# Minimal selector for a family of finite sets

A colleague is refereeing a paper in which the following lemma appears implicitly:

For any family $\mathcal G$ of nonempty sets let us call a set $B$ a "selector" if $B$ meets all $F\in\mathcal G$.

Lemma: For every family $\mathcal G$ of nonempty finite sets there is a minimal selector $B$. (That is, for all $x$ in $B$ there is at least one $F$ in $G$ such that $x$ is the unique element of $B\cap F$.)

A proof is quite easy: The family of selectors is closed under intersections of chains, so there must be a minimal element (using Zorn's lemma in a version that is dual to the common one).

I would like to know

1. if the lemma is well known, and/or has a name;
2. if the concepts used (selector, minimal selector) have some other (established) name.

(This is a request for references. I will post a mathematical question separately, once I know the terminology.)

I could not find this property in Howard-Rubin's "Consequences of the axiom of choice" but I admit I am not very experienced in using this book, so I may have overlooked something.

-
I'm sure that you already know that, but to make it clear to others reading this: the need of the axiom of choice is essential. Consider a set pairs that has no choice function (e.g. a partition of a Russell set). This set does not have a minimal selector (as that would constitute of a choice function). – Asaf Karagila Jul 4 '12 at 19:52
Yes, it certainly implies choice for finite sets. See mathoverflow.net/questions/101348/… for 2 questions on this topic. – Goldstern Jul 4 '12 at 22:42

The blockers of a family of finite sets (all included in some big set $X$) obviously constitute an upward-closed family of subsets of $X$, and this family is closed in the usual product topology of the power set of $X$. Conversely (and not quite so obviously), every upward-closed, topologically-closed family of subsets of $X$ is the family of blockers of some family of finite subsets of $X$. Unfortunately, I don't recall ever having seen these facts explicitly written down in the literature.
Note that the existence of a minimal blocker for a family of finite sets is a consequence of the fact that any topologically-closed subfamily of the power set of $X$ has a minimal element.