2019-03-08 20:22:11 8 Comments

I sometimes see references to the "Axiom of Well-Ordered Choice," but I'm not sure how strong it is. It states that every well-ordered family of sets has a choice function.

By "well-ordered family," I don't mean that the sets within the family are well-ordered, but that the family must index all the sets within the family by some ordinal.

How strong is this axiom? Can it prove the Hahn-Banach theorem, the ultrafilter lemma, anything about measurable sets, etc? Does it have any implications about what sets can be well-ordered (the reals for instance), or perhaps prove anything about the Hartogs number of sets, etc?

Does anyone have a reference for this?

### Related Questions

#### Sponsored Content

#### 1 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] How strong are weak choice principles?

**2018-11-16 18:04:00****eyeballfrog****80**View**1**Score**1**Answer- Tags: set-theory axiom-of-choice

#### 0 Answered Questions

### the power set of every well-ordered set is well-ordered implies well ordering

**2018-07-27 13:26:55****KamyarM****47**View**1**Score**0**Answer- Tags: axiom-of-choice well-orders

#### 2 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] Well-orderings of $\mathbb R$ without Choice

**2016-06-10 04:00:20****user4894****260**View**2**Score**2**Answer- Tags: set-theory cardinals real-numbers ordinals well-orders

#### 2 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] Axiom of Choice is equivalent to Well-ordering Theorem: Hrbacek, Jech - "Introduction to Set Theory"

**2017-06-24 04:17:42****Jxt921****452**View**2**Score**2**Answer- Tags: set-theory proof-explanation axiom-of-choice well-orders

#### 0 Answered Questions

### Axiom of choice and the well ordering principle

**2017-01-04 17:56:30****B. Drennan****296**View**1**Score**0**Answer- Tags: set-theory axiom-of-choice ordinals well-orders

#### 1 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] The class of well-founded sets satisfies the axiom of foundation and the axiom of choice

**2017-02-08 02:35:46****Jacob Errington****147**View**1**Score**1**Answer- Tags: set-theory axiom-of-choice

#### 2 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] "There is no well-ordered uncountable set of real numbers"

**2016-10-24 20:25:22****Burnsba****2300**View**10**Score**2**Answer- Tags: set-theory order-theory well-orders

#### 2 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] No uncountable ordinals without the axiom of choice?

**2011-05-11 14:37:05****Asaf Karagila****1217**View**11**Score**2**Answer- Tags: set-theory axiom-of-choice

#### 2 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] Which sets are well-orderable without Axiom of Choice?

**2014-02-01 07:21:58****Ervin****566**View**7**Score**2**Answer- Tags: set-theory axiom-of-choice

#### 1 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] Axiom of choice , Hartogs ordinals, well-ordering principle

**2013-03-17 12:44:03****Matías****210**View**1**Score**1**Answer- Tags: set-theory cardinals axiom-of-choice

## 1 comments

## @Asaf Karagila 2019-03-08 22:15:19

The axiom of well-ordered choice, or $\sf AC_{\rm WO}$, is strictly weaker than the axiom of choice itself. If we start with $L$ and add $\omega_1$ Cohen reals, then go to $L(\Bbb R)$, one can show that $\sf AC_{\rm WO}$ holds, while $\Bbb R$ cannot be well-ordered there.

Pincus proved in the 1970s that this is equivalent to the following statement on Hartogs and Lindenbaum numbers:

Here, the Lindenbaum number, $\aleph^*(x)$, is the least ordinal which $x$ cannot be mapped onto. One obvious fact is that $\aleph(x)\leq\aleph^*(x)$.

In the late 1950s or early 1960s Jensen proved that this assumption also implies $\sf DC$. This is also a very clever proof.

The conjunction of these two consequences gives us that $\aleph_1\leq 2^{\aleph_0}$, as a result of a theorem of Shelah from the 1980s, this implies there is a non-measurable set of reals.

As far as Hahnâ€“Banach, or other things of that sort, I do not believe that much is known on the topic. But to sum up, this axiom does not imply that the reals are well-ordered, but it does imply there is a non-measurable set of reals because there is a set of reals of size $\aleph_1$ and $\sf DC$ holds. Moreover, it is equivalent to saying that the Hartogs and Lindenbaum numbers are equal for all sets.

## @Holo 2019-03-08 23:14:33

Do you have a source for a proof of ${\sf AC_{\rm WO}}\iff \forall x(\aleph(x)=\aleph^*(x))$?

## @Asaf Karagila 2019-03-08 23:26:42

@Holo karagila.org/2014/on-the-partition-principle

## @Asaf Karagila 2019-03-09 08:52:57

(The proof there assumes PP, but really you only use that for maps onto ordinals, which is the same as saying $\aleph=\aleph^*$.)

## @Holo 2019-03-09 16:43:14

thank you very much!