The representational theory of measurement has long been the central paradigm in the philosophy of measurement. Such is not the case anymore, partly under the influence of the critique according to which RTM offers too poor descriptions of the measurement procedures actually followed in science. This can be called the metrological critique of RTM. I claim that the critique is partly irrelevant. This is because, in general, RTM is not in the business of describing measurement procedures, be it in idealized (...) form. To support this claim, I present various cases where RTM can be said to investigate measurement without providing any measurement procedure. Such limit cases lead to a better understanding of the RTM project. They also illustrate some of the questions which the philosophy of measurement can explore, when it is ready to go beyond the metrological viewpoint. (shrink)

We write and for the cardinalities of the set of finite sequences and the set of finite subsets, respectively, of a set which is of cardinality. With the axiom of choice (), for every infinite cardinal but, without, any relationship between and for an arbitrary infinite cardinal cannot be proved. In this paper, we give conditions that make and comparable for an infinite cardinal. Among our results, we show that, if we assume the axiom of choice for sets of finite (...) sets, then for every Dedekind‐infinite cardinal and the condition that is Dedekind‐infinite cannot be weakened to weakly Dedekind‐infinite. (shrink)

In mathematical practice certain formulas φ are believed to essentially decide all other natural properties of the object x. The purpose of this paper is to exactly quantify such a belief for four formulas φ, namely “x is a Ramsey ultrafilter”, “x is a free Souslin tree”, “x is an extendible strong Lusin set” and “x is a good diamond sequence”.

We investigate the set theoretical strength of some properties of normality, including Urysohn's Lemma, Tietze-Urysohn Extension Theorem, normality of disjoint unions of normal spaces, and normality of Fσ subsets of normal spaces.

We show that the both assertions “in every vector space B over a finite element field every subspace V ⊆ B has a complementary subspace S” and “for every family [MATHEMATICAL SCRIPT CAPITAL A] of disjoint odd sized sets there exists a subfamily ℱ={Fj:j ϵω} with a choice function” together imply the axiom of choice AC. We also show that AC is equivalent to the statement “in every vector space over ℚ every generating set includes a basis”.

It is shown that if is an o-minimal structure such that is a dense total order and ≾ is a parameter-definable partial order on M, then ≾ has an extension to a definable total order.

The theorem that the arithmetic mean is greater than or equal to the geometric mean is investigated for cardinal and ordinal numbers. It is shown that whereas the theorem of the means can be proved for n pairwise comparable cardinal numbers without the axiom of choice, the inequality a2 + b2 ≥ 2ab is equivalent to the axiom of choice. For ordinal numbers, the inequality α2 + β2 ≥ 2αβ is established and the conditions for equality are derived; stronger inequalities (...) are obtained for finite and infinite sequences of ordinals under suitable monotonicity hypotheses. MSC: 03E10, 04A10, 03E25, 04A25. (shrink)

We work in set-theory without choice ZF. A set is Countable if it is finite or equipotent with ${\Bbb N}$ . Given a closed subset F of [0, 1] I which is a bounded subset of $\ell ^{1}(I)$ (resp. such that $F\subseteq c_{0}(I)$ ), we show that the countable axiom of choice for finite sets, (resp. the countable axiom of choice AC N ) implies that F is compact. This enhances previous results where AC N (resp. the axiom of Dependent (...) Choices) was required. If I is linearly orderable (for example $I={\Bbb R}$ ), then, in ZF, the closed unit ball of the Hilbert space $\ell ^{2}(I)$ is (Loeb-)compact in the weak topology. However, the weak compactness of the closed unit ball of $\ell ^{2}(\scr{P}({\Bbb R}))$ is not provable in ZF. (shrink)

Working in the theory “ZF + There is a nontrivial elementary embedding j: V → V ”, we show that a final segment of cardinals satisfies certain square bracket finite and infinite exponent partition relations. As a corollary to this, we show that this final segment is composed of Jonsson cardinals. We then show how to force and bring this situation down to small alephs. A prototypical result is the construction of a model for ZF in which every cardinal μ (...) ≥ ℵ2 satisfies the square bracket infinite exponent partition relation μ → [μ]ωℵ2. We conclude with a discussion of some consistency questions concerning different versions of the axiom asserting the existence of a nontrivial elementary embedding j : V → V. By virtue of Kunen's celebrated inconsistency result, we use only a restricted amount of the Axiom of Choice. (shrink)

This paper attempts to show that mathematical knowledge does not grow by a simple process of accumulation and that it is possible to provide a quasi-empirical (in Lakatos's sense) account of mathematical theories. Arguments supporting the first thesis are based on the study of the changes occurred within Eudidean geometry from the time of Euclid to that of Hilbert; whereas those in favour of the second arise from reflections on the criteria for refutation of mathematical theories.

Set theory is an autonomous and sophisticated field of mathematics, enormously successful not only at its continuing development of its historical heritage but also at analyzing mathematical propositions cast in set-theoretic terms and gauging their consistency strength. But set theory is also distinguished by having begun intertwined with pronounced metaphysical attitudes, and these have even been regarded as crucial by some of its great developers. This has encouraged the exaggeration of crises in foundations and of metaphysical doctrines in general. However, (...) set theory has proceeded in the opposite direction, from a web of intensions to a theory of extensionpar excellence, and like other fields of mathematics its vitality and progress have depended on a steadily growing core of mathematical structures and methods, problems and results. There is also the stronger contention that from the beginning set theory actually developed through a progression ofmathematicalmoves, whatever and sometimes in spite of what has been claimed on its behalf.What follows is an account of the development of set theory from its beginnings through the creation of forcing based on these contentions, with an avowedly Whiggish emphasis on the heritage that has been retained and developed by current set theory. The whole transfinite landscape can be viewed as the result of Cantor's attempt to articulate and solve the Continuum Problem. (shrink)

If we assume the axiom of choice, then every two cardinal numbers are comparable, In the absence of the axiom of choice, this is no longer so. For a few cardinalities related to an arbitrary infinite set, we will give all the possible relationships between them, where possible means that the relationship is consistent with the axioms of set theory. Further we investigate the relationships between some other cardinal numbers in specific permutation models and give some results provable without using (...) the axiom of choice. (shrink)

Bertrand Russell offered an influential paradox of propositions in Appendix B of The Principles of Mathematics, but there is little agreement as to what to conclude from it. We suggest that Russell's paradox is best regarded as a limitative result on propositional granularity. Some propositions are, on pain of contradiction, unable to discriminate between classes with different members: whatever they predicate of one, they predicate of the other. When accepted, this remarkable fact should cast some doubt upon some of the (...) uses to which modern descendente of Russell's paradox of propositions have been put in recent literature. (shrink)

1. If A is strongly amorphous , then its power set P is dually Dedekind infinite, i. e., every function from P onto P is injective. 2. The class of “inexhaustible” sets is not closed under supersets unless AC holds.

We study the relationships between definitions of compactness in topological spaces and the roll the axiom of choice plays in these relationships.

We show that the following property (LN) holds in the basic Cohen model as sketched by Jech: The order topology of any linearly ordered set is normal. This proves the independence of the axiom of choice from LN in ZF, and thus settles a question raised by G. Birkhoff (1940) which was partly answered by van Douwen (1985).

Adjoin, to a countable standard model M of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZF), a countable set A of independent Cohen generic reals. If one attempts to construct the model generated over M by these reals (not necessarily containing A as an element) as the intersection of all standard models that include M ∪ A, the resulting model fails to satisfy the power set axiom, although it does satisfy all the other ZF axioms. Thus, there is no smallest ZF model including M (...) ∪ A, but there are minimal such models. These are classified by their sets of reals, and there is one minimal model whose set of reals is the smallest possible. We give several characterizations of this model, we determine which weak axioms of choice it satisfies, and we show that some better known models are forcing extensions of it. (shrink)

Two Fraenkel-Mostowski models are constructed in which the Boolean Prime Ideal Theorem is true. In both models, AC for countable sets is true, but AC for sets of cardinality 2math image and the 2m = m principle are both false. The Principle of Dependent Choices is true in the first model, but false in the second.

We show that it is not possible to construct a Fraenkel-Mostowski model in which the axiom of choice for well-ordered families of sets and the axiom of choice for sets are both true, but the axiom of choice is false.

We are used to the idea that computers operate on numbers, yet another kind of data is equally important: the syntax of formal languages, with variables, binding, and alpha-equivalence. The original application of nominal techniques, and the one with greatest prominence in this paper, is to reasoning on formal syntax with variables and binding. Variables can be modelled in many ways: for instance as numbers (since we usually take countably many of them); as links (since they may `point' to a (...) binding site in the term, where they are bound); or as functions (since they often, though not always, represent `an unknown'). None of these models is perfect. In every case for the models above, problems arise when trying to use them as a basis for a fully formal mechanical treatment of formal language. The problems are practical—but their underlying cause may be mathematical. The issue is not whether formal syntax exists, since clearly it does, so much as what kind of mathematical structure it is. To illustrate this point by a parody, logical derivations can be modelled using a Gödel encoding (i.e., injected into the natural numbers). It would be false to conclude from this that proof-theory is a branch of number theory and can be understood in terms of, say, Peano's axioms. Similarly, as it turns out, it is false to conclude from the fact that variables can be encoded e.g., as numbers, that the theory of syntax-with-binding can be understood in terms of the theory of syntax-without-binding, plus the theory of numbers (or, taking this to a logical extreme, purely in terms of the theory of numbers). It cannot; something else is going on. What that something else is, has not yet been fully understood. In nominal techniques, variables are an instance of names, and names are data. We model names using urelemente with properties that, pleasingly enough, turn out to have been investigated by Fraenkel and Mostowski in the first half of the 20th century for a completely different purpose than modelling formal language. What makes this model really interesting is that it gives names distinctive properties which can be related to useful logic and programming principles for formal syntax. Since the initial publications, advances in the mathematics and presentation have been introduced piecemeal in the literature. This paper provides in a single accessible document an updated development of the foundations of nominal techniques. This gives the reader easy access to updated results and new proofs which they would otherwise have to search across two or more papers to find, and full proofs that in other publications may have been elided. We also include some new material not appearing elsewhere. (shrink)

We find properties of topological spaces which are not shared by disjoint unions in the absence of some form of the Axiom of Choice.

In this first paper of a series of works on the foundations of science, we examine the significance of logical and mathematical frameworks used in foundational studies. In particular, we emphasize the distinction between the order of a language and the order of a structure to prevent confusing models of scientific theories with first-order structures, and which are studied in standard model theory. All of us are, of course, bound to make abuses of language even in putatively precise contexts. This (...) is not a problem—in fact, it is part of scientific and philosophical practice. But it is important to be sensitive to the dierent uses that structure, model, and language have. In this paper, we examine these topics in the context of classical logic; only in the last section we touch upon briefly on non-classical ones. (shrink)

Here is an account of logical consequence inspired by Bolzano and Tarski. Logical validity is a property of arguments. An argument is a pair of a set of interpreted sentences (the premises) and an interpreted sentence (the conclusion). Whether an argument is logically valid depends only on its logical form. The logical form of an argument is fixed by the syntax of its constituent sentences, the meanings of their logical constituents and the syntactic differences between their non-logical constituents, treated as (...) variables. A constituent of a sentence is logical just if it is formal in meaning, in the sense roughly that its application is invariant under permutations of individuals.1 Thus ‘=’ is a logical constant because no permutation maps two individuals to one or one to two; ‘∈’ is not a logical constant because some permutations interchange the null set and its singleton. Truth functions, the usual quantifiers and bound variables also count as logical constants. An argument is logically valid if and only if the conclusion is true under every assignment of semantic values to variables (including all non-logical expressions) under which all its premises are true. A sentence is logically true if and only if the argument with no premises of which it is the conclusion is logically valid, that is, if and only if the sentence is true under every assignment of semantic values to variables. An interpretation assigns values to all variables. (shrink)

We establish several first- or second-order properties of models of first-order theories by considering their elements as atoms of a new universe of set theory and by extending naturally any structure of Boolean model on the atoms to the whole universe. For example, complete f-rings are "boundedly algebraically compact" in the language $(+,-,\cdot,\wedge,\vee,\leq)$ , and the positive cone of a complete l-group with infinity adjoined is algebraically compact in the language (+, ∨, ≤). We also give an example with any (...) first-order language. The proofs can be translated into "naive set theory" in a uniform way. (shrink)

In set theory without the Axiom of Choice (), we investigate the problem of the placement of Łoś's Theorem () in the hierarchy of weak choice principles, and answer several open questions from the book Consequences of the Axiom of Choice by Howard and Rubin, as well as an open question by Brunner. We prove a number of results summarised in § 3.

The present article deals with the power of the axiom of choice within the second-order predicate logic. We investigate the relationship between several variants of AC and some other statements, known as equivalent to AC within the set theory of Zermelo and Fraenkel with atoms, in Henkin models of the one-sorted second-order predicate logic with identity without operation variables. The construction of models follows the ideas of Fraenkel and Mostowski. It is e. g. shown that the well-ordering theorem for unary (...) predicates is independent from AC for binary predicates and from the trichotomy law for unary predicates. Moreover, we show that the AC for binary predicates follows neither from the trichotomy law for unary predicates nor from Zorn's lemma for unary predicates nor from the formalization of the axiom of choice for disjoint families of sets for binary predicates, and that the trichotomy law for unary predicates does not follow from AC for binary predicates. (shrink)

We investigate how the sentence choice semantics for propositional superposition logic developed in Tzouvaras could be extended so as to successfully apply to first-order superposition logic. There are two options for such an extension. The apparently more natural one is the formula choice semantics based on choice functions for pairs of arbitrary formulas of the basis language. It is proved however that the universal instantiation scheme of first-order logic, $\varphi \rightarrow \varphi $, is false, as a scheme of tautologies, with (...) respect to FCS. This causes the total failure of FCS as a candidate semantics. Then we turn to the other option, which is a variant of SCS, since it uses again choice functions for pairs of sentences only. This semantics however presupposes that the applicability of the connective | is restricted to quantifier-free sentences, and thus the class of well-formed formulas and sentences of the language is restricted too. Granted these syntactic restrictions, the usual axiomatizations of FOLS turn out to be sound and conditionally complete with respect to this second semantics, just like the corresponding systems of PLS. (shrink)

In this paper we study some statements similar to the Partition Principle and the Trichotomy. We prove some relationships between these statements, the Axiom of Choice, and the Generalized Continuum Hypothesis. We also prove some independence results. MSC: 03E25, 03E50, 04A25, 04A50.

We 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] (...) I which consists of functions 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 ℵ₀ many non-empty finite discrete subsets of I is compact, is not provable in ZF⁰. (shrink)

In 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 C and D, either C ≤ D or D ≤ C. However, in ZF this is no longer so. For a given infinite set A consider $\operatorname{seq}^{1 - 1}(A)$ , the set of all sequences of A without repetition. We compare $|\operatorname{seq}^{1 - 1}(A)|$ , the cardinality of this set, to |P(A)|, 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 $ZF \vdash \forall A(|\operatorname{seq}^{1 - 1}(A)| \neq|\mathscr{P}(\mathscr{A})|)$ , and we show that this is the best possible result. Furthermore, it is provable in ZF that if B is an infinite set, then $|\operatorname{fin}(B)| <|\mathscr{P}(B)|$ even though the existence for some infinite set B* of a function f from $\operatorname{fin}(B^\ast)$ onto P(B*) is consistent with ZF. (shrink)

I wish to thank Klaus Kühnle who streamlined in [8] several of my definitions and proofs concerning the subject matter of this paper. Some ideas and results arose from discussions with Klaus Leeb. Jan Johannsen discovered some mistakes in an earlier version.

We construct peculiar Hilbert spaces from counterexamples to the axiom of choice. We identify the intrinsically effective Hamiltonians with those observables of quantum theory which may coexist with such spaces. Here a self adjoint operator is intrinsically effective if and only if the Schrödinger equation of its generated semigroup is soluble by means of eigenfunction series expansions.

We try to recast in modern terms a choice principle conceived by Beppo Levi, who called it the Approximation Principle. Up to now, there was almost no discussion about Levi’s contribution, due to the quite obscure formulation of AP the author has chosen. After briefly reviewing the historical and philosophical surroundings of Levi’s proposal, we undertake our own attempt at interpreting AP. The idea underlying the principle, as well as the supposed faithfulness of our version to Levi’s original intention, are (...) then discussed. Finally, an application of AP to a property of metric spaces is presented, with the aim of showing how AP may work in contexts where other forms of choice are commonly at use. (shrink)