7

2
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
8







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
9


CONTINUOUS IMAGES OF SETS OF REALS
TOMEK BARTOSZYNSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
Abstract. We will show that, consistently, every uncountable set can be
continuously mapped onto a non measure zero set, while there exists an un-
countable set whose all continuous images into a Polish space are meager.
1. Introduction
Let be a -ideal of subsets of a Polish space Y . Assume also that contains
singletons and has Borel basis. Let non() = min[X[ : X Y & X , .
In this paper we are concerned with the family
NON() = X R : for every continuous mapping F : X Y, F(X) .
Note that NON() contains all countable sets. Moreover, NON() is closed under
countable unions but need not be downward closed, thus it may not an ideal.
However, NON() is contained in the -ideal
NON

() = X R : for every continuous mapping F : R Y, F(X) .

It is also not hard to see that NON

() consists of those sets whose uniformly

continuous images are in .
Let ^ be the ideal of measure zero subsets of 2

with respect to the standard

product measure , and let / be the ideal of meager subsets of 2

(or other Polish

space Y ).
We will show that
ZFC NON(/) contains an uncountable set.
It is consistent that NON

(^) = NON(^) = [R]

0
.
It is consistent that: NON

() = [R]
0
non() < 2
0
.
Observe that if NON

() = [R]
0
then non() =
1
. On the other hand for all
-ideals considered in this paper, continuum hypothesis implies that NON()
contains uncountable sets.
Finally notice that one can show in ZFC that there exists an uncountable uni-
versal measure zero set (see [7]), i.e. a set whose all homeomorphic (or even Borel
isomorphic) images are all of measure zero. Therefore one cannot generalize the
consistency results mentioned above by replacing the word continuous by home-
omorphic in the denition of NON(^).
1991 Mathematics Subject Classication. 03E17.
Key words and phrases. small sets, measure, consistency.
The rst author was partially supported by NSF grant DMS 9971282.
The second author was partially supported by Israel Science Foundation. Publication 722.
1
7
2
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
8







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
9


2 TOMEK BARTOSZYNSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
2. Category
In this section we show that NON(/) contains an uncountable set. This was
proved in [9], the proof presented here gives a slightly stronger result.
For f, g

let f

g mean that f(n) g(n) for all but nitely many n. Let
b = min[F[ : F

& h

f F f ,

h.
Theorem 1 ([9]). There exists a set X R of size b such that
(1) every continuous image of X into

is bounded,
(2) every continuous image of X into a Polish space is meager,
(3) if b non(^) then every continuous image of X into R has measure zero.
Proof Let Z ( + 1)

consist of functions f such that

(1) n f(n) f(n + 1),
(2) n
_
f(n) < f(n) < f(n + 1)
_
.
Note that Z is a compact subset of ( +1)

thus it is homeomorphic to 2

. For an
increasing sequence s ( + 1)
<
let q
s
( + 1)

be dened as
q
s
(k) =
_
s(k) if k < [s[
otherwise
for k .
Note that the set Q = q
s
: s
<
is dense in Z. Put X

= f

: < b such
that
(1) f

Z,
(2) f

for < ,
(3) f

f.
Let X = X

Q. We will show that X is the set we are looking for.

(1) Suppose that F : X

is continuous. We only need to assume that F

is continuous on Q. Without loss of generality we can assume for every x X,
F(x)

is an increasing function.
Lemma 2. There exists a function g

such that for every x X and n ,

F(x)(n) g(n) if x(n) > g(n).
Proof Fix n and for each s ( +1)
n
let I
s
( +1)

be a basic open
set containing q
s
such that for x dom(F) I
s
, F(x)(n) = F(q
s
)(n). For every s
the set I
s
n = xn : x I
s
is open ( +1)
n
and the family I
s
n : s ( +1)
n

is a cover of ( + 1)
n
. By compactness there are sequences s
1
, . . . , s
k
such that
( + 1)
n
= I
s1
n I
s
k
n. Find N so large that if x(n) > N then x I
sj
for
some j k. Dene
g(n) = maxN, F(q
s1
)(n), . . . , F(q
s
k
)(n).
Let g

be the function from the above lemma. Find

0
such that f
0
,

g.
Let u
n
: n be an increasing enumeration of n : g(n) < f
0
(n). Put
h(n) = g(u
n
) for n and note that for >
0
and suciently large n we have
F(f

)(n) F(f

)(u
n
) < g(u
n
) = h(n).
Since the set F(f

) :
0
F(q
s
) : s
<
has size < b we conclude that
F(X) is bounded in

.
7
2
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
8







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
9


CONTINUOUS IMAGES OF SETS OF REALS 3
(2) Suppose that F is a continuous mapping from X into a Polish space Y with
metric . Observe that F is not onto and x a countable dense set q
n
: n
disjoint with F(X). For x X let f
x

be dened as
f
x
(n) = min
_
k : (f(x), d
n
) >
1
k
_
.
In particular,
f(x) , B
_
d
n
,
1
f
x
(n)
_
=
_
z : (d
n
, z) <
1
f
x
(n)
_
.
Note that the mapping x f
x
is continuous and nd a function h

such that
f
x

h for x X. Put
G =

m
_
n>m
B
_
d
n
,
1
h(n)
_
and note that G is a comeager set disjoint from F(X).
(3) Let Q U be an open set. Dene g

as
g(0) = mink : x x(0) > k x U
and for n > 0
g(n) = min
_
k : x
_
_
j < n x(j) < g(j) & x(n) > k
_
x U
__
.
Let
0
be such that f
0
,

g. It follows that f

U for >
0
.
Suppose that F : X R is continuous (on Q). Let q
n
: n be enumeration
of Q. Let I
k
n
q
n
be a basic open set such that F(I
k
n
) has diameter < 2
nk
.
Put H =

n
I
k
n
. It is clear that F(H) has measure zero. Fix
0
such that for
all >
0
, f

H. It follows that for >

0
, F(f

) belongs to a measure zero

set F(H). By the assumption, the remainder of the set F(X) has size < non(^)
which nishes the proof.
The set X constructed above is not hereditary, and for example X Q can be
continuously mapped onto an unbounded family. A hereditary set having property
(1) of theorem 1 cannot be constructed in ZFC. Miller showed in [6] that it is
consistent that every uncountable set has a subset that can be mapped onto an
unbounded family. This holds in a model where there are no -sets, i.e. every
uncountable set has a G

subset which is not F

.
It is open whether a hereditary set having property (2) of theorem 1 can be
constructed in ZFC.
3. Making NON() small.
We will start with the following:
Denition 3. A set X 2

has strong measure zero if for every function g

there exists a function f (

<
)

such that f(n) 2

g(n)
for every n and
x X

n xg(n) = f(n).
Let o^ denote the collection of all strong measure zero sets.
If the above property fails for some g then we say that g witnesses that X , o^.
For g

we will dene a forcing notion P

g
such that:
7
2
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
8







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
9


4 TOMEK BARTOSZYNSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
(1) P
g
is proper,
(2) there exists a family F
n
: n V
Pg
such that
(a) n F
n
: 2

is continuous,
(b) if X 2

, X V and g witnesses that X , o^ then

V
Pg
[=
_
n
F
n
(X) = 2

.
Let L be the Laver forcing and suppose that g is a Laver real over V. It is well
known that:
Lemma 4. [5] If X 2

, X V is uncountable then V[g] [=g witnesses that X

does not have strong measure zero.
Theorem 5. It is consistent with ZFC that for every -ideal
NON() = [R]
0
non() < 2

0
.
Proof Let T

,

Q

: <
2
) be a countable support iteration such that

LP
g
for <
2
. Suppose that is a -ideal and V
P
2
[= non() =
1
.
It follows that for some <
2
, V
P
2
[= V
P
2

, .
Suppose that X V
P
2
2

is uncountable. Let > be such that X

V
P

is uncountable. In V
P

L
the Laver real witnesses that X , o^ and so
V
P
+1
[=

n
F
n
(X) = 2

. Hence V
P
2
[=

n
F
n
(X) , which means that
V
P
2
[= n F
n
(X) , .
4. Defintion of P
g
Let us x the following notation. Suppose that F
n
: n ) are nonempty sets.
Let T
max
=

n1
j=0
F
j
. For a tree T T
max
let Tn = T

n1
j=0
F
j
. For t Tn
let succ
T
(t) = x F
n
: t

x T be the set of all immediate successors of t in T,

and let T
t
= s T : s t or t s be the subtree determined by t. Let stem(T)
be the shortest t T such that [succ
T
(t)[ > 1.
Fix a sequence
k
j
: j k such that
(1) k 0 <
k
0
<
k
1
< <
k
k
< 2
k
.
(2) k j < k (
k
j+1
)
3
>
k
j
.
(3) k j < k

k
j+1
2
k
2
>
k
j
.
(4) k j < k

k
j

k
j+1
<
k
k
.
For example
k
j
= 2
k
2
4
kj
for j k will work.
Suppose that a strictly increasing function g

is given. Fix an increasing

sequence n
k
: k ) such that n
0
= 0 and
n
k+1
g
_
(k + 1)2
n
k
2
n
k
2
n
k

k
0
_
for k .
For the choice of
k
j
above n
k+1
= g
_
2
1999
n
k
_
will be large enough.
Let F
k
= f : dom(f) = 2
[n
k
,n
k+1
)
, range(f) = 0, 1. For A F
k
let
[[A[[ = max
_
:
[A[
[F
k
[

k

_
.
7
2
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
8







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
9


CONTINUOUS IMAGES OF SETS OF REALS 5
Consider the tree
T
max
=
_
k
k

j=0
F
j
.
Let P
g
be the forcing notion which consists of perfect subtrees T T
max
such that
lim
k
min[[succ
T
(s)[[ : s Tk = .
For T, S P
g
and n dene T S if T S and T
n
S if T S and
s S
_
[[succ
S
(s)[[ n succ
S
(s) = succ
T
(s)
_
.
It is easy to see that P
g
satises Axiom A, thus it is proper.
Suppose that G P
g
is a generic lter over V. Let

G = f
0
, f
1
, f
2
, . . .)

k
F
k
. Dene F
G
: 2

as
F
G
(x)(k) = f
k
_
x[n
k
, n
k+1
)
_
for x 2

, k .
First we show that P
g
is

-bounding. The arguments below are rather standard,

we reconstruct them here for completeness but the reader familiar with [8] will see
that they are a part of a much more general scheme.
Lemma 6. Suppose that I V is a countable set, n and T
Pg
a I. There
exists S
n
T and k such that for every t Sk there exists a
t
I such that
S
t

Pg
a = a
t
.
Proof Let S T be the set of all t T such that T
t
satises the lemma. In
other words
S = t T : k
t
T

n
T
t
s T

k
t
a
s
I T

s

Pg
a = a
s
.
We want to show that stem(T) S. Notice that if s , S then
[[succ
S
(s)[[
|s|
n
.
Suppose that stem(T) , S and by induction on levels build a tree

S
n
T such
that for s

S,
succ
S
(s) =
_
succ
T
(s) if [[succ
T
(s)[[ n
succ
T
(s) succ
S
(s) otherwise
.
Clearly

S P
g
since [[succ
S
(s)[[ [[succ
T
(s)[[ 1 for s containing stem(T). That is
a contradiction since

S S = which is impossible.
In our case we have even stronger fact:
Lemma 7. Suppose that T
Pg

A 2
<
. There exists S T such that for all but
nitely many n, for every t Sn there exists A
t
2
n
such that S
t

Pg

An = A
t
.
In particular, if T
Pg
x 2

then there exists S T such that for every for all

but nitely many n, for every t Sn there exists s
t
2
n
such that S
t

Pg
xn = s
t
.
Proof It is enough to prove the rst part. By applying lemma 6 we can
assume that there exists an increasing sequence k
n
: n ) such that for every
t Tk
n
there exists A
t
2
<n
such that T
t

Pg

An = A
t
.
Let n
0
= [stem(T)[. Build by induction a family of trees T
n,l
: n > n
0
, n l
k
n
such that
s T
n,l
l A
s
2
n
(T
n,l
)
s

Pg

An = A
s
.
7
2
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
8







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
9


6 TOMEK BARTOSZYNSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
Let T
n0+1,kn
0
= T and suppose that T
n,l
has been constructed. If l = n let
T
n+1,kn+1
= T
n,n
, otherwise construct T
n,l1
as follows by the induction hypoth-
esis for s T
n,l
l 1 and every f succ
T
n,l
(s), there exists A
s

f
2
n
such
that
(T
n,l
)
s

f

Pg

An = A
s

f
.
Fix A such that f : A
s

f
= A has the largest size and put
succ
T
n,l1
(s) =
_
f succ
T
n,l
(s) : A
s

f
= A if s T
n,l
l 1
succ
T
n,l
(s) otherwise
Finally let S =

n
T
n,n
. Clearly S has the required property provided that it is a
member of P
g
. Note that for an element s Sk,
[succ
S
(s)[
[succ
T
k,k
(s)[
2
k
2
.
By the choice of sequence
k
l
: k, l), it follows that [[succ
S
(s)[[ [[succ
T
(s)[[ 1 if
[s[ > [stem(S)[. Thus S P
g
which nishes the proof.
Next we show that P
g
adds a continuous function which maps sets that do not
have strong measure zero onto sets that are not in .
Let Q = x 2

n x(n) = 0 be the set of rationals in 2

.
Theorem 8. Suppose that g witnesses that X V 2

, X V does not have

strong measure zero. Then
Pg
F

G
(X) +Q = 2

.
In particular,
V
Pg
[= q Q F
q
(X) , ,
where F
q
: 2

is dened as F
q
(x) = F

G
(x) +q for x 2

.
Proof We start with the following:
Lemma 9. Suppose that
1
2
> > 0, I is nite and A 2
2
I
,
[A[
[2
2
I
[
. Let
Z =
_
s 2
I
: i
s
0, 1
[f A : f(s) = i
s
[
[2
2
I
[
<
3
_
.
Then [Z[
1

.
Proof Suppose otherwise. By passing to a subset we can assume that [Z[ =
1

. Let
A

= f A : s Z f(s) = i
s
.
By the assumption
[A

[
[2
2
I
[

1

3
=
2
>

2
.
On the other hand the sets I
s
= f 2
2
I
: f(s) = 0, s 2
I
are probabilistically
independent and have measure
1
2
. It follows that
[A

[
[2
2
I
[

1
2
1

<

2
,
which gives a contradiction.
7
2
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
8







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
9


CONTINUOUS IMAGES OF SETS OF REALS 7
Lemma 10. Suppose that T
Pg
z 2

. There exists a sequence J

k
: k ) such
that for every k
(1) J
k
2
[n
k
,n
k+1
)
,
(2) [J
k
[
2
n
k
2
n
k

k
0
,
and if x V2

and x[n
k
, n
k+1
) , J
k
for all but nitely many k then there exists
S T such that
S
Pg
F

G
(x) =

z.
Proof Suppose that T
Pg
z 2

. Let k
0
= [stem(T)[. By lemma 7, we can
assume that
k > k
0
t Tk i
t
0, 1 T
t

Pg
z(k) = i
t
.
For k > k
0
and s Tk let
J
s
k
= x 2
[n
k
,n
k+1
)
: i 0, 1 [[f succ
T
(s) : f(x) = i[[ < [[succ
T
(s)[[ 1.
By lemma 9, [J
s
k
[
1

k
0
. Put J
k
=

sTk
J
s
k
and note that
[J
k
[
1

k
0
k1

i=0
2
2
n
i+1
n
i

2
n
k
2
n
k

k
0
.
Suppose that x[n
k
, n
k+1
) , J
k
for k k

k
0
. Dene S T
succ
S
(t) =
_
f succ
T
(t) : f(x[n
k
, n
k+1
) = i
t
if s Tk and k > k

succ
T
(s) otherwise
.
By the choice of x, [[succ
S
(s)[[ [[succ
T
(s)[[ 1 for s S. Thus S P
g
, and
S
P
k > k

F

G
(x)(k) = z(k).
Suppose that T
Pg
z 2

and let J
k
: k be the sequence from lemma
10. Let
U = s 2
<
: k [s[ = n
k+1
& s[n
k
, n
k+1
) J
k
.
Let s
1
, s
2
, . . . be the list of elements of U according to increasing length. Note that
by the choice of g, [s
k
[ g(k) for k . Since g witnesses that X , o^ (and any
bigger function witnesses that as well) there is x X such that

k xdom(s
k
) ,= s
k
.
Since initial parts of s

k
s exhaust all possibilities it follows that for suciently large
k ,
x[n
k
, n
k+1
) ,= s
l
[n
k
, n
k+1
) for all l such that [s
l
[ = n
k+1
.
In particular,

k x[n
k
, n
k+1
) , J
k
.
By lemma 10 we conclude that
Pg
F

G
(x) =

z. Since z was arbitrary, it follows

that
Pg
F

G
(X) +Q = 2

. As is a -ideal we conclude that

Pg
q Q F

G
(X) +q , .
7
2
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
8







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
9


8 TOMEK BARTOSZYNSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
5. Measure
Theorem 5 is signicant only if in the constructed model there are some inter-
esting -ideals such that non() < 2
0
. We will show some examples of such
ideals, the most important being the ideal of measure zero sets ^.
Denition 11. A family / []

is called a splitting family if for every innite

set B there exists A / such that
[A B[ = [( A) B[ =
0
.
We say that / is strongly non-splitting if for every B []

there exists C B
which witnesses that / is not splitting.
Let
S = X []

: X is strongly non-splitting.
It is easy to see that S is a -ideal.
Theorem 12. It is consistent that for every uncountable set X 2

there exists
a continuous function F : 2

such that F(X) does not have measure zero.

In particular, it is consistent that
NON(^) = NON(S) = o^ = [R]
0
.
Proof Let V
P
2
be the model constructed in the proof of theorem 5. To
show the rst part it is enough to show that V
P
2
[= non(^) =
1
. Since is well
known that non(S) non(^), it follows that NON(S) = [R]
0
. This was known to
be consistent (see [1]). Finally, it is well known that if X o^ and F : X 2

is uniformly continuous then F(X) o^ ^. Thus o^ = [R]

0
.
To nish the proof we have to show that V
P
2
[= non(^) =
1
. By theorem
6.3.13 of [2], in order to show that it suces to show that both P
g
and L satisfy
certain condition (preservation of _
random
) which is an iterable version of preserva-
tion of outer measure. Theorem 7.3.39 of [2] shows that L satises this condition.
Exactly the same proof works for P
g
provided that we show:
Theorem 13. If X 2

, X V and V [= X , ^ then V
Pg
[= X , ^.
Proof The sketch of the proof presented here is a special case of a more
general theorem (theorem 3.3.5 of [8]).
Fix 1 > > 0 and a strictly increasing sequence
n
: n ) of real numbers
such that
(1) sup
n

n
= .
(2)

n
n+1

n
>
n
n
.
Suppose that
Pg
X , ^. Without loss of generality we can assume that X
is forced to have outer measure one. Let

A be a P
g
-name such that
Pg

A
2
<
& ([A]) and suppose that T
Pg
X [

A] = . Let n
0
= [stem(T)[. By
lemma 7, we can assume that
n > n
0
t Tn A
t
2
n
T
t

Pg

An = A
t
.
Fix n > n
0
and dene by induction sets A
n
t
: t Tm, n
0
m n + 1 such
that
(1) A
n
t
2
n+1
for t T,
(2) [A
n
t
[ 2
n1

m
for t Tm.
7
2
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
8







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
9


CONTINUOUS IMAGES OF SETS OF REALS 9
For t Tn + 1 let A
n
t
= A
t
. Suppose that sets A
n
t
are dened for t Tm,
m > n
0
. Let t Tm 1 and consider the family A
n
t

f
: f succ
T
(t). By the
induction hypothesis, [A
n
t

f
[ 2
n1

m
Let
A
n
t
= s 2
n+1
: [[f : s A
t

f
[[ [[succ
T
(t)[[ 1.
A straightforward computation (recall Fubini theorem) shows that the requirement
that we put on the sequence
n
: n ) implies that [A
n
t
[ 2
n1

m1
. In
particular, A
n
stem(T)
2
n1

n0
for all n. Let B = x 2

n xn + 1
A
n
stem(T)
. Clearly (B)
n0
, so B X ,= . Fix x B X. We will nd S T
such that S
Pg
x [

A], which will give a contradiction.
For each n such that x A
n
stem(T)
let S
n
Tn be a nite tree such that
(1) stem(S
n
) = stem(T),
(2) for every t S
n
, n
0
< [t[ < n, [[succ
Sn
(t)[[ [[succ
T
(t)[[,
(3) for every t S
n
, [t[ = n, x A
t
.
The existence of S
n
follows from the inductive denition of A
n
t
s. By K onig lemma,
there exists S T such that for innitely many n, Sn = S
n
. It follows that S P
g
and S
Pg

n xn

An. Since

A is a tree we conclude that s
Pg
x [

A].
6. More on NON()
In this section we will discuss the model obtained by iterating the forcing P
g
alone.
Theorem 14. It is consistent with ZFC that for every -ideal such that non() <
2
0
,
NON() NON(o^) [R]
<2

0
.
Proof Elements of NON(o^) are traditionally called C

-sets. As we re-
marked earlier, o^ = NON

(o^). However, in [3] it is proved that assuming CH,

NON(o^) o^.
Let V be a model satisfying CH and let g

: <
1

be a dominating
family. Let S

: <
1
be such that
(1) S

= for ,= ,
(2) S

<
2
: cf() =
1
,
(3) S

is stationary for all .

Let T

,

Q

: <
2
) be a countable support iteration such that for S

P
g
. If ,

let

Q

be trivial forcing.
Suppose that is a -ideal and V
P
2
[= non() =
1
. It follows that for some
<
2
, V
P
2
[= V
P
2

, .
Suppose that X V
P
2
2

is uncountable.
Case 1 [X[ =
1
and V
P
2
[= X , NON(o^).
Let > be such that
(1) X V
P

,
(2) there is a continuous function H : X 2

, H V
P

such that V
P

[=
H(X) , o^,
(3) S

and V
P
2
[= g

witnesses that H(X) , NON(o^).

7
2
2


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
8







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
4
-
1
9


10 TOMEK BARTOSZYNSKI AND SAHARON SHELAH
It follows from the properties of P
g
that V
P
+1
[=

n
F
n
(H(X)) = 2

. Hence
V
P
2
[=

n
F
n
(H(X)) , , which means that V
P
2
[= n F
n
(H(X)) ,
.
Case 2 [X[ = 2
0
=
2
.
It is well known (see [4] or theorem 8.2.14 of [2]) in a model obtained by a
countable support iteration of

-bounding forcing notions there are no strong

measure zero sets of size 2
0
. In particular, V
P
2
[= X , o^. Let g

be a witness
to that. Let X

= X V
P

. Standard argument shows that

C = <
2
: V
P
[= X

, o^
is a
1
-club. Fix C S

and argue as in the Case 1.

Acknowledgements: The work was done while the rst author was spending
his sabbatical year at the Rutgers University and the College of Staten Island,
CUNY, and their support is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Tomek Bartoszy nski. Splitting families. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society,
125:21412145, 1997.
[2] Tomek Bartoszy nski and Haim Judah. Set Theory: on the structure of the real line. A.K.
Peters, 1995.
[3] David H. Fremlin and Arnold W. Miller. On some properties of Hurewicz, Menger, and Roth-
berger. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 129(1):1733, 1988.
[4] Martin Goldstern, Haim Judah, and Saharon Shelah. Strong measure zero sets without Cohen
reals. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 58(4):13231341, 1993.
[5] Richard Laver. On the consistency of Borels conjecture. Acta-Math., 137(3-4):151169, 1976.
[6] Arnold W. Miller. On the length of Borel hierarchies. Annals of Mathematical Logic, 16(3):233
267, 1979.
[7] Arnold W. Miller. Special subsets of the real line. In K. Kunen and J. E. Vaughan, editors,
Handbook of Set Theoretic Topology, pages 201235. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1984.
[8] Andrzej Ros lanowski and Saharon Shelah. Norms on possibilities I: forcing with trees and
creatures. Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society. American Mathematical Society,
1999.
[9] W.Just, A.W.Miller, M.Scheepers, and P.Szeptycki. Combinatorics of open covers II. Topology
and Its Applications, 73:241 266, 1996.
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Boise State University, Boise,
Idaho 83725 U.S.A.
E-mail address: tomek@math.idbsu.edu, http://math.idbsu.edu/~tomek
Department of Mathematics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
E-mail address: shelah@sunrise.huji.ac.il, http://math.rutgers.edu/~shelah/