Ordinals are Well-Ordered/Proof 2

From ProofWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


The ordinals are well-ordered.


By Ordinals are Totally Ordered, the ordinals are totally ordered by $\subseteq$:

\(\ds X\) \(\subsetneqq\) \(\ds Y\)
\(\ds \leadstoandfrom \ \ \) \(\ds \exists a \in Y: \ \ \) \(\ds X\) \(=\) \(\ds Y_a\) where $Y_a$ denotes the initial segment of $Y$ determined by $a$
\(\ds \leadstoandfrom \ \ \) \(\ds X\) \(=\) \(\ds a\) since $Y_a = a$
\(\ds \leadstoandfrom \ \ \) \(\ds X\) \(\in\) \(\ds Y\)


the strict ordering $\subsetneqq$ on ordinals


the strict ordering $\in$ on ordinals

are the same.

Aiming for a contradiction, suppose the ordinals were not well-ordered by $\subsetneqq$.

Then we could find a sequence $\sequence {X_n}_{n \mathop = 0}^\infty$ of ordinals such that:

$X_0 \supsetneqq X_1 \supsetneqq X_2 \cdots$

So for all $n > 0$:

$X_n \subsetneqq X_0$


$X_n \in X_0$

Thus $\sequence {X_{n + 1} }_{n \mathop = 0}^\infty$ is a decreasing sequence under $\subsetneqq$ of elements of $\sequence {X_n}$.

But since $X_0$ is an ordinal it is well-ordered by $\subsetneqq$.

From Condition for Well-Foundedness, this demonstrates a contradiction.