What I mean by the title is whether, given that there is a class $\Bbb R$ and operations $+,\cdot,<$ that satisfy the ordered field axioms and the least upper bound axiom, you can prove the existence of an infinite set in $\sf ZF-Inf$. My intuition says this is possible, because those axioms are sufficient to prove that $|\Bbb R|=|2^\Bbb N|$ in $\sf ZF$, and most (all?) models that satisfy the negation of infinity are countable, which means that classes like this $\Bbb R$ cannot possibly fit in the model. (Note that I am not assuming that $\Bbb R\in V$, which would make the question trivial.)
2026-03-26 17:37:34.1774546654
Is it possible to prove the axiom of infinity from the real number axioms?
504 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in SET-THEORY
- Theorems in MK would imply theorems in ZFC
- What formula proved in MK or Godel Incompleteness theorem
- Proving the schema of separation from replacement
- Understanding the Axiom of Replacement
- Ordinals and cardinals in ETCS set axiomatic
- Minimal model over forcing iteration
- How can I prove that the collection of all (class-)function from a proper class A to a class B is empty?
- max of limit cardinals smaller than a successor cardinal bigger than $\aleph_\omega$
- Canonical choice of many elements not contained in a set
- Non-standard axioms + ZF and rest of math
Related Questions in MODEL-THEORY
- What is the definition of 'constructible group'?
- Translate into first order logic: "$a, b, c$ are the lengths of the sides of a triangle"
- Existence of indiscernible set in model equivalent to another indiscernible set
- A ring embeds in a field iff every finitely generated sub-ring does it
- Graph with a vertex of infinite degree elementary equiv. with a graph with vertices of arbitrarily large finite degree
- What would be the function to make a formula false?
- Sufficient condition for isomorphism of $L$-structures when $L$ is relational
- Show that PA can prove the pigeon-hole principle
- Decidability and "truth value"
- Prove or disprove: $\exists x \forall y \,\,\varphi \models \forall y \exists x \,\ \varphi$
Related Questions in AXIOMS
- Should axioms be seen as "building blocks of definitions"?
- Non-standard axioms + ZF and rest of math
- Does $\mathbb{R}$ have any axioms?
- Finite axiomatizability of theories in infinitary logic?
- Continuity axioms and completness axioms for real numbers are the same things?
- Why don't we have many non euclidean geometries out there?
- Why do we need the axiom of choice?
- What axioms Gödel is using, if any?
- Determine if U a subspace of $P_3$?
- Why such stark contrast between the approach to the continuum hypothesis in set theory and the approach to the parallel postulate in geometry?
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
The question is a bit tricky to formalize. If we work in $\mathsf{ZF}-\text{Infinity} + \neg \text{Infinity}$ then any ordered field is necessarily a proper class, so the least upper bound property is really an axiom schema and not a single axiom. However, I think that in any reasonable formulation the answer to the question is "yes".
Work in $\mathsf{ZF}-\text{Infinity}$. If $\omega$ is a set then we're done, so assume that $\omega$ is a proper class (in which case it is the class of all ordinals.) Then there is a definable surjection $\omega \to V$.
Assume that $\mathcal{R} = (R,+^\mathcal{R},\times^\mathcal{R},<^\mathcal{R})$ is an ordered field. We can either formalize what we are proving as a theorem schema with one theorem for every possible quadruple of formulas defining an ordered field, or we can formalize it as a theorem in the language of set theory expanded by predicate symbols $R$, $+$, $\times$, and $<$. In any case, we will show that $\mathcal{R}$ is not complete.
Recall that $V$ is countable, so in particular $R$ is countable. Let $f : \omega \to R$ be a surjection. We may then use Cantor's proof of the uncountability of the reals to define a $<^\mathcal{R}$-bounded subclass of $R$ with no least upper bound (if $\mathcal{R}$ were complete, we would get an element of $R$ not in the range of $f$, but every element of $R$ is in the range of $f$, so instead the argument tells us that $\mathcal{R}$ is not complete.)
More details: we recursively define a strictly $<^\mathcal{R}$-increasing sequence $(a_n : n<\omega)$ and a strictly $<^\mathcal{R}$-decreasing sequence $(b_n : n<\omega)$ such that for every $n < \omega$ we have $a_n <^\mathcal{R} b_n$ and either $f(n) <^\mathcal{R} a_n$ or $b_n <^\mathcal{R} f(n)$. (We don't need the Axiom of Choice to choose $a_n$ and $b_n$ because the universe is definably well-ordered in order type $\omega$ via $f$.) Then the set $\{x \in R : \exists n \in \omega\,(x <^\mathcal{R} a_n)\}$ is a bounded subset of $\mathcal{R}$ with no least upper bound.
EDIT: In summary, your intuition is essentially correct. However, we need more than the fact that "most" models (e.g. the intended model $V_\omega$) of $\mathsf{ZF} - \text{Infinity} + \neg\text{Infinity}$ are seen to be countable from the outside. We need to use the fact that the theory $\mathsf{ZF} - \text{Infinity} + \neg\text{Infinity}$ proves "$V$ is countable," which allows us, working in this theory, to use Cantor's argument to rule out the existence of a complete ordered field of the same size as $V$.