[FOM] Question on the Axiom of Foundation/Regularity
Todd Eisworth
eisworth at math.ohiou.edu
Tue Sep 25 11:06:26 EDT 2007
Other than the post by Jan Pax, one or two people gave me some suggestions
about where to look, but nothing turned up in those references.
The ``set-like'' assumption is certainly necessary if you want to use
transfinite recursion on the well-founded relation; since this is a pretty
gosh-darned important part of the development of set theory, my guess is
that the distinction between (*) and (**) (if there is one) is probably not
something that ever garnered much attention.
<Forster>
>Todd,
> did you get any satisfactory replies to this? (Ignore my
>comment about a descending sequence of length or ordinal of On
>- that was rubbish.) I can see easily how to prove the
>equivalence of we have DC - but without DC i don't see how to
>do it. If you got any informative feedback i would interested
>to see it.
<Eisworth>
> Let (*) be the statement
>
> "every non-empty subset of A has an R-minimal element"
>
> and let (**) be the scheme corresponding to (the informal)
>
> "every non-empty subclass of A has an R-minimal element".
> So, are there models of ZF - Foundation lurking out there in the weeds
> in which there are R and A for which (*) holds, and yet some instance
> of (**) is false, or is the "set-like" assumption not really necessary
> when working in ZF-foundation, and only assumed for convenience?
More information about the FOM
mailing list