Order type of a set that is ordered but not well-ordered

elementary-set-theoryorder-theorywell-orders

I looking at ordered sets in the Kolmogorov (Introductory Read Analysis) book.

Section 3.5 Definition 2 says

the order type of a well ordered set is called an ordinal number. If the set is infinite, the ordinal is transfinite

So the set of positive integers $\{1,2,…,k,..\}$ arranged in increasing order is well ordered with the order type $\omega$.

The set $\{…, -k,.., -2, -1\}$ is ordered but not well-ordered. But this set is isomorphic to the set of positive integers – map each element to its negative.

So if order type is something shared by all isomorphic sets (Section 3.3), why can the set of negative integers (a set that is ordered but not well ordered and is isomorphic to a well ordered set) not have an order type?

More broadly, if a set is ordered but not well ordered, but is isomorphic to a well ordered set, why should it not have an order type?

Best Answer

Suppose $ (\Bbb Z_+,\le)$ and $(\Bbb Z_-,\le)$ are order isomorphic.

Then $\exists f:\Bbb{Z}_+ \to \Bbb{Z}_-$ such that

  1. $f$ is binjective.

  2. $f$ preserve order i.e $a\le b$ implies $f(a) \le f(b) $

Since $|\Bbb{Z}_+|=\aleph_0=| \Bbb{Z}_-|$ , hence there is a bijection between $\Bbb{Z}_+ $ and $\Bbb{Z}_-$.

Claim: No bijection $f: \Bbb{Z}_+ \to \Bbb{Z}_-$ is not order preserving.

Proof: Assume the contrary.

Let $f(1) =u$

Then $\forall x\in \Bbb{Z}_+ \space , 1\le x$ implies $u=f(1) \le f(x) $

i.e $u\le y\space , \forall y\in \Bbb{Z}_-$ implies $u$ is the least element which is a contradiction because $\Bbb{Z}_-$ in it's usual ordering has no least element (given any $u\in \Bbb{Z}_- $ , $u-1<u$ ).

Note: Order isomorphism between two poset maps least element to least element.

Conclusion: $(\Bbb{Z}_+, \le) $ and $( \Bbb{Z}_-, \le) $ is not order isomorphic.

Related Question