logo1

Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem

The Axiom of Choice
Bernd Schr oder
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Why Do We Need More Axioms?
1. The nal three axioms we discuss could be motivated by
the desire to count past innity ...
2. ... and by the desire to have standard sizes for innite
sets.
3. Other than that, the Axiom of Choice, in its Zorns
Lemma incarnation is used every so often throughout
mathematics.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Why Do We Need More Axioms?
1. The nal three axioms we discuss could be motivated by
the desire to count past innity ...
2. ... and by the desire to have standard sizes for innite
sets.
3. Other than that, the Axiom of Choice, in its Zorns
Lemma incarnation is used every so often throughout
mathematics.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Why Do We Need More Axioms?
1. The nal three axioms we discuss could be motivated by
the desire to count past innity ...
2. ... and by the desire to have standard sizes for innite
sets.
3. Other than that, the Axiom of Choice, in its Zorns
Lemma incarnation is used every so often throughout
mathematics.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Why Do We Need More Axioms?
1. The nal three axioms we discuss could be motivated by
the desire to count past innity ...
2. ... and by the desire to have standard sizes for innite
sets.
3. Other than that, the Axiom of Choice, in its Zorns
Lemma incarnation is used every so often throughout
mathematics.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Axiom.
The Axiom of Choice. Let {A
i
}
iI
be an indexed family
of sets. Then there is a function f : I
_
iI
A
i
so that f (i) A
i
for all i I. The function is also called a choice function.
Denition. Let {A
i
}
iI
be a family of sets. The product

iI
A
i
of the A
i
is dened as the set of all functions f : I
_
iI
A
i
with
f (i) A
i
for all i I.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Axiom. The Axiom of Choice.
Let {A
i
}
iI
be an indexed family
of sets. Then there is a function f : I
_
iI
A
i
so that f (i) A
i
for all i I. The function is also called a choice function.
Denition. Let {A
i
}
iI
be a family of sets. The product

iI
A
i
of the A
i
is dened as the set of all functions f : I
_
iI
A
i
with
f (i) A
i
for all i I.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Axiom. The Axiom of Choice. Let {A
i
}
iI
be an indexed family
of sets.
Then there is a function f : I
_
iI
A
i
so that f (i) A
i
for all i I. The function is also called a choice function.
Denition. Let {A
i
}
iI
be a family of sets. The product

iI
A
i
of the A
i
is dened as the set of all functions f : I
_
iI
A
i
with
f (i) A
i
for all i I.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Axiom. The Axiom of Choice. Let {A
i
}
iI
be an indexed family
of sets. Then there is a function f : I
_
iI
A
i
so that f (i) A
i
for all i I.
The function is also called a choice function.
Denition. Let {A
i
}
iI
be a family of sets. The product

iI
A
i
of the A
i
is dened as the set of all functions f : I
_
iI
A
i
with
f (i) A
i
for all i I.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Axiom. The Axiom of Choice. Let {A
i
}
iI
be an indexed family
of sets. Then there is a function f : I
_
iI
A
i
so that f (i) A
i
for all i I. The function is also called a choice function.
Denition. Let {A
i
}
iI
be a family of sets. The product

iI
A
i
of the A
i
is dened as the set of all functions f : I
_
iI
A
i
with
f (i) A
i
for all i I.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Axiom. The Axiom of Choice. Let {A
i
}
iI
be an indexed family
of sets. Then there is a function f : I
_
iI
A
i
so that f (i) A
i
for all i I. The function is also called a choice function.
Denition.
Let {A
i
}
iI
be a family of sets. The product

iI
A
i
of the A
i
is dened as the set of all functions f : I
_
iI
A
i
with
f (i) A
i
for all i I.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Axiom. The Axiom of Choice. Let {A
i
}
iI
be an indexed family
of sets. Then there is a function f : I
_
iI
A
i
so that f (i) A
i
for all i I. The function is also called a choice function.
Denition. Let {A
i
}
iI
be a family of sets.
The product

iI
A
i
of the A
i
is dened as the set of all functions f : I
_
iI
A
i
with
f (i) A
i
for all i I.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Axiom. The Axiom of Choice. Let {A
i
}
iI
be an indexed family
of sets. Then there is a function f : I
_
iI
A
i
so that f (i) A
i
for all i I. The function is also called a choice function.
Denition. Let {A
i
}
iI
be a family of sets. The product

iI
A
i
of the A
i
is dened as the set of all functions f : I
_
iI
A
i
with
f (i) A
i
for all i I.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem.
Intersection and union are completely distributive.
Let {J
i
}
iI
be a family of index sets and let {C
ij
}
iI,jJ
i
be a
family of sets. Then the following hold.
1.

iI
_
jJ
i
C
ij
=
_
f

iI
J
i

iI
C
if (i)
.
2.
_
iI

jJ
i
C
ij
=

f

iI
J
i
_
iI
C
if (i)
.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Intersection and union are completely distributive.
Let {J
i
}
iI
be a family of index sets and let {C
ij
}
iI,jJ
i
be a
family of sets. Then the following hold.
1.

iI
_
jJ
i
C
ij
=
_
f

iI
J
i

iI
C
if (i)
.
2.
_
iI

jJ
i
C
ij
=

f

iI
J
i
_
iI
C
if (i)
.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Intersection and union are completely distributive.
Let {J
i
}
iI
be a family of index sets and let {C
ij
}
iI,jJ
i
be a
family of sets.
Then the following hold.
1.

iI
_
jJ
i
C
ij
=
_
f

iI
J
i

iI
C
if (i)
.
2.
_
iI

jJ
i
C
ij
=

f

iI
J
i
_
iI
C
if (i)
.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Intersection and union are completely distributive.
Let {J
i
}
iI
be a family of index sets and let {C
ij
}
iI,jJ
i
be a
family of sets. Then the following hold.
1.

iI
_
jJ
i
C
ij
=
_
f

iI
J
i

iI
C
if (i)
.
2.
_
iI

jJ
i
C
ij
=

f

iI
J
i
_
iI
C
if (i)
.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Intersection and union are completely distributive.
Let {J
i
}
iI
be a family of index sets and let {C
ij
}
iI,jJ
i
be a
family of sets. Then the following hold.
1.

iI
_
jJ
i
C
ij
=
_
f

iI
J
i

iI
C
if (i)
.
2.
_
iI

jJ
i
C
ij
=

f

iI
J
i
_
iI
C
if (i)
.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Intersection and union are completely distributive.
Let {J
i
}
iI
be a family of index sets and let {C
ij
}
iI,jJ
i
be a
family of sets. Then the following hold.
1.

iI
_
jJ
i
C
ij
=
_
f

iI
J
i

iI
C
if (i)
.
2.
_
iI

jJ
i
C
ij
=

f

iI
J
i
_
iI
C
if (i)
.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (part 1).
Let x

iI
_
jJ
i
C
ij
. Then for every i I there is a j
i
with x C
ij
i
.
For each i I set g(i) := j
i
. Then
x

iI
C
ig(i)

_
f

iI
J
i

iI
C
if (i)
. Conversely, let
x
_
f

iI
J
i

iI
C
if (i)
. Then there is a choice function f

iI
J
i
so
that x C
if (i)
for all i I. But then x
_
jJ
i
C
ij
for every i I.
Hence x

iI
_
jJ
i
C
ij
.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (part 1).
Let x

iI
_
jJ
i
C
ij
.
Then for every i I there is a j
i
with x C
ij
i
.
For each i I set g(i) := j
i
. Then
x

iI
C
ig(i)

_
f

iI
J
i

iI
C
if (i)
. Conversely, let
x
_
f

iI
J
i

iI
C
if (i)
. Then there is a choice function f

iI
J
i
so
that x C
if (i)
for all i I. But then x
_
jJ
i
C
ij
for every i I.
Hence x

iI
_
jJ
i
C
ij
.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (part 1).
Let x

iI
_
jJ
i
C
ij
. Then for every i I there is a j
i
with x C
ij
i
.
For each i I set g(i) := j
i
. Then
x

iI
C
ig(i)

_
f

iI
J
i

iI
C
if (i)
. Conversely, let
x
_
f

iI
J
i

iI
C
if (i)
. Then there is a choice function f

iI
J
i
so
that x C
if (i)
for all i I. But then x
_
jJ
i
C
ij
for every i I.
Hence x

iI
_
jJ
i
C
ij
.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (part 1).
Let x

iI
_
jJ
i
C
ij
. Then for every i I there is a j
i
with x C
ij
i
.
For each i I set g(i) := j
i
.
Then
x

iI
C
ig(i)

_
f

iI
J
i

iI
C
if (i)
. Conversely, let
x
_
f

iI
J
i

iI
C
if (i)
. Then there is a choice function f

iI
J
i
so
that x C
if (i)
for all i I. But then x
_
jJ
i
C
ij
for every i I.
Hence x

iI
_
jJ
i
C
ij
.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (part 1).
Let x

iI
_
jJ
i
C
ij
. Then for every i I there is a j
i
with x C
ij
i
.
For each i I set g(i) := j
i
. Then
x

iI
C
ig(i)

_
f

iI
J
i

iI
C
if (i)
. Conversely, let
x
_
f

iI
J
i

iI
C
if (i)
. Then there is a choice function f

iI
J
i
so
that x C
if (i)
for all i I. But then x
_
jJ
i
C
ij
for every i I.
Hence x

iI
_
jJ
i
C
ij
.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (part 1).
Let x

iI
_
jJ
i
C
ij
. Then for every i I there is a j
i
with x C
ij
i
.
For each i I set g(i) := j
i
. Then
x

iI
C
ig(i)

_
f

iI
J
i

iI
C
if (i)
. Conversely, let
x
_
f

iI
J
i

iI
C
if (i)
. Then there is a choice function f

iI
J
i
so
that x C
if (i)
for all i I. But then x
_
jJ
i
C
ij
for every i I.
Hence x

iI
_
jJ
i
C
ij
.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (part 1).
Let x

iI
_
jJ
i
C
ij
. Then for every i I there is a j
i
with x C
ij
i
.
For each i I set g(i) := j
i
. Then
x

iI
C
ig(i)

_
f

iI
J
i

iI
C
if (i)
.
Conversely, let
x
_
f

iI
J
i

iI
C
if (i)
. Then there is a choice function f

iI
J
i
so
that x C
if (i)
for all i I. But then x
_
jJ
i
C
ij
for every i I.
Hence x

iI
_
jJ
i
C
ij
.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (part 1).
Let x

iI
_
jJ
i
C
ij
. Then for every i I there is a j
i
with x C
ij
i
.
For each i I set g(i) := j
i
. Then
x

iI
C
ig(i)

_
f

iI
J
i

iI
C
if (i)
. Conversely, let
x
_
f

iI
J
i

iI
C
if (i)
.
Then there is a choice function f

iI
J
i
so
that x C
if (i)
for all i I. But then x
_
jJ
i
C
ij
for every i I.
Hence x

iI
_
jJ
i
C
ij
.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (part 1).
Let x

iI
_
jJ
i
C
ij
. Then for every i I there is a j
i
with x C
ij
i
.
For each i I set g(i) := j
i
. Then
x

iI
C
ig(i)

_
f

iI
J
i

iI
C
if (i)
. Conversely, let
x
_
f

iI
J
i

iI
C
if (i)
. Then there is a choice function f

iI
J
i
so
that x C
if (i)
for all i I.
But then x
_
jJ
i
C
ij
for every i I.
Hence x

iI
_
jJ
i
C
ij
.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (part 1).
Let x

iI
_
jJ
i
C
ij
. Then for every i I there is a j
i
with x C
ij
i
.
For each i I set g(i) := j
i
. Then
x

iI
C
ig(i)

_
f

iI
J
i

iI
C
if (i)
. Conversely, let
x
_
f

iI
J
i

iI
C
if (i)
. Then there is a choice function f

iI
J
i
so
that x C
if (i)
for all i I. But then x
_
jJ
i
C
ij
for every i I.
Hence x

iI
_
jJ
i
C
ij
.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (part 1).
Let x

iI
_
jJ
i
C
ij
. Then for every i I there is a j
i
with x C
ij
i
.
For each i I set g(i) := j
i
. Then
x

iI
C
ig(i)

_
f

iI
J
i

iI
C
if (i)
. Conversely, let
x
_
f

iI
J
i

iI
C
if (i)
. Then there is a choice function f

iI
J
i
so
that x C
if (i)
for all i I. But then x
_
jJ
i
C
ij
for every i I.
Hence x

iI
_
jJ
i
C
ij
.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (part 2).
Let x
_
iI

jJ
i
C
ij
. Then there is an i
0
I so that x

jJ
i
0
C
i
0
j
.
For every choice function f

iI
J
i
we have
x

jJ
i
0
C
i
0
j
C
i
0
f (i
0
)

_
iI
C
if (i)
. Therefore x

iI
J
i
_
iI
C
if (i)
.
For the reverse inclusion, let x
_
iI

jJ
i
C
ij
. Then for every i I
there is a j
i
J
i
so that x C
ij
i
. Dene g

iI
J
i
by g(i) := j
i
.
Then x
_
iI
C
ig(i)
and hence x

iI
J
i
_
iI
C
if (i)
.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (part 2).
Let x
_
iI

jJ
i
C
ij
.
Then there is an i
0
I so that x

jJ
i
0
C
i
0
j
.
For every choice function f

iI
J
i
we have
x

jJ
i
0
C
i
0
j
C
i
0
f (i
0
)

_
iI
C
if (i)
. Therefore x

iI
J
i
_
iI
C
if (i)
.
For the reverse inclusion, let x
_
iI

jJ
i
C
ij
. Then for every i I
there is a j
i
J
i
so that x C
ij
i
. Dene g

iI
J
i
by g(i) := j
i
.
Then x
_
iI
C
ig(i)
and hence x

iI
J
i
_
iI
C
if (i)
.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (part 2).
Let x
_
iI

jJ
i
C
ij
. Then there is an i
0
I so that x

jJ
i
0
C
i
0
j
.
For every choice function f

iI
J
i
we have
x

jJ
i
0
C
i
0
j
C
i
0
f (i
0
)

_
iI
C
if (i)
. Therefore x

iI
J
i
_
iI
C
if (i)
.
For the reverse inclusion, let x
_
iI

jJ
i
C
ij
. Then for every i I
there is a j
i
J
i
so that x C
ij
i
. Dene g

iI
J
i
by g(i) := j
i
.
Then x
_
iI
C
ig(i)
and hence x

iI
J
i
_
iI
C
if (i)
.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (part 2).
Let x
_
iI

jJ
i
C
ij
. Then there is an i
0
I so that x

jJ
i
0
C
i
0
j
.
For every choice function f

iI
J
i
we have
x

jJ
i
0
C
i
0
j
C
i
0
f (i
0
)

_
iI
C
if (i)
. Therefore x

iI
J
i
_
iI
C
if (i)
.
For the reverse inclusion, let x
_
iI

jJ
i
C
ij
. Then for every i I
there is a j
i
J
i
so that x C
ij
i
. Dene g

iI
J
i
by g(i) := j
i
.
Then x
_
iI
C
ig(i)
and hence x

iI
J
i
_
iI
C
if (i)
.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (part 2).
Let x
_
iI

jJ
i
C
ij
. Then there is an i
0
I so that x

jJ
i
0
C
i
0
j
.
For every choice function f

iI
J
i
we have
x

jJ
i
0
C
i
0
j
C
i
0
f (i
0
)

_
iI
C
if (i)
. Therefore x

iI
J
i
_
iI
C
if (i)
.
For the reverse inclusion, let x
_
iI

jJ
i
C
ij
. Then for every i I
there is a j
i
J
i
so that x C
ij
i
. Dene g

iI
J
i
by g(i) := j
i
.
Then x
_
iI
C
ig(i)
and hence x

iI
J
i
_
iI
C
if (i)
.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (part 2).
Let x
_
iI

jJ
i
C
ij
. Then there is an i
0
I so that x

jJ
i
0
C
i
0
j
.
For every choice function f

iI
J
i
we have
x

jJ
i
0
C
i
0
j
C
i
0
f (i
0
)

_
iI
C
if (i)
. Therefore x

iI
J
i
_
iI
C
if (i)
.
For the reverse inclusion, let x
_
iI

jJ
i
C
ij
. Then for every i I
there is a j
i
J
i
so that x C
ij
i
. Dene g

iI
J
i
by g(i) := j
i
.
Then x
_
iI
C
ig(i)
and hence x

iI
J
i
_
iI
C
if (i)
.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (part 2).
Let x
_
iI

jJ
i
C
ij
. Then there is an i
0
I so that x

jJ
i
0
C
i
0
j
.
For every choice function f

iI
J
i
we have
x

jJ
i
0
C
i
0
j
C
i
0
f (i
0
)

_
iI
C
if (i)
.
Therefore x

iI
J
i
_
iI
C
if (i)
.
For the reverse inclusion, let x
_
iI

jJ
i
C
ij
. Then for every i I
there is a j
i
J
i
so that x C
ij
i
. Dene g

iI
J
i
by g(i) := j
i
.
Then x
_
iI
C
ig(i)
and hence x

iI
J
i
_
iI
C
if (i)
.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (part 2).
Let x
_
iI

jJ
i
C
ij
. Then there is an i
0
I so that x

jJ
i
0
C
i
0
j
.
For every choice function f

iI
J
i
we have
x

jJ
i
0
C
i
0
j
C
i
0
f (i
0
)

_
iI
C
if (i)
. Therefore x

iI
J
i
_
iI
C
if (i)
.
For the reverse inclusion, let x
_
iI

jJ
i
C
ij
. Then for every i I
there is a j
i
J
i
so that x C
ij
i
. Dene g

iI
J
i
by g(i) := j
i
.
Then x
_
iI
C
ig(i)
and hence x

iI
J
i
_
iI
C
if (i)
.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (part 2).
Let x
_
iI

jJ
i
C
ij
. Then there is an i
0
I so that x

jJ
i
0
C
i
0
j
.
For every choice function f

iI
J
i
we have
x

jJ
i
0
C
i
0
j
C
i
0
f (i
0
)

_
iI
C
if (i)
. Therefore x

iI
J
i
_
iI
C
if (i)
.
For the reverse inclusion, let x
_
iI

jJ
i
C
ij
.
Then for every i I
there is a j
i
J
i
so that x C
ij
i
. Dene g

iI
J
i
by g(i) := j
i
.
Then x
_
iI
C
ig(i)
and hence x

iI
J
i
_
iI
C
if (i)
.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (part 2).
Let x
_
iI

jJ
i
C
ij
. Then there is an i
0
I so that x

jJ
i
0
C
i
0
j
.
For every choice function f

iI
J
i
we have
x

jJ
i
0
C
i
0
j
C
i
0
f (i
0
)

_
iI
C
if (i)
. Therefore x

iI
J
i
_
iI
C
if (i)
.
For the reverse inclusion, let x
_
iI

jJ
i
C
ij
. Then for every i I
there is a j
i
J
i
so that x C
ij
i
.
Dene g

iI
J
i
by g(i) := j
i
.
Then x
_
iI
C
ig(i)
and hence x

iI
J
i
_
iI
C
if (i)
.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (part 2).
Let x
_
iI

jJ
i
C
ij
. Then there is an i
0
I so that x

jJ
i
0
C
i
0
j
.
For every choice function f

iI
J
i
we have
x

jJ
i
0
C
i
0
j
C
i
0
f (i
0
)

_
iI
C
if (i)
. Therefore x

iI
J
i
_
iI
C
if (i)
.
For the reverse inclusion, let x
_
iI

jJ
i
C
ij
. Then for every i I
there is a j
i
J
i
so that x C
ij
i
. Dene g

iI
J
i
by g(i) := j
i
.
Then x
_
iI
C
ig(i)
and hence x

iI
J
i
_
iI
C
if (i)
.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (part 2).
Let x
_
iI

jJ
i
C
ij
. Then there is an i
0
I so that x

jJ
i
0
C
i
0
j
.
For every choice function f

iI
J
i
we have
x

jJ
i
0
C
i
0
j
C
i
0
f (i
0
)

_
iI
C
if (i)
. Therefore x

iI
J
i
_
iI
C
if (i)
.
For the reverse inclusion, let x
_
iI

jJ
i
C
ij
. Then for every i I
there is a j
i
J
i
so that x C
ij
i
. Dene g

iI
J
i
by g(i) := j
i
.
Then x
_
iI
C
ig(i)
and hence x

iI
J
i
_
iI
C
if (i)
.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (part 2).
Let x
_
iI

jJ
i
C
ij
. Then there is an i
0
I so that x

jJ
i
0
C
i
0
j
.
For every choice function f

iI
J
i
we have
x

jJ
i
0
C
i
0
j
C
i
0
f (i
0
)

_
iI
C
if (i)
. Therefore x

iI
J
i
_
iI
C
if (i)
.
For the reverse inclusion, let x
_
iI

jJ
i
C
ij
. Then for every i I
there is a j
i
J
i
so that x C
ij
i
. Dene g

iI
J
i
by g(i) := j
i
.
Then x
_
iI
C
ig(i)
and hence x

iI
J
i
_
iI
C
if (i)
.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (part 2).
Let x
_
iI

jJ
i
C
ij
. Then there is an i
0
I so that x

jJ
i
0
C
i
0
j
.
For every choice function f

iI
J
i
we have
x

jJ
i
0
C
i
0
j
C
i
0
f (i
0
)

_
iI
C
if (i)
. Therefore x

iI
J
i
_
iI
C
if (i)
.
For the reverse inclusion, let x
_
iI

jJ
i
C
ij
. Then for every i I
there is a j
i
J
i
so that x C
ij
i
. Dene g

iI
J
i
by g(i) := j
i
.
Then x
_
iI
C
ig(i)
and hence x

iI
J
i
_
iI
C
if (i)
.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Denition.
Let X be an ordered set. A totally ordered subset C
of X is also called a chain. An element m X so that for all
x X we have that m x implies m = x is called a maximal
element of X.
Lemma. Let X be a set, and let Z P(X) be a nonempty set of
subsets of X, ordered by set containment and with the
following properties.
1. For every set C Z we have that every subset of C is an
element of Z.
2. For every chain (with respect to set containment) C Z,
the union
_
C of C is an element of Z.
Then Z has a maximal element (with respect to set
containment).
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Denition. Let X be an ordered set.
A totally ordered subset C
of X is also called a chain. An element m X so that for all
x X we have that m x implies m = x is called a maximal
element of X.
Lemma. Let X be a set, and let Z P(X) be a nonempty set of
subsets of X, ordered by set containment and with the
following properties.
1. For every set C Z we have that every subset of C is an
element of Z.
2. For every chain (with respect to set containment) C Z,
the union
_
C of C is an element of Z.
Then Z has a maximal element (with respect to set
containment).
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Denition. Let X be an ordered set. A totally ordered subset C
of X is also called a chain.
An element m X so that for all
x X we have that m x implies m = x is called a maximal
element of X.
Lemma. Let X be a set, and let Z P(X) be a nonempty set of
subsets of X, ordered by set containment and with the
following properties.
1. For every set C Z we have that every subset of C is an
element of Z.
2. For every chain (with respect to set containment) C Z,
the union
_
C of C is an element of Z.
Then Z has a maximal element (with respect to set
containment).
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Denition. Let X be an ordered set. A totally ordered subset C
of X is also called a chain. An element m X so that for all
x X we have that m x implies m = x is called a maximal
element of X.
Lemma. Let X be a set, and let Z P(X) be a nonempty set of
subsets of X, ordered by set containment and with the
following properties.
1. For every set C Z we have that every subset of C is an
element of Z.
2. For every chain (with respect to set containment) C Z,
the union
_
C of C is an element of Z.
Then Z has a maximal element (with respect to set
containment).
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Denition. Let X be an ordered set. A totally ordered subset C
of X is also called a chain. An element m X so that for all
x X we have that m x implies m = x is called a maximal
element of X.
Lemma.
Let X be a set, and let Z P(X) be a nonempty set of
subsets of X, ordered by set containment and with the
following properties.
1. For every set C Z we have that every subset of C is an
element of Z.
2. For every chain (with respect to set containment) C Z,
the union
_
C of C is an element of Z.
Then Z has a maximal element (with respect to set
containment).
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Denition. Let X be an ordered set. A totally ordered subset C
of X is also called a chain. An element m X so that for all
x X we have that m x implies m = x is called a maximal
element of X.
Lemma. Let X be a set, and let Z P(X) be a nonempty set of
subsets of X, ordered by set containment and with the
following properties.
1. For every set C Z we have that every subset of C is an
element of Z.
2. For every chain (with respect to set containment) C Z,
the union
_
C of C is an element of Z.
Then Z has a maximal element (with respect to set
containment).
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Denition. Let X be an ordered set. A totally ordered subset C
of X is also called a chain. An element m X so that for all
x X we have that m x implies m = x is called a maximal
element of X.
Lemma. Let X be a set, and let Z P(X) be a nonempty set of
subsets of X, ordered by set containment and with the
following properties.
1. For every set C Z we have that every subset of C is an
element of Z.
2. For every chain (with respect to set containment) C Z,
the union
_
C of C is an element of Z.
Then Z has a maximal element (with respect to set
containment).
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Denition. Let X be an ordered set. A totally ordered subset C
of X is also called a chain. An element m X so that for all
x X we have that m x implies m = x is called a maximal
element of X.
Lemma. Let X be a set, and let Z P(X) be a nonempty set of
subsets of X, ordered by set containment and with the
following properties.
1. For every set C Z we have that every subset of C is an
element of Z.
2. For every chain (with respect to set containment) C Z,
the union
_
C of C is an element of Z.
Then Z has a maximal element (with respect to set
containment).
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Denition. Let X be an ordered set. A totally ordered subset C
of X is also called a chain. An element m X so that for all
x X we have that m x implies m = x is called a maximal
element of X.
Lemma. Let X be a set, and let Z P(X) be a nonempty set of
subsets of X, ordered by set containment and with the
following properties.
1. For every set C Z we have that every subset of C is an
element of Z.
2. For every chain (with respect to set containment) C Z,
the union
_
C of C is an element of Z.
Then Z has a maximal element (with respect to set
containment).
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (initial setup).
Consider the indexed family
{i}
iP(X)\{/ 0}
. The union of this family is X. By the Axiom of
Choice, there is a choice function f : P(X) \{/ 0} X so that
f (A) A holds for all A P(X) \{/ 0}.
For each C Z, dene the set E
C
:=
_
x X\C : C{x} Z
_
and let
g(C) :=
_
C
_
f (E
C
)
_
; if E
C
= / 0,
C; if E
C
= / 0.
If M Z satises g(M) = M, then there is no element x X\M
so that M{x} Z, which means that M is maximal in Z. The
proof will be done once we nd an M Z with g(M) = M.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (initial setup). Consider the indexed family
{i}
iP(X)\{/ 0}
.
The union of this family is X. By the Axiom of
Choice, there is a choice function f : P(X) \{/ 0} X so that
f (A) A holds for all A P(X) \{/ 0}.
For each C Z, dene the set E
C
:=
_
x X\C : C{x} Z
_
and let
g(C) :=
_
C
_
f (E
C
)
_
; if E
C
= / 0,
C; if E
C
= / 0.
If M Z satises g(M) = M, then there is no element x X\M
so that M{x} Z, which means that M is maximal in Z. The
proof will be done once we nd an M Z with g(M) = M.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (initial setup). Consider the indexed family
{i}
iP(X)\{/ 0}
. The union of this family is X.
By the Axiom of
Choice, there is a choice function f : P(X) \{/ 0} X so that
f (A) A holds for all A P(X) \{/ 0}.
For each C Z, dene the set E
C
:=
_
x X\C : C{x} Z
_
and let
g(C) :=
_
C
_
f (E
C
)
_
; if E
C
= / 0,
C; if E
C
= / 0.
If M Z satises g(M) = M, then there is no element x X\M
so that M{x} Z, which means that M is maximal in Z. The
proof will be done once we nd an M Z with g(M) = M.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (initial setup). Consider the indexed family
{i}
iP(X)\{/ 0}
. The union of this family is X. By the Axiom of
Choice, there is a choice function f : P(X) \{/ 0} X
so that
f (A) A holds for all A P(X) \{/ 0}.
For each C Z, dene the set E
C
:=
_
x X\C : C{x} Z
_
and let
g(C) :=
_
C
_
f (E
C
)
_
; if E
C
= / 0,
C; if E
C
= / 0.
If M Z satises g(M) = M, then there is no element x X\M
so that M{x} Z, which means that M is maximal in Z. The
proof will be done once we nd an M Z with g(M) = M.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (initial setup). Consider the indexed family
{i}
iP(X)\{/ 0}
. The union of this family is X. By the Axiom of
Choice, there is a choice function f : P(X) \{/ 0} X so that
f (A) A holds for all A P(X) \{/ 0}.
For each C Z, dene the set E
C
:=
_
x X\C : C{x} Z
_
and let
g(C) :=
_
C
_
f (E
C
)
_
; if E
C
= / 0,
C; if E
C
= / 0.
If M Z satises g(M) = M, then there is no element x X\M
so that M{x} Z, which means that M is maximal in Z. The
proof will be done once we nd an M Z with g(M) = M.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (initial setup). Consider the indexed family
{i}
iP(X)\{/ 0}
. The union of this family is X. By the Axiom of
Choice, there is a choice function f : P(X) \{/ 0} X so that
f (A) A holds for all A P(X) \{/ 0}.
For each C Z, dene the set E
C
:=
_
x X\C : C{x} Z
_
and let
g(C) :=
_
C
_
f (E
C
)
_
; if E
C
= / 0,
C; if E
C
= / 0.
If M Z satises g(M) = M, then there is no element x X\M
so that M{x} Z, which means that M is maximal in Z. The
proof will be done once we nd an M Z with g(M) = M.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (initial setup). Consider the indexed family
{i}
iP(X)\{/ 0}
. The union of this family is X. By the Axiom of
Choice, there is a choice function f : P(X) \{/ 0} X so that
f (A) A holds for all A P(X) \{/ 0}.
For each C Z, dene the set E
C
:=
_
x X\C : C{x} Z
_
and let
g(C) :=
_
C
_
f (E
C
)
_
; if E
C
= / 0,
C; if E
C
= / 0.
If M Z satises g(M) = M, then there is no element x X\M
so that M{x} Z, which means that M is maximal in Z. The
proof will be done once we nd an M Z with g(M) = M.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (initial setup). Consider the indexed family
{i}
iP(X)\{/ 0}
. The union of this family is X. By the Axiom of
Choice, there is a choice function f : P(X) \{/ 0} X so that
f (A) A holds for all A P(X) \{/ 0}.
For each C Z, dene the set E
C
:=
_
x X\C : C{x} Z
_
and let
g(C) :=
_
C
_
f (E
C
)
_
; if E
C
= / 0,
C; if E
C
= / 0.
If M Z satises g(M) = M, then there is no element x X\M
so that M{x} Z
, which means that M is maximal in Z. The
proof will be done once we nd an M Z with g(M) = M.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (initial setup). Consider the indexed family
{i}
iP(X)\{/ 0}
. The union of this family is X. By the Axiom of
Choice, there is a choice function f : P(X) \{/ 0} X so that
f (A) A holds for all A P(X) \{/ 0}.
For each C Z, dene the set E
C
:=
_
x X\C : C{x} Z
_
and let
g(C) :=
_
C
_
f (E
C
)
_
; if E
C
= / 0,
C; if E
C
= / 0.
If M Z satises g(M) = M, then there is no element x X\M
so that M{x} Z, which means that M is maximal in Z.
The
proof will be done once we nd an M Z with g(M) = M.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (initial setup). Consider the indexed family
{i}
iP(X)\{/ 0}
. The union of this family is X. By the Axiom of
Choice, there is a choice function f : P(X) \{/ 0} X so that
f (A) A holds for all A P(X) \{/ 0}.
For each C Z, dene the set E
C
:=
_
x X\C : C{x} Z
_
and let
g(C) :=
_
C
_
f (E
C
)
_
; if E
C
= / 0,
C; if E
C
= / 0.
If M Z satises g(M) = M, then there is no element x X\M
so that M{x} Z, which means that M is maximal in Z. The
proof will be done once we nd an M Z with g(M) = M.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (towers).
A subset T Z will be called a tower iff
1. / 0 T, and
2. If C T, then g(C) T, and
3. If C T is a chain in T, then
_
C T.
The set Z contains at least one tower, because Z itself is a tower.
Moreover, the intersection of any set of towers is a tower, too.
Let T
0
be the intersection of all towers that are contained in Z.
Then T
0
is not empty, because / 0 T
0
.
Call an element C T
0
comparable iff for all A T
0
we have
A C or C A. First note that, clearly, / 0 is a comparable set.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (towers). A subset T Z will be called a tower iff
1. / 0 T, and
2. If C T, then g(C) T, and
3. If C T is a chain in T, then
_
C T.
The set Z contains at least one tower, because Z itself is a tower.
Moreover, the intersection of any set of towers is a tower, too.
Let T
0
be the intersection of all towers that are contained in Z.
Then T
0
is not empty, because / 0 T
0
.
Call an element C T
0
comparable iff for all A T
0
we have
A C or C A. First note that, clearly, / 0 is a comparable set.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (towers). A subset T Z will be called a tower iff
1. / 0 T, and
2. If C T, then g(C) T, and
3. If C T is a chain in T, then
_
C T.
The set Z contains at least one tower, because Z itself is a tower.
Moreover, the intersection of any set of towers is a tower, too.
Let T
0
be the intersection of all towers that are contained in Z.
Then T
0
is not empty, because / 0 T
0
.
Call an element C T
0
comparable iff for all A T
0
we have
A C or C A. First note that, clearly, / 0 is a comparable set.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (towers). A subset T Z will be called a tower iff
1. / 0 T, and
2. If C T, then g(C) T, and
3. If C T is a chain in T, then
_
C T.
The set Z contains at least one tower, because Z itself is a tower.
Moreover, the intersection of any set of towers is a tower, too.
Let T
0
be the intersection of all towers that are contained in Z.
Then T
0
is not empty, because / 0 T
0
.
Call an element C T
0
comparable iff for all A T
0
we have
A C or C A. First note that, clearly, / 0 is a comparable set.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (towers). A subset T Z will be called a tower iff
1. / 0 T, and
2. If C T, then g(C) T, and
3. If C T is a chain in T, then
_
C T.
The set Z contains at least one tower, because Z itself is a tower.
Moreover, the intersection of any set of towers is a tower, too.
Let T
0
be the intersection of all towers that are contained in Z.
Then T
0
is not empty, because / 0 T
0
.
Call an element C T
0
comparable iff for all A T
0
we have
A C or C A. First note that, clearly, / 0 is a comparable set.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (towers). A subset T Z will be called a tower iff
1. / 0 T, and
2. If C T, then g(C) T, and
3. If C T is a chain in T, then
_
C T.
The set Z contains at least one tower, because Z itself is a tower.
Moreover, the intersection of any set of towers is a tower, too.
Let T
0
be the intersection of all towers that are contained in Z.
Then T
0
is not empty, because / 0 T
0
.
Call an element C T
0
comparable iff for all A T
0
we have
A C or C A. First note that, clearly, / 0 is a comparable set.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (towers). A subset T Z will be called a tower iff
1. / 0 T, and
2. If C T, then g(C) T, and
3. If C T is a chain in T, then
_
C T.
The set Z contains at least one tower, because Z itself is a tower.
Moreover, the intersection of any set of towers is a tower, too.
Let T
0
be the intersection of all towers that are contained in Z.
Then T
0
is not empty, because / 0 T
0
.
Call an element C T
0
comparable iff for all A T
0
we have
A C or C A. First note that, clearly, / 0 is a comparable set.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (towers). A subset T Z will be called a tower iff
1. / 0 T, and
2. If C T, then g(C) T, and
3. If C T is a chain in T, then
_
C T.
The set Z contains at least one tower, because Z itself is a tower.
Moreover, the intersection of any set of towers is a tower, too.
Let T
0
be the intersection of all towers that are contained in Z.
Then T
0
is not empty, because / 0 T
0
.
Call an element C T
0
comparable iff for all A T
0
we have
A C or C A. First note that, clearly, / 0 is a comparable set.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (towers). A subset T Z will be called a tower iff
1. / 0 T, and
2. If C T, then g(C) T, and
3. If C T is a chain in T, then
_
C T.
The set Z contains at least one tower, because Z itself is a tower.
Moreover, the intersection of any set of towers is a tower, too.
Let T
0
be the intersection of all towers that are contained in Z.
Then T
0
is not empty, because / 0 T
0
.
Call an element C T
0
comparable iff for all A T
0
we have
A C or C A. First note that, clearly, / 0 is a comparable set.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (towers). A subset T Z will be called a tower iff
1. / 0 T, and
2. If C T, then g(C) T, and
3. If C T is a chain in T, then
_
C T.
The set Z contains at least one tower, because Z itself is a tower.
Moreover, the intersection of any set of towers is a tower, too.
Let T
0
be the intersection of all towers that are contained in Z.
Then T
0
is not empty, because / 0 T
0
.
Call an element C T
0
comparable iff for all A T
0
we have
A C or C A.
First note that, clearly, / 0 is a comparable set.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (towers). A subset T Z will be called a tower iff
1. / 0 T, and
2. If C T, then g(C) T, and
3. If C T is a chain in T, then
_
C T.
The set Z contains at least one tower, because Z itself is a tower.
Moreover, the intersection of any set of towers is a tower, too.
Let T
0
be the intersection of all towers that are contained in Z.
Then T
0
is not empty, because / 0 T
0
.
Call an element C T
0
comparable iff for all A T
0
we have
A C or C A. First note that, clearly, / 0 is a comparable set.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (C comparable implies g(C) comparable).
Let C T
0
be a xed comparable set. Consider the set
U :=
_
A T
0
: A C or g(C) A
_
. We will prove that U is a
tower, which implies that U = T
0
, which implies that g(C) is
comparable. Clearly, / 0 U. Now let A U. Because C is
comparable, we have A = C or A C or C A. In case A = C,
we have g(A) = g(C) g(C), which means g(A) U. In case
A C, because C is comparable, g(A) C or C g(A). Strict
containment C g(A) would mean (by A C) that C has at
least one more element than A and g(A) has at least one more
element than C, which is impossible. Thus, in case A C we
must have g(A) C, which means g(A) U. In the last case,
C A, we note that A C. Thus, by denition of U,
g(C) A g(A) and g(A) U.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (C comparable implies g(C) comparable). Let C T
0
be a xed comparable set.
Consider the set
U :=
_
A T
0
: A C or g(C) A
_
. We will prove that U is a
tower, which implies that U = T
0
, which implies that g(C) is
comparable. Clearly, / 0 U. Now let A U. Because C is
comparable, we have A = C or A C or C A. In case A = C,
we have g(A) = g(C) g(C), which means g(A) U. In case
A C, because C is comparable, g(A) C or C g(A). Strict
containment C g(A) would mean (by A C) that C has at
least one more element than A and g(A) has at least one more
element than C, which is impossible. Thus, in case A C we
must have g(A) C, which means g(A) U. In the last case,
C A, we note that A C. Thus, by denition of U,
g(C) A g(A) and g(A) U.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (C comparable implies g(C) comparable). Let C T
0
be a xed comparable set. Consider the set
U :=
_
A T
0
: A C or g(C) A
_
.
We will prove that U is a
tower, which implies that U = T
0
, which implies that g(C) is
comparable. Clearly, / 0 U. Now let A U. Because C is
comparable, we have A = C or A C or C A. In case A = C,
we have g(A) = g(C) g(C), which means g(A) U. In case
A C, because C is comparable, g(A) C or C g(A). Strict
containment C g(A) would mean (by A C) that C has at
least one more element than A and g(A) has at least one more
element than C, which is impossible. Thus, in case A C we
must have g(A) C, which means g(A) U. In the last case,
C A, we note that A C. Thus, by denition of U,
g(C) A g(A) and g(A) U.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (C comparable implies g(C) comparable). Let C T
0
be a xed comparable set. Consider the set
U :=
_
A T
0
: A C or g(C) A
_
. We will prove that U is a
tower
, which implies that U = T
0
, which implies that g(C) is
comparable. Clearly, / 0 U. Now let A U. Because C is
comparable, we have A = C or A C or C A. In case A = C,
we have g(A) = g(C) g(C), which means g(A) U. In case
A C, because C is comparable, g(A) C or C g(A). Strict
containment C g(A) would mean (by A C) that C has at
least one more element than A and g(A) has at least one more
element than C, which is impossible. Thus, in case A C we
must have g(A) C, which means g(A) U. In the last case,
C A, we note that A C. Thus, by denition of U,
g(C) A g(A) and g(A) U.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (C comparable implies g(C) comparable). Let C T
0
be a xed comparable set. Consider the set
U :=
_
A T
0
: A C or g(C) A
_
. We will prove that U is a
tower, which implies that U = T
0
, which implies that g(C) is
comparable. Clearly, / 0 U. Now let A U. Because C is
comparable, we have A = C or A C or C A. In case A = C,
we have g(A) = g(C) g(C), which means g(A) U. In case
A C, because C is comparable, g(A) C or C g(A). Strict
containment C g(A) would mean (by A C) that C has at
least one more element than A and g(A) has at least one more
element than C, which is impossible. Thus, in case A C we
must have g(A) C, which means g(A) U. In the last case,
C A, we note that A C. Thus, by denition of U,
g(C) A g(A) and g(A) U.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (C comparable implies g(C) comparable). Let C T
0
be a xed comparable set. Consider the set
U :=
_
A T
0
: A C or g(C) A
_
. We will prove that U is a
tower, which implies that U = T
0
, which implies that g(C) is
comparable.
Clearly, / 0 U. Now let A U. Because C is
comparable, we have A = C or A C or C A. In case A = C,
we have g(A) = g(C) g(C), which means g(A) U. In case
A C, because C is comparable, g(A) C or C g(A). Strict
containment C g(A) would mean (by A C) that C has at
least one more element than A and g(A) has at least one more
element than C, which is impossible. Thus, in case A C we
must have g(A) C, which means g(A) U. In the last case,
C A, we note that A C. Thus, by denition of U,
g(C) A g(A) and g(A) U.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (C comparable implies g(C) comparable). Let C T
0
be a xed comparable set. Consider the set
U :=
_
A T
0
: A C or g(C) A
_
. We will prove that U is a
tower, which implies that U = T
0
, which implies that g(C) is
comparable. Clearly, / 0 U.
Now let A U. Because C is
comparable, we have A = C or A C or C A. In case A = C,
we have g(A) = g(C) g(C), which means g(A) U. In case
A C, because C is comparable, g(A) C or C g(A). Strict
containment C g(A) would mean (by A C) that C has at
least one more element than A and g(A) has at least one more
element than C, which is impossible. Thus, in case A C we
must have g(A) C, which means g(A) U. In the last case,
C A, we note that A C. Thus, by denition of U,
g(C) A g(A) and g(A) U.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (C comparable implies g(C) comparable). Let C T
0
be a xed comparable set. Consider the set
U :=
_
A T
0
: A C or g(C) A
_
. We will prove that U is a
tower, which implies that U = T
0
, which implies that g(C) is
comparable. Clearly, / 0 U. Now let A U.
Because C is
comparable, we have A = C or A C or C A. In case A = C,
we have g(A) = g(C) g(C), which means g(A) U. In case
A C, because C is comparable, g(A) C or C g(A). Strict
containment C g(A) would mean (by A C) that C has at
least one more element than A and g(A) has at least one more
element than C, which is impossible. Thus, in case A C we
must have g(A) C, which means g(A) U. In the last case,
C A, we note that A C. Thus, by denition of U,
g(C) A g(A) and g(A) U.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (C comparable implies g(C) comparable). Let C T
0
be a xed comparable set. Consider the set
U :=
_
A T
0
: A C or g(C) A
_
. We will prove that U is a
tower, which implies that U = T
0
, which implies that g(C) is
comparable. Clearly, / 0 U. Now let A U. Because C is
comparable, we have A = C or A C or C A.
In case A = C,
we have g(A) = g(C) g(C), which means g(A) U. In case
A C, because C is comparable, g(A) C or C g(A). Strict
containment C g(A) would mean (by A C) that C has at
least one more element than A and g(A) has at least one more
element than C, which is impossible. Thus, in case A C we
must have g(A) C, which means g(A) U. In the last case,
C A, we note that A C. Thus, by denition of U,
g(C) A g(A) and g(A) U.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (C comparable implies g(C) comparable). Let C T
0
be a xed comparable set. Consider the set
U :=
_
A T
0
: A C or g(C) A
_
. We will prove that U is a
tower, which implies that U = T
0
, which implies that g(C) is
comparable. Clearly, / 0 U. Now let A U. Because C is
comparable, we have A = C or A C or C A. In case A = C,
we have g(A) = g(C) g(C), which means g(A) U.
In case
A C, because C is comparable, g(A) C or C g(A). Strict
containment C g(A) would mean (by A C) that C has at
least one more element than A and g(A) has at least one more
element than C, which is impossible. Thus, in case A C we
must have g(A) C, which means g(A) U. In the last case,
C A, we note that A C. Thus, by denition of U,
g(C) A g(A) and g(A) U.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (C comparable implies g(C) comparable). Let C T
0
be a xed comparable set. Consider the set
U :=
_
A T
0
: A C or g(C) A
_
. We will prove that U is a
tower, which implies that U = T
0
, which implies that g(C) is
comparable. Clearly, / 0 U. Now let A U. Because C is
comparable, we have A = C or A C or C A. In case A = C,
we have g(A) = g(C) g(C), which means g(A) U. In case
A C, because C is comparable, g(A) C or C g(A).
Strict
containment C g(A) would mean (by A C) that C has at
least one more element than A and g(A) has at least one more
element than C, which is impossible. Thus, in case A C we
must have g(A) C, which means g(A) U. In the last case,
C A, we note that A C. Thus, by denition of U,
g(C) A g(A) and g(A) U.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (C comparable implies g(C) comparable). Let C T
0
be a xed comparable set. Consider the set
U :=
_
A T
0
: A C or g(C) A
_
. We will prove that U is a
tower, which implies that U = T
0
, which implies that g(C) is
comparable. Clearly, / 0 U. Now let A U. Because C is
comparable, we have A = C or A C or C A. In case A = C,
we have g(A) = g(C) g(C), which means g(A) U. In case
A C, because C is comparable, g(A) C or C g(A). Strict
containment C g(A) would mean (by A C) that C has at
least one more element than A
and g(A) has at least one more
element than C, which is impossible. Thus, in case A C we
must have g(A) C, which means g(A) U. In the last case,
C A, we note that A C. Thus, by denition of U,
g(C) A g(A) and g(A) U.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (C comparable implies g(C) comparable). Let C T
0
be a xed comparable set. Consider the set
U :=
_
A T
0
: A C or g(C) A
_
. We will prove that U is a
tower, which implies that U = T
0
, which implies that g(C) is
comparable. Clearly, / 0 U. Now let A U. Because C is
comparable, we have A = C or A C or C A. In case A = C,
we have g(A) = g(C) g(C), which means g(A) U. In case
A C, because C is comparable, g(A) C or C g(A). Strict
containment C g(A) would mean (by A C) that C has at
least one more element than A and g(A) has at least one more
element than C
, which is impossible. Thus, in case A C we
must have g(A) C, which means g(A) U. In the last case,
C A, we note that A C. Thus, by denition of U,
g(C) A g(A) and g(A) U.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (C comparable implies g(C) comparable). Let C T
0
be a xed comparable set. Consider the set
U :=
_
A T
0
: A C or g(C) A
_
. We will prove that U is a
tower, which implies that U = T
0
, which implies that g(C) is
comparable. Clearly, / 0 U. Now let A U. Because C is
comparable, we have A = C or A C or C A. In case A = C,
we have g(A) = g(C) g(C), which means g(A) U. In case
A C, because C is comparable, g(A) C or C g(A). Strict
containment C g(A) would mean (by A C) that C has at
least one more element than A and g(A) has at least one more
element than C, which is impossible.
Thus, in case A C we
must have g(A) C, which means g(A) U. In the last case,
C A, we note that A C. Thus, by denition of U,
g(C) A g(A) and g(A) U.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (C comparable implies g(C) comparable). Let C T
0
be a xed comparable set. Consider the set
U :=
_
A T
0
: A C or g(C) A
_
. We will prove that U is a
tower, which implies that U = T
0
, which implies that g(C) is
comparable. Clearly, / 0 U. Now let A U. Because C is
comparable, we have A = C or A C or C A. In case A = C,
we have g(A) = g(C) g(C), which means g(A) U. In case
A C, because C is comparable, g(A) C or C g(A). Strict
containment C g(A) would mean (by A C) that C has at
least one more element than A and g(A) has at least one more
element than C, which is impossible. Thus, in case A C we
must have g(A) C
, which means g(A) U. In the last case,
C A, we note that A C. Thus, by denition of U,
g(C) A g(A) and g(A) U.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (C comparable implies g(C) comparable). Let C T
0
be a xed comparable set. Consider the set
U :=
_
A T
0
: A C or g(C) A
_
. We will prove that U is a
tower, which implies that U = T
0
, which implies that g(C) is
comparable. Clearly, / 0 U. Now let A U. Because C is
comparable, we have A = C or A C or C A. In case A = C,
we have g(A) = g(C) g(C), which means g(A) U. In case
A C, because C is comparable, g(A) C or C g(A). Strict
containment C g(A) would mean (by A C) that C has at
least one more element than A and g(A) has at least one more
element than C, which is impossible. Thus, in case A C we
must have g(A) C, which means g(A) U.
In the last case,
C A, we note that A C. Thus, by denition of U,
g(C) A g(A) and g(A) U.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (C comparable implies g(C) comparable). Let C T
0
be a xed comparable set. Consider the set
U :=
_
A T
0
: A C or g(C) A
_
. We will prove that U is a
tower, which implies that U = T
0
, which implies that g(C) is
comparable. Clearly, / 0 U. Now let A U. Because C is
comparable, we have A = C or A C or C A. In case A = C,
we have g(A) = g(C) g(C), which means g(A) U. In case
A C, because C is comparable, g(A) C or C g(A). Strict
containment C g(A) would mean (by A C) that C has at
least one more element than A and g(A) has at least one more
element than C, which is impossible. Thus, in case A C we
must have g(A) C, which means g(A) U. In the last case,
C A, we note that A C.
Thus, by denition of U,
g(C) A g(A) and g(A) U.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (C comparable implies g(C) comparable). Let C T
0
be a xed comparable set. Consider the set
U :=
_
A T
0
: A C or g(C) A
_
. We will prove that U is a
tower, which implies that U = T
0
, which implies that g(C) is
comparable. Clearly, / 0 U. Now let A U. Because C is
comparable, we have A = C or A C or C A. In case A = C,
we have g(A) = g(C) g(C), which means g(A) U. In case
A C, because C is comparable, g(A) C or C g(A). Strict
containment C g(A) would mean (by A C) that C has at
least one more element than A and g(A) has at least one more
element than C, which is impossible. Thus, in case A C we
must have g(A) C, which means g(A) U. In the last case,
C A, we note that A C. Thus, by denition of U,
g(C) A g(A) and g(A) U.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (C comparable implies g(C) comparable, concl.).
Finally, let A U be a chain. If C A for all A A, then
C
_
A and
_
A U. Otherwise, there is an A A so that
C A. But then A C, which implies g(C) A
_
A and
hence
_
A U. Thus U T
0
is a tower. By denition of T
0
,
T
0
U and hence U = T
0
. Thus for all A T
0
we have
A C g(C) or g(C) A. So if C T
0
is comparable, then
g(C) is comparable, too.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (C comparable implies g(C) comparable, concl.).
Finally, let A U be a chain.
If C A for all A A, then
C
_
A and
_
A U. Otherwise, there is an A A so that
C A. But then A C, which implies g(C) A
_
A and
hence
_
A U. Thus U T
0
is a tower. By denition of T
0
,
T
0
U and hence U = T
0
. Thus for all A T
0
we have
A C g(C) or g(C) A. So if C T
0
is comparable, then
g(C) is comparable, too.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (C comparable implies g(C) comparable, concl.).
Finally, let A U be a chain. If C A for all A A, then
C
_
A and
_
A U.
Otherwise, there is an A A so that
C A. But then A C, which implies g(C) A
_
A and
hence
_
A U. Thus U T
0
is a tower. By denition of T
0
,
T
0
U and hence U = T
0
. Thus for all A T
0
we have
A C g(C) or g(C) A. So if C T
0
is comparable, then
g(C) is comparable, too.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (C comparable implies g(C) comparable, concl.).
Finally, let A U be a chain. If C A for all A A, then
C
_
A and
_
A U. Otherwise, there is an A A so that
C A.
But then A C, which implies g(C) A
_
A and
hence
_
A U. Thus U T
0
is a tower. By denition of T
0
,
T
0
U and hence U = T
0
. Thus for all A T
0
we have
A C g(C) or g(C) A. So if C T
0
is comparable, then
g(C) is comparable, too.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (C comparable implies g(C) comparable, concl.).
Finally, let A U be a chain. If C A for all A A, then
C
_
A and
_
A U. Otherwise, there is an A A so that
C A. But then A C
, which implies g(C) A
_
A and
hence
_
A U. Thus U T
0
is a tower. By denition of T
0
,
T
0
U and hence U = T
0
. Thus for all A T
0
we have
A C g(C) or g(C) A. So if C T
0
is comparable, then
g(C) is comparable, too.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (C comparable implies g(C) comparable, concl.).
Finally, let A U be a chain. If C A for all A A, then
C
_
A and
_
A U. Otherwise, there is an A A so that
C A. But then A C, which implies g(C) A
_
A
and
hence
_
A U. Thus U T
0
is a tower. By denition of T
0
,
T
0
U and hence U = T
0
. Thus for all A T
0
we have
A C g(C) or g(C) A. So if C T
0
is comparable, then
g(C) is comparable, too.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (C comparable implies g(C) comparable, concl.).
Finally, let A U be a chain. If C A for all A A, then
C
_
A and
_
A U. Otherwise, there is an A A so that
C A. But then A C, which implies g(C) A
_
A and
hence
_
A U.
Thus U T
0
is a tower. By denition of T
0
,
T
0
U and hence U = T
0
. Thus for all A T
0
we have
A C g(C) or g(C) A. So if C T
0
is comparable, then
g(C) is comparable, too.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (C comparable implies g(C) comparable, concl.).
Finally, let A U be a chain. If C A for all A A, then
C
_
A and
_
A U. Otherwise, there is an A A so that
C A. But then A C, which implies g(C) A
_
A and
hence
_
A U. Thus U T
0
is a tower.
By denition of T
0
,
T
0
U and hence U = T
0
. Thus for all A T
0
we have
A C g(C) or g(C) A. So if C T
0
is comparable, then
g(C) is comparable, too.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (C comparable implies g(C) comparable, concl.).
Finally, let A U be a chain. If C A for all A A, then
C
_
A and
_
A U. Otherwise, there is an A A so that
C A. But then A C, which implies g(C) A
_
A and
hence
_
A U. Thus U T
0
is a tower. By denition of T
0
,
T
0
U
and hence U = T
0
. Thus for all A T
0
we have
A C g(C) or g(C) A. So if C T
0
is comparable, then
g(C) is comparable, too.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (C comparable implies g(C) comparable, concl.).
Finally, let A U be a chain. If C A for all A A, then
C
_
A and
_
A U. Otherwise, there is an A A so that
C A. But then A C, which implies g(C) A
_
A and
hence
_
A U. Thus U T
0
is a tower. By denition of T
0
,
T
0
U and hence U = T
0
.
Thus for all A T
0
we have
A C g(C) or g(C) A. So if C T
0
is comparable, then
g(C) is comparable, too.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (C comparable implies g(C) comparable, concl.).
Finally, let A U be a chain. If C A for all A A, then
C
_
A and
_
A U. Otherwise, there is an A A so that
C A. But then A C, which implies g(C) A
_
A and
hence
_
A U. Thus U T
0
is a tower. By denition of T
0
,
T
0
U and hence U = T
0
. Thus for all A T
0
we have
A C g(C) or g(C) A.
So if C T
0
is comparable, then
g(C) is comparable, too.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (C comparable implies g(C) comparable, concl.).
Finally, let A U be a chain. If C A for all A A, then
C
_
A and
_
A U. Otherwise, there is an A A so that
C A. But then A C, which implies g(C) A
_
A and
hence
_
A U. Thus U T
0
is a tower. By denition of T
0
,
T
0
U and hence U = T
0
. Thus for all A T
0
we have
A C g(C) or g(C) A. So if C T
0
is comparable, then
g(C) is comparable, too.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (existence of maximal elements).
Let C T
0
be a chain
of comparable elements and let A T
0
. If there is a C C with
A C, then A C
_
C. Otherwise for all C C we have
C A, which means
_
C A. Consequently, if C T
0
is a
chain of comparable elements, then the union
_
C is
comparable.
Thus the set of comparable elements in T
0
is a tower. Because
T
0
is the intersection of all towers, every element of T
0
is
comparable. By denition of comparable elements, T
0
is a
chain. Because T
0
is a tower, we have
_
T
0
T
0
. Hence
g
_
_
T
0
_
T
0
, which means that g
_
_
T
0
_

_
T
0
. By
denition of g, g
_
_
T
0
_

_
T
0
, so g
_
_
T
0
_
=
_
T
0
.
Hence M :=
_
T
0
is the desired maximal element.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (existence of maximal elements). Let C T
0
be a chain
of comparable elements and let A T
0
.
If there is a C C with
A C, then A C
_
C. Otherwise for all C C we have
C A, which means
_
C A. Consequently, if C T
0
is a
chain of comparable elements, then the union
_
C is
comparable.
Thus the set of comparable elements in T
0
is a tower. Because
T
0
is the intersection of all towers, every element of T
0
is
comparable. By denition of comparable elements, T
0
is a
chain. Because T
0
is a tower, we have
_
T
0
T
0
. Hence
g
_
_
T
0
_
T
0
, which means that g
_
_
T
0
_

_
T
0
. By
denition of g, g
_
_
T
0
_

_
T
0
, so g
_
_
T
0
_
=
_
T
0
.
Hence M :=
_
T
0
is the desired maximal element.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (existence of maximal elements). Let C T
0
be a chain
of comparable elements and let A T
0
. If there is a C C with
A C, then A C
_
C.
Otherwise for all C C we have
C A, which means
_
C A. Consequently, if C T
0
is a
chain of comparable elements, then the union
_
C is
comparable.
Thus the set of comparable elements in T
0
is a tower. Because
T
0
is the intersection of all towers, every element of T
0
is
comparable. By denition of comparable elements, T
0
is a
chain. Because T
0
is a tower, we have
_
T
0
T
0
. Hence
g
_
_
T
0
_
T
0
, which means that g
_
_
T
0
_

_
T
0
. By
denition of g, g
_
_
T
0
_

_
T
0
, so g
_
_
T
0
_
=
_
T
0
.
Hence M :=
_
T
0
is the desired maximal element.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (existence of maximal elements). Let C T
0
be a chain
of comparable elements and let A T
0
. If there is a C C with
A C, then A C
_
C. Otherwise for all C C we have
C A, which means
_
C A.
Consequently, if C T
0
is a
chain of comparable elements, then the union
_
C is
comparable.
Thus the set of comparable elements in T
0
is a tower. Because
T
0
is the intersection of all towers, every element of T
0
is
comparable. By denition of comparable elements, T
0
is a
chain. Because T
0
is a tower, we have
_
T
0
T
0
. Hence
g
_
_
T
0
_
T
0
, which means that g
_
_
T
0
_

_
T
0
. By
denition of g, g
_
_
T
0
_

_
T
0
, so g
_
_
T
0
_
=
_
T
0
.
Hence M :=
_
T
0
is the desired maximal element.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (existence of maximal elements). Let C T
0
be a chain
of comparable elements and let A T
0
. If there is a C C with
A C, then A C
_
C. Otherwise for all C C we have
C A, which means
_
C A. Consequently, if C T
0
is a
chain of comparable elements, then the union
_
C is
comparable.
Thus the set of comparable elements in T
0
is a tower. Because
T
0
is the intersection of all towers, every element of T
0
is
comparable. By denition of comparable elements, T
0
is a
chain. Because T
0
is a tower, we have
_
T
0
T
0
. Hence
g
_
_
T
0
_
T
0
, which means that g
_
_
T
0
_

_
T
0
. By
denition of g, g
_
_
T
0
_

_
T
0
, so g
_
_
T
0
_
=
_
T
0
.
Hence M :=
_
T
0
is the desired maximal element.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (existence of maximal elements). Let C T
0
be a chain
of comparable elements and let A T
0
. If there is a C C with
A C, then A C
_
C. Otherwise for all C C we have
C A, which means
_
C A. Consequently, if C T
0
is a
chain of comparable elements, then the union
_
C is
comparable.
Thus the set of comparable elements in T
0
is a tower.
Because
T
0
is the intersection of all towers, every element of T
0
is
comparable. By denition of comparable elements, T
0
is a
chain. Because T
0
is a tower, we have
_
T
0
T
0
. Hence
g
_
_
T
0
_
T
0
, which means that g
_
_
T
0
_

_
T
0
. By
denition of g, g
_
_
T
0
_

_
T
0
, so g
_
_
T
0
_
=
_
T
0
.
Hence M :=
_
T
0
is the desired maximal element.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (existence of maximal elements). Let C T
0
be a chain
of comparable elements and let A T
0
. If there is a C C with
A C, then A C
_
C. Otherwise for all C C we have
C A, which means
_
C A. Consequently, if C T
0
is a
chain of comparable elements, then the union
_
C is
comparable.
Thus the set of comparable elements in T
0
is a tower. Because
T
0
is the intersection of all towers, every element of T
0
is
comparable.
By denition of comparable elements, T
0
is a
chain. Because T
0
is a tower, we have
_
T
0
T
0
. Hence
g
_
_
T
0
_
T
0
, which means that g
_
_
T
0
_

_
T
0
. By
denition of g, g
_
_
T
0
_

_
T
0
, so g
_
_
T
0
_
=
_
T
0
.
Hence M :=
_
T
0
is the desired maximal element.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (existence of maximal elements). Let C T
0
be a chain
of comparable elements and let A T
0
. If there is a C C with
A C, then A C
_
C. Otherwise for all C C we have
C A, which means
_
C A. Consequently, if C T
0
is a
chain of comparable elements, then the union
_
C is
comparable.
Thus the set of comparable elements in T
0
is a tower. Because
T
0
is the intersection of all towers, every element of T
0
is
comparable. By denition of comparable elements, T
0
is a
chain.
Because T
0
is a tower, we have
_
T
0
T
0
. Hence
g
_
_
T
0
_
T
0
, which means that g
_
_
T
0
_

_
T
0
. By
denition of g, g
_
_
T
0
_

_
T
0
, so g
_
_
T
0
_
=
_
T
0
.
Hence M :=
_
T
0
is the desired maximal element.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (existence of maximal elements). Let C T
0
be a chain
of comparable elements and let A T
0
. If there is a C C with
A C, then A C
_
C. Otherwise for all C C we have
C A, which means
_
C A. Consequently, if C T
0
is a
chain of comparable elements, then the union
_
C is
comparable.
Thus the set of comparable elements in T
0
is a tower. Because
T
0
is the intersection of all towers, every element of T
0
is
comparable. By denition of comparable elements, T
0
is a
chain. Because T
0
is a tower, we have
_
T
0
T
0
.
Hence
g
_
_
T
0
_
T
0
, which means that g
_
_
T
0
_

_
T
0
. By
denition of g, g
_
_
T
0
_

_
T
0
, so g
_
_
T
0
_
=
_
T
0
.
Hence M :=
_
T
0
is the desired maximal element.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (existence of maximal elements). Let C T
0
be a chain
of comparable elements and let A T
0
. If there is a C C with
A C, then A C
_
C. Otherwise for all C C we have
C A, which means
_
C A. Consequently, if C T
0
is a
chain of comparable elements, then the union
_
C is
comparable.
Thus the set of comparable elements in T
0
is a tower. Because
T
0
is the intersection of all towers, every element of T
0
is
comparable. By denition of comparable elements, T
0
is a
chain. Because T
0
is a tower, we have
_
T
0
T
0
. Hence
g
_
_
T
0
_
T
0
, which means that g
_
_
T
0
_

_
T
0
. By
denition of g, g
_
_
T
0
_

_
T
0
, so g
_
_
T
0
_
=
_
T
0
.
Hence M :=
_
T
0
is the desired maximal element.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (existence of maximal elements). Let C T
0
be a chain
of comparable elements and let A T
0
. If there is a C C with
A C, then A C
_
C. Otherwise for all C C we have
C A, which means
_
C A. Consequently, if C T
0
is a
chain of comparable elements, then the union
_
C is
comparable.
Thus the set of comparable elements in T
0
is a tower. Because
T
0
is the intersection of all towers, every element of T
0
is
comparable. By denition of comparable elements, T
0
is a
chain. Because T
0
is a tower, we have
_
T
0
T
0
. Hence
g
_
_
T
0
_
T
0
, which means that g
_
_
T
0
_

_
T
0
.
By
denition of g, g
_
_
T
0
_

_
T
0
, so g
_
_
T
0
_
=
_
T
0
.
Hence M :=
_
T
0
is the desired maximal element.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (existence of maximal elements). Let C T
0
be a chain
of comparable elements and let A T
0
. If there is a C C with
A C, then A C
_
C. Otherwise for all C C we have
C A, which means
_
C A. Consequently, if C T
0
is a
chain of comparable elements, then the union
_
C is
comparable.
Thus the set of comparable elements in T
0
is a tower. Because
T
0
is the intersection of all towers, every element of T
0
is
comparable. By denition of comparable elements, T
0
is a
chain. Because T
0
is a tower, we have
_
T
0
T
0
. Hence
g
_
_
T
0
_
T
0
, which means that g
_
_
T
0
_

_
T
0
. By
denition of g, g
_
_
T
0
_

_
T
0
, so g
_
_
T
0
_
=
_
T
0
.
Hence M :=
_
T
0
is the desired maximal element.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (existence of maximal elements). Let C T
0
be a chain
of comparable elements and let A T
0
. If there is a C C with
A C, then A C
_
C. Otherwise for all C C we have
C A, which means
_
C A. Consequently, if C T
0
is a
chain of comparable elements, then the union
_
C is
comparable.
Thus the set of comparable elements in T
0
is a tower. Because
T
0
is the intersection of all towers, every element of T
0
is
comparable. By denition of comparable elements, T
0
is a
chain. Because T
0
is a tower, we have
_
T
0
T
0
. Hence
g
_
_
T
0
_
T
0
, which means that g
_
_
T
0
_

_
T
0
. By
denition of g, g
_
_
T
0
_

_
T
0
, so g
_
_
T
0
_
=
_
T
0
.
Hence M :=
_
T
0
is the desired maximal element.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (existence of maximal elements). Let C T
0
be a chain
of comparable elements and let A T
0
. If there is a C C with
A C, then A C
_
C. Otherwise for all C C we have
C A, which means
_
C A. Consequently, if C T
0
is a
chain of comparable elements, then the union
_
C is
comparable.
Thus the set of comparable elements in T
0
is a tower. Because
T
0
is the intersection of all towers, every element of T
0
is
comparable. By denition of comparable elements, T
0
is a
chain. Because T
0
is a tower, we have
_
T
0
T
0
. Hence
g
_
_
T
0
_
T
0
, which means that g
_
_
T
0
_

_
T
0
. By
denition of g, g
_
_
T
0
_

_
T
0
, so g
_
_
T
0
_
=
_
T
0
.
Hence M :=
_
T
0
is the desired maximal element.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (existence of maximal elements). Let C T
0
be a chain
of comparable elements and let A T
0
. If there is a C C with
A C, then A C
_
C. Otherwise for all C C we have
C A, which means
_
C A. Consequently, if C T
0
is a
chain of comparable elements, then the union
_
C is
comparable.
Thus the set of comparable elements in T
0
is a tower. Because
T
0
is the intersection of all towers, every element of T
0
is
comparable. By denition of comparable elements, T
0
is a
chain. Because T
0
is a tower, we have
_
T
0
T
0
. Hence
g
_
_
T
0
_
T
0
, which means that g
_
_
T
0
_

_
T
0
. By
denition of g, g
_
_
T
0
_

_
T
0
, so g
_
_
T
0
_
=
_
T
0
.
Hence M :=
_
T
0
is the desired maximal element.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem.
Zorns Lemma. Let X be a nonempty ordered set so
that every chain in X has an upper bound. Then X has a
maximal element.
Proof. Let Z be the set of all chains in X, ordered by inclusion.
If C Z, then every subset of C is in Z, too. Moreover, the
union of every chain in Z is again an element of Z. Hence Z has
a maximal element M with respect to inclusion. This set M has
an upper bound m in X, and M{m} is a chain in X, that is,
M{m} Z. But M is maximal in Z, so m M. Now let x X
satisfy x m. Then M{x} Z. So x M and then m x, that
is, m = x. Therefore, m is maximal in X.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Zorns Lemma.
Let X be a nonempty ordered set so
that every chain in X has an upper bound. Then X has a
maximal element.
Proof. Let Z be the set of all chains in X, ordered by inclusion.
If C Z, then every subset of C is in Z, too. Moreover, the
union of every chain in Z is again an element of Z. Hence Z has
a maximal element M with respect to inclusion. This set M has
an upper bound m in X, and M{m} is a chain in X, that is,
M{m} Z. But M is maximal in Z, so m M. Now let x X
satisfy x m. Then M{x} Z. So x M and then m x, that
is, m = x. Therefore, m is maximal in X.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Zorns Lemma. Let X be a nonempty ordered set so
that every chain in X has an upper bound.
Then X has a
maximal element.
Proof. Let Z be the set of all chains in X, ordered by inclusion.
If C Z, then every subset of C is in Z, too. Moreover, the
union of every chain in Z is again an element of Z. Hence Z has
a maximal element M with respect to inclusion. This set M has
an upper bound m in X, and M{m} is a chain in X, that is,
M{m} Z. But M is maximal in Z, so m M. Now let x X
satisfy x m. Then M{x} Z. So x M and then m x, that
is, m = x. Therefore, m is maximal in X.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Zorns Lemma. Let X be a nonempty ordered set so
that every chain in X has an upper bound. Then X has a
maximal element.
Proof. Let Z be the set of all chains in X, ordered by inclusion.
If C Z, then every subset of C is in Z, too. Moreover, the
union of every chain in Z is again an element of Z. Hence Z has
a maximal element M with respect to inclusion. This set M has
an upper bound m in X, and M{m} is a chain in X, that is,
M{m} Z. But M is maximal in Z, so m M. Now let x X
satisfy x m. Then M{x} Z. So x M and then m x, that
is, m = x. Therefore, m is maximal in X.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Zorns Lemma. Let X be a nonempty ordered set so
that every chain in X has an upper bound. Then X has a
maximal element.
Proof.
Let Z be the set of all chains in X, ordered by inclusion.
If C Z, then every subset of C is in Z, too. Moreover, the
union of every chain in Z is again an element of Z. Hence Z has
a maximal element M with respect to inclusion. This set M has
an upper bound m in X, and M{m} is a chain in X, that is,
M{m} Z. But M is maximal in Z, so m M. Now let x X
satisfy x m. Then M{x} Z. So x M and then m x, that
is, m = x. Therefore, m is maximal in X.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Zorns Lemma. Let X be a nonempty ordered set so
that every chain in X has an upper bound. Then X has a
maximal element.
Proof. Let Z be the set of all chains in X, ordered by inclusion.
If C Z, then every subset of C is in Z, too. Moreover, the
union of every chain in Z is again an element of Z. Hence Z has
a maximal element M with respect to inclusion. This set M has
an upper bound m in X, and M{m} is a chain in X, that is,
M{m} Z. But M is maximal in Z, so m M. Now let x X
satisfy x m. Then M{x} Z. So x M and then m x, that
is, m = x. Therefore, m is maximal in X.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Zorns Lemma. Let X be a nonempty ordered set so
that every chain in X has an upper bound. Then X has a
maximal element.
Proof. Let Z be the set of all chains in X, ordered by inclusion.
If C Z, then every subset of C is in Z, too.
Moreover, the
union of every chain in Z is again an element of Z. Hence Z has
a maximal element M with respect to inclusion. This set M has
an upper bound m in X, and M{m} is a chain in X, that is,
M{m} Z. But M is maximal in Z, so m M. Now let x X
satisfy x m. Then M{x} Z. So x M and then m x, that
is, m = x. Therefore, m is maximal in X.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Zorns Lemma. Let X be a nonempty ordered set so
that every chain in X has an upper bound. Then X has a
maximal element.
Proof. Let Z be the set of all chains in X, ordered by inclusion.
If C Z, then every subset of C is in Z, too. Moreover, the
union of every chain in Z is again an element of Z.
Hence Z has
a maximal element M with respect to inclusion. This set M has
an upper bound m in X, and M{m} is a chain in X, that is,
M{m} Z. But M is maximal in Z, so m M. Now let x X
satisfy x m. Then M{x} Z. So x M and then m x, that
is, m = x. Therefore, m is maximal in X.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Zorns Lemma. Let X be a nonempty ordered set so
that every chain in X has an upper bound. Then X has a
maximal element.
Proof. Let Z be the set of all chains in X, ordered by inclusion.
If C Z, then every subset of C is in Z, too. Moreover, the
union of every chain in Z is again an element of Z. Hence Z has
a maximal element M
with respect to inclusion. This set M has
an upper bound m in X, and M{m} is a chain in X, that is,
M{m} Z. But M is maximal in Z, so m M. Now let x X
satisfy x m. Then M{x} Z. So x M and then m x, that
is, m = x. Therefore, m is maximal in X.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Zorns Lemma. Let X be a nonempty ordered set so
that every chain in X has an upper bound. Then X has a
maximal element.
Proof. Let Z be the set of all chains in X, ordered by inclusion.
If C Z, then every subset of C is in Z, too. Moreover, the
union of every chain in Z is again an element of Z. Hence Z has
a maximal element M with respect to inclusion.
This set M has
an upper bound m in X, and M{m} is a chain in X, that is,
M{m} Z. But M is maximal in Z, so m M. Now let x X
satisfy x m. Then M{x} Z. So x M and then m x, that
is, m = x. Therefore, m is maximal in X.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Zorns Lemma. Let X be a nonempty ordered set so
that every chain in X has an upper bound. Then X has a
maximal element.
Proof. Let Z be the set of all chains in X, ordered by inclusion.
If C Z, then every subset of C is in Z, too. Moreover, the
union of every chain in Z is again an element of Z. Hence Z has
a maximal element M with respect to inclusion. This set M has
an upper bound m in X
, and M{m} is a chain in X, that is,
M{m} Z. But M is maximal in Z, so m M. Now let x X
satisfy x m. Then M{x} Z. So x M and then m x, that
is, m = x. Therefore, m is maximal in X.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Zorns Lemma. Let X be a nonempty ordered set so
that every chain in X has an upper bound. Then X has a
maximal element.
Proof. Let Z be the set of all chains in X, ordered by inclusion.
If C Z, then every subset of C is in Z, too. Moreover, the
union of every chain in Z is again an element of Z. Hence Z has
a maximal element M with respect to inclusion. This set M has
an upper bound m in X, and M{m} is a chain in X
, that is,
M{m} Z. But M is maximal in Z, so m M. Now let x X
satisfy x m. Then M{x} Z. So x M and then m x, that
is, m = x. Therefore, m is maximal in X.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Zorns Lemma. Let X be a nonempty ordered set so
that every chain in X has an upper bound. Then X has a
maximal element.
Proof. Let Z be the set of all chains in X, ordered by inclusion.
If C Z, then every subset of C is in Z, too. Moreover, the
union of every chain in Z is again an element of Z. Hence Z has
a maximal element M with respect to inclusion. This set M has
an upper bound m in X, and M{m} is a chain in X, that is,
M{m} Z.
But M is maximal in Z, so m M. Now let x X
satisfy x m. Then M{x} Z. So x M and then m x, that
is, m = x. Therefore, m is maximal in X.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Zorns Lemma. Let X be a nonempty ordered set so
that every chain in X has an upper bound. Then X has a
maximal element.
Proof. Let Z be the set of all chains in X, ordered by inclusion.
If C Z, then every subset of C is in Z, too. Moreover, the
union of every chain in Z is again an element of Z. Hence Z has
a maximal element M with respect to inclusion. This set M has
an upper bound m in X, and M{m} is a chain in X, that is,
M{m} Z. But M is maximal in Z, so m M.
Now let x X
satisfy x m. Then M{x} Z. So x M and then m x, that
is, m = x. Therefore, m is maximal in X.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Zorns Lemma. Let X be a nonempty ordered set so
that every chain in X has an upper bound. Then X has a
maximal element.
Proof. Let Z be the set of all chains in X, ordered by inclusion.
If C Z, then every subset of C is in Z, too. Moreover, the
union of every chain in Z is again an element of Z. Hence Z has
a maximal element M with respect to inclusion. This set M has
an upper bound m in X, and M{m} is a chain in X, that is,
M{m} Z. But M is maximal in Z, so m M. Now let x X
satisfy x m.
Then M{x} Z. So x M and then m x, that
is, m = x. Therefore, m is maximal in X.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Zorns Lemma. Let X be a nonempty ordered set so
that every chain in X has an upper bound. Then X has a
maximal element.
Proof. Let Z be the set of all chains in X, ordered by inclusion.
If C Z, then every subset of C is in Z, too. Moreover, the
union of every chain in Z is again an element of Z. Hence Z has
a maximal element M with respect to inclusion. This set M has
an upper bound m in X, and M{m} is a chain in X, that is,
M{m} Z. But M is maximal in Z, so m M. Now let x X
satisfy x m. Then M{x} Z.
So x M and then m x, that
is, m = x. Therefore, m is maximal in X.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Zorns Lemma. Let X be a nonempty ordered set so
that every chain in X has an upper bound. Then X has a
maximal element.
Proof. Let Z be the set of all chains in X, ordered by inclusion.
If C Z, then every subset of C is in Z, too. Moreover, the
union of every chain in Z is again an element of Z. Hence Z has
a maximal element M with respect to inclusion. This set M has
an upper bound m in X, and M{m} is a chain in X, that is,
M{m} Z. But M is maximal in Z, so m M. Now let x X
satisfy x m. Then M{x} Z. So x M and then m x, that
is, m = x.
Therefore, m is maximal in X.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Zorns Lemma. Let X be a nonempty ordered set so
that every chain in X has an upper bound. Then X has a
maximal element.
Proof. Let Z be the set of all chains in X, ordered by inclusion.
If C Z, then every subset of C is in Z, too. Moreover, the
union of every chain in Z is again an element of Z. Hence Z has
a maximal element M with respect to inclusion. This set M has
an upper bound m in X, and M{m} is a chain in X, that is,
M{m} Z. But M is maximal in Z, so m M. Now let x X
satisfy x m. Then M{x} Z. So x M and then m x, that
is, m = x. Therefore, m is maximal in X.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Zorns Lemma. Let X be a nonempty ordered set so
that every chain in X has an upper bound. Then X has a
maximal element.
Proof. Let Z be the set of all chains in X, ordered by inclusion.
If C Z, then every subset of C is in Z, too. Moreover, the
union of every chain in Z is again an element of Z. Hence Z has
a maximal element M with respect to inclusion. This set M has
an upper bound m in X, and M{m} is a chain in X, that is,
M{m} Z. But M is maximal in Z, so m M. Now let x X
satisfy x m. Then M{x} Z. So x M and then m x, that
is, m = x. Therefore, m is maximal in X.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem.
Let A be an innite set. Then
_
A{0}
_

_
A{1}
_
= A{0, 1} is equivalent to A.
Proof. Let F be the set of all bijective functions
f : X{0, 1} X, where X A. F = / 0, because it contains all
the bijective functions f : X{0, 1} X, where X A is
countable. F is ordered by set inclusion. Moreover for any
chain C F we can form the union u :=
_
C, and it will be a
bijective function u : X
u
{0, 1} X
u
for some subset X
u
A
(good exercise). Now u is an upper bound for C in F. Thus the
hypotheses of Zorns Lemma are satised.
Let h : X{0, 1} X be a maximal element of F. Suppose
for a contradiction that A\X contains a countably innite set C.
Let b : C{0, 1} C be a bijective function. Then t : hb is a
bijective function between (XC) {0, 1} and XC, that is,
t F, contradiction.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Let A be an innite set.
Then
_
A{0}
_

_
A{1}
_
= A{0, 1} is equivalent to A.
Proof. Let F be the set of all bijective functions
f : X{0, 1} X, where X A. F = / 0, because it contains all
the bijective functions f : X{0, 1} X, where X A is
countable. F is ordered by set inclusion. Moreover for any
chain C F we can form the union u :=
_
C, and it will be a
bijective function u : X
u
{0, 1} X
u
for some subset X
u
A
(good exercise). Now u is an upper bound for C in F. Thus the
hypotheses of Zorns Lemma are satised.
Let h : X{0, 1} X be a maximal element of F. Suppose
for a contradiction that A\X contains a countably innite set C.
Let b : C{0, 1} C be a bijective function. Then t : hb is a
bijective function between (XC) {0, 1} and XC, that is,
t F, contradiction.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Let A be an innite set. Then
_
A{0}
_

_
A{1}
_
= A{0, 1} is equivalent to A.
Proof. Let F be the set of all bijective functions
f : X{0, 1} X, where X A. F = / 0, because it contains all
the bijective functions f : X{0, 1} X, where X A is
countable. F is ordered by set inclusion. Moreover for any
chain C F we can form the union u :=
_
C, and it will be a
bijective function u : X
u
{0, 1} X
u
for some subset X
u
A
(good exercise). Now u is an upper bound for C in F. Thus the
hypotheses of Zorns Lemma are satised.
Let h : X{0, 1} X be a maximal element of F. Suppose
for a contradiction that A\X contains a countably innite set C.
Let b : C{0, 1} C be a bijective function. Then t : hb is a
bijective function between (XC) {0, 1} and XC, that is,
t F, contradiction.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Let A be an innite set. Then
_
A{0}
_

_
A{1}
_
= A{0, 1}
is equivalent to A.
Proof. Let F be the set of all bijective functions
f : X{0, 1} X, where X A. F = / 0, because it contains all
the bijective functions f : X{0, 1} X, where X A is
countable. F is ordered by set inclusion. Moreover for any
chain C F we can form the union u :=
_
C, and it will be a
bijective function u : X
u
{0, 1} X
u
for some subset X
u
A
(good exercise). Now u is an upper bound for C in F. Thus the
hypotheses of Zorns Lemma are satised.
Let h : X{0, 1} X be a maximal element of F. Suppose
for a contradiction that A\X contains a countably innite set C.
Let b : C{0, 1} C be a bijective function. Then t : hb is a
bijective function between (XC) {0, 1} and XC, that is,
t F, contradiction.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Let A be an innite set. Then
_
A{0}
_

_
A{1}
_
= A{0, 1} is equivalent to A.
Proof. Let F be the set of all bijective functions
f : X{0, 1} X, where X A. F = / 0, because it contains all
the bijective functions f : X{0, 1} X, where X A is
countable. F is ordered by set inclusion. Moreover for any
chain C F we can form the union u :=
_
C, and it will be a
bijective function u : X
u
{0, 1} X
u
for some subset X
u
A
(good exercise). Now u is an upper bound for C in F. Thus the
hypotheses of Zorns Lemma are satised.
Let h : X{0, 1} X be a maximal element of F. Suppose
for a contradiction that A\X contains a countably innite set C.
Let b : C{0, 1} C be a bijective function. Then t : hb is a
bijective function between (XC) {0, 1} and XC, that is,
t F, contradiction.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Let A be an innite set. Then
_
A{0}
_

_
A{1}
_
= A{0, 1} is equivalent to A.
Proof.
Let F be the set of all bijective functions
f : X{0, 1} X, where X A. F = / 0, because it contains all
the bijective functions f : X{0, 1} X, where X A is
countable. F is ordered by set inclusion. Moreover for any
chain C F we can form the union u :=
_
C, and it will be a
bijective function u : X
u
{0, 1} X
u
for some subset X
u
A
(good exercise). Now u is an upper bound for C in F. Thus the
hypotheses of Zorns Lemma are satised.
Let h : X{0, 1} X be a maximal element of F. Suppose
for a contradiction that A\X contains a countably innite set C.
Let b : C{0, 1} C be a bijective function. Then t : hb is a
bijective function between (XC) {0, 1} and XC, that is,
t F, contradiction.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Let A be an innite set. Then
_
A{0}
_

_
A{1}
_
= A{0, 1} is equivalent to A.
Proof. Let F be the set of all bijective functions
f : X{0, 1} X, where X A.
F = / 0, because it contains all
the bijective functions f : X{0, 1} X, where X A is
countable. F is ordered by set inclusion. Moreover for any
chain C F we can form the union u :=
_
C, and it will be a
bijective function u : X
u
{0, 1} X
u
for some subset X
u
A
(good exercise). Now u is an upper bound for C in F. Thus the
hypotheses of Zorns Lemma are satised.
Let h : X{0, 1} X be a maximal element of F. Suppose
for a contradiction that A\X contains a countably innite set C.
Let b : C{0, 1} C be a bijective function. Then t : hb is a
bijective function between (XC) {0, 1} and XC, that is,
t F, contradiction.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Let A be an innite set. Then
_
A{0}
_

_
A{1}
_
= A{0, 1} is equivalent to A.
Proof. Let F be the set of all bijective functions
f : X{0, 1} X, where X A. F = / 0, because it contains all
the bijective functions f : X{0, 1} X, where X A is
countable.
F is ordered by set inclusion. Moreover for any
chain C F we can form the union u :=
_
C, and it will be a
bijective function u : X
u
{0, 1} X
u
for some subset X
u
A
(good exercise). Now u is an upper bound for C in F. Thus the
hypotheses of Zorns Lemma are satised.
Let h : X{0, 1} X be a maximal element of F. Suppose
for a contradiction that A\X contains a countably innite set C.
Let b : C{0, 1} C be a bijective function. Then t : hb is a
bijective function between (XC) {0, 1} and XC, that is,
t F, contradiction.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Let A be an innite set. Then
_
A{0}
_

_
A{1}
_
= A{0, 1} is equivalent to A.
Proof. Let F be the set of all bijective functions
f : X{0, 1} X, where X A. F = / 0, because it contains all
the bijective functions f : X{0, 1} X, where X A is
countable. F is ordered by set inclusion.
Moreover for any
chain C F we can form the union u :=
_
C, and it will be a
bijective function u : X
u
{0, 1} X
u
for some subset X
u
A
(good exercise). Now u is an upper bound for C in F. Thus the
hypotheses of Zorns Lemma are satised.
Let h : X{0, 1} X be a maximal element of F. Suppose
for a contradiction that A\X contains a countably innite set C.
Let b : C{0, 1} C be a bijective function. Then t : hb is a
bijective function between (XC) {0, 1} and XC, that is,
t F, contradiction.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Let A be an innite set. Then
_
A{0}
_

_
A{1}
_
= A{0, 1} is equivalent to A.
Proof. Let F be the set of all bijective functions
f : X{0, 1} X, where X A. F = / 0, because it contains all
the bijective functions f : X{0, 1} X, where X A is
countable. F is ordered by set inclusion. Moreover for any
chain C F we can form the union u :=
_
C
, and it will be a
bijective function u : X
u
{0, 1} X
u
for some subset X
u
A
(good exercise). Now u is an upper bound for C in F. Thus the
hypotheses of Zorns Lemma are satised.
Let h : X{0, 1} X be a maximal element of F. Suppose
for a contradiction that A\X contains a countably innite set C.
Let b : C{0, 1} C be a bijective function. Then t : hb is a
bijective function between (XC) {0, 1} and XC, that is,
t F, contradiction.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Let A be an innite set. Then
_
A{0}
_

_
A{1}
_
= A{0, 1} is equivalent to A.
Proof. Let F be the set of all bijective functions
f : X{0, 1} X, where X A. F = / 0, because it contains all
the bijective functions f : X{0, 1} X, where X A is
countable. F is ordered by set inclusion. Moreover for any
chain C F we can form the union u :=
_
C, and it will be a
bijective function u : X
u
{0, 1} X
u
for some subset X
u
A
(good exercise). Now u is an upper bound for C in F. Thus the
hypotheses of Zorns Lemma are satised.
Let h : X{0, 1} X be a maximal element of F. Suppose
for a contradiction that A\X contains a countably innite set C.
Let b : C{0, 1} C be a bijective function. Then t : hb is a
bijective function between (XC) {0, 1} and XC, that is,
t F, contradiction.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Let A be an innite set. Then
_
A{0}
_

_
A{1}
_
= A{0, 1} is equivalent to A.
Proof. Let F be the set of all bijective functions
f : X{0, 1} X, where X A. F = / 0, because it contains all
the bijective functions f : X{0, 1} X, where X A is
countable. F is ordered by set inclusion. Moreover for any
chain C F we can form the union u :=
_
C, and it will be a
bijective function u : X
u
{0, 1} X
u
for some subset X
u
A
(good exercise).
Now u is an upper bound for C in F. Thus the
hypotheses of Zorns Lemma are satised.
Let h : X{0, 1} X be a maximal element of F. Suppose
for a contradiction that A\X contains a countably innite set C.
Let b : C{0, 1} C be a bijective function. Then t : hb is a
bijective function between (XC) {0, 1} and XC, that is,
t F, contradiction.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Let A be an innite set. Then
_
A{0}
_

_
A{1}
_
= A{0, 1} is equivalent to A.
Proof. Let F be the set of all bijective functions
f : X{0, 1} X, where X A. F = / 0, because it contains all
the bijective functions f : X{0, 1} X, where X A is
countable. F is ordered by set inclusion. Moreover for any
chain C F we can form the union u :=
_
C, and it will be a
bijective function u : X
u
{0, 1} X
u
for some subset X
u
A
(good exercise). Now u is an upper bound for C in F.
Thus the
hypotheses of Zorns Lemma are satised.
Let h : X{0, 1} X be a maximal element of F. Suppose
for a contradiction that A\X contains a countably innite set C.
Let b : C{0, 1} C be a bijective function. Then t : hb is a
bijective function between (XC) {0, 1} and XC, that is,
t F, contradiction.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Let A be an innite set. Then
_
A{0}
_

_
A{1}
_
= A{0, 1} is equivalent to A.
Proof. Let F be the set of all bijective functions
f : X{0, 1} X, where X A. F = / 0, because it contains all
the bijective functions f : X{0, 1} X, where X A is
countable. F is ordered by set inclusion. Moreover for any
chain C F we can form the union u :=
_
C, and it will be a
bijective function u : X
u
{0, 1} X
u
for some subset X
u
A
(good exercise). Now u is an upper bound for C in F. Thus the
hypotheses of Zorns Lemma are satised.
Let h : X{0, 1} X be a maximal element of F. Suppose
for a contradiction that A\X contains a countably innite set C.
Let b : C{0, 1} C be a bijective function. Then t : hb is a
bijective function between (XC) {0, 1} and XC, that is,
t F, contradiction.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Let A be an innite set. Then
_
A{0}
_

_
A{1}
_
= A{0, 1} is equivalent to A.
Proof. Let F be the set of all bijective functions
f : X{0, 1} X, where X A. F = / 0, because it contains all
the bijective functions f : X{0, 1} X, where X A is
countable. F is ordered by set inclusion. Moreover for any
chain C F we can form the union u :=
_
C, and it will be a
bijective function u : X
u
{0, 1} X
u
for some subset X
u
A
(good exercise). Now u is an upper bound for C in F. Thus the
hypotheses of Zorns Lemma are satised.
Let h : X{0, 1} X be a maximal element of F.
Suppose
for a contradiction that A\X contains a countably innite set C.
Let b : C{0, 1} C be a bijective function. Then t : hb is a
bijective function between (XC) {0, 1} and XC, that is,
t F, contradiction.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Let A be an innite set. Then
_
A{0}
_

_
A{1}
_
= A{0, 1} is equivalent to A.
Proof. Let F be the set of all bijective functions
f : X{0, 1} X, where X A. F = / 0, because it contains all
the bijective functions f : X{0, 1} X, where X A is
countable. F is ordered by set inclusion. Moreover for any
chain C F we can form the union u :=
_
C, and it will be a
bijective function u : X
u
{0, 1} X
u
for some subset X
u
A
(good exercise). Now u is an upper bound for C in F. Thus the
hypotheses of Zorns Lemma are satised.
Let h : X{0, 1} X be a maximal element of F. Suppose
for a contradiction that A\X contains a countably innite set C.
Let b : C{0, 1} C be a bijective function. Then t : hb is a
bijective function between (XC) {0, 1} and XC, that is,
t F, contradiction.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Let A be an innite set. Then
_
A{0}
_

_
A{1}
_
= A{0, 1} is equivalent to A.
Proof. Let F be the set of all bijective functions
f : X{0, 1} X, where X A. F = / 0, because it contains all
the bijective functions f : X{0, 1} X, where X A is
countable. F is ordered by set inclusion. Moreover for any
chain C F we can form the union u :=
_
C, and it will be a
bijective function u : X
u
{0, 1} X
u
for some subset X
u
A
(good exercise). Now u is an upper bound for C in F. Thus the
hypotheses of Zorns Lemma are satised.
Let h : X{0, 1} X be a maximal element of F. Suppose
for a contradiction that A\X contains a countably innite set C.
Let b : C{0, 1} C be a bijective function.
Then t : hb is a
bijective function between (XC) {0, 1} and XC, that is,
t F, contradiction.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Let A be an innite set. Then
_
A{0}
_

_
A{1}
_
= A{0, 1} is equivalent to A.
Proof. Let F be the set of all bijective functions
f : X{0, 1} X, where X A. F = / 0, because it contains all
the bijective functions f : X{0, 1} X, where X A is
countable. F is ordered by set inclusion. Moreover for any
chain C F we can form the union u :=
_
C, and it will be a
bijective function u : X
u
{0, 1} X
u
for some subset X
u
A
(good exercise). Now u is an upper bound for C in F. Thus the
hypotheses of Zorns Lemma are satised.
Let h : X{0, 1} X be a maximal element of F. Suppose
for a contradiction that A\X contains a countably innite set C.
Let b : C{0, 1} C be a bijective function. Then t : hb is a
bijective function between (XC) {0, 1} and XC
, that is,
t F, contradiction.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Let A be an innite set. Then
_
A{0}
_

_
A{1}
_
= A{0, 1} is equivalent to A.
Proof. Let F be the set of all bijective functions
f : X{0, 1} X, where X A. F = / 0, because it contains all
the bijective functions f : X{0, 1} X, where X A is
countable. F is ordered by set inclusion. Moreover for any
chain C F we can form the union u :=
_
C, and it will be a
bijective function u : X
u
{0, 1} X
u
for some subset X
u
A
(good exercise). Now u is an upper bound for C in F. Thus the
hypotheses of Zorns Lemma are satised.
Let h : X{0, 1} X be a maximal element of F. Suppose
for a contradiction that A\X contains a countably innite set C.
Let b : C{0, 1} C be a bijective function. Then t : hb is a
bijective function between (XC) {0, 1} and XC, that is,
t F
, contradiction.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Theorem. Let A be an innite set. Then
_
A{0}
_

_
A{1}
_
= A{0, 1} is equivalent to A.
Proof. Let F be the set of all bijective functions
f : X{0, 1} X, where X A. F = / 0, because it contains all
the bijective functions f : X{0, 1} X, where X A is
countable. F is ordered by set inclusion. Moreover for any
chain C F we can form the union u :=
_
C, and it will be a
bijective function u : X
u
{0, 1} X
u
for some subset X
u
A
(good exercise). Now u is an upper bound for C in F. Thus the
hypotheses of Zorns Lemma are satised.
Let h : X{0, 1} X be a maximal element of F. Suppose
for a contradiction that A\X contains a countably innite set C.
Let b : C{0, 1} C be a bijective function. Then t : hb is a
bijective function between (XC) {0, 1} and XC, that is,
t F, contradiction.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (cont.).
Therefore A\X cannot be innite. If A\X = / 0,
then the function h is the desired bijection between A{0, 1}
and A. Finally consider the case that A\X = / 0. By the above,
A\X is nite. Let C X be a countably innite subset of X.
Let R C be an |A\X|-element subset of C. Then C\R is still
countably innite. Let p : h
1
[C] C\R be a bijective
function and let q : (A\X) {0, 1} A\XR be a bijective
function. Then t :=
_
h\h|
h
1
[C]
_
pq is the desired bijective
function with domain A{0, 1} and range A.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (cont.). Therefore A\X cannot be innite.
If A\X = / 0,
then the function h is the desired bijection between A{0, 1}
and A. Finally consider the case that A\X = / 0. By the above,
A\X is nite. Let C X be a countably innite subset of X.
Let R C be an |A\X|-element subset of C. Then C\R is still
countably innite. Let p : h
1
[C] C\R be a bijective
function and let q : (A\X) {0, 1} A\XR be a bijective
function. Then t :=
_
h\h|
h
1
[C]
_
pq is the desired bijective
function with domain A{0, 1} and range A.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (cont.). Therefore A\X cannot be innite. If A\X = / 0
,
then the function h is the desired bijection between A{0, 1}
and A. Finally consider the case that A\X = / 0. By the above,
A\X is nite. Let C X be a countably innite subset of X.
Let R C be an |A\X|-element subset of C. Then C\R is still
countably innite. Let p : h
1
[C] C\R be a bijective
function and let q : (A\X) {0, 1} A\XR be a bijective
function. Then t :=
_
h\h|
h
1
[C]
_
pq is the desired bijective
function with domain A{0, 1} and range A.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (cont.). Therefore A\X cannot be innite. If A\X = / 0,
then the function h is the desired bijection between A{0, 1}
and A.
Finally consider the case that A\X = / 0. By the above,
A\X is nite. Let C X be a countably innite subset of X.
Let R C be an |A\X|-element subset of C. Then C\R is still
countably innite. Let p : h
1
[C] C\R be a bijective
function and let q : (A\X) {0, 1} A\XR be a bijective
function. Then t :=
_
h\h|
h
1
[C]
_
pq is the desired bijective
function with domain A{0, 1} and range A.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (cont.). Therefore A\X cannot be innite. If A\X = / 0,
then the function h is the desired bijection between A{0, 1}
and A. Finally consider the case that A\X = / 0.
By the above,
A\X is nite. Let C X be a countably innite subset of X.
Let R C be an |A\X|-element subset of C. Then C\R is still
countably innite. Let p : h
1
[C] C\R be a bijective
function and let q : (A\X) {0, 1} A\XR be a bijective
function. Then t :=
_
h\h|
h
1
[C]
_
pq is the desired bijective
function with domain A{0, 1} and range A.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (cont.). Therefore A\X cannot be innite. If A\X = / 0,
then the function h is the desired bijection between A{0, 1}
and A. Finally consider the case that A\X = / 0. By the above,
A\X is nite.
Let C X be a countably innite subset of X.
Let R C be an |A\X|-element subset of C. Then C\R is still
countably innite. Let p : h
1
[C] C\R be a bijective
function and let q : (A\X) {0, 1} A\XR be a bijective
function. Then t :=
_
h\h|
h
1
[C]
_
pq is the desired bijective
function with domain A{0, 1} and range A.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (cont.). Therefore A\X cannot be innite. If A\X = / 0,
then the function h is the desired bijection between A{0, 1}
and A. Finally consider the case that A\X = / 0. By the above,
A\X is nite. Let C X be a countably innite subset of X.
Let R C be an |A\X|-element subset of C. Then C\R is still
countably innite. Let p : h
1
[C] C\R be a bijective
function and let q : (A\X) {0, 1} A\XR be a bijective
function. Then t :=
_
h\h|
h
1
[C]
_
pq is the desired bijective
function with domain A{0, 1} and range A.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (cont.). Therefore A\X cannot be innite. If A\X = / 0,
then the function h is the desired bijection between A{0, 1}
and A. Finally consider the case that A\X = / 0. By the above,
A\X is nite. Let C X be a countably innite subset of X.
Let R C be an |A\X|-element subset of C.
Then C\R is still
countably innite. Let p : h
1
[C] C\R be a bijective
function and let q : (A\X) {0, 1} A\XR be a bijective
function. Then t :=
_
h\h|
h
1
[C]
_
pq is the desired bijective
function with domain A{0, 1} and range A.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (cont.). Therefore A\X cannot be innite. If A\X = / 0,
then the function h is the desired bijection between A{0, 1}
and A. Finally consider the case that A\X = / 0. By the above,
A\X is nite. Let C X be a countably innite subset of X.
Let R C be an |A\X|-element subset of C. Then C\R is still
countably innite.
Let p : h
1
[C] C\R be a bijective
function and let q : (A\X) {0, 1} A\XR be a bijective
function. Then t :=
_
h\h|
h
1
[C]
_
pq is the desired bijective
function with domain A{0, 1} and range A.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (cont.). Therefore A\X cannot be innite. If A\X = / 0,
then the function h is the desired bijection between A{0, 1}
and A. Finally consider the case that A\X = / 0. By the above,
A\X is nite. Let C X be a countably innite subset of X.
Let R C be an |A\X|-element subset of C. Then C\R is still
countably innite. Let p : h
1
[C] C\R be a bijective
function
and let q : (A\X) {0, 1} A\XR be a bijective
function. Then t :=
_
h\h|
h
1
[C]
_
pq is the desired bijective
function with domain A{0, 1} and range A.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (cont.). Therefore A\X cannot be innite. If A\X = / 0,
then the function h is the desired bijection between A{0, 1}
and A. Finally consider the case that A\X = / 0. By the above,
A\X is nite. Let C X be a countably innite subset of X.
Let R C be an |A\X|-element subset of C. Then C\R is still
countably innite. Let p : h
1
[C] C\R be a bijective
function and let q : (A\X) {0, 1} A\XR be a bijective
function.
Then t :=
_
h\h|
h
1
[C]
_
pq is the desired bijective
function with domain A{0, 1} and range A.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (cont.). Therefore A\X cannot be innite. If A\X = / 0,
then the function h is the desired bijection between A{0, 1}
and A. Finally consider the case that A\X = / 0. By the above,
A\X is nite. Let C X be a countably innite subset of X.
Let R C be an |A\X|-element subset of C. Then C\R is still
countably innite. Let p : h
1
[C] C\R be a bijective
function and let q : (A\X) {0, 1} A\XR be a bijective
function. Then t :=
_
h\h|
h
1
[C]
_
pq is the desired bijective
function with domain A{0, 1} and range A.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (cont.). Therefore A\X cannot be innite. If A\X = / 0,
then the function h is the desired bijection between A{0, 1}
and A. Finally consider the case that A\X = / 0. By the above,
A\X is nite. Let C X be a countably innite subset of X.
Let R C be an |A\X|-element subset of C. Then C\R is still
countably innite. Let p : h
1
[C] C\R be a bijective
function and let q : (A\X) {0, 1} A\XR be a bijective
function. Then t :=
_
h\h|
h
1
[C]
_
pq is the desired bijective
function with domain A{0, 1} and range A.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Denition.
Let S be a set and let SS be an order relation.
Then is called a well-order (relation) iff it is a total order
and every nonempty subset of S has a smallest element with
respect to .
Example. N is well-ordered.
Theorem. Well-ordering Theorem. Every set can be
well-ordered. That is, for every set S, there is a well-order
relation SS.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Denition. Let S be a set and let SS be an order relation.
Then is called a well-order (relation) iff it is a total order
and every nonempty subset of S has a smallest element with
respect to .
Example. N is well-ordered.
Theorem. Well-ordering Theorem. Every set can be
well-ordered. That is, for every set S, there is a well-order
relation SS.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Denition. Let S be a set and let SS be an order relation.
Then is called a well-order (relation) iff it is a total order
and every nonempty subset of S has a smallest element with
respect to .
Example. N is well-ordered.
Theorem. Well-ordering Theorem. Every set can be
well-ordered. That is, for every set S, there is a well-order
relation SS.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Denition. Let S be a set and let SS be an order relation.
Then is called a well-order (relation) iff it is a total order
and every nonempty subset of S has a smallest element with
respect to .
Example. N is well-ordered.
Theorem. Well-ordering Theorem. Every set can be
well-ordered. That is, for every set S, there is a well-order
relation SS.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Denition. Let S be a set and let SS be an order relation.
Then is called a well-order (relation) iff it is a total order
and every nonempty subset of S has a smallest element with
respect to .
Example.
N is well-ordered.
Theorem. Well-ordering Theorem. Every set can be
well-ordered. That is, for every set S, there is a well-order
relation SS.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Denition. Let S be a set and let SS be an order relation.
Then is called a well-order (relation) iff it is a total order
and every nonempty subset of S has a smallest element with
respect to .
Example. N is well-ordered.
Theorem. Well-ordering Theorem. Every set can be
well-ordered. That is, for every set S, there is a well-order
relation SS.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Denition. Let S be a set and let SS be an order relation.
Then is called a well-order (relation) iff it is a total order
and every nonempty subset of S has a smallest element with
respect to .
Example. N is well-ordered.
Theorem. Well-ordering Theorem. Every set can be
well-ordered. That is, for every set S, there is a well-order
relation SS.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Denition. Let S be a set and let SS be an order relation.
Then is called a well-order (relation) iff it is a total order
and every nonempty subset of S has a smallest element with
respect to .
Example. N is well-ordered.
Theorem.
Well-ordering Theorem. Every set can be
well-ordered. That is, for every set S, there is a well-order
relation SS.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Denition. Let S be a set and let SS be an order relation.
Then is called a well-order (relation) iff it is a total order
and every nonempty subset of S has a smallest element with
respect to .
Example. N is well-ordered.
Theorem. Well-ordering Theorem.
Every set can be
well-ordered. That is, for every set S, there is a well-order
relation SS.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Denition. Let S be a set and let SS be an order relation.
Then is called a well-order (relation) iff it is a total order
and every nonempty subset of S has a smallest element with
respect to .
Example. N is well-ordered.
Theorem. Well-ordering Theorem. Every set can be
well-ordered.
That is, for every set S, there is a well-order
relation SS.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Denition. Let S be a set and let SS be an order relation.
Then is called a well-order (relation) iff it is a total order
and every nonempty subset of S has a smallest element with
respect to .
Example. N is well-ordered.
Theorem. Well-ordering Theorem. Every set can be
well-ordered. That is, for every set S, there is a well-order
relation SS.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof.
Let X be the set of all well-order relations DD,
where D is a subset of S. Then X = / 0. For any two well-order
relations
1
D
1
D
1
and
2
D
2
D
2
in X dene
1

2
iff D
1
D
2
, every d
2
D
2
\D
1
is a strict
2
-upper bound of
D
1
, and
2
|
D
1
D
1
=
1
.
Then is an order relation on X (good exercise). Let C X be
a chain and let :=
_
C.
is an order relation: Reexivity is trivial. Let D be the
domain of the relation . For antisymmetry, let x, y D be so
that x y and y x. Then there is a

C with domain D

so
that x, y D

. Hence x

y and y

x, which implies x = y.
Transitivity is proved similarly.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof. Let X be the set of all well-order relations DD,
where D is a subset of S.
Then X = / 0. For any two well-order
relations
1
D
1
D
1
and
2
D
2
D
2
in X dene
1

2
iff D
1
D
2
, every d
2
D
2
\D
1
is a strict
2
-upper bound of
D
1
, and
2
|
D
1
D
1
=
1
.
Then is an order relation on X (good exercise). Let C X be
a chain and let :=
_
C.
is an order relation: Reexivity is trivial. Let D be the
domain of the relation . For antisymmetry, let x, y D be so
that x y and y x. Then there is a

C with domain D

so
that x, y D

. Hence x

y and y

x, which implies x = y.
Transitivity is proved similarly.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof. Let X be the set of all well-order relations DD,
where D is a subset of S. Then X = / 0.
For any two well-order
relations
1
D
1
D
1
and
2
D
2
D
2
in X dene
1

2
iff D
1
D
2
, every d
2
D
2
\D
1
is a strict
2
-upper bound of
D
1
, and
2
|
D
1
D
1
=
1
.
Then is an order relation on X (good exercise). Let C X be
a chain and let :=
_
C.
is an order relation: Reexivity is trivial. Let D be the
domain of the relation . For antisymmetry, let x, y D be so
that x y and y x. Then there is a

C with domain D

so
that x, y D

. Hence x

y and y

x, which implies x = y.
Transitivity is proved similarly.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof. Let X be the set of all well-order relations DD,
where D is a subset of S. Then X = / 0. For any two well-order
relations
1
D
1
D
1
and
2
D
2
D
2
in X dene
1

2
iff
D
1
D
2
, every d
2
D
2
\D
1
is a strict
2
-upper bound of
D
1
, and
2
|
D
1
D
1
=
1
.
Then is an order relation on X (good exercise). Let C X be
a chain and let :=
_
C.
is an order relation: Reexivity is trivial. Let D be the
domain of the relation . For antisymmetry, let x, y D be so
that x y and y x. Then there is a

C with domain D

so
that x, y D

. Hence x

y and y

x, which implies x = y.
Transitivity is proved similarly.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof. Let X be the set of all well-order relations DD,
where D is a subset of S. Then X = / 0. For any two well-order
relations
1
D
1
D
1
and
2
D
2
D
2
in X dene
1

2
iff D
1
D
2
, every d
2
D
2
\D
1
is a strict
2
-upper bound of
D
1
, and
2
|
D
1
D
1
=
1
.
Then is an order relation on X (good exercise). Let C X be
a chain and let :=
_
C.
is an order relation: Reexivity is trivial. Let D be the
domain of the relation . For antisymmetry, let x, y D be so
that x y and y x. Then there is a

C with domain D

so
that x, y D

. Hence x

y and y

x, which implies x = y.
Transitivity is proved similarly.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof. Let X be the set of all well-order relations DD,
where D is a subset of S. Then X = / 0. For any two well-order
relations
1
D
1
D
1
and
2
D
2
D
2
in X dene
1

2
iff D
1
D
2
, every d
2
D
2
\D
1
is a strict
2
-upper bound of
D
1
, and
2
|
D
1
D
1
=
1
.
Then is an order relation on X (good exercise). Let C X be
a chain and let :=
_
C.
is an order relation: Reexivity is trivial. Let D be the
domain of the relation . For antisymmetry, let x, y D be so
that x y and y x. Then there is a

C with domain D

so
that x, y D

. Hence x

y and y

x, which implies x = y.
Transitivity is proved similarly.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof. Let X be the set of all well-order relations DD,
where D is a subset of S. Then X = / 0. For any two well-order
relations
1
D
1
D
1
and
2
D
2
D
2
in X dene
1

2
iff D
1
D
2
, every d
2
D
2
\D
1
is a strict
2
-upper bound of
D
1
, and
2
|
D
1
D
1
=
1
.
Then is an order relation on X (good exercise). Let C X be
a chain and let :=
_
C.
is an order relation: Reexivity is trivial. Let D be the
domain of the relation . For antisymmetry, let x, y D be so
that x y and y x. Then there is a

C with domain D

so
that x, y D

. Hence x

y and y

x, which implies x = y.
Transitivity is proved similarly.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof. Let X be the set of all well-order relations DD,
where D is a subset of S. Then X = / 0. For any two well-order
relations
1
D
1
D
1
and
2
D
2
D
2
in X dene
1

2
iff D
1
D
2
, every d
2
D
2
\D
1
is a strict
2
-upper bound of
D
1
, and
2
|
D
1
D
1
=
1
.
Then is an order relation on X
(good exercise). Let C X be
a chain and let :=
_
C.
is an order relation: Reexivity is trivial. Let D be the
domain of the relation . For antisymmetry, let x, y D be so
that x y and y x. Then there is a

C with domain D

so
that x, y D

. Hence x

y and y

x, which implies x = y.
Transitivity is proved similarly.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof. Let X be the set of all well-order relations DD,
where D is a subset of S. Then X = / 0. For any two well-order
relations
1
D
1
D
1
and
2
D
2
D
2
in X dene
1

2
iff D
1
D
2
, every d
2
D
2
\D
1
is a strict
2
-upper bound of
D
1
, and
2
|
D
1
D
1
=
1
.
Then is an order relation on X (good exercise).
Let C X be
a chain and let :=
_
C.
is an order relation: Reexivity is trivial. Let D be the
domain of the relation . For antisymmetry, let x, y D be so
that x y and y x. Then there is a

C with domain D

so
that x, y D

. Hence x

y and y

x, which implies x = y.
Transitivity is proved similarly.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof. Let X be the set of all well-order relations DD,
where D is a subset of S. Then X = / 0. For any two well-order
relations
1
D
1
D
1
and
2
D
2
D
2
in X dene
1

2
iff D
1
D
2
, every d
2
D
2
\D
1
is a strict
2
-upper bound of
D
1
, and
2
|
D
1
D
1
=
1
.
Then is an order relation on X (good exercise). Let C X be
a chain and let :=
_
C.
is an order relation: Reexivity is trivial. Let D be the
domain of the relation . For antisymmetry, let x, y D be so
that x y and y x. Then there is a

C with domain D

so
that x, y D

. Hence x

y and y

x, which implies x = y.
Transitivity is proved similarly.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof. Let X be the set of all well-order relations DD,
where D is a subset of S. Then X = / 0. For any two well-order
relations
1
D
1
D
1
and
2
D
2
D
2
in X dene
1

2
iff D
1
D
2
, every d
2
D
2
\D
1
is a strict
2
-upper bound of
D
1
, and
2
|
D
1
D
1
=
1
.
Then is an order relation on X (good exercise). Let C X be
a chain and let :=
_
C.
is an order relation:
Reexivity is trivial. Let D be the
domain of the relation . For antisymmetry, let x, y D be so
that x y and y x. Then there is a

C with domain D

so
that x, y D

. Hence x

y and y

x, which implies x = y.
Transitivity is proved similarly.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof. Let X be the set of all well-order relations DD,
where D is a subset of S. Then X = / 0. For any two well-order
relations
1
D
1
D
1
and
2
D
2
D
2
in X dene
1

2
iff D
1
D
2
, every d
2
D
2
\D
1
is a strict
2
-upper bound of
D
1
, and
2
|
D
1
D
1
=
1
.
Then is an order relation on X (good exercise). Let C X be
a chain and let :=
_
C.
is an order relation: Reexivity is trivial.
Let D be the
domain of the relation . For antisymmetry, let x, y D be so
that x y and y x. Then there is a

C with domain D

so
that x, y D

. Hence x

y and y

x, which implies x = y.
Transitivity is proved similarly.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof. Let X be the set of all well-order relations DD,
where D is a subset of S. Then X = / 0. For any two well-order
relations
1
D
1
D
1
and
2
D
2
D
2
in X dene
1

2
iff D
1
D
2
, every d
2
D
2
\D
1
is a strict
2
-upper bound of
D
1
, and
2
|
D
1
D
1
=
1
.
Then is an order relation on X (good exercise). Let C X be
a chain and let :=
_
C.
is an order relation: Reexivity is trivial. Let D be the
domain of the relation .
For antisymmetry, let x, y D be so
that x y and y x. Then there is a

C with domain D

so
that x, y D

. Hence x

y and y

x, which implies x = y.
Transitivity is proved similarly.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof. Let X be the set of all well-order relations DD,
where D is a subset of S. Then X = / 0. For any two well-order
relations
1
D
1
D
1
and
2
D
2
D
2
in X dene
1

2
iff D
1
D
2
, every d
2
D
2
\D
1
is a strict
2
-upper bound of
D
1
, and
2
|
D
1
D
1
=
1
.
Then is an order relation on X (good exercise). Let C X be
a chain and let :=
_
C.
is an order relation: Reexivity is trivial. Let D be the
domain of the relation . For antisymmetry, let x, y D be so
that x y and y x.
Then there is a

C with domain D

so
that x, y D

. Hence x

y and y

x, which implies x = y.
Transitivity is proved similarly.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof. Let X be the set of all well-order relations DD,
where D is a subset of S. Then X = / 0. For any two well-order
relations
1
D
1
D
1
and
2
D
2
D
2
in X dene
1

2
iff D
1
D
2
, every d
2
D
2
\D
1
is a strict
2
-upper bound of
D
1
, and
2
|
D
1
D
1
=
1
.
Then is an order relation on X (good exercise). Let C X be
a chain and let :=
_
C.
is an order relation: Reexivity is trivial. Let D be the
domain of the relation . For antisymmetry, let x, y D be so
that x y and y x. Then there is a

C with domain D

so
that x, y D

.
Hence x

y and y

x, which implies x = y.
Transitivity is proved similarly.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof. Let X be the set of all well-order relations DD,
where D is a subset of S. Then X = / 0. For any two well-order
relations
1
D
1
D
1
and
2
D
2
D
2
in X dene
1

2
iff D
1
D
2
, every d
2
D
2
\D
1
is a strict
2
-upper bound of
D
1
, and
2
|
D
1
D
1
=
1
.
Then is an order relation on X (good exercise). Let C X be
a chain and let :=
_
C.
is an order relation: Reexivity is trivial. Let D be the
domain of the relation . For antisymmetry, let x, y D be so
that x y and y x. Then there is a

C with domain D

so
that x, y D

. Hence x

y and y

x, which implies x = y.
Transitivity is proved similarly.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof. Let X be the set of all well-order relations DD,
where D is a subset of S. Then X = / 0. For any two well-order
relations
1
D
1
D
1
and
2
D
2
D
2
in X dene
1

2
iff D
1
D
2
, every d
2
D
2
\D
1
is a strict
2
-upper bound of
D
1
, and
2
|
D
1
D
1
=
1
.
Then is an order relation on X (good exercise). Let C X be
a chain and let :=
_
C.
is an order relation: Reexivity is trivial. Let D be the
domain of the relation . For antisymmetry, let x, y D be so
that x y and y x. Then there is a

C with domain D

so
that x, y D

. Hence x

y and y

x, which implies x = y.
Transitivity is proved similarly.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (cont.).
Now let

C and let D

be the domain of

.
Clearly, D

D. Let d D\D

and let d

. There is a

C with domain D

so that

and d D

\D

. But
then d

, which means d > d

. Hence d is a strict -upper

bound of D

. Finally, because =
_
C, |
D

D
=

. This
does not establish that is an upper bound of C, because we
still do not know if X.
For X, let A D be a nonempty subset of D. Then there is a

C with domain D

so that AD

= / 0. Because

is a
well-order, AD

has a

-smallest element a. Because

|
D

D
=

, a is the -smallest element of AD

. Because
all elements of D\D

are -strict upper bounds of D

, a is the
-smallest element of A. Therefore (simple exercise, maybe too
simple) is a well-order. Hence it is a -upper bound of C.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (cont.). Now let

C and let D

be the domain of

.
Clearly, D

D. Let d D\D

and let d

. There is a

C with domain D

so that

and d D

\D

. But
then d

, which means d > d

. Hence d is a strict -upper

bound of D

. Finally, because =
_
C, |
D

D
=

. This
does not establish that is an upper bound of C, because we
still do not know if X.
For X, let A D be a nonempty subset of D. Then there is a

C with domain D

so that AD

= / 0. Because

is a
well-order, AD

has a

-smallest element a. Because

|
D

D
=

, a is the -smallest element of AD

. Because
all elements of D\D

are -strict upper bounds of D

, a is the
-smallest element of A. Therefore (simple exercise, maybe too
simple) is a well-order. Hence it is a -upper bound of C.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (cont.). Now let

C and let D

be the domain of

.
Clearly, D

D.
Let d D\D

and let d

. There is a

C with domain D

so that

and d D

\D

. But
then d

, which means d > d

. Hence d is a strict -upper

bound of D

. Finally, because =
_
C, |
D

D
=

. This
does not establish that is an upper bound of C, because we
still do not know if X.
For X, let A D be a nonempty subset of D. Then there is a

C with domain D

so that AD

= / 0. Because

is a
well-order, AD

has a

-smallest element a. Because

|
D

D
=

, a is the -smallest element of AD

. Because
all elements of D\D

are -strict upper bounds of D

, a is the
-smallest element of A. Therefore (simple exercise, maybe too
simple) is a well-order. Hence it is a -upper bound of C.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (cont.). Now let

C and let D

be the domain of

.
Clearly, D

D. Let d D\D

and let d

.
There is a

C with domain D

so that

and d D

\D

. But
then d

, which means d > d

. Hence d is a strict -upper

bound of D

. Finally, because =
_
C, |
D

D
=

. This
does not establish that is an upper bound of C, because we
still do not know if X.
For X, let A D be a nonempty subset of D. Then there is a

C with domain D

so that AD

= / 0. Because

is a
well-order, AD

has a

-smallest element a. Because

|
D

D
=

, a is the -smallest element of AD

. Because
all elements of D\D

are -strict upper bounds of D

, a is the
-smallest element of A. Therefore (simple exercise, maybe too
simple) is a well-order. Hence it is a -upper bound of C.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (cont.). Now let

C and let D

be the domain of

.
Clearly, D

D. Let d D\D

and let d

. There is a

C with domain D

so that

and d D

\D

.
But
then d

, which means d > d

. Hence d is a strict -upper

bound of D

. Finally, because =
_
C, |
D

D
=

. This
does not establish that is an upper bound of C, because we
still do not know if X.
For X, let A D be a nonempty subset of D. Then there is a

C with domain D

so that AD

= / 0. Because

is a
well-order, AD

has a

-smallest element a. Because

|
D

D
=

, a is the -smallest element of AD

. Because
all elements of D\D

are -strict upper bounds of D

, a is the
-smallest element of A. Therefore (simple exercise, maybe too
simple) is a well-order. Hence it is a -upper bound of C.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (cont.). Now let

C and let D

be the domain of

.
Clearly, D

D. Let d D\D

and let d

. There is a

C with domain D

so that

and d D

\D

. But
then d

, which means d > d

.
Hence d is a strict -upper
bound of D

. Finally, because =
_
C, |
D

D
=

. This
does not establish that is an upper bound of C, because we
still do not know if X.
For X, let A D be a nonempty subset of D. Then there is a

C with domain D

so that AD

= / 0. Because

is a
well-order, AD

has a

-smallest element a. Because

|
D

D
=

, a is the -smallest element of AD

. Because
all elements of D\D

are -strict upper bounds of D

, a is the
-smallest element of A. Therefore (simple exercise, maybe too
simple) is a well-order. Hence it is a -upper bound of C.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (cont.). Now let

C and let D

be the domain of

.
Clearly, D

D. Let d D\D

and let d

. There is a

C with domain D

so that

and d D

\D

. But
then d

, which means d > d

. Hence d is a strict -upper

bound of D

.
Finally, because =
_
C, |
D

D
=

. This
does not establish that is an upper bound of C, because we
still do not know if X.
For X, let A D be a nonempty subset of D. Then there is a

C with domain D

so that AD

= / 0. Because

is a
well-order, AD

has a

-smallest element a. Because

|
D

D
=

, a is the -smallest element of AD

. Because
all elements of D\D

are -strict upper bounds of D

, a is the
-smallest element of A. Therefore (simple exercise, maybe too
simple) is a well-order. Hence it is a -upper bound of C.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (cont.). Now let

C and let D

be the domain of

.
Clearly, D

D. Let d D\D

and let d

. There is a

C with domain D

so that

and d D

\D

. But
then d

, which means d > d

. Hence d is a strict -upper

bound of D

. Finally, because =
_
C, |
D

D
=

.
This
does not establish that is an upper bound of C, because we
still do not know if X.
For X, let A D be a nonempty subset of D. Then there is a

C with domain D

so that AD

= / 0. Because

is a
well-order, AD

has a

-smallest element a. Because

|
D

D
=

, a is the -smallest element of AD

. Because
all elements of D\D

are -strict upper bounds of D

, a is the
-smallest element of A. Therefore (simple exercise, maybe too
simple) is a well-order. Hence it is a -upper bound of C.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (cont.). Now let

C and let D

be the domain of

.
Clearly, D

D. Let d D\D

and let d

. There is a

C with domain D

so that

and d D

\D

. But
then d

, which means d > d

. Hence d is a strict -upper

bound of D

. Finally, because =
_
C, |
D

D
=

. This
does not establish that is an upper bound of C, because we
still do not know if X.
For X, let A D be a nonempty subset of D. Then there is a

C with domain D

so that AD

= / 0. Because

is a
well-order, AD

has a

-smallest element a. Because

|
D

D
=

, a is the -smallest element of AD

. Because
all elements of D\D

are -strict upper bounds of D

, a is the
-smallest element of A. Therefore (simple exercise, maybe too
simple) is a well-order. Hence it is a -upper bound of C.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (cont.). Now let

C and let D

be the domain of

.
Clearly, D

D. Let d D\D

and let d

. There is a

C with domain D

so that

and d D

\D

. But
then d

, which means d > d

. Hence d is a strict -upper

bound of D

. Finally, because =
_
C, |
D

D
=

. This
does not establish that is an upper bound of C, because we
still do not know if X.
For X, let A D be a nonempty subset of D.
Then there is a

C with domain D

so that AD

= / 0. Because

is a
well-order, AD

has a

-smallest element a. Because

|
D

D
=

, a is the -smallest element of AD

. Because
all elements of D\D

are -strict upper bounds of D

, a is the
-smallest element of A. Therefore (simple exercise, maybe too
simple) is a well-order. Hence it is a -upper bound of C.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (cont.). Now let

C and let D

be the domain of

.
Clearly, D

D. Let d D\D

and let d

. There is a

C with domain D

so that

and d D

\D

. But
then d

, which means d > d

. Hence d is a strict -upper

bound of D

. Finally, because =
_
C, |
D

D
=

. This
does not establish that is an upper bound of C, because we
still do not know if X.
For X, let A D be a nonempty subset of D. Then there is a

C with domain D

so that AD

= / 0.
Because

is a
well-order, AD

has a

-smallest element a. Because

|
D

D
=

, a is the -smallest element of AD

. Because
all elements of D\D

are -strict upper bounds of D

, a is the
-smallest element of A. Therefore (simple exercise, maybe too
simple) is a well-order. Hence it is a -upper bound of C.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (cont.). Now let

C and let D

be the domain of

.
Clearly, D

D. Let d D\D

and let d

. There is a

C with domain D

so that

and d D

\D

. But
then d

, which means d > d

. Hence d is a strict -upper

bound of D

. Finally, because =
_
C, |
D

D
=

. This
does not establish that is an upper bound of C, because we
still do not know if X.
For X, let A D be a nonempty subset of D. Then there is a

C with domain D

so that AD

= / 0. Because

is a
well-order, AD

has a

-smallest element a.
Because
|
D

D
=

, a is the -smallest element of AD

. Because
all elements of D\D

are -strict upper bounds of D

, a is the
-smallest element of A. Therefore (simple exercise, maybe too
simple) is a well-order. Hence it is a -upper bound of C.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (cont.). Now let

C and let D

be the domain of

.
Clearly, D

D. Let d D\D

and let d

. There is a

C with domain D

so that

and d D

\D

. But
then d

, which means d > d

. Hence d is a strict -upper

bound of D

. Finally, because =
_
C, |
D

D
=

. This
does not establish that is an upper bound of C, because we
still do not know if X.
For X, let A D be a nonempty subset of D. Then there is a

C with domain D

so that AD

= / 0. Because

is a
well-order, AD

has a

-smallest element a. Because

|
D

D
=

, a is the -smallest element of AD

.
Because
all elements of D\D

are -strict upper bounds of D

, a is the
-smallest element of A. Therefore (simple exercise, maybe too
simple) is a well-order. Hence it is a -upper bound of C.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (cont.). Now let

C and let D

be the domain of

.
Clearly, D

D. Let d D\D

and let d

. There is a

C with domain D

so that

and d D

\D

. But
then d

, which means d > d

. Hence d is a strict -upper

bound of D

. Finally, because =
_
C, |
D

D
=

. This
does not establish that is an upper bound of C, because we
still do not know if X.
For X, let A D be a nonempty subset of D. Then there is a

C with domain D

so that AD

= / 0. Because

is a
well-order, AD

has a

-smallest element a. Because

|
D

D
=

, a is the -smallest element of AD

. Because
all elements of D\D

are -strict upper bounds of D

, a is the
-smallest element of A.
Therefore (simple exercise, maybe too
simple) is a well-order. Hence it is a -upper bound of C.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (cont.). Now let

C and let D

be the domain of

.
Clearly, D

D. Let d D\D

and let d

. There is a

C with domain D

so that

and d D

\D

. But
then d

, which means d > d

. Hence d is a strict -upper

bound of D

. Finally, because =
_
C, |
D

D
=

. This
does not establish that is an upper bound of C, because we
still do not know if X.
For X, let A D be a nonempty subset of D. Then there is a

C with domain D

so that AD

= / 0. Because

is a
well-order, AD

has a

-smallest element a. Because

|
D

D
=

, a is the -smallest element of AD

. Because
all elements of D\D

are -strict upper bounds of D

, a is the
-smallest element of A. Therefore (simple exercise, maybe too
simple) is a well-order.
Hence it is a -upper bound of C.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (cont.). Now let

C and let D

be the domain of

.
Clearly, D

D. Let d D\D

and let d

. There is a

C with domain D

so that

and d D

\D

. But
then d

, which means d > d

. Hence d is a strict -upper

bound of D

. Finally, because =
_
C, |
D

D
=

. This
does not establish that is an upper bound of C, because we
still do not know if X.
For X, let A D be a nonempty subset of D. Then there is a

C with domain D

so that AD

= / 0. Because

is a
well-order, AD

has a

-smallest element a. Because

|
D

D
=

, a is the -smallest element of AD

. Because
all elements of D\D

are -strict upper bounds of D

, a is the
-smallest element of A. Therefore (simple exercise, maybe too
simple) is a well-order. Hence it is a -upper bound of C.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (concl.).
By Zorns Lemma, X has a -maximal element
. Then is a well-order with domain D. Suppose for a
contradiction that D = S and let s D\S. Dene

to be an
order relation on D{s} so that

|
DD
= and so that s is a
strict

-upper bound of D. Then

X is a strict -upper
bound of , contradicting the maximality of . Hence must
be a well-order for S.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (concl.). By Zorns Lemma, X has a -maximal element
.
Then is a well-order with domain D. Suppose for a
contradiction that D = S and let s D\S. Dene

to be an
order relation on D{s} so that

|
DD
= and so that s is a
strict

-upper bound of D. Then

X is a strict -upper
bound of , contradicting the maximality of . Hence must
be a well-order for S.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (concl.). By Zorns Lemma, X has a -maximal element
. Then is a well-order with domain D.
Suppose for a
contradiction that D = S and let s D\S. Dene

to be an
order relation on D{s} so that

|
DD
= and so that s is a
strict

-upper bound of D. Then

X is a strict -upper
bound of , contradicting the maximality of . Hence must
be a well-order for S.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (concl.). By Zorns Lemma, X has a -maximal element
. Then is a well-order with domain D. Suppose for a
contradiction that D = S and let s D\S.
Dene

to be an
order relation on D{s} so that

|
DD
= and so that s is a
strict

-upper bound of D. Then

X is a strict -upper
bound of , contradicting the maximality of . Hence must
be a well-order for S.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (concl.). By Zorns Lemma, X has a -maximal element
. Then is a well-order with domain D. Suppose for a
contradiction that D = S and let s D\S. Dene

to be an
order relation on D{s} so that

|
DD
= and so that s is a
strict

-upper bound of D.
Then

X is a strict -upper
bound of , contradicting the maximality of . Hence must
be a well-order for S.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (concl.). By Zorns Lemma, X has a -maximal element
. Then is a well-order with domain D. Suppose for a
contradiction that D = S and let s D\S. Dene

to be an
order relation on D{s} so that

|
DD
= and so that s is a
strict

-upper bound of D. Then

X is a strict -upper
bound of , contradicting the maximality of .
Hence must
be a well-order for S.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (concl.). By Zorns Lemma, X has a -maximal element
. Then is a well-order with domain D. Suppose for a
contradiction that D = S and let s D\S. Dene

to be an
order relation on D{s} so that

|
DD
= and so that s is a
strict

-upper bound of D. Then

X is a strict -upper
bound of , contradicting the maximality of . Hence must
be a well-order for S.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice
logo1
Choice Functions Zorns Lemma Well-Ordering Theorem
Proof (concl.). By Zorns Lemma, X has a -maximal element
. Then is a well-order with domain D. Suppose for a
contradiction that D = S and let s D\S. Dene

to be an
order relation on D{s} so that

|
DD
= and so that s is a
strict

-upper bound of D. Then

X is a strict -upper
bound of , contradicting the maximality of . Hence must
be a well-order for S.
Bernd Schr oder Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science
The Axiom of Choice