MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Consider the natural numbers $\mathbb{N}$ as a structure for NBG set theory. If we interpret the Axiom of Unions in this structure, we get the statement $(\forall a \in \mathbb{N})$ $(\exists w \in \mathbb{N})$ $(\forall x \in \mathbb{N})$ $((\exists y \in \mathbb{N})(x < y \land y < a) \Rightarrow x < w)$.

Is this statement true? I suspect so: for any $a$, just choose $w = a$. However, Mathematica disagrees with me, and I'm not entirely confident enough with first-order logic to trust myself.

share|cite|improve this question

closed as off-topic by Bjørn Kjos-Hanssen, Andrey Rekalo, Stefan Kohl, Ricardo Andrade, Willie Wong Mar 12 '14 at 11:29

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "MathOverflow is for mathematicians to ask each other questions about their research. See Math.StackExchange to ask general questions in mathematics." – Bjørn Kjos-Hanssen, Andrey Rekalo, Stefan Kohl, Ricardo Andrade
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

It is true. The union axiom asserts that for every set $x$, there is a set consisting precisely of the elements of elements of $x$. (Your version is weaker, since it is only one direction.) If you interpret sets as natural numbers and element of as $\lt$, then this translates in $\mathbb{N}$ to: for every natural number $n$, there is a number $m$ such that the numbers below $m$ are precisely the numbers that are below a number below $n$. This is true if we take $m=n-1$, using $m=0$ if $n=0$. Finally, this question may not be appropriate for MO, which is for research-level questions. – Joel David Hamkins Jun 20 '10 at 3:49
Your argument that $w=a$ works is correct. You may be interested in this MO answer…, which is about the similar situation using the reals instead of the natural numbers. – Joel David Hamkins Jun 20 '10 at 3:53
Thanks for that! I do apologise if that was an inappropriate question; I'm new to this site. Had I phrased it as a general inquiry into the naturals as a model/structure for NBG rather than a specific "is this true?" question, would it have been more appropriate? – rtg658 Jun 20 '10 at 3:58