Implications

This non-implication, Form 106 \( \not \Rightarrow \) Form 179-epsilon, 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: 9617, whose string of implications is:
    43 \(\Rightarrow\) 106
  • 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: 10307, whose string of implications is:
    179-epsilon \(\Rightarrow\) 144

The conclusion Form 106 \( \not \Rightarrow \) Form 179-epsilon 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