7

6
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
7
-
1
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
7
-
1
5


CARDINAL SEQUENCES AND COHEN REAL
EXTENSIONS
ISTV

AN JUH

ASZ, SAHARON SHELAH, LAJOS SOUKUP, AND ZOLT

AN
SZENTMIKL

OSSY
Abstract. We show that if we add any number of Cohen reals to
the ground model then, in the generic extension, a locally compact
scattered space has at most (2
0
)
V
many levels of size .
We also give a complete ZFC characterization of the cardinal
sequences of regular scattered spaces. Although the classes of the
regular and of the 0-dimensional scattered spaces are dierent, we
prove that they have the same cardinal sequences.
1. Introduction
Let us start by recalling that a topological space X is called scattered
if every non-empty subspace of X has an isolated point. Via the well-
known Cantor-Bendixson analysis then X decomposes into levels, the

th
Cantor-Bendixson level of X will be denoted by I

(X). The height

of X, ht(X), is the least ordinal with I

(X) = . The width of X,

wd(X), is dened by wd(X) = sup [ I

(X)[ : < ht(X). Our main

object of study is the cardinal sequence of X, denoted by CS(X), that
is the sequence of cardinalities of the non-empty Candor-Bendixson
levels of X, i.e.
CS(X) =

[I

(X)[ : < ht(X)

_
.
The cardinality of a T
3
, in particular of a locally compact, scat-
tered T
2
(in short: LCS) space X is at most 2
| I
0
(X)|
, hence clearly
1991 Mathematics Subject Classication. 54A25, 06E05, 54G12, 03E35.
Key words and phrases. locally compact scattered space, superatomic Boolean
algebra, Cohen reals, cardinal sequence, regular space, 0-dimensional.
The rst, third and fourth authors were supported by the Hungarian National
Foundation for Scientic Research grant no. 37758 .
The second author was supported by The Israel Science Foundation founded by
the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Publication 765.
The third author was partially supported by Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Fellows No.
98259 of the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture, Japan.
1
7
6
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
7
-
1
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
7
-
1
5


2 I. JUH

ASZ, S. SHELAH, L. SOUKUP, AND Z. SZENTMIKL

OSSY
ht(X) < (2
| I
0
(X)|
)
+
and [I

(X)[ 2
| I
0
(X)|
for each . (Locally com-
pact scattered spaces are closely related to superatomic boolean alge-
bras via Stone duality and the study of their cardinal sequences was
actually originated in that subject.) Thus, in particular, under CH
there is no scattered T
3
space of height
2
and having only countably
many isolated points. After I. Juh asz and W. Weiss, [5, theorem 4],
had proved in ZFC that for every <
2
there is an LCS space X
with ht(X) = and wd(X) = , it was a natural question if the ex-
istence of an LCS space of height
2
and width follows from CH.
This question was answered in the negative by W. Just who proved,
[6, theorem 2.13], that if one blows up the continuum by adding Cohen
reals to a model of CH then in the resulting generic extension there is
no LCS space of height
2
and width . On the other hand, in their
ground breaking work [1], J. Baumgartner and S. Shelah produced a
model in which there is a LCS space of height
2
and width , more-
over they proved in ZFC that for each < (2

)
+
there is a scattered
0-dimensional T
2
space X with ht(X) = and wd(X) = . Building
on the idea of the proof of this latter result, in section 3 we succeeded
in giving a complete characterization of the cardinal sequences of both
T
3
and zero-dimensional T
2
scattered spaces. Although the classes of
the regular and of the zero-dimensional scattered spaces are dierent,
it will turn out that they yield the same class of cardinal sequences. We
should add that, with quite a bit of extra eort, in [8], J.-C. Martinez
extended the former result of Baumgartner and Shelah by producing a
model in which for every ordinal <
3
there is a LCS space of height
and width . The question if it is consistent to have a LCS space of
height
3
and width remains a big mystery.
In section 2 we strengthened the result of Just by proving, in partic-
ular, that in the same Cohen real extension no LCS space may have
2
many countable (non-empty) levels. It seems to be an intriguing (and
natural) problem if the non-existence of an LCS space of width and
height
2
implies in ZFC the above conclusion, or more generally: is
any subsequence of the cardinal sequence of an LCS space again such
a cardinal sequence? In connection with this problem let us remark
that, (as is shown in [2] or [3]), in the side-by-side random real exten-
sion of a model of CH the combinatorial principle (
s
(
2
) introduced
in [4, denition 2.3] holds, consequently in such an extension there is
no LCS space X of height
2
and width . In fact, by [4, theorem
4.12], (
s
(
2
) implies that
2
: [I

(X)[ = is non-stationary in

2
. However, we do not know if our above mentioned result, namely
theorem 2.1, holds there.
7
6
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
7
-
1
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
7
-
1
5


CARDINAL SEQUENCES AND COHEN REAL EXTENSIONS 3
The morale of our above discussion may be concisely formulated as
follows: The cardinal sequences of regular or zero-dimensional scattered
spaces are only subject to the trivial inequality [X[ 2
|I
0
(X)|
, however
those of the LCS spaces are much harder to determine, in particular,
they are sensitive to the model of set theory in which we look at them.
2. Countable levels in Cohen real extensions
Let us formulate then the promised strengthening of Justs result.
We note that no assumption (like CH) is made on our ground model.
Theorem 2.1. Let us set = (2

)
+
and add any number of Cohen
reals to our ground model. Then in the resulting extension no LCS
space contains a -sequence E

: < of pairwise disjoint countable

subspaces such that E

holds for all < < . In particular,

for any LCS space X we have

: [ I

(X)[ =

< .
In fact, we shall prove a more general statement, but to formulate
that we need a denition. A family of pairs (of sets) T =
_
D

0
, D

1
) :
I
_
is said to be dyadic over a set T i D

0
D

1
= for each I
and
T[] =

()
: dom
intersects T for each Fn(I, 2). We simply say that T is dyadic i
it is dyadic for some T, i.e. T[] ,= for each Fn(I, 2).
Now, it is obvious that in a LCS space
the compact open sets form a base that is closed under nite
unions,
there is no innite dyadic system of pairs of compact sets.
Consequently, theorem 2.2 below immediately yields theorem 2.1 above.
Theorem 2.2. Set = (2

)
+
and add any number of Cohen reals to
the ground model. Then in the resulting generic extension the follow-
ing statement holds: If X is any T
2
space containing pairwise disjoint
countable subspaces E

: < such that E

for < <

and X = E
0
(i. e. E
0
is dense in X) , moreover, for each x X,
we have xed a neighbourhood base B(x) of x in X that is closed under
nite unions then there is an innite set a
_

, for each a there

are disjoint nite subsets L
0

and L
1

of E

, and for each x L

0

L
1

there is a basic neighbourhood V (x) B(x) such that the innite family
of pairs
_

_
xL
0

V (x),
_
xL
1

V (x)
_
: a
_
is dyadic.
7
6
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
7
-
1
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
7
-
1
5


4 I. JUH

ASZ, S. SHELAH, L. SOUKUP, AND Z. SZENTMIKL

OSSY
This topological statement in the Cohen extension in turn will follow
from a purely combinatorial one concerning certain matrices, namely
theorem 2.7.
To formulate this theorem we again need some notation and deni-
tions.
For an ordinal the interval [, + ) will be denoted by I

.
Given two sets A and B we write f : A
p
B to denote that f is a
partial function from A to B, i. e. a function from a subset of A into
B. As usual, we let
Fn(A, B) = f : [f[ < and f : A
p
B.
If A On then for any partial function f : A
p
B we set
(f) =
_
min domf if domf ,= ,
sup A if domf = .
We let
=
_
A, B)
_

<

<
: A B =
_
,
and for = A, B) we set
0
() = A and
1
() = B.
If S and T are sets of ordinals, we denote by /(S, T) the family
of all S -matrices consisting of subsets of T, i. e. / /(S, T)
means that / = A
,i
: S, i ), where A
,i
T for each S
and i < .
For / /(S, T), f : S
p
S, and s : S
p
the pair (f, s) is
said to be /-dyadic (over U) i the family of pairs
__

_
A
f(),n
: n
0
(s())
_
,
_
A
f(),n
: n
1
(s())
_
_
:
domf doms
_
.
is dyadic (over U). If the pair id
S
, s) is /-dyadic (over U) then s is
simply called /-dyadic (over U). It is this latter notion of /-dyadicity
of a single partial function that is really important (that for pairs is
only of technical signicance). Hence we state below an alternative
characterisation of it.
For / /(S, T), s : S
p
, and Fn(doms, 2) we write
/[s, ] =

dom
_
A
,n
: n
()
(s()).
Observation 2.3. If / /(S, T) then s : S
p
is /-dyadic over
U i /[s, ] U ,= for each Fn(doms, 2) and
_
A
,n
: n
0
(s())
_
A
,n
: n
1
(s()) =
7
6
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
7
-
1
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
7
-
1
5


CARDINAL SEQUENCES AND COHEN REAL EXTENSIONS 5
for each doms.
The following easy observation will be applied later, in the proof of
lemma 2.9:
Observation 2.4. If g : S
p
S and s : S
p
satisfy doms
rang, and the pair (g, sg) is /-dyadic over U then s is /-dyadic over
U, as well.
Denition 2.5. Fix a cardinal and let T /(, ). For s :
p

we say that s is T-min-dyadic (m.d.) i s is T-dyadic over I
(s)
.
Moreover, we say that the matrix T is m.d.-extendible i for each
nite T-min-dyadic partial function s :
p
and for each < (s)
there is an such that s , ) is also T-min-dyadic, i. e.
T-dyadic over I

.
Since I
0
= , we clearly have the following.
Observation 2.6. If T /(, ) is m.d-extendible and s :
p

is a nite T-min-dyadic partial function then s is T-dyadic over .
Finally, a matrix T /(, ) will be called -determined i D
,n

D
,m
= implies D
,n
D
,m
= whenever < and n < m < .
With this we now have all the necessary ingredients to formulate and
prove the promised combinatorial statement that will be valid in any
Cohen real extension.
Theorem 2.7. Set = (2

)
+
and add any number of Cohen reals to
the ground model. Then in the resulting generic extension for every -
determined and m.d.-extendible matrix T /(, ) there is an innite
T-dyadic partial function h :
p
.
Before proving theorem 2.7, however, we show how theorem 2.2 can
be deduced from it.
Proof of theorem 2.2 using theorem 2.7. We can assume without any
loss of generality that E

= I

for each < and then will dene an

appropriate matrix T /(, ).
To this end, for coding purposes, we rst x a bijection :
_

2

and let : and : be the co-ordinate functions of
its inverse, i. e. k = ((k), (k)) and (k) < (k) for each k < .
Since X is T
2
, for each n < we can simultaneously pick basic
neighbourhoods B

n
(m) B(+m) of the points +m E

= I

for all m < n such that the sets B

n
(m): m < n are pairwise disjoint.
Now we dene T = D
,k
: , k) ) /(, ) as follows:
D
,k
= B

(k)
((k)) .
7
6
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
7
-
1
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
7
-
1
5


6 I. JUH

ASZ, S. SHELAH, L. SOUKUP, AND Z. SZENTMIKL

OSSY
This matrix T is clearly -determined because E
0
= I
0
= is dense
in X. It is a bit less easy to establish the following
Claim . T is also m.d.-extendible.
Proof of the claim. Let s :
p
be a nite T-min-dyadic partial
function and let < (s).
Since the sets T[s, ] :
doms
2 are all open in the subspace
and they all intersect I
(s)
, moreover every element of I
(s)
is an
accumulation point of I

, it follows that T[s, ] I

must be innite
for each
doms
2. Thus we can easily pick two disjoint nite subsets
A
0
and A
1
of I

such that every T[s, ] intersects both A

0
and A
1
. Let
n < be chosen in such a way that A
0
A
1
+ m : m < n,
and set K
i
= m, n : m < n + m A
i
for i < 2. Since is
one-to-one we have K
0
K
1
= , hence = K
0
, K
1
) , moreover
()
_
_
mK
0
D
,m
_

_
_
mK
1
D
,m
_
=
because the elements of the family B

n
(m) : m < n are pairwise
disjoint.
Now put t = s , ). Then for each
domt
2 we clearly have
() A
()
T[t, ] ,= ,
hence () and () together yield that the extension t of s is T-dyadic
over I

= I
(t)
.
Thus we may apply theorem 2.7 to the matrix T to obtain an innite
T-dyadic partial function h :
p
. Set a = domh and for each
a and i < 2 put L
i

= + (k) : k
i
(h()). For x L
i

put
V (x) = B

(k)
((k)) : x = + (k) and k
i
(h()).
Then V (x) B(x) because B(x) is closed under nite unions. Since
for i < 2
_
V (x) : x L
i

_
= D
,k
: k
i
(h())
and
D
,k
: k
0
(h()) D
,k
: k
1
(h()) = ,
we have
_
V (x) : x L
i

_
V (x) : x L
i

_
=
because the latter intersection is an open set which does not intersect
the dense set I
0
. Hence the innite family
_

_
xL
0

V (x),
_
xL
1

V (x)
_
: a
_
7
6
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
7
-
1
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
7
-
1
5


CARDINAL SEQUENCES AND COHEN REAL EXTENSIONS 7
is indeed dyadic.
2.2
Proof of theorem 2.7. The proof will be based on the following two lem-
mas, 2.9 and 2.10. For these we need some more notation and a new
and rather technical notion of extendibility for set matrices.
Given a set A we set
T(A) = f Fn(A, A) : f is injective and dom(f) ran(f) = .
Each function f T(A) can be extended in natural way to a bijection
f

: A A as follows:
f

(a) =
_
_
_
f(a) if a domf,
f
1
(a) if a ranf,
a otherwise.
Denition 2.8. If S and T are sets of ordinals then the matrix /
/(S, T) is called nicely extendible i for each f T(S) there are a
family N(f) Fn(S, ) and a function K
f
: N(f)
_
S

such
that
(1) the pair (f, s) is /-dyadic whenever f T(S) and s N(f),
(2) N(f) for each f T(S),
(3) for f, g T(S) and s N(f) if f

[`K
f
(s) = g

[`K
f
(s) then
s N(g).
(4) for any f T(S), s N(f) and S (s) there is such
that s , ) N(f).
Clearly, this last condition (4) is what explains our terminology.
Lemma 2.9. If >
1
is regular and / /(, ) is a nicely ex-
tendible matrix then there is an innite partial function h :
p

that is /-dyadic .
Proof. By induction on n we will dene functions h
0
h
1

. . . h
n
. . . from Fn(, ) such that [h
n
[ = n and for each
()
n

there is g T() such that (g) > , ran g = domh

n
and h
n
g
N(g).
First observe that h
0
= satises our requirements because, accord-
ing to (2), condition ()
0

holds trivially for each < .

Next assume that the construction has been done and the induction
hypothesis has been established for n. For each < choose a function
g

T() witnessing ()
n
+
1
and then write K

= K
g
(h
n
g

) and
pick

(, +
1
) K

. Clearly the set

L = : [ < : / K

[ <
7
6
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
7
-
1
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
7
-
1
5


8 I. JUH

ASZ, S. SHELAH, L. SOUKUP, AND Z. SZENTMIKL

OSSY
is countable and so we can pick
n
(L domh
n
); then the set
J = < :
n
/ K

is of size .
Now set g

= g

,
n
) for every J. For every such then

,
n
/ K

implies g

[`K

= g

[`K

, hence h
n
g

N(g

) by (3).
Since

< +
1
< (g

) = (h
n
g

), we can now apply (4) to get

such that (h
n
g

) N(g

).
We can then x
n
such that J
n
= J :

=
n
is of size
and let h
n+1
= h
n

n
,
n
).
If J
n
then h
n+1
g

= (h
n
g

,
n
) N(g

) and (g

) > ,
so g

witnesses ()
n+1

. But J
n
is unbounded in , hence the inductive
step is completed.
By ()
n
0
, for each n < there is g
n
such that domh
n
= rang
n
and
h
n
g
n
N(g
n
). Hence, by (1), (g
n
, h
n
g
n
) is /-dyadic, and so h
n
is /-
dyadic according to observation 2.4. Consequently h =

h
n
: n <
is as required: it is /-dyadic and innite.
2.9
Given any innite set I we denote by (
I
the poset Fn(I, 2), i.e. the
standard notion of forcing that adds [I[ many Cohen reals.
Lemma 2.10. Let = (2

)
+
. Then for each we have
V
C

[= If T /(, ) is both -determined and m.d.-extendible then there is I

_

such that T

= D
,n
: , n) I ) is nicely extendible.
Proof. Assume that
1
C

T /(, ) is m.d.-extendible.
Let be a large enough regular cardinal and consider the structure
H

=
_
H

, , , , ,

T
_
, where H

=
_
x : [ TC(x)[ <
_
and is a
xed well-ordering of H

.
Working in V , for each < choose a countable elementary sub-
model N

of H

with N

. Then there is I
_

such that the

models N

: I are not only pairwise isomorphic but, denoting

by
,
the unique isomorphism between N

and N

, we have
(i) the family N

: I forms a -system with kernel ,

(ii)
,
() = for each ,
(iii)
,
() = .
For each < and n < let

D
,n
be the -minimal (

-name of the
, n)
th
entry of

T. Since is in H

and
,
() = we have
Claim 2.10.1.
,
(

D
,n
) =

D
,n
for each , I and n .
7
6
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
7
-
1
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
7
-
1
5


CARDINAL SEQUENCES AND COHEN REAL EXTENSIONS 9
Let G be any (

-generic lter over V . We shall show that

V [G] [= T

= D
,n
: , n) I ) is nicely extendible.
For each f T(I) dene the bijection
f
: as follows:

f
() =
_

,f

()
() if N

for some I,
otherwise.
In a natural way
f
extends to an automorphism of (

, which will
be denoted by
f
as well. Clearly, we have
Claim 2.10.2. If f T(I), f() = , p (

then
,
(p) =

f
(p).
For f T(I) let G
f
=
1
f
(p) : p G and then set
N(f) = s Fn(I, ) : s is

T[G
f
]-min-dyadic =
s Fn(I, ) : q G
f
q

s is

T-min-dyadic.
To dene K
f
, for each s N(f) pick a condition p
s
G such that

1
f
(p
s
)

s is

T-min-dyadic
and let
K
f
(s) = I : (N

) domp
s
,= .
Note that K
f
(s) as dened above is nite, although 2.8.(3) only
requires K
f
(s) to be countable.
To check property 2.8.(3) assume that f, g T(I) and s N(f)
with g

[`K
f
(s) = f

[`K
f
(s). Then
1
g
(p
s
) =
1
f
(p
s
) and so

1
g
(p
s
)

s is

T-min-dyadic,
hence s is also

T[G
g
]-min-dyadic , i.e. s N(g).
Before checking 2.8.(1) we need one more observation.
Claim 2.10.3.

D
f(),n
[G] =

D
,n
[G
f
] whenever f T(I),
domf, and n < .
Proof of claim 2.10.3. Let k . Then k

D
f(),n
[G] i p G p

k

D
f(),n
i p G N
f()
p

k

D
f(),n
i q G
f
N

p =
,f()
(q)

k

D
f(),n
i q G
f
N

k

D
,n
i
q G
f
q

k

D
,n
i k

D
,n
[G
f
].
2.10
Now let f T(I) and s N(f). By the denition of N(f), s is

T[G
f
]-min-dyadic and so by observation 2.6 s is

T[G
f
]-dyadic over .
But it follows from 2.10.3, that s is

T[G
f
]-dyadic over if and only if
the pair (f, s) is

T[G]-dyadic over .
7
6
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
7
-
1
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
7
-
1
5


10 I. JUH

ASZ, S. SHELAH, L. SOUKUP, AND Z. SZENTMIKL

OSSY
2.8.(2) is clear because is trivially /-min-dyadic for any /
/(, ). Finally 2.8.(4) follows from the denition of N(f) because

T[G
f
] is m.d.-extendible.
2.10
Now, to complete the proof of theorem 2.7, rst apply lemma 2.10
to get I
_

such that
T

= D
,n
: , n) I )
is nicely extendible. Then applying lemma 2.9 to T

we obtain an
innite T

-dyadic function h :
p
. Since the matrix T is -
determined the function h is T-dyadic, as well.
2.7
3. Cardinal sequences of regular and 0-dimensional
spaces
For any regular, scattered space X we have [X[ 2
|I(X)|
, hence
ht(X) < (2
|I(X)|
)
+
and [I

(X)[ 2
| I
0
(X)|
for each . This implies that
for such a space X its cardinal sequence s satises length(s) < (2
|I(X)|
)
+
and s() 2
s()
whenever < . We shall show below that these
properties of a sequence s actually characterize the cardinal sequences
of regular scattered spaces.
In [1], for each < (2

)
+
, a 0-dimensional, scattered space of height
and width was constructed. The next lemma generalizes that
construction.
For an innite cardinal , let S

be the following family of sequences

of cardinals:
S

=
_

i
: i < ) : < (2

)
+
,
0
= and
i
2

for each i <

_
.
Lemma 3.1. For any innite cardinal and s S

there is 0-dimensional
scattered space X with CS(X) = s.
Proof. Let s =

: < ) S

. Write X =
_

: <
_
.
Since [I[ 2

we can x an independent family F

x
: x X
_

.
The underlying set of our space is X and and the topology on X
is given by declaring for each x = , ) X the set
U
x
= x ( F
x
)
to be clopen, i.e. U
x
, X U
x
: x X is a subbase for .
The space X is clearly 0-dimensional and T
2
.
Claim 3.1.1. If x = , ) U and < then U (

) is
innite.
7
6
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
7
-
1
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
7
-
1
5


CARDINAL SEQUENCES AND COHEN REAL EXTENSIONS 11
Proof of the claim. We can nd disjoint sets A, B
_
X x

<
such
that
x U
x

yA
U
y

_
zB
U
z
U.
Observe that if , ) A then < . Thus
U (

)
_

yA{x}
F
y

_
zB
F
z
_
,
and the set on the right side is innite because F
x
: x X was
chosen to be independent.
To complete our proof, by induction on < , we verify that I

(X) =

, hence CS(X) = s. Assume that this is true for < . If

x

then
U
x

_
X
_
<
I

(X)
_
= x,
hence

(X). On the other hand, if x = , ) X with

> and U is a neighbourhood of x, then, by the claim above,
U (

) is innite, hence x is not isolated in X

<
I

(X),
i.e., x / I

(X). Thus I

(X) =

.
3.1
Theorem 3.2. For any sequence s of cardinals the following statements
are equivalent
(1) s = CS(X) for some regular scattered space X,
(2) s = CS(X) for some 0-dimensional scattered space X,
(3) for some natural number m there are innite cardinals
0
>
1
>
>
m1
and for all i < m sequences s
i
S

i
such that s =
s
0

s
1

. . .

s
m1
or s = s
0

s
1

. . .

s
m1

n) for some natural

number n > 0.
Proof.
(1)= (3)
By induction on j we choose ordinals
j
< ht(X) and cardinals
j
such
that
0
= 0 and
0
= [ I
0
(X)[, moreover, for j > 0 with
j1
innite

j
= min
_
ht(X) : [ I

(X)[ <
j1
,
and
j
= [ I

j
(X)[. We stop when
m
is nite. For each j < m let

j
=
j+1
.

j
. Then the sequence s
j
=

[ I

j
+
(X)[ : <
j
_
is in S

j
.
Thus CS(X) = s
0

s
1

. . .

s
m1
provided
m
= 0 (i.e. I
m
(X) = )
and CS(X) = s
0

s
1

. . .

s
m1

m
) when 0 <
m
< .
7
6
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
7
-
1
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
7
-
1
5


12 I. JUH

ASZ, S. SHELAH, L. SOUKUP, AND Z. SZENTMIKL

OSSY
(3)= (2)
First we prove this implication for sequences s of the form s
0

s
1

. . .

s
m1
by induction on m. If s S
o
then the statement is just lemma 3.1
Assume now that s = s
0

s
1

. . .

s
m1
, where
0
>
1
> >

m1
and s
i
S

i
for i < m.
According to lemma 3.1 there is a 0-dimensional space Y with cardi-
nal sequence s
m1
. Using the inductive assumption we can also x
pairwise disjoint 0-dimensional topological spaces X
y,n
for y, n)
I
0
(Y ) , each having the cardinal sequence s

= s
0

s
1

. . .

s
m2
.
We then dene the space Z = Z, ) as follows. Let
Z = Y
_
X
y,n
: y I
0
(Y ), n < .
A set U Z is in i
(i) U Y is open in Y ,
(ii) U X
y,n
is open in X
y,n
for each y, n) I
0
(Y ) ,
(iii) if y I
0
(Y ) U then there is m < such that

X
y,n
: m < n <
U.
If U is a clopen subset of Y and n < then it is easy to check that
Z(U, n) = U
_
X
y,m
: y I
0
(Y ) U, n < m <
is clopen in Z. Hence
B = Z(U, n) : U Y is clopen, n <
T : T is a clopen subset of some X
y,n

is a clopen base of Z and so Z is 0-dimensional.

Let

= length(s

) and = length(s).
Claim 3.2.1. I

(Z) =

(X
y,n
) : y, n) I
0
(Y ) for <

.
Proof of the claim 3.2.1. Since X
y,n
is an open subspace of Z it follows
that I

(X
y,n
) I

(Z). On the other hand,

Y
_
I

(X
y,n
) : y, n) I
0
(Y )
Z
,
hence Y I

(Z) = .
3.2.1
Since, by claim 3.2.1,
Z
_
<

(Z) = Y,
it follows that for

< we have
() I

(Z) = I

(Y ).
Thus Z =

<
I

(Z), hence Z is a scattered space of height .

7
6
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
7
-
1
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
7
-
1
5


CARDINAL SEQUENCES AND COHEN REAL EXTENSIONS 13
If <

then, by claim 3.2.1,

[ I

(Z)[ = [ I
0
(y)[ s

() =
m1
s

() = s

() = s().
If

< then, by (), [ I

(Z)[ = [ I

(Y )[ = s
m1
(
.

) = s(),
consequently CS(Z) = s.
Thus we proved the statement for sequences of the form s
0

. . .

s
m1
.
If s = s
0

. . .

s
m1

n) then writing s

= s
0

. . .

s
m1
we can
rst nd pairwise disjoint 0-dimensional scattered spaces X
i,m
, i, m)
n each having cardinal sequence s

. Let
Z = x
i
: i < n
_
X
i,m
: i < n, m < .
Declare a set U Z open i
(i) U X
i,m
is open in X
i,m
for each i, m) n ,
(ii) if x
i
U then there is n
i
< such that

X
i,m
: n
i
< m <
U.
Then Z is 0-dimensional, and
I

(Z) =
_
I

(X
i,m
) : i < n, m < if < length(s

),
x
i
: i < n if = length(s

).
Hence again Z is a scattered space with CS(Z) = s.
(2)= (1) Straightforward.

3.2
We leave it to the reader to verify that the sequences described in
item (3) of theorem 3.2 are exactly those mentioned in the beginning
of the section with the additional obvious necessary condition that all
but the last term of the sequence are innite cardinals.
References
[1] J. E. Baumgartner, S. Shelah, Remarks on superatomic Boolean algebras, Ann.
Pure Appl. Logic, 33 (l987), no. 2, 109-129.
[2] J. Brendle, S. Fuchino Coloring ordinals by reals, preprint.
[3] I. Juh asz and K. Kunen, The power set of , elementary submodels and weak-
enings of CH, Fund. Math.170 (2001) pp 257265.
[4] I. Juh asz, L. Soukup, and Z. Szentmikl ossy, Combinatorial principles from
adding Cohen reals, in Logic Colloquium 95, Proceedings of the Annual Euro-
pean Summer Meeting of the Association of Symbolic Logic, J. A. Makowsky,
ed., Lecture Notes in Logic. 11., Haifa, Israel, 1998, Springer, pp. 79103.
[5] I. Juh asz, W. Weiss, On thin-tall scattered spaces, Colloquium Mathematicum,
vol XL (1978) 6368.
[6] W. Just, Two consistency results concerning thin-tall Boolean algebras Algebra
Universalis 20(1985) no.2, 135142.
[7] K. Kunen, Set Theory, North-Holland, New York, 1980.
7
6
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
7
-
1
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
7
-
1
5


14 I. JUH

ASZ, S. SHELAH, L. SOUKUP, AND Z. SZENTMIKL

OSSY
[8] J. C. Martnez, A consistency result on thin-very tall Boolean algebras. Israel
J. Math. 123 (2001), 273284.
Alfred Renyi Institute of Mathematics
E-mail address: juhasz@renyi.hu
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
E-mail address: shelah@math.huji.ac.il
Alfred Renyi Institute of Mathematics
E-mail address: soukup@renyi.hu
E otv os University of Budapest
E-mail address: zoli@renyi.hu