0
$\begingroup$

$\underline{\mathbf{Problem:}}$

If $\alpha < \beta $ then $\exists$ a unique $\gamma$ st. $\alpha+\gamma=\beta$, where '$+$' denotes ordinal addition.

If someone would be so kind to check the following attempt, if only for the case where $\gamma$ is a limit ordinal (the part that I am concerned over)

$\underline{\mathbf{Attempt:}}$

Consider the class $X:=\{\eta:\alpha+\eta\geq \beta\}$

Since $\alpha+\beta\geq \beta\implies \beta\in X$, so $X\neq\emptyset$

$\therefore \emptyset\neq X\subseteq On$ and since $On$ is well ordered by the elementhood relation, and since $X$ is a non-empty subset of $On$: $X$ has a least element. Call this least element $\gamma$.

So $\forall \ \delta \in X$ st. $ \delta \neq \gamma \implies \delta <\gamma$

Claim: Since $\gamma$ is the least element of $X$ $\implies \alpha+\gamma=\beta$

Since $\gamma\in X \implies \alpha+\gamma \geq \beta$. To prove the claim, assume $\alpha+\gamma\neq\beta$. Then we have $\alpha+\gamma > \beta$

We prove the claim by showing the last mentioned inequality does not hold for any ordinal, forcing the desired equality made in the claim.

If $\gamma=0\implies \alpha \geq \beta $, contradicting the initial assumption $\alpha < \beta $

If $\gamma=\epsilon+1$ for some $\epsilon\in On$

So $(\alpha+\epsilon)+1=\alpha+(\epsilon+1)>\beta $, also, $\alpha+\epsilon<\alpha+(\epsilon+1)$ $\require{cancel}$ Hence, $\beta\leq\alpha+\epsilon<(\alpha+\epsilon)+1$ since $\ \cancel{\exists} \kappa$ st. $\alpha+\epsilon<\kappa<(\alpha+\epsilon)+1$. But, since $\beta\leq\alpha+\epsilon\implies\epsilon \in X$, contradicting the minimality of $\gamma=\epsilon+1$ since $\epsilon<\epsilon+1$

Lastly, if $\lim\gamma$ then $\alpha+\gamma=\bigcup_{\delta<\gamma}{\alpha+\delta}$

For any $\delta'<\gamma\implies \alpha+\delta'<\alpha+\gamma$. So along with $\alpha+\gamma > \beta$. This means $\alpha+\delta'<\beta<\alpha+\gamma$. Since if $\beta<\alpha+\delta'<\alpha+\gamma$ this would once again contradict the minimality of $\gamma$ since $\delta'<\gamma$.

But since $\alpha+\delta'<\beta$ where $\delta'<\gamma$ was arbitrary it means that $\forall \ \delta'<\gamma \implies \alpha+\delta'<\beta$ $\ \text{i.e.}\ \beta$ is an upper bound for the set $Y:=\{\alpha+\delta:\delta<\gamma\}$.

Since $Y$ is a set of ordinals $\bigcup Y$ is also an ordinal and is the $\text{l.u.b.}$ for the set $Y.$ $\text{i.e.} \sup Y=\bigcup Y$. But $\bigcup Y=\bigcup_{\delta<\gamma}{\alpha+\delta}=\alpha+\gamma$ by the definition of ordinal addition in the case of limit ordinals.

Also $\sup Y\leq u$ for any upper bound $u$ for the set $Y$. So, $\alpha+\gamma=\sup Y \leq \beta$ since we showed $\beta$ is a upper bound for the set $Y$. So we have $\alpha+\gamma\leq \beta$ and $\alpha+\gamma>\beta$, and both of these inequalities cannot hold simultaneously, contradiction.

This shows the inequality $\alpha+\gamma> \beta$ yields a contradiction for any ordinal $\gamma$. Hence our claim is shown to be true.

Uniqueness follows easily assuming there is some $\zeta$ st. $\alpha+\gamma=\beta $ and $\alpha +\zeta =\beta$

Since then $\alpha+\gamma=\alpha +\zeta$ iff $\gamma=\zeta$, showing uniqueness.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Two basic properties of ordinal addition :(1) $a+e+1>b\implies a+e\geq b$....(2). For $a\in On$ and $S\subset On $ we have $\sup\{a+s: s\in S\}=a+\sup S.$.... You can also find $\gamma$ from below: $\gamma=$ $\sup \{\eta \leq \beta :\alpha+\eta \leq \beta\}$. $\endgroup$ – DanielWainfleet Jun 21 '16 at 17:11
2
$\begingroup$

There are a few minor errors and one major one in the proof of the Claim. First, $\gamma=0$ implies that $\alpha\ge\beta$, not that $\alpha>\beta$; this is of course still a contradiction. In the successor case you shouldn’t say that there is no $\color{red}\beta$ strictly between $\alpha+\epsilon$ and $\alpha+(\epsilon+1)$: $\beta$ is already a specific ordinal. What you mean is that there is no ordinal $\delta$ such that $\alpha+\epsilon<\delta<\alpha+(\epsilon+1)$, so in particular it’s not the case that $\alpha+\epsilon<\beta<\alpha+(\epsilon+1)$, and therefore $\beta\le\alpha+\epsilon$. (Note that here again you have $<$ where you really need $\le$.) Thus, $\epsilon\in X$ and $\epsilon<\gamma$, which is a contradiction.

Finally, you’re right to worry about the argument in the limit case: $X$ is not a transitive set. Fortunately, a simple argument is available. If $\delta<\gamma$, then $\delta\notin X$, so $\alpha+\delta<\beta$. Thus, $\beta$ is an upper bound for $\{\alpha+\delta:\delta<\gamma\}$, and it follows that

$$\alpha+\gamma=\bigcup_{\delta<\gamma}(\alpha+\delta)=\sup_{\delta<\gamma}(\alpha+\delta)\le\beta\;,$$

giving us the desired contradiction.

$\endgroup$

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.