>>18
I love this, thank you for sharing!
>>14-17
I didn't expect to see anyone more passionate about this topic than I. You can prove the Archimedean Property, and you don't have to prove definitions, though.
>>20-26
This is very silly. (I actually thought is 0*n=0 was part of the ordered-field axioms; it's not, but it's easily proven from them)
>>27
That makes sense.