Relationship between AC, WO and Zorns Lemma in ZF-PowersetAxiom of Choice and Order TypesAxiom of Choice in a weaker systemIs choice needed to establish the existence of idempotent ultrafilters?Does ZFC prove the universe is linearly orderable?Axiom of Choice and Number TheoryRelationship between fragments of the axiom of choice and the dependent choice principlesAbout the hypothesis of Zorn's lemmaZorn's lemma via Zermelo theoremRelation between the Axiom of Choice and a the existence of a hyperplane not containing a vectorHow is this fixed point theorem related to the axiom of choice?

Relationship between AC, WO and Zorns Lemma in ZF-Powerset


Axiom of Choice and Order TypesAxiom of Choice in a weaker systemIs choice needed to establish the existence of idempotent ultrafilters?Does ZFC prove the universe is linearly orderable?Axiom of Choice and Number TheoryRelationship between fragments of the axiom of choice and the dependent choice principlesAbout the hypothesis of Zorn's lemmaZorn's lemma via Zermelo theoremRelation between the Axiom of Choice and a the existence of a hyperplane not containing a vectorHow is this fixed point theorem related to the axiom of choice?













5












$begingroup$


In regular ZF, AC, WO and Zorn's Lemma are equivalent, but every proof I know (of the implication AC->WO and AC-> Zorn) uses the axiom of choice on the powerset of X (where X is the Set which is to be well-ordered). My question is, whether or not there is a proof of this equivalence that doesn't use the axiom of choice or whether there is a Model of ZF-Powerset in which AC holds but the well-ordering principle (or Zorns Lemma) fails.










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Hannes Jakob is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$
















    5












    $begingroup$


    In regular ZF, AC, WO and Zorn's Lemma are equivalent, but every proof I know (of the implication AC->WO and AC-> Zorn) uses the axiom of choice on the powerset of X (where X is the Set which is to be well-ordered). My question is, whether or not there is a proof of this equivalence that doesn't use the axiom of choice or whether there is a Model of ZF-Powerset in which AC holds but the well-ordering principle (or Zorns Lemma) fails.










    share|cite|improve this question









    New contributor




    Hannes Jakob is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.







    $endgroup$














      5












      5








      5





      $begingroup$


      In regular ZF, AC, WO and Zorn's Lemma are equivalent, but every proof I know (of the implication AC->WO and AC-> Zorn) uses the axiom of choice on the powerset of X (where X is the Set which is to be well-ordered). My question is, whether or not there is a proof of this equivalence that doesn't use the axiom of choice or whether there is a Model of ZF-Powerset in which AC holds but the well-ordering principle (or Zorns Lemma) fails.










      share|cite|improve this question









      New contributor




      Hannes Jakob is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.







      $endgroup$




      In regular ZF, AC, WO and Zorn's Lemma are equivalent, but every proof I know (of the implication AC->WO and AC-> Zorn) uses the axiom of choice on the powerset of X (where X is the Set which is to be well-ordered). My question is, whether or not there is a proof of this equivalence that doesn't use the axiom of choice or whether there is a Model of ZF-Powerset in which AC holds but the well-ordering principle (or Zorns Lemma) fails.







      set-theory axiom-of-choice independence-results






      share|cite|improve this question









      New contributor




      Hannes Jakob is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|cite|improve this question









      New contributor




      Hannes Jakob is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 13 hours ago









      Martin Sleziak

      3,13032231




      3,13032231






      New contributor




      Hannes Jakob is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked 13 hours ago









      Hannes JakobHannes Jakob

      284




      284




      New contributor




      Hannes Jakob is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Hannes Jakob is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Hannes Jakob is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          8












          $begingroup$

          This is a classic theorem of Zarach, that it is consistent that $sf ZF^-$ holds with the Axiom of Choice, but not every set can be well-ordered.




          Zarach, Andrzej, Unions of $sf ZF^-$models which are themselves $sf ZF^-$ models, Logic colloquium ’80, Eur. Summer Meet., Prague 1980, Stud. Logic Found. Math. 108, 315-342 (1982). ZBL0524.03039.







          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            In the quoted paper (p.338), Zarach credits Zbigniew Szczepaniak with first having demonstrated in 1979 that in the ZF^- context, the axiom of choice does not imply that every set can be well-ordered; and he acknowledges how Szcepaniak's work relates to his.
            $endgroup$
            – Ali Enayat
            4 hours ago











          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
          );



          );






          Hannes Jakob is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f330024%2frelationship-between-ac-wo-and-zorns-lemma-in-zf-powerset%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









          8












          $begingroup$

          This is a classic theorem of Zarach, that it is consistent that $sf ZF^-$ holds with the Axiom of Choice, but not every set can be well-ordered.




          Zarach, Andrzej, Unions of $sf ZF^-$models which are themselves $sf ZF^-$ models, Logic colloquium ’80, Eur. Summer Meet., Prague 1980, Stud. Logic Found. Math. 108, 315-342 (1982). ZBL0524.03039.







          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            In the quoted paper (p.338), Zarach credits Zbigniew Szczepaniak with first having demonstrated in 1979 that in the ZF^- context, the axiom of choice does not imply that every set can be well-ordered; and he acknowledges how Szcepaniak's work relates to his.
            $endgroup$
            – Ali Enayat
            4 hours ago















          8












          $begingroup$

          This is a classic theorem of Zarach, that it is consistent that $sf ZF^-$ holds with the Axiom of Choice, but not every set can be well-ordered.




          Zarach, Andrzej, Unions of $sf ZF^-$models which are themselves $sf ZF^-$ models, Logic colloquium ’80, Eur. Summer Meet., Prague 1980, Stud. Logic Found. Math. 108, 315-342 (1982). ZBL0524.03039.







          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            In the quoted paper (p.338), Zarach credits Zbigniew Szczepaniak with first having demonstrated in 1979 that in the ZF^- context, the axiom of choice does not imply that every set can be well-ordered; and he acknowledges how Szcepaniak's work relates to his.
            $endgroup$
            – Ali Enayat
            4 hours ago













          8












          8








          8





          $begingroup$

          This is a classic theorem of Zarach, that it is consistent that $sf ZF^-$ holds with the Axiom of Choice, but not every set can be well-ordered.




          Zarach, Andrzej, Unions of $sf ZF^-$models which are themselves $sf ZF^-$ models, Logic colloquium ’80, Eur. Summer Meet., Prague 1980, Stud. Logic Found. Math. 108, 315-342 (1982). ZBL0524.03039.







          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          This is a classic theorem of Zarach, that it is consistent that $sf ZF^-$ holds with the Axiom of Choice, but not every set can be well-ordered.




          Zarach, Andrzej, Unions of $sf ZF^-$models which are themselves $sf ZF^-$ models, Logic colloquium ’80, Eur. Summer Meet., Prague 1980, Stud. Logic Found. Math. 108, 315-342 (1982). ZBL0524.03039.








          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 13 hours ago









          Asaf KaragilaAsaf Karagila

          22k681187




          22k681187







          • 1




            $begingroup$
            In the quoted paper (p.338), Zarach credits Zbigniew Szczepaniak with first having demonstrated in 1979 that in the ZF^- context, the axiom of choice does not imply that every set can be well-ordered; and he acknowledges how Szcepaniak's work relates to his.
            $endgroup$
            – Ali Enayat
            4 hours ago












          • 1




            $begingroup$
            In the quoted paper (p.338), Zarach credits Zbigniew Szczepaniak with first having demonstrated in 1979 that in the ZF^- context, the axiom of choice does not imply that every set can be well-ordered; and he acknowledges how Szcepaniak's work relates to his.
            $endgroup$
            – Ali Enayat
            4 hours ago







          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          In the quoted paper (p.338), Zarach credits Zbigniew Szczepaniak with first having demonstrated in 1979 that in the ZF^- context, the axiom of choice does not imply that every set can be well-ordered; and he acknowledges how Szcepaniak's work relates to his.
          $endgroup$
          – Ali Enayat
          4 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          In the quoted paper (p.338), Zarach credits Zbigniew Szczepaniak with first having demonstrated in 1979 that in the ZF^- context, the axiom of choice does not imply that every set can be well-ordered; and he acknowledges how Szcepaniak's work relates to his.
          $endgroup$
          – Ali Enayat
          4 hours ago










          Hannes Jakob is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          Hannes Jakob is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












          Hannes Jakob is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











          Hannes Jakob is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














          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%2f330024%2frelationship-between-ac-wo-and-zorns-lemma-in-zf-powerset%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

          Nidaros erkebispedøme

          Birsay

          Where did Arya get these scars? Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Favourite questions and answers from the 1st quarter of 2019Why did Arya refuse to end it?Has the pronunciation of Arya Stark's name changed?Has Arya forgiven people?Why did Arya Stark lose her vision?Why can Arya still use the faces?Has the Narrow Sea become narrower?Does Arya Stark know how to make poisons outside of the House of Black and White?Why did Nymeria leave Arya?Why did Arya not kill the Lannister soldiers she encountered in the Riverlands?What is the current canonical age of Sansa, Bran and Arya Stark?