display all the ideas for this combination of philosophers
25 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) |
| 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. |
| 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. |