Maximal Injective Mapping from Ordinals to a Set

From ProofWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Let $F$ be a mapping satisfying the following properties:

The domain of $F$ is $\On$, the class of all ordinals
For all ordinals $x$, $\map F x = \map G {F \restriction x}$.
For all ordinals $x$, if $A \setminus \Img x \ne \O$, then $\map G {F \restriction x} \in A \setminus \Img x$ where $\Img x$ is the image of the subset $x$ under $F$.
$A$ is a set.

Then there exists an ordinal $y$ satisfying the following properties:

$\forall x \in y: A \setminus \Img x \ne \O$
$\Img y = A$
$F \restriction y$ is an injective mapping.

Note that the first third and fourth properties of $F$ are the most important. For any mapping $G$, a mapping $F$ can be constructed satisfying the first two properties using the First Principle of Transfinite Recursion.


Set $B$ equal to the class of all ordinals $x$ such that $A \setminus \Img x \ne \O$.

Assume $B = \On$.


\(\ds B\) \(=\) \(\ds \On\)
\(\ds \leadsto \ \ \) \(\ds \forall x: \, \) \(\ds \map F x\) \(=\) \(\ds \map G {F \restriction x}\) Definition of $B$
\(\ds \leadsto \ \ \) \(\ds \forall x: \, \) \(\ds \map G {F \restriction x}\) \(\in\) \(\ds A \setminus \Img F\) by hypothesis

By Condition for Injective Mapping on Ordinals, $A$ is a proper class.

This contradicts the fact that $A$ is a set.

Therefore $B \subsetneq \On$.

Because $B$ is bounded above, $\bigcup B \in \On$.

By Union of Ordinals is Least Upper Bound, the union of ordinals is the least upper bound of $B$.

Setting $\bigcup B = x$:

$(1): \quad A \setminus \Img x = \O \land \forall y \in x: A \setminus \Img y \ne \O$

The first condition is satisfied.

In addition:

$(2): \quad A \subseteq \Img x$

Take any $y \in \Img x$.


\(\ds y\) \(\in\) \(\ds \Img x\)
\(\ds \leadsto \ \ \) \(\ds \exists z \in x: \, \) \(\ds y\) \(=\) \(\ds \map F z\) Definition of Image of Element under Mapping
\(\ds \leadsto \ \ \) \(\ds \exists z: \, \) \(\ds y\) \(=\) \(\ds \map F z\) Equation $(1)$
\(\, \ds \land \, \) \(\ds A \setminus \Img z\) \(\ne\) \(\ds \O\)
\(\ds \leadsto \ \ \) \(\ds \exists z: \, \) \(\ds y\) \(=\) \(\ds \map F z\) by hypothesis
\(\, \ds \land \, \) \(\ds \map F z\) \(\in\) \(\ds A \setminus \Img z\)
\(\ds \leadsto \ \ \) \(\ds y\) \(\in\) \(\ds A\)

This means that:

$\Img x \subseteq A$

Combining with $(2)$:

$\Img x = A$

$F$ is a mapping, so $F \restriction x$ is a mapping.

Take any $y, z \in x$ such that $y$ and $z$ are distinct.

Without loss of generality, allow $y \in z$ (justified by Ordinal Membership Trichotomy).

\(\ds y\) \(\in\) \(\ds z\)
\(\, \ds \land \, \) \(\ds z\) \(\in\) \(\ds x\)
\(\ds \leadsto \ \ \) \(\ds \map F y\) \(\in\) \(\ds \Img z\) by hypothesis
\(\, \ds \land \, \) \(\ds \map F z\) \(\in\) \(\ds A \setminus \Img z\)
\(\ds \leadsto \ \ \) \(\ds \map F y\) \(\in\) \(\ds \Img z\) Definition of Set Difference
\(\, \ds \land \, \) \(\ds \map F z\) \(\notin\) \(\ds \Img z\)
\(\ds \leadsto \ \ \) \(\ds \map F y\) \(\ne\) \(\ds \map F z\)

From this, we may conclude that $F$ is injective.


Also see