12 ideas
| 3338 | Numbers have been defined in terms of 'successors' to the concept of 'zero' [Peano, by Blackburn] |
| Full Idea: Dedekind and Peano define the number series as the series of successors to the number zero, according to five postulates. | |
| From: report of Giuseppe Peano (works [1890]) by Simon Blackburn - Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy p.279 |
| 13949 | All models of Peano axioms are isomorphic, so the models all seem equally good for natural numbers [Cartwright,R on Peano] |
| Full Idea: Peano's axioms are categorical (any two models are isomorphic). Some conclude that the concept of natural number is adequately represented by them, but we cannot identify natural numbers with one rather than another of the isomorphic models. | |
| From: comment on Giuseppe Peano (Principles of Arithmetic, by a new method [1889], 11) by Richard Cartwright - Propositions 11 | |
| A reaction: This is a striking anticipation of Benacerraf's famous point about different set theory accounts of numbers, where all models seem to work equally well. Cartwright is saying that others have pointed this out. |
| 18113 | PA concerns any entities which satisfy the axioms [Peano, by Bostock] |
| Full Idea: Peano Arithmetic is about any system of entities that satisfies the Peano axioms. | |
| From: report of Giuseppe Peano (Principles of Arithmetic, by a new method [1889], 6.3) by David Bostock - Philosophy of Mathematics 6.3 | |
| A reaction: This doesn't sound like numbers in the fullest sense, since those should facilitate counting objects. '3' should mean that number of rose petals, and not just a position in a well-ordered series. |
| 17634 | Peano axioms not only support arithmetic, but are also fairly obvious [Peano, by Russell] |
| Full Idea: Peano's premises are recommended not only by the fact that arithmetic follows from them, but also by their inherent obviousness. | |
| From: report of Giuseppe Peano (Principles of Arithmetic, by a new method [1889], p.276) by Bertrand Russell - Regressive Method for Premises in Mathematics p.276 |
| 5897 | 0 is a non-successor number, all successors are numbers, successors can't duplicate, if P(n) and P(n+1) then P(all-n) [Peano, by Flew] |
| Full Idea: 1) 0 is a number; 2) The successor of any number is a number; 3) No two numbers have the same successor; 4) 0 is not the successor of any number; 5) If P is true of 0, and if P is true of any number n and of its successor, P is true of every number. | |
| From: report of Giuseppe Peano (works [1890]) by Antony Flew - Pan Dictionary of Philosophy 'Peano' | |
| A reaction: Devised by Dedekind and proposed by Peano, these postulates were intended to avoid references to intuition in specifying the natural numbers. I wonder if they could define 'successor' without reference to 'number'. |
| 15653 | We can add Reflexion Principles to Peano Arithmetic, which assert its consistency or soundness [Halbach on Peano] |
| Full Idea: Peano Arithmetic cannot derive its own consistency from within itself. But it can be strengthened by adding this consistency statement or by stronger axioms (particularly ones partially expressing soundness). These are known as Reflexion Principles. | |
| From: comment on Giuseppe Peano (Principles of Arithmetic, by a new method [1889], 1.2) by Volker Halbach - Axiomatic Theories of Truth (2005 ver) 1.2 |
| 17635 | Arithmetic can have even simpler logical premises than the Peano Axioms [Russell on Peano] |
| Full Idea: Peano's premises are not the ultimate logical premises of arithmetic. Simpler premises and simpler primitive ideas are to be had by carrying our analysis on into symbolic logic. | |
| From: comment on Giuseppe Peano (Principles of Arithmetic, by a new method [1889], p.276) by Bertrand Russell - Regressive Method for Premises in Mathematics p.276 |
| 19525 | If the only aim is to believe truths, that justifies recklessly believing what is unsupported (if it is right) [Conee/Feldman] |
| Full Idea: If it is intellectually required that one try to believe all and only truths (as Chisholm says), ...then it is possible to believe some unsubstantiated proposition in a reckless endeavour to believe a truth, and happen to be right. | |
| From: E Conee / R Feldman (Evidentialism [1985], 'Justification') | |
| A reaction: This implies doxastic voluntarism. Sorry! I meant, this implies that we can control what we believe, when actually we believe what impinges on us as facts. |
| 19524 | We don't have the capacity to know all the logical consequences of our beliefs [Conee/Feldman] |
| Full Idea: Our limited cognitive capacities lead Goldman to deny a principle instructing people to believe all the logical consequences of their beliefs, since they are unable to have the infinite number of beliefs that following such a principle would require. | |
| From: E Conee / R Feldman (Evidentialism [1985], 'Doxastic') | |
| A reaction: This doesn't sound like much of an objection to epistemic closure, which I took to be the claim that you know the 'known' entailments of your knowledge. |
| 19518 | Evidentialism says justifications supervene on the available evidence [Conee/Feldman] |
| Full Idea: Fundamentally Evidentialism is a supervenience thesis, according to which facts about whether or not a person is justified in believing a proposition supervene on facts describing the evidence the person has. | |
| From: E Conee / R Feldman (Introduction to 'Evidentialism' [2004], p.1) | |
| A reaction: If facts 'describe', does that make them linguistic? That's not how I use 'facts'. A statement of a fact is not the same as the fact. An ugly fact can be beautifully expressed. I am, however, in favour of evidence. |
| 20653 | Six reduction levels: groups, lives, cells, molecules, atoms, particles [Putnam/Oppenheim, by Watson] |
| Full Idea: There are six 'reductive levels' in science: social groups, (multicellular) living things, cells, molecules, atoms, and elementary particles. | |
| From: report of H.Putnam/P.Oppenheim (Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis [1958]) by Peter Watson - Convergence 10 'Intro' | |
| A reaction: I have the impression that fields are seen as more fundamental that elementary particles. What is the status of the 'laws' that are supposed to govern these things? What is the status of space and time within this picture? |
| 19519 | Rational decisions are either taken to be based on evidence, or to be explained causally [Conee/Feldman] |
| Full Idea: In decision theory, there is a view according to which the rational basis for all decisions is evidential. This kind of decision theory is typically contrasted with causal decision theory. | |
| From: E Conee / R Feldman (Introduction to 'Evidentialism' [2004], p.3) | |
| A reaction: Your Kantian presumably likes rational reflection on evidence, and your modern reductive scientist prefers causality (which doesn't really sound very rational). |