I don't understand the proof to the a/m claim. How we know that $\eta < \kappa$ and $(\alpha,\beta)<_{cw} (0, \eta) $ and hence $h: \mu \to \eta \times \eta$ is injective? Appreciate if anyone could advise.

Here is an excerpt of the proof:

For an infinite ordinal $\kappa,$ the canonical well-ordering of $\kappa \times \kappa,$ denoted by $<_{cw}$ is defined as follows: $(\alpha_1, \beta_1)<_{cw} < (\alpha_2, \beta_2)$ iff either one of the following holds.

$(1): \max\{\alpha_1,\beta_1\} < \max\{\alpha_2,\beta_2\}$

$(2): \max\{\alpha_1,\beta_1\} =\max\{\alpha_2,\beta_2\}$ and $\alpha_1<\alpha_2$

$(3): \max\{\alpha_1,\beta_1\} =\max\{\alpha_2,\beta_2\}$ and $\alpha_1 = \alpha_2$ and $\beta_1 < \beta_2.$

Claim: For all infinite cardinals $\kappa, (\kappa \times \kappa, <_{cw}) \cong (\kappa, \in).$

Proof: (It has been show that it is true for $\kappa = \omega$) Assume there is a counterexample $\kappa.$ Let $A= \{\lambda \in \kappa + 1| \lambda\geq \omega \ is \ a \ cardinal \ and \ (\lambda \times \lambda, <_{cw}) \not\cong (\lambda, \in)\}.$ Then, $\kappa \in A.$ Let $\mu$ be least element of $A.$ Thus, $\mu > \omega$ and for all $\lambda,$ if $\omega \leq \lambda < \mu$ and $\lambda$ is a cardinal, then $(\lambda \times \lambda, <_{cw}) \cong (\lambda, \in).$

By Comparability theorem, $(\mu, \in)$ is isomorphic to initial segment of $(\mu \times \mu, <_{cw})$ since $|\mu \times \mu| \geq \mu$ and $\mu$ is cardinal. Let $(\alpha, \beta) \in \mu \times \mu$ such that $(\mu, \in)$ is isomorphic to initial segment of $(\mu \times \mu, <_{cw})$ given by $(\alpha, \beta).$ Let $h$ be the isomorphism. Let $\eta= \max\{\alpha, \beta\}+ \omega.$ Then $\eta < \kappa$ and $(\alpha,\beta)<_{cw} (0, \eta).$ HENCE, $h: \mu \to \eta \times \eta$ is injective.


2 Answers 2


The proof is really by induction. It goes through the cardinals, and if the claim is false then there is a least one which is a counterexample. Moreover this cardinal is not $\omega$ since for $\omega$ we can check this explicitly. We write $\mu$ for that least counterexample.

Because every two well orders are comparable in the relation "isomorphic to an initial segment", $(\mu,\in)$ and $(\mu\times\mu,<_{cw})$ are comparable. So one is an initial segment of the other, perhaps a proper one. By the fact that $\mu$ is a cardinal and $|\mu|\leq|\mu\times\mu|$ it is impossible that the latter is a proper initial segment of the former, and it is necessary that $\mu$ is an initial segment of $\mu\times\mu$.

But by our assumption that the claim fails at $\mu$, $(\mu,\in)$ is only isomorphic to some proper initial segment. So there is some $\eta<\mu$ such that there is an embedding from $(\mu,\in)$ into $(\eta\times\eta,<_{cw})$ -- this is true because you can always find $\eta$ large enough for that: if $\mu$ is isomorphic to the initial segment below $(\alpha,\beta)$ then taking $\eta=\max\{\alpha,\beta\}+\omega$ we guarantee that $\eta\times\eta$ contains all the information we want. Therefore there is some injection from $\mu$ into $\eta$, which is a contradiction to the fact that $\mu$ is a cardinal and $\eta<\mu$.

Another way of looking at it is to see that an ordinal $\alpha$ is an initial ordinal, or cardinal, if and only if it satisfies the following property:

Every proper initial segment of the order $(\alpha,\in)$ has a strictly smaller cardinality than $\alpha$.

The proof can be given in a positive way instead.

Suppose that the claim is true for all infinite $\lambda<\mu$, it is clear that $(\mu,\in)$ is isomorphic to an initial segment of $(\mu\times\mu,<_{cw})$, by the fact that $\mu$ is an initial ordinal.

It suffices to show that every proper initial segment of $\mu\times\mu$ has cardinality $<\mu$. But if $(\alpha,\beta)$ is any point in $\mu\times\mu$, and $\eta=\max\{\alpha,\beta\}$ then $(\alpha,\beta)\leq_{cw}(\eta,\eta)=\max(\eta+1)\times(\eta+1)$, where the last $\max$ is in the $<_{cw}$ order.

Since $|\eta|=|\eta+1|=\lambda<\mu$, for some $\lambda$, by the induction hypothesis $|\eta\times\eta|=|\lambda\times\lambda|=|\lambda|=\lambda$.

It follows, if so, that every proper initial segment of $\mu\times\mu$ must have cardinality strictly less than $\mu$, and therefore $\mu\times\mu$ is order isomorphic to $\mu$.


We have $\eta < \kappa$ because $\alpha, \beta < \kappa$ (hence $\max\{\alpha,\beta\} < \kappa$) and $\kappa > \omega$ is a cardinal. (Consider the cardinality of $\eta$, for instance.)

We have $(\alpha, \beta) <_{cw} (0, \eta)$ because $\max\{\alpha, \beta\} < \eta = \max\{0,\eta\}$ by definition of $\eta$.

Now the portion of $\mu\times\mu$ which is $<_{cw} (0,\eta)$ is exactly $\eta\times\eta$ by definition of $<_{cw}$. Since $(\alpha,\beta) <_{cw} (0,\eta)$ this means that $h$, which injects $\mu$ to the portion of $\mu\times\mu$ which is $<_{cw} (\alpha,\beta)$ is an injection into the portion of $\mu\times\mu$ which is $<_{cw} (0, \eta)$, which is $\eta\times\eta$.


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.