Supplement to Frege's Theorem and Foundations for Arithmetic

Proof that 0 Falls Under Q

The proof that 0 falls under Q is relatively straightforward. We want to show:

y Precedes(y,#[λz Precedes+(z,y)])]0

By λ-Conversion, it suffices to show:

Precedes(0, #[λz Precedes+(z,0)])

So, by the definition of Predecessor, we have to show that there is a concept F and object x such that:

  1. Fx
  2. #[λz Precedes+(z,0)] = #F
  3. 0 = #[λu Fu & ux]

We can demonstrate that there is an F and x for which (1), (2) and (3) hold if we pick F to be [λz Precedes+(z,0)] and pick x to be 0. We now establish (1), (2), and (3) for these choices.

To show that (1) holds, we have to show:

z Precedes+(z,0)]0

But we know, from the definition of Precedes+, that Precedes+(0,0), So by abstraction using λ-Conversion, we are done.

To show that (2) holds, we need do no work, since our choice of F requires us to show:

#[λz Precedes+(z,0)] = #[λz Precedes+(z,0)],

which we know by the logic of identity.

To show (3) holds, we need to show:

(A)   0 = #[λu Precedes+(u,0) & u≠0]

[Note that the λ-expression in (A) has been simplified by applying λ-Conversion to the following (which, strictly speaking, is what results when you substitute our choice for F in (3)):

uz Precedes+(z,0)]u & u≠0]

In what follows, we use the simplified version of this λ-expression.]

To show (A), it suffices to show the following, in virtue of the Lemma Concerning Zero (in our subsection on The Concept Natural Number in §4):

¬∃x ([λu Precedes+(u,0) & u≠0]x)

And by λ-Conversion, it suffices to show:

(B)   ¬∃x (Precedes+(x,0) & x≠0)

We establish (B) as follows.

When we established Theorem 2 (i.e., the fact that 0 is not the successor of any number), we proved that nothing precedes 0:

¬∃x Precedes(x,0)

From this, and Fact (4) about R* (in the subsection on the Ancestral of R, in §4), it follows that nothing ancestrally precedes 0:

¬∃x Precedes*(x,0)

Now suppose (for reductio) the negation of (B); i.e, that there is some object, say a, such that Precedes+(a,0) and a≠0. Then, by definition of Precedes+, it follows that either Precedes*(a,0) or a = 0. But since our reductio hypthesis includes that a≠0, it must be that Precedes*(a,0), which contradicts the fact displayed immediately above.

Return to Frege's Theorem and Foundations for Arithmetic

Copyright © 2013 by
Edward N. Zalta <>

Open access to the SEP is made possible by a world-wide funding initiative.
Please Read How You Can Help Keep the Encyclopedia Free

The SEP would like to congratulate the National Endowment for the Humanities on its 50th anniversary and express our indebtedness for the five generous grants it awarded our project from 1997 to 2007. Readers who have benefited from the SEP are encouraged to examine the NEH’s anniversary page and, if inspired to do so, send a testimonial to