more on this theme | more from this text
Full Idea
For a long time my daughter had no understanding of the question of how many numerals or numbers there are between 'one' and 'five'. I think she lacked the concept of numerals as objects which can themselves be counted.
Gist of Idea
Children can use numbers, without a concept of them as countable objects
Source
Richard G. Heck (Cardinality, Counting and Equinumerosity [2000], 5)
Book Ref
-: 'Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic' [-], p.201
A Reaction
I can't make any sense of numbers actually being objects, though clearly treating all sorts of things as objects helps thinking (as in 'the victory is all that matters').
| 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] |