Conditions for Relation to be Well-Ordering

Theorem
Let $\struct {S, \RR}$ be a relational structure.

$\RR$ is a well-ordering :


 * $(1): \quad$ For all $x, y \in S$, either $x \mathrel \RR y$ or $y \mathrel \RR x$


 * $(2): \quad$ For every non-empty subset $T$ of $S$, there exists $z \in T$ such that:
 * $\forall x \in T: \paren {x \mathrel \RR z \iff x = z}$

Sufficient Condition
Let $\RR$ be a well-ordering.

Then $\RR$ is a total ordering, and so by definition:


 * $\forall x, y \in S: x \mathrel \RR y \text { or } y \mathrel \RR x$

Thus condition $(1)$ is fulfilled.

Let $T$ be a non-empty subset of $S$.

Then by definition of well-ordering:
 * $\exists z \in T: \forall x \in T: z \mathrel \RR x$

As $\RR$ is a well-ordering, it is an ordering and so an asymmetric relation.

Hence:
 * $\forall x \in T: x \mathrel \RR z \implies x = z$

But then as $\RR$ is an ordering and so reflexive:
 * $x = z \implies x \mathrel \RR z$

Hence:
 * $\exists z \in T: \forall x \in T: x \mathrel \RR z \iff x = z$

Thus condition $(2)$ is fulfilled.

Necessary Condition
Let $\RR$ be such that:


 * $(1): \quad$ For all $x, y \in S$, either $x \mathrel \RR y$ or $y \mathrel \RR x$


 * $(2): \quad$ For every non-empty subset $T$ of $S$, there exists $z \in T$ such that:
 * $\forall x \in T: \paren {x \mathrel \RR z \iff x = z}$

First we are to show that $\RR$ is an ordering.

First we note that $\RR$ is by definition a total relation.

From Relation is Connected and Reflexive iff Total:
 * $\RR$ is reflexive

and:
 * $\RR$ is connected.

Let $a \mathrel \RR b$ such that $a \ne b$.

Then from $(2)$ we have:
 * $\exists z \in \set {a, b}: \forall x \in \set {a, b}: \paren {x \mathrel \RR z \iff x = z}$

This applies to both $a$ and $b$.

Hence:

But we have that:
 * $a \mathrel \RR b$ such that $a \ne b$

and so $z \ne b$.

Hence $z = a$ and:
 * $b \mathrel \RR a \iff b = a$

Summarising:


 * $a \mathrel \RR b$ and $b \mathrel \RR a$ $a = b$

demonstrating that $\RR$ is antisymmetric.

Let $a, b, c \in S$ such that $a \mathrel \RR b$ and $b \mathrel \RR c$.

First we note that if $a = b = c$ we just have that $a \mathrel \RR a$ which is the same as $a \mathrel \RR c$.

Let $a = b$.

Then from $b \mathrel \RR c$ we have $a \mathrel \RR c$.

Let $b = c$.

Then from $a \mathrel \RR b$ we have $a \mathrel \RR c$.

Let $a = c$.

Then from $a \mathrel \RR b$ and $b \mathrel \RR a$ $a = b$ we have that $a = b = c$.

Finally, let $a \ne b$ and $b \ne c$ and $a \ne c$.

Again from $(2)$, we have:
 * $\exists z \in \set {a, b, c}: \forall x \in \set {a, b, c}: \paren {x \mathrel \RR z \iff x = z}$

This applies to both $a$, $b$ and $c$.

Hence:

Suppose $z = c$.

Then we have:
 * $b \mathrel \RR c \iff b = c$

But we have:
 * $b \mathrel \RR c$ such that $b \ne c$

and so $z \ne c$.

Next suppose $z = b$.

Then we have:
 * $a \mathrel \RR b \iff a = b$

But we have:
 * $a \mathrel \RR b$ such that $a \ne b$

and so $z \ne b$.

Hence it must be the case that $z = a$.

Hence we have:
 * $c \mathrel \RR a \iff c = a$

But it is not the case that $c = a$.

Hence it cannot be the case that $c \mathrel \RR a$.

But from $(1)$ we have that either $c \mathrel \RR a$ or $a \mathrel \RR c$

So it must be the case that $a \mathrel \RR c$.

We also note that:
 * $a \mathrel \RR a \iff a = a$

which is compatible with $\RR$ being reflexive, and:
 * $b \mathrel \RR a \iff b = a$

which is compatible with $\RR$ being antisymmetric.

Consolidating what we have, we see that in all cases:
 * $a \mathrel \RR b$ and $b \mathrel \RR c$ implies that $a \mathrel \RR c$.

That is:
 * $\RR$ is transitive.

Thus we have that $\RR$ is reflexive, antisymmetric and transitive.

Thus $\RR$ is an ordering.

We also have that $\RR$ is a connected relation.

Hence by definition $\RR$ is a total ordering.

Next we note from $(2)$ that for every non-empty subset $T$ of $S$, there exists $z \in T$ such that:
 * $\forall x \in T: \paren {x \mathrel \RR z \iff x = z}$

Hence, as $\RR$ is antisymmetric:
 * $\forall x \in T: z \mathrel \RR x$

and so $z$ is the smallest element of $T$.

In other words, every non-empty subset $T$ of $S$ has a smallest element.

Hence by definition $\RR$ is a well-ordering.