Timeline for Strict ordering on natural numbers
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 27, 2010 at 15:33 | comment | added | Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine | Oh — OK, I realise I was forgetting that Jech/Hrbacek actually define the order in terms of the specific ordering, so appeals to eg ordinality are unavoidable! | |
| Sep 27, 2010 at 15:30 | comment | added | Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine | I feel this answer is somewhat unsatisfying, since it appeals to the specific implementation of numbers as ordinals, whereas the numbers could just have well been implemented in many other ways; the only crucial thing is induction. I'll address this in a separate answer... | |
| Sep 27, 2010 at 12:37 | history | edited | Bugs Bunny | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 89 characters in body
|
| Sep 27, 2010 at 12:34 | comment | added | Bugs Bunny | You don't need addition, just the order. But I see a shortcut that will do it without the order. Bear with me, doc. | |
| Sep 27, 2010 at 11:11 | comment | added | user9543 | At this point of the book addition is not yet defined, so I can't show that $x+y\not\in x$. | |
| Sep 27, 2010 at 10:33 | history | answered | Bugs Bunny | CC BY-SA 2.5 |