Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-wvcvf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-21T09:48:46.680Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Semiselective coideals

Part of: Set theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2010

Ilijas Farah
Ilijas Farah
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, york University, 4700 Keele Street, North York, Ontario, canada, M3J 1P3.
Get access

Extract

In this note we give an answer to the following problem of Todorcevic: Find out the combinatorial essence behind the fact that the family ℋ of the ground-model infinite sets of integers in a Perfect-set forcing extension has the property that for any Borel f: [ℕ]ω → {0, 1} there exists an A ∈ ℋ such that f is constant on [A]ω (see [7], [13]). In other words, one needs to capture the combinatorial properties of the family ℋ of ground-model subsets of ℕ which assure that it diagonalizes all Borel partitions. It turns out that the notion which results from our analysis of this problem is a bit more optimal than the older notion of a “happy family” (or selective coideal) introduced by A.R.D. Mathias [16] long ago in order to extend the well-known theorems of Galvin–Prikry [6] and Silver [25] (see Theorems 3.1 and 4.1 below). We should remark that these Mathias-style extensions can indeed be as useful in the applications as the original partition theorems.

MSC classification

Secondary: 03E05: Other combinatorial set theory

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Mathematika , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , June 1998 , pp. 79 - 103
Copyright
Copyright © University College London 1998

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1.Baumgartner, J. and Laver, R.. Iterated Perfect-Set Forcing, Ann. Math. Logic, 17 (1979), 271–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Bourgain, J., Fremlin, D. H. and Talagrand, M.. Pointwise compact sets of Baire-measurable functions. Amer. J. Math., 100 (1978), 846–886.Google Scholar
3.Ellentuck, E.. A new proof that analytic sets are Ramsey. J. Symbolic Logic, 39 (1974), 161–165.Google Scholar
4.Foreman, M., Magidor, M. and Shelah, S.. Martin's maximum. Ann. of Math., 127 (1988), 47.Google Scholar
5.Feng, Q., Magidor, M. and Woodin, W. H.. Universally Baire sets of reals. MSRI Publications, 26 (1992), 203–242.Google Scholar
6.Galvin, F. and Prikry, K.. Borel sets and Ramsey's theorem. J. Symbolic Logic, 38 (1973), 193–198.Google Scholar
7.Halpern, J. D. and Pincus, D.. Partitions of products. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc, 267 (1981), 549–568.Google Scholar
8.Just, W. and Krawczyk, A.. On certain Boolean algebras p(ω)/I. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc, 285 (1984), 411–429.Google Scholar
9.Kanamori, A.. The higher infinite (Springer-Verlag, 1995).Google Scholar
10.Kechris, A., Solecki, S. and Todorcevic, S.. Borel chromatic numbers (1995). To appear in Advances in Math.Google Scholar
11.Kunen, K.. Some points in 0N. Math. Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc, 80 (1976), 385–398.Google Scholar
12.Kunen, K.. An Introduction to Independence Proofs (North-Holland, 1980).Google Scholar
13.Laver, R.. Products of Infinitely Many Perfect Trees. J. London Math. Soc. (2), 29 (1984), 385–396.Google Scholar
14.Louveau, A.. Demonstration topologique de theoremes de Silver et Mathias. Bull. Sci. Math., 98 (1974), 97–102.Google Scholar
15.Mathias, A. R. D.. On sequences generic in the sense of Prikry. J. Austral. Math. Soc, 15 (1973), 403–414.Google Scholar
16.Mathias, A. R. D.. Happy Families. Ann. Math. Logic, 12 (1977), 59–111.Google Scholar
17.Miller, A. W.. Infinite combinatorics and definability. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic, 41 (1989), 179–203.Google Scholar
18.Nash-Williams, C. St. J. A.. On well-quasi-ordering of transfinite sequences. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc, 61 (1965), 33–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Pawlikowski, J.. Parametrized Ellentuck theorem. Topology and its Applications, 37 (1990), 65–73.Google Scholar
20.Prikry, K.. Changing measurable into accessible cardinals. Dissertationes Math. (Rozprawy Matematycne), 68 (1970), 5–52.Google Scholar
21.Promel, H. J. and Voigt, B.. Canonical forms of Borel-measurable mappings A: [a)]w → ∝. Jour. Comb. Theory, ser. A, 40 (1985), 409–417.Google Scholar
22.Pudlak, P. and Rodl, V.. Partition theorems for systems of finite subsets of integers. Discrete Mathematics, 38 (1982), 67–73.Google Scholar
23.Rosenthal, H. P.. A characterization of Banach spaces containing l1. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 71 (1974), 2411–2413.Google Scholar
24.Shelah, S. and Woodin, W. H.. Large cardinals imply that every reasonably definable set of reals is Lebesgue measurable. Israel J. Math., 70 (1990), 381–394.Google Scholar
25.Silver, J.. Analytic sets are Ramsey. J. Symbolic Logic, 35 (1970), 60–64.Google Scholar
26.Todorcevic, S. and Farah, I.. Some Applications of the Method of Forcing (Mathematical Institute, Belgrade and Yenisei, Moscow, 1995).Google Scholar
27.Todorcevic, S.. Lecture notes from a course given in Toronto, summer 1993.Google Scholar
28.Todorcevic, S.. Topics in topology. (Springer Lecture Notes in Mathematics No. 1642, 1997).Google Scholar
29.Llopis, J. and Todorcevic, S.. Parametrized polarized partition relations. Preprint, 1958.Google Scholar
30.Kuratowski, K.. Topology, Vol. I (Academic Press, 1966).Google Scholar
31.Kechris, A. S.. Classical Descriptive Set Theory, (Springer-Verlag, 1995).Google Scholar
32.Sacks, G.. Forcing with perfect closed sets. Axiomatic set theory, Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics 13/1 (American Mathematics Society, Providence, 1971), pp. 331–355.Google Scholar
33.Dow, A.. Personal communication (October, 1996).Google Scholar
34.Platek, R.. Eliminating the Continuum Hypothesis. J. Symb. Logic, 34 (1969), 219–225.Google Scholar
35.Marczewski, E. (Szilprajn). Sur une classe de fonctions de W. Sierpihski et la classe correspondante d'ensembles. Fund. Math., 24 (1935), 17–34.Google Scholar
36.Morgan, J. C.. On general theory of point sets II. Real Anal. Exchange, 12 (1986/1987).Google Scholar
37.Todorcevic, S.. Partition problems in topology (American Math. Soc, Providence, 1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38.Todorcevic, S.. Compact sets of Baire class-l functions, (1997). Preprint.Google Scholar
39.Stern, J.. A Ramsey theorem for trees, with an application to Banach spaces. Israel J. Math., 29 (1978), 179–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40.Ketonen, J.. On the existence of p–points in Cech-Stone compactification of integers. Fund. Math., (1976), 91–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41.Matet, P.. Happy families and completely Ramsey sets. Arch. Math. Logic, 32 (1993), 151–171.Google Scholar
42.Mathias, A. R. D.. A notion of forcing (1985). Preprint.Google Scholar