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.

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.

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.

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)

It is shown that AC, the axiom of choice for families of non-empty subsets of the real line ℝ, does not imply the statement PW, the powerset of ℝ can be well ordered. It is also shown that the statement “the set of all denumerable subsets of ℝ has size 2math image” is strictly weaker than AC and each of the statements “if every member of an infinite set of cardinality 2math image has power 2math image, then the union (...) has power 2math image” and “ℵ ≠ ℵω” is Hartogs' aleph, the least ℵ not ≤ 2math image), is strictly weaker than the full axiom of choice AC. (shrink)

It is shown that for compact metric spaces the following statements are pairwise equivalent: “X is Loeb”, “X is separable”, “X has a we ordered dense subset”, “X is second countable”, and “X has a dense set G = ∪{Gn : n ∈ ω}, ∣Gn∣ < ω, with limn→∞ diam = 0”. Further, it is shown that the statement: “Compact metric spaces are weakly Loeb” is not provable in ZF0 , the Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory without the axiom of regularity, and (...) that the countable axiom of choice for families of finite sets CACfin does not imply the statement “Compact metric spaces are separable”. (shrink)

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)

We show that the countable axiom of choice CAC strictly implies the statements “Lindelöf metric spaces are second countable” “Lindelöf metric spaces are separable”. We also show that CAC is equivalent to the statement: “If is a Lindelöf topological space with respect to the base ℬ, then is Lindelöf”.

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)

We investigate the set theoretical strength of some properties of normality, including Urysohn's Lemma, Tietze-Urysohn Extension Theorem, normality of disjoint unions of normal spaces, and normality of Fσ subsets of normal spaces.

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

We study within the framework of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory ZF the role that the axiom of choice plays in the theory of Lindelöf metric spaces. We show that in ZF the weak choice principles: Every Lindelöf metric space is separable and Every Lindelöf metric space is second countable are equivalent. We also prove that a Lindelöf metric space is hereditarily separable iff it is hereditarily Lindelöf iff it hold as well the axiom of choice restricted to (...) countable sets and to topologies of Lindelöf metric spaces as the countable union theorem restricted to Lindelöf metric spaces. (shrink)

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

Working in the context of restricted forms of the Axiom of Choice, we consider the problem of splitting the ordinals below λ of cofinality θ into λ many stationary sets, where θ < λ are regular cardinals. This is a continuation of [4].

Let ZF denote Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (without the axiom of choice), and let $M$ be a countable transitive model of ZF. The method of forcing extends $M$ to another model $M\lbrack G\rbrack$ of ZF (a "generic extension"). If the axiom of choice holds in $M$ it also holds in $M\lbrack G\rbrack$, that is, the axiom of choice is preserved by generic extensions. We show that this is not true for many weak forms of the axiom of (...) choice, and we derive an application to Boolean toposes. (shrink)

In set theory without the Axiom of Choice (), we investigate the problem of the placement of Łoś's Theorem () in the hierarchy of weak choice principles, and answer several open questions from the book Consequences of the Axiom of Choice by Howard and Rubin, as well as an open question by Brunner. We prove a number of results summarised in § 3.

The minimal ordinal-connection axiom $$MOC$$ was introduced by the first author in R. Freire. (South Am. J. Log. 2:347–359, 2016). We observe that $$MOC$$ is equivalent to a number of statements on the existence of certain hierarchies on the universe, and that under global choice, $$MOC$$ is in fact equivalent to the $${{\,\mathrm{GCH}\,}}$$. Our main results then show that $$MOC$$ corresponds to a weak version of global choice in models of the $${{\,\mathrm{GCH}\,}}$$ : it can fail in (...) models of the $${{\,\mathrm{GCH}\,}}$$ without global choice, but also global choice can fail in models of $$MOC$$. (shrink)

In their logical analysis of theorems about disjoint rays in graphs, Barnes, Shore, and the author (hereafter BGS) introduced a weak choice scheme in second-order arithmetic, called the $\Sigma ^1_1$ axiom of finite choice (hereafter finite choice). This is a special case of the $\Sigma ^1_1$ axiom of choice ( $\Sigma ^1_1\text {-}\mathsf {AC}_0$ ) introduced by Kreisel. BGS showed that $\Sigma ^1_1\text {-}\mathsf {AC}_0$ suffices for proving many of the aforementioned theorems in graph theory. (...) While it is not known if these implications reverse, BGS also showed that those theorems imply finite choice (in some cases, with additional induction assumptions). This motivated us to study the proof-theoretic strength of finite choice. Using a variant of Steel forcing with tagged trees, we show that finite choice is not provable from the $\Delta ^1_1$ -comprehension scheme (even over $\omega $ -models). We also show that finite choice is a consequence of the arithmetic Bolzano–Weierstrass theorem (introduced by Friedman and studied by Conidis), assuming $\Sigma ^1_1$ -induction. Our results were used by BGS to show that several theorems in graph theory cannot be proved using $\Delta ^1_1$ -comprehension. Our results also strengthen results of Conidis. (shrink)

In this paper is used to denote Jensen's modification of Quine's ‘new foundations’ set theory () fortified with a type‐level pairing function but without the axiom of choice. The axiom is the variant of the axiom of counting which asserts that no finite set is smaller than its own set of singletons. This paper shows that proves the consistency of the simple theory of types with infinity (). This result implies that proves that consistency of, and that proves the (...) consistency of. (shrink)

Especially nice models of intuitionistic set theories are realizability models $V$, where $\mathcal A$ is an applicative structure or partial combinatory algebra. This paper is concerned with the preservation of various choice principles in $V$ if assumed in the underlying universe $V$, adopting Constructive Zermelo–Fraenkel as background theory for all of these investigations. Examples of choice principles are the axiom schemes of countable choice, dependent choice, relativized dependent choice and the presentation axiom. It is shown (...) that any of these axioms holds in $V$ for every applicative structure $\mathcal A$ if it holds in the background universe.1 It is also shown that a weak form of the countable axiom of choice, $\textbf{AC}^{\boldsymbol{\omega, \omega }}$, is rendered true in any $V$ regardless of whether it holds in the background universe. The paper extends work by McCarty and Rathjen. (shrink)

The Nash axiom is a basic property of consistency in choice. This paper proposes weaker versions of the axiom and examines their logical implications. In particular, we demonstrate that weak Nash axioms are useful to understand the relationship between the Nash axiom and the path independence axiom. We provide an application of weak Nash axioms to the no-envy approach. We present a possibility result and an impossibility result.

We show that the statement “separable, countably compact, regular spaces are Baire” is deducible from a strictly weaker form than AC, namely, CAC . We also find some characterizations of the axiom of dependent choices.

We study the role the axiom of choice plays in the existence of some special subsets of ℝ and its power set ℘.

The rigid relation principle, introduced in this article, asserts that every set admits a rigid binary relation. This follows from the axiom of choice, because well-orders are rigid, but we prove that it is neither equivalent to the axiom of choice nor provable in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory without the axiom of choice. Thus, it is a new weak choice principle. Nevertheless, the restriction of the principle to sets of reals is provable without the axiom of (...) choice. (shrink)

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)

In [10], we have shown that the statement that all ∑ 1 1 partitions are Ramsey is deducible over ATR 0 from the axiom of ∑ 1 1 monotone inductive definition,but the reversal needs П 1 1 - CA 0 rather than ATR 0 . By contrast, we show in this paper that the statement that all ∑ 0 2 games are determinate is also deducible over ATR 0 from the axiom of ∑ 1 1 monotone inductive definition, but the (...) reversal is provable even in ACA 0 . These results illuminate the substantial differences among lightface theorems which can not be observed in boldface. (shrink)

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 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)

In the context of [Formula: see text], we analyze a version of Hindman’s finite unions theorem on infinite sets, which normally requires the Axiom of Choice to be proved. We establish the implication relations between this statement and various classical weak choice principles, thus precisely locating the strength of the statement as a weak form of the [Formula: see text].

The set-theoretic axiom WISC states that for every set there is a set of surjections to it cofinal in all such surjections. By constructing an unbounded topos over the category of sets and using an extension of the internal logic of a topos due to Shulman, we show that WISC is independent of the rest of the axioms of the set theory given by a well-pointed topos. This also gives an example of a topos that is not a predicative (...) topos as defined by van den Berg. (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.

We work in set theory without the Axiom of Choice ZF. We prove that the Principle of Dependent Choices (DC) implies that the closed unit ball of a uniformly convex Banach space is weakly compact and, in particular, that the closed unit ball of a Hilbert space is weakly compact. These statements are not provable in ZF and the latter statement does not imply DC. Furthermore, DC does not imply that the closed unit ball of a reflexive space is (...) weakly compact. (shrink)

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 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.

The work of Roshdi Rashed has set a landmark in many senses, but perhaps the most striking one is his inexhaustible thrive to open new paths for the study of conceptual links between science and philosophy deeply rooted in the interaction of historic with systematic perspectives. In the present talk I will focus on how a framework that has its source in philosophy of logic, interacts with some new results on the foundations of mathematics. More precisely, the main objective of (...) my brief remarks is to discuss some claims of the late Hintikka who brought forward the idea that a game-theoretical interpretation of the Axiom of Choice yields its meaning “evident”. More precisely I will show that if we develop Per Martin-Löf’s demonstration of the axiom within a dialogical setting, the claim of Hintikka can be upheld. However, the dialogical demonstration, shows that, contrary to the expectations of Hintikka, the meaning that the game-theoretical setting provides to the Axiom is compatible with constructivist rather than with classical tenets. (shrink)

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 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)

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)

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.

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.