Ttyjfyk

Should I apply for my boss's promotion?

Where is the License file location for Identity Server in Sitecore 9.1?

How to write a chaotic neutral protagonist and prevent my readers from thinking they are evil?

A vote on the Brexit backstop

Precision notation for voltmeters

Why would /etc/passwd be used every time someone executes `ls -l` command?

How to educate team mate to take screenshots for bugs with out unwanted stuff

Is it appropriate to ask a former professor to order a library book for me through ILL?

Use Mercury as quenching liquid for swords?

Professor forcing me to attend a conference, I can't afford even with 50% funding

Was this cameo in Captain Marvel computer generated?

Short story about an infectious indestructible metal bar?

How does a sound wave propagate?

ESPP--any reason not to go all in?

Should we avoid writing fiction about historical events without extensive research?

Do I need a return ticket to Canada if I'm a Japanese National?

School performs periodic password audits. Is my password compromised?

Sort array by month and year

I am the person who abides by rules but breaks the rules . Who am I

Averaging over columns while ignoring zero entries

Help! My Character is too much for her story!

Boss Telling direct supervisor I snitched

PTIJ: Sport in the Torah

Will the concrete slab in a partially heated shed conduct a lot of heat to the unconditioned area?

How strong is the axiom of well-ordered choice?

No uncountable ordinals without the axiom of choice?Axiom of choice , Hartogs ordinals, well-ordering principleWhich sets are well-orderable without Axiom of Choice?Well-orderings of $mathbb R$ without Choice“There is no well-ordered uncountable set of real numbers”Axiom of choice and the well ordering principleThe class of well-founded sets satisfies the axiom of foundation and the axiom of choiceAxiom of Choice is equivalent to Well-ordering Theorem: Hrbacek, Jech - “Introduction to Set Theory”the power set of every well-ordered set is well-ordered implies well orderingHow strong are weak choice principles?

10

1

$begingroup$

I sometimes see references to the "Axiom of Well-Ordered Choice," but I'm not sure how strong it is. It states that every well-ordered family of sets has a choice function.

By "well-ordered family," I don't mean that the sets within the family are well-ordered, but that the family must index all the sets within the family by some ordinal.

How strong is this axiom? Can it prove the Hahn-Banach theorem, the ultrafilter lemma, anything about measurable sets, etc? Does it have any implications about what sets can be well-ordered (the reals for instance), or perhaps prove anything about the Hartogs number of sets, etc?

Does anyone have a reference for this?

set-theory axiom-of-choice foundations well-orders

share|cite|improve this question

edited 7 hours ago

Mike Battaglia

asked 8 hours ago

Mike BattagliaMike Battaglia

1,4371127

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  ...isn't this axiom a consequence of ZF? One can choose the (well-defined, since it's well-ordered) lexicographically least element of each set in the family...
  $endgroup$
  – Steven Stadnicki
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  That is a family of well-ordered sets, not a well-ordered family of (arbitrary sets).
  $endgroup$
  – Mike Battaglia
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Ahh, I missed that distinction. Thank you!
  $endgroup$
  – Steven Stadnicki
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  I've never seen this axiom before. Does the family itself need to be a set or can it be a proper class?
  $endgroup$
  – Robert Shore
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Google suggests this: settheory.mathtalks.org/andreas-blass-well-ordered-choice
  $endgroup$
  – Carl Mummert
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 2 more comments

10

1

$begingroup$

I sometimes see references to the "Axiom of Well-Ordered Choice," but I'm not sure how strong it is. It states that every well-ordered family of sets has a choice function.

By "well-ordered family," I don't mean that the sets within the family are well-ordered, but that the family must index all the sets within the family by some ordinal.

How strong is this axiom? Can it prove the Hahn-Banach theorem, the ultrafilter lemma, anything about measurable sets, etc? Does it have any implications about what sets can be well-ordered (the reals for instance), or perhaps prove anything about the Hartogs number of sets, etc?

Does anyone have a reference for this?

set-theory axiom-of-choice foundations well-orders

share|cite|improve this question

edited 7 hours ago

Mike Battaglia

asked 8 hours ago

Mike BattagliaMike Battaglia

1,4371127

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  ...isn't this axiom a consequence of ZF? One can choose the (well-defined, since it's well-ordered) lexicographically least element of each set in the family...
  $endgroup$
  – Steven Stadnicki
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  That is a family of well-ordered sets, not a well-ordered family of (arbitrary sets).
  $endgroup$
  – Mike Battaglia
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Ahh, I missed that distinction. Thank you!
  $endgroup$
  – Steven Stadnicki
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  I've never seen this axiom before. Does the family itself need to be a set or can it be a proper class?
  $endgroup$
  – Robert Shore
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Google suggests this: settheory.mathtalks.org/andreas-blass-well-ordered-choice
  $endgroup$
  – Carl Mummert
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 2 more comments

$begingroup$

I sometimes see references to the "Axiom of Well-Ordered Choice," but I'm not sure how strong it is. It states that every well-ordered family of sets has a choice function.

By "well-ordered family," I don't mean that the sets within the family are well-ordered, but that the family must index all the sets within the family by some ordinal.

How strong is this axiom? Can it prove the Hahn-Banach theorem, the ultrafilter lemma, anything about measurable sets, etc? Does it have any implications about what sets can be well-ordered (the reals for instance), or perhaps prove anything about the Hartogs number of sets, etc?

Does anyone have a reference for this?

set-theory axiom-of-choice foundations well-orders

share|cite|improve this question

edited 7 hours ago

Mike Battaglia

asked 8 hours ago

Mike BattagliaMike Battaglia

1,4371127

$endgroup$

share|cite|improve this question

edited 7 hours ago

Mike Battaglia

asked 8 hours ago

Mike BattagliaMike Battaglia

1,4371127

share|cite|improve this question

edited 7 hours ago

Mike Battaglia

asked 8 hours ago

Mike BattagliaMike Battaglia

1,4371127

asked 8 hours ago

Mike BattagliaMike Battaglia

1,4371127

asked 8 hours ago

Mike BattagliaMike Battaglia

1,4371127

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

6

$begingroup$

The axiom of well-ordered choice, or $sf AC_rm WO$, is strictly weaker than the axiom of choice itself. If we start with $L$ and add $omega_1$ Cohen reals, then go to $L(Bbb R)$, one can show that $sf AC_rm WO$ holds, while $Bbb R$ cannot be well-ordered there.

Pincus proved in the 1970s that this is equivalent to the following statement on Hartogs and Lindenbaum numbers:

$sf AC_rm WO$ is equivalent to the statement $forall x.aleph(x)=aleph^*(x)$.

Here, the Lindenbaum number, $aleph^*(x)$, is the least ordinal which $x$ cannot be mapped onto. One obvious fact is that $aleph(x)leqaleph^*(x)$.

In the late 1950s or early 1960s Jensen proved that this assumption also implies $sf DC$. This is also a very clever proof.

The conjunction of these two consequences gives us that $aleph_1leq 2^aleph_0$, as a result of a theorem of Shelah from the 1980s, this implies there is a non-measurable set of reals.

As far as Hahn–Banach, or other things of that sort, I do not believe that much is known on the topic. But to sum up, this axiom does not imply that the reals are well-ordered, but it does imply there is a non-measurable set of reals because there is a set of reals of size $aleph_1$ and $sf DC$ holds. Moreover, it is equivalent to saying that the Hartogs and Lindenbaum numbers are equal for all sets.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 7 hours ago

Asaf Karagila♦Asaf Karagila

306k33437768

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Do you have a source for a proof of $sf AC_rm WOiff forall x(aleph(x)=aleph^*(x))$?
  $endgroup$
  – Holo
  6 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @Holo karagila.org/2014/on-the-partition-principle
  $endgroup$
  – Asaf Karagila♦
  5 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3140508%2fhow-strong-is-the-axiom-of-well-ordered-choice%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

6

$begingroup$

The axiom of well-ordered choice, or $sf AC_rm WO$, is strictly weaker than the axiom of choice itself. If we start with $L$ and add $omega_1$ Cohen reals, then go to $L(Bbb R)$, one can show that $sf AC_rm WO$ holds, while $Bbb R$ cannot be well-ordered there.

Pincus proved in the 1970s that this is equivalent to the following statement on Hartogs and Lindenbaum numbers:

$sf AC_rm WO$ is equivalent to the statement $forall x.aleph(x)=aleph^*(x)$.

Here, the Lindenbaum number, $aleph^*(x)$, is the least ordinal which $x$ cannot be mapped onto. One obvious fact is that $aleph(x)leqaleph^*(x)$.

In the late 1950s or early 1960s Jensen proved that this assumption also implies $sf DC$. This is also a very clever proof.

The conjunction of these two consequences gives us that $aleph_1leq 2^aleph_0$, as a result of a theorem of Shelah from the 1980s, this implies there is a non-measurable set of reals.

As far as Hahn–Banach, or other things of that sort, I do not believe that much is known on the topic. But to sum up, this axiom does not imply that the reals are well-ordered, but it does imply there is a non-measurable set of reals because there is a set of reals of size $aleph_1$ and $sf DC$ holds. Moreover, it is equivalent to saying that the Hartogs and Lindenbaum numbers are equal for all sets.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 7 hours ago

Asaf Karagila♦Asaf Karagila

306k33437768

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Do you have a source for a proof of $sf AC_rm WOiff forall x(aleph(x)=aleph^*(x))$?
  $endgroup$
  – Holo
  6 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @Holo karagila.org/2014/on-the-partition-principle
  $endgroup$
  – Asaf Karagila♦
  5 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

6

$begingroup$

The axiom of well-ordered choice, or $sf AC_rm WO$, is strictly weaker than the axiom of choice itself. If we start with $L$ and add $omega_1$ Cohen reals, then go to $L(Bbb R)$, one can show that $sf AC_rm WO$ holds, while $Bbb R$ cannot be well-ordered there.

Pincus proved in the 1970s that this is equivalent to the following statement on Hartogs and Lindenbaum numbers:

$sf AC_rm WO$ is equivalent to the statement $forall x.aleph(x)=aleph^*(x)$.

Here, the Lindenbaum number, $aleph^*(x)$, is the least ordinal which $x$ cannot be mapped onto. One obvious fact is that $aleph(x)leqaleph^*(x)$.

In the late 1950s or early 1960s Jensen proved that this assumption also implies $sf DC$. This is also a very clever proof.

The conjunction of these two consequences gives us that $aleph_1leq 2^aleph_0$, as a result of a theorem of Shelah from the 1980s, this implies there is a non-measurable set of reals.

As far as Hahn–Banach, or other things of that sort, I do not believe that much is known on the topic. But to sum up, this axiom does not imply that the reals are well-ordered, but it does imply there is a non-measurable set of reals because there is a set of reals of size $aleph_1$ and $sf DC$ holds. Moreover, it is equivalent to saying that the Hartogs and Lindenbaum numbers are equal for all sets.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 7 hours ago

Asaf Karagila♦Asaf Karagila

306k33437768

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Do you have a source for a proof of $sf AC_rm WOiff forall x(aleph(x)=aleph^*(x))$?
  $endgroup$
  – Holo
  6 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @Holo karagila.org/2014/on-the-partition-principle
  $endgroup$
  – Asaf Karagila♦
  5 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

The axiom of well-ordered choice, or $sf AC_rm WO$, is strictly weaker than the axiom of choice itself. If we start with $L$ and add $omega_1$ Cohen reals, then go to $L(Bbb R)$, one can show that $sf AC_rm WO$ holds, while $Bbb R$ cannot be well-ordered there.

Pincus proved in the 1970s that this is equivalent to the following statement on Hartogs and Lindenbaum numbers:

$sf AC_rm WO$ is equivalent to the statement $forall x.aleph(x)=aleph^*(x)$.

Here, the Lindenbaum number, $aleph^*(x)$, is the least ordinal which $x$ cannot be mapped onto. One obvious fact is that $aleph(x)leqaleph^*(x)$.

In the late 1950s or early 1960s Jensen proved that this assumption also implies $sf DC$. This is also a very clever proof.

The conjunction of these two consequences gives us that $aleph_1leq 2^aleph_0$, as a result of a theorem of Shelah from the 1980s, this implies there is a non-measurable set of reals.

As far as Hahn–Banach, or other things of that sort, I do not believe that much is known on the topic. But to sum up, this axiom does not imply that the reals are well-ordered, but it does imply there is a non-measurable set of reals because there is a set of reals of size $aleph_1$ and $sf DC$ holds. Moreover, it is equivalent to saying that the Hartogs and Lindenbaum numbers are equal for all sets.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 7 hours ago

Asaf Karagila♦Asaf Karagila

306k33437768

$endgroup$

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 7 hours ago

Asaf Karagila♦Asaf Karagila

306k33437768

answered 7 hours ago

Asaf Karagila♦Asaf Karagila

306k33437768

answered 7 hours ago

Asaf Karagila♦Asaf Karagila

306k33437768