format: text

text:
# Sheva–Sheva–Sheva: Large Creatures

## 0. Introduction

The present paper has two themes.

The first is related to the quest for the right generalization of properness to higher cardinals (that is, for a property of forcing notions that would play in iterations with uncountable supports similar role to that of standard properness in CS iterations). The evidence that there is no straightforward generalization of properness to larger cardinals was given already in Shelah  (see \[19, Appendix 3.6(2)\]). Substantial progress has been achieved in Shelah , , but the properties there were tailored for generalizing the case no new reals of \[19, Ch. V\]. Then Rosłanowski and Shelah  gave an iterable condition for not collapsing $`\lambda ^+`$ in $`\lambda `$–support iterations of $`\lambda `$–complete forcing notions (with possibly adding subsets of $`\lambda `$). Very recently Eisworth  has given another property preserved in $`\lambda `$–support iterations (and implying that $`\lambda ^+`$ is not collapsed). At the moment it is not clear if the two properties (the one of  and that of ) are equivalent, though they have similar flavour. However, the existing iterable properties still do not cover many examples of natural forcing notions, specially those which come naturally in the context of $`\lambda `$–reals. This brings us to the second theme: developing the forcing for $`\lambda `$–reals.

A number of cardinal characteristics related to the Baire space $`{}_{}{}^{\omega }\omega `$, the Cantor space $`{}_{}{}^{\omega }2`$ and/or the combinatorial structure of $`[\omega ]^\omega `$ can be extended to the spaces $`{}_{}{}^{\lambda }\lambda ,{}_{}{}^{\lambda }2`$ and $`[\lambda ]^\lambda `$ for any infinite cardinal $`\lambda `$. Following the tradition of Set Theory of the Reals we may call cardinal numbers defined this way for $`{}_{}{}^{\lambda }\lambda `$ (and related spaces) cardinal characteristics of $`\lambda `$–reals. The menagerie of those characteristics seems to be much larger than the one for the continuum. But to decide if the various definitions lead to different (and interesting) cardinals we need a well developed forcing technology.

There has been a serious interest in cardinal characteristics of the $`\lambda `$–reals in literature. For example, Cummings and Shelah  investigates the natural generalizations $`𝔟_\lambda `$ of the unbounded number and the dominating number $`𝔡_\lambda `$, giving simple constraints on the triple of cardinals $`(𝔟_\lambda ,𝔡_\lambda ,2^\lambda )`$ and proving that any triple of cardinals obeying these constraints can be realized. In a somewhat parallel work , Shelah and Spasojevič study $`𝔟_\lambda `$ and the generalization $`𝔱_\lambda `$ of the tower number. Zapletal  investigated the splitting number $`𝔰_\lambda `$ – here the situation is really complicated as the inequality $`𝔰_\lambda >\lambda ^+`$ needs large cardinals. One of the sources of interest in characteristics of the $`\lambda `$–reals is their relevance for our understanding of the club filter on $`\lambda `$ (or the dual ideal on non-stationary subsets of $`\lambda `$) – see, e.g., Balcar and Simon \[2, §5\], Landver , Matet and Pawlikowski , Matet, Rosłanowski and Shelah . First steps toward developing forcing for $`\lambda `$–reals has been done long time ago: in 1980 Kanamori  presented a systematic treatment of the $`\lambda `$–perfect–set forcing in products and iterations. Recently, Brown ,  discussed the $`\lambda `$–superperfect forcing and other tree–like forcing notions.

Our aim in this paper is to provide tools for building forcing notions relevant for $`\lambda `$–reals (continuing in this Rosłanowski and Shelah , ) and give suitable iteration theorems (thus continuing Rosłanowski and Shelah ). However, we restrict our attention to the case when $`\lambda `$ is a strongly inaccessible uncountable cardinal (after all, $`\mathrm{}_0`$ is inaccessible), see 0.3 below.

The structure of the paper is as follows. It is divided into two parts, first one presents iteration theorems, the second one gives examples and applications. In Section A.1 we present some basic notions and methods relevant for iterating $`\lambda `$–complete forcing notions. The next section, A.2, presents preservation of $`\lambda `$–analogue of the Sacks property (in Theorem A.2.3) as well as preservation of being $`{}_{}{}^{\lambda }\lambda `$–bounding (in Theorem A.2.6). Section A.3 introduces fuzzy properness, a more complicated variant of properness over semi-diamonds from . Of course, we prove a suitable iteration theorem (see Theorem A.3.10). Then we give examples for the properties discussed in Part A. We start with showing that a forcing notion useful for uniformization is fuzzy proper (in Section B.4), and then we turn to developing forcing notions built with the use of trees and creatures. In Section B.5 we set the terminology and notation, and in the next section we discuss when the resulting forcing notions have the two bounding properties discussed in §A.2. Section B.7 shows how our methods result in suitably proper forcing notions, and the last section introduces some new characteristics of the $`\lambda `$–reals.

Notation Our notation is rather standard and compatible with that of classical textbooks (like Jech ). In forcing we keep the older convention that a stronger condition is the larger one. Our main conventions are listed below.

###### Notation 0.1.

1. For a forcing notion $``$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ stands for the canonical $``$–name for the generic filter in $``$. With this one exception, all $``$–names for objects in the extension via $``$ will be denoted with a tilde below (e.g.,   $`\tau `$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$  ,   $`X`$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$  ). The weakest element of $``$ will be denoted by $`\mathrm{}_{}`$ (and we will always assume that there is one, and that there is no other condition equivalent to it). We will also assume that all forcing notions under considerations are atomless.

By “$`\lambda `$–support iterations” we mean iterations in which domains of conditions are of size $`\lambda `$. However, we will pretend that conditions in a $`\lambda `$–support iteration ¯=ζ,

~
ζ:ζ<ζ\bar{{\mathbb{Q}}}=\langle{\mathbb{P}}_{\zeta},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\zeta}:\zeta<\zeta^{*}\rangle are total functions on $`\zeta ^{}`$ and for $`plim(\overline{})`$ and $`\alpha \zeta ^{}\mathrm{Dom}(p)`$ we will let p(α)=

~

~
α𝑝𝛼subscript

~
subscript

~
𝛼p(\alpha)=\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\emptyset$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\emptyset$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\emptyset$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\emptyset$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}}.
2. For a filter $`D`$ on $`\lambda `$, the family of all $`D`$–positive subsets of $`\lambda `$ is called $`D^+`$. (So $`AD^+`$ if and only if $`A\lambda `$ and $`AB\mathrm{}`$ for all $`BD`$.)

The club filter of $`\lambda `$ is denoted by $`𝒟_\lambda `$.
3. Ordinal numbers will be denoted be the lower case initial letters of the Greek alphabet ($`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta \mathrm{}`$) and also by $`i,j`$ (with possible sub- and superscripts).

Cardinal numbers will be called $`\theta ,\kappa ,\lambda ,\mu `$ (with possible sub- and superscripts); $`\lambda `$ is a fixed inaccessible cardinal (see 0.3).
4. By $`\chi `$ we will denote a sufficiently large regular cardinal; $`(\chi )`$ is the family of all sets hereditarily of size less than $`\chi `$. Moreover, we fix a well ordering $`<_\chi ^{}`$ of $`(\chi )`$.
5. A bar above a letter denotes that the object considered is a sequence; usually $`\overline{X}`$ will be $`X_i:i<\zeta `$, where $`\zeta `$ is the length $`\mathrm{lh}(\overline{X})`$ of $`\overline{X}`$. Sometimes our sequences will be indexed by a set of ordinals, say $`S\lambda `$, and then $`\overline{X}`$ will typically be $`X_\delta :\delta S`$.

But also, $`\eta ,\nu `$ and $`\rho `$ (with possible sub- and superscripts) will denote sequences (nodes in quasi trees).

For two sequences $`\eta ,\nu `$ we write $`\nu \mathrm{}\eta `$ whenever $`\nu `$ is a proper initial segment of $`\eta `$, and $`\nu \mathrm{}\eta `$ when either $`\nu \mathrm{}\eta `$ or $`\nu =\eta `$.
6. We will consider several games of two players. One player will be called Generic or Complete or just I player, and we will refer to this player as “she”. Her opponent will be called Antigeneric or Incomplete or just II player and will be referred to as “he”.

###### Definition 0.2.

1. A $`\lambda `$–quasi tree is a set $`T`$ of sequences of length $`<\lambda `$ with the $`\mathrm{}`$–smallest element denoted by $`\mathrm{root}(T)`$.
2. A $`\lambda `$–quasi tree $`T`$ is a $`\lambda `$–tree if it is closed under initial segments longer then $`\mathrm{lh}(\mathrm{root}(T))`$.
3. A $`\lambda `$–quasi tree is complete if the union of any $`\mathrm{}`$–increasing sequence of length less than $`\lambda `$ of members of $`T`$ is in $`T`$.
4. For a $`\lambda `$–quasi tree $`T`$ and $`\eta T`$ we define the successors of $`\eta `$ in $`T`$, maximal points of $`T`$, the restriction of $`T`$ to $`\eta `$, and the height of $`T`$ by:

$$\mathrm{succ}_T(\eta )=\{\nu T:\eta \mathrm{}\nu \&\neg (\rho T)(\eta \mathrm{}\rho \mathrm{}\nu )\},$$

$$\mathrm{max}(T)=\{\nu T:\text{ there is no }\rho T\text{ such that }\nu \mathrm{}\rho \},$$

$$T^{[\eta ]}=\{\nu T:\eta \mathrm{}\nu \},\text{ and }\mathrm{ht}(T)=sup\{\mathrm{lh}(\eta ):\eta T\}.$$

We put $`\widehat{T}=T\mathrm{max}(T)`$.
5. For $`\delta <\lambda `$ and a $`\lambda `$–quasi tree $`T`$ we let

$$(T)_\delta =\{\eta T:\mathrm{lh}(\eta )=\delta \}\text{ and }(T)_{<\delta }=\{\eta T:\mathrm{lh}(\eta )<\delta \}.$$

The set of all limit $`\lambda `$–branches through $`T`$ is

$$\underset{\lambda }{lim}(T)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\{\eta :\eta \text{ is a }\lambda \text{–sequence }\text{ and }(\beta <\lambda )(\alpha >\beta )(\eta \alpha T)\}.$$
6. A subset $`F`$ of a $`\lambda `$–quasi tree $`T`$ is a front of $`T`$ if no two distinct members of $`F`$ are $`\mathrm{}`$–comparable and

$$(\eta \underset{\lambda }{lim}(T)\mathrm{max}(T))(\alpha <\lambda )(\eta \alpha F).$$

Note that if $`T`$ is a complete $`\lambda `$–quasi tree of height $`<\lambda `$, then $`\mathrm{max}(T)`$ is a front of $`T`$ and every $`\mathrm{}`$–increasing sequence of members of $`T`$ has a $`\mathrm{}`$–upper bound in $`\mathrm{max}(T)`$.

In the present paper we assume the following.

###### Context 0.3.

1. $`\lambda `$ is a strongly inaccessible cardinal,
2. $`\overline{\lambda }=\lambda _\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$ is a strictly increasing sequence of uncountable regular cardinals, $`\underset{\alpha <\lambda }{sup}\lambda _\alpha =\lambda `$,
3. for each $`\alpha <\lambda `$,

$$\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}\lambda _\beta <\lambda _\alpha \text{ and }(\xi <\lambda _\alpha )(|\xi |^\alpha <\lambda _\alpha ).$$

Part A

Iteration theorems for $`\lambda `$–support iterations

## A.1. Iterations of complete forcing notions and trees of conditions

In this section we recall some basic definitions and facts concerning complete forcing notions and $`\lambda `$–support iterations.

###### Definition A.1.1.

Let $``$ be a forcing notion.

1. For a condition $`r`$ and a set $`S\lambda `$, let $`\mathrm{}_0^\lambda (,S,r)`$ be the following game of two players, Complete and Incomplete:

> the game lasts $`\lambda `$ moves and during a play the players construct a sequence $`(p_i,q_i):i<\lambda `$ of pairs of conditions from $``$ in such a way that $`(j<i<\lambda )(rp_jq_jp_i)`$ and at the stage $`i<\lambda `$ of the game:
> if $`iS`$, then Complete chooses $`p_i`$ and Incomplete chooses $`q_i`$, and
> if $`iS`$, then Incomplete chooses $`p_i`$ and Complete chooses $`q_i`$.

Complete wins if and only if for every $`i<\lambda `$ there are legal moves for both players.
2. We say that the forcing notion $``$ is $`(\lambda ,S)`$–strategically complete if Complete has a winning strategy in the game $`\mathrm{}_0^\lambda (,S,r)`$ for each condition $`r`$. We say that $``$ is strategically $`(<\lambda )`$–complete if it is $`(\lambda ,\mathrm{})`$–strategically complete.
3. We say that $``$ is $`\lambda `$–complete if every $`_{}`$–increasing chain of length less than $`\lambda `$ has an upper bound in $``$.
4. Let $`N((\chi ),,<_\chi ^{})`$ be a model such that $`{}_{}{}^{<\lambda }NN`$, $`|N|=\lambda `$ and $`N`$. We say that a condition $`p`$ is $`(N,)`$–generic in the standard sense (or just: $`(N,)`$–generic) if for every $``$–name τ

~
N𝜏

~
𝑁\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 N for an ordinal we have $`p`$τ

~
N𝜏

~
𝑁\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 N ”.
5. $``$ is $`\lambda `$–proper in the standard sense (or just: $`\lambda `$–proper) if there is $`x(\chi )`$ such that for every model $`N((\chi ),,<_\chi ^{})`$ satisfying

$${}_{}{}^{<\lambda }NN,|N|=\lambda \text{ and },xN,$$

and every condition $`qN`$ there is an $`(N,)`$–generic condition $`p`$ stronger than $`q`$.

###### Remark A.1.2.

1. On strategic completeness (and variants) see \[16, §A.1\]. Plainly, $`\lambda `$–completeness implies strategic $`(<\lambda )`$–completeness.
2. Note that if $``$ is strategically $`(<\lambda )`$–complete and $`D`$ is a normal filter on $`\lambda `$, then in $`𝐕^{}`$ the filter $`D`$ generates a proper normal filter on $`\lambda `$. \[Abusing notation, we may call this filter also by $`D`$.\]

###### Proposition A.1.3.

Suppose that $``$ is a $`(<\lambda )`$–strategically complete (atomless) forcing notion, $`\alpha ^{}<\lambda `$ and $`q_\alpha `$ (for $`\alpha <\alpha ^{}`$). Then there are conditions $`p_\alpha `$ (for $`\alpha <\alpha ^{}`$) such that $`q_\alpha p_\alpha `$ and for distinct $`\alpha ,\alpha ^{}<\alpha ^{}`$ the conditions $`p_\alpha ,p_\alpha ^{}`$ are incompatible.

###### Proof.

For $`\alpha <\alpha ^{}`$ let $`\mathrm{st}_\alpha `$ be the winning strategy of Complete in the game $`\mathrm{}_0^\lambda (,\mathrm{},q_\alpha )`$. By induction on $`i<\alpha ^{}`$ we define conditions $`q_\alpha ^i,p_\alpha ^i`$ as follows:

$`p_0^0=q_0`$, $`q_0^0`$ is the answer of Complete to $`p_0^0`$ according to $`\mathrm{st}_0`$, $`q_\alpha ^0=p_\alpha ^0=q_\alpha `$ for $`\alpha >0`$.

Suppose that conditions $`p_\alpha ^j,q_\alpha ^j`$ have been defined for $`j<i`$, $`\alpha <\alpha ^{}`$ (where $`i<\alpha ^{}`$) so that

1. $`(\alpha <\alpha ^{}<i)(q_\alpha ^\alpha ^{},q_\alpha ^{}^\alpha ^{}\text{ are incompatible })`$,
2. for each $`\alpha <i`$, $`(p_\alpha ^j,q_\alpha ^j):\alpha j<i`$ is a play of $`\mathrm{}_0^\lambda (,\mathrm{},q_\alpha )`$ in which Complete uses the strategy $`\mathrm{st}_\alpha `$, and
3. $`p_\alpha ^j=q_\alpha ^j=q_\alpha `$ for $`\alpha i>j`$.

For $`\alpha <i`$ let $`r_\alpha `$ be a condition stronger than all $`q_\alpha ^j`$ for $`j<i`$ (there is one by $`(\beta )`$). If every $`r_\alpha `$ (for $`\alpha <i`$) is incompatible with $`q_i`$, then we let $`p_\alpha ^i=r_\alpha `$ for $`\alpha <i`$, $`p_\alpha ^i=q_\alpha `$ for $`\alpha i`$. Otherwise, let $`\alpha _0<i`$ be the first such that $`r_{\alpha _0},q_i`$ are compatible. Then we may pick two incompatible conditions $`p_{\alpha _0}^i,p_i^i`$ above both $`r_{\alpha _0}`$ and $`q_i`$. Next we let $`p_\alpha ^i=r_\alpha `$ for $`\alpha <i`$, $`\alpha \alpha _0`$ and $`p_\alpha ^i=q_\alpha `$ for $`\alpha >i`$. Finally, for $`\alpha i`$, $`q_\alpha ^i`$ is defined as the answer of Complete according to $`\mathrm{st}_\alpha `$ to $`(p_\alpha ^j,q_\alpha ^j):j<i{}_{}{}^{}p_\alpha ^i`$, and $`q_\alpha ^i=q_\alpha `$ for $`\alpha >i`$.

After the inductive definition is carried out we may pick upper bounds $`p_\alpha `$ to $`q_\alpha ^j:j<\alpha ^{}`$ (for $`\alpha <\alpha ^{}`$; exist by $`(\beta )`$). The conditions $`p_\alpha `$ are pairwise incompatible by $`(\alpha )`$, so we are done. ∎

Both completeness and strategic completeness are preserved in iterations:

###### Proposition A.1.4.

Suppose that α,

~
α:α<ζ\langle{\mathbb{P}}_{\alpha},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}:\alpha<\zeta^{*}\rangle is a $`\lambda `$–support iteration such that for each $`\alpha <\zeta ^{}`$

$$__\alpha \text{“ }\begin{array}{c}\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{}\hfill \end{array}_\alpha \text{ is }\lambda \text{–complete. ”}$$

Then the forcing $`_\zeta ^{}`$ is $`\lambda `$–complete.

###### Proposition A.1.5.

Suppose ¯=i,

~
i:i<γ\bar{{\mathbb{Q}}}=\langle{\mathbb{P}}_{i},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i}:i<\gamma\rangle is a $`\lambda `$–support iteration and for each $`i<\gamma `$

$$__i\text{“ }\begin{array}{c}\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{}\hfill \end{array}_i\text{ is strategically }(<\lambda )\text{–complete ”.}$$

Then:

1. $`_\gamma `$ is strategically $`(<\lambda )`$–complete.
2. Moreover, for each $`\epsilon \gamma `$ and $`r_\epsilon `$ there is a winning strategy $`\mathrm{st}(\epsilon ,r)`$ of Complete in the game $`\mathrm{}_0^\lambda (_\epsilon ,\mathrm{},r)`$ such that, whenever $`\epsilon _0<\epsilon _1\gamma `$ and $`r_{\epsilon _1}`$, we have:

1. if $`(p_i,q_i):i<\lambda `$ is a play of $`\mathrm{}_0^\lambda (_{\epsilon _0},\mathrm{},r\epsilon _0)`$ in which Complete follows the strategy $`\mathrm{st}(\epsilon _0,r\epsilon _0)`$,

    then $`(p_i{}_{}{}^{}r[\epsilon _0,\epsilon _1),q_i{}_{}{}^{}r[\epsilon _0,\epsilon _1)):i<\lambda `$ is a play of $`\mathrm{}_0^\lambda (_{\epsilon _1},\mathrm{},r)`$ in which Complete uses $`\mathrm{st}(\epsilon _1,r)`$;
    2. if $`(p_i,q_i):i<\lambda `$ is a play of $`\mathrm{}_0^\lambda (_{\epsilon _1},\mathrm{},r)`$ in which Complete plays according to the strategy $`\mathrm{st}(\epsilon _1,r)`$,

    then $`(p_i\epsilon _0,q_i\epsilon _0):i<\lambda `$ is a play of $`\mathrm{}_0^\lambda (_{\epsilon _0},\mathrm{},r\epsilon _0)`$ in which Complete uses $`\mathrm{st}(\epsilon _0,r)`$;
    3. if $`(p_i,q_i):i<i^{}`$ is a partial play of $`\mathrm{}_0^\lambda (_{\epsilon _1},\mathrm{},r)`$ in which Complete uses $`\mathrm{st}(\epsilon _1,r)`$ and $`p^{}_{\epsilon _0}`$ is stronger than all $`p_i\epsilon _0`$ (for $`i<i^{}`$), then there is $`p^{}_{\epsilon _1}`$ such that $`p^{}=p^{}\epsilon _0`$ and $`p^{}p_i`$ for $`i<i^{}`$.

###### Definition A.1.6 (Compare \[16, A.3.3, A.3.2\]).

1. Let $`\alpha ,\gamma `$ be ordinals, $`\mathrm{}w\gamma `$. A standard $`(w,\alpha )^\gamma `$–tree is a pair $`𝒯=(T,\mathrm{rk})`$ such that

* $`\mathrm{rk}:Tw\{\gamma \}`$,
    * if $`tT`$ and $`\mathrm{rk}(t)=\epsilon `$, then $`t`$ is a sequence $`(t)_\zeta :\zeta w\epsilon `$, where each $`(t)_\zeta `$ is a sequence of length $`\alpha `$,
    * $`(T,\mathrm{})`$ is a tree with root $``$ and such that every chain in $`T`$ has a $`\mathrm{}`$–upper bound it $`T`$.

We will keep the convention that $`𝒯_y^x`$ is $`(T_y^x,\mathrm{rk}_y^x)`$.
2. Suppose that $`w_0w_1\gamma `$, $`\alpha _0\alpha _1`$, and $`𝒯_1=(T_1,\mathrm{rk}_1)`$ is a standard $`(w_1,\alpha _1)^\gamma `$–tree. The projection $`\mathrm{proj}_{(w_0,\alpha _0)}^{(w_1,\alpha _1)}(𝒯_1)`$ of $`𝒯_1`$ onto $`(w_0,\alpha _0)`$ is defined as a standard $`(w_0,\alpha _0)^\gamma `$–tree $`𝒯_0=(T_0,\mathrm{rk}_0)`$ such that

$$T_0=\{(t)_\zeta \alpha _0:\zeta w_0\mathrm{rk}_1(t):t=(t)_\zeta :\zeta w_1\mathrm{rk}_1(t)T_1\}.$$

The mapping

$$T_1(t)_\zeta :\zeta w_1\mathrm{rk}_1(t)(t)_\zeta \alpha _0:\zeta w_0\mathrm{rk}_1(t)T_0$$

will be denoted $`\mathrm{proj}_{(w_0,\alpha _0)}^{(w_1,\alpha _1)}`$ too.
3. We say that $`\overline{𝒯}=𝒯_\alpha :\alpha <\alpha ^{}`$ is a legal sequence of $`\gamma `$–trees if for some increasing continuous sequence $`\overline{w}=w_\alpha :\alpha <\alpha ^{}`$ of subsets of $`\gamma `$ we have

1. $`𝒯_\alpha `$ is a standard $`(w_\alpha ,\alpha )^\gamma `$–tree (for $`\alpha <\alpha ^{}`$),
    2. if $`\alpha <\beta <\alpha ^{}`$, then $`𝒯_\alpha =\mathrm{proj}_{(w_\alpha ,\alpha )}^{(w_\beta ,\beta )}(𝒯_\beta )`$.
4. Suppose that $`\overline{𝒯}=𝒯_\alpha :\alpha <\alpha ^{}`$ is a legal sequence of $`\gamma `$–trees and $`\alpha ^{}`$ is a limit ordinal. Let $`w_\alpha \gamma `$ be such that $`𝒯_\alpha `$ is a standard $`(w_\alpha ,\alpha )^\gamma `$–tree (for $`\alpha <\alpha ^{}`$) and let $`w=\underset{\alpha <\alpha ^{}}{}w_\alpha `$. The inverse limit $`\stackrel{}{lim}(\overline{𝒯})`$ of $`\overline{𝒯}`$ is a standard $`(w,\alpha ^{})^\gamma `$–tree $`(T^{lim},\mathrm{rk}^{lim})`$ such that

1. $`T^{lim}`$ consists of all sequences $`t`$ satisfying

    1. $`\mathrm{Dom}(t)`$ is an initial segment of $`w`$ (not necessarily proper),
        2. if $`\zeta \mathrm{Dom}(t)`$, then $`(t)_\zeta `$ is a sequence of length $`\alpha ^{}`$,
        3. $`(t)_\zeta \alpha :\zeta w_\alpha \mathrm{Dom}(t)T_\alpha `$ for each $`\alpha <\alpha ^{}`$.
5. A legal sequence $`\overline{𝒯}=𝒯_\alpha :\alpha <\alpha ^{}`$ is continuous if for each limit ordinal $`\beta <\alpha ^{}`$, $`𝒯_\beta =\stackrel{}{lim}(\overline{𝒯}\beta )`$.
6. Let ¯=i,

~
i:i<γ\bar{{\mathbb{Q}}}=\langle{\mathbb{P}}_{i},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i}:i<\gamma\rangle be a $`\lambda `$–support iteration. A standard tree of conditions in $`\overline{}`$ is a system $`\overline{p}=p_t:tT`$ such that

* $`(T,\mathrm{rk})`$ is a standard $`(w,\alpha )^\gamma `$–tree for some $`w\gamma `$ and an ordinal $`\alpha `$,
    * $`p_t_{\mathrm{rk}(t)}`$ for $`tT`$, and
    * if $`s,tT`$, $`s\mathrm{}t`$, then $`p_s=p_t\mathrm{rk}(s)`$.
7. Let $`\overline{p}^0,\overline{p}^1`$ be standard trees of conditions in $`\overline{}`$, $`\overline{p}^i=p_t^i:tT_i`$, where $`𝒯_0=\mathrm{proj}_{(w_0,\alpha _0)}^{(w_1,\alpha _1)}(𝒯_1)`$, $`w_0w_1\gamma `$, $`\alpha _0<\alpha _1`$. We will write $`\overline{p}^0_{w_0,\alpha _0}^{w_1,\alpha _1}\overline{p}^1`$ (or just $`\overline{p}^0\overline{p}^1`$) whenever for each $`tT_1`$, letting $`t^{}=\mathrm{proj}_{(w_0,\alpha _0)}^{(w_1,\alpha _1)}(t)T_0`$, we have $`p_t^{}^0\mathrm{rk}_1(t)p_t^1`$.

###### Remark A.1.7.

Concerning Definition A.1.6(4), note that even though $`T^{lim}`$ could be empty, it does satisfy requirements of A.1.6(1) (so $`\stackrel{}{lim}(\overline{𝒯})`$ is indeed a standard $`(w,\alpha ^{})^\gamma `$–tree). Also, if the sequence $`\overline{𝒯}`$ is continuous (and $`T_\alpha `$’s are not empty), then $`T^{lim}\mathrm{}`$.

###### Proposition A.1.8.

Assume that ¯=i,

~
i:i<γ\bar{{\mathbb{Q}}}=\langle{\mathbb{P}}_{i},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i}:i<\gamma\rangle is a $`\lambda `$–support iteration such that for all $`i<\gamma `$ we have

$$__i\text{“ }\begin{array}{c}\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{}\hfill \end{array}_i\text{ is strategically }(<\lambda )\text{–complete ”.}$$

Suppose that $`\overline{p}=p_t:tT`$ is a standard tree of conditions in $`\overline{}`$, $`|T|<\lambda `$, and $`_\gamma `$ is open dense. Then there is a standard tree of conditions $`\overline{q}=q_t:tT`$ such that $`\overline{p}\overline{q}`$ and $`(tT)(\mathrm{rk}(t)=\gamma q_t)`$.

###### Proof.

For $`\epsilon \gamma `$ and $`r_\epsilon `$, let $`\mathrm{st}(\epsilon ,r)`$ be a winning strategy of Complete in $`\mathrm{}_0^\lambda (_\epsilon ,\mathrm{},r)`$ as in A.1.5(b). Let

$$T^{\mathrm{max}}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\{tT:\neg (t^{}T)(t\mathrm{}t^{})\}=\{t_\zeta :\zeta <\kappa \}$$

(where $`\kappa <\lambda `$ is a cardinal). We construct partial plays $`(p_i^\zeta ,q_i^\zeta ):i\kappa `$ of $`\mathrm{}_0^\lambda (_{\mathrm{rk}(p_{t_\zeta })},\mathrm{},p_{t_\zeta })`$ (for $`\zeta <\kappa `$) in which Complete uses strategy $`\mathrm{st}(\mathrm{rk}(p_{t_\zeta }),p_{t_\zeta })`$ and such that

1. if $`\zeta <\kappa `$ and $`\mathrm{rk}(p_{t_\zeta })=\gamma `$, then $`p_\zeta ^\zeta `$,
2. if $`t\mathrm{}t_\zeta `$, $`t\mathrm{}t_\xi `$, $`tT`$, $`\zeta ,\xi <\kappa `$, $`i\kappa `$,
then $`p_i^\zeta \mathrm{rk}(t)=p_i^\xi \mathrm{rk}(t)`$ and $`q_i^\zeta \mathrm{rk}(t)=q_i^\xi \mathrm{rk}(t)`$.

So suppose we have defined $`p_j^\zeta ,q_j^\zeta `$ for $`\zeta <\kappa `$, $`j<i<\kappa `$. First we look at $`(p_j^i,q_j^i):j<i`$ – it is a play of $`\mathrm{}_0^\lambda (_{\mathrm{rk}(p_{t_i})},\mathrm{},p_{t_i})`$ in which Complete uses $`\mathrm{st}(\mathrm{rk}(p_{t_i}),p_{t_i})`$, so we may find a condition $`p_i^i_{\mathrm{rk}(p_{t_i})}`$ stronger than all $`p_j^i,q_j^i`$ for $`j<i`$, and such that $`\mathrm{rk}(p_{t_i})=\gamma p_i^i`$. Next, for $`\zeta <\kappa `$, $`\zeta i`$, we define $`p_i^\zeta `$ as follows. Let $`tT`$ be such that $`t\mathrm{}t_\zeta `$, $`t\mathrm{}t_i`$ and $`\mathrm{rk}(t)`$ is the largest possible. We declare that

$$\mathrm{Dom}(p_i^\zeta )=(\mathrm{Dom}(p_i^i)\mathrm{rk}(t))\underset{j<i}{}\mathrm{Dom}(q_j^\zeta )\mathrm{Dom}(p_{t_\zeta }),$$

and $`p_i^\zeta \mathrm{rk}(t)=p_i^i\mathrm{rk}(t)`$, and for $`\epsilon [\mathrm{rk}(t),\gamma )`$ we have that $`p_i^\zeta (\epsilon )`$ is the $`<_\chi ^{}`$–first $`_\epsilon `$–name for a member of

~
εsubscript

~
𝜀\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon} such that

$$p_i^\zeta \epsilon __\epsilon \text{“ }p_i^\zeta (\epsilon )\text{ is an upper bound to }\{p_{t_\zeta }(\epsilon )\}\{q_j^\zeta (\epsilon ):j<i\}\text{ ”.}$$

The definition of $`p_i^\zeta `$’s is correct by A.1.5(b)(iii+ii). Also, by the choice of “the $`<_\chi ^{}`$–first” names and clause $`(\beta )`$ at earlier stages we get clause $`(\beta )`$ for $`p_i^\zeta `$’s.

Finally we define $`q_i^\zeta `$ (for $`\zeta <\kappa `$) as the condition given to Complete by $`\mathrm{st}(\mathrm{rk}(t_\zeta ),p_{t_\zeta })`$ in answer to $`(p_j^\zeta ,q_j^\zeta ):j<i{}_{}{}^{}p_i^\zeta `$. (Again, one easily verifies $`(\alpha ),(\beta )`$.)

The conditions $`p_\kappa ^\zeta ,q_\kappa ^\zeta `$ are chosen in a similar manner except that we do not have to worry about entering $``$ anymore, so we may take $`p_\kappa ^0`$ to be any bound to the previously defined conditions $`p_i^0,q_i^0`$, and other $`p_\kappa ^\zeta ,q_\kappa ^\zeta `$ are defined as earlier.

After the above construction is carried out, for $`tT`$ we let

> $`q_t=p_\kappa ^\zeta \mathrm{rk}(t)`$ for some (equivalently: all) $`\zeta <\kappa `$ such that $`t\mathrm{}t_\zeta `$.

It should be clear that $`\overline{q}=q_t:tT`$ is as required. ∎

Let us close this section with recalling an important result on easy ensuring that $`\lambda `$—support iteration satisfies the $`\lambda ^{++}`$–cc. Its proof is a fairly straightforward modification of the proof of the respective result for CS iterations; see \[19, Ch. III, Thm 4.1\], Abraham \[1, §2\] for the CS case, Eisworth \[6, §3\] for the general case of $`\lambda `$–support iterations.

###### Theorem A.1.9.

Assume $`2^\lambda =\lambda ^+`$, $`\lambda ^{<\lambda }=\lambda `$. Let ¯=i,

~
i:i<λ++\bar{{\mathbb{Q}}}=\langle{\mathbb{P}}_{i},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i}:i<\lambda^{++}\rangle be $`\lambda `$–support iteration such that for all $`i<\lambda ^{++}`$ we have

* $`_i`$ is $`\lambda `$–proper,
* $`__i`$|

~
i|λ+subscript

~
𝑖superscript𝜆|\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i}|\leq\lambda^{+}”.

Then the limit $`_{\lambda ^{++}}`$ satisfies the $`\lambda ^{++}`$–cc.

## A.2. Bounding properties

The results on preservation in CS iterations of properties like the Sacks property and $`{}_{}{}^{\omega }\omega `$–bounding property were among the earliest in the theory of proper forcing. Here we introduce relatives of these two properties for $`\lambda `$–reals and we show suitable iteration theorems. For both properties, the properness is “built into the property”.

Recall that $`\lambda ,\overline{\lambda }`$ are assumed to be as specified in Context 0.3.

###### Definition A.2.1.

Let $``$ be a forcing notion.

1. For a condition $`p`$ and an ordinal $`i_0<\lambda `$ we define a game $`\mathrm{}_{\overline{\lambda }}^{\mathrm{Sacks}}(i_0,p,)`$ of two players, the Generic player and the Antigeneric player. A play lasts $`\lambda `$ moves indexed by ordinals from the interval $`[i_0,\lambda )`$, and during it the players construct a sequence $`(s_i,\overline{q}^i,\overline{p}^i):i_0i<\lambda `$ as follows. At stage $`i`$ of the play (where $`i_0i<\lambda `$), first Generic chooses $`s_i{}_{}{}^{i+1}\lambda `$ and a system $`\overline{q}^i=q_\eta ^i:\eta s_i{}_{}{}^{i+1}\lambda `$ such that

1. $`s_i`$ is a complete $`\lambda `$–tree of height $`i+1`$, and

    $$(\eta s_i)(\nu s_i)(\eta \mathrm{}\nu \&\mathrm{lh}(\nu )=i+1),$$

    and $`\mathrm{lh}(\mathrm{root}(s_i))=i_0`$,
    2. for all $`j`$ such that $`i_0j<i`$ we have $`s_j=s_i{}_{}{}^{j+1}\lambda `$,
    3. $`q_\eta ^i`$ for all $`\eta s_i{}_{}{}^{i+1}\lambda `$, and
    4. if $`i_0j<i`$, $`\nu s_i{}_{}{}^{j+1}\lambda `$ and $`\nu \mathrm{}\eta s_i{}_{}{}^{i+1}\lambda `$, then $`p_\nu ^jq_\eta ^i`$ and $`pq_\eta ^i`$,
    5. $`|s_i{}_{}{}^{i+1}\lambda |<\lambda _i`$.

Then Antigeneric answers choosing a system $`\overline{p}^i=p_\eta ^i:\eta s_i{}_{}{}^{i+1}\lambda `$ of conditions in $``$ such that $`q_\eta ^ip_\eta ^i`$ for each $`\eta s_i{}_{}{}^{i+1}\lambda `$.

The Generic player wins a play if she always has legal moves (so the play really lasts $`\lambda `$ steps) and there are a condition $`qp`$ and a $``$–name   $`\rho `$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   such that

1. q“
    ρ
    ~
    λλ&(i[i0,λ))(ρ

    ~
    (i+1)si&qρ

    ~
    (i+1)iΓ) ”.subscriptforces𝑞“
    ρ
    ~
    superscript𝜆𝜆for-all𝑖subscript𝑖0𝜆𝜌

    ~
    𝑖1subscript𝑠𝑖subscriptsuperscript𝑞𝑖𝜌

    ~
    𝑖1subscriptΓ ”.q\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}}\mbox{`` }\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}\in{}^{\lambda}\lambda\ \&\ \big{(}\forall i\in[i_{0},\lambda\big{)})\big{(}\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\restriction}(i+1)\in s_{i}\ \&\ q^{i}_{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\restriction}(i+1)}\in\Gamma_{{\mathbb{P}}}\big{)}\mbox{ ''.}
2. We say that $``$ has the strong $`\overline{\lambda }`$–Sacks property whenever the Generic player has a winning strategy in the game $`\mathrm{}_{\overline{\lambda }}^{\mathrm{Sacks}}(i_0,p,)`$ for any $`i_0<\lambda `$ and $`p`$.
3. We say that $``$ has the $`\overline{\lambda }`$–Sacks property if for every $`p`$ and a $``$–name   $`\tau `$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   such that pτ

~
:λ𝐕:forces𝑝𝜏

~
𝜆𝐕p\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}}}:\lambda\longrightarrow{\bf V}, there are a condition $`qp`$ and a sequence $`a_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$ such that $`|a_\alpha |<\lambda _\alpha `$ (for $`\alpha <\lambda `$) and q“ (α<λ)(τ

~
(α)aα) ”forces𝑞“ for-all𝛼𝜆𝜏

~
𝛼subscript𝑎𝛼 ”q\Vdash\mbox{``
}(\forall\alpha<\lambda)(\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)\in a_{\alpha})\mbox{ ''}.

###### Remark A.2.2.

1. At a stage $`i<\lambda `$ of a play of $`\mathrm{}_{\overline{\lambda }}^{\mathrm{Sacks}}(i_0,p,)`$, the Antigeneric player may play stronger conditions, and using A.1.3 we may require that if $`\overline{p}^i=p_\eta ^i:\eta s_i{}_{}{}^{i+1}\lambda `$ is his move, then the conditions $`p_\eta ^i`$ are pairwise incompatible.Thus the winning criterion $`()`$ could be replaced by

1. $`q_{}\text{“ }(i[i_0,\lambda ))\left(\eta s_i{}_{}{}^{i+1}\lambda \right)\left(q_\eta ^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\right)\text{ ”}`$

(thus eliminating the use of   $`\rho `$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$  ). However, the $`\lambda `$–branch along which the conditions are from the generic filter will be new (so we cannot replace the name   $`\rho `$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   by an object $`\rho {}_{}{}^{\lambda }\lambda `$).
2. Note that if Generic has a winning strategy in $`\mathrm{}_{\overline{\lambda }}^{\mathrm{Sacks}}(0,p,)`$, then she has one in $`\mathrm{}_{\overline{\lambda }}^{\mathrm{Sacks}}(i_0,p,)`$ for all $`i_0<\lambda `$. (Remember: the sequence $`\overline{\lambda }`$ is increasing.) The reason why we have $`i_0`$ as a parameter is a notational convenience.
3. Plainly, if Generic has a winning strategy in $`\mathrm{}_{\overline{\lambda }}^{\mathrm{Sacks}}(i_0,p,)`$, then she has one with the following property:

1. if $`s_i,\overline{q}_i`$ are given to Generic as a move at a stage $`i[i_0,\lambda )`$, then for every $`\eta s_i{}_{}{}^{i}\lambda `$, the set $`\{\alpha <\lambda :\eta {}_{}{}^{}\alpha s_i\}`$ is an initial segment of $`\lambda _i`$ and $`\eta (j)=0`$ for all $`j<i_0`$.

Strategies satisfying the condition $`(_{\mathrm{nice}})`$ will be called nice.
4. Easily, if $``$ has the strong $`\overline{\lambda }`$–Sacks property, then it is strategically $`(<\lambda )`$–complete and has the $`\overline{\lambda }`$–Sacks property.

###### Theorem A.2.3.

Suppose that ¯=α,

~
α:α<γ\bar{{\mathbb{Q}}}=\langle{\mathbb{P}}_{\alpha},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}:\alpha<\gamma\rangle is a $`\lambda `$–support iteration such that for all $`\alpha <\gamma `$:

$$__\alpha \text{“ }\begin{array}{c}\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{}\hfill \end{array}_\alpha \text{ has the strong }\overline{\lambda }\text{–Sacks property ”.}$$

Then:

1. $`_\gamma `$ has the $`\overline{\lambda }`$–Sacks property.
2. If $`N((\chi ),,<_\chi ^{})`$, $`|N|=\lambda `$, $`{}_{}{}^{<\lambda }NN`$ and $`\overline{\lambda },\lambda ,p,\overline{},_\gamma ,\mathrm{}N`$, $`p_\gamma `$, then there is an $`(N,_\gamma )`$–generic condition $`r_\gamma `$ stronger than $`p`$.

###### Proof.

(a) First note that each $`_\alpha `$ is strategically $`(<\lambda )`$–complete (by A.1.5; remember A.2.2(4)), so our assumptions on $`\lambda ,\overline{\lambda }`$ hold in intermediate universes $`𝐕^_\alpha `$.

For $`\alpha <\gamma `$ and $`i_0<\lambda `$ and a $`_\alpha `$–name   $`q`$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   for a condition in

~
αsubscript

~
𝛼\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}, let st

~
α(i0,q

~
)subscriptst

~
𝛼subscript𝑖0𝑞

~
\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}(i_{0},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}) be the $`<_\chi ^{}`$–first $`_\alpha `$–name for a nice (see A.2.2(3)) winning strategy of the Generic player in the game λ¯Sacks(i0,q

~
,

~
α)subscriptsuperscriptSacks¯𝜆subscript𝑖0𝑞

~
subscript

~
𝛼{\Game^{\rm Sacks}_{\bar{\lambda}}}(i_{0},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}).

Let   $`\tau `$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   be a $`_\gamma `$–name for a function from $`\lambda `$ to $`𝐕`$, $`p_\gamma `$. Pick a model $`N((\chi ),,<_\chi ^{})`$ such that

λ¯,λ,τ

~
,p,¯,γ,N, and |N|=λ and N<λN.formulae-sequence¯𝜆𝜆𝜏

~
𝑝¯subscript𝛾𝑁 and 𝑁𝜆 and superscript𝑁absent𝜆𝑁\bar{\lambda},\lambda,\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}}},p,\bar{{\mathbb{Q}}},{\mathbb{P}}_{\gamma},\ldots\in N,\quad\mbox{ and }\quad|N|=\lambda\quad\mbox{ and }\quad{}^{<\lambda}N\subseteq N.
Note that if $`i_0<\lambda `$, $`\alpha N\gamma `$, and q

~
N𝑞

~
𝑁\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}\in N is a $`_\alpha `$–name for a member of

~
αsubscript

~
𝛼\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}, then st

~
α(i0,q

~
)Nsubscriptst

~
𝛼subscript𝑖0𝑞

~
𝑁\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}(i_{0},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}})\in N. Also, as $`\overline{}`$ is a $`\lambda `$–support iteration of $`(<\lambda )`$–strategically complete forcing notions, we may use A.1.5 inside $`N`$ and for each $`\epsilon N\gamma `$ and $`r_\epsilon N`$ fix a winning strategy $`\mathrm{st}^{}(\epsilon ,r)N`$ of Complete in the game $`\mathrm{}_0^\lambda (_\epsilon ,\mathrm{},r)`$ so that conditions (i)–(iii) of A.1.5(b) hold true.

Fix a list $`\overline{}=_\xi :\xi <\lambda `$ of all open dense subsets of $`_\gamma `$ from $`N`$ and a one-to-one mapping $`\pi :N\gamma \lambda `$. For $`i<\lambda `$ let $`w_i=\pi ^1[i]`$ (thus $`\overline{w}=w_i:i<\lambda `$ is an increasing continuous sequence of subsets of $`N\gamma `$, each of size $`<\lambda `$, and $`\underset{i<\lambda }{}w_i=N\gamma `$).

By induction on $`i<\lambda `$ we define sequences $`𝒯_i:i<\lambda `$ and $`\overline{p}^i,\overline{p}_{}^i:i<\lambda `$ is not a limit ordinal $``$ such that the following requirements are satisfied.

1. $`𝒯_i:i<\lambda `$ is a continuous legal sequence of $`\gamma `$–trees; $`𝒯_iN`$ is a standard $`(w_i,i)^\gamma `$–tree, $`|T_{i+1}|<\lambda _i`$, and $`(tT_i)(t^{}T_i)(t\mathrm{}t^{}\&\mathrm{rk}_i(t^{})=\gamma )`$.
2. For $`i<\lambda `$ and $`tT_i`$ such that $`\mathrm{rk}_i(t)<\gamma `$ let $`\psi _i(t)=\{(s)_{\mathrm{rk}_i(t)}:t\mathrm{}sT_i\}`$.
Then (for each $`i,t`$ as above) $`\mathrm{}\psi _i(t)\underset{j<i}{}\lambda _j`$ and for each $`\eta \psi _i(t)`$ and $`i^{}<\pi (\mathrm{rk}_i(t))`$ we have $`\eta (i^{})=0`$.
3. If $`\xi N\gamma `$, $`\pi (\xi )<i<j<\lambda `$, $`tT_j`$, $`\mathrm{rk}_j(t)=\xi `$ and $`t^{}=\mathrm{proj}_{w_i,i}^{w_j,j}(t)T_i`$ (so $`\mathrm{rk}_i(t^{})=\xi `$), then $`\psi _i(t^{})=\{\eta i:\eta \psi _i(t)\}`$.
4. $`T_0=\{\}`$, $`\overline{p}^0=p_{}^0`$, $`p_{}^0=p`$, and for $`i<\lambda `$, $`\overline{p}^{i+1}=p_t^{i+1}:tT_{i+1}`$ and $`\overline{p}_{}^{i+1}=p_{,t}^{i+1}:tT_{i+1}`$ are standard trees of conditions in $`\overline{}`$, both belonging to $`N`$ and such that $`\overline{p}_{}^{i+1}\overline{p}^{i+1}`$.
5. If $`i<j<\lambda `$, then $`\overline{p}^{i+1}_{w_{i+1},i+1}^{w_{j+1},j+1}\overline{p}^{j+1}`$.
6. If $`t_{i+1}T_{i+1}`$ (for $`i<\lambda `$) are such that $`\mathrm{rk}_{i+1}(t_{i+1})=\gamma `$ and $`t_{i+1}=\mathrm{proj}_{w_{i+1},i+1}^{w_{j+1},j+1}(t_{j+1})`$ (for $`i<j`$), then $`p_{,t_{i+1}}^{i+1},p_{t_{i+1}}^{i+1}:i<\lambda `$ is a play of the game $`\mathrm{}_0^\lambda (_\gamma ,\mathrm{},p)`$ in which Complete uses the strategy $`\mathrm{st}^{}(\gamma ,p)`$.
7. If $`tT_{i+1}`$, $`\mathrm{rk}_{i+1}(t)=\gamma `$, then $`p_t^{i+1}_\xi `$ for all $`\xi i`$ and $`p_t^{i+1}`$ forces a value to τ

~
(i)𝜏

~
𝑖\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}}}(i).
8. Assume that $`\xi N\gamma `$, $`\pi (\xi )=i_0i`$ and $`tT_{i+1}`$ is such that $`\mathrm{rk}_{i+1}(t)=\xi `$. Let, for $`ji`$, $`t_j=\mathrm{proj}_{w_j,j}^{w_{i+1},i+1}(t)`$ and let   $`r`$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   be the $`<_\chi ^{}`$–first $`_\xi `$–name for a member of

~
ξsubscript

~
𝜉\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\xi} such that

ξ“ if there is a common upper bound to {ptjj(ξ):ji0 is non-limit }, then
r
~
 is such an upper bound, else r~=p(ξ) ”.subscriptforcessubscript𝜉“ if there is a common upper bound to conditional-setsubscriptsuperscript𝑝𝑗subscript𝑡𝑗𝜉𝑗subscript𝑖0 is non-limit missing-subexpression then
r
~
 is such an upper bound, else r~=p(ξ) ”.\begin{array}[]{ll}\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\xi}}&\mbox{`` if there is a common upper bound to }\{p^{j}_{t_{j}}(\xi):j\leq i_{0}\mbox{ is non-limit }\},\\
&\ \mbox{ then $\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}$ is such an upper bound, else $\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}=p(\xi)$
''.}\end{array}
Furthermore, for $`i_0ji`$ and $`\eta \psi _{j+1}(t_{j+1})`$, fix $`s_\eta ^{j+1}T_{j+1}`$ such that $`\mathrm{rk}_{j+1}(s_\eta ^{j+1})>\xi `$ and $`(s_\eta ^{j+1})_\xi =\eta `$, $`t_{j+1}\mathrm{}s_\eta ^{j+1}`$, and put r

~
ηj=psηj+1j+1(ξ)subscriptsuperscript𝑟

~
𝑗𝜂subscriptsuperscript𝑝𝑗1subscriptsuperscript𝑠𝑗1𝜂𝜉\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{j}_{\eta}=p^{j+1}_{s^{j+1}_{\eta}}(\xi).
Then the condition $`p_t^{i+1}`$ forces in $`_\xi `$ the following:

> there is a partial play $`s_j,\overline{q}^j,\overline{r}^j:i_0ji`$ of the game λ¯Sacks(i0,r
>
> ~
> ,
>
> ~
> ξ)subscriptsuperscriptSacks¯𝜆subscript𝑖0𝑟
>
> ~
> subscript
>
> ~
> 𝜉{\Game^{\rm Sacks}_{\bar{\lambda}}}(i_{0},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\xi}) in which the Generic player uses the strategy st
>
> ~
> ξ(i0,r
>
> ~
> )subscriptst
>
> ~
> 𝜉subscript𝑖0𝑟
>
> ~
> \mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\xi}(i_{0},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}) and, for $`i_0ji`$,
>
> sjλj+1=ψj+1(tj+1) and r¯j=r
>
> ~
> ηj:ηsjλj+1.s_{j}\cap{}^{j+1}\lambda=\psi_{j+1}(t_{j+1})\quad\mbox{ and }\quad\bar{r}^{j}=\langle\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{j}_{\eta}:\eta\in s_{j}\cap{}^{j+1}\lambda\rangle.

Let us describe how the construction of $`𝒯_i:i<\lambda `$ and $`\overline{p}^{i+1}:i<\lambda `$ is carried out. We start with letting $`T_0=\{\}`$, $`p_{}^0=p`$ (as in $`(\delta )`$). Now suppose that we have defined $`𝒯_j,\overline{p}^j`$ for $`j<i<\lambda `$ so that clauses $`(\alpha )`$$`(\theta )`$ are satisfied. If $`i`$ is a limit ordinal, then we let $`𝒯_i=\stackrel{}{lim}(𝒯_j:j<i)N`$ ($`\overline{p}^i,\overline{p}_{}^i`$ are not defined). It is straightforward to verify conditions $`(\alpha )`$$`(\gamma )`$ (use the inductive hypothesis), clauses $`(\delta )`$$`(\theta )`$ are not relevant.

So suppose now that $`i`$ is a successor ordinal, say $`i=i_0+1`$. First we let $`𝒯^{}`$ be a the largest standard $`(w_i,i)^\gamma `$–tree such that $`\mathrm{proj}_{w_{i_0},i_0}^{w_i,i}(𝒯^{})=𝒯_{i_0}`$, and if $`t=(t)_\zeta :\zeta w_i\mathrm{rk}^{}(t)T^{}`$, then $`(t)_\zeta (i_0)<\lambda _{i_0}`$, and if $`\pi (\zeta )=i_0`$, then $`(t)_\zeta i_00`$. (Plainly $`𝒯^{}N`$ and $`|T^{}|<\lambda `$.) Next, for each $`tT^{}`$ we define a condition $`q_t_{\mathrm{rk}^{}(t)}N`$ and names α

~
t(ξ)superscript𝛼

~
𝑡𝜉\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{t}(\xi) for ordinals (for $`\xi w_i\mathrm{rk}^{}(t)`$). For this let us fix $`tT^{}`$ and let $`t_j=\mathrm{proj}_{w_j,j}^{w_i,i}(t)T_j`$ for $`j<i`$. Put

$$\mathrm{Dom}(q_t)=\left(w_i\{\mathrm{Dom}(p_{t_j}^j):j<i\text{ is not a limit }\}\right)\mathrm{rk}^{}(t),$$

and for $`\zeta \mathrm{Dom}(q_t)`$ let $`q_t(\zeta )`$ be a $`_\zeta `$–name for a member of

~
ζsubscript

~
𝜁\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\zeta} chosen as follows. If $`\zeta \mathrm{Dom}(q_t)w_i`$, then $`q_t(\zeta )`$ is the $`<_\chi ^{}`$–first $`_\zeta `$–name such that

$$__\zeta \text{“ if possible, then }q_t(\zeta )\text{ is an upper bound to }\{p_{t_j}^j(\zeta ):j<i\text{ is non-limit }\}\text{ ”}.$$

If $`\zeta \mathrm{Dom}(q_t)w_i`$, then α

~
t(ζ)Nsuperscript𝛼

~
𝑡𝜁𝑁\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{t}(\zeta)\in N is a $`_\zeta `$–name for an element of $`\lambda _i`$ and $`q_t(\zeta )`$ is the $`<_\chi ^{}`$–first $`_\zeta `$–name for a condition in

~
ζsubscript

~
𝜁\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\zeta} with the following property.

Let   $`r`$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   be the $`<_\chi ^{}`$–first $`_\zeta `$–name for a member of

~
ζsubscript

~
𝜁\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\zeta} such that

ζ“ if possible, then
r
~
 is an upper
bound to {ptjj(ζ):jπ(ζ) is non-limit }, else
r
~
=p(ζ) ”.subscriptforcessubscript𝜁“ if possible, then
r
~
 is an upper
bound to conditional-setsubscriptsuperscript𝑝𝑗subscript𝑡𝑗𝜁𝑗𝜋𝜁 is non-limit missing-subexpression else
r
~
𝑝𝜁 ”.\begin{array}[]{ll}\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\zeta}}&\mbox{`` if possible, then $\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}$ is an upper
bound to }\{p^{j}_{t_{j}}(\zeta):j\leq\pi(\zeta)\mbox{ is non-limit }\},\\
&\ \ \mbox{ else }\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}=p(\zeta)\mbox{ ''.}\end{array}
Now, suppose that $`G_\zeta _\zeta `$ is a generic filter over $`𝐕`$ and $`p_{t_{j+1}}^{j+1}\zeta G_\zeta `$ for all $`j<i_0`$, and work in $`𝐕[G_\zeta ]`$. Then, by clause $`(\theta )`$, there is a partial play $`s_j,\overline{q}^j,\overline{r}^j:\pi (\zeta )j<i_0`$ of the game λ¯Sacks(π(ζ),r

~
ζG,

~
ζGζ)subscriptsuperscriptSacks¯𝜆𝜋𝜁subscriptsuperscript𝑟

~
𝐺𝜁subscriptsuperscript

~
subscript𝐺𝜁𝜁{\Game^{\rm Sacks}_{\bar{\lambda}}}(\pi(\zeta),\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{G}_{\zeta},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{G_{\zeta}}_{\zeta}) in which Generic uses st

~
ζ(π(ζ),r

~
)Gζsubscriptst

~
𝜁superscript𝜋𝜁𝑟

~
subscript𝐺𝜁\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\zeta}(\pi(\zeta),\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}})^{G_{\zeta}}, and $`s_j{}_{}{}^{j+1}\lambda =\psi _{j+1}(t_{j+1}\zeta )`$ and $`\overline{r}^j=r_\eta ^j:\eta s_j{}_{}{}^{j+1}\lambda `$, where $`r_\eta ^j=\left(p_{s_\eta ^{j+1}}^{j+1}(\zeta )\right)^{G_\zeta }`$ for $`s_\eta ^{j+1}T_{j+1}`$ such that $`t_{j+1}\zeta \mathrm{}s_\eta ^{j+1}`$, $`(s_\eta ^{j+1})_\zeta =\eta `$ and $`\mathrm{rk}_{j+1}(s^{j+1})=\gamma `$. So we may look at the answer $`s_{i_0}`$, $`\overline{q}^{i_0}=q_\nu ^{i_0}:\nu s_{i_0}{}_{}{}^{i_0+1}\lambda `$ to this play according to the strategy st

~
ζ(π(ζ),r

~
)Gζsubscriptst

~
𝜁superscript𝜋𝜁𝑟

~
subscript𝐺𝜁\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\zeta}(\pi(\zeta),\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}})^{G_{\zeta}}. Then, $`q_t(\zeta )^{G_\zeta }`$ is a condition stronger than all $`r_{(t_{j+1})_\zeta }^j`$ for $`j<i_0`$, and such that

> if $`(t_i)_\zeta s_{i_0}`$, then $`q_t(\zeta )^{G_\zeta }=q_{(t_i)_\zeta }^{i_0}`$.

Also, α

~
t(ζ)={α<λi:(ti0)ζαsi0}\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{t}(\zeta)=\{\alpha<\lambda_{i}:(t_{i_{0}})_{\zeta}{}^{\frown}\!\langle\alpha\rangle\in s_{i_{0}}\}.
\[If $`\pi (\zeta )=i_0`$, then we do not have the partial play we started with \- the game just begins and we look at the first move of Generic, requiring that $`q_t(\zeta )^{G_\zeta }`$ is stronger than r

~
Gζsuperscript𝑟

~
subscript𝐺𝜁\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{G_{\zeta}} and if $`(t_i)_\zeta s_{i_0}`$ then $`q_t(\zeta )^{G_\zeta }=q_{(t_i)_\zeta }^{i_0}`$.\]

This finishes the definition of $`\overline{q}=q_t:tT^{}`$. One easily checks that $`\overline{q}N`$ is a tree of conditions (remember the choice of “the $`<_\chi ^{}`$–first names”) . Also, by induction on $`\zeta \mathrm{Dom}(q_t)`$, one verifies that $`\overline{p}^j_{w_j,j}^{w_i,i}\overline{q}`$ for all non-limit $`ji_0`$. (Note that if $`\pi (\zeta )=i_0`$, $`tT^{}`$, and $`\mathrm{rk}^{}(t)>\zeta `$, then in the inductive process we know that by clause $`(\zeta )`$

$$q_t\zeta __\zeta \text{“ there is a common upper bound to }\{p_{t_j}^j(\zeta ):j\pi (\zeta )\text{ is non-limit }\}\text{ ”}$$

and thus $`q_t\zeta `$ forces that the respective condition   $`r`$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   is stronger than all $`p_{t_j}^j(\zeta )`$ (for non-limit $`j\pi (\zeta )`$).)

Next, we use A.1.8 to pick a standard tree of conditions $`\overline{p}^{}=p_t^{}:tT^{}N`$ such that $`\overline{q}\overline{p}^{}`$ and for each $`tT^{}`$ with $`\mathrm{rk}^{}(t)=\gamma `$ the condition $`p_t^{}`$ decides the values of all names α

~
t(ζ)superscript𝛼

~
superscript𝑡𝜁\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{t^{\prime}}(\zeta) for $`t^{}T^{}`$, $`\zeta w_i\mathrm{rk}(t^{})`$ and the value of τ

~
(i0)𝜏

~
subscript𝑖0\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}}}(i_{0}) (and let pt“
τ
~
(i0)=τi0t ”forcessubscriptsuperscript𝑝𝑡“
τ
~
subscript𝑖0subscriptsuperscript𝜏𝑡subscript𝑖0 ”p^{*}_{t}\Vdash\mbox{`` }\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}}}(i_{0})=\tau^{t}_{i_{0}}\mbox{ ''}), and such that $`p_t^{}_\xi `$ for all $`\xi i_0`$. For $`tT^{}`$ with $`\mathrm{rk}^{}(t)=\gamma `$ and for $`\zeta w_i`$ let $`\alpha ^t(\zeta )`$ be the value forced to α

~
t(ζ)superscript𝛼

~
𝑡𝜁\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{t}(\zeta) by $`p_t^{}`$. Since α

~
t(ζ)superscript𝛼

~
𝑡𝜁\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{t}(\zeta) is a $`_\zeta `$–name, we have that

t0t1T&rk(t1)=γ&ζwirk(t0)pt0α

~
t0(ζ)=αt1(ζ).formulae-sequencesubscript𝑡0subscript𝑡1superscript𝑇superscriptrksubscript𝑡1𝛾𝜁subscript𝑤𝑖superscriptrksubscript𝑡0forcessubscriptsuperscript𝑝subscript𝑡0superscript𝛼

~
subscript𝑡0𝜁superscript𝛼subscript𝑡1𝜁t_{0}\vartriangleleft t_{1}\in T^{*}\ \&\ {\rm rk}^{*}(t_{1})=\gamma\ \&\ \zeta\in w_{i}\cap{\rm rk}^{*}(t_{0})\ \qquad\Rightarrow\qquad\ p^{*}_{t_{0}}\Vdash\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{t_{0}}(\zeta)=\alpha^{t_{1}}(\zeta).
So we may naturally define $`\alpha ^t(\zeta )`$ also for $`tT^{}`$ with $`\mathrm{rk}(t)<\gamma `$. Now we let

$$T_i=T_{i_0+1}=\{tT^{}:(\zeta w_i\mathrm{rk}^{}(t))((t)_\zeta (i_0)<\alpha ^t(\zeta )\}$$

and $`p_{,t}^i=p_t^{}`$ for $`tT_i`$ (thus defining $`\overline{p}_{}^i`$). Plainly, $`T_iN`$ is a standard $`(w_i,i)^\gamma `$–tree satisfying $`(\alpha )`$$`(\gamma )`$, $`\overline{p}_{}^iN`$. Finally, using the properties of the strategies $`\mathrm{st}^{}`$ stated in A.1.5(b) (and the clause $`(\zeta )`$ from earlier stages) we may pick a standard tree of conditions $`\overline{p}^i=p_t^i:tT_i`$ such that $`\overline{p}^{}\overline{p}^i`$ and

1. $`tT_i`$, $`\mathrm{rk}_i(t)=\gamma `$, $`t_j=\mathrm{proj}_{w_j,j}^{w_i,i}(t)`$ for non-limit $`ji`$,
2. $`p_{t_{j+1}}^{j+1}:j<i`$ is a sequence of answers of Complete in some partial play of $`\mathrm{}_0^\lambda (_\gamma ,\mathrm{},p)`$ in which she uses the winning strategy $`\mathrm{st}^{}(\gamma ,p)`$.

Now one easily verifies that $`𝒯_i,\overline{p}^i,\overline{p}_{}^i`$ satisfy requirements $`(\alpha )`$$`(\theta )`$, thus the construction is complete.

Let $`𝒯_\lambda =\stackrel{}{lim}(𝒯_j:j<\lambda )`$. We will consider this standard $`(N\gamma ,\lambda )^\gamma `$–tree in universes $`𝐕^_\xi `$ (for $`\xi \gamma `$), so let us note that forcings $`_\xi `$ may add new branches in $`𝒯_\lambda `$. But if (in $`𝐕^_\xi `$) $`t𝒯_\lambda `$ and $`i<\lambda `$, then

$$t|i\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}(t)_\zeta i:\zeta w_i\mathrm{rk}_\lambda (t)=\mathrm{proj}_{w_i,i}^{N\gamma ,\lambda }(t)𝐕.$$

Also if $`i<\lambda `$ is limit, then the equality $`𝒯_i=\stackrel{}{lim}(𝒯_j:j<i)`$ holds in $`𝐕^_\xi `$ as well.

We are going to define a condition $`r_\gamma `$ such that $`\mathrm{Dom}(r)=N\gamma `$ and the names $`r(\alpha )`$ are defined by induction on $`\alpha N\gamma `$. For $`\alpha N\gamma `$ we will also choose $`_{\alpha +1}`$–names t

~
αsubscript𝑡

~
𝛼\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha} for functions in $`{}_{}{}^{\lambda }\lambda `$, and we will put t

~
α=t

~
β:β<α&βN\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\alpha}=\langle\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\beta}:\beta<\alpha\ \&\ \beta\in N\rangle. The construction will be carried out so that (for each $`\alpha N(\gamma +1)`$):

1. rαα“
t
~
α𝒯λ ”𝑟𝛼subscriptforcessubscript𝛼superscript“
t
~
𝛼subscript𝒯𝜆 ”r{\restriction}\alpha\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\alpha}}\mbox{`` }\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\alpha}\in{\mathcal{T}}_{\lambda}\mbox{ ''},
2. rαα“ (i<λ)((pt

~
α|i+1i+1)αΓα) ”𝑟𝛼subscriptforcessubscript𝛼“ for-all𝑖𝜆subscriptsuperscript𝑝𝑖1conditionalsuperscript𝑡

~
𝛼𝑖1𝛼subscriptΓsubscript𝛼 ”r{\restriction}\alpha\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\alpha}}\mbox{`` }(\forall i<\lambda)\big{(}(p^{i+1}_{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\alpha}|i+1}){\restriction}\alpha\in\Gamma_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\alpha}}\big{)}\mbox{ ''}.

Arriving at a limit stage $`\alpha N(\gamma +1)`$, we have defined $`r\alpha `$ and t

~
αsuperscript𝑡

~
𝛼\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\alpha}, and we should only check that conditions (i)<sub>α</sub>, (ii)<sub>α</sub> hold (assuming (i)<sub>β</sub>, (ii)<sub>β</sub> hold for $`\beta <\alpha `$, $`\beta N`$).

RE: (i)<sub>α</sub>: $`𝒯_\lambda `$ is a standard tree, so every chain in $`T_\lambda `$ has a $`\mathrm{}`$–bound. Now, the first condition follows immediately from the inductive hypothesis.

RE: (ii)<sub>α</sub>: Suppose that $`G_\alpha _\alpha `$ is generic over $`𝐕`$ and $`r\alpha G_\alpha `$. Let $`i<\lambda `$ and for $`\beta \alpha `$ let tiβ=(t

~
β|i)GαβTisubscriptsuperscript𝑡𝛽𝑖superscriptconditionalsuperscript𝑡

~
𝛽𝑖subscript𝐺𝛼subscript𝛽subscript𝑇𝑖t^{\beta}_{i}=(\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\beta}|i)^{G_{\alpha}\cap{\mathbb{P}}_{\beta}}\in T_{i}. Then, by (ii)<sub>β</sub>, we know that $`p_{t_{i+1}^\beta }^{i+1}\beta G_\alpha _\beta `$ (for each $`\beta \alpha N`$). But $`p_{t_{i+1}^\alpha }^{i+1}\beta =p_{t_{i+1}^\beta }^{i+1}\beta `$ (as $`t_{i+1}^\beta \mathrm{}t_{i+1}^\alpha `$), so remembering that $`p_{t_{i+1}^\alpha }^{i+1}N`$ we conclude $`p_{t_{i+1}^\alpha }^{i+1}\alpha G_\alpha `$.

Now suppose that we arrived at stage $`\alpha +1N(\gamma +1)`$ and we have defined $`r\alpha `$, t

~
αsuperscript𝑡

~
𝛼\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\alpha} so that (i)<sub>α</sub>\+ (ii)<sub>α</sub> hold. Let $`G_\alpha _\alpha `$ be generic over $`𝐕`$, $`r\alpha G_\alpha `$. For $`i<\lambda `$ let tiα=(t

~
α|i)GαTisubscriptsuperscript𝑡𝛼𝑖superscriptconditionalsuperscript𝑡

~
𝛼𝑖subscript𝐺𝛼subscript𝑇𝑖t^{\alpha}_{i}=(\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\alpha}|i)^{G_{\alpha}}\in T_{i} (remember (i)<sub>α</sub>). Plainly, $`t_j^\alpha =\mathrm{proj}_{w_j,j}^{w_i,i}(t_i^\alpha )`$ for $`j<i<\lambda `$. By (ii)<sub>α</sub> we get $`p_{t_{i+1}^\alpha }^{i+1}\alpha G_\alpha `$ for all $`i<\lambda `$.

1. Let $`i_0=\pi (\alpha )`$ and let   $`r`$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   be the $`<_\chi ^{}`$–first $`_\alpha `$–name for an element of

~
αsubscript

~
𝛼\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha} such that (r

~
𝐕𝑟

~
𝐕\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}\in{\bf V}, of course, and)

α“ if there is a common upper bound to {ptjαj(α):ji0 is non-limit } then
r
~
 is such an upper bound, else r~=p(α) ”.subscriptforcessubscript𝛼“ if there is a common upper bound to conditional-setsubscriptsuperscript𝑝𝑗subscriptsuperscript𝑡𝛼𝑗𝛼𝑗subscript𝑖0 is non-limit missing-subexpression then
r
~
 is such an upper bound, else r~=p(α) ”.\begin{array}[]{ll}\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\alpha}}&\mbox{`` if there is a common upper bound to }\{p^{j}_{t^{\alpha}_{j}}(\alpha):j\leq i_{0}\mbox{ is non-limit }\}\\
&\ \mbox{ then $\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}$ is such an upper bound, else $\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}=p(\alpha)$
''.}\end{array}

(Note: for each $`j^{}<\lambda `$ the sequence $`t_j^\alpha :j<j^{}`$ belongs to the ground model $`𝐕`$, and even to $`N`$.)

Fix $`j^{}<\lambda `$, $`j^{}>i_0`$ for a moment. In $`𝐕`$, for each $`i[i_0,j^{}]`$ and $`\eta \psi _{i+1}(t_{i+1}^\alpha )`$ let us choose $`s_\eta ^{i+1}T_{i+1}`$ such that $`t_{i+1}^\alpha \mathrm{}s_\eta ^{i+1}`$, $`(s_\eta ^{i+1})_\alpha =\eta `$. Now work in $`𝐕[G_\alpha ]`$. Since $`p_{t_{j^{}+1}^\alpha }^{j^{}+1}G_\alpha `$, we may use clause $`(\theta )`$ of the construction to claim that there is a partial play $`\overline{\sigma }^j^{}=s_i,\overline{q}^i,\overline{r}^i:i_0ij^{}`$ of the game λ¯Sacks(i0,r

~
Gα,(

~
α)Gα)subscriptsuperscriptSacks¯𝜆subscript𝑖0superscript𝑟

~
subscript𝐺𝛼superscriptsubscript

~
𝛼subscript𝐺𝛼{\Game^{\rm Sacks}_{\bar{\lambda}}}(i_{0},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{G_{\alpha}},(\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha})^{G_{\alpha}}) in which Generic uses st

~
α(i0,r

~
Gα)subscriptst

~
𝛼subscript𝑖0superscript𝑟

~
subscript𝐺𝛼\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}(i_{0},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{G_{\alpha}}) and $`s_i{}_{}{}^{i+1}\lambda =\psi _{i+1}(t_{i+1}^\alpha )`$ and $`\overline{r}^i=(p_{s_\eta ^{i+1}}^{i+1}(\alpha ))^{G_\alpha }:\eta s_i{}_{}{}^{i+1}\lambda `$.

It should be clear that (in $`𝐕[G_\alpha ]`$) $`\overline{\sigma }^j^{}\mathrm{}\overline{\sigma }^j^{}`$ for $`i_0<j^{}<j^{}<\lambda `$, so we have a play $`\overline{\sigma }=\underset{i_0<j^{}<\lambda }{}\overline{\sigma }^j^{}=s_i,\overline{q}^i,\overline{r}^i:i_0i<\lambda `$ of the game λ¯Sacks(i0,r

~
Gα,(

~
α)Gα)subscriptsuperscriptSacks¯𝜆subscript𝑖0superscript𝑟

~
subscript𝐺𝛼superscriptsubscript

~
𝛼subscript𝐺𝛼{\Game^{\rm Sacks}_{\bar{\lambda}}}(i_{0},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{G_{\alpha}},(\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha})^{G_{\alpha}}) with the respective properties. This play is won by Generic, so there are a condition q(

~
α)Gα𝑞superscriptsubscript

~
𝛼subscript𝐺𝛼q\in(\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha})^{G_{\alpha}} and a (

~
α)Gαsuperscriptsubscript

~
𝛼subscript𝐺𝛼(\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha})^{G_{\alpha}}–name   $`\rho `$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   for a member of $`{}_{}{}^{\lambda }\lambda `$ such that qr

~
Gα𝑞superscript𝑟

~
subscript𝐺𝛼q\geq\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{G_{\alpha}} and

()q(

~
α)Gα“ (i[i0,λ))(ρ

~
(i+1)ψi+1(ti+1α)&psρ

~
(i+1)i+1i+1(α)GαΓ(

~
α)Gα) ”.subscriptforcessuperscriptsubscript

~
𝛼subscript𝐺𝛼tensor-product𝑞“ for-all𝑖subscript𝑖0𝜆𝜌

~
𝑖1subscript𝜓𝑖1subscriptsuperscript𝑡𝛼𝑖1subscriptsuperscript𝑝𝑖1subscriptsuperscript𝑠𝑖1𝜌

~
𝑖1superscript𝛼subscript𝐺𝛼subscriptΓsuperscriptsubscript

~
𝛼subscript𝐺𝛼 ”.(\otimes)\quad q\Vdash_{(\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha})^{G_{\alpha}}}\mbox{`` }(\forall i\in[i_{0},\lambda))(\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\restriction}(i+1)\in\psi_{i+1}(t^{\alpha}_{i+1})\ \&\ p^{i+1}_{s^{i+1}_{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.43054pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.43054pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.43054pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.43054pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\restriction}(i+1)}}(\alpha)^{G_{\alpha}}\in\Gamma_{(\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha})^{G_{\alpha}}})\mbox{ ''.}
Let r(α),t

~
α𝑟𝛼subscript𝑡

~
𝛼r(\alpha),\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha} be names for the q,ρ

~
𝑞𝜌

~
q,\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rho$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}} as above (i.e., $`r(\alpha )`$ is a $`_\alpha `$–name of a member of

~
αsubscript

~
𝛼\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha} and t

~
αsubscript𝑡

~
𝛼\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha} is a $`_{\alpha +1}`$–name of a member of $`{}_{}{}^{\lambda }\lambda `$ and $`r\alpha `$ forces that they have the property stated in $`()`$). It follows from our choices that (i)<sub>α+1</sub> \+ (ii)<sub>α+1</sub> hold true, finishing the inductive construction of $`r_\gamma `$ and t

~
αsubscript𝑡

~
𝛼\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}’s.

For $`\alpha <\lambda `$ let $`a_\alpha =\{\tau _\alpha ^t:tT_{\alpha +1}\&\mathrm{rk}_{\alpha +1}(t)=\gamma \}`$ (remember: $`\tau _\alpha ^t`$ is the value forced to τ

~
(α)𝜏

~
𝛼\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) by $`p_t^{\alpha +1}`$). Plainly, $`|a_\alpha |<\lambda _\alpha `$ for each $`\alpha <\lambda `$.

The proof of the iteration theorem will be complete once we show the following claim.

###### Claim A.2.3.1.

The condition $`r_\gamma `$ (defined earlier) is stronger than $`p`$, it is $`(N,_\gamma )`$–generic and rγ“ (α<λ)(τ

~
(α)aα) ”subscriptforcessubscript𝛾𝑟“ for-all𝛼𝜆𝜏

~
𝛼subscript𝑎𝛼 ”r\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\gamma}}\mbox{`` }(\forall\alpha<\lambda)(\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)\in a_{\alpha})\mbox{ ''}.

###### Proof of the Claim.

First, by induction on $`\alpha N(\gamma +1)`$ we are showing that $`p\alpha r\alpha `$. There is nothing to do at limit stages, so let us deal with non-limit ones. Assume we have shown $`p\alpha r\alpha `$.

Suppose that $`G_\alpha _\alpha `$ is generic over $`𝐕`$, $`r\alpha G_\alpha `$. Let tjα=(t

~
α|j)GαTjsubscriptsuperscript𝑡𝛼𝑗superscriptconditionalsuperscript𝑡

~
𝛼𝑗subscript𝐺𝛼subscript𝑇𝑗t^{\alpha}_{j}=(\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle t$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\alpha}|j)^{G_{\alpha}}\in T_{j}, and let i0,r

~
subscript𝑖0𝑟

~
i_{0},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}} be defined as in $`()_\alpha `$. Since, by (ii)<sub>α</sub>, $`p_{t_j^\alpha }^j\alpha G_\alpha `$ (for non-limit $`ji_0`$) and by the clause $`(\zeta )`$ of the construction, we get

$$𝐕[G_\alpha ]\text{“ there is a common upper bound to }\{p_{t_j^\alpha }^j(\alpha )^{G_\alpha }:ji_0\text{ is non-limit }\}\text{ ”,}$$

and thus

𝐕[Gα]“ (j<i0)(ptj+1αj+1(α)Gαr

~
Gα) ”.models𝐕delimited-[]subscript𝐺𝛼“ for-all𝑗subscript𝑖0subscriptsuperscript𝑝𝑗1subscriptsuperscript𝑡𝛼𝑗1superscript𝛼subscript𝐺𝛼superscript𝑟

~
subscript𝐺𝛼 ”.{\bf V}[G_{\alpha}]\models\mbox{`` }(\forall j<i_{0})(p^{j+1}_{t^{\alpha}_{j+1}}(\alpha)^{G_{\alpha}}\leq\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{G_{\alpha}})\mbox{ ''.}
By the choice of $`r(\alpha )`$ we have r(α)Gαr

~
Gαp(α)Gα𝑟superscript𝛼subscript𝐺𝛼superscript𝑟

~
subscript𝐺𝛼𝑝superscript𝛼subscript𝐺𝛼r(\alpha)^{G_{\alpha}}\geq\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{G_{\alpha}}\geq p(\alpha)^{G_{\alpha}}.

Hence $`r\alpha p(\alpha )r(\alpha )`$, as needed.

Now, let $`G_\gamma `$ be generic over $`𝐕`$, $`rG`$. For $`i<\lambda `$ let $`t_i=(t^\gamma |i)^GT_i`$. By (ii)<sub>γ</sub> we know that $`p_{t_{i+1}}^{i+1}G`$. By clause $`(\eta )`$ we have $`p_{t_{i+1}}^{i+1}_i`$ and (by the definition of $`a_i`$) pti+1i+1τ

~
aiforcessubscriptsuperscript𝑝𝑖1subscript𝑡𝑖1𝜏

~
subscript𝑎𝑖p^{i+1}_{t_{i+1}}\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 a_{i}. The former implies that $`G`$ intersects $`N`$ for each open dense subset of $`_\gamma `$ from $`N`$, the latter gives τ

~
G(i)aisuperscript𝜏

~
𝐺𝑖subscript𝑎𝑖\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}}}^{G}(i)\in a_{i}. ∎

(b) Included in the proof of (a). ∎

###### Definition A.2.4.

Let $``$ be a forcing notion.

1. For a condition $`p`$ and an ordinal $`i_0<\lambda `$ we define a game $`\mathrm{}_\lambda ^{\mathrm{bd}}(i_0,p,)`$ like $`\mathrm{}_{\overline{\lambda }}^{\mathrm{Sacks}}(i_0,p,)`$, but demand A.2.1($`1(\epsilon )`$) is replaced by

1. $`|s_i{}_{}{}^{i+1}\lambda |<\lambda `$.
2. $``$ has the strong $`\lambda `$–bounding property if Generic has a winning strategy in the game $`\mathrm{}_\lambda ^{\mathrm{bd}}(i_0,p,)`$ for every $`i_0<\lambda `$, $`p`$.
3. $``$ has the $`\lambda `$–bounding property if for every $`p`$ and a $``$–name   $`\tau `$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   such that $`p`$τ

~
𝐕𝜏

~
𝐕\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}}}\longrightarrow{\bf V} ”, there are a condition $`qp`$ and a sequence $`a_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$ such that $`|a_\alpha |<\lambda `$ (for $`\alpha <\lambda `$) and $`q`$(α<λ)(τ

~
(α)aα)for-all𝛼𝜆𝜏

~
𝛼subscript𝑎𝛼(\forall\alpha<\lambda)(\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)\in a_{\alpha}) ”.

###### Remark A.2.5.

1. All the remarks stated in A.2.2 have their (obvious) parallels for the $`\lambda `$–bounding properties.
2. Clearly, (strong) $`\overline{\lambda }`$–Sacks property implies (strong, respectively) $`\lambda `$–bounding property.

###### Theorem A.2.6.

Suppose that ¯=α,

~
α:α<γ\bar{{\mathbb{Q}}}=\langle{\mathbb{P}}_{\alpha},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}:\alpha<\gamma\rangle is a $`\lambda `$–support iteration such that for all $`\alpha <\lambda `$:

$$__\alpha \text{“ }\begin{array}{c}\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{}\hfill \end{array}_\alpha \text{ has the strong }\lambda \text{–bounding property ”.}$$

Then:

1. $`_\gamma `$ has the $`\lambda `$–bounding property.
2. If $`N((\chi ),,<_\chi ^{})`$, $`|N|=\lambda `$, $`{}_{}{}^{<\lambda }NN`$ and $`\lambda ,p,\overline{},_\gamma ,\mathrm{}N`$, $`p_\gamma `$, then there is an $`(N,_\gamma )`$–generic condition $`r_\gamma `$ stronger than $`p`$.

###### Proof.

Basically the same as for A.2.3, just replacing each occurrence of $`\lambda _i`$ by $`\lambda `$. ∎

## A.3. Fuzzy properness over $`\lambda `$

A properness-type property preserved in $`\lambda `$–support iterations, so called properness over semi-diamonds, was introduced in Rosłanowski and Shelah . That property worked for any uncountable regular cardinal $`\lambda `$ satisfying $`\lambda ^{<\lambda }=\lambda `$ (not necessarily strongly inaccessible), so because of the known ZFC limitations a number of natural forcing notions were not covered. For the context considered in this paper we may do much better: fuzzy properness introduced in this section captures more examples. Even though we do not prove a real preservation in $`\lambda `$–support iterations, our iteration theorem A.3.10 is satisfactory for most applications (see sections B.4 and B.8 later).

In this section we fix $`\lambda ^{},A,W`$ and $`D`$ such that

###### Context A.3.1.

1. $`\lambda ^{}>\lambda `$ is a regular cardinal, $`A_{<\lambda }(\lambda ^{})`$, $`W[A]^\lambda `$, and if $`aW`$, $`w[a]^{<\lambda }`$, $`f:wa`$, then $`fa`$ (hence also $`0a`$ for $`aW`$),
2. for every $`x(\chi )`$ there is a model $`N((\chi ),,<_\chi ^{})`$ such that $`|N|=\lambda `$, $`{}_{}{}^{<\lambda }NN`$, $`xN`$ and $`NAW`$,
3. $`D`$ is a normal filter on $`\lambda `$ such that there is a $`D`$–diamond (see A.3.2).

###### Definition A.3.2.

1. We say that $`\overline{F}=F_\delta :\delta S`$ is a $`D`$–pre-diamond sequence if

* $`SD^+`$ contains all successor ordinals below $`\lambda `$, $`\lambda S`$ is unbounded in $`\lambda `$, $`0S`$, and
    * $`F_\delta {}_{}{}^{\delta }\delta `$ for all $`\delta S`$.
2. A convenient $`D`$–diamond is a $`D`$–pre-diamond $`\overline{F}=F_\delta :\delta S`$ such that

$$(f{}_{}{}^{\lambda }\lambda )(\{\delta S:F_\delta f\}D^+).$$

###### Definition A.3.3.

Let $``$ be a forcing notion. A $`\lambda `$–base for $``$ over $`W`$ is a pair $`(,\overline{𝔜})`$ such that

1. $`\times \lambda \times A`$ is a relation such that

if $`(p,\delta ,x)`$ and $`p_{}p^{}`$, then $`(p^{},\delta ,x)`$,
2. $`\overline{𝔜}=𝔜_a:aW`$ where, for each $`aW`$, $`𝔜_a:\lambda [a]^{<\lambda }`$,
3. if $`q`$, $`aW`$, and $`\delta <\lambda `$ is a limit ordinal,
then there are $`p_{}q`$ and $`x𝔜_a(\delta )`$ such that $`(p,\delta ,x)`$.

If $``$ is understood and $`(p,\delta ,x)`$, then we may say $`p`$ obeys $`x`$ at $`\delta `$.

###### Definition A.3.4.

Let $``$ be a forcing notion and let $`(,\overline{𝔜})`$ be a $`\lambda `$–base for $``$ over $`W`$. Also let a model $`N((\chi ),,<_\chi ^{})`$ be such that $`|N|=\lambda `$, $`{}_{}{}^{<\lambda }NN`$, $`a\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}NAW`$ and $`\{\lambda ,,D,\}N`$. Furthermore, let $`h:\lambda N`$ be such that the range $`\mathrm{Rng}(h)`$ of the function $`h`$ includes $`N`$ and let $`\overline{F}=F_\delta :\delta S`$ be a $`D`$–pre-diamond sequence.

1. Let $`\overline{}=_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda N`$ list all open dense subsets of $``$ from $`N`$. A sequence $`\overline{p}=p_\alpha :\alpha <\delta `$ of conditions from $`N`$ of length $`\delta \lambda `$ is called $`\overline{}`$–exact if

$$(\xi <\delta )(\alpha <\delta )(p_\alpha _\xi ).$$
2. We say that $`\overline{F}`$ is a quasi $`D`$–diamond sequence for $`(N,h,)`$ if for some (equivalently: all) list $`\overline{}=_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$ of all open dense subsets of $``$ from $`N`$, for every $`_{}`$–increasing sequence $`\overline{p}=p_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda N`$ such that

$$E\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\{\delta <\lambda :p_\alpha :\alpha <\delta \text{ is }\overline{}\text{–exact }\}D$$

(equivalently: $`\overline{p}`$ is $`\overline{}`$–exact) we have

$$\{\delta E:(\alpha <\delta )(hF_\delta (\alpha )=p_\alpha )\}D^+.$$
3. For a limit ordinal $`\delta S`$ we define $`𝒴(\delta )=𝒴(N,,h,\overline{F},,\overline{𝔜},\delta )`$ as the set

$$\begin{array}{cc}\{x𝔜_a(\delta ):\hfill & \text{if }hF_\delta (\alpha ):\alpha <\delta \text{ is a }_{}\text{–increasing sequence}\hfill \\ & \text{of conditions from }\text{,}\hfill \\ & \text{then there is a condition }p\text{ such that}\hfill \\ & (\alpha <\delta )(hF_\delta (\alpha )_{}p)\text{ and }(p,\delta ,x)\}\hfill \end{array}$$
4. Let $`\overline{}=_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda N`$ list all open dense subsets of $``$ from $`N`$. A sequence $`\overline{q}=q_{\delta ,x}:\delta S\text{ limit }\&x𝒳_\delta N`$ is called a weak fuzzy candidate over $`\overline{F}`$ for $`(N,h,,,\overline{𝔜},\overline{})`$ whenever $`\mathrm{}X_\delta 𝒴(\delta )`$ (for limit $`\delta S`$) and

1. $`\{\delta S:(x𝒳_\delta )(q_{\delta ,x}_\alpha )\}=SmodD`$ for each $`\alpha <\lambda `$, and
    2. if $`\delta S`$ is a limit ordinal, $`x𝒳_\delta `$, and $`hF_\delta (\alpha ):\alpha <\delta `$ is a $`_{}`$–increasing $`\overline{}`$–exact sequence of members of $`N`$,
    then $`(\alpha <\delta )(hF_\delta (\alpha )_{}q_{\delta ,x})`$ and $`(q_{\delta ,x},\delta ,x)`$.

If above $`X_\delta =𝒴(\delta )`$ for each limit $`\delta S`$, then $`\overline{q}`$ is called a fuzzy candidate over $`\overline{F}`$ for $`(N,h,,,\overline{𝔜},\overline{})`$.

Omitting $`\overline{}`$ means “for some $`\overline{}`$”.
5. Let $`\overline{q}=q_{\delta ,x}:\delta S\text{ limit }\&x𝒳_\delta `$ be a weak fuzzy candidate over $`\overline{F}`$ for $`(N,h,,,\overline{𝔜},\overline{})`$, and $`r`$. We define a game $`\mathrm{}_\lambda ^{\mathrm{fuzzy}}(r,N,\overline{},h,,\overline{F},\overline{q})`$ of two players, the Generic player and the Antigeneric player, as follows. A play lasts $`\lambda `$ moves, in the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ move a condition $`r_i`$ and a set $`C_iD`$ are chosen such that $`(j<i)(rr_jr_i)`$, and Generic chooses $`r_i,C_i`$ if $`iS=\mathrm{Dom}(\overline{F})`$, and Antigeneric chooses $`r_i,C_i`$ if $`iS`$. In the end Generic wins the play if

1. $`(\alpha <\lambda )(i<\lambda )(pN)(p_\alpha \&pr_i)`$, and
    2. if $`\delta S\underset{i<\delta }{}C_i`$ is a limit ordinal, $`hF_\delta (\alpha ):\alpha <\delta `$ is a $`_{}`$–increasing $`\overline{}`$–exact sequence and $`(\alpha <\delta )(i<\delta )(hF_\delta (\alpha )r_i)`$,
    then for some $`x𝒳_\delta `$ we have $`q_{\delta ,x}r_\delta `$.
6. Let $`\overline{q}`$ be a weak fuzzy candidate over $`\overline{F}`$ for $`(N,h,,,\overline{𝔜},\overline{})`$. We say that a condition $`r`$ is $`(,\overline{𝔜})`$–fuzzy generic for $`\overline{q}`$ (over $`(N,\overline{},h,,\overline{F})`$) if Generic has a winning strategy in the game $`\mathrm{}_\lambda ^{\mathrm{fuzzy}}(r,N,\overline{},h,,\overline{F},\overline{q})`$.

###### Remark A.3.5.

1. For any two lists $`\overline{}^1,\overline{}^2`$ of open dense subsets of $``$ from $`N`$, on a club $`E`$ of $`\lambda `$ we have

$$\{_\xi ^1:\xi <\delta \}=\{_\xi ^2:\xi <\delta \}$$

for $`\delta E`$. Thus the corresponding notions of exactness agree for $`\delta E`$. As the generic player can choose $`C_iE`$, in A.3.4(4,5,6) we allow not mention $`\overline{}`$ as a parameter.
2. Plainly, every fuzzy candidate is a weak fuzzy candidate.

###### Definition A.3.6.

Let $``$ be a $`\lambda `$–complete forcing notion.

1. We say that $``$ is fuzzy proper over quasi $`D`$–diamonds for $`W`$ whenever for some $`\lambda `$–base $`(,\overline{𝔜})`$ for $``$ over $`W`$ and for some $`c(\chi )`$,

1. * $`N((\chi ),,<_\chi ^{})`$, $`|N|=\lambda `$, $`{}_{}{}^{<\lambda }NN`$, $`\lambda ,,c,N`$, and $`a\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}NAW`$, $`pN`$,
        * $`h:\lambda N`$ satisfies $`N\mathrm{Rng}(h)`$, and
        * $`\overline{F}`$ is a quasi $`D`$–diamond for $`(N,h,)`$ and $`\overline{q}`$ is a fuzzy candidate over $`\overline{F}`$,
    2. there is $`r`$ stronger than $`p`$ and such that $`r`$ is $`(,\overline{𝔜})`$–fuzzy generic for $`\overline{q}`$.

(We may call $`(,\overline{𝔜})`$ and $`c`$ witnesses for fuzzy properness.)
2. $``$ is strongly fuzzy proper over quasi $`D`$–diamonds whenever for some $`\lambda `$–base $`(,\overline{𝔜})`$ for $``$ over $`W`$ and for some $`c(\chi )`$,

1. * $`N((\chi ),,<_\chi ^{})`$, $`|N|=\lambda `$, $`{}_{}{}^{<\lambda }NN`$, $`\lambda ,,c,N`$, and $`a\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}NAW`$, $`pN`$,
        * $`h:\lambda N`$ satisfies $`N\mathrm{Rng}(h)`$,
        * $`\overline{F}`$ is a quasi $`D`$–diamond for $`(N,h,)`$ and $`\overline{q}`$ is a weak fuzzy candidate over $`\overline{F}`$,
    2. there is a condition $`r`$ stronger than $`p`$ such that $`r`$ is $`(,\overline{𝔜})`$–fuzzy generic for $`\overline{q}`$.
3. $``$ is weakly fuzzy proper over quasi $`D`$–diamonds whenever for some $`\lambda `$–base $`(,\overline{𝔜})`$ for $``$ over $`W`$ and for some $`c(\chi )`$,

1. * $`N((\chi ),,<_\chi ^{})`$, $`|N|=\lambda `$, $`{}_{}{}^{<\lambda }NN`$, $`\lambda ,,c,N`$, and $`a\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}NAW`$, $`pN`$,
        * $`h:\lambda N`$ satisfies $`N\mathrm{Rng}(h)`$,
    2. for some quasi $`D`$–diamond $`\overline{F}`$ for $`(N,h,)`$ and a weak fuzzy candidate $`\overline{q}`$ over $`\overline{F}`$, there is a condition $`r`$ stronger than $`p`$ such that $`r`$ is $`(,\overline{𝔜})`$–fuzzy generic for $`\overline{q}`$.
4. $``$ is fuzzy proper for $`W`$ if it is fuzzy proper over quasi $`D^{}`$–diamonds for every normal filter $`D^{}`$ on $`\lambda `$ (which has diamonds). Similarly for strongly fuzzy and weakly fuzzy proper.

###### Remark A.3.7.

Strong fuzzy properness is very close to properness over semi-diamonds of Rosłanowski and Shelah  and even closer to properness over diamonds introduced by Eisworth . (Note that considering the condition A.3.6$`()^+`$ we may assume that the weak fuzzy candidate $`\overline{q}=q_{\delta ,x}:\delta S\text{ is limit }\&x𝒳_\delta `$ is such that $`|𝒳_\delta |=1`$ for each relevant $`\delta `$, so one may treat it as $`\overline{q}=q_\delta :\delta S\text{ is limit }`$.) Thus fuzzy properness has a flavour of a weaker property. However, the differences in technical details of the conditions introduced in this section and those in  and/or  make it unclear if there are any implications between the “properness conditions” in this section and those in the other two papers.

###### Proposition A.3.8.

Let $`N,,h,\overline{},,\overline{𝔜}`$ be as in A.3.4, $`\overline{F}=F_\delta :\delta S`$ be a $`D`$–pre-diamond.

1. If the forcing notion $``$ is $`\lambda `$-complete, then there is a fuzzy candidate $`\overline{q}`$ over $`\overline{F}`$ for $`(N,h,,,\overline{𝔜},\overline{})`$. In fact we can even demand:

1. for every $`\alpha <\lambda `$, for every large enough $`\delta S`$, $`q_{\delta ,x}_\alpha `$ for all $`x𝒴(\delta )`$.
2. If $`r`$ is $`(,\overline{𝔜})`$–fuzzy generic for some weak fuzzy candidate $`\overline{q}`$, then $`r`$ is $`(N,)`$–generic (in the standard sense).
3. Assume that a condition $`r`$ is $`(N,)`$–generic (in the standard sense), $`\overline{F}`$ is a quasi $`D`$–diamond and $`\overline{q}`$ is a weak fuzzy candidate over $`(N,\overline{},h,,\overline{F})`$. Suppose that Generic has a strategy in the game $`\mathrm{}_\lambda ^{\mathrm{fuzzy}}(r,N,\overline{},h,,\overline{F},\overline{q})`$ which guarantees that the result $`r_i,C_i:i<\lambda `$ of the play satisfies A.3.4(5)$`(\beta )`$. Then she has a winning strategy in $`\mathrm{}_\lambda ^{\mathrm{fuzzy}}(r,N,\overline{},h,,\overline{F},\overline{q})`$ (i.e., one ensuring $`(\alpha )+(\beta )`$ of A.3.4(5)).
4. If $``$ is fuzzy proper over quasi $`D`$–diamonds, then it is weakly fuzzy proper over quasi $`D`$–diamonds. If $``$ is strongly fuzzy proper over quasi $`D`$–diamonds, then it is fuzzy proper over quasi $`D`$–diamonds.
5. Assume that $``$ is weakly fuzzy proper over quasi $`D`$–diamonds, $`\mu \lambda `$, $`Y[\mu ]^\lambda `$, $`A^{}(\chi )`$, $`W^{}[A^{}]^\lambda `$ ($`Y,A^{},W^{}𝐕`$). Then:

1. forcing with $``$ does not collapse $`\lambda ^+`$,
    2. forcing with $``$ preserves the following two properties:

    1. $`Y`$ is a cofinal subset of $`[\mu ]^\lambda `$ (under inclusion),
        2. for every $`x(\chi )`$ there is $`N((\chi ),,<_\chi ^{})`$ such that $`|N|=\lambda `$, $`{}_{}{}^{<\lambda }NN`$, $`NA^{}W^{}`$ (i.e., the stationarity of $`W^{}`$ under the relevant filter).

###### Proof.

(1) Immediate (by the $`\lambda `$–completeness of $``$; remember A.3.3(c) and that $`N`$; note that $`𝔜_a(\delta )N`$).

(2) Remember that $`0S`$, so in the game $`\mathrm{}_\lambda ^{\mathrm{fuzzy}}(r,N,\overline{},h,,\overline{F},\overline{q})`$ the condition $`r_0`$ is chosen by Antigeneric. So if the conclusion fails, then for some $``$–name α

~
N𝛼

~
𝑁\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}\in N for an ordinal we have r⊮“
α
~
N ”not-forces𝑟“
α
~
𝑁 ”r\not\Vdash\mbox{`` }\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}\in N\mbox{ ''}. Thus Antigeneric can choose $`r_0r`$ so that r0“
α
~
=α0 ”forcessubscript𝑟0“
α
~
subscript𝛼0 ”r_{0}\Vdash\mbox{`` }\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\alpha$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}=\alpha_{0}\mbox{ ''} for some ordinal $`\alpha _0N`$, what guarantees him to win the play (remember clause $`(\alpha )`$ of A.3.4(5)).

(3) The Generic player modifies her original strategy as follows. During the play she builds aside a $`_{}`$–increasing sequence of conditions $`p_i:i\lambda SN`$. Arriving to stage $`i+1`$, $`i\lambda S`$, she has two sequences: $`r_j,C_j:ji`$ (of the play) and $`p_j:jiS`$ such that $`p_jr_j`$. Now Generic picks $`p_iN`$ such that

$$(jiS)(p_jp_i)\text{ and }(\xi <i)(p_i_\xi ),$$

and $`p_i,r_i`$ are compatible (remember: we assumed that $`r`$ is $`(N,)`$–generic). Next she replaces $`r_i`$ by a common upper bound of $`p_i`$ and $`r_i`$, pretending that that was the condition played by her opponent, and then she plays according to her original strategy. One easily verifies that this is a winning strategy for the Generic player.

(4) Straightforward (remember that, by A.3.1(3), there is a quasi $`D`$–diamond and by A.3.8(1) there is a fuzzy candidate over it).

(5) Follows from (2). ∎

###### Proposition A.3.9.

$`\lambda ^+`$–complete forcing notions are strongly fuzzy proper for $`W`$.

###### Proof.

This is essentially a variant of \[15, 2.5\], but since we did not give the proof there, we will present it fully here.

So suppose that a forcing notion $``$ is $`\lambda ^+`$–complete. Let $`^{\mathrm{tr}}=^{\mathrm{tr}}()`$ be the trivial relation consisting of all triples $`(p,\delta ,0)`$ such that $`p`$ and $`\delta <\lambda `$ and let $`\overline{𝔜}^{\mathrm{tr}}`$ be such that $`𝔜_a^{\mathrm{tr}}(\delta )=\{0\}`$ (for each $`\delta <\lambda `$, $`aW`$). Assume now that

* $`N((\chi ),,<_\chi ^{})`$, $`|N|=\lambda `$, $`{}_{}{}^{<\lambda }NN`$, $`\lambda ,N`$, and $`a\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}NAW`$,
* $`pN`$, and $`h:\lambda N`$ satisfies $`N\mathrm{Rng}(h)`$,
* $`\overline{F}=F_\delta :\delta S`$ is a quasi $`D`$–diamond for $`(N,h,)`$ and $`\overline{q}`$ is a weak fuzzy candidate over $`\overline{F}`$. Since $`𝔜_a^{\mathrm{tr}}(\delta )`$ has a one member only we may think of $`\overline{q}`$ as a sequence $`q_\delta :\delta S\text{ is limit}`$.

Let $`\overline{}=_\xi :\xi <\lambda `$ list all open dense subsets of $``$ from $`N`$.

We are going to build a condition $`r`$ stronger than $`p`$ which is $`(^{\mathrm{tr}},\overline{𝔜}^{\mathrm{tr}})`$–fuzzy generic for $`\overline{q}`$. For this we inductively build a $`_{}`$–increasing sequence $`r_i^{}:i<\lambda N`$ such that

* $`r_0^{}=p`$, $`r_{i+1}^{}\underset{\xi i}{}_\xi `$,
* if there is an upper bound to $`\{r_j^{}:j<i\}\{q_i\}`$, then $`r_i^{}`$ is such an upper bound.

Then we pick any upper bound $`r`$ to the sequence $`r_i^{}:i<\lambda `$ (remember: $``$ is $`\lambda ^+`$–complete). Now we want to argue that Generic has a winning strategy in the game $`\mathrm{}_\lambda ^{\mathrm{fuzzy}}(r,N,\overline{},h,,\overline{F},\overline{q})`$. Since $`r`$ is $`(N,)`$–generic it is enough to give a strategy for the Generic player which ensures that the result of the play satisfies A.3.4(5)$`(\beta )`$ (by A.3.8(3)). To this end note that there is a club $`E_0`$ of $`\lambda `$ such that

* every member of $`E_0`$ is a limit of ordinals from $`\lambda S`$,
* for every $`\delta E_0`$ and $`i<\delta `$,

$$\{q:qr_i^{}\text{ or }q,r_i^{}\text{ are incompatible }\}\{_\xi :\xi <\delta \},$$

Let Generic play so that arriving to a stage $`\delta S`$ of the play she puts the $`<_\chi ^{}`$–first upper bound to the conditions played so far and $`E_0`$. Why does this strategy work? Let $`r_i,C_i:i<\lambda `$ be the result of the play in which Generic plays as described above and let $`\delta S\underset{i<\delta }{}C_i`$ be a limit ordinal such that $`hF_\delta (\alpha ):\alpha <\delta `$ is a $`_{}`$–increasing $`\overline{}`$–exact sequence and

$$(\alpha <\delta )(i<\delta )(hF_\delta (\alpha )r_i).$$

Then no $`r_i^{},hF_\delta (\alpha )`$ (for $`i,\alpha <\delta `$) can be incompatible, so (since $`\delta E_0`$ and $`hF_\delta (\alpha ):\alpha <\delta `$ is $`\overline{}`$–exact) we have also

$$(i<\delta )(\alpha <\delta )(r_i^{}hF_\delta (\alpha )),$$

and hence $`q_\delta `$ is stronger than all $`r_i^{}`$ (for $`i<\delta `$). Therefore $`q_\delta r_\delta ^{}r_\delta `$. ∎

###### Theorem A.3.10.

Let $`A,W,D`$ be as in A.3.1 and let ¯=α,

~
α:α<ζ\bar{{\mathbb{Q}}}=\langle{\mathbb{P}}_{\alpha},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}:\alpha<\zeta^{*}\rangle be a $`\lambda `$–support iteration of $`\lambda `$–complete forcing notions, and assume that $`\zeta ^{}A`$. Suppose also that for each $`\zeta <\zeta ^{}`$ we have $`\overline{𝔜}^\zeta `$ and $`_\zeta `$–names

~
ζ,c

~
ζsubscript

~
𝜁subscript𝑐

~
𝜁\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathfrak{R}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathfrak{R}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathfrak{R}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathfrak{R}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\zeta},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle c$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle c$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle c$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle c$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\zeta} such that

$$\begin{array}{cc}__\zeta \hfill & \text{“ }\begin{array}{c}\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{}\hfill \end{array}_\zeta \text{ is fuzzy proper over quasi }D\text{–diamonds for }W\hfill \\ & \text{ with witnesses }(\begin{array}{c}\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{}\hfill \end{array}_\zeta ,\overline{𝔜}^\zeta )\text{ and }\begin{array}{c}c\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{}\hfill \end{array}_\zeta \text{”.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Then $`_\zeta ^{}=lim(\overline{})`$ is weakly fuzzy proper over quasi $`D`$–diamonds.

###### Proof.

By A.1.4, the forcing notion $`_\zeta ^{}`$ is $`\lambda `$–complete, so we have to concentrate on showing clause A.3.6(3)($`()^{}`$) for it. The proof, though not presented as such, is by induction on $`\zeta ^{}`$. However, the inductive hypothesis is used only to be able to claim that $`A,W,D`$ are as in A.3.1 when considered in the intermediate universes $`𝐕^_\zeta `$ (for $`\zeta <\zeta ^{}`$) — remember A.3.8(5). Thus our assumptions on

~
ζsubscript

~
𝜁\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\zeta}’s are meaningful.

Let us fix a convenient $`D`$–diamond sequence $`\overline{F}^{}=F_\delta ^{}:\delta S`$ (so in particular, $`SD^+`$ contains all successors, $`\lambda S`$ is unbounded in $`\lambda `$ and $`0S`$). Put

$$E_0\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\{\delta <\lambda :\delta \text{ is a limit of points from }\lambda S\text{ }\},E_1\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}(\lambda S)E_0.$$

Plainly, $`E_0,E_1`$ are clubs of $`\lambda `$. Let $`i_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$ be the increasing enumeration of $`E_1`$ and $`E_2=E_0\{\alpha <\lambda :i_\alpha =\alpha \}`$ (So $`E_2`$ is a club of $`\lambda `$ too).

For each $`aW`$ fix a one-to-one mapping $`\pi _a:a\zeta ^{}\lambda `$ such that $`\pi _a(0)=0`$ (say, $`\pi _a`$ is the $`<_\chi ^{}`$–first such function), and for $`\alpha <\lambda `$ let $`w_\alpha ^a=(\pi _a)^1[i_\alpha ]`$ (so $`a\zeta ^{}=\underset{\alpha <\lambda }{}w_\alpha ^a`$).

For $`\zeta \zeta ^{}`$ let $`^{[\zeta ]}`$ consist of all triples $`(p,\delta ,\overline{x})_\zeta \times \lambda \times A`$ such that for some non-empty $`w[\zeta A]^{<\lambda }`$ we have

x¯=xε:εw and (εw)(pεε“ (p(ε),δ,xε)

~
ε ”).\bar{x}=\langle x_{\varepsilon}:\varepsilon\in w\rangle\quad\mbox{ and }\quad(\forall\varepsilon\in w)(p{\restriction}\varepsilon\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\varepsilon}}\mbox{`` }(p(\varepsilon),\delta,x_{\varepsilon})\in\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathfrak{R}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathfrak{R}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathfrak{R}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathfrak{R}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon}\mbox{ ''}).
Next, for $`\zeta \zeta ^{}`$, $`aW`$ and $`\delta <\lambda `$ we put

$$𝔜_a^{[\zeta ]}(\delta )=\{𝔜_a^\epsilon (\delta ):\epsilon w_\delta ^a\zeta \},$$

thus defining $`𝔜_a^{[\zeta ]}`$ and $`\overline{𝔜}^{[\zeta ]}=𝔜_a^{[\zeta ]}:aW`$. If $`\zeta =\zeta ^{}`$ we will omit it (so then we write $``$ and $`\overline{𝔜}`$).

###### Claim A.3.10.1.

For each $`\zeta \zeta ^{}`$, $`(^{[\zeta ]},\overline{𝔜}^{[\zeta ]})`$ is a $`\lambda `$–base for $`_\zeta `$ over $`W`$.

###### Proof of the Claim.

Immediately by the definition of $`^{[\zeta ]},\overline{𝔜}^{[\zeta ]}`$ we see that clauses (a), (b) of A.3.3 hold (note: $`𝔜_a^{[\zeta ]}(\delta )a`$ by A.3.1(1)). Now, to verify A.3.3(c), suppose $`q_\zeta `$, $`aW`$ and $`\delta <\lambda `$ is limit. For each $`\epsilon w_\delta ^a\zeta `$ let p(ε),x

~
εsuperscript𝑝𝜀superscriptsubscript𝑥

~
𝜀p^{\prime}(\varepsilon),\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle x$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle x$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle x$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle x$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon}^{\prime} be $`_\epsilon `$–names such that

qεε“ p(ε)q(ε)&x

~
ε𝔜aε(δ)&(p(ε),δ,x

~
ε)

~
ε ”,𝑞𝜀subscriptforcessubscript𝜀“ superscript𝑝𝜀𝑞𝜀superscriptsubscript𝑥

~
𝜀subscriptsuperscript𝔜𝜀𝑎𝛿superscript𝑝𝜀𝛿superscriptsubscript𝑥

~
𝜀subscript

~
𝜀 ”,q{\restriction}\varepsilon\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\varepsilon}}\mbox{`` }p^{\prime}(\varepsilon)\geq q(\varepsilon)\ \&\ \mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle x$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle x$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle x$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle x$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon}^{\prime}\in{\mathfrak{Y}}^{\varepsilon}_{a}(\delta)\ \&\ (p^{\prime}(\varepsilon),\delta,\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle x$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle x$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle x$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle x$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon}^{\prime})\in\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathfrak{R}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathfrak{R}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathfrak{R}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathfrak{R}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon}\mbox{ '',}
and for $`\epsilon \mathrm{Dom}(q)w_\delta ^a`$ let $`p^{}(\epsilon )=q(\epsilon )`$. This defines a condition $`p^{}_\zeta `$ stronger than $`q`$ (and names x

~
εsuperscriptsubscript𝑥

~
𝜀\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle x$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle x$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle x$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle x$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon}^{\prime}). Since $`_\zeta `$ is $`\lambda `$–complete we may find a condition $`pp^{}`$ and $`x_\epsilon 𝔜_a^\epsilon (\delta )`$ (for $`\epsilon w_\delta ^a\zeta `$) such that $`p\epsilon __\epsilon `$x

~
ε=xεsuperscriptsubscript𝑥

~
𝜀subscript𝑥𝜀\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle x$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle x$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle x$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle x$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon}^{\prime}=x_{\varepsilon} ” (for $`\epsilon w_\delta ^a\zeta `$). Then, by A.3.3(a), we have $`p\epsilon __\epsilon `$(p(ε),δ,xε)

~
ε𝑝𝜀𝛿subscript𝑥𝜀subscript

~
𝜀(p(\varepsilon),\delta,x_{\varepsilon})\in\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathfrak{R}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathfrak{R}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathfrak{R}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathfrak{R}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon} ” (for each $`\epsilon w_\delta ^a\zeta `$), and hence $`(p,\delta ,x_\epsilon :\epsilon w_\delta ^a\zeta )^{[\zeta ]}`$. ∎

Our aim now is to show that $`_\zeta ^{}`$ is weakly fuzzy proper with witnesses $`(,\overline{𝔜})`$ and c=(c

~
ε:ε<ζ,

~
ε:ε<ζ,,𝔜¯,S,D,F¯,¯)c=(\langle\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle c$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle c$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle c$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle c$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon}:\varepsilon<\zeta^{*}\rangle,\langle\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathfrak{R}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathfrak{R}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathfrak{R}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathfrak{R}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon}:\varepsilon<\zeta^{*}\rangle,{\mathfrak{R}},\bar{{\mathfrak{Y}}},S,D,\bar{F}^{\prime},\bar{{\mathbb{Q}}}). So suppose that a model $`N((\chi ),,<_\chi ^{})`$ satisfies

$$|N|=\lambda ,{}_{}{}^{<\lambda }NN,\lambda ,_\zeta ^{},cN,a\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}NAW,$$

and $`p_\zeta ^{}N`$, and $`h:\lambda N`$ is such that $`_\zeta ^{}N\mathrm{Rng}(h)`$. To simplify the notation later, let $`\pi =\pi _a`$, $`w_\alpha =w_\alpha ^a`$ (for $`\alpha <\lambda `$).

Let us fix a list $`\overline{}=_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$ of all open dense subsets of $`_\zeta ^{}`$ from $`N`$. For $`\zeta (\zeta ^{}+1)N`$, let $`\overline{}^{[\zeta ]}=_\alpha ^{[\zeta ]}:\alpha <\lambda `$, where $`_\alpha ^{[\zeta ]}=\{p\zeta :p_\alpha \}`$. (Note that $`\overline{}^{[\zeta ]}`$ lists all open dense subsets of $`_\zeta `$ from $`N`$.) Also for $`\zeta \zeta ^{}N`$ let 𝒥ζ={pζ:pζp(ζ)

~

~
ζ}subscript𝒥𝜁conditional-set𝑝subscriptsuperscript𝜁𝑝𝜁forces𝑝𝜁subscript

~
subscript

~
𝜁{\mathcal{J}}_{\zeta}=\{p\in{\mathbb{P}}_{\zeta^{*}}:p{\restriction}\zeta\Vdash p(\zeta)\neq\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\emptyset$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\emptyset$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\emptyset$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\emptyset$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\zeta}}\} (so $`𝒥_\zeta `$ is an open dense subset of $`_\zeta ^{}`$ from $`N`$) and let $`E_3=\{\alpha E_2:(\zeta w_\alpha )(\beta <\alpha )(𝒥_\zeta =_\beta )\}`$. Clearly, $`E_3`$ is a club of $`\lambda `$.

Now, using the diamond $`\overline{F}^{}`$ fixed earlier, we are going to define the quasi $`D`$–diamond sequence $`\overline{F}`$ (and then a weak fuzzy candidate $`\overline{q}`$ over it) that will be as required by $`()^{}`$ of A.3.6(3). So, for each $`\delta S`$ we let

$$\begin{array}{cc}Z(\delta )=\{\zeta (\zeta ^{}+1)\{0\}:\hfill & (hF_\delta ^{}(\alpha )\zeta :\alpha <\delta \text{ is a }__\zeta \text{–increasing}\hfill \\ & \overline{}^{[\zeta ]}\text{–exact sequence of members of }N_\zeta \}\hfill \end{array}$$

and if $`Z(\delta )\mathrm{}`$ then we put $`\gamma (\delta )=sup(Z(\delta ))`$. Note that $`Z(\delta )N`$ and thus $`\gamma (\delta )N`$ (when defined). Now, the pre–diamond $`\overline{F}=F_\delta :\delta S`$ is picked so that for a limit $`\delta S`$:

1. if $`Z(\delta )\mathrm{}`$, then $`hF_\delta (\alpha )=\left(hF_\delta ^{}(\alpha )\right)\gamma (\delta )`$ for all $`\alpha <\delta `$;
2. if $`Z(\delta )=\mathrm{}`$, then $`hF_\delta (\alpha )=\mathrm{}__\zeta ^{}`$ for all $`\alpha <\delta `$.

Then easily $`\overline{F}`$ is a quasi $`D`$–diamond for $`(N,h,_\zeta ^{})`$ and for each limit $`\delta S`$, $`hF_\delta (\alpha ):\alpha <\delta `$ is a $`__\zeta ^{}`$–increasing sequence of conditions from $`_\zeta ^{}N`$.

Just for notational simplicity, we will identify a sequence $`\overline{\sigma }=\sigma _0`$ with its (only) term $`\sigma _0`$. Thus below, when we talk about a standard $`(w,1)^\zeta ^{}`$–tree $`𝒯`$, we think of $`T`$ as a set of sequences $`t=(t)_\zeta :\zeta w\mathrm{rk}(t)`$ where $`(t)_\zeta `$’s do not have to be sequences.

Now we are going to define sequences $`\overline{p}=p_i:i<\lambda _\zeta ^{}N`$, $`𝒯_\delta :\delta S\text{ is limit }`$, and $`q_{\delta ,t}:\delta S\text{ is limit }\&tT_\delta _\zeta ^{}N`$ such that for a limit ordinal $`\delta S`$:

1. $`𝒯_\delta =(T_\delta ,\mathrm{rk}_\delta )`$ is a standard $`(w_\delta ,1)^\zeta ^{}`$–tree, and (under the identification mentioned earlier) $`\{tT_\delta :\mathrm{rk}_\delta (t)=\zeta \}𝔜_a^{[\zeta ]}(\delta )`$ for $`\zeta w_\delta \{\zeta ^{}\}`$,
2. $`q_{\delta ,t}:tT_\delta `$ is a standard tree of conditions in $`\overline{}`$,
3. $`pp_ip_j`$ for $`i<j<\lambda `$,
4. if $`j<\lambda `$, then $`w_j\mathrm{Dom}(p_j)`$ and $`(\epsilon w_j)(j^{}>j)(p_j(\epsilon )=p_j^{}(\epsilon ))`$,
5. if $`tT_\delta `$, $`\mathrm{rk}_\delta (t)=\zeta `$, then $`q_{\delta ,t}_\zeta N`$ is such that

1. $`\left(\underset{\alpha <\delta }{}\mathrm{Dom}(hF_\delta (\alpha ))\underset{i<\delta }{}\mathrm{Dom}(p_i)\right)\zeta \mathrm{Dom}(q_{\delta ,t})`$,
    2. $`(\alpha <\delta )\left((hF_\delta )(\alpha )\zeta q_{\delta ,t}\right)`$, and
    3. if $`\epsilon \mathrm{Dom}(q_{\delta ,t})w_\delta `$, then

    qδ,tε“ if the set {pi(ε):i<δ}{(hFδ(α))(ε):α<δ} has an upper bound in
    Q
    ~
    ε, then qδ,t(ε) is such an upper bound ”,subscript𝑞𝛿𝑡𝜀forcesabsent“ if the set conditional-setsubscript𝑝𝑖𝜀𝑖𝛿conditional-setsubscript𝐹𝛿𝛼𝜀𝛼𝛿missing-subexpressionsubscript has an upper bound in
    Q
    ~
    𝜀missing-subexpression then qδ,t(ε) is such an upper bound ”,\begin{array}[]{ll}q_{\delta,t}\restriction\varepsilon\Vdash&\mbox{`` if the set }\{p_{i}(\varepsilon):i<\delta\}\cup\{\big{(}h\circ F_{\delta}(\alpha)\big{)}(\varepsilon):\alpha<\delta\}\\
    &\mbox{ \ has an upper bound in }\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon},\\
    &\mbox{ \ then $q_{\delta,t}(\varepsilon)$ is such an upper bound '',}\end{array}
    4. if $`\epsilon \mathrm{Dom}(q_{\delta ,t})w_\delta `$, then

    $$\begin{array}{cc}q_{\delta ,t}\epsilon \hfill & \text{“ if the set }\{p_i(\epsilon ):i<\delta \}\{\left(hF_\delta (\alpha )\right)(\epsilon ):\alpha <\delta \}\hfill \\ & \text{ has an upper bound which obeys }(t)_\epsilon \text{ at }\delta ,\hfill \\ & \text{ then }q_{\delta ,t}(\epsilon )\text{ is such an upper bound,}\hfill \\ & \text{ else }q_{\delta ,t}(\epsilon )\text{ is an upper bound of }\{\left(hF_\delta (\alpha )\right)(\epsilon ):\alpha <\delta \}\hfill \\ & \text{ which obeys }(t)_\epsilon \text{ at }\delta \text{ ”,}\hfill \end{array}$$
    5. $`q_{\delta ,t}\underset{\xi <\delta }{}_\xi ^{[\zeta ]}`$,
6. if $`tT_\delta `$, $`\zeta =\mathrm{rk}_\delta (t)<\zeta ^{}`$, $`\zeta ^{}w_\delta \{\zeta ^{}\}`$ is the successor of $`\zeta `$ in $`w_\delta \{\zeta ^{}\}`$ and $`t^{},t^{\prime \prime }T_\delta `$ are such that $`\mathrm{rk}_\delta (t)=\mathrm{rk}_\delta (t^{\prime \prime })=\zeta ^{}`$, $`t\mathrm{}t^{}`$, $`t\mathrm{}t^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`t^{}t^{\prime \prime }`$, then

$$q_{\delta ,t}__\zeta \text{“ the conditions }q_{\delta ,t^{}}(\zeta )\text{ and }q_{\delta ,t^{\prime \prime }}(\zeta )\text{ are incompatible ”,}$$
7. if $`tT_\delta `$ and $`\epsilon \mathrm{Dom}(q_{\delta ,t})w_\delta `$, then $`\epsilon \mathrm{Dom}(p_\delta )`$ and

pδε“ if qδ,tεΓε and {pi(ε):i<δ}{qδ,t(ε)} has an upper bound in
Q
~
ε, then pδ(ε) is such an upper bound ”,subscript𝑝𝛿𝜀forcesabsent“ if subscript𝑞𝛿𝑡𝜀subscriptΓsubscript𝜀 and conditional-setsubscript𝑝𝑖𝜀𝑖𝛿subscript𝑞𝛿𝑡𝜀subscript has an upper bound in
Q
~
𝜀missing-subexpression then pδ(ε) is such an upper bound ”,\begin{array}[]{ll}p_{\delta}{\restriction}\varepsilon\Vdash&\mbox{`` if }q_{\delta,t}{\restriction}\varepsilon\in\Gamma_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\varepsilon}}\mbox{ and }\{p_{i}(\varepsilon):i<\delta\}\cup\{q_{\delta,t}(\varepsilon)\}\mbox{ has an upper bound in }\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon},\\
&\mbox{ \ then $p_{\delta}(\varepsilon)$ is such an upper bound '',}\end{array}
8. if $`tT_\delta `$, $`\mathrm{rk}_\delta (t)=\zeta <\zeta ^{}`$, $`x𝔜_a^\zeta (\delta )`$ and

$$\begin{array}{cc}q_{\delta ,t}⊮__\zeta \hfill & \text{“ there is no condition stronger than all }\hfill \\ & (hF_\delta (\alpha ))(\zeta )\text{ for }\alpha <\delta \text{ which obeys }x\text{ at }\delta \text{ ”,}\hfill \end{array}$$

then there is $`t^{}T_\delta `$ such that $`t\mathrm{}t^{}`$ and $`(t^{})_\zeta =x`$.

Assume $`\delta <\lambda `$ and we have defined $`p_i,𝒯_i,q_{i,t}`$ for relevant $`i<\delta `$ and $`t`$. If $`\delta `$ is not a limit ordinal from $`S`$, then only $`p_\delta _\zeta ^{}N`$ needs to be defined, and clauses (iii), (iv) can be easily taken care of. So suppose that $`\delta S`$ is limit.

First we let $`𝒯_\delta ^{}`$ be a standard $`(w_\delta ,1)^\zeta ^{}`$–tree such that $`\{tT_\delta ^{}:\mathrm{rk}_\delta (t)=\zeta \}=𝔜_a^{[\zeta ]}(\delta )`$ (for $`\zeta w_\delta \{\zeta ^{}\}`$). For $`tT_\delta ^{}`$ we define a condition $`r_t_{\mathrm{rk}_\delta ^{}(t)}`$ so that

$$\mathrm{Dom}(r_t)=\left(\underset{\alpha <\delta }{}\mathrm{Dom}(hF_\delta (\alpha ))\underset{i<\delta }{}\mathrm{Dom}(p_i)w_\delta \right)\mathrm{rk}_\delta ^{}(t),$$

and for each $`\zeta \mathrm{Dom}(r_t)`$, $`r_t(\zeta )`$ is the $`<_\chi ^{}`$–first $`_\zeta `$–name for a condition in

~
ζsubscript

~
𝜁\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\zeta} such that:

if $`\zeta w_\delta `$, then

$$\begin{array}{cc}r_t\zeta __\zeta \hfill & \text{“ if the family }\{p_i(\zeta ):i<\delta \}\{\left(hF_\delta (\alpha )\right)(\zeta ):\alpha <\delta \}\hfill \\ & \text{ has an upper bound which obeys }(t)_\zeta \text{ at }\delta ,\hfill \\ & \text{ then }r_t(\zeta )\text{ is such an upper bound,}\hfill \\ & \text{ if the previous is impossible, but there is an upper bound of}\hfill \\ & \{\left(hF_\delta (\alpha )\right)(\zeta ):\alpha <\delta \}\text{ which obeys }(t)_\zeta \text{ at }\delta \hfill \\ & \text{ then }r_t(\zeta )\text{ is such an upper bound,}\hfill \\ & \text{ if neither from the previous two possibilities holds,}\hfill \\ & \text{ then }r_t(\zeta )\text{ is an upper bound of }\{\left(hF_\delta (\alpha )\right)(\zeta ):\alpha <\delta \}\text{ ”,}\hfill \end{array}$$

and if $`\zeta w_\delta `$, then

$$\begin{array}{cc}r_t\zeta __\zeta \hfill & \text{“ if the family }\{p_i(\zeta ):i<\delta \}\{\left(hF_\delta (\alpha )\right)(\zeta ):\alpha <\delta \}\hfill \\ & \text{ has an upper bound, then }r_t(\zeta )\text{ is such an upper bound,}\hfill \\ & \text{ if this is not possible, then }r_t(\zeta )\text{ is just an upper bound of }\hfill \\ & \{\left(hF_\delta (\alpha )\right)(\zeta ):\alpha <\delta \}\text{ ”.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Plainly, $`|T_\delta ^{}|<\lambda `$ and $`\overline{r}=r_t:tT_\delta ^{}`$ is a standard tree of conditions, and it belongs to $`N`$ (remember: $`{}_{}{}^{<\lambda }NN`$). So using A.1.8 in $`N`$ we may pick a standard tree of conditions $`\overline{r}^{}=r_t^{}:tT_\delta ^{}N`$ such that $`\overline{r}\overline{r}^{}`$ and for each $`tT_\delta ^{}`$ and $`\zeta w_\delta \mathrm{rk}_\delta ^{}(t)`$ the condition $`r_t^{}\zeta `$ decides the truth value of the sentence

$$\text{“ }r_t^{}(\zeta )\text{ obeys }(t)_\zeta \text{ at }\delta \text{ (with respect to }\begin{array}{c}\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{}\hfill \end{array}_\zeta \text{) ”}$$

(remember the choice of $`r_t(\zeta )`$ for $`\zeta w_\delta `$ and A.3.3(a)). Put

$$T_\delta =\{tT_\delta ^{}:\text{ for each }\zeta w_\delta \mathrm{rk}_\delta ^{}(t),r_t^{}\zeta __\zeta \text{“ }r_t^{}(\zeta )\text{ obeys }(t)_\zeta \text{ at }\delta \text{ ” }\},$$

and notice that $`T_\delta N`$ is a standard $`(w_\delta ,1)^\zeta ^{}`$–tree. Note also that for each $`tT_\delta `$ there is $`t^{}T_\delta `$ such that $`t\mathrm{}t^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{rk}_\delta (t^{})=\zeta ^{}`$. Finally, using A.1.3 and next A.1.8 in $`N`$ we may choose a standard tree of conditions $`q_{\delta ,t}:tT_\delta N`$ which satisfies clauses (vi) and (v)(e) and such that $`r_t^{}q_{\delta ,t}`$ (for $`tT_\delta `$). It should be clear that then $`𝒯_\delta `$ and $`q_{\delta ,t}:tT_\delta `$ satisfy all the relevant demands from our list ((i)–(viii)). Now finding a condition $`p_\delta _\zeta ^{}N`$ which satisfies (iii)+(iv)+(vii) is straightforward. (Note that, by (vi), if $`t^{},t^{\prime \prime }T_\delta `$, $`\epsilon \mathrm{Dom}(q_{\delta ,t^{}})\mathrm{Dom}(q_{\delta ,t^{\prime \prime }})`$, $`\epsilon w_\delta `$ and the conditions $`q_{\delta ,t^{}}\epsilon ,q_{\delta ,t^{\prime \prime }}\epsilon `$ are compatible, then $`q_{\delta ,t^{}}(\epsilon +1)=q_{\delta ,t^{\prime \prime }}(\epsilon +1)`$.)

For a limit ordinal $`\delta S`$ and $`\zeta N(\zeta ^{}+1)`$ we let

* $`𝒳_\delta ^{[\zeta ]}=\{t\zeta :tT_\delta \&\mathrm{rk}_\delta (t)=\zeta ^{}\}`$;
* if $`s𝒳_\delta ^{[\zeta ]}`$, then $`q_{\delta ,s}^{[\zeta ]}=q_{\delta ,t}\zeta `$ for some (equivalently: all) $`tT_\delta `$ such that $`s\mathrm{}t`$ and $`\mathrm{rk}_\delta (t)=\zeta ^{}`$;
* $`\overline{q}^{[\zeta ]}=q_{\delta ,s}^{[\zeta ]}:\delta S\text{ is limit }\&s𝒳_\delta ^{[\zeta ]}`$;
* $`h^{[\zeta ]}:\lambda N`$ is such that $`h^{[\zeta ]}(\gamma )=(h(\gamma ))\zeta `$ provided $`h(\gamma )`$ is a function, and $`h^{[\zeta ]}(\gamma )=\mathrm{}__\zeta `$ otherwise.

Plainly, $`\mathrm{}𝒳_\delta ^{[\zeta ]}𝔜_a^{[\zeta ]}(\delta )`$ (remember (i)) and $`h^{[\zeta ]}:\lambda N`$ is such that $`_\zeta N\mathrm{Rng}(h^{[\zeta ]})`$. Moreover, one easily verifies the following claim.

###### Claim A.3.10.2.

Let $`\zeta N(\zeta ^{}+1)`$. Then $`\overline{F}`$ is a quasi $`D`$–diamond sequence for $`(N,h^{[\zeta ]},_\zeta )`$ and $`\overline{q}^{[\zeta ]}`$ is a weak fuzzy candidate over $`\overline{F}`$ for $`(N,h^{[\zeta ]},_\zeta ,^{[\zeta ]},\overline{𝔜}^{[\zeta ]},\overline{}^{[\zeta ]})`$.

We may write $`\overline{q},q_{\delta ,t},𝒳_\delta `$ for $`\overline{q}^{[\zeta ^{}]},q_{\delta ,t}^{[\zeta ^{}]},𝒳_\delta ^{[\zeta ^{}]}`$, respectively. Also note that, in the context of our definitions, the functions $`h`$ and $`h^{[\zeta ^{}]}`$ behave the same, so we may identify them. Of course, we are going to define an $`(,\overline{𝔜})`$–fuzzy generic condition $`r_\zeta ^{}`$ for $`\overline{q}`$ over $`\overline{F}`$, but before that we have to introduce more notation used later and prove some important facts.

For $`\zeta \zeta ^{}N`$ we define a function $`h^\zeta `$ and $`_\zeta `$–names S

~
ζ,𝒳

~
δζ,

~
αζ,F¯

~
ζ,¯

~
ζsuperscript𝑆

~
delimited-⟨⟩𝜁subscriptsuperscript𝒳

~
delimited-⟨⟩𝜁𝛿superscriptsubscript

~
𝛼delimited-⟨⟩𝜁superscript¯𝐹

~
delimited-⟨⟩𝜁superscript¯

~
delimited-⟨⟩𝜁\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\langle\zeta\rangle},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathcal{X}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathcal{X}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathcal{X}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{X}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\langle\zeta\rangle}_{\delta},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathcal{I}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathcal{I}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathcal{I}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{I}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}^{\langle\zeta\rangle},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\bar{F}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\bar{F}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\bar{F}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\bar{F}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\langle\zeta\rangle},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\bar{{\mathcal{I}}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\bar{{\mathcal{I}}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\bar{{\mathcal{I}}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\bar{{\mathcal{I}}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\langle\zeta\rangle} and q¯

~
ζsuperscript¯𝑞

~
delimited-⟨⟩𝜁\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\bar{q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\bar{q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\bar{q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\bar{q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\langle\zeta\rangle} so that:

* $`h^\zeta :\lambda N`$ is such that if $`h(\gamma )`$ is a function, $`\zeta \mathrm{Dom}(h(\gamma ))`$ and $`(h(\gamma ))(\zeta )`$ is a $`_\zeta `$–name then $`h^\zeta (\gamma )=((h(\gamma ))(\zeta )`$, otherwise hζ(γ)=

~

~
ζsuperscriptdelimited-⟨⟩𝜁𝛾subscript

~
subscript

~
𝜁h^{\langle\zeta\rangle}(\gamma)=\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\emptyset$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\emptyset$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\emptyset$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\emptyset$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\zeta}};
* $`__\zeta `$S

~
ζ={δS:\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\langle\zeta\rangle}=\{\delta\in S: if $`\delta `$ is limit then $`\delta >\pi (\zeta )\&(s𝒳_\delta ^{[\zeta ]})(q_{\delta ,s}^{[\zeta ]}\mathrm{\Gamma }__\zeta )\}`$”;
* $`__\zeta `$“ if δS

~
ζ𝛿superscript𝑆

~
delimited-⟨⟩𝜁\delta\in\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\langle\zeta\rangle} is limit, then 𝒳

~
δζ={x𝔜aζ(δ):(t𝒳δ)(qδ,tζΓζ&(t)ζ=x)}subscriptsuperscript𝒳

~
delimited-⟨⟩𝜁𝛿conditional-set𝑥superscriptsubscript𝔜𝑎𝜁𝛿𝑡subscript𝒳𝛿subscript𝑞𝛿𝑡𝜁subscriptΓsubscript𝜁subscript𝑡𝜁𝑥\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathcal{X}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathcal{X}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathcal{X}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{X}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\langle\zeta\rangle}_{\delta}=\{x\in{\mathfrak{Y}}_{a}^{\zeta}(\delta):(\exists t\in{\mathcal{X}}_{\delta})(q_{\delta,t}{\restriction}\zeta\in\Gamma_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\zeta}}\ \&\ (t)_{\zeta}=x)\} ”;
* ζ“
¯q
~
ζ=q

~
δ,xζ:δS

~
ζ is limit &x𝒳

~
δζ\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\zeta}}\mbox{`` }\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\bar{q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\bar{q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\bar{q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\bar{q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\langle\zeta\rangle}=\langle\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\delta,x}^{\langle\zeta\rangle}:\delta\in\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\langle\zeta\rangle}\mbox{ is limit }\ \&\ x\in\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathcal{X}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathcal{X}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathcal{X}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{X}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\delta}^{\langle\zeta\rangle}\rangle, where:
* $`__\zeta `$“ if δS

~
ζ𝛿superscript𝑆

~
delimited-⟨⟩𝜁\delta\in\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\langle\zeta\rangle} is limit and x𝒳

~
δζ𝑥superscriptsubscript𝒳

~
𝛿delimited-⟨⟩𝜁x\in\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathcal{X}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathcal{X}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathcal{X}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{X}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\delta}^{\langle\zeta\rangle}, then q

~
δ,xζ=qδ,t(ζ)superscriptsubscript𝑞

~
𝛿𝑥delimited-⟨⟩𝜁subscript𝑞𝛿𝑡𝜁\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\delta,x}^{\langle\zeta\rangle}=q_{\delta,t}(\zeta) for some (equivalently: all) $`t𝒳_\delta `$ such that $`q_{\delta ,t}\zeta \mathrm{\Gamma }__\zeta `$ and $`(t)_\zeta =x`$ ”;
* $`__\zeta `$F¯

~
ζ=Fδ:δS

~
ζ\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\bar{F}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\bar{F}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\bar{F}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\bar{F}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\langle\zeta\rangle}=\langle F_{\delta}:\delta\in\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\langle\zeta\rangle}\rangle;
* $`__\zeta `$¯

~
ζ=

~
αζ:α<λ\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\bar{{\mathcal{I}}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\bar{{\mathcal{I}}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\bar{{\mathcal{I}}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\bar{{\mathcal{I}}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\langle\zeta\rangle}=\langle\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathcal{I}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathcal{I}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathcal{I}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{I}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\langle\zeta\rangle}_{\alpha}:\alpha<\lambda\rangle ”, where:
* $`__\zeta `$

~
αζ={p(ζ):pα&pζΓζ}subscriptsuperscript

~
delimited-⟨⟩𝜁𝛼conditional-set𝑝𝜁𝑝subscript𝛼𝑝𝜁subscriptΓsubscript𝜁\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathcal{I}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathcal{I}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathcal{I}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{I}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\langle\zeta\rangle}_{\alpha}=\{p(\zeta):p\in{\mathcal{I}}_{\alpha}\ \&\ p\restriction\zeta\in\Gamma_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\zeta}}\} ”.

Naturally, we treat $`h^\zeta `$ as a $`_\zeta `$–name for a function from $`\lambda `$ to $`N[\mathrm{\Gamma }__\zeta ]`$. Observe that $`__\zeta `$N[Γζ]

~
ζRng(hζ)𝑁delimited-[]subscriptΓsubscript𝜁subscript

~
𝜁Rngsuperscriptdelimited-⟨⟩𝜁N[\Gamma_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\zeta}}]\cap\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\zeta}\subseteq{\rm Rng}(h^{\langle\zeta\rangle}) ”, and

$`__\zeta `$¯

~
ζsuperscript¯

~
delimited-⟨⟩𝜁\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\bar{{\mathcal{I}}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\bar{{\mathcal{I}}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\bar{{\mathcal{I}}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\bar{{\mathcal{I}}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\langle\zeta\rangle} lists all open dense subsets of

~
ζsubscript

~
𝜁\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\zeta} from $`N[\mathrm{\Gamma }__\zeta ]`$ ”.

###### Claim A.3.10.3.

Assume that $`\zeta N\zeta ^{}`$ and $`r_\zeta `$ is a $`(^{[\zeta ]},\overline{𝔜}^{[\zeta ]})`$–fuzzy generic condition for $`\overline{q}^{[\zeta ]}`$ over $`(N,\overline{}^{[\zeta ]},h^{[\zeta ]},_\zeta ,\overline{F})`$. Then

1. $`r__\zeta `$S

~
ζD+superscript𝑆

~
delimited-⟨⟩𝜁superscript𝐷\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\langle\zeta\rangle}\in D^{+} ”,
2. $`r__\zeta `$F¯

~
ζsuperscript¯𝐹

~
delimited-⟨⟩𝜁\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\bar{F}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\bar{F}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\bar{F}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\bar{F}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\langle\zeta\rangle} is a quasi $`D`$–diamond for (N[Γζ],hζ,

~
ζ)𝑁delimited-[]subscriptΓsubscript𝜁superscriptdelimited-⟨⟩𝜁subscript

~
𝜁(N[\Gamma_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\zeta}}],h^{\langle\zeta\rangle},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\zeta}) ”, and
3. $`r__\zeta `$q¯

~
ζsuperscript¯𝑞

~
delimited-⟨⟩𝜁\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\bar{q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\bar{q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\bar{q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\bar{q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\langle\zeta\rangle} is a fuzzy candidate for (N[Γζ],hζ,

~
ζ,

~
ζ,𝔜¯ζ)𝑁delimited-[]subscriptΓsubscript𝜁superscriptdelimited-⟨⟩𝜁subscript

~
𝜁subscript

~
𝜁superscript¯𝔜𝜁(N[\Gamma_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\zeta}}],h^{\langle\zeta\rangle},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\zeta},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathfrak{R}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathfrak{R}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathfrak{R}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathfrak{R}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\zeta},\bar{{\mathfrak{Y}}}^{\zeta}) over F¯

~
ζsuperscript¯𝐹

~
delimited-⟨⟩𝜁\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\bar{F}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\bar{F}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\bar{F}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\bar{F}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\langle\zeta\rangle} ”.

###### Proof.

(1) Will follow from (2).

(2) Assume that this fails. Then we can find a condition $`r^{}_\zeta `$, a $`_\zeta `$–name q¯

~
=q

~
α:α<λ\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\bar{q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\bar{q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\bar{q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\bar{q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\prime}=\langle\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}^{\prime}:\alpha<\lambda\rangle for an increasing sequence of conditions from

~
ζN[Γζ]subscript

~
𝜁𝑁delimited-[]subscriptΓsubscript𝜁\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\zeta}\cap N[\Gamma_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\zeta}}], and $`_\zeta `$–names A

~
ξ,B

~
ξsubscript𝐴

~
𝜉subscript𝐵

~
𝜉\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}}}_{\xi},\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}}}_{\xi} for members of $`D𝐕`$ such that $`r__\zeta r^{}`$ and

rζ“ (δξ<λA

~
ξ)(q

~
α:α<δ is ¯~ζ–exact ) and(δS

~
ζξ<λB

~
ξ)(hζFδ(α):α<δq¯

~
δ) ”.\begin{array}[]{ll}r^{*}\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\zeta}}&\mbox{`` }(\forall\delta\in\mathop{\triangle}\limits_{\xi<\lambda}\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}}}_{\xi})(\langle\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}^{\prime}:\alpha<\delta\rangle\mbox{ is $\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\bar{{\mathcal{I}}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\bar{{\mathcal{I}}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\bar{{\mathcal{I}}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\bar{{\mathcal{I}}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\langle\zeta\rangle}$--exact })\quad\mbox{ and}\\
&\quad(\forall\delta\in\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\langle\zeta\rangle}\cap\mathop{\triangle}\limits_{\xi<\lambda}\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}}}_{\xi})(\langle h^{\langle\zeta\rangle}\circ F_{\delta}(\alpha):\alpha<\delta\rangle\neq\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\bar{q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\bar{q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\bar{q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\bar{q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\prime}\restriction\delta)\mbox{ ''.}\end{array}
Consider a play $`r_j,C_j:j<\lambda `$ of the game $`\mathrm{}_\lambda ^{\mathrm{fuzzy}}(r,N,\overline{}^{[\zeta ]},h^{[\zeta ]},_\zeta ,\overline{F},\overline{q}^{[\zeta ]})`$ in which Generic uses her winning strategy and Antigeneric plays as follows.

Together with choosing $`r_j`$ (for $`j\lambda S`$), the Antigeneric player chooses also side conditions $`p_jN_\zeta `$, sets $`A_\xi ,B_\xi D`$ and $`_\zeta `$–names q

~
ξNsubscriptsuperscript𝑞

~
𝜉𝑁\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{*}_{\xi}\in N for elements of

~
ζsubscript

~
𝜁\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\zeta} (for $`\xi j`$) such that

* $`r_jr^{}`$ (so $`r_0r^{}`$; remember Antigeneric plays at 0), $`r_jr_i`$ (for $`i<j`$), and $`r_jp_j`$ and
* $`r_j__\zeta `$(ξj)(A

~
ξ=Aξ&B

~
ξ=Bξ&q

~
ξ=q

~
ξ)for-all𝜉𝑗subscript𝐴

~
𝜉subscript𝐴𝜉subscript𝐵

~
𝜉subscript𝐵𝜉subscriptsuperscript𝑞

~
𝜉subscriptsuperscript𝑞

~
𝜉(\forall\xi\leq j)(\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}}}_{\xi}=A_{\xi}\ \&\ \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}}}_{\xi}=B_{\xi}\ \&\ \mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\prime}_{\xi}=\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{*}_{\xi}) ”, and
* if $`j^{}<j`$ are from $`\lambda S`$, then $`p_jp_j^{}`$, and $`p_j\underset{\xi <j}{}_\xi ^{[\zeta ]}`$, and
* $`p_j__\zeta `$$`(\xi _0<\xi _1j)(q_{\xi _0}^{}q_{\xi _1}^{})`$ ”, and
* if $`\delta <j`$, $`\delta \underset{\xi <\delta }{}A_\xi `$, then pjq

~
jξ[ζ+1]superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑗delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑞

~
𝑗superscriptsubscript𝜉delimited-[]𝜁1{p_{j}}^{\frown}\langle\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j}^{*}\rangle\in{\mathcal{I}}_{\xi}^{[\zeta+1]} for all $`\xi <\delta `$.

\[The $`C_j`$’s are not that important for our argument, so we do not specify any requirements on them. Regarding the choice of the $`p_j`$’s, remember A.3.8(2); for the last two demands remember that q

~
jsuperscriptsubscript𝑞

~
𝑗\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j}^{\prime}’s are (forced to be) increasing.\] After the play, the Antigeneric player completes $`p_j:j\lambda S`$ to a $`__\zeta `$–increasing sequence $`p_j:j<\lambda N_\zeta `$ letting $`p_j=p_{\mathrm{min}(\lambda S(j+1))}`$ for $`jS`$.

Note that if $`\delta E_0`$ is a limit of elements of $`\underset{\xi <\lambda }{}A_\xi `$, then the sequence pjq

~
j:j<δ\langle{p_{j}}^{\frown}\langle\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j}^{*}\rangle:j<\delta\rangle is $`\overline{}^{[\zeta +1]}`$–exact and increasing (and $`p_j:j<\delta `$ is $`\overline{}^{[\zeta ]}`$–exact). So, as $`D`$ is normal and $`A_\xi ,B_\xi ,C_jD`$ and $`\overline{F}`$ is a quasi $`D`$–diamond for $`(N,h^{[\zeta +1]},_{\zeta +1})`$ (by A.3.10.2), we may find an ordinal $`\delta SE_0\underset{\xi <\lambda }{}A_\xi \underset{\xi <\lambda }{}B_\xi \underset{j<\lambda }{}C_j(\pi (\zeta )+1)`$ which is a limit of members of $`\underset{\xi <\lambda }{}A_\xi `$ and such that h[ζ+1]Fδ(j):j<δ=pjq

~
j:j<δ\langle h^{[\zeta+1]}\circ F_{\delta}(j):j<\delta\rangle=\langle{p_{j}}^{\frown}\langle\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j}^{*}\rangle:j<\delta\rangle. By the choice of $`\overline{F}`$ we know that $`h(F_\delta (j))`$ is a condition in $`_\zeta ^{}`$ (so a function) and hence hζ(Fδ(j))=q

~
jsuperscriptdelimited-⟨⟩𝜁subscript𝐹𝛿𝑗subscriptsuperscript𝑞

~
𝑗h^{\langle\zeta\rangle}(F_{\delta}(j))=\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle q$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{*}_{j} for all $`j<\delta `$. Also

$$(i<\delta )(j\delta S)(h^{[\zeta ]}F_\delta (i)__\zeta h^{[\zeta ]}F_\delta (j)=p_j__\zeta r_j).$$

Since the play is won by Generic, for some $`s𝒳_\delta ^{[\zeta ]}`$ we have $`q_{\delta ,s}^{[\zeta ]}r_\delta `$. But then

rδ“ δSζξ<λB

~
ξ&hζFδ(α):α<δ=q¯δ ”,r_{\delta}\Vdash\mbox{`` }\delta\in S^{\langle\zeta\rangle}\cap\mathop{\triangle}_{\xi<\lambda}\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}}}_{\xi}\quad\&\quad\langle h^{\langle\zeta\rangle}\circ F_{\delta}(\alpha):\alpha<\delta\rangle=\bar{q}^{\prime}{\restriction}\delta\mbox{ '',}
a contradiction.

(3) Straightforward (remember the choice of $`q_{\delta ,t}`$’s, specifically clauses (v)(b,d,e) and (viii)). ∎

Now we are going to define an $`(,\overline{𝔜})`$–fuzzy generic condition $`r`$ for $`\overline{q}`$ over $`(N,\overline{},h,_\zeta ^{},\overline{F})`$ in the most natural way. Its domain is $`\mathrm{Dom}(r)=\zeta ^{}N`$ and for each $`\zeta \zeta ^{}N`$

rζ“ r(ζ)pπ(ζ)+1(ζ) is an (~ζ,𝔜¯ζ)–fuzzy generic condition for q¯ζ over (N[Γζ],¯

~
ζ,hζ,

~
ζ,F¯

~
ζ) ”.𝑟𝜁forcesabsent“ 𝑟𝜁subscript𝑝𝜋𝜁1𝜁 is an (~ζ,𝔜¯ζ)–fuzzy generic condition for superscript¯𝑞delimited-⟨⟩𝜁missing-subexpression over 𝑁delimited-[]subscriptΓsubscript𝜁superscript¯

~
delimited-⟨⟩𝜁superscriptdelimited-⟨⟩𝜁subscript

~
𝜁superscript¯𝐹

~
delimited-⟨⟩𝜁 ”.\begin{array}[]{ll}r\restriction\zeta\Vdash&\mbox{`` }r(\zeta)\geq p_{\pi(\zeta)+1}(\zeta)\mbox{ is an $(\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathfrak{R}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathfrak{R}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathfrak{R}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathfrak{R}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\zeta},\bar{{\mathfrak{Y}}}^{\zeta})$--fuzzy generic condition for
}\bar{q}^{\langle\zeta\rangle}\\
&\ \ \mbox{ over }(N[\Gamma_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\zeta}}],\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\bar{{\mathcal{I}}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\bar{{\mathcal{I}}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\bar{{\mathcal{I}}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\bar{{\mathcal{I}}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\langle\zeta\rangle},h^{\langle\zeta\rangle},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\zeta},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\bar{F}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\bar{F}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\bar{F}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\bar{F}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\langle\zeta\rangle})\mbox{ ''.}\end{array}
\[So $`rp_i`$ for all $`i<\lambda `$.\]

###### Claim A.3.10.4.

For every $`\zeta (\zeta ^{}+1)N`$, the Generic player has a winning strategy in the game $`\mathrm{}_\lambda ^{\mathrm{fuzzy}}(r\zeta ,N,\overline{}^{[\zeta ]},h^{[\zeta ]},_\zeta ,\overline{F},\overline{q}^{[\zeta ]})`$.

###### Proof of the Claim.

We will prove the claim by induction on $`\zeta (\zeta ^{}+1)N`$. After we are done with stage $`\zeta (\zeta ^{}+1)N`$, we know that $`r\zeta `$ is $`(^{[\zeta ]},\overline{𝔜}^{[\zeta ]})`$–fuzzy generic for $`\overline{q}^{[\zeta ]}`$ over $`(N,\overline{}^{[\zeta ]},h^{[\zeta ]},_\zeta ,\overline{F})`$. For $`\zeta \zeta ^{}N`$ this implies that $`r(\zeta )`$ is well-defined (remember A.3.10.3). Of course for $`\zeta =\zeta ^{}`$ we finish the proof of the theorem.

Suppose that $`\zeta (\zeta ^{}+1)N`$ and we know that $`r\zeta ^{}`$ is $`(^{[\zeta ^{}]},\overline{𝔜}^{[\zeta ^{}]})`$–fuzzy generic for $`\overline{q}^{[\zeta ^{}]}`$ over $`(N,\overline{}^{[\zeta ^{}]},h^{[\zeta ^{}]},_\zeta ^{},\overline{F})`$ for all $`\zeta ^{}N\zeta `$. We are going to define a winning strategy $`\mathrm{st}`$ for Generic in the game $`\mathrm{}_\lambda ^{\mathrm{fuzzy}}(r\zeta ,N,\overline{}^{[\zeta ]},h^{[\zeta ]},_\zeta ,\overline{F},\overline{q}^{[\zeta ]})`$. First, for $`\epsilon \zeta N`$ fix a $`_\epsilon `$–name st

~
εsubscriptst

~
𝜀\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon} such

rε“ st~ε is a winning strategy of the
Generic player in the game λfuzzy(r(ε),N[Γε],¯

~
ε,hε,

~
ε,F¯ε,q¯ε) ”.𝑟𝜀forcesabsent“ st~ε is a winning strategy of the
Generic playermissing-subexpression in the game subscriptsuperscriptfuzzy𝜆𝑟𝜀𝑁delimited-[]subscriptΓsubscript𝜀superscript¯

~
delimited-⟨⟩𝜀superscriptdelimited-⟨⟩𝜀subscript

~
𝜀superscript¯𝐹delimited-⟨⟩𝜀superscript¯𝑞delimited-⟨⟩𝜀 ”.\begin{array}[]{ll}r{\restriction}\varepsilon\Vdash&\mbox{`` $\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon}$ is a winning strategy of the
Generic player}\\
&\ \mbox{ in the game }{\Game^{\rm fuzzy}_{\lambda}}(r(\varepsilon),N[\Gamma_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\varepsilon}}],\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\bar{{\mathcal{I}}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\bar{{\mathcal{I}}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\bar{{\mathcal{I}}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\bar{{\mathcal{I}}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\langle\varepsilon\rangle},h^{\langle\varepsilon\rangle},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon},\bar{F}^{\langle\varepsilon\rangle},\bar{q}^{\langle\varepsilon\rangle})\mbox{ ''.}\end{array}
We will think of st

~
εsubscriptst

~
𝜀\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon} as a name for a function from $`<\lambda `$–sequences of members of

~
ε×Dsubscript

~
𝜀𝐷\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon}\times D (thought of as pairs of sequences of the same length $`<\lambda `$) to

~
ε×Dsubscript

~
𝜀𝐷\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon}\times D such that if (σ¯

~
,C¯

~
)Dom(st

~
ε)¯𝜎

~
¯𝐶

~
Domsubscriptst

~
𝜀(\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\bar{\sigma}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\bar{\sigma}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\bar{\sigma}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\bar{\sigma}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\bar{C}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\bar{C}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\bar{C}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\bar{C}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}})\in{\rm Dom}(\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon}) and   $`\overline{\sigma }`$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   has an upper bound, then the first coordinate of stε(σ¯

~
,C¯

~
)subscriptst𝜀¯𝜎

~
¯𝐶

~
{\rm st}_{\varepsilon}(\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\bar{\sigma}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\bar{\sigma}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\bar{\sigma}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\bar{\sigma}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\bar{C}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\bar{C}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\bar{C}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\bar{C}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}) is such an upper bound (and, of course, any play according to st

~
εsubscriptst

~
𝜀\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon} is won by Generic). (In a play of λfuzzy(r(ε),N[Γε],¯

~
ε,hε,

~
ε,F¯ε,q¯ε)subscriptsuperscriptfuzzy𝜆𝑟𝜀𝑁delimited-[]subscriptΓsubscript𝜀superscript¯

~
delimited-⟨⟩𝜀superscriptdelimited-⟨⟩𝜀subscript

~
𝜀superscript¯𝐹delimited-⟨⟩𝜀superscript¯𝑞delimited-⟨⟩𝜀{\Game^{\rm fuzzy}_{\lambda}}(r(\varepsilon),N[\Gamma_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\varepsilon}}],\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\bar{{\mathcal{I}}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\bar{{\mathcal{I}}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\bar{{\mathcal{I}}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\bar{{\mathcal{I}}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\langle\varepsilon\rangle},h^{\langle\varepsilon\rangle},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon},\bar{F}^{\langle\varepsilon\rangle},\bar{q}^{\langle\varepsilon\rangle}) only the values of st

~
εsubscriptst

~
𝜀\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon} at “legal partial plays according to st

~
εsubscriptst

~
𝜀\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon}” matter, but it is notationally convenient to have st

~
εsubscriptst

~
𝜀\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon} giving values for all sequences of elements of

~
ε×Dsubscript

~
𝜀𝐷\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon}\times D, even if first coordinates are not increasing, as well as for sequences after which Antigeneric should play.)

We will describe the strategy $`\mathrm{st}`$ by giving the answers of Generic on intervals $`S[i_\alpha ,i_{\alpha +1})`$ (for $`\alpha <\lambda `$), where, remember, $`i_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$ is the increasing enumeration of $`E_1`$. Aside the Generic player will construct sequences r

~
j(ε):j<λ,εζNdelimited-⟨⟩:superscriptsubscript𝑟

~
superscript𝑗𝜀formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑗𝜆𝜀𝜁𝑁\langle\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j^{\prime}}^{\prime}(\varepsilon):j^{\prime}<\lambda,\ \varepsilon\in\zeta\cap N\rangle and C

~
jξ(ε):j,ξ<λ,εζN\langle\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j^{\prime}}^{\xi}(\varepsilon):j^{\prime},\xi<\lambda,\ \varepsilon\in\zeta\cap N\rangle so that

1. r

~
j(ε)superscriptsubscript𝑟

~
superscript𝑗𝜀\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j^{\prime}}^{\prime}(\varepsilon) is a $`_\epsilon `$–name for a member of

~
εsubscript

~
𝜀\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon}, C

~
jξ(ε)superscriptsubscript𝐶

~
superscript𝑗𝜉𝜀\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j^{\prime}}^{\xi}(\varepsilon) is a $`_\epsilon `$–name for a member of $`D𝐕`$, and
2. if $`\alpha <\lambda `$, $`\delta =\mathrm{min}\left(S[i_\alpha ,i_{\alpha +1})\right)`$, and $`\epsilon w_{\alpha +1}\zeta `$, then after the $`\delta `$-th move (which is a move of the Generic player) the terms r

~
j(ε),C

~
jξ(ε):ξ<λ\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j^{\prime}}^{\prime}(\varepsilon),\langle\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j^{\prime}}^{\xi}(\varepsilon):\xi<\lambda\rangle are defined for all $`j^{}<i_{\alpha +1}`$, and
3. if $`\alpha <\lambda `$, $`\epsilon w_{\alpha +1}\zeta `$ and $`p^{}_\epsilon `$ is stronger than all $`r_j\epsilon `$ for $`j(i_\alpha +1)S`$ ($`r_j`$ are the conditions played in the game), then

pε“ (j(iα+1)S)(rj(ε)r

~
iα(ε)) ”,subscriptforcessubscript𝜀superscript𝑝“ for-all𝑗subscript𝑖𝛼1𝑆subscript𝑟𝑗𝜀superscriptsubscript𝑟

~
subscript𝑖𝛼𝜀 ”,p^{*}\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\varepsilon}}\mbox{`` }(\forall j\in(i_{\alpha}+1)\setminus S)(r_{j}(\varepsilon)\leq\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i_{\alpha}}^{\prime}(\varepsilon))\mbox{ '',}
4. if $`\alpha <\lambda `$, $`\epsilon w_{\alpha +1}\zeta `$ and $`r_{i_\alpha +1}`$ is the condition played by Generic at stage $`i_\alpha +1S`$, then

riα+1εε“ (j<iα+1)(r

~
j(ε)riα+1(ε)) ”,subscript𝑟subscript𝑖𝛼1𝜀subscriptforcessubscript𝜀“ for-allsuperscript𝑗subscript𝑖𝛼1superscriptsubscript𝑟

~
superscript𝑗𝜀subscript𝑟subscript𝑖𝛼1𝜀 ”,r_{i_{\alpha}+1}{\restriction}\varepsilon\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\varepsilon}}\mbox{`` }(\forall j^{\prime}<i_{\alpha+1})(\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j^{\prime}}^{\prime}(\varepsilon)\leq r_{i_{\alpha}+1}(\varepsilon))\mbox{ '',}
5. for each $`\epsilon N\zeta `$,

rεε“ r

~
j(ε),ξ<λC

~
jξ(ε):j<λ is a play of the gameλfuzzy(r(ε),N[Γε],¯ε,hε,

~
ε,F¯ε,q¯

~
ε) in which Generic uses st~ε ”.\begin{array}[]{ll}r{\restriction}\varepsilon\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\varepsilon}}&\mbox{`` }\langle\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\prime}_{j}(\varepsilon),\mathop{\triangle}\limits_{\xi<\lambda}\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j}^{\xi}(\varepsilon):j<\lambda\rangle\mbox{ is a play of the game}\\
&\ {\Game^{\rm fuzzy}_{\lambda}}(r(\varepsilon),N[\Gamma_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\varepsilon}}],{\bar{{\mathcal{I}}}}^{\langle\varepsilon\rangle},h^{\langle\varepsilon\rangle},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon},\bar{F}^{\langle\varepsilon\rangle},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\bar{q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\bar{q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\bar{q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\bar{q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\langle\varepsilon\rangle})\mbox{ in which Generic uses
$\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon}$ ''.}\end{array}

So suppose that $`\alpha <\lambda `$, $`\delta =\mathrm{min}\left(S[i_\alpha ,i_{\alpha +1})\right)`$ and $`r_j,C_j:j<\delta `$ is the result of the play so far. Now Generic looks at ordinals $`\epsilon w_{\alpha +1}\zeta `$. She lets the $`_\epsilon `$–names r

~
j(ε),C

~
jξ(ε)superscriptsubscript𝑟

~
superscript𝑗𝜀superscriptsubscript𝐶

~
superscript𝑗𝜉𝜀\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j^{\prime}}^{\prime}(\varepsilon),\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j^{\prime}}^{\xi}(\varepsilon) be such that r

~
j(ε),ξ<λC

~
jξ(ε):j<iα+1\langle\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j^{\prime}}^{\prime}(\varepsilon),\mathop{\triangle}\limits_{\xi<\lambda}\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j^{\prime}}^{\xi}(\varepsilon):j^{\prime}<i_{\alpha+1}\rangle is forced by $`r\epsilon `$ to be a play of λfuzzy(r(ε),N[Γε],¯ε,hε,

~
ε,F¯ε,q¯

~
ε)subscriptsuperscriptfuzzy𝜆𝑟𝜀𝑁delimited-[]subscriptΓsubscript𝜀superscript¯delimited-⟨⟩𝜀superscriptdelimited-⟨⟩𝜀subscript

~
𝜀superscript¯𝐹delimited-⟨⟩𝜀superscript¯𝑞

~
delimited-⟨⟩𝜀{\Game^{\rm fuzzy}_{\lambda}}(r(\varepsilon),N[\Gamma_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\varepsilon}}],{\bar{{\mathcal{I}}}}^{\langle\varepsilon\rangle},h^{\langle\varepsilon\rangle},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon},\bar{F}^{\langle\varepsilon\rangle},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\bar{q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\bar{q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\bar{q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\bar{q}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\langle\varepsilon\rangle}) in which the moves are determined as follows. If $`\epsilon w_\alpha `$, then we have already the play below $`i_\alpha `$ and the names r

~
iα(ε),C

~
iαξ(ε)superscriptsubscript𝑟

~
subscript𝑖𝛼𝜀superscriptsubscript𝐶

~
subscript𝑖𝛼𝜉𝜀\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i_{\alpha}}^{\prime}(\varepsilon),\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i_{\alpha}}^{\xi}(\varepsilon) are such that

* if $`i_\alpha =\delta `$ (i.e., $`i_\alpha S`$ and $`r_i,C_i`$ have been chosen for $`i<i_\alpha `$ only), then

rεε“ (r

~
iα(ε),ξ<λC

~
iαξ(ε)) is the value of st~ε applied to rj(ε),ξ<λC

~
jξ(ε):j<iα, ”\begin{array}[]{ll}r{\restriction}\varepsilon\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\varepsilon}}&\mbox{`` }(\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i_{\alpha}}^{\prime}(\varepsilon),\mathop{\triangle}\limits_{\xi<\lambda}\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i_{\alpha}}^{\xi}(\varepsilon))\mbox{ is the value of $\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon}$}\\
&\mbox{ applied to }\langle r^{\prime}_{j}(\varepsilon),\mathop{\triangle}\limits_{\xi<\lambda}\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j}^{\xi}(\varepsilon):j<i_{\alpha}\rangle\mbox{, ''}\end{array}
* if $`i_\alpha <\delta `$ (i.e., $`i_\alpha S`$ so $`r_i,C_i`$ are already chosen for $`ii_\alpha `$), then

rεε“ if (j<iα)(r

~
j(ε)riα(ε)) then
r
~
iα(ε)=riα(ε) otherwise r~iα(ε) is the first coordinate of st~ε applied to the play so far, and
C
~
iαξ(ε)=jiαCj for all ξ<λ ”.𝑟𝜀subscriptforcessubscript𝜀absent“ if for-all𝑗subscript𝑖𝛼superscriptsubscript𝑟

~
𝑗𝜀subscript𝑟subscript𝑖𝛼𝜀superscriptsubscript then
r
~
subscript𝑖𝛼𝜀subscript𝑟subscript𝑖𝛼𝜀missing-subexpression otherwise r~iα(ε) is the first coordinate of st~ε applied tomissing-subexpressionsuperscriptsubscript the play so far, and
C
~
subscript𝑖𝛼𝜉𝜀subscript𝑗subscript𝑖𝛼subscript𝐶𝑗 for all ξ<λ ”.\begin{array}[]{ll}r{\restriction}\varepsilon\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\varepsilon}}&\mbox{`` if }(\forall j<i_{\alpha})(\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j}^{\prime}(\varepsilon)\leq r_{i_{\alpha}}(\varepsilon))\mbox{ then }\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i_{\alpha}}^{\prime}(\varepsilon)=r_{i_{\alpha}}(\varepsilon)\\
&\mbox{ otherwise $\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i_{\alpha}}^{\prime}(\varepsilon)$ is the first coordinate of
$\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon}$ applied to}\\
&\mbox{ the play so far, and }\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{i_{\alpha}}^{\xi}(\varepsilon)=\bigcap\limits_{j\leq i_{\alpha}}C_{j}\mbox{ for all $\xi<\lambda$ ''.}\end{array}

Then for $`j(i_\alpha ,i_{\alpha +1})`$ (and $`\epsilon w_\alpha \zeta `$) the names r

~
j(ε),C

~
jξ(ε)superscriptsubscript𝑟

~
𝑗𝜀superscriptsubscript𝐶

~
𝑗𝜉𝜀\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j}^{\prime}(\varepsilon),\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j}^{\xi}(\varepsilon) are determined by applying successively st

~
εsubscriptst

~
𝜀\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon}, that is

rεε“ (r

~
j(ε),ξ<λC

~
jξ(ε)) is the
value of st~ε applied to rj(ε),ξ<λC

~
jξ(ε):j<j. ”\begin{array}[]{ll}r{\restriction}\varepsilon\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\varepsilon}}&\mbox{`` }(\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j}^{\prime}(\varepsilon),\mathop{\triangle}\limits_{\xi<\lambda}\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j}^{\xi}(\varepsilon))\mbox{ is the
value of $\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon}$}\\
&\mbox{ applied to }\langle r^{\prime}_{j^{\prime}}(\varepsilon),\mathop{\triangle}\limits_{\xi<\lambda}\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j^{\prime}}^{\xi}(\varepsilon):j^{\prime}<j\rangle\mbox{. ''}\end{array}
If $`\epsilon (w_{\alpha +1}w_\alpha )\zeta `$, then the Generic player defines the names r

~
j(ε),C

~
jξ(ε)superscriptsubscript𝑟

~
𝑗𝜀superscriptsubscript𝐶

~
𝑗𝜉𝜀\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j}^{\prime}(\varepsilon),\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j}^{\xi}(\varepsilon) somewhat like above, but starting with subscript $`j=0`$. Thus

* if $`i_\alpha =\delta `$, then

rεε“
r
~
0(ε) is the
first coordinate of the value of
st
~
ε at rj(ε),i<iαCi:j<iα and
C
~
0ξ(ε)=i<iαCi for
all ξ<λ ”,\begin{array}[]{ll}r{\restriction}\varepsilon\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\varepsilon}}&\mbox{`` }\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{0}^{\prime}(\varepsilon)\mbox{ is the
first coordinate of the value of }\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon}\\
&\mbox{ at }\langle r_{j^{\prime}}(\varepsilon),\bigcap\limits_{i<i_{\alpha}}C_{i}:j^{\prime}<i_{\alpha}\rangle\\
&\mbox{ and }\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{0}^{\xi}(\varepsilon)=\bigcap\limits_{i<i_{\alpha}}C_{i}\mbox{ for
all $\xi<\lambda$ '',}\end{array}
* if $`i_\alpha <\delta `$, then

rεε“ if (j<iα)(rj(ε)riα(ε)) then
r
~
0(ε)=riα(ε) otherwise r~0(ε) is the first coordinate of the value
of st~ε at rj(ε),i<iαCi:j<iα and
C
~
0ξ(ε)=jiαCj for all ξ<λ ”.\begin{array}[]{ll}r{\restriction}\varepsilon\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\varepsilon}}&\mbox{`` if }(\forall j<i_{\alpha})(r_{j}(\varepsilon)\leq r_{i_{\alpha}}(\varepsilon))\mbox{ then }\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{0}^{\prime}(\varepsilon)=r_{i_{\alpha}}(\varepsilon)\\
&\mbox{ otherwise $\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{0}^{\prime}(\varepsilon)$ is the first coordinate of the value
of $\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon}$}\\
&\mbox{ at }\langle r_{j}(\varepsilon),\bigcap\limits_{i<i_{\alpha}}C_{i}:j<i_{\alpha}\rangle\\
&\mbox{ and }\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{0}^{\xi}(\varepsilon)=\bigcap\limits_{j\leq i_{\alpha}}C_{j}\mbox{
for all $\xi<\lambda$ ''.}\end{array}

Lastly, for $`0<j<i_{\alpha +1}`$ (and $`\epsilon (w_{\alpha +1}w_\alpha )\zeta `$) the names r

~
j(ε),C

~
jξ(ε)superscriptsubscript𝑟

~
𝑗𝜀superscriptsubscript𝐶

~
𝑗𝜉𝜀\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j}^{\prime}(\varepsilon),\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j}^{\xi}(\varepsilon) are determined by applying successively st

~
εsubscriptst

~
𝜀\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon} (like earlier).

This defines the names r

~
j(ε),C

~
jξ(ε)superscriptsubscript𝑟

~
𝑗𝜀superscriptsubscript𝐶

~
𝑗𝜉𝜀\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j}^{\prime}(\varepsilon),\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j}^{\xi}(\varepsilon) for $`j<i_{\alpha +1},\xi <\lambda `$ and $`\epsilon w_{\alpha +1}\zeta `$. It is straightforward to check that the requirements $`()_1`$$`()_3`$ and $`()_5`$ restricted to $`\epsilon w_{\alpha +1}\zeta `$ (and with “$`j<\lambda `$” replaced by “$`j<i_{\alpha +1}`$”) are satisfied.

Next, using the fact that $`_\zeta `$ is $`\lambda `$–closed and $`()_3`$ of the choice above, Generic picks a condition $`r^{}_\zeta `$ such that

1. $`r^{}r_j`$ for every $`j<\delta `$,
2. rε“
r
~
j(ε)r(ε) ”superscript𝑟𝜀forcessuperscriptsubscript“
r
~
superscript𝑗𝜀superscript𝑟𝜀 ”r^{*}{\restriction}\varepsilon\Vdash\mbox{`` }\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j^{\prime}}^{\prime}(\varepsilon)\leq r^{*}(\varepsilon)\mbox{ ''} for every $`j^{}<i_{\alpha +1}`$ and $`\epsilon w_{\alpha +1}\zeta `$,
3. $`r^{}\underset{\xi <i_{\alpha +1}}{}_\xi `$, and
4. for every $`j^{},\xi <i_{\alpha +1}`$ and $`\epsilon w_{\alpha +1}\zeta `$, the condition $`r^{}\epsilon `$ decides the value of C

~
jξ(ε)superscriptsubscript𝐶

~
superscript𝑗𝜉𝜀\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j^{\prime}}^{\xi}(\varepsilon), say rε“
C
~
jξ(ε)=Cjξ(ε) ”superscript𝑟𝜀forcessuperscriptsubscript“
C
~
superscript𝑗𝜉𝜀superscriptsubscript𝐶superscript𝑗𝜉𝜀 ”r^{*}{\restriction}\varepsilon\Vdash\mbox{`` }\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j^{\prime}}^{\xi}(\varepsilon)=C_{j^{\prime}}^{\xi}(\varepsilon)\mbox{ ''}, where $`C_j^{}^\xi (\epsilon )D𝐕`$.

If $`i_\alpha S`$ (so $`\delta =i_\alpha `$ is a limit ordinal), then Generic picks a condition $`r^+_\zeta `$ stronger than $`r^{}`$ and such that for every $`t𝒳_\delta ^{[\zeta ]}`$ and $`\epsilon (w_\delta \zeta )\{\zeta \}`$ we have:

1. either the conditions $`r^+\epsilon `$ and $`q_{\delta ,t}^{[\zeta ]}\epsilon `$ are incompatible, or $`q_{\delta ,t}^{[\zeta ]}\epsilon __\epsilon r^+\epsilon `$,
2. if $`\epsilon w_\delta \zeta `$ and $`q_{\delta ,t}^{[\zeta ]}\epsilon __\epsilon r^+\epsilon `$, and $`s𝒳_\delta ^{[\zeta ]}`$ is such that $`t\epsilon =s\epsilon `$, then either $`r^+\epsilon `$$`q_{\delta ,s}^{[\zeta ]}(\epsilon ),r^+(\epsilon )`$ are incompatible ” or $`r^+\epsilon `$$`q_{\delta ,s}^{[\zeta ]}(\epsilon )r^+(\epsilon )`$”.

If $`\delta >i_\alpha `$ (i.e., $`i_\alpha S`$) then Generic lets $`r^+=r^{}`$. Finally, for every $`j[i_\alpha ,i_{\alpha +1})S`$ she plays

$$r_j=r^+\text{ and }C_j=E_3\{C_j^{}^\xi (\epsilon ):j^{},\xi <i_{\alpha +1},\epsilon w_{\alpha +1}\zeta \}.$$

Plainly, $`r_{i_\alpha +1}=r^+`$ satisfies clause $`()_4`$.

Why does the strategy described above work?
Suppose that $`r_j,C_j:j<\lambda `$ is a play of the game $`\mathrm{}(r\zeta ,N,\overline{}^{[\zeta ]}h^{[\zeta ]},_\zeta ,\overline{F},\overline{q}^{[\zeta ]})`$ in which the Generic player used this strategy and let r

~
j(ε):j<λ,εζNdelimited-⟨⟩:superscriptsubscript𝑟

~
superscript𝑗𝜀formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑗𝜆𝜀𝜁𝑁\langle\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j^{\prime}}^{\prime}(\varepsilon):j^{\prime}<\lambda,\ \varepsilon\in\zeta\cap N\rangle and C

~
jξ(ε):j,ξ<λ,εζN\langle\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j^{\prime}}^{\xi}(\varepsilon):j^{\prime},\xi<\lambda,\ \varepsilon\in\zeta\cap N\rangle be the sequences she constructed aside.

First let us argue that condition A.3.4(5)$`(\beta )`$ holds. We will show slightly more than actually needed to help later with clause $`(\alpha )`$. Below remember that ordinals $`\gamma (\delta )`$ were defined when we picked our quasi $`D`$–diamond $`\overline{F}`$, and if $`\epsilon <\gamma (\delta )`$ then the sequence $`h^{[\epsilon +1]}F_\delta (\alpha ):\alpha <\delta `$ is $`\overline{}^{[\epsilon +1]}`$–exact. Now, suppose that a limit ordinal $`\delta S\underset{j<\delta }{}C_j`$ (so in particular $`\delta E_3`$) is such that

1. $`w_\delta \zeta \gamma (\delta )`$ and $`(\alpha <\delta )(j<\delta )(h^{[\zeta ]}F_\delta (\alpha )r_j)`$.

(So then $`(\alpha <\delta )(h^{[\zeta ]}F_\delta (\alpha )r_\delta )`$. Note also that by the choice of $`E_3`$, if $`h^{[\epsilon ]}F_\delta (\alpha ):\alpha <\delta `$ is $`\overline{}^{[\epsilon ]}`$–exact, then $`w_\delta \zeta \gamma (\delta )`$.)

We are going to choose $`t𝒳_\delta ^{[\zeta ]}`$ and show that $`q_{\delta ,t}^{[\zeta ]}r_\delta `$. We do this by induction on $`\epsilon (\zeta +1)N`$, defining $`t\epsilon T_\delta `$ and showing that $`q_{\delta ,t}\epsilon =q_{\delta ,t\epsilon }\epsilon r_\delta \epsilon `$ (and for $`\epsilon =\zeta `$ we get the desired conclusion). Limit stages and the initial stage $`\epsilon =0`$ are trivial, so assume that we have defined $`t\epsilon `$ and have shown $`q_{\delta ,t\epsilon }\epsilon =q_{\delta ,t}\epsilon r_\delta \epsilon `$ (where $`\epsilon \zeta N`$), and let us consider the restrictions to $`\epsilon +1`$.

If $`\epsilon w_\delta `$ then $`t(\epsilon +1)=t\epsilon `$ (so it has been already defined). Suppose also that $`\epsilon \mathrm{Dom}(q_{\delta ,t\epsilon })`$ (otherwise there is nothing to do). Look at the clause (v)(c) of the choice of $`q_{\delta ,t\epsilon }`$ at the beginning: $`r_\delta rp_\delta `$ (and $`()_\delta `$) implies that

$$r_\delta \epsilon \text{“ }q_{\delta ,t\epsilon }(\epsilon )\text{ is an upper bound to }\{p_i(\epsilon ):i<\delta \}\text{ ”.}$$

But then also by the clause (vii) there, $`r_\delta \epsilon \text{“ }q_{\delta ,t\epsilon }(\epsilon )p_\delta (\epsilon )r_\delta (\epsilon )\text{ ”}`$, so we are done.

Suppose now that $`\epsilon w_\delta \zeta `$ (and thus $`\epsilon <\gamma (\delta )`$). Since $`\delta E_3`$, we know that arriving to stage $`\delta `$ of the game, Generic has already defined r

~
j(ε),C

~
jξ(ε)superscriptsubscript𝑟

~
𝑗𝜀superscriptsubscript𝐶

~
𝑗𝜉𝜀\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j}^{\prime}(\varepsilon),\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j}^{\xi}(\varepsilon) for $`j<\delta `$ and $`\xi <\lambda `$ (remember $`()_2`$). Moreover, the condition $`r_\delta \epsilon `$ forces that (remember: $`h^{[\epsilon +1]}F_\delta (\alpha ):\alpha <\delta `$ is $`\overline{}^{[\epsilon +1]}`$–exact):

* the sequence $`h^\epsilon F_\delta (\alpha ):\alpha <\delta `$ is

~
εsubscriptsubscript

~
𝜀\leq_{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon}}–increasing ¯

~
εsuperscript¯

~
delimited-⟨⟩𝜀\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\bar{{\mathcal{I}}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\bar{{\mathcal{I}}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\bar{{\mathcal{I}}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\bar{{\mathcal{I}}}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\langle\varepsilon\rangle}–exact, and
* r

~
j(ε),ξ<λC

~
jξ(ε):j<δ\langle\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j}^{\prime}(\varepsilon),\mathop{\triangle}\limits_{\xi<\lambda}\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j}^{\xi}(\varepsilon):j<\delta\rangle is a play according to st

~
εsubscriptst

~
𝜀\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon} (by $`()_5`$), and
* δS

~
εj,ξ<δC

~
jξ(ε)𝛿superscript𝑆

~
delimited-⟨⟩𝜀subscript𝑗𝜉𝛿superscriptsubscript𝐶

~
𝑗𝜉𝜀\delta\in\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\langle\varepsilon\rangle}\cap\bigcap\limits_{j,\xi<\delta}\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j}^{\xi}(\varepsilon) (remember $`()_9`$ and the choice of $`C_{i_\alpha +1}`$ for $`\alpha <\delta `$), and hence also δS

~
εj<δξ<λC

~
jξ(ε)𝛿superscript𝑆

~
delimited-⟨⟩𝜀subscript𝑗𝛿subscript𝜉𝜆superscriptsubscript𝐶

~
𝑗𝜉𝜀\delta\in\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle S$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\langle\varepsilon\rangle}\cap\bigcap\limits_{j<\delta}\mathop{\triangle}\limits_{\xi<\lambda}\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle C$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j}^{\xi}(\varepsilon),
* (j<δ)(j<δ)(rj(ε)r

~
j(ε))for-all𝑗𝛿superscript𝑗𝛿subscript𝑟𝑗𝜀superscriptsubscript𝑟

~
superscript𝑗𝜀(\forall j<\delta)(\exists j^{\prime}<\delta)(r_{j}(\varepsilon)\leq\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j^{\prime}}^{\prime}(\varepsilon)) and (j<δ)(j<δ)(r

~
j(ε)rj(ε))for-all𝑗𝛿superscript𝑗𝛿superscriptsubscript𝑟

~
𝑗𝜀subscript𝑟superscript𝑗𝜀(\forall j<\delta)(\exists j^{\prime}<\delta)(\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j}^{\prime}(\varepsilon)\leq r_{j^{\prime}}(\varepsilon)) (by $`()_3+()_4`$), so also

(α<δ)(j<δ)(hζFδ(α)

~
εr

~
j(ε)).for-all𝛼𝛿𝑗𝛿subscriptsubscript

~
𝜀superscriptdelimited-⟨⟩𝜁subscript𝐹𝛿𝛼superscriptsubscript𝑟

~
𝑗𝜀(\forall\alpha<\delta)(\exists j<\delta)(h^{\langle\zeta\rangle}\circ F_{\delta}(\alpha)\leq_{\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.60275pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon}}\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{j}^{\prime}(\varepsilon)).

Since st

~
εsubscriptst

~
𝜀\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm st$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon} is a name for a winning strategy, we may conclude that (by $`()_7`$)

rδεε“ (x𝒳

~
δε)(qδ,xεr

~
δ(ε)rδ(ε)) ”.subscript𝑟𝛿𝜀subscriptforcessubscript𝜀“ 𝑥subscriptsuperscript𝒳

~
delimited-⟨⟩𝜀𝛿subscriptsuperscript𝑞delimited-⟨⟩𝜀𝛿𝑥subscriptsuperscript𝑟

~
𝛿𝜀subscript𝑟𝛿𝜀 ”.r_{\delta}{\restriction}\varepsilon\Vdash_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\varepsilon}}\mbox{`` }(\exists x\in\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathcal{X}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathcal{X}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathcal{X}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{X}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\langle\varepsilon\rangle}_{\delta})(q^{\langle\varepsilon\rangle}_{\delta,x}\leq\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle r$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}^{\prime}_{\delta}(\varepsilon)\leq r_{\delta}(\varepsilon))\mbox{ ''.}
Now look at $`()_{11}`$ remembering clause (vi) of the choice of $`\overline{q}`$: by them there is a unique $`x𝔜_a^\epsilon (\delta )`$ such that letting $`(t)_\epsilon =x`$ we get $`t(\epsilon +1)T_\delta `$ satisfying $`q_{\delta ,t(\epsilon +1)}(\epsilon +1)r_\delta (\epsilon +1)`$.

This completes the inductive proof of A.3.4(5)$`(\beta )`$.

Why does A.3.4(5)$`(\alpha )`$ hold? To show this condition, it is enough to prove that $`()_\delta `$ holds for unboundedly many $`\delta S\underset{\xi <\lambda }{}C_j`$ (remember clause (v)(e) of the choice of $`q_{\delta ,t}`$’s and what we have already shown). We do this considering various characters of $`\zeta `$.

$`\zeta `$ is a limit ordinal of cofinality $`\mathrm{cf}(\zeta )<\lambda `$.
Pick a closed set $`u\zeta `$ such that $`uN`$, $`0u`$, $`\mathrm{otp}(u)=\mathrm{cf}(\zeta )`$ and $`sup(u)=\zeta `$. For $`\alpha <\lambda `$ let $`\epsilon _\alpha u`$ be such that $`\alpha =\mathrm{otp}\left(u\epsilon _\alpha \right)mod\mathrm{cf}(\zeta )`$. Now, by induction on $`\alpha <\lambda `$ we choose conditions $`s_\alpha N_\zeta `$ such that

1. $`(j<\lambda )(s_\alpha r_j)`$,
2. $`s_\alpha _{\epsilon _\alpha }N`$,
3. if $`\beta <\alpha <\lambda `$, then $`s_\beta (\epsilon _\alpha \epsilon _\beta )s_\alpha (\epsilon _\alpha \epsilon _\beta )`$,
4. $`s_\alpha \underset{\gamma <\alpha }{}_\gamma ^{[\epsilon _\alpha ]}`$.

So suppose that we have defined $`s_\beta `$’s for $`\beta <\alpha `$. For $`\beta <\alpha `$ let

$$\begin{array}{cc}_{\alpha ,\beta }=\{s_{\epsilon _\alpha }:\hfill & \text{either }s_\beta \epsilon _\alpha s,\hfill \\ & \text{or }s_\beta \epsilon _\alpha ,s\text{ are incompatible }\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Clearly $`_{\alpha ,\beta }N`$ is an open dense subset of $`_{\epsilon _\alpha }`$. Since the condition $`r\epsilon _\alpha `$ is $`(N,_{\epsilon _\alpha })`$–generic and the increasing sequence $`r_j\epsilon _\alpha :j<\lambda `$ enters all open dense subsets of $`_{\epsilon _\alpha }`$ from $`N`$ (by $`()_8`$), we may find $`s_\alpha \underset{\beta <\alpha }{}_{\alpha ,\beta }\underset{j<\alpha }{}_j^{[\epsilon _\alpha ]}`$ such that $`s_\alpha r_j\epsilon _\alpha `$ for all large enough $`j<\lambda `$. By (a)<sub>β</sub> (for $`\beta <\alpha `$) we conclude that $`s_\alpha `$ and $`s_\beta \epsilon _\alpha `$ cannot be incompatible, and hence clauses (a)<sub>α</sub>–(d)<sub>α</sub> are satisfied.

Now, let conditions $`s_\alpha ^{}_\zeta N`$ (for $`\alpha <\lambda `$) be such that $`\mathrm{Dom}(s_\alpha ^{})=\underset{\beta \alpha }{}\mathrm{Dom}(s_\beta )`$ and $`s_\alpha ^{}(\epsilon )`$ (for $`\epsilon \mathrm{Dom}(s_\alpha ^{})`$) is the $`<_\chi ^{}`$–first $`_\epsilon `$–name for a condition in

~
εsubscript

~
𝜀\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\varepsilon} satisfying

$$\begin{array}{cc}s_\alpha ^{}\epsilon __\epsilon \hfill & \text{“ }(\beta <\alpha )(s_\beta ^{}(\epsilon )s_\alpha ^{}(\epsilon ))\text{ and}\hfill \\ & \text{ if there is a }\gamma [\alpha ,\lambda )\text{ such that }(\beta <\alpha )(s_\beta ^{}(\epsilon )s_\gamma (\epsilon ))\hfill \\ & \text{ then }s_\alpha ^{}(\epsilon )=s_\gamma (\epsilon )\text{ for the first such }\gamma \text{ ”.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Then the sequence $`s_\alpha ^{}:\alpha <\lambda `$ is $`__\zeta `$–increasing and

$$(\alpha <\lambda )(\epsilon <\epsilon _\alpha )(s_\alpha \epsilon __\epsilon \text{“ }s_\alpha (\epsilon )=s_\alpha ^{}(\epsilon )\text{ ”}).$$

So it follows from (d)<sub>α</sub> that for each $`\epsilon u`$ there is a club $`C_\epsilon ^{}\lambda `$ such that $`s_\alpha ^{}\epsilon :\alpha <\delta `$ is $`\overline{}^{[\epsilon ]}`$–exact for all $`\delta C_\epsilon ^{}`$. Also, as clearly $`(\alpha <\lambda )(j<\lambda )(s_\alpha ^{}r_j)`$, we may pick a club $`C^{}`$ of $`\lambda `$ such that

$$(\delta C^{})(\alpha <\delta )(j<\delta )(s_\alpha ^{}r_j).$$

Now, as $`\overline{F}^{}`$ is a $`D`$–diamond, for unboundedly many $`\delta S\underset{j<\lambda }{}C_j\underset{\epsilon u}{}C_\epsilon ^{}C^{}`$ we have $`s_\alpha ^{}:\alpha <\delta =hF_\delta ^{}(\alpha ):\alpha <\delta `$. Plainly, defining $`F_\delta `$ for those $`\delta `$ we had clause $`()_1`$ with $`\gamma (\delta )\zeta `$ and hence $`s_\alpha ^{}:\alpha <\delta =h^{[\zeta ]}F_\delta (\alpha ):\alpha <\delta `$. Therefore $`()_\delta `$ holds for those $`\delta `$ (remember the choice of $`C^{}`$).

$`\zeta `$ is a limit ordinal of cofinality $`\lambda `$.
Let $`\epsilon _\alpha :\alpha <\lambda \zeta N`$ be an increasing continuous sequence cofinal with $`\zeta N`$, $`\epsilon _0=0`$. By induction on $`\alpha <\lambda `$ choose conditions $`s_\alpha `$ such that

1. $`(j<\lambda )(s_\alpha r_j)`$,
2. $`s_\alpha _{\epsilon _\alpha }N`$,
3. if $`\beta <\alpha <\lambda `$, then $`s_\beta s_\alpha `$,
4. $`s_\alpha \underset{\gamma <\alpha }{}_\gamma ^{[\epsilon _\alpha ]}`$.

\[Possible as $`r\epsilon _\alpha `$ is $`(N,_{\epsilon _\alpha })`$–generic and by $`()_8`$.\] For each $`\alpha <\lambda `$, for some club $`C_\alpha ^{}`$ of $`\lambda `$ we have

$$(\delta C_\alpha ^{})(s_\gamma \epsilon _\alpha :\gamma <\delta \text{ is }\overline{}^{[\epsilon _\alpha ]}\text{–exact}).$$

Also for a club $`C^{}`$ of $`\lambda `$ we have $`(\delta C^{})(w_\delta \zeta \epsilon _\delta )`$. Like before, as $`\overline{F}^{}`$ is a $`D`$–diamond, for unboundedly many $`\delta S\underset{j<\lambda }{}C_j\underset{\alpha <\lambda }{}C_\alpha ^{}C^{}`$ we have $`s_\alpha :\alpha <\delta =hF_\delta ^{}(\alpha ):\alpha <\delta `$. Plainly, for those $`\delta `$ we have $`\gamma (\delta )=\epsilon _\delta `$ and also $`s_\alpha :\alpha <\delta =h^{[\zeta ]}F_\delta (\alpha ):\alpha <\delta `$, and thus $`()_\delta `$ holds (remember clause (a)<sub>α</sub>).

$`\zeta `$ is a successor ordinal.
Like before (remember that, letting $`\zeta =\zeta ^{}+1`$, the condition $`r\zeta ^{}`$ is $`(N,_\zeta ^{})`$–generic and it forces that $`r(\zeta ^{})`$ is (N[G

~
ζ],

~
ζ)𝑁delimited-[]subscript𝐺

~
subscriptsuperscript𝜁subscript

~
superscript𝜁(N[\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}}_{\zeta^{\prime}}}],\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\zeta^{\prime}})–generic). ∎

###### Remark A.3.11.

In A.3.1 we may have $`\overline{S}=S_a:aW`$ and $`\overline{D}=D_a:aW`$ be such that each $`D_a`$ is a normal filter on $`\lambda `$, $`S_aD_a^+`$ satisfies the relevant demands of A.3.2(1), and require that there is a $`D_a`$ diamond $`F_\delta ^a:\delta S_a`$. Then in all definitions and results we may replace $`D,S`$ by $`D_a,S_a`$, where $`a=NA`$. In particular, this way we get the notions of fuzzy properness over quasi $`\overline{D}`$–diamonds which behave nicely in iterations.

Part B

Building suitably proper forcing notions

## B.4. A creature–free example

In this section we show that a natural forcing notion uniformizing colourings on ladder systems is fuzzy proper. (This forcing is a relative of $`^{}`$ from \[15, 4.6–4.8\].)

Here we assume that:

###### Context B.4.1.

1. $`\lambda ^{}>\lambda `$ is a regular cardinal, $`A=_{<\lambda }(\lambda ^{})`$ and $`W[A]^\lambda `$ is as in A.3.1, and $`\lambda a`$ for each $`aW`$,
2. $`\xi ^{}<\lambda `$, $`S^{}S_\lambda ^{\lambda ^+}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\{\delta <\lambda ^+:\mathrm{cf}(\delta )=\lambda \}`$ and for $`\beta S^{}`$:

1. $`B_\beta \beta `$ is a club of $`\beta `$ of order type $`\mathrm{otp}(B_\beta )=\lambda `$,
    2. $`h_\beta :B_\beta \xi ^{}`$.

Let $`\overline{B}=B_\beta :\beta S^{}`$, $`\overline{h}=h_\beta :\beta S^{}`$.

The forcing notion $`^{}=^{}(S^{},\overline{B},\overline{h})`$ is defined as follows:

a condition in $`^{}`$ is a tuple $`p=(u^p,v^p,\overline{e}^p,h^p)`$ such that

1. $`u^p[\lambda ^+]^{<\lambda }`$, $`v^p[S^{}]^{<\lambda }`$,
2. $`\overline{e}^p=e_\beta ^p:\beta v^p`$, where each $`e_\beta ^p`$ is a closed bounded subset of $`B_\beta `$, and $`e_\beta ^pu^p`$, and
3. $`sup(e_\beta ^p)=sup(u^p\beta )`$ (for $`\beta v^p`$), and if $`\beta _1<\beta _2`$ are from $`v^p`$, then

$$sup(e_{\beta _2}^p)>\beta _1\text{ and }sup(e_{\beta _1}^p)>sup(B_{\beta _2}\beta _1),$$
4. $`h^p:u^p\xi ^{}`$ is such that

$$(\beta v^p)(\alpha e_\beta ^p)(h^p(\alpha )=h_\beta (\alpha ));$$

the order $``$ of $`^{}`$ is such that $`pq`$ if and only if $`u^pu^q`$, $`h^ph^q`$, $`v^pv^q`$, and for each $`\beta v^p`$ the set $`e_\beta ^q`$ is an end-extension of $`e_\beta ^p`$.

A tuple $`p=(u^p,v^p,\overline{e}^p,h^p)`$ satisfying clauses (a), (b) and (d) above will be called a pre-condition. Note that every pre-condition can be extended to a condition in $`^{}`$.

###### Proposition B.4.2.

1. The forcing notion $`^{}`$ is $`\lambda `$–complete, it satisfies the $`\lambda ^+`$–chain condition and $`|^{}|=\lambda ^+`$.
2. If $`p^{}`$, $`\alpha <\lambda ^+`$, $`\beta S^{}`$ and $`\delta <\lambda `$, then there is a condition $`qp`$ such that

$$\alpha u^q,\beta v^q\text{ and }(\beta ^{}v^q)(\mathrm{otp}(e_\beta ^{}^q)>\delta ).$$

###### Proof.

(1) Verification of the chain condition is a straightforward application of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$–lemma. To check that $`^{}`$ is $`\lambda `$–complete suppose that $`p_i:i<j`$ is a $`_{^{}}`$–increasing sequence of conditions from $`^{}`$, $`j<\lambda `$. Let $`r=(u^r,v^r,\overline{e}^r,h^r)`$ be such that

$$\begin{array}{cc}v^r\hfill & =\underset{i<j}{}v^{p_i},\text{ and for }\beta v^r\hfill \\ e_\beta ^r\hfill & =\{e_\beta ^{p_i}:\beta v^{p_i}\&i<j\}\{sup\left(\{e_\beta ^{p_i}:\beta v^{p_i}\&i<j\}\right)\}\hfill \\ u^r\hfill & =\underset{i<j}{}u^{p_i}\{e_\beta ^r:\beta v^r\}\hfill \\ h^r\hfill & \underset{i<j}{}h^{p_i},\hfill \end{array}$$

and if $`\alpha e_\beta ^r\{e_\beta ^{p_i}:\beta v^{p_i},i<j\}`$, then $`h^r(\alpha )=h_\beta (\alpha )`$. Using clause (c) for $`p_i`$’s one easily sees that $`r`$ is a pre-condition. Extend it to a condition $`q^{}`$.

(2) Should be clear. ∎

###### Proposition B.4.3.

$`^{}`$ is fuzzy proper for $`W`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`D`$ is a normal filter on $`\lambda `$ such that there is a $`D`$–diamond. We will show that $`^{}`$ is fuzzy proper over quasi $`D`$–diamonds. First we define a $`\lambda `$–base $`(^{},\overline{𝔜}^{})`$ for $`^{}`$ over $`W`$. We let $`^{}`$ be the set of all triples $`(p,\delta ,x)`$ such that $`p^{}`$, $`\delta \lambda `$ and $`x`$ is a function with $`\mathrm{Dom}(x)u^p`$ and $`(\alpha \mathrm{Dom}(x))(h^p(\alpha )=x(\alpha ))`$.

Now suppose that $`aW`$ and let $`\pi _a`$ be the $`<_\chi ^{}`$–first one-to-one mapping from $`a\lambda ^+`$ to $`\lambda `$. For a limit ordinal $`\delta <\lambda `$ we put

$$x_0^\delta =(\pi _a)^1[\delta ]\{\alpha <\lambda ^+:\alpha =sup\left(\alpha (\pi _a)^1[\delta ]\right)\},$$

and then

$$𝔜_a^{}(\delta )=\{x:x\text{ is a function from }x_0^\delta a\text{ to }\xi ^{}\}.$$

This defines $`𝔜_a^{}`$ and $`\overline{𝔜}^{}=𝔜_a^{}:aW`$. It is easy to check that $`(^{},\overline{𝔜}^{})`$ is a $`\lambda `$–base for $`^{}`$ (for A.3.3(c) use repeatedly B.4.2). Assume now that

* $`N((\chi ),,<_\chi ^{})`$, $`|N|=\lambda `$, $`{}_{}{}^{<\lambda }NN`$, $`\lambda ,^{},\overline{B},\overline{h},S^{},^{}N`$, and $`a\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}NAW`$, $`p^{}N`$,
* $`\overline{}=_\xi :\xi <\lambda `$ lists all open dense subsets of $`^{}`$ from $`N`$,
* $`h:\lambda N`$ satisfies $`^{}N\mathrm{Rng}(h)`$, and
* $`\overline{F}=F_\delta :\delta S`$ is a quasi $`D`$–diamond for $`(N,h,^{})`$ and $`\overline{q}`$ is a fuzzy candidate over $`\overline{F}`$.

For limit $`\delta S`$ let $`𝒴(\delta )=𝒴(N,^{},h,\overline{F},^{},\overline{𝔜}^{},\delta )`$ be as defined in A.3.4(3) (and thus $`\overline{q}=q_{\delta ,x}:\delta S\text{ is limit }\&x𝒴(\delta )`$). Also let $`E_0`$ be the set of all $`\delta <\lambda `$ which are limits of members of $`\lambda S`$ (so it is a club of $`\lambda `$).

We are going to show that the condition $`p`$ is $`(^{},\overline{𝔜}^{})`$–fuzzy generic for $`\overline{q}`$. Note that, as $`^{}`$ satisfies the $`\lambda ^+`$–cc, the condition $`p`$ is $`(N,^{})`$–generic (in the standard sense). So, by A.3.8(3), it is enough to give a strategy of the Generic player in the game $`\mathrm{}_\lambda ^{\mathrm{fuzzy}}(p,N,\overline{},h,^{},\overline{F},\overline{q})`$ which guarantees that the result $`r_i,C_i:i<\lambda `$ of the play satisfies A.3.4(5)($`\beta `$).

Suppose that we arrive to a stage $`\delta S`$ and $`r_i,C_i:i<\delta `$ is the sequence played so far. First, Generic picks the $`<_\chi ^{}`$–first condition $`r_\delta ^{}`$ stronger than all $`r_i`$’s played so far and such that

if $`\delta `$ is limit and $`\left(x𝒴(\delta )\right)\left(r^{}\right)\left(q_{\delta ,x}r\&(i<\delta )(r_ir)\right)`$,

then $`q_{\delta ,x}r_\delta ^{}`$ for some $`x𝒴(\delta )`$.

Then she plays the $`<_\chi ^{}`$–first condition $`r_\delta `$ above $`r_\delta ^{}`$ such that

1. if $`\beta v^{r_\delta }`$, then $`\mathrm{otp}(e_\beta ^{r_\delta })>\delta `$, and
2. $`(\pi _a)^1[\delta ]u^{r_\delta }`$ and $`(\pi _a)^1[\delta ]S^{}v^{r_\delta }`$.

The set $`C_\delta `$ played at this stage is $`(\alpha ,\lambda )E_0`$, where $`\alpha `$ is the first ordinal such that

1. $`\pi _a[u^{r_\delta }N]\alpha `$, and the set

$$\{q^{}:(\pi _a)^1[\delta ]u^q\&(\pi _a)^1[\delta ]S^{}v^q\&(\beta v^q)(\mathrm{otp}(e_\beta ^q)>\delta )\}$$

(which is an open dense subset of $`^{}`$ from $`N`$; remember B.4.2) is in $`\{_\xi :\xi <\alpha \}`$,
2. $`\mathrm{otp}(B_\beta (sup(e_\beta ^{r_\delta })+1))<\alpha `$ for all $`\beta v^{r_\delta }`$,
3. if $`\beta v^{r_\delta }`$ and $`a\beta (sup(e_\beta ^{r_\delta })+1)\mathrm{}`$, then there is $`\gamma a\beta (sup(e_\beta ^{r_\delta })+1)`$ with $`\pi _a(\gamma )<\alpha `$.

Why does this strategy work (i.e., why does it ensure A.3.4(5)($`\beta `$))?
Let $`r_i,C_i:i<\lambda `$ be a play according to this strategy, and suppose that $`\delta S\underset{i<\lambda }{}C_i`$ is a limit ordinal such that $`hF_\delta (\alpha ):\alpha <\delta `$ is a $`_{^{}}`$–increasing $`\overline{}`$–exact sequence of conditions from $`^{}N`$ such that $`(\alpha <\delta )(i<\delta )(hF_\delta (\alpha )r_i)`$. Note that then

1. if $`\beta \underset{i<\delta }{}v^{r_i}`$, then $`\mathrm{otp}(\underset{i<\delta }{}e_\beta ^{r_i})=\delta `$ and $`\underset{i<\delta }{}e_\beta ^{r_i}`$ is an unbounded subset of $`\{\epsilon B_\beta :\mathrm{otp}(\epsilon B_\beta )<\delta \}`$, and
2. $`\underset{i<\delta }{}u^{r_i}N=(\pi _a)^1[\delta ]=\underset{\alpha <\delta }{}u^{hF_\delta (\alpha )}`$ and $`\underset{i<\delta }{}v^{r_i}N=(\pi _a)^1[\delta ]S^{}=\underset{\alpha <\delta }{}v^{hF_\delta (\alpha )}`$,
3. if $`\beta (\pi _a)^1[\delta ]S^{}`$, then

$$\{e_\beta ^{hF_\delta (\alpha )}:\alpha <\delta \&\beta v^{hF_\delta (\alpha )}\}=\{e_\beta ^{r_i}:i<\delta \&\beta v^{r_i}\}.$$

We want to show that

1. for some $`x𝒴(\delta )`$, there is a common upper bound to $`\{r_i:i<\delta \}\{q_{\delta ,x}\}`$

(which, by the definition of our strategy, will finish the proof). For $`\beta S^{}`$ let $`\gamma _\beta B_\beta `$ be such that $`\mathrm{otp}(B_\beta \gamma _\beta )=\delta `$. Now, let a pre-condition $`r^{}=(u^r^{},v^r^{},\overline{e}^r^{},h^r^{})`$ be such that

* $`v^r^{}=\underset{i<\delta }{}v^{r_i}`$, $`u^r^{}=\underset{i<\delta }{}u^{r_i}\{\gamma _\beta :\beta v^r^{}\}`$,
* $`e_\beta ^r^{}=\{e_\beta ^{r_i}:i<\delta \&\beta v^{r_i}\}\{\gamma _\beta \}`$ (for $`\beta v^r^{}`$), and
* $`h^r^{}:u^r^{}\xi ^{}`$ is such that $`\underset{i<\delta }{}h^{r_i}h^r^{}`$ and $`h^r^{}(\gamma _\beta )=h_\beta (\gamma _\beta )`$.

One easily verifies that the above conditions indeed define a pre-condition (remember $`()_6`$). Also, note that if $`\beta v^r^{}`$, then $`\gamma _\beta e_\beta ^r^{}\{e_\beta ^{r_i}:i<\delta \&\beta v^{r_i}\}`$ and each $`e_\beta ^{r_i}`$ is a proper subset of $`\{e_\beta ^{r_i}:i<\delta \&\beta v^{r_i}\}`$. Moreover, if $`\beta v^r^{}`$ and $`\gamma _\beta N`$, then $`\gamma _\beta =sup(u^r^{}N\gamma _\beta )=sup((\pi _a)^1[\delta ]\gamma _\beta )`$ (by $`()_5+()_2`$; remember also $`()_7`$). Now, extend $`r^{}`$ to a pre-condition $`r^{\prime \prime }`$ such that $`u^{r^{\prime \prime }}=u^r^{}x_0^\delta `$, $`v^{r^{\prime \prime }}=v^r^{}`$ and $`e_\beta ^{r^{\prime \prime }}=e_\beta ^r^{}`$ for $`\beta v^{r^{\prime \prime }}`$ (clearly possible). Let $`x=h^{r^{\prime \prime }}x_0^\delta `$ (note that $`x_0^\delta a`$). Since $`r^{\prime \prime }`$ is stronger than all $`hF_\delta (\alpha )`$ (for $`\alpha <\delta `$), any condition stronger than $`r^{\prime \prime }`$ witnesses that $`x𝒴(\delta )`$. Now we put

* $`u^{}=u^{q_{\delta ,x}}u^{r^{\prime \prime }}`$, $`v^{}=v^{q_{\delta ,x}}v^{r^{\prime \prime }}`$, $`h^{}=h^{q_{\delta ,x}}h^{r^{\prime \prime }}`$,
* if $`\beta v^{q_{\delta ,x}}`$, then $`e_\beta ^{}=e_\beta ^{q_{\delta ,x}}`$, and if $`\beta v^{r^{\prime \prime }}N`$, then $`e_\beta ^{}=e_\beta ^{r^{\prime \prime }}`$.

Note that $`h^{}`$ is a function from $`u^{}`$ to $`\xi ^{}`$ by $`()_7`$ (remember the choice of $`x`$ and that $`q_{\delta ,x}N`$ is stronger than all $`hF_\delta (\alpha )`$’s). Also, if $`\beta v^{r^{\prime \prime }}N`$ then ($`\beta v^{q_{\delta ,x}}`$ and) $`e_\beta ^{q_{\delta ,x}}`$ is an end-extension of $`e_\beta ^{r^{\prime \prime }}`$ (remember $`()_7+()_8`$). Hence $`(u^{},v^{},\overline{e}^{},h^{})`$ is a pre-condition stronger than both $`q_{\delta ,x}`$ and $`r^{\prime \prime }`$. Extending it to a condition in $`^{}`$ we conclude $`()`$, thus completing the proof of B.4.3. ∎

###### Corollary B.4.4.

Assume that $`\lambda `$ is a strongly inaccessible cardinal, $`2^\lambda =\lambda ^+`$, $`2^{\lambda ^+}=\lambda ^{++}`$ and $`D`$ is a normal filter on $`\lambda `$ such that there is a $`D`$–diamond. Then there is a forcing notion $``$ such that:

* $``$ is $`\lambda `$–complete weakly fuzzy proper over quasi $`D`$–diamonds for $`W`$ and it satisfies the $`\lambda ^{++}`$–cc,
* in $`𝐕^{}`$, $`2^\lambda =2^{\lambda ^+}=\lambda ^{++}`$ and for every $`\xi ^{},S^{},\overline{B},\overline{h}`$ as in B.4.1(2) there is $`h:\lambda ^{++}\xi ^{}`$ such that for every $`\beta S^{}`$ the set

$$\{\alpha B_\beta :h_\beta (\alpha )=h(\alpha )\}$$

contains a club.

###### Proof.

The forcing notion $``$ is the limit $`_{\lambda ^{++}}`$ of a $`\lambda `$–support iteration ¯=α,

~
α:α<λ++\bar{{\mathbb{Q}}}=\langle{\mathbb{P}}_{\alpha},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}:\alpha<\lambda^{++}\rangle, where each

~
αsubscript

~
𝛼\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle{\mathbb{Q}}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha} is forced to be (Sλλ+,B¯

~
α,h¯

~
α)superscriptsubscriptsuperscript𝑆superscript𝜆𝜆subscript¯𝐵

~
𝛼subscript¯

~
𝛼{\mathbb{Q}}^{*}(S^{\lambda^{+}}_{\lambda},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\bar{B}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\bar{B}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\bar{B}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\bar{B}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\bar{h}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\bar{h}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\bar{h}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\bar{h}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}) for some B¯

~
α,h¯

~
αsubscript¯𝐵

~
𝛼subscript¯

~
𝛼\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\bar{B}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\bar{B}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\bar{B}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\bar{B}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\bar{h}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\bar{h}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\bar{h}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\bar{h}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}_{\alpha}. Then, by A.1.9, A.3.10 and B.4.3 we are sure that $``$ satisfies the $`\lambda ^{++}`$–cc, it is weakly fuzzy proper over quasi $`D`$–diamonds for $`W`$ and it has a dense subset of size $`\lambda ^{++}`$. Consequently we may arrange suitable bookkeeping to take care of all $`_{\zeta ^++}`$–names B¯

~
,h¯

~
¯𝐵

~
¯

~
\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\bar{B}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\bar{B}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\bar{B}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\bar{B}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}},\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle\bar{h}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle\bar{h}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle\bar{h}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle\bar{h}$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}} for objects as in B.4.1(2) – the details and the rest should be clear. ∎

## B.5. Trees and creatures

Let us introduce the notation used in the forcing notions we want to build. The terminology here is somewhat parallel to that of \[14, §1.2, 1.3\], but there are some differences as the context is different. We start with the tree case.

###### Definition B.5.1.

Let $`𝐇:\lambda (\lambda ^+)`$.

1. A $`\lambda `$–tree creature for $`𝐇`$ is a tuple

$$t=(\eta ,\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐬},\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬},\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫})=(\eta [t],\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐬}[t],\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}[t],\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t])$$

such that $`\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐬}(\lambda ^+)`$, $`\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}\lambda +1`$,

$$\eta \underset{\alpha <\lambda }{}\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}𝐇(\beta ),\text{ and }\mathrm{}\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}\{\nu \underset{\alpha <\lambda }{}\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}𝐇(\beta ):\eta \mathrm{}\nu \}.$$

$`\mathrm{TCR}^\lambda [𝐇]`$ is the family of all $`\lambda `$–tree creatures for $`𝐇`$.

For $`\eta \underset{\alpha <\lambda }{}\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}𝐇(\beta )`$ we let $`\mathrm{TCR}_\eta ^\lambda [𝐇]=\{t\mathrm{TCR}^\lambda [𝐇]:\eta [t]=\eta \}`$.
2. Let $`K\mathrm{TCR}^\lambda [𝐇]`$. A tree–composition operation on $`K`$ is a mapping $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with values in $`𝒫(K)`$ and the domain consisting of systems $`t_\nu :\nu \widehat{T}`$ such that

* $`T`$ is a complete $`\lambda `$–quasi tree of height $`\mathrm{ht}(T)<\lambda `$,
    * for each $`\nu \widehat{T}`$, $`t_\nu K`$ satisfies $`\mathrm{succ}_T(\nu )=\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}[t_\nu ]`$,

and

* if $`t\mathrm{\Sigma }(t_\nu :\nu \widehat{T})`$, then $`\eta [t]=\mathrm{root}(T)`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}[t]\mathrm{max}(T)`$,
    * if $`t\mathrm{\Sigma }(t_\nu :\nu \widehat{T})`$ and $`t_\nu \mathrm{\Sigma }(s_\rho ^\nu :\rho \widehat{T}_\nu )`$ (for $`\nu \widehat{T}`$), then $`t\mathrm{\Sigma }(s_\rho ^\nu :\rho \underset{\nu \widehat{T}}{}\widehat{T}_\nu )`$, and
    * for each $`tK`$ we have $`t\mathrm{Dom}(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ and $`t\mathrm{\Sigma }(t)`$.

Then $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is called a $`\lambda `$–tree creating pair (for $`𝐇`$).
3. A $`\lambda `$–tree creating pair $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is local if

* $`(t_\nu :\nu T)\mathrm{Dom}(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ implies $`\mathrm{ht}(T)=\mathrm{lh}(\mathrm{root}(T))+1`$ (and so $`T=\{\mathrm{root}(T)\}\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}[t_{\mathrm{root}(T)}]`$), and
    * $`t^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }(t)`$ implies $`\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t^{}]\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t]`$.

We say that $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is very local if, additionally, for every $`\nu \underset{\alpha <\lambda }{}\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}𝐇(\beta )`$ such that $`K\mathrm{TCR}_\nu ^\lambda [𝐇]\mathrm{}`$ there is $`t_\nu ^{}K\mathrm{TCR}_\nu ^\lambda [𝐇]`$ satisfying $`(tK\mathrm{TCR}_\nu ^\lambda [𝐇])(t\mathrm{\Sigma }(t_\nu ^{}))`$. The tree creature $`t_\nu ^{}`$ may be called the minimal creature at $`\nu `$.
4. If $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is a very local $`\lambda `$–tree creating pair, then the minimal tree $`T^{}`$ for $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ and the minimal condition $`p^{}`$ for $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ are defined by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}T^{}\hfill & =T^{}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })\hfill & =\{\eta \underset{\alpha <\lambda }{}\underset{\beta <\lambda }{}𝐇(\beta ):(\alpha <\mathrm{lh}(\eta ))(\eta (\alpha +1)\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}[t_{\eta \alpha }^{}])\}\hfill \\ p^{}\hfill & =p^{}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })\hfill & =t_\nu ^{}:\nu T^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

\[Note that, in the general case, $`T^{}`$ could be empty, but in real applications this can be easily avoided.\]

###### Definition B.5.2.

Let $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ be a $`\lambda `$–tree creating pair for $`𝐇`$.

1. We define the forcing notion $`_1^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ by:

conditions  are systems $`p=t_\eta :\eta T`$ such that

1. $`\mathrm{}T\underset{\alpha <\lambda }{}\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}𝐇(\beta )`$ is a complete $`\lambda `$–quasi tree with $`\mathrm{max}(T)=\mathrm{}`$,
    2. $`t_\eta \mathrm{TCR}_\eta ^\lambda [𝐇]K`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}[t_\eta ]=\mathrm{succ}_T(\eta )`$,
    3. for every $`\eta lim_\lambda (T)`$, $`lim(\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t_{\eta \alpha }]:\alpha <\lambda ,\eta \alpha T)=\lambda `$;

the order be given by:

$`t_\eta ^1:\eta T^1t_\eta ^2:\eta T^2`$ if and only if

$`T^2T^1`$ and for each $`\eta T^2`$ there is a complete $`\lambda `$–quasi tree $`T_{0,\eta }(T^1)^{[\eta ]}`$ of height $`\mathrm{ht}(T_{0,\eta })<\lambda `$ such that $`t_\eta ^2\mathrm{\Sigma }(t_\nu ^1:\nu \widehat{T}_{0,\eta })`$.

If $`p=t_\eta :\eta T`$ then we write $`\mathrm{root}(p)=\mathrm{root}(T)`$, $`T^p=T`$, $`t_\eta ^p=t_\eta `$ etc.
2. Let $`D^{}`$ be a filter on $`\lambda `$. The forcing notion $`_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is defined similarly, replacing the condition (c)<sub>1</sub> by

1. for some set $`Y=Y^pD^{}`$ we have

    $$(\delta Y)(\eta (T)_\delta )(\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t_\eta ]|\delta |).$$

    \[The set $`Y^p`$ above may be called a witness for $`p_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$.\]
3. The forcing notion $`_{\mathrm{cl}}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is defined by replacing the condition (c)<sub>1</sub> by

1. 1. $`(\eta T)(\nu T)(\eta \mathrm{}\nu \&\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t_\nu ]|\mathrm{lh}(\nu )|)`$, and
        2. $`(\eta T)(\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t_\eta ]=0\text{ or }\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t_\eta ]|\mathrm{lh}(\eta )|)`$, and
        3. $`\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t_{\mathrm{root}(p)}]|\mathrm{lh}(\mathrm{root}(p))|`$, and
        4. if $`\delta <\lambda `$ is a limit ordinal and $`\eta _i:i<\delta T`$ is a $`\mathrm{}`$–increasing sequence such that $`\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t_{\eta _i}]|\mathrm{lh}(\eta _i)|`$ for each $`i<\delta `$ and $`\eta =\underset{i<\delta }{}\eta _i`$, then ($`\eta T`$ and) $`\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t_\eta ]|\mathrm{lh}(\eta )|`$.
4. If $`p_e^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ and $`\eta T^p`$, then we let $`p^{[\eta ]}=t_\nu ^p:\nu (T^p)^{[\eta ]}`$.
5. For the sake of notational convenience we define partial order $`_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ in the same manner as $`_e^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ above but we omit the requirement (c)<sub>e</sub>.

###### Definition B.5.3.

Let $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ be a $`\lambda `$–tree creating pair for $`𝐇`$, $`tK`$. We define a relation $`_\mathrm{\Sigma }^t`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(t)`$ by

$`t^{}_\mathrm{\Sigma }^tt^{\prime \prime }`$ if and only if ($`t^{},t^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Sigma }(t)`$ and) $`t^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Sigma }(t^{})`$.

If $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is very local, $`t_\nu ^{}`$ is the minimal creature at $`\nu `$, then $`_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{t_\nu ^{}}`$ is also denoted by $`_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\nu `$.

###### Remark B.5.4.

1. Note that the relation $`_\mathrm{\Sigma }^t`$ is transitive and reflexive.
2. If $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is local and $`p_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, then $`T^p`$ is a complete $`\lambda `$–tree.

Now we are going to describe the non-tree case of forcing with creatures. For sake of simplicity we restrict ourselves to what corresponds to forgetful creatures of \[14, 1.2.5\].

###### Definition B.5.5.

Let $`𝐇:\lambda (\lambda ^+)`$.

1. A forgetful $`\lambda `$–creature for $`𝐇`$ is a tuple

$$t=(\alpha _{\mathrm{dn}},\alpha _{\mathrm{up}},\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐬},\mathrm{𝐯𝐚𝐥},\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫})=(\alpha _{\mathrm{dn}}[t],\alpha _{\mathrm{up}}[t],\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐬}[t],\mathrm{𝐯𝐚𝐥}[t],\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t])$$

such that $`\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐬}(\lambda ^+)`$, $`\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}\lambda +1`$, $`\alpha _{\mathrm{dn}}<\alpha _{\mathrm{up}}<\lambda `$ and $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{𝐯𝐚𝐥}\underset{\alpha _{\mathrm{dn}}\beta <\alpha _{\mathrm{up}}}{}𝐇(\beta )`$.

$`\mathrm{CR}^\lambda [𝐇]`$ is the family of all forgetful $`\lambda `$–creatures for $`𝐇`$.

Since we will consider only forgetful $`\lambda `$–creatures, from now on we will omit the adjective “forgetful”.
2. Let $`K\mathrm{CR}^\lambda [𝐇]`$. A composition operation on $`K`$ is a mapping $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with values in $`𝒫(K)`$ and the domain consisting of systems $`t_i:i<jK`$ such that $`j<\lambda `$ and

$$\begin{array}{c}\alpha _{\mathrm{up}}[t_i]=\alpha _{\mathrm{dn}}[t_{i+1}]\text{ for }i<i+1<j\text{, and}\hfill \\ sup\{\alpha _{\mathrm{up}}[t_i^{}]:i^{}<i\}=\alpha _{\mathrm{dn}}[t_i]\text{ for limit }i<j,\hfill \end{array}$$

and if $`t\mathrm{\Sigma }(t_i:i<j)`$, then

* $`\alpha ^{}=\alpha _{\mathrm{dn}}[t]=\alpha _{\mathrm{dn}}[t_0]`$, $`\alpha ^+=\alpha _{\mathrm{up}}[t]=sup\{\alpha _{\mathrm{up}}[t_i]:i<j\}`$, and
    * $`\mathrm{𝐯𝐚𝐥}[t]\{\nu \underset{\alpha ^{}\beta <\alpha ^+}{}𝐇(\beta ):(i<j)(\nu [\alpha _{\mathrm{dn}}[t_i],\alpha _{\mathrm{up}}[t_i])\mathrm{𝐯𝐚𝐥}[t_i])\}`$,

and

* if $`t_i\mathrm{\Sigma }(s_\zeta ^i:\zeta <\zeta _i)`$ (for $`i<j`$) and $`t\mathrm{\Sigma }(t_i:i<j)`$,
    then $`t\mathrm{\Sigma }(s_\zeta ^i:\zeta <\zeta _i,i<j)`$, and
    * for each $`tK`$ we have $`t\mathrm{Dom}(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ and $`t\mathrm{\Sigma }(t)`$.

Then $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is called a $`\lambda `$–creating pair (for $`𝐇`$).
3. We say that $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is local if for each $`tK`$

* $`\alpha _{\mathrm{up}}[t]=\alpha _{\mathrm{dn}}[t]+1`$ , and
    * $`t^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }(t)`$ implies $`\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t^{}]\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t]`$.

It is very local if, additionally, for each $`\alpha <\lambda `$ there is $`t_\alpha ^{}K`$ such that $`\alpha _{\mathrm{dn}}[t_\alpha ^{}]=\alpha `$ and for every $`tK`$ with $`\alpha _{\mathrm{dn}}[t]=\alpha `$ we have $`t\mathrm{\Sigma }(t_\alpha ^{})`$. The creature $`t_\alpha ^{}`$ will be called the minimal creature $`t_\alpha ^{}`$ at $`\alpha `$.
4. For $`j<\lambda `$, a $`j`$–approximation for $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is a pair $`(w,t_i:i<j)`$ such that $`t_iK`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}\alpha _{\mathrm{up}}[t_i]=\alpha _{\mathrm{dn}}[t_{i+1}]\text{ for }i<i+1<j\text{, and}\hfill \\ sup\{\alpha _{\mathrm{up}}[t_i^{}]:i^{}<i\}=\alpha _{\mathrm{dn}}[t_i]\text{ for limit }i<j,\hfill \end{array}$$

and $`w\underset{\alpha <\alpha _{\mathrm{dn}}[t_0]}{}𝐇(\alpha )`$.
5. For a $`j`$–approximation $`(w,t_i:i<j)`$ for $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ we let

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}(w,t_i:i<j)=\{v\underset{\alpha <\alpha ^+}{}𝐇(\alpha ):\hfill & w\mathrm{}v\text{ and for all }i<j\hfill \\ & v[\alpha _{\mathrm{dn}}[t_i],\alpha _{\mathrm{up}}[t_i])\mathrm{𝐯𝐚𝐥}[t_i]\},\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\alpha ^+=sup\{\alpha _{\mathrm{up}}[t_i]:i<j\}`$.

###### Definition B.5.6.

Let $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ be a $`\lambda `$–creating pair for $`𝐇`$.

1. We define the forcing notion $`_1^{}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$:

conditions  are pairs $`p=(w,\overline{t})`$ such that

1. $`\overline{t}=t_i:i<\lambda `$ is a sequence of $`\lambda `$–creatures from $`K`$ satisfying

    $$\begin{array}{cc}\alpha _{\mathrm{up}}[t_i]=\alpha _{\mathrm{dn}}[t_{i+1}]\hfill & \text{ for }i<i+1<\lambda \text{, and}\hfill \\ sup\{\alpha _{\mathrm{up}}[t_i^{}]:i^{}<i\}=\alpha _{\mathrm{dn}}[t_i]\hfill & \text{ for limit }i<\lambda ,\hfill \end{array}$$
    2. $`w\underset{\alpha <\alpha _{\mathrm{dn}}[t_0]}{}𝐇(\alpha )`$
    3. $`lim(\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t_i]:i<\lambda )=\lambda `$

the order is given by:

$`(w^1,t_i^1:i<\lambda )(w^2,t_i^2:i<\lambda `$ if and only if

for some continuous strictly increasing sequence $`i_\zeta :\zeta <\lambda `$ we have

$$w^2\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}(w^1,t_i^1:i<i_0)\text{and}(\zeta <\lambda )(t_\zeta ^2\mathrm{\Sigma }(t_i^1:i_\zeta i<i_\zeta )).$$

If $`p=(w,t_i:i<\lambda )`$, then we write $`w^p=w`$, $`t_i^p=t_i`$ (for $`i<\lambda `$).
2. Let $`D^{}`$ be a filter on $`\lambda `$. The forcing notion $`_D^{}^{}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is defined similarly, replacing the condition (c)<sub>1</sub> by

1. for some set $`Y=Y^pD^{}`$ we have

    $$(iY)(\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t_i]|\alpha _{\mathrm{dn}}[t_i]|).$$

    \[The set $`Y^p`$ above may be called a witness for $`p_D^{}^{}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$.\]
3. For the sake of notational convenience we define partial order $`_{\mathrm{}}^{}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ in the same manner as $`_e^{}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ above but we omit the requirement (c)<sub>e</sub>. If $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is very local, then the minimal condition $`p^{}`$ for $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is

$$p^{}=p^{}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })=(,t_\alpha ^{}:\alpha <\lambda )_{\mathrm{}}^{}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma }),$$

where $`t_\alpha ^{}`$ is the minimal creature at $`\alpha `$.
4. The relations $`_\mathrm{\Sigma }^t`$ and $`_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{t_\alpha ^{}}=_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\alpha `$ are defined in a way parallel to B.5.3.

## B.6. Getting completeness and bounding properties

In this section we introduce properties of $`\lambda `$–tree creating pairs ensuring that the resulting forcing notions are complete or strategically complete. Next we show that adding bounds on the size of $`𝐇(\alpha )`$ guarantees strong bounding properties from section A.2. Finally we will introduce parallel completeness conditions for the case of $`\lambda `$–creating pairs.

###### Definition B.6.1.

Let $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ be a $`\lambda `$–tree creating pair for $`𝐇`$, $`\kappa `$ be a cardinal (and $`\lambda ,\overline{\lambda }`$ be as in 0.3).

1. We say that a $`\lambda `$–tree creature $`tK`$ is $`\kappa `$–complete (for $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$) if

1. for every $`_\mathrm{\Sigma }^t`$–increasing chain $`t_\alpha :\alpha <\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }(t)`$ with $`\delta <\kappa `$ and $`\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t_\alpha ]>0`$, there is $`t_\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }(t)`$ such that $`(\alpha <\delta )(t_\alpha _\mathrm{\Sigma }^tt_\delta )`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t_\delta ]\mathrm{min}\{\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t_\alpha ]:\alpha <\delta \}`$,
    2. if $`t^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }(t)`$, $`\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t^{}]=0`$, then $`|\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}[t^{}]|=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(t^{})=\{t^{}\}`$,
    3. if $`\nu \mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}[t]`$, then there is $`t^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }(t)`$ such that $`\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}[t^{}]=\{\nu \}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t^{}]=0`$.
2. $`tK`$ is said to be exactly $`\kappa `$–complete if it is $`\kappa `$–complete and

1. if $`\overline{t}=t_\alpha :\alpha <\kappa \mathrm{\Sigma }(t)`$ is a strictly $`_\mathrm{\Sigma }^t`$–increasing chain, then $`\overline{t}`$ has no $`_\mathrm{\Sigma }^t`$–upper bound in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(t)`$, but $`\underset{\alpha <\kappa }{}\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}[t_\alpha ]\mathrm{}`$.
3. We say that $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is $`\overline{\lambda }`$–complete (exactly $`\overline{\lambda }`$–complete, respectively) if

1. $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is very local, and
    2. each minimal creature $`t_\nu ^{}`$ is $`\lambda _{\mathrm{lh}(\nu )}^+`$–complete (exactly $`\lambda _{\mathrm{lh}(\nu )}`$–complete, resp.).

We say that $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is just $`\lambda `$–complete if it satisfies (a) above and

1. each minimal creature $`t_\nu ^{}`$ is $`\lambda `$–complete.

###### Proposition B.6.2.

Assume that $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is a very local $`\lambda `$–tree creating pair for $`𝐇`$, $`D^{}`$ is a $`<\lambda `$–complete filter on $`\lambda `$. Let $``$ be one of the forcing notions $`_1^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, $`_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, or $`_{\mathrm{cl}}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$.

1. If $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is $`\overline{\lambda }`$–complete, then $``$ is strategically $`(<\lambda )`$–complete.
2. If $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is just $`\lambda `$–complete, then $``$ is $`\lambda `$–complete.
3. If $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is exactly $`\overline{\lambda }`$–complete, then $``$ is $`\lambda `$–complete.

###### Proof.

(1) Let $`\{_1^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma }),_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma }),_{\mathrm{cl}}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })\}`$ and let $`r`$. Consider the following strategy $`\mathrm{st}`$ of Complete in the game $`\mathrm{}_0^\lambda (,\mathrm{},r)`$. At stage $`j<\lambda `$ of the game, after a sequence $`(p_i,q_i):i<j{}_{}{}^{}p_j`$ has been constructed (so $`p_j`$ is the move of Incomplete), she plays the $`<_\chi ^{}`$–first condition $`q_j`$ stronger than $`p_j`$ and such that $`\mathrm{lh}(\mathrm{root}(q_j))>j+\omega `$.

Why is this a winning strategy? Suppose that the players have arrived at a limit stage $`\delta <\lambda `$ of the game, Complete has used $`\mathrm{st}`$ and $`(p_i,q_i):i<\delta `$ is the result of the game so far. Our aim is to show that the (increasing) sequence $`q_i:i<\delta `$ has an upper bound in $``$. To this end we are going to define a condition $`q=t_\eta :\eta T`$ inductively defining $`(T)_\alpha `$ and $`t_\eta `$ for $`\alpha <\lambda `$, $`\eta (T)_\alpha `$. First we declare $`\mathrm{root}(T)=\underset{i<\delta }{}\mathrm{root}(q_i)`$ and we note that

$$\mathrm{root}(T)\underset{i<\delta }{}T^{q_i}\text{and}\delta \mathrm{lh}(\mathrm{root}(T))<\lambda _{\mathrm{lh}(\mathrm{root}(T))}^+.$$

Now we may choose $`t_{\mathrm{root}(T)}\mathrm{TCR}_{\mathrm{root}(T)}^\lambda [𝐇]`$ so that $`t_{\mathrm{root}(T)}\mathrm{\Sigma }(t_{\mathrm{root}(T)}^{q_i})`$ (for all $`i<\delta `$) and $`\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t_{\mathrm{root}(T)}]\mathrm{min}\{\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t_{\mathrm{root}(T)}^{q_i}]:i<\delta \}`$, and we declare $`\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}[t_{\mathrm{root}(T)}]T`$ (thus defining $`(T)_{\mathrm{lh}(\mathrm{root}(T))+1}`$). Next we proceed inductively in a similar manner: suppose that $`(T)_\alpha `$ has been already defined and it is included in $`\underset{i<\delta }{}T^{q_i}`$. For each $`\eta (T)_\alpha `$ choose $`t_\eta `$ such that

$$(i<\delta )(t_\eta \mathrm{\Sigma }(t_\eta ^{q_i}))\text{and}\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t_\eta ]\mathrm{min}\{\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t_\eta ^{q_i}]:i<\delta \},$$

and declare $`\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}[t_\eta ]T`$. (So after this step $`(T)_{\alpha +1}`$ is defined.) If $`\alpha <\lambda `$ is limit and $`(T)_\beta `$ has been defined for $`\beta <\alpha `$, then we let $`(T)_\alpha `$ consist of all $`\eta `$ such that $`\eta \beta (T)_\beta `$ whenever $`\mathrm{lh}(\mathrm{root}(T))\beta <\alpha `$, and then we choose $`t_\eta `$ (for $`\eta (T)_\alpha `$ like above).

This way we build a condition $`t_\eta :\eta T_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, and it is very straightforward to verify that this condition is actually in $``$, and it is stronger than all $`q_i`$ (for $`i<\delta `$).

(2), (3) Similar. ∎

The exact $`\overline{\lambda }`$–completeness may seem to be very strange and/or strong. But as a matter of fact it is easy to modify any $`\overline{\lambda }`$–complete $`\lambda `$–tree creating pair to one that is exactly complete (and the respective forcing notions are very close).

###### Definition B.6.3.

Let $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ be a very local $`\overline{\lambda }`$–complete $`\lambda `$–tree creating pair for $`𝐇`$. We define the $`\overline{\lambda }`$–exactivity $`(K^{\mathrm{ex}(\overline{\lambda })},\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{ex}(\overline{\lambda })})`$ of $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ as follows.

Let $`\eta \underset{\alpha <\lambda }{}\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}𝐇(\beta )`$. We let $`K^{\mathrm{ex}(\overline{\lambda })}\mathrm{TCR}_\eta ^\lambda [𝐇]`$ consist of all $`\lambda `$–tree creatures $`t`$ such that

* $`\eta [t]=\eta `$,
* $`\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐬}[t]=t_\xi :\xi \delta `$, where $`t_0=t_\eta ^{}`$ is the minimal creature at $`\eta `$ for $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, $`\delta <\lambda _{\mathrm{lh}(\eta )}`$, and $`\xi <\zeta \delta t_\xi _\mathrm{\Sigma }^\eta t_\zeta \&t_\xi t_\zeta `$,
* $`\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}[t]=\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}[t_\delta ]`$,
* $`\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t]=\mathrm{min}\{\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t_\xi ]:\xi \delta \}`$.

Then, for $`t^{},tK^{\mathrm{ex}(\overline{\lambda })}\mathrm{TCR}_\eta ^\lambda [𝐇]`$ we let $`t^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{ex}(\overline{\lambda })}(t)`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐬}[t]\mathrm{}\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐬}[t^{}]`$.

###### Proposition B.6.4.

Assume$`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is a very local $`\overline{\lambda }`$–complete $`\lambda `$–tree creating pair. Then $`(K^{\mathrm{ex}(\overline{\lambda })},\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{ex}(\overline{\lambda })})`$ is a very local exactly $`\overline{\lambda }`$–complete $`\lambda `$–tree creating pair. The minimal creature for it at $`\eta `$ is $`t_\eta ^{}`$ such that $`\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐬}[t_\eta ^{}]=t_\eta ^{}`$.

###### Proof.

Easy. ∎

###### Theorem B.6.5.

Suppose that

1. $`(\alpha <\lambda )(|𝐇(\alpha )|<\lambda _\alpha )`$, and
2. $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is a $`\overline{\mu }`$–complete very local $`\lambda `$–tree creating pair for $`𝐇`$ for some strictly increasing sequence $`\overline{\mu }=\mu _\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$ of regular cardinals such that $`\mu _\alpha <\lambda `$ (for $`\alpha <\lambda `$), and
3. $`D^{}`$ is a normal filter on $`\lambda `$.

Then the forcing notion $`_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ has the strong $`\overline{\lambda }`$–Sacks property

###### Proof.

Let $`i_0<\lambda `$ and $`p_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. Just for notational simplicity we assume that $`𝐇(\alpha )\lambda _\alpha `$ for all $`\alpha <\lambda `$ and $`\mathrm{lh}(\mathrm{root}(p))i_0`$. We are going to describe a strategy for the Generic player in the game $`\mathrm{}_{\overline{\lambda }}^{\mathrm{Sacks}}(i_0,p,_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma }))`$. In the course of the play she will also choose sets $`Y_{i+1}D^{}`$ and $`\lambda `$–tree creatures $`t_\nu `$.

First Generic picks $`\eta T^p`$ such that $`\mathrm{lh}(\eta )>i_0`$ and she starts the game with playing $`s_{i_0}=\{\eta (i_0+1)\}`$ and $`q_{\eta (i_0+1)}^{i_0}=p^{[\eta ]}`$. She also picks $`t_{\eta i_0}\mathrm{\Sigma }(t_{\eta (i_0+1)}^p)`$ such that $`\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}[t_{\eta (i_0+1)}]=\{\eta (i_0+1)\}`$ (remember B.6.1(1)($`\gamma `$)).

Arriving at a successor stage $`j=i+1`$ of the play the players have determined $`s_i,\overline{q}^i,\overline{p}^i`$ and $`Y_i`$ so that, in addition to the demands of the game, for each $`\eta s_i{}_{}{}^{i+1}\lambda `$ we have $`\eta \mathrm{}\mathrm{root}(q_\eta ^i)`$. Now for each $`\eta s_i{}_{}{}^{i+1}\lambda `$ Generic picks $`\nu _\eta T^{p_\eta ^i}`$ strictly extending $`\eta `$ and she plays

$$s_{i+1}=s_i\{\nu _\eta (i+2):\eta s_i\},q_{\nu _\eta (i+2)}^{i+1}=(p_\eta ^i)^{[\nu _\eta ]}\text{ for }\eta s_i{}_{}{}^{i+1}\lambda .$$

She also fixes a set $`Y_{i+1}D^{}`$ of limit ordinals included in $`\underset{\eta s_i}{}Y^{q_{\nu _\eta (i+2)}^{i+1}}`$ (recall B.5.2(2)) and for $`\eta s_i{}_{}{}^{i+1}\lambda `$ she lets $`t_\eta \mathrm{\Sigma }(t_\eta ^p)`$ be such that $`\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}[t_\eta ]=\{\nu _\eta \}`$.

Now suppose that the players have arrived to a limit stage $`\delta <\lambda `$ of the game, and assume that $`\delta \underset{i<\delta }{}Y_{i+1}`$. Generic lets $`s_\delta ^{}`$ consist all sequences $`\eta `$ of length $`\delta `$ such that $`\eta (i+1)s_i`$ whenever $`i_0i<\delta `$. For each $`\eta s_\delta ^{}`$ she first picks a condition $`r_\eta `$ stronger than all $`p_{\eta (i+1)}^i`$ for $`i_0i<\delta `$ (there is one by arguments as in the proof of B.6.2(1)) and then she chooses $`\nu _\eta T^{r_\eta }`$ strictly extending $`\eta `$. Then she plays

$$s_\delta =s_\delta ^{}\{\nu _\eta (\delta +1):\eta s_\delta ^{}\},q_{\nu _\eta (\delta +1)}^\delta =(r_\eta )^{[\nu _\eta ]}\text{ for }\eta s_\delta ^{}.$$

The $`\lambda `$–tree creatures $`t_\eta `$ (for $`\eta s_\delta ^{}`$) are chosen as above: $`t_\eta \mathrm{\Sigma }(t_\eta ^p)`$, $`\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}[t_\eta ]=\{\nu _\eta \}`$.

Finally suppose that we are at a limit stage $`\delta <\lambda `$ of the game and $`\delta \underset{i<\delta }{}Y_i`$. Let $`s_\delta ^{}`$ be defined as above and for each $`\eta s_\delta ^{}`$ let $`r_\eta `$ be a condition stronger than all $`p_{\eta (i+1)}^i`$ for $`i_0i<\delta `$ and such that $`\mathrm{root}(r_\eta )=\eta `$ and $`\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t_\eta ^{r_\eta }]|\delta |`$ (there is one by arguments as in the proof of B.6.2(1) and the choice of the $`Y_i`$’s). Then she plays

$$s_\delta =s_\delta ^{}\{\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}[t_\eta ^{r_\eta }]:\eta s_\delta ^{}\},q_\nu ^\delta =(r_\eta )^{[\nu ]}\text{ for }\nu \mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}[t_\eta ^{r_\eta }],\eta s_\delta ^{}.$$

She also lets $`t_\eta =t_\eta ^{r_\eta }\mathrm{\Sigma }(t_\eta ^p)`$ (for $`\eta s_\delta ^{}`$).

It should be clear that the strategy described above always tells Generic to play legal moves (remember 0.3(c)). It should also be clear that if $`(s_i,\overline{q}^i,\overline{p}^i):i_0i<\lambda `$ is the result of a play of $`\mathrm{}_{\overline{\lambda }}^{\mathrm{Sacks}}(i_0,p,_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma }))`$ in which Generic uses that strategy, then letting $`T=\{s_i:i_0i<\lambda \}`$ and $`q=t_\eta :\eta T`$ we get a condition in $`_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ (as witnessed by $`\underset{i<\lambda }{}Y_{i+1}`$) stronger than $`p`$ and forcing that

$$\text{“ }(\rho {}_{}{}^{\lambda }\lambda )(i[i_0,\lambda ))(\rho (i+1)s_i\&q_{\rho (i+1)}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })})\text{ ”.}$$

###### Theorem B.6.6.

Assume that $`(\alpha <\lambda )(|𝐇(\alpha )|<\lambda )`$, and $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma }),D^{}`$ satisfy (b), (c) of B.6.5. Then the forcing notion $`_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ has the strong $`\lambda `$–bounding property.

###### Proof.

Similar to B.6.5. ∎

The above two theorems are applicable to forcing notions of the type $`_{\mathrm{cl}}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ as they may be treated as a special case (under the assumptions as there):

###### Proposition B.6.7.

Assume that $`(\alpha <\lambda )(|𝐇(\alpha )|<\lambda )`$ and $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is a $`\overline{\mu }`$–complete very local $`\lambda `$–tree creating pair for $`𝐇`$ (for some $`\overline{\mu }`$). Then the forcing notions $`_{\mathrm{cl}}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ and $`_{𝒟_\lambda }^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ are equivalent.

Turning to the case of $`\lambda `$–creating pairs (and forcing notions of the form $`_e^{}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$), we do easy ways to ensure they are suitably complete (parallel to B.6.1, B.6.2). However at present we do not know how to get the strong bounding properties of section A.2 (which were obviously tailored for trees).

###### Definition B.6.8.

1. For a $`\lambda `$–creating pair $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ and $`tK`$ we define when $`t`$ is $`\kappa `$–complete and exactly $`\kappa `$–complete like in B.6.1(1,2) (but with $`\mathrm{𝐯𝐚𝐥}`$ replacing $`\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}`$).
2. If $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is very local, then we say that it is $`\overline{\lambda }`$–complete (exactly $`\overline{\lambda }`$–complete, resp.) if each minimal creature $`t_\alpha ^{}`$ is $`\lambda _\alpha ^+`$–complete (exactly $`\lambda _\alpha `$–complete, resp.).

###### Proposition B.6.9.

Assume that $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is a very local $`\lambda `$–creating pair for $`𝐇`$, $`D^{}`$ is a normal filter on $`\lambda `$. Let $``$ be either the forcing notion $`_1^{}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ or $`_D^{}^{}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$.

1. If $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is $`\overline{\lambda }`$–complete, then $``$ is strategically $`(<\lambda )`$–complete.
2. If $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is exactly $`\overline{\lambda }`$–complete, then $``$ is $`\lambda `$–complete.

## B.7. Getting fuzzy properness

In this section we show that the forcing notions with trees and creatures may fit the fuzzy proper framework. Note that even though the forcing notions covered by Theorems B.7.1 and B.7.2 below are also covered by Theorem B.6.6, the results here still have value if we want to iterate that forcing notions with ones which do not have the strong $`\lambda `$–bounding property.

###### Theorem B.7.1.

Let $`A,W,D`$ be as in A.3.1 and let $`D^{}`$ be a normal filter on $`\lambda `$ such that for some $`S_0D^{}`$ we have $`\lambda S_0D`$. Let $`\overline{\mu }`$ be an increasing sequence of regular cardinals cofinal in $`\lambda `$. Assume that $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is an exactly $`\overline{\mu }`$–complete very local $`\lambda `$–tree creating pair for $`𝐇`$, and $`|𝐇(\alpha )|<\lambda `$ for each $`\alpha <\lambda `$. Then the forcing notion $`_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is strongly fuzzy proper over quasi $`D`$–diamonds for $`W`$.

###### Proof.

By B.6.2 we know that $`_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is $`\lambda `$–complete.

Let $`^{\mathrm{tr}},\overline{𝔜}^{\mathrm{tr}}`$ be the trivial $`\lambda `$–base defined as in the proof A.3.9 (but for $`=_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$). We are going to show that for this $`\lambda `$–base and for $`c=(\overline{\lambda },K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ the condition A.3.6(2)($`()^+`$) holds. So assume that $`N,h,\overline{F}=F_\delta :\delta S`$ and $`\overline{q}=q_{\delta ,x}:\delta S\text{ limit }\&x𝒳_\delta `$ are as there and $`p_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })N`$. Note that $`𝒳_\delta =\{0\}`$ (for all relevant $`\delta `$) and thus we may think that $`\overline{q}=q_\delta :\delta S\text{ limit}`$.

Let $`\overline{}=_\xi :\xi <\lambda `$ list all open dense subsets of $`_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ from $`N`$. For $`i<\lambda `$ let $`\xi _i`$ be such that $`_{\xi _i}`$ consist of conditions $`p_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ with $`\mathrm{lh}(\mathrm{root}(p))>i`$, and let $`E`$ be a club of $`\lambda `$ such that

$$(\delta E)(i<\delta )(\delta \text{ is limit and }\xi _i<\delta ).$$

By induction on $`\alpha <\lambda `$ choose conditions $`p_\alpha _D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })N`$ and sets $`Y_\alpha D^{}`$ such that

1. $`p_0=p`$, $`\mathrm{root}(p_\alpha )=\mathrm{root}(p)`$, and $`p_\alpha p_\beta `$ and $`Y_\beta Y_\alpha S_0`$ for $`\alpha <\beta <\lambda `$,
2. $`Y_\alpha `$ witnesses $`p_\alpha _D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ (see B.5.2(2)),
3. for every $`\alpha <\beta <\lambda `$ and $`\nu (T^{p_\alpha })_\alpha `$ we have $`\nu T^{p_\beta }`$ and $`t_\nu ^{p_\alpha }=t_\nu ^{p_\beta }`$,
4. if $`\alpha <\lambda `$ is a successor, $`\xi <\alpha `$ and $`\eta (T^{p_\alpha })_\alpha `$, then for some $`\nu (T^{p_\alpha })^{[\eta ]}`$ we have: $`(p_\alpha )^{[\nu ]}_\xi `$ and $`(\rho T^{p_\alpha })(\eta \mathrm{}\rho \mathrm{}\nu \mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t_\rho ^{p_\alpha }]=0)`$,
5. if $`\delta \underset{\alpha <\delta }{}Y_\alpha `$ is a limit ordinal, then $`\delta Y_\beta `$ for every $`\beta \delta `$,
6. if $`\delta SES_0`$ and $`hF_\delta (i):i<\delta `$ is an increasing $`\overline{}`$–exact sequence of members of $`N_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ such that

$$(\alpha <\delta )(i<\delta )(p_\alpha hF_\delta (i)),$$

and $`\eta (T^{p_\delta })_\delta `$ is such that every $`hF_\delta (i)`$ is compatible with $`(p_\delta )^{[\eta ]}`$, then $`(p_\delta )^{[\eta ]}q_\delta =(p_\delta )^{[\mathrm{root}(q_\delta )]}`$ and

$$(\rho T^{p_\delta })(\eta \mathrm{}\rho \mathrm{}\mathrm{root}(q_\delta )\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t_\rho ^{p_\delta }]=0).$$

\[Note that there is at most one $`\eta `$ as above; remember the choice of $`E`$.\]

It should be clear that the inductive construction of the $`p_\alpha `$’s and $`Y_\alpha `$’s is possible (for (v) remember $`\delta <\lambda _\delta `$; note also that there is no collision between (v) and (vi) because $`Y_\alpha S_0`$). Now letting $`\mathrm{root}(r)=\mathrm{root}(p)`$, $`T^r=\underset{\alpha <\lambda }{}(T^{p_\alpha })_\alpha `$, $`t_\nu ^r=t_\nu ^{p_{\mathrm{lh}(\nu )+1}}`$ we get a condition $`r_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ (as witnessed by $`\underset{\alpha <\lambda }{}Y_\alpha `$). Also note that $`r`$ is stronger than all $`p_\alpha `$’s.

###### Claim B.7.1.1.

The condition $`r`$ is $`(^{\mathrm{tr}},\overline{𝔜}^{\mathrm{tr}})`$–fuzzy generic for $`\overline{q}`$.

###### Proof of the Claim.

First note that the condition $`r`$ is $`(N,_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma }))`$–generic by clause (iv) above. Therefore we may use A.3.8(3), and it is enough that we show that the Generic player has a strategy in the game $`\mathrm{}_\lambda ^{\mathrm{fuzzy}}(r,N,\overline{},h,_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma }),\overline{F},\overline{q})`$ which guarantees that the result $`r_i,C_i:i<\lambda `$ of the play satisfies A.3.4(5)($`\beta `$). Let us describe such a strategy.

First, for $`\alpha <\lambda `$ let $`\zeta _\alpha <\lambda `$ be such that

$$(q_{\zeta _\alpha })(\text{ either }p_\alpha q\text{ or }p_\alpha ,q\text{ are incompatible }),$$

and let $`E^{}=\{\delta E:(\alpha <\delta )(\zeta _\alpha <\delta )\}`$ (it is a club of $`\lambda `$).

Now, suppose that during a play of $`\mathrm{}_\lambda ^{\mathrm{fuzzy}}(r,N,\overline{},h,_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma }),\overline{F},\overline{q})`$ the players have arrived at stage $`iS`$ having constructed a sequence $`r_j,C_j:j<i`$.

If either $`i`$ is a successor ordinal or $`i\underset{j<i}{}C_j`$, then the Generic player plays the $`<_\chi ^{}`$–first condition $`r_i_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ such that $`(j<i)(r_jr_i)`$ and $`\mathrm{lh}(\mathrm{root}(r_i))>i`$, and the set $`C_i=E^{}(S_0\mathrm{lh}(\mathrm{root}(r_i)))`$.

If $`i\underset{j<i}{}C_j`$ is a limit ordinal (so also $`iE^{}S_0`$), then Generic asks

1. is $`hF_i(\alpha ):\alpha <i`$ an increasing $`\overline{}`$–exact sequence such that

$$(j<i)(\alpha <i)(p_jhF_i(\alpha ))\text{ ?}$$

If the answer to $`()`$ is “no”, then she plays like at the successor stage.

\[Note that if the answer to $`()`$ is “no” and $`hF_i(\alpha ):\alpha <i`$ is increasing $`\overline{}`$–exact, then for some $`j<i`$ and $`\alpha <i`$ the conditions $`p_j`$ and $`hF_i(\alpha )`$ are incompatible, and hence $`r_i`$ and $`hF_i(\alpha )`$ are incompatible.\]
If the answer to $`()`$ is “yes”, then Generic looks at clause (vi) (of the choice of $`p_\alpha `$’s) and $`\eta =\underset{j<i}{}\mathrm{root}(r_j)`$ (note that $`\mathrm{lh}(\eta )=i`$). If $`(p_i)^{[\eta ]}`$ is incompatible with some $`hF_i(\alpha )`$, $`\alpha <i`$, then she plays $`C_i,r_i`$ as in the successor case.

\[Note that then $`r_i,hF_i(\alpha )`$ are incompatible.\]
Otherwise $`\eta \mathrm{}\mathrm{root}(q_i)T^{p_i}`$, $`q_i=(p_i)^{[\mathrm{root}(q_i)]}`$ and $`(\rho T^{p_i})(\eta \mathrm{}\rho \mathrm{}\mathrm{root}(q_i)|\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}[t_\rho ^{p_i}]|=1)`$. Therefore, $`\mathrm{root}(q_i)T^{r_j}`$ and $`q_i(r_j)^{[\mathrm{root}(q_i)]}`$ (for each $`j<i`$). So the Generic player can play $`C_i=E^{}i`$ and the $`<_\chi ^{}`$–first condition $`r_i`$ stronger than all $`r_j`$ (for $`j<i`$) and $`q_i`$.

It follows immediately from the comments stated during the description of the strategy that every play according to it satisfies A.3.4(5)($`\beta `$), finishing the proof of the claim and that of the theorem. ∎

###### Theorem B.7.2.

Let $`A,W,D`$ be as in A.3.1 and let $`D^{}`$ be a normal filter on $`\lambda `$ such that for some $`S_0D^{}`$ we have $`\lambda S_0D`$. Assume that $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is an exactly $`\overline{\lambda }`$–complete very local $`\lambda `$–creating pair for $`𝐇`$, $`|𝐇(\alpha )|<\lambda `$ for each $`\alpha <\lambda `$. Then the forcing notion $`_D^{}^{}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is strongly fuzzy proper over quasi $`D`$–diamonds for $`W`$.

###### Proof.

Like B.7.1

###### Theorem B.7.3.

Let $`A=_{<\lambda }(\lambda ^{})`$, $`\lambda ^{}>\lambda `$ and $`W[A]^\lambda `$ be as in A.3.1. Let $`\overline{\mu }`$ be an increasing sequence of regular cardinals cofinal in $`\lambda `$. Suppose that $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is an exactly $`\overline{\mu }`$–complete very local $`\lambda `$–tree creating pair for $`𝐇`$, $`(\alpha <\lambda )(|𝐇(\alpha )|<\lambda )`$, and $`D^{}`$ is a normal filter on $`\lambda `$. Then the forcing notion $`_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is fuzzy proper for $`W`$.

###### Proof.

The proof closely follows the lines of that of B.7.1. Let $`D`$ be a normal filter on $`\lambda `$ such that there is a $`D`$–diamond.

Just only to simplify somewhat the definition of a $`\lambda `$–base which we will use, let us assume that $`\underset{\delta <\lambda }{}\underset{\alpha <\delta }{}𝐇(\alpha )a`$ for every $`aW`$. Now we let $`=(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ consist of all triples $`(p,\delta ,\eta )`$ such that $`\delta <\lambda `$, $`\eta \underset{\alpha <\delta }{}𝐇(\alpha )`$ and $`p_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ satisfies $`\eta \mathrm{}\mathrm{root}(p)`$. Next, for $`aW`$ let $`𝔜_a=𝔜_a(K,\mathrm{\Sigma }):\lambda [a]^{<\lambda }`$ be given by $`𝔜_a(\delta )=\underset{\alpha \delta }{}𝐇(\alpha )a`$ (for $`\delta <\lambda `$). It should be clear that $`(,\overline{𝔜})`$ is a $`\lambda `$–base for $`_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ over $`W`$.

We claim that $`(,\overline{𝔜})`$ and $`c=(\overline{\lambda },𝐇,K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ witness the condition $`()`$ of A.3.6(1). To this end, let $`N,h,\overline{F}=F_\delta :\delta S`$ and $`\overline{q}=q_{\delta ,x}:\delta S\text{ limit }\&x𝒳_\delta `$ be as in A.3.6(1)$`()`$, $`p_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })N`$. Let $`\overline{}=_\xi :\xi <\lambda `$ list all open dense subsets of $`_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ from $`N`$. For $`i<\lambda `$ let $`\xi _i`$ be such that $`_{\xi _i}`$ consist of conditions $`p_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ with $`\mathrm{lh}(\mathrm{root}(p))>i`$, and let $`E`$ be a club of $`\lambda `$ such that

$$(\delta E)(i<\delta )(\delta \text{ is limit and }\xi _i<\delta ).$$

By induction on $`\alpha <\lambda `$, like in B.7.1 (but note the change in (vi) below!), we choose conditions $`p_\alpha _D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })N`$ and sets $`Y_\alpha D^{}`$ such that

1. $`p_0=p`$, $`\mathrm{root}(p_\alpha )=\mathrm{root}(p)`$, and $`p_\alpha p_\beta `$ and $`Y_\beta Y_\alpha `$ for $`\alpha <\beta <\lambda `$,
2. $`Y_\alpha `$ witnesses $`p_\alpha _D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$,
3. for every $`\alpha <\beta <\lambda `$ and $`\nu (T^{p_\alpha })_\alpha `$ we have $`\nu T^{p_\beta }`$ and $`t_\nu ^{p_\alpha }=t_\nu ^{p_\beta }`$,
4. if $`\alpha <\lambda `$ is a successor ordinal and $`\eta (T^{p_\alpha })_\alpha `$, then for some $`\nu (T^{p_\alpha })^{[\eta ]}`$ we have: $`(p_\alpha )^{[\nu ]}\underset{\xi <\alpha }{}_\xi `$ and $`(\rho T^{p_\alpha })(\eta \mathrm{}\rho \mathrm{}\nu \mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t_\rho ^{p_\alpha }]=0)`$,
5. if $`\delta \underset{\alpha <\delta }{}Y_\alpha `$ is a limit ordinal, then $`\delta Y_\beta `$ for every $`\beta \delta `$,
6. if $`\delta SE`$, $`hF_\delta (i):i<\delta `$ is increasing $`\overline{}`$–exact, $`\eta =\underset{i<\delta }{}\mathrm{root}(hF_\delta (i))`$ and $`\mathrm{lh}(\eta )=\delta `$, and $`(\alpha <\delta )(i<\delta )(p_\alpha hF_\delta (i))`$,
then ($`\eta T^{p_\delta }`$ and) for every $`\nu \mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}[t_\eta ^{p_\delta }]\underset{i<\delta }{}\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}[t_\eta ^{hF_\delta (i)}]`$ we have

$$(p_\delta )^{[\nu ]}q_{\delta ,\nu }=(p_\delta )^{[\mathrm{root}(q_{\delta ,\nu })]}\text{ and }(\rho T^{p_\delta })(\nu \mathrm{}\rho \mathrm{}\mathrm{root}(q_{\delta ,\nu })\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t_\rho ^{p_\delta }]=0).$$

\[Note that, in the situation as in (vi), $`𝒳_\delta =\underset{i<\delta }{}\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}[t_\eta ^{hF_\delta (i)}]`$.\]

Plainly, the inductive construction of the $`p_\alpha `$’s and $`Y_\alpha `$’s is possible (for (v) remember $`\delta <\lambda _\delta `$). Now letting $`\mathrm{root}(r)=\mathrm{root}(p)`$, $`T^r=\underset{\alpha <\lambda }{}(T^{p_\alpha })_\alpha `$, $`t_\nu ^r=t_\nu ^{p_{\mathrm{lh}(\nu )+1}}`$ we get a condition $`r_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ stronger than all $`p_\alpha `$’s.

###### Claim B.7.3.1.

The condition $`r`$ is $`(,\overline{𝔜})`$–fuzzy generic for $`\overline{q}`$.

###### Proof of the Claim.

It is very much like B.7.1.1. We note that $`r`$ is $`(N,_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma }))`$–generic (by clause (iv)), and therefore it is enough to show that the Generic player has a strategy in the game $`\mathrm{}_\lambda ^{\mathrm{fuzzy}}(r,N,\overline{},h,_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma }),\overline{F},\overline{q})`$ which guarantees that the result $`r_i,C_i:i<\lambda `$ of the play satisfies A.3.4(5)($`\beta `$) (remember A.3.8(3)). Let us describe such a strategy. First, for $`\alpha <\lambda `$ let $`\zeta _\alpha <\lambda `$ be such that

$$(q_{\zeta _\alpha })(\text{ either }p_\alpha q\text{ or }p_\alpha ,q\text{ are incompatible }),$$

and let $`E^{}=\{\delta E:(\alpha <\delta )(\zeta _\alpha <\delta )\}`$ (it is a club of $`\lambda `$).

Now, suppose that during a play of $`\mathrm{}_\lambda ^{\mathrm{fuzzy}}(r,N,\overline{},h,_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma }),\overline{F},\overline{q})`$ the players have arrived at stage $`iS`$ having constructed a sequence $`r_j,C_j:j<i`$.

If either $`i`$ is a successor ordinal or $`i\underset{j<i}{}C_j`$, then Generic plays the $`<_\chi ^{}`$–first condition $`r_i_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ such that $`(j<i)(r_jr_i)`$ and $`\mathrm{lh}(\mathrm{root}(r_i))>i`$ and $`C_i=E^{}\mathrm{lh}(\mathrm{root}(r_i))`$.

If $`i\underset{j<i}{}C_jE^{}`$ is a limit ordinal, then Generic asks

1. is $`hF_i(\alpha ):\alpha <i`$ an increasing $`\overline{}`$–exact sequence such that

$$(\alpha <i)(j<i)(hF_i(\alpha )r_j)\text{ ?}$$

If the answer to $`()`$ is “no”, then she plays like at the successor stage.
If the answer to $`()`$ is “yes”, then Generic takes $`\eta =\underset{j<i}{}\mathrm{root}(r_j)`$ and she notes that $`\mathrm{lh}(\eta )=\delta `$ (by the choice of $`C_j`$’s at successor stages) and $`\eta =\underset{i<\delta }{}\mathrm{root}(hF_\delta (i))`$. Also, by the exactness and the choice of $`E^{}`$, we have

$$(j<i)(\alpha <i)(p_jhF_i(\alpha )).$$

So now Generic looks at clause (vi) of the choice of $`p_\alpha `$’s. She picks (say, the $`<_\chi ^{}`$–first) $`\nu \underset{j<i}{}\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}[t_\eta ^{r_j}]\underset{j<i}{}\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}[t_\eta ^{hF_i(\alpha )}]`$ and notices that (by (vi)) $`\nu \mathrm{}\mathrm{root}(q_{i,\nu })T^{p_i}`$, $`q_{i,\nu }=(p_i)^{[\mathrm{root}(q_{i,\nu })]}`$ and $`(\rho T^{p_i})(\nu \mathrm{}\rho \mathrm{}\mathrm{root}(q_{i,\nu })|\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}[t_\rho ^{p_i}]|=1)`$. Therefore, $`\mathrm{root}(q_{i,\nu })T^{r_j}`$ and $`q_{i,\nu }(T^{r_j})^{[\mathrm{root}(q_{i,\nu })]}`$ (for each $`j<i`$). So the Generic player can play $`C_i=E^{}i`$ and the $`<_\chi ^{}`$–first condition $`r_i`$ stronger than all $`r_j`$ (for $`j<i`$) and $`q_{i,\nu }`$.

Easily, the strategy described above has the required property, and the proof is completed. ∎

###### Problem B.7.4.

Unlike that was in the case of B.7.1, it is not clear how the proof of B.7.3 can be modified to get the parallel result for non-tree case. So, assuming that $`A,W,𝐇`$ and $`D^{}`$ are as in B.7.3 and $`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is an exactly $`\overline{\lambda }`$–complete very local $`\lambda `$–creating pair for $`𝐇`$, is the forcing notion $`_D^{}^{}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ fuzzy proper for $`W`$?

## B.8. More examples and applications

Here we are going to present some direct applications of the methods developed in this paper. Though we do keep our basic assumptions from 0.3, we are going to introduce more parameters, so let us fully state the context we are working in now.

###### Context B.8.1.

1. $`\lambda `$ is a strongly inaccessible cardinal, $`2^\lambda =\lambda ^+`$, and $`2^{\lambda ^+}=\lambda ^{++}`$, and
2. $`\overline{\mu }=\mu _\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$, $`\overline{\lambda }=\lambda _\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$ and $`\overline{\kappa }=\kappa _\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$ are strictly increasing sequences of uncountable regular cardinals, each cofinal in $`\lambda `$,
3. for each $`\alpha <\lambda `$,

* $`\mu _\alpha ^+<\lambda _\alpha <\kappa _\alpha `$,
    * $`\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}\lambda _\beta <\lambda _\alpha `$ and $`(\xi <\lambda _\alpha )(|\xi |^\alpha <\lambda _\alpha )`$,
4. $`A=_{<\lambda }(\lambda ^{})`$, $`\lambda ^{}>\lambda `$ and $`W[A]^\lambda `$ are as in A.3.1,
5. $`D`$ is a normal filter on $`\lambda `$ such that there is a $`D`$–diamond.

Let us recall some notions related to cardinal characteristics of $`\lambda `$–reals.

###### Definition B.8.2.

1. Let $`𝒮_{\overline{\mu }}`$ be the family of all sequences $`\overline{a}=a_\alpha ;\alpha <\lambda `$ such that $`a_\alpha [\lambda ]^{<\mu _\alpha }`$ (for all $`\alpha <\lambda `$). We define

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill c(\overline{\mu })=& \mathrm{min}\left\{|𝒴|:𝒴𝒮_{\overline{\mu }}\&(f{}_{}{}^{\lambda }\lambda )(\overline{a}𝒴)(\alpha <\lambda )(f(\alpha )a_\alpha )\right\},\hfill \\ \hfill c_{\mathrm{cl}}^{}(\overline{\mu })=& \mathrm{min}\left\{|𝒴|:𝒴𝒮_{\overline{\mu }}\&(f{}_{}{}^{\lambda }\lambda )(\overline{a}𝒴)\left(\{\alpha <\lambda :f(\alpha )a_\alpha \}(𝒟_\lambda )^+\right)\right\},\hfill \end{array}$$

and also

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill e_{\mathrm{cl}}(\overline{\mu })=\mathrm{min}\{|𝒢|:& 𝒢\underset{\alpha <\lambda }{}\mu _\alpha \text{ and}\hfill \\ & (f\underset{\alpha <\lambda }{}\mu _\alpha )(g𝒢)(\{\alpha <\lambda :f(\alpha )g(\alpha )\}𝒟_\lambda )\},\hfill \end{array}$$
2. For an ideal $`𝒥`$ of subsets of a set $`𝒳`$, the covering number $`\mathrm{cov}(𝒥)`$ of $`𝒥`$ is

$$\mathrm{cov}(𝒥)=\mathrm{min}\{|𝒴|:𝒴𝒥\&𝒴=𝒳\}.$$

###### Proposition B.8.3.

It is consistent that $`c(\overline{\lambda })<e_{\mathrm{cl}}(\overline{\mu })`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`𝐇_0(\alpha )=\mu _\alpha `$ (for $`\alpha <\lambda `$) and let $`K_0`$ consist of all $`\lambda `$–tree creatures $`t\mathrm{TCR}^\lambda [𝐇_0]`$ such that:

* $`\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐬}[t]\mu _{\mathrm{lh}(\eta [t])}+1`$,
* if $`\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐬}[t]=\mu _{\mathrm{lh}(\eta [t])}`$, then $`\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}[t]=\{\eta [t]{}_{}{}^{}\xi :\xi <\mu _{\mathrm{lh}(\eta [t])}\}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t]=\mu _{\mathrm{lh}(\eta [t])}`$,
* if $`\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐬}[t]<\mu _{\mathrm{lh}(\eta [t])}`$, then $`\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}[t]=\{\eta [t]{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐬}[t]\}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t]=0`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ be a local tree-composition operation on $`K_0`$ (so its domain consists of singletons only) such that

* if $`\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐬}[t]<\mu _{\mathrm{lh}(\eta [t])}`$, then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(t)=\{t\}`$,
* if $`\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐬}[t]=\mu _{\mathrm{lh}(\eta [t])}`$, then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(t)=\{t^{}K_0:\eta [t^{}]=\eta [t]\}`$.

It should be clear that $`(K_0,\mathrm{\Sigma }_0)`$ is a very local exactly $`\overline{\lambda }`$–complete tree creating pair. The forcing notion $`_{𝒟_\lambda }^{\mathrm{tree}}(K_0,\mathrm{\Sigma }_0)`$ has the strong $`\overline{\lambda }`$–Sacks property (by B.6.5). Let   $`W`$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   be the canonical $`_{𝒟_\lambda }^{\mathrm{tree}}(K_0,\mathrm{\Sigma }_0)`$–name for the generic function in $`\underset{\alpha <\lambda }{}\mu _\alpha `$, so

p𝒟λtree(K0,Σ0)“ root(p)
W
~
 ”.subscriptforcessubscriptsuperscripttreesubscript𝒟𝜆subscript𝐾0subscriptΣ0𝑝“ root𝑝
W
~
 ”.p\Vdash_{{\mathbb{Q}}^{\rm tree}_{{\mathcal{D}}_{\lambda}}(K_{0},\Sigma_{0})}\mbox{`` }{\rm root}\/(p)\vartriangleleft\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle W$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle W$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle W$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle W$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}\mbox{ ''.}
Then we have

𝒟λtree(K0,Σ0)“ (fα<λμα𝐕)({α<λ:W

~
(α)=f(α)}(𝒟λ)+) ”.subscriptforcessubscriptsuperscripttreesubscript𝒟𝜆subscript𝐾0subscriptΣ0absent“ for-all𝑓subscriptproduct𝛼𝜆subscript𝜇𝛼𝐕conditional-set𝛼𝜆𝑊

~
𝛼𝑓𝛼superscriptsubscript𝒟𝜆 ”.\Vdash_{{\mathbb{Q}}^{\rm tree}_{{\mathcal{D}}_{\lambda}}(K_{0},\Sigma_{0})}\mbox{`` }\big{(}\forall f\in\prod\limits_{\alpha<\lambda}\mu_{\alpha}\cap{\bf V}\big{)}\big{(}\{\alpha<\lambda:\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle W$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle W$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle W$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle W$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}(\alpha)=f(\alpha)\}\in({\mathcal{D}}_{\lambda})^{+}\big{)}\mbox{ ''.}
Now let $``$ be the limit of a $`\lambda `$–support iteration, $`\lambda ^{++}`$ in length, of the forcing notions $`_{𝒟_\lambda }^{\mathrm{tree}}(K_0,\mathrm{\Sigma }_0)`$. Then, by A.2.3 \+ A.1.9 \+ A.1.4 \+ A.3.10,

* $``$ is $`\lambda `$–complete, $`\lambda `$–proper and satisfies the $`\lambda ^{++}`$–cc, and it has a dense subset of size $`\lambda ^{++}`$, thus forcing with $``$ does not collapse cardinals,
* $``$ has the $`\overline{\lambda }`$–Sacks property, it is weakly fuzzy proper for $`W`$,
* $`_{}`$$`2^\lambda =2^{\lambda ^+}=\lambda ^{++}=e_{\mathrm{cl}}(\overline{\mu })\text{ and }c(\overline{\lambda })=\lambda ^+`$

###### Remark B.8.4.

The forcing $`_{𝒟_\lambda }^{\mathrm{tree}}(K_0,\mathrm{\Sigma }_0)`$ is a “bounded relative” of $`𝔻_\lambda `$ from \[15, 4.10\] (remember B.6.7). It is also a generalization of the forcing notions $`𝔻_𝒳`$ from .

###### Proposition B.8.5.

It is consistent that $`c(\overline{\lambda })<c_{\mathrm{cl}}^{}(\overline{\mu }^+)=c(\overline{\mu }^+)`$, where $`\overline{\mu }^+=\mu _\alpha ^+:\alpha <\lambda `$.

###### Proof.

Let $`𝐇_1(\alpha )=\mu _\alpha ^+`$ (for $`\alpha <\lambda `$) and let $`K_1^{}`$ consist of all $`\lambda `$–tree creatures $`t\mathrm{TCR}^\lambda [𝐇_1]`$ such that:

* $`\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐬}[t]\mu _{\mathrm{lh}(\eta [t])}^+`$, either $`|\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐬}[t]|=1`$ or $`\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐬}[t]`$ is a club of $`\mu _{\mathrm{lh}(\eta [t])}^+`$,
* $`\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}[t]=\{\eta [t]{}_{}{}^{}\xi :\xi \mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐬}[t]\}`$,
* if $`|\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐬}[t]|=1`$ then $`\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t]=0`$, if $`|\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐬}[t]|>1`$ then $`\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t]=\mu _{\mathrm{lh}(\eta [t])}`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^{}`$ be a local tree-composition operation on $`K_1^{}`$ such that

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^{}(t)=\{t^{}K_1^{}:\eta [t^{}]=\eta [t]\&\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐬}[t^{}]\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐬}[t]\}.$$

Then $`(K_1^{},\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^{})`$ is a very local $`\overline{\mu }`$–complete $`\lambda `$–tree creating pair. Let $`(K_1,\mathrm{\Sigma }_1)`$ be the $`\overline{\mu }`$–exactivity of $`(K_1^{},\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^{})`$ (see B.6.3); thus $`(K_1,\mathrm{\Sigma }_1)`$ is a very local exactly $`\overline{\mu }`$–complete $`\lambda `$–tree creating pair. The forcing notion $`_{𝒟_\lambda }^{\mathrm{tree}}(K_1,\mathrm{\Sigma }_1)`$ is $`\lambda `$–complete fuzzy proper for $`W`$ and it has the strong $`\overline{\lambda }`$–Sacks property. Also, letting   $`W`$    $`\stackrel{~}{}`$   be the canonical name for the generic function in $`\underset{\alpha <\lambda }{}\mu _\alpha ^+`$ (i.e., p𝒟λtree(K1,Σ1)“ root(p)W

~
subscriptforcessubscriptsuperscripttreesubscript𝒟𝜆subscript𝐾1subscriptΣ1𝑝“ root𝑝𝑊

~
p\Vdash_{{\mathbb{Q}}^{\rm tree}_{{\mathcal{D}}_{\lambda}}(K_{1},\Sigma_{1})}\mbox{`` }{\rm root}\/(p)\vartriangleleft\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle W$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle W$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle W$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle W$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}} ”), we have

𝒟λtree(K1,Σ1)“ (a¯𝒮μ¯+𝐕)({α<λ:W

~
(α)aα)}𝒟λ) ”.\Vdash_{{\mathbb{Q}}^{\rm tree}_{{\mathcal{D}}_{\lambda}}(K_{1},\Sigma_{1})}\mbox{`` }\big{(}\forall\bar{a}\in{\mathcal{S}}_{\bar{\mu}^{+}}\cap{\bf V}\big{)}\big{(}\{\alpha<\lambda:\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle W$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle W$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle W$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle W$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}(\alpha)\notin a_{\alpha})\}\in{\mathcal{D}}_{\lambda}\big{)}\mbox{ ''.}
Let $``$ be the limit of a $`\lambda `$–support iteration, $`\lambda ^{++}`$ in length, of the forcing notions $`_{𝒟_\lambda }^{\mathrm{tree}}(K_1,\mathrm{\Sigma }_1)`$. Then (by A.2.3 \+ A.1.9 \+ A.1.4 \+ A.3.10) we have:

* $``$ is $`\lambda `$–complete, $`\lambda `$–proper and satisfies the $`\lambda ^{++}`$–cc, and it has a dense subset of size $`\lambda ^{++}`$, thus forcing with $``$ does not collapse cardinals,
* $``$ has the $`\overline{\lambda }`$–Sacks property, it is weakly fuzzy proper for $`W`$,
* $`_{}`$$`2^\lambda =2^{\lambda ^+}=\lambda ^{++}=c_{\mathrm{cl}}^{}(\overline{\mu }^+)\text{ and }c(\overline{\lambda })=\lambda ^+`$

###### Remark B.8.6.

The result in B.8.5 is of interest as it shows that the $`\lambda `$–versions of cardinal characteristics of the reals may behave totally differently from their “ancestors”. Recall that if for an increasing function $`f{}_{}{}^{\omega }\omega `$ we let $`𝒮^f`$ consist of all sequences $`\overline{a}=a_n:n<\omega `$ with $`a_n[\omega ]^{f\left(n\right)+1}`$ (for $`n<\omega `$), then

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{min}\left\{|𝒴|:𝒴𝒮^f\&(h{}_{}{}^{\omega }\omega )(\overline{a}𝒴)(n<\omega )(h(n)a_n)\right\}=\hfill \\ \mathrm{min}\left\{|𝒴|:𝒴𝒮^g\&(h{}_{}{}^{\omega }\omega )(\overline{a}𝒴)(n<\omega )(h(n)a_n)\right\}\hfill \end{array}$$

for any increasing $`f,g{}_{}{}^{\omega }\omega `$

The $`\lambda `$–tree creating pair $`(K_1,\mathrm{\Sigma }_1)`$ may be treated (in some sense) as a special case of the $`\lambda `$–tree creating pairs $`(K(\overline{𝒜}),\mathrm{\Sigma }(\overline{𝒜}))`$ from B.8.10 below.

###### Definition B.8.7.

Let $`𝒜`$ be a family of subsets of $`\kappa `$ such that $`\kappa 𝒜`$.

1. A game $`\mathrm{}^{}(𝒜,\mu )`$ of two players, I and II, is defined as follows. A play lasts $`\mu `$ moves, in the $`\alpha ^{\mathrm{th}}`$ move a set $`A_\alpha 𝒜`$ is chosen, and player I chooses $`A_\alpha `$ for even $`\alpha `$’s. In the end player II wins if $`\underset{\alpha <\mu }{}A_\alpha \mathrm{}`$.
2. The family $`𝒜`$ is a $`\mu `$–category prebase on $`\kappa `$ if player II has a winning strategy in the game $`\mathrm{}^{}(𝒜,\mu )`$ and $`(A𝒜)(\xi <\kappa )(B𝒜)(BA\{\xi \})`$.
3. A set $`X\kappa `$ is $`𝒜`$–presmall if

$$(A𝒜)(B𝒜)(BAX).$$

Of course, every $`\mu ^+`$–complete uniform filter $`D^{}`$ on $`\kappa `$ is a $`\mu `$–category base on $`\kappa `$ and then a set is $`D`$–presmall if and only if its complement is in $`D^{}`$.

###### Definition B.8.8.

1. A $`\overline{\lambda }`$–smallness base on $`\overline{\kappa }`$ is a sequence $`\overline{𝒜}=𝒜_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$ such that each $`𝒜_\alpha `$ is a $`\lambda _\alpha `$–category prebase on $`\kappa _\alpha `$.

Let $`\overline{𝒜}`$ be a $`\overline{\lambda }`$–smallness base on $`\overline{\kappa }`$.
2. Let $`T\underset{\alpha <\lambda }{}\underset{\beta <\lambda }{}\kappa _\alpha `$ be a complete $`\lambda `$–tree with $`\mathrm{max}(T)=\mathrm{}`$ and $`D^{}`$ be a filter on $`\lambda `$. We say that

* $`T`$ is $`\overline{𝒜}`$–small if for every $`\eta (T)_\alpha `$, $`\alpha <\lambda `$, the set $`\{\xi <\kappa _\alpha :\eta {}_{}{}^{}\xi T\}`$ is $`𝒜_\alpha `$–presmall;
    * $`T`$ is $`(D^{},\overline{𝒜})`$–small if

    $$\{\alpha <\lambda :\text{ for every }\eta (T)_\alpha \text{ the set }\{\xi <\kappa _\alpha :\eta {}_{}{}^{}\xi T\}\text{ is }𝒜_\alpha \text{–presmall }\}D^{}.$$
3. Let $`𝒥_{\overline{\kappa }}(\overline{𝒜})`$ consist of all subsets $`X`$ of $`\underset{\alpha <\lambda }{}\kappa _\alpha `$ such that $`X\underset{\epsilon <\lambda }{}lim_\lambda (T_\epsilon )`$ for some $`\overline{𝒜}`$–small trees $`T_\epsilon \underset{\alpha <\lambda }{}\underset{\beta <\lambda }{}\kappa _\alpha `$ (for $`\epsilon <\lambda `$).

$`𝒥_{\overline{\kappa }}(D^{},\overline{𝒜})`$ is defined similarly, replacing “$`\overline{𝒜}`$–small” by “$`(D^{},\overline{𝒜})`$–small”.

###### Proposition B.8.9.

Let $`\overline{𝒜}`$ be a $`\overline{\lambda }`$–smallness base on $`\overline{\kappa }`$. Then both $`𝒥_{\overline{\kappa }}(\overline{𝒜})`$ and $`𝒥_{\overline{\kappa }}(D^{},\overline{𝒜})`$ are proper $`\lambda ^+`$–complete ideals of subsets of $`\underset{\alpha <\lambda }{}\kappa _\alpha `$, $`𝒥_{\overline{\kappa }}(\overline{𝒜})𝒥_{\overline{\kappa }}(D^{},\overline{𝒜})`$. They contain singletons and $`\lambda <\mathrm{cov}\left(𝒥_{\overline{\kappa }}(D^{},\overline{𝒜})\right)\mathrm{cov}\left(𝒥_{\overline{\kappa }}(\overline{𝒜})\right)`$.

###### Proposition B.8.10.

Let $`\overline{𝒜}`$ be a $`\overline{\lambda }`$–smallness base on $`\overline{\kappa }`$ and $`D^{}`$ be a normal filter on $`\lambda `$. It is consistent that $`\mathrm{cov}\left(𝒥_{\overline{\kappa }}(D^{},\overline{𝒜})\right)>\lambda ^+`$.

###### Proof.

First we define a $`\lambda `$–tree creating pair $`(K(\overline{𝒜}),\mathrm{\Sigma }(\overline{𝒜}))=(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. For $`\alpha <\lambda `$ let $`𝐇(\alpha )=\kappa _\alpha `$ and let $`\mathrm{st}_\alpha `$ be a winning strategy of player II in the game $`\mathrm{}^{}(𝒜_\alpha ,\lambda _\alpha )`$.

$`K`$ consists of all $`\lambda `$–tree creatures $`t\mathrm{TCR}^\lambda [𝐇]`$ such that letting $`\alpha =\mathrm{lh}(\eta [t])`$:

* either $`\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐬}[t]=(\delta ,A_i^t:i<\delta )`$, where $`\delta <\lambda _\alpha `$ and $`A_i^t:i<\delta `$ is (an initial segment of) a play of $`\mathrm{}^{}(𝒜_\alpha ,\lambda _\alpha )`$ in which player II uses strategy $`\mathrm{st}_\alpha `$,
or $`\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐬}[t]=\xi `$ for some $`\xi <\kappa _\alpha `$;
* if $`\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐬}[t]=\xi `$, then $`\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}[t]=\{\eta [t]{}_{}{}^{}\xi \}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t]=0`$;
* if $`\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐬}[t]=(\delta ,A_i^t:i<\delta )`$, then $`\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}[t]=\{\eta [t]{}_{}{}^{}\xi :\xi \underset{i<\delta }{}A_i\}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t]=\alpha +1`$. (If $`\delta =0`$ then we stipulate $`\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}[t]=\{\eta [t]{}_{}{}^{}\xi :\xi <\kappa _\alpha \}`$.)

The domain of the tree composition operation $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ consists of singletons only, and
if $`\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t]=0`$ then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(t)=\{t\}`$,
if $`\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t]>0`$, $`\alpha =\mathrm{lh}(\eta [t])`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐬}[t]=(\delta ,A_i^t:i<\delta )`$, then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(t)`$ consists of those $`t^{}K\mathrm{TCR}_{\eta [t]}^\lambda [𝐇]`$ for which:

* either $`\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t^{}]=0`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}[t^{}]\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐬}[t]`$,
* or $`\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫}[t^{}]>0`$, $`\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐬}[t^{}]=(\delta ^{},A_i^t^{}:i<\delta ^{})`$ and $`A_i^t:i<\delta \mathrm{}A_i^t^{}:i<\delta ^{}`$.

###### Claim B.8.10.1.

$`(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is an exactly $`\overline{\lambda }`$–complete very local tree creating pair for $`𝐇`$. Hence the forcing notion $`_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is fuzzy proper for $`W`$.

###### Proof of the Claim.

Should be clear. ∎

We finish the proof of the proposition in a standard way: we force with $`\lambda `$–support iteration, $`\lambda ^{++}`$ in length, of the forcing notion $`_D^{}^{\mathrm{tree}}(K(\overline{𝒜}),\mathrm{\Sigma }(\overline{𝒜}))`$. ∎