text:
# Addendum to Astro-ph/0207612: Reflection Symmetry of Cusps in Gravitational Lensing

## Abstract

A contour plot of positive iso-$`J`$ curves is shown for a gravitational binary lens $`ϵ_2=0.1883`$ and $`\mathrm{}=0.687`$. The caustic curve is made of 4-cusped central caustic (so-called “stealth bomber”) on the lens axis and two triangular caustics off the lens axis. The cusps of the trioids are all negative cusps. The positive image magnification contours outside the positive cusps on the lens axis are elongated along the symmetry axis. It is in contrast with figure 4 of astro-ph/0206162 (Gaudi and Petters) where the contours appear to contract along the symmetry axis. We apologize if our citation of their figure 4 without the caution played any role of causing confusion with readers.

gravitational lensing - binary stars, planets

In microlensing experiments, the light curves are the primary sources of information, and the singular behavior of the caustics commands attention. It is rather amusing that the weired shapes of the caustics with spiky cusps faithfully manifest themselves as towering light curves. We may say a pleasure of studying reality through precision illusion. If we imagine a line in the plane in figure 1, the magnification pattern along the line consitutes a light curve, with a caveat that the motion of the observer (such as on the earth) or the orbital motion of the binary objects can cause variations. In astro-ph/0207612, we showed an example of a connected caustic and also briefly discussed diamond caustics which are typical of binary lenses with relatively large separations. We discussed that cusps off the lens axis of a connected caustic are negative cusps. Here we show that that is true for all binary lenses. Namely, the trianguar caustics have cusps off the lens axis and the cusps are all negative cusps. The positive iso-$`J`$ contours line the triangular caustics from inside. As $`J`$ converges to the maximum value 1, the families of iso-$`J`$ contours shrink to the points that generate images at the finite limit points where $`J=1`$. Near the cusps, the lens equation becomes cubic because there are three images with small values of the Jacobian determinant $`J`$, two of which can be unrealized images (or complex solutions to the cubic equation).

When a source trajectory approaches a caustic, the light curve can be more dominated by the behavior of the line caustic or more by a cusp. The distinction is made by the singlet image outside the non-critical precaustic curve (near a positive cusp, inside if a negative cusp), and the magnification contours look like “balloons” generally elongated along the symmetry axis. Figure 4 in astro-ph/0206162 by Gaudi and Petters (Fig-GP) we cited in our paper astro-ph/0207612 shows a different pattern. Since the plot Fig-GP is drawn without numerical specifications, we only can see the general pattern and the outstanding difference seems to be that the contours contract along the symmetry axis of the cusp. We suspect that most of the contours of Fig-GP are out of the validity range of the cubic equation which the lens equation is reduced to near a cusp. For example, the positive singlet image can not have magnification less 1 because the Jacobian determinant is globally bounded by $`J1`$ and the magnification is $`1/J`$. The figure caption indicates that the magnification range of the iso-$`J^1`$ curves is $`0.1<|J|^1<10`$. Since the adjacent contours differ by the ratio $`J_1/J_2=10^{0.1}`$, 10 large outer contours of the positive image can not exist. Thus, the contracting contour pattern of Fig-GP along the symmetry axis may be best understood as an illustration of the limitation of the cubic equation away from the cusp. (Gaudi assured us that the plot was drawn properly from equation 9 of astro-ph/0206162.) Figure 1 shows an iso-$`J`$ contour plot of the same binary lens $`ϵ=0.1883`$ and $`\mathrm{}=0.687`$ whose parameters Gaudi provided to us.


format: text

text:
# Strong 𝛾-sets and other singular spaces

## 1. Introduction

### 1.1. Thick covers

Let $`X`$ be an infinite topological space. Throughout this paper, by *open cover* we mean a *countable* collection $`𝒰`$ of open subsets of $`X`$ such that $`𝒰=X`$ and $`X𝒰`$. The focus on countable covers allows us to have no restrictions at all on the topology of $`X`$.111A standard alternative approach is to consider spaces $`X`$ such that all finite powers of $`X`$ are Lindelöf. This guarantees that each cover of a type considered here contains a countable cover of the same type.  This is useful when we wish to project the results into the purely combinatorial case – Section 10. The additional restriction that $`X𝒰`$ is to avoid trivialities.

Let $`𝒰`$ be an open cover of $`X`$. $`𝒰`$ is an *$`n`$-cover* of $`X`$ if for each $`FX`$ with $`|F|n`$, there is $`U𝒰`$ such that $`FU`$. $`𝒰`$ is an *$`\omega `$-cover* of $`X`$ if for each finite $`FX`$, there is $`U𝒰`$ such that $`FU`$ (that is, $`𝒰`$ is an $`n`$-cover of $`X`$ for each $`n`$). $`𝒰`$ is a *$`\gamma `$-cover* of $`X`$ if each element of $`X`$ belongs to all but finitely many members of $`𝒰`$.

### 1.2. $`\gamma `$-sets and strong $`\gamma `$-sets

According to Gerlits and Nagy , a topological space $`X`$ is a *$`\gamma `$-set* if each $`\omega `$-cover of $`X`$ contains a $`\gamma `$-cover of $`X`$. Gerlits and Nagy consider the following seemingly stronger property:

> For each sequence $`\{𝒰_n\}_n`$ of $`\omega `$-covers of $`X`$ there exist members $`U_n𝒰_n`$, $`n`$, such that $`\{U_n\}_n`$ is a $`\gamma `$-cover of $`X`$.

Using Scheepers’ notation , this property is a particular instance of the following selection hypothesis (where $`𝒜`$ and $``$ are any collections of covers of $`X`$):

* For each sequence $`\{𝒰_n\}_n`$ of members of $`𝒜`$, there exist members $`U_n𝒰_n`$, $`n`$, such that $`\{U_n\}_n`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ denote the collections of open $`\omega `$-covers and $`\gamma `$-covers of $`X`$, respectively. Then the property considered by Gerlits and Nagy is $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, who proved that $`X`$ is a $`\gamma `$-set if, and only if, $`X`$ satisfies $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ .

This result motivates the following definition. According to Galvin and Miller , a space $`X`$ is a *strong $`\gamma `$-set* if there exists an increasing sequence $`\{k_n\}_n`$ such that:

> For each sequence $`\{𝒰_n\}_n`$ where for each $`n`$ $`𝒰_n`$ is an open $`k_n`$-cover of $`X`$, there exist members $`U_n𝒰_n`$, $`n`$, such that $`\{U_n\}_n`$ is a $`\gamma `$-cover of $`X`$.

Clearly every strong $`\gamma `$-set is a $`\gamma `$-set; however the properties are not provably equivalent (e.g., in  it is shown that assuming CH, there exists an uncountable $`\gamma `$-set $`X`$ such that no uncountable subset of $`X`$ is a strong $`\gamma `$-set).

As in the case of $`\gamma `$-sets, it will be convenient to introduce the following general notation.

###### Definition 1.1.

Assume that $`𝒜_n`$, $`n`$, and $``$, are collections of covers of a space $`X`$. Define the following selection hypothesis.

* For each sequence $`\{𝒰_n\}_n`$ where $`𝒰_n𝒜_n`$ for all $`n`$, there exist members $`U_n𝒰_n`$, $`n`$, such that $`\{U_n\}_n`$.

For each $`n`$ denote by $`𝒪_n`$ the collection of all open $`n`$-covers of a space $`X`$. Then $`X`$ is a strong $`\gamma `$-set if, and only if, there exists an increasing sequence $`\{k_n\}_n`$ such that $`X`$ satisfies $`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_{k_n}\}_n,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. This does not fit exactly into the family of properties of the form $`𝖲_1(\{𝒜_n\}_n,)`$, because of the external quantifier. However, in Section 2 we show that this quantifier can be eliminated, so that $`X`$ is a strong $`\gamma `$-set if, and only if, $`X`$ satisfies $`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. This motivates the study of the generalized selection hypothesis, which is the aim of this paper.

The first part of the paper deals with the classical selection operators. In Section 2, as said above, we prove quantifier elimination for the $`\gamma `$-property. In Section 3 we introduce two mild assumptions on thick covers which allow this sort of quantifier elimination. In Sections 4 and 5 we supply a variety of examples, showing that many properties which appear in the literature are equivalent to their stronger version. In Section 6 we answer a question of Iliadis by showing that no new property is obtained by considering the generalized selection hypothesis for the standard types of covers, except for the strong $`\gamma `$-property.

The second part of the paper deals with game theoretic versions of the studied properties. In Sections 7–9 we supply new methods of reductions between game strategies, and give new game theoretic characterizations to most of the properties mentioned in the first part of the paper. In Section 10 we describe an application of the obtained results to the purely combinatorial case.

Part I: Strong versions of the classical selection operators

## 2. Strong $`\gamma `$-sets and quantifier elimination

The following theorem shows that the external quantifier in the definition of a strong $`\gamma `$-set can be eliminated.

###### Theorem 2.1.

For each space $`X`$, the following are equivalent:

1. $`X`$ is a strong $`\gamma `$-set, that is:
There exists an increasing sequence $`\{k_n\}_n`$ such that $`X`$ satisfies $`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_{k_n}\}_n,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.
2. For each increasing sequence $`\{k_n\}_n`$, $`X`$ satisfies $`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_{k_n}\}_n,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.
3. There exists a sequence $`k_n\mathrm{}`$, such that $`X`$ satisfies $`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_{k_n}\}_n,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.
4. For each sequence $`k_n\mathrm{}`$, $`X`$ satisfies $`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_{k_n}\}_n,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.
5. $`X`$ satisfies $`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.

###### Proof.

It is clear that $`42513`$. It remains to show that $`34`$.

Assume that $`k_n\mathrm{}`$ such that $`X`$ satisfies $`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_{k_n}\}_n,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, and let $`\{𝒰_n\}_n`$ be such that $`𝒰_n𝒪_n`$ for each $`n`$.

###### Lemma 2.2.

For $`𝒰𝒪_{k_1}`$ and $`𝒱𝒪_{k_2}`$, define

$$𝒰𝒱=\{UV:U𝒰,V𝒱\}.$$

Then $`𝒰𝒱`$ is an open $`\mathrm{min}\{k_1,k_2\}`$-cover of $`X`$ refining $`𝒰`$ and $`𝒱`$. (Moreover, the operation $``$ is associative.) ∎

For each $`m`$ let

(1)
$$n=\mathrm{min}\{i:mk_j\text{ for all }ji\},$$

and set

$$𝒱_m=𝒰_{k_n}\mathrm{}𝒰_{k_{n+1}1}.$$

Then each $`𝒱_m𝒪_m`$. Use $`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_{k_n}\}_n,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ to extract from the sequence $`\{𝒱_{k_n}\}_n`$ elements $`V_{k_n}𝒱_{k_n}`$ such that $`\{V_{k_n}\}_n`$ is a $`\gamma `$-cover of $`X`$. For each $`m`$, let $`n`$ be as in Equation (1). As $`𝒱_m`$ refines $`𝒰_k`$ for all $`k`$ where $`k_nk<k_{n+1}`$, we can choose for each such $`k`$ an element $`U_k𝒰_k`$ such that $`V_{k_n}U_k`$. For $`0k<k_0`$ choose any $`U_k𝒰_k`$ (this is a finite set so we need not worry about it). Then $`\{U_n\}_n`$ is a $`\gamma `$-cover of $`X`$ and for each $`n`$, $`U_n𝒰_n`$. ∎

We now consider the following general selection hypotheses, the first due to Scheepers and the second being a “strong” version of the first.

###### Definition 2.3.

* For each sequence $`\{𝒰_n\}_n`$ of members of $`𝒜`$, there exist finite (possibly empty) subsets $`_n𝒰_n`$, $`n`$, such that $`_n_n`$.
* For each sequence $`\{𝒰_n\}_n`$ where $`𝒰_n𝒜_n`$ for all $`n`$, there exist finite (possibly empty) subsets $`_n𝒰_n`$, $`n`$, such that $`_n_n`$.

In  it is proved that $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Gamma })=𝖲_{fin}(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. A natural question is whether $`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Gamma })=𝖲_{fin}(\{𝒪_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. The following characterization of the $`\gamma `$ property answers this question.

###### Theorem 2.4.

$`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Gamma })=𝖲_{fin}(\{𝒪_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.

As $`\gamma `$-sets need not be strong $`\gamma `$-sets, the properties $`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and $`𝖲_{fin}(\{𝒪_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ are not provably equivalent.

The characterization in Theorem 2.4 can be proved in a more general setting.

###### Theorem 2.5.

Let $``$ be any collection of open covers of $`X`$. Then $`𝖲_{fin}(\mathrm{\Omega },)=𝖲_{fin}(\{𝒪_n\}_n,)`$.

###### Proof.

It is enough to show that $`𝖲_{fin}(\mathrm{\Omega },)`$ implies $`𝖲_{fin}(\{𝒪_n\}_n,)`$. Assume that $`\{𝒰_n\}_n`$ is a sequence of open $`n`$-covers of $`X`$. Let $`\{A_n\}_n`$ be a partition of $``$ into infinitely many infinite sets. For each $`n`$ define $`𝒱_n=_{mA_n}𝒰_m`$. Then each $`𝒱_n`$ is an $`\omega `$-cover of $`X`$. Apply $`𝖲_{fin}(\mathrm{\Omega },)`$ to extract finite subsets $`_n𝒱_n`$, $`n`$, such that $`𝒱=_n_n`$. For each $`n`$ and each $`mA_n`$, define $`\stackrel{~}{}_m=_n𝒰_m`$. Then for each $`n`$ $`\stackrel{~}{}_n`$ is a finite subset of $`𝒰_n`$, and $`_n\stackrel{~}{}_n=𝒱`$. ∎

## 3. Other strong properties

As mentioned in the previous section, the strong $`\gamma `$ property $`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is not provably equivalent to the usual $`\gamma `$ property $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. Many other properties which were studied in the literature are equivalent to properties of the form $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },)`$ or $`𝖲_{fin}(\mathrm{\Omega },)`$ for suitably chosen $``$ . We will show that for all of these properties, the stronger versions are equivalent to them.

We first show that as in Theorem 2.1, we do not get anything new if we consider properties of the form $`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_{k_n}\}_n,)`$ and $`𝖲_{fin}(\{𝒪_{k_n}\}_n,)`$ for general increasing sequences $`k_n`$. In the case of $`𝖲_{fin}`$ this is an immediate corollary of Theorem 2.5. In the case of $`𝖲_1`$ we need some assumptions on $``$.

###### Definition 3.1.

A collection $`𝒜`$ of open covers of a space $`X`$ is *finitely thick* if:

1. If $`𝒰𝒜`$ and for each $`U𝒰`$ $`_U`$ is a finite nonempty family of open sets such that for each $`V_U`$, $`UVX`$, then $`_{U𝒰}_U𝒜`$.
2. If $`𝒰𝒜`$ and $`𝒱=𝒰`$ where $``$ is finite and $`X`$, then $`𝒱𝒜`$.

A collection $`𝒜`$ of open covers of a space $`X`$ is *countably thick* if for each $`𝒰𝒜`$ and each countable family $`𝒱`$ of open subsets of $`X`$ such that $`X𝒱`$, $`𝒰𝒱𝒜`$.

None of these two thickness properties implies the second. The collections $`𝒪`$, $`𝒪_n`$ (for each $`n`$), and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are both finitely and countably thick. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is finitely thick but not necessarily countably thick, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the collection of all large covers of $`X`$, is countably thick but not necessarily finitely thick.

We have the following generalization of Theorem 2.1.

###### Theorem 3.2.

Assume that $``$ is a finitely or countably thick collection of open covers of $`X`$. For each space $`X`$, the following are equivalent:

1. There exists an increasing sequence $`\{k_n\}_n`$ such that $`X`$ satisfies $`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_{k_n}\}_n,)`$.
2. For each increasing sequence $`\{k_n\}_n`$, $`X`$ satisfies $`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_{k_n}\}_n,)`$.
3. There exists a sequence $`k_n\mathrm{}`$, such that $`X`$ satisfies $`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_{k_n}\}_n,)`$.
4. For each sequence $`k_n\mathrm{}`$, $`X`$ satisfies $`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_{k_n}\}_n,)`$.
5. $`X`$ satisfies $`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,)`$.

###### Proof.

The case where $``$ is finitely thick is proved exactly as in Theorem 2.1. The case where $``$ is countably thick follows from Theorem 3.3. ∎

The fact the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is not countably thick is related in a straightforward manner to the fact that $`\gamma `$-sets need not be strong $`\gamma `$-sets.

###### Theorem 3.3.

Assume that $``$ is countably thick. Then $`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,)=𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },)`$.

###### Proof.

We should verify that the argument in the proof of Theorem 2.5 works in our case as well.

Let $`\{𝒰_n\}_n`$, $`\{A_n\}_n`$, and $`𝒱_n`$ be as in the proof of Theorem 2.5. Apply $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },)`$ to extract elements $`V_n𝒱_n`$, $`n`$, such that $`\{V_n\}_n`$. For each $`n`$ and each $`mA_n`$ choose $`U_m=V_n`$ if $`V_n𝒰_m`$, otherwise choose any $`U_m𝒰_m`$. We have enlarged $`\{V_n\}_n`$ by at most countably many open sets. As $``$ is countably thick, we have that $`\{U_n\}_n`$. ∎

## 4. Examples

We give some examples for the above results.

### 4.1. The Rothberger and Menger properties

Using our notation, *Rothberger’s property $`C^{\prime \prime }`$*  is the property $`𝖲_1(𝒪,𝒪)`$. In  it is proved that $`𝖲_1(𝒪,𝒪)=𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒪)`$. This implies that $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒪)=𝖲_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,𝒪)`$. Another way to obtain this result is to use Theorem 3.3, as $`𝒪`$ is countably thick.

*Menger’s basis property* (introduced in ), was proved by Hurewicz  to be equivalent to the property $`𝖲_{fin}(𝒪,𝒪)`$. In  it is proved that $`𝖲_{fin}(𝒪,𝒪)=𝖲_{fin}(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒪)`$, so again we have that $`𝖲_{fin}(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒪)=𝖲_{fin}(\{𝒪_n\}_n,𝒪)`$.

The Rothberger and Menger properties $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒪)`$ and $`𝖲_{fin}(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒪)`$ are not provably equivalent, as is witnessed by the canonical Cantor set of reals . Thus, the properties $`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,𝒪)`$ and $`𝖲_{fin}(\{𝒪_n\}_n,𝒪)`$ are not provably equivalent.

### 4.2. The Arkhangel’skiǐ and Sakai properties

A space $`X`$ has the *Arkhangel’skiǐ property*  if all finite powers of $`X`$ have the Menger property $`𝖲_{fin}(𝒪,𝒪)`$. In  it is proved that this is equivalent to satisfying $`𝖲_{fin}(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega })`$. By Theorem 2.5, we have that $`𝖲_{fin}(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega })=𝖲_{fin}(\{𝒪_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

A space $`X`$ has the *Sakai property* if all finite powers of $`X`$ satisfy Rothberger’s property $`C^{\prime \prime }`$. Sakai  proved that this property is equivalent to $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega })`$. As $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is countably thick, we have by Theorem 3.3 that $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega })=𝖲_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

As in the case of Menger and Rothberger, the canonical Cantor set witnesses that the Arkhangel’skiǐ and Sakai properties $`𝖲_{fin}(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega })`$ are not provably equivalent . Thus, the properties $`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and $`𝖲_{fin}(\{𝒪_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ are not provably equivalent.

### 4.3. The Hurewicz, Gerlits-Nagy $`()`$, and related properties

$`X`$ satisfies the *Hurewicz property* (defined in ) if for each sequence $`\{𝒰_n\}_n`$ of open covers of $`X`$ there exist finite subsets $`_n𝒰_n`$, $`n`$, such that $`X_n_{m>n}_n`$ (if $`X\{_n\}_n`$ then this means that $`\{_n\}_n`$ is a $`\gamma `$-cover of $`X`$).

To simplify the presentation of the remaining properties, we introduce the following.

###### Definition 4.1.

1. 1. A cover $`𝒰`$ of $`X`$ is *multifinite* if there exists a partition of $`𝒰`$ into infinitely many finite covers of $`X`$.
    2. Let $`MF`$ denote the collection of all multifinite open covers of $`X`$.
2. Fix $`\xi \{\omega ,\gamma ,\mathrm{}\}`$.

1. A cover $`𝒰`$ of $`X`$ is *$`\xi `$-groupable* if it is multifinite, or there exists a partition $`𝒫`$ of $`𝒰`$ into finite sets such that $`\{:𝒫\}\{X\}`$ is a $`\xi `$-cover of $`X`$.
    2. Let $`𝒪^{\xi \text{-}\text{gp}}`$ denote the collection of all $`\xi `$-groupable open covers of $`X`$.

In  it is proved that the Hurewicz property is equivalent to the property $`𝖲_{fin}(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒪^{\gamma \text{-}\text{gp}})`$. By Theorem 2.5, we have that $`X`$ has the Hurewicz property if, and only if, it satisfies $`𝖲_{fin}(\{𝒪_n\}_n,𝒪^{\gamma \text{-}\text{gp}})`$.

In , Gerlits and Nagy introduced a property called $`()`$. In  it is proved that $`()`$ is equivalent to having the Hurewicz as well as Rothberger properties. In  it is proved that this is equivalent to $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒪^{\gamma \text{-}\text{gp}})`$.

###### Lemma 4.2.

$`𝒪^{\gamma \text{-}\text{gp}}`$ is countably thick.

###### Proof.

Assume that $`𝒰`$ is a $`\gamma `$-groupable cover of $`X`$, and let $`𝒫`$ be a partition of $`𝒰`$ witnessing this. Let $`𝒱`$ be a countable family of open sets. By shifting to $`𝒱𝒰`$ we may assume that $`𝒰`$ and $`𝒱`$ are disjoint. As $`𝒰`$ is infinite, $`𝒫`$ is infinite as well; choose an injection $`f:𝒱𝒫`$. Then

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒫}=\{f(V)\{V\}:V𝒱\}(𝒫f[𝒱])$$

is a partition of $`𝒰𝒱`$ witnessing that this new cover is $`\gamma `$-groupable. ∎

###### Corollary 4.3.

$`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,𝒪^{\gamma \text{-}\text{gp}})=𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒪^{\gamma \text{-}\text{gp}})`$.

Thus a space has the Gerlits-Nagy $`()`$ property if, and only if, it satisfies $`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,𝒪^{\gamma \text{-}\text{gp}})`$. As the property $`()`$ is not provably equivalent to the Hurewicz property (this too is witnessed by the Cantor set , as $`()`$ implies Rothberger’s property ), we have that $`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,𝒪^{\gamma \text{-}\text{gp}})`$ is not provably equivalent to $`𝖲_{fin}(\{𝒪_n\}_n,𝒪^{\gamma \text{-}\text{gp}})`$.

Now consider the collection $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\text{gp}}`$ of open $`\omega `$-covers $`𝒰`$ of $`X`$ such that there exists a partition $`𝒫`$ of $`𝒰`$ into finite sets such that for each finite $`FX`$ and all but finitely many $`𝒫`$, there exists $`U`$ such that $`FU`$. In  it is shown that $`X`$ satisfies $`𝖲_{fin}(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }^{\text{gp}})`$ if, and only if, all finite powers of $`X`$ have the Hurewicz property. By Theorem 2.5, this property is equivalent to $`𝖲_{fin}(\{𝒪_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Omega }^{\text{gp}})`$. The following observation is what we need to get the analogous result for the stronger property $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }^{\text{gp}})`$.

###### Lemma 4.4.

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\text{gp}}`$ is countably thick.

###### Proof.

The proof for this is similar to that of Lemma 4.2. ∎

Here too, as all finite powers of the Cantor set $`C`$ are compact, we have that $`C`$ satisfies $`𝖲_{fin}(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }^{\text{gp}})`$ but not $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }^{\text{gp}})`$ (which implies Rothberger’s property). Thus, $`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Omega }^{\text{gp}})`$ is not provably equivalent to $`𝖲_{fin}(\{𝒪_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Omega }^{\text{gp}})`$.

### 4.4. A property between Hurewicz and Menger

In  a property called $`𝖴_{fin}(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is considered, which is intermediate between the Hurewicz and Menger properties. This property is a particular case of a general selection hypothesis. Assume that $`𝒜`$ and $``$ are collections of covers of a space $`X`$. Define the following selection hypothesis :

* For each sequence $`\{𝒰_n\}_n`$ of members of $`𝒜`$ which do not contain a finite subcover, there exist finite (possibly empty) subsets $`_n𝒰_n`$, $`n`$, such that $`\{_n\}_n`$.

Observe that any countable cover which does not contain a finite subcover can be turned into a $`\gamma `$-cover by taking finite unions . Thus for each $`𝒜`$, $`𝖴_{fin}(𝒜,)=𝖴_{fin}(\mathrm{\Gamma },)`$. The Menger property is equivalent to $`𝖴_{fin}(\mathrm{\Gamma },𝒪)`$, and the Hurewicz property is equivalent to $`𝖴_{fin}(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. In  it is proved that $`𝖴_{fin}(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is not provably equivalent to any of the Hurewicz or Menger properties.

It is proved in  that $`𝖴_{fin}(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is equivalent to $`𝖲_{fin}(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒪^{\omega \text{-}\text{gp}})`$. By Theorem 2.5, $`X`$ satisfies $`𝖴_{fin}(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Omega })`$ if, and only if, it satisfies $`𝖲_{fin}(\{𝒪_n\}_n,𝒪^{\omega \text{-}\text{gp}})`$.

We now treat the stronger property $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒪^{\omega \text{-}\text{gp}})`$. This property was introduced and studied in . In Problem 3 of  the authors ask whether this property is strictly stronger than Rothberger’s property $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ (this is the same as the usual $`𝖲_1(𝒪,𝒪)`$ ). We give a positive answer. It is easy to see (and well known) that Rothberger’s property is closed under taking countable unions.

###### Theorem 4.5.

Assuming CH ($`\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝗏}()=𝔠`$ is enough), Rothberger’s property does not imply $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒪^{\omega \text{-}\text{gp}})`$; in fact, $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒪^{\omega \text{-}\text{gp}})`$ is not even closed under taking finite unions.

###### Proof.

Clearly $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒪^{\omega \text{-}\text{gp}})`$ implies $`𝖲_{fin}(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒪^{\omega \text{-}\text{gp}})=𝖴_{fin}(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Omega })`$, but it is well known that (assuming CH) Rothberger’s property does not imply $`𝖴_{fin}(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Omega })`$ .

Moreover, in  it is shown that CH (or even just $`\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝗏}()=𝔠`$) implies that no property between $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and $`𝖴_{fin}(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Omega })`$ (inclusive) is closed under taking finite unions. But $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒪^{\omega \text{-}\text{gp}})`$ lies between these properties. ∎

As in the case of $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒪^{\gamma \text{-}\text{gp}})`$ which is equivalent to $`𝖴_{fin}(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma })𝖲_1(𝒪,𝒪)`$, we have that the new property $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒪^{\omega \text{-}\text{gp}})`$ can also be characterized in terms of the more classical properties.

###### Theorem 4.6.

$`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒪^{\omega \text{-}\text{gp}})=𝖴_{fin}(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Omega })𝖲_1(𝒪,𝒪)`$.

###### Proof.

We have seen that $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒪^{\omega \text{-}\text{gp}})`$ implies $`𝖴_{fin}(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and Rothberger’s property $`𝖲_1(𝒪,𝒪)`$. To prove the other implication, we use the result of , that $`𝖴_{fin}(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Omega })`$ implies $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=𝒪^{\omega \text{-}\text{gp}}`$. As $`𝖲_1(𝒪,𝒪)=𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=𝒪^{\omega \text{-}\text{gp}}`$ and $`𝖲_1(𝒪,𝒪)`$ imply $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒪^{\omega \text{-}\text{gp}})`$. ∎

###### Lemma 4.7.

$`𝒪^{\omega \text{-}\text{gp}}`$ is countably thick.

###### Proof.

Assume that $`𝒰`$ is an $`\omega `$-groupable cover of $`X`$, and let $`𝒫`$ be a partition of $`𝒰`$ witnessing this. Let $`𝒱`$ be a countable family of open sets. We may assume that $`𝒰`$ and $`𝒱`$ are disjoint. Let $`\stackrel{~}{𝒫}`$ be any partition of $`𝒱`$ into finite sets. Then $`𝒫\stackrel{~}{𝒫}`$ is a partition of $`𝒰𝒱`$ witnessing that this new cover is $`\omega `$-groupable. ∎

###### Corollary 4.8.

$`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,𝒪^{\omega \text{-}\text{gp}})=𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒪^{\omega \text{-}\text{gp}})`$.

Here again, Cantor’s set witnesses that the properties $`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,𝒪^{\omega \text{-}\text{gp}})`$ and $`𝖲_{fin}(\{𝒪_n\}_n,𝒪^{\omega \text{-}\text{gp}})`$ are not provably equivalent.

## 5. $`\tau `$-covers

An open cover $`𝒰`$ of $`X`$ is a *$`\tau `$-cover* of $`X`$ if it is a large cover, and for each $`x,yX`$, one of the sets $`\{U𝒰:xU\text{ and }yU\}`$ or $`\{U𝒰:yU\text{ and }xU\}`$ is finite. The notion of $`\tau `$-covers was introduced in , and incorporated into the framework of selection principles in .

Let $`\mathrm{T}`$ denote the collection of open $`\tau `$-covers of $`X`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{T}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, therefore $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ implies $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{T})`$, which implies $`𝖲_{fin}(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{T})`$. It is not known whether any two of these properties are equivalent.

By Theorem 2.5, we have that $`𝖲_{fin}(\{𝒪_n\}_n,\mathrm{T})=𝖲_{fin}(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{T})`$. We have only a guess for the situation in the remaining case.

###### Conjecture 1.

It is consistent that $`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,\mathrm{T})𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{T})`$.

Observe that, as $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{T})`$ implies Rothberger’s property $`𝖲_1(𝒪,𝒪)`$, we have by the consistency of Borel’s conjecture that the word “consistent” cannot be replaced by “provable” in Conjecture 1.

$`\tau ^{}`$-covers are a variation of $`\tau `$-covers which is easier to work with. For a cover $`𝒰=\{U_n\}_n`$ of $`X`$ and an element $`xX`$, write

$$x_𝒰=\{n:xU_n\}.$$

According to , A cover $`𝒰`$ of $`X`$ is a *$`\tau ^{}`$-cover* of $`X`$ if it is large, and for each $`xX`$ there exists an infinite subset $`\widehat{x}_𝒰`$ of $`x_𝒰`$ such that the sets $`\widehat{x}_𝒰`$, $`xX`$, are linearly quasiordered by $`^{}`$ ($`A^{}B`$ means that $`AB`$ is finite). If $`𝒰`$ is a countable $`\tau `$-cover, then by setting $`\widehat{x}_𝒰=x_𝒰`$ for each $`xX`$ we see that it is a $`\tau ^{}`$-cover. The converse is not necessarily true. Let $`\mathrm{T}^{}`$ denote the collection of all countable open $`\tau ^{}`$-covers of $`X`$. Then $`\mathrm{T}\mathrm{T}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

###### Lemma 5.1.

$`\mathrm{T}^{}`$ is countably and finitely thick.

###### Proof.

Assume that $`𝒰=\{U_n\}_n\mathrm{T}^{}`$, and let $`\widehat{x}_𝒰`$, $`xX`$, be witnesses for that. Let $`𝒱`$ be a countable family of open sets. Assume that $`𝒱`$ is infinite and disjoint from $`𝒰`$, and let $`\{V_n\}_n`$ be a bijective enumeration of $`𝒱`$. Enumerate $`𝒰𝒱`$ by $`\{W_n\}_n`$ where $`W_n=U_n`$ if $`n`$ is even and $`W_n=V_n`$ otherwise. Then the subsets $`2\widehat{x}_𝒰`$ of $`x_{𝒰𝒱}`$, $`xX`$, witness that $`𝒰𝒱\mathrm{T}^{}`$. The case that $`𝒱`$ has a finite cardinality $`k`$ is treated similarly.

To see that $`\mathrm{T}^{}`$ is finitely thick it remains to verify the first requirement in the definition of finitely thick covers. In  we prove something stronger: If $`𝒰\mathrm{T}^{}`$ refines a countable cover $`𝒱`$, then $`𝒱\mathrm{T}^{}`$. ∎

###### Corollary 5.2.

$`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,\mathrm{T}^{})=𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{T}^{})`$.

The last corollary can be contrasted with Conjecture 1.

## 6. Iliadis’ question

In the *Lecce Workshop on Coverings, Selections and Games in Topology* (June 2002), Stavros Iliadis asked whether we get new properties if we consider the generalized selection principles of the form $`𝖲_1(\{𝒜_n\}_n,)`$ and $`𝖲_{fin}(\{𝒜_n\}_n,)`$. We check the cases where the first coordinate is any sequence of elements from the set

$$𝒞=\{𝒪,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{T}^{},\mathrm{T},\mathrm{\Gamma }\}\{𝒪_n:n\}.$$

###### Lemma 6.1.

For any increasing sequence $`\{k_n\}_n`$, $`𝖲_1(\{𝒜_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ implies $`𝖲_1(\{𝒜_{k_n}\}_n,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, and $`𝖲_{fin}(\{𝒜_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ implies $`𝖲_{fin}(\{𝒜_{k_n}\}_n,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.

###### Proof.

Assume that $`𝒰_{k_n}𝒜_{k_n}`$. For each $`m\{k_n\}_n`$ use Lemma A.2 in Appendix A to choose an element $`𝒰_m\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Apply $`𝖲_1(\{𝒜_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ to the sequence $`\{𝒰_n\}_n`$ to obtain elements $`U_n𝒰_n`$ such that $`\{U_n\}_n`$ is a $`\gamma `$-cover of $`X`$. Then $`\{U_{k_n}\}_n`$ is a $`\gamma `$-cover of $`X`$, and for each $`n`$, $`U_{k_n}𝒰_{k_n}`$.

The proof for $`𝖲_{fin}`$ is similar. ∎

###### Corollary 6.2.

Assume that $`\{𝒜_n\}_n`$ is a sequence of elements of $`𝒞`$. Then:

1. If some $`𝒜\{𝒪,\mathrm{\Lambda }\}\{𝒪_n:n\}`$ occurs infinitely often in the sequence $`\{𝒜_n\}_n`$, then $`𝖲_1(\{𝒜_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ implies $`𝖲_1(𝒜,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, which is false for a nontrivial $`X`$.
2. If $`𝒜_n\{𝒪,\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$ for only finitely many $`n`$ and there exists an increasing sequence $`k_n`$ such that $`\{𝒪_{k_n}\}_n`$ is a subsequence of $`\{𝒜_n\}_n`$, then $`𝖲_1(\{𝒜_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Gamma })=𝖲_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ (strong $`\gamma `$-set).
3. If $`𝒜_n\{𝒪,\mathrm{\Lambda }\}\{𝒪_n:n\}`$ for only finitely many $`n`$ and $`𝒰_n=\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for infinitely many $`n`$, then $`𝖲_1(\{𝒜_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Gamma })=𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.
4. If $`𝒜_n\{𝒪,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Omega }\}\{𝒪_n:n\}`$ for only finitely many $`n`$ and $`𝒰_n=\mathrm{T}^{}`$ for infinitely many $`n`$, then $`𝖲_1(\{𝒜_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Gamma })=𝖲_1(\mathrm{T}^{},\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.
5. If $`𝒜_n\{𝒪,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{T}^{}\}\{𝒪_n:n\}`$ for only finitely many $`n`$ and $`𝒰_n=\mathrm{T}`$ for infinitely many $`n`$, then $`𝖲_1(\{𝒜_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Gamma })=𝖲_1(\mathrm{T},\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.
6. If $`𝒜_n\{𝒪,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{T}^{},\mathrm{T}\}\{𝒪_n:n\}`$ for only finitely many $`n`$, then $`𝖲_1(\{𝒜_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Gamma })=𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.

The analogous assertions for $`𝖲_{fin}`$ also hold.

###### Proof.

We will use Lemma 6.1.

(1) follows, using the results of Appendix A.

To prove (2), observe that in this case, each $`𝒰_n`$ is a subset of $`𝒪_{k_n}`$ for some $`k_n`$, such that $`k_n\mathrm{}`$, so that Theorem 2.1 applies.

(3), (4), (5), and (6) follow from Lemma 6.1. ∎

###### Lemma 6.3.

1. If $`𝒜_n𝒜`$ for all but finitely many $`n`$, and $``$ is closed under removing a finite subset, then $`𝖲_1(\{𝒜_n\}_n,)`$ implies $`𝖲_1(𝒜,)`$.
2. If $`𝒜`$ occurs infinitely often in the sequence $`\{𝒜_n\}_n`$, and $``$ is countably thick, then $`𝖲_1(𝒜,)`$ implies $`𝖲_1(\{𝒜_n\}_n,)`$.
3. The same assertions hold for $`𝖲_{fin}`$ (where in (2) countable thickness is not needed).

###### Proof.

(1) Assume that $`X`$ satisfies $`𝖲_1(\{𝒜_n\}_n,)`$. We will show that $`X`$ satisfies $`𝖲_1(𝒜,)`$. Fix $`m`$ such that that for all $`nm`$, $`𝒜_n𝒜`$. Assume that $`\{𝒰_n\}_n`$ is such that $`𝒰_n𝒜`$ for all $`n`$. By Lemma A.2, there exists an open $`\gamma `$-cover $`𝒱`$ of $`X`$. Define a sequence $`\{𝒱_n\}_n`$ by $`𝒱_n=𝒱`$ for $`n<m`$ and $`𝒱_n=𝒰_{nm}`$ otherwise. By $`𝖲_1(\{𝒜_n\}_n,)`$, there exist elements $`V_n𝒱_n`$ such that $`\{V_n\}_n`$. As $``$ is closed under removing a finite subset, $`\{V_n\}_{nm}`$ and for each $`nm`$, $`V_n𝒰_{nm}`$.

(2) Let $`\{k_n\}_n`$ be an increasing enumeration of $`\{n:𝒜_n=𝒜\}`$, and let $`\{𝒰_n\}_n`$ be such that $`𝒰_n𝒜_n`$ for all $`n`$. Apply $`𝖲_1(𝒜,)`$ to $`𝒰_{k_n}`$ to obtain elements $`U_{k_n}𝒰_{k_n}`$ such that $`\{U_{k_n}\}_n`$ is a member of $``$. From the remaining covers $`𝒰_n`$ choose any element $`U_n`$. As $``$ is countably thick, $`\{U_{k_n}\}_n`$ is a member of $``$ as well.

(3) is similar. ∎

The collections $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\mathrm{T}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{T}`$ are all countably thick and closed under removing a finite subset. Thus, if $``$ is any of these, then we get $`𝖲_1(\{𝒜_n\}_n,)=𝖲_1(𝒜,)`$ in Lemma 6.3.

###### Corollary 6.4.

Assume that $`\{𝒜_n\}_n`$ is a sequence of elements of $`𝒞`$, and $`\{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Omega }\}`$. Then:

1. If there exist infinitely many $`n`$ such that $`𝒜_n=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, then $`𝖲_1(\{𝒜_n\}_n,)=𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Gamma },)`$.
2. If there exist only finitely many $`n`$ such that $`𝒜_n=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and there exist infinitely many $`n`$ such that $`𝒜_n=\mathrm{T}`$, then $`𝖲_1(\{𝒜_n\}_n,)=𝖲_1(\mathrm{T},)`$.
3. If there exist only finitely many $`n`$ such that $`𝒜_n\{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{\Gamma }\}`$, and there exist infinitely many $`n`$ such that $`𝒜_n=\mathrm{T}^{}`$, then $`𝖲_1(\{𝒜_n\}_n,)=𝖲_1(\mathrm{T}^{},)`$.
4. If there exist only finitely many $`n`$ such that $`𝒜_n\{\mathrm{T}^{},\mathrm{T},\mathrm{\Gamma }\}`$, and there exist infinitely many $`n`$ such that $`𝒜_n=\mathrm{\Omega }`$, then $`𝖲_1(\{𝒜_n\}_n,)=𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },)`$.
5. If there exist only finitely many $`n`$ such that $`𝒜_n\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{T}^{},\mathrm{T},\mathrm{\Gamma }\}`$, and there exists an increasing sequence $`\{k_n\}_n`$ such that $`𝒜_{k_n}𝒪_n`$ for all $`n`$, then $`𝖲_1(\{𝒜_n\}_n,)=𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },)`$.
6. If there exists no increasing sequence $`\{k_n\}_n`$ such that $`𝒜_{k_n}𝒪_n`$ for all $`n`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ occurs infinitely often in $`\{𝒜_n\}_n`$, then $`𝖲_1(\{𝒜_n\}_n,)=𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Lambda },)`$ (which is Rothberger’s property if $`\{𝒪,\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$ and trivial otherwise).
7. If for some $`m`$ $`𝒜_n𝒪_m`$ for almost all $`n`$, then $`𝖲_1(\{𝒜_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is trivial.

The analogous assertions for $`𝖲_{fin}`$ also hold.

These results and related arguments should show that no new property is introduced by the generalized selection principles $`𝖲_1(\{𝒜_n\}_n,)`$ and $`𝖲_{fin}(\{𝒜_n\}_n,)`$, except for the strong $`\gamma `$-property $`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and, perhaps, $`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,\mathrm{T})`$.

Part II: Game theory

In this section we give new game theoretic characterizations to most of the properties considered in the previous sections. Although these characterizations are suggested by the results of the earlier sections, their proofs are not as trivial.

## 7. Selection games and strategies

Each selection principle has a naturally associated game. In the game $`𝖦_1(𝒜,)`$ ONE chooses in the $`n`$th inning an element $`𝒰_n`$ of $`𝒜`$ and then TWO responds by choosing $`U_n𝒰_n`$. They play an inning per natural number. A play $`(𝒰_0,U_0,𝒰_1,U_1,\mathrm{})`$ is won by TWO if $`\{U_n\}_n`$; otherwise ONE wins. The game $`𝖦_{fin}(𝒜,)`$ is played similarly, where TWO responds with finite subsets $`_n𝒰_n`$ and wins if $`_n_n`$.

Observe that if ONE does not have a winning strategy in $`𝖦_1(𝒜,)`$ (respectively, $`𝖦_{fin}(𝒜,)`$), then $`𝖲_1(𝒜,)`$ (respectively, $`𝖲_{fin}(𝒜,)`$) holds. The converse is not always true; when it is true, the game is a powerful tool for studying the combinatorial properties of $`𝒜`$ and $``$ – see, e.g., , and references therein.

It is therefore appealing to try and study the generalized games associated with $`𝖲_1(\{𝒜_n\}_n,)`$ and $`𝖲_{fin}(\{𝒜_n\}_n,)`$.

###### Definition 7.1.

Define the following games between two players, ONE and TWO, which have an inning per natural number.

* In the $`n`$th inning, ONE chooses an element $`𝒰_n𝒜_n`$, and TWO responds with an element $`U_n𝒰_n`$. TWO wins if $`\{U_n\}_n`$; otherwise ONE wins.
* In the $`n`$th inning, ONE chooses an element $`𝒰_n𝒜_n`$, and TWO responds with a finite subset $`_n`$ of $`𝒰_n`$. TWO wins if $`_n_n`$; otherwise ONE wins.

Some terminological conventions will be needed to simplify the proofs of the upcoming results. A *strategy* $`F`$ for ONE in a game $`𝖦_1(\{𝒜_n\}_n,)`$ can be identified with a tree of covers in the following way. Let $`𝒰_{}:=F(X)`$ be the first move of ONE. Enumerate the elements of $`𝒰_{}`$ as $`\{U_n\}_n`$. Having defined $`𝒰_\sigma =\{U_{\sigma \widehat{}n}\}_n`$, define for each $`m`$

$$𝒰_{\sigma \widehat{}m}:=F(𝒰_{},U_{\sigma 1},\mathrm{},𝒰_\sigma ,U_{\sigma \widehat{}m}),$$

and fix an enumeration $`\{U_{\sigma \widehat{}m,n}\}_n`$ of $`𝒰_{\sigma \widehat{}m}`$. Let $`^{}`$ denote the collection of all finite sequences of natural numbers.

Similarly, a strategy $`F`$ for ONE in a game $`𝖦_{fin}(\{𝒜_n\}_n,)`$ can be identified with a tree covers where the sequences $`\sigma `$ are of *finite sets* of natural numbers rather than natural numbers. Let $`[]^{}`$ denote the collection of all finite sequences of finite sets of natural numbers.

We will say that a collection of covers $`𝒜`$ is *dense* in a strategy $`F`$ for ONE in a game of type $`𝖦_1`$ if for each $`\sigma ^{}`$ there exists $`\eta ^{}`$ which extends $`\sigma `$, and such that $`𝒰_\eta 𝒜`$, that is, $`\{\eta ^{}:𝒰_\eta 𝒜\}`$ is dense in $`^{}`$. Similarly, we say that $`𝒜`$ is dense in a strategy $`F`$ for ONE in a game of type $`𝖦_{fin}`$ if $`\{\eta []^{}:𝒰_\eta 𝒜\}`$ is dense in $`[]^{}`$.

###### Lemma 7.2 (Density lemma).

Assume that $``$ is countably thick, ONE has a winning strategy $`F`$ in $`𝖦_1(\{𝒜_n\}_n,)`$, and $`𝒜`$ is dense in $`F`$. Then ONE has a winning strategy in $`𝖦_1(𝒜,)`$. The analogous assertion for $`𝖦_{fin}`$ also holds.

###### Proof.

Fix some well-ordering on the collection $`^{}`$ of all finite sequences of natural numbers, and let $`\{𝒰_\sigma \}_\sigma ^{}`$ be the tree of covers associated with $`F`$. Define a function $`\pi :^{}^{}`$ as follows:

1. Let $`\pi ()`$ be the first member of $`^{}`$ such that $`𝒰_{\pi ()}𝒜`$.
2. For each $`n`$ let $`\pi (n)^{}`$ be the first extension of $`\pi ()\widehat{}n`$ such that $`𝒰_{\pi (n)}𝒜`$.
3. In general, for each $`\sigma ^{}`$ and each $`n`$ let $`\pi (\sigma \widehat{}n)`$ be the first extension of $`\pi (\sigma )\widehat{}n`$ such that $`𝒰_{\pi (\sigma \widehat{}n)}`$.

For each $`\sigma ^{}`$ define $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_\sigma =𝒰_{\pi (\sigma )}`$, and set $`\stackrel{~}{U}_{\sigma \widehat{}n}=U_{\pi (\sigma )\widehat{}n}`$ for each $`n`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ be the strategy associated with $`\{\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_\sigma \}_\sigma ^{}`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ is a strategy for ONE in $`𝖦_1(𝒜,)`$.

We claim that $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ is a winning strategy for ONE in $`𝖦_1(𝒜,)`$. Assume otherwise, and let $`f{}_{}{}^{}`$ be such that the play

$$(\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{},\stackrel{~}{U}_{f1},\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{f1},\stackrel{~}{U}_{f2},\mathrm{})$$

against the strategy $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ is lost by ONE, that is, $`\{U_{fn}\}_n`$. Define

$$\sigma _0=\pi (),\sigma _1=\pi (f(0)),\mathrm{},\sigma _{n+1}=\pi (\sigma _n\widehat{}f(n)),\mathrm{}$$

and take $`g=_n\sigma _n`$. Then

$$(𝒰_{},U_{g1},𝒰_{g1},U_{g2},\mathrm{})$$

is a play in the game $`𝖦_1(\{𝒜_n\}_n,)`$ according to the strategy $`F`$, and $`\{U_{fn}\}_n`$ is a subsequence of $`\{U_{gn}\}_n`$. As $``$ is countably thick, we have that $`\{U_{gn}\}_n`$ as well, so this game is lost by ONE, a contradiction.

The proof for $`𝖦_{fin}`$ is similar. ∎

###### Remark 7.3.

For each $`\sigma ^{}`$, we can modify the definition of $`\pi `$ in the proof of Lemma 7.2 so that $`\pi ()`$ extends $`\sigma `$. Consequently, it is enough to assume that $`\{\eta :𝒰_\eta 𝒜\}`$ is dense below $`\sigma `$ (with respect to the order of reverse inclusion) for *some* $`\sigma ^{}`$. In other words, if ONE does not have a winning strategy in $`𝖦_1(𝒜,)`$ but has a winning strategy in $`𝖦_1(\{𝒜_n\}_n,)`$, then $`\{\eta :𝒰_\eta 𝒜\}`$ is *nowhere dense* in $`^{}`$.

## 8. Reductions among $`𝖦_{fin}`$ strategies

Following is a surprising result. It implies that if $`MF`$ and ONE could win the game $`𝖦_{fin}(\{𝒪_n\}_n,)`$, then he could win $`𝖦_{fin}(\mathrm{\Lambda },)`$ as well.

###### Theorem 8.1 ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-less strategies).

Assume that $`F`$ is a strategy for ONE in a game $`𝖦_{fin}(\{𝒪_n\}_n,)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is not dense in $`F`$. Then $`F`$ is not even a winning strategy for ONE in the game $`𝖦_{fin}(\{𝒪_n\}_n,MF)`$.

###### Proof.

Assume that $`F`$ is a winning strategy for ONE in the game $`𝖦_{fin}(\{𝒪_n\}_n,MF)`$. Let $`\{𝒰_\sigma \}_{\sigma []^{}}`$ be the covers tree associated with $`F`$, and choose $`\sigma []^{}`$ such that for all $`\eta `$ extending $`\sigma `$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_\eta `$ is not large. Modify $`F`$ so that its first move is $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_\eta `$ (that is, the strategy determined by the subtree $`\{\sigma :\eta \sigma \}`$ of $`[]^{}`$). This is still a winning strategy for ONE (otherwise TWO can begin with a sequence of moves which will force ONE into $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_\eta `$ and then defeat him). We may therefore assume that no element in the strategy $`F`$ is large.

###### Lemma 8.2.

Every $`n+1`$ cover of a space $`X`$ which is not large contains a finite $`n`$-cover of $`X`$.

###### Proof.

Assume that $`𝒰`$ is an $`n+1`$-cover of $`X`$ which is not large. Then there exists $`xX`$ such that the set $`=\{U𝒰:xU\}`$ is finite. Now, as $`𝒰`$ is an $`n+1`$-cover of $`X`$, for each $`n`$-element subset $`F`$ of $`X`$ there exists $`U𝒰`$ such that $`F\{x\}U`$, and therefore $`U`$ and $`FU`$. ∎

We may therefore modify the strategy $`F`$ (by thinning out its covers) so that all covers in this strategy are finite. As this only restricts the possible moves of TWO, this is still a winning strategy for ONE in the game $`𝖦_{fin}(\{𝒪_n\}_n,MF)`$.

In particular, no cover in the strategy $`F`$ is an $`\omega `$-cover of $`X`$.

###### Lemma 8.3.

Assume that $`\{𝒰_n\}_n`$ is a sequence of $`n`$-covers of $`X`$ which are not $`\omega `$-covers of $`X`$. Then there exists an increasing sequence $`\{k_n\}_n`$ and pairwise disjoint subsets $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{k_n}`$ of $`𝒰_{k_n}`$ such that each $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{k_n}`$ is an $`n`$-cover of $`X`$.

###### Proof.

For each $`n`$ let $`F_n`$ be a finite subset of $`X`$ witnessing that $`𝒰_n`$ is not an $`\omega `$-cover of $`X`$. Observe that if $`𝒰`$ is a $`k+l`$-cover of $`X`$ and $`F`$ is a $`k`$-element subset of $`X`$. Then $`\{U𝒰:FU\}`$ is an $`l`$-cover of $`X`$.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_1=𝒰_1`$. Set $`k_1=|F_1|+1`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_2=\{U𝒰_{k_1}:F_1U\}`$ is a cover of $`X`$ disjoint from $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_1`$. Assume that we have defined $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{k_1},\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{k_{n1}}`$. Let $`k_n=|_{i<n}F_{k_i}|+n`$, and choose

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{k_n}=\{U𝒰_{k_n}:\underset{i<k}{}F_{k_i}U\}.$$

Then $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{k_n}`$ is an $`n`$-cover of $`X`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{k_n}𝒰_{k_n}`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{k_n}\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{k_i}=\mathrm{}`$ for all $`i<n`$. ∎

Thus, by the methods of Lemma 7.2, we may refine the strategy $`F`$ so that all its covers are (finite and) disjoint. Again, as the new strategy restricts the moves of TWO, it is still a winning strategy in the game $`𝖦_{fin}(\{𝒪_n\}_n,MF)`$. But in this situation TWO can choose the whole cover in each inning, making its confident way to a victory in the game $`𝖦_{fin}(\{𝒪_n\}_n,MF)`$, a contradiction. ∎

We now give some applications of Theorem 8.1.

###### Theorem 8.4.

For a space $`X`$, the following are equivalent.

1. $`X`$ has the Menger property,
2. ONE does not have a winning strategy in $`𝖦_{fin}(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Lambda })`$,
3. ONE does not have a winning strategy in $`𝖦_{fin}(\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda })`$; and
4. ONE does not have a winning strategy in $`𝖦_{fin}(\{𝒪_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$.

###### Proof.

Hurewicz  proved that the Menger property is equivalent to ONE not having a winning strategy in $`𝖦_{fin}(𝒪,𝒪)`$. Using this and the method in Theorem 3 of , one shows that $`13`$. Now, $`32`$, and $`2`$ implies Menger’s property $`𝖲_{fin}(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. Thus $`123`$. Clearly $`42`$. To see that $`34`$, assume that $`F`$ is a strategy for ONE in $`𝖦_{fin}(\{𝒪_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. By $`3`$ and Lemma 7.2, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is not dense in $`F`$. By Theorem 8.1, $`F`$ is not a winning strategy for ONE in $`𝖦_{fin}(\{𝒪_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. ∎

###### Theorem 8.5.

For a space $`X`$, the following are equivalent.

1. $`X`$ has the Hurewicz property,
2. ONE does not have a winning strategy in $`𝖦_{fin}(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒪^{\gamma \text{-}\text{gp}})`$,
3. ONE does not have a winning strategy in $`𝖦_{fin}(\mathrm{\Lambda },𝒪^{\gamma \text{-}\text{gp}})`$; and
4. ONE does not have a winning strategy in $`𝖦_{fin}(\{𝒪_n\}_n,𝒪^{\gamma \text{-}\text{gp}})`$.

###### Proof.

The equivalence $`12`$ is established in Theorem 12 of . It is clear that $`32`$ and $`42`$.

$`13`$: This is proved like the proof of $`12`$ (see Theorem 12 of ), as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is closed under removing a finite subset.

$`34`$: Assume that ONE has a winning strategy $`F`$ in the game $`𝖦_{fin}(\{𝒪_n\}_n,𝒪^{\gamma \text{-}\text{gp}})`$. Then by Theorem 8.1, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is dense in $`F`$, and by Lemma 7.2, ONE has a winning strategy in the game $`𝖦_{fin}(\mathrm{\Lambda },𝒪^{\gamma \text{-}\text{gp}})`$. ∎

The last $`𝖦_{fin}`$ game we consider is the one associated to the property $`𝖴_{fin}(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Omega })`$ from Subsection 4.4.

###### Theorem 8.6.

For a space $`X`$, the following are equivalent.

1. $`X`$ satisfies $`𝖴_{fin}(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Omega })`$,
2. ONE does not have a winning strategy in $`𝖦_{fin}(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒪^{\omega \text{-}\text{gp}})`$,
3. ONE does not have a winning strategy in $`𝖦_{fin}(\mathrm{\Lambda },𝒪^{\omega \text{-}\text{gp}})`$; and
4. ONE does not have a winning strategy in $`𝖦_{fin}(\{𝒪_n\}_n,𝒪^{\omega \text{-}\text{gp}})`$.

###### Proof.

$`12`$ is proved in Theorem 13 of .

$`23`$: Assume 2. Then ONE does not have a winning strategy in the game $`𝖦_{fin}(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. By Theorem 8.4, ONE does not have a winning strategy in the game $`𝖦_{fin}(\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. According to Lemma 11 of , 1 (which is implied by 2) implies that each large cover of $`X`$ is $`\omega `$-groupable, that is, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=𝒪^{\omega \text{-}\text{gp}}`$ for $`X`$. Thus ONE does not have a winning strategy in the game $`𝖦_{fin}(\mathrm{\Lambda },𝒪^{\omega \text{-}\text{gp}})`$.

$`24`$ is proved similarly. ∎

The following problem remains open.

###### Problem 8.7.

Is the Arkhangel’skiǐ Property $`𝖲_{fin}(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega })`$ equivalent to ONE not having a winning strategy in $`𝖦_{fin}(\{𝒪_n\},\mathrm{\Omega })`$ ?

## 9. Reductions among $`𝖦_1`$ strategies

We now turn to $`𝖦_1`$-games. To deal with these, we need some more terminology and tools. Assume that $`F`$ is a strategy for ONE in a $`𝖦_1`$-game. The *$`\omega `$-strategy* $`F_\omega `$ associated to $`F`$ is the strategy defined as follows. Let $`\{𝒰_\sigma \}_\sigma ^{}`$ be the covers tree associated to $`F`$. Fix a bijection $`\varphi :^{}`$. For each $`\sigma ^{}`$ of length $`k`$ let

$$\varphi (\sigma )=\varphi (\sigma (0))\widehat{}\varphi (\sigma (1))\widehat{}\mathrm{}\widehat{}\varphi (\sigma (k1)).$$

For each $`n`$ define $`\widehat{U}_n=\{U_{\eta 1},U_{\eta 2}\mathrm{},U_\eta \}`$ where $`\eta =\varphi (n)`$, and set $`\widehat{𝒰}_{}=\{\widehat{U}_n\}_n`$. In general, for each $`\sigma ^{}`$ and each $`n`$ let $`\eta =\varphi (n)`$, and define

$$\widehat{U}_{\sigma \widehat{}n}=\{U_{\varphi (\sigma )\widehat{}\eta 1},U_{\varphi (\sigma )\widehat{}\eta 2}\mathrm{},U_{\varphi (\sigma )\widehat{}\eta }\}.$$

Set $`\widehat{𝒰}_\sigma =\{\widehat{U}_{\sigma \widehat{}n}\}_n`$.

As we have required that $`X`$ is not a member of any cover we consider, $`F_\omega `$ need not be a strategy for ONE. We will say that $`X`$ is *$`\omega `$-dense* in $`F`$ if the set $`\{\sigma :\widehat{U}_\sigma =X\}`$ is dense in $`^{}`$.

###### Lemma 9.1.

Assume that for each $`\sigma `$, $`𝒰_\sigma `$ is disjoint from its past $`\{U_{\sigma 1},U_{\sigma 2},\mathrm{},U_\sigma \}`$. If $`X`$ is $`\omega `$-dense in $`F`$, then there exists a game according to this strategy where the moves of TWO constitute a groupable large cover of $`X`$.

###### Proof.

In the covers tree of $`F`$ there exists a path with infinitely many disjoint intervals which constitute a finite cover of $`X`$. ∎

###### Lemma 9.2.

Fix $`\{\mathrm{\Lambda },𝒪^{\omega \text{-}\text{gp}},𝒪^{\gamma \text{-}\text{gp}}\}`$. Assume that $`F`$ is a strategy for ONE in $`𝖦_1(\{𝒜_n\}_n,)`$ such that $`X`$ is not $`\omega `$-dense in $`F`$, and for each $`\sigma `$, $`𝒰_\sigma `$ is disjoint from its past $`\{U_{\sigma 1},U_{\sigma 2},\mathrm{},U_\sigma \}`$. If $`F_\omega `$ is not a winning strategy for ONE in the game $`𝖦_1(\mathrm{\Omega },)`$, then $`F`$ is not a winning strategy for ONE in the game $`𝖦_1(\{𝒜_n\}_n,)`$.

###### Proof.

Any move of TWO in $`F_\omega `$ can be translated to a finite sequence of moves for TWO in $`F`$, replacing each $`\widehat{U}_{\sigma \widehat{}n}`$ chosen by TWO with the elements $`U_{\varphi (\sigma )\widehat{}\eta 1},U_{\varphi (\sigma )\widehat{}\eta 2},\mathrm{},U_{\varphi (\sigma )\widehat{}\eta }`$ where $`\eta =\varphi (n)`$. It is easy to see, by disjointness from the past, that this disassemblying preserves being a member of $``$ for $`\{\mathrm{\Lambda },𝒪^{\omega \text{-}\text{gp}},𝒪^{\gamma \text{-}\text{gp}}\}`$. ∎

For shortness, we give the characterizations for the Rothberger, Gerlits-Nagy $`()`$, and $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒪^{\omega \text{-}\text{gp}})`$ properties simultaneously.

###### Theorem 9.3.

Fix $`\{\mathrm{\Lambda },𝒪^{\omega \text{-}\text{gp}},𝒪^{\gamma \text{-}\text{gp}}\}`$. For a space $`X`$, the following are equivalent.

1. $`X`$ satisfies $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },)`$,
2. ONE does not have a winning strategy in $`𝖦_1(\mathrm{\Omega },)`$,
3. ONE does not have a winning strategy in $`𝖦_1(\mathrm{\Lambda },)`$; and
4. ONE does not have a winning strategy in $`𝖦_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,)`$.

###### Proof.

In Theorem 3 of  it is proved that $`13`$ for $`=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In Theorem 12 of  it is proved that $`12`$ for $`=𝒪^{\gamma \text{-}\text{gp}}`$, and in Theorem 15 of  this is proved for $`=𝒪^{\omega \text{-}\text{gp}}`$.

$`23`$: Assume that $`F`$ is a winning strategy for ONE in $`𝖦_1(\mathrm{\Lambda },)`$. Modify the covers tree by removing from each $`𝒰_\sigma `$ its past $`\{U_{\sigma 1},U_{\sigma 2},\mathrm{},U_\sigma \}`$. Then $`F`$ is still a winning strategy for ONE. By Lemma 9.1, $`X`$ is not $`\omega `$-dense in $`F`$, and by Lemma 9.2 we get that $`F_\omega `$ is a winning strategy for ONE in $`𝖦_1(\mathrm{\Omega },)`$.

$`24`$: Assume that $`F`$ is a winning strategy for ONE in $`𝖦_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,)`$. If $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is dense in $`F`$ then by Lemma 7.2 ONE has a winning strategy in $`𝖦_1(\mathrm{\Omega },)`$. Otherwise, by Lemma 8.3 we may assume that the covers in each branch of the strategy $`F`$ are disjoint. By Lemma 9.1, $`X`$ is not $`\omega `$-dense in $`F`$, and by Lemma 9.2 we get that $`F_\omega `$ is a winning strategy for ONE in $`𝖦_1(\mathrm{\Omega },)`$. ∎

###### Remark 9.4.

The characterizations of Rothberger’s property using $`𝒪`$ instead of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are much more simple to deal with: Pawlikowski  proved that Rothberger’s property $`𝖲_1(𝒪,𝒪)`$ is equivalent to ONE not having a winning strategy in $`𝖦_1(𝒪,𝒪)`$. As $`𝖲_1(𝒪,𝒪)=𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒪)`$, we get that Rothberger’s property is equivalent to ONE not having a winning strategy in $`𝖦_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,𝒪)`$.

We now treat the remaining $`𝖦_1`$-games: $`𝖦_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and $`𝖦_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }^{\text{gp}})`$. For $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the properties $`𝖲_{fin}(\mathrm{\Lambda },)`$ are trivial (see Appendix A). Thus we cannot hope to have an equivalent item “ONE does not have a winning strategy in $`𝖦_1(\mathrm{\Lambda },)`$” in the theorems dealing with these covers. Fortunately, there exists an elegant technique to deal with these cases without appealing to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

###### Lemma 9.5.

Assume that $``$ is countably thick. For a space $`X`$, the following are equivalent.

1. ONE does not have a winning strategy in $`𝖦_1(\mathrm{\Omega },)`$,
2. ONE does not have a winning strategy in $`𝖦_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,)`$.

###### Proof.

We prove that $`12`$. Assume $`F`$ is a strategy for ONE in $`𝖦_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,)`$ whose covers tree is $`\{𝒰_\sigma \}_\sigma ^{}`$. Define a strategy $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ for ONE in $`𝖦_1(\mathrm{\Omega },)`$ as follows: The first move of ONE is $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{}=_\sigma ^{}𝒰_\sigma `$. If TWO chooses $`U_\sigma `$, then ONE responds with

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_\sigma =\underset{\eta ^{}}{}𝒰_{\sigma \widehat{}\eta },$$

etc. Now, a game lost by ONE according to the strategy $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ can be completed (by choosing the moves of TWO appropriately) to a game lost by ONE according to $`F`$ in $`𝖦_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,)`$. As $``$ is countably thick, this shows that $`F`$ is not a winning strategy. ∎

###### Theorem 9.6.

Fix $`\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }^{\text{gp}}\}`$. For each space $`X`$, the following are equivalent.

1. $`X`$ satisfies $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },)`$,
2. ONE does not have a winning strategy in $`𝖦_1(\mathrm{\Omega },)`$,
3. ONE does not have a winning strategy in $`𝖦_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,)`$.

###### Proof.

$`23`$ by Lemma 9.5.

$`12`$: For $`=\mathrm{\Omega }`$ this is Theorem 2 of . For $`=\mathrm{\Omega }^{\text{gp}}`$ this is Theorem 17 of . ∎

We do not know whether analogous game theoretic characterizations can be given to the remaining few properties. The most interesting problem seems to be the following.

###### Problem 9.7.

Is it true that $`X`$ is a strong $`\gamma `$-set if, and only if, ONE has no winning strategy in the game $`𝖦_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$?

## 10. The Borel case and the discrete case

We need not stop in the case of open covers. One important variant of open covers is that of *countable Borel covers*. As in , one can translate all of the results presented here to this case as well. Another important variant is that of *arbitrary* countable covers of an uncountable cardinal $`\kappa `$. Since these are exactly the countable open covers of $`\kappa `$ with respect to the discrete topology on $`\kappa `$, our results apply in this purely combinatorial case as well, and we obtain new characterizations of some well known combinatorial cardinal characteristics of the continuum. For example:

1. The *unbounding number* $`𝔟`$ is equal to the minimal cardinal $`\kappa `$ such that ONE has a winning strategy in the game $`𝖦_{fin}(\{𝒪_n\}_n,𝒪^{\gamma \text{-}\text{gp}})`$ played on $`\kappa `$.
2. The *dominating number* $`𝔡`$ is equal to the minimal cardinal $`\kappa `$ such that ONE has a winning strategy in any (and both) of the games $`𝖦_{fin}(\{𝒪_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $`𝖦_{fin}(\{𝒪_n\}_n,𝒪^{\omega \text{-}\text{gp}})`$, played on $`\kappa `$.
3. The *covering number for the meager ideal* $`\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝗏}()`$ is equal to the minimal cardinal $`\kappa `$ such that ONE has a winning strategy in any (and both) of the games: $`𝖦_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $`𝖦_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Omega })`$, played on $`\kappa `$.
4. The *additivity number for the meager ideal* $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}()`$ is equal to the minimal cardinal $`\kappa `$ such that ONE has a winning strategy in the game $`𝖦_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,𝒪^{\gamma \text{-}\text{gp}})`$, played on $`\kappa `$.

All of these results follow easily from the equivalences with the corresponding properties using the operators $`𝖲_1`$ and $`𝖲_{fin}`$, together with the known critical cardinalities of these properties – see .

## Appendix A Too strong properties

Assume that $`𝒜`$ and $``$ are collections of covers of $`X`$. We say that $`X`$ satisfies $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝒜}{}\right)`$ if each element of $`𝒜`$ contains an element of $``$ . Clearly $`𝖲_{fin}(𝒜,)`$ implies $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝒜}{}\right)`$.

###### Proposition A.1.

Assume that $`X`$ is an infinite $`T_1`$ space, and fix $`n`$. Then $`X`$ does not satisfy any of the following properties:

1. $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{𝒪_2}\right)`$,
2. $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝒪_n}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)`$; and
3. $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝒪_n}{𝒪_{n+1}}\right)`$.

###### Proof.

(1) Fix a nonrepeating sequence $`\{x_n\}_n`$ of elements of $`X`$, and two distinct elements $`a,bX`$. As $`X`$ is $`T_1`$, all singletons are closed subsets of $`X`$. Then

$$𝒰=\{X\{x_{2n},a\}:n\}\{X\{x_{2n+1},b\}:n\}$$

is a large open cover of $`X`$, and for each $`U𝒰`$, $`a,bU`$.

(2) and (3): Fix distinct elements $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n+1}X`$. Then

$$𝒰=\{X\{x_1\},\mathrm{},X\{x_{n+1}\}\}$$

is an open $`n`$-cover of $`X`$. But the $`n+1`$-element set $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n+1}\}`$ is not contained in any member of $`𝒰`$. As $`𝒰`$ is a finite cover, it does not contain a large cover either. ∎

Any nontrivial space has an open $`\gamma `$-cover:

###### Lemma A.2.

Assume that $`X`$ is an infinite $`T_1`$ space. Then $`X`$ has an open $`\gamma `$-cover.

###### Proof.

Fix a nonrepeating sequence $`\{x_n\}_n`$ of element of $`X`$. Then

$$𝒰=\{X\{x_n\}:n\}$$

is an open $`\gamma `$-cover of $`X`$. ∎


text:
# Collective flow and HBT radii from a full 3D hydrodynamic model with early chemical freeze out

## 1 INTRODUCTION

From the particle ratios and the transverse momentum spectra of hadrons in relativistic heavy ion collisions, one can obtain chemical freeze-out temperature $`T^{\mathrm{ch}}`$ and thermal freeze-out temperature $`T^{\mathrm{th}}`$ through the analyses of statistical models . These temperatures are usually different from each other at the AGS, SPS and RHIC energies, i.e., $`T^{\mathrm{ch}}160`$-$`200`$ MeV while $`T^{\mathrm{th}}100`$-$`140`$ MeV. This provides the following picture of space-time evolution of hadronic matter: The equilibrated system produced in the early stage of collisions first undergoes the chemical freeze-out where the observed particle ratios are fixed and then goes through the thermal freeze-out where the momentum distribution is fixed. However, one assumes $`T^{\mathrm{ch}}=T^{\mathrm{th}}`$ in the conventional hydrodynamic models. As a result, one cannot describe the particle ratios and spectra simultaneously. As a first trial, we incorporate the early chemical freeze-out into the hadronic equation of state (EOS)  for $`\mu _\mathrm{B}=0`$ case  and investigate its effects on hydrodynamic evolution such as radial flow, elliptic flow and HBT radii by using a fully three-dimensional hydrodynamic model (3D hydro) .

## 2 MODEL EOS

We construct two models EOS to compare the space-time evolution of fluids. Both models describe the first order phase transition between the QGP phase and the hadron phase at $`T_\mathrm{c}=170`$ MeV. Here we take the baryonic chemical potential $`\mu _\mathrm{B}=0`$ for simplicity. The QGP phase is composed of massless free u, d, s quarks and gluons and is common to both models. We employ the following two models for the hadron phase. One is the conventional resonance gas model in which chemical equilibrium is always assumed (the model CE). We include all baryons and mesons up to the mass of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$. The other model describes the partial chemical equilibrium (the model PCE) in the hadron phase . Whether an interaction is chemically equilibrated in the hadron phase depends on its time scale. Elastic scattering through a resonance particle, such as $`\pi \pi \rho \pi \pi `$, $`\pi KK^{}\pi K`$ and $`\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }\pi N`$, has large a cross section in the hadronic medium and frequently happens within the lifetime of fluids. Hence these interactions are equilibrated in the model PCE. On the other hand, particles which decay through the weak interaction have much longer lifetimes than the typical time scale of the fluid ($`10`$ fm/$`c`$). So those particles are assumed to be chemically frozen in the model PCE. Below $`T^{\mathrm{ch}}`$, we can introduce chemical potential $`\mu _i`$ associated with the conserved particle numbers. The ratio of the conserved number including contribution from resonance decays $`\overline{N}_i(=N_i+_{ji}\stackrel{~}{d}_{jiX}N_j)`$ to the entropy $`S`$ has a constant value along an adiabatic path. Thus we obtain the chemical potential as a function of temperature from the equation $`\overline{n}_i(T,\mu _i)/s(T,\{\mu _i\})=\overline{n}_i(T^{\mathrm{ch}},\mu _i=0)/s(T^{\mathrm{ch}},\{\mu _i\}=0)`$, where $`n`$ and $`s`$ are, respectively, the particle number density and the entropy density. We regard $`\pi `$, $`K`$, $`\eta `$, $`N`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and its anti-particles as “stable” particles and chemical potentials for all hadrons are represented by chemical potentials associated with these stable hadrons, e.g., $`\mu _\rho =2\mu _\pi `$, $`\mu _K^{}=\mu _\pi +\mu _K`$, $`\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }=\mu _\pi +\mu _N`$ and so on. We note that the chemical potential of anti-nucleons is equal to that of nucleons in this model: $`\mu _{\overline{N}}=\mu _N`$.

## 3 RESULTS

We choose initial parameters so as to reproduce the pseudorapidity distribution of charged hadrons for central (0-6%) and non-central (35-45%) Au + Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}=130`$ GeV . The resultant maximum value of the initial energy density in collisions with vanishing impact parameter is 35 GeV/fm3 at the initial time $`\tau _0=0.6`$ fm/$`c`$. For collisions with finite impact parameters, the initial energy density is assumed to scale with the number of binary collisions. For details, see Ref. .

The transverse momentum spectra of negative charged hadrons observed by the STAR Collaboration  are compared with our results in Fig. 1. It is found that the $`p_t`$ slope is insensitive to the thermal freeze-out temperature $`T^{\mathrm{th}}`$ for the model PCE while the $`p_t`$ slope from the model CE depends on $`T^{\mathrm{th}}`$. This is a consequence of the suppression of radial flow due to the early chemical freeze-out . We reproduce the $`p_t`$ spectra below 1.0-1.5 GeV/$`c`$ and underestimate in higher $`p_t`$ region in the model PCE analysis. This indicates that the hard contribution becomes important above 1.5-2.0 GeV/$`c`$. It should be noted that contribution from non-thermalized high $`p_t`$ partons with an appropriate amount of energy loss can fill in the difference between hydro results and the experimental data in the moderate high $`p_t`$ region ($`2<p_t<5`$ GeV/$`c`$) .

We next show in Fig. 2 the pseudorapidity dependence of the second Fourier coefficient of azimuthal distribution $`v_2(\eta )`$. Here we choose $`T^{\mathrm{th}}=140`$ MeV for both models. Experimental data by PHOBOS  and STAR  are compared with our results. We see, as well as the radial flow, the elliptic flow is suppressed by taking into account the early chemical freeze-out. The shape of $`v_2(\eta )`$ is sensitive to the initial parameterization of energy density in the longitudinal direction. Bumps in forward and backward rapidity regions result from the crescent shape of initial energy density in transverse plane at space-time rapidity $`\eta _\mathrm{s}`$ 3-4 . We might check whether other initial parameters can lead us to reproduce $`dN/d\eta `$ and $`v_2(\eta )`$ simultaneously.

Finally, let us see the effect of the early chemical freeze-out on the HBT radii. Figure 3 shows $`R_{\mathrm{side}}`$, $`R_{\mathrm{out}}`$, $`R_{\mathrm{long}}`$ and $`R_{\mathrm{out}}/R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ as functions of the transverse momentum of negative pion pair $`K_T`$. We compare our results with experimental data by STAR  and PHENIX . $`R_{\mathrm{out}}`$ and $`R_{\mathrm{long}}`$ are reduced by the early chemical freeze-out. This mainly comes from the reduction of the lifetime of a fluid . We reproduce the $`K_T`$ dependence of $`R_{\mathrm{long}}`$ by the model PCE, so the longitudinal dynamics can be correctly described by a hydrodynamic model with the finite longitudinal size and the chemical non-equilibrium property. On the other hand, we cannot reproduce the transverse radii even in this model. Therefore the early chemical freeze-out is not the complete interpretation of the RHIC HBT puzzle.

## 4 SUMMARY

We investigated the effect of early chemical freeze-out on collective flow and HBT radii at the RHIC energy with a full 3D hydrodynamic model. It is found that radial flow, elliptic flow, $`R_{\mathrm{out}}`$ and $`R_{\mathrm{long}}`$ are reduced by considering the early chemical freeze-out. In this analysis, we took $`\mu _\mathrm{B}=0`$ as a first trial calculation. It might be interesting to construct a model PCE with $`\mu _\mathrm{B}0`$ and to discuss particle ratios and spectra simultaneously at various collision energies. This will be discussed elsewhere.


text:
# Untitled Document

SU-ITP-2/32 hep-th/0208047

Precursors see inside black holes

Veronika E. Hubenyveronika@itp.stanford.edu

Department of Physics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA

Abstract

We argue that, given the nonlocal nature of precursors in AdS/CFT correspondence, the boundary field theory contains information about events inside a black hole horizon. The essence of our proposal is sketched in figure 1, and relies on the global nature of event horizons.

August, 2002

1. Introduction

With the pressing problems related to string theory in cosmological settings, there has been a resurgence of interest in physics associated with interiors of black holes. So far, the best handle we have appears in the context of the AdS/CFT correspondence \[1,,2,,3,,4\], where string theory on AdS (which is a gravitational theory, and can contain black holes) has a dual description in terms of a field theory “living on the boundary”. The details of the correspondence remain yet to be unraveled, and its causal properties to be better understood; nevertheless, there are certain expectations on how the bulk information is to be holographically encoded on the boundary.

One system in which we can try to ask these questions is the large Schwarzschild black hole in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$. This is well known to correspond to an approximately thermal state in the gauge theory. The spacetime has an event horizon, i.e. the black hole interior is causally disconnected from the boundary. One may then ask: Is the physics inside the event horizon encoded by the boundary theory? Affirmative answer immediately leads to the more ambitious question1 Such questions have been considered previously \[5,,6,,7,,8\], but despite extensive work, these issues still remain somewhat obscure. The holographic representation of horizons in terms of the dual gauge theory has also been discussed \[9,,10,,11,,12,,13\]; we believe that the lack of complete success in this venue stems largely from the global nature of the horizon.: How? Once this is understood, one may hope to come closer to the resolution of the black hole information paradox, as well as to get a better handle on the singularity inside the horizon. While these are certainly worthy—and rather lofty—goals by themselves, a better understanding and “resolution” of spacelike singularities would provide a new window into studying cosmological singularities in string theory.

In this brief note, we point out that under the commonly-accepted assumption of precursors, at least part of the spacetime inside the horizon will be accessible to the field theory. In the following we will explain this idea in more detail, using a simple gedanken experiment which exemplifies it. No explicit calculations are presented, since it is the matter-of-principle point that we wish to stress.

2. Gedanken experiment

Let us, for the moment, consider pure AdS, without any black hole present. Even certain local boundary operators contain a remarkable amount of information about static objects deep inside the bulk of AdS ; but since such operators are determined only from the asymptotic values of the bulk fields, any dynamical information is propagated out in a manner consistent with bulk causality. In particular, no local operators on the boundary can see events inside a causally disconnected region, such as a black hole. However, as has been argued \[15,,16,,17\], an event in the bulk is actually encoded by nonlocal operators on the boundary, with the associated scale dictated by the UV/IR correspondence \[18,,19\]. A concrete proposal has been put forth that such operators are decorated Wilson loops. While this has not yet been proved2 The identification of precursors with Wilson loops has been suggested in  and expanded in ; while the latter’s calculation was challenged by , further analysis  suggested that the precursor information is coded in high frequency components of Wilson loops, or the so-called decorated Wilson loops., the essential point is the existence of some set of nonlocal operators encoding the bulk, apparently “instantaneously”, i.e. before any message sent from the event could reach the boundary.

If we accept this assumption, the fact that the boundary field theory must also contain some information about physics inside a horizon follows almost immediately. (A similar observation has been made recently in , but their attempts at exemplifying the process through “flossing the black hole” cast some doubt on the possibility of extracting information from inside the horizon. Here we suggest a much simpler process, which does not rely on inconclusive tree level computations.) The event horizon is a global object, defined as the boundary of the past of the future infinity, which means that we cannot determine the presence or position of the event horizon until we know the entire future evolution of the spacetime. In particular, an innocent-looking, empty, locally AdS part of spacetime can in fact be an interior of a black hole, if later there forms a large enough black hole for its horizon to stretch far enough into the past to encompass the event in question.

Fig. 1: Sketch of the proposed process of abstracting information from inside of the horizon: a) An event $`p`$, in locally pure AdS space is measured by $`W`$. b) After this measurement is performed, a shell $`s`$ collapses, forming a black hole with a horizon $`H`$ which encompasses $`p`$.

Taking advantage of this fact, we can consider the following gedanken experiment: Start with “empty” AdS space, and consider some event, labeled $`p`$ in Fig.1a. As a boundary observer, one can obtain instantaneous information about the event $`p`$, for instance by measuring3 While it was argued  that a Wilson loop cannot be measured in the conventional non-demolition sense, it can be measured in a suitable demolition experiment, such as sketched out in , which is all we need for the present argument. appropriately decorated Wilson loop $`W`$. After this measurement has been made, i.e. entirely to the future of $`W`$, one can send in a shell $`s`$ of radiation with sufficient energy such that when it implodes in the center of AdS, it forms a large black hole, as sketched in Fig.1b. If the shell is spherically symmetric, the spacetime everywhere outside this shell will be that of Schwarzschild-$`AdS_5\times S^5`$, whereas inside the shell the spacetime is described by pure $`AdS_5\times S^5`$. The global event horizon for this spacetime will be obtained by tracing back the radially outgoing null rays, denoted by $`H`$ in Fig.1b. As apparent from Fig.1, these can originate at the center of AdS prior to $`p`$. In particular, provided the shell is sent in within time of order the AdS radius, one can always make the resulting black hole large enough for its horizon to encompass the event $`p`$.

Fig. 2: Penrose diagram of the proposed process of abstracting information from inside of the horizon corresponding to the sketch in Fig.1b.

This implies that one has in fact succeeded in “measuring” an event, $`p`$, which is inside a black hole horizon. This is seen more clearly from the corresponding Penrose diagram, Fig.2.

3. Discussion

Several comments about this process are in order. First, while we claim that, through precursors, the boundary field theory encodes some information about events in the interior of black holes, our claim does not imply violations of causality. This is simply because the “measurement”, $`W`$, is not local. No message is being sent between any two spacelike-separated points. Correspondingly, one might then object that 1) a local field theory observer can’t set up the collapse of the shell fast enough if he waits till after $`W`$ to decide whether to collapse the shell or not, and 2) a single local observer cannot get any information out of the nonlocal operator $`W`$ before the shell is to be sent in. Both of these statements are true, but they do not contradict the claim that there is some quantity, $`W`$, which encodes some information about $`p`$, and yet is unaffected (due to the causality of the local quantum field theory on the boundary) by the eventual creation of the horizon. In fact, this is suggestive of the generic expectation that extracting information out of black holes must necessarily involve some nonlocal physics.

Another objection that one might raise concerns the sudden creation of the shell’s energy, i.e. that there is a source introduced on the boundary. This however does not refute the basic point that $`p`$ can be measured despite being inside the horizon. One may alternately set up the experiment with the shell’s energy being present for all time, as long as the shell implodes and creates a black hole when required. We have been talking about a “shell” without specifying how it is to be constructed from string theory, because such detailed information is also irrelevant to the basic point. One can in fact consider more complicated nonspherical geometries, such as several colliding gravitational shock waves, which may nevertheless be easier to discuss in the dual field theory .

Clearly, for obtaining a specific demonstration of extracting information from a black hole, we would first need to specify exactly all the components in our set-up before any explicit calculation could be carried out. So far, the main obstacle to verifying our claim by an explicit computation is the incomplete understanding of the holographic encoding of the bulk, namely the exact nature of $`W`$. A possible simplification is to work in lower dimensions where exact solutions are easier to find, such as in $`AdS_3\times S^3\times T^4`$; however, even in this context, sufficient understanding of the precursors has not yet been achieved.

It is not clear from our construction how much information one can actually extract out of the black hole, and what part of the spacetime inside the black hole can one extract information about. In the above example, we claimed that we can learn something about the part of spacetime to the past of the shell, since there the picture is the same as for pure AdS. In terms of Fig.2, our process can access the left wedge, but it is less clear whether we can similarly extract any information from the top wedge. Since the left wedge is still far form the singularity, one might worry that our proposal cannot hope address the motivation of resolving the singularity. This does not appear to be a fundamental obstacle, since one may hope to get closer to the singularity by considering different types of collapse.

In summary, we are still faced with the outstanding question of whether or not the gauge theory can probe physics inside the event horizon. Since this region is causally disconnected from the boundary, one may fear that the existence of the horizon will prevent the gauge theory from “seeing” what goes on behind it, as is true for the local operators. In this note we have shown that, given the existence of precursors, which are nonlocal operators, one can find situations in which the boundary theory does know about events behind the horizon. While our gedanken experiment does not address extracting any information from an existing black hole, it demonstrates the important point that the causal properties of the horizon do not pose a fundamental obstacle to learning something about the physics behind it. Once this crucial causal obstacle is removed, extracting all information out of black holes may seem more hopeful.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Lenny Susskind and Steve Shenker for encouraging me to write-up the idea, and Gary Horowitz for initial discussions. This work was supported by NSF Grant PHY-9870115.

References

relax J. Maldacena, The Large N Limit of Superconformal Field Theories and Supergravity, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 231, hep-th/9711200. relax E. Witten, Anti De Sitter Space And Holography, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 253, hep-th/9802150. relax S. Gubser, I. Klebanov, and A. Polyakov, Gauge Theory Correlators from Non-Critical String Theory, Phys. Lett. B428 (1998) 105, hep-th/9802109. relax O. Aharony, S.S. Gubser, J. Maldacena, H. Ooguri, Y. Oz, Large N Field Theories, String Theory and Gravity, Phys. Rept. 323 (2000) 183, hep-th/9905111. relax V. Balasubramanian and S. F. Ross, Holographic Particle Detection, Phys. Rev. D61 (2000) 044007, hep-th/9906226 relax J. Louko, D. Marolf, and S. F. Ross, On geodesic propagators and black hole holography, Phys.Rev. D62 (2000) 044041, hep-th/0002111. relax S. B. Giddings and M. Lippert, Precursors, black holes, and a locality bound, Phys. Rev. D 65, 024006 (2002), hep-th/0103231. relax J. M. Maldacena, Eternal black holes in Anti-de-Sitter, hep-th/0106112. relax T. Banks, M. R. Douglas, G. T. Horowitz and E. J. Martinec, AdS dynamics from conformal field theory, hep-th/9808016. relax V. Balasubramanian, P. Kraus, A. E. Lawrence and S. P. Trivedi, Holographic probes of anti-de Sitter space-times, Phys. Rev. D 59, 104021 (1999), hep-th/9808017. relax D. Kabat and G. Lifschytz, Gauge theory origins of supergravity causal structure, JHEP 9905, 005 (1999), hep-th/9902073. relax U. H. Danielsson, E. Keski-Vakkuri and M. Kruczenski, Black hole formation in AdS and thermalization on the boundary, JHEP 0002, 039 (2000) hep-th/9912209. relax J. P. Gregory and S. F. Ross, Looking for event horizons using UV/IR relations, Phys. Rev. D 63, 104023 (2001), hep-th/0012135. relax G. T. Horowitz and V. E. Hubeny, CFT description of small objects in AdS, JHEP 0010, 027 (2000), hep-th/0009051. relax J. Polchinski, L. Susskind, and N. Toumbas, Negative Energy, Superluminosity and Holography, Phys.Rev. D60 (1999) 084006, hep-th/990322. relax L. Susskind and N. Toumbas, Wilson Loops as Precursors, Phys.Rev. D61 (2000) 044001, hep-th/9909013 . relax B. Freivogel, S. B. Giddings and M. Lippert, Toward a theory of precursors, hep-th/0207083. relax L. Susskind and E. Witten, The Holographic Bound in Anti-de Sitter Space, hep-th/9805114. relax A. Peet and J. Polchinski, UV/IR Relations in AdS Dynamics, Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 065011, hep-th/9809022. relax D. Beckman, D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev and J. Preskill, Measurability of Wilson loop operators, Phys. Rev. D 65, 065022 (2002), hep-th/0110205. relax G. Horowitz and N. Itzhaki, Black Holes, Shock Waves, and Causality in the AdS/CFT Correspondence, JHEP 9902 (1999) 010, hep-th/9901012