Prove that there exist $2^{aleph_{0}}$ well-orderings of the set of all natural numbers.











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












From Chapter 6 Hrbacek and Jech (Ordinal Numbers) Problem 1.3. I don't understand how to begin. Below is the only solution I could find online, but even then I still don't understand how they arrived with those figures.
enter image description here










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 2




    How would a chapter and exercise number be helpful without the name of the reference?
    – spaceisdarkgreen
    Nov 19 at 5:34






  • 1




    Of course there are only $aleph_1$ distinct types of well-orderings on $mathbb{N}$.
    – Henno Brandsma
    Nov 19 at 22:18










  • Any bijection of $mathbb{N}$ can be declared an order isomorphism with another well-order (of type $omega$), e.g.
    – Henno Brandsma
    Nov 19 at 22:20















up vote
1
down vote

favorite












From Chapter 6 Hrbacek and Jech (Ordinal Numbers) Problem 1.3. I don't understand how to begin. Below is the only solution I could find online, but even then I still don't understand how they arrived with those figures.
enter image description here










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 2




    How would a chapter and exercise number be helpful without the name of the reference?
    – spaceisdarkgreen
    Nov 19 at 5:34






  • 1




    Of course there are only $aleph_1$ distinct types of well-orderings on $mathbb{N}$.
    – Henno Brandsma
    Nov 19 at 22:18










  • Any bijection of $mathbb{N}$ can be declared an order isomorphism with another well-order (of type $omega$), e.g.
    – Henno Brandsma
    Nov 19 at 22:20













up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











From Chapter 6 Hrbacek and Jech (Ordinal Numbers) Problem 1.3. I don't understand how to begin. Below is the only solution I could find online, but even then I still don't understand how they arrived with those figures.
enter image description here










share|cite|improve this question















From Chapter 6 Hrbacek and Jech (Ordinal Numbers) Problem 1.3. I don't understand how to begin. Below is the only solution I could find online, but even then I still don't understand how they arrived with those figures.
enter image description here







elementary-set-theory






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 20 at 4:22

























asked Nov 19 at 4:40









Barycentric_Bash

31528




31528








  • 2




    How would a chapter and exercise number be helpful without the name of the reference?
    – spaceisdarkgreen
    Nov 19 at 5:34






  • 1




    Of course there are only $aleph_1$ distinct types of well-orderings on $mathbb{N}$.
    – Henno Brandsma
    Nov 19 at 22:18










  • Any bijection of $mathbb{N}$ can be declared an order isomorphism with another well-order (of type $omega$), e.g.
    – Henno Brandsma
    Nov 19 at 22:20














  • 2




    How would a chapter and exercise number be helpful without the name of the reference?
    – spaceisdarkgreen
    Nov 19 at 5:34






  • 1




    Of course there are only $aleph_1$ distinct types of well-orderings on $mathbb{N}$.
    – Henno Brandsma
    Nov 19 at 22:18










  • Any bijection of $mathbb{N}$ can be declared an order isomorphism with another well-order (of type $omega$), e.g.
    – Henno Brandsma
    Nov 19 at 22:20








2




2




How would a chapter and exercise number be helpful without the name of the reference?
– spaceisdarkgreen
Nov 19 at 5:34




How would a chapter and exercise number be helpful without the name of the reference?
– spaceisdarkgreen
Nov 19 at 5:34




1




1




Of course there are only $aleph_1$ distinct types of well-orderings on $mathbb{N}$.
– Henno Brandsma
Nov 19 at 22:18




Of course there are only $aleph_1$ distinct types of well-orderings on $mathbb{N}$.
– Henno Brandsma
Nov 19 at 22:18












Any bijection of $mathbb{N}$ can be declared an order isomorphism with another well-order (of type $omega$), e.g.
– Henno Brandsma
Nov 19 at 22:20




Any bijection of $mathbb{N}$ can be declared an order isomorphism with another well-order (of type $omega$), e.g.
– Henno Brandsma
Nov 19 at 22:20










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
2
down vote



accepted










Given the usual order on $Bbb N$, you can show there are at least $2^{aleph_0}$ because you can break $Bbb N$ into $aleph_0$ pairs $(2n, 2n+1)$. You can then invert each pair or not, which is $aleph_0$ binary choices. There are at most $aleph_0^{aleph_0}$ because there are $aleph_0$ choices for the first element of the well order, and again for the next, and so on. If you know $2^{aleph_0}=aleph_0^{aleph_0}=mathfrak c$ you are done.






share|cite|improve this answer

















  • 2




    I think your upper bound argument is kind of vague (and might give the misleading impression that the order type is necessarily $omega$). A more simple way is just that the well orders are all subsets of $mathbb Ntimes mathbb N.$
    – spaceisdarkgreen
    Nov 19 at 5:46










  • @spaceisdarkgreen: good point. When I first read it I thought it claimed the well order was a set of pairs $(a,b)$ where $ain Bbb N$ and $bin Bbb N$ was the position of $a$ in the list, which again claims that the order type is $omega$, but the well order can just be all the pairs $(a,b)$ where $a$ comes before $b$.
    – Ross Millikan
    Nov 19 at 6:04











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',
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%2f3004529%2fprove-that-there-exist-2-aleph-0-well-orderings-of-the-set-of-all-natural%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








up vote
2
down vote



accepted










Given the usual order on $Bbb N$, you can show there are at least $2^{aleph_0}$ because you can break $Bbb N$ into $aleph_0$ pairs $(2n, 2n+1)$. You can then invert each pair or not, which is $aleph_0$ binary choices. There are at most $aleph_0^{aleph_0}$ because there are $aleph_0$ choices for the first element of the well order, and again for the next, and so on. If you know $2^{aleph_0}=aleph_0^{aleph_0}=mathfrak c$ you are done.






share|cite|improve this answer

















  • 2




    I think your upper bound argument is kind of vague (and might give the misleading impression that the order type is necessarily $omega$). A more simple way is just that the well orders are all subsets of $mathbb Ntimes mathbb N.$
    – spaceisdarkgreen
    Nov 19 at 5:46










  • @spaceisdarkgreen: good point. When I first read it I thought it claimed the well order was a set of pairs $(a,b)$ where $ain Bbb N$ and $bin Bbb N$ was the position of $a$ in the list, which again claims that the order type is $omega$, but the well order can just be all the pairs $(a,b)$ where $a$ comes before $b$.
    – Ross Millikan
    Nov 19 at 6:04















up vote
2
down vote



accepted










Given the usual order on $Bbb N$, you can show there are at least $2^{aleph_0}$ because you can break $Bbb N$ into $aleph_0$ pairs $(2n, 2n+1)$. You can then invert each pair or not, which is $aleph_0$ binary choices. There are at most $aleph_0^{aleph_0}$ because there are $aleph_0$ choices for the first element of the well order, and again for the next, and so on. If you know $2^{aleph_0}=aleph_0^{aleph_0}=mathfrak c$ you are done.






share|cite|improve this answer

















  • 2




    I think your upper bound argument is kind of vague (and might give the misleading impression that the order type is necessarily $omega$). A more simple way is just that the well orders are all subsets of $mathbb Ntimes mathbb N.$
    – spaceisdarkgreen
    Nov 19 at 5:46










  • @spaceisdarkgreen: good point. When I first read it I thought it claimed the well order was a set of pairs $(a,b)$ where $ain Bbb N$ and $bin Bbb N$ was the position of $a$ in the list, which again claims that the order type is $omega$, but the well order can just be all the pairs $(a,b)$ where $a$ comes before $b$.
    – Ross Millikan
    Nov 19 at 6:04













up vote
2
down vote



accepted







up vote
2
down vote



accepted






Given the usual order on $Bbb N$, you can show there are at least $2^{aleph_0}$ because you can break $Bbb N$ into $aleph_0$ pairs $(2n, 2n+1)$. You can then invert each pair or not, which is $aleph_0$ binary choices. There are at most $aleph_0^{aleph_0}$ because there are $aleph_0$ choices for the first element of the well order, and again for the next, and so on. If you know $2^{aleph_0}=aleph_0^{aleph_0}=mathfrak c$ you are done.






share|cite|improve this answer












Given the usual order on $Bbb N$, you can show there are at least $2^{aleph_0}$ because you can break $Bbb N$ into $aleph_0$ pairs $(2n, 2n+1)$. You can then invert each pair or not, which is $aleph_0$ binary choices. There are at most $aleph_0^{aleph_0}$ because there are $aleph_0$ choices for the first element of the well order, and again for the next, and so on. If you know $2^{aleph_0}=aleph_0^{aleph_0}=mathfrak c$ you are done.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Nov 19 at 5:32









Ross Millikan

289k23195367




289k23195367








  • 2




    I think your upper bound argument is kind of vague (and might give the misleading impression that the order type is necessarily $omega$). A more simple way is just that the well orders are all subsets of $mathbb Ntimes mathbb N.$
    – spaceisdarkgreen
    Nov 19 at 5:46










  • @spaceisdarkgreen: good point. When I first read it I thought it claimed the well order was a set of pairs $(a,b)$ where $ain Bbb N$ and $bin Bbb N$ was the position of $a$ in the list, which again claims that the order type is $omega$, but the well order can just be all the pairs $(a,b)$ where $a$ comes before $b$.
    – Ross Millikan
    Nov 19 at 6:04














  • 2




    I think your upper bound argument is kind of vague (and might give the misleading impression that the order type is necessarily $omega$). A more simple way is just that the well orders are all subsets of $mathbb Ntimes mathbb N.$
    – spaceisdarkgreen
    Nov 19 at 5:46










  • @spaceisdarkgreen: good point. When I first read it I thought it claimed the well order was a set of pairs $(a,b)$ where $ain Bbb N$ and $bin Bbb N$ was the position of $a$ in the list, which again claims that the order type is $omega$, but the well order can just be all the pairs $(a,b)$ where $a$ comes before $b$.
    – Ross Millikan
    Nov 19 at 6:04








2




2




I think your upper bound argument is kind of vague (and might give the misleading impression that the order type is necessarily $omega$). A more simple way is just that the well orders are all subsets of $mathbb Ntimes mathbb N.$
– spaceisdarkgreen
Nov 19 at 5:46




I think your upper bound argument is kind of vague (and might give the misleading impression that the order type is necessarily $omega$). A more simple way is just that the well orders are all subsets of $mathbb Ntimes mathbb N.$
– spaceisdarkgreen
Nov 19 at 5:46












@spaceisdarkgreen: good point. When I first read it I thought it claimed the well order was a set of pairs $(a,b)$ where $ain Bbb N$ and $bin Bbb N$ was the position of $a$ in the list, which again claims that the order type is $omega$, but the well order can just be all the pairs $(a,b)$ where $a$ comes before $b$.
– Ross Millikan
Nov 19 at 6:04




@spaceisdarkgreen: good point. When I first read it I thought it claimed the well order was a set of pairs $(a,b)$ where $ain Bbb N$ and $bin Bbb N$ was the position of $a$ in the list, which again claims that the order type is $omega$, but the well order can just be all the pairs $(a,b)$ where $a$ comes before $b$.
– Ross Millikan
Nov 19 at 6:04


















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.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • 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.


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%2f3004529%2fprove-that-there-exist-2-aleph-0-well-orderings-of-the-set-of-all-natural%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

Plaza Victoria

Puebla de Zaragoza

Musa