Re: Defining Natural Numbers
- From: hrubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Herman Rubin)
- Date: 19 Nov 2006 16:17:14 -0500
In article <1163858378.783276.84940@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<pradyumna.achar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi all,
Given a set of symbols D = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}, can we arrive at the
set of natural numbers without the use of any axioms ?
You can give an arbitrary characterization of the strings
which represent natural numbers (essentially a Backus
normal form), but you cannot deduce any properties, nor
need these strings have the properties one customarily
associates with this representation without axioms.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Defining Natural Numbers
- From: kunzmilan
- Re: Defining Natural Numbers
- References:
- Defining Natural Numbers
- From: pradyumna . achar
- Defining Natural Numbers
- Prev by Date: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by Date: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Previous by thread: Re: Defining Natural Numbers
- Next by thread: Re: Defining Natural Numbers
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|