I am an undergraduate student, currently studying axiomatic set theory (I am reading Halmos' Naive Set Theory as an overview, and consulting other sources recommended to me to supplement the sparser parts of the exposition; I am familiar with all of the material in his book up to this point, but not much more).
After proving the Peano "axioms" in ZF, Halmos states the Recursion Theorem (given $f: X \rightarrow X$, $a \in X$, \begin{equation} \exists u: \omega \rightarrow X (u(0) = a \land u(n^+) = f(u(n))) \end{equation}
and this $u$ is unique).
Halmos' proof sketch raised some questions for me (I am aware that some ground has been broken with these here $\rightarrow$ Need help with Recursion Theorem (Set Theory) , Explaining why a function is well-defined ):
- It was mentioned in the above articles that recursively defining a factorial function, or the Fibonacci numbers, or other truly recursive functions, requires a more general theorem; could someone sketch a proof of that?
- Halmos' argument about discarded elements does not convince me (I object to the induction step, which is vague); can this argument be improved?
- Since I have only seen the existence of numbers and the empty set postulated so far: will ZFC at some point gain the ability to discuss collections of objects which are not numbers?