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 $\mathfrak{A}$ is a well-ordered set.

Let $f$ is a function which maps a start segment $\{ i\in\mathfrak{A} \,|\, i<c \}$ of a transfinite sequence of elements of atomic posets into an element of an atomic poset (to every $c\in\mathfrak{A}$ corresponds a poset).

Let a transfinite sequence $a$ on $\mathfrak{A}$ is defined by the formula:

$a_c = \Phi f\left(a|_{\{ i\in\mathfrak{A} \,|\, i<c \}}\right)$

where $\Phi$ is a function which maps an element of a poset into an atom under this element.

We have the axiom (in fact a theorem which follows from my definition of $f$ which I don't put here) that provided $a$ conforms to this formula, $f\left(a|_{\{ i\in\mathfrak{A} \,|\, i<c \}}\right)$ is a non-least element of the poset corresponding to $c$ and thus $\Phi f\left(a|_{\{ i\in\mathfrak{A} \,|\, i<c \}}\right)$ is correctly defined.

Now I am confused: to prove that such $a$ exists, is it transfinite induction or transfinite recursion? The formula $a_c = \Phi f\left(a|_{\{ i\in\mathfrak{A} \,|\, i<c \}}\right)$ looks like transfinite induction. But to prove that $f\left(a|_{\{ i\in\mathfrak{A} \,|\, i<c \}}\right)$ is a non-least looks like a transfinite recursion.

My questions:

  • What is this: transfinite induction, transfinite recursion, or a combination of these two?
  • How to describe all this in terms of transfinite induction and transfinite recursion?

Note: I intentionally ignore the "set of all sets" paradox, because it is not the thing I have trouble with.

Note: I want to define $\Phi$ using axiom of choice as an arbitrary function which maps a non-least element into an atom under this element.

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

Your definition of $a$ is transfinite recursion. The proof that $a$ behaves well is transfinite induction. You should however be clear if your $f$ and $\Phi$ are already "given" or if you build them up in parallel to your definition of $a$.

To simplify matters, it may be best to extend $f$ and $\Phi$ in such a way that they return a "default" value e.g. $\emptyset$ if the input $a|_\ldots$ is not well-behaved. This allows you to put everything in order: First you have $f$ and $\Phi$, then you define $a$ b yrecursion (which may end in $\emptyset$'s, but is defined once and for all), then you show by induction that the "default" never occurs.

share|improve this answer

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.