340:
sets always contain an infinite sequence of distinct elements. I am trying to reconstruct differential geometry and the underlying analysis/topology/measure-integration theory without the axiom of choice. This may seem quixotic and foolhardy. But that's what I'm doing. (E.g. linear algebra looks very different in AC, and most functional analysis textbooks would contain only 10 pages if they did not assume AC.) I've said too much already. If you look up my name plus "differential geometry" in a search engine, something will show up. It has nothing to do with a course that I'm studying or teaching. It's a personal crusade! I only mentioned it because I wanted to emphasize that although I disagree strongly with a lot of what I read in the wikipedia logic and set theory pages, I just have to hold my tongue (or keyboard) because this is not a forum for original research. (I can't even add my personal researches regarding the
298:
books and journals, like by Tarski, Mostowski, Lindenbaum, Howard, Rubin, Jech, Moore and many others." If you have some improvements on their publications, you probably should get them peer-reviewed in a journal first before adding them to wikipedia. The 8 different finiteness concept definitions are as I have seen them in all of those esteemed, peer-reviewed authors. I should mention also that I do much original research of my own, and I have many ideas that are opposite to what appears in wikipedia, and which I am certain are opposite to your own beliefs. However, I do not add them to wikipedia because of the original research policy. (My ideas will appear in my own book, where they belong.) If you disagree with some of the finiteness definitions, I think you need to provide peer-reviewed references, which I have done with the 8 finiteness concepts.
84:
74:
53:
331:
book has four parts: I. Foundations. II. Algebra. III. Analysis/topology. IV. Differentiable manifolds (i.e. geometry). The biggest part is on foundations (logic, set theory, numbers). (I'm thinking of self-publishing this part as a separate book.) My motivation for this part arose from the discovery that very large numbers of core concepts in differential geometry rest very heavily on controversial foundational issues, like the axiom of choice. (At least I
165:
22:
1135:
definition of
Kuratowski finite seems explicitly to use a truth predicate, which is not available in ZF. But secondly, since it refers to provability, the notion would seem to trivialize in a model of ZF + ¬Con(ZF), since everything is thought to be provable in such a model. In such a model, there can be no finite sets at all, not even the empty set or singletons.
330:
I shouldn't exploit wikipedia talk-pages to advertise my own book, although it's free at the moment in draft form (currently 1322 pages), and probably always will be free in electronic form. I'll just say something which could possibly be of some interest to readers of this talk-page though. My first
339:
The reason why this potentially could have some relevance in this forum is that the foundational issues are not purely academic. Virtually all of mathematical analysis rests very heavily upon foundational assumptions, like the assumption that
Dedekind-finite sets are finite, or rather that infinite
297:
It sounds like you've been doing some original research on this. I think that original research is a good idea, but I understand that in wikipedia, we are supposed to fairly represent the consensus of the literature. As I said above, what I added comes from "the standard literature in peer-reviewed
1134:
It seems to me that the there are several problems with the claims made about
Kuratowski-finite. First, the notion of an object having "all properties" of such-and-such a kind is not generally expressible in ZF set theory, in light of Tarski's theorem on the non-definability of truth. That is, the
335:
that there are still controversial issues in the foundations after 130 years of research by some of the best minds in mathematics.) Therefore I have read and written a lot about these issues in a book that is supposedly primarily focused on the definitions of differential geometry. (It's strongly
223:
The concepts of finiteness should be compatible with the notion of cardinality in two ways: (1) any set which can be mapped bijectively onto a ?-finite should also be ?-finite; and (2) any subset of a ?-finite set should also be ?-finite. There does not seem to be any problem with the first
227:
There is a generalization of Ia-finite which might be of interest. Imagine forming the disjoint union of three Ia-finite sets. Then one can show that any partition of that union into four parts would result in at least one of the parts being I-finite. This could be generalized as follows
1041:
684:
447:
has an I-infinite linearly-ordered subset . (I believe I can show that any I-infinite linearly-ordered set has a I-infinite linearly-ordered partition without largest element, which is sufficient to remove the bracketed
856:
773:
1077:
I'm just wondering where these definitions fit on the list of the "other types of finiteness". Are they equivalent to any of the definitions there? If not, where do they each fit in the hierarchy? --
547:
892:
140:
1163:
130:
582:
315:
So you are writing a book. Will it be your first book? Who will be the publisher? What topics will you cover? Is it related to getting a degree?
106:
1158:
778:
224:
condition. But it is not clear to me that the second condition is met by: V-finite, VI-finite, or VII-finite. Can you show that it is?
97:
58:
689:
1062:
It specifically mentions that all these defintions are pure set-theoretic definitions that don't explicitly involve ordinals.
403:". Alan does not appear to be. In any case, the following characterization of Ia-, Ib-, and II- finite may be of interest.
1036:{\displaystyle (\forall X)(\exists F)(\mathrm {Domain} (F)=X\wedge (\forall x,y\in X)(x\approx y\leftrightarrow F(x)=F(y)))}
487:
351:
305:
33:
1070:
S is A-finite iff there exists an injection from S to ω but no bijection from S to ω. (i.e. the |S|<|ω| definition)
208:
575:
You're right. I was confusing ZFU with NBGU (or KMU). What I meant to say is that there isn't a "class function"
1060:
In the section "Other types of finiteness", it gives different definitions of "finiteness" for ZF without choice.
178:
187:
362:
347:
301:
862:
468:
1140:
39:
83:
1136:
21:
1119:
566:
370:
320:
288:
105:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
464:
I consider Ic more interesting than Ib, but it's not obvious that Ic-finite implies II-finite. —
193:
89:
73:
52:
1073:
S is B-finite iff there does not exist an injection from ω to S. (i.e. the ¬|S|≥|ω| definition)
1082:
859:
465:
189:
164:
1111:
1044:
400:
396:
392:
341:
1107:). Your A-finite is the same as finite (see #1). So I-finite and A-finite are equivalent.
1115:
562:
366:
316:
284:
1152:
384:
1093:
1078:
102:
1104:
1100:
1094:
Talk:Finite set#Is it really true that I-finite does not imply T-finite in ZF?
679:{\displaystyle (\forall x)(\exists !y)\varphi (x,y,p_{1},p_{2},\ldots ,p_{n})}
344:, even though I know that that page has factual errors.) Thanks for asking....
79:
191:
395:
and its negation, and I do have a couple of peer-reviewed papers on
851:{\displaystyle (\forall x,y)(x\approx y\leftrightarrow F(x)=F(y)).}
1144:
1123:
1086:
865:
570:
471:
374:
355:
324:
309:
292:
1064:
But in ZF without choice, it is still possible to construct ω.
194:
158:
15:
1105:
Finite set#Necessary and sufficient conditions for finiteness
1066:
Thus we can actually get two new definitions of finiteness:
768:{\displaystyle \varphi (x,F(x),p_{1},p_{2},\ldots ,p_{n})}
383:
comments on finite sets would be considered reliable, per
361:
Ah, I see you have a link to your book on your user page
542:{\displaystyle F(x)=\{y\vert y\in X\land y\approx x\}}
895:
781:
692:
585:
490:
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1035:
850:
767:
678:
541:
283:This should lie between Ia-finite and II-finite.
1130:Problems with the claims about Kuratowski finite
336:focused on definitions as opposed to theorems.)
1103:is the same as Tarski's definition (see #6 at
484:To Arthur: Regarding your note, why would not
425:into I-infinite sets is I-finite, and bounded.
235:is Ib-finite iff there exists a I-finite set
202:This page has archives. Sections older than
8:
889:In ZFU, it is not necessarily the case that
536:
512:
506:
1056:Other types of finiteness with respect to ω
414:into I-infinite sets has at most 1 element.
47:
923:
894:
780:
756:
737:
724:
691:
667:
648:
635:
584:
489:
1101:Finite set#Other concepts of finiteness
1043:, which is required for the concept of
882:
49:
19:
579:(in NBGU) (or property φ in ZFU where
212:when more than 5 sections are present.
7:
365:. I should have looked there first.
95:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
964:
939:
936:
933:
930:
927:
924:
911:
899:
785:
686:, and we make the convention that
601:
589:
14:
1164:Mid-priority mathematics articles
455:is III-finite if no partition of
436:into I-infinite sets is I-finite.
432:is Ic-finite if any partition of
421:is Ib-finite if any partition of
410:is Ia-finite if any partition of
206:may be automatically archived by
115:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
443:is II-finite if no partition of
163:
118:Template:WikiProject Mathematics
82:
72:
51:
20:
135:This article has been rated as
1030:
1027:
1024:
1018:
1009:
1003:
997:
985:
982:
961:
949:
943:
920:
917:
908:
905:
896:
842:
839:
833:
824:
818:
812:
800:
797:
782:
762:
714:
708:
696:
673:
616:
610:
598:
595:
586:
500:
494:
1:
1110:Your B-finite is the same as
109:and see a list of open tasks.
1159:C-Class mathematics articles
866:14:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
571:09:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
472:08:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
391:a recognized expert on the
379:I was going to ask whether
375:06:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
356:04:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
325:04:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
310:10:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
293:10:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
239:such that for any function
1180:
1047:to exist within the model.
251:there would be an element
1124:05:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
1087:09:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
134:
67:
46:
1145:18:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
141:project's priority scale
363:User:Alan U. Kennington
98:WikiProject Mathematics
1037:
852:
769:
680:
543:
219:Subsets of finite sets
209:Lowercase sigmabot III
28:This article is rated
1038:
853:
770:
681:
544:
1114:which is IV-finite.
893:
779:
690:
583:
488:
121:mathematics articles
1033:
848:
765:
676:
539:
348:Alan U. Kennington
302:Alan U. Kennington
90:Mathematics portal
34:content assessment
216:
215:
155:
154:
151:
150:
147:
146:
1171:
1048:
1042:
1040:
1039:
1034:
942:
887:
857:
855:
854:
849:
774:
772:
771:
766:
761:
760:
742:
741:
729:
728:
685:
683:
682:
677:
672:
671:
653:
652:
640:
639:
548:
546:
545:
540:
211:
195:
167:
159:
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1179:
1178:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1149:
1148:
1132:
1112:Dedekind finite
1058:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1045:cardinal number
891:
890:
888:
884:
777:
776:
752:
733:
720:
688:
687:
663:
644:
631:
581:
580:
486:
485:
459:is IV-infinite.
397:Dedekind finite
393:axiom of choice
342:Tawny frogmouth
221:
207:
196:
190:
172:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
88:
81:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
1177:
1175:
1167:
1166:
1161:
1151:
1150:
1131:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1108:
1097:
1075:
1074:
1071:
1065:
1063:
1061:
1057:
1054:
1050:
1049:
1032:
1029:
1026:
1023:
1020:
1017:
1014:
1011:
1008:
1005:
1002:
999:
996:
993:
990:
987:
984:
981:
978:
975:
972:
969:
966:
963:
960:
957:
954:
951:
948:
945:
941:
938:
935:
932:
929:
926:
922:
919:
916:
913:
910:
907:
904:
901:
898:
881:
880:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
847:
844:
841:
838:
835:
832:
829:
826:
823:
820:
817:
814:
811:
808:
805:
802:
799:
796:
793:
790:
787:
784:
764:
759:
755:
751:
748:
745:
740:
736:
732:
727:
723:
719:
716:
713:
710:
707:
704:
701:
698:
695:
675:
670:
666:
662:
659:
656:
651:
647:
643:
638:
634:
630:
627:
624:
621:
618:
615:
612:
609:
606:
603:
600:
597:
594:
591:
588:
538:
535:
532:
529:
526:
523:
520:
517:
514:
511:
508:
505:
502:
499:
496:
493:
477:
476:
475:
474:
462:
461:
460:
449:
437:
426:
415:
345:
328:
327:
299:
281:
280:
279:} is I-finite.
220:
217:
214:
213:
201:
198:
197:
192:
188:
186:
183:
182:
174:
173:
168:
162:
153:
152:
149:
148:
145:
144:
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1176:
1165:
1162:
1160:
1157:
1156:
1154:
1147:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1095:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1072:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1055:
1046:
1021:
1015:
1012:
1006:
1000:
994:
991:
988:
979:
976:
973:
970:
967:
958:
955:
952:
946:
914:
902:
886:
883:
879:
867:
864:
861:
845:
836:
830:
827:
821:
815:
809:
806:
803:
794:
791:
788:
757:
753:
749:
746:
743:
738:
734:
730:
725:
721:
717:
711:
705:
702:
699:
693:
668:
664:
660:
657:
654:
649:
645:
641:
636:
632:
628:
625:
622:
619:
613:
607:
604:
592:
578:
574:
573:
572:
568:
564:
560:
556:
552:
533:
530:
527:
524:
521:
518:
515:
509:
503:
497:
491:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
473:
470:
467:
463:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
438:
435:
431:
427:
424:
420:
416:
413:
409:
405:
404:
402:
399:(IV-finite) "
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
378:
377:
376:
372:
368:
364:
360:
359:
358:
357:
353:
349:
343:
337:
334:
326:
322:
318:
314:
313:
312:
311:
307:
303:
295:
294:
290:
286:
278:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
231:
230:
229:
225:
218:
210:
205:
200:
199:
185:
184:
181:
180:
176:
175:
171:
166:
161:
160:
157:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
85:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1133:
1099:I-finite at
1076:
1059:
885:
877:
860:Arthur Rubin
775:) such that
576:
558:
554:
550:
549:work, since
466:Arthur Rubin
456:
452:
444:
440:
433:
429:
422:
418:
411:
407:
388:
380:
338:
332:
329:
296:
282:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
259:such that {
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
226:
222:
203:
177:
169:
156:
137:Mid-priority
136:
96:
62:Mid‑priority
40:WikiProjects
112:Mathematics
103:mathematics
59:Mathematics
1153:Categories
1137:JoelDavid
1116:JRSpriggs
563:JRSpriggs
401:cardinals
367:JRSpriggs
317:JRSpriggs
285:JRSpriggs
204:365 days
170:Archives
1079:AndreRD
387:, as I
139:on the
30:C-class
1096:above.
863:(talk)
469:(talk)
451:A set
439:A set
428:A set
417:A set
406:A set
385:WP:SPS
36:scale.
878:Notes
448:text.
333:claim
243:from
1141:talk
1120:talk
1092:See
1083:talk
567:talk
561:) ?
371:talk
352:talk
321:talk
306:talk
289:talk
275:) =
557:→P(
247:to
131:Mid
1155::
1143:)
1122:)
1085:)
998:↔
992:≈
977:∈
965:∀
959:∧
912:∃
900:∀
858:—
813:↔
807:≈
786:∀
747:…
694:φ
658:…
614:φ
602:∃
590:∀
569:)
531:≈
525:∧
519:∈
389:am
381:my
373:)
354:)
346:--
323:)
308:)
300:--
291:)
267:|
1139:(
1118:(
1081:(
1031:)
1028:)
1025:)
1022:y
1019:(
1016:F
1013:=
1010:)
1007:x
1004:(
1001:F
995:y
989:x
986:(
983:)
980:X
974:y
971:,
968:x
962:(
956:X
953:=
950:)
947:F
944:(
940:n
937:i
934:a
931:m
928:o
925:D
921:(
918:)
915:F
909:(
906:)
903:X
897:(
846:.
843:)
840:)
837:y
834:(
831:F
828:=
825:)
822:x
819:(
816:F
810:y
804:x
801:(
798:)
795:y
792:,
789:x
783:(
763:)
758:n
754:p
750:,
744:,
739:2
735:p
731:,
726:1
722:p
718:,
715:)
712:x
709:(
706:F
703:,
700:x
697:(
674:)
669:n
665:p
661:,
655:,
650:2
646:p
642:,
637:1
633:p
629:,
626:y
623:,
620:x
617:(
611:)
608:y
605:!
599:(
596:)
593:x
587:(
577:F
565:(
559:X
555:X
553::
551:F
537:}
534:x
528:y
522:X
516:y
513:|
510:y
507:{
504:=
501:)
498:x
495:(
492:F
457:S
453:S
445:S
441:S
434:S
430:S
423:S
419:S
412:S
408:S
369:(
350:(
319:(
304:(
287:(
277:a
273:x
271:(
269:f
265:S
263:∈
261:x
257:A
255:∈
253:a
249:A
245:S
241:f
237:A
233:S
179:1
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
