12
$\begingroup$

Let X be an infinite set. Is it possible to show the existence of a countably infinite subset of X without using the Axiom of Choice?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
2

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
20
$\begingroup$

Short answer: No.

By countably infinite subset you mean, I guess, that there is a 1-1 map from the natural numbers into the set.

If ZF is consistent, then it is consistent to have an amorphous set, i.e., an infinite set whose subsets are all finite or have a finite complement. If you have an embedding of the natural numbers into a set, the image of the even numbers is infinite and has an infinite complement. So the set cannot be amorphous.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ How do you show that nice consistency result? I used to know, but it’s escaping me now — something with Frankel-Mostowski permutation models, is it? $\endgroup$
    – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
    Commented Jan 7, 2011 at 17:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Peter: Yes, the set $A$ in the basic Fraenkel model is amorphous, see A. Levy, "The independence of various definitions of finiteness", Fund. Math. 46 (1958), 1–13. But you can also see this directly in the original Cohen model for not-AC. $\endgroup$
    – Andrés E. Caicedo
    Commented Jan 7, 2011 at 18:16
9
$\begingroup$

No. A set which has a countably infinite subset is called Dedekind-infinite. Clearly every Dedekind-infinite set is infinite; the statement that every infinite set is Dedekind-infinite is not provable in ZF (assuming ZF is consistent, of course). You don't need full AC, though. In fact, the equivalence isn't even as strong as countable choice.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It’s perhaps worth noting that this may not be the most familiar definition of Dedekind-infinite (“X is D-infinite if it is bijective to some proper subset of itself”), but that these two definitions are equivalent in ZF. $\endgroup$
    – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
    Commented Jan 7, 2011 at 17:45
  • $\begingroup$ @Peter: If $X$ is amorphous (as defined by Stefan in his answer) is it not Dedekind-infinite with some bijection to a cofinite subset? $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila ♦
    Commented Jan 7, 2011 at 18:09
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Asaf: Amorphous sets are Dedekind finite. The point is that if you remove a point $a$ from a set $X$, and the result has the same size as $X$, you can iterate, and get an injection of ${\mathbb N}$: Keep track of the orbit of $a$ as you iterate the bijection $X\to X\setminus\{a\}$. $\endgroup$
    – Andrés E. Caicedo
    Commented Jan 7, 2011 at 18:19

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .