more on this theme | more from this text
Full Idea
My knowing what the number '33' denotes cannot consist in my knowing that it denotes the number of decimal numbers between '1' and '33', because I would know that even if it were in hexadecimal (which I don't know well).
Gist of Idea
The meaning of a number isn't just the numerals leading up to it
Source
Richard G. Heck (Cardinality, Counting and Equinumerosity [2000], 5)
Book Ref
-: 'Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic' [-], p.200
A Reaction
Obviously you wouldn't understand '33' if you didn't understand what '33 things' meant.
| 17448 | In counting, numerals are used, not mentioned (as objects that have to correlated) [Heck] |
| 17449 | We can understand cardinality without the idea of one-one correspondence [Heck] |
| 17450 | Understanding 'just as many' needn't involve grasping one-one correspondence [Heck] |
| 17451 | We can know 'just as many' without the concepts of equinumerosity or numbers [Heck] |
| 17454 | Children can use numbers, without a concept of them as countable objects [Heck] |
| 17455 | Is counting basically mindless, and independent of the cardinality involved? [Heck] |
| 17456 | Counting is the assignment of successively larger cardinal numbers to collections [Heck] |
| 17453 | The meaning of a number isn't just the numerals leading up to it [Heck] |
| 17457 | A basic grasp of cardinal numbers needs an understanding of equinumerosity [Heck] |
| 17458 | Equinumerosity is not the same concept as one-one correspondence [Heck] |
| 17459 | Frege's Theorem explains why the numbers satisfy the Peano axioms [Heck] |