A weak form of intuitionistic set theory WST lacking the axiom of extensionality is introduced. While WST is too weak to support the derivation of the law of excluded middle from the axiom of choice, we show that bee.ng up WST with moderate extensionality principles or quotient sets enables the derivation to go through.

There seems to be a view that intuitionists not only take the Axiom of Choice (AC) to be true, but also believe it a consequence of their fundamental posits. Widespread or not, this view is largely mistaken. This article offers a brief, yet comprehensive, overview of the status of AC in various intuitionistic and constructivist systems. The survey makes it clear that the Axiom of Choice fails to be a theorem in most contexts and is even (...) outright false in some important contexts. Of the systems surveyed, only intensional type theory renders AC a theorem, but the extent of AC in that theory does not include, for instance, real analysis. Only a small amount of extensionality is required in order for the obvious proof an intuitionist might offer for AC to break down. (shrink)

We combine a variety of constructive methods (including forcing, realizability, asymmetric interpretation), to obtain consistency results concerning combinatory logic with extensionality and (forms of) the axiom of choice.

We study statements about countable and well-ordered unions and their relation to each other and to countable and well-ordered forms of the axiom of choice. Using WO as an abbreviation for “well-orderable”, here are two typical results: The assertion that every WO family of countable sets has a WO union does not imply that every countable family of WO sets has a WO union; the axiom of choice for WO families of WO sets does not imply (...) that the countable union of countable sets is WO. (shrink)

It is shown that in ZF set theory the axiom of choice holds iff every non empty topological space has a maximal closed filter.

The principle of set theory known as the Axiom of Choice (AC) has been hailed as “probably the most interesting and, in spite of its late appearance, the most discussed axiom of mathematics, second only to Euclid’s axiom of parallels which was introduced more than two thousand years ago”1 It has been employed in countless mathematical papers, a number of monographs have been exclusively devoted to it, and it has long played a prominently role in discussions (...) on the foundations of mathematics. (shrink)

The method of morphisms is a well-known application of Dialectica categories to set theory. In a previous work, Valeria de Paiva and the author have asked how much of the Axiom of Choice is needed in order to carry out the referred applications of such method. In this paper, we show that, when considered in their full generality, those applications of Dialectica categories give rise to equivalents of either the Axiom of Choice or Partition Principle —which (...) is a consequence of $\textbf{AC}$ whose precise status of its relationship with$\textbf{AC}$ itself is an open problem for more than a hundred years. (shrink)

From 1908 to 1916, articles supporting the axiom of choice were scant. The situation changed in 1916, when Wacław Sierpiński published a series of articles reviving the debate. The posterity of the axiom of choice as we know it would be unimaginable without Sierpiński’s efforts.

We construct peculiar Hilbert spaces from counterexamples to the axiom of choice. We identify the intrinsically effective Hamiltonians with those observables of quantum theory which may coexist with such spaces. Here a self adjoint operator is intrinsically effective if and only if the Schrödinger equation of its generated semigroup is soluble by means of eigenfunction series expansions.

The present article deals with the power of the axiom of choice within the second-order predicate logic. We investigate the relationship between several variants of AC and some other statements, known as equivalent to AC within the set theory of Zermelo and Fraenkel with atoms, in Henkin models of the one-sorted second-order predicate logic with identity without operation variables. The construction of models follows the ideas of Fraenkel and Mostowski. It is e. g. shown that the well-ordering theorem (...) for unary predicates is independent from AC for binary predicates and from the trichotomy law for unary predicates. Moreover, we show that the AC for binary predicates follows neither from the trichotomy law for unary predicates nor from Zorn's lemma for unary predicates nor from the formalization of the axiom of choice for disjoint families of sets for binary predicates, and that the trichotomy law for unary predicates does not follow from AC for binary predicates. (shrink)

We study conditions for a topological space to be metrizable, properties of metrizable spaces, and the role the axiom of choice plays in these matters.

We show that it is not possible to construct a Fraenkel-Mostowski model in which the axiom of choice for well-ordered families of sets and the axiom of choice for sets are both true, but the axiom of choice is false.

In the realm of metric spaces the role of choice principles is investigated.

In this paper we study some statements similar to the Partition Principle and the Trichotomy. We prove some relationships between these statements, the Axiom of Choice, and the Generalized Continuum Hypothesis. We also prove some independence results. MSC: 03E25, 03E50, 04A25, 04A50.

We show that the Axiom of Choice is equivalent to each of the following statements: A product of closures of subsets of topological spaces is equal to the closure of their product ; A product of complete uniform spaces is complete.

We show that several theorems about Polish spaces, which depend on the axiom of choice ), have interesting corollaries that are theorems of the theory \, where \ is the axiom of dependent choices. Surprisingly it is natural to use the full \ to prove the existence of these proofs; in fact we do not even know the proofs in \. Let \ denote the axiom of determinacy. We show also, in the theory \\), a theorem (...) which strenghtens and generalizes the theorem of Drinfeld and Margulis about the unicity of Lebesgue’s measure. This generalization is false in \, but assuming the existence of large enough cardinals it is true in the model \,\in \rangle \). (shrink)

We prove the independence of some weakenings of the axiom of choice related to the question if the unions of wellorderable families of wellordered sets are wellorderable.

We show that the Axiom of Countable Choice is necessary and sufficient to prove that the existence of a Borel measure on a pseudometric space such that the measure of open balls is positive and finite implies separability of the space. In this way a negative answer to an open problem formulated in Górka (Am Math Mon 128:84–86, 2020) is given. Moreover, we study existence of maximal $$\delta $$ δ -separated sets in metric and pseudometric spaces from the (...) point of view the Axiom of Choice and its weaker forms. (shrink)

. Dzik [2] gives a direct proof of the axiom of choice from the generalized Lindenbaum extension theorem LET. The converse is part of every decent logical education. Inspection of Dzik’s proof shows that its premise let attributes a very special version of the Lindenbaum extension property to a very special class of deductive systems, here called Dzik systems. The problem therefore arises of giving a direct proof, not using the axiom of choice, of the conditional (...) . A partial solution is provided. (shrink)

In this paper, we present set theories based upon the paraconsistent logic Pac. We describe two different techniques to construct models of such set theories. The first of these is an adaptation of one used to construct classical models of positive comprehension. The properties of the models obtained in that way give rise to a natural paraconsistent set theory which is presented here. The status of the axiom of choice in that theory is also discussed. The second leads (...) to show that any classical universe of set theory (e.g. a model of ZF) can be extended to a paraconsistent one, via a term model construction using an adapted bisimulation technique. (shrink)

The Nielsen‐Schreier theorem asserts that subgroups of free groups are free. In the first section we show that this theorem does not follow from the Linear Ordering Principle, thus strengthening the fact that it implies the Axiom of Choice for families of finite sets. In the second section, we show that a stronger variant of the Nielsen‐Schreier theorem implies the Axiom of Choice.

We find some characterizations of the Axiom of Choice in terms of certain families of open sets in T1 spaces.

We shall investigate certain statements concerning the rigidity of unary functions which have connections with forms of the axiom of choice.

The principle of set theory known as the Axiom of Choice has been hailed as “probably the most interesting and, in spite of its late appearance, the most discussed axiom of mathematics, second only to Euclid's axiom of parallels which was introduced more than two thousand years ago” (Fraenkel, Bar-Hillel & Levy 1973, §II.4). The fulsomeness of this description might lead those unfamiliar with the axiom to expect it to be as startling as, say, the (...) Principle of the Constancy of the Velocity of Light or the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. But in fact the Axiom of Choice as it is usually stated appears humdrum, even self-evident. For it amounts to nothing more than the claim that, given any collection of mutually disjoint nonempty sets, it is possible to assemble a new set — a transversal or choice set — containing exactly one element from each member of the given collection. Nevertheless, this seemingly innocuous principle has far-reaching mathematical consequences — many indispensable, some startling — and has come to figure prominently in discussions on the foundations of mathematics. It (or its equivalents) have been employed in countless mathematical papers, and a number of monographs have been exclusively devoted to it. (shrink)

We work in set-theory without choice ZF. A set is Countable if it is finite or equipotent with ${\Bbb N}$ . Given a closed subset F of [0, 1] I which is a bounded subset of $\ell ^{1}(I)$ (resp. such that $F\subseteq c_{0}(I)$ ), we show that the countable axiom of choice for finite sets, (resp. the countable axiom of choice AC N ) implies that F is compact. This enhances previous results where AC N (...) (resp. the axiom of Dependent Choices) was required. If I is linearly orderable (for example $I={\Bbb R}$ ), then, in ZF, the closed unit ball of the Hilbert space $\ell ^{2}(I)$ is (Loeb-)compact in the weak topology. However, the weak compactness of the closed unit ball of $\ell ^{2}(\scr{P}({\Bbb R}))$ is not provable in ZF. (shrink)

We show that some well known theorems in topology may not be true without the axiom of choice.

A new method is presented for constructing models of set theory, using a technique of forming pseudo-ultrapowers. In the presence of the axiom of choice, the traditional ultrapower construction has proven to be extremely powerful in set theory and model theory; if the axiom of choice is not assumed, the fundamental theorem of ultrapowers may fail, causing the ultrapower to lose almost all of its utility. The pseudo-ultrapower is designed so that the fundamental theorem holds even (...) if choice fails; this is arranged by means of an application of the omitting types theorem. The general theory of pseudo-ultrapowers is developed. Following that, we study supercompactness in the absence of choice, and we analyze pseudo-ultrapowers of models of the axiom of determinateness and various infinite exponent partition relations. Relationships between pseudo-ultrapowers and forcing are also discussed. (shrink)

A generalization of the axioms of choice says that all the Skolem functions of a true first‐order sentence exist. This generalization can be implemented on the first‐order level by generalizing the rule of existential instantiation into a rule of functional instantiation. If this generalization is carried out in first‐order axiomatic set theory , it is seen that in any model of FAST, there are sentences S which are true but whose Skolem functions do not exist. Since this existence is (...) what the truth of S means in a combinational sense, in any model of FAST there are sentences which are set‐theoretical “true” but false in the normal sense of the word. This shows that the assumptions on which the axiom of choice rests cannot be fully implemented in FAST. The axiom choice is not a set‐theoretical principle. (shrink)

We investigate, within the framework of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory ZF, the interrelations between weak forms of the Axiom of Choice AC restricted to sets of reals.

This is a continuation of [2]. We study the Tychonoff Compactness Theorem for various definitions of compactness and for various types of spaces . We also study well ordered Tychonoff products and the effect that the multiple choice axiom has on such products.

We work in set theory ZF without axiom of choice. Though the Hahn-Banach theorem cannot be proved in ZF, we prove that every Gateaux-differentiable uniformly convex Banach space E satisfies the following continuous Hahn-Banach property: if p is a continuous sublinear functional on E, if F is a subspace of E, and if f: F → ℝ is a linear functional such that f ≤ p|F then there exists a linear functional g : E → ℝ such that (...) g extends f and g ≤ p. We also prove that the continuous Hahn-Banach property on a topological vector space E is equivalent to the classical geometrical forms of the Hahn-Banach theorem on E. We then prove that the axiom of Dependent choices DC is equivalent to Ekeland's variational principle, and that it implies the continuous Hahn-Banach property on Gateaux-differentiable Banach spaces. Finally, we prove that, though separable normed spaces satisfy the continuous Hahn-Banach property, they do not satisfy the whole Hahn-Banach property in ZF+DC. (shrink)

We study within the framework of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory ZF the role that the axiom of choice plays in the theory of Lindelöf metric spaces. We show that in ZF the weak choice principles: Every Lindelöf metric space is separable and Every Lindelöf metric space is second countable are equivalent. We also prove that a Lindelöf metric space is hereditarily separable iff it is hereditarily Lindelöf iff it hold as well the axiom of choice restricted (...) to countable sets and to topologies of Lindelöf metric spaces as the countable union theorem restricted to Lindelöf metric spaces. (shrink)

We show that the countable axiom of choice CAC strictly implies the statements “Lindelöf metric spaces are second countable” “Lindelöf metric spaces are separable”. We also show that CAC is equivalent to the statement: “If is a Lindelöf topological space with respect to the base ℬ, then is Lindelöf”.

It is easy to prove in ZF− that a relation R satisfies the maximal condition if and only if its transitive hull R* does; equivalently: R is well-founded if and only if R* is. We will show in the following that, if the maximal condition is replaced by the chain condition, as is often the case in Algebra, the resulting statement is not provable in ZF− anymore . More precisely, we will prove that this statement is equivalent in ZF− to (...) the countable axiom of choice ACω. Moreover, applying this result we will prove that the axiom of dependent choices, restricted to partial orders as used in Algebra, already implies the general form for arbitrary relations as formulated first by Teichmüller and, independently, some time later by Bernays and Tarski. (shrink)

Two theorems are proved: First that the statement“there exists a field F such that for every vector space over F, every generating set contains a basis”implies the axiom of choice. This generalizes theorems of Halpern, Blass, and Keremedis. Secondly, we prove that the assertion that every vector space over ℤ2 has a basis implies that every well-ordered collection of two-element sets has a choice function.

Consistency with the formal Church’s thesis, for short CT, and the axiom of choice, for short AC, was one of the requirements asked to be satisfied by the intensional level of a two-level foundation for constructive mathematics as proposed by Maietti and Sambin From sets and types to topology and analysis: practicable foundations for constructive mathematics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005). Here we show that this is the case for the intensional level of the two-level Minimalist Foundation, for (...) short MF, completed in 2009 by the second author. The intensional level of MF consists of an intensional type theory à la Martin-Löf, called mTT. The consistency of mTT with CT and AC is obtained by showing the consistency with the formal Church’s thesis of a fragment of intensional Martin-Löf’s type theory, called \, where mTT can be easily interpreted. Then to show the consistency of \ with CT we interpret it within Feferman’s predicative theory of non-iterative fixpoints \ by extending the well known Kleene’s realizability semantics of intuitionistic arithmetics so that CT is trivially validated. More in detail the fragment \ we interpret consists of first order intensional Martin-Löf’s type theory with one universe and with explicit substitution rules in place of usual equality rules preserving type constructors -rule which is not valid in our realizability semantics). A key difficulty encountered in our interpretation was to use the right interpretation of lambda abstraction in the applicative structure of natural numbers in order to model all the equality rules of \ correctly. In particular the universe of \ is modelled by means of \-fixpoints following a technique due first to Aczel and used by Feferman and Beeson. (shrink)

Consider the following well-known result from the theory of normed linear spaces ([2], p. 80, 4(b)): (g) the unit ball of the (continuous) dual of a normed linear space over the reals has an extreme point. The standard proof of (~) uses the axiom of choice (AG); thus the implication AC~(w) can be proved in set theory. In this paper we show that this implication can be reversed, so that (*) is actually eq7I2valent to the axiom of (...) choice. From this we derive various corollaries, for example: the conjunction of the Boolean prime ideal theorem and the Krein-Milman theorem implies the axiom of choice, and the Krein-Milman theorem is not derivable from the Boolean prime ideal theorem. (shrink)