In this paper, we consider certain cardinals in ZF (set theory without AC, the axiom of choice). In ZFC (set theory with AC), given any cardinals C and D, either C ≤ D or D ≤ C. However, in ZF this is no longer so. For a given infinite set A consider $\operatorname{seq}^{1 - 1}(A)$ , the set of all sequences of A without repetition. We compare $|\operatorname{seq}^{1 - 1}(A)|$ , the cardinality of this set, to |P(A)|, the cardinality of (...) the power set of A. What is provable about these two cardinals in ZF? The main result of this paper is that $ZF \vdash \forall A(|\operatorname{seq}^{1 - 1}(A)| \neq|\mathscr{P}(\mathscr{A})|)$ , and we show that this is the best possible result. Furthermore, it is provable in ZF that if B is an infinite set, then $|\operatorname{fin}(B)| <|\mathscr{P}(B)|$ even though the existence for some infinite set B* of a function f from $\operatorname{fin}(B^\ast)$ onto P(B*) is consistent with ZF. (shrink)

For a set M, let \\) denote the set of all finite sequences which can be formed with elements of M, and let \ denote the set of all 2-element subsets of M. Furthermore, for a set A, let Open image in new window denote the cardinality of A. It will be shown that the following statement is consistent with Zermelo–Fraenkel Set Theory \: There exists a set M such that Open image in new window and no function Open image (...) in new window is finite-to-one. (shrink)

If we assume the axiom of choice, then every two cardinal numbers are comparable, In the absence of the axiom of choice, this is no longer so. For a few cardinalities related to an arbitrary infinite set, we will give all the possible relationships between them, where possible means that the relationship is consistent with the axioms of set theory. Further we investigate the relationships between some other cardinal numbers in specific permutation models and give some results provable without using (...) the axiom of choice. (shrink)

For an integer \, Ramsey Choice\ is the weak choice principle “every infinite setxhas an infinite subset y such that\ has a choice function”, and \ is the weak choice principle “every infinite family of n-element sets has an infinite subfamily with a choice function”. In 1995, Montenegro showed that for \, \. However, the question of whether or not \ for \ is still open. In general, for distinct \, not even the status of “\” or “\” is known. (...) In this paper, we provide partial answers to the above open problems and among other results, we establish the following:1.For every integer \, if \ is true for all integers i with \, then \ is true for all integers i with \.2.If \ are any integers such that for some prime p we have \ and \, then in \: \ and \.3.For \, \\\ implies \, and \ implies neither \ nor \ in \.4.For every integer \, \ implies “every infinite linearly orderable family of k-element sets has a partial Kinna–Wagner selection function” and the latter implication is not reversible in \ ). In particular, \ strictly implies “every infinite linearly orderable family of 3-element sets has a partial choice function”.5.The Chain-AntiChain Principle implies neither \ nor \ in \, for every integer \. (shrink)

For \(n\in \omega \), the weak choice principle \(\textrm{RC}_n\) is defined as follows: _For every infinite set_ _X_ _there is an infinite subset_ \(Y\subseteq X\) _with a choice function on_ \([Y]^n:=\{z\subseteq Y:|z|=n\}\). The choice principle \(\textrm{C}_n^-\) states the following: _For every infinite family of_ _n_-_element sets, there is an infinite subfamily_ \({\mathcal {G}}\subseteq {\mathcal {F}}\) _with a choice function._ The choice principles \(\textrm{LOC}_n^-\) and \(\textrm{WOC}_n^-\) are the same as \(\textrm{C}_n^-\), but we assume that the family \({\mathcal {F}}\) is linearly orderable (...) (for \(\textrm{LOC}_n^-\) ) or well-orderable (for \(\textrm{WOC}_n^-\) ). In the first part of this paper, for \(m,n\in \omega \) we will give a full characterization of when the implication \(\textrm{RC}_m\Rightarrow \textrm{WOC}_n^-\) holds in \({\textsf {ZF}}\). We will prove the independence results by using suitable Fraenkel-Mostowski permutation models. In the second part, we will show some generalizations. In particular, we will show that \(\textrm{RC}_5\Rightarrow \textrm{LOC}_5^-\) and that \(\textrm{RC}_6\Rightarrow \textrm{C}_3^-\), answering two open questions from Halbeisen and Tachtsis (Arch Math Logik 59(5):583–606, 2020). Furthermore, we will show that \(\textrm{RC}_6\Rightarrow \textrm{C}_9^-\) and that \(\textrm{RC}_7\Rightarrow \textrm{LOC}_7^-\). (shrink)

For a ⊆ b ⊆ ω with b\ a infinite, the set D = {x ∈ [ω]ω : a ⊆ x ⊆ b} is called a doughnut. A set S ⊆ [ω]ω has the doughnut property [MATHEMATICAL SCRIPT CAPITAL D] if it contains or is disjoint from a doughnut. It is known that not every set S ⊆ [ω]ω has the doughnut property, but S has the doughnut property if it has the Baire property ℬ or the Ramsey property ℛ. (...) In this paper it is shown that a finite support iteration of length ω1 of Cohen forcing, starting from L, yields a model for CH + equation image + equation image + equation image. (shrink)

In this article we give a forcing characterization for the Ramsey property of Σ 1 2 -sets of reals. This research was motivated by the well-known forcing characterizations for Lebesgue measurability and the Baire property of Σ 1 2 -sets of reals. Further we will show the relationship between higher degrees of forcing absoluteness and the Ramsey property of projective sets of reals.

We prove versions of the Dual Ramsey Theorem and the Dual Ellentuck Theorem for families of partitions which are defined in terms of games.

In this article we compare the well-known Ramsey property with a dual form of it, the so called dual-Ramsey property (which was suggested first by Carlson and Simpson). Even if the two properties are different, it can be shown that all classical results known for the Ramsey property also hold for the dual-Ramsey property. We will also show that the dual-Ramsey property is closed under a generalized Suslin operation (the similar result for the Ramsey property was proved by Matet). Further (...) we compare two notions of forcing, the Mathias forcing and a dual form of it, and will give some symmetries between them. Finally we give some relationships between the dual-Mathias forcing and the dual-Ramsey property. (shrink)