4

Let $X$ and $Y$ be standard Borel spaces: topological spaces homeomorphic to Borel subsets of complete metric spaces. Given a surjective Borel map $f:X\to Y$, we get an equivalence relation $\sim_f\subseteq X^2$ given by $x\sim_fx'$ iff $f(x) = f(x')$. Since $\sim_f = (f\times f)^{-1}(\Delta_Y)$ where $\Delta_Y$ is the diagonal of $Y$, we obtain that $\sim_f$ is a Borel subset of $X$.

Now, let $\sim$ be any other equivalence on $X$ which is a Borel subset of $X^2$. Does there always exist a Borel space $Z$ and a Borel map $g:X\to Z$ such that $\sim = \sim_g$? Can we take $g$ to be surjective in such case? What conditions on $\sim$ are sufficient to ensure that $g$ can be chosen to be surjective?

If we could define a topological structure on $X/\!_\sim$ which turns it into a Borel space, then a natural projection $\pi:X\to X/\!_\sim$ would be a desired map $g$.

  1. I think that if we endow $X/\!_\sim$ with the $\pi$-quotient topology, then will turn to be an analytic space, but not Borel in general. Is that correct? In such case, perhaps we can can take $Z$ being a one-point compactification of $X/\!_\sim$, though $g = \pi$ would fail to be surjective in such case.

  2. If endowing with the quotient topology only leads to analytic spaces, can we still introduce some different topology on $X/\!_\sim$ so that it becomes a Borel space and $\pi$ is a Borel map?

Edited: as Joel pointed out in his answer, the existence of $(g,Z)$ is equivalent to $\sim$ being smooth, that is there exists a Borel reduction from $\sim$ to $\mathrm{id}_Z$.

Kechris in his book "Classical Descriptive Set Theory" provides sufficient conditions for the smoothness in (18.20) such as existence of a Borel selector, or $\sim$ being a closed subset of a Polish space. Here by a selector is meant a map $h:X\to X$ such that $x\sim h(x)$ and $x\sim x'$ implies $h(x) = h(x')$.

The existence $(g,Z)$ with surjective $g$ is a stronger version of smoothness requiring the existence of a surjective Borel reduction. Existence of a Borel selector of $\sim$ implies the existence such a reduction. The book of Kechris, e.g. (12.16), provides sufficient conditions for the existence of a Borel selector. The existence of surjective $g$ does not necessarily imply the existence of a Borel selector (see my comment to the OP).

The procedure via the quotient topology in 1. may not work in some cases as to be analytic, $X/\!_\sim$ needs not only to be a quotient of a Borel space, but also countably separated.

SBF
  • 1,605
  • Could you clarify your statement in the second-to-last paragraph? Does Kechris prove that the existence of a surjective reduction to $=$ is equivalent to having a Borel selector? Your statement about sufficiency suggests that he proves only one direction. – Joel David Hamkins Jul 18 '14 at 14:52
  • @JoelDavidHamkins: hopefully I've made it less confusing. Statement regarding sufficiency is about sufficient conditions for the existence of a Borel selector. For equivalence of surjective reduction and existence of Borel selectors: the latter implies existence of a Borel transversal which we can take as $Z$. I think the former implies the latter, but I'm still working the proof - so "apparently" so far. Any doubts regarding that statement? – SBF Jul 18 '14 at 15:09
  • I see. By "apparently", you mean that you think this equivalence is true, but so far don't have a proof? OK. – Joel David Hamkins Jul 18 '14 at 15:11
  • @JoelDavidHamkins: indeed, that's what I mean. I've updated this phrase again to avoid confusion. – SBF Jul 18 '14 at 15:31
  • @JoelDavidHamkins: my hypothesis that existence of a surjective $g$ implies existence of a Borel selector is not correct. If such a surjection $g$ exists, and there is a Borel selector $h:X \to X$ for $\sim_g$, then $h$ is $g$-measurable, and hence it factors through $g$ as $h = s\circ g$ where $s:Z\to X$ is Borel. The fact that $s\circ g$ is a Borel selector for $\sim_g$ is equivalent to $g\circ s = \mathrm{id}_Z$, and according to your answer such $s$ may fail to exist. – SBF Jul 20 '14 at 17:48

1 Answers1

3

The answer is no, and this kind of question is part of the subject of the theory of Borel equivalence relations.

The equivalence relations $\sim$ for which there is a Borel function $g:X\to Z$ into a standard Borel space $Z$, with $x\sim y\iff g(x)=g(y)$ are, by definition, precisely the smooth equivalence relations (see the definition on page 5 of the link above). But there are equivalence relations that are not smooth, such as the relation $E_0$ of eventual equality of infinite binary sequences. You can find the arguments that various relations are not smooth in the article to which I linked; see also page 5 of these notes of Simon Thomas and Scott Schneider; my favorite proof of this uses forcing (one adds a Cohen real, and sees where it maps in the extension, and then argues that that image real must be already in the ground model, which is impossible).

The subject of Borel equivalence relations studies the entire hierarchy of Borel equivalence relations under Borel reducibility, which is a kind of complexity notion that in effect analyzes the relative difficulty of classification problems in mathematics, and the smooth equivalence relations occupy a region near the very bottom of the hierarchy, among the simplest relations.

  • Thank you, could you suggest then what is incorrect in my construction of $Z$ via a one-point compactification of $X/!_\sim$ endowed with a quotient topology? Also, do I understand this correctly - if $\sim$ is smooth, still there may not be a surjective version of $g$? – SBF Jul 18 '14 at 12:57
  • In general, I don't think your quotient space is a standard Borel space (and the strategy cannot work for non-smooth relations). Regarding surjective maps, I'm not sure, but perhaps one of the Borel ER experts here on MO can answer. To my way of thinking, the general question here would be: suppose $E\leq_B F$ is a Borel reduction of equivalence relation $E$ on $X$ to $F$ on $Y$. When is there a surjective Borel reduction of $E$ to $F$? – Joel David Hamkins Jul 18 '14 at 13:15
  • The quotient space is not Borel, but I thought it is analytic, then we could take $Z$ being any Borel superset of $X/!_\sim$. Anyways, let me think of your formulation regarding surjectivity - I'll also check what's in Kechris on Borel ERs, maybe 18.20 is of help here. Can you update the link to notes of Thomas and Schneider, please? Currently it opens Hjorth's notes. I've edited the link, so just wanted to be sure that's the one you've meant. – SBF Jul 18 '14 at 13:23
  • Yes, that's it, and I've approved your edit. – Joel David Hamkins Jul 18 '14 at 13:35
  • In Kechris, a selector of $\sim$ is $h:X\to X$ such that $h(x)\sim x$ and such that $x\sim x'$ implies $h(x) = h(x')$. I guess, the existence of a Borel selector is exactly the existence of a surjective Borel reduction. There are some sufficient conditions in the book, and it may be easier to look for other using this terminology. – SBF Jul 18 '14 at 14:01
  • I've also found the flaw in my quotient space argument, summarized it all in the update to the question. Your answer is now complete for me, so thanks a lot again. – SBF Jul 18 '14 at 14:15
  • @Ilya: You seem to already have figured out the flaw that there are non-smooth Borel equivalence relations, but let me point out here that if $X/E$ is a standard Borel space where $E$ is a Borel equivalence relation, then you can find countably many Borel sets $B_n$ that separate the points of $X/E$ (because all uncountable standard Borel spaces are isomorphic and you can get these using the isomorphism with, say, $\mathbb{R}$) and when you pull these back to $X$, it will be the case that $x E y \leftrightarrow (\forall n x \in A_n \leftrightarrow y \in A_n$), which implies that $E$ is smooth. – Burak Jul 18 '14 at 17:43
  • Obviously we cannot reduce $=$ to any other relation by a surjective reduction, if "surjective" means onto the base set. Are you speaking of "surjective" in the sense of hitting every $F$-class? – Joel David Hamkins Jul 18 '14 at 18:17
  • @JoelDavidHamkins: Sure, equality gives trivial examples (which I stupidly seem to have cared too much for a second!). I guess you had the second meaning in mind, which seems a better question. I'll think about it and see if I can find an example where we don't necessarily have a surjective reduction. – Burak Jul 18 '14 at 18:23
  • @Burak Actually, I had had the first meaning in mind originally, but my question was "when does it happen?", since the case of $=$ and others show easily that it doesn't always happen. But I agree, the second understanding of surjective also makes an interesting question. – Joel David Hamkins Jul 18 '14 at 18:30
  • @JoelDavidHamkins: I know this is not much of an answer to your question, nevertheless, I should mention as an easy observation that if both E and F are countable Borel equivalence relations, then, since we can find a Borel right inverse to a countable to one surjective Borel map by uniformization theorems, we can find a reduction from F to E. So, one might ask, what could be (or, are there any) examples of bireducible (say, countable) relations E and F such that there can be no surjective reductions from E to F or F to E? – Burak Jul 19 '14 at 20:22
  • @Burak: for some reason I was not notified, so I just came across your comment. Do you mean here, that if $E$ is smooth then $X/E$ is at least analytic, and if $X/E$ is a standard Borel space, then $E$ is smooth? Also, isn't the surjectivity in the 2nd sense (meeting each $F$ class) equivalent to bireducibility by definition? – SBF Jul 20 '14 at 20:32
  • @Ilya: Indeed, under the stronger assumption that $E$ is smooth and all $E$-classes are countable, then $X/E$ is a standard Borel space (this should follow from the Lusin-Novikov uniformization theorem). For your second comment, I don't see why that should be true, how are you planning to define your reduction from F to E for those elements in $F$-classes which are not hit without choosing elements in the corresponding E classes in a Borel way, could you elaborate more? – Burak Jul 22 '14 at 06:20
  • @Burak: I see your point, indeed some Borel selection would be needed. – SBF Jul 22 '14 at 07:19