Function on the set of limit countable ordinalsA question about $dotS^Q$-semiproperness and revised countable support iterated forcing of length a limit ordinalCofinality of countable ordinals in ZF, and in toposesOn a characterization of the recursively inaccessible ordinalsMemorable ordinalsProblem with definability in the constructible hierarchySplitting of ordinals of oscillation ranks of a Baire $1$ functionDo these ordinals exist?Connection between countable ordinals and Turing degreesFormalizations of The Matchstick Diagram Representation of OrdinalsIs the smallest $L_alpha$ with undefinable ordinals always countable?
Multi tool use
Function on the set of limit countable ordinals
A question about $dotS^Q$-semiproperness and revised countable support iterated forcing of length a limit ordinalCofinality of countable ordinals in ZF, and in toposesOn a characterization of the recursively inaccessible ordinalsMemorable ordinalsProblem with definability in the constructible hierarchySplitting of ordinals of oscillation ranks of a Baire $1$ functionDo these ordinals exist?Connection between countable ordinals and Turing degreesFormalizations of The Matchstick Diagram Representation of OrdinalsIs the smallest $L_alpha$ with undefinable ordinals always countable?
$begingroup$
Let $Lambda$ be the set of all countable limit ordinals. Does there exist an injective function $f:Lambdatoomega_1$ with the properties:
- $forall lambdainLambda:~f(lambda)<lambda$
$forallalpha<omega_1~~existsbeta<omega_1~~foralllambda>beta:~f(lambda)>alpha$ ?
set-theory ordinal-numbers
asked Apr 24 at 6:13
ar.grigar.grig
1
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $Lambda$ be the set of all countable limit ordinals. Does there exist an injective function $f:Lambdatoomega_1$ with the properties:
- $forall lambdainLambda:~f(lambda)<lambda$
$forallalpha<omega_1~~existsbeta<omega_1~~foralllambda>beta:~f(lambda)>alpha$ ?
set-theory ordinal-numbers
asked Apr 24 at 6:13
ar.grigar.grig
1
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
Though the answer below answers your question, you might be interested to know that an injective function $f:Lambdatoomega_1$ automatically satisfies $2$: for any $gammaleqalpha$ there is at most one ordinal $a_gamma$ such that $f(a_gamma)=gamma$. Then $beta=sup_gammaleqalphaa_gamma$ will work.
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
Apr 24 at 8:25
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $Lambda$ be the set of all countable limit ordinals. Does there exist an injective function $f:Lambdatoomega_1$ with the properties:
- $forall lambdainLambda:~f(lambda)<lambda$
$forallalpha<omega_1~~existsbeta<omega_1~~foralllambda>beta:~f(lambda)>alpha$ ?
set-theory ordinal-numbers
asked Apr 24 at 6:13
ar.grigar.grig
1
$endgroup$
Let $Lambda$ be the set of all countable limit ordinals. Does there exist an injective function $f:Lambdatoomega_1$ with the properties:
- $forall lambdainLambda:~f(lambda)<lambda$
$forallalpha<omega_1~~existsbeta<omega_1~~foralllambda>beta:~f(lambda)>alpha$ ?
set-theory ordinal-numbers
set-theory ordinal-numbers
asked Apr 24 at 6:13
ar.grigar.grig
1
asked Apr 24 at 6:13
ar.grigar.grig
1
asked Apr 24 at 6:13
ar.grigar.grig
1
asked Apr 24 at 6:13
ar.grigar.grig
1
asked Apr 24 at 6:13
ar.grigar.grig
1
1
5
$begingroup$
Though the answer below answers your question, you might be interested to know that an injective function $f:Lambdatoomega_1$ automatically satisfies $2$: for any $gammaleqalpha$ there is at most one ordinal $a_gamma$ such that $f(a_gamma)=gamma$. Then $beta=sup_gammaleqalphaa_gamma$ will work.
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
Apr 24 at 8:25
add a comment |
5
$begingroup$
Though the answer below answers your question, you might be interested to know that an injective function $f:Lambdatoomega_1$ automatically satisfies $2$: for any $gammaleqalpha$ there is at most one ordinal $a_gamma$ such that $f(a_gamma)=gamma$. Then $beta=sup_gammaleqalphaa_gamma$ will work.
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
Apr 24 at 8:25
5
5
$begingroup$
Though the answer below answers your question, you might be interested to know that an injective function $f:Lambdatoomega_1$ automatically satisfies $2$: for any $gammaleqalpha$ there is at most one ordinal $a_gamma$ such that $f(a_gamma)=gamma$. Then $beta=sup_gammaleqalphaa_gamma$ will work.
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
Apr 24 at 8:25
$begingroup$
Though the answer below answers your question, you might be interested to know that an injective function $f:Lambdatoomega_1$ automatically satisfies $2$: for any $gammaleqalpha$ there is at most one ordinal $a_gamma$ such that $f(a_gamma)=gamma$. Then $beta=sup_gammaleqalphaa_gamma$ will work.
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
Apr 24 at 8:25
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
No. The first property is known as $f$ being regressive. Fodor’s Lemma says that any regressive function on a stationary set is constant on a stationary subset. In particular, because $Lambda$ is club (and thus stationary), such $f$ cannot be injective.
answered Apr 24 at 6:54
Monroe EskewMonroe Eskew
8,03922565
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
;
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%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f329817%2ffunction-on-the-set-of-limit-countable-ordinals%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
$begingroup$
No. The first property is known as $f$ being regressive. Fodor’s Lemma says that any regressive function on a stationary set is constant on a stationary subset. In particular, because $Lambda$ is club (and thus stationary), such $f$ cannot be injective.
answered Apr 24 at 6:54
Monroe EskewMonroe Eskew
8,03922565
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No. The first property is known as $f$ being regressive. Fodor’s Lemma says that any regressive function on a stationary set is constant on a stationary subset. In particular, because $Lambda$ is club (and thus stationary), such $f$ cannot be injective.
answered Apr 24 at 6:54
Monroe EskewMonroe Eskew
8,03922565
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No. The first property is known as $f$ being regressive. Fodor’s Lemma says that any regressive function on a stationary set is constant on a stationary subset. In particular, because $Lambda$ is club (and thus stationary), such $f$ cannot be injective.
answered Apr 24 at 6:54
Monroe EskewMonroe Eskew
8,03922565
$endgroup$
No. The first property is known as $f$ being regressive. Fodor’s Lemma says that any regressive function on a stationary set is constant on a stationary subset. In particular, because $Lambda$ is club (and thus stationary), such $f$ cannot be injective.
answered Apr 24 at 6:54
Monroe EskewMonroe Eskew
8,03922565
answered Apr 24 at 6:54
Monroe EskewMonroe Eskew
8,03922565
answered Apr 24 at 6:54
Monroe EskewMonroe Eskew
8,03922565
answered Apr 24 at 6:54
Monroe EskewMonroe Eskew
8,03922565
8,03922565
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!
- 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%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f329817%2ffunction-on-the-set-of-limit-countable-ordinals%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
thgiOvqmTDysErg,j,7qw2tsW,7IF 0fReBrnAeJi,QotnIaDr LZyaodWbT8VeQNjgyhUo W0s04C,GK
5
$begingroup$
Though the answer below answers your question, you might be interested to know that an injective function $f:Lambdatoomega_1$ automatically satisfies $2$: for any $gammaleqalpha$ there is at most one ordinal $a_gamma$ such that $f(a_gamma)=gamma$. Then $beta=sup_gammaleqalphaa_gamma$ will work.
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
Apr 24 at 8:25