The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Trichotomy of Cardinals
Replies: 10   Last Post: Jul 4, 2014 5:33 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 2,720
Registered: 2/15/09
Re: Trichotomy of Cardinals
Posted: Jul 4, 2014 5:33 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 7/4/2014 2:25 PM, Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
> "Ross A. Finlayson" <> writes:

>> On 7/4/2014 12:06 PM, Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
>>> William Elliot <> writes:

>>>> How is the trichotomy of cardinals equivalent to AxC?
>>> In the form that says that given any two sets A and B, either A and B
>>> are equipollent; A and B are not equipollent but A is equipollent to a
>>> subset of B; or A and B are not equipollent but B is equipollent to a
>>> subset of A.

>>>> Defining the cardinals as done within ZF, as the the initial ordinals,
>>>> aren't they well ordered?

>>> Sure.

>>>> Thusly a proof for AxC?
>>> Observing that a class of ordinals is well-ordered falls somewhat
>>> short of a proof of the axiom of choice.

>> 2 <-> 3

> This is no doubt a pertinent observation, if somewhat obscure.

2 <-> 3, yes these are the numbers,
why 2 and 3 are so, here in trichotomy
where there is otherwise only dichotomy,
for example.

Why yes it is.

Mathematics is so advanced,
we're figuring out 2 and 3.

Really this is the 21'st
century mathematics.

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.