For any set $A$, the Hartogs number of $A$ is an initial ordinal












0












$begingroup$



The Hartogs number of $A$ is the least ordinal which is not equipotent to any subset of $A$. We denote the Hartogs number of $A$ by $h(A)$.



Theorem: For any set $A$, $h(A)$ is an initial ordinal.




Does my attempt look fine or contain logical flaws/gaps? Any suggestion is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your help!





My attempt:



Assume the contrary that $h(A)$ is not an initial ordinal. Then $|h(A)|=|alpha|$ for some ordinal $alpha<h(A)$.



Since $alpha<h(A)$, $alpha$ is equipotent to some subset of $A$. Thus $h(A)$ is equipotent to some subset of $A$. This contradicts the definition of $h(A)$.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If you cannot verify a proof like this, you need to reexamine your mathematical confidence.
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Dec 2 '18 at 16:40






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Hmm, isn't a good way to gain mathematical confidence, and stock up on that celebrated staple mathematical maturity, posting questions like this?
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Weiss
    Dec 2 '18 at 17:55






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Michael I don't think so.
    $endgroup$
    – Andrés E. Caicedo
    Dec 2 '18 at 17:58






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Hey you guys, be nice and back off. He did give a well writen proof, a proof better than than a lot of stuff that's presented.
    $endgroup$
    – William Elliot
    Dec 3 '18 at 0:11










  • $begingroup$
    Okay, let's ask this in a different way. Where do you think that your proof might be wrong?
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Dec 3 '18 at 8:44
















0












$begingroup$



The Hartogs number of $A$ is the least ordinal which is not equipotent to any subset of $A$. We denote the Hartogs number of $A$ by $h(A)$.



Theorem: For any set $A$, $h(A)$ is an initial ordinal.




Does my attempt look fine or contain logical flaws/gaps? Any suggestion is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your help!





My attempt:



Assume the contrary that $h(A)$ is not an initial ordinal. Then $|h(A)|=|alpha|$ for some ordinal $alpha<h(A)$.



Since $alpha<h(A)$, $alpha$ is equipotent to some subset of $A$. Thus $h(A)$ is equipotent to some subset of $A$. This contradicts the definition of $h(A)$.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If you cannot verify a proof like this, you need to reexamine your mathematical confidence.
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Dec 2 '18 at 16:40






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Hmm, isn't a good way to gain mathematical confidence, and stock up on that celebrated staple mathematical maturity, posting questions like this?
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Weiss
    Dec 2 '18 at 17:55






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Michael I don't think so.
    $endgroup$
    – Andrés E. Caicedo
    Dec 2 '18 at 17:58






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Hey you guys, be nice and back off. He did give a well writen proof, a proof better than than a lot of stuff that's presented.
    $endgroup$
    – William Elliot
    Dec 3 '18 at 0:11










  • $begingroup$
    Okay, let's ask this in a different way. Where do you think that your proof might be wrong?
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Dec 3 '18 at 8:44














0












0








0





$begingroup$



The Hartogs number of $A$ is the least ordinal which is not equipotent to any subset of $A$. We denote the Hartogs number of $A$ by $h(A)$.



Theorem: For any set $A$, $h(A)$ is an initial ordinal.




Does my attempt look fine or contain logical flaws/gaps? Any suggestion is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your help!





My attempt:



Assume the contrary that $h(A)$ is not an initial ordinal. Then $|h(A)|=|alpha|$ for some ordinal $alpha<h(A)$.



Since $alpha<h(A)$, $alpha$ is equipotent to some subset of $A$. Thus $h(A)$ is equipotent to some subset of $A$. This contradicts the definition of $h(A)$.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$





The Hartogs number of $A$ is the least ordinal which is not equipotent to any subset of $A$. We denote the Hartogs number of $A$ by $h(A)$.



Theorem: For any set $A$, $h(A)$ is an initial ordinal.




Does my attempt look fine or contain logical flaws/gaps? Any suggestion is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your help!





My attempt:



Assume the contrary that $h(A)$ is not an initial ordinal. Then $|h(A)|=|alpha|$ for some ordinal $alpha<h(A)$.



Since $alpha<h(A)$, $alpha$ is equipotent to some subset of $A$. Thus $h(A)$ is equipotent to some subset of $A$. This contradicts the definition of $h(A)$.







proof-verification elementary-set-theory ordinals






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 2 '18 at 16:36







Le Anh Dung

















asked Dec 2 '18 at 15:50









Le Anh DungLe Anh Dung

1,0871521




1,0871521








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If you cannot verify a proof like this, you need to reexamine your mathematical confidence.
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Dec 2 '18 at 16:40






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Hmm, isn't a good way to gain mathematical confidence, and stock up on that celebrated staple mathematical maturity, posting questions like this?
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Weiss
    Dec 2 '18 at 17:55






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Michael I don't think so.
    $endgroup$
    – Andrés E. Caicedo
    Dec 2 '18 at 17:58






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Hey you guys, be nice and back off. He did give a well writen proof, a proof better than than a lot of stuff that's presented.
    $endgroup$
    – William Elliot
    Dec 3 '18 at 0:11










  • $begingroup$
    Okay, let's ask this in a different way. Where do you think that your proof might be wrong?
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Dec 3 '18 at 8:44














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If you cannot verify a proof like this, you need to reexamine your mathematical confidence.
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Dec 2 '18 at 16:40






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Hmm, isn't a good way to gain mathematical confidence, and stock up on that celebrated staple mathematical maturity, posting questions like this?
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Weiss
    Dec 2 '18 at 17:55






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Michael I don't think so.
    $endgroup$
    – Andrés E. Caicedo
    Dec 2 '18 at 17:58






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Hey you guys, be nice and back off. He did give a well writen proof, a proof better than than a lot of stuff that's presented.
    $endgroup$
    – William Elliot
    Dec 3 '18 at 0:11










  • $begingroup$
    Okay, let's ask this in a different way. Where do you think that your proof might be wrong?
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Dec 3 '18 at 8:44








1




1




$begingroup$
If you cannot verify a proof like this, you need to reexamine your mathematical confidence.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila
Dec 2 '18 at 16:40




$begingroup$
If you cannot verify a proof like this, you need to reexamine your mathematical confidence.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila
Dec 2 '18 at 16:40




1




1




$begingroup$
Hmm, isn't a good way to gain mathematical confidence, and stock up on that celebrated staple mathematical maturity, posting questions like this?
$endgroup$
– Michael Weiss
Dec 2 '18 at 17:55




$begingroup$
Hmm, isn't a good way to gain mathematical confidence, and stock up on that celebrated staple mathematical maturity, posting questions like this?
$endgroup$
– Michael Weiss
Dec 2 '18 at 17:55




1




1




$begingroup$
@Michael I don't think so.
$endgroup$
– Andrés E. Caicedo
Dec 2 '18 at 17:58




$begingroup$
@Michael I don't think so.
$endgroup$
– Andrés E. Caicedo
Dec 2 '18 at 17:58




1




1




$begingroup$
Hey you guys, be nice and back off. He did give a well writen proof, a proof better than than a lot of stuff that's presented.
$endgroup$
– William Elliot
Dec 3 '18 at 0:11




$begingroup$
Hey you guys, be nice and back off. He did give a well writen proof, a proof better than than a lot of stuff that's presented.
$endgroup$
– William Elliot
Dec 3 '18 at 0:11












$begingroup$
Okay, let's ask this in a different way. Where do you think that your proof might be wrong?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila
Dec 3 '18 at 8:44




$begingroup$
Okay, let's ask this in a different way. Where do you think that your proof might be wrong?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila
Dec 3 '18 at 8:44










0






active

oldest

votes











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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3022789%2ffor-any-set-a-the-hartogs-number-of-a-is-an-initial-ordinal%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























0






active

oldest

votes








0






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes
















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3022789%2ffor-any-set-a-the-hartogs-number-of-a-is-an-initial-ordinal%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

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







Popular posts from this blog

Ellipse (mathématiques)

Quarter-circle Tiles

Mont Emei