```Date: Mar 25, 2013 6:17 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 224

In article <eba0cf26-b31d-4633-9732-a76bf5cc4afe@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> On 24 Mrz., 23:04, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:> > >> > Induction can prove that something halds for each n in |N, but cannot> > prove that it holds unambiguously for all n |N.> > Induction *creates* the set of all |N, the set that contains the empty> set and with the set A it contains the next set {A}. That is> induction! And if you dislike to call it induction, then call it as> you like, say Hanching, but please understand that my proof then also> uses Hanching, namely with line n you can remove line n+1.Lets see WM put his argument in a proper the form of the inductive principle.I bet he can't!One acceptable form of induction is:There exists a set of objects, N,  and a zero object such that     1. Zero is one of the objects in N.   2. Every object in N has a successor object.   3. Zero is not the successor object of any object in N.   4. If the successors of two objects in N are the same,       then the two original objects are the same.   5. If a set contains Zero and the successor object of every       object in N, then that set contains N as a subset.--
```