For more results on the Borel complexity of function spaces, see e.g., Calbrix [10, 11], Lutzer, van Mill and Pol [21], Cauty [12], and Cauty, Dobrowolski and Marciszewski [13].

So the function spaces of familiar spaces as and all have the same Borel type. The question naturally arises whether the Borel type of determines its topological type, or its linear-homeomorphism type. The examples due to Bessaga and Peczynski that we mentioned above, show that there are nonisomorphic function spaces of the same Borel type. So only the question about topological equivalence remains.

Let denote the Hilbert cube
with its so-called
*pseudo-boundary*

The topological structure of function spaces of low Borel complexity is determined by the following result.

As a consequence, and are homeomorphic.

Theorem 1. is due to Dobrowolski, Marciszewski and Mogilski [16] who proved it via the Bestvina-Mogilski [9] method of absorbing sets in the Hilbert cube. This is part of infinite-dimensional topology. A slightly stronger result is due independently to Baars, Gladdines and van Mill [5] and Dijkstra and Mogilski [15].

Since as we saw above nontrivial function spaces are at least of ` Borel complexity', Theorem 1. proves that at the first nontrivial stage all function spaces are homeomorphic. What happens at more complex situations is a mystery, although Cauty [12] proved that a result as elegant as Theorem 1. is not possible: there are countable spaces and such that and are not homeomorphic but have the same Borel type. The analysis of such more complicated function spaces is subject of current investigations.