Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T22:29:17.596Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analytic determinacy and 0#

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Leo Harrington
Leo Harrington*
Affiliation:
University of California at Berkeley Berkeley, California 94720
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Martin [12] has shown that the determinacy of analytic games is a consequence of the existence of sharps. Our main result is the converse of this:

Theorem. If analytic games are determined, then x2 exists for all reals x.

This theorem answers question 80 of Friedman [5]. We actually obtain a somewhat sharper result; see Theorem 4.1. Martin had previously deduced the existence of sharps from 3 − Π11-determinacy (where α − Π11 is the αth level of the difference hierarchy based on − Π11 see [1]). Martin has also shown that the existence of sharps implies < ω2 − Π11-determinacy.

Our method also produces the following:

Theorem. If all analytic, non-Borel sets of reals are Borel isomorphic, then x* exists for all reals x.

The converse to this theorem had been previously proven by Steel [7], [18].

We owe a debt of gratitude to Ramez Sami and John Steel, some of whose ideas form basic components in the proofs of our results.

For the various notation, definitions and theorems which we will assume throughout this paper, the reader should consult [3, §§5, 17], [8], [13] and [14, Chapter 16].

Throughout this paper we will concern ourselves only with methods for obtaining 0# (rather than x# for all reals x). By relativizing our arguments to each real x, one can produce x2.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 43 , Issue 4 , December 1978 , pp. 685 - 693
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1978

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]Addison, J.W., The theory of hierarchies, Proceedings of the 1960 International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1960, pp. 26–37.Google Scholar
[2]Baumgartner, J.E., Harrington, L.A. and Kleinberg, E.M., Adding a closed unbounded set, this Journal, vol. 41 (1976), pp. 481–482.Google Scholar
[3]Devlin, K.J., Aspects of constructibility, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, no. 354, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1973.Google Scholar
[4]Friedman, H., Determinacy in the low projective hierarchy, Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 72(1971), pp. 79–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Friedman, H., One hundred and two problems in mathematical logic, this Journal, vol. 40 (1975), pp. 113–129.Google Scholar
[6]Harrington, L.A., Σ11sets and hyperdegrees (in preparation).Google Scholar
[7]Harrington, L.A. and Steel, J., Analytic sets and Borel isomorphism, Notices of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 23 (1976), p. A–447.Google Scholar
[8]Jech, T.J., Lectures in set theory, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, no. 217, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1971.Google Scholar
[9]Kechris, A.S., and Moschovakis, Y.N., Recursion in higher types, Handbook for logic, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1976.Google Scholar
[10]Keisler, H.J., Model theory for infinitary logic, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1971.Google Scholar
[11]Martin, D.A., The axiom of determinacy and reduction principles in the analytical hierarchy. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 74 (1968), pp. 687–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Martin, D.A., Measurable cardinals and analytic games, Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 66 (1970), pp. 287–291.Google Scholar
[13]Martin, D.A., Descriptive set theory: Projective sets, Handbook for logic, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1976.Google Scholar
[14]Rogers, H., Theory of recursive functions and effective computability, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967.Google Scholar
[15]Kunen, K., Some applications of iterated ultrapowers in set theory, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 3 (1970), pp. 179–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16]Simpson, S., Minimal covers and hyperdegrees, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 209 (1975), pp. 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17]Steel, J., Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 1976.Google Scholar
[18]Steel, J., Analytic sets and Borel isomorphisms (to appear).Google Scholar