We discuss the problem of finding forcing posets which introduce closed unbounded subsets to a given stationary set.

We use a $\kappa^{+}-Mahlo$ cardinal to give a forcing construction of a model in which there is no sequence $\langle A_{\beta} : \beta \textless \omega_{2} \rangle$ of sets of cardinality $\omega_{1}$ such that $\{\lambda \textless \omega_{2} : \existsc \subset \lambda & (\bigcupc = \lambda otp(c) = \omega_{1} & \forall \beta \textless \lambda (c \cap \beta \in A_{\beta}))\}$ is stationary.

A classic result of Baumgartner-Harrington-Kleinberg [1] implies that assuming CH a stationary subset of ω1 has a CUB subset in a cardinal-perserving generic extension of V, via a forcing of cardinality ω1. Therefore, assuming that $\omega_2^L$ is countable: { $X \in L \mid X \subseteq \omega_1^L$ and X has a CUB subset in a cardinal -preserving extension of L} is constructible, as it equals the set of constructible subsets of $\omega_1^L$ which in L are stationary. Is there a similar such (...) result for subsets of $\ omega_2^L$ ? Building on work of M. Stanley [9], we show that there is not. We shall also consider a number of related problems, examining the extent to which they are "solvable" in the above sense, as well as defining a notion of reduction between them. (shrink)

It is shown that there is no satisfactory first-order characterization of those subsets of ω 2 that have closed unbounded subsets in ω 1 , ω 2 and GCH preserving outer models. These “anticharacterization” results generalize to subsets of successors of uncountable regular cardinals. Similar results are proved for trees of height and cardinality κ + and for partitions of [ κ + ] 2 , when κ is an infinite cardinal.

After a couple of weeks I eventually got around to reading the preprint and started wondering about recasting the argument in my preferred formalism. I arrogantly assumed that this would allow one to smooth out parts of the proof and simplify the details of the definition of the forcing conditions (at the cost of taking the framework set out in §§1,2 below as given). However when I tried to write things down I found myself, to my chagrin, more or less (...) cornered in making my definitions into most of the intricacies that Friedman had been. I suppose that this shows that the original proof is in some sense the natural one (or one of a family of ‘natural’ ones). Nevertheless I obstinately persisted and this note is the result. (shrink)