Zmiana struktury, teraz osobne pliki na każdą sekcję

1 files changed, 347 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/sections/preliminaries.tex b/sections/preliminaries.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..832beae
--- /dev/null
+++ b/sections/preliminaries.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,347 @@
+\documentclass[../lic_malinka.tex]{subfiles}
+
+\begin{document}
+  \subsection{Descriptive set theory}
+  \begin{definition} 
+    Suppose $X$ is a topological space and $A\subseteq X$.
+    We say that $A$ is \emph{meagre} in $X$ if $A = \bigcup_{n\in\bN}A_n$,
+    where $A_n$ are nowhere dense subsets of $X$ (i.e. $\Int(\bar{A_n})
+    = \emptyset$).  
+  \end{definition}
+
+  \begin{definition} 
+    We say that $A$ is \emph{comeagre} in $X$ if it is
+    a complement of a meagre set. Equivalently, a set is comeagre if and only if it
+    contains a countable intersection of open dense sets.  
+  \end{definition}
+
+      % \begin{example}
+  Every countable set is meagre in any $T_1$ space, so, for example, $\bQ$
+  is meagre in $\bR$ (although it is dense), which means that the set of
+  irrationals is comeagre. Another example is...
+      % \end{example}
+
+  \begin{definition}
+    We say that a topological space $X$ is a \emph{Baire space} if every
+    comeagre subset of $X$ is dense in $X$ (equivalently, every meagre set has
+    empty interior).  
+  \end{definition}
+
+  \begin{definition}
+    Suppose $X$ is a Baire space. We say that a property $P$ \emph{holds
+    generically} for a point $x\in X$ if $\{x\in X\mid P\textrm{ holds for
+    }x\}$ is comeagre in $X$.  
+  \end{definition}
+
+  \begin{definition} 
+	Let $X$ be a nonempty topological space and let
+    $A\subseteq X$. The \emph{Banach-Mazur game of $A$}, denoted as
+    $G^{\star\star}(A)$ is defined as follows: Players $I$ and
+    $\textit{II}$ take turns in playing nonempty open sets $U_0, V_0,
+    U_1, V_1,\ldots$ such that $U_0 \supseteq V_0 \supseteq U_1 \supseteq
+    V_1 \supseteq\ldots$. We say that player $\textit{II}$ wins the game if
+    $\bigcap_{n}V_n \subseteq A$.  
+  \end{definition}
+
+  There is an important theorem on the Banach-Mazur game: $A$ is comeagre
+  if and only if $\textit{II}$ can always choose sets $V_0, V_1, \ldots$ such that
+  it wins. Before we prove it we need to define notions necessary to
+  formalise and prove the theorem.
+
+  \begin{definition}
+    $T$ is \emph{the tree of all legal positions} in the Banach-Mazur game
+    $G^{\star\star}(A)$ when $T$ consists of all finite sequences $(W_0,
+    W_1,\ldots, W_n)$, where $W_i$ are nonempty open sets such that
+    $W_0\supseteq W_1\supseteq\ldots\supseteq W_n$. In other words, $T$ is
+    a pruned tree on $\{W\subseteq X\mid W \textrm{is open nonempty}\}$.
+  \end{definition} 
+
+  \begin{definition}
+    We say that $\sigma$ is \emph{a pruned subtree} of the tree of all legal
+    positions $T$ if $\sigma\subseteq T$, for any $(W_0, W_1, \ldots,
+    W_n)\in\sigma, n\ge 0$ there is a $W$ such that $(W_0, W_1,\ldots, W_n,
+    W)\in\sigma$ (it simply means that there's no finite branch in~$\sigma$) and
+	$(W_0, W_1,\ldots W_{n-1})\in\sigma$ (every node on a branch is in $\sigma$).
+  \end{definition}
+
+  \begin{definition}
+    Let $\sigma$ be a pruned subtree of the tree of all legal positions $T$. By
+    $[\sigma]$ we denote \emph{the set of all infinite branches of $\sigma$},
+    i.e. infinite sequences $(W_0, W_1, \ldots)$ such that $(W_0, W_1, \ldots
+    W_n)\in \sigma$ for any $n\in \bN$.  
+  \end{definition}
+
+  \begin{definition} 
+    A \emph{strategy} for $\textit{II}$ in
+    $G^{\star\star}(A)$ is a pruned subtree $\sigma\subseteq T$ such that
+    \begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)] 
+      \item $\sigma$ is nonempty, 
+      \item if $(U_0, V_0, \ldots, U_n, V_n)\in\sigma$, then for all open
+      nonempty $U_{n+1}\subseteq V_n$, $(U_0, V_0, \ldots, U_n, V_n,
+      U_{n+1})\in\sigma$, 
+      \item if $(U_0, V_0, \ldots, U_{n})\in\sigma$, then for a unique $V_n$,
+        $(U_0, V_0, \ldots,  U_{n}, V_n)\in\sigma$.
+    \end{enumerate} 
+  \end{definition}
+
+  Intuitively, a strategy $\sigma$ works as follows: $I$ starts playing
+  $U_0$ as any open subset of $X$, then $\textit{II}$ plays unique (by
+  (iii)) $V_0$ such that $(U_0, V_0)\in\sigma$. Then $I$ responds by
+  playing any $U_1\subseteq V_0$ and $\textit{II}$ plays unique $V_1$
+  such that $(U_0, V_0, U_1, V_1)\in\sigma$, etc.
+
+  \begin{definition} 
+    A strategy $\sigma$ is a \emph{winning strategy for $\textit{II}$} if for
+    any game $(U_0, V_0\ldots)\in [\sigma]$ player $\textit{II}$ wins, i.e.
+    $\bigcap_{n}V_n \subseteq A$.
+  \end{definition}
+
+  Now we can state the key theorem.
+
+  \begin{theorem}[Banach-Mazur, Oxtoby]
+  \label{theorem:banach_mazur_thm} 
+    Let $X$ be a nonempty topological space and let $A\subseteq X$. Then A is
+    comeagre $\Leftrightarrow$ $\textit{II}$ has a winning strategy in
+    $G^{\star\star}(A)$.
+  \end{theorem}
+
+  In order to prove it we add an auxiliary definition and lemma.
+  \begin{definition}
+    Let $S\subseteq\sigma$ be a pruned subtree of tree of all legal positions
+    $T$ and let $p=(U_0, V_0,\ldots, V_n)\in S$.  We say that S is
+    \emph{comprehensive for p} if the family $\cV_p = \{V_{n+1}\mid (U_0,
+    V_0,\ldots, V_n, U_{n+1}, V_{n+1})\in S\}$ (it may be that $n=-1$, which
+    means $p=\emptyset$) is pairwise disjoint and $\bigcup\cV_p$ is dense in
+    $V_n$ (where we think that $V_{-1} = X$).
+    We say that $S$ is \emph{comprehensive} if it is comprehensive for
+    each $p=(U_0, V_0,\ldots, V_n)\in S$.  
+  \end{definition}
+
+  \begin{fact} 
+    If $\sigma$ is a winning strategy for $\mathit{II}$ then
+    there exists a nonempty comprehensive $S\subseteq\sigma$. 
+  \end{fact}
+
+  \begin{proof}
+    We construct $S$ recursively as follows:
+    \begin{enumerate} 
+      \item $\emptyset\in S$, 
+      \item if $(U_0, V_0, \ldots, U_n)\in S$, then $(U_0, V_0, \ldots, U_n,
+        V_n)\in S$ for the unique $V_n$ given by the strategy $\sigma$, 
+      \item let $p = (U_0, V_0, \ldots, V_n)\in S$. For a possible player $I$'s
+        move $U_{n+1}\subseteq V_n$ let $U^\star_{n+1}$ be the unique set
+        player $\mathit{II}$ would respond with by $\sigma$. Now, by Zorn's
+        Lemma, let $\cU_p$ be a maximal collection of nonempty open subsets
+        $U_{n+1}\subseteq V_n$ such that the set $\{U^\star_{n+1}\mid
+        U_{n+1}\in\cU_p\}$ is pairwise disjoint.  Then put in $S$ all $(U_0,
+        V_0, \ldots, V_{n}, U_{n+1})$ such that $U_{n+1} \in \cU_p$. This way
+        $S$ is comprehensive for $p$: the family $\cV_p = \{V_{n+1}\mid (U_0,
+        V_0,\ldots, V_n, U_{n+1}, V_{n+1})\in S\}$ is exactly
+        $\{U^\star_{n+1}\mid U_{n+1}\in\cU_p\}$, which is pairwise disjoint and
+        $\bigcup\cV_p$ is obviously dense in $V_n$ by the maximality of $\cU_p$
+        -- if there was any open set $\tilde{U}_{n+1}\subseteq V_n$ disjoint
+        from $\bigcup\cV_p$, then $\tilde{U}^{\star}_{n+1}\subseteq
+        \tilde{U}_{n+1}$ would be also disjoint from $\bigcup\cV_p$, so the
+        family $\cU_p\cup\{\tilde{U}_{n+1}\}$ would violate the maximality of
+        $\cU_p$.  
+      \qedhere 
+    \end{enumerate} 
+  \end{proof}
+
+  \begin{lemma} 
+    \label{lemma:comprehensive_lemma}
+    Let $S$ be a nonempty comprehensive pruned subtree of a strategy $\sigma$.
+    Then:
+    \begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
+      \item For any open $V_n\subseteq X$ there is at most one $p=(U_0, V_0,
+        \ldots, U_n, V_n)\in S$.  
+      \item Let $S_n = \{V_n\mid (U_0, V_0, \ldots, V_n)\in S\}$ for $n\in\bN$
+        (i.e. $S_n$ is a family of all possible choices player $\textit{II}$
+        can make in its $n$-th move according to $S$). Then $\bigcup S_n$ is
+        open and dense in $X$.  
+      \item $S_n$ is a family of pairwise disjoint sets.  
+    \end{enumerate} 
+  \end{lemma}
+
+  \begin{proof} 
+    (i): Suppose that there are some $p = (U_0, V_0,\ldots,
+    U_n, V_n)$, $p'=(U'_0, V'_0, \ldots, U'_n, V'_n)$ such that $V_n
+    = V'_n$ and $p \neq p'$. Let $k$ be the smallest index such that those
+    sequences differ. We have two possibilities: 
+    \begin{itemize} 
+      \item $U_k = U'_k$ and $V_k\neq V'_k$ -- this cannot be true simply by
+        the fact that $S$ is a subset of a strategy (so $V_k$ is unique for
+        $U_k$). \item $U_k\neq U'_k$: by the comprehensiveness of $S$ we know 
+        that for $q =(U_0, V_0, \ldots, U_{k-1}, V_{k-1})$ the set $\cV_q$ is 
+        pairwise disjoint. Thus $V_k\cap V'_k=\emptyset$, because $V_k, V'_k\in 
+        \cV_q$. But this leads to a contradiction -- $V_n$ cannot be a nonempty 
+        subset of both $V_k, V'_k$.  
+    \end{itemize}
+
+    (ii): The lemma is proved by induction on $n$. For $n=0$ it follows
+    trivially from the definition of comprehensiveness. Now suppose the
+    lemma is true for $n$. Then the set $\bigcup_{V_n\in
+    S_n}\bigcup\cV_{p_{V_n}}$ (where $p_{V_n}$ is given uniquely from
+    (i)) is dense and open in $X$ by the induction hypothesis. But
+    $\bigcup S_{n+1}$ is exactly this set, thus it is dense and open in
+    $X$.
+
+    (iii): We will prove it by induction on $n$. Once again, the case $n
+    = 0$ follows from the comprehensiveness of $S$. Now suppose that the
+    sets in $S_n$ are pairwise disjoint. Take some $x \in V_{n+1}\in
+    S_{n+1}$. Of course $\bigcup S_n \supseteq \bigcup S_{n+1}$, thus by
+    the inductive hypothesis $x\in V_{n}$ for the unique $V_n\in S_n$. It
+    must be that $V_{n+1}\in \cV_{p_{V_n}}$, because $V_n$ is the only
+    superset of $V_{n+1}$ in $S_n$. But $\cV_{p_{V_n}}$ is disjoint, so
+    there is no other $V'_{n+1}\in \cV_{p_{V_n}}$ such that $x\in
+    V'_{n+1}$. Moreover, there is no such set in
+    $S_{n+1}\setminus\cV_{p_{V_n}}$, because those sets are disjoint from
+    $V_{n}$. Hence there is no $V'_{n+1}\in S_{n+1}$ other than $V_n$
+    such that $x\in V'_{n+1}$. We've chosen $x$ and $V_{n+1}$ arbitrarily,
+    so $S_{n+1}$ is pairwise disjoint.  
+  \end{proof}
+
+  Now we can move to the proof of the Banach-Mazur theorem.
+
+  \begin{proof}[Proof of theorem \ref{theorem:banach_mazur_thm}]
+    $\Rightarrow$: Let $(A_n)$ be a sequence of dense open sets with
+    $\bigcap_n A_n\subseteq A$.  The simply $\textit{II}$ plays $V_n
+    = U_n\cap A_n$, which is nonempty by the denseness of $A_n$.
+
+    $\Leftarrow$: Suppose $\textit{II}$ has a winning strategy $\sigma$.
+    We will show that $A$ is comeagre. Take a comprehensive $S\subseteq
+    \sigma$. We claim that $\mathcal{S} = \bigcap_n\bigcup S_n \subseteq
+    A$. By the lemma~\ref{lemma:comprehensive_lemma}, (ii) sets $\bigcup
+    S_n$ are open and dense, thus $A$ must be comeagre. Now we prove the
+    claim towards contradiction. 
+  
+    Suppose there is $x\in \mathcal{S}\setminus A$. By the lemma
+    \ref{lemma:comprehensive_lemma}, (iii) for any $n$ there is unique
+    $x\in V_n\in S_n$. It follows that $p_{V_0}\subset
+    p_{V_1}\subset\ldots$. Now the game $(U_0, V_0, U_1, V_1,\ldots)
+    = \bigcup_n p_{V_n}\in [S]\subseteq [\sigma]$ is not winning for
+  player $\textit{II}$, which contradicts the assumption that $\sigma$ is
+  a winning strategy.  \end{proof}
+
+  \begin{corollary} 
+    \label{corollary:banach-mazur-basis} 
+    If we add a constraint to the Banach-Mazur game such that players can only 
+    choose basic open sets, then the theorem \ref{theorem:banach_mazur_thm} 
+    still suffices.  
+  \end{corollary}
+
+  \begin{proof} 
+    If one adds the word \textit{basic} before each occurrence
+    of word \textit{open} in previous proofs and theorems then they all
+    will still be valid (except for $\Rightarrow$, but its an easy fix --
+    take $V_n$ a basic open subset of $U_n\cap A_n$).  
+  \end{proof}
+
+  This corollary will be important in using the theorem in practice --
+  it's much easier to work with basic open sets rather than any open
+  sets.
+
+  \subsection{Category theory}
+
+  In this section we will give a short introduction to the notions of
+  category theory that will be necessary to generalize the key result of the
+  paper.
+
+  We will use a standard notation. If the reader is interested in detailed
+  introduction to the category theory, then it's recommended to take a look
+  at \cite{maclane_1978}. Here we will shortly describe the standard notation.
+
+  A \emph{category} $\cC$ consists of the collection of objects (denoted as
+  $\Obj(\cC)$, but most often simply as $\cC$) and collection of \emph{morphisms}
+  $\Mor(A, B)$ between each pair of objects $A, B\in \cC$. We require that
+  for each morphisms $f\colon B\to C$, $g\colon A\to B$ there is a morphism
+  $f\circ g\colon A\to C$. For every $A\in\cC$ there is an 
+  \emph{identity morphism} $\id_A$ such that for any morphism $f\in \Mor(A, B)$
+  it follows that $f\circ id_A = \id_B \circ f$.
+
+  We say that $f\colon A\to B$ is \emph{isomorphism} if there is (necessarily
+  unique) morphism $g\colon B\to A$ such that $g\circ f = id_A$ and $f\circ g = id_B$.
+  Automorphism is an isomorphism where $A = B$.
+
+  A \emph{functor} is a ``homeomorphism`` of categories. We say that 
+  $F\colon\cC\to\cD$ is a functor
+  from category $\cC$ to category $\cD$ if it associates each object $A\in\cC$
+  with an object $F(A)\in\cD$, associates each morphism $f\colon A\to B$ in
+  $\cC$ with a morphism $F(f)\colon F(A)\to F(B)$. We also require that 
+  $F(\id_A) = \id_{F(A)}$ and that for any (compatible) morphisms $f, g$ in $\cC$
+  $F(f\circ g) = F(f) \circ F(g)$.
+
+  In category theory we distinguish \emph{covariant} and \emph{contravariant}
+  functors. Here, we only consider \emph{covariant functors}, so we will simply
+  say \emph{functor}.
+
+  \begin{fact}
+	\label{fact:functor_iso}
+	Functor $F\colon\cC\to\cD$ maps isomorphism $f\colon A\to B$ in $\cC$
+	to the isomorphism $F(f)\colon F(A)\to F(B)$ in $\cD$.
+  \end{fact}
+
+  Notion that will be very important for us is a ``morphism of functors``
+  which is called \emph{natural transformation}.
+  \begin{definition}
+	Let $F, G$ be functors between the categories $\cC, \cD$. A \emph{natural 
+	transformation}
+	$\tau$ is function that assigns to each object $A$ of $\cC$ a morphism $\tau_A$
+	in $\Mor(F(A), G(A))$ such that for every morphism $f\colon A\to B$ in $\cC$
+	the following diagram commutes:
+
+    \begin{center}
+      \begin{tikzcd}
+		A \arrow[d, "f"] & F(A) \arrow[r, "\tau_A"] \arrow[d, "F(f)"] & G(A) \arrow[d, "G(f)"] \\
+		B & F(B) \arrow[r, "\tau_B"] & G(B) \\ 
+      \end{tikzcd}
+    \end{center}
+  \end{definition}
+
+  \begin{definition}
+	In category theory, a \emph{diagram} of type $\mathcal{J}$ in category $\cC$
+	is a functor $D\colon \mathcal{J}\to\cC$. $\mathcal{J}$ is called the
+	\emph{index category} of $D$. In other words, $D$ is of \emph{shape} $\mathcal{J}$.
+
+	For example, $\mathcal{J} = \{-1\leftarrow 0 \rightarrow 1\}$, then a diagram
+	$D\colon\mathcal{J}\to \cC$ is called a \emph{cospan}. For example,
+	if $A, B, C$ are objects of $\cC$ and $f\in\Mor(C, A), g\in\Mor(C, B)$, then
+	the following diagram is a cospan:
+
+    \begin{center}
+      \begin{tikzcd}
+		A &  & B \\
+		& C \arrow[ur, "g"'] \arrow[ul, "f"] &
+      \end{tikzcd}
+    \end{center}
+  \end{definition}
+
+  From now we omit explicit definition of the index category, as it is easily
+  referable from a picture.
+
+  \begin{definition}
+	Let $A, B, C, D$ be objects in the category $\cC$ with morphisms
+	$e\colon C\to A, f\colon C\to B, g\colon A\to D, h\colon B\to D$ such
+	that $g\circ e = h\circ f$.
+	Then the following diagram:
+    \begin{center}
+      \begin{tikzcd}
+		& D & \\
+		A \arrow[ur, "g"] &  & B \arrow[ul, "h"'] \\
+		& C \arrow[ur, "e"'] \arrow[ul, "f"] &
+      \end{tikzcd}
+    \end{center}
+	
+	is called a \emph{pushout} diagram 
+  \end{definition}
+
+  \begin{definition}
+	The \emph{cospan category} of category $\cC$, refered to as $\Cospan(\cC)$,
+	is the category of cospan diagrams of $\cC$, where morphisms between
+	two cospans are normal transformations of the underlying functors.
+
+	We define \emph{pushout category} analogously and call it $\Pushout(\cC)$.
+  \end{definition}
+
+  TODO: dodać tu przykład?
+\end{document}