Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Can addition be defined in terms of multiplication?
Replies: 58   Last Post: Aug 23, 2013 3:56 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Jim Burns Posts: 1,200 Registered: 12/6/04
Re: Can addition be defined in terms of multiplication?
Posted: Aug 16, 2013 8:05 PM

On 8/16/2013 4:54 AM, Peter Percival wrote:
> Can addition be defined in terms of multiplication? I.e.,
> is there a formula in the language of arithmetic
>
> x + y = z <-> ...
>
> such that in '...' any of the symbols of arithmetic
> except + may occur? Or, alternatively, is there a
> formula in the language of arithmetic
>
> x + y = ...
>
> with the same requirement?
>
> The symbols of arithmetic (for the purpose of this question) are either
>
> individual variables, (classical) logical constants including =,
> S, +, *, and punctuation marks;
>
> or the above with < as an additional binary predicate symbol.

x + y = z <-> 2^x * 2^y = 2^z

where 2^x is just an abbreviation for the function 2pwr: N -> N,
defined by
2pwr(0) = 1

2pwr( Sx ) = 2 * 2pwr( x )

It's true that I use the successor S, which I hear implicitly
uses addition, but without S I don't see how to do much of
anything at all.

I wonder how Nam defines * without using either + or S.

Come to think of it, if I can use S, why can't I just
go ahead and define + in the usual (so far as I know) fashion
x + 0 = x

x + Sy = S(x + y)

It seems to me that, if one is going to do arithmetic
without addition, unique prime factorization becomes central.
It might be useful to represent numbers by their prime exponents,
so that
3 * 4 = 12
becomes
( 0, 1, ...) * ( 2, 0, ...) = ( 2, 1, ...)
with special rules for 0, of course. It looks like countably
many copies of N, with only finite many copies non-zero.
Each copy has its own successor function S2(x) = 2*x,
S3(x) = 3*x, ...

However, I am daunted by the prospect of defining * in
this system. We would need to give rules that explain why
3 + 4 = 7
or, rather, why
( 0, 1, 0, 0, ...) + ( 2, 0, 0, 0, ...) = ( 0, 0, 0, 1, ...)

Date Subject Author
8/16/13 Peter Percival
8/16/13 William Elliot
8/16/13 Peter Percival
8/16/13 David C. Ullrich
8/16/13 namducnguyen
8/17/13 Peter Percival
8/17/13 namducnguyen
8/17/13 fom
8/23/13 tommy1729_
8/16/13 Peter Percival
8/16/13 Robin Chapman
8/16/13 Helmut Richter
8/16/13 Rotwang
8/16/13 Virgil
8/22/13 Rock Brentwood
8/16/13 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
8/17/13 Helmut Richter
8/16/13 Jim Burns
8/16/13 fom
8/17/13 Robin Chapman
8/17/13 fom
8/17/13 Peter Percival
8/17/13 fom
8/17/13 Peter Percival
8/17/13 Peter Percival
8/18/13 William Elliot
8/18/13 Peter Percival
8/18/13 William Elliot
8/18/13 Peter Percival
8/18/13 Graham Cooper
8/18/13 David C. Ullrich
8/18/13 David C. Ullrich
8/17/13 Graham Cooper
8/18/13 David Bernier
8/18/13 Ben Bacarisse
8/18/13 Peter Percival
8/18/13 Jim Burns
8/18/13 fom
8/18/13 Ben Bacarisse
8/18/13 Graham Cooper
8/18/13 Graham Cooper
8/18/13 Graham Cooper
8/18/13 Graham Cooper
8/19/13 Graham Cooper
8/19/13 Alan Smaill
8/19/13 fom
8/19/13 Alan Smaill
8/20/13 Alan Smaill
8/20/13 Peter Percival
8/20/13 Graham Cooper
8/20/13 Graham Cooper
8/22/13 David Libert
8/22/13 Peter Percival
8/20/13 fom