Description:
Ramsey's does and does not imply...
Content:
In Drake [1974], p.203 there is a proof of Ramsey's theorem (Form 17) which uses König's lemma ([10 F]). However, this proof also uses the well ordering theorem and hence does not show that [10 F] impliesForm 17. (Which is in fact false. See Blass [1977a].) Therefore the proof in Lolli [1977] that Ramsey's theorem implies Form 10 is invalid because it uses "[10 F] implies Form 17".
Howard-Rubin number: 51
Type: Results and Clarifications
Back