game $`\mathrm{}_\alpha (N,𝔭)`$ and let $`_n:n<\omega `$ list the dense open subsets of $`_j`$ which belong to $`N`$.

We choose by induction on $`n<\omega `$, the objects qn,p

~
n,M

~
nsubscript𝑞𝑛subscript𝑝

~
𝑛subscript𝑀

~
𝑛q_{n},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle p$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle p$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle p$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle p$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{n},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle M$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle M$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle M$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle M$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{n} and Y

~
nsubscript𝑌

~
𝑛\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle Y$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle Y$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle Y$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle Y$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{n} such that:

1. $`(a)q_n_{i_n}`$ with $`q_0=q`$,
2. $`(b)q_n`$ is $`(N,_{i_n})`$-generic,
3. $`(c)q_{n+1}i_n=q_n`$,
4. (d)p

~
n𝑑subscript𝑝

~
𝑛(d)\quad\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle p$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle p$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle p$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle p$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{n} is a $`_{i_n}`$-name of a member of (j/𝔾

~
in)Nsubscript𝑗subscript𝔾

~
subscriptsubscript𝑖𝑛𝑁({\mathbb{P}}_{j}/\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i_{n}}})\cap N
5. (e)p

~
n𝑒subscript𝑝

~
𝑛(e)\quad\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle p$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle p$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle p$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle p$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{n} is forced to belong to $`_n`$,
6. (f)M

~
n𝑓subscript𝑀

~
𝑛(f)\quad\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle M$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle M$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle M$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle M$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{n} is a $`_{i_n}`$-name of a member of $`_{\beta _n}^𝔭N`$,
7. $`(g)`$if $`𝔾_j_j`$ is generic over $`𝕍`$ such that qn𝔾j,p

~
n[𝔾jin]𝔾jformulae-sequencesubscript𝑞𝑛subscript𝔾𝑗subscript𝑝

~
𝑛delimited-[]subscript𝔾𝑗subscriptsubscript𝑖𝑛subscript𝔾𝑗q_{n}\in\mathbb{G}_{j},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle p$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle p$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle p$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle p$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{n}[\mathbb{G}_{j}\cap{\mathbb{P}}_{i_{n}}]\in\mathbb{G}_{j} and if M=M

~
n[𝔾j]𝑀subscript𝑀

~
𝑛delimited-[]subscript𝔾𝑗M=\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle M$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle M$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle M$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle M$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{n}[\mathbb{G}_{j}], then

1. $`(\alpha )𝔾_jM`$ is a subset of $`_jM`$ generic over $`M`$,
    2. $`(\beta )__j[𝔾_jM,M,y^{}]YD_{\beta _n}^𝔭[M]`$,
    3. (γ)p

    ~
    n[𝔾j]𝛾subscript𝑝

    ~
    𝑛delimited-[]subscript𝔾𝑗(\gamma)\quad\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle p$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle p$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle p$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle p$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{n}[\mathbb{G}_{j}] belongs to $`M`$,
8. (h)Ymim[𝔾

~
im,M

~
m,y],Y

~
m,im,M

~
m:mn(h)\quad\langle Y_{m}\cap{{\mathscr{M}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i_{m}}}}[\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i_{m}},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle M$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle M$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle M$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle M$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{m},y^{*}],\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle Y$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle Y$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle Y$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle Y$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{m},{\mathbb{P}}_{i_{m}},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle M$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle M$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle M$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle M$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{m}:m\leq n\rangle is forced by $`q_n`$ to be an initial segment of a play of the game $`\mathrm{}_\alpha (N)`$ in which the chooser uses the fixed winning strategy $`\sigma `$.

The proof is straight by the induction hypothesis on $`\beta `$, the fact that M

~
n,Y

~
nsubscript𝑀

~
𝑛subscript𝑌

~
𝑛\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle M$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle M$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle M$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle M$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{n},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle Y$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle Y$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle Y$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle Y$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{n} are $`_{i_n}`$-names of objects from $`𝕍`$ and $`\overline{}i_n`$ is a $`𝔭NNR_\mathrm{}_0^0`$-iteration. Now let $`q^{}=\underset{n<\omega }{}q_n`$ and $`𝔾^{}=\{p^{}_jN:\underset{n<\omega }{}p^{}q_n\}`$. Then $`𝔾^{}`$ and $`q^{}`$ are as required; see also the proof of clause $`(c)^{}`$ of Theorem 6.3 for more details, where a more general result is proved.

The theorem follows. ∎

###### Remark 3.12.

1. It is possible to use “adding no reals+ clause (d)” in the proof of clause (c) in order to weaken “winner” to “not loser”. Also we can use $`\mathrm{}_\alpha ^{}(N,N^{},)`$, see Section 6. The assumption “$`N_0\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}_\beta `$” can be replaced by $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}N_0_0^{}`$ with $`_0^{}[(\chi _0^𝔭)]^\mathrm{}_0`$ stationary”. We can also put extra restrictions on $`𝔾^{}`$ (and $`𝔾^{}`$), for example we can require $`[𝔾^{},N_0,y^{}]`$ is large.
2. The use of $`\chi _\alpha :\alpha <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$ is not really necessary as all the properties depend just on $`N_{\mathrm{}}𝒫(_{\mathrm{}g(\overline{})})`$.
3. The proof of clause (c) being preserved can be applied to any $`\overline{}`$ satisfying (a) + (c) of Definition 3.9 (so possibly adding reals), but then we have to replace $`D_\alpha ^𝔭(N)`$ by a definition of such pseudo filters with the winning strategy being absolute enough, e.g. for standard $`\overline{D}`$.

###### Definition 3.13.

Let $`\overline{}`$ be a countable support iteration of forcing notions. It will be called $`𝔭`$-proper if it satisfies items (a) and (c) of Definition 3.9.

We like to consider the parallel of having 2-completeness systems and also to demand only non-losing rather than winning in the assumption of Theorem 3.11.

###### Definition 3.14.

Let $`\kappa [2,\omega ]`$. We say that $`\overline{}`$ is a $`𝔭NNR_\kappa ^0`$-iteration if items (a)-(c) of Definition 3.9 are satisfied and clause (d) is replaced by $`\kappa `$-anti w.d., which is the same as in (d) there, but with $`n<1+\kappa `$ and $`N_0_0^𝔭`$.

The next theorem is a natural generalization of Theorem 3.11.

###### Theorem 3.15.

Assume $`𝔭`$ is a reasonable parameter of length $`\omega _1`$ which is a non-$`\mathrm{}^{}`$-loser, $`2\kappa <\mathrm{}_0,\overline{}`$ is a countable support iteration with $`𝒫(\mathrm{Lim}(\overline{}))(\chi _0^𝔭),`$ $`\delta =\mathrm{}g(\overline{})`$ is a limit ordinal and for $`i<\delta ,\overline{}i`$ is a $`𝔭NNR_\kappa ^0`$-iteration. Then $`\overline{}`$ is a $`𝔭NNR_\kappa ^0`$-iteration.

###### Proof.

The proof is similar to the proof of Theorem 3.11, with some changes, as in \[5, Ch.VIII, Claim 4.10\] and \[6, Ch.XVIII, Proof 2.10C\], so we do not give the details. The only main change is that during the proof of clause (d), we add the following extra conditions to items (a)-(m):

1. $`n_m`$ is a power of 2, say $`2^{n_m^{}}`$ and so we can rename $`\{𝔾_m^{\mathrm{}}:\mathrm{}<n_m\}`$ as $`\{𝔾_m^\eta :\eta {}_{}{}^{n_m^{}}2\}`$,
2. The following conditions are satisfied:
3. $`(\alpha )`$ for $`\eta {}_{}{}^{(n_m^{})}2`$, $`M_\eta M_1_{j_\eta }^𝔭`$, where $`j_0=\mathrm{otp}([i,j)N_0)`$ and if $`\eta =\nu ^{}i,`$ then $`j_\eta =\mathrm{otp}([i,j)M_\nu )`$,
4. $`(\beta )M_{}=N_0`$,
5. $`(\gamma )M_\eta M_{\eta ^{}0}M_{\eta ^{}1}`$,
6. $`(\delta )\eta \nu _1{}_{}{}^{n_m^{}}2\eta \nu _2{}_{}{}^{n_m^{}}2𝔾_m^{\nu _1}M_\eta =𝔾_m^{\nu _2}M_\eta `$ so we call it $`K_m^\eta `$
7. $`(\epsilon )`$ for $`\eta {}_{}{}^{n_m^{}>}2`$, $`M_{\eta ^{}0}=M_{\eta ^{}1}`$, call it $`N_\eta `$,
8. $`(\zeta )`$ for $`\eta {}_{}{}^{(m_m^{}>)}2`$ and $`\mathrm{}<2`$, $`N_\eta _{j_\eta ^{}\mathrm{}}^𝔭`$,
9. $`(\eta )Y_m^\eta =[K_m^{\eta ^{}0},N_\eta ][K_m^{\eta ^{}1},N_\eta ]D_{j_{\eta ^{}0}}(N_\eta )`$.

The rest of the argument is essentially the same as before. ∎

The following is an immediate consequence of Theorems 3.11 3.15.

###### Conclusion 3.16.

Suppose $`𝔭`$ is a non-$`\mathrm{}^{}`$-loser reasonable parameter with $`\mathrm{}g(𝔭)=\omega _1`$, $`\overline{}`$ is a countable support iteration and $`2n()\mathrm{}_0`$. Then, $`\overline{}`$ is a $`𝔭NNR_{n()}^0`$-iteration iff for each $`i<\mathrm{}g(\overline{})`$

1. ~
isubscript

~
𝑖\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i} is a proper forcing and i,

~
isubscript𝑖subscript

~
𝑖{\mathbb{P}}_{i},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i} satisfy clauses (d) + (c) of the Definition “$`𝔭NNR_{n()}^0`$-iteration” with $`i,i+1`$ here standing for $`i,j`$ there.

###### Proof.

By induction on $`j=\mathrm{}g(\overline{})`$. For $`j=0`$ there is nothing to prove and for $`j`$ a successor ordinal, this follows easily from the definitions. For $`j`$ a limit ordinal, the result follows from Theorem 3.11 (for $`n()=\mathrm{}_0`$) or Theorem 3.15 (for $`2n()<\mathrm{}_0`$). ∎

We point out here that Clause (c) of Definitions 3.9 and 3.14 really follows from earlier properties which play parallel roles.

###### Lemma 3.17.

1. Assume that $`𝔭`$ is a standard reasonable parameter, $`\alpha <\mathrm{}g(𝔭),N_\alpha ^𝔭,YD_\alpha ^𝔭(N)`$ and $`\delta \omega _1N`$ is a limit ordinal. Then we can find sequences $`\overline{N}=N_i:i<\delta `$ and $`\overline{\gamma }=\gamma _i:i<\delta `$ such that:

1. $`N_iN`$ is countable, $`N\alpha N_i`$ and $`N_iY`$ (for $`i<\delta `$),
    2. $`N_i\underset{\beta \alpha N}{}((\chi _\beta ^𝔭),)`$, and $`\beta \alpha N_iN_i(\chi _\beta ^𝔭)((\chi _\beta ^𝔭),)`$,
    3. $`i<jN_iN_j`$,
    4. if $`i`$ is a limit ordinal, then $`N_i=\underset{j<i}{}N_j`$ and $`N\{(\chi _\beta ^𝔭):\beta \alpha N\}=\underset{j<\delta }{}N_j`$, so we can stipulate $`N_\delta =N`$,
    5. $`\beta \alpha N(\chi _\beta ^𝔭)N_j:jiN_{i+1}`$,
    6. $`\gamma _iN_i\alpha ,N_i(\chi _{\gamma _i}^𝔭)_{\gamma _i}^𝔭Y`$ and $`\overline{\gamma }(i+1)N_{i+1}`$,
    7. if $`i\delta `$ is a limit ordinal and either $`(i=\delta `$ and $`\beta \alpha N_i)`$ or $`(i<\delta `$ and $`\beta \gamma _iN_i)`$, then for some $`j<i,\gamma _j=\beta `$ and $`yN_j`$.
    8. if $`i\delta `$ is a limit ordinal, then $`\{N_j(\chi _{\gamma _j}^𝔭):j<i\text{ and }\gamma _j<\gamma _i\}D_{\gamma _i}^𝔭(N)=D_{\gamma _i}^𝔭(N(\chi _{\gamma _i}^𝔭)).`$
    9. if $`\delta <N\omega _1`$ then $`\delta N_0`$, if $`\delta =N\omega _1`$ then $`i<\delta iN_0`$.
2. If $`𝔭`$ is a standard reasonable parameter, $`\overline{}`$ is a countable support iteration, $`\mathrm{}g(\overline{})=\beta +1,\overline{}\beta `$ is $`𝔭NNR_{k()}^0`$-iteration and β``

~
βsubscriptforcessubscript𝛽absent``subscript

~
𝛽\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\beta}}``\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\beta} is proper and $`(<^+\omega _1)`$-proper”, then $`\overline{}`$ is $`𝔭`$-proper (see Definition 3.13).
3. If $`\mathrm{}g(𝔭)=\omega _1`$, then in part $`(2)`$, it suffices to assume i``

~
isubscriptforcessubscript𝑖absent``subscript

~
𝑖\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i}}``\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i} is $`(<\omega _1)`$-proper”.

###### Proof.

(1). By induction on $`i<\delta `$ we prove that there are sequences $`N_j:j<iN`$ and $`\gamma _j:j<i`$ satisfying the relevant requirements, so that for some sequence $`N_j^{}:j<iN`$ with $`N_j^{}((\chi _\alpha ^𝔭),),`$ $`N_j=N_j^{}\underset{\beta \alpha N}{}((\chi _\beta ^𝔭),)`$.

For $`i=0`$, let $`N_0^{}((\chi _\alpha ^𝔭),)`$ be a countable model such that $`N_0^{}NY`$ and such that $`N_0^{}`$ contains all relevant information, in particular, $`N\alpha N_0^{},\delta N_0^{}`$. Let $`N_0=N_0^{}\underset{\beta \alpha N}{}((\chi _\beta ^𝔭),).`$ Pick also $`\gamma _0`$ such that $`\gamma _0N_0\alpha `$ and $`N_0(\chi _{\gamma _0}^𝔭)_{\gamma _0}^𝔭Y`$. Such $`\gamma _0`$ exists as $`𝔭`$ is standard.

If $`i=j+1`$ is a successor ordinal, let $`N_i^{}((\chi _\alpha ^𝔭),)`$ be a countable model such that:

* $`N_i^{}NY`$,
* $`N_j^{}N_i,`$
* $`\beta \alpha N(\chi _\beta ^𝔭)N_k:kjN_i`$,
* $`\gamma _k:kjN_i`$.

Then, using $`𝔭`$ is standard, take $`\gamma _iN_i\alpha `$ such that $`N_i(\chi _{\gamma _i}^𝔭)_{\gamma _i}^𝔭Y`$.

For limit $`i`$ set $`N_i^{}=\underset{j<i}{}N_j`$ and $`N_i=N_i^{}\underset{\beta \alpha N}{}((\chi _\beta ^𝔭),)`$. Let also $`\gamma _i`$ be such that $`\{N_j(\chi _{\gamma _j}^𝔭):j<i\text{ and }\gamma _j<\gamma _i\}D_{\gamma _i}^𝔭(N)=D_{\gamma _i}^𝔭(N(\chi _{\gamma _i}^𝔭)).`$

As $`N`$ is countable, we can choose $`N_j^{}`$’s such that clause (d) holds as well. This completes our inductive construction.

(2) We show that $`\overline{}`$ satisfies clause (c) of Definition 3.9. Thus let $`i,j,\alpha ,N,q,p,𝔾`$ and $`Y`$ be as there. Without loss of generality, $`i=\beta `$ and $`j=\beta +1`$.

By the definition of $`(<^+\omega _1)`$-proper, if $`𝔾_\beta _\beta `$ is generic over $`N,`$ then $`__\beta [𝔾_\beta ,N,y^{}]D_\beta ^𝔭(N)`$. Let $`\delta =N\omega _1`$ and let $`N_i:i<\delta `$ be as in $`(1)`$. Without loss of generality p(β)N0

~
β[𝔾β]𝑝𝛽subscript𝑁0subscript

~
𝛽delimited-[]subscript𝔾𝛽p(\beta)\in N_{0}\cap\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\beta}[\mathbb{G}_{\beta}]. Let $`q^{}p`$ be (Ni,

~
β[𝔾β])subscript𝑁𝑖subscript

~
𝛽delimited-[]subscript𝔾𝛽(N_{i},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\beta}[\mathbb{G}_{\beta}])-generic for every $`i<\delta `$ 555formally we only need to look at $`\overline{N}^{}=N_i^{}:i<\delta ,N_i^{}=N_i(\chi _0^𝔭)`$ and apply the $`(<^+\omega _1)`$-properness to it.  so that $`q^{}\beta q.`$ Let also 𝔾(β)

~
β[𝔾β]𝔾𝛽subscript

~
𝛽delimited-[]subscript𝔾𝛽\mathbb{G}(\beta)\subseteq\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\beta}[\mathbb{G}_{\beta}] be generic over $`N`$ such that $`q^{}\beta `$ forces $`𝔾(\beta )`$ has an upper bound in

~
β[𝔾β]subscript

~
𝛽delimited-[]subscript𝔾𝛽\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\beta}[\mathbb{G}_{\beta}]. Set $`𝔾^{}=𝔾_\beta 𝔾(\beta ).`$ Then $`q^{},𝔾^{}`$ are as required.

(3) Follows from (2), as $`\alpha N\omega _1\delta =\omega \alpha N\omega _1`$. ∎

###### Remark 3.18.

1. The results of this section include as special cases \[5, Ch.V, §5, §7\]. There is no direct comparison with \[5, Ch.VIII, §4\], \[6, Ch.VIII, §4\], but we can make the notion somewhat more complicated, to include the theorems there in our context, but this is not really needed for the examples discussed there (see Section 5). The condition in \[5, Ch.VIII, §4\] and \[6, Ch.VIII, §4\] involves having many sequences $`N_i:i\delta `$ such that if $`p_0,p_1_\alpha ,p_{\mathrm{}}`$ is $`(N_i,)`$-generic for i,p``𝔾

~
αN0=𝔾forces𝑖subscript𝑝``subscript𝔾

~
subscript𝛼subscript𝑁0superscript𝔾i,p_{\ell}\Vdash``\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\alpha}}\cap N_{0}=\mathbb{G}^{*}”, then there is 𝔾Gen(N0[𝔾],

~
α[𝔾]),𝔾N0,formulae-sequencesuperscript𝔾Gensubscript𝑁0delimited-[]superscript𝔾subscript

~
𝛼delimited-[]superscript𝔾superscript𝔾subscript𝑁0\mathbb{G}^{\prime}\subseteq{\rm Gen}(N_{0}[\mathbb{G}^{*}],\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}[\mathbb{G}^{*}]),\mathbb{G}^{\prime}\in N_{0}, such that α``𝔾

~
subscriptnot-forcessubscript𝛼absent``fragmentsG

~
\nVdash_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\alpha}}``\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}^{\prime}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}^{\prime}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}^{\prime}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}^{\prime}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}} has no bound in

~
αsubscript

~
𝛼\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}”. This speaks on a family of sequences from $`[(\chi )]^\mathrm{}_0`$ rather than members of $`(\chi )`$.
2. For \[6, Ch.XVIII, §2\], the comparison is not so easy. Our problem is to “carry” good $`(N,_i,𝔾_{\mathrm{}}:\mathrm{}<n),𝔾_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{Gen}(N,_i)`$ with a bound, such that we can “increase $`i`$” and we can find $`N^{},yN^{}N,N^{}N`$ such that $`(N^{},P_i,𝔾_iN:\mathrm{}<n)`$ is good enough. In \[6, Ch.XVIII\] we are carrying genericity in some $`_{\overline{\alpha }},`$ where $`\overline{\alpha }\text{ trind}(i)`$666see \[6, Ch.XVIII, Definiton 2.1\]., but here we have much less. But what we need is the implication “if $`(N,_i,\overline{G})`$ is good we can extend it to good $`(N,_{i+1},\overline{G}^{})`$”, so making good weaker generates an incomparable notion and clearly there are other variants.
3. The iteration theorems proved in this section can be used to give alternative proofs of the consistency results in \[6, Ch.XVIII, §1\] (see Section 5).

## 4. Delayed properness

In this section we introduce several notions that will be used in sections 5 and 6. We concentrate on simple reasonable parameters and we present two versions for it. The simpler one is version 2 for which simplicity is a very natural demand. The proof of the next lemma is straightforward in which a general way to create simple reasonable parameters is introduced.

###### Lemma 4.1.

1. Assume

1. $`\overline{\chi }=\chi _\alpha :\alpha <\alpha ^{}`$ increases fast enough, so that $`((\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}\chi _\beta )^+)(\chi _\alpha )`$,
    2. $`_\alpha \{N:N`$ is a countable elementary submodel of $`((\chi _\alpha ),)\}`$ is stationary,
    3. $`R_\alpha (\chi _\alpha )`$ and $`N_\alpha `$ implies $`\chi _\beta :\beta <\alpha N,R_\beta :\beta \alpha N`$ and $`_\beta :\beta <\alpha N`$.

Then there is a standard reasonable parameter $`𝔭`$ with $`\mathrm{}g(𝔭)=\alpha ^{},\chi _\alpha ^𝔭=\chi _\alpha ,_\alpha ^𝔭=_\alpha `$ and $`R_\alpha ^𝔭=R_\alpha `$.
2. If in addition clause (d) below holds, then $`𝔭`$ is a simple standard reasonable parameter (recall Definition 3.5(4)), where

1. $`\beta N_\alpha ,\beta <\alpha N(\chi _\beta )_\beta `$.
3. If $`\chi _\alpha =(\mathrm{}_{2\alpha +1})^+`$ for $`\alpha <\alpha ^{},R_\alpha (\chi _\alpha )`$, then $`\chi _\alpha `$ increases fast enough. If $`\chi _\alpha :\alpha <\alpha ^{},R_\alpha :\alpha <\alpha ^{}`$ are as in part (1), $`\chi \chi _0,[(\chi )]^\mathrm{}_0`$ stationary and we let $`_\alpha =\{N:N`$ is a countable elementary submodel of $`((\chi _\alpha ),)`$ and $`\chi _\beta :\beta <\alpha ,R_\beta :\beta \alpha ,`$ belong to $`N`$ and $`N(\chi )\}`$, then the assumptions of parts (1) and (2) above hold.

###### Proof.

(1). Let $`𝔭=\overline{\chi },\overline{R},\overline{},\overline{D}`$, where $`\overline{\chi },\overline{R}`$ and $`\overline{}`$ are given as above and $`\overline{D}`$ is defined as in Definition 3.5(1). Then $`𝔭`$ is easily seen to be a standard reasonable parameter as required.

Items (2) and (3) are clear. ∎

We now define an extension of the games $`\mathrm{}_\alpha (N,𝔭)`$ and $`\mathrm{}_\alpha (N,N^{},𝔭)`$ given in Definition 3.6.

###### Definition 4.2.

Let $`𝔭`$ be a reasonable parameter and $`\alpha \beta <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$.

1. For $`N_\beta ^𝔭`$ such that $`\alpha N`$, we define a game $`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }(N)=\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }(N,𝔭)`$ of length $`\omega `$ as follows. In the $`n`$-th move:

1. the challenger chooses $`X_nD_\beta ^𝔭(N)`$ such that $`m<nX_nX_m`$,
    2. the chooser chooses $`\alpha _n\alpha N`$,
    3. the challenger chooses $`\beta _n^{}\beta N`$ and $`y_n^{}N(\chi _{\alpha _n}^𝔭)`$,
    4. the chooser chooses $`\beta _n\beta N\backslash \beta _n^{}`$ together with $`M_nX_n_{\beta _n}^𝔭`$, $`y_nM_n(\chi _{\alpha _n}^𝔭)`$ and $`Y_nD_{\beta _n}^𝔭(M_n)`$ satisfying:

    * $`\alpha _n\beta _n,`$
        * $`y_n^{}M_n,`$
        * $`\alpha _nM_n`$,
        * $`Y_nX_n`$ and $`Y_nN`$
    5. the challenger chooses $`M_n^{}Y_n_{\alpha _n}^𝔭\left(M_n\{M_n(\chi _{\alpha _n}^𝔭)\}\right)`$ satisfying $`y_n,y_n^{}M_n^{}`$ and chooses $`Z_nD_{\alpha _n}^𝔭(M_n^{})=D_{\alpha _n}^𝔭(M_n^{}(\chi _{\alpha _n}^𝔭))`$ such that $`Z_nY_n`$.

At the end, the chooser wins the play if

$$\{Z_n\{M_n^{}\}:n<\omega \}D_\alpha ^+(N)=D_\alpha ^+(N(\chi _\alpha ^𝔭)),$$

where $`D_\alpha =D_\alpha ^𝔭`$.
2. We call $`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }(N)=\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }(N,𝔭)`$, defined in clause (1), version 1 of the game. Version 2 of the game is defined similarly, where

* in clause (d) we require $`\alpha _n_𝔭\beta _n`$.
    * in clause (e), we add the requirement $`M_n^{}=M_n(\chi _{\alpha _n}^𝔭)`$,

If we do not mention the version, it means that it holds for both versions.
3. Assume $`NN^{}((\chi ),)`$. We define the game $`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }^{}(N,N^{},𝔭)`$ similarly, where items (a) - (e) are replaced by:

1. the challenger chooses $`X_nD_\beta ^𝔭(N)N^{}`$ such that $`m<nX_nX_m^{}`$,
    2. the chooser chooses $`\alpha _n\alpha N`$ and $`X_n^{}X_n`$ such that $`X_n^{}D_\beta ^𝔭(N)N^{}`$,
    3. like (c) above,
    4. like (d) above, but we replace “$`Y_nN`$” by “$`Y_nN^{}`$”,
    5. like (e) above, but add $`Z_nN^{}`$.

Note that every proper initial segment of a play belongs to $`N^{}`$.

###### Definition 4.3.

Let $`𝔭`$ be a reasonable parameter.

1. For $`\alpha \beta <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$, we say $`𝔭`$ is a $`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }`$-winner (resp. non-$`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }`$-loser), if for some $`x(\chi _\beta ^𝔭)`$ we have:

1. if $`\{x,\alpha \}N_\beta ^𝔭`$, then the chooser wins the game $`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }(N,𝔭)`$
    2. (resp. the challenger does not win in the game $`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }(N,𝔭)`$).
2. Similarly we can define when $`𝔭`$ is a $`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }^{}`$-winner (resp. non-$`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }^{}`$-loser).
3. For any function $`f:\mathrm{}g(𝔭)𝒫(\mathrm{}g(𝔭))`$ we can replace $`\alpha ,\beta `$ by $`f`$, so that $`𝔭`$ is a $`\mathrm{}_f`$-winner (resp. non-$`\mathrm{}_f`$-loser) if for every $`\alpha <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$ and $`\beta f(\alpha )`$, $`𝔭`$ is a $`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }`$-winner (resp. non-$`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }`$-loser).

Given a reasonable parameter $`𝔭`$, we define some families of functions as follows.

###### Definition 4.4.

Let $`𝔭`$ be a reasonable parameter.

1. Let $`^𝔭`$ be the family of functions $`f`$ from $`\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$ to $`𝒫(\mathrm{}g(𝔭))`$ such that for each $`\alpha <\mathrm{}g(𝔭),f(\alpha )`$ is a nonempty subset of $`[\alpha ,\mathrm{}g(𝔭))`$.
2. Let $`_{\mathrm{club}}^𝔭`$ be the set of $`f^𝔭`$ such that for each $`\alpha <\mathrm{}g(𝔭),f(\alpha )`$ is a club of $`\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$.
3. Let $`_{\mathrm{nd}}^𝔭`$ be the set of $`f^𝔭`$ such that for each $`\alpha <\mathrm{}g(𝔭),f(\alpha )`$ is an end segment of $`\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$, we then may identify $`f(\alpha )`$ with $`\mathrm{min}(f(\alpha ))`$.
4. Call $`f^𝔭`$ decreasing continuous if

1. $`\alpha <\beta <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)f(\alpha )f(\beta )`$,
    2. for limit $`\delta <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$ we have $`f(\delta )=\{f(\alpha ):\alpha <\delta \}`$.

Let also $`fg`$ mean that $`(\alpha <\mathrm{}g(𝔭))(g(\alpha )f(\alpha ))`$.
5. Let $`_{\mathrm{dc}}^𝔭`$ be the set of decreasing continuous functions $`f_{\mathrm{club}}^𝔭`$.

We are interested in dealing with winning strategies for the games $`\mathrm{}_f`$, where $`f`$ is a function coming from one of the above family of functions. The next lemma gives some obvious monotonicity properties for these classes of functions.

###### Lemma 4.5.

Assume $`𝔭`$ is a reasonable parameter.

1. If $`\alpha _𝔭\alpha ^{}\beta =\beta ^{}<\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$, and $`𝔭`$ is a $`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }`$-winner, then it is $`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ^{},\beta ^{}}`$-winner. Similarly for $`\mathrm{}^{}`$-winner, non-$`\mathrm{}`$-loser and non-$`\mathrm{}^{}`$-loser.
2. If $`𝔭`$ is a $`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }`$-winner, then $`𝔭`$ is a $`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }^{}`$-winner and a non-$`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }`$-loser. If $`𝔭`$ is a $`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }^{}`$-winner or non-$`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }`$-loser, then $`𝔭`$ is non-$`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }^{}`$-loser.
3. Assume $`f,g^𝔭`$ and $`fg`$. If $`𝔭`$ is a $`\mathrm{}_f`$-winner (or $`\mathrm{}_f^{}`$-winner) (or non-$`\mathrm{}_f`$-loser) (or non-$`\mathrm{}_f^{}`$-loser), then $`𝔭`$ is a $`\mathrm{}_g`$-winner (or $`\mathrm{}_g^{}`$-winner) (or non-$`\mathrm{}_g`$-loser) (or non-$`\mathrm{}_g^{}`$-loser).

###### Proof.

(1) Suppose $`\sigma `$ is a winning strategy for chooser in the game $`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }`$. We show that it is a winning strategy for chooser in the game $`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ^{},\beta ^{}}`$ as well. Suppose not, so, following the notation of Definition 4.2,

$$\{Z_n\{M_n^{}\}:n<\omega \}D_\alpha ^{}^+(N)(=D_\alpha ^{}^+(N(\chi _\alpha ^{}^𝔭))).$$

It then follows that

$$N(\chi _\alpha ^{}^𝔭)\{Z_n\{M_n^{}\}:n<\omega \}D_\alpha ^{}(N).$$

But then, as $`\alpha _𝔭\alpha ^{},`$

$$N(\chi _\alpha ^𝔭)\{Z_n\{M_n^{}\}:n<\omega \}D_\alpha (N).$$

But, as $`\sigma `$ is a winning strategy for chooser in the game $`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }`$, we have

$$\{Z_n\{M_n^{}\}:n<\omega \}D_\alpha ^+(N),$$

a contradiction.

The proof of clause (2) is similar to the proof of Lemma 3.7(2) and the proof of clause (3) is straightforward. ∎

###### Lemma 4.6.

1. Assume $`𝔭`$ is a standard reasonable parameter. Then $`𝔭`$ is a winner.
2. If $`𝔭`$ is a reasonable parameter and it is a winner, then $`𝔭`$ is a $`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\alpha }`$-winner.
3. If $`𝔭`$ is a reasonable parameter and it is a winner and $`\alpha \beta <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$, then $`𝔭`$ is a $`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }`$-winner (hence $`\mathrm{}_f`$-winner for any $`f:\mathrm{}g(𝔭)𝒫(\mathrm{}g(𝔭))`$).
4. Similarly with $`\mathrm{}^{}`$-winner, $`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }^{}`$ winner and/or with the “non-loser” cases.

###### Proof.

Clause (1) follows from Lemma 3.7. The proof of items (2)-(4) is easy and follows from the Definitions 3.6 and 4.2. ∎

We now define an interpretation of reasonable parameters in the forcing extensions and show that these interpretations are reasonable parameters in the corresponding extension.

###### Definition 4.7.

Let $`𝔭`$ be a reasonable parameter and let $``$ be a proper forcing notions which adds no new reals. Suppose that $`𝒫()(\chi _0^𝔭)`$ and $`𝔾_{}`$ is generic over $`𝕍`$. We interpret $`𝔭`$ in $`𝕍^{}`$ as $`𝔭^{}=𝔭^{𝕍[𝔾_{}]}`$, defined as follows:

1. $`\chi _\alpha ^𝔭^{}=\chi _\alpha ^𝔭`$,
2. $`R_\alpha ^𝔭^{}=R_\alpha ^𝔭,,𝔾_P`$,
3. $`_\alpha ^𝔭^{}=\{N[𝔾_P]:N_\alpha ^𝔭`$, $`N`$ and $`N[𝔾_{}]V=N\}`$,
4. $`D_\alpha ^𝔭^{}(N[𝔾_{}])=\{\{M[𝔾_{}]_\alpha ^𝔭^{}:MY\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}_\beta ^𝔭\}:YD_\alpha ^𝔭(N)\}`$.

We also use $`𝔭^{}`$ for $`𝔭^{}=𝔭^{𝕍[𝔾_{}]}`$.

The proof of the next lemma is straightforward.

###### Lemma 4.8.

Let $`𝔭,`$ and $`𝔾_{}`$ be as in Definition 4.7.

1. $`𝔭^{𝕍[𝔾_{}]}`$ is a reasonable parameter in $`𝕍[𝔾_{}]`$.
2. If $`𝔭`$ is, in $`𝕍`$, a $`\mathrm{}`$-winner (or non-$`\mathrm{}`$-loser or $`\mathrm{}^{}`$-winner or non-$`\mathrm{}^{}`$-loser), then $`𝔭^{𝕍[𝔾_{}]}`$ is so in $`𝕍[𝔾_{}]`$.
3. If $`𝔭`$ is, in $`𝕍`$, a $`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }`$-winner (or non- $`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }`$-loser or $`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }^{}`$-winner or non-$`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }^{}`$-loser), then $`𝔭^{𝕍[𝔾_{}]}`$ is so in $`𝕍[𝔾_p]`$.

###### Proof.

(1). It is easily seen, using the fact that $``$ is an NNR proper forcing notion, that $`𝔭^{𝕍[𝔾_{}]}`$ satisfies items (a)-(i) of Definition 3.2 in $`𝕍[𝔾_{}]`$.

(2). Suppose $`𝔭`$ is a winner in $`𝕍`$. We show that $`𝔭^{}=𝔭^{𝕍[𝔾_{}]}`$ is a winner in $`𝕍[𝔾_{}]`$. Suppose $`\alpha <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$ and $`N^{}_\alpha ^𝔭^{}.`$ Then for some $`N_\alpha ^𝔭,N^{}=N[𝔾_{}]`$. Let $`\sigma `$ be a winning strategy for $`𝔭`$ for the game $`\mathrm{}_\alpha (N,𝔭)`$. We define the winning strategy $`\sigma ^{}`$ for the game $`\mathrm{}_\alpha (N^{},𝔭^{})`$ in $`𝕍[𝔾_{}]`$ as follows. Following the notation of Definition 3.6, in the $`n`$-th move, challenger chooses some $`X_n^{}D_\alpha ^𝔭^{}(N^{})`$. So for some $`X_nD_\alpha ^𝔭(N)`$, we have $`X_n^{}=\{M[𝔾_{}]_\alpha ^𝔭^{}:MX_n\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}_\beta ^𝔭\}`$. Let $`M_nX_n`$ and $`Y_nM_nX_n`$ with $`Y_nD^𝔭(M_n)N`$ be the play that chooser does using the strategy $`\sigma `$. Let $`M_n^{}=M_n[𝔾_{}]`$ and $`Y_n^{}=\{M[𝔾_{}]:MY_n\}`$ be what chooser replies via $`\sigma ^{}.`$ Then challenger chooses some $`Z_n^{}Y_n^{}`$ with $`Z_n^{}D^𝔭^{}(M_n^{})`$. Thus for some $`Z_nY_n`$ with $`Z_nD^𝔭(M_n)𝕍,`$ we have $`Z_n^{}=\{M[𝔾_{}]:MZ_n\}.`$ Since $`\sigma `$ is a winning strategy, $`\{\{M_n\}Z_n:n<\omega \}D^𝔭(N).`$ It then follows that

$$\{\{M_n^{}\}Z_n^{}:n<\omega \}D^𝔭^{}(N^{}).$$

Thus $`\sigma ^{}`$ is a winning strategy for chooser for the game $`\mathrm{}_\alpha (N^{},𝔭^{})`$. The proof for non-$`\mathrm{}`$-loser or $`\mathrm{}^{}`$-winner or non-$`\mathrm{}^{}`$-loser is the same.

Clause (3) can be proved similarly. ∎

###### Definition 4.9.

Let $`𝔭`$ be a reasonable parameter and let $``$ be a forcing notion.

1. For $`\alpha \beta <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$, we say $``$ is $`(𝔭,\alpha ,\beta )`$-proper if $`𝒫()(\chi _0^𝔭)`$ and:

1. for some $`x(\chi _\beta ^𝔭)`$, if $`N_\beta ^𝔭,\{x,,\alpha \}N,pN`$ and $`YD_\alpha ^𝔭(N)`$, then for some $`q`$ we have:

    1. $`pq`$,
        2. $`q`$ is $`(N,)`$-generic,
        3. for some $`N^{}(_\alpha ^𝔭NY)\{N(\chi _\alpha ^𝔭)\}`$ satisfying $`\alpha =\beta N^{}=N`$ we have q``[𝔾

        ~
        ,N,y]YDα𝔭(N)"subscriptforces𝑞``subscriptsubscript𝔾

        ~
        superscript𝑁superscript𝑦𝑌subscriptsuperscript𝐷𝔭𝛼superscript𝑁"q\Vdash_{{\mathbb{Q}}}``{{\mathscr{M}}}_{{\mathbb{Q}}}[\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{Q}}},N^{\prime},y^{*}]\cap Y\in D^{{\mathfrak{p}}}_{\alpha}(N^{\prime})" where $`y^{}=x,p,`$. Note that this implies $`q`$ is $`(N^{},)`$-generic.

    We call the above, version 1 of $`(𝔭,\alpha ,\beta )`$-properness. Version 2 of $`(𝔭,\alpha ,\beta )`$-properness is defined similarly, but we demand $`N^{}=N(\chi _\alpha ^𝔭)`$ and $`\alpha _𝔭\beta `$.
2. We say $``$ is $`(𝔭,f)`$-proper, where $`f^𝔭`$ (see Definition 4.4), when for every $`\alpha <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$ and $`\beta f(\alpha )`$, the forcing notion $``$ is $`(𝔭,\alpha ,\beta )`$-proper.
3. We say $``$ is $`𝔭`$-proper if $``$ is $`(𝔭,\alpha ,\alpha )`$-proper for $`\alpha <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$. We say $``$ is almost $`𝔭`$-proper if $``$ is $`(𝔭,f)`$-proper for some $`f^𝔭`$.

The next lemma shows some relations between the above defined notions.

###### Lemma 4.10.

Assume $`𝔭`$ is a simple reasonable parameter.

1. If $`\alpha ^{}\alpha \beta \beta ^{}<\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$ (for version 2 we demand $`\alpha ^{}_𝔭\beta ^{}`$ and $`\alpha _𝔭\beta `$) and $``$ is a $`(𝔭,\alpha ,\beta )`$-proper forcing notion, then $``$ is a $`(𝔭,\alpha ^{},\beta ^{})`$-proper forcing notion.
2. Assume $`f,f^{}`$ are in $`^𝔭`$ and $`ff^{}`$. If $``$ is a $`(𝔭,f)`$-proper forcing notion, then $``$ is a $`(𝔭,f^{})`$-proper forcing notion.

###### Proof.

(1) Suppose $``$ is $`(𝔭,\alpha ,\beta )`$-proper as witnessed by $`x(\chi _\beta ^𝔭)(\chi _\beta ^{}^𝔭)`$. We show that $`x`$ witnesses that $``$ is $`(𝔭,\alpha ^{},\beta ^{})`$-proper as well. Thus let $`N_\beta ^{}^𝔭`$ with $`\{x,,\alpha \}N,pN`$ and $`YD_\alpha ^{}^𝔭(N)`$. Then $`N(\chi _\beta ^𝔭)_\beta ^𝔭`$. Let $`qp`$ be as in Definition 4.9 and it witnesses that $``$ is $`(𝔭,\alpha ,\beta )`$-proper with respect to $`N(\chi _\beta ^𝔭),p`$ and $`Y`$. Then $`q`$ witnesses $``$ is $`(𝔭,\alpha ^{},\beta ^{})`$-proper with respect to $`N,p`$ and $`Y`$.

(2) is clear, as for every $`\alpha <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$, $`f^{}(\alpha )f(\alpha )`$. ∎

It follows from the above lemma that if $`𝔭`$ is a simple reasonable parameter and $`f^𝔭`$, then

$`𝔭`$-proper $`(𝔭,f)`$-proper $``$ almost $`𝔭`$-proper.

We may like to consider $`(𝔭,f)`$-properness for iterations which may add reals. Then we have to replace $`D_\alpha ^𝔭(N)`$ by a definition which is absolute enough (and the non-loser versions have to be absolute enough as well). In such situations, it is natural to restrict ourselves to those sets $`Y`$ which are $`𝔭`$-closed, see below.

###### Definition 4.11.

Let $`𝔭`$ be a simple reasonable parameter, $`\alpha <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$ and $`N_\alpha ^𝔭`$. A subset $`YN`$ is called $`𝔭`$-closed if:

1. $`YN\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}_\beta ^𝔭`$,
2. if $`MN_\beta ^𝔭`$, $`\beta <\alpha `$ (hence $`\beta \alpha M\alpha N`$), $`\gamma M\beta `$ and $`M(\chi _\gamma ^𝔭)_\gamma ^𝔭`$,777note that this requirement is redundant if $`𝔭`$ is simple or just $`\gamma _𝔭\beta `$. then

$$M(\chi _\gamma ^𝔭)YMY,$$
3. if $`\beta <\alpha ,M_{\mathrm{}}N_\beta ^𝔭`$ (hence $`\beta \alpha N`$), $`M_{\mathrm{}}M_{\mathrm{}+1}`$ for $`\mathrm{}<\omega `$ and $`M=\underset{\mathrm{}<\omega }{}M_{\mathrm{}}N_\beta ^𝔭`$, and even $`M_{\mathrm{}}:\mathrm{}<\omega N`$, then

$$\left(\underset{\mathrm{}<\omega }{}M_{\mathrm{}}Y\right)MY.$$

###### Definition 4.12.

Assume $`𝔭`$ is a reasonable parameter, $``$ is a forcing notion and   $``$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   is a $``$-name of a forcing notion.

1. For $`\alpha \beta <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$, we say   $``$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   has $`(\kappa ,\alpha ,\beta )`$-anti w.d. above $``$ (or (,

~
)

~
({\mathbb{P}},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}) has $`(\kappa ,\alpha ,\beta )`$-anti-w.d.), if clause (A) implies clause (B), where:

1. $`(a)N_0_\alpha ^𝔭`$ and $`N_1_\beta ^𝔭`$,
    2. $`(b)N_0N_1`$ and {,

    ~
    }N0

    ~
    subscript𝑁0\{{\mathbb{P}},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}\}\in N_{0},
    3. $`(c)n<1+\kappa `$,
    4. $`(d)p_{\mathrm{}}`$ is $`(N_\iota ,)`$-generic for $`\mathrm{}<n`$ and $`\iota =0,1`$,
    5. (e)p``𝔾

    ~
    N1=𝔾"forces𝑒subscript𝑝``subscript𝔾

    ~
    subscript𝑁1superscript𝔾"(e)\quad p_{\ell}\Vdash``\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}}\cap N_{1}=\mathbb{G}^{\ell}" for $`\mathrm{}<n`$,
    6. $`(f)𝔾^{\mathrm{}}N_0=𝔾^{}`$ for $`\mathrm{}<n`$,
    7. $`(g)Y=\underset{\mathrm{}<n}{}_{}[𝔾^{\mathrm{}},N_1,y]`$ belongs to $`D_\beta ^𝔭(N_1)`$, where y=N0,,

    ~
    ,𝑦subscript𝑁0

    ~
    y=\langle N_{0},{\mathbb{P}},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}\rangle,
    8. (h)q

    ~
    𝑞

    ~
    (h)\quad\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}} is a $``$-name of a member of   $``$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$  ,
    9. (i)q

    ~
    N0𝑖𝑞

    ~
    subscript𝑁0(i)\quad\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}\in N_{0},
    1. there is a triple (p:<n,q

    ~
    ,𝔾)(\langle p^{\prime}_{\ell}:\ell<n\rangle,\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\prime},\mathbb{G}^{**}) such that:
    2. (a)q

    ~
    𝑎superscript𝑞

    ~
    (a)\quad\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\prime} is a $``$-name of a member of   $``$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$  ,
    3. (b)p``q

    ~
    q

    ~
    forces𝑏subscriptsuperscript𝑝``𝑞

    ~
    superscript𝑞

    ~
    (b)\quad p^{\prime}_{\ell}\Vdash``\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}\leq\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\prime}” for $`\mathrm{}<n`$,
    4. (c)𝔾Gen(N0,

    ~
    ),𝑐superscript𝔾absentGensubscript𝑁0

    ~
    (c)\quad\mathbb{G}^{**}\in{\rm Gen}(N_{0},{\mathbb{P}}*\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}),
    5. (d)(p,q

    ~
    )``𝔾

    ~
    N0=𝔾"forces𝑑subscriptsuperscript𝑝superscript𝑞

    ~
    ``subscript𝔾

    ~
    subscript𝑁0superscript𝔾absent"(d)\quad(p^{\prime}_{\ell},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\prime})\Vdash``\mathbb{G}_{{\mathbb{P}}*\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}}\cap N_{0}=\mathbb{G}^{**}" for $`\mathrm{}<n`$.
2. Given a function $`f^𝔭`$, we say   $``$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   has $`(\kappa ,f)`$-anti w.d. above $``$ (or (,

~
)

~
({\mathbb{P}},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}) has $`(\kappa ,f)`$-anti-w.d.), if for every $`\alpha <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$,   $``$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   has $`(\kappa ,\alpha ,f(\alpha ))`$-anti w.d. above $``$.

###### Remark 4.13.

We may assume that the conditions $`p_{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{}<n,`$ in clause (1)(A)(d) of the above definition are pairwise incompatible. If $`p_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`p_\iota `$ are compatible, then by clause (1)(A)(e), $`C^{\mathrm{}}=C^\iota ,`$ so we may replace $`p_{\mathrm{}},p_\iota `$ by a common extension $`p_{\mathrm{},\iota }`$ of them and take $`C^{\mathrm{},\iota }=C^{\mathrm{}}.`$

As the sets $`(\chi _\alpha )`$ may change with forcing, we may prefer to use $`_\alpha [\chi _\alpha ]^\mathrm{}_0`$. For this reason, we define the notion of ordinal based parameter, and we will show that any ordinal based parameter gives naturally a reasonable parameter.

###### Definition 4.14.

1. We call $`𝔭`$ an o.b. (ordinal based) parameter if

$$𝔭=(\overline{\chi }^𝔭,\overline{R}^𝔭,\overline{}^𝔭,\overline{D}^𝔭)(=(\overline{\chi },\overline{R},\overline{},\overline{D})),$$

where for some ordinal $`\alpha ^{}`$, called $`\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$, we have:

1. $`\overline{\chi }=\chi _\alpha :\alpha <\alpha ^{},`$ where $`\chi _\alpha `$ is a regular cardinal and $`((\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}\chi _\beta )^+)(\chi _\alpha )`$,
    2. $`\overline{R}=R_\alpha :\alpha <\alpha ^{},`$ where $`R_\alpha `$ is an $`n(R_\alpha )`$-place relation on some bounded subset of $`\chi _\alpha `$, 888we could have asked “on $`\chi _\alpha `$”, as there is no real difference.
    3. $`\overline{}=_\alpha :\alpha <\alpha ^{}`$, where $`_\alpha [\chi _\alpha ]^\mathrm{}_0`$ is stationary,
    4. $`\overline{D}=D_\alpha :\alpha <\alpha ^{}`$ and $`D_\alpha `$ is a function with domain $`_\alpha `$ and for each $`a_\alpha ,D_\alpha (a)`$ is a pseudo-filter on $`a`$,
    5. let $`𝔭^{[\alpha ]}=\overline{\chi }\alpha ,\overline{R}(\alpha +1),\overline{}\alpha ,\overline{D}\alpha `$,
    6. if $`a_\alpha `$ and $`Xa`$, then

    $$XD_\alpha (a)X\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}_\beta D_\alpha (a).$$
2. An o.b. parameter $`𝔭`$ is simple if in addition, it satisfies:

1. if $`a_\alpha `$, $`XD_\alpha (a)`$ and $`\beta \alpha a`$, then $`a\chi _\beta _\beta `$.
3. For $`𝔭`$ as above let $`𝔮=𝔭^𝕍`$ be defined by

* $`\mathrm{}g(𝔮)=\mathrm{}g(𝔭),`$

and we define by induction on $`\alpha <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$

* $`\chi _\alpha ^𝔮=\chi _\alpha ^𝔭,`$
    * $`R_\alpha ^𝔮=R_\alpha ^𝔭,`$
    * $`_\alpha ^𝔮=\{N((\chi _\alpha ^𝔮),):N\text{ is countable},N\chi _\alpha ^𝔭_\alpha ^𝔭`$ and $`𝔮^{[\alpha ]}N\}`$. Note that $`𝔮^{[\alpha ]}`$ is well defined by the induction hypothesis.
    * $`D_\alpha ^𝔮(N)`$ is defined as

    $$\begin{array}{cc}D_\alpha ^𝔮(N)=\{Y^{}:\hfill & Y^{}\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}_\beta ^𝔮\text{ and for some }yN\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}(\chi _\beta ^𝔭)\hfill \\ & \text{ and }YD_\alpha ^𝔭(N\chi _\alpha ^𝔭)\text{ we have }Y^{}\{M:M\hfill \\ & N\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}_\beta ^𝔮\text{ and }yM\text{ and }M\chi _\alpha ^𝔭Y\}\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
4. For an o.b. parameter $`𝔭`$, we say $`\overline{}`$ is an $`NNR_\kappa ^0`$-iteration for $`𝔭`$ if it is an $`NNR_\kappa ^0`$-iteration for $`𝔭^𝕍`$. We say $`𝔭`$ is simple if $`𝔭^𝕍`$ is. Similarly for $`\mathrm{}`$-winner, non-$`\mathrm{}`$-loser, etc.

The next lemma shows that each o.b. parameter leads to a canonical reasonable parameter, namely $`𝔭^𝕍`$, and also shows the advantage of working with o.b. parameters than reasonable parameters.

###### Lemma 4.15.

Assume $`𝔭`$ is an o.b. (simple) parameter in the universe $`𝕍`$.

1. $`𝔭^𝕍`$ is a (simple) reasonable parameter.
2. If $`(\chi _0^𝔭)`$ is a proper forcing notion (or at least it preserves the stationarity of $`_\alpha ^𝔭`$, for each $`\alpha <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$), then $`_{}\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}𝔭`$ is an o.b. (simple) parameter”.
3. If forcing with $``$ adds no reals, then also $`\mathrm{}`$-winner, non-$`\mathrm{}`$-loser, etc., are preserved.

###### Proof.

Straightforward. ∎

###### Definition 4.16.

Let $`𝔭`$ be an o.b. parameter.

1. We say $`𝕍`$ is an $`NNR_\kappa ^0`$-forcing for $`𝔭`$ or is a $`𝔭NNR_\kappa ^0`$-forcing notion, when the following holds:

* if for some transitive class $`𝕍_0`$ with $`𝔭𝕍_0`$ and some $`NNR_\kappa ^0`$-iteration ¯=i,

    ~
    i:i<α𝕍0\bar{{\mathbb{Q}}}=\langle{\mathbb{P}}_{i},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i}:i<\alpha\rangle\in\mathbb{V}_{0} we have $`𝕍_0^{\mathrm{Lim}(\overline{})}=𝕍`$, then we can let $`_\alpha =\mathrm{Lim}(\overline{}),`$

    ~
    α=subscript

    ~
    𝛼\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}={\mathbb{Q}} and get an $`NNR_\kappa ^0`$-iteration ¯=i,

    ~
    i:i<α+1\bar{{\mathbb{Q}}}^{\prime}=\langle{\mathbb{P}}_{i},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i}:i<\alpha+1\rangle. (i.e. $`𝕍=𝕍_0[𝔾_\alpha ],𝔾_\alpha _\alpha `$ is generic over $`𝕍_0`$ and there is a $`_\alpha `$-name

    ~
    αsubscript

    ~
    𝛼\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha} such that i,

    ~
    i:iαdelimited-⟨⟩:subscript𝑖subscript

    ~
    𝑖𝑖𝛼\langle{\mathbb{P}}_{i},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i}:i\leq\alpha\rangle is an $`NNR_\kappa ^0`$-iteration and =

    ~
    α[𝔾α]subscript

    ~
    𝛼delimited-[]subscript𝔾𝛼{\mathbb{Q}}=\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}[\mathbb{G}_{\alpha}]). In particular $``$ is proper and does not add reals.
2. If we omit “for $`𝔭`$” we mean for any $`𝔭`$ which makes sense. Alternatively, we can put a family of $`𝔭`$’s.
3. We add “over $`x`$” if this holds whenever $`x𝕍_0`$. We can use the same definition for other versions of NNR.

In the next section we will present several examples of forcing notions that fit into the above definition, in the sense that they are $`𝔭NNR_\kappa ^0`$ for some $`2\kappa \mathrm{}_0`$ and some reasonable parameter $`𝔭.`$

## 5. Examples: shooting thin clubs

In this section we present some examples that fit into our framework. We already know that $`(<\omega _1)`$-proper forcing notions are $`𝔭`$-proper for standard reasonable parameter $`𝔭`$ of length $`\omega _1`$ (by Lemma 3.17). We first deal with a forcing notion which is $`\text{NNR}_\kappa ^0`$-proper, for some $`\kappa <\mathrm{}_0`$. Second, we deal with shooting clubs of $`\omega _1`$ running away from some $`C_\delta \delta =sup(C_\delta )`$ which are small (see \[6, Ch.XVIII, §1\]). These are the most natural non-$`\omega `$-proper forcing notions which do not add reals.

###### Definition 5.1.

1. Let $`\overline{C}=(C_\delta ,n_\delta ):\delta <\omega _1,\delta \text{ limit}`$, where $`C_\delta `$ is an unbounded subset of $`\delta `$ of order type $`\omega `$ and $`1n_\delta <\omega `$. Let $`\overline{u}=u_\delta :\delta <\omega _1,\delta \text{ limit}`$, where $`u_\delta [2n_\delta +1]^{n_\delta }`$. Then we define $`=_{\overline{C},\overline{u}}`$ by

$$\begin{array}{cccc}_{\overline{C},\overline{u}}=\{f:& \text{for some }\alpha <\omega _1,f\text{ is a function from }\alpha \text{ to }\hfill & & \\ & \omega \text{ such that for every limit ordinal }\delta \alpha ,\hfill & & \\ & \text{ for some }k<2n_\delta +1,ku_\delta \text{ and for every}\hfill & & \\ & iC_\delta \text{ large enough we have }f(i)=k\}.\hfill & & \end{array}$$

$`_{\overline{C},\overline{u}}`$ is ordered by inclusion.
2. Assume $`\overline{C}=C_\delta :\delta <\omega _1,\delta \text{ limit},C_\delta `$ a closed subset of $`\delta `$ of order type less than $`\omega \delta `$ and for $`\delta _1<\delta _2`$ limit ordinals, $`sup(C_{\delta _1}C_{\delta _2})<\delta _1`$, and for limit $`\delta ^{}`$ we have $`\{C_\delta \delta ^{}:\delta <\omega _1\}`$ is countable. Assume further that $`\overline{\kappa }=\kappa _\delta :\delta <\omega _1,\delta \text{ limit}`$ with $`\kappa _\delta \{2,3,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_0\}`$ and $`\overline{D}=D_\delta :\delta <\omega _1,D_\delta `$ is a family of subsets of $`\mathrm{dom}(D_\delta )`$, such that the intersection of any $`<\kappa _\delta `$ of them is non-empty.

Let $`\overline{f}=f_{\delta ,x}:\delta <\omega _1,x\mathrm{dom}(D_\delta )`$ satisfy $`f_{\delta ,x}:C_\delta \omega `$ and $`\overline{A}=A_\delta :\delta <\omega _1`$ satisfy $`A_\delta D_\delta `$. Then we define $`=_{\overline{C},\overline{D},\overline{\kappa },\overline{f},\overline{A}}`$ as

$$\begin{array}{cccc}_{\overline{C},\overline{D},\overline{\kappa },\overline{f},\overline{A}}=\{f:& \text{ for some }\alpha <\omega _1,f\text{ is a function from }\alpha \text{ to }\omega \hfill & & \\ & \text{ such that for every limit }\delta \alpha \text{ and for some}\hfill & & \\ & xA_\delta \text{ we have }f_{\delta ,x}^{}f\text{ i.e. for every large }\hfill & & \\ & \text{ enough }iC_\delta \text{ we have }f_{\delta ,x}(i)=f(i)\}.\hfill & & \end{array}$$

$`_{\overline{C},\overline{D},\overline{\kappa },\overline{f},\overline{A}}`$ is ordered by inclusion.

###### Lemma 5.2.

1. The forcing notion $`=_{\overline{C},\overline{u}}`$ from Definition 5.1(1) is proper, does not add reals, and is $`(<\omega _1)`$-proper. It is also $`𝔻`$-complete for some simple 2-completeness system, hence

1. if $`\overline{}`$ is a countable support iteration, $`\mathrm{}g(\overline{})=\alpha +1,\overline{}\alpha `$ is NNR$`{}_{2}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$-iteration and α``

    ~
    α=C¯,u¯",(C¯,u¯)formulae-sequencesubscriptforcessubscript𝛼absent``subscript

    ~
    𝛼subscript¯𝐶¯𝑢"¯𝐶¯𝑢\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\alpha}}``\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}={\mathbb{Q}}_{\bar{C},\bar{u}}",\,\,(\bar{C},\bar{u}) as above $`𝕍`$, then $`\overline{}`$ is an NNR$`{}_{2}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$-iteration.
2. Similarly for the forcing notion $`=_{\overline{C},\overline{D},\overline{\kappa },\overline{f},\overline{A}}`$ from Definition 5.1(2).

###### Proof.

We only prove (1), as (2) can be proved in a similar way. Set $`=_{\overline{C},\overline{u}}`$.

Let us start by showing that $``$ does not add reals. Thus suppose that $`f`$,   $`t`$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   is a $``$-name and $`f`$t

~
:ω2:𝑡

~
𝜔2\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}:\omega\to 2 is a real”. Let $`\chi `$ be a large enough regular cardinal and let $`N_n:n<\omega `$ be a chain of countable elementary submodels of $`(H(\chi ),)`$ such that ,f,t

~
N0𝑓𝑡

~
subscript𝑁0{\mathbb{Q}},f,\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}\in N_{0} and for each $`n<\omega ,N_nN_{n+1}`$. Set $`N=_{n<\omega }N_n`$ and $`\delta =N\omega _1`$. Also for each $`n<\omega `$ set $`\delta _n=N_n\omega _1.`$ Pick some $`k<2n_\delta +1,ku_\delta .`$ We define by induction on $`n<\omega `$ a sequence $`f_n:n<\omega `$ of conditions in $``$, such that:

1. $`f_nN_n,`$
2. $`f_0=f,`$
3. for some $`\delta _{n1}<\alpha _n<\delta _n,f_n:\alpha _n\omega `$, where $`\delta _1=0,`$
4. $`f_nf_{n+1}`$,
5. $`\alpha _nC_\delta ,`$
6. for all $`iC_\delta \alpha _n(\alpha _0+1),f_n(i)=k`$.
7. $`f_n`$ decides t

~
n𝑡

~
𝑛\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}\restriction n.

The construction can be done quite easily, noting that for each $`n,C_\delta \delta _n`$ is bounded in $`\delta _n`$. Let $`f^{}=_{n<\omega }f_n.`$ Then $`f^{}`$ extends $`f`$ and it decides   $`t`$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$  .

To show that $``$ is $`<\omega _1`$-proper, fix $`\alpha <\omega _1`$ a limit ordinal and let $`\overline{N}=N_\xi :\xi <\alpha `$ be an increasing and continuous chain of countable elementary submodels of some $`(H(\chi ),)`$ such that $`\alpha ,N_0`$ and $`\overline{N}\xi +1N_{\xi +1}`$. For each $`\xi <\alpha `$ set $`\delta _\xi =N_\xi \omega _1.`$

Let $`fN_0.`$ By essentially the same argument as above, we can find a sequence $`f_\xi :\xi <\alpha `$ of conditions in $``$, with $`f_\xi :\beta _\xi \omega `$ such that:

1. $`f_0=f`$,
2. $`f_\xi f_{\xi +1}`$,
3. if $`\xi `$ is a limit ordinal, then $`f_\xi =_{\zeta <\xi }f_\zeta ,`$
4. $`\delta _\xi <\beta _{\xi +1}<\delta _{\xi +1}`$,
5. $`f_{\xi +1}N_{\xi +1}`$ is $`(,N_\xi )`$-generic,
6. $`f^{}=_{\xi <\alpha }f_\xi `$ is a condition.

Then $`f^{}f`$ is $`(,N_\xi )`$-generic for every $`\xi <\alpha .`$

Let us show that $``$ is $`𝔻`$-complete for some simple 2-completeness system. Let $`\theta `$ be large enough regular and let $`𝔻`$ be a function whose domain consists of those pairs $`(N,f)`$ where $`N(H(\theta ),)`$ is countable, $`N`$ and $`fN.`$ Now suppose that $`(N,f)\mathrm{dom}(𝔻)`$. Set

$$𝔻(N,f)=\{A_x:x\text{ is a finitary relation on }N\},$$

where for any such $`x`$,

$$A_x=\{𝔾\text{Gen}(N,,f):N𝒫(N)\mathrm{\Psi }(x,𝔾,N,,f)\}$$

and the formula $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ says that “if $`x=(y,k),`$ where $`y`$ is an $`\omega `$-sequence cofinal in $`\delta =N\delta `$ and $`k<2n_\delta +1,ku_\delta `$, then $`𝔾y`$ is eventually equal to $`k`$.

Let us show that $`𝔻`$ is a simple 2-completeness system. Thus suppose that $`x_0,x_1`$ are given, and we have to show that $`A_{x_0}A_{x_1}`$ is non-empty. The only non-trivial case is when $`x_0,x_1`$ satisfy the hypotheses of the formula $`\mathrm{\Psi }.`$ Thus suppose that $`x_0=(y_0,k_0)`$ and $`x_1=(y_1,k_1)`$, where $`y_0,y_1`$ are $`\omega `$-sequences cofinal in $`\delta `$ and $`k_0,k_1<2n_\delta +1,k_0,k_1u_\delta `$. If $`y_0y_1`$ is cofinal in $`\delta `$, then we must have $`k_0=k_1`$ and so by the previous arguments we can find an increasing sequence $`f_n:n<\omega `$ of extensions of $`f`$ in $`N`$ such that $`f^{}=\underset{n<\omega }{}f_n`$ gives rise to a filter $`𝔾\text{Gen}(N,,f)`$ such that $`f^{}(y_0y_1)`$ is eventually equal to $`k_0`$ and we are done. Otherwise, $`y_0y_1`$ is bounded in $`\delta ,`$ so for some $`\eta <\delta ,y_0y_1\eta `$. By enlarging $`\eta `$ we may also assume that $`\mathrm{dom}(f)\eta .`$ Again, by similar arguments as above, it is not difficult to build an increasing sequence $`f_n:n<\omega `$ of extensions of $`f`$ in $`N`$ such that $`f^{}=\underset{n<\omega }{}f_n`$ gives rise to a filter $`𝔾\text{Gen}(N,,f)`$ such that $`f^{}(y_0\eta )`$ is eventually equal to $`k_0`$ and $`f^{}(y_1\eta )`$ is eventually equal to $`k_1`$. Then $`𝔾A_{x_0}A_{x_1}`$ and we are done.

It is now clear that $``$ is $`𝔻`$-complete, which completes the proof. ∎

###### Definition 5.3.

Assume $`\overline{C}=C_\delta :\delta <\omega _1,\delta \text{ limit }`$, where $`C_\delta `$ is an unbounded subset of the limit ordinal $`\delta `$ (think of the case $`C_\delta `$ of order type $`<\delta `$ but not necessarily). Let

$$\begin{array}{cccc}_{\overline{C}}=\{c:& \text{ for some }\alpha <\omega _1,c\text{ is a closed subset of }\alpha \hfill & & \\ & \text{ and for every limit ordinal }\delta \alpha \text{ we have}\hfill & & \\ & \delta =sup(c\delta )cC_\delta \text{ is bounded in }\delta \}.\hfill & & \end{array}$$

Order $`_{\overline{C}}`$ by

$$c_1<c_2c_1\text{ is an initial segment of }c_2.$$

###### Remark 5.4.

1. For more information about the above forcing notion see \[6, Ch.XVIII, §1, 1.9\]. Note that $`_{\overline{C}}`$ may be non-$`\omega `$-proper.
2. Note that $`c_{\overline{C}}`$ is a closed subset of $`\alpha `$, but not necessarily a closed subset of $`\omega _1`$.

In general the forcing notion $`_{\overline{C}}`$ might be trivial, say for example when for every limit ordinal $`\delta ,C_\delta =\delta .`$ We are interested in the cases that this forcing notion is non-trivial, and we first deal with the simple case of $`\mathrm{otp}(C_\delta )=\omega `$.

###### Lemma 5.5.

Assume $`𝔭`$ is a simple reasonable parameter, $`\overline{C}`$ is as in Definition 5.3 and $`\underset{\delta }{}\mathrm{otp}(C_\delta )=\omega `$. Let $`f^𝔭`$ be defined as $`f(0)=0`$ and $`f(\beta )=1+\beta `$ for $`\beta >0`$. Then $`_{\overline{C}}`$ is $`(𝔭,f)`$-proper.

In Lemma 5.6 we prove a stronger result, which includes the above lemma as a very special case. Note that if $`\underset{\delta }{}\mathrm{otp}(C_\delta )<\delta `$, then we can split the analysis by restricting ourselves to $`\{N:N\omega _1S_\gamma \}`$, where $`\gamma <\omega _1`$ is such that $`S_\gamma =\{\delta :\mathrm{otp}(C_\delta )=\gamma \}`$ is stationary.

###### Lemma 5.6.

1. Assume

1. $`𝔭`$ is a simple reasonable parameter,
    2. $`f^𝔭`$ and $`𝔭`$ is non-$`\mathrm{}_f`$-loser,
    3. $`\gamma ()<\omega _1`$,
    4. $`\overline{C}=C_\delta :\delta <\omega _1,C_\delta \delta =sup(C_\delta )`$.
    5. $`\mathrm{otp}(C_\delta )\omega ^{\gamma ()}`$ for every $`\delta `$,

Define $`g^𝔭`$ by recursion as

* $`g(0)=0,`$
    * $`g(1)=f(1)+\gamma (),`$
    * $`g(\alpha +1)=f(g(\alpha ))+\gamma ()+1`$, for $`\alpha >0,`$
    * for limit ordinals $`\alpha ,g(\alpha )=\underset{\beta <\alpha }{sup}g(\beta )`$.

Then for every $`\alpha <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$, the forcing notion $`=_{\overline{C}}`$ is $`(𝔭,\alpha ,g(\alpha ))`$-proper (version 1).
2. In part (1), we can get “version 2” of $`(𝔭,\alpha ,g(\alpha ))`$-properness when the following is satisfied: if $`g(\delta )=\delta ,N_\alpha ^𝔭,C\omega _1N=sup(C),\mathrm{otp}(C)\omega ^{\gamma ()}`$ and $`YD_\alpha ^𝔭(N)`$, then $`Y^{}=\{MY:M\omega _1C\}D_\alpha ^𝔭(N)`$.
3. If we weaken clause $`(b)`$ to $`(b)_{f,g}`$, where

1. $`(b)_{f,g}:f^𝔭`$, $`f(f(\alpha ))=f(\alpha )`$ for every $`\alpha <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$ and $`𝔭`$ is a
    2. non-$`\mathrm{}_f^{}`$-loser,

then for $`\alpha <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$, the forcing notion $`_{\overline{C}}`$ is $`(𝔭,\alpha ,f(\gamma ()+\alpha ))`$-proper.

###### Proof.

We only prove clause (2). Note that version 2 is harder to prove, and using the extra freedom, we can avoid the need for the extra assumption from (2) to prove (1). First observe that

1. for each $`\alpha <\omega _1`$ the set $`_\alpha ^{}=\{p_{\overline{C}}:\text{ there is }\beta p\text{ which is }\alpha \}`$ is an open dense subset of $`_{\overline{C}}`$.

We prove (2) by induction on $`\alpha `$. Let $`\beta =g(\alpha )`$. Let $`N_\beta ^𝔭`$ be countable with $`_{\overline{C}},\alpha ,\beta ,f,gN`$, $`pN_{\overline{C}}`$, and suppose $`YD_\beta ^𝔭(N)`$ is given. Let $`\delta =\delta _N=N\omega _1`$.

Case 1: $`\alpha =0`$. In this case, we are reduced to show that $`_{\overline{C}}`$ is proper. Let $`_n:n<\omega `$ list the dense open subsets of $`_{\overline{C}}`$ that belong to $`N`$. We shall choose by induction on $`n<\omega `$, a condition $`p_n`$ such that:

1. $`p_0=p,`$
2. for each $`n`$, $`p_nN`$,
3. $`p_np_{n+1}_n`$,
4. the set $`p_{n+1}\{supp_{n+1}\}\backslash (p_n\{supp_n\})`$ is disjoint from $`C_\delta `$.

Set $`p_0=p`$. Now assume $`p_n`$ has been chosen and we shall choose $`p_{n+1}`$ as requested. Let $`F_nN`$ be a function with domain $`_{\overline{C}}`$ such that for all $`q_{\overline{C}},qF_n(q)_n`$.

For $`\alpha <\omega _1`$ let $`q^{[\alpha ]}=q\{sup(q)\}\{sup(q)+1+\alpha \}`$, so clearly $`qq^{[\alpha ]}_{\overline{C}}`$ and the function $`(q,\alpha )q^{[\alpha ]}`$ belongs to $`N`$. Define a function $`H:\omega _1\omega _1`$ by $`H(\alpha )=sup(F_n(p_n^{[\alpha ]}))`$. Clearly it is well defined and belongs to $`N`$. Let

$$C=\{\beta <\omega _1:\beta \text{ a limit ordinal, }\omega \beta =\beta ,(\alpha <\beta )(H(\alpha )<\beta )\text{ and }sup(p_n)<\beta \}.$$

It is easily seen that $`C`$ is a club of $`\omega _1`$ which belongs to $`N`$ and $`\gamma ()N`$, hence we can find $`\beta ^{}C`$ such that $`\mathrm{otp}(\beta ^{}C)`$ is divisible by $`\omega ^{\gamma ()}`$. But $`\mathrm{otp}(C_\delta \beta ^{})<\omega ^{\gamma ()}`$, hence for some $`\beta C`$ we have $`sup(C_\delta \beta )<\beta `$. Let $`p_{n+1}=F_n(p^{[sup(C_\delta \beta )+1]})`$.

Set $`q=\underset{n<\omega }{}p_n`$. Then for each $`\alpha <N\omega _1,_\alpha ^{}\{_n:n<\omega \}`$, hence

$$\beta \left(\beta q\text{ and }\alpha \beta <\omega _1\right).$$

It follows that $`q`$ is $`(N,_{\overline{C}})`$-generic.

Case 2: $`\alpha =1`$. Set $`Y^{}=\{MY:M\omega _1C_\delta \}`$. It is clear that $`g(\delta )=\delta `$ (as $`gN`$ and $`\delta =N\omega _1`$), hence by the hypotheses in clause (2) we have $`Y^{}D_{g(1)}^𝔭(N)`$. Let $`_n:n<\omega `$ list the dense open subsets of $`_{\overline{C}}`$ which belong to $`N`$ and let $`\delta =\underset{n<\omega }{lim}\alpha _n`$ where $`\alpha _n:n<\omega `$ is increasing. We now simulate a strategy for the challenger in the game $`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }(N)`$, where in the $`n`$-th move, we let the challenger to choose $`Z_n=\mathrm{}`$ (so the chooser has to use $`Y_n=\mathrm{}`$ as well) and at the end of the $`n`$-th move, the challenger also chooses $`p_{n+1}_{\overline{C}}N`$ such that:

* $`p_0=p,`$
* $`p_np_{n+1}_n`$,
* $`p_{n+1}`$ is $`(M_n,_{\overline{C}})`$-generic and $`sup(p_{n+1})>\alpha _n`$,
* the set $`(p_{n+1}\{supp_{n+1}\})\backslash (p_n\{supp_n\})`$ is disjoint to $`C_\delta `$.

This is possible by Case 1 and its proof, because $`M_n\omega _1C_\delta `$ which holds as $`M_nY^{}`$. As this is a legal strategy for the challenger, it cannot be a winning strategy, hence for some such play the chooser wins, hence $`\{M_n:n<\omega \}D_1^𝔭(N)`$. Now $`q=\underset{n<\omega }{}p_n`$ is well defined, and $`sup(q)=\delta `$ and $`qC_\delta p\{sup(p)\}`$ and qC¯``{Mn:n<ω}[𝔾

~
C¯,N]"subscriptforcessubscript¯𝐶𝑞``conditional-setsubscript𝑀𝑛𝑛𝜔subscript𝔾

~
subscript¯𝐶𝑁"q\Vdash_{{\mathbb{Q}}_{\bar{C}}}``\{M_{n}:n<\omega\}\subseteq{{\mathscr{M}}}[\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{Q}}_{\bar{C}}},N]", so $`q`$ is as required as the chooser has won the play.

Case 3: $`\alpha >1,\alpha `$ successor. The proof is similar to the Case 2, only we use the induction hypothesis instead of using Case 1.

Case 4: $`\alpha `$ a limit ordinal. The proof is again similar to the Case 2.

This completes the induction hypothesis and hence the proof of clause (2) of the lemma. ∎

###### Definition 5.7.

Suppose $`S\omega _1`$ is stationary, $`𝒟_{\omega _1}`$ is the club filter on $`\omega _1`$ and $`f{}_{}{}^{\omega _1}\omega _{1}^{}`$.

1. We say $`f`$ is a $`(𝒟_{\omega _1}+S,\gamma )`$ function, when $`S_{(𝒟_{\omega _1}^+,)}`$ “in 𝕍[𝔾

~
],{x𝕍ω1/𝔾

~
:𝕍ω1/𝔾

~
\mathbb{V}[\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}],\{x\in\mathbb{V}^{\omega_{1}}/\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}:\mathbb{V}^{\omega_{1}}/\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}\models$`x`$ is an ordinal <f/𝔾

~
}<f/\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}\} has order type $`\gamma `$”.
2. Assume $`\overline{C}=C_\delta :\delta <\omega _1`$, where $`C_\delta `$ is an unbounded subset of $`\delta `$. We define, by induction on $`\gamma `$, when “$`\overline{C}`$ obeys $`f`$ on $`S`$” for $`f{}_{}{}^{\omega _1}\omega _{1}^{}`$ which is a $`(𝒟_{\omega _1}+S,\gamma )`$ function:

* if $`\gamma <\omega _1`$, this means

    $$\{\delta S:\mathrm{otp}(C_\delta )\omega ^{1+f(\delta )}\}=Smod𝒟_{\omega _1}.$$
    * if $`\gamma \omega _1`$, it means that for some $`g:\omega _1\omega _1`$ and pressing down function $`h`$ on $`S`$, for every $`\zeta <\omega _1`$ for which $`h^1\{\zeta \}`$ is stationary, for some $`\beta <\gamma `$ and $`f_\beta `$, a $`(𝒟+h^1\{\zeta \},\beta )`$ function, we have $`C_{g(\delta )}\delta :\delta h^1\{\zeta \}`$ obeys $`f_\beta `$.

The next lemma can be proved as in Lemma 5.6.

###### Lemma 5.8.

Assume

1. $`𝔭`$ is a simple reasonable parameter such that $`\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$ is of uncountable cofinality,
2. $`S𝒟_{\omega _1}^+`$ and $`N\underset{\alpha }{}_\alpha ^𝔭N\omega _1S`$,
3. $`𝔭`$ is a non-$`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\alpha }`$-loser (or just non $`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\alpha }^{}`$-loser) for all $`\alpha C^{},`$ where $`C^{}`$ is a club of $`\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$ with $`0<\mathrm{min}(C^{})`$,
4. $`\overline{C}`$ obeys $`f`$ on $`S`$ which is a $`(𝒟_{\omega _1}+S,\gamma )`$-function,
5. for all $`\alpha ,g(\alpha )=\mathrm{min}(C^{}\backslash \alpha )`$.

Then $`_{\overline{C}}`$ is $`(𝔭,g)`$-proper.

Let us now give another example which fits into our general framework (see also \[6, Ch.XVIII\]). Recall that a filter $`𝒟`$ on a countable set is called a $`P`$-filter if it contains all co-finite sets and if $`A_n𝒟`$ for $`n<\omega `$, then for some $`A𝒟`$ and all $`n<\omega `$ we have $`|A\backslash A_n|<\mathrm{}_0`$

###### Definition 5.9.

1. We say $`\overline{𝒟}=𝒟_\delta :\delta <\omega _1,\delta \text{ limit}`$ is an $`\omega _1`$-filter-sequence if:

1. $`𝒟_\delta `$ is a filter on $`\delta `$, containing the co-bounded subsets of $`\delta `$,
    2. $`𝒟_\delta `$ is a $`P`$-filter and some $`C_\delta 𝒟_\delta `$ has order type $`\omega `$,
    3. for every club $`C\omega _1`$ and $`\alpha <\omega _1`$, the set $`A_C^\alpha [\overline{𝒟}]`$ is stationary, where, by induction on $`\alpha `$, we define $`A_C^\alpha [\overline{𝒟}]`$ by $`A_C^\alpha [\overline{𝒟}]=\{\delta <\omega _1:\delta \text{ is a limit ordinal, }\delta C\text{ and for every }\beta <\alpha \text{ we have}`$ $`\delta =sup(\delta A_C^\beta [\overline{𝒟}])`$, moreover $`\delta A_C^\beta [\overline{𝒟}]𝒟_\delta \}`$.
2. A reasonable parameter $`𝔭`$ obeys $`\overline{𝒟}`$, if for each $`\alpha <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$ and $`N_\alpha ^𝔭`$, $`\overline{𝒟}N`$ and we have

$$\begin{array}{cccc}D_\alpha ^𝔭(N)=\{Y:& YN\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}_\beta ^𝔭\text{ is }𝔭\text{-closed and if }\alpha >0,\text{ then there are}\hfill & & \\ & \overline{\beta }=\beta _n:n<\omega \text{ and }\overline{M}=M_n:n<\omega \text{ satisfying: }\hfill & & \\ & (a)\beta _nN\alpha ,\hfill & & \\ & (b)\text{ either for all}n,\alpha =\beta _n+1\hfill & & \\ & \text{ or }\beta _n<\beta _{n+1},sup_{n<\omega }\beta _n=sup(\alpha N),\hfill & & \\ & (c)M_nY_{\beta _n}^𝔭,M_nM_{n+1},\hfill & & \\ & (d)\underset{n<\omega }{}M_n=N\underset{\beta \alpha N}{}(\chi _\beta ^𝔭),\hfill & & \\ & (e)\{M_n\omega _1:n<\omega \}𝒟_{N\omega _1}\}.\hfill & & \end{array}$$
3. A forcing notion $``$ is a $`\overline{𝒟}NNR_\kappa ^0`$-forcing if for every reasonable parameter $`𝔭`$ which obeys $`\overline{𝒟}`$, $``$ is an $`NNR_\kappa ^0`$-forcing over $`𝔭`$ (see Definition 4.16).
4. For a $`P`$-filter $`𝒟`$ on $`\omega `$, we say a reasonable parameter $`𝔭`$ obeys $`𝒟`$ if for every $`N_\alpha ^𝔭`$

$$\begin{array}{cccc}D_\alpha ^𝔭(N)=\{Y:& YN\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}_\beta ^𝔭\text{ is }𝔭\text{-closed and if }\alpha >0,\text{ then there are}\hfill & & \\ & \overline{\beta },\overline{M}\text{ satisfying items }(a),(b)\text{ and }(d)\text{ of clause }(2)\text{ and}\hfill & & \\ & (e)\{n:M_nY\}𝒟\}.\hfill & & \end{array}$$
5. In parts (1) - (4) above, we may replace the word “filter” by “ultrafilter” if the $`𝒟_\alpha `$’s are ultrafilter.

###### Lemma 5.10.

1. If $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{}_1`$ holds, then there is an $`\omega _1`$-ultrafilter sequence.
2. If $`\overline{𝒟}`$ is an $`\omega _1`$-filter sequence and $`(\chi _\alpha ,_\alpha ):\alpha <\omega _1`$ is as in Definition 3.2, then there is a reasonable parameter $`𝔭`$ of length $`\omega _1`$ obeying $`\overline{𝒟}`$ which is a non-$`\mathrm{}`$-loser. Furthermore, for all $`\alpha <\omega _1`$, $`\chi _\alpha ^𝔭=\chi _\alpha `$ and $`_\alpha ^𝔭=_\alpha `$.
3. If $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{}_1`$ holds, $`(\chi _\alpha ,_\alpha ):\alpha <\omega _1`$ is as above and $`𝒟`$ is a $`P`$-filter on $`\omega `$, then some reasonable parameter $`𝔭`$ of length $`\omega _1`$ is $`P`$-filter like, non-$`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{id}}`$-loser with $`\chi _\alpha ^𝔭=\chi _\alpha ,_\alpha ^𝔭=_\alpha `$. Similarly for ultrafilters.
4. Instead of $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{}_1`$ it is enough to assume CH and that for some $`C_\delta :\delta <\omega _1\text{ limit}`$ and some normal filter $`D`$ on $`\omega _1`$, and for every club $`C`$ of $`\omega _1,\{\delta :\delta >sup(C_\delta \backslash C)\}D`$.

###### Proof.

We only prove (1) and (2), the other parts can be proved similarly.

(1). Let $`S_\delta :\delta <\omega _1`$ be a $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{}_1`$-sequence, where each $`S_\delta \delta `$ and let $`E_\delta :\delta <\omega _1\text{ limit}`$ be a ladder system, where each $`E_\delta \delta `$ has order type $`\omega `$ and $`E_\delta =S_\delta `$ if $`S_\delta `$ is an $`\omega `$-sequence cofinal in $`\delta .`$ Let $`\overline{𝒟}=𝒟_\delta :\delta <\omega _1\text{ limit}`$, where $`𝒟_\delta `$ is any $`P`$-ultrafiler on $`\delta `$ extending $`𝒟_^\delta ^\text{c}\{E_\delta \}`$, where $`𝒟_\delta ^\text{c}`$ is the filter of co-bounded subsets of $`\delta `$. We show that $`\overline{𝒟}`$ is as required. Items (a) and (b) of Definition 5.9(1) are clearly satisfied. Let us prove clause (3). Thus suppose that $`C\omega _1`$ is a club, $`\alpha <\omega _1`$, and suppose by induction that for all $`\beta <\alpha `$, the set $`A_C^\beta (\overline{𝒟})`$ is stationary. We show that $`A_C^\alpha (\overline{𝒟})`$ is stationary as well. We may assume that $`C`$ only contains limit ordinals. Then

$$A_C^\alpha (\overline{𝒟})=C\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}\{\delta :\delta =sup(\delta A_C^\beta (\overline{𝒟}))\}\{\delta :\beta <\alpha ,\delta A_C^\beta (\overline{𝒟})𝒟_\delta \}.$$

It follows from the induction hypothesis that the set $`C\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}\{\delta :\delta =sup(\delta A_C^\beta (\overline{𝒟}))\}`$ is a club. Suppose by contradiction that the set $`A=\{\delta :\beta <\alpha ,\delta A_C^\beta (\overline{𝒟})𝒟_\delta \}`$ is non-stationary. Thus for some club $`DC`$ and for all $`\delta D`$, there exists some $`\beta _\delta <\alpha `$ such that $`\delta A_C^{\beta _\delta }(\overline{𝒟})𝒟_\delta `$. As $`\alpha <\omega _1,`$ it follows from Födor’s lemma that there are a stationary set $`SD`$ and some fixed $`\beta _{}<\alpha `$ such that

$$\delta S\delta A_C^\beta _{}(\overline{𝒟})𝒟_\delta $$

On the other hand, by the $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{}_1`$-assumption, the set

$$T=\{\delta S:\delta A_C^\beta _{}(\overline{𝒟})=S_\delta \}$$

is stationary. We may assume without loss of generality that for all $`\delta T,\delta A_C^\beta _{}(\overline{𝒟})`$ has order type $`\omega .`$ But then

$$\delta T\delta A_C^\beta _{}(\overline{𝒟})=S_\delta =E_\delta 𝒟_\delta ,$$

which is a contradiction.

(2) Define $`𝔭`$ of length $`\omega _1`$ such that for all $`\alpha <\omega _1`$,

* $`\chi _\alpha ^𝔭=\chi _\alpha `$,
* $`R_\alpha ^𝔭=[((_{\beta <\alpha }\chi _\beta )^+)]^\mathrm{}_0`$,
* $`_\alpha ^𝔭=_\alpha `$,
* for $`N_\alpha ,`$ $`D_\alpha ^𝔭(N)`$ is defined as in Definition 5.9(2).

Then $`𝔭`$ is as required. ∎

###### Lemma 5.11.

1. If $`𝒟`$ is a $`P`$-filter on $`\omega `$ (or $`P`$-ultrafilter on $`\omega `$) and $`𝔭`$ is a reasonable parameter obeying $`𝒟`$, then for some $`\overline{𝒟},\overline{𝒟}`$ is an $`\omega _1`$-filter-sequence (or $`\omega _1`$-ultrafilter-sequence) and $`𝔭`$ obeys $`\overline{𝒟}`$.
2. If $`𝔭`$ is a $`P`$-point filter (or ultrafilter), then $`𝔭`$ is a non-$`\mathrm{}`$-loser.

###### Proof.

(1) For each limit ordinal $`\delta <\omega _1`$ fix a bijection $`f_\delta :\omega \delta `$ and set $`𝒟_\delta =\{f^{\prime \prime }[X]:X𝒟\}`$. Then $`\overline{𝒟}`$ is as required.

Proof of (2) is essentially similar to the proof of Lemma 3.7. ∎

We now consider the case where the order type of the club sets $`C_\delta `$is higher than $`\omega `$.

###### Lemma 5.12.

1. Assume

1. $`\kappa \omega `$ and $`\overline{C}=C_{\delta ,\mathrm{}}:\mathrm{}<k_\delta ,\delta <\omega _1\text{ limit}`$, where $`1+\kappa k_\delta \omega ,C_{\delta ,\mathrm{}}`$ is a closed unbounded subset of $`\delta `$ and $`\mathrm{}<m<k_\delta C_{\delta ,\mathrm{}}C_{\delta ,m}=\mathrm{}`$,
    2. $`=_{\overline{C}}=\{C:C`$ is a closed bounded subset of $`\omega _1`$ such that for every limit $`\delta <sup(C)`$, and for every $`\mathrm{}<k_\delta `$ except $`<1+\kappa `$ many, $`\delta sup(CC_{\delta ,\mathrm{}})\}`$,999i.e., $`\{\mathrm{}<k_\delta :\delta >sup(CC_{\delta ,\mathrm{}})\}`$ has size $`<1+\kappa `$.
    3. $`𝔭`$ is a reasonable parameter, obeying the $`P`$-ultrafilter $`𝒟`$.

Then $``$ is a $`𝔭`$NNR$`{}_{\kappa }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$ forcing notion.
2. In part (1), if we add:

1. $`N_\alpha ^𝔭`$ and $`D_\alpha ^𝔭(N)=\{Y:\{n:M_nY\}𝒟_N\},𝒟_N`$ a $`P`$-ultrafilter and $`\mathrm{}<k_\delta \{n<\omega :M_n\omega _1C_{\delta ,\mathrm{}}\}=\mathrm{}mod𝒟_N`$,

then we can allow $`C_{\delta ,0}=C_{\delta ,1}`$.
3. Assume

1. $`D_\delta `$ is a family of subsets of $`\mathrm{dom}(D_\delta )`$, the intersection $`Y`$ of any $`<1+\kappa `$ of them satisfies,
    2. $`()n(y_1,\mathrm{},y_nY)[\delta >sup(\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{n}{}}C_{\delta ,y_{\mathrm{}}})]`$,
    3. $`\overline{C}=C_{\delta ,x}:x\mathrm{dom}(D_\delta )`$ and $`\delta `$ is a limit ordinal $`<\omega _1`$,
    4. $`C_{\delta ,x}:x\mathrm{dom}(D_\delta )`$ is a sequence of pairwise disjoint subsets of $`\delta `$,
    5. $`\overline{X}\underset{\delta <\omega _1}{}\mathrm{dom}(D_\delta )`$,
    6. $`_{\overline{C},\overline{X},\overline{D}}=\{C:C`$ is a closed bounded subset of $`\omega _1`$ such that for every limit $`\delta sup(C)`$ we have $`(xX_\delta )(\delta >sup(CC_{\delta ,x}))\}`$ ordered by end extension,
    7. $`\overline{𝒟}`$ is a $`P`$-ultrafilter sequence,
    8. $`𝔭`$ is a reasonable parameter which obeys $`\overline{𝒟}`$.

Then $``$ is a $`𝔭NNR_\kappa ^0`$ forcing notion.

###### Proof.

We prove clause (1), as other items can be proved in a similar way. So let $`𝕍_0`$ be some transitive class with $`𝔭𝕍_0`$ and suppose that $`\overline{}𝕍_0`$ is an NNR$`{}_{\kappa }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$-iteration with $`_\alpha =lim(\overline{})`$ such that $`𝕍=𝕍_0^_\alpha `$ and α𝕍0``

~
α=C¯

~
subscriptsuperscriptforcessubscript𝕍0subscript𝛼absent``subscript

~
𝛼subscript¯𝐶

~
\Vdash^{\mathbb{V}_{0}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\alpha}}``\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}={\mathbb{Q}}_{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\bar{C}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\bar{C}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\bar{C}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\bar{C}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}} is as above”. Set α+1=α

~
αsubscript𝛼1subscript𝛼subscript

~
𝛼{\mathbb{P}}_{\alpha+1}={\mathbb{P}}_{\alpha}\ast\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}. We have to show that items (a)-(d) of Definition 3.9 (for $`\kappa =\mathrm{}_0`$) or 3.14 (for $`\kappa <\mathrm{}_0`$) are satisfied. We only check clause (d), as other items are easier to prove. Suppose that in $`𝕍_0,`$

* $`N_0\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}_\beta ^𝔭,`$
* $`N_0N_1_\alpha ^𝔭`$,
* $`N_1=\{M_n:n<\omega \}`$,
* $`𝒟_{N_0}`$ is a $`P`$-ultrfiler as in Definition 5.12(2),
* $`𝔾_mN_1_\alpha `$ is generic over $`N_1`$ for $`m<k<1+\kappa ,`$
* $`\underset{m<k}{}[𝔾_mN_0=𝔾^{}]`$,
* $`p_{\alpha +1}N_0`$ is such that $`p\alpha 𝔾^{}`$,

Clearly, without loss of generality $`M_n:n<\omega ,𝒟_{N_0}N_1`$. For $`\iota =0,1`$ set $`\delta _{N_\iota }=N_\iota \omega _1`$. So for each $`\mathrm{}<k_{\delta _{N_0}}`$, we have C

~
δN0,[𝔾m]subscript𝐶

~
subscript𝛿subscript𝑁0delimited-[]subscript𝔾𝑚\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\delta_{N_{0}},\ell}[\mathbb{G}_{m}] is a closed subset of $`\delta `$ and for $`\mathrm{}_1<\mathrm{}_2<k_{\delta _{N_0}}`$ we have C

~
N0ω1,1[𝔾m]C

~
N0ω1,2[𝔾m]=subscript𝐶

~
subscript𝑁0subscript𝜔1subscript1delimited-[]subscript𝔾𝑚subscript𝐶

~
subscript𝑁0subscript𝜔1subscript2delimited-[]subscript𝔾𝑚\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{N_{0}\cap\omega_{1},\ell_{1}}[\mathbb{G}_{m}]\cap\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{N_{0}\cap\omega_{1},\ell_{2}}[\mathbb{G}_{m}]=\emptyset. So for some $`\mathrm{}(m)\{0,1,\mathrm{},k_{\delta _{N_0}}1\}`$ we have

(m)C

~
N0ω1,[𝔾m]=mod𝒟N0.𝑚subscript𝐶

~
subscript𝑁0subscript𝜔1delimited-[]subscript𝔾𝑚modulosubscript𝒟subscript𝑁0\ell\neq\ell(m)\Rightarrow\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{N_{0}\cap\omega_{1},\ell}[\mathbb{G}_{m}]=\emptyset\mod{\mathscr{D}}_{N_{0}}.
Now let

$`B=\{n:`$ if $`\mathrm{}<k_{\delta _{N_0}},\mathrm{}\{\mathrm{}(m):m<k\}`$ and $`\mathrm{}<n`$, then

Mnω1C

~
δN0,[𝔾m]subscript𝑀𝑛subscript𝜔1subscript𝐶

~
subscript𝛿subscript𝑁0delimited-[]subscript𝔾𝑚M_{n}\cap\omega_{1}\notin\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\delta_{N_{0}},\ell}[\mathbb{G}_{m}] for $`m<k`$ and $`pM_n\}`$.

Then $`B`$ belongs to $`N_1𝒟_{N_0}`$. Let $`B=\{n_i:i<\omega \}`$ be an increasing enumeration of $`B`$ and let $`_n:n<\omega `$ list the dense open subsets of $`_{\alpha +1}`$ which belong to $`N_0`$. We choose $`p_i`$, by induction on $`i<\omega `$, such that:

1. $`p_iN_1P_{\alpha +1}`$,
2. $`p_i\alpha \underset{m<k}{}𝔾_m`$,
3. $`p_i\{_n:n<n_i,_nN_1\text{ and }i>0\}`$,
4. $`pp_i`$,
5. $`p_ip_{i+1}`$,
6. pi+1\pi is disjoint to {C

~
δN0,[𝔾m]:<kδN0,<ni and m<k(m)}\subscript𝑝𝑖1subscript𝑝𝑖 is disjoint to conditional-setsubscript𝐶

~
subscript𝛿subscript𝑁0delimited-[]subscript𝔾𝑚formulae-sequencesubscript𝑘subscript𝛿subscript𝑁0subscript𝑛𝑖 and 𝑚𝑘𝑚p_{i+1}\backslash p_{i}\text{ is disjoint to }\bigcup\{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\delta_{N_{0}},\ell}[\mathbb{G}_{m}]:\ell<k_{\delta_{N_{0}}},\ell<n_{i}\text{ and }m<k\Rightarrow\ell\neq\ell(m)\}.

This is possible as, for each $`i<\omega `$,

{C

~
δN0,[𝔾m]Mniω1:<kδN0,<ni and m<k(m)}conditional-setsubscript𝐶

~
subscript𝛿subscript𝑁0delimited-[]subscript𝔾𝑚subscript𝑀subscript𝑛𝑖subscript𝜔1formulae-sequencesubscript𝑘subscript𝛿subscript𝑁0subscript𝑛𝑖 and 𝑚𝑘𝑚\bigcup\{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\delta_{N_{0}},\ell}[\mathbb{G}_{m}]\cap M_{n_{i}}\cap\omega_{1}:\ell<k_{\delta_{N_{0}}},\ell<n_{i}\text{ and }m<k\Rightarrow\ell\neq\ell(m)\}
is a bounded subset of $`M_{n_i}\omega _1`$.

Set

$$𝔾^{}=\{q_{\alpha +1}N_0:i<\omega (p_iq)\}.$$

Then $`𝔾^{}_{\alpha +1}N_0`$ is generic over $`N_0,p𝔾^{}`$ and if we set $`q=\underset{i<\omega }{}p_i,`$ then $`q`$ witnesses that $`𝔾^{}`$ has an upper bound in α+1/G

~
αsubscript𝛼1subscript𝐺

~
subscript𝛼{\mathbb{P}}_{\alpha+1}/\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle G$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle G$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle G$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle G$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\alpha}}. ∎

The proof of the next lemma is similar to the above proofs.

###### Lemma 5.13.

1. The forcing notion $`_{\overline{C}}`$ from Lemma 5.12(1) is $`NNR_\mathrm{}_0^0`$-forcing notion for every $`𝔭`$, non-$`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{id}}`$-loser.
2. If $`\overline{𝒟}`$ is an $`\omega _1`$-filter sequence and $`𝔭`$ is a reasonable parameter obeying $`\overline{𝒟}`$, then any $`(<\omega _1)`$-proper forcing notion is $`𝔭`$-proper.

## 6. Second preservation of not adding reals

In this section we present our second preservation theorem. We shall concentrate on the simple case.

###### Definition 6.1.

Let $`𝔭`$ be a reasonable parameter and let ¯=i,

~
i:i<g(¯)\bar{{\mathbb{Q}}}=\langle{\mathbb{P}}_{i},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i}:i<\ell g(\bar{{\mathbb{Q}}})\rangle be an iteration of forcing notions. We say that $`\overline{}`$ is a $`𝔭`$-NNR$`{}_{\kappa }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ iteration, where $`2\kappa \mathrm{}_0`$,101010we omit $`\kappa =\mathrm{}_1`$ for convenience. when for some $`f_i,g_i_{\mathrm{dc}}^𝔭`$, for $`i<\mathrm{}g(\overline{})`$ (see 4.4), we have:

1. $`\mathrm{cf}(\mathrm{}g(𝔭))>\mathrm{}g(\overline{})`$,
2. $`\overline{}`$ is a countable support iteration of proper forcing notions such that for each $`i<\mathrm{}g(\overline{}),_i`$ adds no reals, 111111this follows from other parts (close (d)), even for $`_{i+1},i<\mathrm{}g(\overline{})`$.
3. (long properness) for each $`i<\mathrm{}g(\overline{})`$, we have i``

~
isubscriptforcessubscript𝑖absent``subscript

~
𝑖\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i}}``\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i} is $`(𝔭^_i,f_i)`$-proper”,
4. ($`\kappa `$-anti w.d.) if $`i<\mathrm{}g(\overline{})`$ and $`\beta g_i(\alpha )`$, then

~
isubscript

~
𝑖\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i} has $`(\kappa ,\alpha ,\beta )`$-anti w.d. above $`_i`$.

###### Remark 6.2.

1. $`\kappa `$ is the amount of “$`𝔻`$-completeness”, in other words what versions of weak diamond we kill by our iteration. So the case $`\kappa =\mathrm{}_0`$ is easier, and we first deal with it in Theorem 6.3.
2. Note that we ask for $`f_i𝕍`$ and not a $`_i`$-name f

~
isubscript𝑓

~
𝑖\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i} of such a function. The reason is that if for $`i<\mathrm{}g(\overline{}),_i`$ satisfies the $`\mathrm{cf}(\mathrm{}g(𝔭))`$-c.c., then we can find fi𝔭,fif

~
iformulae-sequencesubscriptsuperscript𝑓𝑖superscript𝔭subscriptsuperscript𝑓𝑖subscript𝑓

~
𝑖f^{\prime}_{i}\in{{\mathscr{F}}}^{{\mathfrak{p}}},f^{\prime}_{i}\geq\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i}. As in practice we usually have $`\mathrm{cf}(\mathrm{}g(𝔭))>|_\alpha |,`$ there is no point at present for $`f_i`$ to be a $`_i`$-name.
3. In clause (d) we have implicitly used:

1. if $`\alpha \beta ^{}<\beta `$, then clause (d) for $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ and $`\kappa `$ implies clause (d) for $`(\alpha ,\beta ^{})`$ and $`\kappa `$.

This holds by clause (i) of Definition 3.2.
4. We could replace $`f_i`$ by a club $`E_i`$ of $`\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$, letting $`f_i(\alpha )=E_i\backslash \alpha `$.
5. In clause (c), for a club $`C`$ of $`\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$ we catch our tail, that is $`f_i(\alpha )C=C\backslash \alpha `$ for a club of $`\alpha <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$.
6. In clause (d), much of the freedom/variation will be due to the decision how “similar” are $`G^{\mathrm{}}:\mathrm{}<k`$ such that $`𝔾^{}`$ exists. Here we demand

1. $`YD_\beta ^𝔭(N_1)`$.

In \[6, Ch.VIII\], it is essentially required that

1. $`𝔾^0\times 𝔾^1\times \mathrm{}\times 𝔾^{k1}(_i\times \mathrm{}\times _i)N_1`$ ($`k`$ times) is generic over $`N_1`$.

In \[6, Ch.V\], it is required that

1. the common $`Y`$ is a pre-determined increasing sequence of models.

Clause $`(\beta )`$ makes demand (d) in Definition 6.1 easier, but the parallel of (c) is harder compared to clause $`(\alpha )`$.

We now state and prove the main results of this section. We first deal with the $`𝔭`$-NNR$`{}_{\mathrm{}_0}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ iterations.

###### Theorem 6.3.

Assume $`\overline{}`$ is a $`𝔭`$-$`\text{NNR}_\mathrm{}_0^1`$ iteration, $`𝔭`$ is a reasonable parameter and $`𝔭`$ is a $`\mathrm{}_f`$-winner for some $`f_{\mathrm{club}}^𝔭`$ (or at least is $`\mathrm{}_f^{}`$-non loser).

1. Forcing with $`_{\mathrm{}g(\overline{})}=\mathrm{Lim}(\overline{})`$ does not add reals (so consequently adds no $`\omega `$-sequences, as we are assuming properness).
2. If $`ij\mathrm{}g(\overline{})`$, then

1. $`_j/_i`$ is proper,
    2. $`_j/_i`$ is $`(𝔭,f_{i,j})`$-proper, where $`f_{i,j}_{\mathrm{club}}^𝔭`$ is increasing continuous and is computable from the $`f_\epsilon ^𝔭`$ for $`\epsilon [i,j)`$,
    3. we have the parallel of clause (d) in the following sense: if $`i<j<\mathrm{}g(\overline{}),`$ then for some function $`g_{\text{cd}}^𝔭`$ in $`𝕍`$ and for all $`\alpha <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$ and $`\beta g(\alpha )`$ we have $`_j/_i`$ is $`(\mathrm{}_0,\alpha ,\beta )`$-anti-w.d above $`_i`$.

###### Proof.

The proof is by induction on $`\mathrm{}g(\overline{})`$. For notational simplicity we assume that:

1. all $`f_i`$’s are also in $`_{\mathrm{nd}}^𝔭`$, so we can consider them as increasing and continuous functions from $`\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$ to $`\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$. We also demand that the $`f_{i,j}`$’s are also like that, are increasing continuous and moreover $`f_{i,j}(f_{i,j}(\alpha ))=f_{i,j}(\alpha )`$, and they are $`f^{}`$ where $`f^{}_{\mathrm{nd}}^𝔭`$ is increasing continuous and $`𝔭`$ is $`\mathrm{}_f^{}`$-winner (or at least $`\mathrm{}_f^{}^{}`$-non-loser).

Case 1: $`\mathrm{}g(\overline{})=0`$. This is trivial.

Case 2: $`\mathrm{}g(\overline{})=i()+1`$ is a successor ordinal. We show that items (1) and (2) are satisfied.

Clause (1): $`_{i()}`$ adds no reals by the induction hypothesis and $`_{_{i()}}`$

~
i()subscript

~
𝑖\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i(*)} adds no reals”, by clause (d) in Definition 6.1, hence i()+1=i()

~
i()subscript𝑖1subscript𝑖subscript

~
𝑖{\mathbb{P}}_{i(*)+1}={\mathbb{P}}_{i(*)}*\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i(*)} adds no reals.

Clause (2): We have to show that items $`(b)^{},(c)^{}`$ and $`(d)^{}`$ are satisfied.

1. Clause $`(b)^{}`$: By \[6, Ch. III\], $`_j/_i`$ is proper.
2. Clause $`(c)^{}`$: Given $`ij\mathrm{}g(\overline{Q})`$, if $`j<i()+1`$ the conclusion follows by the induction hypothesis. So assume $`j=i()+1`$. If $`i=j`$, the required demand is trivial, so assume $`i<j`$. If $`i=i()`$, use clause (c) of Definition 6.1 for $`i`$ to get the conclusion. So assume that $`i<i()`$. Let

* $`f_{i,j,0}=f_{i()},`$
    * $`f_{i,j,m+1}=f_{i()}f_{i,i()}f_{i,j,m}`$,
    * $`f_{i,j}(\alpha )=\underset{m<\omega }{sup}f_{i,j,m}(\alpha )`$.

Then the $`f_{i,j}`$’s are as required in $``$. To prove “$`_j/_i`$ is $`(𝔭,f_{i,j})`$-proper”, assume that

1. $`(a)N((\chi ),)`$ is countable,
    2. $`(b)\{\overline{},i,j,\alpha ,\beta ,f_{i,i()},f_{i()},f_{i,j}\}N`$,
    3. $`(c)\alpha f_{i,j}(\alpha )\beta <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$,
    4. $`(d)q_i\text{ is }(N,_i)\text{-generic}`$,
    5. $`(e)pN_j,piq`$,
    6. $`(f)YD_\beta ^𝔭(N)`$,
    7. (g)q``Yi[𝔾

    ~
    i,N]forces𝑔𝑞``𝑌subscriptsubscript𝑖subscript𝔾

    ~
    subscript𝑖𝑁(g)\quad q\Vdash``Y\subseteq{{\mathscr{M}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i}}[\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i}},N]”.

First we deal with version 2, and assume that $`𝔭`$ is simple. Choose $`y^{}N`$ which codes enough information. Clearly $`\beta ^{}=f_{i()}(\alpha )`$ belongs to $`N`$. So $`f_{i,i()}(\beta ^{})\beta `$, hence by the induction hypothesis there are $`q^{},Y^{}`$ such that:

* $`qq^{}_{i()},`$
    * $`pi()q^{},`$
    * $`q^{}`$ is $`(N,P_{i()})`$-generic,
    * $`Y^{}Y,Y^{}D_\beta ^{}^𝔭(N)`$,
    * q``Yi()[𝔾

    ~
    i(),N,y]"forcessuperscript𝑞``superscript𝑌subscriptsubscript𝑖subscript𝔾

    ~
    subscript𝑖𝑁superscript𝑦"q^{\prime}\Vdash``Y^{\prime}\subseteq{{\mathscr{M}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i(*)}}[\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i(*)}},N,y^{*}]".

Next, we apply clause (c) in the Definition 6.1 for $`i()`$, so there are $`q^{\prime \prime },Y^{\prime \prime }`$ such that

* $`q^{}q^{\prime \prime }_{i()+1}=_j,`$
    * $`pq^{\prime \prime },`$
    * $`q^{\prime \prime }`$ is $`(N,_j)`$-generic,
    * $`Y^{\prime \prime }Y^{},Y^{\prime \prime }D_\alpha ^𝔭(N)`$,
    * q′′``Y′′[𝔾

    ~
    j,N,y]"forcessuperscript𝑞′′``superscript𝑌′′subscript𝔾

    ~
    subscript𝑗𝑁superscript𝑦"q^{\prime\prime}\Vdash``Y^{\prime\prime}\subseteq{{\mathscr{M}}}[\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{j}},N,y^{*}]".

The result follows immediately. The proof for version 1 is similar.
3. Clause $`(d)^{}`$: Recall that we have demanded $`f_{i,j}(f_{i,j}(\alpha ))=f_{i,j}(\alpha )`$ (see $``$ at the beginning of the proof).

Let $`N_0,N_1,\alpha ,\beta ,i,j,p,k,q_{\mathrm{}}`$ (for $`\mathrm{}<k`$), $`𝔾^{\mathrm{}}`$ (for $`\mathrm{}<k`$) and $`𝔾^{}`$ be as in the assumptions of Definition 6.1(d) (see Definition 4.12).

Without loss of generality $`i<i()<j=i()+1`$, since the other cases are trivial as in the proof of clause $`(c)^{}`$ . First choose $`𝔾^{}N_1`$ for $`𝔾^{},\alpha ,\beta ,i,i()`$. For each $`\mathrm{}<k`$, if for some $`s_{\mathrm{}}𝔾^{\mathrm{}}`$ we have

1. $`s_{\mathrm{}}__i`$ there is an upper bound for  $`𝔾^{}`$ in  i()/𝔾

    ~
    isubscript𝑖subscript𝔾

    ~
    subscript𝑖{\mathbb{P}}_{i(*)}/\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i}}”,

then, as $`𝔾^{\mathrm{}}`$ is generic over $`N_0`$, by increasing $`s_{\mathrm{}}`$ if necessary, there are $`s_{\mathrm{}}𝔾^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{}}P_{i()}N_1`$ such that $`s_{\mathrm{}}`$ forces that $`r_{\mathrm{}}`$ is an upper bound for $`𝔾^{}`$, and without loss of generality $`r_{\mathrm{}}is_{\mathrm{}}`$. Now without loss of generality

$`𝔾^\mathrm{}_1=𝔾^\mathrm{}_2s_\mathrm{}_1=s_\mathrm{}_2`$

and

$`𝔾_\mathrm{}_1𝔾_\mathrm{}_2s_\mathrm{}_1,s_\mathrm{}_2`$ are incompatible.121212see Remark 4.13.

Now choose $`r_{i()}N_1`$ with domain $`i()\backslash i`$ as follows:

* $`\mathrm{dom}(r)=\underset{\mathrm{}<k}{}\mathrm{dom}(r_{\mathrm{}})\backslash i`$,
    * $`r(\alpha )=r_{\mathrm{}}(\alpha )`$ if s𝔾

    ~
    i,<kformulae-sequencesubscript𝑠subscript𝔾

    ~
    subscript𝑖𝑘s_{\ell}\in\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i}},\ell<k,
    * $`r(\alpha )=\mathrm{}__\alpha `$ if this occurs for no $`\mathrm{}`$.

Renaming $`rN_i_{i()},\mathrm{dom}(r)i()\backslash i`$ and $`s_{\mathrm{}}𝔾^{\mathrm{}},r_{\mathrm{}}=s_{\mathrm{}}r`$ is above $`𝔾^{}`$ in $`_{i()}`$. Let $`\beta _{\mathrm{}}=f_{i,j,1+\mathrm{}}(\alpha )`$ for $`\mathrm{}k`$.

We choose, by induction on $`\mathrm{}k`$, the objects $`Y_{\mathrm{}},q_{\mathrm{}}^{},M_{\mathrm{}}`$ such that:

1. $`(a)Y_0=Y`$,
    2. $`(b)M_0=N_1`$,
    3. $`(c)N_0M_{\mathrm{}+1}`$,
    4. $`(d)M_{\mathrm{}+1}M_{\mathrm{}}_{\beta _k\mathrm{}}^𝔭`$,
    5. $`(e)Y_{\mathrm{}+1}Y_{\mathrm{}}`$,
    6. $`(f)Y_{\mathrm{}}D_\beta _{\mathrm{}}^𝔭(M_{\mathrm{}})`$,
    7. $`(g)M_{\mathrm{}+1}Y_{\mathrm{}}`$,
    8. $`(h)q_{\mathrm{}}q_{\mathrm{}}^{}P_{i()}`$,
    9. $`(i)q_{\mathrm{}}^{}\text{ is }(M_{\mathrm{}+1},_{i()})\text{-generic}`$,
    10. (j)q forces a value for
    G
    ~
    i()M+1𝑗subscriptsuperscript𝑞subscript forces a value for
    G
    ~
    subscript𝑖subscript𝑀1(j)\quad q^{\prime}_{\ell}\text{ forces a value for }\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i(*)}}\cap M_{\ell+1},
    11. $`(k)q_{\mathrm{}}^{}\text{ is }(N_0,_{i()})\text{-generic}`$,
    12. (l)q``Y+1i()[𝔾

    ~
    i(),M]"forces𝑙subscriptsuperscript𝑞``subscript𝑌1subscriptsubscript𝑖subscript𝔾

    ~
    subscript𝑖subscript𝑀"(l)\quad q^{\prime}_{\ell}\Vdash``Y_{\ell+1}\subseteq{{\mathscr{M}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i(*)}}[\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i(*)}},M_{\ell}]",
    13. $`(m)q_{\mathrm{}}^{}iG^{\mathrm{}}`$.

Now apply clause (d) of the definition for $`i(),N_0,M_k,q_{\mathrm{}}^{}:\mathrm{}<k,Y_k`$ and $`𝔾^{}`$ and get $`𝔾^{}`$ as required.

Case 3: $`\delta =\mathrm{}g(\overline{})`$ is a limit ordinal. We show that items (1) and (2) are satisfied in this case as well.

Clause (1): This follows from clause $`(2)(d)^{}`$ proved below.

Clause (2): Again, we have to check items $`(b)^{}`$, $`(c)^{}`$ and $`(d)^{}`$. Let $`f_{i,j}`$ be fast enough functions.

1. Clause $`(b)^{}`$: This is obvious.
2. Clause $`(d)^{}`$: We first prove clause $`(d)^{}`$ and later prove clause $`(c)^{}`$. As before, without loss of generality $`i<j=\delta `$. Let $`N_0,N_1,p,𝔾^{},\alpha ,\beta ,k<\mathrm{}_0`$ and $`𝔾^{\mathrm{}},q_{\mathrm{}}`$ for $`\mathrm{}<k`$ be as in the assumptions of clause (d) of Definition 6.1.

Choose $`\gamma N_0,\alpha <\gamma <\beta `$ such that $`\gamma `$ is large enough, in particular,

$$ii^{}<j^{}<jf_{i^{},j^{}}(\gamma )=\gamma .$$

Let $`i_m:m<\omega N_1`$ be such that

1. $`(a)i_0=i`$,
    2. $`(b)i_m<i_{m+1}`$,
    3. $`(c)\underset{m<\omega }{sup}i_m=sup(jN_0)`$.

Choose $`y^{}N_1(\chi _\gamma )`$ coding enough information. We choose

$$M_0,M_1,M_2,M_3,M_4N_1_\gamma ^𝔭Y$$

such that

1. $`(a)N_0M_0M_1M_2M_3M_4`$,
    2. $`(b)YM_mD_\gamma ^𝔭(M_m)\text{ for }m<5`$.

Choose $`q_{\mathrm{}}^{}𝔾^{\mathrm{}}M_4`$ above $`𝔾^{\mathrm{}}M_3`$ so that $`q_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ is $`(M_t,_i)`$-generic for $`t<4`$. Let $`_m:m<\omega M_0`$ list the dense open subsets of $`_j`$ from $`N_0`$. Now we shall use the diagonal argument and choose 𝔾

~
N0,pmimN0,rmimformulae-sequencesubscript𝔾

~
subscript𝑁0subscript𝑝𝑚subscriptsubscript𝑖𝑚subscript𝑁0subscript𝑟𝑚subscriptsubscript𝑖𝑚\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}}\cap N_{0},p_{m}\in{\mathbb{P}}_{i_{m}}\cap N_{0},r_{m}\in{\mathbb{P}}_{i_{m}}. We fulfill the above in $`M_4`$, so that at the end can find a solution in $`N_1`$, by using a canonical construction.

But to carry this, we need to have finitely many candidates for 𝔾

~
imM0subscript𝔾

~
subscriptsubscript𝑖𝑚subscript𝑀0\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i_{m}}}\cap M_{0} with a common $`Y_m`$. To get this in the inductive step, we need in step $`m1`$ that for $`M_1`$ we just have finitely many candidates for 𝔾

~
imM1subscript𝔾

~
subscriptsubscript𝑖𝑚subscript𝑀1\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i_{m}}}\cap M_{1}, and in turn to get this in the step $`m1`$, we use that in step $`m2`$ for $`M_2`$ and from every maximal antichain we choose a finite subset. To get this we use that for $`M_3`$ we just ask M3[𝔾

~
im3]𝕍=M3subscript𝑀3delimited-[]subscript𝔾

~
subscriptsubscript𝑖𝑚3𝕍subscript𝑀3M_{3}[\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i_{m-3}}}]\cap\mathbb{V}=M_{3}. So along the way $`N_0,M_0,M_1,M_2,M_3`$ our induction demands go down, but slowly, so that in each step $`m`$, advancing for say $`M_0`$, we have to preserve less than really knowing 𝔾

~
imM0subscript𝔾

~
subscriptsubscript𝑖𝑚subscript𝑀0\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i_{m}}}\cap M_{0}, and are helped by our demand on $`M_1`$, just like in \[6, Ch. XVIII\]. So compared to \[6, Ch. V\], we have a finite tower.

Thus we choose by induction on $`m<\omega `$ the objects $`r_m,𝔾_m^{},p_m,n_m`$, $`𝔾_m^{\mathrm{}}:\mathrm{}<n_m`$ and $`Y_m`$ such that:

1. $`(a)r_m_{i_m}M_4`$,
    2. $`(b)\mathrm{dom}(r_m)[i,i_m)`$,
    3. $`(c)r_{m+1}i_m=r_m`$,
    4. $`(d)q_{\mathrm{}}^{}r_m_{i_m}`$ is $`(M_t,_{i_m})`$-generic for $`t<4`$,
    5. $`(e)`$ if $`\mathrm{}<k,𝒥_{i_m}`$ is dense open and $`𝒥M_2`$, then for some

    finite $`𝒥M_2,𝒥`$ is predense above $`q_{\mathrm{}}^{}r_m`$,
    6. $`(f)n_m<\omega `$, and for $`\mathrm{}<n_m,𝔾_m^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a subset of $`_{i_m}M_0`$ generic over

    $`M_0`$ and $`𝔾_m^{\mathrm{}}M_1`$,
    7. $`(g)𝔾_{m+1}^{\mathrm{}}_{i_m}\{𝔾_m^{\mathrm{}}:\mathrm{}<n_m\}`$,
    8. $`(h)n_0=k`$ and $`𝔾_0^{\mathrm{}}=𝔾^{\mathrm{}}M_1`$,
    9. (i)qrm``𝔾

    ~
    i,mM1{𝔾m:<nm}"forces𝑖subscript𝑞subscript𝑟𝑚``subscript𝔾

    ~
    subscript𝑖𝑚subscript𝑀1conditional-setsubscriptsuperscript𝔾𝑚subscript𝑛𝑚"(i)\quad q_{\ell}\cup r_{m}\Vdash``\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i,m}}\cap M_{1}\in\{\mathbb{G}^{\ell}_{m}:\ell<n_{m}\}",
    10. $`(j)𝔾_m^{}`$ is a subset of $`_{i_m}N_0`$ generic over $`N_0`$,
    11. $`(k)𝔾_m^{}𝔾_m^{\mathrm{}}`$, so that $`𝔾_m^{}𝔾_{m+1}^{}`$ and $`𝔾_0^{}=𝔾^{}`$,
    12. $`(l)p_m_jN_1,`$
    13. $`(m)p_0=p`$,
    14. $`(n)p_mi_m𝔾_m^{}`$,
    15. $`(o)p_mp_{m+1}_m`$,
    16. $`(p)Y_m_{_{i_m}}[𝔾_m^{\mathrm{}},M_0,y^{}]`$,
    17. $`(q)Y_mD_\gamma ^𝔭(M_0)`$.

Let us now explain the induction construction. If $`m=0`$, this is trivial, so suppose that it holds for $`m`$ and we do it for $`m+1`$. This is done in several stages.

Stage A: Choosing $`p_{m+1}`$ is trivial, the demands are: $`p_{m+1}p_m,p_{m+1}i_m𝔾_m^{}`$ and $`p_{m+1}_m`$.

Stage B: To choose $`𝔾_{m+1}^{}`$, apply the induction hypothesis using clause $`(d)^{}`$ of what we are proving with $`i_m,i_{m+1},\gamma ,f_{i_m,i_{m+1}}(\gamma ),N_0,M_1`$ here standing for $`i,j,\alpha ,\beta ,N_0,N_1`$ there.

Stage C: Let $`\{H_m^{\mathrm{}}:\mathrm{}<n_{m+1}\}`$ list the possibilities of 𝔾

~
imM1subscript𝔾

~
subscriptsubscript𝑖𝑚subscript𝑀1\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i_{m}}}\cap M_{1} (by clause (e) this exists). Without loss of generality $`H_m^{\mathrm{}}M_0=G_m^{h(\mathrm{})}`$, for some function $`h=h_m:n_{m+1}n_m`$. We choose $`s_m^{\mathrm{}}_{i_{m+1}}M_1`$ above $`𝔾_{m+1}^{}`$, such that $`s_m^{\mathrm{}}i_m𝔾_m^{h(\mathrm{})}`$. Now we repeat the argument of the successor stage of shrinking $`Y`$, so we can find $`t_m^{\mathrm{}}`$ such that

* $`t_m^{\mathrm{}}_{i_{m+1}}M_1`$, above $`s_m^{\mathrm{}},`$
    * $`t_m^{\mathrm{}}i_mH_m^{\mathrm{}},`$
    * tn``𝔾

    ~
    im+1M0=:𝔾m+1"t^{\ell}_{n}\Vdash``\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i_{m+1}}}\cap M_{0}=:\mathbb{G}^{\ell}_{m+1}",

and such that

1. $`Y_{m+1}=:\underset{i<n_{m+1}}{}[𝔾_{m+1}^{\mathrm{}},M_0,y^{}]D_\gamma ^𝔭(M_0)`$.

The rest is as in the proof of Theorem 3.11.

Now, without loss of generality the construction belongs to $`N_1`$. So

$$𝔾^{}=\{s_jN_0:\underset{n<\omega }{}sp_m\}$$

is as required, as $`q_{\mathrm{}}^{}=:q_{\mathrm{}}\underset{m}{}r_m_jN_1`$, and is above $`𝔾^{}`$ and $`pq_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$. This finishes proving clause $`(d)^{}`$ in the case $`\mathrm{}g(\overline{})`$ is a limit ordinal.
3. Clause $`(c)^{}`$: Again, without loss of generality $`i<j=\delta `$. So assume $`f_{i,j}(\alpha )\beta ,\{i,j,\alpha ,\beta \}N^{}_\beta ^𝔭,q`$ is $`(N^{},_i)`$-generic, $`Y^{}D_\beta ^𝔭(N^{}),q_\alpha `$ and q``Yi[𝔾

~
i,N,y]"forces𝑞``superscript𝑌subscriptsubscript𝑖subscript𝔾

~
subscript𝑖superscript𝑁superscript𝑦"q\Vdash``Y^{*}\subseteq{{\mathscr{M}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i}}[\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i}},N^{*},y^{*}]" are given. We prove the desired conclusion by induction on $`\alpha `$. For each $`\alpha `$, we would like to simulate a play of $`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }(N^{})`$, supplying the challenger with a strategy. For this we apply the proof of clause $`(d)^{}`$. Choose $`N_0,N_1,M_0,\mathrm{},M_4,q_0,𝔾_0,𝔾^{}`$ (and $`k=1`$) as there so that for some $`\alpha ^{}<\gamma ^{}<\beta ^{}`$ as there, $`\beta <\alpha ^{}`$ and $`N^{},q,Y^{}N_0`$.

During the construction, we demand $`p_mN^{}_j`$, so a generic for $`N_0`$ is not necessarily created. But still $`p_mp_{m+1},p_mi_m𝔾_m^{}`$. Now $`p_m`$ will be played by the chooser. Now $`g(1+\alpha )`$ will be a fixed point of $`f_{i_m,i_m+1}`$. So we can add the demand $`N^{}[𝔾_m^{}N^{}]𝕍=N^{}`$, i.e. $`𝔾_m^{}`$ is generic over $`N^{}`$ and

1. $`[𝔾_m^{}N^{},N^{},y^{}]D_{g(1+\alpha )}^𝔭(N^{})`$.

We will define the game so that the following are satisfied:

* The challenger chooses

    1. $`X_{m+1}=[𝔾_m^{}N^{},N^{},y^{}]\underset{\xi <g(1+\alpha )}{}_\xi ^𝔭\{M:p_mM\}N_0`$.
    * Now the chooser chooses $`\alpha _m,\beta _m^{}`$ and then the challenger chooses $`\beta _m\beta _m^{},f_{i_m,i_{m+1}}(\alpha )`$ in $`N_0^{}j`$ and the chooser chooses $`M_{m+1}^{}`$ such that $`p_mM_{m+1}^{}`$.
    * Now the chooser chooses $`Y_mD_{\beta _m}^𝔭(M_0),Y_mX_mM_0,Y_mN_0`$.
    * Now we play $`Z_m`$ for the challenger as follows: there is $`p_{m+1}p_m`$ which is $`(M_{m+1}^{},_{i_{m+1}})`$-generic such that $`p_{m+1}i_m𝔾_m^{}`$, $`p_{m+1}^{}`$ decides 𝔾

    ~
    im+1Nsubscript𝔾

    ~
    subscriptsubscript𝑖𝑚1superscript𝑁\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i_{m+1}}}\cap N^{*} and forces Zm=Ymim+1[𝔾

    ~
    im+1,Mm,y]Dαm𝔭(Mm)subscript𝑍𝑚subscript𝑌𝑚subscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑖𝑚1subscript𝔾

    ~
    subscriptsubscript𝑖𝑚1subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑚superscript𝑦subscriptsuperscript𝐷𝔭subscript𝛼𝑚subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑚Z_{m}=Y_{m}\cap{{\mathscr{M}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i_{m+1}}}[\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{G}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{i_{m+1}}},M^{*}_{m},y^{*}]\in D^{{\mathfrak{p}}}_{\alpha_{m}}(M^{*}_{m}).

Let us now give the details. Choose $`i_m^{}:m<\omega N_0`$ such that $`i_mN^{},i_0=i,i_m<i_{m+1}`$ and $`sup\{i_m:m<\omega \}=sup(N^{}j)`$ and let $`_m^{}:m<\omega `$ list the dense open subsets of $`_j`$ from $`N^{}`$. For $`𝕞<\omega `$ let $`𝒯_𝕞`$ be the set of finite sequences $`𝔵`$ from $`M_4`$ coding

* $`r_{𝔵,m}:m𝕞,`$
    * $`𝔾_{𝔵,m}:m𝕞,`$
    * $`p_{𝔵,m}:m𝕞,`$
    * $`n_{𝔵,m}:m𝕞,`$
    * $`𝔾_{𝔵,m}^{\mathrm{}}:\mathrm{}n_{𝔵,m},m𝕞,`$
    * $`Y_{𝔵,m}:m𝕞`$,
    * $`(X_{𝔵,m},\alpha _{𝔵,m},\beta _{𝔵,m}^{},\beta _{𝔵,m},M_{𝔵,n},y_{𝔵,m}^{},M_{𝔵,m}^{},y_{𝔵,m})`$ for $`m𝕞`$,
    * $`Z_{𝔵,m}`$ for $`m<𝕞`$,

satisfying items (a)-(k), (m), (n), (p) and (q) from the proof of $`(d)^{}`$ above and

1. $`(l)^{}p_m_jN^{}`$,
    2. $`(o)^{}p_mp_{m+1}_m^{}`$,
    3. $`(r)^{}r_{𝔵,m}`$ is $`(N^{},𝔾_{i_m})`$-generic for $`m𝕞`$,
    4. $`(s)^{}(X_{𝔵,m},\alpha _{𝔵,m},\beta _{𝔵,m}^{},\beta _{𝔵,m},M_{𝔵,m},Y_{𝔵,m},M_{𝔵,m}^{},Z_{𝔵,m^{}}):m𝕞`$

    belongs to $`N`$ and is an initial segment of a play of the game

    $`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }^{}(N^{},𝔭)`$ or just $`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }^{}(N^{},N,𝔭)`$,131313 note that in the $`𝕞`$-th move the challenger has not yet chose $`Z_{𝔵,𝕞}`$, (see clause (e) of Definition 4.2(1).
    5. $`(t)^{}Z_{𝔵,m}Y_{m+1}`$,
    6. $`(u)^{}y_{𝔵,m}`$ codes $`p_m,i_m:m<\omega `$,
    7. $`(v)^{}f_{i_m,i_{m+1}}(\alpha _m)\beta _m^{}`$ for $`m𝕞`$.

We let $`𝔵𝔶`$ to have the natural meaning for $`𝔵𝒯_{𝕞_1},𝔶𝒯_{𝕞_2},𝕞_1<𝕞_2`$. Note that

1. $`𝒯_𝕞N`$ for $`𝕞<\omega `$,
    2. $`𝒯_0\mathrm{}`$,
    3. if $`𝕩𝒯_𝕞`$, then $`𝔵`$ is an initial segment of a play of the game $`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }(N^{},𝔭)`$ (see clause $`(s)^{}`$ above).

Now we show that $`()_{11}()_{12},`$ where

1. $`(a)`$$`M_𝕞^{}Y_{𝔵,𝕞}_{\alpha _𝕞}^𝔭(M_{𝔵,𝕞}\{M_{𝔵,𝕞}(\chi _𝕞^𝔭)\}`$ satisfies $`y_𝕞,y_𝕞^{}`$

    $`M_𝕞^{}`$,
    2. $`(b)`$$`Z_𝕞𝒟_{\alpha _{𝔵,m}}(M_m^{}),`$
    3. $`(c)`$$`Z_𝕞Y_𝕞`$ (hence $`Z_𝕞X_{𝔵,𝕞})`$,
    4. $`(d)`$$`X_{𝕞+1}D_\beta ^𝔭(N^{})X_{𝔵,𝕞}`$ is such that $`Z_𝕞X_{𝕞+1}`$,
    5. $`(e)`$$`\alpha _{𝕞+1}\alpha N^{}`$,
    6. $`(f)`$$`\beta _{𝕞+1}^{}\beta N^{}\backslash p_{i_{𝕞+1},i_{𝕞_r}}(\alpha _{𝕞+1}),`$
    7. $`(g)`$$`y_{𝕞+1}^{}N(\chi _{\alpha _{𝕞+1}}^𝔭)`$ and $`y_{𝕞+1}^{}M_{𝕞+1}`$,
    8. $`(h)`$$`\beta _𝕞\beta N\backslash \beta _n^{}\backslash \alpha _n`$ and $`M_{𝕞+1}X_{𝕞+1}_{\beta _{𝕞+1}}^𝔭,`$
    9. $`(i)`$$`y_{𝕞+1}M_{𝕞+1}(\chi _{\alpha _𝕞}^𝔭)`$,
    10. $`(j)`$$`Y_{𝕞+1}ND_{\beta _{𝕞+1}}^𝔭(M_{𝕞+1})`$,
    11. $`(k)`$ any $`M_{𝕞+1}^{}Y_{𝕞+1}_{\alpha _m}^𝔭(M_{𝕞+1}\{M_{𝕞+1}(\chi _{\alpha _m}^𝔭)\}`$

    satisfies $`y_{𝕞+1},y_{𝕞+1}^{}M_{𝕞+1}^{}`$.

and

1. there is $`𝔶𝒯_{𝕞+1}`$ such that $`𝔵𝔶`$ and $`(Z_{𝔶,𝕞},X_{𝔶,𝕞+1}`$, $`\alpha _{𝔶,𝕞+1},\beta _{𝔶,m+1}^{},y_{𝔶,𝕞+1}^{}`$, $`\beta _{𝔶,𝕞+1},y_{𝔶,𝕞+1},M_{𝔶,𝕞+1},Y_{𝔶,𝕞+1},M_{𝔶,𝕞+1}^{})`$ is equal to $`(Z_𝕞,X_{𝕞+1},\alpha _{𝕞+1},\beta _{𝕞+1}^{}`$, $`y_{𝕞+1}^{},\beta _{𝕞+1},y_{𝕞+1}`$, $`M_{𝕞+1},Y_{𝕞+1},M_{𝕞+1}^{})`$.

To see this, note that $`f_{i_𝕞,i_{𝕞+1}}(\alpha _𝕞)\beta _𝕞`$, hence $`_{i_{𝕞+1}}/_{i_𝕞}`$ is $`(𝔭,\alpha _𝕞,\beta _𝕞)`$-proper; thus let $`𝔾_{i_𝕞}_{i_𝕞}`$ be generic over $`𝕍,r_𝕞𝔾_{i_𝕞}`$ to the model $`M_{𝔵,𝕞}^{}`$ and the set $`Y_{𝔵,𝕞}`$. Thus we can describe a strategy for the challenger in the game $`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }(N^{},𝔭)`$ (or $`\mathrm{}_{\alpha ,\beta }^{}(N^{},N,𝔭)`$) delaying his choice of $`M_𝕞^{},Z_𝕞`$ to the $`(𝕞+1)`$-th move, he just chose on the side $`𝔵_𝕞𝒯_𝕞`$ which “codes” what they played so far and preserve $`𝔵_𝕞𝔵_{𝕞+1}`$.

By $`_3`$ this is possible, all possible choices of the chooser are allowed, that is this gives a well defined strategy for the challenger. Now take $`𝔶𝒯_{𝕞+1}`$ be such that for all $`𝕞`$, $`𝔵_𝕞𝔶`$

As the challenger does not have a winning strategy, there is a play where the chooser wins. This gives us

$$𝔾^{\prime \prime }=\underset{n<\omega }{}𝔾_n^{}N^{}$$

with a bound. Also, there is such a choice $`𝔵_𝕞:𝕞<\omega `$ with $`\{(M_{𝔵_{𝕞+1},𝕞}^{}\}Y_{𝔵_{𝕞+1},𝕞}:𝕞<\omega \}D_\alpha ^𝔭(N)`$ and $`q^{}=\underset{𝕞<\omega }{}r_𝕞`$ is as required.

The proof is complete. ∎

Now we deal with the case of $`𝔭`$-NNR$`{}_{\kappa }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ iteration, where $`2\kappa <\mathrm{}_2`$. The adaptation for the proof of Theorem 6.3 when $`2\kappa <\mathrm{}_2`$ should be clear.

###### Theorem 6.4.

Assume $`\overline{}`$ is a $`𝔭`$-NNR$`{}_{\kappa }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ iteration where $`2\kappa <\mathrm{}_2`$, $`𝔭`$ is a reasonable parameter and $`𝔭`$ is a $`\mathrm{}_f`$-winner for some $`f_{\mathrm{club}}^𝔭`$ (or at least is $`\mathrm{}_f^{}`$-non loser).

1. Forcing with $`_{\mathrm{}g(\overline{})}=\mathrm{Lim}(\overline{})`$ does not add reals.
2. If $`ij\mathrm{}g(\overline{})`$, then

1. $`_j/_i`$ is proper,
    2. $`_j/_i`$ is $`(𝔭,f_{i,j})`$-proper, where $`f_{i,j}_{\mathrm{club}}^𝔭`$ is increasing continuous and is computable from the $`f_\epsilon ^𝔭`$ for $`\epsilon [i,j)`$,
    3. if $`i<j<\mathrm{}g(\overline{}),`$ then for some function $`g_{\text{cd}}^𝔭`$ in $`𝕍`$ and for all $`\alpha <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$ and $`\beta g(\alpha )`$ we have $`_j/_i`$ is $`(\mathrm{}_0,\alpha ,\beta )`$-anti-w.d above $`_i`$.

###### Proof..

Similar to the proof of Theorem 6.3, with some changes as in the proof of Theorem 3.15. ∎

###### Remark 6.5.

We may be interested in non-proper forcing notions, say semi-proper and UP ones (see \[6, Ch. X, XI, XV\]). Here the change from reasonable parameter $`𝔭=𝔭^V`$ to $`𝔭^{𝕍[𝔾]}`$ is more serious as $`\{N\chi _\alpha :N^{𝔭^{𝕍[𝔾]}}\}`$ is in general not equal to $`\{N\chi _\alpha :N_\alpha ^𝔭\}`$. This is treated in .

## 7. Forcing axioms compatible with CH

As is well known, iteration theorems give us consistency of axioms and in this section we present a few of such examples. We consider $`\kappa \{2,\mathrm{}_0\}`$, but could also have $`\kappa =\mathrm{}_1`$ at some points.

###### Definition 7.1.

Suppose $`𝔭`$ is an o.b. parameter. Then $`\mathrm{Ax}_\lambda ^\alpha (𝔭,\kappa ,0)`$ means: if $``$ is $`\mathrm{}_2`$-e.c.c. ($`\mathrm{}_2`$-pic if $`\lambda =\mathrm{}_2`$) and an $`NNR_\kappa ^0`$-forcing notion for $`𝔭,`$ $`_\beta `$ is a dense open subset of $``$, for $`\beta <\beta ^{}<\lambda `$, and S

~
isubscript𝑆

~
𝑖\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i} is a $``$-name of a stationary subset of $`\omega _1`$, for $`i<i^{}<\alpha `$, then for some directed $`𝔾`$ we have:

* $`\beta <\beta ^{}𝔾_\beta \mathrm{},`$
* i<iS

~
i[𝔾]={γ<ω1:(r𝔾)(r``γS

~
i")}𝑖superscript𝑖subscript𝑆

~
𝑖delimited-[]𝔾conditional-set𝛾subscript𝜔1𝑟𝔾subscriptforces𝑟``𝛾subscript𝑆

~
𝑖"i<i^{*}\Rightarrow\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i}[\mathbb{G}]=\{\gamma<\omega_{1}:(\exists r\in\mathbb{G})(r\Vdash_{{\mathbb{Q}}}``\gamma\in\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i}")\} is a stationary subset of $`\omega _1`$.

We remove $`\alpha `$ when $`\alpha =0.`$

Now we use our results on preservation of being an $`\text{NNR}_\kappa ^0`$-forcing notion for $`𝔭`$ to get the consistency of $`\mathrm{Ax}_\lambda ^\alpha (𝔭,\kappa ,0)`$.

###### Lemma 7.2.

1. If $`𝔭`$ is an o.b. parameter of length $`\mathrm{}g(𝔭)=\omega _1`$ which is non-$`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{id}}^{}`$-loser, and if $`\overline{}`$ is a countable support iteration such that for α<g(¯),α``

~
α\alpha<\ell g(\bar{{\mathbb{Q}}}),~{}\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\alpha}}``\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha} is an $`NNR_\kappa ^0`$-forcing notion for $`𝔭`$”, then $`\overline{}`$ is an $`NNR_\kappa ^0`$-iteration for $`𝔭`$
2. Assume $`\mathrm{CH}+\mu =\mu ^{<\mu }\lambda `$. If $`𝔭`$ is a non$`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{id}}^{}`$-loser o.b. parameter, $`\chi _0^𝔭>2^\lambda `$, then for some $`\mathrm{}_2`$-e.c.c. ($`\mathrm{}_2`$-pic, if $`\lambda =\mathrm{}_2`$) $`NNR_\kappa ^0`$-forcing notion $``$ of size $`\mu `$ we have $`_{}\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}\mathrm{Ax}_\lambda (𝔭,\kappa ,0)`$”.

###### Proof.

(1). Follows from Theorem 3.11,

(2). It follows using a suitable countable support iteration of length $`\mu ,`$ forcing all instances of the axiom $`\mathrm{Ax}_\lambda (𝔭,\kappa ,0)`$ at some stage of the iteration. Clause (1) and Theorem 1.10 guarantee that the iteration is as required.. ∎

###### Definition 7.3.

Assume $`\lambda =\lambda ^{<\lambda }\mathrm{}_1\kappa 2`$ and $`𝔭`$ is a reasonable parameter such that $`\lambda <\chi _0^𝔭`$ and $`\lambda \mathrm{cf}(\mathrm{}g(𝔭))`$. Let also

$`=_{\lambda ,𝔭}=(\{\overline{}:\overline{}(\lambda )`$ is a $`𝔭`$-NNR$`{}_{\kappa }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$ iteration$`\},_{})`$

where

$$\overline{}^1_{}\overline{}^2\overline{}^1=\overline{}^2\mathrm{}g(\overline{}^1).$$

1. $``$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   is absolutely $`(\lambda ,𝔭,)`$-NNR$`{}_{\kappa }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$ forcing above $`\overline{}`$, when

1. $`\overline{}`$,
    2. $``$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   is a $`\mathrm{Lim}(\overline{})`$-name of a forcing notion from $`(\lambda )^{𝕍[𝔾_{\mathrm{Lim}(\overline{}}]}`$,
    3. if $`\overline{}_{}\overline{}^1`$, then   $``$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   is $`(\overline{}^1,\overline{},𝔭)`$-NNR$`{}_{\kappa }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$, which means that there is $`\overline{}^2,\overline{}^1_{}\overline{}^2`$ and ¯g(¯1)2=

    ~
    subscriptsuperscript¯2𝑔superscript¯1

    ~
    \bar{{\mathbb{Q}}}^{2}_{\ell g(\bar{{\mathbb{Q}}}^{1})}=\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}} so   $``$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   is a $`\mathrm{Lim}(\overline{}^1)`$-name $`(\lambda )`$.
2. (

~
,¯

~
)

~
¯

~
(\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\bar{{\mathscr{I}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\bar{{\mathscr{I}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\bar{{\mathscr{I}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\bar{{\mathscr{I}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}) is an absolute $`(\lambda ,𝔭,)`$-NNR$`{}_{\kappa }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$-problem above $`\overline{}`$, when

1. $``$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   is a $`\mathrm{Lim}(\overline{})`$-name of a forcing notion from $`(\lambda )^{𝕍[𝔾_{\mathrm{Lim}(\overline{})}]}`$,
    2. $`\overline{}`$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   is a $`\mathrm{Lim}(\overline{})`$-name for a sequence of $`<\lambda `$ subsets of   $``$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$  ,
    3. if $`\overline{}_{}\overline{}^1`$, then there is $`\overline{}^2`$ such that $`\overline{}^1_{}\overline{}^2`$ and Lim(¯2)``(

    ~
    ,¯

    ~
    )subscriptforcesLimsuperscript¯2absent``

    ~
    ¯

    ~
    \Vdash_{{\rm Lim}(\bar{{\mathbb{Q}}}^{2})}``(\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\bar{\mathscr{I}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\bar{\mathscr{I}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\bar{\mathscr{I}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\bar{\mathscr{I}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}) is solved”, which means there is a directed 𝔾

    ~
    𝔾

    ~
    \mathbb{G}\subseteq\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}} meeting

    ~
    εsubscript

    ~
    𝜀\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathscr{I}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathscr{I}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathscr{I}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathscr{I}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon} for every ε<g(¯

    ~
    )"𝜀𝑔¯

    ~
    "\varepsilon<\ell g(\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\bar{\mathscr{I}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\bar{\mathscr{I}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\bar{\mathscr{I}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\bar{\mathscr{I}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}})".

###### Lemma 7.4.

Suppose that $`\mathrm{CH}`$ holds, $`\lambda =\lambda ^{<\lambda }\mathrm{}_1\kappa 2`$ and $`𝔭`$ is a reasonable parameter such that $`\lambda <\chi _0^𝔭`$ and $`\lambda \mathrm{cf}(\mathrm{}g(𝔭))`$. Then there is a proper $`\lambda `$-c.c. forcing notion $`_{}`$of cardinality $`\lambda `$, such that

1. Forcing with $`_{}`$ adds no reals,
2. $`_{}=\mathrm{Lim}(\overline{}_{}),`$ where $`\overline{}_{}`$ is a countable support iteration α,

~
α:α<λ\langle{\mathbb{P}}_{\alpha},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}:\alpha<\lambda\rangle with $`__\alpha \mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}|_\alpha |<\lambda `$”, such that $`\overline{}_{}\alpha (\lambda )`$ for $`\alpha <\lambda `$. In particular, $`_{}=\underset{\alpha <\lambda }{}_\alpha `$,
3. $`\overline{}_{}`$ is $`𝔭`$-NNR$`{}_{\kappa }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$-iteration,
4. if $`𝕀`$ is a dense open subset of

$$=_{\lambda ,𝔭}=(\{\overline{}:\overline{}(\lambda )\text{ is a }𝔭\text{-NNR}_\kappa ^0\text{ iteration}\},_{}),$$

where $`\overline{}^1_{}\overline{}^2\overline{}^1=\overline{}^2\mathrm{}g(\overline{}^1)`$, and if $`𝕀`$ is definable in $`((\lambda ),)`$ from a parameter, then $`\lambda =sup\{\alpha <\lambda :\overline{}_{}\alpha 𝕀\}`$,
5. if $`𝕍^{_{}}`$ is a forcing notion of cardinality $`\mathrm{}_1`$, so without loss of generality whose set of elements is a subset of $`\omega _1`$, and if $`\alpha <\lambda `$ is such that $`𝕍^_\alpha `$ and $``$ is absolute $`(𝔭\alpha ,\lambda ,)`$-proper, then for some $`\beta (\alpha ,\lambda ),_\beta =`$, hence $`𝕍^{_{}}\mathrm{Ax}_\lambda ()`$.
6. similarly for $`(,\overline{})`$.

###### Proof.

First note that $``$ is non-empty and with no maximal member. Indeed, the iteration of length zero belongs to $``$ and if ¯=β,

~
β:β<α\bar{{\mathbb{Q}}}=\langle{\mathbb{P}}_{\beta},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\beta}:\beta<\alpha\rangle\in{\mathbb{R}}, we can define $`\overline{}^{}`$ above it by letting ¯=β,

~
β:βα,\bar{{\mathbb{Q}}}^{\prime}=\langle{\mathbb{P}}_{\beta},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\beta}:\beta\leq\alpha\rangle, where $`_\alpha =lim(\overline{})`$ and $`__\alpha `$

~
α=(2ω1>,)\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}=({}^{\omega_{1}>}2,\triangleleft)”.

Now fix $`\mathrm{\Phi }:\lambda (\lambda )`$ such that for each $`x(\lambda ),`$ the set $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1\{x\}`$ is stationary in $`\lambda .`$ Let ¯=α,

~
α:α<λ\bar{{\mathbb{Q}}}_{*}=\langle{\mathbb{P}}_{\alpha},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}:\alpha<\lambda\rangle be a countable support iteration of forcing notions, where at stage $`\alpha `$, if $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\alpha )`$ is a $`_\alpha `$-name for a forcing notion as in $`(e)`$, then we let $`__\alpha `$

~
α=Φ(α)subscript

~
𝛼Φ𝛼\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}=\Phi(\alpha)”. Otherwise,

~
αsubscript

~
𝛼\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha} is forced to be the trivial forcing notion.

Using the preservation theorems we have proved earlier, we can easily show that $`_{}=lim(\overline{}_{})`$ is as required. ∎

It is natural to restrict ourselves to the linear case, but this is not a real difference when we allow to change the $`f`$ a little.

###### Definition 7.5.

Let $`𝔭`$ be a reasonable parameter.

1. $`𝔭`$ is linear, if whenever $`\alpha <\mathrm{}g(𝔭),N_\alpha ^𝔭`$ and $`YD_\alpha ^𝔭(N)`$, then there is $`Z`$ such that:

1. $`ZD_\alpha ^𝔭(N)`$,
    2. $`ZY`$,
    3. if $`aZ_\gamma ^𝔭`$ then $`NaN(\chi _\gamma )`$,
    4. $`Z`$ is linear, which means
    5. $`(\alpha )Z`$ is well ordered by $``$ (and by $``$),
    6. $`(\beta )`$ if $`aZ`$ then $`ZaN`$ and $`Na:aZ`$ is $``$-increasing continuous.
2. $`𝔭`$ is linearly standard when it is standard and linear.
3. Assume $`f^𝔭`$ and $`g^𝔭`$ is defined as

$$g(\alpha )=\{f(\beta ):\beta f(\alpha )\}.$$

Let $`𝔮=𝔭^{[f]}`$ be defined as in $`𝔭`$, except that for each $`\alpha <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$ and $`N`$, $`D_\alpha ^𝔮(N)=\{YD_\alpha ^𝔭(N)`$: for some $`\beta Nf(\alpha )`$ there is $`ZY,Z`$ linear and $`ZN(\chi _\beta ^𝔭)\}`$.

###### Lemma 7.6.

If $`𝔭`$ is a reasonable parameter and $`f,g`$ and $`𝔮`$ are as in Definition 7.5(3), then

1. $`𝔮`$ is a reasonable parameter,
2. if $`f`$ is increasing continuous then so is $`g`$,
3. if $`f(\alpha )=\alpha `$ then $`g(\alpha )=\alpha `$ and $`D_\alpha ^𝔮(N)=D_\alpha ^𝔭(N)`$.

###### Proof.

Straightforward. ∎

###### Lemma 7.7.

Assume $`𝔭`$ is a reasonable parameter, $`f^𝔭,\lambda =\lambda ^{<\lambda }`$ is large enough regular and $`=_{\lambda ,𝔭}`$. Let $`\overline{}`$ and $`=\mathrm{Lim}(\overline{})`$.

1. If $`𝔭`$ is linear and    $``$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   is a $``$-name of a ($`<^+\omega _1)`$-proper forcing notion from $`(\lambda )`$ and $`f_{\mathrm{dc}}^𝔭`$, then, ``

~
subscriptforcesabsent``

~
\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}}``\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}} is $`(𝔭^{},f)`$-proper”.
2. if    $``$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   satisfies the $`\kappa `$-completeness system $`𝔻𝕍`$ over $``$ and $``$ forces it is an NNR proper forcing notion, then for some $`f_{\mathrm{dc}}^𝔭`$, we have (,

~
)

~
({\mathbb{P}},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}) is $`(\kappa ,f)`$-anti w.d. (see Definition 4.12),

###### Proof.

(1). The proof is essentially the same as the proof of Lemma 3.17.

(2). Define the function $`f`$ such that for each $`\alpha <\mathrm{}g(𝔭),`$ $`f(\alpha )=[\theta _\alpha ,\mathrm{}g(𝔭))`$, where $`\theta _\alpha \alpha `$ is large enough so that $`(\chi _{\theta _\alpha })`$ contains all the relevant information and the cardinal $`\theta `$ from Definition 1.3 witnessing $`𝔻`$ is a completeness system is below $`\chi _{\theta _\alpha }`$.

Suppose $`\alpha <\mathrm{}g(𝔭)`$, $`\beta f(\alpha )`$ and suppose that $`N_0,N_1,n,p_{\mathrm{}}:\mathrm{}<n,𝔾^{\mathrm{}}:\mathrm{}<n,𝔾^{},Y`$ and   $`q`$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   are as in Definition 4.12(1)(A). Without loss of generality, we can assume that the $`p_{\mathrm{}}`$’s are pairwise incompatible.

Pick some $`MY,`$ so that for each $`\mathrm{}<n,(𝔾^{\mathrm{}}M)`$ is $`(M)`$-generic over $`M`$. Fix some $`\mathrm{}<n.`$ Consider the pair (M[𝔾],q

~
[𝔾])dom(𝔻)𝑀delimited-[]superscript𝔾𝑞

~
delimited-[]superscript𝔾dom𝔻(M[\mathbb{G}^{\ell}],\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}[\mathbb{G}^{*}])\in{\rm dom}({\mathbb{D}}). By the assumption, there are $`p_{\mathrm{}}^{}p^{\mathrm{}}`$ and   $`^{\mathrm{}}`$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   such that

p
H
~
 is in Gen+(M[𝔾],

~
,q

~
).forcessubscriptsuperscript𝑝
H
~
 is in superscriptGen𝑀delimited-[]superscript𝔾

~
𝑞

~
p^{\prime}_{\ell}\Vdash\text{``}\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{H}^{\ell}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{H}^{\ell}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{H}^{\ell}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{H}^{\ell}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}\text{~{}is in~{}}{\rm Gen}^{+}(M[\mathbb{G}^{\ell}],\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}})\text{''}.
By extending $`p_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ if necessary, we can assume that for some q

~
subscript𝑞

~
\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\ell} we also have

p
q
~

q
~
 is an upper bound for
H
~
,forcessubscriptsuperscript𝑝
q
~

q
~
 is an upper bound for
H
~
p^{\prime}_{\ell}\Vdash\text{``}\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle q_{\ell}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle q_{\ell}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle q_{\ell}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle q_{\ell}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}\geq\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}\text{~{}is an upper bound for~{}}\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{H}^{\ell}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{H}^{\ell}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{H}^{\ell}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{H}^{\ell}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}\text{''},
Set 𝕂=𝔾

~
superscript𝕂superscript𝔾fragmentsH

~
\mathbb{K}^{\ell}=\mathbb{G}^{\ell}\ast\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{H}^{\ell}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{H}^{\ell}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{H}^{\ell}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{H}^{\ell}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}. As the iteration

~

~
{\mathbb{P}}\ast\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}} does not add any new $`\omega `$-sequences of elements of $`𝕍`$, and by our choice of $`𝔾^{}`$, by extending (p,q

~
),subscriptsuperscript𝑝subscript𝑞

~
(p^{\prime}_{\ell},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\ell}), we may assume that for some fixed $`𝔾^{}`$ and for all $`\mathrm{}<n,`$ we have

(p,q

~
)𝕂N0=𝔾.forcessubscriptsuperscript𝑝subscript𝑞

~
superscript𝕂subscript𝑁0superscript𝔾absent(p^{\prime}_{\ell},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\ell})\Vdash\text{``}\mathbb{K}^{\ell}\cap N_{0}=\mathbb{G}^{**}\text{''}.
It follows that 𝔾Gen(N0,

~
)superscript𝔾absentGensubscript𝑁0

~
\mathbb{G}^{**}\in{\rm Gen}(N_{0},{\mathbb{P}}\ast\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}). Let q

~
superscript𝑞

~
\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\prime} be such that for all $`\mathrm{}<n,p_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$q

~
=q

~
superscript𝑞

~
subscript𝑞

~
\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\prime}=\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\ell}”. It is clear that p:<n,q

~
\langle p^{\prime}_{\ell}:\ell<n\rangle,\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\prime} and $`𝔾^{}`$ are as required by Definition 4.12(1)(B). ∎

For the rest of this section, assume that $`\mathrm{CH}`$ holds, $`\lambda =\lambda ^{<\lambda }\mathrm{}_1\kappa 2`$ and $`𝔭`$ is a reasonable parameter such that $`\lambda <\chi _0^𝔭`$ and $`\lambda \mathrm{cf}(\mathrm{}g(𝔭))`$. Let $`_{}`$ be as in Lemma 7.4.

###### Lemma 7.8.

Under the above assumptions, if $`𝕍^{_{}}`$ is one of the following forcing notions, then it satisfies clause (e) of Lemma 7.4, in particular $`𝕍^{_{}}\mathrm{Ax}_\lambda ()`$.

1. $`=_{\overline{C},\overline{u}}`$ is as in Definition 5.1(1),
2. ~
=C¯

~
subscript¯𝐶\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}={\mathbb{Q}}_{\bar{C}} is as in Definition 5.3, for $`\overline{C}=C_\delta :\delta <\omega _1`$ limit$`,`$ where for each limit ordinal $`\delta ,\mathrm{otp}(C_\delta )=\omega .`$
3. ~
=C¯

~
subscript¯𝐶\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}={\mathbb{Q}}_{\bar{C}} is as in Definition 5.3, for $`\overline{C}=C_\delta :\delta <\omega _1`$ limit$``$, where for some countable ordinal $`\gamma (),\delta <\omega _1\mathrm{otp}(C_\delta )\omega ^{\gamma ()}`$.

###### Proof.

The $`(𝔭,f)`$-properness of $`_{\overline{C},\overline{u}}`$ follows from Lemmas 5.2 and 7.7. The $`(𝔭,f)`$-properness of $`_{\overline{C}}`$ follows from Lemma 5.5 for $`\overline{C}`$ as in (b) and from Lemma 5.6 for $`\overline{C}`$ as in (c). The $`(𝔭,g)`$-anti w.d. is straightforward. ∎

Given an Aronszajn tree $`T`$, let $`_T`$ be the forcing notion of \[6, Ch. V, Definition 6.5\]. Let also $`\overline{}_T=_{T,\alpha }:\alpha <\omega _1`$ where

$$_{T,\alpha }=\{(f,C,\mathrm{\Psi })_T:T_\alpha \mathrm{dom}(f)\}.$$

###### Lemma 7.9.

Under the above assumption, we have the following:

1. If    $`T`$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   is a $`_{}`$-name of an Aronszajn tree, then the pair (

~
T

~
,¯T

~
)subscript

~
𝑇

~
fragments¯𝑇

~
(\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\bar{\mathscr{I}}_{T}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\bar{\mathscr{I}}_{T}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\bar{\mathscr{I}}_{T}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\bar{\mathscr{I}}_{T}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}) is an absolute $`(\lambda ,𝔭,)`$-NNR$`{}_{\mathrm{}_1}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$ problem over $`_{}`$.
2. If $`\lambda `$ is strongly inaccessible141414We may avoid this, if we use iterations as in \[6, Ch. VIII\], i.e. $`\overline{}`$ is only a class of $`((\lambda ),)`$, satisfying a strong version of $`\lambda `$-c.c., so $`\lambda =\mathrm{}_2`$ is sufficient, then every Aronszajn tree is special.

###### Proof.

(1) follows from \[6, Ch. V, Theorem 6.1\] and Lemma 7.7.

(2) is clear, as for any Aronszajn tree $`T`$, by (1), the forcing notion $`_T`$ satisfies clause (e) of Lemma 7.4. ∎

## 8. On Moore’s question

In this section we answer a question of Justin Moore about the consistency of strong failure of club guessing sequences with CH.

###### Definition 8.1.

Let cd:$`(\mathrm{}_1)\omega _1`$ be one-to-one. We say $`E`$ solves cd, when $`E`$ is a club of $`\omega _1`$ and for every $`\alpha E`$ we have cd$`(E(\alpha +1))<\mathrm{min}(E\backslash (\alpha +1))`$.

Justin Moore asked the following question.

###### Question 8.2.

Is the following consistent:

1. $`\mathrm{CH}`$,
2. for every one-to-one function cd from $`(\mathrm{}_1)`$ to $`\omega _1`$, there is some $`E`$ which solves it.
3. if $`\overline{C}=C_\delta :\delta <\omega _1`$ limit$``$, where $`C_\delta \delta =sup(C_\delta )`$ and $`\mathrm{otp}(C_\delta )=\omega `$, then for some club $`E`$ of $`\omega _1,(\delta )(\delta >sup(C_\delta E))`$.

We give a positive answer to the above question by proving the following theorem.

###### Theorem 8.3.

Suppose $`\mathrm{CH}`$ holds, $`\lambda =\lambda ^{<\lambda }\mathrm{}_1\kappa 2`$ and $`𝔭`$ is a reasonable parameter such that $`\lambda <\chi _0^𝔭`$ and $`\lambda \mathrm{cf}(\mathrm{}g(𝔭))`$. Let $`_{}`$ be as in Lemma 7.4 and set $`𝕍_1=𝕍^{_{}}`$. Then $`𝕍_1`$ satisfies the requirements of Question 8.2.

###### Proof.

In $`𝕍_1,\mathrm{CH}`$ holds by Lemma 7.4. Clause (c) of 8.1 holds by Lemma 7.8(b). To show that clause (b) of 8.2 is satisfied, let cd:$`(\mathrm{}_1)\omega _1`$ be a one-to-one function. Define $`=_{\text{cd}}`$ as follows:

1. $`p`$ iff $`p`$ is a closed bounded subset of $`\omega _1`$ satisfying

$$(\alpha p)[\alpha \mathrm{max}(p)\text{cd}(p(\alpha +1))<\mathrm{min}(p\backslash (\alpha +1))].$$
2. $`p_{}qp,q`$ and $`p`$ is an initial segment of $`q`$.

It is easily seen that $`_{\text{cd}}`$ is $`(<^+\omega _1)`$-proper and that it satisfies clause (e) of Lemma 7.4. The result follows immediately. ∎