Results 1 to 11 of 11

Math Help - Two ordinal problems

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    35

    Two ordinal problems

    I have this kind of problems:
    1) Let A be a set and let \alpha = \{ \beta \mid \beta \mbox{ is ordinal and } \beta \preceq A \}.
    Show that a)  \alpha is a cardinal number, b) card(A) < \alpha

    2) Let A and \alpha be the same as above. Show that \alpha is the smallest cardinal, which is greater than card(A).

    I have no idea how to solve these problems. Any help would be nice.. Thanks!
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    466
    Thanks
    4
    Let's do one at a time.

    a = {b | b is an ordinal and b is dominated by A}.
    Show a is a cardinal.

    So where do you start? Start with the definition of

    'a is a cardinal'.

    Spell that definition out, then work to show that a meets all the requirements in the definition.

    Show me what you get doing that.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by MoeBlee View Post
    Let's do one at a time.

    a = {b | b is an ordinal and b is dominated by A}.
    Show a is a cardinal.

    So where do you start? Start with the definition of

    'a is a cardinal'.

    Spell that definition out, then work to show that a meets all the requirements in the definition.

    Show me what you get doing that.
    I have this kind of definition for cardinals:
    Let A be a set. Now card(A) = \mbox{ "the smallest ordinal so that }A \approx \alpha ".

    So, does this mean I have to find a set B whom \alpha is the smallest ordinal? In this case, is my set B = \{\beta \mid \beta \mbox{ is ordinal and }\beta \preceq  A \}?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    466
    Thanks
    4
    Your definition of 'card' is fine.

    card(A) = the least ordinal a such that A equinumerous with a

    But then we need to define the predicate 'a is a cardinal'.

    So, we define:

    a is a cardinal <-> there exists an A such that a = card(A)

    And we derive:

    a is a cardinal <-> (a is an ordinal & a is not equinumerous with any ordinal less than a)

    So now you have to prove:

    (1) {b | b is an ordinal & b is dominated by A} is an ordinal

    (2) {b | b is an ordinal & b is dominated by A} is not equinumerous with any lesser ordinal

    For this, of course, you need to refer to your definition of 'ordinal'.

    Let me see what you come up with, and I'll help you if you get stuck.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    466
    Thanks
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Ester View Post
    So, does this mean I have to find a set B whom \alpha is the smallest ordinal?
    In this sense you have to find a set X such that a is equinumerous with X and no ordinal less than a is equinumerous with X, but also you still have to show that a is an ordinal.

    But it's just as easy to say you need to prove a is an ordinal and that a is not equinumerous with any ordinal less than a (since then the set X can be taken to be a itself).
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by MoeBlee View Post
    Your definition of 'card' is fine.

    card(A) = the least ordinal a such that A equinumerous with a

    But then we need to define the predicate 'a is a cardinal'.

    So, we define:

    a is a cardinal <-> there exists an A such that a = card(A)

    And we derive:

    a is a cardinal <-> (a is an ordinal & a is not equinumerous with any ordinal less than a)

    So now you have to prove:

    (1) {b | b is an ordinal & b is dominated by A} is an ordinal

    (2) {b | b is an ordinal & b is dominated by A} is not equinumerous with any lesser ordinal
    1) Let's choose arbitrary \beta \in \alpha and assume that \gamma \in \beta. \beta \preceq A, so there exists an injection f:\beta \rightarrow A. \gamma \in \beta so \gamma < \beta. There for function g:\gamma \rightarrow A is also injection. That means that \gamma \preceq A, so \gamma \in \alpha. \alpha is a set of ordinals and it is transitive, so \alpha is ordinal.

    2) I have only ideas for this. I thought, I could begin like this:
    Let's choose arbitrary \beta < \alpha. That means \beta \in \alpha, so \beta \preceq A.
    Counterexample: \beta \approx \alpha.

    I can't get any further here...
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    466
    Thanks
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Ester View Post
    1) Let's choose arbitrary \beta \in \alpha and assume that \gamma \in \beta. \beta \preceq A, so there exists an injection f:\beta \rightarrow A. \gamma \in \beta so \gamma < \beta. There for function g:\gamma \rightarrow A is also injection. That means that \gamma \preceq A, so \gamma \in \alpha. \alpha is a set of ordinals and it is transitive, so \alpha is ordinal.
    Very good.

    I would put it this way:

    Suppose g in b in a. So there is an injection from b into A. Also, the identity function on g is an injection from g into b. So, by composition of functions, we have an injection from g into A. And g is an ordinal. So g in A. So a is epsilon-transitive. So, since a is an epsilon-transitive set of ordinals, we have that a is an ordinal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ester View Post
    2) I have only ideas for this. I thought, I could begin like this:
    Let's choose arbitrary \beta < \alpha. That means \beta \in \alpha, so \beta \preceq A.
    Counterexample: \beta \approx \alpha.
    You've almost got it (except, I don't see why you use the word 'counterexample' there).

    These are the relevant items now:

    1. b is equinumerious with a
    2. b is dominated by A
    3. a is an ordinal
    4. I don't want to tell you this one (but you know it) since telling you would give away the answer.
    5. Another simple fact I don't want to give away.

    So now just draw a contradiction from 1-5. Let me know what you come up with ...
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by MoeBlee View Post

    You've almost got it (except, I don't see why you use the word 'counterexample' there).
    Sorry, English is not my native language. I think the word what I was thinking was counterassumption (?).

    Quote Originally Posted by MoeBlee View Post
    These are the relevant items now:

    1. b is equinumerious with a
    2. b is dominated by A
    3. a is an ordinal
    4. I don't want to tell you this one (but you know it) since telling you would give away the answer.
    5. Another simple fact I don't want to give away.

    So now just draw a contradiction from 1-5. Let me know what you come up with ...
    This is what I came up with:

    \beta \approx \alpha and \beta \preceq A, so there for \alpha \preceq A. \alpha is an ordinal, so \alpha \in \{\beta \mid \beta \mbox{ is an ordinal and } \beta \preceq A\} = \alpha. That means that \alpha \in \alpha, which is contradiction. There for the counterassumption is false and orginal statement is true.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    466
    Thanks
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Ester View Post
    \beta \approx \alpha and \beta \preceq A, so there for \alpha \preceq A. \alpha is an ordinal, so \alpha \in \{\beta \mid \beta \mbox{ is an ordinal and } \beta \preceq A\} = \alpha. That means that \alpha \in \alpha, which is contradiction. There for the counterassumption is false and orginal statement is true.
    Perfect. Now, let's see how far you can get with the next part of the exercise you posted.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    35
    So, I have to show that card(A) < \alpha.

    Using the definition of cardinals, I get that card(A) is an ordinal and card(A) \approx A, so card(A) \preceq A. That means that card(A) \in \{\beta \mid \beta \mbox{ is ordinal and } \beta \preceq A\} = \alpha. card(A) \in \alpha, so card(A) < \alpha.

    I was also thinking the second problem which I have (Show that \alpha is the smallest cardinal which is greater than card(A)), and this is what I came up with:

    Counterassumption: There exists a cardinal \kappa such that card(A) < \kappa < \alpha. We have \kappa < \alpha, which means \kappa \in \alpha. So \kappa is an ordinal and \kappa \preceq A. card(A) < \kappa, so A \prec \kappa.
    Now we have A \prec \kappa \preceq A, which leads to A \prec A. This is contradiction.

    So the orginal statement is true.

    Is this right?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    466
    Thanks
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Ester View Post
    Using the definition of cardinals, I get that card(A) is an ordinal and card(A) \approx A, so card(A) \preceq A. That means that card(A) \in \{\beta \mid \beta \mbox{ is ordinal and } \beta \preceq A\} = \alpha. card(A) \in \alpha, so card(A) < \alpha.
    Very good. A couple of notes:

    (1) We have that card(A) is equinumerous with A by virtue of the numeration theorem (derived from the axiom of choice and the axiom schema of replacement). (Though, by the Fregean method, this particular proof will work even without numeration theorem.)

    (2) Just remember that card(A) in a implies that card(A) is cardinal-less-than a by the fact that both card(A) and a are cardinals (as opposed to merely ordinals, since for certain ordinals we have k in j and k equinumerous with j).

    Here's another version (basically the same as yours):

    Suppose it is not the case that card(A) < a. So a is less than or equal card(A). (This does not require the axiom of choice, since we're not relying on domination trichotomy holding among all sets but rather only that cardinal less-than trichotomy holds among all cardinals.) So a is dominated by A. So a in a, which is a contradiction, since a is an ordinal (also contradicts axiom of regularity).

    Quote Originally Posted by Ester View Post
    Counterassumption: There exists a cardinal \kappa such that card(A) < \kappa < \alpha. We have \kappa < \alpha, which means \kappa \in \alpha. So \kappa is an ordinal and \kappa \preceq A. card(A) < \kappa, so A \prec \kappa.
    Now we have A \prec \kappa \preceq A, which leads to A \prec A. This is contradiction.
    Very good. Note that the numeration theorem was used to infer "A is strictly dominated by k" from "card(A) is cardinal-less-than k".
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Ordinal Problem.
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 23rd 2010, 11:17 AM
  2. Ordinal exponentiation
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: September 24th 2010, 08:32 AM
  3. Ordinal Arithmetic
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 30th 2010, 09:00 AM
  4. Ordinal Arithmetic
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 1st 2009, 08:05 AM
  5. Ordinal Simplification
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 27th 2009, 08:22 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum