Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedSession-authored (Fable 5 assisted)precheck passverified 2026-08-05 (gpt-5.6-sol-codex-subscription) rests on unproved material (inherited)
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.

Rests on 3 statements not proved in this library, by way of the results it cites. This item cites no such statement directly; it depends on results that do. The unproved premises it inherits are Cohen's first model: an infinite Dedekind-finite set of reals, Sierpiński 1947: the generalised continuum hypothesis implies the Axiom of Choice and The continuum hypothesis and its generalisation are independent of ZFC. Each is recorded with a citation to the literature and is not established here, because the track that would prove it has not yet been developed in this library. Everything else in this proof is proved here.

Tarski: the Axiom of Choice is equivalent to the statement that A×AAA \times A \approx A for every infinite set AA, 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. A×AAA \times A \approx A (Equinumerous sets, ABA \approx B and ABA \preceq B) for every infinite set AA, that is, for every AA that is not equinumerous with a natural number (Finite, countably infinite, countable, uncountable).

Hessenberg: κκ=κ\kappa \otimes \kappa = \kappa for every infinite cardinal κ\kappa, proved in ZF from the canonical well-order of κ×κ\kappa \times \kappa 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 AA and an ordinal κ\kappa write Aκ=({0}×A)({1}×κ)A \sqcup \kappa = (\{0\} \times A) \cup (\{1\} \times \kappa), and inside it write a=(0,a)a' = (0,a) for aAa \in A and ξ=(1,ξ)\xi' = (1,\xi) for ξκ\xi \in \kappa; these tagged copies are disjoint and aaa \mapsto a', ξξ\xi \mapsto \xi' are injective.

[L3]

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).

[L4]

For a well-orderable XX: XXX \approx \lvert X \rvert, 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 κ\kappa is finite when κω\kappa \in \omega and infinite when ωκ\omega \subseteq \kappa, that is ωκ\omega \le \kappa (Cardinal sum κλ\kappa \oplus \lambda, product κλ\kappa \otimes \lambda and exponentiation κλ\kappa^{\lambda}, and why they are written apart from the ordinal operations).

[L6]

Ordinals: elements of ordinals are ordinals, trichotomy holds, αβ\alpha \subseteq \beta iff αβ\alpha \in \beta or α=β\alpha = \beta, and every nonempty set of ordinals has an \in-least element (Basic closure properties of ordinals, Trichotomy and well-ordering of the ordinals, Ordinal (von Neumann)).

[L7]

There is no injection n{n}nn \cup \{n\} \to n for nωn \in \omega (claim 1 of The pigeonhole principle on N\mathbb{N}); a set is finite when it is equinumerous with a natural number (Finite, countably infinite, countable, uncountable, The cardinality A\lvert A\rvert of a finite set).

[L8]

Induction on N\mathbb{N} (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

technique · direct
1.1

If AA is infinite then every nωn \in \omega injects into AA: by induction along [L8] on the statement "there exists an injection nAn \to A", the empty function serving at n=0n = 0, and an injection f:nAf : n \to A never being surjective, since AnA \approx n would make AA finite, so that some aAf[n]a \in A \setminus f[n] exists and f{(n,a)}f \cup \{(n,a)\} injects n{n}n \cup \{n\} into AA; the statement carried through the induction is an existence statement, so no family of injections is selected.

L7L8
1.2

Assume (1) and let AA be infinite; then AA is well-orderable by [L3], κ=A\kappa = \lvert A \rvert is a cardinal with AκA \approx \kappa by [L4], and κ\kappa is infinite, since κω\kappa \in \omega would make AA finite; so A×Aκ×κκAA \times A \approx \kappa \times \kappa \approx \kappa \approx A by [L5], [L1] and [L4], which is (2).

L1L3L4L5L7
2.1

Assume (2) from here on, let AA be infinite and put κ=(A)\kappa = \aleph(A); then κ\kappa is a cardinal by [L2], and ωκ\omega \le \kappa, because κω\kappa \in \omega would make κ\kappa a natural number, which injects into AA by step 1.1 and contradicts [L2]; so κ\kappa is an infinite cardinal.

step 1.1L2L4L6
3.1

The set B=AκB = A \sqcup \kappa is infinite: ξξ\xi \mapsto \xi' injects κ\kappa, hence also ωκ\omega \subseteq \kappa, into BB by step 2.1, so BnB \approx n for some nωn \in \omega would inject n{n}ωn \cup \{n\} \subseteq \omega into nn, which [L7] forbids; therefore (2) applies to BB and we may fix a bijection f:B×BBf : B \times B \to B.

step 2.1L6L7L8
4.1

Then AA is well-orderable. Exactly one of two situations holds. If some aAa \in A has f(a,ξ){b:bA}f(a', \xi') \in \{b' : b \in A\} for every ξκ\xi \in \kappa, then sending ξ\xi to the unique bAb \in A with f(a,ξ)=bf(a',\xi') = b' is an injection κA\kappa \to A, which [L2] forbids. Otherwise every aAa \in A admits some ξκ\xi \in \kappa with f(a,ξ){η:ηκ}f(a',\xi') \in \{\eta' : \eta \in \kappa\}; let ξa\xi_a be the \in-least such ξ\xi, which is determined and not chosen by [L6], and let ηaκ\eta_a \in \kappa be given by f(a,ξa)=ηaf(a', \xi_a') = \eta_a'. The map a(ξa,ηa)a \mapsto (\xi_a, \eta_a) is then an injection Aκ×κA \to \kappa \times \kappa, since (ξa,ηa)=(ξb,ηb)(\xi_a,\eta_a) = (\xi_b,\eta_b) gives f(a,ξa)=f(b,ξb)f(a',\xi_a') = f(b',\xi_b') and hence a=ba' = b' by injectivity of ff; composing with a bijection κ×κκ\kappa \times \kappa \to \kappa from step 2.1 and [L1] injects AA into κ\kappa, and transporting the ordinal well-order of κ\kappa back along that injection well-orders AA, a nonempty subset of AA receiving the preimage of the \in-least element of its image.

step 2.1step 3.1L1L2L6L8
5.1

A finite AA 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.

step 1.2step 4.1L3L7

Remarks

Where a choice would have crept in, and why it does not. The tempting move in step 4.1 is "for each aAa \in A choose some ξ\xi with f(a,ξ)κf(a',\xi') \in \kappa", which is a genuine use of choice over the index set AA. It is avoided because κ\kappa is an ordinal: the set of admissible ξ\xi is a nonempty set of ordinals and has a least element, so ξa\xi_a is a definable function of aa. 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 AA.

Why AA is enlarged to A(A)A \sqcup \aleph(A). The hypothesis (2) is applied to BB, not to AA, because the argument needs the bijection ff to be able to send a pair with one coordinate in AA into the ordinal part. If κ\kappa were not present inside BB, 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

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