Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


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

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 ]
Jim Burns

Posts: 1,087
Registered: 12/6/04
Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Posted: Sep 1, 2013 12:27 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

There was some discussion recently of various subsets of
"the language of arithmetic" (scare quotes because I'm not
very familiar with all this). This question is part of
that one, I suppose, except that I am not interested in
whether the definitions are Nam-positive or Nam-negative.

If I say that I have a set with a semi-infinite,
discrete, linear order, (N, <), is that enough to
define the naturals?

Specifically, if I say

Ax Ay Az
(x<y)&(y<z) -> (x<z)

Ax Ay
( (x<y) -> (~ x=y)&(~ y<x) ) &
( (x=y) -> (~ x<y)&(~ y<x) ) &
( (y<x) -> (~ x<y)&(~ x=y) )

Ax Ay ( x < y ) ->
( Ez( ( x < z =< y ) & ~Ew( x < w < z ) ) )

Ax Ay ( x < y ) ->
( Ez( ( x =< z < y ) & ~Ew( z < w < y ) ) )

Ex Ay ( x =< y )

~Ex Ay ( y =< x )

(where there is no important difference between having
a lower bound and no upper bound or vice versa),
then it looks like I can define 0 and S and prove their
necessary properties -- except possibly for induction.

x = 0 <-> Ay ( x =< y )

Sx = y <-> (x<y) & ~Ez( x < z < y )

E!x ( x = 0 )

Ax E!y ( Sx = y )

~Ex ( Sx = 0 )

Ax Ay ( Sx = Sy ) -> ( x = y )

I suspect that this is well-known among those who
know it well.

Is this right?

Is there a better way of putting it?

Is this enough to make induction available?
If not, what would I need to add in order to be able to
support induction as well?




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]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.