Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T18:17:10.204Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The independence of the Prime Ideal Theorem from the Order-Extension Principle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

U. Felgner  and
J. K. Truss
U. Felgner
Affiliation:
Mathematisches Institut der Universität, Auf Der Morgenstelle 10, 7400 Tübingen, Germany, E-mail: [email protected]
J. K. Truss
Affiliation:
Department of Pure Mathematics, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, England, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is shown that the boolean prime ideal theorem BPIT: every boolean algebra has a prime ideal, does not follow from the order-extension principle OE: every partial ordering can be extended to a linear ordering. The proof uses a Fraenkel–Mostowski model, where the family of atoms is indexed by a countable universal-homogeneous boolean algebra whose boolean partial ordering has a ‘generic’ extension to a linear ordering. To illustrate the technique for proving that the order-extension principle holds in the model we also study Mostowski's ordered model, and give a direct verification of OE there. The key technical point needed to verify OE in each case is the existence of a support structure.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 64 , Issue 1 , March 1999 , pp. 199 - 215
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Cohen, P.J., Set theory and the continuum hypothesis, Benjamin, 1966.Google Scholar
[2]Dwinger, P. and Yakub, F.M., Generalized free products of boolean algebras with amalgamated subalgebra, Indagationes Mathematicae (1963), no. 25, pp. 225–231.Google Scholar
[3]Marczewski, E. Szpilrajn, Sur l'extension de l'ordre partiel, Fundamenta Mathematicae (1930), no. 16, pp. 386–389.Google Scholar
[4]Felgner, U., Die Unabhängigkeit des Booleschen Primidealtheorems vom Ordnungerwiterungssatz, Habilitationsschrift, Heidelberg, 1972.Google Scholar
[5]Fraïssé, R., Sur l'extension aux relations de quelques propriétés des ordres, Annales Scientifiques de École Normale Superieure (1954), no. 71, pp. 363–388.Google Scholar
[6]Halmos, P.R., Lectures on boolean algebras, Springer-Verlag, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Halpern, J.D. and Levy, A., The boolean prime ideal theorem does not imply the axiom of choice, Axiomatic set theory, Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, XIII part 1, American Mathematical Society, 1971, pp. 83–134.Google Scholar
[8]Halpern, J.D., The independence of the axiom of choice from the boolean prime ideal theorem, Fundamenta Mathematicae (1964), no. 55, pp. 57–66.Google Scholar
[9]Jech, T., The axiom of choice, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1973.Google Scholar
[10]Läuchli, H., The independence of the ordering principle from a restricted axiom of choice, Fundamenta Mathematicae (1964), no. 54, pp. 31–43.Google Scholar
[11]Levy, A., The Fraenkel-Mostowski method for independence proofs in set theory, The theory of models (Addison, J.W., Henkin, L., and Tarski, A., editors), Proceedings of the 1963 international symposium at Berkeley, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1965, pp. 221–228.Google Scholar
[12]Luxemburg, W.A.J., Reduced powers of the real number system and equivalents of the Hahn–Banach extension theorem, International symposium on applications of model theory to algebra, analysis, and probablility, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, 1969.Google Scholar
[13]Mathias, A.R.D., The order-extension principle, Axiomatic set theory, Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, XIII part 2, American Mathematical Society, 1974, pp. 179–184.Google Scholar
[14]Pincus, D., Support structures for the axiom of choice, this Journal (1971), no. 36, pp. 28–38.Google Scholar
[15]Pincus, D., Zermelo–Fraenkel consistency results by Fraenkel–Mostowski methods, this Journal (1972), no. 37, pp. 721–743.Google Scholar
[16]Pincus, D., Two model-theoretic ideas in independence proofs, Fundamenta Mathematicae (1976), no. 92, pp. 113–130.Google Scholar
[17]Rubin, H. and Rubin, J.E., Equivalents of the axiom of choice, ii, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1976.Google Scholar
[18]Tarski, A., Prime ideal theorem for set algebras and ordering principles, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society (1954), no. 60, pp. 390–391.Google Scholar
[19]Truss, J.K., Permutations and the axiom of choice, Automorphisms of first order structures (Kaye, R. and Macpherson, D., editors), Oxford University Press, 1994, pp. 131–152.Google Scholar