Is the Axiom of Choice Necessary for Well-Ordering the Reals?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter dmuthuk
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the necessity of the Axiom of Choice (AC) for the well-ordering of the real numbers. Participants explore whether the reals can be well-ordered without assuming AC and whether this requirement extends to all uncountable sets.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the Axiom of Choice is equivalent to the existence of a well-ordering for any set, including the reals.
  • One participant questions whether the reals can be well-ordered without the Axiom of Choice, seeking a proof for this scenario.
  • Another participant states that there is no proof that the reals can be well-ordered without AC, referencing Cohen's work on the independence of AC, which demonstrated a model where the reals cannot be well-ordered.
  • A participant raises a question about the consistency of ZF combined with the negation of AC and the existence of a well-ordering of the reals, indicating a potential area of exploration.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of the Axiom of Choice for well-ordering the reals, with some asserting its necessity and others questioning the implications of its absence. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the existence of a well-ordering of the reals without AC.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the consistency of ZF with the statement that there is no well-ordering of the reals, but the implications of ZF combined with the negation of AC and the existence of a well-ordering remain unclear.

dmuthuk
Messages
41
Reaction score
1
We all know that the axiom of choice is equivalent to the existence of a well-ordering for any set. And, this of course implies that [tex]\mathbb{R}[/tex] can be well-ordered, in particular. However, how do we know that the axiom of choice is actually needed in the case of the reals? That is, if we remove the axiom of choice, do the reals become a set that cannot be well-ordered? Furthermore, is the axiom of choice needed for every uncountable set?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You're essentially asking if ZF + there exists a well-ordering of the reals is weaker than ZFC, right?
 
CRGreathouse said:
You're essentially asking if ZF + there exists a well-ordering of the reals is weaker than ZFC, right?

Yes, I believe I am. So, I guess what I wanted to know is if there exists a proof that the reals can be well-ordered without AC.
 
dmuthuk said:
Yes, I believe I am. So, I guess what I wanted to know is if there exists a proof that the reals can be well-ordered without AC.

No there isn't. When Cohen proved the independence of AC he used a model in which there was no well-ordering of the reals.
 
Does that actually prove what dmuthuk asked? I know that ZF + "there is no well-ordering of the reals" is consistent*, but what about ZF + ¬C + "there is a well-ordering of the reals"?


* By "consistent", I mean "equiconsistent with ZFC".
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K