Existence of a certain set of 0/1-sequences without the Axiom of ChoiceWhy worry about the axiom of choice?Non-Borel sets without axiom of choiceDoes constructing non-measurable sets require the axiom of choice?Countable Unions And The Axiom Of Countable ChoiceForcing over models without the axiom of choiceUnique Existence and the Axiom of ChoiceA question about Cantor's Power Set theorem without the Axiom of ChoiceCategory theory without axiom of choice
Existence of a certain set of 0/1-sequences without the Axiom of Choice
Why worry about the axiom of choice?Non-Borel sets without axiom of choiceDoes constructing non-measurable sets require the axiom of choice?Countable Unions And The Axiom Of Countable ChoiceForcing over models without the axiom of choiceUnique Existence and the Axiom of ChoiceA question about Cantor's Power Set theorem without the Axiom of ChoiceCategory theory without axiom of choice
$begingroup$
Is there a set $mathcal Xsubset0,1^Bbb N$ of 0/1-sequences, so that
For any two 0/1-sequences $x,yin0,1^Bbb N$ for which there is an $NinBbb N$ with
$$x_i=y_i,;;textfor all $i< N$,qquad x_inot=y_i,;;textfor all $ige N$,$$
exactly one of these belongs to $mathcal X$.$mathcal X$ can be proven to exist without using the Axiom of Choice.
set-theory axiom-of-choice
$endgroup$
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Is there a set $mathcal Xsubset0,1^Bbb N$ of 0/1-sequences, so that
For any two 0/1-sequences $x,yin0,1^Bbb N$ for which there is an $NinBbb N$ with
$$x_i=y_i,;;textfor all $i< N$,qquad x_inot=y_i,;;textfor all $ige N$,$$
exactly one of these belongs to $mathcal X$.$mathcal X$ can be proven to exist without using the Axiom of Choice.
set-theory axiom-of-choice
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
This looks very much like existence of a nonprincipal ultrafilter on $mathbbN$, which cannot be proven in ZF. (But is far weaker than AC of course.)
$endgroup$
– Todd Trimble♦
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Todd Yeah, had the same feeling. Especially, as $mathcal X$ contains always either $x$ or its complement (the sequence with entries $1-x_i$). Is it easy to make this feeling more concrete?
$endgroup$
– M. Winter
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Are you trying to say that this is a selector for "half" of the mod-finite relation?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AsafKaragila Sorry, I do not know "mod-finite relation". But what I do sounds like a selector, so ...
$endgroup$
– M. Winter
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Two sequences are equivalent if they are equal except for finitely many points? I hoped the name would be self explanatory... like "selector".
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila
8 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Is there a set $mathcal Xsubset0,1^Bbb N$ of 0/1-sequences, so that
For any two 0/1-sequences $x,yin0,1^Bbb N$ for which there is an $NinBbb N$ with
$$x_i=y_i,;;textfor all $i< N$,qquad x_inot=y_i,;;textfor all $ige N$,$$
exactly one of these belongs to $mathcal X$.$mathcal X$ can be proven to exist without using the Axiom of Choice.
set-theory axiom-of-choice
$endgroup$
Is there a set $mathcal Xsubset0,1^Bbb N$ of 0/1-sequences, so that
For any two 0/1-sequences $x,yin0,1^Bbb N$ for which there is an $NinBbb N$ with
$$x_i=y_i,;;textfor all $i< N$,qquad x_inot=y_i,;;textfor all $ige N$,$$
exactly one of these belongs to $mathcal X$.$mathcal X$ can be proven to exist without using the Axiom of Choice.
set-theory axiom-of-choice
set-theory axiom-of-choice
asked 8 hours ago
M. WinterM. Winter
1,5957 silver badges23 bronze badges
1,5957 silver badges23 bronze badges
1
$begingroup$
This looks very much like existence of a nonprincipal ultrafilter on $mathbbN$, which cannot be proven in ZF. (But is far weaker than AC of course.)
$endgroup$
– Todd Trimble♦
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Todd Yeah, had the same feeling. Especially, as $mathcal X$ contains always either $x$ or its complement (the sequence with entries $1-x_i$). Is it easy to make this feeling more concrete?
$endgroup$
– M. Winter
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Are you trying to say that this is a selector for "half" of the mod-finite relation?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AsafKaragila Sorry, I do not know "mod-finite relation". But what I do sounds like a selector, so ...
$endgroup$
– M. Winter
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Two sequences are equivalent if they are equal except for finitely many points? I hoped the name would be self explanatory... like "selector".
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila
8 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
1
$begingroup$
This looks very much like existence of a nonprincipal ultrafilter on $mathbbN$, which cannot be proven in ZF. (But is far weaker than AC of course.)
$endgroup$
– Todd Trimble♦
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Todd Yeah, had the same feeling. Especially, as $mathcal X$ contains always either $x$ or its complement (the sequence with entries $1-x_i$). Is it easy to make this feeling more concrete?
$endgroup$
– M. Winter
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Are you trying to say that this is a selector for "half" of the mod-finite relation?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AsafKaragila Sorry, I do not know "mod-finite relation". But what I do sounds like a selector, so ...
$endgroup$
– M. Winter
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Two sequences are equivalent if they are equal except for finitely many points? I hoped the name would be self explanatory... like "selector".
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila
8 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
This looks very much like existence of a nonprincipal ultrafilter on $mathbbN$, which cannot be proven in ZF. (But is far weaker than AC of course.)
$endgroup$
– Todd Trimble♦
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
This looks very much like existence of a nonprincipal ultrafilter on $mathbbN$, which cannot be proven in ZF. (But is far weaker than AC of course.)
$endgroup$
– Todd Trimble♦
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Todd Yeah, had the same feeling. Especially, as $mathcal X$ contains always either $x$ or its complement (the sequence with entries $1-x_i$). Is it easy to make this feeling more concrete?
$endgroup$
– M. Winter
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Todd Yeah, had the same feeling. Especially, as $mathcal X$ contains always either $x$ or its complement (the sequence with entries $1-x_i$). Is it easy to make this feeling more concrete?
$endgroup$
– M. Winter
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Are you trying to say that this is a selector for "half" of the mod-finite relation?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Are you trying to say that this is a selector for "half" of the mod-finite relation?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AsafKaragila Sorry, I do not know "mod-finite relation". But what I do sounds like a selector, so ...
$endgroup$
– M. Winter
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AsafKaragila Sorry, I do not know "mod-finite relation". But what I do sounds like a selector, so ...
$endgroup$
– M. Winter
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Two sequences are equivalent if they are equal except for finitely many points? I hoped the name would be self explanatory... like "selector".
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Two sequences are equivalent if they are equal except for finitely many points? I hoped the name would be self explanatory... like "selector".
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila
8 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
A set $mathcal X$ with the first of the two properties you want cannot have the Baire property (in the space $0,1^omega$ with the product topology).
Proof: Suppose it had the Baire property, so it differs from an open set $U$ by a meager set.
Suppose for a moment that $U$ is nonempty, and consider a basic open subset of $U$, say the set $B$ of all $0/1$-sequences extending a certain finite $0/1$-sequence $s$. Then, $mathcal Xcap B$ is a comeager subset of $B$. But then so is its image under the self-homeomorphism of $B$ that switches all $0$'s and $1$'s beyond the end of $s$. Your assumption says that this switching maps $mathcal X$ to its complement, so we have two disjoint comeager subsets of the complete metric space $B$, which is absurd. So $U$ can't be nonempty.
But if $U$ is empty, then $mathcal X$ is meager and therefore so is its image under the self-homeomorphism of $0,1^omega$ that switches $0$ with $1$ in all components. Then, by your assumption, $0,1^omega$ is covered by two meager sets, again an absurdity. This completes the proof that $mathcal X$ cannot have the Baire property.
It is consistent, relative to ZF, that all subsets of $0,1^omega$ have the Baire property (and that dependent choice holds, so that the Baire category theorem still works). So it is consistent with ZF that no $mathcal X$ as in your question exists.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f338573%2fexistence-of-a-certain-set-of-0-1-sequences-without-the-axiom-of-choice%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
A set $mathcal X$ with the first of the two properties you want cannot have the Baire property (in the space $0,1^omega$ with the product topology).
Proof: Suppose it had the Baire property, so it differs from an open set $U$ by a meager set.
Suppose for a moment that $U$ is nonempty, and consider a basic open subset of $U$, say the set $B$ of all $0/1$-sequences extending a certain finite $0/1$-sequence $s$. Then, $mathcal Xcap B$ is a comeager subset of $B$. But then so is its image under the self-homeomorphism of $B$ that switches all $0$'s and $1$'s beyond the end of $s$. Your assumption says that this switching maps $mathcal X$ to its complement, so we have two disjoint comeager subsets of the complete metric space $B$, which is absurd. So $U$ can't be nonempty.
But if $U$ is empty, then $mathcal X$ is meager and therefore so is its image under the self-homeomorphism of $0,1^omega$ that switches $0$ with $1$ in all components. Then, by your assumption, $0,1^omega$ is covered by two meager sets, again an absurdity. This completes the proof that $mathcal X$ cannot have the Baire property.
It is consistent, relative to ZF, that all subsets of $0,1^omega$ have the Baire property (and that dependent choice holds, so that the Baire category theorem still works). So it is consistent with ZF that no $mathcal X$ as in your question exists.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A set $mathcal X$ with the first of the two properties you want cannot have the Baire property (in the space $0,1^omega$ with the product topology).
Proof: Suppose it had the Baire property, so it differs from an open set $U$ by a meager set.
Suppose for a moment that $U$ is nonempty, and consider a basic open subset of $U$, say the set $B$ of all $0/1$-sequences extending a certain finite $0/1$-sequence $s$. Then, $mathcal Xcap B$ is a comeager subset of $B$. But then so is its image under the self-homeomorphism of $B$ that switches all $0$'s and $1$'s beyond the end of $s$. Your assumption says that this switching maps $mathcal X$ to its complement, so we have two disjoint comeager subsets of the complete metric space $B$, which is absurd. So $U$ can't be nonempty.
But if $U$ is empty, then $mathcal X$ is meager and therefore so is its image under the self-homeomorphism of $0,1^omega$ that switches $0$ with $1$ in all components. Then, by your assumption, $0,1^omega$ is covered by two meager sets, again an absurdity. This completes the proof that $mathcal X$ cannot have the Baire property.
It is consistent, relative to ZF, that all subsets of $0,1^omega$ have the Baire property (and that dependent choice holds, so that the Baire category theorem still works). So it is consistent with ZF that no $mathcal X$ as in your question exists.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A set $mathcal X$ with the first of the two properties you want cannot have the Baire property (in the space $0,1^omega$ with the product topology).
Proof: Suppose it had the Baire property, so it differs from an open set $U$ by a meager set.
Suppose for a moment that $U$ is nonempty, and consider a basic open subset of $U$, say the set $B$ of all $0/1$-sequences extending a certain finite $0/1$-sequence $s$. Then, $mathcal Xcap B$ is a comeager subset of $B$. But then so is its image under the self-homeomorphism of $B$ that switches all $0$'s and $1$'s beyond the end of $s$. Your assumption says that this switching maps $mathcal X$ to its complement, so we have two disjoint comeager subsets of the complete metric space $B$, which is absurd. So $U$ can't be nonempty.
But if $U$ is empty, then $mathcal X$ is meager and therefore so is its image under the self-homeomorphism of $0,1^omega$ that switches $0$ with $1$ in all components. Then, by your assumption, $0,1^omega$ is covered by two meager sets, again an absurdity. This completes the proof that $mathcal X$ cannot have the Baire property.
It is consistent, relative to ZF, that all subsets of $0,1^omega$ have the Baire property (and that dependent choice holds, so that the Baire category theorem still works). So it is consistent with ZF that no $mathcal X$ as in your question exists.
$endgroup$
A set $mathcal X$ with the first of the two properties you want cannot have the Baire property (in the space $0,1^omega$ with the product topology).
Proof: Suppose it had the Baire property, so it differs from an open set $U$ by a meager set.
Suppose for a moment that $U$ is nonempty, and consider a basic open subset of $U$, say the set $B$ of all $0/1$-sequences extending a certain finite $0/1$-sequence $s$. Then, $mathcal Xcap B$ is a comeager subset of $B$. But then so is its image under the self-homeomorphism of $B$ that switches all $0$'s and $1$'s beyond the end of $s$. Your assumption says that this switching maps $mathcal X$ to its complement, so we have two disjoint comeager subsets of the complete metric space $B$, which is absurd. So $U$ can't be nonempty.
But if $U$ is empty, then $mathcal X$ is meager and therefore so is its image under the self-homeomorphism of $0,1^omega$ that switches $0$ with $1$ in all components. Then, by your assumption, $0,1^omega$ is covered by two meager sets, again an absurdity. This completes the proof that $mathcal X$ cannot have the Baire property.
It is consistent, relative to ZF, that all subsets of $0,1^omega$ have the Baire property (and that dependent choice holds, so that the Baire category theorem still works). So it is consistent with ZF that no $mathcal X$ as in your question exists.
answered 4 hours ago
Andreas BlassAndreas Blass
60.1k7 gold badges145 silver badges234 bronze badges
60.1k7 gold badges145 silver badges234 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f338573%2fexistence-of-a-certain-set-of-0-1-sequences-without-the-axiom-of-choice%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
This looks very much like existence of a nonprincipal ultrafilter on $mathbbN$, which cannot be proven in ZF. (But is far weaker than AC of course.)
$endgroup$
– Todd Trimble♦
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Todd Yeah, had the same feeling. Especially, as $mathcal X$ contains always either $x$ or its complement (the sequence with entries $1-x_i$). Is it easy to make this feeling more concrete?
$endgroup$
– M. Winter
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Are you trying to say that this is a selector for "half" of the mod-finite relation?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AsafKaragila Sorry, I do not know "mod-finite relation". But what I do sounds like a selector, so ...
$endgroup$
– M. Winter
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Two sequences are equivalent if they are equal except for finitely many points? I hoped the name would be self explanatory... like "selector".
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila
8 hours ago