Is the Axiom of Choice Necessary to Well-Order Finite Sets?

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Csharp
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Finite Sets
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the necessity of the Axiom of Choice in proving that every finite set can be well-ordered. Participants explore the implications of this axiom specifically for finite sets, contrasting it with its role in infinite sets.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that every finite set can be well-ordered without the Axiom of Choice.
  • Another participant suggests using induction on the cardinality of the set as a method to demonstrate well-ordering.
  • A further contribution outlines a method for defining an ordering on a set of cardinality k+1 based on the ordering of a set of cardinality k.
  • It is mentioned that every total order on a finite set qualifies as a well-ordering.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether the Axiom of Choice is necessary for well-ordering finite sets, with differing viewpoints presented without resolution.

Contextual Notes

The discussion does not clarify the assumptions underlying the claims about well-ordering and the Axiom of Choice, nor does it address potential limitations in the proposed methods.

Csharp
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I want to show that there exists a well ordering for every finite set.

(I know if you add axiom of choice you can prove this theorem for infinite sets too but I think the finite sets do not need axiom of choice to become well ordered)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Have you tried using induction on the cardinality of the set?
 
Good idea.

Suppose that k is well ordered.

k+1= k U {k}

First of all I'll define an ordering on k+1.
If s and t are both in k then I use the ordering from k.
If one of s and t is k then k>s.

Suppose that S is a nonempty subset of k+1.
Then if it doesn't contain k it has a lowest member.
If it contains k then S-{k} has a lowest member which is also lower than k itself.
 
Csharp said:
I want to show that there exists a well ordering for every finite set.
Every total order on a finite set is a well-ordering.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K