On Friday, February 28, 2014 5:24:57 PM UTC+2, fom wrote: > On 2/28/2014 8:34 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: > > > The Peano axioms were meant to provide a rigorous foundation for the natural numbers (0, 1, 2, 3,...) used in arithmetic, number theory, and set theory. > > > > > > Only thing is that the natural numbers already had a rigorous foundation - from Euclid's Elements. In fact, the rational numbers were rigorously in place from Euclid's Elements. The 5 step derivation I provided of rational numbers is how Euclid did it. There really was no need for monkey Peano to formulate his juvenile "axioms". You don't provide rigour by using all the properties and construction of the object whose foundation you are attempting to solidify. > > > > > > The Natural numbers as well as the Rational numbers have a very rigorous foundation in Euclid's Elements. Peano was an idiot (like most of you here) who did not understand the difference between magnitude or number. > > > > > > A magnitude is NOT a number. Euclid defined magnitudes in Book 5 and numbers in Book 7. Book 7 contains the construction of both natural and rational numbers. > > > > > > Go back now and read my 5-step construction of rational numbers. > > > > > > > Why don't you first learn another language > > and see if that helps you to understand > > the axiom in Euclid that you ignored?
You don't speak as many languages as I do. And I don't see what that has to do with mathematics. If you can just learn to write English properly, I think that will be sufficient for you.
I don't know of any axiom of Euclid's that I ignored.
> As for "... how Euclid did it..." you have > once again misrepresented fact.
Yawn. That's just another assertion. We are used to those coming from you.