Representing Projective Sets as Unions of Borel Sets
نویسندگان
چکیده
We consider a method of representing projective sets by a particular type of union of Borel sets, assuming AD. We prove a generalization of the theorem that a set is S^ iff it is the union of a>x Borel sets. The Axiom of Determinacy (AD) is always assumed. Theorem 1 (Sierpinski, Solovay, Moschovakis [8, 7D.10]). Let A c com. A is Ej iff A is the union of cox Borel sets. The purpose of this paper is to generalize Theorem 1 to higher levels of the projective hierarchy. The pointclass of 2^ sets is closed under well-ordered unions (Kechris, Solovay, and Steel [6, 2.4.1]), so clearly the higher level projective sets cannot be represented as a well-ordered union of Borel sets. But they will be represented by a special kind of union which characterizes the pointclass 2d2n+2 ■ Let X denote a projective ordinal. Let px denote the supercompact measure on PWl(X) which is defined in Becker [1]. (Woodin [9] has shown that px is, in fact, the only supercompact measure on PW] (X).) We assume familiarity with the basic facts about px, all of which can be found in Becker [1]. We also assume familiarity with the theory of projective sets, under AD, as presented in Moschovakis [8]. Let 3§ denote the class of Borel subsets of cow . Definition. Let A c cow, and let F : Pw¡ (X) —> 3§ . F is called a X-representation of A if for any set 5e c PWi (X) such that Px(^) = 1, A = u F(S). We say that A is X-representable if there exists a A-representation of A . Proposition 2. Let A c cou>. (a) Let F : PW](X) —> 3S . F is a X-representation of A iff both of the following properties hold. (i) For all S £ P(ûl(X),F(S) c A. (ii) For all x £ co03, if x £ A, then for px-a.e. S,x £ F(S). (b) A is unrepresentable iff A is the union of cox Borel sets. (c) A is oi-representable iff A is Borel. Proof, (b) poj^-a.e. set in PW](cox) is an initial segment of cox. D Received by the editors May 27, 1993. 1991 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 03E15, 03E60. Partially supported by National Science Foundation Grant DMS-9206922. © 1995 American Mathematical Society 0002-9939/95 $1.00+ $.25 per page
منابع مشابه
New directions in descriptive set theory
§1. I will start with a quick definition of descriptive set theory: It is the study of the structure of definable sets and functions in separable completely metrizable spaces. Such spaces are usually called Polish spaces. Typical examples are Rn, Cn, (separable) Hilbert space and more generally all separable Banach spaces, the Cantor space 2N, the Baire space NN, the infinite symmetric group S∞...
متن کاملExpansions of the real field by open sets: definability versus interpretability
An open U ⊆ R is produced such that (R,+, ·, U) defines a Borel isomorph of (R, +, ·, N) but does not define N. It follows that (R,+, ·, U) defines sets in every level of the projective hierarchy but does not define all projective sets. This result is elaborated in various ways that involve geometric measure theory and working over o-minimal expansions of (R,+, · ). In particular, there is a Ca...
متن کاملThe hierarchy of ω 1 - Borel sets 1 The hierarchy of ω 1 - Borel sets Arnold
We consider the ω1-Borel subsets of the reals in models of ZFC. This is the smallest family of sets containing the open subsets of the 2 and closed under ω1 intersections and ω1 unions. We show that Martin’s Axiom implies that the hierarchy of ω1-Borel sets has length ω2. We prove that in the Cohen real model the length of this hierarchy is at least ω1 but no more than ω1 + 1. Some authors have...
متن کاملGenerating Borel Sets by Balls
It is proved that an arbitrary infinite-dimensional Banach space with basis admits an equivalent norm such that any Borel set can be obtained from balls by taking complements and countable disjoint unions. For reflexive spaces, the new norm can be chosen arbitrarily close to the initial norm.
متن کاملOn Borel equivalence relations in generalized Baire space
We construct two Borel equivalence relations on the generalized Baire space κ, κ = κ > ω, with the property that neither of them is Borel reducible to the other. A small modification of the construction shows that the straightforward generalization of the Glimm-Effros dichotomy fails. By λ we denote the set of all functions κ→ λ. We define a topology to (λ) by letting the sets N(η1...,ηn) = {(f...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2010