Transfinite recursion theorem
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]- ^ a b Halmos 1960, § 18.
- ^ 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) - ^ https://pi.math.cornell.edu/~kbrown/6310/zorn.pdf
- ^ Theorem 1 in https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2009/01/28/245b-notes-7-well-ordered-sets-ordinals-and-zorns-lemma-optional/
- ^ 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]