3
$\begingroup$

I have 3 ordinals $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$, $\gamma\neq 0$. Is this implication true?

$$\alpha<\beta\implies\gamma\cdot\alpha<\gamma\cdot\beta$$

I have reason to believie it is not, namely because I can't prove it by induction. (I get stuck in the inductive step as $(\gamma+1)\cdot\alpha\neq\gamma\cdot\alpha+\alpha$). Nevertheless I can't find any counterexample, so perhaps it is true.

Got any hints?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You actually can prove it by induction. Alternatively note that $\rho \colon \operatorname{Ord} \to \operatorname{Ord}, \alpha \mapsto \gamma \cdot \alpha$ is increasing and $\gamma \cdot \alpha < \gamma \cdot (\alpha + 1)$. $\endgroup$ – Stefan Mesken Mar 12 '16 at 12:24
  • $\begingroup$ And it's even easier without induction. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Mar 12 '16 at 12:26
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ (Also the induction shouldn't be on $\gamma$, it should be on $\alpha$ or $\beta$.) $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Mar 12 '16 at 12:27
3
$\begingroup$

Note that $\gamma\cdot\alpha$ is isomorphic to the lexicographic ordering on $\alpha\times\gamma$.

It is very easy to conclude (via inclusion of the products) that $\gamma\cdot\alpha\leq\gamma\cdot\beta$. All you have to show now is that if $\alpha\neq\beta$ then $\gamma\cdot\alpha$ is a proper initial segment of $\gamma\cdot\beta$. That much is easy since $\beta\setminus\alpha\neq\varnothing$.

If you insist on using induction, you should do the induction on $\alpha$ or $\beta$ and not on $\gamma$. Namely, for a fixed non-zero $\gamma$, if $\alpha<\beta$ then $\gamma\cdot\alpha<\gamma\cdot\beta$. It might be the easier solution to do the induction on $\beta$.

$\endgroup$

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.