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.