Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 19 of 19
Like Tree5Thanks

Math Help - From a structure, define 0, 1 and the successor relation

  1. #16
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    15,697
    Thanks
    1469

    Re: From a structure, define 0, 1 and the successor relation

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhai View Post
    Thanks for the replies so far
    But "There is no number less than 0" means that there are numbers that are more than 0...
    No, it doesn't. Is this a language difficulty? For example, I could say about the set {0} that "there is no number in the set less than 0". That does NOT mean that there are numbers in the set that are more than 0.

    and that wont exactly define 0...
    However, in this case there are, of course, numbers larger than 0. But you seem to think that "there is no number less than 0" means only that "there are numbers that are more than 0" and it does not.

    And since the structure only contains natural numbers, then I dont think we needed
    to worry about numbers less than 0.
    But I was thinking about something like this though in First Order: "There is one and only x less than every y"
    Then x has to be 0 because its less than every number. Could this be it? Or can someone think of something better?
    The problem with that is that you would first have to define "less than every y". You can do that, of course, but are you still in First Order logic?
    Thanks from Zhai
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #17
    Newbie
    Joined
    May 2012
    From
    Europe
    Posts
    15

    Re: From a structure, define 0, 1 and the successor relation

    Quote Originally Posted by HallsofIvy View Post
    No, it doesn't. Is this a language difficulty? For example, I could say about the set {0} that "there is no number in the set less than 0". That does NOT mean that there are numbers in the set that are more than 0.



    However, in this case there are, of course, numbers larger than 0. But you seem to think that "there is no number less than 0" means only that "there are numbers that are more than 0" and it does not.


    The problem with that is that you would first have to define "less than every y". You can do that, of course, but are you still in First Order logic?
    Not language difficulty, but perhaps me not thinking about it as sets.
    But its so obvious when you spell it out that way. I should have thought of that.

    I dont think I want to go further than First Order if that is what you are thinking.
    I was thinking "less than every natural numbers y".
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #18
    Newbie
    Joined
    May 2012
    From
    Europe
    Posts
    15

    Re: From a structure, define 0, 1 and the successor relation

    As for the last problem: Defining the relation "y is the sucessor of x"
    Obviously x < y.
    Then I want to say something like this " (x < y) and (y = x +1) "
    This way of thinking would work I think...
    But I cant use + and 1 since it's not in the language...
    So how to formalize it so that y immediately follows x (x immediately comes before y)
    without the use of + and 1?

    EDIT:
    I think I might have a possible solution:
    If I say "For all z ( (x < y) and (if x < z then z ≤ y) )" would that work?
    This is just an idea I came up with though.
    Last edited by Zhai; May 8th 2012 at 12:44 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #19
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,536
    Thanks
    778

    Re: From a structure, define 0, 1 and the successor relation

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhai View Post
    So how to formalize it so that y immediately follows x (x immediately comes before y)
    without the use of + and 1?
    Have you read post #4 in this thread?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Replies: 11
    Last Post: December 5th 2011, 07:30 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 13th 2010, 07:27 AM
  3. Define a relation
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: April 27th 2010, 08:17 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 13th 2010, 12:13 PM
  5. define a relation...
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: December 3rd 2008, 11:21 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum