Virgil wrote: > In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > Peter Percival <email@example.com> wrote: > >> Virgil wrote: >>> In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, >>> email@example.com wrote: >>> >>>> But he claimes that the Peano-axioms supply the natural numbers of formal >>>> mathematics. So the natural numbers of formal mathematics are: >>>> 1, -10, 100, -1000, ... >>> >>> Only in wierd places like WM's wild weird world of WMytheology. >>> Elsewhere, the successor operation is denoted by adding one. >> >> I don't think that is correct. > > > In abstract induction it need not be, but in the standard set of > naturals, which is what WM is arguing about, it most assuredly is.
But what are the naturals defined to be? If it's "things satisfying Peano's axioms" then 1, -10, 100, -1000, ... (with the appropriate S) do the job.
-- Madam Life's a piece in bloom, Death goes dogging everywhere: She's the tenant of the room, He's the ruffian on the stair.