text:
# Super Black Box, (ex. Middle Diamond) 775

## 0. Introduction

Using the diamond (discovered by Jensen \[Jec03\]) we can construct many objects; wonderful but there is a price - we must assume $`𝐕=𝐋`$ or at least instances of G.C.H. (see Gregory \[Gra82\], Shelah \[She79\]). In fact $`\lambda =\mu ^+=2^\mu >\mathrm{}_\omega \mathrm{}_{\{\delta <\lambda :\mathrm{cf}(\delta )=\kappa \}}`$ for every regular large enough $`\kappa `$ depending on $`\mu `$ (see \[She00b\] and citations there). Naturally, we would like to get the benefit without paying the price. A way to do this is to use the weak diamond (see \[DS78\], \[She98, AP, §1\], \[She85\], \[She21\] and lately \[She02\], see on the definable version in \[She98, AP, §3\], \[She01\]). In the diamond principle for a stationary $`S\lambda `$, for $`\delta S`$ we guess $`\eta \delta `$ for $`\eta {}_{}{}^{\lambda }2`$. In the weak diamond, for stationary $`S\lambda `$ for $`\delta S`$ we do not guess $`\eta \delta `$ for $`\eta {}_{}{}^{\lambda }2`$, we just guess whether it satisfies a property - is black or white, i.e., the value of $`𝐅(\eta \delta )\{0,1\}`$ for a pre-given $`𝐅`$. Many times it is just enough in constructions using diamond to “avoid undesirable company”: whatever you will do I will do otherwise. This is, of course, a considerably weaker principle, but for $`\mathrm{}_1`$ it follows from CH (which does not imply $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{}_1`$) and even WCH (i.e. $`2^\mathrm{}_0<2^\mathrm{}_1`$). In fact, it holds for many cardinals: $`2^\lambda >2^{<\lambda }=2^\theta `$ suffices. Having $`𝐅`$ with two colours (= values) seemed essential. In \[She21\], we get more colours for $`\mathrm{}_1`$ if the club filter on $`\omega _1`$ is $`\mathrm{}_2`$-saturated but this is a heavy assumption. In \[She02\], if $`\lambda =\lambda ^{<\lambda }=2^\mu `$, it is proved that for “many” regular $`\kappa <\lambda `$, if $`S\{\delta <\lambda :\text{cf}(\delta )=\kappa \}`$ is stationary then we have the weak diamond for $`S`$. Now what does “many” mean? For example, if $`\lambda \mathrm{}_\omega `$, “many” includes every large enough regular $`\kappa <\mathrm{}_\omega `$; note that it is for “every stationary $`S`$” unlike the situation, e.g. for $`\mathrm{}_1`$ under CH (see \[She98, V\]). We get there more cases if the colouring $`𝐅`$ on $`{}_{}{}^{\delta }2`$ depends only on $`\eta C_\delta `$, where $`C_\delta \delta =sup(C_\delta )`$ and $`C_\delta `$ is “small”. Here we get more than two colours and moreover: we guess $`\eta C_\delta ,C_\delta \delta =sup(C_\delta )`$ and so can choose $`M_\delta :\delta S`$ such that $`M_\delta `$ is a model with universe $`C_\delta `$ and relations only (and e.g. vocabulary $`(\mathrm{}_0))`$ such that if $`M`$ is a model with universe $`\lambda `$ and relations only (and vocabulary $`(\mathrm{}_0))`$ then for stationarily many $`\delta S,MC_\delta `$ is $`M_\delta `$. Of course, if $`(\mu <\lambda )[2^\mu >\lambda ]`$ then we cannot have $`C_\delta =\delta `$ so this is a very reasonable restriction. (It would be even better to have $`M_\delta M`$ below but we do not know). Also for “almost” all $`\lambda `$ large enough the result holds for many regular $`\kappa `$.

The motivation has been trying to get better principles provably in $`\mathrm{ZFC}`$. We use partial squares and $`\widehat{I}[\lambda ]`$, see \[She79\], \[ASS87\], \[She86\], \[She93a, §1\] and \[DS95\]. We prove (in fact in Theorem 0.1 we can replace $`S_\kappa ^\lambda `$ by for quite “many” stationary $`SS_\kappa ^\lambda `$).

###### Theorem 0.1.

For every $`\mu `$ strong limit of uncountable cofinality, for every regular $`\lambda >\mu `$ which is not strongly inaccessible, for every large enough regular $`\kappa <\mu `$, for every $`\chi <\mu ,S_\kappa ^\lambda `$ has the $`\chi `$-$`\mathrm{BB}`$ (called later “$`\lambda `$ has the $`(\kappa ,\chi ^+)`$-MD2-property”), which means:

1. for some stationary $`S\{\delta <\lambda :\text{cf}(\delta )=\kappa \}`$ for every relational vocabulary $`\tau `$ of cardinality $`<\chi `$ (so $`\tau `$ has no function symbols) we can find $`\overline{M}=M_\delta :\delta S`$ which is a $`\tau `$-MD-sequence such that:

1. $`M_\delta `$ is a $`\tau `$-model,
    2. the universe of $`M_\delta `$ is an unbounded subset of $`\delta `$ of order type $`\chi \times \kappa `$ including $`\chi ,`$
    3. if $`M`$ is a $`\tau `$-model with universe $`\lambda `$ then for stationarily many $`\delta S`$ we have $`M_\delta M`$.

It seems that this is stronger in sufficient measure from the weak diamond to justify this name; there are many properties between the weak diamond and the property from Theorem 0.1 and we have to put the line somewhere. We shall use the adjective middle diamond to describe even cases with coloring of $`{}_{}{}^{\alpha }2(\alpha <\lambda )`$ or just functions with domain $`\alpha `$ for $`\alpha <\lambda `$ (justified by Claim 1.20).

I thank Todd Eisworth and the referee and Adi Yarden for their helpful comments. Some improvements and elaborations are delayed to \[S+\]. This work is continued in \[She06\].

###### Theorem 0.2.

In 0.1 we can have also $`\overline{f}=f_\delta :\delta S`$ where $`f_\delta :u_\delta \delta ,u_\delta \delta ,\lambda ^{|u_\delta |}=\lambda `$ such that:

1. if $`M`$ is a $`\tau `$-model with universe $`\lambda `$ and $`f:\lambda \lambda `$ and $`u\lambda ,\lambda ^{|u|}=\lambda `$,

then for stationarily many $`\delta S`$ we have $`M_\delta M(f_\delta =fuf)u_\delta =u`$.

Now, we prove Theorem 0.1 and Theorem 0.2:

###### Proof.

By Claim 2.11(1) if $`\lambda >\mu `$ is regular and not strongly inaccessible, then for every large enough regular $`\kappa <\mu `$ the following holds (see Definition 1.19(4)):

1. if $`\theta <\mu `$ then some $`(\lambda ,\kappa ,\kappa ^+)`$-parameter $`\overline{C}`$ has the $`\theta `$-BB-property; let $`\overline{C}=C_\delta :\delta S`$.

Now without loss of generality $`\delta S(\chi \times \theta )^\omega |\delta `$, and let

$$C_\delta ^{}=\{\gamma :\gamma <\chi \text{ or }(\beta C_\delta )(\beta \gamma <\beta +\chi ).$$

Lastly, let $`\theta =2^{\chi +\kappa +|\tau |}`$ and by Claim 1.20 we get the conclusion of Theorem 0.1. As for Theorem 0.2, Clause (d) is easy by having a pairwise disjoint sequence of suitable $`S_i:i<\lambda `$ which holds by Claim 2.11(2). ∎

Note that having $`M_\delta `$’s is deduced in Claim 1.20 from “$`\overline{C}`$ has the $`\theta `$-BB-property” with $`\theta `$ large enough. Note that Theorem 0.1 has obvious applications in various constructions, e.g., the construction of abelian groups $`G`$ with Ext$`(G,K)\mathrm{}`$.

Note that in Theorem 0.1, Claim 2.11 instead of using “large enough $`\kappa <\mu \mathrm{}`$”, $`\mu `$ strong limit and quoting \[She00b\] we can specifically write what we use on $`\kappa `$ (and on $`\theta `$). Also in Theorem 0.1, if we omit cf$`(\mu )>\mathrm{}_0`$ (but still $`\mu `$ is uncountable) the case $`\lambda `$ successor is not affected and in the case $`\mu =\mathrm{}_\delta `$ when $`\omega ^2`$ divides $`\delta `$, the statement instead “every large enough $`\kappa `$” can be replaced by “for arbitrarily large regular $`\kappa <\mu `$”, or even: “for arbitrarily large strong limit $`\mu ^{}<\mu `$, for every large enough regular $`\kappa <\mu ^{}`$”.

A consequence is (see more on this principle in \[She03\]).

###### Conclusion 0.3.

1) If $`\lambda ,\kappa ,\chi ,S,M_\delta :\delta S`$ are as in Theorem 0.1 and $`\gamma <\kappa \gamma <\chi `$, then we can find $`\overline{\eta }=\eta _\delta :\delta S,\eta _\delta `$ is an increasing sequence of length $`\kappa `$ of ordinals $`<\delta `$ with limit $`\delta `$ such that:

1. if $`F:\lambda \gamma `$, then for stationarily many $`\delta S`$ we have $`i<\kappa F(\eta _\delta (2i))=F(\eta _\delta (2i+1))`$.

2) In fact it is enough to find a $`(\lambda ,\kappa ,\chi )`$-BB-parameter $`C_\delta :\delta S`$ which has the $`(\gamma ,2^{|\gamma |^+})`$-BB-property (see Definition 1.6(1)).

###### Proof..

1) By (2).

2) Let $`\tau =\{P_\zeta :\zeta <|\gamma |^+\},p_i`$ a monadic predicate. Let $`M_\delta :\delta S`$ be as in Theorem 0.1 for $`\tau `$. Let $`F:\lambda \gamma `$ and we let $`M`$ be the following $`\tau `$-model with universe $`\lambda :P_\zeta ^M=\{\alpha :\zeta =\mathrm{pr}(\zeta _0,\zeta _1),\zeta _0<\zeta _1<|\gamma |^+`$ and $`F(\alpha +\zeta _0)=F(\alpha +\zeta _1),\alpha M_\delta \alpha +|\gamma |^+<\mathrm{min}(M_\delta \backslash \alpha )`$. Without loss of generality $`\mathrm{otp}(|M_\delta |)=\kappa ,\delta S|\gamma |^+/\delta `$. Let $`(\eta _\delta (2,i),\eta _\delta (2i+1))=(\alpha _i^\delta +\zeta _2^\delta ,\alpha _i^\delta +\zeta _2^\delta )`$ when $`\alpha _i^\delta `$ is the $`i`$-th member of $`M_\delta ,\alpha _i^\delta P`$. ∎

Note that if a naturally quite weak conjecture on pcf holds, then we can replace $`\mathrm{}_\omega `$ by $`\mathrm{}_\omega `$ (and similar changes) in most places but still need $`\lambda >\lambda _1>\lambda _\delta ,2^{\lambda _1}>2^{\lambda _0}2^\mathrm{}_\omega `$ in the stepping-up lemma; e.g. for every regular large enough $`\lambda `$, for some $`n`$, we have super BBwith $`\lambda _0`$ colours on $`S_\mathrm{}_n^\lambda `$ \- is helpful for abelian group theory. (Under weak conditions we get this for $`\mathrm{}_1`$, see \[S+\].

Even without this conjecture, it is quite hard to have the negation of this statement as it restricts $`2^\mu `$ and cf$`(2^\mu )`$ for every $`\mu `$!

###### Definition 0.4.

1) Let “$`S\lambda `$ has square” mean that $`\lambda `$ is regular uncountable, $`S`$ a stationary subset of $`\lambda `$ and: for some club $`E`$ of $`\lambda `$ and $`S^{},SES^{}\lambda `$ there is a witness $`\overline{C}=C_\delta :\delta S^{}`$ which means:

1. $`\overline{C}=C_\delta :\delta S^{}`$ has the *square property* which means:

1. $`C_\delta \delta `$ is closed,
    2. $`\delta S^{}`$ limit $`\delta =sup(C_\delta )`$,
    3. $`\alpha C_\delta C_\alpha =\alpha C_\delta `$ and,
    4. $`\delta S\mathrm{otp}(C_\delta )<\delta `$.

1A) We say “*$`S\lambda `$ has a strict square*” if we add:

1. $`\delta SE\mathrm{otp}(C_\delta )=\mathrm{cf}(\delta )`$.

2) We say “*$`S\lambda `$ has a $`(\delta ^{})`$ square*” if we replace (d) above by:

1. $`\delta S\mathrm{otp}(C_\delta )\delta ^{}`$.

If we replace square by $`(\delta ^{})`$-square this means we add $`\mathrm{otp}(C_\alpha )\delta ^{}`$.

3) We say $`(\kappa ,\mathrm{\Theta })`$-square if above the demand $`\alpha C_\delta C_\alpha =\alpha C_\delta `$ is restricted to the case cf$`(\alpha )\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

4) $`S_\kappa ^\lambda =\{\delta <\lambda :\mathrm{cf}(\delta )=\kappa \}`$.

On $`\widehat{I}[\lambda ]`$ see \[She93a, §1\].

###### Definition 0.5.

1) For $`\lambda `$ regular uncountable let $`\widehat{I}[\lambda ]`$ be the family of sets $`S\lambda `$ which have a witness $`(E,\overline{𝒫})`$ for $`S\widehat{I}[\lambda ]`$, which means:

1. $`E`$ is a club of $`\lambda ,𝒫=𝒫_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda ,𝒫_\alpha 𝒫(\alpha ),|𝒫_\alpha |<\lambda `$, and for every $`\delta ES`$ there is an unbounded subset $`C`$ of $`\delta `$ of order type $`<\delta `$ such that $`\alpha CC\alpha 𝒫_\alpha `$.

2) Equivalently there is a pair $`(E,\overline{a}),E`$ a club of $`\lambda ,\overline{a}=a_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda ,a_\alpha \alpha ,\beta a_\alpha a_\beta =a_\alpha \beta `$ and $`\delta ES\delta =sup(a_\delta )>\mathrm{otp}(a_\delta )`$ (or even $`\delta =sup(a_\delta )`$, $`\mathrm{otp}(a_\delta )=\mathrm{cf}(\delta )<\delta `$.

###### Notation 0.6.

1) Let $`\lambda ,`$ $`\mu ,`$ $`\kappa ,`$ $`\chi ,\theta ,`$ $`\sigma `$ denote cardinals, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ a set of cardinals, let $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta ,\epsilon ,\zeta ,I,j,\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ denote ordinals but $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}2`$ and $`\theta 2`$ and $`\delta `$ is a limit ordinal if not said otherwise.

Clearly Claim 1.10 and some results later continue *Engełking Karłowicz* (see \[EK65\]) which continue works on the density of some topological spaces, see more history in \[She93a\].

## 1. Super black box: Sufficient conditions for cf$`(2^\mu )`$

As background recall:

###### Definition 1.1.

1) For a regular uncountable $`\lambda `$, an ordinal $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}2`$ and cardinal $`\theta 2`$ we say $`S\lambda `$ is *$`(\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-small* if it is F-$`(\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-small for some $`(\lambda ,\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-colouring $`𝐅`$, also called a $`\theta `$-colouring of $`{}_{}{}^{\lambda >}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$, that is: a function $`𝐅`$ from $`{}_{}{}^{\lambda >}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ to $`\theta `$ where:

2) We say $`S\lambda `$ is *$`𝐅`$-$`(\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-small* if ($`𝐅`$ is a $`\theta `$-colouring of $`{}_{}{}^{\lambda >}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$) and

1. for every $`\overline{c}{}_{}{}^{S}\theta `$ for some $`\eta {}_{}{}^{\lambda }\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ the set $`\{\delta S:𝐅(\eta \delta )=c_\delta \}`$ is not stationary.

3) Let $`D_{\lambda ,\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta }^\text{M}\{A\lambda :\lambda A`$ is $`(\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-small$`\}`$, we call it the *$`(\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-middle diamond filter on $`\lambda `$*. If $`\theta =2`$ we call this *weak diamond filter* and may write $`D_{\lambda ,\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}^{\mathrm{wd}}`$.

4) In part (3),

1. We omit $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ if $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\theta `$, writing $`\theta `$ instead of $`(\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta ),`$
2. We may omit $`\theta `$ from “$`S`$ is $`𝐅`$-$`\theta `$-small”, and $`()_{𝐅,S}^\theta `$ when clear from the context.

###### Claim 1.2.

1) If $`\lambda =\text{cf}(\lambda )>\mathrm{}_0,\lambda \mathrm{{\rm Y}}2`$ and $`\lambda \theta `$ then $`D_{\lambda ,\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta }^{\text{md}}`$ is a normal filter on $`\lambda `$.

2) Assume $`S\lambda ,2\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mathrm{}}\lambda ,2\theta \lambda `$ for $`\mathrm{}=1,2`$. then $`S`$ is $`(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_1,\theta )`$-small iff $`S`$ is $`(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_2,\theta )`$-small 111so $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ seems immaterial, but below when using $`\overline{C}`$ this is not so (see Definition 1.5)..

3) In fact $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mathrm{}}[2,2^{<\lambda }]`$ is enough.

###### Proof..

Straightforward. ∎

Recall (very relevant here).

###### Definition 1.3.

1) Let $`\chi ^{<\sigma >}=\mathrm{min}\{|𝒫|:𝒫[\chi ]^\sigma `$ and every $`A[\chi ]^\sigma `$ is included in the union of $`<\sigma `$ members of $`𝒫\}`$.

2) Let $`\chi ^{[\sigma ]}=\mathrm{min}\{|𝒫|:𝒫[\chi ]^\sigma `$ and every $`A[\chi ]^\sigma `$ is equal to the union of $`<\sigma `$ members of $`𝒫\}`$.

3) $`\mathrm{trp}_\sigma (\chi )=\chi ^{<\sigma >_{\text{tr}}}=sup\{|\text{lim}_\sigma (\mathrm{t})|:\mathrm{t}`$ is a tree with $`\chi `$ nodes and $`\sigma `$ levels$`\}`$, where $`\mathrm{trp}`$ stand for tree power, $`\chi ^{\sigma _{\mathrm{tr}}}`$ is an older notation.

4) For $`J`$ an ideal on $`\theta `$ let $`𝐔_J(\mu )=\mathrm{min}\{|𝒫|:𝒫[\mu ]^\theta `$ and for every $`f:\mathrm{dom}(J)\mu `$ for some $`u𝒫`$ we have $`\{i\mathrm{dom}(J):f(i)u\}\mathrm{}modJ\}`$; we say an ideal $`J`$ is an ideal on a set $`\mathrm{dom}(J)`$ of cardinality $`\theta `$. If $`J=[\theta ]^{<\theta }`$ we may write $`\theta `$ instead of $`J`$.

###### Remark 1.4.

1) On $`\mathrm{trp}_\sigma (\chi )=\chi ^{<\sigma >_{\text{tr}}}`$ see \[She00a\], on $`\chi ^{<\sigma >}`$ see \[She96\], on $`\chi ^{<\sigma >},\chi ^{[\sigma ]}`$ see there and in \[She00b\], \[She06\] but no real knowledge of these references is assumed here.

2) Note that when $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\lambda `$ only $`𝐅\{{}_{}{}^{\delta }\delta :\delta S\}`$ is relevant in Definition 1.1 because for any $`\eta {}_{}{}^{\lambda }\lambda `$ for some club $`E`$ of $`\lambda `$ we have $`\delta E\eta \delta {}_{}{}^{\delta }\delta `$. So we may restrict the colourings to this set.

3) In Definition 1.1, if $`\mu <\lambda =\mathrm{cf}(\lambda ),2^\mu =2^\lambda `$ even for $`\theta =\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=2`$, the set $`\lambda `$ is small (as noted by Uri Abraham, see \[DS78\]).

Below we may usually restrict ourselves to $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\lambda `$.

###### Definition 1.5.

1) We say $`\overline{C}`$ is a $`\lambda `$-BB-parameter if:

1. $`\lambda `$ is regular uncountable,
2. $`S`$ is a stationary subset of $`\lambda `$,
3. $`\overline{C}=C_\delta :\delta S`$ and222we can omit the requirement $`\delta =sup(C_\delta )`$ but then we trivially have super BB if $`\lambda =\lambda ^{<\kappa }`$ when $`\kappa =\{|C_\delta |^+:\delta S\}.`$ $`C_\delta \delta =sup(C_\delta )`$.

1A) We say $`\overline{C}`$ is a *$`(\lambda ,\kappa ,\chi )`$-BB-parameter* if in addition $`(\delta S)(\alpha C_\delta )[\mathrm{cf}(\delta )=\kappa |C_\delta \alpha |<\chi ]`$.

2) We say that F is a *$`(\overline{C},\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-colouring* if: $`\theta 2,\mathrm{{\rm Y}}2,\overline{C}=C_\delta :\delta S`$ is a $`\lambda `$-BB-parameter and F is a function from $`{}_{}{}^{\lambda >}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ to $`\theta `$ such that:

1. if $`\delta S`$ and $`\eta _0,\eta _1{}_{}{}^{\delta }\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ and $`\eta _0C_\delta =\eta _1C_\delta `$ then F$`(\eta _0)=`$ F$`(\eta _1)`$.

2A) If $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\theta `$ we may omit it and write $`(\overline{C},\theta )`$-colouring.

2B) In part (2) we can replace F by $`\overline{F}=F_\delta :\delta S`$ where $`F_\delta :{}_{}{}^{(C_\delta )}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\theta `$ such that $`\eta {}_{}{}^{\delta }\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\delta S𝐅(\eta )=F_\delta (\eta C_\delta )`$. If $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\lambda `$ we may use $`F_\delta :{}_{}{}^{(C_\delta )}\delta \theta `$ (as we can ignore a non-stationary $`S^{}S`$); so abusing notation we may write $`𝐅(\eta C_\delta )`$. Similarly if cf$`(\mathrm{{\rm Y}})=\lambda ,\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$ is increasing continuous with limit $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ we may restrict ourselves to $`{}_{}{}^{(C_\delta )}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_\delta )`$.

3) Assume $`𝐅`$ is a $`(\overline{C},\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-colouring, where $`\overline{C}`$ is a $`\lambda `$-BB-parameter.

We say $`\overline{c}{}_{}{}^{S}\theta `$ (or $`\overline{c}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }\theta `$) is an $`𝐅`$-super BBsequence, or an $`𝐅`$-BB-sequence if:

1. for every $`\eta {}_{}{}^{\lambda }\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$, the set $`\{\delta S:𝐅(\eta \delta )=c_\delta \}`$ is a stationary subset of $`\lambda `$.

We also may say that $`\overline{c}`$ is an $`(𝐅,S)`$-BB-sequence or an $`(𝐅,\overline{C})`$-BB-sequence; note that $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ can be reconstructed from $`𝐅`$.

3A) We say $`\overline{c}{}_{}{}^{S}\theta `$ is a $`D𝐅`$-BB-sequence or $`D(𝐅,\overline{C})`$-BB-sequence if $`D`$ is a filter on $`\lambda `$ (no harm to assume that $`S`$ belongs to $`D`$, or at least $`SD^+`$) and

1. for every $`\eta {}_{}{}^{\lambda }\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ we have

$$\{\delta S:𝐅(\eta \delta )=c_\delta \}\mathrm{}modD.$$

4) We say that $`\overline{C}`$ is a good $`(\lambda ,\lambda _1)`$-BB-parameter, if $`\overline{C}`$ is a $`\lambda `$-BB-parameter and for every $`\alpha <\lambda `$ we have $`\lambda _1>|\{C_\delta \alpha :\delta S\alpha C_\delta \}|`$. If $`\lambda _1=\lambda `$ we may write “a good $`\lambda `$-BB-parameter”. Similarly for a $`(\lambda ,\lambda _1,\kappa ,\chi )`$-good-BB-parameter and a $`(\lambda ,\kappa ,\chi )`$-good-BB-parameter (i.e. adding that $`\overline{C}`$ is a $`(\lambda ,\kappa ,\chi )`$-BB-parameter.

4A) We say that $`\overline{C}`$ is a weakly good $`\lambda `$-BB-parameter if it is a $`\lambda `$-BB-parameter and for every $`\alpha <\lambda `$ we have $`\lambda >|\{C_\delta \alpha :\delta S\alpha \mathrm{nacc}(C_\delta )\}|`$. Similarly, we define a weakly good $`(\lambda ,\kappa ,\chi )`$-BB-parameter and a weakly good $`(\lambda ,\lambda _1,\kappa ,\chi )`$-BBparameter.

4B) We say $`\overline{C}`$ is a good$`{}_{}{}^{+}\lambda `$-BB-parameter if $`\overline{C}=C_\delta :\delta S`$ is a $`\lambda `$-BB-parameter and $`\alpha C_{\delta _1}C_{\delta _2}C_{\delta _1}\alpha =C_{\delta _2}\alpha `$. Similarly we define a good$`{}_{}{}^{+}(\lambda ,\kappa ,\chi )`$-BB-parameter.

4C) We define a weakly good$`{}_{}{}^{+}\lambda `$-BB-parameter or $`(\lambda ,\kappa ,\chi )`$-BB-parameter analogously, i.e., $`\alpha \mathrm{nacc}(C_{\delta _1})\mathrm{nacc}(C_{\delta _2})C_{\delta _1}\alpha =C_{\delta _2}\alpha `$.

4D) For a set $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ of regular cardinals we say that $`\overline{C}=C_\delta :\delta S`$ is $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-closed if each $`C_\delta `$ is; where a set $`C`$ of ordinals is $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-closed if for every ordinal $`\alpha `$, cf$`(\alpha )\mathrm{\Theta }\alpha =sup(C\alpha )<sup(C)\alpha C`$.

4E) We say $`(C_\delta ,C_\delta ^{}):\delta S`$ is a good $`(\lambda ,\kappa ,\chi )`$-BB-parameter if $`C_\delta :\delta S`$ is a $`(\lambda ,\kappa ,\chi )`$-BB-parameter, $`C_\delta ^{}\delta ,sup(C_\delta ^{})=\delta `$ and for every $`\alpha <\lambda `$ the set $`|\{C_\delta \alpha :\alpha C_\delta ^{},\delta S\}|`$ has cardinality $`<\lambda `$.

###### Definition 1.6.

1) We say that $`\overline{C}`$ (or $`(\lambda ,\overline{C})`$) has the *$`(D,\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-BB-property* if:

1. $`\overline{C}`$ is a $`\lambda `$-BB-parameter,
2. $`D`$ is a filter on $`\lambda ,`$
3. if $`𝐅`$ is a $`(\overline{C},\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-colouring,

then there is a $`D`$-$`𝐅`$-BB-sequence, see Definition 1.5, part (3A).

We may omit $`D`$ if it is the club filter on $`\lambda `$.

2) We say that $`\overline{C}`$ has the *$`(D,\theta )`$-BB-property* as in part (1) only that $`𝐅`$ is a $`(\overline{C},\theta ,\theta )`$-colouring. We may omit $`D`$ if $`D`$ is the club filter. We may omit $`\theta `$ if $`\theta =2`$.

3) We say that $`S\lambda `$ has the *$`(\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-BB-property* when some $`\overline{C}=C_\delta :\delta S`$ has, and then we say the $`\theta `$-BB-property if $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\theta `$. In Definition 1.5(2),(2A) we replace “colouring” by “colouring2” if we have all $`\eta :{}_{}{}^{\omega >}\lambda \mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ (or $`\eta :{}_{}{}^{\omega >}(C_\delta )\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$); and let “colouring1” be the original notion (so in Definition 1.5(3),(3A) we have new meaning when we use such $`𝐅`$’s).

4) We write *BB2-property* if we use colouring2$`𝐅`$ and we write BB1-property for the BB-property.

###### Remark 1.7.

We may consider replacing $`C_\delta `$ by $`(C_\delta ,D_\delta ),D_\delta `$ a filter on $`C_\delta `$, that is $`F_\delta (\eta )`$ would depend on $`(\eta C_\delta )/D_\delta `$ only. For the time being it does not make a real difference.

###### Claim 1.8.

1) The restrictions in Definition 1.5(2B) are O.K. That is in Definition 1.5(2B), the first sentence is obvious; for the second sentence (if $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\lambda `$) recall that for every $`\eta {}_{}{}^{\lambda }\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$, for some club $`E`$ of $`\lambda ,\delta E\eta \delta {}_{}{}^{\delta }\delta `$; and similarly in the third sentence.

2) In Definition 1.5(4), if $`\lambda _1>\lambda `$ then goodness holds trivially.

3) If $`\overline{C}=C_\delta :\delta S`$ is a weakly good $`(\lambda ,\kappa ,\chi )`$-parameter, then for some club $`E`$ of $`\lambda `$ there is $`\overline{C}^{}=C_\delta ^{}:\delta SE`$ which is a good$`{}_{}{}^{+}(\lambda ,\kappa ,\chi )`$-parameter.

4) If $`\overline{C}=C_\delta :\delta S`$ has the $`(D,\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-BB-property, and $`\overline{C}^{}=C_\delta ^{}:\delta S,C_\delta ^{}C_\delta `$, then also $`\overline{C}^{}`$ has the $`(D,\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-BB-property.

###### Proof..

1), 2) Easy.

3) Note that the $`C_\delta ^{}`$’s are not required to be a club of $`\delta `$, see \[She93a, §1\] but we elaborate.

Let $`A_\beta :\beta <\lambda `$ list without repetition $`\{C_\delta \alpha :\delta S`$ and $`\alpha \mathrm{nacc}(C_\delta )\}`$ and be such that $`A_\beta =A_\gamma \alpha A_\beta \{A_\epsilon :\epsilon \gamma \}`$. Let $`E=\{\delta <\lambda `$: if $`\beta <\delta `$ and $`\alpha S`$ and $`\beta \mathrm{nacc}(C_\alpha )`$ then $`C_\alpha \beta \{A_\gamma :\gamma <\delta \}\}`$, clearly $`E`$ is a club of $`\lambda `$.

Lastly, for $`\delta SE`$ let $`C_\delta ^{}=\{\gamma <\delta `$: for some $`\alpha \mathrm{nacc}(C_\delta )`$ we have $`C_\delta \alpha =A_\gamma \}`$. Now $`C_\delta ^{}:\delta SE`$ is as required.

4) Should be clear. ∎

From the following definition the case $`\mathrm{Sep}(\mu ,\theta )`$ is used in the main claim below.

###### Definition 1.9.

1) $`\mathrm{Sep}(\chi ,\mu ,\theta _0,\theta ,\mathrm{{\rm Y}})`$ means that for some $`\overline{f}`$:

1. $`\overline{f}=f_\epsilon :\epsilon <\chi ,`$
2. $`f_\epsilon `$ is a function from $`{}_{}{}^{\mu }(\theta _0)`$ to $`\theta ,`$
3. for every $`\varrho {}_{}{}^{\chi }\theta `$ the set $`\{\nu {}_{}{}^{\mu }(\theta _0)`$: for every $`\epsilon <\chi `$ we have $`f_\epsilon (\nu )\varrho (\epsilon )\}`$ has cardinality $`<\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$.

2) We may omit $`\theta _0`$ if $`\theta _0=\theta `$. We write $`\mathrm{Sep}(\mu ,\theta )`$ if for some $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\mathrm{cf}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}})2^\mu `$ we have $`\mathrm{Sep}(\mu ,\mu ,\theta ,\theta ,\mathrm{{\rm Y}})`$ and $`\mathrm{Sep}(<\mu ,\theta )`$ if for some $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\mathrm{cf}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}})2^\mu `$ and $`\sigma <\mu `$ we have $`\mathrm{Sep}(\sigma ,\mu ,\theta ,\theta ,\mathrm{{\rm Y}})`$.

###### Claim 1.10 (Main claim).

Assume,

1. $`\lambda =\text{cf}(2^\mu ),D`$ is a $`\mu ^+`$-complete filter on $`\lambda `$ extending the club filter,
2. $`\kappa =\text{cf}(\kappa )<\chi \lambda `$,
3. $`\overline{C}=C_\delta :\delta S`$ is a $`(\lambda ,\kappa ,\chi )`$-good-BB-parameter, or just weakly good or just $`(C_\delta ,C_\delta ^{}):\delta S`$ is a good $`(\lambda ,\kappa ,\chi )`$-BB-parameter and $`SD,`$
4. $`2^{<\chi }2^\mu `$ and $`\theta \mu ,`$
5. $`\alpha <2^\mu \mathrm{trp}_\kappa (|\alpha |)<2^\mu ,`$
6. $`\mathrm{Sep}(\mu ,\theta )`$,

then $`\overline{C}`$ has the $`(D,2^\mu ,\theta )`$-BB-property (recall that this means that the number of colours is $`\theta `$ not just 2).

We may wonder if clause (f) of the assumption is reasonable; the following Claim gives some sufficient conditions for clause (f) of Claim 1.10 to hold.

###### Claim 1.11.

Clause (f) of Claim 1.10 holds, i.e., $`\mathrm{Sep}(\mu ,\theta )`$ holds, if at least one of the following holds:

1. $`\mu =\mu ^\theta ,`$
2. $`𝐔_\theta (\mu )=\mu +2^\theta \mu `$,
3. $`𝐔_J(\mu )=\mu `$ where for some $`\sigma `$ we have $`J=[\sigma ]^{<\theta },\theta \sigma ,\sigma ^\theta \mu ,`$
4. $`\mu `$ is a strong limit of cofinality $`\theta =\text{cf}(\theta )<\mu ,`$
5. $`\mu \mathrm{}_\omega (\theta )`$.

We shall prove this later.

###### Remark 1.12.

1) Note that $`\lambda =\lambda ^{<\lambda }=\chi ,\kappa =\mathrm{cf}(\kappa )<\lambda ,S=S_\kappa ^\lambda ,C_\delta =\delta `$ is a particular case (of interest) of the assumptions (a)-(b) of Claim 1.10 and that $`C_\delta :\delta S_\kappa ^\lambda `$ is a $`(\lambda ,\kappa ,\lambda )`$-good+\- BB-parameter.

2) We can replace the requirement “$`SS_\kappa ^\lambda `$” by (implicit in (c) of Claim 1.10)

1. $`[\delta S\delta `$ is a regular cardinal\].

Then clause (e) of Claim 1.10 is replaced by “$`\delta S\mathrm{trp}_{\mathrm{cf}(\delta )}(|\delta |)<2^\mu `$”.

3) We may consider finding a guessing sequence $`\overline{c}`$ simultaneously for many colourings. In the notation of \[She98, AP,§1\] this is the same as having large $`\mu (0)`$. We may reconsider the problem of $`\lambda ^+`$-entangled linear ordering where $`\lambda =\lambda ^\mathrm{}_0`$, see \[She97a\].

4) For $`\theta =2`$, (i.e. weak diamond) the proof below can be simplified: we can forget $``$ and choose $`\varrho _\delta {}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta \backslash \{\rho _\eta :\eta 𝒫_\delta \}`$ such that for some $`i<\mu `$ the sequence $`\varrho _\delta (i):\delta S`$ is a weak diamond sequence for $`𝐅`$.

5) Note that the “minimal” natural choices for getting $`\theta `$-MD property are $`\kappa =\mathrm{}_0,\theta =2^\mathrm{}_0,\mu =2^\theta ,\lambda =\mathrm{cf}(2^\mu )`$.

6) Note that in the main claim (Claim 1.10) if $`2^\mu `$ is regular, $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=2^\mu `$ is allowed.

Now we prove Claim 1.10:

###### Proof..

In clause (c) we can assume $`(C_\delta ,C_\delta ^{}):\delta S`$ is a good $`(\lambda ,\kappa ,\chi )`$-BB-parameter (in the other cases we choose $`C_\delta ^{}=\mathrm{nacc}(C_\delta )`$ and use 1.8(3)).

Let $`𝐅`$ be a given $`(\overline{C},2^\mu ,\theta )`$-colouring.

By assumption (f) we have $`\mathrm{Sep}(\mu ,\theta )`$ which means (see Definition 1.9(2)) that for some $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\mathrm{cf}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}})2^\mu `$ we have $`\mathrm{Sep}(\mu ,\mu ,\theta ,\theta ,\mathrm{{\rm Y}})`$.

Let $`=\{f_\xi :\xi <\mu \}`$ where $``$ exemplify $`\mathrm{Sep}(\mu ,\mu ,\theta ,\theta ,\mathrm{{\rm Y}})`$, see Definition 1.9(1) and for $`\rho {}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta `$ let $`\mathrm{Sol}_\rho \{\nu {}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta :\text{ for every }\epsilon <\mu `$ we have $`\rho (\epsilon )f_\epsilon (\nu )\}`$ where $`\mathrm{Sol}`$ stands for solutions, so by clause (c) of the Definition 1.9(1) of $`\mathrm{Sep}`$ it follows that:

1. $`\rho {}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta |\mathrm{Sol}_\rho |<\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$.

Let $`h`$ be an increasing continuous function from $`\lambda `$ into $`2^\mu `$ with unbounded range; if $`2^\mu `$ is regular, we can choose $`h=\mathrm{id}_\lambda `$ Recall that $`\lambda =\mathrm{cf}(2^\mu )2^{<\chi }`$. Let $`\mathrm{cd}`$ be a one-to-one function from $`{}_{}{}^{\mu }(2^\mu )`$ onto $`2^\mu `$ such that:

$$\alpha =\mathrm{cd}(\alpha _\epsilon :\epsilon <\mu )\alpha sup\{\alpha _\epsilon :\epsilon <\mu \},$$

and let the function $`\mathrm{cd}_i:2^\mu 2^\mu `$ for $`i<\mu `$ be such that $`\mathrm{cd}_i(\mathrm{cd}(\alpha _\epsilon :\epsilon <\mu ))=\alpha _i`$.

Let $`𝒞=\{C_\delta \alpha :\delta S\alpha C_\delta ^{}\}`$, (recall that trivially $`|𝒞|\lambda 2^\mu `$) and let $`T=\{\eta :`$ for some $`C𝒞`$ (hence $`C`$ is of cardinality $`<\chi `$), we have $`\eta {}_{}{}^{C}(2^\mu )\}`$. By assumptions (c) + (d) clearly $`|T|=\text{ }_{C𝒞}2^{\mu |C|}|𝒞|\times (2^\mu )^{<\chi }2^\mu `$ but $`|T|2^\mu `$ hence $`|T|=2^\mu `$. So let us list $`T`$ possibly with repetitions as $`\{\eta _\alpha :\alpha <2^\mu \}`$ such that $`[\alpha <h(\beta )\mathrm{ran}(\eta _\alpha )h(\beta )]`$ and let $`T_{<\alpha }=\{\eta _\beta :\beta <h(\alpha )\}`$ for $`\alpha <\lambda `$. For $`\delta S`$ let $`𝒫_\delta \{\eta :\eta `$ is a function from $`C_\delta `$ into $`h(\delta )`$ such that for every $`\alpha C_\delta ^{}`$ we have $`\eta (C_\delta \alpha )T_{<\delta }\}`$, clearly $`\eta 𝒫_\delta \eta {}_{}{}^{(C_\delta )}h(\delta )`$. Clearly $`\{\eta (C_\delta \alpha ):\eta 𝒫_\delta ,\alpha C_\delta ^{}\}`$ is naturally a tree with $`𝒫_\delta `$ the set of $`\mathrm{otp}(C_\delta )`$-branches and cf$`(\mathrm{otp}(C_\delta ))=\kappa `$ and set of nodes $`T_{<\delta }`$ hence with $`<2^\mu `$ nodes hence by assumption (e)

1. $`|𝒫_\delta |<2^\mu `$.

For each $`\eta 𝒫_\delta `$ and $`\epsilon <\mu `$ we define $`\nu _{\eta ,\epsilon }{}_{}{}^{C_\delta }(h(\delta ))`$ by $`\nu _{\eta ,\epsilon }(\alpha )=\mathrm{cd}_\epsilon (\eta (\alpha ))`$ for $`\alpha C_\delta `$.

Now for $`\eta 𝒫_\delta `$, clearly $`\rho _\eta 𝐅(\nu _{\eta ,\epsilon }):\epsilon <\mu `$ belongs to $`{}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta `$. Clearly $`\{\rho _\eta :\eta 𝒫_\delta \}`$ is a subset of $`{}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta `$ of cardinality $`|𝒫_\delta |`$ which as said above is $`<2^\mu `$. Recall the definition of $`\mathrm{Sol}_\rho `$ from the beginning of the proof and remember $`()`$ above, so $`\eta 𝒫_\delta \mathrm{Sol}_{\rho _\eta }`$ has cardinality $`<\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\mathrm{cf}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}})2^\mu `$. Hence we can find $`\varrho _\delta ^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta \{\mathrm{Sol}_{\rho _\eta }:\eta 𝒫_\delta \}`$.

\[Why? if $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}<2^\mu `$ then $`|\{\mathrm{Sol}_{\rho _\eta }:\eta 𝒫_\delta \}|\mathrm{\Sigma }\{|\mathrm{Sol}_{\rho _\eta }|:\eta 𝒫_\delta \}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\times |𝒫_\delta |<2^\mu =\theta ^\mu =|{}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta |`$ and if $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=2^\mu `$ then $`2^\mu `$ is regular, $`|𝒫_\delta |<2^\mu ,\eta 𝒫_\delta |\mathrm{Sol}_{\rho _\eta }|<2^\mu `$ and again $`|\{\mathrm{Sol}_{\rho _\eta }:\eta 𝒫_\delta \}|<2^\mu =|{}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta |`$.\]

Let $`\epsilon <\mu `$. Recall that $`\varrho _\delta ^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta `$ for $`\delta S`$ and $`f_\epsilon `$ from the list of $``$ is a function from $`{}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta `$ to $`\theta `$ so $`f_\epsilon (\varrho _\delta ^{})<\theta `$. Hence we can consider the sequence $`\overline{c}^\epsilon =f_\epsilon (\varrho _\delta ^{}):\delta S{}_{}{}^{S}\theta `$ as a candidate for being an F-BB-sequence. If one of them is, we are done. So assume towards a contradiction that for each $`\epsilon <\mu `$ there is a sequence $`\eta _\epsilon {}_{}{}^{\lambda }(2^\mu )`$ that exemplifies the failure of $`\overline{c}^\epsilon `$ to be an $`𝐅`$-BB-sequence, so there is a $`E_\epsilon D`$ such that:

1. $`\delta SE_\epsilon 𝐅(\eta _\epsilon C_\delta )f_\epsilon (\varrho _\delta ^{})`$.

Define $`\eta ^{}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }(2^\mu )`$ by $`\eta ^{}(\alpha )=\mathrm{cd}(\eta _\epsilon (\alpha ):\epsilon <\mu )`$. Now as $`\lambda `$ is regular uncountable it follows by choice of $`h`$ that $`E\{\delta <\lambda :`$ for every $`\alpha <\delta `$ we have $`\eta ^{}(\alpha )<h(\delta )`$ and if $`\delta ^{}S,\alpha C_\delta ^{}^{}\delta `$ and $`C^{\prime \prime }=C_\delta ^{}\alpha `$ then $`\eta ^{}C^{\prime \prime }T_{<\delta }\}`$ is a club of $`\lambda `$ (see the choice of $`T`$ and $`T_{<\delta }`$, and recall as well that by assumption (c) the sequence $`(C_\delta ,C_\delta ^{}):\delta S`$ is good, see Definition 1.5(4) + (4D)).

By clause (a) in the assumption of our Claim 1.10, the filter $`D`$ includes the clubs of $`\lambda `$ so clearly $`ED`$; also $`D`$ is $`\mu ^+`$-complete hence $`E^{}\{E_\epsilon \epsilon <\mu \}E`$ belongs to $`D`$. Now choose $`\delta E^{}S`$, fixed for the rest of the proof; clearly $`\eta ^{}C_\delta 𝒫_\delta `$; just check the definitions of $`𝒫_\delta `$ and $`E,E^{}`$. Let $`\epsilon <\mu `$. Now recall that $`\nu _{\eta ^{}C_\delta ,\epsilon }`$ is the function from $`C_\delta `$ to $`h(\delta )`$ defined by:

$$\nu _{\eta ^{}C_\delta ,\epsilon }(\alpha )=\mathrm{cd}_\epsilon (\eta ^{}(\alpha )).$$

But by our choice of $`\eta ^{}`$ clearly $`\alpha C_\delta \mathrm{cd}_\epsilon (\eta ^{}(\alpha ))=\eta _\epsilon (\alpha )`$, so

$$\alpha C_\delta \nu _{\eta ^{}C_\delta ,\epsilon }(\alpha )=\eta _\epsilon (\alpha )\text{ so }\nu _{\eta ^{}C_\delta ,\epsilon }=\eta _\epsilon C_\delta .$$

Hence $`𝐅(\nu _{\eta ^{}C_\delta ,\epsilon })=𝐅(\eta _\epsilon C_\delta )`$. As $`\delta E^{}E_\epsilon `$ clearly $`𝐅(\eta _\epsilon C_\delta )f_\epsilon (\varrho _\delta ^{})`$ and as $`\eta ^{}C_\delta 𝒫_\delta `$ clearly $`\rho _{\eta ^{}C_\delta }{}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta `$ is well defined. Now easily $`\rho _{\eta ^{}C_\delta }(\epsilon )=𝐅(\nu _{\eta ^{}C_\delta ,\epsilon })`$ by the definition of $`\rho _{\eta ^{}C_\delta }`$, so we have $`\rho _{\eta ^{}C_\delta }(\epsilon )f_\epsilon (\varrho _\delta ^{})`$.

As this holds for every $`\epsilon <\mu `$ it follows by the definition of $`\mathrm{Sol}_{\rho _{\eta ^{}C_\delta }}`$ that $`\varrho _\delta ^{}\mathrm{Sol}_{\rho _{\eta ^{}C_\delta }}`$. But $`\eta ^{}C_\delta 𝒫_\delta `$ was proved above so $`\rho _{\eta ^{}C_\delta }\{\rho _\eta :\eta 𝒫_\delta \}`$ hence $`\varrho _\delta ^{}\mathrm{Sol}_{\rho _{\eta ^{}C_\delta }}\{\mathrm{Sol}_{\rho _\nu }:\nu 𝒫_\delta \}`$ whereas $`\varrho _\delta ^{}`$ has been chosen outside this set, a contradiction. ∎

We return to looking at $`\mathrm{Sep}`$ (see Definition 1.9) which appears in assumption (f) of Claim 1.10. There are obvious monotonicity properties:

###### Claim 1.13.

If $`\mathrm{Sep}(\chi ,\mu ,\theta _0,\theta _1,\mathrm{{\rm Y}})`$ holds and $`\chi ^{}\chi ,(\theta _0^{})^\mu ^{}(\theta _0)^\mu ,\theta _1^{}\theta _1`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$, then $`\mathrm{Sep}(\chi ^{},\mu ^{},\theta _0^{},\theta _1^{},\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{})`$ holds.

###### Proof..

Let $`h`$ be a one-to-one function from $`{}_{}{}^{\mu ^{}}(\theta _0^{})`$ into $`{}_{}{}^{\mu }(\theta _0)`$. Let $`\overline{f}=f_\epsilon :\epsilon <\chi `$ exemplify $`\mathrm{Sep}(\chi ,\mu ,\theta _0,\theta _1,\mathrm{{\rm Y}})`$. For $`\epsilon <\chi ^{}`$ we define $`f_\epsilon ^{}:{}_{}{}^{(\mu ^{})}(\theta _0^{})\theta _1^{}`$ by: $`f_\epsilon ^{}(\nu )=f_\epsilon (h(\nu ))`$ if $`\epsilon <\chi f_\epsilon (h(\nu ))<\theta _1^{}`$ and $`f_\epsilon ^{}(\nu )=0`$ otherwise. Let $`\varrho ^{}{}_{}{}^{(\chi ^{})}(\theta _1^{})`$ and let $`A_\varrho ^{}^{}=\{\nu {}_{}{}^{(\mu ^{})}(\theta _0^{})`$: for every $`\epsilon <\chi ^{}`$ we have $`f_\epsilon ^{}(\nu )\varrho ^{}(\epsilon )\}`$. Let $`\varrho \varrho ^{}\chi `$ so $`\varrho {}_{}{}^{\chi }(\theta _1^{}){}_{}{}^{\chi }(\theta _1)`$, hence by the choice of $`f_\epsilon :\epsilon <\chi `$ the set $`A_\varrho =\{\nu {}_{}{}^{\mu }(\theta _0)`$: for every $`\epsilon <\chi `$ we have $`f_\epsilon (\nu )\varrho (\epsilon )\}`$ has cardinality $`<\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$. If $`\nu A_\varrho ^{}^{}`$ then $`\nu {}_{}{}^{\mu ^{}}(\theta _0^{})`$ and $`h(\nu ){}_{}{}^{\mu }(\theta _0)`$, and for $`\epsilon <\chi ^{}`$ we have $`f_\epsilon ^{}(\nu )\varrho ^{}(\epsilon )`$ hence for $`\epsilon <\chi (\chi ^{})`$ we have either $`f_\epsilon (h(\nu ))<\theta _1^{}\varrho (\epsilon )=\varrho ^{}(\epsilon )f_\epsilon ^{}(\nu )=f_\epsilon (h(\nu ))`$ or $`f_\epsilon (h(\nu ))\theta _1^{}\varrho (\epsilon )=\varrho ^{}(\epsilon )<\theta _1^{}`$ so $`f_\epsilon (h(\nu ))\varrho (\epsilon )`$. Hence $`\nu A_\varrho ^{}^{}h(\nu )A_\varrho `$ and as $`h`$ is a one-to-one function we have $`|A_\varrho ^{}^{}||A_\varrho |<\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$ and we are done. ∎

To show that Claim 1.10 has reasonable assumptions we should still prove Claim 1.11:

###### Proof..

Our claim gives sufficient conditions for $`\mathrm{Sep}(\mu ,\theta )`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{Sep}(\mu ,\mu ,\theta ,\theta ,\mathrm{{\rm Y}})`$ for some $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\mathrm{cf}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}})2^\mu `$. Clearly, if $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}<2^\mu `$ we can waive “$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ regular” as $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^+`$ can serve as well. Let $`\theta _1=\theta `$.

Case 1: $`\mu =\mu ^\theta ,\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\theta ,\theta _0[\theta ,\mu ]`$ and we shall prove $`\mathrm{Sep}(\mu ,\mu ,\theta _0,\theta _1,\mathrm{{\rm Y}})`$. Let $``$ be the set of $`f`$ such that for some $`u,\overline{\rho }`$ we have:

1. $`f`$ is a function with domain $`{}_{}{}^{\mu }(\theta _0),0,`$
2. $`u[\mu ]^\theta ,`$
3. $`\overline{\rho }=\rho _i:i<\theta `$ is with no repetition,
4. $`\rho _i{}_{}{}^{u}(\theta _0)`$,
5. $`(\nu {}_{}{}^{\mu }(\theta _0)[\rho _i\nu f(\nu )=i],`$
6. $`(\nu {}_{}{}^{\mu }(\theta _0)[(_{i<\theta }(\rho _i\nu ))f(\nu )=0].`$

We write $`f=f_{u,\overline{\rho }}^{}`$, if $`u,\overline{\rho }`$ witness that $`f`$ as above. Recalling $`\mu =\mu ^\theta `$, clearly $`||=\mu `$. Let $`=\{f_\epsilon :\epsilon <\mu \}`$ and we let $`\overline{f}=f_\epsilon :\epsilon <\mu `$. Clearly clauses (a),(b) of Definition 1.9 (with $`\mu ,\mu ,\theta _0,\theta _1=\theta `$ here standing for $`\chi ,\mu ,\theta ,\theta _1`$ there) holds and let us check clause (c). So suppose $`\varrho {}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta `$ and let $`R=R_\varrho \{\nu {}_{}{}^{\mu }(\theta _0)`$: for every $`\epsilon <\mu `$ we have $`f_\epsilon (\nu )\varrho (\epsilon )\}`$. We have to prove $`|R|<\theta `$ (as we have chosen $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\theta `$).

Towards contradiction, assume that $`R{}_{}{}^{\mu }(\theta _0)`$ has cardinality $`\theta `$ and choose $`R^{}R`$ of cardinality $`\theta `$. Hence we can find $`u[\mu ]^\theta `$ such that $`\nu u:\nu R^{}`$ is without repetitions.

Let $`\{\nu _i:i<\theta \}`$ list $`R^{}`$ without repetitions and let $`\rho _i\nu _iu`$. Now let $`\overline{\rho }=\rho _i:i<\theta `$, so $`f_{u,\overline{\rho }}^{}`$ is well defined and belong to $``$. Hence for some $`\zeta <\mu `$ we have $`f_{u,\overline{\rho }}^{}=f_\zeta `$. Now for each $`i<\theta ,\nu _iR^{}R`$ hence by the definition of $`R,(\epsilon <\mu )(f_\epsilon (\nu _i)\varrho (\epsilon ))`$ in particular for $`\epsilon =\zeta `$ we get $`f_\zeta (\nu _i)\varrho (\zeta )`$. But by the choice of $`\zeta ,f_\zeta (\nu _i)=f_{u,\overline{\rho }}^{}(\nu _i)`$ and by the definition of $`f_{u,\overline{\rho }}^{}`$ recalling $`\nu _iu=\rho _i`$ we have $`f_{u,\overline{\rho }}^{}(\nu _i)=i`$, so $`i=f_\zeta (\nu _i)\varrho (\zeta )`$. This holds for every $`i<\theta `$ whereas $`\varrho {}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta `$, contradiction.

Case 2: $`2^\theta \mu `$ and $`𝐔_\theta [\mu ]=\mu `$.

Let $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=(2^\theta )^+`$ or just $`(2^{<\theta })^+`$ hence $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\mathrm{cf}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}})\mu ^+2^\mu `$. Let $`\{u_i:i<\mu \}[\mu ]^\theta `$ exemplify $`𝐔_\theta [\mu ]=\mu `$. Define $``$ as in case 1 except that for notational simplicity $`\theta _0=\theta `$ and we restrict ourselves in the definition of $``$ to $`u\{𝒫(u_i):i<\mu \}`$. Clearly $`||\mu `$ and choose $`\overline{f}=f_\epsilon :\epsilon <\mu `$ as there.

Assume that $`\varrho {}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta `$ and $`R=R_\varrho {}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta `$ is defined as in Case 1, and toward contradiction assume that $`|R|(2^{<\theta })^+`$, hence we can find $`\rho ^{},(\alpha _\zeta ,\rho _\zeta ):\zeta <\theta `$ such that:

1. 1. $`\rho ^{},\rho _\zeta R,`$
    2. $`\rho _\zeta \{\alpha _\xi :\xi <\zeta \}=\rho ^{}\{\alpha _\xi :\xi <\zeta \},`$
    3. $`\rho _\zeta (\alpha _\zeta )\rho ^{}(\alpha _\zeta ).`$

\[Why? I had thought it should be clear but we elaborate. Let $`\chi _{}=(2^\mu )^+`$ hence $`\theta ^M,R,\overline{f}(\chi )`$. Now by induction on $`\zeta <\theta `$ we choose $`M_\zeta `$ such that:

1. 1. $`M_\zeta ((\chi ),),`$
    2. $`M_\zeta `$ has cardinality $`2^{|\zeta |}+\mathrm{}_0,`$
    3. $`\mu ,\theta ,\overline{f},\varrho `$ belongs to $`M_\zeta ,`$
    4. $`[M_\zeta ]^{|\zeta |}M_\zeta ,`$
    5. if $`\epsilon <\zeta `$ then $`M_\epsilon M_\zeta `$ and $`M_\epsilon M_\zeta .`$

Clearly possible and the cardinality of $`M\{M_\alpha :\alpha <\theta \}`$ is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(2^{}+\mathrm{}_0)=2^{<\theta }`$.

Now choose $`\rho ^{}R\backslash M`$, possible because $`M=2^{<\theta }<(2^{<\theta })^+|R|`$. Next, we try to choose a pair $`(\rho _\zeta ,\alpha _\zeta )`$ by induction on $`\zeta <\theta `$ such that:

1. $`[M_\zeta ]^{|\zeta |}M_\zeta ,`$
2. $`\rho _\zeta ,\alpha _\zeta M_{\zeta +1},`$
3. if $`\epsilon <\zeta `$ then $`\rho _\zeta (\alpha _\epsilon )\rho ^{}(\alpha _\epsilon ),`$
4. $`\rho ^{}(\alpha _\zeta )\rho _\zeta (\alpha _\zeta )`$.

Why can we carry the induction on $`\zeta `$? Arriving to $`\zeta `$ the set $`X_\zeta =\{(\rho _\epsilon ,\alpha _\epsilon ):\epsilon <\zeta \}`$ is a subset of $`M_\zeta `$ of cardinality $`|\zeta |`$ hence it belongs to $`M_\zeta `$. Consider the set $`𝒳_\zeta =\{\rho R`$: for every pair $`(\rho ,\alpha )`$ from $`\lambda ,\rho (\alpha _\epsilon )\rho _\epsilon (\alpha _\epsilon )\}`$.

Now obviously this set belongs to $`M_\zeta `$, also $`\rho ^{}𝒳_\zeta `$ by the induction hypothesis on $`\zeta `$. But $`\rho ^{}`$ being not in $`M`$ hence not in $`M_\zeta `$; hence $`|𝒳_\zeta |>1`$ (and much more hence we can choose $`\rho ^{}\rho ^{\prime \prime }𝒳`$ in $`M_\zeta `$. As $`\rho ^{}\rho ^{\prime \prime }`$ are members of $`𝒳_\zeta `$ and $`𝒳_\zeta R{}_{}{}^{M}\theta `$, there is $`\alpha <\mu `$ such that $`\rho ^{}(\alpha )\rho ^{\prime \prime }(\alpha )`$ and as $`\rho ^{},\rho ^{\prime \prime }M_\zeta `$, without loss of generality $`\alpha M_\zeta `$. As $`\rho ^{}(\alpha )\rho ^{\prime \prime }(\alpha )`$ necessarily for some $`\rho \{\rho ^{},\rho ^{\prime \prime }\}`$ we have $`\rho ^{}(\alpha )\rho (\alpha )`$. So we can choose $`(\rho _\zeta ,\alpha _\zeta )=(\rho ,\alpha )`$.

Having carried out the induction clearly $`\rho ^{},(\rho _\zeta ,\alpha _\zeta ):\zeta <\theta `$ are as required.

Clearly $`\alpha _\zeta :\zeta <\theta `$ is with no repetitions.

So by the choice of $`\{u_i:i<\mu \}`$ as exemplifying $`𝐔_\theta [\mu ]=\mu `$, i.e., the definition of $`𝐔_\theta [\mu ]`$, for some $`i<\mu `$ the set $`u_i\{\alpha _\zeta :\zeta <\theta \}`$ has cardinality $`\theta `$, call it $`u`$. So $`\{\rho u:\rho R\}`$ has cardinality $`\theta `$ and we can continue as in Case 1. If we wish to use $`\theta _0[\theta ,\mu ]`$ instead of $`\theta _0=\theta `$ above let pr be a pairing function on $`\mu `$. Without loss of generality each $`u_i`$ is closed under pr and its inverses, and $`f_{u,\overline{\rho }}^{}`$ is defined iff for some $`\epsilon <\mu `$ we have $`uu_\epsilon `$ and $`i<\theta \text{ Rang}(\rho _i)u_\epsilon `$. In the end, choose $`i`$ such that $`u_i\{\text{pr}(\alpha _\zeta ,\text{pr}(\rho _\zeta (\alpha _\zeta ),\rho ^{}(\alpha _\zeta )):\zeta <\theta \}`$ has cardinality $`\theta `$.

Case 3: $`𝐔_J[\mu ]=\mu `$ where $`J=[\sigma ]^{<\theta }`$ for $`\sigma `$ such that $`\sigma ^\theta \mu ,\sigma \theta `$.

Let $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=[2^{<\sigma }]^+`$. The proof is similar to Case 2, only find now $`\rho ^{}`$ and $`(\alpha _\zeta ,\rho _\zeta ):\zeta <\sigma `$ and choose $`i<\mu `$ such that $`u_i\{\text{pr}(\alpha _\zeta ,\rho _\zeta (\alpha _\zeta )):\zeta <\sigma \}`$ has cardinality $`\theta `$.

Case 4: $`\mu >\theta \mathrm{cf}(\mu )`$ and $`\mu `$ is strong limit.

Follows by case 2.

Case 5: $`\mu \mathrm{}_\omega (\theta )`$.

By \[She00b\] we can find a regular $`\sigma <\mathrm{}_\omega (\theta )`$ which is $`>\theta `$ and such that $`𝐔_\sigma [\mu ]=\mu `$, so Case 2 applies.

Note that in case 2, we can replace $`2^\theta \mu `$ by: there is $`{}_{}{}^{\theta }\theta `$ of cardinality $`\mu `$ such that for every $`A[\theta ]^\theta `$ for some $`f`$ we have $`\theta =\text{ Rang}(fA)`$. The proof is obvious.

Similarly in case 3. ∎

There are some obvious monotonicity properties regarding the BB-property.

###### Claim 1.14.

1) If $`(\lambda ,\overline{C})`$ has the $`\theta `$-BB-property (see Definition 1.6(1)) and $`\overline{C}=C_\delta :\delta S`$ and $`C_\delta ^1`$ is an unbounded subset of $`C_\delta `$ for $`\delta S`$ then $`(\lambda ,C_\delta ^1:\delta S)`$ has a $`\theta `$-BB property. We can also increase $`S`$ and decrease $`\theta `$; we can deal with the $`(\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-BB-property.

2) Assume $`\lambda =\text{cf}(\lambda )>\mathrm{}_0,S\{\delta :\delta <\lambda ,\text{cf}(\delta )=\kappa \}`$ is stationary and $`\kappa <\chi \lambda `$. Then some $`C_\delta :\delta S`$ is a $`(\lambda ,\kappa ,\chi )`$-BB-parameter.

Proof 1) Obvious.
2) Easy (note: goodness is not required). $`\mathrm{}_{\text{1.14}}`$

We may consider the following generalization.

###### Definition 1.15.

1) We say $`\overline{C}`$ is a *$`\lambda `$-BB3-parameter* if:

1. $`\lambda `$ is regular uncountable,
2. $`S`$ is a stationary subset of $`\lambda `$ (consisting of limit ordinals),
3. $`\overline{C}=C_\delta ,C_\delta ^{},C_{\delta ,\epsilon }:\delta S,\epsilon <\mathrm{cf}(\delta ),`$
4. $`C_\delta \delta =sup(C_\delta )`$ and $`C_\delta ^{}\delta =sup(C_\delta ^{})`$, $`\mathrm{otp}(C_\delta ^{})=\kappa `$ and $`C_\delta =\{C_{\delta ,\epsilon }:\epsilon <\mathrm{cf}(\delta )\},`$
5. $`\zeta <\mathrm{cf}(\delta )sup(_{\epsilon <\zeta }C_{\delta ,\epsilon })<\delta `$ and $`C_{\delta ,\epsilon }`$ increase with $`\epsilon .`$

2) We say that a $`\lambda `$-BB3-parameter $`\overline{C}`$ is333if $`C_\delta :\delta S`$ is a good $`(\lambda ,\kappa ,\chi )`$-BB-parameter $`C_\delta ^{}\delta =sup(C_\delta ^{})`$, $`\mathrm{otp}(C_\delta ^{})=\kappa `$ and we let $`C_{\delta ,\epsilon }=\{\alpha C_\delta :\mathrm{otp}(\alpha C_\delta ^{})\epsilon +1\}`$ for $`\epsilon <\kappa `$ then $`C_\delta ,C_{\delta ,\epsilon }:\delta S,\epsilon <\kappa `$ is a $`\lambda `$-BB1-parameter. *good* if $`\alpha <\lambda \lambda >|\{C_{\delta ,\zeta }:\delta S,\zeta <\mathrm{cf}(\delta )`$ and the $`\zeta `$-th member of $`C_\delta ^{}`$ is $`\alpha \}|`$.

3) The $`(D,\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-BB3-property for $`\overline{C}`$ means the $`(D,\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-BB-property for $`C_\delta :\delta S`$, similarly for the other variants of this property (so the $`(D,\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-BB3-property for $`\lambda `$ for a stationary $`SS_\kappa ^\lambda `$ is the same as the $`(D,\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-BB-property).

4) If $`\{C_{\delta ,\epsilon }:\epsilon <\mathrm{cf}(\delta )\}=\{C_\delta \alpha :\alpha \mathrm{nacc}(C_\delta )\}`$ we may write just $`C_\delta :\delta S`$ (so BB3 is like BBin this case).

We may consider the following variant.

###### Claim 1.16.

If (A) then (B), where:

1. 1. $`\lambda `$ is regular uncountable, $`S\{\delta <\lambda :\text{cf}(\delta )=\kappa \}`$ is stationary and $`\chi <\lambda ,`$
    2. $`𝔅`$ is a model with universe $`\lambda `$ such that $`A[\lambda ]^{<\chi }c\mathrm{}_𝔅(A)[\lambda ]^{<\chi }`$; we may allow infinitary functions provided that:

    1. if $`A_i:i<\kappa `$ is increasing, $`A_i[\lambda ]^{<\chi }`$ then $`c\mathrm{}_𝔅(_{i<\kappa }A_i)=_{i<\kappa }c\mathrm{}_𝔅(A_i).`$
    3. $`\overline{C}=C_\delta :\delta S`$ is a good $`(\lambda ,\kappa ,\kappa ^+)`$-BB-parameter,
    4. $`S^{}=\{\delta S`$: for every $`\alpha <\delta ,c\mathrm{}_𝔅(\alpha )\delta \},`$
    5. $`C_{\delta ,\epsilon }^{}=\alpha _{\delta ,\epsilon }c\mathrm{}_𝔅(C_\delta \alpha _{\delta ,\epsilon })`$ for $`\delta S^{}`$ and $`\epsilon <\kappa `$ where $`\alpha _{\delta ,\epsilon }C_\delta `$ is increasing with $`\epsilon `$ with limit $`\delta `$ and $`C_\delta ^{}=\{C_{\delta ,\epsilon }^{}:\epsilon <\text{cf}(\delta )\}`$ and $`C_\delta ^{}=\{\alpha _{\delta ,\epsilon }:\epsilon <\text{cf}(\delta )\}`$.
2. $`C_\delta ^{},C_\delta ,C_{\delta ,\epsilon }^{}:\delta S^{},\epsilon <\text{cf}(\delta )`$ is a good $`(S,\kappa ,\chi )`$-BB3-parameter (and $`S\backslash S^{}`$ is non-stationary); if $`\chi \kappa `$ then $`_{\epsilon <\kappa }C_{\delta ,\epsilon }^{}=c\mathrm{}_𝔅(C_\delta )`$.

###### Proof..

Easy. ∎

###### Claim 1.17.

1) Assume $`\overline{C}=C_\delta ,C_\delta ^{},C_{\delta ,\epsilon }:\delta S,\epsilon <\text{cf}(\delta )`$ is a good $`(\lambda ,\kappa ,\chi )`$-BB3-parameter. Then Claim 1.10 holds (i.e. we get there the $`(D,\theta )`$-BB3-property).

2) In part (1) hence in Claim 1.10, we can weaken clause (e) to:

1. (if $`\lambda =2^\mu `$ we can use $`h=\text{id}_\lambda `$): there is $`h:\lambda 2^\mu `$ increasing continuous with limit $`2^\mu `$ and there is a set $`T=\{\eta _\alpha :\alpha <2^\mu \}`$ and function $`g:\lambda \lambda `$ such that if $`\eta {}_{}{}^{\lambda }(2^\mu )`$ then for stationary many $`\delta S`$ we have:

1. $`\eta C_\delta \{\eta _\alpha :\alpha <h(g(\delta ))\},`$
    2. $`\zeta <\text{cf}(\delta )\eta (_{\epsilon <\zeta }C_{\delta ,\epsilon })\{\eta _\beta :\beta <\delta \}`$.

###### Proof..

Same proof as Claim 1.10.

We give details, we are assuming:

1. 1. $`\lambda =\text{cf}(2^\mu ),D`$ is a $`\mu ^+`$-complete filter on $`\lambda `$ extending the club filter,
    2. $`\kappa =\text{cf}(\kappa )<\chi \lambda ,`$
    3. $`\overline{C}=C_\delta ,C_\delta ^{},C_{\delta ,\epsilon }:\delta S`$ is a good $`(\lambda ,\kappa ,\chi )\text{BB}_3`$-parameter,
    4. $`2^{<\chi }2^\mu `$ and $`\theta \mu ,`$
    5. $`\alpha <2^\mu |\alpha |^{<\kappa >_{\text{tr}}}<2^\mu `$ or,
    6. clause $`(e)^{}`$ above,
    7. $`\mathrm{Sep}(\mu ,\theta )`$.

So we have to deduce

1. $`\overline{C}^{}=C_\delta :\delta S`$ has the $`(D,2^\mu ,\theta )`$-BB-property recall that this means that the number of colours is $`\theta `$ not just 2).

Why $``$ holds? Let $`𝐅`$ be a given $`(\overline{C}^{},2^\mu ,\theta )`$-colouring.

By assumption (f) we have $`\mathrm{Sep}(\mu ,\theta )`$ which means (see Definition 1.9(2)) that for some $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\mathrm{cf}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}})2^\mu `$ we have $`\mathrm{Sep}(\mu ,\mu ,\theta ,\theta ,\mathrm{{\rm Y}})`$.

Let $`=\{f_\xi :\xi <\mu \}`$ where $``$ exemplify $`\mathrm{Sep}(\mu ,\mu ,\theta ,\theta ,\mathrm{{\rm Y}})`$, see Definition 1.9(1) and for $`\rho {}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta `$ let $`\mathrm{Sol}_\rho \{\nu {}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta :\text{ for every }\epsilon <\mu `$ we have $`\rho (\epsilon )f_\epsilon (\nu )\}`$ where $`\mathrm{Sol}`$ stands for solutions, so by clause (c) of the Definition 1.9(1) of $`\mathrm{Sep}`$ it follows that:

1. $`\rho {}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta |\mathrm{Sol}_\rho |<\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$.

We now assume that sub-clause $`(\alpha )`$ of clause (e) of $``$ holds and we shall find $`h,g,\eta _\alpha :\alpha <2^\mu `$ as required in sub-clause $`(e)(\beta )`$ of $``$. Let $`h`$ be an increasing continuous function from $`\lambda `$ into $`2^\mu `$ with unbounded range; if $`2^\mu `$ is regular, $`h=\mathrm{id}_\lambda `$ is O.K. Recall that $`\lambda =\mathrm{cf}(2^\mu )2^{<\chi }`$. Let $`\mathrm{cd}`$ be a one-to-one function from $`{}_{}{}^{\mu }(2^\mu )`$ onto $`2^\mu `$ such that:

$$\alpha =\mathrm{cd}(\alpha _\epsilon :\epsilon <\mu )\alpha sup\{\alpha _\epsilon :\epsilon <\mu \},$$

and let the function $`\mathrm{cd}_i:2^\mu 2^\mu `$ for $`i<\mu `$ be such that $`\mathrm{cd}_i(\mathrm{cd}(\alpha _\epsilon :\epsilon <\mu ))=\alpha _i`$.

Let $`𝒞=\{C_{\delta ,\zeta }\alpha :\delta S,\zeta <\kappa \text{ and }\alpha `$ is the $`\zeta `$-th member of $`C_\delta ^{}\}`$, recall that trivially $`|𝒞|\lambda 2^\mu `$ and let $`T=\{\eta :`$ for some $`C𝒞`$ (hence $`C`$ is of cardinality $`<\chi `$), we have $`\eta {}_{}{}^{C}(2^\mu )\}`$. By assumptions (c) + (d) clearly $`|T|=\text{ }_{C𝒞}2^{\mu |C|}|𝒞|\times (2^\mu )^{<\chi }2^\mu `$ but $`|T|2^\mu `$ hence $`|T|=2^\mu `$. So let us list $`T`$ possibly with repetitions as $`\{\eta _\alpha :\alpha <2^\mu \}`$, without loss of generality such that $`[\alpha <h(\beta )\text{ Rang}(\eta _\alpha )\beta ]`$ and let $`T_{<\alpha }=\{\eta _\beta :\beta <h(\alpha )\}`$ for $`\alpha <\lambda `$. For $`\delta S`$ let $`𝒫_\delta \{\eta :\eta `$ is a function from $`C_\delta `$ into $`h(\delta )`$ such that for every $`\zeta <\kappa `$ we have $`\eta C_{\delta ,zeta}T_{<\delta }\}`$, clearly $`\eta 𝒫_\delta \eta {}_{}{}^{(C_\delta )}h(\delta )`$. Clearly $`\{\eta C_{\delta ,\zeta }:\eta 𝒫_\delta ,\zeta <\kappa \}`$ is naturally a tree with $`𝒫_\delta `$ the set of $`\mathrm{otp}(C_\delta )`$-branches and cf$`(\mathrm{otp}(C_\delta ))=\kappa `$ and set of nodes $`T_{<\delta }`$ hence with $`<2^\mu `$ nodes hence by assumption (e),

1. $`|𝒫_\delta |<2^\mu `$.

If $`\lambda =2^\mu `$ then there is a function $`g:\lambda \lambda `$ as required in sub-clause $`(e)(\beta )`$ of $``$, just let $`g(\alpha )=\text{Min}\{\gamma <\lambda :\gamma >\alpha `$ and for every $`\delta S(\gamma +1)`$ we have $`𝒫_\delta \{\eta _\beta :\beta <h(\gamma )\}`$. If $`\lambda =\text{cf}(2^\mu )<2^\mu `$ we should choose $`\eta _\alpha :\alpha <2^\mu `$, by letting $`\eta _{2\alpha }^{}=\eta _\alpha `$ and making, e.g. $`\delta S𝒫_\delta \{\eta _{2\alpha +1}^{}:\alpha <|𝒫_\delta |^+(<2^\mu )\}`$. In any case,

1. $`h,g,\eta _\alpha :\alpha <2^\lambda `$ are as in $`(c)(\beta )`$ of $``$ and let $`𝒫_\delta =\{\eta _\alpha :\alpha <h(g(\alpha ))\}`$.

For each $`\eta 𝒫_\delta `$ and $`\epsilon <\mu `$ we define $`\nu _{\eta ,\epsilon }{}_{}{}^{C_\delta }(h(\delta ))`$ by $`\nu _{\eta ,\epsilon }(\alpha )=\mathrm{cd}_\epsilon (\eta (\alpha ))`$ for $`\alpha C_\delta `$. Now for $`\eta 𝒫_\delta `$, clearly $`\rho _\eta 𝐅(\nu _{\eta ,\epsilon }):\epsilon <\mu `$ belongs to $`{}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta `$. Clearly $`\{\rho _\eta :\eta 𝒫_\delta \}`$ is a subset of $`{}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta `$ of cardinality $`|𝒫_\delta |`$ which as said above is $`<2^\mu `$. Recall the definition of $`\mathrm{Sol}_\rho `$ from the beginning of the proof and remember $`()`$ above, so $`\eta 𝒫_\delta \mathrm{Sol}_{\rho _\eta }`$ has cardinality $`<\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\mathrm{cf}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}})2^\mu `$. Hence we can find $`\varrho _\delta ^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta \{\mathrm{Sol}_{\rho _\eta }:\eta 𝒫_\delta \}`$.

\[Why? if $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}<2^\mu `$ then $`|\{\mathrm{Sol}_{\rho _\eta }:\eta 𝒫_\delta \}|\mathrm{\Sigma }\{|\mathrm{Sol}_{\rho _\eta }|:\eta 𝒫_\delta \}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\times |𝒫_\delta |<2^\mu =\theta ^\mu =|{}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta |`$ and if $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=2^\mu `$ then $`2^\mu `$ is regular, $`|𝒫_\delta |<2^\mu ,\eta 𝒫_\delta |\mathrm{Sol}_{\rho _\eta }|<2^\mu `$ and again $`|\{\mathrm{Sol}_{\rho _\eta }:\eta 𝒫_\delta \}|<2^\mu =|{}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta |`$.\]

Let $`\epsilon <\mu `$. Recall that $`\varrho _\delta ^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta `$ for $`\delta S`$ and $`f_\epsilon `$ from the list of $``$ is a function from $`{}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta `$ to $`\theta `$ so $`f_\epsilon (\varrho _\delta ^{})<\theta `$. Hence we can consider the sequence $`\overline{c}^\epsilon =f_\epsilon (\varrho _\delta ^{}):\delta S{}_{}{}^{S}\theta `$ as a candidate for being an F-BB-sequence. If one of them is, we are done. So assume towards a contradiction that for each $`\epsilon <\mu `$ there is a sequence $`\eta _\epsilon {}_{}{}^{\lambda }(2^\mu )`$ that exemplifies the failure of $`\overline{c}^\epsilon `$ to be an $`𝐅`$-BB-sequence, so there is a $`E_\epsilon D`$ such that:

1. $`\delta SE_\epsilon 𝐅(\eta _\epsilon C_\delta )f_\epsilon (\varrho _\delta ^{})`$.

Define $`\eta ^{}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }(2^\mu )`$ by $`\eta ^{}(\alpha )=\mathrm{cd}(\eta _\epsilon (\alpha ):\epsilon <\mu )`$. Now as $`\lambda `$ is regular uncountable it follows by choice of $`h`$ that $`E\{\delta <\lambda :`$ for every $`\alpha <\delta `$ we have $`\eta ^{}(\alpha )<h(\delta )`$ and if $`\delta ^{}S,\zeta <\kappa ,\alpha `$ the $`\zeta `$-th member of $`C_\delta ^{}^{}\delta `$ then $`\eta ^{}C_{\delta ^{},\zeta }\}`$ is a club of $`\lambda `$ (see the choice of $`T`$ and recall as well that by assumption (c) the sequence $`(C_\delta ,C_\delta ^{},C_{\delta ,\zeta }):\delta S,\zeta <\kappa `$ is good, see Definition 1.15(2).

By clause (a) in the assumption of our Claim 1.10, the filter $`D`$ includes the clubs of $`\lambda `$ so clearly $`ED`$; also $`D`$ is $`\mu ^+`$-complete hence $`E^{}\{E_\epsilon :\epsilon <\mu \}E`$ belongs to $`D`$. Now choose $`\delta E^{}S`$, fixed for the rest of the proof; clearly $`\eta ^{}C_\delta 𝒫_\delta `$; just check the definitions of $`𝒫_\delta `$ and $`E,E^{}`$. Let $`\epsilon <\mu `$. Now recall that $`\nu _{\eta ^{}C_\delta ,\epsilon }`$ is the function from $`C_\delta `$ to $`h(\delta )`$ defined by

$$\nu _{\eta ^{}C_\delta ,\epsilon }(\alpha )=\mathrm{cd}_\epsilon (\eta ^{}(\alpha )).$$

But by our choice of $`\eta ^{}`$ clearly $`\alpha C_\delta \mathrm{cd}_\epsilon (\eta ^{}(\alpha ))=\eta _\epsilon (\alpha )`$, so

$$\alpha C_\delta \nu _{\eta ^{}C_\delta ,\epsilon }(\alpha )=\eta _\epsilon (\alpha )\text{ so }\nu _{\eta ^{}C_\delta ,\epsilon }=\eta _\epsilon C_\delta .$$

Hence $`𝐅(\nu _{\eta ^{}C_\delta ,\epsilon })=𝐅(\eta _\epsilon C_\delta )`$. As $`\delta E^{}E_\epsilon `$ clearly $`𝐅(\eta _\epsilon C_\delta )f_\epsilon (\varrho _\delta ^{})`$ and as $`\eta ^{}C_\delta 𝒫_\delta `$ clearly $`\rho _{\eta ^{}C_\delta }{}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta `$ is well defined. Now easily $`\rho _{\eta ^{}C_\delta }(\epsilon )=𝐅(\nu _{\eta ^{}C_\delta ,\epsilon })`$ by the definition of $`\rho _{\eta ^{}C_\delta }`$, so we have $`\rho _{\eta ^{}C_\delta }(\epsilon )f_\epsilon (\varrho _\delta ^{})`$.

As this holds for every $`\epsilon <\mu `$ it follows by the definition of $`\mathrm{Sol}_{\rho _{\eta ^{}C_\delta }}`$ that $`\varrho _\delta ^{}\mathrm{Sol}_{\rho _{\eta ^{}C_\delta }}`$. But $`\eta ^{}C_\delta 𝒫_\delta `$ was proved above so $`\rho _{\eta ^{}C_\delta }\{\rho _\eta :\eta 𝒫_\delta \}`$ hence $`\varrho _\delta ^{}\mathrm{Sol}_{\rho _{\eta ^{}C_\delta }}\mathrm{Sol}_{\rho _\nu }:\nu 𝒫_\delta \}`$ whereas $`\varrho _\delta ^{}`$ has been chosen outside this set, a contradiction. $`\mathrm{}_{\text{1.17}}`$

###### Claim 1.18.

In the proof of Claim 1.10 instead of $`f:\lambda \mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ and $`f_\delta :C_\delta \theta `$ we can use $`f:[\lambda ]^{<\mathrm{}_0}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ and $`f_\delta :[C_\delta ]^{<\mathrm{}_0}\theta `$ (so get the $`\theta `$-MD-property for $`\mathrm{}=0,1,2`$).

###### Proof..

Let $`\mathrm{cd}_{}`$ be a one-to-one function from $`{}_{}{}^{\omega >}\lambda `$ into $`\lambda `$ and without loss of generality $`\alpha _{\mathrm{}}\text{cd}_{}(\alpha _0,\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _{n1})<\text{Max}(\{\omega \}\{\omega \alpha _{\pi (0)}+\mathrm{}\omega \alpha _{\pi (n1)}:\pi `$ a permutation of $`n\})`$. We are given $`\overline{C}=C_\delta :\delta S`$, without loss of generality every $`\delta S`$ is infinite and divisible by $`(\delta )`$.

Let $`C_{1,\delta }=\{\text{cd}_{}(\eta ):\eta {}_{}{}^{\omega >}(C_\delta )\}`$ and $`C_{1,\delta }^{}=\text{nacc}(C_\delta )`$. $`\mathrm{}_{\text{1.18}}`$

###### Definition 1.19.

1) For a set $`A`$ of ordinals and an ordinal $`\alpha `$ let

$$A\alpha \{\beta :\beta <\alpha \text{ or for some }\gamma A\text{ we have }\beta [\gamma ,\gamma +\alpha )\}.$$

2) The pair $`(\lambda ,\overline{C})`$ or just $`\overline{C}`$ has the *$`(\chi ,\theta )`$-MD0-property* (or use MD instead of MD0) if we can find $`f_\delta :\delta S`$ such that:

1. $`f_\delta `$ is a function from $`C_\delta ^{}=C_\delta \alpha _\delta ^{}`$ to $`\theta `$ for some $`\alpha _\delta ^{}<\chi ,`$
2. if $`f`$ is a function from $`\lambda `$ to $`\theta `$ and $`\alpha <\chi `$ is non-zero then for stationary many $`\delta S`$ we have $`f_\delta f`$ and $`\alpha _\delta ^{}=\alpha `$.

If we omit $`\chi `$ we mean $`\chi =2`$ so $`\alpha _\delta ^{}=1`$ for every $`\delta S`$.

3) *$`(D,\chi ,\theta )`$-MD2-property* means: if $`\tau `$ is a relational vocabulary of cardinality $`<\theta `$, then we can find $`M_\delta :\delta S`$ such that:

1. $`M_\delta `$ is a $`\tau `$-model with universe $`C_\delta ^{}=C_\delta \alpha _\delta ^{}`$ for some $`\alpha _\delta ^{}<\chi ,`$
2. if $`M`$ is a $`\tau `$-model with universe $`\lambda `$ and $`\alpha <\chi `$ then the set $`A_{M,\alpha }=\{\delta S:MC_\delta =M_\delta `$ and $`\alpha _\delta ^{}=\alpha \}`$ is stationary and even belongs to $`D^+`$.

If we omit $`\chi `$ we mean $`\chi =2`$ so $`\alpha _\delta ^{}=1`$ for every $`\delta S`$. Similarly with $`D`$.

4) We say $`(\lambda ,S)`$ has the *$`(\chi ,\theta )`$-MD-property* if for some $`\overline{C}=C_\delta :\delta S`$ the pair $`(\lambda ,\overline{C})`$ has the $`(\chi ,\theta )`$-MD-property. We say that $`\lambda `$ has the $`(\kappa ,\chi ,\theta )`$-property if $`(\lambda ,S_\kappa ^\lambda )`$ has the $`(\chi ,\theta )`$-MD-property.

The following claim shows the close affinity of the properties stated in Theorem 0.1 in the introduction and the $`\theta `$-BB-property with which we deal in this section here. This claim is needed to deduce Theorem 0.1 from Claim 1.10.

###### Claim 1.20.

1) Assume $`(\lambda ,\overline{C})`$ has the $`\theta `$-BB-property where $`\overline{C}=C_\delta :\delta S`$ is a $`(\lambda ,\kappa ,\chi )`$-BB-parameter. If $`\kappa <\chi ,\theta =\theta ^{<\chi }`$ then $`(\lambda ,\overline{C})`$ has the $`(\chi ,\theta )`$-MD0-property.

2) Assume in addition that $`\overline{C}`$ is a good$`{}_{}{}^{+}(\lambda ,\kappa ,\chi )`$-BB-parameter then $`(\lambda ,\overline{C})`$ has the $`(D,\chi ,\theta )`$-MD2-property.

3) In part (2) we can allow $`\tau `$ to have function symbols but have:

1. $`M_\delta `$ is a $`\tau `$-model with universe $`C_\delta ^{}=C_\delta \alpha _\delta ^{}`$ for some $`\alpha _\delta ^{}<\chi ,`$
2. if $`M`$ is a $`\tau `$-model with universe $`\lambda `$ and $`\alpha <\lambda `$ then the following set belongs to $`D^+`$:

$$A_{M,\alpha }^{}=\{\delta S:\alpha _\delta ^{}=\alpha \text{ and }(Mc\mathrm{}_M(C_\delta ^{}),c)_{cC_\delta ^{}}(M_\delta ,c)_{cC_\delta ^{}}\}.$$

4) In part (2) we can replace good+ by good if we add:

1. each $`C_\delta `$ is closed under pr, where pr is a fixed pairing function on $`\lambda `$.

###### Proof..

The proof consists of a translation of one version of super BBto another (note: “$`\tau `$ is a relational” is a strong restriction).

1) First fix $`\alpha ^{}<\chi `$ and deal with $`C_\delta ^{\prime \prime }:\delta S,C_\delta ^{\prime \prime }=C_\delta ^{}\backslash [0,\alpha ^{})`$ recalling $`C_\delta ^{}=C_\delta \alpha ^{}`$. Let $`\mathrm{cd}`$ be a one-to-one function from $`{}_{}{}^{\chi >}\theta `$ onto $`\theta `$. Define $`F_\delta :\delta S`$ as follows: if $`f{}_{}{}^{(C_\delta )}\theta `$ then $`F_\delta (f)=\mathrm{cd}(f(\beta _{\delta ,\epsilon }):\epsilon <\mathrm{otp}(C_\delta ))`$ where $`\beta _{\delta ,\epsilon }:\epsilon <\mathrm{otp}(C_\delta )`$ list $`C_\delta `$ in increasing order so $`F_\delta `$ is a function from $`{}_{}{}^{(C_\delta )}\theta `$ into $`\theta `$. As we assume “$`(\lambda ,\overline{C})`$ has the $`\theta `$-BB-property”, we can apply its definition, hence for $`\overline{F}=F_\delta :\delta S`$ there is a diamond sequence $`c_\delta :\delta S`$.

We now define $`f_\delta ^{}:C_\delta ^{\prime \prime }\theta `$ as follows: if $`\beta _0`$ is a member of $`C_\delta `$ and $`\alpha [\beta _0,\beta _0+\alpha ^{})`$ and $`\alpha <\mathrm{min}(C_\delta ^{\prime \prime }\backslash (\beta _0+1))`$ and $`c_\delta =\text{cd}(\xi _{\delta ,\epsilon }:\epsilon <\text{otp}(C_\delta )`$ and $`\xi _{\delta ,\epsilon }=\text{cd}(\zeta _{\delta ,\epsilon ,i}:i<\alpha ^{}`$ then $`f_\delta ^{}(\alpha )=\zeta _{\delta ,\mathrm{otp}(C_\delta \beta _0),\alpha \beta _0}`$; otherwise $`f_\delta ^{}(\alpha )=0`$. So $`f_\delta ^{}:C_\delta ^{\prime \prime }\theta `$. Why is $`f_\delta ^{}:\delta S`$ as required for $`C_\delta ^{\prime \prime }:\delta S`$ (and $`\alpha ^{}`$)? Assume that $`f:\lambda \theta `$, so we can define $`f^{}:\lambda \theta `$ by $`f^{}(\alpha )=\text{cd}(f(\alpha +\epsilon ):\epsilon <\alpha ^{})`$, hence for stationarily many $`\delta S`$ we have $`c_\delta =F_\delta (f^{}C_\delta )`$. Now we check that $`fC_\delta ^{\prime \prime }`$ is equal to $`f_\delta ^{}`$ defined above.

Let $`\xi _{\delta ,\epsilon ,i}=f^{}(\beta _{\delta ,\epsilon })`$ and $`\zeta _{\delta ,\epsilon +i}=f(\beta _{\delta ,\epsilon }+i)`$ for $`i<\alpha ^{},\epsilon <\mathrm{otp}(C_\delta )`$ so $`\xi _{\delta ,\epsilon }=f^{}(\beta _{\delta ,\epsilon })=\mathrm{cd}(\zeta _{\delta ,\epsilon ,i}:i<\alpha ^{}),c_\delta =F_\delta (f^{}C_\delta )=\mathrm{cd}(\xi _{\delta ,\epsilon }:\epsilon <\mathrm{otp}(C_\delta )`$. Hence by the definition of $`f_\delta ^{}`$ we have: if $`\beta =\beta _{\delta ,\epsilon }C_\delta ,\alpha [\beta ,\beta +\epsilon )`$ and $`\alpha <\mathrm{min}(C_\delta \backslash (\beta +1))`$ then $`f_\delta ^{}(\alpha )=\zeta _{\delta ,\epsilon ,\alpha \beta }=f(\beta _{\delta ,\epsilon }+(\alpha \beta ))=f(\beta +(\alpha \beta ))=\beta `$ as required.

To have “every $`\alpha ^{}<\chi `$” (and guess also $`f(C_\delta ^{}\backslash C_\delta ^{\prime \prime })f[0,\alpha ^{}))`$ we just have to partition $`S`$ to $`S_\alpha :\alpha <\chi `$ such that each $`\overline{C}S_\alpha `$ has the $`\theta `$-BB-property which we can do by 1.23(3) below (or work a little more above, i.e., $`f^{}(\alpha )=\mathrm{cd}(f(\alpha +\epsilon ):\epsilon <\alpha _\delta \mathrm{^}f(\epsilon ):\epsilon <\alpha _\delta )`$).

2), 3), 4) Left to the reader. ∎

###### Claim 1.21.

1) Assume $`\lambda =\text{cf}(\lambda )>\kappa =\text{cf}(\kappa ),SS_\kappa ^\lambda `$ and

1. $`\overline{C}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a $`\lambda `$-BB-parameter for $`\mathrm{}=1,2,`$
2. $`\overline{C}^1=C_\delta ^1:\delta S`$ has the $`(\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-BB property,
3. $`A_\alpha [\alpha ]^{<\chi }\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{|A_\alpha |}=\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ for $`\alpha <\lambda `$ and $`\delta SC_\delta ^2=\{A_\alpha :\alpha C_\delta ^1\}`$,

then $`\overline{C}^2`$ has the $`(\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-BB-property.

2) If $`\overline{C}`$ is a $`(\lambda ,\kappa ,\chi ^+)`$-BB-parameter with the $`(\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-BB-property, $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^\chi =\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ and $`C_\delta ^{}=\{\alpha +I:\alpha C_\delta \alpha =0`$ and $`i<\chi \}`$, then $`\overline{C}^{}=C_\delta ^{}:\delta \text{Dom}(\overline{C})`$ is a $`(\lambda ,\kappa ,\chi ^+)`$-BB-parameter with at he $`\theta `$-BB-property.

###### Proof..

Easy by coding (as in the proof of Claim 1.20). ∎

###### Definition 1.22.

Assume $`\lambda >\kappa `$ are regular and $`\overline{C}=C_\delta :\delta S`$ is a $`(\lambda ,\kappa ,\chi )`$-BB-parameter with the $`(\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-BB-property. Let ID$`{}_{\lambda ,\kappa ,\chi ,\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta }{}^{}(\overline{C})=\{A\lambda :\overline{C}(SA)`$ does not have the $`(\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-BB-property$`\}`$. If $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\theta `$ we may omit it.

###### Claim 1.23.

Let $`\overline{C},\lambda ,\kappa ,\chi ,\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta `$ be as above in Definition 1.22 and $`J=\text{ID}_{\lambda ,\kappa ,\chi ,\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta }(\overline{C})`$.

1) $`J`$ is an ideal on $`\lambda `$ such that $`\lambda \backslash SJ,\lambda J`$ if $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\mathrm{}_0`$.

2) $`J`$ is $`\lambda `$-complete and even normal if $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\lambda `$ (if $`\mathrm{}_0\mathrm{{\rm Y}}<\lambda `$ it is still $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^+`$-complete).

3) If $`S\lambda `$ and $`S\mathrm{}`$ mod $`J`$, then for any $`\overline{F}^i=F_\delta ^i:\delta S,F_\delta ^i:{}_{}{}^{(C_\delta )}\theta \theta `$, $`\lambda `$ can be partitioned to $`\theta `$ subsets each having a $`\overline{F}^i`$-BB-sequence.

###### Proof..

1) Let $`\mathrm{cd}:\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\times \mathrm{{\rm Y}}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ be one-to-one onto and $`\mathrm{cd}_{\mathrm{}}:\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ be such that $`\mathrm{cd}_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{cd}(\alpha _0,\alpha _{\mathrm{}}))=\alpha _{\mathrm{}}`$. Clearly $`J`$ is a subfamily of $`𝒫(\lambda )`$ and it is closed under subsets, so we need just to prove that it is closed under union of two. So suppose $`A=A_1A_2,A_{\mathrm{}}J`$ for $`\mathrm{}=1,2`$. As $`J`$ is closed under subsets, without loss of generality $`AA_2=\mathrm{}`$. Let the sequence $`\overline{F}^{\mathrm{}}=F_\delta ^{\mathrm{}}:\delta SA_{\mathrm{}}`$ exemplify $`A_{\mathrm{}}J`$. Now we define $`\overline{F}=F_\delta :\delta SA`$ as follows:

1. if $`\delta SA`$ and $`f{}_{}{}^{(C_\delta )}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ then: $`\delta A_{\mathrm{}}F_\delta (f)=F_\delta ^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{cd}_{\mathrm{}}f)`$, i.e., $`F_\delta (f)=F_\delta ^{\mathrm{}}(f^{\mathrm{}})`$ where $`\alpha C_\delta f^{\mathrm{}}(\alpha )=\mathrm{cd}_{\mathrm{}}(f(\alpha ))`$.

2) Straight as the sequence $`F_\delta :\delta S`$ is not required to be nicely definable.

3) Guessing $`\theta \times \theta `$ is the same as guessing $`\theta `$. ∎

$``$

Well, are there good $`(\lambda ,\kappa ,\kappa ^+)`$-parameters? Some version of this is crucial for having interesting consequences of Claim 1.10, but we shall have to quote (on $`\widehat{I}[\lambda ]`$ see Definition 0.5; see on it \[She93a, §1\]).

###### Claim 1.24.

1) If $`S`$ is a stationary subset of a regular cardinal $`\lambda `$ and $`SI[\lambda ]`$, see Definition 0.5, and $`(\delta S)[\text{cf}(\delta )=\kappa ]`$, then:

1. for some club $`E`$ of $`\lambda `$, there is a good$`{}_{}{}^{+}(SE,\kappa ,\kappa ^+)`$-BB-parameter. (Of course, we can replace the $`\kappa ^+`$ by any $`\chi \lambda `$) (recall that we do not required the $`C_\delta `$’s to be a closed subset of $`\delta `$),
2. for some club $`E`$ of $`\lambda `$ there is a weakly good$`{}_{}{}^{+}(SE,\kappa ,\kappa ^+)`$-BB-parameter consisting444this means: the parameter $`\overline{C}=C_\delta :\delta SE,C_\delta `$ a club of $`\delta `$. of clubs (this is of interest when $`\kappa >\mathrm{}_0`$),
3. for some club $`E`$ of $`\lambda `$ there is a good $`(SE,\kappa ,\kappa ^+)`$-BB-parameter $`\overline{C}=C_\delta :\delta SE`$ such that:

1. $`\overline{C}`$ is weakly good+, i.e., $`\alpha \mathrm{nacc}(C_{\delta _1})\text{nacc}(C_{\delta _2})C_{\delta _1}\alpha =C_{\delta _2}\alpha ,`$
    2. $`\overline{C}`$ is good, i.e., for each $`\alpha <\lambda `$ we have $`\lambda >|\{\alpha C_\delta :\delta S,\alpha C_\delta \}|,`$
    3. $`\overline{C}`$ is $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda `$-closed that is each $`C_\delta `$ is $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda `$-closed which means $`\alpha =sup(C_\delta \alpha )\text{cf}(\alpha )\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda \alpha C_\delta `$ where $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda =\{\sigma :\sigma =\text{cf}(\sigma )`$ and $`\alpha <\lambda \mathrm{trp}_\sigma (|\alpha |)<\lambda \}.`$

2) If $`\kappa =\text{cf}(\kappa ),\kappa ^+<\lambda =\text{cf}(\lambda )`$, then there is a stationary $`S\widehat{I}[\lambda ]`$ with $`(\delta S)[\text{cf}(\delta )=\kappa ]`$.

3) In part (1), moreover, we can find a good $`(SE,\kappa ,\kappa ^+)`$-BB-parameter and a $`\lambda `$-complete filter $`D`$ on $`\lambda `$ such that: for every club $`E^{}`$ of $`\lambda `$, the set $`\{\delta SE:C_\delta E^{}E\}`$ belongs to $`D`$.

###### Proof..

1) By the definition of $`I[\lambda ]`$ see Definition 0.4 and Definition 1.5 above (see more in \[She93a, §1\]) and for clause $`(\gamma )`$ the definition of $`\mathrm{trp}_\sigma (|\alpha |)`$.

2) By \[She93a, §1\].

3) By \[She94, III\]. ∎

###### Definition 1.25.

Let $`\overline{C}`$ be a $`(\lambda ,\kappa ,\chi )`$-BB-parameter.

For a family $``$ of $`\overline{C}`$-colourings and $`𝒫{}_{}{}^{\lambda }2`$, let $`\mathrm{id}_{\overline{C},,𝒫}`$ be the set of $`W\lambda `$ such that: $`\{W\lambda :\&\text{ for some }𝐅\text{ for every }\overline{c}𝒫`$ for some $`\eta {}_{}{}^{\lambda }\lambda `$ the set $`\{\delta WS:𝐅(\eta C_\delta )=c_\delta \}`$ is a non-stationary subset of $`\lambda .`$

If $``$ is the family of all $`\overline{C}`$-colouring we may omit it. If we write Def instead of $``$ this mean as in \[She01, §1\] (not used so the reader can ignore this).

We can strengthen Definition 1.5(2) as follows:

###### Definition 1.26.

We say the $`\lambda `$-colouring $`𝐅`$ is *$`(S,\kappa ,\chi )`$-BB-good* if:

1. $`S\{\delta <\lambda :\mathrm{cf}(\delta )=\kappa \}`$ is stationary,
2. we can find $`E`$ and $`C_\delta :\delta SE`$ such that:

1. $`E`$ is a club of $`\lambda ,`$
    2. $`C_\delta `$ is an unbounded subset of $`\delta ,|C_\delta |<\chi ,`$
    3. if $`\rho ,\rho ^{}{}_{}{}^{\delta }\delta ,\delta SE`$, and $`\rho ^{}C_\delta =\rho C_\delta `$ then $`𝐅(\rho ^{})=𝐅(\rho ),`$
    4. for every $`\alpha <\lambda `$ we have $`\lambda >|\{C_\delta \alpha :\delta SE\text{ and }\alpha C_\delta \}|,`$
    5. $`\delta S\mathrm{trp}_{\mathrm{cf}(\delta )}(|\delta |)<\lambda `$ or just $`\delta S\lambda >|\{C:C\delta `$ is unbounded in $`\delta `$ and for every $`\alpha C`$ for some $`\gamma S`$ we have $`C\alpha =C_\gamma \alpha `$ and $`\alpha C_\gamma \}|`$.

We can sum up (relying again on some quotations).

###### Conclusion 1.27.

If $`\lambda =\text{cf}(2^\mu )`$ and we let $`\mathrm{\Theta }\{\theta :\theta =\text{cf}(\theta )`$ and $`(\alpha <2^\mu )(\mathrm{trp}_\theta (|\alpha |)<2^\mu )\}`$ then:

1. $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is “large” e.g. contains every large enough $`\theta \text{ Reg }\mathrm{}_\omega `$ if $`\mathrm{}_\omega <\lambda ,`$
2. if $`\theta \mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda \theta ^+<\lambda `$ then there is a stationary $`S\widehat{I}[\lambda ]`$ such that $`\delta S\mathrm{cf}(\delta )=\theta ,`$
3. if $`\theta ,S`$ are as in clause (b) above then for some club $`E`$ of $`\lambda ,`$ we have that:

1. there is a weakly good $`(\lambda ,\kappa ,\kappa ^+)`$-BB-parameter $`\overline{C}=C_\delta :\delta SE,`$
    2. there is a good $`(\lambda ,\kappa ,\kappa ^+)`$-BB-parameter $`C_\delta :\delta ES,`$
    3. there is a good$`{}_{}{}^{+}(\lambda ,\kappa ,\kappa ^+)`$-BB-parameter $`\overline{C}=C_\delta :\delta ES.`$
4. for $`\theta ,S,\overline{C}`$ as in clause (b), (c) above and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}2^\mu `$, if $`𝐅`$ is a $`(\overline{C},\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-colouring and $`D=D_\lambda `$ (or $`D`$ is a $`\mu ^+`$-complete filter on $`\lambda `$ extending $`D_\lambda `$), and lastly $`SD^+`$ then there is a $`𝐅`$-super BBsequence for $`\overline{C}`$ and there is an $`D𝐅`$-BB-sequence; see Definition 1.5(3), (3A),
5. if $`\theta ,S,\overline{C}`$ as in clauses (b), (c): $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}2^\mu `$, then $`\overline{C}`$ has the $`(\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-property,
6. for $`\theta ,S`$ as in clause (b) above $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}2^\mu `$, if $`\theta >\mathrm{}_0`$ $`\overline{C}^{}=C_\delta ^{}:\delta S,C_\delta `$ a stationary subset of $`\delta `$ for each $`\delta `$ then we can find $`\overline{C}^{\prime \prime }=C_\delta ^{\prime \prime }:\delta ES`$ such that $`C_\delta ^{\prime \prime }`$ is a club of $`\delta `$ for each $`\delta `$ and $`C_\delta ^{}C_\delta ^{\prime \prime }:\delta S`$ has the $`(\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-BB-property (really $`\overline{C}^{\prime \prime }`$ does not depend on $`\overline{C}^{}`$),
7. in clause (f) if $`\theta =\theta ^\sigma ,\sigma \kappa ,2^\chi \theta `$ we can conclude also that $`C_\delta ^{}C_\delta ^{\prime \prime }:\delta S`$ has the $`(\chi ,\sigma )`$-MD2-property.

###### Proof..

Clause (a) holds by \[She00b\], clause (b), (c) holds by Claim 1.24, clause (d) by the major Claim 1.10 and clause (e) is a rephrasing of clause (d), and lastly for clause (f) use above case (iii) of clause (c) and use the obvious monotonicity (and $`C_\delta ^{}C_\delta ^{\prime \prime }`$ is unbounded in $`\delta `$ being stationary). ∎

Note some open questions.

###### Question 1.28.

1) Assume $`\lambda `$ is a weakly inaccessible which is not strong limit (i.e. a limit regular uncountable cardinal but not strong limit) and $`2^\theta :\theta <\lambda `$ is not eventually constant.

Does $`\lambda `$ have the weak diamond? Other consequences? In this case cf$`(2^{<\lambda })=\lambda `$ as $`2^\theta :\theta <\lambda `$ witness it hence $`2^\lambda >2^{<\lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }\{2^\theta :\theta <\lambda \}`$. If $`\lambda =2^{<\lambda }`$ then $`\lambda =\lambda ^{<\lambda }`$ and such $`\lambda `$’s are investigated in \[She02\] (for weak diamond on many stationary sets).

2) Consider generalizing \[She98, AP,§3\] to our present context. Also, we may consider $`c_\eta :\eta \lambda ^{+n}\times \lambda ^{+(n3)}\times \mathrm{}\times \lambda `$ where $`c_\eta \theta `$.

###### Claim 1.29.

Assume,

1. 1. $`\theta \mu ,`$
    2. if $`{}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta `$ has cardinality $`<2^\mu `$ then there is $`\rho {}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta `$ such that $`(f)(\epsilon <\mu )(\rho (\epsilon )=f(\epsilon ))`$.

1) $`\mathrm{Sep}(\mu ,\mu ,\theta ,2^\mu )`$ hence if $`2^\mu `$ is a regular cardinal then $`\mathrm{Sep}(\mu ,\theta )`$ holds so clause (f) of Claim 1.10 is satisfied.

2) Even if $`2^\mu `$ is singular still in Claim 1.10 we can replace clause (f) in the assumption by $`_{\mu ,\theta }`$.

###### Remark 1.30.

On relatives of $`_{\mu ,\theta }`$ see $`𝔢_\kappa `$, see \[MPS16\].

###### Proof..

1) Clearly $`{}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta `$ has cardinality $`2^\mu `$, so let $`\nu _\alpha :\alpha <2^\mu `$ be a list without repetitions of $`{}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta `$. For $`\alpha 2^\mu `$, let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha =\{\nu _\beta :\beta <\alpha \}`$ and we choose $`\overline{f}^\alpha `$ by induction on $`\alpha 2^\mu `$ such that:

1. $`\overline{f}^\alpha =f_\epsilon ^\alpha :\epsilon <\mu ,`$
2. $`f_\epsilon ^\alpha `$ is a function from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha `$ to $`\theta ,`$
3. $`f_\epsilon ^\alpha `$ is increasing continuous in $`\alpha `$, i.e., $`\beta <\alpha f_\epsilon ^\beta =f_\epsilon ^\alpha \text{ Dom}(f_\epsilon ^\beta ),`$
4. for every $`\gamma <\beta <\alpha `$ the set $`\{\epsilon <\mu :f_\epsilon ^\alpha (\nu _\beta )=\nu _\gamma (\epsilon )\}`$ is not empty.

If we succeed, then we let $`f_\epsilon =f_\epsilon ^{2^\mu }`$ that is $`f_\epsilon =\{f_\epsilon ^\alpha :\alpha <2^\mu \}`$ for $`\epsilon <\mu `$ and $`f_\epsilon :\epsilon <\mu `$ is clearly as required.

For clause (d) it is enough to consider the case $`\alpha =\beta +1`$, as the non-trivial case in the induction is $`\alpha =\beta +1`$. We can choose $`f_\epsilon ^{\beta +1}(\nu _\beta ):\epsilon <\mu {}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta `$ such that it holds by the assumption $`()`$.

2) In the proof of Claim 1.10, now $`\rho {}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta |\mathrm{Sol}_\rho |<2^\mu `$ does not suffice. However, before choosing $`f_\epsilon :\epsilon <\mu `$ we are given $`𝐅`$ and we can choose $`\mathrm{cd}`$, $`\mathrm{cd}_\epsilon :\epsilon <\mu `$ and define $`T,\eta _\alpha :\alpha <2^\mu ,T_{<\alpha }`$ and $`𝒫_\delta :\delta S`$. Note that $`\alpha <\lambda \mathrm{trp}_\kappa (|h(\alpha )|)<2^\mu `$ hence $`\alpha <\lambda |\{𝒫_\delta :\delta S\alpha \}|<2^\mu `$. We can also choose $`\nu _{\eta ,\epsilon }:\eta 𝒫_\delta ,\epsilon <\mu `$ and define $`\rho _\eta {}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta `$ for $`\eta 𝒫_\delta ,\delta S`$.

Now we can phrase our demands on $`f_\epsilon :\epsilon <\mu `$, which is in fact weaker than the full generality of $`\mathrm{Sep}(\mu ,\theta )`$; it is

1. $`{}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta \{\nu {}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta `$: for some $`\eta 𝒫_\delta `$ we have $`(\epsilon <\mu )(f_\epsilon (\nu )\rho _\eta (\epsilon ))\}`$.

For this, it is enough that for the list $`\nu _\alpha :\alpha <2^\mu `$ chosen in the proof of part (1), for each $`\delta S`$, for some $`\gamma <2^\mu `$ we have $`\{\rho _\eta :\eta 𝒫_\delta \}\{\nu _\alpha :\alpha <\gamma \}`$ which is easy to obtain. ∎

###### Observation 1.31.

If $`\mu \mathrm{}_0,\theta =2`$, then $`_{\mu ,\theta }`$ holds.

###### Proof..

If $`{}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta ,||<2^\mu `$, let $`\nu {}_{}{}^{\mu }\theta \backslash `$ and let $`\rho =1\nu (\epsilon ):\epsilon <\mu `$. ∎

## 2. Upgrading to larger cardinals

In §1 we get the $`\theta `$-super BB property for regular cardinals $`\lambda `$ of the form cf$`(2^\mu )`$ on “most” $`SS_\kappa ^\lambda `$ for “many” $`\kappa =\mathrm{cf}(\kappa )`$ (and $`\theta `$). We would like to prove Theorem 0.1. For this, we first give an upgrading, which is a stepping-up claim (for MD) given as Claim 2.2 below. Then we prove that it applies to $`\lambda _2`$ (for quite a few $`\lambda _1`$), when $`\lambda _2`$ is a successor of regular, then when $`\lambda _2`$ is a successor of singular, and lastly when $`\lambda _2`$ is weakly inaccessible (not strong limit). We can upgrade each of the variants from §1, but we shall concentrate on the one from Definition 1.5(5A) because of Claim 1.20. The main result of this section is claimed in Claim 2.11.

###### Question 2.1.

What occurs to $`\lambda _2`$ strongly inaccessible, does it have to have some BB-property?

Possibly combining §1 and §2 we may eliminate the $`\lambda _2>2^{\lambda _1+\mathrm{{\rm Y}}+\theta }`$ in Claim 2.2, but does not seem urgent now.

###### Claim 2.2.

1) Assume

1. $`\lambda _1<\lambda _2`$ are regular cardinals such that $`\lambda _2>2^{\lambda _1+\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{<\chi }+\theta }`$ (this last condition can be waived for “nice” colourings, see Definition 2.3 below),
2. for some stationary $`S_1S_\kappa ^{\lambda _1}`$, some sequence $`\overline{C}=C_\delta ^1:\delta S_1,`$
3. $`\lambda _2>\lambda _1^+,\lambda _2`$ is a successor of regular.

then for some stationary $`S_2S_\kappa ^{\lambda _2}`$, there is $`\overline{C}=C_\delta :\delta S_2`$, a good 555the goodness is a bonus. $`(\lambda _2,\kappa ,\chi )`$-BB-parameters which has the $`(D_{\lambda _2},\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-BB-property.

2) We can in part (1) replace clause (c) with any of the following clauses:

1. there is a $`\lambda _1`$ square on some stationary $`SS_{\lambda _1}^{\lambda _2}`$, (see Definition 0.4(1A); this holds if $`\lambda _2=\mu ^+,\mu ^{\lambda _1}=\mu ),`$
2. $`\lambda _2`$ has a $`(\lambda _1,S_1)`$-square (where $`S_1`$ is from clause (b)) which means:

* $`\lambda _1<\lambda _2`$ are regular, $`S_1\lambda _1`$ is stationary and there are $`S_2S_{\lambda _1}^{\lambda _2}`$ stationary and $`\overline{C}^2=C_\delta ^2:\delta S_2`$ satisfying $`C_\delta ^2\delta =sup(C_\delta ^2),C_\delta ^2`$ is closed, otp$`(C_\delta ^2)=\lambda _1`$ and if $`\alpha C_{\delta _1}^2C_{\delta _2}^2,\{\delta _1,\delta _2\}S_2`$ and $`\alpha =sup(C_{\delta _1}^2\alpha )`$ and otp$`(\alpha C_{\delta _2}^2)S_1`$, then $`\alpha C_{\delta _2}^2=\alpha C_{\delta _1}^2`$.
3. $`\lambda _2`$ has a $`(\lambda _1,\overline{C}_1)`$-square $`\overline{C}_2`$ (where $`\overline{C}_1`$ is from clause $`(b)`$) which means:

1. 1. $`\overline{C}_2=C_\delta ^2:\delta S_2`$,
        2. $`S_2S_{\lambda _1}^{\lambda _2}`$ is stationary,
        3. $`C_\delta ^2`$ is a closed unbounded subset of $`\delta `$ of order type $`\lambda _1`$,
        4. if $`\alpha C_{\delta _1}^2C_{\delta _2}^2`$ (so $`\{\delta _1,\delta _2\}S_2)`$, otp $`(\alpha C_{\delta _1}^2)S_1`$, and $`\alpha =sup(C_{\delta _1}^2\alpha ),`$ then otp$`(\alpha C_{\delta _1}^2)=\text{otp}(\alpha C_{\delta _2}^2)`$, call it $`\gamma `$ and $`\{\beta C_{\delta _1}^2:\text{otp}(\beta C_{\delta _1}^2)C_\gamma ^1\}=\{\beta C_{\delta _2}^2:\text{otp}(\beta C_{\delta _2}^2)C_\gamma ^1\}`$.

3) Assume $`\mathrm{}\{0,2\}`$ and,

1. $`\lambda _1<\lambda _2`$ are regular uncountable,
2. some $`(\lambda _1,\kappa ,\chi )`$-BB-parameter has the $`\theta `$-MD-property,
3. at least one of the variants of clause (c) above holds.

Then, some $`(\lambda _2,\kappa ,\chi )`$-BB-parameter has the $`\theta `$-MD-property.

###### Definition 2.3.

We say that a $`(\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-colouring $`𝐅=F_\delta :\delta S`$ for a $`\lambda `$-BB-parameter $`\overline{C}=C_\delta :\delta S`$ is *nice* when:

1. if $`\delta _1,\delta _2S`$ and $`\mathrm{otp}(C_{\delta _1})=\mathrm{otp}(C_{\delta _2})`$ and $`\eta _1{}_{}{}^{(C_{\delta _1})}\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\eta _2{}_{}{}^{(C_{\delta _2})}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ and $`\alpha _1C_{\delta _1}\alpha _2C_{\delta _2}\mathrm{otp}(C_{\delta _1}\alpha _1)=\mathrm{otp}(C_{\delta _2}\alpha _2)\eta _1(\alpha _1)=\eta _2(\alpha _2)`$, then $`F_{\delta _1}(\eta _1)=F_{\delta _2}(\eta _2)`$.

###### Proof..

1) If clause $`(c)`$ holds then clause $`(c)^{}`$ of part (2) holds by \[She91, §4\], so it is enough to prove part (2).

2) Trivially clause $`(c)^{}`$ implies clause $`(c)^{\prime \prime }`$ and clause $`(c)^{\prime \prime }`$ implies clause $`(c)^{\prime \prime \prime }`$; so assume $`(c)^{\prime \prime \prime }`$; and let $`\overline{C}^2=C_\delta ^2:\delta S_2`$ be as there.

Let $`\overline{h}=h_\delta :\delta S_2`$ be such that $`h_\delta `$ is an increasing continuous function from $`\lambda _1`$ onto $`C_\delta ^2`$ recalling clause $`(\gamma )`$, i.e., $`C_\delta ^2`$ is a closed unbounded subset of $`\delta `$ of order type $`\lambda _1`$. Let $`S=\{h_\delta (i):\delta S_2`$ and $`iS_1\}`$ and if $`\alpha S,\alpha =h_\delta (i),\delta S_2`$ and $`iS_1`$ then we let $`C_\alpha ^{}=\{h_\delta (j):jC_i^1\}`$; and let $`\overline{C}^{}=C_\alpha ^{}:\alpha S`$. Why is $`C_\alpha ^{}`$ (hence $`\overline{C}^{}`$) well defined? We shall check that, if $`\alpha S,\alpha =h_\delta _{\mathrm{}}(i_{\mathrm{}}),\delta _{\mathrm{}}S_2,i_{\mathrm{}}S`$ for $`\mathrm{}=1,2`$ then $`\{h_{\delta _1}(j):jC_{i_1}^1\}=\{h_{\delta _2}(j):jC_{i_2}^1\}`$; this holds by clause $`(\delta )`$ of the assumption $`(c)^{\prime \prime \prime }`$. We should check the conditions for “$`\overline{C}^{}`$ is a good $`(\lambda _2,\kappa ,\chi )`$-BB-parameter with the $`(D_{\lambda _2},\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-BB-property.

The main point is: assume that $`𝐅`$ is a $`(\overline{C}^{},\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-colouring, find a $`\overline{c}`$ as required.

For each $`\delta S_2`$ we define a $`(\overline{C}^1,\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-colouring $`𝐅^\delta `$ by $`𝐅^\delta (\eta )=𝐅(\eta h_\delta ^1)`$ that is for $`iS_1`$ and $`\eta {}_{}{}^{C_i^1}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ we define $`𝐅^\delta (\eta )`$ as $`𝐅(\nu )`$ where $`\nu {}_{}{}^{C_{h_\delta (i)}^{}}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$, where $`\nu `$ is defined by $`\beta C_{h_\delta (i)}^{}`$, we let $`\nu (\beta )=\eta (h_\delta ^1(\beta ))`$. As666only place this is used, if $`𝐅`$ is nicely defined this is not necessary. $`\lambda _2>2^{\lambda _1+|\mathrm{{\rm Y}}|^{<\chi }+\theta }`$ because $`\theta ^{\mathrm{\Sigma }\{|\mathrm{{\rm Y}}|^{|C_\delta ^{}|}:\delta S_1\}}2^{\theta \lambda _1\mathrm{\Sigma }\{|\mathrm{{\rm Y}}|^{|\alpha |}:\alpha \chi \}}=2^{\lambda _1+|\mathrm{{\rm Y}}|^{<\chi }}+\theta `$, for some stationary $`S_2^{}S_2`$ we have $`\delta S_2^{}𝐅^\delta =𝐅^{}`$, so $`𝐅^{}`$ is a $`(\overline{C}^1,\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-colouring, hence it has a good $`(D_{\lambda _1},\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-BB-sequence $`\overline{c}^1=c_i^1:iS_1`$.

We define $`\overline{c}^{}=c_\alpha ^{}:\alpha S`$ by $`\delta S_2iS_1c_{h_\delta (i)}^{}=c_i^1`$. By clause $`(\delta )`$ of $`(c)^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ it is well defined. Now for any $`\eta {}_{}{}^{(\lambda _2)}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ and club $`E_2`$ of $`\lambda _2`$, we can find $`\delta S_2\text{ acc}(E_2)`$, hence $`E_1=\{\alpha <\lambda _1:h_\delta (\alpha )E_2\}`$ is a club of $`\lambda _1`$ and let $`\eta _1{}_{}{}^{(\lambda _1)}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ be $`\eta _1(\alpha )=\eta (h_\delta (\alpha ))`$, so by the choice of $`\overline{c}^1`$ for some $`\delta _1S_1E_1,c_{\delta _1}^1=𝐅^{}(\eta _1C_{\delta _1}^1)`$ and let $`\delta _2=h_\delta (\delta _1)`$, so $`\delta _2E_2`$ and $`c_{\delta _2}^{}=c_i^1=𝐅^{}(\eta _1C_{\delta _1}^1)=𝐅^\delta (\eta _1C_{\delta _1}^1)=𝐅(\eta C_{\delta _2}^{})`$, so we are done.

3) Similar only easier (or see the proof of Claim 2.12). ∎

###### Claim 2.4.

We can strengthen the conclusion of Claim 2.2(1) and Claim 2.2(2) to: we can find a sequence $`S_{2,i}:i<\lambda _2`$ of pairwise disjoint stationary subsets of $`\lambda _2`$ and for each $`i<\lambda _2`$ a sequence $`C_\delta ^i:\delta S_{2,i}`$ which is a $`(\lambda _2,\kappa ,\chi )`$-BB-parameter having the $`(D_{\lambda _2},\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-BB-property.

###### Proof..

By the proof of Claim 2.2, without loss of generality clause $`(c)^{\prime \prime }`$ of Claim 2.2(2) and clauses (a), (b) of Claim 2.2(1) hold. For some $`\zeta <\lambda _1`$ for un-boundedly many $`i<\lambda _2`$ the set $`S_{2,i}\{\delta S_2:i`$ is the $`\zeta `$-th member of $`C_\delta ^2\}`$ is stationary. ∎

###### Claim 2.5.

1) If $`\mu `$ is a strong limit, $`\lambda `$ is a successor cardinal, $`\lambda =\mathrm{cf}(\lambda )>2^\mu `$, moreover $`\lambda >2^{2^\mu }`$ (superfluous for nice colourings, e.g., for MD$`{}_{\mathrm{}}{}^{},\mathrm{}\{0,2\}`$), then for every large enough regular $`\kappa <\mu `$, some good$`{}_{}{}^{+}(\lambda ,\kappa ,\kappa ^+)`$-BB-parameter $`\overline{C}`$ has the $`(2^\mu ,\theta )`$-BB-property for every $`\theta <\mu `$.

2) We can add: $`\overline{C}`$ has the $`\theta `$-MD-property for $`\mathrm{}=\{0,2\}`$.

3) We can find a sequence $`S_i:i<\lambda `$ of pairwise disjoint stationary subsets of $`S_\kappa ^\lambda `$ such that for each $`i<\lambda `$ there is $`\overline{C}^i=C_\delta ^i:\delta S`$ as in parts (1) and (2).

###### Proof..

1) Let $`\kappa _0<\mu `$ be large enough such that $`[\theta \{\lambda ,2^\mu \}\alpha <\theta \kappa _0\kappa =\mathrm{cf}(\kappa )<\mu ]|\alpha |^{[\kappa ]}<\theta `$, (see Definition 1.3, exists by \[She00b\]).

By Claim 1.10, for any regular $`\kappa [\kappa _0,\mu )`$ and $`\theta <\mu `$ we have the result for cf$`(2^\mu )`$ in place of $`\lambda `$. If $`\lambda `$ is a successor of regular we can apply Claim 2.2(1), i.e., for clause $`(c)`$ there is a square as required by \[She91, §4\]. In the case that $`\lambda `$ is a successor of a singular cardinal, by 2.9 below, clause $`(c)^{\prime \prime }`$ of Claim 2.2(2) holds for $`\lambda _2=\lambda ,\lambda _1=\text{cf}(2^\mu )`$ so we can apply Claim 2.2.

2) Follows by Claim 1.20.

3) In the proof of parts (1) + (2) above, instead of Claim 2.2 we use Claim x.21A. ∎

Below we generalize *Engełking Karłowicz theorem* (see \[EK65\]) (which says that if $`\mu =\mu ^\kappa ,\lambda =2^\mu `$ then there are $`f_\epsilon :\lambda \mu `$ for $`\epsilon <\mu `$ such that every partial function from $`\lambda `$ to $`\mu `$ with domain of cardinality $`\kappa `$, is extended by $`f_\epsilon `$ for some $`\epsilon <\mu `$); we do more than is necessary for the super BB.

###### Claim 2.6.

1) Assume

1. $`\mu =\text{cov}(\mu ,\theta ^+,\theta ^+,\kappa ^+),`$
2. $`2^\theta \mu ,`$
3. $`\mu <\lambda 2^\mu ,`$

then there is $`\overline{F}`$ such that:

1. $`\overline{F}=F_\epsilon :\epsilon <\mu ,`$
2. each $`F_\epsilon `$ is a function from $`\lambda `$ to $`\mu ,`$
3. if $`u[\lambda ]^\theta `$ then we can find $`\overline{E}`$ such that:

1. $`\overline{E}=E_i:i<\kappa `$ is a sequence of equivalence relations on $`u,`$
    2. $`\alpha u\{\alpha \}=\{\alpha /E_i:i<\kappa \},`$
    3. if $`f:u\mu `$ respects some $`E_i`$ (i.e. $`\alpha E_i\beta f(\alpha )=f(\beta ))`$ then we can find a partition $`u_\xi :\xi <\kappa `$ of $`u`$ such that $`\xi <\kappa fu_\xi F_\epsilon `$ for some $`\epsilon <\mu `$.

2) In part (1) we can strengthen clause $`(\gamma )^{}`$ to $`(\gamma )`$ below if $`(d)_{\mathrm{}}`$ for some $`\mathrm{}\{1,\mathrm{},5\}`$ below holds, where:

1. if $`u[\lambda ]^\theta `$ and $`f:u\mu `$, then we can find $`\overline{u}=u_i:I<\kappa `$ such that:

1. $`u=\{u_i:i<\kappa \}`$ and,
    2. for every $`i<\kappa `$ for some $`\epsilon <\mu `$ we have $`fu_iF_\epsilon .`$

1. there is a sequence $`\overline{f}=f_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$ of pairwise distinct functions from $`\mu `$ to $`\mu `$ such that: if $`u[\lambda ]^\theta `$ then we can find sequences $`\overline{u}=u_i:i<\kappa `$ and $`B_i:i<\kappa `$ such that $`u=\{u_i:i<\kappa \},B_i[\mu ]^{<\mathrm{}_0}`$ for $`i<\kappa `$ and for each $`i<\kappa `$ the sequence $`f_\alpha B_i:\alpha u_i`$ is with no repetitions,
2. there is a sequence $`\overline{f}=f_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$ of functions from $`\kappa `$ to $`\mu `$ and an ideal $`J`$ on $`\kappa `$ such that $`\overline{f}`$ is $`\theta ^+`$-free modulo $`J`$, i.e., $`(\theta ^+,J)`$-free (which means that for $`u[\lambda ]^\theta `$, we can find a sequence $`\overline{a}=a_\alpha :\alpha u`$ of subsets of $`\kappa `$ such that $`a_\alpha =\kappa `$ mod $`J`$ and $`ia_\alpha a_\beta \alpha \beta f_\alpha (i)f_\beta (I)),`$
3. like $`(d)_2`$ but $`a_\alpha J^+`$ that is $`a_\alpha J,`$
4. $`(\alpha <\mu )(|\alpha |^\theta <\mu )`$ and $`\lambda <\text{pp}_J(\mu )`$ for some ideal $`J`$ on $`\kappa ,`$
5. $`\mu =\mu ^\mathrm{}_0<\lambda <\mu ^\kappa `$.

3) If we weaken the conclusion of the part (2), replacing $`(\gamma )`$ by:

1. for every club $`E`$ of $`\lambda `$ for some closed $`uE`$ of order type $`\theta `$ there is $`u_i:i<\kappa `$ such that $`u_iu`$ and $`\zeta u\text{cf}(\zeta )>\kappa \zeta \{u_i:i<\kappa \}`$ and $`(i<\kappa )(\epsilon <\mu )[fu_iF_\epsilon ),`$

then we can weaken the assumption in a parallel way, e.g.

1. there is $`\overline{f}=f_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda ,f_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\mu }\mu `$ such that for any club $`E`$ of $`\lambda `$ we can find a closed $`eE`$ of order type $`\theta +1`$, and $`\overline{u}=u_i:i<\kappa ,\overline{B}=B_i:i<\kappa `$ such that $`B_i[\mu _1]<\mathrm{}_0,u_i\theta `$ and $`\zeta u\text{cf}(\zeta )\kappa \zeta \{u_i:i<\kappa \}`$ and for each $`i,f_\alpha B_i:\alpha u_i`$ is with no repetitions (and in $`(d)_3`$ it becomes easy).

###### Remark 2.7.

We can replace $`\lambda `$ (as a domain) by $`[\lambda ]^2`$, etc.

###### Proof..

1) Let $`𝒜`$ be a family of $`\mu `$ subsets of $`\mu `$ each of cardinality $`\theta `$ such that any $`A[\mu ]^\theta `$ is included in the union of $`\kappa `$ many of them; it exists by assumption (a). By assumption (b) without loss of generality $`A𝒜BAB𝒜`$ so we replace “included” by “equal” and also without loss of generality $`A_1𝒜A_2𝒜A_1A_2𝒜`$. Let pr be a pairing function on $`\mu `$.

As $`\mu <\lambda 2^\mu `$ there is a sequence $`f_\zeta ^{}:\zeta <\lambda `$ of pairwise distinct functions from $`\mu `$ to $`\{0,1\}`$. Let $`𝒴\{(A,B,\overline{g},\overline{\beta }):B𝒜,\overline{g}=g_i:i<\theta \&g_i{}_{}{}^{B}2\text{ and }i<j<\theta g_ig_j\text{and }\overline{\beta }=\beta _i:i<\theta \text{ satisfies }\{\beta _i:i<\theta \}A𝒜\}.`$

Clearly $`|𝒴|\mu \times 2^\theta =\mu `$. For each $`x=(A,\overline{g},\overline{\beta })𝒴`$ we define a function $`F_x:\lambda \mu `$ as follows:

$`F_x(\zeta )`$ is $`\beta _i`$ if $`g_if_\zeta ^{}`$ and is 0 if there is no such $`i`$ (clearly we cannot have $`i_0i_1<\theta g_{i_0}f_\zeta ^{}g_{i_1}f_\zeta ^{}`$).

Let $`\overline{F}=F_\epsilon :\epsilon <\mu `$ list $`\{F_x:x𝒴\}`$, clearly $`\overline{F}`$ satisfied demand $`(\alpha )+(\beta )`$. As for demand $`(\gamma )^{}`$ let $`u[\lambda ]^\theta `$ be given. For any $`\zeta _1\zeta _2u`$ let $`\alpha =\alpha (\zeta _1,\zeta _2)<\mu `$ be minimal such that $`f_{\zeta _1}^{}(\alpha )f_{\zeta _2}^{}(\alpha )`$, exists as $`f_{\zeta _2}^{}f_{\zeta _1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }2`$ and let $`B=\{\alpha (\zeta _1,\zeta _2):\zeta _1<\zeta _2`$ are from $`u\}`$. By the choice of $`𝒜`$ we can find pairwise disjoint $`B_\xi 𝒜`$ for $`\xi <\kappa `$ such that $`B=\{B_\xi :\xi <\kappa \}`$. Lastly, we define $`\overline{E}=E_\xi :\xi <\kappa `$ by

1. for $`\zeta _1,\zeta _2u,\zeta _1E_\xi \zeta _2`$ iff $`f_{\zeta _1}^{}B_\xi =f_{\zeta _2}^{}B_\xi `$.

Assume that $`f:u\mu `$ respects $`E_\xi `$, then we can find non-empty $`A_\xi 𝒜`$ for $`\xi <\kappa `$ such that Rang$`(f)=_{\xi <\kappa }A_\xi `$. Now for any pair $`(\xi _1,\xi _2)\kappa \times \kappa `$, let $`u_{\xi _1}=\text{ Min}\{\zeta u:f(\zeta )A_{\xi _1}\}`$, let $`\zeta _i:i<\theta `$ list $`u_{\xi _2}`$, let $`x_{\xi _1,\xi _2}`$ be $`(A_{\xi _2},B_{\xi _1}B_{\xi _2},f_{\zeta _i}^{}B_{\xi _1}:i<\theta ,f(\zeta _i):i<\theta )`$. Now check.

2) Naturally the proof splits into five cases, but first, let $`𝒜`$ be as in the proof of part (1), pr$`(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$ be a pairing function on $`\mu `$, let $`f_\zeta ^{}:\zeta <\lambda `$ be a sequence of functions from $`\mu `$ to $`\mu `$ (chosen separately in each case). Let $`𝒳`$ the set of elements $`x=(A,\overline{g},\overline{\beta )}`$ such that:

1. $`A𝒜,`$
2. $`\overline{g}=g_i:i<\theta `$,
3. $`\text{each }g_i\text{ is a partial function from }A\text{ to }A`$ and,
4. $`\overline{\beta }=\beta _i:i\theta \text{ and }i\theta \beta _iA.`$

Clearly $`|𝒳|\mu `$ and for each $`x=(A,\overline{g},\overline{\beta })𝒳`$ we define $`F_x:\lambda \mu `$ by

$$F_x(\zeta )=\beta _i\text{ }\text{iff}\text{ }i=𝐢_x(\zeta )=\mathrm{min}\{\epsilon \theta :\text{ if }\epsilon <\theta \text{ then }g_\epsilon f_\zeta ^{}\}.$$

So let $`u[\lambda ]^\theta `$ and $`f:u\mu `$ be given and let $`v_i:i<\kappa `$ be such that $`u=\{v_i:i<\kappa \}`$ and $`A_i:i<\kappa `$ be such that $`i<\kappa A_i𝒜`$ and Rang$`(f^{v_i})A_i`$.

Case 1: Clause $`(d)_1`$ holds.

We choose $`f_\zeta ^{}=f_\zeta `$ for every $`\zeta <\lambda `$ where $`f_\zeta `$ is from clause $`(d)_1`$. Let $`(u_i,B_i):i<\kappa `$ be as guaranteed to exist for $`u`$ in clause $`(d)_1`$. For each $`i,j<\kappa `$ such that $`u_iv_j\mathrm{}`$ and let $`\zeta _\epsilon ^{i,j}:\epsilon <\theta `$ list $`u_iv_j`$ (possibly with repetition) and let $`x_{i,j}=(A_{i,j}^{},g_\epsilon ^{i,j}:\epsilon <\theta ,\beta _\epsilon ^{i,j}:\epsilon <\theta )`$ where:

1. $`A_{i,j}^{}=B_iA_j,`$
2. $`g_\epsilon ^{i,j}=f_{\zeta _\epsilon ^{i,j}}^{}B_i,`$
3. $`\beta _\epsilon ^{i,j}=f(\zeta _\epsilon ^{i,j})`$.

We can check that

1. $`x_{i,j}𝒳`$ and,
2. $`\{u_iv_j:i,j<\kappa \}=u,`$
3. $`F_{x_{i,j}}f(u_iv_j)`$.

\[Why? Let $`\zeta ()u_iv_j`$ so $`\zeta ()=\zeta _{\epsilon ()}^{i,j}`$ for some $`\epsilon ()<\theta `$ so $`g_{\epsilon ()}^{i,j}=f_{\zeta _{\epsilon ()}^{i,j}}^{}B_i`$ by clause (b) above hence $`\epsilon ()\{\epsilon \theta `$: if $`\epsilon <\theta `$ then $`g_\epsilon f_{\zeta ()}^{}\}`$. But $`f_\zeta ^{}B_i:\zeta u_i`$ is a sequence without repetitions, so

$$\epsilon <\epsilon ()\zeta _\epsilon ^{i,j}u_i\zeta g_\epsilon ^{i,j}=f_{\zeta _\epsilon ^{i,j}}^{}B_if_{\zeta _{\epsilon ()}^{i,j}}^{}=g_{\epsilon ()}^{i,j}$$

(the middle inequality holds by the choice of $`(u_i,B_i):i<\kappa `$ above, i.e., by clause $`(d)_1`$).

So $`𝐢_{x_{i,j}}(\zeta ())=\epsilon ()`$ so $`F_{x_{i,j}}(\zeta ())=\beta _{\epsilon ()}^{i,j}=f(\zeta _{\epsilon ()}^{i,j})`$, the last equality holds by clause (c). So we are done.

Case 2: Clause $`(d)_2`$ holds.

Follows from Case 3.

Case 3: $`(d)_3`$ holds.

Let $`f_\zeta ^{}`$ be any function from $`\mu `$ to $`\mu `$ extending $`f_\zeta `$. It suffices to show that $`f_\zeta ^{}:\zeta <\lambda `$ satisfies clause $`(d)_1`$. So let $`u[\lambda ]^\theta `$, so by $`(d)_3`$ we can find a sequence $`\overline{a}=a_\zeta :\zeta u`$ of subsets of $`\kappa `$ such that $`a_\alpha J`$ and

1. $`\zeta _1\zeta _2uia_{\zeta _1}a_{\zeta _2}f_\alpha (i)f_\beta (i)`$.

Let $`B_i=\{i\}[\mu ]^{<\mathrm{}_0}`$ and $`u_i=\{\zeta u:ia_\zeta \}`$, clearly they are as required.

Case 4: Clause $`(d)_4`$ holds.

This implies Clause $`(d)_3`$ by \[She94, II,1.3,p.46+1.4\](3),p.50 (or see \[She97b\]).

Case 5: $`(d)_5`$.

Let $`\mu _1=\mathrm{min}\{:^\kappa >\lambda \}`$, so clearly $`\mu _1\mu `$. As $`\kappa \theta ,2^\theta \mu `$ we have $`2^\kappa <\mu _1`$, hence $`\kappa _1=\mathrm{cf}(\mu _1)`$ is $`\kappa `$ and $`(\alpha <\mu _1)(|\alpha |^\kappa <\mu _1)`$. By $`(d)_5`$ we have $`\kappa _1>\mathrm{}_0`$. So by \[She94, VIII\], pp$`{}_{J_\kappa ^{\mathrm{bd}}}{}^{}(\mu _1)(\mu _1)^\kappa =\mu ^\kappa >\lambda `$ so Clause $`(d)_4`$ holds. ∎

###### Claim 2.8.

1) Assume

1. $`\mu =\text{cov}(\mu ,\theta ^+,\theta ^+,\kappa ^+)`$ so $`\mu >\theta \kappa ,`$
2. $`2^\theta \mu `$,
3. $`\mu <\lambda =\text{cf}(\lambda )\mu ^\kappa ,`$
4. $`\theta =\text{cf}(\theta ),SS_\theta ^\lambda `$ is stationary and $`S\widehat{I}[\lambda ],`$
5. $`T\theta `$ and $`[\alpha <\lambda \delta T\mathrm{trp}_{\mathrm{cf}(\delta )}(|\alpha |)<\lambda ]`$.

then there is $`\overline{F}`$ such that:

1. $`\overline{F}=F_\epsilon :\epsilon <\mu ,`$
2. $`F_\epsilon `$ is a function from $`\lambda `$ to $`\mu ,`$
3. for a club of $`\delta S`$, there is an increasing continuous sequence $`\alpha _\epsilon :\epsilon <\theta `$ with limit $`\delta `$ such that:

1. for every function $`f`$ from $`\{\alpha _\epsilon :\epsilon T\}`$ to $`\mu `$ we can find a sequence $`u_i:i<\kappa `$ of subsets of $`T`$ with union $`T`$ such that $`(i<\kappa )(\epsilon <\mu )(f\{\alpha _j:ju_i\}F_\epsilon )`$.

###### Proof..

1) Let $`\overline{a}=a_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$ and $`E_0`$ as in Definition 0.5(2) witness $`S\widehat{I}[\lambda ]`$. Let $`\overline{M}=M_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$ be an increasing continuous sequence of elementary sub-models of $`((\chi ),,<_\chi ^{})`$, each of cardinality $`<\lambda `$ satisfying $`\overline{M}(\alpha +1)M_{\alpha +1},M_0=\mu ,M_{1+\alpha }\lambda \lambda `$ and $`\{\lambda ,\theta ,T,S,\overline{a},E_0\}(\mu +1)M_0`$. Let $`E=\{\delta <\lambda :M_\delta \lambda =\delta \}`$, clearly a club of $`\lambda `$ and $`EE_0`$ as $`E_0M_0`$.

Now we choose by induction on $`\alpha <\lambda `$ a function $`f_\alpha `$ from $`\kappa `$ to $`\mu `$ such that:

1. if $`b[\alpha ]^\theta bM_{\alpha +1}`$ then $`\mathrm{ran}(f_\alpha )\{\mathrm{ran}(f_\beta ):\beta b\}.`$

1. $`f_\alpha `$ is the $`<_\chi ^{}`$-first object satisfying $`()_1`$.

This is clearly possible as $`\kappa 2^\theta \mu <\lambda \mu ^\kappa `$.
For every $`i<\kappa `$ and $`uM_0[\mu ]^\theta `$ and $`g:u\mu `$ from $`M_0`$, let $`F_{g,i}`$ be the unique $`F_{g,i}:\lambda \mu `$ and it satisfies: if $`f_\alpha (i)\mathrm{dom}(g)`$ then $`F_{g,i}(\alpha )=g(f_\alpha (i))`$. \[Why $`F_{g,i}M_0`$? As $`\mu +1M_0`$ and $`u,gM_0`$.\]

Let $`(g_\epsilon ,i_\epsilon ):\epsilon <\mu `$ list the set of all such pairs $`(g,i)`$ and let $`F_\epsilon =F_{g_\epsilon ,i_\epsilon }`$. We shall show that $`F_\epsilon :\epsilon <\mu `$ is as required; so clauses $`(\alpha )`$ \+ $`(\beta )`$ hold trivially.

Now if $`\delta \mathrm{nacc}(E)SSE_0`$ so $`a_\delta \delta =sup(a_\delta )`$, $`\mathrm{otp}(a_\delta )=\mathrm{cf}(\delta )=\theta `$ and let $`\alpha _\epsilon :\epsilon <\theta `$ list the closure in $`\delta `$ of $`a_\delta `$ in the increasing order. So for some club $`C`$ of $`\theta `$ consisting of limit ordinals we have $`\epsilon C\alpha _\epsilon E`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\mathrm{cf}(\delta ):\delta T\}`$, now suppose $`\epsilon C`$ is a limit ordinal with cofinality $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. So for every $`\zeta <\epsilon ,\alpha _{\zeta +1}a_{\alpha _\epsilon }`$ so, as $`\overline{a}M_0M_{\alpha _\epsilon }\alpha _{\zeta +1}M_{\alpha _\epsilon }`$ clearly $`a_{\alpha _{\zeta +1}}M_{\alpha _\epsilon }`$ but (see Definition 0.5(2)) $`c\mathrm{}(a_{\alpha _{\zeta +1}})=\{\alpha _\epsilon :\epsilon \zeta \}`$ hence $`\{\alpha _\epsilon :\epsilon \zeta \}M_{\alpha _\epsilon }`$. Now the tree $`(\{\nu :\nu M_{\alpha _\epsilon }`$ is a sequence of ordinals of length $`<\delta \},\mathrm{})`$ is a tree which belongs to $`M_{\alpha _\epsilon +1}`$, has $`\epsilon `$ levels and $`M_{\alpha _\epsilon }<\lambda `$ nodes so by assumption (e) it has $`<\lambda `$ $`\epsilon `$-branches. As this set (of $`\epsilon `$-branches) belongs to $`M_{\alpha _\epsilon +1}`$, every $`\epsilon `$-branch of this tree belongs to $`M_{\alpha _\epsilon +1}`$ but $`\alpha _\zeta :\zeta <\epsilon `$ is (essentially) such a branch; so together $`\epsilon C\mathrm{cf}(\epsilon )\mathrm{\Theta }\alpha _\zeta :\zeta <\epsilon M_{\alpha _\epsilon +1}`$.

Let

$$v_i=\{\epsilon C:\&\text{cf}(\epsilon )\mathrm{\Theta }\text{ and}\text{}\&f_{\alpha _\epsilon }(i)\{\text{Rang}(f_\beta ):\beta \{\alpha _\zeta :\zeta <\epsilon \}\}.$$

So $`v_i:i<\kappa `$ is a sequence of subsets of $`C`$ with union $`T`$. For each $`i<\kappa `$ by assumption (a) there is $`v_{i,j}:j<\kappa `$ be a sequence of subsets of $`v_i`$ with union $`v_i`$ such that for every $`j<\kappa \{f_{\alpha _\epsilon }(i):\epsilon v_{i,j}\}v_{i,j}^+M_0`$.

Let $`h`$ be a function from $`\{\alpha _\epsilon :\epsilon T\}`$ to $`\mu `$. So by assumption (a) we can find a sequence $`w_j:j<\kappa `$ of subsets of $`\mu `$ each of cardinality $`\theta `$ such that Rang$`(h)_{j<\kappa }w_j`$ and $`\{w_j:j<\kappa \}M_0`$. Let $`u_{i,j_1,j_2}=\{\epsilon :\epsilon v_i,f_{\alpha _\epsilon }(i)v_{i,j_1}^+`$ and $`h(\alpha _\epsilon )w_{j_2}\}`$. Hence for $`i,j_1,j_2<\kappa `$ there is $`g=g_{i,j_1,j_2}:\{f_{\alpha _\epsilon }(i):\epsilon u_{i,j_1,j_2}\}\mu `$ satisfying $`\epsilon u_{i,j_1,j_2}g(f_{\alpha _\epsilon }(i))=h(\alpha _\epsilon )`$, see the choice of $`v_i,v_{i,j_1},w_{j_2},u_{i,j_1,j_2}`$. Now as $`v_i\theta ,2^\theta \mu ,\mu +1M_0`$ and $`v_{i,j_1}^+,w_{j_2}M_0`$ are subsets of $`\mu `$ of cardinality $`\theta `$ clearly the set of partial functions from $`v_{i,j_1}^+`$ to $`w_{j_2}`$ belongs to $`M_0`$ and has cardinality $`^{|u_{i,j}|}|w_j|\theta ^\theta =2^\theta \mu `$ hence is included in $`M_0`$. So $`g_{i,j}`$ belongs to $`M_0`$ for every $`i,j<\kappa `$. Also easily $`F_{g_{i,j,i}}`$ extends $`h(\{\alpha _\epsilon :\epsilon u_{i,j}\})`$. So $`\{\alpha _\epsilon :\epsilon u_{i,j}\}:i,j<\kappa `$ and $`\alpha _\epsilon :\epsilon C`$ are as required (modulo some renaming). But $`\mathrm{dom}(g_{i,j})=\{f_{\alpha _\epsilon }(i):\epsilon u_{i,j}\}w_j`$. ∎

Compare the following with \[She86\].

###### Claim 2.9.

1) Assume

1. $`\lambda =\mu ^+`$ and $`\kappa =\text{cf}(\mu )<\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{}_0<\theta =\text{cf}(\theta )<\mu ,`$
2. 1. $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\{\sigma :\mathrm{}_0\sigma =\text{cf}(\sigma )<\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{trp}_\sigma (\mu )=\mu \},`$
    2. $`T_\theta =\{\delta <\theta :\text{cf}(\delta )\mathrm{\Theta }\},`$
    3. $`T_\theta ^+=T_\theta \{0\}\{\zeta +1:\zeta <\theta \}`$,
    4. $`T_\theta ^{}=T_\theta ^+\backslash T_\theta .`$
3. $`𝐏\{\overline{A}:\overline{A}`$ a sequence of length $`\mu `$ of subsets of $`\theta `$ each included in $`T_\theta ^+`$ and including $`T_\theta ^{}\},`$
4. $`𝒫[\mu ]^\theta `$ has cardinality $`\mu ,`$
5. if $`\alpha _\epsilon <\mu `$ for $`\epsilon <\theta `$ and $`w_i^{}:i<\kappa `$ a sequence of subsets of $`T_\theta ^+`$ and including $`T_\theta ^{},`$ then for some $`\overline{A}𝐏`$ we have:

1. for some $`\zeta <\mathrm{}g(\overline{A})`$ and $`j<\kappa ,A_\zeta w_j^{}`$,
    2. $`\zeta <\mathrm{}g(\overline{A})j<\kappa A_\zeta w_j^{}\{\alpha _\epsilon :\epsilon A_\zeta \}𝒫`$.

Then we can find $`(\overline{C}_i,A_i^{},S_i)`$ for $`i<\mu `$ such that:

1. $`\{0\}\{\zeta +1:\zeta <\theta \}A_i^{}\theta ,`$
2. $`\overline{C}_i=C_\delta ^i:\delta S_i;S_i\lambda `$ and

$$[\text{otp}(\alpha C_\delta ^i)A_i^{}C_\delta ^i\delta \alpha C_\delta ^i\alpha S_iC_\alpha ^i=\alpha C_\delta ^i],$$
3. $`S_i^{}=\{\delta S_i:\text{cf}(\delta )=\theta \}`$ is stationary,
4. for every club $`E`$ of $`\lambda `$ there are $`\delta ^{}E`$ and a sequence $`w_i^{}:i<\kappa `$ of subsets of $`T_\theta ^+`$ including $`T_\theta ^{}`$ with union $`T_\theta ^+`$ such that for each $`j<\kappa `$ there is $`\overline{A}𝐏`$ satisfying: $`(\zeta <\mathrm{}g(\overline{A}))(A_\zeta w_j^{}(i<\mu )[\delta ^{}S_i^{}A_i^{}=A_\zeta ])`$
5. if $`B\widehat{I}[\lambda ]`$ is stationary and $`BS_\theta ^\lambda `$ then we can demand $`B\backslash \{S_i^{}:I<\mu \}`$ is not stationary and in clause $`(\delta )`$ any $`\delta B`$ satisfies the requirement on $`\delta ^{}`$.

2) Assume, in addition $`\alpha <\mu |\alpha |^\theta <\mu ,T_\theta ^{}=\{\delta <\theta :\text{cf}(\delta )\kappa \}`$ and we let $`𝐏=\{\overline{A}:\overline{A}=A_i:i<\kappa `$ is a sequence of sets with union $`T_\theta ^+\}`$. Then $`T_\theta ^{}=T_\theta ^+`$ and for some $`𝒫`$ all the assumptions hence the conclusion of part (1) holds.

3) Assume $`\mu _{}`$ is strong limit $`<\mu ,\kappa =\text{cf}(\mu )<\mu ,\lambda =\mu ^+`$, then for some $`\theta _0<\mu _{}`$, for any regular $`\theta (\theta _0,\mu _{})`$ the set $`T_\theta `$ include $`\{\delta <\theta :\text{cf}(\delta )\theta _1`$ or $`\delta `$ non-limit$`\}`$ and for $`𝐏=\{\overline{A}:\overline{A}`$ is a sequence of $`<\theta _0`$ subsets of $`\theta `$ with union $`T_\theta `$ such that $`\{A_\zeta :\zeta <\mathrm{}g(\overline{A})\}`$ is closed under finite unions$`\}`$.

Then for some $`𝒫`$ the assumptions hence the conclusion of part (1) holds.

4) In (1) (and (2), (3), if $`\overline{A}=A_\epsilon :\epsilon <\epsilon ()𝐏`$ we can replace it by $`\overline{A}^{}=A_\epsilon ^{}:\epsilon <\epsilon (),A_\epsilon ^{}=A_\epsilon \{\delta <\theta :\text{cf}(\delta )>\mathrm{}_0`$ and $`A_\epsilon \delta `$ is stationary in $`\delta \}`$ and still obtain an element of $`𝐏`$.

###### Remark 2.10.

1) If $`\lambda `$ is (weakly) inaccessible we have weaker results: letting $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\{\sigma :\sigma =\mathrm{cf}(\sigma )`$ and $`\alpha <\lambda \mathrm{trp}_\sigma (|\alpha |)<\lambda \}`$, there is $`𝒫_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda ,𝒫_\alpha [\alpha ]^{<\theta },|𝒫_\alpha |<\lambda `$ such that for regular $`\theta <\lambda `$ for every stationarily many $`\delta S_\theta ^\lambda `$ for some increasing continuous sequence $`\alpha _\epsilon :\epsilon <\alpha `$ with limit $`\delta ,[\epsilon <\theta \mathrm{cf}(\epsilon )\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda \{\alpha _\zeta :\zeta <\epsilon \}𝒫_{\alpha _\epsilon }]`$ (see \[She93a, §1\]).

2) Can we restrict ourselves to: $`w_j^{}:j<\kappa `$ is increasing continuous in part (1) and similarly in (2).

It seems very reasonable (if $`\lambda =\mu ^+,\kappa =\mathrm{cf}(\mu )<\mu `$) that we can find $`\lambda _i:i<\kappa `$, an increasing sequence of regular cardinals $`<\mu `$ with limit $`\mu `$ such that $`\lambda ^+=\mathrm{tfc}(_{i<\mathrm{}}\lambda _i,\sigma _{J_\kappa ^{\mathrm{bd}}})`$ and $`j<\kappa \lambda _j>\text{ max pcf}\{\lambda _i:i<j\}`$. Why? This is trivial if $`\kappa =\mathrm{}_0`$ and if $`\kappa >\mathrm{}_0`$, it follows by the weak hypothesis (see \[She93b\]), whose negation is not known to be consistent and which has large consistency strength.

3) If there is $`\lambda _i:i<\kappa `$ is as above then in part (1) of Claim 2.9 we can strengthen clauses $`(\delta ),(\epsilon )`$ in the conclusion. By demanding that “$`w_j^{}:j<\kappa `$” is increasing continuously. Why? Choosing $`f_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$ we add:

1. if $`f_{\alpha _1}(i_1)=f_{\alpha _2}(i_2)`$ then $`i_1=i_2f_{\alpha _1}i_1=f_{\alpha _2}t_2`$.

So there is a sequence $`𝐠_i:i<\kappa ,𝐠_i:\mu \mu `$ and $`𝐠_{i_1}(f_{\alpha _1}(i_1))=f_{\alpha _1}(i_0)`$ when $`i_0<i_1<\kappa ,\alpha <\lambda `$ and a function $`𝐈:\mu \kappa `$ such that $`𝐢(f_\alpha (i))=i`$.

Now at the end of the proof we replace $`\alpha _\epsilon ^{}=\mathrm{cd}(j,f_{\alpha _\epsilon }(j),\xi (\alpha _\epsilon ))`$ (so fixing $`j`$) by $`\alpha _\epsilon ^{}=\mathrm{cd}(\xi )`$.

###### Proof..

There is $`B`$ as in clause $`(\epsilon )`$, that is $`B\widehat{I}[\lambda ]`$ and $`BS_\theta ^\lambda `$ is a stationary subset of $`\lambda `$, see Claim 1.24(2). So let $`B`$ be such a set; clearly omitting from $`B`$ a non-stationary subset of $`\lambda `$ is O.K. as if $`B^{}B,B\backslash B^{}`$ is non-stationary and the demands in clause $`(\epsilon )`$ for $`B^{}`$ are exemplified by the sequence $`\overline{C}_i,A_i^{},S_i^{}):i<\mu `$ then the same sequence exemplifies it for $`B`$.

We can find $`\overline{a}=a_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$ witnessing $`B\widehat{I}[\lambda ]`$ see Definition 0.5(2), so (possibly omitting from $`B`$ a non-stationary set) we have: $`\alpha Ba_\alpha \alpha =sup(a_\alpha )\theta =\mathrm{otp}(a_\alpha )`$ and $`[\beta a_\alpha a_\beta =\beta a_\alpha ]`$ and $`[\alpha \lambda \backslash Ba_\alpha \alpha \mathrm{otp}(a_\alpha )<\theta ]`$.

Let $`\chi =\lambda ^+`$ and $`\overline{M}=M_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$ be an increasing continuous sequence of elementary sub-models of $`((\chi ),,<_\chi ^{})`$ to each of which $`\{\overline{a},\mu ,𝐏,𝒫\}`$ belongs, and satisfying $`\overline{M}(\alpha +1)M_{\alpha +1},\mu M_\alpha `$ and $`M_\alpha <\lambda `$.

As $`\lambda =\mu ^+`$ clearly $`\alpha <\lambda M_\alpha =\mu `$. For any $`\alpha <\lambda `$ let $`b_{\alpha ,\zeta }:\zeta <\mu `$ list $`M_{\alpha +1}[\alpha ]^{<\theta }`$.

Let $`\lambda _i:i<\kappa `$ be an increasing sequence of regular cardinals with limit $`\mu ,\lambda _i>\theta `$ with $`\lambda =\mathrm{tcf}(_{i<\kappa }\lambda _i,<_{J_\kappa ^{\mathrm{bd}}})`$ and let $`\overline{f}=f_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$ be an increasing sequence in $`(_{i<\kappa }\lambda _i,<_{J_\kappa ^{\mathrm{bd}}})`$ cofinal in it and obeying $`\overline{a}`$ (i.e. $`i<\kappa \beta a_\alpha f_\beta (i)<f_\alpha (i))`$ and $`\zeta <\lambda _ii<j<\kappa \beta b_{\alpha ,\zeta }f_\beta (j)<f_\alpha (j)`$ (there is such $`\lambda _i:I<\kappa `$ by \[She94, II\]); there is such $`\overline{f}`$ by \[She94, I\]. For notational help later without loss of generality each $`f_\alpha (i)`$ is divisible by $`\theta `$.

Now for any $`x=(h_1,h_2,A,i)=(h_1^x,h_2^x,A^x,i^x)`$ where $`h_1`$ is a partial function from $`\mu `$ to $`\theta ,h_2`$ a function from $`A`$ to $`\mu `$ where $`T_\theta ^{}AT_\theta ^+`$ and $`i<\kappa `$, we define:

1. $`S_x`$ is the set of $`\alpha `$ such that:

1. $`\alpha <\lambda ,`$
    2. $`\mathrm{cf}(\alpha )\theta ,`$
    3. $`f_\alpha (i)\mathrm{Dom}(h_1),`$
    4. $`\zeta h_1(f_\alpha (i))A`$ satisfies:

    1. $`b_{\alpha ,h_2(\zeta )}`$ is a subset of $`\alpha `$ of order type $`\zeta ,`$
        2. $`b_{\alpha ,h_2(\zeta )}`$ is unbounded in $`\alpha `$ if $`\zeta `$ is a limit ordinal and,
        3. if $`\epsilon A\zeta `$ $`\beta b_{\alpha ,h_2(\zeta )}`$ $`\epsilon =\mathrm{otp}(b_{\alpha ,h_2(\zeta )}\beta ),`$

    then $`\epsilon =h_1(f_\beta (i))`$ and $`\beta b_{\alpha ,h_2(\zeta )}=b_{\beta ,h_2(\epsilon )}`$ and for $`\alpha S_x`$ let $`C_\alpha ^x=b_{\alpha ,h_2^{}(h_1^{}(f_\alpha (i))}`$.

For $`x`$ as above let $`S_x^{}=\{\delta <\lambda :\mathrm{cf}(\delta )=\theta `$ and there is an increasing continuous sequence $`\alpha _\epsilon :\epsilon <\theta `$ with limit $`\delta `$ such that $`\epsilon A\alpha _\epsilon S_xC_{\alpha _\epsilon }^x=\{\alpha _\zeta :\zeta <\theta \}\}`$. Now for any such $`x`$, for $`\delta S_x^{}`$ choose $`\alpha _\epsilon :\epsilon <\theta `$ witnessing it and let $`C_\delta ^x=\{C_{\alpha _\epsilon }^x:\epsilon A\}`$; note that $`S_xS_x^{}=\mathrm{}`$ because $`[\alpha S_x\mathrm{cf}(\alpha )\theta ],[\alpha S_x^{}\mathrm{cf}(\alpha )=\theta ]`$.

Let $`x_\epsilon :\epsilon <\epsilon ^{}\mu `$ list the set of $`xM_0`$ which are as above and $`S_x^{}`$ is stationary, and for each $`\epsilon <\epsilon ^{}`$, let $`S_\epsilon S_{x_\epsilon }S_{x_\epsilon }^{}`$, $`\overline{C}_\epsilon C_\alpha ^{x_\epsilon }:\alpha S_\epsilon ,A_\epsilon A^{x_\epsilon }`$. We have to check the five clauses of Claim 2.9(1):

Clause $`(\alpha )`$: See the demand on $`x`$ above.

Clause $`(\beta )`$: Holds by clause (iii) in the definition of “$`\alpha S_x\mathrm{"}`$ and of $`C_\alpha ^x`$ for $`\alpha S_x`$ and similarly for $`\alpha S_x^{}`$.

Clause $`(\gamma )`$: Holds by the choice of $`x_\epsilon :\epsilon <\epsilon ^{}`$.

Clause $`(\delta )+(\epsilon )`$: Let $`\delta B`$, and we shall show that $`\delta \{S_i^{}:i<\mu \}`$, this clearly suffices for $`(\epsilon )`$ hence for $`(\delta )`$. Let $`\alpha _\zeta :\zeta \theta `$ list the closure of $`a_\delta `$ in the increasing order by the choice of $`\overline{a},a_\delta `$ is a set of non-limit ordinals hence cf$`(\alpha _\zeta )=\theta \zeta =\theta `$ and $`\alpha _\theta =\delta `$.

Now for every $`\zeta T_\theta ^+`$, for some $`\xi (\zeta )<\mu `$ we have $`\{\alpha _\xi :\xi <\zeta \}=b_{\alpha ,\xi (\zeta )}`$ ($`\xi (\zeta )`$ exists as $`\mathrm{trp}_{\mathrm{cf}(\zeta )}(\mu )=\mu `$ by the definition of $`T_\theta `$) and let $`j(\zeta )=\mathrm{min}\{j<\kappa :f_{\alpha _\zeta }(j)>f_{\alpha _\epsilon }(i)`$ for every $`\epsilon <j\}`$.

For each $`j<\kappa `$ let $`w_j^{}=\{\zeta :\zeta T_\theta ^{}`$ or $`\zeta T_\theta j(\zeta )=j\}`$ and apply clause $`(e)`$ of the assumptions to the sequence $`\alpha _\zeta ^{}:\zeta <\theta `$ where $`\alpha _\zeta ^{}=\mathrm{cd}(j(\zeta ),f_{\alpha _\zeta }(j_\zeta ),\xi (\alpha _\zeta ))`$, $`\mathrm{cd}`$ a coding function on $`\mu `$ so (by (e)) we can find $`\overline{A}𝐏`$ satisfying clauses (i) and (ii) of assumption (e). So by (i) of (e) there are $`i()<\mathrm{}g(\overline{A})`$ and $`j()<\kappa `$ such that $`A_{\zeta ()}w_{j()}^{}`$. For any pair $`(i,j)`$ such that $`i<\mathrm{}g(\overline{A}),j<\kappa `$ and $`A_iw_j^{}`$ we shall define $`x=x_{i,j}`$. By (ii) of (e) we have $`\{\alpha _\epsilon ^{}:\epsilon A_i\}𝒫`$.

We now define $`x=(h_1^x,h_2^x,A^x,i^x)`$ as follows: we let $`i^x=j,A^x=A_i`$, $`\mathrm{dom}(h_1^x)=\{f_{\alpha _\epsilon }(j):\epsilon A^x\},h_1^x(f_{\alpha _\epsilon }(j))=\epsilon `$, $`\mathrm{dom}(h_2)=A^x,h_2(\epsilon )=\xi (\alpha _\zeta )`$. Easily $`x=x_{i,j}M_0`$ (as $`𝒫M_0,|𝒫|\mu ,\mu +1M_0`$) and $`\alpha _\theta S_x^{}`$, so we are done.

2) Let $`𝒫=\{A:A`$ is a bounded subset of $`\mu `$ of cardinality $`\theta \}`$. Clearly $`|𝒫|\mathrm{\Sigma }\{|\alpha |^\theta :\alpha <\mu \}\mathrm{\Sigma }\{|\alpha |:\alpha <\mu \}=\mu `$, so clause (d) holds.

Now if $`\sigma =\mathrm{cf}(\sigma )<\theta `$ and $`\sigma \kappa `$ then $`\mathrm{trp}_\sigma (\mu )=\mu `$. \[Why? For completeness if $`T`$ is a tree with set of nodes $`\mu `$ and $`\sigma `$ levels, then every $`\sigma `$-branch of $`T`$ includes a $`<_T`$-unbounded subset which is bounded as a subset of $`\mu `$ hence belongs to $`𝒫`$, and clearly the branch is determined by any $`<_T`$-unbounded subset hence the number of $`\sigma `$-branches of $`T`$ is $`|𝒫|\mu `$.\]

So $`T_\theta ^{}=T_\theta `$ and the non-obvious clause to check is (e). So assume $`\alpha _\epsilon <\mu `$ for $`\epsilon <\theta `$ and $`w_i^{}:i<\kappa `$ is a sequence of subsets of $`T_\theta ^+`$. Let $`\mu =\mathrm{\Sigma }\{\mu _i:i<\kappa \},\mu _i<\mu `$ and let $`\overline{A}=A_i:i<\kappa `$ list the family $`\{\{\alpha _\epsilon :\epsilon w_i^{}`$ and $`\alpha _\epsilon <\mu _j\}:I,j<\kappa \}`$.

3), 4) Left to the reader. ∎

###### Claim 2.11.

1) If $`\lambda `$ is regular and not strongly inaccessible and $`\mu <\lambda `$ is a strong limit singular of uncountable cofinality, then for every large enough regular $`\kappa <\mu `$, for every $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta <\mu `$, some $`(\lambda ,\kappa ,\kappa ^+)`$-parameter $`\overline{C}`$ has the $`(\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-BB-property (see Definition 1.19(4)); in fact, $`\overline{C}`$ is a sequence of clubs.

2) Moreover, we can find such $`\overline{C}^\alpha `$ for $`\alpha <\lambda `$ satisfying: $`\text{Dom}(\overline{C}^\alpha ):\alpha <\lambda `$ are pairwise disjoint.

3) Moreover for every large enough regular $`\kappa <\mu `$ for every $`\chi ,\sigma <\mu `$ some $`(\lambda ,\kappa ,\kappa ^+)`$-parameter has the $`(\chi ,\sigma )`$-BB-parameter for $`\mathrm{}=0,1,2`$.

###### Proof..

1) Let $`\lambda _1<\lambda `$ be such that $`\lambda 2^{\lambda _1}`$ and let $`\kappa _0<\mu `$ be large enough such that:

1. 1. if $`\lambda `$ is not a successor of regular, then $`\alpha <\lambda \mathrm{cov}(|\alpha |,\mu ,\mu ,\kappa _0)<\lambda ,`$
    2. if $`\lambda `$ is inaccessible, then $`\mathrm{cov}(\lambda _1,\mu ,\mu ,\kappa _0)=\lambda _1`$ (exist by \[She00b\]).

Note that $`\lambda _1`$ is needed only if $`\lambda `$ is (weakly) inaccessible.

Let $`\mu _{}(\kappa _0,\mu )`$ be strong limit; this is possible as $`\mu `$ is a strong limit of uncountable cofinality. Let $`\kappa _1=\kappa _1[\mu _{}]<\mu _{}`$ be $`>\kappa _0`$ and such that $`\alpha <2^\mu _{}\mathrm{cov}(|\alpha |,\mu ,\mu ,\kappa _1)<2^\mu _{}`$; (such $`\kappa _1`$ exists by \[She00b\]).

Let $`\kappa \text{ Reg}\mu _{}\backslash \kappa _1`$ and we shall prove the result for $`\kappa `$ and every $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta <\mu _{}`$, so without loss of generality $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\theta `$. By *Fodor’s Lemma* on $`\mu `$ this is enough. Let $`\lambda _{}=\mathrm{cf}(2^\mu _{})`$. By Claim 1.24(1) for every stationary $`S\{\delta <\lambda _{}:\text{cf}(\delta )=\kappa \}`$ from $`\widehat{I}[\lambda _{}]`$ (and there are such, see Claim 1.24(2)) there are $`\overline{C}^S=C_\delta ^S:\delta S,D`$ such that $`\overline{C}^S`$ is a weakly good$`{}_{}{}^{+}(\lambda _{},\kappa ,\kappa ^+)`$-BB-parameter, $`D`$ is a $`\lambda _{}`$-complete filter on $`\lambda _{}`$ containing the clubs of $`\lambda _{}`$ and by Claim 1.10 \+ Claim 1.11 $`SD^+`$, (e.g., $`D=𝒟_\lambda `$), the pair $`(\overline{C}^S,D)`$ has the $`\theta `$-BB-property.

For the case $`\lambda `$ is (weakly) inaccessible we add “each $`C_\delta `$ is a club of $`\delta `$”. This is permissible as we can use clause $`(\beta )`$ of Claim 1.24(1). Fix such $`S_1S_\kappa ^\lambda _{}`$ and $`\overline{C}=C_\delta :\delta S_1=\overline{C}^{S_1}`$.

Note that we actually have:

1. 1. if $`S^{}S_1`$ is stationary, $`C_\delta ^{}C_\delta \delta =sup(C_\delta ^{})`$ for $`\delta S^{}`$ then $`\overline{C}^{}=C_\delta ^{}:\delta S^{}`$ is a weakly good$`{}_{}{}^{+}(\lambda _{},\kappa ,\kappa ^+)`$-BB-parameter and $`\overline{C}^{}`$ has the $`(D,\theta )`$-BB-property,
    2. if $`\lambda _{}=\{A_i:i<i()<\kappa \}`$ then for some $`i,j<i(),\overline{C}^{}`$ is a good $`(\lambda _{},\kappa ,\kappa ^+)`$-BB-parameter and $`\overline{C}^{}`$ has the $`(D,\theta )`$-BB-property where $`S^{}\{\delta S_1:\delta A_j\text{ and }\delta =sup(\mathrm{nacc}(C_\delta )A_i)\}`$ and for $`\delta S^{}`$ we let $`C_\delta ^{}\mathrm{nacc}(C_\delta )A_j`$.

\[Why? Let $`S_{i,j}^{}=\{\delta S_1:\delta A_j\text{ and }\delta =sup(\mathrm{nacc}(C_\delta )A_i)\}`$. Clearly $`S_{i,j}:I,j<i()`$ is a sequence of subsets of $`S_1`$ with union $`S_1`$. By Claim 1.23, for some $`i,j<i()`$ the sequence $`\overline{C}S_{i,j}`$ has the $`(D,\theta )`$-BB-property. By monotonicity, i.e., by Claim 1.14(1), the sequence $`\mathrm{nacc}(C_\delta )A_i:\delta S_{i,j}`$ has the $`(D,\theta )`$-BB-property.\]

Now, we consider several cases:

Case 1: $`\lambda `$ is the successor of regulars.

We apply Claim 2.2(1) with $`(\lambda ,\lambda _{})`$ here standing for $`(\lambda _2,\lambda _1)`$ there; there is suitable partial square (in ZFC by \[She91, §4\]). Note that we do not “lose” any $`\kappa <\mu `$ because of “the lifting to” $`\lambda `$.

Case 2: $`\lambda `$ is the successor of a singular.

The proof is similar only now we use Claim 2.9(3) to get the appropriate partial square using $``$ to derive the $`\overline{C}^{}`$ used as input for it (recalling that each sequence $`\overline{A}𝐏`$ is closed under the union of two!)

Case 3: $`\lambda `$ is (weakly) inaccessible.

Really the proof, in this case, covers the other cases (but $`\lambda _1`$ in this case, contributes to increasing $`\kappa _0`$). This time we use Claim 2.8 \+ Claim 2.12 which is proved below. Let $`S_2`$ be a stationary subset of $`S_\lambda _{}^\lambda `$ from $`\widehat{I}[\lambda ]`$, it exists, see Claim 1.24(2). Let $`F_\epsilon :\epsilon <\lambda _1`$ be as in Claim 2.8 with $`(\lambda ,\lambda _1,\lambda _{},\kappa )`$ here standing for $`(\lambda ,\mu ,\theta ,\kappa )`$ there. Let $`g^{}`$ be a function from $`\lambda _1`$ onto $`_\kappa (\lambda _{})`$. Possibly replacing $`S_2`$ by its intersection with some club of $`\lambda `$, there is a good $`\lambda _{}`$-BB-parameter $`\overline{C}^2=C_\delta ^2:\delta S_2`$. Let $`\overline{e}=e_\alpha :\alpha S_\kappa ^\lambda ,e_\alpha `$ a club of $`\alpha `$ of order type $`\kappa `$.

Clearly,

1. for some $`\epsilon <\lambda _1`$ for any club $`E`$ of $`\lambda `$ for some increasing continuous sequence $`\alpha _i:i\lambda _{}`$ of member of $`E`$ the set $`B_\epsilon (\alpha _i:i\lambda _{})=\{iS_1:g^{}(F_\epsilon (\alpha _i))=\{(i,\zeta ,\mathrm{otp}(\alpha _\zeta C_{\alpha _\lambda _{}}^2),\mathrm{otp}(\alpha _\zeta e_{\alpha _i})):\zeta <i`$ and $`\alpha _\zeta e_{\alpha _i}\}\}`$ is a stationary subset of $`\lambda _{}`$.

\[Why? For every club $`E`$ we can choose $`\alpha _iE(i\lambda _{})`$ increasing continuous so for some $`\epsilon `$ the set $`B_\epsilon (\alpha _i:i\lambda _{})`$ is a stationary subset of $`\lambda _{}`$. As the number of possible $`\epsilon `$ is $`\lambda _1<\lambda =\mathrm{cf}(\lambda )`$, there is $`\epsilon `$ as above.\]

For this $`\epsilon `$ let

1. 1. $`S_3^{}=\{\alpha <\lambda :\text{cf}(\alpha )=\kappa `$ and $`g^{}(F_\epsilon (\alpha ))`$ has the right form$`\},`$
    2. $`\delta S_3^{}`$ let $`C_\delta ^3=\{\beta e_\delta :(i,\zeta ,j,\mathrm{otp}(\beta e_\delta ))g_{}(F_\epsilon (\delta ))\},`$
    3. let $`F^{}:\lambda \lambda _{}`$ be defined by $`F^{}(\alpha )=\zeta `$ if: $`\zeta =\zeta _1`$ for some $`(\zeta _1,\zeta _2,\zeta _3,\zeta _4)g^{}(F_\epsilon (\alpha ))`$.

Finally, we apply Claim 2.12.

2), 3) Similarly using Claim 2.4 when using Claim 2.5. ∎

We now state another version of the upgrading of super BB.

###### Claim 2.12.

1) Assume

1. $`\lambda _1<\lambda _2`$ are regular cardinals,
2. $`S_1S_\kappa ^{\lambda _1}`$ is stationary, $`\overline{C}^1=C_\delta ^1:\delta S_1`$ is a $`(\lambda _1,\kappa ,\chi )`$-BB-parameter which has the $`(D_{\lambda _1},\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-BB-property, $`D_{\lambda _1}`$ is a filter on $`\lambda _1`$ to which $`S_1`$ belongs,
3. $`S_2S_\kappa ^{\lambda _2}`$ is stationary and $`\overline{C}^2=C_\delta ^2:\delta S_2`$ is a $`(\lambda _2,\kappa ,\chi )`$-BB-parameter,
4. $`F:\lambda _2\lambda _1`$ satisfies: for every club $`E`$ of $`\lambda _2`$ there is an increasing continuous function $`h`$ from $`\lambda _1`$ into $`\lambda _2`$ with $`sup(\text{Rang}(h))\text{acc}(E)`$ such that $`\{\delta S_1:h(\delta )S_2`$ and $`C_{h(\delta )}^2\{h(\alpha ):\alpha C_\delta ^1\}`$ and $`F(h(\delta ))=\delta \}`$ belongs to $`D_{\lambda _1},`$
5. $`2^{2^{\lambda _1}}<\lambda _2`$,

then $`\overline{C}^2`$ has the $`(\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-BB-property.

2) Assume that in part (1) we omit assumption (e) and replace the BB-property by MD-property where $`\mathrm{}\{0,2\}`$. Then $`\overline{C}^2`$ has the $`(\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-MD-property.

3) In part (1) if we omit assumption (e) and strengthen clause (d) by demanding $`\{\delta S_1:h(\delta )S_2`$ and $`C_{h(0)}^2=\{h(\alpha ):\alpha C_\delta ^1\}`$ and $`F(h(\delta ))=\delta \}`$ belongs to $`D_{\lambda _1}`$, then we can still conclude that: for every nice $`(\overline{C}^2,\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-colouring $`𝐅`$ (see below) there is an $`𝐅`$-super BB sequence.

###### Remark 2.13.

1) Is clause (d) of the assumption reasonable? Later in \[S+, 4.5\] we prove that it holds under reasonable conditions.

2) This + 2.14 are formalized elsewhere.

###### Proof..

Similar to Claim 2.2.

First, assume $`\mathrm{}=2`$ (so we are in part (2)) and let $`\tau `$ be a relational vocabulary of cardinality $`<\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ and by clause (b) of the assumption there is a sequence $`\overline{M}^1=M_\delta ^1:\delta S_1,M_\delta ^1`$ a $`\tau `$-model with universe $`C_\delta ^1`$ such that:

1. if $`M`$ is a $`\tau `$-model with universe $`\lambda _1`$, then the set of $`\delta S_1`$ for which $`M_\delta ^1=MC_\delta ^1`$ is $`\mathrm{}modD_{\lambda _1}`$.

Now for every $`\delta S_2`$ if $`F(\delta )S_1`$ and $`\{F(\alpha ):\alpha C_\delta ^2\}C_{f(\delta )}^1`$ is an unbounded subset of $`f(\delta )`$, then let $`M_\delta ^2`$ be the unique $`\tau `$-model with universe $`C_\delta ^2`$ such that $`FC_\delta ^2`$ is an isomorphism from $`M_\delta ^2`$ onto $`M_{F(\delta )}^1\{F(\alpha ):\alpha C_\delta ^2\}`$. If $`\delta S_1`$ does not satisfy the requirement above let $`M_\delta ^2`$ be any $`\tau `$-model with universe $`C_\delta ^2`$.

Now it is easy to check that $`\overline{M}^2=M_\delta ^2:\delta S_2`$ is as required.

Second, assume $`\mathrm{}=1`$ (and we are in part (1)) and let $`𝐅^2`$ be a $`(\overline{C}^2,\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$ colouring. For each $`(\overline{C}^1,\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-colouring $`𝐅^1`$ we ask:

Question on $`𝐅^1`$: Do we have, for every club $`E`$ of $`\lambda _2`$ an increasing continuous function $`h:\lambda _1\lambda _2`$ such that:

1. sup$`(\text{Rang}(h))E,`$
2. the following set is a stationary subset of $`\lambda _1`$ $`\{\delta S_1:h(\delta )S_2`$ and $`C_{h(\delta )}^2\{h(\delta ):\alpha C_\delta ^1\}`$ and $`F(h(\delta ))=\delta `$ and $`(\eta _1{}_{}{}^{(C_\delta ^1)}\mathrm{{\rm Y}})(\eta _2{}_{}{}^{(C_{h(\delta )}^2)}\mathrm{{\rm Y}})[(\alpha C_\delta ^1)(\eta _1(\alpha )=\eta _2(h(\alpha )))𝐅^1(\eta _1)=𝐅^2(\eta _2)\}`$.

If for some $`𝐅^1`$ the answer is yes, we proceed as in the proof for $`\mathrm{}=1`$. Otherwise, for each such $`𝐅^1`$ there is a club $`E[𝐅^1]`$ exemplifying the negative answer. Let $`E=\{E[𝐅^1]:𝐅^1`$ is a $`(\overline{C}^1,\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-colouring$`\}`$. As there are $`2^{2^{\lambda _1}}`$ such functions $`𝐅^1`$ clearly $`E`$ is a club of $`\lambda _2`$ and using (d) of the assumption, there is $`h:\lambda _1\lambda _2`$ as there. We can define $`𝐅^1`$ by $`h,𝐅^2`$ naturally and get a contradiction.

The case $`\mathrm{}=0`$ and part (3) are left to the reader. ∎

Trying to apply Claim 2.12, clause (d) of the assumption looks the most serious. By the following, if each $`C_\delta ^1`$ is a stationary subset of $`\delta `$ (so $`\kappa >\mathrm{}_0`$), it helps.

###### Claim 2.14.

In Claim 2.12, if $`2^{\lambda _1}<\lambda _2`$, and we replace $`(d)`$ by $`(d)^{}+(f)`$ below, then we can conclude that some $`\overline{C}^3=C_\delta ^3:\delta S`$ has the $`\theta `$-MD-property where $`C_\delta ^3D_\delta `$ where:

1. $`\overline{D}=D_\delta :\delta S_2,D_\delta ^{}`$ is a filter on $`C_\delta ^2`$ containing the co-bounded subsets of $`C_\delta ^2`$ (or just $`D_\delta 𝒫(C_\delta ^2)\backslash \{AC_\delta ^2:sup(A)<\delta \},`$
2. $`F:\lambda _2\lambda _1`$ satisfies: for every club $`E`$ of $`\lambda `$ for some increasing continuous function $`h`$ from $`\lambda _1`$ to $`\lambda _2`$ with $`sup(\text{Rang}(h))\text{acc}(E)`$ the set $`\{\delta S_1:h(\delta )S_2`$ and $`\{h(\alpha ):\alpha C_\alpha ^1\}C_\delta ^2D_\delta ^{}\}`$ belong to $`D_{\lambda _1}`$.

###### Proof..

Let $`𝒞\{\overline{e}:\overline{e}=e_\delta :\delta S_1,e_\delta `$ is a subset of $`C_\delta ^2\}`$. So $`|𝒞|2^{\lambda _1}<\lambda `$ and for each $`\overline{e}E`$ we define $`\overline{C}^{\overline{e}}C_\delta ^{\overline{e}}:\delta S_2^{\overline{e}}`$ by $`S_\delta ^{\overline{e}}=\{\delta S_2:C_\delta ^{\overline{e}}D_\delta \},`$ where $`C_\delta ^{\overline{e}}=\{\alpha C_\delta ^2:\mathrm{otp}(C_\delta ^2\alpha )e_{F(\delta )}\}`$. If there exists some $`\overline{e}𝒞,`$ then $`\overline{C}^{\overline{e}}`$ is as required, so we are done. If not, continue as in the proof of Claim 2.12

## 3. Glossary

§0 Introduction:

* Theorem 0.1: Many cases of MD-diamond.
* Theorem 0.2: With division to $`\lambda `$.
* Conclusion 0.3: Connection to the principle from \[She03\].
* Definition 0.4: Having (partial) squares.

§1 Super black box: sufficient conditions for $`\mathrm{cf}(2^\mu )`$:

* Definition 1.1: Definition of $`S`$ being $`𝐅\theta `$-small and the normal filter.
* Claim 1.2: The filter is normal and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ does not matter.
* Definition 1.3: Recalling pcf definitions.
* Remark 1.4:
* Definition 1.5: The main notions are defined:

+ $`\overline{C}`$ is $`\lambda `$-BB-parameter, $`(\lambda ,\kappa ,\chi )`$-BB-parameter,
    + $`𝐅`$ is a $`(\overline{C},\mu ,\theta )`$-coloring,
    + $`\overline{C}`$ is a $`(D,𝐅)`$-super BBsequence,
    + $`\overline{C}`$ is good and $`\overline{C}`$ has the $`(D,\mu ,\theta )`$-BB-property or the $`(D,\mu ,\theta )`$-BB-property, also (good+-BB-property and BB.
* Definition 1.6:
* Claim 1.8: Easy implications.
* Major Claim 1.10: Sufficient conditions for $`\overline{C}`$ having the $`(D,\theta )`$-BBor properties ($`D`$ a filter on $`\lambda ,\lambda =\mathrm{cf}(2^\mu ))`$.
* Claim 1.11: E.g., $`\mu =\mu ^\theta `$ implies $`\mathrm{Sep}(\mu ,\theta )`$, one of the assumptions of Claim 1.10.
* Remark 1.12: On variants.
* Definition 1.9: $`\mathrm{Sep}(\chi ,\mu ,\theta ,\theta _1,\mathrm{{\rm Y}})`$, $`\mathrm{Sep}(\mu ,\theta )`$.
* Claim 1.13: Monotonicity properties of $`\mathrm{Sep}`$.
* Claim 1.14: On some implications.
* Definition 1.15: $`\lambda `$-MD-parameter.
* Claim 1.16: Existence of good MD-parameters.
* Claim 1.17: Like Claim 1.10 for MD-parameters (1.14 \- 1.17 are not central).
* Claim 1.20: Getting, e.g., $`(D,\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-MD-property, i.e., $`M_\delta :\delta S,|M_\delta |=C_\delta ,`$ which guess (as in Theorem 0.1) for having $`\overline{C}`$ with the $`(D,\theta )`$-property; also md-properties MD-properties are defined.
* Definition 1.22: $`\theta `$-MD-property and the ideal ID$`{}_{\lambda ,\kappa ,\chi ,\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta }{}^{}(\overline{C}).`$
* Claim 1.23: Non saturation ideal above (needed in Claim 1.20)
* Claim 1.24: Quotations on the existence of good BB-parameters (by quoting).
* Definition 1.25: A related ideal.
* Definition 1.26: $`𝐅`$ is $`(S,\kappa ,\chi )`$-good (1.25, 1.26 not central).
* Conclusion 1.27: Phrasing some conclusions.
* Question 1.28: $`\lambda `$ weakly inaccessible, $`2^\theta :\theta <\lambda `$ is eventually constant.

§2 Upgrading to larger cardinals:

* Claim 2.2: For suitable $`\lambda _2>2^{\lambda _1}`$, we construct $`(\lambda _2,\kappa ,\chi )`$-BB-parameters $`\overline{C}`$ which has the $`(D_\lambda ,\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-property from $`(\lambda _1,\kappa ,\chi )`$-BB-parameters which has the $`(D_\lambda ,\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\theta )`$-parameters.
* Claim 2.4: Getting $`\overline{C}^i=C_\delta ^i:\delta S_i`$ sets $`S_i`$ pairwise disjoint for $`i<\lambda `$ in Claim 2.2.
* Conclusion 2.5: If $`\mu `$ is strong limit, $`\lambda =\text{ cf}(\lambda )>2^{2^\mu }`$ is successor of singular, then for every large enough $`\kappa <\mu `$, some good $`(\lambda ,\kappa ,\kappa ^+)`$-BB-parameter has the $`(D_\lambda ,2^\mu ,\theta )`$-BB-property for every $`\theta <\mu `$.
* Claim 2.6: A generalization of Engełking Karłowicz theorem. \[no pf\].
* Claim 2.9: Dealing with the successor of singulars. \[$``$ pf\].
* Claim 2.11: We advance the picture in 2.5 dealing with weakly inaccessible (i.e. regular limit) not strong limit cardinals; at a minor price - $`\mu `$ is of uncountable cofinality.
* Claim 2.12: This is a stepping-up lemma used in Claim 2.11 above.
* Claim 2.14: Sufficient conditions for the “lifting” used in Claim 2.12.