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

  • Thread starter Thread starter cragar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measure Zero
AI Thread Summary
Justin T. Moore's dissertation claims that every set of size \aleph_1 has measure zero, which relies on additional axioms beyond ZFC, as this assertion contradicts the Continuum Hypothesis (CH) consistent with ZFC. The discussion clarifies that the theorem about \aleph_1-sized sets being null assumes the axiom \mathcal{K}_2. Participants suggest looking up specific definitions in a linked document for further understanding. The conversation emphasizes the importance of recognizing the distinction between theorems derived solely from ZFC and those requiring extra axioms. This highlights the complexity of measure theory in relation to set sizes and foundational axioms.
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: 476
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
 
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
Back
Top