6
$\begingroup$

I'm a high school student and I'm giving a lecture in my high school math class on ordinal numbers, and I would like to prove that the von Neumann ordinals are well-ordered by set membership.

The definition of von Neumann ordinal that I'm using is as follows. An ordinal is a set $A$ such that the elements of $A$ are well-ordered by $\in$ and such that $\forall x (x\in A\implies x\subset A)$.

In order to prove that the von Neumann ordinals themselves are well-ordered, I will first show that they are totally ordered. To do this, I first show that the ordering is transitive, i.e. if $A\in B$ and $B\in C$ then $A\in C$. I then want to show that the ordering is trichotomous, i.e. for all $A$ and $B$, exactly one of the following is true, either $A\in B$ or $A=B$ or $B\in A$. I am having trouble showing this last part.

In other words, I would like to show, given only the definition of von Neumann ordinal written above, that any pair of ordinals are either equal, or one is a member of the other. Any help would be appreciated.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Observe that for given ordinals $A$ and $B$ the following claims hold true:

  • If $A$ is a proper subset of $B$, then $A \in B$.
  • $A \cap B$ is an ordinal.

Now, given ordinals $A \neq B$ consider $A \cap B \subseteq A,B$. If $A \cap B = A$, then $A \subseteq B$, so that either $A = B$ or $A \in B$. Analog $A \cap B = B$ implies either $B = A$ or $B \in A$. If $A \cap B$ is a proper subset of both $A$ and $B$, then $A \cap B \in A \cap B$, which contradicts the axiom of regularity.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Is there a way to do this without assuming regularity? $\endgroup$ – Henno Brandsma Nov 13 '14 at 13:41
  • $\begingroup$ @Henno: You don't use regularity here, since you already assumed that ordinals are well-founded with $\in$. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Nov 13 '14 at 13:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm magic, baby! $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Nov 13 '14 at 13:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "If $A$ is a proper subset of $B$, then $A \in B$": This requires proof, I think. It's certainly not true for all proper subsets of $B$. $\endgroup$ – TonyK Nov 13 '14 at 13:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @TonyK Let $X = \min B \setminus A$ and show that $X = A$. $\endgroup$ – Stefan Mesken Nov 13 '14 at 13:58
0
$\begingroup$

For any ordinals $A$ and $B$, below statements hold true:

  1. $A\subsetneq B\implies A\in B$. (I presented a proof for this at If $\alpha\ne\beta$ are ordinals and $\alpha\subset\beta$ show $\alpha\in\beta$)
  2. $A\cap B$ is an ordinal. (It's quite easy to prove this)

For $A=B$, the theorem is trivially true. For $A\neq B$, let $z=A\cap B$, hence $z$ is an ordinal. We will prove this case by contradiction.

Assume $A\not\subsetneq B$ and $A\not\subsetneq B$. Since $z\subsetneq A$ and $z$ is an ordinal, then $z\in A$. Similarly, $z\in B$. Thus $z\in A\cap B=z$, which contradicts the fact that $z$ is ordinal and hence well-ordered under $\in$. As a result, either $A\subsetneq B$ or $B\subsetneq A$.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.