1

So this a fundamental assumption in mathematics. Can someone explain informally what it actually is please.

My guess is that its when we say in proofs that "Let $x \in X$". But I am not sure.

snowman
  • 3,733
  • 8
  • 42
  • 73
  • 2
    The body of a Question should be as self-contained as possible, not relying on the title to pose the essential problem. Please review [ask]. – hardmath Feb 03 '16 at 21:53

3 Answers3

4

For the deepest results about partially ordered sets we need a new set-theoretic tool; ... We begin by observing that a set is either empty or it is not, and if it is not, then, by the definition of the empty set, there is an element in it. This remark can be generalized. If $X$ and $Y$ are sets, and if one of them is empty, then the Cartesian product $X\times Y$ is empty. If neither $X$ nor $Y$ is empty, then there is an element $x$ in $X$, and there is an element $y$ in $Y$; it follows that the ordered pair $(x,y)$ belongs to the Cartesian product $X\times Y$, so that $X\times Y$ is not empty. The preceding remarks constitute the cases $n=1$ and $n=2$ of the following assertion: if $\{ X_i\}$ is a finite sequence of sets, for $i$ in $n$, say, then a necessary and sufficient condition that their Cartesian product be empty is that at least one of them be empty. The assertion is easy to prove by induction on $n$. .... The generalization to infinite families of the non-trivial part of the assertion in the preceding paragraph (necessity) is the following important principle of set theory.

Axiom of choice: The Cartesian product of a non-empty family of non-empty sets is non-empty.

Paul Halmos Naive Set Theory page 59.

user153330
  • 1,726
  • why downvotes? ${}$ – user153330 Feb 03 '16 at 21:36
  • 1
    I didn't downvote you, but I'm guessing it's because the OP asked for an "informal" explanation. – Gregory Grant Feb 03 '16 at 21:37
  • I didn't downvote – snowman Feb 03 '16 at 21:37
  • 2
    I'd like to register my opinion here. Unless a post is clearly vandalism or abusive then I think it's rude to downvote it without a constructive explanation. – Gregory Grant Feb 03 '16 at 21:39
  • @snowman do you want me to give you the entire motivation halmos gives so that the "informal" side of the axiom of choice becomes clear to you? – user153330 Feb 03 '16 at 21:41
  • @user153330 I upvoted you to balance out the troll who's doing the down-voting. Perhaps you can do me the same favor? – Gregory Grant Feb 03 '16 at 21:49
  • @user153330 I downvoted because this question is a duplicate. Looking at the rules more closely, it looks like it's ok to let people answer a duplicate as long as the question gets flagged for attention; I've reversed the downvote. Sorry about that. – DylanSp Feb 03 '16 at 21:49
  • @DylanSp Thanks for letting us know. Fair enough. But it seems at most you should downvote the question - it seems unfair to downvote people just for answering. – Gregory Grant Feb 03 '16 at 21:51
  • @GregoryGrant i always thought that this was the simplest (and even most informal but rigorous) explanation of the axiom of choice. – user153330 Feb 03 '16 at 21:51
  • @DylanSp no problem, thx – user153330 Feb 03 '16 at 21:52
  • I downvoted you because your original answer was a cut-and-paste of the statement of the axiom of choice that added no insight into the nature of the axiom and didn't include any original thought. – Sean English Feb 03 '16 at 23:41
  • @SeanEnglish and now? – user153330 Feb 03 '16 at 23:56
  • @user153330 While the answer you provided does give more of an intuitive understanding, it is still not your answer. You did not work at the answer at all and should not get credit for it. More so, I would hate to have MSE be a place where all the answers are just copied sections from different textbooks as that is not the intent of the website. Quotations from texts can be nice when you are expanding on them or when they expand on what you said, but unless YOU do sone actual explaining, my downvote stands. – Sean English Feb 04 '16 at 00:55
  • @SeanEnglish some answers are complete copy paste from books but yet they received popular reputations example right here https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1496375/clearing-gap-in-munkres/1496392#1496392 or some answers of bill dubuque + while i'm not the one who did the effort for making that exact explanation, i'm the one who found it and took care to write it here, that's not so trivial and giving me minus credit is at the least offensive – user153330 Feb 04 '16 at 14:45
  • @user153330 what is offensive is that you will not allow me to have a differing opinion on the quality of your answer. Just because other people have upvoted similar answers doesn't mean I can't downvote yours. We are entitiled to our own opinions and I personally do not like answers that are not original to the answerer. It isn't like I am upvoting other cut-and-paste answers and only downvoting yours. So, I would appreciate it if you respect my opinion rather than getting offended about a difference of opinions. – Sean English Feb 04 '16 at 15:47
  • @SeanEnglish haha sorry, offensive was a wrong word, i had to use another word sorry again – user153330 Feb 04 '16 at 19:21
0

Suppose you have a set $X$ (which may be infinite which is when things get exciting) and another set $Y$. Suppose that for each $x\in X$ you associate a non-empty subset $Y_x$ of $Y$, then there is a function $f:X\to Y$ such that $f(x)\in Y_x$. This seemingly intuitive "fact" (and in fact, trivial for finite $X$) is the Axiom of Choice. To be specific, the existence of $f$ is what the Axiom tells you. $f$ is a function that for each $x$ "chooses" in $f(x)\in Y_x$.

Oskar Limka
  • 1,292
  • Ok, not very informal... think of having an infinite stall, with infinite amount of boxes, in each box there is a kind of fruit different from all the other boxes (and there are infinite kind of fruits). You can "choose" a shopping basket that has exactly one fruit per kind, and all kinds are accounted for. – Oskar Limka Feb 03 '16 at 21:43
0

Informally the axiom of choice says if you have a bunch of sets (possibly infinitely many) then you can choose one element from each set and build a new set out of them.

That you can do such a thing sounds at first incredibly intuitive and obvious. But over time mathematicians have realized that it is exactly that assumption that leads to a bunch of really disturbing results. Therefore some people have concluded that we shouldn't allow that assumption. However if you don't there are also a bunch of basic things that become much harder if not impossible to prove.

It's an ongoing debate with no end in sight.

Gregory Grant
  • 14,874
  • so does this mean that you can just keep making sets after making new sets? So you can make infinite amount of sets? – snowman Feb 03 '16 at 21:47
  • Well sure you can always make an infinite amount of sets. But the AOC is saying something a bit more specific, it's saying from any collection of sets you can make a new set that has one element from each of them. It's that specific operation of choosing one element from each set that is involved in the AOC. – Gregory Grant Feb 03 '16 at 21:54