display all the ideas for this combination of texts
4 ideas
| 15364 | English expressions are denumerably infinite, but reals are nondenumerable, so many are unnameable [Horsten] |
| Full Idea: The number of English expressions is denumerably infinite. But Cantor's theorem can be used to show that there are nondenumerably many real numbers. So not every real number has a (simple or complex name in English). | |
| From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 06.3) | |
| A reaction: This really bothers me. Are we supposed to be committed to the existence of entities which are beyond our powers of naming? How precise must naming be? If I say 'pick a random real number', might that potentially name all of them? |
| 15360 | ZFC showed that the concept of set is mathematical, not logical, because of its existence claims [Horsten] |
| Full Idea: One of the strengths of ZFC is that it shows that the concept of set is a mathematical concept. Many originally took it to be a logical concept. But ZFC makes mind-boggling existence claims, which should not follow if it was a logical concept. | |
| From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 05.2.3) | |
| A reaction: This suggests that set theory is not just a way of expressing mathematics (see Benacerraf 1965), but that some aspect of mathematics has been revealed by it - maybe even its essential nature. |
| 15369 | Set theory is substantial over first-order arithmetic, because it enables new proofs [Horsten] |
| Full Idea: The nonconservativeness of set theory over first-order arithmetic has done much to establish set theory as a substantial theory indeed. | |
| From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 07.5) | |
| A reaction: Horsten goes on to point out the price paid, which is the whole new ontology which has to be added to the arithmetic. Who cares? It's all fictions anyway! |
| 15370 | Predicativism says mathematical definitions must not include the thing being defined [Horsten] |
| Full Idea: Predicativism has it that a mathematical object (such as a set of numbers) cannot be defined by quantifying over a collection that includes that same mathematical object. To do so would be a violation of the vicious circle principle. | |
| From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 07.7) | |
| A reaction: In other words, when you define an object you are obliged to predicate something new, and not just recycle the stuff you already have. |