Axiomatic natural numbers without induction principle In the book "Joseph J. Rotman Advanced Modern Algebra" the induction principle is derived by the principle of minimum but not using an axiomatic system of natural numbers. Is it possible to have axioms for natural numbers where we don't have induction principle (used instead in Peano's axioms)?
I report also this quote that can be useful for this question:

It is mistakenly printed in several books[21] and sources that the
  well-ordering principle is equivalent to the induction axiom. In the
  context of the other Peano axioms, this is not the case, but in the
  context of other axioms, they can be equivalent.[21]
The common mistake in many erroneous proofs is to assume that n-1 is a
  unique and well-defined natural number, a property which is not
  implied by the other Peano axioms.[21]

Taken by:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction
 A: Some axiomatizations appearing in documents, roughly arranged in increasing order of reliance on induction:

*

*As mentioned in the comments, there is an "inductive set" definition of the naturals, from which induction follows. From this, it follows that every natural number is either 0 or a successor. Welch states this as proposition 2.6 after proving the correctness of induction along $\omega$ as theorem 2.5, by showing that the set $\{n\in\omega\mid\Phi(n)\}$ must be inductive, and an inductive subset of $\omega$ is equal to $\omega$.

*T. L. Wong has a set of lecture notes titled "Model theory of arithmetic", in which a theory $\mathrm{PA}^-$ is introduced, including axiom (xiii): $\forall x,y(x<y\implies\exists z(y=x+z+1))$. Here, we are able to guarantee that for nonzero $y$, $y-1$ exists and is unique.

*In Slaman's paper $\Sigma_n$-bounding and $\Delta_n$-induction, an axiom similar to Wong's (xiii) is introduced, except the trailing $+1$ is removed. As $\omega$ is an additively principal ordinal, this rules out the case from "Are induction and well-ordering equivalent?" of $(\omega2,<)$.

