The independence of Ramsey's theorem

1969 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. M. Kleinberg
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Infinite Class ◽  
Ramsey's Theorem ◽  
Ramsey’S Theorem ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice

In [3] F. P. Ramsey proved as a theorem of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZF) with the Axiom of Choice (AC) the following result:(1) Theorem. Let A be an infinite class. For each integer n and partition {X, Y} of the size n subsets of A, there exists an infinite subclass of A all of whose size n subsets are contained in only one of X or Y.

Ramsey's theorem in the hierarchy of choice principles

1977 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 387-390 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Blass
Keyword(s):  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Extension Principle ◽  
Infinite Length ◽  
Finite Sets ◽  
Ramsey's Theorem ◽  
Ramsey’S Theorem ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Infinite Set ◽  
Dependent Choice ◽  
Weak Axioms Of Choice

Ramsey's theorem [5] asserts that every infinite set X has the following partition property (RP): For every partition of the set [X]2 of two-element subsets of X into two pieces, there is an infinite subset Y of X such that [Y]2 is included in one of the pieces. Ramsey explicitly indicated that his proof of this theorem used the axiom of choice. Kleinberg [3] showed that every proof of Ramsey's theorem must use the axiom of choice, although rather weak forms of this axiom suffice. J. Dawson has raised the question of the position of Ramsey's theorem in the hierarchy of weak axioms of choice.In this paper, we prove or refute the provability of each of the possible implications between Ramsey's theorem and the weak axioms of choice mentioned in Appendix A.3 of Jech's book [2]. Our results, along with some known facts which we include for completeness, may be summarized as follows (the notation being as in [2]):A. The following principles do not (even jointly) imply Ramsey's theorem, nor does Ramsey's theorem imply any of them:the Boolean prime ideal theorem,the selection principle,the order extension principle,the ordering principle,choice from wellordered sets (ACW),choice from finite sets,choice from pairs (C2).B. Each of the following principles implies Ramsey's theorem, but none of them follows from Ramsey's theorem:the axiom of choice,wellordered choice (∀kACk),dependent choice of any infinite length k (DCk),countable choice (ACN0),nonexistence of infinite Dedekind-finite sets (WN0).

The Axiom of Choice Machine

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander R. Pruss
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Laws Of Nature ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Dutch Book ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice

This is a mainly technical chapter concerning the causal embodiment of the Axiom of Choice from set theory. The Axiom of Choice powered a construction of an infinite fair lottery in Chapter 4 and a die-rolling strategy in Chapter 5. For those applications to work, there has to be a causally implementable (though perhaps not compatible with our laws of nature) way to implement the Axiom of Choice—and, for our purposes, it is ideal if that involves infinite causal histories, so the causal finitist can reject it. Such a construction is offered. Moreover, other paradoxes involving the Axiom of Choice are given, including two Dutch Book paradoxes connected with the Banach–Tarski paradox. Again, all this is argued to provide evidence for causal finitism.

Products of some special compact spaces and restricted forms of AC

2010 ◽  
Vol 75 (3) ◽  
pp. 996-1006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyriakos Keremedis ◽  
Eleftherios Tachtsis
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Closed Subset ◽  
Choice Function ◽  
Ordinal Number ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Finite Support ◽  
Compact Spaces ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Infinite Set

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.

scholarly journals Selectively Pseudocompact Groups without Infinite Separable Pseudocompact Subsets

Axioms ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dmitri Shakhmatov ◽  
Víctor Yañez
Keyword(s):  
Topological Group ◽  
Set Theory ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Compactness Property ◽  
Free Ultrafilter ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice

We give a “naive” (i.e., using no additional set-theoretic assumptions beyond ZFC, the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms of set theory augmented by the Axiom of Choice) example of a Boolean topological group G without infinite separable pseudocompact subsets having the following “selective” compactness property: For each free ultrafilter p on the set N of natural numbers and every sequence ( U n ) of non-empty open subsets of G, one can choose a point x n ∈ U n for all n ∈ N in such a way that the resulting sequence ( x n ) has a p-limit in G; that is, { n ∈ N : x n ∈ V } ∈ p for every neighbourhood V of x in G. In particular, G is selectively pseudocompact (strongly pseudocompact) but not selectively sequentially pseudocompact. This answers a question of Dorantes-Aldama and the first listed author. The group G above is not pseudo- ω -bounded either. Furthermore, we show that the free precompact Boolean group of a topological sum ⨁ i ∈ I X i , where each space X i is either maximal or discrete, contains no infinite separable pseudocompact subsets.

scholarly journals A Theory of Mathematical Objects as a Prototype of Set Theory

1962 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 105-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katuzi Ono
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Simple System ◽  
Object Theory ◽  
Mathematical Objects ◽  
Axiom Scheme ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Primitive Notion

The theory of mathematical objects, developed in this work, is a trial system intended to be a prototype of set theory. It concerns, with respect to the only one primitive notion “proto-membership”, with a field of mathematical objects which we shall hereafter simply call objects, it is a very simple system, because it assumes only one axiom scheme which is formally similar to the aussonderung axiom of set theory. We shall show that in our object theory we can construct a theory of sets which is stronger than the Zermelo set-theory [1] without the axiom of choice.

Krivine's classical realisability from a categorical perspective

2013 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 1234-1256 ◽  
Author(s):  
THOMAS STREICHER
Keyword(s):  
Recent Work ◽  
Set Theory ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Second Order ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
Current Paper ◽  
Categorical Approach ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Second Order Logic

In a sequence of papers (Krivine 2001; Krivine 2003; Krivine 2009), J.-L. Krivine introduced his notion of classical realisability for classical second-order logic and Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory. Moreover, in more recent work (Krivine 2008), he has considered forcing constructions on top of it with the ultimate aim of providing a realisability interpretation for the axiom of choice.The aim of the current paper is to show how Krivine's classical realisability can be understood as an instance of the categorical approach to realisability as started by Martin Hyland in Hyland (1982) and described in detail in van Oosten (2008). Moreover, we will give an intuitive explanation of the iteration of realisability as described in Krivine (2008).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document