Understanding the Order Types of n + ω and ω + n

  • Thread starter Thread starter Glinka
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies the order types of n + ω and ω + n, explaining that n + ω is order-isomorphic to ω, while ω + n is not. The isomorphism for n + ω is established through a mapping that aligns finite elements with the natural numbers, demonstrating that the structure is similar to ω. In contrast, ω + n introduces a finite set after an infinite one, resulting in elements like (0,1) having infinite predecessors, which disqualifies it from being isomorphic to ω. This distinction highlights the fundamental differences in how these order types are constructed and understood. Understanding these concepts is essential for grasping the properties of ordinal numbers.
Glinka
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

Went over this today and I'm not grasping it: why is the order type of n + ω = ω, while ω + n ≠ ω? I'd really appreciate if someone could set up the requisite isomorphism in the former. Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The set n+\omega is essentially (order-isomorphic to) the following:

(0,0)<(1,0)<(2,0)<(3,0)<...<(n-1,0)<(0,1)<(1,1)<(2,1)<(3,1)<...<(k,1)<...

Do you see that??

The isomorphism between the above set and \omega is given by the map T that does the following:

T(k,0)=k,~T(k,1)=n+k
 
Ahh yes, this helps a lot, thanks. So in case of $$\omega + n $$ we could try $$(0,0) < (1,0) < ... < (k,0) < ... < (0,1) < (1,1) < ... < (n-1,1)$$ but we wouldn't be able to set up an isomorphism between this and ##\omega##?
 
Glinka said:
Ahh yes, this helps a lot, thanks. So in case of $$\omega + n $$ we could try $$(0,0) < (1,0) < ... < (k,0) < ... < (0,1) < (1,1) < ... < (n-1,1)$$ but we wouldn't be able to set up an isomorphism between this and ##\omega##?

Yeah exactly. Here we have the natural numbers and we paste n elements after it.
So take (0,1) for example. That has an infinite number of predecessors. So it can't be \omega since any element in \omega has a finite number of predecessors.
 
Excellent, thanks for your help!
 
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
Back
Top