Re: Tarski finite problem

Rupert wrote:
You would need to show that my definition of "finite" is equivalent to
yours. I think this should be possible using induction.

Yes, it works! Everything you said yesterday, of course, was correct,
and I worked out the equivalence last night, and it's straightforward.

I had been stuck on this theorem for a while, and, without a proof, it
was a big gap in my train of theorems. But using your definition of
'finite ordinal' and the induction schema makes the proof easy and thus
the gap has been bridged.

Thanks, Rupert!

MoeBlee

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Rigorous proof of natural numbers properties (by Edmund Landau).
    ... >> an extremely careful writer to begin with). ... >error in the proof of the existence of an addition function. ... it's correct except for a gap. ... induction, _assuming_ that the set p_n exists. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Any alternatives for conventional gasoline?
    ... That's the reason proposed inductively-powered vehicles have, ... And you'd realize too that the gap in an induction vehicle can be ... the theory and the engineering knowledge necessary ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Infinite field
    ... Rupert wrote: ... only finitely many zeros. ... induction argument. ... I hope these hints help. ...
    (sci.math)
Quantcast