8
$\begingroup$

We say that $f:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ is of Baire Class $1$ if it is a pointwise limit of a sequence of continuous functions.

One can generalize the definition above by taking pointwise limit of each 'previous' level(s) to obtain 'next' level. More precisely,

For any countable ordinal $\xi\geq 1,$ we say that $f:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ is of Baire Class $\xi$ if it is a pointwise limit of a sequence of Baire Class $\zeta$ functions where $\zeta<\xi.$

The generalization covers the case $\xi=1$ as every continuous function is of Baire Class $0.$

When $\xi = 2,$ it is well-known that $\chi_\mathbb{Q}$ is of Baire Class $2$ as it is a pointwise limit of $(g_n)_{n=1}^\infty$ where $g_n(x) = \max\{0,1-n d(x,K)\}$ and $K$ is a finite collection of rationals. (extracted from Wiki) Since $\chi_\mathbb{Q}$ is discontinuous everywhere, so it is not of Baire Class $1.$

This MSE post also contains other Baire Class $2$ functions.

However, I fail to obtain any Baire Class $3$ function and above.

Question: For each countable ordinal $\xi\geq 3,$ what are some examples of Baire Class $\xi+1$ but not $\xi$ function by using the pointwise limit definition?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You might have a look, for example, at Section 16 in van Rooij, Schikhof: A Second Course on Real Functions. This part of the book is essentially about showing that $\mathscr B_{\xi+1} \setminus \mathscr B_\xi$ is none-empty for a countable ordinal $\xi$. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak May 31 '18 at 10:28
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ It is possible to explicitly construct Borel sets that are exactly at the level $\xi$ of the Borel hierarchy, but the construction is fairly unenlightening and involves repeated diagonalization over the previous levels: see here for the simplest account I was able to give. I don't think you should expect much better. $\endgroup$ – Gro-Tsen May 31 '18 at 13:55
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The buzzword here is "the Baire hierarchy does not collapse". $\endgroup$ – Nate Eldredge May 31 '18 at 14:30
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Nate: Must have had a good architect! $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila May 31 '18 at 15:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ See R. D. Mauldin's 1973 paper On Borel measures and Baire's class $3$ (proof on pp. 310-311) for a "naturally occurring" Baire $3$ function that is not Baire $2$, and see my comments in this 14 May 2009 sci.math post. $\endgroup$ – Dave L Renfro Jun 1 '18 at 8:29
5
$\begingroup$

A somewhat concrete example of function which is Baire class $\zeta$ but not Baire class $\gamma$ for any $\gamma < \zeta$ is the $\zeta$-th Turing jump. This is essentially the iterated version of Shoenfield's limit lemma. The (iterated) Turing jump naturally gives us a function $J : \{0,1\}^\omega \to \{0,1\}^\omega$, but of course we can embed $\{0,1\}^\omega$ into $\mathbb{R}$ as the Cantor middle set and extend the function, if we prefer to work with $\mathbb{R}$.

Another approach is to piggy-back on the non-collapse of the Borel hierarchy: By the Banach-Lebesgue-Hausdorff theorem, Baire class $\zeta$ and the $\Sigma^0_{1+\zeta}$-measurable functions coincide. So the characteristic function of a $\Sigma^0_{1+\zeta}$-complete set is Baire class $\zeta+1$, but not Baire class $\zeta$.

The example given in the question is of course a special case of the second procedure. A general construction of $\Sigma^0_{1+\zeta}$-complete sets is found eg in this answer

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Regarding your first paragraph, can you elaborate more on it? I understand that Turing jump can be defined inductively. But I fail to see how to obtain a function based on this. $\endgroup$ – Idonknow Jun 3 '18 at 9:06
  • $\begingroup$ @Idonknow Does the new sentence clarify this? $\endgroup$ – Arno Jun 6 '18 at 8:05

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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