10030 | 'Julius Caesar' isn't a number because numbers inherit properties of 0 and successor [George/Velleman on Frege] |
8690 | From within logic, how can we tell whether an arbitrary object like Julius Caesar is a number? [Friend on Frege] |
10219 | Frege said 2 is the extension of all pairs (so Julius Caesar isn't 2, because he's not an extension) [Shapiro on Frege] |
13889 | Fregean numbers are numbers, and not 'Caesar', because they correlate 1-1 [Wright,C on Frege] |
11030 | The words 'There are exactly Julius Caesar moons of Mars' are gibberish [Rumfitt on Frege] |
9046 | Our definition will not tell us whether or not Julius Caesar is a number [Frege] |
18143 | Frege makes numbers sets to solve the Caesar problem, but maybe Caesar is a set! [Bostock] |
18142 | One-one correlations imply normal arithmetic, but don't explain our concept of a number [Bostock] |
13888 | If numbers are extensions, Frege must first solve the Caesar problem for extensions [Wright,C] |
8787 | The Julius Caesar problem asks for a criterion for the concept of a 'number' [Hale/Wright] |
18164 | Frege solves the Caesar problem by explicitly defining each number [Maddy] |
10232 | Property extensions outstrip objects, so shortage of objects caused the Caesar problem [Shapiro] |
17997 | Some suggest that the Julius Caesar problem involves category mistakes [Magidor] |