
Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Posted:
Sep 1, 2013 1:21 PM


In message <52236CD3.1030800@osu.edu>, Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> writes >If I say that I have a set with a semiinfinite, >discrete, linear order, (N, <), is that enough to >define the naturals?
I'm afraid not. Thee are many other orderings satisfying your axioms. E.g. N + Z  i.e. a copy of N followed by a copy of Z.
 David Hartley

