12
$\begingroup$

How to prove that, if a is an ordinal and b is in a, then b is an ordinal?

Here are the definitions I'm using.

A set is an ordinal number if it is transitive and well-ordered by ∈.

A set T is transitive if every element of T is a subset of T.

My difficulty is mainly that I can't prove b is transitive. What's the magic?

$\endgroup$
18
$\begingroup$

Suppose $\beta\in\alpha$ and $\alpha$ is an ordinal. Let $\gamma\in\beta$. We need to prove that $\gamma\subseteq\beta$. Accordingly, let $\delta\in\gamma$. We need to show that $\delta\in\beta$.

Since $\alpha$ is an ordinal, and $\beta\in\alpha$, then $\beta\subseteq\alpha$. Therefore, $\gamma\in\alpha$. Again, this gives us that $\gamma\subseteq\alpha$. Thus $\delta\in\alpha$.

Now consider the set $\{\beta,\delta\}$. Since $\alpha$ is well-ordered by $\in$, we have that one of the following holds: $\beta=\delta$, $\beta\in\delta$, $\delta\in\beta$. We need to rule out the first two options.

If $\beta=\delta$, consider the set $\{\beta,\gamma\}$ and note that it contradicts well-foundedness: $\gamma\in\beta$ and $\beta=\delta\in\gamma$.

If $\beta\in\delta$, consider the set $\{\beta,\gamma,\delta\}$ and note that $\beta\in\delta\in\gamma\in\beta$, again contradicting well-foundedness.

The only option we have left is that $\delta\in\beta$, as we wanted.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I see. I was missing the part "well-ordered by ∈", because in Jech's Set theory this is the first occurrence. Before this he only discusses well-order by <. $\endgroup$ – Zirui Wang Feb 12 '11 at 9:54
  • $\begingroup$ Even in the absence of the Axiom of Foundation, the cases $\beta=\delta$ and $\beta\in \delta$ contradict the linearity of the $\in$-order on $\alpha$.............+1 $\endgroup$ – DanielWainfleet Aug 7 '17 at 1:36
  • $\begingroup$ You said that ''we need to show that $\gamma\in\beta$'' but you showed that $\gamma\in\alpha$ ? $\endgroup$ – PozcuKushimotoStreet Jun 18 at 0:38
  • $\begingroup$ No, I didn't say that. I said we need to prove that $\gamma\subseteq\beta$", and then proceeded to prove just that. $\endgroup$ – Andrés E. Caicedo Jun 18 at 1:14
4
$\begingroup$

Simpler proof than the one given:

Suppose $\beta\in\alpha$ and $\alpha$ is an ordinal. Suppose that $\gamma\in\beta$ and that $\delta\in\gamma$.

Since $\alpha$ is an ordinal, $\alpha$ is a transitive set. Therefore, since $\beta\in\alpha$ and $\gamma\in\beta$, we must have $\gamma\in\alpha$. Again, since $\gamma\in\alpha$ and $\delta\in\gamma$, $\delta\in\alpha$.

Now we have all the facts we need:

  1. $\in$ is a well-order on $\alpha$, which means that $\in$ is transitive on $\alpha$.

  2. $\beta,\gamma,\delta\in\alpha$

  3. $\gamma\in\beta$ and $\delta\in\gamma$

Since $\in$ is transitive on $\alpha$ and $\delta\in\gamma$ and $\gamma\in\beta$ and $\beta,\gamma,\delta\in\alpha$, we must have $\delta\in\beta$. Thus, $\beta$ is a transitive set. $\Box$

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Insufficient justification for the conclusion $\delta\in\beta$. $\endgroup$ – Zirui Wang Feb 26 '16 at 18:11
  • $\begingroup$ @ZiruiWang.Why? A well-order is necessarily a linear order, so $\in$ is a transitive binary relation on $\alpha.$ $\endgroup$ – DanielWainfleet Aug 7 '17 at 1:40

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.