Hubbry Logo
Well-orderWell-orderMain
Open search
Well-order
Community hub
Well-order
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Well-order
Well-order
Well-order
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Transitive binary relations
Symmetric Antisymmetric Connected Well-founded Has joins Has meets Reflexive Irreflexive Asymmetric
Total,
Semiconnex		 Anti-
reflexive
Equivalence relation Green tickY ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ Green tickY ✗ ✗
Preorder (Quasiorder) ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ Green tickY ✗ ✗
Partial order ✗ Green tickY ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ Green tickY ✗ ✗
Total preorder ✗ ✗ Green tickY ✗ ✗ ✗ Green tickY ✗ ✗
Total order ✗ Green tickY Green tickY ✗ ✗ ✗ Green tickY ✗ ✗
Prewellordering ✗ ✗ Green tickY Green tickY ✗ ✗ Green tickY ✗ ✗
Well-quasi-ordering ✗ ✗ ✗ Green tickY ✗ ✗ Green tickY ✗ ✗
Well-ordering ✗ Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY ✗ ✗ Green tickY ✗ ✗
Lattice ✗ Green tickY ✗ ✗ Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY ✗ ✗
Join-semilattice ✗ Green tickY ✗ ✗ Green tickY ✗ Green tickY ✗ ✗
Meet-semilattice ✗ Green tickY ✗ ✗ ✗ Green tickY Green tickY ✗ ✗
Strict partial order ✗ Green tickY ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ Green tickY Green tickY
Strict weak order ✗ Green tickY ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ Green tickY Green tickY
Strict total order ✗ Green tickY Green tickY ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ Green tickY Green tickY
Symmetric Antisymmetric Connected Well-founded Has joins Has meets Reflexive Irreflexive Asymmetric
Definitions,
for all and
Green tickY indicates that the column's property is always true for the row's term (at the very left), while ✗ indicates that the property is not guaranteed
in general (it might, or might not, hold). For example, that every equivalence relation is symmetric, but not necessarily antisymmetric,
is indicated by Green tickY in the "Symmetric" column and ✗ in the "Antisymmetric" column, respectively.

All definitions tacitly require the homogeneous relation be transitive: for all if and then
A term's definition may require additional properties that are not listed in this table.

In mathematics, a well-order (or well-ordering or well-order relation) on a set S is a total ordering on S with the property that every non-empty subset of S has a least element in this ordering. The set S together with the ordering is then called a well-ordered set (or woset).[1] In some academic articles and textbooks these terms are instead written as wellorder, wellordered, and wellordering or well order, well ordered, and well ordering.

Every non-empty well-ordered set has a least element. Every element s of a well-ordered set, except a possible greatest element, has a unique successor (next element), namely the least element of the subset of all elements greater than s. There may be elements, besides the least element, that have no predecessor (see § Natural numbers below for an example). A well-ordered set S contains for every subset T with an upper bound a least upper bound, namely the least element of the subset of all upper bounds of T in S.

If ≤ is a non-strict well ordering, then < is a strict well ordering. A relation is a strict well ordering if and only if it is a well-founded strict total order. The distinction between strict and non-strict well orders is often ignored since they are easily interconvertible.

Every well-ordered set is uniquely order isomorphic to a unique ordinal number, called the order type of the well-ordered set. The well-ordering theorem, which is equivalent to the axiom of choice, states that every set can be well ordered. If a set is well ordered (or even if it merely admits a well-founded relation), the proof technique of transfinite induction can be used to prove that a given statement is true for all elements of the set.

The observation that the natural numbers are well ordered by the usual less-than relation is commonly called the well-ordering principle (for natural numbers).

Ordinal numbers

[edit]
Main article: Ordinal number

Every well-ordered set is uniquely order isomorphic to a unique ordinal number, called the order type of the well-ordered set. The position of each element within the ordered set is also given by an ordinal number. In the case of a finite set, the basic operation of counting, to find the ordinal number of a particular object, or to find the object with a particular ordinal number, corresponds to assigning ordinal numbers one by one to the objects. The size (number of elements, cardinal number) of a finite set is equal to the order type.[2] Counting in the everyday sense typically starts from one, so it assigns to each object the size of the initial segment with that object as last element. Note that these numbers are one more than the formal ordinal numbers according to the isomorphic order, because these are equal to the number of earlier objects (which corresponds to counting from zero). Thus for finite n, the expression "n-th element" of a well-ordered set requires context to know whether this counts from zero or one. In an expression "β-th element" where β can also be an infinite ordinal, it will typically count from zero.

For an infinite set, the order type determines the cardinality, but not conversely: sets of a particular infinite cardinality can have well-orders of many different types (see § Natural numbers, below, for an example). For a countably infinite set, the set of possible order types is uncountable.

Examples and counterexamples

[edit]

Natural numbers

[edit]

The standard ordering ≤ of the natural numbers is a well ordering and has the additional property that every non-zero natural number has a unique predecessor.

Another well ordering of the natural numbers is given by defining that all even numbers are less than all odd numbers, and the usual ordering applies within the evens and the odds:

This is a well-ordered set of order type ω + ω. Every element has a successor (there is no largest element). Two elements lack a predecessor: 0 and 1.

Integers

[edit]

Unlike the standard ordering ≤ of the natural numbers, the standard ordering ≤ of the integers is not a well ordering, since, for example, the set of negative integers does not contain a least element.

The following binary relation R is an example of well ordering of the integers: x R y if and only if one of the following conditions holds:

  1. x = 0
  2. x is positive, and y is negative
  3. x and y are both positive, and x ≤ y
  4. x and y are both negative, and |x| ≤ |y|

This relation R can be visualized as follows:

R is isomorphic to the ordinal number ω + ω.

Another relation for well ordering the integers is the following definition: if and only if

This well order can be visualized as follows:

This has the order type ω.

Reals

[edit]

The standard ordering ≤ of any real interval is not a well ordering, since, for example, the open interval ⁠⁠ does not contain a least element. From the ZFC axioms of set theory (including the axiom of choice) one can show that there is a well order of the reals. Also Wacław Sierpiński proved that ZF + GCH (the generalized continuum hypothesis) imply the axiom of choice and hence a well order of the reals. Nonetheless, it is possible to show that the ZFC+GCH axioms alone are not sufficient to prove the existence of a definable (by a formula) well order of the reals.[3] However it is consistent with ZFC that a definable well ordering of the reals exists—for example, it is consistent with ZFC that V=L, and it follows from ZFC+V=L that a particular formula well orders the reals, or indeed any set.

An uncountable subset of the real numbers with the standard ordering ≤ cannot be a well order: Suppose X is a subset of ⁠⁠ well ordered by ≤. For each x in X, let s(x) be the successor of x in ≤ ordering on X (unless x is the last element of X). Let whose elements are nonempty and disjoint intervals. Each such interval contains at least one rational number, so there is an injective function from A to ⁠⁠ There is an injection from X to A (except possibly for a last element of X, which could be mapped to zero later). And it is well known that there is an injection from ⁠⁠ to the natural numbers (which could be chosen to avoid hitting zero). Thus there is an injection from X to the natural numbers, which means that X is countable. On the other hand, a countably infinite subset of the reals may or may not be a well order with the standard ≤. For example,

  • The natural numbers are a well order under the standard ordering ≤.
  • The set has no least element and is therefore not a well order under standard ordering ≤.

Examples of well orders:

  • The set of numbers has order type ω.
  • The set of numbers has order type ω2. The previous set is the set of limit points within the set. Within the set of real numbers, either with the ordinary topology or the order topology, 0 is also a limit point of the set. It is also a limit point of the set of limit points.
  • The set of numbers has order type ω + 1. With the order topology of this set, 1 is a limit point of the set, despite being separated from the only limit point 0 under the ordinary topology of the real numbers.

Equivalent formulations

[edit]

If a set is totally ordered, then the following are equivalent to each other:

  1. The set is well ordered. That is, every nonempty subset has a least element.
  2. Transfinite induction works for the entire ordered set.
  3. Every strictly decreasing sequence of elements of the set must terminate after only finitely many steps (assuming the axiom of dependent choice).
  4. Every subordering is isomorphic to an initial segment.

Order topology

[edit]

Every well-ordered set can be made into a topological space by endowing it with the order topology.

With respect to this topology there can be two kinds of elements:

  • isolated points — these are the minimum and the elements with a predecessor.
  • limit points — this type does not occur in finite sets, and may or may not occur in an infinite set; the infinite sets without limit point are the sets of order type ω, for example the natural numbers ⁠⁠

For subsets we can distinguish:

  • Subsets with a maximum (that is, subsets that are bounded by themselves); this can be an isolated point or a limit point of the whole set; in the latter case it may or may not be also a limit point of the subset.
  • Subsets that are unbounded by themselves but bounded in the whole set; they have no maximum, but a supremum outside the subset; if the subset is non-empty this supremum is a limit point of the subset and hence also of the whole set; if the subset is empty this supremum is the minimum of the whole set.
  • Subsets that are unbounded in the whole set.

A subset is cofinal in the whole set if and only if it is unbounded in the whole set or it has a maximum that is also maximum of the whole set.

A well-ordered set as topological space is a first-countable space if and only if it has order type less than or equal to ω1 (omega-one), that is, if and only if the set is countable or has the smallest uncountable order type.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Well-order

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In , particularly in , a well-order is a on a set such that every non-empty of the set has a least element under that order. This property distinguishes well-orders from other total orders, ensuring a form of "no infinite descending chains" in the structure. Well-orders are fundamental to the theory of ordinal numbers, where each well-ordered set is order-isomorphic to a unique ordinal, representing its order type. For example, the natural numbers equipped with the standard less-than relation form a well-order, as do all finite totally ordered sets and the even natural numbers under the usual order. In contrast, the integers or rational numbers with their standard orders are not well-ordered, since subsets like the negative integers lack a least element. The asserts that every non-empty set can be well-ordered, though constructing an explicit well-ordering often requires the and may not be intuitive for uncountable sets like the real numbers. This theorem, first proposed by in 1883 and formalized by Zermelo in 1904, is equivalent to the and plays a central role in transfinite arithmetic and proofs involving induction over arbitrary sets. Well-orders also underpin the principle of well-ordering for the natural numbers, which states that every non-empty subset of the naturals has a minimal element and serves as the basis for .

Basic Concepts

Definition

A well-order on a set XX is a ≤\leq on XX such that every non-empty subset of XX has a least element under ≤\leq. A is a on XX that is antisymmetric (if a≤ba \leq b and b≤ab \leq a, then a=ba = b), transitive (if a≤ba \leq b and b≤cb \leq c, then a≤ca \leq c), and total (for any a,b∈Xa, b \in X, either a≤ba \leq b or b≤ab \leq a). The corresponding strict well-order is the irreflexive relation << defined by a<ba < b if and only if a≤ba \leq b and a≠ba \neq b; this strict relation is transitive and satisfies trichotomy: for any distinct a,b∈Xa, b \in X, exactly one of a<ba < b or b<ab < a holds. The concept of a well-order was introduced by Georg Cantor in the context of his development of transfinite ordinal numbers.

Properties

A well-order on a set XX is a total order, meaning that for any x,y∈Xx, y \in X, exactly one of x<yx < y, x=yx = y, or y<xy < x holds, ensuring the relation is trichotomous and comparable for all pairs. A fundamental property is the absence of infinite descending chains: there exists no infinite sequence (xn)n∈N(x_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}} in XX such that xn+1<xnx_{n+1} < x_n for all n∈Nn \in \mathbb{N}. Intuitively, this prevents any "endless regression" where elements can keep getting strictly smaller indefinitely, guaranteeing that any decreasing sequence must terminate after finitely many steps. This property implies that every non-empty subset A⊆XA \subseteq X has a least element m∈Am \in A, meaning m≤am \leq a for all a∈Aa \in A. The least element is unique, as the total order ensures that if two elements both satisfy the condition, one must be smaller than or equal to the other, contradicting the assumption unless they coincide. The relation is well-founded, formally expressed as: for every sequence (xn)n∈N(x_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}} in XX, there exists some nn such that xn+k≥xnx_{n+k} \geq x_n for all k≥0k \geq 0, ensuring no strict descent persists indefinitely. Every element x∈Xx \in X decomposes XX into the initial segment {y∈X∣y<x}\{y \in X \mid y < x\}, which itself forms a well-ordered set, and the remainder X∖{y∈X∣y≤x}X \setminus \{y \in X \mid y \leq x\}, preserving the structure of the order.

Examples

Natural Numbers

The natural numbers, denoted N={0,1,2,… }\mathbb{N} = \{0, 1, 2, \dots \}, are equipped with the standard arithmetic order ≤\leq, where m≤nm \leq n if and only if n−mn - m is a non-negative integer. This ordering makes (N,≤)(\mathbb{N}, \leq) a prototypical example of a well-ordered set, as every non-empty subset has a least element under the standard definition of well-ordering. To prove that every non-empty subset S⊆NS \subseteq \mathbb{N} has a least element, proceed by contradiction. Suppose SS has no least element. Define the property P(n)P(n) as "n∉Sn \notin S". Then P(0)P(0) holds, since if 0∈S0 \in S, it would be the least element. Assume P(k)P(k) holds for all k≤nk \leq n; then n+1∉Sn+1 \notin S, for otherwise n+1n+1 would be the least element. By mathematical induction, P(n)P(n) holds for all n∈Nn \in \mathbb{N}, implying S=∅S = \emptyset, a contradiction. Thus, SS has a least element. This proof relies on the inductive structure of N\mathbb{N} as constructed in axiomatic set theory. The order type of (N,≤)(\mathbb{N}, \leq) is ω\omega, the smallest infinite ordinal number. In set theory, N\mathbb{N} is identified with the set of all finite ordinals, where each natural number nn corresponds to the ordinal {0,1,…,n−1}\{0, 1, \dots, n-1\}, establishing an order-isomorphism between N\mathbb{N} and ω\omega. The well-ordering of N\mathbb{N} is logically equivalent to the principle of mathematical induction, which states: If a property PP satisfies P(0)P(0) and ∀n∈N,P(n)  ⟹  P(n+1)\forall n \in \mathbb{N}, P(n) \implies P(n+1), then P(n)P(n) holds for all n∈Nn \in \mathbb{N}. This equivalence underscores how the absence of infinite descending chains in N\mathbb{N} enables inductive proofs across mathematics.

Integers

The integers Z\mathbb{Z} consist of the set {…,−2,−1,0,1,2,… }\{\dots, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, \dots\} equipped with the standard ordering ≤\leq, where for any a,b∈Za, b \in \mathbb{Z}, a≤ba \leq b if and only if b−ab - a is a non-negative integer. This ordering is a total order on Z\mathbb{Z}, meaning any two elements are comparable. However, Z\mathbb{Z} fails to be a well-order because not every non-empty subset has a least element, as required by the definition of a well-order. A concrete counterexample is the subset of negative integers {…,−3,−2,−1}\{\dots, -3, -2, -1\}. This subset has no least element under ≤\leq, since for any −n-n where n>0n > 0, the element −(n+1)-(n+1) satisfies −(n+1)<−n-(n+1) < -n. Equivalently, the negative integers form an infinite descending chain ⋯>−3>−2>−1\dots > -3 > -2 > -1 with respect to the strict order <<, which violates the least element property essential to well-orders. Thus, while totally ordered, Z\mathbb{Z} under the standard ordering is not a well-order.

Real Numbers

The real numbers R\mathbb{R} are equipped with the standard order relation ≤\leq, which is a total order satisfying the properties of an ordered field. This ordering is dense, meaning that for any two distinct real numbers a<ba < b, there exists another real number cc such that a<c<ba < c < b. More specifically, there even exists a rational number r∈Qr \in \mathbb{Q} between aa and bb, reflecting the density of the rationals within the reals. Under this standard ordering, the real numbers do not form a well-order because not every nonempty subset has a least element. A clear counterexample is the open interval (0,1)(0,1), which contains no smallest element: for any x∈(0,1)x \in (0,1), there exists y=x/2∈(0,1)y = x/2 \in (0,1) such that y<xy < x, and this process can continue indefinitely due to the density of the order. Similarly, the set of negative real numbers (−∞,0)(-\infty, 0) lacks a least element, as it is unbounded below and any candidate can be surpassed by a smaller real number. This failure arises fundamentally from the density of the ordering, a property shared even by the countable dense subset Q\mathbb{Q} of rationals, which also lacks least elements in intervals like (0,1)∩Q(0,1) \cap \mathbb{Q}. Although R\mathbb{R} is complete—meaning every nonempty subset bounded below has a greatest lower bound (infimum)—this completeness does not guarantee the existence of a least element (minimum) in every nonempty subset, particularly in open intervals or unbounded-below sets where the infimum is either not achieved or lies outside the subset.

Relation to Set Theory

Ordinal Numbers

In set theory, the order type of a well-ordered set captures its structure up to isomorphism. Specifically, two well-ordered sets (X,≤)(X, \leq) and (Y,≤′)(Y, \leq') have the same order type if there exists an order-preserving bijection f:X→Yf: X \to Y, meaning ff is a bijection such that x≤x′x \leq x' if and only if f(x)≤′f(x′)f(x) \leq' f(x') for all x,x′∈Xx, x' \in X. Ordinal numbers serve as canonical representatives for these order types, labeling the isomorphism classes of well-ordered sets. Every well-ordered set (X,≤)(X, \leq) corresponds uniquely to an ordinal number α\alpha, denoted by X≅αX \cong \alpha, such that there is an order-isomorphism between XX and α\alpha equipped with the standard membership relation ∈\in. This assignment proceeds by transfinite recursion: the ordinal α\alpha is the smallest ordinal greater than all initial segments of XX, and for limit ordinals, α=sup⁡{β+1∣β<α}\alpha = \sup\{\beta + 1 \mid \beta < \alpha\}, where the supremum is taken over the order types of proper initial segments. This uniqueness ensures that ordinals provide a complete classification of well-orders up to isomorphism. Finite ordinals correspond to the natural numbers under the usual ordering, where the ordinal nn is the set {0,1,…,n−1}\{0, 1, \dots, n-1\}. The smallest infinite ordinal is ω\omega, the order type of the natural numbers N\mathbb{N} with the standard order. Successor ordinals like ω+1\omega + 1 extend ω\omega by adjoining a single element greater than all naturals, while ω⋅2\omega \cdot 2 concatenates two copies of ω\omega. Larger examples include ω2\omega^2, ωω\omega^\omega, and up to ε0\varepsilon_0, the least fixed point of α↦ωα\alpha \mapsto \omega^\alpha. These illustrate the transfinite hierarchy beyond finite counts. Ordinal arithmetic includes operations like addition and multiplication, defined recursively to preserve order types. Ordinal addition α+β\alpha + \beta is the order type of the disjoint union of α\alpha and β\beta where all elements of β\beta follow those of α\alpha. In contrast, the Hessenberg sum (or natural sum) α⊕β\alpha \oplus \beta is commutative and defined by componentwise addition of coefficients in Cantor normal form, mimicking finite arithmetic more closely. Similarly, ordinal multiplication α⋅β\alpha \cdot \beta places β\beta copies of α\alpha in sequence, while the Hessenberg product α⊗β\alpha \otimes \beta is also commutative via normal form coefficients. These operations highlight the non-commutative nature of standard ordinal arithmetic. Every ordinal α\alpha admits a unique representation in Cantor normal form: α=ωγn⋅kn+ωγn−1⋅kn−1+⋯+ωγ0⋅k0\alpha = \omega^{\gamma_n} \cdot k_n + \omega^{\gamma_{n-1}} \cdot k_{n-1} + \dots + \omega^{\gamma_0} \cdot k_0, where γn>γn−1>⋯>γ0\gamma_n > \gamma_{n-1} > \dots > \gamma_0, each kik_i is a positive finite ordinal (), and the terms decrease strictly in exponents. This polynomial-like expansion in base ω\omega provides a way to express and compare ordinals, facilitating arithmetic computations and proofs of uniqueness. introduced this form to systematize transfinite numbers beyond ω\omega.

Well-ordering Theorem

The well-ordering theorem states that for every set XX, there exists a well-ordering ≤\leq on XX, meaning a such that every nonempty subset of XX has a least element with respect to ≤\leq. This well-ordering is not necessarily unique and cannot be constructed explicitly in general. proved the theorem in 1904, relying on what is now known as the to establish the existence of such an ordering via a non-constructive argument involving transfinite recursion on the power set of XX. The proof addressed ongoing debates in , including Cantor's that every set admits a well-ordering, and it marked a pivotal use of the choice principle to resolve foundational questions about set comparability. A significant implication of the is that it identifies cardinal numbers with initial ordinals: every cardinal κ\kappa is the of some well-ordered set with no smaller well-ordered subsets of the same , ensuring that cardinalities like ∣R∣=2ℵ0|\mathbb{R}| = 2^{\aleph_0} correspond to specific ordinals in the hierarchy of alephs. This framework supports the surjectivity from the class of ordinals onto the class of cardinals, enabling consistent comparisons across infinite sets. The theorem thus guarantees that sets without natural well-orderings, such as the integers Z\mathbb{Z} or the real numbers R\mathbb{R} under their standard orders, can still be well-ordered through some alternative relation, though no explicit such ordering is provided by the proof itself.

Characterizations

Equivalent Formulations

A well-order on a set can equivalently be characterized as a total order with no infinite descending chains, meaning there does not exist a sequence (xn)n∈N(x_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}} such that xn+1<xnx_{n+1} < x_n for all nn. This formulation emphasizes well-foundedness: every non-empty subset has a minimal element precisely because the absence of descending chains ensures that any chain must terminate at a least element. Another equivalent characterization is the hereditary property: the order induced on every subset is itself a well-order. In a well-ordered set (X,≤)(X, \leq), for any A⊆XA \subseteq X, the restriction of ≤\leq to AA ensures that every non-empty subset of AA has a least element with respect to this induced order, preserving the well-ordering structure throughout. Well-orders also admit a structural decomposition into successor and limit elements, mirroring the construction of ordinal numbers. Every element except the minimal one has an immediate predecessor (the maximal element strictly less than it), defining successor elements as succ⁡(x)=min⁡{y∈X∣y>x}\operatorname{succ}(x) = \min\{y \in X \mid y > x\}; limit elements, in contrast, lack an immediate predecessor and are the supremum of all preceding elements. This partition—where the corresponds to an ordinal α\alpha with successors at β+1\beta + 1 and limits at suprema of prior segments—provides a recursive way to analyze the order's transfinite extent. Recursively, well-orders can be built starting from the and iteratively adjoining successors or forming suprema of previous well-orders, directly paralleling the von Neumann construction of ordinals. This transfinite ensures that any well-order is isomorphic to a unique ordinal, with the process terminating at limit stages by taking least upper bounds, thus generating all possible well-order types without gaps. In terms of strict orders, a strict well-order is equivalently an asymmetric, transitive, and well-founded strict , where well-foundedness again precludes infinite descending chains. This view highlights the irreflexive nature of the strict relation <<, which inherits totality and the no-descent property from the non-strict version while ensuring no cycles or equivalences beyond equality.

Axiom of Choice Implications

The well-ordering theorem, which asserts that every set can be well-ordered, is equivalent to the (AC) over the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms of set theory (ZF). In 1904, Ernst Zermelo proved the theorem using AC, by iteratively applying choice functions to select elements from the power set of the given set, constructing a well-ordering via transfinite recursion that builds ordinals corresponding to the set's cardinality. The converse holds because, given a well-ordering of the universe, one can define a choice function on any collection of non-empty sets by selecting the least element in each according to that ordering. Zorn's lemma, stating that every partially ordered set in which every chain has an upper bound contains a maximal element, is also equivalent to AC and thus to the well-ordering theorem. Max August Zorn introduced the lemma in 1935 as a tool for algebraic applications, proving it via AC by well-ordering the set of chains and extending them maximally. The equivalence arises because Zorn's lemma implies the well-ordering theorem: for any set, consider the partial order of its well-orderable subsets ordered by end-extension, apply Zorn's lemma to obtain a maximal such subset, which must be the entire set. The well-ordering theorem, via AC, has key implications for other results in set theory. It enables transfinite induction on any well-ordered set, allowing proofs by assuming the property holds for all predecessors and verifying the successor and limit cases, which is essential for constructing transfinite sequences and hierarchies. Independently of AC, Hartogs' theorem (1915) establishes that for any set AA, there exists an ordinal α\alpha (the Hartogs number of AA) such that no injection from α\alpha into AA exists, providing a well-orderable cardinal strictly larger than any well-orderable subset of AA; this bounds the size of well-orderings without requiring full AC. In ZF without AC, the well-ordering theorem fails: some sets, such as the real numbers R\mathbb{R}, may not admit a well-ordering. Kurt Gödel (1938) showed the consistency of ZF + AC using the constructible universe LL, where all sets are well-orderable. Paul Cohen (1963) proved the independence of AC from ZF via forcing, constructing models where R\mathbb{R} has no well-ordering, as the continuum becomes incomparable to any aleph without choice principles. Zermelo's 1904 proof, which implicitly relied on AC before its explicit formulation, ignited intense debate among mathematicians like Henri Poincaré and Felix Hausdorff, who questioned the legitimacy of non-constructive choices in infinite settings, viewing it as an unjustified extension beyond finitary methods. This controversy highlighted AC's foundational role and led to its formal inclusion in Zermelo's 1908 axiomatization of set theory.

Topological Aspects

Order Topology

The order topology on a well-ordered set XX is generated by taking as a subbasis the collection of all open rays of the form (a,→)={y∈X∣y>a}(a, \to) = \{ y \in X \mid y > a \} for each a∈Xa \in X and all initial segments of the form (←,b)={y∈X∣y<b}(\leftarrow, b) = \{ y \in X \mid y < b \} for each b∈Xb \in X. A basis for this topology consists of finite intersections of these subbasis elements, which yield open intervals (a,b)={y∈X∣a<y<b}(a, b) = \{ y \in X \mid a < y < b \} when both rays are present, along with the rays themselves. In the context of ordinal numbers, which form the canonical well-ordered sets, the basis elements reflect the structure of successors and limits. For a successor ordinal β+1\beta + 1, the singleton {β}\{\beta\} is open in the order topology, as it equals (β−1,β+1)(\beta - 1, \beta + 1) if β\beta has an immediate predecessor, making such points isolated. For a limit ordinal λ\lambda, every neighborhood of λ\lambda contains a cofinal tail approaching λ\lambda from below, such as (α,λ)(\alpha, \lambda) for some α<λ\alpha < \lambda, since there is no immediate predecessor. The order topology on a well-ordered set is always Hausdorff, as for any distinct points a<ba < b in XX, the open sets (←,b)(\leftarrow, b) and (a,→)(a, \to) separate them. Regarding compactness, the ordinal space [0,α)[0, \alpha) in the order topology is compact if and only if α\alpha is a successor ordinal. For example, [0,ω+1)[0, \omega + 1) is compact, as it is a successor ordinal space and any open cover admits a finite subcover. In contrast, for the limit ordinal α=ω1\alpha = \omega_1, the cover {[0,β)∣β<ω1}\{ [0, \beta) \mid \beta < \omega_1 \} has no finite subcover, as any finite collection leaves an uncovered tail.

Topological Properties

The order topology on a well-ordered set exhibits several distinctive topological properties, particularly in the case of ordinal spaces. These spaces are locally compact, meaning every point has a compact neighborhood. For an ordinal space [0,α)[0, \alpha), where α\alpha is a limit ordinal, each point β<α\beta < \alpha admits the compact interval [0,β+1][0, \beta + 1] as a neighborhood, ensuring local compactness throughout. However, the entire space [0,α)[0, \alpha) is not compact unless α\alpha is finite or a successor ordinal, as infinite limit ordinals lead to non-compactness due to the absence of a finite subcover for the open cover of initial segments. Well-order topologies are scattered spaces, characterized by the absence of dense-in-itself subsets; every nonempty subspace contains an isolated point, namely its least element. This property follows directly from the well-ordering, where the minimal element of any subset is open in the induced topology. The Cantor-Bendixson rank of such a space, defined as the smallest ordinal ρ\rho where the ρ\rho-th iterated derived set is empty, measures the "scattered height" tied to the order type itself. For example, the space [0,ω)[0, \omega) has rank 1, as it is discrete with all points isolated and the first derived set empty. Regarding metrizability, the order topology on a well-ordered set is metrizable if and only if the order type is countable. Countable ordinals, such as ω\omega, admit a countable basis consisting of open intervals, and being regular Hausdorff spaces, they satisfy the conditions of the Urysohn metrization theorem, yielding a metric equivalent to the discrete topology on the naturals. In contrast, uncountable ordinals like ω1\omega_1, the first uncountable ordinal, possess an uncountable basis and fail to be second countable, rendering them non-metrizable. A prominent example illustrating non-metrizability is the construction involving ω1\omega_1, which underpins the long line—a space formed by ω1×[0,1)\omega_1 \times [0,1) equipped with the lexicographic order topology. This yields a connected, locally Euclidean, non-metrizable manifold-like space that is sequentially compact but not compact, highlighting how well-orderings extend beyond familiar metric structures. Sequential properties vary by point type in ordinal spaces. Successor ordinals are first-countable, with a countable local basis of neighborhoods shrinking to the point, such as sequences of initial segments. However, limit ordinals of uncountable cofinality, like points in ω1\omega_1, are not first-countable; any local basis requires cardinality equal to the cofinality, exceeding ℵ0\aleph_0, which prevents sequential determination of limits at such points.

References

  1. https://mathworld.wolfram.com/WellOrderedSet.html
  2. https://e.math.cornell.edu/people/mann/classes/chicago/Well-ordering.pdf
  3. https://mathworld.wolfram.com/WellOrderingPrinciple.html
  4. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01445300
  5. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02124929
  6. https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/well-order
  7. https://math.libretexts.org/Courses/Monroe_Community_College/MTH_220_Discrete_Math/3%3A_Proof_Techniques/3.7%3A_The_Well-Ordering_Principle
  8. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/set-theory/basic-set-theory.html
  9. https://mathresearch.utsa.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Natural_Numbers:Well-Ordering
  10. http://www.cs.bsu.edu/~fischer/math215/wellorder.pdf
  11. https://www.math.wustl.edu/~kumar/courses/310-2011/Peano.pdf
  12. https://www.math.uchicago.edu/~may/VIGRE/VIGRE2009/REUPapers/Murphy.pdf
  13. https://www.math.wustl.edu/~chi/310notesIV.pdf
  14. https://docs.ufpr.br/~hoefel/ensino/CM304_CompleMat_PE3/livros/Enderton_Elements%20of%20set%20theory_(1977).pdf
  15. https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~hunter/intro_analysis_pdf/intro_analysis.pdf
  16. https://www.cut-the-knot.org/WhatIs/Infinity/Order.shtml
  17. https://webhomes.maths.ed.ac.uk/~v1ranick/papers/cantor1.pdf
  18. https://people.math.ethz.ch/~halorenz/publications/pdf/Carruth.pdf
  19. https://www.m-hikari.com/ija/ija-2018/ija-1-4-2018/p/gauthierIJA1-4-2018.pdf
  20. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zermelo-set-theory/
  21. https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/well-ordering+theorem
  22. http://gdz.sub.uni-goettingen.de/no_cache/en/dms/load/img/?IDDOC=28526
  23. https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs6110/2017sp/lectures/lec06.pdf
  24. https://www.math.cmu.edu/~wgunther/127m12/notes/day12.pdf
  25. https://www.math.wustl.edu/~freiwald/ch8.pdf
  26. https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2009/01/28/245b-notes-7-well-ordered-sets-ordinals-and-zorns-lemma-optional/
  27. https://www.infinitelymore.xyz/p/well-ordinals-and-the-ordinal-numbers
  28. https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/knight/lectures/formalordinals.pdf
  29. https://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/pete/courses/Theory-Computation/2016-Spring/induction-notes.pdf
  30. https://www3.cs.stonybrook.edu/~cse541/Spring2009/cse541OrdersMultisets.pdf
  31. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/axiom-choice/
  32. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1968471
  33. http://webhome.auburn.edu/~smith01/math5500/topnotes08Orders.pdf
  34. https://www.math.utoronto.ca/ivan/mat327/docs/notes/10-orders.pdf
  35. https://dantopology.wordpress.com/2009/10/11/the-first-uncountable-ordinal/
  36. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.04025
  37. https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Countable_Closed_Ordinal_Space_is_Metrizable
  38. https://www.rexresearch1.com/TopologyLibrary/CounterexamplesTopologySteen.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.