MHB The Integers as an Ordered Integral Domain .... Bloch Theorem 1.4.6 ....

Click For Summary
Ethan D. Bloch's book defines integers as an ordered integral domain satisfying the Well Ordering Principle, diverging from traditional definitions via natural numbers. The discussion centers on Theorem 1.4.6, where participants seek clarification on why the set S is concluded to be a subset of natural numbers, $$\mathbb{N}$$. Some argue that the claim $$S \subseteq \mathbb{N}$$ is not essential for the proof's validity, as S can be shown to have a least element through the well-ordering principle applied to integers. The confusion arises from Bloch's approach, which does not initially define $$\mathbb{N}$$ in the context of the theorem. Ultimately, the reasoning for $$S \subseteq \mathbb{N}$$ may be based on an anticipated definition of natural numbers that is not yet established in the text.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Ethan D. Bloch's book: The Real Numbers and Real Analysis ...

I am currently focused on Section 1.4: Entry 2: Axioms for the Integers ... In this section Bloch defines the integers as an ordered integral domain that satisfies the Well Ordering Principle ... rather than defining the integers via the natural numbers ...

I need help/clarification with an aspect of Theorem 1.4.6 ...

Theorem 1.4.6 and the start of the proof reads as follows:View attachment 7030

In the above proof ... near the start of the proof, we read the following:

" ... ... From the definition of $$\mathbb{N}$$, we observe that $$S \subseteq \mathbb{N}$$. ... ..."Question: What exactly is the reasoning that allows us to conclude that $$S \subseteq \mathbb{N}$$ from the definition of $$\mathbb{N}$$ ... "
The above theorem is in the section where Bloch defines the integers as an ordered integral domain that satisfies the Well ordering Principle... ... as follows:View attachment 7031The definition of the natural numbers is mentioned above ... Bloch's definition is as follows ...

View attachment 7032Hope someone can help,

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
I am reading Ethan D. Bloch's book: The Real Numbers and Real Analysis ...

I am currently focused on Section 1.4: Entry 2: Axioms for the Integers ... In this section Bloch defines the integers as an ordered integral domain that satisfies the Well Ordering Principle ... rather than defining the integers via the natural numbers ...

I need help/clarification with an aspect of Theorem 1.4.6 ...

Theorem 1.4.6 and the start of the proof reads as follows:

In the above proof ... near the start of the proof, we read the following:

" ... ... From the definition of $$\mathbb{N}$$, we observe that $$S \subseteq \mathbb{N}$$. ... ..."Question: What exactly is the reasoning that allows us to conclude that $$S \subseteq \mathbb{N}$$ from the definition of $$\mathbb{N}$$ ... "
The above theorem is in the section where Bloch defines the integers as an ordered integral domain that satisfies the Well ordering Principle... ... as follows:The definition of the natural numbers is mentioned above ... Bloch's definition is as follows ...

Hope someone can help,

Peter

Maybe I shouldn't answer my own questions ... but maybe I am worrying too much over a trivial point ... maybe the reasoning is simply ... as follows ... since $$S$$ is a set made up of positive integers then it is a subset of $$\mathbb{N}$$ ... is it as simple as that ..?if it is as simple as that then I apologise for the post ...Peter
 
Last edited:
Peter said:
What exactly is the reasoning that allows us to conclude that $$S \subseteq \mathbb{N}$$ from the definition of $$\mathbb{N}$$
I don't think the claim $S\subseteq\mathbb{N}$ is necessary for the rest of the proof. We have $\emptyset\ne S\subseteq\{x\in\mathbb{Z}\mid x>0\}$, so $S$ has a least element by the well-ordering principle for $\mathbb{Z}$. Unless something is said about the identification of positive integers and natural numbers, as they are defined in the book, the fact that $S\subseteq\mathbb{N}$ does seem not immediately obvious.

Peter said:
Maybe I shouldn't answer my own questions
It's perfecty fine.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
I don't think the claim $S\subseteq\mathbb{N}$ is necessary for the rest of the proof. We have $\emptyset\ne S\subseteq\{x\in\mathbb{Z}\mid x>0\}$, so $S$ has a least element by the well-ordering principle for $\mathbb{Z}$. Unless something is said about the identification of positive integers and natural numbers, as they are defined in the book, the fact that $S\subseteq\mathbb{N}$ does seem not immediately obvious.

It's perfecty fine.
Thanks Evgeny ...

Just to explain my confusion ...

... indeed my problem was how to derive $$S \subseteq \mathbb{N}$$ ... but got confused (with Bloch's help ... :(
clear.png
...)

To explain ...

Bloch investigates two approaches to defining/constructing the integers as he describes here ... https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/7034In Section 1.4, where Theorem 1.4.6 occurs, Bloch is expounding the ordered integral domain approach to the integers ... so we should not go back to the Peano Postulates as I did - that is Bloch's approach number 1 ... under the second approach, the ordered integral domain approach, the Peano Postulates/Axioms become a theorem and are proved ...

Actually when we meet $$\mathbb{N}$$ in the proof of Theorem 1.4.6 Bloch has not defined $$\mathbb{N}$$ yet in this approach ... he does so after presenting Theorem 1.4.6 as follows:View attachment 7035
By the way, Evgeny, thanks for pointing out that the claim $S\subseteq\mathbb{N}$ is not necessary for the rest of the proof ... great point!

Thanks again,

Peter
 
If natural numbers are defined in this way in the second approach, then it is clear that $S=\{z\in\mathbb{Z}\mid 0<z<1\}\subseteq\{x\in\mathbb{Z}\mid x>0\}=\mathbb{N}$. Maybe the author wrote $S\subseteq\mathbb{N}$ in Theorem 1.4.6 in anticipation of this definition, but yes, this is strange.
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K