Difference between Kleene's O and the system $S_1$












1












$begingroup$


On pages 207-208, Rogers (Theory of Recursive Functions and Effective Computability) introduces two system of notations for ordinals: the first is what he calls $S_1$ and the second one is Kleene's $mathcal{O}$.



My question is: what is the difference between the two systems?



In the definition of Kleene's $mathcal{O}$, Rogers defines also a partial ordering $<_O$. It seems to me that the only difference is that, when defining the names for a limit ordinal, in the definition of $mathcal{O}$ we have the additional requirement that



$$ forall i, forall jquad i<j Rightarrow (varphi_y(i), varphi_y(j)) text{ is already in} <_O$$



But I don't see how this requirement actually reduces the amount of names for a limit ordinal. I mean, if $gamma$ is a limit ordinal and $(varphi_y(n))_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is an increasing sequence of (names for) ordinals with limit $gamma$, how can it be that we did not already put the pair $(varphi_y(i), varphi_y(j))$ in $<_O$?






computability ordinals transfinite-recursion







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    1












    $begingroup$


    On pages 207-208, Rogers (Theory of Recursive Functions and Effective Computability) introduces two system of notations for ordinals: the first is what he calls $S_1$ and the second one is Kleene's $mathcal{O}$.



    My question is: what is the difference between the two systems?



    In the definition of Kleene's $mathcal{O}$, Rogers defines also a partial ordering $<_O$. It seems to me that the only difference is that, when defining the names for a limit ordinal, in the definition of $mathcal{O}$ we have the additional requirement that



    $$ forall i, forall jquad i<j Rightarrow (varphi_y(i), varphi_y(j)) text{ is already in} <_O$$



    But I don't see how this requirement actually reduces the amount of names for a limit ordinal. I mean, if $gamma$ is a limit ordinal and $(varphi_y(n))_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is an increasing sequence of (names for) ordinals with limit $gamma$, how can it be that we did not already put the pair $(varphi_y(i), varphi_y(j))$ in $<_O$?






    computability ordinals transfinite-recursion







    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      1












      1








      1





      $begingroup$


      On pages 207-208, Rogers (Theory of Recursive Functions and Effective Computability) introduces two system of notations for ordinals: the first is what he calls $S_1$ and the second one is Kleene's $mathcal{O}$.



      My question is: what is the difference between the two systems?



      In the definition of Kleene's $mathcal{O}$, Rogers defines also a partial ordering $<_O$. It seems to me that the only difference is that, when defining the names for a limit ordinal, in the definition of $mathcal{O}$ we have the additional requirement that



      $$ forall i, forall jquad i<j Rightarrow (varphi_y(i), varphi_y(j)) text{ is already in} <_O$$



      But I don't see how this requirement actually reduces the amount of names for a limit ordinal. I mean, if $gamma$ is a limit ordinal and $(varphi_y(n))_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is an increasing sequence of (names for) ordinals with limit $gamma$, how can it be that we did not already put the pair $(varphi_y(i), varphi_y(j))$ in $<_O$?






      computability ordinals transfinite-recursion







      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      On pages 207-208, Rogers (Theory of Recursive Functions and Effective Computability) introduces two system of notations for ordinals: the first is what he calls $S_1$ and the second one is Kleene's $mathcal{O}$.



      My question is: what is the difference between the two systems?



      In the definition of Kleene's $mathcal{O}$, Rogers defines also a partial ordering $<_O$. It seems to me that the only difference is that, when defining the names for a limit ordinal, in the definition of $mathcal{O}$ we have the additional requirement that



      $$ forall i, forall jquad i<j Rightarrow (varphi_y(i), varphi_y(j)) text{ is already in} <_O$$



      But I don't see how this requirement actually reduces the amount of names for a limit ordinal. I mean, if $gamma$ is a limit ordinal and $(varphi_y(n))_{ninmathbb{N}}$ is an increasing sequence of (names for) ordinals with limit $gamma$, how can it be that we did not already put the pair $(varphi_y(i), varphi_y(j))$ in $<_O$?






      computability ordinals transfinite-recursion




      computability ordinals transfinite-recursion






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Dec 14 '18 at 8:47









      ManlioManlio

      924719




      924719






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2












          $begingroup$

          Short version: the relation "$<_mathcal{O}$" is a proper subrelation of the relation "names a smaller ordinal than."




          The point is the distinction between names and ordinals in determining increasing-ness. Specifically, in general if $a,b$ are names for $alpha,beta$ in the sense of Kleene's $mathcal{O}$ and $alpha<beta$, we need not have $a<_mathcal{O}b$. In particular, we can find a sequence $(varphi_y(n))_{ninmathbb{N}}$ such that




          • each $varphi_y(n)$ is in $mathcal{O}$, and


          • $vertvarphi_y(n)vert<vertvarphi_y(n+1)vert$ for each $ninmathbb{N}$



          (where "$vert avert$" is the ordinal corresponding to the name $a$), but $3cdot 5^y$ is not in $mathcal{O}$ since (say) $varphi_y(0)not<_mathcal{O}varphi_y(1)$.



          In the system $S_1$, we only required that the values of the names be increasing; in $mathcal{O}$, we require that this increasing-ness be witnessed in a very concrete way, namely by the relation $<_mathcal{O}$. This is all in an attempt to make a more "constructive" system, and at this point Kleene's original paper "On notation for ordinal numbers" has a useful paragraph:




          Following Church, a modification is now made in the system $S_1$, which is
          regarded from the finitary viewpoint as a correction, in that it eliminates the
          presupposition of the classical (non-constructive) second number class. The
          modification consists in replacing the ordering relation $<$ between ordinals by a partially ordering relation $<_mathcal{O}$ between the notations.




          (Note that he refers to the system we know and love as $mathcal{O}$ by "$S_2$.")






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













            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%2f3039120%2fdifference-between-kleenes-o-and-the-system-s-1%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









            2












            $begingroup$

            Short version: the relation "$<_mathcal{O}$" is a proper subrelation of the relation "names a smaller ordinal than."




            The point is the distinction between names and ordinals in determining increasing-ness. Specifically, in general if $a,b$ are names for $alpha,beta$ in the sense of Kleene's $mathcal{O}$ and $alpha<beta$, we need not have $a<_mathcal{O}b$. In particular, we can find a sequence $(varphi_y(n))_{ninmathbb{N}}$ such that




            • each $varphi_y(n)$ is in $mathcal{O}$, and


            • $vertvarphi_y(n)vert<vertvarphi_y(n+1)vert$ for each $ninmathbb{N}$



            (where "$vert avert$" is the ordinal corresponding to the name $a$), but $3cdot 5^y$ is not in $mathcal{O}$ since (say) $varphi_y(0)not<_mathcal{O}varphi_y(1)$.



            In the system $S_1$, we only required that the values of the names be increasing; in $mathcal{O}$, we require that this increasing-ness be witnessed in a very concrete way, namely by the relation $<_mathcal{O}$. This is all in an attempt to make a more "constructive" system, and at this point Kleene's original paper "On notation for ordinal numbers" has a useful paragraph:




            Following Church, a modification is now made in the system $S_1$, which is
            regarded from the finitary viewpoint as a correction, in that it eliminates the
            presupposition of the classical (non-constructive) second number class. The
            modification consists in replacing the ordering relation $<$ between ordinals by a partially ordering relation $<_mathcal{O}$ between the notations.




            (Note that he refers to the system we know and love as $mathcal{O}$ by "$S_2$.")






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$


















              2












              $begingroup$

              Short version: the relation "$<_mathcal{O}$" is a proper subrelation of the relation "names a smaller ordinal than."




              The point is the distinction between names and ordinals in determining increasing-ness. Specifically, in general if $a,b$ are names for $alpha,beta$ in the sense of Kleene's $mathcal{O}$ and $alpha<beta$, we need not have $a<_mathcal{O}b$. In particular, we can find a sequence $(varphi_y(n))_{ninmathbb{N}}$ such that




              • each $varphi_y(n)$ is in $mathcal{O}$, and


              • $vertvarphi_y(n)vert<vertvarphi_y(n+1)vert$ for each $ninmathbb{N}$



              (where "$vert avert$" is the ordinal corresponding to the name $a$), but $3cdot 5^y$ is not in $mathcal{O}$ since (say) $varphi_y(0)not<_mathcal{O}varphi_y(1)$.



              In the system $S_1$, we only required that the values of the names be increasing; in $mathcal{O}$, we require that this increasing-ness be witnessed in a very concrete way, namely by the relation $<_mathcal{O}$. This is all in an attempt to make a more "constructive" system, and at this point Kleene's original paper "On notation for ordinal numbers" has a useful paragraph:




              Following Church, a modification is now made in the system $S_1$, which is
              regarded from the finitary viewpoint as a correction, in that it eliminates the
              presupposition of the classical (non-constructive) second number class. The
              modification consists in replacing the ordering relation $<$ between ordinals by a partially ordering relation $<_mathcal{O}$ between the notations.




              (Note that he refers to the system we know and love as $mathcal{O}$ by "$S_2$.")






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$
















                2












                2








                2





                $begingroup$

                Short version: the relation "$<_mathcal{O}$" is a proper subrelation of the relation "names a smaller ordinal than."




                The point is the distinction between names and ordinals in determining increasing-ness. Specifically, in general if $a,b$ are names for $alpha,beta$ in the sense of Kleene's $mathcal{O}$ and $alpha<beta$, we need not have $a<_mathcal{O}b$. In particular, we can find a sequence $(varphi_y(n))_{ninmathbb{N}}$ such that




                • each $varphi_y(n)$ is in $mathcal{O}$, and


                • $vertvarphi_y(n)vert<vertvarphi_y(n+1)vert$ for each $ninmathbb{N}$



                (where "$vert avert$" is the ordinal corresponding to the name $a$), but $3cdot 5^y$ is not in $mathcal{O}$ since (say) $varphi_y(0)not<_mathcal{O}varphi_y(1)$.



                In the system $S_1$, we only required that the values of the names be increasing; in $mathcal{O}$, we require that this increasing-ness be witnessed in a very concrete way, namely by the relation $<_mathcal{O}$. This is all in an attempt to make a more "constructive" system, and at this point Kleene's original paper "On notation for ordinal numbers" has a useful paragraph:




                Following Church, a modification is now made in the system $S_1$, which is
                regarded from the finitary viewpoint as a correction, in that it eliminates the
                presupposition of the classical (non-constructive) second number class. The
                modification consists in replacing the ordering relation $<$ between ordinals by a partially ordering relation $<_mathcal{O}$ between the notations.




                (Note that he refers to the system we know and love as $mathcal{O}$ by "$S_2$.")






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                Short version: the relation "$<_mathcal{O}$" is a proper subrelation of the relation "names a smaller ordinal than."




                The point is the distinction between names and ordinals in determining increasing-ness. Specifically, in general if $a,b$ are names for $alpha,beta$ in the sense of Kleene's $mathcal{O}$ and $alpha<beta$, we need not have $a<_mathcal{O}b$. In particular, we can find a sequence $(varphi_y(n))_{ninmathbb{N}}$ such that




                • each $varphi_y(n)$ is in $mathcal{O}$, and


                • $vertvarphi_y(n)vert<vertvarphi_y(n+1)vert$ for each $ninmathbb{N}$



                (where "$vert avert$" is the ordinal corresponding to the name $a$), but $3cdot 5^y$ is not in $mathcal{O}$ since (say) $varphi_y(0)not<_mathcal{O}varphi_y(1)$.



                In the system $S_1$, we only required that the values of the names be increasing; in $mathcal{O}$, we require that this increasing-ness be witnessed in a very concrete way, namely by the relation $<_mathcal{O}$. This is all in an attempt to make a more "constructive" system, and at this point Kleene's original paper "On notation for ordinal numbers" has a useful paragraph:




                Following Church, a modification is now made in the system $S_1$, which is
                regarded from the finitary viewpoint as a correction, in that it eliminates the
                presupposition of the classical (non-constructive) second number class. The
                modification consists in replacing the ordering relation $<$ between ordinals by a partially ordering relation $<_mathcal{O}$ between the notations.




                (Note that he refers to the system we know and love as $mathcal{O}$ by "$S_2$.")







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Dec 22 '18 at 20:25









                Noah SchweberNoah Schweber

                126k10151290




                126k10151290






























                    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%2f3039120%2fdifference-between-kleenes-o-and-the-system-s-1%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

                    Image
                    Plaza Victoria Plaza Victoria en 2017 Otros nombres Plaza de La Victoria Localización El Almendral, Valparaíso, Chile Vías adyacentes Chacabuco, Molina, Plaza Victoria y Edwards Creación 1841 Metro Bellavista Ubicación 33°02′46″S 71°37′11″O  /  -33.04624167, -71.61980833 Coordenadas: 33°02′46″S 71°37′11″O  /  -33.04624167, -71.61980833 [editar datos en Wikidata] La Plaza Victoria , también llamada Plaza de la Victoria , [ 1 ] ​ es una plaza ubicada en el sector El Almendral del plan de la ciudad de Valparaíso, Chile, de importancia patrimonial, que incluye valiosas estatuas y especies vegetales. [ 2 ] ​ La plaza se creó como tal en la primera mitad del siglo XIX, tomando previamente los nombres de Plaza Nueva y Plaza de Orrego . Si bien desde sus inicios tuvo relevancia histórica, no fue sino a partir de fines de los años 1860 cuando comenzó a cobrar mayor importancia y se convirtió en uno de los principales centros sociales de l
                    Read more

                    In PowerPoint, is there a keyboard shortcut for bulleted / numbered list?

                    Image
                    .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box; } 2 OneNote has two useful keyboard shortcuts for bulleted and numbered lists, namely Ctrl + . and Ctrl + - . Is there something similar for PowerPoint where the work with lists is also very common? Haven't found anything here: Use keyboard shortcuts in PowerPoint. keyboard-shortcuts microsoft-powerpoint share | improve this question edited Aug 14 '14 at 14:49 Linger 2,826 10 28 40
                    Read more

                    How to put 3 figures in Latex with 2 figures side by side and 1 below these side by side images but in...

                    Image
                    1 0 I want to put 3 images in LateX such as 2 figures are side by side horizotally and 3rd figure below these 2 side by side figures but in middle. I have following code: begin{figure}[H] centering begin{minipage}{.5textwidth} centering includegraphics[width=.50linewidth]{Text/Images/Genelec_8010_AP.jpg} captionof{figure}{Genelec 8010 AP} label{fig:Genelec 8010} end{minipage}% begin{minipage}{.5textwidth} centering includegraphics[width=.69linewidth]{Text/Images/Genelec_8020_CPM.jpg} captionof{figure}{Genelec 8020 CPM} label{fig:Genelec 8020} end{minipage}% end{figure} %%Here is my 3rd picture code begin{figure} centering includegraphics[width=5cm]{Text/Images/Genelec_8030_BPM.jpg} caption{Genelec 8030 BPM} label{fig:Genelec 8030} end{figure} I want to ask ho
                    Read more