(

4
5
4
a
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7


Cardinalities of topologies with small base

Saharon Shelah
Department of Mathematics
The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
and
Department of Mathematics
Rutgers University , New Brunswick N.J. USA
August 1991
revised March 1993
last revision April 20, 1993
May 31, 1993
Abstract
Let T be the family of open subsets of a topological space (not
necessarily Hausdor or even T
0
). We prove that if T has a base of
cardinality , < 2

, strong limit of conality

0
, then T
has cardinality or 2

. This is our main conclusion (21). In

Theorem 2 we prove it under some set theoretic assumption, which
is clear when = ; then we eliminate the assumption by a theorem
on pcf from [Sh 460] motivated originally by this. Next we prove that
the simplest examples are the basic ones; they occur in every example
(for =
0
this fulll a promise from [Sh 454]). The main result for
the case =
0
was proved in [Sh 454].

Partially supported by The Basic research Fund, Israeli Academy of Sciences. Publi-
cation no. 454A done 8/1991, 3-4/1993. I thank Andrzej Roslanowski for proofreading,
pointing out gaps and rewriting a part more clearly.
1
(
4
5
4
a
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7


* * *
Why does we deal with strong limit of conality
0
? Essentially as
other cases are closed.
Example 1 If I is a linear order of cardinality with Dedekind cuts then
there is a topology T of cardinality > with a base B of cardinality .
CONSTRUCTION: Let B be [, x)
I
: x I where [, x)
I
= y
I : I [= y < x 2
1
Remarks: as it is well known, if =
<
, < =

then there
is a
+
-c.c. -complete forcing notion Q , of cardinality such that in
V
Q
we have 2

= , there is a -tree with exactly -branches (and

other branches) hence a linear order of cardinality with exactly Dedekind
cuts. As possibly

0
> , this limits possible generalizations of our main
Theorem. Also there are results guaranteeing the existence of such trees
and linear orders, e.g. if is strong limit singular of uncountable conality,
< 2

(see [Sh 262], [Sh 355, 3.5 +5]) and more (see [Sh 430]).
So we naturally concentrate on strong limit cardinals of countable co-
nality. We do not try to save in the natural numbers like n() + 6 used
during the proof.
Theorem 2 (Main) Assume
(a)
n
for n < are regular or nite cardinals, 2
n
<
n+1
and =

n<

n
(
0
).
(b) =
n<

n
(even
n+1

n
) and
3
(
n
) <
n
, <

0
(= 2

)
and cov (,
+
n
,
+
n
,
+
n
) (see Denition below, trivial when =
0
and easy when = )
(c) Let T be the family of open subsets of a topological space ( not nec-
essarily Hausdor or even T
0
), and suppose that T has a base B of
cardinality (i.e. B is a subset of T which is closed under nite
intersections, and the sets in T are the unions of subfamilies of B).
Then
1. The cardinality of T is either at least

0
(= 2

) or at most .
2
(
4
5
4
a
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7


2. In fact, if [T[ > then for some set X
0
of points, U X
0
: U
T has cardinality 2

. Moreover, for some B

T of cardinality ,
X
0
U : U is the union of a subfamily of B

has cardinality 2

.
Denition 3 ([Sh 355, 5.1]) cov(,
+
,
+
, ) = min[P[ : P a family of
subsets of each of cardinality , such that if a , [a[ then for
some < and a
i
P (for i < ) we have a

i<
a
i

PROOF: Suppose we have a counterexample T to 2(2) (as 2(1) follows

from 2(2)) with a base B and let be the set of points of the space, so
wlog = [B[ < 2

. Our result, as explained in the abstract, for the case

=
0
was proved in [Sh 454], and see background there; the proof as written
here applies to this case too but we usually do not mention when things
trivialize for the case =
0
; wlog =

B, B and B is closed under
nite intersections and unions. So T is the set of all unions of subfamilies of
B.
We prove rst that:
Observation 4 For each n there is a family R of cardinality of partial
functions from
n
to such that: for every function f from
n
to there
is a partition r

[ <
n
) of
n
(i.e. pairwise disjoint subsets of
n
with
union
n
) for which
<n
f r

R.
PROOF: By assumption (b) and 2
n
< and is strong limit of
conality
0

n
. 2
4
Claim 5 Assume Z

is a subset of of cardinality at most and T

is a
subfamily of T satisfying
(*) (U
1
, U
2
T

)[U
1
= U
2
U
1
Z

= U
2
Z

],
[T

[ > and n < .

Then we can nd a subset Z of Z

of cardinality
n
, subsets Z

of Z and
members U

of T and subfamilies T

of T

of cardinality > for <

n
such that:
(a) the sets Z

for <
n
are pairwise distinct
(b) for <
n
and V T

we have: V T

i V Z = Z

V .
3
(
4
5
4
a
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7


PROOF: We shall use (*) freely. Dene an equivalence relation E on Z

:
xEy i [U T

: x U y , U[
(check that E is indeed an equivalence relation).
Let Z

be a set of representatives. Now for V T

we have:
() U T

: U Z

= V Z

xEz,{x,z}Z
U T

: z U x , U but U Z

= V Z

where V

= y Z

: for the x Z

such that yEx we have x V .

[Why? assume U is in the left side i.e. U T

and U Z

= V Z

; now we
shall prove that U is in the right side; if U = V

this is straight, otherwise for
some x Z

, x U x , V

; as Z

is a set of representities for E for some

z Z

, we have zEx so by the denition of V

, x V

z V . But as
U Z

= V Z

we have z V z U. Together x U z / U
and we are done.]
Now the right side of () is the union of [Z

[
2
sets, each of cardinality
(by the denition of xEz). Hence the left side in () has cardinality
[Z

[
2
. Let V
i
: i < i

be maximal such that: V

i
Z

are
pairwise distinct and V
i
T

. So clearly [T

[ = [

i<i

U T

: U Z

=
V
i
Z

[

i<i

= [i

[, but [T

[ > hence [i

[ = [U Z

: U T

[ > .
Hence (as is strong limit) necessarily [Z

[ , so we can let z

for
<
n
be distinct. For < <
n
we know that z

Ez

hence for some

truth value t
,
we have [U T

: z

U z

, U t
,
[ > . But B is
a base of T of cardinality , hence for some V
,
B the set
S
,
= U T

: z

U z

, U t
,,
and z

, z

U V
,
U
has cardinality > .
Choose U
1
,
S
,
such that < [S
1
a,
[ where
S
1
,
def
= U S
,
: U z

: <
n
= U
1
,
z

: <
n
,
note that U
1
,
exists as 2
n
< < [S
,
[.
By observation 4 we can nd a family R of cardinality , members of
R has the form u = u

: r) , where r
n
, u

B such that for every

sequence u = u

: <
n
) of members of B, there is a partition r

: <
n
)
4
(
4
5
4
a
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7


of
n
(so r

= r

[u]
n
for <
n
) such that ur

R (remember B).
Wlog if u

= u

: r

) R for = 1, 2 then u = u

: r) R where
r = r
1
r
2
and u

=
_
u
1

r
1
u
2

r
2
r
1
.
For each V T

we can nd u[V ] = u

[V ] : <
n
), such that (remem-
ber B):
u

[V ] B,
z

V z

[V ] V,
z

, V u

[V ] = .
Clearly there is U
2
,
S
1
,
such that:
() for any nite subset w
n
and < <
n
, the following family has
cardinality > :
S
2
,,w
def
= U S
1
,
: ( <
n
)(r

[u[U]] = r

[u[U
2
,
]]) and
( w)(u[U]r

= u[U
2
,
]r

).
By the Erd os Rado theorem for some set M [
n
]

+
n
:
(a) for every < from M, t
,
are the same
(b) for every < M, , M the truth values of z

V
,
, z

U
2
,
, z

[U
2
,
] and the value of Min <
n
: r

[u[U
2
,
]]
depend just on the order and equalities between , , and .
Let M = (i) : i <
+
n
where [i < j (i) < (j)], let t be 0 if
i < j t
(i),(j)
=truth and 1 if i < j t
(i),(j)
=false.
Case 1 If i < j <
+
n
and < i > j then z
()
, U
2
(i),(j)
.
So for some
1
<
n
for every i <
+
n
,
1
= min : (i + t) r

[u[U
2
(i),(i+1)
]].
We let Z = z
(i)
: i <
n
, Z
i
= z
(2i+t)
, U
i
= u
(2i+t)
[U
2
(2i),(2i+1)
].
Clearly U
i
Z U
2
(2i),(2i+1)
and U
i
Z = Z
i
, lastly let T
i
= S
2
(2i),(2i+1),{
1
}
;
now Z, Z
i
, U
i
, T
i
are as required.
5
(
4
5
4
a
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7


Case 2: If i < j <
+
n
then
< i z
()
U
2
(i),(j)
> j z
()
, U
2
(i),(j)
So for some
1
<
n
,
2
<
n
(a) for < i < j <
+
n

1
= min : () r

[u[U
2
(i),(j)
]]
(b) for i <
+
n

2
= min : (i + t) r

[u[U
2
(i),(i+1)
]]
Let Z = z
(i)
: i <
n
, Z
i
= z
()
: < 2i z
(2i+t)
, U
i
=
u
()
[U
2
(2i),(2i+1)
] : 2i + 1 and T
i
= S
2
(2i),(2i+1),{
1
,
2
}
.
Case 3: If i < j <
+
n
then
< i z
()
, U
2
(i),(j)

+
n
> > j z
()
U
2
(i),(j)
.
So for some
1
<
n
,
2
<
n
(a) for i <
+
n
,
1
= min : (i + t) r

[u[U
2
(i),(i+1)
]]
(b) for i < j < <
+
n
,
2
= min : () r

[u[U
2
(i),(j)
]]
Let Z = z
(i)
: i <
n
, Z
i
= z
()
: = 2i + t or 2i + 1 < <
n

U
i
= u
()
[U
2
(2i),(2i+1)
] : = 2i + t or 2i + 1 < <
n
and T
i
=
S
2
(2i),(2i+1),{
1
,
2
}
.
Case 4: If i < j <
+
n
then
< i z
()
U
2
(i),(j)
> j z
()
U
2
(i),(j)
So for some
1
,
2
,
3
<
n
6
(
4
5
4
a
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7


(a) for < i < j <
+
n
,
1
= min : () r

[u[U
2
(i),(j)
]]
(b) for i <
+
n
,
2
= min : (i + t) r

[u[U
2
(i),(i+1)
]]
(c) for i < j < <
+
n
,
3
= min : () r

[u[U
2
(i),(j)
]]
Let Z = z
(i)
: i <
n
. Z
i
= z
()
: <
n
and ,= 2i + 1 t, U
i
=
u
()
[U
2
(2i),(2i+1)
]: <
n
, ,= 2i + 1 t and T
i
= S
2
(2i),(2i+1),{
1
,
2
,
3
}
.
Now in all cases we have chosen Z, T

, U

, Z

( <
n
) as required thus
nishing the proof of the claim. 2
5
Claim 6 If Z

, [Z

[ , then U Z

: U T has cardinality .
PROOF: Assume not. We can nd T

T such that:
() for U
1
, U
2
T

we have U
1
= U
2
U
1
Z

= U
2
Z

.
() [T

[ > .
By induction on n we dene T

, Z
1

, Z
2

, U

<n

) such that:
(a) T

is a subset of T

of cardinality >
(b) if then T

(c) if = ) then T

= T

, Z
1

= Z
2

= , U

=
(d) Z
1

Z
2

and [Z
2

[
lg
, Z
2

disjoint to U

: < lg
(e) U

T
(f) if V T

then U

V and V Z
2

= U

Z
2

= Z
1

(g) if lg() = lg() = n + 1 and n = n then Z

2

= Z
2

but
(h) if lg() = lg() = n + 1, n = n but ,= then Z
1

,= Z
1

.
Why this is sucient? Let Z
df
=

Z
2

:

n

l<n

l
. It is a subset
of Z

of cardinality . The set B

df
= U

:

n<

l<n

l
is included
in T and has cardinality . For

n

n
we let U

=

n<
U
n
. Now
as U
n
T (by clause (e)), clearly U

T. Now suppose ,= are in

7
(
4
5
4
a
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7

n<

n
and we shall prove that U

Z ,= U

Z, as [

n
[ = 2

this
suces (giving (1) + (2) from Theorem 2). Let n be minimal such that
(n) ,= (n), so n = n. By clause (g), Z
2
(n+1)
= Z
2
(n+1)
. So (by
clause (h)) Z
1
(n+1)
, Z
1
(n+1)
are distinct subsets of Z
2
(n+1)
= Z
2
(n+1)
Z.
So it suces to show U

Z
2
(n+1)
= Z
1
(n+1)
and U

Z
2
(n+1)
= Z
1
(n+1)
and
by symmetry it suces to prove the rst. Now Z
1
(n+1)
U
(n+1)
by clause
(f), hence Z
1
(n+1)
U

so it suces to prove that U

Z
2
(n+1)
Z
1
(n+1)
;
for this it suces to prove that for <
() U

Z
2
(n+1)
Z
1
(n+1)
.
Case 1: = n + 1. This holds by clause (f).
Case 2: > n + 1. Then choose any V T

, so we know U

V (by
clause (f)) and V T
(n+1)
(by clause (b)), and V Z
2
(n+1)
= Z
1
(n+1)
(by
clause (f)), together nishing.
Case 3: n. By clause (d), Z
2
(n+1)
is disjoint from U

.
So we have nished to prove suciency, but we still have to carry the
induction. For n = 0 try to apply (c), the main point being [T

[ > which
holds by the choice of T

(which was possible by the assumption that the

claim fails). Suppose we have dened for n and let

<n

. We apply
claim 5 with T

, Z

<n
U

and n here standing for T

, Z

, n there.
We get there Z, Z

, T

, U

( <
n
) satisfying (a)+(b) there. We choose
T

to be T

, U

to be U

, Z
2

to be Z and Z
1

to be Z

. You
can check the induction hypotheses, so we have nished. 2
6
Denition 7 X is small if X U : U T has cardinality . The
family of small X will be denoted by 1 = 1
T
(or more exactly, 1
T,
)
Claim 8 The family of small sets, 1, is a
+
-complete ideal (on , including
all singletons of course).
PROOF: Clearly 1 is a family of subsets of , and it is trivial to check
that X 1 and Y X Y 1. So assume X

1 for < (), ()

and we shall prove that X =

1. Each X

has a subset Y

such that
8
(
4
5
4
a
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7


(a) [Y

[ and
(b) if V, W are elements of T with V X

,= W X

then there is some

element y Y

which is in exactly one of V, W (possible as X

1).
Now if V, W are elements of T which dier on X =

<()
X

, then they
already dier on some X

and hence they dier on some Y

hence on Y
def
=

<()
Y

. So [U X : U T[ = [U Y : U T[, so it suce to prove

that Y is small. But Y has cardinality [

[Y

[ = ; so
claim 6 implies that Y is small and hence X is small. 2
8
Conclusion 9 Wlog card() =
+
PROOF: As obviously x 1 for x , by claim 8 we know [[ > .
Let T

T be of cardinality
+
and let

be of cardinality
+
such
that: if U ,= V are from T

then U

,= V

. Let T

be U

: U T
and B

= U

: U B. Now T

, B

are also a counterexample to the

main theorem and satises the additional demand. 2
9
Claim 10 Wlog for some n(), for no Z of cardinality
n()
and U

,
T

, Z

( <
n()
) does the conclusion of claim 5 (with , T here standing
for Z

, T

there) holds.
PROOF: Repeat the proof of claim 6. I.e. we let Z

def
= , and add the
demand
(i) T

= U T : U
l
U and U Z
2
l
U
l
for l < lg .
The only change is in the end of the paragraph before the last one where we
have used claim 5, now instead we say that if we fail then for our n, replacing
T, by T

, Z

<n
U

resp. gives the desired conclusion (note T

has a
basis of cardinality :
B

def
= U
_
l<lg
U
l
: U B and U Z
2
l
U
l
for l < lg
which is included in T

). 2
10
9
(
4
5
4
a
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7


Observation 11 Suppose is strong limit of conality
0
, I is a linear
order of cardinality , <

0
, and I has > Dedekind cuts, then it
has

0
(=

0
) Dedekind cuts.
Remark: This observation does not relay on the assumptions of Theorem 2.
PROOF: We dene by induction on when does rk
I
(x, y) = for x < y
in I.
for = 0 rk
I
(x, y) = i (x, y)
I
= z I : x < z < y has cardinality
<
for > 0 rk
I
(x, y) = if: for < , [rk
I
(x, y) = ] but for any
(x
i
, y
i
) (i < ), pairwise disjoint subintervals of (x, y), there is i such that
_
<
rk
I
(x
i
, y
i
) =
()
1
Note that by thinning the family, without loss of generality, [x
i
, y
i
] are
pairwise disjoint,
[why? e.g. as for every j the set i : [x
i
, y
i
] [x
j
, y
j
] ,= has at most three
members].
()
2
for > 0 and x < y from I, rk
I
(x, y) = i for < , [rk
I
(x, y) =
] and for some

< for any (x

i
, y
i
) (i <

), pairwise disjoint
subintervals of (x, y) there are i <

and < such that rk

I
(x
i
, y
i
) =

[Why? the demand in ()

2
certainly implies the demand in the denition, for
the other direction assume that the denition holds but the demand in ()
2
fails, and we shall derive a contradiction. So for each n < there are pairwise
disjoint subintervals (x
n
i
, y
n
i
) of (x, y), for i <
n
such that [rk
I
(x
n
i
, y
n
i
) = ]
(when < and i <
n
). As we can successively replace (x
n
i
, y
n
i
) : i <
n

by any subfamily of the same cardinality (when the

n
s are nite - by a
subfamily of cardinality
n1
) wlog: for each n, all members of x
n
i
: i <
n

realize the same Dedekind cut of x

m
j
, y
m
j
: m < n, j <
m
and similarly
for all members of y
n
i
: i <
n
. So for m < n, i <
n
, the interval (x
n
i
, y
n
i
)
cannot contain a point from x
m
j
, y
m
j
: j <
m
(as then the same occurs
for all such is, for the same point contradicting the pairwise disjoint) so
either our interval (x
n
i
, y
n
i
) is disjoint to all the intervals (x
m
j
, y
m
j
) for j <
m
or it is contained in one of the intervals (x
m
j
, y
m
j
); as j does not depend on i
10
(
4
5
4
a
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7


we denote it by j(m, n); if =
0
, by the Ramsey theorem wlog for m < n
j(m, n) does not depend on n; now the family (x
m
i
, y
m
i
) : m < , i <
m
and for every n < which is > m we have i ,= j(m, n) contradicts the
denition]
If rk
I
(x, y) is not equal to any ordinal let it be . Let

= suprk
I
(x, y)+1 :
x < y in I and rk
I
(x, y) < . Clearly rk
I
(x, y)

for every x < y

in I (and in fact

<
+
). As we can add to I the rst and the last elements
it suces to prove:
(A) if rk
I
(x, y) = < then (x, y)
I
has Dedekind cuts and
(B) if rk
I
(x, y) = then it has

0
Dedekind cuts
(B) is straightforward.
Proof of (A): We prove this by induction on . If is zero this is trivial.
So assume that > 0, hence by ()
2
for some

< there are no pairwise

disjoint subintervals (x
i
, y
i
) for i <

such that < implies [rk

I
(x
i
, y
i
) =
]. Let J be the completion of I, so each member of J I realizes on I
a Dedekind cut with no last element in the lower half and no rst element
in the upper half, and [J[ > [I[. Let J
+
def
= z J : z , I and if
x I, y I and x <
J
z <
J
y and < then [rk
I
(x, y) = ]. By the
induction hypothesis, easily [J J
+
[ hence the cardinality of J
+
is > .
By Erd os-Rado theorem, (remembering is strong limit and

< ) there is
a monotonic (by <
J
) sequence z
i
: i <

) of members of J
+
; by symmetry
wlog z
i
: i <

) is <
J
-increasing. Now for each i <

as z
i
<
J
z
i+1
both
in J
+
neccessarily there is a member x
i
of I such that z
i
<
J
x
i
<
J
z
i+1
. So
x
i
<
J
z
i+1
<
J
x
i+1
and x
i
I, x
i+1
I and z
i+1
J
+
hence by the denition
of J
+
we know that for no < is rk
I
(x
i
, x
i+1
) = . So nally the family
(x
i
, x
i+1
) : i <

of subintervals of (x, y) gives the desired contradiction

to ()
2
. 2
11
Denition 12 We dene an equivalence relation E on : xEy i U T :
x U y , U has cardinality .
Conclusion 13 (0) The equivalence relation E has <
n()
< equivalence
classes (for some n() < , which wlog is as required in claim 10 too).
(1) wlog for each x one of the following sets has cardinality :
(a) U T : x U
(b) U T : x / U
11
(
4
5
4
a
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7


(2) wlog for all x we get the same case above, in fact it is case (b).
(3) wlog for any two distinct members x, y of for some U B we have
x U i y / U.
PROOF: (0) By claim 10 and the proof of claim 5 (if E has equiv-
alence classes we can repeat the proof of claim 5 and get contradiciton to
claim 10).
(1), (2), (3) Let X

: <

) list the E-equivalence classes, so

<
n()
.
As , 1, and 1 is
+
-complete (claim 8) for some , X

, 1. Let

= X

,
T

= U

: U T, B

= U

: U B; so

, B

, T

has all the

properties we attribute to , B, T and in addition now E has one equivalence
class. So we assume this.
Fix any x
0
, let B
0
= U B : x
0
, U, T
0
= U T : x
0
,
U , B
1
= U B : x
0
U, T
1
= U T : x
0
U . For some
0, 1, [T

[ > , and then , B

, T

satises the earlier requirements and

the demands in (1) and (2). For (3) dene an equivalence relation E

on :
xE

y i (U B)[x U y U], let

be a set of representatives,
B

= U

: U B and nish as before. The only thing that is left is

the second phrase in (2). But if it fails then for every U T choose a
nonempty subset V [U] from B. As the number of possible V [U] is [B[ ,
for some V B, for > members U of T, V = V [U] and hence V U.
Choose x V ; so for x clause (a) of (2) fails and hence for all y clause
(b) of (2) holds, as required. 2
13
PROOF 14 (of Theorem 2 (MAIN)):
Consider for n = n() (from claim 13(0) and as in claim 10) the following:
() there are an open set V and a subset Z of V and for each <
n
Z

Z and open subsets V

, U

of V such that:
(a) for < <
n
the sets V

Z, V

Z are distinct
(b) U

Z = Z

(c) the number of sets U T satisfying U Z = V

Z and U

U is
>
So by claim 10 we know that this fails for n.
Let be large enough and let

N = N
i
: i <
+
) be an elementary
chain of submodels of (H(), ) of cardinality (and B, , T belong to N
0
of course) increasing fast enough hence e.g.: if X N
i
is a small set, U T
12
(
4
5
4
a
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7


then there is U

N
i
T with U X = U

X (you can avoid the name

elementary submodel if you agree to list the closure properties actually
used; as done in [Sh 454]). For x let i(x) be the unique i such that x
belongs to N
i+1
N
i
or i = 1 if x N
0
(remember [[ =
+
).
Denition 15 We dene : x is N-pertinent if it belongs to some small
subset of which belongs to N
i(x)
(and i(x) 0) and N-impertinent other-
wise.
Observation 16
ip
= x : x is N-impertinent is not small (see
Denition 7).
PROOF: As N
0
is small by claim 8, for some U

, T

def
= U T :
U N
0
= U

N
0
has cardinality > . So it suces to prove:
() U
1
,= U
2
T

U
1

ip
,= U
2

ip
.
Choose x (U
1
U
2
) (U
2
U
1
) with i(x) minimal. As U
1
, U
2
T

,
i(x) = 1 ( i.e. x N
0
) is impossible, so x (N
i+1
N
i
) for i = i(x).
If x
ip
we succeed so assume not i.e. x is N-pertinent, so for some small
X N
i
x X. Hence by the choice of

N: for some U

1
, U

2
N
i
T we have:
U

1
X = U
1
X, U

2
X = U
2
X so U

1
X, U

2
X N
i
are distinct
(as x witness) so there is x

N
i
X, x

1
x

, U

2
; but this implies
x

U
1
x

, U
2
, contradicting i(x)s minimality. 2
16
We dene a binary relation _ on
ip
by:
x _ y for all U B, if y U then x U.
Claim 17 The relation _ is clearly reexive and transitive. It is antisymet-
ric [why antisymetric? by claim 13(3)].
Observation 18 If J
ip
is linearly ordered by _ then J is small.
PROOF: For each U
1
, U
2
B such that U
1
J , U
2
J choose y
U
1
,U
2

J(U
1
U
2
). Let I = y
U
1
,U
2
: U
1
, U
2
B & U
1
J , U
2
J. Clearly [I[ .
We claim that I is dense in J (with respect to _, i.e. I has a member in every
non empty interval of J). Suppose that x, y, z J, x y z. By 13(3)
we nd U
1
, U
2
B such that x U
1
, y / U
1
, and y U
2
, z / U
2
. Consider
y
U
2
,U
1
I. Easily x y
U
2
,U
1
z. Thus if (x, z) ,= then (x, z) I ,= .
13
(
4
5
4
a
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7


Now note that each Dedekind cut of I is an restriction of at most 3
Dedekind cuts of J (and the restriction of a Dedekind cut of J to I is a
Dedekind cut of I). For this suppose that Y
1
, Y
2
, Y
3
, Y
4
are lower parts of
distinct Dedekind cuts of J with the same restriction to I, wlog Y
1
Y
2

Y
3
Y
4
. For i = 2, 3, 4 choose y
i
Y
i
such that Y
1
y
2
, Y
2
y
3
and Y
3
y
4
.
As (y
2
, y
4
) ,= we nd x (y
2
, y
4
) I. Since y
2
x we get x / Y
1
and since
x y
4
we obtain x Y
4
. Consequently x distinguishes the restrictions of
cuts determined by Y
1
and Y
4
to I.
To nish the proof of the observation apply observation 11 to I (which
has essentially the same number of Dedekind cuts as J). 2
18
Continuation 19 (of the proof of theorem 2)
Now it suces to prove that for each x
ip
, i = i(x) > 0 there is no member
y of
ip
N
i
such that x, y are _-incomparable.
[Why? then we can divide
ip
to sets such that any two in the same part
are _-comparable contradicting 16+18 and 8; How? By dening a function
h :
ip
such that h(x) = h(y) x _ y y _ x. We dene h(
ip
N
i
)
by induction on i, in the induction step let N
i+1
N
i
= x
i,
: < . Choose
h(x
i,
) by induction on : for each there are [[ < forbidden values so
we can carry the denition.]
So assume this fails, so we have: for some x
ip
, i = i(x) > 0 there is
y
0
N
i

ip
which is _-incomparable with x; so there are U
0
, V
0
B such
that x V
0
, x / U
0
, y
0
U
0
, y
0
/ V
0
. Now U

=

U T : y
0
/ U is
in T N
i
and x U

(as V
0
witnesses it) but by 13(2) we know that U

is
small, so it contradicts x
ip
. This nishes the proof of theorem 2. 2
2
Concluding Remarks 20 Condition (b) of Theorem 2 holds easily for =
. Still it may look restrictive, and the author was tempted to try to eliminate
it (on such set theoretic conditions see [Sh 420,6]). But instead of working
honestly on this the author for this purpose proved (see [Sh 460]) that it
follows from ZFC, and therefore can be omitted, hence
Conclusion 21 (Main) If is strong limit, cf =
0
, and T a topology
with base B, [T[ > [B[ then [T[ 2

and thew conclusion of 2(2) holds.

Theorem 22 1. Under the assumptions of Theorem 2, if the topology T
is of the size 2

then there are distinct x

for

n<

l<n

l
14
(
4
5
4
a
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7


such that letting Z = x

:

n<

l<n

l
one of the following
occurs:
(a) there are U

T (i.e. open) for

l<

l
such that:
U

Z = x

Z : (n < lg())(n = n & (n) < (n))

(b) there are U

T for

l<

l
such that:
U

Z = x

Z : (n < lg())(n = n & (n) > (n))

(c) there are U

T for

l<

l
such that:
U

Z = x

Z :
2. If in addition =
0
then we get
there are distinct x
q
for q Q (the rationals) such that for
every real r, for some (open) set U T
U x
q
: q Q = x
q
: q Q, q < r.
Observation 23 Suppose that there are distinct x

(for

l<n

l
)
such that one of the following occurs:
(d) there are U

T for

l<

l
such that:
U

Z = x

Z : = ) & [ or & (lg()) = ]

(e) there are U

T for

l<

l
such that:
U

Z = x

Z : = ) & [ or & (lg()) < ]

(f) there are U

T for

l<

l
such that:
U

Z = x

Z : = ) & [ or & (lg()) > ].

Then for some distinct x

n
) the clause (c) of theorem 22 holds.
15
(
4
5
4
a
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7


PROOF Let U

(for

l

l
) be given by one of the clauses. For


l<n

l
, n let g()

l<2n

l
be such that g()(2l) = 0, g()(2l +
1) = (l) and for

l

l
let g() =

l<
g( l) (we assume that

l
<
l+1
). Next dene points x

and open sets U

as
U

= U
g()
, x

=
_
x
g()1
if we are in clause (d)
x
g()0
if we are in clauses (e), (f)
Then x

, U

examplify clause (c) of theorem 22 2

23
PROOF 24 of 22 for the case =
0
It suces to prove 22(2), as implies (a). Let =
+
. By Theorem 2(2)
and 21 wlog [[ = , [B[ . Let 1 = Z : [U Z : U T[ < ,
again it is a proper ideal on (but not necessarily even
1
-complete). Let
P = (U, V ) : U V are from T, V U / 1. Clearly P ,= (as (, ) P),
if for every (U
0
, U
1
) P there is U such that (U
0
, U), (U, U
1
) are in P then
we can easily get clause . So by renaming wlog
()
1
(V T)(V 1 or V 1).
We try to choose by the induction on n < , (x
n
, U
n
) such that
(a) x
n
U
n
T
(b) x
n
/

l<n
U
l
(c) U
n
1 and x
l
/ U
n
for l < n
(d) [V T : (l n)(x
l
/ V )[ .
If we succeed, U x
n
: n < : U T includes all subsets of the innite
set x
n
: n < , which is much more than required (in particular holds).
Suppose we have dened (x
n
, U
n
) for n < m and that there is no (x
m
, U
m
)
satisfying (a)(d). This means that if x U T 1, (n < m)(x
n
/ U) and
x /

n<m
U
n
then
()
2
[V T : (n < m)(x
n
/ V ) and x / V [ < .
16
(
4
5
4
a
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7


Let U

U T 1 : (n < m)(x
n
/ U). As [[ < = cf we get
()
3
[V T : (n < m)(x
n
/ V ) & U

(V
_
n<m
U
n
) ,= [ < .
Suppose that U

/ 1. Then, by ()
1
, U

1 (as U

is open). Since (by

clause (c))

n<m
U
n
1 we nd an open set U such that (n < m)(x
n
/ U)
and
[V T : V (
_
n<m
U
n
( U

)) = U (
_
n<m
U
n
( U

))[
(this is possible by (d)). But if V (

n<m
U
n
( U

)) = U (

n<m
U
n

( U

)), V ,= U U

then U

(V

n<m
U
n
) ,= , (n < m)(x
n
/ V ).
This contradicts to ()
3
. Thus U

1. Hence (by (d)) we have

()
4
[V T : V U

,= & (n < m)(x

n
/ V )[.
Since [B[ < we nd V
0
B such that V
0
U

,= , (n < m)(x
n
/ V
0
)
and [V T : V
0
V [. The last condition implies that V
0
/ 1
and hence V
0
1 (by ()
1
). By the denition of U

we conclude V
0
U

-
a contradiction, thus proving 22 (when =
0
). 2
24
PROOF 25 of 22 when >
0
.
By Theorem 2 wlog [[ = [B[ = . Let 1 = A : [UA : U T[ ,
it is an ideal. Let 1
+
= T() 1.
Observation 26 It is enough to prove

1
for every Y 1
+
and n we can nd a sequence

U = U

: <
n
) of
open subsets of such that one of the following occurs:
(a)

U increasing, Y U
+1
U

1
+
(b)

U decreasing, Y U

U
+1
1
+
(c) Y U

=
U

1
+
(d) for some V

, y

: <
n
) we have Y (

<n
U

<n
V

) 1
+
, V

s
and U

s are open, V

, y

Y are pairwise distinct and

() U

: <
n
= V

: <
n
= y

:
17
(
4
5
4
a
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7


(e) like (d) but
()

: <
n
= V

: <
n
= y

: <
n

(f) like (d) but

()

: <
n
= V

: <
n
= y

(g) like (d) but

()

: <
n
= V

: <
n
= y

: <
n
, ,=
(h) there are V

, y

for <
n
such that V

are open, y

Y are
pairwise distinct, (U

=
V

1
+
and
() U

: <
n
= V

: <
n
= y

: <
(i) like (h) but
()

: <
n
= V

: <
n
= y

: <
n

(j) like (h) but

()

: <
n
= V

: <
n
= y

(k) like (h) but

()

: <
n
= V

: <
n
= y

: ,= , <
n

PROOF: First note that if n < m < , Y

1
Y
0
, Y
1
, Y
0
1
+
and one of
the cases (a)(k) of
1
occurs for Y
1
, m then the same case holds for Y
0
, n.
Consequently,
1
implies that for each Y 1
+
one of (a)(k) occurs for Y, n
for every n . Moreover, if
1
then for some x a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k
and Y
0
1
+
we have
() for every Y
1
Y
0
from 1
+
and n case (x) holds.
If x = a, clause (a) of 22(1) holds. For this we inductively dene open
sets V

, V

for

l<n

l
such that for

l<n
, <
n
:
18
(
4
5
4
a
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7


1. V

, (V

) Y
0
1
+
, (V
+1
V

) Y
0
1
+
2. if <
n+1
then V

V
,
V

+1
.
Let U

: <
0
) be the increasing sequence of open sets given by (a) for
Y
0
, n = 0. Put V

= U
2+1
, V

= U
2
for <
0
. Suppose we have
dened V

, V

for lg() m. Given

l<m1

l
, <
m1
. Apply (a) for
(V

+1
V

) Y
0
and n = m to get a sequence U

: <
m
). Put
V
,
= (U
2+1
V

+1
) V

,
V

,
= (U
2
V

+1
) V

.
Next for each )

n

l<n

l
choose x

(V
+1
V

+1
) Y
0
.
As the last sets are pairwise disjoint we get that x

s are pairwise distinct.

Moreover, if we put U

n
V
n
(for

n

l
) then we have
U

:
_
n

l<n

l
= x

: (n < lg())(n = n & (n) < (n)).

Similarly one can show that if x = b, clause (b) of 22(1) holds and if x = c
then we can get a discrete set of cardinality hence all clauses 22(1) hold.
Suppose now that x = d. By the induction on n we choose Y
n
, U
n,
, V
n,
, y
n,
:
<
n
):
Y
0
= Y ( 1
+
)
U
n,
, V
n,
, y
n,
(for <
n
) are given by (d) for Y
n
,
Y
n+1
= Y
n

<n
U
n,

<n
V
n,
1
+
.
For

ln

l
(n ) we let
W

= V
n,(n)

m<n
U
m,(m)
.
As V
n,(n)
y
n,
: <
n
= y
n,
: (n) and y
n,
: <
n
Y
n

Y
m+1
U
m,(m)
(for m < n) we get
W

y
n,
: <
n
= y
n,
: (n),
W

y
m,
: <
m
U
m,(m)
y
m,
: <
m
y
m,
: (m) (for m < n).
19
(
4
5
4
a
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7


Now for

n<

n
we dene W

l<
W

l
. Then for each n, W

y
n,
:
<
n
= y
n,
: (n). By renaming this implies clause (a) of 22(1).
[For

ln

l
let x

= y
n+1,()+1
, where () =
n
n
(0) +
n1
n
(1) +

n2
n
(2) +. . . +
1
n
(n 1) +(n). Note:
l
n
is the l-th ordinal power
of
n
. For

l<

l
let () = 0(1)(2). . . and let U

= W
()
.]
For x = e we similarly get clause (b) of 22(1). For x = f we similarly get
a discrete set of cardinality so all clauses of 22(1) hold. The case x = g
corresponds to the clause (c) of 22(1).
Suppose now that x = h. By induction on n we dene Y

, U

, V

and x

for

ln

l
:
Y

= Y ,
U

, V

, x

are U

, V

, y

given by the clause (h) for Y

,
n+1
,
Y

= (U

=
V

.
For

n<

l
put U

l<
V
l
. Then
U

:
_
n<

l<n

l
= x

: = ) & [ or & (lg()) < ]

witnessing case (e) of 22(1).
If x = i then we similarly get case (f) and if x = j we get (d). Lastly
x = k implies the case (c) of 22(1). 2
26
Claim 27 If < , Z

: < ) is a partition of , then for some countable

w

, for every innite w w

,

w
Z

/ 1.
PROOF: Otherwise there are T []

0
and T
w
: w T), T
w
T,
[T
w
[ such that for every w

[]

0
and U T, for some w w

, w T
and V T
w
we have U (

w
Z

) = V (

w
Z

). Let U

: < list

T
w
: w T (note that since < also [[]

0
[ =

0
< ). We claim
that there is U T such that for every < there are , for which:
(a) U / U
(b) ( < )( U

)
(c) ( < )( Z

)
Indeed, to nd such U consider equivalence relations E

(for < ) deter-

mined by (b) and (c), i.e. for , :
20
(
4
5
4
a
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7


E

if and only if
( < )( U

) and
( < )( Z

).
The relation E

has 2
||+
< equivalence classes. Consequently for each
<
[V T : V is a union of E

-equivalence classes[ < .

As [T[ > we nd a nonempty open set U which for no < is a union of
E

-equivalence classes. This U is as needed.

Now let (
n
,
n
) be a pair (, ) satisfying (a)(c) for =
n
and let

n
,
n
Z
n
. Then w

=
n
: n < , U contradict the choice of T and
T
w
: w T). 2
27
PROOF 28 of
1
:
For the notational simplicity we assume that Y = . Let B =

n<
B
n
,
[B
n
[ < , B
0
.
As in the proof of claim 5 wlog for every x ,= y from we have
[U T : x U y / U[ > .
Let y

for <
n+6
be pairwise distinct. For each < <
n+6
there
is = (, ) , such that T
0
,
def
= U T : y

, y

U = y

has
cardinality > . For each U T
0
,
there is V [U] B, y

V [U] U. As
[B[ for some V

,
B we have that the set
T
1
,
= U T : y

, y

U = y

and y

,
U
has cardinality > . For U T let f
U
, g
U
be functions such that:
1. f
U
:
n+6
, g
U
:
n+6
B,
2. g
U
() = 0 i y

/ U,
3. if y

U then y

g
U
() U,
4. f
U
() = minn : g
U
() B
n
.
21
(
4
5
4
a
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7


For each < <
n+6
we nd f
,
:
n+6
such that the set
T
2
,
= U T
1
,
: f
U
= f
,

has the cardinality > . By Erd os-Rado theorem we may assume that for
each < <
n+5
, <
n+5
the value of f
,
() depends on relations
between , and only. Consequently for some n

< , if <
n+5
, U T
2
,
,
< <
n+5
then g
U
() B
n
. As [B
n
[ < we nd (for each < <
n+5
)
a function g
,
:
n+6
B
n
such that the set
T
3
,
= U T
2
,
: g
U
= g
,

is of the size > . Let

U
,
=
_
T
3
,
, V
,
=
_
<
n+5
g
,
().
Clearly
() V
,
U
,
, U
,
V
,
/ 1, U
,
y

, y

= V
,
y

, y

= y

(, ) and
() U
,
y

: <
n+5
= V
,
y

: <
n+5
.
Let T
1
= V
,
, U
,
: < <
n+5
, so [T
1
[ < . Dene a two place relation
E
T
1
on :
xE
T
1
y i (U T
1
)(x U y U).
Clearly E
T
1
is an equivalence relation with 2
|T
1
|
< equivalence classes.
Hence by claim 27 for each < <
n+5
, for some -sequence of E
T
1
-
equivalence classes A
,,n
: n < ) we have:
A
,,n
U
,
V
,
and for each innite w ,
_
nw
A
,,n
/ 1.
By Erd os-Rado theorem, wlog for
1
<
2
<
n+4
,
1
,
2
<
n+4
the truth
values of (
1
,
2
) =
1
, y

1
V

1
,
2
, y

1
U

1
,
2
, A

1
,
2
,n
U

1
,
2
,
A

1
,
2
,n
V

1
,
2
, A

1
,
2
,n
= A

1
,
2
,m
, A

1
,
2
,n
= A

1
,
2
,m
depend just on
the order and equalities among
1
,
2
,
1
,
2
(and of course n, m).
As each innite union

n
A
,,n
is large, wlog those truth values also
does not depend on n (for the last one we mean A

1
,
2
,n
= A

1
,
2
,n
). Note:
if A
1,2,n
= A
3,4,m
then A
1,2,n
= A
3,4,n
= A
1,2,m
.
22
(
4
5
4
a
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7


Now, A
,,n
is either included in U

1
,
2
or is disjoint from it (uniformly for
n); similarly for V

1
,
2
.
Case A: A
3,4,n
U
1,2
=
Let U

U
2,2+1
. Then U

: <
n
) is an increasing sequence of open
sets and

n
A
2+2,2+3,n
U

+1
U

, which witnesses that the last set is in

1
+
. Thus we get clause (a).
Case B: A
1,2,n
U
3,4
=
Let U

=

<n
U
2,2+1
. Then U

: <
n
) is a decreasing sequence of
open sets and

n
A
2,2+1,n
U

+1
. Consequently we get clause (b).
Thus we have to consider the case
A
1,2,n
U
3,4
and A
3,4,n
U
1,2
only. So we assume this.
Case C: A
1,2,n
V
3,4
= , A
3,4,n
V
1,2
=
Let U

= U
2,2+1
, V

= V
2,2+1
.
subcase C1: y
1
U
3,4
, y
5
U
3,4
Then let y

is the unique member of y

2
, y
2+1
y
(2,2+1)
.
By () we easily get that U

, V

, y

: <
n
) witnesses the clause (g).
subcase C2: either y
1
/ U
3,4
or y
5
/ U
3,4
Then we put y

= y
(2,2+1)
and we get one of the cases (d), (e) or (f).
Case D: A
1,2,n
V
3,4
, A
3,4,n
V
1,2
=
We let U

=

V
2,2+1
: . Thus U

increases with and U

+1
U

includes

n
A
2,2+1,n
. Thus clause (a) holds.
Case E: A
1,2,n
V
3,4
= , A
3,4,n
V
1,2
Let U

=

V
2,2+1
: . Then U

decrease with and the clause (b)

holds.
Case F: A
1,2,n
V
3,4
, A
3,4,n
V
1,2
Let U

= U
2,2+1
, V

= V
2,2+1
. If y
1
, y
5
U
3,4
then we put y

y
2
, y
2+1

y
(2,2+1)
and we get case (k). Otherwise we put y

= y
(2,2+1)
and we
obtain one of the cases (h), (i) or (j). 2
22
Concluding Remarks 29 1. Assume that a topology T on with a base
B and ,
n
: n ) are as before (
n
regular for simplicity). If
(*) x

for

l<n

l
and U

T for

n

n
and
23
(
4
5
4
a
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7


(**) if n < ,

l<n

l
and

l<

l
then for some k,
(

)(

l<

l
&

k = k U

= U

).
Then we can nd S

n<

l<n

l
and U
,
: ,

l<n

l

S for some n) and U

: limS) (where limS =

l<

l
:
(l < )( l S)) such that
(a) ) S, S is closed under initial segments and
S & n = lg ()() S)
and for some innite w , for every n < and limS we
have:
n w (
2
<
n
)() S) (
n
<
n
)() S).
(b) if ,

l<n

l
S and S

l<

l
then U

=
U

,
x

,
(c) for limS, U

: S = U

: S.
2. So in Theorem 22, the case (c) can be further described.
3. We can consider basic forms for any analytic families of subsets of
(then we have more cases; as in 23 and
1
of 26).
References
[HJ1] A.Hajnal and I.Juhasz. Some remarks on a property of topological
cardinal functions. Acta Math. Acad. Sci. Hungar, 20 (1969), 25
37.
[HJ2] A. Hajnal and I. Juhasz. On the number of open sets. Ann. univ.
Sci. Budapest. 16 (1973). 99102.
[J1] I. Juhasz. Cardinal functions in topology, Math. Center Tracts.
Amsterdam,1971.
24
(
4
5
4
a
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7


[J2] I. Juhasz. Cardinal functions in topology ten years later. Math.
Center. Tracts. Amsterdam, 1980
[JuSh 231] I. Juhasz and S. Shelah, How large can a hereditary separable or
hereditary Lindelof space be. Israel J. of Math., 53 (1986) 355364.
[KR] K. Kunen and J. Roitman. Attaining the spread of cardinals of
conality , Pacic J. Math. 70 (1977). 199205
[Ku] Casimir Kuratowski, Topologie I, Pa nstwowe Wydawnictwo
Naukowe, Warszawa 1958.
[R] J. Roitman. Attaining the spread at cardinals which are not strong
limit. Pacic J. Math. 57 (1975). 545551.
[RuSh 117] M. Rubin and S. Shelah, Combinatorial problems on Trees: Par-
titions, -systems and large free subsets, Annals of Pure and Ap-
plied Logic, 33 (1987) 43-82.
[Sh 36] S. Shelah. On cardinal invariants in topology, General topology and
its applications, 7 (1977) 251 259.
[Sh 92] S. Shelah. Remarks on Boolean algebras, Algebra Universalis, 11
(1980) 7789.
[Sh 95] S. Shelah. Canonization theorems and applications, J. of Symb.
Logic, 46 (1981) 345353.
[Sh 233] S. Shelah. Remarks on the number of ideals of Boolean algebras
and open sets of a topology, Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes Vol-
ume, , vol 1182 (1982) 151187.
[Sh 262] S.Shelah. Number of pairwise non-elementarily embeddable mod-
els, Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 54 (1989) 1431-1455.
[Sh 355] S. Shelah.
+1
Has a Jonsson Algebra, Cardinal Arithmetic,
OUP.
[Sh 420] S. Shelah. Advances in Cardinal Arithmetic, Proceedings of the
Conference in Ban, Alberta, April 1991.
25
(
4
5
4
a
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
0
8
-
0
7


[Sh 430] S.Shelah. Further cardinal Arithmetic, Israel Journal of Mathe-
matics, accepted.
[Sh 454] S. Shelah. Cardinalities of countably based topologies, Israel Jour-
nal of Mathematics, in press.
[Sh 460] S. Shelah. The generalized continuum hypothesis revisited,
preprint.
[Sh C1] S.Shelah Remarks on General topology (1/78), preprint.
[Sh E6] S.Shelah. If

1
+ there is an
1
-Kurepa tree with branches
then some B.A. of power
1
has lters and

0
-ultralters.
Mimeographed notes from Madison, Fall 77.
[Sh G.1] S.Shelah. P-points, () and other results in general topology,
Notices of the AMS 25 (1978) A-365.
26