I was very interested in the problem of extending
to the reals (that is actual the "incomplete" predecessor function
over the naturals)
I've asked the same question on MSE but it was a bit ignored...I hope because it is trivial!
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/...its-fracti
The question is about extensions of
to the reals with some conditions
I just noticed that I've made a lot of errors in my MathSE question, I'll fix it in this post (and later on mathSE)
From successor and inverse successor we can define the subtraction in this way
and :=S^{\circ(-1)}(x-y))
with
, that is a modified predecessor function we could define its iteration using an "esotic subtraction" that is "incomplete" for naturals and is "complete" for reals (like we are cutting all the negative integers)
In this way we have
How we can go in order to extend
to real
?
For example what can we know about
?
for example-^*1=(x-^*1)-^*0.5=x-^*1.5)
if we put
-^*1=(0-^*1)-^*0.5=0-^*1.5)
then if

if
is not a natural number

!?? what is going on here?
If
is natural
-1=\alpha=0-^*1.5)
in this case we should have that
.
What do you think about this?
I've asked the same question on MSE but it was a bit ignored...I hope because it is trivial!
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/...its-fracti
The question is about extensions of
Quote:A-only if
B-is not discontinuous
I just noticed that I've made a lot of errors in my MathSE question, I'll fix it in this post (and later on mathSE)
From successor and inverse successor we can define the subtraction in this way
with
Quote:
In this way we have
Quote:and
How we can go in order to extend
For example what can we know about
for example
if we put
then if
if
!?? what is going on here?
If
in this case we should have that
What do you think about this?
MSE MphLee
Mother Law \((\sigma+1)0=\sigma (\sigma+1)\)
S Law \(\bigcirc_f^{\lambda}\square_f^{\lambda^+}(g)=\square_g^{\lambda}\bigcirc_g^{\lambda^+}(f)\)