I am currently reading a paper by Goldstern, Kellner and Shelah, in which they, pretty nonchalantly, state "Amoeba forcing will add a null set covering all old null sets", without proving this fact or giving a reference. The only thing I could find that would prove this statement was in the Bartoszynski book "Set Theory: On the structure of the Real Line", where he states that any two Amoeba forcings are equivalent, which would mean that, even when forcing with just one Amoeba forcing, for any $n\in\omega$, there would be a set of measure $<\frac{1}{n}$ (by a standard density argument), covering all old null sets, which would imply the statement. But I cannot seem to understand his proof, therefore I am wondering if perhaps there is an easier way, i.e. simply constructing an $\mathbb{A}_{1/2^{n+1}}$-generic Filter from a $\mathbb{A}_{1/2^n}$-generic filter.
2 Answers
The conditions in Amoeba forcing are open sets of measure less than $1/2$. (Say, in $2^\omega$.)
A condition $q$ is stronger than $p$ iff $q \supseteq p$. (Alternatively, use closed sets of measure greater than $1/2$. Then stronger conditions will be smaller.)
For a generic filter $G$ let $U_G$ be the union of all sets in $G$. An easy density argument shows that $U$ is an open set of measure $1/2$. (I can elaborate if necessary)
Another easy density argument shows that every ground model null set is contained in $U_G$. More precisely, whenever $c$ is a (natural) code for a $G_\delta$ null set, then the $G_\delta$ null set $B_c$ described by $c$ (in $V[G]$) is a subset of $U_G$.
Every "rational" infinite $01$-sequence (i.e., with only finitely many $1$'s) defines a measure-preserving translation map $x \mapsto x+t$ on $2^\omega$. Every rational translate of $U_G+t $ has the same property as $U_G$: measure $1/2$, and it covers every ground model $G_\delta$ null set.
(Proof: given such a null set $N$, also the set $N-t$ is null, hence covered by $U_G$, so $N$ is covered by $U_G+t$.)
Now we get to the main point: How to get from $1/2$ down to $0$?
Let $U'_G:= \bigcap_t (U_G + t)$, where $t$ ranges over all rational sequences. Then $U'_G$ is a $G_\delta$ set, its measure is at most $1/2$, but by Kolmogorov's 0-1-law, its measure must be $0$. But $U'_G$ still covers all ground model null sets.
Remark: If you do an iteration of Amoeba forcing (of limit length) rather than a single forcing, you could (but why would you?) replace the above argument by the following: the first Amoeba forcing gives you an open set of measure 1/2, the second a new open set of measure 1/3, etc. Now take the intersection of all these sets.
-
$\begingroup$ Im sorry for this question coming so late. But im not quite sure how you can apply Kolmogorovs 0-1-law. The statement i read on wikipedia of this law requires random variables that are independent. If we take $X_t$ to be the uniform distribution on $U_G+t$, then i dont know how to prove independence, since this does not hold for arbitrary sets, even of measure 1/2: For example, take $U:=[(0,0)]\cup[(1,0)]$. Then $U+(1)=U$, but since $U$ has measure 1/2, $U$ and $U+(1)$ cannot be independent. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 4, 2020 at 15:41
-
$\begingroup$ First, here is a link to the wikipedia article. Second: Consider the space $2^\omega$, with the random variables $X_n:2^\omega\to 2$ defined by $X_n(x)=x(n)$. They are independent and generate the $\sigma$-algebra of Borel sets. For any positive measurable set $S\subseteq 2^\omega$ (in particular, for any open set of measure $1/2$), the set $\bigcap _t S+t$ is a tail event. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 5, 2020 at 21:02
-
$\begingroup$ That clears it up, thank you very much. And by the way, it is a great feeling to be asking a question about a paper only to have it answered by one of the authors! $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 5, 2020 at 21:30
I believe the following works:
Let $C$ be Cantor space and for $\sigma\in 2^{<\omega}$ let $C_\sigma=\{f\in C: \sigma\prec f\}$. There is a canonical bijection $i_\sigma:C_\sigma\rightarrow C$ given by cutting off the initial $\sigma$.
Suppose $G$ is amoeba-generic over $V$. For $\sigma\in 2^{<\omega}$ let $G_\sigma=i_\sigma[G\cap C_\sigma]$. The point is:
By "spending measure elsewhere," for each $\epsilon>0$ there will be some $\sigma$ with $m(G_\sigma)<\epsilon$.
But by the usual "engulfing" argument, we'll have $N\subseteq G_\sigma$ whenever $N$ is null in the ground model.
So the $\Pi^0_2$ set $\bigcap_{\sigma\in 2^{<\omega}}G_\sigma$ is null and covers all ground model null sets.
EDIT: Of course the first bulletpoint above is the heart of the argument, so let me explain why it's true.
First, note that by genericity it's enough to prove the following:
$(*)$ Suppose $A\subseteq C$ is open with $m(A)<{1\over 2}$. Then for all $\delta>0$ there is some $\sigma\in 2^{<\omega}$ such that ${m(A\cap C_\sigma)\over m(C_\sigma)}<\delta$.
This implies the first bulletpoint, and is what "spending measure elsewhere" refers to: supposing we have a condition $A$ and an $\epsilon>0$, let $\sigma$ be the string gotten by applying $(*)$ with $\delta={\epsilon\over 2}$. Then we consider some larger open $A'$ with $A'\cap C_\sigma=A\cap C_\sigma$ and ${1\over 2}-m(A')<{m(C_\sigma)\epsilon\over 2}$. We'll have that if $G$ extends $A'$ then $m(i_\sigma[G_\sigma])<\epsilon$ as desired.
So it just remains to prove $(*)$. For this, look at the complement $A^c$ of our set and note that it is a non-null set and hence on some interval has relative measure arbitrarily close to $1$.
Note that we really do need to think about intervals specifically - or at least some canonical countable collection of opens - since at the end we need a countable intersection to get the desired result. The variation of $(*)$ gotten by shifting from $C_\sigma$s to arbitrary open sets is trivial but unhelpful.
-
$\begingroup$ I am not quite sure how we can show that for some $\sigma$, $m(G_{\sigma})<\epsilon$, since $i_{\sigma}[M]$ can be of measure larger than $M$ (for example, set $\sigma=\{(0,1)\}$ and $M=C_{\sigma}$, then $\mu(M)=1/2$, but $\mu(i_{\sigma}[M])=\mu(2^{\omega})=1$ so i think that some problems arise if $G$ is very uniform. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 12, 2020 at 17:01
-
$\begingroup$ @HannesJakob I've edited to include this argument. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 13, 2020 at 16:54
-
$\begingroup$ But how can you assume that G extends $A'$? The set of $B$ s.t. $B\cap C_{\sigma}=A\cap C_{\sigma}$ is not dense below $A$, since, if $C$ satisfies $C\cap C_{\sigma}\supsetneq A\cap C_{\sigma}$, then the same is true for any condition stronger than C and allowing the $\sigma$ to change can again bring drastic changes in the measure of $A\cap C_{\sigma}$ relative to $C_{\sigma}$. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 14, 2020 at 9:35