RuleBase is a formal verification tool, developed by the IBM Haifa Research Laboratory. It is the result of three years of experience in practical formal verification of hardware which, we believe, has been a key factor in bringing the tool to its current level of maturity. We present the tool, including several unique features, and summarize our usage experience.

The Baire number of the real line (see 1.1(c)) has uncountable cofinality [Mi]. This number is equal to the Baire number of the space 2ω and also to the Baire number (1.1(d)) of every countable partial order. Our research is motivated by the following open question (1.13) (see also [BPS] and [Mi]): can the cofinality of nκ, the Baire number of the space (2κ)κ (1.1(b)), be less than or equal to κ? This question is nontrivial when κ is regular and 2κ = κ (1.3). A. Miller proved that the answer is “no” if κ is strongly inaccessible (see [Mi] and 1.11). Assuming CH, is equal to the Baire number of the Stone space of ℘(ω)/Fin. In §1 we discuss , the Baire number of the space (2λ)κ. If κ is regular, then , and using 1.3 and 1.5, we may rule out the easy cases and restrict ourselves to cases where κ is regular with 2<κ = κ, and κ ≤ λ 2κ. If λ > κ, then it is consistent to have cof( )=κ ([Mi] and 1.7). We do not know whether is consistent (1.9). Next, the cardinal number eκ is defined (1.10). It is easy to see that nκ ≤ eκ and that cof(eκ) > κ. If κ is strongly inaccessible (s.i.), then nκ = eκ ([Mil], [Bar], [MF] and 1.11). For κ accessible, the question of whether nκ = eκ is open. Another open question (Fremlin) is stated as follows: assume W ⊇ V and f ∈ ωω ∩ W is such that, for every g ∈ ω ω ∩ V, ∣(f = g)∣ = ℵ0, does this imply that W contains sets which are ω-Cohen (1.1(a)) over V? If κ is accessible regular with 2<κ = κ, then the answer to the analog of Fremlin's question for κ is “no”. In fact, any κ-closed forcing that adds new subsets of κ, also adds a new function f ∈ κκ such that, for every g ∈ κκ ∩V, (f = g) is stationary (4.1(a)). On the other hand, perfect-set forcing on κ (see [Ka] and §5) adds a new subset of κ but produces a minimal extension (5.4(b)), and hence adds no sets which are κ-Cohen over V.

Let be the least cardinal θ such that MAθ fails, (i.e. MA) implies that is regular. Models for regular with are easy to get (see [Ku1]). Fremlin and Miller proved that cof( ) > ω [Fr, 41C(d)]. The question of whether it is consistent that be singular was solved, in the affirmative, by Kunen [Ku1]. Kunen used a (θ, θ) strong gap in (ω)/Fin, whose splitting partial order is c.c.c. He showed that if cof(θ) = ω1, and P is a c.c.c. partial order of cardinality < θ that may destroy the strong gap, then there exists another c.c.c. partial order Q, which does not destroy the strong gap, and such that ⊩Q “P is not c.c.c”. One then gets Kunen's model by iterating c.c.c. partial orders of cardinality < θ, without destroying the strong (θ, θ) gap. It is unknown whether it is consistent to have ω1 < cof( ) < . Clearly, there exists a c.c.c. partial order Q with ∣Q∣ = , such that (Q) = (see (1.1)). A partial order P is σ-centered iff P is the union of countably many centered subsets, where a subset A ⊆ P is centered iff p ≤ q. Clearly, a σ-centered partial order is c.c.c. Bell and Szymański proved that (σ-centered) is regular (see [Be] or [Fr, 14C], and [Fr, 21K] or [vD, 3.1(e)]). This implies that if P is a σ-centered partial order, and is singular, then (P) > . In particular, if is singular, then Q is not σ-centered and all c.c.c. partial orders of cardinality < have a Baire number (1.1) strictly greater than . It was suggested in [Ku1] to try and use Q(T) (1.2), where T is a tree with no ω1-branches, to get models with singular . It is well known that when T is such a tree, the forcing Q(T) is c.c.c. [BMR], ∣Q(T)∣ = ∣T∣, and if T is not special, then n(Q(T)) ≤ ∣T∣.