is an isomorphism
If is an isomorphism then so is .
If and are isomorphisms then so is .
Suppose there is such that . For all , either or . Hence and . Hence would be a successor ordinal.
Conversely, if is a successor ordinal, let such that . Clearly, is not satisfied.
Let be inductive. Then is a set (since it is included in ) and is inductive:
and implies
If then also belongs to .
By exercise 1.3 is transitive and by exercise 1.7, is well-founded. Moreover by lemma 2.11 (and because ) is a linear ordering. Hence is a transitive set well-ordered by i.e. an ordinal number. so . If is a nonzero ordinal then by exercise 1.8 i.e. is a successor ordinal. By exercise 2.2, is limit. Finally is the least non-zero limit ordinal.
(Without the Axiom of Infinity)
(i) implies (ii): if there is an inductive set, then we can construct the intersection of all inductive sets. It is -infinite (exercise 1.11) so it is infinite.
(ii) implies (iii): suppose there exists an infinite set and that i.e. all nonzero ordinals are successor. Let be set of all finite subsets of . For all there is a 1-1 mapping from onto some (unique) . By replacement, is a set. and . Hence is nonempty and . If then there is such that . Let (such an element exists since is infinite an is finite). Clearly and . Hence by induction, . Then is an ordinal. So . A contradiction.
(iii) implies (i): If is a set, then since is nonzero and for all , since is a limit ordinal. Hence is inductive.
The set is a nonempty subset of . Let and such that . Then , a contradiction.
Let and define and . If , there is such that . Thus . Hence is limit.
Let be normal. Let , and (because is continuous). Since is increasing, by Lemma 2.4. Hence .
By induction on .
For all limit,
For all limit,
For all limit,
Let . We shall show by induction on than , and .
so
Let be limit. For all we have . Thus
and so (use 2.10-i for the last inequality). Hence .
Same as 2.10-i
(use 2.10-ii for the last inequality).
Same as 2.10-i
and
and
and
Define and for all . If , then by continuity of , . We shall show that is the least ordinal that satisfies this property. Suppose satisfies . Clearly, . Hence the least such that satisfies . If we let then and . A contradiction.
Let be a limit ordinal and consider the following properties:
is indecomposable i.e there is no such that .
For all ,
for some
(ii) implies (i). For all there exists (an unique) such that . Since is indecomposable, . . so by (2.10) . Hence .
(i) implies (iii). Let be indecomposable and be its Cantor’s normal form ( and ). If or then is a decomposition of . Clearly . Moreover so . The inequality is strict for otherwise the Cantor’s normal form of would not be unique. Hence and .
(iii) implies (ii). First we shall prove by induction on that for all , . It is clear for . If it is the case for then . Finally for a limit ordinal such that the property is verified for all the , . Now let and consider its Cantor’s normal form ( and ). We have and for all , . Hence . where satisfies . But we showed that so . If we repeat this several times, we get .
The set is a nonempty subset of . Let be a minimal element of (for the well-founded relation ) and such that . Then , a contradiction.
This is Theorem 6.11.