more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 18148

[filed under theme 6. Mathematics / B. Foundations for Mathematics / 5. Definitions of Number / d. Hume's Principle ]

Full Idea

Hume's Principle will not do as an implicit definition because it makes a positive claim about the size of the universe (which no mere definition can do), and because it does not by itself explain what the numbers are.

Gist of Idea

Hume's Principle is a definition with existential claims, and won't explain numbers

Source

David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 9.A.2)

Book Ref

Bostock,David: 'Philosophy of Mathematics: An Introduction' [Wiley-Blackwell 2009], p.274

Related Idea

Idea 18145 Many things will satisfy Hume's Principle, so there are many interpretations of it [Bostock]


The 19 ideas with the same theme [view that one-one correspondence is basis of numbers]:

Two numbers are equal if all of their units correspond to one another [Hume]
'The number of Fs' is the extension (a collection of first-level concepts) of the concept 'equinumerous with F' [Frege, by George/Velleman]
Frege's cardinals (equivalences of one-one correspondences) is not permissible in ZFC [Frege, by Wolf,RS]
Hume's Principle fails to implicitly define numbers, because of the Julius Caesar [Frege, by Potter]
Frege thinks number is fundamentally bound up with one-one correspondence [Frege, by Heck]
A number is something which characterises collections of the same size [Russell]
Many things will satisfy Hume's Principle, so there are many interpretations of it [Bostock]
There are many criteria for the identity of numbers [Bostock]
Hume's Principle is a definition with existential claims, and won't explain numbers [Bostock]
We derive Hume's Law from Law V, then discard the latter in deriving arithmetic [Wright,C, by Fine,K]
Frege has a good system if his 'number principle' replaces his basic law V [Wright,C, by Friend]
Wright says Hume's Principle is analytic of cardinal numbers, like a definition [Wright,C, by Heck]
It is 1-1 correlation of concepts, and not progression, which distinguishes natural number [Wright,C]
Neo-logicism founds arithmetic on Hume's Principle along with second-order logic [Hale/Wright]
If Hume's Principle can define numbers, we needn't worry about its truth [Fine,K]
Hume's Principle is either adequate for number but fails to define properly, or vice versa [Fine,K]
Simple counting is more basic than spotting that one-to-one correlation makes sets equinumerous [Lowe]
Fs and Gs are identical in number if they one-to-one correlate with one another [Lowe]
Frege's Theorem shows the Peano Postulates can be derived from Hume's Principle [George/Velleman]