Implications

This non-implication, Form 128 \( \not \Rightarrow \) Form 9, 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: 933, Form 128 \( \not \Rightarrow \) Form 84 whose summary information is:
    Hypothesis Statement
    Form 128 <p> <strong>Aczel's Realization Principle:</strong> On every infinite set there is a Hausdorff topology with an infinite set of non-isolated points. </p>

    Conclusion Statement
    Form 84 <p> \(E(II,III)\) (<a href="/articles/Howard-Yorke-1989">Howard/Yorke [1989]</a>): \((\forall x)(x\) is \(T\)-finite  if and only if \(\cal P(x)\) is Dedekind finite). </p>

  • An (optional) implication of code 1 or code 2 is given. In this case, it's Code 2: 9768, whose string of implications is:
    9 \(\Rightarrow\) 84

The conclusion Form 128 \( \not \Rightarrow \) Form 9 then follows.

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

Name Statement
\(\cal N3\) Mostowski's Linearly Ordered 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 finitesubsets of \(A\)

Edit | Back