 

\documentstyle[12pt, oldlfont]{article}
 
\input{amssymb2.def}
\input{amssymb2.tex}
 
 
%\def\Ubf#1{{\baselineskip=0pt\vtop{\hbox{$#1$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}{}}
%\def\ubf#1{{\baselineskip=0pt\vtop{\hbox{$#1$}\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\sim$}}}{}}
\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.in}
\setlength{\textwidth}{7.in}
\pagestyle{myheadings}
\markright{G. Hjorth}
% Set the beginning of a LaTeX document


\begin{document}
\def\Ubf#1{{\baselineskip=0pt\vtop{\hbox{$#1$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}{}}
\def\ubf#1{{\baselineskip=0pt\vtop{\hbox{$#1$}\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\sim$}}}{}}
\def\R{{\Bbb R}}
\def\V{{\Bbb V}}
\def\N{{\Bbb N}}
\def\Q{{\Bbb Q}}


\title{Vaught's conjecture on analytic sets\footnote{1991 {\it Mathematics 
Subject Classification.} Primary 03E15. {\it Key words and phrases.} Polish 
group. Group actions. Topological Vaught conjecture.}}         

\author{Greg Hjorth \footnote{Research partially supported by NSF grant DMS 96-22977}}        

\date{\today}
\maketitle


\abstract{Let $G$ be a Polish group. We characterize when there is a
Polish space $X$ with a continuous $G$-action and an analytic set
(that is to say, the Borel image of some Borel set in some Polish
space) $A\subset X$ having uncountably many orbits but no perfect
set of orbit inequivalent points.

Such a Polish $G$-space $X$ and analytic $A$ exist exactly when there
is a continuous, surjective homomorphism from 
a closed subgroup of $G$ onto the infinite          
symmetric group, $S_\infty$, consisting of all permutations of $\N$ 
equipped with the topology of pointwise convergence.}



\bigskip 
\bigskip 




{\bf $\S$0 Prehistory}

The Vaught conjecture 
stands as a major problem in mathematical 
logic and may be stated as follows: 

\medskip 

{\bf 0.1 Conjecture} (Original Vaught conjecture) Let $T$ be 
a first order theory in a countable language. Then either 
$T$ has $\leq \aleph_0$ many non-isomorphic countable models or it 
has $2^{\aleph_0}$ many non-isomorphic countable models. 

\medskip 

The study of this conjecture 
and the proof or refutation of its specializations and generalizations -- 
found in papers such as 
\cite{becker2}, \cite{buechler},  
\cite{hart}, \cite{hjorthsolecki}, \cite{sami},  
\cite{shelah}, \cite{steel} -- 
has almost become a research area in its own right. 

One natural extension of the Vaught conjecture is to classes 
of models defined by countably infinitary sentences 
in the sense of \cite{keisler}. 

\medskip 

{\bf 0.2 Conjecture} (Vaught conjecture for infinitary logic) 
Let $\sigma\in {\cal L}_{\omega_1, \omega}$. 
Then either 
$\sigma$ has $\leq \aleph_0$ many non-isomorphic 
countable models or it
has $2^{\aleph_0}$ many non-isomorphic  countable models.

\medskip 

0.2, like 0.1, remains open. Under the assumption of the continuum 
hypothesis both these conjectures are trivially true, and for this 
reason it is often customary to consider a strengthened version 
which has the same spirit as the original. To phrase this 
stronger version we need to equip the collection of all models whose  
underlying set is $\N$ with a topology, whose basic open sets consist  
of all ${\cal M}$ for which 
\[{\cal M}\models \varphi(a_1, a_2, ..., a_n),\] 
for some first order formula $\varphi$ and $\vec a=a_1,..., a_n\in \N$. 
It is known from \cite{grmory} that the space of all structures or models 
on $\N$ in that given topology forms a Polish space. 
The collection of models satisfying a given theory $T$ is then closed 
inside this space, and thus again a Polish space. 

\medskip 

{\bf 0.3 Conjecture} Let $T$ be
a first order theory in a countable language ${\cal L}$. Then either
$T$ has $\leq \aleph_0$ many non-isomorphic countable models or 
there is a perfect set $P$ included in the above described 
space of ${\cal L}$-structures 
modeling $T$ for which any two models in $P$ are non-isomorphic. 

\medskip

{\bf 0.4 Conjecture} Let $\sigma\in {\cal L}_{\omega_1, \omega}$. 
Then either
$\sigma$ has $\leq \aleph_0$ many non-isomorphic countable models or   
there is a perfect set $P$ included in the space of ${\cal L}$-structures 
which model $\sigma$   
for which any two models in $P$ are non-isomorphic.

\medskip 

Since any perfect set has size $2^{\aleph_0}$, 0.3 and 0.4 clearly 
imply 0.1 and 0.2 respectively. More subtle is the fact that 
0.3 and 0.4 are {\it equiprovable} over ZFC with their counterparts 
0.1 and 0.2. A proof of this further fact can be found in 
\cite{steel}. 

It was demonstrated in \cite{vaught} that the isomorphism invariant 
Borel subsets 
of the space of ${\cal L}$-structures on $\N$ are exactly those 
defined by some infinitary   sentence  
$\sigma\in {\cal L}_{\omega_1, \omega}$. Thus 0.4 asserts that 
any invariant Borel set in our space of countable structures 
has either only countably many orbits or it has 
{\it perfectly many} orbits, in the sense of there being a perfect 
set of pairwise non-isomorphic models. 
Thus we might be led to asking whether the Vaught 
conjecture can hold even on {\it analytic sets}. 

\medskip 

{\bf 0.5 Definition} Let $X$ be a Polish space. $A\subset X$ is 
{\it analytic}, or $\Ubf{\Sigma}^1_1$, if there is some other Polish 
space $Y$ and some Borel function 
\[f:Y\rightarrow X\] 
and some Borel $B\subset Y$ with 
\[f[B]=A.\] 

\medskip 

{\bf 0.6 Fact} There are countable languages ${\cal L}\subset 
{\cal L^*}$ and a first order ${\cal L}^*$ theory $S$ such that the 
class 
\[A_S\] 
of ${\cal L}$-structures on $\N$ admitting an expansion to a model 
of $S$ has uncountably many non-isomorphic countable models 
but not perfectly many non-isomorphic models. (See \cite{becker} 
for a discussion of this and related results.) 

\medskip 

Since the process of assigning to each ${\cal L}^*$ structure on 
$\N$ its reduction to an ${\cal L}$ structure is Borel, we obtain 
the failure of Vaught's conjecture on $\Ubf{\Sigma}^1_1$ sets: We {\it 
can} have an analytic subset of the space of countable ${\cal L}$ structures 
having uncountably many 
but not perfectly many non-isomorphic models. 

A second direction in which we might try to extend the Vaught conjecture 
is to consider general actions of Polish groups. Here it is important 
to note that the Polish group $S_\infty$, consisting of all permutations 
of the natural numbers in the topology of pointwise convergence, acts 
continuously on any such space of ${\cal L}$ structures with underlying 
set $\N$, and moreover its orbit equivalence relation is exactly the 
isomorphism relation on these countable structures. 

\medskip 

{\bf 0.7 Conjecture} (Topological Vaught conjecture) Let $G$ be a Polish 
group acting continuously on a Polish space $X$. Then either $X$ has only 
countably many orbits under this action or it has perfectly many orbits. 

\medskip 

This conjecture just for the group $S_\infty$ implies 0.3, and hence 0.1, 
since the 
subspace of models for $T$ is a closed subset of the space of structures on 
$\N$. By a clever choice of the topology on our space of countable 
structures it can also be shown to imply 0.4. More recently Becker 
and Kechris in \cite{beckerkechris} have shown that 0.4 is in fact 
{\it equivalent} to the topological Vaught conjecture for the 
Polish group $S_\infty$. 

0.7, like 0.1-0.4, remains open. It has however been proved for 
various classes of Polish groups:- 


\medskip 

{\bf 0.8 Theorem} (Folklore) All locally compact Polish groups satisfy Vaught's 
conjecture, in the sense that if $G$ is a locally compact Polish group acting 
continuously on a Polish space $X$ then either $|X/G|\leq\aleph_0$ or there is a 
perfect set of points with different orbits (and hence $|X/G|\geq 2^{\aleph_0}$). 

\medskip 

{\bf 0.9 Theorem} (Sami; see \cite{sami}) 
Abelian Polish groups satisfy Vaught's conjecture. 

\medskip 

{\bf 0.10 Theorem} (Hjorth, Solecki; \cite{hjorthsolecki}) 
Invariantly metrizable and nilpotent Polish 
groups 
satisfy Vaught's conjecture. 

\medskip 

{\bf 0.11 Theorem} (Becker; \cite{becker}) Complete left invariant metric  
groups satisfy Vaught's conjecture. 

\medskip 

As discussed in \cite{becker}, this implies the Vaught conjecture for 
solvable groups, as well as the version obtained at 0.10. 

In each of these cases the result was shortly or immediately after extended to 
analytic sets. 

\medskip 

{\bf 0.12 Definition} For $G$ a Polish group let 
TVC$(G,\Ubf{\Sigma}^1_1)$ be the assertion that whenever 
$G$ acts continuously on a Polish space $X$ and $A\subset X$ is 
analytic then either $|A/G|\leq\aleph_0$ or there is a 
perfect set of orbit inequivalent points in $A$. 

\medskip 

Thus we have TVC$(G,\Ubf{\Sigma}^1_1)$ 
for $G$ in 
each of the collections groups mentioned in 0.8-0.11 above. 
But it is known that 
TVC$(S_{\infty},\Ubf{\Sigma}^1_1)$ {\it fails}; 
$A_S$ from 0.6 provides a counterexample. 

In this paper we show that the presence of $S_{\infty}$ is a necessary condition for 
TVC$(G,\Ubf{\Sigma}^1_1)$ to fail: 

\medskip 

{\bf 0.13 Theorem} If $G$ is a Polish group for which the Vaught conjecture fails on 
analytic sets then there is a closed subgroup 
of $G$ that has $S_{\infty}$ as a continuous homomorphic image. 

\medskip 

From the failure of 
TVC$(G,\Ubf{\Sigma}^1_1)$ we may obtain the homomorphism onto $S_{\infty}$. 
The converse of 0.13 is known and follows by 2.3.5 of 
\cite{beckerkechris}. Thus we have an exact characterization of 
TVC$(G,\Ubf{\Sigma}^1_1)$. If as widely suspected the Vaught conjecture 
should fail for $S_{\infty}$ then this would as well characterize the groups for 
which the topological Vaught conjecture holds. 

0.13 implies the earlier results at 0.8-0.11. For instance one 
can use \cite{gao} to show that no group having $S_\infty$ 
as its continuous homomorphic image can be given a compatible 
complete left invariant metric. 

\newpage 

{\bf $\S$1 Preliminaries} 

\medskip 

This paper uses much the same techniques as \cite{hjorthorbit}. 
The notation is also similar to \cite{hjorthorbit}, though in this 
regard 
\cite{beckerkechris} probably 
provides a better reference to the notation relating to 
Polish group actions. 

In other respects we follow the usual set theoretic conventions, 
as can be found in \cite{jech}. Perhaps the most alarming of these 
is to use $\omega$ for 
\[\N=\{0, 1, 2, 3, ...\}.\] 


A basic tool in the descriptive set theory of Polish group actions is 
provided by the Effros lemma. 


\medskip 


{\bf 1.1 Lemma} (Effros; see \cite{effros} or 2.2.2 \cite{beckerkechris}) 
Let $G$ be a Polish group acting continuously on 
a Polish space $X$ (in other words, let $X$ be a {\it Polish $G$-space}). 
For $x\in X$ we have $[x]_G\in \Ubf{\Pi}^0_2$ if and only if 
\[G\rightarrow [x]_G,\] 
\[g\mapsto g\cdot x\] 
is open. 

\medskip 

{\bf 1.2 Corollary} Let $G$ be a Polish group and  
$X$ a Polish $G$-space.  
Suppose that $[x]_G$ is $\Ubf{\Pi}^0_2$. 

Then for all $V$ containing the identity we may find open 
$U$ containing $x$  
such that for all $ x'\in U\cap[x]_G$ and $U'\subset X$ open 
\[[x]_G\cap U'\cap U\neq\emptyset\]
implies that there exists $g\in V$ 
such that 
\[g\cdot x'\in U'.\] 

Proof. Choose $W$ an open neighborhood of the identity with $W^{-1}=W$ and 
$W^2\subset V$. Then by 1.1 let $U$ be an open set with $U\cap [x]_G=W\cdot x$. 

For all $x'\in [x]_G\cap U$ and open $U'$ with 
$[x]_G\cap U'\cap U\neq\emptyset$ we choose some $\hat{x}\in 
[x]_G\cap U'\cap U$. Since $x',\hat{x}\in U\cap [x]_G$, the assumption on 
$U$ provides $g_0, g_1\in W$ with 
\[g_0\cdot x=x',\]
\[g_1\cdot x=\hat{x}.\]
Then $g_1g_0^{-1}$ is as required. \hfill $\Box$ 

\medskip 

{\bf 1.3 Definition} Let $X$ be a Polish space and ${\cal B}$ a basis. Let ${\cal L}({\cal B})$ be the 
propositional language formed from the atomic propositions $\dot{x}\in U$, for $U\in{\cal B}$. 
Let ${\cal L}_{\infty,0}({\cal B})$ be the infinitary version, obtained by closing under negation and 
arbitrary disjunction and conjunction. 
$F\subset$ ${\cal L}_{\infty, 0}({\cal B})$ is a {\it fragment} if it is closed under subformulas and 
the finitary Boolean operations of negation and finite disjunction and finite conjunction 
and it includes all atomic propositions. 

For a point $x\in X$ and $\varphi\in$${\cal L}_{\infty 0}({\cal B})$, 
we can then define 
$x\models \varphi$ by induction in the usual fashion, starting with 
\[x\models \dot{x}\in U\] 
if in fact $x\in U$, then 
$x\models \bigvee_{i\in\Lambda}(\varphi_i)$ if there 
is some $i\in \Lambda$ with 
$x\models \varphi_i$, and $x\models \neg \varphi$ if $x$ does not 
model $\varphi$. For $\V[H]$ a generic extension of $\V$ and $x, \varphi\in {\Bbb V}$ we 
have $\V\models (x\models \varphi)$ if and only if 
$\V[H]\models(x\models\varphi)$. 

In the case that $X$ is a 
Polish $G$-space and $V\subset G$ open we may also define the Vaught 
transform 
$\varphi^{\Delta V}$ by induction on the logical complexity of $\varphi$, 
mimicking the definition of the usual Vaught transforms for Borel sets. 
For this purpose let $(V_i)_{i\in\N}$ be an enumeration of the 
non-empty basic open subsets of $G$. 
$(\dot{x}\in U)^{\Delta V}$ is just 
\[\bigvee_{U'\in {\cal B}'} \dot{x}\in U',\] 
where ${\cal B}'$ is the set of 
basic open sets $U'$ for which there is some $i$ with 
$V_i\cdot U'\subset U$ and $V_i\subset V$. 
\[(\bigvee_{i\in\Lambda}\varphi_i)^{\Delta V}\]
is 
\[\bigvee_{i\in\Lambda}(\varphi_i^{\Delta V}).\] 
\[(\neg \varphi)^{\Delta V}\]
is 
\[\bigvee\{\neg(\varphi^{\Delta V_n}): 
V_n\subset V\}.\] 


In any generic extension in which $\varphi$ is hereditarily countable 
\[x\models \varphi^{\Delta V}\] 
if and only if 
\[\exists ^* g\in V (g\cdot x\models\varphi)\]
(where $\exists^*$ is the categoricity quantifier 
``there exists non-meagerly many'').  

In general $\varphi^{\Delta V}$ depends on the choice of ${\cal B}_0$ 
and ${\cal B}$. Our notation suppresses this dependence. 

Note that if  $\varphi\in {\cal L}_{\infty, 0}({\cal B})$ and $g\in G$ is 
such that ${\cal B}$ is fixed set wise under $g$ translation, then we 
can canonically define $g\varphi$ with the property that 
\[x\models g\varphi\] 
if and only if $g^{-1}\cdot x\models \varphi$. We define $g\varphi$ by 
induction the complexity of $\varphi$, the base case given by  
$g(\dot{x}\in U)$ being the sentence $\dot{x}\in g\cdot U$, and the inductive 
steps through the infinitary boolean operations carried out in 
the usual way. 

\medskip 

In what follows there is a frequent peril that we may confuse the usual name for the 
generic object -- $\dot{G}$ -- with the customary name for the group -- $G$. 
For this reason I will generally resist explicit mention of the generic. If $\sigma$ is 
a term, existing in our ground model, then $\dot{\sigma}$ will denote the effect of 
applying the term to the generic object in the generic extension. At times we will wish 
to consider product forcing, and then I will use $\dot{G}_l\times \dot{G}_r$ to name the 
generic object on a product forcing ${\Bbb P}\times {\Bbb Q}$. 
Similarly to avoid confusion with an open set, we use the  embellished  font $\V$, rather than 
the plain $V$, to indicate the universe of all sets. 

$d_X$ will always denote a complete metric on $X$ and $d_G$ a complete metric on 
the group $G$. 
$G_x$ indicates the stabilizer of $x$, that is to say 
\[G_x=\{g\in G: g\cdot x=x\}.\] 

\medskip 

{\bf 1.4 Lemma} Let $X$ be a Polish $G$-space. ${\Bbb P}$ a forcing notion, $p\in {\Bbb P}$ 
a condition, $\sigma$ a ${\Bbb P}$-term. 
Suppose that ${\cal B}$ is a countable basis for $X$ and ${\cal B}_0$ a countable 
basis for $G$. Suppose that $G_0$ is a countable dense subgroup of $G$ and ${\cal B}$ is 
closed under $G_0$ translation and that ${\cal B}_0$ is closed under left and right 
$G_0$ translation. 
%\[p\Vdash_{\Bbb P}\dot{\sigma}\in X\]
%and that $p$ decides the equivalence class of $\sigma$ in the sense that 
%\[(p,p)\Vdash_{{\Bbb P}\times{\Bbb P}}\sigma[\dot{G}_l]E_G\sigma[\dot{G}_r].\] 
Then there is a formula $\varphi_0$ and a fragment $F_0$ containing $\varphi_0$ 
so that: 

\leftskip 0.5in 

\noindent (i) 
\[\{\{x\in X: x\models \psi^{\Delta V}\}: 
\psi\in F_0, V\in {\cal B}_0\}\] 
provides a basis for a topology $\tau_0(F_0)$, 
and in any generic extension in which $F_0$ becomes countable $(X,\tau_0(F_0))$ 
is a Polish $G$-space; 

\noindent (ii) $\varphi_0$ absolutely 
describes the equivalence class (if any) indicated 
by the triple 
$({\Bbb P},p,\sigma)$, in the sense that in any generic extension  $\V[H]$ we find 
\[\V[H]\models\forall x\in X(p\Vdash_{\Bbb P}x E_G\dot{\sigma}\Leftrightarrow x\models
\varphi_0).\] 



\leftskip 0in 

Proof. Note that if $F$ is any fragment and $\tau(F)$ is the topology 
with basis $\{\{x\in X: x\models \psi\}: 
\psi\in F\}$, then $\tau(F)$ includes the original topology in virtue of 
$F$ including all the atomic propositions. 

Claim(1): If $F$ is a fragment, then in any generic extension in which $F$ becomes countable, 
$\tau(F)$ generates a Polish topology. 

Proof of claim. Recall from 13.2 \cite{kechris1} that whenever we have a 
Polish topology $\tau_Y$ on a Polish space $Y$ and $A\subset Y$ a 
$\tau_Y$-open set, then the minimal topology obtained from 
$\tau_Y$ by adding $A$ as a clopen set 
gives a topology on $Y$ equivalent to taking 
the disjoint union of $(A,\tau_Y)$ and $(Y\setminus A,\tau_Y)$, 
and is therefore again Polish. Recall also that if $\tau_i$ is an 
increasing sequence of Polish topologies on $Y$, then the minimal 
topology including the union is again Polish, since it corresponds 
to 
the diagonal in 
the resulting space 
\[\prod_{i\in\omega}(Y,\tau_i).\] 
Iterating these two operations one shows by induction on the logical 
complexity of the infinitary sentences in $F$ that $\tau(F)$ is Polish 
in any generic extension in which $F$ becomes countable.  
\hfill (Claim(1)$\Box$) 

Let $F_0$ be a fragment closed under the 
Vaught transforms ($\psi\mapsto \psi^{\Delta V}$ for $V\subset G$ 
basic open) and such that for each $\psi\in F_0$ and $g\in G_0$ 
we have a corresponding $g\psi\in F_0$ with the property that 
through all generic extensions 
\[(x\models g\psi)\Leftrightarrow (g^{-1}\cdot x\models \psi).\] 
By the Becker-Kechris theorem on changing topologies, as found at  
\cite{beckerkechris2} or as 
in 
$\S$5.2 and the proof of 7.1.3 of \cite{beckerkechris}, we have that 
\[\{\{x\in X: x\models \psi^{\Delta V}\}:
\psi\in F_0, V\in {\cal B}_0\}\]
generates a topology $\tau_0(F_0)$, with $(X, \tau_0(F_0))$ 
a Polish $G$-space whenever $F_0$ becomes countable. Since the 
sets of the form 
\[\{x\in X: x\models \psi \},\] $\psi\in F_0$, form an 
algebra closed under $G_0$ translation, it is easily seen that 
the collection $\{\{x\in X: x\models \psi^{\Delta V}\}:
\psi\in F_0, V\in {\cal B}_0\}$ provides a basis for the topology 
$\tau_0(F_0)$.  

In what follows it is crucial that 
the properties of most interest are absolute, 
and thus we can be ambiguous about the generic extension in which we 
make an evaluation. In particular, 
for any $x$ appearing in any generic extension, 
the assertion $p\Vdash_{\Bbb P} x E_G\dot{\sigma}$ depends solely on $x$, and 
not the generic extension in which we consider this question:- 

Claim(2): If $\V[H_1]\subset {\Bbb V}[H_1][H_2]$ are two generic extensions of 
$\V$ and $x\in {\Bbb V}[H_1]$, then 
\[\V[H_1]\models p\Vdash_{\Bbb P} x E_G\dot{\sigma}\]
if and only if 
\[\V[H_1][H_2]\models p\Vdash_{\Bbb P} x E_G\dot{\sigma}.\]

Proof of claim. Otherwise we may find $H\subset {\Bbb P}$ that is 
generic for both models, and such that the generic extensions 
$\V[H_1][H]$ and 
$\V[H_1][H_2][H]$ disagree on $x E_G\sigma[H]$, with a violation of 
absoluteness of $\Ubf{\Sigma}^1_1$. \hfill (Claim(2)$\Box$) 


Claim(3): There is a generic extension of $\V[H]$ and $x\in {\Bbb V}[H]$ with 
\[\V[H]\models p\Vdash_{\Bbb P} x E_G\dot{\sigma}\] 
if and only if 
\[\V\models (p, p)\Vdash_{{\Bbb P}\times{\Bbb P}}\sigma[\dot{G}_l] E_G 
\sigma[\dot{G}_r].\] 

Proof of claim. Clearly if $ (p, p)\Vdash_{{\Bbb P}\times{\Bbb P}}\sigma[\dot{G}_l] E_G
\sigma[\dot{G}_r]$ then we can let $H\subset {\Bbb P}$ be generic below 
$p$, and obtain some $x=\sigma[H]$ in $\V[H]$ with 
\[\V[H]\models p\Vdash_{\Bbb P} x E_G\dot{\sigma}.\] 

Conversely, if we have $\V[H]\models p\Vdash_{\Bbb P} x E_G\dot{\sigma}$ in some 
generic extension $\V[H]$ of $\V$ and $q_1, q_2\leq p$ with 
\[\V\models (q_1, q_2)\Vdash_{{\Bbb P}\times{\Bbb P}}\sigma[\dot{G}_l]\neg E_G
\sigma[\dot{G}_r],\]
then we may choose $H_1\times H_2$ a  $\V[H]$-generic filter on ${\Bbb P}\times 
{\Bbb P}$ below $(q_1, q_2)$. Then 
\[\sigma[H_1]\neg E_G\sigma[H_2],\] 
by assumption on $(q_1, q_2)$, and hence for some $i\in \{1, 2\}$ we have 
\[\sigma[H_i]\neg E_G x,\] 
contradicting assumption on $p$. 
\hfill (Claim(3)$\Box$) 

Claim(4): The set of $x$ for which 
\[p\Vdash_{\Bbb P}x E_G \dot{\sigma}\] 
is $\Ubf{\Sigma}^1_1$ in any generic extension in which 
$({\cal P}({\Bbb P}))^\V$ (=$_{df}$ Power set of ${\Bbb P}$ as calculated in $\V$)  
becomes countable. 

Proof of claim: It suffices by claim(3) to show that if 
\[\V\models (p, p)\Vdash_{{\Bbb P}\times{\Bbb P}}\sigma[\dot{G}_l] E_G
\sigma[\dot{G}_r]\] 
then for any two 
$H_1, H_2\subset {\Bbb P}$ meeting all the dense open sets in $\V$ 
we have 
\[\sigma[H_1] E_G\sigma[H_2].\]
But given $H_1, H_2$ we can 
go to a third generic extension $\V[H_3]$ where 
$H_3\subset {\Bbb P}$ is $\V[H_1]$ and $\V[H_2]$ generic below $p$, 
and thus $\sigma[H_3] E_G\sigma[H_i]$ for {\it both} $i=1$ and 
$i=2$. 
\hfill (Claim(4)$\Box$)




Thus we may find a transfinite sequence $(\psi_{\alpha})_{\alpha
\in\:{\rm Ord}}$ of infinitary propositions in ${\cal L}_{\infty 0}({\cal B})$ such that 
in any extension $\V[H]$ in which $|{\cal P}({\Bbb P})^\V|\leq \aleph_0$ 
and for any $x\in {\Bbb V}[H]$ we have 
\[(p\Vdash_{\Bbb P}x E_G \dot{\sigma})\Leftrightarrow \exists \alpha<\omega_1^{\V[H]} 
(x\models \psi_{\alpha}).\] 
This is obtained either by appeal to the usual decomposition of $\Ubf{\Sigma}^1_1$ 
into Borel sets or by letting $\psi_{\alpha}$ be chosen canonically so that for all $x$ in any 
generic extension 
\[(x\models\psi_{\alpha})\Leftrightarrow (L_{\alpha}(G, X, \sigma, ({\cal P}({\Bbb P}))^\V, x)\models 
p\Vdash_{\Bbb P}x E_G \dot{\sigma}).\] 


Claim(5): 
In any generic extension $\V[H]$ in which $({\cal P}({\Bbb P}))^\V$ 
becomes countable and for any $x\in {\Bbb V}[H]$ with 
$p\Vdash_{\Bbb P}x E_G \dot{\sigma}$ we have some $\alpha<\omega_1^{\V[H]}$ 
with 
\[\exists^*g\in G(g\cdot x\models \psi_{\alpha}).\] 

Proof of claim. Since for any particular $\alpha<\omega_1^{\V[H]}$ the 
displayed sentence is absolute, we may as well assume MA$_{\aleph_1}$. 
By invariance of the set in question we have that for all $g\in G$ there 
will be some $\alpha\in \omega_1^{\V[H]}$ with 
\[g\cdot x\models \psi_{\alpha}.\] 
By MA$_{\aleph_1}$, for some $\alpha$ the set of $g$ for which 
$g\cdot x\models \psi_{\alpha}$ must be non-meager. \hfill (Claim(5)$\Box$) 

So far there is no guarantee that {\it any} 
$\psi_{\alpha}$ is non-trivial; 
nothing yet has ruled against us {\it never} having the situation that 
$p\Vdash_{\Bbb P}x E_G \dot{\sigma}$. 




Claim(6): If there is some generic extension 
in which 
\[\V[H]\models p\Vdash_{\Bbb P} x E_G\dot{\sigma}\] 
then there is some $\alpha$ for which 
$\varphi_0=(\psi_{\alpha})^{\Delta G}$ satisfies (ii) from the 
statement of the lemma. 

Proof of claim. Following claim(4) and applying the absoluteness 
of $\Ubf{\Sigma}^1_1$ we 
can assume that $\V[H]$ arises by simply collapsing 
$ ({\cal P}({\Bbb P}))^\V$ to $\aleph_0$. 
Following claim(5) let us choose some $q\in$ Coll$(\omega, ({\cal P}({\Bbb P}))^\V)$ 
and $\alpha< (|{\cal P}({\Bbb P})|^+)^\V$ such that 
\[q\Vdash_{{\rm Coll}(\omega, ({\cal P}({\Bbb P}))^\V)}\exists x \exists^*g 
(g\cdot x\models \psi_\alpha).\] 

Now suppose that $\V[H_1]$ is any generic extension with some 
$x_1\in {\Bbb V}[H_1]$ such that 
\[\V[H_1]\models (p\Vdash_{\Bbb P} x_1 E_G\dot{\sigma}).\] 
Then we may choose $H_2\subset {\rm Coll}(\omega, ({\cal P}({\Bbb P}))^\V)$ 
to be $\V[H_1]$-generic below $q$. Thus by assumption on $q$ we may 
find some $x_2\in {\Bbb V}[H_2]$ with 
\[\V[H_2]\models \exists^* g\in G(x_2\models \psi_\alpha),\] 
and thus in particular 
\[\V[H_2]\models (p\Vdash_{\Bbb P} x_2 E_G\dot{\sigma}).\] 
And then by claim(2) 
\[\V[H_1][H_2]\models (p\Vdash_{\Bbb P} x_2 E_G\dot{\sigma}),\]
\[\V[H_1][H_2]\models (p\Vdash_{\Bbb P} x_1 E_G\dot{\sigma}).\] 

So if we let $H\subset 
{\Bbb P}$ 
be $\V[H_1][H_2]$-generic below 
$p$ we obtain 
\[\V[H_1][H_2][H]\models x_2 E_G\sigma[H],\] 
\[\V[H_1][H_2][H]\models x_1 E_G\sigma[H].\]
Thus $x_1 E_G x_2$. 

But $(\psi_\alpha)^{\Delta G}$ is absolute between forcing 
extensions, and 
thus 
\[\V[H_1][H_2][H]\models\exists^* g\in G(g\cdot x_2\models \psi_\alpha),\] 
and then by invariance 
\[\V[H_1][H_2][H]\models\exists^* g\in G(g\cdot x_1\models \psi_\alpha).\] 
One final application of absoluteness gives 
\[\V[H_1]\models (x_1\models \psi_\alpha^{\Delta G}).\] 
\hfill (Claim(6)$\Box$) 

\hfill $\Box$ 



\medskip 

Nothing in the statement of the lemma rules out (ii) holding 
trivially. It could just be the case that in every 
extension $\V[H_0]$ we have $\V[H_0]\models \forall x(p\Vdash_{\Bbb P} 
x\neg E_G \dot{\sigma})$. However in the non-trivial case where there 
is a generic extension $\V[H_0]$ satisfying 
$\exists x(p\Vdash_{\Bbb P} 
x E_G \dot{\sigma})$ it will follow by absoluteness for 
$\Ubf{\Sigma}^1_1$ that for any generic extension $\V[H_1]$ in which 
$F_0$ becomes countable we must have $\V[H_1]\models \exists x (x\models 
\varphi_0)$, and therefore 
$\V[H_1]\models \exists x(p\Vdash_{\Bbb P} 
x E_G \dot{\sigma})$. 



\medskip 

{\bf 1.5 Lemma} Let $G$ be a Polish group, $X$ a Polish $G$-space, $A\subset X$ a 
$\Ubf{\Sigma}^1_1$ set displaying a counterexample to TVC$(G,\Ubf{\Sigma}^1_1)$ -- 
so that $A/G$ has uncountably many orbits, but no perfect set of $E_G$-inequivalent 
points. 

Then for each ordinal $\delta$ there is a sequence $({\Bbb P}_{\alpha},
p_{\alpha},\sigma_{\alpha})_{\alpha <\delta}$ so that: 

\leftskip 0.5in 

\noindent (0) for each $\alpha<\delta$ 
\[p_{\alpha}\Vdash_{{\Bbb P}_{\alpha}}\dot{\sigma}_{\alpha}\in A;\] 

\noindent (i) for each $\alpha<\delta$ 
\[(p_{\alpha},p_{\alpha})\Vdash_{{\Bbb P}_{\alpha}\times{\Bbb P}_{\alpha}}
\sigma_{\alpha}[\dot{G}_l]E_G\sigma_{\alpha} [\dot{G}_r];\]


\noindent (ii) for each $\alpha<\beta< \delta$ 
\[(p_{\alpha},p_{\beta})\Vdash_{{\Bbb P}_{\alpha}\times{\Bbb P}_{\beta}}
\neg(\sigma_{\alpha}[\dot{G}_l] E_G\sigma_{\beta} [\dot{G}_r]).\] 

\leftskip 0in 

Proof. 
Claim(1): If ${\Bbb P}$ is any forcing notion, $\sigma$ a ${\Bbb P}$-term for 
an element of $A$, then there is $p\in{\Bbb P}$ such that 
$(p,p)\Vdash_{{\Bbb P}\times{\Bbb P}}
\sigma[\dot{G}_l]E_G\sigma [\dot{G}_r].$ 

Proof of claim. It is known from \cite{burgess}, \cite{stern}, and recorded in many 
places, that whenever we have a $\Ubf{\Sigma}^1_1$ equivalence relation $F$ on 
a Polish space $Y$ for which there is no perfect set of inequivalent 
reals, then for all ${\Bbb P}\Vdash \dot{\tau}\in Y$ we may find some $p$ with 
\[(p,p)\Vdash_{{\Bbb P}\times{\Bbb P}}
\tau[\dot{G}_l]F\tau [\dot{G}_r].\] 
Taking $\pi:Y\twoheadrightarrow A$ to be the continuous map witnessing 
$A\in \Ubf{\Sigma}^1_1$ we may let $F$ be the pullback of $E_G$. Since $A$ has no 
perfect set of $E_G$-inequivalent reals, $Y$ has no perfect set of 
$F$-inequivalent reals. Thus if $\sigma$ is a term for 
an element of $A$ then we let $\tau$ be a term for an element of $Y$ with 
\[{\Bbb P}\Vdash \pi(\dot{\tau})=\dot{\sigma},\]
and we obtain as above some $p\in{\Bbb P}$ with 
\[(p,p)\Vdash_{{\Bbb P}\times{\Bbb P}}
\tau[\dot{G}_l]F\tau [\dot{G}_r],\] 
\[\therefore (p,p)\Vdash_{{\Bbb P}\times{\Bbb P}}
\sigma[\dot{G}_l]E_G\sigma [\dot{G}_r].\] 
\hfill (Claim(1)$\Box$) 

Claim(2): In every generic extension of $\V$ we have $|A/G|\geq \aleph_1$. 

Proof of claim (compare also \cite{sami}): 
We use the fact that every orbit in $X$ is Borel in 
any code for its stabilizer. (See 7.1.2 \cite{beckerkechris}.)  

Let ${\cal F}(G)$ be the standard Borel space of closed subsets of 
$G$ in the Effros Borel structure. Let $S\subset X\times {\cal F}(G)$ 
be $\Ubf{\Pi}^1_1$ with $S=\{(x, G_x):x\in X\}$. Let 
\[E\subset 
X\times X\times{\cal F}(G)\] 
be $\Ubf{\Pi}^1_1$ such that \[(x, y, G_x)\in E\]  
if and only if $xE_G y$. 
Then the uncountability of $A/G$ becomes the $\Ubf{\Pi}^1_2$ statement 
\[\forall (x_i, F_i)_{i\in\omega}\in (X\times{\cal F}(X))^{\omega} \exists y \in A
(\exists i(\neg S(x_i, F_i))\vee \forall i (\neg E(x_i, y, F_i))),\] 
and is therefore absolute. \hfill (Claim(2)$\Box$) 

Thus we may successively choose ${\Bbb P}_{\alpha}$ and $\sigma_{\alpha}$ such that 
\[{\Bbb P}_{\alpha}\Vdash \dot{\sigma}_{\alpha}\in A\] 
and for all $\beta<\alpha$ and $q\in {\Bbb P}_{\alpha}$ 
\[(q, p_{\beta})\Vdash _{{\Bbb P}_{\alpha}\times{\Bbb P}_{\beta}}
\neg(\sigma_{\alpha}[\dot{G}_l] E_G\sigma_{\beta} [\dot{G}_r]).\] 
Refining to some $p_{\alpha}\in {\Bbb P}_{\alpha}$ with 
\[(p_{\alpha},p_{\alpha})\Vdash_{{\Bbb P}_{\alpha}\times{\Bbb P}_{\alpha}}
\sigma_{\alpha}[\dot{G}_l]E_G\sigma_{\alpha} [\dot{G}_r]\]
we finish. \hfill $\Box$ 

\medskip 

Note that in the situation of 
1.5 we may find for each $\alpha<\delta$ some corresponding $\varphi_{0,\alpha}$ 
for the forcing notion ${\Bbb P}_{\alpha}$ below $p_{\alpha}$ as 
in 1.4. We are guaranteed that this be non-trivial, in the sense that if 
$H\subset {\Bbb P}_{\alpha}$ is $\V$-generic below $p_{\alpha}$, 
and $x=\sigma_{\alpha}[H]$, 
then 
\[p_{\alpha}\Vdash_{\Bbb P}x E_G \dot{\sigma}_{\alpha},\]
\[\therefore x\models \varphi_{0,\alpha}.\] 


On the other hand, 
if $x_0\in {\Bbb V}[H_0]$ is an element of some generic extension 
$\V[H_0]$ and $x\models\varphi_{0,\alpha}$ and $H_1\subset {\Bbb P}_{\alpha}$ 
is any $\V$-generic with $x_1=\sigma_{\alpha}[H_1]$, 
then we may choose  
$H_2\subset{\Bbb P}_{\alpha}$ that is generic for 
both $\V[H_1]$ and $\V[H_2]$. Thus 
\[x_0E_G \sigma_{\alpha}[H_2]\]
by assumption on $\varphi_{0,\alpha}$. 
Moreover 
\[x_1 E_G \sigma_{\alpha}[H_2]\]
by the assumption 
${\Bbb P}_{\alpha},
p_{\alpha},\sigma_{\alpha}$. 
Hence $x_0 E_G x_1$. 

In this sense we can associate to $({\Bbb P}_{\alpha},
p_{\alpha},\sigma_{\alpha})_{\alpha <\delta}$ a corresponding 
sequence 
$(\varphi_{0,\alpha})_{\alpha\in\delta}$, each $\varphi_{0, \alpha}$ 
providing an 
$\infty$-Borel code 
for the indicated equivalence class 
$[\sigma_{\alpha}[H]]_G$ whenever $H\subset{\Bbb P}_{\alpha}$ is $\V$-generic 
below $p_{\alpha}$. 





\newpage 

{\bf $\S$2 Proof} 

\medskip 

{\bf 2.1 Definition} $U$ is a {\it regular open} set if 
$U$ equals the interior of its closure: 
\[(\overline{U})^o=U\] 
For $A$ a set let $RO(A)=(\overline{A})^o$. 

\medskip 

Note that $RO(A)$ is always regular open. 

\medskip 

{\bf 2.2 Lemma} Let $G$ be a Polish group. For $V_0, V_1\subset G$ 
regular open sets, 
\[\{g\in G: V_0\cdot g= V_1\}\]
is a closed subset of $G$. 

Proof. The set in question arises as the intersection of the closed sets 
\[\{g\in G: V_0\cdot g\subset\overline{V_1}\}\] 
and 
\[\{g\in G: \overline{V_0}\cdot g\supset V_1\}.\] 
\hfill $\Box$ 

\medskip 

I need that the reader is willing to allow that we may speak of an 
$\omega$-model of set theory containing a Polish space, group, action, 
Borel set, and so on, provided suitable codes exist in the well founded 
part. I will lean on the usual set theoretical identifications, and speak 
of open sets and Borel sets being ``in" an $\omega$-model, when really it is 
only the case that the model has some suitable subset of the natural numbers 
which codes them. 

Illfounded $\omega$-models are essential to the arguments below. 
The structure of the argument is to use the large sequence of forcing notions  
layed out in 1.5 to obtain a suitable $\omega$-model with generating 
indiscernibles of order type $({\Bbb Q},<)$. 
Thus we can inject Aut$({\Bbb Q},<)$ into the automorphisms of the $\omega$-model, 
and then using a kind of ``back-and-forth" argument at 2.3 obtain for each 
automorphism some corresponding 
element of the group 
$G$. Since wellfounded models are rigid and since we want automorphisms in great number, 
the passage to an $\omega$-model 
occupies a necessary step in the proofs. 

Let ZFC$^*$ be some large fragment of ZFC; at the 
very least 
strong enough to prove all the lemmas of $\S$1, but weak enough to admit a finite 
axiomatization.  

The next lemma gives the connection between automorphisms of an 
$\omega$-model and the corresponding elements of $G$. Here it should 
be understood that we do everything honestly: We are supposing that the 
$M$-generic $H$ exists in $\V$, our ground model, and conclude with 
$\hat{g}$ again in the ground model. We are working inside a single  
class model of ZFC which sees not only $M$ and $\pi$ but also 
$X$, $G$, $G_0$,
${\Bbb P}$,
$F_0$, ${\cal B}$, ${\cal B}_0$, $\varphi_0$, and $H$. 

\medskip 

{\bf 2.3 Lemma} Let $M$ be an $\omega$-model of  ZFC$^*$. Let $X$, $G$, $G_0$, 
${\Bbb P}$, 
$F_0$, ${\cal B}$, ${\cal B}_0$, $\varphi_0$ 
satisfy 1.4 inside $M$. Suppose 
\[\pi:M\cong M\]
is an automorphism of $M$ fixing $X$, $G$, $G_0$, ${\Bbb P}$, $F_0$, $\varphi_0$, and 
all elements of ${\cal B}$ and ${\cal B}_0$. 
Suppose $H\subset$ Coll($\omega, F_0$) is $M$-generic and 
$x\in X^{M[H]}$ with 
\[M[H]\models(x\models \varphi_0).\]  

Then there exists $\hat{g}\in G$ so that for all 
$\psi \in F_0$ and $V\in{\cal B}_0$ 
\[RO(\{g\in G_0: M[H]\models(g\cdot x\models \psi^{\Delta V})\})\hat{g}^{-1}= 
RO(\{g\in G_0: M[H]\models(g\cdot x\models \pi(\psi)^{\Delta V})\}).\] 

\noindent Proof. It suffices to find $g_0, g_1\in G$ so that 
\[RO(\{g\in G_0: M[H]\models(g\cdot x\models \psi^{\Delta V})\}){g}_0^{-1}= 
RO(\{g\in G_0: M[H]\models(g\cdot x\models \pi(\psi)^{\Delta V})\})g^{-1}_1\] 
for all $\psi$ and $V$. 

Let ${{\Bbb P}_0} $ be the forcing notion Coll$(\omega, F_0)$ in $M$. 
Fixing $d_G$ a complete metric on $G$ we build $h_i, h_i'\in G_0$, 
$\psi_i, \psi_i'\in F_0$, $W_i, W_i', V_i\in {\cal B}_0$ so that 

\leftskip 0.5in 

\noindent (i) $W_i$, $W'_i$ are open  neighborhoods  of the 
identity, with 
\[W_{i+1}\subset W_i,\] 
\[W_{i+1}'\subset W_i',\] 
\[d_G(W_i)<2^{-i},\] 
\[d_G(W_i')<2^{-i};\] 

\noindent (ii) $\pi(\psi_i)=\psi_i'$; 

\noindent (iii) $h_{2i}=h_{2i+1}$; for all $g\in 
W_{2i+1}h_{2i}$
\[d_G(g, h_{2i})<2^{-i};\] 

\noindent (iv)  $h_{2i+1}'=h_{2i+2}'$; for all $g\in 
W_{2i+2}h_{2i+1}'$
\[d_G(g, h_{2i+1}')<2^{-i};\] 

\noindent (v) $h_{i+1}\in W_ih_i$ and $h_{i+1}'\in W_ih_i'$; 

\noindent (vi) $M[H]\models (h_i\cdot x\models (\psi_i)^{\Delta V_i})$; 

\noindent (vii) $M[H]\models (h_i'\cdot x\models (\psi_i')^{\Delta V_i})$; 

\noindent (viii) $M^{{\Bbb P}_0} $ satisfies that for all $y_0, y_1\in X$ 
all $\psi\in F_0$, and all $V\in {\cal B}_0$, 
if 
\[y_0\models \varphi_0\wedge (\psi_i)^{\Delta V_i}\]
\[y_1\models \varphi_0\wedge (\psi_i)^{\Delta V_i}\wedge \psi^{\Delta V}\] 
then 
\[y_0\models ((\psi_i)^{\Delta V_i}\wedge \psi^{\Delta V})^{\Delta W_i};\] 


\noindent (ix) conversely $M^{{\Bbb P}_0} $ satisfies that for all $y_0, y_1\in X$, 
$\psi\in F_0$, $V\in {\cal B}_0$, 
if 
\[y_0\models \varphi_0\wedge (\psi_i')^{\Delta V_i}\]
\[y_1\models \varphi_0\wedge (\psi_i')^{\Delta V_i}\wedge \psi^{\Delta V}\] 
then 
\[y_0\models ((\psi_i')^{\Delta V_i}\wedge \psi^{\Delta V})^{\Delta W_i}.\] 

\leftskip 0in 

\noindent Actually (ix)  follows from (viii), (ii), and the elementarity of 
$\pi$. 

Before verifying that we may produce $h_i, h_i'\in G_0$, 
$\psi_i, \psi_i'\in F_0$, $W_i, V_i\in {\cal B}_0$ as above, let us imagine that 
it is already completed and see how to finish. Using (iii), (iv), and (v) we may obtain 
\[g_0= {\rm  lim}_{i\rightarrow \infty} h_i\] 
and 
\[g_1={\rm lim}_{i\rightarrow \infty} h_i'.\]  
It suffices to check that for all $\psi\in F_0$, $V\in {\cal B}_0$, and  
\[ g\in RO(\{h\in G_0: M[H]\models(h\cdot x\models \psi^{\Delta V})\}){g}_0^{-1}\]
we have 
\[g\in \overline{(\{h\in G_0: 
M[H]\models(h\cdot x\models \pi(\psi)^{\Delta V})\})} g_1^{-1}\]
(the converse implication will be exactly symmetric). 
Fix $g$ in 
\[RO(\{h\in G_0: M[H]\models(h\cdot x\models \psi^{\Delta V})\}){g}_0^{-1}.\] 

By assumption on $g$ there are arbitrarily large $i$ and $h\in G_0$ with 
$h(h_i)^{-1}$ arbitrarily close to $g$ and 
$M[H]\models(h\cdot x\models \psi^{\Delta V})$. 

Thus replacing $h(h_i)^{-1}$  with $\hat{g}$ 
for sufficiently large $i$ we may choose a sufficiently small 
open neighbourhood 
$W\in{\cal B}_0$ of the identity and $\hat{g}\in G_0$ sufficiently close to $g$ 
so that $W\hat{g} W_i$ is an arbitrarily 
small neighbourhood of $g$ and 
\[M[H]\models (\hat{g} h_i\cdot x\models \psi^{\Delta V})\]
\[\therefore M[H]\models ( h_i\cdot x\models 
(\psi^{\Delta V})^{\Delta W\hat{g}})\] 
hence, as witnessed by $y=h_i\cdot x$, 
\[M^{{\Bbb P}_0}\models \exists y( y\models \varphi_0\wedge (\psi_i)^{\Delta V_i} 
\wedge (\psi^{\Delta V})^{\Delta W\hat{g}}),\]
\[\therefore M^{{\Bbb P}_0}\models \exists y( y\models \varphi_0\wedge (\psi_i')^{\Delta V_i} 
\wedge (\pi(\psi)^{\Delta V})^{\Delta W\hat{g}})\] 
by (ii) and elementarity of $\pi$, 
\[\therefore M[H]\models (h_i'\cdot x\models 
((\pi(\psi)^{\Delta V})^{\Delta W\hat{g}})
^{\Delta W_i})\]
by (ix). So there exists some $\bar{g}\in W\hat{g} W_i$ such that 
\[M[H]\models (\bar{g}h_i'\cdot x\models \pi(\psi)^{\Delta V}).\] 
By letting $d_G(W\hat{g} W_i)\rightarrow 0$ and $h_i'\rightarrow g_1$ we get 
\[g\in \overline{\{h\in G_0: 
M[H]\models(h\cdot x\models \pi(\psi)^{\Delta V})\}} g_1^{-1},\]
as required. 

We are left to hammer out the sequences. 

Suppose that we have $\psi_j, \psi'_j, W_j,V_j, h_j, h_j'$  for $j\leq 2i$. Immediately 
we may set $h_{2i+1}=h_{2i}$ and 
find $W_{2i+1}\subset W_{2i}$ giving (iii), and then by 1.2 and 1.4(i) we 
can produce $\psi_{2i+1}$ and $V_{2i+1}$ satisfying (viii) and such that 
\[M[H]\models h_{2i}\cdot x=_{df} h_{2i+1}\cdot x\models (\psi_{2i+1})^{V_{2i+1}}.\] 
Then by considering that $\pi$ is elementary 
\[M^{{\Bbb P}_0} \models \exists y(y\models \varphi_0\wedge \pi(\psi_{2i})^{\Delta V_{2i}}
\wedge \pi(\psi_{2i+1})^{\Delta V_{2i+1}}).\]
Thus by (ix) we may find $h'\in G_0\cap W_{2i}$ so that 
\[M[H]\models (h'h'_{2i}\cdot x\models \pi(\psi_{2i})^{\Delta V_{2i}}
\wedge \pi(\psi_{2i+1})^{\Delta V_{2i+1}}).\] 
In other words, by (ii), if we let $\psi_{2i+1}'=\pi(\psi_{2i+1})$ then 
\[M[H]\models (h'h'_{2i}\cdot x\models (\psi_{2i}')^{\Delta V_{2i}}
\wedge (\psi_{2i+1}')^{\Delta V_{2i+1}}).\] 
Taking $h_{2i+1}'=h'h_{2i}'$ we complete the transition from $2i$ to $2i+1$. 

The  further step of producing $\psi_{2i+2}, \psi_{2i+2}', 
W_{2i+2}, h_{2i+2}$, $V_{2i+2}$ and $h_{2i+2}'$ is completely symmetrical. \hfill $\Box$ 

\medskip 

{\bf 2.4 Definition} $S_{\infty}$ {\it divides} a Polish 
group $G$ if there is a closed subgroup $H<G$ and a continuous onto homomorphism 
\[\pi:H\twoheadrightarrow S_{\infty}.\]

\medskip

By Pettis' lemma, as at 1.2.6 of \cite{beckerkechris}, 
any Borel homomorphism between Polish groups must be continuous. 

\medskip 

{\bf 2.5 Lemma} $S_{\infty}$ divides Aut$({{\Bbb Q}} , <)$, the automorphism 
group of the rationals equipped with the usual linear ordering. 

Proof. Let $\{D_i:i\in\omega\}$ be a partition of ${\Bbb Q}$ into countably many 
dense subsets. 

Now let $H$ be the group of all $\sigma\in $ Aut$({{\Bbb Q}} , <)$ such that for all 
$i, j\in\omega$, all $q_1, q_2\in D_i$ 
\[\sigma(q_1)\in D_j\Leftrightarrow \sigma(q_2)\in D_j\]
and 
\[\sigma^{-1}(q_1)\in D_j\Leftrightarrow \sigma^{-1}(q_2)\in D_j.\] 
For any $\sigma\in H$ we define $\pi_\sigma\in S_{\infty}$ by 
$\pi_{\sigma}(i)=j$ if and only if $\sigma[D_i]=D_j$. 
The usual back-and-forth arguments show that for any permutation 
$\sigma$ of $\omega$ we may find $\hat{\sigma}\in$ Aut$({{\Bbb Q}} , <)$ such that for all 
$i, j$ 
\[\hat{\sigma}[D_i]=D_j\]
if and only if $\sigma(i)=j$. 
\hfill $\Box$ 

\medskip 

{\bf 2.6 Definition} For $X$, $G$, $F_0$, and so on, as in 1.4, ${\Bbb P}_0$= Coll$(\omega, 
F_0)$, $\psi_0, \psi_1\in F_0$, $V_0, V_1\in {\cal B}_0$, set 
\[(\psi_0, V_0)R (\psi_1, V_1)\]
if in $\V^{{\Bbb P}_0}$ for all $x\models \varphi_0$ 
\[RO(\{g\in G_0: g\cdot x\models (\psi_0)^{\Delta V_0}\})\cap 
RO(\{g\in G_0: g\cdot x\models (\psi_1)^{\Delta V_1}\})\neq\emptyset.\] 
By the density of $G_0$ and the continuity of the action with respect to 
$\tau_0(F_0)$, the issue of whether this intersection is non-empty does not 
depend on the choice of $x\models\varphi_0$. 
For $V\in {\cal B}_0$ let ${\cal B}(V)$ be the set of pairs $(\varphi, W)$ such that 
for all $\psi\in F_0$ and $W'\in {\cal B}_0$ 
\[\V^{{\Bbb P}_0}\models \forall x_0((x_0\models 
\varphi_0\wedge \varphi^{\Delta W}\wedge 
(\exists x_1\models \varphi_0\wedge \varphi^{\Delta W}\wedge \psi^{\Delta W'}))
\Rightarrow x_0\models (\varphi^{\Delta W}\wedge \psi^{\Delta W'})^{\Delta V}).\]

In other words, ${\cal B}(V)$ corresponds to the basic open sets witnessing 1.2 
for $V$ in the topology $\tau_0(F_0)$. The relation $R$ corresponds to whether relatively 
open subsets of the orbit overlap.  



\medskip 

The next lemma states that if the equivalence class corresponding to $\varphi_0$ 
requires large forcing to be introduced then the formulas $\{\psi^{\Delta V}: 
\psi\in F_0, V\in{\cal B}_0\}$ have large $R$-discrete sets. 

\medskip 

{\bf 2.7 Lemma} Let $X$, $G$, $F_0$, ${\Bbb P}$, $p$, $\sigma$, $\varphi_0$, 
and so on, be as in 1.4. Assume that $\varphi_0$ is non-trivial, in 
the sense that $p\Vdash_{\Bbb P}(\dot{\sigma}\models\varphi_0)$. 
Let $R$ be as in 2.6. Let $\kappa$ be a cardinal. 
Suppose no forcing notion of size less than $\kappa$ introduces a point in 
$X$ satisfying $\varphi_0$. 

Then there is no infinite $\delta<\kappa$ such that each ${\cal B}(V)$ for $V\in 
{\cal B}_0$ has a maximal $R$-discrete set of size $\leq \delta$. 

Proof. Suppose otherwise and choose large $\theta>\kappa$ so that $\V_{\theta}\models$ 
ZFC$^*$ and choose an elementary substructure 
\[A {\prec} \V_{\theta}\]
so that 
\[|A|=\delta,\]
\[\delta+1\subset A,\]
and $X$, $G$, $F_0$, $\varphi_0$, and so on, in $A$. Let $N$ be the transitive 
collapse of $A$ and 
\[\pi: N\rightarrow {\Bbb V}_{\theta}\]
the inverse of the collapsing map. Set $\hat{{\Bbb P}}=\pi^{-1}({\Bbb P}_0)$ 
(where ${{\Bbb P}_0}$= Coll$(\omega, F_0)$), $ \hat{\varphi}_0=\pi^{-1}(\varphi_0)$, 
$\hat{F}_0=\pi^{-1}(F_0)$, 
choose 
\[\hat{H}\subset \hat{\Bbb P},\]
\[H\subset {\Bbb P}_0\]
to be $\V$-generic, and choose $\hat{x}\in N[\hat{H}]$ and $x\in {\Bbb V}[H]$ so that 
\[N[\hat{H}]\models (\hat{x}\models \hat{\varphi}_0),\]
\[\V[H]\models (x\models\varphi_0).\] 
($x$ and $\hat{x}$ exist for the reasons mentioned following 1.4.) 
Note that for each $V\in {\cal B}_0$ there will be a maximal $R$-discrete subset of 
${\cal B}(V)$ included in $N$. 
It suffices to show 
\[\hat{x}E_Gx.\]
 
As in the proof of 2.3 find $h_i, h_i'\in G_0$, $\psi_i\in F_0$, 
$\psi_i'\in {\hat{F}}_0$, $V_i, V'_i \in{\cal B}_0$, $W_i\in {\cal B}_0$ 
and $U_i\subset X$ basic open so that : 

\leftskip 0.5in 

\noindent (i) $W_{i+1}\subset W_i$, $W_i=(W_i)^{-1}$, $d_G(W_i)<2^{-i},$ $1_G\in W_i$; 
$U_{i+1}\subset U_i$,  
$d_X(U_i)<2^{-i}$; 


\noindent (ii) $h_{2i+1}=h_{2i}$; for all  $g\in (W_{2i+1})^3 h_{2i}$ 
\[d_G(g, h_{2i})<2^{-i};\] 


\noindent (iii) $h_{2i+2}'=h_{2i+1}'$; for all $g\in (W_{2i+2})^3 h_{2i+1}'$
\[d_G(g, h_{2i+1}')<2^{-i};\] 


\noindent (iv) $h_{i+1}\in (W_i)^3 h_i$ and  $h_{i+1}'\in (W_i)^3 h_i'$; 

\noindent (v) $\V[H]\models (h_i\cdot {x}\models (\psi_i)^{\Delta V_i})$; 

\noindent (vi) $N[\hat{H}]\models (h_i'\cdot \hat{x}\models (\psi_i')^{\Delta V_i'})$; 


\noindent (vii) $\V\models (\psi_i, V_i)\in {\cal B}(W_i)$; 

\noindent (viii) $N \models (\psi_i', V_i')\in {\cal B}(W_i)$; 

\noindent (ix) $(\pi(\psi_i'), V_i') R(\psi_i, V_i)$; 

\noindent (x) $h_i\cdot x, h_i'\cdot \hat{x} \in U_i$. 

\leftskip 0in 

Granting all this may be found we finish quickly. By (ii), (iii), and (iv) we 
get $g_0$= lim $h_i$ and  $g_1$= lim $h_i'$, whence 
\[g_0\cdot x=g_1\cdot \hat{x}\]
by (x) and (i). 
This would contradict ${\hat{\Bbb P}}$ being too small to introduce 
a representative of $[x]_G$. 

So instead suppose we have built $V_j, V_j', \psi_j$ and so on for $j\leq 2i$ and 
concentrate on trying to show that we may continue the construction up to 
$2i+2$. 

First choose $W_{2i+1}\subset W_{2i}$ in accordance with (i) and (ii) and then for 
(x) and (i) choose $U_{2i+1}\subset U_{2i}$ containing $h_{2i}\cdot x (=_{df} 
h_{2i+1}\cdot x)$ with $d_X(U_{2i+1})<2^{-2i-1}$. Then by 1.2 we may choose 
$(V_{2i+1}, \psi_{2i+1})\in {\cal B}(W_{2i+1})$ with 
\[h_{2i}\cdot x\models (\psi_{2i+1})^{\Delta V_{2i+1}}.\]  

On the $N$ side we use the assumption on $R$ to find $V_{2i+1}'$ and $\psi_{2i+1}'$ in 
$N$ so that 
\[N^{\hat{\Bbb P}}\models (\psi_{2i+1}', V_{2i+1}')\in {\cal B}(W_{2i+1})\]
and 
\[(\pi(\psi_{2i+1}'), V_{2i+1}') R (\psi_{2i+1}, V_{2i+1}).\] 
Unwinding the definitions of ${\cal B}(W_{2i})$ and ${\cal B}(W_{2i+1})$ gives 
\[\V^{{\Bbb P}_0}\models (y\models \varphi_0 \wedge \pi(\psi_{2i}')^{\Delta V_{2i}'})
\Rightarrow y\models ((\psi_{2i})^{\Delta V_{2i}}
\wedge \pi(\psi_{2i}')^{\Delta V_{2i}'})^{\Delta W_{2i}},\] 
\[\V^{{\Bbb P}_0}\models (y\models \varphi_0 \wedge (\psi_{2i})^{\Delta V_{2i}})
\Rightarrow y\models ((\psi_{2i})^{\Delta V_{2i}}
\wedge (\psi_{2i+1})^{\Delta V_{2i+1}})^{\Delta W_{2i}},\] 
\[\V^{{\Bbb P}_0}\models (y\models \varphi_0 \wedge (\psi_{2i+1})^{\Delta V_{2i+1}})
\Rightarrow y\models ((\psi_{2i+1})^{\Delta V_{2i+1}}
\wedge \pi(\psi_{2i+1}')^{\Delta V_{2i+1}'})^{\Delta W_{2i+1}}.\] 
After possibly tightening the $\tau_0(F_0)$-open set corresponding to  
$(\psi_{2i+1})^{\Delta V_{2i+1}}$ 
we can assume  
\[(\psi_{2i+1})^{\Delta V_{2i+1}}\Rightarrow \dot{x}\in U_{2i+1},\]
and thus we have 
\[\V^{{\Bbb P}_0}\models (y\models \varphi_0 \wedge \pi(\psi_{2i}')^{\Delta V_{2i}'})
\Rightarrow y\models ((\pi(\psi_{2i+1}'))^{\Delta V_{2i+1}'}
\wedge \dot{x}\in U_{2i+1})^{\Delta (W_{2i})^3}.\] 
Thus by elementarity of $\pi$ we may find 
$h'\in (W_{2i})^3\cap G_0$ so that $h'h_{2i}'\cdot \hat{x}\in 
U_{2i+1}$ and 
\[N[\hat{H}]\models (h'h_{2i}'\cdot \hat{x}\models (\psi_{2i+1}')^{\Delta V_{2i+1}'}).\] 
Then setting $h_{2i+1}'=h'h_{2i}'$ completes the transition from $2i$ to $2i+1$. 

The step from $2i+1$ to $2i+2$ is similar, though easier since it will be a trivial 
task to find for $\V$ some $(\psi_{2i+2}, V_{2i+2})\in 
{\cal B}(W_{2i+2})$ with 
$(\pi(\psi_{2i+2}'), V_{2i+2}') R (\psi_{2i+2}, V_{2i+2})$. \hfill $\Box$ 

\medskip 

We need a fact from infinitary model theory. 

\medskip 

{\bf 2.8 Theorem} Let $\varphi\in {\cal L}_{\omega_1,\omega}$ and suppose 
\[N\models \varphi\]
and $P$ is a predicate in the language of $N$ with 
\[|(P)^N|\geq \beth_{\aleph_1}.\] 
Then $\varphi$ has a model with generating indiscernibles in $P$. 

More precisely there is a model $M$ with language ${\cal L}^*\supset 
{\cal L}$, ${\cal L}^*$ having a new symbol $<$, along with new 
function symbols of the form $f_{\hat{\varphi}}$ for $\hat{\varphi}$ in the 
fragment of ${\cal L}_{\omega_1,\omega}$ generated by $\varphi$, 
and distinguished elements $(c_i)_{i\in \N}$, 
so that: 

\leftskip 0.5in 

\noindent (i) $(<)^M$ linearly orders $(P)^M$; 

\noindent (ii) each $f_{\hat{\varphi}}$ is a Skolem function for 
$\hat{\varphi}$; 

\noindent (iii) $M$ is the Skolem hull of $\{c_i:i\in\N\}$ (under the 
functions of the form  $f_{\hat{\varphi}}$); 

\noindent (iv) each $c_i\in (P)^M$; 

\noindent (v) for all $\psi$ in the fragment of ${\cal L}^*_{\omega_1,\omega}$ 
generated by $\varphi$, for all $i_1<i_2<...<i_n$ and $j_1<...<j_n$ in $\N$ 
\[M\models \psi(c_{i_1},c_{i_2},...,c_{i_n})\Leftrightarrow 
\psi(c_{j_1},c_{j_2},...,c_{j_n});\] 

\noindent (vi) $M\models \varphi$. 

\leftskip 0in 

(See the proof that $\beth_{\aleph_1}$ is the Hanf number of sentences in 
${\cal L}_{\omega_1,\omega}$ from 
\cite{keisler}. \hfill $\Box$) 

\medskip 

{\bf 2.9 Theorem} Let $G$ be a Polish group for which TVC($G,\Ubf{\Sigma}^1_1$) fails. 
Then $S_{\infty}$ divides $G$. 

Proof. Choose some Polish $G$-space $X$ witnessing the failure of 
TVC($G,\Ubf{\Sigma}^1_1$). Following 1.5 we may find some $({\Bbb P}, p,\sigma)$ 
introducing an equivalence class as in 1.4 that may not be produced by a forcing 
notion of size less than $\beth_{\aleph_1}$. Fix $\varphi_0$, ${\cal B}$, 
${\cal B}_0$, $F_0$, $G_0$, and so on, as in 1.4, so that in all 
generic extensions $\V[H]$ of $\V$ 
\[\V[H]\models \forall x\in X ((p\Vdash_{\Bbb P}xE_G\dot{\sigma})\Leftrightarrow 
y\models \varphi_0),\] 
and 
\[{\Bbb V}\models p\Vdash_{\Bbb P}(\dot{\sigma}\models \varphi_0).\] 

Let $\V_{\theta}$ be large enough to contain $X$, $G$, $\varphi_0$, and so on, and 
satisfy ZFC$^*$. By 2.7 choose $W\in {\cal B}_0$ and 
$P\subset {\Bbb V}_{\theta}\cap {\cal B}(W)$ 
of size $\beth_{\aleph_1}$ 
so that for all 
\[(\psi, V),(\psi',V')\in P\] 
we have 
\[(\psi, V)\neq (\psi',V')\Rightarrow ((\psi, V)\neg R(\psi',V')).\]  
By countability of ${\cal B}_0$ we may assume there is a single $V\in {\cal B}_0$ 
so that every element of $P$ has the form 
\[(\psi, V),\] 
some $\psi\in F_0$. 
Applying 2.8 to 
\[N=(\V_{\theta}; \in, P, X, G, G_0, \varphi_0,...)\]   
we may obtain an $\omega$-model $M$ 
with indiscernibles $(\psi_q, V)_{q\in {\Bbb Q}}$ in $P^M$. Let $H\subset$ 
Coll($\omega, (F_0)^M$) be $M$-generic. Choose $x\in M[H]$ so that 
\[M[H]\models (x\models \varphi_0).\] 

All this granted we may define $G_1$ to be the set of $\bar{g}\in G$ so that for all $q\in 
{\Bbb Q}$ there exists $r\in{\Bbb Q}$ with 
\[RO(\{g\in G_0: M[H]\models(g\cdot x\models (\psi_q)^{\Delta V})\})\bar{g}^{-1}= 
RO(\{g\in G_0: M[H]\models(g\cdot x\models (\psi_r)^{\Delta V})\})\] and for  
$q\in 
{\Bbb Q}$ there exists $r\in{\Bbb Q}$ with 
\[RO(\{g\in G_0: M[H]\models(g\cdot x\models (\psi_q)^{\Delta V})\})\bar{g}= 
RO(\{g\in G_0: M[H]\models(g\cdot x\models (\psi_r)^{\Delta V})\}).\] 

$G_1$ is $\Ubf{\Pi}^0_2$ in $G$, by 2.2 and since $\bar{g}$ is in $G_1$ if and only if the 
following four conditions hold: 

\leftskip 0.5in 

\noindent (i) for all $q\in 
{\Bbb Q}$ there exists $r\in{\Bbb Q}$ with 
\[RO(\{g\in G_0: M[H]\models(g\cdot x\models (\psi_q)^{\Delta V})\})\bar{g}^{-1}\cap 
RO(\{g\in G_0: M[H]\models(g\cdot x\models (\psi_r)^{\Delta V})\})\neq\emptyset,\]

\noindent (ii) for all $q,r\in 
{\Bbb Q}$ 
\[RO(\{g\in G_0: M[H]\models(g\cdot x\models (\psi_q)^{\Delta V})\})\bar{g}^{-1}\cap 
RO(\{g\in G_0: M[H]\models(g\cdot x\models (\psi_r)^{\Delta V})\})\neq\emptyset\]
implies 
\[RO(\{g\in G_0: M[H]\models(g\cdot x\models (\psi_q)^{\Delta V})\})\bar{g}^{-1}= 
RO(\{g\in G_0: M[H]\models(g\cdot x\models (\psi_r)^{\Delta V})\});\] 


\noindent (iii) for all $q\in 
{\Bbb Q}$ there exists $r\in{\Bbb Q}$ with 
\[RO(\{g\in G_0: M[H]\models(g\cdot x\models (\psi_q)^{\Delta V})\})\bar{g}\cap 
RO(\{g\in G_0: M[H]\models(g\cdot x\models (\psi_r)^{\Delta V})\})\neq\emptyset,\]

\noindent (iv) for all $q,r\in 
{\Bbb Q}$ 
\[RO(\{g\in G_0: M[H]\models(g\cdot x\models (\psi_q)^{\Delta V})\})\bar{g}\cap 
RO(\{g\in G_0: M[H]\models(g\cdot x\models (\psi_r)^{\Delta V})\})\neq\emptyset\]
implies 
\[RO(\{g\in G_0: M[H]\models(g\cdot x\models \psi_q^{\Delta V})\})\bar{g}^{-1}= 
RO(\{g\in G_0: M[H]\models(g\cdot x\models (\psi_r)^{\Delta V})\}).\] 

\leftskip 0in 

\noindent Since $G_1$ is a $\Ubf{\Pi}^0_2$ subgroup of $G$ it must be closed. 

For $g\in G_1$ we may define the permutation $\hat{\pi}(g)$ of ${\Bbb Q}$ by the 
specification that for all $q\in {\Bbb Q}$ 
\[(\hat{\pi}(g))(q)=r\] 
if and only if $r$ is as in part (i) of  the definition of $G_1$. 

Now let $G_2$ be the set of $g\in G_1$ such that $\hat{\pi}(g)$ defines an 
automorphism of the structure $({\Bbb Q}, <)$. $G_2$ is a closed subgroup of 
$G_1$ and hence $G$. Noting that every order preserving permutation of the indiscernibles 
induces an automorphism of $M$ and using the $R$-discreteness of 
the set $(P)^M$, the map 
\[\hat{\pi}:G_2\rightarrow {\rm Aut}({\Bbb Q}, <)\]
is seen to be 
onto by 2.3. Then by 2.5 $S_{\infty}$ divides $G$. \hfill $\Box$ 

\medskip 





\newpage 


\begin{thebibliography}{99}



\bibitem{becker2} H. Becker, 
{\it The topological Vaught's conjecture and minimal counterexamples,} 
{\bf Journal of Symbolic Logic,} vol. 59(1994), pp. 757-784. 

\bibitem{becker} H. Becker, 
{\it Polish group actions: dichotomies and generalized 
elementary embeddings,} 
{\bf Journal of the  American Mathematical Society,}  
vol. 11 (1998), pp. 397-449. 



\bibitem{beckerkechris2} H. Becker, A.S. Kechris,
{\it Borel actions of Polish groups,} {\bf Bulletin American Mathematical 
Society,} vol. 28(1993), pp. 334-341. 

\bibitem{beckerkechris} H. Becker, A.S. Kechris, {\bf The descriptive set theory of 
Polish group actions}, London Mathematical Society Lecture Notes Series, 
232, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996 



\bibitem{buechler} S. Buechler,  L. Newelski, 
{\it On the geometry of $U$-rank $2$ types,} 
{\bf Logic Colloquium '90} (Helsinki, 1990), pp. 10-24, 
Lecture Notes Logic, 2, 
Springer, Berlin, 1993. 

\bibitem{burgess} J. Burgess, {\it Effective enumeration of 
$\Sigma^1_1$ equivalence relations,} {\bf Indiana University Mathematics 
Journal,} vol. 28(1979), pp. 353-364. 

\bibitem{effros} E. Effros, {\it Transformation groups and $C^*$-algebras,} 
{\bf Annals of Mathematics,} ser 2, vol. 81(1975), pp. 38-55. 

\bibitem{gao} S. Gao, {\it Automorphism groups of countable structures}, 
{\bf Journal of Symbolic Logic,} 
vol. 63(1998), pp. 891-896. 


\bibitem{grmory} A. Gregorczyk, A. Mostowski, C. Ryall-Nardzewski, 
{\it Definability of sets of models of axiomatic theories,}   
{\bf Bulletin of the Polish Academy of Sciences,} (series Mathematics,
Astronomy, Physics), vol. 9(1961), pp. 163-7.



\bibitem{hart} B. Hart, S. Starchenko, M. Valeriote, 
{\it Vaught's conjecture for varieties,} 
{\bf Transactions of the  American 
Mathematical Society,} vol. 342(1994), pp. 173-196. 

\bibitem{hjorthorbit} G. Hjorth, {\it Orbit cardinals: On the effective 
cardinalities of quotients of the form $X/G$ for $X$ a Polish $G$-space,} 
{\bf Israel Journal of Mathematics,} 
vol. 111(1999), pp. 221-261. 

\bibitem{hjorthclass} G. Hjorth, 
{\bf Classification and orbit equivalence relations,} Mathematical Surveys
and Monographs, 75,  American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2000. 

\bibitem{hjorthsolecki} G. Hjorth, S. Solecki, 
{\it Vaught's conjecture and the Glimm-Effros property for 
Polish transformation groups,} 
{\bf Transactions of the American Mathematical Society,} vol. 351(1999), 
pp. 2623-2641.  

\bibitem{jech} T. Jech, {\bf Set theory}, Academic Press, New York, 1978.


\bibitem{kechris1} A.S. Kechris, {\bf Classical descriptive set theory}, 
Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1995. 


\bibitem{keisler} H.J. Keisler, {\bf Model theory for infinitary logic}, North-Holland, 
Amsterdam, 1971. 

\bibitem{moschovakis} Y.N. Moschovakis, {\bf Descriptive 
set theory}, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1980. 

\bibitem{sami} R. Sami, {\it Polish group actions and the Vaught conjecture}, 
{\bf Transactions of the 
American Mathematical Society}, vol. 341(1994), pp. 335-353. 

\bibitem{shelah} S. Shelah, L. Harrington, M. Makkai, {\it A proof of Vaught's conjecture for
$\omega$-stable theories,}  {\bf Israel Journal of Mathematics,}  
vol. 49(1984), pp. 259-280. 

\bibitem{steel} J.R. Steel, {\it On Vaught's conjecture,} 
{\bf Cabal Seminar 76--77,} 
(Proceedings Caltech-UCLA Logic Seminar,  1976--77), pp. 193-208, 
Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 
689, Springer, Berlin, 1978. 

\bibitem{stern} J. Stern, {\it Lusin's restricted continuum problem,} {\bf Annals of 
Mathematics,} ser 2, vol. 120(1984), pp. 7-37. 

\bibitem{vaught} R. Vaught, {\it Invariant sets in topology and logic,} 
{\bf Fundamenta 
Mathematicae,} 
vol. 82(1974), pp. 269-94. 

\end{thebibliography}

6363 MSB

Mathematics

UCLA

CA90095-1555

greg@math.ucla.edu

www.math.ucla.edu/\~{}greg

\end{document} 
