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

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

This discussion centers on the proof of Theorem 1.4.4 from Micheal Searcoid's "Elements of Abstract Analysis," specifically regarding the alternatives presented in the context of totally ordered sets. The theorem states that if ##x \subset \alpha##, then ##\delta \in \alpha##, and the alternatives presented are ##\delta \in \beta##, ##\delta = \beta##, or ##\beta \in \delta##. The confusion arises from the interpretation of "distinct" members in totally ordered sets, where it is clarified that the equality alternative is valid as there is no indication that ##\delta## cannot equal ##\beta## at that stage of the proof.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of set theory concepts, particularly ordinals
  • Familiarity with the definitions of totally ordered sets
  • Knowledge of proof techniques in mathematical analysis
  • Basic comprehension of the notation used in mathematical theorems
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the definitions and properties of ordinals in set theory
  • Learn about the implications of total ordering in partially ordered sets
  • Review proof techniques used in mathematical analysis, focusing on theorems involving order relations
  • Examine additional examples of theorems related to ordinals and their proofs
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of abstract analysis, and anyone studying set theory who seeks to deepen their understanding of ordinals and total ordering concepts.

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 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
    44.9 KB · Views: 561
  • ?temp_hash=f49ab8f8e8b53f84476ecce3874be075.png
    ?temp_hash=f49ab8f8e8b53f84476ecce3874be075.png
    44.9 KB · Views: 393
Physics news on Phys.org
Math Amateur said:
##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##.
 
andrewkirk said:
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
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K