What is the simplest proof of Zorn's lemma

  • Thread starter Thread starter quantum123
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
quantum123
Messages
306
Reaction score
1
What is the simplest proof of Zorn's lemma from Axiom of Choice?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
See page 39 of staff.science.uva.nl/~vervoort/AST/ast.ps

It does require a transfinite recursion, the replacement axiom and the Burali-Forti paradox. However, you can't do without these...
 
I just realized that I gave you a .ps file, which you may not be able to open. So, let me post the proof here:

Let (A,\preccurlyeq) be a non-empty partially ordened set in which every non-empty chain has an upper bound. Assume that A has no maximal elements. Let f:\mathcal{P}(A)\rightarrow A be a choice function for \mathcal{P}(A). Define by transfinite recursion the operator H:OR\rightarrow \mathbb{V} such that
H(\alpha)=f(\{a\in A~\vert~\xi<\alpha~\Rightarrow~H(\xi)\prec a\}),
whenever \{a\in A~\vert~\xi<\alpha~\Rightarrow~H(\xi)\prec a\}\neq \emptyset and let H(\alpha)=A otherwise. We claim the following

\forall \alpha:~H(\alpha)\in A~\text{and}~\forall \xi\forall \alpha:~\xi<\alpha~\Rightarrow~H(\xi)\prec H(\alpha)

Define the statement P(\alpha) as

P(\alpha):~\forall \xi\leq \alpha (H(\xi)\in A)~\text{and}~\forall \xi<\alpha:~H(\xi)\prec H(\alpha).

We will prove by transfinite recursion that P(\alpha) is true for every ordinal. Assume as induction hypothesis that P(\beta) is true for every \beta<\alpha. Then the set B=\{H(\beta)~\vert~\beta<\alpha\}
is linearly ordered by \preccurlyeq. Hence we can find an upper bound a of B. Since, by assumption, A has no maximal elements, we can assume that a\notin B (Indeed, assume that a\in B. Since a is not a maximal element, there exists an a' such a\prec a^\prime. Then a' is an upper bound of B and a' is not in B). This implies that

\{a\in A~\vert~\beta<\alpha~\Rightarrow~H(\beta)\prec a\}\neq \emptyset.

Thus H(\alpha)\in A and \xi<\alpha~\Rightarrow~H(\xi)\preccurlyeq H(\alpha).

This implies that H is an injection from OR into A. Then the replacement axiom implies that OR is a set, but this is a contradiction with the Burali-Forti Paradox.
 
I outlined a proof here, which shifts the hard work to some lemma (which does not require AOC itself).
 
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