Apostol's Mathematical Analysis 1.6

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the well-ordering principle, which states that every nonempty set of positive integers contains a smallest member. The original poster is exploring the proof format and reasoning related to this principle.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to construct a proof by considering finite sets of positive integers and questioning the existence of a smallest member. Other participants inquire about the properties of positive integers and definitions relevant to the proof, such as inductive sets and field axioms.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the original poster's proof attempt, providing feedback and asking clarifying questions. There is an exploration of definitions and properties that may support the proof, but no consensus has been reached on the rigor of the presented arguments.

Contextual Notes

Participants are discussing the definitions of inductive sets and properties of positive integers, which may influence the proof's structure. The original poster expresses uncertainty about the rigor of their reasoning.

cordyceps
Messages
50
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Prove that every nonempty set of positive integers contains a smallest member. This is called the well-ordering principle.


The Attempt at a Solution


I'm just starting out with analysis, so I'm not too sure about the format of proofs. Here goes:

Proof. First suppose the set S of positive integers is finite. Then assume S contains no smallest member. It follows that for every x in S, there exists an infinite number of members of S less than x. This contradicts our assumption that S is finite. Thus every finite set of integers contains a smallest member.

Any help/critique is appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What properties of positive integers do you have to work with?
 
Sorry for the late reply. I have the definition of an inductive set and the definition of a positive integer: a real number which belongs to every inductive set.
 
Oh, also some of the field axioms for real numbers:
1. Exactly one of the relations x = y, x < y, x > y holds.
2. If x > y and y > z, then x > z.
 
So, for the non-empty set S of positive integers, one of the relations x < y or x > y holds between any two members. This means that each member in S is greater than or less than each of the other members. Also, if some member x of S is less than some member y, and y is less than some member z, then x is less than z. It follows that there is a member less than every other member in S.

Is this clear enough? Intuitively, I see why the theorem is true, but I don't think I present my thoughts very rigorously.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
4K