I noticed that if one writes $$\exists X:(\varnothing\in X\space\wedge\space(n\in X\rightarrow n\cup \{n\}\in X)) $$ As the axiom of infinity, one must define The Natural numbers as the smallest set that satisfies the above condition. But by replacing the conditional with an iff, ie: $$\exists\mathbb{N}!:(\varnothing\in\mathbb{N}\space\wedge\space(n\in\mathbb{N}\leftrightarrow n\cup\{n\}\in\mathbb{N}))$$ One could simply call the set proclaimed to exist and be unique above the natural numbers. Am I correct? Is there any reason that the Axiom of Infinity could not be replaced with this statement?
Asked
Active
Viewed 151 times
5
-
1Even though this question has an easy negative answer, I hope it won't be downvoted. It's well formulated and allowed Henning to clear OP's confusion without any need for further clarification. (Which, unfortunately, is rare enough here on MSE.) – Stefan Mesken Aug 04 '16 at 00:20
-
Related: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1706661/why-is-the-infinite-set-from-the-axiom-of-infinity-the-natural-numbers – Asaf Karagila Aug 04 '16 at 05:15
1 Answers
8
Your proposed condition does not define $\mathbb N$ uniquely.
For example, it is also satisfied by $V_\omega$, the set of all hereditarily finite sets.
We could take as an axiom that there exists an inductive set that has no inductive proper subset, and that would be unique. But that seems just to be added complexity that doesn't really buy us anything, given that we have the axiom of separation available anyway.
Alternatively we could take: $$\exists X: X=\{\varnothing\}\cup \{n\cup\{n\}\mid n\in X\}$$ which in the presence of the Axion of Regularity would pinpoint $\omega$ uniquely. (It is clearly inductive, and if $Y$ is any inductive subset of it, then $Y=X$, or else $X\setminus Y$ would violate Regularity).
hmakholm left over Monica
- 286,031
-
Furthermore, given that we work in something that resembles $\operatorname{ZF}$, we have that for any infinite set $X$ there is some $X \subseteq Y$ such that there is a bijection $f \colon X \to Y$ and $Y$ is such that $y \in Y \leftrightarrow y \cup {y } \in Y$ - by a simple closure argument. – Stefan Mesken Aug 04 '16 at 00:16
-
@Stefan: I think you need some form of choice for that. If $X$ is amorphous, it cannot have your property. – hmakholm left over Monica Aug 04 '16 at 00:18
-
-
2The OP's proposed condition is also satisfied by any non-zero limit ordinal. – DanielWainfleet Aug 04 '16 at 00:52