Talk:Choice Function for Set does not imply Choice Function for Union of Set

From ProofWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This implies the Axiom of Choice, since for any set $S$, $\{S\}$ is a set with a trivial choice function. But $\cup\{S\}$ is $S$. So if the hypothesis is true, every set has a choice function.

Therefore, this cannot be proved from the axioms of ZF given in the cited book; due to Axiom of Choice is Independent of ZF. --Cem (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay let me go away and think about this, I need to review it. Are you saying that the statement as presented by Smullyan and Fitting is actually incorrect, or that it has been transcribed into this webpage wrong?
I will look at that properly in due course, unless one of my colleagues gets there first. --prime mover (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
It is indeed transcribed correctly. Smullyan and Fitting ask for a proof of this statement in an exercise following an introduction to the Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory, which is not possible. --Cem (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Feel free to write this up in our formal style on Choice Function for Set does not imply Choice Function for Union of Set/Mistake. Many thanks. --prime mover (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Done, thank you for the guidance! --Cem (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, good job. I think now we ought to go back and rename the parent page "Choice Function for Set does not imply Choice Function for Union of Set", offer up your page as a Proof by Counterexample, and reference or transclude that as appropriate from the "mistake" page.
But before we do this, we need to check the formal "errata" pamphlet which I have been sent on another thread and it's too late at night to think about right now. So all this is a job for another day (not necessarily tomorrow) as I have stuff to do. --prime mover (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Well okay, done the rename :-) --prime mover (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)