Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Let $\alpha$ be an ordinal number and define $f_\alpha$ as:

  • $f_\alpha$(0) = $\alpha + 1$
  • $f_\alpha$($n+1$) = $\omega^{f_a(n)}$

Let S($\alpha$) = sup{$f_a(n)$| $n \in \omega$}

Then S($\alpha$) is an epsilon number and is the least epsilon number greater than $\alpha$.

Since none of natural numbers are epsilon number, I think S(n)=S(m) for every natural number n,m. I know im wrong but dont know why. Please help.

And I have problem with showing that $m<n\Rightarrow S(m)<S(n)$

share|improve this question
2  
Actually, $S(n)=S(m)$ for all natural numbers $n,m$. Since $\epsilon_0$ is the minimal epsilon number above of them. –  azarel Jun 4 '12 at 1:01
    
Then how come my book says 'for every ordinal number $\alpha & \beta$ , if $\alpha < \beta$ then S($\alpha$) < S($\beta$)? –  Katlus Jun 4 '12 at 1:06
    
Your book probably has lots of typos, white lies, and full blown errors. It is the nature of books. If $\gamma$ is an epsilon number and $\gamma\le\alpha<\beta<S(\gamma)$, then $S(\alpha)=S(\beta)=S(\gamma)$, so you cannot prove the inequality you are asking. –  Andres Caicedo Jun 4 '12 at 1:08
    
Then how can i prove that there exists an isomorphism between 'class of ordinals' and 'class of epsilon numbers'? Or is it false too? –  Katlus Jun 4 '12 at 1:12
3  
Oh, that's true. You know that, for any $\alpha$, $S(\alpha)>\alpha$ and $S(\alpha)$ is epsilon. So, you can enumerate the epsilons in increasing order: $\epsilon_0=S(0)$. Given $\epsilon_\alpha$, let $\epsilon_{\alpha+1}=S(\epsilon_\alpha)$. And for limit $\lambda$, let $\epsilon_\lambda=\sup\{\epsilon_\alpha\mid\alpha<\lambda\}$. You need to check: 1. Every $\epsilon_\alpha$ is an epsilon. This is clear except if $\alpha$ is limit. 2. Every epsilon is an $\epsilon_\alpha$. This can be proved by considering a least putative counterexample. –  Andres Caicedo Jun 4 '12 at 1:18
add comment

1 Answer

Since the question was answered in comments and we don't like leaving questions unanswered, I'm adding azarel's comment as a CW answer:

Actually, $S(n)=S(m)$ for all natural numbers $n,m$. Since $\epsilon_0$ is the minimal epsilon number above of them.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.