Throughout we use the numbered claims of Arithmetic of Addition on the Natural Numbers and the defining property of from the definition of the order: means that for some . Every appeal to induction means an application of Principle of Induction for the Natural Numbers.
Claim 1. The relation holds because , and implies , both directly from the definition. For transitivity of , suppose and with . Then, by claim 3 of Arithmetic of Addition on the Natural Numbers,
and , so . For transitivity of , suppose and . If or the conclusion is immediate; otherwise and , so and hence .
Claim 2. If then for some , contradicting claim 8 of Arithmetic of Addition on the Natural Numbers. If both and held, then by Claim 1, which is impossible. Finally, suppose and and . Then and , which we have just excluded; hence .
Claim 3. We first record that for every : indeed by claim 1 of Arithmetic of Addition on the Natural Numbers, so the definition applies with .
We prove by induction on the statement : for every , at least one of , , holds.
: let . If we are done. Otherwise for some by claim 6 of Arithmetic of Addition on the Natural Numbers, and by claims 1 and 4 of that lemma; hence and .
: let and apply . If , then by and Claim 1. If , then . If , write with . When we get . When , claim 6 of Arithmetic of Addition on the Natural Numbers gives for some , so by claims 3, 4 and 1 of that lemma
hence . This proves .
By induction holds for all , so at least one of the three alternatives holds. At most one holds: and are incompatible by Claim 2, and together with or with would give , which is impossible by Claim 2.
Claim 4. Induct on . For we have by Claim 1. Assume . Since , as recorded in the proof of Claim 3, we get , and transitivity of from Claim 1 gives .
Claim 5. That was recorded in the proof of Claim 3. Now suppose and ; then , so for some . By Claim 3 applied to and , one of , , holds; in the first two cases and we are done. Suppose , say with . Then, using claim 3 of Arithmetic of Addition on the Natural Numbers,
while by claim 1 of that lemma. Hence , and applying claim 4 of that lemma to both sides gives , so by claim 5 of that lemma. This contradicts claim 7 of that lemma. Therefore is impossible and .
Claim 6. The relation is the definition with . Next suppose . If then . Otherwise with , and claim 3 of Arithmetic of Addition on the Natural Numbers gives
so . In both cases . Finally suppose . If then . Otherwise with , and by claims 1, 3 and 4 of Arithmetic of Addition on the Natural Numbers
so . In both cases .
Claim 7. Existence of with is the definition of . For uniqueness, suppose with . By claim 4 of Arithmetic of Addition on the Natural Numbers this gives , and claim 5 of that lemma gives .
Loading…
Prerequisites
ee9f8503-1411-4074-8da9-3e6583ac4c8b