Set Theory proof on well ordered sets

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a proof in set theory concerning well-ordered sets and surjective functions. The original poster seeks to demonstrate that from a well-ordered set A and a surjection f from A to any set B, an injection from B to A can be established without invoking the Axiom of Choice.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster questions whether the surjection implies that B is well-ordered and seeks initial guidance on how to approach the problem. Other participants suggest defining a total ordering based on the surjection and emphasize the need to verify that this ordering is well-defined. A counterexample is provided to illustrate potential pitfalls in assuming the relation is an ordering. Further, participants discuss the implications of defining a function from B to A and explore various approaches to the problem.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants exploring different angles and raising questions about the assumptions involved. Some guidance has been offered regarding the need to establish a well-ordering and the nature of the function g from B to A, but no consensus has emerged on a definitive approach.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the constraints of not using the Axiom of Choice and are considering the implications of the surjective function f. The original poster and others are also reflecting on how to handle subsets and the properties of well-ordered sets in their reasoning.

oliphant
Messages
14
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Without using the Axiom of Choice, show that if A is a well-ordered set and f : A -> B is a surjection to any set B then there exists an injection B -> A.

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I was wondering if the existence of the surjection from a well ordered set A implies that B is well ordered, and if so how would I prove this? Is this even the right way to start? I'm pretty lost on this so any starting hints would be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can always find a total ordering by just saying that given

[tex]x, y \in A, x \ge y[/tex]

define a total ordering in B,

[tex]f(x) \ge f(y)[/tex]

Now you have to show that that's also a well-ordering. That should be pretty straightforward too. Just take a nonempty subset of B and show that it has a smallest element. Since f is a surjection, for every point in the subset there's a corresponding point in a subset of A so you should be able to find it.
 
You have to show that relation is an ordering first. It's not: here's a counterexample:

A = {1, 2, 3}
B = {x, y}
f(1) = f(3) = x
f(2) = y

Your relation has:
[tex]x \leq y \leq x[/tex]​
without having
[tex]x = y[/tex]​

So, more care is needed...



I think basic algebra will help. You know pretty much nothing about A and B, aside from the existence of a surjection f:A-->B.

So, if we cross our fingers and hope that we don't have to do something convoluted, if we were to go about defining a function g:B-->A, what are the only reasonable possibilities for g(b)? (For any particular b in B) Is there anything at all about A that relates to b?



Of course, you shouldn't just do it my way. Your idea can be made to work too. It's better to do things both ways -- you get more experience that way! :biggrin:
 
P.S. how would you do the problem if you assumed the axiom of choice?
 
We were actually given a proof using the Axiom of Choice by applying it to the set {f^-1 (b) | b \in B} and defining g(b) = c(f^-1(b))

What if I was to define [tex]g(b) = \{a \in A | f(a) = b\}[/tex]? Then [tex]g(b)[/tex] would be a subset of A and so well ordered, and I think I can finish the proof from there.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K