We have the following indirect implication of form equivalence classes:
Implication | Reference |
---|---|
39 \(\Rightarrow\) 8 | clear |
8 \(\Rightarrow\) 9 | Was sind und was sollen die Zollen?, Dedekind, [1888] |
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 |
---|---|
39: | \(C(\aleph_{1},\infty)\): Every set \(A\) of non-empty sets such that \(\vert A\vert = \aleph_{1}\) has a choice function. Moore, G. [1982], p. 202. |
8: | \(C(\aleph_{0},\infty)\): |
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: