Implications

This non-implication, Form 121 \( \not \Rightarrow \) Form 326, 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: 914, Form 121 \( \not \Rightarrow \) Form 64 whose summary information is:
    Hypothesis Statement
    Form 121 <p> \(C(LO,<\aleph_{0})\): Every linearly ordered set of non-empty finite sets has a choice function. </p>

    Conclusion Statement
    Form 64 <p> \(E(I,Ia)\) There are no amorphous sets. (Equivalently, every infinite set is the union of two disjoint infinite sets.) </p>

  • An (optional) implication of code 1 or code 2 is given. In this case, it's Code 2: 6356, whose string of implications is:
    326 \(\Rightarrow\) 88 \(\Rightarrow\) 64

The conclusion Form 121 \( \not \Rightarrow \) Form 326 then follows.

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

Name Statement
\(\cal N24\) Hickman's Model I This model is a variation of \(\cal N2\)
\(\cal N24(n)\) An extension of \(\cal N24\) to \(n\)-element sets, \(n>1\).\(A=\bigcup B\), where \( B=\{b_i: i\in\omega\}\) is a pairwise disjoint setof \(n\)-element sets \(\cal G\) is the group of all permutations of \(A\)which are permutations of \(B\); and \(S\) is the set of all finite subsets of\(A\)

Edit | Back