 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
The axiomatization given for <N, S> and <N + Z, S> isn't actually enough to specify their complete theory (and thus demonstrate that they are elementarily equivalent). One can't prove from this axiomatization, for example, that no element is its own successor's successor. (Consider the model <N+Z_2, S>, where by Z_2 I mean a structure with two elements, each the other's successor, to see that this proof could not be accomplished).
Start a discussion about improving the Prime model page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "Prime model" page.
