text:
# Untitled Document

hep-th/0003215 CALT-68-2267 CITUSC/00-016 SU-ITP-00-11

Noncommutative Gauge Dynamics From The String Worldsheet

Jaume Gomis1, Matthew Kleban2,3, Thomas Mehen1, Mukund Rangamani1,4, Stephen Shenker2

1California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125

CIT-USC Center for Theoretical Physics

2Department of Physics, Stanford University, CA 94305-4060

3Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720

4Department of Physics, Princeton University, NJ 08544

We show how string theory can be used to reproduce the one-loop two-point photon amplitude in noncommutative $`U(1)`$ gauge theory. Using a simple realization of the gauge theory in bosonic string theory, we extract from a string cylinder computation in the decoupling limit the exact one loop field theory result. The result is obtained entirely from the region of moduli space where massless open strings dominate. Our computation indicates that the unusual IR/UV singularities of noncommutative field theory do not come from closed string modes in any simple way.

March 2000

1. Introduction

It is striking that field theories on noncommutative spaces are naturally embedded in string theory. The first complete example of this phenomenon was found in toroidal compactifications of Matrix Theory with a nonzero $`B`$ field . Of course the remarkable early construction of membranes by large matrices  is very much in this spirit. After  additional work was done on extracting noncommutative Yang-Mills theory more directly from open string theory -. In a sense this work culminated in  where, among other things, a decoupling limit was carefully formulated in which perturbative open string theory reduced to noncommutative Yang-Mills theory. A large amount of work, partially inspired by these developments, has been done on the perturbative dynamics of noncommutative field theories -. These field theories have a very interesting and unusual perturbative behavior -. The noncommutativity of the underlying space gives rise to a strong mixing between the ultraviolet and the infrared . There are analogs of this IR/UV mixing in string theory which provides one motivation to study these systems. When loop diagrams are evaluated in these theories, large momentum regions of the loop integration lead to terms in the effective action that are infrared divergent and nonanalytic in the noncommutativity parameter $`\theta `$. In conventional field theory, singularities in the low energy effective action usually reflect omission of relevant low energy degrees of freedom, and the low energy description is cured once the the missing degrees of freedom are added. In , it was proposed that at least some of the novel IR/UV divergences of one loop diagrams in the noncommutative theory could be understood as arising from tree level exchange of new degrees of freedom. This phenomenon is analogous to open-closed channel duality in one loop string graphs, where ultraviolet divergences in the open string channel can be interpreted as infrared divergences arising from tree level exchange of massless closed strings. This work is motivated in part by trying to understand this interpretation of the IR/UV singularities in noncommutative field theories.

Noncommutative gauge theories can be realized in string theory by taking a low energy decoupling limit of theories on D-branes, in the presence of a constant magnetic field . In this stringy setup one can try to reproduce the noncommutative perturbative expansion from string theory. This embedding confronts the issue of whether extra degrees of freedom – apart from the obvious massless open string modes – are needed to make sense of the low energy effective action. As we will show, there seems to be no need to add any further degrees of freedom. We can account for the entire field theory result by looking at the region of cylinder moduli space which is dominated by massless open strings. The opposite region of moduli space, where massless closed strings dominate, gives a vanishing contribution in the zero-slope limit and therefore seem to decouple in the field theory limit. This seems to indicate that the degrees of freedom proposed in , even though they reproduce the low energy effective action after integrating them out, do not have a natural interpretation as massless closed string states.

In section $`2`$ we compute the two-point function of the pure noncommutative $`U(1)`$ gauge theory in 3+1 dimensions at one loop in the background field gauge. The background field gauge is very useful for comparing field theory amplitudes with the zero slope limit of string amplitudes because the effective action obtained in the background field gauge is manifestly gauge invariant, as is the answer obtained in string theory. At one loop, the two point function of the noncommutative gauge theory has terms which contain logarithmic and quadratic  infrared divergences which do not appear in conventional gauge theories. The appearance of quadratic infrared divergences is surprising, but nevertheless compatible with gauge invariance.

In section $`3`$ we embed this gauge theory in bosonic string theory by considering the low energy limit of the theory on a single D3-brane stuck at an $`R^{22}/Z_2`$ orbifold singularity and in the presence of a magnetic field along the worldvolume directions 1 In this paper we do not discuss the physics of noncommutative field theories with $`\theta ^{0i}0`$. Such a gauge theory can be realized by having a constant electric field along the brane. However, in the decoupling limit the upper bound of the allowed electric field vanishes and the string theory realization is ill-defined.. We compute at one loop the planar and non-planar contributions to the two-point function of photons in the string theory. The field theory answer is reproduced by isolating from the string theory amplitude the contribution coming from the boundary of cylinder moduli space where massless open strings are important. Our result indicates that closed string modes decouple from the low energy noncommutative field theory, just as they decouple from conventional gauge theories realized on branes. We conclude with a discussion of our results in section $`4`$.

2. Gauge Theory Calculation

In this section we describe the calculation of the two point function in noncommutative $`U(1)`$ gauge theory in the background field gauge. The action for the U(1) noncommutative Yang-Mills theory in a background metric $`G^{\mu \nu }`$ is given by

$$S=\frac{1}{4}d^4x\sqrt{G}G^{\mu \rho }G^{\nu \sigma }F_{\mu \nu }F_{\rho \sigma },$$

where the field strength is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu ig[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]& \\ \hfill [A_\mu ,A_\nu ]=A_\mu A_\nu A_\nu A_\mu .& \end{array}$$

The action in (2.1) is invariant under the gauge transformation

$$\delta _\lambda A_\mu =_\mu \lambda ig[A_\mu ,\lambda ]D_\mu \lambda .$$

The noncommutative star product appearing in (2.1)(2.1) is defined by

$$f(x)g(x)=e^{\frac{i}{2}\theta ^{ij}\frac{}{\alpha _i}\frac{}{\beta _j}}f(x+\alpha )g(x+\beta )|_{\alpha =\beta =0},$$

where the parameter $`\theta ^{ij}`$ is related to the commutator of the coordinates in the noncommutative space:

$$[x^\mu ,x^\nu ]=i\theta ^{\mu \nu }.$$

We will quantize the theory in background field gauge . The gauge field $`A_\mu `$ is split into classical and a quantum pieces denoted $`A_\mu `$ and $`Q_\mu `$ respectively. The path integral is performed over the quantum fields while the classical fields are kept fixed. The generating functional for Green’s functions is given by

$$Z[J,A]=[dQ]\mathrm{det}[\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Delta }}{\delta \lambda }]\mathrm{Exp}\left[id^4x\sqrt{}G\left(\frac{1}{4}G^{\mu \rho }G^{\nu \sigma }F_{\mu \nu }F_{\rho \sigma }\frac{1}{2\alpha }\mathrm{\Delta }^2+G^{\mu \nu }J_\mu Q_\nu \right)\right],$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the gauge fixing condition, $`\mathrm{det}[\delta \mathrm{\Delta }/\delta \lambda ]`$ is the Faddeev-Popov determinant and $`J_\mu `$ is an external current coupled only to the quantum fields. In (2.1), $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is understood to be a function of both $`A_\mu `$ and $`Q_\mu `$. The background field gauge effective action is defined by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }[\overline{Q},A]=W[J,A]d^4x\sqrt{}GG^{\mu \nu }J_\mu \overline{Q}_\nu ,$$

where

$$W[J,A]=i\mathrm{ln}Z[J,A]\mathrm{and}\overline{Q}_\mu =\frac{\delta W}{\delta J^\mu }.$$

The background field gauge effective action is invariant under the transformations

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \delta A_\mu & =_\mu \lambda ig[A_\mu ,\lambda ]\hfill \\ \hfill \delta \overline{Q}_\mu & =[\lambda ,\overline{Q}_\mu ],\hfill \end{array}$$

so $`\mathrm{\Gamma }[0,A]`$ is a manifestly gauge invariant functional of the classical field $`A_\mu `$.

Fig. 1: Feynman rules for Noncommutative $`U(1)`$ in background field gauge. In the calculation of section 2, we use Feynman gauge, $`\alpha =1`$.

We can compute $`\mathrm{\Gamma }[0,A]`$ by summing one-particle irreducible Feynman diagrams with classical fields $`A_\mu `$ on external legs and quantum fields $`Q_\mu `$ appearing only in internal lines. The Feynman rules for conventional non-Abelian gauge theory in the background field gauge are given in . The Feynman rules for the noncommutative $`U(1)`$ theory can be obtained from  by simply replacing the structure constants $`f_{abc}`$ by $`\mathrm{sin}(\frac{1}{2}p_\mu \theta ^{\mu \nu }k_\nu )`$, where $`p,k`$ are the momenta of two of the gluons entering the vertex. The Feynman rules relevant for the calculations of this paper are shown in fig. 1.

The explicit gauge invariance of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }[0,A]`$ simplifies computations in the gauge theory. The bare field strength, when expressed in terms of the renormalized coupling and gauge field, is

$$F_{\mu \nu }^{bare}=Z_A^{1/2}(_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu igZ_gZ_A^{1/2}[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]),$$

where the $`Z_g,Z_A`$ are the coupling constant and field renormalizations

$$g^{bare}=Z_gg,A_\mu ^{bare}=Z_A^{1/2}A_\mu ^{bare}.$$

Gauge invariance of (2.1) implies that $`Z_A^{1/2}=Z_g`$. This means that the $`\beta `$-function can be computed from $`Z_A`$, which only requires knowledge of the two-point function of the theory.

The background field gauge is also very useful for comparing field theory amplitudes with the zero slope limit of string theory amplitudes. Ref.  derived the $`\beta `$-function of Yang-Mills theory by calculating the effective action of strings in a background magnetic field. Ref.  pointed out a correspondence between loop amplitudes in the background field gauge and loops calculated using string motivated rules. More recently,  calculated two, three and four point gauge boson amplitudes in open bosonic string theory. Using a suitable prescription for continuing the amplitudes off-shell, the renormalization constants obtained from the zero slope limit of the string theory amplitudes were observed to respect the background field gauge Ward identities. We will see below that the low energy limit of the string theory amplitudes in our D-brane construction reproduce the field theory loop amplitudes calculated in the background field gauge.

Fig. 2: One loop contributions to the two-point function.

In fig. 2 we show the one loop diagrams for the two-point function in U(1) noncommutative gauge theory. In ordinary gauge theory the tadpole diagrams give vanishing contributions because

$$\frac{d^dp}{p^2}=0$$

in dimensional regularization. However, in the noncommutative theory these graphs are nonvanishing and must be included to obtain a gauge invariant answer. The sum of the diagrams of Fig. 1 is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }=2g^2\frac{d^dq}{(2\pi )^d}\mathrm{sin}^2(\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}q}{2})\left[\frac{8(p^2G_{\mu \nu }p_\mu p_\nu )}{q^2(p+q)^2}+(d2)\left(\frac{(p+2q)_\mu (p+2q)_\nu }{q^2(p+q)^2}\frac{2G_{\mu \nu }}{q^2}\right)\right],& \end{array}$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu =\theta ^{\mu \nu }p_\nu `$. Using the identity $`\mathrm{sin}^2(x)=\frac{1}{2}(1\mathrm{cos}(2x))`$ the field theory expression separates into two parts, one independent of $`\theta `$ and one with a $`\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{~}{p}q)`$ in the integrand. The term independent of $`\theta `$ corresponds to the planar diagrams , and gives an expression identical to ordinary Yang-Mills theory with the usual group theory factor $`f_{acd}f_{bcd}=N\delta _{ab}`$ replaced by 2. This piece is divergent in four dimensions and gives a $`1/ϵ`$ pole. From this term one can extract the $`\beta `$-function of the noncommutative theory . The term with the $`\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{~}{p}q)`$ corresponds to the nonplanar graphs and is ultraviolet finite.

To compare with the string theory calculation in section $`3`$ it is best to combine the propagators using Feynman parameters and then do the momentum integral via the method of Schwinger parameters. The contribution of the planar graphs is

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^P=\frac{ig^2\mu ^{4d}}{(4\pi )^{d/2}}(p^2G_{\mu \nu }p_\mu p_\nu )_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t_0^1𝑑xt^{1d/2}e^{p^2tx(1x)}(8(d2)(12x)^2).$$

The contribution from the nonplanar graphs is

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{NP}=\frac{ig^2}{(4\pi )^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t_0^1𝑑xt^1e^{p^2tx(1x)\stackrel{~}{p}^2/4t}\left[(p^2G_{\mu \nu }p_\mu p_\nu )(82(12x)^2)\frac{2}{t^2}\stackrel{~}{p}_\mu \stackrel{~}{p}_\nu \right]$$

where since these diagrams are finite we have set $`d=4`$.

The planar diagrams are ultraviolet divergent and to regulate this divergence we take $`d=42ϵ`$. The result of evaluating the integral in (2.1) is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^P=\frac{i2g^2}{(4\pi )^2}(p^2G_{\mu \nu }p_\mu p_\nu )\left(\frac{117ϵ}{32ϵ}\right)\left(\frac{p^2}{4\pi \mu ^2}\right)^ϵ\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }[ϵ]\mathrm{\Gamma }[1ϵ]^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }[22ϵ]}& \\ \hfill =\frac{ig^2}{(4\pi )^2}\frac{22}{3}(p^2G_{\mu \nu }p_\mu p_\nu )\left(\frac{1}{ϵ}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{p^2}{\mu ^2}\right)+\mathrm{}\right),& \end{array}$$

where $`\mathrm{}`$ is a constant.

The nonplanar diagrams evaluate to

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{NP}& =\frac{ig^2}{(4\pi )^2}_0^1dx[2(p^2G_{\mu \nu }p_\mu p_\nu )(82(12x)^2)K_0(p\stackrel{~}{p}\sqrt{x(1x)})\hfill \\ & 16\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}_\mu \stackrel{~}{p}_\nu }{\stackrel{~}{p}^4}p^2\stackrel{~}{p}^2x(1x)K_2(p\stackrel{~}{p}\sqrt{x(1x)})]\hfill \\ & =\frac{ig^2}{(4\pi )^2}\left[(p^2G_{\mu \nu }p_\mu p_\nu )\left(\frac{22}{3}\mathrm{ln}\left(p^2\stackrel{~}{p}^2\right)+\mathrm{}\right)32\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}_\mu \stackrel{~}{p}_\nu }{\stackrel{~}{p}^4}+\mathrm{}\right]\hfill \end{array},$$

where we have expanded in $`p^2\stackrel{~}{p}^2`$ to lowest order and kept the most infrared singular terms. The nonplanar graphs give rise to $`\mathrm{ln}(p^2\stackrel{~}{p}^2)`$, as first observed in , as well as the correction to the photon polarization tensor of the form $`\stackrel{~}{p}_\mu \stackrel{~}{p}_\nu /\stackrel{~}{p}^4`$, observed in . This last term is interesting since it modifies the photon dispersion relation.

We will see in the next section that the zero slope limit of the one loop string theory amplitude exactly reproduces the field theory answer (2.1)(2.1). The Schwinger parameter $`t`$ in the field theory calculation is proportional to the modulus of the string world sheet while the Feynman parameter $`x`$ is related to the separation of the vertex operators on the worldsheet.

3. The String Theory Calculation

In this section we reproduce the field theory results of section $`2`$ using string theory. We will find a simple realization of the noncommutative U(1) gauge theory using D3-branes in bosonic string theory and perform a one loop string calculation which will yield, in the massless open string boundary of moduli space, the results of the previous section.

A four dimensional pure U(1) gauge theory can be realized by taking the low energy limit of the theory on a single D3-brane of bosonic string theory stuck at an $`R^{22}/Z_2`$ orbifold singularity. This can be accomplished  by choosing the action of the orbifold group on the Chan-Paton factors to be represented by either of the two one-dimensional representations of $`Z_2`$. The projection equation projects out the transverse scalars and we are left with only a gauge field. The noncommutative version of the pure U(1) gauge theory can be obtained by applying a constant magnetic field along the D-brane worldvolume.

The quantum effective action of this gauge theory is encoded in the string theory effective action. An appropriate truncation of a string loop diagram should provide, in the low energy limit, the field theory answer. We will explicitly verify at the one loop level that the planar and non-planar two-point amplitudes for the photon on the cylinder in a background magnetic field reproduce the corresponding computations in the noncommutative gauge theory in the background field gauge.

The correlation function of the photon field vertex operators on the disk shows that the low energy classical action on the brane is a noncommutative gauge theory with the usual replacement of conventional products by $``$-products . Comparison between the string theory calculation and the field theory fixes the normalization of the photon vertex operator to be

$$V(z,k)=ig_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝑑se_sXe^{ikX},$$

where $`g`$ is the tree level Yang-Mills coupling constant, $`e_\mu `$ is the polarization of the photon, $`s`$ is the coordinate on the worldsheet boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and indices are contracted with the $`G^{\mu \nu }`$ metric.

The worldsheet topology of the one-loop diagram is a cylinder, which we represent in the complex z-plane as a rectangle of width $`\pi `$ and height $`2\pi it`$ – where $`0t\mathrm{}`$ is the modulus of the cylinder – and with the edges $`y=0`$ and $`y=2\pi it`$ identified:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill z& =x+iy0x\pi \hfill \\ \hfill y& y+2\pi t0y2\pi t.\hfill \end{array}$$

Open string vertex operators must be inserted on the boundaries of the cylinder at either $`x=0`$ or $`x=\pi `$, with the positions given by $`w=iy`$ and $`w=\pi +iy`$ respectively.

The full two-point function is obtained by summing over the planar (two vertex operators on the same boundary) and non-planar (each vertex operator on a different boundary) diagrams. These diagrams are given by

$$A=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{2t}_0^{2\pi t}𝑑y_1_0^{2\pi t}𝑑y_2Z(t)<V(y_1,k_1)V(y_2,k_2)>e_1^\mu e_2^\nu \mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu },$$

where one should keep in mind when computing $`<\mathrm{}>`$ if the diagram is planar or non-planar. The different terms in (3.1) are easily understood. The $`1/2t`$ factor arises from explicitly gauge fixing the path integral and dividing by the conformal Killing volume of the cylinder (which allows all vertex operators to be unfixed). $`Z(t)`$ is the open string partition function of the vacuum under consideration, which in our case is that of an open string ending on D3-brane of bosonic string theory stuck at an orbifold singularity and in a background magnetic field. The correlator $`<\mathrm{}>`$ is computed by contracting the fields using the Green’s function on the cylinder with boundary conditions modified by the background magnetic field.

The open string partition function is a key ingredient in the measure of the correlation function (3.1). Worldsheet consistency conditions require projecting the open string spectrum onto states invariant under the action of the orbifold group. For our $`Z_2`$ orbifold this is reflected in the partition function

$$Z(t)=\text{Tr}(\frac{1+g}{2}e^{2tH_o})=Z_1(t)+Z_g(t),$$

where $`H_o`$ is the open string Hamiltonian and $`g`$ is the $`Z_2`$ generator. The $`Z_2`$ action on the endpoints of the string corresponding to a stuck D3-brane just multiplies (3.1) by unity . It is straightforward to show that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill Z_1(t)& =i\text{det}(g+2\pi \alpha ^{}F)\frac{V_{p+1}}{2}(8\pi ^2\alpha ^{}t)^{\frac{p+1}{2}}\eta (it)^{24}\hfill \\ \hfill Z_g(t)& =i\text{det}(g+2\pi \alpha ^{}F)2^{\frac{25p}{2}}\frac{V_{p+1}}{2}(8\pi ^2\alpha ^{}t)^{\frac{p+1}{2}}\vartheta _2(0,it)^{\frac{p25}{2}}\eta (it)^{\frac{273p}{2}},\hfill \end{array}$$

where we have left explicit the dimensionality of the brane (which will turn out to be useful when comparing to the field theory results from section $`2`$). $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ are the components of the background magnetic field.

In order to compute the correlation function (3.1) we must solve for the Green’s function of the worldsheet scalars on the cylinder. The background magnetic field along the brane does not modify the equations of motion of the open strings ending on it, but it does change the boundary conditions on the worldsheet fields. Worldsheet coordinates along the brane satisfy the following boundary conditions2 The coordinates transverse to the brane are projected out by the orbifold quotient.:

$$g_{\mu \nu }_nX^\nu +2\pi i\alpha ^{}F_{\mu \nu }_sX^\nu |_\mathrm{\Sigma }=0.$$

Here $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is the closed string metric (the metric that appears in the string sigma model action). The operators $`_n`$ and $`_s`$ are derivatives normal and tangential to the worldsheet boundaries $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The correlation function of vertex operators $`<\mathrm{}>`$ on a given worldsheet is computed from the propagators of the worldsheet fields, which can be found by solving the worldsheet wave equation while taking into account the boundary conditions (3.1). On the cylinder, the wave equation to be solved is

$$\frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}_w_{\overline{w}}G^{\rho \sigma }(w,w^{})=2\pi \delta ^2(ww^{})g^{\rho \sigma }+\frac{1}{2\pi t}g^{\rho \sigma }.$$

The last term, which is proportional to the inverse area of the cylinder, is included in order to satisfy Gauss’ law and is compatible with the boundary conditions (3.1). The propagator we are interested in should solve (3.1), satisfy (3.1) at both boundaries of the cylinder, and respect the identification $`yy+2\pi t`$ of the cylinder. The solution is given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝒢& {}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }(w,w^{})<X^\mu (w)X^\nu (w^{})>=\alpha ^{}[g^{\mu \nu }\left(\mathrm{log}\right|\vartheta _1(\frac{ww^{}}{2\pi it}|\frac{i}{t})|\mathrm{log}|\vartheta _1(\frac{w+\overline{w}^{}}{2\pi it}|\frac{i}{t})|\hfill \\ \hfill & \frac{\text{Re}^2(w+\overline{w}^{})+\text{Re}^2(ww^{})}{4\pi t})+G^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{log}|\vartheta _1(\frac{w+\overline{w}^{}}{2\pi it}|\frac{i}{t})|^2+\frac{\theta ^{\mu \nu }}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}\mathrm{log}(\frac{\vartheta _1(\frac{w+\overline{w}^{}}{2\pi it}|\frac{i}{t})}{\vartheta _1^{}(\frac{w+\overline{w}^{}}{2\pi it}|\frac{i}{t})})],\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`w`$ and $`w^{}`$ are points on the cylinder.

The propagator on the cylinder has a similar structure to the propagator on the disk. Here $`G^{\mu \nu }`$ is the open string metric (the metric that defines the dispersion relation for open string fields), and $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is the noncommutativity parameter which appears in the definition of the $``$-product. They are defined by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill G^{\mu \nu }& =\left(\frac{1}{g+2\pi \alpha ^{}F}g\frac{1}{g2\pi \alpha ^{}F}\right)^{\mu \nu }\hfill \\ \hfill \theta ^{\mu \nu }& =(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2\left(\frac{1}{g+2\pi \alpha ^{}F}F\frac{1}{g2\pi \alpha ^{}F}\right)^{\mu \nu }.\hfill \end{array}$$

The noncommutative field theory is obtained by taking the limit $`\alpha ^{}ϵ0`$ and $`gϵ^{1/2}0`$ , with the magnetic field kept constant .

For the two-point function of photon vertex operators we only need the propagator for points on the boundaries. The correlator is given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill <& _sX^\mu e^{ikX}(w)_sX^\nu e^{ikX}(w^{})>\hfill \\ \hfill =& \left(_w_w^{}𝒢^{\mu \nu }+k_\rho k_\sigma _w𝒢^{\mu \rho }_w^{}𝒢^{\sigma \nu }\right)e^{k_\rho k_\sigma (𝒢^{\rho \sigma }(w,w^{})\frac{1}{2}𝒢_r^{\rho \sigma }(w,w)\frac{1}{2}𝒢_r^{\rho \sigma }(w^{},w^{}))}\hfill \\ \hfill =& \left(k_\rho k_\sigma _w𝒢^{\rho \sigma }_w^{}𝒢^{\mu \nu }+k_\rho k_\sigma _w𝒢^{\mu \rho }_w^{}𝒢^{\nu \sigma }\right)e^{k_\rho k_\sigma (𝒢^{\rho \sigma }(w,w^{})\frac{1}{2}𝒢_r^{\rho \sigma }(w,w)\frac{1}{2}𝒢_r^{\rho \sigma }(w^{},w^{}))}\hfill \end{array}$$

where we have integrated the first term by parts. $`𝒢_r^{mn}(w,w)`$ is the renormalized propagator, which regulates the divergences in the self-contractions by subtracting the short distance behaviour of the propagator. The proper renormalized propagator for open string vertex operators is given by

$$𝒢_r^{\rho \sigma }(w,w^{})=𝒢^{\rho \sigma }(w,w^{})+\alpha ^{}G^{\rho \sigma }(\mathrm{log}|ww^{}|^2),$$

where $`w`$ and $`w^{}`$ are points on the same boundary. We will denote the combination in the exponent in (3.1) as

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒢}^{\rho \sigma }(w,w^{})𝒢^{\rho \sigma }(w,w^{})\frac{1}{2}𝒢_r^{\rho \sigma }(w,w)\frac{1}{2}𝒢_r^{\rho \sigma }(w^{},w^{})$$

We will now consider in turn the results for the planar and non-planar diagrams.

3.1. Planar Two-point function

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}^{\rho \sigma }(w,w^{})`$ differs from $`𝒢^{\rho \sigma }(w,w^{})`$ by a term that is independent of the position of the vertex operators. On the $`x=0`$ boundary it is given by3 Unlike Eq.(3.8) above, this expression is not manifestly periodic. However, it is straightforward to rewrite this expression in a form in which periodicity is manifest.

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{𝒢}^{\rho \sigma }(w,w^{})& =\alpha ^{}\left[G^{\rho \sigma }\mathrm{log}\left|2\pi \frac{\vartheta _1(\frac{i(yy^{})}{2\pi },it)}{\vartheta _1^{}(0,it)}\right|^2\frac{(yy^{})^2}{2\pi t}\right]+\frac{i}{2}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }ϵ(yy^{})\hfill \\ & \alpha ^{}G^{\rho \sigma }\mathrm{\Gamma }(yy^{})+\frac{i}{2}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }ϵ(yy^{}),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`w=y,w^{}=y^{}`$ (or $`w=\pi +iy,w^{}=\pi +iy^{}`$), $`G^{\rho \sigma }`$ is the open string metric and $`ϵ(x)`$ is $`1`$ for $`x>0`$ and -1 for $`x<0`$. On the $`x=\pi `$ boundary the sign of the term proportional to $`\theta ^{\rho \sigma }`$ changes sign4 We thank H. Dorn for correspondence on this point.. Note that we have used a $`\vartheta `$-function identity to rewrite the propagator in a form conducive to taking the $`t\mathrm{}`$ limit.

Plugging this expression into the correlator (3.1) we see that it has the familiar form of the vacuum polarization diagram of the photon

$$<_sX^\mu e^{ikX}(w_1)_sX^\nu e^{ikX}(w_2)>=\alpha ^2\left(k^2G^{\mu \nu }k^\mu k^\nu \right)(_y\mathrm{\Gamma })^2e^{\alpha ^{}k^2\mathrm{\Gamma }},$$

where $`k^2=G^{\rho \sigma }k_\rho k_\sigma `$ and $`y=y_1y_2`$.

Combining all the terms in (3.1) one is led to the following expression for the planar two-point function

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^P=g^2_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{2t}_0^{2\pi t}𝑑y_1_0^{2\pi t}𝑑y_2Z(t)\alpha ^2\left(k^2G_{\mu \nu }k_\mu k_\nu \right)(_y\mathrm{\Gamma })^2e^{\alpha ^{}k^2\mathrm{\Gamma }},$$

where $`Z(t)`$ is given by (3.1) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by (3.1).

The task at hand is to identify in this string computation the noncommutative field theory result. We have to examine (3.1) in the decoupling limit specified in , which in particular requires taking the $`\alpha ^{}0`$ limit. In this limit we only get contributions from corners of string moduli space. We will now show that we obtain the exact planar field theory answer from the boundary of moduli space of the cylinder which is dominated by massless open strings5 Note that since we are using bosonic string theory the field theory result is obtained only after removing by hand the divergence caused by the open string tachyon., which comes from the $`t\mathrm{}`$ limit. We therefore need the large $`t`$ expression of the integrand in (3.1). The large $`t`$ expansions of $`Z(t)`$ and of $`_y\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill Z(t)& V_{p+1}(8\pi ^2\alpha ^{}t)^{\frac{p+1}{2}}\left(e^{2\pi t}+p1+𝒪(e^{2\pi t})\right)\hfill \\ \hfill _y\mathrm{\Gamma }& 12x+2\left(e^{2\pi xt}e^{2\pi xt}e^{2\pi t}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`x=y/2\pi t`$. Plugging these expressions into (3.1) and tossing out the contribution due to the tachyon, one gets (with $`d=p+1`$ and $`gg\mu ^{4d}`$)

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^P=i\frac{g^2\mu ^{4d}}{(4\pi )^{d/2}}\left(k^2G_{\mu \nu }k_\mu k_\nu \right)_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t_0^1𝑑xt^{1d/2}\left(8(d2)(12x)^2\right)e^{k^2tx(1x)},$$

which is precisely the field theory answer (2.1). To obtain this result we rescaled $`tt/\alpha ^{}`$ and $`yy/\alpha ^{}`$. In these new variables (with $`\alpha ^{}0`$) any finite value of $`t`$ is in the extreme open string limit of the moduli space. In particular the excited open string corrections in (3.1) become $`𝒪(e^{2\pi t/\alpha ^{}})`$ which vanish in the decoupling limit. This will be discussed further in Section $`4`$.

3.2. Non-Planar Two-point function

The nonplanar propagator with $`w=\pi +iy`$ and $`w^{}=y^{}`$ is given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{𝒢}^{\rho \sigma }=& \alpha ^{}[G^{\rho \sigma }\left(\mathrm{log}\right|2\pi \frac{\vartheta _2(\frac{i(yy^{})}{2\pi },it)}{\vartheta _1^{}(0,it)}|^2+\frac{\pi }{2t}\frac{(yy^{})^2}{2\pi t})+i\frac{\theta ^{\rho \sigma }}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}\frac{(yy^{})}{t}\hfill \\ & g^{\rho \sigma }\frac{\pi }{2t}].\hfill \end{array}$$

As in the planar diagram computation we expand (3.1) in the large $`t`$ region. The asymptotics of the term proportional to the open string metric $`G^{\rho \sigma }`$ is the same as for the planar diagram. The important differences are in the terms proportional to the closed string metric $`g^{\mu \nu }`$ and the noncommutativity parameter $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$. The term proportional to $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ does not contribute to the exponential in (3.1), but it plays a very important role in the derivative terms.

Since this is a non-planar diagram for an oriented string, there is an overall factor of $`1`$ since the ends of the string carry opposite charges. The final answer is given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{NP}& =i\frac{g^2\mu ^{4d}}{(4\pi )^{d/2}}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t_0^1𝑑xt^{1d/2}e^{k^2tx(1x)\stackrel{~}{k}^2/4t}\hfill \\ & \times \left(\left(k^2G_{\mu \nu }k_\mu k_\nu \right)\left(8(d2)(12x)^2\right)\frac{2}{t^2}\stackrel{~}{k}^\mu \stackrel{~}{k}^\nu \right).\hfill \end{array}$$

This expression is identical to that obtained from the nonplanar field theory graphs (2.1).

4. Discussion

In the previous sections we have seen how the annulus (cylinder) amplitude of string theory in a background $`F`$ field reproduces, in the decoupling limit of , the planar and nonplanar results of noncommutative gauge theory. Let us discuss this in more detail. Schematically the two-point function on the annulus is given in the open string channel by

$$A_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑tt\underset{I}{}\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }_It).$$

The index $`I`$ labels all open string states and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_I`$, basically the $`L_0`$ eigenvalue, is the mass squared of state $`I`$ plus momentum dependence. In the decoupling limit of  $`\alpha ^{}0`$ and hence the string mass scale is sent to infinity. The oscillator contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_I`$ is unaffected by $`F`$ and hence is just $`N_I/\alpha ^{}`$ where $`N_I`$ is the total oscillator occupation number. So in the $`\alpha ^{}0`$ limit all the excited open string states become much heavier than the massless one and hence should decouple from the dynamics. The vanishing of the exponential corrections in (3.1) and (3.1) illustrates this. This is similar to other decoupling limits such as those which show that field theories arise from branes separated by short distances. As pointed out in  and further discussed in there are peculiar singularities indicating IR/UV mixing in the nonplanar noncommutative gauge theory results. These results have been interpreted to mean  that some closed string residue remains in the field theory, even in the decoupling limit. So it is important to examine if and how decoupling is breaking down here.

Generally, the only way decoupling can fail is for the interactions of the decoupled theory to have bad high energy behavior. If loops of massless open string states are UV divergent, then massive open string states will generally be excited, violating decoupling. If the decoupled field theory is divergent but renormalizable then there will be a mild violation of decoupling, but all the effects of the massive string states can be absorbed in a few “renormalized” couplings. For instance, $`g^2\mathrm{ln}(p^2/\mu ^2)`$ in (2.1) becomes, in string theory, $`g^2(\mathrm{ln}(p^2\alpha ^{})+𝒪(1))`$.

Now let us examine decoupling in the nonplanar diagrams that display mysterious UV/IR singularities. We can write a caricature of the string amplitude (3.1) by suppressing the $`x`$ integral, all numerical factors, and adding back in the effect of the first excited open string state.

$$A_{NP}𝑑tt^{1d/2}e^{k^2t\stackrel{~}{k}^2/4t}(1+e^{2\pi t/\alpha ^{}}+\mathrm{}).$$

Note that the $`\stackrel{~}{k}^2/4t`$ term in the exponential renders the UV region of the modular integration ($`t0`$) completely finite for any nonzero $`\stackrel{~}{k}^2`$. This term is present in the field theoretic amplitude (2.1) and represents the effect of the rapidly oscillating phases in the noncommutative gauge theory interaction vertices. These phases are enough to render the nonplanar amplitude finite for any nonzero $`\stackrel{~}{k}^2`$.

The smallest important value of $`t`$ in (4.1) is roughly $`t\stackrel{~}{k}^2`$. The contribution of the first excited state is then $`e^{2\pi \stackrel{~}{k}^2/\alpha ^{}}.`$ In the decoupling limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$ and this contribution vanishes for any nonzero $`\stackrel{~}{k}^2`$. The decoupled field theory amplitude is UV finite so decoupling cannot fail.

To further investigate this question let us keep $`\alpha ^{}`$ finite. There are then two regimes to consider. If $`\stackrel{~}{k}^2\alpha ^{}`$ then the excited open string state contribution is negligible and the decoupled field theory result is accurate. If $`\stackrel{~}{k}^2\alpha ^{}`$, however, the small $`t`$ region of the integral may be important. This depends on whether the field theory graph without phase factors is UV divergent. It will be, for instance, if the space-time dimension $`d`$ is large enough. If there is a small $`t`$ UV divergence then all the excited open string states will become important. In this case the correct way to analyze the situation is to use channel duality and rewrite the amplitude in terms of closed string states. At small $`t`$ only the lightest closed string states will contribute, giving a massless propagator $`1/k^2`$ (assuming we drop the closed string tachyon).

The region where the closed string description is valid becomes smaller and smaller as we approach the decoupling limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$. In this limit the region of validity shrinks to a set of measure zero. For all finite $`\stackrel{~}{k}^2`$ the decoupled field theory describing only the lightest open string mode is exact. So the complete structure of the mysterious IR/UV singularities is contained in the open string description.

Of course one can formally represent the behavior of the lightest open string in the dual closed string channel. But this requires a sum over closed string states of arbitrarily high mass and does not seem very transparent. This is the usual situation in dualities. A regime that has a simple description in one set of variables typically has a complicated description in the dual variables.

To illustrate this point consider (4.1) for general $`d`$. The log divergence in $`d=4`$ becomes a $`1/\stackrel{~}{k}^{d4}`$ divergence. The massless closed strings will produce a $`1/k^2`$ behavior for any $`d`$. To produce the open string behavior will require a sum over all the closed string states.

There is at least one situation where decoupled field theory results can be reproduced from the lightest closed string state6 This observation is due to Lenny Susskind.. This is the case where a nonrenormalization theorem exists . The contribution of excited open string states vanishes, typically because they are in long multiplets of an extended supersymmetry algebra. The exact amplitude is given by the lightest open string state, and so this must also agree with the closed string answer. This mechanism seems to require lots of supersymmetry, and usually applies only to special amplitudes. So it seems questionable whether it will be helpful in giving a general explanation for these mysterious singularities.

Note Added

In the past week the papers  appeared on the archive. They overlap substantially with ours.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Allan Adams, Sergei Gukov, John McGreevy, Hirosi Ooguri, Maxim Perelstein, John Schwarz, Lenny Susskind, Nick Toumbas and Edward Witten for discussions. We would like to thank Iain Stewart for help making the figures. J.G. and T.M. are supported in part by the DOE under grant no. DE-FG03-92-ER 40701. M.R. is supported by the Caltech Discovery Fund under grant no. RFBR 98-02-16575 and DE-FG-05-ER 40219. M.K. is supported by an NSF graduate fellowship. S.S. is partially supported by NSF grant 9870115.

References

relax A. Connes, M.R. Douglas and A. Schwarz, “Noncommutative Geometry and Matrix Theory: Compactification on Tori”, JHEP 9802(1998) 003, hep-th/9711162. relax M.R. Douglas and C. Hull, ”D-branes and the Noncommutative Torus”, JHEP 9802 (1998) 008, hep-th/9711165. relax B. de Wit, J. Hoppe and H. Nicolai, ”On The Quantum Mechanics of Supermembranes,” Nucl. Phys. B305 (1988) 545. relax Y.-K. E. Cheung and M. Krogh, ”Noncommutative Geometry From 0-Branes In A Background B Field,” Nucl. Phys. B528 (1998) 185, hep-th/9803031 relax C.-S. Chu and P.-M. Ho, ”Noncommutative Open String And D-Brane,” Nucl. Phys. text@baccent550(1999)151, hep-th/9812219; ”Constrained Quantization of Open String In Background B Field and Noncommutative D-brane,” hep-th/9906192. relax V. Schomerus, ”D-Branes And Deformation Quantization,” JHEP 9906:030 (1999), hep-th/9903205. relax F. Ardalan, H. Arafei and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, ”Mixed Branes and M(atrix) Theory on Noncommutative Torus,” hep-th/980367; ”Noncommutative Geometry From Strings and Branes,” JHEP 02 016 (1999) hep-th/9810072; ”Dirac Quantization of Open Strings and Noncommutativity in Branes,” hep-th/9906161. relax D. Bigatti and L. Susskind, hep-th/9908056 . relax N. Seiberg and E. Witten, “ String Theory and Noncommutative Geometry”, JHEP 9909 (1999) 032, hep-th/9908142. relax T. Filk, ”Divergences in a Field Theory on Quantum Space”, Phys. Lett. B376 53. relax J.C. Varilly and J.M. Gracia-Bondia, ”On the ultraviolet behaviour of quantum fields over noncommutative manifolds”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A14 (1999) 1305, hep-th/9804001. relax M. Chaichian, A. Demichev and P. Presnajder, “Quantum Field Theory on Noncommutative Space-times and the Persistence of Ultraviolet Divergences”, hep-th/9812180; “Quantum Field Theory on the Noncommutative Plane with E(q)(2) Symmetry”, hep-th/9904132. relax C.P.Martin, D. Sanchez-Ruiz, “The One-loop UV Divergent Structure of U(1) Yang-Mills Theory on Noncommutative $`R^4`$”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 476-479,hep-th/9903077 relax M. Sheikh-Jabbari, “Super Yang-Mills Theory on Noncommutative Torus from Open String Interactions”, Phys. Lett. B450 (1999) 119, hep-th/9810179; “One Loop Renormalizability of Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theories on Noncommutative Torus”, JHEP 06 (1999) 015, hep-th/9903107; “On the Deformation of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-Symmetry in B-field Background”, Phys. Lett. B477 (2000) 325, hep-th/9910258; ”Noncommutative Super Yang-Mills Theories with 8 Supercharges and Brane Configurations”, hep-th/0001089. relax H. Grosse, T. Krajewski and R. Wulkenhaar, ”Perturbative quantum gauge fields on the noncommutative torus”, hep-th/9903187. relax S. Cho, R. Hinterding, J. Madore and H. Steinacker, “Finite Field Theory on Noncommutative Geometries”, hep-th/9903239. relax E. Hawkins, “Noncommutative Regularization for Practical Man”, hep-th/9908052. relax I. Chepelev and R. Roiban, “Renormalization of Quantum Field Theories on Noncommutative $`R^d`$, I. Scalars,” hep-th/9911098. relax G. Arcioni and M. A. Vazquez-Mozo, “Thermal effects in perturbative noncommutative gauge theories”, JHEP 0001 (2000) 028, hep-th/9912140. relax S. Iso, H. Kawai and Y. Kitazawa, “Bi-local fields in noncommutative field theory”, hep-th/0001027. relax H. Grosse, T. Krajewski and R. Wulkenhaar, ”Renormalization of noncommutative Yang-Mills theories: A simple example”, hep-th/0001182. relax I.Ya. Areféva, D.M. Belov and A.S. Koshelev, ”Two-Loop Diagrams in Noncommutative $`\varphi _4^4`$ theory”, hep-th/9912075; ”A Note on UV/IR for Noncommutative Complex Scalar Field”, hep-th/0001215. relax I.Ya. Areféva, D.M. Belov, A.S. Koshelev and O.A. Rytchkov, ”UV/IR Mixing for Noncommutative Complex Scalar Field Theory, II (Interaction with Gauge Fields)”, hep-th/0003176. relax F. Ardalan and N. Sadooghi, ”Axial Anomaly in Non-Commutative QED on $`R^4`$”, hep-th/0002143. relax J.M. Gracia-Bondia and C.P. Martin, ”Chiral Gauge Anomalies on Noncommutative $`R^4`$”, hep-th/0002171. relax S. Minwalla, M.V. Raamsdonk and N. Seiberg, “Noncommutative Perturbative Dynamics”, hep-th/9912072. relax M.V. Raamsdonk and N. Seiberg, “ Comments on Noncommutative Perturbative Dynamics”, hep-th/0002186. relax M. Hayakawa,“Perturbative analysis on infrared and ultraviolet aspects of noncommutative QED on $`R^4`$,” hep-th/9912167. relax W. Fischler, E. Gorbatov, A. Kashani-Poor, S. Paban, P. Pouliot and J. Gomis, “Evidence for winding states in noncommutative quantum field theory,” hep-th/0002067. relax A. Matusis, L. Susskind and N. Toumbas, “The IR/UV connection in the non-commutative gauge theories,” hep-th/0002075. relax M.R. Douglas, ”Enhanced Gauge Symmetry in M(atrix) Theory”, JHEP 9707 (1997) 004, hep-th/9612126. relax D.E. Diaconescu, M.R. Douglas and J. Gomis, ”Fractional Branes and Wrapped Branes”, JHEP 9802 (1998) 013, hep-th/9712230. relax B.S. DeWitt, Phys. Rev. 162 (1967) 1195, 1239; in Dynamic Theory of Groups and Fields (Gordon and Breach, 1965) relax L. F. Abbot, Nucl. Phys. B185 (1981) 189-203. relax R.R. Metsaev and A.A. Tseytlin, “One Loop Corrections to String Theory Effective Actions”, Nucl. Phys. B298 109 (1988). relax Z. Bern and D. C. Dunbar, Nucl. Phys. B379(1992) 567-601. relax P. Di Vecchia, A. Lerda, L. Magnea, R. Marotta and R. Russo, “String techniques for the calculation of renormalization constants in field theory”, Nucl.Phys. B469 (1996) 235, hep-th/9601143. relax P. Di Vecchia, A. Lerda, L. Magnea, R. Marotta, “Gauge theory renormalizations from the open bosonic string”, Phys. Lett. B351 (1995) 445, hep-th/9502156. relax E. Alvarez and C. Gómez, “Ultraviolet and Infrared freedom from string amplitudes”, JHEP 9910 (1999) 018, hep-th/9907205. relax D.E. Diaconescu and J. Gomis, “Fractional Branes and Boundary States in Orbifold Theories”, hep-th/9906242. relax M.R. Douglas and M. Li, ”D-Brane Realization Of N=2 Superyang-Mills Theory In Four-Dimensions,” hep-th/9604041. relax M.R. Douglas, D. Kabat, P. Pouliot and S. H. Shenker, ”D-Branes And Short Distances In String Theory,” Nucl. Phys. B485 85 (1997). relax C. Bachas and E. Kiritsis, ”F(4) Terms In N=4 String Vacua,” Nucl. Phys. Proc.Suppl. 55B 194(1997). relax O. Andreev and H. Dorn, ”Diagrams of Noncommutative $`\mathrm{\Phi }^3`$ Theory from String Theory”, hep-th/0003113. relax Y. Kiem and S. Lee, “UV/IR Mixing in Noncommutative Field Theory via Open String Loops”, hep-th/0003145. relax A. Bilal, C.-S. Chu and R. Russo, “ String Theory and Noncommutative Field Theories at One Loop”, hep-th/0003180. relax A. Abouelsaood, C.G. Callan, C.R. Nappi and S.A. Yost, ”Open Strings in Background Gauge Fields”, Nucl. Phys. B280 (1987) 599-624.


format: text

text:
# Proper forcing and 𝐿(ℝ)

## 1 Introduction

It is well known that under the existence of large cardinals the theory of $`L()`$ —possibly with real parameters— is absolute, and in particular cannot be changed by small forcings. Things may be different if one considers the theory of $`L()`$ with ordinal parameters. By results of Woodin and Shelah this theory can be changed by semiproper forcing, even granted large cardinals. In fact the truth value of the formula $`\varphi (\stackrel{~}{\alpha })=\text{}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\text{ is equal to }\omega _2\text{}`$ can easily be changed as follows: Start with $`V`$ having, e.g., a supercompact. Then $`L(^V)\varphi [\alpha ]`$ for some $`\alpha \omega _2^V`$, simply because any cardinal of $`V`$ must be a cardinal of $`L(^V)`$. Using the supercompact force to make the SemiProper Forcing Axiom hold in the generic extension. The supercompact of $`V`$ becomes $`\omega _2`$ of $`V[G]`$, and in $`V[G]`$ every set still has a sharp. All this can be done with a semiproper forcing. From SPFA it follows in $`V[G]`$ that the non-stationary ideal on $`\omega _1`$ is saturated (see \[Jec87\]; this result is due to Shelah), and by results of Woodin this (with sharps) implies that $`\omega _2`$ as computed in $`L(^{V[G]})`$ is equal to $`\omega _2^{V[G]}`$ (see \[Woo99\]). Now this is greater than $`\omega _2^V`$, and so certainly greater than $`\alpha `$. Thus $`L(^V)\varphi [\alpha ]`$ while $`L(^{V[G]})\vDash ̸\varphi [\alpha ]`$.

This example demonstrates that semiproper forcings can change the theory of $`L()`$ with ordinal parameters greater than or equal to $`\omega _2`$.111Ordinal parameters below $`\omega _2`$ can, modulo $`\omega _1`$, be coded by reals. Thus, assuming large cardinals, forcing notions which preserve $`\omega _1`$ cannot change the theory of $`L()`$ with ordinal parameters below $`\omega _2`$. Any attempt to prove the preservation of this theory must therefore be restricted to a class of forcing strictly smaller than semiproper.

###### Theorem 1 (Embedding Theorem)

(Under large cardinal assumption $`A_\kappa `$, see below.) Let $`P`$ be a proper forcing notion of size $`\kappa `$, and let $`G`$ be $`P`$-generic/$`V`$. Then there exists an elementary embedding $`j:L(^V)L(^{V[G]})`$ which is the identity on all ordinals.

The large cardinal assumption, $`A_\kappa `$, of Theorem 1 is the following:

$`(A_\kappa )`$ There exists a class inner model $`M`$ and a countable ordinal $`\delta `$ so that

* $`M=L(V_\delta ^M)`$;
* $`M\text{}\delta \text{ is the supremum of }\omega \text{ Woodin cardinals;”}`$ and
* $`M`$ is uniquely iterable for iteration trees of length $`\kappa ^+`$.

Uniquely iterable means basically that in the course of our proof we are free to create iteration trees on $`M`$, without having to worry about the existence of cofinal well-founded branches. More precisely $`M`$ must be iterable, meaning that the good player must win the full iteration game of \[MS94\] on $`M`$ of length $`\kappa ^++1`$. Furthermore the choice of cofinal branches must be unique, in the sense that for any iteration tree on $`M`$ of size $`<\kappa ^+`$ there must be a unique cofinal branch $`b`$ such that the direct limit model $`M_b`$ is itself iterable. The technical assumption $`A_\kappa `$ is weaker than the existence (above $`\kappa `$) of $`\omega `$ Woodin cardinals and a measurable cardinal above them. It is closely connected to the large cardinal strength of $`AD^{L()}`$.

Theorem 1 implies in particular that the example given above cannot be carried out with proper (as opposed to semiproper) forcing; the full theory of $`L()`$, with ordinal parameters, cannot be changed by proper forcing. It is a further immediate corollary of the Embedding Theorem that $`\mathrm{HOD}^{L()}`$ cannot be changed by proper forcing. Proper forcings also cannot “code” into $`L()`$ a set of ordinals $`AVL()`$:

###### Theorem 2 (Anti-coding Theorem)

(Under large cardinal assumption $`A_\kappa `$). Let $`P`$ be a proper forcing notion of size $`\kappa `$, and let $`G`$ be $`P`$-generic/$`V`$. Suppose that $`A\mathrm{ON}`$ is in $`V`$; then $`AL(^V)AL(^{V[G]})`$.

As with the Embedding Theorem, the Anti-Coding Theorem cannot be extended much further. By a result of Woodin it fails for semiproper forcings (provably from large cardinals). Both the Anti-Coding Theorem and the Embedding Theorem do however extend to the class of reasonable forcings — a class slightly bigger than proper. The proofs in this paper apply to reasonable forcings.

Our Theorems are similar in flavor to results of Foreman and Magidor \[FM95\], who investigated the possibility of forcing to change the definable continuum — the supremum of all ordinals $`\gamma `$ such that $`\gamma `$ is the order type of some prewellorderings of reals in $`L()`$. (This ordinal is commonly denoted as $`\theta ^{L()}`$). In \[FM95\] it is shown that (granted large cardinals) reasonable forcings cannot change the definable continuum. This result can be obtained also from our Embedding Theorem, since clearly $`\theta ^{L(^V)}=j(\theta ^{L(^V)})=\theta ^{L(^{V[G]})}`$ where $`G`$ is $`P`$-generic/$`V`$ for a reasonable forcing $`P`$, and $`j`$ is the elementary embedding given by Theorem 1. \[FM95\] prove a more general result concerning prewellorderings which are homogeneously Suslin. Using additional work of Woodin’s it is possible to derive the Embedding Theorem from their result. The proof of the Embedding Theorem which we include here is different, and its methods are needed later to obtain the Anti-Coding Theorem.

As with many results involving $`L()`$ and large cardinals there are (at least) two alternative routes to proving our Theorems; one which uses stationary tower forcing, and another which uses iteration trees. The latter is presented in this paper while the former can be found in \[NZ98\]. It is interesting that even though iteration trees and stationary tower forcing are technically entirely different there are several similarities between the two approaches. Historically the Embedding and Anti-Coding Theorems were conjectured by the second author, who from a weakly compact Woodin cardinal proved the first for c.c.c forcings and the second for c.c.c. forcing as well as proper forcing notions contained in $`\omega _1`$. Both proofs used the techniques of stationary tower forcing. Those results were presented during the 1996 Set Theory meeting in Luminy, France. The first author subsequently used iteration trees to prove the full Theorems as they appear in the present paper, while the second author strengthened the stationary tower proofs to prove roughly the same results as they appear in \[NZ98\].

The structure of this paper is such that most of the use of large cardinal assumptions is exiled into two “black boxes” (Woodin’s genericity iterations) which are quoted and then used. The proofs relating to these black boxes are due entirely to Hugh Woodin. Readers who are not experts on large cardinals may still be able to follow the proofs of the Embedding and Anti-Coding Theorems if they are willing to accept these black boxes. In Section 2 we present the proof of the Embedding Theorem, and in Section 3 the proof of the Anti-Coding Theorem. The proof in Section 3 uses the techniques of Section 2 as its backbone. The proofs of the black boxes are included in an Appendix to the e-print of this paper at http://arXiv.org.

## 2 The Embedding Theorem

We begin now the proof of the Embedding Theorem. Fix a proper forcing notion $`P`$ and a generic $`G`$. Fix $`M`$ which witnesses $`A_\kappa `$. To prove the Theorem we must construct the elementary embedding $`j:L(^V)L(^{V[G]})`$. The requirement that $`j\mathrm{ON}`$ be the identity essentially tells us what $`j`$ is. We must have $`j(x)=x`$ for any $`x^V`$, and since all elements of $`L()`$ are definable from a real and some ordinals this fixes the map $`j`$ completely. Any element of $`L(^V)`$ definable in $`L(^V)`$ from the real $`z`$ and the ordinals $`\alpha _0,\mathrm{}\alpha _k`$ using the formula $`\varphi `$, must be mapped to the element of $`L(^{V[G]})`$ definable from $`z,\alpha _0,\mathrm{},\alpha _k`$ using the same formula $`\varphi `$ in $`L(^{V[G]})`$. All we must prove is that this gives a well-defined elementary embedding $`j`$, and this amounts to showing that

For any $`z^V`$, any $`\alpha _0,\mathrm{},\alpha _k\mathrm{ON}`$, and any formula $`\varphi `$,

$$\begin{array}{c}L(^V)\varphi [z,\alpha _0,\mathrm{},\alpha _k]\hfill \\ L(^{V[G]})\varphi [z,\alpha _0,\mathrm{},\alpha _k].\hfill \end{array}$$

Fix $`z`$, $`\alpha _0,\mathrm{},\alpha _k`$, and a formula $`\varphi `$. We shall prove the above equivalence using a symmetric collapse. Given a model $`N`$ and some ordinal $`\lambda `$, we consider the Lévy Collapse $`col(\omega ,<\lambda )`$ — the finite support product of the forcings $`col(\omega ,\xi )`$ for $`\xi <\lambda `$. Define the name $`\dot{}_{symm}=_{\xi <\lambda }^{N[\dot{H}col(\omega ,<\xi )]}`$, where $`\dot{H}`$ is a name for the generic object. $`\dot{}_{symm}`$ are the reals in the symmetric collapse up to $`\lambda `$. Those were first investigated by Solovay who used a symmetric collapse to construct a model where all sets of reals are Lebesgue measurable. The important property of the collapse is its homogeneity — any statement about $`\dot{}_{symm}`$ which involves only parameters from $`N`$ is true in the generic extension iff it is forced by the empty condition (see \[Jec78\]).

Our strategy is to construct a model $`N`$ and two different generics $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ such that

1. $`zN`$;
2. $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ are both $`col(\omega ,<\lambda )`$-generic/$`N`$;
3. $`\dot{}_{symm}[H_1]=^V`$; and
4. $`\dot{}_{symm}[H_2]=^{V[G]}`$.

This will immediately complete the proof, as

$`L(^V)\varphi [z,\alpha _0,\mathrm{},\alpha _k]`$ $`_1`$ $`N[H_1]\text{}L(\dot{}_{symm}[H_1])\varphi [z,\alpha _0,\mathrm{},\alpha _k]\text{}`$
$`_2`$ $`N\text{}^{col(\omega ,<\lambda )}L(\dot{}_{symm})\varphi [z,\alpha _0,\mathrm{},\alpha _k]\text{}`$
$`_3`$ $`N[H_2]\text{}L(\dot{}_{symm}[H_2])\varphi [z,\alpha _0,\mathrm{},\alpha _k]\text{}`$
$`_4`$ $`L(^{V[G]})\varphi [z,\alpha _0,\mathrm{},\alpha _k].`$
The implications $`1`$ and $`4`$ follow from items (3) and (4) above. The implications $`2`$ and $`3`$ follow from the homogeneity of the forcing.

We construct $`N`$ as an iterate of the model $`M`$, in $`\omega `$ stages. Each stage will be carried out in $`V`$ while the full construction will exist in $`V^{col(\omega ,)}`$. Our main tool is the following Theorem of Woodin’s (see \[HMW\] or http://www.???.???).

###### Theorem  (Woodin’s first genericity iteration)

Let $`Q`$ be an $`\omega _1+1`$-iterable inner model and let $`\tau <\eta `$ be countable (in $`V`$) ordinals such that $`Q\text{}\eta \text{ is a Woodin cardinal”}`$. Then there exists a forcing notion $`𝕎_{\tau ,\eta }^QQ`$ of size $`\eta `$, such that for any real $`x`$ it is possible to construct an iteration embedding $`j:Q\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ with the property that

* $`x`$ is $`j(𝕎_{\tau ,\eta }^Q)`$-generic/$`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$;
* $`j(\eta )`$ is countable in $`V`$, indeed $`j^{\prime \prime }(\omega _1^V)\omega _1^V`$; and
* $`crit(j)>\tau `$.

Furthermore for any small forcing $`𝕆V_\tau ^Q`$ there exists an $`𝕆`$ name for a forcing notion $`\dot{𝕎}_{\tau ,\eta }^{Q,𝕆}`$ so that for any $`o`$ which is $`𝕆`$-generic/$`Q`$, there exists an iteration embedding $`j:Q\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ satisfying the above except that now $`x`$ is made $`j(\dot{𝕎}_{\tau ,\eta }^{Q,𝕆})[o]`$-generic/$`\stackrel{~}{Q}[o]`$.222 This does not follow from the previous part of the Theorem, since it gives a $`j`$ which is an iteration of $`Q`$, and this is more restrictive than being an iteration of $`Q[o]`$.

Woodin’s genericity Theorem immediately tells us how to iterate $`M`$ so as to satisfy condition (3) above. Fix some $`g:\omega ^V`$ which is $`col(\omega ,)`$-generic/$`V`$, and so enumerates all the reals of $`V`$. Our plan is to apply Woodin’s Theorem using the $`2i`$-th Woodin cardinal of $`M`$ to make $`g(i)`$ generic over an iterate of $`M`$. (The reason we use only the even Woodin cardinals will become clear presently.) More precisely, working in $`M`$ we let $`\{\delta _i\}_{i\omega }`$ be an increasing sequence of Woodin cardinals with supremum $`\delta `$. Inductively define $`\dot{𝔹}_i`$ to be Woodin’s forcing $`\dot{𝕎}_{\delta _{2i1},\delta _{2i}}^{M,\dot{𝔹}_0\mathrm{}\dot{𝔹}_{i1}}`$ (defined in $`M`$). Let $`𝔹`$ be the finite support iteration of the forcings $`\dot{𝔹}_i`$.

Inductively construct an iteration of $`M`$. Begin by letting $`M_0=M`$, and construct models $`M_i`$ and embeddings $`j_i:M_iM_{i+1}`$ so that

* $`g(0),\mathrm{},g(i1)`$ is $`j_{0,2i}(\dot{𝔹}_0\mathrm{}\dot{𝔹}_{i1})`$-generic over $`M_{2i}`$, where $`j_{0,2i}`$ is obtained through composition of the $`j_i`$’s.
* $`j_{2i}:M_{2i}M_{2i+1}`$ is an embedding to make the real $`g(i)`$ generic for the forcing notion $`j_{0,2i+1}(\dot{𝔹}_i)[g(0),\mathrm{},g(i1)]`$ over the model $`M_{2i+1}[g(0),\mathrm{},g(i1)]`$. (Such an embedding always exists by Woodin’s first genericity iteration.) We take $`j_{2i}`$ to be the identity whenever possible.
* For the time being, let $`j_{2i+1}:M_{2i+1}M_{2i+2}`$ be the identity.

When iterating $`M`$ we use the unique iteration strategy. Thus by an “iteration embedding of $`M`$” we mean only embeddings obtained through those iteration trees on $`M`$ which choose the unique iterable branch at every limit stage. By our iterability assumption on $`M`$ this guarantees that direct limits of iteration embeddings in $`V`$ are well founded. Let $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ be the direct limit model of the $`M_i`$-s and let $`j_{i,\mathrm{}}:M_iM_{\mathrm{}}`$ be the direct limit maps. Observe that $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ is well founded. This is not entirely trivial as the sequence $`j_i`$ does not belong to $`V`$. However if this sequence gave rise to an ill founded direct limit one could use Schoenfield absoluteness to pull the existence of such a “bad” sequence back to $`V`$. Notice further that $`j_{2i,\mathrm{}}`$ has critical point greater than $`j_{0,2i}(\delta _{2i1})`$ so that $`j_{0,\mathrm{}}(\dot{𝔹}_0\mathrm{}\dot{𝔹}_{i1})=j_{0,2i}(\dot{𝔹}_0\mathrm{}\dot{𝔹}_{i1})`$ and $`j_{0,\mathrm{}}(\delta _{2i1})=j_{0,2i}(\delta _{2i1})`$. In particular, $`j_{0,\mathrm{}}(\delta _{2i1})`$ is countable (in $`V`$) and so $`j_{0,\mathrm{}}(\delta )\omega _1^V`$.

It is clear from the construction that $`g(0),\mathrm{},g(i1)`$ is $`j_{0,\mathrm{}}(\dot{𝔹}_0\mathrm{}\dot{𝔹}_{i1})`$-generic/$`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ for all $`i`$. Using the fact that $`g`$ is $`col(\omega ,^V)`$-generic/$`V`$ one can verify further that $`g(i)i<\omega `$ is $`j_{0,\mathrm{}}(𝔹)`$-generic over $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$. Specifically, fix any dense set $`D`$ in $`j_{0,\mathrm{}}(𝔹)`$ and assume $`()`$ that the filter given by $`g(i)i<\omega `$ does not intersect $`D`$. Fix some $`n`$ large enough so that $`g(0),\mathrm{},g(n1)`$ forces $`()`$ in $`col(\omega ,)`$, and such that $`D=j_{2n,\mathrm{}}(\overline{D})`$ for some $`\overline{D}M_{2n}`$. Now by condition (a), $`g(0),\mathrm{},g(n1)`$ is $`j_{0,2n}(\dot{𝔹}_0\mathrm{}\dot{𝔹}_{n1})`$-generic/$`M_{2n}`$. Working in $`M_{2n}[g(0),\mathrm{},g(n1)]`$ we can therefore find a condition $`b=\dot{b}_0,\mathrm{},\dot{b}_{k1}\overline{D}`$ (with $`kn`$) such that $`\dot{b}_0,\mathrm{},\dot{b}_{n1}`$ belongs to the $`j_{0,2n}(𝔹_0\mathrm{}𝔹_{n1})`$-generic given by $`g(0),\mathrm{},g(n1)`$. Next let us force over $`M_{2n}`$ with $`j_{0,2n}(\dot{𝔹}_n\mathrm{}\dot{𝔹}_{k1})[g(0),\mathrm{},g(n1)]`$ below the condition $`\dot{b}_n,\mathrm{},\dot{b}_{k1}[g(0),\mathrm{},g(n1)]`$, and obtain reals $`y_n,\mathrm{},y_{k1}`$ such that

* $`g(0),\mathrm{},g(n1),y_n,\mathrm{},y_{k1}`$ is $`j_{0,2n}(\dot{𝔹}_0\mathrm{}\dot{𝔹}_{k1})`$-generic/$`M_{2n}`$, and
* this generic contains the condition $`b\overline{D}`$.

Such reals can be found in $`V`$ since the level of $`M_{2n}`$ involved is countable in $`V`$ (see conditions (i,ii) below). Consider finally the condition $`g(0),\mathrm{},g(n1),y_n,\mathrm{},y_{k1}`$ in the forcing $`col(\omega ,)`$. This condition forces our construction to produce a model $`M_{2k}`$ which is equal to $`M_{2n}`$, and an embedding $`j_{2n,2k}`$ which equals the identity (note our use here of the requirement in (b) that $`j_{2i}`$ be the identity whenever possible). From this together with (G1,G2) it follows easily that $`()`$ is forced to fail, but this is a contradiction.

Observe next that the forcing $`𝔹`$ can be replaced by a symmetric collapse. In other words it is possible to find $`HM_{\mathrm{}}[g(i)i<\omega ]`$ which is $`col(\omega ,<j_{0,\mathrm{}}(\delta ))`$-generic/$`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ and so that $`\dot{}_{symm}^M_{\mathrm{}}[H]=\{g(i)i<\omega \}`$. In fact it is well known that in general (for $`\delta `$ a strong limit cardinal) whenever $`𝔸`$ is a direct limit of a regular chain of forcings $`𝔸_i`$, each of size $`<\delta `$, such that each cardinal below $`\delta `$ is collapsed to $`\omega `$ by some $`𝔸_i`$, then $`𝔸`$ is isomorphic to $`col(\omega ,<\delta )`$ in such a way that the symmetric reals are exactly those added by the forcings $`𝔸_i`$. In our case the reals added by the forcings $`𝔹_0\mathrm{}𝔹_i`$ are all in $`V`$, and eventually all reals of $`V`$ are added. Thus we finally have $`^V=\dot{}_{symm}^M_{\mathrm{}}[H]`$.

The argument so far is not new. It was first presented by Steel who used it in \[Ste93\] to derive several absoluteness results for $`L()`$, among them the generic absoluteness of the theory of $`L()`$ with real —but not ordinal— parameters. For our purposes however this argument is not sufficient. We have made $`^V`$ the set of reals in the symmetric collapse of an iterate of $`M`$, but we must simultaneously make $`^{V[G]}`$ the set of reals in a different symmetric collapse of the same iterate. For this reason exactly we left ourselves some space during the construction, in the form of the embeddings $`j_{2i+1,2i+2}`$ and the Woodin cardinals $`\delta _{2i+1}`$. Let $`\dot{}_i`$ be Woodin’s forcing $`\dot{𝕎}_{\delta _{2i},\delta _{2i+1}}^{M,\dot{}_0\mathrm{}\dot{}_{i1}}`$ defined in $`M`$, and $``$ their finite support iteration. We will use those to make the reals of $`V[G]`$ generic, as we made the reals of $`V`$ generic. We must however take care not to spoil the part of the construction we have completed — we want to define $`j_{2i+1,2i+2}`$ in a way that still allows us to argue that $`g(i)i<\omega `$ is generic for $`j_{0,\mathrm{}}(𝔹)`$. For that argument to work we needed to know that the reals $`y_n,\mathrm{},y_{k1}`$ could be chosen in $`V`$, and this followed from

* $`V_{j_{0,\mathrm{}}(\delta _i)}^M_{\mathrm{}}`$ is an element of $`V`$ for all $`i`$; and
* $`j_{0,\mathrm{}}(\delta _i)`$ is countable in $`V`$, for all $`i`$.

Either one of (i),(ii) can easily be maintained using Woodin’s first and second (see below) genericity iterations. The difficulty is in maintaining both conditions simultaneously, and it is here that we must make use of our assumption that $`P`$ is proper.

###### Lemma 3

(Assuming $`G`$ is $`P`$–generic/$`V`$ for some proper $`P`$.) Let $`Q=L(V_\delta ^Q)`$ be uniquely iterable, in $`V`$, for trees of size $`\kappa ^++1`$. Assume $`\delta `$ is countable in $`V`$, let $`\tau <\eta <\delta `$ be ordinals such that $`Q\text{}\eta \text{ is a Woodin cardinal”}`$, and consider Woodin’s forcing $`𝕎=𝕎_{\tau ,\eta }^Q`$. Then for any real $`xV[G]`$ it is possible to construct an iteration embedding $`j:Q\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ in $`V`$ with the property that

* $`x`$ is $`j(𝕎)`$-generic/$`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$;
* $`j(\eta )`$ is countable in $`V`$, indeed $`j^{\prime \prime }(\omega _1^V)\omega _1^V`$; and
* $`crit(j)>\tau `$.

Furthermore for any small forcing $`𝕆V_\tau ^Q`$, if we let $`\dot{𝕎}=\dot{𝕎}_{\tau ,\eta }^{Q,𝕆}`$ then for any $`oV[G]`$ which is $`𝕆`$-generic/$`Q`$ it is possible to construct an iteration embedding $`j:Q\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ satisfying the above except that now $`x`$ is made $`j(\dot{𝕎})[o]`$-generic over $`\stackrel{~}{Q}[o]`$.

It is worthwhile emphasizing the difference between Woodin’s Theorem and Lemma 3. In Lemma 3 we allow $`xV[G]`$ (and also $`oV[G]`$ for the second part), and still obtain an iteration embedding $`j`$ in $`V`$. Fix $`g:\omega ^V`$ and $`h:\omega ^{V[G]}`$ so that the pair $`g,h`$ is $`col(\omega ,^V)\times col(\omega ,^{V[G]})`$-generic/$`V[G]`$. Granted the Lemma we may repeat our construction replacing condition (c) with

* $`j_{2i+1}:M_{2i+1}M_{2i+2}`$ is an embedding to make the real $`h(i)`$ generic for the forcing $`j_{0,2i+2}(\dot{}_i)[h(0),\mathrm{},h(i1)]`$ over the model $`M_{2i+2}[h(0),\mathrm{},h(i1)]`$. We take $`j_{2i+1}`$ to be the identity if possible. Otherwise we take the embedding given by Lemma 3.

This modified construction produces $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`j_{i,\mathrm{}}`$ satisfying

1. For all $`n<\omega `$ $`g(0),\mathrm{},g(n1)`$ is $`j_{0,\mathrm{}}(\dot{𝔹}_0\mathrm{}\dot{𝔹}_{n1})`$-generic/$`M_{\mathrm{}}`$;
2. For all $`n<\omega `$ $`h(0),\mathrm{},h(n1)`$ is $`j_{0,\mathrm{}}(\dot{}_0\mathrm{}\dot{}_{n1})`$-generic/$`M_{\mathrm{}}`$; and
3. For $`\xi <j_{0,\mathrm{}}(\delta )`$, $`V_\xi ^M_{\mathrm{}}`$ belongs to $`V`$ and is countable in $`V`$.

Condition (3) and the genericity of $`g,h`$ allow us as before to argue that in fact $`g(i)i<\omega `$ is $`j_{0,\mathrm{}}(𝔹)`$-generic/$`M_{\mathrm{}}`$; and $`h(i)i<\omega `$ is $`j_{0,\mathrm{}}()`$-generic/$`M_{\mathrm{}}`$.

As before we can now convert the forcings $`𝔹`$ and $``$ into symmetric collapses — finding $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ which are $`col(\omega ,<j_{0,\mathrm{}}(\delta ))`$-generic/$`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ so that $`\dot{}_{symm}^M_{\mathrm{}}[H_1]=\{g(i)i<\omega \}`$ and $`\dot{}_{symm}^M_{\mathrm{}}[H_2]=\{h(i)i<\omega \}`$. Letting $`N=M_{\mathrm{}}`$ this completes the proof of Theorem 1, at least if $`z`$ belongs to $`M`$ — but if not, before the beginning of the construction simply iterate $`M`$ to make $`z`$ generic, and then continue to realize $`^V`$ and $`^{V[G]}`$ as the reals of a symmetric collapse over $`N[z]`$.

It remains therefore only to prove Lemma 3. We use the following:

###### Theorem  (Woodin’s second genericity iteration)

Let $`Q`$ be a $`\kappa ^++1`$-iterable inner model, let $`\tau <\eta <\kappa ^+`$ be ordinals such that $`Q\text{}\eta \text{ is a Woodin cardinal”}`$, and let $`𝔸V`$ be any forcing notion of size $`\kappa `$. Let $`𝕎=𝕎_{\tau ,\eta }^Q`$ be Woodin’s forcing of the first genericity iteration, defined in $`Q`$ from $`\tau `$ and $`\eta `$. Then for any $`\dot{x}`$ which is a name for a real in $`V^𝔸`$, it is possible to construct an iteration embedding $`j:Q\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ (in $`V`$) with the property that

* For any $`F`$ which is $`𝔸`$-generic/$`V`$, the real $`\dot{x}[F]`$ is $`j(𝕎)`$-generic/$`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$;
* $`j(\eta )<(\kappa ^+)^V`$, indeed $`j^{\prime \prime }(\kappa ^+)\kappa ^+`$; and
* $`crit(j)>\tau `$.

Furthermore For any small forcing $`𝕆V_\tau ^Q`$, if we let $`𝕎=\dot{𝕎}_{\tau ,\eta }^{M,𝕆}`$ then for any $`\dot{o}`$ which is an $`𝔸`$ name for an $`𝕆`$-generic filter/$`Q`$, it is possible to construct an iteration embedding $`j:Q\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ (in $`V`$) satisfying the above except that now $`\dot{x}[F]`$ is made generic over $`\stackrel{~}{Q}[\dot{o}[F]]`$ (for all $`F`$ which are $`𝔸`$-generic/$`V`$).

Using Woodin’s second genericity iteration let us prove Lemma 3. Let $`j^{}:QQ^{}`$ be the embedding given by Woodin’s second genericity iteration applied with a name $`\dot{x}`$ for the real $`xV[G]`$. Then $`j^{}V`$, but $`j^{}(\eta )`$ need not be countable. To overcome this: Fix an elementary submodel $`Y`$ of $`V_\lambda `$ for some sufficiently large $`\lambda `$ so that $`P,\dot{x},Q,j^{},Q^{}Y`$ 333$`Q`$ is a class model of course, but it is coded by a real, and we can throw this real into $`Y`$.; $`Y`$ belongs to $`V`$ and is countable in $`V`$; $`GY`$ is $`P`$-generic/Y; and $`Y[GY]V_\lambda [G]`$. The existence of $`Y`$ follows from the properness of $`P`$. In fact it is enough (by the very definition) to assume that $`P`$ is reasonable. Let $`\overline{Y}`$ be the transitive collapse of $`Y`$ and $`\pi :\overline{Y}Y`$ the inverse collapse embedding. Let $`\overline{G}=\pi _{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }G`$ and $`\overline{\dot{x}},j,\stackrel{~}{Q}=\pi ^1(\dot{x},j^{}.Q^{})`$. Let $`\overline{x}=\overline{\dot{x}}[\overline{G}]`$. Notice that $`Q`$ is not moved by $`\pi ^1`$, so we have $`j:Q\stackrel{~}{Q}`$. $`\pi `$ induces an embedding from $`\overline{Y}[\overline{G}]`$ onto $`Y[GY]`$ which we also call $`\pi `$. Thus $`\pi :\overline{Y}[\overline{G}]V_\lambda [G]`$ is elementary.

By the elementarity of $`\pi `$, $`\overline{x}`$ is $`j(𝕎_{\tau ,\eta }^Q)`$-generic/$`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$. Of course $`\overline{x}`$ is a real and is not moved by $`\pi `$, so $`\overline{x}=\pi (\overline{x})=x`$. Thus the embedding $`j`$ makes $`x`$ generic for Woodin’s forcing. As $`j\overline{Y}`$ it is clear that $`j(\eta )`$ is countable in $`V`$.

The reader can now easily check the remaining requirements of Lemma 3. Let us here only verify that $`j`$ is an iteration embedding. This is not obvious — by elementarity $`\overline{Y}\text{}j\text{ is an iteration embedding”}`$, but this does not mean $`j`$ is an iteration embedding in $`V`$. Let $`𝒯`$ be the iteration tree giving rise to $`j`$. We must show that the branches $`𝒯`$ chooses are according to the iteration strategy for $`Q`$ which we have in $`V`$. But $`Q`$ is uniquely iterable, so this strategy chooses at every limit stage the unique branch with iterable direct limit. Thus it is sufficient to show that every model $`Q_\xi `$ on the tree $`𝒯`$ is iterable (in $`V`$). Remember that $`\pi `$ maps $`Q_\xi `$ into a model $`Q_\xi ^{}^{}`$ on the tree $`𝒯^{}`$ which gives rise to $`j^{}`$. $`Q_\xi ^{}^{}`$ is iterable and by \[MS94\] every model which embeds into an iterable model is iterable. Thus $`Q_\xi `$ is iterable and we are done.

The second part of Lemma 3 is proved in a similar fashion. Note that since $`Q`$ is countable and $`\dot{o},𝕆Q`$, both $`\dot{o}`$ and $`𝕆`$ are automatically in $`Y`$ and $`\pi (\dot{o})=\dot{o}`$. Thus both $`\dot{x}[G]`$ and $`\dot{o}[G]`$ are not moved by $`\pi :\overline{Y}[\overline{G}]V_\lambda [G]`$. We take $`j^{}`$ to be the iteration from the second part of Woodin’s second genericity Theorem, and immediately by the elementarity of $`\pi `$ can conclude that $`\dot{x}[G]`$ is generic over $`\stackrel{~}{Q}[\dot{o}[G]]`$. $`\mathrm{}`$(Lemma 3, Theorem 1)

## 3 The Anti-Coding Theorem

Next let us prove Theorem 2. Fix a set $`A\mathrm{ON}`$ in $`V`$. We must show that $`AL(^V)`$ iff $`AL(^{V[G]})`$. Now the implication from left to right follows immediately from the Embedding Theorem. Assume then that $`AL(^{V[G]})`$. We must show $`AL(^V)`$. As all sets in $`L()`$ are definable from a real and some ordinals, we may fix a name $`\dot{x}`$, ordinals $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }`$ and a formula $`\varphi `$, so that

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{A}[G]=A=\{\gamma L(^{V[G]})\varphi [\stackrel{}{\alpha },\dot{x}[G],\gamma ]\}.$$

Without loss of generality we may assume that this is forced by the empty condition in $`P`$.

It is convenient to replace $`A_\kappa `$ with the large cardinal assumption $`B_\kappa `$ stated below. It can be seen (using Woodin’s second genericity iteration and some fine structure) that $`B_\kappa `$ follows from $`A_\kappa `$.

($`B_\kappa `$) For any $`K\kappa `$ there exists a class model $`M`$ such that

* $`M=L(V_\delta ^M)`$, for some $`\kappa <\delta <(\kappa ^+)^V`$;
* $`V_\kappa M`$, and $`KM`$;
* $`M\text{}\delta \text{ is the supremum of }\omega \text{ Woodin cardinals;”}`$ and
* $`M`$ is uniquely iterable above $`\kappa `$ for trees of length $`(\kappa ^+)^V`$ (i.e., the good player wins the iteration game when the bad player is restricted to playing extenders with critical points above $`\kappa `$).

As the forcing $`P`$ has size $`\kappa `$ we may take it to be a subset of $`\kappa `$, and so can fix a model $`M`$ satisfying the conditions of assumption $`B_\kappa `$ with $`P,\dot{x}M`$. Notice that from $`B_\kappa `$ it follows that every subset of $`\kappa `$ has a sharp, and so $`V_\delta ^M`$ has a sharp.

We now pass to work in a countable elementary submodel $`YV_\lambda `$ (for $`\lambda `$ sufficiently large) which belongs to $`V`$, and contains all relevant objects (including $`V_\delta ^M`$ and its sharp). Let $`\overline{Y}`$ be the transitive collapse of $`Y`$, and $`\overline{M}`$ the image under the collapse map of $`M`$.444Again, $`M`$ is a class model. What we mean is that $`\overline{M}=L(\overline{V_\delta ^M})`$ where $`\overline{V_\delta ^M}`$ is the collapse of $`V_\delta ^M`$. Let $`\pi :\overline{Y}Y`$ be the inverse collapse embedding. Let $`\overline{\dot{x}},\overline{P}`$, and $`\overline{G}`$ be the collapse of $`\dot{x}`$, $`P`$, and $`GY`$. Then $`\overline{\dot{x}}[\overline{G}]=x`$, and by properness (reasonability) of $`P`$ we may assume that $`\overline{G}`$ is $`\overline{P}`$-generic/$`\overline{Y}`$. We will attempt to replace the real $`\overline{\dot{x}}[\overline{G}]`$ in the definition of $`A`$ with a real $`\overline{\dot{x}}[h]`$ for some $`hV`$ which is $`\overline{P}`$-generic/$`\overline{Y}`$. The fact that $`hV`$ will then imply that $`AL(^V)`$. It is simple to find $`hV`$ which is $`\overline{P}`$-generic/$`\overline{Y}`$ (since $`\overline{Y}`$ is countable). The difficulty of course is to do this in such a way that $`\overline{\dot{x}}[\overline{G}]`$ and $`\overline{\dot{x}}[h]`$ still define the same set of ordinals.

Let us find $`hV`$ which is $`\overline{P}`$-generic/$`\overline{Y}`$ with the property that for any $`\overline{p}h`$, there exists a condition $`q\pi (\overline{p})`$ which is $`(Y,P)`$-generic. If $`P`$ is proper this can be done trivially (perhaps at the price of modifying $`Y`$). If $`P`$ is only known to be reasonable this is a bit less trivial. Fix in this case some $`q_0G`$ which is $`(Y,P)`$-generic. In $`V[G]`$ there exists an $`h`$ which is $`\overline{P}`$-generic/$`\overline{Y}`$ such that all conditions in $`\pi ^{\prime \prime }(h)`$ are compatible with $`q_0`$ (e.g. take $`h=\overline{G}`$). By absoluteness then such $`h`$ exists in $`V`$, and it is easy to see that any such $`h`$ satisfies our requirement above.

Through our choice of $`h`$ we may, for any condition $`\overline{p}h`$, fix in some external generic extension of $`V`$ a filter $`G^{\overline{p}}`$ which is $`P`$-generic/$`V`$; contains the condition $`\pi (\overline{p})`$; and such that $`\overline{G}^{\overline{p}}=\pi _{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }(G^{\overline{p}}Y)`$ is $`\overline{P}`$-generic over $`\overline{Y}`$ (and hence also over $`\overline{M}`$ 555We are using here the existence of $`\overline{V_\delta ^M}^{\mathrm{}}`$ inside $`\overline{Y}`$ to see that all subsets of $`\overline{P}`$ in $`\overline{M}`$ belong to $`\overline{Y}`$.). By dovetailing together constructions of the sort used in Section 2 iterate $`\overline{M}`$ to a model $`N`$ so that

* For each $`\overline{p}h`$ the reals of $`V[G^{\overline{p}}]`$ can be realized as the symmetric collapse over $`N[\overline{G}^{\overline{p}}]`$; and
* The reals of $`V`$ can be realized as the symmetric collapse over $`N[h]`$.

Let $`j:\overline{M}N`$ be the iteration embedding, which we construct to have critical point above $`\overline{\kappa }`$, so that $`j(\overline{P})=\overline{P}`$, $`j(\overline{\dot{x}})=\overline{\dot{x}}`$ etc. As in Section 2 $`j`$ is a composition of $`\omega `$ maps, each of which is in $`V`$, and $`j`$ itself exists only in some external model. Let us denote $`j(\overline{\delta })`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }`$.666This is easily seen to be equal to $`\omega _1^V`$. “The symmetric collapse” in (a,b) above refers to the collapse up to $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }`$.

###### Claim 4

Working in $`N[h]`$ let $`y=\overline{\dot{x}}[h]`$ and consider the forcing $`col(\omega ,<\stackrel{~}{\delta })`$. We claim that for any ordinal $`\gamma `$ the following are equivalent:

1. $`\gamma A`$
2. In the forcing $`col(\omega ,<\stackrel{~}{\delta })`$ over $`N[h]`$, it is forced that “$`L(\dot{}_{symm})\varphi [\stackrel{}{\alpha },y,\gamma ]`$”.

Otherwise we may fix some ordinal $`\gamma `$, and a condition $`\overline{p}h`$, such that $`\gamma A`$ say, and nonetheless $`\overline{p}`$ forces in $`\overline{P}`$ that $`L(\dot{}_{symm})\varphi [\stackrel{}{\alpha },\overline{\dot{x}},\gamma ]`$ holds in the symmetric collapse. (Alternatively $`\gamma A`$ and $`\overline{p}`$ forces $`L(\dot{}_{symm})\vDash ̸\varphi [\stackrel{}{\alpha },y,\gamma ]`$, but the proof in this case is similar.) Since $`\overline{p}`$ is an element of $`\overline{G}^{\overline{p}}`$ it follows that over $`N[\overline{G}^{\overline{p}}]`$ it is forced in $`col(\omega ,<\stackrel{~}{\delta })`$ that $`L(\dot{}_{symm})\vDash ̸\varphi [\stackrel{}{\alpha },\overline{\dot{x}}[\overline{G}^{\overline{p}}],\gamma ]`$. But now by (a) we may fix $`H_{\overline{p}}`$ which is $`col(\omega ,<\stackrel{~}{\delta })`$-generic/$`N[\overline{G}^{\overline{p}}]`$ such that $`\dot{}_{symm}[H_{\overline{p}}]=^{V[G^{\overline{p}}]}`$. As furthermore $`\overline{\dot{x}}[\overline{G}^{\overline{p}}]=\dot{x}[G^{\overline{p}}]`$ it follows that $`L(^{V[G^{\overline{p}}]})\vDash ̸\varphi [\stackrel{}{\alpha },\dot{x}[G^{\overline{p}}],\gamma ]`$. But this implies $`\gamma A`$, a contradiction. $`\mathrm{}`$(Claim 4)

By (b) we may fix $`H`$, a filter which is $`col(\omega ,<\stackrel{~}{\delta })`$-generic over $`N[h]`$ so that $`\dot{}_{symm}[H]=^V`$. By Claim 4 $`\gamma A`$ iff $`L(\dot{R}_{symm}[H])\varphi [\stackrel{}{\alpha },y,\gamma ]`$, i.e., $`L(^V)\varphi [\stackrel{}{\alpha },y,\gamma ]`$. Thus,

$$A=\{\gamma L(^V)\varphi [\stackrel{}{\alpha },y,\gamma ]\}L(^V)$$

completing the proof of the Anti-Coding Theorem. $`\mathrm{}`$(Theorem 2)

## Appendix A Black Boxes

We include here a proof of Woodin’s genericity Theorems. The results in this Appendix are due to Hugh Woodin (circa 1987, to be published in \[HMW\]). The reader may easily verify that Woodin’s first genericity iteration is an immediate corollary of the second (taking $`𝔸`$ to be the trivial forcing for adding nothing and $`\kappa =\omega `$), and so we prove here only the second. For the rest of this section $`\eta `$ is assumed to be a Woodin cardinal in $`Q`$.

Consider the algebra $`_\eta `$ of all transfinite formulae formed by starting with “$`n\stackrel{~}{x}`$” (for $`n\omega `$) and closing under negation and wellordered disjunctions of length $`<\eta `$. The forcing $`𝕎_{\tau ,\eta }^Q`$ is similar to the Lindenbaum algebra on $`_\eta `$, but rather than simply setting $`\varphi \psi \text{}\varphi \psi \text{}`$ Woodin introduces a set of axioms $`𝒜_\eta `$ and then defines:

$`\varphi \psi `$ iff $`𝒜\varphi \psi `$; and $`[\varphi ][\psi ]`$ iff $`𝒜\varphi \psi `$.
$`𝕎_{\tau ,\eta }^Q`$ is defined to be the forcing notion consisting of equivalence classes $`[\varphi ]`$ for $`\varphi _\eta `$, ordered by $``$ as above.

Before writing down the set of axioms $`𝒜`$ note that with this definition, if $`\varphi `$ is any formula such that $`[\varphi ]=0`$ and $`x`$ any real such that $`x\varphi `$, then there must exist an axiom $`a𝒜`$ such that $`x\neg a`$. Thus any real satisfying the axioms cannot satisfy the $`0`$ condition.

The set $`𝒜`$ is defined as follows: For any $`\lambda `$ and $`\rho `$ satisfying $`\tau <\lambda <\rho <\eta `$, any $`\rho `$-strong extender $`EV_\eta ^Q`$ with $`crit(E)=\lambda `$, and any sequence $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }=\{\varphi _\xi \}_{\xi <\lambda }`$ of formulae in $`_\eta V_\lambda ^Q`$, let $`i_E:QUlt(Q,E)`$ be the ultrapower embedding of $`Q`$, and let $`\nu `$ be least such that $`i_E(\stackrel{}{\varphi })_\nu `$ is not in $`V_\rho ^Q`$. (Notice that $`\nu \lambda `$, and certainly a strict inequality is possible.) The following formula is taken to be an axiom:

$$a_{\lambda ,\rho ,E,\stackrel{}{\varphi }}=\text{}[_{\xi <\nu }i_E(\stackrel{}{\varphi })_\xi ][_{\xi <\lambda }\varphi _\xi ]\text{.”}$$

(This is a formula in $`_\eta `$, and in fact one which is an element of $`V_{\rho +1}^Q`$.) We denote $`\nu `$ by $`\nu _{\lambda ,\rho ,E,\stackrel{}{\varphi }}`$. It is worthwhile observing that $`i_E(\stackrel{}{\varphi })_\xi =\varphi _\xi `$ for $`\xi <\lambda `$, so that the disjunction $`_{\xi <\nu }i_E(\stackrel{}{\varphi })_\xi `$ is always weaker than (or equal to) the disjunction $`_{\xi <\lambda }\varphi _\xi `$.

Woodin then proves the following Claim

###### Claim

In $`Q`$, the forcing $`𝕎_{\tau ,\eta }^Q`$ is $`\eta `$-c.c.

Proof. Assume for contradiction that the Claim fails and fix an anti-chain $`\{[\psi _\xi ]\}_{\xi <\eta }`$ witnessing this. Let $`f:\eta \eta `$ be the function defined by setting $`f(\xi )`$ to be least $`\alpha `$ such that $`\psi _\xi V_\alpha ^Q`$. Since $`\eta `$ is a Woodin cardinal we can now find $`\lambda <\rho `$ between $`\tau `$ and $`\eta `$ and an extender $`EV_\eta ^Q`$ such that

1. $`crit(E)=\lambda `$;
2. $`E`$ is $`\rho `$ strong, and indeed even $`\rho `$ strong wrt $`\{\psi _\xi \xi <\eta \}`$; and
3. $`\rho >i_E(f)(\lambda )`$.

Let $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }=\stackrel{}{\psi }\lambda `$, and consider the axiom $`a_{\lambda ,\rho ,E,\stackrel{}{\varphi }}`$. By condition (3) $`\nu _{\lambda ,\rho ,E,\stackrel{}{\varphi }}\lambda +1`$ so $`a_{\lambda ,\rho ,E,\stackrel{}{\varphi }}`$ clearly proves $`i_E(\stackrel{}{\varphi })_\lambda _{\xi <\lambda }\varphi _\xi `$. But by condition (2) $`i_E(\stackrel{}{\varphi })_\lambda =\psi _\lambda `$ and so $`𝒜\text{}\psi _\lambda _{\xi <\lambda }\psi _\xi \text{}`$. Thus $`[\psi _\lambda ]_{\xi <\lambda }[\psi _\xi ]`$ — a contradiction since $`\{[\psi _\xi ]\}_{\xi <\eta }`$ is an anti-chain. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma  (Woodin)

Let $`x`$ be any real and assume that $`xa`$ for all $`a𝒜`$. Then $`x`$ generates a $`𝕎_{\tau ,\eta }^Q`$-generic filter $`W_x`$, such that $`xQ[W_x]`$.

Proof. Define $`W_x=\{[\varphi ]𝕎_{\tau ,\eta }^Qx\varphi \}`$. This is well defined since $`x𝒜`$. To see that $`W_x`$ is a generic filter: Let $`\{[\psi _\xi ]\}_{\xi <\beta }`$ be a maximal anti-chain in $`𝕎_{\tau ,\eta }^Q`$ and assume for contradiction that $`[\psi _\xi ]W_x`$ for all $`\xi <\beta `$. Note that $`\beta <\eta `$ by the previous Claim, so $`\phi =_{\xi <\beta }\neg \psi _\xi `$ is a formula in $`_\eta `$. $`[\phi ]`$ is therefore a condition, and $`[\phi ]=0`$ since $`\{[\psi _\xi ]\}_{\xi <\beta }`$ is a maximal anti-chain. But $`x\phi `$ and this is a contradiction since $`x𝒜`$.

Finally to see $`xQ[W_x]`$, note that $`x=\{n[\text{}n\stackrel{~}{x}\text{}]W_x\}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

At last we are in a position to prove Woodin’s second genericity Theorem. Fix a forcing notion $`𝔸`$ of size $`\kappa `$ and let $`\dot{x}`$ be a name for a real in $`V^𝔸`$. By the previous Lemma, the real $`\dot{x}`$ is generic over $`Q`$ unless it contradicts some of the axioms in $`𝒜`$. The reader can easily verify that if a real $`z`$ contradicts some axiom $`a_{\lambda ,\rho ,E,\stackrel{}{\varphi }}`$, then $`z`$ does not contradict the image axiom $`i_E(a_{\lambda ,\rho ,E,\stackrel{}{\varphi }})`$, where $`i_E:QUlt(Q,E)`$ is the ultrapower map. Thus forming the ultrapower by $`E`$ “removes” the obstruction caused by the axiom $`a_{\lambda ,\rho ,E,\stackrel{}{\varphi }}`$. The second genericity iteration is proved by forming an iteration tree, hitting at every stage the first extender $`E`$ which defines an axiom that $`\dot{x}`$ does not satisfy. A comparison type argument is then used to show that this iteration terminates. The key to this comparison type argument is the fact that once an obstructing axiom has been removed its image will never again become an obstructing axiom. Thus with each step of the construction we come closer to having no obstructing axioms at all. This argument requires an iteration tree; if instead we attempt to use linear iterations then each step may undo previous steps, and the image of an axiom that was handled previously may become obstructing again.

Let us begin the construction. We construct a normal iteration tree $`𝒯=E_\alpha ,\rho _\alpha \alpha <\beta `$ with models $`Q_\alpha `$ and tree structure $`T`$. The construction is inductive. At limit $`\alpha `$ we use our iteration strategy for $`Q`$ to pick a cofinal branch of the tree $`𝒯\alpha `$, and set $`Q_\alpha `$ to be the direct limit of the models along this branch. At successor stages $`\alpha +1`$ we must specify $`E_\alpha `$ and $`\rho _\alpha `$ (the tree structure is then determined by finding the least $`\alpha ^{}`$ such that $`\rho _\alpha ^{}>crit(E)`$ and setting $`\alpha ^{}𝑇\alpha +1`$). We shall use only extenders with critical point above $`\tau `$.

At successor stages we distinguish between two cases.

Case 1: If $`\dot{x}[F]`$ is $`j_{0,\alpha }(𝕎_{\tau ,\eta }^Q)`$-generic/$`Q_\alpha `$ (for all $`𝔸`$-generic/$`V`$ filters $`F`$) then we let $`\beta =\alpha `$, $`j=j_{0,\alpha }`$, and we are done proving the Theorem.

Case 2: Otherwise, working in $`V^𝔸`$ we apply the previous Lemma to $`Q_\alpha `$ and $`𝕎_{\tau ,j_{0,\alpha }(\eta )}^{Q_\alpha }=j_{0,\alpha }(𝕎_{\tau ,\eta }^Q)`$, and conclude that there must be some axiom $`aj_{0,\alpha }(𝒜)`$ such that $`\dot{x}\vDash ̸a`$. This axiom must have the form $`a_{\lambda ,\rho ,E,\stackrel{}{\varphi }}^{Q_\alpha }`$ for some $`\lambda ,\rho ,E,\stackrel{}{\varphi }Q_\alpha `$. Let us pick a condition $`q_\alpha 𝔸`$ forcing this, and forcing value for the unsatisfied axiom $`a`$, say $`q`$ forces $`\dot{x}\vDash ̸a_{\lambda _\alpha ,\rho _\alpha ,E_\alpha ,\stackrel{}{\varphi }^\alpha }`$. Pick $`q_\alpha `$ so that $`\rho _\alpha `$ is minimal. We extend the tree by setting $`Q_{\alpha +1}=Ult(Q_\alpha ^{},E_\alpha )`$ for $`\alpha ^{}`$ least so that $`critE_\alpha =\lambda _\alpha <\rho _\alpha ^{}`$.

The genericity iteration Theorem will be proved by showing that the second case in the construction cannot hold for all $`\alpha <(\kappa ^+)^V`$. This is very similar to the usual proof that comparisons of mice of size $`\kappa `$ must terminate before reaching $`\kappa ^+`$. Assume for contradiction that the construction continues to $`(\kappa ^+)^V`$, and let $`𝒯`$ be the tree of length $`(\kappa ^+)^V`$ constructed. Since $`Q`$ is assumed to be $`(\kappa ^+)^V+1`$-iterable there exists a cofinal branch through the tree. Let $`b`$ denote this branch. Note that $`b(\kappa ^+)^V`$ is closed-unbounded.

For every $`\alpha b`$ let $`\alpha _b^+`$ be the least ordinal such that $`\alpha 𝑇\alpha _b^++1`$. Then $`E_{\alpha _b^+}`$ has critical point ($`\lambda _{\alpha _b^+}`$) below $`\rho _\alpha `$, and is applied to $`Q_\alpha `$ in the tree $`𝒯`$ to form the ultrapower $`Q_{\alpha _b^++1}`$. Note that $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }^{\alpha _b^+}`$ is in $`V_{\lambda _{\alpha _b^+}+1}^{Q_{\alpha _b^+}}`$, and since $`Q_\alpha `$ and $`Q_{\alpha _b^+}`$ agree on subsets of $`\lambda _{\alpha _b^+}`$ it follows that $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }^{\alpha _b^+}Q_\alpha `$. Let us denote $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }^{\alpha _b^+}`$ by $`\stackrel{}{\psi }^\alpha `$.

Let $`S_1b`$ be the set of limit points of $`b`$. For $`\alpha S_1`$ the model $`Q_\alpha `$ is a direct limit and so $`Q_\alpha =_{\beta <\alpha ,\beta b}j_{\beta ,\alpha }^{\prime \prime }Q_\beta `$. As $`\stackrel{}{\psi }^\alpha Q_\alpha `$ there must exist some $`h(\alpha )<\alpha `$ such that $`\stackrel{}{\psi }^\alpha j_{h(\alpha ),\alpha }^{\prime \prime }Q_{h(\alpha )}`$. A standard pressing down argument now produces $`\beta <\kappa ^+`$ and stationary $`S_2S_1`$ so that $`h(\alpha )=\beta `$ for all $`\alpha S_2`$. Since $`Q_\beta `$ has cardinality $`\kappa `$, further thinning of $`S_2`$ produces stationary $`S_3S_2`$ and a fixed $`\phi Q_\beta `$ such that $`\stackrel{}{\psi }^\alpha =j_{\beta ,\alpha }(\stackrel{}{\phi })`$ for all $`\alpha S_3`$. Since $`𝔸`$ too has cardinality $`\kappa `$ we may assume further that for some fixed $`q𝔸`$ we have $`q_{\alpha _b^+}=q`$ for all $`\alpha S_3`$.

Let $`\alpha `$ be any element of $`S_3`$, and let $`\gamma `$ be $`\alpha _b^+`$ (so $`\gamma +1b`$). Now $`q`$ forces the real $`\dot{x}`$ to contradict the axiom $`a_{\lambda _\gamma ,\rho _\gamma ,E_\gamma ,j_{\beta ,\alpha }(\stackrel{}{\phi )}}^{Q_\gamma }`$. This means that necessarily ($`q`$ forces) $`\dot{x}\vDash ̸_{\xi <\lambda _\gamma }j_{\beta ,\alpha }(\stackrel{}{\phi })_\xi `$ $`()`$, and $`\dot{x}_{\xi <\nu _\gamma }i_{E_\gamma }^{Q_\gamma }(j_{\beta ,\alpha }(\stackrel{}{\phi }))_\xi `$. But $`i_{E_\gamma }^{Q_\gamma }(j_{\beta ,\alpha }(\stackrel{}{\phi }))=i_{E_\gamma }^{Q_\alpha }(j_{\beta ,\alpha }(\stackrel{}{\phi }))`$ 777We replaced $`Q_\gamma `$ with $`Q_\alpha `$. since $`j_{\beta ,\alpha }(\stackrel{}{\phi })`$ is an element of $`V_{\lambda _\gamma +1}^{Q_\alpha }`$. Thus $`\dot{x}_{\xi <\nu _\gamma }i_{E_\gamma }^{Q_\alpha }(j_{\beta ,\alpha }(\stackrel{}{\phi }))`$. $`i_{E_\gamma }^{Q_\alpha }`$ is simply $`j_{\alpha ,\gamma +1}`$, so we can rewrite the above as ($`q`$ forces) $`\dot{x}_{\xi <\nu _\gamma }j_{\beta ,\gamma +1}(\stackrel{}{\phi })_\xi `$.

Consider now any $`\alpha ^{}b`$ such that $`\alpha ^{}>\gamma +1`$. Then $`crit(j_{\gamma +1,\alpha ^{}})\rho _\gamma `$ (it is to secure this fact that we are forced to use iteration trees, and cannot manage with the simpler linear iterations), and so for $`\xi <\nu _\gamma `$, $`j_{\beta ,\gamma +1}(\stackrel{}{\phi })_\xi `$ is not moved by $`j_{\gamma +1,\alpha ^{}}`$. Thus ($`q`$ forces) $`\dot{x}_{\xi <\nu _\gamma }j_{\beta ,\alpha ^{}}(\stackrel{}{\phi })`$. But then clearly $`\dot{x}_{\xi <\lambda _{\alpha _{}^{}{}_{b}{}^{+}}}j_{\beta ,\alpha ^{}}(\stackrel{}{\phi })`$, and we now obtain a contradiction to $`()`$ by taking $`\alpha ^{}S_3`$.

This concludes the proof of the first part of the second genericity Theorem. We leave the second half to the reader, and indicate here only how to define the forcing $`\dot{𝕎}_{\tau ,\eta }^{Q,𝕆}`$ when $`𝕆`$ is a forcing notion in $`V_\tau ^Q`$. Working in $`Q^𝕆`$, again consider the algebra of all formulae obtained from “$`n\stackrel{~}{x}`$” closing under negations and wellordered disjunctions (in $`Q^𝕆`$) of length $`<\eta `$. Let $`\dot{}`$ be the set of axioms (computed in $`Q^𝕆`$) $`a_{\stackrel{ˇ}{\lambda },\stackrel{ˇ}{\rho },\dot{E},\dot{\stackrel{}{\varphi }}}`$ as before, with the restriction that $`\dot{E}`$ must be an extender (of $`Q^𝕆`$) induced by an extender of $`Q`$. I.e., there must exist an extender $`FQ`$ such that the embedding $`i_{\dot{E}}^{Q^𝕆}:Q^𝕆Ult(Q^𝕆,\dot{E})`$ extends the embedding $`i_F^Q:QUlt(Q,F)`$. Set then

$`\dot{\varphi }\dot{}\dot{\psi }`$ iff $`\dot{}\dot{\varphi }\dot{\psi }`$; and $`\dot{\varphi }\dot{}\dot{\psi }`$ iff $`\dot{}\dot{\varphi }\dot{\psi }`$.
$`\dot{𝕎}_{\tau ,\eta }^{Q,𝕆}`$ is then defined to be the set of equivalence classes of $`\dot{}`$, ordered by $`\dot{}`$. The proof of the genericity Theorem proceeds as before. The reader can verify this, noting that there are many extenders $`\dot{E}`$ in $`Q^𝕆`$ which are induced by extenders in $`Q`$ — in fact there are enough such extenders to witness that $`\eta `$ is a Woodin cardinal (because $`𝕆`$ is a “small” forcing). This allows carrying out the argument of the Claim above, and subsequently the rest of the proof.