How Can Whole Numbers Be Defined Without Addition?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MendelCyprys
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition Numbers
MendelCyprys
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I'm not a mathematician of any sort so excuse me if my question is stupid.
I just realized that I could not define the set of whole numbers without referring back to them or to the operation of addition, which then itself can't be defined.
How would you define whole numbers?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is not a stupid question, its actually very deep and mathematicians pondered it for quite some time.

Wikipedia has an article on natural numbers that may help. About half way into the article is the formal (mathematical) definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_number
 
There's an easy way to recursively define them in terms of the sets of nested sets with only null sets or sets containing null sets.

Note that, if you have the first number and a way to get the next number given an arbitrary number, then you can construct the whole numbers. The function that takes a number and maps to its successor is called the successor function, S.

Let 0 = {}.
And let S(n)={n, {n}}.

So 1=S(0)={0, {0}} = {{},{{}}}.
2=S(1)={{{},{{}}},{{{},{{}}}}}.

It get's complex quick, so I won't do 3. You get the idea.
 
TylerH said:
There's an easy way to recursively define them in terms of the sets of nested sets with only null sets or sets containing null sets.

Note that, if you have the first number and a way to get the next number given an arbitrary number, then you can construct the whole numbers. The function that takes a number and maps to its successor is called the successor function, S.

Let 0 = {}.
And let S(n)={n, {n}}.

So 1=S(0)={0, {0}} = {{},{{}}}.
2=S(1)={{{},{{}}},{{{},{{}}}}}.

It get's complex quick, so I won't do 3. You get the idea.

Yes, more info on this approach from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms

Look for the set-theoretic models. The idea is to construct a collection of sets based on the empty and sets containing the empty set. The sets are constructed using a successor operation and have a correspondence with the whole numbers.
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top