more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
It can be argued that the notion of ordinal numbers is more fundamental than that of cardinals. To count objects, we must count them in sequence. ..The theory of ordinals forms the substratum of Cantor's theory of cardinals.
Gist of Idea
Ordinals seem more basic than cardinals, since we count objects in sequence
Source
Michael Dummett (The Philosophy of Mathematics [1998], 5)
Book Ref
'Philosophy 2: further through the subject', ed/tr. Grayling,A.C. [OUP 1998], p.156
A Reaction
Depends what you mean by 'fundamental'. I would take cardinality to be psychologically prior ('that is a lot of sheep'). You can't order people by height without first acquiring some people with differing heights. I vote for cardinals.
| 9186 | First-order logic concerns objects; second-order adds properties, kinds, relations and functions [Dummett] |
| 9187 | Logical truths and inference are characterized either syntactically or semantically [Dummett] |
| 9191 | Ordinals seem more basic than cardinals, since we count objects in sequence [Dummett] |
| 9192 | The number 4 has different positions in the naturals and the wholes, with the same structure [Dummett] |
| 9193 | ZF set theory has variables which range over sets, 'equals' and 'member', and extensionality [Dummett] |
| 9194 | The main alternative to ZF is one which includes looser classes as well as sets [Dummett] |
| 9195 | Intuitionists reject excluded middle, not for a third value, but for possibility of proof [Dummett] |