(

4
0
2
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
8
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
3
-
0
7


BOREL WHITEHEAD GROUPS
Saharon Shelah
Institute of Mathematics
The Hebrew University
Jerusalem, Israel
Rutgers University
Mathematics Department
New Brunswick, NJ USA
MSRI
Berkeley, CA USA
Abstract. We investigate the Whiteheadness of Borel abelian groups (
1
-free,
without loss of generalityas otherwise this is trivial). We show that CH (and even
WCH) implies any such abelian group is free, and always
2
-free.
1998 Mathematics Subject Classication 03C60, 03E15, 20K20.
Key words and phrases. Abelian groups, Whitehead groups, Borel sets, Borel Abelian groups.
I would like to thank Alice Leonhardt for the beautiful typing.
First Typed - 98/Mar/4
Latest Revision - 99/May/17
1, 2 done, Fall 89
Publication no. 402
Typeset by A
M
S-T
E
X
1
(
4
0
2
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
8
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
3
-
0
7


2 SAHARON SHELAH
0 Introduction
It is independent of set theory whether every Whitehead group is free [Sh 44].
The problem is called Whiteheads problem. In addition, Whiteheads problem
is independent of set theory even under the continuum hypothesis [Sh:98]. An
interesting problem suggested by Dave Marker is the Borel version of Whiteheads
problem, namely,
Question: Is every Whitehead group coded by a Borel set free? (For a precise
denition of a Borel code, see below.) In the present paper, we will give a partial
answer to this question.
0.1 Denition. 1) We say that

=
0
,
1
) is a code for a Borel abelian group
if:
(a)
0
(. . . , . . . ) codes a Borel equivalence relation E = E

on a subset B

= B

of

2 so [
0
(, ) B

] and [
0
(, ) B

& B

], the group
will have a set of elements B = B

/E

(b)
1
=
1
(x, y, z) codes a Borel set of triples from

2 such that
(x/E

, y/E

, z/E

) :
1
(x, y, z) is the graph of a function from B B
to B such that (B, +) is an abelian group.
2) We say Borel
+
if (b) is replaced by:
(b)

1
codes a Borel function from B

to B

which respects E

, the
function is called + and (B, +) is an abelian group (well, we should denote
the function which + induces from (B

/E

) (B

/E

) into B

/E

by e.g.
+
E

, but are not strict).
3) We let B

= B

= (B, +) be the group coded by

; abusing notation we may
write B for B

.
4) An abelian group B is called Borel if it has a Borel code similarly Borel
+
.
Clearly
0.2 Observation: The set of codes for Borel abelian groups is
1
2
.
An interesting problem suggested by Dave Marker is the Borel version of White-
heads problem: namely
0.3 Question: Is every Borel
+
Whitehead group free?
In this paper we will give a partial answer to this question, even for the Borel
(without +) version. We will show that every Borel Whitehead group is
2
-free. In
particular, the continuum hypothesis implies that every Borel Whitehead group is
free. This latter result provides a contrast to the authors proof ([Sh:98]) that it is
consistent with CH that there is a Whitehead group of cardinality
1
which is not
free.
We refer the reader to [EM] for the necessary background material on abelian
groups.
Suppose B is an uncountable
1
-free abelian group. Let S
0
= G B : [G[ =
0
and B/G is not
1
-free. It is well known that if B is not
2
-free, then S
0
is
(
4
0
2
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
8
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
3
-
0
7


BOREL WHITEHEAD GROUPS 3
stationary. We will argue that the converse is true for Borel abelian groups and the
answer is quite absolute. Lastly, we deal with weakening Borel to Souslin.
0.4 Question: If B is an
2
-free Borel abelian group, what can be the n in the
analysis of a nonfree
2
-free abelian subgroup of B from [Sh 161] (or see [EM] or
[Sh 523])?
We thank Todd Eisworth and the referee for corrections.
(
4
0
2
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
8
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
3
-
0
7


4 SAHARON SHELAH
1 On
2
-freeness
1.1 Hypothesis. Let B be an
1
-free Borel abelian group. Let

be a Borel code
for B.
Let S
B
= S

= K B : K is a countable subgroup and B/K is not

1
-free.
1.2 Lemma. 1) If S
B
is stationary, then B is not
2
-free.
2) Moreover, there is an increasing continuous sequence G
i
: i <
1
) of countable
subgroups of B such that G
i+1
/G
i
is not free for each i <
1
.
Remark. On such proof in model theory see [Sh 43, 2], [BKM78] and [Sch85].
Proof. We work in a universe V [= ZFC. Force with P = p : p is a function from
some <
1
to

2. Let G P be V -generic and let V [G] denote the generic
extension.
Since P is
1
-closed, forcing with P adds no new reals. Thus

still codes
B in the generic extension, i.e. B
V [G]

= B
V

. Forcing with P also adds no new

countable subsets of B hence B is
1
-free holds in V i it holds in V [G]. Similarly
if K B is countable, then B/K is
1
-free holds in V i it holds in V [G]. Thus,
S
V

= S
V [G]

. Moreover, since P is proper, S

remains stationary (see [Sh:f, Ch.III]).

Since V [G] [= CH, we can write
B =
_
<
1
B

,
where

B = B

: <
1
) is an increasing continuous chain of countable pure
subgroups. Let S = <
1
: B/B

is not
1
-free. Since S

is stationary (as a
subset of [B]

0
), clearly S is a stationary subset of
1
. So V [G] [= B is not free.
By Pontryagins criteria for each S there are n

and a

0
, . . . , a

such
that
PC(B

0
, . . . , a

)/B

is not free, where PC(X) = PC(X, B) is the pure closure of the subgroup of B
which X generates. We choose n

minimal with this property.

Work in V [G]. Let be a regular cardinal such that H () satises enough
axioms of set theory to handle all of our arguments, and let <

be a well ordering
of H (). Let N _ (H (), , <

) be countable such that

, S, B

: <
1
) and

0
, . . . , a

) : <
1
_
belong to N.
The model N has been built in V [G], but since forcing with P adds no new reals,
there is a transitive model N
0
V isomorphic to N and let h be an isomorphism
from N onto N
0
. Clearly h maps

to

. From now on we work in V . Hence H ()
below is dierent from the one above.
We build an increasing continuous elementary chain N

: <
1
), choosing
N

by induction on , each N

countable as follows. Note the N

s are neither
necessarily transitive nor even well founded.
(
4
0
2
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
8
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
3
-
0
7


BOREL WHITEHEAD GROUPS 5
Let =

= (v) : N

[= h(S) : () is stationary and

where

is the set of rst order formulas with parameters from N

in the vocabulary
, <

and with the only free variable v. Let

be the following partial order

of

i N

[= (x)[(x) (x)]. Let t

be a subset of

such that:
(a) t

is downward closed, i.e. if

and t

then t

(b) t

is directed
(c) for some countable M

(H (), , <

) to which N

belongs, if
M

is a dense subset of

then t

,= .
Clearly by the density if

and

, then

or

.
Thus, t

is a complete type over N

. Since N

has denable Skolem functions (as

<

was a well ordering), we can let N

+1
be the Skolem hull of N

where
N

N
+1
, b

N
+1
realizes t

.
We claim that N
+1
has no new natural numbers, i.e. if N
+1
[= c is a
natural numbers then c N

. Why? As c N
+1
clearly for some f N

we have N

[= f is a function with domain

1
, the countable ordinals and
N
+1
[= f(b

) = c. Let
D
f
=
_
(v)

:N

[= (x)((x) f(x) is not a natural number)

or for some d N

we have
N

[= (x)((x) f(x) = d)
_
.
It is easy to check that D
f
is a subset of

, it belongs to M

and it is a dense
subset of

; hence t

D
f
,= . Let (x) D
f
t

, so N
+1
[= [b

], and by the
denition of D
f
we get the desired conclusion.
If N

[= b is a countable ordinal then N

+1
[= b < b

& b

is a countable
ordinal. Also N
+1
[= b

h(S).
We claim that b

is the least ordinal of N

+1
N

in the sense of N
+1
. Assume
N
+1
[= c is a countable ordinal, c < b

so for some f N

we have N

[= f :

1

1
is a function and N
+1
[= c = f(b

), N
+1
[= f(b

) < b

. Then
N

[= h(S) : f() < is a stationary subset of

1
. Let D = (v)

:
N

[= (v)((v) v is a countable ordinal) and N

[= ( <
1
)(v)((v)
f(v) = ) (v)((v) f(v) v). By Fodors lemma (which N

satises) D is
a dense subset of

and clearly D M

. Since t

is suciently generic, there is

a N

such that N
+1
[= f(b

) = .
Now N

is not necessarily wellfounded but it has standard and without loss

of generality N

[= a implies a = n < : N

[= n a so as h(

) =

clearly N

[= x/E

B x/E

B, and N

[= x, y, z B

, x/E

+y/E

=
z/E

x/E

+y/E

= z/E

. Also if N

[= x/E

, y/E

are distinct members

of B, i.e. xE

y, then x/E

,= y/E

.
For each <
1
, if N

[= b <
1
, let B

b
be the group (h(

B))
b
as interpreted
in N

, i.e. N

thinks that B

b
is the b-th group in the increasing chain h(

B).
Clearly B

b
B if E

is the equality, otherwise let j

b
map (x/E

)
N

to x/E

, so
j

b
embeds B

b
into B; let this image be called G

b
. Also in N

there is a bijection
between B

b
and . If > , since N

_ N

have the same natural numbers,

(
4
0
2
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
8
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
3
-
0
7


6 SAHARON SHELAH
clearly B

b
= B

b
when E

is equality or j

b
= j

b
and G

b
= G

b
in the general case.
In particular, G
+1
b

is the union of G

b
: N

[= b <
1
.
For <
1
, let G

= G
+1
b

and let (h(b

: n

) : S)))(b

) N
+1
be
(a
b

/E

)
N

: m

), so N
+1
thinks that a
b

/E

: m

) witness that
h(B)/B
+1
b

is not free. Clearly a

b

0
/E

, . . . , a
b

/E

G
+1
and
PC(G

a
b

0
/E

, . . . , a
b

/E

)/G

is not free. So G
+1
/G

is not free. Let G =

_
<
1
G

. Then G is not free. But G

is a subgroup of B, thus B is not
2
-free.
1.2
Remark. Instead of the forcing we could directly build the N

s but we have to
deal with stationary subsets of [

2]

0
instead of
1
.
1.3 Corollary. If B is an
1
-free Borel abelian group, then B is
2
-free if and only
if K B : [K[ =
0
and B/K is
1
-free is not stationary.
1.4 Fact: If 2

0
< 2

1
then every Borel Whitehead group B is
2
-free.
Proof. By [DvSh 65] (or see [EM]) as 2

0
< 2

1
we have: if G be a Whitehead group
of cardinality
1
(hence is
1
-free) and G =
_
<
1
G

is such that G

: <
1
) is
an increasing continuous chain of countable subgroups, then : G
+1
/G

is not
free does not contain a closed unbounded set (see [EM, Ch.XII,1.8]). Thus, if B
is not
2
-free, then the subgroup G constructed in the proof of lemma 1.2 is not
Whitehead. Since being Whitehead is a hereditary property (see [EM]), B is not
Whitehead.

1.4
The lemma shows that
1.5 Conclusion. For Borel abelian groups B

, B

is
2
-free is absolute (in fact
it is a

1
1
property of

).
Proof. The formula will just say that there is a model of a suitable fragment of
ZFC (e.g. ZC) with standard to which

belongs and it satises B

is
2
-free.

1.5
(
4
0
2
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
8
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
3
-
0
7


BOREL WHITEHEAD GROUPS 7
2 On
2
-free Whitehead
2.1 Theorem. If B is a Borel Whitehead group, then B is
2
-free.
2.2 Conclusion: (CH or just 2

0
< 2

1
) Every Whitehead Borel abelian group is
free.
Before we prove we quote [Sh 44, Denition 3.1].
2.3 Denition. 1) If L is a subset of the
1
-free abelian group, G, PC(L, G) is the
smallest pure subgroup of G which contains L. Note that if H is a pure subgroup
of G, L H then PC(L, G) = PC(L, H). We omit G if it is clear.
2) If H is a subgroup of G, L a nite subset of G, a G, then the statement
(a, L, H, G) means that: PC(H L) = PC(H) PC(L) but for no b PC(H
L a) do we have PC(H L a) = PC(H) PC(L b).
Proof. Assume B is not
2
-free. We repeat the proof of Lemma 1.2. So in V
P
, B is
a non-free
1
-free abelian group of cardinality
1
. Hence by [Sh 44, p.250,3.1(3)],
B satises possibility I or possibility II where we have chosen

B = B

: <

1
) increasing continuous with B

a countable pure subgroup, B =

_
<
1
B

; the
possibilities are explained below. The proof splits into the two cases.
Possibility I: By [Sh 44, p.250].
So we can nd (still in V
P
) an ordinal <
1
and a

i
B for i <
1
, < n
i
such
that
(A) a
i

+B

: i <
1
, n
i
is independent in B/B

(B) (a

n
i
, L
i
, B

, B) where L
i
= a
i

: < n
i
.
This situation does not survive well under the process and the proof of Lemma 1.2
but after some analysis a revised version will.
Without loss of generality n
i
= n() = n

(by the pigeon hole principle). Let

N (H (), , <

) be countable such that B

, B, B

: <
1
),

a
i
0
, . . . , a
i
n
i
) : i <
1
_
belong to N. We can nd M V, M

= N; without loss of generality M is transi-
tive (so M [= n is a natural number i n is a natural number). We now work in
V .
Let B (H (), , <

) be countable, M B, note that H ()

B
,= H () and
H ()
V
= H () ,= H ()
V
P
. Let
M
be the set of rst order formulas (v) in
the vocabulary , <

and parameters from M and the only free variable v. Now

we imitate the proof of [Sh 202]. Let = (v)
M
: M [= <
1
: () is
uncountable (equivalently is a
1
: [a[ =
1

M
). We can nd t

(v) :

2) such that:
(a) each t

(v) a suitable generic subset of , i.e. is ordered by

1
(v)
2
(v)
if M [= (v)(
2
(v)
1
(v)) so t

(v) is directed, downward closed and is

not disjoint to any dense subset of from B
(
4
0
2
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
8
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
3
-
0
7


8 SAHARON SHELAH
(b) for k < ,
0
, . . . ,
k1


2 which are pairwise distinct
t

0
(v), . . . , t

k1
(v)) is generic too (for
k
), i.e. if D B is a dense subset
of
k
then

<k
t

(v) is not disjoint to D.

(See explanation in the end of the proof of case II).
So for each , t

(v) is a complete type over M hence we can nd M

, M M

, M

the Skolem hull of M y

such that y

realizes t

(v) in M

. So M

[= y

a
countable ordinal. Without loss of generality if M

[=

2 then

2 and
(n) = i M

[= (n) = i when n < , i < 2.

Let h : N M be the isomorphism from N onto M (so h V
P
). We still use
B

! As a =

a
i

: n

) : i <
1
_
N we can look at a and h( a) as a two-
place function (with variables written as superscript and subscript). So we can let
a

( n

,

2) be reals such that: M

[= h( a)
y

= a

. By absoluteness
a

B (more exactly a

= B

, a

n
/E

B) and (a

n
, a

: < n

), B

, B).
If we can prove that a

:

2, n

) is independent over B

(= h(B

)), then
the proof of [Sh:98, 3.3] nish our case: proving B is not Whitehead group. But
independence is just a demand on every nite subset. So it is enough to prove
if k < ,
0
, . . . ,
k1


2 are distinct, then
a

: n

, m < k is independent over B

.
We prove this by induction on k. For k = 0 this is vacuous, for k = 1 it is part of
the properties of each a

: n

). So let us prove it for k + 1. Remember that

t

0
(v), . . . , t

k
(v)) (more exactly

k
t

(v)) is a generic subset of

k
.
Assume the desired conclusion fails. So by absoluteness we can nd

(v)
t

(v) and s
m

Z for m k, n

such that:
if t

m
(v) is generic over B for m k, moreover t

m
(v) : m k) is a
generic subset of
k+1
over B and
m
(v) t

m
(v), then (dening M

m
by
t

m
(v) and a

as before)

mk
s
m

= t B

.
Clearly for m k we have M [= v :
m
(v)v a countable ordinal has order type

1
and without loss of generality also M [= v : M [=
m
(v) v a countable
ordinal has order type
1
.
So in M there are g
0
, . . . , g
k
M such that: M [= g
i
is a permutation of
1
,
for i k we have (v)(
0
(v)
0
(g
i
(v)) and g
0
(v), g
1
(v), . . . , g
k
(v) are pairwise
distinct. Let for m k, t
i

0
(v) = (v) : (g
i
(v)) t

0
(v). Let in M

0
, y
i

0
=
[g
i
(y

0
)]
M

0
, a

0
,i

= [h( a)
(y
i

0
)

]
M

0
. Now y
i

0
realizes t
i

0
(v) and M

0
is also the
Skolem hull of M y
i

0
and t
i

0
(v), t

1
(v), . . . , t

k
(v))
k+1
is generic over B
and
0
(v) t
i

0
(v),
1
(v) t

1
(v), . . . ,
k
(v) t

k
(v). Hence for each i k in B
we have

s
0

0
,i

0<mk
n

s
m

= t B

.
By linear algebra a

0
,i

: i k, n

is not independent (actually, i = 0, 1

suces - just subtract the equations). By absoluteness this holds in M

0
. But the
(
4
0
2
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
8
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
3
-
0
7


BOREL WHITEHEAD GROUPS 9
formula saying this is false holds in (H (), , <

) hence in N, hence in M, hence

in M

(it speaks on a, B, B

), contradiction. So fails hence holds so (as said

before ) we have nished Possibility I.
Possibility II of [Sh 44, p.250]: In this case we have not possibility I but S =
<
1
: a limit ordinal and there are a

for n

such that (a

, a

: <
n

, B

, B) is stationary; all in V
P
. Now without loss of generality we can nd

n
: n < ) such that:

n
<

n+1
, =
_
n<

n
, and there are y

m
B
+1
, t

m

B

n
+1
and s

m,
Z, (for < n

) such that:
()
0
y

0
= a

and
()
2
s

m,n

m+1
=

<n

m,
a

+y

m
+t

m
()
3
s

m,n

> 1, morever if s is a proper divisor of s

m,n

(e.g. 1) then sy

m+1,n

is not in B

+a

i
: < n

m
)
B
()
4
if

n
: n < then PC
B
(B
+1
a

0
, . . . , a

) =
PC
B
(B

0
, . . . , a

) +B
+1
[why? known, or see later.]
Without loss of generality S n

= n

. So as in the proof of Lemma 1.2 we

can choose countable N (H (), , <

) such that a =

: n

) : S
_
, =

n
: n < ) : S
_
,
_
(s

m,
: n

), y

m
, t

m
)
m<
: S
_
belong to N, then de-
ne M and choose B as before. We let this time =
M
be as in the proof of
Lemma 1.2, that is (v) : M [= S : () stationary. Now we work in V .
We can nd t

(v) :

2) such that:
(a) each t

(v) is generic over B as before hence

(b) for k < and pairwise distinct
0
, . . . ,
k1


2, t

0
, . . . , t

k1
) is generic
for
k
over B
(c) letting M

, y

be such that: M M

, M

the Skolem hull of M

, y

realizes t

(v) in M

we have
(i) M

[= y

is a countable ordinal S
(ii) M [= a is a countable ordinal M

[= a < y

(iii) if y M

satises (i) + (ii) then M

[= y

y.
So looking at h : N M the isomorphism, then

n
=: [h( )]
y

n
for n < satises:
M

[=

n
a countable ordinal
M

[=

n
<

n+1
< y

[= the set[h( )]
y

n
: n < is unbounded below y

(
4
0
2
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
8
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
3
-
0
7


10 SAHARON SHELAH
hence

n
: n < M is unbounded among the countable ordinals of M.
Now by easy manipulation (see proof below):
(c) if
1
,=
2


2 then

1
n
: n <

2
n
: n < is nite.
(We can be lazy here demanding just that no

n
: n < is included in the union
of a nite set with the union of nitely many sets of the form

n
: n < where


2, which follows from pairwise generic, and one has to do slightly more
abelian group theory work below).
Now we can let a

= [(h( a))
y

]
M

. By linear algebra we get the independence of

a

:

2 and n

over A = B M i.e. a/E

: a B

M hence a
contradiction to our being in possibility II (or directly get in the proof in the
case possibility I holds).
An alternative is the following:
We are assuming that in V
P
, possibility I fails. So also in V , letting A = M B

the following set is countable: K[A] =: a

: n) : n < , a

B, a

:
n) independent over A in B and (a
n
, a

: < n, A, B) (see proof later).

For each such a = a

: n) we can look at a relevant type it realizes over A

t( a, A) =
_
(y)(sy =

n
s

) :B [= (y)(sy =

),
s, s

integers
_
so t( a, A) : a K[A] is countable. But for the

2 the types
t(a

: < n

), A) are pairwise distinct, contradiction, so actually case II never

occurs.
We still have some debts in the treatment of possibility II.
Why do clauses (b) and (c) hold? For each n we let

M,n
=
_
(v) :(i) (v) is a rst order formula with parameters from M
(ii) for some

M
1
for < n we have
M [= (v)((v) v h(S)) &

<n
(h( ))
v

)
(iii) M [= ( <
1
)(
stat
v <
1
)[((v) & < (h( ))
v
n
)]
_
.
Now note:

0

M,n

M

1
if (v)
M
and n < then for some m [n, ) and

M
1
for
< m we have (v) &

<m
(h( ))
v

belongs to
M,m

2
if (v)
M,n
and M
1
then

(v) = (v) & < (h( ))

v
n
belongs
to
M,n
.
(
4
0
2
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
8
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
3
-
0
7


BOREL WHITEHEAD GROUPS 11
Now let D
n
: n < ) be the family of dense open subsets of
M
which belong to
B. We choose by induction on n,

(v) :
n
2), k

< such that:

()
n
(v)
M,k

()

(v) D

if < g()
()

(v)

i
(v) for i = 0, 1
() if
0
,=
1

n
2,
i

i

n+1
2 for i = 0, 1 and k

0
k < k

0
and M [=
(v)(

0
(v) (h( ))
v
k
= ) then M [= (v)[

1
(v)

<k

1
(h( ))
v

,= ].
There is no problem to do it and t

(v) = (v)
M
: (v)

M

n
(v) for some
n < for

2 are as required.
Why does hold?
For S let w

= < : PC
B
(B
+1
a

0
, . . . , a

) is not equal to PC
B
(B

0
, . . . , a

n,
) +B
+1
B.
Let S

= S : ( < )([w

[ <
0
), if S

is stationary we get ,
otherwise SS

is stationary, and for SS

let

= Min : w

is innite.
By Fodors lemma for some () <
1
, S

= SS

= () is stationary
hence uncountable and we can get possibility I, contradiction.
2.1
(
4
0
2
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
8
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
3
-
0
7


12 SAHARON SHELAH
3 Refinements
We may wonder if we can weaken the demand Borel.
3.1 Denition. 1) We say

is a code for a Souslin abelian group if in Denition
0.1 we weaken the demand on
0
,
1
to being a

1
1
relation.
2) A model M of a fragment of ZFC is essentially transitive if:
(a) if M [= x is an ordinal and (y : y <
M
x,
M
) is well ordered then x is
an ordinal and M [= y x y x
(b) if is an ordinal, (y : y <
M
,
M
) is well ordered and M [= an
ordinal, rk(x) = , then M [= y x y x.
3) For M essentially transitive with standard such that

M let B
M
is B

as
interpreted in M and trans(M) = x M : x as in (b) of part (2).
3.2 Fact. 1)

codes a Souslin abelian group in a

1
2
property.
2) If M is a model of a suitable fragment of set theory (comprehension is enough),
then M is isomorphic to an essentially transitive model.
3) If M is an essentially transitive model with standard of a suitable fragment
of ZFC and

trans(M), (note

is really a pair of subsets of H (
0
)), then as
B
M
= (B

)
M
trans(M) there is a homomorphism j
M
from B
M
into B = B

such that M [= t = x/E

implies j
M
(t) = x/E

.
4) If M N are as in (3), then j
M
j
N
.
Proof. Straightforward.
3.3 Claim. 1) In 1.2, 2.1 we can assume that B = B

is only Souslin.
2) If B = B

is not
2
-free, then case I of [Sh 44](3.1) holds, moreover the con-
clusion of case I in the proof of 2.1 holds.
Remark. If only
1
is Souslin, i.e. is

1
1
, just repeat the proofs.
Proof. For both we imitate the proof of 2.1.
In both possibilities, for each

2, let G

be the group which

denes in M

,
(the M

s chosen as there). So j
M

is a homomorphism from G

into B. However,
j
M
j
M

and j
M
is one to one (noting that h, the unique isomorphism from N
onto M, is the identity on (

2) N, hence on B

N, and also B
V
= B
V
P
). Let
B

= Rang(j
M
). Now in dening (x, L, B

, B) we can add that we cannot nd

L

PC(B

L x) such that (x

, L

, B

, B) and [L

[ < [L[, i.e. the n

is minimal. As B is
1
-free, this implies that j
M
PC(B

a
n

: n

, B)
M

is
one to one and by easy algebraic argument, we can get, for 2.1, non-Whiteheadness
and for 1.2, non
2
-freeness.
3.3
(
4
0
2
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
8
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
3
-
0
7


BOREL WHITEHEAD GROUPS 13
3.4 Fact. 1) B

is non-
2
-free is a

1
1
-property of

, assuming B

is a
1
-free
Souslin abelian group.
2)

codes a
1
-free Souslin abelian group is a
1
2
-property of

.
Proof. Just check.
(
4
0
2
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
9
-
0
8
-
1
2







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
3
-
0
7


14 SAHARON SHELAH
REFERENCES.
[BKM78] Jon Barwise, Matt Kaufmann, and Michael Makkai. Stationary logic.
Annals of Mathematical Logic, 13:171224, 1978.
[DvSh 65] Keith J. Devlin and Saharon Shelah. A weak version of which follows
from 2

0
< 2

1
. Israel Journal of Mathematics, 29:239247, 1978.
[EM] Paul C. Eklof and Alan Mekler. Almost free modules: Set theoretic meth-
ods, volume 46 of NorthHolland Mathematical Library. NorthHolland
Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1990.
[Sch85] J. Schmerl. Transfer theorems and their application to logics. In
J.Barwise and S.Feferman, editors, Model Theoretic Logics, pages 177
209. Springer-Verlag, 1985.
[Sh 44] Saharon Shelah. Innite abelian groups, Whitehead problem and some
constructions. Israel Journal of Mathematics, 18:243256, 1974.
[Sh 43] Saharon Shelah. Generalized quantiers and compact logic. Transactions
of the American Mathematical Society, 204:342364, 1975.
[Sh:98] Saharon Shelah. Whitehead groups may not be free, even assuming CH.
II. Israel Journal of Mathematics, 35:257285, 1980.
[Sh 202] Saharon Shelah. On co--Souslin relations. Israel Journal of Mathemat-
ics, 47:139153, 1984.
[Sh 161] Saharon Shelah. Incompactness in regular cardinals. Notre Dame Jour-
nal of Formal Logic, 26:195228, 1985.
[Sh 523] Saharon Shelah. Existence of Almost Free Abelian groups and re-
ection of stationary set. Mathematica Japonica, 45:114, 1997.
math.LO/9606229.
[Sh:f] Saharon Shelah. Proper and improper forcing. Perspectives in Mathe-
matical Logic. Springer, 1998.