Forcing axiom failure for any \(\lambda >\aleph_1\) (Q701721)

A poset \(\mathbb P\) is semi-proper (or \(\{\aleph_1\}\)-semi-proper) if for every suitably large countable elementary submodel \(N\), \(\mathbb P\) has a semi-generic condition (forcing \(N\cap \omega_1 = N[G]\cap \omega_1\)). Each semi-proper poset preserves the stationarity of all stationary subsets of \(\omega_1\). The semi-proper forcing axiom (SPFA) implies that the converse holds (see XVII 1.3 of [\textit{S. Shelah}, Proper and improper forcing. 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer (1998; Zbl 0889.03041)]). Namba forcing preserves stationary subsets of \(\omega_1\), changes the cofinality of \(\omega_2\) to \(\omega\) and, in the absence of large cardinals, is not semi-proper (see XII 2.5 of Shelah's book [loc. cit.]). The final section of the paper produces in ZFC a semi-proper forcing poset which is not proper. The first section of the paper shows that a forcing axiom for stationarity preserving posets in which we require a filter to meet \(\aleph_2\) many dense open sets will fail. In particular, for each regular \(\lambda>\aleph_1\), there is a poset \(\mathbb P\) which preserves stationary subsets of \(\lambda\) and which adds no new sequences of length less than \(\lambda\) and witnesses the failure of this potential forcing axiom.