Implications

We have the following indirect implication of form equivalence classes:

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

Implication Reference
257 \(\Rightarrow\) 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 \(\Rightarrow\) 208 note-69
208 \(\Rightarrow\) 58 clear

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

Howard-Rubin Number Statement
257:

\(Z(TR,P)\): Every transitive relation \((X,R)\) in which  every partially ordered subset 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.

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