Prove A contains all natural numbers ≥ n_0

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that a set A of natural numbers, which contains a specific natural number n_0 and includes k+1 whenever it contains k, also contains all natural numbers greater than or equal to n_0. Participants express confusion regarding the wording of the problem and the implications of the set potentially containing numbers less than n_0.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the logical implications of the set containing n_0 and subsequent natural numbers. Questions arise about the relevance of numbers less than n_0 and the assumptions made regarding the smallest element in the set.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided guidance on the structure of the proof, emphasizing the need for a formal approach rather than relying on intuitive reasoning. There is an ongoing exploration of the assumptions regarding the smallest number in the set and the implications of including other natural numbers.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the problem does not explicitly state that the set A cannot contain natural numbers less than n_0, leading to discussions about the implications of this wording on the proof approach.

r0bHadz
Messages
194
Reaction score
17

Homework Statement


Prove that if a set A of natural numbers contains [itex]n_0[/itex] and contains k+1 whenever it contains k, then A contains all natural numbers ≥ [itex]n_0[/itex]

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


I'm just confused by the question, please don't answer it.

Logically it makes sense that if [itex]n_0[/itex] is in the set A, then [itex]n_0[/itex] can = k, and from there we see that the set contains all natural numbers larger than [itex]n_0[/itex] including [itex]n_0[/itex]

My question is, the way this question is worded, "then A contains all natural numbers ≥ [itex]n_0,[/itex]" this is not saying that the set A can't have natural numbers less than [itex]n_0[/itex] though, correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
r0bHadz said:

Homework Statement


Prove that if a set A of natural numbers contains [itex]n_0[/itex] and contains k+1 whenever it contains k, then A contains all natural numbers ≥ [itex]n_0[/itex]

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


I'm just confused by the question, please don't answer it.

Logically it makes sense that if [itex]n_0[/itex] is in the set A, then [itex]n_0[/itex] can = k, and from there we see that the set contains all natural numbers larger than [itex]n_0[/itex] including [itex]n_0[/itex]

My question is, the way this question is worded, "then A contains all natural numbers ≥ [itex]n_0[/itex]," this is not saying that the set A can't have natural numbers less than [itex]n_0[/itex] though, correct?
Correct.

The set may contain other natural numbers.

( You missed a [/itex] code after the ##n_0##.)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: r0bHadz
SammyS said:
Correct.

The set may contain other natural numbers.

( You missed a [/itex] code after the ##n_0##.)
Ah, gotcha. The way the question was worded just kinda threw me off. I guess the proof just involves a mention of [itex]n_0[/itex] and the well ordering principle
 
Is this proof sufficient:

Since [itex]n_0[/itex] is in the set, let's assume, by the well ordering principle that [itex]n_0[/itex] is the smallest natural number in the set.

Setting k=[itex]n_0[/itex] we now have [itex]n_0[/itex] and [itex]n_0 + 1[/itex] in the set. If we let k = [itex]n_0 + 1[/itex] then [itex]n_0 +2[/itex] is also in the set.

It becomes oblivious that the set contains all numbers including and greater than [itex]n_0[/itex]
 
r0bHadz said:
Is this proof sufficient:

Since [itex]n_0[/itex] is in the set, let's assume, by the well ordering principle that [itex]n_0[/itex] is the smallest natural number in the set.

Setting k=[itex]n_0[/itex] we now have [itex]n_0[/itex] and [itex]n_0 + 1[/itex] in the set. If we let k = [itex]n_0 + 1[/itex] then [itex]n_0 +2[/itex] is also in the set.

It becomes oblivious that the set contains all numbers including and greater than [itex]n_0[/itex]
As you concluded previously, there may be numbers in set A which are less than ##n_0## .

So, it's not correct to assume that ##n_0## is the smallest natural number in set A.
 
The form of the proof should be: Suppose natural number ##n_1 \geq n_0##. Then prove ##n_1 \in A##. It is not enough to just say that it is obvious. That may be true, but you should learn how to do a formal proof because there can be ugly surprises in things that look obvious.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: SammyS
SammyS said:
As you concluded previously, there may be numbers in set A which are less than ##n_0## .

So, it's not correct to assume that ##n_0## is the smallest natural number in set A.

Right but I thought in the context of this problem those numbers don't matter? The reason why I wrote to assume [itex]n_0[/itex] is the smallest is just to make the problem simpler. It's only asking me to prove that A contains all numbers equal to or greater than [itex]n_0[/itex] I don't see how numbers smaller than [itex]n_0[/itex] are relevant

FactChecker said:
The form of the proof should be: Suppose natural number ##n_1 \geq n_0##. Then prove ##n_1 \in A##. It is not enough to just say that it is obvious. That may be true, but you should learn how to do a formal proof because there can be ugly surprises in things that look obvious.

Gotcha I guess I'll have to work on it and report back
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K