In article <070320171202351509%ed...@math.ohio-state.edu.invalid>,
David Hobby <
david....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 11:36:26 AM UTC-5, William Elliot wrote:
> > ...
> > Assume biduction, also known as symmetric induction:
> > for all nonempty A,
> > if for all x in A, (x in A iff Sx in A)
> > then A = K.
>
> For an arbitrary function S, you only get that A is closed under image
> and inverse image. Yes, K is such a set, but subsets of K may be as
> well.
> > ...
> > Use biduction to define a relation < with
> > not a < a; a <= b iff a < Sb
> > where a <= b is written for a < b or a = b.
> >
> > Here's my reasoning why 'a <' is defined for all of K.
> > First off a < a is defined as false.
> > Whenever a < b is defined, a < Sb is defined as a <= b
> > Whenever a < Sb is defined, a < b is defined as a < Sb and a = b.
>
> Assuming that S is a function where this is valid, the previous two
> lines define the predicate P(x) = "a < x" for all x in K. But there's
> no reason that P(x) defined this way has "not P(a)". You've added a <
> a as an extra condition; there's no reason that this needs to be
> consistent with the rest of your definition of <.
Ok, let's remove not a < a. From a = a, there's a
base case a < Sa. For finite K, one has < = KxK.
However, KxK itself, always satisfies
a <= b iff a < Sb,
so the modified definition is useless.
Definition 2: <= subset KxK; a < b when a <= b & a /= b;
for all a, a <= a; for all a,b, (a <= b iff a < Sb).
This has the same problem, namely the
'definition' is inconsistent for finite K.
Definition 3: <= subset KxK; a < b when a <= b & a /= b;
for all a, a < Sa; for all a,b, (a <= b iff a < Sb).
Again the same problem. Is there any way to define < or <=
that's useful and consistent for both finite and infinite sets?