Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


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

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 ]
ross.finlayson@gmail.com

Posts: 1,218
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" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> writes:
>

>> On 7/4/2014 12:06 PM, Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
>>> William Elliot <marsh@panix.com> 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]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.