Bourbaki

Lemma 4

Tag 03K7, permanent. Cite it as [Bourbaki, Tag 03K7].

Theory of Sets, chapter III, § 2. Well-ordered sets

Let E, F be two well-ordered sets and let f, g be two increasing mappings of E into F such that f(E)f(E) is a segment of F and g is strictly increasing; then f(x)≤g(x)f(x)\leq g(x) for all x∈Ex\in E.

Suppose, on the contrary, that the set of elements y∈Ey\in E such that f(y)>g(y)f(y)>g(y) is not empty; then this set will have a least element aa. If x<ax<a, we have then f(x)≤g(x)<g(a)<f(a)f(x)\leq g(x)<g(a)<f(a) since gg is strictly increasing. Since f(E)f(E) is a segment of F, there exists z∈Ez\in E such that g(a)=f(z)g(a)=f(z); ff is increasing, so that f(z)<f(a)f(z)<f(a) implies z<az<a. Hence

f(z)≤g(z)<g(a)=f(z),f(z)\leq g(z)<g(a)=f(z),

which is absurd.

Bourbaki sets the proof directly after the statement, and the corpus does not separate them, so what is above is the statement and its proof together.

Cited by

Cites

Nothing.

Transcribed from the printed edition, 2004, Springer. Not translated.