Peano Axiom Proofs: Proving $a < b$, if and only if $a + + leq b$












2












$begingroup$


As for where I am getting my Peano Axioms, its from Terrance Tao's Analysis I text (math.unm.edu/~crisp/courses/math401/tao.pdf).



I am unsure whether my proof is correct for proving the forward implication. Here is the work I have done so far:



Assure $a<b$. Suppose for the sake of contradiction we have that $a + 1 notleq b$. In that case $a+1 > b$. From the definition of $<$ we have that $a leq b$ and $a neq b$. From the definition of $a leq b$ we get that $b = a +d$ for some positive $d$. Also from the definition of $<$, we get that $b leq a +1$ and $a +1 neq b$. From the definition of $a leq b$ we get that $a + 1 = b + f$ for some positive $f$. We now have that $a + 1 = a + d + f$. By cancellation law we have that $1 = d+ f$. Since $d$ and $f$ were both positive we now have a contradiction. Thus $a+1 leq b$.



We didn't prove $1 = d+ f$ is a contradiction for positive numbers, so I am feeling hesitant towards this proof. Please suggest some ideas!










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Is the a++ notation common? What about just a + 1 or something like Successor(a) or S(a). (I may be missing something.)
    $endgroup$
    – ThoralfSkolem
    Dec 29 '18 at 18:00
















2












$begingroup$


As for where I am getting my Peano Axioms, its from Terrance Tao's Analysis I text (math.unm.edu/~crisp/courses/math401/tao.pdf).



I am unsure whether my proof is correct for proving the forward implication. Here is the work I have done so far:



Assure $a<b$. Suppose for the sake of contradiction we have that $a + 1 notleq b$. In that case $a+1 > b$. From the definition of $<$ we have that $a leq b$ and $a neq b$. From the definition of $a leq b$ we get that $b = a +d$ for some positive $d$. Also from the definition of $<$, we get that $b leq a +1$ and $a +1 neq b$. From the definition of $a leq b$ we get that $a + 1 = b + f$ for some positive $f$. We now have that $a + 1 = a + d + f$. By cancellation law we have that $1 = d+ f$. Since $d$ and $f$ were both positive we now have a contradiction. Thus $a+1 leq b$.



We didn't prove $1 = d+ f$ is a contradiction for positive numbers, so I am feeling hesitant towards this proof. Please suggest some ideas!










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Is the a++ notation common? What about just a + 1 or something like Successor(a) or S(a). (I may be missing something.)
    $endgroup$
    – ThoralfSkolem
    Dec 29 '18 at 18:00














2












2








2





$begingroup$


As for where I am getting my Peano Axioms, its from Terrance Tao's Analysis I text (math.unm.edu/~crisp/courses/math401/tao.pdf).



I am unsure whether my proof is correct for proving the forward implication. Here is the work I have done so far:



Assure $a<b$. Suppose for the sake of contradiction we have that $a + 1 notleq b$. In that case $a+1 > b$. From the definition of $<$ we have that $a leq b$ and $a neq b$. From the definition of $a leq b$ we get that $b = a +d$ for some positive $d$. Also from the definition of $<$, we get that $b leq a +1$ and $a +1 neq b$. From the definition of $a leq b$ we get that $a + 1 = b + f$ for some positive $f$. We now have that $a + 1 = a + d + f$. By cancellation law we have that $1 = d+ f$. Since $d$ and $f$ were both positive we now have a contradiction. Thus $a+1 leq b$.



We didn't prove $1 = d+ f$ is a contradiction for positive numbers, so I am feeling hesitant towards this proof. Please suggest some ideas!










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




As for where I am getting my Peano Axioms, its from Terrance Tao's Analysis I text (math.unm.edu/~crisp/courses/math401/tao.pdf).



I am unsure whether my proof is correct for proving the forward implication. Here is the work I have done so far:



Assure $a<b$. Suppose for the sake of contradiction we have that $a + 1 notleq b$. In that case $a+1 > b$. From the definition of $<$ we have that $a leq b$ and $a neq b$. From the definition of $a leq b$ we get that $b = a +d$ for some positive $d$. Also from the definition of $<$, we get that $b leq a +1$ and $a +1 neq b$. From the definition of $a leq b$ we get that $a + 1 = b + f$ for some positive $f$. We now have that $a + 1 = a + d + f$. By cancellation law we have that $1 = d+ f$. Since $d$ and $f$ were both positive we now have a contradiction. Thus $a+1 leq b$.



We didn't prove $1 = d+ f$ is a contradiction for positive numbers, so I am feeling hesitant towards this proof. Please suggest some ideas!







proof-verification elementary-set-theory proof-writing peano-axioms






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 29 '18 at 17:46









Bram28

64.5k44793




64.5k44793










asked Dec 21 '18 at 16:53









Fefnir WilhelmFefnir Wilhelm

164




164












  • $begingroup$
    Is the a++ notation common? What about just a + 1 or something like Successor(a) or S(a). (I may be missing something.)
    $endgroup$
    – ThoralfSkolem
    Dec 29 '18 at 18:00


















  • $begingroup$
    Is the a++ notation common? What about just a + 1 or something like Successor(a) or S(a). (I may be missing something.)
    $endgroup$
    – ThoralfSkolem
    Dec 29 '18 at 18:00
















$begingroup$
Is the a++ notation common? What about just a + 1 or something like Successor(a) or S(a). (I may be missing something.)
$endgroup$
– ThoralfSkolem
Dec 29 '18 at 18:00




$begingroup$
Is the a++ notation common? What about just a + 1 or something like Successor(a) or S(a). (I may be missing something.)
$endgroup$
– ThoralfSkolem
Dec 29 '18 at 18:00










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















0












$begingroup$

You're doing well so far! Now, since $f$ is positive and $1=d+f,$ this means that $dle 1,$ but $dne 1.$ Do you see why? But that means $d<1,$ contradicting positivity of $d.$



Also, I think you mistyped your title.





Added: It's worth noting that the Peano Axioms aren't always formulated in the same way, so it would be helpful to know which version you're dealing with. Also, since you've apparently encountered the notion of addition and inequality (not typically part of the Peano Axioms), it would help to know what you've proved about those so far. It may well be that there's a more straightforward way to proceed, but we'll be hard-pressed to say for sure what it is, unless you can give us more information. Even the approach I suggested above may need to be altered, depending on what you know about positive numbers.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Hey thank you so much for your solution, I really appreciate it! As for where I am getting my Peano Axioms, its from Terrance Tao's Analysis I text (math.unm.edu/~crisp/courses/math401/tao.pdf).
    $endgroup$
    – Fefnir Wilhelm
    Dec 21 '18 at 20:13





















0












$begingroup$

To prove the direct implication, we need to prove $$a<btext{ implies }a!+!!+le b.$$



Following your reasoning, for contradiction we state that $a!+!!+>b$. Thus $a<b<a!+!!+$ what is imposible because between a natural number an its sucessor cannot be another natural number.



Now, we have some precisions:




By definition, we have $a<b$ iff $ale b$ and $ane b$.



By definiton, we have $ale b$ iff $b=a+m$ for some natural number $m$. (Not for a positive $m$ because the equality couldn't be unreachable.)



From here, we need to prove that $a<b$ iff $b=a+d$ for some positive $d$.



Also, we can prove there is a natural number $b$ such that $b!+!!+=a$ whenever $a$ is positive.



Using this facts, from $a<b$, there is a positive $d$ such that $b=a+d$. And so $b=a+(n!+!!+)$ where $n$ is a natural number. By addition properties, we have $b=a+(n!+!!+)=(a+n)!+!!+=(a!+!!+)+n$. Finally by definition of order, $a!+!!+le b$ as we desired.







share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    0












    $begingroup$

    Remember that with this kond of material you have to strictly keep to the axioms ... and use whatever theorems al ready have been proven ... but you cannot treat this like a 'normal' exercise about numbers, where you can just use the 'usual' properties that you have known about numbers since elementary school



    For example: you start your proof with: suppose $a +1 not le b$ ... then $a+1>b$. Yes, this is certainly true for the natural numbers, but the whole point of doing what you're doing now is to prove all of those kinds of properties, and this articular property you have not yet proven ... you would basically need Trichotomy ... which Tao only brings up after the proposition you have to prove now. So, you can't make the inference that you make here.



    Instead, stick to the definitions and axioms. I'll show you how to go from $a<b$ to $a++le b$ ... I'll leave going the other way to you, once you see how to do something like this:



    OK, so suppose $a<b$. By definition of $<$ that means $a le b$ and $a not = b$. Now, by definition of $le$, $a le b$ means that there is some number $c$ such that $a+c=b$. Now, if you suppose that $c=0$, then that means that $a+0=b$, and since by Lemma 2.2.2 you have that $a+0=a$, we thus get that $a=b$, which contradicts $a not = b$. So, $c not = 0$. By Lemma 2.2.10 (you're past this one, so you can use it), that means that there is some $d$ such that $d++=c$. So, we have that $a +d++=b$. By Lemma 2.2.3, we have $a+d++=(a+d)++$, and thus we have $(a+d)++=b$. By definition 2.2.1 we have $(a++ )+d=(a+d)++$, and thus we have $(a++)+d=b$. By definition of $le$ that means $a++ le b$



    Do you see how every little step is justified by the definitions or Lemma's you already have? Try to do the same thing when going the other way. Good luck!






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$














      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3048689%2fpeano-axiom-proofs-proving-a-b-if-and-only-if-a-leq-b%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      0












      $begingroup$

      You're doing well so far! Now, since $f$ is positive and $1=d+f,$ this means that $dle 1,$ but $dne 1.$ Do you see why? But that means $d<1,$ contradicting positivity of $d.$



      Also, I think you mistyped your title.





      Added: It's worth noting that the Peano Axioms aren't always formulated in the same way, so it would be helpful to know which version you're dealing with. Also, since you've apparently encountered the notion of addition and inequality (not typically part of the Peano Axioms), it would help to know what you've proved about those so far. It may well be that there's a more straightforward way to proceed, but we'll be hard-pressed to say for sure what it is, unless you can give us more information. Even the approach I suggested above may need to be altered, depending on what you know about positive numbers.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        Hey thank you so much for your solution, I really appreciate it! As for where I am getting my Peano Axioms, its from Terrance Tao's Analysis I text (math.unm.edu/~crisp/courses/math401/tao.pdf).
        $endgroup$
        – Fefnir Wilhelm
        Dec 21 '18 at 20:13


















      0












      $begingroup$

      You're doing well so far! Now, since $f$ is positive and $1=d+f,$ this means that $dle 1,$ but $dne 1.$ Do you see why? But that means $d<1,$ contradicting positivity of $d.$



      Also, I think you mistyped your title.





      Added: It's worth noting that the Peano Axioms aren't always formulated in the same way, so it would be helpful to know which version you're dealing with. Also, since you've apparently encountered the notion of addition and inequality (not typically part of the Peano Axioms), it would help to know what you've proved about those so far. It may well be that there's a more straightforward way to proceed, but we'll be hard-pressed to say for sure what it is, unless you can give us more information. Even the approach I suggested above may need to be altered, depending on what you know about positive numbers.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        Hey thank you so much for your solution, I really appreciate it! As for where I am getting my Peano Axioms, its from Terrance Tao's Analysis I text (math.unm.edu/~crisp/courses/math401/tao.pdf).
        $endgroup$
        – Fefnir Wilhelm
        Dec 21 '18 at 20:13
















      0












      0








      0





      $begingroup$

      You're doing well so far! Now, since $f$ is positive and $1=d+f,$ this means that $dle 1,$ but $dne 1.$ Do you see why? But that means $d<1,$ contradicting positivity of $d.$



      Also, I think you mistyped your title.





      Added: It's worth noting that the Peano Axioms aren't always formulated in the same way, so it would be helpful to know which version you're dealing with. Also, since you've apparently encountered the notion of addition and inequality (not typically part of the Peano Axioms), it would help to know what you've proved about those so far. It may well be that there's a more straightforward way to proceed, but we'll be hard-pressed to say for sure what it is, unless you can give us more information. Even the approach I suggested above may need to be altered, depending on what you know about positive numbers.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$



      You're doing well so far! Now, since $f$ is positive and $1=d+f,$ this means that $dle 1,$ but $dne 1.$ Do you see why? But that means $d<1,$ contradicting positivity of $d.$



      Also, I think you mistyped your title.





      Added: It's worth noting that the Peano Axioms aren't always formulated in the same way, so it would be helpful to know which version you're dealing with. Also, since you've apparently encountered the notion of addition and inequality (not typically part of the Peano Axioms), it would help to know what you've proved about those so far. It may well be that there's a more straightforward way to proceed, but we'll be hard-pressed to say for sure what it is, unless you can give us more information. Even the approach I suggested above may need to be altered, depending on what you know about positive numbers.







      share|cite|improve this answer














      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      edited Dec 21 '18 at 17:57

























      answered Dec 21 '18 at 17:13









      Cameron BuieCameron Buie

      86.8k773161




      86.8k773161












      • $begingroup$
        Hey thank you so much for your solution, I really appreciate it! As for where I am getting my Peano Axioms, its from Terrance Tao's Analysis I text (math.unm.edu/~crisp/courses/math401/tao.pdf).
        $endgroup$
        – Fefnir Wilhelm
        Dec 21 '18 at 20:13




















      • $begingroup$
        Hey thank you so much for your solution, I really appreciate it! As for where I am getting my Peano Axioms, its from Terrance Tao's Analysis I text (math.unm.edu/~crisp/courses/math401/tao.pdf).
        $endgroup$
        – Fefnir Wilhelm
        Dec 21 '18 at 20:13


















      $begingroup$
      Hey thank you so much for your solution, I really appreciate it! As for where I am getting my Peano Axioms, its from Terrance Tao's Analysis I text (math.unm.edu/~crisp/courses/math401/tao.pdf).
      $endgroup$
      – Fefnir Wilhelm
      Dec 21 '18 at 20:13






      $begingroup$
      Hey thank you so much for your solution, I really appreciate it! As for where I am getting my Peano Axioms, its from Terrance Tao's Analysis I text (math.unm.edu/~crisp/courses/math401/tao.pdf).
      $endgroup$
      – Fefnir Wilhelm
      Dec 21 '18 at 20:13













      0












      $begingroup$

      To prove the direct implication, we need to prove $$a<btext{ implies }a!+!!+le b.$$



      Following your reasoning, for contradiction we state that $a!+!!+>b$. Thus $a<b<a!+!!+$ what is imposible because between a natural number an its sucessor cannot be another natural number.



      Now, we have some precisions:




      By definition, we have $a<b$ iff $ale b$ and $ane b$.



      By definiton, we have $ale b$ iff $b=a+m$ for some natural number $m$. (Not for a positive $m$ because the equality couldn't be unreachable.)



      From here, we need to prove that $a<b$ iff $b=a+d$ for some positive $d$.



      Also, we can prove there is a natural number $b$ such that $b!+!!+=a$ whenever $a$ is positive.



      Using this facts, from $a<b$, there is a positive $d$ such that $b=a+d$. And so $b=a+(n!+!!+)$ where $n$ is a natural number. By addition properties, we have $b=a+(n!+!!+)=(a+n)!+!!+=(a!+!!+)+n$. Finally by definition of order, $a!+!!+le b$ as we desired.







      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$


















        0












        $begingroup$

        To prove the direct implication, we need to prove $$a<btext{ implies }a!+!!+le b.$$



        Following your reasoning, for contradiction we state that $a!+!!+>b$. Thus $a<b<a!+!!+$ what is imposible because between a natural number an its sucessor cannot be another natural number.



        Now, we have some precisions:




        By definition, we have $a<b$ iff $ale b$ and $ane b$.



        By definiton, we have $ale b$ iff $b=a+m$ for some natural number $m$. (Not for a positive $m$ because the equality couldn't be unreachable.)



        From here, we need to prove that $a<b$ iff $b=a+d$ for some positive $d$.



        Also, we can prove there is a natural number $b$ such that $b!+!!+=a$ whenever $a$ is positive.



        Using this facts, from $a<b$, there is a positive $d$ such that $b=a+d$. And so $b=a+(n!+!!+)$ where $n$ is a natural number. By addition properties, we have $b=a+(n!+!!+)=(a+n)!+!!+=(a!+!!+)+n$. Finally by definition of order, $a!+!!+le b$ as we desired.







        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$
















          0












          0








          0





          $begingroup$

          To prove the direct implication, we need to prove $$a<btext{ implies }a!+!!+le b.$$



          Following your reasoning, for contradiction we state that $a!+!!+>b$. Thus $a<b<a!+!!+$ what is imposible because between a natural number an its sucessor cannot be another natural number.



          Now, we have some precisions:




          By definition, we have $a<b$ iff $ale b$ and $ane b$.



          By definiton, we have $ale b$ iff $b=a+m$ for some natural number $m$. (Not for a positive $m$ because the equality couldn't be unreachable.)



          From here, we need to prove that $a<b$ iff $b=a+d$ for some positive $d$.



          Also, we can prove there is a natural number $b$ such that $b!+!!+=a$ whenever $a$ is positive.



          Using this facts, from $a<b$, there is a positive $d$ such that $b=a+d$. And so $b=a+(n!+!!+)$ where $n$ is a natural number. By addition properties, we have $b=a+(n!+!!+)=(a+n)!+!!+=(a!+!!+)+n$. Finally by definition of order, $a!+!!+le b$ as we desired.







          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          To prove the direct implication, we need to prove $$a<btext{ implies }a!+!!+le b.$$



          Following your reasoning, for contradiction we state that $a!+!!+>b$. Thus $a<b<a!+!!+$ what is imposible because between a natural number an its sucessor cannot be another natural number.



          Now, we have some precisions:




          By definition, we have $a<b$ iff $ale b$ and $ane b$.



          By definiton, we have $ale b$ iff $b=a+m$ for some natural number $m$. (Not for a positive $m$ because the equality couldn't be unreachable.)



          From here, we need to prove that $a<b$ iff $b=a+d$ for some positive $d$.



          Also, we can prove there is a natural number $b$ such that $b!+!!+=a$ whenever $a$ is positive.



          Using this facts, from $a<b$, there is a positive $d$ such that $b=a+d$. And so $b=a+(n!+!!+)$ where $n$ is a natural number. By addition properties, we have $b=a+(n!+!!+)=(a+n)!+!!+=(a!+!!+)+n$. Finally by definition of order, $a!+!!+le b$ as we desired.








          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Dec 23 '18 at 1:03

























          answered Dec 22 '18 at 17:38









          Cristhian GzCristhian Gz

          1,9261820




          1,9261820























              0












              $begingroup$

              Remember that with this kond of material you have to strictly keep to the axioms ... and use whatever theorems al ready have been proven ... but you cannot treat this like a 'normal' exercise about numbers, where you can just use the 'usual' properties that you have known about numbers since elementary school



              For example: you start your proof with: suppose $a +1 not le b$ ... then $a+1>b$. Yes, this is certainly true for the natural numbers, but the whole point of doing what you're doing now is to prove all of those kinds of properties, and this articular property you have not yet proven ... you would basically need Trichotomy ... which Tao only brings up after the proposition you have to prove now. So, you can't make the inference that you make here.



              Instead, stick to the definitions and axioms. I'll show you how to go from $a<b$ to $a++le b$ ... I'll leave going the other way to you, once you see how to do something like this:



              OK, so suppose $a<b$. By definition of $<$ that means $a le b$ and $a not = b$. Now, by definition of $le$, $a le b$ means that there is some number $c$ such that $a+c=b$. Now, if you suppose that $c=0$, then that means that $a+0=b$, and since by Lemma 2.2.2 you have that $a+0=a$, we thus get that $a=b$, which contradicts $a not = b$. So, $c not = 0$. By Lemma 2.2.10 (you're past this one, so you can use it), that means that there is some $d$ such that $d++=c$. So, we have that $a +d++=b$. By Lemma 2.2.3, we have $a+d++=(a+d)++$, and thus we have $(a+d)++=b$. By definition 2.2.1 we have $(a++ )+d=(a+d)++$, and thus we have $(a++)+d=b$. By definition of $le$ that means $a++ le b$



              Do you see how every little step is justified by the definitions or Lemma's you already have? Try to do the same thing when going the other way. Good luck!






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                0












                $begingroup$

                Remember that with this kond of material you have to strictly keep to the axioms ... and use whatever theorems al ready have been proven ... but you cannot treat this like a 'normal' exercise about numbers, where you can just use the 'usual' properties that you have known about numbers since elementary school



                For example: you start your proof with: suppose $a +1 not le b$ ... then $a+1>b$. Yes, this is certainly true for the natural numbers, but the whole point of doing what you're doing now is to prove all of those kinds of properties, and this articular property you have not yet proven ... you would basically need Trichotomy ... which Tao only brings up after the proposition you have to prove now. So, you can't make the inference that you make here.



                Instead, stick to the definitions and axioms. I'll show you how to go from $a<b$ to $a++le b$ ... I'll leave going the other way to you, once you see how to do something like this:



                OK, so suppose $a<b$. By definition of $<$ that means $a le b$ and $a not = b$. Now, by definition of $le$, $a le b$ means that there is some number $c$ such that $a+c=b$. Now, if you suppose that $c=0$, then that means that $a+0=b$, and since by Lemma 2.2.2 you have that $a+0=a$, we thus get that $a=b$, which contradicts $a not = b$. So, $c not = 0$. By Lemma 2.2.10 (you're past this one, so you can use it), that means that there is some $d$ such that $d++=c$. So, we have that $a +d++=b$. By Lemma 2.2.3, we have $a+d++=(a+d)++$, and thus we have $(a+d)++=b$. By definition 2.2.1 we have $(a++ )+d=(a+d)++$, and thus we have $(a++)+d=b$. By definition of $le$ that means $a++ le b$



                Do you see how every little step is justified by the definitions or Lemma's you already have? Try to do the same thing when going the other way. Good luck!






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  0












                  0








                  0





                  $begingroup$

                  Remember that with this kond of material you have to strictly keep to the axioms ... and use whatever theorems al ready have been proven ... but you cannot treat this like a 'normal' exercise about numbers, where you can just use the 'usual' properties that you have known about numbers since elementary school



                  For example: you start your proof with: suppose $a +1 not le b$ ... then $a+1>b$. Yes, this is certainly true for the natural numbers, but the whole point of doing what you're doing now is to prove all of those kinds of properties, and this articular property you have not yet proven ... you would basically need Trichotomy ... which Tao only brings up after the proposition you have to prove now. So, you can't make the inference that you make here.



                  Instead, stick to the definitions and axioms. I'll show you how to go from $a<b$ to $a++le b$ ... I'll leave going the other way to you, once you see how to do something like this:



                  OK, so suppose $a<b$. By definition of $<$ that means $a le b$ and $a not = b$. Now, by definition of $le$, $a le b$ means that there is some number $c$ such that $a+c=b$. Now, if you suppose that $c=0$, then that means that $a+0=b$, and since by Lemma 2.2.2 you have that $a+0=a$, we thus get that $a=b$, which contradicts $a not = b$. So, $c not = 0$. By Lemma 2.2.10 (you're past this one, so you can use it), that means that there is some $d$ such that $d++=c$. So, we have that $a +d++=b$. By Lemma 2.2.3, we have $a+d++=(a+d)++$, and thus we have $(a+d)++=b$. By definition 2.2.1 we have $(a++ )+d=(a+d)++$, and thus we have $(a++)+d=b$. By definition of $le$ that means $a++ le b$



                  Do you see how every little step is justified by the definitions or Lemma's you already have? Try to do the same thing when going the other way. Good luck!






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  Remember that with this kond of material you have to strictly keep to the axioms ... and use whatever theorems al ready have been proven ... but you cannot treat this like a 'normal' exercise about numbers, where you can just use the 'usual' properties that you have known about numbers since elementary school



                  For example: you start your proof with: suppose $a +1 not le b$ ... then $a+1>b$. Yes, this is certainly true for the natural numbers, but the whole point of doing what you're doing now is to prove all of those kinds of properties, and this articular property you have not yet proven ... you would basically need Trichotomy ... which Tao only brings up after the proposition you have to prove now. So, you can't make the inference that you make here.



                  Instead, stick to the definitions and axioms. I'll show you how to go from $a<b$ to $a++le b$ ... I'll leave going the other way to you, once you see how to do something like this:



                  OK, so suppose $a<b$. By definition of $<$ that means $a le b$ and $a not = b$. Now, by definition of $le$, $a le b$ means that there is some number $c$ such that $a+c=b$. Now, if you suppose that $c=0$, then that means that $a+0=b$, and since by Lemma 2.2.2 you have that $a+0=a$, we thus get that $a=b$, which contradicts $a not = b$. So, $c not = 0$. By Lemma 2.2.10 (you're past this one, so you can use it), that means that there is some $d$ such that $d++=c$. So, we have that $a +d++=b$. By Lemma 2.2.3, we have $a+d++=(a+d)++$, and thus we have $(a+d)++=b$. By definition 2.2.1 we have $(a++ )+d=(a+d)++$, and thus we have $(a++)+d=b$. By definition of $le$ that means $a++ le b$



                  Do you see how every little step is justified by the definitions or Lemma's you already have? Try to do the same thing when going the other way. Good luck!







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Dec 29 '18 at 2:36









                  Bram28Bram28

                  64.5k44793




                  64.5k44793






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3048689%2fpeano-axiom-proofs-proving-a-b-if-and-only-if-a-leq-b%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Plaza Victoria

                      Puebla de Zaragoza

                      Musa