In
Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory without the axiom of choice (ZF), the following conditions are all equivalent: • S is a finite set. That is, S can be placed into a one-to-one correspondence with the set of those natural numbers less than some specific natural number. • (
Kazimierz Kuratowski) S has all properties which can be proved by mathematical induction beginning with the empty set and adding one new element at a time. • (
Paul Stäckel) S can be given a
total ordering which is
well-ordered both forwards and backwards. That is, every non-empty subset of S has both a least and a greatest element in the subset. • Every one-to-one function from \wp\bigl(\wp(S)\bigr) into itself is
onto. That is, the
powerset of the powerset of S is Dedekind-finite (see below). • Every surjective function from \wp\bigl(\wp(S)\bigr) onto itself is one-to-one. • (
Alfred Tarski) Every non-empty family of subsets of S has a
minimal element with respect to inclusion. (Equivalently, every non-empty family of subsets of S has a
maximal element with respect to inclusion.) • S can be well-ordered and any two well-orderings on it are
order isomorphic. In other words, the well-orderings on S have exactly one
order type. If the
axiom of choice is also assumed (the
axiom of countable choice is sufficient), then the following conditions are all equivalent: • S is a finite set. • (
Richard Dedekind) Every one-to-one function from S into itself is onto. A set with this property is called
Dedekind-finite. • Every surjective function from S onto itself is one-to-one. • S is empty or every
partial ordering of S contains a
maximal element.
Other concepts of finiteness In ZF set theory without the
axiom of choice, the following concepts of finiteness for a set S are distinct. They are arranged in strictly decreasing order of strength, i.e. if a set S meets a criterion in the list then it meets all of the following criteria. In the absence of the axiom of choice the reverse implications are all unprovable, but if the axiom of choice is assumed then all of these concepts are equivalent. (Note that none of these definitions need the set of finite
ordinal numbers to be defined first; they are all pure "set-theoretic" definitions in terms of the equality and membership relations, not involving ω.) •
I-finite. Every non-empty set of subsets of S has a \subseteq-maximal element. (This is equivalent to requiring the existence of a \subseteq-minimal element. It is also equivalent to the standard numerical concept of finiteness.) •
Ia-finite. For every partition of S into two sets, at least one of the two sets is I-finite. (A set with this property which is not I-finite is called an
amorphous set.) •
II-finite. Every non-empty \subseteq-monotone set of subsets of S has a \subseteq-maximal element. •
III-finite. The power set \wp(S) is Dedekind finite. •
IV-finite. S is Dedekind finite. •
V-finite. |S|=0 or 2\cdot|S|>|S|. •
VI-finite. |S|=0 or |S|=1 or |S|^2>|S|. (See
Tarski's theorem about choice.) •
VII-finite. S is I-finite or not well-orderable. The forward implications (from strong to weak) are theorems within ZF. Counter-examples to the reverse implications (from weak to strong) in ZF with
urelements are found using
model theory. Most of these finiteness definitions and their names are attributed to by . However, definitions I, II, III, IV and V were presented in , together with proofs (or references to proofs) for the forward implications. At that time, model theory was not sufficiently advanced to find the counter-examples. Each of the properties I-finite thru IV-finite is a notion of smallness in the sense that any subset of a set with such a property will also have the property. This is not true for V-finite thru VII-finite because they may have countably infinite subsets. == Uniqueness of cardinality ==