So if n is a member of the set of natural numbers, such that n is greater than 1 and lesser than 3, then n=2 necessarily?
closed as off topic by Keelan♦, Annotations, iphigenie, Ben, Joseph Weissman♦ Jun 18 '13 at 23:47
Questions on Philosophy Stack Exchange are expected to relate to philosophy within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
This is more on the lines of commentary on your question, rather than an answer.
If one uses the usual natural numbers then yes. But are there other systems of natural numbers?
There are non-standard integers: The integers are axiomatically defined by the Peano Axioms. We actually obtain them in a model. The question here is are all such models isomorphic - that is categorial. If we use second-order logic, they are; if first-order then not. But the initial segment of any non-standard integer model is isomorphic to the usual ones. So this doesn't work.
We could use topos rather than semantics for the PA axioms, this means the axioms are interpreted in a topos. This means that the topos must have a Natural Number Object. Whether there is a topos, within which the condition you specify fails, is for me, an open question.
Yes, if "natural numbers" is the commonly agreed on term from arithmetic. When there is no other possibility, there can only be the distinct, unqualified answer.