display all the ideas for this combination of texts
38 ideas
| 14152 | In geometry, Kant and idealists aimed at the certainty of the premisses [Russell] |
| Full Idea: The approach to practical geometry of the idealists, and especially of Kant, was that we must be certain of the premisses on their own account. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], §353) |
| 14154 | Geometry throws no light on the nature of actual space [Russell] |
| Full Idea: Geometry no longer throws any direct light on the nature of actual space. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], §353) | |
| A reaction: This was 1903. Minkowski then contributed a geometry of space which was used in Einstein's General Theory. It looks to me as if geometry reveals the possibilities for actual space. |
| 14151 | Pure geometry is deductive, and neutral over what exists [Russell] |
| Full Idea: As a branch of pure mathematics, geometry is strictly deductive, indifferent to the choice of its premises, and to the question of whether there strictly exist such entities. It just deals with series of more than one dimension. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], §352) | |
| A reaction: This seems to be the culmination of the seventeenth century reduction of geometry to algebra. Russell admits that there is also the 'study of actual space'. |
| 14153 | In geometry, empiricists aimed at premisses consistent with experience [Russell] |
| Full Idea: The approach to practical geometry of the empiricists, notably Mill, was to show that no other set of premisses would give results consistent with experience. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], §353) | |
| A reaction: The modern phrase might be that geometry just needs to be 'empirically adequate'. The empiricists are faced with the possibility of more than one successful set of premisses, and the idealist don't know how to demonstrate truth. |
| 14155 | Two points have a line joining them (descriptive), a distance (metrical), and a whole line (projective) [Russell, by PG] |
| Full Idea: Two points will define the line that joins them ('descriptive' geometry), the distance between them ('metrical' geometry), and the whole of the extended line ('projective' geometry). | |
| From: report of Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], §362) by PG - Db (ideas) | |
| A reaction: [a summary of Russell's §362] Projective Geometry clearly has the highest generality, and the modern view seems to make it the master subject of geometry. |
| 18254 | Russell's approach had to treat real 5/8 as different from rational 5/8 [Russell, by Dummett] |
| Full Idea: Russell defined the rationals as ratios of integers, and was therefore forced to treat the real number 5/8 as an object distinct from the rational 5/8. | |
| From: report of Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903]) by Michael Dummett - Frege philosophy of mathematics 21 'Frege's' |
| 14144 | Ordinals result from likeness among relations, as cardinals from similarity among classes [Russell] |
| Full Idea: Ordinal numbers result from likeness among relations, as cardinals from similarity among classes. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], §293) |
| 14128 | Some claim priority for the ordinals over cardinals, but there is no logical priority between them [Russell] |
| Full Idea: It is claimed that ordinals are prior to cardinals, because they form the progression which is relevant to mathematics, but they both form progressions and have the same ordinal properties. There is nothing to choose in logical priority between them. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], §230) | |
| A reaction: We have an intuitive notion of the size of a set without number, but you can't actually start counting without number, so the ordering seems to be the key to the business, which (I would have thought) points to ordinals as prior. |
| 14129 | Ordinals presuppose two relations, where cardinals only presuppose one [Russell] |
| Full Idea: Ordinals presuppose serial and one-one relations, whereas cardinals only presuppose one-one relations. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], §232) | |
| A reaction: This seems to award the palm to the cardinals, for their greater logical simplicity, but I have already given the award to the ordinals in the previous idea, and I am not going back on that. |
| 14132 | Properties of numbers don't rely on progressions, so cardinals may be more basic [Russell] |
| Full Idea: The properties of number must be capable of proof without appeal to the general properties of progressions, since cardinals can be independently defined, and must be seen in a progression before theories of progression are applied to them. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], §243) | |
| A reaction: Russell says there is no logical priority between ordinals and cardinals, but it is simpler to start an account with cardinals. |
| 14141 | Ordinals are defined through mathematical induction [Russell] |
| Full Idea: The ordinal numbers are defined by some relation to mathematical induction. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], §290) |
| 14142 | Ordinals are types of series of terms in a row, rather than the 'nth' instance [Russell] |
| Full Idea: The finite ordinals may be conceived as types of series; ..the ordinal number may be taken as 'n terms in a row'; this is distinct from the 'nth', and logically prior to it. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], §290) | |
| A reaction: Worth nothing, because the popular and traditional use of 'ordinal' (as in learning a foreign language) is to mean the nth instance of something, rather than a whole series. |
| 14139 | Transfinite ordinals don't obey commutativity, so their arithmetic is quite different from basic arithmetic [Russell] |
| Full Idea: Unlike the transfinite cardinals, the transfinite ordinals do not obey the commutative law, and their arithmetic is therefore quite different from elementary arithmetic. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], §290) |
| 14145 | For Cantor ordinals are types of order, not numbers [Russell] |
| Full Idea: In his most recent article Cantor speaks of ordinals as types of order, not as numbers. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], §298) | |
| A reaction: Russell likes this because it supports his own view of ordinals as classes of serial relations. It has become orthodoxy to refer to heaps of things as 'numbers' when the people who introduced them may not have seen them that way. |
| 14146 | We aren't sure if one cardinal number is always bigger than another [Russell] |
| Full Idea: We do not know that of any two different cardinal numbers one must be the greater. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], §300) | |
| A reaction: This was 1903, and I don't know whether the situation has changed. I find this thought extremely mind-boggling, given that cardinals are supposed to answer the question 'how many?' Presumably they can't be identical either. See Burali-Forti. |
| 14135 | Real numbers are a class of rational numbers (and so not really numbers at all) [Russell] |
| Full Idea: Real numbers are not really numbers at all, but something quite different; ...a real number, so I shall contend, is nothing but a certain class of rational numbers. ...A segment of rationals is a real number. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], §258) |
| 14123 | Some quantities can't be measured, and some non-quantities are measurable [Russell] |
| Full Idea: Some quantities cannot be measured (such as pain), and some things which are not quantities can be measured (such as certain series). | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], §150) |
| 14158 | Quantity is not part of mathematics, where it is replaced by order [Russell] |
| Full Idea: Quantity, though philosophers seem to think it essential to mathematics, does not occur in pure mathematics, and does occur in many cases not amenable to mathematical treatment. The place of quantity is taken by order. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], §405) | |
| A reaction: He gives pain as an example of a quantity which cannot be treated mathematically. |
| 14120 | Counting explains none of the real problems about the foundations of arithmetic [Russell] |
| Full Idea: The process of counting gives us no indication as to what the numbers are, as to why they form a series, or as to how it is to be proved that there are n numbers from 1 to n. Hence counting is irrelevant to the foundations of arithmetic. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], §129) | |
| A reaction: I take it to be the first truth in the philosophy of mathematics that if there is a system of numbers which won't do the job of counting, then that system is irrelevant. Counting always comes first. |
| 14118 | We can define one-to-one without mentioning unity [Russell] |
| Full Idea: It is possible, without the notion of unity, to define what is meant by one-to-one. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], §109) | |
| A reaction: This is the trick which enables the Greek account of numbers, based on units, to be abandoned. But when you have arranged the boys and the girls one-to-one, you have not yet got a concept of number. |
| 14119 | We do not currently know whether, of two infinite numbers, one must be greater than the other [Russell] |
| Full Idea: It is not at present known whether, of two different infinite numbers, one must be greater and the other less. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], §118) | |
| A reaction: This must refer to cardinal numbers, as ordinal numbers have an order. The point is that the proper subset is equal to the set (according to Dedekind). |
| 14133 | There are cardinal and ordinal theories of infinity (while continuity is entirely ordinal) [Russell] |
| Full Idea: The theory of infinity has two forms, cardinal and ordinal, of which the former springs from the logical theory of numbers; the theory of continuity is purely ordinal. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], §249) |
| 14134 | Infinite numbers are distinguished by disobeying induction, and the part equalling the whole [Russell] |
| Full Idea: There are two differences of infinite numbers from finite: that they do not obey mathematical induction (both cardinals and ordinals), and that the whole contains a part consisting of the same number of terms (applying only to ordinals). | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], §250) |
| 14143 | ω names the whole series, or the generating relation of the series of ordinal numbers [Russell] |
| Full Idea: The ordinal representing the whole series must be different from what represents a segment of itself, with no immediate predecessor, since the series has no last term. ω names the class progression, or generating relation of series of this class. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], §291) | |
| A reaction: He is paraphrasing Cantor's original account of ω. |
| 14138 | You can't get a new transfinite cardinal from an old one just by adding finite numbers to it [Russell] |
| Full Idea: It must not be supposed that we can obtain a new transfinite cardinal by merely adding one to it, or even by adding any finite number, or aleph-0. On the contrary, such puny weapons cannot disturb the transfinite cardinals. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], §288) | |
| A reaction: If you add one, the original cardinal would be a subset of the new one, and infinite numbers have their subsets equal to the whole, so you have gone nowhere. You begin to wonder whether transfinite cardinals are numbers at all. |
| 14140 | For every transfinite cardinal there is an infinite collection of transfinite ordinals [Russell] |
| Full Idea: For every transfinite cardinal there is an infinite collection of transfinite ordinals, although the cardinal number of all ordinals is the same as or less than that of all cardinals. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], §290) | |
| A reaction: Sort that one out, and you are beginning to get to grips with the world of the transfinite! Sounds like there are more ordinals than cardinals, and more cardinals than ordinals. |
| 14124 | Axiom of Archimedes: a finite multiple of a lesser magnitude can always exceed a greater [Russell] |
| Full Idea: The Axiom of Archimedes asserts that, given any two magnitudes of a kind, some finite multiple of the lesser exceeds the greater. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], §168 n*) |
| 7530 | Russell tried to replace Peano's Postulates with the simple idea of 'class' [Russell, by Monk] |
| Full Idea: What Russell tried to show [at this time] was that Peano's Postulates (based on 'zero', 'number' and 'successor') could in turn be dispensed with, and the whole edifice built upon nothing more than the notion of 'class'. | |
| From: report of Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903]) by Ray Monk - Bertrand Russell: Spirit of Solitude Ch.4 | |
| A reaction: (See Idea 5897 for Peano) Presumably you can't afford to lose the notion of 'successor' in the account. If you build any theory on the idea of classes, you are still required to explain why a particular is a member of that class, and not another. |
| 18246 | Dedekind failed to distinguish the numbers from other progressions [Shapiro on Russell] |
| Full Idea: Dedekind's demonstrations nowhere - not even where he comes to cardinals - involve any property distinguishing numbers from other progressions. | |
| From: comment on Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], p.249) by Stewart Shapiro - Philosophy of Mathematics 5.4 | |
| A reaction: Shapiro notes that his sounds like Frege's Julius Caesar problem, of ensuring that your definition really does capture a number. Russell is objecting to mathematical structuralism. |
| 14147 | Denying mathematical induction gave us the transfinite [Russell] |
| Full Idea: The transfinite was obtained by denying mathematical induction. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], §310) | |
| A reaction: This refers to the work of Dedekind and Cantor. This raises the question (about which thinkers have ceased to care, it seems), of whether it is rational to deny mathematical induction. |
| 14125 | Finite numbers, unlike infinite numbers, obey mathematical induction [Russell] |
| Full Idea: Finite numbers obey the law of mathematical induction: infinite numbers do not. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], §183) |
| 14116 | Numbers were once defined on the basis of 1, but neglected infinities and + [Russell] |
| Full Idea: It used to be common to define numbers by means of 1, with 2 being 1+1 and so on. But this method was only applicable to finite numbers, made a tiresome different between 1 and the other numbers, and left + unexplained. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], §109) | |
| A reaction: Am I alone in hankering after the old approach? The idea of a 'unit' is what connected numbers to the patterns of the world. Russell's approach invites unneeded platonism. + is just 'and', and infinities are fictional extrapolations. Sounds fine to me. |
| 14117 | Numbers are properties of classes [Russell] |
| Full Idea: Numbers are to be regarded as properties of classes. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], §109) | |
| A reaction: If properties are then defined extensionally as classes, you end up with numbers as classes of classes. |
| 9977 | Ordinals can't be defined just by progression; they have intrinsic qualities [Russell] |
| Full Idea: It is impossible that the ordinals should be, as Dedekind suggests, nothing but the terms of such relations as constitute a progression. If they are anything at all, they must be intrinsically something. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], §242) | |
| A reaction: This is the obvious platonist response to the incipient doctrine of structuralism. We have a chicken-and-egg problem. Bricks need intrinsic properties to make a structure. A structure isomorphic to numbers is not thereby the numbers. |
| 14162 | Mathematics doesn't care whether its entities exist [Russell] |
| Full Idea: Mathematics is throughout indifferent to the question whether its entities exist. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], §434) | |
| A reaction: There is an 'if-thenist' attitude in this book, since he is trying to reduce mathematics to logic. Total indifference leaves the problem of why mathematics is applicable to the real world. |
| 14103 | Pure mathematics is the class of propositions of the form 'p implies q' [Russell] |
| Full Idea: Pure mathematics is the class of all propositions of the form 'p implies q', where p and q are propositions containing one or more variables, the same in the two propositions, and neither p nor q contains any constants except logical constants. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], §001) | |
| A reaction: Linnebo calls Russell's view here 'deductive structuralism'. Russell gives (§5) as an example that Euclid is just whatever is deduced from his axioms. |
| 21555 | For 'x is a u' to be meaningful, u must be one range of individuals (or 'type') higher than x [Russell] |
| Full Idea: In his 1903 theory of types he distinguished between individuals, ranges of individuals, ranges of ranges of individuals, and so on. Each level was a type, and it was stipulated that for 'x is a u' to be meaningful, u must be one type higher than x. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], App) | |
| A reaction: Russell was dissatisfied because this theory could not deal with Cantor's Paradox. Is this the first time in modern philosophy that someone has offered a criterion for whether a proposition is 'meaningful'? |
| 18003 | In 'x is a u', x and u must be of different types, so 'x is an x' is generally meaningless [Russell, by Magidor] |
| Full Idea: Russell argues that in a statement of the form 'x is a u' (and correspondingly, 'x is a not-u'), 'x must be of different types', and hence that ''x is an x' must in general be meaningless'. | |
| From: report of Bertrand Russell (The Principles of Mathematics [1903], App B:524) by Ofra Magidor - Category Mistakes 1.2 | |
| A reaction: " 'Word' is a word " comes to mind, but this would be the sort of ascent to a metalanguage (to distinguish the types) which Tarski exploited. It is the simple point that a classification can't be the same as a member of the classification. |