DOCSLIB.ORG

The Journal of Symbolic Logic AXIOM I 0 and HIGHER DEGREE

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Journal of Symbolic Logic AXIOM I 0 and HIGHER DEGREE The Journal of Symbolic Logic http://journals.cambridge.org/JSL Additional services for The Journal of Symbolic Logic: Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here AXIOM I 0 AND HIGHER DEGREE THEORY XIANGHUI SHI The Journal of Symbolic Logic / Volume 80 / Issue 03 / September 2015, pp 970 - 1021 DOI: 10.1017/jsl.2015.15, Published online: 22 July 2015 Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0022481215000158 How to cite this article: XIANGHUI SHI (2015). AXIOM I 0 AND HIGHER DEGREE THEORY. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 80, pp 970-1021 doi:10.1017/jsl.2015.15 Request Permissions : Click here Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/JSL, by Username: ASLXShi, IP address: 212.93.9.222 on 23 Jul 2015 The Journal of Symbolic Logic Volume 80, Number 3, September 2015 AXIOM I0 AND HIGHER DEGREE THEORY XIANGHUI SHI Abstract. In this paper, we analyze structures of Zermelo degrees via a list of four degree theoretic questions (see §2) in various fine structure extender models, or under large cardinal assumptions. In particular we give a detailed analysis of the structures of Zermelo degrees in the Mitchell model for many measurable cardinals. It turns out that there is a profound correlation between the complexity of the degree structures at countable cofinality singular cardinals and the large cardinal strength of the relevant cardinals. The analysis applies to general degree notions, Zermelo degree is merely the author’s choice for illustrating the idea. I0pq is the assertion that there is an elementary embedding j : LpV`1qÑLpV`1q with critical point ă . We show that under I0pq, the structure of Zermelo degrees at is very complicated: it has incomparable degrees, is not dense, satisfies Posner–Robinson theorem etc. In addition, we show that I0 together with a mild condition on the critical point of the embedding implies that the degree determinacy for Zermelo degrees at is false in LpV`1q. The key tool in this paper is a generic absoluteness theorem in the theory of I0, from which we obtain an analogue of Perfect Set Theorem for “projective” subsets of V`1, and the Posner–Robinson follows as a corollary. Perfect Set Theorem and Posner–Robinson provide evidences supporting the analogy between AD over LpRq and I0 over LpV`1q, while the failure of degree determinacy is one for disanalogy. Furthermore, we conjecture that the failure of degree determinacy for Zermelo degrees at any uncountable cardinal is a theorem of ZFC. §1. Introduction. At a given uncountable cardinal α, one can define the degree of Δ1-reducibility for subsets of α in analogy to Turing degree for subsets of . This is so called α-degree (see [33] and [8]). In [8], Sy Friedman showed that if “ ℵ α is a singular cardinal of uncountable cardinality, in particular, α 1 , then the α-degrees in L are well ordered above any singularizing degrees (degrees that can compute a sequence cofinal in α). Very little is known about the case cfpαq“,and very little attention has been given to degree structures in inner models other than L. In this paper we will investigate the structures of generalized definability degrees at singular cardinals of countable cofinality and their connection with large cardinal hypotheses. To make our points, we only work with strong limit cardinals1 and focus our attention on the structure of Zermelo degrees. Received November 9, 2013. Key words and phrases. Axiom I0, Prikry type forcing, generic absoluteness, -Perfect Set Theorem, Posner–Robinson Theorem, degree determinacy, indestructibly supercompact, higher degree theory, Covering Lemma During this project, the author has been supported by NSFC (No. 11171031), SRF for ROCS of SEM (No. 105213006), RFDP, and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. 2014KJJCB20). 1In this paper, we focus on canonical models which are all GCH models, thus working with strong limit cardinals does not lose anything essential. c 2015, Association for Symbolic Logic 0022-4812/15/8003-0011 DOI:10.1017/jsl.2015.15 970 AXIOM I0 AND HIGHER DEGREE THEORY 971 By comparing the structures of Zermelo degrees in canonical models for various large cardinals, we discover that at strong limit cardinals of countable cofinality there is a much more interesting and more profound connection between the complexity of the degree structures and the large cardinal strength that the canonical model carries. 1.1. Post problem and minimal cover problem in L-like models. Suppose is a strong limit cardinal of countable cofinality. Fix a Ă coding a wellordering of H “ta | the transitive closure of a has size ă u of ordertype .LetMpxq be the inner model operator assigning to each x Ď the smallest Zermelo model containing x and .Fora, b Ď , define a ď b iff MpaqĎMpbq. The induced equivalence classes are called Zermelo degrees. Write a to denote the Zermelo degree r of a.Wesaya is a singularizing degree if there is a cofinal subset of of ordertype r cfpq in a. r First, Woodin observed that in V “ L, the structure of Zermelo degrees at ℵ is ℵ thesameasat 1 (see Corollary on page 8): Theorem 1.1 (See §2.2.1). Assume V “ L. Zermelo degrees at every singular cardinal of countable cofinality are well ordered above every singularizing degree. The pictures (at all singular cardinals) remain the same – all well ordered above singularizing degrees – in larger fine structure models such as Lr07s andevenupto Lrs (see Theorem 2.10), the canonical inner model for one measurable. Until in Lr¯s, the Mitchell model for an -sequence of measurable cardinals, a new picture start to emerge: letting be the supremum of these many measurable cardinals, the Zermelo degrees at are not well ordered above singularizing degrees. Theorem 1.2 (See §2.2.3). Assume V “ Lr¯s. There are incomparable degrees in the Zermelo degree structure at above the degree of ¯, viewing it as a subset of . Therefore we have a positive answer to Post problem (i.e., there are incomparable degrees, see page 976 for more details) in this setting. Though not well ordered, the Zermelo degree structure at in Lr¯s is still rather nice – it is dense above the degree of ¯, and there is a natural prewellorder structure over the Zermelo degrees above thedegreeof¯ (see Theorem 2.13-(2)). For two degrees a ď b, b is a minimal cover of a if there is no degrees c strictly in r r r r r between a and b. A recent work ([51]) shows that assuming stronger large cardinals r r one can find minimal covers (unboundedly often) in the structures of Zermelo degrees, therefore the structures of Zermelo degrees in this situation are not dense. More precisely, Theorem 1.3 (Yang [51]). Suppose xκn : n ă y is an increasing sequence of measurable cardinals such that each κn`1 carries κn different normal measures, n P , “ U and supn κn.Let denote this matrix of normal measures, and let W be any subset of that codes xV, P,,tκi | i ă u, Uy,where Ă and codes a well ordering of V of ordertype . Then there is a minimal cover for the Zermelo degree of W . 1.2. Posner–Robinson Theorem, degree determinacy and Axiom I0. Besides Post problem and minimal cover problem, we also look into other classical results from classical recursion theory—Posner–Robinson Theorem and Turing determinacy— in the context of our generalized degree structures. In L and Lr¯s, answers to these 972 XIANGHUI SHI two questions are negative. It is not known whether Posner–Robinson is true in an inner model for the above situation. To obtain the Posner–Robinson phenomena at a countable cofinality singular cardinal, we climbed much further up the large cardinal hierarchy. Axiom I0 asserts that for some , there is an elementary embedding j : LpV`1qÑLpV`1q with critpjqă. Here critpjq denotes the critical point of j. We often say “I0 holds at ”orwrite I0pq to make this explicit. This j is called an I0pq-embedding. I0 is among the large cardinals by far not known to be inconsistent with ZFC. For two degrees a, b, r r let a _ b denote the least upper bound of a and b in the degree poset, and Jpaq be r r r r r the Zermelo degree of the theory (as a subset of ) of the smallest Zermelo model containing a (and the fixed wellordering ). Theorem 1.4 (See §5). Assume I holds at . Then for every Zermelo degree a 0 r at , for almost every Zermelo degree b above a (only ď many exceptions), the r r ´ ¯ Posner–Robinson equation for b has a solution, i.e. Dg b _ g “ Jpgq . r r r r r We proved this result as an easy corollary of the analog of Perfect Set Property for “projective” subsets of V`1. Theorem 1.5 (-Perfect Set Theorem for projective sets, see §4). Assume I0pq. If X Ď V`1 is definable (with parameters) in pV`1, Pq and |X |ą,thenX contains a -perfect set (see §3.5 for definitions). Axiom I0 was first formulated and investigated by Woodin in early 80s (see [47, 49] and [17]-§24), and was used to prove the relative consistency of Axiom of Determinacy (AD). In his recent monographs [48–50], the theory of I0 is extensively studied in connection with the notion of ultimate L. It turns out that structural properties of subsets of V`1 in LpV`1q under ZFC ` I0 have strong resemblance to those of R in LpRq under ZF ` DC ` AD.Theabove-Perfect Set Theorem and Posner–Robinson Theorem support this resemblance.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Regularity Properties and Determinacy
    Regularity Properties and Determinacy MSc Thesis (Afstudeerscriptie) written by Yurii Khomskii (born September 5, 1980 in Moscow, Russia) under the supervision of Dr. Benedikt L¨owe, and submitted to the Board of Examiners in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MSc in Logic at the Universiteit van Amsterdam. Date of the public defense: Members of the Thesis Committee: August 14, 2007 Dr. Benedikt L¨owe Prof. Dr. Jouko V¨a¨an¨anen Prof. Dr. Joel David Hamkins Prof. Dr. Peter van Emde Boas Brian Semmes i Contents 0. Introduction............................ 1 1. Preliminaries ........................... 4 1.1 Notation. ........................... 4 1.2 The Real Numbers. ...................... 5 1.3 Trees. ............................. 6 1.4 The Forcing Notions. ..................... 7 2. ClasswiseConsequencesofDeterminacy . 11 2.1 Regularity Properties. .................... 11 2.2 Infinite Games. ........................ 14 2.3 Classwise Implications. .................... 16 3. The Marczewski-Burstin Algebra and the Baire Property . 20 3.1 MB and BP. ......................... 20 3.2 Fusion Sequences. ...................... 23 3.3 Counter-examples. ...................... 26 4. DeterminacyandtheBaireProperty.. 29 4.1 Generalized MB-algebras. .................. 29 4.2 Determinacy and BP(P). ................... 31 4.3 Determinacy and wBP(P). .................. 34 5. Determinacy andAsymmetric Properties. 39 5.1 The Asymmetric Properties. ................. 39 5.2 The General Definition of Asym(P). ............. 43 5.3 Determinacy and Asym(P). ................. 46 ii iii 0. Introduction One of the most intriguing developments of modern set theory is the investi- gation of two-player infinite games of perfect information. Of course, it is clear that applied game theory, as any other branch of mathematics, can be modeled in set theory. But we are talking about the converse: the use of infinite games as a tool to study fundamental set theoretic questions.
    [Show full text]
  • Dropping Polishness
    Dropping Polishness Andrea Medini Kurt Gödel Research Center University of Vienna March 6, 2015 Andrea Medini Dropping Polishness How do we “generalize” descriptive set theory? Recall that a space is Polish if it is separable and completely metrizable. I can think of three ways... 1 Dropping separability: the prototypical space is κω, where κ has the discrete topology. It is completely metrizable, but not necessarily separable. (Ask Sergey Medvedev...) 2 Dropping everything: the prototypical space is κκ with the <κ-box-topology, where κ has the discrete topology and it satisfies κ<κ = κ. (Ask Sy Friedman...) 3 Dropping Polishness: consider questions of “descriptive set-theoretic flavor” in spaces that are separable and metrizable, but not necessarily completely metrizable. (Ask Arnie Miller...) From now on, we will assume that every space is separable and metrizable, but not necessarily Polish. Andrea Medini Dropping Polishness How do you define complexity then? Γ will always be one of the following (boldface) pointclasses. 0 0 Σξ or Πξ , where ξ is an ordinal such that 1 ≤ ξ < ω1 (these are the Borel pointclasses). 1 1 Σn or Πn, where n is an ordinal such that 1 ≤ n < ω (these are the projective pointclasses). We will assume that the definition of a Γ subset of a Polish space is well-known, and recall that it can be generalized to arbitrary spaces as follows. Definition Fix a pointclass Γ. Let X be a space. We will say that A ⊆ X is a Γ subset of X if there exists a Polish space T containing X as a subspace such that A = B ∩ X for some Γ subset B of T .
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Descriptive Set Theory
    Effective Descriptive Set Theory Andrew Marks December 14, 2019 1 1 These notes introduce the effective (lightface) Borel, Σ1 and Π1 sets. This study uses ideas and tools from descriptive set theory and computability theory. Our central motivation is in applications of the effective theory to theorems of classical (boldface) descriptive set theory, especially techniques which have no classical analogues. These notes have many errors and are very incomplete. Some important topics not covered include: • The Harrington-Shore-Slaman theorem [HSS] which implies many of the theorems of Section 3. • Steel forcing (see [BD, N, Mo, St78]) • Nonstandard model arguments • Barwise compactness, Jensen's model existence theorem • α-recursion theory • Recent beautiful work of the \French School": Debs, Saint-Raymond, Lecompte, Louveau, etc. These notes are from a class I taught in spring 2019. Thanks to Adam Day, Thomas Gilton, Kirill Gura, Alexander Kastner, Alexander Kechris, Derek Levinson, Antonio Montalb´an,Dean Menezes and Riley Thornton, for helpful conversations and comments on earlier versions of these notes. 1 Contents 1 1 1 1 Characterizing Σ1, ∆1, and Π1 sets 4 1 1.1 Σn formulas, closure properties, and universal sets . .4 1.2 Boldface vs lightface sets and relativization . .5 1 1.3 Normal forms for Σ1 formulas . .5 1.4 Ranking trees and Spector boundedness . .7 1 1.5 ∆1 = effectively Borel . .9 1.6 Computable ordinals, hyperarithmetic sets . 11 1 1.7 ∆1 = hyperarithmetic . 14 x 1 1.8 The hyperjump, !1 , and the analogy between c.e. and Π1 .... 15 2 Basic tools 18 2.1 Existence proofs via completeness results .
    [Show full text]
  • NONMEASURABLE ALGEBRAIC SUMS of SETS of REALS Sierpinski Showed in [14] That There Exist Two Sets X, Y ⊆ R of Lebesgue Measure
    NONMEASURABLE ALGEBRAIC SUMS OF SETS OF REALS MARCIN KYSIAK Abstract. We present a theorem which generalizes some known theorems on the existence of nonmeasurable (in various senses) sets of the form X+Y . Some additional related questions concerning measure, category and the algebra of Borel sets are also studied. Sierpi´nskishowed in [14] that there exist two sets X; Y ⊆ R of Lebesgue measure zero such that their algebraic sum, i.e. the set X + Y = fx + y : x 2 X; y 2 Y g is nonmeasurable. The analogous result is also true for the Baire property. Sierpi´nski’sconstruction has been generalized to other σ-algebras and σ-ideals of subsets of R. Kharazishvili proves in [10] that for every σ-ideal I which is not closed under algebraic sums and every σ-algebra A such that the quotient algebra A=I satisfies the countable chain condition, there exist sets X; Y 2 I such that X + Y 62 A. A similar result was proved by Cicho´nand Jasi´nskiin [3] for every σ-ideal I with coanalytic base and the algebra Bor[I] (i.e. the smallest algebra containing I and Bor). Ciesielski, Fejzi´cand Freiling prove in [4] a stronger version of Sierpi´nski’sthe- orem. They show that for every set C ⊆ R such that C + C has positive outer measure there exists X ⊆ C such that X + X is not Lebesgue measurable. In particular, starting with such a set C of measure zero (the “middle third” Cantor set in [0; 1] for example), we obtain Sierpi´nski’sexample as a corollary.
    [Show full text]
  • The Continuum Hypothesis, the Axiom of Choice, and Lebesgue Measurability
    The Continuum Hypothesis, the Axiom of Choice, and Lebesgue Measurability Chris Lambie-Hanson CMU Graduate Student Seminar 11 October 2011 1 For all x 2 S, x ≤ x. 2 For all x; y 2 S, if x ≤ y and y ≤ x, then x = y. 3 For all x; y; z 2 S, if x ≤ y and y ≤ z, then x ≤ z. 4 For all x; y 2 S, x ≤ y or y ≤ x. A linear order ≤ on a set S is a well-order if, for every nonempty X ⊆ S, there is a ≤-least element in X , i.e. there is x 2 X such that, for all y 2 X , x ≤ y. Definitions If S is a set, then a linear order on S is a binary relation ≤ such that 2 For all x; y 2 S, if x ≤ y and y ≤ x, then x = y. 3 For all x; y; z 2 S, if x ≤ y and y ≤ z, then x ≤ z. 4 For all x; y 2 S, x ≤ y or y ≤ x. A linear order ≤ on a set S is a well-order if, for every nonempty X ⊆ S, there is a ≤-least element in X , i.e. there is x 2 X such that, for all y 2 X , x ≤ y. Definitions If S is a set, then a linear order on S is a binary relation ≤ such that 1 For all x 2 S, x ≤ x. 3 For all x; y; z 2 S, if x ≤ y and y ≤ z, then x ≤ z. 4 For all x; y 2 S, x ≤ y or y ≤ x.
    [Show full text]
  • Paul B. Larson a BRIEF HISTORY of DETERMINACY §1. Introduction
    Paul B. Larson A BRIEF HISTORY OF DETERMINACY x1. Introduction. Determinacy axioms are statements to the effect that certain games are determined, in that each player in the game has an optimal strategy. The commonly accepted axioms for mathematics, the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms with the Axiom of Choice (ZFC; see [??, ??]), im- ply the determinacy of many games that people actually play. This applies in particular to many games of perfect information, games in which the players alternate moves which are known to both players, and the out- come of the game depends only on this list of moves, and not on chance or other external factors. Games of perfect information which must end in finitely many moves are determined. This follows from the work of Ernst Zermelo [??], D´enesK}onig[??] and L´aszl´oK´almar[??], and also from the independent work of John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern (in their 1944 book, reprinted as [??]). As pointed out by Stanis law Ulam [??], determinacy for games of perfect information of a fixed finite length is essentially a theorem of logic. If we let x1,y1,x2,y2,::: ,xn,yn be variables standing for the moves made by players player I (who plays x1,::: ,xn) and player II (who plays y1,::: ,yn), and A (consisting of sequences of length 2n) is the set of runs of the game for which player I wins, the statement (1) 9x18y1 ::: 9xn8ynhx1; y1; : : : ; xn; yni 2 A essentially asserts that the first player has a winning strategy in the game, and its negation, (2) 8x19y1 ::: 8xn9ynhx1; y1; : : : ; xn; yni 62 A essentially asserts that the second player has a winning strategy.1 We let ! denote the set of natural numbers 0; 1; 2;::: ; for brevity we will often refer to the members of this set as \integers".
    [Show full text]
  • Generalized Descriptive Set Theory Under I0
    Generalized descriptive set theory under I0 Vincenzo Dimonte December 13, 2018 Joint work with Luca Motto Ros and Xianghui Shi 1 / 36 . Or, doing generalized descriptive set theory with singular cardinals instead of regular ones. Inspiration (Kechris) \Descriptive set theory is the study of definable sets in Polish spa- ces", and of their regularity properties. Classical case Polish spaces: separable completely metrizable spaces, e.g. the Cantor space !2 and the Baire space !!. Definable subsets: Borel sets, analytic sets, projective sets... Regularity properties: Perfect set property (PSP), Baire property, Lebesgue measurability. Objective The study of definable subsets of non-separable spaces with singular uncountable weight 2 / 36 . Inspiration (Kechris) \Descriptive set theory is the study of definable sets in Polish spa- ces", and of their regularity properties. Classical case Polish spaces: separable completely metrizable spaces, e.g. the Cantor space !2 and the Baire space !!. Definable subsets: Borel sets, analytic sets, projective sets... Regularity properties: Perfect set property (PSP), Baire property, Lebesgue measurability. Objective The study of definable subsets of non-separable spaces with singular uncountable weight. Or, doing generalized descriptive set theory with singular cardinals instead of regular ones 2 / 36 . Classical case Polish spaces: separable completely metrizable spaces, e.g. the Cantor space !2 and the Baire space !!. Definable subsets: Borel sets, analytic sets, projective sets... Regularity properties: Perfect set property (PSP), Baire property, Lebesgue measurability. Objective The study of definable subsets of non-separable spaces with singular uncountable weight. Or, doing generalized descriptive set theory with singular cardinals instead of regular ones. Inspiration (Kechris) \Descriptive set theory is the study of definable sets in Polish spa- ces", and of their regularity properties 2 / 36 .
    [Show full text]
  • The Cantor Game: Winning Strategies and Determinacy
    THE CANTOR GAME: WINNING STRATEGIES AND DETERMINACY by MAGNUS D. LADUE arXiv:1701.09087v1 [math.CA] 29 Jan 2017 0. Abstract In [1] Grossman and Turett define the Cantor game. In [2] Matt Baker proves several results about the Cantor game and poses three challenging questions about it: Do there exist uncountable subsets of [0; 1] for which: (1) Alice does not have a winning strategy; (2) Bob has a winning strategy; (3) neither Alice nor Bob has a winning strategy? In this paper we show that the answers to these questions depend upon which axioms of set theory are assumed. Specifically, if we assume the Axiom of Determinacy in addition to the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms, then the answer to all three questions is \no." If instead we assume the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms together with the Axiom of Choice, then the answer to questions 1 and 3 is \yes," and the answer to question 2 is likely to be \no." Author's Note: This paper was my entry in the 2017 Regeneron Science Talent Search. It earned a Top 300 Scholar Award as well as Research Report and Student Initiative badges. 1 Figure 1. A play of the Cantor game. Player A wins if a 2 S. 1. Introduction In their paper [1] Grossman and Turett define the Cantor game. In [2] Matt Baker proves several results about the Cantor game and poses several challenging questions about it. The Cantor game is an infinite game played on the real line by two players, A (Alice) and B (Bob). Let a0 and b0 be fixed real numbers such that a0 < b0, and in the interval [a0; b0] fix a subset S, which we call the target set.
    [Show full text]
  • The Axiom of Determinacy
    Virginia Commonwealth University VCU Scholars Compass Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 2010 The Axiom of Determinacy Samantha Stanton Virginia Commonwealth University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd Part of the Physical Sciences and Mathematics Commons © The Author Downloaded from https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd/2189 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at VCU Scholars Compass. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of VCU Scholars Compass. For more information, please contact [email protected]. College of Humanities and Sciences Virginia Commonwealth University This is to certify that the thesis prepared by Samantha Stanton titled “The Axiom of Determinacy” has been approved by his or her committee as satisfactory completion of the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Science. Dr. Andrew Lewis, College of Humanities and Sciences Dr. Lon Mitchell, College of Humanities and Sciences Dr. Robert Gowdy, College of Humanities and Sciences Dr. John Berglund, Graduate Chair, Mathematics and Applied Mathematics Dr. Robert Holsworth, Dean, College of Humanities and Sciences Dr. F. Douglas Boudinot, Graduate Dean Date © Samantha Stanton 2010 All Rights Reserved The Axiom of Determinacy A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science at Virginia Commonwealth University. by Samantha Stanton Master of Science Director: Dr. Andrew Lewis, Associate Professor, Department Chair Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics Virginia Commonwealth University Richmond, Virginia May 2010 ii Acknowledgment I am most appreciative of Dr. Andrew Lewis. I would like to thank him for his support, patience, and understanding through this entire process.
    [Show full text]
  • INFINITE DIMENSIONAL PERFECT SET THEOREMS 1. Introduction the Perfect Set Theorem Says That an Analytic Subset of a Polish Space
    TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 365, Number 1, January 2013, Pages 23–58 S 0002-9947(2012)05468-7 Article electronically published on June 8, 2012 INFINITE DIMENSIONAL PERFECT SET THEOREMS TAMAS´ MATRAI´ Abstract. What largeness and structural assumptions on A ⊆ [R]ω can guar- antee the existence of a non-empty perfect set P ⊆ R such that [P ]ω ⊆ A? Such a set P is called A-homogeneous. We show that even if A is open, in general it is independent of ZFC whether for a cardinal κ, the existence of an A-homogeneous set H ∈ [R]κ implies the existence of a non-empty perfect A-homogeneous set. On the other hand, we prove an infinite dimensional analogue of Mycielski’s Theorem: if A is large in the sense of a suitable Baire category-like notion, then there exists a non-empty perfect A-homogeneous set. We introduce fusion games to prove this and other infinite dimensional perfect set theorems. Finally we apply this theory to show that it is independent of ZFC whether Tukey reductions of the maximal analytic cofinal type can be witnessed by definable Tukey maps. 1. Introduction The Perfect Set Theorem says that an analytic subset of a Polish space is either countable or has a non-empty perfect subset (see e.g. [11, Theorem 29.1, p. 226]). The complexity assumption in this result is consistently optimal: in L there exists 1 an uncountable Π1 set without non-empty perfect subsets (see e.g. [9, Corollary 25.37]). However, one is often obliged to quest for a perfect set which satisfies multidi- mensional relations.
    [Show full text]
  • Distinguishing Perfect Set Properties in Separable Metrizable Spaces
    DISTINGUISHING PERFECT SET PROPERTIES IN SEPARABLE METRIZABLE SPACES ANDREA MEDINI Abstract. All spaces are assumed to be separable and metrizable. Our main result is that the statement “For every space X, every closed subset of X has the perfect set property if and only if every analytic subset of X has the perfect set property” is equivalent to b > ω1 (hence, in particular, it is independent of ZFC). This, together with a theorem of Solecki and an example of Miller, will allow us to determine the status of the statement “For every space X, if every Γ subset of X has the perfect set property then every Γ′ subset of X has the perfect set property” as Γ, Γ′ range over all pointclasses of complexity at most analytic or coanalytic. Along the way, we define and investigate a property of independent interest. We will say that a subset W of 2ω has the Grinzing property if it is uncount- able and for every uncountable Y ⊆ W there exists an uncountable collection consisting of uncountable subsets of Y with pairwise disjoint closures in 2ω. The following theorems hold. (1) There exists a subset of 2ω with the Grinzing property. (2) Assume MA + ¬CH. Then 2ω has the Grinzing property. (3) Assume CH. Then 2ω does not have the Grinzing property. The first result was obtained by Miller using a theorem of Todorˇcevi´c, and is needed in the proof of our main result. All spaces are assumed to be separable and metrizable, but not necessarily Polish. See Section 1 for notation and terminology.
    [Show full text]
  • Perfect Set Property
    Perfect set property Perfect set property Michal Stasˇ Department of Mathematics and Theoretical Informatics Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Informatics, TU in Kosiceˇ 3. februar 2011 Hejnice Perfect set property Problem Does hold true PSP in the theory ZF + wAC + LM + BP? wAC LM wCH AD PSP ¬BS ¬AC BP wAC: Weak Axiom of Choice PSP: every uncount. set of R contains a perfect set AC: Axiom of Choice LM: every set of R is Lebesgue measurable AD: Axiom of Determinacy BP: every set of R possesss the Baire property BS:thereexistsaBernsteinset wCH: there is no set X such that ℵ0 < |X| <c Perfect set property Problem Does hold true PSP in the theory ZF + wAC + LM + BP? wAC LM wCH AD PSP ¬BS ¬AC BP wAC: Weak Axiom of Choice PSP: every uncount. set of R contains a perfect set AC: Axiom of Choice LM: every set of R is Lebesgue measurable AD: Axiom of Determinacy BP: every set of R possesss the Baire property BS:thereexistsaBernsteinset wCH: there is no set X such that ℵ0 < |X| <c Perfect set property Useful notions: The Weak Axiom of Choice wAC says that for any countable family of non-empty subsets of a given set ℵ of power 2 0 there exists a choice function. A subset A is called a Marczewski null set or (S)0-set if every perfect set P ⊆ X has a perfect subset Q which misses A. In ZF + wAC we can verify that the class of all (S)0-sets is a σ-ideal. A subset of a perfect Polish space X is called a totally imperfect if it contains no perfect subset.
    [Show full text]