13

I recently gave a proof of this theorem:

Every uncountable closed set of reals is in bijection with the reals.

My proof used the axiom of countable choice. Asaf Karagila stated in a comment that Arnie Miller showed in "A Dedekind Finite Borel Set" (Arch. Math. Logic 50, No. 1-2, 1-17 (2011); or on arXiv), that we do not need choice to get perfect subsets of uncountable Borel sets, provided that they can be written as a countable union of $G_δ$ sets, and so the theorem can be proven without choice. But it appears that this proof requires the use of the replacement schema.

So my question is:

Is there a proof of that theorem in Z, namely without replacement or choice? (Z does not have the foundation axiom either, but that seems irrelevant to this theorem.)

If the answer is yes, of course the proof would be interesting.

If the answer is no, it would be equally interesting, as an example of a theorem that can be proven in Z+CC or Z+R despite CC and R both being independent of each other over Z, and apparently unrelated. Also, if the answer is no, I have a follow up question:

Is there a proof of that theorem in Z plus replacement on $ω$? (Namely that the image of any definable function on $ω$ is a set.)

user21820
  • 57,693
  • 9
  • 98
  • 256
  • I would imagine that the answer is positive. But currently too busy/lazy to verify that. – Asaf Karagila Dec 01 '17 at 19:18
  • 2
    @AsafKaragila Which is it busy or lazy ? It cant be both. – Rene Schipperus Dec 01 '17 at 19:28
  • Does your proof work for compact sets? If so, maybe you can transport your closed set along a bijection of $\mathbb R$ with $(0,1),$ add $0$ and $1,$ then you get a compact set. – Dap Dec 01 '17 at 19:35
  • 5
    @Rene: I can do both. I'm very skilled at the art of doing and not doing things. – Asaf Karagila Dec 01 '17 at 19:39
  • 4
    @Dap There are 2 usages of countable choice in the argument. The first is easily avoidable as you suggest. The second is the essential use (and it is invoked repeatedly in a recursive construction) and removing it is not so clear. – Andrés E. Caicedo Dec 01 '17 at 21:48
  • @ReneSchipperus: Your conversation is already a good example of practicing both at the same instant of time. :-) – Markus Scheuer Dec 02 '17 at 03:36
  • @ReneSchipperus: Come on people, don't argue about silly things like Zen. Just because I have a lot of "Z" in my question does not mean it stands for your favourite pastime! Anyone got a proof? Or a proof of existence of a proof? Or proof of independence over Z? =) – user21820 Dec 03 '17 at 16:27
  • Can we define $\Bbb R$ without Replacement? – DanielWainfleet Mar 19 '18 at 11:36
  • Digression: The following is, verbatim, a problem from American Mathematical Monthly: "A student asserted that any uncountable set of reals contains an uncountable closed subset. Is this true?"...:) – DanielWainfleet Mar 19 '18 at 11:40
  • @DanielWainfleet: Well we can obvious construct the set of Cauchy functions from naturals to rationals, and prove that it satisfies the (second-order) theory of the reals, in Zermelo set theory. In fact, all we need for real analysis is higher-order arithmetic. And you are welcome to the Logic chat-room for any digression on logic. =) – user21820 Mar 19 '18 at 14:33
  • @user21820 . There are many ways to refute the student's assertion. I just mentioned it for fun. – DanielWainfleet Mar 19 '18 at 16:11
  • @DanielWainfleet: I was answering your first question. Replacement seems unnecessary for mathematics with real-world consequences, including real analysis. As for your fun question, what do you mean by "refute"? It is obvious that if CH fails then any set of reals of size $\aleph_1$ cannot be closed due to the theorem in this question. But normally "refute" means "disprove", and I don't see the trick. – user21820 Mar 20 '18 at 15:14
  • Regardless of CH: Let $k$ be an infinite cardinal. Let $|S|=k=|F|$ where $F \subset P(S)$ and $|f|=k$ for all $f\in F.$ ...(P(S) is the Power-set of $S$.)..... Then there exists $t\in P(S)$ such that $t\cap f\ne \emptyset \ne (S\setminus t)\cap f$ for all $f\in F.$.... With $S=\Bbb R$ and with $F$ being the set of all uncountable closed subsets of $\Bbb R,$ observe that $t$ is uncountable but no uncountable closed subset $f$ of $\Bbb R$ is a subset of $t$ because $(\Bbb R \setminus f)\cap t \ne \emptyset.$ – DanielWainfleet Mar 20 '18 at 20:37
  • @DanielWainfleet: Interesting; I did realize that the cardinality of the open subsets of the reals is the cardinality of the reals, but did not see the next step (which you wrote in your comment). Thanks! – user21820 Mar 21 '18 at 04:30

2 Answers2

3

Here is a partial answer. It cannot be proved by $KP$.

Let $M=L_{\omega_1^{CK}}$, where $\omega_1^{CK}$ is the least nonrecursive ordinal. Fix a recursive binary tree $T$ so that

(1) For any $\alpha<\omega_1^{CK}$, $0^{(\omega\cdot \alpha)}$, the $\omega\cdot\alpha$-th $\Sigma_1$-master code, belongs to $[T]$; and

(2) $[T]\cap M$ only contains those $\omega\cdot \alpha$-master codes; and

(3) $[T]$ is uncountable.

$T$ can be obtained by an effective transfinite recursion through a nonstandard ordinal.

Then in $M$, $T$ is uncountable due to (1).

Now suppose there is a bijection $f:[T]\to 2^{\omega}$ in $M$. Assume that $f\in L_{\alpha}$ for some $\alpha<\omega_1^{CK}$. Let $x\equiv_T 0^{(\beta+1)}$ for some $\beta>\alpha$ in $M$ which is not in $f(L_{\alpha}\cap [T])$ (such $x$ exists due to the admissibility of $M$). Then $f^{-1}(x)\in L_{\beta+1}$. Moreover, by the assumption, $f^{-1}(x)$ is the $\gamma$-th master code for some $\gamma>\alpha$ not greater than $\beta+1$. So $x$ must belong to $L_{\gamma}$ and so $\beta+1\leq \gamma$. In other words, $\gamma=\beta+1$, a contradiction to (2).

喻 良
  • 413
  • Thanks a lot for your answer! I will read through it and get back to you. =) – user21820 Feb 15 '18 at 05:15
  • I'm sorry to say I can't understand your answer, as I lack the necessary background in set theory. If you have a reference for the basics, I would appreciate. Thanks! – user21820 Feb 16 '18 at 15:29
  • Sacks "higher recursion" or Chong and Yu's "recursion theory" – 喻 良 Feb 17 '18 at 15:19
  • Thank you! I'll look them up. By the way, your answer is showing that KP (some weak fragment of ZF) is insufficient to prove the theorem, right? I don't think I had any essential use of power-set in my proof, so it can be done in KP+CC, right? So if Asaf is correct that it can be done in Z, it must be by a proof that crucially uses the power-set axiom? – user21820 Feb 17 '18 at 16:34
  • It may use comprehension in an essential way. – 喻 良 Feb 18 '18 at 00:38
  • Ah I forgot KP only allows bounded-comprehension. My proof uses quite a lot of unbounded comprehension. Thanks! – user21820 Feb 18 '18 at 03:35
3

The claim is provable in $Z_2$ (second-order arithmetic) in the sense of definable bijections (and then in $Z_3$ we easily get the theorem verbatim). This requires only minor modification of the standard ZF proof, which only involves objects codable by reals, particularly low complexity sets of reals and countable ordinals.

We first note that $ATR_0$ is well-known to be equivalent to every uncountable closed subset of a Polish space having a perfect subset. Let $X$ be the uncountable closed set and $P$ a perfect subset (Borel coded by reals $r_X$ and $r_P$). The standard construction of a continuous injection $f$ from Cantor space into $P$ (coded by a function on finite binary sequences) goes through easily. Compose that with any explicit injection from $\mathbb{R}$ into Cantor space.

Finally to get a bijection from $X$ to $\mathbb{R},$ carry out the Schroder-Bernstein construction. In the terminology of the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6der%E2%80%93Bernstein_theorem), $X$-stoppers, $\mathbb{R}$-stoppers, and doubly infinite sequences are all functions from a set of integers to $\mathbb{R},$ and are thus codable by reals. The verifications are routine.

  • Thank you for your answer! I see what you mean; in Z3 we obtain the Borel-code of $X$ and then use ATR0 to get a Borel-code of a perfect subset, and then can return to Z3 and use SB to easily get a bijection with ℝ. By the way, since you are familiar with subsystems of Z2, would you mind looking at this question as well? Thanks! – user21820 Feb 20 '22 at 06:12