We have the following indirect implication of form equivalence classes:
Implication | Reference |
---|---|
129 \(\Rightarrow\) 4 | clear |
4 \(\Rightarrow\) 9 | clear |
9 \(\Rightarrow\) 84 |
Definitions of finite, Howard, P. 1989, Fund. Math. |
Here are the links and statements of the form equivalence classes referenced above:
Howard-Rubin Number | Statement |
---|---|
129: | For every infinite set \(A\), \(A\) admits a partition into sets of order type \(\omega^{*} + \omega\). (For every infinite \(A\), there is a set \(\{\langle C_j,<_j \rangle: j\in J\}\) such that \(\{C_j: j\in J\}\) is a partition of \(A\) and for each \(j\in J\), \(<_j\) is an ordering of \(C_j\) of type \(\omega^* + \omega\).) |
4: | Every infinite set is the union of some disjoint family of denumerable subsets. (Denumerable means \(\cong \aleph_0\).) |
9: | Finite \(\Leftrightarrow\) Dedekind finite: \(W_{\aleph_{0}}\) Jech [1973b]: \(E(I,IV)\) Howard/Yorke [1989]): Every Dedekind finite set is finite. |
84: | \(E(II,III)\) (Howard/Yorke [1989]): \((\forall x)(x\) is \(T\)-finite if and only if \(\cal P(x)\) is Dedekind finite). |
Comment: