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













4












$begingroup$


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.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$









  • 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















4












$begingroup$


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.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$









  • 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













4












4








4





$begingroup$


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.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




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






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










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












  • 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










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















7












$begingroup$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$

















    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
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    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









    7












    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



















      7












      $begingroup$

      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.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$

















        7












        7








        7





        $begingroup$

        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.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        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.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 4 hours ago









        Andreas BlassAndreas Blass

        60.1k7 gold badges145 silver badges234 bronze badges




        60.1k7 gold badges145 silver badges234 bronze badges






























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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





















































            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

            Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

            199年 目錄 大件事 到箇年出世嗰人 到箇年死嗰人 節慶、風俗習慣 導覽選單