Implications

We have the following indirect implication of form equivalence classes:

161 \(\Rightarrow\) 127
given by the following sequence of implications, with a reference to its direct proof:

Implication Reference
161 \(\Rightarrow\) 9 Defining cardinal addition by \(le\)-formulas, Haussler, A. 1983, Fund. Math.
9 \(\Rightarrow\) 64 The independence of various definitions of finiteness, Levy, A. 1958, Fund. Math.
clear
64 \(\Rightarrow\) 127 Amorphe Potenzen kompakter Raume, Brunner, N. 1984b, Arch. Math. Logik Grundlagenforschung

Here are the links and statements of the form equivalence classes referenced above:

Howard-Rubin Number Statement
161:

Definability of cardinal addition in terms of \(\le\): There is a first order formula whose only non-logical symbol is \( \le \) (for cardinals) that defines cardinal addition.

9:

Finite \(\Leftrightarrow\) Dedekind finite: \(W_{\aleph_{0}}\) Jech [1973b]: \(E(I,IV)\) Howard/Yorke [1989]): Every Dedekind finite set is finite.

64:

\(E(I,Ia)\) There are no amorphous sets. (Equivalently, every infinite set is the union of two disjoint infinite sets.)

127:

An amorphous power of a compact \(T_2\) space, which as a set is well orderable, is well orderable.

Comment:

Back