The axiom of choice one a finite family of sets.

gottfried
Messages
118
Reaction score
0
The axiom of choice on a finite family of sets.

I just been doing some casual reading on the Axiom of CHoice and my understanding of the is that it assert the existence of a choice function when one is not constructable. So if we have a finite family of nonempty sets is it fair to say we can assume the existence of a choice function because it is always possible, in theory, to manually pick an element of each set?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Thanks. Do you know if this can be proved?
 
Last edited:
gottfried said:
Thanks. Do you know if this can be proved?

The proof is trivial. If there are n (non-empty) sets, pick a member from the first, then from the second. This requires n steps - so it can be done.
 
It seemed too trivial, to be true. Thanks.
 
It depends.
Only if you have an explicitly finite family of nonempty sets, that you can list : E1,...En then you can use a proof whose length is proportional to n :
Let x1 in E1,
Let x2 in E2,
...
Let xn in En
then (x1,...,xn) is in the product, which is thus nonempty.

But for the mathematical statement of the general case "Any finite family of nonempty sets has a choice function" it needs a different proof, namely it can be done by rewriting the claim as "For any natural number n, any family of n nonempty sets has a choice function" to be proven by induction on n.
 
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...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Back
Top