0
$\begingroup$

There exists an well-ordering $(<)$ on $\Bbb R$ such that the set $\{x \in \Bbb R\mid x < y \}$ is countable for every $y \in \Bbb R.$

How to prove that the above statement is equivalent to continuum hypothesis? Any help will be highly appreciated.

Thank you very much.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Use \mid instead of \ |\ . $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Commented Apr 18, 2020 at 7:56

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

Let $\omega_1$ be the least uncountable ordinal. The continuum hypothesis states that $|\omega_1| = |\mathbb{R}|$.

The important observation to see the equivalence of your statement and the continuum hypothesis is that the only uncountable ordinal which has the property that every proper initial segment is countable is $\omega_1$. To see this, suppose $\alpha$ is an uncountable ordinal, so that $\omega_1 \leq \alpha$. If $\omega_1 < \alpha$, then $\omega_1$ is a proper initial segment of $\alpha$ which is uncountable, contrary to hypothesis. Thus, $\alpha = \omega_1$.

So now suppose there exists a well-ordering $\leq$ on $\mathbb{R}$ such that for each $y \in \mathbb{R}$ the set $\{x \in \mathbb{R} \mid x < y\}$ is countable. The set $\{x \in \mathbb{R} \mid x < y\}$ is exactly the proper initial segment of $(\mathbb{R},\leq)$ determined by $y$, and every proper initial segment of $(\mathbb{R},\leq)$ arises in this way. It follows from the above observation that the order-type (i.e., the unique ordinal which is order isomorphic to) of $(\mathbb{R},\leq)$ is $\omega_1$. In particular, there is a bijection between $\omega_1$ and $\mathbb{R}$ given by such an order isomorphism.

Conversely, given a bijection $f\colon\omega_1 \to \mathbb{R}$, defined a binary relation on $\mathbb{R}$ by declaring $f$ to be an order isomorphism. By construction, $\leq$ is a well-ordering of $\mathbb{R}$ with the additional property that every proper initial segment of $(\mathbb{R},\leq)$ is countable, i.e., for every $y \in \mathbb{R}$, the set $\{x \in \mathbb{R} \mid x < y\}$ is countable.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It may be worth emphasizing that the equivalence uses choice in a fundamental way. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 18, 2020 at 12:30
  • $\begingroup$ (The point of my comment is that the usual statement of the continuum hypothesis does not mention ordinals.) $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 18, 2020 at 13:52
  • $\begingroup$ @AndrésE.Caicedo Absolutely, in a choice-less context, the Continuum Hypothesis simply says that there is no set $S$ whose cardinality is strictly between that of $\mathbb{N}$ and $\mathbb{R}$ (where, of course, $|A| < |B|$ means that there is an injection of $A$ into $B$, but no bijection between the two sets). In that context, the equivalence fails -- the given statement is not necessarily implied by the Continuum Hypothesis, as the Solovay Model provides an example in which the Continuum Hypothesis holds yet there is no well-ordering of $\mathbb{R}$. $\endgroup$
    – Hayden
    Commented Apr 18, 2020 at 17:24
  • $\begingroup$ (Of course, the Solovay Model requires an inaccessible to construct.) $\endgroup$
    – Hayden
    Commented Apr 18, 2020 at 17:26

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .