text:
# Some new results on Borel irreducibility of equivalence relations The results of this paper were partially presented at LC‘1999 (Utrecht), LC‘2000 (Paris), Lumini Meeting in set theory (2000), Caltech and UCLA seminars, and P. S. Novikov’s Memorial Conference (Moscow, 2001).

## Introduction

Classification problems for different types of mathematical structures have been in the center of interests in descriptive set theory since the beginning of the 90s. Suppose that $`X`$ is a class of mathematical structures, identified modulo an equivalence relation $`𝖤.`$ This can be, e. g., countable groups modulo the isomorphism relation, or unitary operators over a fixed space $`^n`$ modulo conjugacy, or probability measures over a fixed Polish space modulo the identification of measures having the same null sets, or, for instance, reals modulo the Turing reducibility. (The examples are taken from Hjorth’s book  and Kechris’ survey paper , where many more examples are given.) Suppose that $`Y`$ is another class of mathematical structures, identified modulo an equivalence relation $`𝖥.`$ The classification problem is then to find out whether there exists a definable, or effective injection $`\mathrm{\Theta }:X/𝖤Y/𝖥.`$ Such a map $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ can be seen as a classification of objects in $`X`$ in terms of objects in $`Y,`$ in a way which respects quotients over $`𝖤`$ and $`𝖥.`$ Its existence can be a result of high importance, for instance when objects in $`Y`$ are of mich simpler mathematical nature than those in $`X`$.

In many cases, it turns out that the classes of structures $`X`$ and $`Y`$ can be considered as Polish (i. e., separable complete metric) spaces, so that $`𝖤,𝖥`$ become Borel or, more generally, analytic (as sets of pairs) relations, while reduction maps are usually required to be Borel 111 That is, with Borel graphs. Baire measurable maps and reductions satisfying certain algebraic requirements are also considered , as well as $`𝚫_2^1`$ and more complicated reductions , however they are not in the scope of this paper.. In this case the problem can be studied by methods of descriptive set theory, where it takes the form: if $`𝖤,𝖥`$ are Borel or analytic equivalence relations on Polish spaces, resp., $`X,Y,`$ does there exist a Borel reduction $`𝖤`$ to $`𝖥,`$ i. e., a Borel map $`\vartheta :XY`$ satisfying $`x𝖤x^{}\vartheta (x)𝖥\vartheta (x^{})`$ for all $`x,x^{}X.`$ If such a map $`\vartheta `$ exists then $`𝖤`$ is said to be Borel reducible to $`𝖥.`$ Studies on Borel and analytic equivalence relations (ERs, for brevity) under Borel reducibility by methods of descriptive set theory, revealed a remarkable structure of reducibility and irreducibility theorems between ERs of different types (we can cite  as a partial account of the results obtained). Our paper belongs to this research direction.

Our first main theorem establishes Borel irreducibility between two large classes of ERs. Class 1 consists of ERs induced by generically turbulent Polish actions 222 That is, comeager many orbits, and even local orbits, are somewhere dense, see Definition 5.. Hjorth  proved that no ER of this class is Borel reducible to an ER of Class 2 which consists of orbit ERs of Polish actions of $`S_{\mathrm{}},`$ the group of all permutations of $`.`$ (This result is also known in the form: generically turbulent ERs are not classifiable by countable structures, see comments in 3.3.)

One of possible proofs of Hjorth’s theorem is as follows. First, any ER, Borel reducible to an ER in Class 2, is then Borel reducible, at least on a comeager set, to an ER in Class 3 333 Introduced essentially by H. Friedman ., which consists of those ERs that can be obtained from equalities on Polish spaces using the operation of countable power $`𝖤^{\mathrm{}}.`$ Second (this involves Hjorth’s turbulence theory), no ER in Class 1 is Borel reducible to a ER in Class 3, even on a comeager set. Our Theorem 1 generalizes the second part. We consider Class 4, containing all ERs which can be obtained from equalities on Polish spaces with the operations of $`1)`$ countable union (if it results in a ER) of ERs in the same space, $`2)`$ Fubini product $`_k𝖤_k/\mathrm{Fin}`$ modulo the ideal $`\mathrm{Fin}`$ of all finite subsets of $`,`$ and $`3)`$ the countable power $`𝖤^{\mathrm{}}`$ (see 1.2 for exact definitions). Class 4 includes Class 3, of course, but contains many more various ERs, especially those defined using Fubini products, for instance, all ERs induced by generalized Fréchet, indecomposable, and Weiss ideals (see 1.2).

###### Theorem 1.

ERs in Class 1 are not Borel reducible (even not reducible by Baire measurable functions) to ERs in Class 4.

The proof (Section 2) involves the induction on the construction of ERs in Class 4 with the help of the operations indicated. The technique of the turbulence theory will play the key role in the proof, in particular, the key step will be to prove that any ER in Class 1 is generically ergodic w. r. t. any ER in Class 4 (Theorem 6). As an application of this result, we derive the abovementioned Hjorth’s theorem in a few rather simple steps in Section 3.

Amongst the habitants of Class 1 we have ERs of the form $`x𝖤_{}y`$ iff $`x\Delta y,`$ for all $`x,y𝒫(),`$ where $``$ is an ideal on $`.`$ Any ideal $`𝒫()`$ is obviously an Abelian group with the symmetric difference $`\Delta `$ as the group operation, and $`𝖤_{}`$ is induced by the shift action of $``$ on $`𝒫()`$ by $`\Delta .`$ Kechris  proved that this action is turbulent provided $``$ is a Borel P-ideal 444 An ideal $``$ on $``$ is a P-ideal if for any sequence of sets $`x_n`$ there is a set $`x`$ such that $`x_nx`$ is finite for any $`n.`$ For Borel ideals, this is equivalent to polishability, i. e., the existence of a Polish topology on $``$ which converts $`;\Delta `$ in a Polish group. , with few exceptions mentioned below. This allows us to prove the following theorem in 3.1 as a corollary of Theorem 1.

###### Theorem 2.

If $`𝒵`$ is a non-trivial 555 Here, containing all singletons $`\{n\},n,`$ and different from $`𝒫()`$. Borel P-ideal on $``$ then $`𝖤_𝒵`$ is not Borel reducible to a ER in Class 4 unless $`𝒵`$ is $`\mathrm{Fin}`$ or a trivial variation of $`\mathrm{Fin},`$ or $`𝒵`$ is isomorphic to $`_3=0\times \mathrm{Fin}`$ via a bijection between the underlying sets.

Borel P-ideals form a widely studied class, which includes, for instance, $`\mathrm{Fin},`$ the ideal $`_3=0\times \mathrm{Fin}`$ of all sets $`x^2`$ such that every cross-section $`(x)_n=\{k:n,kx\}`$ is finite, and trivial variations of $`\mathrm{Fin},`$ i. e., ideals of the form $`_W=\{x:xW\mathrm{Fin}\},`$ where $`W`$ is infinite (see 1.3), as well as summable ideals, density ideals, and many more (see ). Easily the ERs $`𝖤_0=𝖤_{\mathrm{Fin}}`$ and $`𝖤_3=𝖤__3`$ induced by the ideals $`\mathrm{Fin}`$ and $`_3,`$ and those induced by trivial variations of $`\mathrm{Fin},`$ belong to Class 4, thus, the exclusion of $`\mathrm{Fin},_3,`$ and trivial variations of $`\mathrm{Fin}`$ in Theorem 2 is necessary and fully motivated.

Note that a weaker form of Theorem 2, with Class 3 instead of Class 4, is implicitly contained in Kechris . A very partial result, that $`𝖤_{𝒵_0},`$ the ER associated with the density-0 ideal $`𝒵_0,`$ is not Baire reducible to any ER of Class 3, was announced in . (Friedman gives a proof in .)

The final Section 4 is written in attempt to obtain results of the opposite character, i. e., that ERs in Class 4 are not Borel reducible to, say, turbulent or some other ERs of different nature. This is a comparably less developed area, and perhaps only one special theorem of this sort is known: Hjorth  proved that $`𝖳_2,`$ the ER defined on countable sequences of the reals so that $`\{x_n\}𝖳_2\{y_n\}`$ iff $`\{x_n:n\}=\{y_n:n\}`$ 666 $`𝖳_2,`$ sometimes denoted $`𝖥_2,`$ as in , is often called “the equality of countable sets of reals”; it belongs to Class 3 and is one of the most important Borel ERs. , is not Borel reducible to any ER induced by a continuous action of a Polish group which admits a compatible complete left-invariant metric (a CLI group; this includes, for instance, Polish Abelian groups). It can be expected that $`𝖳_2`$ is not Borel reducible to any Borel action of a Borel Abelian group, but this is still open, even w. r. t. shift $`\Delta `$-actions of Borel ideals.

A possible way to solve the problem is connected with the following condition of a ER $`𝖤`$ (implicitly in ): for any forcing notion $``$ and any $``$-term $`\xi ,`$ if $`\times `$ forces $`\xi _{\mathrm{𝚕𝚎𝚏𝚝}}𝖤\xi _{\mathrm{𝚛𝚒𝚐𝚑𝚝}}`$ then there is a real $`x`$ in the ground universe such that $``$ forces $`x𝖤\xi .`$ We call pinned all ERs satisfying this condition. Note that $`𝖳_2`$ is not pinnedand not Borel reducible to any analytic pinned ER. We prove in Section 4 that $`1)`$ ERs induced by Polish actions of CLI groups are pinned (our proof is a simplification of Hjorth’s proof in ), $`2)`$ Borel ERs whose equivalence classes are $`𝐆_{\delta \sigma }`$ sets are pinned (based on an idea extended to us by Hjorth), $`3)`$ ERs associated with exhaustive ideals of sequences of submeasures on $``$ (not all of them are Polishable) are pinned, $`4)`$ Fubini products of analytic pinned ERs modulo $`\mathrm{Fin}`$ are pinned. All of those ERs do not Borel reduce $`𝖳_2.`$ For instance all ERs induced by Fréchet ideals are pinned and do not Borel reduce $`𝖳_2.`$

## 1 Preliminaries

This Section contains a review of basic notation involved in the formulations and proofs of our main results.

### 1.1 Descriptive set theory

Some degree of knowledge of the theory of Borel and analytic sets in Polish (i. e., complete separable metric) spaces is assumed. Recall that analytic sets (also known as Suslin, A-sets, or $`𝚺_1^1`$) are continuous images of Borel sets. Any Borel set is analytic, but (in uncountable Polish spaces) not conversely.

A map $`f`$ (between Borel sets in Polish spaces) is called Borel iff its graph is a Borel set, or, which is the same, if all $`f`$-preimages of open sets are Borel. BM always means Baire measurable. A map $`f:𝕏𝕐`$ is BM iff all $`f`$-preimages of open sets in $`𝕐`$ have the Baire property in $`𝕏`$ (i. e., are equal to open sets modulo meager sets, that is, sets of the 1st category). Any such a map is continuous on a dense $`𝐆_\delta `$ set $`D𝕏`$ ($`𝕏,𝕐`$ are supposed to be Polish).

Superpositions of Borel maps are easily Borel. Generally speaking, this is not true for BM maps, however, we have a useful partial result.

###### Lemma 3.

If $`𝕏,𝕐,`$ are Polish spaces, $`f:𝕏𝕐`$ is BM, and $`g:𝕐`$ is Borel, then the superposition $`fg:𝕏`$ is BM.

###### Proof.

By definition, $`g`$-preimages of open subsets of $``$ are Borel in $`𝕐,`$ whose $`f`$-preimages are Borel combinations of sets having the Baire property. ∎

### 1.2 Equivalence relations

ER means: equivalence relation. By $`𝖣(X)`$ we denote the equality on $`X`$ considered as a ER.

Let $`𝖤`$ be a ER on a set $`X.`$ Then $`[y]_𝖤=\{xX:y𝖤x\}`$ is the $`𝖤`$-class of any element $`yX.`$ A set $`YX`$ is pairwise $`𝖤`$-equivalent, if $`x𝖤y`$ holds for all $`x,yY`$.

Suppose that $`𝖤`$ and $`𝖥`$ are ERs on Polish spaces resp. $`𝕏,𝕐.`$

* $`𝖤_\text{b}𝖥`$ (Borel reducibility; sometimes they write $`𝕏/𝖤_\text{b}𝕐/𝖥`$) means that there is a Borel map $`\vartheta :𝕏𝕐`$ (called reduction) such that $`x𝖤y\vartheta (x)𝖥\vartheta (y)`$ for all $`x,y𝕏`$;
* $`𝖤_\text{b}𝖥`$ means that $`𝖤_\text{b}𝖥`$ and $`𝖥_\text{b}𝖤`$ (Borel bi-reducibility);
* $`𝖤<_\text{b}𝖥`$ means that $`𝖤_\text{b}𝖥`$ but $`𝖥_\text{b}𝖤`$ (strict Borel reducibility).

The following operations over ERs on Polish spaces are considered.

1. the countable union (if it results in a ER) and the countable intersection of ERs on one and the same space;
2. the countable disjoint union $`𝖥=_k𝖥_k`$ of ERs $`𝖥_k`$ on Polish spaces $`𝕊_k`$ is a ER on $`𝕊=_k(\{k\}\times 𝕊_k)`$ (with the Polish topology generated by sets of the form $`\{k\}\times U,`$ where $`U𝕊_k`$ is open) defined as follows: $`k,x𝖥l,y`$ iff $`k=l`$ and $`x𝖥_ky`$ 777 If $`𝕊_k`$ are pairwise disjoint and open in $`𝕊^{}=_k𝕊_k`$ then we can equivalently define $`𝖥=_k𝖥_k`$ on $`𝕊^{}`$ so that $`x𝖥y`$ iff $`x,y`$ belong to the same $`𝕊_k`$ and $`x𝖥_ky`$. ;
3. the product $`𝖯=_k𝖥_k`$ of ERs $`𝖥_k`$ on spaces $`𝕊_k`$ is a ER on $`_k𝕊_k`$ defined so that $`x𝖯y`$ iff $`x_k𝖥_ky_k`$ for all $`k,`$ in particular, if $`𝖤,𝖥`$ live in, resp., $`𝕏,𝕐`$ then $`𝖯=𝖤\times 𝖥`$ is defined on $`𝕏\times 𝕐`$ so that $`x,y𝖯x^{},y^{}`$ iff $`x𝖤x^{}`$ and $`y𝖥y^{}`$;
4. the Fubini product $`_k𝖥_k/`$ of ERs $`𝖥_k`$ on spaces $`𝕊_k,`$ modulo an ideal $``$ on $`,`$ is a ER on the product space $`_k𝕊_k`$ defined as follows: $`x𝖥y`$ iff $`\{k:x_k\mathsf{}_ky_k\}`$;
5. the countable power $`𝖥^{\mathrm{}}`$ of a ER $`𝖥`$ on a space $`𝕊`$ is a ER on $`𝕊^{}`$ defined as follows: $`x𝖥^{\mathrm{}}y`$ iff $`\{[x_k]_𝖥:k\}=\{[y_k]_𝖥:k\},`$ so that for any $`k`$ there is $`l`$ with $`x_k𝖥y_l`$ and for any $`l`$ there is $`k`$ with $`x_k𝖥y_l`$.

Note that operations (e1), (e2), (e3), (e5), and (e4) with $`=\mathrm{Fin},`$ always yield Borel, resp., analytic ERs provided given ERs are Borel, resp., analytic.

The operations are not independent. In particular, $`_k𝖥_k`$ is Borel reducible to $`_k𝖥_k`$ via the map $`xx,x,x,\mathrm{},`$ while the disjoint union $`_k𝖥_k`$ is reducible to $`𝖣()\times _k𝖥_k`$ via $`k,xk,x_0,\mathrm{},x_{k1},x,x_{k+1},\mathrm{},`$ where $`x_k𝕊_k`$ are fixed once and for all. The product $`_k𝖥_k`$ itself is expressible in terms of the Fubini product modulo $`\mathrm{Fin}.`$ Indeed, let $`f:\stackrel{\mathrm{onto}}{}`$ be any map such that $`f^1(n)`$ is infinite for any $`n.`$ Put $`𝖤_k=𝖥_{f(k)}.`$ For any $`x=x_0,x_1,x_2,\mathrm{}_k𝕊_k`$ (where $`𝕊_k`$ is the domain of $`𝖥_k`$) let $`\vartheta (x)=y_0,y_1,y_2,\mathrm{},`$ where $`y_k=x_{f(k)}.`$ Then $`\vartheta `$ is a Borel reduction of $`_k𝖥_k`$ to $`_k𝖤_k/\mathrm{Fin}.`$ Yet the Fubini product and countable power are surely not reducible to each other, and we know little on the countable union in (e1).

It follows that Class 4 of ERs, mentioned in our theorems 1 and 2, is the least class of ERs which contains equalities $`𝖣(𝕊)`$ on Polish spaces $`𝕊`$ and is closed under the operations (e1)(e5) (with $`=\mathrm{Fin}`$ in (e4)), and all ERs in Class 4 are Borel ERs on Polish spaces.

There are many interesting ERs in Class 4, for instance, the sequence of ERs $`𝖳_\alpha ,\alpha <\omega _1,`$ of H. Friedman  which begins with $`𝖳_0=𝖣(),`$ the equality relation on $`,`$ then $`𝖳_{\alpha +1}=𝖳_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}`$ for any $`\alpha ,`$ and $`𝖳_\lambda =_{\alpha <\lambda }𝖳_\gamma `$ for limit ordinals $`\lambda .`$ Thus, $`𝚍𝚘𝚖𝖳_1=^{}`$ and $`x𝖳_1y`$ iff $`𝚛𝚊𝚗x=𝚛𝚊𝚗y,`$ for $`x,y^{}.`$ The map $`\vartheta (x)=`$ the characteristic function of $`𝚛𝚊𝚗x`$ witnesses that $`𝖳_1_\text{b}𝖣(2^{}).`$ To show the converse, define, for any $`a2^{},`$ $`\beta (a)`$ to be the only increasing bijection $`\stackrel{\mathrm{onto}}{}|a|=\{k:a(k)=1\}`$ whenewer $`|a|`$ is infinite, while if $`|a|=\{k_0,\mathrm{},k_n\}`$ then put $`\beta (a)(i)=k_i`$ for $`i<n`$ and $`\beta (a)(i)=k_n`$ for $`in.`$ The function $`\beta `$ witnesses $`𝖣(2^{})_\text{b}𝖳_1,`$ hence, $`𝖳_1_\text{b}𝖣(2^{}).`$ It easily follows that $`𝖳_2_\text{b}𝖣(2^{})^{\mathrm{}};`$ the right-hand side is often taken as the definition of the ER $`𝖳_2,`$ which by this reason is usually called “the equality of countable sets of reals”.

### 1.3 Ideals

An ideal on a set $`A`$ is any set $`\mathrm{}𝒫(A),`$ closed under $``$ and satisfying $`xyxy.`$ In this case, $`𝖤_{}`$ is a ER on $`𝒫(A)`$ defined as follows: $`X𝖤_{}Y`$ iff $`X\Delta Y.`$ Note that $`𝖤_{}`$ is Borel provided the ideal $``$ is such. Many important ERs appear in the form $`𝖤_{},`$ among them

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\hfill 𝖤_0& =& 𝖤_{\mathrm{Fin}}\hfill & ,& \text{ where }& \mathrm{Fin}=\{x:x\text{ is finite}\};\hfill \\ \hfill 𝖤_1& =& 𝖤__1\hfill & ,& \text{ where }& _1=\mathrm{Fin}\times 0=\{x^2:\{k:(x)_k\mathrm{}\}\mathrm{Fin}\};\hfill \\ \hfill 𝖤_3& =& 𝖤__3\hfill & ,& \text{ where }& _3=0\times \mathrm{Fin}=\{x^2:k((x)_k\mathrm{Fin})\};\hfill \end{array}$$

all of them belong to Class 4 888 To show that $`𝖤_0`$ belongs to Class 4 let, for any $`k,`$ $`𝖥_k`$ be the equality on a $`2`$-element set in (e4). To see that $`𝖤_3`$ belongs to Class 4 take each $`𝖥_k`$ to be $`𝖤_0`$ in (e3).. Ideals of the form $`\mathrm{Fin}_W=\{x𝒫():xW\mathrm{Fin}\},`$ where $`W`$ is infinite and coinfinite, called trivial variations of $`\mathrm{Fin},`$ also produce ERs in Class 4.

We write $`_\text{b}𝒥,_\text{b}𝒥,`$ etc. if resp. $`𝖤_{}_\text{b}𝖤_𝒥,𝖤_{}_\text{b}𝖤_𝒥,`$ etc.

The Fubini product $`_k𝒥_k/`$ of ideals $`𝒥_k`$ on sets $`B_k,`$ over an ideal $``$ on $`,`$ is an ideal of all sets $`yB=\{k,b:kbB_k\}`$ such that the set $`\{k:(y)_k𝒥_k\}`$ belongs to $`,`$ where $`(y)_k=\{b:k,bY\},`$ a cross-section of $`Y.`$ (Compare with the Fubini product of ERs !) In particular, if $`,𝒥`$ are ideals on resp. $`,B,`$ then $`𝒥=_k𝒥_k/,`$ where each $`𝒥_k=𝒥`$ for all $`k.`$ Thus, $`𝒥`$ is the ideal of all sets $`y\times B`$ such that $`\{k:(y)_k𝒥\}`$.

P-ideals. An ideal $``$ on $``$ is called a P-ideal if for any sequence of sets $`x_n`$ there is a set $`x`$ such that $`x_nx\mathrm{Fin}`$ for all $`n.`$ For instance, $`\mathrm{Fin}`$ and $`_3`$ (but not $`_1`$!) are P-ideals.

This class admits different characterizations. A submeasure on a set $`A`$ is any map $`\phi :𝒫(A)[0,+\mathrm{}],`$ satisfying $`\phi (\mathrm{})=0,`$ $`\phi (\{a\})<+\mathrm{}`$ for all $`a,`$ and $`\phi (x)\phi (xy)\phi (x)+\phi (y).`$ A submeasure $`\phi `$ on $``$ is lover semicontinuous, or l. s. c. for brevity, if we have $`\phi (x)=𝚜𝚞𝚙_n\phi (x[0,n))`$ for all $`x𝒫().`$ Solecki ) proved that Borel P-ideals are exactly those of the form $`\mathrm{𝙴𝚡𝚑}_\phi =\{x𝒫():\phi _{\mathrm{}}(x)=0\},`$ where $`\phi `$ is a l. s. c. submeasure on $``$ and $`\phi _{\mathrm{}}(x)=𝚒𝚗𝚏_n(x[n,\mathrm{})),`$ and Borel P-ideals are the same as polishable ideals, i. e., those which admit a Polish group topology with $`\Delta `$ as the group operation.

Kechris  proved that the shift action of any Borel P-ideal $`,`$ except for $`\mathrm{Fin},_3,`$ and trivial variations of $`\mathrm{Fin},`$ is generically turbulent, hence, the corresponding ER $`𝖤_{}`$ belongs to Class 1.

Fréchet family. This is the least family $`\mathrm{Fr}`$ of ideals containing $`\mathrm{Fin}`$ and closed under the Fubini products $`_n_n/\mathrm{Fin}.`$ For instance, the iterated Fréchet ideals $`𝒥_\alpha ,`$ defined by induction on $`\alpha <\omega _1`$ so that $`𝒥_0=\mathrm{Fin},`$ $`𝒥_{\alpha +1}=\mathrm{Fin}𝒥_\alpha `$ for all $`\alpha ,`$ and $`𝒥_\lambda =_{\alpha <\lambda }𝒥_\alpha /\mathrm{Fin}_\lambda `$ for any limit $`\lambda ,`$ where $`\mathrm{Fin}_\lambda `$ is the ideal of all finite subsets of $`\lambda ,`$ belong to $`\mathrm{Fr}.`$ (A modification of this construction in  involves a cofinal $`\omega `$-sequece fixed in each limit $`\lambda .`$)

By definition, if $`\mathrm{Fr}`$ then $`𝖤_{}`$ is a ER of Class 4.

Let $`𝚘𝚝𝚙X`$ be the order type of $`X\mathrm{𝙾𝚛𝚍}.`$ For any $`\gamma ,\alpha <\omega _1,`$ the set

$$_\alpha ^\gamma =\{A\alpha :𝚘𝚝𝚙A<\omega ^\gamma \}\text{(non-trivial only if }\alpha \omega ^\gamma \text{)}.$$

is an ideal (because ordinals of the form $`\omega ^\gamma `$ are not sums of a pair of smaller ordinals); those ideals, especially in the case when $`\alpha =\omega ^\gamma ,`$ are called indecomposable. We don’t know whether each $`_\alpha ^\gamma `$ is really (isomorphic to) an ideal in $`\mathrm{Fr},`$ yet it can be shown that any $`_\alpha ^\gamma `$ is Borel reducible to an ideal in $`\mathrm{Fr}.`$ Similarly,

$$𝒲_\alpha ^\gamma =\{A\gamma :|A|_{\mathrm{CB}}<\omega ^\gamma \}\text{(the }\text{Weiss ideals}\text{, non-trivial only if }\alpha \omega ^{\omega ^\gamma }\text{)},$$

where $`|X|_{\mathrm{CB}}`$ is the Cantor-Bendixson rank of $`X\mathrm{𝙾𝚛𝚍},`$ see Farah \[2, § 1.14\], are Borel reducible to ideals in $`\mathrm{Fr}`$.

## 2 Proof of Theorem 1

This section proves Theorem 1. Our method of demonstration of the non-reducibility employs the following auxiliary notions. Let $`𝖤,𝖥`$ be ERs on Polish spaces, resp., $`𝕏,𝕐.`$ A map $`\vartheta :𝕏𝕐`$ is called

* $`𝖤,𝖥`$-invariant if $`x𝖤y\vartheta (x)𝖥\vartheta (y)`$ for all $`x,y𝕏`$;
* generically 999 In this research direction, “generically”, or, in our abbreviation, “gen.” (property) is understood so that the property holds on a comeager domain. (or gen., for brevity) $`𝖤,𝖥`$-invariant if $`x𝖤y\vartheta (x)𝖥\vartheta (y)`$ for all $`x,y`$ in a comeager set $`X𝕏`$;
* gen. $`𝖥`$-constant if $`\vartheta (x)𝖥\vartheta (y)`$ holds for all $`x,y`$ in a comeager set $`X𝕏.`$

Finally, $`𝖤`$ is generically $`𝖥`$-ergodic (Hjorth \[6, 3.1\]) if every BM $`𝖤,𝖥`$-invariant map is gen. $`𝖥`$-constant.

###### Proposition 4.

$`(\mathrm{i})`$ If $`𝖤`$ is gen. $`𝖥`$-ergodic and does not have a comeager equivalence class then $`𝖤`$ is not reducible to $`𝖥`$ by a BM map.

$`(\mathrm{ii})`$ If $`𝖤`$ is gen. $`𝖥`$-ergodic then even every BM gen. $`𝖤,𝖥`$-invariant map is gen. $`𝖥`$-constant.∎

Accordingly, our plan will be to show that any orbit ER induced by a Polish turbulent action is gen. $`𝖥`$-ergodic for any ER $`𝖥`$ in Class 4.

### 2.1 Local orbits and turbulence

An action of a group $`𝔾`$ on $`𝕏`$ is any map $`a:𝔾\times 𝕏𝕏,`$ usually written as $`a(g,x)=gx,`$ such that $`1)`$ $`ex=x,`$ and $`2)`$ $`g(hx)=(gh)x.`$ In this case, $`𝕏;a,`$ as well as $`𝕏`$ itself, is called a $`𝔾`$-space. A continuous action of a Polish group 101010 That is, a topological group whose underlying set is a Polish space and the group operation and the inverse map are continuous. $`𝔾`$ on a Polish space $`𝕏`$ is called Polish action and $`𝕏`$ itself is called a Polish $`𝔾`$-space.

Any action $`a`$ of $`𝔾`$ on $`𝕏`$ induces the orbit ER, $`𝖤_a^𝕏=𝖤_𝔾^𝕏,`$ defined on $`𝕏`$ so that $`x𝖤_𝔾^𝕏y`$ iff there is $`a𝔾`$ with $`y=ax,`$ whose equivalence classes

$$[x]_𝔾=[x]_{𝖤_𝔾^𝕏}=\{y:g𝔾(gx=y)\}.$$

are $`𝔾`$-orbits. Induced ERs of Polish actions are analytic (as sets of pairs), sometimes even Borel \[1, Chapter 7\].

Suppose that a group $`𝔾`$ acts on a space $`𝕏.`$ If $`G𝔾`$ and $`X𝕏`$ then we define

$$𝖱_G^X=\{x,yX^2:gG(x=gy)\}$$

and let $`_G^X`$ denote the ER-hull of $`𝖱_G^X,`$ i. e., the $``$-least ER on $`X`$ such that $`x𝖱_G^Xyx_G^Xy.`$ In particular $`_𝔾^𝕏=𝖤_𝔾^𝕏,`$ but generally we have $`_G^X𝖤_𝔾^𝕏X.`$ Finally, define $`𝒪(x,X,G)=[x]_{_G^X}=\{yX:x_G^Xy\}`$ for $`xX`$ – the local orbit of $`x.`$ In particular, $`[x]_𝔾=[x]_{𝖤_𝔾^𝕏}=𝒪(x,𝕏,𝔾),`$ the full $`𝔾`$-orbit of $`x𝕏`$.

###### Definition 5 (This version is taken from Kechris \[13, § 8\]).

Suppose that $`𝕏`$ is a Polish space and $`𝔾`$ is a Polish group acting on $`𝕏`$ continuously.

1. A point $`x𝕏`$ is turbulent if for any open non-empty set $`X𝕏`$ containing $`x`$ and any nbhd $`G𝔾`$ (not necessarily a subgroup) of $`1_𝔾,`$ the local orbit $`𝒪(x,X,G)`$ is somewhere dense (i. e., not a nowhere dense set) in $`𝕏`$.
2. An orbit $`[x]_𝔾`$ is turbulent if $`x`$ is such (then all $`y[x]_𝔾`$ are turbulent).
3. The action (of $`𝔾`$ on $`𝕏`$) is gen. turbulent and $`𝕏`$ is a gen. turbulent Polish $`𝔾`$-space, if all orbits are dense and meager. The action is generically, or gen. turbulent and $`𝕏`$ is a gen. turbulent Polish $`𝔾`$-space, if the union of all dense, turbulent, and meager orbits $`[x]_𝔾`$ is comeager.∎

ERs induced by gen. turbulent Polish actions are what is called Class 1 in Theorem 1. To prove Theorem 1, we are going to show that all ERs in Class 1 are gen. $`𝖥`$-ergodic, for any $`𝖥`$ in Class 4. The method of proof will be by induction on the construction of ERs in Class 4. It is a slight inconvenience that we have to consider a somewhat stronger property through the induction scheme.

Suppose that $`𝖥`$ is an ER on a Polish space.

* An action of $`𝔾`$ on $`𝕏`$ is hereditarily generically (h. gen., for brevity) $`𝖥`$-ergodic if ER $`_G^X`$ is generically $`𝖥`$-ergodic whenever $`X𝕏`$ is a non-empty open set, $`G𝔾`$ is a non-empty open set containing $`1_𝔾,`$ and local orbits $`𝒪(x,X,G)`$ are dense in $`X`$ for comeager (in $`X`$) many $`xX`$.

This obviously implies gen. $`𝖥`$-ergodicity provided the action is gen. turbulent.

###### Theorem 6.

Suppose that $`𝔾`$ is a Polish group, $`𝕏`$ is a gen. turbulent Polish $`𝔾`$-space. Then $`𝖤_𝔾^𝕏`$ is h. gen. $`𝖥`$-ergodic, hence (by Proposition 4), not reducible to any ER $`𝖥`$ of Class 4 by a BM map.

### 2.2 Preliminaries to the proof of Theorem 6

We begin with two rather simple technical facts related to turbulence.

###### Lemma 7.

In the assumptions of the theorem, suppose that $`\mathrm{}X𝕏`$ is an open set, $`G𝔾`$ is a nbhd of $`1_𝔾,`$ and $`𝒪(x,X,G)`$ is dense in $`X`$ for $`X`$-comeager many $`xX.`$ Let $`U,U^{}X`$ be non-empty open and $`DX`$ be comeager in $`X.`$ Then there exist points $`xDU`$ and $`x^{}DU^{}`$ with $`x_G^Xx^{}`$.

###### Proof.

Under our assumptions there exist points $`x_0U`$ and $`x_0^{}U^{}`$ with $`x_0_G^Xx_0^{},`$ i. e., there are elements $`g_1,\mathrm{},g_nG`$ with $`x_0^{}=g_ng_{n1}\mathrm{}g_1x_0`$ and $`g_k\mathrm{}g_1x_0X`$ for all $`kn.`$ Since the action is continuous, there is a nbhd $`U_0U`$ of $`x_0`$ such that $`g_k\mathrm{}g_1xX`$ and $`g_ng_{n1}\mathrm{}g_1xU_2`$ for all $`xU_0.`$ Since $`D`$ is comeager, easily there is $`xU_0D`$ such that $`x^{}=g_ng_{n1}\mathrm{}g_1xU^{}D`$. ∎

###### Lemma 8.

In the assumptions of the theorem, for any open non-empty $`U𝕏`$ and $`G𝔾`$ with $`1_𝔾G`$ there is an open set $`\mathrm{}U^{}U`$ such that the local orbit $`𝒪(x,U^{},G)`$ is dense in $`U^{}`$ for $`U^{}`$-comeager many $`xU^{}`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\text{Int}\overline{X}`$ be the interior of the closure of $`X.`$ If $`xU`$ and $`𝒪(x,U,G)`$ is somewhere dense (in $`U`$) then the set $`U_x=U\text{Int}\overline{𝒪(x,U,G)}U`$ is open and $`_G^U`$-invariant (an observation made, e. g., in \[13, proof of 8.4\]), moreover, $`𝒪(x,U,G)U_x,`$ hence, $`𝒪(x,U,G)=𝒪(x,U_x,G).`$ It follows from the invariance that the sets $`U_x`$ are pairwise disjoint, and it follows from the turbulence that the union of them is dense in $`U.`$ Take any non-empty $`U_x`$ as $`U^{}.`$

Our proof of Theorem 6 goes on by induction on the construction of ERs in Class 4 with the help of the operations mentioned in Section 1.2, in several following subsections. We begin with the base of the induction: prove that, under the assumptions of the theorem, $`𝖤_𝔾^𝕏`$ is h. gen. $`𝖣()`$-ergodic. Suppose that $`X𝕏`$ and $`G𝔾`$ are non-empty open sets, $`1_𝔾G,`$ and $`𝒪(x,X,G)`$ is dense in $`X`$ for $`X`$-comeager many points $`xX.`$ Prove that $`_G^X`$ is generically $`𝖣()`$-ergodic.

Consider a BM gen. $`_G^X,𝖣()`$-invariant map $`\vartheta :𝕏.`$ Suppose, on the contrary, that $`\vartheta `$ is not gen. $`𝖣()`$-constant. Then there exist open non-empty sets $`U_1,U_2X,`$ numbers $`\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2,`$ and a comeager set $`DX`$ such that $`\vartheta (x)=\mathrm{}_1`$ for all $`xDU_1`$ and $`\vartheta (x)=\mathrm{}_2`$ for all $`xDU_2.`$ Lemma 7 yields a pair of points $`x_1U_1D`$ and $`x_2U_2D`$ with $`x_1_G^Xx_2,`$ contradiction.

### 2.3 Inductive step of the countable power

Consider a gen. turbulent Polish $`𝔾`$-space $`𝕏`$ and a Borel ER $`𝖥`$ on a Polish space $`𝕐.`$ Assume that the action of $`𝔾`$ on $`𝕏`$ is h. gen. $`𝖥`$-ergodic, and prove that the action is h. gen. $`𝖥^{\mathrm{}}`$-ergodic. Fix a non-empty open set $`X_0𝕏`$ and a nbhd $`G_0`$ of $`1_𝔾`$ in $`𝔾,`$ such that $`𝒪(x,X_0,G_0)`$ is dense in $`X_0`$ for $`X_0`$-comeager many $`xX_0.`$ Prove that any given $`_{G_0}^{X_0},𝖥^{\mathrm{}}`$-invariant BM function $`\vartheta :X_0𝕐^{}`$ is gen. $`𝖥^{\mathrm{}}`$-constant. By definition, we have

1. for $`x,x^{}X_0:`$ $`x_{G_0}^{X_0}x^{}kl(\vartheta _k(x)𝖥\vartheta _l(x^{})),`$ where $`\vartheta _k(x)=\vartheta (x)(k)`$.

Note that $`\vartheta `$ is continuous on a dense $`𝐆_\delta `$ set $`DX_0`$.

###### Lemma 9.

For each $`k`$ and open $`\mathrm{}UX_0`$ there is an open set $`\mathrm{}WU`$ such that $`\vartheta _k`$ is gen. $`𝖥`$-constanta on $`W`$.

###### Proof.

A simple category argument beginning with (1) yields a number $`l`$ and open non-empty sets $`WU`$ and $`QG_0,`$ and a dense in $`W\times Q`$ set $`PW\times Q`$ of class $`𝐆_\delta `$ such that $`\vartheta _k(x)𝖥\vartheta _l(gx)`$ holds for all pairs $`x,gP.`$ We can assume that $`x,gPxD.`$ Since $`Q`$ is open, there is an element $`g_0Q`$ and a nbhd $`GG_0`$ of $`1_𝔾`$ with $`G^1=G`$ such that $`g_0GQ`$.

The continuation of the proof involves forcing 111111 Some degree of the reader’s acquaintance with forcing is assumed. The lemma could have been proved by purely topological arguments, yet then the reasoning then would not be so transparent..

Let us fix a countable transitive model $`𝔐`$ of $`\mathrm{𝐙𝐅𝐇𝐂},`$ i. e., $`\mathrm{𝐙𝐅𝐂}`$ minus the Power Set axiom but plus the axiom: “every set is hereditarily countable”. We can assume that $`𝕏`$ is coded in $`𝔐`$ in the sense that there is a set $`D_𝕏𝔐`$ which is a dense (countable) subset of $`𝕏,`$ and $`d_𝕏D_𝕏`$ (the distance function of $`𝕏`$ restricted to $`D_𝕏`$) also belongs to $`𝔐.`$ Further, $`𝔾,𝕐,`$ the action of $`𝔾`$ on $`𝕏,`$ sets $`G,D,P`$ and the map $`\vartheta D`$ are also assumed to be coded in $`𝔐`$ in a similar sense.

Below, let $`𝐂_𝕏`$ be the Cohen forcing for $`𝕏,`$ which consists of rational balls with centers in a fixed dense countable subset of $`𝕏,`$ and let $`𝐂_𝔾`$ be the Cohen forcing for $`𝔾`$ defined similarly As usual, $`UV`$ means that $`U`$ is a stronger forcing condition. In these assumptions, the notions of Cohen generic, over $`𝔐,`$ elements of $`𝕏`$ and $`𝔾`$ makes sense, and the set of all Cohen generic, over $`𝔐`$ points of $`𝕏`$ is a dense $`𝐆_\delta `$ subset of $`𝕏`$ included in $`D`$.

###### Claim 10 (The key point of the turbulence).

If $`x,x^{}W`$ are $`𝐂_𝕏`$-generic over $`𝔐`$ and $`x_G^Wx^{}`$ then $`\vartheta _k(x)𝖥\vartheta _k(x^{})`$.

###### Proof.

We argue by induction on the number $`n(x,x^{})`$ equal to the least $`n`$ such that there exist $`g_1,\mathrm{},g_nG`$ satisfying

1. $`x^{}=g_ng_{n1}\mathrm{}g_1x,`$ and $`g_k\mathrm{}g_1xW`$ for all $`kn`$.

Suppose that $`n(x,x^{})=1,`$ thus, $`x=hx^{}`$ for some $`hG𝔐[x,x^{}]`$ 121212 Here $`𝔐[x,x^{}]`$ is defined as any (countable transitive) model of $`\mathrm{𝐙𝐅𝐇𝐂}`$ containing $`x,x^{},`$ and all sets in $`𝔐,`$ rather than a generic extension of $`𝔐.`$ The model $`𝔐[x,x^{}]`$ can contain more ordinals than $`𝔐,`$ but this is not essential here. Take any $`𝐂_𝔾`$-generic, over $`𝔐[x,x^{}],`$ element $`gQ,`$ close enough to $`g_0`$ for $`g^{}=gh^1`$ to belong to $`Q.`$ Then $`x,g`$ is $`𝐂_𝕏\times 𝐂_𝔾`$-generic over $`𝔐`$ by the product forcing theorem, thus, $`x,gP`$ (because $`P`$ is a dense $`𝐆_\delta `$ coded in $`𝔐`$) and $`\vartheta _k(x)𝖥\vartheta _l(gx)`$ by the choice of $`P.`$ Moreover, $`g^{}`$ also is $`𝐂_𝔾`$-generic over $`𝔐[x^{}],`$ so that $`\vartheta _k(x^{})𝖥\vartheta _l(g^{}x^{})`$ by the same argument. Yet we have $`g^{}x^{}=gh^1(hx)=gx`$.

As for the inductive step, suppose that (2) holds for some $`n2.`$ Take a $`𝐂_𝔾`$-generic, over $`𝔐[x],`$ element $`g_1^{}G`$ close enough to $`g_1`$ for $`g_2^{}=g_2g_1g_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ to belong to $`G`$ and for $`x^{}=g_1^{}x`$ to belong to $`W.`$ Note that $`x^{}`$ is $`𝐂_𝕏`$-generic over $`𝔐`$ (product forcing) and $`n(x^{},x^{})n1`$ because $`g_2^{}x^{}=g_2g_1x`$.

(Claim 10 )

To summarize, we have shown that $`\vartheta _k`$ is gen. $`_G^W,𝖥`$-invariant on $`W,`$ i. e., invariant on a comeager subset of $`W.`$ We can also assume that the orbit $`𝒪(x,W,G)`$ is dense in $`W`$ for $`W`$-comeager many points $`xW,`$ by Lemma 8. Then, by the h. gen. $`𝖥`$-ergodicity, $`\vartheta _k`$ is gen. $`𝖥`$-constant on $`W,`$ as required.

(Lemma 9 )

According to the lemma, there exist: an $`X_0`$-comeager set $`ZX_0,`$ and a countable set $`Y=\{y_j:j\}𝕐`$ such that, for any $`k`$ and for any $`xZ`$ there is $`j`$ with $`\vartheta _k(x)𝖥y_j.`$ Let $`\eta (x)=_k\{j:\vartheta _k(x)𝖥y_j\}.`$ Then, for any pair $`x,x^{}Z,`$ $`\vartheta (x)𝖥^{\mathrm{}}\vartheta (x^{})`$ iff $`\eta (x)=\eta (x^{}),`$ so that, by the invariance of $`\vartheta ,`$ we have:

1. $`x_{G_0}^{X_0}x^{}\eta (x)=\eta (x^{})`$ for all $`x,x^{}Z`$.

It remains to show that $`\eta `$ is a constant on a comeager subset of $`Z`$.

Suppose, on the contrary, that there exist two non-empty open sets $`U_1,U_2X_0,`$ a number $`j,`$ and a comeager set $`Z^{}Z`$ such that $`j\eta (x_1)`$ and $`j\eta (x_2)`$ for all $`x_1Z^{}U_1`$ and $`x_2Z^{}U_2.`$ Lemma 7 yields a contradiction to (3) as in the end of Section 2.2.

### 2.4 Inductive step of the Fubini product

Suppose that $`𝕏`$ is a gen. turbulent Polish $`𝔾`$-space. Prove that the action of $`𝔾`$ on $`𝕏`$ is h. gen. $`𝖥`$-ergodic, where $`𝖥=_k𝖥_k/\mathrm{Fin},`$ $`𝖥_k`$ is a Borel ER on a Polish space $`𝕐_k,`$ and the action is h. gen. $`𝖥_k`$-ergodic for any $`k.`$ Fix an open set $`\mathrm{}X_0𝕏`$ and a nbhd $`G_0`$ of $`1_𝔾`$ in $`𝔾,`$ such that $`X_0`$-comeager many orbits $`𝒪(x,X_0,G_0)`$ with $`xX_0`$ are dense in $`X_0.`$ Prove that any $`_{G_0}^{X_0},𝖥`$-invariant BM function $`\vartheta :U_0𝕐`$ is gen. $`𝖥`$-constant on $`X_0.`$ By definition

1. for $`x,yX_0:`$ $`x_{G_0}^{X_0}yk_0kk_0\left(\vartheta _k(x)𝖥_k\vartheta _k(y)\right)`$,

where $`\vartheta _k(x)=\vartheta (x)(k).`$ Note that $`\vartheta `$ is continuous on a dense $`𝐆_\delta `$ set $`DX_0`$.

###### Lemma 11.

For any open set $`\mathrm{}UX_0`$ there exist a number $`k_0`$ and open $`\mathrm{}WU`$ such that $`\vartheta _k`$ is gen. $`𝖥`$-constant on $`W`$ for all $`kk_0`$.

###### Proof.

Applying (4), we can easily find a number $`k_0,`$ open non-empty sets $`WU`$ and $`QG_0,`$ and a dense in $`W\times Q`$ set $`PW\times Q`$ of class $`𝐆_\delta ,`$ such that $`\vartheta _k(x)𝖥\vartheta _k(gx)`$ holds for all $`kk_0`$ and all pairs $`x,gP.`$ We can assume that $`x,gPxD.`$ Since $`Q`$ is open, there exist an element $`g_0Q`$ and a nbhd $`GG_0`$ of $`1_𝔾`$ with $`G^1=G,`$ such that $`g_0GQ`$.

Let a model $`𝔐`$ be as in the proof of Lemma 9. Similarly to Claim 10, we can prove that if points $`x,x^{}W`$ are $`𝐂_𝕏`$-generic over $`𝔐,`$ $`kk_0,`$ and $`x_G^Wx^{},`$ then $`\vartheta _k(x)𝖥_k\vartheta _k(x^{}),`$ in other words, each function $`\vartheta _k`$ with $`kk_0`$ is gen. $`_G^W,𝖥_k`$-invariant on $`W.`$ We can assume, by Lemma 8, that $`W`$-comeager many orbits $`𝒪(x,W,G)`$ are dense in $`W.`$ Now, by the h. gen. $`𝖥_k`$-ergodicity, any $`\vartheta _k`$ with $`kk_0`$ is gen. $`𝖥_k`$-constant on such a set $`W,`$ as required. ∎

It is clear that if $`W`$ is chosen as in the lemma then $`\vartheta `$ itself is gen. $`𝖥`$-constant on $`W.`$ It remains to show that these constants are $`𝖥`$-equivalent to each other. Suppose, on the contrary, that there exist two non-empty open sets $`W_1,W_2X_0`$ and a pair of points $`y\mathsf{}y^{}`$ in $`𝕐`$ such that $`\vartheta (x)𝖥y`$ and $`\vartheta (x^{})𝖥y^{}`$ for comeager many $`xW_1`$ and $`x^{}W_2.`$ Contradiction follows as in the end of Section 2.3.

### 2.5 Other inductive steps

We carry out the induction steps related to operations (e1), (e2), (e3) of 1.2.

Countable union. Suppose that $`𝖥_1,𝖥_2,𝖥_3,\mathrm{}`$ are Borel ERs on a Polish space $`𝕐,`$ and $`𝖥=_k𝖥_k`$ is still a ER, and the Polish and gen. turbulent action of $`𝔾`$ on $`𝕏`$ is h. gen. $`𝖥_k`$-ergodic for any $`k,`$ and prove that it remains h. gen. $`𝖥`$-ergodic.

Consider a non-empty open set $`X_0𝕏`$ and a nbhd $`G_0`$ of $`1_𝔾`$ in $`𝔾,`$ such that $`X_0`$-comeager many orbits $`𝒪(x,X_0,G_0)`$ with $`xX_0`$ are dense in $`X_0.`$ Consider a $`_{G_0}^{X_0},𝖥`$-invariant BM function $`\vartheta :X_0𝕐,`$ continuous on a dense $`𝐆_\delta `$ set $`DX_0.`$ It follows from the invariance that for any open set $`\mathrm{}UX_0`$ there exist: a number $`k`$ and open non-empty sets $`QU`$ and $`QG_0`$ such that $`\vartheta (x)𝖥_k\vartheta (gx)`$ holds for any $`𝐂_𝕏\times 𝐂_𝔾`$-generic, over $`𝔐,`$ pair $`x,gW\times Q.`$ We can find, as above, $`g_0Q𝔐`$ and a nbhd $`GG_0`$ of $`1_𝔾`$ such that $`g_0GQ.`$ Similarly to Claim 10, we have $`\vartheta (x)𝖥_k\vartheta (x^{})`$ for any pair of $`𝐂_𝕏`$-generic, over $`𝔐,`$ elements $`x,x^{}W,`$ satisfying $`x_G^Wx^{}.`$ It follows, by the ergodicity, that $`\vartheta `$ is gen. $`𝖥_k`$-constant, hence, $`𝖥`$-constant, on $`W.`$ That these $`𝖥`$-constants are $`𝖥`$-equivalent to each other, can be demonstrated exactly as in the end of Section 2.3. The operation of countable intersection is considered similarly.

Countable product. It is shown in 1.2 that this operation is reducible to the Fubini product, yet there is a simple independent argument. If $`𝖥_k`$ be ERs on spaces $`𝕐_k`$ then $`𝖥=_k𝖥_k`$ is a ER on the space $`𝕐=_k𝕐_k.`$ For any map $`\vartheta :𝕏𝕐,`$ to be $`𝖤,𝖥`$-invariant (where $`𝖤`$ is an arbitrary ER on $`𝕏`$) it is necessary and sufficient that every co-ordinate map $`\vartheta _k(x)=\vartheta (x)(k)`$ is $`𝖤,𝖥_k`$-invariant, which immediately yields the result required.

Disjoint union. It is shown in 1.2 that this operation is reducible to the product.

(Theorems 6 and 1 )

## 3 Applications

This section contains two applications of Theorem 6. One of them is Theorem 2. The other one shows how Hjort’s theorem mentioned in the Introduction (that “turbulent” ERs are not Borel reducible to Polish actions of $`S_{\mathrm{}},`$ the group of all permutations of $``$) can be derived from Theorem 6 by rather simple arguments.

### 3.1 Proof of Theorem 2

Let us fix a non-trivial, as in Theorem 2, Borel P-ideal $`𝒵𝒫().`$ By a theorem of Solecki (see Section 1.3) there exists a l. s. c. submeasure $`\phi `$ on $``$ such that $`𝒵=\{x:\phi _{\mathrm{}}(x)=0\}.`$ Put $`r_k=\phi (\{k\})`$.

###### Lemma 12 (Kechris ).

If $`𝒵`$ is not equal to $`\mathrm{Fin},`$ is not a trivial variation of $`\mathrm{Fin},`$ and is not isomorphic to $`_3=0\times \mathrm{Fin},`$ then there is a set $`W𝒵`$ such that $`\{r_k\}_{kW}0`$.

###### Proof.

Put $`U_n=\{k:r_k\frac{1}{n}\},`$ separately $`U_0=,`$ thus, $`U_{n+1}U_n`$ for all $`n.`$ We claim that $`𝚒𝚗𝚏_m\phi (U_m)>0.`$ Otherwise a set $`x`$ belongs to $`𝒵`$ iff $`xU_n`$ is finite for any $`n.`$ If the set $`N=\{n:U_nU_{n+1}\text{ is infinite}\}`$ is empty then easily $`𝒵=𝒫().`$ If $`N\mathrm{}`$ is finite then $`𝒵`$ is either $`\mathrm{Fin}`$ (if eventually $`U_n=\mathrm{}`$) or a trivial variation of $`\mathrm{Fin}`$ (if $`U_n`$ is non-empty for all $`n`$). If finally $`N`$ is infinite then $`𝒵`$ is isomorphic to $`0\times \mathrm{Fin}.`$ (For instance, if all sets $`D_n=U_nU_{n+1}`$ are infinite then $`x𝒵`$ iff $`xD_n`$ is finite for all $`n`$.) Thus we always have a contradiction to the assumptions of the lemma.

It follows that there is $`\epsilon >0`$ such that $`\phi (U_m)>\epsilon `$ for all $`m.`$ As $`\phi `$ is l. s. c., we can define an increasing sequence of numbers $`n_1<n_2<n_3<\mathrm{}`$ and for any $`l`$ a finite set $`w_lU_{n_l}U_{n_{l+1}}`$ with $`\phi (w_l)>\epsilon .`$ Then $`W=_lw_l𝒵`$ and obviously $`\{r_k\}_{kW}0`$. ∎

Since obviously $`𝖤_{𝒵W}_\text{b}𝖤_𝒵,`$ the following lemma is sufficient for Theorem 2:

###### Lemma 13.

If $`𝒵,\phi ,r_k`$ are as above, and $`\{r_k\}0,`$ then the shift action of $`𝒵`$ on $`𝒫()`$ is gen. turbulent.

###### Proof.

$`𝒵`$ is a Polish group (with the operation $`\Delta `$) in the topology $`\tau `$ induced by the metric $`r(x,y)=\phi (x\Delta y).`$ The action of $`𝒵`$ by $`\Delta `$ on the space $`𝒫()`$ (considered in the product topology; $`𝒫()`$ is here identified with $`2^{}`$) by $`\Delta `$ is then continuous. It remains to verify the turbulence.

Let $`x𝒫().`$ The orbit $`[x]_𝒵=𝒵\Delta x`$ is easily dense and meager, hence, it suffices to prove that $`x`$ is a turbulent point of the action. Consider an open set $`X𝒫()`$ containing $`x,`$ and a $`\tau `$-hbhd $`G`$ of $`\mathrm{}`$ (the neutral element of $`𝒵`$); we may assume that, for some $`k,`$ $`X=\{y𝒫():y[0,k)=u\},`$ where $`u=x[0,k),`$ and $`G=\{g𝒵:\phi (g)<\epsilon \}`$ for some $`\epsilon >0.`$ Prove that the local orbit $`𝒪(x,X,G)`$ is somewhere dense (i. e., not a nowhere dense set) in $`X`$.

Let $`lk`$ be big enough for $`r_n<\epsilon `$ for all $`nl.`$ Put $`v=x[0,l)`$ and prove that $`𝒪(x,X,G)`$ is dense in $`Y=\{y𝒫():y[0,l)=v\}.`$ Consider an open set $`Z=\{zY:z[l,j)=w\},`$ where $`jl,w[l,j).`$ Let $`z`$ be the only element of $`Z`$ with $`z[j,+\mathrm{})=x[j,+\mathrm{}),`$ thus, $`x\Delta z=\{l_1,\mathrm{},l_m\}[l,j).`$ Each $`g_i=\{l_i\}`$ belongs to $`G`$ by the choice of $`l`$ (indeed, $`l_il`$). Moreover, easily $`x_i=g_i\Delta g_{i1}\Delta \mathrm{}\Delta g_1\Delta x=\{l_1,\mathrm{},l_i\}\Delta x`$ belongs to $`X`$ for any $`i=1,\mathrm{},m,`$ and $`x_m=z,`$ thus, $`z𝒪(x,X,G),`$ as required.

(Lemma and Theorem 2 )

### 3.2 Irreducibility to actions of the group of all permutations of $``$

Recall that $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the group of all permutations of $`,`$ i. e., 1–1 maps $`\stackrel{\mathrm{onto}}{},`$ with the superposition as the group operation. A compatible Polish metric on $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$ can be defined by $`D(x,y)=d(x,y)+d(x^1,y^1),`$ where $`d`$ is the ordinary Polish metric of $`^{},`$ i. e., $`d(x,y)=2^{m1},`$ where $`m`$ is the least number such that $`x(m)y(m)`$.

Hjorth proved in mid-90s that turbulent ERs are not reducible to those induced by Polish actions of $`S_{\mathrm{}}.`$ The proof (as, e. g., in ) is quite complicated, in particular, containing references to some model theoretic facts and methods like Scott’s analysis. We decided to include a simplified proof, based on the following theorem. This will be still a lengthy argument, because, to make the exposition friendly to a reader not experienced in special topics related to group actions and model theory, we outline proofs of some auxiliary results involved.

###### Theorem 14.

Any ER $`𝖤,`$ induced by a Polish action and reducible to an orbit ER of a Polish action of $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$ by a BM map, is reducible to one of ERs $`𝖳_\gamma `$ by a BM map 131313 We cannot claim Borel reducibility here, because, as all ERs $`𝖳_\gamma `$ are easily Borel, any ER Borel reducible to some $`𝖳_\gamma `$ is Borel itself, while on the other hand even ERs of the form $`_{}`$ are, generally, non-Borel (but analytic). — hence, by Theorem 1, such an ER $`𝖤`$ cannot be induced by a gen. turbulent Polish action.

### 3.3 Classifiability by countable structures

Isomorphism relations of various classes of countable structures are amongst those induced by Polish actions of $`S_{\mathrm{}}.`$ Indeed, suppose that $`=\{R_i\}_{iI}`$ is a countable relational language, i. e., $`𝚌𝚊𝚛𝚍I\mathrm{}_0`$ and each $`R_i`$ is an $`m_i`$-ary relational symbol. Put 141414 $`X_{}`$ is often used to denote $`𝙼𝚘𝚍_{}`$. $`𝙼𝚘𝚍_{}=_{iI}𝒫(^{m_i}),`$ the space of $``$-structures on $``$ as the underlying set. The logic action $`j_{}`$ of $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`𝙼𝚘𝚍_{}`$ is defined as follows: if $`x=\{x_i\}_{iI}𝙼𝚘𝚍_{}`$ and $`gS_{\mathrm{}}`$ then $`y=j_{}(g,x)=gx=\{y_i\}_{iI}𝙼𝚘𝚍_{},`$ where

$$k_1,\mathrm{},k_{m_i}x_ig(k_1),\mathrm{},g(k_{m_i})y_i$$

for all $`iI`$ and $`k_1,\mathrm{},k_{m_i}^{m_i}.`$ Then $`𝙼𝚘𝚍_{};j_{}`$ is a Polish $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$-space, while $`j_{}`$-orbits in $`𝙼𝚘𝚍_{}`$ are exactly the isomorphism classes of $``$-structures, which is a reason to denote the associated equivalence relation $`𝖤_j_{}^{𝙼𝚘𝚍_{}}`$ by $`_{}.`$ All ERs of the form $`_{}`$ are analytic, of course.

Hjorth \[6, 2.38\] defined an ER $`𝖤`$ to be classifiable by countable structures if there is a countable relational language $``$ such that $`𝖤_\text{b}_{}`$.

###### Theorem 15 (Becker and Kechris ).

Any ER induced by a Polish action of $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$ is classifiable by countable structures.

Thus all ERs induced by Polish actions of $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$ (in fact also of any closed subgroup of $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$) are Borel reducible to a very special kind of actions of $`S_{\mathrm{}}.`$

###### Proof (by Hjorth \[6, 6.19\]).

Let $`𝕏`$ be a Polish $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$-space with basis $`\{U_l\}_l,`$ and let $``$ be the language with relations $`R_{lk}`$ of arity $`k.`$ If $`x𝕏`$ then define $`\vartheta (x)𝙼𝚘𝚍_{}`$ by stipulation that $`\vartheta (x)R_{lk}(s_0,\mathrm{},s_{k1})`$ if and only if $`s_is_j`$ whenever $`i<j<k,`$ and $`g^1xU_l`$ whenever $`gS_{\mathrm{}}`$ satisfies $`s_0,\mathrm{},s_{k1}g.`$ Then $`\vartheta `$ reduces $`𝖤_S_{\mathrm{}}^𝕏`$ to $`_{}.`$

### 3.4 Reduction to countable graphs

It could be expected that more complicated languages $``$ produce more complicated ER $`_{}.`$ However this is not the case: it turns out that a single binary relation can code structures of any countable language. Let $`𝒢`$ be the language of (oriented binary) graphs, i. e., $`𝒢`$ contains a single binary predicate, say $`R(,)`$.

###### Theorem 16.

If $``$ is a countable relational language then $`_{}_\text{b}_𝒢`$.

Becker and Kechris \[1, 6.1.4\] outline a proof based on coding in terms of lattices, unlike the following argument, yet it may in fact involve the same idea.

###### Proof.

Let $`\mathrm{HF}()`$ be the set of all hereditarily finite sets over the set $``$ considered as the set of atoms, and $`\epsilon `$ be the associated “membership” (no $`n`$ has $`\epsilon `$-elements, $`\{0,1\}`$ is different from $`2,`$ etc.). Let $`_{\mathrm{HF}()}`$ be the $`\mathrm{HF}()`$ version of $`_𝒢,`$ i. e., if $`P,Q\mathrm{HF}()^2`$ then $`P_{\mathrm{HF}()}Q`$ means that there is a bijection $`b`$ of $`\mathrm{HF}()`$ on itself such that $`Q=bP=\{b(s),b(t):s,tP\}.`$ Obviously $`(_𝒢)_\text{b}(_{\mathrm{HF}()}),`$ thus, we have to prove that $`_{}_\text{b}_{\mathrm{HF}()}`$ for any $``$.

An action $``$ of $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`\mathrm{HF}()`$ is defined as follows: $`gn=g(n)`$ for any $`n,`$ and, by $`\epsilon `$-induction, $`f\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_n\})=\{fa_1,\mathrm{},fa_n\}`$ for all $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_n\mathrm{HF}().`$ If $`gS_{\mathrm{}}`$ then $`aga`$ is a $`\epsilon `$-isomorfism of $`\mathrm{HF}()`$.

###### Lemma 17.

Suppose that $`X,Y\mathrm{HF}()`$ are $`\epsilon `$-transitive subsets of $`\mathrm{HF}(),`$ the sets $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are infinite, and $`\epsilon X_{\mathrm{HF}()}\epsilon Y.`$ Then there is a permutation $`fS_{\mathrm{}}`$ such that $`Y=fX=\{fs:sX\}`$.

###### Proof.

It follows from the assumption $`\epsilon X_{\mathrm{HF}()}\epsilon Y`$ that there is an $`\epsilon `$-isomorphism $`\pi :X\stackrel{\mathrm{onto}}{}Y.`$ Easily $`\pi (X)`$ is a bijection of $`X_0=X`$ onto $`Y_0=Y,`$ hence, there is $`fS_{\mathrm{}}`$ such that $`fX_0=\pi X_0,`$ and then we have $`fs=\pi (s)`$ for any $`sX`$.  (Lemma )

Coming back to the proof of Theorem 16, we first show that $`_{𝒢(m)}_\text{b}_{\mathrm{HF}()}`$ for any $`m3,`$ where $`𝒢(m)`$ is the language with a single $`m`$-ary predicate. We observe that $`i_1,\mathrm{},i_m\mathrm{HF}()`$ whenever $`i_1,\mathrm{},i_m.`$ Put $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)=\{\vartheta (s):sx\}`$ for every $`x𝙼𝚘𝚍_{𝒢(m)}=𝒫(^m),`$ where $`\vartheta (s)=\mathrm{TC}_\epsilon (\{2i_1,\mathrm{},2i_m\})`$ for each $`s=i_1,\mathrm{},i_m^m,`$ and finally, for $`X\mathrm{HF}(),`$ $`\mathrm{TC}_\epsilon (X)`$ is the least $`\epsilon `$-transitive set $`T\mathrm{HF}()`$ with $`XT.`$ It easily follows from Lemma 16 that $`x_{𝒢(m)}y`$ is equivalent to $`\epsilon \mathrm{\Theta }(x)_{\mathrm{HF}()}\epsilon \mathrm{\Theta }(y),`$ which ends the proof of $`_{𝒢(m)}_\text{b}_{\mathrm{HF}()}`$.

It remains to show that $`_{^{}}_\text{b}_{\mathrm{HF}()},`$ where $`^{}`$ is the language with infinitely many binary predicates. In this case $`𝙼𝚘𝚍_{^{}}=𝒫(^2)^{},`$ so that we can assume that every $`x𝙼𝚘𝚍_{^{}}`$ has the form $`x=\{x_n\}_{n1},`$ with $`x_n(\{0\})^2`$ for all $`n.`$ Let $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)=\{s_n(k,l):n1k,lx_n\}`$ for any such $`x,`$ where

$$s_n(k,l)=\mathrm{TC}_\epsilon (\{\{\mathrm{}\{k,l\}\mathrm{}\},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\}),\text{ with }n+2\text{ pairs of brackets }\{,\}.$$

Then $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a continuous reduction of $`_{^{}}`$ to $`_{\mathrm{HF}()}`$.  (Theorem )

### 3.5 Proof of Theorem 14

The proof (a version of the proof in ) is based on Scott’s analysis.

Define a family of Borel binary relations $`_{st}^\alpha `$ on $`𝒫(^2),`$ where $`\alpha <\omega _1`$ and $`s,t^{<\omega },`$ as follows:

* $`A_{st}^0B`$ iff $`A(s_i,s_j)B(t_i,t_j)`$ for all $`i,j<𝚕𝚑s=𝚕𝚑t`$;
* $`A_{st}^{\alpha +1}B`$ iff $`kl(A_{sk,tl}^\alpha B)`$ and $`lk(A_{sk,tl}^\alpha B)`$;
* if $`\lambda <\omega _1`$ is limit then: $`A_{st}^\lambda B`$ iff $`A_{st}^\alpha B`$ for all $`\alpha <\lambda `$.

We define $`s,A^\alpha t,B`$ iff $`A_{st}^\alpha B;`$ then, by induction on $`\alpha ,`$ each $`^\alpha `$ is easily a Borel ER on $`^{<\omega }\times 𝒫(^2),`$ and $`^\beta ^\alpha `$ whenever $`\alpha <\beta `$.

Let $`𝖤=𝖤_𝔾^𝕏`$ be a ER induced by a Polish action of a Polish group $`𝔾`$ on a Polish space $`𝕏.`$ Suppose that $`𝖤`$ is reducible to a Polish action of $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$ by a BM map. According to Theorems 15, 16, and Proposition 3, there is a BM reduction $`\vartheta :𝕏𝒫(^2)`$ of $`𝖤`$ to $`_𝒢.`$ The reduction is continuous on a dense $`𝐆_\delta `$ set $`D_0𝕏.`$ Recall that, for $`A,B^2,`$ $`A_𝒢B`$ means that there is $`fS_{\mathrm{}}`$ with $`A(k,l)B(f(k),f(l))`$ for all $`k,l.`$ We easily prove $`_𝒢_{st}^\alpha ,`$ where $`t=fs,`$ by induction on $`\alpha ,`$ in particular, $`_𝒢_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha ,`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the empty sequence. Since $`\vartheta `$ is a reduction, the equivalence $`x𝖤y\vartheta (x)_𝒢\vartheta (y)`$ holds for all $`x,y.`$ Our goal is to find a $`𝐆_\delta `$ dense set $`DD_0`$ and an ordinal $`\alpha <\omega _1`$ such that

* the implication $`x\mathsf{}y\vartheta (x)_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha \vartheta (y)`$ holds for all $`x,yD`$.

To find $`D`$ fix a countable transitive model $`𝔐`$ of $`\mathrm{𝐙𝐅𝐇𝐂}`$ (see above). We assume that $`𝕏,`$ the group $`𝔾,`$ the action, $`D_0,`$ $`\vartheta D_0`$ are assumed to be coded in $`𝔐`$ in the same sense as in the proof of Lemma 9. We assert that the set $`D`$ of all Cohen generic, over $`𝔐,`$ points of $`𝕏`$ (a dense $`𝐆_\delta `$ subset of $`𝕏`$ included in $`D_0`$) satisfies $`()`$.

Suppose that $`x,yD.`$ First consider the case when $`x,y`$ is a Cohen generic pair over $`𝔐.`$ If $`x\mathsf{}y`$ then, by the choice of $`\vartheta ,`$ we have $`\vartheta (x)\cong ̸_𝒢\vartheta (y),`$ hence, this fact holds in $`𝔐[x,y]`$ by the Mostowski absoluteness. Therefore, arguing in $`𝔐[x,y]`$ (which is still a model of $`\mathrm{𝐙𝐅𝐇𝐂},`$ see Footnote 12), we find an ordinal $`\alpha \mathrm{𝙾𝚛𝚍}^𝔐=\mathrm{𝙾𝚛𝚍}^{𝔐[x,y]}`$ with $`\vartheta (x)_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha \vartheta (y).`$ Moreover, since the Cohen forcing satisfies ccc, there is an ordinal $`\alpha 𝔐`$ such that $`\vartheta (x)_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha \vartheta (y)`$ for all Cohen generic, over $`𝔐,`$ pairs $`x,yD^2`$ with $`x\mathsf{}y.`$ It remains to show that this also holds when $`x,yD`$ with $`x\mathsf{}y`$ do not form a Cohen generic pair.

Let $`g𝔾`$ be Cohen generic over $`𝔐[x,y].`$ Then $`z=gx𝕏`$ is easily Cohen generic over $`𝔐[x,y]`$ (because the action is continuous), furthermore, $`x𝖤z,`$ hence, $`y\mathsf{}z.`$ However $`y`$ is generic over $`𝔐`$ and $`z`$ is generic over $`𝔐[y],`$ thus, $`y,z`$ is Cohen generic over $`𝔐,`$ hence, we have $`\vartheta (z)_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha \vartheta (y)`$ by the above. On the other hand, $`\vartheta (x)_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha \vartheta (z)`$ holds because $`x𝖤z,`$ thus, we finally obtain $`\vartheta (x)_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha \vartheta (y),`$ as required by $`()`$.

To conclude, we have $`x𝖤y\vartheta (x)_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha \vartheta (y)`$ for all $`x,yD.`$ In this case we can easily redefine $`\vartheta `$ on the complement of $`D`$ in $`𝕏`$ so that the equivalence holds for all $`x,y𝕏,`$ in other words, the improved $`\vartheta `$ is a BM (because $`\vartheta D`$ is continuous and $`D`$ is a dense $`𝐆_\delta `$) reduction of $`𝖤`$ to $`_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\alpha .`$

The following result completes the proof of the theorem.

###### Proposition 18.

Any ER $`^\alpha `$ is Borel reducible to some $`𝖳_\gamma `$.

###### Proof.

We have $`^0_\text{b}𝖳_0`$ since $`^0`$ has countably many equivalence classes, all of which are open-and-closed sets. To carry out the step $`\alpha \alpha +1`$ note that the map $`s,A\{sk,A\}_k`$ is a Borel reduction of $`^{\alpha +1}`$ to $`(^\alpha )^{\mathrm{}}.`$ As for the limit step, let $`\lambda =\{\alpha _n:n\}`$ be a limit ordinal, and $`𝖱=_n^{\alpha _n},`$ i. e., $`𝖱`$ is a ER on $`\times ^{<\omega }\times 𝒫(^2)`$ defined so that $`m,s,A𝖱n,t,B`$ iff $`m=n`$ and $`A_{st}^{\alpha _m}B.`$ However the map $`s,A\{m,s,A\}_m`$ is a Borel reduction of $`^\lambda `$ to $`𝖱^{\mathrm{}}.`$

(Theorem 14 )

## 4 Pinned ERs and irreducibility of $`𝗧_\mathrm{𝟐}`$

This section contains a theorem saying that the ER $`𝖳_2`$ of equality of countable sets of the reals is not Borel reducible to ERs which belong to a family of pinned ERs, including, for instance, continuous actions of CLI groups, some ideals, not only Polishable, together with ERs having $`𝐆_{\delta \sigma }`$ equivalence classes, and is closed under the Fubini product modulo $`\mathrm{Fin}.`$ The definition of the family is based on a rather metamathematical property which we extracted from Hjorth .

### 4.1 Pinned ERs

First of all, if $`X`$ is an analytic set in the universe $`𝕍`$ of all sets (in particular, this applies when $`X`$ is Borel), and $`𝕍^+`$ is a generic extension $`𝕍,`$ then $`X^\mathrm{\#}`$ will denote the result of the sequence of operations contained in the definition of $`X`$ but applied in $`𝕍^+.`$ The correctness of this definition follows from the Shoenfield absoluteness theorem, and easily $`X=X^\mathrm{\#}𝕍`$.

For instance, if, in $`𝕍,`$ $`𝖤`$ is an analytic ER on a polish space $`𝕏,`$ then, still by the Shoenfield absoluteness, $`𝖤^\mathrm{\#}`$ is an analytic ER on $`𝕏^\mathrm{\#}.`$ If now $`x𝕏`$ (hence, $`x𝕍`$) then the $`𝖤`$-class $`[x]_𝖤𝕏`$ of $`x`$(defined in $`𝕍`$) is included in a unique $`𝖤^\mathrm{\#}`$-class $`[x]_{𝖤^\mathrm{\#}}𝕏^\mathrm{\#}`$ (in $`𝕍^+`$). Classes of the form $`[x]_{𝖤^\mathrm{\#}},x𝕏,`$ belong to a wider category of $`𝖤^\mathrm{\#}`$-classes which admit a description from the $`𝕍`$-th point of view.

###### Definition 19.

Assume that $``$ is a notion of forcing in $`𝕍.`$ A virtual $`𝖤`$-class is any $``$-term $`\xi `$ such that $``$ forces $`\xi 𝕏^\mathrm{\#}`$ and $`\times `$ forces $`\xi _{\mathrm{𝚕𝚎𝚏𝚝}}𝖤^\mathrm{\#}\xi _{\mathrm{𝚛𝚒𝚐𝚑𝚝}}`$151515 $`\xi _{\mathrm{𝚕𝚎𝚏𝚝}}`$ and $`\xi _{\mathrm{𝚛𝚒𝚐𝚑𝚝}}`$ are $`\times `$-terms meaning $`\xi `$ associated with the resp. left and right factors $``$ in the product forcing, formally, $`\xi _{\mathrm{𝚕𝚎𝚏𝚝}}[U\times V]=\xi [U]`$ and $`\xi _{\mathrm{𝚛𝚒𝚐𝚑𝚝}}[U\times V]=\xi [V]`$ for any $`\times `$-generic set $`U\times V,`$ where, say, $`\xi [U]`$ is the interpretation of a term $`\xi `$ via a generic set $`U`$. A virtual class is pinned if there is, in $`𝕍,`$ a point $`x𝕏`$ which pins it in the sense that $``$ forces $`x𝖤^\mathrm{\#}\xi .`$ Finally, an analytic ER $`𝖤`$ is pinned if, for any forcing notion $`𝕍,`$ all virtual $`𝖤`$-classes are pinned. ∎

If $`\xi `$ is a virtual $`𝖤`$-class then, in any extension $`𝕍^+`$ of $`𝕍,`$ if $`U`$ and $`V`$ are generic subsets of $``$ then $`x=\xi [U]`$ and $`y=\xi [V]`$ belong to $`𝕏^\mathrm{\#}`$ and satisfy $`x𝖤^\mathrm{\#}y,`$ hence, $`\xi `$ induces a $`𝖤^\mathrm{\#}`$-class in the extension. If $`\xi `$ is pinned then this class contains an element in the ground universe $`𝕍`$ — in other words, pinned virtual classes induce $`𝖤^\mathrm{\#}`$-equivalence classes of the form $`[x]_{𝖤^\mathrm{\#}},x𝕍`$ in the extensions of the universe $`𝕍.`$

We prove below that $`𝖳_2`$ is not pinned, moreover, $`𝖳_2`$ is not Borel reducible to any pinned analytic ER. In addition, we give a simplified proof of Hjorth’s theorem that continuous actions of Polish CLI groups never induce pinned orbit ERs, introduce a family of pinned ERs associated with $`𝐅_{\sigma \delta }`$ ideals, show that any Borel ER whose all equivalence classes are $`𝐆_{\delta \sigma }`$ is pinned, and prove that the class of all pinned analytic ERs is closed under the Fubini product over $`\mathrm{Fin}`$.

### 4.2 Pinned ERs do not reduce $`𝗧_\mathrm{𝟐}`$

Recall that, modulo $`_\text{b},`$ $`𝖳_2`$ is a ER on $`(2^{})^{}`$ defined as follows: $`x𝖳_2y`$ iff $`𝚛𝚊𝚗x=𝚛𝚊𝚗y.`$

###### Lemma 20.

$`𝖳_2`$ is not pinned. If $`𝖤,𝖥`$ are analytic ERs, $`𝖤_\text{b}𝖥,`$ and $`𝖥`$ is pinned, then so is $`𝖤.`$ Hence, $`𝖳_2`$ is not Borel reducible to a pinned analytic ER.

###### Proof.

To prove that $`𝖳_2`$ is not pinned, consider $`=\text{Coll}(,2^{}),`$ a forcing to produce a generic map $`f:\stackrel{\mathrm{onto}}{}2^{}.`$ ($``$ consists of all functions $`p:u2^{}`$ where $`u`$ is finite.) Let $`\xi `$ be a $``$-term for the set $`𝚛𝚊𝚗f=\{f(n):n\}.`$ Then $`\xi `$ is obviously a virtual $`𝖳_2`$-class, but it is not pinned because $`^{}`$ is uncountable in the ground universe $`𝕍`$.

Suppose that, in $`𝕍,`$ $`\vartheta :𝕏𝕐`$ is a Borel reduction of $`𝖤`$ to $`𝖥,`$ where $`𝕏=𝚍𝚘𝚖𝖤`$ and $`𝕐=𝚍𝚘𝚖𝖥.`$ We can assume that $`𝕏`$ and $`𝕐`$ are just two copies of $`2^{}.`$ Let $``$ be a forcing notion and a $``$-term $`\xi `$ be a virtual $`𝖤`$-class. By the Shoenfield absoluteness, $`\vartheta ^\mathrm{\#}`$ is a reduction of $`𝖤^\mathrm{\#}`$ to $`𝖥^\mathrm{\#}`$ in any extension of $`𝕍,`$ hence, $`\sigma \mathrm{}`$ a $``$-name for $`\vartheta ^\mathrm{\#}(\xi ),`$ is also a virtual $`𝖥`$-class. Since $`𝖥`$ is pinned, there is $`y𝕐`$ such that $``$ forces $`y𝖥^\mathrm{\#}\sigma \mathrm{}`$ Note that it is true in the $``$-extension that $`y𝖥^\mathrm{\#}\vartheta ^\mathrm{\#}(x)`$ for some $`x𝕏^\mathrm{\#},`$ hence, by Shoenfield, in the ground universe there is $`x𝕏`$ with $`y𝖥\vartheta (x).`$ Clearly $``$ forces $`x𝖤^\mathrm{\#}\xi `$. ∎

### 4.3 Fubini product of pinned ERs is pinned

Recall that the Fubini product $`𝖤=_k𝖤_k/\mathrm{Fin}`$ of ERs $`𝖤_k`$ on $`𝕏_k`$ modulo $`\mathrm{Fin}`$ is a ER on $`𝕏=_k𝕏_k`$ defined as follows: $`x𝖤y`$ if $`x(k)𝖤_ky(k)`$ for all but finite $`k`$.

###### Lemma 21.

The family of all analytic pinned ERs is closed under Fubini products modulo $`\mathrm{Fin}`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose that analytic ERs $`𝖤_k`$ on Polish spaces $`𝕏_k`$ are pinned; prove that the Fubini product $`𝖤=_k𝖤_k/\mathrm{Fin}`$ is a pinned ER on $`𝕏=_k𝕏_k.`$ Consider a forcing notion $``$ and a $``$-term $`\xi `$ which is a virtual $`𝖤`$-class. There is a number $`k_0`$ and conditions $`p,q`$ such that $`p,q`$ $`\times `$-forces $`\xi _{\mathrm{𝚕𝚎𝚏𝚝}}(k)𝖤_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\#}}\xi _{\mathrm{𝚛𝚒𝚐𝚑𝚝}}(k)`$ for all $`kk_0.`$ As all $`𝖤_k`$ are ERs, we conclude that the condition $`p,p`$ also forces $`\xi _{\mathrm{𝚕𝚎𝚏𝚝}}(k)𝖤_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\#}}\xi _{\mathrm{𝚛𝚒𝚐𝚑𝚝}}(k)`$ for all $`kk_0.`$ Therefore, since $`𝖤_k`$ are pinned, there exists, in $`𝕍,`$ a sequence of points $`x_k𝕏_k`$ such that $`p`$ $``$-forces $`x_k𝖤_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\#}}\xi (k)`$ for any $`kk_0.`$ Let $`x𝕏`$ satisfy $`x(k)=x_k`$ for all $`kk_0.`$ (The values $`x(k)𝕏_k`$ for $`k<k_0`$ can be arbitrary.) Then $`p`$ obviously $``$-forces $`x𝖤^\mathrm{\#}\xi .`$

It remains to show that just every $`q`$ also forces $`x𝖤^\mathrm{\#}\xi .`$ Suppose otherwise, i. e., some $`q`$ forces that $`x𝖤^\mathrm{\#}\xi `$ fails. Consider the pair $`p,q`$ as a condition in $`\times :`$ it forces $`x𝖤^\mathrm{\#}\xi _{\mathrm{𝚕𝚎𝚏𝚝}}`$ and $`\neg x𝖤^\mathrm{\#}\xi _{\mathrm{𝚛𝚒𝚐𝚑𝚝}},`$ as well as $`\xi _{\mathrm{𝚕𝚎𝚏𝚝}}𝖤^\mathrm{\#}\xi _{\mathrm{𝚛𝚒𝚐𝚑𝚝}}`$ by the choice of $`𝖤`$ and $`\xi ,`$ which is a contradiction. ∎

### 4.4 Left-invariant actions induce pinned ERs

Recall that a Polish group $`𝔾`$ is complete left-invariant, CLI for brevity, if $`𝔾`$ admits a compatible left-invariant complete metric. Then easily $`𝔾`$ also admits a compatible right-invariant complete metric, which will be practically used.

###### Theorem 22 (Hjorth ).

Any ER $`𝖤=𝖤_𝔾^𝕏`$ induced by a Polish action of a CLI group $`𝔾`$ on a Polish space $`𝕏`$ is pinned, hence, $`𝖳_2`$ is not Borel reducible to $`𝖤`$.

###### Proof.

Let $``$ be a forcing notion and $`\xi `$ be a virtual $`𝖤`$-class. Let $``$ denote the partial order of $`;`$ we assume that $`pq`$ means that $`p`$ is a stronger condition. Let us fix a compatible complete right-invariant metric $`\rho `$ on $`𝔾.`$ For any $`\epsilon >0,`$ put $`G_\epsilon =\{g𝔾:\rho (g,1_𝔾)<\epsilon \}.`$ Say that $`q`$ is of size $`\epsilon `$ if $`q,q`$ $`\times `$-forces the existence of $`gG_{\epsilon }^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\#}}`$ such that $`\xi _{\mathrm{𝚕𝚎𝚏𝚝}}=g\xi _{\mathrm{𝚛𝚒𝚐𝚑𝚝}}`$.

###### Lemma 23.

If $`q`$ and $`\epsilon >0,`$ then there exists a condition $`r,rq,`$ of size $`\epsilon `$.

###### Proof.

Otherwise for any $`r,rq,`$ there is a pair of conditions $`r^{},r^{\prime \prime }`$ stronger than $`r`$ and such that $`r^{},r^{\prime \prime }`$ $`\times `$-forces that there is no $`gG_{\epsilon }^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\#}}`$ with $`\xi _{\mathrm{𝚕𝚎𝚏𝚝}}=g\xi _{\mathrm{𝚛𝚒𝚐𝚑𝚝}}.`$ Applying an ordinary splitting construction in such a generic extension $`𝕍^+`$ of $`𝕍`$ where $`𝒫()𝕍`$ is countable, we find an uncountable set $`𝒰`$ of generic sets $`U`$ with $`qU`$ such that any pair $`U,V`$ of $`UV`$ in $`𝒰`$ is $`\times `$-generic (over $`𝕍`$), hence, there is no $`gG_{\epsilon }^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\#}}`$ with $`\xi [U]=g\xi [V].`$ 161616 $`\xi [U]`$ is the interpretation of the $``$-term $`\xi `$ obtained by taking $`U`$ as the generic set. Fix $`U_0𝒰.`$ We can associate, in $`𝕍^+,`$ with each $`U𝒰,`$ an element $`g_UG^\mathrm{\#}`$ such that $`\xi [U]=g_U\xi [U_0];`$ then $`g_UG_{\epsilon }^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\#}}`$ by the above. Moreover, we have $`g_Vg_U^1\xi [U]=\xi [V]`$ for all $`U,V𝒰,`$ hence $`g_Vg_U^1G_{\epsilon }^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\#}}`$ whenever $`UV,`$ which implies $`\rho (g_U,g_V)\epsilon `$ by the right invariance. But this contradicts the separability of $`G`$.  (Lemma )

Coming back to the theorem, suppose on the contrary that a condition $`p`$ forces that there is no $`x𝕏`$ (in the ground universe $`𝕍`$) satisfying $`x𝖤^\mathrm{\#}\xi .`$ According to the lemma, there is, in $`𝕍,`$ a sequence of conditions $`p_n`$ of size $`2^n,`$ and closed sets $`X_n𝕏`$ with $`𝕏`$-diameter $`2^n,`$ such that $`p_0p,p_{n+1}p_n,X_{n+1}X_n,`$ and $`p_n`$ forces $`\xi X_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\#}}`$ for any $`n.`$ Let $`x`$ be the common point of the sets $`X_n`$ in $`𝕍.`$ We claim that $`p_0`$ forces $`x𝖤^\mathrm{\#}\xi `$.

Indeed, otherwise there is $`q,qp_0,`$ which forces $`\neg x𝖤^\mathrm{\#}\xi .`$ Consider an extension $`𝕍^+`$ of $`𝕍`$ rich enough to contain, for any $`n,`$ a generic set $`U_n`$ with $`p_nU_n`$ such that each pair $`U_n,U_{n+1}`$ is $`\times `$-generic (over $`𝕍`$), and, in addition, $`qU_0.`$ Let $`x_n=\xi [U_n]`$ (an element of $`𝕏^\mathrm{\#}`$). Then $`\{x_n\}_{}x.`$ Moreover, for any $`n,`$ both $`U_n`$ and $`U_{n+1}`$ contain $`p_n,`$ hence, as $`p_n`$ has size $`2^{n1},`$ there is $`g_{n+1}𝔾_{\epsilon }^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\#}}`$ with $`x_{n+1}=g_{n+1}x_n.`$ Thus, $`x_n=h_nx_0,`$ where $`h_n=g_n\mathrm{}g_1.`$ Note that $`\rho (h_n,h_{n1})=\rho (g_n,1_𝔾)2^{n+1}`$ by the right-invariance of the metric, thus, $`\{h_n\}_n`$ is a Cauchy sequence in $`𝔾^\mathrm{\#}.`$ Let $`h=𝚕𝚒𝚖_n\mathrm{}h_n𝔾^\mathrm{\#}`$ be its limit. As the action is continuous, we have $`x=𝚕𝚒𝚖_nx_n=hx_0.`$ It follows that $`x𝖤^\mathrm{\#}x_0`$ holds in $`𝕍^+,`$ hence, also in $`𝕍[U_0].`$ However $`x_0=\xi [U_0]`$ while $`qU_0`$ forces $`\neg x𝖤^\mathrm{\#}\xi ,`$ which is a contradiction.

Thus $`p_0`$ $``$-forces $`x𝖤^\mathrm{\#}\xi .`$ Then any $`r`$ also forces $`x𝖤^\mathrm{\#}\xi :`$ indeed, if some $`r`$ forces $`\neg x𝖤^\mathrm{\#}\xi `$ then the pair $`p_0,r`$ forces, in $`\times ,`$ that $`x𝖤^\mathrm{\#}\xi _{\mathrm{𝚕𝚎𝚏𝚝}}`$ and $`\neg x𝖤^\mathrm{\#}\xi _{\mathrm{𝚛𝚒𝚐𝚑𝚝}},`$ which contradicts the fact that $`\times `$ forces $`\xi _{\mathrm{𝚕𝚎𝚏𝚝}}𝖤^\mathrm{\#}\xi _{\mathrm{𝚛𝚒𝚐𝚑𝚝}}`$.

(Theorem 22 )

### 4.5 All ERs with $`𝐆_{𝜹𝝈}`$ classes are pinned

We have a non-pinned ER $`𝖳_2,`$ obviously of class $`𝐅_{\sigma \delta };`$ the following theorem shows that this is the simplest possible case of non-pinned ERs.

###### Theorem 24.

Any Borel ER $`𝖤`$ whose all equivalence classes are $`𝐆_{\delta \sigma }`$ is pinned.

###### Proof (Based on an idea communicated by Hjorth).

We can assume that $`𝚍𝚘𝚖𝖤=^{}.`$ It follows from a theorem of Louveau , that there is a Borel map $`\gamma ,`$ defined on $`^{}`$ so that $`\gamma (x)`$ is a $`𝐆_{\delta \sigma }`$-code of $`[x]_𝖤`$ for any $`x^{},`$ that is, for instance, $`\gamma (x)^2\times ^{<\omega }`$ and $`[x]_𝖤=_i_j_{i,j,s\gamma (x)}B_s,`$ where $`B_s=\{a^{}:sa\}`$ for all $`s^{<\omega }.`$

Let $`=;`$ be a forcing notion, and $`\xi `$ be a virtual $`𝖤`$-class, thus, $`\times `$ forces $`\xi _{\mathrm{𝚕𝚎𝚏𝚝}}𝖤^\mathrm{\#}\xi _{\mathrm{𝚛𝚒𝚐𝚑𝚝}},`$ hence, there is a number $`i_0`$ and a condition $`p_0,q_0\times `$ which forces $`\xi _{\mathrm{𝚕𝚎𝚏𝚝}}\vartheta ^\mathrm{\#}(\xi _{\mathrm{𝚛𝚒𝚐𝚑𝚝}}),`$ where $`\vartheta (x)=_j_{i_0,j,s\gamma (x)}B_s`$ for all $`x^{}.`$

The key idea of the proof is to substitute $``$ by the Cohen forcing. Let $`𝕊`$ denote the set of all $`s^{<\omega }`$ such that $`p_0`$ does not $``$-force that $`s\xi .`$ We consider $`𝕊`$ as a forcing, and $`st`$ (i. e., $`t`$ is an extension of $`s`$) means that $`t`$ is a stronger condition; $`\mathrm{\Lambda },`$ the empty sequence, is the weakest condition in $`𝕊.`$ If $`s𝕊`$ then obviously there is at least one $`n`$ such that $`sn𝕊,`$ hence, $`𝕊`$ forces an element of $`^{},`$ whose $`𝕊`$-name will be $`𝐚`$.

###### Lemma 25.

The pair $`\mathrm{\Lambda },q_0`$ $`𝕊\times `$-forces $`𝐚\vartheta ^\mathrm{\#}(\xi ).`$

###### Proof.

Otherwise some condition $`s_0,q𝕊\times `$ with $`qq_0`$ forces $`𝐚\vartheta ^\mathrm{\#}(\xi ).`$ By the definition of $`\vartheta `$ we can assume that there is $`j_0`$ satisfying

$$s_0,q𝕊\times \text{-forces}\neg s(i_0,j_0,s\gamma (\xi )s𝐚).$$
$`()`$
Since $`s_0𝕊,`$ there is a condition $`p^{},p^{}p_0,`$ which $``$-forces $`s_0\xi .`$ By the choice of $`p_0,q_0`$ we can assume that, for some $`s𝕊`$ and $`q^{},q^{}q`$,

$$p^{},q^{}\times \text{-forces}i_0,j_0,s\gamma (\xi _{\mathrm{𝚛𝚒𝚐𝚑𝚝}})s\xi _{\mathrm{𝚕𝚎𝚏𝚝}}.$$

This means that $`1)`$ $`p^{}`$ $``$-forces $`s\xi `$ and $`2)`$ $`q^{}`$ $``$-forces $`i_0,j_0,s\gamma (\xi ).`$ In particular, by the above, $`p^{}`$ forces both $`s_0\xi `$ and $`s\xi ,`$ therefore, either $`ss_0`$ – then let $`s^{}=s_0,`$ or $`s_0s`$ – then let $`s^{}=s.`$ In both cases, $`s^{},q^{}`$ $`𝕊\times `$-forces $`i_0,j_0,s\gamma (\xi )`$ and $`s𝐚,`$ contradiction to $`()`$.  (Lemma )

Note that $`𝕊`$ is a subforcing of the Cohen forcing $`=^{<\omega },`$ therefore, by the lemma, there is a $``$-term $`\sigma `$ such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda },q_0`$ $`\times `$-forces $`\sigma \vartheta ^\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{}\xi \mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ hence, forces $`\sigma 𝖤^\mathrm{\#}\xi \mathrm{}`$ It follows, by consideration of the forcing $`\times \times ,`$ that generally $`\times `$ forces $`\sigma 𝖤^\mathrm{\#}\xi \mathrm{}`$ Therefore, by ordinary arguments, first, $`\times `$ forces $`\sigma _{\mathrm{𝚕𝚎𝚏𝚝}}𝖤^\mathrm{\#}\sigma _{\mathrm{𝚛𝚒𝚐𝚑𝚝}}\mathrm{}`$ and second, to prove the theorem it suffices now to find $`x^{}`$ in $`𝕍`$ such that $``$ forces $`x𝖤^\mathrm{\#}\sigma \mathrm{}`$ This is our next goal.

Let $`𝐚`$ be the $``$-name of the Cohen generic element of $`^{}.`$ The term $`\sigma `$ can be of arbitrary nature, but we can substitute it by a term of the form $`f^\mathrm{\#}(𝐚),`$ where $`f:^{}^{}`$ is a Borel map in the ground universe $`𝕍.`$ It follows from the above that $`f^\mathrm{\#}(𝐚)𝖤^\mathrm{\#}f^\mathrm{\#}(𝐛)`$ for any $`\times `$-generic, over $`𝕍,`$ pair $`𝐚,𝐛^{}\times ^{}.`$ We conclude that $`f^\mathrm{\#}(𝐚)𝖤^\mathrm{\#}f^\mathrm{\#}(𝐛)`$ also holds even for any pair of separately Cohen generic $`𝐚,𝐛^{}.`$ Thus, in a generic extension of $`𝕍,`$ where there exist comeager-many Cohen generic reals, there is a comeager $`𝐆_\delta `$ set $`X^{}`$ such that $`f^\mathrm{\#}(a)𝖤^\mathrm{\#}f^\mathrm{\#}(b)`$ for all $`a,bX.`$ By the Shoelfield absoluteness, the statement of existence of such a set $`X`$ is true also in $`𝕍,`$ hence, in $`𝕍,`$ there is $`x^{}`$ such that we have $`x𝖤f(a)`$ for comeager-many $`a^{}.`$ This is again a Shoenfield absolute property of $`x,`$ hence, $``$ forces $`x𝖤^\mathrm{\#}f^\mathrm{\#}(𝐚),`$ as required.

(Theorem 24 )

### 4.6 A family of pinned ideals

Let us say that a Borel ideal $``$ is pinned if so is the induced ER $`𝖤_{}.`$ It follows from Theorem 22 that any P-ideal is pinned because Borel P-ideals are polishable  while all Polish Abelian groups are CLI. Yet there exist non-P pinned ideals.

We introduce here a family of such ideals. Suppose that $`\{\phi _i\}_i`$ is a sequence of lower semicontinuous (l. s. c.) submeasures on $`.`$ Define

$$\mathrm{𝙴𝚡𝚑}_{\{\phi _i\}}=\{X:\phi _{\mathrm{}}(X)=0\},\text{where}\phi _{\mathrm{}}(X)=\underset{i\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{𝚕𝚒𝚖}\mathrm{𝚜𝚞𝚙}}\phi _i(X).$$

the exhaustive ideal of the sequence of submeasures. By Solecki’s Theorem  for any Borel P-ideal $``$ there is an l. s. c. submeasure $`\phi `$ such that $`=\mathrm{𝙴𝚡𝚑}_{\{\phi _i\}}=\mathrm{𝙴𝚡𝚑}_\phi ,`$ where $`\phi _i(x)=\phi (x[i,\mathrm{})),`$ however, for example, the non-polishable ideal $`_1=\mathrm{Fin}\times 0`$ also is of the form $`\mathrm{𝙴𝚡𝚑}_{\{\phi _i\}},`$ where for $`x^2`$ we define $`\phi _i(x)=0\text{ or }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ if resp. $`x\text{ or }\{0,\mathrm{},n1\}\times `$.

###### Theorem 26.

All ideals of the form $`\mathrm{𝙴𝚡𝚑}_{\{\phi _i\}}`$ are pinned.

###### Proof.

Let $`=\mathrm{𝙴𝚡𝚑}_{\{\phi _i\}},`$ where all $`\phi _i`$ are l. s. c. submeasures on $`.`$ We can assume that the submeasures $`\phi _i`$ decrease, i. e., $`\phi _{i+1}(x)\phi _i(x)`$ for any $`x,`$ for if not consider the l. s. c. submeasures $`\phi _i^{}(x)=𝚜𝚞𝚙_{ji}\phi _j(x).`$

Suppose that $`𝖤=𝖤_{}`$ is not pinned. Then there is a forsing notion $`,`$ a virtual $`𝖤`$-klass $`\xi ,`$ and a condition $`p`$ which $``$-forces $`\neg x𝖤^\mathrm{\#}\xi `$ for any $`x𝒫()`$ in $`𝕍.`$ By definition, for any $`p^{}`$ i $`n`$ there are $`in`$ and conditions $`q,r`$ with $`q,rp^{},`$ such that $`q,r`$ $`\times `$-forces the inequality $`\phi _i(\xi _{\mathrm{𝚕𝚎𝚏𝚝}}\Delta \xi _{\mathrm{𝚛𝚒𝚐𝚑𝚝}})2^{n1},`$ hence, $`q,q`$ $`\times `$-forces $`\phi _i(\xi _{\mathrm{𝚕𝚎𝚏𝚝}}\Delta \xi _{\mathrm{𝚛𝚒𝚐𝚑𝚝}})2^n.`$ It follows that, in $`𝕍,`$ there is a sequence of numbers $`i_0<i_1<i_2<\mathrm{},`$ and a sequence $`p_0p_1p_2\mathrm{}`$ of conditions in $`,`$ and, for any $`n,`$ a set $`u_n[0,n),`$ such that $`p_0p`$ i

1. each $`p_n`$ $``$-forces $`\xi [0,n)=u_n`$;
2. each $`p_n,p_n`$ $`\times `$-forces $`\phi _{i_n}(\xi _{\mathrm{𝚕𝚎𝚏𝚝}}\Delta \xi _{\mathrm{𝚛𝚒𝚐𝚑𝚝}})2^n.`$

Arguing in $`𝕍,`$ put $`a=_nu_n;`$ then $`a[0,n)=u_n`$ for all $`n.`$ We claim that $`p_0`$ forces $`a𝖤^\mathrm{\#}\xi ,`$ contrary to the assumption above, which proves the theorem.

Indeed, otherwise there is a condition $`q_0p_0`$ which forces $`\neg a𝖤^\mathrm{\#}\xi .`$ Consider a generic extension $`𝕍^+`$ of the universe, where there is a sequence of $``$-generic sets $`U_n`$ such that, for any $`n,`$ the pair $`U_n,U_{n+1}`$ is $`\times `$-generic, $`p_nU_n,`$ and in addition $`q_0U_0.`$ Then, in $`𝕍^+,`$ the sets $`x_n=\xi [U_n]𝒫()`$ satisfy $`\phi _{i_n}(x_n\Delta x_m)2^n`$ by (2), whenever $`nm.`$ It follows that $`\phi _{i_n}(x_n\Delta a)2^n,`$ because $`a=𝚕𝚒𝚖_mx_m`$ by (1). However we assume that the submeasures $`\phi _j`$ decrease, hence, $`\phi _{\mathrm{}}(x_n\Delta a)2^n.`$ On the other hand, $`\phi _{\mathrm{}}(x_n\Delta x_0)=0`$ because $`\xi `$ is a virtual $`𝖤`$-class. We conclude that $`\phi _{\mathrm{}}(x_0\Delta a)2^n`$ for any $`n,`$ in other words, $`\phi _{\mathrm{}}(x_0\Delta a)=0,`$ that is, $`x_0𝖤^\mathrm{\#}a,`$ which is a contradiction with the choice of $`U_0`$ because $`x_0=\xi [U_0]`$ and $`q_0U_0`$. ∎

### Questions

###### Question 1.

Are all Borel ideals pinned ? The expected answer “yes” would show that $`𝖳_2`$ is not Borel reducible to any Borel ideal. Moreover, is any orbit ER of a Borel action of a Borel CLI group pinned ? ∎

###### Question 2 (Kechris).

Is there a $`_\text{b}`$-least non-pinned Borel ER ? It was once expected that $`𝖳_2`$ is such, but Hjorth informed us that there is a strictly $`_\text{b}`$-smaller non-pinned Borel ER of a rather complicated nature. ∎

### Acknowledgements

We are thankful to Greg Hjorth, A. S. Kechris, and Su Gao for useful discussions related to the content of this paper. We also are thankful to Greg Hjorth for his kind permission to include Theorem 24 in this paper.