On ultracompact spaces in ZF

Ellis’ Theorem (i.e., “every compact Hausdorff right topological semigroup has an idempotent element”) is known to be proved only under the assumption of the full Axiom of Choice (AC); AC is used in the proof in the disguise of Zorn’s Lemma.In this article, we prove that in ZF, Ellis’ Theorem follows from the Boolean Prime Ideal Theorem (BPI), and hence is strictly weaker than AC in ZF. In fact, we establish that BPI implies the formally stronger (than Ellis’ Theorem) statement “for every family ${\cal A} = \{ ({S_i},{ \cdot _i},{{\cal T}_i}):i \in I\}$ of nontrivial compact Hausdorff right topological semigroups, there exists a function f with domain I such that $f\left( i \right)$ is an idempotent of ${S_i}$, for all $i \in I$”, which in turn implies ACfin (i.e., AC for sets of nonempty finite sets).Furthermore, we prove that in ZFA, the Axiom of Multiple Choice (MC) implies Ellis’ Theorem for abelian semigroups (i.e., “every compact Hausdorff right topological abelian semigroup has an idempotent element”) and that the strictly weaker than MC (in ZFA) principle LW (i.e., “every linearly ordered set can be well-ordered”) implies Ellis’ Theorem for linearly orderable semigroups (i.e., “every compact Hausdorff right topological linearly orderable semigroup has an idempotent element”); thus the latter formally weaker versions of Ellis’ Theorem are strictly weaker than BPI in ZFA. Yet, it is shown that no choice is required in order to prove Ellis’ Theorem for well-orderable semigroups.We also show that each one of the (strictly weaker than AC) statements “the Tychonoff product $2^{\Cal R} $ is compact and Loeb” and $BPI_{\Cal R}$ (BPI for filters on ${\Cal R}$) implies “there exists a free idempotent ultrafilter on ω” (which in turn is not provable in ZF). Moreover, we prove that the latter statement does not imply $BP{I_\omega }$ (BPI for filters on ω) in ZF, hence it does not imply any of $AC_{\Cal R} $ (AC for sets of nonempty sets of reals) and $BPI_{\Cal R} $ in ZF, either.In addition, we prove that the statements “there exists a free ultrafilter on ω”, “there exists a free ultrafilter on ω which is not idempotent”, and “for every IP set $A \subseteq \omega$, there exists a free ultrafilter ${\cal F}$ on ω such that $A \in {\cal F}$” are pairwise equivalent in ZF.

In Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory ZF without the Axiom of Choice AC, results such as the following are established: 1. The Boolean Prime Ideal Theorem BPI is equivalent to the statement: ZFE Every zero-filter is contained in a maximal one. 2. The Boolean Prime Ideal Theorem is properly weaker than the statement: CFE Every closed filter is contained in a maximal one. 3. The Axiom of Choice is equivalent to the conjunction of CFE and the Axiom of Countable Choice CC. 4. The Axiom of Countable Choice is equivalent to the statement: C=SC Functions between metric spaces are continuous iff they are seqentially continuous.

A Hausdorff space is called effectively Hausdorff if there exists a function F—called a Hausdorff operator—such that, for every with , , where U and V are disjoint open neighborhoods of x and y, respectively. Among other results, we establish the following in , i.e., in Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory without the Axiom of Choice (): is equivalent to “For every set X, the Cantor cube is effectively Hausdorff”. This enhances the result of Howard, Keremedis, Rubin and Rubin [13] that is equivalent to “Hausdorff spaces are effectively Hausdorff” in . The Boolean Prime Ideal Theorem and the statement “For every infinite set X, the Stone space of the Boolean algebra is effectively Hausdorff” are mutually independent. In particular, the latter statement is not provable in . The Axiom of Choice for non‐empty subsets of () is equivalent to each of “Separable Hausdorff spaces are effectively Hausdorff” and “The Cantor cube is effectively Hausdorff”. The Principle of Dependent Choices in conjunction with the Axiom of Choice for continuum sized families of non‐empty subsets of does not imply the axiom of choice for partitions of . The latter independence result fills the gap in information in Howard and Rubin's book “Consequences of the Axiom of Choice”. The axiom of countable choice for non‐empty subsets of is equivalent to each of “Denumerable Hausdorff spaces are effectively Hausdorff”, “Denumerable T3 spaces are completely normal” and “Denumerable Tychonoff spaces are Urysohn”.

On first and second countable spaces and the axiom of choice

The Baire Category Theorem and choice

Ramsey's theorem [5] asserts that every infinite set X has the following partition property (RP): For every partition of the set [X]2 of two-element subsets of X into two pieces, there is an infinite subset Y of X such that [Y]2 is included in one of the pieces. Ramsey explicitly indicated that his proof of this theorem used the axiom of choice. Kleinberg [3] showed that every proof of Ramsey's theorem must use the axiom of choice, although rather weak forms of this axiom suffice. J. Dawson has raised the question of the position of Ramsey's theorem in the hierarchy of weak axioms of choice.In this paper, we prove or refute the provability of each of the possible implications between Ramsey's theorem and the weak axioms of choice mentioned in Appendix A.3 of Jech's book [2]. Our results, along with some known facts which we include for completeness, may be summarized as follows (the notation being as in [2]):A. The following principles do not (even jointly) imply Ramsey's theorem, nor does Ramsey's theorem imply any of them:the Boolean prime ideal theorem,the selection principle,the order extension principle,the ordering principle,choice from wellordered sets (ACW),choice from finite sets,choice from pairs (C2).B. Each of the following principles implies Ramsey's theorem, but none of them follows from Ramsey's theorem:the axiom of choice,wellordered choice (∀kACk),dependent choice of any infinite length k (DCk),countable choice (ACN0),nonexistence of infinite Dedekind-finite sets (WN0).

Injective power objects and the axiom of choice

In intuitionistic realizability like Kleene's or Kreisel's, the axiom of choice is trivially realized. It is even provable in Martin-Löf's intuitionistic type theory. In classical logic, however, even the weaker axiom of countable choice proves the existence of non-computable functions. This logical strength comes at the price of a complicated computational interpretation which involves strong recursion schemes like bar recursion. We take the best from both worlds and define a realizability model for arithmetic and the axiom of choice which encompasses both intuitionistic and classical reasoning. In this model two versions of the axiom of choice can co-exist in a single proof: intuitionistic choice and classical countable choice. We interpret intuitionistic choice efficiently, however its premise cannot come from classical reasoning. Conversely, our version of classical choice is valid in full classical logic, but it is restricted to the countable case and its realizer involves bar recursion. Having both versions allows us to obtain efficient extracted programs while keeping the provability strength of classical logic.

The effectivity of existential statements in axiomatic set theory

Suppose M is a countable standard transitive model of set theory. P. J. Cohen [2] showed that if κ is an infinite cardinal of M then there is a one-to-one function Fκ from κ into the set of real numbers such that M[Fκ] is a model of set theory with the same cardinals as M.If Tκ is the range of Fκ then Cohen also showed [2] that M[Tκ] fails to satisfy the axiom of choice. We will give an easy proof of this fact.If κ, λ are infinite we will also show that M[Tκ] is elementarily equivalent to M[Tλ] and that (] in M[Fλ]) is elementarily equivalent to (] in M[FK]).Finally we show that there may be an N ∈ M[GK] which is a standard model of set theory (without the axiom of choice) and which has, from the viewpoint of M[GK], more real numbers than ordinals.We write ZFC and ZF for Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, respectively with and without the axiom of choice (AC). GBC is Gödel-Bernays' set theory with AC. DC and ACℵo are respectively the axioms of dependent choice and of countable choice defined in [6].Lower case Greek characters (other than ω) are used as variables over ordinals. When α is an ordinal, R(α) is the set of all sets with rank less than α.

The rigid relation principle, introduced in this article, asserts that every set admits a rigid binary relation. This follows from the axiom of choice, because well‐orders are rigid, but we prove that it is neither equivalent to the axiom of choice nor provable in Zermelo‐Fraenkel set theory without the axiom of choice. Thus, it is a new weak choice principle. Nevertheless, the restriction of the principle to sets of reals (among other general instances) is provable without the axiom of choice.

Countable choice and pseudometric spaces

We prove that it is relatively consistent with Z F \mathsf {ZF} (i.e., Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory without the Axiom of Choice ( A C \mathsf {AC} )) that the Axiom of Countable Choice ( A C ℵ 0 \mathsf {AC}^{\aleph _{0}} ) is true, but the Urysohn Lemma ( U L \mathsf {UL} ), and hence the Tietze Extension Theorem ( T E T \mathsf {TET} ), is false. This settles the corresponding open problem in P. Howard and J. E. Rubin [Consequences of the Axiom of Choice, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, Vol. 59, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1998]. We also prove that in Läuchli’s permutation model of Z F A \mathsf {ZFA} + + ¬ U L \neg \mathsf {UL} , A C ℵ 0 \mathsf {AC}^{\aleph _{0}} is false. This fills the gap in information in the above monograph of Howard and Rubin.

In set theory without the axiom of choice (AC), we observe new relations of the following statements with weak choice principles. $\circ$ If in a partially ordered set, all chains are finite and all antichains are countable, then the set is countable. $\circ$ If in a partially ordered set, all chains are finite and all antichains have size $\aleph_{\alpha}$, then the set has size $\aleph_{\alpha}$ for any regular $\aleph_{\alpha}$. $\circ$ Every partially ordered set without a maximal element has two disjoint cofinal sub sets -- CS. $\circ$ Every partially ordered set has a cofinal well-founded subset -- CWF. $\circ$ Dilworth's decomposition theorem for infinite partially ordered sets of finite width -- DT. We also study a graph homomorphism problem and a problem due to A. Hajnal without AC. Further, we study a few statements restricted to linearly-ordered structures without AC.

A metric space is Totally Bounded (also called preCompact) if it has a finite e-net for every e > 0 and it is preLindelof if it has a countable e-net for every e > 0. Using the Axiom of Countable Choice (CC), one can prove that a metric space is topologically equivalent to a Totally Bounded metric space if and only if it is a preLindelof space if and only if it is a Lindelof space. In the absence of CC, it is not clear anymore what should the definition of preLindelofness be. There are two distinguished options. One says that a metric space X is: (a) preLindelof if, for every e > 0, there is a countable cover of X by open balls of radius ?? (Keremedis, Math. Log. Quart. 49, 179–186 2003); (b) Quasi Totally Bounded if, for every e > 0, there is a countable subset A of X such that the open balls with centers in A and radius e cover X.