anhtudo
- 2
- 2
- TL;DR
- What I don't understand is how he proves that G = N.
I don't think it is logical to let b = n as it can not be derived from the definition of G that b is in G.
Thanks.
The discussion focuses on Lemma 1.2.3 from Ethan D. Bloch's "The Real Numbers and Real Analysis." It establishes that for any element ##n## in a set ##G##, if the successor function ##s(n)## yields an element ##p##, then ##p## is also in ##G##. This leads to the conclusion that the natural numbers ##\mathbb{N}## are a subset of ##G##, confirming that both 1 and all successors of elements in ##G## belong to ##G##.
PREREQUISITESMathematicians, students of real analysis, and anyone interested in foundational concepts of set theory and natural numbers.