- #1
mlsbbe
- 24
- 0
Can somebody please explain to me what is the well-ordering theorem in layman's terms. After looking at the explanation on wikipedia, I'm still not too sure...
If I understood correctly, this means the integers are well-ordered, but the rationals are not: they fail the last, "well-founded" axiom. (Unless you rewrite the axiom to allow for the bordering element "a" to be outside the subset.) Is that correct?
Dodo said:If I understood correctly, this means the integers are well-ordered, but the rationals are not: they fail the last, "well-founded" axiom. (Unless you rewrite the axiom to allow for the bordering element "a" to be outside the subset.) Is that correct?
I take you mean Cantor's argument of ordering pairs of naturals, in order to show Q is countable, don't you? Or similar.CRGreathouse said:The rational numbers are not well-ordered by "<", the usual order on the rationals. But they can be well-ordered lexicographically.
CRGreathouse said:Take a set. The set can be well-ordered.
A set S is well-ordered exactly when it has a relation ≺ such that:
* For any a and b in S, exactly one of a ≺ b, b ≺ a, a = b holds;
* For any a, b, and c in S, if a ≺ b and b ≺ c, a ≺ c;
* For any subset A of S, there is an a in A with a ≺ b for all other b in A.
The first two mean that ≺ is a total order: you can 'line up all the elements in order' if you have enough space. The last means that ≺ is well-founded.
mlsbbe said:from condition (1), how can a<b and b<a at the same time?
Dodo said:As for < being "inequality", I presume it is intended here as an abstract operation, with no previous context at all: it only does what the definition above allows it to do. But a power cat can provide a more complete answer next.
JSuarez said:(Nitpicking:any nonempty set or subset )
But CRGreathouse is correct: the well-ordering theorem (which is sometimes taken as an axiom of Set Theory), states that any nonempty set admits a well-order, that is, a total order such that any nonempty subset has a minimum element; in other words, every nonempty set, may be made to look, in terms of ordering, like the natural numbers.
The downside is that this well-order is impossible to find explicitly for most sets; we only know that ir exists.
yes, but not totally correct. Most of the well orders are different from the one in the natural numbers.
You can easily prove that this is a well order
JSuarez said:I'm sorry, but I can't see where is the "error".
This was repeatedly stated by myself, CRgreathouse and others in this thread.
That's not such a big deal: all ordinals, either sucessor (as the ones you mention) or limit ones are naturally well-ordered.
The imprecise term "like" was not meant mathematically, but merely as an analogy; therefore, going beyond the finite ordinals doesn't really add anything.
doomCookie said:Thank you for the reply. I am still not sure why a set can be both uncountable and well ordered. I will clarify my confusion.
So the reals are uncountable by the Cantor diagonalization proof, so they cannot be put in one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers. But the reals are well ordered by the Well Ordering theorem, so for any subset A of the real numbers R, there is an a in A with a ≺ b for all other b in R.
How can that 'a' exist for R if by the diagonalization I can always construct a new member of R, one that could be ≺ a?
I would think that to make a claim about 'a' over all 'b's in R the set R itself would need to be countable in order that any kind of order be discovered at all.
doomCookie said:Hi,
So if under ZFC a well ordering exists for the reals, why isn't this in contradiction to their uncountability?
The Well-Ordering Theorem is a mathematical principle that states every non-empty set of positive integers has a least element.
The Well-Ordering Theorem is important because it allows us to prove the existence of certain mathematical objects, such as the greatest common divisor of two numbers. It also serves as a foundation for other mathematical principles, such as mathematical induction.
The Well-Ordering Theorem can be understood as saying that any set of positive integers must have a smallest number in it. Think of it as a line of numbers, where the first number is the smallest and each subsequent number is larger.
The Well-Ordering Theorem is often used in proofs by contradiction, where we assume that a certain set of positive integers has no least element and then show that this leads to a contradiction. This allows us to conclude that the set must have a least element, proving the theorem.
Yes, the Well-Ordering Theorem only applies to sets of positive integers. It cannot be used for sets of negative integers or real numbers. It also cannot be used to prove the existence of a smallest element in infinite sets, such as the set of all real numbers.