Confusion regarding definition of Natural Numbers (from book Numbers, english version of Zahlen)

50 Views Asked by At

In the book "Numbers" by Ebbinghaus et. al, the Natural numbers are defined as:

The natural numbers form a set $\mathbb N$, containing a distinguished element $0$, called zero, together with a successor function $S:\mathbb N \to \mathbb N$, of $\mathbb N$ into itself, which satisfies the following axioms:

(S1) $S$ is injective,

(S2) $0 \notin S(\mathbb N)$,

(S3) If a subset $M \subset \mathbb N$ contains zero and is mapped into itself by $ S $, then $M = \mathbb N$.

Does this definition puts any strict requirement that only $0$ can be starting element? In other words, does (S2) excludes any possibility of another starting element, say $w_0 \notin S(\mathbb N)$? If it was strict requirement, I think the author would have explicitly mentioned something like :(S2) only $0 \notin \mathbb N$

Also, as (S1) says $S$ is just injective (and not surjective), so there can be some other elements outside of range of $S(\mathbb N)$ similar to $0$.

The reason I ask, as if there exists such element $w_0 \notin S(\mathbb N)$, we can have a chain of elements in sequence $ w_0 \to w_1 \to w_2 $ and so on with starting element $w_0$ independent of the one with the $0$ (zero). Then, there can be two different sets, $M_1$ and $M_2$ for S(3), where $M_1$ include $w_0$ and $M_2$ doesn't, but both still include $0$.

then, $M_1 = \mathbb N$

and also, $M_2 = \mathbb N$

giving two different sets for $\mathbb N$ with different sizes, which seems wrong to me.

Can you please let me know what I understood wrong here?

1

There are 1 best solutions below

4
On BEST ANSWER

Suppose that $\mathbb N$ contains an element $w_0$ like you describe, that is, $w_0 \neq 0$ yet $w_0$ is not the successor of any element. Then consider the set $\mathbb N \setminus \{w_0\}$. Clearly this set contains 0. And it is also mapped into itself by $S$, since by assumption $w_0$ is not the successor of any element. It follows by (S3) that $\mathbb N \setminus \{w_0\} = \mathbb N$. But this is a contradiction. So no such element $w_0$ exists.

More informally, consider the set $$ \{0, S(0), S(S(0)), S(S(S(0))), \ldots\}. $$ This set satisfies the requirements of (S3), and therefore it is precisely this set that is $\mathbb N$, and there cannot be any other elements.