Martin Escardo, 2012, 2018, 2022 Compact ordinals, discrete ordinals and their relationships. A 4-page abstract of a talk at Types'2019: https://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~mhe/papers/compact-ordinals-Types-2019-abstract.pdf Begun December 2012, based on earlier work, circa 2010. Most of the work has been done later, and coded in July 2018 after a long pause to understand univalent foundations, which is what we use in this development, and to develop the mathematical basis for this in other modules. Here an ordinal is a type equipped with a well order, namely relation < which is * prop valued, * well founded, * transitive, and * extensional (any two elements with the same lower set are equal). The extensionality axiom implies that the underlying type of an ordinal is a set (or satisfies the K axiom), which is proved in the module OrdinalNotions. This seems to be a new observation about the univalent notion of ordinal (as introduced in the HoTT Book). A dependency graph of this module is available at https://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~mhe/TypeTopology/OrdinalNotationInterpretation.pdf \begin{code} {-# OPTIONS --safe --without-K --lossy-unification #-} open import MLTT.Spartan open import UF.FunExt module Ordinals.NotationInterpretation1 (fe : FunExt) where \end{code} We work with ordinal encodings, or ordinal expressions, that are slightly different from the traditional Brouwer ordinal trees, which we also consider towards the end of this article. \begin{code} data OE : 𝓤₀ ̇ where One : OE Add : OE → OE → OE Mul : OE → OE → OE L : (ℕ → OE) → OE \end{code} We consider two mappings from these ordinal expressions to actual ordinals as discussed above: * Δ : OE → Ordᵀ * Κ : OE → Ordᵀ Here Ordᵀ is the type of ordinals that have a top element (which, in constructive mathematics, are not in general successor ordinals). Technically, the top element allows us to prove the closure of ordinals under ordinal-indexed sums, playing a crucial role in the proof of extensionality of the sum. But the top element is equally crucial for compactness purposes, as dicussed below. * The ordinals in the image of Δ are discrete (have decidable equality) and have countable underlying sets, which are in fact retracts of ℕ. * Those in the image of Κ are compact, or "exhaustibly searchable". Moreover, they are retracts of the Cantor type (ℕ → 𝟚) of binary sequences, and hence are totally separated, which means that the functions into 𝟚 separate the points. And not only the Κ ordinals are searchable, they are also inf-compact, which means that any detachable subset has an infimum, which belongs to the subset iff and only if the subset is non-empty (with non-emptiness expressed by a double negation). The discrete ordinals, being retracts of ℕ, cannot be retracts of the Cantor space. This is because the Cantor space is potentially compact, in the presence of Brouwerian axioms (which we are not assuming but are consistent), and compactness is inherited by retracts, and the compactnesss of the infinite discrete ordinals is equivalent to Bishop's LPO (limited principle of omnscient), which is not provable in any variety of constructive mathematics. The Δ and Κ interpretation of One, Add and Mul are as expected. They differ only in the interpretation of S. * In the discrete case, S is interpreted as simply the countable sum plus the ordinal 𝟙 (written ∑₁). * In the compact case, S is interpreted as the sum with an added non-isolated top point (written ∑¹). It is this that makes the searchability of the compact ordinals possible. The searchability of the discrete ordinals is a contructive taboo. Additionally, we kave a map ι from the Δ-ordinals to the Κ-ordinals, which is * an embedding (has subsingleton fibers), * dense (the complement of its image is empty), * order preserving and reflecting. Lastly, we have a mapping from our ordinal trees to Brouwer trees that allows us to use other people's constructions to get very "large" compact ordinals. As a trivial example, we show how to map a Brouwer code of ε₀ to a compact ordinal that dominates ε₀. The bulk of the work to perform these constructions and prove their properties is developed in the imported modules. After a brief pause for importing the necessary definitions, we state the theorems and constructions to be performed here: \begin{code} open import Ordinals.Arithmetic fe open import Ordinals.Closure fe open import Ordinals.Codes open import Ordinals.ToppedArithmetic fe open import Ordinals.ToppedType fe open import Ordinals.Type open import Ordinals.Underlying open import TypeTopology.CompactTypes open import TypeTopology.Density open import TypeTopology.SigmaDiscreteAndTotallySeparated open import TypeTopology.SquashedCantor fe hiding (Κ) open import TypeTopology.SquashedSum fe open import TypeTopology.TotallySeparated open import UF.DiscreteAndSeparated open import UF.Embeddings open import UF.PairFun open import UF.Retracts open import UF.Subsingletons private fe₀ : funext 𝓤₀ 𝓤₀ fe₀ = fe 𝓤₀ 𝓤₀ \end{code} In the following, ⟨ τ ⟩ denotes the underlying set of an ordinal τ, and _≺⟨ τ ⟩_ denotes its underlying order. \begin{code} Κ : OE → Ordᵀ Κ-compact∙ : (ν : OE) → is-compact∙ ⟨ Κ ν ⟩ Κ-Cantor-retract : (ν : OE) → retract ⟨ Κ ν ⟩ of (ℕ → 𝟚) Κ-is-totally-separated : (ν : OE) → is-totally-separated ⟨ Κ ν ⟩ Δ : OE → Ordᵀ Δ-retract-of-ℕ : (ν : OE) → retract ⟨ Δ ν ⟩ of ℕ Δ-is-discrete : (ν : OE) → is-discrete ⟨ Δ ν ⟩ ι : {ν : OE} → ⟨ Δ ν ⟩ → ⟨ Κ ν ⟩ ι-is-dense : (ν : OE) → is-dense (ι {ν}) ι-is-embedding : (ν : OE) → is-embedding (ι {ν}) ι-is-order-preserving : (ν : OE) (x y : ⟨ Δ ν ⟩) → x ≺⟨ Δ ν ⟩ y → ι x ≺⟨ Κ ν ⟩ ι y ι-is-order-reflecting : (ν : OE) (x y : ⟨ Δ ν ⟩) → ι x ≺⟨ Κ ν ⟩ ι y → x ≺⟨ Δ ν ⟩ y Κ-has-infs-of-complemented-subsets : propext 𝓤₀ → (ν : OE) → has-infs-of-complemented-subsets (Κ ν) brouwer-to-oe : B → OE ε₀-upper-bound : Ordᵀ compact∙-ε₀-ub : is-compact∙ ⟨ ε₀-upper-bound ⟩ \end{code} The interpretation function is the following, with values on topped ordinals, where an ordinal is a type equipped with a prop-valued, well-founded, transitive and extensional relation (and such a type is automatically a set). "Topped" means that there is a top element in the order This version of the function is from 1st July 2018 (the original version considered only the underlying set of the ordinal and didn't construct the order as this was work in progress): \begin{code} Κ One = 𝟙ᵒ Κ (Add ν μ) = Κ ν +ᵒ Κ μ Κ (Mul ν μ) = Κ ν ×ᵒ Κ μ Κ (L ν) = ∑¹ (Κ ∘ ν) \end{code} The underlying sets of such ordinals are compact∙: \begin{code} Κ-compact∙ One = 𝟙-is-compact∙ Κ-compact∙ (Add ν μ) = Σ-is-compact∙ 𝟙+𝟙-is-compact∙ (dep-cases (λ _ → Κ-compact∙ ν) (λ _ → Κ-compact∙ μ)) Κ-compact∙ (Mul ν μ) = Σ-is-compact∙ (Κ-compact∙ ν) (λ _ → Κ-compact∙ μ) Κ-compact∙ (L ν) = Σ¹-compact∙ (λ n → ⟨ Κ (ν n) ⟩) (λ n → Κ-compact∙ (ν n)) \end{code} Completed 20th July 2018: The compact∙ ordinals are retracts of the Cantor type (ℕ → 𝟚). \begin{code} Κ-Cantor-retract One = (λ _ → ⋆) , (λ _ → λ n → ₀) , 𝟙-is-prop ⋆ Κ-Cantor-retract (Add ν μ) = +-retract-of-Cantor (Κ ν) (Κ μ) (Κ-Cantor-retract ν) (Κ-Cantor-retract μ) Κ-Cantor-retract (Mul ν μ) = ×-retract-of-Cantor (Κ ν) (Κ μ) (Κ-Cantor-retract ν) (Κ-Cantor-retract μ) Κ-Cantor-retract (L ν) = Σ¹-Cantor-retract (λ n → ⟨ Κ (ν n) ⟩) (λ i → Κ-Cantor-retract (ν i)) \end{code} And hence they are totally separated: \begin{code} Κ-is-totally-separated ν = retract-of-totally-separated (Κ-Cantor-retract ν) (Cantor-is-totally-separated fe₀) \end{code} Without total separatedness (enough functions into the type 𝟚 of booleans), compactness wouldn't be an interesting property. It is not possible to prove total separatedness directly, because this property is not closed under Σ, which is used to define +ᵒ, ×ᵒ and Σ₁, as shown in the module FailureOfTotalSeparatedness. Classically, the squashed sum is the ordinal sum plus 1, and now we give an alternative semantics of ordinal codes with this interpretation, which produces ordinals with discrete underlying sets. Moreover, there is a function that maps the underlying set of the discrete version to the underlying set of the above version, with many interesting properties, formulated above and proved below. \begin{code} Δ One = 𝟙ᵒ Δ (Add ν μ) = Δ ν +ᵒ Δ μ Δ (Mul ν μ) = Δ ν ×ᵒ Δ μ Δ (L ν) = ∑₁ (Δ ∘ ν) Δ-is-discrete One = 𝟙-is-discrete Δ-is-discrete (Add ν μ) = Σ-is-discrete (+-is-discrete 𝟙-is-discrete 𝟙-is-discrete) (dep-cases (λ _ → Δ-is-discrete ν) (λ _ → Δ-is-discrete μ)) Δ-is-discrete (Mul ν μ) = Σ-is-discrete (Δ-is-discrete ν) (λ _ → Δ-is-discrete μ) Δ-is-discrete (L ν) = Σ₁-is-discrete (λ n → ⟨ Δ (ν n) ⟩) (λ i → Δ-is-discrete (ν i)) \end{code} Completed 27 July 2018. There is a dense embedding ι of the discrete ordinals into the compact∙ ordinals, where density means that the complement of the image of the embedding is empty. Moreover, it is order preserving and reflecting (28 July 2018). \begin{code} ι {One} = id ι {Add ν μ} = pair-fun id (dep-cases (λ _ → ι {ν}) (λ _ → ι {μ})) ι {Mul ν μ} = pair-fun (ι {ν}) (λ _ → ι {μ}) ι {L ν} = ∑↑ (λ n → Δ (ν n)) (λ n → Κ (ν n)) (λ n → ι {ν n}) ι-is-dense One = id-is-dense ι-is-dense (Add ν μ) = pair-fun-dense id (dep-cases (λ _ → ι {ν}) (λ _ → ι {μ})) id-is-dense (dep-cases (λ _ → ι-is-dense ν) (λ _ → ι-is-dense μ)) ι-is-dense (Mul ν μ) = pair-fun-dense _ _ (ι-is-dense ν) (λ _ → ι-is-dense μ) ι-is-dense (L ν) = Σ↑-dense (λ n → ⟨ Δ (ν n) ⟩) (λ n → ⟨ Κ (ν n) ⟩) (λ n → ι {ν n}) (λ i → ι-is-dense (ν i)) ι-is-embedding One = id-is-embedding ι-is-embedding (Add ν μ) = pair-fun-is-embedding id (dep-cases (λ _ → ι {ν}) (λ _ → ι {μ})) id-is-embedding (dep-cases (λ _ → ι-is-embedding ν) (λ _ → ι-is-embedding μ)) ι-is-embedding (Mul ν μ) = pair-fun-is-embedding _ _ (ι-is-embedding ν) (λ _ → ι-is-embedding μ) ι-is-embedding (L ν) = Σ↑-embedding (λ n → ⟨ Δ (ν n) ⟩) (λ n → ⟨ Κ (ν n) ⟩) (λ n → ι {ν n}) (λ i → ι-is-embedding (ν i)) ι-is-order-preserving One = λ x y l → l ι-is-order-preserving (Add ν μ) = pair-fun-is-order-preserving 𝟚ᵒ 𝟚ᵒ (cases (λ _ → Δ ν) (λ _ → Δ μ)) (cases (λ _ → Κ ν) (λ _ → Κ μ)) id (dep-cases (λ _ → ι {ν}) (λ _ → ι {μ})) (λ x y l → l) (dep-cases (λ _ → ι-is-order-preserving ν) (λ _ → ι-is-order-preserving μ)) ι-is-order-preserving (Mul ν μ) = pair-fun-is-order-preserving (Δ ν) (Κ ν) (λ _ → Δ μ) (λ _ → Κ μ) (ι {ν}) (λ _ → ι {μ}) (ι-is-order-preserving ν) (λ _ → ι-is-order-preserving μ) ι-is-order-preserving (L ν) = ∑↑-is-order-preserving (Δ ∘ ν) (Κ ∘ ν) (λ n → ι {ν n}) (λ i → ι-is-order-preserving (ν i)) ι-is-order-reflecting One = λ x y l → l ι-is-order-reflecting (Add ν μ) = pair-fun-is-order-reflecting 𝟚ᵒ 𝟚ᵒ (cases (λ _ → Δ ν) (λ _ → Δ μ)) (cases (λ _ → Κ ν) (λ _ → Κ μ)) id (dep-cases (λ _ → ι {ν}) (λ _ → ι {μ})) (λ x y l → l) id-is-embedding (dep-cases (λ _ → ι-is-order-reflecting ν) (λ _ → ι-is-order-reflecting μ)) ι-is-order-reflecting (Mul ν μ) = pair-fun-is-order-reflecting (Δ ν) (Κ ν) (λ _ → Δ μ) (λ _ → Κ μ) (ι {ν}) (λ _ → ι {μ}) (ι-is-order-reflecting ν) (ι-is-embedding ν) (λ _ → ι-is-order-reflecting μ) ι-is-order-reflecting (L ν) = ∑↑-is-order-reflecting (Δ ∘ ν) (Κ ∘ ν) (λ n → ι {ν n}) (λ i → ι-is-order-reflecting (ν i)) \end{code} As discussed in the module Ordinals, propositional extensionality in the following construction is not strictly needed but makes our life much easier (given the mathematics we have already developed). \begin{code} Κ-has-infs-of-complemented-subsets pe One = 𝟙ᵒ-has-infs-of-complemented-subsets Κ-has-infs-of-complemented-subsets pe (Add ν μ) = ∑-has-infs-of-complemented-subsets pe 𝟚ᵒ (cases (λ _ → Κ ν) (λ _ → Κ μ)) 𝟚ᵒ-has-infs-of-complemented-subsets (dep-cases (λ _ → Κ-has-infs-of-complemented-subsets pe ν) (λ _ → Κ-has-infs-of-complemented-subsets pe μ)) Κ-has-infs-of-complemented-subsets pe (Mul ν μ) = ∑-has-infs-of-complemented-subsets pe (Κ ν) (λ _ → Κ μ) (Κ-has-infs-of-complemented-subsets pe ν) (λ _ → Κ-has-infs-of-complemented-subsets pe μ) Κ-has-infs-of-complemented-subsets pe (L ν) = ∑₁-has-infs-of-complemented-subsets pe (Κ ∘ ν) (λ i → Κ-has-infs-of-complemented-subsets pe (ν i)) \end{code} Added 31 July 2018: \begin{code} Δ-retract-of-ℕ One = (λ _ → ⋆) , (λ _ → 0) , 𝟙-is-prop ⋆ Δ-retract-of-ℕ (Add ν μ) = Σ-retract-of-ℕ retract-𝟙+𝟙-of-ℕ (dep-cases (λ _ → Δ-retract-of-ℕ ν) (λ _ → Δ-retract-of-ℕ μ)) Δ-retract-of-ℕ (Mul ν μ) = Σ-retract-of-ℕ (Δ-retract-of-ℕ ν) (λ _ → Δ-retract-of-ℕ μ) Δ-retract-of-ℕ (L ν) = Σ₁-ℕ-retract (λ i → Δ-retract-of-ℕ (ν i)) \end{code} NB. We could have proved that the Δ-ordinals are discrete using the above, as discrete types are closed under retracts. Hence the compactness of any infinite discrete ordinal is a constructive taboo, logically equivalent to Bishop's LPO. Brouwer ordinal codes can be mapped to compact∙ ordinal codes, so that the meaning is not necessarily preserved, but so that it is bigger or equal, because sums dominate suprema. \begin{code} brouwer-to-oe Z = One brouwer-to-oe (S ν) = Add One (brouwer-to-oe ν) brouwer-to-oe (L ν) = L (λ i → brouwer-to-oe (ν i)) \end{code} The following is a relatively "small" example: an upper bound of the ordinal ε₀ (because sums dominate suprema): \begin{code} ε₀-upper-bound = Κ (brouwer-to-oe B-ε₀) compact∙-ε₀-ub = Κ-compact∙ (brouwer-to-oe B-ε₀) \end{code} We can go much higher using the work of and Setzer, Hancock and others. Added 4th April 2022. A third interpretation of ordinal expressions. \begin{code} open import UF.PropTrunc open import UF.Univalence open import UF.Size open import CoNaturals.Type open import TypeTopology.GenericConvergentSequenceCompactness open import TypeTopology.PropTychonoff module _ (pt : propositional-truncations-exist) (ua : Univalence) where open PropositionalTruncation pt fe' : Fun-Ext fe' {𝓤} {𝓥} = fe 𝓤 𝓥 pe : Prop-Ext pe = Univalence-gives-Prop-Ext ua open import Ordinals.OrdinalOfOrdinalsSuprema ua open import Ordinals.Injectivity open ordinals-injectivity fe module _ (sr : Set-Replacement pt) where open suprema pt sr private extension : (ℕ → Ordinal 𝓤₀) → (ℕ∞ → Ordinal 𝓤₀) extension α = α ↗ (embedding-ℕ-to-ℕ∞ fe') 𝓢 : OE → Ordinal 𝓤₀ 𝓢 One = 𝟙ₒ 𝓢 (Add ν μ) = 𝓢 ν +ₒ 𝓢 μ 𝓢 (Mul ν μ) = 𝓢 ν ×ₒ 𝓢 μ 𝓢 (L ν) = sup (extension (𝓢 ∘ ν)) 𝓢-compact∙ : (ν : OE) → is-compact∙ ⟨ 𝓢 ν ⟩ 𝓢-compact∙ One = 𝟙-is-compact∙ 𝓢-compact∙ (Add ν μ) = +-is-compact∙ (𝓢-compact∙ ν) (𝓢-compact∙ μ) 𝓢-compact∙ (Mul ν μ) = ×-is-compact∙ (𝓢-compact∙ ν) (𝓢-compact∙ μ) 𝓢-compact∙ (L ν) = codomain-of-surjection-is-compact∙ pt (sum-to-sup (extension (𝓢 ∘ ν))) (sum-to-sup-is-surjection (extension (𝓢 ∘ ν))) (Σ-is-compact∙ (ℕ∞-compact∙ fe₀) (λ u → prop-tychonoff (fe 𝓤₀ 𝓤₀) (ℕ-to-ℕ∞-is-embedding fe₀ u) (λ (i , _) → 𝓢-compact∙ (ν i)))) σ : (ν : OE) → ⟨ Κ ν ⟩ → ⟨ 𝓢 ν ⟩ σ One x = x σ (Add ν μ) (inl ⋆ , x) = inl (σ ν x) σ (Add ν μ) (inr ⋆ , y) = inr (σ μ y) σ (Mul ν μ) (x , y) = (σ ν x , σ μ y) σ (L ν) (u , f) = sum-to-sup (extension (𝓢 ∘ ν)) (u , g) where g : ((i , _) : fiber ℕ-to-ℕ∞ u) → ⟨ 𝓢 (ν i) ⟩ g (i , p) = σ (ν i) (f (i , p)) \end{code} More can be said about this.