Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Whole prime number

  1. Nov 14, 2007 #226
    building

    How do you make parts of the two systems synonymous? Lets say you were going to build both systems from the ground up: A and B. Build it "modularly" as in: "build piece by piece". Start with the common pieces. How far can you get before you loose commonality?
     
  2. Nov 15, 2007 #227

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The counting algorithm is not a formal system; it's an algorithm! As stated, I can't really make sense of your inquiry.

    I can guess at other things; maybe you are interested in comparing a formalization of the theory of computation with peano arithmetic? But that doesn't seem like a meaningful comparison.

    Or maybe you are interested in the fact that if I had a theory of collections, then I could use the properties of Peano arithmetic to deduce properties of the counting algorithm. Then I could attempt to reverse the process -- if I assume certain properties of the counting algorithm, then I could try and derive Peano arithmetic.
     
  3. Nov 15, 2007 #228
    sortof ...

    Yes: I am interested in comparing a formalization of the theory of "counting" (not the theory of computation... or are they the same?? haha don't answer that! ) with the peano arithmetic. I think it is a valid comparison.

    More precisely to rephrase my thoughts and your guess:
    I want to formalize "counting".. then, see what needs to be added to it this formalization to end up with something equivalent to Peano system. I believe formalized "counting" is more "basic" than Peano arithmetic. I want to explore this curiousity. If there is a "bridge" between the two systems then maybe you can do things like your second "guess" above.

    Thanks for the input thusfar, it is very helpful.



    Side question:
    Do you think there is a "theory of counting?" or a "axiomatic counting system"? If there is no time in "axiomatic systems" then how can Peano make the successor function "stop" just long enough to give a name to the next number?
     
  4. Nov 16, 2007 #229
    Axioms of counting based on the Peano Axioms
    1. 0 is a natural number that corresponds to an empty set(peano axiom 5)
    2.For every element of a non empty set A there is a corresponding natural number x that is unique, x = x. That is, equality is reflexive. (Peano axiom 1)
    3. Every corresponding natural number x is an unique successor of 0 or of another corresponding natural number x. (peano axium 6)
    4. For the set corresponding natural number x, there is an maximun x = n which has a successor that corresponds to no element in set A. (peano axiom 7)
    5. n is the count of set A (peano axium 9)
    Edit I posted an improvement on these axioms at my blog.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2007
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook