Natural Numbers

  • Thread starter jgens
  • Start date
  • #1
jgens
Gold Member
1,580
49

Main Question or Discussion Point

Earlier today, I was thinking about the statement that "there exists no greatest natural number" and immediately, two proofs sprang to my mind. Since my question depends on these, I'll write them out below . . .


Proof 1: Let [itex]n \in \mathbb{N}[/itex]. Clearly [itex]n+1 \in \mathbb{N}[/itex] and [itex]n < n+1[/itex]. Since, given any natural number, it's possible to explicitly construct a larger natural number, [itex]\mathbb{N}[/itex] contains no greatest element.


Proof 2: Clearly [itex]1 \in \mathbb{N}[/itex]. Now suppose that [itex]\mathbb{N}[/itex] is bounded above, in which case [itex]\mathbb{N}[/itex] is a bounded, non-empty subset of the Real numbers. Since [itex]\mathbb{N}[/itex] satisfies the necessary conditions, [itex]\sup\{\mathbb{N}\}[/itex] exists. Because [itex]\sup\{\mathbb{N}\}[/itex] is an upper bound for [itex]\mathbb{N}[/itex], it follows that for any natural number [itex]n[/itex] we have that [itex]n < \sup\{\mathbb{N}\}[/itex]. Since [itex]n+1[/itex] is also a natural number, [itex]n+1 < \sup\{\mathbb{N}\}[/itex] which implies that [itex]n < \sup\{\mathbb{N}\} - 1[/itex]. This contradicts the fact that [itex]\sup\{\mathbb{N}\}[/itex] is a least upper bound and consequently, the assumption that [itex]\mathbb{N}[/itex] is bounded above must have been incorrect. Therefore, [itex]\mathbb{N}[/itex] is unbouded above, completing the proof.


Now, my question is this: What is the difference between the two proofs? From what I can gather, the first only demonstrates that [itex]\mathbb{N}[/itex] contains no greatest element; while the second demonstrates that [itex]\mathbb{N}[/itex] contains no greatest element and is in fact, unbounded above. Is this sort of thinking correct or am I just fundamentally confused about something? Any clarifications or advice are appreciated. Thanks!
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
740
13
i thought it would have had something to do with [itex]\omega[/itex] being an infinite limit ordinal
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
Because [itex]\sup\{\mathbb{N}\}[/itex] is an upper bound for [itex]\mathbb{N}[/itex], it follows that for any natural number [itex]n[/itex] we have that [itex]n < \sup\{\mathbb{N}\}[/itex].[/quote]
Minor error: the thing that immediately follows has [itex]\leq[/itex], not <.


As for your second proof, you have neglected somewhere along the line to show that sup(N)-1 is an upper bound on N, so you haven't yet shown the contradiction you were seeking.


Aside from those errors, your proofs look fine, and prove what you think they prove.
 
  • #4
jgens
Gold Member
1,580
49
Thanks Hurkyl! I'm glad that you pointed out those errors, I really should know better.
 

Related Threads on Natural Numbers

  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
747
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
735
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
692
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
Top