How much choice for free ultrafilters?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CRGreathouse
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Choice
CRGreathouse
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
2,832
Reaction score
0
In ZF, AC implies the ultrafilter theorem (every Boolean algebra has a free ultrafilter).

  • Is the converse known to be false? That is, is there a model of ZF where the ultrafilter theorem is true and AC is false?
  • Does some weaker version of AC (countable choice, for example) imply the ultrafilter theorem?
  • Does the ultrafilter theorem imply countable or dependent choice?
  • In particular, how much choice is needed to build nonstandard analysis? Can it be done with less than AC?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
My guess is a countable choice would be enough for NSA, though I'm not sure. I'm guessing that because the compactness theorem in logic gives NSA and it's only needed in a countable case. (If [x]P(x) means there exists an x such that P(x) is true, and
S={[x]x<1, [x]x<1/2, [x]x<1/3, [x]x<1/4,...} has a model for every finite subset of S and so S has a model.) I really don't know if that has anything to do with what you're asking...

Sorry this wasn't more helpful.
 
phoenixthoth said:
Sorry this wasn't more helpful.

Are you kidding? That's great! It gives me an angle to start from, and it looks like it solves the biggest part of my question off the bat.

I'm going to look into this in more detail; I'll post again if I find something.
 
CRGreathouse said:
In ZF, AC implies the ultrafilter theorem (every Boolean algebra has a free ultrafilter).

  • Is the converse known to be false? That is, is there a model of ZF where the ultrafilter theorem is true and AC is false?
  • Does some weaker version of AC (countable choice, for example) imply the ultrafilter theorem?
  • Does the ultrafilter theorem imply countable or dependent choice?
  • In particular, how much choice is needed to build nonstandard analysis? Can it be done with less than AC?

The following link offers some discussion related to your questions.

http://at.yorku.ca/cgi-bin/bbqa?forum=ask_a_topologist_2006;task=show_msg;msg=2629

There's a link provided in the above to a page by Eric Schechter that's worth a read.
Also, you might check out his book on "...analysis and its foundations".
 
fopc said:
The following link offers some discussion related to your questions.

http://at.yorku.ca/cgi-bin/bbqa?forum=ask_a_topologist_2006;task=show_msg;msg=2629

There's a link provided in the above to a page by Eric Schechter that's worth a read.
Also, you might check out his book on "...analysis and its foundations".

Thanks for the link! That really seems to answer the question. Now I only need the weaker ultrafilter theorem, but I think the two may be ZF-equivalent. I'll look some more into that.

I've been Schechter's site, but somehow I missed that page (or that part).
 
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...

Similar threads

Back
Top