Amorphous sets and dual Dedekind finiteness

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.13508
• Title: Amorphous sets and dual Dedekind finiteness
• Authors: Yifan Hu, Ruihuan Mao, Guozhen Shen
• Classification: math.LO (Mathematical Logic)
• Publication Date: October 15, 2025
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.13508

Abstract

A set $A$ is called dual Dedekind finite if every surjection from $A$ to $A$ is an injection; otherwise it is called dual Dedekind infinite. An amorphous set is an infinite set that cannot be partitioned into two infinite subsets. A strictly amorphous set is an amorphous set where every partition has only finitely many non-singleton blocks. This paper proves that it is consistent with ZF set theory (without the axiom of choice) that there exists an amorphous set $A$ such that its power set $\mathscr{P}(A)$ is dual Dedekind infinite, providing a negative answer to a question posed by Truss in 1974. Nevertheless, the authors prove in ZF that for all strictly amorphous sets $A$ and all natural numbers $n$, $\mathscr{P}(A)^n$ is dual Dedekind finite, generalizing a result of Goldstern.

Research Background and Motivation

1. Problem to be Solved: This paper primarily investigates the dual Dedekind finiteness of power sets of amorphous sets within the ZF set theory framework without the axiom of choice.
2. Importance of the Problem:
   • Dedekind defined in 1888 an infinite set as one equipotent to a proper subset of itself, which is equivalent to the usual notion of infinity when the axiom of choice holds
   • Without the axiom of choice, multiple distinct concepts of finiteness exist, and studying their relationships has important set-theoretic significance
   • Dual Dedekind finiteness is an important finiteness concept introduced by Truss in 1958
3. Limitations of Existing Methods:
   • Truss conjectured in 1974 that the set of finite subsets of all amorphous sets is dual Dedekind finite
   • This problem has been mentioned in multiple references but remained unsolved
   • Systematic methods for constructing counterexamples were lacking
4. Research Motivation: To resolve Truss's conjecture through constructing concrete permutation models and to deeply investigate the properties of strictly amorphous sets.

Core Contributions

1. Negatively Resolved Truss's Conjecture: Proved that there exist amorphous sets $A$ such that both $\mathscr{P}(A)$ and $\text{fin}(A)$ are dual Dedekind infinite
2. Generalized Results on Projective Amorphous Sets: Proved that all projective amorphous sets have dual Dedekind infinite power sets
3. Established Equivalence Between Strictly Amorphous and Strongly Amorphous Sets: Proved that these two concepts are completely equivalent
4. Generalized Goldstern's Theorem: Proved that for all strictly amorphous sets $A$ and natural numbers $n$, $\mathscr{P}(A)^n$ is dual Dedekind finite

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Investigate the dual Dedekind finiteness of power sets of amorphous sets within the ZF set theory framework. Given a set $A$:

• Input: An amorphous set $A$ (an infinite set that cannot be partitioned into two infinite subsets)
• Output: Determine the dual Dedekind finiteness of $\mathscr{P}(A)$ or $\mathscr{P}(A)^n$
• Constraints: Conducted within the ZF set theory framework (without the axiom of choice)

Model Architecture

1. Permutation Model Construction (Section 2)

The authors construct a permutation model to prove Theorem 1.1:

Atom Set Configuration: $A = \{a_v \mid v \in V\}$ where $V$ is an infinite vector space over $\mathbb{F}_2$.

Group Action:

• $G$ is the general linear group of $A$ (all invertible linear transformations)
• Each permutation $\pi$ is recursively extended to the entire universe: $\pi x = \{\pi z \mid z \in x\}$

Support Condition: A set $x$ belongs to the permutation model $V$ if and only if $x \subseteq V$ and $x$ has finite support.

2. Proof of Dual Dedekind Infiniteness

Construct a non-injective surjection $f: \text{fin}(A) \to \text{fin}(A)$:

$f(S) = \begin{cases} S \setminus \bigcup\{W \in \text{Sub}(A) \mid W \subseteq S \text{ with } |W| \text{ maximal}\} & \text{if } 0 \in S \\ S \cup \{0\} & \text{otherwise} \end{cases}$

3. Analysis of Projective Amorphous Sets (Section 3)

For projective amorphous sets, utilize pregeometric structures:

• Closure Operator: $\text{cl}: \text{fin}(A) \to \text{fin}(A)$
• Commutativity Properties: Special cardinality properties for independent sets
• Local Homogeneity: Ensures consistency of construction

Technical Innovations

1. Permutation Model Method: Cleverly utilizes the linear structure of vector spaces to construct permutation groups
2. Recursive Construction Technique: Uses recursive selection of vectors in surjectivity proofs
3. Application of Pregeometric Theory: Introduces model-theoretic pregeometric concepts into set-theoretic research
4. Unified Framework: Unifies strictly amorphous and strongly amorphous sets within a single theoretical framework

Experimental Setup

Theoretical Verification Methods

As a pure mathematical theory paper, this work employs rigorous mathematical proof methods:

1. Permutation Model Verification: Converts permutation model results to ZF consistency results via the Jech-Sochor embedding theorem
2. Constructive Proofs: Directly constructs surjective functions to prove dual Dedekind infiniteness
3. Inductive Proofs: Uses induction in Lemma 4.1 to prove properties of strictly amorphous sets

Proof Strategies

1. Proof by Contradiction: In the proof of Theorem 5.3, assumes the existence of dual Dedekind infinite cases to derive a contradiction
2. Equivalence Proofs: Proves equivalence of strictly amorphous and strongly amorphous sets through bidirectional implication
3. Parametric Analysis: Uses finite parameter sets to analyze first-order definability

Experimental Results

Main Results

Theorem 1.1 (Negative Answer)

Result: It is consistent with ZF that there exists an amorphous set $A$ such that both $\mathscr{P}(A)$ and $\text{fin}(A)$ are dual Dedekind infinite.

Significance: Completely refutes Truss's conjecture, resolving an open problem that existed for 50 years.

Theorem 3.2 (Projective Extension)

Result: For each projective amorphous set $A$, both $\text{fin}(A)$ and $\mathscr{P}(A)$ are dual Dedekind infinite.

Significance: Generalizes the counterexample results to a larger class of amorphous sets.

Theorem 4.2 (Equivalence)

Result: A set $A$ is strictly amorphous if and only if it is strongly amorphous.

Significance: Unifies two important concepts of amorphous sets.

Theorem 5.3 (Positive Result)

Result: For all strictly amorphous sets $A$ and all natural numbers $n$, both $\text{fin}(A)^n$ and $\mathscr{P}(A)^n$ are dual Dedekind finite.

Significance: Generalizes Goldstern's result and provides a positive characterization of dual Dedekind finiteness.

Key Lemmas

Lemma 2.1

In the constructed permutation model $V$, $A$ is amorphous.

Lemma 2.2

In $V$, $\text{fin}(A)$ is dual Dedekind infinite.

Lemma 4.1

For strictly amorphous sets, every relation can be defined by a quantifier-free first-order formula.

Related Work

Historical Development

1. Dedekind (1888): Defined the concept of Dedekind infinity
2. Levy (1958): Investigated various finiteness concepts without the axiom of choice, introducing amorphous sets
3. Truss (1974): Introduced dual Dedekind finiteness and posed the conjecture resolved in this paper
4. Goldstern (1997): Proved that the power set of strongly amorphous sets is dual Dedekind finite

Relationship to Related Work

• Refuted Truss's Conjecture: Provides long-awaited counterexamples
• Generalized Goldstern's Result: Extends from strongly amorphous sets to strictly amorphous sets, and from power sets to finite powers of power sets
• Perfected the Theoretical System: Establishes the equivalence of strictly amorphous and strongly amorphous sets

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Truss's conjecture that the set of finite subsets of all amorphous sets is dual Dedekind finite is false
2. Projective amorphous sets provide systematic sources of counterexamples
3. Strictly amorphous sets and strongly amorphous sets are equivalent concepts
4. Finite powers of the power set of strictly amorphous sets are always dual Dedekind finite

Limitations

1. Dependence on ZF Framework: Results may not hold when the axiom of choice is assumed
2. Constructive Restrictions: The permutation model method can only prove consistency, not provide direct counterexamples in ZF
3. Technical Complexity: Proofs involve sophisticated model-theoretic and set-theoretic techniques

Future Directions

The paper proposes two open problems:

Problem 6.1: Can ZF prove that every amorphous set with a dual Dedekind infinite power set is projective?

Problem 6.2: Is it consistent with ZF that there exists a family of amorphous sets $\langle A_n \rangle_{n \in \omega}$ such that for all $n$, $\mathscr{P}(A_n)^n$ is dual Dedekind finite while $\mathscr{P}(A_n)^{n+1}$ is dual Dedekind infinite?

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Theoretical Breakthrough: Resolves an important open problem that existed for 50 years
2. Methodological Innovation: Cleverly combines techniques from linear algebra, model theory, and set theory
3. Complete Results: Provides both negative answers and positive characterization results
4. Technical Rigor: All proofs are completely rigorous mathematical proofs

Weaknesses

1. Limited Applications: As pure theoretical research, direct practical applications are limited
2. Technical Threshold: Requires deep background in mathematical logic and set theory to understand
3. Unresolved Problems: Important questions remain open

Impact

1. Academic Value: Has significant impact in descriptive set theory and infinite combinatorics
2. Theoretical Contribution: Perfects the theoretical system of finiteness concepts without the axiom of choice
3. Methodological Inspiration: The permutation model construction method may inspire research on related problems

Applicable Scenarios

• Descriptive set theory research
• Infinite combinatorics
• Model theory applications
• Independence of the axiom of choice research

References

The paper cites key references in the field, including:

• Dedekind (1888): Original definition of infinity
• Levy (1958): Introduction of amorphous sets
• Truss (1974, 1995): Dual Dedekind finiteness and strictly amorphous sets
• Goldstern (1997): Research on strongly amorphous sets
• Halbeisen (2025): Modern textbook on combinatorial set theory

Overall Assessment: This is a high-quality pure mathematics theory paper that solves an important long-standing problem through ingenious construction, making significant contributions to descriptive set theory. While technically demanding, its theoretical value and methodological innovation are both outstanding.