Justin T. Moore: Why Every Size \aleph_1 Has Measure Zero

  • Thread starter Thread starter cragar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measure Zero
cragar
Messages
2,546
Reaction score
3
I have attached part of 2 pages from Justin T. Moores dissertation.
I am wondering why he says every set of size \aleph_1 has measure zero.
He is probably using some axioms that i am not familiar with. And I am not sure
what the k_2 is.
He says this towards the bottom of the page.
any help will be much appreciated.
 

Attachments

  • j.t. moore.JPG
    j.t. moore.JPG
    32.5 KB · Views: 473
Physics news on Phys.org
It definitely uses extra axioms, indeed it can't follow from ZFC alone since it would contradict CH, which is consistent with ZFC. Whenever you see something like:

Theorem: <Statement>

It means the <Statement> is a theorem of ZFC. Whenever you see:

Theorem: (<Axiom(s)>) <Statement>

It means the <Statement> is a theorem of ZFC + the additional <Axiom(s)>. So in this case, the theorem about \aleph_1-sized sets being null assumes \mathcal{K}_2. A quick Google search yields some relevant results. In particular, look at definitions 4.1 and 2.1 here:

http://ir.lib.shizuoka.ac.jp/bitstream/10297/2406/1/080701001.pdf
 
ok thanks for your help
 
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...
Back
Top