Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2015 / ii / Paper 2 / 13I (Logic and Set Theory)

The recursive definition of ordinal addition is $\alpha +0=\alpha$, $\alpha +(\beta +1)=(\alpha +\beta )+1$, and $\alpha +\lambda ={\sup }_{\beta <\lambda }(\alpha +\beta )$ for a nonzero limit ordinal $\lambda$. The synthetic definition is the order type of the ordered disjoint union of a copy of $\alpha$ followed by a copy of $\beta$.

For the synthetic operation, adding the empty order does nothing, adding a successor appends one final point, and concatenation with a limit order is the increasing union of the initial concatenations with all its proper initial segments. Their order types have supremum ${\sup }_{\beta <\lambda }(\alpha +\beta )$. Thus the synthetic operation satisfies the recursive equations. Transfinite induction gives uniqueness of the recursively defined operation, proving equivalence.

The recursive definitions of ordinal multiplication and ordinal exponentiation areThe last equation in each line is for nonzero limit $\lambda$. In particular the convention $0^0=1$ belongs to this recursive definition.

The first assertion is false: $1<2$, but $1+\omega =2+\omega =\omega$. The second is true. In the concatenation definition of ordinal addition, the copy of $\alpha$ is a proper initial segment of the copy of $\beta$ when $\alpha <\beta$, so $\gamma +\alpha$ is a proper initial segment of $\gamma +\beta$.

No. The definition of ordinal exponentiation gives $2^{\omega }={\sup }_n{2}^n=\omega ={\sup }_n{3}^n=3^{\omega }$, although $2<3$.

No such ordinal exists. For $\alpha >1$, ordinal multiplication gives ${\alpha }^2=\alpha \alpha \ge \alpha \cdot 2=\alpha +\alpha >\alpha$. Since ordinal exponentiation is nondecreasing in the exponent for base $\alpha >1$, ${\alpha }^{\omega }\ge {\alpha }^2>\alpha$.

For every countable ordinal $\beta$, ${\omega }^{\beta }$ is countable: successor stages use a countable product, and countable limit stages a countable union. Hence ${\omega }^{{\omega }_1}={\sup }_{\beta <{\omega }_1}{\omega }^{\beta }\le {\omega }_1$. Conversely ${\omega }^{\beta }\ge \beta$ by transfinite induction, so these values are cofinal in ${\omega }_1$. Therefore ${\omega }^{{\omega }_1}={\omega }_1$.

It is not the least fixed point. Set $a_0=1$, $a_{n+1}={\omega }^{a_n}$ and define epsilon zero as ${\epsilon }_0={\sup }_n{a}_n$. This is countable, and continuity of ordinal exponentiation at limits gives ${\omega }^{{\epsilon }_0}={\sup }_n{\omega }^{a_n}={\epsilon }_0$. Any fixed point of $\alpha \mapsto {\omega }^{\alpha }$ dominates every $a_n$ by induction, hence dominates ${\epsilon }_0$. Thus the least fixed point is ${\epsilon }_0<{\omega }_1$.