Empty Set is Well-Ordered


Although this article appears correct, it's inelegant. There has to be a better way of doing it.
In particular: Q: What does $S$ have to do with anything?
A: You can't have a relation without a set for it to be a relation on.
You can help $\mathsf{Pr} \infty \mathsf{fWiki}$ by redesigning it.
To discuss this page in more detail, feel free to use the talk page.
When this work has been completed, you may remove this instance of {{Improve}} from the code.
If you would welcome a second opinion as to whether your work is correct, add a call to {{Proofread}} the page.


Theorem

Let $S$ be a set.

Let $\RR \subseteq S \times S$ be a relation on $S$.

Let $\O$ denote the empty set.

Let $\RR_\O$ denote the restriction of $\RR$ to $\O$.


Then $\struct {\O, \RR_\O}$ is a well-ordered set.


Proof 1

We have that $\O$ is well-ordered under $\RR$ if and only if every non-empty subset of $\O$ has a smallest element under $\RR$.

But $\O$ has no non-empty subset.

Hence this condition is satisfied vacuously.

The result follows.

$\blacksquare$


Proof 2

Let $V$ be a basic universe.

By definition of basic universe, $\O$ is an element of $V$.

By the Axiom of Transitivity, $\O$ is a class.

The result follows from Empty Class is Well-Ordered.

$\blacksquare$

This article is issued from ProofWiki. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.