A set $A$ is Dedekind infinite if there is a one-to-one function from $\omega$ into $A$. A set $A$ is weakly Dedekind infinite if there is a function from $A$ onto $\omega$; otherwise $A$ is weakly Dedekind finite. For a set $M$, let $\operatorname{dfin}^{*}$ denote the set of all weakly Dedekind finite subsets of $M$. In this paper, we prove, in Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, that $|\operatorname{dfin}^{*}|\lt |\mathcal{P}|$ if $\operatorname{dfin}^{*}$ is Dedekind infinite, whereas $|\operatorname{dfin}^{*}|\lt |\mathcal{P}|$ cannot be proved from ZF for (...) an arbitrary $M$. (shrink)

A Dedekind-finite set is said to be divisible by a natural number n if it can be partitioned into pieces of size n. We study several aspects of this notion, as well as the stronger notion of being partitionable into n pieces of equal size. Among our results are that the divisors of a Dedekind-finite set can consistently be any set of natural numbers, that a Dedekind-finite power of 2 cannot be divisible by 3, and that a Dedekind-finite set can (...) be congruent modulo 3, to all of 0, 1, and 2 simultaneously. (shrink)

We show that infinite sets whose power-sets are Dedekind-finite can only carry N₀-categorical first order structures. We identify other subclasses of this class of Dedekind-finite sets, and discuss their possible first order structures.

It is consistent with ZF $\mathsf {ZF}$ set theory that the Euclidean topology on R $\mathbb {R}$ is not sequential, yet every infinite set of reals contains a countably infinite subset. This answers a question of Gutierres.

In this paper we prove three theorems about the theory of Borel sets in models of ZF without any form of the axiom of choice. We prove that if \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${B\subseteq 2^\omega}$$\end{document} is a Gδσ-set then either B is countable or B contains a perfect subset. Second, we prove that if 2ω is the countable union of countable sets, then there exists an Fσδ set \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} (...) \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${C\subseteq 2^\omega}$$\end{document} such that C is uncountable but contains no perfect subset. Finally, we construct a model of ZF in which we have an infinite Dedekind finite \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${D\subseteq 2^\omega}$$\end{document} which is Fσδ. (shrink)

We study the possible structures which can be carried by sets which have no countable subset, but which fail to be ‘surjectively Dedekind finite’, in two possible senses, that there is surjection to $\omega $, or alternatively, that there is a surjection to a proper superset.

A Dedekind algebra is an ordered pair (B, h), where B is a non-empty set and h is a similarity transformation on B. Among the Dedekind algebras is the sequence of the positive integers. From a contemporary perspective, Dedekind established that the second-order theory of the sequence of the positive integers is categorical and finitely axiomatizable. The purpose here is to show that this seemingly isolated result is a consequence of more general results in the model theory of second-order languages. (...) Each Dedekind algebra can be decomposed into a family of disjoint, countable subalgebras called the configurations of the algebra. There are ?0 isomorphism types of configurations. Each Dedekind algebra is associated with a cardinal-valued function on ? called its configuration signature. The configuration signature counts the number of configurations in each isomorphism type that occurs in the decomposition of the algebra. Two Dedekind algebras are isomorphic iff their configuration signatures are identical. The second-order theory of any countably infinite Dedekind algebra is categorical, and there are countably infinite Dedekind algebras whose second-order theories are not finitely axiomatizable. It is shown that there is a condition on configuration signatures necessary and sufficient for the second-order theory of a Dedekind algebra to be finitely axiomatizable. It follows that the second-order theory of the sequence of the positive integers is categorical and finitely axiomatizable. (shrink)

We write and for the cardinalities of the set of finite sequences and the set of finite subsets, respectively, of a set which is of cardinality. With the axiom of choice (), for every infinite cardinal but, without, any relationship between and for an arbitrary infinite cardinal cannot be proved. In this paper, we give conditions that make and comparable for an infinite cardinal. Among our results, we show that, if we assume the axiom of choice for sets of (...) finite sets, then for every Dedekind‐infinite cardinal and the condition that is Dedekind‐infinite cannot be weakened to weakly Dedekind‐infinite. (shrink)

In this paper, I pursue such a logical foundation for arithmetic in a variant of Zermelo set theory that has axioms of subset separation only for quantifier-free formulae, and according to which all sets are Dedekind finite. In section 2, I describe this variant theory, which I call ZFin0. And in section 3, I sketch foundations for arithmetic in ZFin0 and prove that certain foundational propositions that are theorems of the standard Zermelian foundation for arithmetic are independent of ZFin0.<br><br>An (...) equivalent theory of sets and an equivalent foundation for arithmetic was introduced by John Mayberry and developed by the current author in his doctoral thesis. In that thesis, the independence results mentioned above are proved using proof-theoretic methods. In this paper, I offer model-theoretic proofs of the central independence results using the technique of cumulation models, which was introduced by Steve Popham, a doctoral student of Mayberry<br>from the early 1980s. (shrink)

We study properties of certain subclasses of the Dedekind finite sets in set theory without the axiom of choice with respect to the comparability of their elements and to the boundedness of such classes, and we answer related open problems from Herrlich’s “The Finite and the Infinite.” The main results are as follows: 1. It is relatively consistent with ZF that the class of all finite sets is not the only finiteness class such that any two of its (...) elements are comparable. 2. The principle “Small Violations of Choice” —introduced by A. Blass—implies that the class of all Dedekind finite sets is bounded above. 3. “The class of all Dedekind finite sets is bounded above” is true in every permutation model of ZFA in which the class of atoms is a set, and in every symmetric model of ZF. 4. There exists a model of ZFA set theory in which the class of all atoms is a proper class and in which the class of all infinite Dedekind finite sets is not bounded above. 5. There exists a model of ZF in which the class of all infinite Dedekind finite sets is not bounded above. (shrink)

We compare diverse degrees of compactness and finiteness in Boolean algebras with each other and investigate the influence of weak choice principles. Our arguments rely on a discussion of infinitary distributive laws and generalized prime elements in Boolean algebras. In ZF set theory without choice, a Boolean algebra is Dedekind finite if and only if it satisfies the ascending chain condition. The Denumerable Subset Axiom implies finiteness of Boolean algebras with compact top, whereas the converse fails in ZF. Moreover, we (...) derive from DS the atomicity of continuous Boolean algebras. Some of the results extend to more general structures like pseudocomplemented semilattices. (shrink)

Discusses Frege's formal definitions and characterizations of infinite and finite sets. Speculates that Frege might have discovered the "oddity" in Dedekind's famous proof that all infinite sets are Dedekind infinite and, in doing so, stumbled across an axiom of countable choice.

Discusses Frege's formal definitions and characterizations of infinite and finite sets. Speculates that Frege might have discovered the "oddity" in Dedekind's famous proof that all infinite sets are Dedekind infinite and, in doing so, stumbled across an axiom of countable choice.

In the setting of ZF, i.e., Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory without the Axiom of Choice , we study partitions of Russell-sets into sets each with exactly n elements , for some integer n. We show that if n is odd, then a Russell-set X has an n -ary partition if and only if |X | is divisible by n. Furthermore, we establish that it is relative consistent with ZF that there exists a Russell-set X such that |X | is (...) not divisible by any finite cardinal n > 1. (shrink)

Starting from the definition of `amorphous set' in set theory without the axiom of choice, we propose a notion of rank (which will only make sense for, at most, the class of Dedekind finite sets), which is intended to be an analogue in this situation of Morley rank in model theory.

We provide a general criterion for Fraenkel–Mostowski models of $${\textsf{ZFA}}$$ (i.e. Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory weakened to permit the existence of atoms) which implies “every linearly ordered set can be well ordered” ( $${\textsf{LW}}$$ ), and look at six models for $${\textsf{ZFA}}$$ which satisfy this criterion (and thus $${\textsf{LW}}$$ is true in these models) and “every Dedekind finite set is finite” ( $${\textsf{DF}}={\textsf{F}}$$ ) is true, and also consider various forms of choice for well-ordered families of well orderable sets in (...) these models. In Model 1, the axiom of multiple choice for countably infinite families of countably infinite sets ( $${\textsf{MC}}_{\aleph _{0}}^{\aleph _{0}}$$ ) is false. It was the open question of whether or not such a model exists (from Howard and Tachtsis “On metrizability and compactness of certain products without the Axiom of Choice”) that provided the motivation for this paper. In Model 2, which is constructed by first choosing an uncountable regular cardinal in the ground model, a strong form of Dependent choice is true, while the axiom of choice for well-ordered families of finite sets ( $${\textsf{AC}}^{{\textsf{WO}}}_{{\textsf{fin}}}$$ ) is false. Also in this model the axiom of multiple choice for well-ordered families of well orderable sets fails. Model 3 is similar to Model 2 except for the status of $${\textsf{AC}}^{{\textsf{WO}}}_{{\textsf{fin}}}$$ which is unknown. Models 4 and 5 are variations of Model 3. In Model 4 $${\textsf{AC}}_{\textrm{fin}}^{{\textsf{WO}}}$$ is true. The construction of Model 5 begins by choosing a regular successor cardinal in the ground model. Model 6 is the only one in which $$2{\mathfrak {m}} = {\mathfrak {m}}$$ for every infinite cardinal number $${\mathfrak {m}}$$. We show that the union of a well-ordered family of well orderable sets is well orderable in Model 6 and that the axiom of multiple countable choice is false. (shrink)

We show that (i) it is consistent with that there are infinite sets X on which every metric is discrete; (ii) the notion of real infinite is strictly stronger than that of metrically infinite; (iii) a set X is metrically infinite if and only if it is weakly Dedekind‐infinite if and only if the cardinality of the set of all metrically finite subsets of X is strictly less than the size of ; and (iv) an infinite set X is (...) weakly Dedekind‐infinite if and only if has infinite towers if and only if X has countable partitions. (shrink)

In this paper, we consider, for a set \ of natural numbers, the following notions of finitenessFIN1:There are a natural number l and a bijection f between \\);FIN5:It is not the case that \\), and infinitenessINF1:There are not a natural number l and a bijection f between \\);INF5:\\). In this paper, we systematically compare them in the method of constructive reverse mathematics. We show that the equivalence among them can be characterized by various combinations of induction axioms and non-constructive principles, (...) including the axiom of bounded comprehension. (shrink)

In this paper we consider some axiomatic systems of set theory related to the system NF (New Foundations) of Quine. In particular we discuss the possible relations of cardinality between a finite set x and its subset class SC(x) = {y | y ∩ x} and also between x and its unit set class USC(x) = {{y} | y ε x}. Specker [5] has shown that in NF the cardinal of a finite set x can never be the same as (...) the cardinal of SC(x). (shrink)

We define an axiom schema for finite set theory with bounded induction on sets, analogous to the theory of bounded arithmetic,, and use some of its basic model theory to establish some independence results for various axioms of set theory over. Then we ask: given a model M of, is there a model of whose ordinal arithmetic is isomorphic to M? We show that the answer is yes if.

This article defines a hierarchy on the hereditarily finite sets which reflects the way sets are built up from the empty set by repeated adjunction, the addition to an already existing set of a single new element drawn from the already existing sets. The structure of the lowest levels of this hierarchy is examined, and some results are obtained about the cardinalities of levels of the hierarchy.

We give an example of two ordered structures $\mathcal {M},\mathcal {N}$ in the same language $\mathcal {L}$ with the same universe, the same order and admitting the same one-variable definable subsets such that $\mathcal {M}$ is a model of the common theory of o-minimal $\mathcal {L}$ -structures and $\mathcal {N}$ admits a definable, closed, bounded, and discrete subset and a definable injective self-mapping of that subset which is not surjective. This answers negatively two question by Schoutens; the first being whether (...) there is an axiomatization of the common theory of o-minimal structures in a given language by conditions on one-variable definable sets alone. The second being whether definable completeness and type completeness imply the pigeonhole principle. It also partially answers a question by Fornasiero asking whether definable completeness of an expansion of a real closed field implies the pigeonhole principle. (shrink)

We show how to interpret Heyting's arithmetic in an intuitionistic version of TT, Russell's Simple Theory of Types. We also exhibit properties of finite sets in this theory and compare them with the corresponding properties in classical TT. Finally, we prove that arithmetic can be interpreted in intuitionistic TT, the subsystem of intuitionistic TT involving only three types. The definitions of intuitionistic TT and its finite sets and natural numbers are obtained in a straightforward way from the classical (...) definitions. This is very natural and seems to make intuitionistic TT an interesting intuitionistic set theory to study, beside intuitionistic ZF. (shrink)

Call a family F of subsets of a set E inductive if ∅ ∈ F and F is closed under unions with disjoint singletons, that is, if ∀X∈F ∀x∈E–X(X ∪ {x} ∈ F]. A Frege structure is a pair (E.

The purpose of this note is to present a simplification of the system of arithmetical axioms given in previous work; specifically, it is shown how the induction principle can in fact be obtained from the remaining axioms, without the need of explicit postulation. The argument might be of more general interest, beyond the specifics of the proposed axiomatization, as it highlights the interaction of the notion of Dedekind-finiteness and the induction principle.

A survey of the isomorphic submodels of Vω, the set of hereditarily finite sets. In the usual language of set theory, Vω has 2ℵ0 isomorphic submodels. But other set-theoretic languages give different systems of submodels. For example, the language of adjunction allows only countably many isomorphic submodels of Vω.

We propose a set theory, called NRFST, in which the Cantorian axiom of infinity is negated, and a new notion of infinity is introduced via non standard methods, i. e. via adequate notions of standard and internal, two unary predicates added to the language of ZF. After some initial results on NRFST, we investigate its relative consistency with respect to ZF and Kawai's WNST.

In this paper, we prove that Heyting's arithmetic can be interpreted in an intuitionistic version of Russell's Simple Theory of Types without extensionality.

The rationalization of a choice function, in terms of assumptions that involve expansion or contraction properties of the feasible set, over non-finite sets is analyzed. Schwartz's results, stated in the finite case, are extended to this more general framework. Moreover, a characterization result when continuity conditions are imposed on the choice function, as well as on the binary relation that rationalizes it, is presented.

We study theorems from Functional Analysis with regard to their relationship with various weak choice principles and prove several results about them: “Every infinite‐dimensional Banach space has a well‐orderable Hamel basis” is equivalent to ; “ can be well‐ordered” implies “no infinite‐dimensional Banach space has a Hamel basis of cardinality ”, thus the latter statement is true in every Fraenkel‐Mostowski model of ; “No infinite‐dimensional Banach space has a Hamel basis of cardinality ” is not provable in ; “No infinite‐dimensional (...) Banach space has a well‐orderable Hamel basis of cardinality ” is provable in ; (the Axiom of Choice for denumerable families of non‐empty finite sets) is equivalent to “no infinite‐dimensional Banach space has a Hamel basis which can be written as a denumerable union of finite sets”; Mazur's Lemma (“If X is an infinite‐dimensional Banach space, Y is a finite‐dimensional vector subspace of X, and, then there is a unit vector such that for all and all scalars α”) is provable in ; “A real normed vector space X is finite‐dimensional if and only if its closed unit ball is compact” is provable in ; (Principle of Dependent Choices) + “ can be well‐ordered” does not imply the Hahn‐Banach Theorem () in ; and “no infinite‐dimensional Banach space has a Hamel basis of cardinality ” are independent from each other in ; “No infinite‐dimensional Banach space can be written as a denumerable union of finite‐dimensional subspaces” lies in strength between (the Axiom of Countable Choice) and ; implies “No infinite‐dimensional Banach space can be written as a denumerable union of closed proper subspaces” which in turn implies ; “Every infinite‐dimensional Banach space has a denumerable linearly independent subset” is a theorem of, but not a theorem of ; and “Every infinite‐dimensional Banach space has a linearly independent subset of cardinality ” implies “every Dedekind‐finite set is finite”. (shrink)

In set theory without the Axiom of Choice, we investigate the set-theoretic strength of the principle NDS which states that there is no function f on the set ω of natural numbers such that for everyn ∈ ω, f ≺ f, where for sets x and y, x ≺ y means that there is a one-to-one map g : x → y, but no one-to-one map h : y → x. It is a long standing open problem whether NDS (...) implies AC. In this paper, among other results, we show that NDS is a strong axiom by establishing that ACLO ↛ NDS in ZFA set theory. The latter result provides a strongly negative answer to the question of whether “every Dedekind-finite set is finite” implies NDS addressed in G. H. Moore “Zermelo’s Axiom of Choice. Its Origins, Development, and Influence” and in P. Howard–J. E. Rubin “Consequences of the Axiom of Choice”. We also prove that ACWO ↛ NDS in ZF and that “for all infinite cardinals m, m + m = m” ↛ NDS in ZFA. (shrink)

We show that the existence of an infinite set can be reduced to the existence of finite sets “as big as we will”, provided that a multivalued extension of the relation of equipotence is admitted. In accordance, we modelize the notion of infinite set by a fuzzy subset representing the class of wide sets.

Let R Õ [1,n]3k ¥ [1,n]k. We define R = {y Œ [1,n]k:($xŒA3)(R(x,y))}. We say that R is strictly dominating if and only if for all x,yŒ[1,n]k, if R(x,y) then max(x) < max(y).

We consider all combinatorially possible systems corresponding to subsets of finite set theory (i.e., Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory without the axiom of infinity) and for each of them either provide a well-founded locally finite graph that is a model of that theory or show that this is impossible. To that end, we develop the technique of axiom closure of graphs.

We say that R is strictly dominating if and only if for all x,yŒ[1,n], if R(x,y) then max(x) 3k ¥ [1,n], there exists A Õ [1,n] such that R = A. Furthermore, A Õ [1,n] is unique.