7

3
3


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
1
-
1
1
-
1
2







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


HISTORIC FORCING FOR Depth
ANDRZEJ ROS LANOWSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
Abstract. We show that, consistently, for some regular cardinals < , there
exists a Boolean algebra B such that |B| =
+
and for every subalgebra B

B
of size
+
we have Depth(B

) = .
0. Introduction
The present paper is concerned with forcing a Boolean algebra which has some
prescribed properties of Depth. Let us recall that, for a Boolean algebra B, its
depth is dened as follows:
Depth(B) = sup[X[ : X B is well-ordered by the Boolean ordering ,
Depth
+
(B) = sup[X[
+
: X B is well-ordered by the Boolean ordering .
(Depth
+
(B) is used to deal with attainment properties in the denition of Depth(B),
see e.g. [5, 1].) The depth (of Boolean algebras) is among cardinal functions that
have more algebraic origins, and their relations to topological fellows is often
indirect, though sometimes very surprising. For example, if we dene
Depth
H+
(B) = supDepth(B/I) : I is an ideal in B ,
then for any (innite) Boolean algebra B we will have that Depth
H+
(B) is the
tightness t(B) of the algebra B (or the tightness of the topological space Ult(B) of
ultralters on B), see [3, Theorem 4.21]. A somewhat similar function to Depth
H+
is
obtained by taking supDepth(B

) : B

is a subalgebra of B , but clearly this brings

nothing new: it is the old Depth. But if one wants to understand the behaviour of
the depth for subalgebras of the considered Boolean algebra, then looking at the
following subalgebra Depth relation may be very appropriate:
Depth
Sr
(B) = (, ) : there is an innite subalgebra B

of B such that
[B

[ = and Depth(B

) = .
A number of results related to this relation is presented by Monk in [3, Chapter
4]. There he asks if there are a Boolean algebra B and an innite cardinal such
that (, (2

)
+
) Depth
Sr
(B), while (, (2

)
+
) / Depth
Sr
(B) (see Monk [3, Problem
14]; we refer the reader to Chapter 4 of Monks book [3] for the motivation and
background of this problem). Here we will partially answer this question, showing
that it is consistent that there is such B and . The question if that can be done
in ZFC remains open.
1991 Mathematics Subject Classication. Primary 03E35, 03G05; Secondary 03E05, 06Exx.
Key words and phrases. Boolean algebras, depth, historic forcing.
The rst author thanks the KBN (Polish Committee of Scientic Research) for partial support
through grant 2 P03 A 01109.
The research of the second author was partially supported by the Israel Science Foundation.
Publication 733.
1
7
3
3


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
1
-
1
1
-
1
2







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


2 ANDRZEJ ROS LANOWSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
Our consistency result is obtained by forcing, and the construction of the required
forcing notion is interesting per se. We use the method of historic forcing which
was rst applied in Shelah and Stanley [9]. The reader familiar with [9] will notice
several correspondences between the construction here and the method used there.
However, we do not relay on that paper and our presentation here is self-contained.
Let us describe how our historic forcing notion is built. So, we x two (regular)
cardinals , and our aim is to force a Boolean algebra

B

such that [

[ =
+
and for every subalgebra B

B

of size
+
we have Depth(B) = . The algebra

will be generated by x
i
: i

U) for some set

U
+
. A condition p will be
an approximation to the algebra

B

, it will carry the information on what is the

subalgebra B
p
= x
i
: i u
p
)

for some u
p

+
. A natural way to describe
algebras in this context is by listing ultralters (or: homomorphisms into 0, 1):
Denition 1. For a set w and a family F 2
w
we dene
cl(F) = g 2
w
: (u [w]
<
)(f F)(f u = g u),
B
(w,F)
is the Boolean algebra generated freely by x

: w except that
if u
0
, u
1
[w]
<
and there is no f F such that f u
0
0, f u
1
1
then

u1
x

u0
(x

) = 0.
This description of algebras is easy to handle, for example:
Proposition 2 (see [6, 2.6]). Let F 2
w
. Then:
(1) Each f F extends (uniquely) to a homomorphism from B
(w,F)
to 0, 1
(i.e. it preserves the equalities from the denition of B
(w,F)
). If F is closed,
then every homomorphism from B
(w,F)
to 0, 1 extends exactly one element
of F.
(2) If (y
0
, . . . , y

) is a Boolean term and

0
, . . . ,

w are distinct then

B
(w,F)
[= (x
0
, . . . , x

) ,= 0 if and only if
(f F)(0, 1 [= (f(
0
), . . . , f(
k
)) = 1).
(3) If w w

, F

2
w

and
(f F)(g F

)(f g) and (g F

)(g w cl(F))
then B
(w,F)
is a subalgebra of B
(w

,F

)
.
So each condition p in our forcing notion P

will have a set u

p
[
+
]
<
and a
closed set F
p
2
u
p
(and the respective algebra will be B
p
= B
(u
p
,F
p
)
). But to make
the forcing notion work, we will have to put more restrictions on our conditions, and
we will be taking only those conditions that have to be taken to make the arguments
work. For example, we want that cardinals are not collapsed by our forcing, and
demanding that P

is
+
-cc (and somewhat (<)closed) is natural in this context.
How do we argue that a forcing notion is
+
cc? Typically we start with a sequence
of
+
distinct conditions, we carry out some cleaning procedure (usually involving
the lemma etc), and we end up with (at least two) conditions that can be put
together. Putting together two (or more) conditions that are approximations to a
Boolean algebra means amalgamating them. There are various ways to amalgamate
conditions - we will pick one that will work for several purposes. Then, once we
declare that some conditions forming a clean sequence of length are in P

,
we will be bound to declare that the amalgamation is in our forcing notion. The
7
3
3


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
1
-
1
1
-
1
2







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


HISTORIC FORCING FOR Depth 3
amalgamation (and natural limits) will be the only way to build new conditions
from the old ones, but the description above still misses an important factor. So
far, a condition does not have to know what are the reasons for it to be called to
P

. This information is the history of the condition and it will be encoded by two
functions h
p
, g
p
. (Actually, these functions will give histories of all elements of u
p
describing why and how those points were incorporated to u
p
. Thus both functions
will be dened on u
p
ht(p), were ht(p) is the height of the condition p, that is
the step in our construction at which the condition p is created.) We will also want
that our forcing is suitably closed, and getting (<)strategically closed would
be ne. To make that happen we will have to deal with two relations on P

:
pr
and . The rst (pure) is (<)closed and it will help in getting the strategic
closure of the second (main) one. In some sense, the relation
pr
represents the
ocial line in history, and sometimes we will have to rewrite that ocial history,
see Denition 6 and Lemma 7 (on changing history see also Orwell [4]).
The forcing notion P

has some other interesting features. (For example, condi-

tions are very much like fractals, they contain many self-similar pieces (see Deni-
tion 10 and Lemma 11).) The method of historic forcing notions could be applicable
to more problems, and this is why in our presentation we separated several observa-
tions of general character (presented in the rst section) from the problem specic
arguments (section 2)
Notation: Our notation is standard and compatible with that of classical text-
books on set theory (like Jech [1]) and Boolean algebras (like Monk [2], [3]). How-
ever in forcing considerations we keep the older tradition that
the stronger condition is the greater one.
Let us list some of our notation and conventions.
(1) Throughout the paper, , are xed regular innite cardinals, < .
(2) A name for an object in a forcing extension is denoted with a dot above
(like

X) with one exception: the canonical name for a generic lter in a
forcing notion P will be called
P
. For a Pname

X and a Pgeneric lter
G over V, the interpretation of the name

X by G is denoted by

X
G
.
(3) i, j, , , , , . . . will denote ordinals.
(4) For a set X and a cardinal , [X]
<
stands for the family of all subsets
of X of size less than . The family of all functions from Y to X is called
X
Y
. If X is a set of ordinals then its order type is denoted by otp(X).
(5) In Boolean algebras we use (and

), (and

) and for the Boolean

operations. If B is a Boolean algebra, x B then x
0
= x, x
1
= x.
(6) For a subset Y of an algebra B, the subalgebra of B generated by Y is
denoted by Y )
B
.
Acknowledgements: We would like to thank the referee for valuable com-
ments and suggestions.
1. The forcing and its basic properties
Let us start with the denition of the forcing notion P

. By induction on <
we will dene sets of conditions P
,

, and for each p P

,

we will dene
u
p
, F
p
, ht(p), h
p
and g
p
. Also we will dene relations

and

pr
on P
,

. Our
inductive requirements are:
7
3
3


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
1
-
1
1
-
1
2







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


4 ANDRZEJ ROS LANOWSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
(i)

for each p P
,

:
u
p
[
+
]
<
, ht(p) , F
p
2
u
p
is a non-empty closed set, g
p
is a
function with domain dom(g
p
) = u
p
ht(p) and values of the form (, ),
where < 2 and is a Boolean term, and h
p
: u
p
ht(p) + 2 is a
function,
(ii)

pr
are transitive and reexive relations on P
,

, and

extends

pr
,
(iii)

if p, q P
,

, p

q, then u
p
u
q
, ht(p) ht(q), and F
p
= f u
p
:
f F
q
, and if p

pr
q, then for every i u
p
and < ht(p) we have
h
p
(i, ) = h
q
(i, ) and g
p
(i, ) = g
q
(i, ),
(iv)

if < then P
,

P
,

, and

pr
extends

pr
, and

extends

.
For a condition p P
,

, we will also declare that B

p
= B
(u
p
,F
p
)
(the Boolean
algebra dened in Denition 1).
We dene P
,
0
= ) : <
+
and for p = ) we let F
p
= 2

, ht(p) = 0
and h
p
= = g
p
. The relations
0
pr
and
0
both are the equality. [Clearly these
objects are as declared, i.e, clauses (i)
0
(iv)
0
hold true.]
If < is a limit ordinal, then we put
P

: < ) : ( < < )(p

P
,

& ht(p

) = & p

pr
p

,
P
,

<
P
,

,
and for p = p

: < ) P

we let
u
p
=

<
u
p

, F
p
= f 2
u
p
: ( < )(f u
p

F
p

), ht(p) =
and h
p
=

<
h
p

and g
p
=

<
g
p

. We dene

and

pr
by:
p

pr
q if and only if
either p, q P
,

, < and p

pr
q,
or q = q

: < ) P

, p P
,

and p

pr
q

for some < ,

or p = q;
p

q if and only if
either p, q P
,

, < and p

q,
or q = q

: < ) P

, p P
,

and p

for some < ,

or p = p

: < ) P

, q = q

: < ) P

and
( < )( < )( p

).
[It is straightforward to show that clauses (i)

(iv)

hold true.]
Suppose now that < . Let P

+1
consist of all tuples

, n

, u

, p

, v

: < ))
such that for each
0
<
1
< :
()

< , n

< ,

(y
1
, . . . , y
n
) is a Boolean term, u

[
+
]
<
,
() p
0
P
,

, ht(p) = , v
0
[u
p

0
]
n

,
() the family u
p

: < forms a system with heart u

and u
p

0
u

,=
and
sup(u

) < min(u
p

0
u

) sup(u
p

0
u

) < min(u
p

1
u

),
7
3
3


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
1
-
1
1
-
1
2







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


HISTORIC FORCING FOR Depth 5
() otp(u
p

0
) = otp(u
p

1
) and if H : u
p

0
u
p

1
is the order isomorphism
then H u

is the identity on u

, F
p

0
= f H : f F
p

1
, H[v
0
] = v
1
and
(j u
p

0
)( < )(h
p

0
(j, ) = h
p

1
(H(j), ) & g
p

0
(j, ) = g
p

1
(H(j), )).
We put P
,
+1
= P
,

+1
and for p =

, n

, u

, p

, v

: < )) P

+1
we
let u
p
=

<
u
p

and
F
p
= f 2
u
p
: ( < )(f u
p

F
p

) and for all < <

f(
maj
(
3
,
3+1
,
3+2
)) f(
maj
(
3
,
3+1
,
3+2
)),
where

(x
i
: i v

) for < (so

is an element of the algebra B

p

=
B
(u
p

,F
p

)
), and
maj
(y
0
, y
1
, y
2
) = (y
0
y
1
) (y
0
y
2
) (y
1
y
2
). Next we let
ht(p) = + 1 and we dene functions h
p
, g
p
on u
p
( + 1) by
h
p
(j, ) =

h
p

(j, ) if j u
p

, < , < ,
if j u

, = ,
+ 1 if j u
p

, = ,
if j u
p

, < , ,=

, = ,
g
p
(j, ) =

g
p

(j, ) if j u
p

, < , < ,
(1,

) if j v

, < , = ,
(0,

) if j u
p

, < , = .
Next we dene the relations
+1
pr
and
+1
by:
p
+1
pr
q if and only if
either p, q P
,

and p

pr
q,
or q =

, n

, u

, q

, v

: < )) P

+1
, p P
,

, and p

pr
q

,
or p = q;
p
+1
q if and only if
either p, q P
,

and p

q,
or q =

, n

, u

, q

, v

: < )) P

+1
, p P
,

, and p

for some
< ,
or p =

, n

, u

, p

, v

: < )), q =

, n

, u

, q

, v

: < )) are
from P

+1
and
( < )(p

& u
p

= u
q

).
[Again, it is easy to show that clauses (i)
+1
(iv)
+1
are satised.]
After the construction is carried out we let
P

<
P
,

and
pr
=

<

pr
and =

<

.
One easily checks that
pr
is a partial order on P

and that the relation is

transitive and reexive, and that
pr
.
Lemma 3. Let p, q P

.
(1) If p q then ht(p) ht(q), u
p
u
q
and F
p
= f u
p
: f F
q
(so B
p
is
a subalgebra of B
q
). If p q and ht(p) = ht(q), then q p.
(2) For each j u
p
, the set < ht(p) : h
p
(j, ) < is nite.
(3) If p
pr
q and i u
p
, then h
q
(i, ) for all such that ht(p) <
ht(q).
7
3
3


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
1
-
1
1
-
1
2







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


6 ANDRZEJ ROS LANOWSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
(4) If i, j u
p
are distinct, then there is < ht(p) such that ,= h
p
(i, ) ,=
h
p
(j, ) ,= .
(5) For each nite set X ht(p) there is i u
p
such that
< ht(p) : h
p
(i, ) < = X.
(6) If p
pr
q then there is a
pr
increasing sequence p

: ht(p)) P

such
that p
ht(p)
= p, p
ht(q)
= q and ht(p

) = (for ht(p)). (In particular, if

p
pr
q and ht(p) = ht(q) then p = q.)
(7) If ht(p) = is a limit ordinal, p = p

: < ), then for each i u

p
and
< :
i u
p

if and only if ( < )( h

p
(i, ) ).
Proof. 1) Should be clear (an easy induction).
2) Suppose that p P

and j u
p
are a counterexample with the minimal
possible value of ht(p). Necessarily ht(p) is a limit ordinal, p = p

: < ht(p)),
ht(p

) = and < < ht(p) p

pr
p

. Let < ht(p) be the rst ordinal such

that j u
p

. By the choice of p, the set : h

p
(j, ) < is nite, but clearly
h
p
(j, ) for all (, ht(p)).
3) An easy induction on ht(q) (with xed p).
4) We show this by induction on ht(p). Suppose that ht(p) = + 1, so p =

, n

, u

, p

, v

: < )), and i, j u

p
are distinct. If i, j u
p

for some
< , then by the inductive hypothesis we nd < such that
,= h
p
(i, ) = h
p

(i, ) ,= h
p

(j, ) = h
p
(j, ) ,= .
If i u
p

, j u
p

and , < are distinct, then look at the denition

of h
p
(i, ), h
p
(j, ) these two values cannot be equal (and both are distinct from
). Finally suppose that ht(p) is limit, so p = p

: < ht(p)). Take < ht(p) such

that i, j u
p

and apply the inductive hypothesis to p

getting < such that

h
p
(i, ) ,= h
p
(j, ) (and both are not ).
5) Again, it goes by induction on ht(p). First consider a limit stage, and suppose
that ht(p) = is a limit ordinal, X []
<
and p = p

: < ). Let < be

such that X . By the inductive hypothesis we nd i u
p

such that < :

h
p
(i, ) < = X. Applying clause (3) we may conclude that this i is as required.
Now consider a successor case ht(p) = +1. Let p =

, n

, u

, p

, v

: < )),
and let < be

if X, and be

+1 otherwise. Apply the inductive hypothesis

to p

and X to get suitable i u

p

, and note that this i works for p and X too.

6), 7) Straightforward.
Denition 4. We say that conditions p, q P

are isomorphic if ht(p) = ht(q),

otp(u
p
) = otp(u
q
), and if H : u
p
u
q
is the order isomorphism, then for every
< ht(p)
(j u
p
)(h
p
(j, ) = h
q
(H(j), ) & g
p
(j, ) = g
p
(H(j), )).
[In this situation we may say that H is the isomorphism from p to q.]
Lemma 5. Suppose that q
0
, q
1
P

are isomorphic conditions and H is the iso-

morphism from q
0
to q
1
.
7
3
3


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
1
-
1
1
-
1
2







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


HISTORIC FORCING FOR Depth 7
(1) If ht(q
0
) = ht(q
1
) = is a limit ordinal, q

= q

: < ) (for < 2), then

H u
q
0

is an isomorphism from q
0

to q
1

.
(2) If ht(q
0
) = ht(q
1
) = + 1, < , and q

, n

, u

, q

, v

: < ))
(for < 2), then

0
=

1
,

0
=

1
, n

0
= n

1
, H u
q
0

is an isomorphism
from q
0

to q
1

and H[v
0

] = v
1

(for < ).
(3) F
q0
= f H : f F
q1
.
(4) Assume p
0
q
0
. Then there is a unique condition p
1
q
1
such that H u
p0
is the isomorphism from p
0
to p
1
.
[The condition p
1
will be called H(p
0
).]
Proof. 1), 2) Straightforward (for (1) use Lemma 3(7)).
3), 4) Easy inductions on ht(q
0
) using (1), (2) above.
Denition 6. By induction on < , for conditions p, q P
,

such that p

q,
we dene the ptransformation T
p
(q) of q.
If = 0 (so necessarily p = q) then T
p
(q) = p.
Assume that ht(q) = + 1, q =

, n

, u

, q

, v

: < )).
If p q

for some < , then let

be such that p q

. Next for
< let q

= T
H

,
(p)
(q

), where H

,
is the isomorphism from q

to q

.
Dene T
p
(q) =

, n

, u

, q

, v

: < )).
Suppose now that p =

, n

, u

, p

, v

: < )) and u
p

= u
q

,
p

(for < ). Let q

= T
p

(q

) and put T
p
(q) =

, n

, u

, q

, v

:
< )).
Assume now that ht(q) is a limit ordinal and q = q

: < ht(q)).
If ht(p) < ht(q) then p q

for some < ht(q), and we may choose q

(for < ht(q)) such that ht(q

) = , <

< ht(q) q

pr
q

, and
q

= T
p
(q

) for [, ht(q)). Next we let T

p
(q) = q

: < ).
If ht(p) = ht(q), p = p

: < ht(p)) and p

for > (for some

< ht(p)) then we dene T
p
(q) = p.
To show that the denition of T
p
(q) is correct one proves inductively (parallely
to the denition of the ptransformation of q) the following facts.
Lemma 7. Assume p, q P

, p q. Then:
(1) T
p
(q) P

, u
Tp(q)
= u
q
, ht(T
p
(q)) = ht(q),
(2) p
pr
T
p
(q) q T
p
(q),
(3) ht(p) = ht(q) T
p
(q) = p,
(4) if q

is isomorphic to q and H : u
q
u
q

is the isomorphism from q

to q

, then H is the isomorphism from T

p
(q) to T
H(p)
(q

),
(5) if q
pr
q

then T
p
(q)
pr
T
p
(q

).
Proposition 8. Every
pr
increasing chain in P

of length < has a

pr
upper
bound, that is the partial order (P

,
pr
) is (< )closed.
Let us recall that a forcing notion (Q, ) is (<)strategically closed if the second
player has a winning strategy in the following game

(Q).
The game

(Q) lasts moves. The rst player starts with choosing a condition
p

Q. Later, in her i
th
move, the rst player chooses an open dense subset D
i
of
Q. The second player (in his i
th
move) picks a condition p
i
Q so that p
0
p

,
7
3
3


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
1
-
1
1
-
1
2







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


8 ANDRZEJ ROS LANOWSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
p
i
D
i
and p
i
p
j
for all j < i. The second player looses the play if for some
i < he has no legal move.
It should be clear that (<)strategically closed forcing notions do not add
sequences of ordinals of length less than . The reader interested in this kind of
properties of forcing notions and iterating them is referred to [7], [8].
Proposition 9. Assume that < are regular cardinals,
<
= . Then (P

, )
is a (< )strategically closed
+
cc forcing notion.
Proof. It follows from Lemma 7(2) that if D P

is an open dense set, p P

,
then there is a condition q D such that p
pr
q. Therefore, to win the game

(P

), the second player can play so that the conditions p

i
that he chooses are

pr
increasing, and thus there are no problems with nding
pr
bounds (remember
Proposition 8).
Now, to show that P

is
+
cc, suppose that p

: <
+
) is a sequence of
distinct conditions from P

. We may nd a set A [
+
]

+
such that
conditions p

: A are pairwise isomorphic,

the family u
p

: A forms a system with heart u

,
if
0
<
1
are from A then
sup(u

) < min(u
p

0
u

) sup(u
p

0
u

) < min(u
p

0
u

).
Take an increasing sequence

: < ) of elements of A, let

= 1, v

=
(for < ), and look at p = 0,

, 0, u

, p

, v

: < )). It is a condition in P

stronger than all p

s.
Denition 10. By induction on ht(p) we dene components of p (for p P

,
ht(p)).
First we declare that the only ht(p)component of p is the p itself.
If ht(p) = + 1, p =

, n

, u

, p

, v

: < )) and = , then

components of p are p

(for < ); if < , then components of p

are those q which are components of p

for some < .

If ht(p) is a limit ordinal, p = p

: < ht(p)) and < ht(p), then

components of p are components of p

for [, ht(p)).
Lemma 11. Assume p P

and < ht(p).

(1) If q is an component of p then q p, ht(q) = , and for all j
0
, j
1
u
q
and every [, ht(p)):
h
p
(j
0
, ) ,= & h
p
(j
1
, ) ,= h
p
(j
0
, ) = h
p
(j
1
, ).
Moreover, for each i u
p
there is a unique component q of p such that
i u
q
and
(j u
q
)( [, ht(p)))(h
p
(i, ) h
p
(j, ) ).
(2) If H is an isomorphism from p onto p

, and q is an component of
p, then H(q) is an component of p

. If q
0
, q
1
are components of p then
q
0
, q
1
are isomorphic.
(3) There is a unique component q of p such that q
pr
p.
Proof. Easy inductions on ht(p).
Denition 12. By induction on ht(p) we dene when a set Z is pclosed for
a condition p P

.
7
3
3


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
1
-
1
1
-
1
2







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


HISTORIC FORCING FOR Depth 9
If ht(p) = 0 then every Z is pclosed;
if ht(p) is limit, p = p

: < ht(p)), then Z is pclosed provided it is

p

closed for each < ht(p);

if ht(p) = + 1, p =

, n

, u

, p

, v

: < )) and / Z, then Z is

pclosed whenever it is p

closed;
if ht(p) = + 1, p =

, n

, u

, p

, v

: < )) and Z, then Z is

pclosed provided it is p

closed and
< : (j v

min(u
p

))(h
p

(j, ) < ) Z.
Lemma 13. (1) If p P

and w [ht(p)]
<
, then there is a nite pclosed
set Z ht(p) such that w Z.
(2) If p, q P

are isomorphic and Z is pclosed, then Z is qclosed. If Z is

pclosed, < ht(p) and p

is an component of p, then Z is p

closed.
Proof. Easy inductions on ht(p) (remember Lemma 3(2)).
Denition 14. Suppose that p P

and Z ht(p) is a nite pclosed set. Let

Z =
0
, . . . ,
k1
be the increasing enumeration.
(1) We dene
U[p, Z]
def
= j u
p
: ( < ht(p))(h
p
(j, ) < Z).
(2) We let

p
(Z) =

, n

, g

, h

0
, . . . , h

1
) : < k),
where, for < k,

is an ordinal below ,

is a Boolean term, n

< and
g

, h

0
, . . . , h

1
: 2, and they all are such that for every (equivalently:
some)

+ 1component q =

, n

, u

, q

, v

: < )) of p we have:

, n

= n

and if v

= j
0
, . . . , j
n

1
(the increasing
enumeration) then
(m < n

)(

< )(h

m
(

) = h
q
(j
m
,

)),
and if i
0
= min(u
q

) then (

< )(g

) = h
q
(i
0
,

)). (Note that

, n

, g

, h

0
, . . . , h

1
are well-dened by Lemma 11. Necessarily, for
all m < n

and

Z we have h
q
(i
0
, ), h
q
(j
m
, ) ; remember that
Z is pclosed.)
Note that if Z ht(p) is a nite pclosed set, = max(Z) and p

is the + 1
component of p satisfying p

pr
p (see 11(3)), then U[p, Z] u
p

.
Lemma 15. Suppose that p P

and Z
0
, Z
1
ht(p) are nite pclosed sets
such that
p
(Z
0
) =
p
(Z
1
). Then otp(U[p, Z
0
]) = otp(U[p, Z
1
]), and the order
preserving isomorphism : U[p, Z
0
] U[p, Z
1
] satises
() ( < k)(h
p
(i,
0

) = h
p
((i),
1

)),
where
x
0
, . . . ,
x
k1
is the increasing enumeration of Z
x
(for x = 0, 1).
Proof. We prove this by induction on [Z
0
[ = [Z
1
[ (for all p, Z
0
, Z
1
satisfying the
assumptions).
Step [Z
0
[ = [Z
1
[ = 1; Z
0
=
0
0
, Z
1
=
1
0
.
Take the
x
0
+ 1component q
x
of p such that q
x

pr
p. Then, for x = 0, 1,
q
x
= , , n, u
x
, q
x

, v
x

: < )), and for each i v

x

, <
x
0
we have h
q
x

(i, ) .
7
3
3


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
1
-
1
1
-
1
2







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


10 ANDRZEJ ROS LANOWSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
Also, if i
x
0
= min(u
q
x

u
x
) and <
x
0
, then h
q
x

(i
x
0
, ) . Consequently,
n = [v
x

[ 1, and if n = 1 then i
x
0
= v
x

(remember Lemma 3(4)). Moreover,

U[p, Z
x
] = U[q
x
, Z
x
] = H
x
,
(i
x
0
) : < ,
where H
x
,
is the isomorphism from q
x

to q
x

. Now it should be clear that the

mapping : H
0
,
(i
0
0
) H
1
,
(i
1
0
) : U[p, Z
0
] U[p, Z
1
] is the order preserving
isomorphism(remember clause () of the denition of P

+1
), and it has the property
described in ().
Step [Z
0
[ = [Z
1
[ = k + 1; Z
0
=
0
0
, . . . ,
0
k
, Z
1
=
1
0
, . . . ,
1
k
.
Let

p
(Z
0
) =
p
(Z
1
) =

, n

, g

, h

0
, . . . , h

1
) : k).
For x = 0, 1, let q
x
= , , n, u
x
, q
x

, v
x

: < )) be the
x
k
+ 1component of
p such that q
x

pr
p. The sets Z
x

x
k
(for x = 0, 1) are q
x

closed for every

< , and clearly
p
(Z
0

0
k
) =
p
(Z
1

1
k
). Hence, by the inductive hypothesis,
otp(U[q
0

, Z
0

0
k
]) = otp(U[q
1

, Z
1

1
k
]) (for each < ), and the order
preserving mappings

: U[q
0

, Z
0

0
k
] U[q
1

, Z
1

1
k
] satisfy the demand in
(). Let i
x

= min(u
q
x

u
x
). Then, as q
x

and q
x

are isomorphic and the isomorphism

is the identity on u
x
, we have ( < k)(h
p
(i
x

,
x

) = g
k
()). Hence

(i
0

) = i
1

, and
therefore

[u
0
U[q
0

, Z
0

0
k
]] = u
1
U[q
1

, Z
1

1
k
]. But since the mappings

are order preserving, the last equality implies that

(u
0
U[q
0

, Z
0

0
k
]) =

(u
0
U[q
0

, Z
0

0
k
]), and hence =

<

is a function, and it is an order

isomorphism from U[q
0
, Z
0
] = U[p, Z
0
] onto U[q
1
, Z
1
] = U[p, Z
1
] satisfying ().
2. The algebra and why it is OK (in V
P

)
Let

B

and

U be P

names such that

B
p
: p
P

and
P

U =

u
p
: p
P

.
Note that

U is (a name for) a subset of
+
. Let

F be a P

name such that

F = f 2

U
: (p
P

)(f u
p

F
p
) .
Proposition 16. Assume < are regular,
<
= . Then in V
P

:
(1)

F is a non-empty closed subset of 2

U
, and

B

is the Boolean algebra gen-

erated B
(

U,

F)
(see Denition 1);
(2) [

U[ = [

[ =
+
;
(3) For every subalgebra B

B

of size
+
we have Depth
+
(B) > .
Proof. 2) Note that if p P

, sup(u
p
) < j <
+
then there is a condition q p
such that j u
q
. Hence [

U[ =
+
. To show that, in V
P

, the algebra

B

is of
size
+
it is enough to prove the following claim.
Claim 16.1. Let p P

, j u
p
. Then x
j
/ x
i
: i j u
p
)
B
p.
Proof of the claim. Suppose not, and let p, j be a counterexample with the smallest
possible ht(p). Necessarily, ht(p) is a successor ordinal, say ht(p) = + 1. So let
p =

, n

, u

, p

, v

: < )) and suppose that v [u

p
j]
<
is such
that x
j
x
i
: i v)
B
p. If j u

then v u

and we immediately get a

7
3
3


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
1
-
1
1
-
1
2







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


HISTORIC FORCING FOR Depth 11
contradiction (applying the inductive hypothesis to p

). So let < be such that

j u
p

. We know that x
j
/ x
i
: i u

(v u
p

))
B
p
(remember clause
() of the denition of P

+1
), so we may take functions f
0
, f
1
F
p

such that
f
0
(u

(vu
p

)) = f
1
(u

(vu
p

)), f
0
(j) = 0, f
1
(j) = 1. Let g
0
, g
1
: u
p
2
be such that g

u
p

= f

, g

u
p

= f
0
H
,
for ,= (where H
,
is the order
isomorphism from u
p

to u
p

). Now one easily checks that g

0
, g
1
F
p
(remember
the denition of the term
maj
). By our choices, g
0
(i) = g
1
(i) for all i v, and
g
0
(j) ,= g
1
(j), and this is a clear contradiction with the choice of i and v.
3) Suppose that a

: <
+
) is a P

name for a
+
sequence of distinct members
of

B

and let p P

. Applying standard cleaning procedures we nd a set A

+
of the order type , an ordinal < and

, n

, u

and p

, v

: A) such that
p p

, ht(p

) = , p

(x
i
: i v

) and
q
def
= 0,

, n

, u

, p

, v

: A)) P

+1
,
where A is identied with by the increasing enumeration (so we will think A = ).
For < let

(x
i
: i v

) B
p

. Since a

were (forced to be) distinct we

know that B
q
[=

,=

for distinct , . Hence

/ x
i
: i u

)
B
p
(for each )
and therefore we may nd functions f
0

, f
1

F
p

such that f
0

= f
1

, and
f
0

) = 0, f
1

) = 1, and if < < , and H

,
is the isomorphism from p

to
p

, then f

= f

H
,
. Now x < < and let
g
def
=

3+2
f
0

3+2<<
f
1

.
It should be clear that g is a function from u
q
to 2, and moreover g F
q
. Also
easily
g(
maj
(
3
,
3+1
,
3+2
)) = 0 and g(
maj
(
3
,
3+1
,
3+2
)) = 1.
Hence we may conclude that
B
q
[=
maj
(
3
,
3+1
,
3+2
) <
maj
(
3
,
3+1
,
3+2
)
for < < (remember the denition of F
q
and Proposition 2). Consequently we
get q Depth
+
( a

: <
+
)

) > , nishing the proof.

Theorem 17. Assume < are regular, =
<
. Then
P

Depth(

) = .
Proof. By Proposition 16 we know that Depth
+
(

) > , so what we have to

show is that there are no increasing sequences of length
+
of elements of

B

. We
will show this under an additional assumption that
+
< (after the proof is
carried out, it will be clear how one modies it to deal with the case =
+
). Due
to this additional assumption, and since the forcing notion P

is (< )strategically
closed (by Proposition 9), it is enough to show that Depth(B
p
) for each p P

.
So suppose that p P

is such that Depth(B

p
)
+
. Then we nd a Boolean
term , an integer n and sets w

[u
p
]
n
(for <
+
) such that

0
<
1
<
+
B
p
[= (x
i
: i w
0
) < (x
i
: i w
1
).
For each <
+
use Lemma 13 to choose a nite pclosed set Z

ht(p) containing
the set
< ht(p) : (j w

)(h
p
(j, ) < ).
7
3
3


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
1
-
1
1
-
1
2







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


12 ANDRZEJ ROS LANOWSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
Look at
p
(Z

) (see Denition 14). There are only possibilities for the values of

p
(Z

), so we nd
0
<
1
<
+
such that
(i) [Z
0
[ = [Z
1
[,
p
(Z
0
) =
p
(Z
1
) =

, n

, g

, h

0
, . . . , h

1
) : < k),
(ii) if

: Z
0
Z
1
is the order isomorphism then

Z
0
Z
1
is the
identity on Z
0
Z
1
,
(iii) if : U[p, Z
0
] U[p, Z
1
] is the order isomorphism, then [w
0
] = w
1
.
Note that, by Lemma 15, otp(U[p, Z
0
]) = otp(U[p, Z
1
]) and the order isomor-
phism satises
(j U[p, Z
0
])( Z
0
)(h
p
(j, ) = h
p
((j),

())),
and hence is the identity on U[p, Z
0
] U[p, Z
1
] (remember Lemma 3).
For a function f F
p
let G
0
1
(f) : u
p
2 be dened by
G
0
1
(f)(j) =

f((j)) if j U[p, Z
0
],
f(
1
(j)) if j U[p, Z
1
] U[p,
0
],
0 otherwise.
Claim 17.1. For each f F
p
, G
0
1
(f) F
p
.
Proof of the claim. By induction on ht(p) we show that for each component
q of p, the restriction G
0
1
(f) u
q
is in F
q
.
If is limit, we may easily use the inductive hypothesis to show that, for any
component q of p, G
0
1
(f) u
q
F
q
.
Assume = +1 and let q =

, n

, u

, q

, v

: < )) be an component
of p. We will consider four cases.
Case 1: / Z
0
Z
1
.
Then (U[p, Z
0
] U[p, Z
1
]) u
q
u
q

and G
0
1
(f) (u
q

) 0 for each ,=

.
Since, by the inductive hypothesis, G
0
1
(f) u
q

F
q

for each < , we may use

the denition of P

+1
and conclude that G
0
1
(f) u
q
F
q
(remember the denition
of the term
maj
).
Case 2: Z
0
Z
1
.
Let Z
0
=
0
, . . . ,
k1
be the increasing enumeration. Then =

for some
< k and

, n

= n

. Moreover, if v

= j

0
, . . . , j

1
(the
increasing enumeration), < , then for m < n

:
(

< )(h

m
(

) = h
q
(j

m
,

)) and ( Z
0
)(h
q
(j

m
, ) ).
Note that U[p, Z
1
] u
q
u
q

, so if U[p, Z
0
] u
q
= , then we may proceed as in
the previous case. Therefore we may assume that U[p, Z
0
] u
q
,= . So, for each
Z
0
we may choose i

U[p, Z
0
] u
q
such that
(i U[p, Z
0
] u
q
)(h
p
(i, ) ,= h
p
(i, ) = h
p
(i

, ))
(remember Lemma 11(1)). Let i

= maxi

: Z
0
(if = max(Z
0
), then
let i

be any element of U[p, Z

0
] u
q
). Note that then
(i U[p, Z
0
] u
q
)( Z
0
)(h
p
(i, ) ,= h
p
(i, ) = h
p
(i

, ))
[Why? Remember Lemma 11(1) and the clause () of the denition of P

+1
.] By
Lemma 11, we nd a (

() +1)component q

, n

, u

, q

, v

: < )) of p
such that (i

) u
q

and
(j u
q

)( (

(), ht(p)))(h
p
((i

), ) h
p
(j, ) ).
7
3
3


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
1
-
1
1
-
1
2







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


HISTORIC FORCING FOR Depth 13
We claim that then
() (j U[p, Z
0
] u
q
)((j) u
q

U[p, Z
1
]).
Why? Fix j U[p, Z
0
] u
q
. Let r, r

be components of p such that r

pr
p,
r

pr
p, ht(r) = + 1, ht(r

) =

() + 1 (so r and q, and r

, q

, are isomorphic).
The sets Z
0
( + 1) and Z
1
(

() + 1) are pclosed, and they have the

same values of , and therefore U[p, Z
0
( + 1)] and U[p, Z
1
(

() + 1)] are
(order) isomorphic. Also, these two sets are included in u
r
and u
r

, respectively.
So looking back at our j, we may successively choose j
0
u
r
U[p, Z
0
( + 1)],
j
1
u
r

U[p, Z
1
(

() + 1)], and j

u
q
such that
( )(h
q
(j, ) = h
r
(j
0
, )),
(

)(h
r
(j
0
,

) = h
r

(j
1
,

))), and
(

())(h
r

(j, ) = h
q

(j

, )).
Then we have
(

)(h
q
(j,

) = h
q

(j

)) and (

() Z
1
)(h
q

(j

, ) ).
To conclude () it is enough to show that (j) = j

. If this equality fails, then

there is < ht(p) such that ,= h
p
((j), ) ,= h
p
(j

, ) ,= . If

(), then
necessarily Z
1
, and this is impossible (remember h
p
(j,

) = h
p
((j),

))
for

). So >

(). If h
p
((j), ) = + 1, then h
p
(j

, ) < and (by the

choice of q

) h
p
((i

), ) < . Then Z
1
and h
p
(i

, (

)
1
()) < , and also
h
p
(i

, (

)
1
()) = h
p
(j, (

)
1
()) = + 1 (by the choice of i

), a contradiction.
Thus necessarily h
p
((j), ) < (so Z
1
) and therefore
> h
p
(j, (

)
1
()) = h
p
(i

, (

)
1
()) = h
p
((i

), ) = h
p
(j

, )
(as the last is not ), again a contradiction. Thus the statement in () is proven.
Now we may nish considering the current case. By the denition of the function
(and by the choice of
0
,
1
) we have

, n

= n

, and [v

] = v

for <
(and v

is orderpreserving). Therefore
G
0
1
(f)(

(x
i
: i v

)) = f(

(x
i
: i v

)) (for every < ).

By the inductive hypothesis, G
0
1
(f) u
q

F
q

(for < ), so as f F
p
(and
hence f u
q

F
q

) we may conclude now that G

0
1
(f) u
q
F
q
.
Case 3: Z
1
Z
0
Similar.
Case 3: Z
0
Z
1
If U[p, Z
0
] u
q
= = U[p, Z
1
] u
q
, then G
0
1
(f) u
q
0 and we are easily
done. If one of the intersections is non-empty, then we may follow exactly as in the
respective case (2 or 3).
Now we may conclude the proof of the theorem. Since
B
p
[= (x
i
: i w
0
) < (x
i
: i w
1
),
we nd f F
p
such that f((x
i
: i w
0
)) = 0 and f((x
i
: i w
1
)) = 1. It
should be clear from the denition of the function G
0
1
(f) (and the choice of
0
,
1
)
that
G
0
1
(f)((x
i
: i w
0
)) = 1 and G
0
1
(f)((x
i
: i w
1
)) = 0.
7
3
3


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
1
-
1
1
-
1
2







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


14 ANDRZEJ ROS LANOWSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
But it follows from Claim 17.1 that G
0
1
(f) F
p
, a contradiction.
Conclusion 18. It is consistent that for some uncountable cardinal there is a
Boolean algebra B of size (2

)
+
such that
Depth(B) = but (, (2

)
+
) / Depth
Sr
(B).
Problem 19. Assume < =
<
are regular cardinals. Does there exist a
Boolean algebra B such that [B[ =
+
and for every subalgebra B

B of size
+
we have Depth(B

) = ?
References
[1] Thomas Jech. Set theory. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003.
The third millennium edition, revised and expanded.
[2] J. Donald Monk. Cardinal Invariants of Boolean Algebras. Lectures in Mathematics. ETH
Zurich, Birkhauser Verlag, Basel Boston Berlin, 1990.
[3] J. Donald Monk. Cardinal Invariants of Boolean Algebras, volume 142 of Progress in Mathe-
matics. Birkh auser Verlag, BaselBostonBerlin, 1996.
[4] George Orwell. 1984. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, San Diego, 1977.
[5] Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah. Cardinal invariants of ultrapoducts of Boolean
algebras. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 155:101151, 1998. math.LO/9703218.
[6] Saharon Shelah. On Monks questions. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 151:119, 1996.
math.LO/9601218.
[7] Saharon Shelah. Not collapsing cardinals in (< )support iterations. Israel Journal of
Mathematics, 136:29115, 2003. math.LO/9707225.
[8] Saharon Shelah. Successor of singulars: combinatorics and not collapsing cardinals in (<
)-support iterations. Israel Journal of Mathematics, 134:127155, 2003. math.LO/9808140.
[9] Saharon Shelah and Lee Stanley. A theorem and some consistency results in partition calculus.
Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 36:119152, 1987.
Department of Mathematics, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, NE 68182-
0243, USA, and Mathematical Institute of Wroclaw University, 50384 Wroclaw, Poland
E-mail address: roslanowski@unomaha.edu
URL: http://www.unomaha.edu/aroslano
Institute of Mathematics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 91904 Jerusalem,
Israel, and Department of Mathematics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08854,
USA
E-mail address: shelah@math.huji.ac.il
URL: http://www.math.rutgers.edu/shelah