0
$\begingroup$

I'm reading a somewhat old fashionned book on Set Theory ( first edition 1964).

I think I have understood the concept of ordinal number : if A is well ordered, then the order type of A ( its equivalence class under the relation of similarity) is A's cardinal number.

I'm now trying to understand operations on ordinals, and firstly, addition.

My author says that: if A and B are disjoint and if a= ord(A) and b=ord(B), then

              a+b = ord ( {A,B} ). 

With some aid from another book, namely Pinter's Book of Set Theory ( and from answers on this site), I understood that

{A,B} is, so to say, the ordered union of A and of B under the relation R such that xRy ( or : (x,y) belongs to R if you prefer) :

(1) x and y belong to A and x precedes ( or is equal to) y

(2) x and y belong to B and x precedes ( or is equal to) y

(3) x belongs to A and y belongs to B.

At this point my author gives an example aiming at illustrating addition of ordinals ( please, see image below).

My question : why does he say that in one case " n+omega = omega" and that , in the other case " omega + n is greater that omega".

Remark : my question is not on non-commutativity of ordinal addition; I am perfectly ready to accept this fact; what I do not understand is the reason why the "results" are not the same in the two cases

Remark : the author uses the symbols P and " omega" defined as follows :

P : the set of counting numbers

"omega" : ordinal number of P ( the set of counting numbers)

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

It is not true that if $A$ is well ordered then the order type of $A$ is its cardinal number. The well ordered set $\{1,2,3,4,5,\ldots,z\}$ has order type $\omega+1$, but its cardinal is $\aleph_0$ (or $\omega$ if we use it as a cardinal). It is an example of the addition you are talking about. We started with $\omega$ and put one element after it. If we put the new element before it we would have $\{z,1,2,3,4,5,\ldots\}$ which has the same order type as $\omega$. This is $1+\omega$ because we put the single element first, and shows and example of $1+\omega=\omega$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ @RossMillikan.Thanks. May I ask you how is defined the difference between " order type" and "ordinal number" of a well ordered set? $\endgroup$ – Ray LittleRock May 2 at 21:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I see them as the same. $\endgroup$ – Ross Millikan May 2 at 21:44
  • $\begingroup$ @RossMillikan.This is the way I had understood the first sentence of your answer. $\endgroup$ – Ray LittleRock May 2 at 21:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The first sentence says the order type is not the cardinal number. For the ordinal $\omega+1$ the cardinal is just $\aleph_0$. There are many countable ordinals. They all have the same cardinal. $\endgroup$ – Ross Millikan May 2 at 21:48
  • $\begingroup$ @RossMillikan.Ok, my mistake. $\endgroup$ – Ray LittleRock May 2 at 21:51

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.