arxiv: v1 [math.lo] 1 Feb 2016

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "arxiv: v1 [math.lo] 1 Feb 2016"

Berniece Julie Burke
6 years ago
Views:

1 arxiv: v1 [mathlo] 1 Feb 2016 A Borel-reducibility Counterpart of Shelah s Main Gap Theorem Tapani Hyttinen, Vadim Kulikov, Miguel Moreno University of Helsinki Abstract We study the Borel-reducibility of isomorphism relations of complete first order theories and show the consistency of the following: For all such theories T and T, if T is classifiable and T is not, then the isomorphism of models of T is strictly above the isomorphism of models of T with respect to Borel-reducibility In fact, we can also ensure that a range of equivalence relations modulo various non-stationary ideals are strictly between those isomorphism relations The isomorphism relations are considered on models of some fixed uncountable cardinality obeying certain restrictions 1 Introduction Throughout this article we assume that is an uncountable cardinal that satisfies < = The generalized Baire space is the set with the bounded topology For every ζ <, the set [ζ] = {η ζ η} is a basic open set The open sets are of the form X where X is a collection of basic open sets The collection of -Borel subsets of is the smallest set which contains the basic open sets and is closed under unions and intersections, both of length A -Borel set is any element of this collection We usually omit the prefix In [Vau74] Vought studied this topology in the case = ω 1 assuming CH and proved the following: Theorem A set B ω ω 1 1 is Borel and closed under permutations if and only if there is a sentence ϕ in L ω + 1 ω 1 such that B = {η A η = ϕ} This result was generalized in [FHK14] to arbitrary that satisfies < = Mekler and Väänänen continued the study of this topology in [MV93] We will work with the subspace 2 with the relative subspace topology A function f : 2 2 is Borel, if for every open set A 2 the inverse image f 1 [A] is a Borel subset of 2 Let E 1 and E 2 be equivalence relations on 2 We say that E 1 is Borel reducible to E 2, if there is a Borel function f : 2 2 that satisfies (x, y) E 1 ( f(x), f(y)) E 2 We call f a reduction of E 1 to E 2 This is denoted by E 1 B E 2 and if f is continuous, then we say that E 1 is continuously reducible to E 2 and this is denoted by E 1 c E 2 The following is a standard way to code structures with domain with elements of 2 To define it, fix a countable relational vocabulary L = {P n n < ω} 1

2 Definition 11 Fix a bijection π : <ω For every η 2 define the L-structure A η with domain as follows: For every relation P m with arity n, every tuple (a 1, a 2,, a n ) in n satisfies (a 1, a 2,, a n ) P A η m η(π(m, a 1, a 2,, a n )) = 1 Note that for every L-structure A there exists η 2 with A = A η For club many α < we can also code the L-structures with domain α: Definition 12 Denote by C π the club {α < π[α <ω ] α} For every η 2 and every α C π define the structure A η α with domain α as follows: For every relation P m with arity n, every tuple (a 1, a 2,, a n ) in α n satisfies (a 1, a 2,, a n ) P A η α m η α (π(m, a 1, a 2,, a n )) = 1 For every α C π and every X α we will denote the structure A F by A X, where F is the characteristic function of X We will work with two equivalence relations on 2 : the isomorphism relation and the equivalence modulo the non-stationary ideal Definition 13 (The isomorphism relation) Assume T is a complete first order theory in a countable vocabulary We define T as the relation {(η, ξ) 2 2 (A η = T,A ξ = T,A η Aξ ) or (A η = T,A ξ = T)} We will omit the superscript in T when it is clear from the context For every first order theory T in a countable vocabulary there is an isomorphism relation associated with T, T For every stationary X, we define an equivalence relation modulo the non-stationary ideal associated with X: Definition 14 For every X stationary, we define E X as the relation where denotes the symmetric difference E X = {(η, ξ) 2 2 (η 1 [1] ξ 1 [1]) X is not stationary} For every regular cardinal µ < denote {α < c f(α) = µ} by S µ A set C is µ-club if it is ubounded and closed under µ-limits, ie if S µ \ C is non-stationary Accordingly, we will denote the equivalence relation E X for X = S µ by Eµ-club 2 Note that ( f, g) E2 µ-club if and only if the set {α < f(α) = g(α)} contains a µ-club 2 Reduction to E X Classifiable theories (superstable with NOTOP and NDOP) have a close connection to the Ehrenfeucht- Fraïssé games (EF-games for short) We will use them to study the reducibility of the isomorphism relation of classifiable theories The following definition is from [HM15, Def 23]: Definition 21 (The Ehrenfeucht-Fraïssé game) Fix an enumeration {X γ } γ< of the elements of P () and an enumeration { f γ } γ< of all the functions with both the domain and range in P () For every α the game EF α ω(a α,b α ) on the restrictions A α and B α of the structures A and B with domain is defined as follows: In the n-th move, first I chooses an ordinal β n < α such that X βn α and X βn 1 X βn Then II chooses an ordinal θ n < α such that dom( f θn ), ran( f θn ) α, X βn dom( f θn ) ran( f θn ) and f θn 1 f θn (if n = 0 then X βn 1 = and f θn 1 = ) The game ends after ω moves Player II wins if i<ω f θi : A α B α is a partial isomorphism Otherwise player I wins If α = then this is the same as the standard EF-game which is usually denoted by EF ω When a player P has a winning strategy in a game G, we denote it by P G 2

3 The following lemma is proved in [HM15, Lemma 24] and is used in the main result of this section which in turn is central to the main theorem of this paper Lemma 22 If A and B are structures with domain, then II EF ω(a,b) II EF α ω(a α,b α ) for club-many α, I EF ω(a,b) I EF α ω(a α,b α ) for club-many α Remark 1 In [HM15, Lemma 27] it was proved that there exists a club C EF of α such that the relation defined by the game {(A,B) II EF α ω(a α,b α )} is an equivalence relation Remark 2 Shelah proved in [She90], that if T is classifiable then every two models of T that are L, - equivalent are isomorphic On the other hand L, -equivalence is equivalent to EF ω-equivalence So for every two models A and B of T we have II EF ω(a,b) A B and I EF ω(a,b) A B Lemma 23 Assume T is a classifiable theory and µ < is a regular cardinal If (X) holds then T is continuously reducible to E X Proof Let {S α α X} be a sequence testifying (X) and define the function F : 2 2 by { 1 if α X C π C F(η)(α) = EF, II EF ω(a η α,a Sα ) and A η α = T 0 otherwise Let us show that F is a reduction of T to E X, ie for every η, ξ 2, (η, ξ) T if and only if (F(η),F(ξ)) E X Notice that when α C π, the structure A η α is defined and equals A η α Consider first the direction from left to right Suppose first that A η and A ξ are models of T and A η Aξ Since A η Aξ, we have II EF ω(a η,a ξ ) By Lemma 22 there is a club C such that II EF α ω(a η α,a ξ α ) for every α in C Since the set {α < A η α = T,A ξ α = T} contains a club, we can assume that every α C satisfies A η α = T and A ξ α = T If α C is such that F(η)(α) = 1, then II EF α ω(a η α,a Sα ) Since II EF α ω(a η α,a ξ α ) and α C EF, we can conclude that II EF α ω(a ξ α,a Sα ) Therefore for every α C, F(η)(α) = 1 implies F(ξ)(α) = 1 Using the same argument it can be shown that for every α C, F(ξ)(α) = 1 implies F(η)(α) = 1 Therefore F(η) and F(ξ) coincide in a club and (F(η),F(ξ)) E X Let us now look at the case where (η, ξ) T and A η is not a model of T (the case T = A ξ follows by symmetry) By the definition of T we know that A ξ is not a model of T either, so there is ϕ T such that A η = ϕ and A ξ = ϕ Further, there is a club C such that for every α C we have A η α = ϕ and A ξ α = ϕ We conclude that for every α C we have that A η α and A ξ α are not models of T, and F(η)(α) = F(ξ)(α) = 0, so (F(η),F(ξ)) E X Let us now look at the direction from right to left Suppose first that A η and A ξ are models of T, and A η Aξ By Remark 2, we know that I EF ω(a η,a ξ ) By Lemma 22 there is a club C of α with A ξ α = T and A η α = T I EF α ω(a η α,a ξ α ), 3

4 Since {α X η α = S α } is stationary by the definition of (X), also the set {α X η α = S α } C π C EF is stationary and every α in this set satisfies II EF ω(a η α,a Sα ) Therefore C {α X η α = S α } C π C EF is stationary and a subset of F(η) 1 {1} F(ξ) 1 {1}, where denotes the symmetric difference We conclude that (F(η),F(ξ)) / E X Let us finally assume that (η, ξ) / T and A η = T (the case A ξ = T follows by symmetry) Assume towards a contradiction that (F(η),F(ξ)) E 2 µ-club Let C be a club that testifies (F(η),F(ξ)) E2 µ-club, ie C (F(η) 1 [1] F(ξ) 1 [1]) X = Since A η = T, the set {α < A η α = T} contains a club Hence, we can assume that for every α C, A η α = T which implies that F(η)(α) = 0 and F(ξ)(α) = 0 for every α C By the definition of T, A η = T implies A ξ = T Therefore the set {α < A ξ α = T} contains a club So there is a club C such that every α C satisfies A ξ α = T and F(ξ)(α) = 0 Since {α X ξ α = S α } is stationary, again by the definition of (X), also {α X η α = S α } C π C EF is stationary and every α in this set satisfies II EF ω(a η α,a Sα ) Therefore, C {α X ξ α = S α } C π C EF =, a contradiction To show that F is continuous, let [η α ] be a basic open set, ξ F 1 [[η α ]] Then ξ [ξ α ] and [ξ α ] F 1 [[η α ]] We conclude that F is continuous To define the reduction F it is not enough to use the isomorphism classes of the models A Sα, as opposed to the equivalence classes of the relation defined by the EF-game It is possible to construct two non-isomorphic models with domain such that their restrictions to any α < are isomorphic For example the models M = (, P) and N = (, Q), with = λ +, and P = {α < α = β+2n, n N and β a limit ordinal} Q = {α < λ α = β+2n, n N and β a limit ordinal} are non-isomorphic but M α N α holds for every α < The Borel reducibility of the isomorphism relation of classifiable theories was studied in [FHK14] and one of the main results is the following Theorem 24 ([FHK14, Thm 77]) If a first order theory T is classifiable, then for all regular cardinals µ <, E 2 µ-club B T Corollary 25 Assume that (S µ) holds for all regular µ < If a first order theory T is classifiable, then for all regular cardinals µ < we have T c E 2 µ-club and E2 µ-club B T 4

5 3 Non-classifiable Theories In [FHK14] the reducibility to the isomorphism of non-classifiable theories was studied In particular the following two theorems were proved there: Theorem 31 ([FHK14, Thm 79]) Suppose that = λ + = 2 λ and λ <λ = λ 1 If T is unstable or superstable with OTOP, then E 2 λ-club c T 2 If λ 2 ω and T is superstable with DOP, then E 2 λ-club c T Theorem 32 ([FHK14, Thm 86]) Suppose that for all γ <, γ ω < and T is a stable unsuperstable theory Then E 2 ω-club c T Clearly from Theorems 31 and 32 and Corollary 23 we obtain the following: Theorem 33 Suppose that = λ + = 2 λ, λ <λ = λ and (S λ ) holds 1 If T 1 is classifiable and T 2 is unstable or superstable with OTOP, then T 1 c and T 2 B 2 If λ 2 ω, T 1 is classifiable and T 2 is superstable with DOP, then T 1 c and T 2 B Theorem 34 Suppose that for all γ <, γ ω < and (S ω) holds If T 1 is classifiable and T 2 is stable unsuperstable, then T 1 c and T 2 B Corollary 35 Suppose = < = λ + and λ ω = λ If T 1 is classifiable and T 2 is stable unsuperstable, then = T 1 c and T 2 B Proof In [She10] Shelah proved that if = λ + = 2 λ and S is a stationary subset of {α < c f(α) = c f(λ)}, then (S) holds Since λ ω = λ, we have c f(λ) = ω and (S ω) holds On the other hand = λ + and λ ω = λ implies γ ω < for all γ < By Theorem 34 we conclude that if T 1 is a classifiable theory and T 2 is a stable unsuperstable theory, then c and B Theorem 36 Let H() be the following property: If T is classifiable and T not, then T c T and T B = T Suppose that = < = λ +, 2 λ > 2 ω and λ <λ = λ 1 If V = L, then H() holds 2 There is a -closed forcing notion P with the + -cc which forces H() Proof 1 This follows from Theorems 33 and 34 2 Let P be { f : X 2 X, X < } with the order p q if q p It is known that P has the + -cc [Kun11, Lemma IV75] and is -closed [Kun11, Lemma IV714] It is also known that P preserves cofinalities, cardinalities and subsets of of size less than [Kun11, Thm IV79, Lemma IV715] Therefore, in V[G], satisfies = < = λ + = 2 λ > 2 ω and λ <λ = λ It is known that P satisfies 1 P k (S µ) for every regular cardinal µ < Therefore, by Theorems 33 and 34 H() holds in V[G] Definition 37 1 A tree T is a +, -tree if does not contain chains of length and its cardinality is less than + It is closed if every chain has a unique supremum 5

6 2 A pair (T, h) is a Borel -code if T is a closed +, -tree and h is a function with domain T such that if x T is a leaf, then h(x) is a basic open set and otherwise h(x) {, } 3 For an element η 2 and a Borel -code (T, h), the Borel -game B (T, h, η) is played as follows There are two players, I and II The game starts from the root of T At each move, if the game is at node x T and h(x) =, then I chooses an immediate successor y of x and the game continues from this y If h(x) =, then II makes the choice At limits the game continues from the (unique) supremum of the previous moves by Player I Finally, if h(x) is a basic open set, then the game ends, and II wins if and only if η h(x) 4 A set X 2 is a Borel -set if there is a Borel -code (T, h) such that for all η 2, η X if and only if II has a winning strategy in the game B (T, h, η) Notice that a strategy in a game B (T, h, η) can be seen as a function σ : <, because every + -tree can be seen as a downward closed subtree of < Suppose T is a closed +, -tree and h is a function with domain T such that if x T is a leaf, then h(x) is a Borel set and otherwise h(x) {, } Then the set {η II has a winning strategy in the game B (T, h, η)} is a Borel -set This can be seen by the Borel -code (T, h ), where T is T concatenated in every leaf, b, by the tree T b and h is the union of the functions h b, where (T b, h b ) is a Borel -code for the set h(b) Theorem 38 Suppose that = < = λ +, 2 λ > 2 ω and λ <λ = λ Then the following statements are consistent 1 If T 1 is classifiable and T 2 is not, then there is an embedding of (P(), ) to (B (T 1, T 2 ), B ), where B (T 1, T 2 ) is the set of all Borel -equivalence relations strictly between and 2 If T 1 is classifiable and T 2 is unstable or superstable, then = T 1 c E 2 λ-club c T 2 T 2 B E 2 λ-club E2 λ-club B T 1 Proof We will start the proof with two claims Claim 39 If (S) holds in V and Q is -closed, then (S) holds in every Q-generic extension Proof Let us proceed by contradiction Suppose (S α ) α S is a (S)-sequence in V but not in V[G], for some generic G Fix the names Š, Ċ, Ẋ V Q and p G, such that: p (Ċ ˇ is a club Ẋ ˇ α Ċ[Š α = Ẋ α]) Working in V, we choose by recursion p α, β α, θ α,and δ α such that: 1 p α Q, p 0 = p and p α p γ if α γ 2 β α β γ if α γ 3 β α θ α, δ α < β α+1 4 If γ is a limit ordinal, then β γ = δ γ = α<γ β α 5 p α+1 ( ˇδ α Č Ẋ ˇβ α = Š θα ) 6

7 We will show how to choose them such that 1-5 are satisfied First, for the successor step assume that for some α < we have chosen p α+1, β α, θ α and δ α We choose any ordinal satisfying 3 as β α+1 Since p α+1 (Ċ ˇ is a club), there exists q Q stronger than p α+1 and δ < such that q ( ˇδ Ċ ˇβ α ˇδ) Now set δ α+1 = δ Since Q is -closed, there exists Y P(β α+1 ) V and r Q stronger than q such that r Ẋ ˇβ α+1 = ˇY By (S) in V, the set {γ < Y = S γ } is stationary, so we can choose the least ordinal θ α+1 β α+1 such that r Ẋ ˇβ α+1 = Š θα+1 Clearly r = p α+2 satisfies 1 and 5 For the limit step, assume that for some limit ordinal α < we have chosen p γ, β γ, θ γ and δ γ for every γ < α Note that by 4 we know how to choose β α and δ α Since Q is -closed, there exists p α that satisfies 1 We choose θ α as in the successor case with q = p α and p α+1 as the condition r used to choose θ α Define A, B and C δ by B = α< S θα, A = {α S B α = S α } and C δ = {δ α α is a limit ordinal} Note that C δ is a club By (S) in V, A is stationary and A C δ = Let δ α A C δ Then by 1, 2 and 5, for every γ > α we have p γ+1 (Š θα = Š θγ ˇβ α ) Therefore, S θα = B β α and δ α A C δ and so by 4 we have S θα = B δ α = S δα But now by 5 we get p α+1 ( ˇδ α Č Ẋ ˇδ α = Š δα ) which is a contradiction Claim 310 For all stationary X, the relation E X is a Borel -set Proof The idea is to code the club-game into the Borel -game: in the club-game the players pick ordinals one after another and if the limit is in a predefined set A, then the second player wins Define T X as the tree whose elements are all the increasing elements of λ, ordered by end-extension For every element of T X that is not a leaf, define { if x has an immediate predecessor x and H H X (x) = X (x ) = otherwise and for every leaf b define H X (b) by: (η, ξ) H X (b) for every α lim(ran(b)) X(η(α) = ξ(α)) where α lim(ran(b)) if sup(α ran(b)) = α Let us assume there is a winning strategy σ for Player II in the game B (T X, H X,(η, ξ)) and let us conclude that (η, ξ) E X Clearly by the definition of H X we know that η and ξ coincide in the set B = {α < σ[dom(σ) α <λ ] α <λ } X Since λ <λ = λ, we know that B = {α < σ[dom(σ) α <λ ] α <λ } is closed and unbounded Therefore, there exists a club that doesn t intersect (η 1 [1] ξ 1 [1]) X For the other direction, assume that (η 1 [1] ξ 1 [1]) X is not stationary and denote by C the club that does not intersect (η 1 [1] ξ 1 [1]) X The second player has a winning strategy for the game B (T λ, H X,(η, ξ)): she makes sure that, if b is the leaf in which the game ends and A ran(b) is such that sup( A) X, then sup( A) C This can be done by always choosing elements f <λ such that sup(ran( f)) C Let P be { f : X 2 X, X < } with the order p q if q p It is known that in any P-generic extension, V[G], (S) holds for every S V, S a stationary subset of 1 In [FHK14, Thm 52] the following was proved under the assumption = λ + and GCH: For every µ < there is a -closed forcing notion Q with the + -cc which forces that there are stationary sets K(A) S µ for each A such that E K(A) B E K(B) if and only if A B 7

8 In [FHK14, Thm 52] the proof starts by taking (S i ) i<, pairwise disjoint stationary subsets of lim(s µ) = {α S µ α is a limit ordinal in S µ}, and defining K(A) = α A S α Q is an iterated forcing that satisfies: For every name σ of a function f : 2 2, exists β < such that, P β σ is not a reduction With a small modification on the iteration, it is possible to construct Q a -closed forcing with the + -cc that forces ( ) For µ {ω, λ} and A, there are stationary sets K(µ, A) S µ for which E K(µ,A) B E K(µ,B) if and only if A B Without loss of generality we may assume that GCH holds in V Let G be a P Q-generic It is enough to prove that for every A in V[G] the following holds: (a) If T 2 is unstable, or superstable with OTOP or with DOP, then E K(λ,A) B (T 1, T 2 ) (b) If T 2 is stable unsuperstable, then E K(ω,A) B (T 1, T 2 ) In both cases the proof is the same; we will only consider (a) Working in V[G], let T 2 be as in (a) Since Q is -closed, we have V[G] = (S) for every stationary S, S V Since P and Q are -closed and have the + -cc, we have = < = λ +, 2 λ > 2 ω and λ <λ = λ By Lemma 23, Theorems 31 and 34, we have that T 1 c E K(λ,A) c holds for every A The argument in the proof of Theorem 24 can be used to prove that E K(λ,A) B holds for every A To show that T 2 B E K(λ,A) holds for every A, assume towards a contradiction that there exists B such that T 2 B E K(λ,B) But then E K(λ,A) B E K(λ,B) holds for every A and by ( ), A B for every A So B = which is a contradiction 2 In [HK12, Thm 31] it is proved (under the assumptions 2 = + and = < > ω) that there is a generic extension in which DLO is not a Borel -set The forcing is constructed using the following claim [HK12, Claim 315]: For each (t, h) there exists a + -cc -closed forcing R(t, h) such that in any R(t, h)-generic extension = DLO is not a Borel -set The forcing in [HK12, Thm 31] works for every theory T that is unstable, or T non-classifiable and superstable (not only DLO, see [HK12] and [HT91]) Therefore, this claim can be generalized to: For each (t, h) there exists a + -cc -closed forcing R(t, h) such that in any R(t, h)-generic extension, T is not a Borel -set, for all T unstable, or T non-classifiable and superstable By iterating this forcing (as in [HK12, Thm 31]), we construct a -closed forcing Q, + -cc that forces T is not a Borel -set, for all T unstable, or T non-classifiable and superstable Wwithout loss of generality we may assume that 2 = + holds in V Let G be a P Q-generic Since Q is -closed, V[G] = (S) for every stationary S, S V Since P and Q are -closed and have the + -cc, we have = < = λ +, 2 λ > 2 ω and λ <λ = λ Working in V[G], let T 2 be unstable, or non-classifiable and superstable By Lemma 23, Theorems 33 and 34 we finally have that T 1 c E 2 λ-club c T 2 and E 2 λ-club B T 1 holds Since 2 2 is homeomorphic to 2, in order to finish the proof, it is enough to show that if f : 2 2 is Borel, then for all Borel -sets A, the set f 1 [A] is a Borel This is because if f were the reduction T 2 B E 2 λ-club, we would have ( f f) 1 [E 2 λ-club ] = T 2 and since E 2 λ-club is Borel, this would yield the latter Borel as well 8

9 Claim 311 Assume f : 2 2 is a Borel function and B 2 is Borel Then f 1 [B] is Borel Proof Let (T B, H B ) be a Borel -code for B Define the Borel -code (T A, H A ) by letting T B = T A and H A (b) = f 1 [H B (b)] for every branch b of T B Let A be the Borel -set coded by (T A, H A ) Clearly, II B (T B, H B, η) if and only if II B (T A, H A, f 1 (η)), so f 1 [B] = A We end this paper with an open question: Question 312 Is it provable in ZFC that T B T (note the strict inequality) for all complete first-order theories T and T, T classifiable and T not? How much can the cardinality assumptions on be relaxed? References [FHK14] SD Friedman, T Hyttinen, and V Kulikov, Generalized descriptive set theory and classification theory, Memoirs of the Amer Math Soc Vol 230/1081 (American Mathematical Society, 2014) [HK12] [HM15] [HT91] T Hyttinen, and V Kulikov, Borel sets in the generalized Baire space - arxiv: [mathlo](2012) T Hyttinen, and M Moreno, On the reducibility of isomorphism relations - arxiv: [mathlo](2015) T Hyttinen, and H Tuuri, Constructing strongly equivalent nonisomorphic models for unstable theories, APAL , (1991) [Kun11] K Kunen, Set theory, Studies in Logic: Mathematical Logic and Foundations Vol 34, (College Publications, London, 2011) [MV93] A Mekler, and J Väänänen, Trees and Π 1 1 subsets of ωω 1 1, J Symb Log 58(3), , (1993) [She90] S Shelah, Classification theory, Stud Logic Found Math Vol 92, (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1990) [She10] S Shelah, Diamonds, Proc Amer Math Soc 138, , (2010) [Vau74] R Vaught, Invariant sets in topology and logic, Fund Math 82, , (1974/75) 9

ITERATIONS WITH MIXED SUPPORT

ITERATIONS WITH MIXED SUPPORT VERA FISCHER Abstract. In this talk we will consider three properties of iterations with mixed (finite/countable) supports: iterations of arbitrary length preserve ω 1, iterations