Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Hello !

The Urysohn's Lemma assert that in every topological spaces which is normal two closed subset may be separated by a real valued function. It's proof use axiom of countable choice (but not the law of excluded middle).

I would like to find a counterexample to this theorem in the internal logic of a topos in which the axiom of countable choice does not hold (for exemple, the topos of smooth action of some non discrete locally pro-finite group, or the topos of sheaf on [0,1].)

I need a counterexample which is compact, but If you have an example involving not a topological space but a local (an example of compact regular local which does not have enough functions with value in the Dedekind real) it's perfectly fine for me.

Thank you !

share|improve this question
    
How do you know ACC is necessary for Urysohn's Lemma? –  François G. Dorais Apr 26 '12 at 15:09
    
AFAICS, the usual proof of Urysohn’s lemma actually uses dependent choice, not just countable choice. –  Emil Jeřábek Apr 26 '12 at 15:23
1  
How do you know the axiom of countable choice is sufficient for Urysohn's Lemma? The usual proof uses dependent choice. There is a variation of the proof, pointed out to me by David Pincus 35 years ago (boy, am I getting old!) that uses multiple choice instead. And I mixed the two proofs (also in ancient times) to show that dependent multiple choice suffices. But I'm not sure countable choice suffices. –  Andreas Blass Apr 26 '12 at 15:26
    
This is Form 78 in Consequences of the Axiom of Choice consequences.emich.edu/conseq.htm It is known to be false in the models $\mathcal{N}3$ and $\mathcal{N}8$; these are two permutation models. (I think the first is one of the original Mostowski models and the other is due to Laüchli, but I don't have the book handy right now.) –  François G. Dorais Apr 26 '12 at 15:26
    
Emil's comment arrived while I was typing mine. Mine was addressed to Simon Henry. –  Andreas Blass Apr 26 '12 at 15:27
show 7 more comments

1 Answer

Urysohn's Lemma is not provable in ZF (without the axiom of choice but with classical logic), so a suitable model of ZF will provide a topos of the sort you want. Checking the standard reference for such questions, "Consequences of the Axiom of Choice" by Paul Howard and Jean Rubin, I find the following permutation model (of ZF with atoms), due to Läuchli, in which Urysohn's Lemma is false. Begin with a countable set of atoms ordered like the rationals, take the group of all order-automorphisms, and take as supports the sets $E$ of atoms such that $E$ has only finitely many accumulation points and every infinite subset of $E$ has an accumulation point.

A permutation model of ZF with atoms suffices to give a topos of the sort you want, but if you'd rather have a model of full ZF (i.e, without atoms), the Jech-Sochor embedding theorem lets you eliminate the atoms from Läuchli's example.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.