Let $α$ and $β$ be ordinals such that $α>1$ and $βneq0$. Let $γ$, $ζ$, and $η$ be ordinals st...












1














Let $alpha$ and $beta$ be ordinals such that $alpha>1$ and $betaneq0$. Let $gamma$, $zeta$, and $eta$ be ordinals such that $gamma<beta$, $zeta<alpha$, and $eta<alpha^{gamma}$. I want to prove that $alpha^{gamma}cdotzeta+eta<alpha^{beta}$. I have already observed that $alpha^{gamma}cdotzeta<alpha^{beta}$. The hard part is showing that the equality still holds if we add $eta$. Any ideas?






set-theory ordinals







share|cite|improve this question





























    1














    Let $alpha$ and $beta$ be ordinals such that $alpha>1$ and $betaneq0$. Let $gamma$, $zeta$, and $eta$ be ordinals such that $gamma<beta$, $zeta<alpha$, and $eta<alpha^{gamma}$. I want to prove that $alpha^{gamma}cdotzeta+eta<alpha^{beta}$. I have already observed that $alpha^{gamma}cdotzeta<alpha^{beta}$. The hard part is showing that the equality still holds if we add $eta$. Any ideas?






    set-theory ordinals







    share|cite|improve this question



























      1












      1








      1







      Let $alpha$ and $beta$ be ordinals such that $alpha>1$ and $betaneq0$. Let $gamma$, $zeta$, and $eta$ be ordinals such that $gamma<beta$, $zeta<alpha$, and $eta<alpha^{gamma}$. I want to prove that $alpha^{gamma}cdotzeta+eta<alpha^{beta}$. I have already observed that $alpha^{gamma}cdotzeta<alpha^{beta}$. The hard part is showing that the equality still holds if we add $eta$. Any ideas?






      set-theory ordinals







      share|cite|improve this question















      Let $alpha$ and $beta$ be ordinals such that $alpha>1$ and $betaneq0$. Let $gamma$, $zeta$, and $eta$ be ordinals such that $gamma<beta$, $zeta<alpha$, and $eta<alpha^{gamma}$. I want to prove that $alpha^{gamma}cdotzeta+eta<alpha^{beta}$. I have already observed that $alpha^{gamma}cdotzeta<alpha^{beta}$. The hard part is showing that the equality still holds if we add $eta$. Any ideas?






      set-theory ordinals




      set-theory ordinals






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Jan 4 at 17:15







      Eigenfield

















      asked Jan 4 at 16:42









      EigenfieldEigenfield

      624518




      624518






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1














          Assuming you have access to the basic rules of ordinal arithmetic, then this is a very simple exercise. If you don't, then I would work on proving those rules rather than working directly with the inequality you want to prove. For the remainder of this answer, I will assume the rules.



          From the hypothesis, we know that:
          $$
          eta <alpha^gamma
          $$
          Addition is strictly increasing in the right argument and multiplication is distributive on the right argument, so we know that:
          $$
          alpha^gammacdotzeta+eta < alpha^gammacdotzeta+alpha^gamma = alpha^gammacdot(zeta+1)
          $$
          Since by our hypothesis $zeta<alpha$ we know that $zeta+1leqalpha$, and by the fact that multiplication is increasing in the right argument, that exponentiation "works as expected" on the right argument, that exponentiation is increasing in the right argument so long as the left argument is not $1$, and the hypothesis that $gamma+1leqbeta$, we know that:
          $$
          alpha^gammacdot(zeta+1)leqalpha^{gamma}alpha=alpha^{gamma+1}leqalpha^beta
          $$



          And thus we have shown what was needed.



          Note, there is a lot of detail that is being taken care of by our rules. They are not hard to prove, but you must make sure that you are not taking them for granted.






          share|cite|improve this answer








          New contributor




          ItsJustSomeOrdinalsBro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.


























            1














            Note that



            $$alpha^gammacdotgamma+eta<alpha^gammacdoteta+alpha^gamma=alpha^gammacdot(eta+1)leqalpha^gammacdotalpha=alpha^{gamma+1}leqalpha^beta.$$



            Of course, you need to prove the left distributivity rules of multiplication and exponentiation. But that's a whole other topic.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















              Your Answer





              StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
              return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
              StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
              StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
              });
              });
              }, "mathjax-editing");

              StackExchange.ready(function() {
              var channelOptions = {
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "69"
              };
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
              createEditor();
              });
              }
              else {
              createEditor();
              }
              });

              function createEditor() {
              StackExchange.prepareEditor({
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
              convertImagesToLinks: true,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: 10,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader: {
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              },
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              });


              }
              });














              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function () {
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3061813%2flet-%25ce%25b1-and-%25ce%25b2-be-ordinals-such-that-%25ce%25b11-and-%25ce%25b2-neq0-let-%25ce%25b3-%25ce%25b6-and-%25ce%25b7%23new-answer', 'question_page');
              }
              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes








              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              1














              Assuming you have access to the basic rules of ordinal arithmetic, then this is a very simple exercise. If you don't, then I would work on proving those rules rather than working directly with the inequality you want to prove. For the remainder of this answer, I will assume the rules.



              From the hypothesis, we know that:
              $$
              eta <alpha^gamma
              $$
              Addition is strictly increasing in the right argument and multiplication is distributive on the right argument, so we know that:
              $$
              alpha^gammacdotzeta+eta < alpha^gammacdotzeta+alpha^gamma = alpha^gammacdot(zeta+1)
              $$
              Since by our hypothesis $zeta<alpha$ we know that $zeta+1leqalpha$, and by the fact that multiplication is increasing in the right argument, that exponentiation "works as expected" on the right argument, that exponentiation is increasing in the right argument so long as the left argument is not $1$, and the hypothesis that $gamma+1leqbeta$, we know that:
              $$
              alpha^gammacdot(zeta+1)leqalpha^{gamma}alpha=alpha^{gamma+1}leqalpha^beta
              $$



              And thus we have shown what was needed.



              Note, there is a lot of detail that is being taken care of by our rules. They are not hard to prove, but you must make sure that you are not taking them for granted.






              share|cite|improve this answer








              New contributor




              ItsJustSomeOrdinalsBro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.























                1














                Assuming you have access to the basic rules of ordinal arithmetic, then this is a very simple exercise. If you don't, then I would work on proving those rules rather than working directly with the inequality you want to prove. For the remainder of this answer, I will assume the rules.



                From the hypothesis, we know that:
                $$
                eta <alpha^gamma
                $$
                Addition is strictly increasing in the right argument and multiplication is distributive on the right argument, so we know that:
                $$
                alpha^gammacdotzeta+eta < alpha^gammacdotzeta+alpha^gamma = alpha^gammacdot(zeta+1)
                $$
                Since by our hypothesis $zeta<alpha$ we know that $zeta+1leqalpha$, and by the fact that multiplication is increasing in the right argument, that exponentiation "works as expected" on the right argument, that exponentiation is increasing in the right argument so long as the left argument is not $1$, and the hypothesis that $gamma+1leqbeta$, we know that:
                $$
                alpha^gammacdot(zeta+1)leqalpha^{gamma}alpha=alpha^{gamma+1}leqalpha^beta
                $$



                And thus we have shown what was needed.



                Note, there is a lot of detail that is being taken care of by our rules. They are not hard to prove, but you must make sure that you are not taking them for granted.






                share|cite|improve this answer








                New contributor




                ItsJustSomeOrdinalsBro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.





















                  1












                  1








                  1






                  Assuming you have access to the basic rules of ordinal arithmetic, then this is a very simple exercise. If you don't, then I would work on proving those rules rather than working directly with the inequality you want to prove. For the remainder of this answer, I will assume the rules.



                  From the hypothesis, we know that:
                  $$
                  eta <alpha^gamma
                  $$
                  Addition is strictly increasing in the right argument and multiplication is distributive on the right argument, so we know that:
                  $$
                  alpha^gammacdotzeta+eta < alpha^gammacdotzeta+alpha^gamma = alpha^gammacdot(zeta+1)
                  $$
                  Since by our hypothesis $zeta<alpha$ we know that $zeta+1leqalpha$, and by the fact that multiplication is increasing in the right argument, that exponentiation "works as expected" on the right argument, that exponentiation is increasing in the right argument so long as the left argument is not $1$, and the hypothesis that $gamma+1leqbeta$, we know that:
                  $$
                  alpha^gammacdot(zeta+1)leqalpha^{gamma}alpha=alpha^{gamma+1}leqalpha^beta
                  $$



                  And thus we have shown what was needed.



                  Note, there is a lot of detail that is being taken care of by our rules. They are not hard to prove, but you must make sure that you are not taking them for granted.






                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  ItsJustSomeOrdinalsBro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  Assuming you have access to the basic rules of ordinal arithmetic, then this is a very simple exercise. If you don't, then I would work on proving those rules rather than working directly with the inequality you want to prove. For the remainder of this answer, I will assume the rules.



                  From the hypothesis, we know that:
                  $$
                  eta <alpha^gamma
                  $$
                  Addition is strictly increasing in the right argument and multiplication is distributive on the right argument, so we know that:
                  $$
                  alpha^gammacdotzeta+eta < alpha^gammacdotzeta+alpha^gamma = alpha^gammacdot(zeta+1)
                  $$
                  Since by our hypothesis $zeta<alpha$ we know that $zeta+1leqalpha$, and by the fact that multiplication is increasing in the right argument, that exponentiation "works as expected" on the right argument, that exponentiation is increasing in the right argument so long as the left argument is not $1$, and the hypothesis that $gamma+1leqbeta$, we know that:
                  $$
                  alpha^gammacdot(zeta+1)leqalpha^{gamma}alpha=alpha^{gamma+1}leqalpha^beta
                  $$



                  And thus we have shown what was needed.



                  Note, there is a lot of detail that is being taken care of by our rules. They are not hard to prove, but you must make sure that you are not taking them for granted.







                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  ItsJustSomeOrdinalsBro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer






                  New contributor




                  ItsJustSomeOrdinalsBro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  answered Jan 4 at 17:17









                  ItsJustSomeOrdinalsBroItsJustSomeOrdinalsBro

                  661




                  661




                  New contributor




                  ItsJustSomeOrdinalsBro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





                  New contributor





                  ItsJustSomeOrdinalsBro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  ItsJustSomeOrdinalsBro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.























                      1














                      Note that



                      $$alpha^gammacdotgamma+eta<alpha^gammacdoteta+alpha^gamma=alpha^gammacdot(eta+1)leqalpha^gammacdotalpha=alpha^{gamma+1}leqalpha^beta.$$



                      Of course, you need to prove the left distributivity rules of multiplication and exponentiation. But that's a whole other topic.






                      share|cite|improve this answer


























                        1














                        Note that



                        $$alpha^gammacdotgamma+eta<alpha^gammacdoteta+alpha^gamma=alpha^gammacdot(eta+1)leqalpha^gammacdotalpha=alpha^{gamma+1}leqalpha^beta.$$



                        Of course, you need to prove the left distributivity rules of multiplication and exponentiation. But that's a whole other topic.






                        share|cite|improve this answer
























                          1












                          1








                          1






                          Note that



                          $$alpha^gammacdotgamma+eta<alpha^gammacdoteta+alpha^gamma=alpha^gammacdot(eta+1)leqalpha^gammacdotalpha=alpha^{gamma+1}leqalpha^beta.$$



                          Of course, you need to prove the left distributivity rules of multiplication and exponentiation. But that's a whole other topic.






                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          Note that



                          $$alpha^gammacdotgamma+eta<alpha^gammacdoteta+alpha^gamma=alpha^gammacdot(eta+1)leqalpha^gammacdotalpha=alpha^{gamma+1}leqalpha^beta.$$



                          Of course, you need to prove the left distributivity rules of multiplication and exponentiation. But that's a whole other topic.







                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer










                          answered Jan 4 at 17:08









                          Asaf Karagila♦Asaf Karagila

                          302k32427757




                          302k32427757






























                              draft saved

                              draft discarded




















































                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid …



                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                              Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                              Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                              Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid …



                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function () {
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3061813%2flet-%25ce%25b1-and-%25ce%25b2-be-ordinals-such-that-%25ce%25b11-and-%25ce%25b2-neq0-let-%25ce%25b3-%25ce%25b6-and-%25ce%25b7%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                              }
                              );

                              Post as a guest















                              Required, but never shown





















































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown

































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown







                              -

                              Popular posts from this blog

                              An IMO inspired problem

                              Image
                              14 4 This problem from IMO 1988 is said to be one of the most elegant ones in functional equations. Problem : The function $f$ is defined on the set of all positive integers as follows: begin{align} f(1) = 1, f(3) &= 3, f(2n) = f(n), \ f(4n+1) &= 2f(2n+1) - f(n), \ f(4n+3) &= 3 f(2n+1) - 2f(n) end{align} Find the number of $n$ with $f(n) = n, 1 leq n leq 1988$. The main idea towards the solution is realizing that these conditions stand for the fact that $f(n)$ just reverses the digits in the binary representation of the number $n$. So, essentially the solution is finding the number of binary pallindromes $leq 1988_{10}$. My question is the following : How to reformulate the problem so that $f(n)$ reverses the digits of $n$ in its ternary representation. Or even better, can we reformulate it for a
                              Read more

                              Management

                              Image
                              Management From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search "Manager" redirects here. For other uses, see Management (disambiguation) and Manager (disambiguation). An organization chart for the United States Coast Guard shows the hierarchy of managerial roles in that organization. Business administration Management of a business Accounting Management accounting Financial accounting Financial audit Business entities Cooperative Corporation Limited liability company Partnership Sole proprietorship State-owned enterprise Corporate governance Annual general meeting Board of directors Supervisory board Advisory board Audit committee Corporate law Commercial law Constitutional documents Contract Corporate crime Corporate liability Insolvency law International trade law Mergers and acquisitions Economics Commodity Pu
                              Read more

                              Investment

                              Image
                              Investment From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search This article is about investment in finance. For investment in macroeconomics, see Investment (macroeconomics). For other uses, see Investment (disambiguation). "Invest" redirects here. For the term in meteorology, see Invest (meteorology). This article needs additional citations for verification . Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. ( February 2017 ) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) In general, to invest is to distribute money in the expectation of some benefit in the future – for example, investment in durable goods, in real estate by the service industry, in factories for manufacturing, in product development, and in research and development. However, this article focuses specifically on investment in financial
                              Read more