Consider these two axioms:

  1. Every partial order extends to a linear order.
  2. Every partial preorder (reflexive and transitive relation) extends to a linear preorder while preserving strict orderings: i.e., whenever $x<y$ (namely: $x\lesssim y$ but not $y\lesssim x$) holds in the original order, it holds in the extended order.

Question: Does 2 imply 1 in ZF?


A. In ZF, Boolean Prime Ideal implies 1 (but not conversely if ZF is consistent), and 1 implies 2 (take the quotient of the preordered set under $\sim$, where $x\sim y$ iff $x\lesssim y$ and $y\lesssim x$, and apply 1).

B. Also, 2+(every set has a linear order) implies 1. (Use 2 to extend the partial order $\le$ to a total preorder $\lesssim$ preserving strict orderings. We now need to turn $\lesssim$ into a linear order. To do that, we just need to linearly order within each equivalence class under $\sim$. Do that by taking a linear order on the whole set and using that to induce the order in each equivalence class---though not between them.)

C. Claim 2 implies Banach-Tarski and thus the existence of nonmeasurable sets (Pawlikowski's proof of Banach-Tarski from Hahn-Banach can be adapted), and hence 2 is not provable in ZF (if ZF is consistent).

  • $\begingroup$ I have to check more carefully, but I am pretty sure that D is badly argued: it's not clear that $\preceq$ as I defined it is transitive. $\endgroup$ Sep 4, 2020 at 14:16


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.