Re: Countable unions of countable ordinals w/o choice
- From: "Rupert" <rupertmccallum@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 8 Oct 2006 22:05:51 -0700
Bill Taylor wrote:
Rupert wrote:
it can be proved that there is a surjection from R to omega-1.
So if R is a countable union of countable sets, then so is omega-1
The conclusion may be true, but is this reasoning valid?
It seems to use the lemma that
exists surjection f:A --> B
implies
A is CUCS ==> B is CUCS.
But without choice how are you going to prove this?
Let A be the union of a countable family {A_n:n in N} of countable
sets. Let f be a surjection from A to B. Since A_n is countable, f(A_n)
will be countable for all n, this can be proved without choice. Since f
is surjective {f(A_n):n in N} will cover B.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Taylor W.Taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yesterday, I thought I had a new deja vu experience.
But on second thoughts I realized I'd had it before.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
- References:
- Countable unions of countable ordinals w/o choice
- From: Stephen J. Herschkorn
- Re: Countable unions of countable ordinals w/o choice
- From: Rupert
- Re: Countable unions of countable ordinals w/o choice
- From: Bill Taylor
- Countable unions of countable ordinals w/o choice
- Prev by Date: Re: convergence of a series
- Next by Date: Re: Mathphobia?
- Previous by thread: Re: Countable unions of countable ordinals w/o choice
- Next by thread: Re: Countable unions of countable ordinals w/o choice
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|