text:
# Universality among graphs omitting a complete bipartite graph

## Anotated Content

§0 Introduction

§1 Some no we-universal

1. \[We define Pr$`(\lambda ,\kappa )`$ and using it gives sufficient conditions for the non-existence of we-universal in $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ mainly when $`\theta =\kappa ^+`$. Also we give sufficient conditions for no ste-universal when $`\lambda =\lambda ^\kappa ,2^\kappa \theta \kappa `$.\]

§2 No we-universal by Pr$`(\lambda ,\kappa )`$ and its relatives

1. \[We give finer sufficient conditions and deal/analyze the combinatorial properties we use; Pr$`(\lambda ,\kappa )`$ says that there are partial functions $`f_\alpha `$ from $`\lambda `$ to $`\lambda `$ for $`\alpha <\lambda `$, which are dense, $`\kappa =\text{otp}(\text{Dom}(f_\alpha ))`$ and $`\kappa >\text{otp}(\text{Dom}(f_\alpha )\text{ Dom}(f_\beta ))`$ for $`\alpha \beta `$.\]

§3 Complete characterization under G.C.H.

1. \[Two theorems cover G.C.H. - one assume $`\lambda `$ is strong limit and the other assume $`\lambda =\mu ^+=2^\mu +2^{<\mu }=\mu `$. Toward this we prove mainly some results on existence of universe.\]

§4 More accurate properties

## 0. Introduction

On the problem of “among graphs with $`\lambda `$ nodes and no complete subgraph with $`\kappa `$ nodes, is there a universal one” (i.e. under weak embedding) is to a large extent solved in Komjath-Shelah \[KoSh:492\], see more there. E.g. give a complete solution under the assumption of GCH.

Now there are some variants, mainly for graph theorists embedding, i.e. a one to one function mapping an edge to an edge, called here weak or we-embedding; for model theorist an embedding also maps a non-edge to a non-edge, call strong or ste-embedding. We have the corresponding we-universal and ste-universal.

We deal here with the problem “among the graphs with $`\lambda `$ nodes and no complete $`(\theta ,\kappa )`$-bipartite sub-graph, is there a universal one?”, see below on earlier results. We call the family of such graphs $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$, and consider both the weak embedding (as most graph theorists use) and the strong embedding. Our neatest result appears in section 3 (see 3.5, 3.15).

###### Theorem 0.1.

Assume $`\lambda \theta \kappa \mathrm{}_0`$.

1) If $`\lambda `$ is strong limit then: there is a member of $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ which is we-universal (= universal under weak embedding) iff there is a member of $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ which is ste-universal (= universal under strong embeddings) iffcf$`(\lambda )\text{cf}(\kappa )`$ and $`(\kappa <\theta \text{cf}(\lambda )<\text{cf}(\theta ))`$.

2) If $`\lambda =2^\mu =\mu ^+`$ and $`\mu =2^{<\mu }`$, then

1. there is no ste-universal in $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$
2. there is we-universal in $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ iff $`\mu =\mu ^\kappa `$ and $`\theta =\lambda `$.

We give many sufficient conditions for the non-existence of universals (mainly we-universal) and some for the existence, for this dealing with some set-theoretic properties. Mostly when we get “no $`G_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ is we/ste-universal” we, moreover, get “no $`G_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ is we/ste-universal among the bipartite ones”. Hence we get also results on families of bi-partite graphs. We do not look at the case $`\kappa <\mathrm{}_0`$ here.

Rado has proved that: if $`\lambda `$ is regular $`>\mathrm{}_0`$ and $`2^{<\lambda }=\lambda `$, then$`_{\lambda ,\lambda ,1}`$ has a ste-universal member (a sufficient condition for $`G^{}`$ being ste-universal for $`_{\lambda ,\lambda ,1}`$ is: for any connected graph $`G`$ with $`<\lambda `$ nodes, $`\lambda `$ of the components of $`G`$ are isomorphic to $`G`$). Note that $`G_{\lambda ,\lambda ,1}`$ iff $`G`$ has $`\lambda `$ nodes and the valency of every node is $`<\lambda `$. Erdös and Rado (see \[EH74\], in Problem 74) ask what occurs, under GCH to say $`\mathrm{}_\omega `$. By \[Sh:26, 3.1\] if $`\lambda `$ is strong limit singular then there is a ste-universal graph in $`_{\lambda ,\lambda ,1}`$.

Komjath and Pach \[KP84\] prove that $`\mathrm{}_{\omega _1}`$ no universal in $`_{\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_0}`$, this holds also for $`_{\kappa ^+,\kappa ^+,\kappa }`$ when $`\mathrm{}_{S_\kappa ^{\kappa ^+}}`$ holds; subsequently the author showed that $`2^\kappa =\kappa ^+`$ suffice (Theorem 1 there). Then Shafir (see \[Sha01, Th.1\]) presents this and proves the following:

(\[Sha01, Th.2\]): if $`\kappa =\text{ cf}(\kappa ),\mathrm{}_{S_\kappa ^{\kappa ^+}}`$ and there is a MAD family on $`[\kappa ]^\kappa `$ of cardinality $`\kappa `$, then$`_{\kappa ^+,\kappa ,\kappa }`$ has no we-universal.

(\[Sha01, Th.3\]): if $`\kappa \theta 2^\kappa `$ and there is $`𝒜[\kappa ]^\kappa `$ of cardinality $`\kappa `$ such that no $`B[\kappa ]^\kappa `$ is included in $`\theta `$ of them, then $`_{\theta ^\kappa ,\kappa ,\theta }`$ has no ste-universal member.

(\[Sha01, Th.4\]): if $`\kappa \theta 2^\kappa `$ and $`\mathrm{}_{S_\kappa ^\lambda }`$ then $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ has no ste-universal members.

Here we characterize “$`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ has universal” under GCH (for weak and for strong embeddings). We also in 1.1 prove $`\mathrm{}_{S_\kappa ^{\kappa ^+}}`$ no we-universal in $`_{\kappa ^+,\kappa ^+,\kappa }`$ (compared to \[Sha01, Th.2\], we omit his additional assumption “no MAD $`𝒜[\kappa ]^\kappa ,|𝒜|=\kappa `$”); in 1.2 we prove more. Also (1.5) $`\lambda =\lambda ^\kappa 2^\kappa \theta \kappa `$ no universal under strong embedding in $`_{\lambda ,\kappa ,\theta }`$ (compared to \[Sha01, Th.3\] we omit an assumption).

Lately some results for which we originally used \[Sh:460\] now instead use \[Sh:829\], \[Sh:922\] which gives stronger results.

$``$

###### Notation 0.2.

1. We use $`\lambda ,\mu ,\kappa ,\chi ,\theta `$ for cardinals (infinite if not said otherwise)
2. We use $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\epsilon ,\zeta ,\xi ,i,j`$ for ordinals, $`\delta `$ for limit ordinals
3. For $`\kappa =\text{ cf}(\kappa )<\lambda ,S_\kappa ^\lambda =\{\delta <\lambda :\text{ cf}(\delta )=\kappa \}`$
4. $`[A]^\kappa =\{BA:|B|=\kappa \}`$. $``$ We use $`G`$ for graphs and for bipartite graphs; see below Definition 0.3(1), 0.4(1), it will always be clear from the context which case we intend.

###### Definition 0.3.

1) A graph $`G`$ is a pair $`(V,R)=(V^G,R^G),V`$ a non-empty set, $`R`$ a symmetric irreflexive 2-place relation on it. We call $`V`$ the set of nodes of $`G`$ and $`|V|`$ is the cardinality of $`G`$, denoted by $`G`$, and may write $`\alpha G`$ instead of $`\alpha V^G`$.

Let $`E^G=\{\{\alpha ,\beta \}:\alpha R^G\beta \}`$, so we may consider $`G`$ as $`(V^G,E^G)`$.

2) We say $`f`$ is a strong embedding of $`G_1`$ into $`G_2`$ (graphs) if :

1. $`f`$ is a one-to-one function from $`G_1`$ into $`G_2`$; pedantically from $`V^{G_1}`$ into $`V^{G_2}`$
2. for $`\alpha ,\beta G_1`$ we have

$`\alpha R^{G_1}\beta f(\alpha )R^{G_2}f(\beta )`$.

3) we say $`f`$ is a weak embedding of $`G_1`$ into $`G_2`$ if

1. above and
2. for $`\alpha ,\beta G_1`$ we have

$`\alpha R^{G_1}\beta f(\alpha )R^{G_2}f(\beta )`$.

4) The $`\lambda `$-complete graph $`K_\lambda `$ is the graph $`(\lambda ,R)`$ were $`\alpha R\beta \alpha \beta `$ or any graph isomorphic to it.

###### Definition 0.4.

1) $`G`$ is a bipartite graph means $`G=(U,V,R)=(U^G,V^G,R^G)`$ where $`U,V`$ are disjoint non-empty sets, $`RU\times V`$. For a bipartite graph $`G`$, we would like sometimes to treat as a usual graph (not bipartite), so let $`G`$ as a graph, $`G^{[\text{gr}]}`$, be $`(U^GV^G,\{(\alpha ,\beta ):\alpha ,\beta VU`$ and $`\alpha R^G\beta \beta R^G\alpha \})`$. The cardinality of $`G`$ is $`(|U^G|,|V^G|)`$ or $`|U^G|+|V^G|`$.

2) We say $`f`$ is a strong embedding of the bipartite graph $`G_1`$ into the bipartite graph $`G_2`$ if :

1. $`f`$ is a one-to-one function from $`U^{G_1}V^{G_1}`$ into $`U^{G_2}V^{G_2}`$ mapping $`U^{G_1}`$ into $`U^{G_2}`$ and mapping $`V^{G_1}`$ into $`V^{G_2}`$
2. for $`(\alpha ,\beta )U^{G_1}\times V^{G_1}`$ we have

$`\alpha R^{G_1}\beta f(\alpha )R^{G_2}f(\beta )`$.

3) We say $`f`$ is a weak embedding of the bipartite graph $`G_1`$ into the bipartite graph $`G_2`$ if

1. $`f`$ is a one-to-one function from $`U^{G_1}V^{G_1}`$ into $`U^{G_2}V^{G_2},f`$ mapping $`U^{G_1}`$ into $`U^{G_2}`$ and mapping $`V^{G_1}`$ into $`V^{G_2}`$
2. for $`(\alpha ,\beta )U^{G_1}\times V^{G_1}`$ we have

$`\alpha R^{G_1}\beta f(\alpha )R^{G_2}f(\beta )`$.

4) In parts (2), (3) above, if $`G_1`$ is a bipartite graph and $`G_2`$ is a graph then we mean $`G_1^{[\text{gr}]},G_2`$.

5) The $`(\kappa ,\theta )`$-complete bipartite graph $`K_{\kappa ,\theta }`$ is $`(U,V,R)`$ with $`U=\{i:i<\kappa \},V=\{\kappa +i:i<\theta \},R=\{(i,\kappa +j):i<\kappa ,j<\theta \}`$, or any graph isomorphic to it.

###### Definition 0.5.

1) For a family $``$ of graphs (or of bipartite graphs) we say $`G`$ is ste-universal \[or we-universal\] for $``$ iff every $`G^{}`$ can be strongly embedded \[or weakly embedded\] into $`G`$.

2) We say $``$ has a ste-universal (or we-universal) if some $`G`$ is ste-universal (or we-universal) for $``$.

###### Definition 0.6.

1) Let $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }=_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }^{\text{gr}}`$ be the family of graphs $`G`$ of cardinality $`\lambda `$ (i.e. with $`\lambda `$ nodes) such that the complete $`(\theta ,\kappa )`$-bipartite graph cannot be weakly embedded into it; gr stands for graph.

2) Let $`_{\overline{\lambda },\theta ,\kappa }^{\text{bp}}`$ be the family of bipartite graphs $`G`$ of cardinality $`\overline{\lambda }`$ such that the complete $`(\theta ,\kappa )`$-bipartite graph cannot be weakly embedded into it. If $`\overline{\lambda }=(\lambda ,\lambda )`$ we may write $`\lambda `$ (similarly in (3)); bp stands for bipartite.

3) Let $`_{\overline{\lambda },\{\theta ,\kappa \}}^{\text{sbp}}=_{\overline{\lambda },\theta ,\kappa }^{\text{sbp}}`$ be the family of bipartite graphs $`G`$ of cardinality $`\overline{\lambda }`$ such that $`K_{\theta ,\kappa }`$ (the $`(\theta ,\kappa )`$-complete bipartite graph) and $`K_{\kappa ,\theta }`$ (the $`(\kappa ,\theta )`$-complete bipartite graph) cannot be weakly embedded into it; sbp stands for symmetrically bipartite.

4) $`_\lambda =_\lambda ^{\text{gr}}`$ is the family of graphs of cardinality $`\lambda `$ and $`_{\overline{\lambda }}^{\text{bp}}`$ is the family of bipartite graphs of cardinality $`\overline{\lambda }`$.

###### Observation 0.7.

1) The following are equivalent:

1. in $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }^{\text{sbp}}`$ there is a we-universal
2. in $`\{G^{[\text{gr}]}:G_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }^{\text{sbp}}\}`$ there is a we-universal.

2) Similarly for ste-universal.

3) If $`G`$ is ste-universal for $``$ then it is we-universal for $``$ (in all versions).

4) Assume that for every $`G_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ there is a bipartite graph from $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ not $`x`$-embeddable into it, then in $`_{\lambda ,\kappa ,\theta }^{\text{bp}}`$ and in $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }^{\text{bp}}`$ and in $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }^{\text{sbp}}`$ there is no x-universal member; for $`x\{\text{we,\hspace{0.17em}ste}\}`$.

###### Proof..

(1) $`(a)(b)`$: Trivially.

$`(b)(a)`$: Assume $`G`$ is we-universal in $`\{G^{[\text{gr}]}:G_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }^{\text{sbp}}\}`$ and let $`A_i:i<i^{}`$ be its connectivity components. Let $`A_i`$ be the disjoint union of $`A_{i,0},A_{i,1}`$ with no $`G`$-edge inside $`A_{i,0}`$ and no $`G`$-edge inside $`A_{i,1}`$ (exists as $`G=G_{}^{[\text{gr}]}`$ for some $`G_{}_{\lambda ,\kappa ,\theta }^{\text{sbp}}`$, note that $`\{A_{i,0},A_{i,1}\}`$ is unique as $`GA_i`$ is connected). Let $`A_{i,\mathrm{}}^{m,\alpha }`$ for $`i<i^{},\mathrm{}<2,m<2,\alpha <\lambda `$ be pairwise disjoint sets with $`|A_{i,\mathrm{}}^{m,\alpha }|=|A_{i,k}|`$ when $`m+\mathrm{}=k`$ mod $`2`$. Let $`G^{}`$ be the following member of $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }^{\text{bp}}`$: let $`U^G^{}`$ be the disjoint union of $`A_{i,\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{},\alpha }`$ for $`i<i^{},\mathrm{}<2,\alpha <\lambda `$ and $`V^G^{}`$ be the disjoint union of $`A_{i,\mathrm{}}^{1\mathrm{},\alpha }`$ for $`i<i^{},\mathrm{}<2,\alpha <\lambda `$ and $`R^G^{}=\{R_{i,\mathrm{}}^\alpha :i<i^{},\mathrm{}<2\}`$ where $`R_{i,\mathrm{}}^\alpha `$ are chosen such that $`(A_{i,0}^{0,\alpha },A_{i,1}^{1,\alpha },R_{i,0}^\alpha )(A_{i,0},A_{i,1},R^GA_{i,0}\times A_{i,1})(A_{i,1}^{0,\alpha },A_{i,0}^{1,\alpha },R_{i,1}^\alpha )`$. Easily $`G^{}_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }^{\text{bp}}`$ is we-universal.

2) The same proof.

3), 4) Easy. ∎

## 1. Some no we-universal

We show that if $`\lambda =\lambda ^\kappa 2^\kappa \theta \kappa `$ then in $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ there is no ste-universal graph (in 1.5); for we-universal there is a similar theorem if $`\theta =\kappa ^+`$, Pr$`(\lambda ,\kappa )`$, see 1.4 \+ Definition 1.2, (this holds when $`\lambda =\lambda ^\kappa =\text{ cf}(\lambda ),\mathrm{}_{S_\kappa ^\lambda }`$).

###### Claim 1.1.

Assume $`\kappa `$ is regular and $`\mathrm{}_{S_\kappa ^{\kappa ^+}}`$ (see Definition 1.2 below). Then there is no we-universal in $`_{\kappa ^+,\kappa ^+,\kappa }`$.

###### Definition 1.2.

1) For regular $`\kappa <\lambda `$ let $`S_\kappa ^\lambda =\{\delta <\lambda :\text{cf}(\delta )=\text{ cf}(\kappa )\}`$.

2) For regular $`\lambda `$ and stationary subset $`S`$ of $`\lambda `$ let $`\mathrm{}_S`$ means that for some $`\overline{A}=A_\delta :\delta S,\delta \text{ limit}`$ we have

1. $`A_\delta `$ is an unbounded subset of $`\delta `$
2. if $`A`$ is an unbounded subset of $`\lambda `$ then for some (equivalently stationarily many) $`\delta S`$ we have $`A_\delta A`$.

2A) For $`\kappa <\lambda `$ let $`\text{ }_{\lambda ,\kappa }`$ mean that for some family $`𝒜[\lambda ]^\kappa `$ of cardinality $`\lambda `$ we have $`(B[\lambda ]^\lambda )(A𝒜)(AB)`$.

3) Pr$`(\lambda ,\kappa )`$ for cardinals $`\lambda >\kappa `$ means that some $``$ exemplifies it, which means

1. $``$ is a family of $`\lambda `$ functions
2. every $`f`$ is a partial function from $`\lambda `$ to $`\lambda `$
3. if $`f`$ then $`\kappa =\text{ otp}(\text{Dom}(f))`$ and $`f`$ strictly increasing
4. $`fg\kappa >|\text{Dom}(f)\text{ Dom}(g)|`$
5. if $`g`$ is a partial (strictly) increasing function from $`\lambda `$ to $`\lambda `$ such that Dom$`(g)`$ has cardinality $`\lambda `$, then$`g`$ extends some $`f`$.

4) Pr$`{}_{}{}^{}(\lambda ,\delta )`$ is defined similarly for $`\delta `$ a limit ordinal but clauses (c) + (d) are replaced by

1. if $`f`$ then$`\delta =\text{ otp}(\text{Dom}(f))`$ and $`f`$ is one to one
2. if $`fg`$ then $`\text{Dom}(f)\text{ Dom}(g)`$ is a bounded subset of Dom$`(f)`$ and of Dom$`(g)`$.

###### Observation 1.3.

1) We have

1. $`\kappa =\text{cf}(\kappa )`$ and $`\mathrm{}_{S_\kappa ^\lambda }\text{Pr}(\lambda ,\kappa )`$
2. Pr$`{}_{}{}^{}(\lambda ,\kappa )\text{ Pr}(\lambda ,\kappa )\text{ }_{\lambda ,\kappa }`$
3. for any cardinal $`\kappa `$ we have Pr$`(\lambda ,\kappa )\text{ Pr}^{}(\lambda ,\kappa )`$.

2) If we weaken clause (c) of 1.2(3) to

1. $`f|\text{Rang}(f)|=\kappa =|\text{Dom}(f)|`$

we get equivalent statement (can combine with 1.3(3)).

3) The “one to one” in Definition 1.2(4), clause $`(c)^{}`$ is not a serious demand, that is, omitting it we get an equivalent definition.

###### Proof..

Easy.

1) E.g., clause $`(iii)`$ holds because for any one to one $`f:\kappa \text{ Ord}`$, for some $`A[\kappa ]^\kappa `$ the function $`fA`$ is strictly increasing (note it first to regular $`\kappa `$).

2) Left to the reader.

3) Why? Let pr:$`\lambda \times \lambda \lambda `$ be 1-to-1 onto and pr1,pr$`{}_{2}{}^{}:\lambda \lambda `$ be such that $`\alpha =\text{ pr}(\text{pr}_1(\alpha ),\text{pr}_2(\alpha ))`$.

Let $``$ be as in the Definition 1.2(4) old version. Then $`\{\text{pr}_1f:f\}`$ will exemplify the new version, i.e. without the 1-to-1.

For the other direction, just take $`\{f:f\text{ is one to one}\}`$. ∎

###### Proof..

Proof of 1.1 It follows from 1.4 proved below as $`\mathrm{}_{S_\kappa ^{\kappa ^+}}`$ easily implies Pr$`(\kappa ^+,\kappa )`$ for regular $`\kappa `$ (see 1.3(1)). ∎

###### Claim 1.4.

If Pr$`(\lambda ,\kappa )`$, so $`\lambda >\kappa `$ then in $`_{\lambda ,\kappa ^+,\kappa }`$ there is no we-universal.

Moreover, for every $`G^{}_{\lambda ,\kappa ^+,\kappa }`$ there is a bipartite $`G_{\lambda ,\kappa ^+,\kappa }`$ of cardinality $`\lambda `$ not we-embeddable into it.

###### Proof..

Let $`G^{}`$ be a given graph from $`_{\lambda ,\kappa ^+,\kappa }`$; without loss of generality $`V^G^{}=\lambda `$.

For any $`A\lambda `$ let

1. $`(a)Y_A^0=:\{\beta <\lambda :\beta `$ is $`G^{}`$-connected with every $`\gamma A\}`$
2. $`(b)Y_A^2=:\{\beta <\lambda :\beta `$ is $`G^{}`$-connected with $`\kappa `$ members of $`A\}`$
3. $`(c)Y_A^1=:\{\beta <\lambda :\beta `$ is $`G^{}`$-connected with every $`\gamma A`$ except possibly

$`<\kappa `$ of them$`\}`$.

Clearly
4. $`(d)AB\lambda Y_A^0Y_B^0`$ and $`Y_A^2Y_B^2`$ and $`Y_A^1Y_B^1`$
5. $`(e)|A|\kappa Y_A^0Y_A^1Y_A^2`$.

We now note

1. if $`A[\lambda ]^\kappa `$ then $`|Y_A^0|\kappa `$.

\[Why? Otherwise we can find a weak embedding of the $`(\kappa ,\kappa ^+)`$-complete bipartite graph into $`G^{}`$\]

1. if $`A[\lambda ]^\kappa `$ then $`|Y_A^1|\kappa `$.

\[Why? If not choose pairwise disjoint subsets $`A_i`$ of $`A`$ for $`i<\kappa `$ each of cardinality $`\kappa `$, now easily $`\gamma Y_A^1|\{i<\kappa :\gamma Y_{A_i}^0\}|<\kappa `$ so $`Y_A^1\underset{i<\kappa }{}Y_{A_i}^0`$ hence if $`|Y_A^1|>\kappa `$ then for some $`i<\kappa ,Y_{A_i}^0`$ has cardinality $`>\kappa `$, contradiction by $`()_1`$.\]

Let $`=\{f_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda \}`$ exemplify Pr$`(\lambda ,\kappa )`$. Now we start to choose the bipartite graph $`G`$:

1. $`U^G=\lambda ,V^G=\lambda \times \lambda ,R^G=\underset{\alpha <\lambda }{}R_\alpha ^G`$ and $`R_\alpha ^G\{(\beta ,(\alpha ,\gamma )):\alpha <\lambda `$ and $`\beta \text{ Dom}(f_\alpha )`$ and $`\gamma <\lambda \}U^G\times V^G`$ where $`R_\alpha ^G`$ is chosen below; we let $`G_\alpha =(U^G,V^G,R_\alpha ^G)`$.

Now

1. $`G`$ is a bipartite graph of cardinality $`\lambda `$
2. the $`(\kappa ^+,\kappa )`$-complete bipartite graph $`(_{(\kappa ^+,\kappa )}^{\text{bp}})`$ cannot be weakly embedded into $`G`$.

\[Why? As for any $`(\alpha ,\gamma )V^G`$ the set $`\{\beta <\lambda :\beta R^G(\alpha ,\gamma )\}`$ is equal to Dom$`(f_\alpha )`$ which has cardinality $`\kappa `$ which is $`<\kappa ^+`$; note that we are speaking of weak embedding as bipartite graph, “side preserving”\]

1. the $`(\kappa ,\kappa ^+)`$-complete bipartite graph cannot be weakly embedded into $`G`$ provided that for each $`\alpha <\lambda `$,

1. $`K_{\kappa ,\kappa ^+}`$ cannot be weakly embedded into $`(U^G,V^G,R_\alpha ^G)`$.

\[Why? Let $`U_1U^G,V_1V^G`$ have cardinality $`\kappa ,\kappa ^+`$ respectively and let $`V_1^{}=\{\alpha :(\alpha ,\gamma )V_1`$ for some $`\gamma \}`$. If $`|V_1^{}|2`$ choose $`9\alpha _1,\gamma _1),(\alpha _2,\gamma _2)V_1`$ such that $`\alpha _1\alpha _2`$, so $`\{\beta <\lambda :(\beta ,(\alpha _{\mathrm{}},\gamma _{\mathrm{}}))R^G`$ for $`\mathrm{}=1,2\}`$ include $`U_1`$ hence by the definition of $`R^G`$ we have $`|\text{Dom}(f_{\alpha _1})\text{ Dom}(f_{\alpha _2})||U_1|=\kappa `$, but $`\alpha _1\alpha _2|\text{Dom}(f_{\alpha _1})\text{Dom}(f_{\alpha _2})|<\kappa `$ by clause (d) of Definition 1.2(3) - think.\]

1. $`G`$ cannot be weakly embedded into $`G^{}`$ provided that for each $`\alpha <\lambda `$:

1. there is no weak embedding $`f`$ of $`(U^G,V^G,R_\alpha ^G)`$ into $`G^{}`$ extending $`f_\alpha `$.

\[Why? Assume toward contradiction that $`f`$ is a one-to-one mapping from $`U^GV^G`$ into $`V^G^{}=\lambda `$ mapping edges of $`G`$ to edges of $`G^{}`$. So $`fU^G`$ is a one-to-one mapping from $`\lambda `$ to $`\lambda `$ hence by the choice of $`=\{f_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda \}`$ to witness Pr$`(\lambda ,\kappa )`$ see clause (e) of Definition 1.2(3) there is $`\alpha `$ such that $`f_\alpha fU^G`$. So clearly $`\beta R^G(\alpha ,\gamma )`$ and $`\beta \text{ Dom}(f_\alpha )`$ implies $`\{f(\beta ),f(\alpha ,\gamma )\}=\{f_\alpha (\beta ),f((\alpha ,\gamma ))\}E^G^{}`$, hence $`(\beta ,(\alpha ,\gamma ))R_\alpha ^G\{f(\beta ),f((\alpha ,\gamma ))\}E^G^{}`$. This clearly contradicts $`_\alpha ^4`$ which we are assuming.\]

So we are left with, for each $`\alpha <\lambda `$, choosing $`R_\alpha \{(\beta ,(\alpha ,\gamma ):\beta \text{ Dom}(f_\alpha ),\gamma <\lambda \}`$ to satisfy $`_\alpha ^3+_\alpha ^4`$. The proof splits to cases, fixing $`\alpha `$.

Let us denote $`B_\alpha =\text{ Rang}(f_\alpha ),A_\alpha =\text{ Dom}(f_\alpha )`$ for $`\mathrm{}=0,1`$ we let $`A_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}=:\{\gamma A_\alpha :\text{otp}(A_\alpha \gamma )=\mathrm{}\text{ mod }2\}`$ and $`B_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}=:\{f_\alpha (\gamma ):\gamma A_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}\}`$.

Case 1: $`Y_B^2`$ has cardinality $`\kappa `$ for some $`B[B_\alpha ]^\kappa `$.

Choose such $`B=B_\alpha ^{}`$ and let $`A_\alpha ^{}=\{\beta A_\alpha :f_\alpha (\beta )B_\alpha ^{}\}`$. There is a sequence $`\overline{C}=C_\zeta :\zeta <\kappa ^+,C_\zeta [\kappa ]^\kappa `$ such that $`\xi <\zeta |C_\xi C_\zeta |<\kappa `$.

Let $`R_\alpha =\{(\beta ,(\alpha ,\gamma )):\gamma <\kappa ^+,\beta A_\alpha ^{}`$ and otp$`(\beta A_\alpha ^{})C_\gamma \}`$. Now $`_\alpha ^4`$ holds because if $`f`$ is a counter-example, then necessarily by the pigeon-hole principle for some $`\gamma <\kappa ^+`$ we have $`f((\alpha ,\gamma ))Y_{B_\alpha ^{}}^2`$, but clearly $`(\alpha ,\gamma )`$ is $`G_\alpha `$-connected to $`\kappa `$ members of $`A_\alpha ^{}`$ hence $`f((\alpha ,\gamma ))`$ is $`G^{}`$-connected to $`\kappa `$ members of $`B_\alpha ^{}`$ hence $`f((\alpha ,\gamma ))Y_{B_\alpha ^{}}^2`$ and we get a contradiction. Also $`_\alpha ^3`$ holds as $`\xi <\zeta <\kappa ^+|C_\xi C_\zeta |<\kappa `$.

So we may assume, for the rest of the proof, that

1. $`|Y_B^2|>\kappa `$ for every $`B[B_\alpha ]^\kappa `$.

Case 2: For some $`\mathrm{}<2,|Y_{B_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}}^2|>\kappa `$ and for some $`Z`$:

1. $`ZY_{B_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}}^2\backslash Y_{B_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}}^1`$
2. $`|Z|\kappa `$
3. for every $`\gamma _0(Y_{B_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}}^2\backslash Y_{B_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}}^1)\backslash Z`$ there is $`\gamma _1Z`$ such that $`\kappa >|\{\beta B_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}:\beta \text{ is }G^{}\text{-connected to }\gamma _0`$ but is not $`G^{}`$-connected to $`\gamma _1\}|`$.

So we choose such $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}(\alpha )<2,Z=Z_\alpha `$ and then we choose a sequence $`B_{\alpha ,\gamma }:\gamma Z_\alpha `$ such that:

1. $`(a)B_{\alpha ,\gamma }`$ is a subset of $`B_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}`$
2. $`(b)|B_{\alpha ,\gamma }|=\kappa `$
3. $`(c)\gamma _1\gamma _2ZB_{\alpha ,\gamma _1}B_{\alpha ,\gamma _2}=\mathrm{}`$
4. $`(d)\gamma `$ is not $`G^{}`$-connected to any $`\epsilon B_{\alpha ,\gamma }`$

(this is possible as $`\gamma Z_\alpha \gamma Y_{B_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}}^1`$).

Now we can find a sequence $`C_{\alpha ,\zeta }:\zeta <\kappa ^+`$ satisfying

1. $`(\alpha )C_{\alpha ,\zeta }B_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}`$
2. $`(\beta )|C_{\alpha ,\zeta }|=\kappa `$ moreover $`\beta Z_\alpha |C_{\alpha ,\zeta }B_{\alpha ,\beta }|=\kappa `$
3. $`(\gamma )`$ for $`\xi <\zeta `$ we have $`|C_{\alpha ,\xi }C_{\alpha ,\zeta }|<\kappa `$

(e.g. if $`\kappa =\text{ cf}(\kappa )>\mathrm{}_0`$ by renaming $`B_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}=\kappa `$, each $`B_{\alpha ,\epsilon }`$ is stationary, choose nonstationary $`C_{\alpha ,\epsilon }\kappa `$ inductively on $`\epsilon `$; if $`\kappa >\text{ cf}(\kappa )`$ reduce it to construction on regulars, if $`\kappa =\mathrm{}_0`$ like $`\kappa =\text{ cf}(\kappa )>\mathrm{}_0`$).

Lastly we choose $`R_\alpha =\{(\beta ,(\alpha ,\gamma )):\beta A_\alpha ,\gamma <\kappa ^+\text{ and }f_\alpha (\beta )C_{\alpha ,\gamma }\}`$.

Now $`_\alpha ^3`$ is proved as in the first case, as for $`_\alpha ^4`$, if $`f`$ is a counter-example then clearly for $`\gamma <\kappa ^+,f((\alpha ,\gamma ))Y_{B_\alpha }^2`$, so as $`|Y_{B_\alpha }^2|>\kappa `$ by $`_5`$ and $`|Z_\alpha |\kappa `$ and $`|Y_{B_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}}^1|\kappa `$ (by $`()_2`$) necessarily for some $`\zeta <\kappa ^+,\gamma _0=:f((\alpha ,\zeta ))Y_{B_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}}^2\backslash Y_{B_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}}^1\backslash Z_\alpha `$. Let $`\gamma _1Z_\alpha `$ be as guaranteed in clause (iii) in the present case. Now $`\gamma _0`$ is $`G^{}`$-connected to every member of $`C_{\alpha ,\zeta }`$ as $`\gamma _0=f((\alpha ,\zeta ))`$. Hence $`\gamma _0`$ is $`G^{}`$-connected to $`\kappa `$ members of $`B_{\alpha ,\gamma _1}`$ (see clause $`(\beta )`$ above and the choice of $`R_\alpha `$); but $`\gamma _1`$ is not $`G^{}`$-connected to any member of $`B_{\alpha ,\gamma _1}`$ (see clause (d) above). Reading clause (iii), we get contradiction.

Case 3: Neither Case 1 nor Case 2.

Recall that $`\alpha `$ is fixed. For $`\mathrm{}\{0,1\}`$ we choose $`Z_{\alpha ,\zeta }^{\mathrm{}}`$ by induction on $`\zeta <\kappa ^+`$, such that

1. $`(a)Z_{\alpha ,\zeta }^{\mathrm{}}`$ a subset of $`Y_{B_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}}^2`$ of cardinality $`\kappa `$
2. $`(b)Z_{\alpha ,\zeta }^{\mathrm{}}`$ is increasing continuous in $`\zeta `$
3. $`(c)Y_{B_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}}^1Z_{\alpha ,0}^{\mathrm{}}`$
4. $`(d)`$ if $`\zeta =\xi +1`$ then there is $`\gamma _{\alpha ,\xi }^{\mathrm{}}Z_{\alpha ,\zeta }^{\mathrm{}}\backslash Z_{\alpha ,\xi }^{\mathrm{}}\backslash Y_{B_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}}^1`$ such that

for every $`\gamma ^{}Z_{\alpha ,\xi }^{\mathrm{}}\backslash Y_{B_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}}^1`$ we have

$`\kappa =|\{\beta B_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}:\beta \text{ is }G^{}`$-connected to $`\gamma _{\alpha ,\xi }^{\mathrm{}}`$ but not to $`\gamma ^{}\}|`$
5. $`(e)`$ if $`\zeta =\xi +1`$ and $`\gamma Z_{\alpha ,\zeta }^{\mathrm{}}`$ hence $`\kappa =|\{\beta B_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}:\beta `$ is connected to $`\gamma \}|`$

(e.g. $`\gamma =\gamma _{\alpha ,\xi }^{\mathrm{}}`$), then$`Y_{\{\beta B_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}:\beta \text{ is }G^{}\text{-connected to }\gamma \}}^1`$ is included in

$`Z_{\alpha ,\zeta }^{\mathrm{}}`$
6. $`(f)Z_{\alpha ,\zeta }^0(Y_{B_\alpha ^0}^2Y_{B_\alpha ^1}^2)=Z_{\alpha ,\zeta }^1(Y_{B_\alpha ^0}^2Y_{B_\alpha ^1}^2)`$.

Why possible? For clause (c) we have $`|Y_{B_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}}^1|\kappa `$ by $`()_2`$, for clause (d) note that “not Case 2” trying $`Z_{\alpha ,\xi }^{\mathrm{}}\backslash Y_{B_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}}^1`$ as $`Z`$, and for clause (e) note again $`|Y_{\{\beta B_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}:\beta \text{ is }G^{}\text{-connected to }\gamma _{\alpha ,\epsilon }^{\mathrm{}}\}}^1|\kappa `$ by $`()_2`$.

Having chosen $`Z_{\alpha ,\zeta }^{\mathrm{}}:\zeta <\kappa ^+,\mathrm{}<2`$, we let

$$\begin{array}{cccc}R_\alpha =\{(\beta ,(\alpha ,\zeta )):& \text{ for some }\mathrm{}<2\text{ we have:}\hfill & & \\ & \beta A_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}\text{ and }f_\alpha (\beta )\text{ is }G^{}\text{-connected to }\gamma =\gamma _{\alpha ,2\zeta +\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\text{ so }\zeta <\kappa ^+\}.\hfill & & \end{array}$$

Now why $`_\alpha ^3`$ holds? Otherwise, we can find $`AA_\alpha ,|A|=\kappa `$ and $`B\kappa ^+,|B|=\kappa ^+`$ such that $`\beta A`$ and $`\xi B\beta R_\alpha (\alpha ,\gamma _{\alpha ,\xi }^{\mathrm{}(\xi )})`$ where $`\xi =\mathrm{}(\xi )`$ mod $`2`$, so for some $`\mathrm{}<2`$ we have $`|AA_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}|=\kappa `$, and let

$$A^{}=\{f_\alpha (\beta ):\beta AA_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}\}.$$

Easily $`|B|=\kappa ^+`$ and $`|A^{}|=\kappa `$ and $`\beta A^{}`$ and $`\xi B\beta R^G^{}\gamma _{\alpha ,\xi }^{\mathrm{}}`$, contradiction to “$`K_{\kappa ,\kappa ^+}`$ is not weakly embeddable into $`G^{}`$”.

Lastly, why $`_\alpha ^4`$ holds? Otherwise, letting $`f`$ be a counterexample, let $`\zeta <\kappa ^+`$ and $`\mathrm{}<2`$. Clearly $`f((\alpha ,\zeta ))`$ is $`G^{}`$-connected to every $`\beta ^{}B_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}`$ which is $`G^{}`$-connected to $`\gamma _{\alpha ,2\zeta +\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}`$ hence $`f((\alpha ,\zeta ))`$ cannot belong to $`Z_{\alpha ,2\zeta +\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\backslash Y_{B_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}}^1`$ (by the demand in clause (d) of $`_8`$), but it has to belong to $`Z_{\alpha ,2\zeta +\mathrm{}+1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ (by clause (e) of $`_8`$), so $`f((\alpha ,\zeta ))(Z_{\alpha ,2\zeta +\mathrm{}+1}^{\mathrm{}}\backslash Z_{\alpha ,2\zeta +\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}})Y_{B_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}}^1`$. Putting together $`\mathrm{}=0,1`$ we get $`f((\alpha ,\zeta ))((Z_{\alpha ,2\zeta +1}^0\backslash Z_{\alpha ,2\zeta }^0)Y_{B_\alpha ^0}^1)((Z_{\alpha ,2\zeta +2}^1\backslash Z_{\alpha ,2\zeta +1}^1)Y_{B_\alpha ^1}^1)`$ hence $`f((\alpha ,\zeta ))Y_{B_\alpha ^0}^1Y_{B_\alpha ^1}^1`$, but $`|Y_{B_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}}^1|<\kappa ^+`$; as this holds for every $`\zeta <\kappa ^+`$ this is a contradiction to “$`f`$ is one to one”. ∎

###### Claim 1.5.

1) Assume $`\lambda 2^\kappa \theta \kappa `$ and $`\lambda =\lambda ^\kappa `$ (e.g. $`\lambda =2^\kappa `$).

Then in $`_{\lambda ,\kappa ,\theta }`$ there is no ste-universal (moreover, the counterexamples are bipartite).

2) Assume Pr$`(\lambda ,\kappa ),\lambda \theta \kappa ,2^\kappa \theta `$. Then the conclusion of (1) holds.

###### Proof..

1) By the simple black box (\[Sh:300, Ch.III,§4\]) or \[Sh:e, Ch.VI,§1\], i.e. \[Sh:309\])

1. there is $`\overline{f}=f_\eta :\eta {}_{}{}^{\kappa }\lambda ,f_\eta `$ a function from $`\{\eta i:i<\kappa \}`$ into $`\lambda `$ such that for every $`f:{}_{}{}^{\kappa >}\lambda \lambda `$ for some $`\eta {}_{}{}^{\kappa }\lambda `$ we have $`f_\eta f`$.

Let $`G^{}_{\lambda ,\kappa ,\theta }`$ and we shall show that it is not ste-universal in $`_{\lambda ,\kappa ,\theta }`$, without loss of generality $`V^G^{}=\lambda `$. For this we define the following bipartite graph $`G`$:

1. $`(i)U^G={}_{}{}^{\kappa >}\lambda `$ and $`V^G={}_{}{}^{\kappa }\lambda `$
2. $`(ii)R^G=\{R_\eta ^G:\eta {}_{}{}^{\kappa }\lambda `$ and $`f_\eta `$ is a one-to-one function$`\}`$ where

$`R_\eta ^G\{(\eta i,\eta ):iu_\eta \}`$ where $`u_\eta \kappa `$ is defined as follows
3. for $`\eta {}_{}{}^{\kappa }\lambda `$ we choose $`u_\eta \kappa `$ such that if possible

1. $`()_{\eta ,u_\eta }`$ for no $`\gamma <\lambda `$ do we have $`(i<\kappa )[f_\eta (\eta i)R^G^{}\gamma iu_\eta ]`$.

If for every $`\eta {}_{}{}^{\kappa }\lambda `$ for which $`f_\eta `$ is one to one for some $`u\kappa `$ we have $`()_{\eta ,u}`$ holds, then clearly by $``$ we are done.

Otherwise, for this $`\eta {}_{}{}^{\kappa }\lambda ,f_\eta `$ is one to one and: there is $`\gamma _u<\lambda `$ satisfying $`(i<\kappa )(f_\eta (\eta i)R^G^{}\gamma _uiu)`$ for every $`u\kappa `$. But then $`A^{}=:\{f_\eta (\eta 2i):i<\kappa \}`$ and $`B^{}=:\{\gamma _u:u\kappa \text{ and }(i<\kappa )2iu\}`$ form a complete $`(\kappa ,2^\kappa )`$-bipartite subgraph of $`G^{}`$, contradiction.

2) The same proof. ∎

## 2. No we-universal by Pr$`(\lambda ,\kappa )`$ and its relatives

We define here some relatives of Pr. Here Ps is like Pr but we are approximating $`f:\lambda \lambda `$, and Pr$`{}_{3}{}^{}(\chi ,\lambda ,\mu ,\alpha )`$ is a weak version of $`(\lambda +\mu )^{|\alpha |}\chi `$ (Definition 2.5); we give sufficient conditions by cardinal arithmetic (Claim 2.6, 2.8). We prove more cases of no we-universal: the case $`\theta `$ limit (and Pr$`(\lambda ,\kappa )`$) in 2.2, a case of Pr$`{}_{}{}^{}(\lambda ,\theta ^+\times \kappa )`$ in 2.4. We also note that we can replace Pr by Ps in 2.9, and $`\lambda `$ strong limit singular of cofinality $`>\text{ cf}(\kappa )`$ in 2.10.

###### Convention 2.1.

$`\lambda \theta \kappa \mathrm{}_0`$.

###### Claim 2.2.

If $`\theta `$ is a limit cardinal and Pr$`(\lambda ,\kappa )`$, then there is no we-universal graph in $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ even for the class of bipartite members.

###### Proof..

Like the proof of 1.4, except that we replace cases 1-3 by:

for every $`\alpha <\lambda `$ we let $`R_\alpha =\{(\beta ,(\alpha ,\gamma )):\beta \text{ Dom}(f_\alpha )`$ and $`\gamma <|Y_{\text{Dom}(f_\alpha )}^0|^+\}`$. Now $`_\alpha ^3`$ holds as $`|Y_{\text{Dom}(f_\alpha )}^0|<\theta `$ (by $`()_1`$ there) hence $`|Y_{\text{Dom}(f_\alpha )}^0|^+<\theta `$ as $`\theta `$ is a limit cardinal. Lastly $`_\alpha ^4`$ holds as for some $`\alpha `$ we have $`f_\alpha f`$ hence the function $`f`$ maps $`\{(\alpha ,\gamma ):\gamma <|Y_{\text{Dom}(f_\alpha )}^0|^+\}`$ into $`Y_{\text{Dom}(f_\alpha )}^0`$ but $`f`$ is a one to one mapping, contradiction. ∎

Recall

###### Definition 2.3.

For a cardinal $`\lambda `$ and a limit ordinal $`\delta `$, Pr$`{}_{}{}^{}(\lambda ,\delta )`$ holds when for some $``$:

1. $``$ a family of $`\lambda `$ functions
2. every $`f`$ is a partial function from $`\lambda `$ to $`\lambda `$
3. $`f\text{ otp}(\text{Dom }f)=\delta `$, and $`f`$ is one to one
4. $`f,g,fg(\text{Dom }f)(\text{Dom }g)`$ is a bounded subset of Dom$`(f)`$ and of Dom$`(g)`$
5. if $`g:\lambda \lambda `$ is a partial function, one to one, and $`|\text{Dom }g|=\lambda `$, then$`g`$ extends some $`f`$.

###### Claim 2.4.

Assume

1. Pr$`{}_{}{}^{}(\lambda ,\delta ^{}),\delta ^{}=\sigma \times \kappa `$, ordinal product 111this is preserved by decreasing $`\sigma `$
2. $`\sigma =\theta ^+`$.

Then there is no we-universal in $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }^{\text{gr}}`$ even for the class of bipartite members.

###### Proof..

Let $`G^{}_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ and we shall prove it is not we-universal; let without loss of generality $`V^G^{}=\lambda `$.

Let $``$ be a family exemplifying Pr$`{}_{}{}^{}(\lambda ,\delta ^{})`$, let $`=\{f_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda \}`$ let $`A_\alpha =\text{ Dom}(f_\alpha )`$ and let it be $`\{\beta _{\alpha ,\epsilon ,i}:i<\sigma ,\epsilon <\kappa \}`$ such that $`[\beta _{\alpha ,\epsilon (1),i(1)}<\beta _{\alpha ,\epsilon (2),i(2)}\epsilon (1)<\epsilon (2)(\epsilon (1)=\epsilon (2)`$ and $`i(1)<i(2))]`$ and for $`i<\sigma `$ let $`A_{\alpha ,i}=\{\beta _{\alpha ,\epsilon ,i}:\epsilon <\kappa \}`$, so clearly

1. $`A_{\alpha ,i}[\lambda ]^\kappa `$ and $`(\alpha _1,i_1)(\alpha _2,i_2)|A_{\alpha _1,i_1}A_{\alpha _2,i_2}|<\kappa `$.

\[Why the second assertion? As $`\{\beta _{\alpha ,\epsilon ,i}:\epsilon <\kappa \}`$ is an unbounded subset of $`A_\alpha `$ (of order type $`\kappa `$).\]

For $`(\alpha ,i)\lambda \times \sigma `$ let $`f_{\alpha ,i}=f_\alpha A_{\alpha ,i}`$ let $`B_{\alpha ,i}=\text{ Rang}(f_{\alpha ,i})`$ so $`|A_{\alpha ,i}|=|B_{\alpha ,i}|=\kappa `$ and let $`Y_{\alpha ,i}^0=\{\gamma <\lambda :\gamma `$ is $`G^{}`$-connected to every member of $`B_{\alpha ,i}\}`$, so as $`G^{}_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ clearly $`|Y_{\alpha ,i}^0|<\theta `$. As $`\sigma =\theta ^+>\theta \kappa `$, clearly for each $`\alpha <\lambda `$ for some $`\mu _\alpha <\theta `$ we have 222in fact by 2.2 without loss of generality $`\theta `$ is a successor cardinal, so without loss of generality $`\mu _\alpha ^+=\theta `$: $`X_\alpha :=\{i<\sigma :|Y_{\alpha ,i}^0|\mu _\alpha \}`$ has cardinality $`\sigma `$. As $`\mu _\alpha <\theta `$ also $`\chi _\alpha :=\mu _\alpha ^+`$ is $`<\theta ^+=\sigma `$, so $`\chi _\alpha ^+\sigma =|X_\alpha |`$. We choose by induction on $`\epsilon <\chi _\alpha ^+`$ an ordinal $`i_{\alpha ,\epsilon }^{}X_\alpha `$ such that:

1. $`i_{\alpha ,\epsilon }^{}\{i_{\alpha ,\zeta }^{}:\zeta <\epsilon \}`$.

Recall that $`\chi _\alpha `$ is a successor, hence a regular cardinal. So if $`\epsilon S_{\chi _\alpha }^{\chi _\alpha ^+}=\{\epsilon <\chi _\alpha ^+:\text{cf}(\epsilon )=\chi _\alpha \}`$ recalling $`\chi _\alpha =\mu _\alpha ^+>|Y_{\alpha ,i_{\alpha ,\epsilon }^{}}^0|`$ there is $`\zeta <\epsilon `$ such that $`(Y_{\alpha ,i_{\alpha ,\epsilon }^{}}^0\{Y_{\alpha ,\xi }^0:\xi <\epsilon \}\{Y_{\alpha ,\xi }^0:\xi <\zeta \})`$. Let $`g(\epsilon )`$ be the first ordinal having this property, so $`g`$ is a well defined function with domain $`S_{\chi _\alpha }^{\chi ^+}`$. Clearly, $`g`$ is a regressive funciton.

By Fodor’s lemma for some stationary $`S_\alpha S_{\chi _\alpha }^{\chi _\alpha ^+}`$, and for some $`B_\alpha ^{}`$ of cardinality $`\chi _\alpha `$ we have $`\epsilon S_\alpha B_\alpha ^{}Y_{\alpha ,i_{\alpha ,\epsilon }^{}}^0\{Y_{\alpha ,j}^0:j<i_{\alpha ,\epsilon }^{}\}`$, in fact: $`B_\alpha ^{}=\{Y_{\alpha ,i_{\alpha ,\epsilon }^{}}^0:\epsilon <\epsilon ^{}\}`$ where $`gS_\alpha `$ is constantly $`\epsilon ^{}`$ is O.K., we can decrease $`B_\alpha ^{}`$ but immaterial here

Now

1. for $`\xi \zeta `$ from $`S_\alpha `$ there is no $`\beta <\lambda `$ such that:

$`\beta `$ is $`G^{}`$-connected to every $`\gamma B_{\alpha ,i_{\alpha ,\xi }^{}}`$

$`\beta `$ is $`G^{}`$-connected to every $`\gamma B_{\alpha ,i_{\alpha ,\zeta }^{}}`$

$`\beta `$ is not in $`B_\alpha ^{}`$.

Let $`\zeta (\alpha ,j):j<\chi _\alpha ^+`$ list $`S_\alpha `$ in an increasing order. Let $`G`$ be the bipartite graph

$$U^G=\lambda $$

$$V^G=\lambda \times \sigma $$

$$R^G=\{(\beta ,(\alpha ,\gamma )):\alpha <\lambda \text{ and }\gamma <\chi _\alpha ^+\text{ and }\beta A_{\alpha ,i_{\alpha ,\zeta (\alpha ,2\gamma )}^{}}A_{\alpha ,i_{\alpha ,\zeta (\alpha ,2\gamma +1)}^{}}\}.$$

1. $`G`$ is a bipartite graph of cardinality $`\lambda `$
2. the $`(\theta ,\kappa )`$-complete bipartite graph $`(_{(\theta ,\kappa )}^{\text{bp}}`$) cannot be weakly embedded into $`G`$.

\[Why $`_2`$ holds? So let $`(\alpha (1),\gamma (1))(\alpha (2),\gamma (2))`$ belongs to $`V^G`$, the set set $`\{\beta U^G:\beta `$ connected to $`(\alpha (1),\gamma (2))`$ and to $`(\alpha (2),\gamma (2))\}`$ is included in $`\underset{\iota (1),\iota (2)\{0,1\}}{}(A_{\alpha (1),i_{\zeta (\alpha (1),2\gamma (1)+\iota (1)}^{}}A_{\alpha (2),i_{\zeta (\alpha (2),2\gamma (2)+\iota (2)}^{}})`$ which is the union of four sets each of cardinal $`<\kappa `$ (by $`()_1`$) hence has cardinality $`<\kappa `$.\]

1. the $`(\kappa ,\theta )`$-complete bipartite graph cannot be weakly embedded into $`G`$.

\[Why? Toward contradiction assume $`U_1U^G,V_1V^G`$ have cardinality $`\kappa ,\theta `$ respectively and $`\beta U_1(\alpha ,\gamma )V_1\beta R(\alpha ,\gamma )`$.

Let $`(\alpha ,\gamma )V_1`$, clearly $`\beta U_1\beta R^G(\alpha ,\gamma )\beta A_{\alpha ,i_{\alpha ,\zeta (\alpha ,2\gamma )}^{}}A_{\alpha ,i_{\alpha ,\zeta (\alpha ,2\gamma +1)}^{}}`$. So $`U_1A_{i_{\alpha ,\zeta (\alpha ,2\gamma )}^{}}A_{i_{\alpha ,\zeta (\alpha ,2\gamma +1)}^{}}`$.

Now if $`(\alpha _1,\gamma _1),(\alpha _2,\gamma _2)V_1`$ and $`\alpha _1\alpha _2`$ then $`i,j<\sigma |A_{\alpha _1,i}A_{\alpha _2,j}|<\kappa `$ by the choice of $``$, so necessarily for some $`\alpha _{}<\lambda `$ we have $`V_1\{\alpha _{}\}\times \sigma `$. But if $`(\alpha ,\gamma _1)(\alpha ,\gamma _2)V_1`$ then $`(\alpha ,\gamma _1),(\alpha ,\gamma _2)`$ has no common neighbour, contradiction.

1. there is no weak embedding $`f`$ of $`G`$ into $`G^{}`$.

\[Why? Toward contradiction assume that $`f`$ is such a weak embedding. By the choice of $``$ and $`f_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$ we can choose $`\alpha <\lambda `$ such that $`f_\alpha fU^G`$. As $`f`$ is a weak embedding $`\beta <\lambda \gamma <\lambda \beta R^G(\alpha ,\gamma )f(\beta )R^G^{}f(\alpha ,\gamma )`$, hence $`\beta \underset{i}{}A_{\alpha ,i}=\text{ Dom}(f_\alpha )\gamma <\lambda \beta R^G(\alpha ,\gamma )f_\alpha (\beta )R^G^{}f(\alpha ,\gamma )`$. Hence if $`\gamma <\sigma `$ then $`f(\alpha ,\gamma )`$ is $`G^{}`$-connected to every $`\beta B_{\alpha ,\zeta (\alpha ,2\gamma )}B_{\alpha ,\zeta (\alpha ,2\gamma )}\{\beta _{\alpha ,\gamma }\}`$ hence $`f(\alpha ,\gamma )Y_{\alpha ,\zeta (\alpha ,2\gamma )}^0Y_{\alpha ,\zeta (\alpha ,2\gamma +1)}^0`$ which implies that $`f(\alpha ,\gamma )B_\alpha ^{}`$. So the function $`f`$ maps the set $`\{(\alpha ,\gamma ):\gamma <\sigma \}`$ into $`B_\alpha ^{}`$. But $`f`$ is a one-to-one function and $`B_\alpha ^{}`$ has cardinality $`<\sigma `$, contradiction. ∎

###### Definition 2.5.

1) For $`\kappa <\lambda `$ and $`\delta <\lambda `$ we define Ps$`(\lambda ,\kappa )`$ and Ps$`{}_{}{}^{}(\lambda ,\delta )`$ similarly to the definition of Pr$`(\lambda ,\kappa )`$, Pr$`{}_{}{}^{}(\lambda ,\delta )`$ in Definition 1.2(3),(4) except that we replace clause (e) by

1. if $`g`$ is a one to one function from $`\lambda `$ to $`\lambda `$, then$`g`$ extends some $`f`$

(so the difference is that Dom$`(g)`$ is required to be $`\lambda `$).

2) Let Pr$`{}_{3}{}^{}(\chi ,\lambda ,\mu ,\alpha )`$ means that for some $``$:

1. $``$ a family of partial functions from $`\mu `$ to $`\lambda `$
2. $`||\chi `$
3. $`f\text{ otp}(\text{Dom}(f))=\alpha `$
4. if $`g{}_{}{}^{\mu }\lambda (f)(fg)`$.

###### Claim 2.6.

1) Assume $`\lambda `$ is strong limit, $`\lambda >\kappa `$ and cf$`(\lambda )>\text{cf}(\kappa )`$.

ThenPr$`{}_{}{}^{}(\lambda ,\delta ^{})`$ holds if $`\delta ^{}<\lambda `$ has cofinality cf$`(\kappa )`$.

2) If $`\lambda =\mu ^+=2^\mu `$, cf$`(\delta ^{})\text{cf}(\mu ),\delta ^{}<\lambda `$ thenPr$`{}_{}{}^{}(\lambda ,\delta ^{})`$ holds.

3) If $`\delta <\lambda `$ is a limit ordinal and $`\lambda =\lambda ^{|\delta |}`$ thenPs$`{}_{}{}^{}(\lambda ,\delta )`$.

4) If $`\kappa =\text{cf}(\delta ),\kappa <\delta <\lambda ,\lambda =\lambda ^\kappa `$ and Pr$`{}_{3}{}^{}(\lambda ,\lambda ,\lambda ,\alpha )`$ for every $`\alpha <\delta `$, thenPs$`{}_{}{}^{}(\lambda ,\delta )`$.

5) Pr$`(\lambda ,\kappa )\text{Ps}(\lambda ,\kappa )`$, Pr$`{}_{}{}^{}(\lambda ,\kappa )\text{Ps}^{}(\lambda ,\kappa )`$ and similarly with $`\delta `$ instead of $`\kappa `$.

6) If $`\lambda 2^\kappa `$ then$`\lambda =𝕌_\kappa (\lambda )\text{Pr}(\lambda ,\kappa )`$.

7) If Ps$`{}_{}{}^{}(\lambda ,\kappa )`$ then Ps$`(\lambda ,\kappa )`$.

###### Remark 2.7.

Recall $`𝕌_\kappa (\lambda )=𝕌_{J_\kappa ^{\text{bd}}}(\lambda )`$, and for an ideal $`J`$ on $`\kappa ,𝕌_J(\lambda )=\text{ Min}\{|𝒫|:𝒫[\lambda ]^\kappa `$ is such that for every $`f{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\lambda `$ for some $`A𝒫`$ we have $`\{i<\kappa :f(i)A\}\mathrm{}\text{ mod }J\}`$.

###### Proof..

1) Let $`\lambda _i:i<\text{ cf}(\lambda )`$ be increasing continuous with limit $`\lambda `$ such that $`\delta ^{}<\lambda _0`$ and $`2^{\lambda _i}<\lambda _{i+1}`$, hence for limit $`\delta ,\lambda _\delta `$ is strong limit cardinal of cofinality cf$`(\delta )`$. For $`\delta S_{\text{cf}(\kappa )}^{\text{cf}(\lambda )}=\{\delta <\text{ cf}(\lambda ):\text{cf}(\delta )=\text{ cf}(\kappa )\}`$, let $`f_{\delta ,\alpha }:\alpha <2^{\lambda _\delta }`$ list the partial one-to-one functions from $`\lambda _\delta `$ to $`\lambda _\delta `$ with domain of cardinality $`\lambda _\delta `$. We choose by induction on $`\alpha <2^{\lambda _\delta }`$ a subset $`A_{\delta ,\alpha }`$ of Dom$`(f_{\delta ,\alpha })`$ of order type $`\delta ^{}`$ unbound in $`\lambda _\delta `$ such that $`\beta <\alpha \text{ sup}(A_{\delta ,\alpha }A_{\delta ,\beta })<\lambda _\delta `$; possible as we have a tree with cf$`(\delta )`$ levels and $`2^{\lambda _\delta }`$ cf$`(\delta )`$-branches, each giving a possible $`A_{\delta ,\alpha }\text{ Dom}(f_{\delta ,\alpha })`$ and each $`A_{\delta ,\beta }(\beta <\alpha )`$ disqualifies $`\lambda _\delta +|\alpha |`$ of them.

Now $`=\{f_{\delta ,\alpha }A_{\delta ,\alpha }:\delta S_{\text{cf}(\kappa )}^{\text{cf}(\lambda )}\text{ and }\alpha <2^{\lambda _\delta }\}`$ is as required because if $`f`$ is a partial function from $`\lambda `$ to $`\lambda `$ such that $`|\text{Dom}(f)|=\lambda `$ and $`f`$ is one to one then $`\{\delta <\text{ cf}(\lambda ):(^{\lambda _\delta }i<\lambda _\delta )(i\text{ Dom}(f)f(i)<\lambda _\delta )\}`$ contains a club of cf$`(\lambda )`$.

2) This holds as $`\mathrm{}_S`$ for every stationary $`S\{\delta <\lambda :\text{cf}(\delta )\text{ cf}(\mu )\}`$, see \[Sh:108\], and without any extra assumption by \[Sh:922\].

3) By the simple black box (see proof of 1.5, well it was phrased for $`\kappa `$ but the same proof, and we have to rename $`\lambda ,\lambda ^{<\kappa }`$ as $`\lambda `$; see \[Sh:e, Ch.IV\], i.e. \[Sh:309\]).

4) We combine the proof of the simple black box and the definition of Pr3. Let $`\gamma _i^{}:i\kappa `$ be increasing continuous, $`\gamma _0=0,\gamma _\kappa =\delta `$. By Pr$`{}_{3}{}^{}(\lambda ,\lambda ,\lambda ,\alpha )`$ with $`\alpha =\gamma _{i+1}^{}\gamma _i^{}`$, for each $`i<\kappa `$, we can find $`_i`$ such that

1. $`_i\{g:g`$ a partial function from $`\lambda `$ to $`\lambda `$, otp$`(\text{Dom}(g))=\gamma _{i+1}^{}\gamma _i^{}\}`$
2. $`|_i|\lambda `$
3. for every $`g^{}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }\lambda `$ there is $`gg^{}`$ from $`_i`$

By easy manipulation

1. if $`g^{}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }\lambda `$ and $`\alpha <\lambda `$ then there is $`g_i`$ such that $`gg^{}`$ and Dom$`(g)[\alpha ,\lambda )`$.

Clearly $`_i`$ exists by the assumption “Pr$`{}_{3}{}^{}(\lambda ,\lambda ,\lambda ,\alpha )`$ for $`\alpha <\delta `$” so let $`_i=\{g_{i,\epsilon }:\epsilon <\lambda \}`$. Now for every $`\eta {}_{}{}^{\kappa }\lambda `$ let $`f_\eta ^0`$ be the following partial function from $`({}_{}{}^{\kappa >}\lambda )\times \lambda `$ to $`\lambda `$:

1. if $`i<\kappa ,\epsilon <\lambda `$ and $`\alpha \text{ Dom}(g_{i,\eta (i)})`$ then$`f_\eta ^0((\eta i,\alpha ))=g_{i,\eta (i)}(\alpha )`$.

Let $`h`$ be a one to one function from $`({}_{}{}^{\kappa >}\lambda )\times \lambda `$ onto $`\lambda `$ such that (if cf$`(\lambda )\delta `$ then also in $`()_5(b)`$ we can replace $``$ by $`<`$)

1. $`(a)\eta {}_{}{}^{\kappa >}\lambda \alpha <\beta <\lambda h((\eta ,\alpha ))<h(\eta ,\beta )`$
2. $`(b)\eta \nu {}_{}{}^{\kappa >}\lambda \alpha <\lambda \beta <\lambda \alpha \text{ Dom}(g_{\mathrm{}g(\eta ),\nu (\mathrm{}g(\eta ))})h((\eta ,\alpha ))`$

$`h((\nu ,\beta ))`$.

Let $`f_\eta `$ be the following partial function from $`\lambda `$ to $`\lambda `$ satisfying $`f_\eta (\alpha )=f_\eta ^0(h^1(\alpha ))`$ so it suffices to prove that $`=\{f_\eta :\eta {}_{}{}^{\kappa }\lambda `$ and $`f_\eta `$ is one-to-one$`\}`$ exemplifies Ps$`{}_{}{}^{}(\lambda ,\delta )`$.

First, clearly each $`f_\eta `$ is a partial function from $`\lambda `$ to $`\lambda `$. Also for each $`i<\kappa `$ and $`\epsilon <\lambda `$ the function $`g_{i,\epsilon }`$ has domain of order type $`\gamma _{i+1}^{}\gamma _i^{}`$, hence by $`()_5(a)`$ also $`\eta {}_{}{}^{\kappa }\lambda i<\kappa \text{ Dom}(f_\eta \{h(\eta i,\epsilon ):\epsilon <\lambda \}`$ has order type $`\gamma _{i+1}^{}\gamma _i^{}`$. By $`()_5(b)`$ also Dom$`(f_\eta )`$ has order type $`\delta =\underset{i}{}(\gamma _{i+1}^{}\backslash \gamma _i^{})`$.

Now if $`f`$ then $`f_\eta `$ is one-to-one by the choice of $``$. Second, let $`f:\lambda \lambda `$ be a one-to-one function and we shall prove that for some $`\eta ,f_\eta f_\eta f`$. We choose $`\nu _i{}_{}{}^{i}\lambda `$ by induction on $`i\kappa `$ such that $`j<i\nu _j=\nu _ij`$ and $`\nu _i\eta {}_{}{}^{\kappa }\lambda f_\eta \{h(\nu _j,\alpha ):j<i,\alpha \text{ Dom}(g_{j,\nu _i(j)})\}f`$.

For $`i=0`$ and $`i`$ limit this is obvious and for $`i=j+1`$ use $`()_3^+`$. So $`\eta _\kappa {}_{}{}^{\kappa }\lambda `$ and $`f_{\eta _\kappa }f`$ hence is one-to-one hence $`f_{\eta _\kappa }`$ so we are done.

5) Easy (recalling 1.3(3)).

6) Easy.

7) Easy because if $`f:\kappa \lambda `$ is one-to-one then for some $`u\kappa `$ of order type $`\kappa ,fu`$ is increasing (trivial if $`\kappa `$ is regular, easy if $`\lambda `$ is singular). ∎

###### Claim 2.8.

1) Each of the following is a sufficient condition to Pr$`{}_{3}{}^{}(\chi ,\lambda ,\mu ,\alpha )`$, recalling Definition 2.5(2):

1. $`\lambda ^{|\alpha |}=\lambda =\chi \mu >\alpha `$
2. $`\chi =\lambda \mu >|\alpha |`$ and $`(\lambda _1<\lambda )(\lambda _1^{|\alpha |}<\lambda )`$
3. $`\chi =\lambda \mu \mathrm{}_\omega (|\alpha |)`$.

2) If $`\chi _1\chi _2,\lambda _1\lambda _2,\mu _1\mu _2,\alpha _1\alpha _2`$ thenPr$`{}_{3}{}^{}(\chi _1,\lambda _1,\mu _1,\alpha _1)`$ implies Pr$`{}_{3}{}^{}(\chi _2,\lambda _2,\mu _2,\alpha _2)`$.

###### Proof..

1) If clause $`(a)`$ holds, this is trivial, just use $`=\{f:f`$ a partial function from $`\mu `$ to $`\lambda `$ with $`\alpha =\text{ otp}(\text{Dom}(f))\}`$. If clause $`(b)`$ holds, note that for every $`f{}_{}{}^{\mu }\lambda `$, for some $`i_1,i_2<\lambda `$ we have $`\alpha \text{ otp}(\{j<i_1:j<\mu `$ and $`f(j)<i_2\})`$ and let $`=\{f:f`$ a partial function from $`\mu `$ to $`\lambda `$ with bounded range and bounded domain if $`\mu =\lambda `$ such that $`\alpha =\text{ otp}(\text{Dom}(f))\}`$. If clause $`(c)`$ holds, use \[Sh:460\].

2) Trivial. ∎

###### Claim 2.9.

1) In 1.4, 1.5(2) and in 2.2 we can weaken the assumption Pr$`(\lambda ,\kappa )`$ to Ps$`(\lambda ,\kappa )`$.

2) In 2.4 we can weaken the assumption Pr$`{}_{}{}^{}(\lambda ,\delta ^{})`$ to Ps$`{}_{}{}^{}(\lambda ,\delta ^{})`$.

###### Proof..

The same proofs.

We can get another answer on the existence of universals. ∎

###### Claim 2.10.

If $`\lambda `$ is strong limit, cf$`(\lambda )>\text{cf}(\kappa )`$ and $`\lambda >\theta (\kappa )`$, then in $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ there is no we-universal member even for the class of bipartite members.

###### Proof..

Let $`\delta :=\theta ^+\times \kappa `$ (recalling $`\lambda `$ is a limit cardinal) by 2.6(1) we have Pr$`{}_{}{}^{}(\lambda ,\delta )`$ hence by 2.4 we are done. ∎

Note that Ps may fail.

###### Claim 2.11.

Assume $`\delta <\lambda `$, cf$`(\lambda )\text{cf}(\delta )`$ and $`\alpha <\lambda |\alpha |^{\text{cf}(\delta )}<\lambda `$.

ThenPs$`(\lambda ,\delta )`$ fail (hence also Pr$`(\lambda ,\delta )`$, Pr$`{}_{}{}^{}(\lambda ,\delta )`$, Ps$`{}_{}{}^{}(\lambda ,\delta )`$.

###### Proof.

Toward contradiction let $``$ witness Pr$`(\lambda ,\delta )`$ so $``$ is of cardinality $`\lambda `$. Let $`f_\epsilon :\epsilon <\lambda `$ list $``$; choose an increasing sequence $`\lambda _i:i<\text{ cf}(\lambda )`$ such that $`\lambda _i=(\lambda _i)^{\text{cf}(\delta )}`$ and $`\lambda =\epsilon \{\lambda _i:i<\text{cf}(\lambda )\}`$. We choose $`𝒰_i`$ by induction on $`i`$ such that:

1. $`(a)𝒰_i\lambda `$
2. $`(b)\lambda _i𝒰_i`$
3. $`(c)|𝒰_i|=\lambda _i`$
4. $`(d)`$ if $`f`$ and Dom$`(f)𝒰_i`$ is unbounded in Dom$`(f)`$, then Dom$`(f)\text{ Rang}(f)\lambda `$.

For clause (d) note that if Dom$`(f)𝒰_i`$ is unbounded in Dom$`(f)`$ then there is $`u\text{ Dom}(f)𝒰_i`$ unbounded in Dom$`(f)`$ of order-type cf$`(\gamma )`$ and such $`u`$ determines $`f`$ in $``$ uniquely

Now choose $`f^{}:\lambda \lambda `$ such that $`f^{}`$ maps $`\lambda [\underset{j<i()}{},\lambda _{i()})(𝒰_i\backslash \{𝒰_j:j<i\})`$ into $`[\lambda _{i(1)},\lambda _{i(j)+1})`$ when $`i(2)i(j)<\text{cf}(\lambda )`$ and be increasing $`f^{}`$ contradict the choice of $``$. ∎

## 3. Complete characterization under GCH

We first resolve the case $`\lambda `$ is strong limit and get a complete answer in 3.5 by dividing to cases (in 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 2.10), in 3.4 we deal also with other cardinals. This includes cases in which there are universals (3.1, 3.2) and the existence of we-universal and of ste-universal are equivalent. In fact in 3.4 we deal also (in part (2)) with another case: $`\kappa =\theta \text{ cf}(\lambda ),\lambda =\underset{\alpha <\lambda ,\beta <\theta }{}|\alpha |^{|\beta |}`$ (and then there is no we-universal).

Next we prepare the ground for resolving the successor case under GCH (or weaken conditions using also 3.4(2)). If $`\lambda =\mu ^+=\theta ,\mu =\mu ^\kappa `$ there is a we-universal in $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ (3.7), if $`\lambda =\mu ^+=2^\mu ,\kappa <\mu `$ (in 3.8, 3.12) we give a sufficient condition for existence. In 3.15 we sum up. We end with stating the conclusion for the classes of bipartite graphs (3.16, 3.17).

###### Claim 3.1.

Assume $`\lambda `$ is strong limit, $`\text{cf}(\lambda )\text{cf}(\kappa ),\kappa \theta <\lambda `$ and $`\kappa <\theta \text{cf}(\lambda )<\text{cf}(\kappa )`$; hence cf$`(\lambda )<\theta <\lambda `$ so $`\lambda `$ is singular.

Then in $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ there is a ste-universal member.

###### Proof..

Denote $`\sigma =\text{ cf}(\lambda )`$ and let $`\lambda _i:i<\sigma `$ be increasing continuous with limit $`\lambda `$ such that $`\lambda _0>\theta `$ and $`(\lambda _{i+1})^{\lambda _i}=\lambda _{i+1}`$. For any graph $`G_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ we can find $`V_i^G:i<\sigma `$ such that: $`V_i^GV^G,V_i^G:i<\sigma `$ is increasing continuous with $`i`$ with union $`V^G`$ such that $`|V_i^G|=\lambda _i`$ and

1. if $`xV^G\backslash V_{i+1}^G`$ then $`|\{yV_{i+1}^G:y`$ is $`G`$-connected to $`x\}|<\kappa `$.

As $`\sigma =\text{ cf}(\lambda )\text{ cf}(\kappa )`$ it follows

1. if $`i<\sigma `$ is a limit ordinal and $`xV^G\backslash V_i^G`$ then (cf$`(i)<\sigma \text{ cf}(\kappa )`$ hence) $`|\{yV_i^G:y`$ is $`G`$-connected to $`x\}|<\kappa `$.

For $`i\sigma `$ let $`T_i=\underset{j<i}{}2^{\lambda _{j+1}},T^s=\{T_{i+1}:i<\sigma \},T=_{i<\sigma }T_i`$.

Let $`\overline{A}=A_\eta :\eta T^s`$ be a sequence of pairwise disjoint sets such that $`\eta T_{i+1}|A_\eta |=\lambda _i`$. For $`\eta TT_\sigma `$ let $`B_\eta =\{A_{\eta j}:j<\mathrm{}g(\eta ),j`$ a successor ordinal$`\}`$. Now we choose by induction on $`i\sigma `$, for each $`\eta T_i`$ a graph $`G_\eta `$ such that:

1. $`(a)V^{G_\eta }=B_\eta `$ (so for $`\eta =<>`$ this is the graph with the empty set of

nodes) and so $`|V^{G_\eta }|=\mathrm{\Sigma }\{\lambda _j:j<\mathrm{}g(\eta )`$

$`\text{successor}\}`$
2. $`(b)`$ if $`\nu \eta `$ then $`G_\nu `$ is an induced subgraph of $`G_\eta `$, moreover

$`(xV^{G_\eta }\backslash V^{G_v})(x\text{ is }G_\eta \text{-connected to }<\kappa `$ nodes in $`V^{G_\nu })`$
3. $`(c)`$ if $`i<\sigma ,\eta T_i,G`$ a graph such that $`|V^G|=\lambda _{i+1}`$ and $`G_{\lambda _{i+1},\theta ,\kappa }`$

and $`G_\eta `$ is an induced subgraph of $`G`$ and $`(xV^G\backslash V^{G_\eta })(x`$ is

$`G`$-connected to $`<\kappa `$ members of $`V^{G_\eta })`$, then for some $`\alpha <2^{\lambda _{i+1}}`$

there is an isomorphism from $`G`$ onto $`G_{\eta \mathrm{^}\alpha }`$ which is the

identity on $`B_\eta `$
4. $`(d)G_\eta _{|G_\eta |,\theta ,\kappa }`$.

\[Can we carry the induction? For $`i=0`$ this is trivial. For $`i=j+1`$ this is easy, the demand in clause (c) poses no threat to the others. For $`i`$ limit for $`\eta T_i`$, the graph $`G_\eta `$ is well defined satisfying clauses (a), (b) (and (c) is irrelevant), but why $`G_\eta _{|G_\eta |,\theta ,\kappa }`$? Toward contradiction assume $`A_0,A_1B_\eta ,A_0\times A_1R^{G_\eta }`$ and $`\{|A_0|,|A_1|\}=\{\kappa ,\theta \}`$. If $`\mathrm{}<2`$ and cf$`(|A_{\mathrm{}}|)\text{ cf}(i)`$ then for some $`j<i,|A_{\mathrm{}}B_{\eta j}|=|A_{\mathrm{}}|`$ so without loss of generality $`A_{\mathrm{}}B_{\eta j}`$, but then by clause (b) no $`xB_\eta \backslash B_{\eta j}`$ is $`G_\eta `$-connected to $`\kappa `$ members of $`B_{\eta j}`$ and $`|A_{\mathrm{}}|\text{ Min}\{\kappa ,\theta \}=\kappa `$, hence $`A_1\mathrm{}B_{\eta j}`$, so we get contradiction to the induction hypothesis. So the remaining case is cf$`(|A_0|)=\text{ cf}(i)=\text{ cf}(|A_1|)`$ hence cf$`(\theta )=\text{ cf}(\kappa )=\text{ cf}(i)`$; so as we are assuming cf$`(\kappa )\text{ cf}(\lambda )\text{ cf}(i)`$, we necessarily get cf$`(i)=\text{ cf}(\lambda )=\text{ cf}(\kappa )=\text{ cf}(\theta )`$. By the last assumption of the claim (i.e. $`\kappa <\theta \text{ cf}(\kappa )>\text{ cf}(\lambda ))`$ we get that $`\kappa <\theta `$ and without loss of generality $`|A_0|=\kappa ,|A_1|=\theta `$, so for some $`j<\text{ cf}(\lambda )`$ we have $`j<i`$ and $`|A_1B_{\eta j}|\kappa `$, so as above $`A_0B_{\eta j}`$, hence again as above $`A_1B_{\eta j}`$ and we are done.\]

We let $`G^{}=\{G_\eta :\eta T\}`$. Now we shall check that $`G^{}`$ is as required. First assume toward contradiction that $`A,BV^G^{}`$ and $`A\times BR^G^{}`$ and $`\{|A|,|B|\}=\{\kappa ,\theta \}`$. A set $`CV^G^{}`$ will be called $`\overline{A}`$-flat if it is included in some $`B_\eta ,\eta TT_\sigma `$. Easily above if $`B`$ is not $`\overline{A}`$-flat then $`A`$ is $`\overline{A}`$-flat. So without loss of generality for some $`\eta T_\sigma `$ we have $`AB_\eta `$ but then $`xG^{}\backslash B_\eta `$ (for some $`i(x)<\sigma `$ and $`\nu T_{i(x)}`$ we have $`xB_\nu \backslash B_{\eta \nu })|\{yB_\eta :x`$ is $`G^{}`$-connected to $`y\}|<\kappa `$, so as $`\kappa \theta `$ we get $`BB_\eta `$, hence $`A,BV^{G_\eta }`$ and we get contradiction to clause (d) of $``$.

So $`K_{\kappa ,\theta }`$ does not weakly embed into $`G^{}`$; also $`|V^G^{}|=\lambda `$ so $`G^{}_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$. Lastly, the ste-universality follows from the choice of $`V_i^G:i<\sigma `$ for any $`G_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$. That is, we can choose by induction on $`i,\eta _iT_i`$ and an isomorphism $`f_i`$ from $`GV_i^G`$ onto $`G_{\eta _i}`$ if $`i>0`$, with $`f_i`$ increasing continuous (and $`\eta _i`$ increasing continuous) using for successor $`i`$ clause (c) of $``$. ∎

In the previous claim we dealt with the case of $`\kappa ,\theta <\lambda `$. In the following claim we cover the case of $`\theta =\lambda `$:

###### Claim 3.2.

Assume $`\lambda `$ is strong limit, cf$`(\lambda )\text{cf}(\kappa )\kappa <\theta =\lambda `$; hence $`\lambda `$ is singular.

Then in $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ there is a ste-universal member.

###### Proof..

Similar to the previous proof and \[Sh:26, Th.3.2, p.268\]. Let $`\sigma =\text{ cf}(\lambda )`$ and $`\overline{\lambda }=\lambda _i:i<\sigma ,T_i:i\sigma ,T^s,T`$ be as in the proof of 3.1. For any graph $`G_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ let $`h^G:{}_{}{}^{\kappa }(V^G)\sigma `$ be defined by: if $`|\{x_\epsilon :\epsilon <\kappa \}|=\kappa `$ then $`h^G(\overline{x})`$ is the first $`i<\sigma `$ such that $`\lambda _i|\{yV^G:y`$ is $`G`$-connected to every $`x_i,i<\kappa =\mathrm{}g(\overline{x})\}|`$, otherwise $`h^G(\overline{x})`$ is not defined. Now we choose $`V_i^G:i<\sigma `$ as an increasing continuous sequence of subsets of $`V^G`$ with union $`V^G`$ such that if $`i<\sigma `$ then $`|V_i^G|\lambda _i`$ and $`\overline{x}{}_{}{}^{\kappa }(V_{i+1}^G)|\text{Rang}(\overline{x})|=\kappa h^G(\overline{x})i+1(yV^G)(\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}y`$ is $`G`$-connected to $`x_i`$ for every $`i<\kappa \mathrm{"}yV_{i+1}^G)`$.

Then when (as in the proof of 3.1) we construct $`G_\eta :\eta T^s`$ we also construct $`h_\eta :\eta T^s,h_\eta :{}_{}{}^{\kappa }(B_\eta )\sigma `$ with the natural demands. In the end we have to check that “$`K_{\kappa ,\theta }`$ is not strongly embeddable into $`G^{}`$”; if cf$`(\kappa )=\sigma `$ we need to look at slightly more (as in the end of the proof of 3.1). ∎

###### Remark 3.3.

More generally see \[Sh:829\].

###### Claim 3.4.

1) Assume $`\lambda `$ is strong limit, $`\lambda \theta =\kappa `$, cf$`(\kappa )=\text{cf}(\lambda )`$, then in $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ there is no we-universal graph, even for the members from $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }^{\text{sbp}}`$.

2) Assume

1. $`\kappa =\theta \lambda `$
2. $`(\alpha <\lambda )(\beta <\theta )[|\alpha |^{|\beta |}\lambda ]`$, (recall $`\kappa =\theta `$)
3. cf$`(\lambda )\text{cf}(\kappa )`$.

Then in $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ there is no we-universal graph, even for the $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }^{\text{sbp}}`$.

###### Proof..

1) By part (2).

2) Let $`\sigma =\text{ cf}(\kappa )`$. Let $`\gamma _i:i<\sigma `$ be (strictly) increasing with limit $`\theta =\kappa `$.

Without loss of generality

1. $`|\gamma _{i+1}\gamma _i|`$ is (finite or) a cardinal $`(<\kappa )`$ with cofinality $`\text{ cf}(\lambda )`$.

\[Why? If $`\kappa `$ is a limit cardinal, trivial as if a cardinal $`<\kappa `$ fails its successor is O.K.; if $`\kappa `$ is a successor cardinal, $`\gamma _i=i`$ is O.K. and also $`\gamma _i=\omega i`$ or $`\gamma _i=\omega _1i`$ is O.K.\]

Given a graph $`G^{}`$ in $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ without loss of generality $`V^G^{}=\lambda `$.

For $`i<\sigma `$ let $`T_i=\{f:f`$ is a partial one-to-one mapping from $`\gamma _i`$ into $`\lambda =V^G^{}`$ with bounded range such that $`j<i\mathrm{}\{0,1\}|\gamma _{j+1}\gamma _j|/2=1,\gamma _j\epsilon \gamma _{j+1}`$ and $`\epsilon \mathrm{}`$ mod $`2\}|`$ and $`2\alpha ,2\beta +1\text{ Dom}(f)f(2\alpha )R^G^{}f(2\beta +1)\}`$. Let $`T=\underset{i<\sigma }{}T_i`$, so $`T`$ is a tree with $`\lambda `$ nodes and $`\sigma `$ levels; for $`\eta T`$ let $`𝕚(\eta )<\sigma `$ be the unique $`i<\sigma `$ such that $`\eta T_i`$. Let $`T^+=\{\eta :\text{for some }\zeta ,\mathrm{}g(\eta )=\zeta +1,\eta \zeta T`$ is $``$-maximal in $`T`$ and $`\eta (\zeta )=0\}`$.

Note

1. if $`i<\sigma `$ is a limit ordinal, $`f_j:j<i`$ is $``$-increasing, $`f_jT_j`$ then $`\underset{j<i}{}f_jT_i`$ \[in other words if $`f`$ is a function from $`\gamma _i`$ to $`\lambda `$ such that $`j<if\gamma _jT_j`$ then $`fT_i`$\].

\[Why? The least obvious demand is sup Rang$`(f)<\lambda `$ which holds as cf$`(i)i<\sigma =\text{ cf}(\kappa )\text{ cf}(\lambda )`$.\]

1. there is no $`\overline{f}=f_i:i<\sigma `$ increasing such that $`i<\sigma f_iT_i`$.

\[Why? As then $`\underset{i<\sigma }{}f_i`$ weakly embed a complete $`(\kappa ,\theta )`$-bipartite graph into $`G^{}`$.\]

We define a bipartite graph $`G`$

$$\begin{array}{cccc}U^G=& \{\eta :\eta T,𝕚(\eta )\text{ is even}\}\hfill & & \\ & \{(\eta ,\epsilon ):\eta T^+,\epsilon <\lambda \text{ is even}\}\hfill & & \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{cccc}V^G=& \{\eta :\eta T,𝕚(\eta )\text{ is odd}\}\hfill & & \\ & \{(\eta ,\epsilon ):\eta T^+\text{ and }\epsilon <\lambda \text{ is odd}\}\hfill & & \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{cccc}R^G=R_1^GR_2^G\text{ where }R_1^G=\{\{\nu ,(\eta ,\epsilon )\}:& \eta T^+,𝕚(\eta )\text{ is a succcessor ordinal and }\nu U^GT\hfill & & \\ & \text{ (and }\gamma _{𝕚(\eta )1}\epsilon <\gamma _{𝕚(\eta )})\text{ and}\hfill & & \\ & \nu \eta \text{ and }\epsilon \mathrm{}g(\nu )\text{ mod }2\}\hfill & & \\ & F_2^G=\{\{(\eta ,\epsilon _1),(\eta ,\epsilon _2)\}:\eta T^+,𝕚(\eta )\text{ is a successor ordinal,}\hfill & & \\ & \{\epsilon _1,\epsilon _2\}[𝕚(\eta )1,𝕚(\eta )\text{ and }\epsilon _1\epsilon _2\text{ mod }2\}.\hfill & & \end{array}$$

Now

1. $`|T|\lambda `$ by clause (b) of the assumption, $`[\gamma _{𝕚(\eta )1},\gamma _{𝕚(\eta )}]`$ which is a weak form of “$`\lambda `$ is strong limit”
2. $`|T^+|\lambda `$.

If $`(𝒰_1(T^+\times \lambda ))\mathrm{}(V_1(T^+\times \lambda ))`$ then we can choose $`(\eta _1,\epsilon _1)𝒰_,(\eta _2,\epsilon _2)V_1`$. \[Why? As $`\eta T^+\text{ sup Rang}(\eta )<\lambda `$, see $`()_2`$ recalling $`i=\mathrm{}g(\eta )<\sigma `$, Rang$`(\eta )\gamma _i<\lambda `$.\]

1. $`|U^G||T_1|=\lambda `$ and $`|V^G||T_2|=\lambda `$

hence

1. $`|U^G|=\lambda =|V^G|`$ so
2. $`G_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }^{\text{sbp}}`$.

\[Why? Being bipartite is obvious; so toward contradiction assume $`(U_1U^GV_1V^G)(U_1V^GV_1U^G)`$ have cardinality $`\kappa `$ (recall that $`\kappa =\theta `$) and $`U_1\times V_1R^G`$. If $`(\eta _{},\epsilon _{})V_1`$ and $`i<\text{cf}(\kappa )=\sigma `$ be such that $`\epsilon _{}<\gamma _i`$, then $`U_1\{\nu :\nu \eta \}\{(\nu ,\zeta )U^GV^G:\nu =\eta _{}`$ and $`\zeta <\gamma _i\}`$ which clearly has cardinality $`<\kappa `$, contradiction. Hence $`V_1(T^+\times \lambda )=\mathrm{}`$ and by symmetry $`𝒰_1(T^+\lambda )=\mathrm{}`$, hence $`V_1T,U_1T`$ hence $`U_1\times V_1`$ (set of unordered pairs) is disjoint to $`R`$, contradiction.\]

1. $`G`$ is not weakly embeddable into $`G^{}`$.

\[Why? If $`f`$ is such an embedding, we try to choose by induction on $`i<\sigma `$, a member $`\eta _i`$ of $`T_i`$, increasing continuous with $`i`$ such that $`(\epsilon \text{ Dom}(\eta _i))(j<i)[\gamma _j\epsilon <\gamma _{j+1}\eta _i(\epsilon )=f((\eta _i\gamma _j,\epsilon ))]`$. If we succeed we get a contradiction to $`G^{}_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ by $`()_2`$, so we cannot carry the induction for every $`i<\sigma `$. For $`i=0`$ and $`i`$ limit there are no problems (see $`()_1`$), so for some $`i=j+1<\sigma ,f_j`$ is well defined but we cannot choose $`f_i`$. But if $`j<\sigma `$ consider $`f_i=f_j\{(\epsilon ,f((\eta _j,\epsilon )):\epsilon [\gamma _j,\gamma _i)\}`$. This gives a contradiction except possibly when $`\lambda =\text{ sup Rang}(\eta _i)`$, but then necessarily by $``$, $`|\gamma _{i+1}\gamma _i|`$ has cofinality $`\text{ cf}(\lambda )`$, so for $`\mathrm{}<2`$, for some $`\iota _{\mathrm{}}<\sigma `$ the set $`\{\epsilon :\gamma _j\epsilon <\gamma _{j+1}`$ and $`f(\eta _j,\epsilon )<\lambda _\iota _{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\epsilon =\mathrm{}\text{ mod }2\}`$ has cardinality $`|\gamma _i\gamma _j|/2`$ which has cofinality $`\text{ cf}(\lambda )`$, and then $`f_i:=f_j\{(\epsilon ,f(\eta _j,\epsilon )):\gamma _j\epsilon <\gamma _i`$ and $`f(\eta _j,\epsilon )<\lambda _{\text{max}\{\iota _0,\iota _1\}}\}`$ is O.K., contradiction.\] ∎

###### Theorem 3.5.

Assume $`\lambda \theta \kappa \mathrm{}_0`$ and $`\lambda `$ is a strong limit cardinal. There is a we-universal in $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ iffcf$`(\lambda )\text{cf}(\kappa )`$ and $`(\kappa <\theta \text{cf}(\lambda )<\text{cf}(\theta ))`$ iff there is a ste-universal in $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$.

###### Remark 3.6.

Similarly for the universal for $`\{G^{[\text{gr}]}:g_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }^{\text{sbp}}\}`$.

###### Proof..

We use freely 0.7(3) and below in each case the middle condition in 3.5 clearly holds or clearly fails and the other conditions hold or fail by the claim quoted in the case.

If $`\theta <\lambda `$ and $`\text{cf}(\lambda )>\text{ cf}(\kappa )`$ by 2.10 the family $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ has no we-universal.

If $`\theta =\lambda `$ and $`\text{cf}(\lambda )>\text{ cf}(\kappa )`$ then Pr$`{}_{}{}^{}(\lambda ,\kappa )`$ holds by 2.6(1) (and recall that Pr$`(\lambda ,\kappa )`$ is equivalent here to Pr$`{}_{}{}^{}(\lambda ,\kappa )`$, since $`\kappa `$ is a cardinal, see 1.3(1)(iii)) hence by 2.2 the family $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ has no we-universal member.

If cf$`(\lambda )<\text{ cf}(\kappa )`$ and $`\theta <\lambda `$ by 3.1 the family $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ has a ste-universal member; the second statement in Theorem 3.5 holds as: if $`\kappa <\theta `$ easy, if $`\kappa \theta `$ then $`\kappa =\theta `$ hence cf$`(\lambda )<\text{ cf}(\kappa )=\text{ cf}(\theta )`$.

If cf$`(\lambda )<\text{ cf}(\kappa )`$ (hence $`\kappa \lambda `$ so $`\kappa <\lambda `$) and $`\theta =\lambda `$ (so $`\kappa <\theta `$) by 3.2 the family $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ has a ste-universal member.

So the remaining case is cf$`(\lambda )=\text{ cf}(\kappa )`$. If $`\kappa <\theta <\lambda `$ by 3.1 in $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ there is an ste-universal; if $`\kappa =\theta \lambda `$ by 3.4(1) in $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ there is no we-universal member. If $`\kappa <\theta =\lambda `$ by 3.2 in $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ there is a ste-universal member. We have checked all possibilities hence we are done. ∎

We turn to $`\lambda `$ successor cardinal. In the following case, possibly the existence of we-universal and ste-universal are not equivalent, see 3.12(2) + 3.12(4) and Theorem 3.15.

###### Claim 3.7.

Assume $`(\lambda \theta \kappa \mathrm{}_0`$ and)

1. $`\lambda =\mu ^+`$
2. $`\kappa <\mu `$ and $`\theta =\lambda `$
3. $`\mu =\mu ^\kappa `$.

Then in $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ there is a we-universal member.

###### Proof..

If $`G_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ (and without loss of generality $`V^G=\lambda `$) and $`\alpha <\lambda `$, then

1. $`\{\beta <\lambda :\beta `$ is $`G`$-connected to $`\kappa `$ elements $`\gamma <\alpha \}`$ is bounded in $`\lambda `$ say by $`\beta _\alpha <\lambda `$.

Hence there is a club $`C=C_G`$ of $`\lambda `$ such that:

1. cf$`(\alpha )\text{ cf}(\kappa ),\alpha C,\beta [\alpha ,\lambda )\kappa >\text{ otp}\{\gamma <\alpha :\gamma `$ is $`G`$-connected to $`\beta \}`$
2. cf$`(\alpha )=\text{ cf}(\kappa ),\alpha C,\beta [\alpha ,\lambda )\kappa \text{ otp}\{\gamma <\alpha :\gamma `$ is $`G`$-connected to $`\beta \}`$
3. if $`\alpha C`$ then $`\mu /\alpha `$ and $`\alpha >sup(C\alpha )\text{ cf}(\alpha )\text{ cf}(\kappa )`$.

We shall define $`G^{}`$ with $`V^G^{}=\lambda `$ below. For each $`\delta <\lambda `$ divisible by $`\mu `$ let $`a_i^\delta :i<\mu `$ list $`𝒫_\delta =\{a:a\delta `$, and $`|a|<\kappa `$ or otp$`(a)=\kappa `$ and $`\delta =sup(a)\}`$, each appearing $`\mu `$ times, possible as $`|\delta |=\mu =\mu ^\kappa `$, and let

$$\begin{array}{cccc}R_\delta ^G^{}=\{& \{\beta ,\delta +i\}:\delta <\lambda \text{ is divisible by }\mu ,\beta <\delta ,i<\mu ,\beta a_i^\delta \}\hfill & & \\ & \{\{\delta +i,\delta +j\}:ij<\mu \text{ and }\delta <\lambda \text{ is divisible by }\mu \}.\hfill & & \end{array}$$

Now clearly we have $`\alpha +\mu \beta <\lambda \kappa >|\{\gamma <\alpha :\gamma \text{ is }G^{}\text{-connected to }\beta \}|`$ hence $`K_{\kappa ,\lambda }`$ (which is $`K_{\kappa ,\theta }`$ by the assumptions) cannot be weakly embedded into $`G^{}`$. On the other hand if $`G_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ without loss of generality $`V^G=\lambda `$ and let $`C_G`$ be as above, and let $`\alpha _\zeta :\zeta <\lambda `$ list in increasing order $`C_G\{0\}`$, and we can choose by induction on $`\zeta `$, a weak embedding $`f_\zeta `$ of $`G\alpha _\zeta `$ into $`G^{}(\mu \times \zeta )`$. So $`G^{}`$ is as required. ∎

###### Claim 3.8.

Assume $`(\lambda \theta \kappa \mathrm{}_0`$ and)

1. $`\lambda =2^\mu =\mu ^+,\mu `$ is a singular cardinal
2. $`\kappa <\mu `$ and 333in fact, $`\kappa =\theta `$ is O.K., but already covered by 3.4(2) $`\kappa <\theta \lambda `$
3. for every $`𝒫[\mu ]^\mu `$ of cardinality $`\lambda `$ for some 444note that if $`\mathrm{}_\omega (\kappa )\mu `$ this clause always holds; and if $`2^\kappa \mu `$ it is hard to fail it, not clear if its negation is consistent $`B[\mu ]^\kappa `$, for $`\lambda `$ sets $`A𝒫`$ we have $`BA`$
4. cf$`(\kappa )=\text{cf}(\mu )`$.

Then in $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ there is no we-universal member (even for the family of bipartite graphs).

###### Proof..

Let $`G^{}_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$, without loss of generality $`V^G^{}=\lambda `$ and we shall construct a $`G_{\mu ,\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }^{\text{sbp}}`$ not weakly embeddable into it. Now we choose $`U^G=\mu ,V^G=\lambda \backslash \mu `$.

Notice that $`\lambda ^\mu =\lambda `$ (by (a)), so let $`(f_\alpha ,B_\alpha ):\mu \alpha <\lambda `$ list the pairs $`(f,B)`$ such that $`f:\mu \lambda `$ is one to one, $`B[\mu ]^\mu `$ and $`fB`$ is increasing such that each pair appears $`\lambda `$ times. Let $`\beta _B=sup\{\beta +1:\beta <\lambda `$ is $`G^{}`$-connected to $`\mu `$ members of $`B\}`$ for $`B[\lambda ]^\mu `$ (and we shall use it for $`B[\lambda \backslash \mu ]^\mu `$, i.e. for subsets of $`V^G`$). Now $`\beta _B`$ is $`<\lambda `$ by clause (c) of the assumption. We shall now choose inductively $`C_\alpha `$ for $`\alpha [\mu ,\lambda )`$ such that

1. $`(i)C_\alpha B_\alpha `$ is unbounded of order type $`\kappa `$
2. $`(ii)`$ no $`\zeta \lambda \backslash \beta _{\text{Rang}(f_\alpha )}`$ is $`G^{}`$-connected to every $`f_\alpha (\gamma ),\gamma C_\alpha `$
3. $`(iii)\mu \beta <\alpha |C_\beta C_\alpha |<\kappa `$.

In stage $`\alpha `$ choose $`B_\alpha ^{}B_\alpha `$ of order type $`\mu `$ such that $`(\beta )[\mu \beta <\alpha sup(B_\alpha ^{}C_\beta )<\mu )`$, that is $`B_\alpha ^{}C_\beta `$ is bounded in $`\mu `$ equivalently $`C_\beta `$ equivalently in $`B_\alpha ^{}`$ for $`\beta <\alpha `$; this is possible by diagonalization, just remember cf$`(\mu )=\text{ cf}(\kappa )`$ and $`\mu >\kappa `$ and clause $`(i)`$.

Now there is $`C`$ satisfying

1. $`CB_\alpha ^{}`$ is unbounded of order type $`\kappa `$ such that no $`\zeta \lambda \backslash \beta _{\text{Rang}(f_\alpha )}`$ is $`G^{}`$-connected to every $`f_\alpha (\gamma )`$ for $`\gamma C`$.

\[Why? Otherwise for every such $`C`$ there is a counterexample $`\gamma _C`$ and we can easily choose $`C_{\alpha ,i}`$ by induction on $`i<\lambda `$ such that:

1. $`C_{\alpha ,i}B_\alpha ^{}`$
2. sup$`(C_{\alpha ,i})=sup(B_\alpha ^{})=\mu `$
3. otp$`(C_{\alpha ,i})=\kappa `$
4. $`(j<i)[\kappa >|C_{\alpha ,i}C_{\alpha ,j}|]`$
5. moreover, if $`j<i`$ then $`\kappa >|C_{\alpha ,i}\{\zeta <\mu :f_\alpha (\zeta )`$ is $`G^{}`$-connected to $`\gamma _{C_{\alpha ,0}C_{\alpha ,j}}\}|)`$.

This is easy: for clause $`(iv)^+`$ note that for $`C=C_{\alpha ,j}C_{\alpha ,0}`$ by the choice of $`\gamma _C`$ we have $`\gamma _C\beta _{\text{Rang}(f_\alpha )}`$ hence by the choice of $`\beta _{\text{Rang}(f_\alpha )}`$ clearly $`D_C=:\{i<\mu :f_\alpha (i)`$ is well defined and $`G^{}`$-connected to $`\gamma _C\}`$ has cardinality $`<\mu `$, so we can really carry the induction on $`i<\lambda `$, that is any $`CB_\alpha ^{}`$ unbounded in $`\mu `$ of order type $`\kappa `$ such that $`j<i|CD_{C_{\alpha ,j}C_{\alpha ,0}}|<\kappa `$ will do.

Let $`A_0=C_{\alpha ,0},A_1=\{\gamma _{C_{\alpha ,0}C_{\alpha ,1+i}}:i<\lambda \}`$ they form a complete bipartite subgraph of $`G^{}`$ by the definition of $`\gamma _{C_{\alpha ,0}C_{\alpha ,i}}`$ and $`|C_{\alpha ,0}|=\kappa =|A_0|`$ (by $`(iii)`$ of $``$) and $`|A_1|=\lambda `$ (the last: by $`(iv)^+`$), contradiction. So there is $`C`$ such that $`()_C^\alpha `$.\]

Choose $`C_\alpha `$ as any such $`C`$ such that $`()_C^\alpha `$. Lastly define $`G`$

$$U^G=\mu $$

$$V^G=\lambda \backslash \mu $$

$$R^G=\{(\beta ,\alpha ):\alpha V^G,\beta C_\alpha \}.$$

Clearly $`G_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }^{\text{sbp}}`$ recalling $`\kappa <\theta `$ and $`\alpha _1\alpha _2|C_{\alpha _1}C_{\alpha _2}|<\kappa `$. Suppose toward contradiction that $`f:\lambda \lambda `$ is a weak embedding of $`G`$ into $`G^{}`$, hence the set $`Y=\{\alpha <\lambda :\alpha \mu `$ and $`f_\alpha =f\mu \}`$ is unbounded in $`\lambda `$ and without loss of generality $`\alpha Y\beta _{\text{Rang}(f_\alpha )}=\beta ^{}`$, i.e. is constant. As $`f`$ is one to one for every $`\alpha Y`$ large enough, $`f(\alpha )(\beta ^{},\lambda )`$ and we get easy contradiction to clause $`(ii)`$ for $`\alpha `$ and we are done. (Note that we can add $`\lambda `$ nodes to $`U^G`$). ∎

For the next claim, we need another pair of definitions:

###### Definition 3.9.

1) $`_\lambda ^{}`$ is the class of $`G=(V^G,R^G,P_i^G)_{i<\lambda }`$ where $`(V^G,R^G)`$ is a graph, $`|V^G|=\lambda `$ and $`P_i^G:i<\lambda `$ is a partition of $`V^G`$.

2) We say $`f`$ is a strong embedding of $`G_1_\lambda ^{}`$ into $`G_2_\lambda ^{}`$ when it strongly embeds $`(V^{G_1},R^{G_1})`$ into $`(V^{G_2},R^{G_2})`$ mapping $`P_i^{G_1}`$ into $`P_i^{G_2}`$ for $`i<\lambda `$.

3) $`G_\lambda ^{}`$ is ste-universal is defined naturally.

###### Definition 3.10.

For $`\kappa \mu ,𝕌_\kappa (\mu )=\text{ min}\{|P|:P[\mu ]^\kappa `$ and $`(A[\mu ]^\kappa )(BP)(|AB|=\kappa )\}`$.

###### Remark 3.11.

If $`\mu `$ is a strong limit cardinal and cf$`(\mu )<\text{ cf}(\kappa )\kappa <\mu `$, then $`𝕌_\kappa (\mu )=\mu `$.

###### Claim 3.12.

1) Assume $`(\lambda \theta \kappa \mathrm{}_0`$ and)

1. $`\lambda =\mu ^+=2^\mu `$
2. $`\kappa <\mu `$ and cf$`(\kappa )\text{cf}(\mu )`$
3. $`2^\kappa \mu `$ and $`𝕌_\kappa (\mu )=\mu `$
4. $`(i)\kappa >\text{cf}(\mu )`$ or
5. $`(ii)\theta <\lambda `$ or
6. $`(iii)\kappa <\text{cf}(\mu )`$ and there are $`C_\alpha ^{}\mu `$ of order type $`\kappa `$ for $`\alpha <\lambda `$

such that $`u[\lambda ]^\lambda \text{otp}[\{C_\alpha ^{}:\alpha u\}]>\kappa `$.

Then in $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ there is no we-universal even for the bipartite graphs in $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$.

2) In part (1) if we replace clause (d) from the assumption by $`(d)_1`$ or $`(d)_2`$ where

1. $`\mu ^\kappa \lambda `$
2. $`\theta =\lambda `$ and among the graphs or cardinal $`\mu `$ there is no ste-universal
3. $`\theta =\lambda `$ and in $`_\mu ^{}`$ there is no ste-universal, then still there is no ste-universal, even for the bipartite graphs in $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$.

3) If (a) + (b) of part (1) and $`2^{<\mu }=\mu =\mu ^\kappa \theta =\lambda `$ then there is a ste-universal.

4) If (a),(b) of part (1) and (c),(d) below, then there is a ste-universal in $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$

1. $`\mu =\mu ^\kappa `$
2. in $`_\mu ^{}`$ there is a universal, see 3.9(1).

###### Remark 3.13.

Note that part (2) is not empty: if $`\mu `$ is strong limit singular, $`2^\mu =\lambda =\mu ^+,\chi =\chi ^{<\chi }<\mu `$ and $``$ is the forcing of adding $`\mu `$ Cohen subsets to $`\chi `$, then in $`𝕍^{}`$ clause $`(d)_2`$ holds.

###### Proof..

1) Let $`G^{}_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ and without loss of generality $`V^G^{}=\lambda `$. As in the proof of 3.7 using assumption (c) there is a club $`C`$ of $`\lambda `$ such that

1. $`\delta C,\delta \beta <\lambda \kappa \text{ otp}\{\gamma <\delta :\gamma `$ is $`G^{}`$-connected to $`\beta \}`$
2. $`\delta C`$, cf$`(\delta )\text{ cf}(\kappa ),\delta \beta <\lambda \kappa >\text{ otp}\{\gamma <\beta :\gamma `$ is $`G^{}`$-connected to $`\beta \}`$
3. $`\mu ^2`$ divides $`\delta `$ for every $`\delta C`$.

Let $`S=:\{\delta C:\text{cf}(\delta )=\text{ cf}(\kappa )\}`$; as we have $`\mathrm{}_S`$, see \[Sh:922\], so let $`\overline{f}=f_\delta :\delta S,f_\delta {}_{}{}^{\delta }\delta `$ be a one-to-one function such that $`(f{}_{}{}^{\lambda }\lambda )(^{\text{stat}}\delta S)[f`$ is one-to-one $`f_\delta =f\delta ]`$. For $`\delta S`$ let $`\beta _\delta =\text{ Min}(C\backslash (\delta +1))`$, and for $`i[\delta ,\beta _\delta )`$ we let $`a_{\delta ,i}=\{\gamma <\delta :f_\delta (\gamma )`$ is $`G^{}`$-connected to $`i\}`$, so otp$`(a_{\delta ,i})\kappa `$ by the choice of $`C`$, and let $`B_\delta =\{i:\delta i<\beta _\delta `$ and $`|a_{\delta ,i}|\kappa \}`$.

Now for $`\delta S`$ we choose $`a_\delta ^{}\delta `$ unbounded of order type $`\kappa `$ such that $`(iB_\delta )(a_\delta ^{}a_{\delta ,i})`$.

\[Why? First assume $`(d)(i)`$, i.e. $`\kappa >\text{ cf}(\mu )`$ let $`[\delta ,\beta _\delta )=\underset{\xi <\text{ cf}(\mu )}{}A_{\delta ,\xi },|A_{\delta ,\xi }|<\mu ,A_{\delta ,\xi }`$ is $``$-increasing continuous with $`\xi `$ and let $`\gamma _{\delta ,\epsilon }:\epsilon <\kappa `$ be increasing continuous with limit $`\delta `$ satisfying $`\mu |\gamma _{\delta ,\epsilon }`$ (remember $`\delta S\mu ^2|\delta `$). Now choose $`\gamma _{\delta ,\epsilon }^{}[\gamma _{\delta ,\epsilon },\gamma _{\delta ,\epsilon +1})\backslash \{a_{\delta ,i}`$ : for some $`\zeta <\text{ cf}(\mu ),\epsilon =\zeta `$ mod cf$`(\mu )`$ and $`iA_{\delta ,\epsilon }\}`$ for $`\epsilon <\kappa `$ and let $`a_\delta ^{}=\{\gamma _{\delta ,\epsilon }^{}:\epsilon <\kappa \}`$, it is as required.

Second assume case (ii) of clause (d) of the assumption, so $`\theta <\lambda `$ hence $`\theta \mu `$. For $`\delta S`$ we choose a sequence $`\overline{C}^\delta =C_{\delta ,i}:i<\mu `$ of pairwise disjoint sets, $`C_{\delta ,i}`$ an unbounded subset of $`\delta \backslash S`$ of order type $`\kappa `$, always exist as $`\mu ^2|\delta `$ (we could have asked moreover that $`f_\delta C_{\delta ,i}`$ is increasing with limit $`\delta `$. Now if $`f:\lambda \lambda `$ is one-to-one then $`\{\delta S:f_\delta =f\delta `$ and for $`f_\delta `$ we can choose $`\overline{C}^\delta \}`$ is a stationary subset of $`\lambda `$ so this is O.K. but not necessary). If for some $`i<\mu `$ the set $`C_{\delta ,0}C_{\delta ,1+i}`$ is as required on $`a_\delta ^{}`$, fine, otherwise for every $`i<\mu `$ there is $`\gamma _i<\lambda `$ which is $`G^{}`$-connected to every $`y\text{ Rang}(f(C_{\delta ,0}C_{\delta ,1+i}))`$. As any $`\gamma _i`$ is $`G^{}`$-connected to $`\kappa `$ ordinals $`<\delta `$ and $`C_{\delta ,i}:i<\mu `$ are pairwise disjoint, clearly $`|\{j:\gamma _j=\gamma _i\}|\kappa `$ hence we can find $`Y\mu `$ such that $`\gamma _i:iY`$ is with no repetitions and $`|Y|=\theta `$. So $`A_0=\text{ Rang}(fC_{\delta ,0}),A_1=\{\gamma _i:iY\}`$ exemplify that a complete $`(\kappa ,\theta )`$-bipartite graph can be weakly embedded into $`G^{}`$, contradiction.

Lastly, the case clause (iii) of clause (d) holds. let $`\gamma _{\delta ,\epsilon }:\epsilon <\kappa `$ be an increasing limit with $`\delta `$ such that $`\mu |\gamma _{\delta ,\epsilon }`$; let $`C_i^{}:i<\lambda `$ be as in clause (iii) of (d) of the assumption and let $`C_{\delta ,i}:=\{\beta +1`$: for some $`\epsilon <\kappa `$ we have $`\gamma _{\delta ,\epsilon }\beta <\gamma _{\delta ,\epsilon }+\mu `$ and $`\beta \gamma _{\delta ,\epsilon }C_i^{}`$ and otp$`(C_i^{}(\beta \gamma _{\delta ,\epsilon }))<\epsilon \}`$.

Lastly, repeat the proof of “Second…”.\]

Lastly define the bipartite graph $`G`$ by $`V^G=\lambda ,R^G=\{(\gamma ,\delta ):\delta S,\gamma a_\delta ^{}\}`$. Easily $`G_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }^{\text{sbp}}`$ and is not weakly embeddable into $`G^{}`$ by the choice of $`\overline{f}`$.

2) Let $`G^{}_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa },V^G^{}=\lambda `$. We choose the club $`C`$, the set $`S`$ and the sequence $`\overline{f}=f_\delta :\delta S`$ as in the proof of part (1). We shall choose $`a_{\delta ,i}:\delta S,i<\mu `$ and define $`G`$ by $`V^G=\lambda ,E^G=\underset{\delta S}{}E_\delta ,E_\delta =\{\{\gamma ,\delta +i\}:\gamma a_i^\delta ,i<i_\mu \}\{\{\delta +i,\delta +j\}:(i,j)R_\delta \mu \times \mu \}`$. Naturally $`a_i^\delta `$ is an unbounded subset of $`\delta `$ of order-type $`\kappa `$.

Now it is sufficient to find for $`\delta S`$ an unbounded subset $`C=C_\delta `$ of $`\delta `$ of order type $`\kappa `$ such that for no $`\gamma =\gamma _C<\lambda `$ do we have $`(\beta <\delta )(\beta Cf_\delta (\beta )R^G^{}\gamma )`$, in this case $`i_\delta =1`$. If this fails then such $`\gamma _C`$ is well defined for any unbounded $`C\delta `$ of order type $`\kappa `$; $`C_{\delta ,i}\delta `$ unbounded of order type $`\kappa `$, pairwise distinct for $`i<\lambda `$ and $`C_{\delta ,1+i}C_{\delta ,0}=\mathrm{}`$; then $`A_0=:\{f_\delta (\beta ):\beta C_{\delta ,0}\},A_1=:\{\gamma _{C_{\delta ,0}C_{\delta ,1+i}}:i<\lambda \}`$ exemplifies that the complete $`(\kappa ,\theta )`$-bipartite graph can be weakly embedded into $`G^{}`$, contradiction.

Clearly $`(d)_2(d)_3`$ so without loss of generality $`(d)_3`$ holds. For $`\delta S`$ let $`C_{\delta ,j}:j\mu `$ be a sequence of distinct subsets of $`\mu `$ which include $`\{\{\alpha <\delta :f_\delta (\alpha )R^G^{}(\delta +i)\}:i<i_\delta \}`$ and let $`M_\delta `$ be the model expanding $`G^{}[\delta ,\delta +i_\delta ]`$ by $`P_j^M=\{\delta +i:i<i_\delta `$ and $`(\alpha <\delta )[f_\delta (\alpha )R^G^{}(\delta +i)\alpha C_{\delta ,j}]\}`$. As $`M_\delta `$ is not universal in $`_\mu ^{}`$, so let $`N_\delta _\mu ^{}`$ witness this; without loss of generality the universe of $`N`$ in $`[\delta ,\delta +\mu )`$, and let $`a_{\delta ,j}=\{f_\delta (\alpha ):\alpha C_{\delta ,j}\}`$ and $`R_\delta =R^{N_\delta }`$.

Now check.

3) It suffices to prove that the assumptions of part (4) holds, the non-trivial part is clause (d) there, i.e. $`_\lambda ^{}`$ has a universal member. But $`2^\mu =\mu `$ so either $`\mu `$ is regular so $`\mu =\mu ^{<\mu }`$ or $`\mu `$ is strong limit singular and in both cases this holds by Jonsson or see \[Sh:88r\].

4) We choose $`G_\alpha `$ for $`\alpha \lambda `$ by induciton on $`\alpha `$ such that

1. $`(a)G_\alpha `$ is a graph with set of nodes $`(1+\alpha )\mu `$
2. $`(b)`$ if $`\beta <\alpha `$ then $`G_\beta `$ is an induced subgraph of $`G`$
3. $`(c)`$ if $`\alpha =\beta +1`$ and $`G`$ is a graph with $`\mu `$ nodes and id$`_{G_\beta }`$ is a strong

embedding of $`G_\beta `$ into $`G`$ such that $`xV^G\backslash V^{G_\beta }`$

($`x`$ is connected to $`\kappa `$ nodes of $`G_\beta `$) then there is a

strong embedding of $`G`$ into $`G_\alpha `$ which extends id$`_{G_\beta }`$.

The construction is possible by clause (d) of the assumption. Now as in the proof of 3.8 $`G_\lambda _{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ is ste-universal. ∎

###### Remark 3.14.

1) In the choice of $`\overline{f}`$ (in the proof of 3.12) we can require that for every $`f{}_{}{}^{\lambda }\lambda `$ the set $`\{\delta S:f_\delta =f\delta `$ and $`\delta \text{ Rang}(f)=\text{ Rang}(f_\delta )\}`$ is stationary and so deal with copies of the complete $`(\kappa ,\theta )`$-bipartite graph with the $`\theta `$ part after the $`\kappa `$ part.

2) Probably we can somewhat weaken assumption (c).

###### Theorem 3.15.

Assume $`\lambda \theta \kappa \mathrm{}_0`$ and $`\lambda =2^\mu =\mu ^+`$ and $`2^{<\mu }=\mu `$.

1) In $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ there is a we-universal member iff$`\mu ^\kappa =\mu \theta =\lambda `$ iff there is no $`G^{}_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ we-universal for $`\{G^{[\text{gr}]}:G_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }^{\text{sbp}}\}`$.

2) In $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ there is ste-universal, iff$`\mu ^\kappa =\mu \theta =\lambda `$ iff there is no $`G^{}_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ ste-universal for $`\{G^{[\text{gr}]}:G_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }^{\text{sbp}}\}`$.

###### Proof..

1) The second iff we ignore as in each case the same claims cited give it too or use 3.17 below. We first prove that there is a we-universal except possibly when $`\mu ^\kappa =\mu \theta =\lambda `$.

Proving this claim, whenever we point out a case is resolved we assume that it does not occur. We avoid using $`2^{<\mu }=\mu `$ when we can.

If $`\lambda =\lambda ^{\theta ^+}`$ then by 2.6(3) we have Ps$`{}_{}{}^{}(\lambda ,\theta ^+\times \kappa )`$ so by 2.4 \+ 2.9(2) there is no we-universal; hence we can assume that $`\lambda <\lambda ^{\theta ^+}`$ so (as $`\lambda =\lambda ^{<\lambda }`$) clearly $`\lambda \theta ^+`$ hence $`\lambda =\theta \lambda =\theta ^+`$ that is $`\theta =\lambda \theta =\mu `$.

If $`\kappa =\theta `$ then by 3.4(2) there is no we-universal, so we can assume that $`\kappa \theta `$ hence $`\kappa <\theta \lambda `$, hence $`\lambda =\lambda ^\kappa `$ so by 2.6(3) we have Ps$`{}_{}{}^{}(\lambda ,\kappa )`$ hence by 2.6(7) we have Ps$`(\lambda ,\kappa )`$. So if $`\theta =\kappa ^+`$ then by 1.4 more exactly, 2.9(1) there is no we-universal so without loss of generality $`\kappa ^+<\theta `$ hence $`\kappa <\mu `$. If cf$`(\kappa )=\text{ cf}(\mu )`$ then by 3.8 we are done except if

1. clause (c) of 3.8 fails, (and cf$`(\kappa )=\text{ cf}(\mu ),\kappa <\mu `$)

is impossible as $`2^{<\mu }=\mu `$.

But (c) of 3.8 so we can assume

1. cf$`(\kappa )\text{ cf}(\mu )`$,

so as $`2^{<\mu }=\mu ,\kappa <\mu `$ we get

1. $`𝕌_\kappa (\mu )=\mu `$ and $`2^\kappa \mu `$.

Now we try to apply 3.12(1), so we can assume that we cannot; but clauses (a)-(c) there hold hence clause (d) there fails. So $`\kappa \text{cf}(\mu )\theta \lambda `$ (recalling sub-clauses (i),(ii) of 3.12(1)(d)) as cf$`(\kappa )\text{ cf}(\mu )`$ by $`()_2`$ and $`\theta \lambda `$ we have $`\kappa <\text{ cf}(\mu )`$ and $`\theta =\lambda `$. As $`2^{<\mu }=\mu `$ this implies $`\mu ^\kappa =\mu `$ and $`\theta =\lambda =\mu ^+`$ as promised. All this gives the implication $``$; the other direction by 3.7 gives there is a we-universal.

2) By part (1) and 0.7(3), the only open case is $`\mu ^\kappa =\mu `$ and $`\theta =\lambda =\mu ^+`$ then Claim 3.12(3),(4) applies (clause (c) there follows from $`\mu =\mu ^\kappa `$). ∎

Recalling Definition 0.6

###### Claim 3.16.

The results in 3.15 hold for $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }^{\text{sbp}}`$ and for $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }^{\text{bp}}`$.

###### Proof..

The ”no universal” clearly holds by 3.15, so we need the “positive results”, and we are done by 3.17 below. ∎

###### Claim 3.17.

The results of 3.1, 3.2, 3.7 and 3.12(3),(4) hold for $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }^{\text{sbp}}`$ and $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }^{\text{bp}}`$.

###### Proof..

In all the cases the isomorphism and embeddings preserve $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}xU^G\mathrm{"},\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}yV^G\mathrm{"}`$.

For $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }^{\text{sbp}}`$, in 3.7 we redefine $`G^{}`$ as a bipartite graph (recalling $`a_i^\delta :i<\mu `$ lists $`\{a\delta :\text{ otp}(a)\kappa `$ and if equality holds then $`\delta =sup(a)\}`$ for $`\delta <\lambda `$ divisible by $`\mu `$)

$$U^G^{}=\{2\alpha :\alpha <\lambda \}$$

$$V^G^{}=\{2\alpha +1:\alpha <\lambda \}$$

$$\begin{array}{cccc}R^G^{}=& \{(2\alpha ,2\beta +1):\text{for some }\delta <\lambda \text{ divisible by }\mu \text{ we have }2\alpha ,2\beta +1[\delta ,\delta +\mu ]\}\hfill & & \\ & \{(2\alpha ,\delta +2i+1):\delta <\lambda \text{ divisible by }\mu ,i<\mu ,2\alpha <\delta ,\alpha a_i^\delta \}\hfill & & \\ & \{(\delta +2i,2\beta +1):\delta <\lambda \text{ divisible by }\mu ,2\beta +1<\delta ,i<\mu ,\beta a_i^\delta \}\hfill & & \end{array}$$

The proof is similar. For $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }^{\text{bp}}`$, 3.7 we redefine $`G^{}`$

$$U^G^{}=\{2\alpha :\alpha <\lambda \}$$

$$V^G^{}=\{2\alpha +1:\alpha <\lambda \}$$

$$\begin{array}{cccc}R^G^{}=& \{(2\alpha ,2\beta +1):\text{for some }\delta <\lambda \text{ divisible by }\mu ,\{2\alpha ,2\beta +1\}[\delta ,\delta +\mu ]\}\hfill & & \\ & \{(2\alpha ,\delta +2i+1):\delta <\lambda \text{ divisible by }\mu ,i<\mu ,2\alpha <\delta \text{ and }\alpha a_i^\delta \}\hfill & & \\ & \{(2\alpha +1,2\beta ):2\alpha +1<2\beta \}.\hfill & & \end{array}$$

The proof of 3.1, 3.2 for $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }^{\text{sbp}}`$ is similar to that of 3.1, 3.2. The $`G_\eta `$ is from $`_{\lambda ,\mathrm{}g(\eta )}^{\text{sbp}}`$ so the isomorphism preserve the $`xU^G,yV^G`$. For $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }^{\text{bp}}`$ without loss of generality $`\kappa \theta `$ hence $`\kappa <\theta `$ (otherwise this falls under the previous case). We repeat the proof of the previous case carefully; making the following changes, say for 3.1, $`V_i^G:i<\sigma `$ is increasing continuous with union $`V^G,U_i^G:i<\sigma `$ increasing continuous with union $`U^G`$.

1. if $`xV^G\backslash V_{i+1}^G`$ then $`\kappa >|\{yU_i^G:y`$ is $`G`$-connected to $`x\}|`$.

We leave 3.12(3),(4) to the reader. ∎

## 4. More accurate properties

###### Definition 4.1.

Let Q$`(\lambda ,\mu ,\sigma ,\kappa )`$ mean: there are $`A_i[\mu ]^\sigma `$ for $`i<\lambda `$ such that for every $`B[\mu ]^\kappa `$ there are $`<\lambda `$ ordinals $`i`$ such that $`BA_i`$.

###### Definition 4.2.

1) For $`\mu \kappa `$ let set$`(\mu ,\kappa )=\{A:A`$ is a subset of $`\mu \times \kappa `$ of cardinality $`\kappa `$ such that $`i<\kappa \kappa >|\{A(\mu \times i)\}|`$ and let set$`(\mu ,\kappa )=[\kappa ]^\kappa `$ for $`\mu <\kappa `$.

2) Assume $`\lambda \theta \kappa ,\lambda \mu `$. Let Qr$`{}_{\text{w}}{}^{}(\lambda ,\mu ,\theta ,\kappa )`$ mean that some $`\overline{A}`$ exemplifies it, which means

1. $`\overline{A}=A_i:i<\alpha `$
2. $`A_i\text{ set}(\mu ,\kappa )`$ for $`i<\alpha `$
3. $`\overline{A}`$ is $`(\kappa ,\theta )`$-free which means $`(A\text{ set}(\mu ,\kappa ))(^{<\theta }i<\alpha )(AA_i)`$
4. $`\alpha \lambda `$
5. if $`\overline{A}^{}=A_i^{}:i<\alpha ^{}`$ satisfies clauses (a),(b),(c),(d), then for some one to one function $`\pi `$ from $`\underset{i<\alpha ^{}}{}A_i^{}`$ into $`\underset{i<\alpha }{}A_i`$ and one-to-one function $`\varkappa `$ from $`\alpha ^{}`$ to $`\alpha `$ (or $`\kappa `$ to $`\kappa `$) we have $`i<\alpha ^{}\pi (A_i^{})A_{\varkappa (i)}`$.

3) Qr$`{}_{\text{st}}{}^{}(\lambda ,\mu ,\theta ,\kappa )`$ is defined similarly except that we change clause (e) to (e)+ demanding $`\pi (A_i^{})=A_{\varkappa (i)}`$. Let Qr$`{}_{\text{pr}}{}^{}(\lambda ,\mu ,\theta ,\kappa )`$ be defined similarly omitting clause (e).

4) Assume $`\lambda \theta \kappa ,\lambda \mu `$ and $`x\{w,st\}`$. Let NQr$`{}_{x}{}^{}(\lambda ,\mu ,\theta ,\kappa )`$ mean that Qr$`{}_{x}{}^{}(\lambda ,\mu ,\theta ,\kappa )`$ fails.

###### Claim 4.3.

1) Assume NQr$`{}_{w}{}^{}(\lambda ,\mu ,\theta ,\kappa )`$ and $`\lambda =\lambda ^{\mu +\kappa }`$ and $`(\lambda >\mu ^\kappa )(\mu <\kappa )`$. Then

1. in $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ there is no we-universal member
2. moreover, for every $`G^{}_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ there is a member of $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }^{\text{sbp}}`$ not weakly embeddable into it.

2) Assume NQr$`{}_{\text{st}}{}^{}(\lambda ,\mu ,\theta ,\kappa )`$ and $`\lambda =\lambda ^{\mu +\kappa }`$ and $`(\lambda >\mu ^\kappa )(\mu \kappa )`$. Then

1. in $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ there is no ste-universal member
2. moreover, for every $`G^{}_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ there is a member of $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }^{\text{sbp}}`$ not strongly embeddable into it.

3) In parts (1), (2) we can weaken the assumption $`\lambda =\lambda ^{\mu +\kappa }`$ to

1. $`\lambda =\lambda ^\kappa >\mu `$ and there is $`\{f:f`$ a partial one to one function from $`\lambda `$ to $`\lambda ,|\text{Dom}(f)|=\mu \}`$ of cardinality $`\lambda `$ such that for every $`f^{}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }\lambda `$ there 555we can add “there are $`\lambda `$ functions $`f,ff^{}`$, with pairwise disjoint domains”, and possibly increasing $``$ we get it is $`f,ff^{}`$.

###### Proof..

1), 2) Let $`x=w`$ for part (1) and $`x=`$ st for part (2).

Now suppose that $`G^{}_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ and without loss of generality $`V^G^{}=\lambda `$ and we shall construct $`G_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }^{\text{sbp}}`$ not $`x`$-embeddable into $`G^{}`$ (so part (b) will be proved, and part (a) follows).

Case 1: $`\mu <\kappa `$ so set$`(\mu ,\kappa )=[\kappa ]^\kappa `$.

Similar to the proof of 1.5. Let $`\overline{f}=f_\eta :\eta {}_{}{}^{\kappa }\lambda `$ be a simple black box for one to one functions. It means that each $`f_\eta `$ is a one to one function from $`\{\eta i:i<\kappa \}`$ into $`\lambda `$, such that for every $`f:{}_{}{}^{\kappa >}\lambda \lambda `$ for some $`\eta {}_{}{}^{\kappa }\lambda `$ we have $`f_\eta f`$. We define the bipartite graph $`G`$ as follows:

1. $`(a)U^G={}_{}{}^{\kappa >}\lambda `$ and $`V^G=({}_{}{}^{\kappa }\lambda )\times \mu `$
2. $`(b)R^G=\{R_\eta ^G:\eta {}_{}{}^{\kappa }\lambda \}`$ where $`R_\eta ^G\{(\eta \epsilon ,(\eta ,i)):\epsilon <\kappa ,i<\mu \}`$.

Now for each $`\eta {}_{}{}^{\kappa }\lambda `$, we choose $`\beta _{\eta ,i}:i<\alpha _\eta `$ listing without repetitions the set $`\{\beta <\lambda :\beta `$ is $`G^{}`$-connected to $`\kappa `$ members of Rang$`(f_\eta )\}`$ and without loss of generality $`\alpha _\eta =|\alpha _\eta |`$ and $`A_{\eta ,i}=\{\epsilon <\kappa :\beta _{\eta ,i},f_\eta (\eta \epsilon )`$ are $`G^{}`$-connected$`\}`$.

As $`G^{}_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ clearly $`A[\kappa ]^\kappa |\{i<\alpha _\eta :AA_{\eta ,i}\}|<\theta `$ hence $`\alpha _\eta =|\alpha _\eta |2^\kappa +\theta `$ but (see Definition 4.2(2)) we have assumed $`\theta \lambda `$ and (in 4.3) $`\lambda =\lambda ^\kappa `$ so $`2^\kappa \lambda `$ hence $`\alpha _\eta \lambda `$; next let $`\overline{A}_\eta =A_{\eta ,i}:i<\alpha _\eta `$ and as $`\overline{A}_\eta `$ cannot be a witness for Qr$`{}_{x}{}^{}(\lambda ,\mu ,\theta ,\kappa )`$ but clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) of Definition 4.2(1) hold, hence clause (e) fails so there is $`\overline{A}_\eta ^{}=A_{\eta ,i}^{}:i<\alpha _\eta ^{}`$ exemplifies the failure of clause (e) of Definition 4.2 with $`\overline{A}_\eta ,\overline{A}_\eta ^{}`$ here standing for $`\overline{A},\overline{A}^{}`$ there.

Let

$$R_\eta ^G=\{(\eta \epsilon ,(\eta ,i)):\epsilon <\kappa ,i<\alpha _\eta ^{}\text{ and }\epsilon A_{\eta ,i}^{}\}.$$

The proof that $`G`$ cannot be $`x`$-embedded into $`G^{}`$ is as in the proof of 1.5.

Case 2: $`\mu ^\kappa <\lambda `$ (and $`\lambda =\lambda ^\mu ,\kappa \mu <\lambda `$).

First note that by the assumptions of the case

1. there is $`\overline{f}=f_\eta :\eta {}_{}{}^{\kappa }\lambda `$ such that

1. $`f_\eta `$ is a function from $`\underset{\epsilon <\kappa }{}(\{\eta \epsilon \}\times \mu )`$ into $`\lambda `$
    2. if $`f`$ is a function from $`({}_{}{}^{\kappa >}\lambda )\times \mu `$ to $`\lambda `$ then we can find $`\nu _\rho :\rho {}_{}{}^{\kappa }\lambda `$ such that
    3. $`(i)\nu _\rho {}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}g(\rho )}\lambda `$
    4. $`(ii)\rho _1\rho _2\nu _{\rho _1}\nu _{\rho _2}`$
    5. $`(iii)`$ if $`\alpha <\beta <\lambda `$ and $`\rho {}_{}{}^{\kappa >}\lambda `$ then $`\nu _{\rho \mathrm{^}\alpha }\nu _{\rho \mathrm{^}\beta }`$
    6. $`(iv)f_{\nu _\rho }f`$ for $`\rho {}_{}{}^{\kappa }\lambda `$.

We commit ourselves to

1. $`(a)U^G=({}_{}{}^{\kappa >}\lambda )\times \mu `$ and $`V^G=\{(\eta ,i):\eta {}_{}{}^{\kappa }\lambda ,i<\lambda \}`$
2. $`(b)R^G=\{R_\eta ^G:\eta {}_{}{}^{\kappa }\lambda \}`$ where
3. $`(c)R_\eta ^G\{((\eta \epsilon ,j),(\eta ,i)):j<\mu ,i<\lambda ,\epsilon <\kappa \}`$.

We say $`\eta {}_{}{}^{\kappa }\lambda `$ is $`G^{}`$-reasonable if $`f_\eta `$ is one to one and for every $`\zeta <\kappa `$ and $`yV^G^{}`$ the set $`\{(\eta \epsilon ,j):\epsilon <\zeta ,j<\mu `$ and $`f_\eta ((\eta \epsilon ,j))`$ is $`G^{}`$-connected to $`y\}`$ has cardinality $`<\kappa `$. We decide

1. $`(a)`$ if $`\eta `$ is not $`G^{}`$-reasonable then $`R_\eta ^G=\mathrm{}`$
2. $`(b)`$ if $`\eta `$ is $`G^{}`$-reasonable let $`\beta _{\eta ,i}:i<\alpha _\eta `$ list without repetitions the

set $`\{\beta <\lambda :\beta `$ is $`G^{}`$-connected to at least $`\kappa `$ members of

Rang$`(f_\eta )\}`$; and let $`A_{\eta ,i}=\{(\epsilon ,j):\epsilon <\kappa ,j<\mu `$ and $`f_\eta ((\eta \epsilon ,j))`$

is $`G^{}`$-connected to $`\beta _{\eta ,i}\}`$; clearly $`A_{\eta ,i}\text{ set}(\mu ,\kappa )`$ and

let $`\overline{A}_\eta =A_{\eta ,i}:i<\alpha _\eta `$
3. $`(c)`$ as $`\overline{A}_\eta `$ cannot guarantee Qr$`{}_{x}{}^{}(\lambda ,\mu ,\theta ,\kappa )`$ necessarily there is

$`\overline{A}_\eta ^{}=A_{\eta ,i}^{}:i<\alpha _\eta ^{}`$ exemplifying this so $`\alpha _\eta ^{}\lambda `$ and let

$`R_\eta ^G=\{((\eta \epsilon ,j),(\eta ,i)):i<\alpha _\eta ^{},`$ and $`(\epsilon ,j)A_{\eta ,i}^{}\}`$.

The rest should be clear; for every $`f:{}_{}{}^{\kappa >}\lambda \lambda `$ letting $`\nu _\rho :\rho {}_{}{}^{\kappa }\lambda `$ be as in $``$ above, for some $`\rho {}_{}{}^{\kappa }\lambda ,\nu _\rho `$ is $`G^{}`$-reasonable.

Case 3: $`\mu =\kappa `$.

Left to the reader (as after Case 1,2 it should be clear).

3) As in the proof of 2.6(4), it follows that there is $`\overline{f}`$ as needed. ∎

###### Claim 4.4.

1) NQr$`{}_{\text{st}}{}^{}(2^\kappa ,\kappa ,2^\kappa ,\kappa )`$.

2) If $`\lambda =\theta =2^\kappa `$ then in $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }`$ there is no ste-universal even for members of $`_{\lambda ,\theta ,\kappa }^{\text{sbp}}`$.

###### Proof..

1) Think.

2) By part (1) and 4.3. ∎

###### Claim 4.5.

1) Assume $`\kappa <\lambda `$ and Qr$`{}_{x}{}^{}(\lambda ,1,\lambda ,\kappa )`$ and $`_{(\lambda ,\kappa ),\lambda ,\kappa }^{\text{sbp}}\mathrm{}`$, then$`_{(\lambda ,\kappa ),\lambda ,\kappa }^{\text{sbp}}=_{(\lambda ,\kappa ),\lambda ,\kappa }^{\text{bp}}`$ has a $`x`$-universal member.

###### Proof..

Read the definitions. ∎

## 5. Independence results on existence of large almost disjoint families

This deals with a question of Shafir

###### Definition 5.1.

1) Let Pr$`{}_{2}{}^{}(\mu ,\kappa ,\theta ,\sigma )`$ mean: there is $`𝒜[\kappa ]^\kappa `$ such that

1. $`|𝒜|=\mu `$
2. if $`A_i𝒜`$ for $`i<\theta `$ and $`ijA_iA_j`$ then $`|\underset{i<\theta }{}A_i|<\sigma `$.

If we omit $`\sigma `$ we mean $`\kappa `$, if we omit $`\mu `$ we mean $`2^\kappa `$.

###### Claim 5.2.

Pr$`{}_{2}{}^{}(,,,)`$ has obvious monotonicity properties.

###### Claim 5.3.

Assume

1. $`\sigma =\sigma ^{<\sigma }<\kappa =\kappa ^\sigma =\text{cf}(\kappa )`$ and $`(\alpha <\kappa )(|\alpha |^{<\sigma }<\kappa )`$ and $`2^\kappa =\kappa ^+<\chi `$ (so $`\kappa ^{++}\chi `$).

Then for some forcing notion $``$

1. $`||=\chi ^\kappa `$
2. $``$ satisfies the $`\kappa ^{++}`$-c.c.
3. $``$ is $`\sigma `$-complete
4. $``$ neither collapses cardinals nor changes cofinalities
5. in $`𝕍^{}`$ we have $`2^\sigma =\chi ^\sigma ,2^\kappa =\chi ^\kappa `$
6. in $`𝕍^{}`$ we have Pr$`{}_{2}{}^{}(\chi ,\kappa ,\sigma ^+,\sigma )`$ but $`\neg \text{Pr}_2(\kappa ^{++},\kappa ,\kappa ,\theta )`$ for $`\theta <\sigma `$ recalling 5.2.

###### Proof..

The forcing is as in a special case of the $``$ one in \[Sh:918, §2\], see history there. Let $`E`$ be the following equivalence relation on $`\chi `$

$$\alpha E\beta \alpha +\kappa =\beta +\kappa .$$

We define the partial order $`=(P,)`$ by

$$\begin{array}{cccc}P=\{f:& f\text{ is a partial function from }\chi \text{ to }\{0,1\}\hfill & & \\ & \text{ with domain of cardinality }\kappa \text{ such that}\hfill & & \\ & (\alpha <\chi )(|\text{Dom}(f)(\alpha /E)|<\sigma )\}\hfill & & \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{cccc}f_1f_2\text{ }\text{iff}\text{ }& f_1,f_2P,f_1f_2\text{ and}\hfill & & \\ & \sigma >|\{\alpha \text{ Dom}(f_1):f_1(\alpha /E)f_2(\alpha /E)\}|.\hfill & & \end{array}$$

We define two additional partial orders on $`P`$:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}f_1_{\text{pr}}f_2\text{ }\text{iff}\text{ }& f_1f_2\text{ and }f_1,f_2\text{ and}\hfill & & \\ & (\alpha \text{ Dom}(f_1))[f_1(\alpha /E)=f_2(\alpha /E)].\hfill & & \end{array}$$

$$f_1_{\text{apr}}f_2\text{ iff }f_1,f_2,f_1f_2\text{ and Dom}(f_2)\{\alpha /E:\alpha \text{ Dom}(f_1)\}.$$

We know (see there)

1. $``$ is $`\kappa ^{++}`$-c.c., $`||=\chi ^\kappa `$
2. $``$ is $`\sigma `$-complete and $`(P,_{\text{pr}})`$ is $`\kappa ^+`$-complete, in both cases the union of an increasing sequence forms an upper bound
3. for each $`p,\{q:p_{\text{apr}}q\}`$ is $`\sigma ^+`$-c.c. of cardinality $`\kappa ^\sigma =\kappa `$ and $`\sigma `$-complete
4. if $`pr`$ then for some $`q,q^{}`$ we have $`p_{\text{apr}}q_{\text{pr}}r`$ and $`p_{\text{pr}}q^{}_{\text{apr}}r`$; moreover $`q`$ is unique we denote it by inter$`(p,r)`$
5. if p``τ

~
Ordκforces𝑝``fragmentsτ

~
superscriptOrd𝜅p\Vdash``\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}\in{}^{\kappa}\text{Ord}” then for some $`q`$ we have

1. $`p_{\text{pr}}q`$
    2. if $`\alpha <\kappa `$ and $`qr`$ and r``τ

    ~
    (α)=β"subscriptforces𝑟``fragmentsτ

    ~
    𝛼𝛽"r\Vdash_{\mathbb{P}}``\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}(\alpha)=\beta" then inter(q,r)``τ

    ~
    (α)=β"subscriptforces𝑞𝑟``fragmentsτ

    ~
    𝛼𝛽"(q,r)\Vdash_{\mathbb{P}}``\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}(\alpha)=\beta".

This gives that clauses (a),(b),(c),(d) of the conclusion hold. As for clause (e), $`2^\kappa \chi ^\kappa `$ follows from $`()_5+||=\chi ^\kappa `$ and $`2^\sigma \chi ^\sigma `$, too.

Define:

1. (a)f

~
:={p:pG

~
}assign𝑎fragmentsf

~
conditional-set𝑝𝑝subscriptfragmentsG

~
(a)\quad\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}:=\cup\{p:p\in{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle G$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle G$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle G$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle G$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{{\mathbb{P}}}}\}
2. (b)``f

~
=G

~
(b)\quad\Vdash_{\mathbb{P}}``\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}=\cup\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle G$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle G$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle G$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle G$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\mathbb{P}} is a function from $`\chi `$ to $`\{0,1\}\mathrm{"}`$
3. $`(c)`$ for $`\alpha <\chi `$ let A

~
α={γ<κ:f

~
(κα+γ)=1}subscriptfragmentsA

~
𝛼conditional-set𝛾𝜅fragmentsf

~
𝜅𝛼𝛾1\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}=\{\gamma<\kappa:\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}(\kappa\alpha+\gamma)=1\}.

Also easily

1. if p``τ

~
σforces𝑝``fragmentsτ

~
𝜎p\Vdash``\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}\subseteq\sigma” then for some $`u[\chi ]^\sigma `$ and $`\sigma `$-Borel funtion $`𝔹:{}_{}{}^{u}2{}_{}{}^{\sigma }2`$ and $`q`$ we have

$`p_{\text{pr}}q`$

q``τ

~
=𝔹(f

~
u)"forces𝑞``fragmentsτ

~
𝔹fragmentsf

~
𝑢"q\Vdash``\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\tau$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}=\mathbb{B}(\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}\restriction u)"
2. ``A

~
ακforcesabsent``subscriptfragmentsA

~
𝛼𝜅\Vdash``\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}\subseteq\kappa moreover γ<κ[γ,γ+σ)A

~
α𝛾𝜅𝛾𝛾𝜎subscriptfragmentsA

~
𝛼\gamma<\kappa\Rightarrow[\gamma,\gamma+\sigma)\cap\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}\neq\emptyset and [γ,γ+σ)A

~
αnot-subset-of-nor-equals𝛾𝛾𝜎subscriptfragmentsA

~
𝛼[\gamma,\gamma+\sigma)\nsubseteq\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha} and αβA

~
αA

~
β"𝛼𝛽subscriptfragmentsA

~
𝛼subscriptfragmentsA

~
𝛽"\alpha\neq\beta\Rightarrow\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}\neq\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\beta}".

\[Why? By density argument.\]

1. 𝒜:={A

~
α:α<χ}assign𝒜conditional-setsubscriptfragmentsA

~
𝛼𝛼𝜒{\mathcal{A}}:=\{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}:\alpha<\chi\} exemplifies Pr$`{}_{2}{}^{}(\chi ,\kappa ,\sigma ^+,\sigma )`$.

Why? By $`()_7+()_5(c)`$, $`𝒜[\kappa ]^\kappa ,|𝒜|=\chi `$ so we are left with proving clause (b) of 5.1; its proof will take awhile. So toward contradiction assume that for some $`p`$ and β

~
ζ:ζ<σ+\langle\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\zeta}:\zeta<\sigma^{+}\rangle we have

1. p``β

~
ζ<χ,β

~
ζβ

~
ξformulae-sequencesubscriptforces𝑝``subscriptfragmentsβ

~
𝜁𝜒subscriptfragmentsβ

~
𝜁subscriptfragmentsβ

~
𝜉p\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}}``{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\zeta}}<\chi,\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\zeta}\neq\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\xi} for $`\zeta <\xi <\kappa ^+`$ and |ζ<σ+A

~
βζ|σ"subscript𝜁superscript𝜎subscriptfragmentsA

~
subscript𝛽𝜁𝜎"|\bigcap_{\zeta<\sigma^{+}}\,\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\beta_{\zeta}}|\geq\sigma".

By induction on $`\zeta \sigma ^+`$ we choose $`p_\zeta `$ such that:

1. $`(\alpha )p_0=p`$
2. $`(\beta )p_\zeta `$ is $`_{\text{pr}}`$-increasing continuous
3. $`(\gamma )`$ there is $`r_\zeta ^{}`$ such that $`p_{\zeta +1}_{\text{apr}}r_\zeta ^{}`$ and rζβ

~
ζ=βζforcessubscriptsuperscript𝑟𝜁subscriptfragmentsβ

~
𝜁subscriptsuperscript𝛽𝜁r^{\prime}_{\zeta}\Vdash\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\zeta}=\beta^{*}_{\zeta}
4. $`(\delta )`$ Dom$`(p_{\zeta +2})(\beta _\zeta ^{}/E)\mathrm{}`$.

No problem because $`(P,_{\text{pr}})`$ is $`\kappa ^+`$-complete and $`\sigma ^+<\kappa ^+`$ and $`()_3`$.

Let666if we define $``$ such that it is only $`\kappa `$-complete, we first choose $`y_2,u_3,u^{},v_\zeta ,v^{}`$ and then $`q=p_{\zeta ()}`$ for $`\zeta ()=\text{ min}\{\zeta <\sigma ^+:|\zeta y|=\sigma \}`$ $`q=p_{\sigma ^+}`$.

We can find $`r_\zeta ,\beta _\zeta ^{}`$ for $`\zeta <\sigma ^+`$ such that $`q_{\text{apr}}r_\zeta `$ and rζβ

~
ζ=βζforcessubscript𝑟𝜁subscriptfragmentsβ

~
𝜁subscriptsuperscript𝛽𝜁r_{\zeta}\Vdash\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\zeta}=\beta^{*}_{\zeta}. Let $`u_\zeta =\text{ Dom}(r_\zeta )\backslash \text{ Dom}(q)`$, so $`|u_\zeta |<\sigma `$ by the definition of $`_{\text{apr}}`$. By the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-system lemma, recalling $`\sigma =\sigma ^{<\sigma }`$ there is $`Y\sigma ^+,|Y|=\sigma ^+`$ and $`u^{}`$ such that for $`\zeta <\xi `$ from $`Y`$ we have $`u_\zeta u_\xi =u^{}`$. Without loss of generality $`\zeta Yr_\zeta u^{}=r^{}`$. Let $`v_\zeta =\{\gamma <\kappa :\kappa \beta _\zeta ^{}+\gamma \text{ Dom}(r_{\zeta +2})\}`$ so $`v_\zeta [\kappa ]^{<\sigma }`$.

Possibly further shrinking $`Y`$ without loss of generality

$$\zeta \xi \text{ from }Yv_\zeta v_\xi =v^{}.$$

So $`v^{}[\kappa ]^{<\sigma }`$ (in fact follows).

Let $`\zeta ()=\text{ Min}(Y)`$.

We claim

rζ()``ζ<σ+A

~
β

~
ζv".forcessubscript𝑟𝜁``subscript𝜁superscript𝜎subscriptfragmentsA

~
subscriptfragmentsβ

~
𝜁superscript𝑣"r_{\zeta(*)}\Vdash``\bigcap\limits_{\zeta<\sigma^{+}}{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\zeta}}}\subseteq v^{*}".
As $`pr_{\zeta ()}`$ this suffices.

Toward contradiction assume that $`r,\alpha `$ are such that

1. $`r_{\zeta ()}r`$ and r``αζ<σ+A

~
β

~
ζ"forces𝑟``𝛼subscript𝜁superscript𝜎subscriptfragmentsA

~
subscriptfragmentsβ

~
𝜁"r\Vdash``\alpha\in\bigcap\limits_{\zeta<\sigma^{+}}\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\zeta}}".

Recall clause $`(\delta )`$ of $`_2`$ (and $`\zeta <\sigma ^+p_\zeta _{\text{pr}}p_{\sigma ^+}=q`$), we know $`\zeta <\sigma ^+\text{ Dom}(q)(\beta _\zeta ^{}/E)\mathrm{}`$ and, of course, $`qr_{\zeta ()}r`$ so by the definition of $``$ in $``$, for every $`\xi <\sigma ^+`$ large enough

1. $`(a)(\beta _\xi ^{}/E)\text{ Dom}(r_\xi )\backslash \text{Dom}(r_{\zeta ()})=\mathrm{}`$ hence
2. $`(b)r,r_\xi `$ are compatible functions (hence conditions)
3. $`(c)\alpha v_\zeta `$.

Let $`r^+=rr_\zeta \{\kappa \beta _\zeta ^{}+\alpha ,0\}`$.

So easily

1. $`(a)rr^+`$
2. (b)rζr+ hence r+"β

~
ζ=βζ"𝑏subscript𝑟𝜁superscript𝑟 hence superscript𝑟forces"subscriptfragmentsβ

~
𝜁subscriptsuperscript𝛽𝜁"(b)\quad r_{\zeta}\leq r^{+}\text{ hence }r^{+}\Vdash"\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\zeta}=\beta^{*}_{\zeta}"
3. (c)r+``αA

~
β

~
ζ"forces𝑐superscript𝑟``𝛼subscriptfragmentsA

~
subscriptsuperscriptfragmentsβ

~
𝜁"(c)\quad r^{+}\Vdash``\alpha\notin\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle A$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\beta$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{*}_{\zeta}}".

So we have gotten a contradiction thus proving $`()_8`$.

1. $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}\neg \text{Pr}_2(\kappa ^{++},\kappa ,\theta ,\theta )`$ if $`\theta <\sigma \mathrm{"}`$.

Why? So toward contradiction suppose p``𝒜

~
={B

~
α:α<κ++}[κ]κforcessuperscript𝑝``fragmentsA

~
conditional-setsubscriptfragmentsB

~
𝛼𝛼superscript𝜅absentsuperscriptdelimited-[]𝜅𝜅p^{*}\Vdash``\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathcal{A}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathcal{A}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathcal{A}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{A}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}=\{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle B$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle B$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle B$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle B$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}:\alpha<\kappa^{++}\}\subseteq[\kappa]^{\kappa} exemplifies Pr$`{}_{2}{}^{}(\kappa ^{++},\kappa ,\theta ,\theta )\mathrm{"}`$.

For each $`\alpha <\kappa ^{++}`$ we can find $`p_\alpha `$ such that $`\overline{p},\overline{r}`$ and then $`S,q`$:

1. $`(a)\overline{p}=p_{\alpha ,i}:i\kappa `$ is $`_{\text{pr}}`$-increasing continuous (in $``$)
2. $`(b)p_0=p^{}`$
3. $`(c)p_{\alpha ,i}r_{\alpha ,i}`$ and rα,i``γα,iB

~
α\i"subscriptforcessubscript𝑟𝛼𝑖``subscript𝛾𝛼𝑖\subscriptfragmentsB

~
𝛼𝑖"r_{\alpha,i}\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}}``\gamma_{\alpha,i}\in\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle B$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle B$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle B$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle B$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}\backslash i"
4. $`(d)p_{\alpha ,i}_{\text{pr}}p_{\alpha ,i+1}_{\text{ap}}r_{\alpha ,i}`$
5. $`(e)S_\alpha \kappa `$ is stationary
6. $`(f)v_{\alpha ,i}:=\text{ Dom}(r_{\alpha ,i})\backslash \text{ Dom}(p_{\alpha ,i+1}):iS`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-system with heart

$`v_\alpha `$, so $`|v_\alpha |<\sigma `$
7. $`(g)r_{\alpha ,i}v_\alpha :is`$ is constantly $`r_\alpha `$
8. $`(h)p_\alpha =p_{\alpha ,\kappa }r_\alpha `$ so $`p_\kappa q`$.

Let $`u_\alpha =\{\beta /E:\beta \text{ Dom}(p_\alpha )\}`$ so $`u_\alpha [\chi ]^\kappa `$ and Dom$`(r_{\alpha ,i})u_\alpha `$ for $`i<\kappa `$. For some $`Y[\kappa ^{++}]^{\kappa ^{++}}`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}<\kappa ^+`$ and stationary $`S\kappa `$ and $`\overline{\gamma }=\gamma _i:iS`$ we have

1. if $`\alpha Y`$ then otp$`(u_\alpha )=\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$ and $`S_\alpha =S`$ and $`\gamma _{\alpha ,i}:iS=\overline{\gamma }`$.

Let $`g_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ be the order preserving function from $`u_\beta `$ onto $`u_\alpha `$.

Again as $`2^\kappa =\kappa ^+`$ without loss of generality

1. For $`\alpha ,\beta Y`$

1. $`p_\beta =p_\alpha g_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ and $`p_{\beta ,i}=p_{\alpha ,i}g_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ and $`r_{\beta ,i}=r_{\alpha ,i}g_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ for $`i<\kappa `$
    2. $`u_\alpha u_\beta =u_{}`$ for $`\alpha <\beta <\kappa ^{++}`$
    3. $`g_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is the identity on $`u_{}`$

and

1. if $`p_\alpha _{\text{apr}}r_\alpha ,p_\beta _{\text{apr}}r_\beta ,r_\beta =r_\alpha g_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ and $`\gamma <\kappa `$ then

1. rα``γB

    ~
    α"rβ``γB

    ~
    γ"forcessubscript𝑟𝛼``𝛾subscriptfragmentsB

    ~
    𝛼"forcessubscript𝑟𝛽``𝛾subscriptfragmentsB

    ~
    𝛾"r_{\alpha}\Vdash``\gamma\in\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle B$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle B$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle B$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle B$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}"\Leftrightarrow r_{\beta}\Vdash``\gamma\in\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle B$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle B$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle B$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle B$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\gamma}"
    2. rα"γB

    ~
    α"rβ``γB

    ~
    γ"forcessubscript𝑟𝛼"𝛾subscriptfragmentsB

    ~
    𝛼"forcessubscript𝑟𝛽``𝛾subscriptfragmentsB

    ~
    𝛾"r_{\alpha}\Vdash"\gamma\notin\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle B$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle B$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle B$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle B$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}"\Leftrightarrow r_{\beta}\Vdash``\gamma\notin\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle B$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle B$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle B$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle B$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\gamma}".

Choose $`\beta _\epsilon :\epsilon <\kappa ^{++}`$ an increasing sequence of ordinals from $`Y`$.

Let $`p^{}=\underset{\epsilon <\theta }{}p_{\beta _\epsilon }`$ and $`\zeta ()=\beta _\theta `$.

So:

1. $`(a)\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}p^{}p_{\beta _\epsilon }<q^{}\mathrm{"}`$ for $`\epsilon <\theta `$
2. $`(b)`$ if $`p^{}q`$ then for each $`\epsilon <\theta `$ for every large enough $`iS`$, the

conditions $`q,r_{\beta _\epsilon ,i}`$ are compatible hence
3. $`(c)`$ if $`q^{}q`$ then for every large enough $`iS`$ the universal $`q^+=`$

$`q\{r_{\beta _\epsilon ,i}:\epsilon <\theta \}`$ is a well defined function, belongs to $``$

and is common upper bound of $`\{r_{\beta _\epsilon ,i}:\epsilon <\theta \}q`$

hence force $`\gamma _iB_{\beta _\epsilon }`$ for $`\epsilon <\theta `$.

As $`\gamma _ii`$ clearly

1. $`q^{}\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}\underset{\epsilon <\theta }{}B_{\beta _\epsilon }`$ is unbounded in $`\kappa `$ hence has cardinality $`\kappa \mathrm{"}`$.