Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Topic: Division without the axiom of choice
Replies: 10   Last Post: Jan 12, 2013 4:51 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Paul Posts: 763 Registered: 7/12/10
Re: Division without the axiom of choice
Posted: Jan 10, 2013 6:18 AM

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

> > Let A and B be sets. Assume ZF without assuming choice. Then, for all
>
> > non negative integers n, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that, if n
>
> > x A is equipotent to n x B, then A is equipotent to B.
>
>
>
> It's false for n = 0.
>
>
>
> If A is infinite, the so is B and
>
> A equipotent n x A equipotent n x B equipotent B
>
>
>
> If A finite, then so is B and for n > 0, if n|A| = n|B| in N.
>
> then |A| = |B|.
>
>
>

> > There's a famous Conway/Doyle paper which proves this for n = 2 and n =
>
> > 3.
>
>
>
> What do you mean this for n = 2 and n = 3, when this is about all n >= 0?
>
>
>

> > However, it doesn't seem rigorous or clear and I have trouble
>
> > understanding it.
>
>
>
> I don't uunderstand what you're talking about.
>
>
>

> > Does anyone know a more axiomatic treatment? (I don't have access to a
>
> > university, and I'm not in the market for maths purchases, so only free
>
> > references would be helpful.)
>
> >
>
> How about an explicit statement of "this for n = 2 and n = 3"?

You are correct that my statement is false for n = 0 -- apologies for the error.

The requested explicit statement is:

Let n be an integer such that either n = 2 or n = 3.
Let A and B be sets such that a bijection exists between n x A and n x B.
Prove without using the axiom of choice that a bijection exists between A and B.

As for your comment about A being equipotent to n x A when A is infinite, there are 3 (exhaustive but not mutually exclusive) possibilities. Possibility 1 is that you are assuming the axiom of choice. Possibility 2 is that your asssertion is not even true without the axiom of choice. Possibility 3 is that your assertion is true without assuming the axiom of choice, but is highly non-trivial.

I am interested in extending the above to the case where n > 3.

Thank You,

Paul Epstein

Date Subject Author
1/10/13 Paul
1/10/13 William Elliot
1/10/13 Paul
1/10/13 Herman Rubin
1/10/13 Butch Malahide
1/10/13 trj
1/10/13 Butch Malahide
1/11/13 Paul
1/11/13 Butch Malahide
1/12/13 Paul
1/12/13 Butch Malahide