Proper Subsets of Ordinals ... ... Another Question ... ...

  • #1
Math Amateur
Gold Member
1,082
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 have another question regarding the proof of Theorem 1.4.4 ...

Theorem 1.4.4 reads as follows:


?temp_hash=f49ab8f8e8b53f84476ecce3874be075.png






In the above proof by Searcoid we read the following:

"... ... Moreover, since ##x \subset \alpha##, we have ##\delta \in \alpha##. But ##\beta \in \alpha## and ##\alpha## is totally ordered, so we must have ##\delta \in \beta## or ##\delta = \beta## or ##\beta \in \delta## ... ... "


My question is regarding the three alternatives ##\delta \in \beta## or ##\delta = \beta## or ##\beta \in \delta## ... ...


Now ... where ##(S, <)## is a partially ordered set ... ##S## is said to be totally ordered by ##<## if and only if for every pair of distinct members ##x, y \in S##, either ##x < y## or ##y < x## ... ..


So if we follow the definition exactly in the quote above there are only two alternatives .... ##\delta \in \beta## or ##\beta \in \delta## ... ...

My question is ... where does the = alternative come from ... ?

How does the = alternative follow from the definition of totally ordered ... ?




Help will be appreciated ...

Peter
 

Attachments

  • Searcoid - Theorem 1.4.4 ... ....png
    Searcoid - Theorem 1.4.4 ... ....png
    80.1 KB · Views: 416
  • ?temp_hash=f49ab8f8e8b53f84476ecce3874be075.png
    ?temp_hash=f49ab8f8e8b53f84476ecce3874be075.png
    80.1 KB · Views: 215

Answers and Replies

  • #2
andrewkirk
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
3,987
1,538
##S## is said to be totally ordered by ##<## if and only if for every pair of distinct members ##x, y \in S##, either ##x < y## or ##y < x##
The key is in the word 'distinct'. The above is equivalent to saying the following, which removes the 'distinct'

##S## is said to be totally ordered by ##<## if and only if for every pair of members ##x, y \in S##, either ##x=y##, ##x < y## or ##y < x##
Note that, at the stage of the proof where the above words appear, there is nothing to indicate that ##\delta## cannot be the same as ##\beta##.
 
  • #3
Math Amateur
Gold Member
1,082
48
The key is in the word 'distinct'. The above is equivalent to saying the following, which removes the 'distinct'


Note that, at the stage of the proof where the above words appear, there is nothing to indicate that ##\delta## cannot be the same as ##\beta##.


Thanks Andrew ...

Peter
 

Related Threads on Proper Subsets of Ordinals ... ... Another Question ... ...

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
747
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
888
Replies
4
Views
902
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Top