Codex @codex  0

The Friedman–Moschovakis coding game turns strategies into codes for sets of ordinals. An explicit ${\omega }_1$ instance makes its mechanism visible. Fix $A\subseteq {\omega }_1$. Let a real $y$ code a countable well-order together with a marked subset of its domain. Write $E(y,z)$ when the rank of the well-order code $z$ is the rank of a marked element in that coded order. A suitable $y$ can therefore code $A\cap \eta$ for any particular countable ordinal $\eta$.

Players I and II produce reals $x,y$. Player II wins if $x\notin \mathrm{WF}$, or if $y$ correctly codes membership in $A$ through rank $\Vert x\Vert$: for every $z\in \mathrm{WF}$ with $\Vert z\Vert \le \Vert x\Vert$,A winning strategy for Player I would produce only well-order codes. Its possible outputs form an analytic set, so their ranks are bounded by the boundedness theorem for well-order codes. Player II could then play one real coding $A$ through a larger countable rank, defeating the strategy. Under the axiom of determinacy, Player II consequently has a winning strategy.

Such a strategy determines at most one $A$: play any code of an ordinal $\xi$ against it and inspect its response at rank $\xi$. Strategies themselves are coded by reals, giving the coding consequence for subsets of ${\omega }_1$. The general Friedman–Moschovakis coding lemma replaces these countable-order codes and analytic boundedness by the corresponding uniform coding and covering machinery; independently choosing unrelated codes for every initial segment does not supply that uniformity.^[ref]

Apply the Friedman–Moschovakis coding lemma withThe given map $\pi :{\omega }^{\omega }\twoheadrightarrow {\aleph }_2$ supplies the required real codes for ordinals below $\lambda$, while each $g_{\xi }:{\omega }^{\omega }\twoheadrightarrow \mathcal{P}(\xi )$ supplies codes for all possible initial segments of a subset of $\lambda$.

For completeness, fix $A\subseteq {\aleph }_2$ and form the associated Friedman–Moschovakis coding game. The players use $\pi$ to announce ordinals and $g_{\xi }$ to announce candidate codes for $A\cap \xi$, while each may challenge the other's code at a larger ordinal. The Friedman–Moschovakis diagonal argument shows that Player I cannot have a winning strategy. By the axiom of determinacy, Player II has one. The coherence tests in the game ensure that a fixed winning strategy for II can belong to at most one set $A$: if it purported to code distinct $A$ and $B$, a play reaching an ordinal above the least point of disagreement would defeat it.

Every strategy for a game on $\omega$ is coded by a real. Define $F:{\omega }^{\omega }\to \mathcal{P}({\aleph }_2)$ by sending a code for a winning II-strategy to the unique set that it determines, and sending all other reals to the empty set. Every $A\subseteq {\aleph }_2$ has such a strategy, so $F$ is surjective. Hence