Difference between revisions of "Talk:Cardinal number"
From Encyclopedia of Mathematics
(Comparability of cardinals: Axiom of choice seems to have been assumed) |
(just assuming all axioms of ZFC?) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Comparability of cardinals== | ==Comparability of cardinals== | ||
The article deduces from the Schroder–Berstein theorem ($\mathfrak{a} \le \mathfrak{b}$ and $\mathfrak{b} \le \mathfrak{a}$ implies $\mathfrak{a} = \mathfrak{b}$) that cardinals are totally ordered. This seems wrong: all it proves is that $\le$ is indeed a partial order on cardinals. That any two cardinals are comparable is, I believe, a form of the axiom of choice. A similar assumption is made a little later when it is asserted that "Any cardinal number $\mathfrak{a}$ can be identified with the smallest ordinal number of cardinality $\mathfrak{a}$". Again this requires that any set can be well-ordered. [[User:Richard Pinch|Richard Pinch]] ([[User talk:Richard Pinch|talk]]) 18:50, 10 January 2015 (CET) | The article deduces from the Schroder–Berstein theorem ($\mathfrak{a} \le \mathfrak{b}$ and $\mathfrak{b} \le \mathfrak{a}$ implies $\mathfrak{a} = \mathfrak{b}$) that cardinals are totally ordered. This seems wrong: all it proves is that $\le$ is indeed a partial order on cardinals. That any two cardinals are comparable is, I believe, a form of the axiom of choice. A similar assumption is made a little later when it is asserted that "Any cardinal number $\mathfrak{a}$ can be identified with the smallest ordinal number of cardinality $\mathfrak{a}$". Again this requires that any set can be well-ordered. [[User:Richard Pinch|Richard Pinch]] ([[User talk:Richard Pinch|talk]]) 18:50, 10 January 2015 (CET) | ||
+ | |||
+ | :Maybe. But maybe all this article assumes all axioms of ZFC; this is the default, isn't it? I did not find in this article any discussion of what may happen without the choice axiom . [[User:Boris Tsirelson|Boris Tsirelson]] ([[User talk:Boris Tsirelson|talk]]) 20:24, 10 January 2015 (CET) |
Revision as of 19:24, 10 January 2015
Comparability of cardinals
The article deduces from the Schroder–Berstein theorem ($\mathfrak{a} \le \mathfrak{b}$ and $\mathfrak{b} \le \mathfrak{a}$ implies $\mathfrak{a} = \mathfrak{b}$) that cardinals are totally ordered. This seems wrong: all it proves is that $\le$ is indeed a partial order on cardinals. That any two cardinals are comparable is, I believe, a form of the axiom of choice. A similar assumption is made a little later when it is asserted that "Any cardinal number $\mathfrak{a}$ can be identified with the smallest ordinal number of cardinality $\mathfrak{a}$". Again this requires that any set can be well-ordered. Richard Pinch (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2015 (CET)
- Maybe. But maybe all this article assumes all axioms of ZFC; this is the default, isn't it? I did not find in this article any discussion of what may happen without the choice axiom . Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2015 (CET)
How to Cite This Entry:
Cardinal number. Encyclopedia of Mathematics. URL: http://encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php?title=Cardinal_number&oldid=36196
Cardinal number. Encyclopedia of Mathematics. URL: http://encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php?title=Cardinal_number&oldid=36196