Every infinite linearly ordered set has two disjoint infinite subsetsWith Choice, is any linearly ordered set well-ordered if no subset has order type $omega^*$?Prove that for any infinite poset there is an infinite subset which is either linearly ordered or antichain.Proving implication on well ordered set implies ACEvery linearly ordered subset $mathcalA$ of a set $mathcalW$ of well orderings $leq$ on subsets of some set $X$ has an upper bound.Set Theory: Fully ordered but not well ordered set proofUnderstanding Zorn's lemma xxWhy is “totally ordered” necessary in this implication of the Axiom of FoundationEquivalent Definition of Well-Ordered SetEquivalence of two statements on an arbitrary partially ordered set $(A, <)$For- and backwards well-ordered set is finite.

Ending: accusative or not?

Is there a short way to compare many values mutually at same time without using multiple 'and's?

How to append a matrix element by element?

Why aren't (poly-)cotton tents more popular?

Why does the A-4 Skyhawk sit nose-up when on ground?

What is this opening trap called, and how should I play afterwards? How can I refute the gambit, and play if I accept it?

Should I hide continue button until tasks are completed?

Pull-up sequence accumulator counter

Is my Rep in Stack-Exchange Form?

Do French speakers not use the subjunctive informally?

Does ultrasonic bath cleaning damage laboratory volumetric glassware calibration?

What is the line crossing the Pacific Ocean that is shown on maps?

First-year PhD giving a talk among well-established researchers in the field

What is this particular type of chord progression, common in classical music, called?

Correct spacing in the alignat*-environment

Why does Darth Sidious need bodyguards?

Every infinite linearly ordered set has two disjoint infinite subsets

How many satellites can stay in a Lagrange point?

Does Hubble need to dump momentum of its reaction wheels?

Why does the numerical solution of an ODE move away from an unstable equilibrium?

Averting Real Women Don’t Wear Dresses

Find smallest index that is identical to the value in an array

Syntax Error with 'if'

Does anycast addressing add additional latency in any way?



Every infinite linearly ordered set has two disjoint infinite subsets


With Choice, is any linearly ordered set well-ordered if no subset has order type $omega^*$?Prove that for any infinite poset there is an infinite subset which is either linearly ordered or antichain.Proving implication on well ordered set implies ACEvery linearly ordered subset $mathcalA$ of a set $mathcalW$ of well orderings $leq$ on subsets of some set $X$ has an upper bound.Set Theory: Fully ordered but not well ordered set proofUnderstanding Zorn's lemma xxWhy is “totally ordered” necessary in this implication of the Axiom of FoundationEquivalent Definition of Well-Ordered SetEquivalence of two statements on an arbitrary partially ordered set $(A, <)$For- and backwards well-ordered set is finite.






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








1












$begingroup$


According to the Wikipedia Page on amorphous sets, no amorphous set can be totally ordered. If I am correct, this states that every infinite totally ordered set has two disjoint infinite subsets, but I am not sure how to go about proving it in ZF (if it is even provable in ZF), although here's my attempt:



Every infinite totally ordered set $S$ has either an infinitely decreasing or infinitely increasing subset, so I tried considering such a subset $A$. Without loss of generality, suppose $A$ is increasing. Then, letting $a_1$ be an element in $A$, the set $A_1:=ain Amid a>a_1$ is infinite and thus non-empty. Now, let $a_2$ be an element of $ain A$. Since $a_2in A$, the set $A_2:=ain Amid a>a_2$ is nonempty, and we can continue in this way to generate a sequence $a_1,a_2,dots$.



My problem is that I rather suspect I just used the axiom of countable choice if not something stronger. Is there a way of proving this in ZF alone?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    What does "infinitely decreasing subset" mean for a set that might be amorphous? Such sets son't even have infinite sequences of their elements, so you can't be talking of whether such a sequence is decreasing...
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Hmm, on further thought what you probably mean there is "a subset with no least element" instead of "infinitely decreasing". Then the rest of the argument does make sense. (But I'm not sure the existence of such a set doesn't itself require some form of choice).
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    8 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    What is an example of amorphous set?
    $endgroup$
    – mathpadawan
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @mathpadawan According to Wikipedia: “Fraenkel constructed a permutation model of ZFA in which the set of atoms is amorphous.”
    $endgroup$
    – P-addict
    57 mins ago

















1












$begingroup$


According to the Wikipedia Page on amorphous sets, no amorphous set can be totally ordered. If I am correct, this states that every infinite totally ordered set has two disjoint infinite subsets, but I am not sure how to go about proving it in ZF (if it is even provable in ZF), although here's my attempt:



Every infinite totally ordered set $S$ has either an infinitely decreasing or infinitely increasing subset, so I tried considering such a subset $A$. Without loss of generality, suppose $A$ is increasing. Then, letting $a_1$ be an element in $A$, the set $A_1:=ain Amid a>a_1$ is infinite and thus non-empty. Now, let $a_2$ be an element of $ain A$. Since $a_2in A$, the set $A_2:=ain Amid a>a_2$ is nonempty, and we can continue in this way to generate a sequence $a_1,a_2,dots$.



My problem is that I rather suspect I just used the axiom of countable choice if not something stronger. Is there a way of proving this in ZF alone?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    What does "infinitely decreasing subset" mean for a set that might be amorphous? Such sets son't even have infinite sequences of their elements, so you can't be talking of whether such a sequence is decreasing...
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Hmm, on further thought what you probably mean there is "a subset with no least element" instead of "infinitely decreasing". Then the rest of the argument does make sense. (But I'm not sure the existence of such a set doesn't itself require some form of choice).
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    8 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    What is an example of amorphous set?
    $endgroup$
    – mathpadawan
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @mathpadawan According to Wikipedia: “Fraenkel constructed a permutation model of ZFA in which the set of atoms is amorphous.”
    $endgroup$
    – P-addict
    57 mins ago













1












1








1


1



$begingroup$


According to the Wikipedia Page on amorphous sets, no amorphous set can be totally ordered. If I am correct, this states that every infinite totally ordered set has two disjoint infinite subsets, but I am not sure how to go about proving it in ZF (if it is even provable in ZF), although here's my attempt:



Every infinite totally ordered set $S$ has either an infinitely decreasing or infinitely increasing subset, so I tried considering such a subset $A$. Without loss of generality, suppose $A$ is increasing. Then, letting $a_1$ be an element in $A$, the set $A_1:=ain Amid a>a_1$ is infinite and thus non-empty. Now, let $a_2$ be an element of $ain A$. Since $a_2in A$, the set $A_2:=ain Amid a>a_2$ is nonempty, and we can continue in this way to generate a sequence $a_1,a_2,dots$.



My problem is that I rather suspect I just used the axiom of countable choice if not something stronger. Is there a way of proving this in ZF alone?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




According to the Wikipedia Page on amorphous sets, no amorphous set can be totally ordered. If I am correct, this states that every infinite totally ordered set has two disjoint infinite subsets, but I am not sure how to go about proving it in ZF (if it is even provable in ZF), although here's my attempt:



Every infinite totally ordered set $S$ has either an infinitely decreasing or infinitely increasing subset, so I tried considering such a subset $A$. Without loss of generality, suppose $A$ is increasing. Then, letting $a_1$ be an element in $A$, the set $A_1:=ain Amid a>a_1$ is infinite and thus non-empty. Now, let $a_2$ be an element of $ain A$. Since $a_2in A$, the set $A_2:=ain Amid a>a_2$ is nonempty, and we can continue in this way to generate a sequence $a_1,a_2,dots$.



My problem is that I rather suspect I just used the axiom of countable choice if not something stronger. Is there a way of proving this in ZF alone?







elementary-set-theory






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked 9 hours ago









P-addictP-addict

374 bronze badges




374 bronze badges







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    What does "infinitely decreasing subset" mean for a set that might be amorphous? Such sets son't even have infinite sequences of their elements, so you can't be talking of whether such a sequence is decreasing...
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Hmm, on further thought what you probably mean there is "a subset with no least element" instead of "infinitely decreasing". Then the rest of the argument does make sense. (But I'm not sure the existence of such a set doesn't itself require some form of choice).
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    8 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    What is an example of amorphous set?
    $endgroup$
    – mathpadawan
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @mathpadawan According to Wikipedia: “Fraenkel constructed a permutation model of ZFA in which the set of atoms is amorphous.”
    $endgroup$
    – P-addict
    57 mins ago












  • 2




    $begingroup$
    What does "infinitely decreasing subset" mean for a set that might be amorphous? Such sets son't even have infinite sequences of their elements, so you can't be talking of whether such a sequence is decreasing...
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Hmm, on further thought what you probably mean there is "a subset with no least element" instead of "infinitely decreasing". Then the rest of the argument does make sense. (But I'm not sure the existence of such a set doesn't itself require some form of choice).
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    8 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    What is an example of amorphous set?
    $endgroup$
    – mathpadawan
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @mathpadawan According to Wikipedia: “Fraenkel constructed a permutation model of ZFA in which the set of atoms is amorphous.”
    $endgroup$
    – P-addict
    57 mins ago







2




2




$begingroup$
What does "infinitely decreasing subset" mean for a set that might be amorphous? Such sets son't even have infinite sequences of their elements, so you can't be talking of whether such a sequence is decreasing...
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
8 hours ago




$begingroup$
What does "infinitely decreasing subset" mean for a set that might be amorphous? Such sets son't even have infinite sequences of their elements, so you can't be talking of whether such a sequence is decreasing...
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
8 hours ago












$begingroup$
Hmm, on further thought what you probably mean there is "a subset with no least element" instead of "infinitely decreasing". Then the rest of the argument does make sense. (But I'm not sure the existence of such a set doesn't itself require some form of choice).
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
8 hours ago





$begingroup$
Hmm, on further thought what you probably mean there is "a subset with no least element" instead of "infinitely decreasing". Then the rest of the argument does make sense. (But I'm not sure the existence of such a set doesn't itself require some form of choice).
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
8 hours ago













$begingroup$
What is an example of amorphous set?
$endgroup$
– mathpadawan
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
What is an example of amorphous set?
$endgroup$
– mathpadawan
5 hours ago












$begingroup$
@mathpadawan According to Wikipedia: “Fraenkel constructed a permutation model of ZFA in which the set of atoms is amorphous.”
$endgroup$
– P-addict
57 mins ago




$begingroup$
@mathpadawan According to Wikipedia: “Fraenkel constructed a permutation model of ZFA in which the set of atoms is amorphous.”
$endgroup$
– P-addict
57 mins ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

Your proof attempt does indeed depend not only on countable choice, but on dependent choice.



Here's an argument that doesn't:



Suppose $S$ is infinite and totally ordered. If we can find even one element that has both infinitely many predecessors and infinitely many successors, then $S$ is surely not amorphous.¹



Thus the elements of $S$ fall into two classes, namely those with only finitely many predecessors and those with only finitely many successors. At least one of those classes must be infinite; without loss of generality let's suppose that there are infinitely many elements that have finitely many predecessors.



However, in a total order there can be at most one element that has, for example, exactly 42 predecessors. So counting predecessors gives us an injection from an infinite subset of $S$ into $mathbb N$, which means that this subset is countable and $S$ is therefore not amorphous.




¹: Note that this apparently unassuming first step is in fact critical to the argument; without it everything unravels. It is consistent with ZF that there may be an infinite totally ordered set that has no countably infinite subset. (Cohen showed a model in which $mathbb R$, definitely totally orderable, has a subset with this property.)






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    +1 (I was still typing when this appeared.)
    $endgroup$
    – Andreas Blass
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @AndreasBlass: It must be right if we both come up with it! :-)
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    And I approve of your answer and the one given by @Andreas. So it's probably correct. :P
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Just curious as I wanted to make one the other day, but couldn't find how: how did you do the footnote? Special symbol of sorts?
    $endgroup$
    – Henno Brandsma
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Henno: While not the same method as Henning (who used the "superscript 1" letter), I prefer to use <sup>1</sup>.
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    5 hours ago


















4












$begingroup$

Yes, this is provable in ZF. Let $S$ be an infinite linearly ordered set; I'll try to produce two disjoint, infinite subsets of $S$. First, for any $sin S$, consider the set $A_s$ of elements above $s$ in the linear ordering and the set $B_s$ of elements below $s$. If, for some $s$, both $A_s$ and $B_s$ are infinite, we're done, because they're certainly disjoint.



So from now on, we can assume that, for each $s$, one of $A_s$ and $B_s$ is finite (and the other must then be infinite because $S$ is infinite). Without loss of generality, assume there are infinitely many $s$ with $B_s$ finite. (If that's not the case, then, as $S$ is infinite, there will be infinitely many $s$ with $A_s$ finite, and the following argument will apply to the reversed linear ordering.)



For each of the infinitely many $s$ with $B_s$ finite, $|B_s|$ is a natural number, and these natural numbers are different for different $s$. So we have a one-to-one map $f:smapsto |B_s|$ of an infinite subset of $S$ into $mathbb N$. But the image of that map (which in fact is all of $mathbb N$ but I don't need that) can be split into two infinite pieces by taking alternating elements of it. The inverse images of those pieces under $f$ are two disjoint infinite subsets of $S$, as required.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$















    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3270997%2fevery-infinite-linearly-ordered-set-has-two-disjoint-infinite-subsets%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    3












    $begingroup$

    Your proof attempt does indeed depend not only on countable choice, but on dependent choice.



    Here's an argument that doesn't:



    Suppose $S$ is infinite and totally ordered. If we can find even one element that has both infinitely many predecessors and infinitely many successors, then $S$ is surely not amorphous.¹



    Thus the elements of $S$ fall into two classes, namely those with only finitely many predecessors and those with only finitely many successors. At least one of those classes must be infinite; without loss of generality let's suppose that there are infinitely many elements that have finitely many predecessors.



    However, in a total order there can be at most one element that has, for example, exactly 42 predecessors. So counting predecessors gives us an injection from an infinite subset of $S$ into $mathbb N$, which means that this subset is countable and $S$ is therefore not amorphous.




    ¹: Note that this apparently unassuming first step is in fact critical to the argument; without it everything unravels. It is consistent with ZF that there may be an infinite totally ordered set that has no countably infinite subset. (Cohen showed a model in which $mathbb R$, definitely totally orderable, has a subset with this property.)






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      +1 (I was still typing when this appeared.)
      $endgroup$
      – Andreas Blass
      8 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @AndreasBlass: It must be right if we both come up with it! :-)
      $endgroup$
      – Henning Makholm
      8 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      And I approve of your answer and the one given by @Andreas. So it's probably correct. :P
      $endgroup$
      – Asaf Karagila
      8 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Just curious as I wanted to make one the other day, but couldn't find how: how did you do the footnote? Special symbol of sorts?
      $endgroup$
      – Henno Brandsma
      5 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Henno: While not the same method as Henning (who used the "superscript 1" letter), I prefer to use <sup>1</sup>.
      $endgroup$
      – Asaf Karagila
      5 hours ago















    3












    $begingroup$

    Your proof attempt does indeed depend not only on countable choice, but on dependent choice.



    Here's an argument that doesn't:



    Suppose $S$ is infinite and totally ordered. If we can find even one element that has both infinitely many predecessors and infinitely many successors, then $S$ is surely not amorphous.¹



    Thus the elements of $S$ fall into two classes, namely those with only finitely many predecessors and those with only finitely many successors. At least one of those classes must be infinite; without loss of generality let's suppose that there are infinitely many elements that have finitely many predecessors.



    However, in a total order there can be at most one element that has, for example, exactly 42 predecessors. So counting predecessors gives us an injection from an infinite subset of $S$ into $mathbb N$, which means that this subset is countable and $S$ is therefore not amorphous.




    ¹: Note that this apparently unassuming first step is in fact critical to the argument; without it everything unravels. It is consistent with ZF that there may be an infinite totally ordered set that has no countably infinite subset. (Cohen showed a model in which $mathbb R$, definitely totally orderable, has a subset with this property.)






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      +1 (I was still typing when this appeared.)
      $endgroup$
      – Andreas Blass
      8 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @AndreasBlass: It must be right if we both come up with it! :-)
      $endgroup$
      – Henning Makholm
      8 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      And I approve of your answer and the one given by @Andreas. So it's probably correct. :P
      $endgroup$
      – Asaf Karagila
      8 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Just curious as I wanted to make one the other day, but couldn't find how: how did you do the footnote? Special symbol of sorts?
      $endgroup$
      – Henno Brandsma
      5 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Henno: While not the same method as Henning (who used the "superscript 1" letter), I prefer to use <sup>1</sup>.
      $endgroup$
      – Asaf Karagila
      5 hours ago













    3












    3








    3





    $begingroup$

    Your proof attempt does indeed depend not only on countable choice, but on dependent choice.



    Here's an argument that doesn't:



    Suppose $S$ is infinite and totally ordered. If we can find even one element that has both infinitely many predecessors and infinitely many successors, then $S$ is surely not amorphous.¹



    Thus the elements of $S$ fall into two classes, namely those with only finitely many predecessors and those with only finitely many successors. At least one of those classes must be infinite; without loss of generality let's suppose that there are infinitely many elements that have finitely many predecessors.



    However, in a total order there can be at most one element that has, for example, exactly 42 predecessors. So counting predecessors gives us an injection from an infinite subset of $S$ into $mathbb N$, which means that this subset is countable and $S$ is therefore not amorphous.




    ¹: Note that this apparently unassuming first step is in fact critical to the argument; without it everything unravels. It is consistent with ZF that there may be an infinite totally ordered set that has no countably infinite subset. (Cohen showed a model in which $mathbb R$, definitely totally orderable, has a subset with this property.)






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    Your proof attempt does indeed depend not only on countable choice, but on dependent choice.



    Here's an argument that doesn't:



    Suppose $S$ is infinite and totally ordered. If we can find even one element that has both infinitely many predecessors and infinitely many successors, then $S$ is surely not amorphous.¹



    Thus the elements of $S$ fall into two classes, namely those with only finitely many predecessors and those with only finitely many successors. At least one of those classes must be infinite; without loss of generality let's suppose that there are infinitely many elements that have finitely many predecessors.



    However, in a total order there can be at most one element that has, for example, exactly 42 predecessors. So counting predecessors gives us an injection from an infinite subset of $S$ into $mathbb N$, which means that this subset is countable and $S$ is therefore not amorphous.




    ¹: Note that this apparently unassuming first step is in fact critical to the argument; without it everything unravels. It is consistent with ZF that there may be an infinite totally ordered set that has no countably infinite subset. (Cohen showed a model in which $mathbb R$, definitely totally orderable, has a subset with this property.)







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited 7 hours ago

























    answered 8 hours ago









    Henning MakholmHenning Makholm

    249k17 gold badges327 silver badges568 bronze badges




    249k17 gold badges327 silver badges568 bronze badges











    • $begingroup$
      +1 (I was still typing when this appeared.)
      $endgroup$
      – Andreas Blass
      8 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @AndreasBlass: It must be right if we both come up with it! :-)
      $endgroup$
      – Henning Makholm
      8 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      And I approve of your answer and the one given by @Andreas. So it's probably correct. :P
      $endgroup$
      – Asaf Karagila
      8 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Just curious as I wanted to make one the other day, but couldn't find how: how did you do the footnote? Special symbol of sorts?
      $endgroup$
      – Henno Brandsma
      5 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Henno: While not the same method as Henning (who used the "superscript 1" letter), I prefer to use <sup>1</sup>.
      $endgroup$
      – Asaf Karagila
      5 hours ago
















    • $begingroup$
      +1 (I was still typing when this appeared.)
      $endgroup$
      – Andreas Blass
      8 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @AndreasBlass: It must be right if we both come up with it! :-)
      $endgroup$
      – Henning Makholm
      8 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      And I approve of your answer and the one given by @Andreas. So it's probably correct. :P
      $endgroup$
      – Asaf Karagila
      8 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Just curious as I wanted to make one the other day, but couldn't find how: how did you do the footnote? Special symbol of sorts?
      $endgroup$
      – Henno Brandsma
      5 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Henno: While not the same method as Henning (who used the "superscript 1" letter), I prefer to use <sup>1</sup>.
      $endgroup$
      – Asaf Karagila
      5 hours ago















    $begingroup$
    +1 (I was still typing when this appeared.)
    $endgroup$
    – Andreas Blass
    8 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    +1 (I was still typing when this appeared.)
    $endgroup$
    – Andreas Blass
    8 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    @AndreasBlass: It must be right if we both come up with it! :-)
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    8 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @AndreasBlass: It must be right if we both come up with it! :-)
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    8 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    And I approve of your answer and the one given by @Andreas. So it's probably correct. :P
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    8 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    And I approve of your answer and the one given by @Andreas. So it's probably correct. :P
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    8 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    Just curious as I wanted to make one the other day, but couldn't find how: how did you do the footnote? Special symbol of sorts?
    $endgroup$
    – Henno Brandsma
    5 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    Just curious as I wanted to make one the other day, but couldn't find how: how did you do the footnote? Special symbol of sorts?
    $endgroup$
    – Henno Brandsma
    5 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    @Henno: While not the same method as Henning (who used the "superscript 1" letter), I prefer to use <sup>1</sup>.
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    5 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @Henno: While not the same method as Henning (who used the "superscript 1" letter), I prefer to use <sup>1</sup>.
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    5 hours ago













    4












    $begingroup$

    Yes, this is provable in ZF. Let $S$ be an infinite linearly ordered set; I'll try to produce two disjoint, infinite subsets of $S$. First, for any $sin S$, consider the set $A_s$ of elements above $s$ in the linear ordering and the set $B_s$ of elements below $s$. If, for some $s$, both $A_s$ and $B_s$ are infinite, we're done, because they're certainly disjoint.



    So from now on, we can assume that, for each $s$, one of $A_s$ and $B_s$ is finite (and the other must then be infinite because $S$ is infinite). Without loss of generality, assume there are infinitely many $s$ with $B_s$ finite. (If that's not the case, then, as $S$ is infinite, there will be infinitely many $s$ with $A_s$ finite, and the following argument will apply to the reversed linear ordering.)



    For each of the infinitely many $s$ with $B_s$ finite, $|B_s|$ is a natural number, and these natural numbers are different for different $s$. So we have a one-to-one map $f:smapsto |B_s|$ of an infinite subset of $S$ into $mathbb N$. But the image of that map (which in fact is all of $mathbb N$ but I don't need that) can be split into two infinite pieces by taking alternating elements of it. The inverse images of those pieces under $f$ are two disjoint infinite subsets of $S$, as required.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$

















      4












      $begingroup$

      Yes, this is provable in ZF. Let $S$ be an infinite linearly ordered set; I'll try to produce two disjoint, infinite subsets of $S$. First, for any $sin S$, consider the set $A_s$ of elements above $s$ in the linear ordering and the set $B_s$ of elements below $s$. If, for some $s$, both $A_s$ and $B_s$ are infinite, we're done, because they're certainly disjoint.



      So from now on, we can assume that, for each $s$, one of $A_s$ and $B_s$ is finite (and the other must then be infinite because $S$ is infinite). Without loss of generality, assume there are infinitely many $s$ with $B_s$ finite. (If that's not the case, then, as $S$ is infinite, there will be infinitely many $s$ with $A_s$ finite, and the following argument will apply to the reversed linear ordering.)



      For each of the infinitely many $s$ with $B_s$ finite, $|B_s|$ is a natural number, and these natural numbers are different for different $s$. So we have a one-to-one map $f:smapsto |B_s|$ of an infinite subset of $S$ into $mathbb N$. But the image of that map (which in fact is all of $mathbb N$ but I don't need that) can be split into two infinite pieces by taking alternating elements of it. The inverse images of those pieces under $f$ are two disjoint infinite subsets of $S$, as required.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$















        4












        4








        4





        $begingroup$

        Yes, this is provable in ZF. Let $S$ be an infinite linearly ordered set; I'll try to produce two disjoint, infinite subsets of $S$. First, for any $sin S$, consider the set $A_s$ of elements above $s$ in the linear ordering and the set $B_s$ of elements below $s$. If, for some $s$, both $A_s$ and $B_s$ are infinite, we're done, because they're certainly disjoint.



        So from now on, we can assume that, for each $s$, one of $A_s$ and $B_s$ is finite (and the other must then be infinite because $S$ is infinite). Without loss of generality, assume there are infinitely many $s$ with $B_s$ finite. (If that's not the case, then, as $S$ is infinite, there will be infinitely many $s$ with $A_s$ finite, and the following argument will apply to the reversed linear ordering.)



        For each of the infinitely many $s$ with $B_s$ finite, $|B_s|$ is a natural number, and these natural numbers are different for different $s$. So we have a one-to-one map $f:smapsto |B_s|$ of an infinite subset of $S$ into $mathbb N$. But the image of that map (which in fact is all of $mathbb N$ but I don't need that) can be split into two infinite pieces by taking alternating elements of it. The inverse images of those pieces under $f$ are two disjoint infinite subsets of $S$, as required.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        Yes, this is provable in ZF. Let $S$ be an infinite linearly ordered set; I'll try to produce two disjoint, infinite subsets of $S$. First, for any $sin S$, consider the set $A_s$ of elements above $s$ in the linear ordering and the set $B_s$ of elements below $s$. If, for some $s$, both $A_s$ and $B_s$ are infinite, we're done, because they're certainly disjoint.



        So from now on, we can assume that, for each $s$, one of $A_s$ and $B_s$ is finite (and the other must then be infinite because $S$ is infinite). Without loss of generality, assume there are infinitely many $s$ with $B_s$ finite. (If that's not the case, then, as $S$ is infinite, there will be infinitely many $s$ with $A_s$ finite, and the following argument will apply to the reversed linear ordering.)



        For each of the infinitely many $s$ with $B_s$ finite, $|B_s|$ is a natural number, and these natural numbers are different for different $s$. So we have a one-to-one map $f:smapsto |B_s|$ of an infinite subset of $S$ into $mathbb N$. But the image of that map (which in fact is all of $mathbb N$ but I don't need that) can be split into two infinite pieces by taking alternating elements of it. The inverse images of those pieces under $f$ are two disjoint infinite subsets of $S$, as required.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 8 hours ago









        Andreas BlassAndreas Blass

        51.7k4 gold badges53 silver badges113 bronze badges




        51.7k4 gold badges53 silver badges113 bronze badges



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3270997%2fevery-infinite-linearly-ordered-set-has-two-disjoint-infinite-subsets%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

            Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

            199年 目錄 大件事 到箇年出世嗰人 到箇年死嗰人 節慶、風俗習慣 導覽選單