Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm trying to do due diligence and determine whether this is known, trivial, original, etc. I have a proof of:

Theorem: If $S\subseteq \mathbb{N}^{\mathbb{N}}$ then $S=X\cup Y$ for some $X$ which is boldface $\mathbf{\Delta}_2^0$ and some $Y$ with no isolated points, with $X\cap Y=\emptyset$.

Anybody else have a proof of this?

share|improve this question
    
The usual Cantor-Bendixson theorem tells you that your set $S$ is the disjoint union of a countable set $X$ and a set $Y$ with no isolated points. The countable set is boldface $\Sigma^0_2$. But the countable set is scattered, i.e., every subset has an isolated point. Does this somehow give you boldface $\Pi^0_2$ as well? Or do you use a different decomposition? –  Stefan Geschke Jun 4 '11 at 20:57
    
Stefan, isn't every countable set boldface $\Delta^0_1$? (or better?) This would make the result an immediate consequence of the Cantor-Bendixon argument. Just throw out isolated points until there are none left, in a transfinite recursion; one obtains the original set as a union of a countable set (hence $\Delta^0_2$) and a set with no isoltated points, as desired. –  Joel David Hamkins Jun 4 '11 at 21:47
    
Ahh, that is right. Thanks Joel. I failed to realize the Cantor-Bendixson rank is always countable, but now that I think about it, of course it is. In light of all this, here is an interesting alternate statement of CBT: "Every $S\subseteq\mathbb{N}^{\mathbb{N}}$ is a disjoint union of a countable set $X$ and a set with no isolated points $Y$; and $Y$ can be taken to be closed if $S$ is closed (in which case the union is unique)" –  Sam Alexander Jun 4 '11 at 22:19
    
@Joel: Boldface $\Delta^0_1$ is the same as clopen, so nonempty countable sets are not $\Delta^0_1$. They are $\Sigma^0_2$ (i.e., $F_\sigma$), as Stefan said, but an additional argument is needed to get $\Pi^0_2$ (i.e., $G_\delta$). That argument will need something like scatteredness, since a countable dense set can't be $G_\delta$ by the Baire category theorem. –  Andreas Blass Jun 5 '11 at 2:28
    
Yes, I've come to the same conclusion myself. My comment above is not correct. –  Joel David Hamkins Jun 5 '11 at 3:43
show 1 more comment

1 Answer

Stefan Geschke and Joel David Hamkins pointed out that this is a corollary of the proof of the Cantor-Bendixson theorem. In fact, we can strengthen the conclusion: X is not just $\Delta_2^0$, it is countable and scattered(*). And the proof, like that of Cantor-Bendixson's theorem, is simple: remove isolated points repeatedly until none remain (this may take more than $\omega$ steps and require ordinals, but a simple argument shows it only requires ordinals below $\omega_1$, and thus only countably many isolated points need to be removed).

(*Scattered implies $G_{\delta}$, though this is not trivial. Thus countable+scattered is strictly stronger than $\Delta_2^0$)

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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