Re: Peano's second axiom.
- From: LauLuna <laureanoluna@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 03:39:12 -0700
On Jun 30, 4:36 am, Zaljo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jun 29, 6:43 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 29, 5:16 pm, Zaljo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Ax( x is a number -> Ey( y=S(x) ) ).
Second point: Even with theory with a predicate 'is a number', what
you want to say is as simple as:
An(n is a number -> Sn is a number)
We don't need
Ey y = Sn
since it is already a theorem of first order identity theory.
Yes, actually that's what I wanted to know. But how do you prove this
theorem?
Easy:
1. Sn = Sn
2. Ey y = Sn by EI in 1.
Are you sure this is what you wanted to know?
Regards
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Peano's second axiom.
- From: Zaljohar
- Re: Peano's second axiom.
- From: Zaljohar
- Re: Peano's second axiom.
- References:
- Peano's second axiom.
- From: Zaljohar
- Re: Peano's second axiom.
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Peano's second axiom.
- From: Zaljohar
- Peano's second axiom.
- Prev by Date: Re: Peano's second axiom.
- Next by Date: Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
- Previous by thread: Re: Peano's second axiom.
- Next by thread: Re: Peano's second axiom.
- Index(es):