Peano Algebra and it's base theorem

Peano Algebra's are based on the following:

If a unary predicate P holds for 0, and if P holds, together with an element
x, also for it's succesor x', then P  holds for all natural numbers.

The question under consideration is NOT an attempt to describe a language in
a Sigma structure/algebra/model. We are NOT trying to analyze the language
but rather a specific mathematical statement made IN that language.

They are not the same problem and hence Peano Algebra's do NOT apply.

Nice straw man, I had to drag a math book out to refresh what a Peano
Algebra was (don't think I've ever had to deal with one).


    ____________________________________________________________________

                            The seeker is a finder.

                                     Ancient Persian Proverb

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

At 07:42 AM 9/22/98 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
>Peano Algebra's are based on the following:
>
>If a unary predicate P holds for 0, and if P holds, together with an element
>x, also for it's succesor x', then P  holds for all natural numbers.

Didn't you over simplify this theorem somewhat. The proof that P holds
for the successor x' must be derived from the truth of predicate P for x.
The successor, x', must be shown to satisfy P because x satisfies P.
Restated: x' satisfies P if and only if x satisfies P. 

In this way you can start with P and the natural number 1, and 
show P holds for any natural number by applying your proof recursively. 
(i.e. P is true for 1 and my proof show it is true for 2, then my proof shows
it is true for 3, then it shows its true for 4, the it shows its true for
....)

If the proof of P for x' is not related to the proof of P for x then
you can prove lots of irrational statements. I.e. say the Predicate P is
"is prime". Then 2 holds for P (2 "is prime"). 2's successor is 3. P also
holds for 3 (3 "is prime"). So all P holds for all natural numbers. Ergo,
all natural number are prime. I don't think so. 3's primeness must be
derived from 2's primeness. 

-MpH
--------
Mark P. Hahn                    Work: 212-278-5861
mhahn@tcbtech.com               Home: 609-275-1834
TCB Technologies, Inc (mhahn@tcbtech.com)

Consultant to:
The SoGen Funds	1221 Avenue of the Americas, NY NY