If some infinitary sentence provides a counterexample to Vaught's Conjecture, then there is an infinitary sentence which also provides a counterexample but has no model of cardinality bigger than ℵ₁.

§0. Preface. There has been an expectation that the endgame of the more tenacious problems raised by the Los Angeles ‘cabal’ school of descriptive set theory in the 1970's should ultimately be played out with the use of inner model theory. Questions phrased in the language of descriptive set theory, where both the conclusions and the assumptions are couched in terms that only mention simply definable sets of reals, and which have proved resistant to purely descriptive set theoretic arguments, may (...) at last find their solution through the connection between determinacy and large cardinals.Perhaps the most striking example was given by [24], where the core model theory was used to analyze the structure of HOD and then show that all regular cardinals below ΘL are measurable. John Steel's analysis also settled a number of structural questions regarding HODL, such as GCH.Another illustration is provided by [21]. There an application of large cardinals and inner model theory is used to generalize the Harrington-Martin theorem that determinacy implies )determinacy.However, it is harder to find examples of theorems regarding the structure of the projective sets whose only known proof from determinacy assumptions uses the link between determinacy and large cardinals. We may equivalently ask whether there are second order statements of number theory that cannot be proved under PD–the axiom of projective determinacy–without appealing to the large cardinal consequences of the PD, such as the existence of certain kinds of inner models that contain given types of large cardinals. (shrink)

We prove that if p ≠ q are distinct primes, then the classification problems for p-local and q-local torsion-free abelian groups of rank two are incomparable with respect to Borel reducibility.

If there is a good $\Delta^1_3$ wellordering of the reals, then there is a $\Pi^1_1$ wellfounded relation for which the comparison relation is not projective.

Using the theory of Borel equivalence relations we analyze the isomorphism relation on the countable models of a theory and develop a framework for measuring the complexity of possible complete invariants for isomorphism.

We consider Borel equivalence relations E induced by actions of the infinite symmetric group, or equivalently the isomorphism relation on classes of countable models of bounded Scott rank. We relate the descriptive complexity of the equivalence relation to the nature of its complete invariants. A typical theorem is that E is potentially Π03 iff the invariants are countable sets of reals, it is potentially Π04 iff the invariants are countable sets of countable sets of reals, and so on. The proofs (...) use various techniques, including Vaught transforms, changing topologies, and the Scott analysis of countable models. (shrink)

We show that every ℵα can be characterized by the Scott sentence of some countable model; moreover there is a countable structure whose Scott sentence characterizes ℵ1 but whose automorphism group fails the topological Vaught conjecture on analytic sets. We obtain some partial information on Ulm type dichotomy theorems for the automorphism group of Knight's model.

We announce two new dichotomy theorems for Borel equivalence relations, and present the results in context by giving an overview of related recent developments.§1. Introduction. For X a Polish space and E a Borel equivalence relation on X, a classification of X up to E-equivalence consists of finding a set of invariants I and a map c : X → I such that xEy ⇔ c = c. To be of any value we would expect I and c to be (...) “explicit” or “definable”. The theory of Borel equivalence relations investigates the nature of possible invariants and provides a hierarchy of notions of classification.The following partial ordering is fundamental in organizing this study. Given equivalence relations E and F on X and Y, resp., we say that E can be Borel reduced to F, in symbolsif there is a Borel map f : X → Y with xEy ⇔ fFf. Then if is an embedding of X/E into Y/F, which is “Borel”.Intuitively, E ≤BF might be interpreted in any one of the following ways: The classi.cation problem for E is simpler than that of F: any invariants for F work as well for E. One can classify E by using as invariants F-equivalence classes. The quotient space X/E has “Borel cardinality” less than or equal to that of Y/F, in the sense that there is a “Borel” embedding of X/E into Y/F. (shrink)

Assuming AD + DC, we characterize the self-dual boldface pointclasses which are strictly larger than the pointclasses contained in them: these are exactly the clopen sets, the collections of all sets of Wadge rank [Formula: see text], and those of Wadge rank [Formula: see text] when ξ is limit.

We show that every dominating analytic set in the Baire space has a dominating closed subset. This improves a theorem of Spinas [15] saying that every dominating analytic set contains the branches of a uniform tree, i.e. a superperfect tree with the property that for every splitnode all the successor splitnodes have the same length. In [15], a subset of the Baire space is called u-regular if either it is not dominating or it contains the branches of a uniform tree, (...) and it was proved that Σ21-Kσ-regularity implies Σ21-u-regularity. Here we show that these properties are in fact equivalent. Since the proof of analytic u-regularity uses a game argument it was clear that determinacy implies u-regularity of all sets. Here we show that an inaccessible cardinal is enough to construct a model for projective u-regularity, namely it holds in Solovay's model. Finally we show that forcing with uniform trees is equivalent to Laver forcing. (shrink)

In the presence of large cardinals, or sufficient determinacy, every equivalence relation in L(R) either admits a wellordered separating family or continuously reduces E 0.

Let E be a Σ1 1 equivalence relation for which there does not exist a perfect set of inequivalent reals. If 0# exists or if V is a forcing extension of L, then there is a good ▵1 2 well-ordering of the equivalence classes.

There is an ergodic, measure preserving, countable Borel equivalence relation E on a standard Borel probability space (X, µ) such that E\c is not essentially free on any conull C ⊂ X.

§0. Preface. There has been an expectation that the endgame of the more tenacious problems raised by the Los Angeles ‘cabal’ school of descriptive set theory in the 1970's should ultimately be played out with the use of inner model theory. Questions phrased in the language of descriptive set theory, where both the conclusions and the assumptions are couched in terms that only mention simply definable sets of reals, and which have proved resistant to purely descriptive set theoretic arguments, may (...) at last find their solution through the connection between determinacy and large cardinals.Perhaps the most striking example was given by [24], where the core model theory was used to analyze the structure of HOD and then show that all regular cardinals below ΘL are measurable. John Steel's analysis also settled a number of structural questions regarding HODL, such as GCH.Another illustration is provided by [21]. There an application of large cardinals and inner model theory is used to generalize the Harrington-Martin theorem that determinacy implies )determinacy.However, it is harder to find examples of theorems regarding the structure of the projective sets whose only known proof from determinacy assumptions uses the link between determinacy and large cardinals. We may equivalently ask whether there are second order statements of number theory that cannot be proved under PD–the axiom of projective determinacy–without appealing to the large cardinal consequences of the PD, such as the existence of certain kinds of inner models that contain given types of large cardinals. (shrink)

The Martin-Steel coarse inner model theory is employed in obtaining new results in descriptive set theory. $\underset{\sim}{\Pi}$ determinacy implies that for every thin Σ 1 2 equivalence relation there is a Δ 1 3 real, N, over which every equivalence class is generic--and hence there is a good Δ 1 2 (N ♯ ) wellordering of the equivalence classes. Analogous results are obtained for Π 1 2 and Δ 1 2 quasilinear orderings and $\underset{\sim}{\Pi}^1_2$ determinacy is shown to imply that (...) every Π 1 2 prewellorder has rank less than $\underset{\sim}{\delta}^1_2$. (shrink)

A treeable ergodic equivalence relation of integer cost is generated by a free action of the free group on the corresponding number of generators. Every countable treeable ergodic equivalence relation is induced by the free action of some countable group.

We show that there is a complete, consistent Borel theory which has no "Borel model" in the following strong sense: There is no structure satisfying the theory for which the elements of the structure are equivalence classes under some Borel equivalence relation and the interpretations of the relations and function symbols are uniformly Borel. We also investigate Borel isomorphisms between Borel structures.

Assuming every real has a sharp, we prove that for any $\mathop \prod \limits_\~ _1^1 $ equivalence relation either Borel reduces E₀ or in a $\mathop \Delta \limits_\~ _3^1 $ manner allows the assignment of bounded subsets of ω₁ as complete invariants.

In partial answer to a question posed by Arnie Miller [4] and X. Caicedo [2] we obtain sufficient conditions for an ℒω1,ω theory to have an independent axiomatization. As a consequence we obtain two corollaries: The first, assuming Vaught's Conjecture, every ℒω1,ω theory in a countable language has an independent axiomatization. The second, this time outright in ZFC, every intersection of a family of Borel sets can be formed as the intersection of a family of independent Borel sets.

The existence of a countable complete theory with exactly $\aleph_1$ many minimal models is independent of $\mathrm{ZFC} + \neg\mathrm{CH}$.

The existence of a countable complete theory with exactly ℵ 1 many minimal models is independent of ZFC + ¬CH.

It is possible to completely characterize which countable models generated by 0# exist inL. This in turn has applications in the study of analytic equivalence relations; for instance, ifE is∑ 1 1 and every invariant∑ 1 1 (0#) set isΔ 1 1 , thenE has at most ℵ0 many equivalence classes.

There are continuum many ≤B-incomparable equivalence relations induced by a free, Borel action of a countable non-abelian free group — and hence, there are 2α0 many treeable countable Borel equivalence relations which are incomparable in the ordering of Borel reducibility.

The Axiom of Projective Determinacy implies the existence of a universal $\utilde{\Pi}^{1}_{n}\setminus\utilde{\Delta}^{1}_{n}$ set for every $n \geq 1$. Assuming $\text{\upshape MA}(\aleph_{1})+\aleph_{1}=\aleph_{1}^{\mathbb{L}}$ there exists a universal $\utilde{\Pi}^{1}_{1}\setminus\utilde{\Delta}^{1}_{1}$ set. In ZFC there is a universal $\utilde{\Pi}^{0}_{\alpha}\setminus\utilde{\Delta}^{0}_{\alpha}$ set for every $\alpha$.

There exists a model in a countable language having a unique element which is not definable in $\scr{L}_{\omega _{1},\omega}$.

Assuming $\underset{\sim}{\Pi}^1_2$ determinacy, the model L[ T 2 ] does not depend on the choice of T 2.

Suppose that any two Π12 sets are comparable in the sense of Wadge degrees. Then every real has a dagger. This argument proceeds by using the Dodd-Jensen core model theory to show that x ε ωω along with, say, “0† implies the existence of a Π12 norm of length u2. As a result of more recent work by John Steel, the same argument will extend to show that the Wadge comparability of all Π12 sets implies Π12 determinacy.

If there is a good wellordering of the reals, then there is a wellfounded relation for which the comparison relation is not projective.

We announce two new dichotomy theorems for Borel equivalence relations, and present the results in context by giving an overview of related recent developments.§1. Introduction. For X a Polish space and E a Borel equivalence relation on X, a classification of X up to E-equivalence consists of finding a set of invariants I and a map c : X → I such that xEy ⇔ c = c. To be of any value we would expect I and c to be (...) “explicit” or “definable”. The theory of Borel equivalence relations investigates the nature of possible invariants and provides a hierarchy of notions of classification.The following partial ordering is fundamental in organizing this study. Given equivalence relations E and F on X and Y, resp., we say that E can be Borel reduced to F, in symbolsif there is a Borel map f : X → Y with xEy ⇔ fFf. Then if is an embedding of X/E into Y/F, which is “Borel”.Intuitively, E ≤BF might be interpreted in any one of the following ways: The classi.cation problem for E is simpler than that of F: any invariants for F work as well for E. One can classify E by using as invariants F-equivalence classes. The quotient space X/E has “Borel cardinality” less than or equal to that of Y/F, in the sense that there is a “Borel” embedding of X/E into Y/F. (shrink)