Implications

This non-implication, Form 6 \( \not \Rightarrow \) Form 259, whose code is 4, is constructed around a proven non-implication as follows:

  • This non-implication was constructed without the use of this first code 2/1 implication.
  • A proven non-implication whose code is 3. In this case, it's Code 3: 879, Form 6 \( \not \Rightarrow \) Form 34 whose summary information is:
    Hypothesis Statement
    Form 6 <p> \(UT(\aleph_0,\aleph_0,\aleph_0,\Bbb R)\): The union of a denumerable  family  of denumerable subsets of \({\Bbb R}\) is denumerable. </p>

    Conclusion Statement
    Form 34 <p> \(\aleph_{1}\) is regular. </p>

  • An (optional) implication of code 1 or code 2 is given. In this case, it's Code 2: 4152, whose string of implications is:
    259 \(\Rightarrow\) 51 \(\Rightarrow\) 25 \(\Rightarrow\) 34

The conclusion Form 6 \( \not \Rightarrow \) Form 259 then follows.

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

Name Statement
\(\cal M12(\aleph)\) Truss' Model I This is a variation of Solovay's model, <a href="/models/Solovay-1">\(\cal M5(\aleph)\)</a> in which \(\aleph\) is singular

Edit | Back