Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: Literature-sourcedPipeline-generatedaudited 2026-09-22
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

Martin's axiom produces an uncountable Q-set

Statement

In ZFC+MA+¬CH every subset E⊆R of cardinality ω1 is a Q-set (Q-sets and Bing's tangent-disk Moore-space interface); in particular an uncountable Q-set exists.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Work in ZFC. Assume MA+¬CH and a subset E⊆R with ∣E∣=ω1.

[F1]

¬CH says that there is a set A with N≺A≺P(N) (The continuum hypothesis and the later local consistency results); under choice every uncountable cardinal is at least ω1, so ω1≤∣A∣<2ℵ0 and hence ω1<2ℵ0 (The successor cardinal κ+, the alephs ℵα, the beths ℶα, successor and limit cardinals, and the identifications ℵ0=ω and ℵ1=ω1, Cardinal (initial ordinal) and cardinality, The Axiom of Choice). Moreover P(N) injects into R: send a subset to its characteristic binary sequence, then use the stated bijection from binary sequences onto the Cantor subset of R (The Cantor set is exactly the set of ∑k≥1ak3−k with every ak∈{0,2}, and this gives a bijection with {0,1}N).

[F2]

MA is the scheme MA(κ) for every infinite κ<c (Martin's Axiom at a cardinal and Martin's Axiom).

[F3]

Solovay's almost-disjoint extension lemma: if B⊆P(ω) is almost disjoint and ∣B∣<c, then every A⊆B all of whose members are infinite is extended by a d⊆ω that is infinite on A and finite on B∖A (Martin's axiom extends families almost disjoint from a subfamily).

[L1]

Put W(k,n)=(k/2n−2−n−1,k/2n+2−n−1), k∈Z, n∈N. Enumerate pairs without repetition: encode k≥0 by 2k and k<0 by −2k−1, and use the bijection of N×N≈N. For each x,n, the floor of 2nx supplied by Integer part: for every real x there is exactly one integer m with m≤x<m+1 shows that either x lies in an interval of scale n, or x=(2k+1)/2n+1 is exactly a midpoint. In the latter case it is a grid center at every scale m≥n+1 and therefore belongs to an interval at every such scale. If no midpoint case occurs, it belongs at every scale. Thus every x belongs to infinitely many distinct indexed intervals. These intervals form a base: a containing interval of sufficiently fine scale lies in any prescribed neighbourhood of x, since its diameter is 2−n and these diameters tend to zero. Indeed 2n≥n+1 by induction and For every ε>0 in a complete ordered field there is a natural n≥1 with 1/n<ε supplies arbitrarily small reciprocal bounds. Relative Gδ and Q-set have the meaning of Q-sets and Bing's tangent-disk Moore-space interface.

[L2]

If x≠y both belong to W(k,n), then ∣x−y∣<2−n. At each fixed scale the intervals are pairwise disjoint, so at most one contains both points. By the decay proved in [L1], only finitely many scales can satisfy 2−n>∣x−y∣. Because the pair enumeration has no repetitions, {i:x,y∈Wi} is finite. This uses the triangle inequality on the real line and the explicit interval endpoints.

Proof

technique · direct
1.1givenL1

Fix E with ∣E∣=ω1 and the dyadic base (Wi)i∈ω of [L1]; for x∈E put s(x):={i∈ω:x∈Wi}.

2.1step 1.1F1L1L2

B:={s(x):x∈E} satisfies ∣B∣≤ω1<2ℵ0 by [F1], and ∣s(x)∩s(y)∣<ω for distinct x,y∈E by [L2]. Each s(x) is infinite by [L1], so distinct points have distinct codes: equality would make their intersection infinite. Thus x↦s(x) is injective.

3.1step 2.1F3F2L1

Let X⊆E. Each s(x) is infinite by [L1], so [F3] applies to A:={s(x):x∈X}⊆B and gives d⊆ω with ∣s(x)∩d∣=ω for x∈X and ∣s(z)∩d∣<ω for z∈E∖X.

4.1step 3.1L1

If d is infinite, enumerate it increasingly as d={p(0)<p(1)<⋯ } with domain ω; if d is finite then X=∅ by step 3.1, and X=E∩∅ is relatively Gδ trivially. In the infinite case, X=E∩⋂n∈ω⋃k≥nWp(k): for x∈X the set {k:x∈Wp(k)} is infinite by step 3.1, so x lies in every tail union; conversely, if x∈E lies in every tail union, then {k:x∈Wp(k)} is infinite, so ∣s(x)∩d∣=ω, and step 3.1 excludes x∈E∖X.

5.1step 4.1L1F1∎

The sets ⋃k≥nWp(k) are open in R, so step 4.1 exhibits every subset X⊆E as a relative Gδ set in E; hence E is a Q-set, and since ∣E∣=ω1 it is uncountable, so it is uncountable. Such an E exists: [F1] gives an injection of ω1 into R, and its image has cardinality ω1. Hence an uncountable Q-set exists.

Remarks

  • Why ω1 and not c. The almost-disjoint lemma needs ∣B∣<c; a set of reals of cardinality c has 2c subsets but only c Gδ sets, so it cannot be a Q-set. Under MA+¬CH the cardinal ω1 is below c, which is exactly the range in which the lemma applies.

  • Consistency. Under CH there are no Q-sets: a Q-set would give a separable normal nonmetrizable Moore space (Bing's Q-set space is a normal nonmetrizable Moore space), while Jones' argument refutes that when 2ℵ0<2ℵ1, which CH gives. Nothing in this item asserts a Q-set under CH.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

111 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.

Sources