Implications

We have the following indirect implication of form equivalence classes:

264 \(\Rightarrow\) 58
given by the following sequence of implications, with a reference to its direct proof:

Implication Reference
264 \(\Rightarrow\) 202 Variations of Zorn's lemma, principles of cofinality, and Hausdorff's maximal principle, Part I and II, Harper, J. 1976, Notre Dame J. Formal Logic
202 \(\Rightarrow\) 40 clear
40 \(\Rightarrow\) 208 note-69
208 \(\Rightarrow\) 58 clear

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

Howard-Rubin Number Statement
264:

\(H(C,P)\): Every connected relation \((X,R)\) contains a \(\subseteq\)-maximal partially ordered set.

202:

\(C(LO,\infty)\): Every linearly ordered family of non-empty sets has  a choice function.

40:

\(C(WO,\infty)\):  Every well orderable set of non-empty sets has a choice function. Moore, G. [1982], p 325.

208:

For all ordinals \(\alpha\), \(\aleph_{\alpha+1}\le 2^{\aleph_\alpha}\).

58:

There is an ordinal \(\alpha\) such that \(\aleph(2^{\aleph_{\alpha }})\neq\aleph_{\alpha +1}\). (\(\aleph(2^{\aleph_{\alpha}})\) is Hartogs' aleph, the least \(\aleph\) not \(\le 2^{\aleph _{\alpha}}\).)
Mathias [1979], p 126.

Comment:

Back