MHB Question about Successor Function

  • Thread starter Thread starter agapito
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function
agapito
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
One of the Peano Axioms specifies

Sa = Sb --> a = b

where S is the successor function. How does one establish from the axioms that S is, in fact, a function, that is the converse

a = b --> Sa = Sb?

Probably a very simple matter, but I would appreciate any help in clarifying. Many thanks in advance,

Agapito
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That should be part of the definition! If we say, as part of, say, the Peano axioms, "there exist a successor function" then we are saying this is a function. The Wikipedia entry on the Peano axioms say ". The naturals are assumed to be closed under a single-valued "successor" function S." (my emphasis)
 
Peano Arithmetic is by definition a theory with equality. One of the equality axioms is $x=y\to f(x)=f(y)$ for all functional symbols of arity 1, and similarly for other arities.
 
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Back
Top