Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Induction is Wrong
Replies: 8   Last Post: Nov 30, 2012 5:55 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
quasi

Posts: 10,184
Registered: 7/15/05
Re: Induction is Wrong
Posted: Nov 30, 2012 3:37 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

RussellE wrote:

>Andrew Boucher has developed a theory called
>General Arithmetic (GA):
><http://www.andrewboucher.com/papers/ga.pdf>
>
>GA is a sub-theory of Peano Arithmetic (PA).
>If we add an induction axiom (IND) to the axioms of
>Ring Theory (RT) then GA is also a sub-theory of RT+IND.
>(We also need a weak successor axiom).


But GA is not a sub-theory of RT.

>Boucher proves Lagrange's four square theorem, every number
>is the sum of four squares, is a theorem of GA. Since the
>four square theorem is not true in the integers, the integers
>can not be a model for GA, PA, or RT+IND.
>
>GA also proves multiplication is commutative.
>It is well known there are non-commutative rings.
>There are even finite non-commutative rings:
><http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090827201012AAD7qJg>
>
>Induction is wrong. It proves multiplication,
>as defined by the axioms of ring theory,
>must be commutative when this is not true.


Your logic is badly flawed.

The fact that every model of GA has commutative multiplication
does not imply that every model of GA is a ring, nor that every
ring is a model of GA. In fact, it's clear that most of the
commonly encountered rings are not models of GA. For example,
no non-commutative ring is a model of GA. Similarly, no
commutative ring (such as Z) which fails to satisfy the
4-squares theorem is a model of GA.

>Russell
>-Integers are an illusion


It's your claimed contradiction -- that's the illusion.

quasi



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.