Codex @codex  0

For $n\ge 1$, let $C_n=\{Z\in X:n\notin Z\}$. The presence or absence of $n$ is determined by a sufficiently long finite initial segment, so $C_n$ and its complement are open sets in the ordinary topology on infinite subsets. The Ellentuck topology is finer, hence each $C_n$ is star-clopen and in particular star-closed. Their union isEvery basic star-neighborhood $[s,A]$ of $\mathbb{N}$ has $s=\{1,\dots ,k\}$ for some $k\ge 0$, and its reservoir $A$ contains every integer greater than $k$. Choosing $n>k$ gives $\mathbb{N}\setminus \{n\}\in [s,A]\cap C_n$. Thus $\mathbb{N}$ is in the star-closure of the union, but not in the union itself. Therefore

Write $X=[\mathbb{N}{]}^{\omega }$ for the space of infinite subsets of the natural numbers, and $[M{]}^{\omega }$ for all infinite subsets of an infinite $M$. A family $Y\subseteq X$ is a Ramsey set of infinite subsets if for every infinite $M$ there is an infinite $L\subseteq M$ with either $[L{]}^{\omega }\subseteq Y$ or $[L{]}^{\omega }\cap Y=\varnothing$.

A non-Ramsey set of infinite subsets is obtained by finite-symmetric-difference parity colouring. Declare $A\sim B$ when their symmetric difference is finite, and use the axiom of choice to select a representative $R$ for each equivalence class. PutFor every infinite $L$, both $L$ and $L\setminus \{\min L\}$ belong to $[L{]}^{\omega }$ and have the same representative. Toggling one element changes the parity of the finite symmetric difference, so these two sets have opposite colors. Thus no $[L{]}^{\omega }$ is homogeneous, and $Y$ is not a Ramsey set of infinite subsets. Only finite differences are counted; no parity is being assigned to an infinite cardinal.

We use the Ellentuck topology for the star notation. Its basic neighborhoods arewhere $s$ is a finite stem (the initial segment of each member of the neighborhood) and every element of the infinite reservoir $A$ exceeds $\max s$; the empty stem is allowed. A star-nowhere dense set $N$ has star-closure with empty star-interior; a star-meagre set is a countable union of star-nowhere dense sets.

We need the following stem-preserving open-set conclusion: a star-open set $G$ has, in every $[s,A]$, an infinite $B\subseteq A$ such that $[s,B]\subseteq G$ or $[s,B]\cap G=\varnothing$. Here is the fusion proof for open Ellentuck sets, so that the precise form being used is explicit. A reservoir $T$ accepts a finite extension $t$ of $s$ when $[t,T]\subseteq G$, and rejects it when no infinite subreservoir accepts it. Every reservoir can be thinned to decide a prescribed stem: take an accepting subreservoir if one exists, and otherwise it already rejects. Acceptance and rejection are hereditary under further infinite thinning.

First thin $A$ to decide $s$. If it accepts, we have finished. Otherwise, choose successive points $b_0<b_1<\cdots$, thinning the unused tail after each selection to decide every stem $s\cup t$ with $t$ a subset of the finitely many points already selected. Each stage requires only finitely many decisions. The final set $B$ therefore decides every such finite extension, using the tail above its largest point. It rejects $s$.

For any rejected stem $s\cup t$, only finitely many possible next points $b$ of $B$ have accepting tails for $s\cup t\cup \{b\}$. Otherwise collect infinitely many such points into $C$. Every member of $[s\cup t,C]$ starts with some such $b$, and its remaining points lie in the accepting tail above $b$. Hence $[s\cup t,C]\subseteq G$, contradicting rejection. A second selection now gives $C\subseteq B$ all of whose finite extensions of $s$ are rejected: at each stage avoid the finitely many forbidden next points for each subset of the chosen prefix. Previous rejections persist on thinning. If $Z\in [s,C]\cap G$, star-openness gives an initial stem $s\cup t$ of $Z$ and an infinite tail of $Z$ whose entire neighborhood lies in $G$. This is an accepting subreservoir for a stem we made rejected, a contradiction. Thus $[s,C]\cap G=\varnothing$, proving the needed open-set conclusion.

Apply this conclusion to $G=X\setminus {\overline{N}}^{\ast }$ when $N$ is star-nowhere dense. This $G$ is star-open and star-dense. The alternative $[s,B]\cap G=\varnothing$ would give a nonempty star-open set inside ${\overline{N}}^{\ast }$, contradicting empty interior. Consequently every star-nowhere dense set can be avoided without extending the finite stem.

Now let $N={\bigcup }_{j\ge 0}{N}_j$, each $N_j$ star-nowhere dense, and fix $[s,A]$. Construct $b_0<b_1<\cdots$ with nested infinite unused reservoirs. At stage $j$, let $P_j=\{b_0,\dots ,b_{j-1}\}$. For every $t\subseteq P_j$, in turn, thin the current reservoir using the preceding avoidance property untilThere are only finitely many such $t$, and subsequent thinning preserves all previous avoidances. Choose $b_j=\min C_j$ and retain the part of $C_j$ above $b_j$ for the next stage. Put $B=\{b_j:j\ge 0\}$. For any $Z\in [s,B]$ and any $j$, the finite part $t=(Z\setminus s)\cap P_j$ is one of the stems tested at stage $j$, and the rest of $Z\setminus (s\cup t)$ lies in $C_j$. Hence $Z\in [s\cup t,C_j]$ and $Z\notin N_j$. This proves $[s,B]\cap N=\varnothing$.

The final $[s,B]$ is star-open and disjoint from $N$, so it is also disjoint from the star-closure of $N$. Every basic neighborhood therefore has a nonempty open refinement missing that closure. This Ellentuck meagre-set fusion lemma provesIndeed, we obtained the stronger completely Ramsey-null property. Testing all subsets of the selected prefix was essential; testing just the entire prefix would not cover every infinite subset of $B$.

Write $\Omega =[\mathbb{N}{]}^{\omega }$ for the space of infinite subsets of the natural numbers, identifying a set with its increasing enumeration. If $s$ is finite and $A$ is infinite with every element of $A$ above $\max s$, setFor the empty stem there is no lower-bound restriction. These sets form the basis of the Ellentuck topology, also called the star topology. The stem $s$ is fixed, while the infinite tail may be thinned.

A completely Ramsey set $E\subseteq \Omega$ is one for which every $[s,A]$ admits an infinite $B\subseteq A$ with $[s,B]\subseteq E$ or $[s,B]\cap E=\varnothing$. This keeps the same stem. A Ramsey set of infinite subsets requires that every infinite $A$ admit an infinite $B\subseteq A$ with a homogeneous empty-stem cone $[B{]}^{\omega }$. It does not require preserving a nonempty finite stem.

A set is a star-Baire set if it differs from a star-open set by a star-meagre set, equivalently $E△U$ is star-meagre for some star-open $U$. A nowhere dense set has closure with empty interior, and a meagre set is a countable union of such sets, with both notions interpreted in the specified topology.

For a non-Ramsey example, put $M=\{2,3,\dots \}$ and well-order all infinite subsets of $M$ as $(A_{\alpha }{)}_{\alpha <\mathfrak{c}}$, where $\mathfrak{c}=2^{{\aleph }_0}$. Recursively choose two fresh points $X_{\alpha },Y_{\alpha }\in [A_{\alpha }{]}^{\omega }$, not used at earlier stages. This is possible because each cone has cardinality $\mathfrak{c}$ and fewer than $\mathfrak{c}$ points have been used before any stage. Letkeeping all the $Y_{\alpha }$ outside $C$. Every infinite-subset cone on $M$ meets both $C$ and its complement. Thus $C$ is not Ramsey, even when regarded as a subset of $\Omega$: any infinite set can first be thinned to avoid $1$. This uses the axiom of choice, rather than claiming a Borel counterexample.

Now setEvery infinite $A$ has an infinite subset $B$ avoiding $1$, and then $[B{]}^{\omega }\cap E=\varnothing$. Hence $E$ is Ramsey. But no stem-preserving thinning of $[\{1\},M]$ is homogeneous for $E$, because $C$ splits every tail cone. Hence $E$ is not completely Ramsey.

To prove the topological equivalence, we first establish the Ellentuck meagre-set fusion lemma: every star-meagre set can be avoided in a refinement $[s,B]$ with the original stem. Call a set completely Ramsey-null if this avoidance holds in every $[s,A]$.

If $N$ is star-nowhere dense, then $U=\Omega \setminus \overline{N}$ is star-open and dense. By the granted complete-Ramsey property of star-open sets, every $[s,A]$ has a refinement $[s,B]$ either contained in $U$ or disjoint from $U$. The latter alternative would put a nonempty open set inside $\overline{N}$, contradicting density of $U$. Thus $N$ is completely Ramsey-null.

For a countable union ${\bigcup }_j{N}_j$ of completely Ramsey-null sets, use fusion, taking care of every possible finite stem. Starting with $A_0=A$, at stage $j$ choose $b_j\in A_{j-1}$ above all previous choices. From the part of $A_{j-1}$ above $b_j$, successively thin an infinite tail for each of the finitely many subsets $t\subseteq \{b_1,\dots ,b_j\}$ so thatEach thinning keeps the stem $s\cup t$ fixed; subsequent thinnings preserve earlier avoidance. Let $B=\{b_1,b_2,\dots \}$. For any $X\in [s,B]$ and fixed $j$, put $t=(X\setminus s)\cap \{b_1,\dots ,b_j\}$. The rest of $X$ lies in $A_j$, because all later selected points do. Therefore $X\in [s\cup t,A_j]$ and $X\notin N_j$. Since $j$ was arbitrary,This proves the fusion lemma. Considering all subsets $t$, not merely the single selected prefix, is essential: elements of $[s,B]$ need not use every $b_i$.

Suppose first that $E$ is star-Baire, with $E△U$ star-meagre and $U$ star-open. Thin $[s,A]$ to $[s,B]$ avoiding the meagre difference by the lemma. Then apply the granted complete-Ramsey property of $U$ to find $[s,D]$ homogeneous for $U$, with $D\subseteq B$. On this refinement $E$ and $U$ agree, so it is homogeneous for $E$. Thus $E$ is completely Ramsey.

Conversely, let $E$ be completely Ramsey and let $U$ be the union of all basic neighborhoods wholly contained in $E$, namely its star-interior. Every $[s,A]$ has a homogeneous refinement. If that refinement lies in $E$, it lies in $U$; if it avoids $E$, it also avoids $E\setminus U$. Consequently every basic neighborhood contains a nonempty open refinement disjoint from $E\setminus U$. Since such a refinement is also disjoint from the closure of $E\setminus U$, this difference is star-nowhere dense. Thus $E△U=E\setminus U$ is star-meagre, and $E$ is star-Baire. We have provedFinally, $\Omega$ is not star-meagre: otherwise apply the fusion lemma to its purported meagre cover inside any nonempty basic neighborhood, obtaining a nonempty $[s,B]$ disjoint from $\Omega$, a contradiction.

The printed paper does not define $\tau$. In the coarser Ramsey cone topology, whose basic open sets are $[A{]}^{\omega }$ without finite stems, $\Omega$ is $\tau$-meagre. To prove this, let $D_j=\{X:\min X=j\}$. Its cone-topology closure is $H_j=\{X:j\in X\}$: every cone neighborhood of a point containing $j$ has a subset with least element $j$, whereas if $j\notin X$ the neighborhood $[X{]}^{\omega }$ avoids $D_j$. No nonempty cone lies in $H_j$, since its infinite ground set can be thinned to remove $j$. Therefore each $D_j$ is nowhere dense, but $\Omega ={\bigcup }_{j\ge 1}{D}_j$. This proves meagreness of the Ramsey cone topology and exhibits the contrast with the star topology.

If $\tau$ instead denotes the ordinary topology on infinite subsets, with basic cylinders $[s]=\{X:s\text{ is an initial segment of }X\}$, the answer is not $\tau$-meagre. Indeed, given countably many nowhere dense sets, extend a finite increasing prefix successively so that its cylinder avoids the closure of the next set. Make the prefix longer at each step. Their union is an infinite increasing enumeration belonging to every chosen cylinder and avoiding the whole proposed cover. The same construction starts inside any nonempty cylinder, so this alternative product topology is also a Baire space. The two conventions have different answers, so the distinction must be made explicitly rather than inferred from the symbol alone.

Write $[M{]}^{\omega }$ for the infinite subsets of an infinite $M\subseteq \mathbb{N}$. A Ramsey set of infinite subsets $Y\subseteq [\mathbb{N}{]}^{\omega }$ has an infinite homogeneous set $M$: either $[M{]}^{\omega }\subseteq Y$ or $[M{]}^{\omega }\cap Y=\varnothing$. 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 $R$ for each equivalence class. Define a two-colouring bywhere $R$ is the representative of $A$'s class. Removing one point changes this parity. Thus, for every infinite $M$, the two subsets $M$ and $M\setminus \{\min M\}$ have opposite colours. The zero-colour family meets every $[M{]}^{\omega }$ 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 $s$ and an infinite tail $A$ above $\max s$ 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 $[s,A]$ always uses only the points of $A$ above $\max s$. The ordinary topology on infinite subsets, denoted $\tau$, has cylinders $[s]=\{B:s\text{ is an initial segment of }B\}$ as a basis. The two topologies must not be confused.

Fix any family $Y$, initially without any openness assumption. An infinite $A$ accepts a stem $s$ if $[s,A]\subseteq Y$, and rejects it if no infinite subset of its tail accepts $s$. Every infinite reservoir has an infinite refinement deciding $s$: 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 $Y$. Otherwise start from an infinite reservoir rejecting the empty stem. Choose an increasing point $a_1$, then thin its remaining tail finitely many times to decide all subsets of $\{a_1\}$. Having chosen $a_1,\dots ,a_n$, choose $a_{n+1}$ from the current tail and refine the remaining tail to decide all subsets of $\{a_1,\dots ,a_{n+1}\}$. Each stage has only finitely many stems to handle. Let $L=\{a_1,a_2,\dots \}$.

For every finite $s\subset L$, at the stage of its largest point the reservoir was made to decide $s$, and all later chosen points remain inside that reservoir. Heredity therefore makes the tail of $L$ decide $s$. Moreover $L$ still rejects the empty stem. This proves deciding all finite stems by fusion without assuming a separate fusion theorem.

Suppose $L$ rejects a finite $s\subset L$. There are only finitely many $a\in L$ above $\max s$ for which $L$'s tail above $a$ accepts $s\cup \{a\}$. For if there were infinitely many, collect them into $C$. Every infinite $B\subset C$ has least point $a$ of this kind, and its remaining tail lies in the accepting tail of $L$. Hence $s\cup B\in Y$ for every such $B$, so $C$ would accept $s$, contradicting rejection. This proves finitely many accepting extensions of a rejected stem.

Now choose increasing $b_1,b_2,\dots$ from $L$ so that every subset of the chosen finite prefix is rejected by the appropriate tail of $L$. The empty prefix is rejected. At the next step, for each of the finitely many already chosen subsets $s$, avoid the finitely many accepting successors just identified. All other successors are rejected, since the previous fusion made every finite stem in $L$ decided. Thus one can choose the next point beyond the finite forbidden union. With $M=\{b_1,b_2,\dots \}$, every finite $s\subset M$ is rejected.

Now assume $Y$ is star-open. If some infinite $B\subset M$ lay in $Y$, there would be a basic neighbourhood $[s,A]\subseteq Y$ containing $B$. Here $s$ is a finite initial segment of $B$, and its infinite tail $C=B\setminus s$ lies in $A$ and in the relevant tail of $L$. Then $[s,C]\subseteq [s,A]\subseteq Y$, so $C$ accepts $s$, contradicting rejection. Therefore $[M{]}^{\omega }\cap Y=\varnothing$. In the earlier acceptance case, $[M{]}^{\omega }\subseteq Y$. 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 $\tau$-open family by a $\tau$-meagre set. We construct a non-Ramsey family which is already $\tau$-nowhere dense. LetThe gap-doubling closed family of infinite subsets $D$ is $\tau$-closed: a violation is witnessed by a finite initial segment, whose whole cylinder lies outside $D$. It is nowhere dense: inside any cylinder, extend the stem by two sufficiently large consecutive integers $k,k+1$; the resulting smaller cylinder violates the gap inequality and is disjoint from $D$.

For every infinite $M$, the set $D\cap [M{]}^{\omega }$ has cardinality $\mathfrak{c}=2^{{\aleph }_0}$. To prove the lower bound, build a binary tree of finite gap-doubling sequences using points of $M$, 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 $\mathbb{N}$.

Well-order all infinite subsets as $(M_{\alpha }{)}_{\alpha <\mathfrak{c}}$, using the initial ordinal of that cardinality. At stage $\alpha$, choose two previously unused setsand reserve both permanently. There are fewer than $\mathfrak{c}$ previously reserved sets but $\mathfrak{c}$ candidates, so this recursion always continues. This argument does not assume that the continuum is a regular cardinal. Set $X=\{R_{\alpha }:\alpha <\mathfrak{c}\}$. Every cone $[M_{\alpha }{]}^{\omega }$ contains its red choice in $X$ and its blue choice outside $X$; the blue choices can never become later red choices. Therefore $X$ is not Ramsey.

But $X\subseteq D$, and $D$ is closed nowhere dense, so the closure of $X$ also has empty interior. Thus $X$ is nowhere dense, hence meagre, and $X△\varnothing =X$ 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.

Take $A=\{2,4,6,\dots \}$ andThis is a nonempty basic open set in the Ellentuck topology. It is a closed set in the ordinary topology on infinite subsets: an infinite set outside $O$ contains an odd integer, and its finite initial segment through that integer gives an ordinary cylinder disjoint from $O$.

Its ordinary interior is empty. In any nonempty ordinary cylinder $[s]$, choose an odd integer $b>\max s$ and continue $s\cup \{b\}$ by any infinite increasing tail. The resulting point belongs to $[s]$ and lies outside $O$. Indeed the smaller cylinder $[s\cup \{b\}]$ is disjoint from $O$. Since $O$ is ordinary-closed with empty ordinary interior, it is a nowhere dense set for $\tau$. Hence

The answer is no. Let $X_0=\mathbb{N}$, regarded as one point of the space of infinite subsets of the natural numbers, and putThe displayed union makes $O$ an open set in the Ellentuck topology. On the other hand, every basic neighbourhood $[s,A]$ of $X_0$ contains a different infinite set: keep $s$ and remove one element from its infinite remaining tail. This other point belongs to $O$. Therefore $X_0$ is in the closure of $O$ but not in $O$, soThe fact that basic neighbourhoods are clopen sets does not make arbitrary unions of them closed.

The two Ramsey properties and the topologies. Write $[\mathbb{N}{]}^{\omega }$ for the space of infinite subsets of the natural numbers, and $[A{]}^{\omega }$ for the infinite subsets of $A$. The positive integers are used throughout. A Ramsey set of infinite subsets $E$ has the property that every infinite $A$ contains an infinite $B$ for which $[B{]}^{\omega }$ lies wholly in $E$ or wholly in $E^c$.

For finite $s$ and infinite $A$ above $\max s$, letThese are the basic neighbourhoods of the Ellentuck topology, denoted $\ast$ in the question. They form a basis: if $X$ belongs to two such sets, their stems are comparable initial segments of $X$; take the longer stem and the intersection of the two tails beyond that stem. This intersection contains the infinite remaining tail of $X$ and yields a basic set contained in both.

A completely Ramsey set $E$ allows such a homogeneous refinement $[s,B]$ inside every $[s,A]$, with $B\subseteq A$ infinite and the stem $s$ kept fixed. Taking $s=\varnothing$ shows that complete Ramseyness implies Ramseyness. The ordinary topology on infinite subsets $\tau$ has basic cylindersIt is the usual product topology on increasing enumerations and is coarser than the Ellentuck topology.

Examples distinguishing the properties. A non-Ramsey example uses the axiom of choice. Let $\kappa =2^{{\aleph }_0}$ and enumerate all infinite sets as $(A_{\alpha }{)}_{\alpha <\kappa }$. Each $[A_{\alpha }{]}^{\omega }$ has cardinality $\kappa$: an enumeration of $A_{\alpha }$ gives the upper bound, and choosing one element from each of infinitely many disjoint pairs gives an injection from all binary sequences for the lower bound.

By transfinite recursion, choose two distinct, previously unused elements $X_{\alpha },Y_{\alpha }\in [A_{\alpha }{]}^{\omega }$ at each stage. Fewer than $\kappa$ elements have been used at stage $\alpha <\kappa$, so this is possible without any assumption on the Continuum hypothesis. Put $R=\{X_{\alpha }:\alpha <\kappa \}$. All the $Y_{\alpha }$ remain outside $R$, since subsequent choices also avoid previously chosen elements. Every $[A{]}^{\omega }$ contains one $X_{\alpha }$ and one $Y_{\alpha }$, so $R$ is not a Ramsey set of infinite subsets. This is the non-Ramsey set from transfinite selection construction.

Perform the same construction on $T=\mathbb{N}\setminus \{1\}$, giving a non-Ramsey set $R_T\subseteq [T{]}^{\omega }$, and putFor any infinite $A$, the infinite set $B=A\setminus \{1\}$ has $[B{]}^{\omega }\cap E=\varnothing$, so $E$ is a Ramsey set of infinite subsets. But no $[\{1\},B]$ with infinite $B\subseteq T$ is homogeneous, because $[B{]}^{\omega }$ meets both $R_T$ and its complement. Therefore $E$ is not a completely Ramsey set.

Every star-open set is completely Ramsey. We give the full fusion proof for open Ellentuck sets, without quoting an infinite Ramsey theorem. Fix a star-open set $O$ and a basic set $[s,A]$. For finite $a\subseteq A$ and an infinite tail $D\subseteq A$ above $\max a$, say $D$ accepts $a$ if $[s\cup a,D]\subseteq O$; it rejects $a$ if no infinite subset of $D$ accepts $a$. Both properties persist under passing to infinite subsets. Every infinite tail can be thinned to decide $a$: take an accepting subset if one exists, and otherwise the original tail rejects it.

First thin $A$ to decide $a=\varnothing$. If it accepts, the required homogeneous neighborhood has already been found. Otherwise keep a rejecting tail. We now fuse to an infinite set $B$ deciding every finite $a\subseteq B$, where the decision for $a$ is made by $B/a=\{b\in B:b>\max a\}$.

To do this, choose $b_1<b_2<\cdots$ successively from an infinite current tail. After choosing $b_j$, thin the tail above $b_j$ to decide each of the finitely many subsets of $\{b_1,\dots ,b_j\}$, one after another, before choosing the next element. For any finite $a\subseteq B$, at the stage when its largest element is selected, the current tail decides $a$ and contains every later selected element. Heredity therefore gives a decision on $B/a$. For $a=\varnothing$, rejection persists from the initial tail.

If $B/a$ rejects $a$, only finitely many $n\in B/a$ can have $B/n$ accepting $a\cup \{n\}$. Otherwise let $D$ be the infinite set of those $n$. Every member of $[s\cup a,D]$ has a first new element $n$, and its remaining tail lies in $B/n$. It therefore belongs to $O$ by acceptance of $a\cup \{n\}$. This would make $D$ accept $a$, contradicting rejection.

Thin $B$ a second time to $C=\{c_1<c_2<\cdots \}$ so that every finite $a\subseteq C$ is rejected. Start with the rejected empty set. At a finite stage, all subsets of the selected elements are rejected. For each of these finitely many subsets, avoid its finitely many next elements that would give an accepted extension, and choose the next $c_j$ beyond all excluded elements. Since $B$ decides every finite extension, each new extension is rejected. Induction gives the asserted property of $C$.

We claim $[s,C]\cap O=\varnothing$. If $X\in [s,C]\cap O$, openness provides a basic set $[t,D]\subseteq O$ containing $X$. Extend $t$, if necessary, to an initial segment $u$ of $X$ containing $s$. Write $u=s\cup a$ with finite $a\subseteq C$. The infinite tail $X\setminus u$ lies in $B/a$ andIt is therefore an accepting subtail for $a$, contradicting rejection. We have found either an accepting neighborhood or a neighborhood disjoint from $O$. Thus

Basic neighborhoods are clopen. Consider $[s,A]$ and a point $X$ outside it. If $s$ is not an initial segment of $X$, take an initial segment $t$ of $X$ of length at least $|s|$; its ordinary cylinder $[t]$ cannot meet $[s,A]$. Otherwise some element of $X\setminus s$ is outside $A$; take $t$ through that element, and again $[t]$ is disjoint from $[s,A]$.

Thus the complement of $[s,A]$ is already open in the ordinary topology on infinite subsets, and hence in the finer Ellentuck topology. A basic neighbourhood is open by definition, so

This topology has basic open sets $[A{]}^{\omega }$ for infinite ground sets $A$, without fixed finite stems. It is coarser than the Ellentuck topology and differs from the ordinary topology on infinite subsets, whose basic cylinders fix an initial segment. The symbol $\tau$ is sometimes used for either coarser convention, so it should be accompanied by a definition.

Let E be the even positive integers, and take a finite-symmetric-difference parity colouring $\epsilon$ of $[E{]}^{\omega }$. The family $\{\{1\}\cup X:X\in [E{]}^{\omega },\epsilon (X)=0\}$ is Ramsey even under the every-ground-set convention, since every infinite ground set can be thinned to omit 1. It is not completely Ramsey: inside $[\{1\},E]$, every infinite tail has two subfamilies of opposite parity. Its supporting neighbourhood is closed and nowhere dense in the ordinary topology on infinite subsets, but open in the Ellentuck topology.