
Considering the set of natural numbers ℕ, then in the context of Peano axioms, starting from inequalities between finite sets, we find a fundamental contradiction, about the existence of ℕ, from a not-finitist point of view. This proof of inconsistency is not-finitist because it involves infinite totalities.But this is natural considering set theory with the axiom of infinity and all elements of a set. On the other hand a finitist proof would imply the end of mathematics as we know it. Anyway, refusing a precise definition of N, then refusing the axiom of infinity, could be a view to avoid this inconsistency. So the axiom of infinity would seem to have a similar role to coherence. It is not demonstrable, but also it cannot be taken as an axiom if one doesn't want a system to be inconsistent. This proof supports finitist approach in a not arbitrary manner.
Not finitist, Contradiction, Deduction, Inconsistency, Infinity, Godel, Formal systems, Proof, Peano axioms, Natural numbers
Not finitist, Contradiction, Deduction, Inconsistency, Infinity, Godel, Formal systems, Proof, Peano axioms, Natural numbers
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
