Advertisement

Borel Equivalence Relations

  • Greg HjorthEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This article surveys the rapidly evolving area of Borel equivalence relations under the ordering of Borel reducibility. Although the field is now considered part of descriptive set theory, it traces its origins back to areas entirely outside logic. In fact this survey starts with Silver’s theorem on the number of equivalence classes of a co-analytic equivalence relation and the landmark Harrington-Kechris-Louveau dichotomy theorem, but also takes care to sketch some of the prehistory of the subject, going back to the roots in ergodic theory, dynamics, group theory, and functional analysis.

In the later parts of the survey reader is also introduced to the theory of countable Borel equivalence relations and the connections with highly sophisticated techniques in superrigidity, the limits of structural theorems in the theory of Borel reducibility, turbulence and dynamical properties in the context of dichotomy theorems, and the connections with the theory of cardinality in the context of inner models of ZF which fail the axiom of choice.

Keywords

Equivalence Relation Dichotomy Theorem Polish Space Countable Group Countable Structure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. [1]
    Scott Adams. Indecomposability of treed equivalence relations. Israel Journal of Mathematics, 112:271–287, 1990. zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Scott Adams and Alexander Kechris. Linear algebraic groups and countable Borel equivalence relations. Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 13:909–943, 2000. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Alessandro Andretta, Greg Hjorth, and Itay Neeman. Effective cardinals in boldface pointclasses. Journal of Mathematical Logic, 7:35–82, 2007. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Howard Becker. The number of path-components of a compact subset of ℝn. In Logic Colloquium ’95, volume 11 of Lecture Notes in Logic, pages 1–16. Springer, Berlin, 1998. Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Howard Becker. Polish group actions: dichotomies and generalized embeddings. Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 11:397–449, 1998. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Howard Becker and Alexander Kechris. The Descriptive Set Theory of Polish Group Actions, volume 232 of London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996. zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    John Burgess. A selection theorem for group actions. Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 80:333–336, 1979. zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Alain Connes, Jacob Feldman, and Benjamin Weiss. An amenable equivalence relation is generated by a single transformation. Journal of Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems, 1:431–450, 1981. zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Randall Dougherty, Steve Jackson, and Alexander Kechris. The structure of hyperfinite Borel equivalence relations. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 341:193–225, 1994. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Edward Effros. Transformation groups and C *-algebras. Annals of Mathematics, 81:38–55, 1965. CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Ilijas Farah. Ideals induced by Tsirelson submeasures. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 159:243–259, 1999. zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Ilijas Farah. The basis problem for turbulent actions I. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 108:189–203, 2001. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Ilijas Farah. The basis problem for turbulent actions II. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 82:169–177, 2001. CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Jacob Feldman. Borel structures and invariants for measurable transformations. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 46:383–394, 1974. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Jacob Feldman and Calvin Moore. Ergodic equivalence relations, cohomology, and von Neumann algebras I. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 234:289–324, 1977. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Jacob Feldman and Calvin Moore. Ergodic equivalence relations, cohomology, and von Neumann algebras II. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 234:325–359, 1977. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Harvey Friedman. On the necessary use of abstract set theory. Advances in Mathematics, 41:209–280, 1981. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Harvey Friedman and Lee Stanley. A Borel reducibility theory for classes of countable structures. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 54:894–914, 1989. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Lazlo Fuchs. Infinite Abelian Groups, volume 36 of Pure and Applied Mathematics. Academic Press, Cambridge, 1970. zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Alexander Furman. Orbit equivalence rigidity. Annals of Mathematics, 150:1083–1108, 1999. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Hillel Furstenberg. Boundary theory and stochastic processes in homogeneous spaces. Proceedings of Symposium in Pure Mathematics, 26:193–229, 1973. MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Damien Gaboriau. Coût des relations d’equivalence et des groupes. Inventiones Mathematicae, 139:41–98, 2000. zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Damien Gaboriau and Sorin Popa. An uncountable family of nonorbit equivalent actions of  \(\mathbb{F}_{n}\) . Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 18:547–559, 2005. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Su Gao and Riccardo Camerlo. The completeness of the isomorphism relation for countable Boolean algebras. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 353:491–518, 2001. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Su Gao and Steve Jackson. Hyperfiniteness of abelian group actions. To appear. Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Su Gao and Alexander Kechris. On the classification of Polish spaces up to isometry. Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society, 161, 2003. Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Eitienne Ghys. Groups acting on the circle. Enseignement Mathematique, 47:329–407, 2001. zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    John Glimm. Type I C *-algebras. Annals of Mathematics, 73:572–612, 1961. CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    Leo Harrington, Alexander Kechris, and Alain Louveau. A Glimm-Effros dichotomy for Borel equivalence relations. Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 3:903–928, 1990. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    Leo Harrington, David Marker, and Saharon Shelah. Borel orderings. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 310:293–302, 1988. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    Greg Hjorth. A dichotomy theorem for isomorphism. Preprint. Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    Greg Hjorth. Effective cardinals. Preprint. Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    Greg Hjorth. A dichotomy for the definable universe. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 60:1199–1207, 1995. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. [34]
    Greg Hjorth. An absoluteness principle for Borel sets. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 63:663–693, 1998. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    Greg Hjorth. Orbit cardinals: on the effective cardinalities arising as quotient spaces of the form X/G where G acts on a Polish space X. Israel Journal of Mathematics, 111:193–229, 1999. CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. [36]
    Greg Hjorth. Classification and Orbit Equivalence Relations. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence, 2000. zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. [37]
    Greg Hjorth. Vaught’s conjecture on analytic sets. Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 14:125–143, 2001. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  38. [38]
    Greg Hjorth. A dichotomy theorem for turbulence. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 67:1520–1540, 2002. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  39. [39]
    Greg Hjorth. Group actions and countable models. In Logic Colloquium ’99, pages 3–29. Association for Symbolic Logic, Poughkeepsie, 2004. Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    Greg Hjorth. A converse to Dye’s theorem. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 357:3083–3103, 2005. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  41. [41]
    Greg Hjorth. Non-treeability for product group actions. Israel Journal of Mathematics, 163:383–409, 2008. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  42. [42]
    Greg Hjorth and Alexander Kechris. Borel equivalence relations and classifications of countable models. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 82:221–272, 1996. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  43. [43]
    Greg Hjorth and Alexander Kechris. Recent developments in the theory of Borel reducibility. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 170:21–52, 2001. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  44. [44]
    Greg Hjorth and Alexander Kechris. Rigidity Theorems for Actions of Product Groups and Countable Borel Equivalence Relations. Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society. American Mathematical Society, Providence, 2005. Google Scholar
  45. [45]
    Greg Hjorth and Slawomir Solecki. Vaught’s conjecture and the Glimm-Effros property for Polish transformation groups. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 351:2623–2641, 1999. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  46. [46]
    Greg Hjorth, Alexander Kechris, and Alain Louveau. Borel equivalence relations induced by actions of the symmetric group. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 92:63–112, 1998. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  47. [47]
    Ehud Hrushovski. The Manin-Mumford conjecture and the model theory of difference fields. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 112:43–115, 2001. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  48. [48]
    Steve Jackson, Alexander Kechris, and Alain Louveau. Countable Borel equivalence relations. The Journal of Mathematical Logic, 2:1–80, 2002. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  49. [49]
    Vladimir Kanovei. When is a partial order linearizable. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 155:301–309, 1998. zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  50. [50]
    Alexander Kechris. Classical Descriptive Set Theory. Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, Berlin, 1995. zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. [51]
    Alexander Kechris. Rigidity properties of Borel ideals on the integers. Topology and Its Applications, 85:195–205, 1998. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  52. [52]
    Alexander Kechris. New directions in descriptive set theory. The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 5:161–174, 1999. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  53. [53]
    Alexander Kechris and Alain Louveau. The classification of hypersmooth Borel equivalence relations. Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 10:215–242, 1997. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  54. [54]
    Alexander Kechris and Nikolaus Sofronidis. A strong generic ergodicity property of unitary and self-adjoint operators. Journal of Ergodic Theory of Dynamical Systems, 21:193–229, 2001. MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  55. [55]
    Cristoff Kuratowski. Espaces Metrisables, Espaces Complets. Monografie Matematyczne. Polish Mathematical Society, Warszawa-Wroclaw, 1948. Second edition. French. zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  56. [56]
    Alain Louveau and Boban Velickovic. A note on Borel equivalence relations. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 120:255–259, 1994. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  57. [57]
    George Mackey. Imprimitivity for representations of locally compact groups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 35:537–545, 1949. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  58. [58]
    Benjamin Miller and Alexander Kechris. Topics in Orbit Equivalence. Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer, Berlin, 2004. zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  59. [59]
    Sorin Popa. Some rigidity results for non-commutative Bernoulli shifts. Journal of Functional Analysis, 230:273–328, 2006. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  60. [60]
    Ramez Sami. Polish group actions and the Vaught conjecture. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 341:335–353, 1994. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  61. [61]
    Miri Segal. Hyperfiniteness. PhD thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1997. Google Scholar
  62. [62]
    Nicolas Shalom and Yehuda Shalom. Orbit equivalence rigidity and bounded cohomolgy. Preprint. Google Scholar
  63. [63]
    Jack Silver. Counting the number of equivalence classes of Borel and coanalytic equivalence relations. Annals of Mathematical Logic, 18:1–28, 1980. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  64. [64]
    Slawomir Solecki. Analytic ideals. The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 2:339–348, 1996. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  65. [65]
    Dennis Sullivan, Benjamin Weiss, and Mikhail Wright. Generic dynamics and monotone complete C *-algebras. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 295:795–809, 1986. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  66. [66]
    Enver Thoma. Eine Charakterisierung diskreter Gruppen vom Typ I. Inventiones Mathematicae, 6:190–196, 1968. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  67. [67]
    Simon Thomas. On the complexity of the classification problem for torsion-free abelian groups of finite rank. The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 7:329–344, 2001. zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. [68]
    Simon Thomas. The classification problem for torsion-free groups of finite rank. Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 16:233–258, 2003. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  69. [69]
    Simon Thomas and Boban Velickovic. On the complexity of the isomorphism relation for finitely generated groups. Journal of Algebra, 217:352–373, 1999. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  70. [70]
    Robert Zimmer. Ergodic Theory and Semisimple Groups. Monographs in Mathematics. Birkhäuser, Basel, 1984. zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations