Borel Hierarchy
$begingroup$
i'm in trouble with an exercise on Kechris, Classical Descriptive Set Theory. The Theorem 22.4 shows $Sigma_xi^0(X)neqPi_xi^0(X)$ for each ordinal $xilneqomega_1$ and uncountable polish space $X$, using the existence of universal sets. The following exercise is: Show that if X is an uncountable polish space and $lambda$ is a limit ordinal, then: $bigcup_{xilneqlambda}Sigma_xi^0(X)subsetneqDelta_lambda^0(X)$.
The inclusion is obvious. For the inequality, i would like to show that the set $A=bigcup_{ninomega}A_n$, with $A_n$ taken in $Sigma_{xi_n}^0(X)backslashPi_{xi_n}^0(X)$ and $xi_nlneqxi_{n+1}lneqdotslneqlambda$, is in $Delta_lambda^0(X)$ (clearly) but not in the first set. Is this a successfully way? Otherwise, what's the way?
general-topology set-theory descriptive-set-theory borel-sets
edited Jan 23 at 5:05
Nate Eldredge
64k682174
asked Jan 23 at 0:07
AjejeAjeje
415
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
i'm in trouble with an exercise on Kechris, Classical Descriptive Set Theory. The Theorem 22.4 shows $Sigma_xi^0(X)neqPi_xi^0(X)$ for each ordinal $xilneqomega_1$ and uncountable polish space $X$, using the existence of universal sets. The following exercise is: Show that if X is an uncountable polish space and $lambda$ is a limit ordinal, then: $bigcup_{xilneqlambda}Sigma_xi^0(X)subsetneqDelta_lambda^0(X)$.
The inclusion is obvious. For the inequality, i would like to show that the set $A=bigcup_{ninomega}A_n$, with $A_n$ taken in $Sigma_{xi_n}^0(X)backslashPi_{xi_n}^0(X)$ and $xi_nlneqxi_{n+1}lneqdotslneqlambda$, is in $Delta_lambda^0(X)$ (clearly) but not in the first set. Is this a successfully way? Otherwise, what's the way?
general-topology set-theory descriptive-set-theory borel-sets
edited Jan 23 at 5:05
Nate Eldredge
64k682174
asked Jan 23 at 0:07
AjejeAjeje
415
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I guess you mean to take the sequence $(xi_n)_{nin omega}$ to be cofinal in $lambda$? Then $A$ is in $Sigma^0_lambda$, but why should it be in $Delta^0_lambda$? That is, why is it in $Pi^0_lambda$? (You say this is clear, but I don't see it.)
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
Jan 23 at 0:44
$begingroup$
@NateEldredge Hmm... maybe I'm being dense here, but it seems like that observation only shows that $A$ is a union of sets in various $Pi^0_xi$ classes, so it's in $Sigma^0_lambda$. I'm asking why it's also in $Pi^0_lambda$.
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
Jan 23 at 3:56
$begingroup$
@AlexKruckman: Nope, it's me who's being dense. Thinking more carefully, I don't see how to prove it either. Sorry.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Jan 23 at 4:07
$begingroup$
The $xi_n$ are cofinal in $lambda$, so $A_ninSigma_{xi_n}^0subseteqPi_{xi_{n+1}}^0$ and $xi_{n+1}<lambda$. This was the idea for $AinDelta_lambda^0$. I'm wrong?
$endgroup$
– Ajeje
Jan 23 at 8:40
$begingroup$
@Ajeje: Yes, and $A$ is the countable union of the $A_n$, so that shows $A in mathbfSigma_lambda^0$. To get it to be in $mathbfDelta_lambda^0$, you have to also show it's in $mathbfPi_lambda^0$, and that means showing that $A^c$ can be written as a countable union of sets $B_n in mathbfSigma_{xi_n}^0$. I don't see how you can show that.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Jan 23 at 14:45
add a comment |
$begingroup$
i'm in trouble with an exercise on Kechris, Classical Descriptive Set Theory. The Theorem 22.4 shows $Sigma_xi^0(X)neqPi_xi^0(X)$ for each ordinal $xilneqomega_1$ and uncountable polish space $X$, using the existence of universal sets. The following exercise is: Show that if X is an uncountable polish space and $lambda$ is a limit ordinal, then: $bigcup_{xilneqlambda}Sigma_xi^0(X)subsetneqDelta_lambda^0(X)$.
The inclusion is obvious. For the inequality, i would like to show that the set $A=bigcup_{ninomega}A_n$, with $A_n$ taken in $Sigma_{xi_n}^0(X)backslashPi_{xi_n}^0(X)$ and $xi_nlneqxi_{n+1}lneqdotslneqlambda$, is in $Delta_lambda^0(X)$ (clearly) but not in the first set. Is this a successfully way? Otherwise, what's the way?
general-topology set-theory descriptive-set-theory borel-sets
edited Jan 23 at 5:05
Nate Eldredge
64k682174
asked Jan 23 at 0:07
AjejeAjeje
415
$endgroup$
i'm in trouble with an exercise on Kechris, Classical Descriptive Set Theory. The Theorem 22.4 shows $Sigma_xi^0(X)neqPi_xi^0(X)$ for each ordinal $xilneqomega_1$ and uncountable polish space $X$, using the existence of universal sets. The following exercise is: Show that if X is an uncountable polish space and $lambda$ is a limit ordinal, then: $bigcup_{xilneqlambda}Sigma_xi^0(X)subsetneqDelta_lambda^0(X)$.
The inclusion is obvious. For the inequality, i would like to show that the set $A=bigcup_{ninomega}A_n$, with $A_n$ taken in $Sigma_{xi_n}^0(X)backslashPi_{xi_n}^0(X)$ and $xi_nlneqxi_{n+1}lneqdotslneqlambda$, is in $Delta_lambda^0(X)$ (clearly) but not in the first set. Is this a successfully way? Otherwise, what's the way?
general-topology set-theory descriptive-set-theory borel-sets
general-topology set-theory descriptive-set-theory borel-sets
edited Jan 23 at 5:05
Nate Eldredge
64k682174
asked Jan 23 at 0:07
AjejeAjeje
415
edited Jan 23 at 5:05
Nate Eldredge
64k682174
asked Jan 23 at 0:07
AjejeAjeje
415
edited Jan 23 at 5:05
Nate Eldredge
64k682174
edited Jan 23 at 5:05
Nate Eldredge
64k682174
edited Jan 23 at 5:05
Nate Eldredge
64k682174
64k682174
asked Jan 23 at 0:07
AjejeAjeje
415
asked Jan 23 at 0:07
AjejeAjeje
415
asked Jan 23 at 0:07
AjejeAjeje
415
415
$begingroup$
I guess you mean to take the sequence $(xi_n)_{nin omega}$ to be cofinal in $lambda$? Then $A$ is in $Sigma^0_lambda$, but why should it be in $Delta^0_lambda$? That is, why is it in $Pi^0_lambda$? (You say this is clear, but I don't see it.)
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
Jan 23 at 0:44
$begingroup$
@NateEldredge Hmm... maybe I'm being dense here, but it seems like that observation only shows that $A$ is a union of sets in various $Pi^0_xi$ classes, so it's in $Sigma^0_lambda$. I'm asking why it's also in $Pi^0_lambda$.
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
Jan 23 at 3:56
$begingroup$
@AlexKruckman: Nope, it's me who's being dense. Thinking more carefully, I don't see how to prove it either. Sorry.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Jan 23 at 4:07
$begingroup$
The $xi_n$ are cofinal in $lambda$, so $A_ninSigma_{xi_n}^0subseteqPi_{xi_{n+1}}^0$ and $xi_{n+1}<lambda$. This was the idea for $AinDelta_lambda^0$. I'm wrong?
$endgroup$
– Ajeje
Jan 23 at 8:40
$begingroup$
@Ajeje: Yes, and $A$ is the countable union of the $A_n$, so that shows $A in mathbfSigma_lambda^0$. To get it to be in $mathbfDelta_lambda^0$, you have to also show it's in $mathbfPi_lambda^0$, and that means showing that $A^c$ can be written as a countable union of sets $B_n in mathbfSigma_{xi_n}^0$. I don't see how you can show that.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Jan 23 at 14:45
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I guess you mean to take the sequence $(xi_n)_{nin omega}$ to be cofinal in $lambda$? Then $A$ is in $Sigma^0_lambda$, but why should it be in $Delta^0_lambda$? That is, why is it in $Pi^0_lambda$? (You say this is clear, but I don't see it.)
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
Jan 23 at 0:44
$begingroup$
@NateEldredge Hmm... maybe I'm being dense here, but it seems like that observation only shows that $A$ is a union of sets in various $Pi^0_xi$ classes, so it's in $Sigma^0_lambda$. I'm asking why it's also in $Pi^0_lambda$.
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
Jan 23 at 3:56
$begingroup$
@AlexKruckman: Nope, it's me who's being dense. Thinking more carefully, I don't see how to prove it either. Sorry.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Jan 23 at 4:07
$begingroup$
The $xi_n$ are cofinal in $lambda$, so $A_ninSigma_{xi_n}^0subseteqPi_{xi_{n+1}}^0$ and $xi_{n+1}<lambda$. This was the idea for $AinDelta_lambda^0$. I'm wrong?
$endgroup$
– Ajeje
Jan 23 at 8:40
$begingroup$
@Ajeje: Yes, and $A$ is the countable union of the $A_n$, so that shows $A in mathbfSigma_lambda^0$. To get it to be in $mathbfDelta_lambda^0$, you have to also show it's in $mathbfPi_lambda^0$, and that means showing that $A^c$ can be written as a countable union of sets $B_n in mathbfSigma_{xi_n}^0$. I don't see how you can show that.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Jan 23 at 14:45
$begingroup$
I guess you mean to take the sequence $(xi_n)_{nin omega}$ to be cofinal in $lambda$? Then $A$ is in $Sigma^0_lambda$, but why should it be in $Delta^0_lambda$? That is, why is it in $Pi^0_lambda$? (You say this is clear, but I don't see it.)
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
Jan 23 at 0:44
$begingroup$
I guess you mean to take the sequence $(xi_n)_{nin omega}$ to be cofinal in $lambda$? Then $A$ is in $Sigma^0_lambda$, but why should it be in $Delta^0_lambda$? That is, why is it in $Pi^0_lambda$? (You say this is clear, but I don't see it.)
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
Jan 23 at 0:44
$begingroup$
@NateEldredge Hmm... maybe I'm being dense here, but it seems like that observation only shows that $A$ is a union of sets in various $Pi^0_xi$ classes, so it's in $Sigma^0_lambda$. I'm asking why it's also in $Pi^0_lambda$.
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
Jan 23 at 3:56
$begingroup$
@NateEldredge Hmm... maybe I'm being dense here, but it seems like that observation only shows that $A$ is a union of sets in various $Pi^0_xi$ classes, so it's in $Sigma^0_lambda$. I'm asking why it's also in $Pi^0_lambda$.
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
Jan 23 at 3:56
$begingroup$
@AlexKruckman: Nope, it's me who's being dense. Thinking more carefully, I don't see how to prove it either. Sorry.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Jan 23 at 4:07
$begingroup$
@AlexKruckman: Nope, it's me who's being dense. Thinking more carefully, I don't see how to prove it either. Sorry.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Jan 23 at 4:07
$begingroup$
The $xi_n$ are cofinal in $lambda$, so $A_ninSigma_{xi_n}^0subseteqPi_{xi_{n+1}}^0$ and $xi_{n+1}<lambda$. This was the idea for $AinDelta_lambda^0$. I'm wrong?
$endgroup$
– Ajeje
Jan 23 at 8:40
$begingroup$
The $xi_n$ are cofinal in $lambda$, so $A_ninSigma_{xi_n}^0subseteqPi_{xi_{n+1}}^0$ and $xi_{n+1}<lambda$. This was the idea for $AinDelta_lambda^0$. I'm wrong?
$endgroup$
– Ajeje
Jan 23 at 8:40
$begingroup$
@Ajeje: Yes, and $A$ is the countable union of the $A_n$, so that shows $A in mathbfSigma_lambda^0$. To get it to be in $mathbfDelta_lambda^0$, you have to also show it's in $mathbfPi_lambda^0$, and that means showing that $A^c$ can be written as a countable union of sets $B_n in mathbfSigma_{xi_n}^0$. I don't see how you can show that.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Jan 23 at 14:45
$begingroup$
@Ajeje: Yes, and $A$ is the countable union of the $A_n$, so that shows $A in mathbfSigma_lambda^0$. To get it to be in $mathbfDelta_lambda^0$, you have to also show it's in $mathbfPi_lambda^0$, and that means showing that $A^c$ can be written as a countable union of sets $B_n in mathbfSigma_{xi_n}^0$. I don't see how you can show that.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Jan 23 at 14:45
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Your idea doesn't quite work as is; you will have to be more careful in choosing the $A_n$. For instance, as written, it could happen that $xi_1 = 1$ and $A_1$ is an open ball, and all the remaining $A_n$ are contained inside $A_1$. Then $A$ is just $A_1$, which is certainly in $bigcup_{xi < lambda} mathbfSigma_xi^0(X)$.
Also, I am unclear how you prove that $A in mathbfPi_lambda^0(X)$ with your construction.
Here is a modification that will make it easier: "separate" the sets $A_n$. That is, choose a countable family $U_n$ of disjoint uncountable open subsets of $X$ (exercise: show that such a family exists), and let $A_n in mathbfPi_{xi_n}^0(U_n) setminus mathbfSigma_{xi_n}^0(U_n)$. Then letting $A = bigcup_n A_n$ as before, it is not too hard to show that $A in mathbf{Delta}_lambda^0(X)$. (Hint: $A^c = (bigcup_n U_n)^c cup bigcup_n (A_n^c cap U_n)$). However, if $A in mathbf{Sigma}_{xi_n}^0(X)$ for some $n$, then $A_n = A cap U_n in mathbfSigma_{xi_n}^0(U_n)$ which is a contradiction.
answered Jan 23 at 4:59
Nate EldredgeNate Eldredge
64k682174
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yes, my idea doesn't work, i was thinking of something similar to your solution. Is there an easier way to solve the problem? When I first read it, i thought it was an easy consequence of the previous theorem
$endgroup$
– Ajeje
Jan 24 at 23:21
$begingroup$
This seems relatively easy to me, and I don't see anything particularly easier. You need to construct a set $A$ that has at least as much "complexity" as each of the sets that make it up. If they can interact with each other, it can all fall apart, and this sort of separation seems to me like the most natural way to prevent that.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Jan 24 at 23:33
$begingroup$
@Ajeje: If you want to be a little more concrete, you can assume without loss of generality that $X$ is Cantor space, and it is clear that $X$ contains countably many disjoint (clopen) copies of Cantor space.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Jan 24 at 23:36
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3083906%2fborel-hierarchy%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Your idea doesn't quite work as is; you will have to be more careful in choosing the $A_n$. For instance, as written, it could happen that $xi_1 = 1$ and $A_1$ is an open ball, and all the remaining $A_n$ are contained inside $A_1$. Then $A$ is just $A_1$, which is certainly in $bigcup_{xi < lambda} mathbfSigma_xi^0(X)$.
Also, I am unclear how you prove that $A in mathbfPi_lambda^0(X)$ with your construction.
Here is a modification that will make it easier: "separate" the sets $A_n$. That is, choose a countable family $U_n$ of disjoint uncountable open subsets of $X$ (exercise: show that such a family exists), and let $A_n in mathbfPi_{xi_n}^0(U_n) setminus mathbfSigma_{xi_n}^0(U_n)$. Then letting $A = bigcup_n A_n$ as before, it is not too hard to show that $A in mathbf{Delta}_lambda^0(X)$. (Hint: $A^c = (bigcup_n U_n)^c cup bigcup_n (A_n^c cap U_n)$). However, if $A in mathbf{Sigma}_{xi_n}^0(X)$ for some $n$, then $A_n = A cap U_n in mathbfSigma_{xi_n}^0(U_n)$ which is a contradiction.
answered Jan 23 at 4:59
Nate EldredgeNate Eldredge
64k682174
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yes, my idea doesn't work, i was thinking of something similar to your solution. Is there an easier way to solve the problem? When I first read it, i thought it was an easy consequence of the previous theorem
$endgroup$
– Ajeje
Jan 24 at 23:21
$begingroup$
This seems relatively easy to me, and I don't see anything particularly easier. You need to construct a set $A$ that has at least as much "complexity" as each of the sets that make it up. If they can interact with each other, it can all fall apart, and this sort of separation seems to me like the most natural way to prevent that.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Jan 24 at 23:33
$begingroup$
@Ajeje: If you want to be a little more concrete, you can assume without loss of generality that $X$ is Cantor space, and it is clear that $X$ contains countably many disjoint (clopen) copies of Cantor space.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Jan 24 at 23:36
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Your idea doesn't quite work as is; you will have to be more careful in choosing the $A_n$. For instance, as written, it could happen that $xi_1 = 1$ and $A_1$ is an open ball, and all the remaining $A_n$ are contained inside $A_1$. Then $A$ is just $A_1$, which is certainly in $bigcup_{xi < lambda} mathbfSigma_xi^0(X)$.
Also, I am unclear how you prove that $A in mathbfPi_lambda^0(X)$ with your construction.
Here is a modification that will make it easier: "separate" the sets $A_n$. That is, choose a countable family $U_n$ of disjoint uncountable open subsets of $X$ (exercise: show that such a family exists), and let $A_n in mathbfPi_{xi_n}^0(U_n) setminus mathbfSigma_{xi_n}^0(U_n)$. Then letting $A = bigcup_n A_n$ as before, it is not too hard to show that $A in mathbf{Delta}_lambda^0(X)$. (Hint: $A^c = (bigcup_n U_n)^c cup bigcup_n (A_n^c cap U_n)$). However, if $A in mathbf{Sigma}_{xi_n}^0(X)$ for some $n$, then $A_n = A cap U_n in mathbfSigma_{xi_n}^0(U_n)$ which is a contradiction.
answered Jan 23 at 4:59
Nate EldredgeNate Eldredge
64k682174
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yes, my idea doesn't work, i was thinking of something similar to your solution. Is there an easier way to solve the problem? When I first read it, i thought it was an easy consequence of the previous theorem
$endgroup$
– Ajeje
Jan 24 at 23:21
$begingroup$
This seems relatively easy to me, and I don't see anything particularly easier. You need to construct a set $A$ that has at least as much "complexity" as each of the sets that make it up. If they can interact with each other, it can all fall apart, and this sort of separation seems to me like the most natural way to prevent that.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Jan 24 at 23:33
$begingroup$
@Ajeje: If you want to be a little more concrete, you can assume without loss of generality that $X$ is Cantor space, and it is clear that $X$ contains countably many disjoint (clopen) copies of Cantor space.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Jan 24 at 23:36
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Your idea doesn't quite work as is; you will have to be more careful in choosing the $A_n$. For instance, as written, it could happen that $xi_1 = 1$ and $A_1$ is an open ball, and all the remaining $A_n$ are contained inside $A_1$. Then $A$ is just $A_1$, which is certainly in $bigcup_{xi < lambda} mathbfSigma_xi^0(X)$.
Also, I am unclear how you prove that $A in mathbfPi_lambda^0(X)$ with your construction.
Here is a modification that will make it easier: "separate" the sets $A_n$. That is, choose a countable family $U_n$ of disjoint uncountable open subsets of $X$ (exercise: show that such a family exists), and let $A_n in mathbfPi_{xi_n}^0(U_n) setminus mathbfSigma_{xi_n}^0(U_n)$. Then letting $A = bigcup_n A_n$ as before, it is not too hard to show that $A in mathbf{Delta}_lambda^0(X)$. (Hint: $A^c = (bigcup_n U_n)^c cup bigcup_n (A_n^c cap U_n)$). However, if $A in mathbf{Sigma}_{xi_n}^0(X)$ for some $n$, then $A_n = A cap U_n in mathbfSigma_{xi_n}^0(U_n)$ which is a contradiction.
answered Jan 23 at 4:59
Nate EldredgeNate Eldredge
64k682174
$endgroup$
Your idea doesn't quite work as is; you will have to be more careful in choosing the $A_n$. For instance, as written, it could happen that $xi_1 = 1$ and $A_1$ is an open ball, and all the remaining $A_n$ are contained inside $A_1$. Then $A$ is just $A_1$, which is certainly in $bigcup_{xi < lambda} mathbfSigma_xi^0(X)$.
Also, I am unclear how you prove that $A in mathbfPi_lambda^0(X)$ with your construction.
Here is a modification that will make it easier: "separate" the sets $A_n$. That is, choose a countable family $U_n$ of disjoint uncountable open subsets of $X$ (exercise: show that such a family exists), and let $A_n in mathbfPi_{xi_n}^0(U_n) setminus mathbfSigma_{xi_n}^0(U_n)$. Then letting $A = bigcup_n A_n$ as before, it is not too hard to show that $A in mathbf{Delta}_lambda^0(X)$. (Hint: $A^c = (bigcup_n U_n)^c cup bigcup_n (A_n^c cap U_n)$). However, if $A in mathbf{Sigma}_{xi_n}^0(X)$ for some $n$, then $A_n = A cap U_n in mathbfSigma_{xi_n}^0(U_n)$ which is a contradiction.
answered Jan 23 at 4:59
Nate EldredgeNate Eldredge
64k682174
edited Jan 23 at 14:51
answered Jan 23 at 4:59
Nate EldredgeNate Eldredge
64k682174
answered Jan 23 at 4:59
Nate EldredgeNate Eldredge
64k682174
answered Jan 23 at 4:59
Nate EldredgeNate Eldredge
64k682174
64k682174
$begingroup$
Yes, my idea doesn't work, i was thinking of something similar to your solution. Is there an easier way to solve the problem? When I first read it, i thought it was an easy consequence of the previous theorem
$endgroup$
– Ajeje
Jan 24 at 23:21
$begingroup$
This seems relatively easy to me, and I don't see anything particularly easier. You need to construct a set $A$ that has at least as much "complexity" as each of the sets that make it up. If they can interact with each other, it can all fall apart, and this sort of separation seems to me like the most natural way to prevent that.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Jan 24 at 23:33
$begingroup$
@Ajeje: If you want to be a little more concrete, you can assume without loss of generality that $X$ is Cantor space, and it is clear that $X$ contains countably many disjoint (clopen) copies of Cantor space.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Jan 24 at 23:36
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, my idea doesn't work, i was thinking of something similar to your solution. Is there an easier way to solve the problem? When I first read it, i thought it was an easy consequence of the previous theorem
$endgroup$
– Ajeje
Jan 24 at 23:21
$begingroup$
This seems relatively easy to me, and I don't see anything particularly easier. You need to construct a set $A$ that has at least as much "complexity" as each of the sets that make it up. If they can interact with each other, it can all fall apart, and this sort of separation seems to me like the most natural way to prevent that.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Jan 24 at 23:33
$begingroup$
@Ajeje: If you want to be a little more concrete, you can assume without loss of generality that $X$ is Cantor space, and it is clear that $X$ contains countably many disjoint (clopen) copies of Cantor space.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Jan 24 at 23:36
$begingroup$
Yes, my idea doesn't work, i was thinking of something similar to your solution. Is there an easier way to solve the problem? When I first read it, i thought it was an easy consequence of the previous theorem
$endgroup$
– Ajeje
Jan 24 at 23:21
$begingroup$
Yes, my idea doesn't work, i was thinking of something similar to your solution. Is there an easier way to solve the problem? When I first read it, i thought it was an easy consequence of the previous theorem
$endgroup$
– Ajeje
Jan 24 at 23:21
$begingroup$
This seems relatively easy to me, and I don't see anything particularly easier. You need to construct a set $A$ that has at least as much "complexity" as each of the sets that make it up. If they can interact with each other, it can all fall apart, and this sort of separation seems to me like the most natural way to prevent that.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Jan 24 at 23:33
$begingroup$
This seems relatively easy to me, and I don't see anything particularly easier. You need to construct a set $A$ that has at least as much "complexity" as each of the sets that make it up. If they can interact with each other, it can all fall apart, and this sort of separation seems to me like the most natural way to prevent that.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Jan 24 at 23:33
$begingroup$
@Ajeje: If you want to be a little more concrete, you can assume without loss of generality that $X$ is Cantor space, and it is clear that $X$ contains countably many disjoint (clopen) copies of Cantor space.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Jan 24 at 23:36
$begingroup$
@Ajeje: If you want to be a little more concrete, you can assume without loss of generality that $X$ is Cantor space, and it is clear that $X$ contains countably many disjoint (clopen) copies of Cantor space.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Jan 24 at 23:36
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3083906%2fborel-hierarchy%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
I guess you mean to take the sequence $(xi_n)_{nin omega}$ to be cofinal in $lambda$? Then $A$ is in $Sigma^0_lambda$, but why should it be in $Delta^0_lambda$? That is, why is it in $Pi^0_lambda$? (You say this is clear, but I don't see it.)
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
Jan 23 at 0:44
$begingroup$
@NateEldredge Hmm... maybe I'm being dense here, but it seems like that observation only shows that $A$ is a union of sets in various $Pi^0_xi$ classes, so it's in $Sigma^0_lambda$. I'm asking why it's also in $Pi^0_lambda$.
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
Jan 23 at 3:56
$begingroup$
@AlexKruckman: Nope, it's me who's being dense. Thinking more carefully, I don't see how to prove it either. Sorry.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Jan 23 at 4:07
$begingroup$
The $xi_n$ are cofinal in $lambda$, so $A_ninSigma_{xi_n}^0subseteqPi_{xi_{n+1}}^0$ and $xi_{n+1}<lambda$. This was the idea for $AinDelta_lambda^0$. I'm wrong?
$endgroup$
– Ajeje
Jan 23 at 8:40
$begingroup$
@Ajeje: Yes, and $A$ is the countable union of the $A_n$, so that shows $A in mathbfSigma_lambda^0$. To get it to be in $mathbfDelta_lambda^0$, you have to also show it's in $mathbfPi_lambda^0$, and that means showing that $A^c$ can be written as a countable union of sets $B_n in mathbfSigma_{xi_n}^0$. I don't see how you can show that.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Jan 23 at 14:45