How Do We Prove a Subset of an Ordinal is Well-Ordered?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Properties
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that a subset of an ordinal, specifically ##\beta##, is well-ordered by membership, as outlined in Theorem 1.4.3 from Micheal Searcoid's "Elements of Abstract Analysis." Participants confirm that since ##\alpha## is an ordinal, any subset, including ##\beta##, must have a minimum element. The proof hinges on demonstrating that any arbitrary subset ##C## of ##\beta## is also a subset of ##\alpha##, thereby inheriting the well-ordered property. The transitivity of the subset property is also noted as a crucial aspect of the proof.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of ordinals and their properties
  • Familiarity with set theory concepts, particularly subsets
  • Knowledge of well-ordering principles
  • Basic proficiency in mathematical proofs and logic
NEXT STEPS
  • Study Searcoid's "Elements of Abstract Analysis," focusing on Chapter 1: Sets
  • Explore the concept of well-ordering in greater depth
  • Review the transitivity of subset properties in set theory
  • Practice formal proofs involving ordinals and subsets
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of abstract analysis, and anyone interested in the foundations of set theory and ordinal numbers.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Micheal Searcoid's book: "Elements of Abstract Analysis" ... ...

I am currently focused on understanding Chapter 1: Sets ... and in particular Section 1.4 Ordinals ...

I need some help in fully understanding Theorem 1.4.3 ...

Theorem 1.4.3 reads as follows:
?temp_hash=bccb60496862d56962ecb212d49f4113.png

?temp_hash=bccb60496862d56962ecb212d49f4113.png

In the above proof by Searcoid we read the following:

"... ... Then ##\beta \subseteq \alpha## so that ##\beta## is also well ordered by membership. ... ...To conclude that ##\beta## is also well ordered by membership, don't we have to show that a subset of an ordinal is well ordered?

Indeed, how would we demonstrate formally and rigorously that ##\beta## is also well ordered by membership. ... ... ?*** EDIT ***

I have been reflecting on the above post on the ordinals ...Maybe to show that that ##\beta## is also well ordered by membership, we have to demonstrate that since every subset of ##\alpha## has a minimum element then every subset of ##\beta## has a minimum element ... but then that would only be true if every subset of ##\beta## was also a subset of ##\alpha## ...

Is the above chain of thinking going in the right direction ...?

Still not sure regarding the original question ...

Peter

*** FINISH EDIT ***

Help will be appreciated ...

Peter
==========================================================================It may help Physics Forums readers of the above post to have access to the start of Searcoid's section on the ordinals ... so I am providing the same ... as follows:
?temp_hash=bccb60496862d56962ecb212d49f4113.png

It may also help Physics Forums readers to have access to Searcoid's definition of a well order ... so I am providing the text of Searcoid's Definition 1.3.10 ... as follows:

?temp_hash=bccb60496862d56962ecb212d49f4113.png

?temp_hash=bccb60496862d56962ecb212d49f4113.png


Hope that helps,

Peter
 

Attachments

  • Searcoid - 1 -  Theorem 1.4.3 ... ... PART 1 ... .....png
    Searcoid - 1 - Theorem 1.4.3 ... ... PART 1 ... .....png
    4.9 KB · Views: 524
  • Searcoid - 2 -  Theorem 1.4.3 ... ... PART 2 ... ......png
    Searcoid - 2 - Theorem 1.4.3 ... ... PART 2 ... ......png
    35.9 KB · Views: 541
  • Searcoid - 1 -  Start of section on Ordinals  ... ... PART 1 ... .....png
    Searcoid - 1 - Start of section on Ordinals ... ... PART 1 ... .....png
    31.4 KB · Views: 518
  • Searcoid - Definition 1.3.10 ... .....png
    Searcoid - Definition 1.3.10 ... .....png
    24.8 KB · Views: 520
  • Searcoid - 2 - Definition 1.3.10 ... .....PART 2 ... ....png
    Searcoid - 2 - Definition 1.3.10 ... .....PART 2 ... ....png
    25.6 KB · Views: 498
  • ?temp_hash=bccb60496862d56962ecb212d49f4113.png
    ?temp_hash=bccb60496862d56962ecb212d49f4113.png
    4.9 KB · Views: 525
  • ?temp_hash=bccb60496862d56962ecb212d49f4113.png
    ?temp_hash=bccb60496862d56962ecb212d49f4113.png
    35.9 KB · Views: 515
  • ?temp_hash=bccb60496862d56962ecb212d49f4113.png
    ?temp_hash=bccb60496862d56962ecb212d49f4113.png
    31.4 KB · Views: 506
  • ?temp_hash=bccb60496862d56962ecb212d49f4113.png
    ?temp_hash=bccb60496862d56962ecb212d49f4113.png
    24.8 KB · Views: 521
  • ?temp_hash=bccb60496862d56962ecb212d49f4113.png
    ?temp_hash=bccb60496862d56962ecb212d49f4113.png
    25.6 KB · Views: 489
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello Peter!

##\alpha## is an ordinal, hence is well-ordered, hence any subset of ##\alpha## has a minimum element.
We have also deduced that ##\beta\subseteq \alpha##on line 1, from the fact that ##\alpha## is an ordinal and that##\beta\in\alpha##.

Now consider an arbitrary subset ##C## of ##\beta##. Since ##\beta\subseteq\alpha## it follows that ##C\subseteq\alpha## and hence it must have a minimum element.

If you wanted to be especially rigorous, you could prove the transitivity of the subset property, which we used here, ie that

$$C\subseteq\beta\subseteq \alpha\Rightarrow C\subseteq\alpha$$

It's pretty easy, just using the definition of a subset.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Math Amateur
Thanks Andrew ...

I appreciate your help ...

Peter
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K