1
$\begingroup$

As the title says. I encounter this problem in Bernd Schroeder's book of "Mathematical Analysis: A Concise Introduction", p.15. It essentially characterizes natural number from the axioms regarding real number, i.e. the axioms of addition and multiplication of $\mathbb{R}$ as a field. My attempt is the following using Principle of Induction.

Let $S:=\{n \in \mathbb{N}: n \ge 1\}$. Check if $ 1 \in S$. Since $1 \ge 1$ holds, therefore $1 \in S$. Suppose $n \in S$, we want to show $n+1 \in S$. $n+1 \ge 1 \Rightarrow n \ge 0$.However from the induction step, we have $ n \ge 1 > 0$, therefore $n+1 \in S$. By Principle of Induction, $S=\mathbb{N}$ $\Box$

EDIT1: There is a mistake in the proof as pointed out by talmid.

EDIT2: The author of the above mentioned book constructs natural number, integers and rationals from Completeness Axiom. A similar approach can be found in Royden's Real Analysis

  • 0
    @EricStucky In the book as I mentioned in the post, natural number is characterized from the reals using all successor sets in $\mathbb{R}$, where the successor set $A \subset \mathbb{R}$ is defined as $1 \in A$, and if $a\in A$, then $a+1 \in A$ which $\mathbb{R}$ is an example of a successor set. I am actually pretty confused too when I read this approach in the book.2012-06-21

1 Answers 1

1

I think the inductive step is a bit fuzzy, because you assume $n + 1\geq 1$ (which is what you want to prove - fallacious), deduce that $n \geq 0$, and since this holds then $n+1 \geq 1$, which would be affirming the consequent (i.e., $(P \rightarrow Q) \wedge Q \vdash P$) - also fallacious. Maybe your $\Rightarrow$ is backwards.

Also, I would add: you seem to have tried to arrive at a contradiction between $n \geq 0$ and $n \geq 1$ ("$n \geq 0$. However [...] $n \geq 1$"), but you can perfectly have an $n$ greater than $0$ and greater than $1$ at the same time. In these cases, try to convince yourself, formally and informally, that you arrived at a contradiction, for example, by trying to come up with counterexamples. I think you'll find it very easy to find an $n$ greater than both $0$ and $1$.

You could say that $n\geq 1$ (inductive hypothesis), and then $n+1 \geq n \geq 1$, so $n + 1\geq 1$ (this is assuming that you know that $n + 1 \geq n$, i.e., $1 \geq 0$).

  • 1
    @jsk You can definitely assume $n \geq 1$, since that's the inductive step, and to show that $n + 1\geq 1$, you could add $1$ to both sides of $n \geq 1$, and get $n + 1 \geq 2 \geq 1$, so $n+1 \geq 1$.2012-06-21