Prove that a subset of the minimal uncountable well-ordered set is uncountable
Clash 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?
elementary-set-theory logic
add a comment |Â
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?
elementary-set-theory logic
A countable union of countable sets is countable.
â 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.
â 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.
â Carl Mummert
Aug 27 at 1:16
add a comment |Â
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?
elementary-set-theory logic
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?
elementary-set-theory logic
edited Aug 27 at 2:34
asked Aug 27 at 0:56
user531587
15710
15710
A countable union of countable sets is countable.
â 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.
â 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.
â Carl Mummert
Aug 27 at 1:16
add a comment |Â
A countable union of countable sets is countable.
â 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.
â 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.
â Carl Mummert
Aug 27 at 1:16
A countable union of countable sets is countable.
â Carl Mummert
Aug 27 at 0:59
A countable union of countable sets is countable.
â 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.
â 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.
â 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.
â 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.
â Carl Mummert
Aug 27 at 1:16
add a comment |Â
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 $b.$
add a comment |Â
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 $b.$
add a comment |Â
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 $b.$
add a comment |Â
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 $b.$
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 $b.$
edited Aug 31 at 2:00
answered Aug 27 at 2:39
spaceisdarkgreen
28.6k21548
28.6k21548
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
A countable union of countable sets is countable.
â 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.
â 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.
â Carl Mummert
Aug 27 at 1:16