Arxiv:2103.10788V4 [Math.LO] 16 Jun 2021 Glivenko–Cantelli Classes

arXiv:2103.10788v4 [math.LO] 16 Jun 2021 lvnoCnel lse and classes Glivenko–Cantelli ∗ atal upre yIMgat1400030118 grant IPM by supported Partially ese esrsaemr opiae hntps(vnin (even types emphasiz than We complicated more [HOR91]. are and measures [T87] Keisler using results known of proofs et,i naayi es.Aogohrtig,w hwthat show we things, other Among theory order sense. first analytic an in text), M v ups oevrthat moreover Suppose (v) 4.4.) Theorem sal in isfiable o loteey( every almost for iua,if ticular, oeta opcu.(f hoe A.1.) Theorem (Cf. compactum. Rosenthal model (i) ii o n lblKeisler global any For (iii) 3.6.) Fact 3.5, tion i)Frayglobal any For (ii) ntl aifibein satisfiable finitely i)Fraymodel any For (iv) 3.7.) Definition (Cf. npriua,if particular, In . φ egv eea e qiaecsof equivalences new several give We has M h pc fglobal of space the , NIP M M then , scountable, is rkUiest fTechnology of University Arak frtheory (for b sup ∈ T p M φ i p M ) n formula and M -type M | sgeneralized is ∈ k 1 n n Keisler any and then , scountable, is X S ai Khanaki Karim k 1 φ ue1,2021 17, June p p T ( φ φ ( M ). is x -measure T ( µ Abstract p n n model any and ) M ) DBSC i N sgnrlzdBie12dfial over definable Baire-1/2 generalized is scutbe hnfraycountable any for then countable, is b , fiieystse ye/esrsi a is types/measures satisfied -finitely φ ihtepoutmeasure product the with ) 1 ( − ,y x, DBSC p µ µ ( enbeover definable ,tefloigaeequivalent: are following the ), sBie12dfial over definable Baire-1/2 is φ φ ( -measure x ( NIP ,b x, n n model any and ) enbeover definable ∗ )) → | o omlsadnew and formulas for M NIP if , µ 0 ( x M p over ) sfiieysat- finitely is C.Defini- (Cf. . M formulas NIP M M µ npar- In . if , N , o a for , (Cf. . that e con- µ M is . 1 Introduction

This paper is a kind of companion-piece to [KP18] and [Kha20] although here we study equivalences of NIP formulas and local Keisler measures in classical first order logic. We also give alternatives/refinements of some results of [HP11] and [HPS13]. The main results/observations are Theorems 3.10, 4.4, A.1, Lemma 3.9, and Corollaries 4.8, 4.10 We believe that the novelty of the results of this article is that it is shown, assuming NIP for formula φ, that φ-types correspond to a proper subclass of Baire-1 functions (i.e. DBSC) and Keisler φ-measures correspond to another proper subclass of Baire-1 functions (i.e. Baire-1/2), and these classes are drastically different, in an analytic sense. This means that measures are definitely more complicated than types, in this sense. The complexity can lead to the definition of new classes of NIP theories in the classical logic; that is, we can distinguish between theories that their types and measures have the same complexity and those that do not. In the framework of continuous logic [BBHU08] this complexity has even more important consequences, as this leads to the fact, contrary to a claim in the literature, that there is no a perfect analog of Shelah’s theorem, namely a theory is unstable iff it has IP or SOP (cf. [Kha20a]). On the other hand, using the Talagrand’s characterization of Glivenko-Cantelli classes, we give some new equivalences of NIP for formulas that can have future applications. Finally, we show how to transfer these local results into results for global types/measures. This transfer will lead to new results and new proofs of the previous results. Let us give some historical points on the subject. The notion dependence for a family of sets/functions was introduced independently in model theory [Sh71], learning theory [VC71], and function theory [Ros74]. The combina- torial nature of the concept soon became apparent. The connection between the Vapnik-Chervonenkis results in learning theory and the NIP in model theory was discovered by Laskowski [Las92]. In fact, [VC71] characterizes the Glivenko-Cantelli classes using the notion independence. In function theory part, this flow led to the invention of the concept Fremlin-Talagrand stability by David Fremlin (cf. Definition 4.1 below). The connection of this concept with the Glivenko-Cantelli classes was later identified and studied by Talagrand [T87]. His Characterization of the Glivenko-Cantelli classes has some advantages over [VC71], as it is more suitable for studying (real- valued) functions and also has no additional measurability conditions. In fact, all the power of that concept lies in empirical measures or convexity.

2 The importance of this issue was understood in [HPP08], in which the concept of Keisler measure was studied. Keisler measures had previously been invented and studied in [Kei87]. Thus all the power of the notion was used in model theory in [HPP08] and [HP11]. In the present paper, the relationship between NIP and the Glivenko-Cantelli classes is explicitly studied and a completely functional expression of the subject is presented. Let us present the motivation of this article. Naturally, it can be interesting to examine the relationship between one area of mathematics and other areas. When a particular concept is introduced and studied independently in different areas, that concept is inherently of special mathematical importance. For example, we can refer to the stability and NIP in model theory, which also appear in various other fields such as functional analysis and learning theory. This allows the tools, results, and approaches of one field to be used in another field, and vice versa. This approach also improves the previous results and leads to new results, and sheds light on what was previously known. Surprisingly, all tools already existed in functional analysis and probability theory. Some of our results/observations– not all them– are just routine translations of the results of [T87] and [HOR91] into the language of model theory. However, there are several reasons that justify and even necessitate the use of this translation: (1) Here we provide a useful dictionary (from model theory to analysis and vice versa) that helps to understand the con- nections between them and for future applications. (2) Many results in the language of analysis can be more easily generalized to extensions of classical logic (such as continuous logic) and these results have interesting applications both for logic itself and for its applications in mathematics (see for example [Kha20a] and [Kha21]). On the other hand, it is worthwhile to provide more direct arguments and model-theoretic proofs of the results of this paper, although we believe that any model-theoretic proof of these analytical facts will necessarily express a similar argument in the language of model theory and will not differ much in nature. This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we provide all function theory background and emphasize the relationship between some of the classes of functions that we will use later. In section 3, we present the relationship between types/measures and analytical concepts, and provide a useful dictionary between model theory and analysis. We also emphasize the distinction between types and measures

3 (over countable models or sets) in an analytic sense. In section 4, we study the relationship between Glivenko–Cantelli-classes and NIP formulas, and using alternative proofs, we provide generalizations of some of the results of section 3. In appendix A, we give a short proof (and reﬁnements) of a new result on angelic spaces of global types/measures.

2 Preliminary of function spaces

If f is a real-valued function on a set X, the symbol [f >r] stands for {x ∈ X : f(x) > r}, and f −1[F ] stands for {x ∈ X : f(x) ∈ F }. Similarly, we abbreviate [f ≥ r], [f

f +(x) = max(f(x), 0), f −(x) = max(−f(x), 0).

Note that f = f + − f − and |f| = f + + f −. The topology of pointwise convergence on X is that inherited from the usual product topology of RX . A typical neighborhood of a function f is

X Uf (x1,...,xn; ǫ)= {g ∈ R : |f(xi) − g(xi)| < ǫ for i ≤ n}, where ǫ > 0 and {x1,...,xn} is a ﬁnite subset of X. In this paper, the topology on subsets of RX is pointwise convergence. Otherwise, we explicitly state what is our desired topology. It is easy to verify that a sequence (fn)n<ω of real-valued functions on X converges pointwise to a function f if for any ǫ> 0 and any x ∈ X there is a natural number nǫ,x such that |fn(x) − f(x)| < ǫ for all n > nǫ,x. In this case, sometimes we write fn → f. We say that (fn)n<ω converges uniformly to f if for any ǫ> 0 there is a natural number nǫ such that |fn(x)−f(x)| < ǫ for all n > nǫ and all x ∈ X. Let (fn)n<ω be a sequence of real-valued functions on X. We always assume that f0 ≡ 0, that is, f0(x) = 0 for all x ∈ X.

Fact 2.1. Let (fn)n<ω be as above (i.e. f0 ≡ 0). Then the following are equivalent:

(i) There is C > 0 such that Pn<ω |fn+1(x) − fn(x)| ≤ C for all x ∈ X.

4 (ii) There is a function f such that: (a) fn → f, and (b) f = F1 −F2 where + − F1 = Pn<ω(fn+1 − fn) and F2 = Pn<ω(fn+1 − fn) , and F1, F2 are bounded.

n−1 Proof. (i) =⇒ (ii): Note that fn = Pk=0(fk+1 − fk) and by (i), for all x, the inﬁnite series Pn<ω(fn+1(x)−fn(x)) is absolutely convergent. Therefore, the sequence fn(x) converges to Pn<ω(fn+1(x)−fn(x)), for all x. Let f = limn fn. + − + Clearly, f = limn fn = limn fn − limn fn . (Note that limn fn ≤ limn |fn| ≤ − C. Similarly for limn fn .) (ii) =⇒ (i): Suppose that there is N > 0 such that for all x, Pn<ω(fn+1 − + − fn) (x) < N and Pn<ω(fn+1 − fn) (x) < N. Therefore

+ − X |fn+1(x) − fn(x)| = X(fn+1 − fn) (x)+ X(fn+1 − fn) (x) < 2N. n<ω n<ω n<ω

In the following, we give a deﬁnition for the metric spaces, but we will shortly provide a general deﬁnition (i.e. without metrizability).

Deﬁnition 2.2. Let X be a compact metric space. The following is a list of the spaces of real-valued functions deﬁned on X. The important ones to note immediately are (iv) and (v). (i) C(X) is the space of continuous real-valued functions on X. (ii) SC(X), the lower semi-continuous function, is the space of functions f : X → R such that for every r ∈ R,[f ≤ r] is closed. (iii) B1(X), the Baire 1 class, is the space of functions f : X → R such that −1 ∞ for every closed F ⊆ R, f [F ] is Gδ in X, i.e. it is of the form Tn=1 Gn where the Gn’s are open. (iv) DBSC(X), is the space of real-valued functions f on X such that there are continuous functions (fn)n<ω (with f0 ≡ 0) and a constant C > 0 such that fn → f pointwise and Pn<ω |fn+1(x) − fn(x)|

5 (ii) Let f be a bounded real-valued function on X. f ∈ B1(X) if and only if it is the poinwise limit of a sequence of continuous functions. (iii) A real-valued function f on X is lower semi-continuous if and only if there is a sequence (fn) of continuous functions such that f1 ≤ f2 ≤··· and (fn) converges pointwise to f (for short we write fn ր f). (iv) f ∈ DBSC(X) if and only if there are bounded semi-continuous functions F1, F2 with f = F1 − F2. 1 (v) For any simple function f on X, f ∈ B1/2(X) if and only if it is DBSC. (vi) For uncountable compact metric space X,

C(X) $ SD(X) $ DBSC(X) $ B1/2(X) $ B1(X).

+ − Proof. (i): Set F1 = P fn+1(x) − fn(x) and F2 = P fn+1(x) − fn(x) and use Fact 2.1. (Note that F1, F2 are lower semi-continuous and bounded. See also (iii).) (ii) This is a classical result due to Lebesgue and Hausdorﬀ (see [Kec95, Theorem 24.10].) Note that the limit of any sequence of continuous functions is Baire 1 in any topological space. For a generalization of (ii), see [Kur66, p. 393] and also [Jay74]. (iii) is a classical result in functional analysis, essentially due to Baire (cf. [Hau62, p. 274]). (iv) follows from (i), (iii). Indeed, suppose that f = F1 − F2 and F1, F2 are bounded lower semi-continuous. By (iii), there are continuous functions hn,gn such that hn ր F1 and gn ր F2. Therefore, fn := (hn − gn) → f and 6 P |fn+1 − fn| P |hn+1 − hn| + P |gn+1 − gn| < C for some C > 0. (See also [HOR91].) (v) follows from [CMR96, Proposition 2.2]. (vi) follows from [HOR91, Proposition 5.1] and [CMR96].

Note that the diﬀerence between the given classes B1/2 and DBSC is fundamental, and in fact there are many other classes between them (cf. [HOR91]).

Fact 2.4. Let X be a compact metric space and f a simple function on X. f ∈ DBSC iff it is strongly Borel, that is, there exist disjoint differences of closed sets W ,...,W and real numbers r ,...,r such that f = n r χ . 1 n 1 n Pi=1 i Wi 1A function is called simple if its range is a finite set.

6 Proof. This is equivalence (3) ⇐⇒ (4) of [CMR96, Proposition 2.2]. Indeed, suppose that f ∈ DBSC. For simplicity, assume that f is {0, 1}-valued. By Fact 2.3(iv), there are bounded semi-continuous functions F1, F2 with −1 f = F1−F2. It is easy to see that f (1) = S0≤n≤C ([F1 > n+1/2]∩[F2 ≤ n]). Note that f is {0, 1}-valued and F1, F2 are valued in {0, 1,...,C}. As F1, F2 are lower semi-continuous, the [F1 > n +1/2]’s are open and the [F2 ≤ n]’s are closed. The converse is evident. We define a norm on DBSC. Definition 2.5. Let X be a compact metric space. Suppose that f ∈ DBSC(X). The D-norm of f, denoted by kfkD, is defined by kfkD = inf{C :(fn) ∈ C(X), f0 ≡ 0, fn → f pointwise, X |fn+1−fn| ≤ C}.

Fact 2.6 ([HOR91], page 3). Let X be a compact metric space. The classes DBSC and B1/2 are Banach algebras with respect to the D-norm and the uniform norm, respectively. We now generalize Definition 2.2 for arbitrary compact spaces. Definition 2.7. Let X be a compact Hausdorff space (not necessarily metric). (i) A simple function f on X is called a generalized DBSC function (or short generalized DBSC) if there exist disjoint differences of closed sets W1,...,Wn r ,...,r f n r χ and real numbers 1 n such that = Pi=1 i Wi . (ii) A real-valued functions f on X is called generalized Baire-1/2 if f is the uniform limit of a sequence (Fn) of simple DBSC functions. Note that in the general case, i.e. when X is not metric, a generalized DBSC (or generalized Baire-1/2) function is not Baire-1, even assuming that it is {0, 1}-valued. (Of course, such functions are Borel measurable.) In this case, the question of whether or not it is Baire-1 is related to descriptive set theory.

3 Types and measures

In this section we give the model-theoretic results using ideas from functional analysis as presented in the previous section.

7 We work in classical ({0, 1}-valued) model theory context. Our model theory notation is standard, and a text such as [S15] will be sufficient background for the model theory part of the paper. We fix an L-formula φ(x, y), a complete L-theory T , the monster model ˜ U, and a subset A of U. We let φ(y, x) = φ(x, y). Let X = Sφ˜(A) be the space of complete φ˜-types on A, namely the Stone space of ultrafilters on Boolean algebra generated by formulas φ(a, y) for a ∈ A. Each formula φ(a, y) for a ∈ A defines a function φ(a, y): X →{0, 1}, which takes q ∈ X to 1 if φ(a, y) ∈ q and to 0 if φ(a, y) ∈/ q. Note that X is compact and these functions are continuous, and as φ is fixed we can identify this set of functions with A. So, A is a subset of all bounded continuous functions on X, denoted by A ⊆ C(X). Just as we did above, one can define B1(X), Baire-1/2 and DBSC(X). Convention. In this paper, a type over the monster model U is called a “global type”, a type over a small set A is called a “non-global type”, a consistence collection of Boolean combinations of the instances φ(x, b), b ∈ U, is called a “global φ-type”, and a consistence collection of Boolean combinations of the instances φ(x, b), b ∈ A, is called a “non-global φ-type.”

Definition 3.1 (Keisler measures). Let T be a complete theory, U the moster model of T , and A ⊆ U. (i) A (Keisler) measure µ over A in the variable x is a finitely additive probabilty measure on the algebra L(A) of A-definable sets in the variables x. We will sometimes write µ as µ(x) to emphasize that µ is a measure on the variable x. We say µ is a global (Keisler) measure, if A = U, and is non-global (Keisler) measure, in otherwise. (ii) Let φ(x, y) be a formula. A (Keisler) φ-measure µ over A in the variable x is a finitely additive probabilty measure on the algebra Lφ(A) generated by definable sets φ(x, b), b ∈ A. We will sometimes write µ as µφ (or µφ(x)) to emphasize that µ is a φ-measure (on the variable x). A (Keisler) φ-measure µ is a global (Keisler) φ-measure, if A = U, and is non-global (Keisler) φ-measure, in otherwise.

We let S(U) be the space of global types, and M(U) the collection of global Keisler measures. We let Sφ(U) be the space of global φ-types, and Mφ(U) the collection of global Keisler φ-measures. Similarly, for A ⊆ U, the symbols S(A), M(A), Sφ(U) and Mφ(A) are deﬁned.

8 For a formula φ(x, y), we let ∆φ be the set of all Boolean combinations of the instances of φ(x, y) (with the variable x). A formula in ∆φ is called a φ-formula. If µ ∈ M(A), we also deﬁne µ|φ(θ(x, b)) := µ(θ(x, b)) for all θ ∈ ∆φ and b ∈ A. Note that µ|φ ∈ Mφ(A) and so we will sometimes write µ|φ as µφ (or µ again).

Definition 3.2. Let M, N |= T and µ ∈ M(M) (resp. µ ∈ Mφ(M)). We say that µ is finitely satisfiable in N if for every L(M)-formula (resp. φ-formula with parameters in M) θ(x) such that µ(θ(x)) > 0, there exists a ∈ N such that |= θ(a).

In the following, we give a useful dictionary that is used in the rest of the paper and can also be used in future work. Fact 3.3. Let T be a complete theory, M a model of T and φ(x, y) a formula. (i)(Pillay) There is a correspondence between global M-ﬁnitely satisﬁable φ- types p(x) and the functions in the pointwise closure of all functions φ(a, y):

Sφ˜(M) →{0, 1} for a ∈ M, where φ(a, q)=1 if and only if φ(a, y) ∈ q. (ii) The map p 7→ δp is a correspondence between global φ-types p(x) and Dirac measures δp(x) on Sφ(U), where δp(A)=1 if p ∈ A, and =0 in otherwise. Moreover, p(x) is finitely satisfiable in M iff δp(x) is finitely satisfiable in M. (iii) There is a correspondence between global φ-measures µ(x) and regular Borel probability measures on Sφ(U). Moreover, a global φ-measures is finitely satisfiable in M iff its corresponding regular Borel probability measure is finitely satisfiale in M. (iv) The closed convex hull of Dirac measures δ(x) on Sφ(U) is exactly all regular Borel probability measures µ(x) on Sφ(U). Moreover, the closed convex hull of Dirac measures on Sφ(U) which are finitely satisfiable in M is exactly all regular Borel probability measures µ(x) on Sφ(U) which are finitely satisfiable in M. (v) There is a correspondence between global M-finitely satisfiable φ-measures µ(x) and the functions in the pointwise closure of all functions of the form 1 n θ(a ,y) on S (M), where θ ∈ ∆ , a ∈ M, and θ(a , q)=1 if and only n P1 i θ˜ φ i i if θ(ai,y) ∈ q. Proof. (i) is due to Pillay (cf. [P18, Remark 2.1]). (ii): Let X = Sφ(U). For p(x) ∈ X, set the Dirac’s measure δp(x) on X, defined by δp(A) = 1 if p ∈ A, and = 0 in otherwise. It is easy to verify

9 that the map p 7→ δp is a bijection between X and all Dirac measures on X. Moreover, p(x) is finitely satisfiable in M iff M |= ∃xψ(x) for all ψ ∈ p(x) iff M |= ∃xψ(x) for all ψ such that δp(ψ(x)) = 1. (iii) is well-known (cf. [S15, Section 7.1]). For M-finitely satisfiability, suppose that µr is the corresponding regular Borel probability measure of µ. It is easy to verify that µ is M-finitely satisfied (cf. Definition 3.2) iff µr is M-finitely satisfied, that is, for every Borel set B ⊆ Sφ(U) with µr(B) > 0 there is a ∈ M such that tpφ(a/U) ∈ B. (iv) is a well-known result in Functional Analysis. Indeed, let X = Sφ(U) and D(X) be the set of all Dirac measures on X; that is, D(X)= {δx : x ∈ X}, where δx(A) = 1 if x ∈ A, and = 0 in otherwise. Let M(X) be the set of all regular Borel probability measures on X. By Proposition 437P of [Fre06], every δx ∈ D(X) is an extreme point of M(X). By Riesz Representation Theorem ([Fre06, Theorem 436J]), there is a correspondence between regular Borel probability measures µ ∈ M(X) and positive linear functionals Iµ on C(X) such that kIµk = 1. (Therefore, M(X) is a compact convex set of C(X)∗ with the weak* topology.) By the Krein–Milman theorem ([Con90, V, Theorem 7.4]), the closed convex hull conv(D(X)) of D(X) is M(X). Moreover, it is easy to verify that the set of all M-finitely satisfiable measures in M(X) is a closed convex subset of M(X), and M-finitely satisfiable Dirac measures in D(X) are its extreme points. Again, by the Krein–Milman theorem, the proof is completed. (v) follows from (i)–(iv). (Indeed, there are two points. First, for any θ ∈ ∆φ, n the closures of functions of the forms 1 ri · θ(ai,y) (where ri = 1) and 1 n P P n P1 θ(ai,y) are the same. Second, note that the functions of the form 1 n r ·φ(a ,y) alone are not enough to define a measure, because we need in- n P1 i i formation about the Boolean combinations of the instances φ(x, b)’s. There- fore, for every θ ∈ ∆φ we need to have a function fθ on Sθ˜(M). Also, for any θ1, θ2 ∈ ∆φ, we should have fθ1∨θ2 = fθ1 + fθ2 − fθ1∧θ2 .) Remark 3.4. (i) Note that a global version of Fact 3.3 is true for global types/measures instead of φ-types/φ-measures. The proof is just an adaptation of the argument of Fact 3.3. Although the primary purpose of this article is to study local properties, we will use the global version in Theorem A.1 below. (ii) History. The correspondence between coheirs of φ-types and suitable functions in (i) above was observed by Pillay [P18]. The connection with Grothendieck result was first asserted in [Ben14]. It seems that (in model

10 theory) the relationship between Keisler φ-measures and the convex hull of continuous functions was ﬁrst observed by Gannon [G19].

Let A be a (small) set of the monster model U. A set F is called a closed set over A if it is the set of realizations in U of a partial type over A. The complements of closed sets over A are called the opens sets over A. The Borel set over A is the σ-algebra generated by the open sets over A. Alternatively, these correspond to the Borel sets of the relevant Stone space of complete types over A.

Definition 3.5 ([HP11]). (i) A global type p(x) is called Borel definable over A if for any L-formula φ(x, y), the set {b ∈ U : φ(x, b) ∈ p(x)} is a Borel set over A. (ii) A global type p(x) is called strongly Borel definable over A (or DBSC definable over A) if for any L-formula φ(x, y), the set {b ∈ U : φ(x, b) ∈ p(x)} is a finite Boolean combination of closed sets over A. (iii) A global (Kiesler) measure µ(x) is called Borel definable over A if for any L-formula φ(x, y) and any closed subset F ⊆ [0, 1], the set {b ∈ U : µ(φ(x, b)) ∈ F } is a Borel set over A. (iv) Let φ(x, y) be a formula and p(x) a global φ-type. Then Borel definability and strong Borel definability are defined similarly. The Borel definability of a global φ-measure is defined similarly. (v) For non-global types and non-global φ-types, the Borel definability and strong Borel definability are defined similarly. For non-global measures and non-global φ-measures, the Borel definability is defined similarly. (We will shorlty give the suitable strong notion to measures, cf. Definition 3.7.)

Fact 3.6. (a) Let A be a (small) set and p(x) a global type which is finitely satisfiable in A. For any L-formula φ(x, y), define the function pφ : Sφ˜(A) → {0, 1}, denoted by pφ(q)=1 iff φ(x, b) ∈ p for some (any) b |= q. Then the following are equivalent: (i) p(x) is strongly Borel definable over A. (ii) For any L-formula φ(x, y), the function pφ is DBSC. (Cf. Defini- tions 2.2, 2.7 and Fact 2.4.) (b) The same holds for global φ-types, non-global types and non-global φ-types.

Proof. This follows from Facts 2.4 and 3.3(i). We now give the suitable strong notion to measures.

11 Definition 3.7 (Baire-1/2 definable measure). (i) Let A be a (small) set and µ(x) a global (Kiesler) measure which is finitely satisfiable in A. For any L-formula φ(x, y), define the function µφ : Sφ˜(A) → [0, 1], denoted by µφ(q) := µ(φ(x, b)) for some (any) b |= q. µ(x) is called (generalized) Baire- 1/2 over A if for any L-formula φ(x, y), the function µφ is (generalized) Baire-1/2. (ii) For global φ-measures, non-global measures and non-global φ-measures, the (generalized) Baire-1/2 definability is defined similarly. In the next lemma we give a new characterization of NIP for formulas. Later we will even provide a generalization of it. (Cf. Corollary 4.10 below.) First, we need some definitions. (Note the distinct in form between the two definitions below. In fact, the part (i) of Definition 3.8 coresponds to NIP in classical logic and the part (ii) corresponds to NIP in continuous logic.)

Deﬁnition 3.8. Let X be a set and (fi) a sequence of [0, 1]-valued functions on X. (i) We say the independence property is uniformly blocked on (fi) if there is a natural number N such that for each r

~~∃y ^ fij (y) ≤ r ∧ ^ fij (y) ≥ s. j∈E j∈N\E~~

~~(ii) We say the independence property is semi-uniformly blocked on (fi) if for each r~~

~~∃y ^ fij (y) ≤ r ∧ ^ fij (y) ≥ s. j∈E j∈Nr,s\E~~

Lemma 3.9. Let T be a complete theory and φ(x, y) an NIP formula. Sup- pose that (an) is a sequence (in the monster model of T ) and (gn) is a sequence kn of functions of the form gn = Pi=1 ri · φ(ai,y) where P ri = 1 and n ∈ N. Then the following properties hold (are even equivalent): ′ (i) There is a subsequence (an) ⊆ (an) such that: (a) There is a real number C such that for all b in the monster model,

~~′ ′ X φ(an+1, b) − φ(an, b) ≤ C. n<ω~~

12 ′ (b) The independence property is uniformly blocked on (φ(an,y)). ′ (ii) There is a subsequence (gn) ⊆ (gn) such that the independence property ′ is semi-uniformly blocked on (gn). ′ (iii) (φ(an,y)) converges pointwise to a function f which is DBSC. ′ (iv) (gn) converges pointwise to a function g which is Baire-1/2. Proof. (i)(a) and (i)(b) follow from Proposition 2.14(iii) and Lemma 2.8 of [Kha19b]. (In fact, they are equivalent.) (ii): We will use some results of [Ben09] and [BK09]. Indeed, let A = {an : n<ω}, M ∗ a model such that every type over A is realized in it, and ∗ T∗ = T h(M ). Note that every gn can be extended to a global Keisler ∗ measure νn. (Indeed, if gn = P riφ(ai,y), deﬁne νn(x) = P ritp(ai/M ). ∗ That is, ν(ψ(x)) = P riψ(ai) for all L(M )-formula ψ(x).) Note that νn is a measure on the Stone space S(T∗) (cf. [S15]). Then, by Corollary 2.10 of [BK09], every measure νn in T∗ corresponds to a type pn in the R ∗ randomization T∗ of T∗. In this case, for every L(M )-formula ψ(x), νn({q : P ψ(x) ∈ q})=(µ[[ψ(x)]]) n where µ[[ψ(x)]] is the corresponding formula in R T∗ . By Theorem 5.3 (or Theorem 4.1) of [Ben09], as φ(x, y) is NIP in R T , its corresponding formula µ[[φ(x, y)]] is dependent in T∗ . Note that the Ben Yaacov’s argument is essentially local (formula-by-formula), although the statement of Theorem 5.3 is global, it is easy to check that the local R result holds too. Let an be a realization of pn. Now, as T∗ is a continuous theory and the formula µ[[φ(x, y)]] is dependent in it, there is a subsequence ′ (an) ⊆ (an) such that the independence property is semi-uniformly blocked ′ on (µ[[φ(an,y)]]). If not, by compactness (of continuous logic) and Ramsey’s theorem, one can show that the formula µ[[φ(x, y)]] has IP , a contradiction. (See also Theorem 4.3(iv) of [Kha20a].) This means that the independence ′ property is semi-uniformly blocked on the corresponding sequence (νn) of measures in T . (Note that our terminology is diﬀerent from [Ben09] that this notion is called the uniformly dependence. Because the natural number Nr,s depends to r, s, we believe that semi-uniformly dependence is more suitable.) (iii) is Proposition 2.14(iv) in [Kha19b]. ′ (iv): First, notice that (gn) converges to a Baire-1 function, denoted by g. This is a well known result in functional analysis, due to Rosenthal [Ros74]. Suppose, for a contradiction, that g is not Baire-1/2. Equivalently, suppose ′ that the limit f of (µ[[φ(an,y)]]) is not Baire-1/2. So, by the equivalence (1) ⇔ (5) of Proposition 2.3 of [HOR91], there are r

~~13 Km(f; r, s) =6 ∅. (See [HOR91, page 7] for the deﬁnitions of Km and α.) By Lemma 3.1 in [HOR91], for all m there are r~~

∃y φ(a′′ ,y) 6 r′ ∧ φ(a′′ ,y) > s′ ^ ni ^ ni i∈E i∈F holds, for all disjoint subsets E, F of {1,...,m} and n1 < ··· < nm. So, by the compactness theorem, µ[[φ(x, y)]] has IP , a contradiction. This means ′ ′ that the limit of (νn) (or (gn)) is Baire-1/2. In the following we give a result on deﬁnability of measures on countable models (sets), assuming NIP . In the next section, we give an alternative proof which is also a generalization to the general case (i.e. without assuming countability). In the appendix we will give a result that is stronger in another respect. Recall that ∆φ is the set of all Boolean combinations of the instances of φ(x, y) (with the variable x).

~~Theorem 3.10. The following are equivalent:~~

~~(i) φ has NIP (for theory T ).~~

~~(ii) For any µ(x) ∈ Mφ(U) and any countable model M, if µ is finitely satisfiable in M, then µ is Baire-1/2 definable over M.~~

~~(iii) For any p(x) ∈ Sφ(U) and any countable model M, if p is finitely satisfiable in M, then p is strongly Borel definable over M.~~

~~Proof. (i) =⇒ (ii): By Fact 3.3(v) above, for any θ(x) ∈ ∆φ, there is function f in the pointwise closure of the convex hull conv(A) of A = {θ(a, y):~~

Sθ˜(U) → {0, 1}| a ∈ M} such that f(q) = µ(θ(x, b)) for some (any) b |= q. (Note that we can assume that the functions in A (and so the function f) are on Sθ˜(M). Therefore, as M is countable, Sθ˜(M) is Polish and these functions are deﬁned on a Polish space.) As θ is NIP , by Proposition 5J of [BFT78], there is a sequence (fn) in the convex hull conv(A) of A such that kn fn → f; that is, there is a sequence (fn) of the form fn(y)= Pi=1 ri · θ(ai,y) (where ai ∈ M0 and P ri = 1) such that fn → f pointwise. (Note that since Proposition 5J of [BFT78] needs countability, one can consider rational k convex hull of A; that is, the set of functions Pi=1 ri · θ(ai,y) where ri ∈

14 k Q ∩ [0, 1] and Pi=1 ri = 1.) As θ is NIP , by Lemma 3.9(ii) above, there ′ is a subsequence (fn) ⊆ (fn) such that the independence property is semi- ′ ′ uniformly blocked on (fn), and consequently the sequence (fn) converges to a Baire-1/2 function, by Lemma 3.9(iv). This means that f is Baire-1/2 and so µ is Baire-1/2 deﬁnable. (i) =⇒ (iii) is similar to (i) =⇒ (ii) and even easier. By Fact 3.3(v) above, there is function f in the pointwise closure of A = {φ(a, y): Sφ˜(U) → {0, 1}| a ∈ M} such that f(q)= φ(p, b) for some (any) b |= q. As φ is NIP , by Proposition 5J (or even Theorem 4D) of [BFT78], there is a sequence (φ(an,y)) in A such that φ(an,y) → f(y) pointwise. By Lemma 3.9(iii), f is strongly DBSC or equivalently strongly Borel. (iii) =⇒ (i): By the equivalence (iv) ⇐⇒ (vi) of [BFT78, Theorem 4D], we need to show that for any countable model M, the family φ(a, y), a ∈ M, is relatively compact in Mr(X), where X = Sφ˜(M) and Mr(X) is the space of all functions which are measurable with respect to all Radon measures on X (cf. [BFT78, Deﬁnition 1A(l)]). Suppose that M is a countable model,

(ai)i∈I ∈ M and φ(ai,y) → f(y) pointwise on X = Sφ˜(M). Note that f(y) defines the type p(x) = limi tp(ai/U). As p is finitely satisfiable in M, by (iii), f is Borel measurable. Therefore, by the equivalence (iv) ⇐⇒ (vi) of [BFT78, Theorem 4D], the proof is completed. (ii) =⇒ (i): As every type is a measure, the argument (iii) =⇒ (i) above works well. Remark 3.11. Note that Theorem 3.10 can be proved for global types/measures instead of φ-types/φ-measures (see also Theorem A.1 below). That is, the following are equivalent (cf. Remark 3.4 above): (i) T has NIP . (ii) For any global measure µ(x) ∈ M(U) and any countable model M, if µ is finitely satisfiable in M, then µ is Baire-1/2 definable over M. (iii) For any global type p(x) ∈ S(U) and any countable model M, if p is finitely satisfiable in M, then p is strongly Borel definable over M.

~~4 Glivenko–Cantelli classes~~

The classical theorem of Glivenko and Cantelli is a generalization of the law of large numbers in probability theory. The families of sets/functions for which the consequence of the Glivenko–Cantelli theorem holds are called Glivenko– Cantelli classes. Vapnik and Chervonenkis gave a characterization of such

15 classes in [VC71]. As mentioned before, Talagrand’s characterization [T87] of Glivenko–Cantelli classes has some adventures over [VC71]. In this case, the fundamental notion has been invented by David H. Fremlin, namely the Fremlin–Talagrand stability. From a logical point of view, this notion was first studied in [Kha16] in the framework of integral logic. In the following, given a measure µ and k > 1, the symbol µk stands for k-fold product of µ and µ∗ stands for the outer measure of µ. Definition 4.1 (Fremlin–Talagrand stability, [Fre06], 465B). Let A ⊆ C(X) be a pointwise bounded family of real-valued continuous functions on X. Sup- pose that µ is a measure on X. We say that A is µ-stable, if A is a stable set of functions in the sense of Definition 465B in [Fre06], that is, whenever E ⊆ M is measurable, µ(E) > 0 and s 1 such 2k ∗ 2k that (µ ) Dk(A,E,s,r) < (µE) where

~~2k Dk(A,E,s,r)= [ w ∈E : f(w2i) 6 s, f(w2i+1) > r for i 0 and s~~

~~k k k µ ({w ∈ E : ∃f ∈ A ∀I ⊆ k, f(wi) 6 s ∀i ∈ I, f(wi) > r ∀i∈ / I})=(µE) .~~

Proof. (ii) =⇒ (i) is evident.2 (In fact, for any subset of functions (not necessarily continuous) on X the direction (ii) =⇒ (i) holds.) (i) =⇒ (ii) is Proposition 4 of [T87]. Indeed, as all functions in A are continuous, it is easy to verify that– for each k, s

~~16 Remark 4.3. Recall from [Kha20, Corollary 3.15] that a formula φ(x, y) has NIP if and only if for any model M and any Keisler φ-measure µ(x) over M the family φ(x, b), b ∈ M is µ-stable.~~

The following theorem is a translation of [Fre06, Theorem 465M] and asserts that a formula φ(x, y) has NIP if and only if for any model M and any Keisler φ-measure µ(x) over M the family φ(x, b), b ∈ M is a Glivenko– Cantelli classe with respect to µ.

~~Theorem 4.4. The following are equivalent:~~

~~(i) φ has NIP (for theory T ).~~

~~(ii) For any model M and any measure µ ∈ M (M), sup | 1 k φ(p , b)− φ b∈M k P1 i N µ(φ(x, b))| → 0 as k → ∞ for almost every (pi) ∈ Sφ(M) with the product measure µN.~~

Proof. (i) =⇒ (ii): Let M be a model of T , and µ(x) a Keisler measure over M. Letµ ¯ be the completion of µ, that is, the smallest extension of µ which is complete. (See [Fol99, Thm 1.9] for the deﬁnition of the completion of a measure.) Therefore,µ ¯ is a Radon measure in the sense of [Fre06, 411H(b)]. By Corollary 3.15 of [Kha20], as φ is NIP (for theory T ), the set A = {φ(x, b): b ∈ M} isµ ¯-stable for every Radon measure on Sφ(M), in the sense of [Kha20, Deﬁnition 3.5]. (Note that as φ is NIP , we do not need to assume M is ℵ0-saturated and the argument of [Kha20, Corollary 3.15] works 1 k well.) By Theorem 465M of [Fre06], supb∈M | k P1 φ(pi, b) − µ¯(φ(x, b))| → 0 N N for almost every (pi) ∈ Sφ(M) with the product measureµ ¯ . Now, note that as φ(x, b) (b ∈ M) is continuous andµ ¯ is the completion of the Borel measure µ, we have µ(φ(x, b)) =µ ¯(φ(x, b)) for all b ∈ M. Therefore, sup | 1 k φ(p , b) − µ(φ(x, b))|→ 0 for almost every (p ) ∈ S (M)N with b∈M k P1 i i φ the product measure µN. (Indeed, recall that everyµ ¯-measurable set E is of the form F ∪ N where F is µ-measurable and N is a subset of a µ-null set.) (ii) =⇒ (i): Again, by Theorem 465M of [Fre06], for any Keisler measure µ(x) over M, the set A above isµ ¯-stable, and so φ is NIP , by Corollary 3.15 of [Kha20]. (Alternatively, this follows from (v) =⇒ (ii) of [BFT78, The- orem 2F], (ii) =⇒ (i) of [Fre06, Theorem 465M], and the fact that every function in the pointwise closure of aµ ¯-stable set isµ ¯-measurable [Fre06, Proposition 465D(b)].)

17 Explanation. There are two points. First: In Theorem 4.4, the transition of a regular Borel measure (i.e. Keisler measure) to its completion is essential. For this, the following example was suggested to us by Gilles Godefroy: Take K a compact scattered space which contains a non-Borel subset E.3 Let A be the unit ball of C(K), considered as a set of continuous functions on X=the unit ball of C(K)∗ equipped with the weak*-topology. Then every sequence in A has a pointwise convergent subsequence since C(K) does not contain ℓ1 (or directly), but the characteristic function of E belongs to the pointwise closure of A and it is not Borel. This means that the relative sequential compactness (i.e. the equivalences of [BFT78, Thm 2F]) does not imply Borel definability (of types/measures). Of course, if X is metrizable, then it holds by [BFT78, Thm 3F]. In general (i.e. non-metrizable space X), recall that NIP implies Borel definability, by [HP11, Proposition 2.6]. This fact emphasizes that NIP (for theory) is strictly stronger than NIP in a model (= the relative sequential compactness). Second: There is a version of µ-stability in [Fre06, 465S], which is called R-stable, so that is more appropriate in some ways. Indeed, Talagrand [T84, Thm 9-4-2] showed that a subset A ⊂ C(X) is R-stable if and only if every function in the pointwise closure of A is measurable. The only difference between these versions is in the definition of product measures. Therefore, all results of µ-stability hold for this (weaker) version, and the argument of Theorem 4.4 can be simplified by using R-stability. Remark 4.5. (i) There are other versions of Theorem 4.4: (a) For a formula φ(x, y) and model M, the formula φ˜ is NIP in M if M 1 k and only if for any µ ∈ φ(M), supb∈M | k P1 φ(pi, b) − µ(φ(x, b))| → 0 as N N 4 k →∞ for almost every (pi) ∈ Sφ(M) with the product measure µ . (b) For a formula φ(x, y), model M and µ ∈ Mφ(M), the set {φ(x, b): 1 k b ∈ M} is µ-stable if and only if supb∈M | k P1 φ(pi, b) − µ(φ(x, b))| → 0 as N N k →∞ for almost every (pi) ∈ Sφ(M) with the product measure µ . (ii) In Theorem 4.4, if we consider X1,...,Xm a finite collection of Borel over M sets, then for each i ≤ m, the set Ai = {φ(x, b) ∩ Xi : b ∈ M} is µ-stable (for all Radon measures µ). One may demand a better result, that is, a result for global Keisler measures (i.e. not only for the measures on the Boolean combinations of the

~~3A space X is scattered if every nonempty subset A of it contains a point isolated in A. See [Eng89], page 59. 4See [KP18] for the deﬁnition of NIP in a model.~~

~~18 instances of φ(x, y)). We respond positively to his/her demand:~~

~~Corollary 4.6. Let T be a countable theory. The following are equivalent:~~

~~(i) T is NIP .~~

~~(ii) For any model M and any measure µ ∈ M(M), there is a set X ⊆ S(M)N of the full measure 1 such that for any formula θ(x, y¯),~~

~~k 1 ¯ ¯ sup | X θ(pi, b) − µ(θ(x, b))|→ 0 ¯ k b∈M 1~~

as k →∞ for all (pi) ∈ X. Proof. Let θ(x, y¯) be a formula. By Theorem 4.4, it is easy to verify that the N 1 k ¯ ¯ set Xθ of all (pi) ∈ S(M) such that sup¯b∈M | k P1 θ(pi, b) − µ(θ(x, b))|→ 0 N for all (pi) ∈ Xθ has the measure 1 with respect to µ . On the other hand, as measures are continuous of above (cf. [Fol99, Theorem 1.8]), there is a set X ⊆ S(M)N of the full measure 1 such that for any formula ϕ(x, y¯), 1 k sup¯ | ϕ(p , ¯b) − µ(ϕ(x, ¯b))| → 0 as k → ∞ for all (p ) ∈ X. Indeed, b∈M k P1 i i note that the set of all formulas (with the variable x) is countable. Let {θ1(x), θ2(x),...} be an enumeration of them and X = Tn Xθn . Therefore, µN X µN n X ( ) = limn (T1 θi ) = 1. Remark 4.7. In Theorem 4.4, suppose that N ≺ M is a small model and µ is N-finitely satisfiable. Let X be the set of all N-finitely satisfiable φ-types over M. Then it is easy to verify that for each b ∈ M, µ(φ(x, b)) = µ(φ(x, b)∩X). In fact, µ(X)=1. Assuming NIP for theory, the same holds if µ is N- invariant and X is the set of all N-invariant φ-types over M (cf. [HP11, Proposition 4.6]), but not in general.

~~The following is a generalization of Theorem 3.10.~~

~~Corollary 4.8. The following are equivalent:~~

~~(i) φ has NIP (for theory T ).~~

~~(ii) For any µ(x) ∈ Mφ(U) and any (not necessarily countable) model M, if µ is finitely satisfiable in M, then µ is (generalized) Baire-1/2 definable over M. (Cf. Definition 3.7.)~~

~~19 (iii) For any p(x) ∈ Sφ(U) and any (not necessarily countable) model M, if p is finitely satisfiable in M, then p is (generalized) DBSC over M. (Cf. Definition 3.5 and Fact 3.6.)~~

Proof. (i) =⇒ (ii): By Theorem 4.4, for each ǫ > 0, there is k such that sup | 1 k φ(p , b) − µ(φ(x, b))| ≤ ǫ for almost every (p ) ∈ S (U)k with b∈U k P1 i i φ k the product measure µ . By Remark 4.7, note that µ(Sφ(U)) = µ(X) where X is the set of all all M-finitely satisfiable global φ-types. Recall from [HP11, Proposition 2.6] that every invariant global type is strongly Borel definable. It is easy to check that every finitely satisfiable φ-type (in not necessarily NIP theory) can be extended to a global finitely satisfiable type. There- fore, using an argument similar to Proposition 2.6 of [HP11], one can show that every p ∈ Sφ(U) is strongly Borel definable over M. For each k, let k k k 1 k k (p1,...,pk) ∈ X such that supb∈U | k P1 φ(pi , b) − µ(φ(x, b))| ≤ ǫ. Let 1 k k fk(y) = k P1 gi,k(y) where gi,k defines pi . Clearly, as the gi,k’s are DBSC, fk is DBSC. Therefore, the functions fk’s are strongly Borel and the sequence (fk) uniformly converse to a fuction f which defines µ. This means that µ is (generalized) Baire-1/2 definable. (i) =⇒ (iii) follows from Proposition 2.6 of [HP11]. (ii) =⇒ (i) and (iii) =⇒ (i) follow from the directions (ii) =⇒ (i) and (iii) =⇒ (i) of Theorem 3.10 above.

Remark 4.9. (i) Assuming NIP for the theory, the above result holds for invariant measures rather than coheirs. (See [HP11].) (ii) When M is countable, the above corollary gives an alternative proof the direction (i) =⇒ (ii) of Theorem 3.10.

~~The following is a generalization of Lemma 3.9 above.~~

Corollary 4.10. Let T be complete theory, M a model, and φ(x, y) an NIP formula. Suppose that (µn) is a sequence of Keisler φ-measures over M. ′ ′ Then there is a subsequence (µn) ⊆ (µn) such that (µn) converges to a measure µ over M. Moreover, if the µn’s are finitely satisfiable in N M, then µ is generalized Baire-1/2 definable over N. In particular, if N is also countable, µ is Baire-1/2 definable over N.

Proof. Use Lemma 3.9, Theorem 4.4 and Remark 4.7. Indeed, for each n, by Theorem 4.4 (or Corollary 4.6) there is a measure νn(θ(x, b)) = P riθ(pi, b) for all θ(x) ∈ ∆φ (where pi ∈ S(M) and P ri = 1) such that supb∈M |νn(θ(x, b))−

20 ′ µn(θ(x, b))| < 1/n. By Lemma 3.9, there is a subsequence (νn) ⊆ (νn) which converges to a measure µ. (Indeed, note that the set of all Boolean combinations of the instances of φ(x, y) is countable, and so using an easy diagonal ′ argument (and Lemma 3.9(ii)), we can find the desired subsequence (νn), ′ i.e. for any θ(x, y) ∈ ∆φ, the sequence νn(θ(x, y)) converges pointwise.) ′ Clearly, its corresponding subsequence (µn) ⊆ (µn) converges to µ. Moreover, if the µn’s are finitely satisfiable in N M, by Remark 4.7, µ is generalized Baire-1/2 definable over N. When N is countable, by Lemma 3.9(iv), µ is Baire-1/2 definable over N.

Remark 4.11. We emphasize that the global case is also established. That is, assuming T is countable and NIP , the argument of Corollary 4.10 works well. (See also Remark 3.4 and the argument of Theorem A.1.) On the other hand, it seems that an adaptation of the argument of Lemma 3.9 must prove a similar result.

Remark 4.12. (i) The notion “NIP of φ(x, y) in a model” was introduced in [Kha20] and more applications of it were presented in [KP18]. Some of the above results in the present article– not all them– can be proved by the weaker assumption ‘NIP in a model’. For this, one can use Fact 3.3 above and Propositions 5I and 5J of [BFT78]. (ii) As the types in continuous logic correspond to the measures in classical logic, all results of [Kha20, Section 3] can be translated for measures in classical logic.

Thesis In [Kha19b] we suggested a hierarchy of unstable NSOP theories using subclasses of Baire 1 functions. The results of the present paper lead to a new hierarchy in NIP theories. Indeed, let X be a compact Polish space and C a class of (real-valued) Baire 1 functions on X. Suppose moreover that DBSC ⊆ C ⊆ Baire-1/2. (Recall from [HOR91] and [KL90] that there are many ‘certain’ such classes.) We say that a complete theory T is a C-class (or is C) if “for any formula φ(x, y) and any countable model M, every M-finitely satisfied Keisler φ-measure µ over M is C-definable, that is, the functions that define µ are in C.” Several questions arise:

21 Question 4.13. Are there any unstable NIP theories which are DBSC? If so, Are there interesting such theories? Is there any (model theoretic) characterization of DBSC theories? Does it separate interesting theories? There are similar questions for each class C with DBSC ⊆ C ⊆ Baire-1/2.

~~A Angelic spaces of global types/measures~~

In this appendix, we apply the work of Bourgain-Fremlin-Talagrand on Rosen- thal compacta to give a short proof (and a reﬁnement) of a recent result of Gannon [G21] (which was based on a result due to Simon [S15a]). The key here is how to capture a “global” type/measure with a suitable function. By “global” we mean for all formulas, not just one. Recall that Ben Yaacov [Ben14] and Pillay [P18] had previously proposed a suitable function for the local types and local coheirs, respectively. We intend here to provide a suitable generalization of this function that is appropriate for global types/measures. First we recall some notations and notions. Given a model M and types p1(x),...,pn(x) over M, the average measure of them, denoted by Av(p1,...,pn), is deﬁned as follows:

~~{i : θ(x) ∈ pi, i ≤ n} Av(p1,...,pn)(θ(x)) := for all formula θ(x) ∈ L(M). n~~

If a1,...,an are elements in some model, Av(a1,...,an) := Av(p1,...,pn) where ai |= pi (i ≤ n). Similarly, given measures µ1(x),...,µn(x) over M, the average measure of them, denoted by Av(µ1,...,µn), is defined as follows: 1 n Av(µ1,...,µn)(θ(x)) := n P1 µi(θ(x)) for all formula θ(x) ∈ L(M). Recall that for a topological space X the subset A of X is relatively countably compact (in X) if every countable set of A has a cluster point in X. A is relatively compact if its closure is compact (in X). A regular Hausdorff space is angelic if (i) every relatively countably compact set is relatively compact; and (ii) the closure of a relatively compact set is precisely the limit of its sequences. The main theorem of [BFT78] asserts that for a Polish space X the space B1(X) equipped with the topology of pointwise convergence is angelic. A compact Hausdorff space is called Rosenthal compactum if it can be embedded in the space B1(X) of Baire 1 functions on some Polish space X.

~~22 We are now ready to present the main result of this section.~~

~~Theorem A.1. Let T be a countable NIP theory and M a countable model of it.5 Let p(x) and µ(x) be global type and global measure which are ﬁnitely satisﬁable in M, respectively. Then~~

~~(i) (Simon) There is a sequence (an) ∈ M such that limn tp(an/U)= p.~~

<ω (ii) (Gannon) There is a sequence (¯an) ∈ M such that limn Av(¯an)= µ. (iii) The limits in (i),(ii) above are DBSC and Baire-1/2, respectively. That is, for every formula θ(x, y), the function limn θ(an,y) (resp.

~~limn Av(¯an)(θ(x, y))) is DBSC (resp. Baire-1/2) on Sθ˜(M). (iv) The space of global M-ﬁnitely satisﬁed types/measures is a Rosenthal compactum.~~

~~Before giving the proof let us remark:~~

Remark A.2. Note that (iv) is a generalization of (i)/(ii) as follows: Sup- MM pose that the space of global M-ﬁnitely satisﬁed measures f (U) embeds in B1(X) where X is a Polish space. Therefore, by Theorem 3F of [BFT78], MM f (U) is angelic. (Recall that any subspace of an angelic space is angelic.) MM On the other hand, f (U) is the pointwise closure of the averages of global M-realized types. This proves (ii). Similarly for (i).

Proof of Theorem A.1. We want to store the information of each M-finitely satisfied type p (resp. measure µ) by a function of the form fp : X → [0, 1] (resp. fµ : X → [0, 1]) where X is a Polish space. Let θ1(x, y1), θ2(x, y2),... be an enumeration of all formulas with the variable x. For each n, let Xn be the Stone space Sθñ (M). (Note that the Xn’s ∗ are Polish, since M is countable.) For each n, we adjoin an isolated point qn ∗ ∗ 6 ∗ to Xn and define Xn := Xn ∪{qn} with the topological sum. Set X = Qn Xn with the product topology. (As the product of a countable number of Polish spaces is Polish, X is Polish.) We don’t actually need the isolated points ∗ ∗ {q1, q2,...} but it is convenient to include them. 5An even weaker assumption can be considered. That is, if every formula is NIP in M, then the arguments of (i), (ii) and (iv) work well. See [Kha20] for the definition of ‘NIP in a model’. 6See [Eng89], page 74.

23 Let a ∈ M and q ∈ Sθ˜(M). We let θ(a, q) = 1 if for some (any) b |= q we ∗ have |= θ(a, b), and θ(a, q) = 0 in otherwise. For the isolated points qn, we ∗ always assume that θn(a, qn) = 1. In general, if p(x) is a global M-finitely satisfied type, we let θ(p, q) = 1 if for some (any) b |= q we have θ(x, b) ∈ p, ∗ and θ(p, q) = 0 in otherwise. For the isolated points qn, we always assume ∗ that θn(p, qn) = 1. Similarly, for a global M-finitely satisfied measure µ(x) ∗ ∗ and any isolated point qn, we let µ(θn(x, qn)) = 1. Let p(x) ∈ S(U) be finitely satisfiable in M. The following function fp stores the information of the type p(x). Define fp : X → [0, 1] by (qn) 7→ ∞ 1 M n=1 2n θn(p, qn). In general, if µ ∈ (U) is a global M-finitely satisfiable P ∞ 1 measure, we define fµ : X → [0, 1] by (qn) 7→ Pn=1 2n µ(θn(x, qn)). We point out that the information of the type p(x) is stored in the function fp. In fact, the map p 7→ fp is a bijection from all global M-finitely satisfied types (with the variable x) onto all functions defined above. Furthermore, this map and its inverse are continuous. (Indeed, S(U) equipped with the Stone topology and [0, 1]X has the topology of pointwise convergence. Now consider the relative topologies in both cases.) The same holds for global M-finitely satisfied measures. Therefore, every M-finitely satisfiable global type corresponds to the limit of a net of functions in {fa : a ∈ M}. (Cf. Fact 3.3). We emphasize that the functions fa, a ∈ M, are continuous. Indeed, we define the following functions: for any a ∈ M and k ∈ N, we define a k k 1 k function fa : X → [0, 1] by (qn) 7→ Pn=1 2n θn(a, qn). Note that the fa ’s are k continuous and fa ր fa uniformly. So fa is continuous.

Let A = {fa : a ∈ M,k ∈ N}. We list our observations: (1) X is Polish. (2) fa is continuous (for each a ∈ M). (3) The information of every global M-finitely satisfied type p(x) is stored in a function fp in the closure A of A. Furthermore, the map p 7→ fp defined above is a homeomorphism, i.e, (i) it is one-to-one and onto, (ii) it is continuous and its inverse is so. Claim: A is relatively sequentially compact in [0, 1]X . That is, every sequence in A has a pointwise convergent subsequence in [0, 1]X .

Proof : Let(fan ) be a sequence in A. As θ1, θ2,... are NIP , by a diagonal argument, it is easy to verify that there is a convergent subsequence. Indeed, 1 by Lemma 3.9, let (an) be a subsequence of (an) such that the sequence 1 i (θ1(an,y1)) converges as n → ∞. Similarly, by induction, let (an) be a

~~24 i−1 i subsequence of (an ) such that the sequence (θi(an,yi)) converges as n →∞. n 7 Let (cn) be the diagonal of these sequences, i.e. cn = an for all n.~~

It is easy to check that the subsequence (fcn ) converges. Indeed, we show that for any (qi) ∈ X and any ǫ> 0, the sequence (fcn (qi)) is Cauchy. Note that, for each i, there is ni such that the sequence (θi(cj, qi): ni ≤ j) is ∞ k constant. Let N = max{ni : i < m} such that Pk=m 1/2 < ǫ. Therefore, ′ |fcj (qi) − fcj′ (qi)| < ǫ for all j, j > N. ⊣claim By the equivalence (i) ⇐⇒ (vi) of [BFT78, Theorem 4D], every f in the closure of A is the limit of a sequence in A. By our translation (cf. Fact 3.3 and Remark 3.4), this means that there is a sequence (an) ∈ M such that limn tp(an/U)= p. This proves (i). 1 (ii): Let A be as above, Av(A) := { n (f1 + ··· + fn): fi ∈ A, i ≤ n ∈ N} n n and conv(A) := {P1 ri · fi : fi ∈ A, n ∈ N, ri ∈ R, P1 ri = 1}. (conv(A) is called the convex hull of A. If necessary, one can assume that ri ∈ Q.) Clearly, the closures of Av(A) and conv(A) are the same, i.e. Av(A) = conv(A). 1 Note that the information of Av(a1,...,an) is stored in n (fa1 +···+fan ). Again, by [BFT78, Proposition 5J], as A is relatively sequentially compact, conv(A) is relatively sequentially compact, and so every h in the closure of conv(A) is the limit of a sequence (gn) in conv(A). In fact, we can ﬁnd a sequence (hn) in Av(A) such that hn → h. Indeed, suppose that kn kn 1 gn = ri · fi. Deﬁne hn := si · fi where |ri − si| < and si ∈ . P1 P1 n.kn Q 8 Then (hn) ∈ Av(A) and hn → h. By our translation (cf. Fact 3.3 and Remark 3.4), this proves (ii). (iii) follows from Lemma 3.9.

(iv) follows from the arguments of (i) and (ii). (Note that fai → fp if and only if tp(ai/U) → p. Furthermore, A ⊆ conv(A) ⊆ B1(X).) The following reﬁnement/globalization of [G21, Proposition 3.4] conﬁrms that the approach of this article is useful in making things visible that we could not see before. Proposition A.3. Let T be a countable theory, M a model of it and µ a global M-invariant measure. The following are equivalent:

7Alternatively, by an adaptation of [S15a, Lemma 2.7], one can ﬁnd a convergent subsequence (fcn ). 8 3 2 1 1 For example, 10 f1 + 10 f2 + 2 f3 = 10 (f1 + f1 + f1 + f2 + f2 + f3 + f3 + f3 + f3 + f3).

~~25 (i) µ is ﬁnitely approximated over M. That is, for every formula φ(x, y) <ω and ǫ> 0, there is a¯φ ∈ M such that~~

~~sup |µ(φ(x, b)) − Av(¯aφ)(φ(x, b))| < ǫ. b∈U~~

~~(ii) µ is strongly ﬁnitely approximated over M. That is, there is a sequence <ω (¯an) ∈ M such that for every formula φ(x, y) and ǫ> 0, there is nφ such that for all k ≥ nφ~~

~~sup |µ(φ(x, b)) − Av(¯ak)(φ(x, b))| < ǫ. b∈U~~

Proof. (ii) =⇒ (i) is evident. (i) =⇒ (ii): We can assume that M is countable. By Proposition 3.3(iii) ¯ ¯ <ω of [G21, Proposition 3.3(iii)]), there is a sequence (Av(bn)) where (bn) ∈ M and Av(¯an) → µ pointwise. Let fµ and fAv(¯an) be the corresponding functions of µ and Av(¯an) (defined in the proof of Theorem A.1), respectively. Note that, as µ is finitely approximated over M, fµ is continuous. Therefore, the function fµ is the weak limit of the sequence (fAv(¯bn)). By [Con90, V, Theorem 1.4] (or Mazur’s lemma), there is a sequence (Av(¯an)) of the finite ¯ convex combinations of (Av(bn)) such that fAv(¯an) → fµ uniformly. Now, it is easy to verify that (ii) holds. Note that Theorem A.1 (using an argument similar to Proposition A.3) provides another proof of the theorem that generically stable measures in NIP theories (not necessarily countable) are also finitely approximated. As mentioned earlier, it is sufficient to consider the weaker assumption ‘NIP in a model’. At the end paper let us remark:

Remark A.4. The approach of the present paper allows us to make ‘easy’ generalizations and to give more new results. We list some of them. (i) The above argument work well in the framework of continuous logic [BBHU08]. (ii) The argument can be adapted to global invariant types/measures. That is, given a countable NIP theory T and countable model M, the space of global M-invariant types/measures is a Rosenthal compactum. (This generalizes another result of Simon [Sim14, Theorem 0.1] that is about invariant φ- types.) (iii) The argument leads us to another proof of the theorem that

26 generically stable measures in NIP theories (not necessarily countable) are also finitely approximated. (iv) The argument leads us to the theorem that a countable theory is stable if and only if for any model M the space of global M- finitely satisfied types/measures is Eberlein compactum.9 (This generalizes the results in [Ben14] and [P18] in several ways. Indeed, recall from [Fre06, Thm 462B] that every Eberlein compactum is angelic.) — We will study (i)–(iv) in a future work.

Acknowledgements. I want to thanks David Fremlin, Gilles Godefroy and Pierre Simon for their helpful comments. I would like to thank the Institute for Basic Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran. Research partially supported by IPM grant no 1400030118.

~~References~~

~~[Ben09] I. Ben Yaacov. Continuous and Random Vapnik-Chervonenkis Classes. Israel Journal of Mathematics 173 (2009), 309-333~~

~~[Ben14] I. Ben-Yaacov, Model theoretic stability and deﬁnability of types, after A. Grothendiek, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, (2014), 20, pp 491-496.~~

[BBHU08] I. Ben-Yaacov, A. Berenstein, C. W. Henson, A. Usvyatsov, Model theory for metric structures, Model theory with Applications to Algebra and Analysis, vol. 2 (Z. Chatzidakis, D. Macpherson, A. Pillay, and A. Wilkie, eds.), London Math Society Lecture Note Series, vol. 350, Cambridge University Press, 2008.

~~[BK09] I. Ben Yaacov, and H.J. Keisler, Randomizations of models as metric structures. Conﬂuentes Mathematici, 1:197–223 (2009).~~

~~[BFT78] J. Bourgain, D. H. Fremlin, and M. Talagrand. Pointwise compact sets of baire-measurable functions. American Journal of Mathematics, 100(4):pp. 845-886, 1978.~~

~~[CMR96] F. Chaatit, V. Mascioni and H. Rosenthal, On functions of ﬁnite Baire index, J. Funct. Anal. 142 (1996), no. 2, 277–295~~

~~9A compact space is an Eberlein compactum if it can be embedded in the space C(X) of continuous functions on some compact Hausdorﬀ space X.~~

~~27 [Con90] J. B. Conway. A course in functional analysis. Vol. 96. Springer Science & Business Media, 1990.~~

~~[Eng89] R. Engelking, General Topology, Heldermann Verlag Berlin, 1989.~~

~~[Fol99] G. B. Folland, Real Analysis: Modern Techniques and Their Appli- cations, 2nd edition, John Wiley & Sons Inc. (1999).~~

~~[Fre06] D. H. Fremlin, Measure Theory, vol.4, (Topological Measure Spaces, Torres Fremlin, Colchester, 2006).~~

~~[G19] K. Gannon, Local Keisler measures and NIP formulas. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 84(3):1279-1292, 2019~~

~~[G21] K. Gannon, Sequential approximations for types and Keisler measures, preprint: 2021 https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.09946~~

~~[Hau62] F. Hausdorﬀ, Set Theory, Chelsea, New York, 1962.~~

[HOR91] R. Haydon, E. Odell, H. Rosenthal, On certain classes of Baire-1 functions with applications to Banach space theory, Functional Analysis Proceedings, The University of Texas at Austin 1987-89, Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 1470, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1991, pp. 1-35.

~~[HPP08] E. Hrushovski, Y. Peterzil, and A. Pillay, Groups, measures, and the NIP, Journal of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 21 (2008), no. 2, pp. 563–596.~~

~~[HP11] E. Hrushovski, A. Pillay, On NIP and invariant measures, Journal of the European Mathematical Society, 13 (2011), 1005-1061.~~

~~[HPS13] E. Hrushovski, A. Pillay, and P. Simon. Generically stable and smooth measures in NIP theories. Transactions of the American Math- ematical Society 365.5 (2013): 2341-2366.~~

~~[Jay74] J. E. Jayne, Space of Baire functions. I, Annales de l’institut Fourier, tome 24, no 4 (1974), p. 47-76~~

~~[Kec95] A.S. Kechris, Classical descriptive set theory, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer, (1995).~~

~~28 [KL90] A.S. Kechris and A. Louveau, A classiﬁcation of Baire class 1 functions, Transactions of American Mathematical Society, Vol. 318, No. 1 (1990) 209-236.~~

~~[Kei87] H. J. Keisler, Measures and forking, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 34 (1987), no. 2, pp. 119-169.~~

~~[Kha21] K. Khanaki, ℵ0-categorical Banach spaces contain ℓp or c0, (on arXiv 2016) accepted, 2021.~~

~~[Kha16] K. Khanaki, Amenability, extreme amenability, model-theoretic stability, and NIP in integral logic, Fundamenta Mathematicae 234 (2016), 253-286~~

~~[Kha19b] K. Khanaki, Dividing lines in unstable theories and subclasses of Baire 1 functions, arXiv:1904.09486v6, 2019.~~

~~[Kha17] K. Khanaki, NIP formulas and Baire 1 deﬁnability, unpublished note, arXiv:1703.08731, 2017.~~

~~[Kha20a] K. Khanaki, On classiﬁcation of continuous ﬁrst order theories, submitted, 2020.~~

[Kha20] K. Khanaki, Stability, the NIP, and the NSOP; Model The- oretic Properties of Formulas via Topological Properties of Func- tion Spaces, Math. Log. Quart. 66, No. 2, 136-149 (2020) / DOI 10.1002/malq.201500059

~~[KP18] K. Khanaki, A. Pillay, Remarks on NIP in a model, Math. Log. Quart. 64, No. 6, 429-434 (2018) / DOI 10.1002/malq.201700070~~

~~[Kur66] K. Kuratowski, Topology, vol. I. Academic, 1966.~~

~~[Las92] M. C. Laskowski, Vapnik-Chervonenkis classes of deﬁnable sets, Journal of the London Mathematical Society, vol. 45 (1992), pp. 377-384.~~

~~[P18] A. Pillay, Generic stability and Grothendieck, South American Journal of Logic Vol. 2, n. 2,(2016), p. 1-6.~~

~~[Ros74] H. P. Rosenthal, A characterization of Banach spaces containing l1, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 71 (1974), 2411-2413.~~

~~29 [Sh71] S. Shelah, Stability, the f.c.p., and superstability; model theoretic properties of formulas in ﬁrst order theory, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 3 (1971), no. 3, pp. 271-362.~~

~~[S15] P. Simon. A guide to NIP theories. Cambridge University Press, 2015.~~

~~[S15a] P. Simon, Invariant types in NIP theories, Journal of Mathematical Logic, (2015).~~

~~[Sim14] P. Simon, Rosenthal compacta and NIP formulas, Fundamenta Mathematicae, 231, n. 1, 81-91, 2015~~

~~[T84] M. Talagrand, Pettis integral and measure theory. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 307 (1984).~~

~~[T87] M. Talagrand, The Glivenko–Cantelli problem, Ann. Probab. 15 (1987), 837-870.~~

[VC71] V. N. Vapnik and A. Ya. Chervonenkis, On the uniform convergence of relative frequencies of events to their probabilities Theory of Proba- bility and its Applications, vol. 16 (1971), no. 2, pp. 264-280.