11
$\begingroup$

Suppose $G \subseteq \mathbb{R}^2$ is dense $G_\delta$. Must there (in ZFC) exist non meager sets of reals $A, B$ such that $A \times B \subseteq G$?

$\endgroup$
2
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Note that the measure analogue is false: H. Friedman and independently Shelah showed that in the Cohen real model there is a co-null set which does not contain a non null rectangle. See J. Pawlikowski: On a rectangle inclusion problem, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 123 No. 10 (1995), 3189-95 $\endgroup$
    – Ashutosh
    Jun 14, 2015 at 20:32
  • $\begingroup$ A related question is: (M. Burke, Note of 3-7-1991) Is it consistent that every null additive subgroup of reals is meager? $\endgroup$
    – Ashutosh
    Jun 14, 2015 at 21:09

1 Answer 1

11
$\begingroup$

I pointed this question to Taras Banakh, who pointed to me his joint paper with Lyubomyr Zdomskyy “Non-meager free sets for meager relations on Polish spaces” which contains an answer.

Abstract. We prove that for each meager relation $E\subset X\times X$ on a Polish space $X$ there is a nowhere meager subspace $F\subset X$ which is $E$-free in the sense that $(x,y)\not\in E$ for any distinct points $x,y\in F$.

From myself I add a simple negative answer for descriptively good $A$ and $B$, that is when both $A$ and $B$ have the Baire Property. I recall, that a subset $B$ of a topological space $X$ has the Baire Property (BP) in $X$ if $B$ contains a $G_\delta$-subset $C$ of $X$ such that $B\setminus C$ is meager in $X$. By [Kech, 8.22] each Borel subset of a space $X$ has the Baire Property in $X$. Put $G=\mathbb{R}^2\setminus \{(x,y):x-y\in\Bbb Q\}.$ Assume that both $A$ and $B$ are non meager subsets of the space $\Bbb R$ with the Baire Property and $A\times B\subset G$. By [Kech, Prop. 8.22] both sets $A+\Bbb Q$ and $B+\Bbb Q$ have the Baire Property. By [Kech, Th. 8.46] both sets $A+\Bbb Q$ and $B+\Bbb Q$ are comeger. So $A+Q\cap B+Q\ne\varnothing$. That is, there exist points $a\in A$, $b\in B$, $q, q’\in\Bbb Q$ such that $a+q=b+q’$. Then $(a,b)\in A\times B\setminus G$, a contradiction.

References

[Kech] A. Kechris. Classical Descriptive Set Theory, – Springer, 1995.

enter image description here

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ To see how the quoted result implies a solution to the given question (just because it took me a couple minutes): take $X = \mathbb{R}$ and $E = \mathbb{R}^2 \setminus G$, apply the quoted result to produce $F$; then $F \times F \subset G \cup D$, where $D$ is the diagonal. Now let $U,V$ be any two nonempty disjoint open subsets of $\mathbb{R}$; take $A = F \cap U$ and $B = F \cap V$. Since $F$ is nowhere meager, $A,B$ are nonmeager. We have $A \times B \subset F \times F \subset G \cup D$, and since $A,B$ are disjoint, we have $A \times B$ disjoint from $D$. So $A \times B \subset G$. $\endgroup$ Jun 15, 2015 at 21:34

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.