The axiom of Turing determinacy is a weakening of the full axiom of determinacy, $AD$, in which only games with payoff sets which are $\equiv_T$-invariant are demanded to be determined.

In "Turing determinacy and the continuum hypothesis" (published in 1989), Ramez Sami writes:

"The main question so far unsettled in this particular domain can be roughly put this way: is it true that for any "reasonable" pointclass $\Gamma$ we have: Turing-Det$(\Gamma)\implies$Det$(\Gamma)$? In particular is it the case that: [over $ZF+DC$, presumably] Turing $AD$ implies $AD$?"

My question is, what is the status of this question currently? Do we know whether Turing $AD$ is strictly weaker than $AD$? The only recent work I know of around Turing determinacy is from the reverse mathematical side (http://www.math.cornell.edu/~shore/papers/pdf/TDet21.pdf); I'm not at all familiar with the set theory on the subject.

(I vaguely recall that Turing determinacy implies that every Suslin set is determined, but I can't remember where I supposedly learned this "fact.")

  • $\begingroup$ It seems even unknown whether $TD$ implies the nonexistence of a Bernstein set. $\endgroup$
    – 喻 良
    Commented Apr 26, 2020 at 7:09
  • $\begingroup$ I think this is no longer unknown : arxiv.org/abs/1912.12558 $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 29, 2020 at 19:22
  • $\begingroup$ @PaulLarson Unless I'm missing something, that's specifically about the perfect set property - I don't see how to lift it to an equivalence between general determinacy principles, and in the intro at a glance they only claim to answer a special case of question $2$, not question $1$ itself. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 29, 2020 at 19:23
  • $\begingroup$ @PaulLarson And in section IV they list that as a still-open problem. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 29, 2020 at 19:24
  • $\begingroup$ I should have read it more carefully. I believe that that paper is not up to date, but I may be misinformed. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 29, 2020 at 19:36

2 Answers 2


This is open. In $L(\mathbb R)$ the answer is yes. Hugh has several proofs of this, and it remains one of the few unpublished results in the area. The latest version of the statement (that I know of) is the claim in your parenthetical remark at the end. This gives determinacy in $L(\mathbb R)$ using, for example, a reflection argument.

(I mentioned this a while ago somewhere on this site. Maybe that's where you heard of it? This can be used to prove that $\omega$-board determinacy is equiconsistent with determinacy. I seem to recall that's how the topic came up.)

Update (Jun 25/22): Hugh has just published a proof that Turing determinacy implies the determinacy of Suslin sets (which gives $L(\mathbb R)$-determinacy and more). He indicates in the paper that the general question remains open. Coordinates:

NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICS Volume 52 (2022), 845–863, "Turing determinacy and Suslin sets" https://doi.org/10.53733/140

  • $\begingroup$ Based on your answer, I googled around and found this: math.stackexchange.com/questions/656414/…. So that must be what I was remembering. It's probably too much to ask, but do you know if there is a version of the proof floating around? $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 16, 2014 at 2:00
  • $\begingroup$ I don't think so, unfortunately. Hugh lectured on this at the seminar at Berkeley a few years ago, but I couldn't find anybody who had taken notes. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 16, 2014 at 2:01
  • $\begingroup$ (And, yes, you are right, it was on MSE that this came up.) $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 16, 2014 at 2:02

To show this in L(R) (or any well understood determinacy model) one apparently has to run a core model induction as in section 6.2 of https://ivv5hpp.uni-muenster.de/u/rds/core_model_induction.pdf which explains why it is open in the abstract.


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.