Quote:
Originally Posted by janoskiss
Stop that! It's silly.
Proof? No. Definition? Yes.
|
No. It is a proof. The definition you quote is that when you apply the successor function to 1 (1') you get 2. Using this definition and the definition of addition (also defined in the proof), what is presented is a proof.
This proof has been around for many years. I first came across it in 1977. It is a valid and accepted piece of mathematics, peer reviewed and published. It is actually a very important piece of work, providing the underpinnings of our number system. It was part of a course called the Foundations of Mathematics. It took our lecturer 3 two hour lectures to get to this proof.
Not silly at all.
Cheers
Tony Hitchcock BMath (Newcastle)