more from Paul Benacerraf

Single Idea 9899

[catalogued under 6. Mathematics / B. Foundations for Mathematics / 4. Axioms for Number / a. Axioms for numbers]

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.

Clarification

Ernie actually refers to Von Neumann's set theory, and Johnny refers to Zermelo's!

Gist of Idea

The successor of x is either x and all its members, or just the unit set of x

Source

Paul Benacerraf (What Numbers Could Not Be [1965], II)

Book Reference

'Philosophy of Mathematics: readings (2nd)', ed/tr. Benacerraf/Putnam [CUP 1983], p.278


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.

Related Ideas

Idea 9900 For Zermelo 3 belongs to 17, but for Von Neumann it does not [Benacerraf]

Idea 8762 Two definitions of 3 in terms of sets disagree over whether 1 is a member of 3 [Shapiro]