Ordinal Exponentiation Comparison

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter aa
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around comparing two expressions involving ordinal exponentiation: \(\omega^{\omega_1}\) and \(\omega_1^{\omega}\). Participants explore the properties of these ordinals and the implications of their definitions within set theory.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asks for help comparing \(\omega^{\omega_1}\) and \(\omega_1^{\omega}\) and expresses confusion over the problem.
  • Another participant notes that the comparison can depend on specific cases, suggesting that a general rule cannot be formulated.
  • There is a discussion about the definitions of \(\omega_1\) and its properties as a limit ordinal, with some participants clarifying that \(\omega_1\) is the first ordinal with cardinality greater than that of \(\omega\).
  • Participants discuss the cardinality of \(\omega^{\omega_1}\) and its implications, with one noting that it has cardinality \(\omega_1\) but questioning if it is greater than \(\omega_1\).
  • There is a back-and-forth regarding the ordering of ordinals and how it relates to the comparison, with some participants suggesting that \(\omega^{\omega_1}\) could be equal to \(\omega_1\).
  • One participant expresses surprise at the conclusion that \(\omega^{\omega_1} = \omega_1\) and seeks clarification on the reasoning behind it.
  • Another participant emphasizes that \(\omega^{\omega_1}\) is greater than any countable ordinal, leading to a discussion about the bounds of \(\omega^{\omega_1}\) and \(\omega_1\).
  • A separate line of discussion emerges regarding the general comparison of \(a^b\) and \(b^a\) for natural numbers, with one participant providing an approach for proof based on specific cases and assumptions.
  • One participant reminds others that the original problem pertains to ordinal numbers, not natural numbers.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying opinions on the comparison of \(\omega^{\omega_1}\) and \(\omega_1^{\omega}\), with no consensus reached. There is also a separate discussion on the comparison of \(a^b\) and \(b^a\) that introduces additional complexity without resolution.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of distinguishing between ordinal and cardinal exponentiation, as well as the implications of definitions and properties of ordinals in their reasoning.

aa
Messages
20
Reaction score
14
Which is bigger, a^b or b^a? (set theory)

Hi!

Thanks for letting me join your physics forums!

Will anyone help me with a set theory question I have? I've been racking my brains over this for the last two hours with no progress.

Which is greater using ordinal exponentation: [tex]\omega^{\omega_1}[/tex] or [tex]\omega_1^{\omega}[/tex]?

P.S. I know that [tex]\omega^{\omega_1}[/tex] equals the order type of [tex]\underbrace{ \omega \times \omega \times \omega \times ... }_{\omega_1 \ many \ times}[/tex], and [tex]\omega_1^{\omega}[/tex] equals the order type of [tex]\underbrace{ \omega_1 \times \omega_1 \times \omega_1 \times ... }_{\omega \ many \ times}[/tex], but I'm still stuck.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
It depends,they can be equal even (for the a=b case and for 2 & 4,for example).So you can't formulate a general rule...

Daniel.
 
Yes, but this is referring to ordinal exponentiation, a la set theory.

I really appreciate any help you all can give.
 
Last edited:
What exactly is ω_1?
 
Sorry, I see what you mean. This is the problem as given to me on the homework, but I have edited my post to use aleph notation. Is it a well-defined question now?
 
Ack, alephs are usually used for cardinals aren't they? They're not order types! And cardinal exponentiation is different than ordinal exponentiation! :frown:

You could just say that ω_1 was the first ordinal with cardinality greater than that of ω. :-p
 
Hehe, alright, thanks. That's exactly what [tex]\omega_1[/tex] is supposed to be.
 
Well, ω1 is a limit ordinal, so what does that tell you about ω^ω1?
 
Hurkyl said:
Well, ω1 is a limit ordinal, so what does that tell you about ω^ω1?
[tex]\omega^{\omega_1} = sup\{\omega^\alpha : \alpha < \omega_1\}[/tex]. I did think of that, but don't see how it helps.
 
  • #10
What's the cardinality of &omega;^&alpha; if &alpha; < &omega;_1?
 
  • #11
It's [tex]\omega[/tex]. So then [tex]\omega^{\omega_1}[/tex] is an ordinal with cardinality equal to the union of [tex]\omega_1[/tex] many countable ordinals, which means [tex]\omega^{\omega_1}[/tex] is an ordinal with cardinality [tex]\omega_1[/tex].

So we've shown that [tex]|\omega^{\omega_1}|[/tex] = [tex]\omega_1[/tex], but it could still be true that [tex]\omega^{\omega_1} > \omega_1[/tex].
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Better yet, it's a specific ordinal with cardinality &omega;_1.

Don't think of it in terms of unions, think of it in terms of the ordering...
 
  • #13
Oh schnap! You're right! [tex]\omega^{\omega_1} = \omega_1[/tex].

Boy, that's really surprising to me.

Thanks Hurkyl!

That IS what you had in mind, right? I'm not sure what the ordering has to do with it, but I do think that it = [tex]\omega_1[/tex]. Now, anyway.
 
  • #14
Well, I thought of it in terms of the ordering: ω_1 is an upper bound of that set, so we must have [itex]\omega_1 \geq \omega^{\omega_1}[/itex].
 
  • #15
Hmm, let me think about it again for a sec...this is kinda tricky...
 
  • #16
You were right -- I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. Just offering how I arrived at that conclusion!
 
  • #17
Yes, thank you, and I am interested in your thought process for arriving at this conclusion too. It's just that after reading your post, I tried to think about it again, and suddenly wasn't sure of what I was thinking before.

Let me try to get this straight once and for all.

Your reasoning Hurkyl, is that for any countable ordinal [tex]\alpha[/tex], [tex]\omega^{\omega_1} > \alpha[/tex] because [tex]\omega^{\omega_1} > \omega^{\alpha} > \alpha[/tex]. We do need to use the fact that [tex]\omega^{\alpha} > \alpha[/tex] for all countable ordinals [tex]\alpha[/tex], right? That seems true, although a proof isn't immediately obvious to me.

But in any case, the basic idea is that [tex]\omega^{\omega_1} >[/tex] all countable ordinals, right?
 
  • #18
I know [itex]\omega^{\omega_1}[/itex] is bigger than any countable ordinal, because [itex]|\omega^{\omega_1}| = |\omega_1|[/itex]. That's how I know that [itex]\omega_1 \leq \omega^{\omega_1}[/itex].

The other direction, [itex]\omega_1 \geq \omega^{\omega_1}[/itex], comes from the fact that [itex]\omega_1[/itex] is an upper bound of that set that defines [itex]\omega^{\omega_1}[/itex].
 
  • #19
I have finished writing my solution and am ready to turn it in. Whew.

Thank you Hurkyl. I really appreciate your helping me through this problem.
 
  • #20
going back to which is greater a^b or b^a. ( i can't use the special symbols)

then assume a>b (without loss of generality)
then
if b=1 then a^b =a b^a =1 so a^b is greater

there are some special cases for a,b, <=3 which I leave you to find

but for all other cases
b^a is greater e.g. 4^5 is greater than 5^4

I Haven't got a proof

this info comes from an Excel spreadsheet

but I think that the proof lies in putting
e=a-b

then
a^b = (b+e)^b = use binomial expansion
b^a = b^(b+e) = b^b * b^e

approach for proof

start with e=1
(certainly true here)


then recast problem as b+e as b(1+x) where x=e/b ; 0<x<1

David
 
  • #21
The problem isn't about natural numbers -- it's about ordinal numbers.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K