Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mh3bs!mhtsa!exodus!gamma!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiuccsb!grunwald From: grunwald@uiuccsb.UUCP Newsgroups: net.math Subject: Re: Pedantic questions and circularity - (nf) Message-ID: <5873@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Sat, 25-Feb-84 22:30:23 EST Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.5873 Posted: Sat Feb 25 22:30:23 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 26-Feb-84 23:25:05 EST Lines: 7 #R:pucc-i:-21800:uiuccsb:9700024:000:260 uiuccsb!grunwald Feb 25 17:44:00 1984 Isn't a proof by induction rigorous enough? I'm not try to be difficult, but it seem that if one assumes the peano axioms for Naturals, and then applies the inductive proof, that would be sufficient. Clearly, one should reduce the problem back to the axioms.