Compactness of maximal eventually different families
David Schrittesser

TL;DR
This paper investigates the structure and existence of effectively closed and compact maximal eventually different families of functions in certain product spaces, providing criteria for their existence.
Contribution
It introduces a characterization of when effectively compact maximal eventually different families exist in product spaces of functions.
Findings
Existence criteria for effectively compact families.
Characterization of effectively closed maximal families.
Conditions for the existence of such families.
Abstract
We show that there is an effectively closed maximal eventually different family of functions in spaces of the form for and give an exact criterion for when there exists an effectively compact such family.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Compactness of maximal eventually different families
David Schrittesser
Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 5, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
Abstract.
We show that there is an effectively closed maximal eventually different family of functions in spaces of the form for (e.g., Baire space) and give an exact criterion for when there exists an effectively compact such family. The proof generalizes and simplifies those in [2] and [7].
Key words and phrases:
effectively, compact, closed, maximal, eventually, different, family
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
03E15, 03E05
1. Introduction
A
In [2] Horowitz and Shelah construct in ZF a maximal eventually different family (short: medf) which is , i.e., effectively Borel. This was a surprise since, e.g., infinite so-called mad families cannot even be (i.e., analytic; see [5, 8]). In a more recent, related result [1] they obtain a maximal cofinitary group.
The present paper answers a question of Asger Törnquist [9]: Given such that does there exist a Borel or even a compact medf in the space ? As well as answering this question, we construct a medf (which is , i.e., effectively closed) in Baire space in an even more elementary way than in [2] or [7].
To make the question entirely precise, we give the definition of (maximal) eventually different families a broader context:
Definition 1.1**.**
Any two functions with domain are called eventually different if and only if is finite.
Given a function , let (with the product topology, and discrete, as usual). A set is an eventually different family in if and only if and any two distinct are eventually different; such a family is called maximal (or short: a medf) if and only if it is maximal among such families under inclusion.
We now state our main result, followed by a rather straightforward corollary.
Theorem 1.2**.**
Suppose . If there is a perfect (effectively-in- closed) maximal eventually different family in .
Corollary 1.3**.**
Suppose . There is a compact medf in if and only if for infinitely many . Moreover, exactly one of the following holds:
- (1)
Every medf is finite and there is a finite medf consisting of constant functions (namely, when ); 2. (2)
There is a perfect medf but no countable medf.
We ask to preclude the trivial case of the empty space. As means there is such that is infinite, the set where is the constant function with value constitutes a medf in this case. So the question posed by Törnquist is only interesting if holds.
B
We fix some notation and terminology (see also [3]). For any set , denotes its cardinality. As always in set theory, we identify with , with and with , is equipped with the discrete and with the order topology. We write to mean the set of functions from to and means the set of finite sequences from . If is a sequence, denotes its length. For a set and a function on , by we always mean the set of functions with domain such that (not a product of numbers). Both and for as in Theorem 1.2 naturally carry the product topology.
We write to mean that and are not eventually different (they are infinitely equal). Two sets are called almost disjoint if and only if is finite, and an almost disjoint family is a set any two elements of which are almost disjoint. We write to mean is *almost contained in * , i.e., is finite.
We naturally take ‘…is recursive in …’ to apply to subsets of , the set of hereditarily finite sets. Any function is for this purpose identified with a subset of by replacing the value with some fixed element of . Consult [6, 4] for more on the (effective) Borel and projective hierarchies, i.e., on , , , … sets.
Clearly all of the results in this paper can be derived in ZF (in fact in a not so strong subsystem of second order arithmetic).
C
This note is organized as follows. In Section 2 we prove a special case of Theorem 1.2 assuming that grows quickly enough so that we can code initial segments of functions without running out of space, in Lemma 2.1. The construction we give also applies to Baire space. In Section 3 we prove Theorem 1.2 in full generality, quoting the proof of Lemma 2.1. In Section 4 we prove two simple facts which together with Theorem 1.2 imply Corollary 1.3. We close with some open questions in Section 5.
*Acknowledgements: The author gratefully acknowledges the generous support from the DNRF Niels Bohr Professorship of Lars Hesselholt. *
2. The main lemma
We start by proving a variant of Theorem 1.2 (that there is a medf in ) assuming satisfies a growth condition. The proof will at the same time make more elementary and generalize the construction of Horowitz and Shelah [2] and the present author’s version [7].
Lemma 2.1**.**
Supposing is such that for all
[TABLE]
there is a perfect maximal eventually different family in .
Clearly, if for every then this family will be compact. Note that gives , i.e., the set containing the empty function, whence (1) implies and in fact .
Before we begin with the proof, we introduce the main ingredients of the construction and define our medf . The definitions and proofs which follow are a further streamlined version of those in [7], where the reader will find more explanations.
Definition 2.2**.**
Suppose satisfies (1), and .
- (A)
Fix two bijective coding functions
[TABLE]
where is appropriate for in the following sense: For each , and , This is possible by (1). When is clear from the context write for . 2. (B)
Let be the function in given by
[TABLE] 3. (C)
Suppose . Let
[TABLE]
i.e., the set of with binary expansion of the form , where (for some and ). 4. (D)
Suppose . We say is good if and only if whenever are two consecutive elements of (i.e., when ) then
[TABLE]
We also say is good if and only if the same as above holds, i.e., if for every , is good. 5. (E)
Let 6. (F)
We define a strict partial order on , letting if and only if the following hold:
- (i)
, 2. (ii)
for each letting it holds that has length (which implies that also has length ), 3. (iii)
, 4. (iv)
. 7. (G)
Define by
[TABLE] 8. (H)
We define our medf as follows:
[TABLE]
Remark 2.3**.**
It is very easy to see that is ; thus if is an medf, is because
[TABLE] 2. 2.
If , and are eventually different, where for each , . 3. 3.
For and , is a set of -comparable points if and only if for some and . 4. 4.
Note that is by definition a subset of ; this ensures that and be recovered from in a simple fashion. This is only a matter of convenience; we could delete “” in 2.2(E) (the only slight change necessary would be in the proof of Claim 2.9 below). 5. 5.
If and then . 6. 6.
If for some and , clearly . 7. 7.
The set \{{c^{-1}}[\{1\}]\;|\;c\in{}^{\mathbb{N}}2,\text{ c is good}\} is an almost disjoint family: For assume . Find such that and note that for each , is almost contained in since is good.
We now prove our main lemma.
Proof of Lemma 2.1. Fix satisfying (1) and let etc. be as in Definition 2.2. The proof is split up into several claims. We first show:
Claim 2.4**.**
*The set \{\operatorname{B}(g,c)\;|\;g\in\mathcal{N}_{F},c\in{}^{\mathbb{N}}2,\text{ c is good}\} is an almost disjoint family. *
It will facilitate our argument to introduce the following notation:
Definition 2.5**.**
Suppose and . Let
[TABLE]
Note for , and we have that is finite whenever ; and whenever and are incomparable w.r.t. . Moreover note for the proof of Claim 2.7 below that if .
We now prove the claim.
Proof of Claim 2.4. Let for each and suppose . Find such that . As for each we have and is finite, we are done. ∎Claim (2.4).
Now it is easy to show:
Claim 2.6**.**
The set is an eventually different family.
Proof of claim. Let for each and assume . Find and such that for each .
Clearly and can only agree on finitely many points outside of . By the previous claim and by symmetry, it therefore suffices to show that the set defined by
[TABLE]
is finite. Assume that and ; then whenever by the definition of and we are done. ∎Claim 2.6.
The next claim is the combinatorial heart of the entire construction and the basis of the following proof that is maximal.
Claim 2.7**.**
For any one of the following holds:
- (1)
There exists an infinite set together with functions and such that
- (a)
, and 2. (b)
* is finite.* 2. (2)
There exists a good function such that no two are comparable with respect to .
We postpone the proof of the claim and first show assuming this claim that is maximal.
Claim 2.8**.**
Assuming Claim 2.7, the eventually different family is maximal.
Proof of Claim 2.8. Let be given. If Case 1 in Claim 2.7 holds find an infinite set , and such that
[TABLE]
and is finite. As and agrees with and thus with on all but finitely many points in , we are done.
If on the other hand Case 2 in Claim 2.7 holds, we may find a good function such that agrees with on an infinite set, and we are also done, proving maximality. ∎Claim 2.8.
Now it is high time we prove Claim 2.7.
Proof of Claim 2.7. Write
[TABLE]
i.e., let denote set of finite sequences from which end in together with the empty sequence. Let be given.
Assume first that
[TABLE]
Fix witnessing the existential quantifier above and let noting that
[TABLE]
where .
By (2) and as for every which extends , we can for each recursively find so that and . Thus we can find and such that , where .
Moreover is finite: Since , by (3), and so while and (the latter holds since for each ). Thus we have that Case 1 of the claim holds.
Now assume to the contrary that (2) fails, i.e., it holds that
[TABLE]
Let and recursively chose and for each such that and
[TABLE]
holds. Letting , we have that is good, and no are comparable w.r.t. . Thus, Case 2 of the claim holds. ∎Claim (2.7).
Finally, we have:
Claim 2.9**.**
The medf is .
This is fairly obvious. To be able to formulate a concise proof we extend Definitions 2.2(E) and 2.2(F) in a straightforward manner:
Definition 2.10**.**
Suppose for some , and . Define
[TABLE]
Moreover let if and only if the following hold:
- (i)
, 2. (ii)
for each letting it holds that has length (which implies that also has length ), 3. (iii)
, 4. (iv)
.
Proof of Claim 2.9. Clearly, where is the tree consisting of those
[TABLE]
such that for any odd letting
[TABLE]
we have , and for every ,
- (I)
if all of the following holds:
- (a)
is good, 2. (b)
no two are comparable w.r.t. , 3. (c)
; 2. (II)
if any of (Ia)–(Ic) above fails, .
Lastly, clearly is . ∎Claim 2.9 and Lemma 2.1
3. Proof of the main theorem
Before we give the proof of Theorem 1.2, i.e., that there is a medf in , it will be convenient to give a yet broader definition of ‘maximal eventually different family’:
Definition 3.1**.**
Any two functions with countable domain are called eventually different if and only if is finite.
Suppose and . A set is an eventually different family in if and only if and any two distinct are eventually different; such a family is called maximal (or short: a medf) if and only if it is maximal among such families under inclusion.
We now have the prerequisites to give a transparent proof of our main result. This proof has a precursor in [7] where we also enlarged a medf defined on a factor space to a medf in the entire (product) space.
Proof of Theorem 1.2.
The proof is slightly easier if we assume that was chosen so that , so let us make this assumption from now on. As we may find a sequence which is such that and for each we have
[TABLE]
Let and let denote the map .
As by (5), satisfies the growth condition in Theorem 2.1 the proof of said theorem gives us a medf in the space . In fact, the proof gives us a tree such that for any ,
[TABLE]
For define as follows:
[TABLE]
This is well defined as for all . (It may be interesting to note that one can delete the requirement above in case for the purposes of the present proof.)
We show that is a medf. It is maximal as
[TABLE]
and is maximal in : Whenever there is such that and agree on infinitely many points from , so .
Clearly, is also an eventually different family, as is: For two distinct functions and from , find is such for all , . Further, find such that for all
[TABLE]
Then for all we have .
We show is . Obviously if and only if for every
- •
, and
- •
whenever , and is maximal such that and \operatorname{\#_{1}}\big{(}(g\mathbin{\upharpoonright}m)\circ e\big{)}<F(n), we have g(n)=\operatorname{\#_{1}}\big{(}(g\mathbin{\upharpoonright}m)\circ e\big{)}.
Clearly we can compute from (relative to ). Thus all the requirements in the above definition of past the universal quantifier over and are . ∎
4. Proof of the corollary
Corollary 1.3 now immediately follows using the following rather trivial facts. We include proofs for the convenience of the reader. For the remainder, fix .
Fact 4.1**.**
There is a compact medf on if and only if for infinitely many .
Proof.
Let . If is finite, clearly there cannot be a compact medf, as for every compact there is such that eventually dominates every , i.e., is finite.
Conversely, suppose is infinite and show there is a compact medf. Clearly we can assume as otherwise there is a recursive finite medf consisting of constant functions.
The proof is almost the same as that of Theorem 1.2, so we only point out the necessary changes. When defining as in the proof of Theorem 1.2, let be the least element of and when choosing for demand in addition that as well.
When defining from , demand that for . The condition for membership in is easily adapted from the one in the proof of Theorem 1.2. The rest of the proof can be followed verbatim; we produce a compact medf as for every and every we have if and for we have
[TABLE]
where the right-hand side is a finite set. ∎
Finally we have:
Fact 4.2**.**
If every medf is uncountable; otherwise, every medf is finite.
Proof.
If , every eventually different family is finite: towards a contradiction find such that is infinite. By the pigeonhole principle, there is no eventually different family of size .
If on the other hand , a simple diagonalization argument shows that there is no countable medf. ∎
5. Questions
Is it the case that for some there is a compact maximal cofinitary group in ? 2. 2.
For which is the answer to the previous question ‘yes’ (if any)? It is easy to see that it is necessary that for all but finitely many . 3. 3.
Is there a natural, minimal fragment of second order arithmetic which proves there is a eventually different family? 4. 4.
For any set let denote the set of infinite subsets of . Given any and a medf on consider the co-ideal
[TABLE]
Is there a closed medf in or (under some assumption on ) such that ?
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] Haim Horowitz and Saharon Shelah, A Borel maximal cofinitary group , arxiv:1610.01344 [math.LO] , October 2016.
- 2[2] by same author, A Borel maximal eventually different family , ar Xiv:1605.07123 [math.LO] , May 2016.
- 3[3] Alexander S. Kechris, Classical descriptive set theory , Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 156, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995. MR 1321597
- 4[4] Richard Mansfield and Galen Weitkamp, Recursive aspects of descriptive set theory , Oxford Logic Guides, vol. 11, The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 1985, With a chapter by Stephen Simpson. MR 786122
- 5[5] A. R. D. Mathias, Happy families , Ann. Math. Logic 12 (1977), no. 1, 59–111. MR 0491197
- 6[6] Yiannis N. Moschovakis, Descriptive set theory , second ed., Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, vol. 155, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2009. MR 2526093
- 7[7] David Schrittesser, On Horowitz and Shelah’s Borel maximal eventually different family , ar Xiv:1703.01806 [math.LO] , March 2017.
- 8[8] Asger Törnquist, Definability and almost disjoint families , ar Xiv:1503.07577 [math.LO] , March 2015.
