Some Criticism on the Basic Concept of Infinite Set Theory

2019 ◽  
Vol 09 (02) ◽  
pp. 147-151
Author(s):  
猫驼 郭
2010 ◽  
Vol 75 (3) ◽  
pp. 996-1006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyriakos Keremedis ◽  
Eleftherios Tachtsis

AbstractWe establish the following results:1. In ZF (i.e., Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory minus the Axiom of Choice AC), for every set I and for every ordinal number α ≥ ω, the following statements are equivalent:(a) The Tychonoff product of ∣α∣ many non-empty finite discrete subsets of I is compact.(b) The union of ∣α∣ many non-empty finite subsets of I is well orderable.2. The statement: For every infinite set I, every closed subset of the Tychonoff product [0, 1]Iwhich consists offunctions with finite support is compact, is not provable in ZF set theory.3. The statement: For every set I, the principle of dependent choices relativised to I implies the Tychonoff product of countably many non-empty finite discrete subsets of I is compact, is not provable in ZF0 (i.e., ZF minus the Axiom of Regularity).4. The statement: For every set I, every ℵ0-sized family of non-empty finite subsets of I has a choice function implies the Tychonoff product of ℵ0many non-empty finite discrete subsets of I is compact, is not provable in ZF0.


1994 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 1012-1021
Author(s):  
Arthur D. Grainger

AbstractLet X be a set, and let be the superstructure of X, where X0 = X and is the power set of X) for n ∈ ω. The set X is called a flat set if and only if for each x ∈ X, and x ∩ ŷ = ø for x, y ∈ X such that x ≠ y. where is the superstructure of y. In this article, it is shown that there exists a bijection of any nonempty set onto a flat set. Also, if is an ultrapower of (generated by any infinite set I and any nonprincipal ultrafilter on I), it is shown that is a nonstandard model of X: i.e., the Transfer Principle holds for and , if X is a flat set. Indeed, it is obvious that is not a nonstandard model of X when X is an infinite ordinal number. The construction of flat sets only requires the ZF axioms of set theory. Therefore, the assumption that X is a set of individuals (i.e., x ≠ ϕ and a ∈ x does not hold for x ∈ X and for any element a) is not needed for to be a nonstandard model of X.


1972 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 447-457 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.L. Hickman

We work in a Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory without the Axiom of Choice. In the appendix to his paper “Sur les ensembles finis”, Tarski proposed a finiteness criterion that we have called “C-finiteness”: a nonempty set is called “C-finite” if it cannot be partitioned into two blocks, each block being equivalent to the whole set. Despite the fact that this criterion can be shown to possess several features that are undesirable in a finiteness criterion, it has a fair amount of intrinsic interest. In Section 1 of this paper we look at a certain class of C-finite sets; in Section 2 we derive a few consequences from the negation of C-finiteness; and in Section 3 we show that not every C-infinite set necessarily possesses a linear ordering. Any unexplained notation is given in my paper, “Some definitions of finiteness”, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 5 (1971).


1976 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia F. Knight

In [7] it is shown that if Σ is a type omitted in the structure = ω, +, ·, < and complete with respect to Th() then Σ is omitted in models of Th() of all infinite powers. The proof given there extends readily to other models of P. In this paper the result is extended to models of ZFC. For pre-tidy models of ZFC, the proof is a straightforward combination of the methods in [7] and in Keisler and Morley ([9], [6]). For other models, the proof involves forcing. In particular, it uses Solovay and Cohen's original forcing proof that GB is a conservative extension of ZFC (see [2, p. 105] and [5, p. 77]).The method of proof used for pre-tidy models of set theory can be used to obtain an alternate proof of the result for This new proof yields more information. First of all, a condition is obtained which resembles the hypothesis of the “Omitting Types” theorem, and which is sufficient for a theory T to have a model omitting a type Σ and containing an infinite set of indiscernibles. The proof that this condition is sufficient is essentially contained in Morley's proof [9] that the Hanf number for omitting types is so the condition will be called Morley's condition.If T is a pre-tidy theory, Morley's condition guarantees that T will have models omitting Σ in all infinite powers.


1994 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorenz Halbeisen ◽  
Saharon Shelah

AbstractIn 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 and , either ≤ or ≤ . However, in ZF this is no longer so. For a given infinite set A consider seq1-1(A), the set of all sequences of A without repetition. We compare |seq1-1(A)|, the cardinality of this set, to ||, 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 ⊢ ∀A(| seq1-1(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 | fin(B)| < | (B*)| even though the existence for some infinite set B* of a function ƒ from fin(B*) onto (B*) is consistent with ZF.


2009 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan Bowler ◽  
Thomas Forster

It is generally known that infinite symmetric groups have few nontrivial normal subgroups (typically only the subgroups of bounded support) and none of small index. (We will explain later exactly what we mean by small). However the standard analysis relies heavily on the axiom of choice. By dint of a lot of combinatorics we have been able to dispense—largely—with the axiom of choice. Largely, but not entirely: our result is that if X is an infinite set with ∣X∣ = ∣X × X∣ then Symm(X) has no nontrivial normal subgroups of small index. Some condition like this is needed because of the work of Sam Tarzi who showed [4] that, for any finite group G, there is a model of ZF without AC in which there is a set X with Symm(X)/FSymm(X) isomorphic to G.The proof proceeds in two stages. We consider a particularly useful class of permutations, which we call the class of flexible permutations. A permutation of X is flexible if it fixes at least ∣X∣-many points. First we show that every normal subgroup of Symm(X) (of small index) must contain every flexible permutation. This will be theorem 4. Then we show (theorem 7) that the flexible permutations generate Symm(X).


2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-215
Author(s):  
Karol Pąk

Summary The foundation of the Mizar Mathematical Library [2], is first-order Tarski-Grothendieck set theory. However, the foundation explicitly refers only to Tarski’s Axiom A, which states that for every set X there is a Tarski universe U such that X ∈ U. In this article, we prove, using the Mizar [3] formalism, that the Grothendieck name is justified. We show the relationship between Tarski and Grothendieck universe. First we prove in Theorem (17) that every Grothendieck universe satisfies Tarski’s Axiom A. Then in Theorem (18) we prove that every Grothendieck universe that contains a given set X, even the least (with respect to inclusion) denoted by GrothendieckUniverseX, has as a subset the least (with respect to inclusion) Tarski universe that contains X, denoted by the Tarski-ClassX. Since Tarski universes, as opposed to Grothendieck universes [5], might not be transitive (called epsilon-transitive in the Mizar Mathematical Library [1]) we focused our attention to demonstrate that Tarski-Class X ⊊ GrothendieckUniverse X for some X. Then we show in Theorem (19) that Tarski-ClassX where X is the singleton of any infinite set is a proper subset of GrothendieckUniverseX. Finally we show that Tarski-Class X = GrothendieckUniverse X holds under the assumption that X is a transitive set. The formalisation is an extension of the formalisation used in [4].


Author(s):  
John P. Burgess

In the late nineteenth century, Georg Cantor created mathematical theories, first of sets or aggregates of real numbers (or linear points), and later of sets or aggregates of arbitrary elements. The relationship of element a to set A is written a∈A; it is to be distinguished from the relationship of subset B to set A, which holds if every element of B is also an element of A, and which is written B⊆A. Cantor is most famous for his theory of transfinite cardinals, or numbers of elements in infinite sets. A subset of an infinite set may have the same number of elements as the set itself, and Cantor proved that the sets of natural and rational numbers have the same number of elements, which he called ℵ0; also that the sets of real and complex numbers have the same number of elements, which he called c. Cantor proved ℵ0 to be less than c. He conjectured that no set has a number of elements strictly between these two. In the early twentieth century, in response to criticism of set theory, Ernst Zermelo undertook its axiomatization; and, with amendments by Abraham Fraenkel, his have been the accepted axioms ever since. These axioms help distinguish the notion of a set, which is too basic to admit of informative definition, from other notions of a one made up of many that have been considered in logic and philosophy. Properties having exactly the same particulars as instances need not be identical, whereas sets having exactly the same elements are identical by the axiom of extensionality. Hence for any condition Φ there is at most one set {x|Φ(x)} whose elements are all and only those x such that Φ(x) holds, and {x|Φ(x)}={x|Ψ(x)} if and only if conditions Φ and Ψ hold of exactly the same x. It cannot consistently be assumed that {x|Φ(x)} exists for every condition Φ. Inversely, the existence of a set is not assumed to depend on the possibility of defining it by some condition Φ as {x|Φ(x)}. One set x0 may be an element of another set x1 which is an element of x2 and so on, x0∈x1∈x2∈…, but the reverse situation, …∈y2∈y1∈y0, may not occur, by the axiom of foundation. It follows that no set is an element of itself and that there can be no universal set y={x|x=x}. Whereas a part of a part of a whole is a part of that whole, an element of an element of a set need not be an element of that set. Modern mathematics has been greatly influenced by set theory, and philosophies rejecting the latter must therefore reject much of the former. Many set-theoretic notations and terminologies are encountered even outside mathematics, as in parts of philosophy: pair {a,b} {x|x=a or x=b} singleton {a} {x|x=a} empty set ∅ {x|x≠x} union ∪X {a|a∈A for some A∈X} binary union A∪B {a|a∈A or a∈B} intersection ∩X {a|a∈A for all A∈X} binary intersection A∩B {a|a∈A and a∈B} difference A−B {a|a∈A and not a∈B} complement A−B power set ℘(A) {B|B⊆A} (In contexts where only subsets of A are being considered, A-B may be written -B and called the complement of B.) While the accepted axioms suffice as a basis for the development not only of set theory itself, but of modern mathematics generally, they leave some questions about transfinite cardinals unanswered. The status of such questions remains a topic of logical research and philosophical controversy.


2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 107
Author(s):  
Mike Krebs

<div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><span>We show that there exists a Hausdorff topology on the set </span><span>R </span><span>of real numbers such that a subset </span><span>A </span><span>of </span><span>R </span><span>has compact closure if and only if </span><span>A </span><span>is countable. More generally, given any set </span><span>X </span><span>and any infinite set </span><span>S</span><span>, we prove that there exists a Hausdorff topology on </span><span>X </span><span>such that a subset </span><span>A </span><span>of </span><span>X </span><span>has compact closure if and only if the cardinality of </span><span>A </span><span>is less than or equal to that of </span><span>S</span><span>. When we attempt to replace “than than or equal to” in the preceding statement with “strictly less than,” the situation is more delicate; we show that the theorem extends to this case when </span><span>S </span><span>has regular cardinality but can fail when it does not. This counterexample shows that not every bornology is a bornology of compact closure. These results lie in the intersection of analysis, general topology, and set theory. </span></p></div></div></div>


1958 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 241-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Lorenzen

A “foundational crisis” occurred already in Greek mathematics, brought about by the Pythagorean discovery of incommensurable quantities. It was Eudoxos who provided new foundations, and since then Greek mathematics has been unshakeable. If one reads modern mathematical textbooks, one is normally told that something very similar occurred in modern mathematics. The calculus invented in the seventeenth century had to go through a crisis caused by the use of divergent series. One is told that by the achievements of the nineteenth century from Cauchy to Cantor this crisis has definitely been overcome. It is well known, but it is nevertheless very often not taken seriously into account, that this is an illusion. The so-called ε-δ-definitions of the limit concepts are an admirable achievement, but they are only one step towards the goal of a final foundation of analysis. The nineteenth century solution of the problem of foundations consists of recognizing, in addition to the concept of natural number as the basis of arithmetic, another basic concept for analysis, namely the concept of set. By the inventors of set theory it was strongly held that these sets are self-evident to our intuition; but very soon the belief in their self-evidence was destroyed by the set-theoretic paradoxes. After that, about 1908, the period of axiomatic set theory began. In analogy to geometry there was put forward an uninterpreted system of axioms, a formal system. This, of course, is quite possible. A formal system contains strings of marks; and a special class of these strings, the class of the so-called “theorems”, is inductively defined.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document