more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
By what right can Dedekind suppose that there is a number corresponding to any pair of irrationals that constitute an irrational cut?
Gist of Idea
Why should a Dedekind cut correspond to a number?
Source
Kit Fine (Replies on 'Limits of Abstraction' [2005], 2)
Book Ref
-: 'Philosophical Studies' [-], p.390
Related Idea
Idea 18093 For Eudoxus cuts in rationals are unique, but not every cut makes a real number [Bostock]
| 10572 | A cut between rational numbers creates and defines an irrational number [Dedekind] |
| 18244 | I say the irrational is not the cut itself, but a new creation which corresponds to the cut [Dedekind] |
| 14437 | Dedekind's axiom that his Cut must be filled has the advantages of theft over honest toil [Dedekind, by Russell] |
| 18094 | Dedekind says each cut matches a real; logicists say the cuts are the reals [Dedekind, by Bostock] |
| 14436 | A series can be 'Cut' in two, where the lower class has no maximum, the upper no minimum [Russell] |
| 18248 | A real number is the class of rationals less than the number [Russell/Whitehead, by Shapiro] |
| 15274 | Points are 'continuous' if any 'cut' point participates in both halves of the cut [Harré/Madden] |
| 18093 | For Eudoxus cuts in rationals are unique, but not every cut makes a real number [Bostock] |
| 10575 | Why should a Dedekind cut correspond to a number? [Fine,K] |
| 18245 | Cuts are made by the smallest upper or largest lower number, some of them not rational [Shapiro] |
| 15904 | The two sides of the Cut are, roughly, the bounding commensurable ratios [Lavine] |