more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 10095

[filed under theme 6. Mathematics / C. Sources of Mathematics / 6. Logicism / b. Type theory ]

Full Idea

A problem with type theory is that there are only finitely many individuals, and finitely many sets of individuals, and so on. The hierarchy may be infinite, but each level is finite. Mathematics required an axiom asserting infinitely many individuals.

Gist of Idea

Type theory has only finitely many items at each level, which is a problem for mathematics

Source

A.George / D.J.Velleman (Philosophies of Mathematics [2002], Ch.3)

Book Ref

George,A/Velleman D.J.: 'Philosophies of Mathematics' [Blackwell 2002], p.47


A Reaction

Most accounts of mathematics founder when it comes to infinities. Perhaps we should just reject them?


The 23 ideas with the same theme [theory that maths is a hierarchy of set types]:

Frege's logic has a hierarchy of object, property, property-of-property etc. [Frege, by Smith,P]
The ramified theory of types used propositional functions, and covered bound variables [Russell/Whitehead, by George/Velleman]
The Russell/Whitehead type theory was limited, and was not really logic [Friend on Russell/Whitehead]
For 'x is a u' to be meaningful, u must be one range of individuals (or 'type') higher than x [Russell]
In 'x is a u', x and u must be of different types, so 'x is an x' is generally meaningless [Russell, by Magidor]
Type theory cannot identify features across levels (because such predicates break the rules) [Morris,M on Russell]
Classes are defined by propositional functions, and functions are typed, with an axiom of reducibility [Russell, by Lackey]
Type theory seems an extreme reaction, since self-exemplification is often innocuous [Swoyer on Russell]
Russell's improvements blocked mathematics as well as paradoxes, and needed further axioms [Russell, by Musgrave]
Type theory means that features shared by different levels cannot be expressed [Morris,M on Russell]
The 'simple theory of types' distinguishes levels among properties [Ramsey, by Grayling]
Russell confused use and mention, and reduced classes to properties, not to language [Quine, by Lackey]
Simple type theory has 'levels', but ramified type theory has 'orders' [Bostock]
Chihara's system is a variant of type theory, from which he can translate sentences [Chihara, by Shapiro]
We can replace type theory with open sentences and a constructibility quantifier [Chihara, by Shapiro]
Types are 'ramified' when there are further differences between the type of quantifier and its range [Linsky,B]
The ramified theory subdivides each type, according to the range of the variables [Linsky,B]
Higher types are needed to distinguished intensional phenomena which are coextensive [Linsky,B]
In the unramified theory of types, the types are objects, then sets of objects, sets of sets etc. [George/Velleman]
The theory of types seems to rule out harmless sets as well as paradoxical ones. [George/Velleman]
Type theory has only finitely many items at each level, which is a problem for mathematics [George/Velleman]
Type theory prohibits (oddly) a set containing an individual and a set of individuals [George/Velleman]
Set theory was liberated early from types, and recent truth-theories are exploring type-free [Halbach]