Ttyjukl

I am the light that shines in the dark

Why do we say 'Pairwise Disjoint', rather than 'Disjoint'?

After Brexit, will the EU recognize British passports that are valid for more than ten years?

Trigger on Custom Object Share

Having the player face themselves after the mid-game

Tool for measuring readability of English text

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

Is it a Cyclops number? "Nobody" knows!

Does the US political system, in principle, allow for a no-party system?

What exactly is the meaning of "fine wine"?

What can I do if someone tampers with my SSH public key?

Has a sovereign Communist government ever run, and conceded loss, on a fair election?

If nine coins are tossed, what is the probability that the number of heads is even?

I've given my players a lot of magic items. Is it reasonable for me to give them harder encounters?

Help! My Character is too much for her story!

Can inspiration allow the Rogue to make a Sneak Attack?

Averaging over columns while ignoring zero entries

Precision notation for voltmeters

How to install "rounded" brake pads

Is "cogitate" used appropriately in "I cogitate that success relies on hard work"?

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

Paper published similar to PhD thesis

Can I negotiate a patent idea for a raise, under French law?

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

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?

8

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 3 hours ago

Mike Battaglia

asked 5 hours ago

Mike BattagliaMike Battaglia

1,4271126

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  ...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
  4 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

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

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Ahh, I missed that distinction. Thank you!
  $endgroup$
  – Steven Stadnicki
  4 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
  4 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

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

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 2 more comments

8

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 3 hours ago

Mike Battaglia

asked 5 hours ago

Mike BattagliaMike Battaglia

1,4271126

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  ...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
  4 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

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

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Ahh, I missed that distinction. Thank you!
  $endgroup$
  – Steven Stadnicki
  4 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
  4 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Google suggests this: settheory.mathtalks.org/andreas-blass-well-ordered-choice
  $endgroup$
  – Carl Mummert
  4 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 3 hours ago

Mike Battaglia

asked 5 hours ago

Mike BattagliaMike Battaglia

1,4271126

$endgroup$

share|cite|improve this question

edited 3 hours ago

Mike Battaglia

asked 5 hours ago

Mike BattagliaMike Battaglia

1,4271126

share|cite|improve this question

edited 3 hours ago

Mike Battaglia

asked 5 hours ago

Mike BattagliaMike Battaglia

1,4271126

asked 5 hours ago

Mike BattagliaMike Battaglia

1,4271126

asked 5 hours ago

Mike BattagliaMike Battaglia

1,4271126

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

4

$begingroup$

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 3 hours ago

Asaf Karagila♦Asaf Karagila

306k33437768

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Do you have a source for a proof of ${sf AC_{rm WO}}iff forall x(aleph(x)=aleph^*(x))$?
  $endgroup$
  – Holo
  2 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @Holo karagila.org/2014/on-the-partition-principle
  $endgroup$
  – Asaf Karagila♦
  2 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

4

$begingroup$

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 3 hours ago

Asaf Karagila♦Asaf Karagila

306k33437768

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Do you have a source for a proof of ${sf AC_{rm WO}}iff forall x(aleph(x)=aleph^*(x))$?
  $endgroup$
  – Holo
  2 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

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

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

4

$begingroup$

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 3 hours ago

Asaf Karagila♦Asaf Karagila

306k33437768

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Do you have a source for a proof of ${sf AC_{rm WO}}iff forall x(aleph(x)=aleph^*(x))$?
  $endgroup$
  – Holo
  2 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @Holo karagila.org/2014/on-the-partition-principle
  $endgroup$
  – Asaf Karagila♦
  2 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 3 hours ago

Asaf Karagila♦Asaf Karagila

306k33437768

$endgroup$

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 3 hours ago

Asaf Karagila♦Asaf Karagila

306k33437768

answered 3 hours ago

Asaf Karagila♦Asaf Karagila

306k33437768

answered 3 hours ago

Asaf Karagila♦Asaf Karagila

306k33437768