Combining Philosophers

Ideas for Hermarchus, George Boolos and Stephen Read

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     choose another area for these philosophers

display all the ideas for this combination of philosophers


8 ideas

6. Mathematics / A. Nature of Mathematics / 5. The Infinite / a. The Infinite
Infinite natural numbers is as obvious as infinite sentences in English [Boolos]
     Full Idea: The existence of infinitely many natural numbers seems to me no more troubling than that of infinitely many computer programs or sentences of English. There is, for example, no longest sentence, since any number of 'very's can be inserted.
     From: George Boolos (Must We Believe in Set Theory? [1997], p.129)
     A reaction: If you really resisted an infinity of natural numbers, presumably you would also resist an actual infinity of 'very's. The fact that it is unclear what could ever stop a process doesn't guarantee that the process is actually endless.
6. Mathematics / A. Nature of Mathematics / 5. The Infinite / d. Actual infinite
Infinite cuts and successors seems to suggest an actual infinity there waiting for us [Read]
     Full Idea: Every potential infinity seems to suggest an actual infinity - e.g. generating successors suggests they are really all there already; cutting the line suggests that the point where the cut is made is already in place.
     From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.8)
     A reaction: Finding a new gambit in chess suggests it was there waiting for us, but we obviously invented chess. Daft.
6. Mathematics / A. Nature of Mathematics / 5. The Infinite / f. Uncountable infinities
Mathematics and science do not require very high orders of infinity [Boolos]
     Full Idea: To the best of my knowledge nothing in mathematics or science requires the existence of very high orders of infinity.
     From: George Boolos (Must We Believe in Set Theory? [1997], p.122)
     A reaction: He is referring to particular high orders of infinity implied by set theory. Personally I want to wield Ockham's Razor. Is being implied by set theory a sufficient reason to accept such outrageous entities into our ontology?
6. Mathematics / B. Foundations for Mathematics / 4. Axioms for Number / e. Peano arithmetic 2nd-order
Although second-order arithmetic is incomplete, it can fully model normal arithmetic [Read]
     Full Idea: Second-order arithmetic is categorical - indeed, there is a single formula of second-order logic whose only model is the standard model ω, consisting of just the natural numbers, with all of arithmetic following. It is nevertheless incomplete.
     From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.2)
     A reaction: This is the main reason why second-order logic has a big fan club, despite the logic being incomplete (as well as the arithmetic).
Second-order arithmetic covers all properties, ensuring categoricity [Read]
     Full Idea: Second-order arithmetic can rule out the non-standard models (with non-standard numbers). Its induction axiom crucially refers to 'any' property, which gives the needed categoricity for the models.
     From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.2)
Many concepts can only be expressed by second-order logic [Boolos]
     Full Idea: The notions of infinity and countability can be characterized by second-order sentences, though not by first-order sentences (as compactness and Skolem-Löwenheim theorems show), .. as well as well-ordering, progression, ancestral and identity.
     From: George Boolos (On Second-Order Logic [1975], p.48)
6. Mathematics / B. Foundations for Mathematics / 5. Definitions of Number / g. Von Neumann numbers
Von Neumann numbers are helpful, but don't correctly describe numbers [Read]
     Full Idea: The Von Neumann numbers have a structural isomorphism to the natural numbers - each number is the set of all its predecessors, so 2 is the set of 0 and 1. This helps proofs, but is unacceptable. 2 is not a set with two members, or a member of 3.
     From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.4)
6. Mathematics / C. Sources of Mathematics / 1. Mathematical Platonism / a. For mathematical platonism
Mathematics isn't surprising, given that we experience many objects as abstract [Boolos]
     Full Idea: It is no surprise that we should be able to reason mathematically about many of the things we experience, for they are already 'abstract'.
     From: George Boolos (Must We Believe in Set Theory? [1997], p.129)
     A reaction: He has just given a list of exemplary abstract objects (Idea 10489), but I think there is a more interesting idea here - that our experience of actual physical objects is to some extent abstract, as soon as it is conceptualised.