display all the ideas for this combination of texts
6 ideas
| 17833 | The first-order ZF axiomatisation is highly non-categorical [Hallett,M] |
| Full Idea: The first-order Sermelo-Fraenkel axiomatisation is highly non-categorical. | |
| From: Michael Hallett (Introduction to Zermelo's 1930 paper [1996], p.1213) |
| 17834 | Non-categoricity reveals a sort of incompleteness, with sets existing that the axioms don't reveal [Hallett,M] |
| Full Idea: The non-categoricity of the axioms which Zermelo demonstrates reveals an incompleteness of a sort, ....for this seems to show that there will always be a set (indeed, an unending sequence) that the basic axioms are incapable of revealing to be sets. | |
| From: Michael Hallett (Introduction to Zermelo's 1930 paper [1996], p.1215) | |
| A reaction: Hallett says the incompleteness concerning Zermelo was the (transfinitely) indefinite iterability of the power set operation (which is what drives the 'iterative conception' of sets). |
| 10676 | The Axiom of Choice is a non-logical principle of set-theory [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: The Axiom of Choice seems better treated as a non-logical principle of set-theory. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Plurals and Complexes [2000], 4 n8) | |
| A reaction: This reinforces the idea that set theory is not part of logic (and so pure logicism had better not depend on set theory). |
| 10686 | The Axiom of Choice guarantees a one-one correspondence from sets to ordinals [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: We cannot explicitly define one-one correspondence from the sets to the ordinals (because there is no explicit well-ordering of R). Nevertheless, the Axiom of Choice guarantees that a one-one correspondence does exist, even if we cannot define it. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Plurals and Complexes [2000], 10) |
| 17837 | Zermelo allows ur-elements, to enable the widespread application of set-theory [Hallett,M] |
| Full Idea: Unlike earlier writers (such as Fraenkel), Zermelo clearly allows that there might be ur-elements (that is, objects other than the empty set, which have no members). Indeed he sees in this the possibility of widespread application of set-theory. | |
| From: Michael Hallett (Introduction to Zermelo's 1930 paper [1996], p.1217) |
| 10687 | Maybe we reduce sets to ordinals, rather than the other way round [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: We might reduce sets to ordinal numbers, thereby reversing the standard set-theoretical reduction of ordinals to sets. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Plurals and Complexes [2000], 10) | |
| A reaction: He has demonstrated that there are as many ordinals as there are sets. |