An unsolved problem in the theory of constructive order types
Alan G. Hamilton · Journal of Symbolic Logic · 1969
In the forthcoming monograph of Crossley [1] the question is raised whether the implication 2 + A = A ⇒ 1 + A = A is true for constructive order types. In this paper a partial answer to this question is given, in that a counterexample is constructed, using, however, not the definition of constructive order type (C.O.T.) given in [1], but an earlier one, namely that in Crossley [2]. The difference is that in [1] only orderings which can be imbedded in a standard dense r.e. ordering R by a partial recursive function are considered. The linear ordering constructed in this paper can be shown not to be such. The problem remains open in the case of orderings imbeddable in R.