Update
I saw a similar question which provided a proof by using axiom of induction and I wrote an answer by adapting to one of the answers of that question. But I hope someone can give another proof by using the intersection approach which I have explained at the end of my question.
In Halmos set theory, page 52 there is an exercise. The last part of which reads:
Prove that if $E$ is a non-empty set of natural numbers, then there exists an element $k$ in $E$ such that $k \leqq m$ for all $m$ in $E$.
How can we prove this based on what we know so far in the book?
So far in the book we know the following which might be relevant for a proof:
- For every natural number $n$ we have $n^+ = n \cup\{n\}$
- No natural number is subset of any of its elements.
- Every element of a natural number is a subset of it.
- If $m$ and $n$ are distinct natural numbers then $m\in n$⟺$m \subset n$.
- For every two natural numbers $m$ and $n$ we have exactly one of these: $m\in n$ or $n \in m$ or $m=n$.
- if $m \in n$ or equivalently $m$ is a proper subset of $n$, we shall write $m \lt n$.
- if $m$ is known to be either less than or equal to $n$ we write $m \leqq n$
Also we have five Peano axioms for the set of natural numbers $\omega$
- $0 \in \omega$
- if $n \in \omega$, then $n^+ \in \omega$
- if $S \subset \omega$, if $0 \in S$, and if $n^+ \in S$ whenever $n \in S$, then $S = \omega$
- $n^+ \neq 0$ for all $n$ in $\omega$
- if $n$ and $m$ are in $\omega$ , and if $n^+ = m^+$, then $n=m$
ZF Axioms so far:
- Extension
- Specification
- Pairing
- Union
- Powerset
- Infinity
Possible proof sketch based on intersection of natural numbers:
- define $s = \cap E$ (because $E$ is a non-empty collection of sets, its intersection is defined)
- show that $s \in \omega$ (I'm stuck at this part)
- show that $s \in E$
- show that $s \leqq m$ for all m in $E$
The relevant property here is: If $n\neq m$ then either $n<m$ or $n>m$, and all elements of $n$ are subsets of $n$. So this means: $n$ contains exactly all natural numbers that are smaller than $n$.
Now consider a non-empty set of natural numbers $E$. Then we will show that the minimum of $E$ is the intersection $m$ of $E$. This then contains exactly all $n$ that are smaller than anything in $E$. Also as $m$ cannot be element of itself we’d get that $m$ must be in $E$ if we knew that $m$ is in fact a natural number. (Because then if it was not in $E$ it would either be smaller than anything in $E$, thus an element of itself, or it would be larger than one Element of $E$ which would thus be smaller than itself).
Since we do not know this, we walk a different path: Suppose $m\neq 0$ (if $m=0$ it is a natural number), then $m$ contains $0$. Suppose for one $n\in m$ we’d get $n^+\not\in m$. Then there must be a $k\in E$ so that $n^+\not < k$. But as $n<k$ this means that $k\not < n^+$. Thus $k=n^+$. But then $k$ contains all Elements smaller than $k$ and also only elements in $m$. Thus $m=k$.
Now if no such $n$ exists then by Peano we get $m=\mathbb N$, which would contradict to it’s definition and $E\neq\emptyset$.