{"id":444,"date":"2007-06-17T15:22:46","date_gmt":"2007-06-17T15:22:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/scientopia.org\/blogs\/goodmath\/2007\/06\/17\/ordinal-exponents-and-really-big-numbers\/"},"modified":"2007-06-17T15:22:46","modified_gmt":"2007-06-17T15:22:46","slug":"ordinal-exponents-and-really-big-numbers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/2007\/06\/17\/ordinal-exponents-and-really-big-numbers\/","title":{"rendered":"Ordinal Exponents and Really Big Numbers"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>With ordinals, we use exponents to create really big numbers. The idea is that we can define ever-larger families of transfinite<br \/>\nordinals using exponentiation. Exponentiation is defined in terms of<br \/>\nrepeated multiplication, but it allows us to represent numbers that we<br \/>\ncan&#8217;t express in terms of any finite sequence of multiplications.<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p> As usual, the concept of ordinal exponentiation comes from a concept<br \/>\nof <em>set<\/em> exponentiation where the ordinal<br \/>\n&alpha;<sup>&beta;<\/sup> where &alpha;=|A| is the set of positions in<br \/>\nthe well-ordering of A<sup>&beta;<\/sup>; and A<sup>&beta;<\/sup> is the<br \/>\nset of all ordered tuples of length &beta; consisting of members of<br \/>\nA. (It should be obvious what a well-ordering on this looks like: it&#8217;s<br \/>\nthe lexicographic ordering of the tuples based on the ordering of<br \/>\nelements in A.)<\/p>\n<p>This shouldn&#8217;t be too surprising: the basic idea of exponentiation is, as I said, repeated multiplication, so that A<sup>2<\/sup>=A&times;A, which is the set of ordered pairs of members of A. To be a bit more formal about what we mean by repeated multiplication:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li> &alpha;<sup>0<\/sup> = 1<\/li>\n<p>&lt;<\/p>\n<li>  &alpha;<sup>1<\/sup> = &alpha;<\/li>\n<li> &alpha;<sup>b+1<\/sup> = &alpha;<sup>&beta;<\/sup>&times;&alpha;<\/li>\n<li> If &beta; is a limit ordinal, then &alpha;<sup>&beta;<\/sup> is the<br \/>\nlimit ordinal of &alpha;<sup>&gamma;<\/sup> for all &gamma;&lt;&beta;.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p> The main use of exponentiation is to let us express ever larger<br \/>\nordinals. We added &omega; to the ordinals as the first transfinite,<br \/>\nand we can talk about many extremely large numbers by using &omega;<br \/>\nand multiples of &omega;. But finite multiples of &omega; can only get us so far; then we need to start talking in exponents. Exponents are where things get<br \/>\nseriouly large:  &omega;<sup>&omega;<\/sup>,  &omega;<sup>&omega;<sup>&omega;<\/sup><\/sup>, and so on. Infinite exponents of &omega; open up whole new realms of ever larger numbers. <\/p>\n<p> One thing that I consistently get screwed up is the difference between cardinal exponentiation and ordinal exponentiation. Given how closely related the ordinals and cardinals are, and given how they&#8217;re both consistent extensions of the naturals, it seems like they should behave the same in exponentiation &#8211; but they don&#8217;t. Not even <em>close<\/em>. In ordinal arithmetic, 2<sup>&omega;<\/sup>=&omega;; but in cardinal arithmetic, 2<sup>&alefsym;<sub>0<\/sub><\/sup> is the cardinality of the reals &#8211; <em>at least<\/em> &alefsym;<sub>1<\/sub>.<\/p>\n<p> Once we start playing with ordinal exponents, we can find some interesting large objects by using powers of &omega;, but they&#8217;re all limited: using &omega;, we can&#8217;t construct any ordinal which can describe the set of positions in an uncountable set: &omega; only gives us the ability to find places in countably infinite sets. <\/p>\n<p>\tBut we can still create some interesting things. For example, there&#8217;s something called &epsilon; numbers. &epsilon;-numbers are fixed point limit ordinals of exponent chains; they&#8217;re the first numbers <em>unreachable<\/em> from &omega;; the smallest &epsilon;-number is the limit &#8211; the first number larger than anything definable using exponents of &omega;:<\/p>\n<p>The &epsilon; numbers are the set of numbers x such that &omega;<sup>x<\/sup>=x. &epsilon;<sub>0<\/sub>, the first &epsilon; number is also the limit ordinal of &omega;<sup>&omega;<sup>&omega;<sup>&#8230;<sup>&omega;<\/sup><\/sup><\/sup><\/sup>, where that stack of exponents has length &omega;. <\/p>\n<p> Even the &epsilon; numbers are ordinals of countable sets. In general, we don&#8217;t really worry about ordinals beyond the &epsilon; numbers, because they&#8217;re are results showing that if a transfinite induction proof covers everything up to &epsilon;<sub>0<\/sub>, then it will also be true for all of the ordinals, including ordinals for uncountable sets. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>With ordinals, we use exponents to create really big numbers. The idea is that we can define ever-larger families of transfinite ordinals using exponentiation. Exponentiation is defined in terms of repeated multiplication, but it allows us to represent numbers that we can&#8217;t express in terms of any finite sequence of multiplications.<\/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-444","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-set-theory"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4lzZS-7a","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/444","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=444"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/444\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=444"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=444"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=444"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}