DOCSLIB.ORG

A Course on Borel Sets.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Course on Borel Sets.Pdf A Course on Borel Sets S.M. Srivastava Springer Acknowledgments I am grateful to many people who have suggested improvements in the original manuscript for this book. In particular I would like to thank S. C. Bagchi, R. Barua, S. Gangopadhyay (n´ee Bhattacharya), J. K. Ghosh, M. G. Nadkarni, and B. V. Rao. My deepest feelings of gratitude and ap- preciation are reserved for H. Sarbadhikari who very patiently read several versions of this book and helped in all possible ways to bring the book to its present form. It is a pleasure to record my appreciation for A. Maitra who showed the beauty and power of Borel sets to a generation of Indian mathematicians including me. I also thank him for his suggestions during the planning stage of the book. I thank P. Bandyopadhyay who helped me immensely to sort out all the LATEX problems. Thanks are also due to R. Kar for preparing the LATEX files for the illustrations in the book. I am indebted to S. B. Rao, Director of the Indian Statistical Institute for extending excellent moral and material support. All my colleagues in the Stat – Math Unit also lent a much needed and invaluable moral support during the long and difficult period that the book was written. I thank them all. I take this opportunity to express my sincere feelings of gratitude to my children, Rosy and Ravi, for their great understanding of the task I took onto myself. What they missed during the period the book was written will be known to only the three of us. Finally, I pay homage to my late wife, Kiran who really understood what mathematics meant to me. S. M. Srivastava Contents Acknowledgments vii Introduction xi About This Book xv 1 Cardinal and Ordinal Numbers 1 1.1 Countable Sets ......................... 1 1.2 Order of Infinity ........................ 4 1.3 The Axiom of Choice ...................... 7 1.4 More on Equinumerosity .................... 11 1.5 Arithmetic of Cardinal Numbers ............... 13 1.6 Well-Ordered Sets ....................... 15 1.7 Transfinite Induction ...................... 18 1.8 Ordinal Numbers ........................ 21 1.9 Alephs .............................. 24 1.10 Trees ............................... 26 1.11 Induction on Trees ....................... 29 1.12 The Souslin Operation ..................... 31 1.13 Idempotence of the Souslin Operation ............ 34 2 Topological Preliminaries 39 2.1 Metric Spaces .......................... 39 2.2 Polish Spaces .......................... 52 2.3 Compact Metric Spaces .................... 57 2.4 More Examples ......................... 63 x Contents 2.5 The Baire Category Theorem ................. 69 2.6 Transfer Theorems ....................... 74 3Standard Borel Spaces 81 3.1 Measurable Sets and Functions ................ 81 3.2 Borel-Generated Topologies .................. 91 3.3 The Borel Isomorphism Theorem ............... 94 3.4 Measures ............................ 100 3.5 Category ............................. 107 3.6 Borel Pointclasses ........................ 115 4 Analytic and Coanalytic Sets 127 4.1 Projective Sets ......................... 127 1 1 4.2 Σ1 and Π1 Complete Sets ................... 135 4.3 Regularity Properties ...................... 141 4.4 The First Separation Theorem ................ 147 4.5 One-to-One Borel Functions .................. 150 4.6 The Generalized First Separation Theorem ......... 155 4.7 Borel Sets with Compact Sections .............. 157 4.8 Polish Groups .......................... 160 4.9 Reduction Theorems ...................... 164 4.10 Choquet Capacitability Theorem ............... 172 4.11 The Second Separation Theorem ............... 175 4.12 Countable-to-One Borel Functions .............. 178 5 Selection and Uniformization Theorems 183 5.1 Preliminaries .......................... 184 5.2 Kuratowski and Ryll-Nardzewski’s Theorem ......... 189 5.3 Dubins – Savage Selection Theorems ............. 194 5.4 Partitions into Closed Sets ................... 195 5.5 Von Neumann’s Theorem ................... 198 5.6 A Selection Theorem for Group Actions ........... 200 5.7 Borel Sets with Small Sections ................ 204 5.8 Borel Sets with Large Sections ................ 206 5.9 Partitions into Gδ Sets ..................... 212 5.10 Reflection Phenomenon .................... 216 5.11 Complementation in Borel Structures ............. 218 5.12 Borel Sets with σ-Compact Sections ............. 219 5.13 Topological Vaught Conjecture ................ 227 5.14 Uniformizing Coanalytic Sets ................. 236 References 241 Glossary 251 Index 253 Introduction The roots of Borel sets go back to the work of Baire [8]. He was trying to come to grips with the abstract notion of a function introduced by Dirich- let and Riemann. According to them, a function was to be an arbitrary correspondence between objects without giving any method or procedure by which the correspondence could be established. Since all the specific functions that one studied were determined by simple analytic expressions, Baire delineated those functions that can be constructed starting from con- tinuous functions and iterating the operation of pointwise limit on a se- quence of functions. These functions are now known as Baire functions. Lebesgue [65] and Borel [19] continued this work. In [19], Borel sets were defined for the first time. In his paper, Lebesgue made a systematic study of Baire functions and introduced many tools and techniques that are used even today. Among other results, he showed that Borel functions coincide with Baire functions. The study of Borel sets got an impetus from an error in Lebesgue’s paper, which was spotted by Souslin. Lebesgue was trying to prove the following: Suppose f : R2 −→ R is a Baire function such that for every x, the equation f(x, y)=0 has a unique solution. Then y as a function of x defined by the above equation is Baire. The wrong step in the proof was hidden in a lemma stating that a set of real numbers that is the projection of a Borel set in the plane is Borel. (Lebesgue left this as a trivial fact!) Souslin called the projection of a Borel set analytic because such a set can be constructed using analytical operations of union and intersection on intervals. He showed that there are xii Introduction analytic sets that are not Borel. Immediately after this, Souslin [111] and Lusin [67] made a deep study of analytic sets and established most of the basic results about them. Their results showed that analytic sets are of fundamental importance to the theory of Borel sets and give it its power. For instance, Souslin proved that Borel sets are precisely those analytic sets whose complements are also analytic. Lusin showed that the image of a Borel set under a one-to-one Borel map is Borel. It follows that Lebesgue’s thoerem—though not the proof—was indeed true. Around the same time Alexandrov was working on the continuum hy- pothesis of Cantor: Every uncountable set of real numbers is in one-to-one correspondence with the real line. Alexandrov showed that every uncount- able Borel set of reals is in one-to-one correspondence with the real line [2]. In other words, a Borel set cannot be a counterexample to the continuum hypothesis. Unfortunately, Souslin died in 1919. The work on this new-found topic was continued by Lusin and his students in Moscow and by Sierpi´nskiand his collaborators in Warsaw. The next important step was the introduction of projective sets by Lusin [68], [69], [70] and Sierpi´nski[105] in 1925: A set is called projective if it can be constructed starting with Borel sets and iterating the operations of projection and complementation. Since Borel sets as well as projective sets are sets that can be described using simple sets like intervals and simple set operations, their theory came to be known as descriptive set theory. It was clear from the beginning that the theory of projective sets was riddled with problems that did not seem to admit simple solutions. As it turned out, logicians did show later that most of the regularity properties of projective sets, e.g., whether they satisfy the continuum hypothesis or not or whether they are Lebesgue measurable and have the property of Baire or not, are independent of the axioms of classical set theory. Just as Alexandrov was trying to determine the status of the continuum hypothesis within Borel sets, Lusin [71] considered the status of the axiom of choice within “Borel families.” He raised a very fundamental and difficult question on Borel sets that enriched its theory significantly. Let B be a subset of the plane. A subset C of B uniformizes B if it is the graph of a function such that its projection on the line is the same as that of B. (See Figure 1.) Lusin asked, When does a Borel set B in the plane admit a Borel uni- formization? By Lusin’s theorem stated earlier, if B admits a Borel uni- formization, its projection to the line must be Borel. In [16] Blackwell [16] showed that this condition is not sufficient. Several authors considered this problem and gave sufficient conditions under which Lusin’s question has a positive answer. For instance, a Borel set admits a Borel uniformization if the sections of B are countable (Lusin [71]) or compact (Novikov [90]) or σ-compact (Arsenin [3] and Kunugui [60]) or nonmeager (Kechris [52] and Sarbadhikari [100]). Even today these results are ranked among the Introduction xiii B Y C X Figure 1. Uniformization finest results on Borel sets. For the uniformization of Borel sets in general, the most important result proved before the war is due to Von Neumann [124]: For every Borel subset B of the square [0, 1] × [0, 1], there is a null set N and a Borel function f :[0, 1] \ N −→ [0, 1] whose graph is contained in B. As expected, this result has found important applications in several branches of mathematics. So far we have mainly been giving an account of the theory developed before the war; i.e., up to 1940. Then for some time there was a lull, not only in the theory of Borel sets, but in the whole of descriptive set theory.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Descriptive Set Theory of Complete Quasi-Metric Spaces
    数理解析研究所講究録 第 1790 巻 2012 年 16-30 16 Descriptive set theory of complete quasi-metric spaces Matthew de Brecht National Institute of Information and Communications Technology Kyoto, Japan Abstract We give a summary of results from our investigation into extending classical descriptive set theory to the entire class of countably based $T_{0}$ -spaces. Polish spaces play a central role in the descriptive set theory of metrizable spaces, and we suggest that countably based completely quasi-metrizable spaces, which we refer to as quasi-Polish spaces, play the central role in the extended theory. The class of quasi-Polish spaces is general enough to include both Polish spaces and $\omega$ -continuous domains, which have many applications in theoretical computer science. We show that quasi-Polish spaces are a very natural generalization of Polish spaces in terms of their topological characterizations and their complete- ness properties. In particular, a metrizable space is quasi-Polish if and only if it is Polish, and many classical theorems concerning Polish spaces, such as the Hausdorff-Kuratowski theorem, generalize to all quasi-Polish spaces. 1. Introduction Descriptive set theory has proven to be an invaluable tool for the study of separable metrizable spaces, and the techniques and results have been applied to many fields such as functional analysis, topological group theory, and math- ematical logic. Separable completely metrizable spaces, called Polish spaces, play a central role in classical descriptive set theory. These spaces include the space of natural numbers with the discrete topology, the real numbers with the Euclidean topology, as well as the separable Hilbert and Banach spaces.
    [Show full text]
  • Set Theory, Including the Axiom of Choice) Plus the Negation of CH
    ANNALS OF ~,IATltEMATICAL LOGIC - Volume 2, No. 2 (1970) pp. 143--178 INTERNAL COHEN EXTENSIONS D.A.MARTIN and R.M.SOLOVAY ;Tte RockeJ~'ller University and University (.~t CatiJbrnia. Berkeley Received 2 l)ecemt)er 1969 Introduction Cohen [ !, 2] has shown that tile continuum hypothesis (CH) cannot be proved in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. Levy and Solovay [9] have subsequently shown that CH cannot be proved even if one assumes the existence of a measurable cardinal. Their argument in tact shows that no large cardinal axiom of the kind present;y being considered by set theorists can yield a proof of CH (or of its negation, of course). Indeed, many set theorists - including the authors - suspect that C1t is false. But if we reject CH we admit Gurselves to be in a state of ignorance about a great many questions which CH resolves. While CH is a power- full assertion, its negation is in many ways quite weak. Sierpinski [ 1 5 ] deduces propcsitions there called C l - C82 from CH. We know of none of these propositions which is decided by the negation of CH and only one of them (C78) which is decided if one assumes in addition that a measurable cardinal exists. Among the many simple questions easily decided by CH and which cannot be decided in ZF (Zerme!o-Fraenkel set theory, including the axiom of choice) plus the negation of CH are tile following: Is every set of real numbers of cardinality less than tha't of the continuum of Lebesgue measure zero'? Is 2 ~0 < 2 ~ 1 ? Is there a non-trivial measure defined on all sets of real numbers? CIhis third question could be decided in ZF + not CH only in the unlikely event t Tile second author received support from a Sloan Foundation fellowship and tile National Science Foundation Grant (GP-8746).
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture Notes
    MEASURE THEORY AND STOCHASTIC PROCESSES Lecture Notes José Melo, Susana Cruz Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto Programa Doutoral em Engenharia Electrotécnica e de Computadores March 2011 Contents 1 Probability Space3 1 Sample space Ω .....................................4 2 σ-eld F .........................................4 3 Probability Measure P .................................6 3.1 Measure µ ....................................6 3.2 Probability Measure P .............................7 4 Learning Objectives..................................7 5 Appendix........................................8 2 Chapter 1 Probability Space Let's consider the experience of throwing a dart on a circular target with radius r (assuming the dart always hits the target), divided in 4 dierent areas as illustrated in Figure 1.1. 4 3 2 1 Figure 1.1: Circular Target The circles that bound the regions 1, 2, 3, and 4, have radius of, respectively, r , r , 3r , and . 4 2 4 r Therefore, the probability that a dart lands in each region is: 1 , 3 , 5 , P (1) = 16 P (2) = 16 P (3) = 16 7 . P (4) = 16 For this kind of problems, the theory of discrete probability spaces suces. However, when it comes to problems involving either an innitely repeated operation or an innitely ne op- eration, this mathematical framework does not apply. This motivates the introduction of a measure-theoretic probability approach to correctly describe those cases. We dene the proba- bility space (Ω; F;P ), where Ω is the sample space, F is the event space, and P is the probability 3 measure. Each of them will be described in the following subsections. 1 Sample space Ω The sample space Ω is the set of all the possible results or outcomes ! of an experiment or observation.
    [Show full text]
  • Topology and Descriptive Set Theory
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector TOPOLOGY AND ITS APPLICATIONS ELSEVIER Topology and its Applications 58 (1994) 195-222 Topology and descriptive set theory Alexander S. Kechris ’ Department of Mathematics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA Received 28 March 1994 Abstract This paper consists essentially of the text of a series of four lectures given by the author in the Summer Conference on General Topology and Applications, Amsterdam, August 1994. Instead of attempting to give a general survey of the interrelationships between the two subjects mentioned in the title, which would be an enormous and hopeless task, we chose to illustrate them in a specific context, that of the study of Bore1 actions of Polish groups and Bore1 equivalence relations. This is a rapidly growing area of research of much current interest, which has interesting connections not only with topology and set theory (which are emphasized here), but also to ergodic theory, group representations, operator algebras and logic (particularly model theory and recursion theory). There are four parts, corresponding roughly to each one of the lectures. The first contains a brief review of some fundamental facts from descriptive set theory. In the second we discuss Polish groups, and in the third the basic theory of their Bore1 actions. The last part concentrates on Bore1 equivalence relations. The exposition is essentially self-contained, but proofs, when included at all, are often given in the barest outline. Keywords: Polish spaces; Bore1 sets; Analytic sets; Polish groups; Bore1 actions; Bore1 equivalence relations 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Borel Structure in Groups and Their Dualso
    BOREL STRUCTURE IN GROUPS AND THEIR DUALSO GEORGE W. MACKEY Introduction. In the past decade or so much work has been done toward extending the classical theory of finite dimensional representations of com- pact groups to a theory of (not necessarily finite dimensional) unitary repre- sentations of locally compact groups. Among the obstacles interfering with various aspects of this program is the lack of a suitable natural topology in the "dual object"; that is in the set of equivalence classes of irreducible representations. One can introduce natural topologies but none of them seem to have reasonable properties except in extremely special cases. When the group is abelian for example the dual object itself is a locally compact abelian group. This paper is based on the observation that for certain purposes one can dispense with a topology in the dual object in favor of a "weaker struc- ture" and that there is a wide class of groups for which this weaker structure has very regular properties. If .S is any topological space one defines a Borel (or Baire) subset of 5 to be a member of the smallest family of subsets of 5 which includes the open sets and is closed with respect to the formation of complements and countable unions. The structure defined in 5 by its Borel sets we may call the Borel structure of 5. It is weaker than the topological structure in the sense that any one-to-one transformation of S onto 5 which preserves the topological structure also preserves the Borel structure whereas the converse is usually false.
    [Show full text]
  • Polish Spaces and Baire Spaces
    Polish spaces and Baire spaces Jordan Bell [email protected] Department of Mathematics, University of Toronto June 27, 2014 1 Introduction These notes consist of me working through those parts of the first chapter of Alexander S. Kechris, Classical Descriptive Set Theory, that I think are impor- tant in analysis. Denote by N the set of positive integers. I do not talk about universal spaces like the Cantor space 2N, the Baire space NN, and the Hilbert cube [0; 1]N, or \localization", or about Polish groups. If (X; τ) is a topological space, the Borel σ-algebra of X, denoted by BX , is the smallest σ-algebra of subsets of X that contains τ. BX contains τ, and is closed under complements and countable unions, and rather than talking merely about Borel sets (elements of the Borel σ-algebra), we can be more specific by talking about open sets, closed sets, and sets that are obtained by taking countable unions and complements. Definition 1. An Fσ set is a countable union of closed sets. A Gδ set is a complement of an Fσ set. Equivalently, it is a countable intersection of open sets. If (X; d) is a metric space, the topology induced by the metric d is the topology generated by the collection of open balls. If (X; τ) is a topological space, a metric d on the set X is said to be compatible with τ if τ is the topology induced by d.A metrizable space is a topological space whose topology is induced by some metric, and a completely metrizable space is a topological space whose topology is induced by some complete metric.
    [Show full text]
  • STAT 571 Assignment 1 Solutions 1. If Ω Is a Set and C a Collection Of
    STAT 571 Assignment 1 solutions 1. If Ω is a set and a collection of subsets of Ω, let be the intersection of all σ-algebras that contain . ProveC that is the σ-algebra generatedA by . C A C Solution: Let α α A be the collection of all σ-algebras that contain , and fA j 2 g C set = α. We first show that is a σ-algebra. There are three things to A \ A A α A prove. 2 (a) For every α A, α is a σ-algebra, so Ω α, and hence Ω α A α = . 2 A 2 A 2 \ 2 A A (b) If B , then B α for every α A. Since α is a σ-algebra, we have c 2 A 2 A 2 A c B α. But this is true for every α A, so we have B . 2 A 2 2 A (c) If B1;B2;::: are sets in , then B1;B2;::: belong to α for each α A. A A 2 Since α is a σ-algebra, we have 1 Bn α. But this is true for every A [n=1 2 A α A, so we have 1 Bn . 2 [n=1 2 A Thus is a σ-algebra that contains , and it must be the smallest one since α for everyA α A. C A ⊆ A 2 2. Prove that the set of rational numbers Q is a Borel set in R. Solution: For every x R, the set x is the complement of an open set, and hence Borel.
    [Show full text]
  • (Measure Theory for Dummies) UWEE Technical Report Number UWEETR-2006-0008
    A Measure Theory Tutorial (Measure Theory for Dummies) Maya R. Gupta {gupta}@ee.washington.edu Dept of EE, University of Washington Seattle WA, 98195-2500 UWEE Technical Report Number UWEETR-2006-0008 May 2006 Department of Electrical Engineering University of Washington Box 352500 Seattle, Washington 98195-2500 PHN: (206) 543-2150 FAX: (206) 543-3842 URL: http://www.ee.washington.edu A Measure Theory Tutorial (Measure Theory for Dummies) Maya R. Gupta {gupta}@ee.washington.edu Dept of EE, University of Washington Seattle WA, 98195-2500 University of Washington, Dept. of EE, UWEETR-2006-0008 May 2006 Abstract This tutorial is an informal introduction to measure theory for people who are interested in reading papers that use measure theory. The tutorial assumes one has had at least a year of college-level calculus, some graduate level exposure to random processes, and familiarity with terms like “closed” and “open.” The focus is on the terms and ideas relevant to applied probability and information theory. There are no proofs and no exercises. Measure theory is a bit like grammar, many people communicate clearly without worrying about all the details, but the details do exist and for good reasons. There are a number of great texts that do measure theory justice. This is not one of them. Rather this is a hack way to get the basic ideas down so you can read through research papers and follow what’s going on. Hopefully, you’ll get curious and excited enough about the details to check out some of the references for a deeper understanding.
    [Show full text]
  • Probability Measures on Metric Spaces
    Probability measures on metric spaces Onno van Gaans These are some loose notes supporting the first sessions of the seminar Stochastic Evolution Equations organized by Dr. Jan van Neerven at the Delft University of Technology during Winter 2002/2003. They contain less information than the common textbooks on the topic of the title. Their purpose is to present a brief selection of the theory that provides a basis for later study of stochastic evolution equations in Banach spaces. The notes aim at an audience that feels more at ease in analysis than in probability theory. The main focus is on Prokhorov's theorem, which serves both as an important tool for future use and as an illustration of techniques that play a role in the theory. The field of measures on topological spaces has the luxury of several excellent textbooks. The main source that has been used to prepare these notes is the book by Parthasarathy [6]. A clear exposition is also available in one of Bour- baki's volumes [2] and in [9, Section 3.2]. The theory on the Prokhorov metric is taken from Billingsley [1]. The additional references for standard facts on general measure theory and general topology have been Halmos [4] and Kelley [5]. Contents 1 Borel sets 2 2 Borel probability measures 3 3 Weak convergence of measures 6 4 The Prokhorov metric 9 5 Prokhorov's theorem 13 6 Riesz representation theorem 18 7 Riesz representation for non-compact spaces 21 8 Integrable functions on metric spaces 24 9 More properties of the space of probability measures 26 1 The distribution of a random variable in a Banach space X will be a probability measure on X.
    [Show full text]
  • Descriptive Set Theory
    Descriptive Set Theory David Marker Fall 2002 Contents I Classical Descriptive Set Theory 2 1 Polish Spaces 2 2 Borel Sets 14 3 E®ective Descriptive Set Theory: The Arithmetic Hierarchy 27 4 Analytic Sets 34 5 Coanalytic Sets 43 6 Determinacy 54 7 Hyperarithmetic Sets 62 II Borel Equivalence Relations 73 1 8 ¦1-Equivalence Relations 73 9 Tame Borel Equivalence Relations 82 10 Countable Borel Equivalence Relations 87 11 Hyper¯nite Equivalence Relations 92 1 These are informal notes for a course in Descriptive Set Theory given at the University of Illinois at Chicago in Fall 2002. While I hope to give a fairly broad survey of the subject we will be concentrating on problems about group actions, particularly those motivated by Vaught's conjecture. Kechris' Classical Descriptive Set Theory is the main reference for these notes. Notation: If A is a set, A<! is the set of all ¯nite sequences from A. Suppose <! σ = (a0; : : : ; am) 2 A and b 2 A. Then σ b is the sequence (a0; : : : ; am; b). We let ; denote the empty sequence. If σ 2 A<!, then jσj is the length of σ. If f : N ! A, then fjn is the sequence (f(0); : : :b; f(n ¡ 1)). If X is any set, P(X), the power set of X is the set of all subsets X. If X is a metric space, x 2 X and ² > 0, then B²(x) = fy 2 X : d(x; y) < ²g is the open ball of radius ² around x. Part I Classical Descriptive Set Theory 1 Polish Spaces De¯nition 1.1 Let X be a topological space.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 2 the Borel Σ-Algebra
    MA40042 Measure Theory and Integration • A set K ⊂ Rd is compact if every open cover of K has a finite subcover. That is, if K can be `covered' by a (not necessarily countable) union of open sets [ d Lecture 2 K ⊂ Gα;Gα ⊂ R open for all α 2 I; The Borel σ-algebra α2I then there exists a finite subset fα1; : : : ; αN g ⊂ I that also covers K, N [ K ⊂ G : • Review of open, closed, αn n=1 and compact sets in Rd • The Borel σ-algebra on Rd Checking whether a set is compact under this definition can be difficult, but is made much easier by the following theorem (which we won't prove here). • Intervals and boxes in Rd Theorem 2.2 (Heine{Borel theorem). A set K ⊂ Rd is compact if and only if it is closed and bounded. For countable sets X, the powerset P(X) is a useful σ-algebra. But in larger d sets, such as R or R , the full powerset is often too big for interesting measures to Bounded here means that K ⊂ B(x; r) for some x 2 Rd and some r 2 (0; 1). exist, such as the Lebesgue length/area/volume measure. (We'll see a example of this later in the course.) d d 2.2 B( ) On R or R a useful σ-algebra is the Borel σ-algebra. The benefits of the Borel R σ-algebra are: Fix d, and write G, F, and K for, respectively, the collection of open, closed, and compact sets in d.
    [Show full text]
  • Descriptive Set Theory and the Ergodic Theory of Countable Groups
    DESCRIPTIVE SET THEORY AND THE ERGODIC THEORY OF COUNTABLE GROUPS Thesis by Robin Daniel Tucker-Drob In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California 2013 (Defended April 17, 2013) ii c 2013 Robin Daniel Tucker-Drob All Rights Reserved iii Acknowledgements I would like to thank my advisor Alexander Kechris for his invaluable guidance and support, for his generous feedback, and for many (many!) discussions. In addition I would like to thank Miklos Abert,´ Lewis Bowen, Clinton Conley, Darren Creutz, Ilijas Farah, Adrian Ioana, David Kerr, Andrew Marks, Benjamin Miller, Jesse Peterson, Ernest Schimmerling, Miodrag Sokic, Simon Thomas, Asger Tornquist,¨ Todor Tsankov, Anush Tserunyan, and Benjy Weiss for many valuable conversations over the past few years. iv Abstract The primary focus of this thesis is on the interplay of descriptive set theory and the ergodic theory of group actions. This incorporates the study of turbulence and Borel re- ducibility on the one hand, and the theory of orbit equivalence and weak equivalence on the other. Chapter 2 is joint work with Clinton Conley and Alexander Kechris; we study measurable graph combinatorial invariants of group actions and employ the ultraproduct construction as a way of constructing various measure preserving actions with desirable properties. Chapter 3 is joint work with Lewis Bowen; we study the property MD of resid- ually finite groups, and we prove a conjecture of Kechris by showing that under general hypotheses property MD is inherited by a group from one of its co-amenable subgroups. Chapter 4 is a study of weak equivalence.
    [Show full text]