Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with descriptive-set-theory
Search options not deleted
user 44086
Descriptive Set Theory is the study of definable subsets of Polish spaces, where definable is taken to mean from the Borel or projective hierarchies. Other topics include infinite games and determinacy, definable equivalence relations and Borel reductions between them, Polish groups, and effective descriptive set theory.
5
votes
1
answer
981
views
sets without perfect subset in a non-separable completely metrizable space
Suppose $X$ is a completely metrizable (but not separable) space. Suppose $D$ is a Borel (actually $F_{\sigma}$) subset of $X$. Is there any logical relation between the following statements?
[1] $D …
- 51