Einleitung. Das “Auswahlaxiom” oder “multiplicative axiom” fordert in der gewöhnlichen, von B. Russell und Zermelo angegebenen Fassung, daß zu jeder Menge M, deren Elemente paarweise fremde und nicht-leere Mengen sind, mindestens eine “Auswahlmenge” existiere, die mit jedem Element von M genau éin Element gemeinsam hat. Die nächstliegende und mehrfach verwendete Methode, um ein schwächeres Postulat als die vorstehende Fassung zu formulieren, besteht darin, daß man entweder über die Mächtigkeit der Menge M, oder über die Mächtigkeiten ihrer Elemente, oder über beides gleichzeitig, einschränkende Bedingungen macht, also nur in diesen eingeschränkten Fällen die Existenz einer Auswahlmenge verlangt. Hinsichtlich der Mächtigkeit von M ist da sogleich die Bemerkung zu machen, daß sie jedenfalls transfinit (genauer: nicht endlich im induktiven Sinn) anzusetzen ist. Vermöge allgemeiner logischer Sachverhalte und des (eventuell zu beweisenden) Prinzips, das zu einem gegebenen Objekt a die Bildung der Menge {a} erlaubt, ist nämlich die Existenz einer Auswahlmenge von M beweisbar, falls M die Mächtigkeit 1 besitzt, und diese Beweisbarkeit überträgt sich mittels gewöhnlicher Induktion auf den Fall einer beliebigen endlichen Mächtigkeit. Dagegen ist die Existenz einer Auswahlmenge nicht mehr beweisbar, wenn (bei transfinitem M) die Elemente von M endliche Mengen mit Mächtigkeiten > 1 sind, z. B. also schon in dem Fall, wo M eine transfinite Menge von Paaren ist—natürlich “im allgemeinen,” d. h. wenn die Elemente von M nicht eine besondere Beschaffenheit haben, die die Auszeichnung gewisser Elemente in ihnen ermöglicht. Die Tatsache dieser Nichtbeweisbarkeit, d. h. der Unabhängigkeit des Auswahlaxioms sogar in diesem einfachsten Fall, ist vor längerer Zeit auf der Basis des Zermeloschen Axiomensystems der Mengenlehre nachgewiesen worden.

The Peanese convention for the use of dots as brackets has the disadvantage that it gives only an awkward method for representing chains of indefinite length, such as the compound implication

Such chains occur frequently in logical investigations of a metatheoretic nature, and it is convenient to have a systematic method of abbreviating them. The most obvious method of doing this would be to leave the parentheses out entirely, and to understand that in such cases the implication sign or other operation appearing on the extreme left is the most inclusive; but this method, which has been followed by Quine, is at variance with our ordinary algebraic usage, in which we write a − b + c − d for ((a − b) + c) − d, and consequently leads to confusion. It is desirable to have a modification of the Peanese convention which gives a simple method of representing such chain implications, and at the same time avoids this difficulty.

Such a modification is easily obtained by generalizing somewhat a procedure of Church. The latter author uses only a single dot, which he writes on the right of an operator to signify a bracket extending from that point to the end of the formula (or parenthesized expression). If dots are used only on the right of operations this is all that can be desired. But the essential idea of this device can be extended to the case where dots are used also on the left, as follows: let us suppose that a group of dots on the right of an operation or prefix denotes the beginning of a bracket which extends to the right until it meets a group with an equal or larger number of dots on the left of an operation; and that the scope of a group of dots on the left of an operation shall extend to the left until it reaches a larger group of dots on the right of some operation.

1. The theory of classes presented in this paper is a simplification of that presented by J. von Neumann in his paper Die Axiomatisierung der Mengenlehre. However, this paper is written so that it can be read independently of von Neumann's. The principal modifications of his system are the following.

(1) The idea of ordered pair is defined in terms of the other primitive concepts of the system. (See Axiom 4.3 below.)

(2) A much simpler proof of the well-ordering theorem, based on von Neumann's equivalence axiom (Axiom 2.2 below) is given. (More exactly, the theory of ordinal numbers, on which the proof of the well-ordering theorem is based, is simplified—see §8.)

(3) Functions are not assumed to be defined for all arguments. In place of “ = A” we have “is undefined.” This makes possible a constructive interpretation of the system. (See §2.)

2. We wish first to give a rough picture of the system which we are trying to construct. Suppose that we have the idea “class,” but no material from which to construct classes. Nevertheless, we can construct the class 0 having no elements. And then the class 1 having 0 as its only element. And then the classes {1}, and {0, 1}, etc., using always the previously constructed classes as elements. To extend this method to infinite classes, we must give rules telling what elements are to be included. Since the nature of the rules which we can use is not altogether clear, we try to formalize the whole system; that is, to set up a system of axioms which seems to characterize this system of classes. Now in this set of axioms we find it necessary to use the idea of function (in the “Axiom of Replacement”).