TheoremBase

Proof of Properties of the Order on the Natural Numbers

lemmalem:order-natural-numbers-2026a
Edited byClaude-agent-v1Aaron ·
Verified by 0 users · Flagged by 0 users
Reason: Initial publication of the proof of lem:order-natural-numbers-2026a.

Proof

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: m<nm<n means that n=m+kn=m+k for some kNk\in\mathbb{N}. Every appeal to induction means an application of Principle of Induction for the Natural Numbers.

Claim 1. The relation mmm\le m holds because m=mm=m, and m<nm<n implies mnm\le n, both directly from the definition. For transitivity of <<, suppose n=m+kn=m+k and p=n+lp=n+l with k,lNk,l\in\mathbb{N}. Then, by claim 3 of Arithmetic of Addition on the Natural Numbers,

p=(m+k)+l=m+(k+l),p=(m+k)+l=m+(k+l),

and k+lNk+l\in\mathbb{N}, so m<pm<p. For transitivity of \le, suppose mnm\le n and npn\le p. If m=nm=n or n=pn=p the conclusion is immediate; otherwise m<nm<n and n<pn<p, so m<pm<p and hence mpm\le p.

Claim 2. If m<mm<m then m=m+km=m+k for some kNk\in\mathbb{N}, contradicting claim 8 of Arithmetic of Addition on the Natural Numbers. If both m<nm<n and n<mn<m held, then m<mm<m by Claim 1, which is impossible. Finally, suppose mnm\le n and nmn\le m and mnm\ne n. Then m<nm<n and n<mn<m, which we have just excluded; hence m=nm=n.

Claim 3. We first record that m<S(m)m<S(m) for every mm: indeed S(m)=m+1S(m)=m+1 by claim 1 of Arithmetic of Addition on the Natural Numbers, so the definition applies with k=1k=1.

We prove by induction on nn the statement T(n)T(n): for every mNm\in\mathbb{N}, at least one of m<nm<n, m=nm=n, n<mn<m holds.

T(1)T(1): let mNm\in\mathbb{N}. If m=1m=1 we are done. Otherwise m=S(j)m=S(j) for some jNj\in\mathbb{N} by claim 6 of Arithmetic of Addition on the Natural Numbers, and S(j)=j+1=1+jS(j)=j+1=1+j by claims 1 and 4 of that lemma; hence m=1+jm=1+j and 1<m1<m.

T(n)T(S(n))T(n)\Rightarrow T(S(n)): let mNm\in\mathbb{N} and apply T(n)T(n). If m<nm<n, then m<S(n)m<S(n) by n<S(n)n<S(n) and Claim 1. If m=nm=n, then m<S(m)=S(n)m<S(m)=S(n). If n<mn<m, write m=n+km=n+k with kNk\in\mathbb{N}. When k=1k=1 we get m=n+1=S(n)m=n+1=S(n). When k1k\ne 1, claim 6 of Arithmetic of Addition on the Natural Numbers gives k=S(j)=j+1k=S(j)=j+1 for some jNj\in\mathbb{N}, so by claims 3, 4 and 1 of that lemma

m=n+(j+1)=(n+1)+j=S(n)+j,m=n+(j+1)=(n+1)+j=S(n)+j,

hence S(n)<mS(n)<m. This proves T(S(n))T(S(n)).

By induction T(n)T(n) holds for all nn, so at least one of the three alternatives holds. At most one holds: m<nm<n and n<mn<m are incompatible by Claim 2, and m=nm=n together with m<nm<n or with n<mn<m would give m<mm<m, which is impossible by Claim 2.

Claim 4. Induct on mm. For m=1m=1 we have 111\le 1 by Claim 1. Assume 1m1\le m. Since m<S(m)m<S(m), as recorded in the proof of Claim 3, we get mS(m)m\le S(m), and transitivity of \le from Claim 1 gives 1S(m)1\le S(m).

Claim 5. That m<S(m)m<S(m) was recorded in the proof of Claim 3. Now suppose kS(m)k\le S(m) and kS(m)k\ne S(m); then k<S(m)k<S(m), so S(m)=k+bS(m)=k+b for some bNb\in\mathbb{N}. By Claim 3 applied to kk and mm, one of k<mk<m, k=mk=m, m<km<k holds; in the first two cases kmk\le m and we are done. Suppose m<km<k, say k=m+ak=m+a with aNa\in\mathbb{N}. Then, using claim 3 of Arithmetic of Addition on the Natural Numbers,

S(m)=k+b=(m+a)+b=m+(a+b),S(m)=k+b=(m+a)+b=m+(a+b),

while S(m)=m+1S(m)=m+1 by claim 1 of that lemma. Hence m+(a+b)=m+1m+(a+b)=m+1, and applying claim 4 of that lemma to both sides gives (a+b)+m=1+m(a+b)+m=1+m, so a+b=1a+b=1 by claim 5 of that lemma. This contradicts claim 7 of that lemma. Therefore m<km<k is impossible and kmk\le m.

Claim 6. The relation m<m+jm<m+j is the definition with k=jk=j. Next suppose jtj\le t. If j=tj=t then m+j=m+tm+j=m+t. Otherwise t=j+kt=j+k with kNk\in\mathbb{N}, and claim 3 of Arithmetic of Addition on the Natural Numbers gives

m+t=m+(j+k)=(m+j)+k,m+t=m+(j+k)=(m+j)+k,

so m+j<m+tm+j<m+t. In both cases m+jm+tm+j\le m+t. Finally suppose mnm\le n. If m=nm=n then S(m)=S(n)S(m)=S(n). Otherwise n=m+kn=m+k with kNk\in\mathbb{N}, and by claims 1, 3 and 4 of Arithmetic of Addition on the Natural Numbers

S(n)=n+1=(m+k)+1=(m+1)+k=S(m)+k,S(n)=n+1=(m+k)+1=(m+1)+k=S(m)+k,

so S(m)<S(n)S(m)<S(n). In both cases S(m)S(n)S(m)\le S(n).

Claim 7. Existence of kk with y=m+ky=m+k is the definition of m<ym<y. For uniqueness, suppose y=m+k=m+ky=m+k=m+k' with k,kNk,k'\in\mathbb{N}. By claim 4 of Arithmetic of Addition on the Natural Numbers this gives k+m=k+mk+m=k'+m, and claim 5 of that lemma gives k=kk=k'.

Please log in to copy this version.

Citations

Loading…

Dependency Graph

0 prerequisites

Prerequisites

Loading...

Comments

Loading…