Abstract
A \(\sigma \)-ideal \(\mathcal {I}\) on a Polish group \((X,+)\) has the Smital Property if for every dense set D and a Borel \(\mathcal {I}\)-positive set B the algebraic sum \(D+B\) is a complement of a set from \(\mathcal {I}\). We consider several variants of this property and study their connections with the countable chain condition, maximality and how well they are preserved via Fubini products. In particular we show that there are \(\mathfrak {c}\) many maximal invariant \(\sigma \)-ideals with Borel bases on the Cantor space \(2^\omega \).
Similar content being viewed by others
1 Introduction
We adopt the usual set-theoretical notation. We say that X is a Polish space if it is a separable and completely metrisable topological space. \(\text {Bor}(X)\) denotes the family of Borel subsets of X. \(\mathcal {M}(X)\) and \(\mathcal {N}(X)\) are the families of meager and null subsets of X respectively. Sometimes we will write briefly \(\mathcal {M}\) and \(\mathcal {N}\) if the underlying space is clear from the context.
Let \(\mathcal {A}\) be a (\(\sigma \)-)algebra and \(\mathcal {I}\) be a (\(\sigma \)-)ideal on an Abelian Polish group \((X,+)\). Throughout the paper we assume that \(\mathcal {I}\) contains all singletons and
If \(\mathcal {A}\) is not explicitly stated we assume \(\mathcal {A}=\text {Bor}(X)\). In such a case \(\mathcal {I}\) has a Borel base.
We say that a set A is \(\mathcal {I}\)-positive, if \(A\notin \mathcal {I}\). A is called \(\mathcal {I}\)-residual if \(A^c\in \mathcal {I}\), we denote this fact by \(A\in \mathcal {I}^\star \).
For any sets \(A, B\subseteq X\) we denote the algebraic sum of these sets by \(A+B\), i.e.
Let us now recall the classical notion of the Steinhaus property and probably less famous notions of Smital properties which were studied in [2].
Definition 1
We say that a pair \((\mathcal {A},\mathcal {I})\) has
-
(i)
the Steinhaus Property if for any \(A,B\in \mathcal {A}\backslash \mathcal {I}\) the set \(A-B\) has a nonempty interior;
-
(ii)
the Smital Property, briefly SP, if for every dense set D and every \(A\in \mathcal {A}\backslash \mathcal {I}\) the set \(A+D\) is \(\mathcal {I}\)-residual;
-
(iii)
the Weaker Smital Property, briefly WSP, if there exists a countable and dense set D such that for every \(A\in \mathcal {A}\backslash \mathcal {I}\) the set \(A+D\) is \(\mathcal {I}\)-residual;
-
(iv)
the Very Weak Smital Property, briefly VWSP, if for every \(A\in \mathcal {A}\backslash \mathcal {I}\) there is a countable set D such that the set \(A+D\) is \(\mathcal {I}\)-residual.
Note that \(\mathcal {M}\) and \(\mathcal {N}\) have all of these properties.
The following Proposition seems to be folklore but we could not find the proof of the second part in the literature.
Proposition 2
The Steinhaus Property is equivalent to SP.
Proof
The Steinahus Property implies SP. Let \(A\in \mathcal {A}\backslash \mathcal {I}\) and D be countable and dense. We may assume that D is a subgroup. Suppose that \((A+D)\notin \mathcal {I}^\star \). Then \((A+D)^c\notin \mathcal {I}\). By the Steinhaus Property \((A+D)-(A+D)^c\) contains an open neighborhood of 0. A contradiction since \(0\notin (A+D)-(A+D)^c\).
SP implies the Steinhaus Property. Assume that \(A-B\) has an empty interior for \(A,B\in \mathcal {A}\backslash \mathcal {I}\). Then there is a countable dense set \(D\subseteq (A-B)^c\). It follows from SP that \((B+D)\cap A\ne \emptyset \), a contradiction. \(\square \)
Let \(F\subseteq X\times Y\). Then for \(x\in X\)
is the vertical section of F at x. Similarly, for \(y\in Y\)
is the horizontal section of F at y.
For (\(\sigma \)-)algebras \(\mathcal {A}\subseteq P(X)\) and \(\mathcal {B}\subseteq P(Y)\) let \(\mathcal {A}\otimes \mathcal {B}\subseteq P(X\times Y)\) denote the (\(\sigma \)-)algebra generated by the rectangles of the form \(A\times B\) with \(A\in \mathcal {A}\) and \(B\in \mathcal {B}\).
Definition 3
Let \((\mathcal {A},\mathcal {I})\) and \((\mathcal {B},\mathcal {J})\) be pairs of (\(\sigma \)-)algebra - (\(\sigma \)-)ideal on Polish spaces X and Y respectively. Then we define the Fubini product of \(\mathcal {I}\) and \(\mathcal {J}\) as follows:
Notice that in the case of ideals possessing Borel bases, i.e. \(\mathcal {A}=\text {Bor}(X)\) and \(\mathcal {B}=\text {Bor}(Y)\) the above definition ensures the existence of a Borel base for \(\mathcal {I}\otimes \mathcal {J}\).
Proposition 4
If \((\mathcal {A}\otimes \mathcal {B},\mathcal {I}\otimes \mathcal {J})\) has SP (WSP, VWSP), then \((\mathcal {A},\mathcal {I})\) and \((\mathcal {B},\mathcal {J})\) also have it.
Proof
Let us consider the case of WSP for \(\mathcal {I}\). Let D be a witness that \(\mathcal {I}\otimes \mathcal {J}\) has WSP. Let \(A\in \mathcal {A}\backslash \mathcal {I}\). The set \(R=D+(A\times Y)\) is \(\mathcal {I}\otimes \mathcal {J}\)-residual, therefore
is \(\mathcal {I}\)-residual. Clearly, \(A+\pi _X(D)=\widetilde{R}\), hence we are done. \(\square \)
The following definition is a variation of the ones found in [7, Definition 18.5], [9] and agrees with the notation given in [3].
Definition 5
Let X and Y be Polish spaces and let \(\mathcal {F}\subseteq P(X)\), \(\mathcal {G}\subseteq P(Y)\), \(\mathcal {H}\subseteq P(X\times Y)\) be families of sets. Then we say that \(\mathcal {G}\) is \(\mathcal {H}\)-on-\(\mathcal {F}\) if for each set \(H\in \mathcal {H}\)
Mainly we will be interested in the case where \({\mathcal {G}=\mathcal {J}\subseteq P(Y)}\) is a \(\sigma \)-ideal, \(\mathcal {F}\in \{Bor(X), \sigma (Bor(X)\cup \mathcal {I})\}\) and \(\mathcal {H}\in \{Bor(X\times Y), \sigma (Bor(X\times Y)\cup \mathcal {I}\otimes \mathcal {J})\}\). Here \(\sigma (\mathcal {D})\) is the \(\sigma \)-algebra generated by the family \(\mathcal {D}\). We will write, for example, that \(\mathcal {J}\) is Borel-on-measurable instead of \(Bor(X\times Y)\)-on-\(\sigma (Bor(X)\cup \mathcal {I})\) if the context is clear. Notice that both \(\mathcal {M}\) and \(\mathcal {N}\) are Borel-on-Borel (see [7, Exercise 22.22, 22.25]).
Example 6
Measurable-on-measurable not necessarily implies Borel-on-Borel.
Proof
Let \(\mathcal {J}=\{\emptyset \}\) and take a Borel set B projection of which is analytic and not Borel. \(\square \)
Proposition 7
Borel-on-measurable implies measurable-on-measurable.
Proof
Assume that \(\mathcal {J}\) is Borel on measurable. Let \(C\subseteq X\times Y\) be measurable with respect to \(\mathcal {I}\otimes \mathcal {J}\). Then \(C=(B\backslash A_1)\cup A_2\), where B is Borel and \(A_1, A_2\in \mathcal {I}\otimes \mathcal {J}\). Clearly
hence it is measurable. See that
Since \(\{x\in X: B_x\notin \mathcal {J}\}\) is measurable, \(\{x\in X: {A_1}_x\in \mathcal {J}\}\in \mathcal {I}^\star \) and
the set \(\{x\in X: C_x\notin \mathcal {J}\}\) is measurable. \(\square \)
2 Smital and ccc
Let \(\mathcal {I}\) be a \(\sigma \)-ideal in a Polish space X and assume that \(\mathcal {I}\) has a Borel base. We say that \(\mathcal {I}\) satisfies the countable chain condition (briefly: ccc) if every family of pairwise disjoint Borel \(\mathcal {I}\)-positive sets is countable. Let us also recall the following cardinal coefficient
Theorem 8
Let \(\mathcal {I}\) be a \(\sigma \)-ideal possessing WSP. Then \(\mathcal {I}\) satisfies \(\text {ccc}\) or \(\text {cov}(\mathcal {I})=\omega _1\).
Proof
Let \(\mathcal {I}\) be \(\sigma \)-ideal with WSP and let D witness it. Let \(\{B_\alpha : \alpha <\omega _1\}\) be a family of pairwise disjoint Borel \(\mathcal {I}\)-positive sets. WSP implies that for each \(\alpha <\omega _1\) a set \(D+B_\alpha \) is \(\mathcal {I}\)-residual. If \(\bigcap _{\alpha <\omega _1}(D+B_\alpha )=\emptyset \), then \(\text {cov}(\mathcal {I})=\omega _1\). On the other hand, if \(\bigcap _{\alpha <\omega _1}(D+B_\alpha )\ne \emptyset \) then for \(x\in \bigcap _{\alpha <\omega _1}(D+B_\alpha )\) we have
D is countable, hence there exist a set \(W\subseteq \omega _1\) of cardinality \(\omega _1\) and \(d\in D\) such that
which gives \(x-d\in \bigcap _{\alpha \in W}B_\alpha \), a contradiction. \(\square \)
The following remark improves the result obtained in [4].
Remark 9
Let \(\mathcal {I}\) be a \(\sigma \)-ideal possessing WSP. Then the following statements are equivalent:
-
(i)
For each family of sets \(\{B_\alpha : \alpha <\omega _1\}\subseteq \mathcal {B}\backslash \mathcal {I}\) there exists a set \(W\subseteq \omega _1\) of cardinality \(\omega _1\) such that \(\bigcap _{\alpha \in W}B_\alpha \ne \emptyset \);
-
(ii)
\(\text {cov}(\mathcal {I})>\omega _1\).
Proof
(ii) \(\Rightarrow \) (i) is a part of Theorem 8. To prove (i) \(\Rightarrow \) (ii) let us suppose that \(\text {cov}(\mathcal {I})=\omega _1\). Then there is a family of sets
for which \(\bigcup _{\alpha <\omega _1}A_\alpha =X\). Set \(\widetilde{A}_\alpha =\bigcup _{\beta \le \alpha }A_\alpha \) for each \(\alpha <\omega _1\). The family \(\{\widetilde{A}_\alpha : \alpha <\omega _1\}\) is ascending and covers X. Hence \(\{\widetilde{A}_{\alpha }^c: \alpha <\omega _1\}\) is descending family of \(\mathcal {I}\)-residual sets. Moreover, for every \(W\subseteq \omega _1\) of cardinality \(\omega _1\) we have \(\bigcap _{\alpha \in W}\widetilde{A}_{\alpha }^c=\emptyset \), which contradicts (i). \(\square \)
3 Preserving Smital properties via products
In [2] the authors present some results on various Smital properites in product spaces. Their setup is, in their words, as general as possible, concerned with algebras and ideals. It is not clear if they intended their results to hold for \(\sigma \)-algebras and \(\sigma \)-ideals or algebras and ideals only. The formulation of [2, Theorem 4.2] suggests the former since it is concerned with the Borel algebra and the families of meager and null sets. In their proof they rely implicitly on the following property.
Definition 10
Let \(\mathcal {A}\!\subseteq \! P(X\!\times \! Y)\) be a (\(\sigma \)-)algebra and let \(\mathcal {I}\!\subseteq \! P(X\!\times \! Y)\) be a (\(\sigma \)-)ideal. A pair \((\mathcal {A}, \mathcal {I})\) has the positive rectangle property (PRP) if for every \(\mathcal {I}\)-positive set \(A\in \mathcal {A}\) there is an \(\mathcal {I}\)-positive rectangle R satisfying \(R\subseteq A\cup I\) for some \(I\in \mathcal {I}\).
In this section we show explicitly that PRP holds for pairs algebra-ideal. However, PRP does not hold for pairs \(\sigma \)-algebra - \(\sigma \)-ideal in general, including the relevant here pair of Borel \(\sigma \)-algebra and the family of null sets.
Example 11
The pair \((\text {Bor}(\mathbb {R}^2), [\mathbb {R}]^{\le \omega }\otimes [\mathbb {R}]^{\le \omega })\) does not have PRP.
Proof
Let \(P\subseteq \mathbb {R}\) be a perfect set such that \(P\cap (P+x)\) is at most 1-point for \(x\ne 0\) (see [8]). Let us set
B is Borel and \(B\notin [\mathbb {R}]^{\le \omega }\otimes [\mathbb {R}]^{\le \omega }\). If \(x\in B^y\), then \(x\in P\) and \(x\in P-y\), therefore \(B^y\) is at most 1-point.
Let us suppose that there are sets \(A_1, A_2\in \text {Bor}(\mathbb {R}^2)\backslash [\mathbb {R}]^{\le \omega }\) and a set \(K\in [\mathbb {R}]^{\le \omega }\otimes [\mathbb {R}]^{\le \omega }\) such that \((A_1\times A_2)\backslash K\subseteq B\). Let \(T=\{x\in \mathbb {R}: |K_x|>\omega \}\) and notice that \(|T|\le \omega \). Pick \(x_0\in A_1\backslash T\). Then \(K_{x_{0}}\) is countable. By the definition of B for each \(y\in A_2\backslash K_{x_0}\) we have \(K^y\supseteq A_1\backslash (\{x_0\}\cup T)\). So \(A_2\backslash K_{x_0}\subseteq K_{x_1}\) for \(x_1\in A_1\backslash (\{x_0\}\cup T)\), a contradiction. \(\square \)
It is clear that the pair \((\text {Bor}(\mathbb {R}^2), \mathcal {M})\) has PRP, since every nonmeager set possessing the property of Baire is nonempty and open, modulo a set of the first category. What about \((\text {Bor}(\mathbb {R}^2), \mathcal {N})\)? As a warm up let us recall the following folklore result.
Proposition 12
Every set \(E\subseteq [0,1]^2\) of positive measure contains a subset of the same measure which does not contain a rectangle of positive measure.
Proof
Let \(E\subseteq [0,1]^2\) have positive measure. Consider \(E'=\{(x,y)\in E: x-y\in \mathbb {Q}^c\}\). To see that \(\lambda (E')=\lambda (E)\) let us observe that \(E'_x=E_x\cap (\mathbb {Q}^c+x)\) for every \(x\in [0,1]\) and \(\mathbb {Q}^c\) is co-null. Now, if \(A\times B\subseteq E'\), A and B of positive measure, then \(A-B\) should contain a nonempty open set (Steinhaus Theorem), but clearly \(\mathbb {Q}\cap (A-B)=\emptyset \). A contradiction. This completes the proof. \(\square \)
This result may be improved with the following Lemma.
Lemma 13
There exists a set \(F\subseteq \mathbb {R}\) such that \(\lambda (F\cap U)>0\) and \(\lambda (F^c\cap U)>0\) for every nonempty open set U.
Proof
Let \((B_n: n\in \omega )\) be an enumeration of the basis of \(\mathbb {R}\). At the step 0 let \(C^1_0, C^2_0 \subseteq B_0\) be two disjoint Cantor sets of positive measure. At the step \(n+1\) let assume that we have two sequences of pairwise disjoint Cantor sets \((C^1_k: k\le n)\) and \((C^2_k: k\le n)\) which for all \(i\in \{0,1\}\) and \(k\le n\) satisfy \(\lambda (C^i_k\cap B_k)>0\). The set
is nonempty and open, hence it contains two disjoint Cantor sets of positive measure. Denote them by \(C^1_{n+1}\) and \(C^2_{n+1}\). This completes the construction and \(F=\bigcup _{n\in \omega }C^1_k\) is the desired set. \(\square \)
The above Lemma will serve as a tool to prove the result from [6].
Example 14
(Erdös, Oxtoby). There is a set \(E\subseteq \mathbb {R}^2\) such that \(E\cap (A\times B)\) and \(E^c\cap (A\times B)\) have positive measure for each \(A, B\subseteq \mathbb {R}\) of positive measure.
Proof
Let F be as in the formulation of Lemma 13 and set \({E=\{(x,y)\in \mathbb {R}^2: x-y\in F\}}\). Let \(A, B\subseteq \mathbb {R}\) have a positive measure. Then
\(\lambda ((A-x)\cap B)\) is a continuous non-negative function. Furthermore, it is positive on some interval, since \(\int _\mathbb {R}\lambda ((A-x)\cap B)dx=\lambda (A\times B)\), so \(\int _F \lambda ((A-x)\cap B)dx>0\). \(\square \)
Corollary 15
\((\text {Bor}({\mathbb {R}^2}), \mathcal {N})\) does not have PRP.
Now we will focus on PRP for products of algebras.
Lemma 16
Let \(\mathcal {A}\subseteq P(X)\) and \(\mathcal {B}\subseteq P(Y)\) be algebras. Then \(\mathcal {A}\otimes \mathcal {B}\subseteq P(X\times Y)\) consists of finite unions of rectangles.
Proof
First let us observe that complements of rectangles are finite unions of rectangles:
Next, see that finite intersection of a finite union of rectangles is again a finite union of rectangles. Let \(T_1\), \(T_2\subseteq \omega \) be finite. Let \(A^n_k\), \(B^n_k\) be rectangles from \(\mathcal {A}\) and \(\mathcal {B}\) respectively for every \(n\in T_1\) and \(k\in T_2\). Then
\(T_2^{T_1}\) is finite and finite intersections of rectangles are also rectangles, hence the proof is complete. \(\square \)
For algebra \(\mathcal {A}\) and ideal \(\mathcal {I}\) let \(\mathcal {A}[\mathcal {I}]\) denote the algebra generated by \(\mathcal {A}\cup \mathcal {I}\).
Proposition 17
Let \(\mathcal {A}\subseteq P(X)\) and \(\mathcal {B}\subseteq P(Y)\) be algebras and let \(\mathcal {I}\) be an ideal in \(X\times Y\). Then \(((\mathcal {A}\otimes \mathcal {B})[\mathcal {I}],\mathcal {I})\) has PRP.
Proof
Notice that \((\mathcal {A}\otimes \mathcal {B})[\mathcal {I}]=\{C\triangle I: C\in \mathcal {A}\otimes \mathcal {B},\; I\in \mathcal {I}\}\). PRP follows from the previous Lemma. \(\square \)
From now on let \(\mathcal {A}\subseteq P(X), \mathcal {B}\subseteq P(Y)\) be \(\sigma \)-algebras, and \(\mathcal {I}\subseteq P(X)\), \(\mathcal {J}\subseteq P(Y)\) \(\sigma \)-ideals.
Theorem 18
Let \(\mathcal {I}\) and \(\mathcal {J}\) possess WSP and assume one of the following properties
-
(i)
\(\mathcal {J}\) is Borel-on-Borel;
-
(ii)
\(\mathcal {J}\) measurable-on-measurable;
-
(iii)
\((\text {Bor}(X\times Y), \mathcal {I}\otimes \mathcal {J})\) has PRP.
Then \(\mathcal {I}\otimes \mathcal {J}\) also has WSP.
Proof
Let \(D_1\) and \(D_2\) witness WSP for \(\mathcal {I}\) and \(\mathcal {J}\) respectively. Let \(B\in \text {Bor}(X\times Y)\backslash \mathcal {I}\otimes \mathcal {J}\). If any of the properties (i)-(iii) holds then a set \(\widetilde{B}=\{x\in X: B_x\notin \mathcal {J}\}\) contains a Borel, \(\mathcal {I}\)-positive set and \(D_1+\widetilde{B}\) is \(\mathcal {I}\)-residual. Let us observe that
therefore for every \(x\in D_1+\widetilde{B}\) the set \(((D_1\times D_2)+B)_x\) is \(\mathcal {J}\)-residual. Since \(D_1+\widetilde{B}\) is \(\mathcal {I}\)-residual, the proof is complete. \(\square \)
In [1] the authors showed that \(\mathcal {M}\otimes \mathcal {N}\) and \(\mathcal {N}\otimes \mathcal {M}\) have SP and thus WSP. The following corollary extends this result regarding WSP.
Corollary 19
Let \(n\in \omega \) and \(\mathcal {I}_k\in \{\mathcal {M}, \mathcal {N}\}\) for any \(k\le n\). Then \(\mathcal {I}_0\otimes \mathcal {I}_1 \otimes ... \otimes \mathcal {I}_n\) has WSP.
Proof
By [5, Lemma 3.1] the ideal \(\mathcal {I}_0\otimes \mathcal {I}_1 \otimes ... \otimes \mathcal {I}_n\) is Borel-on-Borel for any \(n\in \omega \) and \(\mathcal {I}_k\in \{\mathcal {M}, \mathcal {N}\}\), \(k\le n\). \(\square \)
In [2, Theorem 4.3] the authors showed that if \(\mathcal {B}=\mathcal {J}\cup \mathcal {J}^\star \) and \((\mathcal {A}, \mathcal {I})\) has SP then \((A\otimes \mathcal {B}, \mathcal {I}\otimes \mathcal {J})\) also has SP. We will generalize this result (Theorem 24). Let us start with two technical definitions.
Definition 20
We say that a pair \((\mathcal {A}\otimes \mathcal {B}, \mathcal {I}\otimes \mathcal {J})\) has the Tall Rectangle Hull Property (TRHP) if for every set \(C\in \mathcal {A}\otimes \mathcal {B}\)
If a set C fulfills the above condition we will say that it has TRHP witnessed by the triple \((\widetilde{C}, I, J)\).
Analogously we define Wide Rectangle Hull Property (WRHP):
Proposition 21
If a pair \((\mathcal {A}\otimes \mathcal {B}, \mathcal {I}\otimes \mathcal {J})\) have TRHP or WRHP then it has PRP.
Proof
Let \(C\in \mathcal {A}\otimes \mathcal {B}\) has TRHP witnessed by \((\widetilde{C}, I, J)\):
and assume that \(C\notin \mathcal {I}\otimes \mathcal {J}\). Then \(\widetilde{C}\times Y\) is the desired rectangle. Clearly \(\widetilde{C}\times Y\subseteq C\) modulo a set from \(\mathcal {I}\otimes \mathcal {J}\). It is also \(\mathcal {I}\otimes \mathcal {J}\)-positive, otherwise
and also \(C\in \mathcal {I}\otimes \mathcal {J}\).
The proof of WRHP case is almost identical. \(\square \)
Lemma 22
The family of sets possessing TRHP is closed under countable unions and complements. The same is true for the family of sets possessing WRHP.
Proof
Proofs for both cases follow the same pattern, so without loss of generality let us focus on the case of TRHP.
Let \(C=\bigcup _{n\in \omega }C_n\) and \((\widetilde{C}_n, I_n, J_n)\) witness TRHP for \(C_n\), \(n\in \omega \). Then for each \(n \in \omega \)
Then
Hence, setting \(\widetilde{C}=\bigcup _{n\in \omega }\widetilde{C}_n\), \(I=\bigcup _{n\in \omega }I_n\), \(J=\bigcup _{n\in \omega }J_n\) completes this part of the proof.
Now let \(C=D^c\) for D witnessing TRHP with \((\widetilde{D}, I, J)\). We have
Through complementation
Let us focus on the right-hand side
Now the left-hand side. It is an intersection of the following sets
which is equal to
In summary
Then \(((\widetilde{D})^c, I, J)\) witnesses TRHP for C. The proof is complete. \(\square \)
Theorem 23
Let \(\mathcal {C}=\mathcal {A}\otimes \mathcal {B}\). Then
-
(i)
if \(\mathcal {A}=\mathcal {I}\cup \mathcal {I}^\star \) then \((\mathcal {C}, \mathcal {I}\otimes \mathcal {J})\) has WRHP.
-
(ii)
if \(\mathcal {B}=\mathcal {J}\cup \mathcal {J}^\star \) then \((\mathcal {C}, \mathcal {I}\otimes \mathcal {J})\) has TRHP.
Proof
Let us prove (ii) (the proof of (i) is similar). Let us notice that rectangles from \(\mathcal {C}\) have TRHP. Indeed, if \(C=A\times B\) then set
The rest of the proof relies on Lemma 22 which allows us to perform an induction over the hierarchy of sets making up the \(\sigma \)-algebra \(\mathcal {C}\). \(\square \)
Theorem 24
Let \(\mathcal {C}=\mathcal {A}\otimes \mathcal {B}\) and assume that
-
(i)
\((\mathcal {C}, \mathcal {I}\otimes \mathcal {J})\) has TRHP and \((\mathcal {A}, \mathcal {I})\) has SP, or
-
(ii)
\((\mathcal {C}, \mathcal {I}\otimes \mathcal {J})\) has WRHP and \((\mathcal {B}, \mathcal {J})\) has SP.
Then \((\mathcal {C},\mathcal {I}\otimes \mathcal {J})\) has SP.
Proof
Assume (i). Let \(D\subseteq X\times Y\) be dense, set \(D_1=\pi _1(D)\) and let \(B\in \mathcal {C}\) be \(\mathcal {I}\otimes \mathcal {J}\)-positive. Then there are \(\widetilde{B}\in \mathcal {A}\backslash \mathcal {I}\) and \(J\in \mathcal {J}\) such that \(\widetilde{B}\times (Y\backslash J)\subseteq B\). It follows that
Therefore for every \(x\in D_1+\widetilde{B}\) the set \((D+B)_x\) contains a translation of \(Y\backslash J\). By SP \(D_1+\widetilde{B}\in \mathcal {I}^{\star }\) thus \(D+B\) is \(\mathcal {I}\otimes \mathcal {J}\)-residual.
The proof assuming (ii) is analogous. \(\square \)
4 Maximal invariant \(\sigma \)-ideals with Borel bases
There is a surprising connection between maximal invariant \(\sigma \)-ideals with Borel bases and Smital properties.
Proposition 25
The following are equivalent:
-
(i)
\(\mathcal {I}\) has VWSP;
-
(ii)
\(\mathcal {I}\) is maximal among invariant proper \(\sigma \)-ideals with Borel base.
Proof
-
\((i)\Rightarrow (ii):\) Let us suppose that \(\mathcal {J}\supsetneq \mathcal {I}\) is such an ideal. Let A be a Borel set from \(\mathcal {J}\backslash \mathcal {I}\). Then there exists a countable set D such that \(D+A\) is \(\mathcal {I}\)-residual, therefore \(\mathcal {J}\)-residual, hence \(\mathcal {J}\) is not proper.
-
\((ii)\Rightarrow (i):\) Let us suppose that there is a set \(B\in Bor\backslash \mathcal {I}\) for which \(B+D\) is not \(\mathcal {I}\)-residual for every countable set D. Consider the family
$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {I}'=\{A\cup C: A\in \mathcal {I}\wedge (\exists D)(C\subseteq D+B \wedge |D|\le \omega )\}. \end{aligned}$$
It is an invariant proper \(\sigma \)-ideal satisfying \(\mathcal {I}\subsetneq \mathcal {I}'\), which leads to a contradiction. \(\square \)
Proposition 26
Let \(\{\mathcal {I}_n: n\in \omega \}\) be a countable family of pairwise distinct maximal invariant \(\sigma \)-ideals on X with Borel bases. Then for each \(n\in \omega \) the \(\sigma \)-ideal \(\mathcal {I}_n\) is orthogonal to \(\bigcap _{k\in \omega \backslash \{n\}}\mathcal {I}_k\).
Proof
Fix \(n\in \omega \). There are sets \(A_k\in (\text {Bor}(X)\cap \mathcal {I}_n)\backslash \mathcal {I}_k\), \(k\in \omega \backslash \{n\}\). By Proposition 25 for each of them there is a countable set \(C_k\) such that \(A_k+C_k\in \mathcal {I}_n\cap \mathcal {I}_k^\star \). Therefore
\(\square \)
Corollary 27
Let \(\mathcal {I}\) be a maximal invariant \(\sigma \)-ideal with a Borel base different from \(\mathcal {M}\) and \(\mathcal {N}\). Then there is \(A\in \mathcal {I}\cap (\mathcal {M}\cap \mathcal {N})^\star \).
Let us now focus on \(X=2^\omega \). The following result incorporates techniques similar to these used in [10, Theorem 3.1].
Theorem 28
There are \(\mathfrak {c}\) many maximal invariant \(\sigma \)-ideals on \(2^\omega \).
Proof
Let \(\{A_\alpha : \alpha <\mathfrak {c}\}\) be an AD family on \(\omega \), i.e. for all distinct \(\alpha , \beta <\mathfrak {c}\) the set \(A_\alpha \cap A_\beta \) is finite. For every \(\alpha <\mathfrak {c}\) set
where \(B^\alpha _x=\{y\restriction \omega \backslash A_\alpha :\; y\in B,\; y\restriction A_\alpha =x\}\).
Let us show that \(I_\alpha \ne I_\beta \) if \(\alpha \ne \beta \). Set
Notice that \(C\in I_\alpha \). The set
is a finite union of meager sets, hence meager. For each \(x\in 2^{A_\alpha }\backslash M_\alpha \) the set \(C^\alpha _x\) is empty.
On the other hand for each \(x\in 2^{A_\beta }\)
The above set may be considered as a product \(M\times 2^{\omega \backslash (A_\alpha \cup A_\beta )}\) of non-null set and the whole space, which is not null.
Now we will show that every \(\mathcal {I}_\alpha \) is maximal among invariant \(\sigma \)-ideals on \(2^\omega \) with Borel bases. Each \(\mathcal {I}_\alpha \) is essentially \(\mathcal {M}(2^{A_\alpha })\otimes \mathcal {N}(2^{\omega \backslash A_\alpha })\). It follows that \(\mathcal {I}_\alpha \) has WSP, thus by Proposition 25 the proof is complete. \(\square \)
The reasoning in the above Theorem does not translate to the case of \(\mathbb {R}\). We may ask the following question.
Question 29
Are \(\mathcal {M}\) and \(\mathcal {N}\) the only maximal invariant \(\sigma \)-ideals with Borel bases in \(\mathbb {R}\)?
Question 30
Is it true that for every set \(G\in (\mathcal {M}\cap \mathcal {N})^\star \) there is a countable set C such that \(C+G=\mathbb {R}\)?
A positive answer to Question 30 would also answer positively Question 29.
References
Balcerzak, M., Kotlicka, E.: Steinhaus property for products of ideals. Publicationes Mathematicae Debrecen 63(1–2), 235–248 (2003)
Bartoszewicz, A., Filipczak, M., Natkaniec, T.: On smital properties. Topol. Appl. 158, 2066–2075 (2011)
Borodulin-Nadzieja, P., Głąb, SZ: Ideals with bases of unbounded Borel complexity. Math. Log. Quart. 57(6), 582–590 (2011)
Cichoń, J., Szymański, A., Wȩglorz, B.: On intersections of sets of positive Lebesgue measure. Colloq. Math. 52(2), 173–174 (1987)
Cieślak, A., Michalski, M.: Bulletin of the polish academy of sciences. Mathematics 66, 157–166 (2018)
Erdös, P., Oxtoby, J.C.: Partitions of the plane into sets having positive measure in every non-null measurable product set. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 79(1), 91–102 (1955)
Kechris, A.S.: Classical descriptive set theory, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 156. Springer, New York (1995)
Michalski M., Żeberski Sz: Some properties of \(\cal{I}\)-Luzin sets. Topol. Appl. 189, 122–135 (2015)
Srivastava, S.M.: A course on Borel sets, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 180. Springer, New York (1998)
Zakrzewski, P.: On invariant ccc \(\sigma \)-ideals on \(2^\mathbb{N} \). Acta Math. Hungar. 143, 367–377 (2014)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The work has been partially financed by grant 8211204601, MPK: 9130730000 from the Faculty of Pure and Applied Mathematics, Wrocław University of Science and Technology.
We would like to thank the referee for careful revision which improved the presentation of the paper.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Michalski, M., Rałowski, R. & Żeberski, S. Ideals with Smital properties. Arch. Math. Logic 62, 831–842 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00153-023-00867-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00153-023-00867-5
Keywords
- Smital property
- Steinhaus property
- Countable chain condition
- Fubini product
- Maximal invariant ideal
- Orthogonal ideals