1 is still the successor of 0 and 3 is still the successor of the successor of 2 [you wrote 1 here, but I understand that this was a typo], where 0 is the additive identity
I wrote “successor of the successor of” − 3 is the successor of 2, which is the successor of 1. But I understand that this was a typo. :P
I wrote “successor of the successor of” − 3 is the successor of 2, which is the successor of 1. But I understand that this was a typo. :P
But yes, I enjoyed that. Thank you.
Ha, that would be a reado!
But seriously, I should have read that again. I got it in my head that you had done this while I spent time planning my response and forgot to verify.