On 9/1/2013 1:21 PM, David Hartley wrote: > In message <52236CD3.firstname.lastname@example.org>, Jim Burns > <email@example.com> writes
>> If I say that I have a set with a semi-infinite, >> discrete, linear order, (N, <), is that enough to >> define the naturals? > > I'm afraid not. Thee are many other orderings satisfying your axioms. > E.g. N + Z - i.e. a copy of N followed by a copy of Z.
I am following the rest of the discussion, but don't expect me to have anything useful to add.