On the Implications of Ababou’s Constant

Max Zhu
2018-05-06
Contents
1 Introduction 3
1.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 The Natural Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 The numbers have an end (?!) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1
 The future of sciences depends on theory of Numbers have an end.
-Mohamed Ababou-

2
1 Introduction
1.1 Motivation
The majority of people with some interest in mathematics know that the natu-
ral numbers are unbounded, which is to say that the natural numbers have no
“end”. It follows that rational numbers and real numbers also have no end. For
this reason, Mohamed Ababou’s claim that the “numbers have an end” can be
quickly rejected with little thought given. It does not help Ababou’s case that
the majority of his arguments are incoherent, and his diagrams unintelligible.
In fact, there are entire comminities dedicated to the mockery of ideas such as
those proposed by Ababou.

In this paper I will first demonstrate that the numbers do not have an end,
then I will entertain Ababou’s idea that the numbers have an end to see what
implications this would have. Specifically, this paper will revolve around these
two questions:
Q1. What contradictions, if any, arise from the assertion that numbers have an
end?
Q2. Can this assertion be developed into a consistent system?

1.2 The Natural Numbers

Consider the set of natural numbers, N. It is common knowledge that there is
no largest natural number. Before proving this statement, I will describe the
Peano axioms which define the set N, as well as definitions of a few well known
concepts.

1.2.1 Construction of Natural Numbers

Definition 1.2.1.1 (Peano Axioms) The Peano axioms are as follows:
(i) 0 is a natural number.
(ii) There is a function S such that for all natural numbers n, S(n) is a natural
number,
(iii) For all natural numbers m and n, m = n iff S(m) = S(n), and
(iv) There is no natural number n such that S(n) = 0.
(v) Let P(n) be a predicate such that P(0) is true and P(n) implies P(S(n)).
Then, P(n) is true for every natural numbers n.

Remark. Axiom (v) justifies the use of mathematical induction.

Remark. The symbols 1, 2, 3, ... are simply shorthand for S(0), S(S(0)),
S(S(S(0))), ...

3
1.2.2 Arithmetic with natural numbers
Definition 1.2.2.1 Let m, n, z be natural numbers.
Then, the equality relation (=) has the following properties:
(Reflexive) m = m is true.
(Symmetric) If m = n, then n = m.
(Transitive) If m = n and n = z, then m = z.
(N is closed under equality) If m = n and m is a natural number, then n is a
natural number as well.

Definition 1.2.2.2 Let m, n be natural numbers.

Then, addition (+) defined as follows:

m+0=m
m + S(n) = S(m + n)

Definition 1.2.2.3 Let m, n be natural numbers.

Then, m ≤ n iff there is some natural number z such that m + z = n.
Also, m ≥ n iff n ≤ m.

Remark. If m ≤ n and m ≥ n, then m = n. I will not prove this familiar

property of inequalities here.

Now, we can prove the statement that Ababou rejects.

1.2.3 The Natural Numbers Have No End

Here, “end” means some natural number greater than or equal to all other
natural numbers.

Lemma 1.2.3.1 For every natural number n, n is not equal to S(n).

Proof. By induction. Let n be a natural number. Since S(n) = 0 is false by

(iv), therefore S(0) does not equal 0 for the base case.
Suppose n does not equal S(n) for some natural number n. Then, S(n) does not
equal S(S(n)) by (iii).
Therefore by induction, the statement holds. 

4
Theorem 1.2.3.2 There is no natural number n such that m ∈ N =⇒ n ≥ m.

Proof. For contradiction suppose there exists a natural number n such that
m ∈ N =⇒ n ≥ m. Now,

n + 1 = n + S(0) = S(n + 0) = S(n)

This follows from the definition of addition. Thus, n ≤ S(n) by definition.
Also, n ≥ S(n) by hypothesis, so n = S(n). This clearly contradicts our lemma,
so n cannot exist. 

Remark. It easily follows that there is no largest rational or real number. I

will not provide a construction of these types of numbers in this paper.

1.3 The numbers have an end (?!)

In spite of numerous proofs to the contrary, Mohamed Ababou continually re-
fuses to accept the fact that numbers do not end, often speaking through broken
English and incomprehensible images. However, it may be interesting to exam-
ine the implications of taking Ababou’s claims at face value. That will be the
goal of the rest of this paper.

1.3.1 Ababou’s Constant

Definition 1.3.1.1 Define AB to be a real number such that m ∈ R =⇒ AB ≥
m.

Since Ababou is so persistent in his claim that the numbers have an end,
it makes sense to define Ababou’s constant, or AB, to be the end of numbers.
Note that the definition merely states that such a constant exists, and makes
no claim on its value.
Now, this definition clearly contradicts theorem 1.2.3.2. The remainder of
this paper will investigate what exactly will go wrong.