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.

In set theory, the ordinal numbers are objects that represent the order types of well-ordered sets. Is there a similar class of objects that represent the order types of well-founded sets? If so, are there any good resources on them?

Thanks!

share|improve this question
    
When you say 'order types of well-founded sets', what do you mean? A well-founded set need not be equipped with an order. –  Clive Newstead Sep 16 '12 at 16:27
    
@clive I take it to mean something like this: say that $S$ and $T$ are partially-ordered sets equipped with well-founded orders, and there exist $f$ and $g$ which are order-preserving maps from $S\to T$ and $T\to S$ respectively. Then say that $S$ and $T$ are "well-foundedly equivalent" and have the same "well-founded order type". Suppose that this is well-defined, and actually defines an equivalence relation on the class of well-founded partially-ordered sets. Then… –  MJD Sep 16 '12 at 16:30
    
Can't you think of the "order types" in question as a disjoint union of various ordinals representing disjoint chains in the partial order? –  Isaac Solomon Sep 16 '12 at 16:34

1 Answer 1

up vote 4 down vote accepted

The ordinals are extremely nice because they have a Cantor-Bernstein like theorem. If $\alpha\leq\beta$ and $\beta\leq\alpha$ then $\alpha=\beta$.

This is not true for general well-founded orders, as Brian's answer here shows. So for general well-founded orders embeddings do not make a partial order on isomorphism classes.

Generally speaking, though, if you just want to have representatives you can always just choose a representative from every isomorphism class, you can even make sure that these are sets and their relation is $\in$ relation.

The Mostowski collapse lemma says that if $(A,R)$ is well-founded and extensional then there exists a unique set $M$ such that $(A,R)\cong(M,\in)$, which begins to sound a bit more like what you are looking for. I suggest that you try and play with things from there.

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.