I Lemma 1.2.3 - Ethan.D.Bloch - The Real Numbers and Real Analysis

  • Thread starter anhtudo
  • Start date
Summary
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.
Lemma 1.2.3.PNG
 

fresh_42

Mentor
Insights Author
2018 Award
10,048
6,789
It is written a bit confusing, but correct. Forget ##b##.

We have ##n\in G## and ##p=s(n)##. This implies ##p \in G## because there is some ##n \in \mathbb{N}## such that ##s(n)=p##. Hence ##s(n) \in G##. Therefore we have ##1\in G## and all successors of elements of ##G## are in ##G##, too, i.e. ##\mathbb{N} \subseteq G##.
 
Thank you.
 

Want to reply to this thread?

"Lemma 1.2.3 - Ethan.D.Bloch - The Real Numbers and Real Analysis" You must log in or register to reply here.

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top