format: text

text:
# Conformal Dynamics of Precursors to Fracture

## Abstract

An exact integro-differential equation for the conformal map from the unit circle to the boundary of an evolving cavity in a stressed 2-dimensional solid is derived. This equation provides an accurate description of the dynamics of precursors to fracture when surface diffusion is important. The solution predicts the creation of sharp grooves that eventually lead to material failure via rapid fracture. Solutions of the new equation are demonstrated for the dynamics of an elliptical cavity and the stability of a circular cavity under biaxial stress, including the effects of surface stress.

The process of rapid fracture of solids which have failed to sustain stress is a poorly understood subject 99FM ; elasticity theory does not suffice to describe this process, since plastic deformations occur at the most interesting “process zone” where the actual fracture is taking place 00Lan . The displacement field is not the only relevant field, and even if the stress field is given everywhere, it is not known how the fracture propagates: there exist complex interactions with sound waves and maybe other fields 00AKV ; 01KKL . On the whole it is not obvious how to achieve a self consistent theory.

The situation is much clearer when one studies slow processes that may precede rapid fracture. In particular we will discuss in this Letter “precursors” to fracture. Namely, the dynamics of stress driven deformations of cavities (or free surfaces) in solids 86Gri ; 72AT ; 93YS ; 94SM ; 95Gao ; 97WS ; 98BM ; 01BMS ; 01PS ; 02XE . Such deformations are expected to lead, eventually, to the creation of deep grooves which then suffer such large stresses that the solid fails via rapid fracture. The aim of this Letter is to derive and demonstrate a new equation of motion for the conformal map from the unit circle to the evolving stress-driven deformed cavity in 2-dimensional solids. This equation offers an accurate description of the slow evolution of the precursors to failure, until the moment that rapid fracture can be sustained. In contrast to all previous treatments we include both surface energy and surface stress and show that our equation is well posed.

To set up the problem imagine a 2-dimensional elastic medium with a hole of an arbitrary shape, whose boundary $`z(s)`$ is parametrized by the arc-length variable $`s`$. Boundary conditions at infinity load the medium, inducing a displacement field $`u(𝒓)`$ with a strain tensor $`ϵ_{jk}`$, related to the stress by 86LL

$$\sigma _{ij}\frac{E}{1+\nu }\left(ϵ_{ij}+\frac{\nu }{12\nu }\delta _{ij}\underset{k}{}ϵ_{kk}\right).$$
(1)
Here $`\nu `$ is the Poisson ratio and $`E`$ the Young modulus. Under stress there begins a process of surface diffusion which deforms the boundary, with dynamics determined by the velocity $`v_n`$ normal to the boundary,

$$v_n=D\frac{^2\mu }{s^2},$$
(2)
where $`D`$ is a diffusion coefficient that depends on the material and the temperature, and $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential at the boundary 57Mul . The chemical potential is obtained from the change in total energy associated with an infinitesimal variation of the interface 72AT ; 02SB :

$$\mu =\mu _0+C[S\gamma \kappa +\beta \left(\frac{ϵ_{tt}}{n}\kappa ϵ_{tt}\right)],$$
(3)
where $`\gamma `$$`\kappa `$ and $`\beta `$ are a the surface energy, the mean curvature and surface stress respectively. $`S`$ stands for the deformation energy $`S=_{i,j}ϵ_{ij}\sigma _{ij}/2`$ 94SM . The notation $`t`$ and $`n`$ stands for “tangent” and “normal” to the interfce, defined precisely in Eqs.(6). $`\mu _0`$ and $`C`$ are the reference chemical potential and a material parameter that we can take as zero and unity respectively. Note that we differ from 93YS ; 94SM ; 97WS  in taking into account the surface stress. Ref. 93Gri  incorporated all this physics but performed stability analysis of the flat interface only.

To evolve the cavity we need to compute then the chemical potential on its boundary, consistent with the evolving stress field in the medium. We will assert that on the slow time scale of surface diffusion the elastic medium is in equilibrium, i.e. $`_k_k\sigma _{jk}=0\text{ for all }j`$. The general solution of these equations in 2-dimensional is given by 86LL

$$\sigma _{xx}=_y^2\chi ,\sigma _{yy}=_x^2\chi ,\sigma _{xy}=_{xy}\chi ,$$
(4)
where the so called Airy potential $`\chi `$ fulfills the biharmonic equation $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2\chi =0`$. The general solution of this equation is written in complex notation, with $`z=x+iy`$, $`\overline{z}=xiy`$, as

$$\chi (z,\overline{z})=\mathrm{}\left[\overline{z}\varphi (z)+\stackrel{~}{\psi }(z)\right],$$
(5)
where $`\varphi (z)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }(z)`$ are any pair of analytic functions, to be determined from the boundary conditions.

Consider the boundary of the cavity. With $`\alpha `$ the angle between the tangent and the $`x`$-axis at $`z(s)`$, define derivatives in the tangent and normal directions:

$`_t`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )_x+\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )_y`$
$`_n`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )_y+\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )_x.`$ (6)
The surface stress now must be balanced by the normal component of the stress 02SB ; 93Gri :

$$_{tt}\chi =\sigma _{nn}=\beta \kappa .\text{ on the crack}.$$
(7)
On the other hand the mixed derivatives vanish since there is no restoring force along the boundary,

$$_{tn}\chi =\sigma _{tn}=\sigma _{nt}=0\text{ on the crack}.$$
(8)
Using these boundary conditions we can evaluate the chemical potential $`\mu `$ on the boundary \[In principle $`\mu `$ has terms that cannot be written in terms of $`\mathrm{Tr}\sigma `$ alone, however these terms add to zero as a consequence of $`_n\sigma _{nn}=_t\sigma _{nt}`$ and $`d\sigma _{nt}/ds=0`$ on the boundary\]

$$\mu =\left[\frac{1\nu ^2}{E}\left(\frac{(\mathrm{Tr}\sigma )^2}{2}+\beta _n\mathrm{Tr}\sigma \beta \kappa \mathrm{Tr}\sigma \right)\gamma \kappa \right]$$
(9)
Using the fact that $`4^2\chi /z\overline{z}=\sigma _{xx}+\sigma _{yy}=\sigma _{tt}+\sigma _{nn}`$ we can immediately read from Eq. (5),

$$\text{Tr}\sigma =4\mathrm{}[\varphi ^{}(z)].$$
(10)
Thus to compute $`\mu `$ and its derivatives and advance the cavity we only need to determine the function $`\varphi (z)`$. The boundary conditions (7) and (8) are expressed in terms of $`\varphi (z)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }(z)`$ by using Eqs. (6) -(8). We note that $`(\mathrm{cos}\alpha +i\mathrm{sin}\alpha )(_ti_n)=2_{\overline{z}}`$ and on the boundary

$$_t_{\overline{z}}\chi =\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{cos}\alpha +i\mathrm{sin}\alpha )_{tt}\chi =\frac{\beta \kappa }{2}_tz,$$
(11)
where we identify $`_tz(s)`$ as the unit vector tangent to the boundary. Writing the mean curvature as $`\kappa =_t^2z(s)/i_tz(s)`$, this condition reads $`_t\{_{\overline{z}}\chi +i\beta _tz(s)/2\}=0`$. Thus the boundary condition on the interface 52Mus  is

$$\varphi (z(s))+z(s)\overline{\varphi ^{}(z(s))}+\overline{\psi (z(s))}=i\beta _tz(s)+K,$$
(12)
where $`\psi (z)\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{}(z)`$ and $`K`$ is a constant (that can be chosen zero with impunity).

For the boundary conditions at infinity we consider biaxial loading:

$$\sigma _{xx}(\mathrm{})=\sigma _0,\sigma _{yy}(\mathrm{})=\sigma _0,\sigma _{xy}(\mathrm{})=0.$$
(13)
It was shown in 52Mus  that if the integral over the boundary of the RHS of Eq. (12) is zero, then the finiteness of the stresses at infinity implies that the analytic functions have a Laurent expansion of the form

$$\begin{array}{c}\varphi (z)=\varphi _1z+_{i=0}\varphi _iz^i\\ \psi (z)=\psi _1z+_{i=0}\psi _iz^i\end{array}$$
(14)
The freedoms that we have in determining the Airy function (5) allow us to choose $`\varphi _0=0`$ and $`\varphi _1`$ real. Then using the boundary conditions (13) at infinity, we find $`\varphi _1=\sigma _0/2`$, $`\psi _1=0`$.

To proceed consider now a conformal map $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega ,t)`$ which maps the exterior of the unit circle $`ϵ=\mathrm{exp}(i\theta )`$ to the exterior of boundary $`z(s)`$. Our central aim in this Letter is to derive an equation of motion of this map. The normal velocity $`v_n`$ is related to the conformal map as follows: denote by $`\widehat{n}=n_x+in_y`$ and $`z(s)=x(s)+iy(s)`$ the unit vector normal to the boundary, and the position of the boundary respectively . Then

$$v_n(s)=\dot{x}(s)n_x+\dot{y}(s)n_y=\mathrm{}\left[\frac{dz(s)}{dt}\overline{\widehat{n}}\right]=\mathrm{}\left[\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }(ϵ,t)}{dt}\overline{\widehat{n}}\right].$$
(15)
(Note that below we use $`ϵ`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}(i\theta )`$ interchangeably). The tangent ($`\widehat{t}`$) and normal unit vector are given in terms of the conformal map by

$`\widehat{t}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(ϵ)}{s}}={\displaystyle \frac{d\theta }{ds}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(ϵ)}{\theta }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(ϵ)|}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(ϵ)}{\theta }}`$
$`\widehat{n}`$ $`=`$ $`i\widehat{t}.`$ (16)
Using this in Eq.(15) and remembering that $`d\mathrm{\Phi }(e^{i\theta })/dt=_t\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Phi }^{}e^{i\theta }i\theta _t`$ we derive:

$$v_n(s)=\mathrm{}\left(_t\mathrm{\Phi }(ϵ)\overline{ϵ\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(ϵ)}{|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(ϵ)|}}\right).$$
(17)
We rewrite this equation,

$$_t\mathrm{\Phi }(ϵ)\overline{ϵ\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(ϵ)}{|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(ϵ)|}}=v_n+iC,$$
(18)
with an unknown imaginary part $`C`$. Multiplying the last equation by $`ϵ\mathrm{\Phi }^{}/|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}|`$ we get the equivalent equation

$$_t\mathrm{\Phi }=ϵ\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(ϵ)\left(\frac{v_n}{|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}|}+iC^{}\right)$$
(19)
and unknown $`C^{}`$. This equation, valid on the interface, can be analytically continued outside the unit circle. We need to choose $`C^{}`$ such that the term in the parenthesis is an analytic function, removing the freedom in $`C^{}`$. This also fixes the parameterization which was so far arbitrary. All this is achieved with the Poisson integral formula,

$$_t\mathrm{\Phi }=\omega \mathrm{\Phi }^{}(\omega )_0^{2\pi }\frac{d\theta }{2\pi }\frac{\omega +e^{i\theta }}{\omega e^{i\theta }}\frac{v_n(e^{i\theta })}{|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(e^{i\theta })|}$$
(20)
The equation, being analytic, must have analytic solutions which provide the dynamics of the conformal map. In practice, the Poisson integral formula is best expressed in terms of the Fourier components of the function. Given a real function on the unit circle

$$g=\frac{v_n(e^{i\theta })}{|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(e^{i\theta })|}=a_0+\underset{n1}{}(a_ne^{in\theta }+\overline{a}_ne^{in\theta }),$$
(21)
the analytic function outside the circle whose real part on the unit circle is $`g`$ is

$$G=_0^{2\pi }\frac{d\theta }{2\pi }\frac{\omega +e^{i\theta }}{\omega e^{i\theta }}g(e^{i\theta })=a_0+2\underset{n1}{}\overline{a}_n\omega ^n$$
(22)
Thus finally the equation of the conformal map reads
$$_t\mathrm{\Phi }=\omega \mathrm{\Phi }^{}(\omega )G(\omega ).$$
(23)    The conformal map itself (which is univalent) has a Laurent expansion of the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega ,t)=F_1(t)\omega +F_0(t)+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}F_n(t)\omega ^n.$$
(24)
By taking derivatives with respect to $`t`$ and $`\omega `$ and substituting back in Eq.(23) we reduce the dynamics to an infinite set of ordinary differential equations for the Laurent coefficients $`F_i(t)`$. All that remains is to compute the function $`g(ϵ)`$ that is given in terms of $`v_n(ϵ)`$ and the conformal map.

To compute the normal velocity $`v_n(ϵ)`$ first compute $`\mathrm{Tr}\sigma `$ on the boundary. Rewrite Eq.(12) in terms of the conformal map at time $`t`$:

$`\varphi (\mathrm{\Phi }(ϵ,t))`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(ϵ,t)}{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(ϵ,t)}}}\overline{\varphi ^{}(\mathrm{\Phi }(ϵ,t))}+\overline{\psi (\mathrm{\Phi }(ϵ,t))}`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`\beta ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(ϵ,t)}{|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(ϵ,t)|}}.`$
According to Eq.(24) the functions in Eq. (25) read

$`\varphi (\mathrm{\Phi }(ϵ,t))`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _1F_1(t)ϵ+\varphi _0(ϵ)`$
$`\psi (\mathrm{\Phi }(ϵ,t))`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _1F_1(t)ϵ+\psi _0(ϵ),`$ (26)
where the only unknowns now are the expansion coefficients of the functions $`\varphi _0`$ and $`\psi _0`$,

$$\varphi _0(ϵ)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}u_nϵ^n;\psi _0(ϵ)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}v_nϵ^n.$$
(27)
At this point we need to compute the two Fourier transforms

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(ϵ,t)}{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(ϵ,t)}}=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b_jϵ^j;\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(ϵ,t)}{|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(ϵ,t)|}=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_jϵ^j,$$
(28)
substitute them in to Eq. (25), and obtain a system of equations for the coefficients $`u_n`$ and $`v_n`$. In fact upon the substitution one finds that the determination of the function $`\varphi (\omega )`$ is independent of $`\psi (\omega )`$, requiring only negative powers of $`ϵ`$.

Having found the function $`\varphi (\omega )`$ we employ Eq. (10) to compute the trace of the stress tensor anywhere on the boundary. The curvature $`\kappa `$ is:

$$\kappa =\mathrm{}\left(\frac{1}{|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}|}(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }}{\mathrm{\Phi }^{}}e^{i\theta })\right).$$
(29)
Taking the second derivative of the chemical potential we have $`v_n(ϵ)`$. With this function at hand we can return to Eq. (21) and step the equations for the Laurent coefficients, finding the new conformal map, etc.

To demonstrate the efficiency of this procedure, and the interesting predictions it offers for the dynamics of cavities in stressed solids, we present (i) the evolution of an initial elliptical hole and (ii) the stability analysis of a circular hole. For (i) our initial conformal map is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega ,t=0)=F_1(0)\omega +\frac{F_1(0)}{\omega },$$
(30)
where we chose $`F_1(0)=1`$, $`F_1(0)=0.01`$. For material parameters we took $`(1\nu ^2)/E=1`$, $`\gamma =0.2`$, $`D=1`$ and $`\beta =0.1`$, all in dimensionless units. We study the evolution of the initial ellipse under biaxial load with $`\sigma _0=1`$. In Fig. 1 we show the time evolution of $`\rho _t|\mathrm{\Phi }(ϵ,t)||\mathrm{\Phi }(ϵ,0)|`$. In the inset we show the analogous dynamics when $`\beta =0`$, $`\gamma =0.1`$. We see that the tip of the ellipse is advancing at the expense of two dips that develop on its side, but this effect is more dramatic for $`\beta =0`$ as seen in the inset. In Fig.2 we show the normal velocity, with the inset for the same parameters as in Fig.1. Finally, in Fig. 3 we show the curvature at the tip. When the stress at the tip reached the Griffith criterion the material would yield by rapid fracture 93CG .

For (ii) we start with

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega ,t)=R\omega +\underset{n=1}{}f_n(t)\omega ^n;|f_n|<<1n,$$
(31)
which maps the unit circle ($`ϵ=e^{i\theta }`$) to a wavy shaped circle of radius $`R`$. Using our equation (23 for the conformal map, and Eq. (25) which determines the stress, linearizing in small $`f_n`$, it is a straightforward calculation to obtain the stability eigenvalues in the form

$$\lambda _n=\frac{(n+1)^2}{R^2}\left\{\frac{1\nu ^2}{E}\left[\left(\frac{8\sigma _0^2}{R}\frac{12\beta \sigma _0}{R^2}\right)n\left(\frac{4\beta ^2}{R^3}+\frac{2\beta \sigma _0}{R^2}\right)n^22\frac{\beta ^2}{R^3}n^3\right]\frac{2\gamma }{R^2}n\frac{\gamma }{R^2}n^2\right\}.$$
(32)
Contrary to the calculation in 93Gri  our problem is well posed, the cubic term ($`n^3`$) is negative. The analytic result (32) is novel, showing precisely what load is needed to destabilze a circular cavity.

In summary, we stress that surface stress term in $`\mu `$ may matter: it introduces for sharp tips a competitive term proportional to $`r^{3/2}`$ in contrast to the terms proportional to $`1/r`$ of the stress energy and the curvature. surface stress removes the degeneracy of compression and extension, as we see in Eq. (32). In the nonlinear regime the grooves start to form faster for compression. These and related issues will be elaborated further in a future publication.

We thank Efim Brener for suggesting this problem to us, and for some useful e-discussions with him and with R. Spatschek. This work was supported in part by the Minerva Foundation, the European Commission under a TMR grant, and the Fundación Andes under project c-13760.


text:
# The optimal inhomogeneity for superconductivity

## Inhomogeneous 4LL in weak coupling:

We consider a Hubbard Hamiltonian for two coupled 2LLs

$`H=t_{}{\displaystyle \underset{y=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{x,\sigma }{}}[c_{x,y,\sigma }^{}c_{x+1,y,\sigma }+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{C}.]`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{x,\sigma }{}}t_{}[c_{x,1,\sigma }^{}c_{x,2,\sigma }+c_{x,3,\sigma }^{}c_{x,4,\sigma }+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{C}.]`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{x,\sigma }{}}[tc_{x,2,\sigma }^{}c_{3,x,\sigma }+t^{}c_{x,4,\sigma }^{}c_{x,1,\sigma }+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{C}.]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\left\{(U/2){\displaystyle \underset{y=1}{\overset{4}{}}}[\widehat{n}_{x,y}]^2+ϵ[\widehat{n}_{x,1}+\widehat{n}_{x,2}]\right\},`$
where, $`c_{x,y,\sigma }^{}`$ creates an electron with spin $`\sigma `$ on chain $`y`$ at position $`x`$ along the chain and $`\widehat{n}_{x,y}_\sigma c_{x,y,\sigma }^{}c_{x,y,\sigma }`$. We choose units in which the hopping matrix elements along the ladders, $`t_{}=2`$. We set $`t_{}=1`$ along the rungs of each 2LL, and a different coupling $`tt_{}`$ along the rungs connecting the two 2LLs where $`t^{}=0`$ corresponds to OBC and $`t^{}=t`$ to PBC. In addition, one of the two ladders is shifted in energy by an amount $`ϵ=ϵ_0(1t^2)`$. The electrons interact via a weak, on-site Hubbard interaction $`U2\pi t_{}`$. We fix the number of electrons per site, to be close to, but not equal to one.

## First stage renormalization:

It is by now a straightforward procedure 2ll  to derive the weak-coupling RG equations for the large number of distinct running couplings $`g_i`$ that define the various low-energy two-particle scattering processes. These equations always have the form

$$dg_i/d\tau =A_{j,l}^ig_jg_l+𝒪(g^3),$$
(2)
where $`\tau `$ is the log of the bandwidth (cutoff), and $`A_{j,l}^i`$ are coefficients which depend on the details of the non-interacting system under consideration, i.e. in the present case they depend on $`ϵ_0`$, $`t`$, and $`\nu `$. The other inputs to the calculation are the initial values $`g_i(\tau =0)=\lambda _jU1`$, where the dimensionless constants $`\lambda _j`$ also depend on $`ϵ_0`$, $`t`$, and $`\nu `$. Information about the characteristic emergent energy scales is obtained by integrating these equations (typically numerically) until one or more coupling grows to be of order 1.

To be precise, a characteristic gap scale,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{exp}[\tau ^{}]=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\alpha }{U}+𝒪(\mathrm{log}U)\right].$$
(3)
is obtained from the value of $`\tau =\tau ^{}=\alpha /U`$ at which some set of couplings diverge. (The $`𝒪(\mathrm{log}U)`$ correction represents the effect of the neglected cubic terms in powers of $`g`$.) For $`\tau `$ near $`\tau ^{}`$, there are generally a set of strongly divergent couplings, $`g_iG_i(\tau ^{}\tau )^1`$, which all grow to be of order 1 when $`(\tau ^{}\tau )1`$, and so define the new “strong-coupling fixed point.” There is also a set of weakly or non-divergent couplings, $`g_iG_iU^{\gamma _i}(\tau ^{}\tau )^{(1\gamma _i)}`$ with $`\gamma _i>0`$, which remain small, $`g_iG_iU^{\gamma _i}`$, when $`(\tau ^{}\tau )1`$ 3c.pla ; 2ll . What modes are gapped at this strong-coupling fixed point is then determined by bosonizing the model. The order 1 couplings are considered to be large and thus pin (gap) the appropriate modes. As we will discuss below, it may still be necessary to do further analysis to address the fate of the remaining gapless modes at this strong-coupling fixed point, and to account for the effects of the weak residual interactions between them em.ki.za.all b. The coefficient $`\alpha `$ in Eq. (3) , which is the principle result of this initial analysis, clearly depends on the the values of $`t`$ $`ϵ_0`$, and $`\nu `$.

Since this analysis straightforwardly extends the previous treatments of the 2LL and 4LL 2ll , we will not, here, present the details of the calculation. Some representative results, for parameters listed in the captions, are shown in Fig. 1. For homogeneous $`2N`$LLs, $`\alpha `$ increases with the number of chains $`2N`$, as pointed out in Ref. 2ll , so that the gaps decrease exponentially with $`N`$. In the present case, $`\alpha (t)`$ must interpolate between the relatively large value for a homogeneous 4LL when $`t=1`$ and the smaller 2LL value when $`t=0`$ (See Table 1.) . By integrating the one-loop RG equations, we found, to our surprise, that even the dependence of $`\alpha `$ on $`t`$ is not monotonic; $`\alpha (t)`$ first increases with decreasing $`t`$ until it reaches a maximum value at $`t=t_{min}`$, and then decreases (i. e. the gaps increase exponentially) as $`t`$ decreases further.

For $`t^{}<t<t^{}`$ (See Table 1.) all the couplings responsible for gapping the $`3`$ charge and $`4`$ spin modes diverge in proportion to $`(\tau ^{}\tau )^1`$ at $`\tau =\tau ^{}`$, so that all gaps at this C1S0 fixed point are “comparable” magn . On the other hand, for $`t^{}t>0`$ or $`1t>t^{}`$, only the couplings responsible for the gaps in the spin and relative charge modes within two bands diverge like $`(\tau ^{}\tau )^1`$. More specifically, at the resulting (C3S2) fixed point, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}=\mathrm{\Delta }`$ characterizes the pinning of the spin fields convention  $`\varphi _{s,1},\varphi _{s,2}`$ associated with two of the bands (labelled, for simplicity, 1 and 2), and of the relative “superconducting phase,” $`\theta _{\rho ,(12)}(\theta _{\rho ,1}\theta _{\rho ,2})/\sqrt{2}`$, where $`\theta _{\rho ,a}`$ is the field dual to $`\varphi _{\rho ,a}`$. Behavior of this sort has sometimes been interpreted2ll ; 3c.pla  as indicating a transition to a phase with additional gapless modes, i. e., in this case, from a C1S0 phase for $`t^{}>t>t^{}`$ to a C3S2 phase for $`t<t^{}`$ and $`t>t^{}`$. However, we shall seeem.ki.za.all b that there is a crossover, but no phase transition, at $`t=t^{}`$.

## Second-stage renormalization:

For $`t<t^{}`$, the C3S2 strong-coupling fixed point to which the weak-coupling flows have carried us can be thought of as describing a 1D superconductor in bands $`b_A=1,2`$ and two ungapped Luttinger liquids (LL) corresponding to bands $`b_B=3,4`$. The fixed-point Hamiltonian thus consists of $`3`$ gapless charge and $`2`$ gapless spin modes with a renormalized ultra-violet cutoff $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$. However, several residual interactions are left at the end of the first stage of renormalization, and it is necessary to carry out a perturbative stability analysis of the C3S2 fixed point with respect to these interactions em.ki.za.all . In the weak-coupling limit, it turns out that the four singlet Josephson couplings ($`𝒥_{b_A,b_B}`$) between the bands $`b_A`$ and $`b_B`$, i.e. the amplitudes to scatter a zero-momentum pair from $`b_A`$ to $`b_B`$, are the most relevant perturbations and make the C3S2 fixed point unstable. Other interactions, such as the interband or intraband scattering processes in the bands $`B`$, are either irrelevant or marginal in the $`U0`$ limit.

This can be seen by evaluating the scaling dimension of the $`𝒥_{b_A,b_B}`$ ($`d_J`$, approximately equal for both $`b_B`$), which can be estimated again using bosonization. Specifically, one replaces the gapped fields of the two bands $`b_A`$ with their expectation values, while all other fields can be taken as nearly free, i. e. their (spin and charge) LL exponents $`K`$ can be approximately set to $`1`$, since the remaining couplings are small. This procedure (which is standard em.ki.za.all ) leads to the estimate

$$d_J1+1/(4K_{\rho A})$$
(4)
where $`K_{\rho A}`$ is the charge Luttinger exponent of the total charge-mode of bands $`b_A`$. Since krho  $`d_J5/4<2`$, $`𝒥_{b_A,b_B}`$ are relevant perturbations, and diverge at lower energy scales within a strong-coupling RG expansion about the C3S2 fixed point, as anticipated. Again, one can identify the energy scale at which one or more $`𝒥_{b_A,b_B}`$ become of order $`1`$ with the freezing of the associated modes and with the opening of corresponding gaps. Specifically, $`𝒥_{b_A,b_B}`$ open a gap in the spin modes ($`\varphi _{s,b_B}`$ get locked) as well as in the relative charge modes (locking the relative SC phases $`(\theta _{\rho ,1}+\theta _{\rho ,2}2\theta _{\rho ,b_B})/\sqrt{6}`$) resulting in a C1S0 phase. Since all $`𝒥_{b_A,b_B}`$ are comparable magn  and have the same scaling dimension \[Eq. (4) \], all these gaps are comparable as well. These smaller gaps are thus identified as $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SC}`$ of the 4LL. In this C1S0 phase, only the global charge mode $`\varphi _{\rho +}`$ remains ungapped. The criterion discussed above yields

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{SC}\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}𝒥_{AB}^{1/(2d_J)}.$$
(5)
Here, $`𝒥_{AB}^{}`$ is the value of the residual Josephson couplings $`𝒥_{b_A,b_B}`$ left at the end of the first stage of renormalization, i. e. when $`(\tau ^{}\tau )1`$. The numerical asymptotic analysis around the singular point $`\tau ^{}`$ yields a weak divergence of the $`𝒥_{b_A,b_B}`$ with a unique exponent $`\gamma _{AB}0.06`$. Thus, the $`𝒥_{b_A,b_B}`$ attain a value

$$𝒥_{b_A,b_B}^{}𝒥_{A,B}^{}U^{\gamma _{AB}}G_{AB},$$
(6)
which is small but finite for small $`U`$. (It is interesting that $`\gamma _{AB}0.06`$ is independent of $`t`$ (See Table 1.) , although clearly $`G_{AB}`$ vanishes for $`t0`$.)

The optimal $`t`$ is not given by $`t=t^{}`$. Although the ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SC}/\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$ is a rapidly decreasing function of decreasing $`t`$ for $`t<t^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SC}`$ itself still, in general, initially increases due to the exponential increase of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}`$. Anticipating the fact that the optimum value for $`t^2`$ is of the order $`U`$, we can determine it by expanding $`\alpha `$ for small $`t`$ as $`\alpha (t)=\alpha _0+\alpha _1t^2+𝒪(t^4)`$, with $`\alpha _1`$ given in Table 1. Similarly, $`G_{AB}=G_{AB}^{(2)}t^2+𝒪(t^4)`$. Then from Eq. (5) and from the expression for $`𝒥_{A,B}^{}`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{SC}(t)\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}(t=0)\left[U^{\gamma _{AB}}G_{AB}^{(2)}t^2\right]^{x_J}e^{\alpha _1t^2/U},$$
(7)
where $`x_J1/(2d_J)`$. It is now straightforward to determine the value of $`t`$ which maximizes $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SC}`$:

$$t_{opt}^2=\frac{U}{(2d_J)\alpha _1}+𝒪(U^2)$$
(8)
## Quantitative considerations:

The various quantities describing the $`t`$ dependence of the gaps discussed here are reported in Table 1 for $`\nu =1.2`$ and $`ϵ_0=1`$. The curves in Fig. 1 have been computed as follows. We have taken initial values of the coupling constants corresponding to $`U=1`$ and have integrated Eq. (2) numerically for different values of $`t`$ until the largest of the couplings (in modulus) has reached the value $`1`$. This determines $`\tau ^{}(t)`$, and where needed, $`𝒥_{AB}^{}`$. The gaps are then evaluated by using Eq. (3) , and Eq. (5) with $`d_J=5/4`$, respectively.

A different situation occurs when $`ϵ_0=0`$. In this case, the wave functions of the $`U=t=0`$ part of the Hamiltonian are equally distributed on the two 2LL for any nonvanishing $`t`$. As a consequence, the dependence of the gaps on $`t`$ obtained by the method described above is very weak (for PBC there is no dependence at all). In this case, one should use a different method in which couplings with crystal momentum not exactly conserved at the Fermi points have to be included in the first stage of the renormalization. Qualitatively, the results are similar to the $`ϵ_00`$ case, i. e., the SC gap increases with increasing inhomogeneity, there is an optimal value $`t=t_{opt}`$, and a “pseudogap” behavior. However, in this case $`t_{opt}`$ is much smaller and of the order of the 2LL gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}(t=0)`$ elsewhere .

## The effects of disorder.

Orignac and Giamarchi or.gi.all  have shown that disorder is a relevant perturbation (i.e. leads to localization) in the C1S0 phase of the 2LL unless there are strong enough attractive interactions such that the Luttinger exponent, $`K_{\rho +}`$, associated with the gapless total charge mode is greater than $`3/2`$ krho . We now consider the effect of a single-particle disorder potential in the C1S0 phase of the 4LL.

Neglecting forward scattering terms, which turn out not too be crucial here, one can write this potential as

$$H_{dis}=𝑑x\underset{b,b^{}=1}{\overset{4}{}}\widehat{v}_{b,b^{}}(x)e^{i[k_{F,b}+k_{F,b^{}}]x}+H.C.$$
(9)
Here, the operator $`\widehat{v}_{b,b^{}}(x)`$ scatters an electron from band $`b`$ to band $`b^{}`$ and from left to right. $`\widehat{v}_{b,b^{}}`$ is straightforwardly expressed in terms of the bosonic fields. Since in the C1S0 phase, all spin-fluctuations are gapped, to study the low energy consequences of weak disorder we can replace all factors of the form $`e^{i\alpha \varphi _{s,b}}`$ by its constant expectation value. The remaining dependence on the charge and dual spin fields is

$$\widehat{v}_{b,b^{}}(x)\frac{\xi _{b,b^{}}(x)}{2\pi a}e^{i\frac{\varphi _{\rho ,b}+\varphi _{\rho ,b^{}}}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\theta _{s,b}\theta _{s,b^{}}}{\sqrt{2}}+\eta \right)$$
(10)
where the $`x`$ dependence of the bosonic fields is left implicit, and $`\eta `$ is a $`x`$-independent phase. The $`\xi _{b,b^{}}(x)`$ are the random potentials which, for the sake of definiteness, can be taken to obey a Gaussian distribution $`\overline{\xi _{b_1,b_2}(x)\xi _{b_3,b_4}(y)^{}}=W_{b_1,b_2|b_3,b_4}D\delta (xy)`$, where $`D`$ is the disorder strength (proportional to the inverse of the mean-free path), and $`W`$ are numbers of order unity that depend upon details of the band structure. The precise form of the $`W`$ as well as the value of $`\eta `$ are not important for the following analysis.

Now we get to the nub of the problem. The only low energy fluctuations in the C1S0 phase involve the total charge mode, $`\varphi _{\rho +}`$. Since the spin-fields are pinned, the dual spin fields are wildly fluctuating, so that any operator that depends on $`e^{i\alpha \theta _{s,b}}`$ has exponentially falling correlations, and is hence irrelevant in the RG sense. Similarly, since the relative superconducting phases, $`\theta _{\rho ,b}\theta _{\rho ,b^{}}`$, of the various bands are pinned, any operator with a factor $`e^{i\alpha [\varphi _{\rho ,b}\varphi _{\rho ,b^{}}]}`$ is similarly irrelevant. Therefore, both terms in Eq. (10) are irrelevant at low temperatures.

This does not mean disorder is irrelevant. As discussed in Refs. or.gi.96, ; ar.br.96, , additional terms get generated in early stages of the RG flow as the gapped fields get integrated out. It is straightforward to show that the most relevant term is obtained only at fourth order in $`\widehat{v}`$, and has the form

$$H_{eff}=𝑑x\frac{\xi _{eff}(x)}{2\pi a}e^{i\sqrt{8}\varphi _{\rho +}}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{C}.,$$
(11)
where $`\xi _{eff}`$ is an effective disorder potential, which is again Gaussian distributed: $`\overline{\xi _{eff}(x)\xi _{eff}(y)^{}}=D_{eff}\delta (xy)`$, where $`D_{eff}D(D/v_F^2)^3`$.

For weak enough bare disorder weaker , and for energies below the SC gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SC}`$, the RG flow for the renormalized disorder strength $`D_{eff}`$ associated with Eq. (11) can be easily derived in the usual way or.gi.all . The RG equation reads

$$\frac{dD_{eff}}{d\tau }=D_{eff}(34K_{\rho +}),$$
(12)
i. e. disorder is irrelevant for $`K_{\rho +}>3/4`$. This results is very important, as it signals the presence of a localized-delocalized transition in a quasi-one-dimensional system for purely repulsive interactions krho . Moreover, the fact that delocalization is present in weak coupling, i. e. within the range of validity of the present RG procedure, makes the 4LL one of few low-dimensional models in which one can show the occurrence of delocalized states in a controlled manner. This result is valid provided the disorder does not destroy the gaps, i. e. $`Dv_F\mathrm{\Delta }_{SC}`$ weaker .

## Comments and Speculations.

The present results were derived for small $`U`$, where all the emergent energy scales are exponentially small. In many cases, the same physics, and in particular the existence of an optimal degree of inhomogeneity, can be shownem.ki.za.all ; elsewhere  to apply in the strong-coupling limit, as well, where the gap scales are a significant fraction of the exchange interaction, $`J`$. However, quantitative results in this regime generally require some input from numerical experiments.

We note that the present results for the 4LL are qualitatively similar to what happens in high-Tc superconductors such as La2-xSrxCuO4 neutron ; ya.le.98 . In the overdoped region the system is relatively homogeneous, both the pairing and SC scales are relatively small and roughly equal. With decreasing doped hole concentratin, $`x`$, stripe correlations become more prominent and the interstripe distance increases, i. e. the system becomes more effectively inhomogeneous. At the same time, the pseudo-gap scale increases monotonically with decreasing $`x`$, while the SC $`T_c`$ has a maximum at a “optimum” $`x`$ and then decreases. Besides High-Tc superconductors, the effects studied here could be relevant for quasi-one-dimensional systems, such as quantum wires or carbon nanotubes, in which more than one channel cross the Fermi surface. Finally, this idea could, possibly, give direction to the search for better superconductors kive.02 .

We would like to acknowledge useful discussions with T. Giamarchi, D. J. Scalapino, and O. Zachar. EA was supported, in part, by the DFG via a Heisenberg fellowship (AR 324/3-1) and by DOE grant n. DE-FG03-00ER45798. SAK was suppported, in part, by NSF grant #DMR 01-10329 at UCLA.


text:
# Games with creatures

## 1 Introduction

The paper  revealed an intimate connection between the proper forcing technology and determinacy of infinite games. Many definable proper forcings $`P`$ adding a real turn out to have an integer game attached to them. This means that there are Borel sets $`C,D\omega ^\omega `$ and a Borel function $`f:C`$ such that

1. the set $`I=\{A:`$ the second player has a winning strategy in the integer game with payoff set $`Df^1A\}`$ is a $`\sigma `$-ideal
2. every analytic $`I`$-positive set has a Borel $`I`$-positive subset
3. the poset $`P`$ is forcing equivalent to the poset of all Borel $`I`$-positive sets ordered by inclusion.

This is in fact a very natural concept, but it must be illustrated on examples.

###### Example 1.1.

The game attached to Sacks forcing is just the perfect set game  Theorem 102. Just let $`C=\omega ^\omega `$, $`D=0`$ and use a reasonable coding of the perfect set game into an integer game to let $`f:\omega ^\omega `$ be given by $`f(x)=`$the real resulting from the run of the perfect set game coded by $`x`$.

###### Example 1.2.

The game attached to Miller forcing is the unboundedness game of

###### Example 1.3.

The game attached to Cohen forcing is the Baire category game  Theorem 102.

###### Example 1.4.

Mathias forcing does not have an integer game attached to it. This follows from the fact that Mathias forcing can be written as a two step $`\sigma `$-closed\*c.c.c. iteration, see the next paragraph.

In this paper we show that there is a pattern extending to many partial orders obtained by the creature technology of , and in fact the proofs of properness of such posets naturally generate the related games. Why are we interested in the connection? First of all, the concepts of both properness and determinacy have been around for several decades and it is a priori interesting to see if they have anything in common. But there are practical reasons as well. Under suitable determinacy assumptions every forcing $`P`$ with a game ideal $`I`$ attached to it satisfies a dichotomy: every projective set of reals has either a Borel $`I`$-positive subset or a coanalytic $`I`$-small superset–Lemma 4.1. Such a dichotomy simplifies the treatment of the countable support iteration of the poset $`P`$ and the statement of the absoluteness theorems in . Such a dichotomy also means that all intermediate forcing extensions within the $`P`$-extension are c.c.c.

Let us now describe the results of the paper. The creature technology is quite complex and it is difficult–indeed self-defeating–to treat it in its full generality. In the language of  we will deal with partial orders given by suitably definable tree-creating pairs of countable character whose subcomposition operation is trivial, with no glueing. The information carried by such pairs can be coded into a *simple norm*, a Borel function whose domain is the set of all *creatures* of the form $`t,X`$ where $`t\omega ^{<\omega }`$ is a sequence and $`X`$ is a set of its one-step extensions. The values of the function are nonnegative real numbers. A simple norm gives rise to several forcing notions, among them

This is the partial order of all trees $`T\omega ^{<\omega }`$ such that for every natural number $`n`$ and a node $`sT`$ there is a longer node $`tT`$ such that $`\mathrm{𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚}(t,\mathrm{𝑠𝑢𝑐𝑐}_T(t))>n`$. The ordering is by inclusion.

This is the partial order of all trees $`T\omega ^{<\omega }`$ such that for every path $`x[T]`$ the limes inferior of the numbers $`\mathrm{𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚}(xn,\mathrm{𝑠𝑢𝑐𝑐}_T(xn)):n\omega `$ is infinity. The ordering is again by inclusion.

Of course these forcings depend on the choice of the norm, but in this paper all theorems are stated for the general case of an arbitrary simple norm, and we will not mention the dependence. We will always tacitly assume that the full tree $`\omega ^{<\omega }`$ belongs to the poset $`_1`$. There are many standard notions of forcing that can be obtained in this way: Sacks, Miller and Laver forcing, $`PT_{fg}`$ of  7.3.3, the $`LT`$ forcings of  and others.

###### Example 1.5.

Let $`\mathrm{𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚}(t,X)`$ be the length of the sequence $`t`$ if $`X`$ is infinite and $`\mathrm{𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚}(t,X)=0`$ otherwise. Then $`_0`$ is the Miller forcing and $`_1`$ is the Laver forcing.

The exact syntactical complexity of the norm is not critical as long as it is a projective function. For norms more complex than Borel we would have to change the wording of our theorems a bit. However, the norms occurring in practice are very simple. Note that in the case of finitely branching trees the norm is actually a hereditarily countable object.

It turns out that under our assumptions the forcings $`_0`$ are always proper and they carry a particularly simple game. This case is treated in Section 2. The forcings $`_1`$ do not have to be proper, however the most common way of guaranteeing the properness automatically provides an integer game for them. This is shown in Section 3. In Section 4 we investigate the resulting dichotomies.

The notation of this paper follows the set theoretic standard of . For a tree $`T\omega ^{<\omega }`$ and a node $`tT`$ the symbol $`\mathrm{𝑠𝑢𝑐𝑐}_T(t)`$ denotes the set of immediate successors of the node $`t`$ in the tree $`T`$. In forcing, we follow the western convention of writing $`qp`$ when $`q`$ is a condition more informative than $`p`$. For forcings $`_0`$ and $`_1`$ the symbol $`\dot{r}_{\mathrm{𝑔𝑒𝑛}}`$ stands for the name for the generic function in $`\omega ^\omega `$, in both cases equal to the intersection of all the trees in the generic filter. The abbreviation LC denotes a use of a suitable large cardinal hypothesis.

## 2 The $`_0`$ forcing

For the $`_0`$ forcing arising from some simple norm, it is natural to consider the collection

###### Definition 2.1.

$`I_0`$ is the collection of all sets $`A\omega ^\omega `$ which have an $`F_\sigma `$-superset $`B`$ such that for no tree $`T_1`$ we have $`[T]B`$.

This collection can be restated in terms of an infinite game:

###### Definition 2.2.

Let $`A\omega ^\omega `$ be a set. The infinite game $`G_0(A)`$ is played between Adam and Eve. First, Adam plays a sequence $`t_0\omega ^{<\omega }`$. After that, stage $`n`$ of the game proceeds as follows: a sequence $`t_n\omega ^{<\omega }`$ is given and Adam plays one by one some of its one step extensions (beginning a construction of a creature of norm $`n`$). The stage $`n`$ ends when (and if) Eve accepts one of these extensions, after which Adam extends it further in an arbitrary way to a sequence $`t_{n+1}\omega ^{<\omega }`$. Adam wins if either at some stage $`n`$ Eve did not accept any of his extensions of the sequence $`t_n`$ and the creature he constructed has norm $`n`$, or else $`_nt_nA`$.

And the following is the key fact:

###### Lemma 2.3.

1. Adam has a winning strategy in the game $`G_0(A)`$ if and only if for some tree $`T_0`$ it is the case that $`[T]A`$.
2. Eve has a winning strategy in the game $`G_0(A)`$ if and only if $`AI_0`$.
3. $`I_0`$ is a $`\sigma `$-ideal and $`_0`$ is forcing equivalent to the algebra of Borel $`I_0`$-positive sets ordered by inclusion.

###### Proof.

The first item is almost trivial. Suppose that Adam has a winning strategy in the game $`G_0(A)`$. Then the initial segment closure of the set of all sequences that can possibly come up in a play following the strategy, is some tree $`T`$, and it is not difficult to see that $`T_0`$ and $`[T]A`$. On the other hand, if for some tree $`T_0`$ we have $`[T]A`$, then Adam can win the game $`G(A)`$ by playing only the nodes that occur on the tree $`T`$. The reader can easily complete the standard argument.

For the second item, it is now clear from (1) and Borel determinacy that if $`AI_0`$ then Eve has a winning strategy in the game $`G_0(A)`$. For the converse, suppose that Eve has a winning strategy $`\sigma `$ in the game $`G_0(A)`$ and fix some notation: given a partial run $`v`$ of the game which ends with Eve accepting some sequence $`t_v`$ at a stage $`n_v`$, let $`T_v=\{t\omega ^{<\omega }:`$ no intermediate node $`t_vst`$ can be accepted by Eve in some run of the game $`G_0`$ extending $`v`$ and respecting the strategy $`\sigma \}`$. It is not difficult to see that except for the initial segments of the sequence $`t_v,`$ the collection $`T_v`$ is closed under initial segment, and no node in it can branch into more than $`\mathrm{𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚}=n_v+1`$ many immediate successors. We will show that $`A_v[T_v]`$ and that no tree $`T_1`$ has $`[T]_v[T_v]`$, concluding the proof of the second item. For the first statement, if $`r_v[T_v]`$ then it is possible to construct runs $`0=v_0v_1\mathrm{}`$ respecting the strategy $`\sigma `$ in such a way that $`t_{v_m}r`$ using the fact that at each stage $`m`$ of the construction, the real $`r\omega ^\omega `$ must steer out of the tree $`T_{v_m}`$. Then $`_mv_m`$ is a run of the game $`G_0`$ according to the winning strategy $`\sigma `$ resulting in the real $`r`$, meaning that $`rA`$. For the second statement, choose a tree $`T_0`$. Enumerate all partial runs respecting the strategy $`\sigma `$ by $`v_m:m\omega `$ and construct nodes $`0=t_0t_1`$ so that the node $`t_{m+1}`$ branches into more than $`\mathrm{𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚}=n_{v_m}+1`$ many immediate successors and the node $`t_{m+2}`$ falls out of the tree $`T_{v_m}`$. Then $`_mt_m`$ is a branch through the tree $`T`$ which is not in the set $`_v[T_v]`$.

There are now two dual ways to show that the collection $`I_0`$ is a $`\sigma `$-ideal; one uses a fusion argument with the poset $`_0`$ and the other will combine countably many Eve’s strategies into one. Both of the arguments are rather standard, and one point in this paper is that they are really the same thing. Let us perform the fusion argument. Suppose that $`A_n:n\omega `$ are $`F_\sigma `$ sets, each of them without a subset of the form $`[T]`$ where $`T_0`$. Clearly $`_nA_n`$ is a $`F_\sigma `$ set and it is enough to prove that it does not contain all branches of some $`_0`$ tree $`T`$. Suppose for contradiction it does; then $`T\dot{r}_{\mathrm{𝑔𝑒𝑛}}_n\dot{A}_n`$ and by thinning out the tree $`T`$ if necessary we may find a particular number $`n`$ such that $`T\dot{r}_{\mathrm{𝑔𝑒𝑛}}\dot{A}_n`$. Certainly $`A_n`$ is an analytic set and there is a tree $`U(\omega \times \omega )^{<\omega }`$ which projects into $`A_n`$ in all generic extensions, in particular in the $`_0`$ extension. So there is a name $`\tau `$ for a function in $`\omega ^\omega `$ such that $`T\dot{r}_{\mathrm{𝑔𝑒𝑛}},\tau `$ is a branch through the tree $`\stackrel{ˇ}{U}`$. A standard fusion argument will now yield a condition $`ST`$ in the poset $`_0`$ such that for every number $`m`$ the tree $`S_m=\{sS:Ss`$ does not decide the value of $`\tau (\stackrel{ˇ}{m})\}`$ is wellfounded. This means that for every branch $`x`$ through the tree $`S`$ the expression $`\tau /x`$ makes sense, it is a function in $`\omega ^\omega `$ and $`x,\tau /x`$ is a branch through the tree $`U`$. This is to say that $`[S]A_n`$, contradicting the properties of the set $`A`$.

It is now clear that the poset $`_0`$ is isomorphic to the algebra of $`I_0`$-positive Borel sets ordered by inclusion: the function $`\pi (T)=[T]`$ is an order isomorphism between the poset $`_0`$ and a dense subset of the algebra. ∎

Thus the poset $`_0`$ has a game attached to it, namely the game $`G_0`$, and the corresponding ideal has a basis consisting of $`F_\sigma `$ sets. This has numerous consequences for the forcing properties of the poset, see for example .

Whenever $`I`$ is a $`\sigma `$-ideal with a basis consisting of $`F_\sigma `$ sets, then the algebra of $`I`$-positive Borel sets is a proper notion of forcing . There are very many such algebras and by far not all of them are forcing equivalent to a poset of the form $`_0`$, if only for the reason that closed sets are not dense in them. A simple example is the ideal of meager sets: while the equivalence classes of clopen sets are dense in the factor algebra of Borel sets modulo the meager sets, the closed sets themselves are not dense in the original unfactored algebra of nonmeager Borel sets ordered by inclusion. A somewhat more sophisticated example is provided by the ideal $`\sigma `$-generated by closed measure zero sets. Clearly, no positive Borel measure zero set can have a closed positive subset, and the situation carries over to the factor algebra as well.

## 3 The $`_1`$ forcing

Now let us look at the forcing $`_1`$ arising from some simple norm. It is natural to consider the following object:

###### Definition 3.1.

$`I_1`$ is the collection of all sets $`A\omega ^\omega `$ which have a coanalytic superset $`B\omega ^\omega `$ such that for no tree $`T_1`$ it is the case that $`[T]B`$.

It is not difficult to express the collection $`I_1`$ in terms of an infinite game:

###### Definition 3.2.

Let $`A\omega ^\omega `$ be a set. The infinite game $`G_1(A)`$ between players Adam and Eve is played as follows. First Adam indicates a sequence $`t_0\omega ^{<\omega }`$. Then, at stage $`n`$ of the game a sequence $`t_n`$ will be known, Adam will play a natural number $`m_n`$ and then one-by-one a set of one-step extensions of the sequence $`t_n`$ (beginning a construction of a creature of norm $`>m_n`$ based on $`t_n`$). The stage $`n`$ will be finished when (and if) Eve accepts one of these extensions to become $`t_{n+1}`$. Adam wins if either at some stage $`n`$ Eve has not played for infinitely many rounds and the creature Adam constructed at that stage has norm $`>m_n`$, or else the numbers $`\{m_n:n\omega \}`$ diverge to infinity and the real $`_nt_n`$ belongs to the set $`A`$.

We will use the occassion to fix some notation relevant to the game $`G_1.`$ The real $`_nt_n`$ will be referred to as the *outcome* of the play. The numbers $`m_n`$ that Adam plays will be called *norms*. If $`uv`$ are two runs of the game $`G_1`$ then we will say that the run $`v`$ $`n`$*-extends* the run $`u`$ if all the norms played on $`vu`$ are greater or equal to $`n`$. A *good* strategy for Eve is one that cannot be defeated by reason of not accepting any node at some stage while Adam constructs a creature of a suitable norm at that stage. Clearly, the set of all good strategies for Eve is a coanalytic set. A play of the game is *correct* if Eve accepts a node at all the infinitely many stages, and the norms played diverge to infinity.

It is not difficult to verify

###### Lemma 3.3.

1. Adam has a winning strategy in the game $`G_1(A)`$ if and only if there is a tree $`T_1`$ such that $`[T]A`$.
2. (LC) Eve has a winning strategy in the game $`G_1(A)\}`$ if and only if $`AI_1`$.

###### Proof.

The first item is next to trivial. If, on one hand, there is a tree $`T_1`$ such that $`[T]A`$ then Adam can win the game $`G_1(A)`$ by simply making sure that $`t_nT`$, playing $`m_n=\mathrm{𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚}(t_n,\mathrm{𝑠𝑢𝑐𝑐}_T(t_n))`$, and on the $`n`$-th stage simply enumerating all the immediate successors of the node $`t_n`$ in the tree $`T`$. On the other hand, Adam has a winning strategy $`\sigma `$ in the game $`G_1(A)`$ then the tree $`T`$ of all nodes that can occur as some $`t_n`$ in some run of the game observing the strategy $`\sigma `$, is an element of the poset $`_1`$ such that $`[T]A`$, as the reader can easily verify.

For the second item, first prove the right-to-left inclusion. Suppose $`\sigma `$ is Eve’s winning strategy in the game $`G_1(A)`$. Then the set $`A`$ is included in the coanalytic set $`B=\omega ^\omega `$the set of all outcomes of the correct plays which observe the strategy $`\sigma `$. The strategy $`\sigma `$ is still winning for Eve in the game $`G_1(B)`$, and by the first item the set $`B`$ does not have a subset of the form $`[T]`$ for a tree $`T_1`$. Thus $`AI_1`$. For the other inclusion, suppose that $`AI_1`$ is a set. This means that $`A`$ is a subset of a coanalytic set $`B`$ without a $`_1`$-tree in it. By the analytic determinacy and the first item, Eve has a winning strategy in the game $`G_1(B)`$, which is of course winning even in the game $`G_1(A)`$. ∎

Comparing the situation with the parallel development in the previous section, now it would be natural to prove that $`I_1`$ is a $`\sigma `$-ideal; then, as in Lemma 2.3(3), the poset $`_1`$ will be forcing equivalent to the algebra of $`I_1`$-positive Borel sets ordered by inclusion and $`G_1`$ will be the game attached to the forcing $`P_1`$. However, here the situation is complicated by the fact that the collection $`I_1`$ is not necessarily a $`\sigma `$-ideal, a problem that is connected with the possibility that the poset $`_1`$ is not proper.

We will prove two implications: “$`_1`$ has continuous reading of names” implies that “$`I_1`$ is a $`\sigma `$-ideal”, which in turn implies that “$`_1`$ is proper”. Here, the continuous reading of names is the most common tool to ensure the properness of the forcing $`_1`$. Thus we can be satisfied to conclude that for the forcings of the form $`_1`$ the existence of an attached integer game is tightly connected with properness. Note that if $`I_1`$ is a $`\sigma `$-ideal then the generic filter on $`_1`$ can be reconstructed from the generic real as the set of all conditions in $`_1`$ containing the real by Lemma 2.1 of . This property can fail for certain variations of the tree creature forcings.

It should be remarked that it is in general impossible to find a basis for the ideal $`I_1`$ consisting of $`F_\sigma `$ sets. The reason is that for a suitable norm the forcing $`_1`$ can add a dominating real, and such a real cannot be added by an algebra of Borel $`I`$-positive sets ordered by inclusion, where $`I`$ is an ideal with basis consisting of $`F_\sigma `$ sets. However, in many cases it is possible to find a basis for the ideal $`I_1`$ consisting of rather simple Borel sets, for example the ideal associated with the Laver forcing has a basis consisting of $`G_\delta `$ sets.

###### Definition 3.4.

The forcing $`_1`$ has *continuous reading of names* if for every collection $`\{O_n:n\omega \}`$ of open dense subsets of it and every tree $`T_1`$ there is a subtree $`ST`$ in the poset $`_1`$ such that for every number $`n`$ the set $`S_n=\{tS:StO_n\}`$ is wellfounded.

While this notion has not been explicitely defined in print, it has very often been used. Cf. Lemma 2.3.6(2) in . It is not difficult to see that if the poset $`_1`$ has continuous reading of names then it preserves $`\mathrm{}_1`$ and every real in the extension is an image of the generic real under a continuous function in the ground model–hence the name.

###### Lemma 3.5.

(LC) Suppose that the forcing $`_1`$ has continuous reading of names. Then $`I_1`$ is a $`\sigma `$-ideal.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`I_1`$ is not a $`\sigma `$-ideal; then there must be $`I_1`$-small sets $`A_n:n\omega `$ such that $`_nA_nI`$. Let $`B_n`$ be coanalytic sets such that $`A_nB_n`$ and for no tree $`T_1`$ and no natural number $`n`$, $`[T]B_n`$. Now $`_nA_n_nB_n`$ and $`_nB_nI_1`$ is a coanalytic set. By the analytic determinacy and the previous lemma, there is a tree $`T_1`$ such that $`[T]_nB_n`$. Clearly, $`T\dot{r}_{\mathrm{𝑔𝑒𝑛}}_n\dot{B}_n`$ and strengthening the tree $`T`$ if necessary we may assume that there is a specific number $`n`$ such that $`T\dot{r}_{\mathrm{𝑔𝑒𝑛}}\dot{B}_n`$. Let $`U(\omega \times \omega _1)^{<\omega }`$ be a tree whose projection in all $`\omega _1`$-preserving extensions is the set $`B_n`$. Thus $`T\dot{r}_{\mathrm{𝑔𝑒𝑛}}p[\stackrel{ˇ}{U}]`$ and there must be a $`_1`$-name $`\tau `$ for a function from $`\omega `$ to $`\omega _1`$ such that $`T\dot{r}_{\mathrm{𝑔𝑒𝑛}},\tau `$ is a branch through the tree $`\stackrel{ˇ}{U}`$. By the continuous reading of names, there is a subtree $`ST`$ in the poset $`_1`$ such that for every natural number $`m`$ the subtree $`S_m=\{tS:St`$ does not decide the value of $`\tau (\stackrel{ˇ}{m})\}`$ is wellfounded. This means that for every path $`xp[S]`$ the formula $`\tau /x=\{m,\alpha :`$ for some initial segment $`tx`$ with $`St\tau (\stackrel{ˇ}{m})=\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }\}`$ defines a total function from $`\omega `$ to $`\omega _1`$ and the pair $`x,\tau /x`$ constitutes a path through the tree $`U.`$ This is to say that $`[S]B_n`$ contradicting the choice of the set $`B_n`$. ∎

Note that we have not used anything concerning the definability of the ordering $`_1`$ in the above proof.

###### Lemma 3.6.

(LC) If $`I_1`$ is a $`\sigma `$-ideal then the forcing $`_1`$ is proper.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`I_1`$ is a $`\sigma `$-ideal. Then the poset $`_1`$ is forcing equivalent to the algebra of Borel $`I_1`$-positive sets ordered by inclusion, and it is enough to argue for the properness of the algebra. We will prove the following claim of independent interest:

###### Claim 3.7.

(LC) Let $`P`$ be a poset adding a real $`\dot{r}`$ which is forced to fall out of all ground model coded $`I_1`$-small sets. Let $`M`$ be a countable elementary submodel of a large enough structure. For every condition $`pPM`$ the set $`\{\dot{r}/g:gPM`$ is an $`M`$-generic filter$`\}`$ is $`I_1`$-positive.

The lemma follows immediately from the claim applied to the special case of the algebra of Borel $`I_1`$ positive sets via Lemma 2.2. of . To prove the claim, fix the poset $`P`$ and the name $`\dot{r}`$. Choose a measurable cardinal $`\kappa >|P|`$ and fix the usual tree $`U(\omega \times \kappa )^{<\omega }`$ projecting into the coanalytic set of all good Eve’s strategies for the game $`G_1`$. Consider another infinite game $`H`$ with the following rules: player I first indicates a condition $`p_0P`$ and then produces one-by-one open dense sets $`O_n:n\omega `$ of the poset $`P`$ and nodes $`u_0u_1\mathrm{}`$ in the tree $`U`$. Thus $`_nu_n`$ is a branch through the tree $`U`$ and its first coordinates constitute a good Eve’s strategy that we will denote by $`\sigma `$. Meanwhile, player II is allowed to tread water–to wait for an arbitrary finite number of rounds before his next move. He produces one-by-one conditions $`p_0p_1\mathrm{}`$ and partial runs $`0=v_0v_1v_2\mathrm{}`$ of the game $`G_1`$. Player II wins if the filter $`g`$ generated by the conditions $`\{p_n:n\omega \}`$ meets all the sets $`\{O_n:n\omega \}`$, the run $`_nv_n`$ is correct, it respects the strategy $`\sigma `$, and it results in the real $`\dot{r}/g`$.

###### Claim 3.8.

(LC) Player II has a winning strategy in the game $`H`$.

Claim 3.7 follows. Fix Player II’s winning strategy $`\tau `$, let $`M`$ be a countable elementary submodel of a large enough structure with $`\tau M`$, let $`pPM`$ and consider the set $`A=\{\dot{r}/g:pg,gPM`$ is an $`M`$-generic filter$`\}`$. Suppose for contradiction that $`AI_1`$; then there must be Eve’s good winning strategy $`\sigma `$ in the game $`G_1(A)`$. Let $`N`$ be an elementary submodel such that $`M𝒫(P)=N𝒫(P)`$ and the ordertype of the set $`N\kappa `$ is $`\omega _1`$; there is such a model due to the measurability of the cardinal $`\kappa `$. The tree $`UN`$ still projects into the set of all Eve’s good strategies, in particular, there is a branch through the tree $`UN`$ which gives the strategy $`\sigma `$. Now simulate a run of the game $`H`$ in which player II follows his strategy $`\tau `$ and player I puts $`p=p_0`$ and then enumerates the incriminated branch of the tree $`UN`$ and all the open dense subsets of the poset $`P`$ in the model $`M`$. Since Player II’s moves come from the model $`N`$ and $`\tau N`$, player I’s responses come from the model $`N`$ too (or $`M`$, which is the same thing due to the choice of the model $`N`$). Let $`gPM`$ be the filter and let $`v`$ be the run of the game $`G_1`$ generated by player II’s responses. Clearly, $`\dot{r}/gA`$ and $`v`$ is a run of the game $`G_1(A)`$ which respects the strategy $`\sigma `$ which results in this real–that is, Adam has won. Thus the strategy $`\sigma `$ was not winning for Eve, contradiction.

The observation critical for the proof of Claim 3.8 is that the payoff set of the game $`H`$ is Borel in the space of all possible runs of the game, therefore the game is determined by . So it is enough to derive a contradiction from the assumption that player I has a winning strategy $`\tau `$. Player II will construct a counterplay consisting of conditions $`p_n`$ and partial runs $`v_n`$ using the following induction hypothesis:

1. the condition $`p_n`$ and the run $`v_n`$ are played at the same time, $`p_{n+1}O_n`$
2. the partial run $`v_n`$ obeys the part of the strategy $`\sigma `$ that is known by the time the run $`v_n`$ is played. The run $`v_n`$ ends with Eve accepting some sequence $`t_n`$ and $`p_n\stackrel{ˇ}{t}_{n1}\dot{r}`$. The run $`v_{n+1}`$ $`n`$-extends the run $`v_n`$.
3. The condition $`p_n`$ is $`v_n,n`$-good, meaning that for every good Eve’s strategy $`\sigma `$ which can output the run $`v_n`$ there exists a condition $`qp_n`$ such that $`q`$ there is a complete run of the game $`G_1`$ which $`n`$-extends the run $`v_n`$, it is correct, it respects the strategy $`\sigma `$ and results in the real $`\dot{r}`$.

The first two items say that if player II can perform the construction, the result will be a run of the game $`H`$ against the strategy $`\tau `$ in which he wins, contradicting the assumption on the strategy $`\tau `$. The third item is just an extra induction hypothesis designed so as to make the inductive step possible.

In the beginning, the condition $`p_0`$ is given, and let $`v_0=0`$. The induction hypothesis is satisfied. Note that the third item in this case is implied by the assumption that the real $`\dot{r}`$ is forced to fall out of all ground model coded $`I_1`$-small sets. Suppose $`p_n,v_n`$ are known. To construct the condition $`p_{n+1}`$ and the run $`v_{n+1}`$, first look at what happens if player II treads water from this point on. Of course, in this way he loses, but the main point is that the strategy $`\tau `$ will have to continue playing, creating Eve’s strategy $`\sigma `$ and also, somewhere on the way, the open dense set $`O_nP`$. Since the condition $`p_nP`$ is $`v_n,n`$-good, there is a condition $`qp_n`$ with the properties described in the third item above. Strengthening the condition $`q`$ if necessary, we may assume that $`qO_n`$.

###### Claim 3.9.

(LC) There is a partial run $`w`$ of the game $`G_1`$ which $`n`$-extends the run $`v_n`$, in which Eve uses the strategy $`\sigma `$, at the last move in it she accepts some sequence $`t_{n+1}`$ properly extending $`t_n`$, and such that the condition $`q`$ is $`w,n+1`$-good.

This will conclude the inductive step, since player II will be able to play $`p_{n+1}=q,v_{n+1}=w`$ as soon as the strategy $`\tau `$ reveals the open dense set $`O_n`$ and enough of the strategy $`\sigma `$ to see that $`w`$ is a run in which Eve uses that strategy, and the inductive hypothesis will continue to hold.

Well, suppose that the claim fails. Then for each run $`w`$ satisfying the assumptions of the claim we can find a strategy $`\sigma _w`$ for Eve in the game $`G_1`$ showing that the condition $`q`$ is not $`w,n+1`$-good. This means that $`q\dot{r}\dot{X}`$ where $`X=\{s\omega ^\omega :`$ there is a complete correct run $`n`$-extending the run $`v_n`$, respecting the strategy $`\sigma `$, and resulting in the real $`s`$; however, for no partial run $`w`$ satisfying the assumptions of the claim there is a correct complete run $`n+1`$-extending the run $`w`$ which follows the strategy $`\sigma _w`$ and results in the real $`s\}`$. The definition of the set $`X`$ is a mouthful, but it is really a boolean combination of analytic sets. By our large cardinal assumptions, the game $`G_1(X)`$ is determined and either $`XI_1`$ or $`[T]X`$ for some tree $`T_1`$. The first case is impossible, since $`q\dot{r}\dot{X}`$ and the real $`\dot{r}`$ is forced to fall out of all ground model coded $`I_1`$-small sets. So we are stuck in the second case. There must be a node $`t_{n+1}`$ extending $`t_n`$ in the tree $`T`$ such that all the norms above that node are $`n+1`$. There must be a partial run $`w`$ $`n`$-extending the run $`v_{n+1}`$, in which Eve follows the strategy $`\sigma `$ and in her last move accepts exactly the sequence $`t_{n+1}`$. Now clearly Adam can $`n+1`$-extend the run $`w`$ into a correct complete run against the strategy $`\sigma _w`$ by playing only nodes of the tree $`T`$ below $`t`$. The result of that run should be a real which is not in the set $`X`$ by its definition. At the same time, it will be a branch through the tree $`T`$ and as such it does belong to the set $`X`$. Contradiction. ∎

## 4 The dichotomies

The natural conclusion of the previous sections are the following dichotomies. Consult  for the definition of $`I`$-perfect sets and iterated Fubini power $`I^\alpha `$ for $`\sigma `$-ideals $`I`$ on the reals.

###### Lemma 4.1.

(LC) Suppose that $`P`$ is a proper forcing with an integer game attached to it, as witnessed by Borel sets $`C,D\omega ^\omega `$, a Borel function $`f:C`$ and the $`\sigma `$-ideal $`I`$. For every universally Baire set $`A\omega ^\omega `$,

1. either $`A`$ has a Borel $`I`$-positive subset
2. or $`A`$ has a coanalytic $`I`$-small superset.

For every countable ordinal $`\alpha `$ and every universally Baire set $`A(\omega ^\omega )^\alpha `$,

1. either $`A`$ has a Borel $`I`$-perfect subset
2. or $`A`$ is $`I^\alpha `$-small.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`A\omega ^\omega `$ is universally Baire set. Suitable large cardinal assumptions imply that the integer game with the payoff set $`Df^1A`$ is determined. If player I has a winning strategy $`\sigma `$, then the set $`f^{\prime \prime }\sigma ^{\prime \prime }\omega ^\omega A`$ is analytic, it is $`I`$-positive since $`\sigma `$ remains a winning strategy for player I in the associated game, therefore it has a Borel $`I`$-positive subset and we are in the first case of the dichotomy. If on the other hand player II has a winning strategy $`\sigma `$ then the set $`f^{\prime \prime }\sigma ^{\prime \prime }\omega ^\omega A`$ is coanalytic and it is in the ideal $`I`$ since the strategy $`\sigma `$ remains a winning strategy for player II in the associated game.

The second dichotomy is proved using the first dichotomy and the results of . ∎

###### Lemma 4.2.

(LC) The above dichotomies hold for the forcing $`_0`$. Suppose that the forcing $`_1`$ has continuous reading of names. Then the above dichotomies hold for $`_1`$ as well.

All similar dichotomies beg a question: what happens in the classical choiceless Solovay model?

###### Lemma 4.3.

(LC) Suppose that the forcing $`_1`$ has continuous reading of names and $`\kappa `$ is an inaccessible cardinal. The above dichotomies hold in the model $`V()V[G]`$ for all subsets of $`\omega ^\omega `$ and $`(\omega ^\omega )^\alpha `$ respectively, whenever $`G\mathrm{𝐶𝑜𝑙𝑙}(\omega ,<\kappa )`$ is a generic filter. The same holds about the forcing $`_0`$.

###### Proof.

We will treat the case of the $`_1`$ forcing, the $`_0`$ case being much simpler.

Start with the first dichotomy. Suppose that $`AV()`$ is a subset of $`\omega ^\omega `$. By a standard argument we may assume that the set $`A`$ is definable in $`V()`$ as $`A=\{r\omega ^\omega :\varphi (r,t)\}`$ from some parameter $`t`$ in the ground model. Assume that the set $`A`$ is forced to be $`I_1`$-positive. Then there must be in $`V`$ a forcing $`P`$ of size $`<\kappa `$ and a $`P`$-name $`\dot{r}`$ such that $`P`$“the real $`\dot{r}`$ falls out of all the $`I_1`$-small sets coded in the ground model and $`\mathrm{𝐶𝑜𝑙𝑙}(\omega ,<\kappa )V()\varphi (\dot{r},\stackrel{ˇ}{t})`$”. By essentially Claim 3.7 applied in the model $`V[G]`$ to the model $`V`$ instead of the arbitrary countable $`M`$, the set $`B=\{r/g:gP`$ is $`V`$-generic$`\}`$ is $`I_1`$-positive. It is also a Borel set, and by the choice of the name $`\dot{r}`$ and the homogeneity properties of the forcing $`\mathrm{𝐶𝑜𝑙𝑙}(\omega ,<\kappa )`$, it is also the case that $`BA`$.

For the second dichotomy assume that $`\alpha \kappa `$ is an ordinal and $`A(\omega ^\omega )^\alpha `$ is a set in $`V()`$. Working in the model $`V()`$, we will show that if the set $`A`$ is not $`I_1^\alpha `$-small, then it contains an $`I_1`$-perfect Borel subset. By a standard argument we may assume that $`\alpha \omega _1^V`$ and the set $`A`$ is definable as $`A=\{\stackrel{}{r}(\omega ^\omega )^\alpha :\varphi (\stackrel{}{r},t)\}`$ from some parameter $`t`$ in the ground model. Consider the following strategy $`\sigma `$ for Adam in the transfinite game of length $`\alpha `$ defining the ideal $`I_1^\alpha `$: the strategy $`\sigma `$ applied to a string $`\stackrel{}{s}`$ of Eve’s answers gives the set $`\{X:XI_1`$ coded in the model $`V[\stackrel{}{s}]`$. If the set $`A`$ is not $`I_1^\alpha `$-small, there must be a sequence $`\stackrel{}{r}A`$ which is a legal counterplay against this strategy. This means that back in $`V`$ there is a poset $`P`$ of size $`<\kappa `$ and a $`P`$-name $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ for an $`\alpha `$-sequence of reals such that $`P`$“for every $`\beta \stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }`$, $`\stackrel{}{r}(\beta )\{X:XI_1`$ coded in the model $`V[\stackrel{}{r}\beta ]\}`$; moreover $`\mathrm{𝐶𝑜𝑙𝑙}(\omega ,<\kappa )\varphi (\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{ˇ}{t})`$”.

Back to the model $`V()`$. Call a sequence $`\stackrel{}{s}(\omega ^\omega )^\alpha `$ $`P`$*-generic* if there is a $`V`$-generic filter $`gP`$ such that $`\stackrel{}{s}\stackrel{}{r}/g`$. For such a sequence $`\stackrel{}{s}`$ and a condition $`pP`$ we will say that $`p`$ is $`\stackrel{}{s}`$-good if there is a $`V`$-generic filter $`gP`$ containing the condition $`p`$ such that $`\stackrel{}{s}=\stackrel{}{r}/g`$. The following claim is reminiscent of the classical preservation theorems for countable support iterations. Note that $`P`$ is a countable set in the model $`V()`$.

###### Claim 4.4.

For every ordinal $`\beta \alpha `$, for every ordinal $`\gamma \beta `$, every Borel $`I_1`$-perfect set $`C(\omega ^\omega )^\gamma `$ consisting of $`P`$-generic sequences, and every Borel function $`f:CP`$ such that for every sequence $`\stackrel{}{s}B`$ the condition $`f(\stackrel{}{s})`$ is $`\stackrel{}{s}`$-good, there is a Borel $`I_1`$-perfect set $`B(\omega ^\omega )^\beta `$ consisting of $`P`$-generic sequences such that $`C=B\gamma `$ and for every sequence $`\stackrel{}{s}B`$ the condition $`f(\stackrel{}{s}\gamma )`$ is $`\stackrel{}{s}`$-good.

Once the claim has been proved, we will apply it with $`\beta =\alpha `$ and $`\gamma =0`$ to get a Borel $`I_1`$-perfect set $`B(\omega ^\omega )^\alpha `$ consisting of $`P`$-generic sequences. By a standard argument using the homogeneity of the poset $`\mathrm{𝐶𝑜𝑙𝑙}(\omega ,<\kappa )`$ we can conclude that $`BA`$ and the second dichotomy follows.

The claim is proved by induction on the ordinal $`\beta `$. First the successor step. Suppose the induction hypothesis holds at $`\beta `$ and we want to verify it at $`\beta +1`$ for some ordinal $`\gamma \beta `$, a Borel $`I_1`$-perfect set $`C(\omega ^\omega )^\gamma `$ and a Borel function $`f:CP`$. Use the induction hypothesis to get a Borel $`I_1`$-perfect set $`D(\omega ^\omega )^\beta `$ consisting of $`P`$-generic sequences such that $`C=D\gamma `$ and for every sequence $`\stackrel{}{s}D`$ the condition $`f(\stackrel{}{s}\gamma )`$ is $`\stackrel{}{s}`$-good. Now consider the set $`B=\{\stackrel{}{s}(\omega ^\omega )^{\beta +1}:\stackrel{}{s}\beta D`$ and $`\stackrel{}{s}`$ is a $`P`$-generic sequence such that the condition $`f(\stackrel{}{s}\gamma )`$ is $`\stackrel{}{s}`$-good$`\}`$. The set $`B`$ is as required; the only thing to verify is that for every sequence $`\stackrel{}{s}D`$ the set $`\{r\omega ^\omega :\stackrel{}{s}^{}rB\}`$ is not in the ideal $`I_1`$. But this follows essentially from Claim 3.7 applied to the forcing $`P/\stackrel{}{s}`$ below the condition $`f(\stackrel{}{s}\gamma )`$, the name $`\stackrel{}{r}(\beta )`$ and the model $`V[\stackrel{}{s}]`$ in place of the model $`M`$. Note that the real $`\stackrel{}{r}(\beta )`$ is forced to fall out of all $`I_1`$-small sets in the model $`V[\stackrel{}{r}\beta ]`$.

For the limit step, suppose that $`\beta `$ is a limit of an increasing sequence of ordinals $`\beta _n:n\omega `$, $`\gamma \beta _0`$ is an ordinal and $`C(\omega ^\omega )^\gamma `$ and $`f:CP`$ are objects as in the assumption of the claim. Let $`O_n:n\omega `$ be an enumeration of open dense subsets of the poset $`P`$ in the ground model $`V`$, and by use the inductive hypothesis on the ordinals $`\beta _n`$ repeatedly to construct a sequence $`B_n,f_n:n\omega `$ such that $`B_n(\omega ^\omega )^{\beta _n}`$ are Borel $`I_1`$-perfect sets and $`f_n:B_nP`$ are Borel functions such that $`B_{n1}=B_n\beta _{n_1}`$ and for every sequence $`\stackrel{}{s}B_n`$ the condition $`f_n(\stackrel{}{s})`$ is $`\stackrel{}{s}`$-good, it belongs to the open dense set $`O_n`$ and it is smaller than $`f_{n1}(\stackrel{}{s}\beta _{n1})`$. Here it is understood that $`C=B_1`$ and $`f=f_1`$. The construction is very easy to perform: at each number $`n\omega `$ first apply the induction hypothesis at $`\beta _n`$ to get a set $`B_n`$ as asserted in the Claim, and then for every sequence $`\stackrel{}{s}B_n`$ let $`f_n(\stackrel{}{r})`$ be some condition in the open dense set $`O_n`$ smaller than $`f_{n1}(\stackrel{}{s}\beta _{n1})`$ which is $`\stackrel{}{s}`$-good, say the first condition with this property in some fixed enumeration of the poset $`P`$. In the end, let $`B=\{\stackrel{}{s}(\omega ^\omega )^\beta :n\omega \stackrel{}{s}\beta _nB_n\}`$. It is clear that the set $`B`$ is Borel $`I_1`$-perfect. Moreover, every sequence $`\stackrel{}{s}B`$ is $`P`$-generic and the condition $`f(\stackrel{}{s}\gamma )`$ is $`\stackrel{}{s}`$-good, as witnessed by the $`V`$-generic filter $`gP`$ obtained from the descending sequence $`f_n(\stackrel{}{s}\beta _n):n\omega `$ of conditions in the poset $`P`$.