Cantor normal form multiplication

daniel_i_l
Gold Member
Messages
864
Reaction score
0
Let's say that a is an ordinal and it's cantor normal form is:
a = {\omega^{\beta_1}}c_1 + {\omega^{\beta_2}}c_2 + ...
I read that
a \omega = {\omega^{\beta_1+1}}
But I couldn't find a proof anywhere.
Can someone give me a source or point me in the right direction so that I can prove it myself?
Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The c_{i}'s are positive integers, so c_{i}\omega=\omega and:

\left(\omega^{\beta_{i}}c_{i}\right)\omega=\omega^{\beta_{i}}\omega<br /> <br /> = \omega^{\beta_{i+1}}

But the \beta_{i} are in descending order, so their sum is equal to the largest element, which is \omega^{\beta_{1}+1}
 
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...

Similar threads

Back
Top