This question was actually asked by John Stillwell in a comment to an answer to this question. I thought I would advertise it as a separate question since no one has yet answered and I am also curious about it.

Question: Is the existence of a non-principal ultra-filter on $\omega$ a weaker assumption than the existence of a well-ordering of $\mathbb{R}$?


It is consistent that there exists a non-principal ultrafilter over $\omega$ while $\mathbb{R}$ is not well-ordered. To see this, suppose that the partition relation $\omega \to (\omega)^{\omega}$ holds in $L(\mathbb{R})$. Then forcing with $\mathbb{P}= [\omega]^{\omega}$ adjoins a selective ultrafilter $\mathcal{U}$ over $\omega$ and $\mathcal{P}(\omega)$ cannot be well-ordered in $L(\mathbb{R})[\mathcal{U}]$. (See Eisworth's paper: Selective ultrafilters and $\omega \to (\omega)^{\omega}$.) Thus $L(\mathbb{R})[\mathcal{U}]$ is a model of $ZF$ which contains the nonprincipal ultrafilter $\mathcal{U}$ and yet $\mathbb{R}$ cannot be well-ordered in $L(\mathbb{R})[\mathcal{U}]$.

An update: it is perhaps also interesting to note that in $L(\mathbb{R})[\mathcal{U}]$, the ultraproduct $\prod_{\mathcal{U}} \bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}$ of the algebraic closures of the fields of prime order $p$ is not isomorphic to $\mathbb{C}$.

  • $\begingroup$ How about relative consistency rather than direct implication? $\endgroup$ – Harry Gindi Apr 11 '10 at 21:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It was a very interesting question. While it is well-known that the existence of non-principal ultrafilters is in general strictly weaker than the axiom of choice, this special case is probably the one which would interest most mathematicians. Plus I now understand a conversation that I recently had with a much more knowledgeable set theorist ... $\endgroup$ – Simon Thomas Apr 12 '10 at 12:45

Historically it was proved that the ultrafilter lemma is independent from the axiom of choice by showing that there is a model in which there is an infinite Dedekind-finite set of real numbers, but every filter can be extended to an ultrafilter. Where an infinite Dedekind-finite set is an infinite set which does not have a countably infinite subset.

The existence of infinite Dedekind-finite sets negates not only the axiom of choice, but also the [much] weaker axiom of countable choice. These sets cannot be well-ordered, and since the real numbers have such subset they cannot be well-ordered themselves in such model.

The proof was given by Halpern and Levy in 1964.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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