display all the ideas for this combination of philosophers
12 ideas
8309 | A set is a 'number of things', not a 'collection', because nothing actually collects the members [Lowe] |
Full Idea: A set is 'a number of things', not a 'collection'. Nothing literally 'collects' the members of a set, such as the set of planets of the sun, unless it be a Fregean 'concept' under which they fall. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (The Possibility of Metaphysics [1998], 10.6) | |
A reaction: I'm tempted to say that the sun has collected a set of planets (they're the ones that rotate around it). Why can't we have natural sets, which have been collected by nature? A question of the intension, as well as the extension.... |
9572 | Realists about sets say there exists a null set in the real world, with no members [Chihara] |
Full Idea: In the Gödelian realistic view of set theory the statement that there is a null set as the assertion of the existence in the real world of a set that has no members. | |
From: Charles Chihara (A Structural Account of Mathematics [2004], 11.6) | |
A reaction: It seems to me obvious that such a claim is nonsense on stilts. 'In the beginning there was the null set'? |
9550 | We only know relational facts about the empty set, but nothing intrinsic [Chihara] |
Full Idea: Everything we know about the empty set is relational; we know that nothing is the membership relation to it. But what do we know about its 'intrinsic properties'? | |
From: Charles Chihara (A Structural Account of Mathematics [2004], 01.5) | |
A reaction: Set theory seems to depend on the concept of the empty set. Modern theorists seem over-influenced by the Quine-Putnam view, that if science needs it, we must commit ourselves to its existence. |
9562 | In simple type theory there is a hierarchy of null sets [Chihara] |
Full Idea: In simple type theory, there is a null set of type 1, a null set of type 2, a null set of type 3..... (Quine has expressed his distaste for this). | |
From: Charles Chihara (A Structural Account of Mathematics [2004], 07.4) | |
A reaction: It is bad enough trying to individuate the unique null set, without whole gangs of them drifting indistinguishably through the logical fog. All rational beings should share Quine's distaste, even if Quine is wrong. |
9573 | The null set is a structural position which has no other position in membership relation [Chihara] |
Full Idea: In the structuralist view of sets, in structures of a certain sort the null set is taken to be a position (or point) that will be such that no other position (or point) will be in the membership relation to it. | |
From: Charles Chihara (A Structural Account of Mathematics [2004], 11.6) | |
A reaction: It would be hard to conceive of something having a place in a structure if nothing had a relation to it, so is the null set related to singeton sets but not there members. It will be hard to avoid Platonism here. Set theory needs the null set. |
8322 | I don't believe in the empty set, because (lacking members) it lacks identity-conditions [Lowe] |
Full Idea: It is not clear to me that the empty set has well-defined identity-conditions. A set has these only to the extent that its members do - but the empty set has none. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (The Possibility of Metaphysics [1998], 12.3 n8) | |
A reaction: The empty set is widely used by those who base their metaphysics of maths on sets. It defines zero, and hence is the starting poing for Peano's Postulates (Idea 5897). It might not have identity in itself, but you know where you have arrived after 2 - 2. |
9551 | What is special about Bill Clinton's unit set, in comparison with all the others? [Chihara] |
Full Idea: What is it about the intrinsic properties of just that one unit set in virtue of which Bill Clinton is related to just it and not to any other unit sets in the set-theoretical universe? | |
From: Charles Chihara (A Structural Account of Mathematics [2004], 01.5) | |
A reaction: If we all kept pet woodlice, we had better not hold a wood louse rally, or we might go home with the wrong one. My singleton seems seems remarkably like yours. Could we, perhaps, swap, just for a change? |
9549 | The set theorist cannot tell us what 'membership' is [Chihara] |
Full Idea: The set theorist cannot tell us anything about the true relationship of membership. | |
From: Charles Chihara (A Structural Account of Mathematics [2004], 01.5) | |
A reaction: If three unrelated objects suddenly became members of a set, it is hard to see how the world would have changed, except in the minds of those thinking about it. |
9571 | ZFU refers to the physical world, when it talks of 'urelements' [Chihara] |
Full Idea: ZFU set theory talks about physical objects (the urelements), and hence is in some way about the physical world. | |
From: Charles Chihara (A Structural Account of Mathematics [2004], 11.5) | |
A reaction: This sounds a bit surprising, given that the whole theory would appear to be quite unaffected if God announced that idealism is true and there are no physical objects. |
18151 | Could we replace sets by the open sentences that define them? [Chihara, by Bostock] |
Full Idea: Chihara proposes to replace all sets by reference to the open sentences that define them. | |
From: report of Charles Chihara (Ontology and the Vicious Circle Principle [1973]) by David Bostock - Philosophy of Mathematics 9.B.4 | |
A reaction: This depends on predicativism, because that stipulates the definitions will be available (cos if it ain't definable it ain't there). Chihara went on to define the open sentences in terms of the possibility of uttering them. Cf. propositional functions. |
8758 | We could talk of open sentences, instead of sets [Chihara, by Shapiro] |
Full Idea: Chihara's programme is to replace talk of sets with talk of open sentences. Instead of speaking of the set of all cats, we talk about the open sentence 'x is a cat'. | |
From: report of Charles Chihara (Constructibility and Mathematical Existence [1990]) by Stewart Shapiro - Thinking About Mathematics 9.2 | |
A reaction: As Shapiro points out, this is following up Russell's view that sets should be replaced with talk of properties. Chihara is expressing it more linguistically. I'm in favour of any attempt to get rid of sets. |
9563 | A pack of wolves doesn't cease when one member dies [Chihara] |
Full Idea: A pack of wolves is not thought to go out of existence just because some member of the pack is killed. | |
From: Charles Chihara (A Structural Account of Mathematics [2004], 07.5) | |
A reaction: The point is that the formal extensional notion of a set doesn't correspond to our common sense notion of a group or class. Even a highly scientific theory about wolves needs a loose notion of a wolf pack. |