Re: 2 questions about AC
- From: David C. Ullrich <ullrich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 07:30:19 -0500
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 01:47:02 GMT, "big.ass"
<big.ass.invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Hello,
>AC for a finite set of sets is equivalent to the axiom of pair. In other
>words if we consider the set
>
>S={S_1, S_2, ... , S_k}
>
>with S_i<>{} for all i, we know that there are s_1 in S_1, s_2 in s_2 etc.
>such that (by axiom of pair):
>
>{(S_1,s_1),(s_2,s_2), ... , (S_k,s_k)};
>
>and this is a choice function.
>If S is not finite, AC is not equivalent to any other axiom of ZF. My first
>question is: extending axiom of pair to infinite is equivalent to accept AC?
>
>
>
>
>The second question is about the nature of the choice function. Considering
>Russel's socks example, we could comprehend that there is no acceptable law
>that allows to choose one sock.
>What is the "so inacceptable" thing with this method? At first glance, the
>function defined by choosing only one element of a class (despite of
>choosing "which" element is) seems not so inacceptable to me.
That's not a definition of a function.
>Thank you.
>
************************
David C. Ullrich
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 2 questions about AC
- From: big.ass
- Re: 2 questions about AC
- References:
- 2 questions about AC
- From: big.ass
- 2 questions about AC
- Prev by Date: Re: Penrose's Computing Pi Description?
- Next by Date: Re: 2 questions about AC
- Previous by thread: Re: 2 questions about AC
- Next by thread: Re: 2 questions about AC
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|