I'm trying to show (i) $\implies$ (ii):

(i) For any relation $R$, there exists a function $H\subseteq R$, with $\newcommand{\dom}{\mathrm{dom} \ } \dom H = \dom R$.

(ii) For any set $I$ and any function $H$ with domain $I$, if $H(i)\neq\emptyset$ for each $i\in I$, then there exists a function $F$ with domain $I$, and for every $i\in I$, we have $F(i)\in H(i)$.

Pf: Assume (i) and let $I$ be a set, $H$ a function with $\dom H = I$ and $H(i)\neq\emptyset$ for each $i \in I$. Define

$$ R = \left\{x \in {\cal P}{\cal P}\left(I\cup \bigcup_{i\in I} H(i)\right) | x = (i,h), i \in I, h \in H(i) \right\}. $$

Then, $R$ is a relation, and by (i), there exists some function $F\subseteq R$ with $\dom F = \dom R = I$, and for each $i\in I$, we have $F(i) \in H(i)$, which is what we want.

Is this fine? Is $R$ a set? That is, if I understand correctly, that ${\cal P}{\cal P}\left(I\cup \bigcup_{i\in I} H(i)\right)$ is a set comes from power set and union axioms, and this set contains exactly the $(i,h)$'s we want; but is the use of one of these subset axioms here done correct?

Thanks in advance.


Your definition of $R$ is extremely cumbersome. You don't have to mention the set over which you apply separation if the definition is obviously bounded. Writing $R=\{(i,h)\mid h\in H(i)\}$ is far clearer.

And if that is the relation that you were defining, then the proof is fine.


Your Answer

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