6

I have read that there are countable ordinals which can not be reached using algebraic operations and limits starting from $1$, but $\epsilon_0 = \omega \uparrow\uparrow \omega$ is certainly not amongst them. While I can envisage well-orderings like $\omega^2$, $\omega^3$, even $\omega^\omega$ applied to the underlying set of natural numbers, I don't know where to even start to reach $\epsilon_0$. I tried applying the same logic that got me to $\omega^\omega$ (which involved writing $n$ using prime decomposition and sorting lexicographically on powers of successive primes) recursively, but I think the highest I could reach using this technique was $\omega^{\omega^\omega}$ (or possibly $\omega^{\omega^2}$, I would have to redo the derivation as it's been many years ago).

Is any algorithm on how to order $\mathbb{N}$ so that the ordering is order isomorphic to $\epsilon_0$ known, or is it known that it can not be found? If so, what is the largest order for which it is possible?

Update

Here's an explicit construction based on Mitchell Spector's answer and eliminating the need for enumeration and elimination. In other words, an explicit bijection between $\mathbb{N}_0$ and ordinals smaller than $\epsilon_0$.

Taking an ordinal $\alpha$, write it in the Cantor normal form, expressing the exponents likewise recursively. For example,

$$α = ω^{ω^2+ω.2}+ω^2.3+ω+2.$$

Construct a $n = f(α) \in \mathbb{N}$ according to the following rules:

  1. $f(k\omega^β) = p^k_{f(\beta)}, \forall k\in\mathbb{N}_0, \forall \beta\in\mathord{\rm Ord}, \beta < \epsilon_0,$ where $p_j$ denotes the $j$-th prime ($p_1$ = 2),
  2. $f(β+γ) = f(β)f(γ)$.

We can show this is a bijection by showing how $f^{-1}$ can be obtained:

Taking an $n \in \mathbb{N}$, write down the prime factorization. For every prime that appears in it, write it as $p_j$ for some $j\in\mathbb{N}$. Repeat the factorization in the indices until no numbers other than $1$ appear in the chains of $p_\circ$. For example,

$$1000 = 2^3 5^3 = p_1^3 p_3^3 = p_1^3 p_{p_2}^3 = p_1^3 p_{p_{p_1}}^3.$$

Create an ordinal $f^{-1}(n)$ from this decomposition according to the rules

  1. $f^{-1}(kl) = f^{-1}(k) + f^{-1}(l)$, taking the larger of the ordinals first,
  2. $f^{-1}(p_k) = \omega^{f^{-1}(k)}$.

This will produce the Cantor normal form (with multiples by an integer represented by sums of a number of equal ordinals). Due to the properties of factorization it is possible for any $n$ and has a unique result for each. The common language between the two worlds is a tree structure (the very same that's used to represent a state of the Hydra game) which can uniquely be found for both ordinals $<ε_0$ via the CNF and natural numbers via the "index-inherited" factorization.

Here's the mapping for a few first $n \in \mathbb{N}$: $$\begin{aligned} 1 &&&≘ 0, \\ 2 &= p_1^1 &&≘ 1, \\ 3 &= p_2 = p_{p_1} &&≘ ω, \\ 4 &= p_1^2 &&≘ 2, \\ 5 &= p_3 = p_{p_{p_1}} &&≘ ω^ω, \\ 6 &= p_1 p_{p_1} &&≘ ω + 1, \\ 7 &= p_4 = p_{p_1^2} &&≘ ω^2, \\ 8 &= p_1^3 &&≘ 3, \\ 9 &= p_2^2 = p_{p_1}^2 &&≘ ω.2, \ldots \end{aligned}$$

In an ordering pulled back from $\rm Ord$ onto $\mathbb{N}$ via $f^{-1}$, one can observe the following:

  1. The successor of $n$ is $2n$,
  2. If $k\perp l$, the ($k.l$)-th prime is strictly larger any positive power of $p_k$, just as those of $p_{k^2}$, $p_{k^3}$, etc., or products thereof.

There may be some glitch in the last line, but to give an idea,

$$\begin{aligned} 1\ [0] &≤ 2\ [1] ≤ 4\ [2] ≤ 8\ ≤ 16\ ≤ \ldots \\ &\quad≤ 3\ [ω] ≤ 6\ [ω+1] ≤ 12\ ≤ \ldots \\ &\quad≤ 9\ [ω.2] ≤ 18\ ≤ 36\ ≤ \ldots \\ &\quad≤ 27\ [ω.3] ≤ \ldots \\ &\quad≤ \ldots \\ &≤ 7 [ω^2] ≤ \ldots \ldots ≤ 5\ [ω^ω] ≤ \ldots \ldots ≤ 11\ [ω^{ω^ω}] ≤ \ldots\ldots ≤ 31\ [ω^{ω^{ω^ω}}] ≤ \ldots\ldots \end{aligned}$$

The Vee
  • 3,071
  • 1
    This answer seems to generalize your question to provide an explicit ordering of type $\Gamma_{0}$ (Feferman–Schütte ordinal), wich is much, much larger than any epsilon ordinal. – John Mar 13 '23 at 18:36

1 Answers1

7

Using Cantor normal form, every ordinal less than $\varepsilon_0$ can be written as a finite arithmetic expression starting with $1$ and applying the unary operation of exponentiation with base $\omega$ and the binary operation of addition. (The ordinal $0$ is represented by the empty expression.)

Enumerate all the expressions of the above form (they're just strings on a finite alphabet): $e_0, e_1, e_2, \dots.$

Eliminate from the list any $e_n$ whose value (as an ordinal) is equal to the value (as an ordinal) of some $e_k$ for $k\lt n,$ leaving you with $e'_0, e'_1, e'_2, \dots.$

Then the relation $R$ on $\mathbb{N}$ given by $mRn$ iff the ordinal value of $e'_m$ is less than the ordinal value of $e'_n$ is a well-ordering of $\mathbb{N}$ of order type $\varepsilon_0.$


If you prefer, you can note that every ordinal less than $\varepsilon_0$ can be uniquely written in Cantor normal form, with each exponent written in Cantor normal form, each exponent in those Cantor normal forms written in Cantor normal form, etc. (at all superscript levels, similarly to what one sees in Goodstein's theorem). Then you can simply enumerate these expressions and skip the step of passing from $e_n$ to $e'_n,$ because, with this approach, there aren't any duplicates.

This method also has the advantage that it's easier to see how you can look at two expressions $s$ and $t$ and tell if the value represented by $s$ is less than the value represented by $t,$ without knowing much about ordinal computations.


The largest ordinal that is not the order type of any recursive well-ordering of $\mathbb{N}$ is much larger than $\varepsilon_0.$ It's called the Church-Kleene $\omega_1,$ and it's written as $\omega_1^{\,CK}.$

Mitchell Spector
  • 9,917
  • 3
  • 16
  • 34
  • That is quite brilliant. So I would "encode" the Cantor normal form into a number, like how logical formulas are mapped to them in Gödel's famous proof or all possible program for a Turing machine enumerated? – The Vee Nov 16 '16 at 20:19
  • One more question – does this mean I could add limit among my other expressions and just as easily extend that to $ε1, ε_2, \ldots, ε_ε, εε}, \ldots, ε\ldots}}$? – The Vee Nov 16 '16 at 20:22
  • (Answering your first comment) Yes, that's the idea. If you actually want to write out the details, I would do it using the Goodstein's-theorem-style Cantor normal form (with all exponents at all superscript levels themselves written in Cantor normal form). It's a little harder to describe, which is why I didn't write the answer that way, but it would actually be easier to work with. – Mitchell Spector Nov 16 '16 at 20:23
  • I'll look that up. Thank you so much, that's fantastic! – The Vee Nov 16 '16 at 20:24
  • You can't just add in "limit" as an operation, because it would operate on an infinite sequence of arguments and you would no longer have finite expressions to work with. However, the infinite sequences that you actually need to take limits of can be enumerated, and you can deal just with those. I'm not sure offhand what extra complexities emerge as you pass to larger epsilon-numbers (although it's certainly doable -- all the ordinals you listed are less than $\omega_1^{,CK}).$ – Mitchell Spector Nov 16 '16 at 20:33
  • By the way, I just modified the answer to remove multiplication from the operations used in the expressions, since it's not needed. (It's not wrong to include it; it just isn't necessary.) – Mitchell Spector Nov 16 '16 at 20:42