3.2 Countable Unions and the Axiom of Choice
Section 3.1 listed
3.2.1. A union of countably many lists
Let
Here is the proof most people write first. List each
set:
Every step but the first, “list each set”, is a result of Section 3.1. Where do the lists come from?
3.2.2. The obstacle, rule by rule
For a non-empty
- Finitely many sets. The proof of Proposition 3.1.5
used two
’s; for we could nest ten boxes. - All
at once. The grid needs a list of for every , assembled into one object: a function that sends each to a surjection . A proof is a finite object. It cannot contain one for each of infinitely many indices, and no rule of Logic and Proof, Chapter 5 makes infinitely many choices in one step.
Two escape routes fail. Recursion (Theorem 2.3.1)
defines a function on all of
Section 1.6 met the same wall: a right inverse of a surjection must pick a preimage of every point at once, and the rules could do that only for finitely many points, or when a rule names the preimage.
3.2.3. The axiom of choice
None of the working rules (W1)–(W6) of Section 1.2 forms a set out of infinitely many arbitrary picks. The principle we add is the simplest statement that does.
From any family of non-empty sets, one may pick one element from each set, all at once.
Let
In symbols, with
In words: the hypothesis says that each set of the
family has an element; the conclusion says that
one function picks an element of every
Its status. For finitely many indices the axiom adds nothing (proved below); for infinitely many it is a genuinely new principle. It can be neither proved nor refuted from the other axioms of set theory (Gödel, Cohen). Chapter 6 states its best-known equivalent, Zorn’s lemma; Axiomatic Set Theory proves it equivalent to the axiom, together with the other equivalents such as the well-ordering theorem, and surveys the independence results. This book uses the axiom openly on the main line, among other places: here, for countable unions and right inverses; in Section 3.5, for infinite subsets that can be listed; in Analysis on the Real Line, Chapter 1, for sup approximations (the remark below); in Measure, Integration, and Real Analysis, Chapter 2, for the Vitali set; in the same volume, Chapter 10, through Zorn’s lemma, for the Hahn–Banach theorem; and in Functional Analysis, Chapter 2, for Tychonoff’s theorem. Each use is flagged at its line.
Remark. A corollary in Analysis
on the Real Line, Chapter 1 gives, for each
Examples.
- The empty family. If
, the empty function (Proposition 1.5.2 (a)) is a choice function: the condition “for every ” holds vacuously. No axiom is needed. - A family with a rule. Let
and , the positive multiples of . Each contains . The rule is a choice function, defined by specification (Definition 1.2.3); no axiom is needed. - A family with no rule in sight. Let
be the set of non-empty subsets of , and for . A choice function picks an element of every non-empty set of reals. “The least element” fails, since has none, and no rule that works for every is known. Here the axiom supplies what the other rules do not.
A non-example by minimal change. In
Example 2, add the index
3.2.4. When choice is not needed
Two kinds of construction look like choice and are not; telling them apart from a real use is the skill this section is for.
Finitely many sets. For every
finite set
A rule that picks. If one
description names an element of each
Warning. Choice is not
“picking an element”. “Let
The warning is the whole method; here it is as a checklist.
Template. At each line that produces
an object for each of many indices at once, ask whether
one rule names it for every index: a formula, “the
least”, “the unique”, or one list fixed in advance. If
so, define the function by specification; no choice is
used. If not, form the family
When to use it. A proof says “for
each
The usual failure. An unflagged “for
each
Quick check. A proof says: “For
each
Solution. No: it need not. The
least element (Theorem 2.1.3)
names
Which of the following needs Axiom 3.2.1?
- (a) A function sending each non-empty finite set of reals to one of its elements.
- (b) A function
sending each open interval
with to a rational number in it. - (c) A function
sending each countably infinite subset
to a bijection . - (d) For a given
family
of non-empty subsets of , a sequence with for every .
Solution.
(a) No:
, which exists by Proposition 2.3.8.(b) No, once one list of
is fixed. Take a surjection (Theorem 3.1.8, one ). Between two reals lies a rational (a school fact; Analysis on the Real Line, Chapter 1 proves it), so is non-empty, and of its least element (Theorem 2.1.3) is named by a rule.(c) Yes, as far as this book is concerned. Each
has bijections (Definition 3.1.2), but no rule names one for an arbitrary . The family of sets of bijections, indexed by the countably infinite subsets of (a set, by specification in ), consists of non-empty sets, and Axiom 3.2.1 gives the function.(d) No: with the same fixed
, ; the set is non-empty because and is onto.
One fixed list turns “pick an element” into “take the first one on the list”, and that is a rule.
3.2.5. Right inverses
The first consequence settles the question Section 1.6 left open. By Proposition 1.6.2, a function with a right inverse is surjective; the converse is where choice enters.
Let
Idea. A right inverse must name a
preimage of every
Proof. For
Together with Proposition 1.6.2:
a function is surjective if and only if
it has a right inverse. The theorem is in fact
equivalent to the axiom: a right inverse of the
projection
Quick check. Let
Solution. No. Each
3.2.6. Countable unions
Now the theorem the section opened with. The second form, with any countable index set, is the one used in practice.
(a) Let
be a family of sets such that is countable for every . Then is countable.(b) Let
be a countable set and a family of sets such that is countable for every . Then is countable.
Idea (Scratch work). This is the
grid of the opening, with the lists supplied by the
axiom. ① Throw away the empty sets: the axiom needs
non-empty ones, and they add nothing to the union. ② For
each remaining
Part (b) is part (a) after renumbering the index set by a list. As givens and goal, for (a):
| Givens | Goal |
|---|---|
| a surjection |
|
| for each single |
|
| gap: from “for every |
closed by Axiom 3.2.1
on |
Before reading on: which line uses choice, and
why can
Proof.
- (a) Let
and .If
, every is empty, so , which is countable by Definition 3.1.1.Suppose
. For , let the set of surjections (Definition 1.2.3, with the set of functions of Section 1.5). Since is countable and non-empty, (Definition 3.1.1). By Axiom 3.2.1, applied to the family , there is a function with for every . This is the only line of the proof that uses the axiom.Define
by . It takes values in : maps into . It is surjective: let ; then for some (Definition 1.3.4), so and ; since is a surjection onto , there is with , that is, .The set
is countable by Proposition 3.1.3, as a subset of , which is countable (the identity is a surjection). So is countable by Corollary 3.1.7 (a), and it is non-empty, since it contains for any . By Definition 3.1.1 there is a surjection . Then is surjective (Theorem 1.5.4 (b)), and is countable. - (b) Let
. If , then , which is countable. Otherwise Definition 3.1.1 gives a surjection ; fix one. For put , a countable set. Then . An element of lies in with . If with , then for some , because is onto, and . By (a), is countable.
The line in bold is the only use of the axiom. The
surjections
Neither hypothesis can be dropped: Section 3.3 shows
that
Warning. The choice is of
the lists, not of preimages. A surjection
3.2.7. Unions without choice
Many countable unions met in practice come with their lists, and then no axiom is used.
(a) Show that
, where , and list the union without using Axiom 3.2.1.(b) Does the proof in Theorem 3.1.8 that
is countable use Axiom 3.2.1?
Solution.
(a) By the definition
, a number is rational exactly when it lies in for some , so the two sets are equal. Fix the bijection of Theorem 3.1.8 ( , ). Then lists , and the whole family of lists is the single function defined by specification. It is onto : for with , , take with . Since is countable and non-empty (Proposition 3.1.3, Corollary 3.1.7), composing with a surjection lists . The grid is the same as in Theorem 3.2.3; the difference is that the rows were written down, not chosen.(b) No, and its place before Axiom 3.2.1 does not settle this, since by the warning in “When choice is not needed” a proof can use the axiom without naming it; we check the lines. The maps
and are formulas. The results cited name finitely many objects by : one injection in Proposition 3.1.3, two in Corollary 3.1.7 (a), one surjection in Proposition 3.1.4. The passage from a surjection to an injection in Theorem 3.1.2 takes the least preimage, a rule; the return from an injection to a list goes through Lemma 3.1.1, whose list is defined by recursion from least elements (Theorem 2.1.3), again a rule. No line picks from infinitely many sets without a rule.
The pattern is general: if one formula in
3.2.8. Algebraic numbers
The theorem pays off at once. A real number is called
algebraic if it is a root of a non-zero
polynomial with integer coefficients. To keep this
inside what the book has defined, we speak of
coefficient tuples. For
For example,
We use one fact from school algebra, not proved here:
if
The set of algebraic real numbers is countable.
Idea. Sort the polynomials by
degree. For each
Proof. Let
Step 1. Let
Step 2. For
Step 3. By definition,
The proof cites Theorem 3.2.3
twice, and so it uses Axiom 3.2.1.
Here the axiom can be avoided (not proved in the text;
nothing later uses it): list each finite root set in
increasing order, which is a rule, and replace the two
unions by one fixed enumeration of all integer
coefficient tuples. Exercise C2 asks you to carry this
out. The countability of
3.2.9. Exercises
A. Check your understanding
These parts are about the proof of Theorem 3.2.3.
- (a) Which line of
the proof of part (a) uses Axiom 3.2.1?
What are the index set
and the sets of the axiom at that line? - (b) Why does the
proof introduce the set
? - (c) Run the proof on
for , with the lists for odd and for even . What is , and what is ? - (d) State the idea of the proof in two sentences.
- (e) Is Axiom 3.2.1
needed to show that
is countable when every is a subset of ? Justify your answer.
Solution.
(a) The line “By Axiom 3.2.1, applied to the family
, there is a function on with ”. There , the set of indices with , and the sets of the axiom are the , the sets of surjections . The axiom chooses lists, not elements of the .(b) The axiom applies only to families of non-empty sets. If
, there is no function at all (Proposition 1.5.2 (b)), so , and the family would not qualify. Empty sets add nothing to the union, so restricting to loses nothing.(c) Every
is non-empty, so . The pair has even, so . (Each is onto : and .)(d) Choose, with the axiom, a list of each non-empty
, all at once. The lists turn the countable grid into a surjection onto the union, so the union is countable.(e) No. The union is a subset of
, so it is countable by Proposition 3.1.3. (Even the proof can run without the axiom: for and otherwise (Theorem 2.1.3) is a rule that maps onto any non-empty .)
B. Practice
Determine which of the following constructions need Axiom 3.2.1. Justify your answer.
- (a) Choose a real
number in each interval
, . - (b) Choose an
element of each non-empty subset of
. - (c) Choose an
element of each non-empty subset of
. - (d) Choose one of the two square roots of each positive real number.
Solution.
(a) No. The rule
names an element of each interval, since .(b) No. The rule “the least element” names one, by Theorem 2.1.3:
is a choice function, defined by specification.(c) Yes, as far as this book is concerned. The rule “the least element” fails, since
has no least element, and no rule is known that names an element of every non-empty set of reals. A proof that needs such a function uses the axiom, and says so.(d) No. The rule “the positive one” names one root of each
: .
Prove that the set of all finite sequences of natural
numbers is countable, and say whether your proof uses Axiom 3.2.1.
Here a finite sequence of length
Hint: Theorem 2.3.1,
together with one fixed surjection
Solution. Let
With choice. Each
Without choice. Fix one surjection
Let
Claim: for every
Now
A rational point of the plane is a
point of
Solution. Let
Prove each true statement, naming each use of Axiom 3.2.1 as in Example (Method: name the choice), and refute each false one with a concrete counterexample.
- (a) If
is finite for every , then is countable. - (b) If
is finite for every , then is finite. - (c) Every surjection
has a right inverse that can be defined without Axiom 3.2.1. - (d) If
is countable for every , then is countably infinite. - (e) If
for every and is finite, then for some .
Solution.
(a) True. Finite sets are countable (Theorem 3.1.2, (iii)
(i)), and Theorem 3.2.3 (a) applies. That theorem uses Axiom 3.2.1.(b) False. Take
: the union is , which is infinite (Example (Hilbert’s Hotel)).(c) True. For
, the set is non-empty, since is onto, so exists by Theorem 2.1.3. This is a rule, and .(d) False. Take
for every : the union is , which is finite, hence not countably infinite: a bijection would make finite (Proposition 2.5.1), against Example (Hilbert’s Hotel).(e) True, with no axiom. The set
is non-empty (it contains the elements of ) and finite, say with elements via a bijection (one ). Define (Theorem 2.1.3); the set is non-empty because and is onto. This is a rule, and . If were injective, would be equinumerous with , which is finite (Proposition 2.5.6). Then would be finite (Proposition 2.5.1), against Example (Hilbert’s Hotel). So for some , and that element lies in . This is the pigeonhole idea of Example (Method: the pigeonhole principle), with infinitely many pigeons.
C. Going deeper
Prove that if
Solution. Let
Put
Marking scheme. (10 points) - 1:
handles the empty sets: the case where every
Prove Theorem 3.2.4 without using Axiom 3.2.1.
Solution (Hint 1). Use Exercise (B2: Finite sequences)
to obtain, without choice, one surjection from
Solution (Hint 2). For an
algebraic
Solution. Use the notation of Theorem 3.2.4,
and let
One list of all coefficient tuples. Let
An injection, by rules. For
It is injective. Let
Following it with the injection
Marking scheme. (10 points) - 3:
produces, without choice, one surjection (or injection)
relating
- (a) Prove, without
Axiom 3.2.1,
that for every finite set
and every family of countable sets, is countable. - (b) Explain in two sentences why your induction does not prove Theorem 3.2.3.
Solution.
- (a) We use Logic and Proof, Axiom 4.2.1
on the number of elements of
. Let be: “for every set with elements and every family of countable sets, is countable”.Base case. A set
with elements is empty, so , which is countable.Inductive step. Assume
, and let have elements and be a family of countable sets. Since , ; pick . Then has elements (Corollary 2.5.7), so is countable by , applied to the family . Since , an element lies in some with exactly when it lies in or in , so which is countable by Proposition 3.1.5. So holds, and Logic and Proof, Axiom 4.2.1 gives for every . Each step makes finitely many ’s, so no choice is used. - (b) The induction
proves the statement for each finite number
of sets, and is not finite (Example (Hilbert’s Hotel)), so no instance of is about the family . Writing as the union of the finite unions does not help, since that needs a list of every finite union at once, which is a choice of infinitely many lists again.