0

I am reading the book of V.A.Zorich Mathematical analysis and trying to follow the formal construction of natural numbers and its properties:

Definition 1: The set $X\subset \mathbb{R}$ is called inductive, if for any $x\in R$ the element $x+1 \in \mathbb{R}$.

Definition 2: The set of natural numbers is defined as the minimal inductive set containing $1$, i.e. $$\mathbb{N}:=\bigcap_{A\in \mathcal A}A,$$ where $\mathcal A$ is the family of all inductive sets containing $1$ and we see that $\mathcal A\neq \varnothing$ because $\mathbb{R}\in \mathcal A$.

Principle of Mathematical Induction: If $E\subset \mathbb{N}$ with $1\in E$ and $\forall x\in E (x+1\in E)$ then $E=\mathbb{N}$.

I was able to show that:

  1. If $m,n \in \mathbb{N}$ then $m+n\in \mathbb{N}$ and $mn\in \mathbb{N}$.

But I have some issues to show the following:

  1. $(n\in \mathbb{N}) \land (n\neq 1) \Rightarrow ((n-1)\in \mathbb{N}).$

Proof: Let $E:=\{n-1\in\mathbb{N}\mid (n\in \mathbb{N}) \land (n\neq 1)\}$ then he show that $E$ satisfies the principle of Induction and hence $E=\mathbb{N}$ and we are done.

But in my opinion I don't think that this formally correct proof because if $E=\mathbb{N}$ then it does not imply our statement.

Can anyone explain me please? Maybe I am misunderstanding smth.

RFZ
  • 16,814
  • The set $M= { m \mid (m∈ \mathbb N) ∧ (m≠1) }$ is the set ${ 2,3,\ldots }$. Thus, the set $E = { n-1 \mid n \in M }$ is the set ${ 1,2,\ldots }$. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Dec 28 '20 at 13:35
  • @MauroALLEGRANZA, How does your comment relate to my question? – RFZ Dec 28 '20 at 13:42
  • The comment is about "in my opinion I don't think that this formally correct proof". It is: the proof proves that $E = \mathbb N$. Thus, what does it mean "if $E= \mathbb N$ then it does not imply our statement" ? Our statement is $E = \mathbb N$. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Dec 28 '20 at 13:45
  • @MauroALLEGRANZA, By statement I meant $(n\in \mathbb{N}) \land (n\neq 1) \Rightarrow ((n-1)\in \mathbb{N}).$ – RFZ Dec 28 '20 at 13:51
  • If $n \in \mathbb N$ and $n \ne 1$ i.e. $n > 1$, then $n=2,3,4,\ldots$. Thus, $n-1=1,2,3,\ldots$. That's all – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Dec 28 '20 at 14:21

1 Answers1

1

I suspect there is a much cleaner way of showing this:

Zorich actually defines $ E=\{n-1\in\mathbb{R} | n\in \mathbb{N} \text{ and }n\neq 1 \} $. It is straightforward to show that $E$ is inductive and contains $1$. Then we have $\mathbb{N} \subset E$, of course. It remains to show that $E = \mathbb{N}$ (Zorich appears to have omitted this part).

First show that the $n \neq 1$ is equivalent to $ n \ge 2$:

Let $F=\{n \in\mathbb{N} | n = 1 \text{ or } n \ge 2 \}$. It is straightforward to show that $F$ is inductive, $1 \in F$ and since $F \subset \mathbb{N}$ we see that $F = \mathbb{N}$. Hence, if $n \in \mathbb{N}$ and $n \neq 1$ we have $n \ge 2$ and so $N_2 = \{ n | n\in \mathbb{N} \text{ and }n\neq 1 \} = \{ n | n\in \mathbb{N} \text{ and }n \ge 2 \}$. So, we have $E =\{n-1\in\mathbb{R} | n \in N_2 \} $.

Now show that $n \in N_2$ means that $n-1 \in \mathbb{N}$ (this is essentially 2.):

Define $\sigma:\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ by $\sigma(n) = n+1$. From the properties of $+$ on the reals we know that $\sigma$ is a bijection on the reals. It is straightforward to show that $\{ n \in \mathbb{N} | \sigma(n) \in N_2 \}$ is inductive and contains $1$ hence it equals $\mathbb{N}$. In particular, $\sigma: \mathbb{N} \to N_2$ is well defined. To show that $\sigma$ is a bijection it is sufficient to show that $\sigma$ is surjective. Let $G = \{1\} \cup \{\sigma(n) | n \in \mathbb{N}\}$, it is straightforward to show that $1 \in G$ and that $G$ is inductive hence $G = \mathbb{N}$ and so $\{\sigma(n) | n \in \mathbb{N}\} = N_2$.

Finally, $E = \{ \sigma(n)-1 | n \in \mathbb{N} \} = \{ n+1-1 | n \in \mathbb{N} \} = \mathbb{N}$.

copper.hat
  • 172,524
  • Thanks a lot for your reply! I will take a look. – RFZ Dec 30 '20 at 08:07
  • I read your reply very carefully and I would like to ask you some questions: 1) Why did you consider this specific map $\sigma$? 2) It is obvious that $\sigma$ is bijective. But have you ever used this bijectivity anywhere? – RFZ Dec 30 '20 at 22:32
  • 1
    $\sigma$ is just the successor. It is obvious that it is bijective on the reals, but we need to show that it is a bijection $\mathbb{N} \to N_2$, in which case it follows that if $n \in N_2$ then $\sigma^{-1}(n) \in \mathbb{N}$ which is what was to be proved. – copper.hat Dec 31 '20 at 03:46
  • 1
    Thanks a lot fòr your help! I really get your proof and it is much more clearer that Zorich's original proof! Many thanks! – RFZ Jan 01 '21 at 09:12