0
$\begingroup$

Let $I$ be an infinite set. Suppose that for every $i\in I$, there exists a set $S_i$ satisfies a statement $\psi(S_i)$.

Here, is constructing a family of such $S_i$ (i.e. $\{S_i\}$ for $i\in I$) using Axiom of Choice??

For example, $\{V_i\}$ is given, suppose for every $i\in I$, there exists $G_i$ such that $V_i$ = $Y\cup G_i$. Then constructing $\{G_i\}$ is a result of AC?

1 Answers 1

0

It varies.

If you can prove that there exists a unique $S_i$ then there is no need to use the axiom of choice.

On the other hand, think of $\psi(x) = \exists y(y\in x)$, then every non-empty set has this property, so one can easily construct an example where the axiom of choice is essential.

In the example, since $Y$ is a fixed parameter it is simple to define $G_i=V_i\setminus Y$. You can also take $G_i=V_i$ for all $i$.


For example, if $\cal A=\{A_i\mid i\in I\}$ is a family of non-empty and pairwise disjoint sets then $\varnothing$ can be in at most one element of the family. Without loss of generality, it is in none of the members. If $\cal A$ does not have a choice function then the sentence $\psi(x)=\exists y(y\in x)$ has at least one element in every $A_i$ which satisfy it, in fact $\{a\in A_i\mid \psi(a)\}=A_i$, so we cannot use this to choose from this family.

  • 0
    Thanks, but I'm not really clear that if there exists a unique $S_i$, it's not a result of AC?? and how do i write down this process in mathematical language?2012-07-24
  • 0
    @Katlus: This *really* varies between the cases. It depends what are $V_i$ and what is $\psi$. It is impossible to just pull a general answer like that.2012-07-24
  • 0
    A standard way to avoid AC is to know which element you constructed. For example, if the sets in your collection are well-orderable without AC (e.g. any finite, N, Z, Q), then well-ordering them and taking the least element avoids AC. This is why we need more information on your property.2012-07-24
  • 2
    @trb456: Another is simply a way where a canonical choice exists. For example in the product of $R$ modules you can always choose the zero element.2012-07-24
  • 0
    @Katlus: If you can prove uniqueness in the sense that $\forall i\in I: \exists_! S: \psi(i,S)$, then the set of all the $S$'s is precisely what the Axiom of Replacement (i.e., the F in ZF) gives you.2012-07-24
  • 1
    @trb456: I should also remark that your comment is flat out wrong if you consider it closely. You agree that the number of ways to well-order a pair is finite. In fact it is exactly 2. However there can be a countable family of pairs that you cannot choose from. You need to be able and choose *how* to well-order the sets in a uniform way.2012-07-24
  • 0
    @Asaf Karaglia: No, it is NOT wrong for the sets I mentioned. I was talking about sets of numbers, not arbitrary sets. I see I excluded "set of numbers' after "finite", but the other examples were numbers, and that's what I meant.2012-07-24
  • 0
    But the universe is far from limited to sets of numbers, and in the absence of choice it is far from being just sets of ordinals.2012-07-24
  • 0
    @Asaf Karaglia: I agree, but the OP was asking when AC is not needed, and I gave some examples. Not the only examples, but some!2012-07-24
  • 0
    Well the way you wrote your comment seemed to suggest that you can always replace a set with rationals or so, where in fact you can't. Even if you have countably many pairs you can't replace them with natural numbers.2012-07-24
  • 0
    @Asaf Karaglia: No, definitely did not mean to imply that, only that if you had certain sets of numbers specifically, they might already be equipped with a well-order without AC. I'm well aware of the Russell shoes vs. socks example.2012-07-25