Hi I'm reading this great book Foundations of Analysis by Edmund Landau, a really old book that aims to build the foundations of analysis from basic arithmetic.
I'm not that strong on proofing yet but am trying, here is my problem.
Using these 5 axioms for the Natural numbers;
with the following properties
I want to prove that x' ≠ x. It's the second theorem, the first being;
If x ≠ y then x' ≠ y'
which is proved by assuming x ≠ y and x' = y'
so we find a contradiction with axiom IV above because x' = y' means x = y.
This is beautiful and understandable but in proving x' ≠ x the proof goes as follows,
By axioms I and III above,
i) 1' ≠ 1 because 1' = 1 + 1.
so 1 belongs in R.
Then it says;
ii) If x ∈ R then x' ≠ x and by theorem 1 (x')' ≠ x' so x' ∈ R
This makes no sense to me, where did it come from
I don't know why you can't use axiom II and just rearrange x' = x + 1 into x = x' - 1 to prove it