Implications

We have the following indirect implication of form equivalence classes:

256 \(\Rightarrow\) 165
given by the following sequence of implications, with a reference to its direct proof:

Implication Reference
256 \(\Rightarrow\) 255 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
255 \(\Rightarrow\) 260 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
260 \(\Rightarrow\) 40 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
40 \(\Rightarrow\) 165 clear

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

Howard-Rubin Number Statement
256:

\(Z(P,F)\): Every partially ordered set \((X,R)\) in which every forest \(A\) has an upper bound, has a maximal element.

255:

\(Z(D,R)\): Every directed relation \((P,R)\) in which every ramified subset \(A\) has an upper bound, has a maximal element.

260:

\(Z(TR\&C,P)\): If \((X,R)\) is a transitive and connected relation in which every partially ordered subset has an upper bound, then \((X,R)\) has a maximal element.

40:

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

165:

\(C(WO,WO)\):  Every well ordered family of non-empty, well orderable sets has a choice function.

Comment:

Back