Natural Numbers As A Well-Ordered Set

GROUP 2:
THE NATURAL NUMBERS AS A

WELL-ORDERED SET
Reporters:
Florece, Ma. Alyssa
Manjares, Daniella
Pagdato, Lovely Mitch
■ Summary. In this section we introduce the notion of
“well-ordered set”. We show that the set of all
natural numbers, when equipped with the
membership ordering relation “∈”, is a well-ordered
set. We then define “bounded set” and “the
maximal element of a set”. Finally we show that
bounded subsets of N must contain a maximal
element. We then use N to construct various other
sets, some of which are also well-ordered.
ZFC-AXIOMATIC SYSTEM
• is an axiomatic system used to formally define
set theory (and thus mathematics in general).
• ZFC is a collection of approximately 9 axioms
(depending on convention and precise formulation).
• ZFC is a predicate logic equipped with a binary
relation ∈, which refers to set membership and is
read as "in". To be clear, it is said that a ∈
b when a is an element of b.
9 AXIOMS OF SETS
1. Axiom of Extensionality: If two sets have the same elements,
they are the same set.
2. Axiom of Pairing: Given two elements, there exists a set
containing exactly those two elements.
3. Axiom of Comprehension: Given any property ϕ and set X,
there exists a set containing all elements of X that satisfy ϕ.
4. Axiom of Union: There exists a set Y consisting of the union
of all elements of X.
5. Axiom of Power Set: For any set X, there exists a
set Y whose elements are subsets of X.
6. Axiom of Infinity: An infinite set exists.
7. Axiom of Replacement: A function takes any
set A to a new set B = F(A).
8. Axiom of Regularity: For all non-empty
sets S, there exists an element of S that
is disjoint with S (shares no elements with S).
9. Axiom of Choice: It is also known as
independent axiom.
FIRST AND SECOND VERSION
OF MATHEMATICAL
INDUCTION
Well-ordering Principle
In mathematics, the well-ordering
principle states that every non-empty set
of positive integers contains a
least element.
■ ORDER RELATIONS ON N.
We have seen that the definition of the natural numbers within the ZFC-axiomatic
system leads to two equivalent order relations on N. Both “⊂” and “∈” have
been shown to be equivalent strict linear orderings of N, in the sense that n ⊂ m
if and only if n ∈ m. We can naturally extend the strict order relation “⊂” to the
non-strict order relation “⊆” while maintaining the linearity property. That is, m
⊆ n if either m ⊂ n or m = n. We can similarly extend the relation “∈” by
introducing the following notation.
Notation: We define the relation “∈=” on N as follows:

m ∈= n if and only if m = n or m ∈ n
If m ∈= n and we want to state explicitly that m ≠ n we write m ∈ n
WE SHOW THAT ∈ WELL-
ORDERS THE SET N.
■ Theorem 1: The set N of all natural numbers is a strict
∈-well-ordered set.
Proof:
Given: The relation “∈” strictly linearly orders N; the
set A is a non-empty subset of N.
Required to show: That A contains a least element with
respect to ∈.
Proof by contradiction: Suppose A does not contain a
least element. We claim that A must then be empty, thus
contradicting our hypothesis.
− Proof of the claim: We invoke the second version of the Principle of
mathematical induction. For each natural number k, let P(k) denote the
statement “k ∉ A”. Induction hypothesis: Let n be some natural number
such that P(k) = “k ∉ A” holds true for all k ∈ n.

Suppose n ∈ A. Then, for all a ∈ A, n ∈ a (for if a ∈ n, then, by the
induction hypothesis, P(a) = “a ∉ A” holds true). This means that n is a
least element of A with respect to ∈. This contradicts “A contains no
least element with respect to ∈”. Then n ∉ A. Then, P(n) = “n ∉ A”
holds true. By the second version of the principle of mathematical
induction, P(k) = “k ∉ A” holds true for all k ∈ N. Then A contains no
elements, as claimed.
This contradicts the fact that A is non-empty. The source
of this contradiction is our assumption that A does not
contain a least element. We must conclude that every
subset of N has a least element with respect to “∈”.
We have previously shown that the second version of the

Principle of mathematical induction follows from the first
version or the Principle of mathematical induction. We can
show that if we only assume that N is ∈-well-ordered and
the second version of the induction principle, then the first
version of the induction principle holds true.
■ Corollary 1: Every natural number n is a ∈-well-ordered set.
Proof:
Let n = {0, 1, 2, ..., n - 1} be a natural number. We already know
that the natural numbers are ∈-linearly ordered. Let U be a non-
empty subset of n. Then U is a non-empty subset of N. When
viewed as a subset of the ∈-well-ordered set N, the set U
contains a least natural number, say k. Then k ∈= m for all m ∈
U. So when U is viewed as a subset of n, k is the least element of
U. So n is ∈-well-ordered.
We have thus shown that not only is N a well-ordered set, but so

is every single natural number.
BOUNDED SETS
A non-empty subset S of R is said to be bounded if
there exist two real numbers k1 and k2 such that
k1 ≤ x ≤ k2 for all x ∈ S.
LOWER BOUND / UPPER BOUND/

LEAST ELEMENT GREATEST
ELEMENT
■ BOUNDED SUBSETS OF N
In the context of a linearly ordered set (S, <), we say that a

subset A of S is bounded above, or has an upper bound if
there exists some element M ∈ S we call an “upper bound
of A” such that x ≤ M for all x ∈ A. A subset can have many
upper bounds. Similarly the subset A is “bounded below” if
there exists an element m we call a “lower bound of A” such
that m ≤ x for all x ∈ A.
For example, every non-empty subset of (N, ∈) is bounded
below by 0.
The following theorem shows that any
non-empty bounded subset of N must
contain a maximal element with
respect to “∈”.
Concepts Review:
1. What does it mean to say that “<“ strictly well-orders a

set S?
2. Describe two order relations which well-order N?
3. What does it mean to say a subset S of N ordered by “∈”
is bounded?
4. What does it mean to say that a non-empty subset S of N
ordered by “∈” has a maximal element?

Natural Numbers As A Well-Ordered Set

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Natural Numbers As A Well-Ordered Set

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Natural Numbers As A Well-Ordered Set

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GROUP 2:

THE NATURAL NUMBERS AS A

Notation: We define the relation “∈=” on N as follows:

We have previously shown that the second version of the

We have thus shown that not only is N a well-ordered set, but so

LOWER BOUND / UPPER BOUND/

In the context of a linearly ordered set (S, <), we say that a

1. What does it mean to say that “<“ strictly well-orders a

You might also like