In mathematics, the transfinite recursion theorem says a function can be defined using a recursion over a well-ordered set; for example, but also over general well-ordered sets.

Since each well-ordered set is isomorphic to an ordinal, the theorem is also often stated in terms of ordinals.

Statements

edit

Transfinite recursion is an instance of transfinite induction and the latter works over a well-ordered set (in fact, the feasibility of such an induction is equivalent to well-ordered-ness). In particular, the theorem can be stated for well-ordered sets. If is a partially ordered set, we write

Transfinite recursion theorem [1]Let a set , a well-ordered set and a function

be given. Then there exists a unique function

such that

for each in , where the vertical bar means restriction.

The transfinite recursion theorem is also commonly stated for ordinals. One simple version is: let a set and a class function with values in defined on the class of all functions be given. Then, for each ordinal , there exists a unique function

such that, for every ordinal ; that is, or ,

.

Since an ordinal is a well-ordered set, the above version follows from the well-ordered version (as ). Although it is common to ask to be defined for all functions, this is just a convenient way of stating the theorem. In practice, one usually only defines for functions , all ordinals, and then extends for all other functions arbitrary.

Proof

edit

When , the proof here appears in N. Jacobson's Basic Algebra I[2] and exactly the same proof goes through for an arbitrary well-ordered set. The proof itself is taken from Halmos.[1]

We say a subset is closed (with respect to ) if for each function whose graph is contained in , we have is in . For example, is closed.

Let be the intersection of all closed subsets of (with respect to ), which is again closed. We shall prove is a graph of a function ; that is, the fiber for the projection has exactly one element for each in . For this, we shall use strong induction over . That is, assuming for every , we show .

By inductive hypothesis, we have the function . Note the graph of it lies in . Since is closed, is in . Thus, . To show it is the equality, suppose otherwise. That means there is some pair in . We claim the set

is closed. Thus, let be a function whose graph lies in . If , then we have by inductive hypothesis; indeed, since their graphs lie in ,

for each . Thus, since and is closed. If , then again is in as is closed. This proves the claim and then is a contradiction to the smallest-ness of . Finally, the uniqueness holds by a similar but easier induction.

Examples

edit

Example: a basis construction

edit

Let be a vector space. There is a "very obvious" way to construct a basis of as follows. If , pick a nonzero vector and then pick another nonzero vector not in the span of , if any, and so on. Transfinite recursion can make this argument rigorous, as we now show (alternatively, one can use Zorn's lemma; see Zorn's lemma § Every vector space has a basis.)

Let the above be given a well-ordering by the well-ordering theorem. Suppose we are given a sequence of vectors indexed by an ordinal . That is, we are given a function such that for each (or ). Then let

the least element in the complement

if and otherwise. Note, since is arbitrary, the image of is not necessarily linearly independent; all we have is that is linearly independent from the nonzero vectors in .

The transfinite recursion theorem then says: given an ordinal , there exists a unique that satisfies the recursion condition; i.e., is linearly independent from for . In particular, the nonzero vectors in the image of are linearly independent. Finally, if we take to be some large ordinal; e.g., take to have cardinality strictly larger than that of , then, for the reason of cardinality,

is a basis of . (Note, unlike a construction by Zorn's lemma, this basis is uniquely determined by a choice of a well-ordering on .)

Example: a proof of Zorn's lemma

edit

Transfinite recursion is used in a typical proof of Zorn's lemma, assuming the axiom of choice. Here is an argument (which is fairly similar to the construction of a basis above).[3]

Let be a partially ordered set in which each chain, including the empty chain, has an upper bound. To show has a maximal element, suppose, on the contrary, that it has none. Then each chain has a strict upper bound; i.e., an element in such that for each in , since it has an upper bound which is bounded by some strictly larger element. Let be a choice function; i.e., and then for each chain in , let

We now recursively construct a sequence over ordinals. For each function , let if is a chain and otherwise some arbitrary element in ; e.g., . By the transfinite recursion theorem, we find a function such that for ; in particular, it is injective. But this is a contradiction since there is an ordinal whose cardinality is strictly larger than that of (see Hartogs number). If one is not sure about the existence of a large ordinal, there is also an argument that avoids ordinals altogether (still using transfinite recursion). See e.g., Hausdorff maximal principle § Proof from the well-ordering theorem.

Recursion with the axiom of replacement

edit

For some use of transfinite recursion, we may need to construction a function with values in a class; in that case, we need to use the axiom of replacement to ensure we still get the function even though the codomain is a class.

Here is an example of such a need.[4][5] Suppose we want to show

Each well-ordered set is uniquely isomorphic to a unique ordinal.

The problem is that, a priori, we don’t know what ordinal to use. Thus, at each stage in transfinite induction, we construct a new ordinal. Precisely, given a well-ordered set and an element in , suppose we have constructed

where . We shall extend these isomorphisms to an isomorphism for some ordinal . If is a successor; i.e., the least element among strict upper bounds of , then we let and . Then

where the union on the right exists by the axiom of union. If , then, thinking as sets of ordered pairs, let

The union on the right is a set by the axiom of replacement and the axiom of union; indeed, the former guarantees the collection is a set. Let be the image of , which is clearly an ordinal, and . Finally, we check the uniqueness. By transfinite induction, we see isomorphisms between ordinals are the identities. Then given , we have is the identity and so .

The same argument can be used to prove the transfinite recursion theorem when the target is a class. The proof is by strong induction over ordinals (the same proof works for well-ordered sets but we use ordinals for simplicity). Thus, assume the theorem is true for every . By inductive hypothesis, for each , we have a unique function satisfying the recursion condition. Let be given by . In the limit case; i.e., is a limit ordinal, identifying functions with their graphs, consider the union

The formation of a union is justified by the axiom of union but for the above union to be a set, we need the collection

to be a set; in other words, the image of the map to be a set and that is ensured by the axiom of replacement. Finally, this union is the graph of a function that satisfies the required recursion condition. The successor case is handled similarly.

References

edit
  1. ^ a b Halmos 1960, § 18.
  2. ^ Jacobson, Nathan (22 June 2009). Basic Algebra I: Second Edition. § 0.4.: Courier Corporation. ISBN 978-0-486-47189-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  3. ^ https://pi.math.cornell.edu/~kbrown/6310/zorn.pdf [bare URL PDF]
  4. ^ Theorem 1 in https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2009/01/28/245b-notes-7-well-ordered-sets-ordinals-and-zorns-lemma-optional/
  5. ^ Halmos 1960, § 20., Counting theorem.
  • Halmos, Paul (1960). Naive Set Theory. Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand Company.
  • "Chapter IV Transfinite Recursion". Axiomatic Set Theory. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics. Vol. 21. 1958. pp. 100–113. doi:10.1016/S0049-237X(08)71575-1.
  • Paul Taylor, Practical Foundations of Mathematics, [1]

Further reading

edit

📚 Artikel Terkait di Wikipedia

Transfinite induction

chosen. More formally, we can state the Transfinite Recursion Theorem as follows: Transfinite Recursion Theorem (version 1). Given a class function G:

Zorn's lemma

more directly using transfinite recursion, still assuming the axiom of choice. For that, see for example Transfinite recursion theorem § Example: a basis

Ordinal number

α. Transfinite induction can be used not only to prove theorems but also to define functions on ordinals. This is known as transfinite recursion. Formally

Reverse mathematics

WKL0 results in WKL, etc. Over RCA0, Π1 1 transfinite recursion, ∆0 2 determinacy, and the ∆1 1 Ramsey theorem are all equivalent to each other. Over RCA0

Well-ordering theorem

prove the well-ordering theorem. One can conclude from the well-ordering theorem that every set is susceptible to transfinite induction, which is considered

Kruskal's tree theorem

form of arithmetical transfinite recursion). In 2004, the result was generalized from trees to graphs as the Robertson–Seymour theorem, a result that has

Hausdorff maximal principle

required to satisfy the above recursive condition, then the transfinite recursion theorem ensures this defines the function f {\displaystyle f} uniquely

Ordinal arithmetic

well-ordered set that represents the result of the operation or by using transfinite recursion. In addition to these standard operations for ordinals, there are