1
$\begingroup$

At the Wikipedia page for the well ordering theorem

For every set X, there exists a well-ordering with domain X.

Furthermore, a well ordering is defined to be a strict total order so that each subset has a least element.

Now I have a couple of questions about this:

  1. Does this mean that the set X itself has a least element? After all X is a subset of itself (unless the theorem is talking about strict subsets).

  2. Some books (e.g. Manifolds and Differential Geometry, by J.M. Lee, Appendix B) defines a well ordered set to be one where there exists a partial ordering so that every subset has a least element. And then uses the well ordering theorem together with this definition.

I can easily see that the well ordering theorem implies this (since every total ordering is a partial ordering), but is there any reason why this form is stated and not the "stronger" one directly? Are they perhaps equivalent?

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ "… each nonempty subset has a least element". Ad 1, yes $X \subset X$, hence $X$ has a least element, provided $X \neq \varnothing$. Ad 2, they are equivalent. A partial order such that every nonempty subset has a least element is a total order - consider two-element subsets to see that all elements are comparable. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Oct 20 '16 at 12:21
  • $\begingroup$ OK, sorry was a bit too quick. The subsets should of course be nonempty as you say. $\endgroup$ – JezuzStardust Oct 20 '16 at 13:43
1
$\begingroup$

First of all, note that the definition requires that every non-empty subset has a least element, since the empty set is always a subset but it has no least element.

Secondly, yes, it means that $X$ has a least element, at least if $X$ is non-empty. Exactly because it is a subset of itself.

And finally, if you understand "least" as "minimum", then the answer is that the two definition are equivalent, since if $\{x,y\}$ is any two elements subset, then it has a minimum, let's say $x$, so it means that $x<y$. Therefore every two distinct elements are comparable, and the order is a total order.

If you under "least" as "minimal", then the answer is of course negative, since the empty relation is a strict partial order where every element is minimal, so every non-empty set is a minimal element.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ What I mean by least is that it should be less than all other elements in the subset, so I guess it is the first of the two versions that I am talking about. Is the second version, where one refers to minimal elements eve considered in this context? $\endgroup$ – JezuzStardust Oct 20 '16 at 13:41
  • $\begingroup$ Less in the basic context, but in set theory and order theroy these partial orders play a key role. Such a partial order is called a well founded partial order. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Oct 20 '16 at 13:46

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.