Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I am having trouble figuring out the following question (3.10 in Kechris, Classical Descriptive Set Theory): If $X$ is completely metrizable, and $A\subseteq X$ with $f:A\to A$ a homeomorphism, then there is a $G_\delta$ set $G\subseteq X$ containing $A$ and an extension $h:G\to G$ of $f$ which is a homeomorphism of $G$.

Lavrentiev's Theorem gets us $G_\delta$ sets $G'$ and $H'$ containing $A$, and a homeomophism $g:G'\to H'$ extending $f$, but it doesn't seem to me that the proof of that result can be easily adapted to make $G'=H'$. The key fact in all of this is the set $\bar{A}\cap\{x:\mathrm{osc}_f(x)=0\}$, for any continuous $f:A\to X$, is a $G_\delta$ set in $X$ on which we can continuously extend $f$.

share|cite|improve this question
Can't you simply work with $(f,f^{-1})\colon A \times A \to A \times A$ to make the situation symmetric modulo switching coordinates? – t.b. Jun 1 '12 at 23:23
@t.b. I don't see what you mean by "modulo switching coordinates". Could you explain? – Iian Smythe Jun 2 '12 at 1:17
I was a bit quick, sorry. The idea was that in the proof of Lavrentiev's theorem you intersect two graphs to get the mutually inverse homeomorphisms. I mistakenly assumed that you automatically get a symmetric situation when applying this to the mutually inverse homomorphisms $(f,f^{-1})$ and $(f^{-1},f)$ from $A\times A \to A \times A$. Unfortunately, this isn't quite the case and it seems that you need to perform a Schroeder-Bernstein type argument as given by Brian below to make this idea work. – t.b. Jun 2 '12 at 10:15
up vote 5 down vote accepted

By Lavrentiev’s theorem $f$ can be extended to a homeomorphism $f_0:G_0\to H_0$, where $G_0$ and $H_0$ are $G_\delta$-sets in $X$ containing $A$. Let $G_1=G_0\cap H_0$, and let $H_1=f_0[G_1]$; clearly $G_1$ is a $G_\delta$ in $X$. Moreover, $G_1$ is a $G_\delta$ in $G_0$, and $f_0$ is a homeomorphism, so $H_1$ is a $G_\delta$ in $H_0$ and therefore in $X$. Finally, $f_1\triangleq f_0\upharpoonright G_1:G_1\to H_1$ is a homeomorphism extending $f$. Now let $H_2=G_1\cap H_1$, $G_2=f_1^{-1}[H_2]$, and $f_2=f_1\upharpoonright G_2$; $G_2$ and $H_2$ are $G_\delta$-sets containing $A$, and $f_2$ is a homeomorphism between them extending $f$.

Continue in this fashion. If $n\in\omega$ is even, $G_{n+1}=G_n\cap H_n$ and $H_{n+1}=f_n[G_{n+1}]$, while if $n$ is odd, $H_{n+1}=G_n\cap H_n$ and $G_{n+1}=f_n^{-1}[H_{n+1}]$, and $f_{n+1}=f_n\upharpoonright G_{n+1}$ in both cases. The sets $G_n$ and $H_n$ are $G_\delta$-sets in $X$, and each $f_n$ is a homeomorphism from $G_n$ onto $H_n$ extending $f$. Note that $$H_0\supseteq G_1\supseteq H_2\supseteq G_3\supseteq H_4\supseteq\dots\;.$$

Now let $$G=\bigcap_{n\in\omega}G_n=\bigcap_{n\in\omega}H_n\qquad\text{ and }\qquad\bar f=\bigcap_{n\in\omega}f_n=f_0\upharpoonright G\;;$$ clearly $G$ is a $G_\delta$ containing $A$, and $\bar f$ is a homeomorphism of $G$ onto $$\bar f[G]=\bigcap_{n\in\omega}f_n[G_n]=\bigcap_{n\in\omega}H_n=G\;.$$

share|cite|improve this answer
I thought that some kind of dovetailing like this might be involved. Thanks! – Iian Smythe Jun 3 '12 at 3:04

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.