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

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter cragar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measure Zero
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Justin T. Moore's dissertation asserts that every set of size \aleph_1 has measure zero, relying on additional axioms beyond Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the Axiom of Choice (ZFC). This conclusion cannot be derived solely from ZFC due to its contradiction with the Continuum Hypothesis (CH), which is consistent with ZFC. The theorem regarding \aleph_1-sized sets being null specifically assumes the axiom \mathcal{K}_2. For further understanding, refer to definitions 4.1 and 2.1 in the linked document.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the Axiom of Choice (ZFC)
  • Familiarity with the Continuum Hypothesis (CH)
  • Knowledge of measure theory concepts
  • Acquaintance with additional axioms in set theory, particularly \mathcal{K}_2
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the Continuum Hypothesis (CH) in set theory
  • Study the properties and applications of \mathcal{K}_2 in mathematical logic
  • Examine measure theory and its relationship with cardinality
  • Explore the foundational aspects of ZFC and its limitations
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, logicians, and advanced students in set theory and measure theory who are exploring the implications of cardinality and additional axioms in mathematical frameworks.

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: 487
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
 

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
7K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K