I heard one can prove that GCH implies AC(the axiom of choice) in ZF. But I am confused with the meaning of GCH in ZF. Under AC, we can define cardinal exponentiation, so the cardinal 2 to the aleph is well defined. However, Without AC, How can we restate the GCH?
The meaning of GCH in ZF
201 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail AtThere are 3 best solutions below
On
In ZF, the GCH can be stated as thus: for any ordinal $\alpha$, a bijection exists between $\omega_\alpha$ and $\beth_\alpha$. Here we can define$$\beth_0:=\omega,\,\beth_{\alpha+1}:=\mathcal{P}(\beth_\alpha),\,\beth_{\gamma}:=\bigcup_{\beta\in\gamma}\beth_\beta,$$where the last equation is for nonzero limit ordinals $\gamma$ only. All this can be done; it's certainly equivalent to the usual formulation. But the usual formulation uses alephs instead of ordinals.
On
In Sierpiński's book Cardinal and Ordinal Numbers, second edition revised, 1965, on p. 88 he defines it as follows:
The assumption that, no matter what an infinite set $A$ is like, there is no set which would be of greater power than $A$ and of less power than the set of all subsets of $A$ is called the generalized Continuum Hypothesis.
In short, $|A|\lt|X|\lt|\mathcal P(A)|$ never happens when $A$ is an infinite set. It is this form of the GCH that is meant in Sierpiński's theorem that the GCH implies the axiom of choice.
You can formulate GCH in two ways:
For every ordinal $\alpha$, $2^{\aleph_\alpha}=\aleph_{\alpha+1}$. Arguably, cardinals do not make a lot of sense outside of realm of ordinals (I am not advocate of this philosophy, though), and since this is the meaning of the statement in $\sf ZFC$, this should be the meaning in $\sf ZF$ as well.
For every infinite set $x$, there is no set $y$ such that $|x|<|y|<|\mathcal P(x)|$. That is to say, there is no intermediate cardinalities between an infinite set and its power set.
Cantor's original formulation of CH was in line with (2), and only a decade later when the $\aleph$ notation came about that $2^{\aleph_0}=\aleph_1$ was stated.
It turns out that both of these are equivalent over $\sf ZF$, as they both imply the axiom of choice. So at the end we shouldn't worry about this too much. Nevertheless, from a local perspective, it is certainly possible that there are no intermediate cardinalities between $\omega$ and $\mathcal P(\omega)$, while at the same time $2^{\aleph_0}\neq\aleph_1$. This holds, for example, in Solovay's model.