Re: The seven step series

From: Bruno Marchal <>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 18:21:39 +0200

On 02 Sep 2009, at 17:16, Mirek Dobsicek wrote:

> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Ouh la la ... Mirek,
>> You may be right, but I am not sure. You may verify if this was not
>> in
>> a intuitionist context. Without the excluded middle principle, you
>> may
>> have to use countable choice in some situation where classical logic
>> does not, but I am not sure.
> Please see
> the sketch of proof that the union of countably many countable sets is
> countable is in the second half of the article. I don't think it has
> anything to do with the law of excluded middle.

I was thinking about the equivalence of the definitions of infinite
set (self-injection, versus injection of omega), which, I think are
inequivalent without excluded middle, but perhaps non equivalent with
absence of choice, I don't know)

> Similar reasoning is described here

I am not sure ... I may think about this later ...

>> My opinion on choice axioms is that there are obviously true, and
>> this
>> despite I am not a set realist.
> OK, thanks.
>> I am glad, nevertheless that ZF and ZFC have exactly the same
>> arithmetical provability power, so all proof in ZFC of an
>> arithmetical
>> theorem can be done without C, in ZF. This can be seen through the
>> use
>> of Gödel's constructible models.
> I am sorry, but I have no idea what might an "arithmetical provability
> power" refer to. Just give me a hint ...

By arithmetical provability power, I mean the set of first order
arithmetical sentences provable in the theory, or by a machine.
I will say, for example, that the power of Robinson Arithmetic is
smaller than the power of Peano Aritmetic, *because* the set of
arithmetical theorems of Robinson Ar. is included in the set of
theorems of Peano Ar. Let us write this by RA < PA. OK?
Typically, RA < PA < ZF = ZFC < ZF + k (k = "there exists a
inaccessible cardinal").
The amazing thing is ZF = ZFC (in this sense!). Any proof of a theorem
of arithmetic using the axiom of choice, can be done without it.

>> I use set theory informally at the metalevel, and I will not address
>> such questions. As I said, I use Cantor theorem for minimal purpose,
>> and as a simple example of diagonalization.
> OK. Fair enough.
>> I am far more puzzled by indeterminacy axioms, and even a bit
>> frightened by infinite game theory .... I have no intuitive clues in
>> such fields.
> Do you have some links please? Just to check it and write down few new
> key words.

This is not too bad, imo, (I should have use "determinacy", it is a
better key word):


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Wed Sep 02 2009 - 18:21:39 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:16 PST