Implications

This non-implication, Form 211 \( \not \Rightarrow \) Form 109, whose code is 4, is constructed around a proven non-implication as follows:

  • An (optional) implication of code 1 or code 2 is given. In this case, it's Code 2: 10221, whose string of implications is:
    43 \(\Rightarrow\) 211
  • A proven non-implication whose code is 3. In this case, it's Code 3: 275, Form 43 \( \not \Rightarrow \) Form 144 whose summary information is:
    Hypothesis Statement
    Form 43 <p> \(DC(\omega)\) (DC), <strong>Principle of Dependent Choices:</strong> If \(S\)  is  a relation on a non-empty set \(A\) and \((\forall x\in A) (\exists y\in A)(x S y)\)  then there is a sequence \(a(0), a(1), a(2), \ldots\) of elements of \(A\) such that \((\forall n\in\omega)(a(n)\mathrel S a(n+1))\).  See <a href="/articles/Tarski-1948">Tarski [1948]</a>, p 96, <a href="/articles/Levy-1964">Levy [1964]</a>, p. 136. </p>

    Conclusion Statement
    Form 144 <p> Every set is almost well orderable. </p>

  • An (optional) implication of code 1 or code 2 is given. In this case, it's Code 2: 4915, whose string of implications is:
    109 \(\Rightarrow\) 66 \(\Rightarrow\) 67 \(\Rightarrow\) 144

The conclusion Form 211 \( \not \Rightarrow \) Form 109 then follows.

Finally, the
List of models where hypothesis is true and the conclusion is false:

Name Statement
\(\cal M40(\kappa)\) Pincus' Model IV The ground model \(\cal M\), is a model of \(ZF +\) the class form of \(AC\)
\(\cal N40\) Howard/Rubin Model II A variation of \(\cal N38\)

Edit | Back