Cantor-Bendixson theorem and AC

For context, the Cantor-Bendixson theorem states that a closed subset $$A$$ of a Polish space can be written as the union of a perfect subset and a countable set $$A=P\cup C$$.

Now, I know two proofs of this theorem: one of them uses condensation points, and the other uses Cantor-Bendixson rank; but in the both cases the proof has a step that says "$$C$$ is a countable union of countable sets, and therefore countable...", which famously relies on AC$$_\omega(^\omega\omega)$$. But is this really necessary? If this is the case, one reasonable attempt is to construct a Polish space from a countable family of countable sets, but I don't see immediately how that can be carried out.

New contributor
Akira Satou is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.
• I don't know enough axiomatic set theory to be of much help, but in case you're interested, there is a 3rd proof: (from a lengthy late-1990s manuscript of mine that might one day see the light of day) "Three techniques have arisen to prove the Cantor-Bendixson theorem: transfinite iteration of the derived set operator (Cantor and Bendixson), the use of condensation points (Lindelöf), and the use a maximal dense-in-itself set (Hausdorff). Each of these methods has subsequently generated, through abstraction, its own circle of ideas and areas of applicability." Commented Jun 10 at 18:21

This is a ZF theorem, and is in fact equivalent to the reverse mathematical system $$\Pi^1_1-\mathrm{CA}_0$$ over the base theory $$\mathrm{RCA}_0$$ (this is in Simpson's reverse math textbook). It's worth reading Wikipedia's article "Reverse mathematics" — it has a great summary of such facts.

The Cantor-Bendixson rank argument is essentially already a ZF proof. Define a surjective partial map $$f: \omega \cong \mathbb{Q}^2 \rightharpoonup C$$ by sending $$(q_1, q_2)\mapsto p$$ if $$p$$ is the unique highest rank point in $$C \cap (q_1, q_2).$$

• I see, thanks! The concrete construction from rank argument makes it a lot easier to keep track of the axioms used Commented Jun 11 at 15:01

The answer by Glazer is incomplete in that open sets are coded/represented (in second-order reverse math and attendant lands) as countable unions of basic open balls. Such a representation is rather hard to obtain.

The full answer is as follows:

1. One can convert "third-order sets that are open" to the typical second-order representation (countable unions of basic open balls) in ZF. Actually, Kleene's quantifier $$\exists^3$$ is enough following [1].

2. Using the representation from 1), the second-order results provide the required decomposition, not using AC.

Similar results hold for lower semi-continuous functions, as the characteristic functions of open sets are among those (see [2]).

References

[1] Dag Normann and Sam Sanders, Open sets in computability theory and Reverse Mathematics, JLC, https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.02489.

[2] Dag Normann and Sam Sanders, The Biggest Five of Reverse Mathematics, JML.

• Thanks for the reference! Commented Jun 11 at 15:02