The Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


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

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

Topic: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Replies: 35   Last Post: Sep 10, 2013 2:12 AM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 1,136
Registered: 12/13/04
Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Posted: Sep 2, 2013 2:19 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Am Montag, 2. September 2013 05:11:09 UTC+2 schrieb Virgil:
> In article <l0023u$jol$1@news.albasani.net>,
>
> Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>

> > Virgil wrote:
>
> > > In article <kvvu1c$b1j$2@news.albasani.net>,
>
> > > Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > >> 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 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.
>
> > >>
>
> > >> Also, there is no recursive set of first order axioms that will capture
>
> > >> just the natural numbers.
>
> > >
>
> > > What's wrong with the von Neumann model?
>
> >
>
> > What I meant was, there is no first order theory T such that all models
>
> > of T are isomorphic to the (von Neumann, if you wish) natural numbers.
>
> > The upward Löwenheim-Skolem theorem tells us so.
>
> >
>
> > If you want categoricity, you will need a second (at least) order theory.
>
>
>
> AS far as I can see, {} and x -> x\/{x} captures JUST the natural
>
> numbers and nothing else, and any other basis captures more.
>
> --


Your so called "natural numbers" are not the natural numbers of 99% of men. Why calling it "natural numbers" in spite of that fact?

The natural numbers of normal people starts with an object or entity or sign and increases in succesive adding further objects or entities or signs step by step.

E.g.:

I
II
III
IIII
IIIII
IIIIII
...




Date Subject Author
9/1/13
Read Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Jim Burns
9/1/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Jim Burns
9/1/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
David Hartley
9/1/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Peter Percival
9/1/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Virgil
9/1/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Peter Percival
9/1/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Virgil
9/2/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
albrecht
9/6/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
albrecht
9/6/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Robin Chapman
9/6/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Tucsondrew@me.com
9/6/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
LudovicoVan
9/6/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Tucsondrew@me.com
9/7/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
albrecht
9/6/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Michael F. Stemper
9/7/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
albrecht
9/6/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
FredJeffries@gmail.com
9/7/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
albrecht
9/7/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
FredJeffries@gmail.com
9/8/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
albrecht
9/6/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Robin Chapman
9/6/13
Read The decimals by Stevin
Brian Q. Hutchings
9/7/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
albrecht
9/6/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
LudovicoVan
9/7/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
albrecht
9/7/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
LudovicoVan
9/8/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
albrecht
9/8/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
LudovicoVan
9/8/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
albrecht
9/9/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
LudovicoVan
9/10/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
albrecht
9/1/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Jim Burns
9/2/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
9/2/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
9/2/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
9/2/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Peter Percival

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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.