We study statements about countable and well-ordered unions and their relation to each other and to countable and well-ordered forms of the axiom of choice. Using WO as an abbreviation for “well-orderable”, here are two typical results: The assertion that every WO family of countable sets has a WO union does not imply that every countable family of WO sets has a WO union; the axiom of choice for WO families of WO sets does not imply that the countable union (...) of countable sets is WO. (shrink)

It is a long standing open problem whether or not the Axiom of Countable Choice implies the fragment of Martin's Axiom either in or in. In this direction, we provide a partial answer by establishing that the Boolean Prime Ideal Theorem in conjunction with the Countable Union Theorem does not imply restricted to complete Boolean algebras in. Furthermore, we prove that the latter (formally) weaker form of and the Δ‐system Lemma are independent of each other in.We also answer open questions (...) from Tachtsis [16] which concern the status of restricted to complete Boolean algebras in certain Fraenkel–Mostowski permutation models of and we strengthen some results from the above paper. (shrink)

Martin's Axiom math formula is the statement that for every well-ordered cardinal math formula, the statement math formula holds, where math formula is “if math formula is a c.c.c. quasi order and math formula is a family of math formula dense sets in P, then there is a math formula-generic filter of P”. In math formula, the fragment math formula is provable, but not in general in math formula. In this paper, we investigate the interrelation between math formula and various (...) choice principles. In the choiceless context, it makes sense to drop the requirement that the cardinal κ be well-ordered, and we can define for any cardinal math formula the statement math formula to be “if math formula is a c.c.c. quasi order with math formula, and math formula is a family of math formula dense sets in P, then there is a math formula-generic filter of P”. We then define math formula to be the statement that for every cardinal math formula, we have that math formula holds. We then investigate the set-theoretic strength of the principle math formula. (shrink)

In set theory without the axiom of choice, we investigate the deductive strength of the principle “every topological space with the minimal cover property is compact”, and its relationship with certain notions of finite as well as with properties of linearly ordered sets and partially ordered sets.

The Axiom of Choice implies the Partition Principle and the existence, uniqueness, and monotonicity of (possibly infinite) sums of cardinal numbers. We establish several deductive relations among those principles and their variants: the monotonicity follows from the existence plus uniqueness; the uniqueness implies the Partition Principle; the Weak Partition Principle is strictly stronger than the Well-Ordered Choice.

A Hausdorff space is called effectively Hausdorff if there exists a function F—called a Hausdorff operator—such that, for every with,, where U and V are disjoint open neighborhoods of x and y, respectively. Among other results, we establish the following in, i.e., in Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory without the Axiom of Choice (): is equivalent to “For every set X, the Cantor cube is effectively Hausdorff”. This enhances the result of Howard, Keremedis, Rubin and Rubin [13] that is equivalent to “Hausdorff (...) spaces are effectively Hausdorff” in. The Boolean Prime Ideal Theorem and the statement “For every infinite set X, the Stone space of the Boolean algebra is effectively Hausdorff” are mutually independent. In particular, the latter statement is not provable in. The Axiom of Choice for non‐empty subsets of () is equivalent to each of “Separable Hausdorff spaces are effectively Hausdorff” and “The Cantor cube is effectively Hausdorff”. The Principle of Dependent Choices in conjunction with the Axiom of Choice for continuum sized families of non‐empty subsets of does not imply the axiom of choice for partitions of. The latter independence result fills the gap in information in Howard and Rubin's book “Consequences of the Axiom of Choice”. The axiom of countable choice for non‐empty subsets of is equivalent to each of “Denumerable Hausdorff spaces are effectively Hausdorff”, “Denumerable T3 spaces are completely normal” and “Denumerable Tychonoff spaces are Urysohn”. (shrink)

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)

Azriel Levy did fundamental work in set theory when it was transmuting into a modern, sophisticated field of mathematics, a formative period of over a decade straddling Cohen’s 1963 founding of forcing. The terms “Levy collapse”, “Levy hierarchy”, and “Levy absoluteness” will live on in set theory, and his technique of relative constructibility and connections established between forcing and definability will continue to be basic to the subject. What follows is a detailed account and analysis of Levy’s work and contributions (...) to set theory. (shrink)

We show that it consistent with Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory that there is an infinite, compact Boolean algebra.

In set theory without the Axiom of Choice math formula, we study the deductive strength of the statements math formula, math formula, math formula, and math formula. Among various results, we prove that none of the above statements is provable without using some form of choice, math formula is equivalent to math formula, math formula + math formula implies math formula, math formula does not imply math formula in math formula, math formula does not imply math formula in math formula (...) and math formula is strictly weaker than math formula in math formula. (shrink)

We study theorems from Functional Analysis with regard to their relationship with various weak choice principles and prove several results about them: “Every infinite‐dimensional Banach space has a well‐orderable Hamel basis” is equivalent to ; “ can be well‐ordered” implies “no infinite‐dimensional Banach space has a Hamel basis of cardinality ”, thus the latter statement is true in every Fraenkel‐Mostowski model of ; “No infinite‐dimensional Banach space has a Hamel basis of cardinality ” is not provable in ; “No infinite‐dimensional (...) Banach space has a well‐orderable Hamel basis of cardinality ” is provable in ; (the Axiom of Choice for denumerable families of non‐empty finite sets) is equivalent to “no infinite‐dimensional Banach space has a Hamel basis which can be written as a denumerable union of finite sets”; Mazur's Lemma (“If X is an infinite‐dimensional Banach space, Y is a finite‐dimensional vector subspace of X, and, then there is a unit vector such that for all and all scalars α”) is provable in ; “A real normed vector space X is finite‐dimensional if and only if its closed unit ball is compact” is provable in ; (Principle of Dependent Choices) + “ can be well‐ordered” does not imply the Hahn‐Banach Theorem () in ; and “no infinite‐dimensional Banach space has a Hamel basis of cardinality ” are independent from each other in ; “No infinite‐dimensional Banach space can be written as a denumerable union of finite‐dimensional subspaces” lies in strength between (the Axiom of Countable Choice) and ; implies “No infinite‐dimensional Banach space can be written as a denumerable union of closed proper subspaces” which in turn implies ; “Every infinite‐dimensional Banach space has a denumerable linearly independent subset” is a theorem of, but not a theorem of ; and “Every infinite‐dimensional Banach space has a linearly independent subset of cardinality ” implies “every Dedekind‐finite set is finite”. (shrink)

The deductive relationships between six statements are examined in set theory without the axiom of choice. Each of these statements follows from the axiom of choice and involves linear orderings in some way.

Läuchli and Pincus showed that existence of algebraic completions of all fields cannot be proved from Zermelo‐Fraenkel set theory alone. On the other hand, important special cases do follow. In particular, I show that an algebraic completion of can be constructed in Zermelo‐Fraenkel set theory.

For \(n\in \omega \), the weak choice principle \(\textrm{RC}_n\) is defined as follows: _For every infinite set_ _X_ _there is an infinite subset_ \(Y\subseteq X\) _with a choice function on_ \([Y]^n:=\{z\subseteq Y:|z|=n\}\). The choice principle \(\textrm{C}_n^-\) states the following: _For every infinite family of_ _n_-_element sets, there is an infinite subfamily_ \({\mathcal {G}}\subseteq {\mathcal {F}}\) _with a choice function._ The choice principles \(\textrm{LOC}_n^-\) and \(\textrm{WOC}_n^-\) are the same as \(\textrm{C}_n^-\), but we assume that the family \({\mathcal {F}}\) is linearly orderable (...) (for \(\textrm{LOC}_n^-\) ) or well-orderable (for \(\textrm{WOC}_n^-\) ). In the first part of this paper, for \(m,n\in \omega \) we will give a full characterization of when the implication \(\textrm{RC}_m\Rightarrow \textrm{WOC}_n^-\) holds in \({\textsf {ZF}}\). We will prove the independence results by using suitable Fraenkel-Mostowski permutation models. In the second part, we will show some generalizations. In particular, we will show that \(\textrm{RC}_5\Rightarrow \textrm{LOC}_5^-\) and that \(\textrm{RC}_6\Rightarrow \textrm{C}_3^-\), answering two open questions from Halbeisen and Tachtsis (Arch Math Logik 59(5):583–606, 2020). Furthermore, we will show that \(\textrm{RC}_6\Rightarrow \textrm{C}_9^-\) and that \(\textrm{RC}_7\Rightarrow \textrm{LOC}_7^-\). (shrink)

For an integer \, Ramsey Choice\ is the weak choice principle “every infinite setxhas an infinite subset y such that\ has a choice function”, and \ is the weak choice principle “every infinite family of n-element sets has an infinite subfamily with a choice function”. In 1995, Montenegro showed that for \, \. However, the question of whether or not \ for \ is still open. In general, for distinct \, not even the status of “\” or “\” is known. (...) In this paper, we provide partial answers to the above open problems and among other results, we establish the following:1.For every integer \, if \ is true for all integers i with \, then \ is true for all integers i with \.2.If \ are any integers such that for some prime p we have \ and \, then in \: \ and \.3.For \, \\\ implies \, and \ implies neither \ nor \ in \.4.For every integer \, \ implies “every infinite linearly orderable family of k-element sets has a partial Kinna–Wagner selection function” and the latter implication is not reversible in \ ). In particular, \ strictly implies “every infinite linearly orderable family of 3-element sets has a partial choice function”.5.The Chain-AntiChain Principle implies neither \ nor \ in \, for every integer \. (shrink)

In the context of [Formula: see text], we analyze a version of Hindman’s finite unions theorem on infinite sets, which normally requires the Axiom of Choice to be proved. We establish the implication relations between this statement and various classical weak choice principles, thus precisely locating the strength of the statement as a weak form of the [Formula: see text].