Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 162 (2011) 752–754

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Annals of Pure and Applied Logic

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apal

A correction to ‘‘A non-implication between fragments of Martin’s

Axiom related to a property which comes from Aronszajn trees’’
Teruyuki Yorioka
Department of Mathematics, Shizuoka University, Ohya 836, Shizuoka, 422-8529, Japan

article info abstract

Article history: In the paper A non-implication between fragments of Martin’s Axiom related to a property
Received 16 September 2010 which comes from Aronszajn trees (Yorioka, 2010 [1]), Proposition 2.7 is not true. To avoid
Received in revised form 7 February 2011 this error and correct Proposition 2.7, the definition of the property R1,ℵ1 is changed. In
Accepted 10 February 2011
Yorioka (2010) [1], all proofs of lemmas and theorems but Lemma 6.9 are valid about
Available online 25 March 2011
Communicated by A. Nies
this definition without changing the proofs. We give a new statement and a new proof of
Lemma 6.9.
MSC:
© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
03E35
03E50

Keywords:
Martin’s Axiom and its fragments
Non-special Aronszajn trees

In the paper A non-implication between fragments of Martin’s Axiom related to a property which comes from Aronszajn trees
[1], Proposition 2.7 is not true. For example, T is an Aronszajn tree, t1 and t3 are incomparable node of T in a model N, t2 is a
node of T such that t2 ̸∈ N and t1 <T t2 , σ := {t2 , t3 } (which is in a(T )) and I be an uncountable subset of a(T ), which forms
a ∆-system with root {t1 , t3 }. Then, σ ∩ N = {t1 } ⊆ {t1 , t3 }, but every element of I is incompatible with σ in a(T ).
To avoid this error and correct Proposition 2.7, the definition of the property R1,ℵ1 is changed as follows.

Theorem 2.6. A forcing notion Q in FSCO has the property R1,ℵ1 if for any regular cardinal κ larger than ℵ1 , countable elementary
submodel N of H (κ), which has the set {Q}, I ∈ [Q]ℵ1 ∩ N and σ ∈ Q \ N, if I forms a ∆-system with root (exactly) σ ∩ N, then
there exists I ′ ∈ [I ]ℵ1 ∩ N such that every member of I ′ is compatible with σ in Q.

Similarly, we should also change Propositions 2.8 and 2.10.2 as follows.

Proposition 2.8. The property R1,ℵ1 is closed under finite support products in the following sense.
If Qξ ; ξ ∈ Σ is a set of forcing notions in FSCO with the property R1,ℵ1 , κ is a large enough regular cardinal, N is a countable
 

elementary submodel of H (κ), which has the set Qξ ; ξ ∈ Σ , I is an uncountable subset of the finite support product
  ∏
ξ ∈Σ Qξ
in N, σ⃗ ∈ ξ ∈Σ Qξ \ N, I forms a ∆-system with root (exactly) σ⃗ ∩ N, that is,
∏

• the set {supp(⃗τ ); τ ∈ I } forms a ∆-system with root (exactly) supp(σ⃗ ) ∩ N, where supp(⃗ τ ) := {ξ ∈ Σ ; τ⃗ (ξ ) ̸= ∅},
• for each ξ ∈ supp(σ⃗ ) ∩ N, the set {⃗ τ (ξ ); τ ∈ I } forms a ∆-system with root (exactly) σ⃗ (ξ ) ∩ N,
then there exists I ′ ∈ [I ]ℵ1 ∩ N such that every element of I ′ is compatible with σ⃗ in ξ ∈Σ Qξ .
∏

E-mail address: [email protected].

0168-0072/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.apal.2011.02.003
 T. Yorioka / Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 162 (2011) 752–754 753

Proposition 2.10.2. Let Q be a forcing notion in FSCO with the property R1,ℵ1 . Suppose that κ is a regular cardinal larger than
ℵ1 , N is a countable elementary submodel of H (κ), which has the set {Q}, ⟨Ii ; i ∈ n⟩ is a finite sequence of members of the set
[Q]ℵ1 ∩ N, and σ ∈ Q \ N such that ∏ the union i∈n Ii forms a ∆-system with root (exactly) σ ∩ N.
Then, there exists ⟨τi ; i ∈ n⟩ ∈ i∈n Ii such that there exists a common extension of σ and the τi in Q.
The new definition of the property R1,ℵ1 is less restrictive. All examples in the paper [1] has this property. In [1], all
proofs of lemmas and theorems but Lemma 6.9 are valid about this definition without changing the proofs. For example, in
the proof of Proposition 2.7, we have only to check for an uncountable subset I of a(P) in a countable elementary submodel
N of H (κ) and σ ∈ a(P) \ N such that I forms a ∆-system with root σ ∩ N. The proof of this proposition is completely the
same to the one in [1]. The proofs of Theorems 5.3 and 5.4 are adopted for this new definition. Because the property R1,ℵ1
are applied for uncountable sets, which form ∆-systems with root ‘‘ τ ∩ N ’’ in the proofs of Theorems 5.3 and 5.4 in [1]. We
apply the new Proposition 2.10.2 to these ∆-systems.
We have to change only the statement and the proof of Lemma 6.9 as follows.
Lemma 6.9. Suppose that Q is a forcing notion in FSCO with the property R1,ℵ1 , I is an uncountable subset of Q such that
• I forms a ∆-system with root ϵ , and
• for every σ and τ in I, either max(σ \ ϵ) < min(τ \ ϵ) or max(τ \ ϵ) < min(σ \ ϵ),

⃗ = ⟨Mα ; α ∈ ω1 ⟩ is a sequence of countable elementary submodels of H (ℵ2 ) such that {Q, I } ∈ M0 , and for every α ∈ ω1 ,
M
Mβ ; β ∈ α ∈ Mα , and S ⊆ ω1 \ {0} is stationary.
Then, Q(Q, I , M
⃗ , S ) is (T , S )-preserving.
⃗ S be as in the assumption of the statement of the lemma, and T , θ , N as in the statement of the definition of
Proof. Let Q, I, M,
the (T , S )-preservation, (moreover we suppose M ⃗ ∈ N, to calculate levels of conditions in Q) and ⟨h, f ⟩ ∈ Q(Q, I , M
⃗ , S ) ∩ N.
Suppose that ω1 ∩ N ̸∈ S, because if ω1 ∩ N ∈ S, then the condition ⟨h ∪ {⟨ω1 ∩ N , ω1 ∩ N ⟩}, f ⟩ is as desired.
Let
δ := sup {F (ω1 ∩ N ) + 1; F ∈ (ω1 ω1 ) ∩ N } .
Since N is countable, δ is a countable ordinal. We will show that the condition ⟨h ∪ {⟨ω1 ∩ N , δ⟩}, f ⟩ of Q(Q, I , M ⃗ , S ) is our
desired one.
By Lemma 6.6 (in the original paper [1]), ⟨h ∪ {⟨ω1 ∩ N , δ⟩}, f ⟩ is (N , Q(Q, I , M
⃗ , S ))-generic. Suppose that x ∈ T of height
ω1 ∩ N such that for any subset A ∈ N of T , if x ∈ A, then there is y ∈ A such that y <T x. Let Ȧ ∈ N be a Q(Q, I , M ⃗ , S )-name
for a subset of T . We will show that
⟨h ∪ {⟨ω1 ∩ N , δ⟩}, f ⟩ Q ‘‘ x ̸∈ Ȧ or ∃y ∈ Ȧ (y <T x) ".
Let h , f ′ ≤Q(Q,I ,M⃗ ,S ) ⟨h ∪ {⟨ω1 ∩ N , δ⟩}, f ⟩, and assume that
 ′


h ,f ̸ Q ‘‘ x ̸∈ Ȧ ".
 ′ ′

By strengthening h′ , f ′ if necessary, we may assume that

 

h , f Q ‘‘ x ∈ Ȧ ".
 ′ ′

We note that h′ N , f ′ N is in N (because ω1 ∩ N ∈ dom(h′ )) and for every σ ∈ dom(f ′ )\ N, min(σ \ϵ) > δ by the definition
 

of Q(Q, I , M⃗ , S ). Let
L := f ′ (σ ); σ ∈ dom(f ′ ) & f ′ (σ ) ∈ ω1 ∩ N ,
 

which is a finite subset of N, hence is in N. For each α ∈ L, let


τα := (f ′ )−1 [{α}] .


Then, ⟨τα ; α ∈ L⟩ is a condition of the product L Q and for each α ∈ L, τα is an extension of all members of (f ′ )−1 [{α}] in
Q. The sequence ⟨τα ; α ∈ L⟩ does not belong to N; however, we note that the sequence ⟨τα ∩ N ; α ∈ L⟩ belongs to N. We
define a function F with the domain
t ∈ T ; htT (t ) > max(dom(h′ N ))
 

such that for each t ∈ T of height larger than max(dom(h′ N )),


F (t ) := sup β ∈ ω1 ; there exists ⟨k, g ⟩ ∈ Q(Q, I , M
⃗ , S ) such that
• min(dom(k)) = htT (t ),
• k(htT (t )) = β,
• (h′ N ) ∪ k, (f ′ N ) ∪ g is a condition of Q(Q, I , M ⃗ , S ),


• (h N ) ∪ k, (f N ) ∪ g Q(Q,I ,M⃗ ,S ) ‘‘ t ∈ Ȧ ", and

 ′ ′


• for all α ∈ L, min g [{α}] \ ϵ ≥ β .
  −1 
754 T. Yorioka / Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 162 (2011) 752–754

Then, F belongs to N. Let

B := t ∈ T ; htT (t ) > max(dom(h′ N )) & F (t ) = ω1 ,
 

which is also in N. We define a function F ′ with the domain

[max(dom(h′ N )) + 1, ω1 )
such that for a countable ordinal β larger than max(dom(h′ N )),
F ′ (β) := sup F (t ) + 1; t ∈ T \ B & htT (t ) ∈ max(dom(h′ N )), β .
  

This F ′ is a function from ω1 into ω1 and also in N. Hence, F ′ (ω1 ∩ N ) < δ by the definition of δ . Since letting k = h′ \ h′ N
 

and g = f ′ \ f ′ N , k(htT (x)) = h′ (ω1 ∩ N ) = δ , (h′ N ) ∪ k, (f ′ N ) ∪ g Q(Q,I ,M⃗ ,S ) ‘‘ x ∈ Ȧ " and min g −1 [{α}] \ ϵ ≥ δ ,
      
F (x) ≥ δ holds. Therefore, x have to belong to B. Thus, by our assumption, there exists y  ∈ B such that y <T x.
Since F (y) = ω1 and both F and y belong to N, there exists an uncountable subset kξ , gξ ; ξ ∈ ω1 of Q(Q, I , M ⃗ , S)

such that for each ξ and η in ω1 with ξ < η,

(h N ) ∪ kξ , (f ′ N ) ∪ gξ is a condition of Q(Q, I , M ⃗ , S ),
 ′ 
•
(h N ) ∪ kξ , (f N ) ∪ gξ Q(Q,I ,M⃗ ,S ) ‘‘ y ∈ Ȧ ",
 ′ ′

•
• for all α ∈ L,
  
max (τα ∩ N ) < min gξ −1 [{α}] \ ϵ
     
< max gξ −1 [{α}] \ ϵ < min gη −1 [{α}] \ ϵ .

For each ξ ∈ ω1 and α ∈ L, let

   −1 
µξ ,α := f ′ N [{α}] ∪ gη −1 [{α}] .

Then, for every α ∈ L, since


τα ∩ N = (f ′ N )−1 [{α}]


(because of the assumption of I), the set µξ ,α ; ξ ∈ ω1 forms a ∆-system with root τα ∩ N. So by the property R1,ℵ1 of L Q of
 

Proposition 2.8, there exists J ′′ ∈ [ω1 ]ℵ1 ∩ N such that every member of the set µξ ,α ; α ∈ L ; ξ ∈ J ′′ is compatible with
  

⟨τα ; α ∈ L⟩ in L Q. Therefore, when we take any ξ ∈ J ′′ ∩ N, for every α ∈ L, µξ ,α ∪ τα is an extension of all members of
(f ′ )−1 [{α}] ∪ gξ −1 [{α}] in Q, so h′ ∪ kξ , f ′ ∪ gξ is a common extension of h′ , f ′ and kξ , gξ in Q(Q, I , M
⃗ , S ). Moreover, it
     
follows that
h′ ∪ kξ , f ′ ∪ gξ Q(Q,I ,M⃗ ,S ) ‘‘ y ∈ Ȧ ". 
 

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank the referee for his careful reading and useful comments and suggestion.

References

[1] T. Yorioka, A non-implication between fragments of Martin’s Axiom related to a property which comes from Aronszajn trees, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 161
(4) (2010) 469–487.