Math Forum

Re: Division without the axiom of choice

On Jan 12, 2:40 am, pepste...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> This is a much clearer exposition than the Conway/Doyle one

On Saturday, January 12, 2013 1:18:40 AM UTC, Butch Malahide wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2:01 pm, pepste...@gmail.com

On Jan 11, 2:01 pm, pepste...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, January 11, 2013 12:59:39 AM UTC, Butch Malahide

On Friday, January 11, 2013 12:59:39 AM UTC, Butch Malahide wrote:
> On Jan 10, 4:15 am, pepste...@gmail.com

On Jan 10, 6:59 pm, Butch Malahide wrote:
> On Jan 10, 4:15 am, pepste...@gmail.com

> I guess Tarski's 1949 paper has what you're looking
> for. I don't know
> if it's available as a free etext;

On Jan 10, 4:15 am, pepste...@gmail.com wrote:
> Let A and B be sets. Assume ZF without assuming choice. Then, for all

On 2013-01-10, William Elliot wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013, pepstein5@gmail.com

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 10:48:46 AM UTC, William Elliot wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013, pepstein5@gmail.com

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013, pepstein5@gmail.com wrote:

> Let A and B be sets. Assume ZF without assuming choice. Then, for