Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:32:30.473Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The topological Vaught's conjecture and minimal counterexamples

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Howard Becker
Howard Becker*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208, E-mail: becker@cs.scarolina.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Let G be a Polish topological group, let X be a Polish space, let J: G × X → X be a Borel-measurable action of G on X, and let A ⊂ X be a Borel set which is invariant with respect to J, i.e., a Borel set of orbits. The following statement, or various equivalent versions of it, is known as the Topological Vaught's Conjecture.

Let (G, X, J, A) be as above. Either A contains only countably many orbits, or else, A contains perfectly many orbits.

We say that A contains perfectly many orbits if there is a perfect set P ⊂ A such that no two elements of P are in the same orbit. (Assuming ¬CH, A contains perfectly many orbits iff it contains 2ℵ0 orbits.) The Topological Vaught's Conjecture implies the usual, model theoretic, Vaught's Conjecture for Lω1ω, since the isomorphism classes are the orbits of an action of the group of permutations of ω; we give details in §0. The “Borel” assumption cannot be weakened for either A or J.

Given a Borel-measurable Polish action (G,X,J) and an invariant Borel set B ⊂ X, we say that B is a minimal counterexample if (G,X,J,B) is a counterexample to the Topological Vaught's Conjecture and for every invariant Borel C ⊂ B, either C or B\C contains only countably many orbits. This paper is concerned with counterexamples to the Topological Vaught's Conjecture (of course, there may not be any), and in particular, with minimal counterexamples. First, there is a theorem on the existence of minimal counterexamples. This theorem was known for the model theoretic case (it is due to Harnik and Makkai), and is here generalized to arbitrary Borel-measurable Polish actions. Second, we study the properties of minimal counterexamples. We give two different necessary and sufficient conditions for a counterexample to be minimal, as well as some consequences of minimality. Some of these results are proved assuming determinacy axioms.This second part seems to be new even in the model theoretic case.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 59 , Issue 3 , September 1994 , pp. 757 - 784
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1994

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

[1]Becker, H., Nicer topologies with respect to a Polish group action, in preparation.Google Scholar
[2]Burgess, J. P., Equivalences generated by families of Borel sets, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 69 (1978), pp. 323–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Burgess, J. P., Effective enumeration of classes in a equivalence relation, Indiana University Mathematics Journal, vol. 28 (1979), pp. 353–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Burgess, J. P. and Miller, D. E., Remarks on invariant descriptive set theory, Fundamenta Mathematical, vol. 90 (1975), pp. 53–75.Google Scholar
[5]Dixmier, J., Duel et quasi-duel d’une algebre de Banach involutive, Transactions the American Mathematical Society, vol. 104 (1962), pp. 278–283.Google Scholar
[6]Effros, E. G., Polish transformation groups and classification problems, General topology and modern analysis (McAuley, L. F. and Rao, M. M., editors), Academic Press, New York, 1981, pp. 217—227.Google Scholar
[7]Friedman, H., Countable models of set theories, Cambridge summer school in mathematical logic (Mathias, A. R. D. and Rogers, H., editors), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 337, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1973, pp. 539–573.Google Scholar
[8]Gandy, R. O., On a problem of Kleene's, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 66, 1960, pp. 501–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Harnik, V. and Makkai, M., A tree argument in infinitary model theory, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 67 (1977), pp. 309–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Harrington, L., Analytic determinacy and 0#, this Journal, vol. 43 (1978), pp. 685–694.Google Scholar
[11]Jech, T. J., Set theory, Academic Press, New York, 1978.Google Scholar
[12]Keisler, H. J., Model theory for infinitary logic, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1971.Google Scholar
[13]Louveau, A., A separation theorem for sets, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 260 (1980), pp. 363–378.Google Scholar
[14]Mansfield, R. and Weitkamp, G., Recursive aspects of descriptive set theory, Oxford University Press, London and New York, 1985.Google Scholar
[15]Marker, D., An analytic equivalence relation not arising from a Polish group action, Fundamenta Mathematkae, vol. 130 (1988), pp. 225–228.Google Scholar
[16]Miller, D. E., On the measurability of orbits in Borel actions, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 63 (1977), pp. 165–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17]Morley, M., The number of countable models, this Journal, vol. 35 (1970), pp. 14–18.Google Scholar
[18]Moschovakis, Y. N., Descriptive set theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam. 1980.Google Scholar
[19]Nadel, M., Scott sentences and admissible sets, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 7 (1974), pp. 267–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[20]Rogers, C. A.et al., Analytic sets, Academic Press, 1980.Google Scholar
[21]Rubin, M., Vaught's conjecture for linear orderings, Notices of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 24 (1977), A–390.Google Scholar
[22]Sami, R. L., Polish group actions and the Vaught conjecture, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 341, (1994), pp. 335–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[23]Steel, J. R., Forcing with tagged trees, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 15 (1978), pp. 55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[24]Steel, J. R., On Vaught's conjecture, Cabal seminar 76–77 (Kechris, A. S. and Moschovakis, Y. N., editors), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 689, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1978, pp. 193–208.Google Scholar
[25]Stern, J., Evaluation du rang de Borel de certains ensembles, Comptes Rendus des Seances de L’Académic des Sciences. Série I. Mathématique, vol. 286, 1978, pp. 855–857.Google Scholar
[26]Varadarajan, V. S., Groups of automorphisms of Borel spaces, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 109 (1963), pp. 191–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[27]Vaught, R. L., Denumerable models of complete theories, Infinitistic methods: Proceedings of the symposium on foundations of mathematics, Pergamon Press, New York and Oxford, 1961, pp. 303–321.Google Scholar
[28]Vaught, R. L., Invariant sets in topology and logic, Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 82 (1974), pp. 269–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar