Well-founded relation

In mathematics, a binary relation R is called well-founded (or wellfounded or foundational) on a set or, more generally, a class X if every non-empty subset S ⊆ X has a minimal element with respect to R; that is, there exists an m ∈ S such that, for every s ∈ S, one does not have s R m. In other words, a relation is well-founded if: ( ∀ S ⊆ X ) [ S ≠ ∅ ⟹ ( ∃ m ∈ S ) ( ∀ s ∈ S ) ¬ ( s R m ) ] . {\displaystyle (\forall S\subseteq X)\;[S\neq \varnothing \implies (\exists m\in S)(\forall s\in S)\lnot (s\mathrel {R} m)].} Some authors include an extra condition that R is set-like, i.e., that the elements less than any given element form a set.
Equivalently, assuming the axiom of dependent choice, a relation is well-founded when it contains no infinite descending chains, meaning there is no infinite sequence x0, x1, x2, ... of elements of X such that xn+1 R xn for every natural number n.
In order theory, a partial order is called well-founded if the corresponding strict order is a well-founded relation. If the order is a total order then it is called a well-order.
In set theory, a set x is called a well-founded set if the set membership relation is well-founded on the transitive closure of x. The axiom of regularity, which is one of the axioms of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, asserts that all sets are well-founded.
A relation R is converse well-founded, upwards well-founded or Noetherian on X, if the converse relation R is well-founded on X. In this case R is also said to satisfy the ascending chain condition. In the context of rewriting systems, a Noetherian relation is also called terminating.
An important reason that well-founded relations are interesting is because a version of transfinite induction can be used on them: if (X, R) is a well-founded relation, P(x) is some property of elements of X, and we want to show that
it suffices to show that:
That is, ( ∀ x ∈ X ) [ ( ∀ y ∈ X ) [ y R x ⟹ P ( y ) ] ⟹ P ( x ) ] implies ( ∀ x ∈ X ) P ( x ) . {\displaystyle (\forall x\in X)\;[(\forall y\in X)\;[y\mathrel {R} x\implies P(y)]\implies P(x)]\quad {\text{implies}}\quad (\forall x\in X)\,P(x).}
Well-founded induction is sometimes called Noetherian induction, after Emmy Noether.
On par with induction, well-founded relations also support construction of objects by transfinite recursion. Let (X, R) be a set-like well-founded relation and F a function that assigns an object F(x, g) to each pair of an element x ∈ X and a function g on the initial segment {y: y R x} of X. Then there is a unique function G such that for every x ∈ X, G ( x ) = F ( x , G | { y : y R x } ) . {\displaystyle G(x)=F\left(x,G\vert _{\left\{y:\,y\mathrel {R} x\right\}}\right).}
That is, if we want to construct a function G on X, we may define G(x) using the values of G(y) for y R x.
As an example, consider the well-founded relation (N, S), where N is the set of all natural numbers, and S is the graph of the successor function x ↦ x+1. Then induction on S is the usual mathematical induction, and recursion on S gives primitive recursion. If we consider the order relation (N, <), we obtain complete induction, and course-of-values recursion. The statement that (N, <) is well-founded is also known as the well-ordering principle.
There are other interesting special cases of well-founded induction. When the well-founded relation is the usual ordering on the class of all ordinal numbers, the technique is called transfinite induction. When the well-founded set is a set of recursively-defined data structures, the technique is called structural induction. When the well-founded relation is set membership on the universal class, the technique is known as ∈-induction. See those articles for more details.
Well-founded relations that are not totally ordered include:
Examples of relations that are not well-founded include:
If (X, <) is a well-founded relation and x is an element of X, then the descending chains starting at x are all finite, but this does not mean that their lengths are necessarily bounded. Consider the following example: Let X be the union of the positive integers with a new element ω that is bigger than any integer. Then X is a well-founded set, but there are descending chains starting at ω of arbitrary great (finite) length; the chain ω, n − 1, n − 2, ..., 2, 1 has length n for any n.
The Mostowski collapse lemma implies that set membership is a universal among the extensional well-founded relations: for any set-like well-founded relation R on a class X that is extensional, there exists a class C such that (X, R) is isomorphic to (C, ∈).
A relation R is said to be reflexive if a R a holds for every a in the domain of the relation. Every reflexive relation on a nonempty domain has infinite descending chains, because any constant sequence is a descending chain. For example, in the natural numbers with their usual order ≤, we have 1 ≥ 1 ≥ 1 ≥ .... To avoid these trivial descending sequences, when working with a partial order ≤, it is common to apply the definition of well foundedness (perhaps implicitly) to the alternate relation < defined such that a < b if and only if a ≤ b and a ≠ b. More generally, when working with a preorder ≤, it is common to use the relation < defined such that a < b if and only if a ≤ b and b ≰ a. In the context of the natural numbers, this means that the relation <, which is well-founded, is used instead of the relation ≤, which is not. In some texts, the definition of a well-founded relation is changed from the definition above to include these conventions.