Order-preserving Embedding Functions

  • Thread starter Thread starter sairalouise
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Functions
Click For Summary
For every countable order, an order embedding function f: (A,<) -> (Q,<) can be constructed using an inductive approach. The function is defined by assigning f(a0) = 0 and then determining f(a_n) based on the positions of preceding elements in A. Specifically, f(a_n) is calculated using the average of adjacent elements or adjusted by adding or subtracting one, depending on the existence of those elements. The discussion raises a question about the w-categoricity of the Theory of Dense Linear Orders and whether a similar construction can yield an order isomorphism when A is dense without minimum or maximum elements. Overall, the method emphasizes the flexibility of embedding countable orders into the rationals while exploring the implications of density in the order structure.
sairalouise
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
How would you show that for every countable order, there is an order embedding function
f: (A,<) -> (Q,<) ?
Is this similar to the proof of the w-categoricity of the Theory of Dense Linear Orders?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Surely you can just define f inductively. As A is countable, A={a0, a1,...}. Set f(a0) = 0, and for each n>0 do the following.
Choose j<n to maximize a_j subject to a_j < a_n (if such a j exists).
Choose k<n to minimize a_k subject to a_k > a_n (if such a k exists).
Set,
i) f(a_n)=(f(a_j)+f(a_k))/2 if both j,k exist
ii) f(a_n)=f(a_j)+1 if only j exists
ii) f(a_n)=f(a_k)-1 if only k exists

No idea about w-categoricity though.

(For a follow up question. If A is also dense with no minimum or maximum element, can you construct f to be an order isomorphism?)
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
6K