Proving \epsilon_0 is the Smallest Epsilon Number

  • Thread starter Thread starter MathematicalPhysicist
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that ε₀ is an ε number and the smallest such number. It defines ε₀ as the limit of φ(n), where φ(n) is a function involving iterated exponentiation of ω. The proof involves showing that if there exists a smaller ε number, it leads to a contradiction based on the properties of ordinals. Additionally, it argues that any ε number must be greater than all iterated forms of ω, establishing that ε₀ is indeed the smallest ε number. The reasoning hinges on the unique ordinal representation of ε₀ and the behavior of limits and exponentials in ordinal theory.
MathematicalPhysicist
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
4,662
Reaction score
372
prove that \epsilon_0 is an \epsilon number and that it's the smallest number.
\epsilon_0=\lim_{n<\omega}\phi(n)
\phi(n)=\omega^{\omega^{\omega^{...^{\omega}}}} where \omega appears n times.
an epsilon number is a number which satisfies the equation \omega^{\epsilon}=\epsilon.
for the first part of proving that it's an epsilon number i used the fact that 1+\omega=\omega, for the second part I am not sure i understand how to prove it:
i mean if we assume there's a number smaller than \epsilon_0 that satisfy that it's an epsilon number, then \omega^{\epsilon^{'}}=\epsilon^{'}<\epsilon_0=\omega^{\epsilon_0}
i know that there exists a unique ordinal such that \epsilon_0=\epsilon^{'}+\alpha
if \alpha is a finite ordinal then \epsilon_0=\epsilon^{'} and it's a contradiction, but how to prove it when alpha isn't a finite ordinal?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't know if this is at all valid in the theory of ordinals, but surely lims and exponentials commute, hence e_0 is an epsilon number.

Secondly, if e is an epsilon number then e=w^e (=>w) = w^w^e (=>w^w) =... hence e must be greater than w, w^w, w^w, w^w^w,.. and therefore e must be greater thanor equal to the smallest ordinal larger than all of w, w^w, w^w^w, etc which is precisely e_0.

(This is exactly the same as showing that if t is larger than 0.9, 0.99, 0.999,... then t=>1.)
 
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...

Similar threads

Back
Top