Cardinality of Set: Proving lXl<lYl Implies lXl\inlYl

  • Thread starter Thread starter gotjrgkr
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cardinality Set
gotjrgkr
Messages
84
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Hi!
I want to show that lXl<lYl implies lXl\inlYl where lXl and lYl are some cardinal numbers of two sets X and Y and the ordering < is defined on cardinal numbers .


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I tried to solve it by myself as follows:
lXl < lYl \rightarrow lXl\leqlYl and not lXl=lYl( X is not equipotent to Y)
\rightarrow there is a function f on X into Y s.t. f is a 1-1 function, and
not lXl=lYl( cardinal numbers lXl and lYl are not same)
\rightarrow there is a function f on X into Y s.t. f is a 1-1 function, and
lXl\inlYl or lYl\inlXl since lXl and
lYl are initial ordinals.

But I can't determine why lXl must belong to lYl.

Could you give me a hint??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
|X| and |Y| are ordinals, and |X|<|Y| as ordinals (prove this). So, what do you know about the order relation on the ordinals?
 
micromass said:
|X| and |Y| are ordinals, and |X|<|Y| as ordinals (prove this). So, what do you know about the order relation on the ordinals?

I tried to prove it.
I found that if i assume lXl>lYl as ordinals, then it leads to lYl is less than or equal to lXl as cardinals. Then cantor- bernstein's theorem makes a conclusion s.t. lXl=lYl(X is equipotent to Y) . But this is contradiction to the hypothesis lXl<lYl as cardinals. And if lXl=lYl as ordinals, then it is obviously contradiction to the hypothesis. So, lXl<lYl.
Is my proof right??
 
Last edited:
Looks good!
 
micromass said:
Looks good!

I really appretiate for your help.
Thanks!
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top