How Can Whole Numbers Be Defined Without Addition?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter MendelCyprys
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition Numbers
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the challenge of defining whole numbers without relying on the concept of addition or circular references. Participants explore various approaches to this foundational question in mathematics, touching on theoretical definitions and recursive constructions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses uncertainty about defining whole numbers without referring to addition, suggesting the question may be complex.
  • Another participant acknowledges the depth of the question and points to Wikipedia for a formal definition of natural numbers.
  • A participant proposes a recursive definition using nested sets, introducing the concept of the successor function to construct whole numbers starting from the empty set.
  • The same participant elaborates on the recursive definition, explaining how to represent whole numbers through sets and their successors, while noting the complexity of the construction.
  • A reference to the Peano axioms is made, suggesting that set-theoretic models can provide a framework for understanding whole numbers through the successor operation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on a single definition of whole numbers, and multiple approaches are presented, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the limitations of definitions that rely on established operations like addition, as well as the complexity involved in recursive definitions using set theory.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K