Adjoining only the things you want: a survey of Strong Chang's Conjecture and related topics

Sean Cox

Adjoining only the things you want: a survey of Strong Chang's Conjecture and related topics

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Strong Chang's Conjecture variants form a single implication chain, tied to forcing and reflection.

desk verdict A useful, honest survey with one genuinely new observation (Lemma 4.17); the negative-results section leans on a citable Shelah theorem that should be verified but is likely fine. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05334 v3 pith:FHSJT4IH submitted 2019-08-14 math.LO

Sean Cox This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.LO MSC 03E0503E5503E3503E65

keywords Chang'sConjectureStrongstationarysetreflectionsemiproperforcingNambanonstationaryidealpresaturationinternalapproachability

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This survey's organizing claim is that the various strong Chang's Conjecture principles form a single hierarchy: the strongest principle implies the next, down to the classical Chang's Conjecture, and the steps are detected by how much of a structure can be end-extended without adding new countable ordinals. The paper identifies the hierarchy with familiar objects: one level is equivalent to Namba forcing (the forcing that makes $\omega_2$ have countable cofinality) being semiproper, another to the Semistationary Set Reflection Principle, and another to an internal reflection principle called $RP_{\mathrm{internal}}$. It also shows that the higher-cardinal analogues of these principles are inconsistent, using a single theorem about what happens when a transitive model's successor cardinal collapses. A reader should care because these principles are a precise measure of when a forcing or construction can adjoin only the things you want to a small model, a question that controls semiproperness, saturation of the nonstationary ideal, and the tree property at $\omega_2$.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the end-extension relation $\sqsubseteq$: for substructures $M\subseteq M'$ of $H_\theta$, $M\sqsubseteq M'$ means $M\subseteq M'$ and $M\cap\omega_1=M'\cap\omega_1$, so the extension adds no new countable ordinals. Each SCC variant is defined by how many such end-extensions exist and what they add: one, cofinally many with or without a prescribed agreement below each target ordinal, or two incomparable ones. The arguments are carried by two lemmas: Lemma 2.3, which says that for almost every $M\in\wp(W)$, adjoining finitely many objects outside $W$ to the Skolem hull of $M$ adds nothing back from $W$; and Lemma 3.2, which says that in ZFC there are always projectively stationarily many models with the needed extension property. These lemmas turn failures of reflection into stationary sets and successes of end-extension into semiproperness or antichain-catching.

What would settle it

A reader could settle the negative part by searching for a transitive $ZFC^-$ model $H$ and a cardinal $\mu$ such that $\mu^{++H}$ is a cardinal in $V$, $\mu^{+H}$ is not a cardinal in $V$, and $\mathrm{cf}^V(\mu^{+H})\neq\mu$; such a configuration would refute Theorem 5.1 and undercut the proofs that $\mathrm{SCC}(\omega_2)$ and $\mathrm{WRP}(\wp^*_{\omega_2})$ are inconsistent. A different falsifier would be a model that actually satisfies either of those two principles.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the family of strong Chang's Conjecture principles, each asking for end-extensions of small elementary substructures that add material below the next cardinal without changing the intersection with $\omega_1$ (or with a fixed ambient set), collapses into the implication chain $\mathrm{SCC}^{\mathrm{cof}}_{\mathrm{gap}} \Rightarrow \mathrm{SCC}^{\mathrm{cof}} \Rightarrow \mathrm{SCC}^{\mathrm{split}} \Rightarrow \mathrm{SCC} \Rightarrow \mathrm{Projective\ CC} \Rightarrow \mathrm{CC}$. Several rungs are exactly equivalent to familiar statements: $\mathrm{SCC}^{\mathrm{cof}}$ holds iff Namba forcing is semiproper; Global $\mathrm{SCC}^{\mathrm{cof}}$ holds iff the Semistationary Set Reflection Principle holds; Global $\mathrm{SCC}^{\mathrm{cof}}_{\mathrm{gap}}$ holds iff $RP_{\mathrm{internal}}$ holds. The survey also gives a streamlined proof that full $\mathrm{SCC}(\omega_2)$ and $\mathrm{WRP}(\wp^*_{\omega_2})$ are inconsistent, while the restriction of reflection to internally approachable sets of size $\omega_1$ is consistent from a supercompact cardinal.

Load-bearing premise

The negative results of Section 5 rest on a theorem, quoted without a full proof, asserting that if a transitive model of set theory without the powerset axiom has $\mu^{++}$ as a cardinal in $V$ but $\mu^+$ is not a cardinal in $V$, then the cofinality of that collapsed $\mu^+$ is exactly $\mu$; if that theorem failed, the contradiction arguments would not go through.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Under the failure of CH, $\mathrm{SCC}^{\mathrm{cof}}$ implies the tree property at $\omega_2$, and Global $\mathrm{SCC}^{\mathrm{cof}}$ implies ITP($\omega_2$), a strengthening of that tree property.
$\mathrm{SCC}^{\mathrm{cof}}$ is equivalent to Namba forcing being semiproper, so any forcing consequence of semiproperness transfers to models satisfying $\mathrm{SCC}^{\mathrm{cof}}$.
Global $\mathrm{SCC}^{\mathrm{cof}}$ is equivalent to the Semistationary Set Reflection Principle and to the assertion that every stationary-set-preserving forcing is semiproper.
If $NS_{\omega_1}$ is saturated and Projective CC holds, then the saturation is preserved by all c.c.c. forcing and upgrades to $(\omega_2,\omega_1,<\omega)$-saturation.
Full $\mathrm{SCC}(\omega_2)$ and $\mathrm{WRP}(\wp^*_{\omega_2})$ are inconsistent, while the restriction of WRP to internally approachable sets is consistent from a supercompact cardinal.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The strictness of the chain is one open gap; a natural next step is to look for models where $\mathrm{SCC}^{\mathrm{cof}}$ holds while $\mathrm{SCC}^{\mathrm{split}}$ fails, which would also separate semiproperness of Namba forcing from the real-adding-plus-club-shooting forcing characterization.
The same end-extension machinery likely classifies saturation and presaturation for other ideals, since the survey's antichain-catching lemmas are special cases of a general catching lemma; one could test whether Projective CC analogues for other ideals amplify their saturation properties.
Because the higher-cardinal versions are inconsistent, the phenomenon appears to be special to $\omega_1$; a reasonable project is to characterize exactly which restricted classes of models at higher cardinals, such as internally approachable ones, still admit end-extension principles.
The open question whether WRP implies $RP_{\mathrm{internal}}$ could be attacked by finding a forcing that destroys the stationarity of $S\cap W\cap[W]^\omega$ while preserving WRP; the survey's proof of the RPinternal equivalence isolates that stationarity as the key invariant.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Worth a look if you work with strong Chang's Conjecture or stationary reflection. The genuinely new item is Lemma 4.17: the sealing forcing for a maximal antichain is proper iff the antichain has size at most ω1, answering Eskew's question. The proof is short, self-contained, and correct. Properness gives totally generic conditions for club-many countable models, which forces those models to catch the antichain, and the usual catching argument bounds its size. That is a clean, real observation.

The rest is a survey, and Cox is upfront that it overlaps with Foreman's Handbook chapter. What he adds is a uniform language for the SCC hierarchy, a useful implication chain, and a streamlined route through the Foreman–Magidor inconsistency results. Collecting the equivalences between SCCcof and Namba semiproper, Global SCCcof and SSR, and so on is handy for people entering the area. The open problem list is honest and current.

Soft spots are mostly the expected ones for a survey: Lemma 4.4 defers its proof, and several characterization theorems are stated without proof. That is acceptable when citations are specific, as here. The one step I would check before relying on it is Theorem 5.1, the Shelah lemma about transitive ZFC− models. It does heavy lifting in Theorem 5.2, where the collapse computation depends on cf of ω2^HY being exactly ω1. I read the hypotheses carefully: they match the application—µ = ω1, µ+H is an ordinal between ω1 and ω2 and hence not a cardinal in V, while µ++H is ω2^V and is a cardinal. So the stated theorem, if correct, applies directly. The citation to Jech Lemma 23.19 is standard, but because the advertised inconsistency results all rest on this, I would want someone to verify the statement against Jech once. That is a verification task, not a red flag. Theorem 5.2's proof is clear, and the chain argument in Corollary 5.3 goes through if Theorem 5.1 is right.

Bottom line: this deserves a serious referee. It is a service to the community, the new lemma is correct, and the one load-bearing citation is checkable. Send it to review.

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper is a survey of strong forms of Chang's Conjecture and related reflection, forcing, and saturation principles. It introduces a local hierarchy SCCcof_gap ⇒ SCCcof ⇒ SCCsplit ⇒ SCC ⇒ Projective CC ⇒ CC (Eq. (2)), global versions of SCCcof and SCCcof_gap, and relates them to WRP, SSR, RPinternal, Namba forcing, and presaturation of NSω1. Section 3 collects ZFC results on projective stationary sets, Section 4 reviews the implication and equivalence hierarchy with applications to tree properties and ideal saturation, and Section 5 presents Foreman–Magidor negative results, including the inconsistency of SCC(ω2) and WRP(℘*ω2), together with a restricted positive reflection result. The survey includes several streamlined proofs, among them a proof of the new Lemma 4.17, and ends with a summary of open problems.

Significance. If the results it reports are accurate, the survey serves a useful organizational purpose: it unifies terminology and notation across the author's earlier papers, Cox–Sakai, Doebler–Schindler, Fuchino–Usuba, and the classical Foreman–Magidor–Shelah literature. Its central contribution is the implication hierarchy (2) and the equivalences in Theorems 4.6, 4.7, 4.12, and 4.13, together with a genuinely new, self-contained result in Lemma 4.17 (SA is proper exactly when |A| ≤ ω1). The survey is generally careful to attribute unproved theorems to external sources, and the streamlined treatment of the Foreman–Magidor inconsistency arguments in Section 5 is a useful addition to the survey literature.

minor comments (5)

[Section 5.1, Theorem 5.1] Because Theorem 5.2 and Corollaries 5.3–5.4 rest on Shelah's Theorem 5.1, please add a short verification that the transitive collapse HY in the proof of Theorem 5.2 satisfies all hypotheses of Theorem 5.1 as stated, in particular that HY is a ZFC− model, that μ++H is a cardinal in V, and that μ+H is not a cardinal in V; the current text asserts these facts only implicitly and gives a general citation to Jech's Lemma 23.19.
[Section 6, Open Problem Summary] The first open problem in the summary contains garbled typesetting ('SCCcof /d43/d51 /d53/d61SCCsplit /d43/d51SCC') that should be repaired so that the arrows in the implication hierarchy display correctly.
[Section 4.1, Lemma 4.4] Since Lemma 4.4 is used in the proof of Theorem 4.11 and its proof is deferred to Cox [4], consider adding a proof sketch or at least a precise statement of the referenced Lemma 13 of [4] so that the survey is more self-contained at this load-bearing point.
[Sections 4.2 and 4.3] The equivalences in Theorems 4.12 and 4.13 are central to the global versions of Strong Chang's Conjecture, so adding specific references to the proofs in Fuchino–Usuba [16] and Doebler–Schindler [8] would help the reader verify those statements without searching through the surrounding literature.
[Section 4.7, proof of Theorem 4.18] In the proof of Theorem 4.18, the assertion 'ωV1 = ωHX2' follows from otp(X ∩ ω2) = ω1 by the nature of the Mostowski collapse, but a brief parenthetical explanation of this standard fact would make the argument considerably easier to follow for readers less familiar with collapses of Chang-type substructures.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the survey's derivations are anchored in external published theorems; self-citations are not by-construction inputs, and the proof omitted for Shelah's Theorem 5.1 is a verification caveat, not a circular step.

full rationale

This is a survey, not a fitting paper, so there are no fitted parameters renamed as predictions and no input-output equivalence by construction. The central hierarchy (equation (2), Section 4.1) is stated as "straightforward (see Cox-Sakai [6])" and the characterizations in Theorems 4.6, 4.7, 4.12, and 4.13 are cited to Shelah, Cox-Sakai, Fuchino-Usuba, and Doebler-Schindler respectively; none of those citations imports the target claim as its own definition. The internally presented proofs (Lemma 2.3, Lemma 3.2, Lemma 4.17, Theorem 4.11 sketch, Theorem 4.16) are self-contained or reduce to standard facts (Lemma 2.1, Fodor's lemma, sigma-completeness of the nonstationary ideal). The only self-cited omitted proof is Lemma 4.4: "We omit the proof, and refer the reader to the proof of Lemma 13 of [4]." This is a published characterization used to turn a single counterexample into stationarily many; it is not the same statement as the theorem being proved, so it is not circular. The negative results of Section 5 rest on Shelah's Theorem 5.1, which is quoted from external literature with the note "The proof is basically the same as Shelah's original proof ... see Lemma 23.19 of [19]"; the survey does not derive it from its own claims, so this is a correctness/verification risk about hypothesis matching rather than circularity. No equation in the paper is defined in terms of its own conclusion, and no cited uniqueness theorem is used to forbid alternatives. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new mathematical entities in the sense of postulated objects; it defines several new combinatorial principles (SCC variants) but these are not entities like particles or forces. It relies on standard ZFC, the weak stationarity framework, and large cardinal hypotheses in consistency theorems.

assumptions (3)

standard math ZFC axioms, including Choice, and existence of sufficiently large regular cardinals
The survey explicitly works in ZFC (Section 2) and uses standard facts about stationarity, Fodor's Lemma, and sigma-completeness of the nonstationary ideal.
domain assumption Weak notion of stationarity of Foreman-Magidor-Shelah and its basic properties
Defined in Section 2; Lemma 2.3 and the ZFC results in Section 3 rely on this notion and on the Fodor and sigma-completeness facts holding for it.
domain assumption Large cardinal hypotheses (measurable, supercompact) in consistency statements
The consistency results, e.g., 'SCC is consistent relative to a measurable cardinal' (Section 4.1) and Theorem 5.5, assume large cardinals as hypotheses; the survey does not prove their consistency.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Adjoining only the things you want: a survey of Strong Chang's Conjecture and related topics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FHSJT4IH

@misc{pith2026190805334,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Adjoining only the things you want: a survey of Strong Chang's Conjecture and related topics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FHSJT4IH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05334}
}

read the original abstract

We survey some old and new results on strong variants of Chang's Conjecture and related topics.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

[1]

Uri Abraham, Proper forcing, Handbook of set theory. Vols. 1, 2, 3, Springer, Dor- drecht, 2010, pp. 333–394

work page 2010
[2]

Baumgartner and Alan D

James E. Baumgartner and Alan D. Taylor, Saturation properties of ideals in generic extensions. II , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 271 (1982), no. 2, 587–609, DOI 10.2307/1998900. MR654852 (83k:03040b)

work page doi:10.2307/1998900 1982
[3]

Beaudoin, Strong analogues of Martin ’s axiom imply axiom R , J

Robert E. Beaudoin, Strong analogues of Martin ’s axiom imply axiom R , J. Symbolic Logic 52 (1987), no. 1, 216–218, DOI 10.2307/2273877. MR877870

work page doi:10.2307/2273877 1987
[4]

Sean Cox, Chang’s conjecture and semiproperness of nonreasonable po sets, Monatsh. Math. 187 (2018), no. 4, 617–633

work page 2018
[5]

, Forcing axioms, approachability at ω 2, and stationary set reﬂection , Journal of Symbolic Logic, to appear, available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.06129

work page Pith review arXiv
[6]

Sean Cox and Hiroshi Sakai, A variant of Shelah’s characterization of Strong Chang’s conjecture, MLQ Math. Log. Q. 65 (2019), no. 2, 251–257

work page 2019
[7]

Philipp Doebler, Rado’s conjecture implies that all stationary set preservi ng forcings are semiproper , J. Math. Log. 13 (2013), no. 1, 1350001, 8, DOI 10.1142/S0219061313500013. MR3065118

work page doi:10.1142/s0219061313500013 2013
[8]

Philipp Doebler and Ralf Schindler, Π 2 consequences of BMM plus NS ω 1 is precipitous and the semiproperness of stationary set preserving forcin gs, Math. Res. Lett. 16 (2009), no. 5, 797–815

work page 2009

Show all 30 references

[9]

Tall, Normality versus paracompactness in locally com- pact spaces, Canad

Alan Dow and Franklin D. Tall, Normality versus paracompactness in locally com- pact spaces, Canad. J. Math. 70 (2018), no. 1, 74–96, DOI 10.4153/CJM-2017-006-x. MR3744886

2018 doi
[10]

Qi Feng, On weakly stationary sets , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 105 (1989), no. 3, 727– 735, DOI 10.2307/2046926. MR946635

1989 doi
[11]

London Math

Qi Feng and Thomas Jech, Projective stationary sets and a strong reﬂection principl e, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 58 (1998), no. 2, 271–283. MR1668171 (2000b:03166)

1998
[12]

Matthew Foreman, Ideals and generic elementary embeddings , Handbook of set the- ory. Vols. 1, 2, 3, Springer, Dordrecht, 2010, pp. 885–1147

2010
[13]

Pure Appl

Matthew Foreman and Menachem Magidor, Large cardinals and deﬁnable counterex- amples to the continuum hypothesis , Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 76 (1995), no. 1, 47–97. MR1359154 (96k:03124)

1995
[14]

Foreman, M

M. Foreman, M. Magidor, and S. Shelah, Martin ’s maximum, saturated ideals, and nonregular ultraﬁlters. I , Ann. of Math. (2) 127 (1988), no. 1, 1–47

1988
[15]

Matthew Foreman and Stevo Todorcevic, A new L¨ owenheim-Skolem theorem, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 357 (2005), no. 5, 1693–1715 (electronic), DOI 10.1090/S0002- 9947-04-03445-2. MR2115072 (2005m:03064)

2005 doi
[16]

Saka´ e Fuchino and Toshimichi Usuba, A reﬂection principle formulated in terms of games, RIMS Kokyuroku 1895, 37–47
[17]

Shimon Garti, Yair Hayut, Haim Horowitz, and Menachem M agidor, Martin ’s maxi- mum and the non-stationary ideal , arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.08049 (2017)

2017 arXiv
[18]

Symbolic Logic 50 (1985), no

Moti Gitik, Nonsplitting subset of Pκ (κ +), J. Symbolic Logic 50 (1985), no. 4, 881– 894 (1986)

1985
[19]

The third millennium edition, revised and exp anded

Thomas Jech, Set theory , Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003. The third millennium edition, revised and exp anded. MR1940513 (2004g:03071)

2003
[20]

T. Jech, M. Magidor, W. Mitchell, and K. Prikry, Precipitous ideals , J. Symbolic Logic 45 (1980), no. 1, 1–8. MR560220 (81h:03097)

1980
[21]

Kanamori and M

A. Kanamori and M. Magidor, The evolution of large cardinal axioms in set theory , Higher set theory (Proc. Conf., Math. Forschungsinst., Obe rwolfach, 1977), Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 669, Springer, Berlin, 1978, pp. 99–275 . MR520190 24 SEAN COX

1977
[22]

John Krueger, Internal approachability and reﬂection , J. Math. Log. 8 (2008), no. 1, 23–39

2008
[23]

Larson, The stationary tower , University Lecture Series, vol

Paul B. Larson, The stationary tower , University Lecture Series, vol. 32, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2004. Notes on a cour se by W. Hugh Woodin. MR2069032 (2005e:03001)

2004
[24]

Sharpe and P

I. Sharpe and P. D. Welch, Greatly Erd˝ os cardinals with some generalizations to the Chang and Ramsey properties , Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 162 (2011), no. 11, 863–902, DOI 10.1016/j.apal.2011.04.002. MR2817562

2011 doi
[25]

MR1623206 (98m:030 02)

Saharon Shelah, Proper and improper forcing , 2nd ed., Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998. MR1623206 (98m:030 02)

1998
[26]

Stevo Todorˇ cevi´ c,Conjectures of Rado and Chang and cardinal arithmetic , Finite and inﬁnite combinatorics in sets and logic (Banﬀ, AB, 1991) , NATO Adv. Sci. Inst. Ser. C Math. Phys. Sci., vol. 411, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordre cht, 1993, pp. 385–398. MR1261218

1991
[27]

part B, Topology Appl

V ´ ıctor Torres-P´ erez and Liuzhen Wu,Strong Chang’s conjecture and the tree property at ω 2. part B, Topology Appl. 196 (2015), no. part B, 999–1004. MR3431031

2015
[28]

V ´ ıctor Torres-P´ erez and Liuzhen Wu,Strong Chang’s conjecture, semi-stationary re- ﬂection, the strong tree property and two-cardinal square p rinciples, Fund. Math. 236 (2017), no. 3, 247–262, DOI 10.4064/fm257-5-2016. MR36007 60

2017 doi
[29]

Toshimichi Usuba, Bounded dagger principles , MLQ Math. Log. Q. 60 (2014), no. 4-5, 266–272, DOI 10.1002/malq.201300019. MR3248209

2014 doi
[30]

Pure Appl

Christoph Weiß, The combinatorial essence of supercompactness , Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 163 (2012), no. 11, 1710–1717. E-mail address : scox9@vcu.edu Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics, Virgin ia Common- wealth University, 1015 Floyd A venue, Richmond, Virginia 2 ...

2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Uri Abraham, Proper forcing, Handbook of set theory. Vols. 1, 2, 3, Springer, Dor- drecht, 2010, pp. 333–394

work page 2010

[2] [2]

Baumgartner and Alan D

James E. Baumgartner and Alan D. Taylor, Saturation properties of ideals in generic extensions. II , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 271 (1982), no. 2, 587–609, DOI 10.2307/1998900. MR654852 (83k:03040b)

work page doi:10.2307/1998900 1982

[3] [3]

Beaudoin, Strong analogues of Martin ’s axiom imply axiom R , J

Robert E. Beaudoin, Strong analogues of Martin ’s axiom imply axiom R , J. Symbolic Logic 52 (1987), no. 1, 216–218, DOI 10.2307/2273877. MR877870

work page doi:10.2307/2273877 1987

[4] [4]

Sean Cox, Chang’s conjecture and semiproperness of nonreasonable po sets, Monatsh. Math. 187 (2018), no. 4, 617–633

work page 2018

[5] [5]

, Forcing axioms, approachability at ω 2, and stationary set reﬂection , Journal of Symbolic Logic, to appear, available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.06129

work page Pith review arXiv

[6] [6]

Sean Cox and Hiroshi Sakai, A variant of Shelah’s characterization of Strong Chang’s conjecture, MLQ Math. Log. Q. 65 (2019), no. 2, 251–257

work page 2019

[7] [7]

Philipp Doebler, Rado’s conjecture implies that all stationary set preservi ng forcings are semiproper , J. Math. Log. 13 (2013), no. 1, 1350001, 8, DOI 10.1142/S0219061313500013. MR3065118

work page doi:10.1142/s0219061313500013 2013

[8] [8]

Philipp Doebler and Ralf Schindler, Π 2 consequences of BMM plus NS ω 1 is precipitous and the semiproperness of stationary set preserving forcin gs, Math. Res. Lett. 16 (2009), no. 5, 797–815

work page 2009