Hi I'm reading this great book Foundations of Analysis by Edmund Landau, a really old book that aims to build the foundations of analysis from basic arithmetic.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

I'm not that strong on proofing yet but am trying, here is my problem.

Using these 5 axioms for the Natural numbers;

[tex] I) \ 1 \in \mathbb{N}[/tex]

[tex]II) \ \forall \ x \ \exists \ x' \ : x' \ = \ x \ + \ 1[/tex]

[tex]III) \ x' \ \neq \ 1[/tex]

[tex]IV) \ if \ x' \ = \ y' \ then \ x \ = \ y[/tex]

[tex]V) \ \exists \ \mathbb{R} \ : \ \mathbb{N} \ \subset \ \mathbb{R} \ , \ with \ the \ following \ properties \ - \ i) \ 1 \ \in \ \mathbb{R}, \ ii) \ if \ x \ \in \ \mathbb{R} \ then \ x' \ \in \ \mathbb{R}[/tex]

I want to prove that x' ≠ x. It's the second theorem, the first being;

If x ≠ y then x' ≠ y'

which is proved by assuming x ≠ y and x' = y'

so we find a contradiction with axiomIVabove because x' = y' means x = y.

This is beautiful and understandable but in proving x' ≠ x the proof goes as follows,

By axiomsIandIIIabove,

i)1' ≠ 1 because 1' = 1 + 1.

so 1 belongs in R.

Then it says;

ii)If x ∈ R then x' ≠ x and by theorem 1 (x')' ≠ x' so x' ∈ R

This makes no sense to me, where did it come from

EDIT: I don't know why you can't use axiom II and just rearrange x' = x + 1 into x = x' - 1 to prove it

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Little Proof

Loading...

Similar Threads - Little Proof | Date |
---|---|

B Proof of a limit rule | Dec 19, 2017 |

I Need a little push on this integral using trig substitution. | Mar 15, 2017 |

A little confused about integrals | Jan 8, 2015 |

Question on limits and little-o notation | Apr 18, 2013 |

A little help with vector calculus | Feb 28, 2013 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**