Proving Hausdorff maximality principle without Choice












1














I have heard that it is possible to prove a variant of the Hausdorff Maximality Principle without the axiom of choice. This is called "Hausdorff Maximality Principle for well-ordered partial orders" and it says that for
every partial order (P, ≤) ∈ V with the property that there exists a well-
order ≺ on the underlying set P, there is an inclusion-maximal chain X
in (P, ≤). How could I prove it using only ZF and not Choice?






set-theory axiom-of-choice







share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    Do you happen to have heard that in problem set 5?
    – Alessandro Codenotti
    Nov 14 '18 at 9:18
















1














I have heard that it is possible to prove a variant of the Hausdorff Maximality Principle without the axiom of choice. This is called "Hausdorff Maximality Principle for well-ordered partial orders" and it says that for
every partial order (P, ≤) ∈ V with the property that there exists a well-
order ≺ on the underlying set P, there is an inclusion-maximal chain X
in (P, ≤). How could I prove it using only ZF and not Choice?






set-theory axiom-of-choice







share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    Do you happen to have heard that in problem set 5?
    – Alessandro Codenotti
    Nov 14 '18 at 9:18














1












1








1







I have heard that it is possible to prove a variant of the Hausdorff Maximality Principle without the axiom of choice. This is called "Hausdorff Maximality Principle for well-ordered partial orders" and it says that for
every partial order (P, ≤) ∈ V with the property that there exists a well-
order ≺ on the underlying set P, there is an inclusion-maximal chain X
in (P, ≤). How could I prove it using only ZF and not Choice?






set-theory axiom-of-choice







share|cite|improve this question















I have heard that it is possible to prove a variant of the Hausdorff Maximality Principle without the axiom of choice. This is called "Hausdorff Maximality Principle for well-ordered partial orders" and it says that for
every partial order (P, ≤) ∈ V with the property that there exists a well-
order ≺ on the underlying set P, there is an inclusion-maximal chain X
in (P, ≤). How could I prove it using only ZF and not Choice?






set-theory axiom-of-choice




set-theory axiom-of-choice






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 4 at 17:55









Andrés E. Caicedo

64.9k8158246




64.9k8158246










asked Nov 13 '18 at 18:13









P. GreweP. Grewe

61




61








  • 1




    Do you happen to have heard that in problem set 5?
    – Alessandro Codenotti
    Nov 14 '18 at 9:18














  • 1




    Do you happen to have heard that in problem set 5?
    – Alessandro Codenotti
    Nov 14 '18 at 9:18








1




1




Do you happen to have heard that in problem set 5?
– Alessandro Codenotti
Nov 14 '18 at 9:18




Do you happen to have heard that in problem set 5?
– Alessandro Codenotti
Nov 14 '18 at 9:18










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















2














Recursively construct $(C_xi mid xi in mathrm{Ord})$ as follows:



Let $C_0 := emptyset$ and given $C_xi$ either $C_xi$ is a $subseteq$-maximal chain in $(P; le)$ in which case we stop the construction or otherwise
$$
C_{xi +1} := C_xi cup min_{prec} { p in P setminus C_xi mid forall c in C_xi colon p le c vee c le p }.
$$
For limit $lambda in mathrm{Ord}$, we let $C_{lambda} := bigcup_{xi < lambda} C_{xi}$.



It is easy to verify that each $C_xi$, if defined, is a chain through $(P; le)$ and that there is some $xi < H(P)$ such that $C_{xi}$ is a maximal chain.



(Here $H(P)$ is the least ordinal $alpha$ such that there is no injection $i colon alpha to P$. Since $P$ has a well-ordered, we have that $H(P) = mathrm{card}(P)^+$ but for the sake of this proof it's actually more natural to think about it as $H(P)$ -- the Hartogs number of $P$.)






share|cite|improve this answer























  • What? Why? There is a well-ordering. You don't need to appeal to the Hartogs number at all.
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Nov 13 '18 at 20:24






  • 1




    @AsafKaragila As you can see, I've mentioned that.
    – Stefan Mesken
    Nov 13 '18 at 20:25






  • 1




    As you can see, I didn't actually read your answer. Just skimmed it a little bit... :P
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Nov 13 '18 at 20:26











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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2997078%2fproving-hausdorff-maximality-principle-without-choice%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









2














Recursively construct $(C_xi mid xi in mathrm{Ord})$ as follows:



Let $C_0 := emptyset$ and given $C_xi$ either $C_xi$ is a $subseteq$-maximal chain in $(P; le)$ in which case we stop the construction or otherwise
$$
C_{xi +1} := C_xi cup min_{prec} { p in P setminus C_xi mid forall c in C_xi colon p le c vee c le p }.
$$
For limit $lambda in mathrm{Ord}$, we let $C_{lambda} := bigcup_{xi < lambda} C_{xi}$.



It is easy to verify that each $C_xi$, if defined, is a chain through $(P; le)$ and that there is some $xi < H(P)$ such that $C_{xi}$ is a maximal chain.



(Here $H(P)$ is the least ordinal $alpha$ such that there is no injection $i colon alpha to P$. Since $P$ has a well-ordered, we have that $H(P) = mathrm{card}(P)^+$ but for the sake of this proof it's actually more natural to think about it as $H(P)$ -- the Hartogs number of $P$.)






share|cite|improve this answer























  • What? Why? There is a well-ordering. You don't need to appeal to the Hartogs number at all.
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Nov 13 '18 at 20:24






  • 1




    @AsafKaragila As you can see, I've mentioned that.
    – Stefan Mesken
    Nov 13 '18 at 20:25






  • 1




    As you can see, I didn't actually read your answer. Just skimmed it a little bit... :P
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Nov 13 '18 at 20:26
















2














Recursively construct $(C_xi mid xi in mathrm{Ord})$ as follows:



Let $C_0 := emptyset$ and given $C_xi$ either $C_xi$ is a $subseteq$-maximal chain in $(P; le)$ in which case we stop the construction or otherwise
$$
C_{xi +1} := C_xi cup min_{prec} { p in P setminus C_xi mid forall c in C_xi colon p le c vee c le p }.
$$
For limit $lambda in mathrm{Ord}$, we let $C_{lambda} := bigcup_{xi < lambda} C_{xi}$.



It is easy to verify that each $C_xi$, if defined, is a chain through $(P; le)$ and that there is some $xi < H(P)$ such that $C_{xi}$ is a maximal chain.



(Here $H(P)$ is the least ordinal $alpha$ such that there is no injection $i colon alpha to P$. Since $P$ has a well-ordered, we have that $H(P) = mathrm{card}(P)^+$ but for the sake of this proof it's actually more natural to think about it as $H(P)$ -- the Hartogs number of $P$.)






share|cite|improve this answer























  • What? Why? There is a well-ordering. You don't need to appeal to the Hartogs number at all.
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Nov 13 '18 at 20:24






  • 1




    @AsafKaragila As you can see, I've mentioned that.
    – Stefan Mesken
    Nov 13 '18 at 20:25






  • 1




    As you can see, I didn't actually read your answer. Just skimmed it a little bit... :P
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Nov 13 '18 at 20:26














2












2








2






Recursively construct $(C_xi mid xi in mathrm{Ord})$ as follows:



Let $C_0 := emptyset$ and given $C_xi$ either $C_xi$ is a $subseteq$-maximal chain in $(P; le)$ in which case we stop the construction or otherwise
$$
C_{xi +1} := C_xi cup min_{prec} { p in P setminus C_xi mid forall c in C_xi colon p le c vee c le p }.
$$
For limit $lambda in mathrm{Ord}$, we let $C_{lambda} := bigcup_{xi < lambda} C_{xi}$.



It is easy to verify that each $C_xi$, if defined, is a chain through $(P; le)$ and that there is some $xi < H(P)$ such that $C_{xi}$ is a maximal chain.



(Here $H(P)$ is the least ordinal $alpha$ such that there is no injection $i colon alpha to P$. Since $P$ has a well-ordered, we have that $H(P) = mathrm{card}(P)^+$ but for the sake of this proof it's actually more natural to think about it as $H(P)$ -- the Hartogs number of $P$.)






share|cite|improve this answer














Recursively construct $(C_xi mid xi in mathrm{Ord})$ as follows:



Let $C_0 := emptyset$ and given $C_xi$ either $C_xi$ is a $subseteq$-maximal chain in $(P; le)$ in which case we stop the construction or otherwise
$$
C_{xi +1} := C_xi cup min_{prec} { p in P setminus C_xi mid forall c in C_xi colon p le c vee c le p }.
$$
For limit $lambda in mathrm{Ord}$, we let $C_{lambda} := bigcup_{xi < lambda} C_{xi}$.



It is easy to verify that each $C_xi$, if defined, is a chain through $(P; le)$ and that there is some $xi < H(P)$ such that $C_{xi}$ is a maximal chain.



(Here $H(P)$ is the least ordinal $alpha$ such that there is no injection $i colon alpha to P$. Since $P$ has a well-ordered, we have that $H(P) = mathrm{card}(P)^+$ but for the sake of this proof it's actually more natural to think about it as $H(P)$ -- the Hartogs number of $P$.)







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Nov 13 '18 at 20:12

























answered Nov 13 '18 at 20:01









Stefan MeskenStefan Mesken

14.5k32046




14.5k32046












  • What? Why? There is a well-ordering. You don't need to appeal to the Hartogs number at all.
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Nov 13 '18 at 20:24






  • 1




    @AsafKaragila As you can see, I've mentioned that.
    – Stefan Mesken
    Nov 13 '18 at 20:25






  • 1




    As you can see, I didn't actually read your answer. Just skimmed it a little bit... :P
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Nov 13 '18 at 20:26


















  • What? Why? There is a well-ordering. You don't need to appeal to the Hartogs number at all.
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Nov 13 '18 at 20:24






  • 1




    @AsafKaragila As you can see, I've mentioned that.
    – Stefan Mesken
    Nov 13 '18 at 20:25






  • 1




    As you can see, I didn't actually read your answer. Just skimmed it a little bit... :P
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Nov 13 '18 at 20:26
















What? Why? There is a well-ordering. You don't need to appeal to the Hartogs number at all.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 13 '18 at 20:24




What? Why? There is a well-ordering. You don't need to appeal to the Hartogs number at all.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 13 '18 at 20:24




1




1




@AsafKaragila As you can see, I've mentioned that.
– Stefan Mesken
Nov 13 '18 at 20:25




@AsafKaragila As you can see, I've mentioned that.
– Stefan Mesken
Nov 13 '18 at 20:25




1




1




As you can see, I didn't actually read your answer. Just skimmed it a little bit... :P
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 13 '18 at 20:26




As you can see, I didn't actually read your answer. Just skimmed it a little bit... :P
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 13 '18 at 20:26


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • 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.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2997078%2fproving-hausdorff-maximality-principle-without-choice%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

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







-

Popular posts from this blog

1300-talet

Image
Den här artikeln handlar om hundraårsperioden 1300–1399. För decenniet 1300–1309, se 1300-talet (decennium). .mw-parser-output .infobox{border:1px solid #aaa;background-color:#f9f9f9;color:black;margin:.5em 0 .5em 1em;padding:.2em;float:right;clear:right;width:22em;text-align:left;font-size:88%;line-height:1.6em}.mw-parser-output .infobox td,.mw-parser-output .infobox th{vertical-align:top;padding:0 .2em}.mw-parser-output .infobox caption{font-size:larger}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered{border-collapse:collapse}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered th{border:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless th{border:0}.mw-parser-output .infobox-showbutton .mw-collapsible-text{color:inherit}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow th{border:0;border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-right:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output
Read more

1300-talet

Image
Den här artikeln handlar om hundraårsperioden 1300–1399. För decenniet 1300–1309, se 1300-talet (decennium). .mw-parser-output .infobox{border:1px solid #aaa;background-color:#f9f9f9;color:black;margin:.5em 0 .5em 1em;padding:.2em;float:right;clear:right;width:22em;text-align:left;font-size:88%;line-height:1.6em}.mw-parser-output .infobox td,.mw-parser-output .infobox th{vertical-align:top;padding:0 .2em}.mw-parser-output .infobox caption{font-size:larger}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered{border-collapse:collapse}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered th{border:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless th{border:0}.mw-parser-output .infobox-showbutton .mw-collapsible-text{color:inherit}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow th{border:0;border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-right:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output
Read more

Has there ever been an instance of an active nuclear power plant within or near a war zone?

Image
36 3 The question Has there ever been a military combat going on around an active (running or in outage but not decommissioned) commercial nuclear power plant? Or dangerously near it? If yes, how did the plant and its personnel fare in such situation? Why I ask Let's assume for the scope of this question modern commercial nuclear power plants (CANDU, PWR, BWR of generation II plus all of gen III and newer) are usually reasonably safe to operate given that the engineering has been done right and there is a whole cohort of very well trained personnel on-site at all times, well rested and with considerable resources on their hands. Things hard to get with an armed conflict like the recent Syrian war raging around. I can't seem to find any reference or a comprehensive article about this, hence this question.
Read more