Well-ordered set of Natural Numbers

In summary, the conversation discusses a logical trap in the proposition that (\textbf{N},\prec) is a well ordered set, where \textbf{N} is the set of all natural numbers. The definition of the least element and the relation \prec are also mentioned. The conversation then goes on to clarify the trap and the difficulty in defining a least element in a strict ordering. It is concluded that this means that the set of all natural numbers is not well-ordered.
  • #1
sujoykroy
18
0
Hi,
I was reading "Introduction To Set Theory" by Karel Hrbacek and Thomas Jeck and stuck with some logical trap in the proposition that "([tex]\textbf{N}[/tex],[tex]\prec[/tex]) is a well ordered set" where [tex]\textbf{N}[/tex] is set of all natural numbers. I will try to present the argument briefly to clarify the subjective trap that i am facing.

First, the least element is defined as,
If R is an ordering of set A and B[tex]\subseteq[/tex]A, then b[tex]\in[/tex]B is called least element of B in the ordering R if bRx for all x[tex]\in[/tex]B

Second,
The relation [tex]\prec[/tex] on [tex]\textbf{N}[/tex] is defined as follows,
m[tex]\prec[/tex]n if and only if m[tex]\in[/tex]n

Third, ([tex]\textbf{N}[/tex],[tex]\prec[/tex]) is a linearly ordered set because [tex]\prec[/tex] is a strict ordering on [tex]\textbf{N}[/tex] and every two elements of the [tex]\textbf{N}[/tex] is comparable in [tex]\prec[/tex]

Fourth, (A,R) will be called well-ordered if every non-empty subset of A has least element in the linear ordering R.

Now, the the the trap is,
if ([tex]\textbf{N}[/tex],[tex]\prec[/tex]) is a well ordered set, then every non empty subset of [tex]\textbf{N}[/tex] will have least element in [tex]\prec[/tex].
Suppose, B={n} for some n[tex]\in[/tex][tex]\textbf{N}[/tex]
So, B is a subset of [tex]\textbf{N}[/tex] and if we say that S has least element, b, then
b[tex]\prec[/tex]x for all x[tex]\in[/tex]B
Since B is singleton, it implies from above assumption that n[tex]\prec[/tex]n or n[tex]\in[/tex]n , which i guess violates Axiom of Choice.I may have misinterpreted some (or all) of the definition, that's why i am here asking for help. I am not a Math Professional or Math Student but pursue Math for personal interest of theory, so if i have asked very stupid question i do apologize for that.

Regards
SR
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
sujoykroy said:
Hi,
I was reading "Introduction To Set Theory" by Karel Hrbacek and Thomas Jeck and stuck with some logical trap in the proposition that "([tex]\textbf{N}[/tex],[tex]\prec[/tex]) is a well ordered set" where [tex]\textbf{N}[/tex] is set of all natural numbers. I will try to present the argument briefly to clarify the subjective trap that i am facing.

First, the least element is defined as,
If R is an ordering of set A and B[tex]\subseteq[/tex]A, then b[tex]\in[/tex]B is called least element of B in the ordering R if bRx for all x[tex]\in[/tex]B

Second,
The relation [tex]\prec[/tex] on [tex]\textbf{N}[/tex] is defined as follows,
m[tex]\prec[/tex]n if and only if m[tex]\in[/tex]n
Okay, so, since you are talking about m being a member= of n, this is the model for the natural numbers in which 0= empty set, 1= set whose only member is the empty set, 2 is the set whose only members are 1 and 2, etc.

Third, ([tex]\textbf{N}[/tex],[tex]\prec[/tex]) is a linearly ordered set because [tex]\prec[/tex] is a strict ordering on [tex]\textbf{N}[/tex] and every two elements of the [tex]\textbf{N}[/tex] is comparable in [tex]\prec[/tex]

Fourth, (A,R) will be called well-ordered if every non-empty subset of A has least element in the linear ordering R.

Now, the the the trap is,
if ([tex]\textbf{N}[/tex],[tex]\prec[/tex]) is a well ordered set, then every non empty subset of [tex]\textbf{N}[/tex] will have least element in [tex]\prec[/tex].
Suppose, B={n} for some n[tex]\in[/tex][tex]\textbf{N}[/tex]
So, B is a subset of [tex]\textbf{N}[/tex] and if we say that S has least element, b, then
b[tex]\prec[/tex]x for all x[tex]\in[/tex]B
Since B is singleton, it implies from above assumption that n[tex]\prec[/tex]n or n[tex]\in[/tex]n , which i guess violates Axiom of Choice.
You mean that B is the set containing the single natural number "n"? But what is S here? I think you meant B itself. Obviously, if B contains only the natural number n, then its least element is n. Oh, I see your difficulty. This definition is strict inequality. Clearly, it is impossible for any member of a set B to be strictly less than every member of B- it can't be strictly less than itself! You need to say "b is the least element of B if and only if it is less than every other member of B". That is [itex]b\prec a[/itex] for every [itex]a\in B[/itex] and [itex]a\ne b[/itex].


I may have misinterpreted some (or all) of the definition, that's why i am here asking for help. I am not a Math Professional or Math Student but pursue Math for personal interest of theory, so if i have asked very stupid question i do apologize for that.

Regards
SR
 
  • #3
Thanks for your reply.

You mean that B is the set containing the single natural number "n"? But what is S here? I think you meant B itself.
Oops, that's my mistake. Yes , it should be B instead of S.
You need to say "b is the least element of B if and only if it is less than every other member of B". That is [itex]b\prec a[/itex] for every [itex]a\in B[/itex] and [itex]a\ne b[/itex].

That means B does not have a least element as per as the above definition of least element in a strict ordering, since B={n} and n=n .

Then set of all natural numbers is not well-ordered, because each subset of N is supposed have least element in [tex]\prec[/tex] in order to be called as well-ordered.

Regards
SR
 

1. What is a well-ordered set of natural numbers?

A well-ordered set of natural numbers is a collection of numbers starting from 1 and continuing infinitely in ascending order with no gaps or repetitions. This is known as the set of positive integers or counting numbers.

2. How is a well-ordered set of natural numbers different from other sets of numbers?

A well-ordered set of natural numbers is unique because it follows the mathematical concept of well-ordering, where every non-empty subset of the set has a smallest element. This means that there is always a first number in the set, and every other number follows in a specific order.

3. Can a well-ordered set of natural numbers have a largest number?

No, a well-ordered set of natural numbers does not have a largest number because it continues infinitely in ascending order. However, it does have a first or smallest number, which is 1.

4. Is there a limit to how large a well-ordered set of natural numbers can be?

No, there is no limit to how large a well-ordered set of natural numbers can be. It is an infinite set that continues endlessly in ascending order with no gaps or repetitions.

5. How is a well-ordered set of natural numbers used in mathematics?

A well-ordered set of natural numbers is used in various mathematical concepts and proofs, such as induction and recursion. It is also the foundation for other sets of numbers, such as integers, rational numbers, and real numbers.

Similar threads

  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
28
Views
5K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
2
Replies
35
Views
526
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
501
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top