86 ideas
15945 | Second-order set theory just adds a version of Replacement that quantifies over functions [Lavine] |
15914 | An 'upper bound' is the greatest member of a subset; there may be several of these, so there is a 'least' one [Lavine] |
15921 | Collections of things can't be too big, but collections by a rule seem unlimited in size [Lavine] |
15937 | Those who reject infinite collections also want to reject the Axiom of Choice [Lavine] |
15936 | The Power Set is just the collection of functions from one collection to another [Lavine] |
15899 | Replacement was immediately accepted, despite having very few implications [Lavine] |
15930 | Foundation says descending chains are of finite length, blocking circularity, or ungrounded sets [Lavine] |
15920 | Pure collections of things obey Choice, but collections defined by a rule may not [Lavine] |
15898 | The controversy was not about the Axiom of Choice, but about functions as arbitrary, or given by rules [Lavine] |
15919 | The 'logical' notion of class has some kind of definition or rule to characterise the class [Lavine] |
15900 | The iterative conception of set wasn't suggested until 1947 [Lavine] |
15931 | The iterative conception needs the Axiom of Infinity, to show how far we can iterate [Lavine] |
15932 | The iterative conception doesn't unify the axioms, and has had little impact on mathematical proofs [Lavine] |
15933 | Limitation of Size: if it's the same size as a set, it's a set; it uses Replacement [Lavine] |
15913 | A collection is 'well-ordered' if there is a least element, and all of its successors can be identified [Lavine] |
15926 | Second-order logic presupposes a set of relations already fixed by the first-order domain [Lavine] |
15934 | Mathematical proof by contradiction needs the law of excluded middle [Lavine] |
15907 | Mathematics is nowadays (thanks to set theory) regarded as the study of structure, not of quantity [Lavine] |
9935 | Mathematical truth is always compromising between ordinary language and sensible epistemology [Benacerraf] |
13412 | Obtaining numbers by abstraction is impossible - there are too many; only a rule could give them, in order [Benacerraf] |
13413 | We must explain how we know so many numbers, and recognise ones we haven't met before [Benacerraf] |
9912 | There are no such things as numbers [Benacerraf] |
9901 | Numbers can't be sets if there is no agreement on which sets they are [Benacerraf] |
15942 | Every rational number, unlike every natural number, is divisible by some other number [Lavine] |
13411 | If numbers are basically the cardinals (Frege-Russell view) you could know some numbers in isolation [Benacerraf] |
9151 | Benacerraf says numbers are defined by their natural ordering [Benacerraf, by Fine,K] |
13891 | To understand finite cardinals, it is necessary and sufficient to understand progressions [Benacerraf, by Wright,C] |
17904 | A set has k members if it one-one corresponds with the numbers less than or equal to k [Benacerraf] |
17906 | To explain numbers you must also explain cardinality, the counting of things [Benacerraf] |
15922 | For the real numbers to form a set, we need the Continuum Hypothesis to be true [Lavine] |
18250 | Cauchy gave a necessary condition for the convergence of a sequence [Lavine] |
15904 | The two sides of the Cut are, roughly, the bounding commensurable ratios [Lavine] |
9898 | We can count intransitively (reciting numbers) without understanding transitive counting of items [Benacerraf] |
17903 | Someone can recite numbers but not know how to count things; but not vice versa [Benacerraf] |
15912 | Counting results in well-ordering, and well-ordering makes counting possible [Lavine] |
9897 | The application of a system of numbers is counting and measurement [Benacerraf] |
15949 | The theory of infinity must rest on our inability to distinguish between very large sizes [Lavine] |
15947 | The infinite is extrapolation from the experience of indefinitely large size [Lavine] |
15940 | The intuitionist endorses only the potential infinite [Lavine] |
15909 | 'Aleph-0' is cardinality of the naturals, 'aleph-1' the next cardinal, 'aleph-ω' the ω-th cardinal [Lavine] |
15915 | Ordinals are basic to Cantor's transfinite, to count the sets [Lavine] |
15917 | Paradox: the class of all ordinals is well-ordered, so must have an ordinal as type - giving a bigger ordinal [Lavine] |
15918 | Paradox: there is no largest cardinal, but the class of everything seems to be the largest [Lavine] |
9900 | For Zermelo 3 belongs to 17, but for Von Neumann it does not [Benacerraf] |
9899 | The successor of x is either x and all its members, or just the unit set of x [Benacerraf] |
15929 | Set theory will found all of mathematics - except for the notion of proof [Lavine] |
8697 | Disputes about mathematical objects seem irrelevant, and mathematicians cannot resolve them [Benacerraf, by Friend] |
8304 | No particular pair of sets can tell us what 'two' is, just by one-to-one correlation [Benacerraf, by Lowe] |
9906 | If ordinal numbers are 'reducible to' some set-theory, then which is which? [Benacerraf] |
13415 | An adequate account of a number must relate it to its series [Benacerraf] |
9907 | If any recursive sequence will explain ordinals, then it seems to be the structure which matters [Benacerraf] |
9908 | The job is done by the whole system of numbers, so numbers are not objects [Benacerraf] |
9909 | The number 3 defines the role of being third in a progression [Benacerraf] |
9911 | Number words no more have referents than do the parts of a ruler [Benacerraf] |
8925 | Mathematical objects only have properties relating them to other 'elements' of the same structure [Benacerraf] |
9938 | How can numbers be objects if order is their only property? [Benacerraf, by Putnam] |
9910 | Number-as-objects works wholesale, but fails utterly object by object [Benacerraf] |
17927 | Realists have semantics without epistemology, anti-realists epistemology but bad semantics [Benacerraf, by Colyvan] |
9936 | The platonist view of mathematics doesn't fit our epistemology very well [Benacerraf] |
15935 | Modern mathematics works up to isomorphism, and doesn't care what things 'really are' [Lavine] |
9903 | Number words are not predicates, as they function very differently from adjectives [Benacerraf] |
9904 | The set-theory paradoxes mean that 17 can't be the class of all classes with 17 members [Benacerraf] |
15928 | Intuitionism rejects set-theory to found mathematics [Lavine] |
458 | Nothing could come out of nothing, and existence could never completely cease [Empedocles] |
5112 | Empedocles says things are at rest, unless love unites them, or hatred splits them [Empedocles, by Aristotle] |
13209 | There is no coming-to-be of anything, but only mixing and separating [Empedocles, by Aristotle] |
457 | Substance is not created or destroyed in mortals, but there is only mixing and exchange [Empedocles] |
9905 | Identity statements make sense only if there are possible individuating conditions [Benacerraf] |
462 | One vision is produced by both eyes [Empedocles] |
22765 | Wisdom and thought are shared by all things [Empedocles] |
1524 | For Empedocles thinking is almost identical to perception [Empedocles, by Theophrastus] |
552 | Empedocles said good and evil were the basic principles [Empedocles, by Aristotle] |
589 | 'Nature' is just a word invented by people [Empedocles] |
21823 | The principle of 'Friendship' in Empedocles is the One, and is bodiless [Empedocles, by Plotinus] |
2680 | Empedocles said that there are four material elements, and two further creative elements [Empedocles, by Aristotle] |
6002 | Empedocles says bone is water, fire and earth in ratio 2:4:2 [Empedocles, by Inwood] |
13207 | Fire, Water, Air and Earth are elements, being simple as well as homoeomerous [Empedocles, by Aristotle] |
459 | All change is unity through love or division through hate [Empedocles] |
13218 | The elements combine in coming-to-be, but how do the elements themselves come-to-be? [Aristotle on Empedocles] |
13225 | Love and Strife only explain movement if their effects are distinctive [Aristotle on Empedocles] |
460 | If the one Being ever diminishes it would no longer exist, and what could ever increase it? [Empedocles] |
5090 | Maybe bodies are designed by accident, and the creatures that don't work are destroyed [Empedocles, by Aristotle] |
466 | God is pure mind permeating the universe [Empedocles] |
461 | God is a pure, solitary, and eternal sphere [Empedocles] |
1719 | In Empedocles' theory God is ignorant because, unlike humans, he doesn't know one of the elements (strife) [Aristotle on Empedocles] |
1522 | It is wretched not to want to think clearly about the gods [Empedocles] |