text:
# Transient polarization dynamics in a CO2 laser

## I Introduction

Laser dynamics is commonly studied considering the electric field as a scalar variable, since in most systems the polarization state is imposed by anisotropies of the cavity. For instance, Brewster windows or gratings, generally used in gas lasers to close the laser tube or to select a vibro-rotational transition, impose a linearly polarized state of the laser emission. However, in perfectly cylindrical laser cavities without any elements to select a preferred polarization, the study of the dynamics includes the necessity of considering the vector nature of the electric field.

Several theoretical works have been devoted to the study of the polarization dynamics of the quasi-isotropic laser, showing the important role played by the material variables. In particular, the degeneracy of the angular momentum states of the laser transition sublevels has been considered as the coupling source between different polarization states. Initial studies considered only stationary solutions Lamb67 ; Bakaev87 , but more recently dynamical models have been developed to explore the role of anisotropy due to the laser medium, that from now on we will call intrinsic anisotropy Puccioni87 ; Abraham95 ; Abraham96 ; Stephan98 . These models predict a rich dynamics even for the simplest transition, $`J=1J=0`$. Later versions of these models include also linear and circular cavity anisotropies that we call extrinsic Matlin95 ; Redondo97 , or different level structure Vilaseca .

However, up to now few experiments have been performed on this subject. Experiments carried out on noble gas lasers reveal that in some systems it is necessary to consider the dynamics of the matter variables to fully understand the polarization features of an isotropic system Bakaev87 ; Puccioni89 . In other cases, the observations could be explained by a nonlinear coupling of the modes and residual cavity anisotropies Taggiasco97 ; Labate98 .

In this work we present experimental and theoretical results for the polarization competition dynamics in the transient state of a quasi-isotropic low-pressure CO2 laser. We show that the polarization dynamics during the switch-on is well described by means of a model including optical coherences (intrinsic anisotropy) and extrinsic linear anisotropies. These results extend our previous work in which the coherences were simplified as a parametric cross coupling between the matter polarization and electric fields Leyva01 , and provide a quantitative comparison between the amount of anisotropy due to the coupling of molecular angular momenta and that induced by an intracavity window. Furthermore, the decay rate of the coherences, defined in Ref. Puccioni87 , is shown explicitly to be closer to the decay rate of the population inversion rather than to the decay rate of the induced polarization.

## II Experimental results

The experiment has been performed using an unpolarized Fabry-Perot cavity as shown in Fig. 1. A total reflective flat mirror (M1, reflectivity R1=1) and an outcoupler mirror (M2) with a reflectivity $`R_2=0.914`$ set the cavity length at $`L=`$75 cm. A piezo translator (Pzt) is used to select the P(20) laser emission line and to adjust the laser detuning.

The active medium, a mixture of $`He`$ (82$`\%`$), N2 (13.5$`\%`$) and CO2 (4.5$`\%`$) at a pressure of 25 mbar, is pumped by a DC discharge fixed at 6.1 mA when the threshold current is 3 mA.

As we are interested in the transient dynamics, an intracavity chopper is used to induce a switch-on event at a repetition rate of 200 Hz.

In order to control the linear anisotropies of the cavity, a ZnSe anti reflection coated window (W) has been introduced, which can be tilted accurately as shown in Fig.1.

The polarization state of the laser emission has been analyzed by means of a wire grid polarizer (Pol), which has the property of reflecting one linear polarization of the incident radiation and transmitting the orthogonal one, with an extinction ratio of 1:180. The reflected and transmitted parts of the beam are directed to two HgCdTe fast detectors (D1, D2, 100 MHz bandwidth), whose sensitive areas ($`10^4`$ $`\mu `$m2) are much smaller than the beam size. Both signals are recorded on a digital oscilloscope (Lecroy LT423L) with $`500`$ MHz bandwidth.

In the stationary regime, we observe that the laser has two possible linear polarization directions which are orthogonal as far as we can measure. In Fig. 1 these cavity eigendirections are called H and V respectively.

The window W can rotate by an angle $`\theta `$ around the axis V. When $`\theta =0`$, the polarization direction is determined by the detuning of the cavity, as usual Bakaev87 ; Matlin95 ; Eijkele95 . This is illustrated in Fig.2(a), where we plot the laser intensity along both eigendirections when the detuning is varied around the line center. A residual hysteresis around the transition is masked by the limited resolution of Pzt. At the transition point near the line center there is not a preferred polarization direction and the laser flips spontaneously from one to other as shown in Fig. 3.

Our goal is to study the polarization behavior in this bistable region. In particular, we analyze of the switch-on transient state, in which the total intensity presents relaxation oscillations. In our system the pump strength imposes a relaxation frequency of 55 KHz.

When the two polarized components are separated, they show oscillations in relative antiphase, which do not appear on the total intensity (Fig.4). The amplitude of these oscillations depends on the angle between the polarizer axes with respect to H-V, reaching a maximum when the analysis is performed at 45o.

In Fig.4(a) we report an example of these polarization oscillations, when the cavity is tuned at the center of the line. The total laser output intensity (thick solid line) is displayed together with its two orthogonally polarized components analyzed at 45o (thin solid and dashed lines).

These oscillations are always damped until they disappear, with a damping rate depending on the cavity detuning. Precisely the oscillations are more persistent the closer is the detuning to the bistable region. This fact points to the competitive origin of the oscillations. In Fig.4 (c) we show an example of the transient dynamics when the cavity detuning is slightly moved from resonance. It is worth to note that the system is so sensible to noise that the duration of the oscillations suffers slight variations, without apparent changes in the conditions.

Successively, we studied the response of the system to small linear anisotropies driven by the tilt angle $`\theta `$ of the intracavity window W around the vertical axis.

Several parameters of the system are simultaneously affected by this action. As a consequence of the common increasing of the optical path for both polarization eigendirections, the line center moves with respect to the isotropic condition $`\theta =0`$. In order to keep the bistable condition, the cavity length is varied to recover the resonance.

In Fig.2((b) and (c)) we show the intensity of both polarization components for different $`\theta `$ values, showing that the gain profile is not significantly distorted with respect to the isotropic condition $`\theta =0`$ (Fig.2(a)). The detuning anisotropies are measured to be smaller than 5$`\%`$ of the total change.

The other effect of the tilt angle $`\theta `$ is to increase the cavity losses. In Fig.6 (b) we report the dependence of the laser intensity on the tilt angle $`\theta `$ which is in agreement with the expected theoretical behavior Born . Moreover, since the gain profiles for the two polarization directions do not change due to the tilt angle $`\theta `$ (Fig. 2), we can assume that the induced loss anisotropies remain a small effect ( $`1\%`$) compared to the total loss change. The effect of the losses anisotropy can be observed in the residual modulation in the total intensity (Figs.4 (a),(c)).

The dynamical effect observed when $`\theta `$ is increased is the growing of the frequency of the polarization oscillations. Measurements made near the resonance condition show that the frequency rises as the tilt angle increased(Fig.6 (a)). It can be seen that a tilt angle of 12o is enough to rise the frequency from 100 KHz to 400 KHz.

## III Model and numerical results

Our theoretical approach is based on the theory of the isotropic laser developed in Ref. Puccioni87  where the optical coherences between upper levels are considered with the. This theory was developed for the simplest case (J=1 $``$ J=0), while the transition involved in our system is much more complicated (J=19 $``$ J=20). However, this theory has been showed to predict also the behavior of lasers with a different level structure, as shown in Ref. Puccioni89 . Only first order coherences ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m=\pm 1`$) will be considered. Therefore, independently of the number of sublevels, there are only two kind of possible transitions, which generate a split of the population in two ensembles, in such a way that an anisotropy is induced in the active medium Stephan98 . Furthermore we introduce an extrinsic linear anisotropy as done in Ref.Matlin95 .

The field will be decomposed in a circularly polarized base. Just losses and linear detuning anisotropies along the principal axes of the system will be included, but not circular asymmetries since our system does not show signs of dicroism. It reads as

$`\dot{E_R}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa (P_RE_R)+i\delta E_R(\alpha +i\beta )E_L,`$
$`\dot{E_L}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa (P_LE_L)+i\delta E_L(\alpha +i\beta )E_R,`$
$`\dot{P_R}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _{}[P_RD_RE_RE_LC],`$
$`\dot{P_L}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _{}[P_LD_LE_LE_RC^{}],`$ (1)
$`\dot{C}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _cC{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{}}{4}}(E_L^{}P_R+E_RP_L^{}),`$
$`\dot{D_R}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _{}[D_Rr+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(E_RP_R^{}+E_R^{}P_R)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(E_LP_L^{}+E_L^{}P_L)],`$
$`\dot{D_L}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _{}[D_Lr+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(E_LP_L^{}+E_L^{}P_L)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(E_RP_R^{}+E_R^{}P_R)]`$
where $`E_R(\stackrel{}{r},t),E_L(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ are the slowly varying electric fields in the circular basis. $`P_R(\stackrel{}{r},t),P_R(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ stand for the matter polarization fields, $`D_R(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ and $`D_L(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ are the respective population inversions. The field $`C(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ represents the coherence between the upper sublevels. We recall that, in a density matrix treatment, the polarization correspond to off diagonal matrix elements between upper and lower level of the radiative transition, whereas C is proportional to the of diagonal matrix elements coupling different angular momentum states of the upper level Puccioni89 . The parameter $`\delta `$ represents the detuning between the cavity and the atomic transition frequencies. The parameters $`\alpha =(\kappa _V\kappa _H)/2`$ and $`\beta =(\delta _H\delta _V)/2`$ represent respectively the linear anisotropies in the losses and detuning with respect to the cavity H-V axes, where $`\kappa _V`$, $`\kappa _H`$, are the losses in the horizontal and vertical axis, and $`\delta _V`$, $`\delta _H`$ are the corresponding detunings.

In our low pressure CO2 laser, the polarization decay is $`\gamma _{}=4.410^8`$ s-1 and the inversion decay rate as $`\gamma _{}=1.9510^5`$s-1 Leyva01 . In view of numerical solutions, there is no reason to keep dynamical equations for variables whose decay rates differ by several orders of magnitude. Depending on whether $`\gamma _c\gamma _{}`$ or $`\gamma _c>>\gamma _{}`$, we can respectively reduce the number of differential equations from 7 to 5 (for ER, EL,C, DR and DL) or 4 (for ER, EL, DR and DL). In the first case, PR, PL are eliminated adiabatically and their values correspond to the stationary solutions of the third and fourth of Eqs. III. In the second case (fast C), also the C variable is eliminated adiabatically and it follows the relatively slow variations of the field and the population inversion. Whether to choose between five or four equations depends on the numerical value of $`\gamma _c`$. The $`\gamma _c`$ parameter represents the coherence decay rate, whose value should be chosen between $`\gamma _{}`$ and $`\gamma _{}`$ Abraham96 . However, this parameter can not be directly measured, and it will be used as control parameter in order to fit the theory to the experimental results Matlin95 . We find that the optimal value is $`\gamma _c\gamma _{}`$ in all cases, which is also consistent with the observation that just linearly polarized states are found in the experiment. Indeed, a higher value of $`\gamma _c`$ would give rise to a periodic modulation of the total intensity Abraham96  which has never been observed in our experiments. Hence, the coherence C decays on the same time scale as the population inversion and we must keep the corresponding time dependent equation. Thus our experimental system is dynamically modeled as a class B laser arecchi , and Eqs. (1) reduce to the following system of two algebraic equations:

$`P_R`$ $`=`$ $`D_RE_R+E_LC`$
$`P_L`$ $`=`$ $`D_LE_L+E_RC^{}`$ (2)
and five differential equations:

$`\dot{E_R}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa (D_R1)E_R+i\delta E_R+\left(\kappa C(\alpha +i\beta )\right)E_L,`$
$`\dot{E_L}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa (D_L1)E_R+i\delta E_L+\left(\kappa C^{}(\alpha +i\beta )\right)E_R,`$
$`\dot{C}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _{}(C(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(|E_L|^2+|E_R|^2)){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}E_RE_L^{}(D_L+D_R)),`$ (3)
$`\dot{D_R}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _{}\left[D_R(1+|E_R|^2)r+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(D_L|E_L|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(E_RE_L^{}C^{}+E_R^{}E_LC)\right)\right],`$
$`\dot{D_L}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _{}\left[D_L(1+|E_L|^2)r+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(D_R|E_R|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(E_RE_L^{}C^{}+E_R^{}E_LC)\right)\right].`$
Eqs. (III) show explicitly that the cross field coupling is due partly to a molecular coupling $`J=1J=0`$ (intrinsic) and partly to the intracavity window W (extrinsic). Fig. 5 provides evidence that the main responsible for the alternation is the intrinsic anisotropy rather than the extrinsic one. Figure 5 (a) refers to the case where both coherences and linear anisotropies are acting. In Fig. 5 (b), the extrinsic anisotropy has been removed. now the oscillation competition is not damped, but the alternation of the two polarization is maintained. Finally, in Fig. 5 (c) just the extrinsic anisotropies are acting; the competition does not appear any more.

From the experimental observations we know that the most important effect of the window tilting is the increase of the total loss, while the losses and detuning anisotropies represent a minor effect. In addition, as the excitation current does not change during the experiment, the increasing of the losses affects the gain to loss ratio. As a consequence, the total losses $`\kappa `$ and pump parameter $`r`$ are functions of $`\theta `$ as follows Born :

$`r(\theta )=r_o(1a_r\mathrm{sin}(\theta )^4)`$ (4)
$`\kappa (\theta )=\kappa _o(1+a_k\mathrm{sin}(\theta )^4)`$ (5)
where $`r_o=2`$ and $`\kappa _o=\frac{c}{4L}log(R)=4.110^6`$ s-1 are the pump strength and total losses when the tilt angle $`\theta =0`$. Here $`c`$ is the speed of light, $`L=0.75`$ m the cavity length and $`R=\sqrt{R_1R_2}=0.956`$ the mirrors reflectivity. the parameters $`a_r=150`$ and $`a_\kappa =25000`$ are related to the reflectivity of the window W, and are chosen to fit the experimental results.

In Fig. 4 (b) and (d) the numerically generated intensity profiles are compared with their experimental counterparts reported in Fig 4 (a) and (c), respectively. It can be observed that the intensity profiles show antiphase oscillations for both polarization components, while the total intensity remains unmodulated.

When $`\delta `$=0, the polarization oscillations remain undamped for any degree of anisotropy. For $`\delta 0`$, the oscillations are still undamped only in perfect cavity symmetry conditions $`\alpha =\beta =0`$. In Fig.4 (d) it can be seen that for $`\delta =0.05`$, a detuning or losses anisotropy of 0.5 $`\%`$ is sufficient to damp the oscillation in a few hundred microseconds as observed in the experiment. In the experimental system unavoidable residual anisotropies break the cylindrical symmetry, and therefore the polarization oscillations are always damped.

Choosing the resonant condition $`\delta =0`$, we observe that the frequency of the oscillations presents the same dependence on the total losses and pump strength found in the experiment. In Fig. 6 we compare the experimental and numerical angular dependences of the polarization oscillation frequency (Fig. 6 (a),(c)) and the total intensity (Fig. 6 (b),(d)), showing good agreements.

## IV Conclusions

In this work we have reported an experimental and theoretical study of the transient polarization dynamics of a quasi-isotropic CO2 laser. A competition between two modes with orthogonal polarization directions is observed. The competition manifests itself as an oscillation on the polarized laser field, whose features depend on the cavity parameters.

To explain the observed transient polarization alternation, both intrinsic and extrinsic anisotropies must be considered; the intrinsic ones provide the alternation and the extrinsic ones provide damping and residual ripple of the total intensity. The numerical results fit well with the experimental observations, pointing out the importance of matter variables in the dynamics of a quasi-isotropic laser.

The authors are grateful to F.T. Arecchi for fruitful discussions.


format: text

text:
# Level-statistics of Disordered Systems: a single parametric formulation

## I Figure Caption

## Captions

Fig. 1. $`\alpha `$ vs $`|cc^{}|`$ for WDT
Fig. 2. $`P(S)`$ vs $`S`$ for (A) CAH-I and the corresponding CBE ($`c=0.015`$), (b) CAH-II and the CBE with $`c=0.3`$.
Fig. 3. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2`$ vs $`r`$ for (i) CAH-I and CBE with $`c=0.3`$, (ii) CAH-II and the CBE with $`c=0.015`$.


text:
# Cofinality of the nonstationary ideal

## 0. Introduction

Let $`\kappa `$ be a regular uncountable cardinal. For $`C\kappa `$ and $`\gamma \kappa `$, we say that $`\gamma `$ is a limit point of of $`C`$ if $`(C\gamma )=\gamma >0`$. $`C`$ is closed unbounded if $`C`$ is a cofinal subset of $`\kappa `$ containing all its limit points less than $`\kappa `$, A set $`A\kappa `$ is nonstationary if $`A`$ is disjoint from some closed unbounded subset $`C`$ of $`\kappa `$. The nonstationary subsets of $`\kappa `$ form an ideal on $`\kappa `$ denoted by $`𝒩S_\kappa `$. The cofinality of this ideal, $`\mathrm{cof}(𝒩S_\kappa )`$, is the least cardinality of any family $``$ of nonstationary subsets of $`\kappa `$ such that every nonstationary subset of $`\kappa `$ is contained in a member of $``$. The reduced cofinality of $`𝒩S_\kappa `$, $`\overline{\mathrm{cof}}(𝒩S_\kappa )`$, is the least cardinality of any $`𝒩S_\kappa `$ such that every nonstationary subset of $`\kappa `$ can be covered by less than $`\kappa `$ many members of $``$. This paper addresses the question whether $`\overline{\mathrm{cof}}(𝒩S_\kappa )=\mathrm{cof}(𝒩S_\kappa )`$. Note that

$$\kappa ^+\overline{\mathrm{cof}}(𝒩S_\kappa )\mathrm{cof}(𝒩S_\kappa )2^\kappa ,$$

so under GCH we have $`\overline{\mathrm{cof}}(𝒩S_\kappa )=\mathrm{cof}(𝒩S_\kappa )`$.

Let $`{}_{}{}^{\kappa }2`$ be endowed with the $`\kappa `$–box product topology, 2 itself considered discrete. We say that a set $`W{}_{}{}^{\kappa }2`$ is $`\kappa `$–meager if there is a sequence $`U_\alpha :\alpha <\kappa `$ of dense open subsets of $`{}_{}{}^{\kappa }2`$ such that $`W\underset{\alpha <\kappa }{}U_\alpha =\mathrm{}`$. The covering number for the category of the space $`{}_{}{}^{\kappa }2`$, denoted $`\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{\kappa ,\kappa })`$, is the least cardinality of any collection $`𝒳`$ of $`\kappa `$–meager subsets of $`{}_{}{}^{\kappa }2`$ such that $`𝒳={}_{}{}^{\kappa }2`$. It can be established that

$$\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{\kappa ,\kappa })\mathrm{cof}(𝒩S_\kappa )\left(\overline{\mathrm{cof}}(𝒩S_\kappa )\right)^{<\kappa }.$$

It follows that if $`\overline{\mathrm{cof}}(𝒩S_\kappa )<\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{\kappa ,\kappa })`$ and the Singular Cardinals Hypothesis holds true, then $`\mathrm{cf}(\overline{\mathrm{cof}}(𝒩S_\kappa ))<\kappa `$ and $`\mathrm{cof}(𝒩S_\kappa )=(\overline{\mathrm{cof}}(𝒩S_\kappa ))^+`$. We prove:

###### Theorem 0.1.

Assume GCH. Then there is a $`\kappa `$–complete, $`\kappa ^+`$–cc forcing notion $``$ such that

$$_{}\text{“ }\overline{\mathrm{cof}}(𝒩S_\kappa )=\kappa ^{+\omega }\text{ and }\mathrm{cof}(𝒩S_\kappa )=\kappa ^{(\omega +1)}\text{ ”}.$$

What about the consistency of “$`\overline{\mathrm{cof}}(𝒩S_\kappa )`$ is regular and $`\overline{\mathrm{cof}}(𝒩S_\kappa )<\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{\kappa ,\kappa })`$”? We establish:

###### Theorem 0.2.

It is consistent, relative to the existence of a cardinal $`\nu `$ such that $`o(\nu )=\nu ^{++}`$, that $`\overline{\mathrm{cof}}(𝒩S_{\omega _1})=\mathrm{}_{\omega +1}`$ and $`\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{\omega _1,\omega _1})=\mathrm{}_{\omega +2}`$.

The structure of the paper is as follows. In Section 1, for each infinite cardinal $`\mu \kappa `$ we introduce the $`<\mu `$–cofinality $`\overline{\mathrm{cof}}^{<\mu }(𝒩S_\kappa )`$ and the $`<\mu `$–dominating number $`𝔡_\kappa ^{<\mu }`$, and we show that these two numbers are equal. Section 2 is concerned with a variant of $`𝔡_\kappa ^{<\mu }`$ denoted by $`𝔡_\kappa ^{\mathrm{cl},<\mu }`$ (where $`\mathrm{cl}`$ stands for “club”). We establish that $`𝔡_\kappa ^{<\mu }=𝔡_\kappa ^{\mathrm{cl},<\mu }`$ if $`\mu >\omega `$.

$`𝒩S_\kappa `$ is the smallest normal ideal on $`\kappa `$. Section 3 deals with $`𝒩S_{\kappa ,\lambda }^\kappa `$, the smallest $`\kappa `$–normal ideal on $`𝒫_\kappa (\lambda )`$. We compute $`\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }(𝒩S_{\kappa ,\lambda }^\kappa )`$ and give examples of situations when $`\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }(𝒩S_{\kappa ,\lambda }^\kappa )<\mathrm{cof}(𝒩S_{\kappa ,\lambda }^\kappa )`$.

In the following section we present some basic facts regarding the ideal of $`\kappa `$–meager subsets of $`{}_{}{}^{\kappa }2`$ and its covering number.

The final three sections of the paper present the consistency results mentioned in Theorems 0.1, 0.2 above. First, in Section 5 we introduce manageability, a property of $`<\kappa `$–complete $`\kappa ^+`$–cc forcing notions which implies preservation of non-meagerness of subsets of $`{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$ and which can be iterated. Next, in Section 6, we define one-step forcing and verify that it has all required properties. The final section gives the applications obtained by iterating this forcing notion.

###### Notation 0.3.

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

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 dot above (e.g. $`\dot{\tau }`$, $`\dot{X}`$). 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). In iterations, if $`\overline{}=_\zeta ,\dot{}_\zeta :\zeta <\zeta ^{}`$ and $`plim(\overline{})`$, then we keep convention that $`p(\alpha )=\dot{\mathrm{}}_{\dot{}_\alpha }`$ for $`\alpha \zeta ^{}\mathrm{Dom}(p)`$.
2. Ordinal numbers will be denoted by $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta ,\epsilon ,\zeta ,\xi `$ and also by $`i,j`$ (with possible sub- and superscripts).
Infinite cardinal numbers will be called $`\theta ,\iota ,\mu ,\nu ,\tau `$ (with possible sub- and superscripts); $`\kappa `$ is our fixed regular uncountable cardinal, $`\lambda `$ will denote a fixed cardinal $`>\kappa `$ (in Section 3).
3. By $`\chi `$ we will denote a sufficiently large regular cardinal and by $`(\chi )`$ the family of all sets hereditarily of size less than $`\chi `$. Moreover, we fix a well ordering $`<_\chi ^{}`$ of $`(\chi )`$.
4. A bar above a letter denotes that the object considered is a sequence; usually $`\overline{X}`$ will be $`X_i:i<\zeta `$, where $`\zeta `$ denotes the length of $`\overline{X}`$. For a set $`A`$ and a cardinal $`\mu `$, the set of all sequences of members of $`A`$ of length $`\mu `$ (length $`<\mu `$, respectively), will be denoted by $`{}_{}{}^{\mu }A`$ ($`{}_{}{}^{<\mu }A`$, respectively).

## 1. $`\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }(𝒩S_\kappa )`$

###### Definition 1.1.

1. For a set $`A`$ and a cardinal $`\mu `$, $`𝒫_\mu (A)=\{aA:|a|<\mu \}`$.
2. Given two infinite cardinals $`\mu \tau `$, $`u(\mu ,\tau )`$ is the least cardinality of any $`A𝒫_\mu (\tau )`$ such that $`𝒫_\mu (\tau )=\underset{aA}{}𝒫(a)`$.

###### Definition 1.2.

Let $`S`$ be an infinite set and $`𝒥`$ be an ideal on $`S`$.

1. $`\mathrm{cof}(𝒥)`$ is the least cardinality of any $`𝒳𝒥`$ such that for every $`A𝒥`$, there is $`B𝒳`$ with $`AB`$.
2. $`\mathrm{add}(𝒥)`$ is the least cardinality of any $`𝒳𝒥`$ such that $`𝒳𝒥`$.
3. For an infinite cardinal $`\mu \mathrm{add}(𝒥)`$, $`\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }(𝒥)`$ is the least cardinality of a family $`𝒳𝒥`$ such that for every $`A𝒥`$, there is $`𝒴𝒫_\mu (𝒳)`$ such that $`A𝒴`$.
4. We let $`\overline{\mathrm{cof}}(𝒥)=\mathrm{cof}^{<\mathrm{add}(𝒥)}(𝒥)`$.

The following proposition collects some trivialities.

###### Proposition 1.3.

Let $`S`$ be an infinite set and $`𝒥`$ be an ideal on $`S`$. Then:

1. $`\mathrm{cof}^{<\omega }(𝒥)=\mathrm{cof}(𝒥)`$.
2. If $`\mu ,\nu `$ are two infinite cardinals with $`\mu \nu \mathrm{add}(𝒥)`$,
then $`\mathrm{cof}^{<\nu }(𝒥)\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }(𝒥)`$.
3. $`\mathrm{cof}(𝒥)u(\mu ,\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }(𝒥))`$ for every infinite cardinal $`\mu \mathrm{add}(𝒥)`$.
4. $`\mathrm{add}(𝒥)\overline{\mathrm{cof}}(𝒥)`$.

The following is well-known (see, e.g., Matet, Péan and Shelah ):

###### Lemma 1.4.

Let $`\mu `$ be a regular infinite cardinal. Then $`u(\mu ,\mu ^{+n})=\mu ^{+n}`$ for every $`n<\omega `$.

###### Proposition 1.5.

Let $`S`$ be an infinite set and $`𝒥`$ be an ideal on $`S`$ such that $`\left(\mathrm{add}(𝒥)\right)^{+\omega }\mathrm{cof}(𝒥)`$. Then $`\left(\mathrm{add}(𝒥)\right)^{+\omega }\overline{\mathrm{cof}}(𝒥)`$.

###### Proof.

Use Lemma 1.4. ∎

With these preliminaries out of the way, we can concentrate on ideals on $`\kappa `$. If there is a family of size $`\kappa ^{+\omega }`$ of pairwise almost disjoint cofinal subsets of $`\kappa `$, then there is a $`\kappa `$–complete ideal $`𝒥`$ on $`\kappa `$ such that $`\overline{\mathrm{cof}}(𝒥)<\mathrm{cof}(𝒥)`$ (see Matet and Pawlikowski ). Also the converse holds.

###### Proposition 1.6.

Let $`𝒥`$ be a $`\kappa `$–complete ideal on $`\kappa `$ such that $`\overline{\mathrm{cof}}(𝒥)>\kappa `$. Then there is a family $`Q𝒥𝒫_\kappa (\kappa )`$ such that $`|Q|=\overline{\mathrm{cof}}(𝒥)`$ and $`AB𝒫_\kappa (\kappa )`$ for any two distinct members $`A`$ and $`B`$ of $`Q`$.

###### Proposition 1.7.

Suppose $`𝒥`$ is a normal ideal on $`\kappa `$ and $`\kappa `$ is a limit (regular) cardinal. Then $`\overline{\mathrm{cof}}(𝒥)=\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }(𝒥)`$ for some infinite cardinal $`\mu <\kappa `$.

###### Proof.

Assume that the conclusion fails. Fix $`𝒳𝒥`$ such that $`|𝒳|=\overline{\mathrm{cof}}(𝒥)`$ and

$$𝒥=\{𝒫(X):X𝒫_\kappa (𝒳)\}.$$

Set $`𝒴=\{A\beta :A𝒳\&\beta \kappa \}`$. Note that $`|𝒴|=\overline{\mathrm{cof}}(𝒥)`$. Assume that for each infinite cardinal $`\mu <\kappa `$ we may select a set $`B_\mu 𝒥`$ so that $`B_\mu Y`$ for any $`Y𝒫_\mu (𝒴)`$. Now let $`B`$ be the set of all $`\alpha <\kappa `$ such that $`\alpha B_\mu `$ for some infinite cardinal $`\mu <\alpha `$. Since $`B𝒥`$ (by normality of $`𝒥`$), there must be $`X𝒫_\kappa (𝒳)`$ such that $`BX`$. Let $`\tau `$ be any infinite cardinal such that $`|X|<\tau <\kappa `$. Then $`B_\tau \underset{AX}{}(A(\tau +1))`$, which is a contradiction. ∎

Arguing as in Proposition 1.7, we get:

###### Proposition 1.8.

Suppose $`𝒥`$ is a $`\kappa `$–complete ideal on $`\kappa `$ and $`\nu `$ is an uncountable limit cardinal $`<\kappa `$. Then there is an infinite cardinal $`\mu <\nu `$ such that $`\mathrm{cof}^{<\nu }(𝒥)=\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }(𝒥)`$. Moreover, the least such $`\mu `$ is either $`\omega `$, or a successor cardinal.

The remainder of this section is concerned with $`\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }(𝒩S_\kappa )`$. Let us recall the definition of the bounding number $`𝔟_\kappa `$:

###### Definition 1.9.

The $`\kappa `$–bounding number $`𝔟_\kappa `$ is the least cardinality of any $`{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$ with the property that for every $`g{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$, there is $`f`$ such that

$$|\{\alpha <\kappa :g(\alpha )f(\alpha )\}|=\kappa .$$

The following is proved in Matet and Pawlikowski :

###### Proposition 1.10.

1. $`\overline{\mathrm{cof}}(𝒩S_\kappa )𝔟_\kappa `$.
2. If $`\overline{\mathrm{cof}}(𝒩S_\kappa )=𝔟_\kappa `$, then $`\overline{\mathrm{cof}}(𝒩S_\kappa )=\mathrm{cof}(𝒩S_\kappa )`$.

###### Proposition 1.11.

Let $`\mu `$ be an infinite cardinal $`\kappa `$. Then

$$\text{either }\mathrm{cf}(\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }(𝒩S_\kappa ))<\mu ,\text{ or }\mathrm{cf}(\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }(𝒩S_\kappa ))𝔟_\kappa .$$

###### Proof.

Suppose to the contrary that $`\mu \mathrm{cf}(\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }(𝒩S_\kappa ))=\tau <𝔟_\kappa `$. For $`\alpha <\tau `$ select $`𝒳_\alpha 𝒩S_\kappa `$ so that

1. $`|𝒳_\alpha |<\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }(𝒩S_\kappa )`$,
2. $`𝒳_\beta 𝒳_\alpha `$ for $`\beta <\alpha `$,
3. $`𝒩S_\kappa =\{𝒫(X):X𝒫_\mu (\underset{\alpha <\tau }{}𝒳_\alpha )\}`$.

For $`\alpha <\tau `$, set $`𝒴_\alpha =\{A\beta :A𝒳_\alpha \&\beta \kappa \}`$ and pick $`B_\alpha 𝒩S_\kappa `$ so that $`B_\alpha Y`$ for any $`Y𝒫_\mu (𝒴_\alpha )`$. By a result of Balcar and Simon (see \[2, Theorem 5.25\]), there is $`B𝒩S_\kappa `$ such that $`|B_\alpha B|<\kappa `$ for every $`\alpha <\tau `$. Select $`X𝒫_\mu (\underset{\alpha <\tau }{}𝒳_\alpha )`$ so that $`BX`$. There is $`\gamma <\tau `$ such that $`X𝒳_\gamma `$. Then $`B_\gamma \underset{AX}{}(A\beta )`$ for some $`\beta \kappa `$, which is a contradiction. ∎

###### Definition 1.12.

Let $`\tau \kappa `$. A family $`{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$ is called

* a dominating family if

$$(h{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa )(f)(j<\kappa )(h(j)<f(j)),$$
* a $`<\tau `$–dominating family if

$$(h{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa )(F𝒫_\tau ())(j<\kappa )(h(j)<sup\{f(j):fF\}).$$

We define dominating numbers $`𝔡_\kappa ,𝔡_\kappa ^{<\tau }`$ by:

$$\begin{array}{c}𝔡_\kappa =\mathrm{min}\{||:{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa \text{ is a dominating family }\},\hfill \\ 𝔡_\kappa ^{<\tau }=\mathrm{min}\{||:{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa \text{ is a }<\tau \text{–dominating family }\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

We let $`\overline{𝔡}_\kappa =𝔡_\kappa ^{<\kappa }`$ and for an infinite cardinal $`\mu <\kappa `$ we put $`𝔡_\kappa ^\mu =𝔡_\kappa ^{<\mu ^+}`$.

Note that $`𝔡_\kappa ^{<\omega }=𝔡_\kappa `$. Landver  established that $`\mathrm{cof}(𝒩S_\kappa )=𝔡_\kappa `$. His result can be generalized as follows:

###### Theorem 1.13.

Let $`\mu `$ be an infinite cardinal $`\kappa `$. Then $`\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }(𝒩S_\kappa )=𝔡_\kappa ^{<\mu }`$.

###### Proof.

Set $`\tau =\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }(𝒩S_\kappa )`$. First we establish that $`𝔡_\kappa ^{<\mu }\tau `$. Select s family $`𝒞`$ of size $`\tau `$ of closed unbounded subsets of $`\kappa `$ so that for every closed unbounded subset $`D`$ of $`\kappa `$, there is $`X𝒫_\mu (𝒞)\{\mathrm{}\}`$ with $`XD`$. For $`U𝒫_\omega (𝒞)\{\mathrm{}\}`$ define $`f_U{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$ by $`f_U(\alpha )=\mathrm{min}\left(U(\alpha +1)\right)`$. Note that $`f_V(\alpha )f_U(\alpha )`$ whenever $`V𝒫(U)\{\mathrm{}\}`$. Now given $`g{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$, let $`D`$ be the set of all limit ordinals $`\delta `$ such that $`0<\delta <\kappa `$ and $`g(\alpha )<\delta `$ for every $`\alpha <\delta `$. Pick $`X𝒫_\mu (𝒞)\{\mathrm{}\}`$ so that $`XD`$. Define $`h{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$ by

$$h(\alpha )=sup\{f_U(\alpha ):U𝒫_\omega (X)\{\mathrm{}\}\}.$$

Let $`\alpha <\kappa `$ and $`CX`$. First, suppose that there is $`W𝒫_\omega (X)\{\mathrm{}\}`$ such that $`h(\alpha )=f_W(\alpha )`$. Then $`h(\alpha )=f_{W\{C\}}(\alpha )`$ and hence $`h(\alpha )C`$. Next suppose that $`f_U(\alpha )<h(\alpha )`$ for all $`U𝒫_\omega (X)\{\mathrm{}\}`$. Then $`h(\alpha )`$ is a limit ordinal. Set $`\iota =\mathrm{cf}(h(\alpha ))`$ and pick an increasing sequence $`\gamma _\beta :\beta <\iota `$ cofinal in $`h(\alpha )`$. For $`\beta <\iota `$, select $`T_\beta 𝒫_\omega (X)\{\mathrm{}\}`$ with $`\gamma _\beta <f_{T_\beta }(\alpha )`$, and set $`\delta _\beta =f_{T_\beta \{C\}}(\alpha )`$. Note that $`\delta _\beta C`$. Obviously, the sequence $`\delta _\beta :\beta <\iota `$ is cofinal in $`h(\alpha )`$, and consequently $`h(\alpha )C`$. Thus for each $`\alpha <\kappa `$, $`h(\alpha )`$ belongs to $`X`$ and therefore to $`D`$. Since clearly $`h(\alpha )>\alpha `$, it follows that $`h(\alpha )>g(\alpha )`$.

It remains to show that $`𝔡_\kappa ^{<\mu }\tau `$. Let $`𝔉`$ be the set of all strictly increasing functions from $`\kappa `$ to $`\kappa `$. Select $`𝔉`$ so that

1. $`||=𝔡_\kappa ^{<\mu }`$, and
2. given $`g{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$, there is $`F_g𝒫_\mu ()`$ such that

$$(\alpha <\kappa )(g(\alpha )<sup\{f(\alpha ):fF_g\}).$$

For $`f𝔉`$, let $`C_f`$ be the set of all limit ordinals $`\alpha `$ such that $`0<\alpha <\kappa `$ and $`f(\beta )<\alpha `$ for every $`\beta <\alpha `$. Easily

$$𝒩S_\kappa =\{A\kappa :(g𝔉)(AC_g=\mathrm{})\}$$

(see, e.g., ) and (as $`\underset{fF_g}{}C_fC_g`$ for every $`g𝔉`$) it follows that $`\tau ||`$. ∎

By Propositions 1.7 and 1.8 and Theorem 1.13, to determine the value of $`\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }(𝒩S_\kappa )`$ for every infinite cardinal $`\mu \kappa `$, it suffices to compute $`𝔡_\kappa `$ and $`𝔡_\kappa ^\tau `$ for every infinite cardinal $`\tau <\kappa `$.

## 2. $`𝔡_\kappa ^{\mathrm{cl},<\mu }`$

It is straightforward to check that $`𝔡_\kappa ^{<\mu }`$ is the least cardinality of a family $`{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$ such that

$$(g{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa )(F𝒫_\mu ())(|\{\alpha \kappa :g(\alpha )sup\{f(\alpha ):fF\}|<\kappa ).$$

In this section we discuss the variant that arises if we replace the noncofinal ideal on $`\kappa `$ by the nonstationary ideal on $`\kappa `$.

###### Definition 2.1.

1. $`𝔡_\kappa ^{\mathrm{cl}}`$ is the least cardinality of a family $`{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$ with the property that for every $`g{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$, there is $`f`$ such that

$$\{\alpha \kappa :g(\alpha )f(\alpha )\}𝒩S_\kappa .$$
2. For an infinite cardinal $`\mu \kappa `$, $`𝔡_\kappa ^{\mathrm{cl},<\mu }`$ is the least cardinality of a family $`{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$ with the property that for every $`g{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$, there is $`F𝒫_\mu ()`$ such that

$$\{\alpha \kappa :g(\alpha )sup\{f(\alpha ):fF\}\}𝒩S_\kappa .$$

Note that $`𝔡_\kappa ^{\mathrm{cl},<\omega }=𝔡_\kappa ^{\mathrm{cl}}`$. It is simple to check that $`\mathrm{cf}(𝔡_\kappa ^{\mathrm{cl}})𝔟_\kappa `$.

###### Theorem 2.2.

For every uncountable cardinal $`\mu \kappa `$,

$$𝔡_\kappa ^{\mathrm{cl},<\mu }=𝔡_\kappa ^{<\mu }.$$

Theorem 2.2 easily follows from the next two lemmas.

###### Lemma 2.3.

Let $`\mu `$ be an uncountable limit cardinal $`\kappa `$. Then $`𝔡_\kappa ^{\mathrm{cl},<\mu }𝔡_\kappa ^{\mathrm{cl},<\tau }`$ for some infinite cardinal $`\tau <\mu `$.

###### Proof.

The proof is similar to that of Proposition 1.8. Suppose that the conclusion fails. Fix a family $`{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$ such that $`||=𝔡_\kappa ^{\mathrm{cl},<\mu }`$ and

$$(g{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa )(F𝒫_\mu ())(\{\alpha \kappa :g(\alpha )sup\{f(\alpha ):fF\}\}𝒩S_\kappa ).$$

For each infinite cardinal $`\tau <\mu `$ select $`g_\tau {}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$ so that for every $`F𝒫_\tau ()`$ we have

$$\{\alpha \kappa :g_\tau (\alpha )sup\{f(\alpha ):fF\}\}𝒩S_\kappa .$$

Define $`g{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$ so that $`g(\alpha )g_\tau (\alpha )`$ for every infinite cardinal $`\tau <\mu `$ such that $`\tau <\alpha `$. Now pick $`F𝒫_\mu ()`$ such that

$$\{\alpha \kappa :g(\alpha )sup\{f(\alpha ):fF\}\}𝒩S_\kappa .$$

Let $`\tau `$ be any infinite cardinal with $`|F|<\tau <\mu `$. Obviously, $`F𝒫_\tau ()`$ and

$$\{\alpha \kappa :g_\tau (\alpha )sup\{f(\alpha ):fF\}\}𝒩S_\kappa ,$$

a contradiction. ∎

To establish the following lemma, we adapt the proof of Theorem 5 in Cummings and Shelah .

###### Lemma 2.4.

Let $`\mu `$ be a regular uncountable cardinal $`\kappa `$. Then $`𝔡_\kappa ^{<\mu }𝔡_\kappa ^{\mathrm{cl},<\mu }`$.

###### Proof.

Select a family $`{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$ such that

1. every member of $``$ is increasing,
2. $`||=𝔡_\kappa ^{\mathrm{cl},<\mu }`$, and
3. for each $`g{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$, there is $`F𝒫_\mu ()`$ such that

$$\{\alpha \kappa :g(\alpha )sup\{f(\alpha ):fF\}\}𝒩S_\kappa .$$

Now fix $`g{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$. Stipulate that $`g_1=g`$. By induction on $`n\omega `$ choose a closed unbounded subset $`C_n`$ of $`\kappa `$, $`g_n{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$, $`h_n{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$ and $`F_n𝒫_\mu ()`$ so that

1. $`C_{n+1}C_n`$,
2. $`g_{n1}(\alpha )<sup\{f(\alpha ):fF_n\}`$ for all $`\alpha C_n`$,
3. $`h_n(\beta )=\mathrm{min}(C_n(\beta +1))`$,
4. $`g_n(\beta )=sup\left(\mathrm{Rng}(g_{n1}(h_n(\beta )+1))\right)`$.

Note that, by (iii) and (iv), $`g(\beta )g_0(\beta )g_1(\beta )\mathrm{}`$ for all $`\beta \kappa `$. Set $`F=\underset{n\omega }{}F_n`$ and $`\zeta =sup\{\mathrm{min}(C_n):n\omega \}`$. We are going to show that $`g(\gamma )<sup\{f(\gamma ):fF\}`$ whenever $`\zeta <\gamma <\kappa `$. To this end suppose that $`\zeta <\gamma <\kappa `$. By (i), there are $`m\omega `$ and $`\xi \kappa `$ such that $`\xi =sup(\gamma C_n)`$ whenever $`mn<\omega `$. By (iii), $`h_m(\xi )\gamma `$ and so (by (iv)) $`g(\gamma )g_{m1}(\gamma )g_m(\xi )`$. Since $`\gamma >\zeta `$ we also have $`\gamma C_{m+1}\mathrm{}`$. Hence $`\xi C_{m+1}`$ and consequently, by (ii),

$$g(\gamma )g_m(\xi )<sup\{f(\xi ):fF_{m+1}\}sup\{f(\gamma ):fF_{m+1}\}.$$

Theorem 2.2 implies that $`𝔡_\kappa ^\omega 𝔡_\kappa ^{\mathrm{cl}}𝔡_\kappa `$. We mention that it was shown in Cummings and Shelah  that $`𝔡_\kappa ^{\mathrm{cl}}=𝔡_\kappa `$ if $`\kappa >\mathrm{}_\omega `$.

## 3. $`\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }(𝒩S_{\kappa ,\lambda }^\kappa )`$

Throughout this section $`\lambda `$ denotes a fixed cardinal $`>\kappa `$. Our object of study will be the ideal $`𝒩S_{\kappa ,\lambda }^\kappa `$, a $`𝒫_\kappa (\lambda )`$ version of $`𝒩S_\kappa `$.

###### Definition 3.1.

For a regular uncountable cardinal $`\nu `$ and a cardinal $`\tau \nu `$, $`𝒥_{\nu ,\tau }`$ is the set of all $`A𝒫_\nu (\tau )`$ such that for some $`a𝒫_\nu (\tau )`$ we have $`\{bA:ab\}=\mathrm{}`$.

It is straightforward to check that $`𝒥_{\nu ,\tau }`$ is a $`\nu `$–complete ideal on $`𝒫_\nu (\tau )`$.

###### Definition 3.2.

1. An ideal $`𝒥`$ of $`𝒫_\kappa (\lambda )`$ is $`\kappa `$–normal if given $`A𝒥^+`$ and $`f:A\kappa `$ such that $`f(a)a\kappa `$ for all $`aA`$, there is $`B𝒥^+𝒫(A)`$ such that $`f`$ is constant on $`B`$.
2. The smallest $`\kappa `$–normal ideal $`𝒫_\kappa (\lambda )`$ containing $`𝒥_{\kappa ,\lambda }`$ is denoted by $`𝒩S_{\kappa ,\lambda }^\kappa `$.
3. For $`f{}_{}{}^{\kappa }(𝒫_\kappa (\lambda ))`$ we let

$$C_f\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\{a𝒫_\kappa (\lambda ):a\kappa \mathrm{}\text{ and }\underset{\alpha a\kappa }{}f(\alpha )a\}.$$

The following lemma is due to Abe.

###### Lemma 3.3 (Abe ).

Let $`A𝒫_\kappa (\lambda )`$. Then

$$A𝒩S_{\kappa ,\lambda }^\kappa \text{ if and only if }(f{}_{}{}^{\kappa }(𝒫_\kappa (\lambda )))(AC_f=\mathrm{}).$$

Our purpose in this section is to compute the value of $`\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }(𝒩S_{\kappa ,\lambda }^\kappa )`$. We will need an analogue of $`𝔡_\kappa ^{<\mu }`$ defined in 3.4(1) below.

###### Definition 3.4.

Let $`\mu \kappa `$ be an infinite cardinal.

1. $`𝔡_{\kappa ,\lambda }^{\kappa ,<\mu }`$ is the least cardinality of a family $`𝒳`$ of functions from $`\kappa `$ to $`𝒫_\kappa (\lambda )`$ with the property that

$$(g{}_{}{}^{\kappa }(𝒫_\kappa (\lambda )))(X𝒫_\mu (𝒳))(\alpha \kappa )(g(\alpha )\underset{fX}{}f(\alpha )).$$
2. $`\mathrm{cov}(\lambda ,\kappa ^+,\kappa ^+,\mu )`$ is the least cardinality of a family $`𝒳𝒫_{\kappa ^+}(\lambda )`$ such that

$$\left(B𝒫_{\kappa ^+}(\lambda )\right)\left(X𝒫_\mu (𝒳)\right)\left(BX\right).$$

###### Theorem 3.5.

Let $`\mu `$ be an infinite cardinal $`\kappa `$. Then

$$\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }(𝒩S_{\kappa ,\lambda }^\kappa )=𝔡_{\kappa ,\lambda }^{\kappa ,<\mu }=\mathrm{max}\{𝔡_\kappa ^{<\mu },\mathrm{cov}(\lambda ,\kappa ^+,\kappa ^+,\mu )\}.$$

Theorem 3.5 is an immediate consequence of Lemmas 3.63.9 below.

###### Lemma 3.6.

Let $`\mu `$ be an infinite cardinal $`\kappa `$. Then

$$\mathrm{cov}(\lambda ,\kappa ^+,\kappa ^+,\mu )\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }(𝒩S_{\kappa ,\lambda }^\kappa ).$$

###### Proof.

By 3.3 we may pick a family $`𝒳{}_{}{}^{\kappa }(𝒫_\kappa (\lambda ))`$ with the property that $`|𝒳|=\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }(𝒩S_{\kappa ,\lambda }^\kappa )`$ and for every function $`g:\kappa 𝒫_\kappa (\lambda )`$ there is $`X𝒫_\mu (𝒳)`$ such that $`\underset{fX}{}C_fC_g`$. For $`f𝒳`$, let $`B_f=\kappa \underset{\alpha <\kappa }{}f(\alpha )𝒫_{\kappa ^+}(\lambda )`$.

Suppose now that $`B𝒫_{\kappa ^+}(\lambda )`$. Pick a function $`g:\kappa 𝒫_\kappa (\lambda )`$ such that $`B\underset{\alpha <\kappa }{}g(\alpha )`$. There is $`X𝒫_\mu (𝒳)`$ such that $`\underset{fX}{}C_fC_g`$. We are going to show that $`B\underset{fX}{}B_f`$. To this end suppose $`\alpha <\kappa `$ and let us argue that $`g(\alpha )\underset{fX}{}B_f`$. For $`n<\omega `$ let $`a_n𝒫_\kappa (\underset{fX}{}B_f)`$ be defined by

$$a_0=\{\alpha \},\text{ and }a_{n+1}=a_n\underset{fX}{}\underset{\beta a_n\kappa }{}f(\beta ),$$

and let $`a=\underset{n<\omega }{}a_n`$. Then $`\alpha a\underset{fX}{}C_fC_g`$ and consequently $`g(\alpha )a\underset{fX}{}B_f`$. ∎

###### Lemma 3.7.

Let $`\mu `$ be an infinite cardinal $`\kappa `$. Then $`𝔡_\kappa ^{<\mu }\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }(𝒩S_{\kappa ,\lambda }^\kappa )`$.

###### Proof.

By Theorem 1.13, it suffices to establish that $`\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }(𝒩S_\kappa )\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }(𝒩S_{\kappa ,\lambda }^\kappa )`$. Let a family $`𝒳{}_{}{}^{\kappa }(𝒫_\kappa (\lambda ))`$ be such that $`|𝒳|=\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }(𝒩S_{\kappa ,\lambda }^\kappa )`$ and

$$\left(B𝒩S_{\kappa ,\lambda }^\kappa \right)\left(X𝒫_\mu (𝒳)\{\mathrm{}\}\right)\left(B\underset{fX}{}C_f=\mathrm{}\right).$$

For $`f𝒳`$, let $`Z_f`$ be the set of all limit ordinals $`\alpha >0`$ such that

$$(\beta <\alpha )(f(\beta )\kappa \alpha ).$$

Plainly, $`Z_f`$ is a closed unbounded subset of $`\kappa `$. Now given a closed unbounded subset $`T`$ of $`\kappa `$, set $`B_T=\{a𝒫_\kappa (\lambda ):a\kappa T\}`$. A simple argument (see, e.g., ) shows that $`B_T𝒩S_{\kappa ,\lambda }^\kappa `$. Hence there is $`X_T𝒫_\mu (𝒳)\{\mathrm{}\}`$ such that $`B_T\underset{fX_T}{}C_f=\mathrm{}`$. We will show that $`\underset{fX_T}{}Z_fT`$. Thus let $`\alpha \underset{fX_T}{}Z_f`$. Setting $`a=\alpha \underset{fX_T}{}\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}f(\beta )`$, it is easy to see that $`a\kappa =\alpha `$, and so $`a\underset{fX_T}{}C_f`$. It follows that $`\alpha =a\kappa T`$. ∎

###### Lemma 3.8.

Let $`\mu `$ be an infinite cardinal $`\kappa `$. Then $`\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }(𝒩S_{\kappa ,\lambda }^\kappa )𝔡_{\kappa ,\lambda }^{\kappa ,<\mu }`$.

###### Proof.

The inequality easily follows from the following observation.

Suppose $`h:\kappa 𝒫_\kappa (\lambda )`$ and $`X𝒫_\mu \left({}_{}{}^{\kappa }(𝒫_\kappa (\lambda ))\right)`$ are such that

$$\left(\alpha <\kappa \right)\left(h(\alpha )\underset{fX}{}f(\alpha )\right).$$

Then $`\underset{fX}{}C_fC_h`$. ∎

###### Lemma 3.9.

Let $`\mu `$ be an infinite cardinal $`\kappa `$. Then

$$𝔡_{\kappa ,\lambda }^{\kappa ,<\mu }\mathrm{max}\{𝔡_\kappa ^{<\mu },\mathrm{cov}(\lambda ,\kappa ^+,\kappa ^+,\mu )\}.$$

###### Proof.

Fix $``$ so that $`||=𝔡_\kappa ^{<\mu }`$ and

$$\left(h{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa \right)\left(F𝒫_\mu ()\right)\left(\alpha <\kappa \right)\left(h(\alpha )sup\{f(\alpha ):fF\}\right).$$

Also, fix $`𝒳𝒫_{\kappa ^+}(\lambda )`$ such that $`|𝒳|=\mathrm{cov}(\lambda ,\kappa ^+,\kappa ^+,\mu )`$ and

$$𝒫_{\kappa ^+}(\lambda )=\{𝒫(X):X𝒫_\mu (𝒳)\}.$$

For each $`a𝒳`$, select a mapping $`\varphi _a:\kappa \stackrel{\mathrm{onto}}{}a`$. Now for $`f`$ and $`a𝒳`$ define $`g_{f,a}:\kappa 𝒫_\kappa (\lambda )`$ by

$$g_{f,a}(\alpha )=\{\varphi _a(\delta ):\delta <f(\alpha )\}.$$

Suppose now that $`g:\kappa 𝒫_\kappa (\lambda )`$. By the choice of $`𝒳`$, there is $`X𝒫_\mu (𝒳)`$ such that $`\underset{\alpha <\kappa }{}g(\alpha )X`$. Choose $`h{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$ such that

$$\left(\alpha <\kappa \right)\left(g(\alpha )\underset{aX}{}\{\varphi _a(\xi ):\xi <h(\alpha )\}\right).$$

Next pick $`F𝒫_\mu ()`$ such that $`(\alpha <\kappa )(h(\alpha )sup\{f(\alpha ):fF\})`$. Then

$$\left(\alpha <\kappa \right)\left(g(\alpha )\underset{fF}{}\underset{aX}{}g_{f,a}\right).$$

Another formula worth noting is:

$$\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }(𝒩S_{\kappa ,\lambda }^\kappa )=\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }(𝒩S_\kappa ),\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }(𝒥_{\kappa ^+,\lambda })\}.$$

This identity follows from Theorems 1.13 and 3.5 and the next proposition.

###### Proposition 3.10.

Let $`\mu `$ be an infinite cardinal $`\kappa `$. Then $`\mathrm{cov}(\lambda ,\kappa ^+,\kappa ^+,\mu )=\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }(𝒥_{\kappa ^+,\lambda })`$.

###### Proof.

The result easily follows from the following observation.

Suppose that $`𝒳𝒫_{\kappa ^+}(\lambda )`$ and $`X𝒫_\mu (𝒳)`$. Then

$$\underset{aX}{}\{c𝒫_{\kappa ^+}(\lambda ):ac\}=\{c𝒫_{\kappa ^+}(\lambda ):Xc\},$$

and therefore for each $`b𝒫_{\kappa ^+}(\lambda )`$

$$bX\text{ if and only if }\underset{aX}{}\{c𝒫_{\kappa ^+}(\lambda ):ac\}\{c𝒫_{\kappa ^+}(\lambda ):bc\}.$$

We next consider special cases when $`\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }(𝒩S_{\kappa ,\lambda }^\kappa )<\mathrm{cof}(𝒩S_{\kappa ,\lambda }^\kappa )`$.

###### Lemma 3.11.

Let $`\mu `$ be an infinite cardinal $`\kappa `$. Then $`\mathrm{cov}(\lambda ,\kappa ^+,\kappa ^+,\mu )\lambda `$.

###### Proof.

It is shown in Matet, Péan and Shelah  that $`\overline{\mathrm{cof}}(𝒥_{\kappa ^+,\lambda })\lambda `$. Now observe that (by Proposition 3.10) $`\mathrm{cov}(\lambda ,\kappa ^+,\kappa ^+,\mu )\overline{\mathrm{cof}}(𝒥_{\kappa ^+,\lambda })`$. ∎

###### Lemma 3.12.

Suppose $`\lambda `$ is singular and $`\mu `$ is a cardinal such that $`\mathrm{cf}(\lambda )<\mu \kappa `$. Then $`\mathrm{cov}(\lambda ,\kappa ^+,\kappa ^+,\mu )sup\{u(\kappa ^+,\nu ):\kappa <\nu <\lambda \}`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\lambda _\xi :\xi <\mathrm{cf}(\lambda )`$ be an increasing sequence of cardinals cofinal in $`\lambda `$. Then, for every $`a𝒫_{\kappa ^+}(\lambda )`$, $`a=\underset{\xi <\mathrm{cf}(\lambda )}{}a\lambda _\xi `$. The desired inequality follows. ∎

###### Proposition 3.13.

Let $`\mu `$ be an uncountable cardinal $`\kappa `$. Then

$$\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }\left(𝒩S_{\kappa ,\kappa ^{+\omega }}^\kappa \right)=\mathrm{max}\{𝔡_\kappa ^{<\mu },\kappa ^{+\omega }\}.$$

###### Proof.

By Lemmas 1.4, 3.11 and 3.12 we have

$$\mathrm{cov}(\kappa ^{+\omega },\kappa ^+,\kappa ^+,\mu )=\kappa ^{+\omega },$$

so the result follows from Theorem 3.5. ∎

Thus, if $`𝔡_\kappa ^{<\omega _1}\kappa ^{+\omega }`$, then

$$\mathrm{cof}^{<\omega _1}(𝒩S_{\kappa ,\kappa ^{+\omega }}^\kappa )<\mathrm{cof}(𝒩S_{\kappa ,\kappa ^{+\omega }}^\kappa ).$$

###### Lemma 3.14.

Assume the Singular Cardinals Hypothesis. If $`\lambda 2^\kappa `$, then

$$u(\kappa ^+,\lambda )=\{\begin{array}{cc}\lambda ^+\hfill & \text{ if }\mathrm{cf}(\lambda )\kappa ,\hfill \\ \lambda \hfill & \text{ otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

By Lemma 3.11, $`\lambda u(\kappa ^+,\lambda )\lambda ^\kappa `$. It follows immediately that $`u(\kappa ^+,\lambda )=\lambda `$ if $`\mathrm{cf}(\lambda )\kappa ^+`$. For the other case, use the well–known fact (see, e.g., ) that $`\mathrm{cf}(u(\kappa ^+,\lambda ))\kappa ^+`$. ∎

###### Proposition 3.15.

Assume the Singular Cardinals Hypothesis. If $`\lambda 2^\kappa `$ and $`\mathrm{}_0\mu \kappa `$, then

$$\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }(𝒩S_{\kappa ,\lambda }^\kappa )=\{\begin{array}{cc}\lambda ^+\hfill & \text{ if }\mu \mathrm{cf}(\lambda )\kappa ,\hfill \\ \lambda \hfill & \text{ otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

By Lemma 3.11, $`\mathrm{cov}(\lambda ,\kappa ^+,\kappa ^+,\mu )\lambda 𝔡_\kappa 𝔡_\kappa ^{<\mu }`$, so by Theorem 3.5

$$\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }(𝒩S_{\kappa ,\lambda }^\kappa )=\mathrm{cov}(\lambda ,\kappa ^+,\kappa ^+,\mu ).$$

Case:$`\mathrm{cf}(\lambda )>\kappa `$.
By Lemmas 3.11 and 3.14 we have

$$\lambda \mathrm{cov}(\lambda ,\kappa ^+,\kappa ^+,\mu )u(\kappa ^+,\lambda )\lambda ,$$

and hence $`\mathrm{cov}(\lambda ,\kappa ^+,\kappa ^+,\mu )=\lambda `$.

Case:$`\mu \mathrm{cf}(\lambda )\kappa `$.
By Lemma 3.14 we know that

$$\mathrm{cov}(\lambda ,\kappa ^+,\kappa ^+,\mu )u(\kappa ^+,\lambda )\lambda ^+$$

and

$$\lambda ^+u(\kappa ^+,\lambda )\left(\mathrm{cov}(\lambda ,\kappa ^+,\kappa ^+,\mu )\right)^{<\mu }.$$

Since $`\lambda ^{<\mu }=\lambda `$, it follows that $`\mathrm{cov}(\lambda ,\kappa ^+,\kappa ^+,\mu )=\lambda ^+`$.

Case:$`\mathrm{cf}(\lambda )<\mu `$.
By Lemmas 3.11, 3.12 and 3.14 we have

$$\lambda \mathrm{cov}(\lambda ,\kappa ^+,\kappa ^+,\mu )sup\{u(\kappa ^+,\nu ):\kappa <\nu <\lambda \}\lambda ,$$

and consequently $`\mathrm{cov}(\lambda ,\kappa ^+,\kappa ^+,\mu )=\lambda `$. ∎

Thus, if the Singular Cardinals Hypothesis holds and $`\lambda 2^\kappa `$, then

$$\mathrm{cof}^{<\mu }(𝒩S_{\kappa ,\lambda }^\kappa )<\mathrm{cof}(𝒩S_{\kappa ,\lambda }^\kappa )\text{ if and only if }\mathrm{cf}(\lambda )<\mu \kappa .$$

## 4. $`\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{\kappa ,\kappa })`$

Let us recall some basic facts and definitions related to the combinatorics of the $`\kappa `$–meager ideal $`𝐌_{\kappa ,\kappa }`$ on $`{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$.

###### Definition 4.1.

1. The Baire number $`n(X)`$ of a topological space $`X`$ (also called the Novak number of $`X`$) is the least number of nowhere dense subsets of $`X`$ needed to cover $`X`$.
2. For a topological space $`X`$ and a cardinal $`\mu `$, the $`\mu `$–complete ideal of subsets of $`X`$ generated by nowhere dense subsets of $`X`$ is denoted by $`𝐌_{<\mu }(X)`$; $`𝐌_{<\mu ^+}(X)`$ will be also denoted by $`𝐌_\mu (X)`$. The ideal $`𝐌_\mu (X)`$ is the ideal of $`\mu `$–meager subsets of $`X`$.
3. The space $`{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$ (respectively $`{}_{}{}^{\kappa }2`$) is endowed with the topology obtained by taking as basic open sets $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`O_s`$ for $`s{}_{}{}^{<\kappa }\kappa `$ (respectively $`s{}_{}{}^{<\kappa }2`$), where $`O_s=\{f{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa :sf\}`$ (respectively $`O_s=\{f{}_{}{}^{\kappa }2:sf\}`$).
4. The ideals of $`\kappa `$–meager subsets of $`{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$, $`{}_{}{}^{\kappa }2`$ are denoted by $`𝐌_{\kappa ,\kappa }^\kappa `$ and $`𝐌_{\kappa ,\kappa }`$, respectively.

###### Remark 4.2.

1. Clearly, for a topological space $`X`$, $`n(X)`$ is the least number of open dense subsets of $`X`$ with empty intersection. If $`\mu n(X)`$, then $`𝐌_{<\mu }(X)`$ is a proper ideal (i.e., $`X𝐌_{<\mu }(X)`$).
2. Following the tradition of Set Theory of the Reals, we may consider the covering number $`\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{<\mu }(X))`$ of the ideal $`𝐌_{<\mu }(X)`$:

$$\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{<\mu }(X))=\mathrm{min}\{|𝒜|:𝒜𝐌_{<\mu }(X)\&𝒜=X\}.$$

By the definition, $`n(X)=\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{<\mathrm{}_0}(X))`$. But also for every $`\mu <n(X)`$ we have

$$\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{<\mu }(X))=n(X)\text{ and }\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{<n(X)}(X))=\mathrm{cf}(n(X)).$$
3. Plainly, $`n({}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa )>\kappa `$ and $`n({}_{}{}^{\kappa }2)>\kappa `$ (remember, $`\kappa `$ is assumed to be regular).

###### Lemma 4.3.

Suppose that $`X`$ is a topological space, $`\mu <n(X)`$, and $`Y_\alpha `$ are open subsets of $`X`$ (for $`\alpha <\mu `$). Assume also that $`Y=\underset{\alpha <\mu }{}Y_\alpha `$ is dense in $`X`$. Then, if $`Y`$ is equipped with the subspace topology, $`n(Y)=n(X)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`U_\beta `$ (for $`\beta <n(X)`$) be open dense subsets of $`X`$ such that $`\underset{\beta <n(X)}{}U_\beta =\mathrm{}`$. Then $`U_\beta Y`$ are open dense subsets of $`Y`$ (remember $`Y`$ is dense) and $`\underset{\beta <n(X)}{}(U_\beta Y)=\mathrm{}`$. This shows that $`n(Y)n(X)`$.

Now, let $`V_\beta Y`$ (for $`\beta <n(Y)`$) be open dense subsets of $`Y`$ such that $`\underset{\beta <n(Y)}{}V_\beta =\mathrm{}`$. Take open subsets $`U_\beta `$ of $`X`$ such that $`V_\beta =U_\beta Y`$ – clearly $`U_\beta `$’s are dense in $`X`$ (as $`Y`$ is so). Then $`\mathrm{}=\underset{\beta <n(Y)}{}(U_\beta Y)=\underset{\beta <n(Y)}{}U_\beta \underset{\alpha <\mu }{}Y_\alpha `$, and hence $`n(X)n(Y)+\mu `$ and therefore $`n(X)n(Y)`$. ∎

###### Proposition 4.4.

$`\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{\kappa ,\kappa }^\kappa )=n({}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa )=n({}_{}{}^{\kappa }2)=\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{\kappa ,\kappa })`$.

###### Proof.

For $`s{}_{}{}^{<\kappa }2`$ and $`\alpha <\kappa `$ let $`F(s,\alpha ){}_{}{}^{<\kappa }2`$ be such that $`\mathrm{lh}(F(s,\alpha ))=\mathrm{lh}(s)+\alpha +1`$ and

$$F(s,\alpha )\mathrm{lh}(s)=s,F(s,\alpha )[\mathrm{lh}(s),\mathrm{lh}(s)+\alpha )1,\text{and}F(s,\alpha )(\mathrm{lh}(s)+\alpha )=0.$$

Now, let $`\pi :{}_{}{}^{<\kappa }\kappa {}_{}{}^{<\kappa }2`$ be such that

* $`\pi ()=`$, $`\pi (s{}_{}{}^{}\alpha )=F(\pi (s),\alpha )`$ for $`s{}_{}{}^{<\kappa }\kappa `$, and
* if $`s_\zeta :\zeta <\xi {}_{}{}^{<\kappa }\kappa `$ is $`\mathrm{}`$–increasing, $`\xi <\kappa `$, $`s=\underset{\zeta <\xi }{}s_\zeta `$,
then $`\pi (s)=\underset{\zeta <\xi }{}\pi (s_\zeta )`$.

Then $`\pi `$ induces a mapping

$$\pi ^{}:{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa {}_{}{}^{\kappa }2:\eta \underset{\zeta <\kappa }{}\pi (\eta \zeta ).$$

The range of $`\pi ^{}`$ is

$$\mathrm{Rng}(\pi ^{})=\{\rho {}_{}{}^{\kappa }2:(\alpha <\kappa )(\beta <\kappa )(\alpha <\beta \&\rho (\beta )=0)\}.$$

Plainly, $`\mathrm{Rng}(\pi ^{})`$ is the intersection of $`\kappa `$ many open dense subsets of $`{}_{}{}^{\kappa }2`$. Moreover, $`\pi ^{}`$ is a homeomorphism from $`{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$ onto $`\mathrm{Rng}(\pi ^{})`$. Therefore, using Lemma 4.3, we get $`n({}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa )=n(\mathrm{Rng}(\pi ^{}))=n({}_{}{}^{\kappa }2)`$. The rest should be clear (remember Remark 4.2(2,3)). ∎

###### Proposition 4.5.

$`\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{\kappa ,\kappa })𝔡_\kappa `$.

###### Definition 4.6.

$`_{\mu ,\kappa }`$ is the forcing notion for adding $`\mu `$ Cohen functions in $`{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$ with $`<\kappa `$–support. Thus a condition in $`_{\mu ,\kappa }`$ is a function $`q`$ such that

$$\mathrm{Dom}(q)\mu \times \kappa ,\mathrm{Rng}(q)\kappa \text{and}|q|<\kappa .$$

The order of $`_{\mu ,\kappa }`$ is the inclusion.

###### Proposition 4.7.

Assume $`2^{<\kappa }=\kappa <\mu `$. Then $`_{_{\mu ,\kappa }}`$$`\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{\kappa ,\kappa })\mu `$ ”.

## 5. Manageable forcing notions

In this section we introduce a property of forcing notions which is crucial for the consistency results presented later: $`(\theta ,\mu ,\kappa )`$–manageability. This property has three ingredients: an iterable variant of $`\kappa ^+`$–cc (see Definition 5.1), $`\kappa `$–completeness and a special property implying preservation of non-meagerness of subsets of $`{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$ (see Proposition 5.9). Since later we will work with $`<\kappa `$–support iterations, we also prove a suitable preservation theorem (see Theorem 5.11).

From now on we will always assume that our fixed (uncountable) regular cardinal $`\kappa `$ satisfies $`2^{<\kappa }=\kappa `$ (so also $`\kappa ^{<\kappa }=\kappa `$).

###### Definition 5.1 (See Shelah \[10, Definition 1.1\] and \[11, Definition 7\]).

Let $``$ be a forcing notion, and $`\epsilon <\kappa `$ be a limit ordinal.

1. We define a game $`\mathrm{}_{\epsilon ,\kappa }^{\mathrm{cc}}()`$ of two players, Player I and Player II. A play lasts $`\epsilon `$ steps, and at each stage $`\alpha <\epsilon `$ of the play $`\overline{q}^\alpha ,\overline{p}^\alpha ,\phi ^\alpha `$ are chosen so that:

* $`\overline{q}^0=\mathrm{}_{}:i<\kappa ^+`$, $`\phi ^0:\kappa ^+\kappa ^+:i0`$;
    * If $`\alpha >0`$, then Player I picks $`\overline{q}^\alpha ,\phi ^\alpha `$ such that

    1. $`\overline{q}^\alpha =q_i^\alpha :i<\kappa ^+`$ satisfies

        $$(\beta <\alpha )(i<\kappa ^+)(p_i^\beta q_i^\alpha ),$$
        2. $`\phi ^\alpha :\kappa ^+\kappa ^+`$ is regressive, i.e., $`(i<\kappa ^+)(\phi ^\alpha (i)<1+i)`$;
    * Player II answers choosing a sequence $`\overline{p}^\alpha =p_i^\alpha :i<\kappa ^+`$ such that $`(i<\kappa ^+)(q_i^\alpha p_i^\alpha )`$.

If at some stage of the game Player I does not have any legal move, then he looses. If the game lasted $`\epsilon `$ steps, Player I wins a play $`\overline{q}^\alpha ,\overline{p}^\alpha ,\phi ^\alpha :\alpha <\epsilon `$ if there is a club $`C`$ of $`\kappa ^+`$ such that for each distinct members $`i,j`$ of $`C`$ satisfying $`\mathrm{cf}(i)=\mathrm{cf}(j)=\kappa `$ and $`(\alpha <\epsilon )(\phi ^\alpha (i)=\phi ^\alpha (j))`$, the set

$$\{p_i^\alpha :\alpha <\epsilon \}\{p_j^\alpha :\alpha <\epsilon \}$$

has an upper bound in $``$.
2. The forcing notion $``$ satisfies condition $`()_\kappa ^\epsilon `$ if Player I has a winning strategy in the game $`\mathrm{}_{\epsilon ,\kappa }^{\mathrm{cc}}()`$.

###### Remark 5.2.

Condition $`()_\kappa ^\epsilon `$ is a strong version of $`\kappa ^+`$–cc (easily, if $`\epsilon <\kappa `$ is limit, $`\kappa ^\epsilon =\kappa `$, and $``$ satisfies $`()_\kappa ^\epsilon `$, then $``$ satisfies $`\kappa ^+`$–cc). This condition was used in a number of papers, e.g., to obtain a series of consistency results on partition relations; see Shelah and Stanley , , Shelah , , . Its primary use comes from the fact that it is preserved in $`<\kappa `$–support iterations.

###### Proposition 5.3 (See Shelah \[10, Iteration Lemma 1.3\] and \[11, Theorem 35\]).

Let $`\epsilon <\kappa `$ be a limit ordinal, $`\kappa =\kappa ^{<\kappa }`$. Suppose that $`\overline{}=_\xi ,\dot{}_\xi :\xi <\gamma `$ is a $`<\kappa `$–support iteration such that for each $`\xi <\gamma `$

$$__\xi \text{“ }\dot{}_\xi \text{ satisfies }()_\kappa ^\epsilon \text{ ”.}$$

Then $`_\gamma `$ satisfies $`()_\kappa ^\epsilon `$.

###### Definition 5.4.

A forcing notion $``$ is $`\theta `$–complete if every $`_{}`$–increasing chain of length less than $`\theta `$ has an upper bound in $``$. It is $`\theta `$–lub–complete if every $`_{}`$–increasing chain of length less than $`\theta `$ has a least upper bound in $``$.

###### Definition 5.5.

Let $`\theta `$ and $`\mu `$ be cardinals such that $`\theta <\kappa =2^{<\kappa }`$ and $`\mu ^{<\kappa }=\mu `$. Let $``$ be a $`\theta ^+`$–lub–complete forcing notion.

1. A model $`N((\chi ),,<_\chi ^{})`$ is $`(,\kappa ,\mu )`$–relevant if $`,\mu N`$, $`\mu N`$, $`|N|=\mu `$ and $`{}_{}{}^{<\kappa }NN`$.
2. For a $`(,\kappa ,\mu )`$–relevant model $`N`$ we define a game $`\mathrm{}^m(N,\theta ,)`$ of two players, He and She, as follows. A play lasts $`\theta `$ moves, and in the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ move conditions $`p_i,q_i`$ are chosen so that:

* $`q_iN`$, $`q_ip_i`$,
    * $`(j<i)(q_jq_i\&p_jp_i)`$,
    * She chooses $`p_i,q_i`$ if $`i`$ is odd, He picks $`p_i,q_i`$ if $`i`$ is even.

She wins the play $`q_i,p_i:i<\theta `$ whenever

if$`p_\theta `$ is a least upper bound of $`p_i:i<\theta `$, and $`q_\theta `$ is a least upper bound of $`q_i:i<\theta `$,

then $`(qN)(q_\theta qq,p_\theta \text{ are compatible })`$.
3. The forcing notion $``$ is weakly $`(\theta ,\mu ,\kappa )`$–manageable if (it is $`\theta ^+`$–lub–complete and) there is an $`x(\chi )`$ (called a witness) such that for every $`(,\kappa ,\mu )`$–relevant model $`N(\chi )`$ with $`xN`$, She has a winning strategy in the game $`\mathrm{}^m(N,\theta ,)`$.
4. The forcing notion $``$ is $`(\theta ,\mu ,\kappa )`$–manageable  if it is $`\kappa `$–complete, weakly $`(\theta ,\mu ,\kappa )`$–manageable, and satisfies the condition $`()_\kappa ^\theta `$.

###### Remark 5.6.

Suppose that $``$ is $`\theta ^+`$–lub–complete and $`N`$ is $`(P,\kappa ,\mu )`$–relevant. Then both players have always legal moves in the game $`\mathrm{}^m(N,\theta ,)`$. Moreover, if $`q_i,p_i:i<\theta `$ is a (legal) play of $`\mathrm{}^m(N,\theta ,)`$, then there are least upper bounds $`q_\theta N`$ of $`q_i:i<\theta `$, and $`p_\theta `$ of $`p_i:i<\theta `$ (and $`q_\theta p_\theta `$).

###### Definition 5.7.

Let $`N`$ be a $`(P,\kappa ,\mu )`$–relevant model, and let $`qN`$, $`p`$ be such that $`qp`$. We say that a pair $`(q^{},p^{})`$ is an $`N`$–cover for $`(q,p)`$, if

* $`qq^{}N`$, $`pp^{}`$, $`q^{}p^{}`$, and
* every condition $`q^{}N`$ stronger than $`q^{}`$ is compatible with $`p^{}`$.

###### Lemma 5.8.

Suppose that $``$ is a $`\theta ^+`$–lub–complete forcing notion, $`N`$ is a $`(P,\kappa ,\mu )`$–relevant model, and She has a winning strategy in the game $`\mathrm{}^m(N,\theta ,)`$. Then:

1. For all conditions $`qN`$ and $`p`$ such that $`qp`$, there is an $`N`$–cover $`(q^{},p^{})`$ for $`(q,p)`$.
2. $`N\mathrm{<}`$.

###### Proof.

1) Consider a play $`q_i,p_i:i<\theta `$ of $`\mathrm{}^m(N,\theta ,)`$ in which He starts with $`q_0=q`$, $`p_0=p`$, and then he always plays the $`<_\chi ^{}`$–first legal moves, and She uses her winning strategy. Let $`q^{}N`$, $`p^{}`$ be least upper bounds of $`q_i:i<\theta `$, $`p_i:i<\theta `$, respectively. Plainly, as She won the play, the pair $`(q^{},p^{})`$ is an $`N`$–cover for $`(q,p)`$.

2) Suppose that $`𝒜N`$ is a maximal antichain in $`N`$, but $`p`$ is incompatible with all members of $`𝒜`$. Let $`(q^{},p^{})`$ be an $`N`$–cover for $`(\mathrm{}_{},p)`$. The condition $`q^{}`$ is compatible with some $`q𝒜`$, so let $`q^+N`$ be such that $`q^+q^{}`$, $`q^+q𝒜`$. By the choice of $`(q^{},p^{})`$ we know that the conditions $`q^+`$ and $`p^{}`$ are compatible, and hence $`q`$ and $`p`$ are compatible. A contradiction.

The rest follows from the elementarity of $`N`$. ∎

###### Proposition 5.9.

Assume $`\theta <\kappa =2^{<\kappa }\mu =\mu ^{<\kappa }<\tau `$. Suppose that a set $`Y{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$ cannot be covered by the union of less than $`\tau `$ nowhere dense subsets of $`{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$, and $``$ is a weakly $`(\theta ,\mu ,\kappa )`$–manageable forcing notion not collapsing cardinals. Then

$$_{}\text{“ }Y\text{ is not the union of }<\tau \text{ nowhere dense subsets of }{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa \text{ ”.}$$

###### Proof.

Let $``$ be weakly $`(\theta ,\mu ,\kappa )`$–manageable with a witness $`x(\chi )`$. Suppose toward contradiction that a condition $`q`$ is such that

$$q\text{“ }Y\text{ is the union of }<\tau \text{ nowhere dense subsets of }{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa \text{ ”}.$$

Passing to a stronger condition if needed, we may assume that for some $`\iota <\tau `$ and $``$–names $`\dot{A}_\xi `$ (for $`\xi <\iota `$) we have:

$$q\text{“ }\dot{A}_\xi {}_{}{}^{<\kappa }\kappa \&(s{}_{}{}^{<\kappa }\kappa )(t\dot{A}_\xi )(st)\text{ ”}$$

and

$$q\text{“ }(yY)(\xi <\iota )(t\dot{A}_\xi )(ty)\text{ ”.}$$

For each $`\zeta <\iota `$ pick a $`(,\kappa ,\mu )`$–relevant model $`N_\zeta ((\chi ),,<_\chi ^{})`$ such that $`q,\dot{A}_\xi :\xi <\kappa ,x,\zeta N_\zeta `$. Then $`|\underset{\zeta <\iota }{}N_\zeta |=\iota \mu <\tau `$, so we may pick a $`yY`$ such that $`y𝒪`$ for all open dense subsets $`𝒪`$ of $`{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$ from $`\underset{\zeta <\iota }{}N_\zeta `$. By our assumptions, there are $`\xi <\iota `$ and $`pq`$ such that

$$p\text{“ }(t\dot{A}_\xi )(ty)\text{ ”.}$$

Let $`(q^{},p^{})`$ be an $`N_\xi `$–cover for $`(q,p)`$ (there is one by Lemma 5.8(1)). Put

$$A=\{s{}_{}{}^{<\kappa }\kappa :(q^{}q^{})(q^{}s\dot{A}_\xi )\}.$$

Clearly $`AN_\xi `$, $`AN_\xi `$, and $`𝒪=\underset{sA}{}O_sN_\xi `$ is an open dense subset of $`{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$. Hence $`sy`$ for some $`sA`$. Let $`q^{}N_\xi `$ be a condition stronger than $`q^{}`$ and such that $`q^{}s\dot{A}_\xi `$. The condition $`q^{}`$ is compatible with $`p^{}`$, and so with $`p`$. Take a condition $`q^+`$ stronger than both $`q^{}`$ and $`p`$. Then

$$q^+\text{“ }s\dot{A}_\xi \&sy\text{ ”}\text{ and }q^+\text{“ }(t\dot{A}_\xi )(ty)\text{ ”,}$$

a contradiction. ∎

###### Corollary 5.10.

Suppose that $`\theta <\kappa =2^{<\kappa }\mu =\mu ^{<\kappa }`$ and $`\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{\kappa ,\kappa })>\mu `$. Let $``$ be a $`(\theta ,\mu ,\kappa )`$–manageable forcing notion. Then

$$_{}\text{“ }\left(\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{\kappa ,\kappa })\right)^𝐕\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{\kappa ,\kappa })\text{ ”.}$$

###### Proof.

Rememebering Proposition 4.4, apply Proposition 5.9 to $`\tau =\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{\kappa ,\kappa })=\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{\kappa ,\kappa }^\kappa )`$ and $`Y={}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$ to get

$$_{}\text{“ }({}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa )^𝐕\text{ is not the union of }<\tau \text{ nowhere dense sets ”.}$$

But this clearly implies $`_{}\text{“ }\tau \mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{\kappa ,\kappa })=\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{\kappa ,\kappa }^\kappa )\text{ ”}`$. ∎

###### Theorem 5.11.

Assume that $`\theta <\kappa =2^{<\kappa }\mu =\mu ^{<\kappa }`$. Let $`\overline{}=_\xi ,\dot{}_\xi :\xi <\gamma `$ be $`<\kappa `$–support iteration such that for each $`\xi <\gamma `$

$$__\xi \text{“ }\dot{}_\xi \text{ is }(\theta ,\mu ,\kappa )\text{–manageable ”}.$$

Then $`_\gamma `$ is $`(\theta ,\mu ,\kappa )`$–manageable.

###### Proof.

Let $`\theta ,\kappa ,\mu `$ and $`\overline{}`$ be as in the assumptions of the theorem.

First note that $`<\kappa `$–support iterations of $`\kappa `$–complete forcing notions satisfying the condition $`()_\kappa ^\theta `$ are $`\kappa `$–complete $`\kappa ^+`$–cc (as $`\kappa ^{<\kappa }=\kappa `$; remember Proposition 5.3). Therefore no such iteration collapses cardinals nor changes cofinalities nor adds sequences of ordinals of length $`<\kappa `$. Hence the assumed properties of $`\theta ,\kappa `$ and $`\mu `$ hold in all intermediate extensions $`𝐕^_\xi `$ and our assumption on $`\dot{}_\xi `$’s is meaningful.

Plainly, $`_\gamma `$ is $`\kappa `$–complete, $`\theta ^+`$–lub–complete and satisfies condition $`()_\kappa ^\theta `$. We have to show that $`_\gamma `$ is weakly $`(\theta ,\mu ,\kappa )`$–manageable.

For $`\xi <\gamma `$ let $`\dot{x}_\xi `$ be a $`_\xi `$–name for a witness for $`\dot{}_\xi `$ being weakly manageable and let $`\overline{x}=\dot{x}_\xi :\xi <\gamma `$. Suppose that $`N((\chi ),,<_\chi ^{})`$ is a $`(_\gamma ,\kappa ,\mu )`$–relevant model such that $`(\overline{x},\overline{})N`$.

Since $`_\xi `$ satisfies $`\kappa ^+`$–cc (and $`\kappa +1N`$) we know that if $`\xi N\gamma `$ and $`G_\xi _\xi `$ is generic over $`𝐕`$, then in $`𝐕[G_\xi ]`$ we have:

$$N[G_\xi ]𝐕=N\text{ and }N[G_\xi ]((\chi ),,<_\chi ^{})^{𝐕[G_\xi ]}\text{ and }{}_{}{}^{<\kappa }N[G_\xi ]N[G_\xi ]$$

(remember that $`_\xi `$ is $`\kappa `$–complete). As clearly $`\dot{}_\xi ^{G_\xi }N[G_\xi ]`$, we conclude that $`N[G_\xi ]`$ is $`(\dot{}_\xi ^{G_\xi },\kappa ,\mu )`$–relevant, and $`\dot{x}_\xi ^{G_\xi }N[G_\xi ]`$. Therefore, She has a winning strategy in the game $`\mathrm{}^m(N[G_\xi ],\theta ,\dot{}_\xi ^{G_\xi })`$. Let $`\dot{\mathrm{st}}_\xi `$ be a $`_\xi `$–name for such a strategy. We may assume that the strategy $`\dot{\mathrm{st}}_\xi `$ is such that

1. if $`i<\theta `$ is even and $`q_i=p_i=\dot{\mathrm{}}_{\dot{}_\xi }`$,
then $`\dot{\mathrm{st}}_\xi `$ instructs Her to play $`q_{i+1}=p_{i+1}=\dot{\mathrm{}}_{\dot{}_\xi }`$.

We define a strategy $`\mathrm{st}`$ for Her in the game $`\mathrm{}^m(N,\theta ,_\gamma )`$ as follows. At an odd stage $`i<\theta `$ of the game, the strategy $`\mathrm{st}`$ first instructs Her to choose (side) conditions $`q_i^{},p_i^{}_\gamma `$ and only then pick conditions $`q_iN_\gamma `$ and $`p_i_\gamma `$ which are to be played. These conditions will be chosen so that if $`q_j,p_j:j<i`$ is a legal play of $`\mathrm{}^m(N,\theta ,_\gamma )`$ in which She uses $`\mathrm{st}`$, and $`q_j^{},p_j^{}`$ are the side conditions picked by her (for odd $`ji`$), then

1. $`\mathrm{Dom}(q_i)=\mathrm{Dom}(q_i^{})=\mathrm{Dom}(p_{i1})N`$, $`\mathrm{Dom}(p_i^{})=\mathrm{Dom}(p_{i1})`$,
2. $`p_{i1}p_i^{}p_i`$, $`q_{i1}q_i^{}p_i^{}`$, $`q_{i1}q_ip_i`$,
3. letting $`(q_j^{},p_j^{})`$ be $`(q_j^{},p_j^{})`$ if $`ji`$ is odd and $`(q_j,p_j)`$ if $`j<i`$ is even, for every $`\xi \mathrm{Dom}(q_i)`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}p_i\xi __\xi \hfill & \text{“ }q_i(\xi )=q_i^{}(\xi )\text{ and}\hfill \\ & \text{the sequence }q_j^{}(\xi ),p_j^{}(\xi ):ji\text{ is a legal play of}\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}^m(N[\mathrm{\Gamma }__\xi ],\theta ,\dot{}_\xi )\text{ in which She uses the strategy }\dot{\mathrm{st}}_\xi \text{ ”.}\hfill \end{array}$$

So suppose that $`i<\theta `$ is odd, $`q_j,p_j:j<i`$ is a partial play of $`\mathrm{}^m(N,\theta ,_\gamma )`$ in which She uses $`\mathrm{st}`$ (and the side conditions for odd $`j<i`$ are $`q_j^{},p_j^{}`$), and the clauses $`(\alpha )_j`$$`(\gamma )_j`$ hold for all odd $`j<i`$. Let $`(q_j^{},p_j^{})`$ be $`(q_j^{},p_j^{})`$ if $`j<i`$ is odd and $`(q_j,p_j)`$ if $`j<i`$ is even.

We first declare that $`\mathrm{Dom}(q_i^{})=\mathrm{Dom}(p_{i1})N`$, $`\mathrm{Dom}(p_i^{})=\mathrm{Dom}(p_{i1})`$ and $`p_i^{}(\zeta )=p_{i1}(\zeta )`$ for all $`\zeta \mathrm{Dom}(p_i^{})N`$. Next, by induction on $`\xi \mathrm{Dom}(q_i^{})`$ we define $`q_i^{}(\xi ),p_i^{}(\xi )`$. So suppose that $`\xi \mathrm{Dom}(q_i^{})`$ and $`q_i^{}\xi ,p_i^{}\xi `$ have been defined so that $`q_{i1}\xi q_i^{}\xi `$, $`p_{i1}\xi p_i^{}\xi `$. Then, by clauses $`(\gamma )_j`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}p_i^{}\xi __\xi \hfill & \text{“ the sequence }q_j^{}(\xi ),p_j^{}(\xi ):j<i\text{ is a legal play of}\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}^m(N[\mathrm{\Gamma }__\xi ],\theta ,\dot{}_\xi )\text{ in which She uses the strategy }\dot{\mathrm{st}}_\xi \text{ ”.}\hfill \end{array}$$

(Remember our assumption $`()`$ on $`\dot{\mathrm{st}}_\xi `$ and our convention regarding $`\mathrm{}_{}`$ stated in Notation 0.3(1).) Let $`q_i^{}(\xi )`$ and $`p_i^{}(\xi )`$ be $`_\xi `$–names for members of $`\dot{}_\xi `$ such that

$$q_i^{}\xi __\xi \text{“ }q_i^{}(\xi )N[\mathrm{\Gamma }__\xi ]\&q_{i1}(\xi )q_i^{}(\xi )\text{ ”,}$$

and

$$\begin{array}{cc}p_i^{}\xi __\xi \hfill & \text{“ }(q_i^{}(\xi ),p_i^{}(\xi ))\text{ is what }\dot{\mathrm{st}}_\xi \text{ says Her to play}\hfill \\ & \text{ as the answer to }q_j^{}(\xi ),p_j^{}(\xi ):j<i\text{ ”.}\hfill \end{array}$$

(So $`q_i^{}(\xi )`$ is a name for a member of $`N[\mathrm{\Gamma }__\xi ]`$, but it does not have to be from $`N`$.) This completes the definition of $`q_i^{},p_i^{}_\gamma `$. Now we use the fact that $`_\gamma `$ is $`\kappa `$–complete and $`|\mathrm{Dom}(q_i^{})|<\kappa `$ to pick a condition $`p_i_\gamma `$ stronger than $`p_i^{}`$ and names $`\dot{\tau }_\xi N`$ (for $`\xi \mathrm{Dom}(q_i^{})`$) such that $`p_i\xi __\xi `$$`q_i^{}(\xi )=\dot{\tau }_\xi `$ ”. Since $`{}_{}{}^{<\kappa }NN`$, the sequence $`\dot{\tau }_\xi :\xi \mathrm{Dom}(q_i^{})`$ is in $`N`$. Hence we may find a condition $`q_iN_\gamma `$ such that

* $`\mathrm{Dom}(q_i)=\mathrm{Dom}(q_i^{})`$, and
* for each $`\xi \mathrm{Dom}(q_i)`$,

$$__\xi \text{“ if }\dot{\tau }_\xi q_{i1}(\xi ),\text{ then }q_i(\xi )=\dot{\tau }_\xi ,\text{ otherwise }q_i(\xi )=q_{i1}(\xi )\text{ ”.}$$

(For definitiveness we pick the $`<_\chi ^{}`$–first $`p_i,q_i`$ as above.) It should be clear that $`q_i^{},q_i,p_i^{},p_i`$ satisfy conditions $`(\alpha )_i`$$`(\gamma )_i`$. This finishes the description of the strategy $`\mathrm{st}`$. Let us argue that it is a winning strategy for Her.

To this end suppose that $`q_i,p_i:i<\theta `$ is the result of a play of $`\mathrm{}^m(N,\theta ,_\gamma )`$ in which She uses $`\mathrm{st}`$. Let $`q_\theta ,p_\theta _\gamma `$ be least upper bounds of $`q_i:i<\theta `$, $`p_i:i<\theta `$, respectively. Then for every $`\xi \mathrm{Dom}(p_\theta )`$ we have

$$p_\theta \xi __\xi \text{“ }p_\theta (\xi )\text{ is a least upper bound of }p_i(\xi ):i<\theta \text{ ”.}$$

We may also assume that $`\mathrm{Dom}(q_\theta )=\underset{i<\theta }{}\mathrm{Dom}(q_i)=\mathrm{Dom}(p_\theta )N`$.

Let $`qN_\gamma `$ be a condition stronger than $`q_\theta `$ (and thus stronger than all $`q_i`$ for $`i<\theta `$). We define a condition $`p_\gamma `$ as follows. First, we declare that $`\mathrm{Dom}(p)=\mathrm{Dom}(q)\mathrm{Dom}(p_\theta )`$, and $`p(\xi )=q(\xi )`$ for $`\xi \mathrm{Dom}(q)\mathrm{Dom}(p_\theta )`$, and $`p(\xi )=p_\theta (\xi )`$ for $`\xi \mathrm{Dom}(p_\theta )\mathrm{Dom}(q)=\mathrm{Dom}(p_\theta )N`$. Now suppose that $`\xi \mathrm{Dom}(q)\mathrm{Dom}(p_\theta )`$ and we have already defined $`p\xi `$ so that $`q\xi p\xi `$ and $`p_\theta \xi p\xi `$. Then, by our choices,

$$\begin{array}{cc}p\xi __\xi \hfill & \text{“ the sequence }q_j(\xi ),p_j^{}(\xi ):j<\theta \text{ is a legal play of}\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}^m(N[\mathrm{\Gamma }__\xi ],\theta ,\dot{}_\xi )\text{ in which She uses the strategy }\dot{\mathrm{st}}_\xi \text{, and}\hfill \\ & q(\xi )N[\mathrm{\Gamma }__\xi ]\text{ is stronger than all }q_j(\xi )\text{ for }j<\theta \text{ ”.}\hfill \end{array}$$

(Above, $`p_j^{}`$ are as in the definition of $`\mathrm{st}`$: either $`p_j`$ or $`p_j^{}`$, depending on the parity of $`j`$.) Consequently,

$$p\xi \text{“ }q(\xi )\text{ and }p_\theta (\xi )\text{ are compatible ”,}$$

so we may pick a $`_\xi `$–name $`p(\xi )`$ for a condition in $`\dot{}_\xi `$ such that

$$p\xi \text{“ }q(\xi )p(\xi )\text{ and }p_\theta (\xi )p(\xi )\text{ ”.}$$

This completes the choice of $`p_\gamma `$. Plainly, $`p`$ is an upper bound of $`q`$ and $`p_\theta `$ showing that they are compatible. ∎

## 6. The one-step forcing

In this section we introduce a forcing notion $``$ for adding a small family of functions in $`{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$ which $`\tau `$–dominates $`{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa 𝐕`$. Iterating this type of forcing notions we will get models with $`𝔡_\kappa ^\tau `$ small. Our forcing is (of course) manageable for suitable parameters, and thus it preserves non-meagerness of subsets of $`\kappa `$. Throughout this section we assume the following.

###### Context 6.1.

1. $`\kappa =2^{<\kappa }`$, $`\tau =\mathrm{cf}(\tau )<\kappa `$,
2. $`\overline{\mu }=\mu _\alpha :\alpha <\tau `$ is an increasing sequence of regular cardinals, $`\kappa \mu _0`$,
3. $`|\underset{\alpha <\tau }{}\mu _\alpha |=2^\kappa `$ and $`\pi :\underset{\alpha <\tau }{}\mu _\alpha {}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$ is a bijection.

We will write $`\pi _\eta `$ for $`\pi (\eta )`$. Also for a set $`u\underset{\alpha <\tau }{}\mu _\alpha `$ we let

$$T(u)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\{\eta \alpha :\alpha <\tau \&\eta u\}$$

###### Definition 6.2.

1. We define a forcing notion $`=(\pi ,\overline{\mu },\kappa )`$ as follows.
A condition in $``$ is a tuple $`p=(i,u,\overline{f},g)=(i^p,u^p,\overline{f}^p,g^p)`$ such that

1. $`i<\kappa `$, $`u𝒫_\kappa \left(\underset{\alpha <\tau }{}\mu _\alpha \right)`$,
    2. $`\overline{f}=f_\sigma :\sigma T(u)`$ and $`f_\sigma :i\kappa `$ for $`\sigma T(u)`$,
    3. $`g:ui+1`$, and if $`\eta u`$, $`g(\eta )j<i`$, then

    $$\pi _\eta (j)<sup\{f_{\eta \alpha }(j):\alpha <\tau \}.$$

The order of $``$ is such that for $`p,q`$ we have

$`pq`$ if and only if

$`i^pi^q`$, $`u^pu^q`$, $`g^pg^q`$ and $`f_\sigma ^pf_\sigma ^q`$ for $`\sigma T(u^p)`$.
2. For a set $`U\underset{\alpha <\tau }{}\mu _\alpha `$ we let $`U=\{p:u^pU\}`$, and for a condition $`q`$ we put

$$qU=(i^q,u^qU,\overline{f}^qT(u^qU),g^q(u^qU)).$$

###### Proposition 6.3.

1. $``$ is a $`\kappa `$–lub–complete forcing notion of size $`2^\kappa `$.
2. Let $`U\underset{\alpha <\tau }{}\mu _\alpha `$ be of size $`\kappa `$. Then $`|U|\kappa `$.

###### Proof.

1) Plainly, $`(,)`$ is a partial order of size $`2^\kappa `$. To prove the completeness suppose that $`p_\xi :\xi <\xi ^{}`$ is an $``$–increasing sequence of members of $``$ and $`\xi ^{}<\kappa `$. Put

$$i^q=\underset{\xi <\xi ^{}}{sup}i^{p_\xi },u^q=\underset{\xi <\xi ^{}}{}u^{p_\xi },g^q=\underset{\xi <\xi ^{}}{}g^{p_\xi }$$

and $`f_\sigma ^q=\{f_\sigma ^{p_\xi }:\xi <\xi ^{}\&\sigma T(u^{p_\xi })\}`$ for $`\sigma T(u^q)`$. Clearly $`q=(i^q,u^q,\overline{f}^q,g^q)`$ is the least upper bound of $`p_\xi :\xi <\xi ^{}`$.

2) Should be clear. ∎

###### Proposition 6.4.

The forcing notion $``$ satisfies the condition $`()_\kappa ^\theta `$ (see 5.1(2)) for any limit ordinal $`\epsilon <\kappa `$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\epsilon <\kappa `$ be a limit ordinal. To give the winning strategy for Player I in the game $`\mathrm{}_{\epsilon ,\kappa }^{\mathrm{cc}}()`$ we need two technical observations.

###### Claim 6.4.1.

If $`p,q`$ are such that $`i^p=i^q`$ and $`g^p(u^pu^q)=g^q(u^pu^q)`$ and $`f_\sigma ^p=f_\sigma ^q`$ for $`\sigma T(u^p)T(u^q)`$, then the conditions $`p,q`$ have a least upper bound.

###### Proof of the Claim.

Let $`i^r=i^p=i^q`$, $`u^r=u^pu^q`$, $`g^r=g^pg^q`$ and

$$f_\sigma ^r=\{\begin{array}{cc}f_\sigma ^p\hfill & \text{ if }\sigma T(u^p)\hfill \\ f_\sigma ^q\hfill & \text{ if }\sigma T(u^q).\hfill \end{array}$$

Then $`r=(i^r,u^r,\overline{f}^r,g^r)`$ is the least upper bound of $`p,q`$. ∎

###### Claim 6.4.2.

Suppose $`\overline{q}=q_j:j<\kappa ^+`$. Then there is a regressive function $`\phi _{\overline{q}}:\kappa ^+\kappa ^+`$ such that
if $`j<j^{}<\kappa ^+`$, $`\mathrm{cf}(j)=\mathrm{cf}(j^{})=\kappa `$ and $`\phi _{\overline{q}}(j)=\phi _{\overline{q}}(j^{})`$,
then $`i^{q_j}=i^{q_j^{}}`$, and $`g^{q_j}(u^{q_j}u^{q_j^{}})=g^{q_j^{}}(u^{q_j}u^{q_j^{}})`$, and $`f_\sigma ^{q_j}=f_\sigma ^{q_j^{}}`$ for $`\sigma T(u^{q_j})T(u^{q_j^{}})`$.

###### Proof of the Claim.

Take a sequence $`\eta _\xi :\xi <\kappa ^+\underset{\alpha <\tau }{}\mu _\alpha `$ such that for each $`j<\kappa ^+`$ of cofinality $`\kappa `$ and an $`\alpha <j`$ we have $`u^{q_\alpha }\{\eta _\xi :\xi <j\}`$. Let $`U=\{\eta _\xi :\xi <\kappa ^+\}`$ and $`U_j=\{\eta _\xi :\xi <j\}`$ for $`j<\kappa ^+`$. By 6.3(2) we know that $`|U_j|\kappa `$ (for $`j<\kappa ^+`$) and $`|U|\kappa ^+`$, and hence we may pick a mapping $`\psi _0:\kappa ^+U`$ such that

$$\left(j<\kappa ^+\right)\left(\mathrm{cf}(j)=\kappa \mathrm{Rng}(\psi _0j)=U_j\right).$$

Also, for $`j<\kappa ^+`$, let $`F(U_j)`$ be the set

$$\{\overline{f}=f_\sigma :\sigma \mathrm{Dom}(\overline{f}):\mathrm{Dom}(\overline{f})𝒫_\kappa \left(T(U_j)\right)\&(\sigma \mathrm{Dom}(\overline{f}))(f_\sigma {}_{}{}^{<\kappa }\kappa )\},$$

and $`F(U)=\underset{j<\kappa ^+}{}F(U_j)`$. Note that $`|F(U_j)|\kappa `$ and $`|F(U)|\kappa ^+`$. Choose a function $`\psi _1:\kappa ^+F(U)`$ such that

$$\left(j<\kappa ^+\right)\left(\mathrm{cf}(j)=\kappa \mathrm{Rng}(\psi _1j)=F(U_j)\right).$$

Finally, let $`c:\kappa ^+\times \kappa ^+\kappa ^+`$ be a bijection such that

$$\left(j<\kappa ^+\right)\left(\mathrm{cf}(j)=\kappa \mathrm{Rng}(c(j\times j))=j\right).$$

Now let $`\phi _{\overline{q}}:\kappa ^+\kappa ^+`$ be a regressive function such that for $`j<\kappa ^+`$ of cofinality $`\kappa `$ we have

$$\phi _{\overline{q}}(j)=c(\mathrm{min}\{\alpha <\kappa ^+:\psi _0(\alpha )=q_jU_j\},\mathrm{min}\{\alpha <\kappa ^+:\psi _1(\alpha )=\overline{f}^{q_j}T(U_j)\}).$$

Easily, $`\phi _{\overline{q}}`$ is as required. ∎

Now we may complete the proof of Proposition 6.4. Consider the following strategy $`\mathrm{st}`$ for Player I in the game $`\mathrm{}_{\epsilon ,\kappa }^{\mathrm{cc}}()`$. Suppose that the players arrived at stage $`\alpha >0`$ of the play and they have already constructed a sequence $`\overline{q}^\beta ,\overline{p}^\beta ,\phi ^\beta :\beta <\alpha `$. Then, for each $`j<\kappa ^+`$, the sequence $`p_j^\beta :\beta <\alpha `$ is increasing, so Player I can take its least upper bound $`q_j^\alpha `$. This determines $`\overline{q}^\alpha `$ played by Player I; the function $`\phi ^\alpha `$ played at this stage is the $`\phi _{\overline{q}^\alpha }`$ given by Claim 6.4.2.

One easily verifies that the strategy $`\mathrm{st}`$ is a winning one (remember Claim 6.4.1). ∎

###### Theorem 6.5.

Suppose $`\theta `$ and $`\iota `$ are cardinals such that $`\theta =\mathrm{cf}(\theta )<\iota =\iota ^{<\kappa }`$. Then the forcing notion $``$ is $`(\theta ,\iota ,\kappa )`$–manageable.

###### Proof.

For each $`\sigma \underset{\alpha <\tau }{}\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}\mu _\beta `$ fix a sequence $`\eta _\sigma \underset{\alpha <\tau }{}\mu _\alpha `$ such that $`\sigma \eta _\sigma `$. Let $`\overline{\eta }=\eta _\sigma :\sigma \underset{\alpha <\tau }{}\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}\mu _\beta `$.

Suppose that $`N`$ is a $`(,\kappa ,\iota )`$–relevant model such that $`(\overline{\eta },\overline{\mu },\pi )N`$.

For a condition $`p`$ we define conditions $`\mathrm{cl}_N^+(p)=q`$ and $`\mathrm{cl}_N^{}(p)=r`$ by

* $`i^r=i^q=i^p`$,
* $`u^r=(u^pN)\{\eta _\sigma :\sigma T(u^p)N\}`$, $`u^q=u^p\{\eta _\sigma :\sigma T(u^p)N\}`$,
* $`f_\sigma ^r=f_\sigma ^p`$ for $`\sigma T(u^p)N`$, $`f_\sigma ^q=f_\sigma ^p`$ for $`\sigma T(u^p)`$, and $`f_\sigma ^q(j)=f_\sigma ^r(j)=i^p`$ for $`\sigma T(u^q)T(u^p)`$, $`j<i^p`$,
* $`g^r(\eta )=g^p(\eta )`$ for $`\eta u^pN`$ and $`g^r(\eta )=i^p`$ for $`\eta u^ru^p`$;
$`g^q(\eta )=g^p(\eta )`$ for $`\eta u^p`$ and $`g^q(\eta )=i^p`$ for $`\eta u^qu^p`$.

Plainly, $`\mathrm{cl}_N^+(p),\mathrm{cl}_N^{}(p)`$ are conditions in $``$ and $`\mathrm{cl}_N^{}(p)`$ belongs to $`N`$ (remember $`{}_{}{}^{<\kappa }NN`$). If $`pN`$ then also $`\mathrm{cl}_N^+(p)N`$.

###### Claim 6.5.1.

Suppose that $`p`$, $`qN`$ are such that $`qp`$. Then

1. $`\mathrm{cl}_N^+(q)=\mathrm{cl}_N^{}(q)`$, $`q\mathrm{cl}_N^{}(p)\mathrm{cl}_N^+(p)`$, and $`p\mathrm{cl}_N^+(p)`$,
2. if $`q^{}N`$ is stronger than $`\mathrm{cl}_N^{}(p)`$, then $`q^{}`$ and $`p`$ are compatible,
3. if $`p^{}`$ is stronger than $`\mathrm{cl}_N^+(p)`$, then $`\mathrm{cl}_N^{}(p)\mathrm{cl}_N^{}(p^{})`$.

###### Proof of the Claim.

1) Just check.

2) Suppose $`\mathrm{cl}_N^{}(p)q^{}N`$. Put

$$i^r=i^q^{},u^r=u^q^{}u^p,g^r(\eta )=\{\begin{array}{cc}g^q^{}(\eta )\hfill & \text{ if }\eta u^q^{},\hfill \\ g^p(\eta )\hfill & \text{ if }\eta u^pu^q^{}\hfill \end{array}\text{ and:}$$

if $`\sigma T(u^q^{})`$, then $`f_\sigma ^r=f_\sigma ^q^{}`$, and if $`\sigma T(u^p)T(u^q^{})`$, then

$$f_\sigma ^pf_\sigma ^r\text{ and }f_\sigma ^r(j)=sup\{\pi _\eta (j):\sigma \eta u^p\}+1\text{ for }i^pj<i^q^{}.$$

Note that if $`\eta u^pu^q^{}`$, then for some $`\alpha <\tau `$ we have $`\eta \alpha N`$ (so $`\eta \alpha T(u^q^{})`$). Hence we may easily verify that $`r=(i^r,u^r,\overline{f}^r,g^r)`$ and clearly $`r`$ is stronger than $`q^{}`$. To check that it is also stronger than $`p`$ it is enough to note that:

if $`\eta u^pu^q^{}`$, then ($`\eta u^{\mathrm{cl}_N^{}(p)}`$ and hence) $`g^q^{}(\eta )=g^{\mathrm{cl}_N^{}(p)}(\eta )=g^p(\eta )`$, and

if $`\sigma T(u^p)T(u^q^{})`$, then ($`\sigma T(u^{\mathrm{cl}_N^{}(p)})`$ and hence) $`f_\sigma ^p=f_\sigma ^{\mathrm{cl}_N^{}(p)}f_\sigma ^q^{}`$.

3) Note that if $`\mathrm{cl}_N^+(p)p^{}`$, then

$$(u^pN)\{\eta _\sigma :\sigma T(u^p)N\}u^p^{}N,$$

so checking the conditions for $`\mathrm{cl}_N^{}(p)\mathrm{cl}_N^{}(p^{})`$ is pretty straightforward. ∎

###### Claim 6.5.2.

Suppose that a sequence $`p_\zeta :\zeta <\zeta ^{}`$ is increasing, $`\zeta ^{}<\kappa `$ is a limit ordinal, and $`\mathrm{cl}_N^+(p_\zeta )=p_{\zeta +1}`$ for all even $`\zeta <\zeta ^{}`$. Let $`p^{}`$ be the least upper bound of $`p_\zeta :\zeta <\zeta ^{}`$. Then $`\mathrm{cl}_N^{}(p^{})`$ is the least upper bound of $`\mathrm{cl}_N^{}(p_\zeta ):\zeta <\zeta ^{}`$.

###### Proof of the Claim.

It follows from Claim 6.5.1(3) that $`\mathrm{cl}_N^{}(p_\zeta )\mathrm{cl}_N^{}(p^{})`$ (for $`\zeta <\zeta ^{}`$). To show that $`\mathrm{cl}_N^{}(p^{})`$ is actually the least upper bound it is enough to note that

$$i^{\mathrm{cl}_N^{}(p^{})}=i^p^{}=sup\{i^{p_\zeta }:\zeta <\zeta ^{}\}=sup\{i^{\mathrm{cl}_N^{}(p_\zeta )}:\zeta <\zeta ^{}\},$$

and

$$\begin{array}{c}u^p^{}N=\{u^{p_{\zeta +1}}N:\zeta <\zeta ^{}\&\zeta \text{ even}\}=\{u^{\mathrm{cl}_N^{}(p_\zeta )}:\zeta <\zeta ^{}\&\zeta \text{ even}\},\hfill \\ \{\eta _\sigma :\sigma T(u^p^{})N\}=\{\eta _\sigma :\sigma T(u^{p_\zeta })N\&\zeta <\zeta ^{}\}\{u^{\mathrm{cl}_N^{}(p_\zeta )}:\zeta <\zeta ^{}\},\hfill \end{array}$$

so $`u^{\mathrm{cl}_N^{}(p^{})}=u^p^{}N=\{u^{\mathrm{cl}_N^{}(p_\zeta )}:\zeta <\zeta ^{}\}`$. ∎

Now we may describe a strategy $`\mathrm{st}`$ for Her in the game $`\mathrm{}^m(N,\theta ,)`$. Suppose that $`i<\theta `$ is even and $`(q_i,p_i)`$ is His move at this stage of the play (so $`q_iN`$, $`q_ip_i`$). Then $`\mathrm{st}`$ instructs Her to play $`q_{i+1}=\mathrm{cl}_N^{}(p_i)`$ and $`p_{i+1}=\mathrm{cl}_N^+(p_i)`$. It follows from Claim 6.5.1(1) that $`(q_{i+1},p_{i+1})`$ is a legal move. It follows from Claims 6.5.2 and 6.5.1(2) that the strategy $`\mathrm{st}`$ is a winning one.

Thus we have shown that $``$ is weakly $`(\theta ,\iota ,\kappa )`$–manageable. The rest follows from Propositions 6.3 and 6.4. ∎

###### Definition 6.6.

We define $``$–names $`\dot{f}_\sigma `$ (for $`\sigma \underset{\alpha <\tau }{}\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}\mu _\beta `$) and $`\dot{g}`$ by

$$\begin{array}{cc}_{}\hfill & \text{“ }\dot{f}_\sigma =\{f_\sigma ^p:p\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\&\sigma T(u^p)\}\text{ ”,}\hfill \\ _{}\hfill & \text{“ }\dot{g}=\{g^p:p\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\}\text{ ”.}\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proposition 6.7.

1. $`_{}\text{“ }\dot{g}:\underset{\alpha <\tau }{}\mu _\alpha \kappa \text{ ”}`$.
2. For each $`\sigma \underset{\alpha <\tau }{}\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}\mu _\beta `$ we have $`_{}\text{“ }\dot{f}_\sigma :\kappa \kappa \text{ ”}`$.
3. For each $`\eta \underset{\alpha <\tau }{}\mu _\alpha `$,

$$_{}\text{“ }\left(j<\kappa \right)\left(\dot{g}(\eta )j\pi _\eta (j)<sup\{\dot{f}_{\eta \alpha }(j):\alpha <\tau \}\right).$$

###### Proof.

For $`\eta \underset{\alpha <\tau }{}\mu _\alpha `$ and $`i<\kappa `$ let

$$_\eta =\{p:\eta u^p\}\text{ and }^i=\{p:i<i^p\}.$$

We claim that these are open dense subsets of $``$. First, suppose $`\eta u^p`$, $`p`$ and let $`i^r=i^p`$, $`u^r=u^p\{\eta \}`$, $`g^pg^r`$, $`g^r(\eta )=i^r`$, $`f_\sigma ^r=f_\sigma ^p`$ for $`\sigma T(u^p)`$ and $`f_{\eta \alpha }^r(j)=1`$ if $`\eta \alpha T(u^p)`$, $`\alpha <\tau `$. Then $`r_\eta `$ is stronger than $`p`$. (Thus the sets $`_\eta `$ are dense.)

Now suppose that $`p`$ is such that $`i^pi<\kappa `$. Put $`i^r=i+1`$, $`u^r=u^p`$, $`g^r=g^p`$ and for $`\sigma T(u^r)`$ let $`f_\sigma ^rf_\sigma ^p`$ be such that ($`\mathrm{Dom}(f_\sigma ^r)=i^r`$ and) for $`ji^ri^p`$ we have $`f_\sigma ^r(j)=sup\{\pi _\eta (j):\eta u^r\}+1`$. This way we have defined a condition $`r`$ stronger than $`p`$ and such that $`r^i`$. (Thus the sets $`^i`$ are dense.)

Using the above observation and the definition of the order of $``$ one easily justifies (1) and (2). (Note also that, as $``$ is $`\kappa `$–complete, $`_{}\text{“ }\underset{\alpha <\tau }{}\mu _\alpha =\left(\underset{\alpha <\tau }{}\mu _\alpha \right)^𝐕\text{ ”}`$.) Then (3) follows immediately once you note that

$$p\text{“ }g^p\dot{g}\&f_\sigma ^p\dot{f}_\sigma \text{ ”},$$

(for $`\sigma T(u^p)`$, $`p`$); remember Definition 6.2(1)(c). ∎

## 7. The models

###### Theorem 7.1.

Assume that

1. $`\mathrm{}_0<\kappa =\mathrm{cf}(\kappa )=2^{<\kappa }`$,
2. $`\mu `$ is a cardinal such that $`\mathrm{cf}(\mu )<\kappa <\mu <\mu ^{\mathrm{cf}(\mu )}=2^\kappa `$,
3. there is an increasing sequence $`\overline{\mu }=\mu _\alpha :\alpha <\mathrm{cf}(\mu )`$ of regular cardinals such that

$$(\alpha <\mathrm{cf}(\mu ))(\kappa \mu _\alpha (\mu _\alpha )^{\mathrm{cf}(\mu )}\mu _{\alpha +1})\text{ and }\mu =sup\{\mu _\alpha :\alpha <\mathrm{cf}(\mu )\}.$$

Then there is a forcing notion $``$ such that:

1. $``$ has a dense subset of size $`2^\kappa `$,
2. $``$ is $`(\theta ,\iota ,\kappa )`$–manageable for all cardinals $`\theta ,\iota `$ satisfying $`\mathrm{cf}(\theta )=\theta <\kappa \iota =\iota ^{<\kappa }`$,
3. $`_{}\text{“ }𝔡_\kappa ^{\mathrm{cf}(\mu )}\mu \text{ ”}`$,
4. if $`\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{\kappa ,\kappa })>\mu `$, then $`_{}\text{“ }𝔡_\kappa ^{\mathrm{cf}(\mu )}=\mu <\left(\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{\kappa ,\kappa })\right)^𝐕\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{\kappa ,\kappa })\text{ ”}`$.

###### Proof.

Assume $`\kappa ,\mu ,\overline{\mu }=\mu _\alpha :\alpha <\mathrm{cf}(\mu )`$ are as in the assumptions (a)–(c). Note that then also $`\underset{\alpha <\mathrm{cf}(\mu )}{}\mu _\alpha =2^\kappa `$ (by Tarski’s theorem).

The forcing notion $``$ is built as the limit of a $`<\kappa `$–support iteration $`\overline{}=_\xi ,\dot{}_\xi :\xi <\kappa ^+`$. The names $`\dot{}_\xi `$ are defined by induction on $`\xi <\kappa ^+`$ so that

1. $`_\xi `$ has a dense subset of size $`2^\kappa `$,

and for all cardinals $`\theta ,\iota `$ satisfying $`\mathrm{cf}(\theta )=\theta <\kappa \iota =\iota ^{<\kappa }`$,

1. the forcing notion $`_\xi `$ is $`(\theta ,\iota ,\kappa )`$–manageable and
2. $`__\xi \text{“ }\dot{}_\xi \text{ is }(\theta ,\iota ,\kappa )\text{–manageable ”}`$.

So suppose that $`_\xi `$ is already defined (and clauses $`(\alpha )`$, $`(\beta )`$ hold). Then $`_\xi `$ is $`\kappa `$–complete $`\kappa ^+`$–cc, and hence the properties of $`\kappa ,\mu `$ and $`\overline{\mu }`$ stated in (a)–(c) hold in $`𝐕^_\xi `$. Take a $`_\xi `$–name $`\dot{\pi }_\xi `$ such that

$$__\xi \text{“ }\dot{\pi }_\xi :\underset{\alpha <\mathrm{cf}(\mu )}{}\mu _\alpha {}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa \text{ is a bijection ”,}$$

and let $`\dot{}_\xi `$ be a $`_\xi `$–name for the forcing notion $`(\dot{\pi }_\xi ,\overline{\mu },\kappa )`$. Then clause $`(\gamma )`$ holds (remember Theorem 6.5).

It follows from Proposition 6.3(1) that the demand $`(\alpha )`$ is preserved at successor stages and it is preserved at limits $`\kappa ^+`$ by the support we use. By Theorem 5.11, the clause $`(\beta )`$ holds for each $`_\xi `$ ($`\xi \kappa ^+`$). So our $`=_{\kappa ^+}`$ satisfies (i)+(ii).

For $`\xi <\kappa ^+`$ let $`\dot{f}_\sigma ^\xi `$ (for $`\sigma \underset{\alpha <\mathrm{cf}(\mu )}{}\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}\mu _\beta `$) and $`\dot{g}^\xi `$ be $`_{\xi +1}`$–names for functions added by $`(\dot{\pi }_\xi ,\overline{\mu },\kappa )`$ (see Definition 6.6). Then the family

$$=\{\dot{f}_\sigma ^\xi :\xi <\kappa ^+\&\sigma \underset{\alpha <\mathrm{cf}(\mu )}{}\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}\mu _\beta \}$$

is of size $`\mu `$. Since $``$ is $`\kappa ^+`$–cc, for each $``$–name $`\dot{h}`$ for a member of $`{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$ there are $`\xi <\kappa ^+`$ and a $`_\xi `$–name $`\dot{h}^{}`$ such that $`_{}\text{“ }\dot{h}=\dot{h}^{}\text{ ”}`$. Thus using Proposition 6.7(3) we get

$$_{}\text{“ }(j^{}<\kappa )(F𝒫_{\mathrm{cf}(\mu )^+}())(j<\kappa )(j^{}j\dot{h}(j)<sup\{f(j):fF\})\text{ ”.}$$

Now we easily conclude that demand (iii) holds.

To show (iv) let us assume $`\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{\kappa ,\kappa })>\mu `$. The forcing notion $``$ is $`(\mathrm{}_0,\kappa ,\kappa )`$–manageable, so by Corollary 5.10 and Proposition 4.5 we have

$$_{}\text{“ }\mu <\left(\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{\kappa ,\kappa })\right)^𝐕\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{\kappa ,\kappa })𝔡_\kappa \text{ ”}.$$

By (iii) we know $`_{}\text{“ }𝔡_\kappa ^{\mathrm{cf}(\mu )}\mu \text{ ”}`$, but as for each $`\alpha <\mathrm{cf}(\mu )`$:

$$_{}\text{“ }(\mu _\alpha )^{\mathrm{cf}(\mu )}\mu _{\alpha +1}<\mu <𝔡_\kappa \text{ ”},$$

we immediately get that $`_{}\text{“ }𝔡_\kappa ^{\mathrm{cf}(\mu )}=\mu \text{ ”}`$ (remember $`𝔡_\kappa (𝔡_\kappa ^{\mathrm{cf}(\mu )})^{\mathrm{cf}(\mu )}`$). ∎

###### Corollary 7.2.

Assume GCH. Then there a $`\kappa `$–complete $`\kappa ^+`$–cc forcing notion $`^{}`$ such that

$$_{^{}}\text{“ }\overline{𝔡}_\kappa =𝔡_\kappa ^\mathrm{}_0=\kappa ^{+\omega }\text{ and }\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{\kappa ,\kappa })=2^\kappa =\kappa ^{+(\omega +1)}\text{ ”.}$$

###### Proof.

Let $`_0=_{\kappa ^{+(\omega +1)},\kappa }`$ be the forcing adding $`\kappa ^{+(\omega +1)}`$ many Cohen functions in $`{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$ (with $`<\kappa `$–support). Note that

$$__0\text{“ }\kappa ,\mu =\kappa ^{+\omega }\text{ and }\overline{\mu }=\kappa ^{+n}:n<\omega \text{ are as in Theorem }\text{7.1}\text{(a)–(c) ”.}$$

Therefore we have a $`_0`$–name $`\dot{}`$ for a forcing notion satisfying 7.1(i)–(iv). (Note that $`__0\text{“ }\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{\kappa ,\kappa })=\kappa ^{+(\omega +1)}\text{ ”}`$, so the assumption of 7.1(iv) holds.) Let $`=_0\dot{}`$. ∎

Note that Theorem 0.1 follows from Corollary 7.2, Theorem 1.13, and the fact that $`\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{\kappa ,\kappa })\mathrm{cof}(𝒩S_\kappa )`$.

###### Theorem 7.3.

Assume that (a)–(c) of Theorem 7.1 hold and

1. $`\nu `$ is a regular cardinal such that $`\mu <\nu <2^\kappa `$.

Then there is a forcing notion $`_\nu `$ satisfying (i)+(ii) of Theorem 7.1 and

1. $`__\nu \text{“ }𝔡_\kappa ^\tau =\nu \text{ for every cardinal }\tau \text{ satisfying }\mathrm{cf}(\mu )\tau <\kappa \text{ ”}`$,
2. $`__\nu \text{“ }\left(\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{\kappa ,\kappa })\right)^𝐕\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{\kappa ,\kappa })\text{ ”}`$.

###### Proof.

The forcing notion $`_\nu `$ is the limit of $`<\kappa `$–support iteration $`\overline{}=_\xi ,\dot{}_\xi :\xi <\nu `$, where $`\dot{}_\xi `$ are defined as in the proof of Theorem 7.1 (so the only difference is the length of the iteration). As there, $`_\nu `$ satisfies (i)+(ii) and $`__\nu \text{“ }𝔡_\kappa ^{\mathrm{cf}(\mu )}\nu \text{ ”}`$. Since $`\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{\kappa ,\kappa })>\kappa `$ and $`_\nu `$ is $`(\mathrm{}_0,\kappa ,\kappa )`$–manageable, we get (iv)<sup>-</sup> (by Corollary 5.10). To show that (iii)$`{}_{\nu }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}`$ holds, suppose that $`\dot{}`$ is a $`_\nu `$–name for a family of functions in $`{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$ of size $`<\nu `$. Then $`\dot{}`$ is essentially a $`_\xi `$–name for some $`\xi <\nu `$. Since $`_{\xi +\kappa }`$ adds a subset of $`\kappa `$ which is Cohen over $`𝐕^_\xi `$, $`({}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa )^{𝐕^_\xi }`$ is not a dominating family in $`({}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa )^{𝐕^_\nu }`$, and hence for any $`\tau <\kappa `$

$$__\nu \text{“ }\dot{}\text{ is not }\tau \text{–dominating ”}$$

(remember that each $`_\zeta `$ is $`\kappa `$–complete). ∎

Now, Theorem 0.2 follows from Theorem 1.13 and the following Corollary.

###### Corollary 7.4.

It is consistent, relative to the existence of a cardinal $`\nu `$ such that $`o(\nu )=\nu ^{++}`$, that $`\overline{𝔡}_\mathrm{}_1=\mathrm{}_{\omega +1}`$ and $`\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_1})=\mathrm{}_{\omega +2}`$.

###### Proof.

Gitik  constructed a model of “ $`2^\mathrm{}_n<\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{}}`$ for every $`n<\omega `$, $`\mathrm{}_1^{<\mathrm{}_1}=\mathrm{}_1`$ and $`2^\mathrm{}_\omega =\mathrm{}_{\omega +2}`$ ” from $`o(\nu )=\nu ^{++}`$. Add $`\mathrm{}_{\omega +2}`$ Cohen subsets of $`\mathrm{}_1`$ (with countable support) to the model of Gitik and then apply Theorem 7.3. ∎

###### Theorem 7.5.

Assume that

1. $`\kappa =\mathrm{cf}(\kappa )=2^{<\kappa }`$, $`n<\mathrm{}_0`$
2. $`\mu _0,\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _n`$ are cardinals such that

$$\mu _0>\mu _1>\mathrm{}>\mu _n>\kappa \text{ and }\mathrm{cf}(\mu _0)<\mathrm{cf}(\mu _1)<\mathrm{}<\mathrm{cf}(\mu _n)<\kappa ,$$
3. $`(\mu _{\mathrm{}})^{\mathrm{cf}(\mu _{\mathrm{}})}=2^\kappa `$ for $`\mathrm{}=0,\mathrm{},n`$,
4. for $`\mathrm{}=0,\mathrm{},n`$, there is an increasing sequence $`\overline{\mu }^{\mathrm{}}=\mu _\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}:\alpha <\mathrm{cf}(\mu _{\mathrm{}})`$ of regular cardinals such that

$$(\alpha <\mathrm{cf}(\mu _{\mathrm{}}))(\kappa \mu _\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}=(\mu _\alpha ^{\mathrm{}})^{\mathrm{cf}(\mu _{\mathrm{}})})\text{ and }\mu _{\mathrm{}}=sup\{\mu _\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}:\alpha <\mathrm{cf}(\mu _{\mathrm{}})\}.$$
5. $`\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{\kappa ,\kappa })=2^\kappa `$.

Then there is a forcing notion $``$ such that

1. $``$ has a dense subset of size $`2^\kappa `$,
2. $``$ is $`(\theta ,\iota ,\kappa )`$–manageable for all cardinals $`\theta ,\iota `$ satisfying $`\mathrm{cf}(\theta )=\theta <\kappa \iota =\iota ^{<\kappa }`$,
3. $`_{}\text{“ }𝔡_\kappa ^{\mathrm{cf}(\mu _{\mathrm{}})}=\mu _{\mathrm{}}\text{ for }\mathrm{}=0,\mathrm{},n\text{ and }\mathrm{cov}(𝐌_{\kappa ,\kappa })=𝔡_\kappa =2^\kappa \text{ ”}`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`A_0,\mathrm{},A_n`$ be a partition of $`\kappa ^+`$ into sets of size $`\kappa ^+`$. The forcing notion $``$ is the limit of a $`<\kappa `$–support iteration $`\overline{}=_\xi ,\dot{}_\xi :\xi <\kappa ^+`$ defined like in the proof of Theorem 7.1, but

* if $`\xi A_{\mathrm{}}`$, then $`\dot{\pi }_\xi `$ is a $`_\xi `$–name for a bijection from $`\underset{\alpha <\tau _{\mathrm{}}}{}\mu _\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}`$ onto $`{}_{}{}^{\kappa }\kappa `$, and $`\dot{}_\xi `$ is $`(\dot{\pi }_\xi ,\overline{\mu }^{\mathrm{}},\kappa )`$.

We argue that $``$ has the required properties similarly as in Theorem 7.1. ∎

###### Remark 7.6.

Of course the assumption (e) in Theorem 7.5 is not very important: we may start with adding $`2^\kappa `$ many Cohen subsets of $`\kappa `$.