 #1
Math Amateur
Gold Member
 1,016
 44
Main Question or Discussion Point
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 1.4.3 ...
Theorem 1.4.3 reads as follows:
In the above proof by Searcoid we read the following:
"... ... Then ##\beta \subseteq \alpha## so that ##\beta## is also well ordered by membership. ... ...
To conclude that ##\beta## is also well ordered by membership, don't we have to show that a subset of an ordinal is well ordered?
Indeed, how would we demonstrate formally and rigorously that ##\beta## is also well ordered by membership. ... ... ?
*** EDIT ***
I have been reflecting on the above post on the ordinals ...
Maybe to show that that ##\beta## is also well ordered by membership, we have to demonstrate that since every subset of ##\alpha## has a minimum element then every subset of ##\beta## has a minimum element ... but then that would only be true if every subset of ##\beta## was also a subset of ##\alpha## ...
Is the above chain of thinking going in the right direction ...?
Still not sure regarding the original question ...
Peter
*** FINISH EDIT ***
Help will be appreciated ...
Peter
==========================================================================
It may help Physics Forums readers of the above post to have access to the start of Searcoid's section on the ordinals ... so I am providing the same ... as follows:
It may also help Physics Forums 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:
Hope that helps,
Peter
I am currently focused on understanding Chapter 1: Sets ... and in particular Section 1.4 Ordinals ...
I need some help in fully understanding Theorem 1.4.3 ...
Theorem 1.4.3 reads as follows:
In the above proof by Searcoid we read the following:
"... ... Then ##\beta \subseteq \alpha## so that ##\beta## is also well ordered by membership. ... ...
To conclude that ##\beta## is also well ordered by membership, don't we have to show that a subset of an ordinal is well ordered?
Indeed, how would we demonstrate formally and rigorously that ##\beta## is also well ordered by membership. ... ... ?
*** EDIT ***
I have been reflecting on the above post on the ordinals ...
Maybe to show that that ##\beta## is also well ordered by membership, we have to demonstrate that since every subset of ##\alpha## has a minimum element then every subset of ##\beta## has a minimum element ... but then that would only be true if every subset of ##\beta## was also a subset of ##\alpha## ...
Is the above chain of thinking going in the right direction ...?
Still not sure regarding the original question ...
Peter
*** FINISH EDIT ***
Help will be appreciated ...
Peter
==========================================================================
It may help Physics Forums readers of the above post to have access to the start of Searcoid's section on the ordinals ... so I am providing the same ... as follows:
It may also help Physics Forums 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:
Hope that helps,
Peter
Attachments

8.7 KB Views: 253

64.4 KB Views: 246

55.5 KB Views: 249

39.8 KB Views: 249

44.2 KB Views: 240

8.7 KB Views: 176

64.4 KB Views: 178

55.5 KB Views: 162

39.8 KB Views: 168

44.2 KB Views: 158