Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 25 of 25
Like Tree8Thanks

Math Help - Well Ordering

  1. #16
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    15,583
    Thanks
    1418

    Re: Well Ordering

    I assumed that, since the only number mentioned was an integer, that the usual order relation was intended. I really don't see why this has gone to, now, 16 posts!
    Thanks from Plato and topsquark
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #17
    Banned
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    961
    Thanks
    98

    Re: Well Ordering

    Thank you, Thank you, HallsofIvy.

    If the concept of well ordering is meaningless for a single digit, and the positive integers are well ordered, then there is no such thing as a single integer subset, so if a subset of the integers contains n, it has to contain a larger number → Archimedes Postulate <-> Euclids Postulate

    And also Archimedes postulate (Euclid) implies well ordering.


    Now wasn’t that worth 16 posts?
    Last edited by Hartlw; January 10th 2013 at 11:38 AM. Reason: revised conclusion
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #18
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Mar 2011
    From
    Tejas
    Posts
    3,385
    Thanks
    750

    Re: Well Ordering

    one can ask a similar, but related question:

    suppose A is a singleton set: A = {a}. how many possible partial orders can be defined on A?

    i humbly submit that there is exactly ONE:

    x ≤ y iff x = y, for all x, y in A. we can make this a strict order by defining:

    x < y iff x ≠ y.

    under this strict ordering A is indeed well-ordered, with smallest element a.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #19
    Banned
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    961
    Thanks
    98

    Re: Well Ordering

    Quote Originally Posted by Deveno View Post
    one can ask a similar, but related question:

    suppose A is a singleton set: A = {a}. how many possible partial orders can be defined on A?

    i humbly submit that there is exactly ONE:

    x ≤ y iff x = y, for all x, y in A. we can make this a strict order by defining:

    x < y iff x ≠ y.

    under this strict ordering A is indeed well-ordered, with smallest element a.
    I was afraid of that, you are of course right if a single integer can be ordered (< = or >).
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #20
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Mar 2011
    From
    Tejas
    Posts
    3,385
    Thanks
    750

    Re: Well Ordering

    Quote Originally Posted by Hartlw View Post
    Thank you, Thank you, HallsofIvy.

    If the concept of well ordering is meaningless for a single digit, and the positive integers are well ordered, then there is no such thing as a single integer subset, so if a subset of the integers contains n, it has to contain a larger number → Archimedes Postulate <-> Euclids Postulate

    And also Archimedes postulate (Euclid) implies well ordering.


    Now wasn’t that worth 16 posts?
    oh, bother!

    the natural numbers come with a CANONICAL well-ordering.

    if one uses the construction, s(x) = x U {x}, then k < n iff k is an element of n.

    for example:

    2 = {0,1}, so 1 < 2, and 0 < 2.

    the well-ordering of the natural numbers is "axiomatic", that is: it is INTRINSIC, and equivalent in strength to the axiom schema of induction. actually, ZF set theory says something a bit MORE: there exists an infinite well-ordered set (which may, or may not be, the natural numbers). this stops "just short" of the axiom of choice, in that it does not assert that EVERY set is well-ordered (but certainly implies a method of well-ordering any FINITE set, using an injection into the well-ordered infinite set).

    the notion that singleton subsets do not exist is absurd, and violates the axiom of extensionality.
    Thanks from topsquark
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #21
    Banned
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    961
    Thanks
    98

    Re: Well Ordering

    I didn't say singleton subsets don't exist. I simply asked whether a singleton could be ordered.

    It's academic because {2,2} doesn't take me where I want to go because < OR = rips it.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #22
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Mar 2011
    From
    Tejas
    Posts
    3,385
    Thanks
    750

    Re: Well Ordering

    the set {2,2} is just the same as the set {2} (they have the same elements).

    it seems to me that a more profitable question for you, and one that is far more likely to be better-received on these forums is:

    under what constraints on a set S (with whatever algebraic structure and order structure is necessary for our purposes), are the euclidean algorithm and the archimedean property equivalent?

    that might actually lead to an interesting and fruitful discussion.
    Last edited by Deveno; January 10th 2013 at 01:37 PM.
    Thanks from topsquark
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #23
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    15,583
    Thanks
    1418

    Re: Well Ordering

    It's hard to believe this isn't spam. Your original question was "What is the least member of {2}?" That is a set with one member. Whether you ask for "least member", "largest member" with respect to whatever order relation, it must be a member so there is only one possible answer!
    Thanks from emakarov, Plato and topsquark
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #24
    Forum Admin topsquark's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2006
    From
    Wellsville, NY
    Posts
    9,902
    Thanks
    329
    Awards
    1

    Re: Well Ordering

    I think that pretty well wraps things up. hartlw: Find a new topic to troll.

    -Dan
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #25
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    15,583
    Thanks
    1418

    Re: Well Ordering

    But the concept of order is NOT meaningless for the set of integers. And even a single integer is a member of the set of integers. The smallest member of {2} is 2. In fact it is also the largest member of {2}, the "evenest" member of {2}, and the "*****est" member of {2} as long as "*****" is an attribute that 2 has- because 2 is the only member of the set so any answerable question about a member of {2} must be "2".

    The well ordering principle does apply to sets of integer that have a "lower bound". And we don't need to talk about a "glb". If a set of integers has a lower bound, then it has a smallest member, the least member of the set. We usually apply the term "glb" to sets that do NOT have a smallest member. For example, the set of all positive rational numbers does not have a smallest member. It has glb 0 which is not in the set.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Well-ordering of >
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: November 21st 2012, 01:08 AM
  2. Well Ordering
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: September 8th 2010, 04:04 AM
  3. well-ordering
    Posted in the Number Theory Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 10th 2009, 10:24 AM
  4. Well-Ordering
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 15th 2008, 08:13 AM
  5. well ordering
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 17th 2008, 10:16 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum