Hostname: page-component-65b85459fc-22psd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-19T07:10:34.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A NOTE ON SURJECTIVE CARDINALS

Part of: Set theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 September 2025

JIAHENG JIN
Affiliation:
SCHOOL OF PHILOSOPHY WUHAN UNIVERSITY NO. 299 BAYI ROAD WUHAN, HUBEI PROVINCE, 430072 PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA E-mail: jin_jiaheng@outlook.com
GUOZHEN SHEN*
Affiliation:
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY (ZHUHAI) SUN YAT-SEN UNIVERSITY NO. 2 DAXUE ROAD ZHUHAI, GUANGDONG PROVINCE, 519082 PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Abstract

For cardinals $\mathfrak {a}$ and $\mathfrak {b}$, we write $\mathfrak {a}=^\ast \mathfrak {b}$ if there are sets A and B of cardinalities $\mathfrak {a}$ and $\mathfrak {b}$, respectively, such that there are partial surjections from A onto B and from B onto A. $=^\ast $-equivalence classes are called surjective cardinals. In this article, we show that $\mathsf {ZF}+\mathsf {DC}_\kappa $, where $\kappa $ is a fixed aleph, cannot prove that surjective cardinals form a cardinal algebra, which gives a negative solution to a question proposed by Truss [J. Truss, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 27, 165–207 (1984)]. Nevertheless, we show that surjective cardinals form a “surjective cardinal algebra”, whose postulates are almost the same as those of a cardinal algebra, except that the refinement postulate is replaced by the finite refinement postulate. This yields a smoother proof of the cancellation law for surjective cardinals, which states that $m\cdot \mathfrak {a}=^\ast m\cdot \mathfrak {b}$ implies $\mathfrak {a}=^\ast \mathfrak {b}$ for all cardinals $\mathfrak {a},\mathfrak {b}$ and all nonzero natural numbers m.

Information

Type
Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Association for Symbolic Logic

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bhaskara Rao, K. P. S. and Shortt, R. M., Weak cardinal algebras. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , vol. 659 (1992), pp. 156162.Google Scholar
Halbeisen, L., Combinatorial Set Theory: With a Gentle Introduction to Forcing , second ed., Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer, Cham, 2017.10.1007/978-3-319-60231-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison-Trainor, M. and Kulshreshtha, D., The logic of cardinality comparison without the axiom of choice . Annals of Pure and Applied Logic , vol. 176 (2025), p. 103549.10.1016/j.apal.2024.103549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jech, T., The Axiom of Choice , Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, 75, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1973.Google Scholar
Pincus, D., Adding dependent choice . Annals of Mathematical Logic , vol. 11 (1977), pp. 105145.10.1016/0003-4843(77)90011-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, R., Pan galactic division . The Mathematical Intelligencer , vol. 37 (2015), pp. 810.10.1007/s00283-015-9564-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarski, A., Cancellation laws in the arithmetic of cardinals . Fundamenta Mathematicae , vol. 36 (1949), pp. 7792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarski, A., Cardinal Algebras , Oxford University Press, New York, 1949.Google Scholar
Truss, J., Convex sets of cardinals . Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society , vol. 27 (1973), pp. 577599.10.1112/plms/s3-27.4.577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truss, J., Cancellation laws for surjective cardinals . Annals of Pure and Applied Logic , vol. 27 (1984), pp. 165207.10.1016/0168-0072(84)90011-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truss, J., The failure of cancellation laws for equidecomposability types . Canadian Journal of Mathematics vol. 42 (1990), pp. 590606.10.4153/CJM-1990-031-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wehrung, F., Injective positively ordered monoids I . Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra , vol. 83 (1992), pp. 4382.10.1016/0022-4049(92)90104-NCrossRefGoogle Scholar