home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!pavo.csi.cam.ac.uk!gjm11
- From: gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.J. McCaughan)
- Newsgroups: sci.math
- Subject: Re: Axioms of set theory, infinity and R. Rucker
- Message-ID: <1992Nov7.171917.3177@infodev.cam.ac.uk>
- Date: 7 Nov 92 17:19:17 GMT
- References: <1992Nov6.133138.16642@prl.philips.nl> <1992Nov6.182447.25955@infodev.cam.ac.uk> <BxBpwq.LFM@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
- Sender: news@infodev.cam.ac.uk (USENET news)
- Organization: U of Cambridge, England
- Lines: 23
- Nntp-Posting-Host: apus.cus.cam.ac.uk
-
- In article <BxBpwq.LFM@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
-
- >However, one does not need the axiom of choice. The ordinal numbers, defined
- >as in Godel, for example, do not need that axiom for the definition. Then
- >for any set x, the Hartogs function of x, which is the set of all ordinal
- >numbers of size smaller than or equal to x, is an ordinal number not of such
- >a size. This must contain the natural numbers if x is not a finite set, so
- >any kind of infinite set is adequate.
-
- Oh yes. Thanks; I was a little worried about saying that you couldn't always
- find a countable set with "there exists an infinite set" and no AC, but I
- couldn't see a way to get one. I'd forgotten Hartogs' theorem completely.
-
- >It is not possible to have a smaller infinite set than the natural numbers,
- >but it is possible to have infinite sets of a size incomparable to that of
- >the natural numbers.
-
- Yes, I know. I didn't want to be overcomplicated in answering a simple
- question like this one, though.
-
- --
- Gareth McCaughan Dept. of Pure Mathematics & Mathematical Statistics,
- gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk Cambridge University, England. [Research student]
-