You are on page 1of 25

3

7
0


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







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


On the number of non-isomorphic subgraphs
S. Shelah

Institute of Mathematics
Hebrew University, Jerusalem
L. Soukup

Mathematical Institute of the
Hungarian Academy of Sciences
October 6, 2003
Abstract
Let K be the family of graphs on
1
without cliques or independent
subsets of size
1
. We prove that
(a) it is consistent with CH that every G K has 2

1
many pairwise
non-isomorphic subgraphs,
(b) the following proposition holds in L: () there is a G K such
that for each partition (A, B) of
1
either G

= G[A] or G

=
G[B],
(c) the failure of () is consistent with ZFC.
1 Introduction
We assume only basic knowledge of set theory simple combinatorics for
section 2, believing in L [=
+
dened below for section 3, and nite support
iterated forcing for section 4.

The rst author was supported by the United States Israel Binational Science Foun-
dation, Publication 370

The second author was supported by the Hungarian National Foundation for Scientic
Research grant no. l805
1
3
7
0


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







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


October 6, 2003 2
Answering a question of R. Jamison, H. A. Kierstead and P. J. Nyikos
[5] proved that if an n-uniform hypergraph G = V, E) is isomorphic to each
of its induced subgraphs of cardinality [V [, then G must be either empty or
complete. They raised several new problems. Some of them will be investi-
gated in this paper. To present them we need to introduce some notions.
An innite graph G = V, E) is called non-trivial i G contains no clique
or independent subset of size [V [. Denote the class of all non-trivial graphs on

1
by /. Let I(G) be the set of all isomorphism classes of induced subgraphs
of G = V, E) with size [V [.
H. A. Kierstead and P. J. Nyikos proved that [I(G)[ for each G /
and asked whether [I(G)[ 2

or [I(G)[ 2

1
hold or not. In [3] it was
shown that (i) [I(G)[ 2

for each G /, (ii) under


+
there exists a
G / with [I(G)[ =
1
. In section 2 we show that if ZFC is consistent, then
so is ZFC + CH + [I(G)[ = 2

1
for each G /. Given any G / we
will investigate its partition tree. Applying the weak principle of Devlin
and Shelah [2] we show that if this partition tree is a special Aronszajn tree,
then [I(G)[ >
1
. This result completes the investigation of problem 2 of [5]
for
1
.
Consider a graph G = V, E) . We say that G is almost smooth if it
is isomorphic to G[W] whenever W V with [V W[ < [V [. The graph
G is called quasi smooth i it is isomorphic either to G[W] or to G[V W]
whenever W V . H. A. Kierstead and P. J. Nyikos asked (problem 3)
whether an almost smooth, non-trivial graph can exist. In [3] various models
of ZFC was constructed which contain such graphs on
1
. It was also shown
that the existence of a non-trivial, quasi smooth graph on
1
is consistent
with ZFC. But in that model CH failed. In section 3 we prove that
+
, and
so V=L, too, implies the existence of such a graph.
In section 4 we construct a model of ZFC in which there is no quasi-
smooth G /. Our main idea is that given a G / we try to construct a
partition (A
0
, A
1
) of
1
which is so bad that not only G ,

= G[A
i
] in the ground
model but certain simple generic extensions can not add such isomorphisms
to the ground model. We divide the class / into three subclasses and develop
dierent methods to carry out our plan.
The question whether the existence of an almost-smooth G / can be
proved in ZFC is still open.
We use the standard set-theoretical notation throughout, cf [4]. Given a
graph G = V, E) we write V (G) = V and E(G) = E. If H V (G) we
3
7
0


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







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


October 6, 2003 3
dene G[H] to be H, E(G) [H]
2
). Given x V take G(x) = y V :
x, y E. If G and H are graphs we write G

= H to mean that G and H
are isomorphic. If f : V (G) V (H) is a function we denote by f : G

= H
the fact that f is an isomorphism between G and H.
Given a set X let Bij
p
(X) be the set of all bijections between subsets of
X. If G = V, E) is a graph take
Iso
p
(G) = f Bij
p
(V ) : f : G[dom(f)]

= G[ran(f)] .
We denote by Fin(X, Y ) the set of all functions mapping a nite subset of
X to Y .
Given a poset P and p, q P we write p|
P
q to mean that p and q are
compatible in P.
The axiom
+
claims that there is a sequence S

: <
1
) of contable
sets such that for each X
1
we have a closed unbounded C
1
satisfying
X S

and C S

for each C.
We denote by TC(x) the transitive closure of a set x. If is a cardinal
take H

= x : [TC(x)[ < and H

= H

, ).
Let us denote by T

1
the club lter on
1
.
2 I(G) can be always large
Theorem 2.1 Asume that GCH holds and every Aronszajn-tree is special.
Then [I(G)[ = 2

1
for each G /.
Remark: S.Shelah proved, [7, chapter V. 6,7], that the assumption of
theorem 2.1 is consistent with ZFC.
During the proof we will apply the following denitions and lemmas.
Lemma 2.2 Assume that G /, A [
1
]

1
and [G(x) A : x
1
[ =
1
.
Then [I(G)[ = 2

1
.
Proof: See [3, theorem 2.1 and lemma 2.13].
Denition 2.3 Consider a graph G =
1
, E).
3
7
0


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







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


October 6, 2003 4
1. For each
1
let us dene the ordinal


1
and the sequence

as follows: put

0
= 0 and if

: < ) is dened, then


take

= min : < >

and (

, E i

, E) .
If

= , then we put

= .
2. Given ,
1
write
G
i

for each

.
3. Take T
G
=

1
,
G

. T
G
is called the partition tree of G.
Lemma 2.4 If G =
1
, E) / with [I(G)[ < 2

1
, then T
G
is an Aronszajn
tree.
Proof: By the construction of T
G
, if ,
1
, < and G() =
G() , then
G
. So the levels of T
G
are countable by lemma 2.2. On
the other hand, T
G
does not contain
1
-branches, because the branches are
prehomogeneous subsets and G is non-trivial.
Denition 2.5 1. Let F : (2

)
<
1
2 and A
1
. We say that a
function g :
1
2 is an A-diamond for F i, for any h (2

1
,
A : F(h) = g() is a stationary subset of
1
.
2. A
1
is called a small subset of
1
i for some F : (2

)
<
1
2 no
function is an A-diamond for F.
3. = A
1
: A is a small subset of
1
.
In [2] the following was proved:
Theorem 2.6 If 2

< 2

1
, then is a countably complete, proper, normal
ideal on
1
.
After this preparation we are ready to prove theorem 2.1.
Proof: Assume that G =
1
, E) /.
[I(G)[ < 2

1
and a contradiction will be derived.
Since 2

1
=
2
, we can x a sequence G

: <
1
of graphs on
1
such that for each Y [
1
]

1
there is a <
1
with G[Y ]

= G

. Write
G

=
1
, E

).
3
7
0


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







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


October 6, 2003 5
Consider the Aronszajn-tree T
G
=

1
,
G

. Since every Aronszajn-tree


is special and 1 is a countably complete ideal on
1
, there is an antichain S
in T
G
with S / . Take
A =


1
: S(
G
)

.
Now property () below holds:
() S (S A) + 1
A (, E i , / E).
Indeed, if for each A we had , E i , E, then

G
would hold by the construction of T
G
.
Let
1
, S, T S and f : G[(A ) T] G

be an
embedding. Dene F(, , T, f) 2 as follows:
F(, , T, f) = 1 i x G

( A )(x, f() E

i , E).
In case = , under suitable encoding, F can be viewed as a function
from (2

)
<
1
to 2.
Since S / , there is a g 2

1
such that for every
1
= 2

, T S
and f : G[A T]

= G

, the set
S
T
= S : g() = F(, , T , f)
is stationary. Take T = S : g() = 0. Choose an ordinal <
1
and a
function f with f : G[A T]

= G

. For each <


1
with = it follows,
by (), that
T i x
1
S (x, f() E

i , E).
Thus g() = 0 i F(, , T , f) = 1, for each S, that is, S
T
= ,
which is a contradiction.
3 A quasi-smooth graph under
+
Theorem 3.1 If
+
holds, then there exists a non-trivial, quasi-smooth
graph on
1
.
3
7
0


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







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


October 6, 2003 6
Proof: Given a set X, /P(X) and TBij
p
(X) take
Cl(/, T) =

B : B / and B
0
, B
1
B f T Y [X]
<
B
0
B
1
, f

B
0
, B
0
Y B .
We say that / is T-closed if / = Cl(/, T). Given /, TP(X), we say that
T is uncovered by / if [DA[ = for each A / and D T.
Lemma 3.2 Assume that TBij
p
(X) is a countable set, /
0
, /
1
P(X) are
countable, T-closed families. If TP(X) is a countable family which is
uncovered by /
0
/
1
, then there is a partition (B
0
, B
1
) of X such that T is
uncovered by Cl(/
i
B
i
, T) for i < 2.
Proof: We can assume that T is closed under composition. Fix an enumer-
ation D
n
, k
n
, F
n
, i
n
, A
n
) : n of T T
<
i, A) : i 2, A /
i
.
By induction on n, we will pick points x
n
X and will dene nite sets, B
0
n
and B
1
n
, such that B
0
n
B
1
n
= and B
i
n
B
i
n+1
.
Assume that we have done it for n 1. Write F
n
= f
0
, . . . , f
k1
). Take
B
n1
= B
0
n1
B
1
n1
and
B

n
= B
n1

j
B
n1
: j < k

.
Pick an arbitrary point x
n
D
n
(A
n
B

n
). Put
B
in
n
= B
in
n1
and
B
1in
n
= B
1in
n1
x
n

f
1
j
(x
n
) : j < k

.
Next choose a partition (B
0
, B
1
) of X with B
i
B
i
n
: n < for i < 2.
We claim that it works. Indeed, a typical element of Cl(/
i
B
i
, T) has
the form
C = A

j
B
i
: j < k

,
where A /, k < and f
0
, . . . , f
k1
T. So, if D T, then
DC x
n
: D
n
= D, A
n
= A, i
n
= i and F
n
= f
0
, . . . , f
k1
)
because x
n
/ A and f
1
j
(x
n
) B
1i
by the constuction.
3
7
0


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







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


October 6, 2003 7
Consider a sequence F = f
0
, . . . , f
n1
). Given a family TBij
p
(X) we
say that F is an T-term provided f
i
= f or f
i
= f
1
for some f T, for
each i < n. We denote the function f
0
f
n1
by F as well. We will
assume that the empty term denotes the identity function on X. If l n
take
(l)
F = f
0
, . . . , f
l1
) and F
(l)
= f
l
, . . . , f
n1
). Let
Sub(F) =

f
i
0
, . . . , f
i
l1

: l n, i
0
< . . . < i
l1
< n

.
Given f T and x, y X with x / dom(f) and y / ran(f) let F
f,x,y
be
the term that we obtain replacing each occurrence of f and of f
1
in F with
f x, y) and with f
1
y, x), respectively.
Lemma 3.3 Assume that TBij
p
(X), /P(X) is T-closed, F
0
, . . . , F
n1
are T-terms, z
0
, . . . , z
n1
X, A
0
, . . . , A
n1
/ such that for each i < n
() z
i
/

A
i
: F Sub(F
i
) .
If f T, x Xdom(f), Y [Xran(f)]

with [A Y [ < for each


A /, then there are innitely many y Y such that () remains true when
replacing f with f x, y), that is,
() z
i
/

A
i
: F Sub(F
f,x,y
i
)

for each i < n.


Proof: It is enough to prove it for n = 1. Write F = f
0
. . . , f
k1
), A = A
0
,
z = z
0
. Take
Y
F,A
= y Y : () holds for y .
Now we prove the lemma by induction on k.
If k = 0, then Y
F,A
= Y A. Suppose we know the lemma for k 1. Using
the induction hypothesis we can assume that () below holds:
() Y =

Y
G,F

(l)
A
: l n, G Sub(
(l)
F
f,x,y
), G ,= F
f,x,y

.
Assume that [Y
F,A
[ < and a contradiction will be derived.
First let us remark that either f
k1
= f or f
k1
= f
1
by ().
Case 1:f
k1
= f
1
.
Then Y
F,A
Y A by (), so we are done.
3
7
0


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







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


October 6, 2003 8
Case 2:f
k1
= f.
In this case x A and for all but nitely many y Y we have z =
F
f,x,y
(x). Then for each y, y

Y take
l(y, y

) = max

l n : i < l F
f,x,y
(i)
(x) = F
f,x,y

(i)
(x)

.
By Ramseys theorem, we can assume that l(y, y

) = l whenever y, y

Y .
Clearly l < n. Then F
f,x,y
(l)
(x) ,= F
f,x,y

(l)
(x) but F
f,x,y
(l1)
(x) = F
f,x,y

(l1)
(x), so
f
l
= f
1
and F
f,x,y
(l1)
(x) = x for each y Y . Thus z =
(l1)
F
f,x,y
(x) for each
y Y , which contradicts () because x A.
The lemma is proved.
We are ready to construct our desired graph.
First x a sequence M

: <
1
) of countable, elementary submodels of
some H

with M

: < ) M

for each <


1
, where is a large enough
regular cardinal.
Then choose a -sequence S

: <
1
) M
0
for the uncountable sub-
sets of
1
, that is , <
1
: X = S

/ NS(
1
) whenever X [
1
]

1
.
We can also assume that S

is conal in for each limit .


We will dene, by induction on ,
1. graphs G

= , E

) with G

= G

[] for < ,
2. countable sets T

Iso
p
(G

),
satisfying the induction hypotheses (I)(II) below:
(I) S

: is uncovered by I

where
I

= Cl(G() : ,

)
and
J

= Cl(G() : ,

).
To formulate (II) we need the following denition.
Denition 3.4 Assume that = + 1 and Y . We say that Y is large
if n , f
i
, x
i
) : i < n), h
if
3
7
0


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







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


October 6, 2003 9
1. i < n
i
< f
i
T

i
,
2. i < n
i
x
i
< ,
3. i < n ran(f
i
)Y ,
4. i ,= j < n ran(f
i
) ran(f
j
) =
5. h Fin(Y , 2) and dom(h)

ran(f
i
) : i < n = ,
then
y Y [, ) such that
6. i < n x dom(f
i
) (y, f
i
(x) E

i x
i
, x E

),
7. z dom(h) y, z E

i h(z) = 1.
Take
(II) If = + 1, then is large.
The construction will be carried out in such a way that G

: ) M

and T

: < ) M

.
To start with take G
0
= , ) and T = . Assume that the construc-
tion is done for < .
Case 1: is limit.
We must take G

= G

: < . We will dene sets T


0

, T
1

Iso
p
(G

)
and will take T

= T
0

T
1

.
Let
T
0

= f Iso
p
(G

) M

:
n
: n < ) sup
n
: n < = ,
f
n
T
n
and f
n
: G
n

= G
n
[ran(f)] for each n .
Take T

=

<
T

T
0

, I

=

<
I

and J

=

<
J

. Clearly T

with T

M
+1
, so M
+1
[= [T

[ = . Obviously both I

and J

are
T

-closed and o = S

: is uncovered by them.
From now on we work in M
+1
to construct T
1

. For W write
L
W
= < : W ( +) is large.
Take
J

= W, f) (P() /

) (
<
T

) : L
W
is conal in
3
7
0


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







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


October 6, 2003 10
and f : G

= G

f
[W
f
] for some
f
<

.
We want to nd functions g
W,f
f for W, f) J

such that
(A) g
W,f
: G


= G

[W]
(B) taking T
1

g
W,f
: W, f) J

the induction hypothesis (I) remains


true.
First we prove a lemma:
Lemma 3.5 If W, f) J

, g Iso
p
(G

, G

[W]), g f, [gf[ < , then


(i) for each x Wdom(f) the set
y W : g x, y) Iso
p
(G

, G

[W])
is conal in .
(ii) for each y Wran(f) the set
x W : g x, y) Iso
p
(G

, G

[W])
is conal in .
Proof: (i): Dene the function h : ran(g)ran(f) 2 with h(g(z)) = 1
i z, x E

. Choose L
W
with ran(h) and
f
. Since
W ( +) is large, we have a y W [, +) such that
1. y, f(z) E

i x, z E

for each z dom(f)


2. y, g(z) E

i h(g(z)) = i for each z dom(g)dom(f).


But this means that g x, y) Iso
p
(G

, G

[W]).
(ii) The same proof works using that + is large for each < .
By induction on n, we will pick points z
n
and will construct
families of partial automorphisms,

g
W,f
n
: W, f) J

such that g
W,f
=

g
W,f
n
: n <

will work.
During the inductive construction we will speak about T

-terms and
about functions which are represented by them in the n
th
step.
3
7
0


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







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


October 6, 2003 11
If F = h
0
, . . . h
k1
) is an T

-term and n take F


[n]
= j
0
j
k1
where
j
i
=

g
W,f
n
if h
i
= g
W,f
,
(g
W,f
n
)
1
if h
i
= (g
W,f
)
1
,
h
i
otherwise.
First x an enumeration W
n
, f
n
) , u
n
, i
n
) : 1 n < of J

2 and
an enumeration F
n,i
: i < l
n
) , j
n
, A
n,i
: i < l
n
) , D
n
) n < ) of the quadru-
ples F
0
, . . . , F
k1
) , j, A
0
, . . . , A
k1
) , D) where k < , F
0
, . . . , F
k1
are T

-
terms, j 2, D o and either j = 0 and A
0
, . . . , A
k1
I

or j = 1 and
A
0
, . . . , A
k1
J

.
During the inductive construction conditions (i)(v) below will be satis-
ed:
(i) g
W,f
0
= f
(ii) g
W,f
n
Iso
p
(G

, G

[W])
(iii) g
W,f
n
g
W,f
n1
, [g
W,f
n
f[ <
(iv) z
k
/

[n]
A
k,i
: F Sub(F
k,i
)

for each i < l


k
and k < n
(v) if i
n
= 1, then u
n
dom(g
Wn,fn
n
),
if i
n
= 0, then either u
n
/ W
n
or u
n
ran(g
Wn,fn
n
).
If n = 0, then take g
W,f
0
= f.
If n > 0, then let g
W,f
n
= g
W,f
n1
whenever W, f) ,= W
n
, f
n
). Assume that
i
n
= 0, W, f) = W
n
, f
n
) and u
n
/ dom(g
Wn,fn
n1
). Then, by lemma 3.5, the
set Y =

y W : g
W,f
n1
u
n
, y) Iso
p
(G

, G

[W])

is unbounded in .
Since the members of I

are bounded in , we can apply lemma 3.3


to pick a point y Y such that taking g
Wn,fn
n
= g
Wn,fn
n1
u
n
, y) condition
(iv) holds.
If i
n
= 1 and W, f) = W
n
, f
n
), then the same argument works.
Finally pick a point
z
n
/ D
n

[n]
A
n,i
: F Sub(F
n,i
), i < l
n

.
The inductive construction is done.
3
7
0


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







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


October 6, 2003 12
Take g
W,f
=

g
W,f
n
: n <

. By (v),
g
W,f
n
: G


= G

[W].
By (iv), we have
z
k
D
k

k,i
A
k,i
: i < l
k

and so it follows that S

: is uncovered by I

.
Case 2: = + 1.
To start with we x an enumeration

f
k
i
, x
k
i
) : i < n
k
), h
k

: k

of
pairs f
i
, x
i
) : i < n) , h) satisfying 3.4.15.
If k take
B
0
k
= h
1
k
0

f
k
i
() : i < n
k
, dom(f
k
i
) and

, x
k
i

/ E

and
B
1
k
= h
1
k
1

f
k
i
() : i < n
k
, dom(f
k
i
) and

, x
k
i

.
Applying lemma 3.2 -many times we can nd partitions (C
0
k
, C
k
1
), k < ,
of such that taking
I
+

= Cl((I

C
1
k
: k

)
and
J
+

= Cl((I

C
0
k
: k

)
the set S

: is uncovered by I
+

J
+

.
We can assume that B
i
k
C
i
k
for i < 2 and k < because B
0
k
J

and
B
1
k
I

. Take
E

= E

, +n : < , n and B
1
n

and
T

= .
By the construction of G

= , E

), it follows that is large, so (II)


holds. On the other hand
I

X Y : X I
+

, Y []
<

3
7
0


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







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


October 6, 2003 13
and
J

X Y : X J
+

, Y []
<

.
so S

: < is uncovered by I

. Finally S

is conal in but
the elements of I

are all bounded, so the induction hypothesis (I) also


holds.
The construction is done. Take E = E

: <
1
and G =
1
, E).
By (I), G is non-trivial. Finally, we must prove that G is quasy smooth.
Consider a set Y
1
. The following lemma is almost trivial.
Lemma 3.6 For each <
1
either Y ( +) or ( +)Y is large.
Proof: Assume on the contrary that there are pairs f
i
, x
i
) : i < n) , h)
and f
i
, x
i
) : n i < n +k) , h

) showing that neither Y ( + ) nor


( +)Y is large. Then f
i
, x
i
) : i < n +k) , h h

) shows that +
is not large.
So we can assume that the set
L = <
1
: Y ( +) is large
is uncountable and to complete the proof of theorem 3.1 it is enough to show
that in this case G

= G[Y ]. By
+
, we can nd a club subset CL

such
that Y M

, C M

and = whenever C. We can


assume that 0 C.
Write C =

: <
1
. By induction on <
1
, we will construct
functions f

such that
(a) f

: G

= G

[Y ], f

,
(b) f

: < ) M
sup{+1:<}
.
Take f
0
= . If = + 1, then let f

= g
Y ,f
. If is limit, then
put f

= f

: < . Clearly (a) and (b) remains valid. Finally put


f = f

: <
1
. Then f : G

= G[Y ], so the theorem is proved.
4 A model without quasi-smooth graphs
Given an Aronszajn-tree T =
1
, ) dene the poset Q
T
as follows: the
underlying set of Q
T
consists of all functions f mapping a nite subset of
3
7
0


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







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


October 6, 2003 14

1
to such that f
1
n is antichain in T for each n . The ordering on
Q
T
is as expected: f
Q
T
g i f g. For <
1
denote by T

the set of
elements of T with height . Take T
<
=

<
T

. If x T

and < , let


x be the unique element of T

which is comparable with x. We write ( for


the poset Fin(
1
, 2), ), that is, forcing with ( adds
1
-many Cohen reals
to the ground model.
Theorem 4.1 If ZF is consistent, then so is ZFC + there are no non-trivial
quasi-smooth graphs on
1
.
Proof: Assume that GCH holds in the ground model. Consider a nite
support iteration P
i
, Q
j
: i
2
, j <
2
) satisfying (a)(c) below:
(a) If j <
2
is even, then Q
j
= (.
(b) If j <
2
is odd, then V
P
j
[= Q
j
= Q
T
j
for some Aronszajn-tree T
j
.
(c) V
P
2
[=every Aronszajn tree is special.
We will show that V
P
2
does not contain non-trivial, quasi-smooth graphs
on
1
.
To start with we introduce some notation. Consider a graph G = V, E).
For x V dene the function tp
G
(x) : V x 2 by the equation G(x) =
tp
G
(x)
1
1. Given A V write tp
G
(x, A) = tp
G
(x)A.
If A V and t 2
A
, take rl
G
(t) = x V A : tp
G
(x, A) = t and
rl

G
(t) = x V A : [tp
G
(x, A)t[ < . For x V and A V put
twin
G
(x, A) = rl
G
(tp
G
(x, A)).
For A V dene the equivalence relation
G,A
on V A as follows:
x
G,A
y i [tp
G
(x, A)tp
G
(y, A))[ < .
For x V A denote by [x]
G,A
the equivalence class of x in
G,A
. Clearly
[x]
G,A
= rl

G
(tp
G
(x, A)). Write G/
G,A
for the family of equivalence classes
of
G,A
.
We divide / into three subclasses, /
0
, /
1
and /
2
, and investigate them
separately to show that V
P
2
[= (G /
i
) G is not quasi-smooth for i < 3.
Take
/
0
= G / : A [
1
]

[G/
G,A
[ =
1
,
/
1
= G / : A [
1
]

x [
1
[x]
G,A
[ <
1

3
7
0


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







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


October 6, 2003 15
and
/
2
= / (/
0
/
1
).
4.1 G K
0
First we recall a denition of [1].
Denition 4.2 A poset P is stable if
B [P]

[P]

p P p

p p

b B (p

|
P
b i p

|
P
b).
We will say that p

and p

are twins for B and that B

shows the stability of


P for B.
Lemma 4.3 P

2
is stable.
Proof: First let us remark that it is enough to prove that both ( and Q
T
are
stable for any Aronszajn-tree for in [1] it was proved that any nite support
iteration of stable, c.c.c. posets is stable.
It is clear that ( is stable. Assume that T is an Aronszajn tree and
B [Q
T
]

. Fix a countable ordinal with dom(p) : p B T


<
and
take B

= p Q
T
: dom(p) T
<+
. It is not hard to see that B

shows
the stability of P for B.
For G / take G /

0
i there is an A [
1
]

such that the set


x : [[x]
G,A
[ is uncountable.
Given G /
0
we will write G /

0
i there are disjoint sets A
0
, A
1

[
1
]

such that
(1) x
G,A
0
y i x
G,A
1
y for each x, y
1
A
0
A
1
,
(2) the set x : [[x]
G,A
0
[ is uncountable.
Lemma 4.4 Assume CH. If G /

0
, then there is a partition (V
0
, V
1
) of
1
so that for each stable c.c.c. poset P we have
V
P
[= G is not isomorphic to G[V
i
] for i 2.
Proof: Pick A
0
, A
1
[
1
]

witnessing G /

0
. Write A = A
0
A
1
. Take
E = E(G).
Let be a large enough regular cardinal and x an increasing sequence
N

: <
1
) of countable, elementary submodels of H

such that
3
7
0


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







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


October 6, 2003 16
(i) G, A, A
0
, A
1
N
0
,
(ii) N

: < ) N

for <
1
.
For x
1
A take
rank(x) = min : x N

.
Fix a partition (S
0
, S
1
) of
1
with [S
0
[ = [S
1
[ =
1
. Take
V
i
= A
i
rank
1
S
i
for i 2.
We show that the partition (V
0
, V
1
) works.
Assume on the contrary that P is a stable c.c.c. poset,

f is a P-name of
a function, p
0
P and
p
0


f : G

= G[V
0
].
Without loss of generality we can assume that p
0
= 1
P
. Now for each
c A
0
choose a maximal antichain J
c
P and a function h
c
: J
c
V such
that q


f
1
( c) =

h
c
(r) for each q J
c
.
Take B =

J
c
: c A
0
and pick a countable B

P showing the
stability of P for B.
For b P dene the partial function dt
b
:
1
2
A
0
as follows. Let
x
1
. If there is a function t 2
A
0
so that
(a) t(c) = 1 for each q I
c
if q and b are compatible conditions, then
x, h
c
(q) E,
(b) t(c) = 0 for each q I
c
if q and b are compatible conditions, then
x, h
c
(q) / E,
then take dt
b
(x) = t. Otherwise x / domdt
b
.
Sublemma 4.4.1 If p


f(x) = y, then there are p

p and b B

such
that b and p

are twins for B and dt


b
(x) = tp
G
(y, A
0
).
Proof: By the choice of B

, we can nd a p

p and a b B

so that p

and b
are twins for B. Let c A
0
. For each q J
c
, if q and p

are compatible in P,
then y, c E i x, h
c
(q) E , because, taking r as a common extension
of q and p

, we have r


f( x) = y and

f(

h
q
(c)) = c. So y, c E i for
each q I
c
if q and p

are compatible, then x, h


c
(q) E. But p

and b are
twins for

J
c
: c A
0
, so dt
b
(x) = dt
p
(x) = tp
G
(y, A
0
).
3
7
0


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







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


October 6, 2003 17
Sublemma 4.4.2 There is a b B

such that
() [t randt
b
: [rl

G
(t)[ [ =
1
.
Proof: Let ( be a P-generic lter over V . Put
T = tp
G
(y, A
0
) : y V
0
A
0
, [[y]
G,A
0
[ .
Then [T[ =
1
, so we can write T = t

: <
1
. Fix sequences
p

: <
1
) (, x

: <
1
)
1
and y

: <
1
)
1
such that
p


f(x

) = y

and tp
G
(y

, A
0
) = t

. By sublemma 4.4.1,

bB

ran dt
b
T.
But B

is countable, so we can nd a b B

satisfying () above.
Fix b B

with property (). Consider the structure


^ = P(B B

), B, B

, J
c
, h
c
: c A
0
)) .
By CH, there is a <
1
with ^ N

. Pick S
1
. Since G, ^, b N

,
it follows that dt
b
N

. By () and (ii), there is a


t randt
b
(N

<
N

)
with [rl

G
(t)[ . Then
() rl

G
(t) N

<
N

.
Pick x
1
with dt
b
(x) = t. Find p ( and y V
0
such that p b
and p


f(x) = y. By sublemma 4.4.1, there are p

p and b

such that p

and b

are twins for B and dt


b
(x) = tp
G
(y, A
0
). But p b, so
dt
b
(x) = dt
b
(x). Indeed, let c A
0
and assume that dt
b
(x)(c) = 1. Pick
q J
q
which is compatible with b

. By the denition of dt
b
, it follows that
h
c
(q), x E. Since p

and b

are twins for B, so p

and q also have a


common extension q

in P. But p

p b, so q

witnesses that b and q are


compatible. Thus, by the denition of dt
b
, we have dt
b
(x)(c) = 1.
Thus tp
G
(y, A
0
) = dt
b
(x) = dt
b
(x) = t. By (), this implies that
rank(y) = . But, by the construction of the partition (V
0
, V
1
), there are
no y V
0
with rank(y) = . Contradiction, the lemma is proved.
3
7
0


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







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


October 6, 2003 18
Lemma 4.5 Assume CH. If G /

0
, then
V
C
[= there is a partition (V
0
, V
1
) of
1
so that
for each stable c.c.c. poset P we have:
V
CP
[= G is not isomorphic to G[V
i
] for i 2.
Proof: . Fix a set A [
1
]

witnessing G /

0
and a bijection f : A
in V. Let r : 2 be the characteristic function of a Cohen real from V
C
.
Take A
i
= (f r)
1
i for i < 2. Then (A
0
, A
1
) is a partition of A. Using a
trivial density argument we can see that x ,
G,A
y implies x ,
G,A
i
y for i < 2
and for x, y
1
A. Thus V
C
[= A
0
and A
1
witness G /

0
. Applying
lemma 4.4 in V
C
we get the desired partition of
1
.
Lemma 4.6 In V
P
2
, if G /
0
is quasi-smooth, then G /

0
.
Proof: Choose a set A [
1
]

witnessing G /
0
and a bijection f : A .
Pick <
2
, is even, with A, f, G V
P
. From now on we work in V
P
.
Let [x

]
G,A
: <
1
be an enumeration of the equivalence classes of
G,A
.
Fix a partition (I
0
, I
1
) of
1
into uncountable pieces. Let r : 2 be the
characteristic function of a Cohen real from V
PC
. Take A
i
= (f r)
1
i
for i < 2. Then (A
0
, A
1
) is a partition of A. Using a trivial density argument
we can see that x ,
G,A
y implies x ,
G,A
i
y for i < 2 and for x, y
1
A.
For i 2 put
B
i
= A
i
x

: I
i
[x

]
G,A
x

: I
1i
.
Clearly (B
0
, B
1
) is a partition of
1
and
B
i
[x

]
G,A
i
= B
i
[x

]
G,A
= x

.
So G[B
i
] /

. But G is quasi-smooth, so G

= G[B
i
] for some i 2 in V
P
2
.
Thus G /

0
is proved.
4.2 G K
1
We say that a poset P has property Pr i for each sequence p

: <
1
) P
there exist disjoint sets U
0
, U
1
[
1
]

1
such that whenever U
0
and U
1
we have p

|
P
p

.
3
7
0


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







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


October 6, 2003 19
Lemma 4.7 ( has property Pr.
Indeed, ( has property K.
Lemma 4.8 If T is an Aronszajn-tree, then Q
T
has property Pr.
Proof: Let p

: <
1
) P be given. We can assume that there are a
stationary set S
1
, p

Q
T
,

<
1
, n and z
i
: i < n T such
that for each S
(a) x dom(p

) for each x dom(p

) with height
T
(x) ,
(b) p

T
<
= p

,
(c) [dom(p

) T

[ = n,
(d) writing dom(p

) T

= x

0
, . . . , x

n1
, x

0
<
On
. . . <
On
x

n1
, the
sequence

(x

0
), . . . , p

(x

n1
)

is independent from ,
(e)

< and the elements x

, . . . , x

n1

are pairwise distinct,


(f) x

= z
i
for i < n.
For each <
1
and y = y
0
, . . . , y
n1
) (T

)
n
take
S
y
= S : x

i
= y
i
for each i < n.
Let
C

= <
1

: < y (T

)
n
([S
y
[ S
y
).
Now p

: S C

are
1
members of P, so for some < S C

the conditions p

and p

are compatible. Since p

(x

l
) = p

(x

l
), x

l
and x

l
are incomparable in T for l < n. So for some < , x

l
,= x

l
whenever
l < n. On the other hand, for l ,= m < n we have x

l
,= x

m
because
x

= z
l
,= z
m
= x

. Take y
a
l
= x

l
and y
b
l
= x

l
for l < n and
write a =

y
a
0
, . . . , y
a
n1

,

b =

y
b
0
, . . . , y
b
n1

. The elements y
a
i
, y
b
i
: i < n
are pairwise dierent, so for each

S
a
and

S
b
the conditions p

and
p

are compatible. But [S


a
[ = [S
b
[ =
1
, because S
a
, S
b
, < and
C

.
A poset P is called well-met if any two compatible elements p
0
and p
1
of
P have a greatest lower bound denoted by p
0
p
1
.
3
7
0


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







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


October 6, 2003 20
Lemma 4.9 Assume that the poset P has property Pr and V
P
[= the poset
Q has property Pr. Let p

, q

) : <
1
P Q. Then there are
disjoint sets U
0
, U
1
[
1
]

1
such that for each U
0
and U
1
the
conditions p

, q

) and p

, q

) are compatible, in other words, p

and p

have
a common extension p
,
in P with p
,

|
Q
q

. If P is well-met, then
we can nd conditions p

: U
0
U
1
in P with p

such that
p

|
Q
q

for each U
0
and U
1
.
Proof: Let

U be a P-name for the set U = : p

(
P
, where (
P
is the P-
generic lter. Since P satises c.c.c., there is a p

P with p

[

U[ =
1
.
Since V
P
[=Q has property Pr, there is a condition p p

and there are


P-names such that p

V
i
=
i

: <
1
[U]

1
, for i 2, and q

0

and q

1

are compatible whenever ,


1
. Choose conditions p

p and
ordinals
0

,
1

, with p

for i < 2.
Now consider the sequence A = p

: <
1
. Since P has property
Pr, there are disjoint, uncountable sets C
0
, C
1
A such that p

and p

are
compatible whenever C
0
and C
1
. Take U
i
=
i

: C
i
for
i 2. We can assume that U
0
U
1
= . Let C
0
and C
1
and let
p

be a common extension of p

and p

. Then p

,
1



U, that is, p

and p

are in (
P
, so p

, must be a common extension of p

and p

. So
p

V
0
and
1

V
1
, thus p

and q

are compatible in Q, so

, q

|
PQ

, q

.
Suppose that P is well-met. Take p

= p

and p

= p

.
It works because we can use p

as p

in the argument of the previous


paragraph.
Lemma 4.10 If R

: , S

: < ) is a nite support iteration such


that V
R
[=S

has property Pr for < , then R

has property Pr, as


well.
Proof: We prove this lemma by induction on . The successor case is covered
by lemma 4.9. Assume that is limit. Let p

: <
1
) R

. Without loss
of generality we can assume that supp(p

) : <
1
) forms a -system with
kernel d. Fix < with d . By the induction hypothesis, the poset
R

has property Pr, so there exist disjoint sets U


0
, U
1
[
1
]

1
such that
whenever U
0
and U
1
we have p

|
R
p

. But p

|
R
p

implies p

|
R
p

because supp(p

) supp(p

) , so R

has property Pr, as well.


3
7
0


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







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


October 6, 2003 21
The previous lemmas yield the following corollary.
Lemma 4.11 P

2
has property Pr.
Given G =
1
, E) /
1
and , ,
1
with take
D
G

(, ) = : , E i , / E.
Lemma 4.12 If G /
1
, then
()
1

G
()
1
,
1

G
() [D
G

(, )[ < .
Proof: Since G /
1
, we have an x
1
with [
1
[x]

[ <
1
. Choose

G
()
1
with
1
[x]


G
(). It works because , >
G
() implies
, [x]

.
The bipartite graph
1
2, , 0) , , 1) : < <
1
) will be de-
noted by [
1
;
1
].
Lemma 4.13 If G /
1
, then neither G nor its complement may have a
not necessarily spanned subgraph isomorphic to [
1
;
1
].
Proof: Let G =
1
, E). Write E() =
1
: , E. Assume
on the contrary that A, B [
1
]

1
are disjoint sets such that , E
whenever A and B with < . Without loss of generality we can
assume that (A +1) () = for each A. Write A =

: <
1
.
Then for
1
the set F() = (A

) E(
+1
) is nite because
+1
>
(

) and (A

) E() = for all but countable many B. By Fodors


lemma, we can assume that F() = F for each S, where S is a stationary
subset of
1
containing limit ordinals only. Let T = S : F

and
take W =
+1
: T. Then G[W] is an uncountable complete subgraph
of G. Contradiction.
Lemma 4.14 If G /
1
and V
C
[=Q has property Pr, then
V
CQ
[= G ,

= G[f
1
i] for i < 2,
where f :
1
2 is the (-generic function over V .
3
7
0


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







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


October 6, 2003 22
Proof: Assume on the contrary that
p, q)

h : G

= G[f
1
0].
To simplify our notations, we will write E for E(G), D

(, ) for D
G

(, )
and () for
G
().
Let C
0
= <
1
: < implies () < . Clearly C
0
is club. Take
C
1
= <
1
: p, q)

= f
1
0

. Since ( Q satises c.c.c, the
set C
1
is club. Put C
2
= C
0
C
1
.
Now for each <
1
let

= min(C
2
+ 1) and choose a condition
p

, q

) p, q) and a countable ordinal

such that
p

, q

h(

) =

.
Since

> () for each


1
, we can x a stationary set S
1
and a nite set D such that D

) = D for each S. Since ( is well-


met, applying lemma 4.9 we can nd disjoint uncountable subsets S
0
, S
1
S
and a sequence p

: S
0
S
1
) ( with p

such that p

|
Q
q

for each S
0
and S
1
.
We can assume that the sets dom(p

) : S
0
and dom(p

) : S
1

form -systems with kernels d


0
and d
1
, respectively.
Take Y
0

= S
0
: ,

E and Y
1

= S
1
: ,

/ E for
<
1
. Write Y
i
= <
1
: [Y
i

[ =
1
and Z
i
=
1
Y
i
for i < 2.
By 4.13, the sets Z
i
are countable. Pick C
2
with Dd
0
d
1
Z
0
Z
1

. Let

= min(C
2
+1) and

= min(C
2

+1) . Since d
0
d
1
and
[Y
0

[ = [Y
1

[ =
1
, we can choose
i
Y
i

with dom(p

i
) [,

) = for
i = 0, 1. The set W = D

0
,

1
) [,

)is nite because

i

i

>
(

) for i < 2. Choose a (-name q such that p

0
p

q is a common
extension of q

0
and q

1
in Q and take
r =

0
p

1
, 1) : W, q

.
Since W (dom(p

0
) dom(p

1
)) = , r is a condition.
Pick a condition r

r from (Q and an ordinal such that r

h(

) =
. Now [,

) because ,

C
1
. Since
r

h(

i
) =

i
,

h(

) = and

h is an isomorphism,
so

0
, E and

1
, / E imply that

0
, E and

1
, / E.
But D

i
(

i
,

i
) = D and D so

0
, E and

1
, / E, that is,
W. But r

ran(

h) = f
1
0 and f
1
0

W = , contradiction.
3
7
0


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







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


October 6, 2003 23
4.3 G K
2
Given a non-trivial graph G = V, E) with V [
1
]

1
dene
(G) =
1
: V and [twin
G
(, V )[ .
The following lemma obviously holds.
Lemma 4.15 If G
0
and G
1
are graphs on uncountable subsets of
1
, G
0

=
G
1
, then (G
0
) = (G
1
) mod NS

1
.
Lemma 4.16 Given G / /
0
and S
1
there is a partition (V
0
, V
1
) of

1
such that (G[V
0
]) S mod NS

1
and (G[V
1
])
1
S mod NS

1
.
Proof: Let be a large enough regular cardinal and x an increasing,
continuous sequence N

: <
1
) of countable, elementary submodels of
H

= H

, ) such that G, S N
0
and N

: ) N
+1
for <
1
.
Write

= N


1
and C =

: <
1
. Take V
0
=

S
(
+1

) and
V
1
=
1
V
0
=

1
\S
(
+1

).
It is enough to prove that (G[V
0
]) S mod NS

1
. Assume that


(G[V
0
]),

= ,

, V
0
and [twin
G[V
0
]
(,

V
0
)[ = . Since G, ,

V
0
N
+1
and [G/
G,V
0

[ , we have tp
GG[V
0
]
(,

V
0
) N
+1
and so twin
G[V
0
]
(,

) N
+1
as well. Thus
+1

. Hence V
0
implies
n
= S which was to be proved.
Lemma 4.17 If G / /
0
and (G) ,= mod NS

1
, then G is not quasi-
smooth.
Proof: Assume that S = (G) is stationary and let (S
0
, S
1
) be a partition of
S into stationary subsets. By lemma 4.16, there is a partition (V
0
, V
1
) of
1
with (G([V
i
]) S S
i
. Then G[V
i
] and G can not be isomorphic by lemma
4.15.
Let us remark that G /
2
i G / /
0
and there is an A [
1
]

and
x
1
A such that [[x]
G,A
[ = [
1
[x]
G,A
[ =
1
.
Given G /
2
we will write G /

2
i there are two disjoint, countable
subsets of
1
, A
0
and A
1
, and there is an x
1
, such that [[x]
G,A
0
[ =
[
1
[x]
G,A
0
[ =
1
and [x]
G,A
0
A
1
= [x]
G,A
1
A
0
.
3
7
0


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







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


October 6, 2003 24
Lemma 4.18 If G /
2
, then G (/

2
)
V
C
.
Proof: Assume that A [
1
]

and x
1
witness G /
2
in the ground
model. Fix a bijection f : A in V. Let r : 2 be the characteristic
function of a Cohen real from V
C
. Take A
i
= (f r)
1
i. By a simple
density argument, we can see that [x]
G,A
0
= [x]
G,A
= [x]
G,A
1
. Thus A
0
, A
1
and x show that g /

2
.
Lemma 4.19 Assume that every Aronszajn tree is special. If G /

2
, then
there is a partition (V
0
, V
1
) of
1
such that (G[V
i
]) is stationary for i < 2.
Proof: Choose A
0
, A
1
and x witnessing G /

2
. Let A = A
0
A
1
. Take
C
0
= [x]
G,A
0
A, C
1
= (
1
[x]
G,A
0
) A and consider the partition trees T
i
of
G[C
i
] for i 2 (see denition 2.3). These trees are Aronszajn-trees because
G is non-trivial. Fix functions h
i
: C
i
specializing T
i
. We can nd
natural numbers n
0
and n
1
such that the sets S
i
= : h
1
i
n
i
(T
i
)

,=
are stationary, that is, h
1
i
n
i
meets stationary many level of T
i
. Take
B
i
= h
1
i
n
i
and Y
i
= c C
i
: b B
i
c _
T
i
b.
Pick any S
i
. Let b B
i
(T
i
)

. If c Y
i
(T
i
)
<
, c ,= b, then c ,= b
by the construction of Y
i
. So tp
G
G[Y
i
]
(c, (T
i
)
<
) = tp
G
G[Y
i
]
(c, (T
i
)
<
) ,=
tp
GG[Y
i
]
(b, (T
i
)
<
) by the denition of the partition tree. This means that
twin
G[Y
i
]
(b, (T
i
)
<
) = b. Thus (G[Y
i
]) provided (T
i
)
<
and b
. But these requirements exclude only a non-stationary subset of S
i
. So
(G[Y
i
]) S
i
mod NS

1
.
Let V
i
= Y
i
A
i
(C
1i
Y
1i
) for i 2 and consider the partition (V
0
, V
1
)
of
1
. If z V
i
(Y
i
A
i
), then tp
G
(z, A
i
) ,= tp
G
(b, A
i
) for any b B
i
because
C
0
[x]
G,A
i
and C
1

1
[x]
G,A
i
. So (G[V
i
]) S
i
mod NS

1
holds.
Now we are ready to conclude the proof of theorem 4.1. We will work in
V
P
2
. Assume that G /. We must show that G is not quasi-smooth.
Pick a <
2
with G (/)
V
P
and Q

= (. Assume rst that G


(/
0
)
V
P
. If G were quasi-smooth in V
P
2
, G (/

0
)
P
2
would hold by lemma
4.6. So we can assume that G (/

0
)
P
. Since P

2
is a stable, c.c.c. poset,
so is P

2
/P
+1
. So, by lemma 4.5, there is a partition (V
O
, V
1
) of
1
in V
P
+1
such that V
P
2
[=G is not isomorphic to G[V
i
] for i < 2.
Assume that G (/
1
)
V
P
. Since P

2
has property Pr, so is P

2
/P
+1
.
Thus, by lemma 4.14, the partition (V
O
, V
1
) of
1
given by the Q

-generic
3
7
0


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







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


October 6, 2003 25
Cohen reals in V
P
+1
has the property that V
P
2
[=G is not isomorphic to
G[V
i
] for i < 2.
Finally assume that G (/
2
)
V
P
. By lemma 4.18, we have G (/

2
)
V
P
+1
.
Since P

2
satises c.c.c, it follows that G (/

2
)
V
P
2
. So applying lemma 4.19
we can nd a partition (V
0
, V
1
) of
1
such that both (G[V
0
]) and (G[V
1
]) are
stationary. Thus, by lemma 4.17, neither G[V
0
] nor G[V
1
] are quasi-smooth.
So G itself can not be quasi-smooth.
References
[1] U. Abraham, S. Shelah, Forcing with stable posets, Journal of Sym-
bolic Logic 47 (1982) no 1, 3742
[2] K. J. Devlin, S. Shelah, A weak version of which follows from 2

< 2

1
,
Israel J. Math 28 (1978) no 23, 239247
[3] A. Hajnal, Zs. Nagy, L. Soukup, On the number of non-isomorphic sub-
graphs of certain graphs without large cliques and independent subsets, to
appear in A tribute to Paul Erd os , Oxford University Press
[4] T. Jech, Set Theory, Academic Press. New York, 1978
[5] H. A. Kierstead, P. J. Nyikos, Hypergraphs with Finitely many Isomor-
phism Subtypes, preprint.
[6] D. Macpherson, A. H. Mekler, S. Shelah, The number of Innite Sub-
structures, preprint
[7] S. Shelah, Proper Forcing, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heilderberg New York,
1982

You might also like