Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Consider the following forms of the axiom of choice:

$AC_1:\forall F\neq \emptyset~~~(\emptyset\notin F~\wedge~\forall x,y\in F~~~(x\neq y\rightarrow x\cap y= \emptyset))\rightarrow \exists C~\forall x\in F~~~~|C\cap x|=1$

$AC_2:\forall x~\exists r\subseteq x\times x~~~;\langle x,r\rangle~\text{is a well-ordering}$

It is well-known that within $ZF-AF$ (i.e. $ZF$ with the axiom of foundation deleted) these two forms of the axiom of choice are equivalent.

Also in $ZF-AF-P$ (i.e. $ZF-AF$ with power set axiom deleted) the axiom $AC_2$ implies $AC_1$ (See Lemma $I.12.3$ in page $69$ of Kunen's new set theory book) but it seems in the inverse direction the use of the power set axiom to prove $AC_2$ using $AC_1$ is essential. (See Lemma $I.12.4$ in page $69$ of Kunen's book).

Kunen in page $19$ of his book says: "the proof of that $AC_1$ implies $AC_2$ seems to require the power set axiom." I didn't find any proof of this claim.

Question: Is Kunen's intuition true? Is $AC_2$ strictly stronger than $AC_1$ within $ZF-AF-P$? In the other words, assuming consistency of $ZF$ do we have $ZF-AF-P+AC_1\nvdash AC_2$? Precisely, is the following true?

$$Con(ZF)\Longrightarrow Con(ZF-AF-P+AC_1+\neg AC_2)$$

Remark: We have: $Con(ZF)\Longrightarrow Con(ZF-AF-P-Rep+AC_1+\neg AC_2)$. To see this fact it suffices to consider model $M$ of $ZF-AF-P-Rep+AC_1+\neg AC_2$ as follows:

$M_{0}:=HF\cup\{\omega\}$

$\forall n\in \omega~~~~~M_{n+1}:=M_{n}\cup [M_{n}]^{<\omega}\cup \{\cup x~|~x\in M_{n}\}\cup \{x~|~\exists y\in M_{n}~x\subseteq y\}$

$M:=\bigcup_{n\in \omega}M_{n}$

share|improve this question
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.