Message from discussion Choice!
Received: by 10.68.202.37 with SMTP id kf5mr5674721pbc.7.1334928610788;
Fri, 20 Apr 2012 06:30:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: mstem...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper)
Subject: Re: Choice!
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:30:07 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Society for Rational Investigation
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Injection-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:30:07 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="iiDWY+oRhbNwdUkrcobFmg";
logging-data="24068"; mail-complaints-to="ab...@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Qx6cCvYfK428AY2BI2F61ZFKP3/8vG/8="
X-newsreader: xrn 9.02
In article <87aa27yfbq....@uta.fi>, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi> writes:
>mstem...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) writes:
>> Could somebody give a layman-accessible description of how this
>> differs from the standard statement of Choice (if it does)?
> Well, let me try. In set theory we can and do introduce various
>operations on sets. These include the powerset operation P that takes a
>set x to the set P(x) of all its subsets, the union operation taking a
>set to its union, and so on. These operations do not correspond to
>functions in set theoretic sense, i.e. they're not sets of ordered pairs
>stipulated to exist by this axiom or that.
[snip lucid explanation]
That was very helpful. I allowed me to better understand the particular
formulation being presented. It also gave me a better understanding of
why Choice is considered problematic by some. 
It especially helped me with some concerns that I had with fundamental
things such as union, intersection, subset, and power set. For instance,
"is a subset of" looks so much like a relation that I had been thinking
that it was defined as one. Similarly "powerset of" looked a lot like a
function, and union and intersection looked a lot like binary operations.
But, in each case the issue of domain and range came up. You've addressed
that quite well.
Thanks for the time taken to write that up.
 I knew it couldn't be Banach-Tarski that was the hang-up.
Michael F. Stemper
2 + 2 = 5, for sufficiently large values of 2