We define a family in a similar fashion. if there is and a partition of into intervals such that
|
|
|
Exploiting the analogy to in the Cantor space we will denote by the ideal of sets generated by
|
|
|
Notice that is a translation invariant -ideal with the basis of class . Also, and . Moreover, the latter inclusion is proper, i.e. the characterization of in the Cantor space à la Lemma 3 fails for in the Baire space.
Proof.
Let be a bijection and consider a tree
|
|
|
We will show that for any and any partition of into intervals there is such that for infinitely many . So, fix arbitrary and a partition of into intervals . Let us start the induction on . At the step denote and consider a set
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is finite (has at most elements), hence there is . Set . Clearly, . Let us assume that at the step we already have such that for . Denote and consider a set
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is finite, hence there is . Set . This finishes the inductive construction. Set . Clearly is the member of we are looking for.
∎
Proof.
Let , where is an ascending sequence of nowhere dense sets. For each there exists such that for every we have . Notice that
|
|
|
Furthermore we may assume that for each . Let and set . The function is the one we are looking for.
Indeed, let . Then there is such that for . Then for .
∎
Thanks to the characterization of resembling the one of in the Cantor space, we have the following two immediate observations.
Proof.
Let be a perfect tree (the proof for a uniformly perfect tree is almost identical). Let and assume that if , then . Let be meager with as in Lemma 5, i.e.
|
|
|
For every let the enumeration be in lexicographical order, i.e. and .
We will construct inductively , , such that for each
-
(i)
for each and for and ;
-
(ii)
for ;
-
(iii)
;
-
(iv)
if , then .
Let and let be the shortest splitting extension of from . Set .
Let us consider the step . Set long enough so that the following hold
|
|
|
Denote . In a similar fashion, set , , such that
|
|
|
and denote . Notice that . At the step assume that and for are defined. Set and , , from such that
|
|
|
|
|
|
where, predictably,
|
|
|
Also, set
|
|
|
Observe that . Finally set , to be the shortest extensions of to splitting nodes of . The construction is complete.
Clearly (ii) is the case. Conditions (i) and (iii) are also satisfied.
To see (iv) let be such that for for some . Let . Then and clearly . Hence , so .
For every let be such that . The function is well defined thanks to (ii).
Set
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We will show that . Let and . Let be such that for . Fix such . Let be such that . By (iv) . Notice that . Hence, .
∎
Proof.
Let
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For let if and .
Using repeatedly Theorem 10 we may find for any meager set and (uniformly) perfect tree a fusion sequence of trees , i.e.
|
|
|
Then is a body of the desired (uniformly) perfect tree.
∎
Proof.
Let
|
|
|
Fix a bijection and let be given by
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Set . Clearly is a Miller tree. Let be a Miller tree.
We will show that for every there are such that .
Fix and set
|
|
|
We will find and such that for infinitely many . For this purpose let us construct , , such that
-
(i)
;
-
(ii)
, ;
-
(iii)
, , for ;
-
(iv)
.
Let and for . Let be such that for . Set . Let with .
At the step let , and
|
|
|
Set from such that
|
|
|
Finally set . The construction is complete.
Let and . Clearly and . Furthermore by (iv) , hence .
∎
Proof.
Without loss of generality we may assume that , i.e. . Let , where is an enumeration of such that for . Let be any meager set associated with a function . We will construct and such that for all
-
(i)
;
-
(ii)
;
-
(iii)
for ;
-
(iv)
.
Let , and , where , . Let such that and with . Set , where , and .
Let us execute the step . Let and such that . Set , where , and . The construction is complete.
Set and . By (ii) , by (iii) , and by (iv) .
∎