[FOM] Query for Martin Davis. was:truth and consistency
Bill Taylor
W.Taylor at math.canterbury.ac.nz
Sat Jun 14 02:00:14 EDT 2003
I applaud this very nice post of Robin Adams.
> The set of terms is defined thus:
>
> 1) 0 is a term.
> 2) If t is a term, then t+1 is a term.
... ...
> 1) t + u is defined to be the result of substituting t for the sole
> occurrence of 0 in u.
>
> 2) t * u is defined to be the result of substituting t for each
> occurrence of 1 in u, then removing every instance of `+0' in the result.
All very nice. But then there comes a later bit...
> (Alright, I can't write a definition of exponentiation in the style I did
> addition and multiplication; I would have to just write the recursive defn.
But I can't see why. Why can't you just say something like...
3) t^u is defined to be the result of writing u, then replacing every
appearance of +1 by *t, dropping the initial 0*, then removing from
the left every appearance of * as in rule 2.
What am I missing? Why can't this be done, Robin?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Taylor W.Taylor at math.canterbury.ac.nz
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In math we decide on the rules - then try to deduce the consequences.
In science we observe the consequences, then try to deduce the rules.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the FOM
mailing list