Peano's successor functionConstruction of natural numbers in ZF/ZFC without class predicates.Is it possible to develop Analysis solely from Peano's axiomsWhat's the need for the axiom of regularity in ZF?Description of the Universe $V$Is it circular to define the Von Neumann universe using “sets”?Simple addition definition in ZFCWhat IS the successor function without saying $S(n) = n + 1$?Is Von Neumann's function application operation defined for all functions and all arguments?A combinator-ish way to construct a set $mathbb N_0$How do Peano's arithmetical axioms guarantee that we can construct the natural number set?
Having to constantly redo everything because I don't know how to do it?
Is it okay to fade a human face just to create some space to place important content over it?
When casting a spell with a long casting time, what happens if you don't spend your action on a turn to continue casting?
Why do movie directors use brown tint on Mexico cities?
Why doesn't SpaceX land boosters in Africa?
Quantum jump/leap, exist or not, and instantaneous or not (for electrons)?
My colleague is constantly blaming me for his errors
Checkmate in 1 on a Tangled Board
What was the point of separating stdout and stderr?
How far can gerrymandering go?
Discworld quote about an "old couple" who having said everything to each other, can finally go about living their lives
How to describe POV characters?
Ways to get SMD resistors from a strip
Why isn't UDP with reliability (implemented at Application layer) a substitute of TCP?
Two palindromes are not enough
Compiling all Exception messages into a string
The Lucas argument vs the theorem-provers--who wins and why?
Bin Packing with Relational Penalization
How can I know if a PDF file was created via LaTeX or XeLaTeX?
How can I open this door latch with the knobs removed?
List manipulation: conditional result based on variable-length sublists
あまり気持ちのいいものではない in this context
Why would anyone even use a Portkey?
Subset of knight's move in chess.
Peano's successor function
Construction of natural numbers in ZF/ZFC without class predicates.Is it possible to develop Analysis solely from Peano's axiomsWhat's the need for the axiom of regularity in ZF?Description of the Universe $V$Is it circular to define the Von Neumann universe using “sets”?Simple addition definition in ZFCWhat IS the successor function without saying $S(n) = n + 1$?Is Von Neumann's function application operation defined for all functions and all arguments?A combinator-ish way to construct a set $mathbb N_0$How do Peano's arithmetical axioms guarantee that we can construct the natural number set?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
I have been trying to get my head round ZF set theory and Peano's axioms, but I have hit some confusion over Peano's definition of the successor function, or more accurately von Neumann's model.
Why did von Neumann use $S(x) := x bigcup x $ and not just plain old $S(x) := x $? The latter seems a lot more simple and easy to work with, so am I missing some major advantage of the former, or is my function incompatible in some way?
Edit: is the only advantage just that the cardinality of the set is equal to the value it represents?
set-theory natural-numbers peano-axioms
asked 8 hours ago
Cyclic3Cyclic3
1236 bronze badges
New contributor
Cyclic3 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have been trying to get my head round ZF set theory and Peano's axioms, but I have hit some confusion over Peano's definition of the successor function, or more accurately von Neumann's model.
Why did von Neumann use $S(x) := x bigcup x $ and not just plain old $S(x) := x $? The latter seems a lot more simple and easy to work with, so am I missing some major advantage of the former, or is my function incompatible in some way?
Edit: is the only advantage just that the cardinality of the set is equal to the value it represents?
set-theory natural-numbers peano-axioms
asked 8 hours ago
Cyclic3Cyclic3
1236 bronze badges
New contributor
Cyclic3 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
We'd like that the cardinality of set $n$ will be the natural number $n$, via bijections, and also that sets will be transitive. Your idea doesn't do that.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
When you say the "only" advantage, you perhaps minimise the convenience of the advantage you have. Often in mathematics there are inferior definitions which require more work - why not choose the easiest and most natural? Sometimes the easies definition is hard won (read the history of the ideas) and the simplicity of the idea belies the effort behind it. When I read GH Hardy or other masters, for example, I want to do better, but discover by personal sweat how efficient their exposition is.
$endgroup$
– Mark Bennet
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MarkBennet I suppose. I am coming to understand that a concise way of accessing the properties and "values" of these sets is a critical part of interacting with these systems, and not just a nice thing to have.
$endgroup$
– Cyclic3
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have been trying to get my head round ZF set theory and Peano's axioms, but I have hit some confusion over Peano's definition of the successor function, or more accurately von Neumann's model.
Why did von Neumann use $S(x) := x bigcup x $ and not just plain old $S(x) := x $? The latter seems a lot more simple and easy to work with, so am I missing some major advantage of the former, or is my function incompatible in some way?
Edit: is the only advantage just that the cardinality of the set is equal to the value it represents?
set-theory natural-numbers peano-axioms
asked 8 hours ago
Cyclic3Cyclic3
1236 bronze badges
New contributor
Cyclic3 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
I have been trying to get my head round ZF set theory and Peano's axioms, but I have hit some confusion over Peano's definition of the successor function, or more accurately von Neumann's model.
Why did von Neumann use $S(x) := x bigcup x $ and not just plain old $S(x) := x $? The latter seems a lot more simple and easy to work with, so am I missing some major advantage of the former, or is my function incompatible in some way?
Edit: is the only advantage just that the cardinality of the set is equal to the value it represents?
set-theory natural-numbers peano-axioms
set-theory natural-numbers peano-axioms
asked 8 hours ago
Cyclic3Cyclic3
1236 bronze badges
New contributor
Cyclic3 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 8 hours ago
Cyclic3Cyclic3
1236 bronze badges
New contributor
Cyclic3 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 8 hours ago
Cyclic3
asked 8 hours ago
Cyclic3Cyclic3
1236 bronze badges
New contributor
Cyclic3 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 8 hours ago
Cyclic3Cyclic3
1236 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
Cyclic3Cyclic3
1236 bronze badges
1236 bronze badges
New contributor
Cyclic3 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Cyclic3 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
$begingroup$
We'd like that the cardinality of set $n$ will be the natural number $n$, via bijections, and also that sets will be transitive. Your idea doesn't do that.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
When you say the "only" advantage, you perhaps minimise the convenience of the advantage you have. Often in mathematics there are inferior definitions which require more work - why not choose the easiest and most natural? Sometimes the easies definition is hard won (read the history of the ideas) and the simplicity of the idea belies the effort behind it. When I read GH Hardy or other masters, for example, I want to do better, but discover by personal sweat how efficient their exposition is.
$endgroup$
– Mark Bennet
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MarkBennet I suppose. I am coming to understand that a concise way of accessing the properties and "values" of these sets is a critical part of interacting with these systems, and not just a nice thing to have.
$endgroup$
– Cyclic3
7 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
We'd like that the cardinality of set $n$ will be the natural number $n$, via bijections, and also that sets will be transitive. Your idea doesn't do that.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
When you say the "only" advantage, you perhaps minimise the convenience of the advantage you have. Often in mathematics there are inferior definitions which require more work - why not choose the easiest and most natural? Sometimes the easies definition is hard won (read the history of the ideas) and the simplicity of the idea belies the effort behind it. When I read GH Hardy or other masters, for example, I want to do better, but discover by personal sweat how efficient their exposition is.
$endgroup$
– Mark Bennet
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MarkBennet I suppose. I am coming to understand that a concise way of accessing the properties and "values" of these sets is a critical part of interacting with these systems, and not just a nice thing to have.
$endgroup$
– Cyclic3
7 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
We'd like that the cardinality of set $n$ will be the natural number $n$, via bijections, and also that sets will be transitive. Your idea doesn't do that.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
We'd like that the cardinality of set $n$ will be the natural number $n$, via bijections, and also that sets will be transitive. Your idea doesn't do that.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
When you say the "only" advantage, you perhaps minimise the convenience of the advantage you have. Often in mathematics there are inferior definitions which require more work - why not choose the easiest and most natural? Sometimes the easies definition is hard won (read the history of the ideas) and the simplicity of the idea belies the effort behind it. When I read GH Hardy or other masters, for example, I want to do better, but discover by personal sweat how efficient their exposition is.
$endgroup$
– Mark Bennet
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
When you say the "only" advantage, you perhaps minimise the convenience of the advantage you have. Often in mathematics there are inferior definitions which require more work - why not choose the easiest and most natural? Sometimes the easies definition is hard won (read the history of the ideas) and the simplicity of the idea belies the effort behind it. When I read GH Hardy or other masters, for example, I want to do better, but discover by personal sweat how efficient their exposition is.
$endgroup$
– Mark Bennet
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MarkBennet I suppose. I am coming to understand that a concise way of accessing the properties and "values" of these sets is a critical part of interacting with these systems, and not just a nice thing to have.
$endgroup$
– Cyclic3
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MarkBennet I suppose. I am coming to understand that a concise way of accessing the properties and "values" of these sets is a critical part of interacting with these systems, and not just a nice thing to have.
$endgroup$
– Cyclic3
7 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It is harder to work with. For example, we can "check" whether an arbitrary set $x$ is a von Neumann natural:
$x$ is finite and transitive and well-ordered by $in$.
where finite can be formalized as, e.g., "every injective map $xto x$ is onto" and transitive is defined as "every element is also a subset".
Try to find a similar characterization for the alternative (without using "$ldots$" anywhere).
Or try to find a simple way to express the order relation between natural numbers in a simple way for the sets representing the numbers (for von Neumann we have $x<y$ iff $xin y$ iff $x subsetneq y$).
edited 8 hours ago
Henno Brandsma
123k3 gold badges52 silver badges134 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
Hagen von EitzenHagen von Eitzen
291k23 gold badges279 silver badges513 bronze badges
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Another huge convenience is that von Neumann's definition easily extends to define the whole class of ordinal numbers -- the other definition can't possibly do that.
$endgroup$
– Bob Krueger
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Ah, that makes a lot of sense! Formalising the comparison in that way is very elegant.
$endgroup$
– Cyclic3
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The most immediately obvious benefit of the Von Neumann representation is that the set that represents the number $n$ has exactly $n$ elements. This makes it technically easy to use the representation to reason about counting.
It also provides a connection to a "naive" definition of numbers where, for example, the number two is regarded as "the property that a set may have that it has one more than one element", and represented by the set of all sets that have exactly two elements. Unfortunately such a set can't actually exist in standard set theory, but the Von Neumann definition points to a particular representative of this class that we can use to represent it instead.
A more advanced -- but technically quite important -- benefit of the Von Neumann naturals is that they generalize directly to a representation of transfinite ordinal numbers. Representing finite numbers as towers of singletons has no natural continuation beyond the finite ones, but the Von Neymann representation does.
answered 8 hours ago
Henning MakholmHenning Makholm
250k17 gold badges329 silver badges570 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Cyclic3 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3276516%2fpeanos-successor-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It is harder to work with. For example, we can "check" whether an arbitrary set $x$ is a von Neumann natural:
$x$ is finite and transitive and well-ordered by $in$.
where finite can be formalized as, e.g., "every injective map $xto x$ is onto" and transitive is defined as "every element is also a subset".
Try to find a similar characterization for the alternative (without using "$ldots$" anywhere).
Or try to find a simple way to express the order relation between natural numbers in a simple way for the sets representing the numbers (for von Neumann we have $x<y$ iff $xin y$ iff $x subsetneq y$).
edited 8 hours ago
Henno Brandsma
123k3 gold badges52 silver badges134 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
Hagen von EitzenHagen von Eitzen
291k23 gold badges279 silver badges513 bronze badges
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Another huge convenience is that von Neumann's definition easily extends to define the whole class of ordinal numbers -- the other definition can't possibly do that.
$endgroup$
– Bob Krueger
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Ah, that makes a lot of sense! Formalising the comparison in that way is very elegant.
$endgroup$
– Cyclic3
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is harder to work with. For example, we can "check" whether an arbitrary set $x$ is a von Neumann natural:
$x$ is finite and transitive and well-ordered by $in$.
where finite can be formalized as, e.g., "every injective map $xto x$ is onto" and transitive is defined as "every element is also a subset".
Try to find a similar characterization for the alternative (without using "$ldots$" anywhere).
Or try to find a simple way to express the order relation between natural numbers in a simple way for the sets representing the numbers (for von Neumann we have $x<y$ iff $xin y$ iff $x subsetneq y$).
edited 8 hours ago
Henno Brandsma
123k3 gold badges52 silver badges134 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
Hagen von EitzenHagen von Eitzen
291k23 gold badges279 silver badges513 bronze badges
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Another huge convenience is that von Neumann's definition easily extends to define the whole class of ordinal numbers -- the other definition can't possibly do that.
$endgroup$
– Bob Krueger
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Ah, that makes a lot of sense! Formalising the comparison in that way is very elegant.
$endgroup$
– Cyclic3
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is harder to work with. For example, we can "check" whether an arbitrary set $x$ is a von Neumann natural:
$x$ is finite and transitive and well-ordered by $in$.
where finite can be formalized as, e.g., "every injective map $xto x$ is onto" and transitive is defined as "every element is also a subset".
Try to find a similar characterization for the alternative (without using "$ldots$" anywhere).
Or try to find a simple way to express the order relation between natural numbers in a simple way for the sets representing the numbers (for von Neumann we have $x<y$ iff $xin y$ iff $x subsetneq y$).
edited 8 hours ago
Henno Brandsma
123k3 gold badges52 silver badges134 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
Hagen von EitzenHagen von Eitzen
291k23 gold badges279 silver badges513 bronze badges
$endgroup$
It is harder to work with. For example, we can "check" whether an arbitrary set $x$ is a von Neumann natural:
$x$ is finite and transitive and well-ordered by $in$.
where finite can be formalized as, e.g., "every injective map $xto x$ is onto" and transitive is defined as "every element is also a subset".
Try to find a similar characterization for the alternative (without using "$ldots$" anywhere).
Or try to find a simple way to express the order relation between natural numbers in a simple way for the sets representing the numbers (for von Neumann we have $x<y$ iff $xin y$ iff $x subsetneq y$).
edited 8 hours ago
Henno Brandsma
123k3 gold badges52 silver badges134 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
Hagen von EitzenHagen von Eitzen
291k23 gold badges279 silver badges513 bronze badges
edited 8 hours ago
Henno Brandsma
123k3 gold badges52 silver badges134 bronze badges
edited 8 hours ago
Henno Brandsma
123k3 gold badges52 silver badges134 bronze badges
edited 8 hours ago
Henno Brandsma
123k3 gold badges52 silver badges134 bronze badges
123k3 gold badges52 silver badges134 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
Hagen von EitzenHagen von Eitzen
291k23 gold badges279 silver badges513 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
Hagen von EitzenHagen von Eitzen
291k23 gold badges279 silver badges513 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
Hagen von EitzenHagen von Eitzen
291k23 gold badges279 silver badges513 bronze badges
291k23 gold badges279 silver badges513 bronze badges
1
$begingroup$
Another huge convenience is that von Neumann's definition easily extends to define the whole class of ordinal numbers -- the other definition can't possibly do that.
$endgroup$
– Bob Krueger
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Ah, that makes a lot of sense! Formalising the comparison in that way is very elegant.
$endgroup$
– Cyclic3
8 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Another huge convenience is that von Neumann's definition easily extends to define the whole class of ordinal numbers -- the other definition can't possibly do that.
$endgroup$
– Bob Krueger
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Ah, that makes a lot of sense! Formalising the comparison in that way is very elegant.
$endgroup$
– Cyclic3
8 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Another huge convenience is that von Neumann's definition easily extends to define the whole class of ordinal numbers -- the other definition can't possibly do that.
$endgroup$
– Bob Krueger
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Another huge convenience is that von Neumann's definition easily extends to define the whole class of ordinal numbers -- the other definition can't possibly do that.
$endgroup$
– Bob Krueger
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Ah, that makes a lot of sense! Formalising the comparison in that way is very elegant.
$endgroup$
– Cyclic3
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Ah, that makes a lot of sense! Formalising the comparison in that way is very elegant.
$endgroup$
– Cyclic3
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The most immediately obvious benefit of the Von Neumann representation is that the set that represents the number $n$ has exactly $n$ elements. This makes it technically easy to use the representation to reason about counting.
It also provides a connection to a "naive" definition of numbers where, for example, the number two is regarded as "the property that a set may have that it has one more than one element", and represented by the set of all sets that have exactly two elements. Unfortunately such a set can't actually exist in standard set theory, but the Von Neumann definition points to a particular representative of this class that we can use to represent it instead.
A more advanced -- but technically quite important -- benefit of the Von Neumann naturals is that they generalize directly to a representation of transfinite ordinal numbers. Representing finite numbers as towers of singletons has no natural continuation beyond the finite ones, but the Von Neymann representation does.
answered 8 hours ago
Henning MakholmHenning Makholm
250k17 gold badges329 silver badges570 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The most immediately obvious benefit of the Von Neumann representation is that the set that represents the number $n$ has exactly $n$ elements. This makes it technically easy to use the representation to reason about counting.
It also provides a connection to a "naive" definition of numbers where, for example, the number two is regarded as "the property that a set may have that it has one more than one element", and represented by the set of all sets that have exactly two elements. Unfortunately such a set can't actually exist in standard set theory, but the Von Neumann definition points to a particular representative of this class that we can use to represent it instead.
A more advanced -- but technically quite important -- benefit of the Von Neumann naturals is that they generalize directly to a representation of transfinite ordinal numbers. Representing finite numbers as towers of singletons has no natural continuation beyond the finite ones, but the Von Neymann representation does.
answered 8 hours ago
Henning MakholmHenning Makholm
250k17 gold badges329 silver badges570 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The most immediately obvious benefit of the Von Neumann representation is that the set that represents the number $n$ has exactly $n$ elements. This makes it technically easy to use the representation to reason about counting.
It also provides a connection to a "naive" definition of numbers where, for example, the number two is regarded as "the property that a set may have that it has one more than one element", and represented by the set of all sets that have exactly two elements. Unfortunately such a set can't actually exist in standard set theory, but the Von Neumann definition points to a particular representative of this class that we can use to represent it instead.
A more advanced -- but technically quite important -- benefit of the Von Neumann naturals is that they generalize directly to a representation of transfinite ordinal numbers. Representing finite numbers as towers of singletons has no natural continuation beyond the finite ones, but the Von Neymann representation does.
answered 8 hours ago
Henning MakholmHenning Makholm
250k17 gold badges329 silver badges570 bronze badges
$endgroup$
The most immediately obvious benefit of the Von Neumann representation is that the set that represents the number $n$ has exactly $n$ elements. This makes it technically easy to use the representation to reason about counting.
It also provides a connection to a "naive" definition of numbers where, for example, the number two is regarded as "the property that a set may have that it has one more than one element", and represented by the set of all sets that have exactly two elements. Unfortunately such a set can't actually exist in standard set theory, but the Von Neumann definition points to a particular representative of this class that we can use to represent it instead.
A more advanced -- but technically quite important -- benefit of the Von Neumann naturals is that they generalize directly to a representation of transfinite ordinal numbers. Representing finite numbers as towers of singletons has no natural continuation beyond the finite ones, but the Von Neymann representation does.
answered 8 hours ago
Henning MakholmHenning Makholm
250k17 gold badges329 silver badges570 bronze badges
edited 8 hours ago
answered 8 hours ago
Henning MakholmHenning Makholm
250k17 gold badges329 silver badges570 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
Henning MakholmHenning Makholm
250k17 gold badges329 silver badges570 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
Henning MakholmHenning Makholm
250k17 gold badges329 silver badges570 bronze badges
250k17 gold badges329 silver badges570 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
Cyclic3 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Cyclic3 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Cyclic3 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Cyclic3 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3276516%2fpeanos-successor-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
We'd like that the cardinality of set $n$ will be the natural number $n$, via bijections, and also that sets will be transitive. Your idea doesn't do that.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
When you say the "only" advantage, you perhaps minimise the convenience of the advantage you have. Often in mathematics there are inferior definitions which require more work - why not choose the easiest and most natural? Sometimes the easies definition is hard won (read the history of the ideas) and the simplicity of the idea belies the effort behind it. When I read GH Hardy or other masters, for example, I want to do better, but discover by personal sweat how efficient their exposition is.
$endgroup$
– Mark Bennet
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MarkBennet I suppose. I am coming to understand that a concise way of accessing the properties and "values" of these sets is a critical part of interacting with these systems, and not just a nice thing to have.
$endgroup$
– Cyclic3
7 hours ago