I Ordinal Arithmetic: Proving X is Countably Compact

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Gear300
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Arithmetic Ordinal
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on proving that the set X of all ordinals less than the first uncountable ordinal (μ) is countably compact but not compact. The challenge lies in demonstrating that every infinite subset of X has a limit point within X. The author notes that while exploring this, they encountered difficulties identifying limit points, particularly in relation to the sequence {ωn} = ω, ω², ..., ωn. They highlight that neighborhoods of μ are uncountable, complicating the identification of limit points. The conversation invites contributions on the ordinals that exist between ωω and the presented sequence.
Gear300
Messages
1,209
Reaction score
9
Problem Statement:
Show that the set X of all ordinals less than the first uncountable ordinal is countably compact but not compact.

Let μ be the first uncountable ordinal.

The latter question is easy to show, but I stumbled upon a curiosity while attempting the former. In showing the former, I simply tried to show that every infinite subset of X should have a limit point (or in particular, an ω-accumulation point) in X. And so, in doing this, I needed to ensure that any infinite subset with μ as a limit point has another limit point in X. I reasoned that the first ω ordinals of this subset should only span a countable range of ordinals, since each of their co-initials are countable and a countable union of countable sets is countable. Any neighborhood of μ, however, is uncountable, so the limit point of the first ω ordinals of this subset cannot be μ. But when I considered the following set -

The sequence {ωn} = ω, ω2, ... , ωn, ...

- it was hard to discern a limit point other than ωω. Aside from what the exact nature of the first uncountable ordinal is chosen to be, there should still be a limit point somewhere before ωω. So simply put, what ordinals exist between ωω and the sequence I presented?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
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