Re: Bijections (was OM = SIGMA1)

From: Quentin Anciaux <>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:30:19 +0100

Le Friday 16 November 2007 09:33:38 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
> Quentin Anciaux skrev:
> Hi,
> Le Thursday 15 November 2007 14:45:24 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
> What do you mean by "each" in the sentence "for each natural number"? 
> How do you define ALL natural numbers?
> There is a natural number 0.
> Every natural number a has a natural number successor, denoted by S(a).
> What do you mean by "Every" here?  Can you give a *non-circular*
> definition of this word?  Such that: "By every natural number I mean
> {1,2,3}" or "By every naturla number I mean every number between 1 and
> 1000000".  (This last definition is non-circular because here you can
> replace "every number" by explicit counting.)

I do not see circularity here... every means every, it means all natural
numbers possess this properties ie (having a successor), that means by
induction that N does contains an infinite number of elements, if it wasn't
the case that would mean that there exists a natural number which doesn't
have a successor... well as we have put explicitly the successor rule to
defined N I can't see how to change that without changing the axioms.

> How do you prove that each x in N has a corresponding number 2*x in E?
> If m is the biggest number in N,
> By definition there exists no biggest number unless you add an axiom saying
> there is one but the newly defined set is not N.
> I can prove by induction that there exists a biggest number:
> A) In the set {m} with one element, there exists a biggest number, this is
> the number m. B) If you have a set M of numbers, and that set have a
> biggest number m, and you add a number m2 to this set, then this new set M2
> will have a biggest number, either m if m is bigger than m2, or m2 if m2 is
> bigger than m. C) The induction axiom then says that every set of numbers
> have a biggest number.
> Q.E.D.
> --
> Torgny Tholerus

Hmm I don't understand... This could only work on finite set of elements. I
don't see this as a proof that N is finite (because it *can't* be by

Quentin Anciaux

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Fri Nov 16 2007 - 04:30:46 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:14 PST