
Re: A finite set of all naturals
Posted:
Aug 23, 2013 10:55 AM


In <ghae19tt5it7c9phdr64quip03q2dmdl29@4ax.com>, on 08/23/2013 at 04:40 AM, quasi <quasi@null.set> said:
>With Nam's new definition of positive/negative, I think >it's immediately provable (subject to some clarification as to what >a formula is) that odd(x) is a negative formula.
>Let even(x) <> Ey(x=2*y).
Let odd(x) <> Ey(S(x=2*y)).
>Assuming Nam's definition of "formula" supports the claim that >even(x) is a positive formula, then odd(x) must be a negative >formula since odd(x) is equivalent to ~even(x).
However, even(x) is equivalent to ~odd(x), so even(x) must be a negative formula.
You can exclude S, but then you're no longer talking about the natural numbers.
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk Email subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive Email. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

