The Axiom of Choice reads: The product of a collection of non-empty sets is non-empty. As you know well, this axiom is equivalent to many other statements. A few examples (probably the most ...
In my study of injective modules over commutative rings, i noticed that Zorn's Lemma is often employed in the proofs. Here are three examples: 1) Baer's Criterion 2) the characterization of injective ...
The product of nonempty sets is nonempty. I am fascinated that such a simple and seemingly intuitive statement can lead to rather astonishing results such as the Banach-Tarski paradox or the solution ...
I'm confused a little bit about this, I've been told many times that Zorn's lemma is equivalent to the axiom of choice. Is it an axiom or is it lemma, I mean is there a proof of Zorn's lemma or we ...
What would be the advantage of accepting non-measurable sets? I personally feel that non-measurable sets only exist because of infamous Banach-Tarski paradox...
Suppose there is a well-known theorem whose usual proof uses Axiom of Choice. Is trying to prove it without Axiom of Choice useless? What merits can such a proof have?
I don't know much about set theory or foundational mathematics, this question arose just out of curiosity. As far as I know, the widely accepted axioms of set theory is the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms ...
As I understand, the Banach-Tarski paradox says a ball in 3-space may be decomposed into finitely many pieces and reassembled into two balls each of the same size as the original. Despite being called ...