Iterating Generalised Perfect Set Forcing Along Well-Founded Orders
Extracted source text · arXiv 2604.10826
\documentclass[a4paper, 11pt]{amsart}
\usepackage[T2A,T1]{fontenc} % T2A for Cyrillic support
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[russian, french, british]{babel}
\usepackage{amssymb, amsmath}
\usepackage{mathtools}
\usepackage{bm}
\usepackage[cal=boondoxo]{mathalfa}
\usepackage{comment}
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage[hidelinks]{hyperref}
% Theorem environments
\newtheorem{THEOREM}{Theorem}[section]
\newenvironment{theorems}{\begin{THEOREM}}
{\end{THEOREM}}
\newtheorem{theorem}[THEOREM]{Theorem}
\newtheorem{dtheorem}[THEOREM]{Attempted Theorem}
\newtheorem{lemma}[THEOREM]{Lemma}
\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{definition}[THEOREM]{Definition}
\newtheorem{claim}[THEOREM]{Claim}
\newtheorem{corollary}[THEOREM]{Corollary}
\newtheorem{example}[THEOREM]{Example}
\newtheorem{fact}[THEOREM]{Fact}
\newtheorem{remark}[THEOREM]{Remark}
\newtheorem{Observation}[THEOREM]{Observation}
\newenvironment{observation}{\begin{Observation}}
{\end{Observation}}
\newtheorem{Notation}[THEOREM]{Notation}
\newenvironment{notation}{\begin{Notation}}
{\end{Notation}}
% Custom commands for forcing notation
\newcommand{\forces}{\Vdash}
\newcommand{\dom}{\text{dom}}
\newcommand{\supp}{\text{supp}}
\newcommand{\supt}{\text{supt}}
\newcommand{\Rsupt}{\text{Rsupt}}
\newcommand{\ran}{\text{ran}}
\newcommand{\CH}{\text{CH}}
\newcommand{\kpo}{\kappa\mathbf{PO}}
\newcommand{\isz}{\mathbf{IS}\zeta}
\renewcommand{\qedsymbol}{}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%% \mathunderaccent and \name %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%% original by Raymond Chen, %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%% slightly modified by Martin Goldstern %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Copyright (C) 1990, 1993. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
% Copyleft (L) 1993. See GNU license for details.
%
% NO WARRANTY
% Because the macro is licensed free of charge, there is no warranty
% for the macro, to the extent permitted by applicable law. The macro
% is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed
% or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of
% merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The entire risk as
% to the quality and performance of the macro is with you. Should the
% macro prove defective, you assume the cost of all necessary servicing,
% repair or correction.
% In no event unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing
% will any copyright holder, or any other party who may modify and/or
% redistribute the macro as permitted above, be liable to you for damages,
% including any general, special, incidental or consequential damages arising
% out of the use or inability to use the macro (including but not limited
% to loss of data or data being rendered inaccurate or losses sustained by
% you or third parties or a failure of the macro to operate with any other
% macros), even if such holder or other party has been advised of the
% possibility of such damages.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\newcount\skewfactor
\def\mathunderaccent#1#2 {\let\theaccent#1\skewfactor#2
\mathpalette\putaccentunder}
\def\putaccentunder#1#2{\oalign{$#1#2$\crcr\hidewidth
\vbox to.2ex{\hbox{$#1\skew\skewfactor\theaccent{}$}\vss}\hidewidth}}
\def\name{\mathunderaccent\tilde-3 }
\def\Name{\mathunderaccent\widetilde-3 }
\def\subtilde{\name}
%Mirna commands
\newcommand{\rest}{\upharpoonright}
\newcommand{\deq}{\buildrel{\rm def}\over =}
\newcommand{\cf}{\text{cf}}
\newcommand{\otp}{\text{otp}}
\newcommand{\eop}{\bigstar}
\newcommand{\DD}{\mathcal D}
\newcommand{\EE}{\mathcal E}
\newcommand{\FF}{\mathcal F}
\newcommand{\HH}{\mathcal H}
\newcommand{\V}{\mathbf V}
\newcommand{\eod}{\scriptstyle\blacksquare}
% Title and document start
\title{Iterating Generalised Perfect Set Forcing Along Well-Founded Orders}
\author{Mirna D{\v z}amonja, by-name Logique Consult, Paris}
\date{}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract} Vladimir Kanovei \cite{zbMATH01335192} developed the technique of geometric iteration and used it to prove that the perfect set forcing can be iterated with countable supports along any partial order, while preserving $\aleph_1$. In \cite{Property-B} we considered a generalised perfect set forcing with respect to a filter on a cardinal $\kappa$ satisfying
$\kappa^{<\kappa}=\kappa$, which we denoted ${\mathbb P} (\mathcal F)$, and proved that its iteration with supports of size $\le\kappa$ along any ordinal
preserves cardinals up and including $\kappa^+$.
We show that there is a version of the geometric iteration technique that applies to ${\mathbb P} (\mathcal F)$, to yield that for $\kappa$ satisfying
$\kappa^{<\kappa}=\kappa$, the forcing ${\mathbb P} (\FF)$ can be iterated with supports of size $\le\kappa$ along any well-founded partial order, while
preserving cardinals up and including $\kappa^+$.
\end{abstract}
\section{Introduction and Motivation} Perfect set forcing is a forcing notion whose conditions are perfect subtrees of $2^{<\omega}$ (or more generally, of $\omega^{<\omega}$). A perfect tree is a nonempty tree with no terminal nodes in which every node has two incompatible extensions; forcing with such a tree adds a new real (an infinite branch through the tree) that is ``generic'' in a strong topological sense. Similarly to Cohen forcing, which adds a very ``free'' generic real, or random forcing, which adds a measure-theoretically generic real, perfect set forcing adds a special real: one of a minimal Turing degree. This forcing notion is closely related to Albert Muchnik's solution of the Post problem in \cite{zbMATH03117565}. It was formulated as a forcing notion by Gerald Sacks in \cite{Sacks}.
For a set theorist, the importance of perfect set forcing lies in its ability to control the structure of the continuum while preserving many regularity properties. It keeps the cardinal invariants of the continuum low, while increasing the value of the continuum itself.
Perfect set forcing plays a central role in minimality results for Turing degrees and degrees of constructibility. Iterations or products of perfect set forcing are often used to obtain consistency results about the size of the continuum, the existence of certain pathological sets, or the behaviour of definable sets of reals, all while keeping the forcing ``mild'' enough not to destroy global features of the universe. Over a model of CH, it can be iterated with countable support $\omega_2$ many times while preserving both $\aleph_1$ and $\aleph_2$. Various combinatorial properties of the resulting model are known, see \cite{zbMATH03664937} and \cite{GeshckeQuickert}.
One would think that the idea of perfect set forcing can be naturally generalised to higher cardinals, giving rise to the notion of \emph{perfect set forcing at $\kappa$}, or more generally \emph{$\kappa$-perfect forcing}. This actually turns out to be quite difficult, with several wrong tries on the subject available in the literature. The reason for this is the emerging evidence of the impossibility of generalising to uncountable cardinals the rich combinatorial and descriptive set theory that we know about $\omega$. The papers \cite{Inamdar-Rinot-nonstructure-aleph2} by Tanmay Inamdar and Assaf Rinot and \cite{FriedmanHyttinenKulikov2014} by Sy D. Friedman, Tapani Hyttinen and Vadim Kulikov describe some of these difficulties, giving not just a heuristic evidence but the actual proofs of the impossibility of such a generalisation. On the other hand, since the introduction of the very natural and elegant programme by Itay Neeman in \cite{Neeman} of using forcing with two types of models as side conditions to redo the classical iterations and open a door to generalisations to higher cardinals, there has been a tension between the possibilities that these methods offer and the discovering of ZFC limitations of what we can expect as consistency results at cardinals larger than $\aleph_1$.
A positive result in the direction of generalising the combinatorial forcing results from $\omega$ to uncountable cardinals $\kappa$ was obtained in \cite{Property-B}. There we found the right uncountable analogue of the perfect set forcing which we named
${\mathbb P} (\mathcal F)$ and showed that it can be iterated along the usual well-ordered iterations with supports of size $\le\kappa$, while preserving all the cardinals up and including $\kappa^+$. This presupposes that $\kappa=\kappa^{<\kappa}$ and that $\FF$ is a conveniently chosen filter on $\kappa$. For the purposes of this paper we can concentrate on $\FF^\ast_\kappa$, which is the filter of co-bounded subsets of $\kappa$. Roughly speaking, the forcing
${\mathbb P} (\mathcal F)$ consists of perfect sub-trees of ${}^{<\kappa}\kappa$ where every splitting is into $\FF^\ast$ many points, and there are club many splittings along every branch.
In \cite{Property-B} we showed that the forcing ${\mathbb P} (\mathcal F)$ has satisfactory fusion properties and preserves cardinals
$\le\kappa^+$ when iterated with supports $\le\kappa$ along an ordinal. Given the difficulties and known bounds to the possible extensions of the proper forcing iteration technique which follow from \cite{Inamdar-Rinot-nonstructure-aleph2}, this shows that the generalised perfect set forcing is rather special
among the possible generalisations of many forcings known that introduce new subsets to $\omega$.
This paper extends the iteration results from \cite{Property-B} to the class of well-founded partial orders
in place of an ordinal. That is, we can iterate ${\mathbb P} (\mathcal F^\ast_\kappa)$ with supports of size $\le\kappa$ along such partial orders and still preserve cardinals $\le\kappa^+$. A very surprising result about perfect set forcing was obtained by Vladimir Kanovei in \cite{zbMATH01335192}, showing that the perfect set forcing can be iterated with countable supports along any partial order, while preserving $\aleph_1$. This theorem is proved by introducing
a novel technique called {\em geometric iteration} and it is very special to the perfect set forcing. It uses properties of the descriptive set theory of the reals. Here we have succeeded in obtaining an analogous result for the forcing ${\mathbb P} (\mathcal F^\ast_\kappa)$, albeit having to restrict to well-founded partial orders. Our technique is necessarily rather different than that of \cite{zbMATH01335192}, since the descriptive set theory is no longer available. We use instead the ranks of well-founded orders. As to the class of well-founded orders, it includes various trees and more complicated orders. Hence the results here are a true generalisation of what was obtained in \cite{Property-B}.
In addition to this, we discuss the generic objects added by ${\mathbb P} (\mathcal F^\ast_\kappa)$ and show that they include a function in
${}^\kappa\kappa$ which dominates on a club all such functions from the ground model. Together with the main iteration result, this shows that it is consistent that the structure ${}^\kappa\kappa$ modulo the order of the domination on a club has a cofinal set isomorphic to any well-founded order given in advance.
This resembles the well known property of dominating reals obtained by Hechler forcing.
Finally, we discuss the preservation of $\kappa^{++}$ and show that there are difficulties in that. They stem from the situation which (in spite of much published work on the subject) is unclear even in much simpler contexts, such as having a direct proof that iterating $\omega_2$ Laver reals with countable supports over a model of CH does not collapse $\aleph_2$.
The main technical difficulty of the paper is that the geometric iteration of perfect set forcing is not really an iteration but a product organised along a possibly non-linear partial order. This works well for the product of perfect set forcing since a product with countable support of such forcings preserves cardinals. In our case, this is no longer true. In fact, in \cite[Th 5.6]{Property-B} we showed that
if $2^\kappa=\kappa^+$, then the product of $\kappa$ many copies of ${\mathbb P} (\mathcal F)$ collapses $\kappa^+$, and this is true even for
$\kappa=\aleph_0$. Our approach therefore was to give up the idea of the products but to use a strong property of well-ordered iterations of
${\mathbb P} (\mathcal F)$ called {\em amalgamation property}. We proved \cite[Th 8.1]{Property-B} that this property holds for
the well-ordered iteration of ${\mathbb P} (\mathcal F)$. In this paper we show that it holds for the well-founded iterations too and we use that to obtain the general iteration theorem.
The paper is organised as follows. \S\ref{sec:definitions} gives basic definitions and facts. \S\ref{sec:difficcult} explains why geometric iterations cannot be used in this case and describes the main difficulties needed to be resolved. \S \ref{sec: ourdef} gives the definitions of the concepts needed from
\cite{Property-B}. \S\ref{sec:it-wf} develops the definition of an iteration along a well-founded order. \S \ref{sec:main} proves the main result of the paper,
which is that for appropriate filters $\mathcal F$, we can iterate ${\mathbb P}(\FF)$ along any well-founded order and preserves cardinals up and including
$\kappa^+$. \S\ref{sec:applications} shows what the generic object of ${\mathbb P}(\FF)$ is. Finally, \S \ref{sec:double+} discusses the difficulties of proving the preservation of
$\kappa^{++}$ even when starting from a model of GCH, where our research is inconclusive. \S\ref{conclusions} recalls the conclusions of the paper and some indications for possible future directions.
\section{Basic Definitions}\label{sec:definitions} Throughout, $\kappa$ is an infinite cardinal satisfying $\kappa^{<\kappa}=\kappa$.
We recall the definitions of ${\mathbb P} (\mathcal F)$ from \cite[Def 4.1]{Property-B}. As a motivation, we mention that it is a generalisation from $\omega$ of the Grigorieff forcing on trees, which itself is a generalisation of the perfect set forcing. To generalise perfect set forcing from $\omega$ to uncountable cardinals, it turns out that we have to pass through the Grigorieff forcing in place of working with the perfect set forcing directly. Reasons for this are
explained in \cite[\S4 and \S10]{Property-B}\footnote{The paper \cite{Property-B} was concerned both with mathematics and with the history of the concepts discussed. To explain that better, we had split the definition of $\mathbb P(\FF)$ into something that looked as \cite{zbMATH03708389} for $\kappa$-perfect trees, and then we showed that without the requirement of closure, the concept does not make sense for forcing. Hence we put the closure in the definition of our forcing. There is no more reason to do such a split in this paper, therefore we change the notation to the more natural one. This is also the approach of \cite{zbMATH05121369} and of \cite{FriedmanGitman:ModelOfACNotDCInaccessible}, who have both noticed the mistake in \cite{zbMATH03708389} without saying it specifically, and \cite{FriedmanGitman:ModelOfACNotDCInaccessible} provided a complete closure argument for the relevant forcing. Moving the closure up or down in the definitions does not affect any of the results, obviously.}.
\begin{definition}\label{gSacks:def}
(1) Let $\FF$ be a $(<\kappa)$-complete filter on $\kappa$. We say that a subtree $p\subseteq {}^{{<\kappa}}\kappa$ is {\em $\FF$-perfect}, if
\begin{itemize}
\item $\sup\{\dom(s):\,s\in p\}=\kappa$,
\item for any $s\in p$, there is
$t\supseteq s$ such that $\{\alpha<\kappa:\, t\frown\alpha\in p\} \in \FF$ (we say that such $t$ is $\FF$-{\em splitting}) and
\item If $\delta<\kappa$ is a limit ordinal and $s\in {}^{\delta} \kappa$ is such that for all $\alpha<\delta$ we have $s\rest\alpha\in p$, then $s\in p$
(we call this the closure of $p$).
\end{itemize}
For $s\in p$ we define its {\em splitting history} as
\[
{\rm deg}_p (s)=\{i < \dom(s):\,(\exists t\in p)\,[t\rest i =s\rest i \mbox{ and }t(i)\neq s(i)]\}.
\]
{\noindent (2)} The $\FF$-perfect tree forcing $\mathbb P(\FF)$ is defined as follows:
The conditions in $\mathbb P$ are $\FF$-perfect subtrees $p$ of ${}^{{<\kappa}}\kappa$, satisfying the following additional conditions:
\begin{description}
\item [{\rm (o)}] For every $s\in p$, either $| \{\alpha<\kappa:\,s\frown \alpha\in p\} | = 1$, or $\{\alpha<\kappa:\,s\frown \alpha\in p\}\in \FF$.
\item [{\rm (i) [Closure of splitting for every node]}] For every $s\in p$, the set ${\rm deg}_p (s)$ is a closed subset of $\dom(s)$.
\end{description}
The order is defined by $p\le q$ if $p\supseteq q$.
The {\em stem} of $p$,
denoted by $s[p]$ is defined by
\[
s[p]=\bigcup \{s\in p:\,\mbox{no }t\subset s \mbox{ is splitting and }s \mbox{ is splitting}\}.
\]
(Note that this is well-defined by (o) and is a uniquely defined element in $p$).
\smallskip
{\noindent (3)} For $\zeta<\kappa$ the order $\le_\zeta$ is defined by letting
$p\le_\zeta q$ if
\begin{itemize}
\item $p\le q$,
\item for all $s\in p$ with ${\rm otp}({\rm deg}_p(s))< \zeta$ we have $s\in q$.
\end{itemize}
\smallskip
{\noindent (4)} For $p$ as above, we let $[p]$ be the set of $\kappa$-branches of $p$, namely
\[
[p]=\{f\in {}^\kappa\kappa:\,(\forall \alpha<\kappa) f\rest\alpha\in p\}.
\]
$\eod_{\mbox{\tiny{Def.}} \ref{gSacks:def}}$
\end{definition}
It is perhaps worth noting that $\mathbb P(\FF)$ is indeed a partial order with the least element ${}^{{<\kappa}}\kappa$.
\subsection{Geometric iteration definitions} Here we recall the definitions from \cite[\S1]{zbMATH01335192}, but we adapt them to our case, using the notation of \cite[\S1]{zbMATH01335192}.
\begin{notation}\label{def:letters} Letters $\zeta,\xi$ and $\eta$ stand for partial orders, where an order relation is specified, and $i,j$ for individual elements of partial orders. The set $\kpo$ is the set of all (isomorphism types of) partial orders of size $\le\kappa$.
For a partial order $(\zeta,<)$ and $i\in \zeta$, we define $[<i], [\le i], [>i], [\ge i]$ in the natural way. For example $[<i]=\{j\in \zeta:\,j<i\}$.
\end{notation}
\begin{definition}\label{def:initial-segment} An {\em initial segment} of a partial order $(\zeta,<)$ is a downward-closed subset, that is a set $\xi\subseteq \zeta$ such that for all $j\in \xi$ and $i<j$ we have $i\in \xi$. We assume the initial segments are ordered by the induced order. We let $\isz$ be the set of all
initial segments of the order $(\zeta,<)$.
We let $\mathcal K$ stand for ${}^\kappa\kappa$ and $\mathcal k$ for ${}^{<\kappa}\kappa$.
$\eod_{\mbox{\tiny{Def.}} \ref{def:initial-segment}}$
\end{definition}
We recall that the main result of \cite{zbMATH01335192} is the definition of an iteration of the perfect set forcing with countable supports along any partial order and the fact \cite[Th. 1]{zbMATH01335192} that such an iteration (or a ``long product'' as it is appropriately called in \cite{zbMATH01335192}) preserves
$\aleph_1$, and has other interesting properties. In \S\ref{sec:difficcult} we explain why it is unlikely that such a general result can be obtained for $\kappa$
uncountable and why the technique of the geometric forcing does not generalise to this case.
\section{The difficulties of the generalisation to $\kappa>\aleph_0$}\label{sec:difficcult} A main difficulty of the generalisation is the lack of the convenient topological structure.
We may consider $\mathcal K$ in a topology given by the initial segments : a basic open set is a set of the form $\{\rho: \, s\subseteq \rho\}$ for $s\in \mathcal k$. In particular, this is a $(<\kappa)$-box topology, rather than the ordinary product topology. In general $\mathcal K$ is neither metric nor compact in this topology, or in any other topology that respects the order on $\kappa$ to the extent to let us identify perfect subsets of $\mathcal K$ as branches of $\mathcal k$.
For $(\zeta, <)\in \kpo$ we may define the topological space $\mathcal K^\zeta$ as follows. Its set of elements is the product (we may also work with the lexicographic product, but it turns out to be irrelevant) of copies of $\mathcal K$ along $\zeta$, so the set $\Pi_{i\in \zeta} \mathcal K$ ordered by the ordinary co-ordinatwise order. The set
${\mathcal K}^\zeta$ may be given various topologies, for example the ordinary Tychonov product of the topologies on $\mathcal K$. As it turns out, unlike in the countable case for the perfect set forcing, there are no useful topological properties of $\mathcal K^\zeta$ we may exploit. We explain that now.
An important ingredient of the geometric iteration approach is that
the Cantor space $\mathcal D$ satisfies that its every countable power is homeomorphic to $\mathcal D$. The proof of this relies on the compactness of
$\mathcal D$. In particular, whatever topology we give to $\mathcal K$, we do not have the compactness and do not obtain that
$\mathcal K$ is homeomorphic to its powers of size $\le\kappa$. We may try to ignore the topological properties of $\mathcal K^\zeta$ and work only with the combinatorial properties. As is known from descriptive set theory generalised to uncountable regular cardinals, for example \cite{FriedmanHyttinenKulikov2014}, not much of the ordinary descriptive set theory carries through. Notably because there is no metric available. What is happening here fits that pattern.
We may optimistically try to continue, saying that the proofs in \cite{zbMATH01335192} use topology to be able to obtain applications about continuous functions and other subjects coming from descriptive set theory, which is not our concern. So we may try concentrate only on the properties relevant to the combinatorics of forcing. We immediately arrive to a new difficulty, which is that what this is starting to look like is reducing the arbitrary iterations to the product with $\le\kappa$ supports of ${\mathbb P}(\mathcal F)$. However, this product does not in general preserve $\kappa^+$, even in the case
$\kappa=\aleph_0$, see \cite[Th 5.6]{Property-B}.
The solution comes from the following consideration. While we have shown in \cite[Th 5.6]{Property-B} that products with $\le\kappa$-supports of ${\mathbb P}(\mathcal F)$ do not preserve $\kappa^+$, we have also shown \cite[Th 8.1+Cor. 8.2]{Property-B} that the iterations with $\le\kappa$-supports along an ordinal, do preserve all cardinals up and including $\kappa^+$. Therefore we do not aim at an iteration-free solution as in geometric iterations, but we show that the arguments about any iteration of ${\mathbb P}(\mathcal F)$ along well-founded orders, made with supports of size $\le\kappa$, may to a large extent be reduced to the ones used when iterating along an ordinal by using the well-founded rank of the order.
Another difficulty is to define what is meant by an iteration of forcing along a partial order $I$ and with supports of size $\le \kappa$. This concept was introduced by Marcia Groszek and Thomas Jech in \cite{zbMATH04187795}, who used it to study iterations of perfect set forcing along any partial order. However, their approach is lacking details and in our opinion is too general to be applicable the way that they intended it. In particular, it is absolutely unclear to us how to handle the dependence of a stage in the iteration on the previous stages, for example if the previous stages form an ill-founded set. Moreover, they themselves in \cite[\S1]{zbMATH04187795}, immediately after giving what is intended as a generalised iteration, pass to the case when all the supports are well-founded. The topological arguments from \cite{zbMATH01335192} that apply to the prefect set forcing to have a simple argument for forcing along any partial order, work perfectly well, but only in the context of the prefect set forcing. For the forcing of the kind $\mathbb P(\FF)$, we have to go back to the idea of a generalised iteration. Various versions of these were introduced in the literature, including some incorrect ones, starting as early as by Stephen Hechler in \cite{zbMATH03510298}. We introduce the specific definition that we use, adapted to the kind of forcing used here.
We are only able to develop the theory for iterations of forcing along well-founded partial orders.
\section{Some relevant definitions and facts}\label{sec: ourdef} Throughout, $\chi$ stands for a large enough regular cardinal so that any mathematical objects mentioned in the definitions are elements of $\HH(\chi)$ and $\prec^\ast$ stands for a fixed well--order of $\HH(\chi)$. We recall that we work with an infinite cardinal $\kappa$ such that $\kappa^{<\kappa}=\kappa$.
\begin{definition}\label{def:B-kappa-properness} We say that a forcing notion $\mathbb P$ is {\em $B-\kappa$-proper} if
there exists a sequence $\langle \leq_\zeta:\,\zeta<\kappa\rangle$ of partial orders on $P$, satisfying
\begin{enumerate}
\item \(\leq_0 = \leq\), and $\xi<\zeta\implies \le_\xi\supseteq \le_\zeta$,
\item for $\delta$ limit $\in (0,\kappa)$, we have $\le_\delta=\bigcap_{\zeta<\delta} \le_\zeta$,
\item for any
\begin{itemize}
\item $p\in \mathbb P$, $\zeta<\kappa$, $N\prec H(\chi)$ with $|N|=\kappa$ and $N^{<\kappa}\subseteq N$, such that $p, ( \mathbb P,\langle \le_\zeta:\,\zeta<\kappa\rangle) \in N$, $\kappa\subseteq N$,
\end{itemize}
there is $q\ge_\zeta p$ which is $\mathbb P$-generic over $N$.
$\eod_{\mbox{\tiny{Def.}} \ref{def:B-kappa-properness}}$
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}\label{def:strongclosure} A {\em strongly $(<\kappa)$-closed forcing notion} is a pair $({\mathbb P},F)$ where ${\mathbb P}$
is a forcing and
$F$ is a function which acts on increasing sequences of length $<\kappa$ of conditions in ${\mathbb P}$, so that for every
such sequence $\bar{p}=\langle p_i:\,i<i^\ast\rangle$ where $i^\ast<\kappa$ we have that $F(\bar{p})$ is a common upper bound to $\bar{p}$.
In such circumstances we say that $F$ {\em witnesses} the strong $(<\kappa)$-closure of ${\mathbb P}$. If no confusion arises, we often just say that
${\mathbb P}$ is strongly $(<\kappa)$-closed.
$\eod_{\mbox{\tiny{Def.}} \ref{def:strongclosure}}$
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}\label{def:strongfusion} We say that a forcing notion ${\mathbb P}$ together with a sequence
$\langle \le_\zeta:\,\zeta<\kappa\rangle$ of orders witnessing fusion satisfies {\em strong fusion}, if there is a function $t$ with the following properties:
for any sequence $\langle p_\zeta:\,\zeta\in [\zeta^\ast, \delta)\rangle$ for $0<\delta$ limit $\le\kappa$ and some $\zeta^\ast<\delta$ such that
$p_\zeta \le_\zeta p_{\zeta+1}$ for all $\zeta \in [\zeta^\ast, \delta)$ and $p_\xi=t(\langle p_\zeta:\,\zeta\in [\zeta^\ast, \xi)\rangle)$ for all $\zeta^\ast<\xi$ limit $<\delta$, we have that $t(\langle p_\zeta:\,\zeta\in [\zeta^\ast, \delta)\rangle)$ is the fusion limit of $\langle p_\zeta:\,\zeta \in [\zeta^\ast, \delta)\rangle$.
$\eod_{\mbox{\tiny{Def.}} \ref{def:strongfusion}}$
\end{definition}
\begin{fact}\label{fact:properties-of-individual-forcing} The forcing ${\mathbb P}(\mathcal F)$ is $B-\kappa$-proper, strongly $(<\kappa)$-closed and has
the strong fusion.
\end{fact}
\begin{proof} The strong $(<\kappa)$-closure of ${\mathbb P}(\mathcal F)$ as witnessed by intersections is proved in \cite[Ex. 7.2(1)]{Property-B} and its strong fusion property is proved in \cite[Ex. 7.8(1)]{Property-B}. In \cite[Cor. 4.10]{Property-B} it is proved that ${\mathbb P}(\mathcal F)$ satisfies property $B(\kappa)$, while in
\cite[Th 7.7]{Property-B} it is proved that every forcing that satisfies property $B(\kappa)$ is $B-\kappa$-proper.
$\eop_{\ref{fact:properties-of-individual-forcing}}$
\end{proof}
\begin{fact}\label{fact:rank} If $I$ is a well-founded partial order, then there is a unique ordinal $\alpha^\ast$ such that there is an order preserving
surjection $\rho:\,I\to\alpha^\ast$.
\end{fact}
\begin{proof} If $I=\emptyset$ then we have that $\alpha^\ast=0$, as witnessed by the trivial function. Suppose that $I\neq\emptyset$ and define $\rho$ from $I$ into the ordinals by letting
\[
\rho(x)=
\begin{cases}
\sup\{\rho(y)+1:\,y<_I x\} &\mbox{ if }x\mbox{ is not minimal in }I,\\
1 &\mbox{ otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\]
Since $I$ is a well-founded set, this definition indeed gives an algorithm for computing the value of $\rho(x)$ for every $x\in I$. Since $I$ is a set, there is a first ordinal $\alpha^\ast$ which is not in the range of $\rho$. The formula gives that $\rho$ is onto $\alpha^\ast$, as supposing that there is $\alpha<\alpha^\ast$
which is not in the range of $I$ would be a contradiction with any $\beta\in (\alpha, \alpha^\ast)$ being in the range of $\rho$. Finally, $\rho$ is order-preserving
by the construction, and this property along with the surjectivity of $\rho$ implies that $\alpha^\ast$ is unique.
$\eop_{\ref{fact:rank}}$
\end{proof}
\section{Iterations of ${\mathbb P}(\mathcal F)$ along a well-founded order}\label{sec:it-wf}. Our aim is to prove an iteration theorem
for the forcing notion ${\mathbb P}(\mathcal F)$ along any well-founded order. We note that for the notion of iteration of $\mathbb P(\mathcal F)$ to make sense, we have to assume that $\mathcal F$ remains a $(<\kappa)$-complete filter on $\kappa$ after forcing with a $(<\kappa)$-closed forcing (to be precise, a strongly $(<\kappa)$-closed $B$-$\kappa$-proper forcing). This is assured in particular, if $\mathcal F$ does not get any new elements after such forcing. An example of such a filter is the co-bounded filter on $\kappa$. From this point we let $\FF$ stand for such a filter. Hence we recall our assumptions:
\begin{notation}\label{not:F} Let $\kappa=\kappa^{<\kappa}$ be infinite and let $\FF$ be a $(<\kappa)$-complete filter on $\kappa$ such that after forcing with a
$(<\kappa)$-closed forcing $\FF$ gains no new elements.
\end{notation}
\begin{definition}\label{def:mixed-iteration} Let $\rho_I:I\to \alpha^\ast$ be the rank function associated to a well-founded order $I$.
By induction on the ordinal $\alpha^*$ we define what is a {\em an iteration along $I$ with supports of size $\le\kappa$} of ${\mathbb P}(\mathcal F)$
and what is meant by its limit ${\mathbb P}_{I}$.
We shall denote such an iteration by
\[
\langle ({\mathbb P}_{J}, \name{{\mathbb P}}(\mathcal F)_J):\, J \mbox{ a strict initial segment of } I\rangle.
\]
For this definition let $J$ stand for strict initial segments of $I$ and $\name{{\mathbb P}}(\mathcal F)_J$ for a fixed ${\mathbb P}_J$-name
for ${\mathbb P}(\mathcal F)$, which can be defined if we are justified in ${\mathbb P}_{J}$ being a forcing notion.
If $\alpha^*=0$, we have that $I=\emptyset$.
We define ${\mathbb P}_\emptyset=\{\emptyset\}$. Hence, ${\mathbb P}_\emptyset$ is a forcing notion with the minimal element $\emptyset$. We then have
$\name{{\mathbb P}}(\mathcal F)_\emptyset=
{\mathbb P}(\mathcal F)$, since forcing with ${\mathbb P}_\emptyset$ makes no changes to the ground model.
Suppose that
$\alpha^\ast>0$. Since for every $J$ we have that $\rho\rest {J} $ is a rank function to an ordinal $<\alpha^\ast$, by the induction hypothesis we have a definition of what is an iteration along $J$ of ${\mathbb P}(\mathcal F)$. We assume as an induction hypothesis that:
\begin{itemize}
\item For every $J$, the forcing notion ${\mathbb P}_J$ is the limit with supports of size $\le\kappa$ of an iteration
$\langle {(\mathbb P}_{K}, \name{{\mathbb P}}(\mathcal F)_K):\,K \mbox{ a proper initial segment of }J \rangle$ of ${\mathbb P}(\mathcal F)$ whose minimal
element is
\[
\emptyset_{{\mathbb P}_J}= \emptyset \!\frown\! \langle \emptyset_{\name{{\mathbb P}}(\mathcal F)_K}, \,K \mbox{ a proper initial segment of }J\rangle,
\]
\item For every $J$ with a non-empty set $\Gamma$ of maximal elements and any $j\in \Gamma$,
we have that
\begin{itemize}
\item ${\mathbb P}_{[\le j]}={\mathbb P}_{[<j]} \ast \name{{\mathbb P}}(\mathcal F)_{[<j]}$, and
\item ${\mathbb P}_J$ is the set of all functions $p$ with domain $J$ such that for some $j\in \Gamma$ we have $p\rest [\le j]\in {\mathbb P}_{[\le j]}$
and $p(i)=\emptyset_{{\name{\mathbb P}(\mathcal F)_{{\mathbb P}_{[<i]}}}}$ for $i\in J \setminus [\le j]$.
(Note that this includes $\emptyset_{{\mathbb P}_J}$.)
\end{itemize}
\item For $J$ with no maximal element, the elements of ${\mathbb P}_{J}$ are sequences of the form $p=\langle p(j):\,j\in J\rangle$ satisfying the following:\begin{enumerate}
\item for every $K$ a proper initial segment of $J$, the sequence $\langle p(k):\,k\in K\rangle$ is in ${\mathbb P}_K$,
\item each $p(j)$ is a canonical ${\mathbb P}_{[<j]}$-name for a condition in $\name{\mathbb P}(\mathcal F)$,
\item ${\rm supt}(p)=\{j\in J:\,\neg (p\rest [<j]\forces_{{\mathbb P}_{[<j]}} ``p(j)=\emptyset_{\name{\mathbb P}(\mathcal F)}")\}$ is a set of size $\le\kappa$.
\end{enumerate}
We have treated the elements of ${\mathbb P}_{J}$ as functions with the domain $J$. It is with this in mind that we can define the restrictions of such functions to any subset of $J$.
\item The order $\le_J$ on ${\mathbb P}_J$ is given by $p\le q$ iff the following hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item if $J$ has a non-empty set $\{j_\gamma:\,\gamma<\gamma^\ast\}$ of maximal elements, necessarily incomparables, then for some $\gamma<\gamma^\ast$, we have
$p, q\in {\mathbb P}_{[\le j_\gamma]}$ and
\[
(p\rest[<j_\gamma], p(j_\gamma))\le (q\rest [<j_\gamma], q(j_\gamma))
\]
in the two step iteration ${\mathbb P}_{[<j_\gamma]}\ast \name{\mathbb P}(\mathcal F)_{[<j_\gamma]}$,
\item if $J$ has no last element, then for all $j\in J$ we have $p\rest [<j]\le q\rest [<j] $.
\end{enumerate}
\end{itemize}
Having made all these assumptions, there is only one way of defining ${\mathbb P}_I$ which will preserve them, and it is given by repeating all the items of the
inductive hypothesis with $I$ in place of $J$.$\eod_{\mbox{\tiny{Def.}} \ref{def:mixed-iteration}}$
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:why-always-the-same}
We note that the very construction of this definition is such that we are always forcing with the same forcing notion $\name{\mathbb P}(\mathcal F)$.
It is conceivable that we could replace $\name{\mathbb P}(\mathcal F)$ by some other fixed forcing notion, provided it has the required properties of closure, properness and amalgamation under ordinal-length iteration, although we don't have any other examples in mind. It is also conceivable that a more elaborate approach might lead to being able to interleave different kinds of forcings into the iteration. Since for the moment we do not even know how to do such an iteration along an ordinal, because of the amalgamation property which depends on using the same forcing all along, that situation is beyond the reach of our present methodology for $\kappa>\aleph_0$.
For $\kappa=\aleph_0$ generalised iterations have been studied in numerous instances of the literature on cardinal invariants and we shall not go in that direction here.
\end{remark}
\begin{notation}\label{not:padding} Suppose that $K$ is an initial segment of $J$ and $p\in {\mathbb P}_{K}$. By the {\em padding of $p$ to
${\mathbb P}_{J}$} we understand the unique, up to the forcing equivalence, condition $q\in {\mathbb P}_{J}$ such that $\supt(q)=\supt(p)$ and for every $j\in \supt(p)$ we have $\forces_{{\mathbb P}_{[<j]}}``q(j)=p(j)"$. We denote $q=p \rest^{-1}_K J$.
\end{notation}
\begin{observation}\label{lem:projection-forcing} Let $J$ be an initial segment of $I$ and let
\[
\langle ({\mathbb P}_{K}, \name{{\mathbb P}}(\mathcal F)_K):\, K \mbox{ a strict initial segment of } I\rangle
\]
be an iteration along $I$ with supports of size $\le\kappa$ of ${\mathbb P}(\mathcal F)$.
Then
\begin{itemize}
\item
$\langle ({\mathbb P}_{K}, \name{{\mathbb P}}(\mathcal F)_K):\, K \mbox{ a strict initial segment of } J \rangle$
is an iteration along $J$ with supports of size
$\le\kappa$ of ${\mathbb P}(\mathcal F)$,
\item the padding mapping embeds ${\mathbb P}_{J}$ as a complete
suborder of ${\mathbb P}_{I}$ and the mapping $p\mapsto p\rest J$ is a projection.
\end{itemize}.
\end{observation}
\begin{proof}
The proof reposes on the fact that if $K$ is an initial segment of $J$, then it is also an initial segment of $I$.
We may observe from Definition \ref{def:mixed-iteration} that the definitions of
\[
\langle( {\mathbb P}_{K}, \name{{\mathbb P}}(\mathcal F)_K):\, K \mbox{ a strict initial segment of } J\rangle \mbox{ and }{\mathbb P}_{J}
\]
are independent of $I$.
$\eop_{\ref{lem:projection-forcing}}$
\end{proof}
Now we adapt to the context used here the definition of iterations with amalgamation that we made for iterations along ordinals in \cite[Def.7.8]{Property-B}.
The partial orders $\le_\zeta$ are as defined by Definition \ref{gSacks:def}(2).
\begin{definition}\label{def:amalgamation}
An iteration $\langle ({\mathbb P}_{J}, \name{{\mathbb P}}(\mathcal F)_J):\, J \mbox{ a strict initial segment of } I \rangle$ as in
Definition \ref{def:mixed-iteration} is said to have {\em amalgamation} if for every $J$, for every $C\in [J]^{<\kappa}$, for every $\zeta<\kappa$, for every dense open set
$\DD\subseteq {\mathbb P}_J$ and every $p\in {\mathbb P}_J$, there is $q$ such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item $q\in \DD$,
\item $q\ge p$,
\item for every $j\in J$, we have $q\rest [<j]\forces_{\mathbb P_{[<j]}}``q(j)\ge^{\name{{\mathbb P}}(\mathcal F)_{[<j]}}_{\zeta} p(j)"$.
$\eod_{\mbox{\tiny{Def.}} \ref{def:amalgamation}}$
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
In \S\ref{sec:main} we prove our main theorem, Theorem \ref{th:iteration}.
Along with known facts that we shall recall, it implies that that iterating
$\mathbb P(\mathcal F)$ along any well-founded partial order preserves cardinals up and including $\kappa^+$ (Corollary \ref{cor:preserving-cardinals}).
\section{Iterating $\mathbb P(\mathcal F)$ along well-founded partial orders preserves cardinals $\le\kappa^+$}\label{sec:main}
The following is a general iteration theorem for $\mathbb P(\mathcal F)$, which is adapted from \cite[Th 7.11]{Property-B} to apply to iterations along $I$ as considered above.
We note, as we did in \cite[Obs. 7.9]{Property-B} that the property of being $B$-$\kappa$-proper for the result of an iteration
of forcing, implies the amalgamation of that iteration, by definitions. The point of stating Theorem \ref{th:iteration} in the way we did is that it is proven on the induction on the rank of $I$ and that at the inductive step we use the amalgamation property of the iteration obtained so far, together with the new step, along with the inductive hypothesis of $B$-$\kappa$-properness on smaller ranks, to prove that the limit of the iteration is $B$-$\kappa$-proper.
\begin{theorem}[General Iteration Theorem]\label{th:iteration} Suppose that $\kappa^{<\kappa}=\kappa$ and $\mathcal F$ is a $(<\kappa)$-complete filter
on $\kappa$ such that $\FF$ obtains no new elements in forcing extensions by a $(<\kappa)$-closed forcing.
Consider an iteration $\bar{P}_I=\langle ({\mathbb P}_{J}, \name{{\mathbb P}}(\mathcal F)_J):\, J \mbox{ a strict initial segment of } I \rangle$ made with supports of size $\le\kappa$, where $I$ is a well-founded partial order. We claim:
\begin{enumerate}
\item the limit ${\mathbb P}_{I}$ of the iteration is strongly $(<\kappa)$-closed. In particular
$\mathcal F$ remains a $(<\kappa)$-complete filter on $\kappa$ after the forcing with ${\mathbb P}_{I}$,
\item the iteration has amalgamation, and
\item ${\mathbb P}_{I}$ is $B-\kappa$-proper.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} The proof is by induction of the well-foundedness rank $\alpha^\ast$ of $I$. If $\alpha^\ast=0$ the conclusion is vacuously true, so we assume
$\alpha^\ast>0$. We note that for every proper initial segment $J$ of $I$, its well-foundedness rank is $<\alpha^\ast$.
Hence, we have that for any such $J$, the iteration
$\langle ({\mathbb P}_{K}, \name{{\mathbb P}}(\mathcal F)_K):\, K \mbox{ an initial segment of } J \rangle $ is a properly defined iteration
along $J$ with supports of size $\le\kappa$. It follows by the induction hypothesis applied on this
iteration that
its limit ${\mathbb P}_{J}$ satisfy the properties stated in the statement of the theorem.
Since we have assumed that $\mathcal F$ does not get any new elements after forcing with $(<\kappa)$-closed forcing,
we can conclude that for every such $J$, the filter $\mathcal F$ remains a $(<\kappa)$-complete filter on $\kappa$ after the forcing with ${\mathbb P}_{J}$.
Therefore, by Fact \ref{def:mixed-iteration}, there is a ${\mathbb P}_{J}$-name
$\name{f}_J$ for a function witnessing that $\name{{\mathbb P}}(\mathcal F)_J$ is strongly $(<\kappa)$-closed.
\medskip
{\noindent (1)} We prove that ${\mathbb P}_{I}$ is strongly $(<\kappa)$-closed as witnessed by a function $h_{I}$.
Suppose that $\bar{p}=\langle p_\varepsilon:\,\varepsilon<\varepsilon^\ast\rangle$ is an increasing sequence in ${\mathbb P}_{I}$ and
$\varepsilon^\ast<\kappa$. By induction on the rank
$\alpha<\alpha^\ast$ of a proper initial segment $J$ of $I$, we choose an upper bound
$q_J=h_J(\langle p_\varepsilon\rest J:\,\varepsilon<\varepsilon^\ast\rangle)$, and we claim that we can do it so that
for every $K$ an initial segment of $J$, both proper initial segments of $I$, we have $q_K= q_J\rest K$. To be able to do this, note that if $K$ is a proper initial segment of $J$, then its well-foundedness rank is strictly less than that of $J$. The proof proceeds by the induction on the well-foundedness rank
$\alpha$ of $J$. The inductive hypothesis is that for every $K$ a proper initial segment of $J$, we have chosen
\[
q_K=h_K(\langle p_\varepsilon\rest K:\,\varepsilon<\varepsilon^\ast\rangle)
\]
and hence implicitly, that the functions $h_K$ satisfy that for any $K,K'$ proper initial segments of $J$, with $K$ an initial segment of $K'$, for
every increasing sequence $\bar{r}$ of length $<\kappa$ in $P_{K'}$, we have that
\[
h_{K'}(\bar{r})\rest K= h_{K}(\overline{r\rest K}).
\]
Notice that this requirement makes sense, since if $\bar{r}$ is increasing in $P_{K'}$, then $\overline{r\rest K}$ is increasing in $P_{K'}$. We shall in particular define $h_J$ so that this inductive requirement is preserved.
The case \underline{$\alpha=0$} is trivial. Consider the case \underline{$\alpha=\beta+1$}. This means that $J$ has a non-empty set of maximal elements,
$\{j_\gamma:\,\gamma<\gamma^\ast\}$. In particular, these maximal elements are incompatible in $J$.
By the definition of the forcing ${\mathbb P}_J$, we have that for two conditions $p,q\in {\mathbb P}_J$ to be
comparable, there must be a $\gamma<\gamma^\ast$ such that $p,q\in {\mathbb P}_{[\le j_\gamma]}$. Since the sequence $\bar{p}$ is increasing, such
a $\gamma$ must be common to all $p_{\varepsilon}$. Let us denote that $j_\gamma$ by $j$. Notice that then we have that for every $\varepsilon$ the condition $p_\varepsilon \rest J$ is in fact $p_\varepsilon \rest {[\le j]}$.
By the induction hypothesis, ${\mathbb P}_{[<j]}$ is a strongly
$(<\kappa)$-closed forcing, as witnessed by a function $h_{[<j]}$. By the definition of the iteration Definition \ref{def:mixed-iteration}, we have $P_{[\le j]}={\mathbb P}_{[<j]}\ast \name{{\mathbb P}}(\mathcal F)_{[< j]}$.
We define
\[
q_J\!=\!h_J(\langle p_\varepsilon\rest J:\,\varepsilon<\varepsilon^\ast\rangle)\!=\!(h_{[<j]} (\langle (p_\varepsilon\rest [<j]:\,\varepsilon<\varepsilon^\ast\rangle),
\name{f}_{[< j]}(\langle p_\varepsilon(j):\,\varepsilon<\varepsilon^\ast\rangle).
\]
This is a well-defined condition in $P_{[\le j]}$, hence in $P_J$, and it is clearly forced by $\mathbb{P}_{[\le j]}$ and so by ${\mathbb P}_J$ to be a common upper
bound to $\bar{p}\rest J$. Moreover, the inductive hypothesis that $q_{[<j]}=h_{[<j]} (\langle (p_\varepsilon\rest [<j]:\,\varepsilon<\varepsilon^\ast\rangle)$
and the inductive hypothesis on its properties, imply that
$q_K= q_J\rest K$ is satisfied for every initial segment $K$ of $J$.
Now suppose that \underline{$\alpha>0$ is a limit ordinal of cofinality $\theta\le\kappa$}. Let $\langle \alpha_\zeta:\,\zeta<\theta\rangle$ be an increasing
sequence of ordinals whose supremum is $\alpha$. Since our definition of $h_J$ needs to be functional, hence no ambiguity is allowed, we choose
$\langle \alpha_\zeta:\,\zeta<\theta\rangle$ as the $\prec^\ast_\chi$-first such sequence in $\HH(\chi)$.
For $\zeta<\theta$ define
\[
K_\zeta=\{j\in J:\,\rho_J(j)<\alpha_\zeta\}.
\]
Hence $K_\zeta$ is a well-founded order of rank $\alpha_\zeta$ and it is downward closed in $J$, by the definition of $\rho_J$. Moreover, for $\xi\le\zeta$
we have that $K_\xi$ is an initial segment of $K_\zeta$.
By the inductive assumption we have defined the conditions $\langle q_{K_\zeta}:\,\zeta<\theta\rangle$ using a sequence
$\langle h_{K_\zeta}:\,\zeta<\theta\rangle$ of functions where each $h_{K_\zeta}$ witnesses the strong $(<\kappa)$-closure of
${\mathbb P}_{K_\zeta}$, so that $q_{K_\zeta}$ is a common upper bound of $\langle p_{\varepsilon}\rest K_\zeta:\,\varepsilon <\varepsilon^\ast
\rangle$ and so that $\xi<\zeta\implies q_{K_\xi}=q_{K_\zeta}\rest K_\xi$. Now we define $q_J=h_{J}(\bar{p})$ as the unique function $q$ with domain $J$ such that $q_{K_\zeta}=q_{K_\zeta}$ for all $\zeta$. Then $q_J$ is a condition in
${\mathbb P}_J$, since the fact that $\theta\le\kappa$ implies that the support of $q_J$ has size $\le\kappa$. It follows from the definitions and the inductive assumptions that $q_J$ has all the required properties.
The final case is when \underline{$\cf(\alpha)=\theta>\kappa$}. Let
$\beta=\sup\{\rho_J (p_\varepsilon\rest J)+1:\,\varepsilon < \varepsilon^\ast\}$, hence $\beta<\alpha$. Let $K=\{j\in J:\,\rho_J(j)<\beta\}$, so $K$ is a proper initial segment of $J$ whose rank is
$\beta$. By the inductive hypothesis, $h_K$ and $q_K$ have been defined as required. Let
\[
q_J=h_J(\bar{p}\rest J)=q_K\rest^{-1}_K J.
\]
It follows that $q_J$ is as required.
\medskip
{\noindent (2)} In order to demonstrate the amalgamation, we need to define some auxiliary orders and some notation. For $j\in J$ let
$\langle \le_\zeta^{{\name{\mathbb P}(\FF)}_{[<j]}}:\,\zeta<\kappa\rangle$ be a fixed sequence of ${\mathbb P}_{[<j]}$-names for the orders witnessing that
$\name{\mathbb P}(\FF)_{[<j]}$ has strong fusion.
\begin{definition}\label{def:F-n} (1) For $J$ an initial segment of $I$ and $C\subseteq J$ of size $<\kappa$, for $\zeta<\kappa$ and $p,q\in {\mathbb P}_J$, we define what it means that
$p\le_{C,\zeta}^J q$:
$p\le_{C,\zeta}^J q \mbox{ iff }$
\begin{itemize}
\item $p\le q$,
\item $(\forall j \in C)\,q\rest[<j]\forces_{{\mathbb P}_{[<j]}}``p(j)\le_\zeta^{{\name{\mathbb P}(\FF)}_{[<j]}} q(j)"$.
\end{itemize}
We note that $\le_{C,\zeta}^J$ is a partial order with the least element $\emptyset_{{\mathbb P}(\mathcal F)_J}$ and that for $K$ an initial segment of
$J$, an initial segment of $I$, for $p, q\in {\mathbb P}(\mathcal F)_J$, we have $p \le_{C,\zeta}^K q$ iff $p \rest^{-1}_K J \le_{C,\zeta}^J q\rest^{-1}_K J$.
\medskip
{\noindent (2)} A {\em fusion sequence in} ${\mathbb P}_J$ is a sequence of the form
\[
\langle (p_\zeta, C_\zeta):\,\zeta\le\delta \mbox{ such that}:
\]
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\delta\le\kappa$ is a limit ordinal,
\item each $p_\zeta\in {\mathbb P}_J$ and for all $\zeta$ we have $p_\zeta \le_{C_\zeta,\zeta}^J p_{\zeta+1}$,
\item the sequence $\langle C_\zeta:\,\zeta<\delta\rangle$ is an increasing continuous sequence of elements of $[J]^{<\kappa}$,
\item if $j\in C_{\zeta^\ast}\cap\supt(p_{\zeta^\ast})$, where $\zeta^\ast<\delta$ is the first such ordinal,
then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:suc-fusion}\tag{*}
p_{\zeta^\ast}\rest [<j]\forces _{\mathbb P_{[<j]}}``\langle p_\zeta(j):\,\zeta\in [\zeta^\ast, \delta)\rangle \mbox{ is a fusion sequence in }
{\mathbb P}(\mathcal F)_{[<j]}",
\end{equation}
\item if $\xi< \delta$ is a limit ordinal and $j \in C_\xi$, then
\[
p_\xi\rest [<j] \forces_{\mathbb P_{[<j]}}``p_\xi(j)=\name{t}_j (\langle p_\zeta(j):\,\zeta<\xi \rangle)".
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}[Fusion Lemma]\label{lem:fusion-lem} Let $J$ be an initial segment of $I$, not necessarily proper. Then there is a function $H_J$
acting on fusion sequences in ${\mathbb P}_J$ such that the following holds
for any limit ordinal $\delta\le\kappa$:
if $\langle (p_\zeta, C_\zeta):\,\zeta<\delta\rangle$ is a fusion sequence in
${\mathbb P}_J$, such that for all limit $\xi<\delta$ we have $p_\xi=H_J(\langle (p_\zeta, C_\zeta):\,\zeta<\xi\rangle)$,
then letting $q=H_J(\langle (p_\zeta, C_\zeta):\,\zeta<\delta\rangle)$, we have that
\begin{itemize}
\item $q\in {\mathbb P}_J$ and
\item $p_\zeta\le_{C_\zeta,\zeta}^J q$ holds for any $\zeta<\delta$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:fusion-lem}] The proof is by induction on $\delta$, for all $J$ simultaneously.
We seek to construct $H_J(\langle (p_\zeta, C_\zeta):\,\zeta<\delta\rangle)$, which we denote by $q^J$.
For $\delta=0$, we let $q^J=\emptyset_{\mathbb P_J}$.
Now suppose that $\delta\in (0,\kappa]$.
We define $q^K\in {\mathbb P}_K$ for $K$ an initial segment of $J$ by induction on the well-foundedness rank $\alpha$ of $K$. The requirements of the induction are:
\begin{itemize}
\item for any $\zeta<\kappa$ we have $q^K\ge_{C_\zeta\cap K, \zeta}^K \,p_\zeta\rest K$,
\item for $K$ an initial segment of $K'$ an initial segment of $J$, we have $q^{K'}\rest K =q^K$.
\end{itemize}
The induction steps are similar to those in the proof of (1), as follows.
\underline{$\alpha=0$.} We let $q^0=\emptyset_{{\mathbb P}_\emptyset}$.
\underline{$\alpha=\beta+1$}. This means that $K$ has a non-empty set of maximal elements,
$\{j_\gamma:\,\gamma<\gamma^\ast\}$. These maximal elements are incompatible in $K$.
We have that for two conditions $p,q\in {\mathbb P}_K$ to be
comparable, there must be a $\gamma<\gamma^\ast$ such that $p,q\in {\mathbb P}_{[\le j_\gamma]}$.
Since the sequence $\langle p_\zeta\rest K:\,\zeta<\delta\rangle$ is increasing in ${\mathbb P}_K$, such
a $\gamma$ must be common to all $p_\zeta\rest K$. Let us denote that $j_\gamma$ by $j$. Notice that then we have that for every $\zeta$ the condition $p_\zeta \rest K$ is in fact $p_\zeta \rest {[\le j]}$.
We have assumed that $q^{[<j]}$ has been defined as required.
If $j\notin \bigcup_{\zeta<\delta} \supt (p_\zeta)$, we let $q^K=q^{[<j]} \rest_{[<j]}^{-1} K$.
The conclusion then follows by the
induction hypothesis.
Otherwise, $j \in \bigcup_{\zeta<\delta} \supt (p_\zeta)$, hence we can find a minimal $\zeta<\delta$
such that $j \in \supt(p_\zeta)$, call it $\zeta^\ast$. In $V^{{\mathbb P_{[<j]}}}$ we shall define $q(j)\in \mathcal{P}(\FF)$ using the function $t$
from Definition \ref{def:strongfusion} on a sequence of the form
$\bar{r}=\langle r_\zeta:\,\zeta<\delta\rangle$, which we define as follows. For $\zeta\le\zeta^\ast$ we define $r_\zeta=p_{\zeta^\ast}(j)$ and for
$\zeta>\zeta^\ast$ we define $r_\zeta=p_\zeta(j)$. This is a fusion sequence as follows by equation (\ref{eq:suc-fusion}) in the definition of a fusion sequence.
We therefore define $q^{[\le j]}=(q^{[<j]}, \name{t}(\bar{r}))$. Then let $q^K=q^{[\le j]} \rest_{[\le j]}^{-1} K$.
\underline{$\alpha$ is a limit ordinal of cofinality $\le\kappa$.} We construct $q^K$ in the exactly same way as in the proof of (1) of Theorem \ref{th:iteration}, where we replace $J$ by $K$ and $h_{K_\zeta}$ by $H_{K_\zeta}$. Since we have already used the index $\zeta$ for the fusion sequence, we shall
write $\langle\alpha_\varepsilon:\,\varepsilon <\cf(\alpha)\rangle$ for the chosen cofinal sequence of $\alpha$ used in the construction. At the end, $q^K$ is the unique condition in ${\mathbb P}_K$ satisfying that for any initial segment $K'$ of $K$ we have $q^K \rest {K'}=q^{K'}$. Hence, as in (1), $q^K$ is a well-defined condition in ${\mathbb P}_K$. We have to check that it
$p\le^K_{C_\zeta\cap K, \zeta} q^K$ holds for each $\zeta$.
Note that $K=\bigcup_{\varepsilon <\cf(\alpha)} K_{\alpha_\varepsilon}$. Clearly, we have $p\le q$, since for every
$\varepsilon$ we have $p\rest K_{\alpha_\varepsilon}\le q\rest K_{\alpha_\varepsilon}$. Let $\zeta<\delta$ be arbitrary and suppose $j\in K\cap C_\zeta$. Hence there is $\varepsilon <\cf(\alpha)$ such that $j\in K_{\alpha_\varepsilon}\cap C_\zeta$. By the induction hypothesis we have
$q\rest [<j]\forces_{{\mathbb P}_[<j]}
``p(j)\le_\zeta^{{\name{\mathbb P}(\FF)}_{[<j]}} q(j)"$, as required.
\underline{$\beta$ is a limit ordinal of cofinality $>\kappa$.} This case is handled trivially by the requirement on the size of the supports. By that
requirement we have that there exist an initial segment $K'$ of $K$ such that $\bigcup_{\zeta<\delta}\supt(p_\zeta)\subseteq K'$.
Hence we have that for every $\zeta<\delta$ the equality $p_\zeta=p_\zeta\rest^{-1}_{K'} K$ holds and so it suffices to let $q^K=q^{K'}\rest^{-1}_{K'} K$.
$\eop_{\ref{lem:fusion-lem}}$
\end{proof}
{\noindent (3)} For this proof, we assume that we have proven (1)-(2) for ${\mathbb P}_I$ and we prove (3). The idea is to
to use the assumption on the iteration having amalgamation to boost the proof that its limit is $B-\kappa$-proper. It turns out that this is exactly the same proof
as that one of \cite[Lem. 7.14]{Property-B}, so in order not to have to repeat it in possible future work, we isolate it as a lemma. In Lemma
\ref{lem:amalg-implies-proper} we allow the possibility that $\name{Q}_J$ are not necessarily of the form $\name{\mathbb P}(\FF)_J$, but any
individual forcings that would give us the required properties of the iteration. What is meant by an iteration is analogous to Definition \ref{def:mixed-iteration}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:amalg-implies-proper} Suppose that $I$ is a well founded order and that the iteration
\[
\langle ( {\mathbb P}_J, \name{Q}_J):\,J \mbox{a proper inital segment of }I\rangle
\]
made with supports of
size $\le\kappa$ is strongly $(<\kappa)$-closed, has strong fusion and amalgamation. Then its limit ${\mathbb P}_I$ is
$B-\kappa$-proper.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let
\[
x=\langle\bar{P}_I=\langle ({\mathbb P}_J, \name{Q}_J):\,J \mbox{a proper initial segment of }I\rangle, \kappa , I\rangle
\]
and let $H$ be the function witnessing the
amalgamation of $\bar{P}_I$. Suppose that
$N\prec \HH(\chi)$ with $|N|=\kappa$ and $N^{<\kappa}\subseteq N$ is such that $x, p \in N$. It follows that
${\mathbb P}_I\in N$.
Let $\langle \DD_\zeta:\;\zeta<\kappa\rangle$ be an enumeration of all dense open sets of ${\mathbb P}_I$ which are in $N$. Let $N\cap I=
\bigcup_{\zeta<\kappa} C_\zeta$ be a continuous non-decreasing union where for each $\zeta$ we have $|C_\zeta|<\kappa$. In particular, $C_\zeta\in N$.
By induction on $\zeta<\kappa$ we construct
a fusion sequence
$\langle (p_\zeta, C_{f(\zeta)}):\,\zeta<\kappa\rangle$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $p_0=p$, $p_\zeta\in N$,
\item $p_{\zeta+1}\in \DD_\zeta$,
\item for any limit $0<\delta<\kappa$ we have $p_\delta=H(\langle (p_\zeta, C_{f(\zeta)}):\,\zeta<\delta\le\kappa\rangle)$.
\end{itemize}
This induction is made possible by the fact that if $p_\zeta\in N$, then $\supt(p_\zeta) \in N$. By elementarity we have that there is a surjection $g:\,\kappa
\to \supt(p_\zeta)$ with $g\in N$, so for every $\alpha<\kappa$ we have $g(\alpha)\in N$. We conclude that $\supt(p_\zeta)\subseteq N\cap I$.
To achieve the successor stages of the induction, we shall use the property of amalgamation, applied within $N$. That property guarantees that
we can find $p_{\zeta+1}\in N\cap \DD_\zeta$ with $p_\zeta \le_{C_\zeta, \zeta} p_{\zeta+1}$.
We let $f(\zeta+1)$ be the least $\xi$ such that $\supt(p_{\zeta+1})\subseteq C_\xi$.
At non-zero limit stages $\delta$ we
observe that the construction is done so that the function $H$ applies to the sequence $\langle (p_\zeta, C_{\zeta}):\,\zeta<\delta\rangle$, so we let $p_\delta=H(\langle (p_\zeta, C_\zeta):\,\zeta<\delta\rangle)$, which by elementarity is an element of $N$.
At the end, we let $q=H(\langle (p_\zeta, C_{f(\zeta)}):\,\zeta<\kappa\rangle)$.
We shall show that $q$ is ${\mathbb P}_I$-generic over $N$.
Let $\DD$ be a dense open subset of ${\mathbb P_{I}}$ with $\DD\in N$. We claim that $\DD\cap N$ is predense above $q$. So let $r\ge q$
and let $\DD=\DD_\zeta$ for some $\zeta$. We need to find a condition in $\DD\cap N$ comparable with $r$ and we claim that $p_{\zeta+1}$
is such a condition. We have that $p_{\zeta+1}\le_{C_{\zeta+1}, {\zeta+1}} q$ and so clearly $p_{\zeta+1}\le r$.
$\eop_{\ref{lem:amalg-implies-proper}}$
\end{proof}
$\eop_{\ref{th:iteration}}$
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:preserving-cardinals} Let $\kappa$ and $\mathcal F$ be as above. The iteration of ${\mathbb P}(\mathcal F)$ along any well-founded partial order preserves all cardinals up and including $\kappa^+$.
\end{corollary}
\section{The Generic Function and the Preservation of $\kappa^{++}$}\label{sec:applications} We shall discuss the preservation of $\kappa^{++}$ and some examples of applications of the above results. For $\kappa=\aleph_0$ many applications of various forcing notions to change the structure of ${}^{<\omega}\omega$ are known. In particular, the perfect set forcing satisfies properties stronger than the generalised perfect set forcing and we can refer the reader to \cite{zbMATH01335192} for the relevant theorems. There does not seem to be much work about iterations of the tree version of Grigorieff forcing, so it it possible that some new results in the domain of cardinal invariants of the reals can be obtained by considering the case of $\kappa=\aleph_0$ of our results. In this paper we concentrate on
$\kappa>\aleph_0$, with the requirement $\kappa^{<\kappa}=\kappa$ as before. We shall also fix $\mathcal F$ to be the filter $\FF^\ast$ of co-bounded subsets of
$\kappa$ since this case is representative.
Recall the definition of the stem $s[p]$ of a condition $p\in {\mathbb P}({\mathcal F}^\ast)$ from \S\ref{sec:definitions}.
It is proved in \cite[Lem 4.4]{Property-B} that if $G$ is a generic filter for ${\mathbb P}({\mathcal F}^\ast)$, then
\[
g=\bigcup\{s[p]:p \in G\}
\]
is a function from $\kappa\to\kappa$. This function is
{\em the generic function added by} ${\mathbb P}({\mathcal F}^\ast)$.
\begin{theorem}\label{what-added} The generic function $g$ added by ${\mathbb P}({\mathcal F}^\ast)$ satisfies that
for every function $f\in
({}^{\kappa}\kappa)\cap {\mathbf V}$, there is a club $C$ of $\kappa$ in ${\mathbf V}[G]$
such that for every $\alpha\in C$ we have $f(\alpha) <g(\alpha)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Recall the notation for ${\rm deg}_p (s)$ from \S\ref{sec:definitions}.
We first show that the set
\[
\DD_f=\{p\in {\mathbb P}({\mathcal F}^\ast):\,(\forall s\in p)(\forall i\in {\rm deg}_{p}(s))(s(i)>f(i))\}
\]
is dense in ${\mathbb P}({\mathcal F}^\ast)$. Namely, given $p\in {\mathbb P}({\mathcal F}^\ast)$, we attempt to construct $q\ge p$ with $q\in \DD_f$ as follows.
By induction on the height $\alpha$ of $s\in p$ we decide if $s\in q$ or not. The induction hypothesis carried through the construction is that:
\begin{itemize}
\item for every $t\in q$
of height $\beta<\alpha$, there is $s\in q$ of height $\beta+1$ with $s\rest\beta=t$,
\item for every $s\in p$ with $\dom(s)$ a limit ordinal $\delta<\alpha$, if for all $\beta<\delta$ we have $s\rest\beta\in q$, then $s\in q$.
\item for every $s\in q$,
\[
{\rm deg}_q (s)=\{i < \dom(s):\,(\exists t\in q)\,[t\rest i =s\rest i \mbox{ and }t(i)\neq s(i)]\}={\rm deg}_p (s).
\]
\end{itemize}
If $\alpha$ is a limit ordinal, $s\in q$ iff $s\rest\beta\in q$ for all $\beta<\alpha$. Since $p\in {\mathbb P}({\mathcal F}^\ast)$, we have that for any
$s\in {}^{<\kappa}\kappa$ such that $s\rest\beta\in p$ for all $\beta<\alpha$, also $s\in p$. Hence the second item of the induction hypothesis on
$q$ is preserved at this step.
If $\alpha=\beta+1$, $t=s\rest\beta\in q$ and
$s\rest\beta$ is not a splitting node of $p$, then let $s\in q$. Otherwise, the set $\{i<\kappa:\,t\!\frown\! i\in p\}\in \FF^\ast$. For $s\in p$ of the form
$t\!\frown\! i$, if $s(i)>f(i)$ we let $s\in q$, otherwise $s\notin q$. Notice that the first item of the induction hypothesis is preserved by this step.
Also note that the construction is done so that in every step we have preserved the third item of the inductive hypothesis.
We now verify that $q\in {\mathbb P}({\mathcal F}^\ast)$.
Firstly, by induction on $\alpha<\kappa$ we verify that there exist $s\in q$ with $\dom(s)\ge\alpha$. If $\alpha=0$, this is trivial since $\langle\rangle\in q$.
If $\alpha=\beta+1$ let $t\in q$ with $\dom(t)=\beta$, which exists by the induction hypothesis. By the defining property of $q$, we have that there is
$s\in q$ with $s\rest\beta=t$. Suppose then that $\alpha>0$ is a limit ordinal. By induction on $\beta<\alpha$ we choose an increasing sequence
$\langle s_\beta:\,\beta<\alpha\rangle$ of elements in $q$ with $\dom(s_\beta)=\beta$. At $\beta$ a successor ordinal we do as in the above
case $\alpha=\beta+1$. For $\beta$ limit we choose $s_\beta=\bigcup_{\gamma<\beta} s_\gamma$, which is in $q$ by the second item in the inductive hypothesis of the construction of $q$. Once this construction is completed, it suffices to let $s=\bigcup_{\beta<\alpha} s_\alpha$.
Now we check that every $s\in q$ has a splitting extension in $q$. Let $t\supseteq s$ be the element of $p$ of the least height which is splitting in $p$.
Our construction at successor cases was done so that $t\in q$ and that $t$ is splitting in $q$, hence the requirement is satisfied. We similarly show that the set of splitting nodes is closed along every branch of $q$.
Note also that the construction of $q$ is such that every splitting is done into co-boundedly many extensions. Hence we conclude that $q\in {\mathbb P}({\mathcal F}^\ast)$. The definition of $q$ is done so that $q\in \DD_f$, hence this finishes the proof that $\DD_f$ is dense. Notice that $\DD_f$ is open.
Now let $G$ be any ${\mathbb P}({\mathcal F}^\ast)$-generic filter et let us move to ${\mathbf V}[G]$ to show that
\[
\{i<\kappa:\,f(i)<g(i)\}
\]
contains a club of $\kappa$.
Let $q\in G\cap \DD_f$.
We first observe that $g$ is a branch of $q$. Namely, let $i<\kappa$ be arbitrary and
let $r_i\in G$ be such that $\dom(s[r_i])> i$. Without loss of generality $r\ge q$, since both $r$ and $q$ are in $G$, so compatible. It follows that $s[r]\in q$ and that $g \rest i= s[r]\rest i$. Therefore $g\rest i\in q$ for all $i<\kappa$ and so $g$ is a branch of $q$. By induction on $\zeta<\kappa$ we define an increasing sequence $\langle i_\zeta:\,\zeta<\kappa
\rangle$ of ordinals $<\kappa$ as follows.
Let $i_0=\dom(s[q])$. Given $i_\zeta$, let $i_{\zeta+1}$ be the first $i>i_\zeta$ such that there is $t\supseteq s$ in $q$ which splits at level $i$.
For $\zeta$ a limit ordinal $>0$, let $i_\zeta=\sup_{\xi<\zeta} i_\xi$. In particular, $C=\{i_\zeta:\,\zeta<\kappa\}$ is a club of $\kappa$. We claim that $g(i)>f(i)$
for every $i\in C$. We check this by induction on $\zeta$ such that $i=i_\zeta$.
For $\zeta=0$, we have that $g\rest i_0$ is the stem of $q$ and hence $\{j:\,g\rest i_0\!\frown \! \langle (i_0, j)\rangle \in q \} \in \FF^\ast$ and by the choice of $q$ we have that
every element of $\{j:\,g\rest i_0\!\frown\! \langle (i_0, j)\rangle \in q\}$ is $>f(i_0)$. Since $g\rest (i_0+1)$ is of the form $g\rest i_0\!\frown \! \langle (i_0, j)\rangle $ for some $j$ such that $g\rest i_0\!\frown\! \langle (i_0, j)\rangle \in q$, we conclude that $g(i_0)>f(i_0)$. A similar argument applies to the ordinals
of the from $i_{\zeta+1}$. If $\zeta$ is a limit ordinal then we have that $g\rest({i_\zeta+1})\in q$ and $\{i_{\xi+1}:\,\xi<\zeta\}\subseteq i_\zeta$ are
splitting nodes of $g\rest({i_\zeta+1})$. By the requirement of the closure of splitting of every node, (b) in Definition \ref{gSacks:def} , we have that $i_\zeta$ is a splitting node of $g\rest (i_\zeta+1)$. Then we argue as in the successor case to conclude that $g(i_\zeta)>f(i_\zeta)$.
$\eop_{\ref{what-added}}$
\end{proof}
Theorem \ref{what-added} has applications regarding the possible structure of the subsets of $\kappa$ in the generic universe. Here are some examples.
\begin{notation}\label{nota:club} For functions $f, g\in {}^{\kappa}\kappa$ we write $f<_{\rm{cl}}^\kappa g$ if $\{i<\kappa:\,f(i)< g(i)\}$ contains a club of $\kappa$.
\end{notation}
The relation $<_{\rm{cl}}^\kappa$ was first considered by James Cummings and Saharon Shelah in \cite{zbMATH00819406}. They considered the bounding and the dominating number of the structure $({}^{\kappa}\kappa, <_{\rm{cl}}^\kappa)$. The latter one, denoted ${\mathfrak d}_{\rm{cl}}^\kappa$, is the one
relevant here. The following Theorem \ref{th:On-d} shows that the order $({}^{\kappa}\kappa, <_{\rm{cl}}^\kappa)$ may have a rather rich structure.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:On-d} Suppose that $\kappa=\kappa^{<\kappa}>\aleph_0$ and that $I$ is a well-founded partial order. Then there is a generic
extension preserving cardinals $\le\kappa^+$ in which there is an order preserving embedding $e:\,I\to ({}^{\kappa}\kappa, <_{\rm{cl}}^\kappa)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Under the assumptions, consider the generic extension ${\mathbf V}[G]$ obtained by forcing by the limit ${\mathbb P}_I$ of the iteration
with supports of size $\le\kappa$ given by
\[
\langle ({\mathbb P}_J, \name{{\mathbb P}}({\mathcal F}^\ast)_J):\,J \mbox{ a proper initial segment of }I\rangle.
\]
For $j\in I$ jet $g_j$ be the generic
function added by $\name{{\mathbb P}}({\mathcal F}^\ast)_{<j}$ when forcing over ${\mathbf V}^{\mathbb P}_{[<j]}$.
Theorem \ref{what-added} shows that for $j<i$ both in $I$ we have that $g_i <_{\rm{cl}}^\kappa g_j$ holds in ${\mathbf V}[G]$.
$\eop_{\ref{th:On-d}}$
\end{proof}
In view of further possible applications, in \S\ref{sec:double+} we discuss the preservation of cardinals $>\kappa+$, which turns out to be difficult and inconclusive from our point of view.
\section{Preserving cardinals $>\kappa+$}\label{sec:double+}
We discuss the chain condition of the partial orders ${\mathbb P}_I$ studied in the above. To put us in the context where a preservation result
might be possible we assume that GCH holds in ${\mathbf V}$.
In \cite[Lem. 4.12(3)]{Property-B}, it is shown that under these assumptions,
${\mathbb P}(\mathcal F^\ast)$ has size $\kappa^+$ and in particular it has $\kappa^{++}$-cc and it preserves cardinals $\ge\kappa^{++}$.
We first note in the following Lemma \ref{lem:not-too-long}
and Corollary \ref{cor:why-collapse} that there are some necessary requirements on $I$ to even attempt a preservation result.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:not-too-long} There is an antichain of size $2^\kappa$ in
${\mathbb P}({\mathcal F}^\ast)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} By the assumption that $\kappa^{<\kappa}=\kappa$, there is a family $\langle A_i:\,i<2^{\kappa}\rangle$ of elements of $[\kappa]^\kappa$ such that whenever $i<j$ then $|A_i\cap A_j|<\kappa$, and in particular $A_i\cap A_j\notin \FF^\ast$ (for the existence of such a family see \cite[Th. II1.2]{Kunen}). For each $i$ let $p_i$ be the perfect subset of ${}^{<\kappa}\kappa$ consisting of perfect trees which split at every point and the splittings at every point are exactly the elements of $A_i$. Then each $p_i\in {\mathbb P}({\mathcal F}^\ast)$, but for $i\neq j$ the conditions $p_i$ and $p_j$
are incompatible.
$\eop_{\ref{lem:not-too-long}}$
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:why-collapse} If ${\mathbb P}({\mathcal F}^\ast)$ satisfies $\kappa^{++}$-cc, then $2^\kappa=\kappa^+$. In particular,
if the iteration of ${\mathbb P}({\mathcal F}^\ast)$ with supports of size $\le\kappa$ over a model of GCH along $\kappa^{++}$ preserves $\kappa^{++}$,
then the continuation of that iteration to have the length $\kappa^{++}+1$
does not satisfy $\kappa^{++}$-cc.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} By Theorem \ref{what-added} an iteration of ${\mathbb P}({\mathcal F}^\ast)$ with supports of size $\le\kappa$ over a model of GCH along $\kappa^{++}$ forces $2^\kappa=\kappa^{++}$. If $\kappa^{++}$ is not collapsed by such an iteration, then by Lemma \ref{lem:not-too-long}, forcing over the resulting model by an additional copy of ${\mathbb P}({\mathcal F}^\ast)$ no longer has the
$\kappa^{++}$-cc.
$\eop_{\ref{cor:why-collapse}}$
\end{proof}
\begin{observation}\label{lem:antichains-of-I} If $I$ itself has a set of incompatible elements of size $\kappa^{++}$, then the iteration of
${\mathbb P}({\mathcal F}^\ast)$ along $I$ has an antichain of size $\kappa^{++}$.
\end{observation}
\begin{proof} Suppose that $\{j_\gamma:\,\gamma<\kappa^{++}\}$ is a set of incompatible elements in $I$. Let $p$ be the condition in ${\mathbb P}({\mathcal F}^\ast)$ which to every node assigns the set of splitting points equal to $\kappa\setminus\{0\}$. For every $\gamma$ let $\name{p}_\gamma$
be a ${\mathbb P}_{[<j_\gamma]}$-name for $p$. Let $r_\gamma\in {\mathbb P}_{[\le j_\gamma]}$ be the condition whose support is $\{j_\gamma\}$, where it has value $\name{p}_\gamma$. Then $\{r_\gamma:\,\gamma<\kappa^{++}\}$ is an antichain in ${\mathbb P}_I$.
$\eop_{\ref{lem:antichains-of-I}}$
\end{proof}
These considerations imply that if we wish to preserve $\kappa^{++}$ when forcing by ${\mathbb P}_I$, we have to restrict our attention to $I$ which
avoid the above obvious reasons for failing $\kappa^{++}$-cc. Hence we must concentrate on the following kind of orders.
\begin{definition}\label{def:kappa-plusplus} We call a partial order a $I$ {\em $\kappa^{++}$-avatar} if:
\begin{itemize}
\item $I$ is well-founded,
\item every set of pairwise incompatible elements of $I$ has size $\le\kappa^+$ and
\item every proper segment of $I$ has $\le\kappa^+$ proper initial segments.
$\eod_{\mbox{\tiny{Def.}} \ref{def:kappa-plusplus}}$
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\begin{example}\label{ex:avatars} The following are examples of $\kappa^{++}$-avatars:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\kappa^{++}$,
\item any well-founded order of size $\le\kappa^+$,
\item a disjoint union of any well-founded order of size $\le \kappa^+$ and $\kappa^{++}$ or a lexicographic sum of these.
\end{enumerate}
\end{example}
\begin{observation}\label{obs:avatar} The notion of being a $\kappa^{++}$-avatar is closed under unions of size $\le\kappa^+$.
\end{observation}
A {`}{`}theorem'' we could hence attempt to prove is:
\begin{dtheorem}\label{lem:kappa++} Suppose that GCH holds, $\kappa$ is a regular infinite cardinal, and $I$ is a
$\kappa^{++}$-avatar.
Then the limit ${\mathbb P}_I$ of the iteration
\[
\langle ({\mathbb P}_J, \name{{\mathbb P}}({\mathcal F}^\ast)_J):\,J \mbox{ a proper initial segment of }I\rangle
\]
made with supports of size $\le\kappa$
has the $\kappa^{++}$-cc.
\end{dtheorem}
Proving Theorem \ref{lem:kappa++} sounds easy as it should be like proving that the iteration of $\omega_2$ copies of Laver forcing with countable supports
over a model of CH has $\aleph_2$-cc. However, note that in spite of many citations, the proof by Richard Laver of that fact in the original paper
\cite[Lem. 10]{Laver_Borel} is obviously incorrect. James Baumgartner's work on Axiom A, \cite[Lem. 7.4]{Ba} which claims that over a model of CH any countable iteration of Axiom A forcing of size $\aleph_1$ and of length $\omega_2$ satisfies $\aleph_2$-cc corrects the obvious mistake from
\cite[Lem. 10]{Laver_Borel}. However, the proof is still incorrect. So are the proofs by Shelah in two editions of his book \cite[III 4.1]{zbMATH03779315} and \cite[III 4.1]{Sh_P} of what has become known as the Shelah's Preservation Theorem. It is basically the same theorem and attempted proof as in Baumgartner's article, where the Axiom A property is replaced by its model-theoretic rendition, which is properness.
This theorem is cited without proof and perhaps jokingly in \cite{GeshckeQuickert}, \cite{Jec86} and \cite{Jech-ST}
(who refers to \cite{zbMATH05810560}) and it is mentioned under the quotation marks and with no proof in \cite{Goldsterniteration}. Finally, a correct proof was supposedly given by Uri Abraham in \cite{zbMATH05810560}. However, this proof is not correct either, as it makes a mistake in the application of the
$\Delta$-system Lemma.
Baumgartner and Laver in \cite[Th. 5.3]{zbMATH03664937} prove that the iteration of $\omega_2+1$
perfect set forcings collapses $\aleph_2$, while in \cite[Th. 2.4]{zbMATH03664937} they have already ``proven'' that any length iteration of perfect set forcing preserves $\aleph_1$, ``proven'' in the sense that their proof is just a sketch (the correct proof follows from \cite{Ba}, see the footnote below). These authors give a careful proof of the
$\aleph_2$-chain condition of the CS iteration of $\omega_2$-perfect set forcings over a model of CH in \cite[\S3]{zbMATH03664937}, and moreover the fact that for any $\alpha<\omega_1$ the iteration of length $\alpha$ has a dense set of size $\aleph_1$. Their proof is specific to the perfect set forcing as it uses the notion of being ``$(F,n)$-determined'' that reposes on the fact that the first finitely many levels of a perfect subtree of ${}^{<\omega}2$ form a finite set. In particular this
proof does not apply to Laver forcing or to the Axiom A forcing in general. \footnote{It is therefore clear from reading \cite{zbMATH03664937} that at the time of writing \cite{Ba}, Baumgartner knew that what was to become the ``Shelah's Preservation Theorem'' is wrong. This, combined with the fact that \cite{Ba} does not make a reference to \cite{zbMATH03664937} seems to indicate that putting a wrong iteration theorem for Axiom A in \cite{Ba}, setting the stage for it to be copied in \cite[III 4.1]{zbMATH03779315} was Baumgartner's way to conclusively end the difference of opinion of who invented what: Baumgartner claimed that he invented Axiom A and that Shelah copied it by dressing it as proper forcing, while Shelah claimed that the two notions were discovered independently. The other existening evidence (see \cite[\S 10]{Property-B}) combined with this legacy of Baumgartner in \cite{Ba}, shows that Baumgartner's version of the events was the correct one. It is also possible that the fact that \cite{zbMATH03664937} does not give a complete argument of the preservation of $\aleph_1$ was a move by both Baumgartner and Laver in the direction of the protection of intellectual rights which the dispute had brought about.}
As a side remark, while this author did not find any difficulties in understanding the proofs in \cite{zbMATH03664937}, she is not convinced of the correctness of the claimed simplification of the proofs in \cite{zbMATH01786788}, particularly by Lemma II.7. which seems to be saying that the iteration of $\omega_2$ perfect set forcings is, in modern terminology, strongly proper. Neither is she convinced by the representation of the proof in \cite[pg. 132]{zbMATH04134031} which uses the wrong theorem \cite[Th. 7.4]{Ba} to prove the correct theorem from \cite[\S 3]{zbMATH03664937}.
As for the Laver reals, it is therefore not clear that Laver solved the Borel conjecture the way that he intended it. However, as his forcing does make all strong measure zero sets countable, which is contradictory to CH (see \cite[\S8.3]{BartoszynskiJudah}), one can conclude that CH no longer holds in his final model and hence $\aleph_2$ is not collapsed. The Borel Conjecture is solved by Laver after all. In our case we do not have the measure-theoretic argument to help conclude that $\kappa^{++}$ is not collapsed, so the situation is not clear.
Therefore, as for our Attempted Theorem \ref{lem:kappa++} or even its linear version iterating along the ordinal $\kappa^{++}$, we shall have to leave the discussion to the future scholars.
\section{Concluding Remarks}\label{conclusions} Throughout this paper we have considered $\kappa$ an infinite cardinal satisfying $\kappa^{<\kappa}=\kappa$
and the filter ${\mathcal F}^\ast$ of its co-bounded sets. We have shown that the partial order ${\mathbb P}(\mathcal F^\ast)$ can be iterated with supports of size $\le\kappa$ along
any well-founded order $I$ while preserving cardinals up and including $\kappa^+$.
We have shown that ${\mathbb P}(\mathcal F^\ast)$ adds a generic function from $\kappa$ to $\kappa$ which dominates modulo a club every such function from the ground model. In consequence, the structure of ${}^\kappa \kappa$ modulo domination on a club can be made to look like an arbitrary
well-founded order in an extension which preserves cardinals up to and including $\kappa^+$.
We have discussed the difficulties in preserving $\kappa^{++}$, which already appear in contexts much simpler than the one considered here.
\section*{Acknowledgements} The author thanks Vladimir Kanovei for the discussion of perfect set forcing, the geometric iteration and its history. She would also like to acknowledge the clarity and precision of writing in \cite{zbMATH01335192}, thanks to which it was easy to understand that the main idea could apply to the situation treated in this paper.
The paper used the AI product GROK 3 by X-AI, which served as a research assistant for rough historical facts, finding references and {\LaTeX} questions. All mathematical developments are due entirely to the author unassisted by the AI.
This research would not have been possible without the membership in the libraries of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France and Institut Henri Poincare in Paris as well as in the Association of Symbolic Logic (ASL) and Math-Net.Ru, where the latter two provided online access to their journals.
\bibliography{../bibliomaster}
\bibliographystyle{plainurl}
\end{document}
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{zbMATH05810560}
Uri Abraham.
\newblock Proper forcing.
\newblock In {\em Handbook of set theory. In 3 volumes}, pages 333--394.
Dordrecht: Springer, 2010.
\newblock \href {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5764-9_6}
{\path{doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-5764-9_6}}.
\bibitem{BartoszynskiJudah}
Tomek Bartoszy\'nski and Haim Judah.
\newblock {\em Set Theory: On the Structure of the Real Line}.
\newblock A.K. Peters, Ltd., 1995.
\bibitem{Ba}
James~E. Baumgartner.
\newblock Iterated forcing.
\newblock In Adrian~R.D. Mathias, editor, {\em Surveys in Set Theory},
volume~87 of {\em London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser.}, pages 1--59.
Cambridge University Press, 1983.
\bibitem{zbMATH03664937}
James~E. Baumgartner and Richard Laver.
\newblock Iterated perfect-set forcing.
\newblock {\em Ann. Math. Logic}, 17:271--288, 1979.
\newblock \href {https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4843(79)90010-X}
{\path{doi:10.1016/0003-4843(79)90010-X}}.
\bibitem{zbMATH05121369}
Elizabeth~Theta Brown and Marcia~J. Groszek.
\newblock Uncountable superperfect forcing and minimality.
\newblock {\em Ann. Pure Appl. Logic}, 144(1-3):73--82, 2006.
\newblock \href {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apal.2006.05.012}
{\path{doi:10.1016/j.apal.2006.05.012}}.
\bibitem{zbMATH04134031}
Paul Corazza.
\newblock The generalized {Borel} conjecture and strongly proper orders.
\newblock {\em Trans. Am. Math. Soc.}, 316(1):115--140, 1989.
\newblock \href {https://doi.org/10.2307/2001276} {\path{doi:10.2307/2001276}}.
\bibitem{zbMATH00819406}
James Cummings and Saharon Shelah.
\newblock Cardinal invariants above the continuum.
\newblock {\em Ann. Pure Appl. Logic}, 75(3):251--268, 1995.
\newblock \href {https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-0072(95)00003-Y}
{\path{doi:10.1016/0168-0072(95)00003-Y}}.
\bibitem{Property-B}
Mirna D{\v{z}}amonja.
\newblock A {B}aumgartner-style property that applies to preservation of
$\aleph_1$ and $\aleph_2$ under iterations with supports of size $\aleph_1$.
\newblock submitted, arxiv 2509.19519, 09 2025.
\bibitem{FriedmanGitman:ModelOfACNotDCInaccessible}
Sy-David Friedman and Victoria Gitman.
\newblock Jensen forcing at an inaccessible and a model of {K}elley-{M}orse
satisfying ${\rm {cc}}$ but not ${\rm {dc}}_\omega$.
\newblock {\em Manuscript}, 2023.
\bibitem{FriedmanHyttinenKulikov2014}
Sy-David Friedman, Tapani Hyttinen, and Vadim Kulikov.
\newblock {\em Generalized Descriptive Set Theory and Classification Theory},
volume 230 of {\em Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.}
\newblock 2014.
\bibitem{GeshckeQuickert}
Stefan Geschke and Sandra Quickert.
\newblock On {S}acks forcing and the {S}acks property.
\newblock In Benedikt L{\"o}we, Boris Piwinger, and Thoralf R{\"a}sch, editors,
{\em Classical and new paradigms of computation and their complexity
hiearrchies: papers of the conference "Foundations of the Formal Sciences
III"}, Trends in Logic, Studia Logica Library, 23, pages 95--139. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 1st ed. 2004 edition, 2004.
\bibitem{Goldsterniteration}
Martin Goldstern.
\newblock Tools for your forcing construction.
\newblock In Haim Judah, editor, {\em Set Theory of the Reals}, volume~6 of
{\em Israel Mathematical Conference Proceedings}, pages 305--360, 1993.
\bibitem{zbMATH04187795}
M.~Groszek and T.~Jech.
\newblock Generalized iteration of forcing.
\newblock {\em Trans. Am. Math. Soc.}, 324(1):1--26, 1991.
\newblock \href {https://doi.org/10.2307/2001492} {\path{doi:10.2307/2001492}}.
\bibitem{zbMATH03510298}
Stephen~H. Hechler.
\newblock On the existence of certain cofinal subsets of
{{\({}^\omega\omega\)}}.
\newblock Axiom. {Set} {Theor}., {Proc}. {Symp}. {Los} {Angeles} 1967, 155-173
(1974)., 1974.
\bibitem{zbMATH01786788}
Michal Hru{\v{s}}{\'a}k.
\newblock Life in the {Sacks} model.
\newblock {\em Acta Univ. Carol., Math. Phys.}, 42(2):43--58, 2001.
\newblock URL: \url{https://eudml.org/doc/196355}.
\bibitem{Inamdar-Rinot-nonstructure-aleph2}
Tanmay~C. Inamdar and Assaf Rinot.
\newblock Walks and higher {A}ronszajn lines.
\newblock arXiv:2410.08757v1, October 2024.
\bibitem{Jech-ST}
T.~Jech.
\newblock {\em Set theory}.
\newblock Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003.
\newblock The third millennium edition, revised and expanded.
\bibitem{Jec86}
Thomas Jech.
\newblock {\em Multiple Forcing}.
\newblock Cambridge University Press, 1986.
\bibitem{zbMATH03708389}
Akihiro Kanamori.
\newblock Perfect-set forcing for uncountable cardinals.
\newblock {\em Ann. Math. Logic}, 19:97--114, 1980.
\newblock \href {https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4843(80)90021-2}
{\path{doi:10.1016/0003-4843(80)90021-2}}.
\bibitem{zbMATH01335192}
Vladimir Kanovei.
\newblock On non-wellfounded iterations of the perfect set forcing.
\newblock {\em J. Symb. Log.}, 64(2):551--574, 1999.
\newblock \href {https://doi.org/10.2307/2586484} {\path{doi:10.2307/2586484}}.
\bibitem{Kunen}
Kenneth Kunen.
\newblock {\em Set Theory}, volume 102 of {\em Studies in Logic and the
Foundations of Mathematics}.
\newblock North-Holland, 1980.
\bibitem{Laver_Borel}
Richard Laver.
\newblock On the consistency of {B}orel's conjecture.
\newblock {\em Acta Math.}, 137:151--169, 1976.
\bibitem{zbMATH03117565}
A.~A. Muchnik.
\newblock Negative answer to the problem of reducibility of the theory of
algorithms.
\newblock {\em Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR}, 108:194--197, 1956.
\bibitem{Neeman}
Itay Neeman.
\newblock Forcing with sequences of models of two types.
\newblock {\em Notre Dame J. Form. Log.}, 55:265--298, 2014.
\bibitem{Sacks}
Gerald~E. Sacks.
\newblock Forcing with perfect closed sets.
\newblock In Dana Scott, editor, {\em Axiomatic Set Theory}, volume~13 of {\em
Symposia in Pure Mathematics}, pages 331--355. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence,
Rhode Island, 1971.
\bibitem{zbMATH03779315}
Saharon Shelah.
\newblock {\em Proper forcing}, volume 940 of {\em Lect. Notes Math.}
\newblock Springer, Cham, 1982.
\bibitem{Sh_P}
Saharon Shelah.
\newblock {\em Proper and Improper Forcing}.
\newblock Perspectives in Mathematical Logic. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2nd
edition, 1998.
\end{thebibliography}