Re: Two neat facts from set theory

From: Butch Malahide (bof_at_sunflower.com)
Date: 01/01/05 

Date: 1 Jan 2005 02:11:15 -0800

Butch Malahide wrote:
> Stephen J. Herschkorn wrote:
> > In that thread, my argument for singular cardinals invokes the
axiom
> of
> > choice. Can you provide an argument that avoids it?

> I hope so, but I haven't done it yet. Let me get back to you on that.

No, I can't. Without the axiom of choice, I don't even see how to prove
it for the case X = omega_1 (which could be singular), do you?
Sorry for posting nonsense.

Happy New Year!

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Two neat facts from set theory
    ... >> It's quite easy to prove without the axiom of choice. ... Call R the "first" well-ordering in your algorithm. ... > of the orderings is regular. ... my argument for singular cardinals invokes the axiom of ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinite cardinals: does well-ordering principal extend?
    ... > Stephen J. Herschkorn wrote: ... > ordered by injections without a minimal element consistent with ZF? ... I suspect that the axiom of foundation might ... is the existence of such a set consistent ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: automorphisms of subspaces of the reals
    ... >Butch Malahide wrote: ... >> Actually, assuming the axiom of choice, there is a dense subset U of ... Well, duh. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Connectedness and AC
    ... On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Stephen J. Herschkorn wrote: ... > Can one prove the following without the axiom of choice? ... > The union of this collection must be connected. ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Is this equivalent to the Axiom of Choice?
    ... Butch Malahide wrote: ... >> I have been wrestling with this problem, or variants of it, for ... Is the following equivalent to the Axiom of Choice? ...
    (sci.math)
Loading