MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Is the following generalised compactness property of Borel sets in a Polish space consistent with ZFC?

(*) Let $\mathcal{B}$ be a family of $\aleph_1$-many Borel sets. If $\bigcap \mathcal{B} = \emptyset$ then for some countable $\mathcal{C} \subseteq \mathcal{B}$ it holds that $\bigcap \mathcal{C} = \emptyset$.

In the special case that $\mathcal{B}$ is a family of open sets, it is not hard to show that property () is a consequence of $\neg\mathrm{CH} + \mathrm{MA}$ (where $\mathrm{CH}$ is the Continuum Hypothesis and $\mathrm{MA}$ is Martin's Axiom) - more specifically, a consequence of $\mathrm{MA}_{\aleph_1}$. Also, trivially, this special case of () itself implies $\neg \mathrm{CH}$.

However, I am stuck as to the consistency of (*) for general Borel sets. Actually, I have been unable to show consistency even when $\mathcal{B}$ is restricted to families of $F_\sigma$ sets.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 8 down vote accepted

It is worth noting that a construction provided by Hausdorff more than a hundred years before the result of Kubis and Vejnar also provides a counterexample. A Hausdorff gap is a family of subsets of the natural numbers $A_\xi, B_\xi$ for $\xi\in\omega_1$ such that $A_\xi \subseteq^* A_\eta \subseteq^* B_\eta \subseteq^* B_\xi$ for $\xi< \eta$ but such that there is no subset of $\mathbb N$ such that $ A_\xi \subseteq^* X \subseteq^* B_\xi$ for all $\xi$. (Here $\subseteq^*$ means inclusion except for a finite set.) Letting $S_\xi$ be the Borel set of all $X\subseteq \mathbb N$ such that $ A_\xi \subseteq^* X \subseteq^* B_\xi$ yields the counterexample.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks for this simple example, which is again a counterexample to the assertion for $F_\sigma$ sets. – Alex Simpson May 6 '11 at 12:25

Here is a even simpler example.

Let $\{x_{\alpha} \}_{\alpha\in \omega_1}$ be an increasing chain in the Turing degrees. For every $\alpha$, let $B_{\alpha}=\{y\mid y\geq_T x_{\alpha}\}$. Each $B_{\alpha}$ is a boldface $\Sigma^0_3$ set.

Then for any countable ordinal $\beta$, $\bigcap_{\alpha<\beta}B_{\alpha}$ is not empty but $\bigcap_{\alpha<\omega_1}B_{\alpha}=\emptyset$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Another nice example! (Although I might argue that simplicity is often in the eye of the beholder.) – Clinton Conley May 8 '11 at 11:58

This compactness property is never true, even for collections of $F_\sigma$ subsets of an uncountable Polish space. One way to see this is to fix your favorite example of an $F_\sigma$ graph $G$ with clique number $\aleph_1$ and a maximal $G$-clique $K$. Then let your family be $\{G_x : x \in K\}$, where $G_x$ is the set of neighbors of $x$ in $G$.

For a simple example of such a graph, see, e.g.,

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks for this definitive answer. Nice paper! – Alex Simpson May 6 '11 at 11:09
I can't seem to comment on Juris' answer (hi Juris!), but it's a nice example, and definitely worth mentioning. I just couldn't resist the opportunity to publicize this paper. (Also, sorry for the name changes -- I was having issues with OpenID.) – Clinton Conley May 6 '11 at 12:11
Welcome to MO, Clinton! – Stefan Geschke May 8 '11 at 4:15
Hi Stefan! Thanks! – Clinton Conley May 8 '11 at 11:58

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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