| 16896 | If numbers can be derived from logic, then set theory is superfluous [Frege, by Burge] |
| Full Idea: Frege thought that if one could derive the existence of numbers from logical concepts, one would not need set theory to explain number theory, or for any other good purpose. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Tyler Burge - Frege on Apriority (with ps) 2 | |
| A reaction: Note that we have two possible routes to 'explain' numbers. I'm inclined to see set theory as modelling numbers rather than explaining them. Frege did better at explanation, but I suspect he is wrong too. |
| 18161 | The theory of classes is superfluous in mathematics [Wittgenstein] |
| Full Idea: The theory of classes is completely superfluous in mathematics. This is connected with the fact that the generality required in mathematics is not accidental generality. | |
| From: Ludwig Wittgenstein (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus [1921], 6.031) | |
| A reaction: This fits Russell's no-class theory, which rests everything instead on propositional functions. |
| 8697 | Disputes about mathematical objects seem irrelevant, and mathematicians cannot resolve them [Benacerraf, by Friend] |
| Full Idea: If two children were brought up knowing two different set theories, they could entirely agree on how to do arithmetic, up to the point where they discuss ontology. There is no mathematical way to tell which is the true representation of numbers. | |
| From: report of Paul Benacerraf (What Numbers Could Not Be [1965]) by Michèle Friend - Introducing the Philosophy of Mathematics | |
| A reaction: Benacerraf ends by proposing a structuralist approach. If mathematics is consistent with conflicting set theories, then those theories are not shedding light on mathematics. |
| 8304 | No particular pair of sets can tell us what 'two' is, just by one-to-one correlation [Benacerraf, by Lowe] |
| Full Idea: Hume's Principle can't tell us what a cardinal number is (this is one lesson of Benacerraf's well-known problem). An infinity of pairs of sets could actually be the number two (not just the simplest sets). | |
| From: report of Paul Benacerraf (What Numbers Could Not Be [1965]) by E.J. Lowe - The Possibility of Metaphysics 10.3 | |
| A reaction: The drift here is for numbers to end up as being basic, axiomatic, indefinable, universal entities. Since I favour patterns as the basis of numbers, I think the basis might be in a pre-verbal experience, which even a bird might have, viewing its eggs. |
| 9906 | If ordinal numbers are 'reducible to' some set-theory, then which is which? [Benacerraf] |
| Full Idea: If a particular set-theory is in a strong sense 'reducible to' the theory of ordinal numbers... then we can still ask, but which is really which? | |
| From: Paul Benacerraf (What Numbers Could Not Be [1965], IIIB) | |
| A reaction: A nice question about all reductions. If we reduce mind to brain, does that mean that brain is really just mind. To have a direction (up/down?), reduction must lead to explanation in a single direction only. Do numbers explain sets? |
| 17821 | You can ask all sorts of numerical questions about any one given set [Yourgrau] |
| Full Idea: We can address a set with any question at all that admits of a numerical reply. Thus we can ask of {Carter, Reagan} 'How many feet do the members have?'. | |
| From: Palle Yourgrau (Sets, Aggregates and Numbers [1985], 'On Numbering') | |
| A reaction: This is his objection to the Fregean idea that once you have fixed the members of a set, you have thereby fixed the unique number that belongs with the set. |
| 17815 | We can't use sets as foundations for mathematics if we must await results from the upper reaches [Yourgrau] |
| Full Idea: Sets could hardly serve as a foundation for number theory if we had to await detailed results in the upper reaches of the edifice before we could make our first move. | |
| From: Palle Yourgrau (Sets, Aggregates and Numbers [1985], 'Two') |
| 10560 | Set-theoretic imperialists think sets can represent every mathematical object [Fine,K] |
| Full Idea: Set-theoretic imperialists think that it must be possible to represent every mathematical object as a set. | |
| From: Kit Fine (Replies on 'Limits of Abstraction' [2005], 1) |
| 10222 | Mathematical foundations may not be sets; categories are a popular rival [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Foundationalists (e.g. Quine and Lewis) have shown that mathematics can be rendered in theories other than the iterative hierarchy of sets. A dedicated contingent hold that the category of categories is the proper foundation (e.g. Lawvere). | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 3.3) | |
| A reaction: I like the sound of that. The categories are presumably concepts that generate sets. Tricky territory, with Frege's disaster as a horrible warning to be careful. |
| 17827 | Sets exist where their elements are, but numbers are more like universals [Maddy] |
| Full Idea: A set of things is located where the aggregate of those things is located, ...but a number is simultaneously located at many different places (10 in my hand, and a baseball team) ...so numbers seem more like universals than particulars. | |
| From: Penelope Maddy (Sets and Numbers [1981], III) | |
| A reaction: My gut feeling is that Maddy's master idea (of naturalising sets by building them from ur-elements of natural objects) won't work. Sets can work fine in total abstraction from nature. |
| 17830 | Number theory doesn't 'reduce' to set theory, because sets have number properties [Maddy] |
| Full Idea: I am not suggesting a reduction of number theory to set theory ...There are only sets with number properties; number theory is part of the theory of finite sets. | |
| From: Penelope Maddy (Sets and Numbers [1981], V) |
| 9643 | Set theory may represent all of mathematics, without actually being mathematics [Brown,JR] |
| Full Idea: Maybe all of mathematics can be represented in set theory, but we should not think that mathematics is set theory. Functions can be represented as order pairs, but perhaps that is not what functions really are. | |
| From: James Robert Brown (Philosophy of Mathematics [1999], Ch. 7) | |
| A reaction: This seems to me to be the correct view of the situation. If 2 is represented as {φ,{φ}}, why is that asymmetrical? The first digit seems to be the senior and original partner, but how could the digits of 2 differ from one another? |
| 9644 | When graphs are defined set-theoretically, that won't cover unlabelled graphs [Brown,JR] |
| Full Idea: The basic definition of a graph can be given in set-theoretic terms,...but then what could an unlabelled graph be? | |
| From: James Robert Brown (Philosophy of Mathematics [1999], Ch. 7) | |
| A reaction: An unlabelled graph will at least need a verbal description for it to have any significance at all. My daily mood-swings look like this.... |
| 23621 | Numbers are properties, not sets (because numbers are magnitudes) [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: I propose that numbers are properties, not sets. Magnitudes are a kind of property, and numbers are magnitudes. …Natural numbers are properties of pluralities, positive reals of continua, and ordinals of series. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Knowledge and the Philosophy of Number [2020], Intro) | |
| A reaction: Interesting! Since time can have a magnitude (three weeks) just as liquids can (three litres), it is not clear that there is a single natural property we can label 'magnitude'. Anything we can manage to measure has a magnitude. |