arXiv:2012.10003v2 [math.LO] 21 Dec 2020 usin1.5. Question inter.Temjrrfrne r [ are references major The theory. sion hoe 1.4 Theorem theorem. iet hn alLro o i ugsin n omnsfrthe for comments and suggestions his for Larson Paul thank to like ec relation lence e [ see ento 1.3. Definition TD uigdges An degrees. Turing endby defined ento 1.1. Definition ere,either degrees, hoe 1.2 Theorem easm htraeshv oekoldeo ecitv e th set descriptive of knowledge some have readers that assume We question. the answer we paper, this In huhA otaitteAimo hie rA,Mcesipoe t proves Mycielski AC, or choice, of Axiom the contradict AD Though uwsprilyspotdb S fCiaN.1619 n 120251 and 11671196 No. China of NSF by supported partially was Yu 2010 uigreduction Turing ti ogsadn usinwehrA mle DC implies AD whether question standing long a is It h olwn usinhsbe locruae mn e hoit ( theorists set among circulated also been has question following The atnpoe h olwn aostheorem. famous following the proves Martin . 2 • ]). ahmtc ujc Classification. Subject Mathematics onal hieaimfrst fras(CC reals of sets for axiom choice countable Abstract. relation htfrevery for that o n onal sequence countable any for eedn hieaimfrst fras or reals, of sets for axiom choice Dependent tion { f y ≡ : | A Mcesi[ (Mycielski ω R Mri [ (Martin T y Over ie real a Given . or → uigdtriay or determinacy, Turing suigZ,w rv htTrn eemnc T)ipisthe implies (TD) determinacy Turing that prove we ZF, Assuming ≡ vrrass that so reals over T ≤ pe cone upper \ D R n ZF T x • ota o every for that so , } saprilodroe el.I aual nue nequiva- an induces naturally It reals. over order partial a is esay We . A R does , onal hieaimfrst fras or reals, of sets for axiom choice Countable 5 ( ]) 6 otisa pe oeo uigdegrees. Turing of cone upper an contains f IH EGADLAGYU LIANG AND PENG YINHE . ]) ( n . Over ) TD Over TD u f , x 1. x t orsodn uigdegree Turing corresponding its , ( { x fTrn ere steset the is degrees Turing of n imply A Introduction ZF IMPLIES ≤ ∀ 1)) + ZF n 32,0E5 32,03E60. 03E25, 03E15, 03D28, x } h xo fdtriay or determinacy, of Axiom the , 1 n ∃ y , n [ and ] n ∈ yR AD ω 1 CC , if . f TD fnnmt eso el,teei func- a is there reals, of sets nonempty of ( x R ,y x, ( R n ). implies ≤ ? 4 asta o n set any for that says , ) ]. T ) CC ∈ hr safunction a is there , y A euse We . R n DC . CC R R R . asta o n binary any for that says , paper. . D { 3 ohatoswould authors Both 03. y odnt h e of set the denote to | x y oyadrecur- and eory sasto reals of set a is CC ≥ f A x o example, for AD efollowing he : R } asthat says , ω . fTuring of implies , → R so 2 YINHEPENGANDLIANGYU

2. The main theorem Throughout the section, we assume ZF + TD. We identify R as 2ω or P(N), the power set of N. So if x ∈ R, then x(n), the n-th bit of x, belongs to {0, 1}. The structure of the Turing degrees is an upper semi-lattice. I.e. for any reals x and y, x⊕y = {2n | x(n)=1∧n ∈ N}∧{2n+1 | y(n)=1∧n ∈ N} has the least Turing degree above both x and y.

We prove the following theorem.

Theorem 2.1. Over ZF, TD implies CCR

The following reformulation of CCR is helpful to understand the idea behind the subsequent proofs.

Proposition 2.2. CCR is equivalent to that for any function f : D→ R, there is an upper cone on which f is constant.

Proof. Assume CCR. For any i, there is a ji ∈ N so that Ai = {x | f(x)(i) = ji} contains an upper cone. By CCR, we can choose, for each i ∈ N, zi such that uzi ⊂ Ai and some z above all zi. Then f is constant on uz. Now suppose that {An}n∈ω is a sequence of nonempty sets of reals witnessing the failure of CCR. For any degree x, let ix be the least i so that there is no real in Ai Turing below x. By the assumption, ix exists for any degree x. Define a function f : D→ R as follows:

0, nrecursion theory.

Lemma 2.3. For any degree x, there is a family Turing degrees {yr | r ∈ R} satis- fying the following property: (1) For any r ∈ R, x < yr;

(2) For any r0 =6 r1 ∈ R and z < yr0 , yr1 , we have that z ≤ x; ′′ (3) For any z ≥ x , the Turing double jump of x, there is an infinite set Cz ⊂ R ′′ so that yr = z for any r ∈ Cz. Proof. Fix a real x. It is routine (see [4]) to prove, by a recursive Sacks forcing <ω ′′ relative to x, that there is a perfect tree S ⊂ 2 with S ≤T x satisfying the following property: (a) For any y ∈ [S], the collection of infinite paths through S, we have that x

Then for any reals y0 =6 y1 ∈ [S], z bijection between R and [S] and set yr to be the Turing degree of  f(r) for any r ∈ R. Then the collection {yr}r∈R is exactly what we want.

Firstly, we prove the following weak form of CCR.

Proposition 2.4. Suppose that {An}n∈ω is a countable family of countable sets of reals, then A = n An is countable. S Proof. Suppose not. Let {An}n∈ω is a countable family of countable sets of reals so that A = n An is not countable. Given a real x, let nx be the least number n so that thereS is a real z ∈ An that is not Turing below x. Then nx is defined for every x. Moreover, nx ≤ ny for any x ≤ y.

Now fix a degree x. Let {yr | r ∈ R} be as in Lemma 2.3. Since Anx is countable, by (3) of the lemma, there is an uncountable set Z ⊆ R so that for any r ∈ Z, ′′ nyr > nx. ′′ We claim that there must be some r ∈ Z so that nyr = nx and hence nyr < nyr .

Otherwise, for any r ∈ Z, there is some s ∈ Anx so that s ≤ yr but s 6≤ x. Then by

(1) and (2) of the Lemma, Anx must be uncountable, which is a contradiction to the assumption.

′′ (ω) Then by TD, there is some x0 so that for any y ∈ ux0 , ny < ny . Then n(x0) is (ω) undefined where (x0) is the ω-th Turing jump of x0. A contradiction.  By Proposition 2.4, we have the following conclusion. Corollary 2.5. Every countable set of Turing degrees has an upper bound. Definition 2.6. • A function Φ: D→D is called almost increasing, if there is an upper cone ux so that for any y in ux, y < Φ(y). • Fix a function Φ: D→D. We say that a function f : D → R is almost injective corresponding to Φ if there is an upper cone ux so that for any y ∈ ux, f(y) =6 f(Φ(y)). For example, the Turing jump function J : x 7→ x′ is almost increasing. Lemma 2.7. Every function F : D→ Ord is non-decreasing over an upper cone. Proof. It suffices to prove that L = {x | ∀y ≥ x(F (x) ≤ F (y)} is cofinal and hence contains an upper cone. To see this, just note that for any x, there is a y ≥ x such that F (y) = min{F (z): z ≥ x}. It is clear that y ∈ L.  4 YINHEPENGANDLIANGYU

Lemma 2.8. For any almost increasing function Φ, there is no almost injective function corresponding to it. Proof. Suppose not. Fix an almost increasing function Φ : D→D witnessed by an upper cone ux and an almost injective function f corresponding to it. For y, z ∈ ux, define l(y, z) = min{l | f(y)(l) =6 f(z)(l)}.

Note that, by the assumption, l(y, Φ(y)) is defined for every y ∈ ux. By Lemma 2.7

L1 = {y | ∀z ≥ y(l(y, Φ(y)) ≤ l(z, Φ(z)))} contains an upper cone ux1 for some x1 ≥ x. Also for i ∈{0, 1}, let i L2 = {y | f(y)(l(y, Φ(y)) = i)}. i Then for some i, L2 contains an upper cone x2 ≥ x1. Then for any y ≥ x2, f(y)(l(y, Φ(y))) = i = f(Φ(y))(l(Φ(y), Φ(Φ(y)))). So by the definition of l, l(y, Φ(y)) x1.  Lemma 2.9. Suppose that f : D→ R is a function so that f(y) ≤ y1 over an upper cone, then the range of f is at most countable over an upper cone. Proof. Suppose not. By Lemma 2.8 and applying x 7→ x′ to Φ, we get that f(y)= f(y′) over an upper cone. In particular, f(y) ∈/ y. ′ So we can find an upper cone ux so that f(y )= f(y) < y for any y ∈ ux. We fix a set {yr | r ∈ R} as in Lemma 2.3. By applying the assumption to the upper cone ′′ ′′ ′′ ′′ y x y x ux , we may pick a real r0 with r0 ≥ so that f( r0 ) 6≤ . By (3) of Lemma 2.3, y′′ y′′ y′′ y′′ there is another real r1 =6 r0 so that r0 = r1 and so f( r0 )= f( r1 ). ′′ ′ However, f(yri ) = f(yri ) = f(yri ) ≤ yri for both i ≤ 1. By (2) of Lemma 2.3, ′′  f(yri ) ≤ x for both i ≤ 1, contradicting the selection of yr0 . Lemma 2.10. Suppose that f : D → R is a function. The range of f is at most countable over an upper cone. Proof. Suppose not. Then by Lemma 2.9, we may assume that over an upper cone ux, f(y)  y. (∗)y Let Φ(y)= {z | ∃y0 ∈ y(z ≡T y0 ⊕ f(y))}. Then Φ is a well defined almost increasing function over the upper cone ux. Then by Lemma 2.8, f(y) = f(Φ(y)) over an upper cone ux1 ⊆ ux. Then over the upper cone, f(Φ(y)) = f(y) ≤ Φ(y).

1Here we identify a real y with its degree y. TD IMPLIES CCR 5

This contradicts (∗)Φ(y).  Now we are ready to prove the main theorem 2.1.

Proof. (of Theorem 2.1.) Suppose that {An}n∈N is a countable family of nonempty sets of reals. Without loss of generality, we may assume that An is Turing upward closed. Furthermore, we also may assume that An+1 ⊂ An for every n (reset An to be k≤n Ak if necessary). ForT a contradiction, we assume that for any real y, there is some n (and so there are infinitely many n’s) so that there is no real in An Turing below y. Define Bn = An \ An+1 for every n. Note that Bn is nonempty and disjoint from an upper cone for every n. Define a function f : D→ R2 so that

f(y)= {n | ∃z ≥ y(z ∈ Bn)}.

By the property of Bn’s, for every y, f(y)(n) = 1 for infinitely many n’s. By Lemma 2.10, f is countable over an upper cone of Turing degrees. Let {ai}i∈ω be an enumeration of the range of f over the upper cone. Note that for every i, ai(n)=1for infinitely many n’s . Then there is some a ⊆ ω so that a∩ai =6 ∅ and ai\a =6 ∅ for every i. Let C0 = n∈a Bn and C1 = n6∈a Bn. Then C0 ∩ C1 = ∅ and C0 ∪ C1 = n∈N Bn. 3 So either C0Sor C1 contains anS upper cone of Turing degrees. S If C0 contains an upper cone ux of Turing degrees, then let y ∈ ux. Then for any y0 ≥ y, y0 6∈ C1 and so f(y) ⊆ a. But ai 6⊆ a for every i. Thus f(y) =6 ai for every i. If C1 contains an upper cone ux of Turing degrees, then let y ∈ ux. Then for any y0 ≥ y, y0 6∈ C0 and so f(y) ∩ a = ∅. But ai ∩ a =6 ∅ for every i. Thus f(y) =6 ai for every i. So in either case, there is some y so that f(y) is not in the range of f, which is absurd. 

References [1] Thomas Jech. Set Theory. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003. 1 [2] Paul Larson. Extensions of the Axiom of Determinacy, draft, September 30, 2020. http://www.users.miamioh.edu/larsonpb/adplusbook-public.pdf. 1 [3] Paul Larson. Turing determinacy, countable choice and ultrafilters, online draft, http://www.users.miamioh.edu/larsonpb/tdccr.pdf, June 8, 2020. 3 [4] Manuel Lerman. Degrees of unsolvability. Perspectives in Mathematical Logic. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1983. Local and global theory. 1, 2 [5] Donald A. Martin. The axiom of determinateness and reduction principles in the analytical hierarchy. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 74:687–689, 1968. 1.2 [6] Jan Mycielski. On the axiom of determinateness. Fund. Math., 53:205–224, 1963/64. 1.4

Institute of Mathematics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, East Zhong Guan Cun Road No. 55, Beijing 100190, China Email address: [email protected]

2Here we identify a real as a subset of natural numbers. 3Actually ranges of the f over upper cones generate an ultrafilter as observed by Larson [3]. 6 YINHEPENGANDLIANGYU

Department of Mathematics, Nanjing University, Jiangsu Province 210093, P. R. of China Email address: [email protected].