2

I read this question:

Any good decomposition theorems for total orders?

and the answers. I like very much the Hausdorff theorem for scattered linear order. I repeat it here :

Theorem (Hausdorff). A linear order is scattered iff its order type is in some $S_\alpha$ ($\alpha$ an ordinal), where:

  • $S_0=\{0,1\}$

  • For $\alpha>0$, $S_\alpha$ is the smallest class obtained as follows: If $\gamma$ is an ordinal, $I$ is $\gamma$, $\gamma^*$, or $\gamma^*$+$\gamma$, and for each $i \in I$ the linear order $L_i$ is in $\bigcup_{\beta < \alpha} S_\beta$, then $\sum_{i \in I} L_i \in S_\alpha$.

I was wondering whether a similar characterization is possible for any Linear order (say countable to make it simpler), by adding for example $\eta$ (The order-type of the rationals) to $S_0$.

1 Answers1

2

It’s actually sufficient to allow a dense order only at the final stage.

Let $\langle X,\le\rangle$ be a linear order. I’ll quote a construction from an old paper of mine:

Suppose that $R$ is a convex equivalence relation on $X$, i.e., an equivalence relation with convex equivalence classes. For $x\in X$, let $R(x)=\{y\in x:x\mathbin{R}y\}$; since $R$ is convex, $X/R=\{R(x):x\in X\}$ is the image of $X$ under an order-homomorphism whereby if $R(x)\ne R(y)$, then $R(x)\le R(y)$ iff $x\le y$. We define from $R$ a new equivalence relation, $R^*$, on $X$ as follows. If $x,y\in X$ with $x\le y$, put $x\mathbin{R^*}y$ iff there is a finite family $\{x_0,\ldots,x_n\}\subseteq X$ such that $x=x_0\le x_1\le\ldots\le x_n=y$, $[x_i,x_{i+1}]/R$ is a well-order if $i<n$ is even, and $[x_i,x_{i+1}]/R$ is an inverted well-order if $i<n$ is odd; and if $y<x$, put $x\mathbin{R^*}y$ iff $y\mathbin{R^*}x$. Clearly $R\subseteq R^*$, $R^*$ is a convex equivalence relation on $X$.

Now let $R_0$ be the identity relation on $X$, and, for each ordinal $\alpha>0$, let $R_\alpha=\left(\bigcup\{R_\xi^*:\xi<\alpha\}\right)^*$; then each $R_\alpha$ is a convex equivalence relation on $X$, and $R_\alpha\subseteq R_\beta$ whenever $\alpha<\beta$. Define $r(X)=\inf\{\alpha:R_\alpha=R_{\alpha+1}\}$; clearly $r(X)$ exists, since it must in fact be less than $|X|^+$. Note also that if $\alpha=r(X)$, then either $|X/R_\alpha|=1$, (i.e., $R_\alpha=X\times X$), or $X/R_\alpha$ is a dense linear order; and that $X$ is scattered iff $|X/R_\alpha|=1$.

Suppose that $X/R_\alpha$ is a dense linear order, and let $x\in X$. Then $R_\alpha(x)$ is a convex subset of $X$, and $|R_\alpha(x)/R_\alpha|=1$, so $R_\alpha(x)$ is scattered, and $X$ is therefore a densely ordered sum of scattered orders. In particular, if $|X|=\omega$, and $X$ is not scattered, then $X/R_\alpha$ must be one of the four countable dense order types, $\eta$, $\eta+1$, $1+\eta$, or $1+\eta+1$.

One can extract more information from the foregoing construction, but there is a simpler way to reach the same conclusion. Let $\mathscr{D}$ be the set of densely ordered subsets of $X$. If $\mathscr{D}=\varnothing$, $X$ is of course scattered. Otherwise we can use Zorn’s lemma to get a maximal densely ordered subset $D$ of $X$. For each $x\in D$ let $R(x)=\bigcap\{(u,v):u,v\in D\text{ and }u<x<v\}$; each $R(x)$ is a scattered, convex subset of $X$, and $X=\sum_{x\in D}R(x)$ is a densely ordered sum of these scattered orders.

Brian M. Scott
  • 631,399
  • In his papers from 1906 and 1907 "Investigations into Order Types" Hausdorff analyzes possible characteristics of special powers of ordered types (being dense, closed, homogeneous, continuous etc.). Do you know of any modern presentation of this survey? – Eran Aug 23 '13 at 20:47
  • @Eran: I don’t, I’m afraid. I’ve never seen Joseph G. Rosenstein, Linear Orderings, but if you can find a copy, it might be worth checking. Or you might try asking Andrés Caicedo, who often posts here and whose e-mail address can be found at his blog. – Brian M. Scott Aug 23 '13 at 23:38
  • This is a great answer, Thanks a lot ! – Archimondain Aug 24 '13 at 13:46
  • @Archimondain: You’re very welcome! – Brian M. Scott Aug 24 '13 at 17:16
  • A minor point ; In Scott's def'n of $R^*$ it is implicit that "$[x_i,x_{i+1}]/R}]$ is...." requires that $[x_i,x_{i+1}]$ is a union of members of X/R. – DanielWainfleet Aug 12 '15 at 15:36
  • @user254665: No, it doesn't: $[x,y]/R$ makes sense for any $x,y\in X$, provided that one indulges in the fairly obvious minor abuse of notation of interpreting $R$ as $R\cap[x,y]^2$. – Brian M. Scott Aug 12 '15 at 16:21