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.

I try to understand the Löb-Wainer-hierarchy and one definition just doesn't open. I hope someone could clarify this to me.

A fundamental sequence to limit ordinal $\alpha$ is $\omega$-sequence $\{\alpha_i\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ of ordinals such that for each $i\in\mathbb{N}$ we have $\alpha_i<\alpha_{i+1}<\alpha$ and $\lim_{i\in\mathbb{N}}\alpha_i=\alpha$.

For each countable limit ordinal $\beta$, let $\{\beta\}(i)$,$i\in\mathbb{N}$ denote a arbitrarily chosen fixed fundamental sequence to $\beta$. Define now $F_\alpha^n$ such that

  1. $F_0^n(x)=(n+1)(x+1)$
  2. $F_{\alpha+1}^0(x)=F_{\alpha}^x(x)$
  3. $F_\beta^0(x)=F^0_{\{\beta\}(x)}(\varrho_\beta(x))$ where $\beta$ is a limit ordinal
  4. $F_\gamma^{n+1}(x)=F_\gamma^0(F_\gamma^n(x)),\gamma\neq 0.$

Here for limit ordinal $\beta$ we have:

  • $\varrho_\beta(0)=0$,
  • $\varrho_\beta(m+1)=\mu_z(z>\varrho_\beta(m)\ \&\ (i)_{\leq m}(F_{\{\beta\}(m+1)}^0(z)>F_{\{\beta\}(i)}(z)))$.

I don't understand the definition of $F_\beta^0(x)$. It seems a sort of diagonalisation process (does it?) but the notation with a weak understanding of ordinal numbers (I'm working on the latter at the very moment) are giving me hard time. I guess $\mu_z$ refers to smallest $z$ such this-and-that, but I don't quite understand the overall construction.

What the definition says?

share|improve this question
    
Where did you find this definitions? –  Asaf Karagila Sep 6 '11 at 15:02
    
@Asaf, They are from Löb & Wainer "Hierarchies of number-theoretic functions I (and II)" (1970) in Arch. Math. Logik, 13. The original papers have mistake in the definition which is addressed in their "Hierarchies of number-theoretic functions I & II: A correction". –  rank Sep 6 '11 at 15:10
    
I cannot find the paper (not even behind a paywall), however the definition of $\varrho$ is very blurred to me. By $\&$ do you mean $\land$? What do you mean by $(i)_{\le m+1}$? Etc. etc. Could you please turn that into a list as well, may ease the readability. –  Asaf Karagila Sep 6 '11 at 15:16
    
Here are links: paper 1 springerlink.com/content/x4pg75l092473113 and correction springerlink.com/content/w2464014v5705l0n –  rank Sep 6 '11 at 15:20
    
The definition of $\varrho$ is corrected in the second link. I have edited that into your post. –  Asaf Karagila Sep 6 '11 at 16:29

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

In the second page is says that $\mu_z(\ldots)$ is the least $z$ such that $\ldots$ (i.e. the "least ..." operator)

As remarked by Brian M. Scott and Andres Caicedo $(i)_{\le m}$ it the set $\{0,\ldots,m\}$.

The definition is pretty much straightforward in the non-limit cases, so we only need to take care of the $\beta$ limit case.

Indeed as noted in the paper, and in your question, this is a form of diagonalization.

$\varrho_\beta$ is defined to return some "quickly" increasing sequence, so we could ensure some uniform behaviour with respect to the fundamental sequence that we've chosen in advance.

We want $\varrho_\beta(m+1)$ (assuming $x\neq 0$) to be a number $z$ such that:

  • $z>\varrho_\beta(m)$;
  • For all $i<m$ we have that $F^0_{\{\beta\}(m+1)}(z)>F^0_{\{\beta\}(i)}(z)$, which by previous definition means $F^z_{\{\beta\}(m)}(z)>F^z_{\{\beta\}(i-1)}(z)$, of course for $i>0$.

Taking the least $z$ with these properties is only a simple way of defining a choice function. It might be the case that the least-ness of $z$ is used later on, though.

Now, from this we can define $F^0_\beta(x)$. It is $F^0_{\{\beta\}(x)}(x)$. This ensures that $F^0_\beta$ is in a sense some sort of limit of the $F^0_{\{\beta\}(i)}$, which is what is usually wanted from transfinite sequences.

If you have further questions, I'd be glad to try and answer them.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you. Let me chew this for sometime.. –  rank Sep 6 '11 at 17:12
    
Asaf: $(i)_{\le m}$ means $\forall i\le m$. It used to be standard (but ugly) notation in some places. –  Andres Caicedo Sep 7 '11 at 4:38
    
@Andres: Thanks, Brian M. Scott remarked that on the main question already. :-) –  Asaf Karagila Sep 7 '11 at 5:52

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.