5
$\begingroup$

We know that the algebraic automorphisms of the real numbers under addition is not in $\text{1:1}$ correpondence with $\mathbb R \setminus \{0\}$; see here.

The argument uses the AOC.

Suppose we drop the AOC from $\text{ZFC}$ replacing it with

Axiom (GR):

The injective mapping

$\quad \Phi: \mathbb R \setminus \{0\} \to \text{AutomorphismGroup(} \mathbb R ,+ \text{)}$

is surjective.


Has this $\text{ZF+GR}$ been tried and/or does this lead to $1 = 0$?


Update:

Added descriptive set theory tag after looking over links in Noah's answer.

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

It is indeed consistent, and in fact is a consequence of the extremely powerful axiom of determinacy.

Specifically, AD implies that every homomorphism from $(\mathbb{R},+)$ to itself is continuous, and in particular of the form $a\mapsto ar$ for some $r\in\mathbb{R}$. See here for some discussion of how nasty any other endomorphism would have to be; AD rules out such sets (e.g. implies that every set of reals is measurable).

Of course, as Asaf observes below, AD is truly massive overkill (like, nuking a mosquito); I'm mentioning it because AD is a natural alternative to AC which you may independently want to know about.


Now AD isn't actually cheap: the theory ZF+AD proves the consistency of ZF, that is, the axiom determinacy is of high consistency strength. We can prove the consistency of ZF+GR relative to ZF alone; however, this is a bit more technical.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Pretty cool to see a reference link to Math.StackExchange in the wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy%27s_functional_equation article. (the web - not your grandfather's research tool). $\endgroup$ – CopyPasteIt Oct 22 '18 at 2:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm confused as to the role of AD here. You just need "Every set of reals has the Baire property". Heck, even "Every set is measurable" is enough, and that has far less in terms of consistency. Also, how do you prove the consistency of ZF+AD without using forcing and large cardinals, and how is it less technical? Yes, the proof of BP is hard and technical, but the proof of AD is also very hard and technical. Oh, and neither can be proved consistent with just forcing. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Oct 22 '18 at 7:02
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila See how great it is I asked my question! Look,, this is esoteric stuff but even the specialists can bounce it around to see what falls out. If I did not ask my question you and Noah would have missed an opportunity for an exchange. $\endgroup$ – CopyPasteIt Oct 22 '18 at 8:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @CopyPasteIt: I don't think we would have missed that opportunity. I think we had it before, and it's not the first time we talk about this sort of stuff, and it won't be the last time either. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Oct 22 '18 at 9:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @CopyPasteIt: Yes, that would be a good start. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Oct 22 '18 at 9:16

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.