Paper detail

Borel Complexity and Potential Canonical Scott Sentences

We define and investigate HC-forcing invariant formulas of set theory, whose interpretations in the hereditarily countable sets are well behaved under forcing extensions. This leads naturally to a notion of cardinality ||Phi|| for sentences Phi of $L_{ω_1,ω}$, which counts the number of sentences of $L_{\infty,ω}$ that, in some forcing extension, become a canonical Scott sentence of a model of Phi. We show this cardinal bounds the complexity of (Mod(Phi), iso), the class of models of Phi with universe omega, by proving that (Mod(Phi),iso) is not Borel reducible to (Mod(Psi),iso) whenever ||Psi|| < ||Phi||. Using these tools, we analyze the complexity of the class of countable models of four complete, first-order theories T for which (Mod(T),iso) is properly analytic, yet admit very different behavior. We prove that both `Binary splitting, refining equivalence relations' and Koerwien's example of an eni-depth 2, omega-stable theory have (Mod(T),iso) non-Borel, yet neither is Borel complete. We give a slight modification of Koerwien's example that also is omega-stable, eni-depth 2, but is Borel complete. Additionally, we prove that I_{\infty,ω}(Phi)<\beth_{ω_1} whenever (Mod(Phi),iso) is Borel.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.