I'm trying to find a way to visualize the first uncountable ordinal $\omega_1$. This is rather difficult, as the visualization tactic that I often use for countable ordinals - namely, the "matchstick" representation - fails for $\omega_1$. This is because the matchstick representation is effectively an order-preserving embedding of the ordinal into $\mathbb{R}$, but it can be shown that no such embedding exists for $\omega_1$.

I'm wondering though, is there some other simple, but non-Archimedean group that you could embed $\omega_1$ into - specifically something simple which is the direct sum or product of $\Bbb R$'s and $\Bbb Z$'s, ordered lexicographically?

For instance, could you perhaps embed it into the direct sum $\Bbb R \times \Bbb R$, ordered lexicographically? Or could you perhaps embed it into $\Bbb R \times \Bbb Z$, ordered either left-to-right or right-to-left lexicographically?

I'm sure that it's possible to contrive a trivial example with uncountably many R's or Z's that handles the case, but I'm ideally interested in seeing what can be done with small finite direct sums of a few $\Bbb R$'s or $\Bbb Z$'s. It would be nice if some sort of non-Archimedean matchstick representation made it a bit easier for us to get our heads wrapped around uncountable ordinals.

  • $\begingroup$ $\mathbb{N}$ is not a group. And what does it mean for a group to be archimedean or not? $\endgroup$
    – Zhen Lin
    Mar 10 '14 at 10:05
  • $\begingroup$ Well, there's always the long line. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_line_%28topology%29 $\endgroup$ Mar 10 '14 at 10:13
  • $\begingroup$ Zhen Lin: sorry, that was cruft from an earlier edit - changed it to R and Z. As for archimedean groups - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedean_group $\endgroup$ Mar 12 '14 at 23:40
  • $\begingroup$ Since $\omega_1$ is a well-ordering, the answer about $\Bbb N$ and about $\Bbb Z$ is the same answer. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Mar 12 '14 at 23:48
  • $\begingroup$ Yeah, but N isn't a group, and I chose to make all N's Z's rather than change "archimedean group" to "archimedean monoid" and have to define the new term. It was cruft. $\endgroup$ Mar 13 '14 at 0:30

All you have to do is note that if $A$ and $B$ are two linearly ordered sets which satisfy the following property $(*)$, then their lexicographic product satisfies the same property as well:

$(*)$ Every interval has a countable cofinality (i.e. there is a sequence converging to the endpoint of the interval).

Clearly $\Bbb R$ and $\Bbb N$ both satisfy that. So in order to find a linear order that doesn't we have to venture outside. For example $\Bbb R\times\omega_1$. But that feels a bit "trivialized", after all we're not looking for $\omega_1$ explicitly. But here's the problem, if we want $\omega_1$ to embed into the order, then we need to have an interval whose endpoint cannot be reached by a countable sequence. This means that there is an embedding of $\omega_1$ into that order to begin with. So in order to have $\omega_1$ embed into some lexicographic product of $\Bbb R$, we first have to have it embed into the other summand.

To see that $(*)$ for both $A$ and $B$ imply that $A\times B$ has $(*)$, note that given an interval $U$ in $A\times B$ then either there is some $a\in A$ and $(b_1,b_2)\subseteq B$ such that $\{a\}\times(b_1,b_2)$ is cofinal in $U$, in which case we can pick a cofinal sequence from $(b_1,b_2)$.

If there is no such point $a$, then there is an interval $(a_1,a_2)\subseteq A$ such that $(a_1,a_2)\times B$ is cofinal in $U$. In which case we can construct a cofinal sequence from $(a_1,a_2)$ to witness the cofinality of $U$.


You can't embed $\omega_1$ into the $\Bbb{R}^n$ or $\Bbb{N}^n$ (in the sense of topological embedding.) Because if $A$ is a subset of $\Bbb{R}^n$ then it has only countably many isolated point, but $\omega_1$ has $\aleph_1$ many isolated points. For the same reason, you cannot embed $\omega_1$ into $\Bbb{N}^n$, even you cannot embed it into $\Bbb{R}^\omega$ or $\Bbb{N}^\omega$ with product topology!

Addition. You cannot embed $\omega_1$ into $\Bbb R^2$ with lexicographical order. Since $\Bbb{R}^2$ with lexicographical order is metrizable. So if $\omega_1$ is embedded in $\Bbb{R}^2$ with lexicographical order, then $\omega_1$ is metrizable, which is not.


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.