Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with axiom-of-choice
Search options not deleted
user 206
An important and fundamental axiom in set theory sometimes called Zermelo's axiom of choice. It was formulated by Zermelo in 1904 and states that, given any set of mutually disjoint nonempty sets, there exists at least one set that contains exactly one element in common with each of the nonempty sets. The axiom of choice is related to the first of Hilbert's problems. (from MathOverflow)
17
votes
Accepted
Well-foundedness: classical equivalence of no infinite descent and accessibility
This is not a Coq proof, but it's a proof sketch using the axiom of dependent choice and LEM to exhibit an equivalence. I believe this is the weakest choice principle you can get away with, but I cann …
- 516