May I ask why "Let $ω_1$ be the first uncountable ordinal. There's a bijection $f:ω_1×ω_1→ω_1$. " Thanks!
2026-04-09 04:23:09.1775708589
Existence of a bijection $f:ω_1×ω_1→ω_1$ for the first uncountable ordinal $ω_1$?
1.3k Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in SET-THEORY
- Theorems in MK would imply theorems in ZFC
- What formula proved in MK or Godel Incompleteness theorem
- Proving the schema of separation from replacement
- Understanding the Axiom of Replacement
- Ordinals and cardinals in ETCS set axiomatic
- Minimal model over forcing iteration
- How can I prove that the collection of all (class-)function from a proper class A to a class B is empty?
- max of limit cardinals smaller than a successor cardinal bigger than $\aleph_\omega$
- Canonical choice of many elements not contained in a set
- Non-standard axioms + ZF and rest of math
Related Questions in CARDINALS
- Ordinals and cardinals in ETCS set axiomatic
- max of limit cardinals smaller than a successor cardinal bigger than $\aleph_\omega$
- If $\kappa$ is a regular cardinal then $\kappa^{<\kappa} = \max\{\kappa, 2^{<\kappa}\}$
- Intuition regarding: $\kappa^{+}=|\{\kappa\leq\alpha\lt \kappa^{+}\}|$
- On finding enough rationals (countable) to fill the uncountable number of intervals between the irrationals.
- Is the set of cardinalities totally ordered?
- Show that $n+\aleph_0=\aleph_0$
- $COF(\lambda)$ is stationary in $k$, where $\lambda < k$ is regular.
- What is the cardinality of a set of all points on a line?
- Better way to define this bijection [0,1) to (0,1)
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?
In http://caicedoteaching.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/580-some-choiceless-results-3/ (see section 6) I show more generally that there is a canonical bijection between $\alpha$ and $\alpha\times\alpha$ for any infinite ordinal $\alpha$. This does not use choice, and does not require that $\alpha$ is a cardinal or even a limit ordinal, so in particular is more general than the argument using Goedel pairings (The ordering indicated by t.b.).
(I believe this can be found in a book by Levy, but don't know who it is due to.)
Some additional details are in the link above, but the idea is to use Cantor's normal form: Any ordinal $\alpha$ can be written in the form $\omega^{\beta_1}n_1+\dots+\omega^{\beta_k}n_k$ where the $n_i$ are positive integers and the $\beta_i$ are strictly decreasing, with $\beta_1>0$ as long as $\alpha$ is infinite.
Fixing a bijection $p:\omega\times\omega\to\omega$ with $p(0,0)=0$ (and $p$ recursive, if you want), we use the normal form to define an injection $G:ORD\times ORD\to ORD$, where $ORD$ is the class of all ordinals:
Given $\alpha,\beta$, write them as $$ \alpha=\omega^{a_1}m_1+\dots+\omega^{a_k}m_k $$ and $$ \beta=\omega^{a_1}l_1+\dots+\omega^{a_k}l_k $$ where the $a_i$ are strictly decreasing and the $m_i$ and $l_i$ are natural numbers (with 0 allowed). Then set $$G(\alpha,\beta)=\omega^{a_1}p(m_1,l_1)+\dots+\omega^{a_k}p(m_k,l_k).$$ Note that $G$ restricts to an injection of $\alpha\times\alpha$ to $\alpha$ whenever $\alpha$ is indecomposable, i.e., of the form $\omega^\gamma$ for some $\gamma$.
The Schroeder-Bernstein theorem has an explicit proof: From bijections $f:A\to B$ and $g:B\to A$ we can exhibit a bijection between $A$ and $B$. In particular, since obviously there is an injection from $\alpha$ into $\alpha\times\alpha$, we now have an explicit bijection between any indecomposable $\alpha$ and $\alpha\times\alpha$.
For an arbitrary infinite ordinal $\beta$, note that $\beta$ can be uniquely written as $\omega^\gamma\cdot n+\delta$ for some positive integer $n$ and ordinals $\delta<\omega^\gamma$.
From the above (and induction on $n$), there is an explicit bijection between $\omega^\gamma$ and $\omega^\gamma\cdot n$, and there is also an obvious bijection between $\omega^\gamma +\delta$ and $\delta+\omega^\gamma=\omega^\gamma$.
From this, we can easily get a bijection betwen $\beta$ and $\beta\times\beta$.