Injection into a proper class and choice without regularity












5












$begingroup$


In $sf ZF$, we have that the axiom of choice is equivalent to:




For all sets $X$, and for all proper classes $Y$, $X$ inject into $Y$




and




For all sets $X$, and for all proper classes $Y$, $Y$ surject onto $X$




To see that those are indeed equivalent to choice we have for one direction to inject a set $X$ into $Ord$ and this will give well ordering for $X$(and because $Ord$ well ordered, we can easily construct an injective from $X$ to $Ord$ using a surjective from $Ord$ to $X$)



To see that the other direction is true, take a set $α$ and a class $Y$, because we are assuming $sf AC$ we may assume WLOG that $α∈Ord$. Then we may use induction to create a sequence $(x_β)$ of ordinals such that for $β<γ$ we have $Y∩V_{x_β}subsetneq Y∩V_{x_γ}$, then we look at $V_{x_α}$, and by well ordering it find an injective $α→Y$(and surjective $Y→α$).



In the proof use relied heavily on the axiom of foundation, so we can ask are those 3 equivalent in $sf ZF^-$?



When talking with @Wojowu he told me that his intuition told him that $sf AC$ is not equivalent to the other 2, saying that he thinks that there is a model of $sf ZFC^-+mbox{a proper class of atoms}+mbox{only finite sets of atoms}$, in which case no infinite set inject into the class of atoms, but after searching I couldn't find any reference to such model. My questions:



If such model exists, can someone direct me to a reference, or explain it's construction? If not, how those 2 behave in $sf ZF^-$?



What about the other 2? Does the surjective version implies the injective version in $sf ZF^-$?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Holo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    math.stackexchange.com/questions/1337583/… might be helpful?
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    3 hours ago
















5












$begingroup$


In $sf ZF$, we have that the axiom of choice is equivalent to:




For all sets $X$, and for all proper classes $Y$, $X$ inject into $Y$




and




For all sets $X$, and for all proper classes $Y$, $Y$ surject onto $X$




To see that those are indeed equivalent to choice we have for one direction to inject a set $X$ into $Ord$ and this will give well ordering for $X$(and because $Ord$ well ordered, we can easily construct an injective from $X$ to $Ord$ using a surjective from $Ord$ to $X$)



To see that the other direction is true, take a set $α$ and a class $Y$, because we are assuming $sf AC$ we may assume WLOG that $α∈Ord$. Then we may use induction to create a sequence $(x_β)$ of ordinals such that for $β<γ$ we have $Y∩V_{x_β}subsetneq Y∩V_{x_γ}$, then we look at $V_{x_α}$, and by well ordering it find an injective $α→Y$(and surjective $Y→α$).



In the proof use relied heavily on the axiom of foundation, so we can ask are those 3 equivalent in $sf ZF^-$?



When talking with @Wojowu he told me that his intuition told him that $sf AC$ is not equivalent to the other 2, saying that he thinks that there is a model of $sf ZFC^-+mbox{a proper class of atoms}+mbox{only finite sets of atoms}$, in which case no infinite set inject into the class of atoms, but after searching I couldn't find any reference to such model. My questions:



If such model exists, can someone direct me to a reference, or explain it's construction? If not, how those 2 behave in $sf ZF^-$?



What about the other 2? Does the surjective version implies the injective version in $sf ZF^-$?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Holo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    math.stackexchange.com/questions/1337583/… might be helpful?
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    3 hours ago














5












5








5





$begingroup$


In $sf ZF$, we have that the axiom of choice is equivalent to:




For all sets $X$, and for all proper classes $Y$, $X$ inject into $Y$




and




For all sets $X$, and for all proper classes $Y$, $Y$ surject onto $X$




To see that those are indeed equivalent to choice we have for one direction to inject a set $X$ into $Ord$ and this will give well ordering for $X$(and because $Ord$ well ordered, we can easily construct an injective from $X$ to $Ord$ using a surjective from $Ord$ to $X$)



To see that the other direction is true, take a set $α$ and a class $Y$, because we are assuming $sf AC$ we may assume WLOG that $α∈Ord$. Then we may use induction to create a sequence $(x_β)$ of ordinals such that for $β<γ$ we have $Y∩V_{x_β}subsetneq Y∩V_{x_γ}$, then we look at $V_{x_α}$, and by well ordering it find an injective $α→Y$(and surjective $Y→α$).



In the proof use relied heavily on the axiom of foundation, so we can ask are those 3 equivalent in $sf ZF^-$?



When talking with @Wojowu he told me that his intuition told him that $sf AC$ is not equivalent to the other 2, saying that he thinks that there is a model of $sf ZFC^-+mbox{a proper class of atoms}+mbox{only finite sets of atoms}$, in which case no infinite set inject into the class of atoms, but after searching I couldn't find any reference to such model. My questions:



If such model exists, can someone direct me to a reference, or explain it's construction? If not, how those 2 behave in $sf ZF^-$?



What about the other 2? Does the surjective version implies the injective version in $sf ZF^-$?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Holo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




In $sf ZF$, we have that the axiom of choice is equivalent to:




For all sets $X$, and for all proper classes $Y$, $X$ inject into $Y$




and




For all sets $X$, and for all proper classes $Y$, $Y$ surject onto $X$




To see that those are indeed equivalent to choice we have for one direction to inject a set $X$ into $Ord$ and this will give well ordering for $X$(and because $Ord$ well ordered, we can easily construct an injective from $X$ to $Ord$ using a surjective from $Ord$ to $X$)



To see that the other direction is true, take a set $α$ and a class $Y$, because we are assuming $sf AC$ we may assume WLOG that $α∈Ord$. Then we may use induction to create a sequence $(x_β)$ of ordinals such that for $β<γ$ we have $Y∩V_{x_β}subsetneq Y∩V_{x_γ}$, then we look at $V_{x_α}$, and by well ordering it find an injective $α→Y$(and surjective $Y→α$).



In the proof use relied heavily on the axiom of foundation, so we can ask are those 3 equivalent in $sf ZF^-$?



When talking with @Wojowu he told me that his intuition told him that $sf AC$ is not equivalent to the other 2, saying that he thinks that there is a model of $sf ZFC^-+mbox{a proper class of atoms}+mbox{only finite sets of atoms}$, in which case no infinite set inject into the class of atoms, but after searching I couldn't find any reference to such model. My questions:



If such model exists, can someone direct me to a reference, or explain it's construction? If not, how those 2 behave in $sf ZF^-$?



What about the other 2? Does the surjective version implies the injective version in $sf ZF^-$?







reference-request set-theory lo.logic axiom-of-choice






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Holo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Holo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 4 hours ago









András Bátkai

3,85142342




3,85142342






New contributor




Holo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 4 hours ago









HoloHolo

1263




1263




New contributor




Holo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Holo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Holo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    math.stackexchange.com/questions/1337583/… might be helpful?
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    3 hours ago














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    math.stackexchange.com/questions/1337583/… might be helpful?
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    3 hours ago








1




1




$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/questions/1337583/… might be helpful?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/questions/1337583/… might be helpful?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila
3 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

The results appear in Jech's "The Axiom of Choice" in the problem section of Chapter 9 (Problems 2,3, and 4).



Indeed, it is easy to see that the injections into classes imply the surjections from classes which imply choice. Exactly by means of the class of ordinals. So the point is to separate the others.



And if we have a proper class of atoms whose subsets are all finite, then it is a class which does not map onto $omega$, but every set has only finitely many in its transitive closure, so it can be well-ordered.



The last model is described well in Jech, this is Problem 4 in the aforementioned reference, and the key point is that the atoms are indexed by countable sequences of ordinals, so that there are always surjections onto every set, but there is no $omega$ sequence of atoms, which form a proper class, so there is no injection from any infinite set into the class of atoms. (And indeed, that implies all sets of atoms are finite.)






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$














    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "504"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });






    Holo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f329987%2finjection-into-a-proper-class-and-choice-without-regularity%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    3












    $begingroup$

    The results appear in Jech's "The Axiom of Choice" in the problem section of Chapter 9 (Problems 2,3, and 4).



    Indeed, it is easy to see that the injections into classes imply the surjections from classes which imply choice. Exactly by means of the class of ordinals. So the point is to separate the others.



    And if we have a proper class of atoms whose subsets are all finite, then it is a class which does not map onto $omega$, but every set has only finitely many in its transitive closure, so it can be well-ordered.



    The last model is described well in Jech, this is Problem 4 in the aforementioned reference, and the key point is that the atoms are indexed by countable sequences of ordinals, so that there are always surjections onto every set, but there is no $omega$ sequence of atoms, which form a proper class, so there is no injection from any infinite set into the class of atoms. (And indeed, that implies all sets of atoms are finite.)






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      3












      $begingroup$

      The results appear in Jech's "The Axiom of Choice" in the problem section of Chapter 9 (Problems 2,3, and 4).



      Indeed, it is easy to see that the injections into classes imply the surjections from classes which imply choice. Exactly by means of the class of ordinals. So the point is to separate the others.



      And if we have a proper class of atoms whose subsets are all finite, then it is a class which does not map onto $omega$, but every set has only finitely many in its transitive closure, so it can be well-ordered.



      The last model is described well in Jech, this is Problem 4 in the aforementioned reference, and the key point is that the atoms are indexed by countable sequences of ordinals, so that there are always surjections onto every set, but there is no $omega$ sequence of atoms, which form a proper class, so there is no injection from any infinite set into the class of atoms. (And indeed, that implies all sets of atoms are finite.)






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        3












        3








        3





        $begingroup$

        The results appear in Jech's "The Axiom of Choice" in the problem section of Chapter 9 (Problems 2,3, and 4).



        Indeed, it is easy to see that the injections into classes imply the surjections from classes which imply choice. Exactly by means of the class of ordinals. So the point is to separate the others.



        And if we have a proper class of atoms whose subsets are all finite, then it is a class which does not map onto $omega$, but every set has only finitely many in its transitive closure, so it can be well-ordered.



        The last model is described well in Jech, this is Problem 4 in the aforementioned reference, and the key point is that the atoms are indexed by countable sequences of ordinals, so that there are always surjections onto every set, but there is no $omega$ sequence of atoms, which form a proper class, so there is no injection from any infinite set into the class of atoms. (And indeed, that implies all sets of atoms are finite.)






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        The results appear in Jech's "The Axiom of Choice" in the problem section of Chapter 9 (Problems 2,3, and 4).



        Indeed, it is easy to see that the injections into classes imply the surjections from classes which imply choice. Exactly by means of the class of ordinals. So the point is to separate the others.



        And if we have a proper class of atoms whose subsets are all finite, then it is a class which does not map onto $omega$, but every set has only finitely many in its transitive closure, so it can be well-ordered.



        The last model is described well in Jech, this is Problem 4 in the aforementioned reference, and the key point is that the atoms are indexed by countable sequences of ordinals, so that there are always surjections onto every set, but there is no $omega$ sequence of atoms, which form a proper class, so there is no injection from any infinite set into the class of atoms. (And indeed, that implies all sets of atoms are finite.)







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 2 hours ago









        Asaf KaragilaAsaf Karagila

        21.8k681187




        21.8k681187






















            Holo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            Holo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













            Holo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            Holo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















            Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f329987%2finjection-into-a-proper-class-and-choice-without-regularity%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            What other Star Trek series did the main TNG cast show up in?

            Berlina muro

            Berlina aerponto