Well-Ordering Principle implies Zorn's Lemma
$begingroup$
Well-Ordering Principle implies Zorn's Lemma
Does my attempt look fine or contain logical flaws/gaps? Any suggestion is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your help!
My attempt:
Let $(A,preccurlyeq)$ be a partially ordered set in which every chain has an upper bound.
By Well-Ordering Principle, there is a well-ordering $preccurlyeq'$ on $A$. Let $V$ be the class of all sets and $rm Ord$ be the class of all ordinals. First, we define function $f:mathcal{P}(A)setminus{emptyset} to A$ by $f(X)=min X$ (with regard to $preccurlyeq'$).
Next, we define function $G:V to V$ by $G(x)=f({ain A mid forall tin {rm ran}(x):t prec a})$ if $x$ is a function and ${ain A mid forall tin {rm ran}(x):t prec a} neq emptyset$, and $G(x)=A$ otherwise. By Transfinite Recursion Theorem, there is a function $F: {rm Ord} to V$ such that $F(alpha)=G(F restriction alpha)$ for all $alpha in {rm Ord}$.
It is not hard to verify (by Hartogs number) that $F(alpha)= A$ for some ordinal $alpha$. Let $lambda=min{alpha in {rm Ord} mid F(alpha)= A}$. Then ${rm ran}(Frestriction lambda)$ is clearly a chain in $(A,preccurlyeq)$ and has an upper bound $u in A$. If $u prec bar a$ for some $bar ain A$, we have $bar ain{ain A mid forall tin {rm ran}(Frestriction lambda):t prec a} neq emptyset$ and thus $F(lambda) in A$. This contradicts the fact that $F(lambda)=A$. So $u$ is the maximal element of $A$.
proof-verification elementary-set-theory ordinals
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Well-Ordering Principle implies Zorn's Lemma
Does my attempt look fine or contain logical flaws/gaps? Any suggestion is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your help!
My attempt:
Let $(A,preccurlyeq)$ be a partially ordered set in which every chain has an upper bound.
By Well-Ordering Principle, there is a well-ordering $preccurlyeq'$ on $A$. Let $V$ be the class of all sets and $rm Ord$ be the class of all ordinals. First, we define function $f:mathcal{P}(A)setminus{emptyset} to A$ by $f(X)=min X$ (with regard to $preccurlyeq'$).
Next, we define function $G:V to V$ by $G(x)=f({ain A mid forall tin {rm ran}(x):t prec a})$ if $x$ is a function and ${ain A mid forall tin {rm ran}(x):t prec a} neq emptyset$, and $G(x)=A$ otherwise. By Transfinite Recursion Theorem, there is a function $F: {rm Ord} to V$ such that $F(alpha)=G(F restriction alpha)$ for all $alpha in {rm Ord}$.
It is not hard to verify (by Hartogs number) that $F(alpha)= A$ for some ordinal $alpha$. Let $lambda=min{alpha in {rm Ord} mid F(alpha)= A}$. Then ${rm ran}(Frestriction lambda)$ is clearly a chain in $(A,preccurlyeq)$ and has an upper bound $u in A$. If $u prec bar a$ for some $bar ain A$, we have $bar ain{ain A mid forall tin {rm ran}(Frestriction lambda):t prec a} neq emptyset$ and thus $F(lambda) in A$. This contradicts the fact that $F(lambda)=A$. So $u$ is the maximal element of $A$.
proof-verification elementary-set-theory ordinals
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
A different approach: Let $<_W$ be well-order of $A$. For $xin Ord,$ if $f''x={f(y):yin x}$ is a $leq$-chain in $A,$ let $f(x)$ be the $<_W$-least of the $leq$-upper bounds for $f''x$. Let $x_0$ be the least $xin Ord$ such that $exists zin Ord,(xin zland f(x)=f(z)).$ Show by Transfinite Induction that $f''x$ is a $leq$-chain for every $xin Ord.$ Show that $x_0$ is a $leq$-maximal member of $A.$..... (BTW we will have $f(z)=f(x_0)$ for every ordinal $z$ greater than $x_0.$)..... Some texts use $On$ for the class of ordinals.
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Dec 22 '18 at 2:43
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Well-Ordering Principle implies Zorn's Lemma
Does my attempt look fine or contain logical flaws/gaps? Any suggestion is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your help!
My attempt:
Let $(A,preccurlyeq)$ be a partially ordered set in which every chain has an upper bound.
By Well-Ordering Principle, there is a well-ordering $preccurlyeq'$ on $A$. Let $V$ be the class of all sets and $rm Ord$ be the class of all ordinals. First, we define function $f:mathcal{P}(A)setminus{emptyset} to A$ by $f(X)=min X$ (with regard to $preccurlyeq'$).
Next, we define function $G:V to V$ by $G(x)=f({ain A mid forall tin {rm ran}(x):t prec a})$ if $x$ is a function and ${ain A mid forall tin {rm ran}(x):t prec a} neq emptyset$, and $G(x)=A$ otherwise. By Transfinite Recursion Theorem, there is a function $F: {rm Ord} to V$ such that $F(alpha)=G(F restriction alpha)$ for all $alpha in {rm Ord}$.
It is not hard to verify (by Hartogs number) that $F(alpha)= A$ for some ordinal $alpha$. Let $lambda=min{alpha in {rm Ord} mid F(alpha)= A}$. Then ${rm ran}(Frestriction lambda)$ is clearly a chain in $(A,preccurlyeq)$ and has an upper bound $u in A$. If $u prec bar a$ for some $bar ain A$, we have $bar ain{ain A mid forall tin {rm ran}(Frestriction lambda):t prec a} neq emptyset$ and thus $F(lambda) in A$. This contradicts the fact that $F(lambda)=A$. So $u$ is the maximal element of $A$.
proof-verification elementary-set-theory ordinals
$endgroup$
Well-Ordering Principle implies Zorn's Lemma
Does my attempt look fine or contain logical flaws/gaps? Any suggestion is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your help!
My attempt:
Let $(A,preccurlyeq)$ be a partially ordered set in which every chain has an upper bound.
By Well-Ordering Principle, there is a well-ordering $preccurlyeq'$ on $A$. Let $V$ be the class of all sets and $rm Ord$ be the class of all ordinals. First, we define function $f:mathcal{P}(A)setminus{emptyset} to A$ by $f(X)=min X$ (with regard to $preccurlyeq'$).
Next, we define function $G:V to V$ by $G(x)=f({ain A mid forall tin {rm ran}(x):t prec a})$ if $x$ is a function and ${ain A mid forall tin {rm ran}(x):t prec a} neq emptyset$, and $G(x)=A$ otherwise. By Transfinite Recursion Theorem, there is a function $F: {rm Ord} to V$ such that $F(alpha)=G(F restriction alpha)$ for all $alpha in {rm Ord}$.
It is not hard to verify (by Hartogs number) that $F(alpha)= A$ for some ordinal $alpha$. Let $lambda=min{alpha in {rm Ord} mid F(alpha)= A}$. Then ${rm ran}(Frestriction lambda)$ is clearly a chain in $(A,preccurlyeq)$ and has an upper bound $u in A$. If $u prec bar a$ for some $bar ain A$, we have $bar ain{ain A mid forall tin {rm ran}(Frestriction lambda):t prec a} neq emptyset$ and thus $F(lambda) in A$. This contradicts the fact that $F(lambda)=A$. So $u$ is the maximal element of $A$.
proof-verification elementary-set-theory ordinals
proof-verification elementary-set-theory ordinals
edited Dec 7 '18 at 6:43
Le Anh Dung
asked Dec 7 '18 at 6:01
Le Anh DungLe Anh Dung
1,0391521
1,0391521
$begingroup$
A different approach: Let $<_W$ be well-order of $A$. For $xin Ord,$ if $f''x={f(y):yin x}$ is a $leq$-chain in $A,$ let $f(x)$ be the $<_W$-least of the $leq$-upper bounds for $f''x$. Let $x_0$ be the least $xin Ord$ such that $exists zin Ord,(xin zland f(x)=f(z)).$ Show by Transfinite Induction that $f''x$ is a $leq$-chain for every $xin Ord.$ Show that $x_0$ is a $leq$-maximal member of $A.$..... (BTW we will have $f(z)=f(x_0)$ for every ordinal $z$ greater than $x_0.$)..... Some texts use $On$ for the class of ordinals.
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Dec 22 '18 at 2:43
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A different approach: Let $<_W$ be well-order of $A$. For $xin Ord,$ if $f''x={f(y):yin x}$ is a $leq$-chain in $A,$ let $f(x)$ be the $<_W$-least of the $leq$-upper bounds for $f''x$. Let $x_0$ be the least $xin Ord$ such that $exists zin Ord,(xin zland f(x)=f(z)).$ Show by Transfinite Induction that $f''x$ is a $leq$-chain for every $xin Ord.$ Show that $x_0$ is a $leq$-maximal member of $A.$..... (BTW we will have $f(z)=f(x_0)$ for every ordinal $z$ greater than $x_0.$)..... Some texts use $On$ for the class of ordinals.
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Dec 22 '18 at 2:43
$begingroup$
A different approach: Let $<_W$ be well-order of $A$. For $xin Ord,$ if $f''x={f(y):yin x}$ is a $leq$-chain in $A,$ let $f(x)$ be the $<_W$-least of the $leq$-upper bounds for $f''x$. Let $x_0$ be the least $xin Ord$ such that $exists zin Ord,(xin zland f(x)=f(z)).$ Show by Transfinite Induction that $f''x$ is a $leq$-chain for every $xin Ord.$ Show that $x_0$ is a $leq$-maximal member of $A.$..... (BTW we will have $f(z)=f(x_0)$ for every ordinal $z$ greater than $x_0.$)..... Some texts use $On$ for the class of ordinals.
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Dec 22 '18 at 2:43
$begingroup$
A different approach: Let $<_W$ be well-order of $A$. For $xin Ord,$ if $f''x={f(y):yin x}$ is a $leq$-chain in $A,$ let $f(x)$ be the $<_W$-least of the $leq$-upper bounds for $f''x$. Let $x_0$ be the least $xin Ord$ such that $exists zin Ord,(xin zland f(x)=f(z)).$ Show by Transfinite Induction that $f''x$ is a $leq$-chain for every $xin Ord.$ Show that $x_0$ is a $leq$-maximal member of $A.$..... (BTW we will have $f(z)=f(x_0)$ for every ordinal $z$ greater than $x_0.$)..... Some texts use $On$ for the class of ordinals.
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Dec 22 '18 at 2:43
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The proof itself is correct (oops), but saying "clearly a chain" is not a good thing to do, at least state what you are using here like you did with Hartogs number.
Let me suggest a more intuitive proof:
First, the intuition: assuming that Zorn's lemma is false, every chain is bounded but there is no maximal element. Now we create a sequence $x_beta$ to be strictly increasing sequence. Now if we build the sequence $langle x_betamid beta<alpharangle$ the set ${x_betamid beta<alpha}$ is a chain, so it has an upper bound, $y$, and because $y$ is not maximal element there is $x_alpha$ such that $yprec x_alpha$, so add $xalpha$ to the sequence, you can keep going and exhaust the ordinal like that, which is impossible.
Now, formal proof for the above:
Let $V,(A,preccurlyeq),f$ be defined as yours, assume that $A$ doesn't have maximal element, let $x_0in A$, and $H:Vto V$ defined as followed:
If $g$ is not order preserving function from some ordinal to $A$ then $H(g)=x_0$(the Do not care case).
If $g$ is a function from $betain Ord$ to $A$ and order preserving, then $g[beta]$ is a chain, let $U$ be the set of upper bounds of $g[beta]$, then take $f(U)$, now let $U'$ be the set of elements in $A$ that are greater than $f(U)$(with respect to $prec$), by assumption $U'ne emptyset$, so $H(g)=f(U')$.
Now, by the theorem there exists unique $F:Ordto A$ such that $F(beta)=H(Frestrictionbeta)$.
Use induction to prove that $Frestriction gamma:gammato A$ is order preserving for all $gamma$, so $Frestriction gamma:gammato A$ is injective, set $gamma=mbox{Hartogs’ number}$ and you got a contradiction.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Hi @Holo, we have $F(emptyset)=G(F restriction emptyset)=G(emptyset)=f({ain A mid forall tin {rm ran}(emptyset):t prec a})=f({ain A mid forall tin emptyset:t prec a})=f(A)in A.$ Could you please have a closer check?
$endgroup$
– Le Anh Dung
Dec 22 '18 at 1:52
$begingroup$
@LeAnhDung sorry, you are correct ( I need to stop answering questions at 3 am). So yes, you are correct
$endgroup$
– Holo
Dec 22 '18 at 12:22
$begingroup$
You are very welcome :)
$endgroup$
– Le Anh Dung
Dec 22 '18 at 12:25
$begingroup$
@LeAnhDung I edit the answer (sorry it took me some time) and added my reasoning for why my method is more intuitive
$endgroup$
– Holo
Dec 27 '18 at 13:41
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3029535%2fwell-ordering-principle-implies-zorns-lemma%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The proof itself is correct (oops), but saying "clearly a chain" is not a good thing to do, at least state what you are using here like you did with Hartogs number.
Let me suggest a more intuitive proof:
First, the intuition: assuming that Zorn's lemma is false, every chain is bounded but there is no maximal element. Now we create a sequence $x_beta$ to be strictly increasing sequence. Now if we build the sequence $langle x_betamid beta<alpharangle$ the set ${x_betamid beta<alpha}$ is a chain, so it has an upper bound, $y$, and because $y$ is not maximal element there is $x_alpha$ such that $yprec x_alpha$, so add $xalpha$ to the sequence, you can keep going and exhaust the ordinal like that, which is impossible.
Now, formal proof for the above:
Let $V,(A,preccurlyeq),f$ be defined as yours, assume that $A$ doesn't have maximal element, let $x_0in A$, and $H:Vto V$ defined as followed:
If $g$ is not order preserving function from some ordinal to $A$ then $H(g)=x_0$(the Do not care case).
If $g$ is a function from $betain Ord$ to $A$ and order preserving, then $g[beta]$ is a chain, let $U$ be the set of upper bounds of $g[beta]$, then take $f(U)$, now let $U'$ be the set of elements in $A$ that are greater than $f(U)$(with respect to $prec$), by assumption $U'ne emptyset$, so $H(g)=f(U')$.
Now, by the theorem there exists unique $F:Ordto A$ such that $F(beta)=H(Frestrictionbeta)$.
Use induction to prove that $Frestriction gamma:gammato A$ is order preserving for all $gamma$, so $Frestriction gamma:gammato A$ is injective, set $gamma=mbox{Hartogs’ number}$ and you got a contradiction.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Hi @Holo, we have $F(emptyset)=G(F restriction emptyset)=G(emptyset)=f({ain A mid forall tin {rm ran}(emptyset):t prec a})=f({ain A mid forall tin emptyset:t prec a})=f(A)in A.$ Could you please have a closer check?
$endgroup$
– Le Anh Dung
Dec 22 '18 at 1:52
$begingroup$
@LeAnhDung sorry, you are correct ( I need to stop answering questions at 3 am). So yes, you are correct
$endgroup$
– Holo
Dec 22 '18 at 12:22
$begingroup$
You are very welcome :)
$endgroup$
– Le Anh Dung
Dec 22 '18 at 12:25
$begingroup$
@LeAnhDung I edit the answer (sorry it took me some time) and added my reasoning for why my method is more intuitive
$endgroup$
– Holo
Dec 27 '18 at 13:41
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The proof itself is correct (oops), but saying "clearly a chain" is not a good thing to do, at least state what you are using here like you did with Hartogs number.
Let me suggest a more intuitive proof:
First, the intuition: assuming that Zorn's lemma is false, every chain is bounded but there is no maximal element. Now we create a sequence $x_beta$ to be strictly increasing sequence. Now if we build the sequence $langle x_betamid beta<alpharangle$ the set ${x_betamid beta<alpha}$ is a chain, so it has an upper bound, $y$, and because $y$ is not maximal element there is $x_alpha$ such that $yprec x_alpha$, so add $xalpha$ to the sequence, you can keep going and exhaust the ordinal like that, which is impossible.
Now, formal proof for the above:
Let $V,(A,preccurlyeq),f$ be defined as yours, assume that $A$ doesn't have maximal element, let $x_0in A$, and $H:Vto V$ defined as followed:
If $g$ is not order preserving function from some ordinal to $A$ then $H(g)=x_0$(the Do not care case).
If $g$ is a function from $betain Ord$ to $A$ and order preserving, then $g[beta]$ is a chain, let $U$ be the set of upper bounds of $g[beta]$, then take $f(U)$, now let $U'$ be the set of elements in $A$ that are greater than $f(U)$(with respect to $prec$), by assumption $U'ne emptyset$, so $H(g)=f(U')$.
Now, by the theorem there exists unique $F:Ordto A$ such that $F(beta)=H(Frestrictionbeta)$.
Use induction to prove that $Frestriction gamma:gammato A$ is order preserving for all $gamma$, so $Frestriction gamma:gammato A$ is injective, set $gamma=mbox{Hartogs’ number}$ and you got a contradiction.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Hi @Holo, we have $F(emptyset)=G(F restriction emptyset)=G(emptyset)=f({ain A mid forall tin {rm ran}(emptyset):t prec a})=f({ain A mid forall tin emptyset:t prec a})=f(A)in A.$ Could you please have a closer check?
$endgroup$
– Le Anh Dung
Dec 22 '18 at 1:52
$begingroup$
@LeAnhDung sorry, you are correct ( I need to stop answering questions at 3 am). So yes, you are correct
$endgroup$
– Holo
Dec 22 '18 at 12:22
$begingroup$
You are very welcome :)
$endgroup$
– Le Anh Dung
Dec 22 '18 at 12:25
$begingroup$
@LeAnhDung I edit the answer (sorry it took me some time) and added my reasoning for why my method is more intuitive
$endgroup$
– Holo
Dec 27 '18 at 13:41
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The proof itself is correct (oops), but saying "clearly a chain" is not a good thing to do, at least state what you are using here like you did with Hartogs number.
Let me suggest a more intuitive proof:
First, the intuition: assuming that Zorn's lemma is false, every chain is bounded but there is no maximal element. Now we create a sequence $x_beta$ to be strictly increasing sequence. Now if we build the sequence $langle x_betamid beta<alpharangle$ the set ${x_betamid beta<alpha}$ is a chain, so it has an upper bound, $y$, and because $y$ is not maximal element there is $x_alpha$ such that $yprec x_alpha$, so add $xalpha$ to the sequence, you can keep going and exhaust the ordinal like that, which is impossible.
Now, formal proof for the above:
Let $V,(A,preccurlyeq),f$ be defined as yours, assume that $A$ doesn't have maximal element, let $x_0in A$, and $H:Vto V$ defined as followed:
If $g$ is not order preserving function from some ordinal to $A$ then $H(g)=x_0$(the Do not care case).
If $g$ is a function from $betain Ord$ to $A$ and order preserving, then $g[beta]$ is a chain, let $U$ be the set of upper bounds of $g[beta]$, then take $f(U)$, now let $U'$ be the set of elements in $A$ that are greater than $f(U)$(with respect to $prec$), by assumption $U'ne emptyset$, so $H(g)=f(U')$.
Now, by the theorem there exists unique $F:Ordto A$ such that $F(beta)=H(Frestrictionbeta)$.
Use induction to prove that $Frestriction gamma:gammato A$ is order preserving for all $gamma$, so $Frestriction gamma:gammato A$ is injective, set $gamma=mbox{Hartogs’ number}$ and you got a contradiction.
$endgroup$
The proof itself is correct (oops), but saying "clearly a chain" is not a good thing to do, at least state what you are using here like you did with Hartogs number.
Let me suggest a more intuitive proof:
First, the intuition: assuming that Zorn's lemma is false, every chain is bounded but there is no maximal element. Now we create a sequence $x_beta$ to be strictly increasing sequence. Now if we build the sequence $langle x_betamid beta<alpharangle$ the set ${x_betamid beta<alpha}$ is a chain, so it has an upper bound, $y$, and because $y$ is not maximal element there is $x_alpha$ such that $yprec x_alpha$, so add $xalpha$ to the sequence, you can keep going and exhaust the ordinal like that, which is impossible.
Now, formal proof for the above:
Let $V,(A,preccurlyeq),f$ be defined as yours, assume that $A$ doesn't have maximal element, let $x_0in A$, and $H:Vto V$ defined as followed:
If $g$ is not order preserving function from some ordinal to $A$ then $H(g)=x_0$(the Do not care case).
If $g$ is a function from $betain Ord$ to $A$ and order preserving, then $g[beta]$ is a chain, let $U$ be the set of upper bounds of $g[beta]$, then take $f(U)$, now let $U'$ be the set of elements in $A$ that are greater than $f(U)$(with respect to $prec$), by assumption $U'ne emptyset$, so $H(g)=f(U')$.
Now, by the theorem there exists unique $F:Ordto A$ such that $F(beta)=H(Frestrictionbeta)$.
Use induction to prove that $Frestriction gamma:gammato A$ is order preserving for all $gamma$, so $Frestriction gamma:gammato A$ is injective, set $gamma=mbox{Hartogs’ number}$ and you got a contradiction.
edited Dec 27 '18 at 13:40
answered Dec 22 '18 at 1:33
HoloHolo
5,65721031
5,65721031
$begingroup$
Hi @Holo, we have $F(emptyset)=G(F restriction emptyset)=G(emptyset)=f({ain A mid forall tin {rm ran}(emptyset):t prec a})=f({ain A mid forall tin emptyset:t prec a})=f(A)in A.$ Could you please have a closer check?
$endgroup$
– Le Anh Dung
Dec 22 '18 at 1:52
$begingroup$
@LeAnhDung sorry, you are correct ( I need to stop answering questions at 3 am). So yes, you are correct
$endgroup$
– Holo
Dec 22 '18 at 12:22
$begingroup$
You are very welcome :)
$endgroup$
– Le Anh Dung
Dec 22 '18 at 12:25
$begingroup$
@LeAnhDung I edit the answer (sorry it took me some time) and added my reasoning for why my method is more intuitive
$endgroup$
– Holo
Dec 27 '18 at 13:41
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Hi @Holo, we have $F(emptyset)=G(F restriction emptyset)=G(emptyset)=f({ain A mid forall tin {rm ran}(emptyset):t prec a})=f({ain A mid forall tin emptyset:t prec a})=f(A)in A.$ Could you please have a closer check?
$endgroup$
– Le Anh Dung
Dec 22 '18 at 1:52
$begingroup$
@LeAnhDung sorry, you are correct ( I need to stop answering questions at 3 am). So yes, you are correct
$endgroup$
– Holo
Dec 22 '18 at 12:22
$begingroup$
You are very welcome :)
$endgroup$
– Le Anh Dung
Dec 22 '18 at 12:25
$begingroup$
@LeAnhDung I edit the answer (sorry it took me some time) and added my reasoning for why my method is more intuitive
$endgroup$
– Holo
Dec 27 '18 at 13:41
$begingroup$
Hi @Holo, we have $F(emptyset)=G(F restriction emptyset)=G(emptyset)=f({ain A mid forall tin {rm ran}(emptyset):t prec a})=f({ain A mid forall tin emptyset:t prec a})=f(A)in A.$ Could you please have a closer check?
$endgroup$
– Le Anh Dung
Dec 22 '18 at 1:52
$begingroup$
Hi @Holo, we have $F(emptyset)=G(F restriction emptyset)=G(emptyset)=f({ain A mid forall tin {rm ran}(emptyset):t prec a})=f({ain A mid forall tin emptyset:t prec a})=f(A)in A.$ Could you please have a closer check?
$endgroup$
– Le Anh Dung
Dec 22 '18 at 1:52
$begingroup$
@LeAnhDung sorry, you are correct ( I need to stop answering questions at 3 am). So yes, you are correct
$endgroup$
– Holo
Dec 22 '18 at 12:22
$begingroup$
@LeAnhDung sorry, you are correct ( I need to stop answering questions at 3 am). So yes, you are correct
$endgroup$
– Holo
Dec 22 '18 at 12:22
$begingroup$
You are very welcome :)
$endgroup$
– Le Anh Dung
Dec 22 '18 at 12:25
$begingroup$
You are very welcome :)
$endgroup$
– Le Anh Dung
Dec 22 '18 at 12:25
$begingroup$
@LeAnhDung I edit the answer (sorry it took me some time) and added my reasoning for why my method is more intuitive
$endgroup$
– Holo
Dec 27 '18 at 13:41
$begingroup$
@LeAnhDung I edit the answer (sorry it took me some time) and added my reasoning for why my method is more intuitive
$endgroup$
– Holo
Dec 27 '18 at 13:41
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3029535%2fwell-ordering-principle-implies-zorns-lemma%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
$begingroup$
A different approach: Let $<_W$ be well-order of $A$. For $xin Ord,$ if $f''x={f(y):yin x}$ is a $leq$-chain in $A,$ let $f(x)$ be the $<_W$-least of the $leq$-upper bounds for $f''x$. Let $x_0$ be the least $xin Ord$ such that $exists zin Ord,(xin zland f(x)=f(z)).$ Show by Transfinite Induction that $f''x$ is a $leq$-chain for every $xin Ord.$ Show that $x_0$ is a $leq$-maximal member of $A.$..... (BTW we will have $f(z)=f(x_0)$ for every ordinal $z$ greater than $x_0.$)..... Some texts use $On$ for the class of ordinals.
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Dec 22 '18 at 2:43