Exercise 10.3

Both {1,2} × + and + × {1,2} are well-ordered in the dictionary order. Do they have the same order type?

Answers

We claim that they do not have the same order type, which we show presently.

Proof. First, clearly (1,1) is the smallest element of both ordered sets. For brevity let A = ×+, B = +×, and < A and < B be the corresponding dictionary orderings, with < being the normal ordering of +.

So assume that they do have the same order type so that there is an order-preserving bijection f : A B. Consider (2,1) A, which is clearly not the smallest element since (2,1)(1,1). Let (n,b) = f(2,1) B, which cannot be the smallest element of B since f preserves order, so that (n,b)(1,1). Clearly b so that b = 1 or b = 2. In the former cases we must have that n > 1 so that n 1 +. So set y = (n 1,2). In the latter case set y = (n,1). It is easy to see, and trivial to formally show, that y is the immediate predecessor of (n,b) in either case.

Now let x = f1(y), noting that f1 is an order-preserving bijection from B to A since f is an order-preserving bijection. It then follows that x < A(2,1) since f(x) = y < B(n,b) = f(2,1). If x = (m,a) then it has to be that m < 2 so that m = 1 (because m ) since there is no a + where a < 1. Thus x = (1,a) for some a +. We then have that a + 1 + so that clearly x = (1,a) < A(1,a + 1) < A(2,1). From this we have, y = f(1,a) < Bf(1,a + 1) < Bf(2,1) = (n,b), which contradicts the fact that y is the immediate predecessor of (n,b). So it has to be that they do not have the same order type. □

It is worth noting that, in the theory of ordinal numbers, A = ×+ has order type ω + ω = ω 2 whereas B = +× has simply order type ω. This also shows that A and B have different order types since distinct ordinal numbers always have different order types.

User profile picture
2019-12-01 00:00
Comments