15
$\begingroup$

To be explicit, by Zermelo set theory with Choice, ZC, I mean the theory with the same language and axioms as ZFC except not Foundation (also called Regularity) and with the axiom scheme of Separation instead of Replacement. By Global Choice I mean adding a new function symbol $F$ and an axiom:$\forall v[v\neq\emptyset \rightarrow F(v)\in v]$, and extending the Separation scheme to include formulas using $F$.

It is known that the axiom of Global Choice gives a conservative extension of Zermelo Frankel set theory with Choice (ZFC). The proof I know is by Haim Gaifman in his "Local and Global Choice Functions" (Israel J. of Math v. 22 nos. 3-4, 1975, pp. 257--265. And there is one I have not worked through which uses forcing by Ulrich Felgner "Comparison of the axioms of local and universal choice" Fund. Math. 71, 1971, pp. 43-62. Both seem to require the idea of the rank of a set. Maybe one can be adapted to work for ZC, but I do not see it.

Or is there some other proof? Or a disproof?

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Do you mean ZF+Global Choice, since you are referring to Replacement at the end of your first paragraph. Or do you mean Z+Global Choice, and Separation can refer to the choice function $F$? $\endgroup$ – David Roberts Mar 19 at 6:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DavidRoberts Sorry, that "replacement" was a typo for "separation." Corrected. $\endgroup$ – Colin McLarty Mar 19 at 11:26
  • $\begingroup$ thanks, that makes more sense. $\endgroup$ – David Roberts Mar 19 at 11:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The proof by Felgner is not hard: take a model of ZFC and define a (proper class) forcing consisting of 'all partial well-orderings of the universe'. This forcing will add no new sets, but (by genericity) G will be a global well-ordering. Furthermore, Replacement with respect to G holds due to the Forcing Theorem (which holds for this particular class forcing) $\endgroup$ – Johannes Schürz Mar 20 at 15:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JohannesSchürz Yes, I believe Gaifman's proof is essentially the same. He just uses the fact that ZFC proves existence of enough partial well-orderings of the universe, that you do not really need forcing. $\endgroup$ – Colin McLarty Mar 20 at 15:52
12
$\begingroup$

The known proofs of conservativity of ZF + GC (Global Choice) over ZFC make significant use of replacement, and as far as I know the problem of conservativity of Z + GC over ZC is wide open.

Let me add that I have discussed the problem with a number of experts over the past two decades, and also posed it on FOM in 2006 in this posting.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This persuades me but I will leave the question open a little longer to see if it produces any surprises. $\endgroup$ – Colin McLarty Mar 20 at 15:53

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.