Independent families and some notions of finiteness (Q6103507)

In the paper under review, the authors investigate the deductive strength of the following well-known theorems relative to the axiom of choice (\(\mathrm{AC}\)) and weaker forms of \(\mathrm{AC}\): \begin{itemize} \item The \textit{Fichtenholz-Kantorovich-Hausdorff theorem} (\(\mathrm{FKHT}\)): ``For every infinite set \(X\), \(\mathrm{Id}(X)\)'', where \(\mathrm{Id}(X)\) is ``\(X\) has an independent family of size \(|\wp(X)|\)''; \item the \textit{Hewitt-Marczewski-Pondiczery theorem} (\(\mathrm{HMPT}\)): ``For every infinite set \(X\), the Cantor cube \(2^{\wp(X)}\) has a dense set of size \(|X|\)''; \item the \textit{strong Hewitt-Marczewski-Pondiczery theorem} (\(\mathrm{SrmHMPT}\)): ``For every set \(k\) and every family \(\{\langle X_{i},\tau_{i}\rangle:i\in I\}\) of topological spaces such that \(|I|\leq |2^{k}|\) and each \(X_{i}\) has a dense subset of size \(\leq |k|\), the product space \(\prod_{i\in I}X_{i}\) has a dense set of size \(\leq |k|\)''. \end{itemize} The authors also determine the relative strengths in \(\mathrm{ZF}\) (Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory minus the \(\mathrm{AC}\)) between \(\neg\mathrm{Id}(X)\) and some of the notions of finiteness studied in \textit{A. Lévy}'s paper [Fundam. Math. 46, 1--13 (1958; Zbl 0089.00702)]. Typical results are: \begin{itemize} \item[1.] \(\mathrm{FKHT}\) is not a theorem of \(\mathrm{ZF}+\mathrm{BPI}\) (where \(\mathrm{BPI}\) denotes the Boolean prime ideal theorem: ``Every Boolean algebra has a prime ideal''). \item[2.] \(\mathrm{FrmKHT}\) is equivalent to \(\mathrm{HMPT}\). \item[3.] \(\mathrm{ZF}+\mathrm{BPI}+\mathrm{FKHT}\) is consistent with the existence of an infinite, Dedekind-finite set of reals (i.e., an infinite set of reals with no countably infinite subsets). Thus, \(\mathrm{FKHT}\) is not equivalent to \(\mathrm{AC}\) in \(\mathrm{ZF}\). \item[4.] \(\mathrm{SHMPT}\) is equivalent to \(\mathrm{ArmC}\). \item[5.] \(\mathrm{ZF}\) \(+\) ``Every Dedekind-finite set is finite'' is consistent with \(\neg\mathrm{FKHT}\). \item[6.] For any infinite set \(X\), ``\(|X\times X|=|X|\)'' implies \(\mathrm{Id}(X)\), which in turn implies ``\(\wp(X)\) is Dedekind-infinite'' and ``\(|[\wp(X)]^{<\omega}|=|\wp(X)|\)'' (where \([\wp(X)]^{<\omega}\) denotes the set of finite subsets of \(\wp(X)\)). \item[7.] There exists a model of \(\mathrm{ZF}\) in which there is an infinite set \(X\) with no infinite, linearly orderable subsets (such a set \(X\) is called \textit{\(\Delta_{3}\)-finite} according to \textit{J. Truss} [Fundam. Math. 84, 187--208 (1974; Zbl 0292.02049)]), and for which \(\mathrm{Id}(X)\) is true in the model. Hence, in \(\mathrm{ZF}\), ``\(X\) is \(\Delta_{3}\)-finite'' does not imply \(\neg\mathrm{Id}(X)\). \item[8.] \(\mathrm{ZF}\) is consistent with the existence of an infinite set \(X\) such that \(2|X|=|X|\) and \(|\wp(X)|\neq |[\wp(X)]^{<\omega}|\). \item[9.] In \(\mathrm{ZF}\), it is not provable that for every infinite set \(X\), \(2|X|=|X|\) implies \(\mathrm{Id}(X)\). \end{itemize} In connection with the above, I include Levy's terminology for certain notions of finiteness addressed in this paper. A set \(X\) is called: \textit{III-finite} if \(\wp(X)\) is Dedekind-finite; \textit{IV-finite} if \(X\) is Dedekind-finite; \textit{V-finite} if \(|X|<2|X|\) or \(|X|=0\); \textit{VI-finite} if \(|X|<|X|^{2}\) or \(|X|\leq 1\). Note also that \(\Delta_{3}\)-finiteness implies IV-finiteness.