We have the following indirect implication of form equivalence classes:
Implication | Reference |
---|---|
8 \(\Rightarrow\) 9 | Was sind und was sollen die Zollen?, Dedekind, [1888] |
9 \(\Rightarrow\) 376 | clear |
376 \(\Rightarrow\) 377 |
Weak choice principles, De la Cruz, O. 1998a, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. |
377 \(\Rightarrow\) 378 | clear |
Here are the links and statements of the form equivalence classes referenced above:
Howard-Rubin Number | Statement |
---|---|
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. |
376: | Restricted Kinna Wagner Principle: For every infinite set \(X\) there is an infinite subset \(Y\) of \(X\) and a function \(f\) such that for every \(z\subseteq Y\), if \(|z| \ge 2\) then \(f(z)\) is a non-empty proper subset of \(z\). |
377: | Restricted Ordering Principle: For every infinite set \(X\) there is an infinite subset \(Y\) of \(X\) such that \(Y\) can be linearly ordered. |
378: | Restricted Choice for Families of Well Ordered Sets: For every infinite set \(X\) there is an infinite subset \(Y\) of \(X\) such that the family of non-empty well orderable subsets of \(Y\) has a choice function. |
Comment: