| 23026 | We know mathematical axioms, such as subtracting equals from equals leaves equals, by a natural light [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: It is by the natural light that the axioms of mathematics are recognised. If we take away the same quantity from two equal things, …a thing we can easily predict without having experienced it. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Queen Charlotte [1702], p.189) | |
| A reaction: He also says two equal weights will keep a balance level. Plato thinks his slave boy understands halving an area by the natural light, but that is just as likely to be experience. It is too easy to attribut thoughts to a 'natural light'. |
| 8737 | Kant suggested that arithmetic has no axioms [Kant, by Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Kant suggested that arithmetic has no axioms. | |
| From: report of Immanuel Kant (Critique of Pure Reason [1781], B204-6/A164) by Stewart Shapiro - Thinking About Mathematics 4.2 | |
| A reaction: A hundred years later a queue was forming to spell out the axioms of arithmetic. The definitions of 0 and 1 always look to me more like logicians' tricks than profound truths. Some notions of successor and induction do, however, seem needed. |
| 5557 | Axioms ought to be synthetic a priori propositions [Kant] |
| Full Idea: Concerning magnitude ...there are no axioms in the proper sense. ....Axioms ought to be synthetic a priori propositions. | |
| From: Immanuel Kant (Critique of Pure Reason [1781], B205/A164) | |
| A reaction: This may be a hopeless dream, but it is (sort of) what all philosophers long for. Post-modern relativism may just be the claim that all axioms are analytic. Could a posteriori propositions every qualify as axioms? |
| 8742 | The only axioms needed are for equality, addition, and successive numbers [Mill, by Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Mill says arithmetic has two axioms, that 'things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other', and 'equals added to equals make equal sums', plus a definition for each numeral as 'formed by the addition of a unit to the previous number'. | |
| From: report of John Stuart Mill (System of Logic [1843], p.610?) by Stewart Shapiro - Thinking About Mathematics 4.3 | |
| A reaction: The difficulty here seems to be the definition of 1, and (even worse for an empiricist), of 0. Then he may have a little trouble when he reaches infinity. |
| 13508 | Dedekind gives a base number which isn't a successor, then adds successors and induction [Dedekind, by Hart,WD] |
| Full Idea: Dedekind's natural numbers: an object is in a set (0 is a number), a function sends the set one-one into itself (numbers have unique successors), the object isn't a value of the function (it isn't a successor), plus induction. | |
| From: report of Richard Dedekind (Nature and Meaning of Numbers [1888]) by William D. Hart - The Evolution of Logic 5 | |
| A reaction: Hart notes that since this refers to sets of individuals, it is a second-order account of numbers, what we now call 'Second-Order Peano Arithmetic'. |
| 16883 | Arithmetical statements can't be axioms, because they are provable [Frege, by Burge] |
| Full Idea: For Frege, no arithmetical statement is an axiom, because all are provable. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Tyler Burge - Frege on Knowing the Foundations 1 | |
| A reaction: This is Frege's logicism, in which the true and unprovable axioms are all found in the logic, not in the arithmetic. Compare that view with the Dedekind/Peano axioms. |
| 16864 | If principles are provable, they are theorems; if not, they are axioms [Frege] |
| Full Idea: If the law [of induction] can be proved, it will be included amongst the theorems of mathematics; if it cannot, it will be included amongst the axioms. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Logic in Mathematics [1914], p.203) | |
| A reaction: This links Frege with the traditional Euclidean view of axioms. The question, then, is how do we know them, given that we can't prove them. |
| 3338 | Numbers have been defined in terms of 'successors' to the concept of 'zero' [Peano, by Blackburn] |
| Full Idea: Dedekind and Peano define the number series as the series of successors to the number zero, according to five postulates. | |
| From: report of Giuseppe Peano (works [1890]) by Simon Blackburn - Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy p.279 |
| 17964 | Number theory just needs calculation laws and rules for integers [Hilbert] |
| Full Idea: The laws of calculation and the rules of integers suffice for the construction of number theory. | |
| From: David Hilbert (Axiomatic Thought [1918], [05]) | |
| A reaction: This is the confident Hilbert view that the whole system can be fully spelled out. Gödel made this optimism more difficult. |
| 14431 | The definition of order needs a transitive relation, to leap over infinite intermediate terms [Russell] |
| Full Idea: Order must be defined by means of a transitive relation, since only such a relation is able to leap over an infinite number of intermediate terms. ...Without it we would not be able to define the order of magnitude among fractions. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], IV) |
| 14124 | Axiom of Archimedes: a finite multiple of a lesser magnitude can always exceed a greater [Russell] |
| Full Idea: The Axiom of Archimedes asserts that, given any two magnitudes of a kind, some finite multiple of the lesser exceeds the greater. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], §168 n*) |
| 9939 | It is conceivable that the axioms of arithmetic or propositional logic might be changed [Putnam] |
| Full Idea: I believe that under certain circumstances revisions in the axioms of arithmetic, or even of the propositional calculus (e.g. the adoption of a modular logic as a way out of the difficulties in quantum mechanics), is fully conceivable. | |
| From: Hilary Putnam (Mathematics without Foundations [1967], p.303) | |
| A reaction: One can change the axioms of a system without necessarily changing the system (by swapping an axiom and a theorem). Especially if platonism is true, since the eternal objects reside calmly above our attempts to axiomatise them! |
| 9899 | The successor of x is either x and all its members, or just the unit set of x [Benacerraf] |
| Full Idea: For Ernie, the successor of a number x was the set consisting of x and all the members of x, while for Johnny the successor of x was simply [x], the unit set of x - the set whose only member is x. | |
| From: Paul Benacerraf (What Numbers Could Not Be [1965], II) | |
| A reaction: See also Idea 9900. Benacerraf's famous point is that it doesn't seem to make any difference to arithmetic which version of set theory you choose as its basis. I take this to conclusively refute the idea that numbers ARE sets. |
| 9900 | For Zermelo 3 belongs to 17, but for Von Neumann it does not [Benacerraf] |
| Full Idea: Ernie's number progression is [φ],[φ,[φ]],[φ,[φ],[φ,[φ,[φ]]],..., whereas Johnny's is [φ],[[φ]],[[[φ]]],... For Ernie 3 belongs to 17, not for Johnny. For Ernie 17 has 17 members; for Johnny it has one. | |
| From: Paul Benacerraf (What Numbers Could Not Be [1965], II) | |
| A reaction: Benacerraf's point is that there is no proof-theoretic way to choose between them, though I am willing to offer my intuition that Ernie (Zermelo) gives the right account. Seventeen pebbles 'contains' three pebbles; you must pass 3 to count to 17. |
| 10808 | Mathematics is generalisations about singleton functions [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: We can take the theory of singleton functions, and hence set theory, and hence mathematics, to consist of generalisations about all singleton functions. | |
| From: David Lewis (Mathematics is Megethology [1993], p.03) | |
| A reaction: At first glance this sounds like a fancy version of the somewhat discredited Greek idea that mathematics is built on the concept of a 'unit'. |
| 10608 | The number of Fs is the 'successor' of the Gs if there is a single F that isn't G [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: The number of Fs is the 'successor' of the number of Gs if there is an object which is an F, and the remaining things that are F but not identical to the object are equinumerous with the Gs. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 14.1) |
| 10618 | All numbers are related to zero by the ancestral of the successor relation [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: All numbers are related to zero by the ancestral of the successor relation. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 23.5) | |
| A reaction: The successor relation only ties a number to the previous one, not to the whole series. Ancestrals are a higher level of abstraction. |
| 10174 | Mereological arithmetic needs infinite objects, and function definitions [Reck/Price] |
| Full Idea: The difficulties for a nominalistic mereological approach to arithmetic is that an infinity of physical objects are needed (space-time points? strokes?), and it must define functions, such as 'successor'. | |
| From: E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §4) | |
| A reaction: Many ontologically austere accounts of arithmetic are faced with the problem of infinity. The obvious non-platonist response seems to be a modal or if-then approach. To postulate infinite abstract or physical entities so that we can add 3 and 2 is mad. |
| 17715 | The truth of the axioms doesn't matter for pure mathematics, but it does for applied [Mares] |
| Full Idea: The epistemological burden of showing that the axioms are true is removed if we are only studying pure mathematics. If, however, we want to look at applied mathematics, then this burden returns. | |
| From: Edwin D. Mares (A Priori [2011], 11.4) | |
| A reaction: One of those really simple ideas that hits the spot. Nice. The most advanced applied mathematics must rest on counting and measuring. |
| 17312 | It is more explanatory if you show how a number is constructed from basic entities and relations [Koslicki] |
| Full Idea: Being the successor of the successor of 0 is more explanatory than being predecessor of 3 of the nature of 2, since it mirrors more closely the method by which 2 is constructed from a basic entity, 0, and a relation (successor) taken as primitive. | |
| From: Kathrin Koslicki (Varieties of Ontological Dependence [2012], 7.4) | |
| A reaction: This assumes numbers are 'constructed', which they are in the axiomatised system of Peano Arithmetic, but presumably the numbers were given in ordinary experience before 'construction' occurred to anyone. Nevertheless, I really like this. |