Frédéric Wang Nélar Yet another non-exponentially growing weblog

About Me  Blog Archive

The canonical well-ordering of α×α (part 2)

In a my previous blog post, I discussed the canonical well-ordering on α×α\alpha\times\alpha and stated theorem 0.5 below to calculate its order-type γ⁢(α)\gamma(\alpha). Subsequent corollaries provided a bound for γ⁢(α)\gamma(\alpha), its fixed points and a proof that infinite cardinals were among these fixed points (and so that cardinal addition and multiplication is trivial). In this second part, I’m going to provide the proof of this theorem.

First, we note that for all n<ωn<\omega, there is only one order-type for n×nn\times n, since the notion of cardinal and ordinal is the same for finite sets. So indeed

∀n<ω,γ⁢(n)=|n×n|=n2\forall n<\omega,\gamma(n)={|n\times n|}=n^{2}

and taking the limit, we get our first infinite fixed point:

γ⁢(ω)=supn<ω⁡γ⁢(n)=ω\gamma(\omega)=\sup_{n<\omega}{\gamma(n)}=\omega

For all α\alpha the ordering on (α+1)×(α+1){(\alpha+1)}\times{(\alpha+1)} is as follows: first the elements of α×α\alpha\times\alpha ordered as γ⁢(α)\gamma(\alpha), followed by the elements (ξ,α)(\xi,\alpha) for 0≤ξ<α0\leq\xi<\alpha, followed by the elements (α,ξ)(\alpha,\xi) for 0≤ξ≤α0\leq\xi\leq\alpha. Hence

∀α,γ⁢(α+1)=γ⁢(α)+α⋅2+1\forall\alpha,{\gamma(\alpha+1)}={\gamma(\alpha)}+\alpha\cdot 2+1

From this, we can try to calculate the next values of γ\gamma after ω\omega:

γ⁢(ω+1)=ω+ω⋅2+1=ω⋅3+1{\gamma(\omega+1)}=\omega+{\omega\cdot 2}+1={\omega\cdot 3}+1
γ⁢(ω+2)=ω⋅3+1+ω+1+ω+1+1=ω⋅5+2{\gamma(\omega+2)}={\omega\cdot 3+1}+\omega+1+\omega+1+1={\omega\cdot 5}+2

The important point is 1+ω=ω1+\omega=\omega ; in general we will use several times the property α+ωβ=ωβ\alpha+\omega^{\beta}=\omega^{\beta} if α<ωβ\alpha<\omega^{\beta}. By a simple recurrence (see proposition 0.1), we can generalize the expression to arbitrary nn:

γ⁢(ω+n)=ω⁢(2⁢n+1)+n{\gamma(\omega+n)}=\omega\left(2n+1\right)+n

and so taking the limit

γ⁢(ω⋅2)=ω2{\gamma(\omega\cdot 2)}=\omega^{2}

which is a limit ordinal not fixed by γ\gamma. We note another point that will be used later: taking the limit “eliminates” the smallest terms. More generally, we can perform the same calculation, starting from any arbitrary α≥ω\alpha\geq\omega:

Proposition 0.1.

For any limit ordinal α\alpha and 1≤n<ω1\leq n<\omega we have

γ⁢(α+n)=γ⁢(α)+α⋅2⁢n+n\gamma(\alpha+n)=\gamma(\alpha)+{\alpha\cdot{2n}}+n
Proof.

For n=1n=1 this is the relation for γ⁢(α+1)\gamma(\alpha+1) explained above. If the relation is true for nn then

γ⁢(α+n+1)=γ⁢(α+n)+(α+n)⋅2+1\gamma(\alpha+n+1)=\gamma(\alpha+n)+{\left(\alpha+n\right)\cdot 2}+1
γ⁢(α+n+1)=γ⁢(α)+α⋅2⁢n+n+α+n+α+n+1\gamma(\alpha+n+1)=\gamma(\alpha)+{\alpha\cdot{2n}}+n+\alpha+n+\alpha+n+1

and since α≥ω\alpha\geq\omega we have n+α=αn+\alpha=\alpha and so

γ⁢(α+n+1)=γ⁢(α)+α⋅(2⁢n+1)+n+1\gamma(\alpha+n+1)=\gamma(\alpha)+{\alpha\cdot{(2n+1)}}+n+1

Which shows the result at step n+1n+1. ∎

As above, we can take the limit and say γ⁢(α+ω)=supn<ω⁡γ⁢(α+n)=γ⁢(α)+α⋅ω{\gamma(\alpha+\omega)}=\sup_{n<\omega}{\gamma(\alpha+n)}=\gamma(\alpha)+% \alpha\cdot\omega which is consistent with γ⁢(ω⋅2)=ω+ω2=ω2{\gamma(\omega\cdot 2)}=\omega+\omega^{2}=\omega^{2}. However, if we consider the Cantor Normal Form α=ωβ1⁢n1+…+ωβk⁢nk\alpha=\omega^{\beta_{1}}n_{1}+...+\omega^{\beta_{k}}n_{k}, then for all n<ωn<\omega we have can use the fact that “ωβ1\omega^{\beta_{1}} will eliminate smaller terms on its left” that is α⋅n=ωβ1⁢(n1⁢n)+ωβ2⁢n2+…+ωβk⁢nk\alpha\cdot n=\omega^{\beta_{1}}{(n_{1}n)}+\omega^{\beta_{2}}n_{2}+...+\omega^% {\beta_{k}}n_{k}. Then using the fact that “taking the limit eliminates the smallest terms” we get α⋅ω=supn<ω⁡α⋅n=ωβ1+1\alpha\cdot\omega=\sup_{n<\omega}\alpha\cdot n=\omega^{\beta_{1}+1}. So actually, we have a nicer formula where α⋅ω\alpha\cdot\omega is put in Cantor Normal Form:

∀α≥ω,γ⁢(α+ω)=γ⁢(α)+ωlogω⁡(α)+1\forall\alpha\geq\omega,{\gamma(\alpha+\omega)}=\gamma(\alpha)+\omega^{\log_{% \omega}(\alpha)+1}

This can be generalized by the following proposition:

Proposition 0.2.

For any α≥ω\alpha\geq\omega and β≥1\beta\geq 1 such that logω⁡(α)+1≥β\log_{\omega}(\alpha)+1\geq\beta we have

γ⁢(α+ωβ)=γ⁢(α)+ωlogω⁡(α)+β{\gamma(\alpha+\omega^{\beta})}=\gamma(\alpha)+\omega^{\log_{\omega}(\alpha)+\beta}
Proof.

We prove by induction on β\beta that for all such α\alpha the expression is true. We just verified β=1\beta=1 and the limit case is obvious by continuity of γ\gamma and of the sum/exponentiation in the second variable. For the successor step, if logω⁡(α)+1≥β+1\log_{\omega}(\alpha)+1\geq\beta+1 then a fortiori ∀1≤n<ω,logω⁡(α+ωβ⋅n)+1≥β+1≥β\forall 1\leq n<\omega,\log_{\omega}(\alpha+\omega^{\beta}\cdot n)+1\geq\beta+% 1\geq\beta. We can then use the induction hypothesis to prove by induction on 1≤n<ω1\leq n<\omega that γ⁢(α+ωβ⋅n)=γ⁢(α)+ωlogω⁡(α)+β⋅n{\gamma(\alpha+{\omega^{\beta}\cdot n})}=\gamma(\alpha)+\omega^{\log_{\omega}(% \alpha)+\beta}\cdot n. For n=1n=1, this is just the induction hypothesis of β\beta (for the same α\alpha!). For the successor step, we need to use the induction hypothesis of β\beta (for α+ωβ⋅n\alpha+\omega^{\beta}\cdot n) which is γ⁢(α+ωβ⋅(n+1))=γ⁢(α+ωβ⋅n)+ωlogω⁡(α)+β{\gamma(\alpha+{\omega^{\beta}\cdot{(n+1)}})}={\gamma(\alpha+{\omega^{\beta}% \cdot n})}+\omega^{\log_{\omega}(\alpha)+\beta}. Finally, γ⁢(α+ωβ+1)=sup1≤n<ω⁡γ⁢(α+ωβ⋅n)=γ⁢(α)+ωlogω⁡(α)+β+1{\gamma(\alpha+{\omega^{\beta+1}})}={\sup_{1\leq n<\omega}{\gamma(\alpha+{% \omega^{\beta}\cdot n})}}=\gamma(\alpha)+\omega^{\log_{\omega}(\alpha)+\beta+1}, as wanted. ∎

For all α≥1\alpha\geq 1, logω⁡(ωα)+1=α+1\log_{\omega}(\omega^{\alpha})+1=\alpha+1 so the previous paragraph also gives γ⁢(ωα+1)=γ⁢(ωα+ωα+1)=γ⁢(ωα)+ωα⋅2+1{\gamma(\omega^{\alpha+1})}=\gamma\left(\omega^{\alpha}+\omega^{\alpha+1}% \right)={\gamma(\omega^{\alpha})}+\omega^{\alpha\cdot 2+1}. Then, we find

γ⁢(ω2)=ω+ω3=ω3\gamma(\omega^{2})=\omega+\omega^{3}=\omega^{3}
γ⁢(ω3)=ω3+ω5=ω5\gamma(\omega^{3})=\omega^{3}+\omega^{5}=\omega^{5}

And more generally by induction on n<ωn<\omega, we can show that

γ⁢(ωn+1)=ω2⁢n+1\gamma(\omega^{n+1})=\omega^{2n+1}

Then we deduce another fixed point

γ⁢(ωω)=sup1≤n<ω⁡γ⁢(ωn)=ωω\gamma(\omega^{\omega})={\sup_{1\leq n<\omega}\gamma\left({\omega^{n}}\right)}% =\omega^{\omega}

The following proposition tries to generalize the expression of γ⁢(ωα+1){\gamma(\omega^{\alpha+1})}.

Proposition 0.3.

For any α,β≥1\alpha,\beta\geq 1 such that logω⁡(α)>logω⁡(β)\log_{\omega}(\alpha)>\log_{\omega}(\beta) we have

γ⁢(ωα+β)=γ⁢(ωα)+ωα⋅2+β{\gamma(\omega^{\alpha+\beta})}={\gamma(\omega^{\alpha})}+\omega^{\alpha\cdot 2% +\beta}
Proof.

This is done by induction on β<α\beta<\alpha for a fixed α\alpha. We already verified the case β=1\beta=1 in the previous paragraph and the limit case is obvious by continuity of γ\gamma and of the sum/exponentiation in the second variable. For the successor step, we have γ⁢(ωα+β+1)=γ⁢(ωα+β)+ω(α+β)⋅2+1{\gamma(\omega^{\alpha+\beta+1})}={\gamma(\omega^{\alpha+\beta})}+\omega^{{(% \alpha+\beta)}\cdot 2+1} and by induction hypothesis, γ⁢(ωα+β)=γ⁢(ωα)+ωα⋅2+β{\gamma(\omega^{\alpha+\beta})}={\gamma(\omega^{\alpha})}+\omega^{\alpha\cdot 2% +\beta}. Since logω⁡(α)>logω⁡(β+1)=logω⁡(β)\log_{\omega}(\alpha)>\log_{\omega}(\beta+1)=\log_{\omega}(\beta) we have (α+β)⋅2+1=α+β+α+β+1=α⋅2+β+1>α⋅2+β{(\alpha+\beta)}\cdot 2+1=\alpha+\beta+\alpha+\beta+1=\alpha\cdot 2+\beta+1>% \alpha\cdot 2+\beta and so ωα⋅2+β+ωα⋅2+β+1=ωα⋅2+β+1\omega^{\alpha\cdot 2+\beta}+\omega^{\alpha\cdot 2+\beta+1}=\omega^{\alpha% \cdot 2+\beta+1}. Finally, γ⁢(ωα+β+1)=γ⁢(ωα+β)+ωα⋅2+β+1{\gamma(\omega^{\alpha+\beta+1})}={\gamma(\omega^{\alpha+\beta})}+\omega^{% \alpha\cdot 2+\beta+1} as wanted. ∎

For any 1≤n<ω1\leq n<\omega and α≥1\alpha\geq 1, if 1≤β<ωα1\leq\beta<\omega^{\alpha} then logω⁡(β)<α=logω⁡(ωα⋅n)\log_{\omega}(\beta)<\alpha=\log_{\omega}(\omega^{\alpha}\cdot n). Hence proposition 0.3 gives γ⁢(ωωα⋅n+β)=γ⁢(ωωα⋅n)+ωωα⋅2⁢n+β{\gamma(\omega^{{\omega^{\alpha}\cdot n}+\beta})}={\gamma(\omega^{{\omega^{% \alpha}\cdot n}})}+\omega^{{\omega^{\alpha}\cdot{2n}}+\beta} Then by continuity of γ\gamma and of the sum/exponentiation in the second variable, we can consider the limit β→ωα\beta\rightarrow\omega^{\alpha} to get γ⁢(ωωα⋅(n+1))=γ⁢(ωωα⋅n)+ωωα⋅(2⁢n+1){\gamma(\omega^{{\omega^{\alpha}\cdot(n+1)}})}={\gamma(\omega^{{\omega^{\alpha% }\cdot n}})}+\omega^{{\omega^{\alpha}\cdot{(2n+1)}}}. So continuing our calculation we have

γ⁢(ωω⋅2)=ωω+ωω⋅3=ωω⋅3{\gamma(\omega^{\omega\cdot 2})}=\omega^{\omega}+\omega^{\omega\cdot 3}=\omega% ^{\omega\cdot 3}
γ⁢(ωω⋅3)=ωω⋅3+ωω⋅5=ωω⋅5{\gamma(\omega^{\omega\cdot 3})}=\omega^{\omega\cdot 3}+\omega^{\omega\cdot 5}% =\omega^{\omega\cdot 5}

and taking the limit we find another fixed point

γ⁢(ωω2)=ωω2{\gamma(\omega^{\omega^{2}})}=\omega^{\omega^{2}}

then again

γ⁢(ωω2⋅2)=ωω2+ωω2⋅3=ωω2⋅3{\gamma(\omega^{\omega^{2}\cdot 2})}=\omega^{\omega^{2}}+\omega^{\omega^{2}% \cdot 3}=\omega^{\omega^{2}\cdot 3}
γ⁢(ωω2⋅3)=ωω2⋅3+ωω2⋅5=ωω2⋅5{\gamma(\omega^{\omega^{2}\cdot 3})}=\omega^{\omega^{2}\cdot 3}+\omega^{\omega% ^{2}\cdot 5}=\omega^{\omega^{2}\cdot 5}

and taking the limit we find another fixed point

γ⁢(ωω3)=ωω3{\gamma(\omega^{\omega^{3}})}=\omega^{\omega^{3}}

More generally, we have the following proposition:

Proposition 0.4.

For any ordinal α\alpha and 1≤n<ω1\leq n<\omega we have

γ⁢(ωωα⋅n)=ωωα⋅(2⁢n-1){\gamma(\omega^{{\omega^{\alpha}\cdot n}})}=\omega^{{\omega^{\alpha}\cdot{(2n-% 1)}}}
Proof.

From the relation γ⁢(ωωα⋅(n+1))=γ⁢(ωωα⋅n)+ωωα⋅(2⁢n+1){\gamma(\omega^{{\omega^{\alpha}\cdot(n+1)}})}={\gamma(\omega^{{\omega^{\alpha% }\cdot n}})}+\omega^{{\omega^{\alpha}\cdot{(2n+1)}}}, we deduce by induction on nn that

∀n≥2,γ⁢(ωωα⋅n)=γ⁢(ωωα)+ωωα⋅(2⁢n-1)\forall n\geq 2,{\gamma(\omega^{{\omega^{\alpha}\cdot n}})}={\gamma(\omega^{{% \omega^{\alpha}}})}+\omega^{{\omega^{\alpha}\cdot{(2n-1)}}}

Taking the limit n→ωn\rightarrow\omega,we obtain

γ⁢(ωωα+1)=γ⁢(ωωα)+ωωα+1{\gamma(\omega^{{\omega^{\alpha+1}}})}={\gamma(\omega^{{\omega^{\alpha}}})}+% \omega^{{\omega^{\alpha+1}}}

We can then show by induction that all the ωωα\omega^{\omega^{\alpha}} are actually fixed points, using the previous relation at successor step, the continuity of γ\gamma at limit step and the fact that γ⁢(ω)=ω\gamma(\omega)=\omega. This means

γ⁢(ωωα)=ωωα=ωωα⋅(2×1-1){\gamma(\omega^{{\omega^{\alpha}}})}=\omega^{{\omega^{\alpha}}}=\omega^{{% \omega^{\alpha}\cdot{(2\times 1-1)}}}

Then for n≥2n\geq 2, we get

γ⁢(ωωα⋅n)=γ⁢(ωωα)+ωωα⋅(2⁢n-1)=ωωα+ωωα⋅(2⁢n-1)=ωωα⋅(2⁢n-1){\gamma(\omega^{{\omega^{\alpha}\cdot n}})}={\gamma(\omega^{{\omega^{\alpha}}}% )}+\omega^{{\omega^{\alpha}\cdot{(2n-1)}}}={\omega^{{\omega^{\alpha}}}}+\omega% ^{{\omega^{\alpha}\cdot{(2n-1)}}}=\omega^{{\omega^{\alpha}\cdot{(2n-1)}}}

∎

Equipped with these four propositions, we have a way to recursively calculate γ\gamma. We are ready to prove the main theorem:

Theorem 0.5.

For all ordinal α\alpha, we denote γ⁢(α)\gamma(\alpha) the order-type of the canonical ordering of α×α\alpha\times\alpha. Then γ\gamma can be calculated as follows:

  1. 1.

    Finite Ordinals: For any n<ωn<\omega we have

    γ⁢(n)=n2\gamma(n)=n^{2}
  2. 2.

    Limit Ordinals: For any limit ordinal α\alpha,

    1. (a)

      If ωlogω⁡(logω⁡(α))\omega^{\log_{\omega}\left(\log_{\omega}\left(\alpha\right)\right)} does not divide logω⁡(α)\log_{\omega}(\alpha) then

      γ⁢(α)=ωlogω⁡(α)⋅α\gamma(\alpha)=\omega^{\log_{\omega}(\alpha)}\cdot\alpha
    2. (b)

      Otherwise, we write α=ωlogω⁡(α)⁢n+ρ\alpha={\omega^{\log_{\omega}(\alpha)}n}+\rho for some n≥1n\geq 1. If n≥2n\geq 2 then

      γ⁢(α)=ωlogω⁡(α)⋅(ωlogω⁡(α)⋅(n-1)+ρ)\gamma(\alpha)=\omega^{\log_{\omega}(\alpha)}\cdot\left({\omega^{\log_{\omega}% (\alpha)}\cdot{(n-1)}}+\rho\right)

      (like the first case but we “decrement nn in the second factor”)

    3. (c)

      Otherwise, α=ωlogω⁡(α)+ρ\alpha={\omega^{\log_{\omega}(\alpha)}}+\rho and we write logω⁡(α)=ωlogω⁡(logω⁡(α))⁢m\log_{\omega}(\alpha)=\omega^{\log_{\omega}\left(\log_{\omega}\left(\alpha% \right)\right)}m for some m≥1m\geq 1. We have

      γ⁢(α)=ωlogω⁡(α)⋅(ωωlogω⁡(logω⁡(α))⋅(m-1)+ρ)\gamma(\alpha)=\omega^{\log_{\omega}(\alpha)}\cdot\left(\omega^{\omega^{\log_{% \omega}\left(\log_{\omega}\left(\alpha\right)\right)}\cdot\left(m-1\right)}+% \rho\right)

      (like the first case but we “decrement mm in the second factor”)

  3. 3.

    Infinite Successor Ordinals: For any limit ordinal α\alpha and 1≤n<ω1\leq n<\omega we have

    γ⁢(α+n)=γ⁢(α)+α⋅2⁢n+n\gamma(\alpha+n)=\gamma(\alpha)+{\alpha\cdot{2n}}+n

    where γ⁢(α)\gamma(\alpha) is determined as in the previous point.

Proof.

The “Finite Ordinals” has been discussed at the beginning and the “Infinite Successor Ordinals” is proposition 0.1. Now let’s consider the Cantor Normal Form ωβ1⁢n+…+ωβk⁢nk\omega^{\beta_{1}}n+...+\omega^{\beta_{k}}n_{k} of a limit ordinal α≥ω\alpha\geq\omega (so βk≥1\beta_{k}\geq 1 and β1=logω⁡(α)\beta_{1}=\log_{\omega}(\alpha)). First, from proposition 0.2 we can make successively extract the nkn_{k} terms ωβk\omega^{\beta_{k}} (by left-multiplying them by ωβ1\omega^{\beta_{1}}), then the nk-1n_{k-1} terms ωβk-1\omega^{\beta_{k-1}}, … then the n2n_{2} terms ωβ2\omega^{\beta_{2}} and finally n-1n-1 terms ωβ1\omega^{\beta_{1}}. We obtain:

γ⁢(α)=γ⁢(ωβ1)+ωβ1⁢(ωβ1⁢(n-1)+ωβ2⁢n2+…+ωβk⁢nk){\gamma(\alpha)}={\gamma(\omega^{\beta_{1}})}+{\omega^{\beta_{1}}\left(\omega^% {\beta_{1}}{(n-1)}+\omega^{\beta_{2}}n_{2}+\dots+\omega^{\beta_{k}}n_{k}\right)}

We now write β1=ωδ⁢m+σ\beta_{1}=\omega^{\delta}m+\sigma where δ=logω⁡β1\delta=\log_{\omega}{\beta_{1}} and m,σm,\sigma are the quotient and remainder of the Euclidean division of β1\beta_{1} by ωδ\omega^{\delta}. We can then use proposition 0.3 to extract σ\sigma:

σ=0⟹γ⁢(ωβ1)=γ⁢(ωωδ⁢m)\sigma=0\implies{\gamma(\omega^{\beta_{1}})}={\gamma(\omega^{\omega^{\delta}m})}
σ≠0⟹γ⁢(ωβ1)=γ⁢(ωωδ⁢m)+ωωδ⋅(2⁢m)+σ\sigma\neq 0\implies{\gamma(\omega^{\beta_{1}})}={\gamma(\omega^{\omega^{% \delta}m})}+\omega^{\omega^{\delta}\cdot{(2m)}+\sigma}

Finally, using proposition 0.4 we obtain

γ⁢(ωωδ⁢m)=ωωδ⋅(2⁢m-1){\gamma(\omega^{\omega^{\delta}m})}=\omega^{{\omega^{\delta}\cdot{(2m-1)}}}

σ≠0\sigma\neq 0 means that ωδ=ωlogω⁡(logω⁡(α))\omega^{\delta}=\omega^{\log_{\omega}\left(\log_{\omega}\left(\alpha\right)% \right)} does not divide β1=logω⁡(α)\beta_{1}={\log_{\omega}(\alpha)}. In that case, ωωδ⋅(2⁢m)+σ>ωωδ⋅(2⁢m-1)\omega^{\omega^{\delta}\cdot{(2m)}+\sigma}>\omega^{{\omega^{\delta}\cdot{(2m-1% )}}} and so γ⁢(ωβ1)=ωωδ⋅(2⁢m)+σ{\gamma(\omega^{\beta_{1}})}=\omega^{\omega^{\delta}\cdot{(2m)}+\sigma}. We note that β1⋅2=ωδ⁢m+σ+ωδ⁢m+σ=ωδ⁢(2⁢m)+σ\beta_{1}\cdot 2=\omega^{\delta}m+\sigma+\omega^{\delta}m+\sigma=\omega^{% \delta}{(2m)}+\sigma since the remainder σ\sigma is less than ωδ\omega^{\delta}. So actually γ⁢(ωβ1)=ωβ1⁢ωβ1{\gamma(\omega^{\beta_{1}})}=\omega^{\beta_{1}}\omega^{\beta_{1}}. Coming back to the expression of γ⁢(α)\gamma(\alpha), this term can be grouped with ωβ1⁢(n-1)\omega^{\beta_{1}}{(n-1)} to recover the Cantor Normal Form of α\alpha and we finally get γ⁢(α)=ωβ1⁢α\gamma(\alpha)=\omega^{\beta_{1}}\alpha.

Otherwise, σ=0\sigma=0, β1=ωδ⁢m\beta_{1}=\omega^{\delta}m and

γ⁢(ωβ1)=γ⁢(ωωδ⁢m)=ωωδ⋅(2⁢m-1)=ωβ1⁢ωωδ⋅(m-1){\gamma(\omega^{\beta_{1}})}={\gamma(\omega^{\omega^{\delta}m})}=\omega^{{% \omega^{\delta}\cdot{(2m-1)}}}={\omega^{\beta_{1}}{\omega^{\omega^{\delta}% \cdot{(m-1)}}}}

But then β1=ωδ⁢m>ωδ⁢(m-1)\beta_{1}=\omega^{\delta}m>{\omega^{\delta}{(m-1)}} and so ωβ1⁢ωβ1>ωβ1⁢ωωδ⋅(m-1)\omega^{\beta_{1}}\omega^{\beta_{1}}>\omega^{\beta_{1}}\omega^{{\omega^{\delta% }\cdot{(m-1)}}}. Hence if n≥2n\geq 2, the term γ⁢(ωβ1){\gamma(\omega^{\beta_{1}})} is eliminated in the expression of γ⁢(α)\gamma(\alpha) and it remains

γ⁢(α)=ωβ1⁢(ωβ1⁢(n-1)+ρ){\gamma(\alpha)}={\omega^{\beta_{1}}\left(\omega^{\beta_{1}}{(n-1)}+\rho\right)}

where ρ=ωβ2⁢n2+…+ωβk⁢nk\rho=\omega^{\beta_{2}}n_{2}+\dots+\omega^{\beta_{k}}n_{k}. If instead n=1n=1, then the term ωβ1⁢(n-1)\omega^{\beta_{1}}{(n-1)} is zero and it remains

γ⁢(α)=ωβ1⁢(ωωδ⋅(m-1)+ωβ2⁢n2+…+ωβk⁢nk){\gamma(\alpha)}={\omega^{\beta_{1}}\left(\omega^{{\omega^{\delta}\cdot{(m-1)}% }}+\omega^{\beta_{2}}n_{2}+\dots+\omega^{\beta_{k}}n_{k}\right)}

∎