Define , we claim that . Let , then there is some such that , therefore , on the contrary suppose that for some , therefore , so clearly , therefore
Define and set for . Firstly note that the 's are pairwise disjoint, suppose that we have where without loss of generatlity , then we know that , but at the same time we know that , since is part of that union, then when we take it's complement, clearly cannot intersect with and since it cannot intersect with as well.
Additionally we claim . Let , so there exists some such that , since then we know that is there is some such that so by definition . Moving the other way suppose that in that case there is some so that , let be the collection of indices such that for every , , clearly is non-empty since at least , therefore by the well ordering principle it has some least element , note that this means for any we have that , so by definition , so that we've shown as needed. We conclude that
The first line is justified by the paragraph above, the second by the fact that the
's are disjoint, the third by the fact that
and the last because
.