[FOM] Borel sets in ZF
Robert M. Solovay
solovay at math.berkeley.edu
Wed Sep 11 17:11:28 EDT 2002
Thanks. I stand corrected.
--Bob
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Harvey Friedman wrote:
> Solovay wrote in response to Shipman:
>
> >
> > > > Choice is essential here, you need AC both to get a non-Borel set and to
> >> > get a set of reals of cardinality aleph-one.
> >> >
> > This is wrong. One can prove the existence of a non-Borel set in
> >ZF [by essentially the Cantor diagonal arguement.]
>
>
> Maybe Shipman is using the definition of Borel set of reals as the
> least sigma algebra containing the open sets of reals. Then every
> countable set of reals is a Borel set, and therefore every countable
> union of countable sets of reals is a Borel set, according to this
> definition. But it is consistent with ZF that some countable union of
> countable sets of reals is all reals. Hence it is consistent with ZF
> that every set of reals is the countable union of countable sets, by
> intersecting.
>
> Come to think of it, what is a Borel set in ZF, officially? Of
> course, under the well founded tree definition, you can easily prove
> the existence of a non-Borel set in ZF, as Solovay pointed out.
>
> _______________________________________________
> FOM mailing list
> FOM at cs.nyu.edu
> http://www.cs.nyu.edu/mailman/listinfo/fom
>
More information about the FOM
mailing list