Re: Cardinality
- From: "Stephen J. Herschkorn" <sjherschko@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:22:11 -0400
In the first chapter of his graduate text on Set Theory, Kunen defines a cardinal as an ordinal which is not equipollent to a strictly smaller ordinal He also defines aleph_a and omega_a (where a is an ordinal) to be alternative notations for the same thing; these represent specific cardinals, hence ordinals. Hence, with Kunen's notation, it does indeed make sense to speak of aleph_(aleph_a), which one could also represent by omega_(omega_a) or aleph_(omega_a).
It is a theorem of ZF that aleph_a exists for every ordinal a. That is, one does not need the Axiom of Choice. See Kunen for a proof. (Basically, given an ordinal a, one well-orders the well-orderings of a to get a cardinal strictly greater than a.)
If one is working in ZF, one might not want to use Kunen's definition of a cardinal Even so, each of Kunen's cardinals is representative of a distinct cardinal in the definition one would likely use.
--
Stephen J. Herschkorn sjherschko@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Math Tutor on the Internet and in Central New Jersey and Manhattan
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cardinality
- From: Arturo Magidin
- Re: Cardinality
- References:
- Cardinality
- From: mathman
- Cardinality
- Prev by Date: Re: Integrate f(x(t)) dx/dt dx?
- Next by Date: Re: Complete electronic solution manual in pdf ! Get it in hours!
- Previous by thread: Re: Cardinality
- Next by thread: Re: Cardinality
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|