Undergrad Proof of the Division Algorithm

Click For Summary
The well ordering principle (WOP) states that every non-empty subset of positive integers has a least element. This principle is utilized in the proof of the division algorithm through the construction of non-negative integers. It is confirmed that WOP can also be applied to subsets of non-negative integers, as any subset containing zero will have zero as the least element. If the subset does not contain zero, it can be treated as a subset of positive integers, where WOP still applies. Thus, the application of WOP to non-negative integers is valid and not overly pedantic.
matqkks
Messages
282
Reaction score
5
TL;DR
Application of well ordeing principle
In many books on number theory they define the well ordering principle (WOP) as:

Every non- empty subset of positive integers has a least element.

Then they use this in the proof of the division algorithm by constructing non-negative integers and applying WOP to this construction. Is it possible to apply the WOP to a subset of non-negative integers? Am I being too pedantic?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, you can apply it to the non-negative integers, by simply observing that if the subset contains zero then zero is the least element, otherwise the subset is also a subset of the positive integers and we can apply the principle that holds for them.
 
matqkks said:
Summary: Application of well ordeing principle

In many books on number theory they define the well ordering principle (WOP) as:

Every non- empty subset of positive integers has a least element.

Then they use this in the proof of the division algorithm by constructing non-negative integers and applying WOP to this construction. Is it possible to apply the WOP to a subset of non-negative integers? Am I being too pedantic?

Yes, well ordering principle applies to any subset of ##\mathbb{Z}## that is bounded below.
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron and nuuskur
Thanks it is so obvious as you have suggested.
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
3K