We have the following indirect implication of form equivalence classes:
Implication | Reference |
---|---|
71-alpha \(\Rightarrow\) 9 | clear |
9 \(\Rightarrow\) 64 |
The independence of various definitions of finiteness, Levy, A. 1958, Fund. Math. clear |
64 \(\Rightarrow\) 390 | clear |
Here are the links and statements of the form equivalence classes referenced above:
Howard-Rubin Number | Statement |
---|---|
71-alpha: | \(W_{\aleph_{\alpha}}\): \((\forall x)(|x|\le\aleph_{\alpha }\) or \(|x|\ge \aleph_{\alpha})\). Jech [1973b], page 119. |
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.) |
390: | Every infinite set can be partitioned either into two infinite sets or infinitely many sets, each of which has at least two elements. Ash [1983]. |
Comment: