12

Halmos in his Naive Set Theory proves that every infinite set has a subset equivalent to $\omega$ using the axiom of choice with its full power. And this leads to the corollary that a set is infinite if and only if it is equivalent to some proper subset of it, which leads to each Dedekind-finite set being finite.

But I've also seen a proof (on Wikipedia) that this can also be proven with just countable choice. However Wikipedia also states that this result is strictly weaker than countable choice.

Question: It is clear that we do require some form of choice, not just ZF, to prove this result.$^1$ But it is even weaker than the countable choice. Can we explicitly state the form of this choice which is equivalent to this result?


$^1$ I've come across the fact that there exists a model of ZF (whatever that means (sorry I've not done any model theory; this is just for your reference)) in which every infinite set is Dedekind-infinite, and yet the countable choice fails.

Arturo Magidin
  • 417,286
Atom
  • 4,620
  • In case you are still interested in answers to this old question, see the paper of Omar De la Cruz cited in the latest version of my answer. – bof Feb 10 '24 at 09:57

2 Answers2

12

While answering this question: Strength of “Cofinite Choice”, I discovered that "every Dedekind-finite set is finite" is equivalent to the following "axiom of cofinite choice":

Let $A$ be a set of non-empty sets such that $(\bigcup A)\setminus X$ is finite for all $X\in A$. Then $A$ has a choice function.

See the linked answer for a proof. This seems to me to be a fairly natural choice principle.

Alex Kruckman
  • 86,811
  • Eh, I'd argue about its being natural. Even the OP there suggested that the choice principle came out of trying to prove that an infinite set is Dedekind-infinite. – Asaf Karagila Jan 14 '21 at 21:23
  • @AsafKaragila I guess it depends what you mean by natural. I just meant that the condition of being cofinite subsets of a given set is a fairly natural condition to impose on a family of sets. And it makes some intuitive sense that if the sets in the family are all "large" in some sense, then it should be easier to find a choice function... – Alex Kruckman Jan 14 '21 at 21:31
  • @AsafKaragila That's not quite what I meant with it arising from the definition of the $f_n$, actually, I noticed a structure equivalent to these sets/choice functions has a few applications, which made me wondered whether these existed in general – univalence Jan 14 '21 at 21:38
  • https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3803247/what-form-of-choice-is-every-dedekind-finite-set-is-finite-equivalent-to#comment10354300_4805138 – Asaf Karagila Feb 06 '24 at 14:21
7

Let us write D-finite for Dedekind-finite.

The following statements are equivalent in ZF:
(1) Every D-finite set is finite.
(2) If $\mathcal A$ is a family of nonempty D-finite sets and $|\mathcal A|\not\gt\aleph_0$, then $\mathcal A$ has a choice function.
(3) Every D-finite family of infinite D-finite sets has a choice function.
(4) Every countable family of infinite D-finite sets has a choice function.

(1)$\implies$(2): We may assume that the family is infinite and therefore countable. If $\{A_1,A_2,A_3,\dots\}$ is a countable family of nonempty D-finite sets without a choice function, then $\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty(A_1\times\cdots\times A_n)$ is an infinite D-finite set.

(2)$\implies$(3)$\land$(4): Obvious.

(3)$\implies$(1): Assume (3), and assume for a contradiction that $X$ is an infinite D-finite set. Let $S$ be the set of all finite sequences of distinct elements of $X$, and for $s\in S$ let $X_s=\{s\}\times(X\setminus\operatorname{range}(s))$. Then $S$ is a D-finite set, and $\{X_s:s\in S\}$ is a D-finite family of infinite D-finite sets. By (3) this family has a choice function; but with such a choice function we can recursively define an infinite sequence of distinct elements of $X$, contradicting our assumption that $X$ is D-finite.

(4)$\implies$(1): If $X$ is an infinite D-finite set, let $F_n=\{f\in X^n:f\text{ is injective}\}$; then $\{F_1,F_2,F_3,\dots\}$ is a countable family of infinite D-finite sets without a choice function.

P.S. The equivalence (1)$\iff$(3) is essentially Theorem 17 of Omar De la Cruz, Finiteness and choice, Fundamenta Mathematicae 173 (2002), 57–76.

bof
  • 82,298
  • Is this published anywhere? I think it's worth going on the Wikipedia page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedekind-infinite_set#Relation_to_the_axiom_of_choice as what is there is not backed up by a reference anyway, and citing here if nothing else – theHigherGeometer Feb 03 '24 at 00:37
  • @theHigherGeometer Sorry, I don't know a reference. I've never seen these silly "choice principles" before; I just concocted them to answer this question. But I can't claim originality as I'm not well versed in the subject; for all I know they are standard textbook exercises. – bof Feb 05 '24 at 08:54
  • I'm glad I could prompt cleaning this up! – theHigherGeometer Feb 05 '24 at 23:42
  • I'd strongly encourage you and Alex to write a two page note and send it to somewhere like PAMS. It's a small, easy, and should appear as a published result somewhere. – Asaf Karagila Feb 06 '24 at 14:21
  • @AsafKaragila Alternatively, when you write a textbook you could include it as an exercise for the reader. But I take your comment as confirmation that my answer is correct, which I wasn't quite sure of. While the arguments are trivial, AC is so natural that it's easy to slip up and use it unawares. Thank you. – bof Feb 06 '24 at 22:47
  • I second writing the short note for publication (at the very least, for the arXiv!!). This does not preclude it being an exercise in a textbook. Leaving it as an exercise for the reader in a textbook is not a help to the person wishing to cite a result (I had to cite a non-obvious exercise in a textbook from the 1960s whose solution was never written anywhere, and which people I asked about it were slightly suspicious of, until someone took pity on me and wrote a nice little note giving a modern proof). – theHigherGeometer Feb 07 '24 at 02:29
  • @AsafKaragila It seems that publication is unnecessary, seeing as the equivalence between "Dedekind-finite sets are finite" and "choice for countably many nonempty Dedekind-finite sets" is essentially the same as the standard proof of the equivalance with "choice for countably many nonempty finite sets", while the equivalence of "Dedekind finite sets are finite" and "choice for D-finite family of nonempty D-finite sets" is essentially Theorem 17 in cited paper of Omar De la Cruz. – bof Feb 10 '24 at 09:54
  • @theHigherGeometer See my last comment to Asaf Karagila. – bof Feb 10 '24 at 09:55