{"id":443,"date":"2007-06-13T22:00:53","date_gmt":"2007-06-13T22:00:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/scientopia.org\/blogs\/goodmath\/2007\/06\/13\/more-on-ordinals-ordinal-arithmetic-part-1\/"},"modified":"2007-06-13T22:00:53","modified_gmt":"2007-06-13T22:00:53","slug":"more-on-ordinals-ordinal-arithmetic-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/2007\/06\/13\/more-on-ordinals-ordinal-arithmetic-part-1\/","title":{"rendered":"More on Ordinals: Ordinal Arithmetic (part 1)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>I&#8217;ll continue my explanation of the ordinal numbers, starting with a nifty trick. Yesterday, I said that the collection of all ordinals is *not* a set, but rather a proper class. There&#8217;s another really neat way to show that.<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><br \/>\nRemember that we defined the ordinal 0 as the empty set, &empty;, and every other ordinal a+1=a&cup;{a}. One obvious implication of this is that every ordinal b&le;a is a member of a+1: in fact, a+1 is exactly the set of all ordinals &le; a. So it&#8217;s not just the case that every b&le;a&isin;a+1, but every b&le;a *is a subset* of a.<br \/>\nImagine that it was possible to have a set S which is the set of all ordinals. Every ordinal number 0 is a subset of that set. So in its well-ordering, it&#8217;s the sequence of all ordinals from 0 onwards: {0, 1, 2, &#8230;}, with no end.<br \/>\nHere&#8217;s the trick. An infinite set of all of the ordinals *is no different* than any other infinite set of ordinals. How is the set of all ordinals different from &omega;? They&#8217;re both infinite sets of ordinals. The only difference is that the set of all ordinals has a different cardinality than &omega;: it&#8217;s got the cardinality of the set of all ordinals. But since it&#8217;s got the same structure, it *must* be an ordinal itself, which means it&#8217;s a member of the set of all ordinals. But if it&#8217;s a member of the set of all ordinals, then there must be an ordinal *larger* than it &#8211; because by definition, every ordinal has a successor. And that larger ordinal isn&#8217;t a member of the set of all ordinals, or *it* would be the set of all ordinals. So we&#8217;re in a recursive trap: the set of all ordinals can&#8217;t be defined consistently, and so it&#8217;s *not* a set.<br \/>\nI love that argument.<br \/>\nOk, moving on&#8230; Ordinal arithmetic.<br \/>\nIn ordinal arithmetic, we define addition, multiplication, and exponentiation. Subtraction and division are not well-defined for ordinals. For the purpose of clarity, from here on, I&#8217;ll use greek letters for ordinals, and roman letters for sets.<br \/>\nAddition is simple. It&#8217;s based on the idea of ordinals as the basis of an <em>order<\/em> of a set, where an order is a mapping from a collection of ordinal numbers to the members of the set. We call the ordinal &alpha; containing all of the ordinals mapped to members of a set A the *order-type* of A.<br \/>\nAn ordinal expresses the idea of position in a well ordering &#8211; which leads us to the intuition behind the meaning of ordinal addition. Given two disjoint sets A (with order-type &alpha;) and B (with order-type &beta;), their union A&cup;B also has a well-ordering, which has order type &alpha;+&beta;. This makes sense, because &alpha; is the number of positions of elements in the well-ordering of A, and &beta; is the number of positions of members of B; so the number of positions in the well ordering of A&cup;B should be &alpha;+&beta;.<br \/>\nWe can give a simple recursive definition of how it works:<br \/>\n* &alpha;+0=&alpha;<br \/>\n* &alpha;+(&beta;+1)=(&alpha;+&beta;)+1<br \/>\n* If &beta; is a limit ordinal, then &alpha;+&beta; is the limit ordinal of &alpha;+&gamma; for all &gamma;&lt;&beta;.<br \/>\nThere is, of course, a catch. Ordinal arithmetic is *not* commutative: (2+&omega;)=&omega; &#8211; the result is the limit ordinal &amp;omega. &amp;omega+2=&omega;+1+1 &#8211; the successor ordinal of the successor ordinal of &omega;. In fact, it&#8217;s even worse than just non-commutative; ordinal arithmetic is non-continuous in its left argument, but continous in its right. It&#8217;s a thoroughly non-symmetric form of addition.<br \/>\nMultiplication works similarly &#8211; but instead of being the order type of a union of sets, it&#8217;s the order type of a cartesian product of sets.  Recursively:<br \/>\n* &alpha;&times;0=0<br \/>\n* &alpha;&times;1=&alpha;<br \/>\n* &alpha;&times;(&beta;+1)=(&alpha;&times;&beta;)+&alpha;.<br \/>\n* If &beta; is a limit ordinal, then &alpha;&times;&beta; is the limit ordinal of &alpha;&times;&gamma; for all &gamma;&lt;&beta;.<br \/>\nLike addition, ordinal multiplication is rather ugly. It&#8217;s non-commutative, and non-continuous in its left argument. It&#8217;s distributive in its left argument, but not its right. Seriously icky.<br \/>\nTomorrow, we&#8217;ll get to ordinal exponentiation, and the really cool thing that it produces: the Cantor normal form of ordinal numbers.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I&#8217;ll continue my explanation of the ordinal numbers, starting with a nifty trick. Yesterday, I said that the collection of all ordinals is *not* a set, but rather a proper class. There&#8217;s another really neat way to show that.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[56],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-443","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-set-theory"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4lzZS-79","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/443","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=443"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/443\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=443"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=443"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=443"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}