Skip to main content
replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/
Source Link

Is it consistent with $\mathsf{ZF}$ (without $\mathsf{AC}$) that there is an infinite set $X$ and a subset $S\subseteq\mathcal P(X)$ of the same cardinality as $\mathcal P(X)$ with the property that whenever $s\neq t\in S$ we have $|s\cap t| \leq 1$?

Note that it is consistent that there is such a pair of sets $X,S$, with $|S|>|X|$, but no such $X$ can be well-orderable. See herehere and herehere.

Is it consistent with $\mathsf{ZF}$ (without $\mathsf{AC}$) that there is an infinite set $X$ and a subset $S\subseteq\mathcal P(X)$ of the same cardinality as $\mathcal P(X)$ with the property that whenever $s\neq t\in S$ we have $|s\cap t| \leq 1$?

Note that it is consistent that there is such a pair of sets $X,S$, with $|S|>|X|$, but no such $X$ can be well-orderable. See here and here.

Is it consistent with $\mathsf{ZF}$ (without $\mathsf{AC}$) that there is an infinite set $X$ and a subset $S\subseteq\mathcal P(X)$ of the same cardinality as $\mathcal P(X)$ with the property that whenever $s\neq t\in S$ we have $|s\cap t| \leq 1$?

Note that it is consistent that there is such a pair of sets $X,S$, with $|S|>|X|$, but no such $X$ can be well-orderable. See here and here.

added tag: axiom of choice
Link
Goldstern
  • 14k
  • 1
  • 47
  • 71
Title: "cardinal" replaced by "set"
Link

Quasi-disjoint subsets of an infinite cardinalset and $\neg \mathsf{AC}$

added 263 characters in body
Source Link
Andrés E. Caicedo
  • 32.5k
  • 5
  • 133
  • 240
Loading
Source Link
Loading