more on this theme     |     more from this thinker


Single Idea 8663

[filed under theme 6. Mathematics / A. Nature of Mathematics / 5. The Infinite / h. Ordinal infinity ]

Full Idea

After the multiples of omega, we can successively raise omega to powers of omega, and after that is done an infinite number of times we arrive at a new limit ordinal, which is called 'epsilon'. We have an infinite number of infinite ordinals.

Clarification

For 'omega' see Idea 8662

Gist of Idea

Raising omega to successive powers of omega reveal an infinity of infinities

Source

Michèle Friend (Introducing the Philosophy of Mathematics [2007], 1.4)

Book Ref

Friend,Michèle: 'Introducing the Philosophy of Mathematics' [Acumen 2007], p.13


A Reaction

When most people are dumbstruck by the idea of a single infinity, Cantor unleashes an infinity of infinities, which must be the highest into the stratosphere of abstract thought that any human being has ever gone.

Related Idea

Idea 8662 The first limit ordinal is omega (greater, but without predecessor), and the second is twice-omega [Friend]


The 41 ideas from 'Introducing the Philosophy of Mathematics'

In classical/realist logic the connectives are defined by truth-tables [Friend]
The natural numbers are primitive, and the ordinals are up one level of abstraction [Friend]
The first limit ordinal is omega (greater, but without predecessor), and the second is twice-omega [Friend]
Raising omega to successive powers of omega reveal an infinity of infinities [Friend]
Between any two rational numbers there is an infinite number of rational numbers [Friend]
Cardinal numbers answer 'how many?', with the order being irrelevant [Friend]
The 'integers' are the positive and negative natural numbers, plus zero [Friend]
The 'rational' numbers are those representable as fractions [Friend]
A number is 'irrational' if it cannot be represented as a fraction [Friend]
The 'real' numbers (rationals and irrationals combined) is the Continuum, which has no gaps [Friend]
Infinite sets correspond one-to-one with a subset [Friend]
A 'proper subset' of A contains only members of A, but not all of them [Friend]
A 'powerset' is all the subsets of a set [Friend]
Set theory makes a minimum ontological claim, that the empty set exists [Friend]
Paradoxes can be solved by talking more loosely of 'classes' instead of 'sets' [Friend]
The Burali-Forti paradox asks whether the set of all ordinals is itself an ordinal [Friend]
Is mathematics based on sets, types, categories, models or topology? [Friend]
Most mathematical theories can be translated into the language of set theory [Friend]
Reductio ad absurdum proves an idea by showing that its denial produces contradiction [Friend]
Classical definitions attempt to refer, but intuitionist/constructivist definitions actually create objects [Friend]
The big problem for platonists is epistemic: how do we perceive, intuit, know or detect mathematical facts? [Friend]
Major set theories differ in their axioms, and also over the additional axioms of choice and infinity [Friend]
Studying biology presumes the laws of chemistry, and it could never contradict them [Friend]
Concepts can be presented extensionally (as objects) or intensionally (as a characterization) [Friend]
Free logic was developed for fictional or non-existent objects [Friend]
Structuralism focuses on relations, predicates and functions, with objects being inessential [Friend]
Structuralist says maths concerns concepts about base objects, not base objects themselves [Friend]
'In re' structuralism says that the process of abstraction is pattern-spotting [Friend]
In structuralism the number 8 is not quite the same in different structures, only equivalent [Friend]
The number 8 in isolation from the other numbers is of no interest [Friend]
Are structures 'ante rem' (before reality), or are they 'in re' (grounded in physics)? [Friend]
Structuralists call a mathematical 'object' simply a 'place in a structure' [Friend]
Anti-realists see truth as our servant, and epistemically contrained [Friend]
Constructivism rejects too much mathematics [Friend]
Intuitionists typically retain bivalence but reject the law of excluded middle [Friend]
Double negation elimination is not valid in intuitionist logic [Friend]
The law of excluded middle is syntactic; it just says A or not-A, not whether they are true or false [Friend]
Intuitionists read the universal quantifier as "we have a procedure for checking every..." [Friend]
Mathematics should be treated as true whenever it is indispensable to our best physical theory [Friend]
Formalism is unconstrained, so cannot indicate importance, or directions for research [Friend]
An 'impredicative' definition seems circular, because it uses the term being defined [Friend]