Is this “basic” prrinciple of recursion for the natural numbers identical to addition?
$begingroup$
This question regards Fundamentals of Mathematics, Volume 1: Foundations of Mathematics: The Real Number System and Algebra Edited by H. Behnke, F. Bachmann, K. Fladt, W. Süss and H. Kunle.
First Peano's Axioms starting with $1,$ rather than $0,$ are used to define the universe of numbers. Addition is developed as a set of functions, one for each number such that
$$fleft[1right]=a^prime text{ and } fleft[x^primeright]=fleft[xright]^prime text{ for all } xinmathbb{N}.tag{1}$$
Then we are told:
The fact that for every number $a$ there exists exactly one function $f$ with the properties (1) is a special case of the following general theorem:
Let $c$ be a number and let $F$ be a function of two arguments defined in $mathbb{N}$ and with values in $mathbb{N}.$ Then there exists exactly one function $f$ defined in $mathbb{N}$ such that
$$fleft[1right]=c text{ and } fleft[x^primeright]=Fleft[x,fleft[xright]right] text{ for all } xinmathbb{N}.tag{2}$$
It is clear that (1) is obtained from (2) by setting $c=a^prime$ and $F[x,y]=y^prime.$ The definition of a function $f$ by the conditions (2), which is possible in view of the general theorem is called a recursive definition, since the determination of $fleft[x^primeright]$ is reduced to that of $fleft[xright]$ and thereby finally to that of $fleft[1right].$
The name given by the authors to the above quoted theorem is the principle of recursion; which they promise to make more general in the sequel.
It appears to me that the authors have made a diligent effort to obscure the fact that, for the natural numbers, their principle of recursion is equivalent to a definition of addition. That is, the function $f$ associated with each number $a$ is simply the operation of adding $a$ to the argument of $f$. For clarity lets write $f_a$ for the $f$ associated with the number $a$. Then, when the universe of numbers is $mathbb{N}$ the only $f_a$ we will obtain by applying the principle of recursion is $f_{a}left[xright]=a+x.$
Is my understanding correct regarding the applicability of the above stated principle of recursion to the natural numbers?
As the fictional Winston Smith wrote in his diary in Orwell's 1984
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two makes four. If that is granted, all else follows.
elementary-number-theory recurrence-relations definition
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This question regards Fundamentals of Mathematics, Volume 1: Foundations of Mathematics: The Real Number System and Algebra Edited by H. Behnke, F. Bachmann, K. Fladt, W. Süss and H. Kunle.
First Peano's Axioms starting with $1,$ rather than $0,$ are used to define the universe of numbers. Addition is developed as a set of functions, one for each number such that
$$fleft[1right]=a^prime text{ and } fleft[x^primeright]=fleft[xright]^prime text{ for all } xinmathbb{N}.tag{1}$$
Then we are told:
The fact that for every number $a$ there exists exactly one function $f$ with the properties (1) is a special case of the following general theorem:
Let $c$ be a number and let $F$ be a function of two arguments defined in $mathbb{N}$ and with values in $mathbb{N}.$ Then there exists exactly one function $f$ defined in $mathbb{N}$ such that
$$fleft[1right]=c text{ and } fleft[x^primeright]=Fleft[x,fleft[xright]right] text{ for all } xinmathbb{N}.tag{2}$$
It is clear that (1) is obtained from (2) by setting $c=a^prime$ and $F[x,y]=y^prime.$ The definition of a function $f$ by the conditions (2), which is possible in view of the general theorem is called a recursive definition, since the determination of $fleft[x^primeright]$ is reduced to that of $fleft[xright]$ and thereby finally to that of $fleft[1right].$
The name given by the authors to the above quoted theorem is the principle of recursion; which they promise to make more general in the sequel.
It appears to me that the authors have made a diligent effort to obscure the fact that, for the natural numbers, their principle of recursion is equivalent to a definition of addition. That is, the function $f$ associated with each number $a$ is simply the operation of adding $a$ to the argument of $f$. For clarity lets write $f_a$ for the $f$ associated with the number $a$. Then, when the universe of numbers is $mathbb{N}$ the only $f_a$ we will obtain by applying the principle of recursion is $f_{a}left[xright]=a+x.$
Is my understanding correct regarding the applicability of the above stated principle of recursion to the natural numbers?
As the fictional Winston Smith wrote in his diary in Orwell's 1984
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two makes four. If that is granted, all else follows.
elementary-number-theory recurrence-relations definition
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
I think you should delete the last bit, since it has nothing to do with the actual mathematics of the question. (Also, language like "diligent effort to obscure" seems unnecessarily rude, and the $1984$ reference really doesn't help in that regard.)
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Dec 27 '18 at 3:32
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This question regards Fundamentals of Mathematics, Volume 1: Foundations of Mathematics: The Real Number System and Algebra Edited by H. Behnke, F. Bachmann, K. Fladt, W. Süss and H. Kunle.
First Peano's Axioms starting with $1,$ rather than $0,$ are used to define the universe of numbers. Addition is developed as a set of functions, one for each number such that
$$fleft[1right]=a^prime text{ and } fleft[x^primeright]=fleft[xright]^prime text{ for all } xinmathbb{N}.tag{1}$$
Then we are told:
The fact that for every number $a$ there exists exactly one function $f$ with the properties (1) is a special case of the following general theorem:
Let $c$ be a number and let $F$ be a function of two arguments defined in $mathbb{N}$ and with values in $mathbb{N}.$ Then there exists exactly one function $f$ defined in $mathbb{N}$ such that
$$fleft[1right]=c text{ and } fleft[x^primeright]=Fleft[x,fleft[xright]right] text{ for all } xinmathbb{N}.tag{2}$$
It is clear that (1) is obtained from (2) by setting $c=a^prime$ and $F[x,y]=y^prime.$ The definition of a function $f$ by the conditions (2), which is possible in view of the general theorem is called a recursive definition, since the determination of $fleft[x^primeright]$ is reduced to that of $fleft[xright]$ and thereby finally to that of $fleft[1right].$
The name given by the authors to the above quoted theorem is the principle of recursion; which they promise to make more general in the sequel.
It appears to me that the authors have made a diligent effort to obscure the fact that, for the natural numbers, their principle of recursion is equivalent to a definition of addition. That is, the function $f$ associated with each number $a$ is simply the operation of adding $a$ to the argument of $f$. For clarity lets write $f_a$ for the $f$ associated with the number $a$. Then, when the universe of numbers is $mathbb{N}$ the only $f_a$ we will obtain by applying the principle of recursion is $f_{a}left[xright]=a+x.$
Is my understanding correct regarding the applicability of the above stated principle of recursion to the natural numbers?
As the fictional Winston Smith wrote in his diary in Orwell's 1984
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two makes four. If that is granted, all else follows.
elementary-number-theory recurrence-relations definition
$endgroup$
This question regards Fundamentals of Mathematics, Volume 1: Foundations of Mathematics: The Real Number System and Algebra Edited by H. Behnke, F. Bachmann, K. Fladt, W. Süss and H. Kunle.
First Peano's Axioms starting with $1,$ rather than $0,$ are used to define the universe of numbers. Addition is developed as a set of functions, one for each number such that
$$fleft[1right]=a^prime text{ and } fleft[x^primeright]=fleft[xright]^prime text{ for all } xinmathbb{N}.tag{1}$$
Then we are told:
The fact that for every number $a$ there exists exactly one function $f$ with the properties (1) is a special case of the following general theorem:
Let $c$ be a number and let $F$ be a function of two arguments defined in $mathbb{N}$ and with values in $mathbb{N}.$ Then there exists exactly one function $f$ defined in $mathbb{N}$ such that
$$fleft[1right]=c text{ and } fleft[x^primeright]=Fleft[x,fleft[xright]right] text{ for all } xinmathbb{N}.tag{2}$$
It is clear that (1) is obtained from (2) by setting $c=a^prime$ and $F[x,y]=y^prime.$ The definition of a function $f$ by the conditions (2), which is possible in view of the general theorem is called a recursive definition, since the determination of $fleft[x^primeright]$ is reduced to that of $fleft[xright]$ and thereby finally to that of $fleft[1right].$
The name given by the authors to the above quoted theorem is the principle of recursion; which they promise to make more general in the sequel.
It appears to me that the authors have made a diligent effort to obscure the fact that, for the natural numbers, their principle of recursion is equivalent to a definition of addition. That is, the function $f$ associated with each number $a$ is simply the operation of adding $a$ to the argument of $f$. For clarity lets write $f_a$ for the $f$ associated with the number $a$. Then, when the universe of numbers is $mathbb{N}$ the only $f_a$ we will obtain by applying the principle of recursion is $f_{a}left[xright]=a+x.$
Is my understanding correct regarding the applicability of the above stated principle of recursion to the natural numbers?
As the fictional Winston Smith wrote in his diary in Orwell's 1984
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two makes four. If that is granted, all else follows.
elementary-number-theory recurrence-relations definition
elementary-number-theory recurrence-relations definition
asked Dec 27 '18 at 2:51
Steven HattonSteven Hatton
966422
966422
6
$begingroup$
I think you should delete the last bit, since it has nothing to do with the actual mathematics of the question. (Also, language like "diligent effort to obscure" seems unnecessarily rude, and the $1984$ reference really doesn't help in that regard.)
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Dec 27 '18 at 3:32
add a comment |
6
$begingroup$
I think you should delete the last bit, since it has nothing to do with the actual mathematics of the question. (Also, language like "diligent effort to obscure" seems unnecessarily rude, and the $1984$ reference really doesn't help in that regard.)
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Dec 27 '18 at 3:32
6
6
$begingroup$
I think you should delete the last bit, since it has nothing to do with the actual mathematics of the question. (Also, language like "diligent effort to obscure" seems unnecessarily rude, and the $1984$ reference really doesn't help in that regard.)
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Dec 27 '18 at 3:32
$begingroup$
I think you should delete the last bit, since it has nothing to do with the actual mathematics of the question. (Also, language like "diligent effort to obscure" seems unnecessarily rude, and the $1984$ reference really doesn't help in that regard.)
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Dec 27 '18 at 3:32
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
No, you're missing the role of the other function $F$. Recursion - at least in the less-general form presented here - takes in two inputs, a "starting value" $c$ (I think this is what you call $a$?) and also a "next-step-getting" function $F$, and spits out the desired $f$.
To get a sense for the role $F$ plays, let's look at a couple examples (with $c=1$ always):
$F(x,y)=x$. We have:
$f(1)=c=1$,
$f(2)=F(1,f(1))=1$,
$f(3)=F(2,f(1))=2$,
$f(4)=F(3,f(2))=3$, ...
It's easy to see that the $f$ we produce is just $f(x)=max{x-1,1}$.
$F(x,y)=x+y$. We have:
$f(1)=c=1$,
$f(2)=F(1,f(1))=1+1=2$,
$f(3)=F(2,f(2))=2+2=4$,
$f(4)=F(3,f(3))=3+4=7$,
Can you figure out what the $f$ we're producing now is?
It's also instructive to go the other direction. The function $f(x)=2^x$ can be defined recursively as $f(1)=2, f(x+1)=2cdot f(x)$.
Exercise: check that setting $c=2, F(x,y)=2y$ in the above recursive construction produces $2^x$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I should have gone through the proof before drawing my conclusion. The way I was reading the statement of the theorem, I was taking $F$ to be defined by the given conditions, not defined "at will".
$endgroup$
– Steven Hatton
Dec 27 '18 at 4:12
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3053551%2fis-this-basic-prrinciple-of-recursion-for-the-natural-numbers-identical-to-add%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
No, you're missing the role of the other function $F$. Recursion - at least in the less-general form presented here - takes in two inputs, a "starting value" $c$ (I think this is what you call $a$?) and also a "next-step-getting" function $F$, and spits out the desired $f$.
To get a sense for the role $F$ plays, let's look at a couple examples (with $c=1$ always):
$F(x,y)=x$. We have:
$f(1)=c=1$,
$f(2)=F(1,f(1))=1$,
$f(3)=F(2,f(1))=2$,
$f(4)=F(3,f(2))=3$, ...
It's easy to see that the $f$ we produce is just $f(x)=max{x-1,1}$.
$F(x,y)=x+y$. We have:
$f(1)=c=1$,
$f(2)=F(1,f(1))=1+1=2$,
$f(3)=F(2,f(2))=2+2=4$,
$f(4)=F(3,f(3))=3+4=7$,
Can you figure out what the $f$ we're producing now is?
It's also instructive to go the other direction. The function $f(x)=2^x$ can be defined recursively as $f(1)=2, f(x+1)=2cdot f(x)$.
Exercise: check that setting $c=2, F(x,y)=2y$ in the above recursive construction produces $2^x$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I should have gone through the proof before drawing my conclusion. The way I was reading the statement of the theorem, I was taking $F$ to be defined by the given conditions, not defined "at will".
$endgroup$
– Steven Hatton
Dec 27 '18 at 4:12
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No, you're missing the role of the other function $F$. Recursion - at least in the less-general form presented here - takes in two inputs, a "starting value" $c$ (I think this is what you call $a$?) and also a "next-step-getting" function $F$, and spits out the desired $f$.
To get a sense for the role $F$ plays, let's look at a couple examples (with $c=1$ always):
$F(x,y)=x$. We have:
$f(1)=c=1$,
$f(2)=F(1,f(1))=1$,
$f(3)=F(2,f(1))=2$,
$f(4)=F(3,f(2))=3$, ...
It's easy to see that the $f$ we produce is just $f(x)=max{x-1,1}$.
$F(x,y)=x+y$. We have:
$f(1)=c=1$,
$f(2)=F(1,f(1))=1+1=2$,
$f(3)=F(2,f(2))=2+2=4$,
$f(4)=F(3,f(3))=3+4=7$,
Can you figure out what the $f$ we're producing now is?
It's also instructive to go the other direction. The function $f(x)=2^x$ can be defined recursively as $f(1)=2, f(x+1)=2cdot f(x)$.
Exercise: check that setting $c=2, F(x,y)=2y$ in the above recursive construction produces $2^x$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I should have gone through the proof before drawing my conclusion. The way I was reading the statement of the theorem, I was taking $F$ to be defined by the given conditions, not defined "at will".
$endgroup$
– Steven Hatton
Dec 27 '18 at 4:12
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No, you're missing the role of the other function $F$. Recursion - at least in the less-general form presented here - takes in two inputs, a "starting value" $c$ (I think this is what you call $a$?) and also a "next-step-getting" function $F$, and spits out the desired $f$.
To get a sense for the role $F$ plays, let's look at a couple examples (with $c=1$ always):
$F(x,y)=x$. We have:
$f(1)=c=1$,
$f(2)=F(1,f(1))=1$,
$f(3)=F(2,f(1))=2$,
$f(4)=F(3,f(2))=3$, ...
It's easy to see that the $f$ we produce is just $f(x)=max{x-1,1}$.
$F(x,y)=x+y$. We have:
$f(1)=c=1$,
$f(2)=F(1,f(1))=1+1=2$,
$f(3)=F(2,f(2))=2+2=4$,
$f(4)=F(3,f(3))=3+4=7$,
Can you figure out what the $f$ we're producing now is?
It's also instructive to go the other direction. The function $f(x)=2^x$ can be defined recursively as $f(1)=2, f(x+1)=2cdot f(x)$.
Exercise: check that setting $c=2, F(x,y)=2y$ in the above recursive construction produces $2^x$.
$endgroup$
No, you're missing the role of the other function $F$. Recursion - at least in the less-general form presented here - takes in two inputs, a "starting value" $c$ (I think this is what you call $a$?) and also a "next-step-getting" function $F$, and spits out the desired $f$.
To get a sense for the role $F$ plays, let's look at a couple examples (with $c=1$ always):
$F(x,y)=x$. We have:
$f(1)=c=1$,
$f(2)=F(1,f(1))=1$,
$f(3)=F(2,f(1))=2$,
$f(4)=F(3,f(2))=3$, ...
It's easy to see that the $f$ we produce is just $f(x)=max{x-1,1}$.
$F(x,y)=x+y$. We have:
$f(1)=c=1$,
$f(2)=F(1,f(1))=1+1=2$,
$f(3)=F(2,f(2))=2+2=4$,
$f(4)=F(3,f(3))=3+4=7$,
Can you figure out what the $f$ we're producing now is?
It's also instructive to go the other direction. The function $f(x)=2^x$ can be defined recursively as $f(1)=2, f(x+1)=2cdot f(x)$.
Exercise: check that setting $c=2, F(x,y)=2y$ in the above recursive construction produces $2^x$.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 3:32
Noah SchweberNoah Schweber
125k10150288
125k10150288
$begingroup$
I should have gone through the proof before drawing my conclusion. The way I was reading the statement of the theorem, I was taking $F$ to be defined by the given conditions, not defined "at will".
$endgroup$
– Steven Hatton
Dec 27 '18 at 4:12
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I should have gone through the proof before drawing my conclusion. The way I was reading the statement of the theorem, I was taking $F$ to be defined by the given conditions, not defined "at will".
$endgroup$
– Steven Hatton
Dec 27 '18 at 4:12
$begingroup$
I should have gone through the proof before drawing my conclusion. The way I was reading the statement of the theorem, I was taking $F$ to be defined by the given conditions, not defined "at will".
$endgroup$
– Steven Hatton
Dec 27 '18 at 4:12
$begingroup$
I should have gone through the proof before drawing my conclusion. The way I was reading the statement of the theorem, I was taking $F$ to be defined by the given conditions, not defined "at will".
$endgroup$
– Steven Hatton
Dec 27 '18 at 4:12
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3053551%2fis-this-basic-prrinciple-of-recursion-for-the-natural-numbers-identical-to-add%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
6
$begingroup$
I think you should delete the last bit, since it has nothing to do with the actual mathematics of the question. (Also, language like "diligent effort to obscure" seems unnecessarily rude, and the $1984$ reference really doesn't help in that regard.)
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Dec 27 '18 at 3:32