English

Invariant uniformization

Logic 2025-08-26 v2

Abstract

Standard results in descriptive set theory provide sufficient conditions for a Borel set PNN×NNP \subseteq \mathbb{N}^\mathbb{N} \times \mathbb{N}^\mathbb{N} to admit a Borel uniformization, namely, when PP has "small" sections or "large" sections. We consider an invariant analogue of these results: Given a Borel equivalence relation EE and an EE-invariant Borel set PP with "small" or "large" sections, does PP admit an EE-invariant Borel uniformization? For a given Borel equivalence relation EE, we show that every EE-invariant Borel set PP with "small" or "large" sections admits an EE-invariant Borel uniformization if and only if EE is smooth. We also compute the definable complexity of counterexamples in the case where EE is not smooth, using category, measure, and Ramsey-theoretic methods. We provide two new proofs of a dichotomy of Miller classifying the pairs (E,P)(E, P) such that PP admits an EE-invariant uniformization, for a Borel equivalence relation EE and a Borel EE-invariant set PP with countable sections. In the process, we prove an 0\aleph_0-dimensional (G0,H0)(\mathbb{G}_0, \mathbb{H}_0) dichotomy, generalizing dichotomies of Miller and Lecomte. We also show that the set of pairs (E,P)(E, P) such that PP has "large" sections and admits an EE-invariant Borel uniformization is Σ21\boldsymbol{\Sigma^1_2}-complete; in particular, there is no analog of Miller's dichotomy for PP with "large" sections. Finally, we consider a less strict notion of invariant uniformization, where we select a countable nonempty subset of each section instead of a single point.

Keywords

Cite

@article{arxiv.2405.15111,
  title  = {Invariant uniformization},
  author = {Alexander S. Kechris and Michael Wolman},
  journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.15111},
  year   = {2025}
}

Comments

47 pages

R2 v1 2026-06-28T16:38:10.891Z