Exercise 6.1.8

The sets W = 𝑵 × { 0 , 1 } and W = { 0 , 1 } × 𝑵 , ordered lexicographically, are nonisomorphic well-ordered sets. (See the remark following Theorem 4.7 in Chapter 4.)

Answers

Proof. Let be the lexicographic ordering of W = 𝑵 × { 0 , 1 } and be the lexicographic ordering of W = { 0 , 1 } × 𝑵 .

First we define f : W ω by

f ( n , m ) = 2 n + m

for ( n , m ) W . Clearly each f ( n , m ) 𝑵 = ω .

Now consider any k ω = 𝑵 . If k is even then k = 2 n for some n 𝑵 so set w = ( n , 0 ) W . Then clearly f ( w ) = f ( n , 0 ) = 2 n = k . On the other hand if k is even then k = 2 n + 1 for some n 𝑵 so set w = ( n , 1 ) W . Then clearly f ( w ) = f ( n , 1 ) = 2 n + 1 = k . This shows that f is surjective.

Now consider any w 1 = ( n 1 , m 1 ) and w 2 = ( n 2 , m 2 ) in W where w 1 w 2 .

Case: n 1 = n 2 . Then since w 1 w 2 it has to be that m 1 < m 2 , and since m 1 , m 2 { 0 , 1 } it has to be that m 1 = 0 and m 2 = 1 . From this it follows that

f ( w 1 ) = f ( n 1 , m 1 ) = f ( n 1 , 0 ) = 2 n 1 < 2 n 1 + 1 = 2 n 2 + 1 = f ( n 2 , 1 ) = f ( n 2 , m 2 ) = f ( w 2 ) .

Case: n 1 n 2 . Then since w 1 w 2 it has to be that n 1 < n 2 . Then n 1 + 1 n 2 and since also m 1 < 2 we have

f ( w 1 ) = f ( n 1 , m 1 ) = 2 n 1 + m 1 < 2 n 1 + 2 = 2 ( n 1 + 1 ) 2 n 2 2 n 2 + m 2 = f ( n 1 , m 2 ) = f ( w 2 ) .

Hence in all cases f ( w 1 ) < f ( w 2 ) so that f is increasing and therefore injective and isomorphic. Therefore W is isomorphic to ω .

Now we define g : W ω + ω by

g ( n , m ) = { m n = 0 ω + m n = 1

for ( n , m ) W . Clearly since m 𝑵 we have that g ( n , m ) ω + ω for all ( n , m ) W .

Now consider any α ω + ω . If α ω = 𝑵 then ( 0 , α ) W and g ( 0 , α ) = α . On the other hand if α = ω + m for some m 𝑵 then ( 1 , m ) W and g ( 1 , m ) = ω + m = α . Therefore g is surjective.

Now consider any w 1 = ( n 1 , m 1 ) and w 2 = ( n 2 , m 2 ) in W where w 1 w 2 .

Case: n 1 = n 2 . Then since w 1 w 2 it has to be that m 1 < m 2 . If n 1 = n 2 = 0 then

g ( w 1 ) = g ( n 1 , m 1 ) = g ( 0 , m 1 ) = m 1 < m 2 = g ( 0 , m 2 ) = g ( n 2 , m 2 ) = g ( w 2 ) .

On the other hand if n 1 = n 2 = 1 then

g ( w 1 ) = g ( n 1 , m 1 ) = g ( 1 , m 1 ) = ω + m 1 < ω + m 2 = g ( 1 , m 2 ) = g ( n 2 , m 2 ) = g ( w 2 ) .

Case: n 1 n 2 . Then since w 1 w 2 it has to be that n 1 < n 2 . Moreover since n 1 , n 2 { 0 , 1 } it has to be that n 1 = 0 and n 2 = 1 so that

g ( w 1 ) = g ( n 1 , m 1 ) = g ( 0 , m 1 ) = m 1 < ω + m 2 = g ( 1 , m 2 ) = g ( n 2 , m 2 ) = g ( w 2 ) .

Hence in all cases g ( w 1 ) < g ( w 2 ) so that g is increasing and therefore injective and an isomorphism. Therefore W is isomorphic to ω + ω .

Now, since w ω + ω we have that ω < ω + ω and so are distinct ordinals. Therefore by the remarks following Theorem 6.2.10 ω and ω + ω are not isomorphic. If W and W were isomorphic with h as the isomorphism then g h f 1 would be an isomorphism from ω to ω + ω , which is impossible. So it must be that W and W are not isomorphic. □

User profile picture
2024-07-15 11:42
Comments