11
$\begingroup$

I sometimes see references to the "Axiom of Well-Ordered Choice," but I'm not sure how strong it is. It states that every well-ordered family of sets has a choice function.

By "well-ordered family," I don't mean that the sets within the family are well-ordered, but that the family must index all the sets within the family by some ordinal.

How strong is this axiom? Can it prove the Hahn-Banach theorem, the ultrafilter lemma, anything about measurable sets, etc? Does it have any implications about what sets can be well-ordered (the reals for instance), or perhaps prove anything about the Hartogs number of sets, etc?

Does anyone have a reference for this?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ ...isn't this axiom a consequence of ZF? One can choose the (well-defined, since it's well-ordered) lexicographically least element of each set in the family... $\endgroup$ – Steven Stadnicki Mar 8 at 20:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ That is a family of well-ordered sets, not a well-ordered family of (arbitrary sets). $\endgroup$ – Mike Battaglia Mar 8 at 20:47
  • $\begingroup$ Ahh, I missed that distinction. Thank you! $\endgroup$ – Steven Stadnicki Mar 8 at 20:50
  • $\begingroup$ I've never seen this axiom before. Does the family itself need to be a set or can it be a proper class? $\endgroup$ – Robert Shore Mar 8 at 20:55
  • $\begingroup$ Google suggests this: settheory.mathtalks.org/andreas-blass-well-ordered-choice $\endgroup$ – Carl Mummert Mar 8 at 20:56
9
$\begingroup$

The axiom of well-ordered choice, or $\sf AC_{\rm WO}$, is strictly weaker than the axiom of choice itself. If we start with $L$ and add $\omega_1$ Cohen reals, then go to $L(\Bbb R)$, one can show that $\sf AC_{\rm WO}$ holds, while $\Bbb R$ cannot be well-ordered there.

Pincus proved in the 1970s that this is equivalent to the following statement on Hartogs and Lindenbaum numbers:

$\sf AC_{\rm WO}$ is equivalent to the statement $\forall x.\aleph(x)=\aleph^*(x)$.

Here, the Lindenbaum number, $\aleph^*(x)$, is the least ordinal which $x$ cannot be mapped onto. One obvious fact is that $\aleph(x)\leq\aleph^*(x)$.

In the late 1950s or early 1960s Jensen proved that this assumption also implies $\sf DC$. This is also a very clever proof.

The conjunction of these two consequences gives us that $\aleph_1\leq 2^{\aleph_0}$, as a result of a theorem of Shelah from the 1980s, this implies there is a non-measurable set of reals.

As far as Hahn–Banach, or other things of that sort, I do not believe that much is known on the topic. But to sum up, this axiom does not imply that the reals are well-ordered, but it does imply there is a non-measurable set of reals because there is a set of reals of size $\aleph_1$ and $\sf DC$ holds. Moreover, it is equivalent to saying that the Hartogs and Lindenbaum numbers are equal for all sets.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Do you have a source for a proof of ${\sf AC_{\rm WO}}\iff \forall x(\aleph(x)=\aleph^*(x))$? $\endgroup$ – Holo Mar 8 at 23:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Holo karagila.org/2014/on-the-partition-principle $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Mar 8 at 23:26
  • $\begingroup$ (The proof there assumes PP, but really you only use that for maps onto ordinals, which is the same as saying $\aleph=\aleph^*$.) $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Mar 9 at 8:52
  • $\begingroup$ thank you very much! $\endgroup$ – Holo Mar 9 at 16:43

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.