Proving \epsilon_0 is the Smallest Epsilon Number

  • Thread starter Thread starter MathematicalPhysicist
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that ε₀ is an ε number and the smallest such number. It defines ε₀ as the limit of φ(n), where φ(n) is a function involving iterated exponentiation of ω. The proof involves showing that if there exists a smaller ε number, it leads to a contradiction based on the properties of ordinals. Additionally, it argues that any ε number must be greater than all iterated forms of ω, establishing that ε₀ is indeed the smallest ε number. The reasoning hinges on the unique ordinal representation of ε₀ and the behavior of limits and exponentials in ordinal theory.
MathematicalPhysicist
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
4,662
Reaction score
372
prove that \epsilon_0 is an \epsilon number and that it's the smallest number.
\epsilon_0=\lim_{n<\omega}\phi(n)
\phi(n)=\omega^{\omega^{\omega^{...^{\omega}}}} where \omega appears n times.
an epsilon number is a number which satisfies the equation \omega^{\epsilon}=\epsilon.
for the first part of proving that it's an epsilon number i used the fact that 1+\omega=\omega, for the second part I am not sure i understand how to prove it:
i mean if we assume there's a number smaller than \epsilon_0 that satisfy that it's an epsilon number, then \omega^{\epsilon^{'}}=\epsilon^{'}<\epsilon_0=\omega^{\epsilon_0}
i know that there exists a unique ordinal such that \epsilon_0=\epsilon^{'}+\alpha
if \alpha is a finite ordinal then \epsilon_0=\epsilon^{'} and it's a contradiction, but how to prove it when alpha isn't a finite ordinal?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't know if this is at all valid in the theory of ordinals, but surely lims and exponentials commute, hence e_0 is an epsilon number.

Secondly, if e is an epsilon number then e=w^e (=>w) = w^w^e (=>w^w) =... hence e must be greater than w, w^w, w^w, w^w^w,.. and therefore e must be greater thanor equal to the smallest ordinal larger than all of w, w^w, w^w^w, etc which is precisely e_0.

(This is exactly the same as showing that if t is larger than 0.9, 0.99, 0.999,... then t=>1.)
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K