Implications

This non-implication, Form 115 \( \not \Rightarrow \) Form 68, whose code is 6, 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 5. In this case, it's Code 3: 289, Form 115 \( \not \Rightarrow \) Form 64 whose summary information is:
    Hypothesis Statement
    Form 115 <p> The product of weakly Loeb \(T_2\) spaces is weakly Loeb. <em>Weakly Loeb</em> means the set of non-empty closed subsets has a multiple 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: 4484, whose string of implications is:
    68 \(\Rightarrow\) 62 \(\Rightarrow\) 61 \(\Rightarrow\) 11 \(\Rightarrow\) 12 \(\Rightarrow\) 336-n \(\Rightarrow\) 64

The conclusion Form 115 \( \not \Rightarrow \) Form 68 then follows.

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

Name Statement
\(\cal N1\) The Basic Fraenkel Model The set of atoms, \(A\) is denumerable; \(\cal G\) is the group of all permutations on \(A\); and \(S\) isthe set of all finite subsets of \(A\)

Edit | Back