Magidor-like forcing and the cofinality of the Galvin number

Let $\mathscr{F}$ be a normal filter over $\kappa$, where $\kappa$ is strongly regular and uncountable.¹¹1A cardinal $\kappa$ is strongly regular if and only if $\kappa=\kappa^{<\kappa}$. Galvin proved that every family $\mathcal{C}=\{C_{\alpha}:\alpha\in\kappa^{+}\}\subseteq\mathscr{F}$ admits a subfamily $\mathcal{D}=\{C_{\alpha_{i}}:i\in\kappa\}$ so that $\bigcap\mathcal{D}\in\mathscr{F}$, see [BHM75]. In particular, if $2^{\omega}=\omega_{1}$ then the club filter of $\aleph_{1}$ satisfies this property.

Given $\aleph_{0}<\kappa\leq\partial\leq\lambda$ and a normal filter $\mathscr{F}$ over $\kappa$ let us write ${\rm Gal}(\mathscr{F},\partial,\lambda)$ to denote the statement that every $\mathcal{C}\subseteq\mathscr{F}$ of size $\lambda$ admits a subfamily $\mathcal{D}\subseteq\mathcal{C}$ of size $\partial$ such that $\bigcap\mathcal{D}\in\mathscr{F}$. Using this terminology, Galvin’s theorem says that if $2^{\omega}=\omega_{1}$ then ${\rm Gal}(\mathscr{D}_{\aleph_{1}},\aleph_{1},\aleph_{2})$ holds, where $\mathscr{D}_{\aleph_{1}}$ is the club filter of $\aleph_{1}$.

Abraham and Shelah proved in [AS86] that one can force $2^{\omega_{1}}=\lambda$ along with $\neg{\rm Gal}(\mathscr{D}_{\aleph_{1}},\aleph_{1},\lambda)$, where $\lambda$ is arbitrarily large. An interesting feature of the proof is that $2^{\omega}=\lambda$ in this model as well. It was shown in [Gar17] that this fact is not just a coincidence. To wit, if $\mu=(2^{\omega})^{+}$ then ${\rm Gal}(\mathscr{D}_{\aleph_{1}},\aleph_{1},\mu)$ holds. From the definition it follows that if $\mu^{\prime}\geq\mu$ then ${\rm Gal}(\mathscr{F},\partial,\mu)$ implies ${\rm Gal}(\mathscr{F},\partial,\mu^{\prime})$. Thus, if $2^{\omega}<\lambda$ then ${\rm Gal}(\mathscr{D}_{\aleph_{1}},\aleph_{1},\lambda)$ follows. One concludes that Galvin’s property for clubs of $\aleph_{1}$ depends on the size of $2^{\omega}$. This fact is quite surprising, as one could expect that Galvin’s property at $\aleph_{1}$ will be determined by the number of clubs of $\aleph_{1}$, that is $2^{\omega_{1}}$. The fact that $2^{\omega}$ plays an important rôle here, gives rise to the following definition of $\mathfrak{gp}$ from [Gar18], which places it in the area of cardinal characteristics of the continuum:

A natural question is what the possible values of $\mathfrak{gp}$ are. In the model of Abraham and Shelah, one begins with an infinite cardinal $\lambda$ and forces $2^{\omega}=2^{\omega_{1}}=\lambda$ along with the failure of ${\rm Gal}(\mathscr{D}_{\aleph_{1}},\aleph_{1},\lambda)$. Observe that ${\rm Gal}(\mathscr{D}_{\aleph_{1}},\aleph_{1},(2^{\aleph_{1}})^{+})$ is trivial, so ${\rm Gal}(\mathscr{D}_{\aleph_{1}},\aleph_{1},\lambda^{+})$ holds in this setting. Consequently, $\mathfrak{gp}=\lambda$ in this model. This forcing construction applies to every $\lambda$ so that ${\rm cf}(\lambda)>\aleph_{1}$, hence $\mathfrak{gp}$ can be either regular or singular of cofinality above $\aleph_{1}$, at every $\lambda$ in the $\aleph$-scale.

This pattern does not immediately work when ${\rm cf}(\lambda)\leq\aleph_{1}$, simply because $2^{\omega_{1}}=\lambda$ in the Abraham-Shelah model. However, if ${\rm cf}(\lambda)=\omega_{1}$ then one can force $\mathfrak{gp}=\lambda$, essentially by the same forcing construction, as will be shown in the last section of this paper. The case of countable cofinality is more interesting. In particular, it was asked in [Gar18, Question 4.4] whether ${\rm cf}(\mathfrak{gp})=\omega$ is consistent. Though the question is still open, we know from [GHHM22] that if ${\rm cf}(\mathfrak{gp})=\omega$ is consistent then it has some consistency strength.

The purpose of this paper is to build a model of ZF in which the cofinality of the full Galvin number is countable. The full Galvin number $\mathfrak{fgp}$ is a variation of $\mathfrak{gp}$, adapted to the context of AD. A formal definition will be given in the next section.

The rest of the paper is arranged in three sections. In the first section we give some background and in the second section we prove the main result. In the last section we discuss some ZFC results with regard to the cofinality of the Galvin number.

Our notation is hopefully standard. We shall employ the Jerusalem forcing notation, that is, we force upwards. We denote the club filter over $\kappa$ by $\mathscr{D}_{\kappa}$ whenever $\kappa$ is regular and uncountable. The collection of $\omega$-closed unbounded subsets of $\kappa$ is denoted by $\mathscr{U}^{\kappa}_{\omega}$. In the case of $\kappa=\aleph_{1}$ this is simply the club filter $\mathscr{D}_{\aleph_{1}}$. We let $\Theta$ be the supremum of $\lambda$ for which there is a surjection $\pi:{}^{\omega}\omega\rightarrow\lambda$. Finally, a cardinal $\kappa$ is a boldface GCH cardinal iff there is no injection $f:\kappa^{+}\rightarrow\mathcal{P}(\kappa)$.

For background in pcf theory we refer to [AM10] and to Shelah’s monograph [She94]. For background in the combinatorial aspects of AD we suggest the excellent monograph of Kleinberg, [Kle77]. Basic information about polarized relations can be found in [Wil77].

Seemingly, Galvin’s property is connected to the axiom of choice. The assumption $\kappa=\kappa^{<\kappa}>\aleph_{0}$ within the statement of Galvin’s theorem requires some choice, and the proof meets this axiom as well. However, instances of Galvin’s property are provable even without full choice. An initial study of this phenomenon is carried out in [BGP22]. Here we phrase and prove several additional statements.

Ahead of our first claim, recall that $\binom{\alpha}{\beta}\rightarrow\binom{\gamma}{\delta}$ denotes the statement that for every coloring $c:\alpha\times\beta\rightarrow\{0,1\}$ one can find $A\in[\alpha]^{\gamma},B\in[\beta]^{\delta}$ so that $c\upharpoonright(A\times{B})$ is constant. One can replace the ordinals in this relation by some structure, with the natural intended meaning. Thus, if $\mathscr{W}\subseteq\mathcal{P}(\lambda)$ and $\mathscr{U}\subseteq\mathcal{P}(\kappa)$ then $\binom{\lambda}{\kappa}\rightarrow\binom{\mathscr{W}}{\mathscr{U}}$ means that the sets $A,B$ which form the monochromatic product belong to $\mathscr{W}$ and $\mathscr{U}$ respectively.

Assume, therefore, that $c:\lambda\times\kappa\rightarrow{2}$ is given. For every $\beta\in\kappa$ there is a unique $j_{\beta}\in\{0,1\}$ for which $S^{j_{\beta}}_{\beta}=\{\alpha\in\lambda:c(\alpha,\beta)=j_{\beta}\}$ belongs to $\mathscr{W}$. It follows that for some fixed $j$ and a set $B\in\mathscr{U}$ one has $j_{\beta}=j$ whenever $\beta\in{B}$. Define $A=\bigcap\{S^{j}_{\beta}:\beta\in{B}\}$ and notice that $A\in\mathscr{W}$ by $\lambda$-completeness. Observe that $c^{\prime\prime}(A\times{B})=\{j\}$, hence we are done proving that $\binom{\lambda}{\kappa}\rightarrow\binom{\mathscr{W}}{\mathscr{U}}$.

Assume now that $\{C_{\alpha}:\alpha\in\lambda\}\subseteq\mathscr{U}$. Define $d:\lambda\times\kappa\rightarrow{2}$ by letting $d(\alpha,\beta)=0$ iff $\beta\in{C_{\alpha}}$. Let $A\in\mathscr{W},B\in\mathscr{U}$ be such that $d\upharpoonright(A\times{B})$ is constant. Notice that the constant value cannot be $1$. Indeed, choose $\alpha\in{A}$ and any element $\beta\in B\cap C_{\alpha}$ and conclude that $\beta\notin C_{\alpha}$ if $d^{\prime\prime}(A\times{B})=\{1\}$, contradicting the choice of $\beta$. Thus $d^{\prime\prime}(A\times{B})=\{0\}$, and hence $B\subseteq\bigcap\{C_{\alpha}:\alpha\in{A}\}$. Since $B\in\mathscr{U}$, the proof is accomplished.

$\qed_{\ref{clmmeasurables}}$

Let us indicate that in order to obtain the statement ${\rm Gal}(\mathscr{U},\lambda,\lambda)$ from the relevant polarized relation one has to assume that $\kappa$, the ___domain of $\mathscr{U}$, is measurable, but the assumption that $\lambda$ is also measurable can be relaxed. A moment of perusal shows that if $\binom{\lambda}{\kappa}\rightarrow\binom{\lambda}{\mathscr{U}}$ then ${\rm Gal}(\mathscr{U},\lambda,\lambda)$ obtains. The argument is just the same, and this fact might be helpful.

The statement ${\rm Gal}(\mathscr{U},\lambda,\lambda)$ is a strong form of the Galvin property. The above claim establishes a strong Galvin property which will be dubbed as full. In ZFC this claim is trivial (if $\kappa<\lambda$ and both are measurables) since $\lambda={\rm cf}(\lambda)>2^{\kappa}$, but without full choice this claim is informative. Under AD it is frequent to meet this strong form, since the distance between regular cardinals and measurable cardinals below $\Theta$ is very small.²²2Actually, if $V=L(\mathbb{R})$ then every regular cardinal below $\Theta$ is measurable under AD, see [Ste10]. We define, therefore, the following variant of the Galvin number:

By Claim 1.1 and the fact that both $\aleph_{1}$ and $\aleph_{2}$ are measurable cardinals under AD we see that $\textsf{AD}\vdash\mathfrak{fgp}=\aleph_{1}$. Our main goal is to force $\mathfrak{fgp}=\aleph_{\omega}$ in some model of ZF. But let us prove, first, that the statement ${\rm cf}(\mathfrak{fgp})=\omega$ has some consistency strength in ZFC. The argument is similar to the parallel argument with respect to $\mathfrak{gp}$ as given in [GHHM22], but the details are somewhat different.

By way of contradiction assume that the above assumptions hold yet $\mathfrak{fgp}=\mu$. Thus, for every $n\in\omega$ one has $\mathfrak{fgp}>\mu_{n}$ and hence one can choose a family $\mathcal{D}_{n}=\{D^{n}_{\alpha}:\alpha\in\mu_{n}\}\subseteq\mathscr{D}_{\aleph_{1}}$ such that $\bigcap\{D^{n}_{\alpha_{i}}:i\in{B}\}$ is bounded in $\omega_{1}$ whenever $B\in[\mu_{n}]^{\aleph_{1}}$. Set $\mathcal{D}=\bigcup\{\mathcal{D}_{n}:n\in\omega\}$ and notice that $|\mathcal{D}|=\mu$. If $B^{\prime}\in[\mu]^{\aleph_{1}}$ then there must be a set $B\in[B^{\prime}]^{\aleph_{1}}$ and a natural number $n$ such that $B\in[\mu_{n}]^{\aleph_{1}}$. One concludes now that:

This is the property that we need with respect to the family $\mathcal{D}$.

For every $\alpha\in\mu^{+}$ let $C_{\alpha}=\bigcap\{D^{n}_{f_{\alpha}(n)}:n\in\omega\}$. Observe that $C_{\alpha}\in\mathscr{D}_{\aleph_{1}}$, being an intersection of but $\aleph_{0}$ elements of $\mathscr{D}_{\aleph_{1}}$. Let $\mathcal{C}=\{C_{\alpha}:\alpha\in\mu^{+}\}$. One can verify that $|\mathcal{C}|=\mu^{+}$ since $(f_{\alpha}:\alpha\in\mu^{+})$ is a scale. By our assumption, $\mathfrak{fgp}=\mu$. Therefore, one can find $A\in[\mu]^{\aleph_{1}}$ such that the set $C=\bigcap\{C_{\alpha}:\alpha\in{A}\}$ belongs to $\mathscr{D}_{\aleph_{1}}$. By our assumptions, $|\{f_{\alpha}(n):\alpha\in{A},n\in\omega\}|=\aleph_{1}$. Let $B=\{f_{\alpha}(n):\alpha\in{A},n\in\omega\}$, so $B\in[\mu]^{\aleph_{1}}$. In particular, the set $D=\bigcap\{D^{n}_{f_{\alpha}(n)}:\alpha\in{A},n\in\omega\}$ is bounded in $\omega_{1}$. However, $C=D$ by the above definitions, a contradiction.

We proceed now to the second step of the proof. Suppose that $\mu>{\rm cf}(\mu)=\omega$ and there is an increasing sequence $(\mu_{n}:n\in\omega)$ of regular cardinals such that $\mu=\bigcup_{n\in\omega}\mu_{n}$ and ${\rm tcf}(\prod_{n\in\omega}\mu_{n},J^{\rm bd}_{\omega})=\mu^{+}$. Assume, further, that $(f_{\alpha}:\alpha\in\mu^{+})$ is a good scale witnessing this fact. From [GHHM22, Theorem 1.4] we know that if $A\in[\mu^{+}]^{\aleph_{1}}$ then $|\{f_{\alpha}(n):\alpha\in{A},n\in\omega\}|=\aleph_{1}$. It follows now from the first step of the proof that $\mathfrak{fgp}\neq\mu$.

Assume that $\square^{*}_{\mu}$ holds at every $\mu\in{2^{\omega}}$ such that $\mu>{\rm cf}(\mu)=\omega$. It is known that under this assumption, for every such $\mu$ there exists an increasing sequence of regular cardinals $(\mu_{n}:n\in\omega)$ such that $\mu=\bigcup_{n\in\omega}\mu_{n}$ and ${\rm tcf}(\prod_{n\in\omega}\mu_{n},J^{\rm bd}_{\omega})=\mu^{+}$ and there is a good scale witnessing the latter fact.³³3See, e.g. [Cum05, Section 15]. Consequently, $\mathfrak{fgp}\neq\mu$ for every such $\mu$ and hence, in particular, ${\rm cf}(\mathfrak{fgp})>\omega$. It follows that if one wishes to force ${\rm cf}(\mathfrak{fgp})=\omega$ then one must force $\neg\square^{*}_{\mu}$ for every $\mu$ of countable cofinality below the continuum, and this setting has some consistency strength, so we are done.

$\qed_{\ref{propfgpstrength}}$

Back to models of ZF, our plan is to begin with a model of AD and to force over it. The generic extension will not be a model of AD anymore, but it will be a model of ZF in which $\mathfrak{fgp}=\aleph_{\omega}$. We shall force with a Magidor-like forcing to singularize $\aleph_{2}$, and the cofinality target is $\aleph_{1}$. The details of this forcing notion are defined and proved in [Hen83].

Let us indicate that this forcing notion is similar to Prikry forcing, and differs from the classical (and more complicated) Magidor forcing as articulated in [Mag78] in the context of ZFC. The main challenge with forcing a measurable cardinal to be singular with uncountable cofinality is to prove the Prikry property. In the case of Prikry forcing and countable cofinality, this property follows from a powerful partition theorem which holds at measurable cardinals. But in the case of Magidor forcing and uncountable cofinality, the pertinent statement should be a partition theorem of infinite subsets of the measurable cardinal, and this is not available in ZFC. Thus, Magidor forcing is an intricate combination of Prikry sequences which are forced into measurable cardinals below the measurable cardinal to be singularized with uncountable cofinality. In particular, one adds many bounded subsets to $\kappa$ while performing this process.

Working in ZF, one can make strong assumptions about the measurable cardinal to be singularized, and partition theorems for infinite subsets of this cardinal are at hand. This simplifies the definition of Magidor forcing considerably. For example, in order to force cofinality $\omega_{1}$ one can force with countable conditions, much like Prikry forcing. In particular, Magidor-like forcing in this formulation adds no bounded subsets of the given measurable cardinal.

We shall use the notation of Henle in [Hen83], and we mention some conventions. Let $\kappa$ be a regular and uncountable cardinal. For $A\in[\kappa]^{\theta}$ let $A_{\alpha}$ be the $\alpha$th element of $A$ and let ${}_{\omega}{A}$ be the increasing enumeration of countable sups of elements of $A$, that is $\{\bigcup_{n\in\omega}A_{\alpha+n}:\alpha\in\theta\}$. If $A\in[\kappa]^{\kappa}$ then let $\langle{A}\rangle$ be the set $\{{}_{\omega}B:B\in[A]^{\kappa}\}$. We shall force with the following:

The definition is given in a general form, but some assumptions about $\kappa$ must be made so that the forcing will not collapse cardinals. We shall say that $\kappa$ is a weak partition cardinal if $\kappa\rightarrow(\kappa)^{\gamma}$ for every $\gamma\in\kappa$. Henle proved in [Hen83] that if $\kappa$ is a weak partition cardinal and $\omega<\gamma<\kappa$ then $\mathbb{M}_{\gamma\kappa}$ is a forcing notion which satisfies the Prikry property and preserves cardinals. Moreover, if $G\subseteq\mathbb{M}_{\gamma\kappa}$ is generic then $V[G]$ contains no new bounded subsets of $\kappa$.

$\qed_{\ref{clmpreservation}}$

Let us indicate that in the definition of the forcing order, $p\leq{q}$ contains the proviso that $s^{p}\subseteq{s^{q}}$. We emphasize that the relation here is inclusion and not end-extension as appears usually in Prikry-type forcing notions. This point plays an important role in some arguments below.

“But it was pretty and characteristic, besides being singular” ([Dic59, Chapter IV]). In this section we prove the central result of the paper. We need a few facts ahead of the proof. The first one, dictated in the main claim below, is a specific case of a result of Henle from [Hen83]. For completeness, we unfold the proof.

Assume towards contradiction that there is a cardinal $\lambda\in\aleph_{\omega+1}$ and a condition $(a,p)\in\mathbb{M}_{\aleph_{1}\aleph_{2}}$ such that $(a,p)\Vdash f:\lambda\rightarrow\aleph_{\omega+1}$, $f$ is order preserving and $\bigcup f^{\prime\prime}\lambda=\aleph_{\omega+1}$. For every $s\in[p]^{<\omega_{1}}$ and every $\alpha\in\lambda$ we define the ordinal $\eta_{s\alpha}$ as follows. If there exists $t\in[\omega_{2}]^{\omega_{2}}$ such that $(a\cup{}_{\omega}s,t)\Vdash\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}(\alpha)=\check{\beta}$ then $\eta_{s\alpha}=\beta$. If not, let $\eta_{s\alpha}=0$. Notice that $\eta_{s\alpha}$ is well-defined. Indeed, if $t_{0},t_{1}\in[\omega_{2}]^{\omega_{2}}$ and $(a\cup{}_{\omega}s,t_{0})\Vdash\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}(\alpha)=\check{\beta_{0}},(a\cup{}_{\omega}s,t_{1})\Vdash\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}(\alpha)=\check{\beta_{1}}$ then necessarily $\beta_{0}=\beta_{1}$ since conditions with the same stem are compatible. Now for every $s\in[p]^{<\omega_{1}}$ let $H_{s}=\{\eta_{s\alpha}:\alpha\in\lambda\}$, and let $\eta_{s}=\bigcup H_{s}$, thus $\eta_{s}\leq\lambda$.

Define a coloring $c:[p]^{<\omega_{1}}\rightarrow{}^{\omega_{1}}2$ as follows. Given $s\in[p]^{<\omega_{1}}$ and $\sigma\in\omega_{1}$, let $c(s)_{\sigma}=1$ iff there are $\sigma_{0},\sigma_{1}\in\omega_{1}$ so that $\sigma<\sigma_{0}<\sigma_{1}$ and $\eta_{s\upharpoonright\sigma}<\eta_{s\upharpoonright(\sigma_{1}-\sigma_{0})}$. Recall that $\aleph_{2}\rightarrow(\aleph_{2})^{<\omega_{1}}$ in $V$, and let $q\in[p]^{\omega_{2}}$ be $c$-monochromatic.

The crucial point here is that for every $\sigma\in\omega_{1}$ one can find $\sigma^{\prime}>\sigma,\sigma^{\prime}\in\omega_{1}$ and $s^{\prime}\in[q]^{\sigma^{\prime}}$ for which $c(s^{\prime})_{\sigma^{\prime}}=1$. To see this, fix $\sigma\in\omega_{1}$ and let $s=q\upharpoonright\sigma$. Pick $r\in[q-s]^{<\omega_{1}},t\in[q-s]^{<\omega_{2}}$ and $\alpha\in\lambda$ such that $(a\cup{}_{\omega}r,t)\Vdash\mathchoice{\oalign{$\displaystyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\displaystyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\textstyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptstyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}{\oalign{$\scriptscriptstyle f$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\tilde{\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu}{}$}\vss}}}(\alpha)=\beta>\eta_{s}$. This is possible since $q\subseteq p$ and $(a,p)\Vdash\bigcup f^{\prime\prime}\lambda=\aleph_{\omega+1}$. Observe that $c(s\cup r)_{\sigma}=1$ since $\eta_{r}\geq\beta>\eta_{s}$. Let $s^{\prime}=s\cup r$ and let $\sigma^{\prime}=\ell g(s^{\prime})$, thus the crucial property holds.