Hostname: page-component-669899f699-8p65j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-27T03:26:45.740Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Amenable equivalence relations and Turing degrees

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Alexander S. Kechris
Alexander S. Kechris*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In [12] Slaman and Steel posed the following problem:

Assume ZF + DC + AD. Suppose we have a function assigning to each Turing degree d a linear order <d of d. Then must the rationals embed order preservingly in <d for a cone of d's?

They had already obtained a partial answer to this question by showing that there is no such d ↦ <d with <d of order type ζ = ω* + ω on a cone. Already the possibility that <d has order type ζ · ζ was left open.

We use here, ideas and methods associated with the concept of amenability (of groups, actions, equivalence relations, etc.) to prove some general results from which one can obtain a positive answer to the above problem.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , March 1991 , pp. 182 - 194
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

[1]Adams, S., Trees and amenable equivalence relations, Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems, vol. 10 (1990), pp. 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Connes, A., Feldman, J. and Weiss, B., An amenable equivalence relation is generated by a single transformation, Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems, vol. 1 (1981), pp. 431–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Dellacherie, C. and Meyer, P.-A., Théorie discrète du potentiel, Hermann, Paris, 1983.Google Scholar
[4]Feldman, J. and Moore, C. C., Ergodic equivalence relations, cohomology and von Neumann algebras, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 234 (1977), pp. 289–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Foreman, M. and Wehruno, F., The Hahn-Banach theorem implies the existence of a non-Lebesgue-measurable set, preprint, 1989.Google Scholar
[6]Kechris, A. S., “AD + Uniformization” is equivalent to “Half ADR”, Cabal seminar 81-85, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1333, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988, pp. 98–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Lyons, R., Random walks and percolation on trees, Annals of Probability, vol. 18 (1990), pp. 931–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Muhly, P., Saito, K.-S. and Solel, B., Coordinates for triangular operator algebras, Annals of Mathematics, set. 2, vol. 127 (1988), pp. 245–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Muhly, P., Coordinates for triangular operator algebras. II, Pacific Journal of Mathematics, ser. 2, vol. 137, pp. 335–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Nebbia, C., Amenability and Kunze-Stein property for groups acting on a tree, Pacific Journal of Mathematics, vol. 135 (1988), pp. 371–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Rosenstein, J., Linear orderings, Academic Press, New York, 1982.Google Scholar
[12]Slaman, T. and Steel, J., Definable functions on degrees, Cabal seminar 81–85, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1333, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988, pp. 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Wagon, S., The Banach-Tarski paradox, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14]Zimmer, R., Hyperfinite factors and amenable ergodic actions, Inventiones Mathematicae, vol. 41 (1977), pp. 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar