Proof: [itex]1\neq m\in\mathbb{N}, m-1\in\mathbb{N}[/itex]

  • Thread starter nuuskur
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Proof
In summary, to show that ##m-1\in\mathbb{N}## given that ##m\in\mathbb{N}## and ##m\neq1##, we can use the fact that ##\mathbb{N}## is the product of all inductive sets, and the definition of an inductive subset. We can assume that ##m\in\mathbb{N}\setminus\{1\}## and use the method (A\Rightarrow B\Leftrightarrow \neg B\Rightarrow\neg A) (kontraposition?) to show that if ##m-1\notin\mathbb{N}##, then ##\mathbb{N}\
  • #1
nuuskur
Science Advisor
858
917

Homework Statement


Given that [itex]m\in\mathbb{N}[/itex] and [itex]m\neq 1[/itex], show that [itex]m-1\in\mathbb{N}[/itex]
For this problem assume [itex]\mathbb{N} = \{1,2,...\}[/itex], also known as the product of all inductive sets.

Homework Equations


Inductive subset: A subset [itex]S\in\mathbb{R}[/itex] is inductive if:
1) [itex]1\in S[/itex] (##1## is to be considered as the unit element for which ##1x = x1 = x## for every ##x##.
2) If [itex]x\in S[/itex], then [itex]x+1\in S[/itex] for every [itex]x\in S[/itex]

The Attempt at a Solution


Going to use the method ([itex]A\Rightarrow B\Leftrightarrow \neg B\Rightarrow\neg A[/itex]) (kontraposition?)
Assume [itex]m\in\mathbb{N}\setminus\{1\}[/itex]. If [itex]m-1\notin\mathbb{N}[/itex] then [itex]\mathbb{N}\setminus\{m\}=:M[/itex] is inductive.
If the above implication holds then we can say that if [itex]M[/itex] is not inductive then [itex]m-1\in\mathbb{N}[/itex]

Then let [itex]m\neq 1[/itex]
Def 1) We can say that [itex]1\in M[/itex]
Def 2) Let [itex]n\in M[/itex], then [itex]n\in\mathbb{N}[/itex] and because [itex]\mathbb{N}[/itex] is inductive, [itex]n+1\in\mathbb{N}[/itex]. We can also say that [itex]n+1\neq m[/itex], from which [itex]n+1\in M[/itex].
Hence [itex]M[/itex] is inductive.

Problem is with the part where I say [itex]n+1\neq m[/itex], intuitively I know it's correct, but how do I justify this exactly?
Will it suffice to say that addition is an algebraic operation? Therefore [itex]n+1= m[/itex] is impossible.

But from the definition of inductive subset, [itex]M[/itex] cannot be inductive for [itex]\mathbb{N} = \mathbb{N}\setminus\{m\}[/itex] is impossible (because every inductive subset has to contain [itex]\mathbb{N}[/itex]) and we have that [itex]m-1\in\mathbb{N}[/itex], if [itex]m\neq 1[/itex]
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You have left m and n essentially arbitrary. So m=3 and n=2 is a possibility. This would make n+1=m.

I think you have to use that ##\mathbb N## has the property that there are no elements in that set other than the ones that are mentioned in the definition of "inductive set".
 
  • #3
Fredrik said:
You have left m and n essentially arbitrary. So m=3 and n=2 is a possibility. This would make n+1=m.

I think you have to use that ##\mathbb N## has the property that there are no elements in that set other than the ones that are mentioned in the definition of "inductive set".
The set M does not contain 3, Therefore 2+1, which is an algebraic operation, for both 2 and 1 are in M, has to be contained within the set M.
 
  • #4
Sorry, that was a silly mistake by me. I'm not sure I have time to think about how to figure out how to turn your approach into a complete proof, but I see a simpler one. It's based on the idea that the statement ##m\in\mathbb N## implies one of two mutually exclusive possibilities, one of which is ##m=1##. What I have in mind for the other one is something more useful than the obvious ##m\neq 1##. Since the ##m=1## possibility is ruled out by assumption, the other one must be a true statement.
 
  • #5
Fredrik said:
Sorry, that was a silly mistake by me. I'm not sure I have time to think about how to figure out how to turn your approach into a complete proof, but I see a simpler one. It's based on the idea that the statement ##m\in\mathbb N## implies one of two mutually exclusive possibilities, one of which is ##m=1##. What I have in mind for the other one is something more useful than the obvious ##m\neq 1##. Since the ##m=1## possibility is ruled out by assumption, the other one must be a true statement.
Assuming I get this right you mean to get at: ##m =1\vee m\in\mathbb{N}\setminus\{1\}## We know that ##m\in\mathbb{N}\setminus\{1\} =: A##, but then what is ##m+(-1)##? This, at least, is the first thing I tried, but because it isn't an algebraic operation I can't say anything about ##m-1## so I couldn't get anywhere with it.
 
  • #6
Think of a property that every element of ##\mathbb N## except 1 has. If ##m## is an element of ##\mathbb N## such that ##m\neq 1##, then ##m## must have that property.
 
  • #7
The only thing I can think of right now is if ##m\neq 1## then there always exist ##p,q\in\mathbb{N}## such that ##p< m < q##, but then again it sounds like something that needs to be proven first.
 
  • #8
It's hard to tell you something without giving away the complete solution, but if we define ##s(x)=x+1## for each ##x\in\mathbb N##, then what is the range of the function ##s##?
 
  • #9
Fredrik said:
It's hard to tell you something without giving away the complete solution, but if we define ##s(x)=x+1## for each ##x\in\mathbb N##, then what is the range of the function ##s##?
##[2,\infty)##.. right, I get where this is going, thanks :D
 

1. What does [itex]1\neq m\in\mathbb{N}, m-1\in\mathbb{N}[/itex] mean?

This statement means that the number 1 is not equal to a positive integer, and that the result of subtracting 1 from that positive integer is also a positive integer.

2. Why is this statement important?

This statement is important because it highlights the concept of mathematical proof, which is essential in scientific research. It also helps to establish a clear understanding of number properties and relationships.

3. Can you provide an example to illustrate this statement?

Yes, for example, let m = 6. Then the statement becomes 1 ≠ 6 and 6 - 1 = 5, both of which are true. This shows that 1 is not equal to 6, a positive integer, and that the result of subtracting 1 from 6 is also a positive integer.

4. How is this statement related to the concept of natural numbers?

This statement specifically refers to natural numbers, which are the positive integers (1, 2, 3, etc.). It shows that 1, the smallest natural number, is not equal to any other natural number, and that the result of subtracting 1 from any natural number will also be a natural number.

5. What implications does this statement have in mathematics?

This statement has implications in various areas of mathematics, such as number theory and algebra. It helps to establish the basic properties of natural numbers and serves as a foundation for more complex mathematical concepts and proofs.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
577
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
516
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
505
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
413
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
521
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
813
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
552
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
693
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
13
Views
2K
Back
Top