- Infinity-Borel set
In
set theory , a subset of aPolish space X is ∞-Borel if itcan be obtained by starting with the open subsets of X, and transfinitely iterating the operations of complementation andwellordered union (but see the caveat below).Formal definition
More formally: we define by simultaneous
transfinite recursion the notion of ∞-Borel code, and of the interpretation of such codes. Since X is Polish, it has a countable base. Let enumerate that base (that is, mathcal{N}_i is the i^mathrm{th} basic open set). Now:* Every
natural number i is an ∞-Borel code. Its interpretation is mathcal{N}_i.
* If c is an ∞-Borel code with interpretation A_c, then theordered pair 0,c> is also an ∞-Borel code, and its interpretation is the complement of A_c, that is, Xsetminus A_c.
* If vec c is a length-αsequence of ∞-Borel codes for someordinal α (that is, if for every β<α, c_eta is an ∞-Borel code, say with interpretation A_{c_{eta), then the ordered pair 1,vec c> is an ∞-Borel code, and its interpretation is igcup_{eta. Now a set is ∞-Borel if it is the interpretation of some ∞-Borel code.
The
axiom of choice implies that "every" set can be wellordered, and therefore that every subset of every Polish space is infty-Borel. Therefore the notion is interesting only in contexts where AC does not hold (or is not known to hold).The assumption that every set of reals is infty-Borel is part of AD+, an extension of the
axiom of determinacy studied by Woodin.Incorrect definition
It is very tempting to read the informal description at the top of this article as claiming that the ∞-Borel sets are the smallest class of subsets of X containing all the open sets and closed under complementation and wellordered union. That is, one might wish to dispense with the ∞-Borel codes altogether and try a definition like this:
: For each ordinal α define by transfinite recursion Bα as follows:
:# B0 is the collection of all open subsets of X.:# For a given
even ordinal α, Bα+1 is the union of Bα with the set of all complements of sets in Bα.:# For a given even ordinal α, Bα+2 is the set of allwellordered unions of sets in Bα+1.:# For a givenlimit ordinal λ, Bλ is the union of all Bα for α<λ: It follows from the
Burali-Forti paradox that there must be some ordinal α such that Bβ equals Bα for every β>α. For this value of α, Bα is the collection of ∞-Borel sets.Unfortunately, without the axiom of choice, it is not clear that the ∞-Borel sets "are" closed under wellordered union. This is because, given a wellordered union of ∞-Borel sets, each of the individual sets may have "many" ∞-Borel codes, and there may be no way to choose one code for each of the sets, with which to form the code for the union.
Alternative characterization
For subsets of Baire space or
Cantor space , there is a more concise (if less transparent) alternative definition, which turns out to be equivalent. A subset "A" of Baire space is ∞-Borel just in case there is a set of ordinals "S" and a first-order formula "φ" of thelanguage of set theory such that, for every "x" in Baire space,: xin Aiff L [S,x] modelsphi(S,x)
where "L" ["S","x"] is
Gödel's constructible universe relativized to "S" and "x". When using this definition, the ∞-Borel code is made up of the set "S" and the formula "φ", taken together.
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.