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.
Tarski: the Axiom of Choice is equivalent to the statement that for every infinite set , so extending Hessenberg's theorem from the alephs to arbitrary sets is exactly as strong as choice
Statement
Over ZF the following two statements are equivalent.
(1) The Axiom of Choice (The Axiom of Choice).
(2) Tarski's square law. (Equinumerous sets, and ) for every infinite set , that is, for every that is not equinumerous with a natural number (Finite, countably infinite, countable, uncountable).
Hessenberg: for every infinite cardinal , proved in ZF from the canonical well-order of proves the same equation for every infinite cardinal, without any choice principle. This theorem says that the gap between "every infinite cardinal" and "every infinite set" is precisely the Axiom of Choice: the square law for arbitrary sets is not a mild strengthening of Hessenberg's theorem, it is choice itself.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: ZF. Neither statement is assumed; the theorem asserts their equivalence. For a set and an ordinal write , and inside it write for and for ; these tagged copies are disjoint and , are injective.
, that is , for every infinite cardinal , in ZF (Hessenberg: for every infinite cardinal , proved in ZF from the canonical well-order of , Cardinal sum , product and exponentiation , and why they are written apart from the ordinal operations).
For every set the Hartogs number is an ordinal admitting no injection into (Hartogs: an ordinal that does not inject into a given set), and it is a cardinal (For every set the Hartogs number is a cardinal, and for every cardinal it is the least cardinal strictly above ; this is a theorem of ZF, Cardinal (initial ordinal) and cardinality).
Over ZF the Axiom of Choice is equivalent to the well-ordering theorem (Choice, Zorn and well-ordering are equivalent, Well-order and well-ordered set); and assuming the Axiom of Choice every set carries a well-order (The well-ordering theorem).
For a well-orderable : , the value is a cardinal, equinumerous sets receive the same one (A set equinumerous with some ordinal has a least such ordinal, that ordinal is a cardinal, and equinumerous sets get the same one; no choice principle is used); a cardinal is finite when and infinite when , that is (Cardinal sum , product and exponentiation , and why they are written apart from the ordinal operations).
respects (Disjoint union, cartesian product, function space and power set respect equinumerosity, and for ordinals the sets and carry explicit well-orders, so their cardinalities exist in ZF); and for cardinals iff (Commutativity, associativity, distributivity and monotonicity of and , the unit laws, the two exponent laws, and if and only if injects into ).
Ordinals: elements of ordinals are ordinals, trichotomy holds, iff or , and every nonempty set of ordinals has an -least element (Basic closure properties of ordinals, Trichotomy and well-ordering of the ordinals, Ordinal (von Neumann)).
There is no injection for (claim 1 of The pigeonhole principle on ); a set is finite when it is equinumerous with a natural number (Finite, countably infinite, countable, uncountable, The cardinality of a finite set).
Induction on (The principle of mathematical induction); a composition of injections is an injection and the inverse of a bijection is a bijection (Injection, surjection, bijection).
Proof
If is infinite then every injects into : by induction along [L8] on the statement "there exists an injection ", the empty function serving at , and an injection never being surjective, since would make finite, so that some exists and injects into ; the statement carried through the induction is an existence statement, so no family of injections is selected.
Assume (1) and let be infinite; then is well-orderable by [L3], is a cardinal with by [L4], and is infinite, since would make finite; so by [L5], [L1] and [L4], which is (2).
Assume (2) from here on, let be infinite and put ; then is a cardinal by [L2], and , because would make a natural number, which injects into by step 1.1 and contradicts [L2]; so is an infinite cardinal.
The set is infinite: injects , hence also , into by step 2.1, so for some would inject into , which [L7] forbids; therefore (2) applies to and we may fix a bijection .
Then is well-orderable. Exactly one of two situations holds. If some has for every , then sending to the unique with is an injection , which [L2] forbids. Otherwise every admits some with ; let be the -least such , which is determined and not chosen by [L6], and let be given by . The map is then an injection , since gives and hence by injectivity of ; composing with a bijection from step 2.1 and [L1] injects into , and transporting the ordinal well-order of back along that injection well-orders , a nonempty subset of receiving the preimage of the -least element of its image.
A finite is well-orderable outright, being equinumerous with a natural number by [L7], so under (2) every set can be well ordered by step 4.1, and (1) follows by [L3]; with step 1.2 the two statements are equivalent over ZF.
Remarks
Where a choice would have crept in, and why it does not. The tempting move in step 4.1 is "for each choose some with ", which is a genuine use of choice over the index set . It is avoided because is an ordinal: the set of admissible is a nonempty set of ordinals and has a least element, so is a definable function of . That is the same device that keeps Hartogs: an ordinal that does not inject into a given set choice free, and it is the reason the Hartogs number rather than some arbitrary large set is the right object to adjoin to .
Why is enlarged to . The hypothesis (2) is applied to , not to , because the argument needs the bijection to be able to send a pair with one coordinate in into the ordinal part. If were not present inside , the second situation of step 4.1 could not arise and nothing would be gained.
What the equivalence does and does not settle. It gives, over ZF, an exact measure of the square law: it is neither weaker nor stronger than the Axiom of Choice. It does not say whether ZF alone refutes the square law, and this page asserts nothing of that kind. The choice ledger at the end of the page records which results here are theorems of ZF and which carry a choice hypothesis.
Depends on
- Hessenberg: $\kappa \otimes \kappa = \kappa$ for every infinite cardinal $\kappa$, proved in ZF from the canonical well-order of $\kappa \times \kappa$
- Hartogs: an ordinal that does not inject into a given set
- For every set $A$ the Hartogs number $\aleph(A)$ is a cardinal, and for every cardinal $\kappa$ it is the least cardinal strictly above $\kappa$; this is a theorem of ZF
- Choice, Zorn and well-ordering are equivalent
- The well-ordering theorem
- The Axiom of Choice
- Equinumerous sets, $A \approx B$ and $A \preceq B$
- Injection, surjection, bijection
- Cardinal (initial ordinal) and cardinality
- A set equinumerous with some ordinal has a least such ordinal, that ordinal is a cardinal, and equinumerous sets get the same one; no choice principle is used
- Disjoint union, cartesian product, function space and power set respect equinumerosity, and for ordinals $\alpha, \beta$ the sets $\alpha \sqcup \beta$ and $\alpha \times \beta$ carry explicit well-orders, so their cardinalities exist in ZF
- Commutativity, associativity, distributivity and monotonicity of $\oplus$ and $\otimes$, the unit laws, the two exponent laws, and $\kappa \le \lambda$ if and only if $\kappa$ injects into $\lambda$
- Cardinal sum $\kappa \oplus \lambda$, product $\kappa \otimes \lambda$ and exponentiation $\kappa^{\lambda}$, and why they are written apart from the ordinal operations
- Every natural number and $\omega$ are cardinals, every infinite cardinal is a limit ordinal, and on the natural numbers the cardinal operations are the published finite counting operations, with $\lvert A \rvert$ in the finite sense equal to $\lvert A \rvert$ in the cardinal sense
- Ordinal (von Neumann)
- Basic closure properties of ordinals
- Trichotomy and well-ordering of the ordinals
- Well-order and well-ordered set
- Finite, countably infinite, countable, uncountable
- The cardinality $\lvert A\rvert$ of a finite set
- The pigeonhole principle on $\mathbb{N}$
- The principle of mathematical induction
Used by
Dependency tree · next 3 levels
Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 116 results over 33 levels. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, and this result sits at the bottom with a heavier outline. Click the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- A. Tarski, Sur quelques théorèmes qui équivalent à l'axiome du choix (1924) (standard reference, not scraped)
- Tarski's theorem about choice (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)
- Hartogs number (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)