Let say we live in the category of vector spaces over $\mathbb{R}$ or $\mathbb{C}.$ Here are three sentences:

  1. Axiom of choice
  2. Every vector space has a base.
  3. For every vector space $V$ and its subspace $E\subset V$ there is a subspace $F\subset V$ such that $V=E\oplus F.$

I know how to prove that (1)->(2)->(3). How about the inverese? Do (2)->(1) and (3)->(2) hold?

If this is not the case, then is there some weaker version of AC which imply (3)?

  • $\begingroup$ By the way, how do you prove (2) implies (3)? The thing you'd want to use is "every linearly independent set is contained in a basis", but that's not the same as "every vector space has a basis", at least not as far as "naive assumptions go". $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jun 16 '18 at 17:35
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila I can't recall what the proof I had in mind then. I recall however that the produced space $F$ should be isomorphic to $V/E$. Now I think about following construction of $F$: Given base $v_\alpha$ of $V$ any $v\in V$ has a form $v=\sum_\alpha a_\alpha v_\alpha$ and thus gives rise to the $i_v\in V^*$ in such a way that $i_v(w) = \sum_{\alpha,\beta} a_\alpha b_\beta \delta_{\alpha}^{\beta}$ where $w = \sum_\beta b_\beta v_\beta$. We put $F$ as $\bigcap_{z\in E}\ker(i_z)$. However, I am not sure if $F\cong V/E$. Do you think that (2)->(3) is a false statement? $\endgroup$ – Fallen Apart Jun 16 '18 at 19:24
  • $\begingroup$ No, both statements are equivalent to choice. I just don't know how to prove (2) implies (3) without proving Zorn's Lemma first. :) $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jun 16 '18 at 19:35

No, there is no weaker choice principle implying (3). It was shown that (3) implies the axiom of choice in $\sf ZF$.

The proof is via an equivalent of the axiom of choice called "The Axiom of Multiple Choice". You can find the details in Rubin & Rubin's "Equivalents of the Axiom of Choice II" as Theorem 6.35 (pp. 119-120 and 122).

The proof is due to Bleicher from 1964

M. N. Bleicher, Some theorems on vector spaces and the axiom of choice, Fund. Math. 54 (1964), 95--107.

It is interesting to note that in a more relaxed setting where there might be atoms (non-set objects) or that the axiom of regularity fails, it is not known whether or not (3) implies the axiom of choice.

  • $\begingroup$ Perfect answer. Since I live in vector spaces I assume axiom of regulatiry. $\endgroup$ – Fallen Apart Mar 25 '16 at 21:30
  • $\begingroup$ @Fallen Apart: I'm not sure why, or how this is relevant. But as far as set theory goes, it apparently is relevant. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Mar 25 '16 at 21:36
  • $\begingroup$ You are right, but I am still little bit ignorant about what happen when I abandon some of ZF axioms. I was just playing with non-degenerated bilenar forms and over and over again I was using (3). So I asked above question. But do not undersand me wrong. I really like this "pathologies" that you offer and you did not write it in vain. $\endgroup$ – Fallen Apart Mar 25 '16 at 21:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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