Skip to main content
Fixed the definition.
Source Link
Joel David Hamkins
  • 236.2k
  • 44
  • 777
  • 1.4k

The Knuth arrow notation is most often defined only on the natural numbers, but it seems that the central idea of it can be naturallyeasily extended to the ordinals, for example as follows:

$$\alpha\uparrow^0\beta=1$$$$\alpha\uparrow^0\beta=\alpha\beta$$ $$\alpha\uparrow^1\beta=\alpha^\beta$$$$\alpha\uparrow^\eta 0=1\qquad\text{for }\eta\geq 1$$ $$\alpha\uparrow^\eta\beta=\sup_{\eta'\lt\eta}[\alpha\uparrow^{\eta'}\sup_{\beta'\lt\beta}(\alpha\uparrow^\eta\beta')].$$$$\alpha\uparrow^\eta\beta=\sup_{\eta'\lt\eta}[\alpha\uparrow^{\eta'}\sup_{\beta'\lt\beta}(\alpha\uparrow^\eta\beta')]\qquad\text{otherwise}.$$

This definition simply replaces the use of $n-1$ and $b-1$ in the usual natural number definition of the Knuth arrowusual natural number definition of the Knuth arrow with a supremum over all smaller values, which allows the definition to work with limit ordinals, which have no immediate predecessor. On finite and successor values, this definition agrees with the standard formula. (I'm not sure if others have proposed a different transfinite extension of

Please note that there are other natural definitions, depending on how one treats the concept..limit stage. which will not be the same as this one.I can imagine alternative definitions For example, in the definition above, by $\alpha\beta$ I had intended that treatone should use the limit cases differentlynatural product, butrather than the common product, because this won't affectachieves some nicer properties. But others may want to do things differently, and the main conclusionresulting functions will differ.) Nevertheless, what I say below will apply to all the natural formulations of the arrow.

Using this definition, one can show by transfinite induction that if $\alpha, \beta$ and $\eta$ are countable ordinals, then $\alpha\uparrow^\eta\beta$ is also countable, because by the induction hypothesis, this will be a countable supremum of countable ordinals.

In particular, $\omega\uparrow^\omega\omega$ is a very large countable ordinal, and the anwer to your question is that it has cardinality $\aleph_0$.

The Knuth arrow notation is most often defined only on the natural numbers, but it seems that the central idea of it can be naturally extended to the ordinals, as follows:

$$\alpha\uparrow^0\beta=1$$ $$\alpha\uparrow^1\beta=\alpha^\beta$$ $$\alpha\uparrow^\eta\beta=\sup_{\eta'\lt\eta}[\alpha\uparrow^{\eta'}\sup_{\beta'\lt\beta}(\alpha\uparrow^\eta\beta')].$$

This definition simply replaces the use of $n-1$ and $b-1$ in the usual natural number definition of the Knuth arrow with a supremum over all smaller values, which allows the definition to work with limit ordinals, which have no immediate predecessor. On finite and successor values, this definition agrees with the standard formula. (I'm not sure if others have proposed a different transfinite extension of the concept....I can imagine alternative definitions that treat the limit cases differently, but this won't affect the main conclusion.)

Using this definition, one can show by transfinite induction that if $\alpha, \beta$ and $\eta$ are countable ordinals, then $\alpha\uparrow^\eta\beta$ is also countable, because by the induction hypothesis, this will be a countable supremum of countable ordinals.

In particular, $\omega\uparrow^\omega\omega$ is a very large countable ordinal, and the anwer to your question is that it has cardinality $\aleph_0$.

The Knuth arrow notation is most often defined only on the natural numbers, but the central idea of it can be easily extended to the ordinals, for example as follows:

$$\alpha\uparrow^0\beta=\alpha\beta$$ $$\alpha\uparrow^\eta 0=1\qquad\text{for }\eta\geq 1$$ $$\alpha\uparrow^\eta\beta=\sup_{\eta'\lt\eta}[\alpha\uparrow^{\eta'}\sup_{\beta'\lt\beta}(\alpha\uparrow^\eta\beta')]\qquad\text{otherwise}.$$

This definition simply replaces the use of $n-1$ and $b-1$ in the usual natural number definition of the Knuth arrow with a supremum over all smaller values, which allows the definition to work with limit ordinals, which have no immediate predecessor. On finite and successor values, this definition agrees with the standard formula.

Please note that there are other natural definitions, depending on how one treats the limit stage. which will not be the same as this one. For example, in the definition above, by $\alpha\beta$ I had intended that one should use the natural product, rather than the common product, because this achieves some nicer properties. But others may want to do things differently, and the resulting functions will differ. Nevertheless, what I say below will apply to all the natural formulations of the arrow.

Using this definition, one can show by transfinite induction that if $\alpha, \beta$ and $\eta$ are countable ordinals, then $\alpha\uparrow^\eta\beta$ is also countable, because by the induction hypothesis, this will be a countable supremum of countable ordinals.

In particular, $\omega\uparrow^\omega\omega$ is a very large countable ordinal, and the anwer to your question is that it has cardinality $\aleph_0$.

added 120 characters in body
Source Link
Joel David Hamkins
  • 236.2k
  • 44
  • 777
  • 1.4k

The Knuth arrow notation is most often defined only on the natural numbers, but it seems that the central idea of it can be naturally extended to the ordinals, as follows:

$$\alpha\uparrow^0\beta=1$$ $$\alpha\uparrow^1\beta=\alpha^\beta$$ $$\alpha\uparrow^\eta\beta=\sup_{\eta'\lt\eta}[\alpha\uparrow^{\eta'}\sup_{\beta'\lt\beta}(\alpha\uparrow^\eta\beta')].$$

This definition simply replaces the use of $n-1$ and $b-1$ in the usual natural number definition of the Knuth arrow with a supremum over all smaller values, which allows the definition to work with limit ordinals, which have no immediate predecessor. On finite and successor values, this definition agrees with the standard formula. (I'm not sure if others have proposed a different transfinite extension of the concept....I can imagine alternative definitions that treat the limit cases differently, but this won't affect the main conclusion.)

Using this definition, one can show by transfinite induction that if $\alpha, \beta$ and $\eta$ are countable ordinals, then $\alpha\uparrow^\eta\beta$ is also countable, because by the induction hypothesis, this will be a countable supremum of countable ordinals.

In particular, $\omega\uparrow^\omega\omega$ is a very large countable ordinal, and the anwer to your question is that it has cardinality $\aleph_0$.

The Knuth arrow notation is most often defined only on the natural numbers, but it seems that the central idea of it can be naturally extended to the ordinals, as follows:

$$\alpha\uparrow^0\beta=1$$ $$\alpha\uparrow^1\beta=\alpha^\beta$$ $$\alpha\uparrow^\eta\beta=\sup_{\eta'\lt\eta}[\alpha\uparrow^{\eta'}\sup_{\beta'\lt\beta}(\alpha\uparrow^\eta\beta')].$$

This definition simply replaces the use of $n-1$ and $b-1$ in the usual natural number definition of the Knuth arrow with a supremum over all smaller values, which allows the definition to work with limit ordinals, which have no immediate predecessor. On finite and successor values, this definition agrees with the standard formula. (I'm not sure if others have proposed a different transfinite extension of the concept....)

Using this definition, one can show by transfinite induction that if $\alpha, \beta$ and $\eta$ are countable ordinals, then $\alpha\uparrow^\eta\beta$ is also countable, because by the induction hypothesis, this will be a countable supremum of countable ordinals.

In particular, $\omega\uparrow^\omega\omega$ is a very large countable ordinal, and the anwer to your question is that it has cardinality $\aleph_0$.

The Knuth arrow notation is most often defined only on the natural numbers, but it seems that the central idea of it can be naturally extended to the ordinals, as follows:

$$\alpha\uparrow^0\beta=1$$ $$\alpha\uparrow^1\beta=\alpha^\beta$$ $$\alpha\uparrow^\eta\beta=\sup_{\eta'\lt\eta}[\alpha\uparrow^{\eta'}\sup_{\beta'\lt\beta}(\alpha\uparrow^\eta\beta')].$$

This definition simply replaces the use of $n-1$ and $b-1$ in the usual natural number definition of the Knuth arrow with a supremum over all smaller values, which allows the definition to work with limit ordinals, which have no immediate predecessor. On finite and successor values, this definition agrees with the standard formula. (I'm not sure if others have proposed a different transfinite extension of the concept....I can imagine alternative definitions that treat the limit cases differently, but this won't affect the main conclusion.)

Using this definition, one can show by transfinite induction that if $\alpha, \beta$ and $\eta$ are countable ordinals, then $\alpha\uparrow^\eta\beta$ is also countable, because by the induction hypothesis, this will be a countable supremum of countable ordinals.

In particular, $\omega\uparrow^\omega\omega$ is a very large countable ordinal, and the anwer to your question is that it has cardinality $\aleph_0$.

added 4 characters in body; edited body; added 82 characters in body; added 92 characters in body
Source Link
Joel David Hamkins
  • 236.2k
  • 44
  • 777
  • 1.4k

The Knuth arrow notation is most often defined only on the natural numbers, but it seems that the central idea of it can be naturally extended to the ordinals, as follows:

$$\alpha\uparrow^0\beta=1$$ $$\alpha\uparrow^1\beta=\alpha^\beta$$ $$\alpha\uparrow^\eta\beta=\sup_{\eta'\lt\eta,\ \beta'\lt\beta}[\alpha\uparrow^{\eta'}(\alpha\uparrow^\eta\beta')].$$$$\alpha\uparrow^\eta\beta=\sup_{\eta'\lt\eta}[\alpha\uparrow^{\eta'}\sup_{\beta'\lt\beta}(\alpha\uparrow^\eta\beta')].$$

This definition simply replaces the use of $n-1$ and $b-1$ in the usual natural number definition of the Knuth arrow with a supremum over all smaller values, which allows the definition to work with limit ordinals, which have no immediate predecessor. On finite and successor values, this definition agrees with the standard formula. (I'm not sure if others have proposed a different transfinite extension of the concept....)

Using this definition, one can show by transfinite induction that if $\alpha, \beta$ and $\eta$ are countable ordinals, then $\alpha\uparrow^\eta\beta$ is also countable, because by the induction hypothesis, this will be a countable supremum of countable ordinals.

In particular, $\omega\uparrow^\omega\omega$ is a very large countable ordinal, and the anwer to your question is that it has cardinality $\aleph_0$.

The Knuth arrow notation is most often defined only on the natural numbers, but it seems that the central idea of it can be naturally extended to the ordinals, as follows:

$$\alpha\uparrow^0\beta=1$$ $$\alpha\uparrow^1\beta=\alpha^\beta$$ $$\alpha\uparrow^\eta\beta=\sup_{\eta'\lt\eta,\ \beta'\lt\beta}[\alpha\uparrow^{\eta'}(\alpha\uparrow^\eta\beta')].$$

This definition simply replaces the use of $n-1$ and $b-1$ in the usual natural number definition of the Knuth arrow with a supremum over all smaller values, which allows the definition to work with limit ordinals, which have no immediate predecessor.

Using this definition, one can show by transfinite induction that if $\alpha, \beta$ and $\eta$ are countable ordinals, then $\alpha\uparrow^\eta\beta$ is also countable, because by the induction hypothesis, this will be a countable supremum of countable ordinals.

In particular, $\omega\uparrow^\omega\omega$ is a very large countable ordinal, and the anwer to your question is that it has cardinality $\aleph_0$.

The Knuth arrow notation is most often defined only on the natural numbers, but it seems that the central idea of it can be naturally extended to the ordinals, as follows:

$$\alpha\uparrow^0\beta=1$$ $$\alpha\uparrow^1\beta=\alpha^\beta$$ $$\alpha\uparrow^\eta\beta=\sup_{\eta'\lt\eta}[\alpha\uparrow^{\eta'}\sup_{\beta'\lt\beta}(\alpha\uparrow^\eta\beta')].$$

This definition simply replaces the use of $n-1$ and $b-1$ in the usual natural number definition of the Knuth arrow with a supremum over all smaller values, which allows the definition to work with limit ordinals, which have no immediate predecessor. On finite and successor values, this definition agrees with the standard formula. (I'm not sure if others have proposed a different transfinite extension of the concept....)

Using this definition, one can show by transfinite induction that if $\alpha, \beta$ and $\eta$ are countable ordinals, then $\alpha\uparrow^\eta\beta$ is also countable, because by the induction hypothesis, this will be a countable supremum of countable ordinals.

In particular, $\omega\uparrow^\omega\omega$ is a very large countable ordinal, and the anwer to your question is that it has cardinality $\aleph_0$.

Source Link
Joel David Hamkins
  • 236.2k
  • 44
  • 777
  • 1.4k
Loading