Arxiv:2008.06613V3 [Math.LO] 2 Jul 2021 Then F Esay We Nti Aew Ontepc Rrqiepoens.Ide,Fra for Indeed, Properness

Home , Borel hierarchy

arXiv:2008.06613v3 [math.LO] 2 Jul 2021 then f esay We nti aew ontepc rrqiepoens.Ide,fra for Indeed, properness. require or expect equivalenc not analytic do to we operator jump case a this apply in also may We established. E in.Rcl htif that Recall tions. with relations E eain.A ihohrcmlxt irrhe,i sntrlt stud to 1.1. natural Definition is it hierarchies, jumps. complexity as other such with As relations. sa is : ∼ 6∼ 2010 e od n phrases. and words Key h akrpfrorsuyi h oe opeiyter fequiv of theory complexity Borel the is study our for backdrop The oeta h terms the that Note h oino oe euiiiygvsrs oapere tutr o structure preorder a to rise gives reducibility Borel of notion The X E UPOEAOSO QIAEC RELATIONS EQUIVALENCE ON OPERATORS JUMP NEW rprjm operator jump proper B B E ◦ ◦ E → F F ahmtc ujc Classification. Subject Mathematics ≤ Monotonicity: Properness: f is Abstract. qiaec relation equivalence rvosysuidjm prtr.Oeo u anrslsi results is main Γ-jump our the of Γ, groups One many t for operators. compare that and jump Γ-jumps studied the of previously properties intro elementary we the Γ group study countable each for specifically, relations; ctee ierodr rpryicesswt h rank. the with probl increases isomorphism properly the orders of linear complexity to the scattered related that show results to ergodicity results generic classicall examples rel derive to new Γ-jump and and several the relations Γ-tree, applying produce from also full arise We that the relations Γ-jump. denote the continu we of by what properness, iterates induced of establish example To relations group equivalence are automorphism proper. Borel there not of is hand analysis Γ-jump other the the which On for hierarchy. reducibility . Y fboth if B ,F E, sa is oe reducible Borel uhthat such J ( E : homomorphism nacnetweesrc rpresi o eeato a o be not has or relevant not is properness strict where context a in ) E esyta mapping a that say We eitoueanwfml fjm prtr nBrlequivale Borel on operators jump of family new a introduce We ≤ < E OND LMN N AULCOSKEY SAMUEL AND CLEMENS D. JOHN B ,F E, E jump F oe qiaec eain,jm prtr,satrdli scattered operators, jump relations, equivalence Borel B ≤ and fi aifistefloigpoete o oe equivalence Borel for properties following the satisfies it if E r qiaec eain nsadr oe spaces Borel standard on relations equivalence are to J B h -upof Γ-jump the x E x ( or F E F F fi aifistelf-orgtipiain ewrite We implication. left-to-right the satisfies it if whenever ) upoperator jump written , § implies ≤ 1. ′ B Introduction ⇐⇒ E n ewrite we and , rmr 31,Scnay0C5 06A05. 03C15, Secondary 03E15, Primary J E 1 ( E f E E proper ( E ssrcl ihrthan higher strictly is x ) ≤ 7→ ) ≤ a tlattoeuvlneclasses. equivalence two least at has B a eue o oooemapping monotone a for used be may f F B J F ntesneta o n Borel any for that sense the in ( J E fteeeit oe function Borel a exists there if , ( ( x nBrleuvlnerelations equivalence Borel on ) F ′ ). ); < E ueteΓjm.We Γ-jump. the duce tde equivalence studied y hs.W pl our apply We these. B u cin fthe of actions ous F mfrcountable for em e ihother with hem epouean produce we E fgop Γ groups of s fboth if fequivalence of oestablish to s t hs to these ate nteBorel the in lo h jump the of ll equivalence n E operations y lnerela- alence nce relations; e erorders. near ≤ B F ,Y X, and en 2 JOHND.CLEMENSANDSAMUELCOSKEY operators discussed below, one can find analytic equivalence relations which are fixed points for the mapping up to Borel bireducibility. One may also ask for some definability condition on a jump operator. While we do not require any particular such conditions, it is the case that all the jump operators discussed below are uniformly definable in the sense that if R ⊆ Y × X2 is a Borel set so that each section Ry is an equivalence relation on X, then the set 2 R˜ ⊆ Y × X˜ given by R˜(y, x˜1, x˜2) iffx ˜1 J(Ey)x ˜2 is also Borel, where X˜ denotes the domain of J(E). Several jump operators have been studied extensively, including the Friedman– Stanley jump [11] and the Louveau jump [23], which we discuss below. There is also a jump operator on quasi-orders introduced by Rosendal [24]. Here we introduce a new class of jump operators which are associated with countable groups. Definition 1.2. Let E be an equivalence relation on X, and let Γ be a countable group. The Γ-jump of E is the equivalence relation E[Γ] defined on XΓ by x E[Γ] y ⇐⇒ (∃γ ∈ Γ) (∀α ∈ Γ) x(γ−1α) E y(α). We will use the term Bernoulli jump as a collective name for any member of the family of Γ-jumps. Indeed, note that if E = ∆(2) then E[Γ] is the orbit equivalence relation induced by the classical Bernoulli shift action of Γ, and if E = ∆(X) for a Polish space X then E[Γ] is the orbit equivalence relation induced by the “generalized” Bernoulli action of Γ. We reserve the notation EΓ for the product of countably many copies of E with index set Γ. Thus EΓ is Borel isomorphic to Eω, and E[Γ] is an equivalence relation of countable index over EΓ. Indeed, letting Γ act on XΓ by the left shift γ · x(α) = x(γ−1α), we have that x, y are E[Γ]-equivalent iff there is γ ∈ Γ with γ · x EΓ y. It is clear that the Γ-jump operator is monotone for any Γ. We will be concerned with whether and when the Γ-jump is proper. Before addressing this question, we recall the situation with the Friedman–Stanley and Louveau jumps. Definition 1.3. Let E be a Borel equivalence relation on X. The Friedman–Stanley jump of E is the equivalence relation E+ defined on Xω by + x E y ⇐⇒ {[x(n)]E : n ∈ ω} = {[y(n)]E : n ∈ ω}. Theorem (Friedman–Stanley, [11]). The mapping E 7→ E+ is a proper jump operator. Definition 1.4. Let E be a Borel equivalence relation on X and let F be a free filter on ω. The Louveau jump of E with respect to F is the equivalence relation EF defined on Xω by x EF y ⇐⇒ {n ∈ ω : x(n) E y(n)}∈F. Theorem (Louveau, [23]). For any free filter F, the mapping E 7→ EF is a proper jump operator. The original proof of the Friedman–Stanley result used Friedman’s theorem on the non-existence of Borel diagonalizers (recall a Borel diagonalizer for E is a + homomorphism ϕ from E to E so that ϕ(x) ∈/ {[xn]E : n ∈ ω}). However, both the Friedman–Stanley result and the Louveau result can be proved using the concept NEW JUMP OPERATORS ON EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS 3 of potential complexity of equivalence relations, which we briefly introduce. First we will say that a Borel class is a pointclass Γ consisting of Borel sets and closed 0 under continuous preimages. For example, Π∼α is a Borel class for any α<ω1. Definition 1.5. Let E be an equivalence relation on the Polish space (X, τ), and let Γ be a Borel class. We say E is potentially Γ, written E ∈ pot(Γ), if there is a topology σ on X such that σ, τ have the same Borel sets and such that E is in Γ with respect to σ. We remark that E is potentially Γ if and only if E is essentially Γ, i.e., there is ′ ′ some E in Γ with E ≤B E . Definition 1.6. We say that a family F of Borel equivalence relations has cofinal potential complexity if for for every Borel class Γ there is E ∈ F such that E/∈ pot(Γ). Louveau established that if E is an equivalence relation with at least two classes, then the family of iterates of the Louveau jump of E with respect to a free filter has cofinal potential complexity. Since being potentially Γ is equivalent to being essentially Γ, a family of cofinal potential complexity cannot have a maximum element with respect to ≤B. Hence it follows that the Louveau jump with respect to a free filter is a proper jump operator. Meanwhile it is known that the family of Borel equivalence relations induced by actions of S∞ has cofinal potential complexity. Moreover Hjorth–Kechris–Louveau [18] established that if E is an equivalence relation with at least two classes, then any Borel equivalence relation induced by an action of S∞ is Borel reducible to some iterate of the Friedman–Stanley jump of E. Thus they arrived at a “potential complexity” proof that the Friedman–Stanley jump is a proper jump operator. Returning to the Bernoulli jumps, we will establish the following. <ω Theorem 1. Let Γ be a countable group so that Z or Zp for p prime is a quotient of a subgroup of Γ. Then the mapping E 7→ E[Γ] is a proper jump operator. In the proof, we will use a result of Solecki [27] which implies that if Γ is one <ω of the groups Z or Zp for p prime, then the family of Borel equivalence relations induced by actions of the group Γω has cofinal potential complexity. Our main work will be to show that such equivalence relations are Borel reducible to iterates of the Γ-jump. Before stating this result, we provide the following notation for the iterates of the Γ-jump. Definition 1.7. For an equivalence relation E and a countable group Γ we define [Γ] the iterates Jα (E) of the Γ-jump recursively by: [Γ] J0 (E)= E [Γ] [Γ] [Γ] Jα+1 (E) = (Jα (E)) [Γ] [Γ] [Γ] Jλ (E)= Jα (E) for λ a limit. α<λ ! M [Γ] [Γ] [Z] We use Jα to denote Jα (∆(2)) and Zα to denote Jα (∆(2)).

The tower of Zα is of particular interest and will figure in an application to the classification of scattered linear orders. We note that ∆(2) may be replaced by 4 JOHND.CLEMENSANDSAMUELCOSKEY any nontrivial Polish space to produce equivalent iterates for α ≥ 1. Also, in the [Γ] definition of Jα (E), the third rule may be used for successor ordinals as well. Returning to the proof of Theorem 1, we will actually consider a more compli- cated group than Γω. For a countable group Γ, we will introduce the notion of a Γ-tree, which is a tree in which the children of each node carry the structure of a subset of the group Γ. We will see that Γ-trees are closely tied to iterates of the Γ-jump in a way analogous to the way regular trees are tied to iterates of the [Γ] Friedman–Stanley jump. Namely, the iterated Γ-jump Jα will be Borel bireducible with the isomorphism relation on well-founded Γ-trees of rank 1 + α. In particular, we will introduce the full Γ-tree TΓ, which may be naturally iden- <ω tified with Γ . Its automorphism group, Aut(TΓ), is a closed subgroup of S∞, ω and the group Γ is a closed subgroup of Aut(TΓ). We will establish the following. Theorem 2. Let Γ be a countable group. Then for any Borel equivalence relation E such that E is induced by a Borel action of a closed subgroup of Aut(TΓ), there [Γ] exists α such that E is Borel reducible to Jα . Since this result applies to the group Γω, when it is combined with the result of Solecki showing such groups have non-Borel orbit equivalence relations, it is sufficient to prove Theorem 1. The Bernoulli jumps are not always proper jump operators. In particular, we will establish the following. Theorem 3. Let Γ be a countable group with no infinite sequence of strictly descending subgroups. Then the mapping E 7→ E[Γ] is not a proper jump operator. [Γ] To establish this result, we directly calculate that for such Γ,we have that Jω+1 [Γ] is Borel bireducible with Jω . Theorems 1 and 3 leave open the question of precisely when the Γ-jump is proper. Indeed, we shall see that there exist groups Γ which do not meet the hypothesis of either result. We will also study the structure of specific Borel equivalence relations with respect to the Bernoulli jumps and see that they provide new examples of equivalence relations whose complexity lies between E∞ and F2. We first establish: [Γ] ω Theorem 4. E0 is generically E∞-ergodic. This result has subsequently been strengthened by Allison and Panagiotopoulos [Z] [2] to show that E0 is generically ergodic with respect to any orbit equivalence relation of a TSI Polish group. Using this, we establish: Theorem 5. We have the following: ω [Z] [Z] ◦ E0

One application of the theory of Bernoulli jumps is to the classification of countable scattered linear orders. Recall that a linear order is scattered if it has no subordering isomorphic to (Q,<). The class of scattered linear orders carries a derivative operation where one identifies points x, y such that the interval [x, y] is finite. This derivative operation may furthermore be used to define a rank function on the countable scattered orders with values in ω1, as we will discuss in Section 9. We will establish the following. Theorem 6. The isomorphism equivalence relation on countable scattered linear [Z] orders of rank 1+ α is Borel bireducible with Jα . This result, together with the fact that the Z-jump is proper, implies that the complexity of the classification of countable scattered linear orders increases strictly with the rank. This paper is organized as follows. In the next section we establish some of the basic properties of the Γ-jump. In Section 3 we compare the Γ-jump with the Friedman–Stanley jump. In Section 4 we introduce Γ-trees and relate iterates of the Γ-jump to isomorphism of well-founded Γ-trees. In Section 5 we study actions of Aut(TΓ) and prove Theorem 2. In Section 6 we investigate the properness of the Γ-jump and in particular prove Theorem 1 and Theorem 3. In Section 7 we revisit the proof from Section 5 and show that in some cases, we can achieve better lower bounds on the complexity of the iterated jumps. In Section 8 we investigate new equivalence relations arising from Bernoulli jumps, and compare them against well- known equivalence relations, establishing Theorems 4 and 5. In Section 9 we discuss the connection between the Z-jump and scattered linear orders, and in particular prove Theorem 6. Acknowledgement. We would like to thank Shaun Allison, Ali Enayat, Aris- toteles Panagiotopoulos, and Assaf Shani for helpful discussions about the content of this article. We would also like to thank the referee for several helpful suggestions, in particular for pointing out that our original complexity bounds in Proposition 7.1 were not correct.

§2. Properties of the Γ-jump for a countable group Γ In this section we explore some of the basic properties of the Γ-jump. We begin by recording the following three properties, whose proofs are immediate. Proposition 2.1. For any countable group Γ and equivalence relations E and F we have: (a) If E is Borel (resp. analytic), then E[Γ] is Borel (resp. analytic). [Γ] (b) E ≤B E . [Γ] [Γ] (c) If E ≤B F then E ≤B F . The next result strengthens Proposition 2.1(b). Proposition 2.2. If E is a Borel equivalence relation and Γ is an infinite group, ω [Γ] then E ≤B E . Proof. If E has just finitely many classes, the left-hand side is smooth. Otherwise for any a ∈ X, we have that E is Borel bireducible with E ↾ X r [a]. Hence it is sufficient to define a reduction from (E ↾ X r [a])ω to E[Γ]. 6 JOHND.CLEMENSANDSAMUELCOSKEY

Let S ⊂ Γ be an inﬁnite subset such that γ 6= 1 implies γS 6= S. (The set of such S is of measure 1.) Deﬁne a function f : (X r [a])S → XΓ by

x(α), if α ∈ S f(x)(α)= (a, otherwise. Clearly if x ES x′ then f(x) EΓ f(x′) and therefore f(x) E[Γ] f(x′). For the reverse implication suppose f(x) E[Γ] f(x′), and let γ ∈ Γ be such that γ · f(x) EΓ f(x′). Then f(x′)(γα) E f(x)(α), so f(x)(α)= a ⇐⇒ f(x′)(γα)= a. This means precisely that γS = S. It follows that γ = 1, and therefore that x ES x′.

The Γ-jump may be thought of as a kind of wreath product. Recall that if Λ, Γ are groups then the full support wreath product Λ ≀ Γ is deﬁned as follows. Let ΛΓ be the full support group product of Γ many copies of Λ, and let Γ act on ΛΓ by the shift. Then Λ ≀ Γ is the semidirect product Γ ⋊ ΛΓ with respect to this action.

Proposition 2.3. If EΛ is the orbit equivalence relation of some (possibly uncount- [Γ] able) group Λ acting on X, and Γ is any countable group, then (EΛ) is the orbit equivalence relation of Λ ≀ Γ acting on XΓ. This result implies that the Γ-jump preserves many properties of orbit equivalence relations. For the next statement, recall that a cli group is one which carries a complete, left-invariant metric. Corollary 2.4. If E is the orbit equivalence relation of a Polish group then E[Γ] is the orbit equivalence relation of a Polish group. The same statement holds if we replace “Polish group” with any of the following: solvable group, cli group, or closed subgroup of S∞. This follows for cli groups from the preservation of being a cli group under wreath products (Theorem 2.2.11 of [13]). Note, however, that being induced by a TSI group is not preserved (here a TSI group is one which carries a two-sided invariant [Z] metric). Indeed, it is shown in [2] that E0 can not be the orbit equivalence relation of a TSI group. By contrast, the Louveau jump does not satisfy any of these preservation properties. For example, the Louveau jump of ∆(R) with respect to the Fréchet filter is E1, and it is well-known E1 is not reducible to a Polish group action [14]. The Friedman–Stanley jump does satisfy the above preservation property with respect to Polish groups and subgroups of S∞. However it does not satisfy the above preservation property with respect to solvable groups, TSI groups, or cli groups. For example, the Friedman–Stanley jump of ∆(R) is F2 and it is well-known F2 is not induced by a cli group action [20]. Proposition 2.5. Let E be an equivalence relation on X. If Λ is a subgroup or [Λ] [Γ] quotient of Γ, then E ≤B E . Proof. We adapt the argument from the case when E is an equality relation (see Proposition 7.3.4 of [13]). If Λ is a quotient of Γ, let π : Γ → Λ be a surjective NEW JUMP OPERATORS ON EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS 7 homomorphism and define f : XΛ → XΓ by f(x)= x ◦ π. Then whenever λ = π(γ) we have λx EΛ x′ ⇐⇒ (∀α ∈ Λ) x(λ−1α) E x′(α) ⇐⇒ (∀β ∈ Γ) x(π(γ−1β)) E x′(π(β)) ⇐⇒ (∀β ∈ Γ) f(x(γ−1β)) E f(x′)(β) ⇐⇒ γ · f(x) EΓ f(x′). It follows that f is a reduction from E[Λ] to E[Γ]. Next assume that Λ ≤ Γ. Fix an element a ∈ X, and let f : XΛ → XΓ be defined by x(α), α ∈ Λ f(x)(α)= (a, otherwise. Clearly if λ · x EΛ x′ then λ · f(x) EΓ f(x′) as well, which means x E[Λ] x′ implies f(x) E[Γ] f(x′). For the reverse implication, suppose f(x) E[Γ] f(x′), and let γ ∈ Γ be such that γ · f(x) EΓ f(x′). If γ = λ ∈ Λ, it is clear that λ · x EΛ f(x′) and so x E[Λ] x′. On the other hand if γ∈ / Λ, then for all λ ∈ Λ, we have x′(λ)= f(x′)(λ) E γ · f(x)(λ)= f(x)(γ−1λ)= a. An identical calculation with x, x′ exchanged and γ,γ−1 exchanged shows the same for x. Thus in this case x EΛ x′ and hence we have x E[Λ] x′, as desired. Next we can relate jumps for finite powers of a group Γ to iterates of the jump for Γ.

[Γk] [Γ] Γk Lemma 2.6. For any countable group Γ, we have E ≤B Jk E . In partic- [Γk] [Γ] ular, E ≤B Jk+1 (E). Proof. Beginning with the first statement, we show the case of k = 2, with larger Γ×Γ Γ×Γ k being similar. Given x ∈ X let fx be the function from Γ × Γ to X so that fx(α, β) is a code for all of the x(γ,δ), viewed from the base point (α, β), i.e., [Γ2] Γ2 [Γ] [Γ] fx(α, β)(γ,δ)= x(αγ,βδ).We now define a reduction ϕ from E to ((E ) ) by setting ϕ(x)(α)(β)= fx(α, β) If x is equivalent to y, witnessed by (α, β), then ϕ(x) is equivalent to ϕ(y) with the witness α for the outer jump and β for each coordinate of the inner jump. Conversely if ϕ(x) is equivalent to ϕ(y), then there exists (α, β) such that fx(1, 1) is equivalent to fy(α, β). It follows that (α, β) witnesses that x is equivalent to y. The second statement follows from Proposition 2.2. We can also absorb countable powers in certain Γ-jumps. Proposition 2.7. If E is a Borel equivalence relation and Γ and ∆ are infinite ω [Γ] [Γ×∆] groups, then (E ) ≤B E . Proof. Arguing as in Proposition 2.2, we may assume E has infinitely many classes, and find a reduction from ((E ↾ X r [a])ω)[Γ] to E[Γ×∆] for some a ∈ X. Let ω Γ ∆= {δn : n ∈ ω}. For x ∈ ((X r [a]) ) , define f(x) by x(α)(n − 1), if n> 1 f(x)((α, δn)) = (a, if n = 0. 8 JOHND.CLEMENSANDSAMUELCOSKEY

If x (Eω)[Γ] x′ then f(x) E[Γ×∆] f(x′). Conversely, suppose f(x) E[Γ×∆] f(x′) and Γ×∆ ′ let (γ,δ) be such that (γ,δ) · f(x) E f(x ). Then we must have δ =1∆, so that γ · x (Eω)Γ x′ and hence x (Eω)[Γ] x′. In particular, if Γ has a subgroup isomorphic to Γ × ∆ for some infinite group ω [Γ] [Γ] ∆, then (E ) ≤B E . Another property of equivalence relations is that of being pinned, which is defined using forcing. We briefly recall the definition; we refer the reader to [20] or [29] for properties of pinned equivalence relations. Definition 2.8. Let E be an analytic equivalence relation on X. A virtual E-class is a pair hP, τi where P is a poset and τ is a P-name so that P×P τℓ E τr, where τℓ and τr are the interpretations of τ using the left and right generics, respectively. A virtual E-class hP, τi is pinned if there is some x ∈ X from the ground model so that τ E xˇ. We say that E is pinned if every virtual E-class is pinned. Theorem 2.9. If E is pinned then E[Γ] is pinned. [Γ] [Γ] Proof. Suppose E is pinned and let hP, τi be a virtual E -class. Then P×P τℓ E τr. Hence (∃γ)(∀λ)τℓ(λ) E τr(γλ). We can therefore find a condition (p, q) and a γ ∈ Γ such that (p, q) (∀λ) τℓ(λ) E τr(ˇγλ) 3 Then temporarily considering the forcing P and the three factor terms τ0, τ1, τ2, we have: (p,q,p) (∀λ)τ0(λ) E τ1(ˇγλ) E τ2(λ) Since E is transitive this implies that

(p,p) (∀λ)τℓ(λ) E τr(λ) Now since E is pinned we can find x ∈ XΓ such that for all λ we have p τ(λ) E xˇ(λ). It follows that p τ E[Γ] xˇ. Finally we claim this is in fact unconditionally [Γ] [Γ] forced. Indeed if q is any other condition then (p, q) τℓ E xˇ ∧ τℓ E τr. Again using the transitivity of E, we conclude that q τ E[Γ] xˇ too. By contrast, the Friedman–Stanley jump does not preserve pinned-ness, as the + relation ∆(R) ∼B F2 is not pinned (see 17.1.3 of [20]). Kanovei also shows in [20] that pinned-ness is preserved under Fubini products, so that the Louveau jump with the respect to the Fréchet filter does preserve pinned-ness. Remark 2.10. We feel that Corollary 2.4 and Theorem 2.9 justify the following Proclamation: The Γ-jump is a kinder, gentler jump operator than the Louveau jump or the Friedman–Stanley jump. We may view the Friedman–Stanley jump and the Γ-jumps as special cases of a more general construction. Let E be an equivalence relation on X, and let (G, A) be a permutation group of a countable set A. We define the jump E[G,A] on XA by x E[G,A] x′ ⇐⇒ (∃g ∈ G)(∀a ∈ A) x(g(a)) E x′(a)

The permutation group S∞ = (Aut(N), N) corresponds to the Friedman–Stanley jump. In general the (G, A)-jump of a Borel equivalence relation need not be Borel; for example if E has at least two equivalence classes, then the (Aut(Q), Q)-jump of E is Borel complete. To see this, observe that we can reduce isomorphism of countable linear orders by embedding a countable linear order as a suborder of Q NEW JUMP OPERATORS ON EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS 9 in XQ using two distinct E-classes, and isomorphism of countable linear orders is Borel-complete by Theorem 3 of [11]. One may ask which (uncountable) group actions on N give rise to various types of equivalence relations, e.g., Borel complete relations, Borel equivalence relations, or the Friedman–Stanley jump. In [2], the authors investigate this generalization, studying a P -jump operator for a Polish group P of permutations of N. We may also ask how Γ-jumps for diﬀerent groups Γ compare to one another. Question 1. Given a ﬁxed E, how many distinct complexities can arise as E[Γ]? [Γ1] [Γ2] For countable groups Γ1 and Γ2, when is E ≤B E ? Here, Shani [25] has characterized strong ergodicity between Γ-jumps of countable Borel equivalence relations in terms of group-theoretic properties, showing in particular: Theorem 2.11 (Corollary 1.4 of [25]). Let E be a generically ergodic countable Borel equivalence relation. Then: [Z] [Z2] [Z3] [Z<ω] [F ] ◦ E

[Γ1] [Γ2] Question 2. Are there countable groups Γ1 and Γ2 so that Jα (E) and Jβ (E) are ≤B-incomparable for all α,β <ω1? We also introduce two restrictions of Bernoulli jumps. Deﬁnition 2.12. Let E be an equivalence relation on X and Γ a countable group. The free part of XΓ and the pairwise-inequivalent part of XΓ are given by: Γ Γ Γ Xfree = {x¯ ∈ X : ∀γ(γ 6=1Γ → γ · x¯ 6E x¯)} Γ Γ Xp.i. = {x¯ ∈ X : ∀γ,δ(γ 6= δ → x¯(γ) 6E x¯(δ))}. [Γ] Γ Γ [Γ] Γ Γ We let Efree = E ↾ Xfree and Ep.i. = E ↾ Xp.i..

[Γ] [Γ] [Γ] We immediately have Ep.i. ≤B Efree ≤B E . We will see below that in certain cases all three are bireducible, but this is not true in general. Indeed, this fails [F2] already for E = ∆(2), as ∆(2) is the shift equivalence relation E(F2, 2) which is bireducible with the universal countable Borel equivalence relation E∞ by Propo- [F2] sition 1.8 of [10], whereas ∆(2)free is the free part of the shift, which is bireducible with the universal treeable countable Borel equivalence relation E∞T and hence strictly below (see, e.g., Theorem 3.17 and Corollary 3.28 of [19]).

[Γ] [Γ] [Γ] [Γ] Question 3. For which E and Γ do we have E ≤B Efree or Efree ≤B Ep.i.? §3. Comparing Γ-jumps to Friedman–Stanley jumps

We begin by recalling that the Friedman–Stanley tower Fα for α<ω1 is deﬁned analogously to the iterated Γ-jump. 10 JOHND.CLEMENSANDSAMUELCOSKEY

Deﬁnition 3.1. The equivalence relation Fα for α<ω1 is deﬁned recursively by

F0 = ∆(ω), + Fα+1 = Fα , +

Fλ = Fα for λ a limit. α<λ ! M Equivalently, Fα is the isomorphism relation on countable well-founded trees on ω of height at most 1+ α. We compare the Z-jump to the Friedman–Stanley jump. Deﬁnition 3.2. We say that E is weakly absorbing if E has perfectly many classes <ω + + and (E ) ≤B E .

Note that if E has perfectly many classes and E × E ≤B E, then E is weakly absorbing, so in particular this holds for E0, E∞, and Fα for all α ≥ 1. Lemma 3.3. For any E with at least two classes, E[Z] is weakly absorbing. [Z] Proof. When E has at least two classes, E is above E0 and hence has perfectly <ω + + many classes. We deﬁne a reduction from E[Z] to E[Z] as follows. Fix

m,0 m,km E-inequivalent points z0 and z1. Given {(x ,...,x ):m ∈ω}, let it map to m the set {y : m ∈ ω,i1,...,ik ∈ Z}, where i1,...,ikm m

m m,0 m,0 m,1 m,1 m,km m,km y = . . . ,z0,z1, x , x , x , x ,...,x , x ,z0,z1, i1,...,ikm 0 0 i1 i1 ikm ikm m,0 m,0 m,1 m,1 m,km m,km x , x , x , x ,...,x , x ,z0,z1,..., 1 1 1+i1 1+i1 1+ikm 1+ikm i.e., ym consists of a Z-sequence of blocks, indexed by k ∈ Z, of the form i1,...,ikm m,0 m,0 m,1 m,1 m,km m,km x , x , x , x ,...,x , x , separated by the pair z0, z1. If k k k+i1 k+i1 k+ikm k+ikm <ω ˜ (xm,0,...,xm,km ) E[Z] (˜xm,˜ 0,..., x˜m,˜ km˜ ) ˜ then km = km˜ and there are j0,...,jkm so that xm,0 E x˜m,˜ 0 ∧ xm,1 E x˜m,˜ 1 ∧ ... ∧ xm,km E x˜m,k˜ m j j+j0 j j+j1 j j+jkm for all j, and hence ym E[Z] y˜m˜ . Thus the function defined i1,...,ikm i1+j1−j0,...,ikm +jkm −j0 is a homomorphism. Conversely, because of the repetition in the blocks, we can <ω recover the E[Z] -class of (xm,0,...,xm,km ) from any ym , so that it is also i1,...,ikm a cohomomorphism and hence a reduction. [Z] <ω [Z] Lemma 3.4. If E has perfectly many classes then Efree ≤B (E )p.i.. Proof. Given a non-periodic Z-sequence x of E-representatives, we construct a new sequence y as follows. For each n ∈ Z we first define a real pn by pn(k,l) = 1 iff xn+k E xn+l. We then let dn be the least d> 0 such that xn E xn+d and pn = pn+d, if such exists, and dn = 0 otherwise. Finally we let yn = (pn, xn,...,xn+dn ). Thus each coordinate yn has several pieces, and we say that two such coordinates yn and <ω yn′ are equivalent if they are equivalent with respect to ∆(R) × E . We claim that the entries yn are pairwise inequivalent. If this is not the case, we can find n0 < n1 such that yn0 is equivalent to yn1 . Let d = dn0 = dn1 . Note NEW JUMP OPERATORS ON EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS 11

that d > 0. Then the blocks xn0 ,...,xn0+d and xn1 ,...,xn1+d are pointwise E- equivalent. Next, since we have xn0+i E xn1+i for i ≤ d, and since pn0+d = pn0 , we can conclude xn0+d+i E xn1+d+i. Using this reasoning inductively, we can conclude that xn0+kd+i E xn1+kd+i for all k > 0. The fact that pn0+d = pn0 can be used right-to-left to obtain the same for k negative as well. In other words, x is periodic with period n1 − n0. This contradicts our assumption, and completes the claim. Thus the map x 7→ y is a reduction from the free part of E[Z] to the pairwise inequivalent part of (∆(R) × E<ω)[Z]. Since E has perfectly many classes we have <ω <ω [Z] <ω [Z] ∆(R) × E ≤B E , so Efree ≤B (E )p.i..

[Z] + Theorem 3.5. If E is weakly absorbing then E ≤B E . Proof. Since E has perfectly many classes, we may fix a,b ∈ X with a 6E b so that E ≤B E ↾ X r [{a,b}]. From the previous lemma we then have that there [Z] <ω [Z] is a reduction g from Efree to ((E ↾ X r [{a,b}]) )p.i.. Let P = k≥1 Pk be the set of periodic elements, where P consists of x ∈ XZ such that for all n we k S have xn E xn+k. Let k(x) be the least k ≥ 1 so that x ∈ Pk if x ∈ P , and k(x) = 0 if x∈ / P . We now define a reduction f from E[Z] to (E<ω)+ as follows; since E is weakly absorbing this will be sufficient. If k(x) > 0, we let f map x ∈ Pk(x) to {(a, xi, xi+1,...,xi+k(x)−1):0 ≤ i < k(x)}. If k(x) = 0, let f map x to {g(x)n a b a g(x)n+1 : n ∈ Z}, noting that the concatenation map (z, w) 7→ z a b a w provides a reduction from ((E ↾ X r [{a,b}])<ω)2 to E<ω. Suppose first that x E[Z] x′. If x ∈ P then x′ ∈ P and k(x)= k(x′), so that

{[(a, xi, xi+1,...,xi+k(x)−1)]E<ω :0 ≤ i < k(x)} = ′ ′ ′ ′ {[(a, xi, xi+1,...,xi+k(x′ )−1)]E<ω :0 ≤ i < k(x )}. ′ <ω ′ If x, x ∈/ P , then there is m ∈ Z with g(x)n E g(x )m+n for all n. Then ′ ′ {[hg(x)n,b,g(x)n+1i]E<ω : n ∈ Z} = {[hg(x )m+n,b,g(x )m+n+1i]E<ω : n ∈ Z} ′ ′ = {[hg(x )n,b,g(x )n+1i]E<ω : n ∈ Z}, i.e., f(x) (E<ω)+ f(x′). Suppose conversely that f(x) (E<ω)+ f(x′). We must have either both x, x′ ∈ P or both x, x′ ∈/ P . If x, x′ ∈ P then we must have k(x) = k(x′), and there are i ′ ′ ′ and i so that xi+j E xi′+j for 0 ≤ j < k(x), and hence xi+j E xi′+j for all [Z] ′ ′ j, so x E x . Suppose then x, x ∈/ P . Then {[hg(x)n,b,g(x)n+1i]E<ω : n ∈ ′ ′ Z} = {[hg(x )n,b,g(x )n+1i]E<ω : n ∈ Z}, so for each n there is an m(n) with <ω ′ <ω ′ ′ g(x)n E g(x )m(n) and g(x)n+1 E g(x )m(n)+1. Because the g(x )m’s are pairwise inequivalent, we conclude that m(n +1) = m(n) + 1 for all n, so there is m with m(n)= n + m for all n. Thus g(x) (E<ω)[Z] g(x′) so x E[Z] x′. It turns out that E[Γ] is not reducible to E+ in general. In particular the following is shown in [3]: Theorem 3.6 . ω [Z] 0 ω [Z] (Shani) (E0 ) is not potentially ∼Π3. Hence, neither (E0 ) nor [Z2] (E0) is reducible to F2.

2 + [Z ] + Noting that (E0) ∼B F2, we thus have that (E0) 6≤B (E0) . [Γ] + Question 4. For which E and Γ is E ≤B E ? 12 JOHND.CLEMENSANDSAMUELCOSKEY

A slight modification of the argument in 3.5 can be used to show: [Z] [Z] Lemma 3.7. (E0) ≤B (E0)p.i., i.e, Z2 is Borel reducible to the pairwise inequivalent part of Z2. <ω Proof. Note that E0 is hyperfinite, as is any equivalence relation of finite in- <ω dex over E0 , and hence reducible to E0. Thus using Lemma 3.4 we may fix [Z] pairwise E0-inequivalent {an : n ∈ Z} and find a reduction f from (E0)free to [Z] [Z] (E0 ↾ X r A)p.i., where A = n∈Z[an]. We extend f to the periodic part of (E0) as follows. With the notation from above, for x ∈ P let S g(x)= {(xi, xi+1,...,xi+k(x)−1):0 ≤ i < k(x)}. <ω The relation that such finite sets consist of the same E0 -classes is then hyperfinite, <ω [Z] being of finite index over E0 , so we may fix a reduction h of (E0) ↾ P to E0 ↾ X r A. Then for x ∈ P we let f(x)(0) = h(x) and f(x)(n)= an for n 6=0 to complete the definition of f. The same technique can be applied to the Z-jump of some other equivalence relations, such as E∞ and F2, but we do not know if this is true for other E. We can now compare the hierarchy Zα with the hierarchy Fα.

Theorem 3.8. For all α ≥ 2, Zα is Borel reducible to Fα. Proof. By induction on α. The case of α = 2 follows from Theorem 3.5 since [Z] + Z2 ∼B E0 and F2 ∼B E0 , and each iteration of the Z-jump preserves the property of being weakly absorbing so we may again apply Theorem 3.5. As noted earlier, Γ-jumps are gentler than the Friedman–Stanley jump so the reverse of Theorem 3.8 is false. [Γ] Proposition 3.9. F2 is not Borel reducible to Jα for any α<ω1. [Γ] Proof. Jα is pinned because the identity relation is pinned, and Γ-jumps and countable products of pinned relations are pinned. On the other hand, F2 is not pinned and being pinned is preserved downward under ≤B. + + As E0 ∼B E∞ ∼B F2, we get: [Z] [Z] Corollary 3.10. E0

Although none of the Zα’s are above F2, we will see below that they are un- bounded in Borel complexity. The result of Shani noted above shows that Theorem 3.8 does not hold for all [Γ] 2 countable groups Γ, as we do not always have J2 ≤ F2, e.g. for Γ = Z (since [Z2] J1 ∼B E0). Proposition 7.1 below will show that this also does not hold for <ω Γ = Z2 . Potential complexity bounds do allow us to give a weaker comparison, which Proposition 7.1 will show to be the best possible in general. ∼∗ We refer below to the equivalence relations =α, which are defined in Section 6 of [18]. These may be viewed as restricted forms of the relations Fα; we do not need ∼∗ the specifics of their definitions, but note the key point that =α 0. NEW JUMP OPERATORS ON EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS 13

Proof. Theorem 2 of [18] shows that for a Borel equivalence relation E induced 0 by an action of a closed subgroup of S∞ we have E ≤ Fα iﬀ E ∈ pot(Π∼α+1) for 0 [Γ] α > 0 not a limit, and E ≤ Fα iﬀ E ∈ pot(Π∼α) for α a limit. Then Fα is still 0 induced by an action of a closed subgroup of S∞ and is in pot(Σ∼α+2) for α not a 0 limit or in pot(Σ∼α+1) for α a limit. From Theorem 4.1 of [18] we then have that [Γ] 0 Fα ∈ pot(D(Π∼α+1)) for α not a limit, and hence by Corollary 6.4 of [18] we have [Γ] ∼∗ Fα ≤B =α+1

Corollary 3.13. [Γ] 0 [Γ] 0 For any countable group Γ we have J0 ∈ ∼∆1, J1 ∈ ∼Σ2, and: [Γ] 0 ◦ Jα ∈ pot(D(Π∼α+1)) for α ≥ 2 not a limit. [Γ] 0 ◦ Jλ ∈ pot(Σ∼λ+1) for λ a limit. §4. Γ-trees

The Friedman–Stanley jump naturally corresponds to the group S∞ and its iterates correspond to isomorphism of well-founded trees. Namely, the equivalence relation Fα is bireducible with the isomorphism relation on countable well-founded trees of rank at most 2+α. We will see that Γ-jumps naturally correspond to certain [Γ] group actions, and the iterates Jα correspond to isomorphism of well-founded Γ- trees, which are trees where the children of each node carry the structure of a subset of Γ. We make this precise as follows.

Deﬁnition 4.1. Let Γ be a countable group. The language LΓ consists of the binary relation ≺ together with binary relations {Rγ : γ ∈ Γ}. AΓ-tree is an LΓ- structure which is a rooted tree with child relation ≺ and satisﬁes the additional

(LΓ)ω1ω-formulas:

◦ Rγ (u, v) → ∃t(u ≺ t ∧ v ≺ t), for each γ ∈ Γ with γ 6=1Γ

◦ R1Γ (u, v) ↔ u = v ◦ ∃t(u ≺ t ∧ v ≺ t) → Rγ(u, v) γ∈Γ ◦ ¬(Rγ (u, v) ∧ Rδ(u, v)),W for each γ 6= δ ∈ Γ ◦ (Rγ (u, v) ∧ Rδ(v, w)) → Rγδ(u, w), for each γ,δ ∈ Γ 14 JOHND.CLEMENSANDSAMUELCOSKEY

We say that a Γ-tree is well-founded if it is well-founded as a tree, and we define rank in the usual way. Note that our definition ensures all Γ-trees are countable. Next we introduce the full Γ-tree, TΓ. The automorphism group of TΓ will figure crucially in the next section.

Deﬁnition 4.2. Let Γ be a countable group. The full Γ-tree, denoted TΓ, is the non-empty Γ-tree which additionally satisﬁes for each γ ∈ Γ:

∀t∃u∃v(u ≺ t ∧ v ≺ t ∧ Rγ (u, v)). This produces a categorical theory and deﬁnes the full Γ-tree uniquely up to <ω isomorphism. For one model of TΓ, we take the universe to be Γ and interpret each Rγ by Rγ (s a α, s a β) ⇐⇒ αγ = β. Γ Deﬁnition 4.3. We let =∼ denote the isomorphism relation on Γ-trees. For α<ω1 ∼Γ we let =α denote the isomorphism relation on well-founded Γ-trees of rank at most 1+ α.

Since every Γ-tree is isomorphic to a substructure of the full Γ-tree TΓ, we have Γ that =∼ is induced by an action of its automorphism group, Aut(TΓ). This group is isomorphic to the infinite wreath power Γ≀ω, a cli group, and hence =∼Γ and any other Aut(TΓ)-action is pinned. We now can relate iterated Γ-jumps to isomorphism of well-founded Γ-trees. Nodes of rank 1 in a Γ-tree carry more structure than in a regular tree, where there are only countably many isomorphism types; hence the indexing differs by 1 from [Γ] ∼Γ the case of the Fα and tree isomorphism. Also note that J0 is ∆(2), whereas =0 is ∆(1). [Γ] ∼Γ Proposition 4.4. For each 0 <α<ω1, Jα is Borel bireducible with =α. [Γ] Γ Γ Proof. For α = 1, J1 is the shift of Γ on 2 , E(Γ, 2). Given an element x ∈ 2 we naturally associate a Γ-tree T (x) of rank 2 consisting of a root v with children ′ {uα : x(α)=1}, where we interpret Rγ(uα,uβ) ⇐⇒ αγ = β. If x E(Γ, 2) x , with ′ ′ ′ γ0 · x = x , then the map f given byf(v)= v and f(uα)= uγ0α is an isomorphism from T (x) to T (x′). Conversely, let f be an isomorphism from T (x) to T (x′), so ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ f(v)= v . Fix u = uα ∈ T (x) and suppose f(u)= uα = uγ0α ∈ T (x ) for some γ0. ′ −1 −1 Then for all β with x(β) = 1 we have Rα β(uα,uβ), so Rα β(uγ0α,f(uβ)); hence ′ ′ ′ f(uβ) = uγ0β. Thus x(β)=1 ⇐⇒ x (γ0β) = 1, so γ0 · x = x . Hence x 7→ T (x) [Γ] ∼Γ witnesses J1 ≤B=1 . For the reverse reduction, given a rank 2 Γ-tree T , choose any Γ non-root node v0 ∈ T and define x(T ) ∈ 2 by x(T )(γ)=1 ⇐⇒ ∃v ∈ T Rγ(v0, v). ∼ ∼Γ [Γ] Then T (x(T )) = T , so the map T 7→ x(T ) witnesses =1 ≤B J1 . [Γ] ∼Γ [Γ] ∼Γ Induction steps are similar. Given Jα ∼B=α, with a reduction f : Jα ≤B=α, Γ we can send x ∈ X to the tree T (x) with children {uγ : γ ∈ Γ} of the root so ∼ [Γ] ∼Γ that the subtree T (x)uγ = f(x(γ)) for each γ to show Jα+1 ≤B=α+1. The reverse reduction is handled in an analogous manner, as are limit stages. Although we will see that in many instances the Γ-jump is proper on the Borel equivalence relations, we will always have that =∼Γ is a fixed point of the Γ-jump. This is analogous to the case of tree isomorphism, which is a fixed point of the Friedman–Stanley jump. Proposition 4.5. For a countable group Γ, =∼Γ is a fixed point of the Γ-jump, i.e., Γ [Γ] Γ (=∼ ) ∼B =∼ . NEW JUMP OPERATORS ON EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS 15

Γ Proof. Given x ∈ X with each x(Γ) coding a Γ-tree Tγ, we map x to the Γ-tree ∼ T (x) with children {uγ : γ ∈ Γ} of the root so that the subtree T (x)uγ = Tγ to Γ [Γ] Γ show (=∼ ) ≤B =∼ .

Γ We also note that none of the =∼ are of maximal complexity among S∞-actions, since they are all pinned.

Γ Γ Proposition 4.6. For every countable group Γ, F2 6≤B =∼ , so =∼ is not Borel complete.

Γ We will see in the next section that =∼ is of maximal complexity among Aut(TΓ)- actions.

§5. Reducing actions of Aut(TΓ) to iterated Γ-jumps In this section we will establish that if Γ is a countable group, then every Borel equivalence relation induced by a Borel action of a closed subgroup of the automor- [Γ] phism group of the full Γ-tree, Aut(TΓ), is Borel reducible to some iterate Jα of the Γ-jump. In the next section we will use this, together with the fact that for certain groups Γ the power Γω has actions of cofinal essential complexity, to show that for such groups the Γ-jump is a proper jump operator. As a preview, note that by Theorem 2.3.5 of [5], if H is a closed subgroup of Aut(TΓ) then every Polish H-space is reducible to a Polish Aut(TΓ)-space; similarly, we may reduce a Borel H-space ω to a Polish H-space. Since Γ is isomorphic to a closed subgroup of Aut(TΓ), if we know Γω has actions of cofinal essential complexity, we will be able to conclude the [Γ] iterates Jα are properly increasing in complexity. <ω Recall from the previous section the full Γ-tree TΓ may be identified with Γ . We let TΓ ↾ k be the restriction of TΓ to branches of length k. Then Aut(TΓ ↾ k) is the wreath product of k-many copies of Γ, and Aut(TΓ) is isomorphic the direct limit of the finite wreath powers of Γ. We are now ready to state the main theorem of this section. Theorem 5.1. Let Γ be a countable group and let E be a Borel equivalence relation induced by a continuous action of a closed subgroup of Aut(TΓ). Let α<ω1 be an 0 ordinal such that E is ∼Πα. [Γ] (a) If α = n<ω, n ≥ 3, then E ≤B Jω·(n−2)+1. [Γ] (b) If α = λ +1, λ a limit, then E ≤B Jω·λ+1. [Γ] (c) If α = λ + n, λ a limit, n ≥ 2, then E ≤B Jω·(λ+n−2)+1. The proof of this theorem is based on some concepts and techniques from [18], and we begin by recalling the relevant portions of this work, adapted slightly to our setting. Fix a countable group Γ and a closed subgroup H of Aut(TΓ). Let X 0 E = EH be a∼ Πα orbit equivalence relation given by a continuous action of H on a Polish space X. Fix an open basis {Wn} for X. 0 The next definition concerns codes for Π∼α subsets of X × X. Definition 5.2. 0 A Π∼α-code is a pair (T,u) where T is a well-founded tree of rank α so that if t ∈ T is not terminal then tan ∈ T for all n, and u : {t ∈ T : 16 JOHND.CLEMENSANDSAMUELCOSKEY t is terminal} → ω × ω. We write u = (u0,u1). For t ∈ T , define the Borel set coded below t, Rt, by

Wu0(t) × Wu1(t), if t is terminal, Rt = ( n X × X r Rtan, otherwise. 0 T The Π∼α set coded by (T,u) is R∅. 0 Let (T,u)beaΠ∼α-code for E. For t ∈ T , let |t| be the rank of t in T . For t ∈ TΓ, let ht(t) be its height in TΓ, i.e., its length as a ﬁnite sequence. We now deﬁne a convenient basis for H.

Definition 5.3. Let s be an enumeration of a finite partial function from TΓ to TΓ s s s s given by s = h(di ,ei ): i < ki, where for each i we have ht(di ) = ht(ei ) equal to s s the length of these sequences in TΓ. We define Us = {g ∈ H : ∀i

The collection of all such Us is a countable basis for H. Note that Us may be empty, and the same partial function will have multiple enumerations. Let B consist of all such s, and Bk consist of just those s ∈ B with maximum height of elements of the domain at most k.

s Deﬁnition 5.4. Given s ∈ B we deﬁne the type of s to be the sequence hht(di ): i < ki of heights of elements of the domain of s. Let B denote the set of types. C s For C ∈ B, let kC be the size of the domain of all s of type C, di = ht(di ) for C i < kC , and jC = i

We next introduce an action of Aut(TΓ) on this basis.

g g Definition 5.5. Let a(g,s) = s be the action of Aut(TΓ) on B given by s = −1 s s g h(g (di ),ei ): i < ki, i.e., the corresponding partial function satisfies s = s ◦ g ↾ −1 g [dom(s)]. Then Us · g = Usg . We use the same notation for the action of Aut(TΓ ↾ k) on Bk. For s,t ∈ B we write s ∼ t if s and t are in the same Aut(TΓ)- orbit (equivalently, the same Aut(TΓ ↾ k)-orbit for s,t ∈ Bk). If s ∼ t then s and t have the same type. Note, though, that Aut(TΓ) acts on the enumerations, not the functions themselves, so two enumerations of the same partial function need not be ∼-equivalent. For R ⊆ X × X and U, V open subsets of H, we define the double Vaught transform R∗U,∗V = {(x, y): ∀∗g ∈ U∀∗h ∈ V (g · x, h · y) ∈ R}. The following encodings are adapted from [18], and are used to code the sections ∗Us,∗V ∗Us,∗V Rt (x)= {y : (x, y) ∈ Rt }. s Definition 5.6. For x ∈ X, t ∈ T with |t|≥ 1, and s ∈ B, define Nt (x) by

a −1 a s {t n : x ∈ Us · Wu0(t n)}, if |t| = 1, Nt (x)= r ({Ntan(x): s ⊑ r ∈ B ∧ n ∈ ω}, if |t| > 1. NEW JUMP OPERATORS ON EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS 17

When |t| = 1 this is essentially a real, and in general for |t| = α it is a hereditarily s countable set of rank α. Note that t can be recovered from Nt (x). As in [18] we have the following translation property: s sg Lemma 5.7. For g ∈ G, Nt (g · x)= Nt (x).

Definition 5.8. Let τ0 be the topology of X. For any x ∈ X and β ≤ |T | define x ∗U,∗V the topology τβ as the one generated by τ0 and the sets Rt (x) for 1 ≤ |t|≤ β and U, V ∈{Us : s ∈ B}. x ∆ Then each τβ is a Polish topology extending τ0. For a set B ⊆ X, let B = {x : ∃∗g(g ·x ∈ B)}. We summarize the key properties of these topologies from Sections 2 and 3 of [18]. Proposition 5.9 (Hjorth–Kechris–Louveau). Let B be an open basis for a topology on X. With the definitions above, we have: x g·x ◦ τβ = τβ for g ∈ H. x ◦ The action of H on X is continuous for τβ . ◦ If xEy then ∀B ∈B(x ∈ B∆ ⇐⇒ y ∈ B∆). The latter condition impies [x]E = [y]E. ∆ ∆ ◦ If [x]E and [y]E are Gδ then xEy iff ∀B ∈ B(x ∈ B ⇐⇒ y ∈ B ) iff [x]E = [y]E. 0 x ◦ If E is ∼Πn for 3 ≤ n<ω, then [x]E is Gδ in τn−2, so xEy iff x y x ∆ ∆ τn−2 = τn−2 ∧ ∀B ∈B(τn−2)(x ∈ B ⇐⇒ y ∈ B ). x x 0 ◦ The same holds with τ<λ in place of τn−2 when E is ∼Πλ+1 for λ a limit, x x 0 and with τλ+n−2 in place of τn−2 when E is ∼Πλ+n for λ a limit and n ≥ 2. 0 R In case E is Π∼2 we have that E is reducible to ∆( ), so we begin with the case 0 0 where E is Π∼n for 3 ≤ n<ω. We show that every∼ Πn Polish H-space is reducible to [Γ] some iterate of the Γ-jump of the identity relation, Jα . We note the modifications for cases for other α later. Definition 5.10. Define the following hereditarily countable sets: s A(x)= {Nt (x): |t|≤ n − 2 ∧ s ∈ B}

s0 sk−1 B(x)= hm, hr0,N (x)i,..., hrk−1,N (x)ii : |ti|≤ n − 2  t0 tk−1  ∆

 ∗Usi ,∗Uri ∧ri,si ∈ B ∧ x ∈ Wm ∩ R (x) . ti  " i

C s relations Ft reducible to iterates of the Γ-jump in order to encode Nt . The bounds on the number of iterates follow from properties of the Γ-jump established earlier; we give only brief comment on the calculations in proofs in this section, and will discuss these bounds further in Section 7. We assume |t|≥ 1 for t ∈ T unless stated otherwise.

Lemma 5.12. For t ∈ T with |t| ≥ 1, and s ∈ Bk of type C, there is a Borel s C [Γ] function ct (x) and an equivalence relation Ft , reducible to Jω·(|t|−1) for |t| > 1, so that for g ∈ Aut(TΓ) and r and s of type C we have: sg C s (a) If y = g · x then ct (x) Ft ct (y). r C s r s (b) If ct (x) Ft ct (y) then Nt (x)= Nt (y). s s Proof. (a) We use induction on |t|. For |t| = 1, let ct (x) = Nt (x) ∈ R and C sg sg s s s Ft = ∆(R). If y = g · x then ct (x)= Nt (x)= Nt (g · x)= Nt (y)= ct (y), and if r s r s ct (x)= ct (y) then Nt (x)= Nt (y). C For |t| > 1, deﬁne Ft by

2(j −j ) C D [Γ D C ] Ft = Ftan . n∈ω D∈B:C⊑D Y Y Next given C ⊑ D and a sequence v = αkC a βkC a ··· a αkD −1 a βkD −1 ∈ D 2(jD −jC ) d Γ with αi,βi ∈ Γ i for jC ≤ i < jD, we let s sav ct (x)(n)(D)(v)= ctan (x), where s a v = s a (αkC ,βkC ) a ··· a (αkD −1,βkD−1). If y = g · x, ﬁx n ∈ ω and D ∈B with C ⊑ D. Then for each v ∈ Γ2(jD −jC ) we have s sav ct (y)(n)(D)(v)= ctan(g · x) g D (sav) Ftan ctan (x) sg av′ = ctan (x) sg ′ = ct (x)(n)(D)(v ),

′ −1 −1 2(jD −jC ) where v = g (αkC ) a βkC a ··· a g (αkD −1) a βkD −1. Lettingg ˜ ∈ Γ ↾ D a ↾ D a a ↾ D a ↾ D be given byg ˜ = g dkC id dkC ··· g dkD −1 id dkD −1 (where each concatenated factor acts on the corresponding coordinates) we have that v′ =˜g−1 ·v for all v ∈ Γ2(jD −jC ). Thusg ˜ witnesses

2(j −j ) sg D [Γ D C ] s ct (x)(n)(D) Ftan ct (y)(n)(D), sg C s and hence ct (x) Ft ct (y). r C s (b) If ct (x) Ft ct (y) then for all n ∈ ω and C ⊑ D ∈B we have

2(j −j ) r D [Γ D C ] s ct (x)(n)(D) Ftan ct (y)(n)(D).

2(jD −jC ) 2(jD −jC ) Thus there is h = hn,D ∈ Γ such that for all v ∈ Γ we have r −1 D s ct (x)(n)(D)(h · v) Ftan ct (y)(n)(D)(v) and hence − rah 1·v D sav ctan (x) Ftan ctan(y), NEW JUMP OPERATORS ON EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS 19

− rah 1·v sav so by inductive assumption we have Ntan (x)= Ntan (y). Thus

rav 2(jD −jC ) sav 2(jD −jC ) {Ntan (x): v ∈ Γ } = {Ntan (y): v ∈ Γ }, so

r rav 2(jD −jC ) Nt (x)= {Ntan (x): v ∈ Γ } n D C D [ ∈B[: ⊑ sav 2(jD −jC ) s = {Ntan (y): v ∈ Γ } = Nt (y) n D C D [ ∈B[: ⊑ as required. C [Γ] C To see that Ft is reducible to Jω·(|t|−1), note that for |t| = 1 we have Ft = ∆(R), and iterated jumps starting with ∆(R) are equivalent to those starting with ∆(2) C [Γ] for α > 0, as noted earlier, so we may safely consider Ft to be J0 for |t| = 1. Assume now that |t| > 1 and the bound holds for all s ∈ T with |s| < |t|, so C [Γ] Ftan ≤B Jω·(|t|−2). Then ω k 2(j −j ) [Γ ] C D [Γ D C ] [Γ] Ft = Ftan ≤B Jω·(|t|−2) . n∈ω D∈B:C⊑D k∈ω ! Y Y M ω [Γ] This is reducible to k∈ω Jω·(|t|−2)+k+1 by Lemma 2.6, which is reducible to [Γ] Jω·(|t|−1) by PropositionL 2.2.

s Deﬁnition 5.13. For t ∈ T , let At(x)= {Nt (x): s ∈ B}.

Lemma 5.14. For t ∈ T , there is a Borel function ft and an equivalence relation [Γ] Ft, reducible to Jω·|t|, so that:

(a) If xEy then ft(x) Ft ft(y). (b) If ft(x) Ft ft(y) then At(x)= At(y).

2j C [Γ C ] s(v) Proof. (a) Let Ft = C∈B Ft and ft(x)(C)(v) = ct (x), where s(v) = 2jC h(αi,βi): i < kC i for v = α0 a β0 a ··· a αkC −1 a βkC −1 ∈ Γ . Suppose xEy, Q sg C s so there is g ∈ H with y = g · x. Fix C ∈ B, so we have ct (x) Ft ct (y) for all s ∈ C from the previous lemma. Thus for each v ∈ Γ2jC we have s(v) ft(y)(C)(v)= ct (g · x) g C (s(v)) Ft ct (x) ′ s(v ) = ct (x) ′ = ft(x)(C)(v ),

′ −1 −1 2jC where v = g (α0) a β0 a ··· a g (αkC −1) a βkC −1. Lettingg ˜ ∈ Γ be given ↾ C a ↾ C a a ↾ C a ↾ C byg ˜ = g d0 id d0 ··· g dkC −1 id dkC −1 (where each concatenated factor acts on the corresponding coordinates) we have that v′ =g ˜−1 · v for all v ∈ Γ2jC . Thusg ˜ witnesses

2j C [Γ C ] ft(x)(C) Ft ft(y)(C), and hence ft(x) Ft ft(y). 20 JOHND.CLEMENSANDSAMUELCOSKEY

2j C [Γ C ] (b) Suppose ft(x) Ft ft(y), so for each C ∈ B we have ft(x)(C) Ft f (y)(C). Thus there is h = h ∈ Γ2jC so that for all v ∈ Γ2jC we have t C −1 C ft(x)(C)(h · v) Ft ft(y)(C)(v) and hence − s(h 1·v) C s(v) ct (x) Ft ct (y), − s(h 1·v) s(v) so we have Nt (x)= Nt (y). Thus s s {Nt (x): s ∈ C} = {Nt (y): s ∈ C}, so s s At(x)= {Nt (x): s ∈ C} = {Nt (y): s ∈ C} = At(y) C C [∈B [∈B as required.

Lemma 5.15. There is a Borel function fA and an equivalence relation FA, re- [Γ] ducible to Jω·(n−2), so that: (a) If xEy then fA(x) FA fA(y). (b) If fA(x) FA fA(y) then A(x)= A(y). s Proof. Since t can be recovered from Nt (x) we have A(x) = A(y) if and only if At(x) = At(y) for each t. Letting FA = t:|t|≤n−2 Ft and f(x)(t) = ft(x) suﬃces. Q k Deﬁnition 5.16. For m, k ∈ ω,r ¯ = (r0,...,rk−1) ∈ B , and t¯ = (t0,...,tk−1) ∈ T k, let

m,k s0 sk−1 B (x)= hN (x),...,N (x)i : si ∈ B r,¯ t¯  t0 tk−1  ∆

 ∗Usi ,∗Uri ∧ x ∈ Wm ∩ R (x) . ti  " i

Lemma 5.17. There is a Borel function fB and an equivalence relation FB, re- [Γ] ducible to Jω·(n−2), so that: (a) If xEy then fB(x) FB fB(y). (b) If fB(x) FB fB(y) then B(x)= B(y). k k Proof. For m, k,r ¯ ∈ B , and t¯∈ T with |ti|≤ n − 2 let

2(j +···+j ) Γ C0 Ck−1 m,k Ci Fr,¯ t¯ = Fti × ∆(2) , ¯ k i

2(j +···+j ) Γ C0 Ck−1 m,k ¯ −1 a a Ci fr,¯ t¯ (x)(C)(˜g (α0 ... αk−1)) Fti × ∆(2) i

∆

s0 sk−1 ∗Usi ,∗Uri hN (x),...,N (x)i : si ∈ Ci ∧ x ∈ Wm ∩ R (x)  t0 tk−1 ti  " i

Proof. Since Aut(L TΓ) is a closed subgroup of S∞, E is essentially countable by Theorem 3.8 of [16], so let f be a reduction of E to E∞. For each x, there is some z ∈ [f(x)]E∞ so that the set {g ∈ Aut(TΓ): f(g · x)= z} is nonmeager, and hence comeager in some Us. Deﬁne the relation P (x, C) on X ×B by ∗ P (x, C) ⇐⇒ ∃s ∈ C ∃z ∈ [f(x)]E∞ ∀ g ∈ Us f(g · x)= z. Then ∀x∃CP (x, C) and P is Borel and E-invariant (i.e., if P (x, C) and x E x′ then P (x′, C)), so there is an E-invariant Borel function Ψ : X → B with P (x, Ψ(x)) for all x (take Ψ(x) to be the least C in some ﬁxed enumeration of the countable 22 JOHND.CLEMENSANDSAMUELCOSKEY

−1 set B which satisfies P (x, C)). Let XC = Ψ ({C}). On XC define the reduction [Γ2jC ] ϕ : E ↾ XC ≤B ∆(R) by z, if ∀∗g ∈ U f(g · x)= z ϕ(x)(h)= s(h) (∗, if no such z exists, where s(h) is defined as in the proof of Lemma 5.14 and ∗ is some new element E∞-inequivalent to all z. Suppose xEy, so there is g with y = g · x. Then as in the proof of Lemma 5.14 −1 there isg ˜ ∈ Γ2jC so that for all h ∈ Γ2jC we have s(˜g−1 · h) = s(h)g˜ , so that 2j 2j g˜ witnesses ϕ(x) ∆(R)[Γ C ] ϕ(y). Conversely, if ϕ(x) ∆(R)[Γ C ] ϕ(y), then there ′ ′ are some h, h , and z with ϕ(x)(h)= z 6= ∗ and ϕ(y)(h )= z. Then f(x) E∞ z E∞ f(y), so xEy.

[Γ] Corollary 5.20. Let E be a countable Borel equivalence relation. If E ≤B Jα for [Γ] some α<ω1 then E ≤B n∈ω Jn . [Γ] [Γ] Proof. Let ϕ be a reductionL of E to Jα . Then the Jα -saturation B of the range of [Γ] [Γ] ϕ is Borel by the Lusin–Novikov Theorem, and E ∼B Jα ↾ B. Thus E ∼B Jα ↾ B 0 is potentially Σ∼2 by Theorem 3.8 of [16], so by Theorem 5.1.5 of [5] we can reﬁne [Γ] ↾ 0 the topology of B so that Jα B becomes a Polish Aut(TΓ)-space which is Σ∼2. [Γ] [Γ] Thus Jα ↾ B, and hence E, is reducible to n∈ω Jn . [Γ] Note that, e.g., when Γ = F2 we already haveL that J1 ∼B E∞, since this is the shift equivalence relation E(F2, 2) which is bireducible with E∞ by Proposition 1.8 of [10]. Thus the above bound is not always optimal, but we do not know if this is true for other Γ, such as Γ = Z. The following seems quite optimistic: [Γ] Question 5. If E is a countable Borel equivalence relation reducible to some Jα , [Γ] [Γ] is E reducible to J2 or even to J1 ? The same techniques will also show that isomorphism of Γ-trees is maximal among Aut(TΓ)-actions. We introduce a useful augmentation of Γ-trees.

Deﬁnition 5.21. A labelled Γ-tree is the full Γ-tree TΓ with each node labelled ∼Γ with a real. We use =lab to denote isomorphism of labelled Γ − trees.

We may identify a labelled Γ-tree with a function from TΓ to R. We can see that isomorphism of Γ-trees is bireducible with isomorphism of labelled Γ-trees. ∼Γ ∼Γ Lemma 5.22. =lab ∼B = . Proof. To see that isomorphism of Γ-trees is reducible to isomorphism of labelled Γ-trees, we can identify a Γ-tree T with a subtree of TΓ, and assign the labelling where a node t ∈ TΓ is labelled ‘1’ if t ∈ T and ‘0’ if t∈ / T . For the reverse reduction, identify R with P(Γ r {1Γ}), and let f : TΓ → P(Γ r {1Γ}) be a labelled Γ-tree. For a node t = (α0,...,αk−1) ∈ TΓ, let t˜= (α0, 1Γ, α1, 1Γ,..., 1Γ, αk−1). Let T (f) be the subtree of TΓ given by a a T (f)= {t˜: t ∈ TΓ}∪{t˜ 1Γ : t ∈ TΓ}∪{t˜ γ : t ∈ TΓ ∧ γ ∈ f(t)}. ∼Γ Then it is straightforward to check that the map f 7→ T (f) is a reduction from =lab to =∼Γ. NEW JUMP OPERATORS ON EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS 23

X X Theorem 5.23. Let G = Aut(TΓ). For any Polish G-space EG we have EG ≤B =∼Γ. X ∼Γ Proof. It will suﬃce to show that EG ≤B =lab. Fix an enumeration {ei : i ∈ ω} of TΓ, and let Cn be the type hht(e0),..., ht(en−1)i for each n. For t ∈ TΓ with st st st ht(t)= jCn we let st ∈ B be such that t = d0 a ··· a dn−1 and ei = ei for i

Given x, we let Tx be the labelled Γ-tree deﬁned as follows. For t with ht(t)= jCn −1 for some n we let Tx(t) = {ℓ : x ∈ Ust · Wℓ}, and let Tx(t) = ∅ for other t. We X ∼Γ claim that the map x 7→ Tx is a reduction from EG to =lab.

Suppose ﬁrst that g · x = y. Then for t with ht(t)= jCn we have −1 −1 Ty(t)= {ℓ : y ∈ Ust · Wℓ} = {ℓ : g · x ∈ Ust · Wℓ} −1 −1 −1 = {ℓ : x ∈ g Ust · Wℓ} = {ℓ : x ∈ (Ust g) · Wℓ} −1 = {ℓ : x ∈ U g · Wℓ} = Tx(ϕ(t)), st s s where ϕ ∈ Aut(TΓ) is induced by sending each node of the form d0 a ··· a dn−1 −1 s −1 s to g (d0) a ··· a g (dn−1). Then ϕ is an isomorphism from Ty to Tx. ∼ ′ Conversely, suppose Tx = Ty via ϕ ∈ Aut(TΓ). Let Tx be the subtree of Tx consisting of initial segments of those t with Tx(t) 6= ∅ (equivalently, Ust 6= ∅), ′ ω so that [Tx] is a Polish subspace of Γ . Deﬁne the set of branches Ax = {α ∈ ′ ′ [Tx]: n sα↾jCn is an automorphism of TΓ}. We claim that Ax is comeager in [Tx]. ′ To see this, note that for α ∈ [Tx] we will have that α ∈ Ax exactly when each S s node r in TΓ appears as di with s = sα↾jCn for some i

The group Aut(TΓ) corresponds to the Γ-jump in an analogous way to that of the group S∞ with respect to the Friedman–Stanley jump, so it is natural to ask if it satisﬁes similar properties. For instance, Friedman showed: Theorem 5.24 (Friedman, Theorem 1.5 of [12]). If E is a Borel equivalence relation reducible to some S∞-action, then E is reducible to Fα for some α<ω1.

Allison has noted that the analogous result holds for Aut(TΓ)-actions: Corollary 5.25 (Allison). If E is a Borel equivalence relation reducible to some [Γ] Aut(TΓ)-action, then E is reducible to Jα for some α<ω1.

Proof. Since Aut(TΓ) is a closed subgroup of S∞, Friedman’s theorem implies that 0 E is reducible to some Fα, and hence to some Π∼α orbit equivalence relation of S∞. By Theorem 2.4 of [1], E is then reducible to an action of Aut(TΓ) with a 0 potentially Π∼α equivalence relation. By Theorem 2.7 of [1], E is then reducible to 0 a continuous action of Aut(TΓ) with a Π∼α orbit equivalence relation, and hence to [Γ] some Jα by Theorem 5.1.

Friedman and Stanley asked in [11] if every E given by an S∞-action which satisﬁes Fα ≤B E for all α<ω1 must be Borel complete; this remains open. We can similarly ask: 24 JOHND.CLEMENSANDSAMUELCOSKEY

[Γ] Question 6. If E is given by an Aut(TΓ)-action which satisﬁes Jα ≤B E for all Γ α<ω1, is =∼ reducible to E?

We note that there are Borel equivalence relations induced by actions of Aut(TΓ) which are not reducible to one induced by an action of Γω. This follows from the [Z] result of Allison and Panagiotopoulos that E0 is generically ergodic with respect to any orbit equivalence relation of a TSI Polish group (Corollary 2.3 of [2]) and the fact that Γω is TSI for every countable Γ. We do not know if there is a canonical obstruction to reducibility to Aut(TΓ)- actions, in the way that turbulence is an obstruction for S∞-actions. Question 7. Is there a dynamical characterization of when a Borel equivalence relation is reducible to an Aut(TΓ)-action? We close this section by noting that Shani has observed that Γ-jumps give “natural” examples of equivalence relations at intermediate levels of the Borel hierarchy, deﬁned in Section 6 of [18]. Namely, the Z-jump of F2 (which is =∼2 in the notation ∼∗ of [18]) is reducible to the relation =3,0 deﬁned there, and has potential complexity 0 precisely D(Π∼3). We do not know for which other equivalence relations and groups ∼∗ this hollds, since the relations =α,0 require pairwise-inequivalent successors at each [Γ] [Γ] node, and we do not know in general when E is reducible to Ep.i.. We will see in <ω [Z2 ] Proposition 7.1 that this same precise complexity is obtained for E0 .

§6. Properness of the Γ-jump In this section we consider the question of when the Γ-jump is a proper jump. To begin, we use our results of the previous section together with a result of Solecki to establish that the Γ-jump is proper for a large class of countable groups, including the Z-jump. <ω Theorem 6.1. Let Γ be a countable group such that Z or Zp for a prime p is a quotient of a subgroup of Γ. Then the Γ-jump is a proper jump operator. Proof. Suppose towards a contradiction that E is a Borel equivalence relation such [Γ] [Γ] that ∆(2) ≤B E and E ∼B E. Then by induction on α we have that Jα (E) ≤B E for all α<ω1, successor stages following from our assumption and limit stages [Γ] [Γ] [Γ] ω [Γ] from Proposition 2.2 and the fact that Jλ (E) = α<λ Jα (E) ≤B (E ) [Γ] for a limit ordinal λ. Hence Jα ≤B E for all α, soL by Theorem 5.1, every Borel orbit equivalence relation induced by an action of Aut(TΓ) is reducible to E. It is <ω a theorem of Solecki [27, Theorem 1] that if ∆ is one of the groups Z or Zp for a prime p then ∆ω admits non-Borel orbit equivalence relations, and by [15] it follows ω that ∆ and hence Aut(T∆) induces Borel orbit equivalence relations of cofinal essential complexity. By our hypothesis and Proposition 2.5 it then follows that Aut(TΓ) induces Borel orbit equivalence relations of cofinal essential complexity, contradicting that they are all reducible to E. Although the Γ-jump has no Borel fixed points for such Γ, there are always [Γ] analytic equivalence relations E with E ∼B E. Of course, the universal analytic equivalence relation is an example. Moreover, by Proposition 4.5, the isomorphism relation =∼Γ on countable Γ-trees is a fixed point too. Thus we have the following: NEW JUMP OPERATORS ON EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS 25

<ω Corollary 6.2. Let Γ be a countable group such that Z or Zp for a prime p is a quotient of a subgroup of Γ. Then =∼Γ is not Borel. For such Γ, =∼Γ gives a new example of a non-Borel, non-Borel complete isomorphism relation. Other known examples include for instance isomorphism of abelian p-groups [11], as well as several given in [28]. + Friedman and Stanley’s proof that E

[Γ] [Γ] [Γ] Lemma 6.4. If E ≤B E then there is a Borel diagonalizer for E .

Proof. Let f be a Borel reduction from E[Γ] to E. We may ﬁnd z ∈ X Γ so that Γ Γ Γ zα E zβ for all α, β ∈ Γ and f(z) 6E zα for all α. Deﬁne F : X → X by

f(xγ ), if ∀δf(xγ ) 6E xγ F (¯x)(γ)= δ (f(z), otherwise.

[Γ] Then F is E[Γ] -invariant, and we claim that for allx ¯ and γ we have F (¯x) 6E[Γ] γ [Γ] γ0 α α x . Suppose instead that there is γ0 with F (¯x) E x . Let A = {x : ∀δf(x ) 6E α γ γ xδ }∪{z : ∃γ∃δf(x ) E xδ }, so that ran(F (¯x)) = {f(y): y ∈ A}. γ0 γ0 [Γ] γ0 γ0 If there is y ∈ A with f(x ) E f(y), then x E y, so ∀δf(x ) 6E xδ (noting this is true for z from its choice). Thus xγ0 ∈ A, so f(xγ0 ) ∈ ran(F (¯x)). But [Γ] γ0 γ0 γ0 F (¯x) E x , so there would be δ with f(x ) E xδ , a contradiction. Hence there γ0 γ0 γ0 is no y ∈ A with f(x ) E f(y), so there is no δ with f(x ) E xδ . But then we γ0 γ0 γ0 also have x ∈/ A, and there is hence some δ with f(x ) E xδ , again producing a contradiction.

Question 8. Is it the case that E[Γ] doesn’t admit a Borel diagonalizer when the Γ-jump is proper? Note that this statement is at least as strong as Friedman’s theorem, since a diagonalizer for E+ easily produces a diagonalizer for E[Γ]. We now turn to the question of finding Γ-jumps that are not proper. Recallthat a group satisfies the descending chain condition if it does not have an infinite properly descending chain of subgroups. For example, the Prüfer p-groups Z(p∞) (also called quasi-cyclic groups) satisfy the descending chain condition. More generally if Γ is quasi-finite, meaning it is infinite with no infinite proper subgroups, then Γ satisfies the descending chain condition. We use the descending chain condition to obtain the condition that a descending chain of cosets of subgroups has nonempty intersection. One may verify that for countable groups, the descending chain condition is equivalent to this latter condition. [Γ] Lemma 6.5. If Γ satisfies the descending chain condition, then Jλ (E) is Borel [Γ] bireducible with α<λ Jα (E) for λ a limit and E with at least two classes. Q 26 JOHND.CLEMENSANDSAMUELCOSKEY

[Γ] [Γ] Proof. First we show α<λ Jα (E) ≤B Jλ (E) for any infinite Γ. Let Γ = {γn : n ∈ ω} and λ = {αn : n ∈ ω}. Define f by f(x)(γn)= x(αn); then f is a reduction Q [Γ] [Γ] [Γ] [Γ] from α<λ Jα (E) to α<λ Jα (E) = Jλ (E). [Γ] Q L [Γ] [Γ] For the other direction, we define a reduction from Jλ (E)= α<λ Jα (E) [Γ] [Γ] [Γ]L to α<λ β<α Jβ (E) , which is bireducible with α<λ Jα (E) when E has at least two classes. Fix some a in the domain of E and let Q L Q x(γ), if x(γ) is in the domain of J [Γ] (E) f(x)(α)(γ)= β<α β a, otherwise. ( L [Γ] [Γ] Then f is easily a homomorphism. Suppose that f(x) α<λ β<α Jβ (E) Γ ′ Q [Γ] L ′ f(x ). For each α < λ let Hα = γ : γ · f(x)(α) β<α Jβ (E) f(x )(α) , so that the Hα’s form a nonempty descending chain ofL cosets of subgroups of Γ. Since Γ satisfies the descending chain condition, there is some γ ∈ α<λ Hα, and this γ Γ [Γ] ′ [Γ] ′ satisfies γ · x α<λ Jα (E) x , so xJλ (E) x . T L Using Lemma 3.4, one can show that the above result also holds when Γ = Z, but we do not know whether it holds for other groups Γ.

[Γ] [Γ] Theorem 6.6. If Γ satisﬁes the descending chain condition, then Jω+1 ∼B Jω . In particular, for such Γ the Γ-jump is not a proper jump operator.

[Γ] [Γ] [Γ] [Γ] Proof. From the previous lemma we have Jω+1 ∼B n∈ω Jn and Jω ∼B [Γ] [Γ] [Γ] Q [Γ] n∈ω k∈n Jk so it suﬃces to deﬁne a Borel reduction ϕ from n∈ω Jn [Γ] Q Q [Γ] Q to n∈ω k∈n Jk . For this we let ϕ(x)(n)(γ)= x(γ) ↾ n. To see that ϕ is a homomorphism, we calculate: Q Q [Γ] [Γ] −1 [Γ] x Jn y ⇐⇒ ∃γ∀α∀n x(γ α)(n) Jn y(α)(n) n∈ω ! Y −1 [Γ] =⇒ ∀n∃γ∀α∀k ∈ n x(γ α)(k) Jk y(α)(k)

−1 [Γ] ⇐⇒ ∀n∃γ∀α ϕ(x)(n)(γ α) Jk ϕ(y)(n)(α) k n ! Y∈ [Γ] [Γ] ⇐⇒ ϕ(x) Jk ϕ(y). n∈ω k n ! Y Y∈ [Γ] [Γ] Now suppose conversely that ϕ(x) n∈ω k∈n Jk ϕ(y). For each n, let Q Q −1 [Γ] Hn = γ : ∀α x(γ α) ↾ n Jk y(α) ↾ n . ( k n ! ) Y∈ NEW JUMP OPERATORS ON EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS 27

Then the sequence Hn is a descending chain of cosets of subgroups of Γ. It follows from the descending chain condition that n Hn 6= ∅. If γ ∈ n Hn, then γ [Γ] [Γ] witnesses that x n∈ω Jn y, completingT the proof. T

Q [Γ] We do not know if the statement of Theorem 6.6 is tight in the sense that Jω is the least ﬁxed-point. If Γ is a group such that the Γ-jump is improper, one may [Γ] [Γ] ask what is the least α such that Jα = Jα+1. In the next section we will show [Γ] [Γ] [Γ] that for all Γ we have J0

Question 10. Which countable groups Γ give rise to proper jump operators? If Γ is p-compact for all primes p, is the Γ-jump improper? Does the group p prime Zp give rise to a proper jump operator? L §7. Bounds on potential complexities The bounds in the statement of Theorem 5.1 are not always tight, that is, some- times it is possible to reduce an equivalence relation E to fewer iterates of the jump. [Γ] As a consequence, the lower bounds on the potential complexity of Jα that it gives are also not always tight. The bounds provided in Theorem 5.1 are derived from the definitions of the equivalence relations introduced in the proof, together with [Γ] [Γ] Proposition 2.2, Lemma 2.6, and the fact that α<λ Jα ≤B Jλ for limit λ (see the proof of Lemma 6.5). In general this technique requires about ω-many iterates of the Γ-jump to ensure the potential complexityQ has increased by one level in the Borel hierarchy. In this section we provide a more direct proof that the iterated jumps have cofinal <ω potential complexity in the special case when Γ = Z2 , and produce sharp bounds <ω on potential complexity of the iterates of the Z2 -jump. As a consequence we <ω obtain an alternate proof that the Z2 -jump is proper. Recall that for a pointclass Γ, the pointclass D(Γ) consists of all sets which are the difference of two sets in Γ, and the pointclass Dˇ(Γ) is its dual, consisting of the complements of all such sets.

<ω Proposition 7.1. For Γ= Z2 we have the following: [Z<ω] 2 0 r ˇ 0 ◦ Jα ∈ pot(D(Π∼α+1)) pot(D(Π∼α+1)) for α ≥ 2 not a limit. [Z<ω] 2 0 r 0 ◦ Jλ ∈ pot(Σ∼λ+1) pot(Π∼λ+1) for λ a limit. Proof. The upper bounds follow from Corollary 3.13. To establish the lower bounds, we use the properly increasing tower Aα of equivalence relations deﬁned by Hjorth–

Kechris–Louveau in §5 of [18] (where our An corresponds to their EGn+1 for finite n, [Γ] and Aα to EGα for infinite α), and show that Aα ≤B Jα for each α. We will let Γ <ω denote Z2 throughout this proof. To define Aα, we adopt the following notation. ω ω ω For any x ∈ 2 we may regard x as an element of (2 ) , and we write xn for the nth element of 2ω in x. Also for any x ∈ 2ω we letx ¯(n)=1 − x(n). We let A0 = ∆(2) and A1 = E0. Given Aα, we define x Aα+1 y if and only if:

(a) for all n, either xn Aα yn or xn Aα yn, and (b) for all but ﬁnitely many n, xn Aα yn.

For a limit ordinal λ we fix an increasing sequence hαnin∈ω cofinal in λ and define x Aλ y if and only if:

(a) for all n, either xn Aαn yn or xn Aαn yn, and

(b) for all but ﬁnitely many n, xn Aαn yn. Hjorth–Kechris–Louveau show, in Theorem 5.8 of [18] and its proof, that (with ˇ 0 0 our indexing) Aα ∈/ pot(D(Π∼α+1)) for α ≥ 2 not a limit, and that Aλ ∈/ pot(Π∼λ+1) for λ a limit. Hence the desired lower bounds will be established once we show that [Γ] each Aα ≤B Jα . [Γ] for α = 0 and α = 1, this is immediate. Next suppose Aα ≤B Jα ; we will [Γ] ω [Γ] show that Aα+1 ≤B Jα+1. We ﬁrst claim that Aα+1 ≤B ((Aα) ) for each <ω ∼ <ω <ω ω [Γ] [Γ] α. Admitting this claim, since Z2 = Z2 × Z2 , we have (E ) ≤B E for NEW JUMP OPERATORS ON EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS 29

[Γ] [Γ] [Γ] ω any E by Proposition 2.7. Hence if Aα ≤B Jα then Aα+1 ≤B (Jα ) ≤B [Γ] [Γ] [Γ] Jα = Jα+1. ω To establish the claim, let x ∈ 2 be given and deﬁne αx(n,s) for n ∈ ω and s ∈ 2<ω by

xn, if s(n) = 0, αx(n,s)= (xn, if s(n) = 1.

Then if x Aα+1 y, we define γ ∈ Γ by γ(n) = 0 if xn Aα yn and γ(n) = 1 otherwise. Then γ witnesses that αx is equivalent to αy. On the other hand, if αx is equivalent to αy, let γ ∈ Γ witness this. Then the coordinates of γ witness that x Aα+1 y. [Γ] For a limit ordinal λ, suppose Aα ≤B Jα for all α < λ; we show that Aλ ≤B [Γ] Jλ . A direct modification of the proof of the previous claim gives that Aλ ≤B [Γ] ( n Aαn ) . Similarly, a direct modification of the proof of Proposition 2.7 gives that ( A )[Γ] ≤ ( A )[Γ] for Γ = Z<ω. Since Q n αn B n αn 2 [Γ] [Γ] [Γ] [Γ] [Γ] Q ( n Aαn )L ≤B ( α<λ Aα) ≤B ( α<λ Jα ) = Jλ , this completesL the proof. L L We do not know the optimal complexity bounds in the case of groups other <ω than Z2 . In particular we do not know precise bounds on the complexities of the iterates of the Z-jump.

Question 11. What are the exact potential Borel complexities of the Zα’s?

§8. Generic E0-ergodicity of Γ-jumps In this section we will show that Γ-jumps of countable Borel equivalence relations ω produce new examples of equivalence relations intermediate between E0 and F2. Furthermore, we will see that although some Γ-jumps admit Borel fixed points, any such fixed point must be strictly above E0. The key notion in establishing these results is the following. Definition 8.1. We say that E is generically F -ergodic if for every Borel homo- −1 morphism ϕ from E to F there is a y so that ϕ [y]F is comeager. We say E is generically ergodic when it is generically ∆(R)-ergodic. Note that if E is generically F -ergodic, and E does not have a comeager equiv- [Γ] alence class, then E 6≤B F . Furthermore observe that each E0 -class is meager. Also, since any Baire-measurable map is continuous on a comeager set, we could replace Borel by Baire-measurable in the definition. [Γ] Our main result will be to show that E0 is generically E∞-ergodic for any countable group Γ. Throughout this section we let Γ = {γn : n ∈ ω} be a countably infinite group and fix an increasing sequence of finite subsets Γn with Γ = n Γn. Γ Definition 8.2. Let h be a Borel Z-action inducing E0, and let G = SZ act Γ coordinate-wise via h to induce the orbit equivalence relation E0 . Then G together [Γ] ω Γ ¯ Γn with the shift action of Γ on (2 ) generates E0 . For each n and each k ∈ Z , n ¯ n ¯ let Uk¯ = {g ∈ G : g ↾ Γn = k}, so that {Uk¯ : n, k} is a countable basis for G. The following lemma is derived from Theorem 7.3 of [17]: 30 JOHND.CLEMENSANDSAMUELCOSKEY

[Γ] Lemma 8.3. Let f : E0 → E∞ be a Borel homomorphism. Then there is a Borel ˜ ˜ Γ f such that f(x) E∞ f(x) for all x, and there are E0 -invariant sets Xn with ω Γ ′ Γ ′ ′ (2 ) = ∐nXn such that for x, x ∈ Xn with x E0 x and x ↾ Γn = x ↾ Γn we have f˜(x)= f˜(x′).

Proof. For each x,[f(x)]E∞ = {yi : i ∈ ω} is countable, so there is some i so that n Gi = {g ∈ G : f(g ·x)= yi} is nonmeager, and hence comeager in some Uk¯ . Hence: ¯ ∗ n ∀x∃n∃k∃y ∈ [f(x)]E∞ ∀ g ∈ Uk¯ (f(g · x)= y). ¯ ∗ n Set P (x, n) ⇔ ∃k∃y ∈ [f(x)]E∞ ∀ g ∈ Uk¯ (f(g · x) = y), so ∀x∃nP (x, n). Since P Γ Γ ′ ′ Γ is Borel and E0 -invariant (if P (x, n) and x E0 x then P (x ,n)), there is a E0 - ω Γ −1 invariant Borel function s : (2 ) → N with P (x, s(x)) for all x. Let Xn = s [{n}]. Γn For x ∈ Xn, let k¯(x) be the least k¯ (in some ﬁxed enumeration of Z ) so ∗ n Γ ′ that ∃y ∈ [f(x)]E∞ ∀ g ∈ Uk¯ (f(g · x) = y). Note that if x E0 x and x ↾ ′ ′ Γn = x ↾ Γn then k¯(x) = k¯(x ). We can now let f˜(x) be the unique y so that ∗ n ∀ g ∈ Uk¯(x) (f(g · x)= y). Γ Now Xn is nonmeager for some n, and since E0 is induced by a continuous group action with dense orbits it must be comeager. Let n0 be this n. Let Y0 be a ˜ ∗G comeager set with f continuous on Y0. Let Y = n∈ω γn[Y0 ∩ Xn0 ] so that Y is [Γ] comeager and E0 -invariant. T ′ ′ ˜ ˜ ′ Lemma 8.4. For all x, x ∈ Y with x ↾ Γn0 = x ↾ Γn0 we have f(x)= f(x ). ′ ′ Proof. Let x, x ∈ Y with x ↾ Γn0 = x ↾ Γn0 . We can then choose g ∈ G with ′ ′ ˜ ˜ g · x, g · x ∈ Y0 and g · x ↾ Γn0 = g · x ↾ Γn0 = x ↾ Γn0 . Hence f(g · x)= f(x) and ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ f˜(g · x )= f˜(x ), so, replacing x and x by g · x and g · x , we may assume x, x ∈ Y0. Suppose f˜(x) 6= f˜(x′), and let V and V ′ be disjoint neighborhoods with f˜(x) ∈ V and f˜(x′) ∈ V ′. We can then ﬁnd neighborhoods U and U ′ in (2ω)Γ with x ∈ U ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ and x ∈ U , so that if y ∈ U ∩Y0 then f˜(y) ∈ V and if y ∈ U ∩Y0 then f˜(y ) ∈ V . ′ Since G-orbits are dense, the set {g ∈ G : g · x ∈ U ∧ g · x ↾ Γn0 = x ↾ Γn0 } is nonempty and open, so it contains some g with g · x ∈ Y0. But then f˜(g · x)= f˜(x) by the previous lemma; however, then f˜(g · x) ∈ V ′ but f˜(x) ∈ V , a contradiction. ′ ′ Lemma 8.5. For all x, x ∈ Y , if there is γ ∈ Γ with x ↾ γΓn0 = x ↾ γΓn0 then ′ f˜(x) E∞ f˜(x ).

−1 −1 ′ [Γ] Proof. We have γ · x ↾ Γn0 = γ · x ↾ Γn0 , and since Y is E0 -invariant we have ˜ −1 ˜ −1 ′ [Γ] −1 ˜ f(γ · x) = f(γ · x ). Since x E0 γ · x and f is a homomorphism we have −1 ′ f˜(x) E∞ f˜(γ · x), and similarly for x , so the result follows. Now we are ready for the main result of this section: [Γ] Theorem 8.6. E0 is generically E∞-ergodic. [Γ] ˜ Proof. Let f : E0 → E∞ be a Borel homomorphism, and let f, n0, and Y be as above. By the Kuratowski–Ulam theorem we have Γ ΓrΓ ∀∗z ∈ (2ω) n0 ∀∗w ∈ (2ω) n0 (z a w ∈ Y ), so the set ′ ∗ ω ΓrΓn0 Y = {x ∈ Y : ∀ w ∈ (2 ) (x ↾ Γn0 a w ∈ Y )} NEW JUMP OPERATORS ON EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS 31

′ ′ is comeager. It suﬃces to show that f˜ maps Y into a single E∞-class. Fix x, x ∈ ′ ω ΓrΓn0 Y , and let γ ∈ Γ so that Γn0 and γΓn0 are disjoint. We can then ﬁnd w ∈ (2 ) ′ ′ ˜ ˜ so that y = x ↾ Γn0 a w ∈ Y and y = x ↾ Γn0 a w ∈ Y . We have f(x) E∞ f(y) ˜ ′ ˜ ′ ˜ ˜ ′ and f(x ) E∞ f(y ) by agreement on Γn0 , and f(y) E∞ f(y ) by agreement on ˜ ˜ ′ γΓn0 , so f(x) E∞ f(x ). When E is generically F -ergodic it is also generically F ω-ergodic, so we immediately get:

[Γ] ω Theorem 8.7. E0 is generically E∞-ergodic.

[Z] ω Corollary 8.8. E0 is generically E0 -ergodic.

ω [Z] ω Since (E0) is Borel reducible to E0 , we have in particular that (E0) is properly [Z] below E0 in complexity. Allison and Panagiotopoulos have since strengthened the last result to show [Z] that E0 is generically ergodic with respect to any orbit equivalence relation of a TSI Polish group (Corollary 2.3 of [2]). More recently, Allison has shown that an equivalence relation E is generically ergodic with respect to any orbit equivalence X relation EG with G non-Archimedean abelian if and only if E is generically E0- ergodic (Theorem 6.6 of [1]), and E is generically ergodic with respect to any orbit X equivalence relation EG with G non-Archimedean TSI if and only if E is generically E∞-ergodic (Theorem 6.5 of [1]). From the above, we can see that Γ-jumps do not have ﬁxed points at the ﬁrst two levels. [Γ] [Γ] [Γ] Corollary 8.9. For any countable group Γ we have J0

[Γ] [Γ] Γ Proof. For any countable Γ, J0 = ∆(2), and J1 is the shift action of Γ on 2 , which is countable and generically ergodic.

In Section 9 below we consider which countable Borel equivalence relations are [Z] [Z] reducible to E0 , and establish in Corollary 9.12 that E∞ 6≤B E0 , which immedi- ω [Z] ately implies that E∞ 6≤B E0 . We may now summarize the situation to see that [Z] [Z] E0 and E∞ are new examples of natural equivalence relations below F2 which provide genuinely new levels in the Borel complexity hierarchy. Theorem 8.10. We have the following: ω [Z] [Z] ◦ E0

Theorem 8.11 (Shani, Theorem 1.7 of [25]). EΠ is pinned and satisﬁes: ω ◦ E∞

Note that these results give several other equivalence relations strictly between ω ω [Z] [F2] E∞ and F2, such as E∞×E0 and E∞ (where F2 is the free group on 2 generators). Shani has shown, as consequences of Corollary 5.6 and Proposition 5.14 of [25]: Theorem 8.12 (Shani). The following hold: [Z] [Z] ω ◦ E∞ 6≤B E0 × E∞. [Z] ω [Z] ◦ E0 × E0 6≤B E∞ . [Z] [Z] ω ◦ E∞ and E0 × E∞ are ≤B-incomparable. [Z] [Z] 2 ◦ E

[Z] ′ Z ′ Proof. Let f be a reduction of E to E0 . Set x F x iff f(x) E0 f(x ), so that Z ω ω F is of countable index below E and F ≤B E0 ∼B E0 . Hence either E0 ≤B F ω ′ ′ or F ≤B E0. In the first case, let g be a reduction of E0 to F , and set x E x ′ ′ ′ ω iff g(x) E g(x ). Then E ≤B E and E is of countable index over E0 , so that ω ′ ω E0 ≤B E (see Corollary 8.32 of [8]) and hence E0 ≤B E. In the second case, ′ ′ ′ let h be a reduction of F to E0, and define the equivalence relation E by y E y ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ iff y1 E0 y ∨ ∃x, x (x E x ∧ h(x) E0 y ∧ h(x ) E0 y ). Then E is a countable ′ analytic equivalence relation with E ≤B E , so E is essentially countable (see, e.g., Proposition 7.1 of [9]); hence E ≤B E∞.

[Z] [Z] ω Question 13. If E ≤B E∞ , does either E0 ≤B E or E ≤B E∞? §9. Z-jumps and scattered linear orders In this section we give an application of our results about the Z-jump to the classification of countable scattered linear orders. We also consider countable Borel equivalence relations which admit an assignment of scattered linear orders to each equivalence class, and establish some complexity bounds on them. Finally, we study the classification of countable complete linear orders, and give an application to classifying more general classes of countable models. Definition 9.1. A linear order L is said to be scattered if there does not exist an embedding (a one-to-one order-preserving map) from Q to L. The scattered linear orders admit a derivative or collapse operation as well as a rank function. To begin, define an equivalence relation on L by x ∼ y if the interval between x, y is finite. The ∼-equivalence classes are convex, so we may form a quotient ordering L/∼. Next we define equivalence relations ∼α for any ordinal α as follows. If ∼β has been defined, we let x ∼β+1 y iff [x]β ∼ [y]β, where [x]β, [y]β denote the ∼β-equivalence classes of x, y. If λ is a limit ordinal and ∼β have been defined for all β < λ, we let x ∼λ y iff there exists β < λ such that x ∼β y. NEW JUMP OPERATORS ON EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS 33

Now a linear order L is scattered if and only if there exists α such that L/∼α is a single point (see [22, Exercise 34.18]). Thus we may define the rank of a scattered linear order L as the least α such that L/∼α is a single point. Let S denote the class of countable scattered linear orders, Sα denote the class of countable scattered linear orders of rank α, and S≤α for the class of countable scattered linear orders of rank at most α. Proposition 9.2 . 1 (Exercises 33.2, 34.18 of [22]) The set S is a ∼Π1-complete set and the subsets Sα and S≤α are Borel sets. Moreover, the function which maps a 1 countable scattered linear order to its rank is a Π∼1-rank on S. ∼ ∼ We will write =α to abbreviate =Sα . Furthermore, although S is a non-Borel class of countable structures, we will write =∼S for the isomorphism relation on all countable scattered orderings. Proposition 9.3. 1 ∼ There is no absolutely ∼∆2 reduction from =S to a Borel equivalence relation. On the other hand, no Borel complete equivalence relation is Borel reducible to =∼S. Proof. For the first statement we recall from [15] (see remarks following Corol- lary 3.3) that there is no absolutely ∆1 reduction from E to a Borel equivalence ∼2 ω1 relation, where Eω1 is the isomorphism relation on countable well-orders. Moreover we have that E is absolutely ∆1-reducible to ∼ (see, e.g., Theorem 3.5 of [7]). ω1 ∼2 =S 1 1 Finally compositions of absolutely ∆∼2 reductions are again absolutely ∆∼2. For the second statement, it will follow from the results below that F2 is not reducible to =∼S, but we can give a more basic proof. Suppose there exists a Borel reduction f from some Borel complete equivalence relation to =∼S. Then by the Boundedness Theorem, the range of f is contained in some Sα. Since Borel complete equivalence relations are not Borel, it follows that =∼α is not a Borel equivalence relation. But it is not difficult to see that =∼α is Borel, for instance see Proposition 9.7 below. This is a contradiction.

The classification of scattered linear orders is closely related to the classification of Z-trees. We use a modification of the definition of Γ-trees given in Section 4, which is slightly simpler and more natural in the context of orders. Definition 9.4. A scattered order tree is a rooted tree together with, for each node x, a linear ordering on the set of immediate successors of x which is isomorphic to a subordering of Z. If T is a scattered order tree, we will use the < symbol for the order relation on the immediate successors of any node of T . We let SOT denote the space of scattered order trees, and SOTα the space of well-founded scattered order trees of rank α.

Lemma 9.5. The isomorphism relation =∼α on countable scattered linear orders of rank α is Borel bireducible with the isomorphism relation on SOT1+α.

Proof. We first show =∼α is Borel reducible to the isomorphism relation on SOT1+α. Given a scattered linear order L of rank α we define a scattered order tree T whose ′ nodes consist of the ∼β equivalence classes for β ≤ α, with the ordering t ≤ t iff t ⊂ t′. It is not difficult to see that L 7→ T is a Borel reduction as desired. 34 JOHND.CLEMENSANDSAMUELCOSKEY

To show that the isomorphism relation on SOT1+α is Borel reducible to =∼α, we proceed by induction. For the base case, it is clear that both the isomorphism relation on SOT1 and =∼0 are bireducible with ∆(1). For the inductive step, let α > 0 and assume that for all β < α there exists a Borel reduction f1+β from the isomorphism relation on SOT1+β to =∼β. Further assume that for all β and all T ∈ dom(fβ) we have that fβ(T ) does not contain any ∼-class of size 1. (We may do so without loss of generality, by inserting an immediate successor to each point of fβ(T ).) Given a scattered order tree T of rank 1+ α, let N denote the order type of the children of the root of T , so that N is a suborder of Z. For each n ∈ N let Tn denote the subtree of T rooted at the nth child of T , and let βn be the rank of Tn. Finally let

L = fβn (Tn)+ Z +1+ Z n N X∈ Then the mapping T 7→ L is a Borel reduction as desired. To see one can recover T from L, note that a separator widget Z +1+ Z may be identified by its ∼-class of size 1. Thus one can determine each fβn (Tn) up to isomorphism, and then use the reductions fβn to recover each Tn and thus T up to isomorphism. Note that the notion of scattered order tree carries less information than our earlier notion of Z-tree, since for instance there are ω many scattered order trees of rank 1 up to isomorphism, while there are continuum many (complexity E0) Z-trees of rank 1 up to isomorphism. However, after this level the two classifications do align in complexity, with the ranks adjusted appropriately. ∼Z Lemma 9.6. The isomorphism relation on SOT2+α is Borel bireducible with =α for α> 0. ∼Z Proof. We begin with the case when α = 1. We have already shown that =1 ∼B E0. Meanwhile a scattered order tree of rank 3 may be identified with a suborder of Z where each node is labeled with a natural number according to the order-type of its set of children, of which there are only countably many, and hence isomorphism [Z] of SOT3 is bireducible with (∆(ω)) ∼B E0. For α> 1, given a scattered order tree S of rank 2+ α, for any node of rank at least 3 we may first replace any of its children of rank at most 2 by a subset of Z using the α = 1 case. We can then identify each remaining level with a subset of Z to produce a Z-tree of rank 1+α in an isomorphism-preserving way. Similarly, given a Z-tree of rank 1+ α, considering each “missing” child of a non-terminal node as a trivial tree we may replace each node of rank 1 by a scattered order tree of rank 3 and order each level as a subset of Z to produce a scattered order tree of rank 2+ α in an isomorphism-preserving way, and yielding the desired reductions. We remark that it follows from this together with Proposition 9.3 that the isomorphism relation =∼SOT on all scattered order trees is not Borel, but also not Borel complete.

Theorem 9.7. The isomorphism relation =∼1+α on scattered linear orders of rank [Z] 1+ α is Borel bireducible with Zα = Jα for α> 0.

Proof. We have =∼1+α is bireducible with SOT2+α by Lemma 9.5, the latter is ∼Z bireducible with =α by Lemma 9.6, and the latter is bireducible with Zα by Propo- sition 4.4. NEW JUMP OPERATORS ON EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS 35

It follows using Corollary 5.18 that every Borel Zω-action is reducible to some =∼α. It also follows using Theorem 6.1 that the complexity of the classiﬁcation of countable scattered linear orders increases strictly with the rank. For comparison, we note that Alvir and Rossegger have shown in [4] that the complexity of Scott sentences of scattered linear orders also increases strictly with the rank. We now turn to the relationship between isomorphism of scattered linear orders and assignments of scattered linear orderings to equivalence classes of countable Borel equivalence relations. We recall the following notion from [21]. Deﬁnition 9.8. Let E be a countable Borel equivalence relation on X, and let K be a class of L-structures. We say that E admits a Borel assignment of structures in K to each equivalence class if there is an assignment C 7→ AC assigning a structure in K with universe C to each E-equivalence class C, so that for each k-ary R ∈ L the relation

A[x] R(x, y1,...,yk) ⇔ y1,...,yk ∈ [x]E ∧ R E (y1,...,yk) is Borel. e A more general study of structurable equivalence relations may be found in [6]. Kechris has shown in [21] that every countable Borel equivalence relation which admits a Borel assignment of scattered linear orders to each equivalence class is amenable, and has asked whether the converse is true. It is also a long-standing open question whether every countable amenable Borel equivalence relation is hyperfinite. We give here a partial characterization of when a countable Borel equivalence relation admits a Borel assignment of scattered linear orders to each equivalence class. Lemma 9.9. If a countable Borel equivalence relation E admits a Borel assignment of scattered linear orders of rank 1+ α to each equivalence class, then E ≤B Z1+α. Proof. For α = 0, Theorem 5.1 of [10] gives that E admits an assignment of orders of rank 1 if and only if E is hyperfinite, and hence reducible to E0 ∼B Z1. For α > 0, suppose E is a countable Borel equivalence relation on X which admits a Borel assignment of scattered linear orders of rank 1 + α to each equivalence class. From Theorem 9.7 it will suffice to show that E ≤B =∼2+α. Given x ∈ X, let

<[x]E be the order assigned to [x]E , and let ∼[x]E be the finite-interval relation with ˜ ˜ respect to <[x]E . Let x E y iff xEy and x ∼[x]E y, so that E is a subequivalence relation of E and <[x]E induces a scattered linear order of rank 1 on [x]E˜ . Hence we may fix a reduction f from E˜ to =∼2. We now assign a scattered linear order to each x ∈ X as follows. We start with the E˜-equivalence classes in [x]E, so that

<[x]E induces a scattered order of rank α on these classes. For each y ∈ [x]E we then replace [y]E˜ by the ordering of rank 2 given by f(y) to produce an ordering of rank 2+ α. Since [x]E˜ will be encoded in this ordering via f, this gives the desired reduction from E to =∼2+α. [Z] Lemma 9.10. Let E be a countable Borel equivalence relation. Then E ≤B E0 if and only if E is Z ∗ Z-orderable, i.e., E admits a Borel assignment of suborders of Z ∗ Z to each equivalence class.

Proof. Suppose ﬁrst that E is a countable Borel equivalence relation with E ≤B [Z] [Z] [Z] E0 . By Lemma 3.7 we have (E0) ≤B (E0)p.i., so let f be a reduction of E to 36 JOHND.CLEMENSANDSAMUELCOSKEY

[Z] Z Z (E0)p.i.. Recall that E0 denotes the product of Z-many copies of E0, so E0 is a [Z] Z ∼ ω countable index subequivalence relation of E0 and E0 = E0 . Because of pairwise inequivalence, on the range of f there is a Borel ordering ≺ of E0-classes with the Z [Z] property that the E0 -classes within each E0 -class are isomorphic to the ordering Z. ˜ Z ˜ ′ Z ′ ˜ Let E be the pullback of E0 under f, that is, x E x iﬀ f(x) E0 f(x ). Then E ˜ ω is a subequivalence relation of E, and hence countable. Since E ≤B E0 , it follows from the Sixth Dichotomy Theorem [17, Theorem 7.1] that E˜ is hyperﬁnite. Hence there is an assignment of suborders of Z to each E˜-class. Moreover, letting ≺0 be the pullback of ≺, we have that the E˜-classes within each E-class are isomorphic to a suborder of Z. It follows that there is a Borel assignment of suborders of Z ∗ Z to the equivalence classes of E. The converse follows from the previous lemma.

Note that this is analogous to Theorem 5.1 of [10] which gives that a countable Borel equivalence relation is reducible to E0 if and only if it admits a Borel assignment of suborders of Z to each equivalence class. We do not know whether analogous results for the forward direction hold for higher iterates of the Z-jump. Question 14. For a countable Borel equivalence relation E, does E admit an [Z] assignment of scattered linear orders of rank 1 + α iﬀ E ≤B Jα ? As observed in Corollary 5.20, if E is a countable Borel equivalence relation [Z] [Z] with E ≤B Jα for some α<ω1, then E ≤B n∈ω Jn . In light of Lemma 9.9, Corollary 5.20, and boundedness, we have: L Corollary 9.11. If E is a countable Borel equivalence relation which admits a Borel assignment of scattered linear orders to each equivalence class, then E ≤B =∼ω. We may then ask:

Question 15. If E is a countable Borel equivalence relation with E ≤B=∼ω, is E hyperﬁnite? Here it may be worth investigating a restricted form of the Γ-jump using ﬁnitely- supported wreath products to preserve countability of the equivalence relations, instead of the full wreath product used in the Γ-jump. Using the above results, we can now establish the following:

[Z] Corollary 9.12. E∞ 6≤B E0 . [Z] Proof. Suppose towards a contradiction that E∞ ≤B E0 . From Lemma 9.10, there would be a Borel assignment of suborders of Z ∗ Z to the equivalence classes of E∞, and therefore by [21] we would have that E∞ was amenable. Since E∞ is not amenable, this contradiction completes the proof.

Next we consider a class of linear orders that is very closely related to the scattered linear orders, and show that this together with our results above leads to a model-theoretic corollary. Deﬁnition 9.13. A linear order L is said to be complete if for every A ⊂ L, if A has an upper bound then A has a least upper bound. NEW JUMP OPERATORS ON EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS 37

Every countable complete linear order is scattered. Indeed, if L is countable and complete then it has just countably many Dedekind cuts. It follows that there is no embedding of Q into L, and that L is scattered. On the other hand, one may verify that if L is a countable scattered linear order then its Dedekind completion L¯ is a countable complete linear order. In the following, we let C denote the subset of S consisting of the countable complete linear orders.

Theorem 9.14. The statements of Lemma 9.5 holds with =∼α replaced with =∼α↾ C. In particular for all α we have that the relations Zα, =∼1+α, and =∼1+α↾ C are Borel bireducible with one another.

Proof. In the proof of Lemma 9.5, given a sequence fβn (Tn) we deﬁned a scattered order L using the separator Z +1+ Z. Assuming the fβn (Tn) are complete, we can ensure that L will be complete by using the separator 1 + Z +1+ Z + 1. We close this section by mentioning an application to the classiﬁcation of countable models of certain theories T , which was pointed out to us by Ali Enayat. Let T be a theory with built-in Skolem functions, and with a unary predicate P and a linear ordering < of P . Further suppose that there is a model M of T with a proper elementary end extension N, that is, N is an elementary extension of M and P M < P N r P M . We refer the reader to [26] for further context. It follows directly from Theorems 1.2 and 2.1(2) of [26] that if T is as above, then for any α there is a Borel reduction from =∼α↾ C to the isomorphism relation on countable models of T . In particular we have the following:

Remark 9.15. If T is as above, then for any α there is a Borel reduction from Zα to the isomorphism relation on countable models of T . References

[1] Shaun Allison. Non-Archimedean TSI Polish groups and their potential Borel complexity spectrum. arXiv:2010.05085, 2020. [2] Shaun Allison and Aristotelis Panagiotopoulos. Dynamical obstructions for classification by (co)homology and other TSI-group invariants. arXiv:2004.07409, 2020. [3] Shaun Allison and Assaf Shani. Actions of tame abelian product groups. arXiv:2105.05144, 2021. [4] Rachel Alvir and Dino Rossegger. The complexity of Scott sentences of scattered linear orders. arXiv:1810.11423, 2018. [5] Howard Becker and Alexander S. Kechris. The descriptive set theory of Polish group actions, volume 232 of London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996. [6] Ruiyuan Chen and Alexander S. Kechris. Structurable equivalence relations. Fund. Math., 242(2):109–185, 2018. [7] John Clemens, Samuel Coskey, and Stephanie Potter. On the classification of vertex-transitive structures. Arch. Math. Logic, 58(5-6):565–574, 2019. [8] John D. Clemens. Relative primeness and Borel partition properties for equivalence relations. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., to appear. [9] John D. Clemens, Dominique Lecomte, and Benjamin D. Miller. Essential countability of treeable equivalence relations. Adv. Math., 265:1–31, 2014. [10] R. Dougherty, S. Jackson, and A. S. Kechris. The structure of hyperfinite Borel equivalence relations. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 341(1):193–225, 1994. [11] Harvey Friedman and Lee Stanley. A Borel reducibility theory for classes of countable structures. J. Symbolic Logic, 54(3):894–914, 1989. [12] Harvey M. Friedman. Borel and Baire reducibility. Fund. Math., 164(1):61–69, 2000. [13] Su Gao. Invariant descriptive set theory, volume 293 of Pure and Applied Mathematics (Boca Raton). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2009. 38 JOHND.CLEMENSANDSAMUELCOSKEY

[14] L. A. Harrington, A. S. Kechris, and A. Louveau. A Glimm-Effros dichotomy for Borel equivalence relations. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 3(4):903–928, 1990. [15] Greg Hjorth. An absoluteness principle for Borel sets. J. Symbolic Logic, 63(2):663–693, 1998. [16] Greg Hjorth and Alexander S. Kechris. Borel equivalence relations and classifications of countable models. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic, 82(3):221–272, 1996. [17] Greg Hjorth and Alexander S. Kechris. Recent developments in the theory of Borel reducibility. Fund. Math., 170(1-2):21–52, 2001. Dedicated to the memory of JerzyLo ´s. [18] Greg Hjorth, Alexander S. Kechris, and Alain Louveau. Borel equivalence relations induced by actions of the symmetric group. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic, 92(1):63–112, 1998. [19] S. Jackson, A. S. Kechris, and A. Louveau. Countable Borel equivalence relations. J. Math. Log., 2(1):1–80, 2002. [20] Vladimir Kanovei. Borel equivalence relations, volume 44 of University Lecture Series. Amer- ican Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2008. Structure and classification. [21] Alexander S. Kechris. Amenable equivalence relations and Turing degrees. J. Symbolic Logic, 56(1):182–194, 1991. [22] Alexander S. Kechris. Classical descriptive set theory, volume 156 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995. [23] Alain Louveau. On the reducibility order between Borel equivalence relations. In Logic, methodology and philosophy of science, IX (Uppsala, 1991), volume 134 of Stud. Logic Found. Math., pages 151–155. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1994. [24] Christian Rosendal. Cofinal families of Borel equivalence relations and quasiorders. J. Sym- bolic Logic, 70(4):1325–1340, 2005. [25] Assaf Shani. Strong ergodicity around countable products of countable equivalence relations. arXiv:1910.08188, 2019. [26] Saharon Shelah. End extensions and numbers of countable models. J. Symbolic Logic, 43(3):550–562, 1978. [27] S lawomir Solecki. Equivalence relations induced by actions of Polish groups. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 347(12):4765–4777, 1995. [28] Douglas Ulrich, Richard Rast, and Michael C. Laskowski. Borel complexity and potential canonical Scott sentences. Fund. Math., 239(2):101–147, 2017. [29] Jindˇrich Zapletal. Pinned equivalence relations. Math. Res. Lett., 18(3):559–564, 2011.

1910 University Drive, Boise, ID 83725 Email address: [email protected]