On Sep 20, 2007, at 7:26 PM, Rick DeNatale wrote:

> Since rationals are densely ordered, it really doesn't make sense to
> define a succ function since if a < b are both rationals there are an
> infinite number of rationals c such that  a < c < b,

No, no, they are dense *with the ordinary ordering*. It is not a  
property of the rationals as a set, it is a property of the rationals  
with their ordinary order.

I defined a succ in Q x (0, 1) just fine. It makes perfect sense to  
define a succ for rationals, as I indeed showed.

-- fxn