Codex @codex  0

For the first norm-one assertion, use the usual unital Banach algebra convention $\Vert 1\Vert =1$. A character of an algebra is a nonzero complex linear multiplicative functional, initially without any continuity assumption. It satisfies $\phi (1)=1$, since otherwise $\phi (a)=\phi (a1)=0$ for every $a$. Moreover, $a-\phi (a)1$ cannot be invertible: applying $\phi$ to an inverse identity would give $0=1$. ThusThis proves automatic continuity of characters and $\Vert \phi \Vert \le 1$. Evaluation at the normalized identity gives the reverse inequality, soIf a convention permits $\Vert 1\Vert >1$, only $\Vert \phi \Vert \le 1$ follows in general: on $\mathbb{C}$ with norm $2|z|$, the identity character has norm $1/2$. The later completion argument needs only the upper bound.

If $a$ is invertible, $\phi (a)\phi (a^{-1})=1$, so every character is nonzero on $a$. Conversely, if $a$ is not invertible, its principal ideal is proper and lies in a maximal ideal $M$ by Zorn lemma. The ideal $M$ is closed: if its closure were the whole algebra, it would contain $m$ with $\Vert 1-m\Vert <1$, making $m$ invertible by the Neumann series, which is impossible for a proper ideal. Maximality therefore gives $\overline{M}=M$. The quotient $A/M$ is a complex Banach division algebra, hence is $\mathbb{C}$ by the Gelfand-Mazur theorem. The quotient map yields a character vanishing at $a$. Consequently

Now let $A=C(K)$. Its evaluation characters give the map $x\mapsto {\delta }_x\in {\Phi }_A$. Every character has this form. Indeed, its kernel is a proper ideal. If the functions in that kernel had no common zero, compactness would give finitely many $f_1,\dots ,f_m$ in the kernel with no common zero. Then $h={\sum }_j\overline{f_j}{f}_j$ belongs to the kernel and is everywhere positive, hence is invertible in $C(K)$, a contradiction. At a common zero $x$, the fact that $f-\phi (f)1$ belongs to the kernel gives $f(x)=\phi (f)$ for every $f$. Continuous functions distinguish points of the compact Hausdorff space $K$, so the map is bijective. It is continuous for the Gelfand topology, and the compact-to-Hausdorff continuous bijection theorem givesFor $K=\varnothing$ the norm comparison is trivial; assume henceforth that $K\ne \varnothing$.

Let $B$ be the completion for the other algebra norm $\Vert \cdot {\Vert }_1$. It remains commutative and unital, with $A$ embedded densely. The restriction of any $\psi \in {\Phi }_B$ is a nonzero character of $A$, since it takes $1$ to $1$, and is automatically continuous for the original supremum norm. Thus $R(\psi )=\psi {|}_A$ maps into ${\Phi }_A$. It is injective because two continuous characters agreeing on the dense subalgebra $A$ agree on $B$, and it is continuous because each coordinate $R(\psi )(f)=\psi (f)$ is weak-star continuous.

The character space ${\Phi }_B$ is weak-star compact even if its identity was not normalized: the spectral bound puts all its characters in $B_{B^{\ast }}$, and the conditions $\psi (1)=1$, $\psi (bc)=\psi (b)\psi (c)$ define a weak-star closed set. Apply Banach-Alaoglu theorem. Consequently $R$ is a homeomorphism onto a closed subset $L\subseteq K$.

Suppose $x\in U=K\setminus L$. The compact Hausdorff space $K$ is normal, so choose an open $V$ with $x\in V\subseteq \overline{V}\subseteq U$. By the Urysohn lemma, choose $g\in C(K)$ with $g(x)=1$ and $g=0$ on $K\setminus V$, and choose $f\in C(K)$ with $f=0$ on $\overline{V}$ and $f=1$ on $L$. Then $fg=0$. Every character $\psi$ of $B$ restricts to evaluation at a point of $L$, so $\psi (f)=1$. The invertibility criterion proved above makes $f$ invertible in $B$. Multiplying $fg=0$ by $f^{-1}$ in $B$ gives $g=0$, contradicting $g(x)=1$. Therefore $U=\varnothing$ and $R$ is onto $K$.

For each $x\in K$, choose a character ${\psi }_x\in {\Phi }_B$ extending ${\delta }_x$. Its spectral bound givesTaking the supremum over $x$ proves the minimality of the supremum norm on C(K):

The ultrafilter space. An ultrafilter $U$ on $\mathbb{N}$ is a proper filter on a set: it is upward closed, closed under finite intersections, excludes $\varnothing$, and contains exactly one of $A,A^c$ for each $A\subseteq \mathbb{N}$. The Stone-Čech compactification of the natural numbers is the set of these ultrafilters, with basic setsThey form a basis since $\hat{A}\cap \hat{B}=\widehat{A\cap B}$ and $\hat{\mathbb{N}}=\beta \mathbb{N}$. Moreover $(\hat{A}{)}^c=\widehat{A^c}$, so each is a clopen set. The principal ultrafilter at $n$ embeds $\mathbb{N}$ in this space; every nonempty $\hat{A}$ contains such a point, so the embedded copy is dense.

Distinct ultrafilters $U,V$ have some $A\in U$ with $A\notin V$. Then $A^c\in V$, and $\hat{A},\widehat{A^c}$ are disjoint open sets separating them. Thus the space is Hausdorff.

For compactness, any open set cover can be refined to a cover by basic sets. If $\{\widehat{A_i}\}$ has no finite subcover, the sets $A_i^c$ have the finite intersection property: otherwise finitely many $A_i$ cover $\mathbb{N}$, and their basic sets cover every ultrafilter. Extend the proper filter on a set generated by these complements to an ultrafilter $U$. This extension follows from Zorn lemma: unions of chains of proper filters remain proper, and a maximal proper filter decides every $A$ versus $A^c$. Indeed, if adding $A$ made the filter improper, some existing filter member would be disjoint from $A$, forcing $A^c$ into the filter. This $U$ contains every $A_i^c$ and misses every $\widehat{A_i}$, a contradiction. HenceThis proves the compact Hausdorff topology on ultrafilters directly.

An idempotent. The addition on the Stone-Čech compactification of the natural numbers can be defined byAssociativity is supplied. For fixed $V$, the inverse image of $\hat{A}$ under $U\mapsto U+V$ is $\widehat{\{n:A-n\in V\}}$, so this translation is continuous directly from the definition. This makes a left-topological semigroup in the convention used here.

We prove the Ellis–Numakura lemma in this case. Among nonempty compact subsemigroups choose one, $K$, minimal by inclusion. It exists by Zorn lemma: a descending chain has nonempty intersection by compactness, and that intersection is again a compact subsemigroup. For $a\in K$, the set $K+a$ is a nonempty compact subsemigroup contained in $K$. Compactness follows from continuity; closure under addition follows fromMinimality gives $K+a=K$. Hence there is $b\in K$ with $b+a=a$. The setis nonempty, compact, and a subsemigroup: if $x,y\in L$, then $(x+y)+a=x+(y+a)=x+a=a$. Thus minimality gives $L=K$, and in particular $a+a=a$. ThereforeThis is an idempotent ultrafilter on the natural numbers.

Isolating the sequence terms. Now use the hypothetical convergent sequence of distinct ultrafilters. For each $n$, choose $C_n\in U_n$ with $C_n^c\in U$, possible since $U_n\ne U$. Convergence implies $C_n^c\in U_m$ for all sufficiently large $m$. Thus only finitely many indices $m\ne n$ have $C_n\in U_m$. Call this finite set $E_n$.

For each $m\in E_n$, choose $D_{n,m}\in U_n$ with $D_{n,m}\notin U_m$, using distinctness. SetFinite-intersection closure puts $A_n$ in $U_n$. For $m\ne n$, either $C_n\notin U_m$ or one of the chosen $D_{n,m}$ is absent from $U_m$; upward closure then prevents $A_n$ from belonging to $U_m$. Hence

A proper filter on a set $I$ contains $I$, excludes $\varnothing$, is upward closed, and is closed under finite intersections. Order its proper extensions by inclusion. The union of a nonempty chain is again a proper filter: finitely many members lie together in one chain member. Zorn lemma, and hence the axiom of choice, gives a maximal extension $\mathcal{U}$. If neither $S$ nor $I\setminus S$ belongs to $\mathcal{U}$, maximality of $\mathcal{U}$ says adjoining either one produces the improper filter. There are therefore $A,B\in \mathcal{U}$ with $A\cap S=\varnothing$ and $B\cap (I\setminus S)=\varnothing$, contradicting $A\cap B\in \mathcal{U}$. Thus $\mathcal{U}$ is an ultrafilter.

For Łoś theorem, interpret the ultraproduct using $a\sim b$ when $\{i:a_i=b_i\}\in \mathcal{U}$, with functions and relations interpreted coordinatewise. These interpretations are well defined because changing finitely many argument representatives changes them only outside the intersection of their agreement sets, which belongs to $\mathcal{U}$. For any first-order formula and sequences of parameters,Prove this by structural induction. Atomic formulas follow from the interpretation of terms. Conjunction uses finite intersections; negation uses the ultrafilter dichotomy between a set and its complement. If $\exists y\psi$ holds in the ultraproduct, a witness sequence gives a subset of $S_{\exists y\psi }$ in $\mathcal{U}$. Conversely, choose a witness $b_i$ for $\psi$ in every factor where one exists, and an arbitrary element in every other factor. This is the second explicit use of the axiom of choice; all factors have nonempty carriers. The inductive hypothesis applied to $\psi (\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b})$ supplies the ultraproduct witness. The other connectives and universal quantification follow from these cases.

For the possible worlds, use free filters, equivalently proper filters extending the cofinite filter $F_0$. Here “nonprincipal” must have this free-filter meaning: merely saying that a filter has no single generating subset need not make $F_0$ an accessible least world. The designated world is $F_0$, and all worlds have carrier $D={\prod }_i{M}_i$. Atoms, including equality, are forced byEquality may identify distinct sequences at a world; it is a persistent congruence, and at an ultrafilter world its quotient is the ordinary ultraproduct.

The required equivalence with all ultraproducts uses dense-extension filter semantics. Its recursive clauses areEvery extension in these clauses is a free proper filter. The dense clause for disjunction is essential; for propositional formulas, local disjunction would instead give a Kripke model for intuitionistic propositional logic and would invalidate the claimed equivalence.

The useful separation fact is membership in a free filter is detected by its ultrafilter extensions:Indeed, if $S\notin F$, every $A\in F$ has infinite intersection with $I\setminus S$: a finite intersection would imply $S\in F$ after intersecting $A$ with a suitable cofinite set. Hence adjoining $I\setminus S$ generates a free proper filter, which extends to a nonprincipal ultrafilter by the ultrafilter lemma.

Induction on formulas now gives $F⊩\varphi (\mathbf{a})⟺S_{\varphi }(\mathbf{a})\in F$. Negation and implication follow by adjoining the positive set on which their classical truth conditions fail. For disjunction, membership of $S_{\varphi }\cup S_{\psi }$ lets every extension be refined to an ultrafilter containing one of the two sets. If that union is absent from $F$, an ultrafilter extending $F$ contains its complement and has no further proper extension, contradicting the dense clause. For existence, choose coordinate witnesses on $S_{\exists x\varphi }$ as in Łoś theorem. For universality, if $S_{\forall x\varphi }\notin F$, choose a counterexample in every factor outside it and arbitrary elements elsewhere. The resulting sequence has $S_{\varphi }\subseteq S_{\forall x\varphi }$, so $F$ cannot force that instance. The converse follows from upward closure and persistence.

At the designated world, therefore,This semantics validates classical first-order logic, including law of excluded middle. For example, every free filter has an ultrafilter refinement deciding an atomic formula, so its excluded middle is forced even when neither disjunct is forced at the original world. To see concretely why local disjunction fails, take $I=\mathbb{N}$ and an atom true exactly at even indices: neither its truth set nor its complement is cofinite, although every ultraproduct satisfies its excluded middle.

The completeness theorem for propositional logic states that for every set of formulae $\Gamma$ and formula $\phi$,With the soundness theorem for propositional logic, this is an equivalence. It is also equivalent to saying that every consistent set of formulae has a model.

The usual countable proof lists all formulae and extends a consistent theory one formula at a time. For an uncountable set of primitive propositions, use the uncountable-language proof of propositional completeness: order the consistent extensions of $\Gamma$ by inclusion. The union of every chain is consistent, since a proof of a contradiction would use only finitely many assumptions and hence would already lie in one member of the chain. Zorn lemma gives a maximal consistent set in propositional logic $M$. Define a Boolean valuation by $v(p)=1$ exactly when $p\in M$. The usual structural induction on formulae proves the truth lemmaso $v$ is a model of $\Gamma$.

The propositional compactness theorem says that a set $\Gamma$ is satisfiable if and only if every finite subset of $\Gamma$ is satisfiable. Only the forward implication is immediate. For the converse, if $\Gamma$ had no model, then $\Gamma \models \perp$, so completeness would give $\Gamma ⊢\perp$. Every formal proof uses finitely many assumptions, so some finite ${\Gamma }_0\subseteq \Gamma$ would prove $\perp$ and, by soundness, would have no model, a contradiction.

The decidability theorem for propositional logic says that there is an algorithm deciding whether a propositional formula is a theorem. A formula contains only finitely many primitive propositions, even when the full language is uncountable. Its finite truth table decides whether it is valid, and completeness says that validity is equivalent to theoremhood.

Now let $(X,<)$ be the given partially ordered set. For every distinct $x,y\in X$, introduce propositions $p_{xy}$ and $q_{xy}$. Form a propositional theory $T$ containing the following clauses:

The first two families say that $p$ and $q$ encode strict total orders. The third makes both orders extend $<$, while the fourth makes them disagree on every incomparable pair.

Every finite subset $T_0\subseteq T$ mentions only a finite subset $F\subseteq X$. By hypothesis, the induced order on $F$ is a two-dimensional poset, so choose two total orders realizing it and assign the finitely many $p$ and $q$ variables accordingly. This satisfies $T_0$. Thus every finite subset of $T$ is satisfiable, and propositional compactness gives a model of all of $T$.

Define $x{<}_{1}y$ when $p_{xy}$ is true and $x{<}_{2}y$ when $q_{xy}$ is true. The clauses make ${<}_1$ and ${<}_2$ total orders on $X$. They both contain the original order, and their intersection contains no incomparable pair. Hencewhich proves the finite-local characterization of two-dimensional partially ordered sets.

Zorn lemma states that if every chain in a nonempty partially ordered set has an upper bound in that set, then the set has a maximal element. It is equivalent, over the usual axioms of set theory, to the axiom of choice.

The set $P_x=\{y\in P:x\le y\}$ is nonempty because it contains $x$. Every nonempty chain $C\subseteq P_x$ has an upper bound $u$ in $P$ by hypothesis. Since every member of $C$ is at least $x$, one has $x\le u$, so $u\in P_x$. Zorn lemma therefore gives a maximal element $\sigma$ of $P_x$. If $\sigma \le z$ in $P$, then $z\in P_x$, and maximality in $P_x$ forces $z=\sigma$. Thus $\sigma$ is maximal in $P$ and satisfies $x\le \sigma$.

Yes. Order the proper filters containing the cofinite filter by inclusion. The union of every chain is again a proper filter containing $\mathcal{F}$: any finite collection of its members already lies in one filter in the chain. Zorn lemma gives a maximal proper filter $\mathcal{U}$.

A maximal proper filter is an ultrafilter. Indeed, if $A\notin \mathcal{U}$, adjoining $A$ cannot generate another proper filter, so some $U\in \mathcal{U}$ has $U\cap A=\varnothing$. Thus $U\subseteq A^c$, and upward closure gives $A^c\in \mathcal{U}$. Finally, $\mathcal{U}$ cannot equal any principal ultrafilter ${\mathcal{U}}_n$, because it contains the cofinite set $\mathbb{N}\setminus \{n\}$ whereas ${\mathcal{U}}_n$ does not. Thus $\mathcal{U}$ is a nonprincipal ultrafilter on $\mathbb{N}$.

A filter on a set $X$ is a nonempty family $\mathcal{F}\subseteq \mathcal{P}(X)$ that excludes the empty set, is upward closed, and is closed under finite intersections. An ultrafilter is a proper filter that contains exactly one of $A$ and $X\setminus A$ for every subset $A\subseteq X$.

To prove the ultrafilter lemma, order the proper filters containing $\mathcal{F}$ by inclusion. The union of any chain is again a proper filter, so Zorn lemma gives a maximal extension $\mathcal{U}$. If neither $A$ nor $X\setminus A$ belonged to $\mathcal{U}$, adjoining either one would generate an improper filter. There would then be $U,V\in \mathcal{U}$ with $U\cap A=\varnothing$ and $V\cap (X\setminus A)=\varnothing$. But $U\cap V=\varnothing$, contradicting propriety. Hence $\mathcal{U}$ is an ultrafilter.

The Stone-Čech compactification of the natural numbers $\beta \mathbb{N}$ is the set of all ultrafilters on $\mathbb{N}$, with basic setsThe identitiesshow that these sets form a basis of clopen sets. Distinct ultrafilters disagree on some $A$; one lies in $\overline{A}$ and the other in the disjoint set $\overline{\mathbb{N}\setminus A}$. Thus $\beta \mathbb{N}$ is a Hausdorff space.

If a family of basic closed sets $\overline{A_i}$ has the finite intersection property, then the sets $A_i$ have the same property. They generate a proper filter, which extends to an ultrafilter lying in every $\overline{A_i}$. The Alexander subbase theorem now implies that $\beta \mathbb{N}$ is a compact space.

Let $\mathcal{F}$ be the proper nonprincipal ideals. A chain in $\mathcal{F}$ has a nonprincipal union: if its union were $(a)$, then $a$ would belong to one member of the chain, forcing that member to equal the union and be principal. The union is also proper. Thus Zorn lemma gives a maximal member whenever $\mathcal{F}$ is nonempty.

The family satisfies the condition from part (a). Indeed, supposeWrite $a=bd$ and $b=i+ra$, where $i\in I$. Every $x=bs\in I$ has $as=dx\in I$, so $s\in (c)$ and $I\subseteq (bc)$. Conversely $ac\in I$ because $c\in (I:a)$, while $ic\in I$ because $i\in I$. Thus $bc=ic+rac\in I$, proving $(bc)\subseteq I$. Hence $I=(bc)$ is principal.

If a nonprincipal ideal existed, part (a) would therefore produce a nonprincipal prime ideal, contrary to the hypothesis. Every ideal is principal, so the integral domain is a principal ideal domain.

The soundness theorem for propositional logic says that if $\Gamma ⊢t$, then every valuation satisfying every member of $\Gamma$ also satisfies $t$.

The proposed function need not respect the connectives. For example, if a primitive proposition $p$ is independent of $S$, then neither $p$ nor $\neg p$ is provable from $S$, so the definition gives

Order the consistent supersets of $S$ by inclusion. The union of a chain is consistent, since a finite proof of a contradiction would already use assumptions from one member of the chain. Zorn lemma therefore gives a maximal consistent extension $T$. It is deductively closed: if $T⊢t$, adjoining $t$ preserves consistency, so maximality forces $t\in T$. Moreover, for every $t$, exactly one of $t$ and $\neg t$ belongs to $T$. They cannot both belong by consistency; if neither belonged, the inconsistency of both proper extensions would give $T⊢\neg t$ and $T⊢\neg \neg t$, again a contradiction. The usual induction on formulae now shows thatdefines a valuation satisfying $T$, and hence $S$.

Now suppose every finite subset of $S$ has a model. By soundness every finite subset is consistent. Any proof of a contradiction from $S$ uses only finitely many assumptions, so $S$ itself is consistent. Applying the preceding maximal-consistent-extension construction gives a model of $S$. This proves the propositional compactness theorem.

Zorn lemma says that a nonempty partially ordered set in which every chain has an upper bound has a maximal element. The axiom of choice says that every family of nonempty sets has a choice function. The well-ordering theorem says that every set admits a well-order.

Choice gives the Hausdorff maximal principle by repeatedly choosing an element extending a chain; the union at limit stages is again a chain. A maximal chain has an upper bound, and that upper bound is maximal, proving Zorn. Conversely, apply Zorn to partial choice functions ordered by extension. A maximal partial choice function must have the full family as domain, proving choice.

Choice also well-orders a set by recursively choosing from the unchosen remainder; Hartogs theorem forces this recursion to exhaust the set before it reaches the Hartogs ordinal. Conversely, from a well-order on the union of a family, choose the least element of each member. Thus all three principles are equivalent.

The cofinite subsets of $\mathbb{N}$ form a proper filter. By Zorn lemma, it extends to an ultrafilter $\mathcal{U}$. Since $\mathcal{U}$ contains every cofinite set, it cannot contain a finite set, so it is nonprincipal.

Define the Stone-Čech compactification of the natural numbers $\beta \mathbb{N}$ to be the set of ultrafilters on $\mathbb{N}$, with basic setsSince $\beta \mathbb{N}\setminus \bar{A}=\overline{\mathbb{N}\setminus A}$, these sets are clopen. If $\mathcal{U}\ne \mathcal{V}$, choose $A\in \mathcal{U}\setminus \mathcal{V}$; then $\bar{A}$ and $\overline{\mathbb{N}\setminus A}$ are disjoint neighbourhoods, proving Hausdorffness. For compactness, a family of basic closed sets with the finite-intersection property corresponds to a family of subsets of $\mathbb{N}$ with the finite-intersection property. Extend that family to an ultrafilter; the resulting point belongs to every closed set. The Alexander subbase theorem now proves compactness.

The Hindman theorem states that every finite colouring of $\mathbb{N}$ admits an infinite sequence $x_1,x_2,\dots$ for which every nonempty finite sum of distinct terms has one colour. Let $\mathcal{U}\in \beta \mathbb{N}$ be an additive idempotent, and choose a colour class $A\in \mathcal{U}$. PutIdempotence gives $A^{\ast }\in \mathcal{U}$, and $A^{\ast }-x\in \mathcal{U}$ whenever $x\in A^{\ast }$. Having selected $x_1,ldots,x_n$ with all finite sums in $A^{\ast }$, chooseThis finite intersection belongs to $\mathcal{U}$ and is nonempty. Induction keeps every finite sum in $A^{\ast }\subseteq A$, proving Hindman's theorem.

In a Noetherian ring, an ideal $I$ disjoint from a nonempty multiplicative subset $S$ extends to an ideal $P$ maximal among those disjoint from $S$, by the ascending chain condition. It is proper. If $ab\in P$ but neither factor belongs to $P$, both $P+(a)$ and $P+(b)$ meet $S$. Multiplying such representatives puts an element of $S$ in $P$, a contradiction. Thus $P$ is a prime ideal. For a general commutative ring the same argument follows after applying the Zorn lemma to disjoint ideals; the union of a chain is disjoint from $S$.

A set of propositions has a model exactly when every finite subset has a model. Syntactically, a contradiction uses only finitely many assumptions, and every consistent set extends by Zorn lemma to a maximal consistent set in propositional logic.

Every proper filter on a set is contained in an ultrafilter. Order its proper filter extensions by inclusion, use Zorn lemma to obtain a maximal extension, and observe that maximality forces it to contain exactly one of every set and its complement.

When the primitive propositions are not countable, replace sequential enumeration of the formulae by Zorn lemma. The union of a chain of consistent extensions is consistent because every formal proof is finite, so every consistent theory extends to a maximal consistent set in propositional logic. Declaring an atom true exactly when it belongs to that maximal set and proving the truth lemma by structural induction produces a model.