
Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Posted:
Sep 1, 2013 5:26 PM


On 9/1/2013 1:21 PM, David Hartley wrote: > In message <52236CD3.1030800@osu.edu>, Jim Burns > <burns.87@osu.edu> writes
>> If I say that I have a set with a semiinfinite, >> 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.
Okay. Thanks.
I am following the rest of the discussion, but don't expect me to have anything useful to add.

