- #1
jostpuur
- 2,116
- 19
A set [itex]x[/itex] is well-ordered by [itex]<[/itex] if every subset of [itex]x[/itex] has a least element. Here [itex]<[/itex] is assumed a linear ordering, meaning that all members of a set can be compared, unlike with partial ordering.
A set [itex]x[/itex] is transitive if it has property [itex]\forall y\;(y\in x\to y\subset x)[/itex].
A set [itex]\alpha[/itex] is ordinal, if it is transitive and well-ordered by [itex]\in[/itex].
The claim: If [itex]\alpha[/itex] is an ordinal, and [itex]\beta\in\alpha[/itex], then [itex]\beta[/itex] is ordinal too.
A book says that this claim is clear "by definition", however I see only half of the proof by definition.
We have [itex]\beta\in\alpha\to\beta\subset\alpha[/itex], and a subset of a well-ordered set is also well-ordered, so that part is clear by definition.
We should also prove a claim [itex]\forall\gamma\;(\gamma\in\beta\to\gamma\subset\beta)[/itex]. How is this supposed to come from the definition? I only see [itex]\gamma\in\beta\to\gamma\in\alpha\to\gamma\subset\alpha[/itex].
---
update: Oh I understood this now! No need for help. But I would like to complain that the book is playing fool on the reader. I wouldn't call that "by definition".
---
second update: We assume [itex]\gamma\in\beta[/itex] and then
[tex]
\neg(\gamma\subset\beta)\to \exists\delta\;(\delta\in\gamma\land\delta\notin\beta)
[/tex]
[tex]
\to\exists\delta\;\big(\delta\in\gamma\land(\beta\in\delta\lor \beta=\delta)\big)
[/tex]
[tex]
\to\exists\delta\big(\underbrace{(\delta\in\gamma\land\beta\in\delta)}_{\to 0=1}\lor\underbrace{(\delta\in\gamma\land \beta=\delta)}_{\to 0=1}\big)\to 0=1
[/tex]
Does that look like "by definition"?
A set [itex]x[/itex] is transitive if it has property [itex]\forall y\;(y\in x\to y\subset x)[/itex].
A set [itex]\alpha[/itex] is ordinal, if it is transitive and well-ordered by [itex]\in[/itex].
The claim: If [itex]\alpha[/itex] is an ordinal, and [itex]\beta\in\alpha[/itex], then [itex]\beta[/itex] is ordinal too.
A book says that this claim is clear "by definition", however I see only half of the proof by definition.
We have [itex]\beta\in\alpha\to\beta\subset\alpha[/itex], and a subset of a well-ordered set is also well-ordered, so that part is clear by definition.
We should also prove a claim [itex]\forall\gamma\;(\gamma\in\beta\to\gamma\subset\beta)[/itex]. How is this supposed to come from the definition? I only see [itex]\gamma\in\beta\to\gamma\in\alpha\to\gamma\subset\alpha[/itex].
---
update: Oh I understood this now! No need for help. But I would like to complain that the book is playing fool on the reader. I wouldn't call that "by definition".
---
second update: We assume [itex]\gamma\in\beta[/itex] and then
[tex]
\neg(\gamma\subset\beta)\to \exists\delta\;(\delta\in\gamma\land\delta\notin\beta)
[/tex]
[tex]
\to\exists\delta\;\big(\delta\in\gamma\land(\beta\in\delta\lor \beta=\delta)\big)
[/tex]
[tex]
\to\exists\delta\big(\underbrace{(\delta\in\gamma\land\beta\in\delta)}_{\to 0=1}\lor\underbrace{(\delta\in\gamma\land \beta=\delta)}_{\to 0=1}\big)\to 0=1
[/tex]
Does that look like "by definition"?
Last edited: