I want to prove, without the use of AC, that $|\alpha \cdot \beta|=|\alpha| \cdot |\beta|$, where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are ordinals. Any help?
2026-03-28 02:24:31.1774664671
Cardinality of product of ordinals without AC
103 Views Asked by user391447 https://math.techqa.club/user/user391447/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in ELEMENTARY-SET-THEORY
- how is my proof on equinumerous sets
- Composition of functions - properties
- Existence of a denumerble partition.
- Why is surjectivity defined using $\exists$ rather than $\exists !$
- Show that $\omega^2+1$ is a prime number.
- A Convention of Set Builder Notation
- I cannot understand that $\mathfrak{O} := \{\{\}, \{1\}, \{1, 2\}, \{3\}, \{1, 3\}, \{1, 2, 3\}\}$ is a topology on the set $\{1, 2, 3\}$.
- Problem with Cartesian product and dimension for beginners
- Proof that a pair is injective and surjective
- Value of infinite product
Related Questions in ORDINALS
- Ordinals and cardinals in ETCS set axiomatic
- For each cardinal number $u$, there exists a smallest ordinal number $\alpha$ such that card$\alpha$ =$u$ .
- Intuition regarding: $\kappa^{+}=|\{\kappa\leq\alpha\lt \kappa^{+}\}|$
- Set membership as a relation on a particular set
- Goodstein's sequences and theorem.
- A proof of the simple pressing down lemma, is sup $x=x?$
- $COF(\lambda)$ is stationary in $k$, where $\lambda < k$ is regular.
- Difficulty in understanding cantor normal form
- What are $L_1$ and $L_2$ in the Gödel Constructible Hierarchy
- How many subsets are produced? (a transfinite induction argument)
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
There are two points here:
Every proof that refers only to well-ordered sets does not use the axiom of choice. The axiom of choice is used to have these well-orders in the first place, but when the sets given are well-ordered, the use of choice is redundant. (Do note that I mean every set in the proof, not that the theorem mentions well-ordered sets, but rather that the proof uses sets with well-orders on them.)
Depending on how you define ordinal arithmetic, or rather what you already know about this, your question is quite literally trivial. One of the definitions of $\alpha\cdot\beta$ is the lexicographic order on $\beta\times\alpha$, it is equivalent to the recursive definition as "iterated addition".
Since the definition of $|\alpha|\cdot|\beta|$ is, literally, $|\alpha\times\beta|$, and it is easy to see that cardinal multiplication is commutative, the result follows.
But we also have an extra point.
Even if you work with the definitions based on recursion, it is not hard to prove that the cardinal arithmetic behaves as expected. Again, provided that you have proved certain properties of well-ordered sets. We do this by induction on $\beta$.
For $\beta=0$ this is trivial, in fact for the finite case it is trivial. If $\beta$ is not a cardinal, then the result is also immediate by applying the induction hypothesis to some $\gamma<\beta$ such that $|\beta|=|\gamma|$.
If $\beta$ is an infinite cardinal, that is $\beta\geq\omega$ and it is an initial ordinal, then one needs to check there is an obvious injection from $\sup\{\alpha\cdot\gamma\mid\gamma<\beta\}$ into $\alpha\times\beta$, and vice versa.