Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-21T06:39:45.125Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determinacy of Banach games

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Howard Becker
Howard Becker*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For any A ⊂ R, the Banach game B(A) is the following infinite game on reals: Players I and II alternately play positive real numbers a1; a2, a3, a4,… such that for n > 1, an < an−1. Player I wins iff ai exists and is in A.

This type of game was introduced by Banach in 1935 in the Scottish Book [15], Problem 43. The (rather vague) problem which Banach posed was to characterize those sets A for which I (II) has a winning strategy in B(A). (There are three parts to Problem 43. In the first, Mazur defined a game G**(A) for every set A ⊂ R and conjectured that II has a winning strategy in G**(A) iff A is meager and I has a winning strategy in G**(A) iff A is comeager in some neighborhood; this conjecture was proved by Banach. Presumably Banach had this result in mind when he asked the question about B(A), and hoped for a similar type of characterization.) Incidentally, Problem 43 of the Scottish Book appears to be the first time infinite games of any sort were studied by mathematicians.

This paper will not provide the reader with any answer to Banach's question. I know of no nontrivial way to characterize when player I (or II) wins, and I suspect there is none. This paper is concerned with a different (also rather vague) question: For which sets A is the Banach game B(A) determined? To say that B(A) is determined means, of course, that one of the players has a winning strategy for B(A).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , March 1985 , pp. 110 - 122
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1985

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., Partially playful universes, Cabal Seminar 76–77 (Kechris, A. S. and Moschovakis, Y. N., editors), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 689, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1978, pp. 55–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] Becker, H., Determinacy of Banach games, Abstracts of Papers Presented to the American Mathematical Society, vol. 4 (1983), p. 535.Google Scholar
[3] Becker, H., A property equivalent to the existence of scales, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society (to appear).Google Scholar
[4] Blass, A., Equivalence of two strong forms of determinacy, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 52 (1975), pp. 373–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5] Freiling, C., Banach games, this Journal, vol. 49 (1984), pp. 343–375.Google Scholar
[6] Harrington, L., Analytic determinacy and 0# , this Journal, vol. 43 (1978), pp. 685–694.Google Scholar
[7] Jech, T. J., Set theory, Academic Press, New York, 1978.Google Scholar
[8] Kechris, A. S., The axiom of determinacy implies dependent choices in L(R), this Journal, vol. 49 (1984), pp. 161–173.Google Scholar
[9] Kechris, A. S., AD + uniformization is equivalent to half ADR (to appear).Google Scholar
[10] Kechris, A. S., Determinacy with complicated strategies (to appear).Google Scholar
[11] Kechris, A. S. and Solovay, R. M., On the relative strength of determinacy hypotheses (to appear).Google Scholar
[12] Kechris, A. S. and Woodin, W. H., The equivalence of partition properties and determinacy, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 80 (1983), pp. 1783–1786.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[13] Martin, D. A., determinacy implies determinacy, Xeroxed note, 1973.Google Scholar
[14] Martin, D. A., Infinite games, Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians (Helsinki, 1978), Academia Scientiarum Fennica, Helsinki, 1980, vol. 1, pp. 269–273.Google Scholar
[15] Mauldin, R. D. (editor), The Scottish Book: Mathematics from the Scottish Cafe, Birkhäuser, Boston, 1981.Google Scholar
[16] Moran, G., Existence of nondetermined sets for some two person games over reals, Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 9 (1971), pp. 316–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17] Moschovakis, Y. N., Uniformization in a playful universe, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 77 (1971), pp. 731–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18] Moschovakis, Y. N., Descriptive set theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1980.Google Scholar
[19] Mycielski, J., On the axiom of determinateness, Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 53 (1964), pp. 205–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[20] Solovay, R. M., The independence of DC from AD, Cabal Seminar 76–77 (Kechris, A. S. and Moschovakis, Y. N., editors), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 689, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1978, pp. 171–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[21] Steel, J. R. and van Wesep, R., TWO consequences of determinacy consistent with choice, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 272 (1982), pp. 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar