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 a limit ordinal. Show the following are equivalent:

  1. $\forall \beta, \gamma<\alpha (\beta+\gamma<\alpha)$
  2. $\forall \beta<\alpha(\beta+\alpha=\alpha)$
  3. $\forall X\subset \alpha(\text{type}(X)=\alpha, \text{ or,} \text{ type}(\alpha-X)=\alpha)$
  4. $\exists \delta(\alpha=\omega^\delta )$.

What I've tried: I've shown that: $1\rightarrow2$ and $1\rightarrow3$.

Could anybody help me? Thanks ahead:)

share|improve this question
    
You should: explain what you have tried for the remaining parts, and what relevant facts you know; add the homework tag if applicable; and give this question a more specific title. –  Nate Eldredge Aug 6 '12 at 2:51
    
Perhaps expressing $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$ in Cantor normal form might help in some parts of the proof. –  Martin Sleziak Aug 6 '12 at 2:53
1  
@Nate Okey. Thanks for your kindful reminding. –  Paul Aug 6 '12 at 2:58
    
Thanks Martin. I will read Cantor normal form carefully. –  Paul Aug 6 '12 at 2:59
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 3 down vote accepted

I would recommend showing the implications 1 $\Rightarrow$ 3 $\Rightarrow$ 2 $\Rightarrow$ 1, and 1 $\Rightarrow$ 4 $\Rightarrow$ 1.

The following are hints of those you haven't completed.

(3 $\Rightarrow$ 2.) Given $\beta < \alpha$ what does (3) say about $\mathrm{type} ( \beta )$ and $\mathrm{type} ( \alpha \setminus \beta )$?

(2 $\Rightarrow$ 1.) Use the monotonicity of ordinal addition.

(1 $\Rightarrow 4$.) Given a limit ordinal $\alpha$ stisfying (1), define $$\delta = \min \{ \delta \in \mathbf{ON} : \alpha < \omega^{\delta+1} \}.$$ Note that $\omega^\delta \leq \alpha$, and so there are unique ordinals $\gamma , \zeta$ such that $\zeta < \omega^\delta$ and $\omega^\delta \cdot \gamma + \zeta = \alpha$. Show that $\zeta = 0$ and $\gamma = 1$.

(4 $\Rightarrow$ 1.) Prove by transfinite induction on $\delta > 0$ that whenever $\beta , \gamma < \omega^\delta$, then $\beta + \gamma < \omega^\delta$. You will have to handle the base case $\delta = 1$ separately, but it shouldn't be difficult. For the inductive case, you will have to worry about whether $\delta$ is a successor or a limit ordinal, as $\beta , \gamma < \omega^\delta$ will imply something slightly different in each case.

share|improve this answer
    
Arthur, I thought it might be good to ping you that Paul posted a new answer as a reaction to yours. –  Martin Sleziak Aug 6 '12 at 8:06
add comment

(@Arthur: Thanks very much. For the part $4 \Rightarrow 1$, I've tried to prove. But I'm not sure I'm right. So I write here as an answer, for the comment cannot contain the long proof.)

The part $(4 \Rightarrow 1)$

For $\delta=1$, it is obviously right, because the sum of any two finite ordinals is less then $\omega$.

Now assuming that for any $x<\delta$ the case is always right.

Suppose that $\delta$ is a successor. Let $\delta=y+1$. Then $\omega^\delta=\omega^y \times \omega$. $\beta$ and $\gamma$ must be bigger than $\omega^y$, otherwise $\beta+\gamma\le\omega^y$. So let $\beta=\omega^y \times i +j$, and $\gamma=\omega^y \times m + n$, where $i,j,m,n \in \omega$. Therefore, $\beta + \gamma\le \omega^y \times (i+1+m+1)\le \omega^\delta.$

Suppose that $\delta$ is a limit ordinal. Let $\omega^\delta=\sup\{\omega^\xi: \xi \in \delta\}$. Therefore for any $\beta, \gamma < \omega^\delta$, there exists a $\xi'$ such that $\beta, \gamma<\omega^{\xi'}$, and hence by the assuming, we have $\beta+\gamma<\omega^{\xi'}$.

share|improve this answer
    
Paul, I am not sure whether you placed @Arthur in your answer in order to send him notification about this. Pinging only works in comments, not in answers; details can be found here or here. –  Martin Sleziak Aug 6 '12 at 8:14
    
Mm. Thanks, Martin, for your reminding. My original purpose is to give a ping to Arthur. However the comment cannot contain a long proof. So I write the reaction here. –  Paul Aug 6 '12 at 8:21
    
The only problem I see is in the inductive step for $\delta$ a successor ordinal. It is not clear (to me, at least) how a case like $\beta \leq \omega^y < \gamma < \omega^y \cdot \omega$ could be immediately done away with. I would instead use the fact that $\beta , \gamma < \omega^y \cdot \omega = \sup_{n < \omega} \omega^y \cdot n$. This should enable you to find an upper bound on $\beta + \gamma$ (that is strictly less that $\omega^y \cdot \omega$). –  Arthur Fischer Aug 6 '12 at 9:04
    
@Arthur Thanks for your useful advice. It is very helpful for me. –  Paul Aug 7 '12 at 6:20
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.