We prove Los conjecture = Morley theorem in ZF, with the same characterization (of first order countable theories categorical in aleph_alpha for some (equivalently for every) ordinal alpha>0. Another central result here is, in this context: the number of models of a countable first order T of cardinality aleph_alpha is either >=|alpha| for every aleph_αor it has a small upper bound (close to beth_2).
We deal with stability theory for ``reasonable'' non-elementary classes without any remanents of compactness (like: above Hanf number or definable by L_{omega_1, omega}).
We investigate categoricity of abstract elementary classes without any remnants of compactness (like non-definability of well ordering, existence of E.M. models or existence of large cardinals). We prove (assuming a weak version of GCH around lambda) that if K is categorical in lambda, lambda^+, LS(K) <= lambda and 1 <= I(lambda^{++},K)< 2^{lambda^{++}} then K has a model in lambda^{+++} .
Motivated by the free products of groups, the direct sums of modules, and Shelah's $(λ,2)$-goodness, we study strong amalgamation properties in Abstract Elementary Classes. Such a notion of amalgamation consists of a selection of certain amalgams for every triple $M_0\leq M_1, M_2$, and we show that if $K$ designates a unique strong amalgam to every triple $M_0\leq M_1, M_2$, then $K$ satisfies categoricity transfer at cardinals $\geqθ(K)+2^{\text{LS}(K)}$, where $θ(K)$ is a cardinal associated with the notion of amalgamation. We also show that if such a unique choice does not exist, then ther…
This paper can be viewed as a continuation of [KS09] that dealt with the automorphism tower problem without Choice. Here we deal with the inequation which connects the automorphism tower and the normalizer tower without Choice and introduce a new proof to a theorem of Fried and Kollár that any group can be represented as an automorphism group of a field. The proof uses a simple construction: working more in graph theory, and less in algebra.
Classification theory of elementary classes deals with first order (elementary) classes of structures (i.e. fixing a set T of first order sentences, we investigate the class of models of T with the elementary submodel notion). It tries to find dividing lines, prove their consequences, prove "structure theorems, positive theorems" on those in the "low side" (in particular stable and superstable theories), and prove "non-structure, complexity theorems" on the "high side". It has started with categoricity and number of non-isomorphic models. It is probably recognized as the central part of model …
By Easton's theorem one can force the exponential function on regular cardinals to take rather arbitrary cardinal values provided monotonicity and Koenig's lemma are respected. In models without choice we employ a "surjective" version of the exponential function. We then prove a choiceless Easton's theorem: one can force the surjective exponential function on all infinite cardinals to take arbitrary cardinal values, provided monotonicity and Cantor's theorem are satisfied, irrespective of cofinalities.
We deal with relatives of GCH which are provable. In particular we deal with rank version of the revised GCH. Our motivation was to find such results when only weak versions of the axiom of choice are assumed but some of the results gives us additional information even in ZFC.
We prove (ZF+DC) e.g. : if mu =|H(mu)| then mu^+ is regular non measurable. This is in contrast with the results for mu = aleph_{omega} on measurability see Apter Magidor [ApMg]
We mainly investigate model of set theory with restricted choice, e.g., ZF + DC + "the family of countable subsets of lambda is well ordered for every lambda" (really local version for a given lambda). In this frame much of pcf theory can be generalized. E.g., there is a class of regular cardinals, and we can prove cardinal inequality.
We discuss how singular can cardinals be in absence of the axiom of choice. We show that, contrasting with known negative consistency results (of Gitik and others), certain positive results are provable. Then we pose some problems.
We investigate infinite sets that witness the failure of certain Ramsey-theoretic statements, such as Ramsey's or (appropriately phrased) Hindman's theorem; such sets may exist if one does not assume the Axiom of Choice. We obtain very precise information as to where such sets are located within the hierarchy of infinite Dedekind-finite sets.
We show that in Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory without the Axiom of Choice a surjectively modified continuum function $θ(κ)$ can take almost arbitrary values for all infinite cardinals. This choiceless version of Easton's Theorem is in sharp contrast to the situation in ZFC, where for singular cardinals $κ$, the value of $2^κ$ is strongly influenced by the behaviour of the continuum function below. Our construction can roughly be described as follows: In a ground model $V \models ZFC + GCH$ with a "reasonable" function $F: Card \rightarrow Card$ on the infinite cardinals, a class forcing ${\mathb…
The rigid relation principle, introduced in this article, asserts that every set admits a rigid binary relation. This follows from the axiom of choice, because well-orders are rigid, but we prove that it is neither equivalent to the axiom of choice nor provable in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory without the axiom of choice. Thus, it is a new weak choice principle. Nevertheless, the restriction of the principle to sets of reals (among other general instances) is provable without the axiom of choice.
We show that it is consistent relative to ZF, that there is no well-ordering of $\mathbb{R}$ while a wide class of special sets of reals such as Hamel bases, transcendence bases, Vitali sets or Bernstein sets exists. To be more precise, we can assume that every projective hypergraph on $\mathbb{R}$ has a maximal independent set, among a few other things. For example, we get transversals for all projective equivalence relations. Moreover, this is possible while either $\mathsf{DC}_{ω_1}$ holds, or countable choice for reals fails. Assuming the consistency of an inaccessible cardinal, "projectiv…
In set theory without the Axiom of Choice, we consider Ingleton's axiom which is the counterpart in ultrametric analysis of the Hahn-Banach axiom. We show that in $ZFA$, set theory without the Axiom of Choice weakened to allow "atoms", Ingleton's axiom does not imply the Axiom of Choice (this solves in $ZFA$ a question raised by van Rooij (1992). We also prove that in $ZFA$, the "multiple Choice" axiom implies the Krein-Milman axiom. We deduce that, in $ZFA$, the conjunction of the Hahn-Banach, Ingleton and Krein-Milman axioms does not imply the Axiom of Choice.
It is often claimed that analysis with infinitesimals requires more substantial use of the Axiom of Choice than traditional elementary analysis. The claim is based on the observation that the hyperreals entail the existence of nonprincipal ultrafilters over N, a strong version of the Axiom of Choice, while the real numbers can be constructed in ZF. The axiomatic approach to nonstandard methods refutes this objection. We formulate a theory SPOT in the st-$\in$-language which suffices to carry out infinitesimal arguments, and prove that SPOT is a conservative extension of ZF. Thus the methods of…
In this paper, without the axiom of choice, we show that if a certain downward Löwenheim-Skolem property holds then all grounds are uniformly definable. We also prove that the axiom of choice is forceable if and only if the universe is a small extension of some transitive model of $\mathsf{ZFC}$.
We combine several folklore observations to provide a working framework for iterating constructions which contradict the axiom of choice. We use this to define a model in which any kind of structural failure must fail with a proper class of counterexamples. For example, the rational numbers have a proper class of non-isomorphic algebraic closures, every partial order embeds into the cardinals of the model, every set is the image of a Dedekind-finite set, every weak choice axiom of the form $\mathsf{AC}_X^Y$ fails with a proper class of counterexamples, every field has a vector space with two l…
In set theory without the axiom of Choice ZF, we prove that for every commutative field IK, the following statement D_{\IK}: "On every non null IK-vector space, there exists a non null linear form" implies the existence of a IK-linear extender on every vector subspace of a $\IK$-vector space. This solves a question raised in \cite{Mo09}. In the second part of the paper, we generalize our results in the case of spherically complete ultrametric valued fields, and show that Ingleton's statement is equivalent to the existence of "isometric linear extenders".
In synthetic computability, pioneered by Richman, Bridges, and Bauer, one develops computability theory without an explicit model of computation. This is enabled by assuming an axiom equivalent to postulating a function $ϕ$ to be universal for the space $\mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{N}$ ($\mathsf{CT}_ϕ$, a consequence of the constructivist axiom $\mathsf{CT}$), Markov's principle, and at least the axiom of countable choice. Assuming $\mathsf{CT}$ and countable choice invalidates the law of excluded middle, thereby also invalidating classical intuitions prevalent in textbooks on computability. On the o…
For a centerless group G, we can define its automorphism tower. We define G^{alpha} : G^0=G, G^{alpha +1}=Aut(G^alpha) and for limit ordinals G^delta=bigcup_{alpha < delta}G^alpha . Let tau_G be the ordinal when the sequence stabilizes. Thomas' celebrated theorem says tau_G<2^{|G|})^{+} and more. If we consider Thomas' proof too set theoretical, we have here a shorter proof with little set theory. However, set theoretically we get a parallel theorem without the axiom of choice. We attach to every element in G^alpha, the alpha-th member of the automorphism tower of G, a unique quantifier free t…
In this note we will show how to get consistency for first order classical logic, in a purely syntactic way, without going through cut elimination. The procedure is very simple and it uses the calculus of structures in an essential way. It also shows how finitaryness (in the sense of finite choice of premises for each rule) is actually a triviality (contrarily to what one would guess from textbooks).
We work in set-theory without choice $\ZF$. Given a closed subset $F$ of $[0,1]^I$ which is a bounded subset of $\ell^1(I)$ ({\em resp.} such that $F \subseteq \ell^0(I)$), we show that the countable axiom of choice for finite subsets of $I$, ({\em resp.} the countable axiom of choice $\ACD$) implies that $F$ is compact. This enhances previous results where $\ACD$ ({\em resp.} the axiom of Dependent Choices $\DC$) was required. Moreover, if $I$ is linearly orderable (for example $I=\IR$), the closed unit ball of $\ell^2(I)$ is weakly compact (in $\ZF$).
We work in set-theory without choice ZF. Denoting by AC(N) the countable axiom of choice, we show in ZF+AC(N) that the closed unit ball of a uniformly convex Banach space is compact in the convex topology (an alternative to the weak topology in ZF). We prove that this ball is (closely) convex-compact in the convex topology. Given a set I, a real number p greater or equal to 1 (resp. . p = 0), and some closed subset F of [0, 1]^I which is a bounded subset of l^p(I), we show that AC(N) (resp. DC, the axiom of Dependent Choices) implies the compactness of F.