7
$\begingroup$

For a topological space $X$ (which I'll identify with its underlying set of points), we define the Wadge preorder $Wadge(X)$: elements of the preorder are subsets of $X$, and the ordering is given by $A\le_{W(X)}B$ iff there is a continuous map $f:X\rightarrow X$ with $f^{-1}(B)=A$.

Actually, it is sometimes better to tweak the definition; if this affects the answer, feel free to use it instead, or indeed any other improvement on the naive Wadge hierarchy.

There is a natural substructure of $Wadge(X)$, namely its wellfounded part: $$WWF(X)=\{A\subseteq X: \neg\exists (B_i)_{i\in\omega}(B_0=A, B_i>_{W(X)}B_{i+1})\}.$$ (Here "$<_{W(X)}$" means "$\le_{W(X)}$ and not $\ge_{W(X)}$," as expected.)

For example, Borel determinacy implies that $WWF(\omega^\omega)$ contains the class of Borel sets, and under AD we in fact get $WWF(\omega^\omega)=\mathcal{P}(\omega^\omega)$.

Now, faced with a natural well-founded preorder, my instinct is that it should consist of the objects which can be "built up from below" by some natural procedure. But I don't see that this is the case here. So I want to ask:

Main question: Is there a way to think of $WWF(X)$ this way? Phrased a bit more abstractly, is $WWF(X)$ the least fixed point of some reasonable operator on $\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{P}(X))$, at least for "reasonable" $X$?

Even for $X=\omega^\omega$, this isn't clear to me. Indeed, it's not even clear to me that the usual "tame part" of $Wadge(\omega^\omega)$ is all of $WWF(\omega^\omega)$. So maybe the following is worth resolving on its own:

Secondary question: Is there an $A\in WWF(\omega^\omega)$ which is Wadge incomparable with (say) both the set of reals coding well-orderings and the complement of that set? (That is, the Wadge degrees $\Pi^1_1$ and $\Sigma^1_1$.)

$\endgroup$
3
+100
$\begingroup$

Long comment:

It is difficult to answer "no" to the main question, given the unlimited potential interpretations of "reasonable". Still, I would be very surprised by a positive answer.

The reason is an observation by Peter Hertling that already on $\mathbb{R}$ we can build a descending chain of sets $(A_m)_{m < \omega}$ where each $A_m$ is a finite union of half-open intervals and open. Precisely, let $$A_n := [0,1) \cup (2,3) \cup \ldots \cup (2n,2n+1) \cup [2n+2,2n+3)$$

Since I believe that $\mathbb{R}$ ought to be reasonable space, this would leave us with needing a reasonable construction of sets that on $\mathbb{R}$ avoids already finite unions of (half)-open intervals, while creating at least all Borel sets on $\omega^\omega$.

Of course, the main question seems to be already very interesting on $\omega^\omega$ alone; so this example only serves to show that the scope should probably be limited a bit.

Going for Pequignot's tweaked definition would remove this obstacle, so that might be another approach..

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

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