DOCSLIB.ORG

P. 1 Math 490 Notes 4 We Continue Our Examination of Well-Ordered Sets. If (X,≤) Is a W.O.Set and X ∈ X, We Define Sx = {Y

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
P. 1 Math 490 Notes 4 We Continue Our Examination of Well-Ordered Sets. If (X,≤) Is a W.O.Set and X ∈ X, We Define Sx = {Y p. 1 Math 490 Notes 4 We continue our examination of well-ordered sets. If (X, ≤) is a w.o.set and x ∈ X, we ¯ define Sx = {y ∈ X ¯ y < x}. Sx is called the initial section of X determined by x. Recall from a previous example the well-ordered set A ∪ B = {a0,a1,...,an, . , b0, b1, . , bm,...,...} , formed from the union of two disjoint well-ordered sets A and B. For this set, we have Sa0 = φ, Sa2 = {a0,a1}, San = {a0,a1,...,an−1}, Sb0 = A, etc. Proposition N4.1 There exists an uncountable well-ordered set SΩ such that every initial section of SΩ is countable. Proof : Start with any uncountable set X and use the Well Ordering Theorem to well-order X. Let Y be another uncountable well-ordered set obtained by setting Y = X × X with the dictionary order. If x1 is not the least element of X, then the initial segment of Y determined ¯ by (x1, x1) is clearly uncountable, and so A = {y ∈ Y ¯ Sy is uncountable } is a non-empty set in Y , which by assumption contains a least element; call it Ω. Note that by assumption, SΩ ≤ Sy for all y ∈ Y . Claim 1: Every initial segment of SΩ countable. If not, then there would exists a z < Ω such that the initial section (SΩ)z = Yz is uncountable. By definition of A and Ω, we’d then have z ∈ A and z ≥ Ω, which is a contradiction. Claim 2: SΩ is uncountable. This follows immediately, since Ω ∈ A. ¥ This uncountable w.o.set SΩ plays an important role as a source of examples in topology, so we’ll explore it further. p. 2 Prop. N4.2 If z ∈ SΩ, the set U(z) of upper bounds of z is uncountable. Proof : This follows because SΩ = U(z) ∪ (SΩ)z, and by Prop. N4.1, SΩ is uncountable, whereas (SΩ)z is countable. ¥ ¯ Prop. N4.3 If A = {zn ¯ n ∈ N} ⊆ SΩ, then z = sup A ∈ SΩ, and (SΩ)z is countable. ¯ N Proof : First note that B = A ∪ {∪(SΩ)zn ¯ n ∈ } is a countable union of countable sets, and is therefore countable. Thus SΩ − B is uncountable, by Prop. N4.1. But every element of SΩ − B is an upper bound of A, so z = sup A ∈ SΩ follows by Proposition 5, and (SΩ)z is countable by Prop. N4.1. ¥ The next important theorem about well-ordered sets generalizes the well-known induction theorem for the natural numbers. Transfinite Induction Theorem Let A be a well-ordered set, and let B ⊆ A have the property that Aa ⊆ B =⇒ a ∈ B for all a ∈ A. Then B = A. Proof : If B = A, then A − B = φ, and we can let y be the least element of A − B. If z < y, then z ∈ B, and hence Ay ⊆ B. It follows by assumption that y ∈ B, a contradiction. Since A − B = φ yields a contradiction, we have A = B. ¥ Two well-ordered sets A and B are similar (we’ll write A≈B) iff there is an order-preserving bijection ψ from A to B. This is a bijection ψ : A → B such that x ≤ y in A iff ψ(x) ≤ ψ(y) in B. Note that similar w.o.sets have the same cardinal number. If there is a b ∈ B such that A ≈ Bb, we write A ≺ B. p. 3 Consider the following w.o.sets, ordered from left to right: N = {0, 1, 2,...,n,...} E = {0, 2, 4, 6, 8,...} D = {d0,d1,d2,...,dn,...,e0,e1,e2} N N Note that ≈ E ≈ De0 , so ≺ D and E ≺ D. One can show that every uncountable well-ordered set A for which every initial segment is countable is similar to SΩ as constructed in Prop. 6. Suppose one wishes to find an order-preserving bijection (an isomorphism) ψ between two w.o.sets A and B. Clearly, ψ must map the least element of A to the least element of B, the successor of the least element of A to the successor of the least element of B, and so on. If we denote the immediate successor of a ∈ A by a+, then in general, we must have ψ(a+) = ψ(a)+ for all a ∈ A. Furthermore, if A′ ⊆ A and a = sup A′, then ¯ ′ ′ ψ(a) = sup{ψ(x) ¯ x ∈ A } = sup ψ(A ). That is, ψ preserves sup’s. These basic facts, along with the Transfinite Induction Theorem, lead to the following result. Trichotomy Theorem If A and B are well-ordered sets, then exactly one of the fol- lowing is true: (a) A ≺ B, (b) B ≺ A, (c) A ≈ B. Furthermore, in all three cases, the order-preserving bijection is unique. Sketch of proof : If a0 is the least element of A and b0 is the least element of B, define ψ(a0) = b0. Next, for a ∈ A, assume the “induction hypothesis” that ψ : Aa → Bψ(a) is an order-preserving bijection, and for all x ∈ Aa, there exists a b ∈ B such that b > ψ(x). If a has an immediate predecessor y (i.e. y+ = a), then ψ(y) is already defined by hypothesis, and we let ψ(a) = ψ(y)+ (note that we know ψ(y)+ exists, because ψ(y) can not be the greatest element of B by assumption). If a has no immediate predecessor, then let p. 4 ¯ ′ ′ ψ(a) = sup{ψ(x) ¯ x ∈ Aa}. It should be relatively easy to see that a<a =⇒ ψ(a) < ψ(a ), so the function ψ constructed in this way is both one-to-one and order-preserving. This construction ends when either all elements of A or all elements of B (or both) have been exhausted. Suppose the elements of A are exhausted first. In other words, after ψ(a) defined for all a ∈ A, there exists a b ∈ B such that b > ψ(a) for all a ∈ A. If A has a greatest element z, ¯ then A ≈ Bψ(z)+ . If A has no greatest element, then A ≈ Bω, where ω = sup{ψ(a) ¯ a ∈ A}. Either way, A ≺ B. If the elements of B are exhausted first, then we may apply the same reasoning to ψ−1 to show B ≺ A. Finally, if the elements of A and B are exhausted simul- taneously, then A ≈ B. ¤ Trichotomy Corollary 1 If α and β are cardinal numbers, then either α ≤ β or β ≤ α. Proof : Choose A ∈ α, B ∈ β, and well-order both A and B. By the preceding theorem, exactly one of the following holds: A ≺ B, B ≺ A, or A ≈ B. If A ≺ B or A ≈ B, then α ≤ β. Otherwise, β ≤ α. ¥ Trichotomy Corollary 2 A well-ordered set is not similar to any of its initial sections. Proof : If A is well-ordered and a ∈ A, the identity injection from Aa to A is the unique order-preserving map which establishes Aa ≺ A. Thus Aa ≈ A is impossible by the Tri- chotomy theorem. ¥ p. 5 Ordinal Numbers Recall that cardinal numbers are defined by partitioning the class S of all sets into equiva- lence classes, with A ∼ B iff there is a bijection from A to B. Similarly, we define ordinal numbers to be the equivalence classes obtained when the class W of all well-ordered sets is partitioned into equivalence classes relative to the equivalence relation similarity. If L ∈ W, let L denote the ordinal number of the equivalence class containing L. As before, we denote by |L| the cardinal number for L. For each ordinal number λ, there is an associated cardinal number |λ|, which is the cardinality of any set L ∈ λ. Let O denote the class of ordinal numbers. A partial order on O is defined by λ ≤ µ iff there exists L ∈ λ and M ∈ µ such that L ≺ M or L ≈ M, with λ < µ corresponding to L ≺ M. Note that this definition is independent of the representatives L and M chosen from the given equivalence classes. It follows by the Trichotomy Theorem that ≤ is a simple order on O, and also λ ≤ µ =⇒ |λ| ≤ |µ|. The finite ordinal numbers are those ordinals λ for which |λ| is finite. Note that the empty set φ is a well-ordered set (vacuously), and the ordinal containing φ is naturally de- noted 0 (zero). Now consider all well-ordered sets with exactly n elements for some n ∈ N. It should be easy to see that all such well-ordered sets are similar to each other, and thus they all belong to the same equivalence class in W. So there is a unique ordinal number corresponding to an n-element set, which it is natural to denote by n. Since there is an obvious order-preserving bijection between finite ordinals and finte cardinals, it is customary to make no distinction between finite ordinal numbers and finite cardinal numbers. When we consider the infinite ordinals (those ordinals λ for which |λ|≥ℵ0), the situation is drastically different. We define denumerable ordinals (resp., countable ordinals) to be those of cardinality ℵ0 (resp., ≤ℵ0). We can consider the denumerable ordinals to p. 6 correspond to the distinct ways to well-order a denumerable set. For instance, N is already well-ordered in its natural ordering. Some other w.o.sets defining denumerable ordinals are listed here: ω = {a0,a1,...,an,...} = N ω +1= {a0,a1,...,an, . , b0} ω + ω = {a0,a1,...,an, . , b0, b1, . , bm,...} ω × ω = N × N, with dictionary order How many distinct denumerable ordinals are there? Recall the uncountable w.o.set SΩ such that each of its initial sections is countable.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Biography Paper – Georg Cantor
    Mike Garkie Math 4010 – History of Math UCD Denver 4/1/08 Biography Paper – Georg Cantor Few mathematicians are house-hold names; perhaps only Newton and Euclid would qualify. But there is a second tier of mathematicians, those whose names might not be familiar, but whose discoveries are part of everyday math. Examples here are Napier with logarithms, Cauchy with limits and Georg Cantor (1845 – 1918) with sets. In fact, those who superficially familier with Georg Cantor probably have two impressions of the man: First, as a consequence of thinking about sets, Cantor developed a theory of the actual infinite. And second, that Cantor was a troubled genius, crippled by Freudian conflict and mental illness. The first impression is fundamentally true. Cantor almost single-handedly overturned the Aristotle’s concept of the potential infinite by developing the concept of transfinite numbers. And, even though Bolzano and Frege made significant contributions, “Set theory … is the creation of one person, Georg Cantor.” [4] The second impression is mostly false. Cantor certainly did suffer from mental illness later in his life, but the other emotional baggage assigned to him is mostly due his early biographers, particularly the infamous E.T. Bell in Men Of Mathematics [7]. In the racially charged atmosphere of 1930’s Europe, the sensational story mathematician who turned the idea of infinity on its head and went crazy in the process, probably make for good reading. The drama of the controversy over Cantor’s ideas only added spice. 1 Fortunately, modern scholars have corrected the errors and biases in older biographies.
    [Show full text]
  • Even Ordinals and the Kunen Inconsistency∗
    Even ordinals and the Kunen inconsistency∗ Gabriel Goldberg Evans Hall University Drive Berkeley, CA 94720 July 23, 2021 Abstract This paper contributes to the theory of large cardinals beyond the Kunen inconsistency, or choiceless large cardinal axioms, in the context where the Axiom of Choice is not assumed. The first part of the paper investigates a periodicity phenomenon: assuming choiceless large cardinal axioms, the properties of the cumulative hierarchy turn out to alternate between even and odd ranks. The second part of the paper explores the structure of ultrafilters under choiceless large cardinal axioms, exploiting the fact that these axioms imply a weak form of the author's Ultrapower Axiom [1]. The third and final part of the paper examines the consistency strength of choiceless large cardinals, including a proof that assuming DC, the existence of an elementary embedding j : Vλ+3 ! Vλ+3 implies the consistency of ZFC + I0. embedding j : Vλ+3 ! Vλ+3 implies that every subset of Vλ+1 has a sharp. We show that the existence of an elementary embedding from Vλ+2 to Vλ+2 is equiconsistent with the existence of an elementary embedding from L(Vλ+2) to L(Vλ+2) with critical point below λ. We show that assuming DC, the existence of an elementary embedding j : Vλ+3 ! Vλ+3 implies the consistency of ZFC + I0. By a recent result of Schlutzenberg [2], an elementary embedding from Vλ+2 to Vλ+2 does not suffice. 1 Introduction Assuming the Axiom of Choice, the large cardinal hierarchy comes to an abrupt halt in the vicinity of an !-huge cardinal.
    [Show full text]
  • Handout from Today's Lecture
    MA532 Lecture Timothy Kohl Boston University April 23, 2020 Timothy Kohl (Boston University) MA532 Lecture April 23, 2020 1 / 26 Cardinal Arithmetic Recall that one may define addition and multiplication of ordinals α = ot(A, A) β = ot(B, B ) α + β and α · β by constructing order relations on A ∪ B and B × A. For cardinal numbers the foundations are somewhat similar, but also somewhat simpler since one need not refer to orderings. Definition For sets A, B where |A| = α and |B| = β then α + β = |(A × {0}) ∪ (B × {1})|. Timothy Kohl (Boston University) MA532 Lecture April 23, 2020 2 / 26 The curious part of the definition is the two sets A × {0} and B × {1} which can be viewed as subsets of the direct product (A ∪ B) × {0, 1} which basically allows us to add |A| and |B|, in particular since, in the usual formula for the size of the union of two sets |A ∪ B| = |A| + |B| − |A ∩ B| which in this case is bypassed since, by construction, (A × {0}) ∩ (B × {1})= ∅ regardless of the nature of A ∩ B. Timothy Kohl (Boston University) MA532 Lecture April 23, 2020 3 / 26 Definition For sets A, B where |A| = α and |B| = β then α · β = |A × B|. One immediate consequence of these definitions is the following. Proposition If m, n are finite ordinals, then as cardinals one has |m| + |n| = |m + n|, (where the addition on the right is ordinal addition in ω) meaning that ordinal addition and cardinal addition agree. Proof. The simplest proof of this is to define a bijection f : (m × {0}) ∪ (n × {1}) → m + n by f (hr, 0i)= r for r ∈ m and f (hs, 1i)= m + s for s ∈ n.
    [Show full text]
  • The Axiom of Choice and Its Implications
    THE AXIOM OF CHOICE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS KEVIN BARNUM Abstract. In this paper we will look at the Axiom of Choice and some of the various implications it has. These implications include a number of equivalent statements, and also some less accepted ideas. The proofs discussed will give us an idea of why the Axiom of Choice is so powerful, but also so controversial. Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. The Axiom of Choice and Its Equivalents 1 2.1. The Axiom of Choice and its Well-known Equivalents 1 2.2. Some Other Less Well-known Equivalents of the Axiom of Choice 3 3. Applications of the Axiom of Choice 5 3.1. Equivalence Between The Axiom of Choice and the Claim that Every Vector Space has a Basis 5 3.2. Some More Applications of the Axiom of Choice 6 4. Controversial Results 10 Acknowledgments 11 References 11 1. Introduction The Axiom of Choice states that for any family of nonempty disjoint sets, there exists a set that consists of exactly one element from each element of the family. It seems strange at first that such an innocuous sounding idea can be so powerful and controversial, but it certainly is both. To understand why, we will start by looking at some statements that are equivalent to the axiom of choice. Many of these equivalences are very useful, and we devote much time to one, namely, that every vector space has a basis. We go on from there to see a few more applications of the Axiom of Choice and its equivalents, and finish by looking at some of the reasons why the Axiom of Choice is so controversial.
    [Show full text]
  • Elements of Set Theory
    Elements of set theory April 1, 2014 ii Contents 1 Zermelo{Fraenkel axiomatization 1 1.1 Historical context . 1 1.2 The language of the theory . 3 1.3 The most basic axioms . 4 1.4 Axiom of Infinity . 4 1.5 Axiom schema of Comprehension . 5 1.6 Functions . 6 1.7 Axiom of Choice . 7 1.8 Axiom schema of Replacement . 9 1.9 Axiom of Regularity . 9 2 Basic notions 11 2.1 Transitive sets . 11 2.2 Von Neumann's natural numbers . 11 2.3 Finite and infinite sets . 15 2.4 Cardinality . 17 2.5 Countable and uncountable sets . 19 3 Ordinals 21 3.1 Basic definitions . 21 3.2 Transfinite induction and recursion . 25 3.3 Applications with choice . 26 3.4 Applications without choice . 29 3.5 Cardinal numbers . 31 4 Descriptive set theory 35 4.1 Rational and real numbers . 35 4.2 Topological spaces . 37 4.3 Polish spaces . 39 4.4 Borel sets . 43 4.5 Analytic sets . 46 4.6 Lebesgue's mistake . 48 iii iv CONTENTS 5 Formal logic 51 5.1 Propositional logic . 51 5.1.1 Propositional logic: syntax . 51 5.1.2 Propositional logic: semantics . 52 5.1.3 Propositional logic: completeness . 53 5.2 First order logic . 56 5.2.1 First order logic: syntax . 56 5.2.2 First order logic: semantics . 59 5.2.3 Completeness theorem . 60 6 Model theory 67 6.1 Basic notions . 67 6.2 Ultraproducts and nonstandard analysis . 68 6.3 Quantifier elimination and the real closed fields .
    [Show full text]
  • CLASS II MATHEMATICS CHAPTER-2: ORDINAL NUMBERS Cardinal Numbers - the Numbers One, Two, Three
    CLASS II MATHEMATICS CHAPTER-2: ORDINAL NUMBERS Cardinal Numbers - The numbers one, two, three,..... which tell us the number of objects or items are called Cardinal Numbers. Ordinal Numbers - The numbers such as first, second, third ...... which tell us the position of an object in a collection are called Ordinal Numbers. CARDINAL NUMBERS READ THE CONVERSATION That was great Ria… I stood first Hi Mic! How in my class. was your result? In the conversation the word ’first’ is an ordinal number. LOOK AT THE PICTURE CAREFULLY FIRST THIRD FIFTH SECOND FOURTH ORDINAL NUMBERS Cardinal Numbers Ordinal Numbers 1 1st / first 2 2nd / second 3 3rd / third 4 4th / fourth 5 5th / fifth 6 6th / sixth 7 7th / seventh 8 8th / eighth 9 9th / ninth 10 10th / tenth Cardinal Numbers Ordinal Numbers 11 11th / eleventh 12 12th / twelfth 13 13th / thirteenth 14 14th / fourteenth 15 15th / fifteenth 16 16th / sixteenth 17 17th / seventeenth 18 18th / eighteenth 19 19th / nineteenth 20 20th / twentieth Q1. Observe the given sequence of pictures and fill in the blanks with correct ordinal numbers. 1. Circle is at __ place. 2. Bat and ball is at __ place. 3. Cross is at __ place. 4. Kite is at __ place. 5. Flower is at __ place. 6. Flag is at __ place. HOME ASSIGNMENT 1. MATCH THE CORRECT PAIRS OF ORDINAL NUMBERS: 1. seventh 4th 2. fourth 7th 3. ninth 20th 4. twentieth 9th 5. tenth 6th 6. sixth 10th 7. twelfth 13th 8. fourteenth 12th 9. thirteenth 14th Let’s Solve 2. FILL IN THE BLANKS WITH CORRECT ORDINAL NUMBER 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Set Theory We Should Know Cardinality and Cardinal Numbers
    SOME SET THEORY WE SHOULD KNOW CARDINALITY AND CARDINAL NUMBERS De¯nition. Two sets A and B are said to have the same cardinality, and we write jAj = jBj, if there exists a one-to-one onto function f : A ! B. We also say jAj · jBj if there exists a one-to-one (but not necessarily onto) function f : A ! B. Then the SchrÄoder-BernsteinTheorem says: jAj · jBj and jBj · jAj implies jAj = jBj: SchrÄoder-BernsteinTheorem. If there are one-to-one maps f : A ! B and g : B ! A, then jAj = jBj. A set is called countable if it is either ¯nite or has the same cardinality as the set N of positive integers. Theorem ST1. (a) A countable union of countable sets is countable; (b) If A1;A2; :::; An are countable, so is ¦i·nAi; (c) If A is countable, so is the set of all ¯nite subsets of A, as well as the set of all ¯nite sequences of elements of A; (d) The set Q of all rational numbers is countable. Theorem ST2. The following sets have the same cardinality as the set R of real numbers: (a) The set P(N) of all subsets of the natural numbers N; (b) The set of all functions f : N ! f0; 1g; (c) The set of all in¯nite sequences of 0's and 1's; (d) The set of all in¯nite sequences of real numbers. The cardinality of N (and any countable in¯nite set) is denoted by @0. @1 denotes the next in¯nite cardinal, @2 the next, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Axioms of Set Theory and Equivalents of Axiom of Choice Farighon Abdul Rahim Boise State University, [email protected]
    Boise State University ScholarWorks Mathematics Undergraduate Theses Department of Mathematics 5-2014 Axioms of Set Theory and Equivalents of Axiom of Choice Farighon Abdul Rahim Boise State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/ math_undergraduate_theses Part of the Set Theory Commons Recommended Citation Rahim, Farighon Abdul, "Axioms of Set Theory and Equivalents of Axiom of Choice" (2014). Mathematics Undergraduate Theses. Paper 1. Axioms of Set Theory and Equivalents of Axiom of Choice Farighon Abdul Rahim Advisor: Samuel Coskey Boise State University May 2014 1 Introduction Sets are all around us. A bag of potato chips, for instance, is a set containing certain number of individual chip’s that are its elements. University is another example of a set with students as its elements. By elements, we mean members. But sets should not be confused as to what they really are. A daughter of a blacksmith is an element of a set that contains her mother, father, and her siblings. Then this set is an element of a set that contains all the other families that live in the nearby town. So a set itself can be an element of a bigger set. In mathematics, axiom is defined to be a rule or a statement that is accepted to be true regardless of having to prove it. In a sense, axioms are self evident. In set theory, we deal with sets. Each time we state an axiom, we will do so by considering sets. Example of the set containing the blacksmith family might make it seem as if sets are finite.
    [Show full text]
  • A Severe Inconsistency of Transfinite Set Theory1
    A severe inconsistency of transfinite set theory1 W. Mückenheim University of Applied Sciences, D-86161 Augsburg, Germany [[email protected]] Transfinite set theory including the axiom of choice supplies the following basic theorems: (1) Mappings between infinite sets can always be completed, such that at least one of the sets is exhausted. (2) The real numbers can be well ordered. (3) The relative positions of real numbers which are enumerated by natural numbers can always be determined, in particular the maximum real number below a given limit. (4) Any two different real numbers are separated by at least one rational number. These theorems are applied to map the irrational numbers into the rational numbers, showing that the set of all irrational numbers is countable. 1. Introduction Georg Cantor is that mathematician whose name is most closely connected with the notion of infinity. An essential point of his theory is the basic law (Denkgesetz) that the continuum can be well-ordered. Precisely 100 years ago, here in Heidelberg, Cantor had to suffer a serious attack from König2 who claimed to have contradicted this. In fact nobody has ever accomplished it. But Zermelo's axiom of choice, created immediately after that dispute, convinced more and more mathematicians that well-ordering could be proved. This is a singular case in history of mathematics. Instead of refuting König's claim by a counter example, an axiom was created which supplies rather an encoded proclamation of the desired result than proof3. The axiom of choice allows us to manipulate all the elements of an infinite set simultaneously instead of considering one after the other4.
    [Show full text]
  • An Axiomatic Approach to the Ordinal Number System
    An axiomatic approach to the ordinal number system Ineke van der Berg Thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science (Mathematics) in the Faculty of Science at Stellenbosch University Supervisor: Professor Z. Janelidze 2021 Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za Declaration By submitting this thesis electronically, I declare that the entirety of the work contained therein is my own, original work, that I am the sole author thereof (save to the extent explicitly otherwise stated), that reproduction and publication thereof by Stellenbosch University will not infringe any third party rights and that I have not previously in its entirety or in part submitted it for obtaining any qualification. Date: 6th March 2021 Copyright c 2021 Stellenbosch University All rights reserved. i Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisor, Professor Zurab Janelidze, not only for his guidance and contributions to the thesis, but also for nurturing my confidence and enthusiasm throughout my studies. I could not imagine a better guide through the magical realm of mathematics. I also wish to thank my friend, Dr Katrina du Toit, for her skilful proofreading, usually on short notice. I value your appreciation for brevity and precision, and your feedback is exactly the right level of pedantic. I promise to use more commas in the future. Thanks, also, to my other friends, particularly Roy, Alan, and Dale, for their com- ments on topology, typography, and layout, respectively. Iggy, thank you for being supportive, for motivating me, and for always being available for conversation, whether academic or otherwise.
    [Show full text]
  • Well-Orderings, Ordinals and Well-Founded Relations. an Ancient
    Well-orderings, ordinals and well-founded relations. An ancient principle of arithmetic, that if there is a non-negative integer with some property then there is a least such, is useful in two ways: as a source of proofs, which are then said to be \by induction" and as as a source of definitions, then said to be \by recursion." An early use of induction is in Euclid's proof that every integer > 2 is a product of primes, (where we take \prime" to mean \having no divisors other than itself and 1"): if some number is not, then let n¯ be the least counter-example. If not itself prime, it can be written as a product m1m2 of two strictly smaller numbers each > 2; but then each of those is a product of primes, by the minimality of n¯; putting those two products together expresses n¯ as a product of primes. Contradiction ! An example of definition by recursion: we set 0! = 1; (n + 1)! = n! × (n + 1): A function defined for all non-negative integers is thereby uniquely specified; in detail, we consider an attempt to be a function, defined on a finite initial segment of the non-negative integers, which agrees with the given definition as far as it goes; if some integer is not in the domain of any attempt, there will be a least such; it cannot be 0; if it is n + 1, the recursion equation tells us how to extend an attempt defined at n to one defined at n + 1. So no such failure exists; we check that if f and g are two attempts and both f(n) and g(n) are defined, then f(n) = g(n), by considering the least n where that might fail, and again reaching a contradiction; and so, there being no disagreement between any two attempts, the union of all attempts will be a well-defined function, which is familiar to us as the factorial function.
    [Show full text]
  • The Set of All Countable Ordinals: an Inquiry Into Its Construction, Properties, and a Proof Concerning Hereditary Subcompactness
    W&M ScholarWorks Undergraduate Honors Theses Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 5-2009 The Set of All Countable Ordinals: An Inquiry into Its Construction, Properties, and a Proof Concerning Hereditary Subcompactness Jacob Hill College of William and Mary Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/honorstheses Part of the Mathematics Commons Recommended Citation Hill, Jacob, "The Set of All Countable Ordinals: An Inquiry into Its Construction, Properties, and a Proof Concerning Hereditary Subcompactness" (2009). Undergraduate Honors Theses. Paper 255. https://scholarworks.wm.edu/honorstheses/255 This Honors Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Undergraduate Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Set of All Countable Ordinals: An Inquiry into Its Construction, Properties, and a Proof Concerning Hereditary Subcompactness A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Bachelor of Science with Honors in Mathematics from the College of William and Mary in Virginia, by Jacob Hill Accepted for ____________________________ (Honors, High Honors, or Highest Honors) _______________________________________ Director, Professor David Lutzer _________________________________________ Professor Vladimir Bolotnikov _________________________________________ Professor George Rublein _________________________________________
    [Show full text]