Dual of Well-Ordering is not necessarily Well-Ordering

Theorem

Let $\struct {S, \preccurlyeq}$ be a well-ordered set.

Then its dual $\struct {S, \preccurlyeq}$ is not necessarily also a well-ordered set.

Consider the ordered structure $\struct {\N, \le}$.

From the Well-Ordering Principle, $\struct {\N, \le}$ is a well-ordered set..

Consider the dual $\struct {\N, \ge}$ of $\struct {\N, \le}$.

Let this be expressed as:

$\struct {\N, \preccurlyeq} := \struct {\N, \ge}$

so as to enhance the clarification of the nature of the ordering in question.

From Dual of Total Ordering is Total Ordering, $\struct {\N, \preccurlyeq}$ is a totally ordered set.

Aiming for a contradiction, suppose $\struct {\N, \preccurlyeq}$ is a well-ordered set.

Then there exists a minimal element of $\struct {\N, \preccurlyeq}$:

$\exists m \in \N: \forall x \in \N: x \preccurlyeq m \implies x = m$

But consider $y = m + 1$.

We have:

$y \ge m$ but $y \ne m$

That is:

$y \preccurlyeq m$ but $y \ne m$

and so $m$ cannot be a minimal element of $\struct {\N, \preccurlyeq}$ after all.

It follows that $\struct {\N, \preccurlyeq}$ is not a well-ordered set.

$\blacksquare$

1965: Seth Warner: Modern Algebra ... (previous) ... (next): Chapter $\text {III}$: The Natural Numbers: $\S 14$: Orderings: Exercise $14.10$
1996: Winfried Just and Martin Weese: Discovering Modern Set Theory. I: The Basics ... (previous) ... (next): Part $1$: Not Entirely Naive Set Theory: Chapter $2$: Partial Order Relations: Exercise $27 \ \text {(c)}$