• bleistift2@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    23 hours ago

    I find this axiomatization of the naturals quite neat:

    1. Zero is a natural number. 0∈ℕ
    2. For every natural number there exists a succeeding natural number. ∀n∈ℕ: s(n)∈ℕ (s denotes the successor function)

    Now the neat part: If 0 is a constant, then s(0) is also a constant. So we can invent a name for that constant and call it “1.” Now s(s(0)) is a constant, too. Call it “2” and proceed to invent the natural numbers.

    • unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      What’s missing here os the definition that we’re working in base 10. While it won’t be a proof, Fibbonaci has his nice little Liber Abbaci where he explains arabic numerals. A system of axioms for base 10, a definition of addition and your succession function would suffice. Probably what the originals were going for, but I can’t imagine how that would take 86 pages. Reading it’s been on my todo list, but I doubt I’ll manage 86 pages of modern math designed to be harder to read than egyptian hieroglyphs.

    • anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 hours ago

      That axiomisation is incomplete as it doesn’t preclude stuff like loops, a predecessor to zero or a second number line.

      • Eq0@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 hours ago

        I think you are missing some properties of successors (uniqueness and s(n) different than any m<= n)

        That would avoid “branching” of two different successors to n and loops in which a successor is a smaller number than n

      • Kogasa@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        13 hours ago

        There are non-standard models of arithmetic. They follow the original first-order Peano axioms and any theorem about the naturals is true for them, but they have some wacky extra stuff in them like you mention.

      • TeddE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Not sure what you mean by ‘loops’ - except perhaps modular arithmetic, but there are no natural numbers that are negative - you may be thinking of integers, which is constructed from the natural numbers. Similarly, rational numbers, real numbers, and complex numbers are also constructed from the naturals. Complex numbers are often expressed as though they’re two dimensional, since the imaginary part cannot be properly reduced, e.g. 3+2i.

        I recommend this playlist by mathematician another roof: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsdeQ7TnWVm_EQG1rmb34ZBYe5ohrkL3t

        They build the whole modern number system ‘from scratch’

        • anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 hours ago

          I know how how natural numbers work, but the axioms in the comment i replied to are not enough to define them.

          Not sure what you mean by ‘loops’

          There could be a number n such that m=s(n) and n=s(m). This would be precluded by taking the axiom of induction or the trichotomy axiom.

          If we only take the latter we can still make a second number line, that runs “parallel” to the “propper number line” like:

          n,s(n),s(s(n)),s(s(s(n))),...
          0,s(0),s(s(0)),s(s(s(0))),...
          

          there are no natural numbers that are negative

          I know, but the given axioms don’t preclude it. Under the peano axioms it’s explicitly spelled out:
          0 is not the successor of any natural number