1
$\begingroup$

I was wondering if there is a non well-founded set theory such that the following implementation of the ordinals is possible.

  • $0 = \emptyset$
  • $1 = \{1\}$
  • $2 = \{1,2\}$
  • ...
  • $\omega = \{1,2,3,\cdots\}$
  • $\omega+1 = \{1,2,3,\cdots, \omega+1\}$
  • $\omega+2 = \{1,2,3,\cdots, \omega+1,\omega+2\}$

So the least element of any non-empty ordinal $\alpha$ is $1$, and the greatest element is always $\alpha$. The limit ordinals, which are precisely those ordinals that fail to have a greatest element, are also precisely those that fail to be elements of themselves, nor indeed of any other ordinal.

Does there exist such a set theory?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Is there any reason to do this other than aesthetics? I think you could probably do this with the anti-foundation axiom. In NF, one of the set theories without well-foundedness, ordinals are coded directly as isomorphism classes of well-ordered sets. $\endgroup$ – Zhen Lin Feb 22 '13 at 9:48
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, there's a reason: it prevents "avalanches." Consider the following. "0,1,2,3... okay that's 4 fruit." The ordinals mentioned so far form a new ordinal, namely 5. Okay but now the ordinals mentioned so far form a new ordinal, namely 6. etc. But consider the alternative. "1,2,3,4... okay that's 4 fruit." The ordinals mentioned so far form a new ordinal, namely... oh, it's just 4. $\endgroup$ – goblin Feb 22 '13 at 10:06
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ For finite ordinals/cardinals you might have that problem. But there are very few finite ordinals. $\endgroup$ – user642796 Feb 22 '13 at 10:24
  • $\begingroup$ Is there a reason that you don't want $0$ and $\omega$ to contain themselves? $\endgroup$ – Trevor Wilson Feb 22 '13 at 19:27
  • $\begingroup$ Yes. If they were elements of themselves, they would be their own greatest element. $\endgroup$ – goblin Feb 22 '13 at 23:10
5
$\begingroup$

Let me play devil's advocate: I accept your definition, and then I assert that you have $1=2$. You may object that these two sets, namely $\{1\}$ and $\{1,2\}$ are obviously different, but I answer that they are not different at all, they have exactly the same members, because the seemingly extra member $2$ in $\{1,2\}$ is merely a repetition of the other member, $1$. Can you convince me, using your definitions, that $1\neq2$?

I wouldn't be surprised if at least some versions of the anti-foundaion axiom would actually let you prove that $1=2$ under your definitions.

The difficulty, of course, concerns not only $1$ and $2$, but all the ordinals you mentioned except $0$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The most popular anti-foundation axiom (Aczel's) indeed implies $1=2$ under these definitions. $\endgroup$ – Andrés E. Caicedo Feb 22 '13 at 20:37
  • $\begingroup$ I was worried about this sort of thing. Asserting that every ordinal is distinct from its successor should do the trick, though. $\endgroup$ – goblin Feb 22 '13 at 23:06

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.