How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Countable unions of at most countable sets, assuming
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Countable Choice (The Axiom of Countable Choice ()). Let be a family of at most countable sets (Finite, countably infinite, countable, uncountable) indexed by . Then
is at most countable.
The role of . It is spent at exactly one step, step 3.1 below, where a surjection is selected simultaneously for each nonempty . The individual countability hypotheses assert that these sets of surjections are nonempty; they specify no simultaneous selection.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A family of at most countable sets, its union , and the Axiom of Countable Choice as an explicit hypothesis.
Finite, countably infinite, at most countable; is finite (Finite, countably infinite, countable, uncountable).
A nonempty set is at most countable if and only if there is a surjection (A nonempty set is at most countable iff it is a surjective image of ).
: for every family of nonempty sets there is with for all (The Axiom of Countable Choice ()).
There is a bijection (, Equinumerous sets, and ).
Every nonempty subset of has a least element (The well-ordering principle).
A composition of surjections is a surjection (Injection, surjection, bijection).
Proof
If then is finite, hence at most countable.
Assume instead ; then is nonempty, so it has a least element by [L5].
Fix the bijection of [L4].
For let be the set of all surjections , which is nonempty by [L2] since is nonempty and at most countable; for put , also nonempty. This makes a family of nonempty sets indexed by , defined with no choices.
This is the step that uses choice. Apply [L3] to the family of step 2.1: it delivers a function with for every , that is, one surjection selected simultaneously for every . Nothing in the hypotheses names a particular surjection onto , so this selection cannot be replaced by a definition; it is exactly here, and nowhere else in the proof, that the theorem leaves ZF.
Define by ; the value lies in for and in otherwise, so is well defined. It is surjective: any lies in some , which is then nonempty, so and for some because is onto .
Hence is a surjection by [L6], and , so is at most countable by [L2].
In both cases is at most countable, which is the assertion.
Remarks
Conditionally on , ZF alone does not prove the unrestricted countable-union assertion. The later Relative consistency of the Feferman–Levy choice failures over ZF supplies a local finite-fragment proof of the relative consistency of ZF with the reals a countable union of countable sets. Combined with the choice-free uncountability theorem is uncountable (Cantor's nested intervals, 1874), this gives the indicated nonprovability: if ZF proved the union assertion, that consistent extension would prove that the reals are both at most countable and uncountable. These are later metatheoretic orientation references, not hypotheses of the union proof below; the consistency assumption is retained.
-
An at most countable index set is no more general. If is at most countable and are at most countable, then either is empty, and the union is , or a surjection exists (A nonempty set is at most countable iff it is a surjective image of ) and , which the theorem covers. That reindexing uses no choice.
-
The two-set union needs no choice at all, and neither does any union of finitely many sets: with and both at most countable and nonempty, fix surjections (two choices made one after the other, which is ordinary existential instantiation, not a choice principle) and put and for , a surjection . This is the form used in The irrationals are uncountable, and keeping it separate from the countable case is the whole point of flagging step 3.1.
-
The proof isolates its exact use of at step 3.1. It does not infer from that proof cost that the hypothesis is necessary; proving such a lower bound belongs to the later symmetric-model development.
Depends on
- The Axiom of Countable Choice ($\mathrm{AC}_\omega$)
- $\mathbb{N} \times \mathbb{N} \approx \mathbb{N}$
- A nonempty set is at most countable iff it is a surjective image of $\mathbb{N}$
- Finite, countably infinite, countable, uncountable
- The well-ordering principle
- Injection, surjection, bijection
- Equinumerous sets, $A \approx B$ and $A \preceq B$
- $\mathbb{R}$ is uncountable (Cantor's nested intervals, 1874)
Used by
- c₀ is not isomorphic to a dual space Corollary
- Countable choice makes omega-one regular Corollary
- Spectrum of a compact operator is countable with only zero as possible accumulation Corollary
- Standard borel spaces have countable generating and measure determining algebras Corollary
- The indexed delta-system lemma Corollary
- The Solovay model has no Vitali or Bernstein set Corollary
- A closed subspace of ell-infinity that is not complemented Counterexample
- A set can have measurable horizontal and vertical sections and still fail to be product-measurable Counterexample
- An infinite-dimensional Gaussian has no locally finite translation-invariant density reference Counterexample
- An uncountable class can have a nonmeasurable empirical supremum Counterexample
- Infinite-dimensional Gaussian random-walk reverse flow is singular Counterexample
- The zero-countable / infinity-cocountable measure space breaks the p=1 endpoint of duality Counterexample
- Weakly measurable need not be strongly measurable Counterexample
- Mackey Borel structure and countable separation of the unitary dual Definition
- Small Dowker ladder topology Definition
- The discrete, indiscrete, cofinite, cocountable, particular-point and Sierpinski topologies Definition
- The suspension foliation of a representation of the fundamental group Definition
- A specialization generic kills a tree Example
- Assuming countable choice, counting measure is sigma-finite exactly on countable sets Example
- Assuming countable choice, the countable-cocountable family is a sigma-algebra Example
- Assuming countable choice, zero on countable sets and infinity on cocountable sets is a non-semifinite measure Example
- Assuming the Ultrafilter Lemma and Countable Choice, an uncountable Cantor cube is compact Hausdorff and uniformizable but not first countable, hence not metrizable Example
- Cofinality strata and stationary costationary sets Example
- Diamond sealing a maximal antichain in L Example
- Integral operator trace under a valid diagonal hypothesis Example
- Normal functions and fixed points at omega-one Example
- ℝ and ℚ are σ-compact, and Lindelöf assuming countable choice; ℝ is locally compact and ℚ is nowhere locally compact Example
- Sealing a named maximal antichain Example
- The cocountable topology on ℝ is T₁, has unique sequential limits, and is neither Hausdorff nor regular nor normal Example
- Where countable-union proofs spend choice Example
- Ccc and proper are not equivalent False statement
- FALSE: a measure on an infinite set that vanishes on every singleton is the zero measure False statement
- FALSE: a space in which every sequence has at most one limit is Hausdorff False statement
- False: an ergodic invariant sigma-algebra has only two sets False statement
- FALSE: every Baire space is completely metrizable False statement
- FALSE: if every horizontal and vertical section is measurable, then the set is product-measurable False statement
- FALSE: the compact-open topology on C(X,Y) is metrizable for every metric X and Y False statement
- A compact metric space has a countable dense subset, by countable choice Lemma
- A countable dense family of continuous functions on a compact metric space Lemma
- A countable generator of a sigma-algebra yields a countable algebra of sets Lemma
…and 67 more results.
Dependency tree · two levels
48 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- D. H. Fremlin, Measure Theory, Chapter 56 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Axiom of countable choice (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)
- Countable set (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)