text:
# Kaluza-Klein Induced Gravity Inflation

## I Introduction

Scale invariant model explains the origin of the scale parameters such as gravitational constant, cosmological constant as well as the masses for the fermion fields. Accordingly, all dimensionful parameters in Einstein Lagrangian are replaced by appropriate scalar measuring field with proper power according to their conformal dimensions.

Scale invariance also appears to be very important in various branches of physics such as QCD  and many other inflationary models . Local scale symmetry has also been suggested to be related to the missing Higgs problem in electro-weak theory  as well as many other research interests . It is also argued that scale invariant effective theory has to do with physics near the fixed points of renormalization group trajectory .

On the other hand, higher dimensional Kaluza-Klein theory  has been a focus of research interest for a long time. In addition, Kaluza-Klein theory should be related to the evolution of our early universe if the compactification process is completed during the early stage of the universe. Hence one is naturally lead to the question whether scale invariant effective action is manifest before dimensional reduction process takes place. Therefore we propose to study the effect of a $`D`$ dimensional induced gravity in the very early universe.

One notes that there have been studies based on a $`D`$-dimensional Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (DFRW) metric

$$ds^2\widehat{g}_{MN}dz^Mdz^N=dt^2+a^2(t)\left[\frac{1}{1kr^2}dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{D1}\right]$$
(1)
in search of a physically acceptable low energy effective theory . Here $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ denotes the n-dimensional solid angle with appropriate angular coordinates. Note, however, that the internal and external spaces will inflate all together if $`a(t)`$ undergoes an exponentially expanding process under the DFRW metric. Hence it would be interesting to see if a more general $`4`$+$`d`$ dimensional FRW (4dFRW) space is capable of inducing inflating external-space and contracting internal-space at the same time. Here $`dD4`$ denotes the dimension of the internal space. This kind of generalization is in fact a dimensional reduction from $`M^DR^1\times F^3\times F^d`$ with $`F^n`$ denoting the $`n`$-dimensional maximally symmetric space .

In this paper, we will show that an induced inflationary solution with expanding external-space and contracting internal-space will require a very special symmetry breaking scalar potential. The explicit form of the symmetry breaking potential required by the expanding solution with expanding external-space and constant internal-space will also be solved. In addition, we will also show that the most favorable solution appears to be the same as the result of DFRW space for the induced conventional-$`\varphi ^4`$ model. Our result indicates that the compactification process must have been completed before the inflationary process unless the symmetry breaking potential takes an unordinary form.

This paper will be organized as follows: (i) In section II, we will introduce the $`D`$-dimensional induced gravity theory. The $`D`$-dimensional equations of motion will also be compactified into $`4+d`$ dimensional in this section. (ii) We will also solve the equations of motion for an inflationary solution in the limit of slow-rollover approach in section III. It will be shown first that the existence of a solution with expanding external-space and contracting internal-space will impose a number of constraints on the coupled symmetry breaking potential. In particular, solution with expanding external-space and constant internal-space is also solved in search of the possible candidate for the scalar potential. (iii) the conventional $`\varphi ^4`$ model with a coupled SSB $`\varphi ^4`$ potential is solved and analyzed in section IV. (iv) Finally, conclusions are drawn in section V.

## II Induced Gravity in $`D`$ Dimension

In this paper we will consider the following induced gravity action :

$$S=d^Dz\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\left[\frac{1}{2}ϵ\varphi ^2\widehat{R}+\frac{1}{2}^M\varphi _M\varphi +V(\varphi )\right].$$
(2)
The scalar field $`\varphi `$ in (2) is the measuring field designed to replace the dimensionful Newtonian constant as appeared in the four dimensional induced gravity models. One should replace all dimensionful coupling constants with appropriate scalar fields according to their dimensions. After this replacement, one can show that, apart from a possible symmetry breaking potential $`V`$, the action (2) is invariant under the following scale transformation: $`g_{MN}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2g_{MN}`$ , $`\varphi \mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1D/2)}\varphi `$.

We will denote $`D=4+d`$ from now on in this paper. Here $`d=D4`$ is the dimension of the internal space in the Kaluza-Klein theory we are going to study in this paper. We will also use a hat notation, $`\widehat{R}_{MN}`$, to represent the physical variables in $`D`$-dimension and non-hatted variable, $`R_{ab}`$, will represent the same physical variables evaluated solely in the $`4`$-dimensional physical external-space. Barred notation, $`\overline{R}_{mn}`$, will also be employed to denote the same physical variables evaluated in $`d`$-dimensional internal-space. Note that by the same physical variables we meant that they are defined by the same notation except the metric is replaced by the appropriate metric defined in its own space. Furthermore, we will use capital indices $`M,N,\mathrm{}`$ $`(=0,1,2,\mathrm{},D1)`$ to denote the $`D`$ dimensional space-time indices. Also lower case Latin indices from the beginning ($`a,b,c,\mathrm{}`$) of the alphabet will denote the four dimensional space time indices $`(a,b,c=0,1,2,3)`$. In addition, $`i,j,k,l(=1,2,3)`$ labels the spatial $`3`$-manifold. Finally, we will use lower case Latin indices from the middle ($`m,n,\mathrm{}`$) of the alphabet to label the $`d`$-dimensional compactified internal-space.

Note that the Kaluza-Klein dimensional reduction process we will adopt in this paper is the following $`4+d`$ dimensional Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric (4dFRW)

$$ds^2\widehat{g}_{MN}dz^Mdz^N=dt^2+a^2(t)h_{ij}(x)dx^idx^j+b^2(t)\overline{h}_{mn}(y)dy^mdy^n.$$
(3)
Here $`h_{ij}dx^idx^j(1k_1r^2)^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3`$ and $`\overline{h}_{mn}dy^mdy^n(1k_2s^2)^1ds^2+s^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_d`$ with $`k_1,k_2=0,\pm 1`$ denoting the signature of the external space and internal space respectively.

Note that if we adopt the compactification ansatz $`\varphi (z)=\varphi (x)\kappa ^{\frac{d}{2}}`$, the compactified $`4`$-dimensional effective Einstein action, except the SSB $`\varphi ^4`$ potential term, will remain scale invariant under the $`4`$-dimensional scale transformation: $`g_{ab}(x)\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)^2g_{ab}(x)`$ , $`\varphi (x)\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)^{(2D)/2}\varphi (x)`$. This shows that this is a consistent and scale-invariant way to carry out the compactification process. Note also that $`\kappa `$ is a dimension one constant parameter such that $`d^dy\kappa ^d`$ is dimensionless and will be set as $`1`$ for latter convenience. Note that we will also use the same $`\varphi `$ notation for $`\varphi (z)`$ and $`\varphi (x)`$ for convenience.

The equations of motion can be obtained from varying the action (2) with respect to $`\varphi `$ and $`\widehat{g}_{MN}`$ respectively. As a result, one has:

$`ϵ\varphi \widehat{R}D_M^M\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{}{\varphi }}V(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (4)
$`ϵ\varphi ^2\widehat{G}_{MN}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ(D_M_N\widehat{g}_{MN}D^P_P)\varphi ^2+\widehat{T}_{MN}^\varphi .`$ (5)
Here $`\widehat{G}_{MN}\frac{1}{2}\widehat{R}\widehat{g}_{MN}\widehat{R}_{MN}`$ defines the Einstein tensor. Moreover, $`\widehat{T}_\varphi ^{MN}^M\varphi ^N\varphi \widehat{g}^{MN}[\frac{1}{2}^P\varphi _P\varphi +V(\varphi )]`$ is the energy momentum tensor associated with $`\varphi `$. Furthermore, the curvature tensor $`\widehat{R}_{MNOP}`$ is defined by $`[D_M,D_N]\widehat{A}_O=\widehat{R}_{ONM}^P\widehat{A}_P`$. In addition, the Ricci tensor and scalar curvature are defined by $`\widehat{R}_{ON}\widehat{R}_{ONP}^P`$ and $`\widehat{R}\widehat{R}_{ON}\widehat{g}^{ON}`$ respectively.

For latter convenience, we will define $`\varphi ^2e^\phi `$, $`ae^\alpha `$, $`be^\beta `$, $`V(\varphi )U(\phi )`$ throughout this paper. Hence one can bring (4) and (5) into a more comprehensive form in terms of the new variables and parameters defined earlier. Indeed, (4) and (5) can be written as

$$\widehat{G}_{MN}=D_M_N\phi +_M\phi _N\phi \widehat{g}_{MN}(D^P_P\phi +^P\phi _P\phi )\widehat{T}_{MN}^\phi ,$$
(6)
$$\widehat{R}=\frac{1}{4ϵ}(^M\phi _M\phi +2D^P_P\phi )\frac{8}{ϵ}e^\phi \frac{U(\phi )}{\phi }.$$
(7)
Hence one has

$`\widehat{R}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4ϵ}}(_a\phi ^a\phi +D_a^a\phi ){\displaystyle \frac{2}{ϵ}}e^\phi _\phi U(\phi ),`$ (8)
$`\widehat{G}_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`(_a\phi _b\phi +D_a_b\phi )g_{ab}(^c\phi _c\phi +D^P_P\phi )T_{ab}^\phi ,`$ (9)
$`\widehat{G}_{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`D_m_n\phi \overline{g}_{mn}(^c\phi _c\phi +D^P_P\phi )\overline{T}_{mn}^\phi .`$ (10)
Here we have defined the generalized energy momentum tensor for $`\phi `$ and $`\widehat{T}_{MN}^\phi `$ as:

$$\widehat{T}_{MN}^\phi =\frac{1}{4ϵ}(\frac{1}{2}\widehat{g}_{MN}_P\phi ^P\phi _M\phi _N\phi )+\frac{V}{ϵ}e^\phi \widehat{g}_{MN}.$$
(11)
Therefore, one has

$`T_{ab}^\phi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4ϵ}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{ab}^c\phi _c\phi _a\phi _b\phi )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}e^\phi U(\phi )g_{ab},`$ (12)
$`\overline{T}_{mn}^\phi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4ϵ}}\overline{g}_{mn}^c\phi _c\phi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}e^\phi U(\phi )\overline{g}_{mn},`$ (13)
respectively. In addition, with the compactified metric

$$ds^2\widehat{g}_{MN}dz^Mdz^N=g_{ab}(z)dx^adx^b+\overline{g}_{mn}(z)dy^mdy^n,$$
(14)
and by setting $`\varphi (z)=\varphi (x)`$, one can derive the following compactified identities for the curvature terms:

$`\widehat{R}`$ $`=`$ $`R+2dD_a^a\beta +d(d+1)_a\beta ^a\beta d(d1)k_2e^{2\beta },`$ (15)
$`\widehat{G}_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`G_{ab}+t_{ab},`$ (16)
$`\widehat{G}_{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{g}_{mn}[R+2(d1)D_a^a\beta +d(d1)_a\beta ^a\beta `$ (18)
$`(d1)(d2)k_2e^{2\beta }].`$
Here the generalized energy momentum tensor $`t_{ab}`$ is given by

$`t_{ab}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{ab}[\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}dD_c^c\beta +d(d+1)_c\beta ^c\beta d(d1)k_2e^{2\beta }]`$ (20)
$`d(D_a_b\beta +_a\beta _b\beta ).`$
Note that $`\widehat{g}^{MN}\widehat{G}_{MN}=(\frac{D}{2}1)\widehat{R}`$. Hence one can obtain the following equation of $`\phi `$

$$_a\phi ^a\phi +D_a^a\phi +d_a\beta ^a\phi =\kappa _3\frac{e^\phi }{ϵ}[(D2)_\phi UDU]$$
(21)
from eliminating the $`\widehat{R}`$ term in the trace of $`\widehat{G}_{MN}`$ equation (6) and the $`\phi `$ equation (8). Here one has set $`\kappa _3=4ϵ/[4(D1)ϵ+D2]`$. Finally, one can show that the trace of the $`\widehat{G}_{mn}`$ equation (10), $`\overline{g}^{mn}\widehat{G}_{mn}`$, and the trace of the $`\widehat{G}_{mn}`$ equation (18) gives two constraint-equations related to $`R`$. One can eliminate these $`R`$ terms and obtain the following equation for $`b(t)`$:

$`d_a\beta ^a\beta +D_a^a\beta (d1)k_2e^{2\beta }`$ $`=`$ $`(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4ϵ}})[_a\phi ^a\phi +D_a^a\phi +d_a\beta ^a\phi ]`$ (23)
$`_a\beta ^a\phi +{\displaystyle \frac{e^\phi }{ϵ}}[U_\phi U]`$
Therefore we will take (23) as the independent $`\beta `$-equation. This will soon be shown to be helpful in our analysis below. Finally, one can show that $`G_{tt}`$ component of the equation (9), the $`\phi `$ equation (21) and the $`\beta `$ equation (23) becomes

$`\alpha ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{k_1}{a^2}}+d\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{d(d1)}{6}}(\beta ^2+k_2e^{2\beta })`$ $`+`$ $`\alpha ^{}\phi ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{d}{3}}\beta ^{}\phi ^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{24ϵ}}\phi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{U}{3ϵ}}e^\phi `$ (24)
$`\phi ^{\prime \prime }+3\alpha ^{}\phi ^{}+d\beta ^{}\phi ^{}+\phi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _3}{ϵ}}e^\phi [(D2)_\phi UDU],`$ (25)
$`\beta ^{\prime \prime }+3\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}+d\beta ^2+(d1)k_2e^{2\beta }+\beta ^{}\phi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _3}{ϵ}}e^\phi [_\phi U+(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2ϵ}})U].`$ (26)
Note also that the $`G_{ij}`$ component of the equation (9) can be deduced from the $`4`$-dimensional Bianchi Identity $`D_aG^{ab}=0`$ associated with the $`4`$-dimensional FRW metric. Hence it is in fact redundant. Therefore, equations (24-26) are in fact a complete set of equations of motion one needs for solving $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\phi `$.

## III Inflationary Universe

If one assumes the slow-rollover approximation, namely, $`\frac{a^{}}{a}|\phi ^{}|`$, one can show that

$`\alpha ^2+d\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{d(d1)}{6}}\beta ^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{U}{3ϵ}}e^\phi ,`$ (27)
$`3\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}+d\beta ^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _3}{ϵ}}e^\phi [_\phi U+(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2ϵ}})U],`$ (28)
$`(3\alpha ^{}+d\beta ^{})\phi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _3}{ϵ}}e^\phi [(d+4)U(d+2)_\phi U].`$ (29)
Here we have set $`k_1=k_2=0`$ for simplicity. Note that the issue of the non-compact internal space has recently been subject of renewed interest . An exotic class of Kaluza-Klein models in which the internal space is neither compact nor even of finite volume was considered and Gravity is used to trap particles near a four-dimensional subminifold of the higher dimensional spacetime.

Moreover, we have also assumed that $`|\phi ^{\prime \prime }|\alpha ^{}|\phi ^{}|`$ and $`|\beta ^{\prime \prime }|\beta ^2`$. We will show shortly that these assumptions can be met rather easily.

We will assume for the moment during the slow-rollover period that $`\alpha =\alpha _0t`$ and $`\beta =k\alpha _0t`$ for some positive real number $`k`$ and $`\alpha _0`$. This kind of solution represents a brief moment of inflating scale factor $`a`$ accompanied by a contracting internal scale factor $`b`$. This will be helpful in finding possible constraint on the form of symmetry breaking potential one would require for a more realistic model. One can also assume that $`UU_0V(\varphi =\varphi _0)`$ while $`\varphi \varphi _0`$ during the inflationary phase. Therefore, one can show that equations (27-29) can be brought to the following form:

$`d(d1)k^26dk+6`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{k},`$ (30)
$`k(dk3)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{k}\kappa _3}{4}}(ss_{}),`$ (31)
$`dk3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(d+2)\stackrel{~}{k}\kappa _3\alpha _0}{4\phi _0^{}}}(ss_+).`$ (32)
Here $`\stackrel{~}{k}2U_0/ϵ\alpha _0^2\varphi _0^2`$, $`\phi _0^{}\phi ^{}(t_0)`$, $`s_{}21/ϵ`$ and $`s_+2(d+4)/(d+2)`$. In addition, we have also defined $`s\varphi _0(_\varphi U)_0/U_0`$ as the scaling factor of $`U`$ evaluated at $`\varphi =\varphi _0`$.

We will first study the case where $`d>1`$. Note that equation (30) indicates that $`d(d1)k^26dk+6d(d1)(kk_+)(kk_{})>0`$ under the assumption that $`U`$ is positive everywhere. Here we have defined $`k_\pm 3/(d1)\pm \sqrt{3d(d+2)}/d(d1)`$ as the roots of the $`k`$-equation. Therefore one has either $`k>k_+`$ or $`k<k_{}`$ from the $`k`$-inequality. In addition, equation (31) and equation (32) gives

$$\alpha _0=\frac{ss_{}}{k(d+2)(ss_+)}\phi _0^{}.$$
(33)
This shows that $`\phi _0^{}(ss_+)(ss_{})>0`$ since $`k`$ is assumed to be positive.

Moreover, one also assumes that $`dU(\varphi )/dt<0`$ such that the scalar field is rolling down from some initial value $`\varphi _0`$ to the minimum potential energy state $`\varphi _m`$. This means that $`s\phi _0^{}<0`$. Therefore, one finds that there are only two kinds of combination capable of supporting this process. The first one is (1) $`\phi _0^{}<0`$, $`0<s<s_+`$ and the second one is (2) $`\phi _0^{}>0`$, $`s>s_{}`$. One can further rule out case (2) from the assumption that $`\alpha _0|\phi _0^{}|`$. Indeed, equation (33) indicates that the slow-rollover assumption is equivalent to $`|ss_{}|k(d+2)|ss_+|`$. Hence case (1) can be shown to give a constraint

$$s\frac{k(d+2)s_++s_{}}{k(d+2)+1}.$$
(34)
This can easily be achieved provided that $`s_+s_{}`$. Note that this is true if $`ϵ1`$ . Similarly, case (2) will give a contradictory result $`s_{}s_+`$. Therefore, case (2) is ruled out.

In addition, case (1) and equation (32) shows that $`dk3>0`$. Hence the constraint on $`k`$ obtained earlier is further restricted to the case where $`k>k_+`$. This is because $`3/d<k<k_{}`$ leads to a contradiction $`3>d(d+2)`$.

In short, the induced Kaluza-Klein compactification admits chaotic inflation only if the symmetry breaking potential obeys a number of constraints listed earlier. They are :

$`(a)`$ $`s_+s_{},`$ (35)
$`(b)`$ $`s_+>s[k(d+2)s_++s_{}]/[k(d+2)+1],`$ (36)
$`(c)`$ $`\phi _0^{}<0,`$ (37)
$`(d)`$ $`k>k_+.`$ (38)
For example, one would have (a) $`8/5s_{}`$, (b) $`8/5>s(5k+s_{})/(8k+1)`$ and (c) $`k>1`$ as the constraint on $`k`$ and $`s`$ for the case where $`d=6`$ or equivalently $`D=10`$.

One can easily construct an effective symmetry breaking potential by expanding the potential around the initial point $`\varphi _0`$. Explicitly, it will take the following form $`U=U_0+sU_0(\varphi \varphi _0)+\mathrm{}`$ around the initial point. For example, one can show that the conventional $`\varphi ^4`$ model with $`U=(\lambda /8)(\varphi ^2v^2)^2`$ does not satisfy the constraint obtained earlier. Indeed, one can show that equation (32) gives

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }>\frac{\lambda }{8(d+4)}(\varphi _0^2v^2)[d\varphi _0^2+(d+4)v^2]$$
(39)
for the conventional $`\varphi ^4`$ model with an additional positive definite cosmological constant term $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This clearly shows that the chaotic inflation condition $`\varphi _0^2>v^2`$ is inconsistent with the case where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$. Note that the no-hair conjecture states that cosmologies with a positive cosmological constant would approach the de Sitter solution asymptotically . Even some counter examples are found, it was shown to hold for a very general conditions . Our result appears to favor above conjecture with the inclusion of the higher dimensional space. Therefore, the conventional $`\varphi ^4`$ model with vanishing cosmological constant can not support an inflationary solution with expanding external-space and contracting internal-space. We will solve the conventional $`\varphi ^4`$ model later in section IV.

For the case where $`d=1`$, the situation is rather different. Equation (30) implies that $`k<1`$ for positive $`U_0`$. In addition, equation (31) gives $`s<s_{}(<0)`$ while equation (32) implies $`\phi _0^{}>0`$ (new inflationary solution). In addition, the slow-rollover assumption indicates that $`s_{}sk(103s)`$. Therefore one obtains $`(3k1)s10ks_{}(>0)`$. This implies that $`k<1/3`$. In summary, one has (a) $`s<s_{}(<0)`$, (b) $`k<1/3`$, and (c) $`\phi _0^{}>0`$. Therefore the five dimensional Kaluza-Klein new inflationary solution with expanding external-space and contracting internal-space can also be arranged if the field parameters are chosen appropriately.

One can also study the case where the internal-space scale factor remains constant, $`i.e.`$ $`b=b_0`$  or equivalently $`k=0`$ in the early universe. In this case, the equations will become

$`\alpha ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{k_1}{a^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d(d1)}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_2}{b_0^2}}`$ $`+`$ $`\alpha ^{}\phi ^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{24ϵ}}\phi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{U}{3ϵ}}e^\phi ,`$ (40)
$`\phi ^{\prime \prime }+3\alpha ^{}\phi ^{}+\phi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _3}{ϵ}}e^\phi [(D2)_\phi UDU],`$ (41)
$`(d1){\displaystyle \frac{k_2}{b_0^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _3}{ϵ}}e^\phi [_\phi U+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2ϵ}}+1)U].`$ (42)
Therefore one finds that there is a strong constraint (42) left over for the $`b`$ equation. This equation says that $`_\phi U+(1+\frac{1}{2ϵ})U=0`$ for a flat internal-space (i.e. $`k_2=0`$). One can then show that either (i) the potential $`U`$ has to be a special fractional polynomial functional of $`\varphi `$, namely, $`U=k_0\varphi ^{(2+1/ϵ)}`$ with a proportional constant $`k_0`$, or (ii) the dynamics of the scalar field has to be frozen, namely, the scalar field becomes a constant $`\varphi =\varphi _0`$. One can show that the first case would imply that $`\alpha ^{}\phi ^{}/2`$ under the constraint $`ϵ1`$. This contradicts the slow rollover approximation. On the other hand, the case (ii) implies that $`U(\phi _0)=_\phi U(\phi _0)=0`$. Hence one has $`a^2=k_1`$ due to equation (40). Therefore, one needs $`k_1=1`$ in order to admit a power law inflation. One can hence tune the field parameters to induce enough inflation with expanding external-space and constant internal-space. But this model can not tell us when the inflationary phase should come to an end. One would have to expect that this induced gravity model remains valid only during the inflationary period and leave the problem to other resolutions.

On the other hand, one can show that the constraint (42)

$$(D5)\frac{k_2ϵ}{b_0^2\kappa _3}\varphi ^2=_\phi U+(1+\frac{1}{2ϵ})U$$
(43)
implies $`\varphi =\varphi _0`$ for the case $`k_20`$ unless

$$U=k_0\varphi ^{2\frac{1}{4ϵ}}+\frac{2(D5)k_2ϵ^2}{(1+4ϵ)b_0^2\kappa _3}\varphi ^2.$$
(44)
If $`\varphi =\varphi _0`$, equation (41) implies that

$$\left[(D2)_\phi UDU\right]_{\varphi _0}=0.$$
(45)
Equations (43) and (45) mean that all field parameters and initial conditions are constrained by these equations. In addition, equation (40) tells us that

$$\alpha ^2(D5)\frac{k_2}{3b_0^2}$$
(46)
independent of the form of potential $`U`$. Of course, the initial value of the scalar field $`\varphi _0`$ is determined by the form of potential and the two constraints just derived. This solution is an inflationary solution with expanding external-space and constant internal-space as long as $`k_2(D5)>0`$ and $`b_01`$. One can certainly tune $`b_0`$ to induce enough inflation with expanding external-space and constant internal-space. But this solution can not tell us how to exit the inflationary phase at this point either. One would then have to expect again that this kind of induced gravity model would not remain effective as soon as the inflationary process is completed.

On the other hand equations (40) and (41) imply that

$`\alpha ^2`$ $`=`$ $`(1+6ϵ)A+B,`$ (47)
$`\alpha ^{}\phi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`4ϵA+2B,`$ (48)
under the slow-rollover approximation if $`U`$ is given by equation (44). Here

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(D5)k_2}{3b_0^2(1+4ϵ)}},`$ (49)
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_0}{3ϵ\varphi _0^{4+\frac{1}{4ϵ}}}}`$ (50)
for $`\varphi \varphi _0`$ in this inflationary phase. Therefore one can choose $`ϵ1`$ and $`BA`$ in order to be consistent with the assumption that $`\alpha ^{}|\phi ^{}|`$. In addition, one can choose $`A>0`$ since $`\alpha ^2>0`$. This implies that $`k_2=1`$ for $`D5`$. In addition, $`AB`$ implies that $`k_0b_0^2(D5)ϵ\varphi _0^{4+\frac{1}{4ϵ}}`$ which can be achieved by tuning the field parameters appropriately. Moreover, one still needs to make sure that the potential $`U`$ given by equation (44) has at least a local minimum $`\varphi _m`$ far away from the initial data $`\varphi _0`$ such that inflation can exit in due time.

Fortunately, a local minimum always exists for a large class of parameters. Indeed, one can show that

$$k_0b_0^2(D5)(D2)ϵ^2\varphi _m^{4+\frac{1}{4ϵ}}$$
(51)
from $`_\varphi U|_{\varphi =\varphi _m}=0`$. Hence one only needs

$$ϵ\varphi _m^{4+\frac{1}{4ϵ}}\frac{2}{D2}\varphi _0^{4+\frac{1}{4ϵ}}.$$
(52)
In addition, the requirement $`U^{\prime \prime }|_{\varphi _m}>0`$ can be made valid very easily.

Therefore, the inflationary process can properly work with the assumption $`b=b_0`$ for the case where $`F^d=S^{d+1}`$. And this has to come along with the potential of the form given by equation (44).

## IV Conventional $`\varphi ^4`$ Model

One can also works on the model with a spontaneously symmetry breaking (SSB) $`\varphi ^4`$ potential $`U=\frac{\lambda }{8}(e^\phi v^2)^2`$. This sort of potential will be referred to as the conventional $`\varphi ^4`$ model in this paper. It is straightforward to show that $`_\phi U=\frac{\lambda }{4}(e^\phi v^2)e^\phi `$. Hence equation (29) becomes

$$(3\alpha ^{}+d\beta ^{})\phi ^{}=\frac{\kappa _3\lambda }{8ϵ}e^\phi (e^\phi v^2)[de^\phi +(d+4)v^2].$$
(53)
This indicates that $`3\alpha +d\beta `$ is always an increasing function as long as the $`\phi `$ field is rolling down to its true vacuum $`e^\phi =v^2`$. It also indicates that $`\varphi `$ cannot go far away from its local minimum, hence it should oscillate around $`\varphi =v`$ after the inflation is over. We will come back to this point shortly. Moreover, the equation (28) becomes

$$3\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}+d\beta ^2=\frac{2U}{(d+2)ϵ}e^\phi $$
(54)
if $`ϵ1`$ and $`|\varphi ^2v^2|/\varphi ^24ϵ`$. These assumptions can be adjusted rather easily. Together with equation (27), one finds that

$$2\alpha ^2+(d2)\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}d\beta ^2=(\alpha ^{}\beta ^{})(2\alpha ^{}+d\beta ^{})0.$$
(55)
This means that $`\alpha ^{}=\beta ^{}`$ because the equation $`\alpha ^{}=\frac{d}{2}\beta ^{}`$ contradicts the equation (54). Hence $`b(t)`$ increases along with the expanding $`a(t)`$ in the inflationary era under the slow-rollover approximation. Therefore, one has shown that the conventional $`\varphi ^4`$ model supports DFRW space instead of the 4dFRW space. Hence the solution with expanding external-space and contracting internal-space can not be found under the slow-rollover approximation. We will still, however, study the DFRW solution in details in this section for completeness. Note that the presence of a nonvanishing cosmological constant in the conventional $`\varphi ^4`$ model will not affect the equation (55) under the same slow rollover approximation.

Note that equation (54) gives us

$`\alpha ^{}`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda v^4}{8(d+2)(d+3)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{v}{\varphi _0}},`$ (56)
$`a`$ $``$ $`a_0e^{\sqrt{\frac{\lambda v^4}{8(d+2)(d+3)}}\frac{v}{\varphi _0}t}.`$ (57)
Here one has set $`\frac{1}{2}ϵv^2=1`$ such that the gravitational constant measured today is set as $`1`$ in Planck unit. Moreover, $`\varphi _0`$, set to be positive, denotes the initial value of $`\varphi `$ field. Moreover, equation (53) gives

$`\varphi ^{}`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda (d+4)^2}{2(d+2)(d+3)}}}v,`$ (58)
$`\varphi `$ $``$ $`\varphi _0+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda (d+4)^2}{2(d+2)(d+3)}}}vt.`$ (59)
Here we can see that the assumptions $`|\phi ^{\prime \prime }|\alpha ^{}|\phi ^{}|`$ and $`|\beta ^{\prime \prime }|\beta ^2`$ are both satisfied without imposing any further constraints.

One can further derive a few inequalities from the slow-rollover assumption $`\frac{a^{}}{a}|\phi ^{}|`$. First of all, they give

$$v^24(d+4).$$
(60)
Note that the cosmological constant term $`\frac{1}{8}\lambda v^4`$ at initial time should be less than $`1`$, in Planck unit, in order that quantum effect can be neglected. We will be using Planck unit from now on. In addition, if the scale factor $`a(t)`$ is capable of expanding some $`60`$ e-fold in a time interval of roughly $`\mathrm{\Delta }T10^8`$ Planck unit, one should have the following inequality:

$$\frac{\lambda v^4}{8}(d+2)(d+3)\frac{\varphi _0^2}{v^2}\times 3.6\times 10^{13}.$$
(61)
Inequality (61) can be made valid rather easily. Indeed, these inequalities can be easily satisfied by choosing large $`v^2`$ (hence small $`ϵ`$) and a $`\lambda `$ around the order of $`10^{17}`$ as in Ref. . Hence one shows that the slow-rollover approximation is indeed a good approach to this expanding solution.

Note that we can also extract information about $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\phi `$ when $`\phi v`$ near the end of the expansion. This can be done by analyzing equations (24-26) by assuming $`e^\phi =\xi +v^2`$ with $`\xi v^2`$. Moreover, one can show that equations (25-26) become,

$`_t(e^{3\alpha +d\beta +\phi }\phi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _3\lambda }{8ϵ}}e^{3\alpha +d\beta }(e^\phi v^2)[de^\phi +(d+4)v^2],`$ (62)
$`_t(e^{3\alpha +d\beta +\phi }\beta ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _3\lambda }{8ϵ}}e^{3\alpha +d\beta }(e^\phi v^2)[(3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2ϵ}})e^\phi (1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2ϵ}})v^2].`$ (63)
Hence equations (62-63) become

$`_t(e^{3\alpha +d\beta }\xi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`m_v(d+2)e^{3\alpha +d\beta }\xi ,`$ (64)
$`_t[e^{3\alpha +d\beta }\beta ^{}(\xi +v^2)]`$ $`=`$ $`m_ve^{3\alpha +d\beta }\xi ,`$ (65)
as one takes the limit $`e^\phi =\xi +v^2`$. Here $`m_v\kappa _3\frac{\lambda v^4}{8}`$.

Moreover, equations (24-26) can be interpreted as a set of equations that allow one to express $`\alpha (t)`$ and $`\beta (t)`$ as functions of $`\xi (t)`$. Therefore one can expand $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ as polynomials of $`\xi `$, i.e. one can write

$`\alpha (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _0(t)+\alpha _1(t)\xi (t)+\alpha _2(t)\xi ^2(t)+\mathrm{}`$ (66)
$`\beta (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _0(t)+\beta _1(t)\xi (t)+\beta _2(t)\xi ^2(t)+\mathrm{}.`$ (67)
Therefore, the lowest (first) order in $`\xi `$ of equation (64) is

$$_t(e^{3\alpha _0+d\beta _0}\xi ^{})=m_v(d+2)e^{3\alpha _0+d\beta _0}\xi .$$
(68)
Moreover, the zeroth order in $`\xi `$ of equation (65) can be shown to be

$$_t[e^{3\alpha _0+d\beta _0}\beta _0^{}]=0.$$
(69)
This means that $`_t[e^{d\beta _0}]=\mathrm{const}.\times e^{3\alpha _0}`$. Therefore, one has $`_t[e^{d\beta _0}]0`$ since $`e^{3\alpha _0}`$ is very closed to $`0`$ in the post-expansion era. Therefore, one can assume that $`e^{d\beta _0}`$ is changing very slowly as $`\varphi ^2v^2`$. In addition, the zeroth order in $`\xi `$ of equation (24) is

$$\alpha _0^2+d\alpha _0^{}\beta _0^{}+\frac{d^2d}{6}\beta _0^20.$$
(70)
This gives

$$\alpha _0^{}=\frac{\sqrt{3}d\pm \sqrt{d^2+2d}}{2\sqrt{3}}\beta _0^{}0$$
(71)
to this order of limit. Hence equation (68) becomes an equation for a simple harmonic oscillator

$$\xi ^{\prime \prime }=m_v(d+2)\xi .$$
(72)
Note that the left hand side of equation (72) approaches $`\lambda v^2\xi `$ in the limit $`ϵ1`$. In short, one finds that $`\varphi `$ field indeed oscillates about the local minimum of the symmetry breaking potential $`U`$. Furthermore, equations (71) indicates that $`\alpha _0^{}\beta _0^{}<0`$ as $`\varphi `$ approaches the local minimum of $`U`$. Therefore, $`b(t)`$ in fact starts decreasing if $`a(t)`$ remains increasing at later time. Note that above analysis is only a rough estimate, but it gives us a rough picture of what is going on when $`\xi `$ field approaches zero.

## V Conclusions

In summary, a D-dimensional induced gravity model in 4dFRW space is studied carefully. We present a careful and detailed analysis for the compactification process. This model is then solved for the inflationary solution in the slow-rollover approach. A number of constraints on the symmetry breaking potential are found. These constraints are derived from the search for a inflationary solution with expanding external-space and contracting, compactified internal-space.

The result indicates that the possible form of symmetry breaking potential, prescribed by $`s`$, is constrained by equations (30-32) due to the field equations. Here, $`s\varphi _0(_\varphi U)_0/U_0`$ signifies the scaling factor of $`U`$ evaluated at $`\varphi =\varphi _0`$. The cases where $`d>1`$ and $`d=1`$ are analyzed separately. Explicitly, constraints to the coupled potential are listed in equations (35-38) for the case where $`d>1`$. In particular, one shows that these constraints read (a) $`8/5s_{}`$, (b) $`8/5>s(5k+s_{})/(8k+1)`$ and (c) $`k>1`$ in the limit where $`d=6`$. It was then shown that the conventional $`\varphi ^4`$ model with an additional cosmological constant term fails to satisfy the above constraints. On the other hand, one shows that (a) $`s<s_{}(<0)`$, (b) $`k<1/3`$, and (c) $`\phi _0^{}>0`$ for the case where $`d=1`$. In addition, we also solve the case where the internal scale factor $`b`$ remains constant during the inflationary phase.

An expanding solution is also found and analyzed for the conventional $`\varphi ^4`$ model. In order to generate a solution with expanding external-space inflation in the very early universe, one finds that the internal space is expanding too under the slow rollover approximation. Therefore, this indicates that dimensional reduction has to be completed before expanding external-space starts to expand. With properly chosen free parameters and boundary conditions of the scalar field, one shows that enough expansion can be easily achieved regardless of the negative impact of the expanding internal-space in the conventional $`\varphi ^4`$ model.

Acknowledgments : This work is supported in part by the National Science Council under the contract number NSC88-2112-M009-001.


format: text

text:
# Consistently there is no non trivial ccc forcing notion with the Sacks or Laver property

## 1. Introduction

At the recent set theory conference, Boban Velickovic asked the following question:

###### 1.1 Question.

Is there a nontrivial forcing notion with the Sacks property which is also ccc?

(See below for a definition of the Sacks property.)

A “definable” variant of this question has been answered in \[Sh 480\]:

> Every nontrivial Souslin forcing notion which has the Sacks property has an uncountable antichain.

(A Souslin forcing notion is a forcing notion for which the set of conditions, the comparability relation and the incompatibility relation are all analytic subsets of the reals. See \[JdSh 292\] and \[Sh 480\] for details).

We show here

###### 1.2 Theorem.

The following statement is equiconsistent with ZFC:

* Every nontrivial forcing notion which has the Sacks property has an uncountable antichain.

Our proof follows the ideas from \[Sh 480\].

Independently, Velickovic has also proved the consistency of $`()`$, following \[Sh 480\] and some of his works. In fact, he shows that the proper forcing axiom (PFA), and even the open coloring axiom implies $`()`$.

Our proof shows that also the following strengthening of $`()`$:

* Every nontrivial forcing notion which has the Laver property has an uncountable antichain.

is equiconsistent with ZFC.

Note that if cov(meagre) $`=`$ continuum (which follows e.g. from PFA) then there is a (non principal) Ramsey ultrafilter on $`\omega `$. The “Mathias” forcing notion for shooting making this ultrafilter principal has the Laver property and is ccc, so $`()`$ does not follow from PFA.

So our result and Velickovic’ result are incomparable.

###### 1.3 Definition.

Let $`g\omega ^\omega `$ be increasing. A $`g`$-slalom is a sequence $`\overline{A}=(A_n:n\omega )`$, $`A_n\omega `$, $`|A_n|g(n)`$. We say that $`\overline{A}`$ covers $`\eta \omega ^\omega `$ iff $`n\eta (n)A_n`$.

Let $`V_1V_2`$ e models of set theory. We say that $`(V_1,V_2)`$ is $`(f,g)`$-bounding iff:

> For all $`\eta _nf(n)V_2`$ there is a $`g`$-slalom in $`V_1`$ covering $`f`$.

We say that a forcing notion $``$ is $`(f,g)`$-bounding if the pair $`(V,V^{})`$ is $`(f,g)`$-bounding

A pair $`(V_1,V_2)`$ has the Laver property iff $`(V_1,V_2)`$ is $`(f,g)`$-bounding for all increasing $`f,gV_1`$, or in other words: For all $`gV_1`$, every function in $`V_2`$ which is bounded by a function in $`V_1`$ is covered by a $`g`$-slalom from $`V_1`$.

Similarly, $``$ has the Laver property iff $`(V,V^{})`$ has the Laver property.

$`(V_1,V_2)`$ has the Sacks property if it has the Laver property, and every function in $`V_2`$ is bounded by a function in $`V_1`$.

## 2. A lemma on Mathias forcing

The following lemma is a theorem of ZFC.

###### 2.1 Lemma.

Let $`𝕄`$ be the Mathias forcing,   $`\eta `$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   the increasing enumeration of the $`𝕄`$-generic subset of $`\omega `$, and assume that   $`T`$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   is a name of a tree $`{}_{}{}^{\omega >}2`$ such that

(!)𝕄|T

~
2η

~
(n)|2η

~
(n1)(!)\qquad\qquad\Vdash_{\mathbb{M}}|\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}\cap{}^{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}(n)}2|\leq 2^{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}(n-1)}
Then there is a family $`(T_i,q_i:i<2^\mathrm{}_0)`$ such that for all $`i,j`$:

1. $`q_i𝕄`$
2. $`T_i{}_{}{}^{\omega >}2`$ is a tree
3. qiT

~
Tiforcessubscript𝑞𝑖𝑇

~
subscript𝑇𝑖q_{i}\Vdash\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}\subseteq T_{i}
4. Whenever $`ij`$, then $`limT_ilimT_j`$ is finite.
(We write $`limT`$ for the set of branches of a tree $`T`$.)

###### Proof.

Conditions in the Mathias forcing are of the form $`(w,A)`$, where $`w`$ is a finite set of natural numbers and $`A`$ is an infinite subset of $`\omega `$ such that $`sup(w)<\mathrm{min}A`$. If $`(w,A)𝕄`$, and $`w=\{w_0<\mathrm{}<w_\mathrm{}1\}`$, then

(w,A)η

~
(i)=wi(i=0,,1),η

~
(i)A(i=,+1,)formulae-sequenceforces𝑤𝐴𝜂

~
𝑖subscript𝑤𝑖𝑖01𝜂

~
𝑖𝐴𝑖1(w,A)\Vdash\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}(i)=w_{i}\ (i=0,\ldots,\ell-1),\qquad\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}(i)\in A\ (i=\ell,\ell+1,\ldots)
Using the fact that truth values in $`V^𝕄`$ can be decided by pure extensions, we can find a condition $`(w^{},A^{})`$ which forces that   $`T`$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   is “decided continuously” by   $`\eta `$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$  , more specifically:

* there is a function $`t`$ with domain $`[A^{}]^{<\omega }`$, $`w:t(w){}_{}{}^{\omega >}2`$, such that

> For all finite $`uA^{}`$ and all $`n`$ with sup$`(u)<nA^{}`$:
> (wu,A(n+1))T
>
> ~
> δ2n=t(w)2n(w^{*}\cup u,A^{*}\setminus(n+1))\Vdash\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}_{\delta}\cap{}^{n}2=t(w)\cap{}^{n}2.

For any finite $`uA^{}`$ let

$$T_u=^{df}\{\eta {}_{}{}^{\omega >}2:\text{ for any large enough }k<\omega \text{ we have }(w^{},A^{}k)_{}\text{ “}\eta \begin{array}{c}T\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{}\hfill \end{array}\text{}\}$$

So $`T_u`$ is a subtree of $`{}_{}{}^{\omega >}2`$.

We have

* If $`w^{}u=\{w_0<\mathrm{}<w_\mathrm{}1\}`$, then (wu,Ak)η

~
(1)=maxuforcessuperscript𝑤𝑢𝐴𝑘𝜂

~
1𝑢(w^{*}\cup u,A\setminus k)\Vdash\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}(\ell-1)=\max u, η

~
()k𝜂

~
𝑘\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}(\ell)\geq k
hence (recall condition (!)): (wu,Ak)|T

~
2k|2η(1)=2maxu(w^{*}\cup u,A\setminus k)\Vdash|\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}\cap{}^{k}2|\leq 2^{\eta(\ell-1)}=2^{\max u}.

It follows that:

* for every finite $`uA^{}`$, non empty for simplicity, we have

$$k<\omega |T_u{}_{}{}^{k}2|2^{\mathrm{max}(u)},$$

hence lim$`(T_u)`$ is a finite subset of $`{}_{}{}^{\omega }2`$.

We also get:

* if $`u\{m,k\}A^{}`$ and sup$`(u)<m<k`$, then $`T_u{}_{}{}^{m}2=`$ $`T_{u\{k\}}{}_{}{}^{m}2`$.

\[Proof: We know that already $`(w^{}u,Am)`$ decides T

~
2m\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}\cap{}^{m}2, and the conditions $`(w^{}u\{m\},Ak)`$ and $`(w^{}u,Ak)`$ (for $`k>m`$) are both stronger than $`(w^{}u,Am)`$.\]

In particular, we get:

* for all finite $`uA^{}`$ the sequence $`T_{u\{k\}}:k`$ $`A^{}`$ converges to $`T_u`$.
This means that for every $`m<\omega `$ for every large enough $`kA^{}`$ we have $`T_{u\{k\}}{}_{}{}^{m>}2=`$ $`T_u{}_{}{}^{m>}2.`$

* 1. for $`A`$ an infinite subset of $`A^{}`$ we let

    $$T_A=\{T_{An}:n<\omega \}T[A]=\{T_u:uA\text{ finite}\}$$
    2. for $`u,v`$ finite subsets of $`A^{}`$ we let $`𝐧(u,v)`$ the smallest $`m`$ such that

    + whenever $`\eta ,\nu `$ are distinct members of $`lim(T_u)lim(T_v)`$ then the length of $`\eta \nu `$ is $`<m`$
        + $`sup(w^{}uv)<m`$

    Note that $`𝐧(u,v)`$ is well defined, as both $`lim(T_u)`$ and $`lim(T_v)`$ are finite.
    3. for $`m<\omega `$ let

    $$𝐧(m)=^{df}\mathrm{max}\{𝐧(u,v):u,vA^{}(m+1)\},$$

    so $`𝐧(m)<\omega `$ is well defined being the maximum of a finite set of natural numbers.

* Note that (w,A)T

~
T[A]forcessuperscript𝑤𝐴𝑇

~
𝑇delimited-[]𝐴(w^{*},A)\Vdash\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}\subseteq T[A].

So without loss of generality (as we can replace $`A^{}`$ by any infinite subset):

* if $`nA^{}`$ then $`𝐧(n)<\mathrm{min}(A^{}(n+1))`$

hence

* if $`nA^{},uA^{}`$ $`(n+1),kA^{}(n+1)`$
then $`T_u{}_{}{}^{𝐧(n)}2=`$ $`T_{u\{k\}}`$ $`{}_{}{}^{𝐧(n)}2.`$

* if $`u,v`$ are finite subsets of $`A^{}`$ and $`sup(uv)<mA^{}`$
then $`T_{u\{m\}}T_v`$ $`T_uT_v`$

Hence

* if $`u,v`$ are finite subsets of $`A^{}`$, not disjoint for notational simplicity, and $`m=sup(uv)`$ then

$$T_uT_vT_{u(m+1)}T_{v(m+1)}$$

\[ why? we can prove this by induction on max$`(uv)`$ using (\*)$`{}_{8}{}^{}]`$

Hence, letting $`Y=\{lim(T_u):`$ $`u`$ a finite subset of $`A^{}\}`$ (=a countable set), we have

* if $`A,B`$ are infinite subsets of $`A^{}`$, with intersection finite non empty
then $`limT[A]limT[B]`$ is included in

$$\{limT_ulimT_v:uA(\mathrm{max}(AB)+1),vB(\mathrm{max}(AB)+1)\}$$

so $`limT[A]limT[B]`$ is is a finite subset of $`Y`$.

\[ why ? just use (\*)9 and the definition of $`T[A]].`$

Now fix an uncountable family $`(A_i:i<2^\mathrm{}_0)`$ of almost disjoint subsets of $`A^{}`$. Let $`q_i:=(w^{},A_i)`$. Then by $`()_7`$, we have qiT

~
T[Ai]forcessubscript𝑞𝑖𝑇

~
𝑇delimited-[]subscript𝐴𝑖q_{i}\Vdash\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}\subseteq T[A_{i}]. Hence $`(q_i,A_i:i<2^\mathrm{}_0)`$ satisfies the conditions 1.,2.,3.,4. of lemma 2.1. ∎

## 3. An iteration argument

###### 3.1 Notation.

For any $`f:\omega \omega `$ we define

* $`f^{}:\omega \omega `$ by: $`f^{}(n)=f(n1)`$ for $`n>0`$, $`f^{}(0)=1`$.
* $`\widehat{f}:\omega \omega `$ by: $`\widehat{f}(n)=2^{f(n)}`$.

###### 3.2 Framework.

We will start with a universe where $`2^\mathrm{}_0=\mathrm{}_1`$, $`2^\mathrm{}_1=\mathrm{}_2`$ and use an iteration of length $`\kappa =\mathrm{}_2`$, $`\overline{}=_i,_i:i<\mathrm{}_2`$ satisfying the following:

1. $`\overline{}`$ is a countable support iteration of proper forcing notions.
2. $`_\kappa `$, the union of $`_i`$ for $`i<\kappa `$ , satisfies the $`\kappa `$cc
3. The set

$$S:=\{\delta <\kappa :cf(\delta )>\mathrm{}_0,__i\text{}_\delta \text{=Mathias forcing, with generic real }\begin{array}{c}\eta \hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{}\hfill \end{array}_\delta \text{}\}$$

is stationary.
4. Each forcing notion

~
isubscript

~
𝑖\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{Q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\mathbb{Q}}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{Q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\mathbb{Q}}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{Q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\mathbb{Q}}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{Q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\mathbb{Q}}}$}\vss}}}_{i} has the Laver property.
5. Whenever $`\alpha <\kappa `$ and   $`T`$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   is a $`_\alpha `$name of an Aronszajn tree, then for some $`i[\alpha ,\kappa )`$, $`__i`$ “if   $`T`$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   is a Souslin tree then

~
isubscript

~
𝑖\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{Q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\mathbb{Q}}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{Q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\mathbb{Q}}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{Q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\mathbb{Q}}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{Q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\mathbb{Q}}}$}\vss}}}_{i} is forcing by   $`T`$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   (or an isomorphic forcing notion)”

(See the remarks 4.2 and 4.1 for weaker assumptions)

###### 3.3 Fact.

Let $`\overline{}`$ satisfy properties (A)–(E) above, and let $`_\kappa `$ be the CS limit of this iteration. Then:

1. $`_\kappa `$ is proper, making $`\kappa `$ to $`\mathrm{}_2`$.
2. If $`\delta S`$ then the forcing notion $`_\kappa /_{\delta +1}`$ has the Laver property.

###### Proof.

(1) By \[Sh:f\]

(2)By \[Sh:f, ch VI, section 3\]

###### 3.4 Remark.

Assume (say) GCH, then there is a forcing iteration as above. Define $`_i`$ as follows: If $`i`$ is even, then let $`_i`$ be the Mathias forcing, and if $`i`$ is odd, then let $`_i`$ be either trivial or a Souslin tree.

Note that in all intermediate universes we will have GCH, all forcing notions $`_i`$ and $`_i`$ (for $`i<\mathrm{}_2`$) will have a dense subset of size $`\mathrm{}_1`$; this will be sufficient for $`\kappa `$-cc. All the forcing notions $`_i`$ will have the Laver property (recall that a Souslin tree does not add reals), and the usual bookkeeping argument can take care of killing all Souslin trees on $`\omega _1`$.

###### 3.5 Theorem.

Let $`\overline{}`$ satisfy conditions (A)–(E) above.

Then in the universe $`𝕍^_\kappa `$ the following holds:

1. Souslin’s hypothesis
2. Any nontrivial ccc forcing notion adds a real. (See 3.6 below)
3. Whenever $`𝕋`$ is a function satisfying the following conditions $`(\alpha )`$$`(\gamma )`$:

* $`\mathrm{Dom}(𝕋)=\{f:f`$ is a function from $`\omega `$ to $`\omega `$, (strictly) increasing $`\}`$
    * $`𝕋(f)`$ is a subtree of $`{}_{}{}^{\omega >}2`$
    * for every $`f\mathrm{Dom}(𝕋)`$ and $`n<\omega `$ we have

    $$1|𝕋(f){}_{}{}^{f(n)}2|f^{}(n)$$

then $`𝕋`$ also satisfies condition $`(\delta )`$:

* there is a countable subset $`Y{}_{}{}^{\omega }2`$ and an an uncountable subset $`𝐀\mathrm{Dom}(𝕋)`$ with:

    > whenever $`fg`$ are from $`A`$ then $`lim(𝕋(f))lim(𝕋(g))`$ in a finite subset of $`Y.`$

###### 3.6 Fact.

If there is a nontrivial ccc forcing which does not add reals, then there is a Souslin tree on $`\omega _1`$.

In other words: If Souslin Hypothesis holds then

> for every ccc forcing $``$ which is not trivial, there are $`p`$ and an $``$-name   $`\eta `$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   such that:
> $`p_{}`$η
>
> ~
> 2ω{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}}\in{{}^{\omega}2} is new, that is does not belong to $`𝐕`$

###### Proof.

Let $``$ be a nontrivial ccc forcing. So for some $`q`$ we have

> $`q_{}`$G
>
> ~
> subscript𝐺
>
> ~
> \mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle G$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{G}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle G$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{G}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle G$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{G}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle G$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{G}}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{R}}} does not belongs to V

Hence for some quadruple (p,α,β,η

~
)𝑝𝛼𝛽𝜂

~
(p,\alpha,\beta,{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}}) we have:

* $`p,\alpha ,\beta `$ are ordinals,   $`\eta `$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   is a $``$-name and $`p_{}`$η

~
βα𝜂

~
superscript𝛽𝛼{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}}\in{}^{\alpha}\beta is not from V

We can choose such quadruple with the ordinal $`\alpha `$ minimal. Necessarily $`\alpha `$ is a limit ordinal and for $`\gamma <\alpha `$,   $`\eta `$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   $`\gamma `$ is forced by $`p`$ to belong to V.

For $`\gamma <\alpha `$, let

$$T_\gamma =\{\nu :\text{ }\nu \text{ is a function from }\gamma \text{ to }\beta \text{ so }p\text{ does not force that }\nu \begin{array}{c}\eta \hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{}\hfill \end{array}\gamma \}$$

and let $`T=\{T_\gamma :\gamma <\alpha \}`$. Clearly $`T`$ is a tree with $`\alpha `$ levels, and $`p`$ forces that   $`\eta `$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   is a new $`\alpha `$branch of it.

Now $`T`$ cannot have $`\mathrm{}_1`$ pairwise incomparable elements, as if $`\nu _\zeta `$ for $`\zeta <\omega _1`$ are like that, we can find $`p_\zeta `$ such that: $`pp_\zeta `$ and $`p_\zeta _{}`$$`\nu _\zeta `$ is an initial segment of   $`\eta `$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$  ”; now if $`p_\zeta ,p_\xi `$ are compatible in $``$ then $`\nu _\zeta ,\nu _\xi `$ are comparable in $`T`$ (being, both, the initial segment of some possible   $`\eta `$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$  ). So $`\{p_\zeta :\zeta <\omega _1\}`$ are pairwise incompatible contradiction to $``$ satisfies the ccc”

Also in $`T`$, by its choice, every member has above it elements of every higher level and there is no node above which the tree has no two distinct members of the same level (as then   $`\eta `$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   will be forced to belongs to V by some condition above $`p)`$.

Also as $``$ satisfies the ccc, every level is countable, and by the minimality of $`\alpha `$ (as we are allowed to change $`\beta )`$ clearly $`\alpha `$ is a regular cardinal. Now $`\alpha >\omega _1`$ is impossible by “$``$ satisfies the $`\kappa `$cc”. As there are no Souslin tree also $`\alpha =\omega _1`$ is impossible. So clearly $`p`$ forces that $``$ add reals so there is   $`\eta `$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   as required.

###### 3.7 Observation.

Theorem 3.5 suffices to prove 1.2 and its strengthening $`()`$ mentioned in the introduction. That is, conditions (2)&(3) of 3.5 imply:

> Any nontrivial forcing with the Laver property has an uncountable antichain.

###### Proof.

Let $``$ be a forcing notion with the Laver property which adds a real, say pη

~
2ω,η

~
Vp\Vdash\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}\in{}^{\omega}2,\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}\notin V.

Consider any increasing function $`f`$. The function $`n\eta f(n+1)`$ has only $`2^{f(n+1)}`$ many possible values, i.e., is bounded. So, by the Laver property there is a tree $`T_f{}_{}{}^{\omega >}2`$ and a condition $`q_f`$ stronger than $`q`$ with

n|Tf2f(n+1)|f(n),qfη

~
limTfformulae-sequencefor-all𝑛subscript𝑇𝑓superscript2𝑓𝑛1𝑓𝑛forcessubscript𝑞𝑓𝜂

~
subscript𝑇𝑓\forall n\ |T_{f}\cap 2^{f(n+1)}|\leq f(n),\qquad\qquad q_{f}\Vdash\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}\in\lim T_{f}
We have thus defined a family $`𝕋=(T_f:f\text{ increasing })`$. By theorem 3.5, there is a family $`(f_i:i\omega _1)`$ such that

> $`ij:`$ $`limT_{f_i}limT_{f_j}`$ is finite

Clearly, for $`ij`$ the conditions $`q_{f_i}`$ and $`q_{f_j}`$ must be incompatible, since any condition $`r`$ stronger than both would force

rη

~
limTfilimTfisubscriptforces𝑟𝜂

~
subscript𝑇subscript𝑓𝑖subscript𝑇subscript𝑓𝑖r\Vdash_{\mathbb{R}}\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}\in\lim T_{f_{i}}\cap\lim T_{f_{i}}
which implies rη

~
Vforces𝑟𝜂

~
𝑉r\Vdash\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}\in V, a contradiction.

(Remark: While $`limT_{f_i}`$ and $`limT_{f_j}`$ can of course contain branches in $`V^{}`$ which did not exist in $`V`$, the fact that their intersection is a certain finite set is absolute between $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$.) ∎

### Proof of theorem 3.5, part 3

Assume that   $`𝕋`$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   is a $`_\kappa `$-name such that $`p^{}_\kappa `$ forces “   $`𝕋`$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   satisfies $`(\alpha ),(\beta ),(\gamma )`$”.

Without loss of generality (replacing the ground model by an intermediate model $`V[G_\alpha ]`$, $`G_\alpha _\alpha `$, $`p^{}G_\alpha `$, if necessary) we can assume that $`p^{}`$ is really the empty condition.

Let $`S\kappa `$ be unbounded, $`\delta S_\delta `$ is Mathias forcing, with generic real η

~
δsubscript𝜂

~
𝛿\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}_{\delta}.

For every $`\delta S`$ let T

~
δ0=𝕋

~
(η

~
δ0)subscriptsuperscript𝑇

~
0𝛿𝕋

~
subscriptsuperscript𝜂

~
0𝛿\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}^{0}_{\delta}=\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\mathbb{T}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\mathbb{T}}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\mathbb{T}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\mathbb{T}}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\mathbb{T}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\mathbb{T}}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\mathbb{T}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\mathbb{T}}}$}\vss}}}(\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}^{0}_{\delta}); clearly :

* $`__\kappa `$T

~
δ0subscriptsuperscript𝑇

~
0𝛿{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}}^{0}_{\delta} is a subtree of $`{}_{}{}^{\omega >}2`$ such that (n)|T

~
δ02η

~
δ(n)|η

~
δ(n)(\forall n)|{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}}^{0}_{\delta}\cap{}^{{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}}_{\delta}(n)}2|\leq{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}}^{-}_{\delta}(n).”

There is only a bounded number of possibilities for T

~
δ02η

~
δ(n){\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}}^{0}_{\delta}\cap{}^{{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}}_{\delta}(n)}2, so since $`_\kappa /_{\delta +1}`$ has the Laver property, we can find a pair (pδ,T

~
δ)subscript𝑝𝛿subscript𝑇

~
𝛿(p_{\delta},{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}}_{\delta}) satisfying

* 1. $`p_\delta _\kappa `$
    2. T

    ~
    δsubscript𝑇

    ~
    𝛿{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}}_{\delta} is a $`_{\delta +1}`$name
    3. $`_{_{\delta +1}}`$T

    ~
    δsubscript𝑇

    ~
    𝛿{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}}_{\delta} is a subtree of $`{}_{}{}^{\omega >}2`$ and $`n<\omega `$ |T

    ~
    δ2η

    ~
    δ(n)||{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}}_{\delta}\cap{}^{{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}}_{\delta}(n)}2| η

    ~
    ^δ(n)absentsubscriptsuperscript^𝜂

    ~
    𝛿𝑛\leq\hat{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}}^{-}_{\delta}(n)
    4. $`_{}`$T

    ~
    δ0subscriptsuperscript𝑇

    ~
    0𝛿{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}}^{0}_{\delta} T

    ~
    δabsentsubscript𝑇

    ~
    𝛿\subseteq{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}}_{\delta}

So there is stationary subset $`S_1S`$ and a condition $`q_1_\kappa `$ such that $`\delta S_1p_\delta \delta =q_1.`$ (Again we may assume that $`q_1`$ is the trivial condition.)

Possibly increasing $`p_\delta (\delta )`$ we can find a $`_\delta `$-name such that $`p_\delta \delta `$ forces:

* Above $`p_\delta (\delta )`$, the $`_\delta `$-name T

~
δsubscript𝑇

~
𝛿{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}}_{\delta} can be read continuously from   $`\eta `$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$  δ as in $`()_1`$, through the function t

~
δsubscript𝑡

~
𝛿\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{t}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{t}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{t}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{t}}$}\vss}}}_{\delta}).

For $`\delta S_1,p_\delta (\delta )`$, t

~
δsubscript𝑡

~
𝛿\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{t}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{t}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{t}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{t}}$}\vss}}}_{\delta}   $`T`$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$  δ are members of $`(\mathrm{}_1)^{𝕍[G_\delta ]}`$. So we can find $`q_\delta p_\delta \delta `$ forcing $`p_\delta (\delta )`$, t

~
δsubscript𝑡

~
𝛿\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{t}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{t}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{t}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{t}}$}\vss}}}_{\delta} and T

~
δsubscript𝑇

~
𝛿\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}_{\delta} to be equal to hereditarily countable $`_\delta `$-names $`p_\delta ^{}(\delta )`$, t

~
δsubscriptsuperscript𝑡

~
𝛿\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{t}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{t}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{t}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{t}}$}\vss}}}^{\prime}_{\delta} and T

~
δsubscriptsuperscript𝑇

~
𝛿\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}^{\prime}_{\delta}. \[Here, “hereditarily countable” is taken in the sense of \[Sh:f, III 4.1A\].\]

Since $`cf(\delta )>\mathrm{}_0`$ for $`\delta S_1`$ we can find a stationary subset $`S_2S_1`$ on which $`p_\delta ^{}(\delta )`$, t

~
δsubscriptsuperscript𝑡

~
𝛿\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{t}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{t}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{t}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{t}}$}\vss}}}^{\prime}_{\delta} and T

~
δsubscriptsuperscript𝑇

~
𝛿\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}^{\prime}_{\delta} are all constant, say with values $`p^{}`$, t

~
superscript𝑡

~
\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{t}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{t}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{t}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{t}}$}\vss}}}^{*} and T

~
superscript𝑇

~
\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}^{*}. Again we change our base universe to some intermediate universe so that T

~
superscript𝑇

~
\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}^{*} is now a $`𝕄`$-name, and $`t^{}`$ is an actual function, and $`p^{}=(w^{},A^{})𝕄`$.

We now use our main lemma 2.1 to find an almost disjoint family $`(A_i:i\omega _1)`$ and $`(T_i:i\omega _1)`$ such that $`A_iA^{}`$, (w,Ai)𝕄T

~
T[Ai]subscriptforces𝕄superscript𝑤subscript𝐴𝑖superscript𝑇

~
𝑇delimited-[]subscript𝐴𝑖(w^{*},A_{i})\Vdash_{\mathbb{M}}\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}^{*}\subseteq T[A_{i}].

Note because of $`()_1`$ this relation can already be computed from $`t^{}`$, so we also have:

* $`\delta S_2`$ $`__\delta `$qiδT

~
δT[Ai]subscriptforcessubscript𝛿subscript𝑞𝑖subscript𝑇

~
𝛿𝑇delimited-[]subscript𝐴𝑖q_{i}\Vdash_{{\mathbb{Q}}_{\delta}}\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle T$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{T}}$}\vss}}}_{\delta}\subseteq T[A_{i}]”.

Now consider the model $`V[G_\kappa ]`$. A density argument shows that

* $`i:\{\delta S_1:q_iG__\delta \}\mathrm{}`$

So for all $`i`$ there is $`\delta =\delta (i)`$ with $`𝕋(\eta _{\delta (i)})T[A_i]`$. Letting

$$𝐀:=\{\delta _i:i<\omega _1\}$$

we have found an uncountable family as required.

## 4. Refinements

Theorem 3.5 answers the original question, but essentially the same proof gives a somewhat stronger theorem. The following remarks point a few places where assumptions can be weakened or conclusions strengthened. We leave the details to the reader.

###### 4.1 Remark.

$`2^{2^\mathrm{}_0}=\mathrm{}_2`$ in the ground model is not necessary. The length of our iteration can be any regular cardinal $`\kappa `$ satisfying $`\mu ^\mathrm{}_0<\kappa `$ for all $`\mu <\kappa `$. In the final model we will have $`2^\mathrm{}_0=\mathrm{}_2=\kappa `$.

###### 4.2 Remark.

It is not necessary that all forcing notions have the Laver property. All we need is that $`_\kappa /P_{\delta +1}`$ is (η

~
^δ,η

~
^δ/η

~
δ)subscript^𝜂

~
𝛿subscriptsuperscript^𝜂

~
𝛿superscriptsubscript𝜂

~
𝛿(\hat{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}}_{\delta},\hat{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}}^{-}_{\delta}/\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}_{\delta}^{-})-bounding, which can be ensured by a slightly stronger condition on all the $`_i`$, $`\delta <i<\kappa `$.

###### 4.3 Remark.

We showed that in our model every forcing notion with the Laver property which adds reals will have an uncountable antichain. We can strengthen this conclusion by remarking that such forcing notions will actually have an antichain of size $`\kappa =\mathrm{}_2`$.

###### Proof.

Recall the construction of the almost disjoint family after condition $`()_{12}`$, which was used in $`()_{17}`$. Instead of using an almost disjoint family of size $`\mathrm{}_1`$ in the intermediate model we can use a $`_\kappa `$-name of an almost disjoint family of size continuum: Identify the set $`A^{}`$ there with $`{}_{}{}^{\omega >}2`$, then every $`_\alpha `$-name   $`\rho `$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   of an element of $`{}_{}{}^{\omega }2`$ will induce a set Aρ

~
Asubscript𝐴𝜌

~
superscript𝐴A_{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\rho}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\rho}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\rho}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\rho}}$}\vss}}}}\subseteq A^{*}. Clearly,

κρ

~
1ρ

~
2Aρ

~
1Aρ

~
2 finite.subscriptforcessubscript𝜅absentsubscript𝜌

~
1subscript𝜌

~
2subscript𝐴subscript𝜌

~
1subscript𝐴subscript𝜌

~
2 finite\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\kappa}}\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\rho}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\rho}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\rho}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\rho}}$}\vss}}}_{1}\not=\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\rho}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\rho}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\rho}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\rho}}$}\vss}}}_{2}\Rightarrow A_{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\rho}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\rho}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\rho}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\rho}}$}\vss}}}_{1}}\cap A_{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\rho}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\rho}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\rho}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\rho}}$}\vss}}}_{2}}\mbox{ finite}.
As before, a density argument ensures that there will be $`\kappa `$ many different functions   $`\rho `$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   such that (w,Aρ

~
)superscript𝑤subscript𝐴𝜌

~
(w^{*},A_{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\rho}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\rho}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\rho}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\rho}}$}\vss}}}}) appears in one of the generic Mathias filters for some $`_\delta =𝕄`$, so we can strengthen the conclusion in 3.5, 3$`(\delta )`$ to get a $`\kappa `$-size set $`𝐀`$ rather than just an uncountable one. ∎

###### 4.4 Remark.

We do not need that all forcing notions $`_i`$ have size at most $`\mathrm{}_1`$, there are also weaker conditions (e.g. $`\kappa `$-pic, see \[Sh:f, Ch VIII\]) that will ensure $`\kappa `$-cc of $`_\kappa `$.

For example, instead of forcing only with Souslin trees in the odd stages we can use the forcing from \[Sh:f, Ch V, Section 6\], it specializes the tree (so we can specialize all Aronszajn trees). Here we can prove the $`\kappa `$-cc using the $`\kappa `$-pic condition. ,

###### 4.5 Remark.

Finally, in $`V^_\kappa `$ we can strengthen the conclusion

> Every ccc nontrivial forcing fails the Laver property

as follows:

> For every ccc forcing notion $``$, whenever   $`\eta `$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   is an $``$-name of a new member of $`{}_{}{}^{\omega }2`$ and $`h`$ is a strictly increasing function from $`\omega `$ to $`\omega ,\mathrm{then}`$ we can find an increasing sequence $`n_i:i<\omega `$ of natural numbers such that $`h(n_i)<n_{i+1}`$ and for no $`p,T`$ do we have:
>
> > $`p,T`$ a subtree of $`{}_{}{}^{\omega >}2`$, $`p_{}`$η
> >
> > ~
> > lim(T)𝜂
> >
> > ~
> > 𝑇\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\eta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\widetilde{\hphantom{\eta}}$}\vss}}}\in\lim(T) and for every $`i<\omega `$ we have $`|T{}_{}{}^{n_{2i+1}}2|`$ $`h(n_{2i})`$

The proof is similar to the proof above.