Implications

This non-implication, Form 243 \( \not \Rightarrow \) Form 260, 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: 3328, whose string of implications is:
    40 \(\Rightarrow\) 43 \(\Rightarrow\) 243
  • A proven non-implication whose code is 3. In this case, it's Code 3: 112, Form 40 \( \not \Rightarrow \) Form 260 whose summary information is:
    Hypothesis Statement
    Form 40 <p> \(C(WO,\infty)\):  Every well orderable set of non-empty sets has a choice function. <a href="/books/2">Moore, G. [1982]</a>, p 325. </p>

    Conclusion Statement
    Form 260 <p> \(Z(TR\&C,P)\): 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. </p>

  • This non-implication was constructed without the use of this last code 2/1 implication

The conclusion Form 243 \( \not \Rightarrow \) Form 260 then follows.

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

Name Statement
\(\cal N33\) Howard/H\.Rubin/J\.Rubin Model \(A\) is countably infinite;\(\precsim\) is a dense linear ordering on \(A\) without first or lastelements (\((A,\precsim) \cong (\Bbb Q,\le)\)); \(\cal G\) is the group of allorder automorphisms on \((A,\precsim)\); and \(S\) is the set of all boundedsubsets of \(A\)

Edit | Back