TITLE: Axiomatization of $\mathbb{Z}$ via well-ordering of positives.
QUESTION [5 upvotes]: Though I've seen several cool axiomizations of $\mathbb{R}$, I've never seen any at all for $\mathbb{Z}$.
My initial guess was that $\mathbb{Z}$ would be a ordered ring which is "weakly" well-ordered in the sense that any subset with a lower bound has a minimal element.
However, after seeing this definition of a discrete ordered ring, I'm less sure. I made that guess under the impression that the fundamental characteristic of $\mathbb{Z}$ is that every nonzero element has exactly one representation of the form $\pm (1+1+\dots+1)$, but that seems to be shared by every DOR. 
Presumably, this definition wouldn't exist if every instance of it was isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}$, so can someone give me an example of another discrete ordered ring? More to the point, what is a sufficient characterization of $\mathbb{Z}$? (and a proof sketch of uniqueness would be nice)
I'm aware that $\mathbb{Z}$ is pretty easily constructible from $\mathbb{N}$, but I want to use this for a seminar and given the audience I am expecting, I would rather not deal with Peano. (And I guess it feels like cheating to say "$\mathbb{N}$ is a well-ordered rig")

REPLY [3 votes]: Any ordered ring R whose positives P are well-ordered in R is isomorphic to $\mathbb Z$ as an ordered ring. The proof is easy. Hint: $ $ the natural image of $\,\mathbb Z\,$ in R is an order mononomorphism, so it remains to show it is onto. If not, R has a positive element $\rm\:w\not\in \mathbb Z.\:$ $\rm w$ is not infinite $\rm (w\! >\! n,\, \forall\, n\in\mathbb N)\,$ else $\rm\,w > w\!-\!1 > w\!-\!2,\ldots\,$ is an infinite descending chain in P, contra P well-ordered. Therefore $\rm\:w\:$ must lie between two naturals $\rm\:n < w < n\!+\!1,\:$ hence $\rm\ 0 < \epsilon < 1\:$ for $\rm\:\epsilon = w\!-\!n,\:$ therefore $\rm\: \epsilon > \epsilon^2 > \epsilon^3 > \ldots\,$ is an infinite descending chain in P, $ $ contra P is well-ordered. $ $ QED
You ask for another example of a discrete ordered ring. As here, order the ring $\rm\,\mathbb Z[x]\,$ of integer coef polynomials by: $\rm\:f > 0\:$ iff it has leading coefficient $> 0,\,$ i.e. iff $\rm\:f\:$ is positive at $+\infty,$ and $\rm\:f > g\:$ iff $\rm\,f\!-\!g > 0.\:$ Here, as above, $\rm\:x > x\!-\!1 > x\!-\!2 > \ldots\, $ so its positives are not well-ordered.

REPLY [2 votes]: Second-order quantification allows us to talk about properties of subsets of the ring, much like the completeness axiom of the real numbers (which is too a second-order statement).
We can adjoin the usual theory of ordered rings the following axiom:
$$\forall A(A\neq\varnothing\land\exists x\forall a(a\in A\rightarrow x<a)\rightarrow\exists y(y\in A\land\forall x(x\in A\rightarrow y\leq x)))$$
Saying that for non-empty every set $A$, if there is a lower bound for $A$ then $A$ has a minimal element. 
We can also follow Zhen Lin's suggestion in the comments. Notice that $\mathbb Z$ is the unique free additive group which has only one generator. That is:
$$\exists x(x\neq 0\land\forall A(x\in A\land\forall a\forall b(a\in A\land b\in A\rightarrow a+b\in A)\land\forall a(a\in A\rightarrow -a\in A)\rightarrow\forall y(y\in A)$$
This is a very complicated way of saying that there exists some $x$ which is non-zero and every $A$ in which $x$ is an element, and $A$ is closed under addition and negation imply that $A$ is everything.
In $\mathbb Z$ this is true because $x=1$. However this is not true for any other ordered ring.