Search the web
Sign In
New User? Sign Up
dcproof · DC Proof Users' Group
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Hear how Yahoo! Groups has changed the lives of others. Take me there.

Best of Y! Groups

   Check them out and nominate your group.
Having problems with message search? Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
New construction of add function (Fwd)   Message List  
Reply | Forward Message #159 of 165 |
Re: New construction of add function (Fwd)

--- In dcproof@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Christensen" <dchris@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Dan,
> here's what I proved so far in constructing the add function.
>
> By the way, I think it's remarkable that the function used in the
> construction is "commutative" in its arguments, i.e. g(a,b)=g(b,a)
for
> all natural numbers a,b. (I proved this using the function
definition
> only!)
>
> Regards,
>
> Thomas
>
> [Download proof at www.dcproof.com/AddFunction_new_TH.proof ]
>


Thomas,

I like your straightfoward construction of the add function(lines
18 - 27). It is much superior to the one I posted here recently.
Good work!

Just a suggestion to tie things together. It would be nice to see
something like: Peano's Axioms implies there exists function f such
that f(x,1)=next(x) and f(x,next(y))=next(f(x,y)), f being the add
function.

Dan










Wed Oct 11, 2006 4:51 am

dchris1953
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email

Forward
Message #159 of 165 |
Expand Messages Author Sort by Date

Hi Dan, here's what I proved so far in constructing the add function. By the way, I think it's remarkable that the function used in the construction is...
Dan Christensen
dchris1953
Offline Send Email
Oct 10, 2006
1:29 pm

... for ... definition ... Thomas, I like your straightfoward construction of the add function(lines 18 - 27). It is much superior to the one I posted here...
Dan Christensen
dchris1953
Offline Send Email
Oct 11, 2006
4:51 am

Hi Dan, ... Thanks for the flowers ;-). But in fact it's your construction of Sep. 13. The main reason for removing the condition "(a,b,c) e n3" was to ease...
Thomas Heye
thomas_heye
Offline Send Email
Oct 15, 2006
10:12 pm

... (lines ... Sep. ... to ... [snip] My proof of Sep 13 was based on a construction of the set of functions of two variables mapping NxN -> N, and then taking...
Dan Christensen
dchris1953
Offline Send Email
Oct 16, 2006
1:45 pm
Advanced

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help