4

0
6


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
1
1
-
2
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
1
1
-
2
4


amsppt.styFSp90a.tex
Pointwise compact and stable sets
of measurable functions
S.Shelah & D.H.Fremlin
Hebrew University, Jerusalem
University of Essex, Colchester, England
[University of Essex Mathematics Department Research Report 91-3]
Introduction In a series of papers culminating in [Ta84], M.Talagrand, the second author and others
investigated at length the properties and structure of pointwise compact sets of measurable functions. A
number of problems, interesting in themselves and important for the theory of Pettis integration, were solved
subject to various special axioms. It was left unclear just how far the special axioms were necessary. In
particular, several results depended on the fact that it is consistent to suppose that every countable relatively
pointwise compact set of Lebesgue measurable functions is stable in Talagrands sense; the point being that
stable sets are known to have a variety of properties not shared by all pointwise compact sets. In the present
paper we present a model of set theory in which there is a countable relatively pointwise compact set of
Lebesgue measurable functions which is not stable, and discuss the signicance of this model in relation to
the original questions. A feature of our model which may be of independent interest is the following: in it,
there is a closed negligible set Q [0, 1]
2
such that whenever D [0, 1] has outer measure 1 then
Q
1
[D] = x : y D, (x, y) Q
has inner measure 1 (see 2G below).
1. The model We embark immediately on the central ideas of this paper, setting out a construction of a
partially ordered set which forces a fairly technical proposition in measure theory (1S below); the relevance
of this proposition to pointwise compact sets will be discussed in 2. The construction is complex, and
rather than give it in a single stretch we develop it cumulatively in 1E, 1I, 1Q below; it is to be understood
that each notation introduced in these paragraphs, as well as those in the denitions 1A, 1K, 1L, is to stand
for the remainder of the section. After each part of the construction we give lemmas which can be dealt
with in terms of the construction so far, even if their motivation is unlikely to be immediately clear.
When we come to results involving Forcing, we will try to follow the methods of [Ku80]; in particular, in
a p.o.set, p q will always mean that p is a stronger condition than q.
1A Denition If / is any family of sets not containing , set
dp(/) = min#(I) : I A ,= A /.
Observe that dp(/) = 0 i / = and that dp(/B) is at most the cardinal sum of dp(/) and dp(B). (Of
course much more can be said.)
1B Lemma Suppose that n, l, k N, with n, l not less than 2, and that is such that 0 <
1
2
and
l
k
(k + 2) ln n. Then there is a set W n n (we identify n with the set of its predecessors) such that
#(W) n
2
and whenever I [n]
l
and J
0
, . . . , J
l1
[n]
k
are disjoint, there are i I, j < l such that
i J
j
W.
proof If k = 0 this is trivial; suppose that k > 0. Set = T(n n). Give a probability for which the
events (i, j) W, as (i, j) runs over n n, are independent with probability . If W is a random set,
then
Pr(#(W) n
2
) >
1
4
because
1
2
and #(W) has the binomial distribution B(n
2
, ). On the other hand, if J [n]
k
and i < n,
Pr(i J W)
k
. So if I [n]
l
and J
0
, . . . , J
l1
are disjoint members of [n]
k
,
1
4
0
6


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
1
1
-
2
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
1
1
-
2
4


2
Pr(i J
j
, W i I, j < l) (1
k
)
l
2
exp(l
2

k
).
Accordingly
Pr( I [n]
l
, disjoint J
0
, . . . , J
l1
[n]
k
such that i J
j
, W i I, j < l)
#([n]
l
)#([n]
k
)
l
exp(l
2

k
)
n
l
n
kl
exp(l
2

k
)
= exp((k + 1)l ln n l
2

k
)
1
4
because
l
2

k
(k + 1)l ln n l ln n 2 ln2.
There must therefore be some W of the type required.
Remark Compare the discussion of cliques in random graphs in [Sp87], pp. 18-20.
1C Lemma Let m and l be strictly positive integers and / a non-empty family of non-empty sets. Let
T be the family of non-empty sets T /
m
. For T T write T

= tj : t T , j m

jm
/
j
. For
T , T
0
T say that T T
0
if T T
0
and
dp(u : t

u T

) dp(u : t

u T

0
)/2l
for every t T

T . Fix T
0
T and a cover o
i
)
i<2l
of T
0
. Then there is a T T
0
such that T o
i
for
some i < 2l.
[Notation: In this context we use ordinary italics, u, for members of /, and bold letters, t, for nite
sequences of members of /.]
proof For t T

0
T
0
set

t
= dp(u : t

u T

0
)/2l > 0.
For i < 2l dene o
(j)
i
)
jm
by setting o
(m)
i
= o
i
T
0
,
o
(j)
i
= t : t /
j
T

0
, dp(u : t

u o
(j+1)
i
)
t

for j < m. An easy downwards induction (using the fact that dp is subadditive) shows that T

0
/
j
=

i<2l
o
(j)
i
for every j m. In particular, there is some i < 2l such that o
(0)
i
. Now dene T by
T = t : t /
m
, tj o
(j)
i
j m T
0
o
i
,
and see that T T
0
, as required.
1D Corollary Let n, l, k and W be as in Lemma 1B. Take r k, let Z be the cartesian product n
r
and
set

W = (i, z) : i < n, z Z, (i, z(j)) W j < r.

Let m, /, T and be as in Lemma 1C, and take T
0
T, H : T
0
n any function. Then
either there are i < n, T T
0
such that H(t) = i for every t T
or there is a J [n]
rl
such that for every z (n J)
r
there is a T T
0
such that (H(t), z)

W for
every t T .
proof Set
A = z : z Z, T T
0
such that (H(t), z)

W t T .
If A (n J)
r
for some J [n]
rl
, we have the second alternative; suppose otherwise. Then we can nd
z
0
, . . . , z
l1
Z A such that the sets J
j
= z
j
(i) : i < r are all disjoint. Each J
j
belongs to [n]
k
, so by
the choice of W,
I = i : i J
j
, W j < l
has cardinal less than l. Now observe that if t T
0
then either H(t) I or (H(t), z
j
)

W for some j < l.
So we have a cover of T
0
by the sets
o
i
= t : H(t) = i for i I,
o

j
= t : (H(t), z
j
)

W for j < l.
4
0
6


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
1
1
-
2
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
1
1
-
2
4


3
By Lemma 1C, there is a T T
0
such that either T o
i
for some i I or T o

j
for some j < l. But we
cannot have T o

j
, because z
j
/ A; so T o
i
for some i, and we have the rst alternative.
Remark 1C-1D are of course elementary, but their signicance is bound to be obscure; they will be used
in 1R below. An essential feature of 1C is the fact that the denominator 2l in the denition of is
independent of the size of /.
1E Construction: part 1 (a) Take a sequence n
k
)
kN
of integers increasing so fast that
(i) n
0
4;
(ii) n
k
> 2
k+1
;
(iii) writing c
l
=

i<l
2
ni
, then
ln(2
k1
n
k
) 2
l
(k + 1)( c
l+1
l
ln 2 + c
l1
l
ln n
l1
) for 1 l k;
(iv) ln n
k
(2
k+1
)
k
(k + 2);
(v) writing | for the least integer greater than or equal to ,
(k + 1) ln(2(ln n
k
)
2
|) 2
k
ln(2
k1
n
k
)|;
(vi) 2
k
k(ln n
k
)
2
|(

i<k
2
ni
)
k+1
n
k
;
(vii) ln(2
k1
n
k
) (k + 1) ln(2 c
k+1
k
+ 2k)
for every k N.
For each k N, let V
k
be the cartesian product

i<k
n
i
.
(b) For each k N, let T
k
be the set of those subsets t of V
k
expressible as t =

i<k
C
i
(t) where C
i
(t) n
i
and #(C
i
(t)) (1 2
i1
)n
i
for each i < k. Set T =

kN
T
k
, and for t T say that rank(t) = k if t T
k
.
For t, t

T say that t t

if rank(t) rank(t

) and C
i
(t) = C
i
(t

) for every i < rank(t). Then T is a

nitely-branching tree of height in which the T
k
are the levels and rank is the rank function. For t T
write T
(t)
for the subtree t

: t

t or t t

, suc(t) for t

: t t

, rank(t

) = rank(t) + 1.
(c) For k N, set

k
= (k + 1)/ ln(2
k1
n
k
|);
2
k1
n
k
> 1 by (a)(ii) above. For t T dene d
t
: TT R by writing
d
t
(S) =
rank(t)
ln(dp(C : t C S))
for every S T, allowing d
t
(S) = if S suc(t) = . Observe that d
t
(T) k + 1 whenever rank(t) = k
(because
dp(C : C n
k
, #(C) (1 2
k1
)n
k
) 2
k1
n
k
|.)
(d) Let Q be the set of subtrees q T such that
q ,= ;
if t t

q then t q;
if t q then q suc(t) ,= ;
writing
k
(q) = mind
t
(q) : t q T
k
for k N, lim
k

k
(q) = .
Observe that
k
(T) k + 1 for each k N, so that T Q and Q ,= .
(e) For q, q

Q say that q q

if q q

. Then (Q, , T) is a p.o.set (that is, a pre-ordered set with a

top element, as in [Ku80]). Observe that if t q Q then q T
(t)
Q and q T
(t)
q.
(f ) For q, q

Q and k N say that q

k
q

if q q

and q T
k
= q

T
k
and
d
t
(q) min(k, d
t
(q

)) 2
k
for every t q. Note that
k
is not transitive unless k = 0.
Remarks Of course the point of the sequence n
k
)
kN
on which the rest of this construction will depend
is that it increases as fast as we need it to. The exact list given in (a) above is of no signicance and will
be used only as a list of clues to the (elementary) arguments below which depend on the rapidly-increasing
nature of the sequence. This is why we have made no attempt to make the list as elegant or as short as
possible.
Three elements may be distinguished within the construction of Q. First, it is a p.o.set of rapidly
branching trees; that is, if t q Q, q suc(t) is large compared with T
rank(t)
, except for t of small rank.
This is the basis of most of the (laborious but routine) work down to 1P below. Second, there is a natural
Q-name for a subset of X =

kN
n
k
of large measure; a generic lter in Q leads to a branch of T and
4
0
6


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
1
1
-
2
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
1
1
-
2
4


4
hence to the of 1Q(d). Third, the use of dp in the denition of rapidly branching ((c)-(d) above) is what
makes possible the side-step in the last part of the proof of 1R.
1F Lemma Q is proper.
proof This is a special case of Proposition 1.18 in [Sh326]. (In fact, the arguments of 1G-1H below show
that Q satises Axiom A, and is therefore proper; see [Ba84], 2.4.)
1G Lemma Let k N and let be an ordinal. Suppose that A is a set with #(A) exp(2
k
/
j
) 1
for every j k, and that is a Q-name for a member of A. Let be a Q-name for a countable subset of
. Then for every q Q there are a q

k
q, a function H : T
k
A and a countable (ground-model) set
D such that
q

T
(t)

Q
= H(t) t q

T
k
,
q

Q
D.
proof (a) Set m = #(A). The point is that if j k and t T
j
and S
i
)
im
is a family of subsets of T,
then
d
t
(
_
im
S
i
) =
j
ln(dp(
_
im
C : t C S
i
))

j
ln(

im
dp(C : t C S
i
))

j
ln((m + 1) max
im
dp(C : t C S
i
))
=
j
ln(m + 1) + max
im

j
ln(dp(C : t C S
i
))
2
k
+ max
im
d
t
(S
i
).
(b) For each a A, let S
a
be the set
t : t q, rank(t) k, p Q, D []

,
p
k
q T
(t)
, p
Q
= a & D.
If t q S
a
and rank(t) k, then d
t
(S
a
) < min(k, d
t
(q)) 2
k
. For if S
a
suc(t) = , d
t
(S
a
) = . While
if S
a
suc(t) ,= , then for each s suc(t) S
a
we can nd p
s
Q and D
s
[]

such that p
s

k
q T
(s)
,
p
s

Q
= a and p
s

Q
D
s
. If we now set
p =

ssuc(t)Sa
p
s
, D =

ssuc(t)Sa
D
s
,
then p q T
(t)
and p
Q
= a and p
Q
D. Because t / S
a
, p ,
k
q T
(t)
and there must be an
s p such that d
s
(p) < min(k, d
s
(q T
(t)
)) 2
k
; evidently s = t and
d
t
(S
a
) < min(k, d
t
(q)) 2
k
,
as claimed.
(c) Suppose, if possible, that there is a t
0
q T
k

aA
S
a
. Set
p = t : t q T
(t0)
, t

aA
S
a
t

t.
Then p is a subtree of T. For every t p with t t
0
,
d
t
(q) max(d
t
(p) d
t
(S
a
) : a A) + 2
k
because #(A) = m. But d
t
(S
a
) < d
t
(q) 2
k
for every a A, by (b) above, so d
t
(p) d
t
(q) 2
k
(and
p suc(t) ,= ). This shows both that p has no maximal elements and that
i
(p)
i
(q) 2
k
for every
i k, so that p Q. Because Q is proper, we can nd a p

p and a countable D such that p

D
([Sh82], p. 81, III.1.16). Next, there are p

, a A such that p

Q
= a. Let j N be such that

i
(p

) k whenever i j, and take t p

such that rank(t) max(k, j). Then p

T
(t)
witnesses that
t S
a
; which is impossible.
(d) Accordingly we have for every t q T
k
an H(t) A, a countable set D
t
and a p
t
Q such that
p
t

Q
= H(t) & D
t
,
p
t

k
q T
(t)
.
4
0
6


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
1
1
-
2
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
1
1
-
2
4


5
Set q

tqT
k
p
t
, D =

tqT
k
D
t
; then q

k
q, D is countable, q

Q
D and q

T
(t)

Q
= H(t)
for every t q T
k
.
1H Lemma Let q
k
)
kN
be a sequence in Q such that q
2k+2

k+1
q
2k+1

k
q
2k
for every k N. Then
q =

kN
q
k
belongs to Q and is accordingly a lower bound for q
k
: k N in Q; also qT
k+1
= q
2k+1
T
k+1
for each k N.
proof Because each q
k
is a nitely-branching subtree of T with no maximal elements, so is q, and d
t
( q) =
lim
k
d
t
(q
k
) for every t q. Moreover, if t q and k l N,
d
t
(q
2l
) min(k, d
t
(q
2k
)) 3.2
k
+ 3.2
l
,
(induce on l, using the denition of
l
), so we have

i
( q) = lim
l

i
(q
2l
) min(k,
i
(q
2k
)) 3.2
k
for every i, k N; consequently lim
i

i
( q) = and q Q. Now if k N and 2k + 1 l, q
l+1
T
k+1
=
q
l
T
k+1
, so q T
k+1
= q
2k+1
T
k+1
.
amsppt.styFSp90b.tex Version of 16.9.92
1I Construction: part 2 Let be the cardinal c
+
(evaluated in the ground model).
(a) Let (P

, Q

)
<
) be a countable-support iteration of p.o.sets, as in [Ku80], chap. 8, such that
each Q

is a P

-name for a p.o.set with the same denition, interpreted in V

P

, as the p.o.set Q of 1E. (Note

that T is absolute, and so, in eect, is d
t
)
tT
, because each d
t
is determined by its values on the nite set
T(suc(t)); so that the dierence between Q and Q

subsists in the power of P

to add new subsets of T.

Also each Q

is full in Kunens sense.) Write P = P

.
(b) If , K []
<
, k N and p, p

belong to P

, say that p
K,k
p

if p p

and
p
P

p()
k
p

() K,
taking
k
here to be a P

-name for the relation on Q

corresponding to the relation

k
on Q as dened in
1E(f). Of course
K,k
is not transitive unless K = or k = 0.
1J Lemma (a) P

is proper for every .

(b) If < , then P
+
may be identied with a dense subset of the iteration P

, where P

is
a P

-name with the same denition, interpreted in V

P

, as the denition of P

in V .
(c) For every < ,
11
P

< .
(d) If has uncountable conality, A is a (ground-model) set,

f is a P

-name for a sequence in A

and p P

, then we can nd < , p

p and a P

-name g such that

p

f = g.
(e) If A is a (ground-model) set and

f is a P-name for a sequence in A, then we can nd a < and a
P

-name g such that

11
P

P

f = g.
proof (a) This is just because Q is proper, as noted in 1F; see [Sh82], p. 90, Theorem III.3.2.
(b) This now follows by induction on . The inductive step to a successor ordinal is trivial, because if
we can think of P
+
as dense in P

then we can identify Q

+
with Q

. As for the inductive step to

limit , any member of P
+
can be regarded as (p, p

) where p P

and p

is a P

-name for a member of

P

. On the other hand, given (p, p

) P

, we have a P

-name

J for the support of p

which in V
P

is a
countable subset of . But because P

is proper there are a p

1
p and a countable ground-model set I
such that p
1

P

J I ([Sh82], p. 81, III.1.16). Now (p

1
, p

) can be re-interpreted as a member of P

+
stronger than (p, p

). Thus P
+
is dense in P

, as claimed.
(c) [Sh82], p. 96, III.4.1.
(d) [Sh82], p. 171, V.4.4.
(e) By [Sh82], p. 96, III.4.1, P satises the -c.c.; because is regular, (d) gices the result.
1K Denition Let , p P

.
4
0
6


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
1
1
-
2
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
1
1
-
2
4


6
(a) Dene U(p), p
(u)
)
uU(p)
as follows. A nite function u T belongs to U(p) if
either u = , in which case p
(u)
= p,
or u = v (, t) where v U(p), dom(v) < , and
p
(v)

P

t p
(v)
(),
in which case p
(u)
is dened by writing
p
(u)
() = p
(v)
() ,
p
(u)
() = p
(v)
() T
(t)
.
(b) Observe that if u U(p) then p
(u)
() = p() for dom(u), p
(u)
() = p()T
(u())
if dom(u);
U(p) is just the set of nite functions u for which these formulae dene such a p
(u)
P

. Of course p
(u)
p
for every u U(p).
(c) Note that if , p P

, u U(p) then u U(p) and (p)

(u)
= p
(u)
.
(d) If p P

, u U(p) and v T is a nite function such that dom(u) dom(v) and u() v() in
T for every dom(u), then v U(p) i v U(p
(u)
), and in this case p
(v)
= (p
(u)
)
(v)
(induce on #(v)).
(e) We shall mostly be using not the whole of U(p) but the sets U(p; K, k) = U(p) T
K
k
for K []
<
,
k N, writing T
K
k
for the set of functions from K to T
k
.
1L Denition For , K []
<
, k N and p P

, say that p is (K, k)-xed if for every K,

u U(p; K , k) there is a (ground-model) set A T
k
such that
p
(u)

P
p() T
k
= A.
Equivalently, p is (K, k)-xed if U(p; K, k) U(p
1
; K, k) for every p
1
p.
1M Lemma Suppose , K []
<
, k 1 and that A is a nite set with 2
c
m
a
c
m1
exp(2
k
/
i
)
for every i k, where c = #(T
k
), m = #(K) and a = #(A). Let be a P

-name for a member of A, and

a P

-name for a countable subset of . Then for any p P

there are p
1

K,k
p, a function H : T
K
k
A
and a countable (ground-model) set D such that
p
1
is (K, k)-xed,
p
(u)
1

P

= H(u) u U(p
1
; K, k),
p
1

P

D.
proof Induce on m = #(K). If m = 0 we may take any a A, p

1
p such that p

1
= a, and (again
using [Sh82], III.1.16, this time based on 1Ja) a countable D and a p
1
p

1
such that p
1

P

D; now
set H() = a.
For the inductive step to #(K) = m 1, let be max K. As explained in 1Jb, P

may be regarded as a
dense subset of P
+1
P

; arguing momentarily in V
P
+1
we can nd a P
+1
-name r
0
for a member of P

, a
P
+1
-name

for a member of A and a P

+1
-name

for a countable set such that

(p + 1, r
0
) p in P
+1
P

,
(p + 1, r
0
)
P
+1
P

= ,
(p + 1, r
0
)
P
+1
P

.
Now let

0
be a P
+1
-name for a countable subset of ( + 1) such that
11
P
+1

P
+1
supp( r
0
) =

0
.
Because #(A) = a < 2
c
m
a
c
m1
exp(2
k
/
i
) for every i k, we can use Lemma 1G in V
P

to nd

H, q,

such that

H is a P

-name for a function from T

k
to A,

is a P

-name for a countable subset of ,

q Q

,
p
P

q
k
p(),
p
P

_
q T
(t)

=

H(t) t q T
k
_
,
p
P

_
q
Q

_
.
Now consider the pair (

H, q T
k
). This can be regarded as a P

-name for a member of A

1
= A
T
k
TT
k
,
and a
1
= #(A
1
) = 2
c
a
c
, so
2
c
m1
a
c
m2
1
= 2
2c
m1
a
c
m1
2
c
m
a
c
m1
exp(2
k
/
j
) i k.
4
0
6


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
1
1
-
2
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
1
1
-
2
4


7
The inductive hypothesis therefore tells us that there are p
1

K,k
p, H

: T
K
k
A
T
k
, F

: T
K
k

TT
k
and a countable D such that
p
1
is (K , k)-xed,
p
(u)
1

P

H = H

(u) & q T
k
= F

(u)
for every u U( p
1
; K , k), and
p
1

P

D.
At this point we observe that
p
1

P

_
q
Q

supp( r
0
) D
_
.
Now the only dierence between P
+1
P

and P

is that for members of the former their supports have

to be regarded as P
+1
-names for countable subsets of , and these are not always reducible to countable
ground-model sets. But in the present case this diculty does not arise and we have a p
1
P

dened by
saying that p
1
= p
1
, p
1

P

p
1
() = q, and p
1

P
p
1
() = r
0
() for < < ; then supp(p
1
)
supp( p
1
) (D ) is countable.
Consequently p
1
P

is well-dened and now, setting H(u

t) = H

(u)(t) for u T
K
k
, t T
k
,
p
1

K,k
p,
p
1

P
D,
U(p
1
; K, k) = u

t : u U( p
1
; K , k), t F

(u),
p
(v)
1

P

= H(v) v U(p
1
; K, k)
and nally
p
(u)
1

P

p
1
() T
k
= F

(u) u U(p
1
; K , k),
so that p
1
is (K, k)-xed, and the induction proceeds.
1N Lemma Suppose , K
k
)
kN
is an increasing sequence of nite subsets of , p
k
)
kN
is a sequence
in P

; suppose that
p
2k+2

K
k
,k+1
p
2k+1

K
k
,k
p
2k
for every k N and that

kN
supp(p
k
)

kN
K
k
. Then there is a p P

such that p p
k
for every
k N, supp( p)

kN
K
k
and
p
P

p() T
k
= p
2k+1
T
k
k N, K
k
,
p
P

p() T
k+1
= p
2k+2
T
k+1
k N, K
k+1
,
so that
U( p; K
k
, k) U(p
2k+1
; K
k
, k) and U( p; K
k
, k + 1) U( p
k+2
; K
k
, k + 1)
for every k N.
proof For each < choose p() such that
11
P

p() =

kN
p
k
().
An easy induction on shows that p P

for every ; for if

kN
K
k
then
11
P

p() = T = 11
Q

,
while if k N and K
k
then
p
P

p
2l+2
()
l+1
p
2l+1
()
l
p
2l
() l k,
so that by Lemma 1H,
p
P

p() Q

& p() T
k+1
= p
2k+1
T
k+1
= p
2k+2
T
k+1
& p() T
k
= p
2k+1
T
k
.
It follows at once that U( p; K
k
, k) U(p
2k+1
; K
k
, k), U( p; K
k
, k+1) U(p
2k+2
; K
k
, k+1) for every k N.
1O Lemma Suppose that 0 < , is a P

-name for a member of

kN
n
k
, and p P

. Then we
can nd a p and sequences K
k
)
kN
, H
k
)
kN
such that
p P

, p p;
K
k
)
kN
is an increasing sequence of subsets of , #(K
k
) k + 1 for every k, K
0
= 0;
supp( p)

kN
K
k
;
p is (K
k
, k)-xed and (K
k
, k + 1)-xed for every k;
H
k
is a function from T
K
k
k+1
to n
k
for every k;
p
(u)

(k) = H
k
(u) whenever k N and u U( p; K
k
, k + 1).
proof Using Lemma 1M, we can nd sequences p
k
)
kN
, K
k
)
kN
and H
k
)
kN
such that
4
0
6


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
1
1
-
2
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
1
1
-
2
4


8
p = p
0
, K
0
= 0;
#(K
k+1
) k + 2, K
k+1
K
k
;
p
2k+1

K
k
,k
p
2k
, p
2k+1
is (K
k
, k)-xed;
H
k
: T
K
k
k+1
n
k
is a function;
p
2k+2

K
k
,k+1
p
2k+1
, p
2k+2
is (K
k
, k + 1)-xed,
p
(u)
2k+2

P

(k) = H
k
(u) u U(p
2k+2
; K
k
, k + 1)
for every k N. Furthermore, we may do this in such a way that

kN
K
k
includes

kN
supp(p
k
). We
need of course to know that the n
k
are rapidly increasing; specically, that
2
c
k+1
k
exp(2
k
/
i
) i k
(when choosing p
2k+1
) and that
2
c
k+1
k+1
n
c
k
k+1
k
exp(2
k1
/
i
) i k + 1
(when choosing p
2k+2
), where we write c
k
= #(T
k
). But as c
k

i<k
2
ni
, this is a consequence of 1E(a)(i)
and (iii).
Armed with the sequences p
k
)
kN
, K
k
)
kN
we may now use Lemma 1N to nd a p as described there.
Because p
2k+1
is (K
k
, k)-xed and U( p; K
k
, k) U(p
2k+1
; K
k
, k) we must have equality here and p is
(K
k
, k)-xed for every k N. Similarly, p is (K
k
, k+1)-xed for every k. Moreover, if u U( p; K
k
, k+1) =
U(p
2k+2
; K
k
, k + 1) we have p
(u)
p
(u)
2k+2
, so
p
(u)

(k) = H
k
(u)
as required.
1P Lemma Suppose that , p P

, k N, K []
<
and V is a non-empty subset of U(p; K, k).
Then we have a p
1
=
_
vV
p
(v)
dened (up to -equivalence in P

) by saying
if K then p
1
() = p();
if K then
(p
1
)
(u)

p
1
() =

p() T
(t)
: v V such that v + 1 = u

t
for u v : v V.
Now p
1
p and if < , t p
1
(), rank(t) k we shall have
p
1

P

suc(t) p
1
() = suc(t) p();
so if < , i k we have
p
1

P

i
(p
1
())
i
(p()).
If p
2
p
1
there is some v V such that p
2
is compatible with p
(v)
1
= p
(v)
. If k l N, K L []
<
then
U(p
1
; L, l) = w : w U(p; L, l), v V such that v() w() K,
and p
(w)
1
= p
(w)
for every w U(p
1
; L, l); consequently, p
1
is (L, l)-xed if p is.
proof Requires only a careful reading of the denitions.
Remark Note that 1G-1P are based just on the fact that Q is a p.o.set of rapidly branching trees; the exact
denition of rapidly branching in 1E(c) is relevant only to some of the detailed calculations. Similar ideas
may be found in [BJSp89]and [Sh326].
1Q Construction: part 3 (a) Set X =

kN
n
k
. Then X, with its product topology, is a compact
metric space. Let be the natural Radon probability on X, the product of the uniform probabilities on the
factors.
(b) For each k N set l
k
= (ln n
k
)
2
|. Take W

k
n
k
n
k
such that #(W

k
) 2
k1
n
2
k
and whenever
I [n
k
]
l
k
and J
0
, . . . , J
l
k
1
are disjoint members of [n
k
]
k
, there are i I and j < l
k
such that i J
j

W

k
. (This is possible by Lemma 1B and 1E(a)(iv).) Set W
k
= W

k
(i, i) : i < n
k
.
Write R for
(x, y) : x, y X, (x(k), y(k)) W
k
k N, k : x(k) = y(k) is nite;
then R is negligible for the product measure of X X. For r N write R
r
for the set
(x, y
i
)
i<r
) : x X, (x, y
i
) R i < r X X
r
.
We shall frequently wish to interpret the formulae for the sets X, R
r
in V
P
; when doing so we will write
X, R
r
.
(c) Write
4
0
6


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
1
1
-
2
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
1
1
-
2
4


9
L = L
k
)
kN
: L
k
n
k
k N,

kN
#(L
k
)/n
k
> 0.
Again, we shall wish to distinguish between the ground-model set L and a corresponding P-name L.
(d) For each k N let
k
be the P-name for a subset of n
k
dened (up to equivalence) by saying that
p
P

k
= C
k
(t)
whenever rank(t) > k and p(0) T
(t)
. (Here C
k
(t) is the kth factor of t, as described in 1E(b).) Let
k
,
be P-names for the subsets of X given by
11
P

P

k
= : X, (i)
i
i k, =

kN

k
.
Then we have
11
P

P
#(
k
) (1 2
k1
)n
k
k N,
so that
11
P

P
() = 1.
1R Main Lemma If r N and D X
r
is a (ground-model) set such that D(

kN
L
k
)
r
,= for every
(ground-model) sequence L
k
)
kN
L, then for every (ground-model) sequence L
k
)
kN
L
11
P

P

kN
L
k
R
r

1
[D (

kN
L
k
)
r
].
proof (a) Let L
k
)
kN
L, let be a P-name such that
11
P

P

kN
L
k
,
and let p P. Write D

for D (

kN
L
k
)
r
. Let k
0
r, p
1
p be such that p
1

P

k0
. By Lemma
1O, we have a p
2
p
1
, an increasing sequence K
k
)
kN
of nite subsets of , and a sequence H
k
)
kN
of
functions such that
p
2
is (K
k
, k)-xed and (K
k
, k + 1)-xed for every k N,
p
(u)
2

P
(k) = H
k
(u) whenever u U(p
2
; K
k
, k + 1), k N;

kN
K
k
supp(p
2
);
0 K
0
, #(K
k
) k + 1 for every k N.
(b) For k k
0
, let Z
k
be the cartesian product set n
r
k
and take

W
k
to be
(i, z) : i < n
k
, z Z
k
, (i, z(j)) W
k
j < r.
Set /
k
= Tn
k
and T
k
= T(/
K
k
k
) ; dene
k
on T
k
as in Lemma 1C, taking l
k
and K
k
(with the
order induced by that of ) in place of l and m there.
For each u U(p
2
; K
k
, k) set
T
u
= c : u

c U(p
2
; K
k
, k + 1) T
k
,
where for u T
K
k
, c (Tn
k
)
K
we write
u

c = u() c())
K
.
By Corollary 1D, we may nd for each such u a w
u
< n
k
and a set J
u
n
k
such that #(J
u
) rl
k
and
either there is a T
k
T
u
such that H
k
(u

c) = w
u
for every c T
or for every z (n
k
J
u
)
r
there is a T
k
T
u
such that (H
k
(u

c), z)

W
k
, that is,
(H
k
(u

c), z(j)) W
k
j < r,
for every c T .
Set

I
k
= w
u
: u U(p
2
; K
k
, k),

J
k
=

J
u
: u U(p
2
; K
k
, k),
so that
#(

I
k
) #(U(p
2
; K
k
, k)) #(T
K
k
k
) (

i<k
2
ni
)
k+1
,
#(

J
k
) kl
k
(

i<k
2
ni
)
k+1
2
k
n
k
by 1E(a)(vi).
(c) Let k
1
max(k
0
, 1) be such that

k
(p
2
(0)) 2,

J
k
, L
k
for every k k
1
. Take any v

U(p
2
; K
k11
, k
1
) and set p
3
= p
(v

)
2
. Then p
3
is (K
k
, k)-xed and
(K
k
, k + 1)-xed for every k k
1
, and
T
u
= c : u

c U(p
3
; K
k
, k + 1)
whenever k k
1
, u U(p
3
; K
k
, k).
(d) We have
4
0
6


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
1
1
-
2
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
1
1
-
2
4


10
p
3

P
(i) = H
i
(v

i
) i < k
1
,
where v

i
is that member of T
Ki
i+1
such that v

i
() v

() for every K
i
. Set L

k
= H
k
(v

k
) for k < k
1
,
L

k
= L
k

J
k
for k k
1
; then

kN
#(L

k
)/n
k
> 0, because

kN
#(L
k
)/n
k
> 0 and

kN
#(

J
k
)/n
k
< .
So there is a z D (

kN
L

k
)
r
D

. Writing z
k
= z(j)(k))
j<r
for k N, we have z
k
(n
k


J
k
)
r
for
k k
1
, and
p
3

P
((k), z
k
)

W
k
for k < k
1
, because (i, i) W
k
for i < n
k
.
(e) For each k k
1
, u U(p
3
; K
k
, k) choose T

u

k
T
u
T
k
such that
either H
k
(u

c) = w
u


I
k
for every c T

u
or (H
k
(u

c), z
k
)

W
k
for every c T

u
.
Dene o
k
)
kk1
, p
k
)
kk1
by
p
k1
= p
3
,
o
k
= u

c : u U( p
k
; K
k
, k), c T

u
,
p
k+1
=
_
p
(v)
k
: v o
k

for every k k
1
, as in Lemma 1P. An easy induction on k shows that
T

u
= c : u

c U( p
k+1
; K
k
, k + 1)
whenever u U( p
k
; K
k
, k), k k
1
, that p
k
is (K
l
, l)-xed and (K
l
, l + 1)-xed whenever k
1
k l, and
that p
(v)
k
= p
(v)
3
whenever k
1
k l and v U( p
k
; K
l
, l) U( p
k
; K
l
, l + 1). Also supp( p
k
)

lN
K
l
for
every k k
1
.
(f ) It is likewise easy to see that, for k k
1
,
p
k+1
p
k
,
p
k+1

P

p
k+1
() T
k
= p
k
() T
k
< ,
p
k+1

P

p
k+1
() suc(t) = p
k
() suc(t) t p
k+1
() T
i
unless i = k and K
k
,
p
k+1

P
(k)

I
k
or ((k), z
k
)

W
k
.
(g) On the other hand, if k k
1
and K
k
,
p
k+1

P

dp(C : t C p
k+1
()) dp(C : t C p
k
())/2l
k
t p
k+1
() T
k
.
To see this, take any q p
k+1
and t such that
q
P

t p
k+1
() T
k
= p
k
() T
k
.
We may suppose that v
0
o
k
is such that q p
(v0)
k
= p
(v0)
k+1
= q
1
. Now p
k+1
is (K
k
, k +1)-xed so there
must be a t

t such that
q
1

P

T
k+1
p
k+1
().
There is accordingly a v
1
o
k
such that v
0
= v
1
and v
1
() = t

. Express v
1
as u

c
1
where u
U( p
k
; K
k
, k) and c
1
T

u
. Of course u() = t.
Now
q
1

P

C : t C p
k+1
() c() : c T

u
, c = c
1
,
q
1

P

C : t C p
k
() = c() : c T
u
, c = c
1

because p
k
and p
k+1
are both (K
k
, k + 1)-xed, while v
0
= (u)

(c
1
). But because T

u

k
T
u
,
dp(c() : c T

u
, c = c
1
) dp(c() : c T
u
, c = c
1
)/2l
k
.
So we get
q q
1

P

dp(C : t C p
k+1
()) dp(C : t C p
k
())/2l
k
.
As q and t are arbitrary, we have the result.
(h) Because
k
ln(2l
k
) 2
k
(by 1E(a)(v)),
p
k+1

K
k
,k
p
k
for every k k
1
. Also, supp( p
k
)

lN
K
l
for every k k
1
. By Lemma 1N, there is a p
4
P such that
p
4
p
k
for every k k
1
. Moreover, we may take it that
p
4
(0) =

kk1
p
k
(0)
(as in Lemma 1H), so that
4
0
6


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
1
1
-
2
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
1
1
-
2
4


11

i
(p
4
(0))
i
(p
3
(0))
i
ln(2l
i
) 1
whenever i k
1
. Note that for k k
1
,
p
4

P
(k)

I
k
or ((k), z
k
)

W
k
,
while for k < k
1
,
p
4

P
((k), z
k
)

W
k
.
(i) Now dene p
5
P by setting

i
=

I
i
z(j)(i) : j < r i N,
p
5
(0) = t : t p
4
(0), C
i
(t)

I

i
= whenever k
1
i < rank(t),
p
5
() = p
4
() if 0 < < .
Of course we must check that p
5
(0), as so dened, belongs to Q
0

= Q; but because
k
(p
4
(0)) 1 for k k
1
,
we have
dp(C : t C p
4
(0)) exp(1/
k
) 2(

i<k
2
ni
)
k+1
+ 2k 2#(

k
)
for every k k
1
, t p
4
(0) T
k
, using 1E(a)(vii). Of course p
5
(0) T
k11
= p
4
(0) T
k11
= v

(0), so
every element of p
5
(0) has a successor in p
5
(0), and also

i
(p
5
(0))
i
(p
4
(0))
i
ln 2
for i k
1
. (Here at last is the key step which depends on using dp in our measure of rapidly branching
given in 1E(d).) Thus p
5
(0) Q and p
5
P. But also
p
5

P

k


I

k
= k k
1
,
so that
p
5

P
(k) /

I
k
, (k) ,= z(j)(k) j < r, ((k), z
k
)

W
k
for k k
1
; nally
p
5

P
(, z) R
r
, R
r

1
[D

];
as p
5
p and p, are arbitrary,
11
P

P

kN
L
k
R
r

1
[D

],
as claimed.
1S Theorem For each r N,
11
P

P
if D
i
X and D
i

kN
L
k
,= L
k
)
kN
L, i < r,
then L
k
)
kN
L x
i
)
i<r

i<r
(D
i

kN
L
k
)
such that (x
j
, x
i
) R i < j < r.
proof Induce on r. If r = 0 the result is trivial. For the inductive step to r +1, take P-names
i
for subsets
of X such that
11
P

P

i

kN
L
k
,= L
k
)
kN
L, i r.
Take a P-name L for a member of L. Because members of L can be coded by simple sequences, we may
suppose that L is a P

-name for some < (1Je). The inductive hypothesis tells us that
11
P

P
L
k
)
kN
L x
i
)
i<r

i<r
(
i

kN
L
k
)
such that (x
j
, x
i
) R if i < j < r.
Next, using 1Jc-e, we can nd a and a P

-name for a subset of X

r
such that
11
P

P

i<r

i
,
11
P

(x
j
, x
i
) R
()
whenever x
l
)
l<r
, i < j < r,
(

kN
L
k
)
r
,= L
k
)
kN
L
()
,
where we write . . .
()
to indicate that we are interpreting some formula in V
P

.
4
0
6


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
1
1
-
2
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
1
1
-
2
4


12
Now we remark that by 1Jb P can be regarded, for forcing purposes, as an iteration P

, where P

is
a P

-name for a p.o.set with the same denition, interpreted in V

P

, as P has in the ground model. So we

may use Lemma 1R in V
P

to say that
11
P

_
11
P

P

()

L R
r

1
[ (

L)
r
]
_
,
using the notation
()
to indicate which version of the P-name we are trying to use. Moving to V
P
for
a moment, we have
()
= 1 and (

L) > 0, so
11
P

P
l N, (
()
l

L) > 0.
Also, of course, every
()
l

L can be regarded (in V

P
) as the product of a sequence belonging to L.
By the original hypothesis on
r
,
11
P

P

r

()

L ,= .
We can therefore nd a P-name
r
for a member of
r

()

L, and now further P

-names
i
, for
i < r, such that
11
P

P

i
)
i<r
(

L)
r
, (
r
,
i
)
i<r
) R
r
.
But of course we now have
11
P

P

i
)
ir

ir
(
i

L), (
j
,
i
) R i < j r.
As
i
)
ir
, L are arbitrary, this shows that the induction proceeds.
Version of 6.8.91
2. Pointwise compact sets of measurable functions We turn now to the questions in analysis which
the construction in 1 is designed to solve. We begin with some denitions and results taken from [Ta84].
2A Denitions (a) Let (X, , ) be a probability space. Write L
0
= L
0
() R
X
for the set of -
measurable real-valued functions on X. Let T
p
be the topology of pointwise convergence, the usual product
topology, on R
X
. Let T
m
be the (non-Hausdor, non-locally-convex) topology of convergence in measure
on L
0
, dened by the pseudometric
(f, g) =
_
min([f(x) g(x)[, 1)(dx)
for f, g L
0
.
(b) A set A R
X
is stable if whenever < in R, E and E > 0 there are k, l 1 such that

k+l
(x, y) : x E
k
, y E
l
, f A, f(x(i)) &f(y(j)) i < k, j < l
< (E)
k+l
,
writing

k+l
for the usual product outer measure on X
k
X
l
. (See [Ta84], 9-1-1.)
2B Stable sets Suppose that (X, , ) is a probability space and that A R
X
is a stable set.
(a) If (X, , ) is complete, then A L
0
(). ([Ta84], 9.1.)
(b) The T
p
-closure of A in R
X
is stable.
(c) If A is bounded above and below by members of L
0
, its convex hull is stable ([Ta84], 11-2-1).
(d) If A L
0
(as in (a)), then T
m
A, the subspace topology on A induced by T
m
, is coarser than T
p
A.
([Ta84], 9-5-2.)
For more about stable sets, see [Ta84]and [Ta87].
2C Pettis integration Let (X, , ) be a probability space and B a (real) Banach space.
(a) A function : X B is scalarly measurable if g : X R is -measurable for every g B

, the
continuous dual of B.
(b) In this case, is Pettis integrable if there is a function : B such that
_
E
gd exists = g(E) E , g B

.
(c) If : X B is bounded and scalarly measurable, then
A = g : g B

, |g| 1 L
0
is T
p
-compact. In this case is Pettis integrable i
f
_
E
f : A R
4
0
6


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
1
1
-
2
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
1
1
-
2
4


13
is T
p
A-continuous for every E ([Ta84], 4-2-3). In particular (by 2B(d)) is Pettis integrable if A is
stable.
2D The rivals Write
L
for Lebesgue measure on [0, 1], and
L
for its domain. Consider the following
two propositions:
(*) [0, 1] is not the union of fewer than c closed negligible sets;
() there are sequences n
k
)
kN
, W
k
)
kN
such that
n
k
2
k
, W
k
n
k
n
k
, #(W
k
) 2
k
n
2
k
k N;
taking X =

kN
n
k
, the usual Radon probability on X,
R = (x, y) : x, y X, (x(k), y(k)) W
k
k N, k : x(k) = y(k) is nite,
then whenever D X,

D = 1 and r N there are x

0
, . . . , x
r
D such that (x
j
, x
i
) R whenever
i < j r.
Evidently (*) is a consequence of CH, while in the language of 1, 11
P

P
(), this being a slightly weaker
version of Theorem 1S.
Thus both (*) and () are relatively consistent with ZFC. Consequences of (*) are explored in [Ta84],
where it is called Axiom L; we list a few of them in 2E below. Our purpose in this paper is to show that ()
leads to a somewhat dierent world.
2E Theorem Assume (*). Write L
0
for L
0
(
L
).
(a) If A L
0
is separable and compact for T
p
, it is stable.
(b) If A L
0
is separable and compact for T
p
, its closed convex hull in R
[0,1]
lies within L
0
.
(c) If A L
0
is separable and compact for T
p
, then T
m
A is coarser than T
p
A.
(d) If (Y, S, T, ) is a separable compact Radon measure space and f : [0, 1] Y R is measurable in
the rst variable and continuous in the second, then it is measurable for the (completed) product measure

L
.
(e) If E
n
)
nN
is a stochastically independent sequence of measurable subsets of [0, 1], with lim
n
E
n
=
0 but

nN
(E
n
)
k
= for every k N, then there is an ultralter T on N such that
lim
nF
E
n
= x : n : x E
n
T
is non-measurable.
proof (a) See [Ta84], 9-3-1(b). (b) Use (a) and 2B(c). (c) Use (a) and 2B(d). (d) Use (a) and [Ta84],
10-2-1. (e) Observe that, writing E
n
for the characteristic function of E
n
, the set E
n
: n N is not
stable, and use (a).
2F Theorem Assume ().
(a) There is a bounded Pettis integrable function : [0, 1]

such that g : g (

, |g| 1 is
not stable in L
0
(
L
).
(b) There is a separable convex T
p
-compact subset of L
0
(
L
) which is not stable.
proof (We write

for the Banach space of bounded real sequences.) Take n

k
)
kN
, W
k
)
kN
, X, , R
from the statement of (). Because ([0, 1],
L
) is isomorphic, as measure space, to (X, ), we may work with
X rather than with [0, 1]. Write for the domain of , L
0
= L
0
().
(a) For k N write
1
k
= I : I n
k
, #(I) k, (i, j) / W
k
for all distinct i, j I,
For k N, I n
k
set
H
kI
= x : x X, x(k) I.
Let A be
H
kI
: k N, I 1
k
,
writing H : X 0, 1 for the characteristic function of H X; let Z be the T
p
-closure of A in
R
X
. Because A is uniformly bounded, Z is T
p
-compact. For E dene f
E
: Z R by setting
f
E
(h) =
_
E
h(x)(dx) for h A, f
E
(u) = 0 for u Z A. Enumerate A as h
m
)
mN
, and dene
: X

, :

by setting
(x)(m) = h
m
(x) m N, x X,
(E)(m) =
_
E
h
m
(x)(dx) m N, E .
We aim to show
4
0
6


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
1
1
-
2
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
1
1
-
2
4


14
(i) that A is not stable;
(ii) that if is a Radon probability on A

= Z A then
_
u(x) (du) = 0 for -almost every x;
(iii) f
E
: Z R is continuous for every E ;
(iv) is the indenite Pettis integral of , so that is Pettis integrable;
(v) K = g : g C(Z)

, |g| 1 includes A so is not stable.

ad (i) Suppose that k, l 1. Take any m l. Set
G = y : y X
l
, I 1
m
, y(j) H
mI
j < l
y : y X
l
, (y(i)(m), y(j)(m)) / W
m
for distinct i, j < l.
Because #(W
m
) 2
m
n
2
m
,
l
G (1 2
m
)
l
2
. If y G, set I = y(j)(m) : j < l 1
m
; then

k
x : x X
k
, x(i)(m) / I i < k (1 n
1
m
l)
k
.
So we conclude that

k+l
(x, y) : x X
k
, y X
l
, f A, f(x(i)) = 0 i < k, f(y(j)) = 1 j < l
(1 2
m
)
l
2
(1 n
1
m
l)
k
(by Fubinis theorem). Because k, l and m are arbitrary, A cannot be stable.
ad (ii) Because each 1
m
is nite, any member of A

must be of the form E where E X and

x E, x

X, k : x(k) ,= x

(k) is nite x

E.
Note also that if x, y E then (x, y) / R; because either x(k) = y(k) for innitely many k, or there are k,
I such that x(k) ,= y(k), I 1
k
and x, y both belong to H
kI
, in which case (x(k), y(k)) / W
k
.
Now let be a Radon probability on A

, and set w(x) =

_
u(x) (du) for each x X, so that w belongs to
the closed convex hull of A

in R
X
. If x, x

are two members of X diering on only nitely many coordinates,

then u(x) = u(x

) for every u A

; consequently w(x) = w(x

). Also 0 w(x) 1 for every x X.

Take > 0 and set D = x : w(x) . By the zero-one law,

D must be either 0 or 1. Suppose,

if possible, that

D = 1. Let r N be such that r 1. By (), there are x

0
, . . . , x
r
D such that
(x
j
, x
i
) R for i < j r. But in this case

ir
u(x
i
) 1 for every u A

, while

ir
w(x
i
) (r+1) > 1,
and w cannot belong to the closed convex hull of A

.
Accordingly

D must be 0. As is arbitrary, w = 0 a.e.

ad (iii) Because f
E
(H
kI
) kn
1
k
for every I 1
k
, lim
m
f
E
(h
m
) = 0 and f
E
is continuous.
ad (iv) We need to show that
_
E
g((x)) (dx) exists = g((E)) g (

, E .
It is enough to consider positive linear functionals g of norm 1. For any such g we have a Radon probability
on Z such that
g(f(h
m
))
mN
) =
_
Z
f(u) (du) for every f C(Z),
using the Riesz representation of positive linear functionals on C(Z). Set
m
= h
m
, = 1

mN

m
=
A

. Then we can nd a Radon probability

on A

such that
g(f(h
m
))
mN
) =

mN

m
f(h
m
) +
_
A

f(u)

(du)
for every f C(Z). Now an easy calculation (using (ii)) shows that
g((E)) = g(f
E
(h
m
))
mN
) =

mN

m
_
E
h
m
(x) (dx) =
_
E
g((x)) (dx)
for every E .
ad (v) If m N then h
m
= e
m
K where e
m
(

is dened by setting e
m
(z) = z(m) for every
z

. This completes the proof.

(b) The unit ball of (

is w

-separable and its continuous image K L

0
is separable; so K witnesses
the truth of (b).
2G Further properties of the model Returning to 1R/1S, we see that the model of 1 has some
further striking characteristics closely allied to, but not obviously derivable from, (). Consider for instance
() there is a closed negligible set Q [0, 1]
2
such that whenever D [0, 1] and

L
D = 1 then

L
Q
1
[D] = 1;
()

there is a negligible set Q

[0, 1]
2
such that whenever C, D [0, 1] and (C D) Q

= then
one of C, D is negligible.
4
0
6


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
1
1
-
2
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
1
1
-
2
4


15
Then 11
P

P
(). For start by taking Q
1
to be
(x, y) : x, y X, (x(k), y(k)) W
k
k N,
the closure of R in X X. Then the argument for 1S shows that
11
P

P
if D X and D

kN
L
k
,= L
k
)
kN
L
then < such that
()
Q
1

1
[D].
Consequently
11
P

P
if D X and

D = 1 then (Q
1

1
[D]) = 1.
Accordingly we have in V
P
the version of () in which ([0, 1],
L
) is replaced by (X, ). However there is
now a continuous inverse-measure-preserving function f : X [0, 1], and taking
Q = (f(x), f(y)) : (x, y) Q
1

we obtain () itself. Evidently () implies ()

, taking Q

to be
(x +q, y +q

) : (x, y) Q, q, q

are rational [0, 1]

2
.
Of course (

) and () are mutually incompatible (the argument for 2E(a) from (

), greatly simplied,
demolishes () also). The weaker form ()

is incompatible with CH or MA, but not with (

), both ()

and
(

) being true in Cohens original model of not-CH (see [Frp89]).

2H Problems The remarkable results quoted in 2E depend on the identication of separable relatively
pointwise compact sets with stable sets (Axiom F of [Ta84]). In models satisfying (), this identication
breaks down. But our analysis does not seem to touch any of 2E(b)-(e). We therefore spell out the obvious
problems still outstanding. Write L
0
for L
0
(
L
).
(a) Is it relatively consistent with ZFC to suppose that there is a separable T
p
-compact set A L
0
such
that the closed convex hull of A in R
[0,1]
does not lie within L
0
?
(b) Is it relatively consistent with ZFC to suppose that there is a separable T
p
-compact set A L
0
such
that T
m
A is not coarser than T
p
A? Does it make a dierence if A is assumed to be convex? (This question
seems rst to have been raised by J.Bourgain and F.Delbaen.)
(c) Is it relatively consistent with ZFC to suppose that there are a separable compact Radon measure
space (Y, S, T, ) and a function f : [0, 1] Y R which is measurable in the rst variable, continuous in
the second variable, but not jointly measurable for
L
?
(d) Is it relatively consistent with ZFC to suppose that there is a stochastically independent sequence
E
n
)
nN
in
L
such that

nN
(
L
E
n
)
k
= for every k N, but
L
(lim
nF
E
n
) = 0 for every non-
principal ultralter T on N? (This question is essentially due to W.Moran; see also [Ta84], 9-1-4 for another
version.)
Here we note only that a positive answer to (a) would imply the same answer to (c), and that the word
separable in (a)-(c) is necessary, as is shown by examples 3-2-3 and 10-1-1 in [Ta84].
References
[BJSp89] T.Bartoszy nski, H.Judah & S.Shelah, The Cicho n diagram, preprint, 1989 (MSRI 00626-90).
[Ba84] J.E.Baumgartner, Applications of the proper forcing axiom, pp. 913-959 in [KV84].
[Frp89] H.Friedman, Rectangle inclusion problems, Note of 9 October 1989.
[Ku80] K.Kunen, Set Theory. North-Holland, 1980.
[KV84] K.Kunen & J.E.Vaughan (eds.), Handbook of Set-Theoretic Topology. North-Holland, 1984.
[Sh82] S.Shelah, Proper Forcing. Springer, 1982 (Lecture Notes in Mathematics 940).
[Sh326] S.Shelah, Vive la dierence!, submitted for the proceedings of the set theory conference at MSRI,
October 1989; notes of July 1987, preprint of October 1989; abbreviation ShCBF.
[Sp87] J.Spencer, Ten Lectures on the Probabilistic Method, S.I.A.M., 1987.
[Ta84] M.Talagrand, Pettis integral and measure theory. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 307 (1984).
[Ta87] M.Talagrand, The Glivenko-Cantelli problem, Ann. of Probability 15 (1987) 837-870.
Acknowledgements Part of the work of this paper was done while the authors were visiting the M.S.R.I.,
Berkeley; we should like to thank the Institute for its support. The rst author was partially supported by
4
0
6


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
4
-
1
1
-
2
4







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
4
-
1
1
-
2
4


16
the Fund for Basic Research of the Israel Academy of Sciences. The second author was partially supported
by grants GR/F/70730 and GR/F/31656 from the U.K. Science and Engineering Research Council. We are
most grateful to M.Burke for carefully checking the manuscript.
To appear in J.S.L.