Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Do I need axiom of choice in this proof here?

I think not: at each step we choose one element from a set $N - \langle g_1, \dots, g_k \rangle $. So while there is indeed a countable number of sets involved from which we choose elements, I could also think of the process as follows:

Assume $N$ is generated uncountably. Let $C = \{g_1 , g_2, \dots \}$ be a countable subset of the generators of $N$. (So far we have not used choice, right?) We may write $C$ as a countable union of singleton sets $\bigcup_n \{g_n\}$. But now we can write down an explicit choice function: Let $c(\{x\}) = x$. Since the union is countable, we may consider the choice function $\tilde{c}: \mathbb N \to C, n \mapsto g_n$.

From here, we can finish the argument as follows: Then the following is an increasing chain of submodules: $\langle \tilde{c}(1) \rangle \subset \langle \tilde{c}(1), \tilde{c}(2) \rangle \subset \dots$, avoiding the axiom of choice.

Would someone tell me where my argument is flawed? Thanks.

share|cite|improve this question
Choosing a countable subset does use choice. – Grumpy Parsnip Jul 21 '12 at 11:09
You should think about how you would prove a countable subset of an uncountable exists. The proof will boil down to: first I pick $g_1$. Okay that didn't exhaust the set. So now I can pick $g_2$... You are making infinitely many arbitrary choices, so A.C. kicks in. – Grumpy Parsnip Jul 21 '12 at 11:11
Hodges [Six impossible rings] showed there exists (a model of ZF minus choice in which there exists) a ring satisfying the ascending chain condition but also having a non-finitely-generated ideal. – Zhen Lin Jul 21 '12 at 11:11
@JimConant Right, thanks Jim! – Rudy the Reindeer Jul 21 '12 at 11:24
up vote 13 down vote accepted

There is a delicate point about the definition of Noetherian which requires the axiom of choice.

Let $X$ be an amorphous set, namely an infinite set that cannot be partitioned into two disjoint infinite subsets. Such $X$ has the interesting property that if ${\cal A\subseteq P}(X)$ is a chain, then $\cal A$ is finite.

Now let $M=\bigoplus_X\mathbb Z$ as a module over $\mathbb Z$. Every chain of modules is finite, simply since it defines a chain of subsets of $X$ and every such chain is finite.

On the other hand, it is clear that $M$ is not finitely generated and therefore not Noetherian in the definition that "every submodule is finitely generated", simply take $M$ itself to be that submodule. We also have that the family of finitely generated submodules does not have a maximal element.

It should be remarked that the equivalence between "every module is finitely generated" and "every non-empty family of submodules has a maximal element" requires the axiom of choice (specifically it requires Dependent Choice, which amongst other things implies that every infinite set has a countably infinite subset).


  1. Can one avoid AC in the proof that in Noetherian rings there is a maximal element for each set?
  2. Where is the Axiom of choice used?
share|cite|improve this answer
To be precise, it is the implication from "every submodule is finitely generated" to "every nonempty family of submodules has a maximal element" that uses some choice. Going from the latter to the former does not require AC. – Arturo Magidin Jul 21 '12 at 21:09

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.