Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-rnpqb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-31T23:14:53.486Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

DISTINGUISHING PERFECT SET PROPERTIES IN SEPARABLE METRIZABLE SPACES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

ANDREA MEDINI*
Affiliation:
KURT GÖDEL RESEARCH CENTER FOR MATHEMATICAL LOGIC UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA WÄHRINGER STRASSE 25 A-1090 WIEN, AUSTRIAE-mail: andrea.medini@univie.ac.atURL: http://www.logic.univie.ac.at/∼medinia2/

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 uncountable and for every uncountable YW there exists an uncountable collection consisting of uncountable subsets of Y with pairwise disjoint closures in 2ω. The following theorems hold.

  1. (1) There exists a subset of 2ω with the Grinzing property.

  2. (2) Assume MA + ¬CH. Then 2ω has the Grinzing property.

  3. (3) Assume CH. Then 2ω does not have the Grinzing property.

The first result was obtained by Miller using a theorem of Todorčević, and is needed in the proof of our main result.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Symbolic Logic 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Galvin, F. and Miller, A. W., γ-sets and other singular sets of real numbers. Topology and its Applications, vol. 17 (1984), no. 2, pp. 145155.Google Scholar
Jech, T., Set Theory, The third millennium edition, revised and expanded. Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003.Google Scholar
Judah, H. and Shelah, S., Killing Luzin and Sierpiński sets. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 120 (1994), no. 3, pp. 917920.Google Scholar
Kanamori, A., The Higher Infinite, second edition, Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2009.Google Scholar
Kechris, A. S., Classical Descriptive Set Theory. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 156, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medini, A. and Milovich, D., The topology of ultrafilters as subspaces of 2ω. Topology and its Applications, vol. 159 (2012), no. 5, pp. 13181333.Google Scholar
van Mill, J., Strong local homogeneity does not imply countable dense homogeneity. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 84 (1982), no. 1, pp. 143148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Mill, J., The infinite-dimensional topology of function spaces, North-Holland Mathematical Library, vol. 64, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2001.Google Scholar
Miller, A. W., On the length of Borel hierarchies. Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 16 (1979), no. 3, pp. 233267.Google Scholar
Miller, A. W., Mapping a set of reals onto the reals, this Journal, vol. 48 (1983), no. 3, pp. 575584.Google Scholar
Miller, A. W., Projective subsets of separable metric spaces. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 50 (1990), no. 1, pp. 5369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solecki, S., Covering analytic sets by families of closed sets, this Journal, vol. 59 (1994), no. 3, pp. 10221031.Google Scholar