Subgroups of a free group and the axiom of choice

1985 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 458-467 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul E. Howard
Keyword(s):  
Free Group ◽  
Cardinal Number ◽  
Cyclic Permutation ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Embedding Theorem ◽  
Open Problems ◽  
Power Set ◽  
Partial List ◽  
Image Position ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice

Nielsen [7] has proved that every subgroup of a free group of finite rank is free. The theorem was later strengthened by Schreier [8] by eliminating the finiteness restriction on the rank. Several proofs of this theorem (known as the Nielsen-Schreier theorem, henceforth denoted by NS) have appeared since Schreier's 1927 paper (see [1] and [2]). All proofs of NS use the axiom of choice (AC) and it is natural to ask whether NS is equivalent to AC. Läuchli has given a partial answer to this question by proving [6] that the negation of NS is consistent with ZFA (Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory weakened to permit the existence of atoms). By the Jech-Sochor embedding theorem (see [3] and [4]) ZFA can be replaced by ZF. Some form of AC, therefore, is needed to prove NS. The main purpose of this paper is to give a further answer to this question.In §2 we prove that NS implies ACffin (the axiom of choice for sets of finite sets). In §3 we show that a strengthened version of NS implies AC and in §4 we give a partial list of open problems.Let y be a set; ∣y∣ denotes the cardinal number of y and (y) is the power set of y. If p is a permutation of y and t ∈ y, the p-orbit of t is the set {pn(t): n is an integer}. Ifwe call p a cyclic permutation of y. If f is a function with domain y and x ⊆ y, f″x denotes the set {f(t):t ∈ x}. If A is a subset of a group (G, °) (sometimes (G, °) will be denoted by G) then A−1 = {x−1:x ∈ A} and [A] denotes the subgroup of G generated by A.

scholarly journals La hipótesis generalizada del continuo (HGC) y su relación con el axioma de elección (AE)

1989 ◽  
Vol 21 (62) ◽  
pp. 55-66
Author(s):  
José Alfredo Amor
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Continuum Hypothesis ◽  
Cardinal Number ◽  
Ordinal Number ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Relative Consistency ◽  
Power Set ◽  
The Many ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice

The so called Generalized Continuum Hypothesis (GCH) is the sentence: "If A is an infinile set whose cardinal number is K and 2K denotes the cardinal number of the set P(A) of subsets of A (the power set of A), and K + denotes the succesor cardinal of K, then 2K = K +". The Continuum Hypothesis (CH) asserts the particular case K = o. It is clear that GCH implies CH. Another equivalent version of GCH, is the sentence: 'Any subset of the set of subsets of a given infinite set is or of cardinality less or equal than the cardinality of the given set, or of the cardinality of all the set of subsets". Gödel in 1939, and Cohen in 1963, settled the relative consistency of the Axiom of Choice (AC) and of its negation not-AC, respectively, with respecllo the Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZF). On the other hand, Gödel in 1939, and Cohen in 1963 settled too, the relative consistency of GCH , CH and of its negations not-GCH, not-CH, respectively, with respect to the Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the Axiom of Choice (ZF + AC or ZFC). From these results we know that GCH and AC are undecidable sentences in ZF set theory and indeed, the most famous undecidable sentences in ZF; but, which is the relation between them? From the above results, in the theory ZF + AC is not demonstrated GCH; it is clear then that AC doesn't imply GCH in ZF theory, Bul does GCH implies AC in ZF theory? The answer is yes! or equivalently, there is no model of ZF +GCH + not-AC. A very easy proof can be given if we have an adecuate definition of cardinal number of a set, that doesn't depend of AC but depending from the Regularity Axiom, which asserls that aIl sets have a range, which is an ordinal number associated with its constructive complexity. We define the cardinal number of A, denoted |A|, as foIlows: |A|= { The least ordinal number equipotent with A, if A is well orderable The set of all sets equipotent with A and of minimum range, in other case. It is clear that without AC, may be not ordinal cardinals and all cardinals are ordinal cardinals if all sets are well orderable (AC). Now we formulate: GCH*: For all ordinal cardinal I<, 2K = I< + In the paper is demonstrated that this formulation GCH* is implied by the traditional one, and indeed equivalent to it. Lemma, The power set of any well orderable set is well orderable if and only if AC. This is one of the many equivalents of AC in ZF,due lo Rubin, 1960. Proposition. In ZF is a theorem: GCH* implies AC. Supose GCH*. Let A be a well orderable set; then |A| = K an ordinal cardinal, so A is equipotent with K and then P~A) is equipotent with P(K); therefore |P(A)I|= |P(K)| = 2K = K+. But then |P(A)|= K+ and P(A) 'is equipotent with K+ and K+ is an ordinal cardinal; therefore P(A) is well orderable with the well order induced by means of the bijection, from the well order of K+. Corolary: In ZF are theorems: GCH impIies AC and GCH is equivalent to GCH*. We see from this proof, that GCH asserts that the cardinal number of the power set of a well orderable set A is an ordinal, which is equivalent to AC, but GCH asserts also that that ordinal cardinal is |A|+ , the ordinal cardinal succesor of the ordinal cardinal of the well orderable set A.

Relative consistency of an extension of Ackermann's set theory

1976 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 465-466
Author(s):  
John Lake
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Relative Strength ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Relative Consistency ◽  
Free Variables ◽  
Image Position ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice

The set theory AFC was introduced by Perlis in [2] and he noted that it both includes and is stronger than Ackermann's set theory. We shall give a relative consistency result for AFC.AFC is obtained from Ackermann's set theory (see [2]) by replacing Ackermann's set existence schema with the schema(where ϕ, ψ, are ∈-formulae, x is not in ψ, w is not in ϕ, y is y1, …, yn, z is z1, …, zm and all free variables are shown) and adding the axiom of choice for sets. Following [1], we say that λ is invisible in Rκ if λ < κ and we haveholding for every ∈-formula θ which has exactly two free variables and does not involve u or υ. The existence of a Ramsey cardinal implies the existence of cardinals λ and κ with λ invisible in Rκ, and Theorem 1.13 of [1] gives some further indications about the relative strength of the notion of invisibility.Theorem. If there are cardinals λ and κ with λ invisible in Rκ, then AFC is consistent.Proof. Suppose that λ is invisible in Rκ and we will show that 〈Rκ, Rλ, ∈〉 ⊧ AFC (Rλ being the interpretation of V, of course).

Cardinal functions on ultra products of Boolean algebras

1997 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Peterson
Keyword(s):  
Boolean Algebra ◽  
Cardinal Number ◽  
Boolean Algebras ◽  
Open Problems ◽  
Cardinal Functions ◽  
Image Position

This article is concerned with functions k assigning a cardinal number to each infinite Boolean algebra (BA), and the behaviour of such functions under ultraproducts. For some common functions k we havefor others we have ≤ instead, under suitable assumptions. For the function π character we go into more detail. More specifically, ≥ holds when F is regular, for cellularity, length, irredundance, spread, and incomparability. ≤ holds for π. ≥ holds under GCH for F regular, for depth, π, πχ, χ, h-cof, tightness, hL, and hd. These results show that ≥ can consistently hold in ZFC since if V = L holds then all uniform ultrafilters are regular. For π-character we prove two more results: (1) If F is regular and ess , then(2) It is relatively consistent to have , where A is the denumerable atomless BA.A thorough analysis of what happens without the assumption that F is regular can be found in Rosłanowski, Shelah [8] and Magidor, Shelah [5]. Those papers also mention open problems concerning the above two possible inequalities.

scholarly journals Consequences of arithmetic for set theory

1994 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorenz Halbeisen ◽  
Saharon Shelah
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Power Set ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Infinite Set

AbstractIn this paper, we consider certain cardinals in ZF (set theory without AC, the axiom of choice). In ZFC (set theory with AC), given any cardinals and , either ≤ or ≤ . However, in ZF this is no longer so. For a given infinite set A consider seq1-1(A), the set of all sequences of A without repetition. We compare |seq1-1(A)|, the cardinality of this set, to ||, the cardinality of the power set of A. What is provable about these two cardinals in ZF? The main result of this paper is that ZF ⊢ ∀A(| seq1-1(A)| ≠ ||), and we show that this is the best possible result. Furthermore, it is provable in ZF that if B is an infinite set, then | fin(B)| < | (B*)| even though the existence for some infinite set B* of a function ƒ from fin(B*) onto (B*) is consistent with ZF.

scholarly journals Small sets with large power sets

1973 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 413-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
G.P. Monro
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Large Power ◽  
Present Evidence ◽  
Power Set ◽  
Infinite Sets ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice

One problem in set theory without the axiom of choice is to find a reasonable way of estimating the size of a non-well-orderable set; in this paper we present evidence which suggests that this may be very hard. Given an arbitrary fixed aleph κ we construct a model of set theory which contains a set X such that if Y ⊆ X then either Y or X - Y is finite, but such that κ can be mapped into S(S(S(X))). So in one sense X is large and in another X is one of the smallest possible infinite sets. (Here S(X) is the power set of X.)

scholarly journals Power Kripke–Platek set theory and the axiom of choice

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 447-457
Author(s):  
Michael Rathjen
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Selection Mechanism ◽  
Ordinal Analysis ◽  
Inner Model ◽  
Power Set ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Set Operation

Abstract While power Kripke–Platek set theory, ${\textbf{KP}}({\mathcal{P}})$, shares many properties with ordinary Kripke–Platek set theory, ${\textbf{KP}}$, in several ways it behaves quite differently from ${\textbf{KP}}$. This is perhaps most strikingly demonstrated by a result, due to Mathias, to the effect that adding the axiom of constructibility to ${\textbf{KP}}({\mathcal{P}})$ gives rise to a much stronger theory, whereas in the case of ${\textbf{KP}}$, the constructible hierarchy provides an inner model, so that ${\textbf{KP}}$ and ${\textbf{KP}}+V=L$ have the same strength. This paper will be concerned with the relationship between ${\textbf{KP}}({\mathcal{P}})$ and ${\textbf{KP}}({\mathcal{P}})$ plus the axiom of choice or even the global axiom of choice, $\textbf{AC}_{\tiny {global}}$. Since $L$ is the standard vehicle to furnish a model in which this axiom holds, the usual argument for demonstrating that the addition of ${\textbf{AC}}$ or $\textbf{AC}_{\tiny {global}}$ to ${\textbf{KP}}({\mathcal{P}})$ does not increase proof-theoretic strength does not apply in any obvious way. Among other tools, the paper uses techniques from ordinal analysis to show that ${\textbf{KP}}({\mathcal{P}})+\textbf{AC}_{\tiny {global}}$ has the same strength as ${\textbf{KP}}({\mathcal{P}})$, thereby answering a question of Mathias. Moreover, it is shown that ${\textbf{KP}}({\mathcal{P}})+\textbf{AC}_{\tiny {global}}$ is conservative over ${\textbf{KP}}({\mathcal{P}})$ for $\varPi ^1_4$ statements of analysis. The method of ordinal analysis for theories with power set was developed in an earlier paper. The technique allows one to compute witnessing information from infinitary proofs, providing bounds for the transfinite iterations of the power set operation that are provable in a theory. As the theory ${\textbf{KP}}({\mathcal{P}})+\textbf{AC}_{\tiny {global}}$ provides a very useful tool for defining models and realizability models of other theories that are hard to construct without access to a uniform selection mechanism, it is desirable to determine its exact proof-theoretic strength. This knowledge can for instance be used to determine the strength of Feferman’s operational set theory with power set operation as well as constructive Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice.

CANONICAL MODELS FOR FRAGMENTS OF THE AXIOM OF CHOICE

2017 ◽  
Vol 82 (2) ◽  
pp. 489-509
Author(s):  
PAUL LARSON ◽  
JINDŘICH ZAPLETAL
Keyword(s):  
Equivalence Relation ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Canonical Models ◽  
Develop Technology ◽  
Image Position ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice

AbstractWe develop technology for investigation of natural forcing extensions of the model $L\left( \mathbb{R} \right)$ which satisfy such statements as “there is an ultrafilter” or “there is a total selector for the Vitali equivalence relation”. The technology reduces many questions about ZF implications between consequences of the Axiom of Choice to natural ZFC forcing problems.

Definability of measures and ultrafilters

1977 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Pincus ◽  
Robert M. Solovay
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Closed Interval ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Inaccessible Cardinal ◽  
Private Communication ◽  
Real Numbers ◽  
Power Set ◽  
Disjoint Sets ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Dependent Choice

Nonprincipal ultrafilters are harder to define in ZFC, and harder to obtain in ZF + DC, than nonprincipal measures.The function μ from P(X) to the closed interval [0, 1] is a measure on X if μ. is finitely additive on disjoint sets and μ(X) = 1. (P is the power set.) μ is nonprincipal if μ ({x}) = 0 for each x Є X. μ is an ultrafilter if Range μ= {0, 1}. The existence of nonprincipal measures and ultrafilters on any infinite X follows from the axiom of choice.Nonprincipal measures cannot necessarily be defined in ZFC. (ZF is Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory. ZFC is ZF with choice.) In ZF alone they cannot even be proved to exist. This was first established by Solovay [14] using an inaccessible cardinal. In the model of [14] no nonprincipal measure on ω is even ODR (definable from ordinal and real parameters). The HODR (hereditarily ODR) sets of this model form a model of ZF + DC (dependent choice) in which no nonprincipal measure on ω exists. Pincus [8] gave a model with the same properties making no use of an inaccessible. (This model was also known to Solovay.) The second model can be combined with ideas of A. Blass [1] to give a model of ZF + DC in which no nonprincipal measures exist on any set. Using this model one obtains a model of ZFC in which no nonprincipal measure on the set of real numbers is ODR. H. Friedman, in private communication, previously obtained such a model of ZFC by a different method. Our construction will be sketched in 4.1.

The Existence of Level Sets in a Free Group Implies the Axiom of Choice

1987 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 315-316 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul E. Howard
Keyword(s):  
Free Group ◽  
Level Sets ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice

AN AXIOMATIC THEORY OF WELL-ORDERINGS

2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
OLIVER DEISER
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Axiomatic Theory ◽  
First Order ◽  
Power Set ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice

We introduce a new simple first-order framework for theories whose objects are well-orderings (lists). A system ALT (axiomatic list theory) is presented and shown to be equiconsistent with ZFC (Zermelo Fraenkel Set Theory with the Axiom of Choice). The theory sheds new light on the power set axiom and on Gödel’s axiom of constructibility. In list theory there are strong arguments favoring Gödel’s axiom, while a bare analogon of the set theoretic power set axiom looks artificial. In fact, there is a natural and attractive modification of ALT where every object is constructible and countable. In order to substantiate our foundational interest in lists, we also compare sets and lists from the perspective of finite objects, arguing that lists are, from a certain point of view, conceptually simpler than sets.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document