Talk:Covering lemma

re covering property

"for every uncountable set x of ordinals, there is y such that y⊃x, y has the same cardinality as x,"

I may be missing something, but shouldn't this specify instead "the same cardinality as the largest members of x"? Consider the set ω₁∪{ω₂}. This is an uncountable set of ordinals of cardinality ℵ₁+1 = ℵ₁, and yet no ordinal smaller than ω₂+1 will contain every member of this set. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 12:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)