What is the simplest proof of Zorn's lemma

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter quantum123
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The simplest proof of Zorn's lemma, derived from the Axiom of Choice, involves a non-empty partially ordered set (A, ≤) where every non-empty chain has an upper bound. The proof utilizes transfinite recursion, the replacement axiom, and addresses the Burali-Forti paradox. By defining a choice function and demonstrating that the operator H is injective from the ordinals (OR) into A, the proof concludes that assuming A has no maximal elements leads to a contradiction, affirming Zorn's lemma.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Zorn's lemma and its implications in set theory.
  • Familiarity with the Axiom of Choice and its applications.
  • Knowledge of transfinite recursion and ordinal numbers.
  • Concepts of partially ordered sets and upper bounds.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of the Axiom of Choice in set theory.
  • Learn about transfinite recursion and its applications in mathematical proofs.
  • Explore the Burali-Forti paradox and its significance in set theory.
  • Investigate other proofs of Zorn's lemma and their methodologies.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, logicians, and students of set theory seeking to deepen their understanding of Zorn's lemma and its foundational role in mathematics.

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).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
9K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
819
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K