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
    
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

2 Answers 2

up vote 4 down vote accepted

I would recommend showing the implications 1⇒3⇒2⇒1, and 1⇒4⇒1.

The following are (fairly complete) outlines of those you haven't completed.

(3⇒2) Given $\beta < \alpha$, note that as $\operatorname{type}(\beta) = \beta < \alpha$, by (3) it follows that $\operatorname{type}(\alpha \setminus \beta) = \alpha$. Then $\alpha = \operatorname{type} ( \beta + ( \alpha \setminus \beta ) ) = \operatorname{type} (\beta) + \operatorname{type}(\alpha \setminus \beta) = \beta + \alpha$.

(2⇒1) Recall that ordinal addition is strictly monotone in the right summand, and so using (2) it follows that given $\beta , \gamma < \alpha$ we have $\beta + \gamma < \beta + \alpha = \alpha$.

(1⇒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 $\omega^\delta \cdot \gamma + \zeta = \alpha$. By applying (1) it follows that $\zeta = 0$ and $\gamma = 1$.

(4⇒1) By transfinite induction on $\delta > 0$ we can show that $\beta + \gamma < \omega^\delta$ whenever $\beta , \gamma < \omega^\delta$.

  • The base case $\delta = 1$ just says that the sum of two finite ordinals is a finite ordinal.
  • If $\delta = \zeta + 1$, suppose that $\beta , \gamma < \omega^\delta = \omega^{\zeta+1} = \omega^\zeta \cdot \omega = \sup_{n < \omega} \omega^\zeta \cdot n$. Then there must be an $n < \omega$ such that $\beta , \gamma < \omega^\zeta \cdot n$, and we then have $$ \beta + \gamma < \omega^\zeta \cdot n + \omega^\zeta \cdot n = \omega^\zeta \cdot (n+n) < \omega^\zeta \cdot \omega = \omega^\delta. $$

  • If $\delta > 1$ is a limit ordinal, and $\beta , \gamma < \omega^\delta = \sup_{\zeta < \delta} \omega^\zeta$, then there must be a $\zeta < \delta$ such that $\beta , \gamma < \omega^\zeta$, and by the induction hypothesis it follows that $\alpha + \beta < \omega^\zeta \leq \omega^\delta$.

share|improve this answer

(@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
    
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

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.