more from this thinker
|
more from this text
Single Idea 7524
[filed under theme 6. Mathematics / A. Nature of Mathematics / 3. Nature of Numbers / c. Priority of numbers
]
Full Idea
Dedekind said that the notion of order, rather than that of quantity, is the central notion in the definition of number.
Gist of Idea
Order, not quantity, is central to defining numbers
Source
report of Richard Dedekind (Nature and Meaning of Numbers [1888]) by Ray Monk - Bertrand Russell: Spirit of Solitude Ch.4
Book Ref
Monk,Ray: 'Bertrand Russell: Spirit of Solitude' [Vintage 1997], p.116
A Reaction
Compare Aristotle's nice question in Idea 646. My intuition is that quantity comes first, because I'm not sure HOW you could count, if you didn't think you were changing the quantity each time. Why does counting go in THAT particular order? Cf. Idea 8661.
Related Ideas
Idea 646
When we count, are we adding, or naming numbers? [Aristotle]
Idea 8661
The natural numbers are primitive, and the ordinals are up one level of abstraction [Friend]
The
19 ideas
with the same theme
[which type of numbers is the most fundamental?]:
11044
|
One is prior to two, because its existence is implied by two
[Aristotle]
|
10091
|
God made the integers, all the rest is the work of man
[Kronecker]
|
10090
|
Dedekind defined the integers, rationals and reals in terms of just the natural numbers
[Dedekind, by George/Velleman]
|
17452
|
Ordinals can define cardinals, as the smallest ordinal that maps the set
[Dedekind, by Heck]
|
7524
|
Order, not quantity, is central to defining numbers
[Dedekind, by Monk]
|
9983
|
Cantor took the ordinal numbers to be primary
[Cantor, by Tait]
|
18256
|
Quantity is inconceivable without the idea of addition
[Frege]
|
13510
|
Could a number just be something which occurs in a progression?
[Russell, by Hart,WD]
|
14128
|
Some claim priority for the ordinals over cardinals, but there is no logical priority between them
[Russell]
|
14129
|
Ordinals presuppose two relations, where cardinals only presuppose one
[Russell]
|
14132
|
Properties of numbers don't rely on progressions, so cardinals may be more basic
[Russell]
|
13489
|
Von Neumann treated cardinals as a special sort of ordinal
[Neumann, by Hart,WD]
|
18255
|
Addition of quantities is prior to ordering, as shown in cyclic domains like angles
[Dummett]
|
9191
|
Ordinals seem more basic than cardinals, since we count objects in sequence
[Dummett]
|
13411
|
If numbers are basically the cardinals (Frege-Russell view) you could know some numbers in isolation
[Benacerraf]
|
9151
|
Benacerraf says numbers are defined by their natural ordering
[Benacerraf, by Fine,K]
|
18102
|
A cardinal is the earliest ordinal that has that number of predecessors
[Bostock]
|
13892
|
One could grasp numbers, and name sizes with them, without grasping ordering
[Wright,C]
|
8661
|
The natural numbers are primitive, and the ordinals are up one level of abstraction
[Friend]
|