2
$\begingroup$

Let $\Phi(0,\beta)$ a normal function from $On$ to $On$, and let $\Phi(\alpha,\beta)$ be the $\alpha$-th derivative of $\Phi(0,\beta)$. For example, let $\Phi(0,\beta)=\aleph_\beta$. Then, all functions $F_\alpha(\beta)=\Phi(\alpha,\beta)$ are also normal functions for a fixed $\alpha$. I have two questions:

  1. Let $G_\beta(\alpha)=\Phi(\alpha,\beta)$. Is this one also a normal function for fixed $\beta$? (Maybe it depends on $\beta$?)
  2. Is the diagonalization $\Psi(\alpha)=\Phi(\alpha,\alpha)$ also a normal function?
$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

2
$\begingroup$
  1. No, not all $G_\beta$ are normal. For example let $\Phi(0,\beta)$ be any normal function whose least fixed point is greater than $\omega$ and consider $G_\omega(\alpha)$. Since $\Phi(\beta+1,0)>\omega$ we have $G_\omega(k)<\Phi(k+1,0)$, and by increasingness we also have $\Phi(k,0)<G_\omega(k)$ for each natural $k$. We get the following chain: $$\Phi(1,0)<G_\omega(1)<\Phi(2,0)<G_\omega(2)<\Phi(3,0)<G_\omega(3)<\ldots$$ By definition $\Phi(\omega,0)=\textrm{sup}\{\Phi(k,0)\mid k<\omega\}$, and the ordinals $G_\omega(k)$ are unbounded in the set of $\Phi(k,0)$, so $\textrm{sup}\{G_\omega(k)\mid k<\omega\}=\Phi(\omega,0)<G_\omega(\omega)$.
  2. No, since the above point shows discontinuity of $\Psi$: $\textrm{sup}\{\Psi(k)\mid k<\omega\}=\Phi(\omega,0)<\Psi(\omega)$.
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

At least you have that $\Phi(\alpha,0)$ is indeed normal. It is increasing, because $\Phi(\alpha+1,0)$ is always greater than $\Phi(\alpha,0)$; and it is also continuous since, by definition, $\Phi(\lambda,0) = sup\{\Phi(\beta,0)|\beta<\lambda\}$ for limit ordinal $\lambda$.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The OP explicitly states that he knows that $\Phi(\alpha, 0) = F_\alpha(0)$ is normal. $\endgroup$
    – Alex M.
    Commented Jun 14, 2022 at 14:13
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe it's not entirely clear to this poster that OP knows it outside of the example where $\Phi(0, \beta) = \aleph_\beta$. (By the way, it's possible that OP doesn't go by "he".) $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 14, 2022 at 19:30
  • $\begingroup$ @ToddTrimble: I notice that my above comment has been edited without my consent, which I find extremely rude. If it was you, please do not do it again. Please understand that not all users of this site belong to the Anglo-Saxon cultural space, that English has many cultural varieties, and that the current fad regarding pronouns might not be shared by the whole world. If you want to be inclusive, please include us as we are, not as you would want to constrain us to be. Forcing a certain use of pronouns upon the rest of the world is a sort of cultural domination and colonialism. $\endgroup$
    – Alex M.
    Commented Jun 15, 2022 at 7:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Sorry to have given offense, Alex; I thought it was a slip such as we are all prone to make. Of course, I did point it out earlier as well. I'll revert both our comments back. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 15, 2022 at 16:45
  • $\begingroup$ @ToddTrimble: Since you have not pinged me in your reply, I have not seen it until today. Thank you for reverting my comment to its original version, I appreciate it. No offense taken; on the contrary, I apologize if my harsh reply has offended you in any way. I sometimes defend my constitutional freedoms a bit too vigorously. $\endgroup$
    – Alex M.
    Commented Jan 10, 2023 at 19:47

You must log in to answer this question.

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