Intrepid Blog

Cantor never bores (1)

Given a set of countable sets KK, such that KK is totally ordered by inclusion, videlicet for every A,BKA,B\in K either ABA\subseteq B or ABA\supseteq B. Intuitively, for at every step in this chain one element at least must be added, one expects the set KK to be countable as well.

Suppose KK is countable. Then the union, K\bigcup K is a countable union of countable sets, hence countable. (Suppose k:NKk: \mathbb N \to K is an enumeration of KK and fi:Nk(i)f_i: \mathbb N \to k(i) enumerations of the elements of the chain. Then f0(0),f1(0),f0(1),f2(0),f1(1),f0(2),f_0(0), f_1(0), f_0(1), f_2(0), f_1(1), f_0(2), \ldots enumerates K\bigcup K.)

Thus K\bigcup K is an upper bound of KK. In the poset of countable subsets of some set UU, of which K\bigcup K is a subset, every non-empty chain has an upper bound. Hence, using Zorn’s lemma there is a maximal element, say MM.

Suppose UU is uncountable, then there exists a U\M\star \in U \backslash M. M{}M \cup \{\star\} is most definitely also countable and MM{}M \subset M \cup \{\star\} which contradicts MM’s maximality. We are forced to conclude that there exists an uncountable chain of countable sets.

Cantor’s set theory keeps surprising.

Update: an example of such a chain is the set of the countable ordinals.

Another update: a “more concrete” example are the downsets in Q\mathbb Q without the empty set and Q\mathbb Q itself. These downsets correspond to real numbers, see Dedekind Cuts.