I 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
280
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.
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. But this one involves probability, known as the Monty Hall Problem. Please see any number of YouTube videos on this for an explanation, I'll leave it to them to explain it. I question the predicate of all those who answer this...
There is a nice little variation of the problem. The host says, after you have chosen the door, that you can change your guess, but to sweeten the deal, he says you can choose the two other doors, if you wish. This proposition is a no brainer, however before you are quick enough to accept it, the host opens one of the two doors and it is empty. In this version you really want to change your pick, but at the same time ask yourself is the host impartial and does that change anything. The host...
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.