The principle of set theory known as the Axiom of Choice has been hailed as “probably the most interesting and, in spite of its late appearance, the most discussed axiom of mathematics, second only to Euclid's axiom of parallels which was introduced more than two thousand years ago” (Fraenkel, Bar-Hillel & Levy 1973, §II.4). The fulsomeness of this description might lead those unfamiliar with the axiom to expect it to be as startling as, say, the (...) Principle of the Constancy of the Velocity of Light or the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. But in fact the Axiom of Choice as it is usually stated appears humdrum, even self-evident. For it amounts to nothing more than the claim that, given any collection of mutually disjoint nonempty sets, it is possible to assemble a new set — a transversal or choice set — containing exactly one element from each member of the given collection. Nevertheless, this seemingly innocuous principle has far-reaching mathematical consequences — many indispensable, some startling — and has come to figure prominently in discussions on the foundations of mathematics. It (or its equivalents) have been employed in countless mathematical papers, and a number of monographs have been exclusively devoted to it. (shrink)

The principle of set theory known as the Axiom of Choice (AC) has been hailed as “probably the most interesting and, in spite of its late appearance, the most discussed axiom of mathematics, second only to Euclid’s axiom of parallels which was introduced more than two thousand years ago”1 It has been employed in countless mathematical papers, a number of monographs have been exclusively devoted to it, and it has long played a prominently role in discussions (...) on the foundations of mathematics. (shrink)

The present article deals with the power of the axiom of choice within the second-order predicate logic. We investigate the relationship between several variants of AC and some other statements, known as equivalent to AC within the set theory of Zermelo and Fraenkel with atoms, in Henkin models of the one-sorted second-order predicate logic with identity without operation variables. The construction of models follows the ideas of Fraenkel and Mostowski. It is e. g. shown that the well-ordering theorem (...) for unary predicates is independent from AC for binary predicates and from the trichotomy law for unary predicates. Moreover, we show that the AC for binary predicates follows neither from the trichotomy law for unary predicates nor from Zorn's lemma for unary predicates nor from the formalization of the axiom of choice for disjoint families of sets for binary predicates, and that the trichotomy law for unary predicates does not follow from AC for binary predicates. (shrink)

A weak form of intuitionistic set theory WST lacking the axiom of extensionality is introduced. While WST is too weak to support the derivation of the law of excluded middle from the axiom of choice, we show that bee.ng up WST with moderate extensionality principles or quotient sets enables the derivation to go through.

There seems to be a view that intuitionists not only take the Axiom of Choice (AC) to be true, but also believe it a consequence of their fundamental posits. Widespread or not, this view is largely mistaken. This article offers a brief, yet comprehensive, overview of the status of AC in various intuitionistic and constructivist systems. The survey makes it clear that the Axiom of Choice fails to be a theorem in most contexts and is even (...) outright false in some important contexts. Of the systems surveyed, only intensional type theory renders AC a theorem, but the extent of AC in that theory does not include, for instance, real analysis. Only a small amount of extensionality is required in order for the obvious proof an intuitionist might offer for AC to break down. (shrink)

Alexander R. Pruss examines a large family of paradoxes to do with infinity - ranging from deterministic supertasks to infinite lotteries and decision theory. Having identified their common structure, Pruss considers at length how these paradoxes can be resolved by embracing causal finitism.

We show that the Axiom of Countable Choice is necessary and sufficient to prove that the existence of a Borel measure on a pseudometric space such that the measure of open balls is positive and finite implies separability of the space. In this way a negative answer to an open problem formulated in Górka (Am Math Mon 128:84–86, 2020) is given. Moreover, we study existence of maximal $$\delta $$ δ -separated sets in metric and pseudometric spaces from the (...) point of view the Axiom of Choice and its weaker forms. (shrink)

We construct peculiar Hilbert spaces from counterexamples to the axiom of choice. We identify the intrinsically effective Hamiltonians with those observables of quantum theory which may coexist with such spaces. Here a self adjoint operator is intrinsically effective if and only if the Schrödinger equation of its generated semigroup is soluble by means of eigenfunction series expansions.

It is shown that in ZF set theory the axiom of choice holds iff every non empty topological space has a maximal closed filter.

We study conditions for a topological space to be metrizable, properties of metrizable spaces, and the role the axiom of choice plays in these matters.

The method of morphisms is a well-known application of Dialectica categories to set theory. In a previous work, Valeria de Paiva and the author have asked how much of the Axiom of Choice is needed in order to carry out the referred applications of such method. In this paper, we show that, when considered in their full generality, those applications of Dialectica categories give rise to equivalents of either the Axiom of Choice or Partition Principle —which (...) is a consequence of $\textbf{AC}$ whose precise status of its relationship with$\textbf{AC}$ itself is an open problem for more than a hundred years. (shrink)

We combine a variety of constructive methods (including forcing, realizability, asymmetric interpretation), to obtain consistency results concerning combinatory logic with extensionality and (forms of) the axiom of choice.

We study statements about countable and well-ordered unions and their relation to each other and to countable and well-ordered forms of the axiom of choice. Using WO as an abbreviation for “well-orderable”, here are two typical results: The assertion that every WO family of countable sets has a WO union does not imply that every countable family of WO sets has a WO union; the axiom of choice for WO families of WO sets does not imply (...) that the countable union of countable sets is WO. (shrink)

From 1908 to 1916, articles supporting the axiom of choice were scant. The situation changed in 1916, when Wacław Sierpiński published a series of articles reviving the debate. The posterity of the axiom of choice as we know it would be unimaginable without Sierpiński’s efforts.

We show that it is not possible to construct a Fraenkel-Mostowski model in which the axiom of choice for well-ordered families of sets and the axiom of choice for sets are both true, but the axiom of choice is false.

In this paper we study some statements similar to the Partition Principle and the Trichotomy. We prove some relationships between these statements, the Axiom of Choice, and the Generalized Continuum Hypothesis. We also prove some independence results. MSC: 03E25, 03E50, 04A25, 04A50.

Consider the following well-known result from the theory of normed linear spaces ([2], p. 80, 4(b)): (g) the unit ball of the (continuous) dual of a normed linear space over the reals has an extreme point. The standard proof of (~) uses the axiom of choice (AG); thus the implication AC~(w) can be proved in set theory. In this paper we show that this implication can be reversed, so that (*) is actually eq7I2valent to the axiom of (...) choice. From this we derive various corollaries, for example: the conjunction of the Boolean prime ideal theorem and the Krein-Milman theorem implies the axiom of choice, and the Krein-Milman theorem is not derivable from the Boolean prime ideal theorem. (shrink)

In this paper, we present set theories based upon the paraconsistent logic Pac. We describe two different techniques to construct models of such set theories. The first of these is an adaptation of one used to construct classical models of positive comprehension. The properties of the models obtained in that way give rise to a natural paraconsistent set theory which is presented here. The status of the axiom of choice in that theory is also discussed. The second leads (...) to show that any classical universe of set theory (e.g. a model of ZF) can be extended to a paraconsistent one, via a term model construction using an adapted bisimulation technique. (shrink)

The conflict between Platonic realism and Constructivism marks a watershed in philosophy of mathematics. Among other things, the controversy over the Axiom of Choice is typical of the conflict. Platonists accept the Axiom of Choice, which allows a set consisting of the members resulting from infinitely many arbitrary choices, while Constructivists reject the Axiom of Choice and confine themselves to sets consisting of effectively specifiable members. Indeed there are seemingly unpleasant consequences of the (...) class='Hi'>Axiom of Choice. The non-constructive nature of the Axiom of Choice leads to the existence of non-Lebesgue measurable sets, which in turn yields the Banach-Tarski Paradox. But the Banach-Tarski Paradox is so called in the sense that it is a counter-intuitive theorem. To corroborate my view that mathematical truths are of non-constructive nature, I shall draw upon Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems. This also shows the limitations inherent in formal methods. Indeed the Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem and the Skolem Paradox seem to pose a threat to Platonists. In this light, Quine/Putnam’s arguments come to take on a clear meaning. According to the model-theoretic arguments, the Axiom of Choice depends for its truth-value upon the model in which it is placed. In my view, however, this is another limitation inherent in formal methods, not a defect for Platonists. To see this, we shall examine how mathematical models have been developed in the actual practice of mathematics. I argue that most mathematicians accept the Axiom of Choice because the existence of non-Lebesgue measurable sets and the Well-Ordering of reals open the possibility of more fruitful mathematics. Finally, after responding to Benacerraf’s challenge to Platonism, I conclude that in mathematics, as distinct from natural sciences, there is a close connection between essence and existence. Actual mathematical theories are the parts of the maximally logically consistent theory that describes mathematical reality. (shrink)

In the realm of metric spaces the role of choice principles is investigated.

A generalization of the axioms of choice says that all the Skolem functions of a true first‐order sentence exist. This generalization can be implemented on the first‐order level by generalizing the rule of existential instantiation into a rule of functional instantiation. If this generalization is carried out in first‐order axiomatic set theory , it is seen that in any model of FAST, there are sentences S which are true but whose Skolem functions do not exist. Since this existence is (...) what the truth of S means in a combinational sense, in any model of FAST there are sentences which are set‐theoretical “true” but false in the normal sense of the word. This shows that the assumptions on which the axiom of choice rests cannot be fully implemented in FAST. The axiom choice is not a set‐theoretical principle. (shrink)

We show that the Axiom of Choice is equivalent to each of the following statements: A product of closures of subsets of topological spaces is equal to the closure of their product ; A product of complete uniform spaces is complete.

We work in set-theory without choice ZF. A set is Countable if it is finite or equipotent with ${\Bbb N}$ . Given a closed subset F of [0, 1] I which is a bounded subset of $\ell ^{1}(I)$ (resp. such that $F\subseteq c_{0}(I)$ ), we show that the countable axiom of choice for finite sets, (resp. the countable axiom of choice AC N ) implies that F is compact. This enhances previous results where AC N (...) (resp. the axiom of Dependent Choices) was required. If I is linearly orderable (for example $I={\Bbb R}$ ), then, in ZF, the closed unit ball of the Hilbert space $\ell ^{2}(I)$ is (Loeb-)compact in the weak topology. However, the weak compactness of the closed unit ball of $\ell ^{2}(\scr{P}({\Bbb R}))$ is not provable in ZF. (shrink)

. Dzik [2] gives a direct proof of the axiom of choice from the generalized Lindenbaum extension theorem LET. The converse is part of every decent logical education. Inspection of Dzik’s proof shows that its premise let attributes a very special version of the Lindenbaum extension property to a very special class of deductive systems, here called Dzik systems. The problem therefore arises of giving a direct proof, not using the axiom of choice, of the conditional (...) . A partial solution is provided. (shrink)

We show that some well known theorems in topology may not be true without the axiom of choice.

The Nielsen‐Schreier theorem asserts that subgroups of free groups are free. In the first section we show that this theorem does not follow from the Linear Ordering Principle, thus strengthening the fact that it implies the Axiom of Choice for families of finite sets. In the second section, we show that a stronger variant of the Nielsen‐Schreier theorem implies the Axiom of Choice.

We show that several theorems about Polish spaces, which depend on the axiom of choice ), have interesting corollaries that are theorems of the theory \, where \ is the axiom of dependent choices. Surprisingly it is natural to use the full \ to prove the existence of these proofs; in fact we do not even know the proofs in \. Let \ denote the axiom of determinacy. We show also, in the theory \\), a theorem (...) which strenghtens and generalizes the theorem of Drinfeld and Margulis about the unicity of Lebesgue’s measure. This generalization is false in \, but assuming the existence of large enough cardinals it is true in the model \,\in \rangle \). (shrink)

Takeuti introduced an infinitary proof system for determinate logic and showed that for transitive models of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the Axiom of Dependent Choice that contain all reals, the cut-elimination theorem is equivalent to the Axiom of Determinacy, and in particular contradicts the Axiom of Choice. We consider variants of Takeuti's theorem without assuming the failure of the Axiom of Choice. For instance, we show that if one removes atomic formulae of infinite (...) arity from the language of Takeuti's proof system, then cut elimination is equivalent to a determinacy hypothesis provable, e.g., in ZFC + “there are infinitely many Woodin cardinals.” A slight extension of the proof system admits cut elimination for countable sequents under the same assumptions. A simple modification of the proof system yields analogs of the results above for the Axiom of Real Determinacy and uncountably many Woodin cardinals. (shrink)

Kurt Gödel, mathematician and logician, was one of the most influential thinkers of the twentieth century. Gödel fled Nazi Germany, fearing for his Jewish wife and fed up with Nazi interference in the affairs of the mathematics institute at the University of Göttingen. In 1933 he settled at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, where he joined the group of world-famous mathematicians who made up its original faculty. His 1940 book, better known by its short title, The Consistency of (...) the Continuum Hypothesis, is a classic of modern mathematics. The continuum hypothesis, introduced by mathematician George Cantor in 1877, states that there is no set of numbers between the integers and real numbers. It was later included as the first of mathematician David Hilbert's twenty-three unsolved math problems, famously delivered as a manifesto to the field of mathematics at the International Congress of Mathematicians in Paris in 1900. In The Consistency of the Continuum Hypothesis Gödel set forth his proof for this problem. In 1999, Time magazine ranked him higher than fellow scientists Edwin Hubble, Enrico Fermi, John Maynard Keynes, James Watson, Francis Crick, and Jonas Salk. He is most renowned for his proof in 1931 of the 'incompleteness theorem,' in which he demonstrated that there are problems that cannot be solved by any set of rules or procedures. His proof wrought fruitful havoc in mathematics, logic, and beyond. (shrink)

The idea of the positive theory is to avoid the Russell's paradox by postulating an axiom scheme of comprehension for formulas without "too much" negations. In this paper, we show that the axiom of choice is inconsistent with the positive theory $GPK^+ \infty$.

We shall investigate certain statements concerning the rigidity of unary functions which have connections with forms of the axiom of choice.

We investigate, within the framework of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory ZF, the interrelations between weak forms of the Axiom of Choice AC restricted to sets of reals.

A new method is presented for constructing models of set theory, using a technique of forming pseudo-ultrapowers. In the presence of the axiom of choice, the traditional ultrapower construction has proven to be extremely powerful in set theory and model theory; if the axiom of choice is not assumed, the fundamental theorem of ultrapowers may fail, causing the ultrapower to lose almost all of its utility. The pseudo-ultrapower is designed so that the fundamental theorem holds even (...) if choice fails; this is arranged by means of an application of the omitting types theorem. The general theory of pseudo-ultrapowers is developed. Following that, we study supercompactness in the absence of choice, and we analyze pseudo-ultrapowers of models of the axiom of determinateness and various infinite exponent partition relations. Relationships between pseudo-ultrapowers and forcing are also discussed. (shrink)

The present work is an attempt to break ground in mathematics proper, armed with the accepting view just described. Specifically, we shall examine various versions of antinomic set theory, in particular the axiom of choice, keeping the presentation as intuitive as possible, more in the manner of a nineteenth century paper than as a thoroughly formalized system. The reason for such a presentation is the conviction that at this point it should be the mathematics that eventually determines the (...) logic, rather than the other way around. (shrink)

The early controversies surrounding the axiom of choice are well known, as are the many results that followed concerning its dependence from, and equivalence to, other mathematical propositions. This paper focuses not on the logical status of the axiom but rather on showing why it fails in certain categories.

We investigate various ways of introducing axioms for randomness in set theory. The results show that these axioms, when added to ZF, imply the failure of AC. But the axiom of extensionality plays an essential role in the derivation, and a deeper analysis may ultimately show that randomness is incompatible with extensionality.

We work in set theory ZF without axiom of choice. Though the Hahn-Banach theorem cannot be proved in ZF, we prove that every Gateaux-differentiable uniformly convex Banach space E satisfies the following continuous Hahn-Banach property: if p is a continuous sublinear functional on E, if F is a subspace of E, and if f: F → ℝ is a linear functional such that f ≤ p|F then there exists a linear functional g : E → ℝ such that (...) g extends f and g ≤ p. We also prove that the continuous Hahn-Banach property on a topological vector space E is equivalent to the classical geometrical forms of the Hahn-Banach theorem on E. We then prove that the axiom of Dependent choices DC is equivalent to Ekeland's variational principle, and that it implies the continuous Hahn-Banach property on Gateaux-differentiable Banach spaces. Finally, we prove that, though separable normed spaces satisfy the continuous Hahn-Banach property, they do not satisfy the whole Hahn-Banach property in ZF+DC. (shrink)