12
$\begingroup$

The following problem was asked by Joe Miller in the fall of 2010 at a bar in Madison.

A subtree $T \subseteq 4^{< \omega}$ is $2$-bushy if for some node $\sigma \in T$, every node above $\sigma$ has two immediate successors. Is the following true: For every continuous function $f: 4^{\omega} \to 2^{\omega}$, there exists a $2$-bushy tree $T \subseteq 4^{< \omega}$ such that $f \upharpoonright [T]$ is either one-one or constant? Here $[T]$ is the set of branches through $T$.

I am tagging it set-theory + recursion-theory.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I am not sure if this will help much, but Rohit Nagpal showed that it is enough to consider functions obtained by a $0,1$ labeling of $4^{< \omega}$ which means that for some $L:4^{<\omega} \to \{0, 1\}$, $f$ satisfies $f(x)(n) = L(x \upharpoonright n)$. $\endgroup$
    – Ashutosh
    Mar 8, 2015 at 22:24
  • $\begingroup$ Do you know the answer already with some other numbers replacing $2$ and $4$? $\endgroup$
    – Will Sawin
    Mar 10, 2015 at 22:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @WillSawin for 2 and 3 it is false as Ashutosh mentioned (and deleted, long story) by considering the projection function $f(x_0x_1\dots)=x_0x_2x_4\dots$ $\endgroup$ Mar 11, 2015 at 20:03
  • $\begingroup$ I have a new answer to this question that I believe is correct. See my edited post. $\endgroup$
    – Will Sawin
    Mar 20, 2016 at 20:22

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

Yes.

Let me use the reduction to labelings suggested by Rohit. Let's call a two-bushy tree where $\sigma$ is the root a $2$-branchy tree.

For any continuous function $L$ from $4^{<\omega}$ to $\{0,1\}$, there is a either a three-branchy tree $T$ where $L$ restricted to $[T]$ is the constant function $0$ or a two-branchy tree $T$ where $L$ restricted to $[T]$ is the constant function $1$. This follows by backwards induction on the nodes, starting from nodes where $L$ is constant. If a node has all four children the base of one of these two types of trees, then either three have the first type of tree or two have the second, so it has one of the two types of threes.

As a corollary there is either a $2$-branchy tree $T$ such that $L$ restricted to $T$ is $0$, or a $2$-branchy tree $T$ such that $L$ restricted to $T$ is $1$. Without loss of generality, assume it is $0$. Then let $k$ be the maximum number such that there is a $2$-branchy tree $T$ where $f$ restricted to $[T]$ lands on functions that begin with $k$ zeros. By assumption $k\geq 1$.

If $k=\infty$ we win - there is a tree where $f$ is constant.

So assume $k$ is finite. Suppose there exists a $2$-branchy tree $T'$ such that $f$ restricted to $[T']$ lands on functions that do not begin with $k$ zeros. Then we win. Indeed the first $k$ values of $f(x_0x_1\dots)$ are determined by $x_0x_1\dots x_{N-1}$ for some $N$. Then choose a two-branchy tree of sequences $x_0x_1\dots$ such that if $x_i$ is the leftmost of the two options at $x_0\dots x_{i-1}$ then $x_{Ni}x_{N{i+1}} \dots x_{Ni+N-1}$ is in $T$, and if $x_i$ is the rightmost of the two options then $x_{Ni}x_{N{i+1}} \dots x_{Ni+N-1}$ is in $T'$ (and we might have to switch left and right for $x_0$). Then $f$ restricted to that tree is injective, as we can reconstruct $x_i$ by looking at the $Ni$ through $Ni+k-1$ digits of $f(x_0x_i\dots)$.

If there does not exist such a $2$-branchy tree, then there exists a $3$-branchy tree $T^*$ where $f$ restricted to $T^*$ always begins with $k$ zeroes. Then consider the tree of sequences $x$ that are in $T^*$ and that, after removing the first digit, remain in $T^*$. This is $2$-branchy tree, and $f$ applied to everything in it has $k+1$ zeroes. This contradicts our assumption on $k$.

So we win.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I don't see why "restricted to any tree that branches on an even row, $f$ cannot be one-one." The reason is that, if $p$ and $q$ are the two immediate successors of a branch point $b$, the part of the subtree beyond $p$ may be entirely different from the part beyond $q$. $\endgroup$ Mar 11, 2015 at 13:52
  • $\begingroup$ @AndreasBlass what's the definition of one-one for trees? I thought it was a statement about the vertices, hence a statement about the immediate successors of $b$. Is it a statement about infinite paths? $\endgroup$
    – Will Sawin
    Mar 11, 2015 at 14:59
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ $[T]$ is the set of infinite paths through the tree $T$, and the OP wants $f$ to be one-to-one or constant on such a set $[T]$. $\endgroup$ Mar 11, 2015 at 20:40
  • $\begingroup$ What's the difference between 2-branchy and 2-bushy then? $\endgroup$ Mar 31, 2016 at 23:36
  • $\begingroup$ @BjørnKjos-Hanssen In a 2-branchy tree, every node in the tree has two intermediate successors. In the 2-branchy tree, it's every node after a certain node. There are obvious counterexamples to the 2-branchy version of the original problem, but it's fine in this very symmetric version. However, I don't see how to reconstruct the reduction argument or how to apply an analogue of my method to the original problem. $\endgroup$
    – Will Sawin
    Apr 1, 2016 at 0:52

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.