8745 | Classes are logical fictions, and are not part of the ultimate furniture of the world [Russell] |
6436 | I gradually replaced classes with properties, and they ended as a symbolic convenience [Russell] |
10044 | Russell denies extensional sets, because the null can't be a collection, and the singleton is just its element [Russell/Whitehead, by Shapiro] |
18208 | We regard classes as mere symbolic or linguistic conveniences [Russell/Whitehead] |
11064 | Classes can be reduced to propositional functions [Russell, by Hanna] |
7548 | Classes, grouped by a convenient property, are logical constructions [Russell] |
13536 | Skolem did not believe in the existence of uncountable sets [Skolem] |
10304 | Very few things in set theory remain valid in intuitionist mathematics [Bernays] |
3355 | Von Neumann wanted mathematical functions to replace sets [Neumann, by Benardete,JA] |
9920 | Two objects can apparently make up quite distinct arrangements in sets [Goodman, by Burgess/Rosen] |
3336 | Two things can never entail three things [Quine, by Benardete,JA] |
10699 | Does a bowl of Cheerios contain all its sets and subsets? [Boolos] |
8972 | What in the real world could ground the distinction between the sets {A,{A,B}} and {B,{A,B}}? [Inwagen] |
9570 | In Field's Platonist view, set theory is false because it asserts existence for non-existent things [Field,H, by Chihara] |
6548 | Physicalism requires the naturalisation or rejection of set theory [Lycan] |
13481 | Maybe sets should be rethought in terms of the even more basic categories [Hart,WD] |
7035 | God does not create the world, and then add the classes [Heil] |
10207 | Anti-realists reject set theory [Shapiro] |
8758 | We could talk of open sentences, instead of sets [Chihara, by Shapiro] |
18151 | Could we replace sets by the open sentences that define them? [Chihara, by Bostock] |
9563 | A pack of wolves doesn't cease when one member dies [Chihara] |
10108 | As a reduction of arithmetic, set theory is not fully general, and so not logical [George/Velleman] |
10687 | Maybe we reduce sets to ordinals, rather than the other way round [Hossack] |