Well Ordering Property states -
Every non-empty subset of N has a least element.
But in this proof, (the green underlined part) it is already considered T to have a least element say m as T is a finite (non-empty) subset of N. Isn't that logically poor? The proof is using an argument of considering T (non-empty subset) and it has a least elment. Please, can someone help me out here.
Is there any alternative proof for Well Ordering Property?
OR This proof is actually correct. Am I wrong in understanding this proof?
#Well Ordering Property Doubt
15 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)
- Do not ping the Moderators, unless someone is breaking the rules.
- Do not ping the Helper Moderators, unless there is a conflict between helpers.
- Do not ping other members randomly for help.
- Ask your question and show the work you've done so far. If you've posted a screenshot of a question, specify which part you need help with.
- Wait patiently for a helper to come along.
- If the Helper has answered your question, remember to thank them with the Mathematics Ranks bot and close the thread with:
+close
Feel free to nominate the person for helper of the week in #helper-nominations
If you're happy with the help you got here, and the server overall, you can contribute financially as well:
I mean, then "a finite totally ordered set has a least element" is just a lemma you need to prove.
Which you can do by exhaustion.
Or induction.
They just didn't expect you to doubt that a finite set has a least element.
Because... it's finite. You literally can just compare all the elements.
@surreal sage Following?
Ohh, got it now, thanks.
Don't forget to close the thread if you don't have any more questions.
Please thank your Helpers before closing!
Please thank the helpers who assisted you by clicking the buttons below. You can thank each helper only once. Once you're done, click "Close Post" to close this thread.
Thank you for your feedback! Techie Literate has been awarded 1
. They now have 919
. They have 3
daily left for today.