## Return to Question

2 deleted 6 characters in body

There are two questions here, an explicit one, and another (more vague) one that motivates it:

I am pretty certain the following should have a negative answer, but at the moment I'm not seeing how to argue about this and cannot locate an appropriate reference.

In set theory without choice, suppose $X$ is an infinite set such that for every positive integer $n$, we can split $X$ into $n$ (disjoint) infinite sets. Does it follow that $X$ can be split into infinitely many infinite sets? What would be a reasonably weak additional assumption to ensure the conclusion.

("Reasonably weak" would ideally be something that by itself does not suffice to give us that $X$ admits such a splitting, but I am flexible.)

This was motivated by a question at Math.SE, namely whether an infinite set can be partitioned into infinitely many infinite sets. This is of course trivial with choice. In fact, all we need to split $X$ is that it can be mapped surjectively onto ${\mathbb N}$.

However, without choice there may be counterexamples: A set $X$ is amorphous iff any subset of $X$ is either finite or else its complement in $X$ is finite. It is consistent that there are infinite amorphous sets. If $X$ is infinite and a finite union of amorphous sets, then $X$ is a counterexample. The question is a baby step towards trying to understand the nature of other counterexamples.

Note that any counterexample must be an infinite Dedekind finite (iDf) set $X$. One can show that for any iDf $X$, ${\mathcal P}^2(X)$ is Dedekind infinite, and from this it actually follows that either . For any $X$ or Y$, if${\mathcal P}(X)$P}(Y)$ is Dedekind infinite, then $Y$ can be mapped onto $\omega$ (this is a result of Kuratowski, it appears in pages 94, 95 of Alfred Tarski, "Sur les ensembles finis", Fundamenta Mathematicae 6 (1924), 45–95). As mentioned above, our counterexample $X$ cannot be mapped onto $\omega$, so ${\mathcal P}(X)$ must also be an iDf set.

The second, more vague, question asks what additional conditions should a counterexample satisfy.

1

# Splitting infinite sets

There are two questions here, an explicit one, and another (more vague) one that motivates it:

I am pretty certain the following should have a negative answer, but at the moment I'm not seeing how to argue about this and cannot locate an appropriate reference.

In set theory without choice, suppose $X$ is an infinite set such that for every positive integer $n$, we can split $X$ into $n$ (disjoint) infinite sets. Does it follow that $X$ can be split into infinitely many infinite sets? What would be a reasonably weak additional assumption to ensure the conclusion.

("Reasonably weak" would ideally be something that by itself does not suffice to give us that $X$ admits such a splitting, but I am flexible.)

This was motivated by a question at Math.SE, namely whether an infinite set can be partitioned into infinitely many infinite sets. This is of course trivial with choice. In fact, all we need to split $X$ is that it can be mapped surjectively onto ${\mathbb N}$.

However, without choice there may be counterexamples: A set $X$ is amorphous iff any subset of $X$ is either finite or else its complement in $X$ is finite. It is consistent that there are infinite amorphous sets. If $X$ is infinite and a finite union of amorphous sets, then $X$ is a counterexample. The question is a baby step towards trying to understand the nature of other counterexamples.

Note that any counterexample must be an infinite Dedekind finite (iDf) set $X$. One can show that for any iDf $X$, ${\mathcal P}^2(X)$ is Dedekind infinite, and from this it actually follows that either $X$ or ${\mathcal P}(X)$ can be mapped onto $\omega$ (this is a result of Kuratowski, it appears in pages 94, 95 of Alfred Tarski, "Sur les ensembles finis", Fundamenta Mathematicae 6 (1924), 45–95). As mentioned above, our counterexample $X$ cannot be mapped onto $\omega$, so ${\mathcal P}(X)$ must also be an iDf set.

The second, more vague, question asks what additional conditions should a counterexample satisfy.
{"extraction_info": {"found_math": true, "script_math_tex": 0, "script_math_asciimath": 0, "math_annotations": 0, "math_alttext": 0, "mathml": 0, "mathjax_tag": 0, "mathjax_inline_tex": 46, "mathjax_display_tex": 0, "mathjax_asciimath": 0, "img_math": 0, "codecogs_latex": 0, "wp_latex": 0, "mimetex.cgi": 0, "/images/math/codecogs": 0, "mathtex.cgi": 0}, "config": {"markdown_headings": true, "markdown_code": true, "boilerplate_config": {"ratio_threshold": 0.18, "absolute_threshold": 10, "end_threshold": 5, "enable": true}, "remove_buttons": true, "remove_image_figures": true, "remove_link_clusters": true, "table_config": {"min_rows": 2, "min_cols": 3, "format": "github"}, "remove_chinese": true, "remove_edit_buttons": true, "extract_latex": true}, "english_confidence": 0.9345795512199402, "perplexity_flag": "head"}