Proper Subsets of Ordinals .... .... Another Question .... ....

  • I
  • Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Subsets
In summary: Theorem 1.4.4 states that if a set is totally ordered then there must be a unique element that is between every two members of the set. The = alternative follows from the fact that if two sets are Totally Ordered then their intersection is Totally Ordered.
  • #1
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
3,998
48
I am reading Micheal Searcoid's book: "Elements of Abstract Analysis" ... ...

I am currently focused on understanding Chapter 1: Sets ... and in particular Section 1.4 Ordinals ...

I have another question regarding the proof of Theorem 1.4.4 ...

Theorem 1.4.4 reads as follows:
?temp_hash=f49ab8f8e8b53f84476ecce3874be075.png
In the above proof by Searcoid we read the following:

"... ... Moreover, since ##x \subset \alpha##, we have ##\delta \in \alpha##. But ##\beta \in \alpha## and ##\alpha## is totally ordered, so we must have ##\delta \in \beta## or ##\delta = \beta## or ##\beta \in \delta## ... ... "My question is regarding the three alternatives ##\delta \in \beta## or ##\delta = \beta## or ##\beta \in \delta## ... ...Now ... where ##(S, <)## is a partially ordered set ... ##S## is said to be totally ordered by ##<## if and only if for every pair of distinct members ##x, y \in S##, either ##x < y## or ##y < x## ... ..So if we follow the definition exactly in the quote above there are only two alternatives ... ##\delta \in \beta## or ##\beta \in \delta## ... ...

My question is ... where does the = alternative come from ... ?

How does the = alternative follow from the definition of totally ordered ... ?

Help will be appreciated ...

Peter
 

Attachments

  • Searcoid - Theorem 1.4.4 ... ....png
    Searcoid - Theorem 1.4.4 ... ....png
    44.9 KB · Views: 476
  • ?temp_hash=f49ab8f8e8b53f84476ecce3874be075.png
    ?temp_hash=f49ab8f8e8b53f84476ecce3874be075.png
    44.9 KB · Views: 307
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Math Amateur said:
##S## is said to be totally ordered by ##<## if and only if for every pair of distinct members ##x, y \in S##, either ##x < y## or ##y < x##
The key is in the word 'distinct'. The above is equivalent to saying the following, which removes the 'distinct'

##S## is said to be totally ordered by ##<## if and only if for every pair of members ##x, y \in S##, either ##x=y##, ##x < y## or ##y < x##
Note that, at the stage of the proof where the above words appear, there is nothing to indicate that ##\delta## cannot be the same as ##\beta##.
 
  • #3
andrewkirk said:
The key is in the word 'distinct'. The above is equivalent to saying the following, which removes the 'distinct'Note that, at the stage of the proof where the above words appear, there is nothing to indicate that ##\delta## cannot be the same as ##\beta##.
Thanks Andrew ...

Peter
 

Related to Proper Subsets of Ordinals .... .... Another Question .... ....

What are proper subsets of ordinals?

Proper subsets of ordinals are subsets that do not contain the entire set of ordinals. In other words, they are subsets that are smaller than the original set of ordinals.

What is the significance of proper subsets of ordinals?

Proper subsets of ordinals are important in set theory and mathematical logic. They help define the concept of "smallness" in mathematical structures and can be used to prove theorems.

How do you determine if a set is a proper subset of ordinals?

A set is considered a proper subset of ordinals if it is smaller in size than the original set of ordinals and if it contains no limit ordinals. In other words, all elements in the set must be less than the largest element in the original set.

Can proper subsets of ordinals be infinite?

Yes, proper subsets of ordinals can be infinite. In fact, most proper subsets of ordinals are infinite. This is because the concept of "smallness" in ordinals is defined in terms of size rather than finiteness.

Are proper subsets of ordinals well-ordered?

Yes, proper subsets of ordinals are well-ordered. This means that every element in the subset has a unique predecessor and there is no infinite descending chain of elements. This is a fundamental property of ordinals.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
442
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
869
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
999
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top