Section

Section 5.2 467 Complete Ordered Field

Section 5.2 The Complete Ordered Field: The Real Numbers

Purpose of Section We present the axiomatic definition of the real numbers

as a complete ordered field. The axioms which describe the arithmetic of the
real numbers form an algebraic field.
field The order axioms combined with the
field axioms form a mathematical structure known as an ordered field,
field, and the
completeness axiom combined with the ordered field axioms define the real
number system.

Introduction
Introduction

Advances in function theory in the 19th century demanded a deeper

understanding of the real numbers, which provided the driving force behind
the “rigorization” of analysis by such mathematical greats as Cauchy, Abel,
Dedekind, Dirichlet, Weierstrass, Bolzano, Frege, and Cantor. A deeper
understanding of functions required precise proofs and this led to the
placement of the real number system on solid mathematical ground. Why it
took 2000 years to rigorously define the real numbers might be open to
debate, but it probably had to do with the fact that everyday numbers seemed
so intuitive, representing common physical quantities as length, time, and
mass.

Although we generally think of real numbers as points on a continuous

line extending indefinitely in both directions, the goal of this chapter is to strip
away everything you know about the real numbers and start afresh. This is not
easy since all the knowledge and mental imagery created over a lifetime is
firmly entrenched in your mind. But if you are up to wiping the slate clean and
start anew, we will introduce you to a new mathematical concept, known
affectionately by mathematicians as the “complete, ordered field”, which, for
the fun of it, we call
. By building up the axioms of the real numbers, you
should have a deeper understanding of them than as “points on a very long
line.”

There are three types of axioms required to form what we know as real
numbers. First, there are the arithmetic axioms, called the field axioms,
axioms
which provide the rules for adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing.
Secondly, there are the order axioms, which allow one to compare sizes of
real numbers like 2<3, 4>0 and -3<0, and so on. And lastly there is an axiom,
called the continuity axiom,
axiom which gives the real numbers that special quality
that allows us to think of real numbers as “flowing” continuously, with no gaps
along the way, on the real line from the infinitely small to the infinitely large.
Section
Section 5.2 468 Complete Ordered Field

So let us begin our quest to find the holy grail of real analysis.

….and let there be real numbers

Arithmetic Axioms for Real Numbers

We begin by defining a set
, but don’t think of
as the real numbers

yet, we will when we have equipped
with a certain set of axioms. We now
define two functions from
×
→
, one called the addition function, the
other the multiplication function. The addition function assigns to a pair ( a, b )
of numbers in
a new element of
called the sum of a and b and denoted
by a + b . The multiplication function assigns to each pair of elements in
a
new element in
called the product of a and b and denoted by a ⋅ b or
more often simply ab . These operations are called closed operations since
when a, b ∈
so are a + b and ab .

These axioms have passed the test of time and are now chiseled in
stone in the laws of mathematics and form an algebraic system called a field1
(or an algebraic field),
field which is summarized as follows.

1
Modern algebra or abstract algebra, which is distinct from elementary algebra as taught in
schools, is a branch of mathematics that studies algebraic structures, such as groups, rings, fields,
modules, vector spaces and other algebraic structures.
 Section
Section 5.2 469 Complete Ordered Field

Field Axioms
A field is a set, which we call
, with two binary operations, called + and ⋅ , where for all
a, b and c in
, the following axioms hold2.

Addition Axioms Name of Axiom

(A1) associativity of addition
(A1) ( ∀a, b ∈
) a + ( b + c ) = ( a + b ) + c  (A2) addition commutes
( A2) ( ∀a, b, c ∈
)( a + b = b + a ) (A3) There existences a unique additive
(A3) ( ∃!0 ∈
)( ∀a ∈
)( a + 0 = 0 + a = a ) identity denoted by "0".
(A4) ( ∀a ∈
) ( ∃!( −a ) ∈
) a + ( −a ) = ( −a ) + a = 0 (A4) Every element has a unique additive
inverse.
3
Multiplication Axioms Name of Axiom
(M1) associativity of multiplication
(M1) ( ∀a, b, c ∈
)  a ( bc ) = ( ab ) c 
(M2) multiplication commutes
(M2) ( ∀a, b ∈
) [ ab = ba ]
(M3) There existences a unique multiplicative
(M3) ( ∃! 1∈
)( ∀a ∈  )( a ⋅1 = 1⋅ a = a )
identity denoted by "1".
 
( ∀a ∈
) a ≠ 0 ⇒  ∃!  1 1
1 (M4) Every nonzero element has a unique
(M4) ∈
 a ⋅ = ⋅ a = 1 
  a  a a  multiplicative inverse.
Distributive Axiom Name
Name of Axiom
( D ) ( ∀a, b, c ∈
)  a ( b + c ) = ab + ac  Multiplication distributes over addition.

Conventions and Notation:

In addition to the above axioms, we make the following conventions;

1. The associative axioms for both addition and multiplication say it doesn’t
matter where parenthesis are placed. In other words, we can write a + b + c
for a + ( b + c ) or ( a + b ) + c . The same holds for multiplication, we can write
abc = a ( bc ) = ( ab ) c .

2
We call the field
since we are concentrating on the real numbers, but keep in mind there are
many examples of an algebraic field.
3
We often drop the multiplication symbol "⋅ " and denote multiplication of two elements as
a ⋅ b = ab .
Section
Section 5.2 470 Complete Ordered Field

2. The unique additive inverse of an element a (relative to the additive

identity 0) is normally denoted by − a , hence we have a + ( − a ) = 0 . The
multiplicative inverse of a (relative to the multiplicative identity 1) is denoted
by a −1 (provided a ≠ 0 ) and often written 1/ a . Hence aa −1 = a (1/ a ) = 1 .

Two other operations of subtraction and division can be defined directly from
addition and multiplication by

subtraction: a − b = a + ( −b ) (read a minus b)

a
division: = ab −1 (for b ≠ 0) (read a divided by b)
b

Using the basic axioms for a field, we can now see how the computational
rules for arithmetic can be carried out. We begin by defining
2 = 1 + 1,3 = 2 + 1, 4 = 3 + 1, and so on. We next define the natural numbers
 = {1, 2,3,...} , then since 1 > 0 , it follows that 0 < 1 < 2 < 3 <  In other words,
the natural numbers are ordered in the way we learned since grade school. We
can also prove something you learned in the second grade:

4 = 3 +1 (definition)
= ( 2 + 1) + 1 (defintion)
= 2 + (1 + 1) (associativity)
= 2+2 (definition)

Margin Note: A field is an algebraic system where you can add, subtract,
multiply and divide (except by 0) in the same manner you did as a child. As a
child you were taught these were “properties” of numbers. But they are not
their properties, they are the rules of engagement of the real numbers. A
subtle, but important point.

We know what you are thinking; you have known all this since 3rd grade. If
your argument is that the axioms are simple and elementary, that is no
argument at all. Axioms are supposed to be self-evident. That’s the test of a
good axiom system. The question you ask is; what kind of theorems can be
proven from the axioms, and the answer is there are many and many are not
trivial. Just ask yourself, are these the simplest axioms you can imagine for a
system of arithmetic, where you can add, subtract, multiply and divide? Do
you need any more axioms to perform the operations you want? Can you get
by for fewer axioms in the sense that some of the axioms can be proven from
the others and hence ambiguous? These are not trivial questions and their
answers are even less so. There are other axiom systems that allow you to
Section
Section 5.2 471 Complete Ordered Field

perform operations on elements of a set, such as groups, rings, integer

domains, and so on, but the axiom system you studied as a child is an
algebraic field.

Fields other than

1. Boolean Field: Let F2 = {0,1 } and define addition (+) and multiplication ( × )
by the following table.

+ 0 1 × 0 1
0 0 1 0 0 0
1 1 0 1 0 1

The set A with these arithmetic operations is a field. We leave it to the

reader to check all the properties a field must possess.

2. Complex Numbers  : The complex numbers a + bi , where a, b are real

numbers and i = −1 , where addition and multiplication are defined in the
usual manner.

3. Rational Numbers  : The rational numbers where addition and

multiplication are defined in the usual way.

4. Rational Functions F : The set of all rational functions

p ( x)
f ( x) =
q ( x)

where p ( x ) , q ( x ) ≠ 0 are polynomials with real coefficients, where addition

and multiplication are defined in the usual way and 0 and 1 are the standard
additive and multiplicative identities.

There are many other examples of fields studied by mathematicians, including

the Galois finite fields, p-adic number fields, and fields of functions, such as
meromorphic and entire functions.

We now come to the second group of the three types of axioms required
to describe the real numbers.

Ordered Fields
An algebraic field is ordered if its nonzero members are split into two
disjoint sets, P and N, called the negative and positive members of the field,
respectively, so defined that x ∈ N ⇔ − x ∈ P , and P is closed under addition
Section
Section 5.2 472 Complete Ordered Field

and multiplication (i.e. x, y ∈ P ⇒ x + y ∈ P, xy ∈ P ). These sets define the

relation x < y ⇔ y − x ∈ P which can be shown to be irreflexive,
antisymmetric, and transitive, the conditions for a total order on the field. We
summarize these results.

Definition: Ordered Field: An algebraic field F is said to be ordered if it can

be split into two disjoint sets, P and N, called the negative and positive
members respectively, so defined that x ∈ N ⇔ − x ∈ P and P is closed under
addition and multiplication (i.e. x, y ∈ P ⇒ x + y ∈ P, xy ∈ P ). These sets allow
one to define the order relation x < y ⇔ y − x ∈ P on F which can be shown
to be irreflexive, antisymmeric, and transsitive. A field with this total order
< is called an ordered field.
field.

Stated in language more familiar to most readers, an algebraic field F is an

ordered field if the following three conditions are satisfied:

1. For each x ∈ F exactly one of x < 0, x = 0, 0 < x is true.

2 [0 < x ∧ 0 < y] ⇒ 0 < x + y
3. [0 < x ∧ 0 < y ] ⇒ 0 < xy

Conventions: We say that x > 0 when − x < 0 and x ≥ 0 when x > 0 or x = 0 ,

and x ≤ 0 when x < 0 or x = 0 .

Note: One does not just make rules or axioms willy-nilly from which one hopes
all else follows. As a matter of fact it is just the opposite. Knowing what is
desirable, knowing what one wishes, one designs a set of assumptions or
axioms from which the desirable theorems will follow. As the mathematician
Oswald Veblen once said, “The test of a good axiom system lies in the
theorems it produces.”

At this point the reader should observe that the rational numbers constitute
an ordered field with ordering the usual “greater than” inequality " > " .

We now come to what we called the “holy grail” of the real numbers.
Although all three collections of axioms are necessary to describe the real
numbers, it might be said that the “completeness” axiom is what we think of
when we think of the real numbers.

Historical Note: The concept of an ordered field was introduced by

Austrian/American mathematician Amil Artin (1898-1962) in 1927. Artin was
Section
Section 5.2 473 Complete Ordered Field

one of the leading algebraists of the 20th century who emigrated to the U.S. in
1937 and spent many years at Indiana and Princeton universities.

The Completeness Axiom

If we were to stop with ordered fields, we would be throwing out that

special ingredient that makes the real numbers a continuum of numbers we
envision when we think of the real number system. There are many examples
of ordered fields that are not the real numbers, and everyone of those
algebraic systems fields suffer by having “gaps” between their elements. For
example, the rational numbers, i.e. numbers of the form
 = { p / q : p, q ∈ , q ≠ 0} is an ordered field, but it has gaps, two gaps being
the solutions of x 2 = 2 , which are x = ± 2 , which we know are not rational
numbers. What we need is an axiom that “fills in” these gaps and that is
where the completeness (or continuum) axiom comes into play.

An interesting aspect of the completeness (or continuum) axiom is that

over the years mathematicians have found several axioms, all called the
completeness axiom, that are logically equivalent. Thus, it might be said we
are blessed by being able to select any one of them. In this book what is
called the least upper bound axiom as our “completeness representative”
because several interesting concepts can be gleaned by working with it, and, it
is easy to understand. Before stating the axiom, however, we must introduce
a few important ideas.

Sup and Max (Inf and Min)

We use the four intervals in Figure 1 as a prop for reviewing the

concepts of lub, glb, sup, and inf introduced in Section 4.2 when we studied
order relations.
Section
Section 5.2 474 Complete Ordered Field

Max, Min, Sup, Inf

Figure 1

The intervals ( a, b ) , [ a, b ] , [ a, b ) , and ( a, b] are all bounded, both above and

below. Bounded above simply means there is at least one number greater
than or equal to all the elements in the set. The number b (or any number
larger) is an upper bound for each of the four intervals in Figure 2. Likewise,
a lower bound for a set is a number less than or equal to all the elements in
the set; the number a is a lower bound for each of the above sets. Of course,
not all sets are bounded; the set [1, ∞ ) is bounded below but not above, and
( −∞, ∞ ) is not bounded above nor below. Also note that b is the maximum of
all the numbers in the intervals [ a, b ] and ( a, b ] , whereas the intervals ( a, b )
and [ a, b ) do not contain a maximum since no matter what number is chosen
as the maximum there is always a larger number halfway between your choice
and b. The same arguments hold for minimum values, the two intervals
[ a, b] , [ a, b ) have a minimum value whereas the intervals ( a, b ) , ( a, b ] do not
have minimum values.

So what is the meaning lub( A) and glb( A) in Figure 1? Two of the sets
contain their maximum and two do not. However (and this is the important
part), for each of the four intervals, the set of upper bounds, which is [ b, ∞ )
for each of the four intervals, always contains its minimum value, which is b
in every case. In the intervals ( a, b ) , [ a, b ) where b does not belong to the
interval, we call this value least upper bound or supremum of the set, and
Section
Section 5.2 475 Complete Ordered Field

denote this value by sup( A) or lub( A) . For the two sets [ a, b] and ( a, b] that
have a maximum value, the least upper bound is the same as the maximum.
For the sets ( a, b ) and [ a, b ) that do not have maximum values, the least upper
bound b is a kind of “surrogate” for the maximum.

The same principle holds for lower bounds. The set of lower bounds
for any set A bounded below always has a largest value and this value is
called the greatest lower bound or infimum of A and denoted by glb( A) or
inf( A) .

Defintion Let A be a set bounded above in an ordered field. The number L is

the least upper bound or supremum of A if

▪ L is an upper bound of A, i.e. L ≥ x for all x ∈ A. .

▪ if u is any upper bound for A, then L ≤ u .

Likewise the number G is the greatest lower bound or infimum of A if

▪ G is a lower bound of A, i.e. G ≤ x all x ∈ A ..

▪ if l is any lower bound for A, then G ≥ l .

The least upper bound of a set is denoted lub( A) or sup( A) , and the greatest
lower bound is denoted glb( A) or inf( A)

This leads us to the completeness axiom for our set
, which we have
endowed with field and order axioms and thus is an ordered field (we are
almost ready to call this set the real numbers). The last set of axioms we
Section
Section 5.2 476 Complete Ordered Field

assign to
(actually only one axiom) is called the completeness axiom, which
we have used the least upper bound version.

Completeness Axiom: Least Upper Bound Axiom

If any non-empty set of
that is bounded above has a smallest upper bound,
then it satisfies the completeness axiom.
axiom

We are now (finally) ready to define the real numbers.

Definition of the Real Numbers:

Numbers: The real number system
is a complete
complete
ordered field,
field that is, an ordered field that satisfies the completeness axiom.
Stated another way, it is a set
that satisfies the axioms of an algebraic
field,
field the order axioms,
axioms and the completeness axiom.
axiom

The least upper bound is necessary since there are ordered fields that
do not “look like” the real numbers, the rational numbers being one such
example. By also including the completeness axiom, the ordered field
behaves exactly like the real line you learned about in the third grade. In other
words it has exactly the properties we desire when we try to model or
describe points on an infinite line.

When we refer to the real numbers as a complete ordered field, we

always say the complete ordered field since there is only one complete
ordered field in the sense that any two complete ordered fields are
isomorphic. We say that two abstract structures are isomorphic if they have
exactly the same mathematical structure and differ in only the symbols used
to represent various objects and operations in the system. In the case of two
fields, the objects would be ( A, 0 A ,1A , + A , × A , ≤ A ) for one field and
( B, 0B ,1B , + B , ×B , ≤ B ) for another. An isomorphism between these two fields
would be a one-to-one correspondence f : R → S satisfying for all x, y ∈ A :

f ( 0 A ) = f ( 0B )
f (1A ) = f (1B )
f ( x +A y ) = f ( x) +B f ( y )
f ( x ×A y ) = f ( x ) ×B f ( y )
x ≤ A y ⇒ f ( x) ≤ B f ( y )

This means that all complete ordered fields are essentially the same, the only
difference being a labeling of objects.
Section
Section 5.2 477 Complete Ordered Field

Note: { }
The set of rational numbers A = q ∈ Q : q 2 < 2 does not satisfy the
completeness axiom; it is bounded above but does not have a least upper
bound.

History: Czech mathematician Bernard Bolzano (1781-1848) conceptualized

the least upper bound property of the real numbers in an 1817 paper which he
gave the first analytic proof of the Intermediate Value Theorem. He realized
the proof must depend on deep properties of the real numbers and in the
process the concept of “completeness” emerged, which Bolzano formulated as
the least upper bound property.
Section
Section 5.2 478 Complete Ordered Field

Problems,
Problems, Section 5.2, The Complete Ordered Field

Normally when we solve elementary algebra problems the rules of the

game are so entrenched in the back of our minds that we use them without
much thought. Solve Problems 1-4 using the axioms of an algebraic field and
tell which axioms you are using.

1. (Parenthesis Not Needed in Addition) Show that in the sum of four

elements a, b, c, d ∈
the parenthesis is not needed. Hint: Use the
associative rule for addition and show that no matter how parenthesis are
( )
inserted in the sum, say like a + ( b + c ) + d the parenthesis can always be
“moved” to the left like (( a + b ) + c ) + d .
Ans: For each of the 7 ways one can insert one or two parenthesis between
the terms of a + b + c + d one can use the associative law move the parenthesis
to the left, getting (( a + b ) + c ) + d . Since they are all the same, we can simply
write a + b + c + d .

2. (Parenthesis Not Needed

Needed in Multiplication) Show that in the product of
four elements a, b, c, d ∈
the parenthesis is not needed. Hint: Use the
associative rule for multiplication and show that no matter how parenthesis
( )
are inserted in the product, say like a ( bc ) d the parenthesis can always be

“moved” to the left like ( ( ab ) c ) d .

Ans: For each of the 7 ways one can insert one or two parenthesis between
the factors of abcd one can use the associative law move the parenthesis to
the left, getting ( ( ab ) c ) d . Since they are all the same, we can simply write
abcd .

3. (Solving a Middle School Equation) Show that ( ∀a, b ∈
) the equation

a + x = b has exactly one solution, given by solution x = b + ( −a ) .

Ans: Suppose x ∈
satisfies a + x = b . Then

x = x + 0 = x + ( a + ( −a ) ) = ( x + a ) + ( −a ) = b + ( −a )
Section
Section 5.2 479 Complete Ordered Field

and so x = b + ( − a ) is the only possible solution. Plugging this candidate into

the given equation we get

.
a + x = a + ( b + ( −a ) ) = a + ( ( − a ) + b ) = ( a + ( − a ) ) + b = 0 + b = b
 
  

commutitive law associative law

4. (A Negative of a Negative …) Show that ( ∀a ∈
)  a = − ( − a ) 

Ans:
Ans Since from Problem 4 we know there is only one solution of the
equation a + x = b , and we now show both a and − ( −a ) are solutions of
x + ( − a ) = 0 so they must be the same. We saw in Problem 3 x = a is a
solution, but we also know − ( − a ) + ( − a ) = 0 from the field axiom A3. Hence
a = − ( −a ) .

5. True or False

a) The natural numbers  is an ordered field using the usual operations of

addition and multiplication.

Ans: False, numbers don’t have negative inverses among other things.

b)  and
are both ordered fields but  is not.

Ans:
Ans True

c) For A, B bounded sets, sup ( A − B ) = sup ( A ) − sup ( B ) where we define

{
A − B = a − b : a ∈ A, b ∈ B . }
Ans: False, let A = {1, 2}, B = {4, 5} then A − B = {−3, −4, −2} . Hence
sup ( A − B ) = −2, sup ( A) − sup ( B ) = 2 − 5 = −3 .

d) The integers  form an ordered field.

Ans: False, not all elements have a multiplicative inverse. The integer 3 has
no multiplicative inverse (1/3 is not an integer). The integers are said to
form an algebraic ring, not a field.

e) All finite sets of real numbers have a least upper bound.

Section
Section 5.2 480 Complete Ordered Field

Ans: True, they are bounded so they have a least upper bound.

f) The set of rational numbers less than 1 has a supremum.

Ans: True, the sup is 1.

g) If a subset of the real numbers has an upper bound, then it has exactly one
least upper bound.

Ans: True, can’t argue with an axiom. That’s the completeness axiom.

h) sup (  ) = ∞

Ans: False, the integers are not bounded above so there is no sup.

i) Every finite set can be ordered.

Ans: True, simply take members at random and order them in the order they
are chosen.

j) The set of linear functions f ( x ) = ax + b with addition and multiplication of

functions defined in the usual way is an algebraic field.

Ans: False, not all functions have a multiplicative inverse.

k) When it comes right down to it the completeness axiom ensures there are
no “holes” in the real numbers.

Ans:
Ans True, that’s about it.

6. For the following sets A find (if they exist), max ( A ) , min ( A ) ,
sup ( A ) ,inf ( A ) .

a) A = {1,3,9, 4, 0}

Ans:
Ans max ( A) = 9, min ( A) = 0, sup ( A) = 9,inf ( A) = 0

b) A = [ 0, ∞ )

Ans no max, min ( A ) = 0, no sup,inf ( A ) = 0

Section
Section 5.2 481 Complete Ordered Field

c) A = { x ∈  : 0 ≤ x < 1}

Ans no max, min ( A ) = 0, sup ( A ) = 1,inf ( A ) = 0

d) A = [ −1,3]
Ans max ( A ) = 3, min ( A ) = −1, sup ( A ) = 3,inf ( A ) = − 1

{
e) A = x : x 2 − 1 = 0 }
Ans no max, min ( A ) = −1, no sup,inf ( A) = −1

f) A = {n ∈  : n divides 100}

Ans
{
g) A = x ∈
: x 2 < 2 }
Ans no max, no min, sup ( A ) = 2,inf ( A ) = − 2

h) A = ( −∞, ∞ )

Ans no max, no min, no sup, no inf

 1 1 1 
i) A = 1, , , ,
 2 3 4 

Ans max ( A ) = 1, no min, sup ( A) =1,inf ( A ) = 0

7. (More Difficult Sup and Inf)

Inf If they exist, find the supremum and infimum
of the set

1 1 
A =  − : m, n ∈   .
n m 

Ans: The set is bounded between -1 and 1 since

1 1 1 1
0< ≤ 1, 0 < ≤ 1 ⇒ − 1 = 0 − 1 < − < 1 + 0 = 1
n m n m
Section
Section 5.2 482 Complete Ordered Field

Hence, we suspect sup ( A ) = 1, inf ( A ) = −1 . To show sup ( A ) = 1 suppose

it is false. That is, there is a smaller upper bound u smaller than 1. But this
1 1
gives a contradiction since if we pick n = 1 and let m → ∞ the sequence −
n m
will eventually get larger than any u < 1. Hence, sup ( A ) = 1 . We can
show inf ( A ) = −1 by assuming there is a larger lower bound, say −1 < v . But
this also leads to a contradiction since we can pick m = 1 and by letting
1 1
n → ∞ the sequence − will eventually get smaller than any −1 < v .
n m
Hence, inf ( A ) = −1 .

8. (Algebraic Field) Show that the rational numbers with the operations of
addition and multiplication form a algebraic field.

Ans: The reader can check that this system satisfies the axioms of a field.

9. (Boolean
(Boolean Field) Show that the set F2 = {0,1 } consisting of 2 elements
forms an algebraic field.

Ans: The reader can check that this set with the addition and multiplication
described in the text satisfies the axioms of a field.

10. (Ordered Field) Show that the rational numbers with the operations of
addition and multiplication and the usual “less than” order relation " < " forms
an ordered field.

Ans: The reader can check that this set with the addition and multiplication
described in the text satisfies the axioms of a field.

11. (Not an Ordered Field) Show that the field  of complex numbers is not
an ordered field.

Ans: First assume i = −1 > 0 . Hence, i 2 = −1 > 0 and adding 1 gives 0 > 1 .
But squaring −1 > 0 gives 1 > 0 and so we have proven both 0 > 1 and 0 < 1
which contradicts anti-symmetry axiom for the order relation. A similar
contradiction is reached if we assume i < 0 . Hence, we cannot order the
complex numbers.
Section
Section 5.2 483 Complete Ordered Field

12. (Well- well-ordering principle4 states that every

(Well-Ordering Principle) The well-
(non-empty) subset A ⊆  contains a smallest element under the usual
ordering ≤ . Does this principle hold for subsets A ⊆  ?

Ans: No, the integers do not have a smallest member (nor do many
subsets of the integers)

13. (Well-
(Well-Ordering Theorem)
Theorem A partial order " ≺ " on a set X is called a well
ordering
ordering (and the set X is called well ordered)
ordered if every nonempty subset
S ⊆ X has a least element (i.e. belongs to S ). The Well Ordered Theorem5
states that every set can be well ordered by some partial order (i.e. there
exists a well ordering " ≺ " on X ). Are the following sets well ordered by the
usual “less than or equal to” order " ≤ " ?

a)  Ans: yes
b) {3, 4, 5} Ans: yes
c)  Ans: no
1 
d)  : n ∈  Ans: no
n 

4
This principle is really a theorem and is equivalent to the Principle of Mathematical Induction.
5
The Well Ordering Theorem is equivalent to the Axiom of Choice and was proven by the German
mathematician Ernst Zermelo (1871-1953). Although the theorem says the real numbers
are
well ordered, no one has ever found a well ordering.