Number Theory WOP: Find Smallest Integer of Form a - bk

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around understanding the well-ordering principle (WOP) in number theory, specifically regarding the existence of the smallest positive integer of the form a - bk, where a and b are positive integers and k is an integer. Participants clarify that the WOP guarantees the existence of a least element in the set S, which consists of integers formed by a - bk, but it does not specify which element is the smallest. The confusion arises over whether k or the expression a - b(-1) represents the smallest element, but it is emphasized that the principle only asserts that such an element exists. The thread highlights the importance of grasping the implications of WOP for those new to proofs in number theory. Overall, the discussion underscores the foundational nature of the well-ordering principle in establishing the existence of minimum values in sets of positive integers.
dashhh
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I've just begun number theory and am having a lot of trouble with proofs. I think I am slowly grasping it, but would appreciate some clarification or any tips on the following please.

Show that if a and b are positive integers, then there is a smallest positive integer of the form a - bk, k \in Z

The answer given is:
Let a and b be positive integers and let

S = {n:n is a positive integer and n = a - bk for some k \in Z}

Now S is nonempty since a + b = a - b(-1) is in S. By the well ordering principle, S has a least element.

So, are they implying that k is the smallest element? or a - b(-1) as a whole is the smallest element?

I'm unsure as to how they are showing that it is the smallest element though. Given that either of the two options above would be S_{o}, what value would be the comparing s?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
welcome to pf!

hi dashhh! welcome to pf! :wink:
dashhh said:
… By the well ordering principle, S has a least element.

So, are they implying that k is the smallest element? or a - b(-1) as a whole is the smallest element?

no, they're not saying anything about the smallest element

they're only saying that a smallest element exists

that's all the well ordering principle proves :smile:
 
dashhh said:
I've just begun number theory and am having a lot of trouble with proofs. I think I am slowly grasping it, but would appreciate some clarification or any tips on the following please.

Show that if a and b are positive integers, then there is a smallest positive integer of the form a - bk, k \in Z

The answer given is:
Let a and b be positive integers and let

S = {n:n is a positive integer and n = a - bk for some k \in Z}

Now S is nonempty since a + b = a - b(-1) is in S. By the well ordering principle, S has a least element.

So, are they implying that k is the smallest element? or a - b(-1) as a whole is the smallest element?
Neither. They are saying that a- bk, for that particular k, is the smallest element.

I'm unsure as to how they are showing that it is the smallest element though. Given that either of the two options above would be S_{o}, what value would be the comparing s?
 
It would seem you are contradicting one another?
Or am i confused all over again?

EDIT: My only understanding of WOP is that you need S_{o}<S
This is all we have learned so far, so based on the fact we should be able to understand (at least vaguely) what is going on with what we are supposed to know, I don't see how this should make sense yet. Is it due to being lacking in the area of proofs?

I should also mention I have actually looked at other resources etc, not just lecture notes.
 
Last edited:
I picked up this problem from the Schaum's series book titled "College Mathematics" by Ayres/Schmidt. It is a solved problem in the book. But what surprised me was that the solution to this problem was given in one line without any explanation. I could, therefore, not understand how the given one-line solution was reached. The one-line solution in the book says: The equation is ##x \cos{\omega} +y \sin{\omega} - 5 = 0##, ##\omega## being the parameter. From my side, the only thing I could...
Back
Top