Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

This is related to my recent question and would provide a natural positive answer to Question 2. I am sure this must be known to experts.

Question: Is there a monotone injection $(\omega_1,<) \to ([0,1],<)$ ?

share|improve this question
    
What is the definition of $\omega_1$? There is a monotone injection of every countable ordinal into the unit interval, but no such injection for the first uncountable ordinal. –  Jim Conant Oct 9 '10 at 15:03
    
$\omega_1$ denotes the first uncountable ordinal. –  Andreas Thom Oct 9 '10 at 15:08
    
Thus explaining Alessandro's proof. Thanks. –  Jim Conant Oct 9 '10 at 15:10
    
1  
(On the other hand, for any countable ordinal $\alpha$, ${\mathbb Q}$ contains subsets order-isomorphic to $\alpha+1$ that are closed as subsets of ${\mathbb R}$.) –  Andres Caicedo Oct 12 '10 at 1:31

3 Answers 3

up vote 16 down vote accepted

No, because you could use it to construct an injective map $\omega_1\to\mathbb{Q}$, mapping $\alpha<\omega_1$ to some rational number between $\alpha$ and $\alpha+1$.

share|improve this answer
    
That was fast. Thank you. –  Andreas Thom Oct 9 '10 at 14:46
    
Glad to be helpful. –  Alessandro Sisto Oct 9 '10 at 15:05

Let me add a slightly different argument to Alessandro's quick and clever solution. Assume that $f:(\omega_1,<)\to([0,1],<)$ is an order preserving map. Let $X$ be the range of $f$. Set $a=\sup(X)$, the least upper bound of $X$. Now $X\cap [0,a]$ is uncountable while $X\cap [0,a-\frac{1}{n}]$ is countable for $n=1,2,\dots,$ an impossibility. Question: where did I use that $f$ is o.p.?

share|improve this answer
1  
$X\cap [0,a-1/n]$ can be uncountable if $f$ is not o.p. For example, choose an uncountable subset $A$ of $\omega_1$ such that its complement $A^c$ is uncountable as well. Then define $f(A)=1$ and $f(A^c)=1/2$` (this is not injective, but it should not be difficult to construct an injective $f$ using the same idea). –  Alessandro Sisto Oct 9 '10 at 15:51

There is a far reaching generalization of this due to Friedman and Shelah. Suppose $X$ is a Borel set in a Polish space and $<$ is a linear order of $X$ that is a Borel subset of $X\times X$. Then there is no order preserving map from $\omega_1$ into $(X,<)$.

The Friedman-Shelah result follows from a later structure theorem of Harrington and Shelah who proved that for any such Borel linear order $(X,<)$ there is a Borel measurable order preserving map into ${\bf R}^\alpha$ for some countable ordinal $\alpha$ where ${\bf R}^\alpha$ is ordered lexicographically. The arguments for $[0,1]$ above can be generalized to show that ${\bf R}^\alpha$ has no $\omega_1$-chains.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.