We show that it is not possible to construct a Fraenkel-Mostowski model in which the axiom of choice for well-ordered families of sets and the axiom of choice for sets are both true, but the axiom of choice is false.
The deductive relationships between six statements are examined in set theory without the axiom of choice. Each of these statements follows from the axiom of choice and involves linear orderings in some way.
Let NBG be von Neumann-Bernays-Gödel set theory without the axiom of choice and let NBGA be the modification which allows atoms. In this paper we consider some of the well-known class or global forms of the wellordering theorem, the axiom of choice, and maximal principles which are known to be equivalent in NBG and show they are not equivalent in NBGA.
The Fraenkel-Mostowski method has been widely used to prove independence results among weak versions of the axiom of choice. In this paper it is shown that certain statements cannot be proved by this method. More specifically it is shown that in all Fraenkel-Mostowski models the following hold: 1. The axiom of choice for sets of finite sets implies the axiom of choice for sets of well-orderable sets. 2. The Boolean prime ideal theorem implies a weakened form of Sikorski's theorem.