display all the ideas for this combination of philosophers
122 ideas
| 16869 | To create order in mathematics we need a full system, guided by patterns of inference [Frege] |
| Full Idea: We cannot long remain content with the present fragmentation [of mathematics]. Order can be created only by a system. But to construct a system it is necessary that in any step forward we take we should be aware of the logical inferences involved. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Logic in Mathematics [1914], p.205) |
| 9618 | Bolzano wanted to reduce all of geometry to arithmetic [Bolzano, by Brown,JR] |
| Full Idea: Bolzano if the father of 'arithmetization', which sought to found all of analysis on the concepts of arithmetic and to eliminate geometrical notions entirely (with logicism taking it a step further, by reducing arithmetic to logic). | |
| From: report of Bernard Bolzano (Theory of Science (Wissenschaftslehre, 4 vols) [1837]) by James Robert Brown - Philosophy of Mathematics Ch. 3 | |
| A reaction: Brown's book is a defence of geometrical diagrams against Bolzano's approach. Bolzano sounds like the modern heir of Pythagoras, if he thinks that space is essentially numerical. |
| 9886 | Cardinals say how many, and reals give measurements compared to a unit quantity [Frege] |
| Full Idea: The cardinals and the reals are completely disjoint domains. The cardinal numbers answer the question 'How many objects of a given kind are there?', but the real numbers are for measurement, saying how large a quantity is compared to a unit quantity. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Grundgesetze der Arithmetik 2 (Basic Laws) [1903], §157), quoted by Michael Dummett - Frege philosophy of mathematics Ch.19 | |
| A reaction: We might say that cardinals are digital and reals are analogue. Frege is unusual in totally separating them. They map onto one another, after all. Cardinals look like special cases of reals. Reals are dreams about the gaps between cardinals. |
| 18256 | Quantity is inconceivable without the idea of addition [Frege] |
| Full Idea: There is so intimate a connection between the concepts of addition and of quantity that one cannot begin to grasp the latter without the former. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Rechnungsmethoden (dissertation) [1874], p.2), quoted by Michael Dummett - Frege philosophy of mathematics 22 'Quantit' | |
| A reaction: Frege offers good reasons for making cardinals prior to ordinals, though plenty of people disagree. |
| 8640 | We cannot define numbers from the idea of a series, because numbers must precede that [Frege] |
| Full Idea: We cannot define number by the generalized concept of a series. Positions in the series cannot be the basis on which we distinguish the objects, since they must already have been distinguished somehow or other, for us to arrange them in a series. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884], §42) | |
| A reaction: You can arrange things in a line without the use of numbers. You need prior mastery of counting, though, to say where an item comes in the line. And yet... why shouldn't you define counting by the use of some original primitive line? Numbers map onto it. |
| 18252 | Real numbers are ratios of quantities, such as lengths or masses [Frege] |
| Full Idea: If 'number' is the referent of a numerical symbol, a real number is the same as a ratio of quantities. ...A length can have to another length the same ratio as a mass to another mass. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Grundgesetze der Arithmetik 1 (Basic Laws) [1893], III.1.73), quoted by Michael Dummett - Frege philosophy of mathematics 21 'Frege's' | |
| A reaction: This is part of a critique of Cantor and the Cauchy series approach. Interesting that Frege, who is in the platonist camp, is keen to connect the real numbers with natural phenomena. He is always keen to keep touch with the application of mathematics. |
| 18253 | I wish to go straight from cardinals to reals (as ratios), leaving out the rationals [Frege] |
| Full Idea: You need a double transition, from cardinal numbes (Anzahlen) to the rational numbers, and from the latter to the real numbers generally. I wish to go straight from the cardinal numbers to the real numbers as ratios of quantities. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Letters to Russell [1902], 1903.05.21), quoted by Michael Dummett - Frege philosophy of mathematics 21 'Frege's' | |
| A reaction: Note that Frege's real numbers are not quantities, but ratios of quantities. In this way the same real number can refer to lengths, masses, intensities etc. |
| 9889 | Real numbers are ratios of quantities [Frege, by Dummett] |
| Full Idea: Frege fixed on construing real numbers as ratios of quantities (in agreement with Newton). | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundgesetze der Arithmetik 2 (Basic Laws) [1903]) by Michael Dummett - Frege philosophy of mathematics Ch.20 | |
| A reaction: If 3/4 is the same real number as 6/8, which is the correct ratio? Why doesn't the square root of 9/16 also express it? Why should irrationals be so utterly different from rationals? In what sense are they both 'numbers'? |
| 9838 | Treating 0 as a number avoids antinomies involving treating 'nobody' as a person [Frege, by Dummett] |
| Full Idea: Frege's point was that by treating 0 as a number, we run into none of the antinomies that result from treating 'never' as the name of a time, or 'nobody' as the name of a person. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Michael Dummett - Frege philosophy of mathematics Ch.8 | |
| A reaction: I don't think that is a good enough reason. Daft problems like that are solved by settling the underlying proposition or logical form (of a sentence containing 'nobody') before one begins to reason. Other antinomies arise with zero. |
| 9564 | For Frege 'concept' and 'extension' are primitive, but 'zero' and 'successor' are defined [Frege, by Chihara] |
| Full Idea: In Frege's system 'concept' and 'extension of a concept' are primitive notions; whereas 'zero' and 'successor' are defined. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Charles Chihara - A Structural Account of Mathematics 7.5 | |
| A reaction: This is in contrast to the earlier Peano Postulates for arithmetic, which treat 'zero' and 'successor' as primitive. Interesting, given that Frege is famous for being a platonist. |
| 10551 | If objects exist because they fall under a concept, 0 is the object under which no objects fall [Frege, by Dummett] |
| Full Idea: On Frege's approach (of accepting abstract objects if they fall under a concept) the existence of the number 0, from which the series of numbers starts, is of course guaranteed by the citation of a concept under which nothing falls. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Michael Dummett - Frege Philosophy of Language (2nd ed) Ch.14 | |
| A reaction: Frege cites the set of all non-self-identical objects, but he could have cited the set of circular squares. Given his Russell Paradox problems, this whole claim is thrown in doubt. Actually doesn't Frege's view make 0 impossible? Am I missing something? |
| 8653 | Nought is the number belonging to the concept 'not identical with itself' [Frege] |
| Full Idea: I define nought as the Number which belongs to the concept 'not identical with itself'. ...I choose this definition as it can be proved on purely logical grounds. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884], §74) | |
| A reaction: An important part of Frege's logicist programme, along with his use of Hume's Principle (Idea 8649). He needed a prior definition of 'Number' (in §68). Clever, but intuitively a rather weird idea of zero. It is more of an example than a definition. |
| 8636 | We can say 'a and b are F' if F is 'wise', but not if it is 'one' [Frege] |
| Full Idea: We combine 'Solon was wise' and 'Thales was wise' into 'Solon and Thales were wise', but we can't say 'Solon and Thales were one', which implies that 'one' is not a property in the same way 'wise' is. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884], §29) | |
| A reaction: Maybe 'one' is still a property, but of a different sort. However, Frege builds up a very persuasive case that just because numbers function as adjectives it does not follow that they are properties. See Idea 8637. |
| 8654 | One is the Number which belongs to the concept "identical with 0" [Frege] |
| Full Idea: One is the Number which belongs to the concept "identical with 0". | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884], §77) | |
| A reaction: This follows from Idea 8653, which defined zero. Zero is the number of a non-existent set, and one is how many sets you have when you have only got zero. Very clever. |
| 8641 | You can abstract concepts from the moon, but the number one is not among them [Frege] |
| Full Idea: What are we supposed to abstract from to get from the moon to the number 1? We do get certain concepts, such as satellite, but 1 is not to be met with. In the case of 0 we have no objects at all. ..The essence of number must work for 0 and 1. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884], §44) | |
| A reaction: Note that Frege seems to be conceding psychological abstraction for most other concepts. But why can't you abstract from your abstractions, to reach high-level abstractions? And why should numbers not emerge at those higher levels? |
| 9989 | Units can be equal without being identical [Tait on Frege] |
| Full Idea: The fact that units are equal does not mean that they are identical. The units can be equal just in the sense that once can be substituted for any other without altering the name assigned, i.e. the number. | |
| From: comment on Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884], §54) by William W. Tait - Frege versus Cantor and Dedekind XI | |
| A reaction: [this is in reference to Thomae 1880] Presumably this might mean that units have type-identity, rather than token-dentity. 'This' unit might be a token, but 'a' unit would be a type. I am extremely reluctant to ditch the old concept of a unit. |
| 17429 | Frege says only concepts which isolate and avoid arbitrary division can give units [Frege, by Koslicki] |
| Full Idea: It is Frege's view that only concepts which satisfy isolation and non-arbitrary division can play the role of dividing up what falls under them into countable units. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884], §54) by Kathrin Koslicki - Isolation and Non-arbitrary Division 2.1 | |
| A reaction: Compare Idea 17429. If I count out a 'team of players', I need this unit concept to get what a 'player' is, but then need the 'team' concept to do the counting. Number doesn't attach to the unit concept. |
| 17427 | Frege's 'isolation' could be absence of overlap, or drawing conceptual boundaries [Frege, by Koslicki] |
| Full Idea: Frege's proposal can be isolation as discreteness, i.e. absence of overlap, between the objects counted; and isolation as drawing of conceptual boundaries. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Kathrin Koslicki - Isolation and Non-arbitrary Division 1 |
| 17437 | Non-arbitrary division means that what falls under the concept cannot be divided into more of the same [Frege, by Koslicki] |
| Full Idea: Non-arbitrary division concerns the internal structure of the things falling under a concept. Its point is to ensure that we cannot go on dividing these units arbitrarily and still expect to find more things of the same kind. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Kathrin Koslicki - Isolation and Non-arbitrary Division 2.3 | |
| A reaction: Counting something red is given as an example. This seems to define mass-terms, or stuff. |
| 17438 | Our concepts decide what is countable, as in seeing the leaves of the tree, or the foliage [Frege, by Koslicki] |
| Full Idea: For Frege, the distinction between what we count and what we do not count is drawn by our concepts. ...We can describe the very same external phenomena either as the leaves of a tree or its foliage. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Kathrin Koslicki - Isolation and Non-arbitrary Division 3 | |
| A reaction: Hm. We can't obey 'count the foliage', but we all know that foliage is countable stuff, where water isn't. Nature has a say here - it isn't just a matter of our concepts. |
| 17426 | A concept creating a unit must isolate and unify what falls under it [Frege] |
| Full Idea: Only a concept which isolates what falls under it in a definite manner, and which does not permit any arbitrary division of it into parts, can be a unit relative to finite Number. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884], §54), quoted by Kathrin Koslicki - Isolation and Non-arbitrary Division 1 | |
| A reaction: This is the key modern proposal for the basis of counting, by trying to get at the sort of concept which will turn something into a 'unit'. The concept must isolate and unify. Why should just one concept do that each time? |
| 17428 | Frege says counting is determining what number belongs to a given concept [Frege, by Koslicki] |
| Full Idea: Roughly, Frege's picture of counting is this. When we count something, we determine what number belongs to a given concept. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884], §54) by Kathrin Koslicki - Isolation and Non-arbitrary Division 2.1 | |
| A reaction: If the concept were 'herd of sheep' that would need a context before there could be a fixed number. You can count until you get bored, like counting stars to get to sleep. 'Count off 20 sheep' has the number before the counting starts. |
| 15916 | Frege's one-to-one correspondence replaces well-ordering, because infinities can't be counted [Frege, by Lavine] |
| Full Idea: Frege assumed that since infinite collections cannot be counted, he needed a theory of number that is independent of counting. He therefore took one-to-one correspondence to be basic, not well-orderings. Hence cardinals are basic, not ordinals. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Shaughan Lavine - Understanding the Infinite III.4 |
| 17446 | Counting rests on one-one correspondence, of numerals to objects [Frege] |
| Full Idea: Counting rests itself on a one-one correlation, namely of numerals 1 to n and the objects. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894]), quoted by Richard G. Heck - Cardinality, Counting and Equinumerosity 3 | |
| A reaction: Parsons observes that counting will establish a one-one correspondence, but that doesn't make it the aim of counting, and so Frege hasn't answered Husserl properly. Which of the two is conceptually prior? How do you decide. |
| 9582 | Husserl rests sameness of number on one-one correlation, forgetting the correlation with numbers themselves [Frege] |
| Full Idea: When Husserl says that sameness of number can be shown by one-one correlation, he forgets that this counting itself rests on a univocal one-one correlation, namely that between the numerals 1 to n and the objects of the set. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894], p.326) | |
| A reaction: This is the platonist talking. Neo-logicism is attempting to build numbers just from the one-one correlation of objects. |
| 10856 | A truly infinite quantity does not need to be a variable [Bolzano] |
| Full Idea: A truly infinite quantity (for example, the length of a straight line, unbounded in either direction) does not by any means need to be a variable. | |
| From: Bernard Bolzano (Paradoxes of the Infinite [1846]), quoted by Brian Clegg - Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable §10 | |
| A reaction: This is an important idea, followed up by Cantor, which relegated to the sidelines the view of infinity as simply something that could increase without limit. Personally I like the old view, but there is something mathematically stable about infinity. |
| 10034 | The number of natural numbers is not a natural number [Frege, by George/Velleman] |
| Full Idea: Frege shows that the number of natural numbers is not identical to any natural number. This is because, while no natural number is identical to its successor, the number of natural numbers is. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by A.George / D.J.Velleman - Philosophies of Mathematics Ch.2 | |
| A reaction: Frege is notorious for the lack of respect shown in his writings for the great Cantor, and this seems to have blocked him from a more sophisticated account of infinity, but this idea seems a nice one. |
| 18271 | We can't prove everything, but we can spell out the unproved, so that foundations are clear [Frege] |
| Full Idea: It cannot be demanded that everything be proved, because that is impossible; but we can require that all propositions used without proof be expressly declared as such, so that we can see distinctly what the whole structure rests upon. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Grundgesetze der Arithmetik 1 (Basic Laws) [1893], p.2), quoted by J. Alberto Coffa - The Semantic Tradition from Kant to Carnap 7 'What' |
| 16883 | Arithmetical statements can't be axioms, because they are provable [Frege, by Burge] |
| Full Idea: For Frege, no arithmetical statement is an axiom, because all are provable. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Tyler Burge - Frege on Knowing the Foundations 1 | |
| A reaction: This is Frege's logicism, in which the true and unprovable axioms are all found in the logic, not in the arithmetic. Compare that view with the Dedekind/Peano axioms. |
| 16864 | If principles are provable, they are theorems; if not, they are axioms [Frege] |
| Full Idea: If the law [of induction] can be proved, it will be included amongst the theorems of mathematics; if it cannot, it will be included amongst the axioms. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Logic in Mathematics [1914], p.203) | |
| A reaction: This links Frege with the traditional Euclidean view of axioms. The question, then, is how do we know them, given that we can't prove them. |
| 17855 | It may be possible to define induction in terms of the ancestral relation [Frege, by Wright,C] |
| Full Idea: Frege's account of the ancestral has made it possible, in effect, to define the natural numbers as entities for which induction holds. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Begriffsschrift [1879]) by Crispin Wright - Frege's Concept of Numbers as Objects 4.xix | |
| A reaction: This is the opposite of the approach in the Peano Axioms, where induction is used to define the natural numbers. |
| 10625 | Frege had a motive to treat numbers as objects, but not a justification [Hale/Wright on Frege] |
| Full Idea: It has been observed that Frege has a motive to treat numbers as objects, but not a justification for doing so. | |
| From: comment on Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by B Hale / C Wright - Intro to 'The Reason's Proper Study' §3.2 |
| 13871 | Frege claims that numbers are objects, as opposed to them being Fregean concepts [Frege, by Wright,C] |
| Full Idea: When Frege urges that numbers are to be thought of as objects, the content of this claim has to be derived from its opposition to the claim that numbers are Fregean concepts. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Crispin Wright - Frege's Concept of Numbers as Objects 1.ii |
| 13872 | Numbers are second-level, ascribing properties to concepts rather than to objects [Frege, by Wright,C] |
| Full Idea: Frege had the insight that statements of number, like statements of existence, are in a sense second-level. That is, they are most fruitfully and least confusingly seen as ascribing a property not to an object, but to a concept. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Crispin Wright - Frege's Concept of Numbers as Objects 1.iii | |
| A reaction: This sounds neat, but I'm immediately wondering whether he is just noticing how languages work, rather than how things are. If I say red is a bright colour, I am saying something about red objects. |
| 9816 | For Frege, successor was a relation, not a function [Frege, by Dummett] |
| Full Idea: Frege was operating with a successor relation, rather than a successor function. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Michael Dummett - Frege philosophy of mathematics Ch.2 | |
| A reaction: That is, succession is a given fact, not a construction. 4 may be the successor of 3 in natural numbers, but not in rational or real numbers, so we can't take the relation for granted. |
| 9953 | Numbers are more than just 'second-level concepts', since existence is also one [Frege, by George/Velleman] |
| Full Idea: Frege needs more than just saying that numbers are second-level concepts under which first-level concepts fall, because they can fall under many second-level concepts, such as that of existence. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by A.George / D.J.Velleman - Philosophies of Mathematics Ch.2 | |
| A reaction: This marks the end of the first stage of Frege's theory, which leads him on to objects and Hume's Principle. After you have written 'level' a few times, you begin to wonder whether thought and world really are carved up in such a neat way. |
| 9954 | "Number of x's such that ..x.." is a functional expression, yielding a name when completed [Frege, by George/Velleman] |
| Full Idea: We can view "the number of x's such that ...x..." as a functional expression that is completed by a first-level predicate and yields a name (which is of the right kind to denote an object). | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by A.George / D.J.Velleman - Philosophies of Mathematics Ch.2 | |
| A reaction: This is how Frege gets, in his account, from numbers being predicates to numbers being objects. He was a clever lad. |
| 10139 | Frege gives an incoherent account of extensions resulting from abstraction [Fine,K on Frege] |
| Full Idea: Frege identifies each conceptual abstract with the corresponding extension of concepts. But the extensions themselves are among the abstracts, so each extension is identical with the class of all concepts that have that extension, which is absurd. | |
| From: comment on Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Kit Fine - The Limits of Abstraction I.2 | |
| A reaction: Fine says this point is 'from the standpoint of a general theory of abstracts', which presumably was implied in Frege, but not actually spelled out. |
| 10028 | For Frege the number of F's is a collection of first-level concepts [Frege, by George/Velleman] |
| Full Idea: Frege defines 'the number of F's' as the extension of the concept 'equinumerous with F'. The extension of such a concept will be a collection of first-level concepts, namely, just those that are equinumerous with F. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by A.George / D.J.Velleman - Philosophies of Mathematics Ch.2 | |
| A reaction: This must be reconciled with Frege's platonism, which tells us that numbers are objects, so the objects are second-level sets. Would there be third-level object/sets, such as the set of all the second-level sets perfectly divisible by three? |
| 17636 | A cardinal number may be defined as a class of similar classes [Frege, by Russell] |
| Full Idea: Frege showed that a cardinal number may be defined as a class of similar classes. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Bertrand Russell - Regressive Method for Premises in Mathematics p.277 |
| 9586 | In a number-statement, something is predicated of a concept [Frege] |
| Full Idea: In a number-statement, something is predicated of a concept. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894], p.328) | |
| A reaction: A succinct statement of Frege's theory of numbers. By my lights that would make numbers at least second-order abstractions. |
| 10029 | Numbers need to be objects, to define the extension of the concept of each successor to n [Frege, by George/Velleman] |
| Full Idea: The fact that numbers are objects guarantees the availability of a supply of n+1 objects, which can be used to define the concept F for the successor of n, by defining the objects which fall under F. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by A.George / D.J.Velleman - Philosophies of Mathematics Ch.2 | |
| A reaction: [compressed] This is the key step which takes from from numbers being adjectival to numbers being objectual. One wonders whether physical objects might do the necessary job at the next level down. Numbers need countables. |
| 9973 | The number of F's is the extension of the second level concept 'is equipollent with F' [Frege, by Tait] |
| Full Idea: Frege's definition is that the number N F(x) of F's, where F is a concept, is the extension of the second level concept 'is equipollent with F'. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by William W. Tait - Frege versus Cantor and Dedekind III | |
| A reaction: In trying to pin Frege down precisely, we must remember that an extension can be a collection of sets, as well as a collection of concrete particulars. |
| 16500 | Frege showed that numbers attach to concepts, not to objects [Frege, by Wiggins] |
| Full Idea: It was a justly celebrated insight of Frege that numbers attach to the concepts under which objects fall, and not to the objects themselves. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by David Wiggins - Sameness and Substance 1.6 | |
| A reaction: A combination of this idea, and Aristotle's 'Categories', give us the roots of the philosophy of David Wiggins. Frege's example of two boots (or one 'pair' of boots) is the clearest example. But the world dictates our concepts. |
| 9990 | Frege replaced Cantor's sets as the objects of equinumerosity attributions with concepts [Frege, by Tait] |
| Full Idea: Frege's contribution with respect to the definition of equinumerosity was to replace Cantor's sets as the objects of number attributions by concepts. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by William W. Tait - Frege versus Cantor and Dedekind XII | |
| A reaction: This pinpoints Frege's big idea, which is a powerful one, and may be right. The difficulty seems to be that the extension is ultimately what counts (because that is where plurality resides), and it is tricky getting the concept to determine the extension. |
| 7738 | Zero is defined using 'is not self-identical', and one by using the concept of zero [Frege, by Weiner] |
| Full Idea: Zero is the extension of 'is equinumerous with the concept "is not self-identical"' (which holds of no objects); ..one is defined as the extension of 'is equinumerous with the concept "is identical to zero"'. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Joan Weiner - Frege Ch.4 | |
| A reaction: It sounds like some sort of cheating to define zero in terms of objects, but one in terms of concepts. |
| 23456 | Frege said logical predication implies classes, which are arithmetical objects [Frege, by Morris,M] |
| Full Idea: Frege's idea is that the logical notion of predication is enough to generate appropriate objects. Every predicate defines a class, which is in turn an object to which predicates apply; and the notion of a class can be used to generate arithmetic. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Michael Morris - Guidebook to Wittgenstein's Tractatus 2H | |
| A reaction: At last, a lovely clear account of what Frege was doing - and why Russell's paradox was Frege's disaster. Logicism must take the ingredients of logic, and generate arithmetical 'objects' from them alone. But do we need 'objects'? |
| 13887 | Frege started with contextual definition, but then switched to explicit extensional definition [Frege, by Wright,C] |
| Full Idea: Frege abandoned contextual definition of numerical singular terms, and decided to go for explicit definitions in terms of extension-denoting terms instead. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Crispin Wright - Frege's Concept of Numbers as Objects 3.xiv |
| 13897 | Each number, except 0, is the number of the concept of all of its predecessors [Frege, by Wright,C] |
| Full Idea: In Frege's definition of numbers, each number, except 0, is defined as the number belonging to the concept under which just its predecessors fall. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Crispin Wright - Frege's Concept of Numbers as Objects 4.xvii | |
| A reaction: This would make the numbers dependent on all of the predecessors, just as Dedekind's numbers do. Dedekind's progression has to continue, but why should Frege's? Frege's are just there, where Dedekind's are constructed. Why are Frege's ordered? |
| 9856 | Frege's account of cardinals fails in modern set theory, so they are now defined differently [Dummett on Frege] |
| Full Idea: In standard set theory, Frege's cardinals could not be members of classes, and his proof of the infinity of natural numbers fails. Nowadays they are defined as sets each representative of its cardinality, comprising ordinals of lower cardinality. | |
| From: comment on Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Michael Dummett - Frege philosophy of mathematics Ch.14 | |
| A reaction: Pinning something down in a unique way is not the same as telling you its intrinsic nature. But a completely successful definition seems to have locked on to some deep truth about its target. |
| 9902 | Frege's incorrect view is that a number is an equivalence class [Benacerraf on Frege] |
| Full Idea: Frege view (which has little to commend it) was that the number 3 is the extension of the concept 'equivalent with some 3-membered set'; that is, for Frege a number was an equivalence class - the class of all classes equivalent with a given class. | |
| From: comment on Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Paul Benacerraf - What Numbers Could Not Be II | |
| A reaction: Frege is a platonist, who takes numbers to be objects, so this equivalence class must be identical with an object. What exactly was Frege claiming? I mean, really exactly? |
| 17814 | The natural number n is the set of n-membered sets [Frege, by Yourgrau] |
| Full Idea: Frege defines the natural number n in terms of the set of n-membered sets. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Palle Yourgrau - Sets, Aggregates and Numbers 'Two' | |
| A reaction: He says this view 'has been treated rudely by history', because Frege's view of sets was naive, and because independence results have undermined set-theoretic platonism. |
| 17819 | A set doesn't have a fixed number, because the elements can be seen in different ways [Yourgrau on Frege] |
| Full Idea: Given the set {Carter, Reagan} ...I still want to know How many what? Members? 2. Sets? 1. Feet of members? 4. Relatives of members? 44. | |
| From: comment on Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Palle Yourgrau - Sets, Aggregates and Numbers 'New Problem' | |
| A reaction: This is his 'new problem' for Frege. Frege want a concept to divide a pack of cards, by cards, suits or pips. You choose 'pips' and form a set, but then the pips may have a number of corners. Solution: pick your 'objects' or 'units', and stick to it. |
| 17820 | If you can subdivide objects many ways for counting, you can do that to set-elements too [Yourgrau on Frege] |
| Full Idea: If we are allowed in the case of sets to construe the number question as 'really': How many (elements)?, then we could just as well construe Frege's famous question about the deck of cards as: How many (cards)? | |
| From: comment on Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Palle Yourgrau - Sets, Aggregates and Numbers 'New Problem' | |
| A reaction: My view is that counting is not entirely relative to the concept employed, but that the world imposes objects on us which thus impose their concepts and their counting. This is 'natural', but we can then counter nature with pragmatics and whimsy. |
| 3331 | If '5' is the set of all sets with five members, that may be circular, and you can know a priori if the set has content [Benardete,JA on Frege] |
| Full Idea: There is a suspicion that Frege's definition of 5 (as the set of all sets with 5 members) may be infected with circularity, and how can we be sure on a priori grounds that 4 and 5 are not both empty sets, and hence identical? | |
| From: comment on Gottlob Frege (works [1890]) by José A. Benardete - Metaphysics: the logical approach Ch.14 |
| 9949 | There is the concept, the object falling under it, and the extension (a set, which is also an object) [Frege, by George/Velleman] |
| Full Idea: For Frege, the extension of the concept F is an object, as revealed by the fact that we use a name to refer to it. ..We must distinguish the concept, the object that falls under it, and the extension of the concept, which is the set containing the object. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (On Concept and Object [1892]) by A.George / D.J.Velleman - Philosophies of Mathematics Ch.2 | |
| A reaction: This I take to be the key distinction needed if one is to grasp Frege's account of what a number is. When we say that Frege is a platonist about numbers, it is because he is committed to the notion that the extension is an object. |
| 10623 | Frege defined number in terms of extensions of concepts, but needed Basic Law V to explain extensions [Frege, by Hale/Wright] |
| Full Idea: Frege opts for his famous definition of numbers in terms of extensions of the concept 'equal to the concept F', but he then (in 'Grundgesetze') needs a theory of extensions or classes, which he provided by means of Basic Law V. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundgesetze der Arithmetik 1 (Basic Laws) [1893]) by B Hale / C Wright - Intro to 'The Reason's Proper Study' §1 |
| 9975 | Frege ignored Cantor's warning that a cardinal set is not just a concept-extension [Tait on Frege] |
| Full Idea: Cantor pointed out explicitly to Frege that it is a mistake to take the notion of a set (i.e. of that which has a cardinal number) to simply mean the extension of a concept. ...Frege's later assumption of this was an act of recklessness. | |
| From: comment on Gottlob Frege (Grundgesetze der Arithmetik 1 (Basic Laws) [1893]) by William W. Tait - Frege versus Cantor and Dedekind III | |
| A reaction: ['recklessness' is on p.61] Tait has no sympathy with the image of Frege as an intellectual martyr. Frege had insufficient respect for a great genius. Cantor, crucially, understood infinity much better than Frege. |
| 10020 | Frege's biggest error is in not accounting for the senses of number terms [Hodes on Frege] |
| Full Idea: The inconsistency of Grundgesetze was only a minor flaw. Its fundamental flaw was its inability to account for the way in which the senses of number terms are determined. It leaves the reference-magnetic nature of the standard numberer a mystery. | |
| From: comment on Gottlob Frege (Grundgesetze der Arithmetik 2 (Basic Laws) [1903]) by Harold Hodes - Logicism and Ontological Commits. of Arithmetic p.139 | |
| A reaction: A point also made by Hofweber. As a logician, Frege was only concerned with the inferential role of number terms, and he felt he had captured their logical form, but it is when you come to look at numbers in natural language that he seem in trouble. |
| 17460 | A statement of number contains a predication about a concept [Frege] |
| Full Idea: A statement of number [Zahlangabe] contains a predication about a concept. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884], §46), quoted by Ian Rumfitt - Concepts and Counting Intro | |
| A reaction: See Rumfitt 'Concepts and Counting' for a discussion. |
| 16890 | Frege's problem is explaining the particularity of numbers by general laws [Frege, by Burge] |
| Full Idea: The worry with the attempt to derive arithmetic from general logical laws (which is required for it to be analytic apriori) is that it is incompatible with the particularity of numbers. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884], §13) by Tyler Burge - Frege on Apriority (with ps) 1 | |
| A reaction: Burge cites §13 (end) of Grundlagen, and then the doomed Basic Law V as his attempt to bridge the gap from general to particular. |
| 8630 | Individual numbers are best derived from the number one, and increase by one [Frege] |
| Full Idea: The individual numbers are best derived from the number one together with increase by one. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884], §18) | |
| A reaction: Frege rejects the empirical approach partly because of the intractability of zero, but this approach has the same problem. I suggest a combination of empiricism for simple numbers, and pure formalism for extensions into complexity, and zero. |
| 11029 | 'Exactly ten gallons' may not mean ten things instantiate 'gallon' [Rumfitt on Frege] |
| Full Idea: To the question 'How many gallons of water are in the tank', the correct answer might be 'exactly ten'. But this does not mean that exactly ten things instantiate the concept 'gallon of water in the tank'. | |
| From: comment on Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884], §46) by Ian Rumfitt - Concepts and Counting p.43 | |
| A reaction: The difficulty for Frege that is being raised is that whole numbers are used to designate quantities of stuff, as well as for counting denumerable things. Rumfitt notes that 'ten' answers 'how much?' as well as Frege's 'how many?'. |
| 10013 | Numerical statements have first-order logical form, so must refer to objects [Frege, by Hodes] |
| Full Idea: Summary: numerical terms are singular terms designating objects; numerical predicates are level 1 concepts and relations; quantification over mathematics is referential; hence arithmetic has first-order form, and mathematical objects exist, non-spatially. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884], §55?) by Harold Hodes - Logicism and Ontological Commits. of Arithmetic p.123 | |
| A reaction: [compressed] So the heart of Frege is his translation of 'Jupiter has four moons' into a logical form which only refers to numerical objects. Commentators seem vague as to whether the theory is first-order or second-order. |
| 18181 | The Number for F is the extension of 'equal to F' (or maybe just F itself) [Frege] |
| Full Idea: My definition is as follows: the Number which belongs to the concept F is the extension of the concept 'equal to the concept F' [note: I believe that for 'extension of the concept' we could simply write 'concept']. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884], §68) | |
| A reaction: The note has caused huge discussion [Maddy 1997:24]. No wonder I am confused about whether a Fregean number is a concept, or a property of a concept, or a collection of things, or an object. Or all four. Or none of the above. |
| 18103 | Numbers are objects because they partake in identity statements [Frege, by Bostock] |
| Full Idea: One can always say 'the number of Jupiter's moons is 4', which is explicitly a statement of identity, and for Frege identity is always to be construed as a relation between objects. This is really all he gives to argue that numbers are objects. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884], 55-57) by David Bostock - Philosophy of Mathematics | |
| A reaction: I struggle to understand why numbers turn out to be objects for Frege, given that they are defined in terms of sets of equinumerous sets. Is the number not a property of that meta-set. Bostock confirms my uncertainty. Paraphrase as solution? |
| 10553 | A number is a class of classes of the same cardinality [Frege, by Dummett] |
| Full Idea: For Frege, in 'Grundgesetze', a number is a class of classes of the same cardinality. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundgesetze der Arithmetik 2 (Basic Laws) [1903]) by Michael Dummett - Frege Philosophy of Language (2nd ed) Ch.14 |
| 9956 | 'The number of Fs' is the extension (a collection of first-level concepts) of the concept 'equinumerous with F' [Frege, by George/Velleman] |
| Full Idea: Frege defines 'the number of Fs' as equal to the extension of the concept 'equinumerous with F'. The extension of such a concept will be a collection of first-level concepts, namely those that are equinumerous with F. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by A.George / D.J.Velleman - Philosophies of Mathematics Ch.2 | |
| A reaction: Presumably this means equinumerous with 'instances' of F, if F is a predicate. The problem of universals looms. I was clear about this idea until I tried to draw a diagram illustrating it. You try! |
| 13527 | Frege's cardinals (equivalences of one-one correspondences) is not permissible in ZFC [Frege, by Wolf,RS] |
| Full Idea: Frege defined a cardinal as an equivalence class of one-one correspondences. The cardinal 3 is the class of all sets with three members. This definition is intuitively appealing, but it is not permissible in ZFC. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Robert S. Wolf - A Tour through Mathematical Logic 2.2 | |
| A reaction: This is why Frege's well known definition of cardinals no longer figures in standard discussions of the subject. His definition is acceptable in Von Neumann-Bernays-Gödel set theory (Wolf p.73). |
| 22292 | Hume's Principle fails to implicitly define numbers, because of the Julius Caesar [Frege, by Potter] |
| Full Idea: Frege rejected Hume's Principle as an implicit definition of number terms, because of the Julius Caesar problem. ....[128] Instead Frege adopted an explicit definition of the number-of function. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Michael Potter - The Rise of Analytic Philosophy 1879-1930 19 'Uniq' |
| 17442 | Frege thinks number is fundamentally bound up with one-one correspondence [Frege, by Heck] |
| Full Idea: Frege's answer is that the concept of number is fundamentally bound up with the notion of one-one correspondence. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Richard G. Heck - Cardinality, Counting and Equinumerosity 1 | |
| A reaction: Birds seem to find a mate with virtually no concept of number. I'm beginning to think that the essence of numbers is that they are both ordinals and cardinals. Frege, of course, thinks identity is basic to metaphysics. |
| 11030 | The words 'There are exactly Julius Caesar moons of Mars' are gibberish [Rumfitt on Frege] |
| Full Idea: The word 'Julius Caesar is prime' may well involve some kind of category error, but the still compose a grammatical sentence. The words 'There are exactly Julius Caesar moons of Mars', by contrast, are gibberish. | |
| From: comment on Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Ian Rumfitt - Concepts and Counting p.48 |
| 10030 | 'Julius Caesar' isn't a number because numbers inherit properties of 0 and successor [Frege, by George/Velleman] |
| Full Idea: 'Julius Caesar' is not a natural number in Frege's account because he does not fall under every concept under which 0 falls and which is hereditary with respect to successor. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by A.George / D.J.Velleman - Philosophies of Mathematics Ch.2 | |
| A reaction: Significant for structuralist views. One might say that any object can occupy the structural place of '17', but if you derive your numbers from 0, successor and induction, then the 17-object must also inherit the properties of zero and successors. |
| 8690 | From within logic, how can we tell whether an arbitrary object like Julius Caesar is a number? [Frege, by Friend] |
| Full Idea: The 'Julius Caesar problem' in Frege's theory is that from within logic we cannot tell if an arbitrary objects such as Julius Caesar is a number or not. Logic itself cannot tell us enough to distinguish numbers from other sorts of objects. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Michčle Friend - Introducing the Philosophy of Mathematics 3.4 | |
| A reaction: What a delightful problem (raised by Frege himself). A theory can look beautiful till you ask a question like this. Only a logician would, I suspect, get into this mess. Numbers can be used to count or order things! "I've got Caesar pencils"? |
| 10219 | Frege said 2 is the extension of all pairs (so Julius Caesar isn't 2, because he's not an extension) [Frege, by Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Frege proposed that the number 2 is a certain extension, the collection of all pairs. Thus, 2 is not Julius Caesar because, presumably, persons are not extensions. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Stewart Shapiro - Philosophy of Mathematics 3.2 | |
| A reaction: Unfortunately, as Shapiro notes, Frege's account of extension went horribly wrong. Nevertheless, this seems to show why the Julius Caesar problem does not matter for Frege, though it might matter for the neo-logicists. |
| 13889 | Fregean numbers are numbers, and not 'Caesar', because they correlate 1-1 [Frege, by Wright,C] |
| Full Idea: We cannot reasonably suppose that any numerical singular term has the same reference as 'Caesar', because Frege's numbers (unlike persons) are to be identified and distinguished by appeal to facts about 1-1 correlation among concepts. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Crispin Wright - Frege's Concept of Numbers as Objects 3.xiv |
| 18142 | One-one correlations imply normal arithmetic, but don't explain our concept of a number [Frege, by Bostock] |
| Full Idea: Frege inferred from the Julius Caesar problem that even though Hume's Principle sufficed as a single axiom for deducing the arithmetic of the finite cardinal numbers, still it does not explain our ordinary understanding of those numbers. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by David Bostock - Philosophy of Mathematics 9.A.2 |
| 9046 | Our definition will not tell us whether or not Julius Caesar is a number [Frege] |
| Full Idea: We can never decide by means of our definitions whether any concept has the number JULIUS CAESAR belonging to it, or whether that same familiar conqueror of Gaul is a number or not. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884], §56) | |
| A reaction: This has become a famous modern problem. The point is that the definition of a number must explain why this is a number, and not something else. Must you mention that you could use it to count? Count you count using emperors? |
| 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. |
| 8639 | If numbers are supposed to be patterns, each number can have many patterns [Frege] |
| Full Idea: Patterns can be completely different while the number of their elements remains the same, so that here we would have different distinct fives, sixes and so forth. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884], §41) | |
| A reaction: A blow to my enthusiasm for Michael Resnik's account of maths as patterns. See, for example, Ideas 6296 and 6301. We are clearly set up to spot patterns long before we arrive at the abstract concepts of numbers. We see the same number in two patterns. |
| 13874 | Numbers seem to be objects because they exactly fit the inference patterns for identities [Frege] |
| Full Idea: The most important consideration for numbers being objects is that they sustain the patterns of inference demanded by the reflexivity, transitivity and symmetry of identity. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]), quoted by Crispin Wright - Frege's Concept of Numbers as Objects 1.iii | |
| A reaction: But then if I say that the 'whereabouts of Jack' is identical to the 'whereabouts of Jill', that would seem to make whereaboutses into objects. |
| 13875 | Frege's platonism proposes that objects are what singular terms refer to [Frege, by Wright,C] |
| Full Idea: The basis of Frege's platonism is the thesis that objects are what singular terms, in the ordinary intuitive sense of 'singular term', refer to. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Crispin Wright - Frege's Concept of Numbers as Objects 1.iii | |
| A reaction: This claim strikes me as very bizarre, and is at the root of all the daft aspects of twentieth century linguistic philosophy. See Bob Hale on singular terms, who defends the Fregean view against obvious problems like 'for THE SAKE of the children'. |
| 7731 | How can numbers be external (one pair of boots is two boots), or subjective (and so relative)? [Frege, by Weiner] |
| Full Idea: If the number one is a property of external things, how can one pair of boots be the same as two boots? ...but if the number one is subjective, then the number a thing has for me need not be the same number the object has for you. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Joan Weiner - Frege Ch.4 | |
| A reaction: This nicely captures the initial dilemma over the nature of numbers. It is the commonest dilemma in all of philosophy, struggling between subjective and objective accounts of things. Hence Putnam's nice definition of philosophy (Idea 2352). |
| 7737 | Identities refer to objects, so numbers must be objects [Frege, by Weiner] |
| Full Idea: Identity statements are about objects. If we can say that 1 is identical (or not) to 0, then 1 must be an object. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Joan Weiner - Frege Ch.4 | |
| A reaction: This seems to point to Platonism about numbers, but maybe we can accept it as being about physical objects. If numbers are essentially patterns, then identity is hypothetical one-to-one identity between sets of objects. |
| 8635 | Numbers are not physical, and not ideas - they are objective and non-sensible [Frege] |
| Full Idea: Number is neither spatial and physical, like Mill's pile of pebbles, nor yet subjective like ideas, but non-sensible and objective. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884], §27) | |
| A reaction: This doesn't require commitment to full-blown universals, nor to a dualist world of mind. The thinking of the brain moves far away from the areas of sensation, and the brain's capacity for truth is its capacity for objectivity. |
| 8652 | Numbers are objects, because they can take the definite article, and can't be plurals [Frege] |
| Full Idea: Individual numbers are objects, as is indicated by the use of the definite article in expressions like 'the number two', and by the impossibility of speaking of ones, twos, etc. in the plural. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884], §68 n) | |
| A reaction: Hm. The beginnings of linguistic philosophy, with all its problems. It is well known that 'for the sake of the children' doesn't make an ontological commitment to 'sakes'. The children might 'enter in threes', but the second half is a good point. |
| 9580 | Our concepts recognise existing relations, they don't change them [Frege] |
| Full Idea: The bringing of an object under a concept is merely the recognition of a relation which previously already obtained, [but in the abstractionist view] objects are essentially changed by the process, so that objects brought under a concept become similar. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894], p.324) | |
| A reaction: Frege's view would have to account for occasional misapplications of concepts, like taking a dolphin to be a fish, or falsely thinking there is someone in the cellar. |
| 9589 | Numbers are not real like the sea, but (crucially) they are still objective [Frege] |
| Full Idea: The sea is something real and a number is not; but this does not prevent it from being something objective; and that is the important thing. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894], p.337) | |
| A reaction: This seems a qualification of Frege's platonism. It is why people start talking about abstract items which 'subsist', instead of 'exist'. It shows Frege's motivation in all this, which is to secure logic and maths from the vagaries of psychology. |
| 9830 | Bolzano began the elimination of intuition, by proving something which seemed obvious [Bolzano, by Dummett] |
| Full Idea: Bolzano began the process of eliminating intuition from analysis, by proving something apparently obvious (that as continuous function must be zero at some point). Proof reveals on what a theorem rests, and that it is not intuition. | |
| From: report of Bernard Bolzano (Theory of Science (Wissenschaftslehre, 4 vols) [1837]) by Michael Dummett - Frege philosophy of mathematics Ch.6 | |
| A reaction: Kant was the target of Bolzano's attack. Two responses might be to say that many other basic ideas are intuited but impossible to prove, or to say that proof itself depends on intuition, if you dig deep enough. |
| 17816 | Frege's logicism aimed at removing the reliance of arithmetic on intuition [Frege, by Yourgrau] |
| Full Idea: In reducing arithmetic to logic Frege was precisely trying to show the independence of this study from any peculiarly mathematical intuitions. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Palle Yourgrau - Sets, Aggregates and Numbers 'Two' |
| 9831 | Geometry appeals to intuition as the source of its axioms [Frege] |
| Full Idea: The elements of all geometrical constructions are intuitions, and geometry appeals to intuition as the source of its axioms. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Rechnungsmethoden (dissertation) [1874], Ch.6), quoted by Michael Dummett - Frege philosophy of mathematics | |
| A reaction: Very early Frege, but he stuck to this view, while firmly rejecting intuition as a source of arithmetic. Frege would have known well that Euclid's assumption about parallels had been challenged. |
| 8633 | There is no physical difference between two boots and one pair of boots [Frege] |
| Full Idea: One pair of boots may be the same visible and tangible phenomenon as two boots. This is a difference in number to which no physical difference corresponds; for 'two' and 'one pair' are by no means the same thing. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884], §25) | |
| A reaction: He is attacking Mill. Those of us who are seeking an empirical account of arithmetic have certainly got to face up to this example. Not insurmountable, I think. |
| 9577 | The naďve view of number is that it is like a heap of things, or maybe a property of a heap [Frege] |
| Full Idea: The most naďve opinion of number is that it is something like a heap in which things are contained. The next most naďve view is the conception of number as the property of a heap, cleansing the objects of their particulars. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894], p.323) | |
| A reaction: A hundred toothbrushes and a hundred sponges can be seen to contain the same number (by one-to-one mapping), without actually knowing what that number is. There is something numerical in the heap, even if the number is absent. |
| 9951 | It appears that numbers are adjectives, but they don't apply to a single object [Frege, by George/Velleman] |
| Full Idea: Numbers as adjectives appear to attribute a property - but to what? Superficially it seems to be to the objects themselves, as it makes sense to say that a plague is 'deadly', but not that it is 'ten'. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by A.George / D.J.Velleman - Philosophies of Mathematics Ch.2 | |
| A reaction: Surely they could be adjectival if they were properties of groups? Groups can be 'numerous', or 'more than a hundred', or 'too many for this taxi'. |
| 9952 | Numerical adjectives are of the same second-level type as the existential quantifier [Frege, by George/Velleman] |
| Full Idea: A numerical adjective forms part of a predicate of second-level, needing supplementation from the first level (F). So the second-level predicate is of the same type as the existential quantifier, and can be called a 'numerical quantifier'. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by A.George / D.J.Velleman - Philosophies of Mathematics Ch.2 | |
| A reaction: This seems like a highly plausible account of how numbers work in language, but it leaves you wondering what the ontological status of a quantifier is. I presume platonic heaven is not full of elite entities called quantifiers, marshalling the others. |
| 11031 | 'Jupiter has many moons' won't read as 'The number of Jupiter's moons equals the number many' [Rumfitt on Frege] |
| Full Idea: 'Jupiter has four moons' is semantically and syntactically on all fours with 'Jupiter has many moons'. But it would be brave to construe the latter proposition as a transformation of 'The number of Jupiter's moons is identical with the number many'. | |
| From: comment on Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Ian Rumfitt - Concepts and Counting p.49 | |
| A reaction: I take this to be an important insight. Number words are continuous with (are in the same category as) words for general numerical quantity, such as 'just a few' or 'many' or 'rather a lot'. Numbers are part of normal language. |
| 8637 | The number 'one' can't be a property, if any object can be viewed as one or not one [Frege] |
| Full Idea: How can it make sense to ascribe the property 'one' to any object whatever, when every object, according as to how we look at it, can be either one or not one? | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884], §30) | |
| A reaction: This remark seems to point to numbers being highly subjective, but the interest of Frege is that he then makes out a case for numbers being totally objective, despite being entirely non-physical in nature. How do they do that? |
| 9999 | For science, we can translate adjectival numbers into noun form [Frege] |
| Full Idea: We want a concept of number usable for science; we should not, therefore, be deterred by everyday language using numbers in attributive constructions. The proposition 'Jupiter has four moons' can be converted to 'the number of Jupiter's moons is four'. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884], §57) | |
| A reaction: Critics are quick to point out that this could work the other way (noun-to-adjective), so Frege hasn't got an argument here, only an escape route. How about the verb version ('the moons of Jupiter four'), or the adverb ('J's moons behave fourly')? |
| 7739 | Arithmetic is analytic [Frege, by Weiner] |
| Full Idea: Frege's project was to show that arithmetic is analytic. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Joan Weiner - Frege Ch.7 | |
| A reaction: This particularly opposes Kant (e.g. Idea 5525). My favoured view (which may have few friends) is that arithmetic is a set of facts about the necessary pattern relationships within any possible physical world. That will make it synthetic. |
| 9945 | Logicism shows that no empirical truths are needed to justify arithmetic [Frege, by George/Velleman] |
| Full Idea: Frege claims that his logicist project directly shows that no empirical truths about the natural world need be employed in the justification of arithmetic (nor need any truths that are apprehended through some kind of intuition). | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by A.George / D.J.Velleman - Philosophies of Mathematics Ch.2 | |
| A reaction: This simple way of putting it creates a sticking-point for me. It occurs to me that the best description of arithmetic is that it 'models' the natural world. If a beautiful system failed to count objects, it wouldn't be accepted as 'arithmetic'. |
| 8782 | Frege offered a Platonist version of logicism, committed to cardinal and real numbers [Frege, by Hale/Wright] |
| Full Idea: Since Frege's defence of his thesis that the laws of arithmetic are analytic depended upon a realm of independently existing objects - the finite cardinal numbers and the real numbers - his view amounted to a Platonist version of logicism. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by B Hale / C Wright - Logicism in the 21st Century 1 | |
| A reaction: Nice to have this spelled out. Along with Gödel, Frege is the most distinguished Platonist since the great man. Frege has lots of modern fans, but I would have thought that this makes his position a non-starter. Alternatives are needed. |
| 13608 | Mathematics has no special axioms of its own, but follows from principles of logic (with definitions) [Frege, by Bostock] |
| Full Idea: Frege's logicism is the theory that mathematics has no special axioms of its own, but follows just from the principles of logic themselves, when augmented with suitable definitions. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by David Bostock - Intermediate Logic 5.1 | |
| A reaction: Thus logicism is opposed to the Dedekind-Peano axioms, which are not logic, but are specific to mathematics. Hence modern logicists try to derive the Peano Axioms from logical axioms. Logicism rests on logical truths, not inference rules. |
| 16905 | Arithmetic must be based on logic, because of its total generality [Frege, by Jeshion] |
| Full Idea: For Frege, that arithmetic is essentially general, governing (applying to) everything, entails that its ultimate building blocks are purely logical. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Robin Jeshion - Frege's Notion of Self-Evidence 2 | |
| A reaction: Put like that, it doesn't sound very persuasive. If any truth is totally general, then it must be purely logical? |
| 5658 | Numbers are definable in terms of mapping items which fall under concepts [Frege, by Scruton] |
| Full Idea: Frege defines numbers in terms of 'equinumerosity', which says two concepts are equinumerous if the items falling under one of them can be placed in one-to-one correspondence with the items falling under the other. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Roger Scruton - Short History of Modern Philosophy Ch.17 | |
| A reaction: This doesn't sound quite enough. What is the difference between three and four? The extensions of items generate separate sets, but why does one follow the other, and how do you count the items to get the one-to-one correspondence? |
| 8655 | Arithmetic is analytic and a priori, and thus it is part of logic [Frege] |
| Full Idea: It is probable that the laws of arithmetic are analytic and consequently a priori; arithmetic thus becomes simply a development of logic, and every proposition of arithmetic a law of logic, albeit a derivative one. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884], §87) | |
| A reaction: I'm not sure about 'thus', without more explication. Empiricists loved this, because it placed arithmetic firmly among Hume's 'relations of ideas', thus avoiding the difficulties Mill encountered trying to explain arithmetic through piles of pebbles. |
| 16880 | Frege aimed to discover the logical foundations which justify arithmetical judgements [Frege, by Burge] |
| Full Idea: Frege saw arithmetical judgements as resting on a foundation of logical principles, and the discovery of this foundation as a discovery of the nature and structure of the justification of arithmetical truths and judgments. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (works [1890]) by Tyler Burge - Frege on Knowing the Foundations Intro | |
| A reaction: Burge's point is that the logic justifies the arithmetic, as well as underpinning it. |
| 8689 | Eventually Frege tried to found arithmetic in geometry instead of in logic [Frege, by Friend] |
| Full Idea: After the problem with Russell's paradox, Frege did not publish for fourteen years, and he then tried to re-found arithmetic in Euclidean geometry, rather than in logic. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (works [1890], 3.4) by Michčle Friend - Introducing the Philosophy of Mathematics 3.4 | |
| A reaction: I take it that his new road would have led him to modern Structuralism, so I think he was probably on the right lines. Unfortunately Frege had already done enough for one good lifetime. |
| 8487 | Arithmetic is a development of logic, so arithmetical symbolism must expand into logical symbolism [Frege] |
| Full Idea: I am of the opinion that arithmetic is a further development of logic, which leads to the requirement that the symbolic language of arithmetic must be expanded into a logical symbolism. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Function and Concept [1891], p.30) | |
| A reaction: This may the the one key idea at the heart of modern analytic philosophy (even though logicism may be a total mistake!). Logic and arithmetical foundations become the master of ontology, instead of the servant. The jury is out on the whole enterprise. |
| 18165 | My Basic Law V is a law of pure logic [Frege] |
| Full Idea: I hold that my Basic Law V is a law of pure logic. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Grundgesetze der Arithmetik 1 (Basic Laws) [1893], p.4), quoted by Penelope Maddy - Naturalism in Mathematics I.1 | |
| A reaction: This is, of course, the notorious law which fell foul of Russell's Paradox. It is said to be pure logic, even though it refers to things that are F and things that are G. |
| 18166 | The loss of my Rule V seems to make foundations for arithmetic impossible [Frege] |
| Full Idea: With the loss of my Rule V, not only the foundations of arithmetic, but also the sole possible foundations of arithmetic, seem to vanish. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Letters to Russell [1902], 1902.06.22) | |
| A reaction: Obviously he was stressed, but did he really mean that there could be no foundation for arithmetic, suggesting that the subject might vanish into thin air? |
| 10607 | Frege's logic has a hierarchy of object, property, property-of-property etc. [Frege, by Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: Frege's general logical system involves a type hierarchy, distinguishing objects from properties from properties-of-properties etc., with every item belonging to a determinate level. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Begriffsschrift [1879]) by Peter Smith - Intro to Gödel's Theorems 14.1 | |
| A reaction: The Theory of Types went on to apply this hierarchy to classes, where Frege's disastrous Basic Law V flattens the hierarchy of classes, putting them on the same level (Smith p.119) |
| 10831 | Frege only managed to prove that arithmetic was analytic with a logic that included set-theory [Quine on Frege] |
| Full Idea: Frege claimed to have proved that the truths of arithmetic are analytic, but the logic capable of encompassing this reduction was logic inclusive of set theory. | |
| From: comment on Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Willard Quine - Philosophy of Logic Ch.5 |
| 13864 | Frege's platonism and logicism are in conflict, if logic must dictates an infinity of objects [Wright,C on Frege] |
| Full Idea: Frege's platonism seems to be in some tension with logicism: for the thought is unprepossessing that logic should dictate the existence of infinitely many objects of some kind. | |
| From: comment on Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Crispin Wright - Frege's Concept of Numbers as Objects Intro | |
| A reaction: Obviously Frege didn't think this, but then the crux seems to be that Frege believed that there was a multitude of logical truths awaiting discovery, while modern logic just seems to be about the logical consequences of things. |
| 10033 | Why should the existence of pure logic entail the existence of objects? [George/Velleman on Frege] |
| Full Idea: If a distinguishing features of logic is its complete generality, focusing on truth in general, why should the existence of logic entail the existence of infinitely many objects? ..How can it be completely general if it has ontological commitments? | |
| From: comment on Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by A.George / D.J.Velleman - Philosophies of Mathematics Ch.2 | |
| A reaction: This strikes me as simple and devastating. It depends how you conceive logic, but I only conceive it as the formalised rules of successful reasoning. I can't comprehend the claim that without certain objects, reasoning would be impossible. |
| 10010 | Frege's belief in logicism and in numerical objects seem uncomfortable together [Hodes on Frege] |
| Full Idea: Frege's views on arithmetic centred on two central theses, that mathematics is really logic, and that it is about distinctively mathematical sorts of objects, such as cardinal numbers. These theses seem uncomfortable passengers in a single boat. | |
| From: comment on Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Harold Hodes - Logicism and Ontological Commits. of Arithmetic | |
| A reaction: This question pinpoints precisely my unease about Frege. I take logic to be the rules for successful reasoning, so I don't see how they can have ontological implications. It is very extreme platonism to say that right reasoning requires logical objects. |
| 9545 | Late in life Frege abandoned logicism, and saw the source of arithmetic as geometrical [Frege, by Chihara] |
| Full Idea: Near the end of his life, Frege completely abandoned his logicism, and came to the conclusion that the source of our arithmetical knowledge is what he called 'the Geometrical Source of Knowledge'. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Sources of Knowledge of Mathematics [1922]) by Charles Chihara - A Structural Account of Mathematics Intro n3 | |
| A reaction: We have, rather crucially, lost touch with the geometrical origins of arithmetic (such as 'square' numbers), which is good news for the practice of mathematics, but probably a disaster for the philosophy of the subject. |
| 9631 | Formalism fails to recognise types of symbols, and also meta-games [Frege, by Brown,JR] |
| Full Idea: Early formalism (Thomae etc) was crushed by Frege: first, mathematics must be about classes of symbols (abstract types), not the symbols themselves (the tokens); second, games may be meaningless, but meta-games are not. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by James Robert Brown - Philosophy of Mathematics Ch.5 | |
| A reaction: Brown goes on to show how Hilbert revived the formalist project. A really austere formalist view of mathematics clearly seems to be missing something basic, either in physical nature, or in the world of ideas. |
| 9887 | Formalism misunderstands applications, metatheory, and infinity [Frege, by Dummett] |
| Full Idea: Frege's three main objections to radical formalism are that it cannot account for the application of mathematics, that it confuses a formal theory with its metatheory, and it cannot explain an infinite sequence. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundgesetze der Arithmetik 2 (Basic Laws) [1903], §86-137) by Michael Dummett - Frege philosophy of mathematics | |
| A reaction: The application is because we don't design maths randomly, but to be useful. The third objection might be dealt with by potential infinities (from formal rules). The second objection sounds promising. |
| 8751 | Only applicability raises arithmetic from a game to a science [Frege] |
| Full Idea: It is applicability alone which elevates arithmetic from a game to the rank of a science. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Grundgesetze der Arithmetik 2 (Basic Laws) [1903], §91), quoted by Stewart Shapiro - Thinking About Mathematics 6.1.2 | |
| A reaction: This is the basic objection to Formalism. It invites the question of why it is applicable, which platonists like Frege don't seem to answer (though Plato himself has reality modelled on the Forms). This is why I like structuralism. |
| 9875 | Frege was completing Bolzano's work, of expelling intuition from number theory and analysis [Frege, by Dummett] |
| Full Idea: Frege was completing Bolzano's work, of expelling intuition from number theory and analysis (while leaving it its due place in geometry). | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Michael Dummett - Frege philosophy of mathematics Ch.18 | |
| A reaction: It was Kant who had placed the emphasis on intuition. Frege eventually thought arithmetic might be geometric, and so intuition had to triumph after all. |
| 8642 | Abstraction from things produces concepts, and numbers are in the concepts [Frege] |
| Full Idea: What we actually get by means of abstraction from things is the concept, and in this we then discover the number. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884], §47) | |
| A reaction: And how do we 'discover' it, if not by a process of further abstraction? The concept of the moon (see Idea 8641) no more contains the number one than the actual moon does |
| 8621 | Mental states are irrelevant to mathematics, because they are vague and fluctuating [Frege] |
| Full Idea: Sensations and mental pictures, formed from the amalgamated traces of earlier sense-impressions, are absolutely no concern of arithmetic; they are characteristically fluctuating and indefinite, in contrast to the concepts and objects of mathematics. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884], Intro) | |
| A reaction: Sounds very like Plato's distinction between the worlds of opinion and knowledge (Ideas 1170 and 2133). This view is fine amidst the implicit dualism of all nineteenth century thought, but how does abstract mathematics link to the soggy brain? |