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.
Every natural-number-indexed list of nonempty sets has a choice function on its family of values
Statement
Let and let be a function with domain all of whose values are nonempty sets. Then the family of its values, , has a choice function (Choice function).
This is a theorem of ZF: its proof uses no form of the Axiom of Choice (The Axiom of Choice).
What is proved below is exactly the displayed statement, by induction on . The natural number serves as the index set in the von Neumann sense, (The natural numbers (von Neumann)), so " has domain " says precisely that the members of are listed as . The listing need not be injective, and is the set of values, so repetitions are harmless and are not counted.
The displayed statement and its proof use only a natural-number-indexed function. They do not identify an arbitrary finite family with a particular enumeration.
Statement references
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A natural number , used as the index set , and a function with domain such that for every ; write for the family of values of .
denotes the statement: for every function with domain all of whose values are nonempty sets, the family has a choice function.
Induction principle: if holds and implies for every , then holds for every , where denotes the successor (The principle of mathematical induction, Addition of natural numbers).
A choice function for a family is a function with domain such that for every (Choice function).
and , so (The natural numbers (von Neumann)). Thus a function with domain restricts to a function with domain ; moreover, directly from the definition of image, iff for some or , so .
Proof
Base case: , so the only function with domain is the empty function, its family of values is , and the empty function has domain and satisfies the defining condition vacuously, so it is a choice function for ; hence holds.
Inductive hypothesis: fix and assume , that every function with domain whose values are all nonempty has a choice function for its family of values.
Let be an arbitrary function with domain all of whose values are nonempty sets; write and , the family of values of the restriction , so that .
The restriction is a function with domain , and every value of it is a value of , hence nonempty; so the inductive hypothesis applies to it and supplies a choice function for , a function with domain satisfying for every .
The set is one of the values of , hence nonempty, so there exists an element of ; fix one and call it .
Define ; its two pieces are functions with the disjoint domains and , so is a function, and its domain is .
Every is either or a member of ; in the first case , and in the second because is a choice function for . So throughout.
Hence is a choice function for , and since was an arbitrary function with domain with nonempty values, implies .
By the induction principle, holds for every : the family of values of any function whose domain is a natural number and whose values are nonempty has a choice function.
Remarks
- Later finiteness terminology. A finite set is defined later as one equinumerous with a natural number (Finite, countably infinite, countable, uncountable ↗). That terminology is not used in the proof above, which keeps its exact indexed-family scope.
- Where the Axiom of Choice would be needed, and why it is not needed here. Step 2.2 picks one element out of one nonempty set. That is a single existential instantiation, licensed by first-order logic alone. The induction performs one such instantiation per stage, and the stages are indexed by a natural number, so the process terminates. ZF cannot in general turn an arbitrary infinite family of nonempty sets into a simultaneous choice function; that is the gap The Axiom of Choice fills. An infinite family with a distinguished element in each member may still have an explicit choice function in ZF, as Russell's shoes and socks ↗ shows.
- Why the family is presented as an indexed one. Stated over "a family of exactly sets", the successor step would have to assert that deleting one member of a family of sets leaves exactly , which is a claim about cardinality and needs a theory of finiteness this page does not have. Indexed by , the same step is the restriction of a function, which is immediate from and costs nothing. Nothing else in the argument changes.
- The listing may repeat, and the argument is arranged so that repetition needs no separate treatment: is built by overwriting rather than by adjoining, so it is a function whether or not already occurs among . In particular may have strictly fewer than members.
- The lemma is not a special case of the Axiom of Choice that happens to be provable; it is the precise boundary of what is free. Russell's shoes and socks ↗ makes the boundary concrete, and Finite choice written out: a choice function for three sets ↗ works this induction out on a small family.