Prove that $|omega+omega|=|omegacdotomega|=|omega^omega|=|omega|$
$begingroup$
$|omega+omega|=|omegacdotomega|=|omega^omega|=|omega|$
Does my attempt look fine or contain logical flaws/gaps? Any suggestion is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your help!
My attempt:
We have:
$omega+omega={omega+alphamid alpha<omega}$
$omegacdotomega={omegacdotalpha mid alpha<omega}$
$omega^omega={omega^alpha mid alpha<omega}$
Thus we build bijections $f,g,h$ as follows:
$f:omega to omega+omega$ such that $f(alpha)=omega+alpha$
$g:omega to omegacdotomega$ such that $f(alpha)=omegacdotalpha$
$h:omega to omega^omega$ such that $f(alpha)=omega^alpha$
This completes the proof.
elementary-set-theory ordinals
$endgroup$
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
$|omega+omega|=|omegacdotomega|=|omega^omega|=|omega|$
Does my attempt look fine or contain logical flaws/gaps? Any suggestion is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your help!
My attempt:
We have:
$omega+omega={omega+alphamid alpha<omega}$
$omegacdotomega={omegacdotalpha mid alpha<omega}$
$omega^omega={omega^alpha mid alpha<omega}$
Thus we build bijections $f,g,h$ as follows:
$f:omega to omega+omega$ such that $f(alpha)=omega+alpha$
$g:omega to omegacdotomega$ such that $f(alpha)=omegacdotalpha$
$h:omega to omega^omega$ such that $f(alpha)=omega^alpha$
This completes the proof.
elementary-set-theory ordinals
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
These maps are not going to be surjective for the correct definitions..
$endgroup$
– Berci
Dec 1 '18 at 8:51
$begingroup$
You need Zorn's lemma for uncountable sets.
$endgroup$
– GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
Dec 1 '18 at 9:06
$begingroup$
@Berci Please be more specific! I am unable to understand "the correct definitions".
$endgroup$
– Le Anh Dung
Dec 1 '18 at 9:46
$begingroup$
Is there some reason you are trying to explicitly construct bijections? You could simply use what you know about cardinals. Two of the equalities are simply sayling that $aleph_0+aleph_0=aleph_0cdotaleph_0=aleph_0$. And the third one follows from the fact that union of countably many countable sets is gains countable.
$endgroup$
– Martin Sleziak
Dec 1 '18 at 10:00
3
$begingroup$
As previous comment mentioned, what you wrote for $omegacdotomega$ and $omega^omega$ differs from the usual definition of ordinal multiplication and ordinal power. Did you perhaps want to write unions of those sets, i.e., something like $bigcuplimits_{alpha<omega} omegacdotalpha$ and $bigcuplimits_{alpha<omega} omega^alpha$?
$endgroup$
– Martin Sleziak
Dec 1 '18 at 10:03
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
$|omega+omega|=|omegacdotomega|=|omega^omega|=|omega|$
Does my attempt look fine or contain logical flaws/gaps? Any suggestion is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your help!
My attempt:
We have:
$omega+omega={omega+alphamid alpha<omega}$
$omegacdotomega={omegacdotalpha mid alpha<omega}$
$omega^omega={omega^alpha mid alpha<omega}$
Thus we build bijections $f,g,h$ as follows:
$f:omega to omega+omega$ such that $f(alpha)=omega+alpha$
$g:omega to omegacdotomega$ such that $f(alpha)=omegacdotalpha$
$h:omega to omega^omega$ such that $f(alpha)=omega^alpha$
This completes the proof.
elementary-set-theory ordinals
$endgroup$
$|omega+omega|=|omegacdotomega|=|omega^omega|=|omega|$
Does my attempt look fine or contain logical flaws/gaps? Any suggestion is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your help!
My attempt:
We have:
$omega+omega={omega+alphamid alpha<omega}$
$omegacdotomega={omegacdotalpha mid alpha<omega}$
$omega^omega={omega^alpha mid alpha<omega}$
Thus we build bijections $f,g,h$ as follows:
$f:omega to omega+omega$ such that $f(alpha)=omega+alpha$
$g:omega to omegacdotomega$ such that $f(alpha)=omegacdotalpha$
$h:omega to omega^omega$ such that $f(alpha)=omega^alpha$
This completes the proof.
elementary-set-theory ordinals
elementary-set-theory ordinals
asked Dec 1 '18 at 8:42
Le Anh DungLe Anh Dung
1,0751521
1,0751521
3
$begingroup$
These maps are not going to be surjective for the correct definitions..
$endgroup$
– Berci
Dec 1 '18 at 8:51
$begingroup$
You need Zorn's lemma for uncountable sets.
$endgroup$
– GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
Dec 1 '18 at 9:06
$begingroup$
@Berci Please be more specific! I am unable to understand "the correct definitions".
$endgroup$
– Le Anh Dung
Dec 1 '18 at 9:46
$begingroup$
Is there some reason you are trying to explicitly construct bijections? You could simply use what you know about cardinals. Two of the equalities are simply sayling that $aleph_0+aleph_0=aleph_0cdotaleph_0=aleph_0$. And the third one follows from the fact that union of countably many countable sets is gains countable.
$endgroup$
– Martin Sleziak
Dec 1 '18 at 10:00
3
$begingroup$
As previous comment mentioned, what you wrote for $omegacdotomega$ and $omega^omega$ differs from the usual definition of ordinal multiplication and ordinal power. Did you perhaps want to write unions of those sets, i.e., something like $bigcuplimits_{alpha<omega} omegacdotalpha$ and $bigcuplimits_{alpha<omega} omega^alpha$?
$endgroup$
– Martin Sleziak
Dec 1 '18 at 10:03
|
show 3 more comments
3
$begingroup$
These maps are not going to be surjective for the correct definitions..
$endgroup$
– Berci
Dec 1 '18 at 8:51
$begingroup$
You need Zorn's lemma for uncountable sets.
$endgroup$
– GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
Dec 1 '18 at 9:06
$begingroup$
@Berci Please be more specific! I am unable to understand "the correct definitions".
$endgroup$
– Le Anh Dung
Dec 1 '18 at 9:46
$begingroup$
Is there some reason you are trying to explicitly construct bijections? You could simply use what you know about cardinals. Two of the equalities are simply sayling that $aleph_0+aleph_0=aleph_0cdotaleph_0=aleph_0$. And the third one follows from the fact that union of countably many countable sets is gains countable.
$endgroup$
– Martin Sleziak
Dec 1 '18 at 10:00
3
$begingroup$
As previous comment mentioned, what you wrote for $omegacdotomega$ and $omega^omega$ differs from the usual definition of ordinal multiplication and ordinal power. Did you perhaps want to write unions of those sets, i.e., something like $bigcuplimits_{alpha<omega} omegacdotalpha$ and $bigcuplimits_{alpha<omega} omega^alpha$?
$endgroup$
– Martin Sleziak
Dec 1 '18 at 10:03
3
3
$begingroup$
These maps are not going to be surjective for the correct definitions..
$endgroup$
– Berci
Dec 1 '18 at 8:51
$begingroup$
These maps are not going to be surjective for the correct definitions..
$endgroup$
– Berci
Dec 1 '18 at 8:51
$begingroup$
You need Zorn's lemma for uncountable sets.
$endgroup$
– GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
Dec 1 '18 at 9:06
$begingroup$
You need Zorn's lemma for uncountable sets.
$endgroup$
– GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
Dec 1 '18 at 9:06
$begingroup$
@Berci Please be more specific! I am unable to understand "the correct definitions".
$endgroup$
– Le Anh Dung
Dec 1 '18 at 9:46
$begingroup$
@Berci Please be more specific! I am unable to understand "the correct definitions".
$endgroup$
– Le Anh Dung
Dec 1 '18 at 9:46
$begingroup$
Is there some reason you are trying to explicitly construct bijections? You could simply use what you know about cardinals. Two of the equalities are simply sayling that $aleph_0+aleph_0=aleph_0cdotaleph_0=aleph_0$. And the third one follows from the fact that union of countably many countable sets is gains countable.
$endgroup$
– Martin Sleziak
Dec 1 '18 at 10:00
$begingroup$
Is there some reason you are trying to explicitly construct bijections? You could simply use what you know about cardinals. Two of the equalities are simply sayling that $aleph_0+aleph_0=aleph_0cdotaleph_0=aleph_0$. And the third one follows from the fact that union of countably many countable sets is gains countable.
$endgroup$
– Martin Sleziak
Dec 1 '18 at 10:00
3
3
$begingroup$
As previous comment mentioned, what you wrote for $omegacdotomega$ and $omega^omega$ differs from the usual definition of ordinal multiplication and ordinal power. Did you perhaps want to write unions of those sets, i.e., something like $bigcuplimits_{alpha<omega} omegacdotalpha$ and $bigcuplimits_{alpha<omega} omega^alpha$?
$endgroup$
– Martin Sleziak
Dec 1 '18 at 10:03
$begingroup$
As previous comment mentioned, what you wrote for $omegacdotomega$ and $omega^omega$ differs from the usual definition of ordinal multiplication and ordinal power. Did you perhaps want to write unions of those sets, i.e., something like $bigcuplimits_{alpha<omega} omegacdotalpha$ and $bigcuplimits_{alpha<omega} omega^alpha$?
$endgroup$
– Martin Sleziak
Dec 1 '18 at 10:03
|
show 3 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Since $omega$ × $omega$ equinumerous to N×N, it is countable.
By induction for all n in N, $omega^n$ is countable.
$omega^{omega}$ = sup$_n$ $omega^n$ = $cup_n omega^n$ is a countable union of countable sets equinumerous to N×N, hence countable.
Finally as $omega$ + $omega$ < $omega$ × $omega,$ it too is countable.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
How is this helpful to verify the presented proof?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Dec 1 '18 at 10:10
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3021131%2fprove-that-omega-omega-omega-cdot-omega-omega-omega-omega%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Since $omega$ × $omega$ equinumerous to N×N, it is countable.
By induction for all n in N, $omega^n$ is countable.
$omega^{omega}$ = sup$_n$ $omega^n$ = $cup_n omega^n$ is a countable union of countable sets equinumerous to N×N, hence countable.
Finally as $omega$ + $omega$ < $omega$ × $omega,$ it too is countable.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
How is this helpful to verify the presented proof?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Dec 1 '18 at 10:10
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Since $omega$ × $omega$ equinumerous to N×N, it is countable.
By induction for all n in N, $omega^n$ is countable.
$omega^{omega}$ = sup$_n$ $omega^n$ = $cup_n omega^n$ is a countable union of countable sets equinumerous to N×N, hence countable.
Finally as $omega$ + $omega$ < $omega$ × $omega,$ it too is countable.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
How is this helpful to verify the presented proof?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Dec 1 '18 at 10:10
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Since $omega$ × $omega$ equinumerous to N×N, it is countable.
By induction for all n in N, $omega^n$ is countable.
$omega^{omega}$ = sup$_n$ $omega^n$ = $cup_n omega^n$ is a countable union of countable sets equinumerous to N×N, hence countable.
Finally as $omega$ + $omega$ < $omega$ × $omega,$ it too is countable.
$endgroup$
Since $omega$ × $omega$ equinumerous to N×N, it is countable.
By induction for all n in N, $omega^n$ is countable.
$omega^{omega}$ = sup$_n$ $omega^n$ = $cup_n omega^n$ is a countable union of countable sets equinumerous to N×N, hence countable.
Finally as $omega$ + $omega$ < $omega$ × $omega,$ it too is countable.
answered Dec 1 '18 at 10:08
William ElliotWilliam Elliot
7,4742720
7,4742720
2
$begingroup$
How is this helpful to verify the presented proof?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Dec 1 '18 at 10:10
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
How is this helpful to verify the presented proof?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Dec 1 '18 at 10:10
2
2
$begingroup$
How is this helpful to verify the presented proof?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Dec 1 '18 at 10:10
$begingroup$
How is this helpful to verify the presented proof?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Dec 1 '18 at 10:10
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3021131%2fprove-that-omega-omega-omega-cdot-omega-omega-omega-omega%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
$begingroup$
These maps are not going to be surjective for the correct definitions..
$endgroup$
– Berci
Dec 1 '18 at 8:51
$begingroup$
You need Zorn's lemma for uncountable sets.
$endgroup$
– GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
Dec 1 '18 at 9:06
$begingroup$
@Berci Please be more specific! I am unable to understand "the correct definitions".
$endgroup$
– Le Anh Dung
Dec 1 '18 at 9:46
$begingroup$
Is there some reason you are trying to explicitly construct bijections? You could simply use what you know about cardinals. Two of the equalities are simply sayling that $aleph_0+aleph_0=aleph_0cdotaleph_0=aleph_0$. And the third one follows from the fact that union of countably many countable sets is gains countable.
$endgroup$
– Martin Sleziak
Dec 1 '18 at 10:00
3
$begingroup$
As previous comment mentioned, what you wrote for $omegacdotomega$ and $omega^omega$ differs from the usual definition of ordinal multiplication and ordinal power. Did you perhaps want to write unions of those sets, i.e., something like $bigcuplimits_{alpha<omega} omegacdotalpha$ and $bigcuplimits_{alpha<omega} omega^alpha$?
$endgroup$
– Martin Sleziak
Dec 1 '18 at 10:03