48 ideas
15945 | Second-order set theory just adds a version of Replacement that quantifies over functions [Lavine] |
15914 | An 'upper bound' is the greatest member of a subset; there may be several of these, so there is a 'least' one [Lavine] |
15921 | Collections of things can't be too big, but collections by a rule seem unlimited in size [Lavine] |
15937 | Those who reject infinite collections also want to reject the Axiom of Choice [Lavine] |
15936 | The Power Set is just the collection of functions from one collection to another [Lavine] |
15899 | Replacement was immediately accepted, despite having very few implications [Lavine] |
15930 | Foundation says descending chains are of finite length, blocking circularity, or ungrounded sets [Lavine] |
15920 | Pure collections of things obey Choice, but collections defined by a rule may not [Lavine] |
15898 | The controversy was not about the Axiom of Choice, but about functions as arbitrary, or given by rules [Lavine] |
15919 | The 'logical' notion of class has some kind of definition or rule to characterise the class [Lavine] |
15900 | The iterative conception of set wasn't suggested until 1947 [Lavine] |
15931 | The iterative conception needs the Axiom of Infinity, to show how far we can iterate [Lavine] |
15932 | The iterative conception doesn't unify the axioms, and has had little impact on mathematical proofs [Lavine] |
15933 | Limitation of Size: if it's the same size as a set, it's a set; it uses Replacement [Lavine] |
15913 | A collection is 'well-ordered' if there is a least element, and all of its successors can be identified [Lavine] |
15926 | Second-order logic presupposes a set of relations already fixed by the first-order domain [Lavine] |
15934 | Mathematical proof by contradiction needs the law of excluded middle [Lavine] |
15907 | Mathematics is nowadays (thanks to set theory) regarded as the study of structure, not of quantity [Lavine] |
15942 | Every rational number, unlike every natural number, is divisible by some other number [Lavine] |
15922 | For the real numbers to form a set, we need the Continuum Hypothesis to be true [Lavine] |
18250 | Cauchy gave a necessary condition for the convergence of a sequence [Lavine] |
15904 | The two sides of the Cut are, roughly, the bounding commensurable ratios [Lavine] |
15912 | Counting results in well-ordering, and well-ordering makes counting possible [Lavine] |
15949 | The theory of infinity must rest on our inability to distinguish between very large sizes [Lavine] |
15947 | The infinite is extrapolation from the experience of indefinitely large size [Lavine] |
15940 | The intuitionist endorses only the potential infinite [Lavine] |
15909 | 'Aleph-0' is cardinality of the naturals, 'aleph-1' the next cardinal, 'aleph-ω' the ω-th cardinal [Lavine] |
15915 | Ordinals are basic to Cantor's transfinite, to count the sets [Lavine] |
15917 | Paradox: the class of all ordinals is well-ordered, so must have an ordinal as type - giving a bigger ordinal [Lavine] |
15918 | Paradox: there is no largest cardinal, but the class of everything seems to be the largest [Lavine] |
15929 | Set theory will found all of mathematics - except for the notion of proof [Lavine] |
15935 | Modern mathematics works up to isomorphism, and doesn't care what things 'really are' [Lavine] |
15928 | Intuitionism rejects set-theory to found mathematics [Lavine] |
15200 | How could change consist of a conjunction of changeless facts? [McTaggart, by Le Poidevin] |
14761 | Change is not just having two different qualities at different points in some series [McTaggart] |
16062 | A necessary relation between fact-levels seems to be a further irreducible fact [Lynch/Glasgow] |
16061 | If some facts 'logically supervene' on some others, they just redescribe them, adding nothing [Lynch/Glasgow] |
16060 | Nonreductive materialism says upper 'levels' depend on lower, but don't 'reduce' [Lynch/Glasgow] |
16064 | The hallmark of physicalism is that each causal power has a base causal power under it [Lynch/Glasgow] |
22628 | Substance has to exist, with no intrinsic qualities or relations [McTaggart] |
2608 | For McTaggart time is seen either as fixed, or as relative to events [McTaggart, by Ayer] |
22936 | A-series time positions are contradictory, and yet all events occupy all of them! [McTaggart, by Le Poidevin] |
4231 | Time involves change, only the A-series explains change, but it involves contradictions, so time is unreal [McTaggart, by Lowe] |
8591 | There could be no time if nothing changed [McTaggart] |
22935 | The B-series can be inferred from the A-series, but not the other way round [McTaggart, by Le Poidevin] |
7802 | A-series uses past, present and future; B-series uses 'before' and 'after' [McTaggart, by Girle] |
4230 | A-series expressions place things in time, and their truth varies; B-series is relative, and always true [McTaggart, by Lowe] |
15199 | The B-series must depend on the A-series, because change must be explained [McTaggart, by Le Poidevin] |