Let 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. $AC \Longrightarrow KW \Longrightarrow DO \Longrightarrow O$ , 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. (shrink)

The axiom of dependent choice ( $\mathsf {DC}$ ) and the axiom of countable choice ( ${\mathsf {AC}}_\omega $ ) are two weak forms of the axiom of choice that can be stated for a specific set: $\mathsf {DC} ( X )$ asserts that any total binary relation on X has an infinite chain, while ${\mathsf {AC}}_\omega ( X )$ asserts that any countable collection of nonempty subsets of X has a choice function. It is well-known that $\mathsf {DC} \Rightarrow (...) {\mathsf {AC}}_\omega $. We study for which sets and under which hypotheses $\mathsf {DC} ( X ) \Rightarrow {\mathsf {AC}}_\omega ( X )$, and then we show it is consistent with $\mathsf {ZF}$ that there is a set $A \subseteq \mathbb {R}$ for which $\mathsf {DC} ( A )$ holds, but ${\mathsf {AC}}_\omega ( A )$ fails. (shrink)

In set theory without the Axiom of Choice, we investigate the set-theoretic strength of the principle NDS which states that there is no function f on the set ω of natural numbers such that for everyn ∈ ω, f ≺ f, where for sets x and y, x ≺ y means that there is a one-to-one map g : x → y, but no one-to-one map h : y → x. It is a long standing open problem whether NDS implies (...) AC. In this paper, among other results, we show that NDS is a strong axiom by establishing that ACLO ↛ NDS in ZFA set theory. The latter result provides a strongly negative answer to the question of whether “every Dedekind-finite set is finite” implies NDS addressed in G. H. Moore “Zermelo’s Axiom of Choice. Its Origins, Development, and Influence” and in P. Howard–J. E. Rubin “Consequences of the Axiom of Choice”. We also prove that ACWO ↛ NDS in ZF and that “for all infinite cardinals m, m + m = m” ↛ NDS in ZFA. (shrink)

We investigate, within the framework of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory ZF, the interrelations between weak forms of the Axiom of Choice AC restricted to sets of reals.

We provide a general criterion for Fraenkel–Mostowski models of $${\textsf{ZFA}}$$ (i.e. Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory weakened to permit the existence of atoms) which implies “every linearly ordered set can be well ordered” ( $${\textsf{LW}}$$ ), and look at six models for $${\textsf{ZFA}}$$ which satisfy this criterion (and thus $${\textsf{LW}}$$ is true in these models) and “every Dedekind finite set is finite” ( $${\textsf{DF}}={\textsf{F}}$$ ) is true, and also consider various forms of choice for well-ordered families of well orderable sets in these (...) models. In Model 1, the axiom of multiple choice for countably infinite families of countably infinite sets ( $${\textsf{MC}}_{\aleph _{0}}^{\aleph _{0}}$$ ) is false. It was the open question of whether or not such a model exists (from Howard and Tachtsis “On metrizability and compactness of certain products without the Axiom of Choice”) that provided the motivation for this paper. In Model 2, which is constructed by first choosing an uncountable regular cardinal in the ground model, a strong form of Dependent choice is true, while the axiom of choice for well-ordered families of finite sets ( $${\textsf{AC}}^{{\textsf{WO}}}_{{\textsf{fin}}}$$ ) is false. Also in this model the axiom of multiple choice for well-ordered families of well orderable sets fails. Model 3 is similar to Model 2 except for the status of $${\textsf{AC}}^{{\textsf{WO}}}_{{\textsf{fin}}}$$ which is unknown. Models 4 and 5 are variations of Model 3. In Model 4 $${\textsf{AC}}_{\textrm{fin}}^{{\textsf{WO}}}$$ is true. The construction of Model 5 begins by choosing a regular successor cardinal in the ground model. Model 6 is the only one in which $$2{\mathfrak {m}} = {\mathfrak {m}}$$ for every infinite cardinal number $${\mathfrak {m}}$$. We show that the union of a well-ordered family of well orderable sets is well orderable in Model 6 and that the axiom of multiple countable choice is false. (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)

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.

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.

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)