|
|
Charlie-Boo wrote:
> > > It's much easier (better by Occam's Razor) to see that Peano's Axioms
> > > amount to the assertion that the set of natural numbers is recursively
> > > enuerable. Do you agree to this equivalence?
When you say that one claim (or set of claims) "amounts to" another
claim, that is a naturally read as an equivalence claim. I pointed out
that, quite trivially, to say that PA applies to the X's and to say
that the X's are r.e. are not equivalent claims (there are instances of
X for which the first is false and the second true). So what do you
mean?
Of course, utterly trivially, the natural numbers are r.e.: I'm not
denying that! I'm just denying that the PA axioms "amount to" that
triviality.
|
|