Prove that a subset of the minimal uncountable well-ordered set is uncountable

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite













Theorem. There exists a well ordered set $A$ having a largest element $Omega$ such that the section $S_Omega$ of $A$ by $Omega$ is uncountable but every other section of $A$ is countable.



Proof. Consider an uncountable well ordered set $B$, consider $C=1,2times B$ with the lexicographic order and let $Omega $ be the smallest element of $C$ for which $S_Omega= x<Omega$ is uncountable. Let $A=S_OmegacupOmega$
.




I'm trying to show that if $X_0$ is a subset of $S_Omega$ of all elements that have no immediate predecessors, then $X_0$ is uncountable.



Assume the converse: $X_0$ is countable. Any countable subset of $S_Omega$ has an upper bound in $S_Omega$. Let $Gamma in S_Omega$ be this bound: $xle Gamma$ for all $xin X_0$. Now $S_Omega$ has no largest element, so every element in $S_Omega$ has an immediate successors. I believe I have to apply this to elements of $X_0$ and find connection with immediate predecessors. So for every $x$ in $X_0$, there is an immediate successor $s(x)in X_0$. But how to establish connection between immediate predecessors and get a contradiction?







share|cite|improve this question






















  • A countable union of countable sets is countable.
    – Carl Mummert
    Aug 27 at 0:59










  • @Carl Mummert I'm not sure to which sets I should apply this. I don't see a countable collection of countable sets.
    – user531587
    Aug 27 at 1:07






  • 1




    Try to prove that if $b$ is any element of the ordering then (since there is no maximal element) $b$ is followed by a sequence $b_1, b_2, ldots$ of elements that all have immediate predecessors, and the limit $c$ of that sequence, if there is one in the ordering, will not have an immediate predecessor. So each element with no immediate predecessor determines a countable subset ordered like the natural numbers, and the ordering overall is the union of these subsets. One thing that you learn from these problems in Munkres is a little bit of intuition about the structure of well ordered sets.
    – Carl Mummert
    Aug 27 at 1:16















up vote
1
down vote

favorite













Theorem. There exists a well ordered set $A$ having a largest element $Omega$ such that the section $S_Omega$ of $A$ by $Omega$ is uncountable but every other section of $A$ is countable.



Proof. Consider an uncountable well ordered set $B$, consider $C=1,2times B$ with the lexicographic order and let $Omega $ be the smallest element of $C$ for which $S_Omega= x<Omega$ is uncountable. Let $A=S_OmegacupOmega$
.




I'm trying to show that if $X_0$ is a subset of $S_Omega$ of all elements that have no immediate predecessors, then $X_0$ is uncountable.



Assume the converse: $X_0$ is countable. Any countable subset of $S_Omega$ has an upper bound in $S_Omega$. Let $Gamma in S_Omega$ be this bound: $xle Gamma$ for all $xin X_0$. Now $S_Omega$ has no largest element, so every element in $S_Omega$ has an immediate successors. I believe I have to apply this to elements of $X_0$ and find connection with immediate predecessors. So for every $x$ in $X_0$, there is an immediate successor $s(x)in X_0$. But how to establish connection between immediate predecessors and get a contradiction?







share|cite|improve this question






















  • A countable union of countable sets is countable.
    – Carl Mummert
    Aug 27 at 0:59










  • @Carl Mummert I'm not sure to which sets I should apply this. I don't see a countable collection of countable sets.
    – user531587
    Aug 27 at 1:07






  • 1




    Try to prove that if $b$ is any element of the ordering then (since there is no maximal element) $b$ is followed by a sequence $b_1, b_2, ldots$ of elements that all have immediate predecessors, and the limit $c$ of that sequence, if there is one in the ordering, will not have an immediate predecessor. So each element with no immediate predecessor determines a countable subset ordered like the natural numbers, and the ordering overall is the union of these subsets. One thing that you learn from these problems in Munkres is a little bit of intuition about the structure of well ordered sets.
    – Carl Mummert
    Aug 27 at 1:16













up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Theorem. There exists a well ordered set $A$ having a largest element $Omega$ such that the section $S_Omega$ of $A$ by $Omega$ is uncountable but every other section of $A$ is countable.



Proof. Consider an uncountable well ordered set $B$, consider $C=1,2times B$ with the lexicographic order and let $Omega $ be the smallest element of $C$ for which $S_Omega= x<Omega$ is uncountable. Let $A=S_OmegacupOmega$
.




I'm trying to show that if $X_0$ is a subset of $S_Omega$ of all elements that have no immediate predecessors, then $X_0$ is uncountable.



Assume the converse: $X_0$ is countable. Any countable subset of $S_Omega$ has an upper bound in $S_Omega$. Let $Gamma in S_Omega$ be this bound: $xle Gamma$ for all $xin X_0$. Now $S_Omega$ has no largest element, so every element in $S_Omega$ has an immediate successors. I believe I have to apply this to elements of $X_0$ and find connection with immediate predecessors. So for every $x$ in $X_0$, there is an immediate successor $s(x)in X_0$. But how to establish connection between immediate predecessors and get a contradiction?







share|cite|improve this question















Theorem. There exists a well ordered set $A$ having a largest element $Omega$ such that the section $S_Omega$ of $A$ by $Omega$ is uncountable but every other section of $A$ is countable.



Proof. Consider an uncountable well ordered set $B$, consider $C=1,2times B$ with the lexicographic order and let $Omega $ be the smallest element of $C$ for which $S_Omega= x<Omega$ is uncountable. Let $A=S_OmegacupOmega$
.




I'm trying to show that if $X_0$ is a subset of $S_Omega$ of all elements that have no immediate predecessors, then $X_0$ is uncountable.



Assume the converse: $X_0$ is countable. Any countable subset of $S_Omega$ has an upper bound in $S_Omega$. Let $Gamma in S_Omega$ be this bound: $xle Gamma$ for all $xin X_0$. Now $S_Omega$ has no largest element, so every element in $S_Omega$ has an immediate successors. I believe I have to apply this to elements of $X_0$ and find connection with immediate predecessors. So for every $x$ in $X_0$, there is an immediate successor $s(x)in X_0$. But how to establish connection between immediate predecessors and get a contradiction?









share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 27 at 2:34

























asked Aug 27 at 0:56









user531587

15710




15710











  • A countable union of countable sets is countable.
    – Carl Mummert
    Aug 27 at 0:59










  • @Carl Mummert I'm not sure to which sets I should apply this. I don't see a countable collection of countable sets.
    – user531587
    Aug 27 at 1:07






  • 1




    Try to prove that if $b$ is any element of the ordering then (since there is no maximal element) $b$ is followed by a sequence $b_1, b_2, ldots$ of elements that all have immediate predecessors, and the limit $c$ of that sequence, if there is one in the ordering, will not have an immediate predecessor. So each element with no immediate predecessor determines a countable subset ordered like the natural numbers, and the ordering overall is the union of these subsets. One thing that you learn from these problems in Munkres is a little bit of intuition about the structure of well ordered sets.
    – Carl Mummert
    Aug 27 at 1:16

















  • A countable union of countable sets is countable.
    – Carl Mummert
    Aug 27 at 0:59










  • @Carl Mummert I'm not sure to which sets I should apply this. I don't see a countable collection of countable sets.
    – user531587
    Aug 27 at 1:07






  • 1




    Try to prove that if $b$ is any element of the ordering then (since there is no maximal element) $b$ is followed by a sequence $b_1, b_2, ldots$ of elements that all have immediate predecessors, and the limit $c$ of that sequence, if there is one in the ordering, will not have an immediate predecessor. So each element with no immediate predecessor determines a countable subset ordered like the natural numbers, and the ordering overall is the union of these subsets. One thing that you learn from these problems in Munkres is a little bit of intuition about the structure of well ordered sets.
    – Carl Mummert
    Aug 27 at 1:16
















A countable union of countable sets is countable.
– Carl Mummert
Aug 27 at 0:59




A countable union of countable sets is countable.
– Carl Mummert
Aug 27 at 0:59












@Carl Mummert I'm not sure to which sets I should apply this. I don't see a countable collection of countable sets.
– user531587
Aug 27 at 1:07




@Carl Mummert I'm not sure to which sets I should apply this. I don't see a countable collection of countable sets.
– user531587
Aug 27 at 1:07




1




1




Try to prove that if $b$ is any element of the ordering then (since there is no maximal element) $b$ is followed by a sequence $b_1, b_2, ldots$ of elements that all have immediate predecessors, and the limit $c$ of that sequence, if there is one in the ordering, will not have an immediate predecessor. So each element with no immediate predecessor determines a countable subset ordered like the natural numbers, and the ordering overall is the union of these subsets. One thing that you learn from these problems in Munkres is a little bit of intuition about the structure of well ordered sets.
– Carl Mummert
Aug 27 at 1:16





Try to prove that if $b$ is any element of the ordering then (since there is no maximal element) $b$ is followed by a sequence $b_1, b_2, ldots$ of elements that all have immediate predecessors, and the limit $c$ of that sequence, if there is one in the ordering, will not have an immediate predecessor. So each element with no immediate predecessor determines a countable subset ordered like the natural numbers, and the ordering overall is the union of these subsets. One thing that you learn from these problems in Munkres is a little bit of intuition about the structure of well ordered sets.
– Carl Mummert
Aug 27 at 1:16











1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote













If you're allowed to use the fact that any countable set is bounded in $S_Omega$ (which is true, but not quite trivial from what you've mentioned so far unless I'm missing something), then you're on the right track with letting $Gamma$ be an upper bound for $X_0.$



What you want to look at then is the set $Z=xin S_Omega : x ge Gamma.$ In this set, by definition, every element except possibly $Gamma$ has an immediate predecessor. And it's easy to see that for every element of $Z$ except $Gamma,$ the element's immediate predecessor is in $Z.$ So $Z$ is a well-ordered set with least element $Gamma$ such that every other element has an immediate predecessor. This means $Z$ is order isomorphic to the natural numbers with their usual ordering, and hence is countable, which gives the required contradiction.



To see that it is isomorphic to the natural numbers, take any $z_0in Z$ (other than $Gamma$). Then let $z_1$ be the immediate predecessor of $z_0,$ and $z_2$ the predecessor of $z_1$ if $z_1ne Gamma,$ and so on. This sequence must hit $Gamma$ at some point, because otherwise the sequence would give a set with no least element. Thus every element of $Z$ is the $n$-th successor of $Gamma$ for some $n.$



Alternatively, you can prove that $X_0$ is unbounded (and hence uncountable) directly, as Carl suggested in the comments. Let $ain S_Omega.$ Well ordering implies every element has an immediate successor, so define recursively $a_0=a,$ $a_n+1=s(a_n),$ and $A=a_n :nin mathbb N$



You know that the initial segment $S_a$ of elements $< a$ is countable, and that that $A$ is countable. You can also show that $S_acup A$ contains the initial segment of each of its elements and the successor of each of its elements.



$S_acup A$ is countable, hence not all of $S_Omega,$ so there is a least element $bin S_Omega$ larger than all of its members. In fact, we have $S_acup A=S_b.$ We can see that $b$ does not have an immediate predecessor since any element $c<b$ is in $S_acup A,$ so $s(c)in S_acup A$ so is not equal to $b.$






share|cite|improve this answer






















    Your Answer




    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: false,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2895690%2fprove-that-a-subset-of-the-minimal-uncountable-well-ordered-set-is-uncountable%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest






























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    0
    down vote













    If you're allowed to use the fact that any countable set is bounded in $S_Omega$ (which is true, but not quite trivial from what you've mentioned so far unless I'm missing something), then you're on the right track with letting $Gamma$ be an upper bound for $X_0.$



    What you want to look at then is the set $Z=xin S_Omega : x ge Gamma.$ In this set, by definition, every element except possibly $Gamma$ has an immediate predecessor. And it's easy to see that for every element of $Z$ except $Gamma,$ the element's immediate predecessor is in $Z.$ So $Z$ is a well-ordered set with least element $Gamma$ such that every other element has an immediate predecessor. This means $Z$ is order isomorphic to the natural numbers with their usual ordering, and hence is countable, which gives the required contradiction.



    To see that it is isomorphic to the natural numbers, take any $z_0in Z$ (other than $Gamma$). Then let $z_1$ be the immediate predecessor of $z_0,$ and $z_2$ the predecessor of $z_1$ if $z_1ne Gamma,$ and so on. This sequence must hit $Gamma$ at some point, because otherwise the sequence would give a set with no least element. Thus every element of $Z$ is the $n$-th successor of $Gamma$ for some $n.$



    Alternatively, you can prove that $X_0$ is unbounded (and hence uncountable) directly, as Carl suggested in the comments. Let $ain S_Omega.$ Well ordering implies every element has an immediate successor, so define recursively $a_0=a,$ $a_n+1=s(a_n),$ and $A=a_n :nin mathbb N$



    You know that the initial segment $S_a$ of elements $< a$ is countable, and that that $A$ is countable. You can also show that $S_acup A$ contains the initial segment of each of its elements and the successor of each of its elements.



    $S_acup A$ is countable, hence not all of $S_Omega,$ so there is a least element $bin S_Omega$ larger than all of its members. In fact, we have $S_acup A=S_b.$ We can see that $b$ does not have an immediate predecessor since any element $c<b$ is in $S_acup A,$ so $s(c)in S_acup A$ so is not equal to $b.$






    share|cite|improve this answer


























      up vote
      0
      down vote













      If you're allowed to use the fact that any countable set is bounded in $S_Omega$ (which is true, but not quite trivial from what you've mentioned so far unless I'm missing something), then you're on the right track with letting $Gamma$ be an upper bound for $X_0.$



      What you want to look at then is the set $Z=xin S_Omega : x ge Gamma.$ In this set, by definition, every element except possibly $Gamma$ has an immediate predecessor. And it's easy to see that for every element of $Z$ except $Gamma,$ the element's immediate predecessor is in $Z.$ So $Z$ is a well-ordered set with least element $Gamma$ such that every other element has an immediate predecessor. This means $Z$ is order isomorphic to the natural numbers with their usual ordering, and hence is countable, which gives the required contradiction.



      To see that it is isomorphic to the natural numbers, take any $z_0in Z$ (other than $Gamma$). Then let $z_1$ be the immediate predecessor of $z_0,$ and $z_2$ the predecessor of $z_1$ if $z_1ne Gamma,$ and so on. This sequence must hit $Gamma$ at some point, because otherwise the sequence would give a set with no least element. Thus every element of $Z$ is the $n$-th successor of $Gamma$ for some $n.$



      Alternatively, you can prove that $X_0$ is unbounded (and hence uncountable) directly, as Carl suggested in the comments. Let $ain S_Omega.$ Well ordering implies every element has an immediate successor, so define recursively $a_0=a,$ $a_n+1=s(a_n),$ and $A=a_n :nin mathbb N$



      You know that the initial segment $S_a$ of elements $< a$ is countable, and that that $A$ is countable. You can also show that $S_acup A$ contains the initial segment of each of its elements and the successor of each of its elements.



      $S_acup A$ is countable, hence not all of $S_Omega,$ so there is a least element $bin S_Omega$ larger than all of its members. In fact, we have $S_acup A=S_b.$ We can see that $b$ does not have an immediate predecessor since any element $c<b$ is in $S_acup A,$ so $s(c)in S_acup A$ so is not equal to $b.$






      share|cite|improve this answer
























        up vote
        0
        down vote










        up vote
        0
        down vote









        If you're allowed to use the fact that any countable set is bounded in $S_Omega$ (which is true, but not quite trivial from what you've mentioned so far unless I'm missing something), then you're on the right track with letting $Gamma$ be an upper bound for $X_0.$



        What you want to look at then is the set $Z=xin S_Omega : x ge Gamma.$ In this set, by definition, every element except possibly $Gamma$ has an immediate predecessor. And it's easy to see that for every element of $Z$ except $Gamma,$ the element's immediate predecessor is in $Z.$ So $Z$ is a well-ordered set with least element $Gamma$ such that every other element has an immediate predecessor. This means $Z$ is order isomorphic to the natural numbers with their usual ordering, and hence is countable, which gives the required contradiction.



        To see that it is isomorphic to the natural numbers, take any $z_0in Z$ (other than $Gamma$). Then let $z_1$ be the immediate predecessor of $z_0,$ and $z_2$ the predecessor of $z_1$ if $z_1ne Gamma,$ and so on. This sequence must hit $Gamma$ at some point, because otherwise the sequence would give a set with no least element. Thus every element of $Z$ is the $n$-th successor of $Gamma$ for some $n.$



        Alternatively, you can prove that $X_0$ is unbounded (and hence uncountable) directly, as Carl suggested in the comments. Let $ain S_Omega.$ Well ordering implies every element has an immediate successor, so define recursively $a_0=a,$ $a_n+1=s(a_n),$ and $A=a_n :nin mathbb N$



        You know that the initial segment $S_a$ of elements $< a$ is countable, and that that $A$ is countable. You can also show that $S_acup A$ contains the initial segment of each of its elements and the successor of each of its elements.



        $S_acup A$ is countable, hence not all of $S_Omega,$ so there is a least element $bin S_Omega$ larger than all of its members. In fact, we have $S_acup A=S_b.$ We can see that $b$ does not have an immediate predecessor since any element $c<b$ is in $S_acup A,$ so $s(c)in S_acup A$ so is not equal to $b.$






        share|cite|improve this answer














        If you're allowed to use the fact that any countable set is bounded in $S_Omega$ (which is true, but not quite trivial from what you've mentioned so far unless I'm missing something), then you're on the right track with letting $Gamma$ be an upper bound for $X_0.$



        What you want to look at then is the set $Z=xin S_Omega : x ge Gamma.$ In this set, by definition, every element except possibly $Gamma$ has an immediate predecessor. And it's easy to see that for every element of $Z$ except $Gamma,$ the element's immediate predecessor is in $Z.$ So $Z$ is a well-ordered set with least element $Gamma$ such that every other element has an immediate predecessor. This means $Z$ is order isomorphic to the natural numbers with their usual ordering, and hence is countable, which gives the required contradiction.



        To see that it is isomorphic to the natural numbers, take any $z_0in Z$ (other than $Gamma$). Then let $z_1$ be the immediate predecessor of $z_0,$ and $z_2$ the predecessor of $z_1$ if $z_1ne Gamma,$ and so on. This sequence must hit $Gamma$ at some point, because otherwise the sequence would give a set with no least element. Thus every element of $Z$ is the $n$-th successor of $Gamma$ for some $n.$



        Alternatively, you can prove that $X_0$ is unbounded (and hence uncountable) directly, as Carl suggested in the comments. Let $ain S_Omega.$ Well ordering implies every element has an immediate successor, so define recursively $a_0=a,$ $a_n+1=s(a_n),$ and $A=a_n :nin mathbb N$



        You know that the initial segment $S_a$ of elements $< a$ is countable, and that that $A$ is countable. You can also show that $S_acup A$ contains the initial segment of each of its elements and the successor of each of its elements.



        $S_acup A$ is countable, hence not all of $S_Omega,$ so there is a least element $bin S_Omega$ larger than all of its members. In fact, we have $S_acup A=S_b.$ We can see that $b$ does not have an immediate predecessor since any element $c<b$ is in $S_acup A,$ so $s(c)in S_acup A$ so is not equal to $b.$







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Aug 31 at 2:00

























        answered Aug 27 at 2:39









        spaceisdarkgreen

        28.6k21548




        28.6k21548



























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2895690%2fprove-that-a-subset-of-the-minimal-uncountable-well-ordered-set-is-uncountable%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest













































































            這個網誌中的熱門文章

            How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

            Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?

            Carbon dioxide