
Re: An alternative Axiom of Infinity?
Posted:
Feb 4, 2014 2:19 PM


On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 2:08:29 PM UTC5, Peter Percival wrote: > Dan Christensen wrote: > > > On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 1:22:28 PM UTC5, Peter Percival wrote: > > > > > > > > I don't know why you keep going on about this, Peter. Even under the > > > original definition, you had "junk theorems" in ZF like 2 being an > > > element of 3. In this regard, you can't rescue ZF with this misplaced > > > nostalgia for long disguarded definitions. > > > > Why do you call it a junk theorem?
It has nothing to do with the common intuition of the natural numbers. Numbers aren't elements of one another. It is nothing more than an artifact of a wonky definition. You couldn't prove it from the widely accepted Peano axioms.
Dan Download my DC Proof 2.0 software at http://www.dcproof.com Visit my new math blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

