Unbounded subset of ordinals a set?

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter RWood
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Set
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the nature of unbounded subsets of ordinals within the context of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the Axiom of Choice (ZFC). It is established that if a subset C of the class of all ordinals R is unbounded, then C cannot be a set but must be a class. The reasoning involves demonstrating a 1-1 correspondence between C and R, and the contradiction arising from assuming C is a set, which leads to an impossible bijection with R.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of ordinals and their properties
  • Familiarity with Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZFC)
  • Knowledge of bijections and transfinite induction
  • Basic concepts of cardinality
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of ordinals in set theory
  • Learn about transfinite induction techniques
  • Explore the implications of the Axiom of Choice in ZFC
  • Investigate the distinction between sets and classes in set theory
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, logicians, and students of set theory who are exploring the foundations of mathematics and the properties of ordinals.

RWood
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Let R be the class of all ordinals. If a subset C of R is unbounded (i.e. for any ordinal \alpha \in R, there is \beta in C with \beta greater than \alpha ), then it seems to me that C cannot be a set, only a class. Is this true, and if so, how does one prove it? My reading on the general subject matter is limited to a bit of web browsing - perhaps the problem is trivial.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
RWood said:
Let R be the class of all ordinals. If a subset C of R is unbounded (i.e. for any ordinal \alpha \in R, there is \beta in C with \beta greater than \alpha ), then it seems to me that C cannot be a set, only a class. Is this true, and if so, how does one prove it? My reading on the general subject matter is limited to a bit of web browsing - perhaps the problem is trivial.

I think I have the outline of a proof (there may of course be something much quicker!).

1) It is quite easy to get a 1-1 correspondence between C and R; a map C=>R is obvious; a 1-1 map R=>C can be constructed by transfinite induction, using
the unboundedness of C to ensure successor elements (or limit ordinals) are mapped to an increasing sequence of C-members.

2) On the other hand, if C is a set then it is bijective with some ordinal A (and some cardinal as well). But then A would be bijective with R, and that is clearly impossible. All this assumes we are a ZFC world.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K