The dense linear ordering principle

1997 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 438-456 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Pincus
Keyword(s):  
Prime Ideal ◽  
Set Theory ◽  
Ordered Set ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Linear Ordering ◽  
Independence Result ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Infinite Set ◽  
Prime Ideal Theorem ◽  
The Way

AbstractLet DO denote the principle: Every infinite set has a dense linear ordering. DO is compared to other ordering principles such as O, the Linear Ordering principle, KW, the Kinna-Wagner Principle, and PI, the Prime Ideal Theorem, in ZF, Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory without AC, the Axiom of Choice.The main result is:Theorem. AC ⇒ KW ⇒ DO ⇒ O, and none of the implications is reversible in ZF + PI.The first and third implications and their irreversibilities were known. The middle one is new. Along the way other results of interest are established. O, while not quite implying DO, does imply that every set differs finitely from a densely ordered set. The independence result for ZF is reduced to one for Fraenkel-Mostowski models by showing that DO falls into two of the known classes of statements automatically transferable from Fraenkel-Mostowski to ZF models. Finally, the proof of PI in the Fraenkel-Mostowski model leads naturally to versions of the Ramsey and Ehrenfeucht-Mostowski theorems involving sets that are both ordered and colored.

scholarly journals On a cardinal equation in set theory

1972 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 447-457 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.L. Hickman
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Linear Ordering ◽  
Finite Sets ◽  
Intrinsic Interest ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Infinite Set ◽  
Finiteness Criterion

We work in a Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory without the Axiom of Choice. In the appendix to his paper “Sur les ensembles finis”, Tarski proposed a finiteness criterion that we have called “C-finiteness”: a nonempty set is called “C-finite” if it cannot be partitioned into two blocks, each block being equivalent to the whole set. Despite the fact that this criterion can be shown to possess several features that are undesirable in a finiteness criterion, it has a fair amount of intrinsic interest. In Section 1 of this paper we look at a certain class of C-finite sets; in Section 2 we derive a few consequences from the negation of C-finiteness; and in Section 3 we show that not every C-infinite set necessarily possesses a linear ordering. Any unexplained notation is given in my paper, “Some definitions of finiteness”, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 5 (1971).

Products of some special compact spaces and restricted forms of AC

2010 ◽  
Vol 75 (3) ◽  
pp. 996-1006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyriakos Keremedis ◽  
Eleftherios Tachtsis
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Closed Subset ◽  
Choice Function ◽  
Ordinal Number ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Finite Support ◽  
Compact Spaces ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Infinite Set

AbstractWe establish the following results:1. In ZF (i.e., Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory minus the Axiom of Choice AC), for every set I and for every ordinal number α ≥ ω, the following statements are equivalent:(a) The Tychonoff product of ∣α∣ many non-empty finite discrete subsets of I is compact.(b) The union of ∣α∣ many non-empty finite subsets of I is well orderable.2. The statement: For every infinite set I, every closed subset of the Tychonoff product [0, 1]Iwhich consists offunctions with finite support is compact, is not provable in ZF set theory.3. The statement: For every set I, the principle of dependent choices relativised to I implies the Tychonoff product of countably many non-empty finite discrete subsets of I is compact, is not provable in ZF0 (i.e., ZF minus the Axiom of Regularity).4. The statement: For every set I, every ℵ0-sized family of non-empty finite subsets of I has a choice function implies the Tychonoff product of ℵ0many non-empty finite discrete subsets of I is compact, is not provable in ZF0.

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.

Normal subgroups of infinite symmetric groups, with an application to stratified set theory

2009 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan Bowler ◽  
Thomas Forster
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Symmetric Groups ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Normal Subgroups ◽  
Standard Analysis ◽  
Small Index ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Two Stages ◽  
Infinite Set ◽  
Stratified Set

It is generally known that infinite symmetric groups have few nontrivial normal subgroups (typically only the subgroups of bounded support) and none of small index. (We will explain later exactly what we mean by small). However the standard analysis relies heavily on the axiom of choice. By dint of a lot of combinatorics we have been able to dispense—largely—with the axiom of choice. Largely, but not entirely: our result is that if X is an infinite set with ∣X∣ = ∣X × X∣ then Symm(X) has no nontrivial normal subgroups of small index. Some condition like this is needed because of the work of Sam Tarzi who showed [4] that, for any finite group G, there is a model of ZF without AC in which there is a set X with Symm(X)/FSymm(X) isomorphic to G.The proof proceeds in two stages. We consider a particularly useful class of permutations, which we call the class of flexible permutations. A permutation of X is flexible if it fixes at least ∣X∣-many points. First we show that every normal subgroup of Symm(X) (of small index) must contain every flexible permutation. This will be theorem 4. Then we show (theorem 7) that the flexible permutations generate Symm(X).

scholarly journals Quantum Invariance

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vasil Dinev Penchev
Keyword(s):  
Quantum Information ◽  
Coherent State ◽  
Set Theory ◽  
Ordered Set ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Statistical Ensemble ◽  
Planck Constant ◽  
Physical Processes ◽  
Statistical Representation ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice

Quantum invariance designates the relation of any quantum coherent state to the corresponding statistical ensemble of measured results. The adequate generalization of ‘measurement’ is discussed to involve the discrepancy, due to the fundamental Planck constant, between any quantum coherent state and its statistical representation as a statistical ensemble after measurement.A set-theory corollary is the curious invariance to the axiom of choice: Any coherent state excludes any well-ordering and thus excludes also the axiom of choice. It should be equated to a well-ordered set after measurement and thus requires the axiom of choice.Quantum invariance underlies quantum information and reveals it as the relation of an unordered quantum “much” (i.e. a coherent state) and a well-ordered “many” of the measured results (i.e. a statistical ensemble). It opens up to a new horizon, in which all physical processes and phenomena can be interpreted as quantum computations realizing relevant operations and algorithms on quantum information. All phenomena of entanglement can be described in terms of the so defined quantum information.Quantum invariance elucidates the link between general relativity and quantum mechanics and thus, the problem of quantum gravity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document