Deciding all finite stems by fusion 2026-10-06
Choose successive points and, after each choice, thin the unused reservoir to decide all subsets of the finite chosen prefix. There are only finitely many stems to handle at each stage. The final diagonal infinite set decides every one of its finite stems, because its relevant tail lies in the reservoir chosen when the stem's largest point was selected. The argument uses the hereditary decisions from acceptance and rejection of finite stems.
Open Ramsey theorem 2026-10-14
Every open set in the ordinary topology on infinite subsets is a Ramsey set of infinite subsets: some infinite has or . Use acceptance and rejection of finite stems and fusion to decide every finite stem. If the empty stem is rejected, each rejected stem has only finitely many accepting one-point extensions. Successive avoidance of these finite obstructions gives an infinite set all of whose finite stems are rejected; openness then excludes every infinite subset from . This concerns increasing enumerations of infinite subsets, rather than unrestricted sequences with repetitions.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2001 iii Paper 10 4 Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-14
Identify with the space of infinite subsets of the natural numbers. A family has an infinite homogeneous set for a colouring if some infinite satisfiesThis is the Ramsey family in the homogeneous-cone sense formulation. The relative Ramsey set of infinite subsets formulation asks for such an inside every prescribed infinite ground set. We prove the stronger completely Ramsey assertion, keeping an arbitrary finite stem fixed.
For a finite stem and an infinite tail with (taking ), writeThese neighbourhoods generate the Ellentuck topology, or star topology. A star-Borel set belongs to the sigma-algebra generated by the open sets of this topology. It is completely Ramsey if every has an infinite with or . Taking gives both preceding Ramsey formulations.
We first prove the fusion proof for open Ellentuck sets. Fix a star-open set and a starting neighbourhood . A reservoir above a finite extension accepts when . It rejects when no infinite subreservoir accepts it. Every infinite reservoir has a refinement deciding : if an accepting subreservoir exists choose one, and otherwise the reservoir already rejects. Both acceptance and rejection persist under further infinite thinning. These are acceptance and rejection of finite stems.
First refine to decide the empty extension. Choose from the refined reservoir and thin the remaining tail to decide every subset of . After choosing , thin the unused infinite tail to decide every subset of this finite prefix before choosing . Only finitely many decisions occur at each stage. Let . For each finite , its tail(with ) is contained in the reservoir chosen when the largest point of was selected. Thus decides . This is deciding all finite stems by fusion.
If accepts the empty extension, and we are done. Otherwise it rejects it. Call a finite accepted or rejected according to the decision of . For each rejected , the setis finite. Indeed, if were infinite, every would have a least element with accepted, and its remaining tail lies in . Hence for every such , making an accepting subreservoir for , a contradiction. This proves the finitely many accepting extensions of a rejected stem fact.
Build by choosing each new point outside all the finitely many sets for subsets of the already selected prefix. Begin with the rejected empty extension. Inductively every finite subset of the new prefix is rejected: the old subsets stay rejected, and each new subset is a rejected extended by a point outside , whose decision must therefore be rejection. Consequently every finite is rejected.
If a point belonged to , star-openness would give a basic neighbourhood containing it. Extend along the increasing enumeration of , if necessary, until its stem is for a finite . The infinite tail of above that stem then provides an accepting subreservoir for , contradicting rejection. Therefore . We have proved that every star-open set is completely Ramsey.
A family is completely Ramsey-null when every has a stem-preserving refinement disjoint from . Every star-nowhere dense set has this property. Apply the open-set result to the dense open complement of its star-closure. The disjoint alternative would put an entire basic neighbourhood inside a closure with empty interior, which is impossible. The other alternative gives the required avoidance.
We also need the full Ellentuck meagre-set fusion lemma, not a diagonal argument checking only one prefix. Let be completely Ramsey-null, and start inside . At stage , suppose have been chosen. Refine the remaining infinite tail successively so thatThe null property permits each refinement with its stem unchanged; previous avoidance survives thinning. There are finitely many at this stage. Choose and continue above it. Let .
For any infinite and any fixed , put . Its remaining points form an infinite subset of , so and hence . This works for every , provingThus countable unions of completely Ramsey-null sets are null. Subsets of null sets are null as well. In particular every star-meagre set, being a countable union of star-nowhere-dense sets, is completely Ramsey-null.
Finally let consist of families such that is contained in a star-meagre set for some star-open . This is the Baire property in the Ellentuck topology. We verify that it forms a sigma-algebra. Open sets belong with empty error. For a countable union, use ; its error is contained in the countable union of the meagre errors. For complements, replace by its interior. The discrepancy isa closed nowhere-dense set: every open set meeting also meets , so none can lie wholly in this boundary. Adding it to the original meagre error handles complementation. Consequently every star-Borel set belongs to .
For such an , start with any . First apply null avoidance to its meagre error to find on which agrees with . Then apply open-set homogeneity to refine it to wholly inside or outside , and therefore wholly inside or outside . This is the Baire-property reduction for completely Ramsey families. We concludeAll closures, interiors, openness and meagreness in this argument refer to the star topology; replacing it midway by the ordinary finite-prefix topology would not justify the null-avoidance step.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2007 iii Paper 14 4 Solution 2026-10-14
Write for the set of all infinite subsets of . A family is a Ramsey family in the homogeneous-cone sense if there is an infinite such that either or . Thus membership in is constant on an infinite homogeneous cone. We will prove the stronger version for open families: such a cone exists inside every prescribed infinite ground set, as in the definition of a Ramsey set of infinite subsets.
The symbols in the question refer to the ordinary topology on infinite subsets and the Ellentuck topology . For a finite set , letThese sets form a topological basis for , equivalently the subspace topology inherited from the product topology on . For an infinite with , the setsform a topological basis for ; take . In particular , so is finer than .
For a non-Ramsey example use the finite-symmetric-difference parity colouring. On , define the equivalence relation if their symmetric difference is finite. By the axiom of choice, select a representative in every equivalence class. Give the colourwhere is its class representative. Deleting one point stays in the same class and toggles the parity. Thus for every infinite , the sets and are both in but have opposite colours. Either colour class, regarded as a family , is therefore not Ramsey.
Now let be -open. We prove that for every infinite there is an infinite with or . The proof uses acceptance and rejection of finite stems, which we define explicitly. For a finite stem and an infinite tail above , say that accepts if , and rejects if no infinite subset of accepts . Both properties persist on taking infinite subsets. Every tail has an infinite subset that decides : take an accepting subset if one exists, and otherwise it already rejects .
First thin to decide the empty stem. Then construct and nested infinite tails. At step , choose from the current tail, discard its points at most , and successively thin what remains to decide every stem . There are only finitely many such stems, so an infinite tail remains. Let and write . For every finite , the tail decides , since it lies in the tail obtained at the stage when the largest point of was selected. The empty stem is also decided. This is deciding all finite stems by fusion.
If accepts the empty stem, then , as required. Otherwise rejects it. We need the finitely many accepting extensions of a rejected stem observation. Suppose a tail rejects . Only finitely many can have accepting . Indeed, if infinitely many such formed a set , every member of would have some first new point and all later points in , hence would lie in . This would make an accepting subset of , contradicting rejection.
Choose in recursively so that for every finite , the tail rejects . The empty stem satisfies this initially. At the next step, each of the finitely many previous stems has only finitely many accepting one-point extensions by the observation. Choose larger than all previous points and outside all those finite exceptional sets. The first fusion ensured that the tail for every new stem decides it; since it does not accept it, it rejects it. This maintains the recursion.
Put . If some belonged to , ordinary openness would give a finite initial segment of with . In particular . But is an infinite subset of , which rejects , a contradiction. Hence . We have proved
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2014 iii Paper 9 4 Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-06
Write for the infinite subsets of an infinite . A Ramsey set of infinite subsets has an infinite homogeneous set : either or . The proof below actually supplies homogeneous refinements within every infinite reservoir, and with any fixed initial finite stem; this stronger property is that of a completely Ramsey set.
For a non-Ramsey example, identify two infinite sets when their symmetric difference is finite, and choose one representative for each equivalence class. Define a two-colouring bywhere is the representative of 's class. Removing one point changes this parity. Thus, for every infinite , the two subsets and have opposite colours. The zero-colour family meets every and so does its complement. Hence the zero-colour family is not Ramsey. This finite-symmetric-difference parity colouring uses a choice of representatives; no definability or regularity is being claimed for that first example.
To prove the open-set assertion, for a finite increasing set and an infinite tail above defineThe star topology, or Ellentuck topology, has these sets as basic open sets. For an empty stem there is no lower-bound restriction. More generally always uses only the points of above . The ordinary topology on infinite subsets, denoted , has cylinders as a basis. The two topologies must not be confused.
Fix any family , initially without any openness assumption. An infinite accepts a stem if , and rejects it if no infinite subset of its tail accepts . Every infinite reservoir has an infinite refinement deciding : take an accepting refinement if one exists, and otherwise the reservoir itself rejects. Acceptance and rejection are both inherited by infinite refinements. These facts follow from the definitions, giving acceptance and rejection of finite stems.
First refine the initial reservoir to decide the empty stem. If it accepts, its infinite subsets already lie in . Otherwise start from an infinite reservoir rejecting the empty stem. Choose an increasing point , then thin its remaining tail finitely many times to decide all subsets of . Having chosen , choose from the current tail and refine the remaining tail to decide all subsets of . Each stage has only finitely many stems to handle. Let .
For every finite , at the stage of its largest point the reservoir was made to decide , and all later chosen points remain inside that reservoir. Heredity therefore makes the tail of decide . Moreover still rejects the empty stem. This proves deciding all finite stems by fusion without assuming a separate fusion theorem.
Suppose rejects a finite . There are only finitely many above for which 's tail above accepts . For if there were infinitely many, collect them into . Every infinite has least point of this kind, and its remaining tail lies in the accepting tail of . Hence for every such , so would accept , contradicting rejection. This proves finitely many accepting extensions of a rejected stem.
Now choose increasing from so that every subset of the chosen finite prefix is rejected by the appropriate tail of . The empty prefix is rejected. At the next step, for each of the finitely many already chosen subsets , avoid the finitely many accepting successors just identified. All other successors are rejected, since the previous fusion made every finite stem in decided. Thus one can choose the next point beyond the finite forbidden union. With , every finite is rejected.
Now assume is star-open. If some infinite lay in , there would be a basic neighbourhood containing . Here is a finite initial segment of , and its infinite tail lies in and in the relevant tail of . Then , so accepts , contradicting rejection. Therefore . In the earlier acceptance case, . We have provedThe construction works with any infinite starting reservoir. Keeping an initial finite stem fixed and applying the same acceptance/rejection argument to its tails proves the completely Ramsey set conclusion as well. This supplies the full fusion proof for open Ellentuck sets; no unproved course combinatorial lemma has been used.
For the final request, a family has the Baire property in the ordinary infinite-subset topology if it differs from a -open family by a -meagre set. We construct a non-Ramsey family which is already -nowhere dense. LetThe gap-doubling closed family of infinite subsets is -closed: a violation is witnessed by a finite initial segment, whose whole cylinder lies outside . It is nowhere dense: inside any cylinder, extend the stem by two sufficiently large consecutive integers ; the resulting smaller cylinder violates the gap inequality and is disjoint from .
For every infinite , the set has cardinality . To prove the lower bound, build a binary tree of finite gap-doubling sequences using points of , choosing two distinct next points above twice the previous point at every node. Distinct infinite binary branches give distinct increasing sets. The upper bound follows because all these sets are subsets of the countable set .
Well-order all infinite subsets as , using the initial ordinal of that cardinality. At stage , choose two previously unused setsand reserve both permanently. There are fewer than previously reserved sets but candidates, so this recursion always continues. This argument does not assume that the continuum is a regular cardinal. Set . Every cone contains its red choice in and its blue choice outside ; the blue choices can never become later red choices. Therefore is not Ramsey.
But , and is closed nowhere dense, so the closure of also has empty interior. Thus is nowhere dense, hence meagre, and proves its ordinary Baire property. We have obtained a meagre set meeting every Ramsey cone in both colours:This explains why ordinary Baire regularity cannot replace the star-topology regularity in the open-set theorem. A family supported only on the infinite subsets of a fixed sparse set would not suffice for this counterexample: another infinite set could give an entirely disjoint cone. The gap-doubling family used here instead meets every cone in continuum many candidates.