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: Infinity: The Story So Far
Replies: 16   Last Post: Mar 2, 2014 4:04 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 488
Registered: 7/4/05
Re: Infinity: The Story So Far
Posted: Feb 28, 2014 11:36 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 07:01:25 -0600, fom wrote:

> On 2/28/2014 2:01 AM, wrote:
>> On Thursday, 27 February 2014 22:52:54 UTC+1, fom wrote:

>>>> The question was whether Peano defines the natural numbers. He fails.
>>> Why do you say that?

>> I say that because it is widely assumed that Peano defined the natural
>> numbers. People assume the natural numbers and find that Peano is
>> rigth. But the other way dos not work. Assuming the Peano axioms does
>> not yield N. I emphasize this because it has been hundred years taught
>> falsely.

>>> It would be correct to say that he assumes the
>>> natural numbers and places identity criteria
>>> onto his denotations to restrict their
>>> interpretations. In that sense he does not
>>> define them. But I do not think this is what
>>> you mean.

>> It is precisely what I mean. And I am in particular happy that there
>> are some like you who have not yet been completely perverted by the
>> study of mathematics but can understand that some topics have been
>> taught wrong.

> Ok. Yes, Peano's actual axioms are different from the
> recharacterizations according to the needs of computer systems or the
> first-order axioms.
> Thanks.

There is exactly one natural numbers structure as defined by Peano's
axioms, up to isomorphism, with second order logic. And more than "up to
isomorphism" doesn't make any sense. Mückenheim is obviously unable to
grasp this, especially the clause "up to isomorphism". I am unable to
grasp how one can take a person like Mückenheim serious in these matters.
Mückenheim's idiotic babble has nothing to do with the non-uniqueness in
first order logic, because a non-standard model of first order Penao
arithmetic is a beast totally diofferent from Mückenheim's idiotic

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.