Proper Subsets of Ordinals .... .... Searcoid, Theorem 1.4.4 .

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

This discussion centers on understanding Theorem 1.4.4 from Micheal Searcoid's "Elements of Abstract Analysis," specifically regarding the minimality of ordinals. The theorem asserts that if ##\beta## is the least element of the set difference ##\alpha \text{\\} x##, then any element ##\gamma## in ##\beta## must belong to set ##x##. Participants clarify that if ##\gamma## were to belong to ##\alpha \text{\\} x##, it would contradict the minimality of ##\beta##, as ##\gamma## would be less than ##\beta##. This rigorous understanding is essential for grasping the properties of ordinals in set theory.

PREREQUISITES
  • Familiarity with set theory concepts, particularly ordinals.
  • Understanding of Searcoid's Theorem 1.4.2 and Definition 1.3.10.
  • Knowledge of proof techniques in mathematical logic.
  • Ability to interpret mathematical notation and symbols.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study Searcoid's Theorem 1.4.2 for foundational context on ordinals.
  • Review Searcoid's Definition 1.3.10 to understand well-ordering.
  • Explore formal proofs in set theory to enhance logical reasoning skills.
  • Investigate the implications of minimality in ordinal sets and their applications.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of abstract algebra, and anyone studying set theory and ordinals will benefit from this discussion, particularly those seeking clarity on Searcoid's work.

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 1.4.4 ...

Theorem 1.4.4 reads as follows:
?temp_hash=4bda424fad298c1e9971999ab230fc84.png


In the above proof by Searcoid we read the following:

"... ... Now, for each ##\gamma \in \beta## , we have ##\gamma \in \alpha## by 1.4.2, and the minimality with respect to ##\in## of ##\beta## in ##\alpha \text{\\} x## ensures that ##\gamma \in x##. ... ...Ca someone please show formally and rigorously that the minimality with respect to ##\in## of ##\beta## in ##\alpha \text{\\} x## ensures that ##\gamma \in x##. ... ...

*** EDIT ***

Is the argument simply that since ##\beta## is the least element of ##\alpha \text{\\} x## ... then if ##\gamma \in \beta## ... then ##\gamma## cannot belong to ##\alpha \text{\\} x## ... otherwise ##\gamma## would be the least element ... and so ##\gamma## must belong to ##x## ...

*** *** ***Help will be appreciated ...

Peter

==========================================================================It may help Physics Forum readers of the above post to have access to the start of Searcoid's section on the ordinals (including Theorem 1.4.2 ... ) ... so I am providing the same ... as follows:
?temp_hash=4bda424fad298c1e9971999ab230fc84.png


It may also help Physics Forum 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=4bda424fad298c1e9971999ab230fc84.png

?temp_hash=4bda424fad298c1e9971999ab230fc84.png

Hope that helps ...

Peter
 

Attachments

  • Searcoid - Theorem 1.4.4 ... ....png
    Searcoid - Theorem 1.4.4 ... ....png
    44.9 KB · Views: 591
  • Searcoid - 1 -  Start of section on Ordinals  ... ... PART 1 ... .....png
    Searcoid - 1 - Start of section on Ordinals ... ... PART 1 ... .....png
    31.4 KB · Views: 504
  • Searcoid - Definition 1.3.10 ... .....png
    Searcoid - Definition 1.3.10 ... .....png
    24.8 KB · Views: 517
  • Searcoid - 2 - Definition 1.3.10 ... .....PART 2 ... ....png
    Searcoid - 2 - Definition 1.3.10 ... .....PART 2 ... ....png
    25.6 KB · Views: 507
  • Searcoid - 2 - Definition 1.3.10 ... .....PART 2 ... ....png
    Searcoid - 2 - Definition 1.3.10 ... .....PART 2 ... ....png
    25.6 KB · Views: 416
  • ?temp_hash=4bda424fad298c1e9971999ab230fc84.png
    ?temp_hash=4bda424fad298c1e9971999ab230fc84.png
    44.9 KB · Views: 536
  • ?temp_hash=4bda424fad298c1e9971999ab230fc84.png
    ?temp_hash=4bda424fad298c1e9971999ab230fc84.png
    31.4 KB · Views: 506
  • ?temp_hash=4bda424fad298c1e9971999ab230fc84.png
    ?temp_hash=4bda424fad298c1e9971999ab230fc84.png
    24.8 KB · Views: 474
  • ?temp_hash=4bda424fad298c1e9971999ab230fc84.png
    ?temp_hash=4bda424fad298c1e9971999ab230fc84.png
    25.6 KB · Views: 521
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Math Amateur said:
Is the argument simply that since ##\beta## is the least element of ##\alpha \text{\\} x## ... then if ##\gamma \in \beta## ... then ##\gamma## cannot belong to ##\alpha \text{\\} x## ... otherwise ##\gamma## would be the least element ... and so ##\gamma## must belong to ##x## ...
Almost. Just replace '##\gamma## would be the least element' by '##\gamma## would be less than ##\beta##, so ##\beta## could not be the least element'
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Math Amateur
Thanks Andrew ...

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