text:
# Preprint MPI-PhT/2002-06 Lessons of Coherence and Decoherence–From Neutrinos to SQUIDS

## I The Unitarity Deficit Formula

A result of this work is that there is a simple and illuminating formula for the decoherence rate. There is a quantity $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, given by the flux of the surrounding particles or excitations, and the $`S`$ matrix for the interaction of our system (e.g. the chiral molecule) with these surroundings:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=i(flux)<i|(1S_LS_R^{})|i>$$
(1)
The imaginary part gives the decoherence rate or loss of phase coherence per unit time $`D`$:

$$D=Im\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(2)
(The real part also has a significance, a level shift induced by the surroundings. This turns out to be a neat way to find the index of refraction formula for a particle in a medium .)

The labels (L,R) on the $`S`$ refer to which state of the molecule (or other system) is doing the interacting with the surroundings. Here with (L,R) we have taken the case of the simplest non-trivial system, the two-level system.

These equations may be derived by thinking of the S-matrix as the operator which transforms the initial state of an incoming object into the final state. If the different states (L,R) of our system scatter the object differently, a “lack of overlap” or “unitarity deficit” as given by Eq  arises. These intuitive arguments can also supported by more formal manipulations .

An important point that we see here, in Eq , is that the environment “chooses a direction in hilbert space”. That is, there is some direction (here L,R) in the internal space of the system under study (the molecule) that is left unchanged–is not “flipped”– by the interaction with the surroundings. Such states however get a phase factor by the interaction, and this is the decoherence . If the interaction did not distinguish some direction, if we had $`S_L=S_R`$ then the formula tells us there would be no decoherence . This is intuitively correct in accord with one’s ideas about “measurement”. If the probe does not distinguish any state there are no “wavefunction collapses” and no decoherence takes place. (This is not meant to imply sanctioning of “wavefunction collapses” in any way.)

Another simple limit for the formula occurs when only one state interacts, say no interaction for L, or $`S_L=1`$. Then one finds that the decoherence rate is 1/2 the scattering rate for the interacting component . Thus Eqs  have two interesting limits:

$$S_L=S_RD=0,nodecoherence$$
(3)
and

$$S_L=1D=1/2(scatteringrateofR)$$
(4)
The latter followed from an application of the optical theorem. With appropriate evaluation of the S-matrices, Eqs  can be applied to many types of problems, like quantum dots  or neutrinos , or even gravity .

Eq  is quite interesting in that it says the system can interact but nevertheless retain its internal coherence. A lesson here is that one shouldn’t think that every interaction or disturbance “decoheres” or “reduces” the system. The system can interact quite a bit as long as the interactions don’t distinguish the different internal states.

## II A common misconception

The fact that the interaction responsible for the decoherence must “choose a direction in hilbert space” has some interesting implications. One of these has to do with the decoherence of a free particle in some background environment.

Eq  was for a two-state system, and the extension to a larger number of states, as long as it is a finite number, can be easily envisioned as following the logic used in finding Eq . However if we go to the continuum, that is if we have a infinite number of states, the problem becomes more subtle. The most common example of this is the free particle which, say in the limit of an infinitely large “box”, is described as system of continuous, dense, levels.

A number of authors, in talking about this system, have automatically assumed, as indeed first seems plausible, that at long times the particle under the influence of some continually interacting environment becomes totally “decohered”; in the sense that the density matrix of the particle $`\rho (x,x^{})`$ approaches the situation of no off-diagonal elements, that $`\rho `$ approaches a $`\delta `$ function.

Although this may seem plausible, that under the repeated bombardment by the surroundings the particle becomes more and more “decohered”, it is in fact wrong

$$\rho (x,x^{})\delta (xx^{})wrong$$
(5)
Consider the simplest case, that of a thermal environment. On general grounds we expect the particle in a thermal environment to be described by the boltzmann factor, to be given by a density matrix operator $`\rho e^{H/T}`$, where T is the temperature and H the hamiltonian, say $`p^2/2m`$ for a non-relativistic particle. Now evaluate this operator in the position representation:

$$\rho (x,x^{})=<x|e^{p^2/2mT}|x^{}>d^3pe^{i𝐩(𝐱𝐱^{})p^2/2mT}e^{(xx^{})^2MT/2}$$
(6)
This is the stationary, long time value of $`\rho `$. It applies for nearly any state we care to initially throw into the medium. Evidently it shows no signs of changing and certainly no sign of turning into a $`\delta `$ function. Of course at high temperature our expression will resemble a delta function. The practical importance of this will depend on the other length scales in the problem at hand. The point we wish to make, however, is of a conceptual nature, namely that repeated interactions with the environment don’t necessarily lead to more “decoherence”. Indeed Eq  says if we were initially to put $`\delta (xx^{})`$ or some other “highly incoherent” density matrix into the medium, the density matrix of the particle would become more coherent with time— until it reached the value Eq . Apparently the medium can “give coherence” to a state that never had any to start with.

“Creating coherence” by an outside influence is not as mysterious as it may sound, there are familiar cases where we know this already. For example, using a high resolution detector can “create a long wavepacket”  or in particle physics neutral $`K`$ oscillations and the like may be enhanced or “created” by using some subset of our total event sample, such as a “flavor tag”.

Where did the seemingly plausible argument or feeling about the indefinitely increasing decoherence go wrong? It’s the question of the “direction chosen in hilbert space”. The feeling is right, but we must know where to apply it. As we can see from the boltzmann factor, thermodynamics likes to work in momentum (actually energy) space. The intuition would have been right there,–in momentum space– but this then means something non-trivial in position space. The lesson here is that the notion of “decoherence by the environment” must be understood to include a statement about the “direction chosen in hilbert space” by that environment .

## III Mesoscopic systems

The interest in these issues has had a revival with the advances made possible by the technologies of mesoscopic systems. In one such system, the “quantum dot observed by the QPC”, one has a complete model of the measurement process, including the “observer”, “who” in this case is a quantum point contact (QPC) . In a slight generalization of the original experiment  one can see how not only the density matrix of the object being observed is “reduced” by the observing process, but also see how the readout current–the “observer” responds. In particular one may see how effects looking very much like the “collapse of the wavefunction”, that is sequences of repeated or “telegraphic” signals indicating one or another of the two states of the quantum dot, arise. All this without putting in any “collapses” by hand .

We should stress that what we are not only talking about a reduction of fringe contrast due to “observing” or disturbing an interference experiment, as in ; and also in interesting experiments in quantum optics where an environment is simulated  or different branches of the interferometer  interact differently and adjustably with the radiation in a cavity (like our two S-matrices). By the “collapses” however, we are referring not so much to the interferometer itself as to the signal from some “observing” system, like the current in the qpc. With repeated probing of the same object (say electron or atom), in the limit of strong “observation” this signal repeats itself —-this is the “collapse”. For not too strong observation there is an intermediate character of the signal, and so on. All this may be understood by considering the amplitude for the interference arrangement and the readout procedure to give a certain result . The properties of the readout signal naturally stand in some relation to the loss of coherence or “fringe contrast” of the interference effect under study.

Following this line of thought we come to the idea that there should be some relation between the fluctuations of a readout signal and decoherence. Indeed the decoherence rate, the imaginary part of Eq  is a dissipative parameter in some sense; it characterizes the rate of loss of coherence. Now there is the famous “dissipation- fluctuation theorem”, which says that dissipative parameters are related to fluctuations in the system. Is there some such relationship here? Indeed, one is able to derive a relation between the fluctuations of the readout current and the value of $`D`$. The interesting and perhaps practical lesson here is that the decoherence parameter can be observed in two ways. One is the direct way, just observe the damping out of the coherent oscillations of the system in question. Experimentally, this involves starting the system in a definite, selected state. However, as just explained, there is a second way; namely observe the fluctuations of the readout. This can be done even if the system is in the totally “decohered” $`\rho I`$ state.

Another mesoscopic system, the SQUID and in particular the rf SQUID, has been long discussed as a candidate for showing that even macroscopic objects are subject to the rules of quantum mechanics. The rf SQUID, a Josephson device where a supercurrent goes around a ring, can have two distinct states, right- or left- circulation of the current. These two conditions apparently differ greatly, since a macroscopic number of electrons change direction. It would be a powerful argument for the universality of the quantum rules if one could demonstrate the meaningfulness of quantum linear combinations of these two states.

Such linear combinations can in principle be produced since there is some amplitude for a tunneling between the two configurations. In fact this was recently manifested through the observation of the “repulsion of levels” to be anticipated if the configurations of opposite current do behave as quantum states.

Another approach, where we would directly “see” the meaningfulness of the relative quantum phase of the two configurations, is the method of “adiabatic inversion” . This method also offers the possibility of a direct measurement of the decoherence time. In adiabatic inversion the “spin” representing a two-level system  is made to “follow” a slowly moving “magnetic field” (meant symbolically, as an analogy to spin precession physics), which is swept from “up” to “down”. In this way the system can be made to invert its direction in “spin space”, that is to reverse states and go from one direction of circulation of the current to the other. This inversion is an intrinsically quantum phenomenon. If it occurs it shows that the phases between the two configurations were physically meaningful and that they behave quantum mechanically . This may be dramatically manifested if we let decoherence destroy the phase relation between the two configurations. Now the configurations act classically and the inversion is blocked.

We thus predict that when the decoherence rate is low the inversion takes place, and when it is high it does not. Figs 1 and 2 show the idea of this procedure.

Since in such an experiment we have the sweep speed at our disposal, we have a way of determining the decoherence time. It is simply the slowest sweep time for which the inversion is successful. We must only be sure that for the sweep speeds in question the the conditions remain adiabatic.

Setting up the adiabatic condition and taking some estimates for the decoherence time, it appears that the various requirements can be met  when operating at low temperature. Hence it may be realistically possible to move between the classical and quantum mechanical worlds–to turn quantum mechanics “on and off” in one experiment. This would be a beautiful experiment, the main open question being if the estimates of the decoherence rate are in fact realistic, since we are entering a realm which has not been explored before.

## IV Adiabatic logic elements and the quantum computer

A two-state system behaving quantum mechanically can serve as the physical embodiment of a quantum mechanical bit, the “qbit”. Furthermore, the adiabatic inversion procedure just described amounts to a quantum realization of one of the basic elements of computer logic: the NOT. If one configuration is identified as 1 and the other as 0, then the inversion turns a linear combination of 1 and 0 into a linear combination of 0 and 1 with reversed weights.

We can try to push this idea of “adiabatic logic” a step further. NOT was a one bit operation. The next most complicated logic operation is a two bit operation, which we may take to be “controlled not” or CNOT. In CNOT the two bits are called the control bit and the target bit, and the operation consists of performing or not performing a NOT on the target bit, according to the state of the control bit.

To realize CNOT, an idea which suggests itself  as a generalization of adiabatic inversion is the following. We have a two bit operation and so two SQUIDS. These are devices with magnetic fields. Now if one SQUID, the target bit, is undergoing a NOT operation, it can be influenced by the control bit, a second nearby SQUID, through its linking flux. We could imagine that this linking flux can be arranged so that it helps or hinders the NOT operation according to the state of the second SQUID. This would amount to a realization of “controlled not”, again by means of an adiabatic sweep.

To analyze this proposal we must set up the two-variable Schroedinger equation describing the two devices and their interaction. The result is a hamiltonian with the usual kinetic energy terms and a potential energy term in the two variables, which in this case are the fluxes in the SQUIDS, $`\varphi _1,\varphi _2`$:

$$V=\frac{1}{2}V_0\left\{[l_1(\varphi _1\varphi _1^{ext})^2+l_2(\varphi _2\varphi _2^{ext})^22l_{12}(\varphi _2\varphi _2^{ext})(\varphi _1\varphi _1^{ext})]+\beta _1f(\varphi _1)+\beta _2f(\varphi _2)\right\}.$$
(7)
The $`\varphi ^{ext}`$ are external biases which in general will be time varying. The $`l^{}s`$ are dimensionless inductances and $`l_{12}`$ represents the coupling between the two devices. The $`f(\varphi )`$ are symmetric functions starting at one and decreasing with increasing $`\varphi `$ so as to produce a double well potential when combined with the quadratic term; in the SQUID $`f(\varphi )=cos(\varphi )`$. Fig. 3 shows this “potential landscape” for some typical values of the parameters.

Given the hamiltonian, we must search for values of the control parameters $`\varphi ^{ext}`$, the “external fields”, which can be adiabatically varied in such a way as to produce CNOT. Preliminary analysis indicates favorable regimes of the rather complex parameter space where this can in fact be done .

## V Some Experimental Proposals

Finally we would like to recall that there are still some fundamental and beautiful experiments waiting to be done in these areas.

A) One is the demonstration of the large effects of parity violation for appropriately chosen and contained handed molecules . Because of what we now call decoherence this seemed very remote at the time. But now with the existence of single atom/molecule traps and related techniques, perhaps it’s not so hopeless.

B) Another, concerned with fundamentals of quantum mechanics, could be called the “adjustable collapse of the wavefunction” where the “strength of observing” can be varied, leading to effects like washing out of interferences, as already seen in  and a number of further predictions where we vary the qualities of the “observer” , or slowing down of relaxation according to the rate of probing of the object .

C) Then there is the second way of measuring $`D`$, through the fluctuations in the readout signal, even for a fully “decohered” system.

D) Finally there is the direct demonstration of quantum linear combinations of big objects by the method of adiabatic inversion; “turning quantum mechanics on and off” .

Many of the questions we have briefly touched upon had their origins in an unease with certain consequences of quantum mechanics, often as “paradoxes” and “puzzles”. It is amusing to see how, as we get used to them, the “paradoxes” fade and yield to a more concrete understanding, sometimes even with consequences for practical physics or engineering. If we avoid overselling and some tendency to an inflation of vocabulary, we can anticipate a bright and interesting future for “applied fundamentals of quantum mechanics”.


format: text

text:
# Quantum Search with Two-atom Collisions in Cavity QED

## Abstract

We propose a scheme to implement two-qubit Grover’s quantum search algorithm using Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics. Circular Rydberg atoms are used as quantum bits (qubits). They interact with the electromagnetic field of a non-resonant cavity . The quantum gate dynamics is provided by a cavity-assisted collision, robust against decoherence processes. We present the detailed procedure and analyze the experimental feasibility.

Quantum mechanics makes it possible in principle to realize new information processing functions , ranging from the relatively simple quantum cryptography protocols  to complex quantum calculation algorithms . They are based on manipulations of quantum entanglement between two-level quantum systems or qubits.

The practical implementation of quantum information processing, requiring an excellent isolation of the qubits from the environment, puts very severe constraints on the experimental systems. Many efforts have been recently devoted to the evaluation of various experimental approaches to quantum bits and quantum gates: trapped ions , cavity quantum electrodynamics , liquid state NMR , superconducting mesocircuits . They culminated in the implementation of simple quantum algorithms .

In this context, cavity QED with circular Rydberg atoms and superconducting cavities presents a peculiar interest. The qubits are carried by long lived atomic levels or cavity states. Both the initial and final states of these qubits can be determined precisely. The resonant atom-cavity interaction, resulting in an energy exchange between the atom and the field, provides a direct mechanism to entangle the atomic and the cavity states  or to realize an atom-cavity quantum gate . Using successive interactions of a series of atoms with the same cavity mode, we have tailored various entangled states such as EPR pairs  and GHZ triplets of entangled particles . In these experiments, the quantum information is transiently stored in the cavity mode. The final fidelity is thus limited by the cavity losses, which are the main cause of decoherence.

We have recently demonstrated an alternative approach to quantum entanglement generation in cavity QED . Two atoms directly interact with each other through a van der Waals interaction, assisted by the cavity mode. The entanglement dynamics only involves the virtual exchange of a photon with the field. To first order, the scheme is insensitive to cavity losses or to the presence of a stray thermal field in the mode. This new type of quantum gate opens interesting perspectives for quantum information processing in the cavity QED context. We show here that a simple extension of this experiment can be used to implement the two-qubit Grover search algorithm, with a high fidelity. This is the first proposal, to our knowledge, of implementation of this search algorithm in CQED. Note that cavity QED implementation of another algorithm has been independently proposed

Let us recall briefly the main features of Grover’s search algorithm . The goal is to find one item among $`N`$, which are stored in an unsorted database. The database can be accessed by an “oracle”, a “Black box” comparing any item with the searched one. It gives the “Yes” answer when the items match, “No” overwise. The most efficient classical algorithm is to examine items one by one until the blackbox returns “Yes”. On average, $`N/2`$ inquires are necessary. In the quantum search algorithm, multiple items are simultaneously examined using a superposition of the corresponding states. The quantum search for the marked item requires only $`O(\sqrt{N})`$ inquires.

More precisely, the database items are represented by a quantum register with $`n`$ qubits, having $`N=2^n`$ possible states, $`|0=|000\mathrm{}0`$, $`|1=|000\mathrm{}1`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`|2^n1=|111\mathrm{}1`$. Let us assume that the marked item corresponds to state $`|\tau `$ and that the “Yes”/“No” answer from this blackbox is coded in a $`\pi /0`$ phase shift. The transformation performed by the oracle is thus $`I_\tau =I2|\tau \tau |`$, where $`I`$ is the $`2^n\times 2^n`$ identity matrix on the quantum register. Note that $`I_\tau `$ amounts to a conditional phase operation. The algorithm consists in a repetition of the transformation:

$$QHI_0HI_\tau ,$$
(1)
(time proceeds from right to left), where $`I_0=I2|00|`$ and $`H=_i^nH_i`$ is the product of Hadamard gates acting on the $`i`$-th qubit. $`H_i`$ transforms each qubit as

$$H_i:\{\begin{array}{c}|0_i\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0_i+|1_i)\\ |1_i\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0_i|1_i)\end{array}$$
(2)
The sequence of $`Q`$ operations acts on a state prepared initially in $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=_i^n|\psi _i`$, where $`|\psi _i=H_i|0_i`$. The initial state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a superposition of all computational states with equal amplitudes, $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}_{i=1}^N|i`$. All states are then examined simultaneously by the blackbox, $`I_\tau `$. Only state $`|\tau `$ gains minus sign and the resulting register state is $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\left(_{i\tau }|i|\tau \right)`$. The operators $`HI_0H`$ finally perform an “inversion about the average” operation, which increases the probablity amplitude of $`|\tau `$. After $`O(\sqrt{N})`$ iterations of this elementary transformation, the probability to get the register in state $`|\tau `$ is maximum and of the order of unity. A simple read-out of the register provides thus the searched item.

In the simple case case of two qubits ($`n=2`$), on which we will focus from now on, there are only $`4`$ items, $`|0=|00`$, $`|1=|01`$, $`|2=|10`$ and $`|3=|11`$. After the first oracle operation, the average of the amplitudes of the four states, $`\frac{1}{2}`$ for $`i\tau `$ and $`\frac{1}{2}`$ for $`i=\tau `$, is $`\frac{1}{4}`$, and the inversion about $`\frac{1}{4}`$ leads to the amplitudes $`0`$ for $`i\tau `$ and 1 for $`i=\tau `$. Grover’s search thus requires only one tranformation $`Q`$ and one inquiry of the blackbox (note that the classical search requires in this case two inquiries on the average).

The $`H_i`$ transformations are single qubits gates, easily performed in any physical implementation. The most critical part of the algorithm is the realization of the $`I_\tau `$ and $`I_0`$ transformations, which produce an entangled state of the two qubits. We show now that the Grover operation $`Q`$ reduces to single qubit gates and to two applications of the quantum phase gate $`I_{QPG}`$, defined by the unitary matrix:

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)I_{\mathrm{QPG}}$$
(3)
The operators $`I_\tau `$ can be obtained by adding rotations of qubits 1 and 2 about $`z`$-axis of $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _2`$, respectively, to $`I_{\mathrm{QPG}}`$:

$`Z_1(\theta _1)Z_2(\theta _2)I_{\mathrm{QPG}}=I_{\mathrm{QPG}}Z_1(\theta _1)Z_2(\theta _2)`$ (4)
$`=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}e^{\frac{i}{2}(\theta _1+\theta _2)}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& e^{\frac{i}{2}(\theta _1\theta _2)}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& e^{\frac{i}{2}(\theta _1\theta _2)}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& e^{\frac{i}{2}(\theta _1+\theta _2)}\end{array}\right).`$ (5)
The relevant rotation angles $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _2`$ are $`(\pi ,\pi )`$, $`(0,\pi )`$, $`(\pi ,0)`$ and $`(0,0)`$ for implementing $`I_\tau `$ up to a global phase ($`|\tau =|00`$, $`|01`$, $`|10`$, and $`|11`$, respectively).

The sequence described by Eq.(1) for 2-bit Grover’s algorithm can be decomposed as

$$\left[H_1Z_1(\pi )\right]\left[H_2Z_2(\pi )\right]I_{\mathrm{QPG}}HI_{\mathrm{QPG}}\left[Z_1(\theta _1)H_1\right]\left[Z_2(\theta _2)H_2\right].$$
(6)
It can be further simplified by the relationship,

$$Z_i(\pm \theta )=H_iX_i(\theta )H_i,$$
(7)
where $`X_i(\theta )`$ corresponds to the unitary transformation,

$$\begin{array}{c}|0_j\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}|0_j+i\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}|1_j,\\ |1_ji\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}|0_j+\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}|1_j.\end{array}$$
(8)
Using $`H_i^2=1`$, the final transformation performing the whole Grover search writes thus:

$$SI_{\mathrm{QPG}}HI_{\mathrm{QPG}}P.$$
(9)
In Eq.(9), $`S`$ and $`P`$ are abbreviations for the operations $`S_1S_2`$ and $`P_1(\theta _1)P_2(\theta _2)`$, respectively. The operation $`S_j`$ is defined as $`X_i(\pi )H_j`$ and writes explicitely,

$$S_j:\{\begin{array}{c}|0\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}(|0|1)\\ |1\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}(|0|1)\end{array}.$$
(10)
The transformations $`P_j(\theta )H_jX_j(\theta )`$ can be written also in a compact form as

$`P_j(\theta ):\{\begin{array}{c}|0_j\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(e^{\frac{i\theta }{2}}|0_j+e^{\frac{i\theta }{2}}|1_j)\\ |1_j\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(e^{\frac{i\theta }{2}}|0_je^{\frac{i\theta }{2}}|1_j)\end{array}`$ (11)
We have thus finally expressed the Grover search as a simple sequence of single qubits rotations interrupted by two quantum phase gate operations only.

The scheme of the proposed implementation is displayed on figure 1. The cavity $`C`$ is a Fabry-Perot resonator sustaining a resonant mode with a gaussian transverse geometry and a standing wave pattern along the cavity axis. Two atomic beams effusing from the same oven $`O`$ cross the superconducting millimeter- wave cavity $`C`$ at two separate antinodes in the mode standing wave. Two atoms $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$, carrying qubits 1 and 2, are simultaneously prepared in box $`B`$ in each atomic beam into a high lying circular Rydberg state. The relevant atomic levels ($`|e_j`$, $`|g_j`$, and $`|i_j`$) are shown in Fig.1. The logical states $`1`$ and $`0`$ of qubit 1 are represented by $`|e_1`$ and $`|g_1`$ states of A1 respectively. Qubit 2 uses instead as logical levels 1 and 0 states $`|i_2`$ and $`|g_2`$ of A2 respectively (this choice is imposed by the quantum phase gate operation). Both atoms have the same velocity $`v`$. They interact together with the cavity mode and are finally detected separately in the state-selective field ionization detectors $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$.

While they cross the cavity mode, the atoms undergo single qubits rotations (transformations $`P`$, $`H`$ and $`S`$). They are produced by external classical microwave sources resonant on the $`eg`$ transition for $`A_1`$ and $`gi`$ transition for $`A_2`$. The amplitude and phase of these sources are carefully tuned to produce the required transformations. It is important that the microwave used for atom $`A_1`$ does not affect atom $`A_2`$ by mixing the $`g`$ and $`e`$ levels. In the same way, the microwave used for $`A_2`$ must not interact with $`A_1`$. It is thus essential that the atomic transitions have slightly different frequencies for the two atoms. We plan to use a set of electrodes creating in the cavity an inhomogeneous electric field, used to tune the atomic transitions through the Stark effect. Since the two atoms experience different fields, their frequencies can be controlled independently. Separate interactions with the two classical microwave sources can then be tailored.

In between these single qubit rotations, the atoms experience two dispersive interactions with the cavity mode providing, through the cavity-assisted van der Waals collision, the quantum phase gate $`I_{QPG}`$ dynamics. For these interactions, the inhomogeneous component of the cavity field is suppressed. A voltage applied across the cavity mirrors provide an homogeneous field used to tune the common atomic frequencies at the proper value.

Let us now describe in more details the cavity assisted van der Waals collision between $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$. The cavity field is assumed to be in its vacuum state at the beginning of the two-atom interaction. In a dispersive regime, where the detuning $`\delta `$ between the $`eg`$ atomic transition frequency $`\omega _0`$ and the cavity frequency $`\omega `$ is much greater than the atom-cavity coupling $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ ($`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }`$), the Hamiltonian for the two-atom system can be approximated by the effective expression

$$H_{eff}=\lambda \left[\underset{j=1,2}{}|e_je_j|+(S_1^+S_2^{}+S_1^{}S_2^+)\right],$$
(12)
where $`\lambda =\mathrm{\Omega }^2/4\delta `$, $`S_j^+=|e_jg_j|`$ and $`S_j^{}=|g_je_j|`$. The first sum in $`H_{eff}`$ describes the cavity Lamb shift (or vacuum light shift) experienced by the two atoms. The second term describes the energy exchange between the atoms mediated by the cavity field.

When the interaction time $`t`$ is chosen so that $`\lambda t=\pi `$, the two-atom system undergoes the transition,

$$\begin{array}{c}|g_1|g_2|g_1|g_2,\\ |g_1|i_2|g_1|i_2,\\ |e_1|g_2|e_1|g_2,\\ |e_1|i_2|e_1|i_2.\end{array}$$
(13)
This transformation corresponds to a conditional quantum phase gate (QPG) between the two qubits.

Let us discuss now the practical feasibility of this experiment. The coupling of the atoms to the cavity field is $`\mathrm{\Omega }/2\pi `$ = 50kHz. In order to get a good entanglement in the cavity enhanced collision, the detuning $`\delta `$ should be much larger than $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We choose here $`\delta /2\pi =4\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This setting matches the dispersive regime requirement and provides a gate operation well described by $`H_{eff}`$. With this setting, the atom-cavity interaction time should be $`2.5\times 10^4`$ s to allow for two QPG gates operation. The time needed for the single qubit rotations is negligible at this scale. The velocity of the atoms should thus be of the order of 40 m/s. This value is within reach of simple atomic beam techniques with transverse laser cooling to increase the density of slow atoms. The total interaction time with the mode is thus 120 $`\mu `$s, short compared to the photon lifetime, 1 ms in the present cavity .

We have performed a numerical simulation of the experiment to estimate the achievable fidelity. We used for that the exact hamiltonian describing the non resonant atom field coupling, in order to test the validity of the effective hamiltonian (12) approximation. Since the field in the cavity is only virtually populated, dissipation effects were not considered.

As is shown in Fig. 2(a) an efficiency of $`94\%`$ is achieved. The limited fidelity is due to that the real hamiltonian does not exactly produce the $`I_{QPG}`$ realized by its approximation $`H_{eff}`$. We also considered in the simulation the possibility of imperfection in the classical pulses duration. Their role is to decrease the probability of obtaining the searched state ate the end of the proccess. By considering pulse imperfections of the order of $`5\%`$ in the simulations, we observed that the efficiency of our search decreased to $`85\%`$, as shown in Fig. 2 (b). The dependency of the efficiency of our experimental proposal on pulse imperfections can be seen in Fig. 2(c), where the fidelity of the final state is plotted against the error in the classical pulses applied in the atoms.

We proposed here a simple implementation of the two qubit Grover search algorithm. It can be realized with minor amendments of our Rydberg atom-cavity setup. It explicitely makes use of qubit entanglement. Its experimental implementation will be an illustration of the power of cavity QED to manipulate complex entangled states for quantum information processing.

This work was supported by Japan Science and Technology Corporation and European Community (International Cooperative Research Project, “Quantum Entanglement”). Laboratoire Kastler Brossel, Université Pierre et Marie Curie and ENS, is associated with CNRS (UMR 8552).


text:
# An Algebraic and Logical approach to continuous images

## Introduction

These notes reflect a series of lectures given at the 30th Winterschool on Abstract Analysis (Section Topology). In it I surveyed results from the papers \[DowHart2001a\], \[HartvanMillPol2001\], \[DowHart99\] and \[DowHart2000a\]. These results are of a topological nature but their proofs involve algebraic structures associated with the spaces in question. These proofs also have logical components. In Sections 3 and 4 I use notions from Model Theory show the existence of certain continua and mappings between them. In Section 5 we see how the Open Colouring Axiom implies that very concrete spaces are not continuous images of $`\mathrm{}^{}`$.

To make these notes reasonably self-contained I devote two sections to some model-theoretic and algebraic preliminaries.

## 1. Lattices and Boolean algebras

In \[Wallman38\] Wallman generalized Stone’s representation theorem for Boolean algebras, from \[StoneMH37a\], to the class of distributive lattices. Given a distributive lattice $`L`$, with $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and operations $``$ and $``$, we say that $`FL`$ is a *filter* if it satisfies $`\mathrm{𝟎}F`$, if $`a,bF`$ then $`abF`$, and if $`aF`$ and $`ba`$ then $`bF`$; as always, an *ultrafilter* is a maximal filter.

The *Wallman representation* (or *Wallman space*) $`wL`$ of $`L`$ is the space with the set of all ultrafilters on $`L`$ as its underlying set. For every $`aL`$ we put $`\overline{a}=\{uwL:au\}`$ and we use the family $`𝒜=\{\overline{a}:aL\}`$ as a base for the closed sets of a topology on $`wL`$. The resulting space $`wL`$ is a compact $`T_1`$-space and the map $`a\overline{a}`$ is a homomorphism from $`L`$ onto $`𝒜`$. The homomorphism is an isomorphism if and only if $`L`$ is *disjunctive* or *separative*, which means: if $`ab`$ then there is $`cL`$ such that $`ca`$ and $`cb=\mathrm{𝟎}`$.

Every compact $`T_1`$-space $`X`$ can be obtained in this way: $`X`$ is the Wallman representation of its own family of closed sets. From this it is clear that $`wL`$ is not automatically Hausdorff; in fact $`wL`$ is Hausdorff if and only if $`L`$ is *normal*, which is expressed as follows:

(1)
$$(x)(y)(u)(v)\left[(xy=\mathrm{𝟎})\left((xu=\mathrm{𝟎})(yv=\mathrm{𝟎})(uv=\mathrm{𝟏})\right)\right].$$

Note: in order to avoid confusion we write, for the nonce, $``$ and $``$ for logical ‘and’ and ‘or’ respectively.

The duality is not perfect; one space can represent many different lattices: one has $`X=w𝒜`$ whenever $`𝒜`$ is a base for the closed sets of $`X`$ that is closed under finite unions and intersections — such a base is referred to as a *lattice base for the closed sets*. For example, the unit interval $`[0,1]`$ can also be obtained as the representation of the lattice consisting of all finite unions of closed intervals with rational end points.

Many properties of the space can be expressed using the elements of $`L`$ only. For example the formula expresses that $`wL`$ is connected:

(2)
$$(x)(y)\left[\left((xy=\mathrm{𝟎})(xy=\mathrm{𝟏})\right)\left((x=\mathrm{𝟎})(x=\mathrm{𝟏})\right)\right].$$

This suffices because every lattice base for the closed sets of a compact space contains every clopen set of that space. For later use we interpret formula as expressing a property of $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, to wit “$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is connected”; we therefore abbreviate it as $`\mathrm{conn}(\mathrm{𝟏})`$ and we shall write $`\mathrm{conn}(a)`$ to denote Formula 2 with $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ replaced by $`a`$ and use it to express that $`a`$ is connected (or better: the set represented by $`a`$ is connected).

### Boolean algebras

If $`L`$ is a Boolean algebra then the family $`\{\overline{a}:aL\}`$ consists exactly of the clopen subsets of $`wL`$ and so the space $`wL`$ is *zero-dimensional*. This makes for a prefect duality between Boolean algebras and compact zero-dimensional spaces because every compact zero-dimensional space represents its own family $`\mathrm{Co}X`$ of clopen sets. This Stone’s representation theorem for Boolean algebras; we call $`wL`$ the *Stone space* of $`L`$.

### Making continuous surjections

We use the algebraic approach in the construction of continuous onto mappings. The following lemma tells us how this works.

###### Lemma 1.1.

Let $`X`$ be compact Hausdorff and $`L`$ some normal, distributive and disjunctive lattice. If $`X`$ has a lattice base $``$ for the closed sets that is embeddable into $`L`$ then $`wL`$ admits a continuous surjection onto $`X`$.

###### Proof.

We only sketch the argument. Let $`\phi :L`$ be an embedding and define $`f:wLX`$ by “$`f(p)`$ is the unique point in $`\{C:p\phi (C)\}`$”. It is straightforward to check that $`f`$ is onto and that $`f^{}[C]=\phi (C)`$ for all $`C`$. ∎

## 2. Elements of Model Theory

In this section I review some notions and results from Model Theory that we shall use later on. Our basic reference for model theory is Hodges’ book \[Hodges93\]. Dobrým úvodem do Teorie Modelu je Kapitola V v knize A. Sochora \[Sochor2001\].

Model Theory studies structures from a logical point of view. These structures can be groups, fields, ordered sets and, important for us, lattices. In what follows I shall try to illustrate the Model-theoretic notions using ordered sets of fields.

The key notions are those of a *language* and a *theory*.

#### Language

Our languages have two parts. There is a fixed logical part, consisting of the familiar logical symbols like $``$, $``$, $``$, $``$, $``$, $`\neg `$, $`=`$, together with an infinite set of variables.

The second part is specific to the kind of structure that we want to study. For example, to study ordered sets we need $`<`$; to study fields we need $`+`$, $`\times `$, $`0`$, and $`1`$.

#### Theories

A theory is a set of formulas; nothing more, nothing less. An interesting theory should be about something non-trivial (which may a matter of taste) and consistent, which means that you cannot derive a false statement from it.

One normally specifies a theory by listing a few formulas as its starting point (as its axioms) and, tacitly, assumes that the consequences of these axioms make up the full theory.

Thus, the theory of (linearly) ordered sets has the following three formulas as its axioms:

1. $`(x)\neg (x<x)`$,
2. $`(x)(y)\left((x<y)(y<x)(x=y)\right)`$, and
3. $`(x)(y)(z)\left(((x<y)(y<z))(x<z)\right)`$

Finally then, a *model* for a theory is a structure for the language where all the formulas of the theory are valid. Somewhat tautologically then a linearly ordered set is a model for the theory of linearly ordered sets.

### Compactness and completeness

Two very important theorems, for us, are the Compactness Theorem and the Completeness Theorem.

The Compactness Theorem says that a theory is consistent if and only if every finite subset is consistent. Given the definition of consistency that we adopted this is a actually a triviality: any derivation uses only a finite set of formulas. The Compactness Theorem gets quite powerful in combination with the Completeness Theorem, which says that a theory is consistent if and only if it has a model. We shall use the nontrivial consequence that a theory has a model if and only if every finite subset has a model.

### Elementarity

Two structures are *elementarily equivalent* if they satisfy the same sentences (formulas without free variables); informally: they look superficially the same. For example the ordered sets $`\mathrm{}`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ are all different: consider the sentences $`(x)(y)(z)\left((x<y)(x<z)(z<y)\right)`$; $`(x)(y)(xy)`$ and $`(x)(y)(z)\left((zx)(yz)\right)`$.

On the other hand the ordered sets $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ are elementarily equivalent. This can be gleaned from the material in Chapter 3 of \[Hodges93\]. For us it is important to know that any two atomless Boolean algebras are elementarily equivalent \[ChangKeisler77, Theorem 5.5.10\].

#### Elementary substructures

We say that $`A`$ is an *elementary substructure* of $`B`$, written $`AB`$, if every equation with parameters in $`A`$ that has a solution in $`B`$ already has a solution in $`A`$.

The field $`\mathrm{}`$ is not an elementary substructure of the field $`\mathrm{}`$, consider the equation $`x^2=2`$. On the other hand, the field of algebraic numbers is an elementary substructure of the field $`\mathrm{}`$ of complex numbers (see Appendix A.5 of \[Hodges93\]).

The Löwenheim-Skolem theorem provides us with many elementary substructures: if $`A`$ is a structure for a language $`𝔏`$ and $`XA`$ then there is an elementary substructure $`B`$ of $`A`$ with $`XB`$ and $`|B||X||𝔏|\mathrm{}_0`$. Normally the language $`𝔏`$ is countable, so that we can get many *countable* elementary substructures; we will use this often to construct metric continua.

### Saturation

Given a cardinal $`\kappa `$ one calls a structure (e.g., a field, a group, an ordered set, a lattice) is said to be $`\kappa `$-saturated if, loosely speaking, every consistent set of equations, of cardinality less than $`\kappa `$ and with parameters from the given structure, has a solution, where a set of equations is consistent if every finite subsystem has a solution *possibly at first in some extension of the given structure*. Thus, e.g., $`\{0<z,z<1\}`$ is consistent in $`\mathrm{}`$, because a solution can be found in the extension $`\mathrm{}\{\frac{1}{2}\}`$; on the other hand $`\{z<0,1<z\}`$ is clearly inconsistent. As the first system has no solution in $`\mathrm{}`$ itself it witnesses that $`\mathrm{}`$ is not $`\mathrm{}_0`$-saturated.

Going one step up, the ordered set of the reals is *not* $`\mathrm{}_1`$-saturated because the following countable system of equations, though consistent, does not have a solution: $`0<x`$ together with $`x<\frac{1}{n}`$ ($`n\mathrm{}`$). On the other hand, any ultrapower $`\mathrm{}_u^\omega `$ of $`\mathrm{}`$ is $`\mathrm{}_1`$-saturated as an ordered set — see \[Hodges93, Theorem 9.5.4\]. Such an ultrapower is obtained by taking the power $`\mathrm{}^\omega `$, an ultrafilter $`u`$ on $`\omega `$ and identifying points $`x`$ and $`y`$ if $`\{n:x_n=y_n\}`$ belongs to $`u`$. The ordering $`<`$ is defined in the obvious way: $`x<y`$ iff $`\{n:x_n<y_n\}`$ belongs to $`u`$. It is relatively easy to show that this gives an $`\mathrm{}_1`$-saturated ordering; given a countable consistent set of equations $`x<a_i`$ and $`x>b_i`$ ($`i\omega `$), one has to produce a single $`x`$ that satisfies them all; the desired $`x`$ can be constructed by a straightforward diagonalization.

### Universality

Finally, a structure is $`\kappa `$-universal if it contains a copy of every structure of cardinality less than $`\kappa `$ that is elementarily equivalent to it.

Our last ingredient is Theorem 10.1.6 from \[Hodges93\], which states that $`\kappa `$-saturated structures are $`\kappa ^+`$-universal. When we apply this to an ultrapower $`\mathrm{}_u^\omega `$ then we find that it contains an isomorphic copy of every $`\mathrm{}_1`$-sized dense linear order without end points — a result that can also be established directly by a straightforward transfinite recursion. It also follows that $`\mathrm{}_u^\omega `$ contains an isomorphic copy of *every* $`\mathrm{}_1`$-sized linear order: simply make it dense by inserting a copy of the rationals between any pair of neighbours and attach copies of the rationals at the beginning and the end to get rid of possible end points; the resulting ordered set is still of cardinality $`\mathrm{}_1`$ and can therefore be embedded into $`\mathrm{}_u^\omega `$.

## 3. Universal compact spaces

Here we combine the algebra and model theory to provide proofs of universality of certain spaces. Here ‘universality’ is meant in the mapping-onto sense, i.e., space $`X`$ is universal for a class of spaces if it belongs to the class and every space in the class is a continuous image of $`X`$.

### The Cantor set and $`\mathrm{}^{}`$

Let us begin by reviewing two well-known theorems from topology. The first is due to Alexandroff \[Alexandroff27\] and Hausdorff \[Hausdorff27\]; it states that every compact metric space is a continuous image of the Cantor set. The second is Parovičenko’s theorem \[Parovicenko63\] that every compact space of weight $`\mathrm{}_1`$ (or less) is a continuous image of the space $`\mathrm{}^{}`$. Both theorems can be proven in a similar fashion. The first step is a theorem of Alexandroff \[Alexandroff36\].

###### Theorem 3.1.

Every compact Hausdorff space is the continuous image of a compact zero-dimensional space of the same weight.

###### Proof.

Let $``$ be a base for the space $`X`$, of size $`w(X)`$. Let $``$ be the Boolean subalgebra of $`𝒫(X)`$ generated by $``$. The Stone space $`Y`$ of $``$ is the sought-after space. If $`uY`$ (so $`u`$ is an ultrafilter on $``$) then $`\{\mathrm{cl}B:Bu\}`$ consists of one point $`x_u`$; the map $`ux_u`$ is a continuous from $`Y`$ onto $`X`$. ∎

The second step is to embed the clopen algebra of $`Y`$, which happens to be $``$, into the clopen algebra of the Cantor set or $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ respectively — the Lemma 1.1 applies to give a continuous map from the Cantor set (or $`\mathrm{}^{}`$) onto $`Y`$. We do this in a roundabout way, to set the stage for a similar proof involving continua. First we embed $``$ into the clopen algebra $`𝒞`$ of $`Y\times 2^\omega `$ (in the obvious way), this latter algebra is atomless.

It is fairly straightforward to show that atomless Boolean algebras are $`\mathrm{}_0`$-saturated and it is a little more work to show that the clopen algebra of $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ (which is $`𝒫(\mathrm{})/\mathrm{𝑓𝑖𝑛}`$) is $`\mathrm{}_1`$-saturated (see \[JonssonOlin68\]).

We see that every countable atomless Boolean algebra is embeddable into the clopen algebra of $`2^\omega `$ and every atomless Boolean algebra of size $`\mathrm{}_1`$ (or less) is embeddable into $`𝒫(\mathrm{})/\mathrm{𝑓𝑖𝑛}`$. But this exactly what we still needed to establish.

### A universal continuum

In this section we shall apply the ideas developed above in a proof that the Čech-Stone remainder of $`[0,\mathrm{})`$ maps onto every continuum of weight $`\mathrm{}_1`$ or less.

#### The continuum $`\mathrm{}^{}`$

We write $`\mathrm{}=[0,\mathrm{})`$ and show that the continuum $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ maps onto every continuum of weight $`\mathrm{}_1`$. This continuum has a nice base for its closed sets: the lattice

$$=\{A^{}:A\text{ is closed in }\mathrm{}\}.$$

Here, as is common, $`A^{}`$ abbreviates $`\mathrm{cl}A\mathrm{}^{}`$. Another way to represent this lattice is as the quotient of the lattice $`2^{\mathrm{}}`$ by the ideal of compact sets. Therefore one way to apply Lemma 1.1 would be to construct, given a continuum $`X`$ of weight $`\mathrm{}_1`$ or less, a lattice base $``$ for the closed sets of $`X`$ and a map $`\phi :2^{\mathrm{}}`$ whose composition with the quotient homomorphism is a lattice embedding. Unfortunately this does not seem to be easy to do, even for metric continua.

#### The metric case

Our starting point is the following theorem, due to Aarts and van Emde Boas \[AartsvanEmdeBoas67\]; as we shall need this theorem and its proof later, we provide a short argument.

###### Theorem 3.2.

The space $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ maps onto every metric continuum.

###### Proof.

Consider a metric continuum $`K`$ and assume it is embedded into the Hilbert cube $`Q=[0,1]^{\mathrm{}}`$. Choose a countable dense subset $`A`$ of $`K`$ and enumerate it as $`\{a_n:n\omega \}`$. Next choose, for every $`n`$, a finite sequence of points $`a_n=a_{n,0}`$, $`a_{n,1}`$, …, $`a_{n,k_n}=a_{n+1}`$ such that $`d(a_{n,i},a_{n,i+1})<2^n`$ for all $`i`$ — this uses the connectivity of $`K`$. Finally, let $`e`$ be the map from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`(0,1]\times Q`$ with first coordinate $`e_1(t)=2^t`$ and whose second coordinate satisfies $`e_2(n+\frac{i}{k_n})=a_{n,i}`$ for all $`n`$ and $`i`$ and is (piecewise) linear otherwise.

It is clear that $`e`$ is an embedding, and one readily checks that $`\mathrm{cl}e[\mathrm{}]=e[\mathrm{}]\left(\{0\}\times K\right)`$; the Čech-Stone extension $`\beta e`$ of $`e`$ maps $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ onto $`K`$. ∎

This theorem and its proof give us an almost lattice-embedding for bases of metric continua.

###### Lemma 3.3.

Let $`K`$ be a metric continuum and let $`xK`$. There is a map $`\phi `$ from $`2^K`$ to $`2^{\mathrm{}}`$ such that

1. $`\phi (\mathrm{})=\mathrm{}`$ and $`\phi (K)=\mathrm{}`$;
2. $`\phi (FG)=\phi (F)\phi (G)`$;
3. if $`F_1\mathrm{}F_n=\mathrm{}`$ then $`\phi (F_1)\mathrm{}\phi (F_n)`$ is compact; and
4. $`\mathrm{}\phi \left(\{x\}\right)`$.

In addition, if some countable family $`𝒞`$ of nonempty closed subsets of $`K`$ is given in advance, then we can arrange that for every $`F`$ in $`𝒞`$ the set $`\phi (F)`$ is not compact.

###### Proof.

As proved in Theorem 3.2, there is a map from $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ onto $`K`$.

The proof given in \[AartsvanEmdeBoas67\] (and the one given above) is flexible enough to allow us to ensure that the embedding $`e`$ of $`\mathrm{}`$ into $`(0,1]\times Q`$ is such that $`e(n)=2^n,x`$ for every $`n\mathrm{}`$ and that for every element $`y`$ of some countable set $`C`$ the set $`\{t:e_1(t)=y\}`$ is cofinal in $`\mathrm{}`$ — it is also easy to change the description of $`e`$ in the proof we gave to produce another $`e`$ with the desired properties. In our case we let $`C`$ be a countable subset of $`K`$ that meets every element of the family $`𝒞`$.

We now identify $`K`$ and $`\{0\}\times K`$, and define a map $`\psi :2^K2^{\mathrm{𝕀}\times Q}`$ by

$$\psi (F)=\{y:\mathrm{𝕀}\times Q:d(y,F)d(y,KF)\}.$$

In \[Kuratowski66, § 21 XI\] it is shown that for all $`F`$ and $`G`$ we have

* $`\psi (FG)=\psi (F)\psi (G)`$;
* $`\psi (K)=\mathrm{𝕀}\times Q`$ and $`\psi (\mathrm{})=\mathrm{}`$ — by the fact that $`d(y,\mathrm{})=\mathrm{}`$ for all $`y`$; and
* $`\psi (F)K=F`$.

Note that for every $`yK`$ we have $`d(t,y,\{y\})=d(t,y,K\{y\})=t`$, and hence $`\mathrm{𝕀}\times \{y\}\psi \left(\{y\}\right)`$.

Now define $`\phi (F)=e^{}\left[\psi (F)\right]`$—or rather, after identifying $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`e[\mathrm{}]`$, set $`\phi (F)=\psi (F)e[\mathrm{}]`$. All desired properties are easily verified: 1 and 2 are immediate; to see that 3 holds, note that if $`F_1\mathrm{}F_n=\mathrm{}`$ then $`\mathrm{cl}\phi (F_1)\mathrm{}\mathrm{cl}\phi (F_n)K=\mathrm{}`$, so that $`\mathrm{cl}\phi (F_1)\mathrm{}\mathrm{cl}\phi (F_n)`$ is a compact subset of $`\mathrm{}`$. That 4 holds follows from the way we chose the values $`e(n)`$ for $`n\mathrm{}`$.

Finally, if $`F𝒞`$ and $`yCF`$, then the cofinal set $`\{t:\pi \left(e(t)\right)=y\}`$ is a subset of $`\phi (F)`$, so that $`\phi (F)`$ is not compact. ∎

#### Making continuous surjections (bis)

Lemma 3.3 indicates that Lemma 1.1 may not be directly applicable. On the other hand, it does indicate that lattice-embeddings may not be necessary for obtaining onto mappings. The following theorem shows how much we actually need.

###### Theorem 3.4.

Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be compact Hausdorff spaces and let $`𝒞`$ be a base for the closed subsets of $`Y`$ that is closed under finite unions and finite intersections. Then $`Y`$ is a continuous image of $`X`$ if and only if there is a map $`\phi :𝒞2^X`$ such that

1. $`\phi (\mathrm{})=\mathrm{}`$, and if $`F\mathrm{}`$ then $`\phi (F)\mathrm{}`$;
2. if $`FG=Y`$ then $`\phi (F)\phi (G)=X`$; and
3. if $`F_1\mathrm{}F_n=\mathrm{}`$ then $`\phi (F_1)\mathrm{}\phi (F_n)=\mathrm{}`$.

###### Proof.

Necessity is easy: given a continuous onto map $`f:XY`$, let $`\phi (F)=f^{}[F]`$. Note that $`\phi `$ is in fact a lattice-embedding.

To prove sufficiency, let $`\phi :𝒞2^X`$ be given and consider for each $`xX`$ the family $`_x=\{F𝒞:x\phi (F)\}`$. We claim that $`_x`$ consists of exactly one point. Indeed, by condition 3 the family $`_x`$ has the finite intersection property, so that $`_x`$ is nonempty. Next assume that $`y_1y_2`$ in $`Y`$ and take $`F,G𝒞`$ such that $`FG=Y`$$`y_1F`$ and $`y_2G`$. Then, by condition 2, either $`x\phi (F)`$ and so $`y_1_x`$, or $`x\phi (G)`$ and so $`y_2_x`$.

We define $`f(x)`$ to be the unique point in $`_x`$.

To demonstrate that $`f`$ is continuous and onto, we show that for every closed subset $`F`$ of $`Y`$ we have

($``$)
$$f^{}[F]=\{\phi (G):G𝒞,F\mathrm{int}G\}.$$

This will show that preimages of closed sets are closed and that every fiber $`f^{}(y)`$ is nonempty.

We first check that the family on the right-hand side has the finite intersection property. Even though $`F`$ and the complement $`K`$ of $`_i\mathrm{int}G_i`$ need not belong to $`𝒞`$, we can still find $`G`$ and $`H`$ in $`𝒞`$ such that $`GK=HF=\mathrm{}`$ and $`HG=Y`$. Indeed, apply compactness and the fact that $`𝒞`$ is a lattice to find $`C`$ in $`𝒞`$ such that $`FC_i\mathrm{int}G_i`$ and then $`D𝒞`$ with $`KD`$ and $`DC=\mathrm{}`$; then apply normality of $`𝒞`$ to $`C`$ and $`D`$. Once we have $`G`$ and $`H`$ we see that for each $`i`$ we also have $`HG_i=Y`$, and so $`\phi (H)\phi (G_i)=X`$; combined with $`\phi (G)\phi (H)=\mathrm{}`$, this gives $`\phi (G)_i\phi (G_i)`$.

To verify $`()`$, first let $`xXf^{}[F]`$. As above we find $`G`$ and $`H`$ in $`𝒞`$ such that $`f(x)G`$, $`HG=Y`$ and $`HF=\mathrm{}`$. The first property gives us $`x\phi (G)`$; the other two imply that $`F\mathrm{int}G`$.

Second, if $`F\mathrm{int}G`$, then we can find $`H𝒞`$ such that $`HG=X`$ and $`HF=\mathrm{}`$. It follows that if $`x\phi (G)`$ we have $`x\phi (H)`$; hence $`f(x)H`$ and so $`f(x)F`$. ∎

We shall now show how to construct, given a continuum $`K`$ of weight $`\mathrm{}_1`$, a map $`\phi `$ from a base for the closed sets of $`K`$ into the base $``$ as in Theorem 3.4. Our plan is to find this map using the model-theoretic machinery described above.

This would require two steps. Step 1 would be to show that $``$ is an $`\mathrm{}_1`$-saturated lattice and hence $`\mathrm{}_2`$-universal. Step 2 would then be to show that every lattice of size $`\mathrm{}_1`$ is embeddable into a lattice of size $`\mathrm{}_1`$ that itself is elementarily equivalent to $``$.

There are two problems with this approach: 1) we were not able to show that $``$ is $`\mathrm{}_1`$-saturated, and 2) Lemma 3.3 does not give a lattice-embedding. We shall deal with these problems in turn.

#### An $`\mathrm{}_1`$-saturated structure

As mentioned above, we do not know whether $``$ is $`\mathrm{}_1`$-saturated. We can however find an $`\mathrm{}_1`$-saturated sublattice:

$$^{}=\{A^{}:A\text{ is closed in }\mathrm{}\text{, and }\mathrm{}A\text{ or }\mathrm{}A=\mathrm{}\}.$$

This lattice is a base for the closed sets of the space $`\mathrm{H}`$, obtained from $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ by identifying $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ to a point.

To see that $`^{}`$ is $`\mathrm{}_1`$-saturated we introduce another space, namely $`\mathrm{𝕄}=\omega \times \mathrm{𝕀}`$, where $`\mathrm{𝕀}`$ denotes the unit interval. The canonical base $``$ for the closed sets of $`\mathrm{𝕄}^{}`$ is naturally isomorphic to the reduced power $`(2^\mathrm{𝕀})^\omega `$ modulo the cofinite filter. It is well-known that this structure is $`\mathrm{}_1`$-saturated — see \[JonssonOlin68\]. The following substructure $`^{}`$ is $`\mathrm{}_1`$-saturated as well:

$$^{}=\{A^{}:A\text{ is closed in }\mathrm{𝕄}\text{, and }\mathrm{N}\mathrm{A}\text{ or }\mathrm{N}\mathrm{A}/\mathrm{}\},$$

where $`\mathrm{N}/\{0\mathrm{}1\}\times \omega `$. Indeed, consider a countable consistent set $`T`$ of equations with constants from $`^{}`$. We can then add either $`\mathrm{N}\mathrm{x}`$ or $`\mathrm{N}\mathrm{x}/\mathrm{}`$ to $`T`$ without losing consistency. Any element of $``$ that satisfies the expanded $`T`$ will automatically belong to $`^{}`$.

We claim that $`^{}`$ and $`^{}`$ are isomorphic. To see this, consider the map $`q:\mathrm{𝕄}\mathrm{}`$ defined by $`q(n,x)=n+x`$. The Čech-Stone extension of $`q`$ maps $`\mathrm{𝕄}^{}`$ onto $`\mathrm{}^{}`$, and it is readily verified that $`Lq^1[L]`$ is an isomorphism between $`^{}`$ and $`^{}`$. (In topological language: the space $`\mathrm{H}`$ is also obtained from $`\mathrm{𝕄}^{}`$ by identifying $`\mathrm{N}^{\mathrm{}}`$ to a point.)

#### A new language

The last point that we have to address is that Lemma 3.3 does not provide a lattice embedding, but rather a map that only partially preserves unions and intersections. This is where Theorem 3.4 comes in: we do not need a full lattice embedding, but only a map that preserves certain identities. We abbreviate these identities as follows:

$`J(x,y)`$ $`xy=1,`$
$`M_n(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ $`x_1\mathrm{}x_n=0.`$
We can restate the conclusion in Theorem 3.4 in the following manner: $`Y`$ is a continuous image of $`X`$ if and only if there is an $`𝔏`$-homomorphism from $`𝒞`$ to $`2^X`$, where $`𝔏`$ is the language that has $`J`$ and the $`M_n`$ as its predicates *and* where $`J`$ and the $`M_n`$ are interpreted as above.

Note that by considering a lattice with $`0`$ and $`1`$ as an $`𝔏`$-structure we do not have to mention $`0`$ and $`1`$ anymore; they are implicit in the predicates. For example, we could define a normal $`𝔏`$-structure to be one in which $`M_2(a,b)`$ implies $`(c,d)\left(M_2(a,d)M_2(c,b)J(c,d)\right)`$. Then a lattice is normal iff it is normal as an $`𝔏`$-structure.

#### The proof

Let $`𝒞`$ be a base of size $`\mathrm{}_1`$ for the closed sets of the continuum $`K`$. We want to find an $`𝔏`$-structure $`𝒟`$ of size $`\mathrm{}_1`$ that contains $`𝒞`$ and that is elementarily equivalent to $`^{}`$. To this end we consider the diagram of $`𝒞`$; that is, we add the elements of $`𝒞`$ to our language $`𝔏`$ and we consider the set $`D_𝒞`$ of all atomic sentences from this expanded language that hold in $`𝒞`$. For example, if $`ab=\mathrm{}`$ and $`cd=K`$, then $`M_2(a,b)J(c,d)`$ belongs to $`D_𝒞`$.

To $`D_𝒞`$ we add the theory $`T_{^{}}`$ of $`^{}`$, to get a theory $`T_𝒞`$. Let $`𝒞^{}`$ be any countable subset of $`𝒞`$ and assume, without loss of generality, that $`𝒞^{}`$ is a normal sublattice of $`𝒞`$. The Wallman space $`X`$ of $`𝒞^{}`$ is metrizable, because $`𝒞^{}`$ is countable, and connected because it is a continuous image of $`K`$. We may now apply Lemma 3.3 to obtain an $`𝔏`$-embedding of $`𝒞^{}`$ into $`^{}`$; indeed, condition 4 says that $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ will be mapped onto a fixed point $`x`$ of $`X`$.

This shows that, for every countable subset $`𝒞^{}`$ of $`𝒞`$, the union of $`D_𝒞^{}`$ and $`T_{^{}}`$ is consistent, and so, by the compactness theorem, the theory $`T_𝒞`$ is consistent. Let $`𝒟`$ be a model for $`T_𝒞`$ of size $`\mathrm{}_1`$. This model is as required: it satisfies the same sentences as $`^{}`$ and it contains a copy of $`𝒞`$, to wit the set of interpretations of the constants from $`𝒞`$.

## 4. Hereditarily indecomposable continua

The model-theoretic approach is also quite useful in the theory of hereditarily indecomposable continua.

A continuum is *decomposable* if it can be written as the union of two proper subcontinua; it is *indecomposable* otherwise. A *hereditarily indecomposable* continuum is one in which every subcontinuum is indecomposable. It is easily seen that this is equivalent to saying that whenever two continua in the space meet one is contained in the other.

This latter statement makes sense for arbitrary compact Hausdorff spaces, connected or not; we therefore extend this definition and call a compact Hausdorff space *hereditarily indecomposable* if it satisfies the statement above: whenever two continua in the space meet one is contained in the other. Thus, zero-dimensional spaces are hereditarily indecomposable too.

We shall mainly use a characterization of hereditary indecomposability that can be gleaned from \[KrasinkiewiczMinc1977, Theorem 3\] and which was made explicit in \[OversteegenTymchatyn86, Theorem 2\]. To formulate it we introduce some terminology.

Let $`X`$ be compact Hausdorff and let $`C`$ and $`D`$ be disjoint closed subsets of $`X`$; as in \[KrasinkiewiczMinc1977\] we say that $`(X,C,D)`$ is *crooked* between the neighbourhoods $`U`$ of $`C`$ and $`V`$ of $`D`$ if we can write $`X=X_0X_1X_2`$, where each $`X_i`$ is closed and, moreover, $`CX_0`$, $`X_0X_1V`$, $`X_0X_2=\mathrm{}`$, $`X_1X_2U`$ and $`DX_2`$. We say $`X`$ is crooked between $`C`$ and $`D`$ if $`(X,C,D)`$ is crooked between any pair of neighbourhoods of $`C`$ and $`D`$.

We can now state the characterization of hereditary indecomposability that we will use.

###### Theorem 4.1 (Krasinkiewicz and Minc).

A compact Hausdorff space is hereditarily indecomposable if and only if it is crooked between every pair of disjoint closed (nonempty) subsets.

This characterization can be translated into terms of closed sets only; we simply put $`F=XV`$ and $`G=XU`$, and reformulate some of the premises and the conclusions. We get the following formulation.

###### Theorem 4.2.

A compact Hausdorff space $`X`$ is hereditarily indecomposable if and only if whenever four closed sets $`C`$, $`D`$, $`F`$ and $`G`$ in $`X`$ are given such that $`CD=CF=GD=\mathrm{}`$ one can write $`X`$ as the union of three closed sets $`X_0`$, $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ such that $`CX_0`$, $`DX_2`$, $`X_0X_1G=\mathrm{}`$, $`X_0X_2=\mathrm{}`$, and $`X_1X_2F=\mathrm{}`$.

To avoid having to write down many formulas we call a quadruple $`(C,D,F,G)`$ with $`CD=CF=DG=\mathrm{}`$ a *pliand foursome* and we call a triple $`(X_0,X_1,X_2)`$ with $`CX_0`$, $`DX_2`$, $`X_0X_1G=\mathrm{}`$, $`X_0X_2=\mathrm{}`$, and $`X_1X_2F=\mathrm{}`$ a *chicane* for $`(C,D,F,G)`$. Thus, a compact Hausdorff space is hereditarily indecomposable if and only if there is a chicane for every pliand foursome.

This characterization can be improved by taking a base $``$ for the closed sets of the space $`X`$ that is closed under finite intersections. The space is hereditarily indecomposable if and only if there is a chicane for every pliand foursome whose terms come from $``$.

To prove the nontrivial implication let $`(C,D,F,G)`$ be a pliand foursome and let $`(O_C,O_D,O_F,O_G)`$ be a swelling of it, i.e., every $`O_P`$ is an open set around $`P`$ and $`O_PO_Q=\mathrm{}`$ if and only if $`PQ=\mathrm{}`$, where $`P`$ and $`Q`$ run through $`C`$, $`D`$, $`F`$ and $`G`$ (see \[Engelking89, 7.1.4\]). Now compactness and the fact that $``$ is closed under finite intersections guarantee that there are $`C^{}`$, $`D^{}`$, $`F^{}`$ and $`G^{}`$ in $``$ such that $`PP^{}O_P`$ for $`P=C`$, $`D`$, $`F`$$`G`$. Any chicane for $`(C^{},D^{},F^{},G^{})`$ is a chicane for $`(C,D,F,G)`$.

### Hereditarily indecomposable continua of arbitrary weight

Model theory can help to show that there are hereditarily indecomposable continua of arbitrary large weight. We obtain such continua as Wallman spaces of suitable lattices.

To ensure that $`wL`$ is hereditarily indecomposable it suffices to have a chicane for every pliand foursome from $`L`$ and this is exactly what the following formula expresses.

(3)
$$\begin{array}{c}(x)(y)(u)(v)(z_1,z_2,z_3)[((xy=\mathrm{𝟎})(xu=\mathrm{𝟎})(yv=\mathrm{𝟎}))\hfill \\ \hfill ((x(z_2z_3)=\mathrm{𝟎})(y(z_1z_2)=\mathrm{𝟎})(z_1z_3=\mathrm{𝟎})\\ \hfill (z_1z_2v=\mathrm{𝟎})(z_2z_3u=\mathrm{𝟎})(z_1z_2z_3=\mathrm{𝟏}))].\end{array}$$

The existence of the pseudoarc $`\mathrm{}`$ implies that there are one-dimensional hereditarily indecomposable continua of arbitrarily large weight. Indeed, the family of closed sets of $`\mathrm{}`$ is a distributive and disjunctive lattice that satisfies formulas 1, 2 and 3; it also satisfies

(4)
$$\begin{array}{c}(x_0)(y_0)(x_1)(y_1)(u_0,v_0,u_1,v_1)[((x_0y_0=\mathrm{𝟎})(x_1y_1=\mathrm{𝟎})\hfill \\ \hfill ((x_0u_0=\mathrm{𝟎})(y_0v_0=\mathrm{𝟎})(x_1u_1=\mathrm{𝟎})(y_1v_1=\mathrm{𝟎})\\ \hfill (u_0v_0=\mathrm{𝟏})(u_1v_1=\mathrm{𝟏})(u_0v_0u_1v_1=\mathrm{𝟎}))].\end{array}$$

This formula expresses $`dimwL1`$ in terms of closed sets; it is the Theorem on Partitions, see \[Engelking89, Theorem 7.2.15\]. Therefore this combination of formulas is consistent and so, by the (upward) Löwenheim-Skolem theorem, it has models of every cardinality. Thus, given a cardinal $`\kappa `$ there is a distributive and disjunctive lattice $`L`$ of cardinality $`\kappa `$ that satisfies 1, 2, 3 and 4. The space $`wL`$ is compact Hausdorff, connected, hereditarily indecomposable, one-dimensional and of weight $`\kappa `$ or less, but with at least $`\kappa `$ closed sets. Thus, if $`\kappa 2^\lambda `$ then the weight of $`wL`$ is at least $`\lambda `$.

To get a space of weight exactly $`\kappa `$ we make sure that $`wL`$ has at least $`2^\kappa `$ many closed sets. To this end we introduce two sets of $`\kappa `$ many constants $`\{a_\alpha :\alpha <\kappa \}`$ and $`\{b_\alpha :\alpha <\kappa \}`$ and two sets of $`\kappa `$ many formulas: for every $`\alpha `$ the formula $`a_\alpha b_\alpha =\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and for any pair of disjoint finite subsets $`p`$ and $`q`$ of $`\kappa `$ the formula $`_{\alpha p}a_\alpha _{\alpha q}b_\alpha \mathrm{𝟎}`$. Thus we have expanded the language of lattices by a number of constants and we have added a set of formulas to the formulas that we used above. This larger set $`𝒯_\kappa `$ of formulas is still consistent.

Take a finite subset $`T`$ of $`𝒯_\kappa `$ and fix a finite subset $`t`$ of $`\kappa `$ such that whenever $`a_\alpha b_\alpha =\mathrm{𝟎}`$ or $`_{\alpha p}a_\alpha _{\alpha q}b_\alpha \mathrm{𝟎}`$ belong to $`T`$ we have $`\alpha t`$ and $`pqt`$. Now take a map $`f`$ from $`\mathrm{}`$ onto the cube $`\mathrm{𝕀}^t`$ and interpret $`a_\alpha `$ by $`f^{}[A_\alpha ]`$ and $`b_\alpha `$ by $`f^{}[B_\alpha ]`$; in this way we have ensured that every formula from $`T`$ holds in the family of closed subsets of $`\mathrm{}`$. Therefore $`T`$ is a consistent set of formulas and so, because it was arbitrary and by the compactness theorem, the full set $`𝒯_\kappa `$ is consistent.

Because $`𝒯_\kappa `$ has cardinality $`\kappa `$ it has a model $`L`$ of cardinality $`\kappa `$. Now $`wL`$ is as required: its weight is at most $`\kappa `$ because $`L`$ is a base of cardinality $`\kappa `$. On the other hand: for every subset $`S`$ of $`\kappa `$, we have, by compactness, a nonempty closed set

$$F_S=\underset{\alpha S}{}a_\alpha \underset{\alpha S}{}b_\alpha $$

such that $`F_SF_T=\mathrm{}`$ whenever $`ST`$.

###### Remark 4.3.

The reader may enjoy modifying the above argument so as to ensure that $`\{(a_\alpha ,b_\alpha ):\alpha <\kappa \}`$ is an essential family in $`wL`$. To this end write down, for every finite subset $`a`$ of $`\kappa `$, a formula $`\phi _a`$ that expresses that $`\{(a_\alpha ,b_\alpha ):\alpha a\}`$ is essential. Theorem 2.1 from \[HartvanMillPol2001\] more than ensures that the set of formulas consisting of 1, 2, 3 and the $`\phi _a`$ is consistent.

### Hereditarily indecomposable preimages

In \[MackowiakTymchatyn1984, (19.3)\] it is proven that every metric continuum is the weakly confluent image of some hereditarily indecomposable metric curve. A map is *weakly confluent* if every continuum in the range is the image of a continuum in the domain. Using our model-theoretic approach we can generalize this result to uncountable weights.

#### Making an onto map

To get a (one-dimensional) hereditarily indecomposable continuum that maps onto the given continuum $`X`$ we need to construct a distributive, disjunctive and normal lattice $`L`$ that satisfies formulas 2 and 3 (and 4), and an embedding $`\phi `$ of some base $``$ for the closed sets of $`X`$ into $`L`$.

Let a continuum $`X`$ and a lattice-base $``$ for its closed sets be given. As before we start with the formulas that ensure that $`wL`$ will be a hereditarily indecomposable continuum. To these formulas we add the diagram of $``$; this consists of $``$ itself, as a set of constants, and the ‘multiplication tables’ for $``$ and $``$, i.e., $`AB=C`$ whenever $`AB=C`$ and $`AB=C`$ whenever $`AB=C`$.

Now, if $`L`$ is to satisfy the diagram of $``$ it must contain elements $`x_A`$ for every $`A`$ so that $`x_{AB}=x_Ax_B`$ and $`x_{AB}=x_Ax_B`$ hold whenever appropriate; but this simply says that there is an embedding of $``$ into $`L`$.

We are left with the task of showing that the set $`𝒯`$ of formulas that express distributivity, disjunctiveness, normality as well as formulas 2 and 3 (and 4), together with the diagram of $``$ is consistent. Let $`T`$ be a finite subset of $`𝒯`$ and, if necessary, add the first six formulas to it. Let $`^{}`$ be a countable, normal and disjunctive sublattice of $``$ that contains the finitely many constants that occur in $`T`$. The Wallman space of $`^{}`$, call it $`Y`$, is a metric continuum and therefore the continuous image of a hereditarily indecomposable (one-dimensional) continuum $`K`$. The lattice of closed sets of $`K`$ satisfies all the formulas from $`T`$: interpret $`A`$ by its preimage in $`K`$.

It follows that $`𝒯`$ is consistent and that it therefore has a model $`L`$ of the same cardinality as $`𝒯`$, which is the same as the cardinality of $``$. The lattice $`L`$ satisfies all formulas from $`𝒯`$; its Wallman space is a (one-dimensional) hereditarily indecomposable continuum that maps onto $`X`$. If $``$ is chosen to be of minimal size then $`wL`$ is of the same weight as $`X`$.

#### Making a weakly confluent map

We now improve the foregoing construction so as to make the continuous surjection weakly confluent.

The following theorem — which is a souped-up version of the Mardešić factorization theorem — implies that it suffices to get some hereditarily indecomposable continuum $`Y`$ that admits a weakly confluent map $`f`$ onto our continuum $`X`$.

###### Theorem 4.4.

Let $`f:YX`$ be a continuous surjection between compact Hausdorff spaces. Then $`f`$ can be factored as $`hg`$, where $`Y\stackrel{g}{}Z\stackrel{h}{}X`$ and $`Z`$ has the same weight as $`X`$ and shares many properties with $`Y`$.

###### Proof.

Let $``$ be a lattice-base for the closed sets of $`X`$ (of minimal size) and identify it with its copy $`\{f^{}[B]:B\}`$ in $`2^Y`$. By the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem \[Hodges93, Corollary 3.1.5\] there is a lattice $`𝒟`$, of the same cardinality as $``$, such that $`𝒟2^Y`$ and $`𝒟`$ is an elementary substructure of $`2^Y`$. The space $`Z=w𝒟`$ is as required. ∎

Some comments on this theorem and its proof are in order, because they do not seem to say very much. However, at this point we can see the power of the notion of an elementary substructure. From the knowledge that the smaller lattice $`𝒟`$ contains solutions for every equation with parameters from $`𝒟`$ that is solvable in $`2^Y`$ we can deduce a lot about $`Z`$.

For example, if $`Y`$ hereditarily indecomposable then so is $`Z`$. For if $`(C,D,F,G)`$ is a pliand foursome in $`𝒜`$ then the equation

(5)
$$\begin{array}{c}(C(z_2z_3)=\mathrm{𝟎})(D(z_1z_2)=\mathrm{𝟎})(z_1z_3=\mathrm{𝟎})\hfill \\ \hfill (z_1z_2G=\mathrm{𝟎})(z_2z_3F=\mathrm{𝟎})(z_1z_2z_3=\mathrm{𝟏})\end{array}$$

has a solution in $`2^Y`$, hence in $`𝒟`$.

A similar argument establishes $`dimZ=dimY`$: the Theorem on Partitions (\[Engelking89, Theorem 7.2.15\]) yields systems of equations that characterize covering dimension. For example, if $`dimY1`$ then $`dimZ1`$ because if $`A,B,C,D𝒜`$ satisfy $`AB=CD=\mathrm{}`$ then $`2^Y`$, and hence $`𝒜`$, contains a solution to

(6)
$$\begin{array}{c}(Au_0=\mathrm{𝟎})(Bv_0=\mathrm{𝟎})(Cu_1=\mathrm{𝟎})(Dv_1=\mathrm{𝟎})\hfill \\ \hfill (u_0v_0=\mathrm{𝟏})(u_1v_1=\mathrm{𝟏})(u_0v_0u_1v_1=\mathrm{𝟎}).\end{array}$$

The negation of formula 4 yields a (parameterless) equation that has a solution in $`2^Y`$ iff $`dimY>1`$. We invite the reader to explore how the solution that must exist in $`𝒜`$ witnesses that $`dimZ>1`$.

We leave to the reader the verification that if $`f`$ is weakly confluent then so is the map $`h`$ in the factorization.

Now let $`X`$ be a continuum. Our aim is of course to find a lattice $`L`$ that contains the diagram of $`2^X`$ — to get our continuous surjection $`f`$ — and for every $`C𝒞(X)`$ a continuum $`C^{}`$ in $`wL`$ such that $`f[C^{}]=C`$; here $`𝒞(X)`$ denotes the family of subcontinua of $`X`$.

As before we add the diagram of $`2^X`$ to the formulas that guarantee that $`wL`$ will be a hereditarily indecomposable continuum. In addition we take a set of constants $`\{C^{}:C𝒞(X)\}`$ and stipulate that $`C^{}`$ will be a continuum that gets mapped onto $`C`$.

To make sure that every $`C^{}`$ is connected we put $`\mathrm{conn}(C^{})`$ into our set of formulas, for every $`C`$. Next, $`f[C^{}]C`$ translates, via the embedding into $`L`$, into $`C^{}C`$ (or better $`C^{}=C^{}C`$). Now, if it happens that $`f[C^{}]C`$ then there is a closed set $`D`$ in $`X`$ (in fact it is $`f[C^{}]`$ but that is immaterial) such that $`C^{}D`$ and $`CD`$. In order to avoid this we also add, for every $`C𝒞(X)`$ and every $`D2^X`$, the formula

$$(C^{}D)(CD)$$

to our set of formulas.

Again, the theorem in the metric case implies that this set of formulas is consistent — given a finite subset $`T`$ of it make a metric continuum $`X_T`$ as before, by expanding $`\{B2^X:B`$ occurs in $`T\}`$ to a countable normal sublattice $``$ of $`2^X`$; then find a metric continuum $`Y_T`$ of the desired type that admits a weakly confluent map $`f`$ onto $`X_T`$; finally choose for every $`C𝒞(X)`$ that occurs in $`T`$ a continuum in $`Y_T`$ that maps onto $`C`$ and assign it to $`C^{}`$; this then makes the family of closed sets of $`Y_T`$ a model of $`T`$.

As before we obtain a lattice $`L`$ whose Wallman space is one-dimensional and hereditarily indecomposable, and which, in addition, admits a weakly confluent map onto $`X`$.

## 5. $`\mathrm{𝖮𝖢𝖠}`$ and some of its uses

The *Open Coloring Axiom* ($`\mathrm{𝖮𝖢𝖠}`$) was formulated by Todorčević in \[Todorcevic89\]. It reads as follows: if $`X`$ is separable and metrizable and if $`[X]^2=K_0K_1`$, where $`K_0`$ is open in the product topology of $`[X]^2`$, then *either* $`X`$ has an uncountable $`K_0`$-homogeneous subset $`Y`$ *or* $`X`$ is the union of countably many $`K_1`$-homogeneous subsets.

One can deduce $`\mathrm{𝖮𝖢𝖠}`$ from the *Proper Forcing Axiom* ($`\mathrm{𝖯𝖥𝖠}`$) or prove it consistent in an $`\omega _2`$-length countable support proper iterated forcing construction, using $`\mathrm{}`$ on $`\omega _2`$ to predict all possible subsets of the Hilbert cube and all possible open colourings of these.

The axiom $`\mathrm{𝖮𝖢𝖠}`$ has a strong influence on the structure of maps between concrete objects like $`𝒫(\mathrm{})`$, $`𝒫(\mathrm{})/\mathrm{𝑓𝑖𝑛}`$ and the measure algebra $``$. In fact it imposes such strict conditions that $`\mathrm{𝖮𝖢𝖠}`$ implies the nonembeddability of $``$ and other algebras into $`𝒫(\mathrm{})/\mathrm{𝑓𝑖𝑛}`$.

### A simple space

Let $`\mathrm{𝔻}=\omega \times (\omega +1)`$; Parovičenko’s theorem implies that $`\mathrm{𝔻}^{}`$ is a continuous image of $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ if $`\mathrm{𝖢𝖧}`$ is assumed. We shall see that such a continuous surjection has no simple description. Later on we shall indicate how $`\mathrm{𝖮𝖢𝖠}`$ dictates that if there is a continuous surjection of $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ onto $`\mathrm{𝔻}^{}`$ at all then there must also be one with a simple description, thus showing that $`\mathrm{𝖮𝖢𝖠}`$ implies $`\mathrm{𝔻}^{}`$ is *not* a continuous image of $`\mathrm{}^{}`$.

Most of the proof will be algebraic, i.e., instead of working with continuous maps from $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ onto $`\mathrm{𝔻}^{}`$ we work with embeddings of the algebra of clopen sets of $`\mathrm{𝔻}^{}`$ into $`𝒫(\mathrm{})/\mathrm{𝑓𝑖𝑛}`$. However, both algebras are quotient algebras so we will consider liftings of these embeddings, i.e., we will work with maps from $`\mathrm{Co}\mathrm{𝔻}`$ to $`𝒫(\mathrm{})`$ that represent them.

First of all we give a description of the Boolean algebra of clopen subsets of $`\mathrm{𝔻}`$ that is easy to work with. We work in $`\omega \times \omega `$ and denote the $`n`$-th column $`\{n\}\times \omega `$ by $`C_n`$. The family

$$=\{X\omega \times \omega :(n\omega )(C_n^{}XC_nX=^{}\mathrm{})\}$$

is the Boolean algebra of clopen subsets of $`\mathrm{𝔻}`$. We also consider the subfamily

$$^{}=\{X:(n\omega )(C_nX=^{}\mathrm{})\}$$

of $``$.

Now assume $`S:\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{𝔻}^{}`$ is a continuous surjection and take a map $`\mathrm{\Sigma }:𝒫(\mathrm{})`$ that represents $`S`$, i.e., for all $`X`$ we have $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(X)^{}=S^{}[X^{}]`$. Note that if $`X`$ is compact in $`\mathrm{𝔻}`$ then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(X)`$ is finite.

The main result of this section is that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ cannot be *simple*, where simple maps are defined as follows.

###### Definition 5.1.

We call a map $`F:^{}𝒫(\omega )`$ *simple* if there is a map $`f`$ from $`\omega \times \omega `$ to $`[\omega ]^{<\omega }`$ such that $`F(X)=^{}f[X]`$ for all $`X`$, where $`f[X]`$ denotes the set $`_{xX}f(x)`$.

###### Theorem 5.2.

The map $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ is not simple.

###### Proof.

We assume that there is a map $`\sigma :\omega \times \omega [\omega ]^{<\omega }`$ such that $`\sigma [X]=^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }(X)`$ for all $`X`$; this implies that $`\sigma [X]^{}=S^{}[X^{}]`$ for all $`X`$, so the map $`X\sigma [X]`$ also represents $`S`$. We may therefore as well assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(X)=\sigma [X]`$ for all $`X`$.

Claim 1. We can assume that the values $`\sigma (x)`$ are pairwise disjoint.

Proof. Let $`f_\alpha :\alpha <𝔟`$ be a sequence in $`{}_{}{}^{\omega }\omega `$ that is strictly increasing and unbounded with respect to $`<^{}`$; also each $`f_\alpha `$ is assumed to be strictly increasing.

For each $`\alpha `$ let $`L_\alpha =\{(n,m):mf_\alpha (n)\}`$ and $`A_\alpha =\sigma [L_\alpha ]`$. Next let

$$B_\alpha =\{iA_\alpha :(x,yL_\alpha )((xy)(i\sigma (x)\sigma (y)))\}.$$

Now if $`B_\alpha `$ were infinite then we could find different $`i_n`$ in $`B_\alpha `$ and different $`x_n`$ and $`y_n`$ in $`L_\alpha `$ such that $`i_n\sigma (x_n)\sigma (y_n)`$. But then $`X=\{x_n:n\omega \}`$ and $`Y=\{y_n:n\omega \}`$ would be disjoint yet $`\sigma [X]\sigma [Y]`$ would be infinite.

We conclude that each $`B_\alpha `$ is finite and because $`𝔟`$ is regular we can assume that all $`B_\alpha `$ are equal to the same set $`B`$. Fix $`n`$ such that $`[n,\omega )\times \omega _\alpha L_\alpha `$ and note that on $`[n,\omega )\times \omega `$ we have $`\sigma (x)\sigma (y)B`$ whenever $`xy`$. Replace $`\sigma (x)`$ by $`\sigma (x)B`$ and $`\omega \times \omega `$ by $`[n,\mathrm{})\times \omega `$.

In a similar fashion we can prove the following claim.

Claim 2. We can assume that the values $`\sigma (x)`$ are all nonempty.

Proof. There are only finitely many $`n`$ for which there is an $`m`$ such that $`\sigma (n,m)=\mathrm{}`$. Otherwise we could find a noncompact $`X^{}`$ for which $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(X)=\mathrm{}`$. Drop these finitely many columns from $`\omega \times \omega `$.

For each $`n`$ let $`D_n=\sigma [C_n]`$ and work inside $`D=_nD_n`$. Also define, for $`f{}_{}{}^{\omega }\omega `$, the sets $`L_f=\{(n,m):mf(n)\}`$ and $`M_f=\sigma [L_f]`$.

Now observe the following: for each $`f`$ and $`n`$ the intersection $`M_fD_n`$ is finite and if $`XD`$ is such that $`XD_n=^{}\mathrm{}`$ for all $`n`$ then $`XM_f`$ for some $`f`$.

In $`\mathrm{𝔻}^{}`$ we consider the top line $`T=\left(\omega \times \{\omega \}\right)^{}`$ and its complement $`O`$. First we note that $`O=_fL_f^{}`$ and so

$$S^{}[O]=\underset{f}{}S^{}[L_f^{}]=\underset{f}{}\sigma [L_f]^{}=\underset{f}{}M_f^{}.$$

This means that $`S[D_n^{}]T`$ for all $`n`$, because $`D_n^{}`$ is disjoint from $`_fM_f^{}`$. Also, the boundary of the cozero set $`_nD_n^{}`$ is the boundary of $`_fM_f^{}`$; by continuity this boundary is mapped onto the boundary of $`O`$, which is $`T`$.

This argument works for every infinite subset $`A`$ of $`\omega `$: the boundary of $`_{nA}D_n^{}`$ is mapped exactly onto the set $`T_A=\left(A\times \{\omega \}\right)^{}`$ and so $`T_A`$ is contained in the closure of $`S[_{nA}D_n^{}]`$ and $`S[D_n^{}]T_A`$ for all but finitely many $`nA`$.

From the fact that nonempty $`G_\delta `$-sets in $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ have nonempty interior one readily deduces that no countable family of nowhere dense subsets of $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ has a dense union. We conclude that there is an $`n_0`$ such that $`\mathrm{int}_TS[D_{n_0}^{}]`$ is nonempty. Choose an infinite subset $`A_0`$ of $`(n_0,\omega )`$ such that $`T_{A_0}S[D_{n_0}^{}]`$.

Continue this process: once $`n_i`$ and $`A_i`$ are found one finds $`n_{i+1}A_i`$ such that $`S[D_{n_{i+1}}^{}]`$ has nonempty interior and is contained in $`T_{A_i}`$, next choose an infinite subset $`A_{i+1}`$ of $`A_i(n_{i+1},\omega )`$ such that $`T_{A_{i+1}}S[D_{n_{i+1}}^{}]`$.

Finally then let $`A=\{n_{2i}:i\omega \}`$ and $`B=\{n_{2i+1}:i\omega \}`$. Note that $`T_A_{nB}S[D_n^{}]`$ but also that $`S[D_n^{}]T_A=\mathrm{}`$ for all but finitely many $`nB`$. This contradiction completes the proof of Theorem 5.2. ∎

### The measure algebra

Parovičenko’s theorem also implies that the measure algebra $``$ can be embedded into $`𝒫(\mathrm{})/\mathrm{𝑓𝑖𝑛}`$ (under $`\mathrm{𝖢𝖧}`$); as in the previous section we shall see that such an embedding admits no easy description. Again, $`\mathrm{𝖮𝖢𝖠}`$ dictates that any embedding of $``$ into $`𝒫(\mathrm{})/\mathrm{𝑓𝑖𝑛}`$ induces an embedding with an easy description, from which we deduce that $`\mathrm{𝖮𝖢𝖠}`$ prohibits embeddability of $``$ into $`𝒫(\mathrm{})/\mathrm{𝑓𝑖𝑛}`$.

#### The Measure Algebra

The standard representation of the Measure Algebra is as the quotient of the $`\sigma `$-algebra of Borel sets of the unit interval by the ideal of sets of Lebesgue measure zero. For ease of notation we choose a different underlying set, namely $`\mathrm{}=\omega \times 2^\omega `$, where $`2^\omega `$is the Cantor set. We consider the Cantor set endowed with the natural coin-tossing measure $`\mu `$, determined by specifying $`\mu \left([s]\right)=2^{|s|}`$. Here $`s`$ denotes a finite partial function from $`\omega `$ to $`2`$ and $`[s]=\{x2^\omega :sx\}`$. We extend $`\mu `$ on the Borel sets of $`\mathrm{}`$ by setting $`\mu \left(\{n\}\times [s]\right)=2^{|s|}`$ for all $`n`$ and $`s`$.

The measure algebra is isomorphic to the quotient algebra $`=\mathrm{Bor}(\mathrm{})/𝒩`$, where $`𝒩=\{N\mathrm{}:\mu (N)=0\}`$; henceforth we shall work with $``$.

#### Liftings of embeddings

Assume $`\phi :𝒫(\mathrm{})/\mathrm{𝑓𝑖𝑛}`$ is an embedding of Boolean algebras and take a *lifting* $`\mathrm{\Phi }:𝒫(\mathrm{})`$ of $`\phi `$; this is a map that chooses a representative $`\mathrm{\Phi }(a)`$ of $`\phi (a)`$ for every $`a`$ in $``$.

We shall be working mostly with the restrictions of $`\phi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to the family of (equivalence classes of) open subsets of $`\mathrm{}`$ and in particular with their restrictions to the canonical base for $`\mathrm{}`$, which is

$$=\{\{n\}\times [s]:n\omega ,s2^{<\omega }\}.$$

To keep our formulas manageable we shall identify $``$ with the set $`\omega \times 2^{<\omega }`$. We shall also be using layers/strata of $``$ along functions from $`\omega `$ to $`\omega `$: for $`f{}_{}{}^{\omega }\omega `$ we put $`_f=\{n,s:n\omega ,s2^{f(n)}\}`$.

For a subset $`O`$ of $`_f`$ we abbreviate $`\phi \left(\{\{n\}\times [s]:n,sO\}\right)`$ by $`\phi (O)`$ and define $`\mathrm{\Phi }(O)`$ similarly. Observe that $`O\phi (O)`$ defines an embedding of $`𝒫(_f)`$ into $`𝒫(\mathrm{})/\mathrm{𝑓𝑖𝑛}`$. As an extra piece of notation we use $`\mathrm{\Phi }[O]`$ (square brackets) to denote the union $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }(n,s):n,sO\}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(n,s)`$ abbreviates $`\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\left\{n,s\right\}\right)`$.

For later use we explicitly record the following easy lemma.

###### Lemma 5.3.

If $`f{}_{}{}^{\omega }\omega `$ and if $`O`$ is a finite subset of $`B_f`$ then $`\mathrm{\Phi }(O)=^{}\mathrm{\Phi }[O]`$.

###### Proof.

Both sets represent $`\phi (O)`$. ∎

Let us call a lifting *complete* if it satisfies Lemma 5.3 for *every* $`f{}_{}{}^{\omega }\omega `$ and *every* subset $`O`$ of $`B_f`$.

We can always make a lifting $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ *exact*, by which we mean that the sets $`\mathrm{\Phi }(n,\mathrm{})`$ form a partition of $`\mathrm{}`$ and that every $`\mathrm{\Phi }(s,n)`$ is the disjoint union of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(n,s0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(n,s1)`$; indeed, we need only change each of the countably many sets $`\mathrm{\Phi }(n,s)`$ by adding or deleting finitely many points to achieve this.

Now we can properly formulate what ‘easy description’ means and how $`\mathrm{𝖮𝖢𝖠}`$ insists on there being an easily described embedding.

1. For every exact lifting $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of an embedding $`\phi `$ there are an $`f{}_{}{}^{\omega }\omega `$ and an infinite subset $`O`$ of $`B_f`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(O)^{}\mathrm{\Phi }[O]`$, i.e., no exact lifting is complete — see Proposition 5.4.
2. $`\mathrm{𝖮𝖢𝖠}`$ implies that every embedding $`\phi `$ gives rise to an embedding $`\psi `$ with a lifting $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ that is both exact and complete (see \[DowHart2000a\]).

#### No exact lifting is complete

Assume $`\phi :𝒫(\mathrm{})/\mathrm{𝑓𝑖𝑛}`$ is an embedding and consider an exact lifting $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of $`\phi `$. The following proposition shows that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is not complete.

###### Proposition 5.4.

There is a sequence $`t_n:n\omega `$ in $`2^{<\omega }`$ such that for the open set $`O=_{n\omega }\{n\}\times [t_n]`$ we have $`\mathrm{\Phi }(O)^{}\mathrm{\Phi }[O]`$.

###### Proof.

Take, for each $`n`$, the monotone enumeration $`\{k(n,i):i\omega \}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(n,\mathrm{})`$ and apply exactness to find $`t(n,i)2^{i+2}`$ such that $`k(n,i)\mathrm{\Phi }(n,t(n,i))`$. Use these $`t(n,i)`$ to define open sets $`U_n=_{i\omega }\{n\}\times \left[t(n,i)\right]`$; observe that $`\mu (U_n)_{i\omega }2^{i2}=\frac{1}{2}`$. It follows that $`\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\{n\}\times U_n^c\right)`$ is infinite.

We let $`F`$ be the closed set $`_{n\omega }\{n\}\times U_n^c`$; its image $`\mathrm{\Phi }(F)`$ meets every $`\mathrm{\Phi }(n,\mathrm{})`$ in an infinite set. For every $`n`$ let $`i_n`$ be the first index with $`k(n,i_n)\mathrm{\Phi }(F)`$ and consider the open set $`O=_{n\omega }\{n\}\times \left[t(n,i_n)\right]`$ and the infinite set $`I=\{k(n,i_n):n\omega \}`$.

Observe the following

1. $`\mathrm{\Phi }(O)\mathrm{\Phi }(F)=^{}\mathrm{}`$, because $`OF=\mathrm{}`$;
2. $`I\mathrm{\Phi }(F)`$, by our choice of the $`i_n`$; and
3. $`I\mathrm{\Phi }[O]`$, by the choice of the $`t(n,i_n)`$.

It follows that $`<t(n,i_n):n\omega >`$ is as required. ∎

### How $`\mathrm{𝖮𝖢𝖠}`$ induces simple structure

In the previous two subsections we had two maps, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }:^{}𝒫(\mathrm{})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }:𝒫(\mathrm{})`$. Both induced embeddings of their domains into $`𝒫(\mathrm{})/\mathrm{𝑓𝑖𝑛}`$. What $`\mathrm{𝖮𝖢𝖠}`$ does is guarantee the existence of an infinite subset $`A`$ of $`\omega `$ such that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is simple on $`\{B^{}:BA\times \omega \}`$ and such that the embedding induced by $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has a lifting that is exact and complete on $`\{n,s:nA\}`$. We indicate how to do this for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and refer the interested reader to \[DowHart2000a\] for details on how to deal with $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

#### Working locally

For $`f{}_{}{}^{\omega }\omega `$ and put $`L_f=\{m,n:nf(m)\}`$ and observe that for every $`B^{}`$ there is an $`f`$ such that $`BL_f`$; this means that $`^{}=_f𝒫(L_f)`$.

Our first step, for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, will be to show that it is simple on $`L_{f,A}=m,nL_f:mA\}`$ for many subsets of $`\omega `$ (for all $`f`$). Similarly, for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, we show that there is an exact and complete lifting on $`_{f,A}=\{n,s_f:nA\}`$ for many subsets of $`\omega `$ (for all $`f`$). The proof will be finished by finding one $`A`$ that works for all $`f`$ simultaneously. We follow the strategy laid out in Veličković’ papers \[Velickovic86\] and \[Velickovic93\].

Fix a bijection $`c:\omega 2^{<\omega }`$ and use it to transfer the set of branches to an almost disjoint family $`𝒜`$ on $`\omega `$ and fix an $`\mathrm{}_1`$-sized subfamily $`\{A_\alpha :\alpha <\omega _1\}`$ of $`𝒜`$. Using $`\mathrm{𝖮𝖢𝖠}`$ we shall show that all but countably many $`A_\alpha `$ are as required, i.e, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is simple on $`L_{f,A_\alpha }`$ for all but countably many $`\alpha `$. Let us write $`L_\alpha =L_{f,A_\alpha }`$.

To apply $`\mathrm{𝖮𝖢𝖠}`$ we need a separable metric space; we take

$$X=\{a,b:(\alpha <\omega _1)(baL_\alpha )\},$$

topologized by identifying $`a,b`$ with $`a,b,\mathrm{\Sigma }(a),\mathrm{\Sigma }(b)`$ — that is, $`X`$ is identified with a subset of $`𝒫(\omega )^4`$. We define a partition $`[X]^2=K_0K_1`$ by: $`\{a,b,c,d\}K_0`$ iff 1) $`a`$ and $`c`$ are in different $`L_\alpha `$’s; 2) $`ad=cb`$, and 3) $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(a)\mathrm{\Sigma }(d)\mathrm{\Sigma }(c)\mathrm{\Sigma }(b)`$.

Because of the special choice of the almost disjoint family $`𝒜`$ the set $`K_0`$ is open: condition 1) can now be met using only finitely many restrictions and then condition 2) needs finitely many restrictions also; condition 3) needs just one restriction.

The next step is to show that there is no uncountable $`K_0`$-homogeneous set. Suppose $`Y`$ were uncountable and $`K_0`$-homogeneous. Then we can form the set $`x=\{b:(a)(a,bY)\}`$. Condition 2) implies that $`xa=b`$ whenever $`a,bY`$ and this means that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(x)\mathrm{\Sigma }(a)=^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }(b)`$ for all these pairs. So now we can fix $`n\omega `$ and subsets $`p`$ and $`q`$ of $`n`$ such that, for uncountably many $`a,bY`$ we have $`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }(x)\mathrm{\Sigma }(a)\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }(b)n`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(a)n=p`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(b)n=q`$. But then condition 3) would be violated for these pairs.

We conclude that $`X=_nX_n`$, where each $`X_n`$ is $`K_1`$-homogeneous. Choose, for each $`n`$, a countable dense set $`D_n`$ in $`X_n`$ — with respect to the given topology. Let $`\alpha _f`$ be the first ordinal such that if $`a,b_nD_n`$ and $`aL_\alpha `$ then $`\alpha <\alpha _f`$. For $`\alpha \alpha _f`$ and $`n\omega `$ define $`F_n:𝒫(L_\alpha )𝒫(\mathrm{})`$ by

$$F_n(b)=\{\mathrm{\Sigma }(L_\alpha )\mathrm{\Sigma }(d):(c)(c,dD_ncb=L_\alpha d)\}.$$

Each of the maps $`F_n`$ is Borel and $`F_n(b)=\mathrm{\Sigma }(b)`$ whenever $`L_\alpha ,bX_n`$. Thus $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has been tamed substantially: it has been covered by countably many Borel maps. In \[DowHart99\] one can find how to modify Veličković’ arguments from \[Velickovic93\] to show that this implies that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is indeed simple.

#### Going global

We now have for each $`f`$ an ordinal $`\alpha _f`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is simple on $`L_{f,A_\alpha }`$ whenever $`\alpha \alpha _f`$. It should be clear that in case $`fg`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is simple on $`L_{g,A_\alpha }`$ it is also simple on $`L_{f,A_\alpha }`$ because the latter set is almost a subset of the former. It follows that $`f\alpha _f`$ is monotone from $`{}_{}{}^{\omega }\omega `$ to $`\omega _1`$.

Now, $`\mathrm{𝖮𝖢𝖠}`$ implies that $`𝔟=\mathrm{}_2`$, see \[Bekkali91, Theorem 3.16\]. But this then implies that there is an ordinal $`\alpha _{\mathrm{}}`$ such that $`\alpha _f\alpha _{\mathrm{}}`$ for all $`f`$. We find that, for very $`\alpha \alpha _{\mathrm{}}`$, the map $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is simple on $`L_{f,A_\alpha }`$ for all $`f`$.

For definiteness let $`A=A_\alpha _{\mathrm{}}`$ and fix for each $`f`$ a map $`\sigma _f:L_{f,A}[\omega ]^{<\omega }`$ that induces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. It should be clear that the $`\sigma _f`$ cannot differ too much, i.e, on $`L_{f,A}L_{g,A}`$ the maps $`\sigma _f`$ and $`\sigma _g`$ will differ in only finitely many point — the family $`\{\sigma _f:f{}_{}{}^{\omega }\omega \}`$ is said to be coherent. Theorem 3.13 from \[Bekkali91\] now applies: one can find one map $`\sigma :A\times \omega [\omega ]^{<\omega }`$ such that $`\sigma L_{f,A}=^{}\sigma _f`$ for all $`f`$. This $`\sigma `$ is the simplifying map that we were looking for.