/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12380033
Enumerable: X injects into N.
Countable: N maps onto X
Subcountable: A subset I of N maps onto X.

If your axiom prove that all non-finite subsets of N are in bijection with N, then the last two are the same. If it doesn't, then you have the chance of more constructive semantics of "countable".

E.g. all strings X are countable, say via a bijection b:N->X.
Some strings Y subset X correspond to compiling C++ programs that halt when executed with main().
It's not decidable for all x in X (i.e. not decidable in general) whether a given x is in Y.
There is now an infinite index set I subset N such that b(I)=Y, basically the preimage for b of Y.
Of course n in N being in I is not decidable either, otherwise we could decide b(n) in Y.
So Y is subcountable, via I.

And so I or Y are not "actually countable", in the sense that there's no counting algorithm.
Of course, ZF proves I is in bijection with N, but that's just because of LEM. It's not "ackshually true" that Y is countable, you can't count Y. It's just a ZF theorem that Y is countable.

>>12380137
iirc that's called modulated Cauchy and is what Bishop used