Peano's Axioms

1. Zero is a number.
2. If

is a number, the successor of

is a number.

3. zero is not the successor of a number.

4. Two numbers of which the successors are equal are themselves equal.
5. (induction axiom.) If a set
number is in .

of numbers contains zero and also the successor of every number in , then every

Peano's axioms are the basis for the version of number theory known as Peano arithmetic.

Axiom
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about logical propositions. For other uses, see Axiom (disambiguation).
"Postulation" redirects here. For the term in algebraic geometry, see Postulation (algebraic geometry).
An axiom, or postulate, is a premise or starting point of reasoning. A self-evident principle or one that is
accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate. As classically conceived, an axiom is
a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.[1] The word comes from the Greek
(xoma) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.' [2][3] As used
in modern logic, an axiom is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning. [4] Axioms define and delimit
the realm of analysis; the relative truth of an axiom is taken for granted within the particular domain of
analysis, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other relative truths. No explicit view
regarding the absolute truth of axioms is ever taken in the context of modern mathematics, as such a thing
is considered to be an irrelevant and impossible contradiction in terms.
In mathematics, the term axiom is used in two related but distinguishable senses: "logical
axioms" and "non-logical axioms". Logical axioms are usually statements that are taken to be true within
the system of logic they define (e.g., (A and B) implies A), while non-logical axioms (e.g., a + b = b + a) are
actually defining properties for the domain of a specific mathematical theory (such as arithmetic). When
used in the latter sense, "axiom," "postulate", and "assumption" may be used interchangeably. In general, a
non-logical axiom is not a self-evident truth, but rather a formal logical expression used in deduction to
build a mathematical theory. As modern mathematics admits multiple, equally "true" systems of logic,
precisely the same thing must be said for logical axioms - they both define and are specific to the particular
system of logic that is being invoked. To axiomatize a system of knowledge is to show that its claims can be
derived from a small, well-understood set of sentences (the axioms). There are typically multiple ways to
axiomatize a given mathematical domain.

In both senses, an axiom is any mathematical statement that serves as a starting point from which other
statements are logically derived. Within the system they define, axioms (unless redundant) cannot be
derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by mathematical proofs, simply because they
are starting points; there is nothing else from which they logically follow otherwise they would be classified
as theorems. However, an axiom in one system may be a theorem in another, and vice versa.

ne of my pet peeves about logic is that theres a stereotype that logicians sit
around coming up with more and more elaborate proofs that 1+1=2. We dont.
Nobody in their right mind has any doubt of 1+1=2, and nobody should. If there
be any doubt about it, its the same metaphysical doubt which plagues all
knowledge, and its for philosophers to discuss, not mathematicians.
First, what do 1, +, and 2 actually mean? Well, that depends on your
language and structure. Most mathematicians will be working in a language like
ring theory or complete ordered fields, and in those languages, 1 and +
are defined axiomatically and 2 is defined to be 1+1. So theres nothing at all
to prove: 1+1=2 by definition. This even holds in F 2, the field of order 2 where
famously 1+1=0. In this field, 1+1=0 and 1+1 also equals 2. Theres nothing
mystical about that: 2 is just 1+1 by definition, and 1+1 is 0 by the nature of the
field. So in particular, 2=0 in F2.
In some contexts, there is something to prove, depending on how 2 is defined.
For example, in Peano Arithmetic, 1 is not one of the basic symbols of the
language. The symbols of Peano Arithmetic are 0, +, *, and S, along with the
usual logical symbols (and, or, parentheses, variables, and so on). Here, S is
intended to denote the successor function which maps each natural to the next
natural. So when a Peano Arithmetist says 1, hes probably using it to
abbreviate S(0), the successor of 0. Its a little ambiguous what 2
abbreviates, namely, it could abbreviate S(S(0)) or S(0)+S(0). And the fact that
these are equal is something that needs proof, but its not something Bertrand
Russel would fill up two huge volumes about, its a trivial consequence of the
basic axioms of PA (using the fact that + is commutative, which also follows from
those axioms as a basic exercise):

S(0)+S(0) = S(0+S(0)) (since, axiomatically, x+S(y)=S(x+y) so

x+S(y)=S(y+x))

S(0+S(0)) = 0+S(S(0)) (since, axiomatically, S(x+y)=x+S(y))

0+S(S(0)) = S(S(0)) (since, in Peano arithmetic, 0+x=x)

S(0)+S(0) = S(S(0)) (combining the above three lines)

If the number 2 is defined to be S(S(0)), and 1 is defined to be S(0), then its

not a priori true by definition that 1+1=2, and proof is required. But as you
can see above, its a simple, straightforward argument.
FURTHER READING
Is Math Objective or Subjective?
Range vs. Codomain

May 2, 2011
Category: Logic, Mathematics

RECENT ARTICLES
o

Thoughts on teaching: emphasize content, not section numbers

Fireworks in the Netherlands

Examples of Campbells Law

Knight-Darwin Law and Dual Knight-Darwin Law

PHD Comics Suck

The Knight-Darwin Law

The Well-Foundedness of Knowledge

Quarters vs. Semesters

Thoughts on entering your thirties

How to avoid test anxiety

MOST RECENT LINKFEST

Fifteenth Linkfest

View All Articles

Contact

My Academic Publications

Follow Me On Twitter

Donate Bitcoins!
My Bitcoin address is:

19KmmR

http://www.xamuel.com/proving-1-plus-1-equals-2/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PeanosAxioms.html
http://planetmath.org/peanoarithmetic