---
abstract: 'We study $\Sigma^1_2$ definable counterparts for some algebraic equivalent forms of the Continuum Hypothesis. All turn out to be equivalent to <span>"all reals are constructible"</span>.'
author:
- Silvia Steila
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: 'Some algebraic equivalent forms of ${\mathbb{R}}\subseteq L$ '
---

Introduction
============

Sierpinski showed that the Continuum Hypothesis (CH) holds if and only if there are sets $A, B \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^2$ such that $A \cup B ={\mathbb{R}}^2$ and for any $a,b \in {\mathbb{R}}$ the sections $A_a={\left\lbrace y : (a,y) \in A \right\rbrace}$ and $B^b= {\left\lbrace x : (x,b) \in B \right\rbrace}$ are countable @Sierpinski. In @TornquistWeiss1 [@TornquistWeiss] Törnquist and Weiss studied many $\Sigma^1_2$ definable versions of some equivalent forms of CH which happen to be equivalent to <span>"all reals are constructible"</span>. For instance, they proved the $\Sigma^1_2$ counterpart of Sierpinski's equivalence: ${\mathbb{R}}\subseteq L$ if and only if there are $\Sigma^1_2$ sets $A, B \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^2$ such that $A_1 \cup A_2 ={\mathbb{R}}^2$ and for any $a,b \in {\mathbb{R}}$ all sections $A_a={\left\lbrace y : (a,y) \in A \right\rbrace}$ and $B^b= {\left\lbrace x : (x,b) \in B \right\rbrace}$ are countable.

We follow their scheme to get some algebraic forms of ${\mathbb{R}}\subseteq L$. While Törnquist and Weiss considered $\Sigma^2_1$ statements of the form <span>"there exist finitely many objects such that something happens"</span>, the first algebraic statements we analyze, namely the $\Sigma^1_2$ counterparts of Erds and Kakutani's equivalence @ErdosKakutani and of Zoli's equivalence @Zoli, require the existence of countably many objects.

\[Thm:1\] The following are equivalent:

1.  ${\mathbb{R}}\subseteq L$;

2.  there is a countable partition of ${\mathbb{R}}$ into $\Sigma^1_2$-uniformly definable subsets consisting only of rationally independent numbers;

3.  the set of all transcendental reals is the union of countably many uniformly $\Sigma^1_2$ definable algebraically independent subsets.

As side results, the proof we present for the $\Sigma^1_2$ definable versions provides a generalization of both the equivalences by Erds-Kakutani and Zoli, where CH and <span>"countably many"</span> in the original theorems are replaced by $2^{\aleph_0}\leq \kappa^+$ and <span>"$\kappa$-many"</span>.

Then we study the $\Sigma^1_2$ version of polynomial avoidance and Schmerl's results @Schmerl, by introducing a $\Sigma^1_2$ version of $m$-avoidance, for $m \in \omega$. As a corollary we obtain the $\Sigma^1_2$ counterpart of a theorem by Erds and Komjáth @ErdosKomjath:

\[Thm:2\] ${\mathbb{R}}\subseteq L$ if and only if there exists a $\Sigma^1_2$ coloring of the plane in countably many colors with no monochromatic right-angled triangle.

#### Plan of the paper.

The main results are organized in three sections. In Section \[section: ErdosKakutani\] we prove the first part of Theorem \[Thm:1\] (i.e. (1) iff (2)) and in Section \[section: Zoli\] we prove the second part of Theorem \[Thm:1\] (i.e. (1) iff (3)). Schmerl's results and Theorem \[Thm:2\] are shown in Section \[section: Schmerl\]. Each section starts with a short introduction and a generalization of the classical result, before presenting the definable counterpart.

Preliminaries {#section: preliminaries}
=============

A set is $\Sigma^1_2$ if there exists a $\Sigma^1_2$ predicate which defines it, and a function is $\Sigma^1_2$ if its graph is. A set is $\Delta^1_2$ if both it and its complement are $\Sigma^1_2$. Observe that all notions are intended lightface. For details we refer to @Moschovakis.

A $\Delta^1_2$ well-ordering $\prec$ is *strong* if it has length $\omega_1$ and if for any $P \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}\times {\mathbb{R}}$ which is $\Sigma^1_2$, $$\forall z \prec y P(x,z)$$ is $\Sigma^1_2$ as well.

For short we denote $x_{\prec} = {\left\lbrace z: z \prec x \right\rbrace}$. Given a $\Delta^1_2$ strong well-ordering $\prec$, $P \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^{<\omega} \times {\mathbb{R}}$ $\Sigma^1_2$ and $x, y \in {\mathbb{R}}$, $\forall s \in (x_{\prec})^{<\omega} P(s,y)$ is $\Sigma^1_2$. The existence of a $\Delta^1_2$ strong well-ordering of ${\mathbb{R}}$ is equivalent to requiring that the initial segment relation $\operatorname{IS}\subseteq {\mathbb{R}}\times {\mathbb{R}}^{{\leq}\omega}$ defined by $$\operatorname{IS}(x,y) \iff \forall z (z \prec x \iff  \exists n(y(n)= z)) \wedge \forall i, j (y(i) = y(j) \implies i=j),$$ is $\Delta^1_2$. We also use the function $\operatorname{IS}^*: {\mathbb{R}}\to {\mathbb{R}}^{\leq \omega}$ which defines the initial segment of a given real: $$\operatorname{IS}^*(x)= v \iff \operatorname{IS}(x,v) \wedge (\forall w \prec^* v)\neg\operatorname{IS}(x,w).$$ where $\prec^*$ is the product order in ${\mathbb{R}}^{{\leq}\omega}$ induced by $\prec$. If ${\mathbb{R}}\subseteq L$ then there exists a $\Delta^1_2$ strong well-ordering of reals which is the usual well-ordering of ${\mathbb{R}}$ in $L$ (see e.g. @kanamori).

For short, let $S$ be an equivalent form of CH. As shown by Törnquist and Weiss, proving that CH implies $S$ can often be directly made into a proof of the effective implication, using the $\Delta^1_2$ strong well-ordering of reals.

Vice versa, from a proof of <span>"$S$ implies CH"</span> we cannot usually extract a proof of the effective implication. To this end, we need some properties of $L$, mainly a corollary of a theorem by Mansfield and Solovay: if a $\Sigma^1_2$ set contains a non-constructible real then it is uncountable. This result does not explicitly appear in this paper, since the use of the perfect set property is hidden in the proof of the $\Sigma^1_2$ version of two partition results, proved by Törnquist and Weiss, that we are going to apply. Both are $\Sigma^1_2$ counterparts of partition results by Komj<span>á</span>th and Totik @KomjathTotik.

\[Komjáth, Totik\]\[prop: KomjathTotik\] \[cor: KomjathTotik\]  

1.  Let $\kappa$ be an infinite cardinal, $|A|= \kappa^+$, $|B| = (\kappa^+)^+$, and $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$. If $f: A \times B \to \kappa$, then there exist $A' \subseteq A$, $B' \subseteq B$, $|A'|=|B'|=k$ such that $A' \times B'$ is monochromatic.

2.  If $\neg CH$, then for any coloring $g: {\mathbb{R}}\to \omega$ there are distinct $x_{00},x_{01},x_{10},x_{11} \in {\mathbb{R}}$ of the same color such that $x_{00}+x_{11}=x_{01}+x_{10}.$

\[Törnquist, Weiss\]\[theorem: CD\] \[theorem: schur\]  

1.  There is a non-constructible real if and only if for any $x \in {\mathbb{R}}\cap L$, for any $\Sigma^1_2(x)$ coloring $f: {\mathbb{R}}\times {\mathbb{R}}\rightarrow \omega$ and for any $k\in \omega$ there are $C,\ D \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}$ such that $|C|=|D|=k$ and $f {\upharpoonright}C \times D$ is monochromatic.

2.  There is a non-constructible real if and only if for any $\Sigma^1_2$ coloring $g: {\mathbb{R}}\rightarrow \omega$ there are four distinct $x_{00},x_{01},x_{10},x_{11}\in {\mathbb{R}}$ of the same color such that $
        x_{00} + x_{11} = x_{01} + x_{10}.
    $

We mainly work in ${\mathbb{R}}$, but sometimes we also work in different recursively presented Polish spaces, as ${\mathbb{R}}^{\leq \omega}$. This is not a problem in our setting, since between any two recursively presented Polish spaces there is a $\Delta^1_1$ bijection.

Rationally independent sets {#section: ErdosKakutani}
===========================

In @ErdosKakutani Erds and Kakutani proved there is a close connection between CH and the existence of some special rationally independent subsets of reals. We prove a generalization of Erds and Kakutani's equivalence. Recall that a set $X \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}$ is rationally independent if for any $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$, $x_0, \dots, x_{n-1} \in X$ and for any $q_0, \dots, q_{n-1} \in {\mathbb{Q}}\setminus{\left\lbrace 0 \right\rbrace}$ we have: $$\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} q_ix_i \neq 0.$$

First of all, following Komj<span>á</span>th and Totik, we get a straightforward generalization of Proposition \[cor: KomjathTotik\].2.

\[prop: KomjathTotikK\] If $2^{\aleph_0} \geq (\kappa^+)^+$, then for any coloring $g: {\mathbb{R}}\to \kappa$ there are distinct $x_{00},x_{01},x_{10},x_{11} \in {\mathbb{R}}$ of the same color such that $x_{00}+x_{11}=x_{01}+x_{10}.$

Assume that $2^{\aleph_0} \geq (\kappa^+)^+$ and consider any $g:{\mathbb{R}}\to \kappa$. Take an injection $i:(\kappa^+)^+ \hookrightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ and define $i':(\kappa^+)^+ \hookrightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ such that $\mbox{ran}(i')$ is rationally independent. Put $i'(\alpha) = i(\beta)$ for $\beta= \mu \gamma \in (\kappa^+)^+ (\forall s \in ({\mathbb{Q}}\setminus {\left\lbrace 0 \right\rbrace})^{<\omega} \forall t \in \gamma^{<\omega} ( \operatorname{dom}(s) = \operatorname{dom}(t) \implies \sum_{j=0}^{dom(s)} s(j)i(t(j)) \neq i(\gamma)))$. Let $${\left\lbrace a_\alpha : \alpha < \kappa^+ \right\rbrace}\cup {\left\lbrace b_\beta : \beta < (\kappa^+)^+ \right\rbrace}$$ be a rationally independent set, and define the following coloring: $$\begin{array}{rrcl}
    f: & \kappa^+ \times (\kappa^+)^+  & \longrightarrow & \kappa \\
       & (\alpha, \beta) &\longmapsto & g(a_\alpha + b_\beta)
\end{array}$$ Thanks to Proposition \[prop: KomjathTotik\].1 there exist $\alpha_0, \alpha_1\in \kappa^+$ and $\beta_0, \beta_1 \in (\kappa^+)^+ $ such that ${\left\lbrace \alpha_0, \alpha_1 \right\rbrace} \times {\left\lbrace \beta_0, \beta_1 \right\rbrace}$ is monochromatic. Define $x_{ij}= \alpha_i + \beta_j$ for any $i, j \in 2$. They are distinct and they satisfy $x_{00}+x_{11}=x_{01}+x_{10}$.

Recall that $H \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}$ is a Hamel basis if both $H$ is rationally independent and $H$ is a basis of ${\mathbb{R}}$ over ${\mathbb{Q}}$.

\[theorem: ErdosKakutaniK\] We have $2^{\aleph_0} \leq \kappa^+$ if and only if ${\mathbb{R}}\setminus {\left\lbrace 0 \right\rbrace}$ can be covered by $\kappa$-many rationally independent sets.

<span>"$\Rightarrow$"</span>. Assume that $2^{\aleph_0} \leq \kappa^+$, and let $H$ be a Hamel basis for ${\mathbb{R}}$. Take an injection $f: {\mathbb{R}}\hookrightarrow \kappa^+$ and define the order $\vartriangleleft$ of length ${\leq}\kappa^+$ of ${\mathbb{R}}$ by $x \vartriangleleft y$ if and only if $f(x) <f(y)$. For any natural number $n >0$ and for any $s \in ({\mathbb{Q}}\setminus {\left\lbrace 0 \right\rbrace})^{n}$, define $$\label{form:hamel1a}
    s\cdot H^n= {\left\lbrace x: \exists h_0 \vartriangleleft  \dots \vartriangleleft  h_{n-1} \in H {\left(  x= \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} s(i) h_i \right)} \right\rbrace}.$$

First notice that as $H$ is a Hamel basis, ${\mathbb{R}}\setminus {\left\lbrace 0 \right\rbrace}$ is covered by all sets $s\cdot H^n$ for $s \in ({\mathbb{Q}}\setminus {\left\lbrace 0 \right\rbrace})^n$. So it suffices to show the result for all sets $s \cdot H^n$. From now on fix $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and $s \in ({\mathbb{Q}}\setminus {\left\lbrace 0 \right\rbrace})^{n}$. Note if $n=1$ as $H$ is rationally independent the result is trivial, so assume that $n>1$.

Given $x \in s\cdot H^n$, define $\operatorname{last}(x)$ as the greatest element of $H$ which appears in (\[form:hamel1a\]) (i.e. $h_{n-1}$). For any $h \in H$ define $$s \cdot (H^{n-1}h) = {\left\lbrace  x \in s \cdot H^n : \operatorname{last}(x)=h \right\rbrace}.$$ Given $h \in H$ let $\gamma_h = |s \cdot (H^{n-1}h)|$. Observe that $\gamma_h \leq \kappa$ since $|H|=\kappa^+$. Therefore for any $h \in H$ we can fix an enumeration: $$s \cdot (H^{n-1}h)={\left\lbrace x^h_\alpha: \alpha < \gamma_h \right\rbrace}.$$ Finally, for any $\alpha < \kappa$ let $S_{s,\alpha}$ be the set of $\alpha$-th elements of any $s \cdot (H^{n-1}h)$ for $h \in H$; i.e. $$S_{s,\alpha}={\left\lbrace x^h_\alpha : h \in H  \wedge \alpha < \gamma_h \right\rbrace}.$$ Therefore we have $${\mathbb{R}}\setminus {\left\lbrace 0 \right\rbrace}=\bigcup {\left\lbrace S_{s,\alpha}: s \in ( {\mathbb{Q}}\setminus {\left\lbrace 0 \right\rbrace})^{<\omega} \wedge \alpha <\kappa \right\rbrace}.$$ We claim that for any $\alpha < \kappa$, $S_{s,\alpha}$ is rationally independent. Indeed, assume by contradiction that $$\label{form:hamel2a}
            \sum_{i=0}^{k} p_i x_i=0,$$ where for any $i \in k+1$:

-   $x_i \in S_{s,\alpha}$;

-   for any $j \in k+1$, $x_i \neq x_j$;

-   $p_i$ is a not null integer.

By construction, for any two distinct elements $x_1, x_2 \in S_{s,\alpha}$, $\operatorname{last}(x_1) \neq \operatorname{last}(x_2)$. Then there would exist an integer $i_0 \in k+1$ for which $\operatorname{last}(x_{i_0}) > \operatorname{last}(x_i) $ for any $i \in k+1 \setminus{\left\lbrace i_0 \right\rbrace}$. Hence in the expansion (\[form:hamel1a\]) of all $x_i$, $\operatorname{last}(x_{i_0})$ would appear only once, which is impossible because of (\[form:hamel2a\]) and $H$ rationally independent.

<span>"$\Leftarrow$."</span> Let ${\mathbb{R}}\setminus {\left\lbrace 0 \right\rbrace} = \bigcup {\left\lbrace S_\alpha : \alpha \in \kappa \right\rbrace}$, where each $S_\alpha$ is a rationally independent set. Assume by contradiction that $2^{\aleph_0} > \kappa^+$ and define $g : {\mathbb{R}}\to \kappa$ such that $g(0) = 0$ and for any $x \in {\mathbb{R}}\setminus {\left\lbrace 0 \right\rbrace}$ $$g(x)= \alpha + 1 \iff  x \in S_\alpha \wedge \forall \beta < \alpha (x \notin S_\beta).$$ Applying Proposition \[prop: KomjathTotikK\] we get $x_{00},\ x_{10},\ x_{01},\ x_{11} \in {\mathbb{R}}\setminus{\left\lbrace 0 \right\rbrace} $ such that $x_{00},\ x_{10},\ x_{01},\ x_{11} \in S_\alpha$ for some $\alpha \in \kappa$ which are rationally dependent. Contradiction.

The proof of the first implication follows the one by Erds and Kakutani's result, while the argument for the vice versa, as far as we know, is new. The original proof uses a tree argument, which cannot be easily adapted to the $\Sigma^1_2$ version.

\[rmk: disjointHamel\] Note that in the proof of Theorem \[theorem: ErdosKakutaniK\] the subsets $S_{s,\alpha}$, for $s \in ({\mathbb{Q}}\setminus{\left\lbrace 0 \right\rbrace})^{<\omega}$ and $\alpha \in \kappa$, are disjoint.

Definable counterpart
---------------------

We prove that ${\mathbb{R}}\subseteq L$ holds if and only if ${\mathbb{R}}\setminus {\left\lbrace 0 \right\rbrace}$ can be decomposed in countably many rationally independent subsets of reals which are uniformly definable by a $\Sigma^1_2$ predicate. The proof follows very closely the one of Theorem \[theorem: ErdosKakutaniK\]: we need only to check that if there is a $\Delta^1_2$-strong well-ordering of ${\mathbb{R}}$ then the sets provided by Erds and Kakutani's argument are uniformly $\Sigma^1_2$. For the opposite implication we apply Proposition \[theorem: schur\].2, the $\Sigma^1_2$ counterpart of Proposition \[prop: KomjathTotikK\].

As a first step we considered a Hamel basis for ${\mathbb{R}}$. In @Miller Miller proved that if $V=L$ then there is a $\Pi^1_1$ Hamel basis. For our goal it is sufficient to provide a $\Delta^1_2$ one, under the condition ${\mathbb{R}}\subseteq L$. The proof is straightforward and it should be well-known. However, since we have not found any reference for this proof, we show the argument.

\[lemma: HamelBasis\] If ${\mathbb{R}}\subseteq L$ then there exists a $\Delta^1_2$ Hamel basis for ${\mathbb{R}}$.

Let $\prec$ be a $\Delta^1_2$-strong well-ordering of ${\mathbb{R}}$. Define $$h \in H \iff \forall s \in (h_\prec)^{<\omega} \ \forall t \in ({\mathbb{Q}}\setminus {\left\lbrace 0 \right\rbrace})^{<\omega}( \operatorname{dom}(s)=\operatorname{dom}(t) \implies h \neq \sum_{i=0}^{\operatorname{dom}(s)} t(i)s(i)).$$

By definition $H$ is rationally independent. We prove that $H$ generates ${\mathbb{R}}$. Take $x \in {\mathbb{R}}$ and prove that there exist $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$, $h_0, \dots, h_{n-1} \in H$ and $q_0, \dots, q_{n-1} \in {\mathbb{Q}}$ such that $x = \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} q_ih_i$. Proceed by induction on $\prec$. If $x$ has no $\prec$-predecessors then it belongs to $H$. Assume that the assertion holds for any $y$ such that $y\prec x$. If $x \in H$ we are done. Otherwise there exist some $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$, $x_0 \prec \dots \prec x_{n-1} \prec x$ and $q_0, \dots, q_{n-1} \in {\mathbb{Q}}\setminus{\left\lbrace 0 \right\rbrace}$ such that $x = \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} q_ix_i$. As all $x_i$ are generated by $H$, so is $x$.

\[theorem: EKdefinable\] ${\mathbb{R}}\subseteq L$ if and only if there is a countable decomposition of ${\mathbb{R}}\setminus {\left\lbrace 0 \right\rbrace}$ into $\Sigma^1_2$-uniformly definable subsets consisting only of rationally independent numbers.

<span>"$\Rightarrow$"</span>. Assume that ${\mathbb{R}}\subseteq L$, and let $H$ be a $\Delta^1_2$ Hamel basis for ${\mathbb{R}}$, which exists thanks to Lemma \[lemma: HamelBasis\]. For any natural number $n$, for any sequence $s \in ({\mathbb{Q}}\setminus{\left\lbrace 0 \right\rbrace})^{n}$ and for any $h \in H$ define $s\cdot H^n$ and $s\cdot(H^{n-1}h)$ as in the proof of Theorem \[theorem: ErdosKakutaniK\]. Then $${\mathbb{R}}\setminus \{0\} = \bigsqcup {\left\lbrace s \cdot H^{n-1}: n \in \omega, s \in ({\mathbb{Q}}\setminus{\left\lbrace 0 \right\rbrace})^{n} \right\rbrace}.$$ As observed in Remark \[rmk: disjointHamel\] this is a disjoint union. Fix a natural number $n$ and a sequence $s\in ({\mathbb{Q}}\setminus{\left\lbrace 0 \right\rbrace})^{n}$. We want to define countably many disjoint subsets of $s \cdot H^n$ such that each one contains at most one element of $s \cdot (H^{n-1}h)$ for any $h \in H$. To this end, given an increasing finite sequence of natural numbers $t \in {\mathbb{N}}^{n-1}$, define $S_{s,t}$ to be the subset of $s\cdot H^n$ which consists of elements of the form $x = \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} s(i)h_i$ for some $h_0 \prec \dots \prec h_{n-1} \in H$ such that for any $i \in n-1$, $h_i$ is the $t(i)$-th predecessor of $h_{n-1}$. Therefore $$\begin{gathered}
               S_{s,t}=\{x : \exists h \in H \exists v \in {\mathbb{R}}^{\leq \omega}(\operatorname{IS}^*(h) = v \wedge  \forall i \in n-1 (v(t(i)) \in H)\\
               \wedge x = \sum_{i=0}^{n-2} s(i) v(t(i)) + s(n-1)h )\}.
         \end{gathered}$$ By construction $\operatorname{last}(x_1)\neq \operatorname{last}(x_2)$ for any $x_1, \ x_2 \in S_{s,t}$ such that $x_1 \neq x_2$. Moreover we have $
               s\cdot H^n = \bigsqcup {\left\lbrace  S_{s,t}: {t \in {\mathbb{N}}^{n-1}} \right\rbrace}.
        $ The sets $S_{s,t}$, where $s \in {\mathbb{Q}}^{<\omega}$ and $t \in {\mathbb{N}}^{<\omega}$, are uniformly definable by the following $\Sigma^1_2$ formula. $$\begin{gathered}
        \psi(x,n,s, t) \iff s \in {\mathbb{Q}}^{<\omega} \wedge t \in {\mathbb{N}}^{<\omega} \wedge \operatorname{dom}(s)= n \wedge \operatorname{dom}(t)=n-1 \\
        \wedge \forall i \in n-2 (t(i) < t(i+1)) \wedge \exists h \exists v \in {\mathbb{R}}^{\leq \omega}\Big[ h \in H \wedge \operatorname{IS}^*(h)=v\\
        \wedge \forall i \in n-1 (v(t(i)) \in H) \wedge x= \sum_{i=0}^{n-2} s(i) v(t(i))+s(n-1)h\Big].
        \end{gathered}$$

Notice to conclude that rationally independence of the set $S_{s,t}$ holds with the same argument of Theorem \[theorem: ErdosKakutaniK\].

<span>"$\Leftarrow$"</span>. Let ${\mathbb{R}}\setminus {\left\lbrace 0 \right\rbrace}=\bigsqcup{\left\lbrace  S_i: {i \in \omega} \right\rbrace}$, where $S_i$ are uniformly $\Sigma^1_2$ definable rationally independent sets. Let define $g: {\mathbb{R}}\rightarrow \omega$ such that $g(0)=0$ and for any $x \in {\mathbb{R}}\setminus {\left\lbrace 0 \right\rbrace}$ $$g(x)=i+1 \iff x \in S_i.$$ Since by hypothesis the $S_i$ are uniformly definable by a $\Sigma^1_2$ formula, $g$ is $\Sigma^1_2$. Suppose by contradiction that ${\mathbb{R}}\nsubseteq L$, then by applying Proposition \[theorem: schur\].2 there exist $x_{00}, x_{01}, x_{10}, x_{11} \in {\mathbb{R}}\setminus {\left\lbrace 0 \right\rbrace}$ such that $x_{00}, x_{01}, x_{10}, x_{11} \in S_i$ for some $i \in \omega$ and $x_{00} + x_{11} =x_{01} +x_{10}.$ So there are four distinct elements of $S_i$ which are rationally dependent. Contradiction.

Algebraically independent sets {#section: Zoli}
==============================

Zoli in @Zoli proved a connection between CH and the existence of a decomposition of transcendental reals in algebraically independent sets. We provide a generalization of Zoli's result.

Given two fields $K_1 \subseteq K_2$, we say that $x \in K_2$ is algebraic over $K_1$ if there exists a polynomial $p$ in $K_1[X]$ (not null) such that $p(x)=0$. If $x \in K_2$ is not algebraic over $K_1$, then it is called transcendental over $K_1$. We denote by $\operatorname{alg}_{K_2}{K_1}$ the subfield of $K_2$ consisting of algebraic elements over $K_1$. Given $x \in K_2$, $K_1(x)$ is the field extension generated by $x$. $S \subseteq K_2$ is algebraically dependent over $K_1$ if there exist $x_0, \dots, x_n \in S$ such that $x_{n}$ is algebraic over $K_1(x_0,\dots, x_{n-1})$. A transcendence basis $T$ is a subset of reals which is algebraically independent over ${\mathbb{Q}}$ and maximal.

\[Folklore\]\[lemma: tran2\] Let $K_1 \subseteq K_2$ be a field extension.

-   Let $S \subseteq K_2$. If $x \in \operatorname{alg}_{K_2}K_1(S) \setminus \operatorname{alg}_{K_2}K_1$, then $S$ is algebraically independent over $K_1(x)$.

-   Let $T$ be a transcendence basis for $K_2$ over $K_1$. To each $x \in K_2$ there corresponds a unique minimal (finite) subset $S$ of $T$ such that $x \in \operatorname{alg}_{K_2} K_1(S)$.

For a proof we refer to @Zoli.

\[theorem: ZoliK\] We have $2^{\aleph_0}\leq \kappa^+$ if and only if the set of all transcendental reals is union of $\kappa$-many algebraically independent sets.

<span>"$\Rightarrow$"</span>. Assume that $2^{\aleph_0} \leq \kappa^+$, and let $T$ be a transcendence basis. Fix $f: {\mathbb{R}}\hookrightarrow \kappa^+$ and define a well ordering of length $\kappa^+$ of reals: $x \vartriangleleft y$ if and only if $f(x) < f(y)$. By Lemma \[lemma: tran2\] each $x \in {\mathbb{R}}\setminus {\operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}({\mathbb{Q}})}$ corresponds to a unique $n(x) \in \omega$ and a sequence $t_0(x) < \dots < t_{n(x)}(x) \in T$ such that

$$\label{form: trans1a}
        x \in \operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}{\mathbb{Q}}\big(t_0(x),\dots, t_{n(x)}(x)\big) \setminus \bigcup_{i \in n(x)+1} \operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}{\mathbb{Q}}(T\setminus {\left\lbrace t_i(x) \right\rbrace}).$$

For any $n\in\omega$, define the set $\overline{T}_n$ of all transcendental numbers for which the cardinality of the minimum subset provided by Lemma \[lemma: tran2\] is $n+1$; i.e. $$\overline{T}_n={\left\lbrace x \in {\mathbb{R}}\setminus {\operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}({\mathbb{Q}})}: n(x) = n \right\rbrace}.$$ Thus ${\mathbb{R}}\setminus {\operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}({\mathbb{Q}})}= \bigcup{\left\lbrace \overline{T}_n: n \in \omega \right\rbrace}$. For any $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$, $t \in {\mathbb{R}}$ define $\overline{T}_{n, t}$ as: $$\begin{aligned}
        \overline{T}_{n, t} = \{ x : x \in \overline{T}_n &\wedge  t_n(x) = t \}.
    \end{aligned}$$ Notice that $T$ has cardinality $\kappa^+$ and therefore $\overline{T}_{n, t}$ has cardinality at most $\kappa$. Hence fix an enumeration $\overline{T}_{n,t}={\left\lbrace x^{n,t}_\alpha: \alpha < \kappa \right\rbrace}$ and define $$\begin{aligned}
            S_{\alpha} &= \{ x_\alpha^{n,t} : n \in \omega \wedge t \in T \},
        \end{aligned}$$

Observe that ${\mathbb{R}}\setminus {\operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}({\mathbb{Q}})}$ is covered by all sets $S_\alpha$ for $\alpha \in \kappa$. In order to complete this proof we have to show that any set $ S_{\alpha}$ is algebraically independent. Fix $\alpha \in \kappa$ in order to prove that any $x_0, \dots, x_{k-1} \in S_\alpha$ are algebraically independent. We prove it by induction over $k$.

Assume that $k=0$, then since $S_\alpha \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}\setminus {\operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}({\mathbb{Q}})}$ we are done. Now assume that it holds for $k$ and prove it for $k+1$. Therefore consider $x_0, \dots, x_{k} \in S_\alpha$ . By construction, for any two elements of $S_\alpha$ we have $t_n(x)\neq t_n(y)$. Thus without loss of generality we can assume that $t_n(x_k) > t_n(x_i)$ for any $i\in k$. Assume by contradiction that there exists $i \in k+1$ such that $x_i \in \operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}{\mathbb{Q}}(x_0, \dots, x_{i-1},x_{i+1},\dots, x_k)$. There are two cases.

-   If $i=k$. Therefore $$\begin{gathered}
            x_k \in \operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}{\mathbb{Q}}(x_0,\dots, x_{k-1}) \subseteq \operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}{\mathbb{Q}}({\left\lbrace t_i(x_j): i \in n, j \in k \right\rbrace}) \\
            \subseteq \operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}{\mathbb{Q}}(T \setminus {\left\lbrace t_n(x_k) \right\rbrace}).
        \end{gathered}$$ This is a contradiction with (\[form: trans1a\]).

-   If $i\neq k$. By inductive hypothesis the set ${\left\lbrace x_0, \dots, x_{k-1} \right\rbrace}$ is algebraically independent, therefore it must exist $$q \in {\mathbb{Q}}[X_0,\dots, X_{k}]\setminus{\mathbb{Q}}[X_0,\dots X_{i-1},X_{i+1},\dots, X_{k-1}]$$ such that $q(x_0,\dots, x_{k})=0$. But this yields that $x_k \in \operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}{\mathbb{Q}}(x_0,\dots, x_{k-1})$ and this is impossible as proved in the previous case.

<span>"$\Leftarrow$"</span>. Apply Theorem \[theorem: ErdosKakutaniK\], since any algebraically independent subset is rationally independent.

Note that the algebraically independent sets provided in the proofs from $2^{\aleph_0} \geq \kappa^+$ are disjoint. In Theorem \[theorem: ZoliK\], as in Zoli's original argument, we proved that the transcendental reals are a disjoint union of $\kappa$-many algebraically independent sets. However, since any algebraically independent set is contained in some transcendence basis, we obtain the following.

\[cor:Zoli\] $2^{\aleph_0}\leq \kappa^+$ if and only if the set of all transcendental reals is union of $\kappa$-many transcendence bases for ${\mathbb{R}}$.

Definable counterpart
---------------------

The first step we need to show that if all reals are constructible, then there is a $\Delta^1_2$ transcendence basis.

\[lem:tran1\] Assume that ${\mathbb{R}}\subseteq L$.

1.  For any $y_0, \dots, y_n \in {\mathbb{R}}$, $\operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}{\mathbb{Q}}(y_0,\dots y_n)$ is $\Sigma^1_1$.

2.  There exists a $\Delta^1_2$ transcendence basis.

Let $\prec$ be a $\Delta^1_2$-strong well-ordering of ${\mathbb{R}}$.

1.  By definition $x \in \operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}{\mathbb{Q}}(y_0,\dots, y_n)$ if and only if $$\begin{gathered}
        \exists (x_0, \dots, x_m) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{{<}\omega} ( x_0, \dots, x_m \in {\mathbb{Q}}(y_0,\dots, y_n) \wedge x_0 + x_1 x + \dots + x_{m}x^{m}=0).\end{gathered}$$ The assertion follows by induction over $n$, since $x \in {\mathbb{Q}}(y_0, \dots, y_n)$ if and only if $$\exists (a_0,\dots,a_h,b_0,\dots, b_k) \in {{\mathbb{Q}}(y_0,\dots, y_{n-1})}^{{<}\omega}(x= \frac{a_0 +\dots + a_h y_{n}^h }{b_0 +\dots + b_k y_{n}^k}).$$

2.  Define $$x \in T \iff x \in {\mathbb{R}}\setminus \operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}({\mathbb{Q}}) \wedge \forall (x_0, \dots, x_n) \in (x_\prec)^{<\omega}(x \notin \operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}{\mathbb{Q}}(x_0, \dots, x_n)).$$ We claim that $T$ is a transcendence basis for ${\mathbb{R}}$. $T$ is algebraically independent by definition. Moreover ${\mathbb{R}}$ is algebraic over ${\mathbb{Q}}(T)$. Indeed we show that for any $x\in {\mathbb{R}}\setminus \operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}({\mathbb{Q}})$ there exist $x_0,\dots,x_n \in T$ such that $ x \in \operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}{\mathbb{Q}}(x_0, \dots, x_n)$. By induction on $\prec$. Let $x_0 = \min_{\prec}({\mathbb{R}}\setminus \operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}({\mathbb{Q}}))$, then by definition $x_0 \in T$. Assume that $x \in {\mathbb{R}}\setminus \operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}({\mathbb{Q}})$ and that for any $y \prec x$ the assertion holds. We have two possibilities: either $x \in T$ or there exists some $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$ such that $\exists x_0, \dots, x_n \prec x (x \in \operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}{\mathbb{Q}}(x_0, \dots, x_n) )$. Both in the first case and whether in the second one $x_0, \dots, x_n \in T$ we have the assertion. Then assume that we are in the second case and $x_0, \dots, x_n \notin T$. As all $x_i$ are algebraic over $T$, then also $x$ is.

\[theorem: ZoliDefinable\] ${\mathbb{R}}\subseteq L$ if and only if the set of all transcendental reals is the disjoint union of countably many algebraically independent sets uniformly definable by a $\Sigma^1_2$ predicate.

<span>"$\Rightarrow$"</span>. Assume that ${\mathbb{R}}\subseteq L$, then by Lemma \[lem:tran1\] there exists $T$ which is a $\Delta^1_2$ transcendence basis. For any $x \in {\mathbb{R}}\setminus {\operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}({\mathbb{Q}})}$ and any $n \in \omega$ define $n(x)$, $t_i(x)$ and $\overline{T}_n$ as in the proof of Theorem \[theorem: ZoliK\]. Fix a natural number $n$. We define countably many disjoint subsets of $\overline{T}_n$ which contain at most one element of $\overline{T}_{n,t}$ for any $t\in T$. To this end fix $t_0, \dots, t_{n-1} \prec t$. For any $x \in \operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}{\mathbb{Q}}(t_0, \dots, t_{n-1},t)$ there exists a polynomial $p \in {\mathbb{Q}}[X_0, \dots, X_{n},X]$ such that $p(t_0, \dots, t_{n-1},t,x)=0$. Thus for any $p \in {\mathbb{Q}}[X_0, \dots, X_n, X]$, $t \in {\mathbb{R}}$ and for any $v \in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ define $$\begin{gathered}
        \overline{T}_{n, t, p, v} = \{ x : x \in S_n \wedge \forall i \in n (v(i) = t_i(x)) \wedge t = t_n(x) \wedge p(t_0(x), \dots, t_n(x),x)=0 \}.
    \end{gathered}$$ Observe that $\overline{T}_{n, t, p, v}$ is uniformly $\Delta^1_2$ definable by the following formula. $$\begin{gathered}
        \varphi(x,t,n,p,v) = x \notin {\operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}({\mathbb{Q}})}\wedge  \operatorname{dom}(v)= n \wedge  x \notin \operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}{\mathbb{Q}}({\left\lbrace v(j): j\in n \right\rbrace})\\
        \wedge \forall i \in n ( x \notin \operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}{\mathbb{Q}}({\left\lbrace v(j): j\in n, j\neq i \right\rbrace}\cup{\left\lbrace t \right\rbrace})) \wedge  p(v(0), \dots, v(n-1), t ,x)= 0.
        \end{gathered}$$ Up to now the sets $\overline{T}_{n, t, p, v}$ are not disjoint, since any $x$ belongs to $\overline{T}_{n, t, p, v}$ for several polynomials $p$. However since $p \in {\mathbb{Q}}[X_0, \dots, X_n, X]$, it can be coded with a natural number by a $\Delta^1_1$ map $m: {\mathbb{Q}}^{<\omega}\to {\mathbb{N}}$. Therefore we can define a $\Delta^1_2$ formula which provides a partition of $\overline{T}_n$, by choosing the polynomial with the minimal code: $$\begin{gathered}
            \varphi^*(x,t,n,p,v) = \varphi(x,t,n,p,v) \wedge \forall q \in {\mathbb{Q}}^{<\omega}(m(q)<m(p) \implies \neg \varphi(x,t,n,q,v)).
        \end{gathered}$$ Put $\overline{T}^*_{n,t,p,v} ={\left\lbrace x : \varphi^*(x,t,n,p,v) \right\rbrace}$. Since $p(t_0, \dots, t_{n-1}, t, X) \in {\mathbb{Q}}[X]$, it has finitely many roots. Given a root $x$, let $l$ be the number roots which are smaller than $x$ with respect to $\prec$. Hence there is a 1-1 correspondence between $\overline{T}_{n,t}$ and the set of tuples $(t_0, \dots, t_{n-1},p, l)$ for some $t_0, \dots, t_{n-1} \prec t$, $p \in {\mathbb{Q}}[X_0, \dots, X_n, X]$ and $l \leq \deg(p(v(0), \dots, v(n-1), t, X))$.

For any $n, l \in{\mathbb{N}}$, $p \in {\mathbb{Q}}[X_0, \dots, X_n, X]$ and for any increasing finite sequence of natural numbers $s \in {\mathbb{N}}^{<\omega}$ define $$\begin{gathered}
            S_{n, p,s, l} = \{ x : \exists w \in {\mathbb{R}}^{\leq \omega}\exists v \in {\mathbb{R}}^n ( \operatorname{IS}^*(t_n(x))=w \wedge \forall i \in n (v(i)=w(s(i))) \\
            \wedge x \in \overline{T}^*_{n,t_n(x),p,v} \wedge |{\left\lbrace y : y\prec x \right\rbrace} \cap \overline{T}^*_{n,t_n(x),p,v}| = l)\},
        \end{gathered}$$ By construction $x,y \in S_{n, p, s, l}$ and $t_n(x)=t_n(y)$ yield $x=y$. Moreover $S_{n, p,s, l}$ can be uniformly defined by the following $\Sigma^1_2$ formula. $$\begin{gathered}
        \psi(x, n,p,s,l) \iff \exists t \in {\mathbb{R}}\exists w\in {\mathbb{R}}^{\leq \omega}\exists v \in {\mathbb{R}}^{<\omega}( \operatorname{IS}^*(t)= w   \wedge  \forall i \in n(w(s(i)) = v(i))\\ 
        \wedge \varphi(x,t,n,p,v)  \wedge \exists u \in {\mathbb{R}}^{\leq \omega}[\operatorname{IS}^*(x)=u \wedge \operatorname{dom}(u) \geq l 
        \wedge (\exists s' \in {\mathbb{N}}^{l}\\
        (\forall i \in l-1 (s'(i) < s'(i+1)) \wedge \forall i\in l \varphi(u(s'(i)),t,n,p,v)) \wedge (\operatorname{dom}(u) > l \\
         \implies \forall s' \in {\mathbb{N}}^{l+1}(\exists i \in l (s'(i) \geq s'(i+1)) 
        \vee \exists i\in {l+1} \neg\varphi(u(s'(i)),t,n,p,v))))].
        \end{gathered}$$ We have $${\mathbb{R}}\setminus {\operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}({\mathbb{Q}})}= \bigsqcup{\left\lbrace  S_{n,p,s,l} : n, l \in {\mathbb{N}}, s \in {\mathbb{N}}^{<\omega}, p \in {\mathbb{Q}}[X_0, \dots, X_n, X]  \right\rbrace}.$$ In order to complete this proof we have to show that any set $ S_{n,p,s,l}$ is algebraically independent. Since, by construction for any two elements $x,y\in S_{n,p,s,l}$, $t_n(x) \neq t_n(y)$, the argument is exactly the one shown in Theorem \[theorem: ZoliK\].

<span>"$\Leftarrow$"</span>. Since any algebraically independent subset is rationally independent, the assertion follows by Theorem \[theorem: EKdefinable\],

In his work Zoli proved that CH holds if and only if the set of all transcendental reals is the disjoint union of countably many algebraically independent sets $S_i$. Corollary \[cor:Zoli\] follows since if $S_i$ is algebraically independent then we can define a transcendence basis $T_i$ which contains $S_i$ as follows: $$x \in T_i \iff  x \in S_i \vee ( x \notin \operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}{\mathbb{Q}}(S_i) \wedge \forall y_0, \dots,y_n \prec x (x \notin \operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}{\mathbb{Q}}(S_i \cup {\left\lbrace y_0, \dots, y_n \right\rbrace}))).$$ However this basis is $\Pi^1_2$ and up to now we did not find a $\Sigma^1_2$ formula which defines it. Therefore our definable version of Zoli's result deal with algebraically independent sets and not with transcendence bases.

Polynomial avoidance {#section: Schmerl}
====================

We present some results by Schmerl @Schmerl about polynomial avoidance and an equivalence by Erds and Komjáth @ErdosKomjath in order to obtain the correspondent $\Sigma^1_2$ definable counterparts.

We say that a polynomial $
    p\in {\mathbb{R}}[X_0,\dots, X_{k-1}]
$ is a *$(k,n)$-ary polynomial* if every $X_i$ is a $n$-tuple of variables. Given a $(k,n)$-ary polynomial $p(x_0,\dots, x_{k-1})$, a coloring $\chi: {\mathbb{R}}^n \to \omega$ *avoids* it if for any $r_0, \dots, r_{k-1}\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ distinct and monochromatic with respect to $\chi$, $p(r_0,\dots, r_{k-1})\neq 0$. Moreover the polynomial $p(x_0,\dots, x_{k-1})$ is *avoidable* if there exists a coloring which avoids it.

\[Schmerl\] Let $m \in \omega$ and $k\in \omega \setminus{\left\lbrace 0,1 \right\rbrace}$.

-   A function $\alpha: A_0\times A_1\times\dots\times A_{m-1} \to B_0\times B_1\times\dots\times B_{m-1}$ is *coordinately induced* if for every $i\in m$ there is a function $\alpha_i: A_i \to B_i$ such that $$\alpha(a_0,\dots, a_{m-1})= (\alpha_0(a_0),\dots, \alpha_{m-1}(a_{m-1})).$$

-   A function $g:A^m \to B$ is *one-one in each coordinate* if whenever $a_0,\dots, a_{m-1},b \in A$ and $b \neq a_i$ for some $i\in m$, then $$g(a_0, \dots a_{i-1}, a_i, a_{i+1},\dots, a_{m-1})\neq g(a_0, \dots, a_{i-1}, b , a_{i+1}, \dots a_{m-1}).$$

-   Assume that $p(x_0, \dots, x_{k-1})$ is a $(k,n)$-ary polynomial. For each $m\in \omega$ we say that $p(x_0, \dots, x_{k-1})$ is *$m$-avoidable* if for each definable function $g:{\mathbb{R}}^m \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ which is one-one in each coordinate and for distinct $e_0, \dots, e_{k-1}\in (0,1)^m$ there is a coordinately induced $\alpha:{\mathbb{R}}^m \to {\mathbb{R}}^m$ such that $
        p(g\alpha(e_0), \dots, g\alpha(e_{k-1}))\neq 0.
    $

Instead of ${\mathbb{R}}^m$ we can use also $(0,1)^m$, $(a,b)^m$ or any open $m$-box, since there is a $\Delta^1_1$ bijection between them.

\[Schmerl\]\[theorem: Schmerl1\]\[theorem: Schmerl2\]  

1.  If CH does not hold then every avoidable polynomial is $2$-avoidable.

2.  If CH holds then every $1$-avoidable polynomial is avoidable.

Schmerl's equivalences
----------------------

In fact the statements studied by Schmerl are equivalences respectively with $\neg$CH and CH. To show it we need to recall Erds-Komjáth's equivalence. Erds and Komjáth proved that CH holds if and only if the plane can be colored with countably many colors with no monochromatic right-angled triangle, where a right-angled triangle is monochromatic if its vertices are.

\[notation\] Let $\tilde{p}(x_0, x_1, x_2)$ be the following $(3,2)$-ary polynomial: $$\tilde{p}(x_0, x_1, x_2) = \lVert x_1-x_0\rVert^2 +  \lVert x_2-x_0\rVert^2  -  \lVert x_1-x_2\rVert^2.$$

Observe that given distinct $a_0, a_1, a_2 \in {\mathbb{R}}^2$, $\tilde{p}(a_0,a_1,a_2) = 0$ if and only if $a_0$, $a_1$ and $a_2$ form a right-angled triangle. Hence

\[Erds, Komjáth\] CH holds if and only if $\tilde{p}(x_0,x_1,x_2)$ is avoidable.

In @Schmerl, Schmerl also proved that $\tilde{p}(x_0, x_1, x_2)$ is $1$-avoidable and it is not $2$-avoidable. Since this result is crucial to prove our goal, let us recall the proof.

\[Schmerl\]\[lemma: avoidptilde\] The $(3,2)$-ary polynomial $\tilde{p}(x_0,x_1,x_2)$ is $1$-avoidable and it is not $2$-avoidable.

First of all we prove that it is $1$-avoidable. Indeed given $g: {\mathbb{R}}\to {\mathbb{R}}^2$ and $e_0 \neq e_1 \neq e_2\in {\mathbb{R}}$ define $\alpha:{\mathbb{R}}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ as follows: $$\alpha(x)= y \iff (x=e_2 \wedge y=e_1)\ \vee \ (x \neq e_2 \wedge y=x).$$ Hence $\alpha(e_0)=e_0$, $\alpha(e_1)=e_1$ and $\alpha(e_2)=e_1$, therefore $g(\alpha(e_0))\neq g(\alpha(e_1)) = g(\alpha(e_2))$ since $g$ is one-one in each coordinate. This yields $
    p(g(\alpha(e_0)), g(\alpha(e_1)), g(\alpha(e_2)))\neq 0.
$

To prove that it is not $2$-avoidable let $g:{\mathbb{R}}^2 \to {\mathbb{R}}^2$ be the identity function and put $e_0 = (0,0)$, $e_1=(1,0)$ and $e_2= (0,1)$. They form a right-angled triangle. Let $\alpha: {\mathbb{R}}^2 \to {\mathbb{R}}^2$ be any coordinately induced function, hence $\alpha(e_0)$, $\alpha(e_1)$ and $\alpha(e_2)$ form a right-angled triangle, eventually degenerate. So $$\tilde{p}(g(\alpha(e_0)), g(\alpha(e_1)), g(\alpha(e_2)))=\tilde{p}(\alpha(e_0), \alpha(e_1), \alpha(e_2))= 0. \qedhere$$

\[proposition: viceversaSchmerl\] 

1.  If any avoidable polynomial is $2$-avoidable then $\neg$CH holds.

2.  If any $1$-avoidable polynomial is avoidable then CH holds.

 

1.  Assume that CH holds, then by Erds and Komjáth's equivalence $\tilde{p}(x_0,x_1,x_2)$ is avoidable. Then, by hypothesis it is $2$-avoidable. Contradiction by Lemma \[lemma: avoidptilde\].

2.  By Lemma \[lemma: avoidptilde\], $\tilde{p}(x_0,x_1,x_2)$ is $1$-avoidable. Then, by hypothesis, it is avoidable. Therefore, again by Erds-Komjáth equivalence, CH holds.

Auxiliary results {#subsection: aux}
-----------------

Recall that our goal is to provide $\Sigma^1_2$ definable counterparts for both the results by Schmerl and Erds and Komjáth's equivalence. To this end we need some technical facts. The first one is the $\Sigma^1_2$ version of a lemma used to prove Theorem \[theorem: Schmerl2\].2.

\[lemma: G\] Assume that ${\mathbb{R}}\subseteq L$, then there is a $\Sigma^1_2$ function $G:{\mathbb{R}}^{{<}\omega} \to \omega$ such that whenever $a,\ b \in {\mathbb{R}}^{{<}\omega}$

-   if $G(a)=G(b)$ then $|a|=|b|$;

-   if $G(a)=G(b)$ and $\max(a)=\max(b)$ then $a=b$.

Let $i: \omega^{<\omega} \to \omega$ be any $\Sigma^1_2$ injection. For each $x \in {\mathbb{R}}$, let $F_x: x \to \omega$ be the $\Sigma^1_2$ injection defined by: $$F_x(y) = n \iff \exists v \in {\mathbb{R}}^{\leq\omega} (\operatorname{IS}^*(x)=v \wedge v(n)=y).$$ By definition $F_x(y) = n$ holds if $y$ is the $n$-th predecessor of $x$. Then consider $a \in {\mathbb{R}}^{{<}\omega}$. If $a = \emptyset$ put $G(a)=0$ otherwise let $x=\max a$, $G(a)=i(F_{x}[a \setminus {\left\lbrace x \right\rbrace}])$.

The second fact we need is the following lemma, for the proof we refer to @SchmerlCountable.

\[Schmerl\]\[lemma: beta\] Let $T$ be a transcendence basis for ${\mathbb{R}}$ over ${\operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}({\mathbb{Q}})}$. Let $l$ be a natural number, $q_i \in {\mathbb{Q}}$ for any $i\in 2l$, $D = (q_0,q_1)\times \dots\times(q_{2l-2},q_{2l-1})$ and let $
    h: D^k \to {\mathbb{R}}$ be an ${\operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}({\mathbb{Q}})}$-definable analytical function. Suppose that for any $j \in k$, $\overline{t}_j=(t_{0,j}, \dots, t_{l-1,j}) \in T^l \cap D$ and $h(\overline{t}_0,\dots, \overline{t}_{k-1})=0$. If $\beta:{\left\lbrace t_{i,j}: i \in l, j \in k \right\rbrace}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ is such that $\beta''\overline{t}_j=(\beta(t_{0,j}), \dots, \beta(t_{l-1,j}))\in D$ for any $j \in k$, then $h(\beta''\overline{t}_0 ,\dots, \beta''\overline{t}_{k-1})=0$.

The coloring which witnesses the $\Sigma^1_2$-avoidance of the given polynomial in the original proof of Theorem \[theorem: Schmerl2\].2 is defined by using the Implicit Function Theorem. Therefore, to prove the effective version, we also need a basic fact about uniformly continuous functions. Recall that a function $f$ is uniformly continuous if $$\forall \varepsilon >0 \exists \delta >0 \forall x, y \in \operatorname{dom}(f) (|x-y |< \delta \implies |f(x)-f(y)|<\varepsilon).$$

\[def:Quc\] Let $a$, $b$ be rational numbers and let $l$ be a natural number. Given a function $f : (a,b)^l\cap{\mathbb{Q}}^l \to {\mathbb{R}}$ define: $$\begin{gathered}
\psi(f, (a,b)^l) \iff \forall \varepsilon \in {\mathbb{Q}}^+ \exists \delta \in {\mathbb{Q}}^+ \forall q_1, q_2 \in (a,b)^l \cap {\mathbb{Q}}^l \\
(|q_1 -q_2| < \delta \implies |f(q_1)-f(q_2)| < \varepsilon).\end{gathered}$$ We say that $f : (a,b)^l\cap{\mathbb{Q}}^l \to {\mathbb{R}}$ is *${\mathbb{Q}}$-uniformly continuous* if $\psi(f,(a,b)^l)$ holds.

\[Remark: UnifDiff\] If $f:(a,b)^l\to{\mathbb{R}}$ is uniformly continuous then $f{\upharpoonright}(a,b)^l \cap {\mathbb{Q}}^l$ is ${\mathbb{Q}}$-uniformly continuous.

\[Lemma: UnifDiff\] Let $a, b \in {\mathbb{Q}}$, $l$ be a natural number and let $f: (a,b)^l \cap {\mathbb{Q}}^l \to {\mathbb{R}}$ be ${\mathbb{Q}}$-uniformly continuous.

-   There exists a $\Delta^1_1$ uniformly continuous function $f^*:(a,b)^l \to {\mathbb{R}}$ which extends $f$.

-   Moreover if $p(x,y)$ is a polynomial such that $\forall q \in (a,b)^l\cap {\mathbb{Q}}^l (p(q,f(q))=0)$, then $$\forall r \in (a,b)^l  \ (p(r,f^*(r))=0 ).$$

Define $f^*:(a,b)^l \to {\mathbb{R}}$ as follows. Let $r \in (a,b)^l$ and let $${\left\lbrace q_n\in (a,b)^l \cap {\mathbb{Q}}^l: n \in \omega \right\rbrace}$$ be such that $\lim_{n \to \infty}q_n = r.$ We claim that ${\left\lbrace f(q_n): n \in \omega \right\rbrace}$ is a Cauchy's sequence. Let $\varepsilon > 0$, we want to prove that there exists $N$ such that for any $n, m > N (|f(q_n)-f(q_m)|<\varepsilon)$. By hypothesis we have $$\exists \delta \in {\mathbb{Q}}^+ (\forall q_1, q_2\in (a,b)^l \cap {\mathbb{Q}}^l  (|q_1 - q_2| < \delta \implies |f(q_1)-f(q_2)|<\varepsilon)).$$ Since $\lim_{n \to \infty}q_n = r$, there exists $N \in {\mathbb{N}}$ such that for any $n, m > N (|q_n-q_m|<\delta)$. Therefore $|f(q_n)-f(q_m)|< \varepsilon$ and so $\lim_{n \to \infty}f(q_n) \in {\mathbb{R}}$. Put $f^*(r)= \lim_{n \to \infty}f(q_n).$ Observe that $f^*(r)=l$ is $\Sigma^1_1$ (and so $\Delta^1_1$), indeed: $$f^*(r)=l \iff \exists q_n \in ((a,b)^l \cap {\mathbb{Q}}^l)^\omega (\lim_{n\to\infty}(q_n)=r \implies \lim_{n\to \infty}f(q_n)= l),$$ where $$\lim_{n\to\infty}(x_n)=y \iff \forall \varepsilon \in {\mathbb{Q}}^+ \exists n\in {\mathbb{N}}\forall m > n(|q_m-l|<\varepsilon).$$

For the second part, let $r \in (a,b)^l$ and let ${\left\lbrace q_n \in (a,b)^l \cap {\mathbb{Q}}^l: n\in \omega \right\rbrace}$ be such that $\lim_{n \to \infty} q_n = r$. Then $$p(r, f^*(r))=p(\lim_{n\to \infty}q_n, \lim_{n\to \infty}f(q_n)) = \lim_{n\to \infty}p(q_n, f(q_n))=0. \qedhere$$

Definable counterparts
----------------------

To prove the corresponding $\Sigma^1_2$ equivalences with ${\mathbb{R}}\subseteq L$, we first need to consider the counterparts of the definitions of avoidance. The definition of $\Sigma^1_2$-avoidance directly follows by the one of avoidance, while we have to be more careful in defining the $\Sigma^1_2$ version of $m$-avoidance.

A $(k,n)$-ary polynomial $p(x_0,\dots, x_{k-1})$ is $\Sigma^1_2$-avoidable if there exists a $\Sigma^1_2$ coloring which avoids it.

A $(k,n)$-ary polynomial $p(x_0,\dots, x_{k-1})$ is $(m,\Sigma^1_2)$-avoidable if for each $r \in {\mathbb{R}}\cap L $, for each $\Sigma^1_2(r)$ function $g:{\mathbb{R}}^m \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ which is one-one in each coordinate and for distinct $e_0, \dots, e_{k-1}\in {\mathbb{R}}^m$ there is $r'\in {\mathbb{R}}$ and a coordinately induced $\alpha:{\mathbb{R}}^m \to {\mathbb{R}}^m$ which is $\Sigma^1_2(r')$ and such that $
    p(g\alpha(e_0), \dots, g\alpha(e_{k-1}))\neq 0.
$

Observe that we permit $g$ to be defined with a parameter in ${\mathbb{R}}\cap L$. To justify this definition recall that in Schmerl's definition $g$ had to be definable.

\[theorem: 2avoidance\] If ${\mathbb{R}}\nsubseteq L$ then every $\Sigma^1_2$-avoidable polynomial is $(2,\Sigma^1_2)$-avoidable.

Let $k, n\in {\mathbb{N}}$. Let $p(x_0,\dots, x_{k-1})$ be a $(k,n)$-ary polynomial which is $\Sigma^1_2$-avoidable polynomial. Then there exists a $\Sigma^1_2$ coloring $\chi: {\mathbb{R}}^n \to \omega$ which avoids it. To prove that it is also $(2,\Sigma^1_2)$-avoidable let $r \in {\mathbb{R}}\cap L$ and consider any $\Sigma^1_2(r)$ function $g: {\mathbb{R}}^2 \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ (one-one in each coordinate) and any distinct $e_0,\dots, e_{k-1}\in {\mathbb{R}}^2$. Then $\chi \circ g: {\mathbb{R}}^2 \to \omega$ is also $\Sigma^1_2(r)$. Since ${\mathbb{R}}\nsubseteq L$, then by applying Proposition \[theorem: CD\].1, there exist $C={\left\lbrace c_i : i\in k \right\rbrace}$ and $D={\left\lbrace d_i : i \in k \right\rbrace}$ such that $\chi\circ g {\upharpoonright}C \times D$ is monochromatic. Hence define $\alpha_0: {\mathbb{R}}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ and $\alpha_1: {\mathbb{R}}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ by: $$\begin{aligned}
    \alpha_0(x)=y &\iff \bigvee_{j\in k}(x = e_j(0) \ \wedge \ y= c_0)\ \vee \ (\bigwedge_{j\in k}(x \neq e_j(0) \ \wedge \ y=x)).\\
    \alpha_1(x)=y &\iff  \bigvee_{j\in k}(x = e_j(1) \ \wedge \ y= d_j)\ \vee \ (\bigwedge_{j\in k}(x \neq e_j(1) \ \wedge \ y=x)).\end{aligned}$$ Then consider $\alpha: {\mathbb{R}}^2 \to {\mathbb{R}}^2$ such that $\alpha((x,y))= (\alpha_0(x), \alpha_1(y))$. Since $\alpha(e_j)= (c_0, d_j) \in C \times D$, ${\left\lbrace \chi\circ g\circ\alpha(e_i): i\in k \right\rbrace}$ is monochromatic. Moreover for any $i\neq j \in k$, $g(\alpha(e_i)) \neq g(\alpha(e_j))$ since $g$ is one-one in each coordinate. Then $
p(g(\alpha(e_0)),\dots,g(\alpha(e_{k-1})))\neq 0
$, since $\chi$ avoids $p$.

The proof of the $\Sigma^1_2$ version of Theorem \[theorem: Schmerl2\].2 requires a more elaborated argument, which uses all auxiliary facts listed in Subsection \[subsection: aux\].

\[theorem: 1avoidance\] If ${\mathbb{R}}\subseteq L$ then every $(1,\Sigma^1_2)$-avoidable polynomial is $\Sigma^1_2$-avoidable.

Let $T$ be a $\Delta^1_2$ transcendence basis of ${\mathbb{R}}$ over ${\operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}({\mathbb{Q}})}$ provided by Lemma \[lem:tran1\]. For any natural number $l$ and any $\overline{q} \in {\mathbb{Q}}^{2l}$ define $\operatorname{dom}_{\overline{q}}= (q_0,q_1) \times \dots \times (q_{2l-2},q_{2l-1})$.

Fix $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$. For any $a={\langle a_0 \dots, a_{n-1} \rangle}\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$, $d \in \omega$, $\overline{q} \in {\mathbb{Q}}^{2l}$ and $f_i \in {\mathbb{R}}^{\operatorname{dom}_{\overline{q}} \cap {\mathbb{Q}}^{l}}$[^1] define $\chi(a,{\langle \operatorname{dom}_{\overline{q}}, f_0, \dots, f_{n-1}, d \rangle})$ if and only if there exist $(t_0, \dots, t_{l-1})\in \operatorname{dom}_ {\overline{q}}$ and $p_0, \dots, p_{n-1} \in {\operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}({\mathbb{Q}})}[X_0, \dots, X_{l-1},Y]$ such that

1.  $t_0, \dots, t_{l-1} \in T$;

2.  $\forall j \in s \exists i \in n(a_i \notin {\operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}({\mathbb{Q}})}(T \setminus {\left\lbrace t_j \right\rbrace}))$;

3.  $d= G({\left\lbrace t_0, \dots, t_{l-1} \right\rbrace})$, where $G$ is provided by Lemma \[lemma: G\];

4.  for any $i \in n$ $p_i(t_0, \dots, t_{l-1}, a_i)=0$;

5.  for any $i \in n$ $\psi(f_i, \operatorname{dom}_{\overline{q}})$, i.e. $f_i$ is ${\mathbb{Q}}$-uniformly continuous (Definition \[def:Quc\]);

6.  for any $i \in n$, $\forall \overline{q}' \in \operatorname{dom}_{\overline{q}}\cap {\mathbb{Q}}^{l} p_i(\overline{q}', f_i(\overline{q}'))$.

7.  for any $i \in n$, $f_i$ is one-one in each coordinate $j$ such that $a_i \notin {\operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}({\mathbb{Q}})}(T \setminus {\left\lbrace t_j \right\rbrace})$.

By unfolding definition, $\chi$ is $\Sigma^1_2$. For any $a={\langle a_0 \dots, a_{n-1} \rangle}\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$, by using Lemma \[lemma: tran2\] there exist $t_0 < \dots < t_{l-1}\in T$ such that $a_0,\dots, a_{n-1}\in {\operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}({\mathbb{Q}})}(t_0, \dots, t_{l-1})$. For any $i \in n$, let $p_i \in  {\operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}({\mathbb{Q}})}[X_0, \dots, X_{l-1},Y]$ such that $p_i(t_0, \dots, t_{l-1},a_i)=0$ and $\frac{\partial p_i}{\partial y}(t_0,\dots,t_{l-1},a_i)\neq 0$. Then thanks to the Implicit Function Theorem there exist $U \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^l$ and $V \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}$ and $\tilde{f}_i: U \to V$ continuous differentiable such that $(t_0,\dots, t_{l-1})\in U$ and $\tilde{f}_i(b_0,\dots b_{l-1})=c $ if and only if $p_i(b_0,\dots, b_{l-1},c)=0$. In particular $\tilde{f}_i(t_0,\dots, t_{l-1})=a_i$. Let $\overline{q} \in {\mathbb{Q}}^{2l}$ be increasing and such that both $(t_0, \dots, t_{l-1})\in \operatorname{dom}_{\overline{q}} \subseteq U$ and $\tilde{f}_i$ is one-one in each coordinate $j$ such that $a_i \notin {\operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}({\mathbb{Q}})}(T \setminus {\left\lbrace t_j \right\rbrace})$. For any $i \in n$, define $f_i = \tilde{f_i}{\upharpoonright}(\operatorname{dom}_{\overline{q}} \cap {\mathbb{Q}}^{l})$. Hence $\chi(a, {\langle \operatorname{dom}_{\overline{q}},f_0, \dots, f_{n-1}, G({\left\lbrace t_0, \dots, t_{l-1} \right\rbrace}) \rangle})$. Indeed the functions provided by the Implicit Function Theorem are continuously differentiable and therefore uniformly continuous. By Remark \[Remark: UnifDiff\], $f_i$ is ${\mathbb{Q}}$-uniformly continuous.

By $\Sigma^1_2$ Novikov Kondo Addison Uniformization Theorem (see e.g. @Moschovakis [4E4]) there exists a $\Sigma^1_2$ function $\chi^*$ which uniformizes $\chi$. $\chi^*$ has a countable range, since there are countably many polynomials and given $\operatorname{dom}_{\overline{q}}$ and $p_0, \dots, p_{n-1}$ there exists a unique tuple of functions which satisfies the conditions above.

The coloring $\chi^*$ avoids any $(1,\Sigma^1_2)$-avoidable polynomial.

Let $p \in {\operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}({\mathbb{Q}})}[X_0,\dots, X_{k-1}]$ be a $(k,n)$-ary polynomial which is not avoided by $\chi^*$. We want to prove that this polynomial is not $(1,\Sigma^1_2)$-avoidable. Let $a^0, \dots, a^{k-1}\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ be distinct, monochromatic in color ${\langle \operatorname{dom}, f_0, \dots, f_{n-1}, d \rangle}$, and such that $p(a^0,\dots, a^{k-1})=0.$

For each $j\in k$ let $a^j \in{\operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}({\mathbb{Q}})}(t_{0,j},\dots, t_{l-1,j})$, where $t_{i,j}\in (q_{2i},q_{2i+1})$. For any $i\in n$, let $f_i^*$ be the witness of Lemma \[Lemma: UnifDiff\] for $f_i$ and put $f = (f^*_0,\dots, f^*_{n-1})$. Define $g:(q_{2l-2},q_{2l-1}) \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ such that $$g(x)= f(t_{0,0},\dots, t_{l-2,0},x).$$ Note that $g$ is $\Sigma^1_1$ with parameters in $L$ since ${\mathbb{R}}\subseteq L$. Moreover by (2) and (7) $g$ is injective. For each $j\in k$ put $e_j=t_{l-1,j}\in (q_{l-1},r_{l-1})$. By Lemma \[lemma: G\] they are all distinct. Indeed if there are $j, j' \in k$ such that $e_j =e_{j'}$, since $G({\left\lbrace t_{0,j},\dots, t_{l-1,j} \right\rbrace})= d = G({\left\lbrace t_{0,j'},\dots, t_{l-1,j'} \right\rbrace})$, we have for any $i \in l$, $t_{i,j}=t_{i,j'}$. Therefore for any $m \in n$: $a^j_m = f_m(t_{0,j}, \dots, t_{l-1,j}) = f_m(t_{0,j'}, \dots, t_{l-1,j'}) = a^{j'}_m.$ To obtain our assertion we need to show that for any $\alpha: (q_{2l-2},q_{2l-1}) \to (q_{2l-2},q_{2l-1})$, $
    p(g(\alpha(e_0)), \dots, g(\alpha(e_{k-1})))=0.
$

Fix a function $\alpha$. Let $h:((q_0, q_1)\times \dots \times (q_{2l-2},q_{2l-1}))^k \to {\mathbb{R}}$ be such that $$\begin{gathered}
    h((y_{0,0}\dots, y_{l-1,0}),\dots, (y_{0,k-1},\dots, y_{l-1,k-1})) \\
    = p(f(y_{0,0},\dots, y_{l-1,0}),\dots,f(y_{0,k-1},\dots, y_{l-1,k-1})).\end{gathered}$$ And for any $i \in n-1$ put $\beta(t_{0,i},\dots, t_{l-1,i})=(t_{0,0},t_{1,0},\dots, t_{l-2,0},\alpha(t_{l-1,i}))$. Then by Lemma \[lemma: beta\][^2], $
    p(f\beta(t_{0,0},\dots, t_{l-1,0}),\dots,f\beta(t_{0,k-1},\dots, t_{l-1,k-1}))=0
$ and $$\begin{gathered}
    p(g\alpha(e_0),\dots, g\alpha(e_{k-1}) = p(g(\alpha(t_{l-1,0})), \dots, g(\alpha(t_{l-1,k-1}))) \\
    =p(f\beta(t_{0,0},\dots, t_{l-1,0}),\dots,f\beta(t_{0,k-1},\dots, t_{l-1,k-1}))=0.  \end{gathered}$$

By using Theorem \[theorem: 1avoidance\] we can prove the $\Sigma^1_2$ version of the equivalence by Erds and Komjáth. In order to do that observe that the $(3,2)$-ary polynomial $\tilde{p}(x_0,x_1,x_2)$ we defined in Notation \[notation\] is $(1, \Sigma^1_2)$-avoidable and not $(2,\Sigma^1_2)$-avoidable.The proof directly follows the one of Lemma \[lemma: avoidptilde\].

${\mathbb{R}}\subseteq L$ if and only if there exists a $\Sigma^1_2$ coloring of the plane with countably many colors with no monochromatic right-angled triangle.

<span>"$\Rightarrow$"</span>. Assume that ${\mathbb{R}}\nsubseteq L$. By applying Proposition \[theorem: CD\].1 for every $f: {\mathbb{R}}^2 \to \omega$ $\Sigma^1_2$ there exists a monochromatic rectangle and so we are done.

<span>"$\Leftarrow$"</span>. Assume that ${\mathbb{R}}\subseteq L$. Recall that $\tilde{p} (x_0,x_1,x_2)$ is $(1, \Sigma^1_2)$-avoidable. By Theorem \[theorem: 1avoidance\] it is $\Sigma^1_2$-avoidable.

To conclude observe that by using the $\Sigma^1_2$-version of Erds-Komjáth equivalence and the properties of $\tilde{p}(x_0,x_1,x_2)$ we can easily prove the vice versa of Theorem \[theorem: 2avoidance\] and of Theorem \[theorem: 1avoidance\] as in Proposition \[proposition: viceversaSchmerl\], therefore we get

The following are equivalent:

-   ${\mathbb{R}}\subseteq L$;

-   every $\Sigma^1_2$-avoidable polynomial is $(2,\Sigma^1_2)$-avoidable;

-   every $(1,\Sigma^1_2)$-avoidable polynomial is $\Sigma^1_2$-avoidable.

Open Questions
==============

The arguments presented for Theorem \[theorem: EKdefinable\] and Theorem \[theorem: ZoliDefinable\] require that the countably many subsets are uniformly definable. This is needed to provide a $\Sigma^1_2$ coloring in the proofs of the second implications. Therefore the first natural questions are

Assume that the set of all real numbers can be decomposed into a countably many (possibly non uniformly) $\Sigma^1_2$ definable rationally independent subsets. Does ${\mathbb{R}}\subseteq L$ hold?

Assume that the set of all transcendental reals is the union of countably many (possibly non uniformly) $\Sigma^1_2$ definable algebraically independent subsets. Does ${\mathbb{R}}\subseteq L$ hold?

As observed in Section \[section: Zoli\] our definable version of Zoli's equivalence produces countably many algebraically independent subsets which are uniformly $\Sigma^1_2$ definable. Therefore we wonder whether ${\mathbb{R}}\subseteq L$ implies that the set of all transcendental reals is the union of countably many uniformly $\Sigma^1_2$ definable transcendence bases. In particular

Given an algebraically independent subset $A \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}$ which is $\Delta^1_2$ is it possible to define a $\Delta^1_2$ transcendence basis which contains $A$?

A more general natural question which arises from this work is

\[question1\] For which inner model does the $\Sigma^1_3$ (or the more general $\Sigma^1_n$) definable version hold?

By considering the arguments used in the proofs, Question \[question1\] can be reformulated as: <span>"which inner model has the perfect set property for $\Sigma^1_n$, a $\Delta^1_n$ strong well-ordering and $\Sigma^1_n$ absoluteness?"</span> As suggested by Alessandro Andretta a possible model for $\Sigma^1_{2n}$ could be the inner model for $n$-many Woodin cardinals. Anyway, since as far as we know there is not a proof of Mansfield Theorem's analogous for such models, the argument is not straightforward.

Finally, it seems that for any equivalent form of CH is possible to prove its $\Sigma^1_2$ definable version. Hence we wonder:

Is there some general argument which provides, by assuming large cardinal hypotheses, the existence of a proof for the $\Sigma^1_2$ corresponding counterpart?

#### Acknowledgement.

I would like to thank Alessandro Andretta for his precious suggestions, remarks and for introducing me to the topic in the first place. I am grateful to Raphaël Carroy for his careful readings, advices and corrections. I am also thankful to the Logic Group of Torino for the patience and the useful comments during my talks.

[^1]: Note that $f_i$ can be coded as an element in ${\mathbb{R}}^\omega$.

[^2]: For any $i \in n$, if $f_i(q'_0, \dots, q'_{l-1})=x$ then $p(q'_0, \dots, q'_{l-1},x)=0$. It follows $f_i \in {\operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}({\mathbb{Q}})}^{\operatorname{dom}_{\overline{q}} \cap {\mathbb{Q}}^{l}}$. Hence both $f$ and $h$ are ${\operatorname{alg}_{\mathbb{R}}({\mathbb{Q}})}$ definable analytical functions.

{'source': 'arXiv_out/1601'}