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)

We write for the cardinality of the set of finite sequences of a set which is of cardinality. With the Axiom of Choice (), for every infinite cardinal where is the cardinality of the permutations on a set which is of cardinality. In this paper, we show that “ for every cardinal ” is provable in and this is the best possible result in the absence of. Similar results are also obtained for : the cardinality of the set of finite (...) sequences without repetition of a set which is of cardinality. (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)

For a set x, let ${\cal S}\left$ be the set of all permutations of x. We prove in ZF several results concerning this notion, among which are the following: For all sets x such that ${\cal S}\left$ is Dedekind infinite, $\left| {{{\cal S}_{{\rm{fin}}}}\left} \right| < \left| {{\cal S}\left} \right|$ and there are no finite-to-one functions from ${\cal S}\left$ into ${{\cal S}_{{\rm{fin}}}}\left$, where ${{\cal S}_{{\rm{fin}}}}\left$ denotes the set of all permutations of x which move only finitely many elements. For all sets (...) x such that ${\cal S}\left$ is Dedekind infinite, $\left| {{\rm{seq}}\left} \right| < \left| {{\cal S}\left} \right|$ and there are no finite-to-one functions from ${\cal S}\left$ into seq, where seq denotes the set of all finite sequences of elements of x. For all infinite sets x such that there exists a permutation of x without fixed points, there are no finite-to-one functions from ${\cal S}\left$ into x. For all sets x, $|{[x]^2}| < \left| {{\cal S}\left} \right|$. (shrink)

We write and for the cardinalities of the set of finite subsets and the set of permutations with finitely many non‐fixed points, respectively, of a set which is of cardinality. In this paper, we investigate relationships between and for an infinite cardinal in the absence of the Axiom of Choice. We give conditions that make and comparable as well as give related consistency results.

With the Axiom of Choice, for any infinite cardinal but, without, we cannot conclude any relationship between and for an arbitrary infinite cardinal. In this paper, we give some properties of in the absence of and compare them to those of for an infinite cardinal. Among our results, we show that “ for any infinite cardinal and any natural number n” is provable in although “ for any infinite cardinal ” is not.

A set x is Dedekind infinite if there is an injection from ω into x; otherwise x is Dedekind finite. A set x is power Dedekind infinite if math formula, the power set of x, is Dedekind infinite; otherwise x is power Dedekind finite. For a set x, let pdfin be the set of all power Dedekind finite subsets of x. In this paper, we prove in math formula two generalizations of Cantor's theorem : The first one is that for (...) all power Dedekind infinite sets x, there are no Dedekind finite to one maps from math formula into pdfin. The second one is that for all sets math formula, if x is infinite and there is a power Dedekind finite to one map from y into x, then there are no surjections from y onto math formula. We also obtain some related results. (shrink)