1
$\begingroup$

Assume for each sequence $(X_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ of two-element sets, $\displaystyle\prod_{n\in\mathbb{N}}X_n \neq \emptyset$. Can we then find a Gale-Stewart game that isn't determined ?

EDIT: Noah Schweber has answered the first question, but I realized I wanted to ask something a bit different, namely changing the index set to an arbitrary set, instead of $\mathbb{N}$ (but the $X_i$ are still two-element sets). What about it then ?

  • 0
    I've retagged; the "infinite products" tag wasn't really relevant, and the "logic" and "set theory" tags will help this question get more attention.2017-02-09

1 Answers 1

1

No, you cannot.

$AC(2)$ follows from dependent choice ($DC$), which is consistent with $AD$ (see e.g. this paper by Steel). But by $AD$, every Gale-Stewart game is determined. So $AC(2)$ isn't enough choice to build an undetermined Gale-Stewart game.

Incidentally, invoking DC here is overkill, but my point is that in order to build an undetermined game you need a lot of choice. In particular, most of "ordinary" mathematics can be done in ZF+DC; see e.g this question (which also points out that there is some ordinary mathematics not doable from ZF+DC alone).


Here's the proof that $DC$ implies $AC(2)$. Take your given instance $(X_i)_{i\in\omega}$ of $AC(2)$, and consider the set $A$ of finite partial maps $p$ from $\omega$ to $\bigcup X_i$ such that

  • $dom(p)\in\omega+1$ (that is, is an initial segment of $\omega$), and

  • $p(i)\in X_i$ for $i\in dom(p)$ (that is, $p$ is a partial choice function for $(X_i)_{i\in\omega}$).

Now apply $DC$ to $A$ with the relation $\subsetneq$. We get a sequence $p_0\subsetneq p_1\subsetneq . . . $ of elements of $A$; now show that $\bigcup p_i$ is a choice function for $(X_i)_{i\in\omega}$.

  • 0
    Indeed, I should have seen that. When I thought about connecting $DC$ to what I called $AC(2)$ (maybe I should have called it $CC(2)$ to be more in touch with the usual conventions ?), I was always picturing an arbitrary product of two element sets (what you've done in fact is show that $DC \implies CC$, which is obviously stronger)2017-02-09
  • 0
    I haven't accepted your answer yet because of an edit I'm about to make (sorry)2017-02-09
  • 0
    @Maxtimax I think that's a sufficiently significant change that it should be asked as a separate question - allowing arbitrary index sets makes things *much* weirder (and off the top of my head I have no idea what the answer is, but Asaf probably does).2017-02-09
  • 0
    We should *really* be more careful with the notation. $\sf AC_\omega(2)$, rather than just $\sf AC(2)$. Of course that Dependent Choice cannot even prove that a family of pairs of size $\aleph_1$ admits a choice function.2017-02-09