Mixing
Why do we need axiom of choice to prove that there does not a exist definition of $P(A)$, defined for all...
$begingroup$
I'm reading "A First Look At Rigorous Probability" by Jeffrey S. Rosenthal. On chapter one there is a proof which I can't fully understand.
Suppose, to the contrary, that $P(A)$ could be so defined for each
subset $A subseteq [0. 1]$. We will derive a contradiction to this.
Define an equivalence relation on [0. 1] by: $x~y$ if and only if the
difference $y - x$ is rational. This relation partitions the interval
$[0. 1]$ into a disjoint union of equivalence classes. Let $H$ be a
subset of $[0, 1]$ consisting of precisely one element from each
equivalence class (such $H$ must exist by the Axiom of Choice). ....
My question is this: If we assume the Power Set Axiom, why do we need Axiom of Choice here. If the power set of $A$ exists, then its elements also exist. I mean, how can a set contain non-existent objects? And $H$ is clearly in the power set of $A$.
measure-theory set-theory axiom-of-choice
asked Jan 23 at 14:49
Ashot JanibekyanAshot Janibekyan
13
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm reading "A First Look At Rigorous Probability" by Jeffrey S. Rosenthal. On chapter one there is a proof which I can't fully understand.
Suppose, to the contrary, that $P(A)$ could be so defined for each
subset $A subseteq [0. 1]$. We will derive a contradiction to this.
Define an equivalence relation on [0. 1] by: $x~y$ if and only if the
difference $y - x$ is rational. This relation partitions the interval
$[0. 1]$ into a disjoint union of equivalence classes. Let $H$ be a
subset of $[0, 1]$ consisting of precisely one element from each
equivalence class (such $H$ must exist by the Axiom of Choice). ....
My question is this: If we assume the Power Set Axiom, why do we need Axiom of Choice here. If the power set of $A$ exists, then its elements also exist. I mean, how can a set contain non-existent objects? And $H$ is clearly in the power set of $A$.
measure-theory set-theory axiom-of-choice
asked Jan 23 at 14:49
Ashot JanibekyanAshot Janibekyan
13
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm reading "A First Look At Rigorous Probability" by Jeffrey S. Rosenthal. On chapter one there is a proof which I can't fully understand.
Suppose, to the contrary, that $P(A)$ could be so defined for each
subset $A subseteq [0. 1]$. We will derive a contradiction to this.
Define an equivalence relation on [0. 1] by: $x~y$ if and only if the
difference $y - x$ is rational. This relation partitions the interval
$[0. 1]$ into a disjoint union of equivalence classes. Let $H$ be a
subset of $[0, 1]$ consisting of precisely one element from each
equivalence class (such $H$ must exist by the Axiom of Choice). ....
My question is this: If we assume the Power Set Axiom, why do we need Axiom of Choice here. If the power set of $A$ exists, then its elements also exist. I mean, how can a set contain non-existent objects? And $H$ is clearly in the power set of $A$.
measure-theory set-theory axiom-of-choice
asked Jan 23 at 14:49
Ashot JanibekyanAshot Janibekyan
13
$endgroup$
I'm reading "A First Look At Rigorous Probability" by Jeffrey S. Rosenthal. On chapter one there is a proof which I can't fully understand.
Suppose, to the contrary, that $P(A)$ could be so defined for each
subset $A subseteq [0. 1]$. We will derive a contradiction to this.
Define an equivalence relation on [0. 1] by: $x~y$ if and only if the
difference $y - x$ is rational. This relation partitions the interval
$[0. 1]$ into a disjoint union of equivalence classes. Let $H$ be a
subset of $[0, 1]$ consisting of precisely one element from each
equivalence class (such $H$ must exist by the Axiom of Choice). ....
My question is this: If we assume the Power Set Axiom, why do we need Axiom of Choice here. If the power set of $A$ exists, then its elements also exist. I mean, how can a set contain non-existent objects? And $H$ is clearly in the power set of $A$.
measure-theory set-theory axiom-of-choice
measure-theory set-theory axiom-of-choice
asked Jan 23 at 14:49
Ashot JanibekyanAshot Janibekyan
13
asked Jan 23 at 14:49
Ashot JanibekyanAshot Janibekyan
13
asked Jan 23 at 14:49
Ashot JanibekyanAshot Janibekyan
13
asked Jan 23 at 14:49
Ashot JanibekyanAshot Janibekyan
13
asked Jan 23 at 14:49
Ashot JanibekyanAshot Janibekyan
13
13
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Yes, we don't need the Axiom of Choice in order to be able to talk about $mathcal{P}bigl([0,1]bigr)$. But we do need it when, after defining an equivalence relation on $[0,1]$, you want to work with a set with one and only one element of each equivalence class. This is a straightforward application of the Axiom of Choice: we have a family of sets (the equivalence classes) and we want to have a set with one and only one element from each set of that family.
answered Jan 23 at 14:53
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
167k22132235
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
To the proposer: Let $E$ be the set of equivalence classes. AC is needed for the existence of a function $f:Eto Bbb R$ such that $forall ein E,(f(e)in e).$
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Jan 26 at 17:06
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$P(A)$ is not the power set operator. It is the probability operator, I am guessing they mean the standard uniform one.
Indeed, Solovay proved that it is consistent that the probability measures all sets. So the axiom of choice is really needed.
The point is that just like $sqrt2$ or $pi$ are not members of every field, the power set operation is not fully decided by the existence of a power set. In particular, in different set theoretic universes there will be power sets that disagree with each other.
What choice allows you, is to prove that there are non-measurable sets. The fact that there are mathematical universes where all sets are measurable means that without choice it is indeed impossible to prove such sets exists: they don't exist in some models of $ZF$.
answered Jan 23 at 14:53
Asaf Karagila♦Asaf Karagila
306k33438769
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yes, it is not the power set operator. But in general, why do we need axiom of choice to construct (maybe "construct" is not the right word) $H$, if it is already in the power set of $A$?
$endgroup$
– Ashot Janibekyan
Jan 23 at 14:56
1
$begingroup$
Why is it necessarily "in the power set"?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 23 at 14:57
$begingroup$
@AshotJanibekyan Sure, you can set up the criterion "$H$ contains one element from each equivalence class", so one can easily check whether a given set is like that or not without the axiom of choice. But without choice (or something similar) we can't guarantee that such a set exists.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Jan 23 at 14:59
$begingroup$
@AsafKaragila Because the power set is the set of all subsets :/ I think you mean we need Axiom of Choice to say that $H$ is a "subset" of $A$?
$endgroup$
– Ashot Janibekyan
Jan 23 at 14:59
1
$begingroup$
@Ashot: I have edited my answer to help and clarify.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 23 at 15:01
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3084555%2fwhy-do-we-need-axiom-of-choice-to-prove-that-there-does-not-a-exist-definition-o%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Yes, we don't need the Axiom of Choice in order to be able to talk about $mathcal{P}bigl([0,1]bigr)$. But we do need it when, after defining an equivalence relation on $[0,1]$, you want to work with a set with one and only one element of each equivalence class. This is a straightforward application of the Axiom of Choice: we have a family of sets (the equivalence classes) and we want to have a set with one and only one element from each set of that family.
answered Jan 23 at 14:53
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
167k22132235
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
To the proposer: Let $E$ be the set of equivalence classes. AC is needed for the existence of a function $f:Eto Bbb R$ such that $forall ein E,(f(e)in e).$
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Jan 26 at 17:06
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, we don't need the Axiom of Choice in order to be able to talk about $mathcal{P}bigl([0,1]bigr)$. But we do need it when, after defining an equivalence relation on $[0,1]$, you want to work with a set with one and only one element of each equivalence class. This is a straightforward application of the Axiom of Choice: we have a family of sets (the equivalence classes) and we want to have a set with one and only one element from each set of that family.
answered Jan 23 at 14:53
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
167k22132235
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
To the proposer: Let $E$ be the set of equivalence classes. AC is needed for the existence of a function $f:Eto Bbb R$ such that $forall ein E,(f(e)in e).$
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Jan 26 at 17:06
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, we don't need the Axiom of Choice in order to be able to talk about $mathcal{P}bigl([0,1]bigr)$. But we do need it when, after defining an equivalence relation on $[0,1]$, you want to work with a set with one and only one element of each equivalence class. This is a straightforward application of the Axiom of Choice: we have a family of sets (the equivalence classes) and we want to have a set with one and only one element from each set of that family.
answered Jan 23 at 14:53
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
167k22132235
$endgroup$
Yes, we don't need the Axiom of Choice in order to be able to talk about $mathcal{P}bigl([0,1]bigr)$. But we do need it when, after defining an equivalence relation on $[0,1]$, you want to work with a set with one and only one element of each equivalence class. This is a straightforward application of the Axiom of Choice: we have a family of sets (the equivalence classes) and we want to have a set with one and only one element from each set of that family.
answered Jan 23 at 14:53
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
167k22132235
edited Jan 23 at 14:57
answered Jan 23 at 14:53
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
167k22132235
answered Jan 23 at 14:53
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
167k22132235
answered Jan 23 at 14:53
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
167k22132235
167k22132235
$begingroup$
To the proposer: Let $E$ be the set of equivalence classes. AC is needed for the existence of a function $f:Eto Bbb R$ such that $forall ein E,(f(e)in e).$
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Jan 26 at 17:06
add a comment |
$begingroup$
To the proposer: Let $E$ be the set of equivalence classes. AC is needed for the existence of a function $f:Eto Bbb R$ such that $forall ein E,(f(e)in e).$
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Jan 26 at 17:06
$begingroup$
To the proposer: Let $E$ be the set of equivalence classes. AC is needed for the existence of a function $f:Eto Bbb R$ such that $forall ein E,(f(e)in e).$
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Jan 26 at 17:06
$begingroup$
To the proposer: Let $E$ be the set of equivalence classes. AC is needed for the existence of a function $f:Eto Bbb R$ such that $forall ein E,(f(e)in e).$
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Jan 26 at 17:06
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$P(A)$ is not the power set operator. It is the probability operator, I am guessing they mean the standard uniform one.
Indeed, Solovay proved that it is consistent that the probability measures all sets. So the axiom of choice is really needed.
The point is that just like $sqrt2$ or $pi$ are not members of every field, the power set operation is not fully decided by the existence of a power set. In particular, in different set theoretic universes there will be power sets that disagree with each other.
What choice allows you, is to prove that there are non-measurable sets. The fact that there are mathematical universes where all sets are measurable means that without choice it is indeed impossible to prove such sets exists: they don't exist in some models of $ZF$.
answered Jan 23 at 14:53
Asaf Karagila♦Asaf Karagila
306k33438769
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yes, it is not the power set operator. But in general, why do we need axiom of choice to construct (maybe "construct" is not the right word) $H$, if it is already in the power set of $A$?
$endgroup$
– Ashot Janibekyan
Jan 23 at 14:56
1
$begingroup$
Why is it necessarily "in the power set"?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 23 at 14:57
$begingroup$
@AshotJanibekyan Sure, you can set up the criterion "$H$ contains one element from each equivalence class", so one can easily check whether a given set is like that or not without the axiom of choice. But without choice (or something similar) we can't guarantee that such a set exists.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Jan 23 at 14:59
$begingroup$
@AsafKaragila Because the power set is the set of all subsets :/ I think you mean we need Axiom of Choice to say that $H$ is a "subset" of $A$?
$endgroup$
– Ashot Janibekyan
Jan 23 at 14:59
1
$begingroup$
@Ashot: I have edited my answer to help and clarify.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 23 at 15:01
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$P(A)$ is not the power set operator. It is the probability operator, I am guessing they mean the standard uniform one.
Indeed, Solovay proved that it is consistent that the probability measures all sets. So the axiom of choice is really needed.
The point is that just like $sqrt2$ or $pi$ are not members of every field, the power set operation is not fully decided by the existence of a power set. In particular, in different set theoretic universes there will be power sets that disagree with each other.
What choice allows you, is to prove that there are non-measurable sets. The fact that there are mathematical universes where all sets are measurable means that without choice it is indeed impossible to prove such sets exists: they don't exist in some models of $ZF$.
answered Jan 23 at 14:53
Asaf Karagila♦Asaf Karagila
306k33438769
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yes, it is not the power set operator. But in general, why do we need axiom of choice to construct (maybe "construct" is not the right word) $H$, if it is already in the power set of $A$?
$endgroup$
– Ashot Janibekyan
Jan 23 at 14:56
1
$begingroup$
Why is it necessarily "in the power set"?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 23 at 14:57
$begingroup$
@AshotJanibekyan Sure, you can set up the criterion "$H$ contains one element from each equivalence class", so one can easily check whether a given set is like that or not without the axiom of choice. But without choice (or something similar) we can't guarantee that such a set exists.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Jan 23 at 14:59
$begingroup$
@AsafKaragila Because the power set is the set of all subsets :/ I think you mean we need Axiom of Choice to say that $H$ is a "subset" of $A$?
$endgroup$
– Ashot Janibekyan
Jan 23 at 14:59
1
$begingroup$
@Ashot: I have edited my answer to help and clarify.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 23 at 15:01
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$P(A)$ is not the power set operator. It is the probability operator, I am guessing they mean the standard uniform one.
Indeed, Solovay proved that it is consistent that the probability measures all sets. So the axiom of choice is really needed.
The point is that just like $sqrt2$ or $pi$ are not members of every field, the power set operation is not fully decided by the existence of a power set. In particular, in different set theoretic universes there will be power sets that disagree with each other.
What choice allows you, is to prove that there are non-measurable sets. The fact that there are mathematical universes where all sets are measurable means that without choice it is indeed impossible to prove such sets exists: they don't exist in some models of $ZF$.
answered Jan 23 at 14:53
Asaf Karagila♦Asaf Karagila
306k33438769
$endgroup$
$P(A)$ is not the power set operator. It is the probability operator, I am guessing they mean the standard uniform one.
Indeed, Solovay proved that it is consistent that the probability measures all sets. So the axiom of choice is really needed.
The point is that just like $sqrt2$ or $pi$ are not members of every field, the power set operation is not fully decided by the existence of a power set. In particular, in different set theoretic universes there will be power sets that disagree with each other.
What choice allows you, is to prove that there are non-measurable sets. The fact that there are mathematical universes where all sets are measurable means that without choice it is indeed impossible to prove such sets exists: they don't exist in some models of $ZF$.
answered Jan 23 at 14:53
Asaf Karagila♦Asaf Karagila
306k33438769
edited Jan 23 at 15:00
answered Jan 23 at 14:53
Asaf Karagila♦Asaf Karagila
306k33438769
answered Jan 23 at 14:53
Asaf Karagila♦Asaf Karagila
306k33438769
answered Jan 23 at 14:53
Asaf Karagila♦Asaf Karagila
306k33438769
306k33438769
$begingroup$
Yes, it is not the power set operator. But in general, why do we need axiom of choice to construct (maybe "construct" is not the right word) $H$, if it is already in the power set of $A$?
$endgroup$
– Ashot Janibekyan
Jan 23 at 14:56
1
$begingroup$
Why is it necessarily "in the power set"?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 23 at 14:57
$begingroup$
@AshotJanibekyan Sure, you can set up the criterion "$H$ contains one element from each equivalence class", so one can easily check whether a given set is like that or not without the axiom of choice. But without choice (or something similar) we can't guarantee that such a set exists.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Jan 23 at 14:59
$begingroup$
@AsafKaragila Because the power set is the set of all subsets :/ I think you mean we need Axiom of Choice to say that $H$ is a "subset" of $A$?
$endgroup$
– Ashot Janibekyan
Jan 23 at 14:59
1
$begingroup$
@Ashot: I have edited my answer to help and clarify.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 23 at 15:01
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, it is not the power set operator. But in general, why do we need axiom of choice to construct (maybe "construct" is not the right word) $H$, if it is already in the power set of $A$?
$endgroup$
– Ashot Janibekyan
Jan 23 at 14:56
1
$begingroup$
Why is it necessarily "in the power set"?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 23 at 14:57
$begingroup$
@AshotJanibekyan Sure, you can set up the criterion "$H$ contains one element from each equivalence class", so one can easily check whether a given set is like that or not without the axiom of choice. But without choice (or something similar) we can't guarantee that such a set exists.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Jan 23 at 14:59
$begingroup$
@AsafKaragila Because the power set is the set of all subsets :/ I think you mean we need Axiom of Choice to say that $H$ is a "subset" of $A$?
$endgroup$
– Ashot Janibekyan
Jan 23 at 14:59
1
$begingroup$
@Ashot: I have edited my answer to help and clarify.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 23 at 15:01
$begingroup$
Yes, it is not the power set operator. But in general, why do we need axiom of choice to construct (maybe "construct" is not the right word) $H$, if it is already in the power set of $A$?
$endgroup$
– Ashot Janibekyan
Jan 23 at 14:56
$begingroup$
Yes, it is not the power set operator. But in general, why do we need axiom of choice to construct (maybe "construct" is not the right word) $H$, if it is already in the power set of $A$?
$endgroup$
– Ashot Janibekyan
Jan 23 at 14:56
1
1
$begingroup$
Why is it necessarily "in the power set"?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 23 at 14:57
$begingroup$
Why is it necessarily "in the power set"?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 23 at 14:57
$begingroup$
@AshotJanibekyan Sure, you can set up the criterion "$H$ contains one element from each equivalence class", so one can easily check whether a given set is like that or not without the axiom of choice. But without choice (or something similar) we can't guarantee that such a set exists.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Jan 23 at 14:59
$begingroup$
@AshotJanibekyan Sure, you can set up the criterion "$H$ contains one element from each equivalence class", so one can easily check whether a given set is like that or not without the axiom of choice. But without choice (or something similar) we can't guarantee that such a set exists.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Jan 23 at 14:59
$begingroup$
@AsafKaragila Because the power set is the set of all subsets :/ I think you mean we need Axiom of Choice to say that $H$ is a "subset" of $A$?
$endgroup$
– Ashot Janibekyan
Jan 23 at 14:59
$begingroup$
@AsafKaragila Because the power set is the set of all subsets :/ I think you mean we need Axiom of Choice to say that $H$ is a "subset" of $A$?
$endgroup$
– Ashot Janibekyan
Jan 23 at 14:59
1
1
$begingroup$
@Ashot: I have edited my answer to help and clarify.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 23 at 15:01
$begingroup$
@Ashot: I have edited my answer to help and clarify.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 23 at 15:01
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3084555%2fwhy-do-we-need-axiom-of-choice-to-prove-that-there-does-not-a-exist-definition-o%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
