A measurable cardinal with a nonwellfounded ultrapower

There are two main axiomatic extensions of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory without the axiom of choice, that associated with the axiom of determinateness, and that associated with infinite exponent partition relations. Initially, the axiom of determinateness, henceforth AD, was the sole tool available. Using it, set theorists in the late 1960s produced many remarkable results in pure set theory (e.g. the measurability of ℵ1) as well as in projective set theory (e.g. reduction principles for ). Infinite exponent partition relations were first studied successfully soon after these early consequences of AD. They too produced measurable cardinals and not only were the constructions here easier than those from AD—the results gave a far clearer picture of the measures involved than had been offered by AD. In general, the techniques offered by infinite exponent partition relations became so attractive that a great deal of the subsequent work from AD involved an initial derivation from AD of the appropriate infinite exponent partition relation and then the derivation from the partition relation of the desired result.Since the early 1970s work on choiceless extensions of ZF + DC has split mainly between AD and its applications to projective set theory, and infinite exponent partition relations and their applications to pure set theory. There has certainly been a fair amount of interplay between the two, but for the most part the theories have been pursued independently.Unlike AD, infinite exponent partition relations have shown themselves amenable to nontrivial forcing arguments. For example, Spector has constructed models for interesting partition relations, consequences of AD, in which AD is false. Thus AD is a strictly stronger assumption than are various infinite exponent partition relations. Furthermore, Woodin has recently proved the consistency of infinite exponent partition relations relative to assumptions consistent with the axiom of choice, in particular, relative to the existence of a supercompact cardinal. The notion of doing this for AD is not even considered.

The study of partition relations for cardinal numbers introduced by Erdös and his school in the 1950's has, for the past several years, had a profound impact in logic. Unfortunately, quite early in their development, it was noticed by Rado [1] that the potentially most fruitful class of such relations, infinite exponent partition relations, were always in contradiction with the axiom of choice (AC). As a result, such relations were overlooked. This turned out to be a mistake; for, as has been noticed recently, a close study of infinite exponent partition relations is both interesting and rewarding. For example, there are weakened versions of such relations which are provable in ZF and which have valuable applications in recursion theory and set theory. In addition, the pure theory of these relations, like that of the axiom of determinateness, is fruitful as well as elegant. For more background here one should refer to [3].At any rate, with a more detailed look at infinite exponent partition relations came a more refined version of Rado's original theorem. Specifically, Rado used the full axiom of choice to carefully construct partitions to violate any desired relation—a more sophisticated look at the actual theory of such relations indicated how one could put together some desired partitions using only well-ordered choice [3].The distinction between well-ordered choice and full choice is by no means vacuous in this context. For Mathias has shown [4] that the simplest infinite exponent partition relation, ω → (ω)ω, is consistent with countable choice (well-ordered choice of length ℵ0) and, in fact, is consistent with dependent choice.

We study computability on sequence spaces, as they are used in functional analysis. It is known that non-separable normed spaces cannot be admissibly represented on Turing machines. We prove that under the Axiom of Choice non-separable normed spaces cannot even be admissibly represented with respect to any compatible topology (a compatible topology is one which makes all bounded linear functionals continuous). Surprisingly, it turns out that when one replaces the Axiom of Choice by the Axiom of Dependent Choice and the Baire Property, then some non-separable normed spaces can be represented admissibly on Turing machines with respect to the weak topology (which is just the weakest compatible topology). Thus the ability to adequately handle sequence spaces on Turing machines sensitively relies on the underlying axiomatic setting.KeywordsNormed SpaceDual SpaceSequence SpaceTuring MachineWeak TopologyThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Foundational aspects of singular integrals

Model-theoretic frameworks for Nonstandard Analysis depend on the existence of nonprincipal ultrafilters, a strong form of the Axiom of Choice (AC). Hrbacek and Katz, APAL Volume 72 formulate axiomatic nonstandard set theories SPOT and SCOT that are conservative extensions of respectively ZF and ZF + ADC (the Axiom of Dependent Choice), and in which a significant part of Nonstandard Analysis can be developed.The present paper extends these theories to theories with many levels of standardness, called respectively SPOTS and SCOTS. It shows that Jin's recent nonstandard proof of Szemeredi's Theorem can be carried out in SPOTS and that SCOTS is a conservative extension of ZF + ADC.

Since the discovery of forcing in the early sixties, it has been clear that many natural and interesting mathematical questions are not decidable from the classical axioms of set theory, ZFC. Therefore some mathematicians have been studying the consequences of stronger set theoretic assumptions. Two new types of axioms that have been the subject of much research are large cardinal axioms and axioms asserting the determinacy of definable games. The two appear at first glance to be unrelated; one of the most surprising discoveries of recent research is that this is not the case.In this paper we will be assuming the axiom of determinacy (AD) plus the axiom of dependent choice (DC). AD is false, since it contradicts the axiom of choice. However every set in L[R] is ordinal definable from a real. Our axiom that definable games are determined implies that every game in L[R] is determined (in V), and since a strategy is a real, it is determined in L[R]. That is, L[R] ⊨ AD. The axiom of choice implies L[R] ⊨ DC. So by embedding ourselves in L[R], we can assume AD + DC and begin proving theorems. These theorems true in L[R] imply corresponding theorems in V, by e.g. changing “every set” to “every set in L[R]”. For more information on AD as an axiom, and on some of the points touched on here, the reader should consult [14], particularly §§7D and 8I. In this paper L[R] will no longer even be mentioned. We just assume AD for the rest of the paper.

A new method is presented for constructing models of set theory, using a technique of forming pseudo-ultrapowers. In the presence of the axiom of choice, the traditional ultrapower construction has proven to be extremely powerful in set theory and model theory; if the axiom of choice is not assumed, the fundamental theorem of ultrapowers may fail, causing the ultrapower to lose almost all of its utility. The pseudo-ultrapower is designed so that the fundamental theorem holds even if choice fails; this is arranged by means of an application of the omitting types theorem. The general theory of pseudo-ultrapowers is developed. Following that, we study supercompactness in the absence of choice, and we analyze pseudo-ultrapowers of models of the axiom of determinateness and various infinite exponent partition relations. Relationships between pseudo-ultrapowers and forcing are also discussed.

A new method is presented for constructing models of set theory, using a technique of forming pseudo-ultrapowers. In the presence of the axiom of choice, the traditional ultrapower construction has proven to be extremely powerful in set theory and model theory; if the axiom of choice is not assumed, the fundamental theorem of ultrapowers may fail, causing the ultrapower to lose almost all of its utility. The pseudo-ultrapower is designed so that the fundamental theorem holds even if choice fails; this is arranged by means of an application of the omitting types theorem. The general theory of pseudo-ultrapowers is developed. Following that, we study supercompactness in the absence of choice, and we analyze pseudo-ultrapowers of models of the axiom of determinateness and various infinite exponent partition relations. Relationships between pseudo-ultrapowers and forcing are also discussed.

We work in set theory without the axiom of choice: ZF. We show that the axiom BC: Compact Hausdorff spaces are Baire, is equivalent to the following axiom: Every tree has a subtree whose levels are finite, which was introduced by Blass (cf. [4]). This settles a question raised by Brunner (cf. [9, p. 438]). We also show that the axiom of Dependent Choices is equivalent to the axiom: In a Hausdorff locally convex topological vector space, convex-compact convex sets are Baire. Here convex-compact is the notion which was introduced by Luxemburg (cf. [16]).

It is easy to prove in ZF− (= Zermelo‐Fraenkel set theory without the axioms of choice and foundation) that a relation R satisfies the maximal condition if and only if its transitive hull R* does; equivalently: R is well‐founded if and only if R* is. We will show in the following that, if the maximal condition is replaced by the (finite ascending) chain condition, as is often the case in Algebra, the resulting statement is not provable in ZF− anymore (if ZF− is consistent). More precisely, we will prove that this statement is equivalent in ZF− to the countable axiom of choice ACω. Moreover, applying this result we will prove that the axiom of dependent choices, restricted to partial orders as used in Algebra, already implies the general form for arbitrary relations as formulated first by Teichmüller and, independently, some time later by Bernays and Tarski.Mathematics Subject Classification: 06B05, 08A65, 08B20, 03E99.

On ultracompact spaces in ZF

We work in set-theory without choice ZF. A set is countable if it is finite or equipotent with ℕ. Given a closed subset F of [0, 1]I which is a bounded subset of ℓ1(I) (resp. such that F ⊆ c0(I)), we show that the countable axiom of choice for finite sets, (resp. the countable axiom of choice ACℕ) implies that F is compact. This enhances previous results where ACℕ (resp. the axiom of Dependent Choices) was required. If I is linearly orderable (for example I = ℝ), then, in ZF, the closed unit ball of the Hilbert space ℓ2 (I) is (Loeb-)compact in the weak topology. However, the weak compactness of the closed unit ball of is not provable in ZF.

Determinate logic and the Axiom of Choice

Category-measure duality concerns applications of Baire-category methods that have measure-theoretic analogues. The set-theoretic axiom needed in connection with the Baire category theorem is the Axiom of Dependent Choice, DC rather than the Axiom of Choice, AC. Berz used the Hahn–Banach theorem over {mathbb {Q}} to prove that the graph of a measurable sublinear function that is {mathbb {Q}}_{+}-homogeneous consists of two half-lines through the origin. We give a category form of the Berz theorem. Our proof is simpler than that of the classical measure-theoretic Berz theorem, our result contains Berz’s theorem rather than simply being an analogue of it, and we use only DC rather than AC. Furthermore, the category form easily generalizes: the graph of a Baire sublinear function defined on a Banach space is a cone. The results are seen to be of automatic-continuity type. We use Christensen Haar null sets to extend the category approach beyond the locally compact setting where Haar measure exists. We extend Berz’s result from Euclidean to Banach spaces, and beyond. Passing from sublinearity to convexity, we extend the Bernstein–Doetsch theorem and related continuity results, allowing our conditions to be ‘local’—holding off some exceptional set.

We consider variants on the classical Berz sublinearity theorem, using only DC, the Axiom of Dependent Choices, rather than AC, the Axiom of Choice, which Berz used. We consider thinned versions, in which conditions are imposed on only part of the domain of the function—results of quantifier-weakening type. There are connections with classical results on subadditivity. We close with a discussion of the extensive related literature.