On 2/28/2014 1:00 AM, Virgil wrote: > In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, fom <fomJUNK@nyms.net> > wrote: > >> On 2/27/2014 3:03 PM, Virgil wrote: >>> In article <email@example.com>, >>> firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: >>> >>>> My book gives the correct axioms. >>>> >>>>> For over a century now, I think Peano's axioms have been the standard, >>>> >>>> Like Cantor's nonsense. Where do they define that the difference must >>>> always >>>> be 1? >>> >>> They don't. They only requires that each member of a Peano set have a >>> unique successor member, but do not require any specific 'difference' up >>> front. >>> It is only later, after all the basic axioms are satisfied, when >>> defining addition that any "1" appears. >>> >> >> That is actually problematic. > > NOT in the Peano axioms. >
YES, IN MATHEMATICS.
You are more than welcome to bathe in the nonsense of Bertrand Russell and his solipsistic philosophies.
Hilbert actually came to recognize the problems with his formalistic interpretations of quantifiers. Russell spent his life after "Principia Mathematica" being a total ass.