The reason why I am puzzled is that I was recently told that in order to
prove that

* the union of countably many countable sets is countable

one needs to use at least the Axiom of Countable Choice (+ ZF, of
course). The same is true in order to show that

* a set A is infinite if and only if there is a bijection between A and
a proper subset of A

(or in another words,

* if the set A is infinite, then there exists an injection from the
natural numbers N to A)

Reading the proofs, I find it rather subtle that some (weaker) axioms of
choices are needed. The subtlety comes from the fact that many textbook
do not mention it.

In order to understand a little bit more to the axiom of choice, I am
thinkig if it has already been used in the material you covered or
whether it was not really needed at all. Not being able to answer it, I
had to ask :-)

Please note that I don't have any strong opinion about the Axiom of
Choice. Just trying to understand it. May I ask about your opinion?


Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Hi Mirek,
> On 01 Sep 2009, at 12:25, Mirek Dobsicek wrote:
>> I am puzzled by one thing. Is the Axiom of dependent choice (DC)  
>> assumed
>> implicitly somewhere here or is it obvious that there is no need for  
>> it
>> (so far)?
> I don't see where I would have use it, and I don't think I will use  
> it. Cantor's theorem can be done in ZF without any form of choice  
> axioms.  I think.
> Well, I may use the (full) axiom of choice by assuming that all  
> cardinals are comparable, but I don't think I will use this above some  
> illustrations.
> If you suspect I am using it, don't hesitate to tell me. But so far I  
> don't think I have use it.
> Bruno

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to