display all the ideas for this combination of texts
12 ideas
| 8764 | Categories are the best foundation for mathematics [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: There is a dedicated contingent who hold that the category of 'categories' is the proper foundation for mathematics. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Thinking About Mathematics [2000], 10.3 n7) | |
| A reaction: He cites Lawvere (1966) and McLarty (1993), the latter presenting the view as a form of structuralism. I would say that the concept of a category will need further explication, and probably reduce to either sets or relations or properties. |
| 18156 | Modern axioms of geometry do not need the real numbers [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: A modern axiomatisation of geometry, such as Hilbert's (1899), does not need to claim the existence of real numbers anywhere in its axioms. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 9.B.5.ii) | |
| A reaction: This is despite the fact that geometry is reduced to algebra, and the real numbers are the equivalent of continuous lines. Bostock votes for a Greek theory of proportion in this role. |
| 18097 | The Peano Axioms describe a unique structure [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: The Peano Axioms are categorical, meaning that they describe a unique structure. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 4.4 n20) | |
| A reaction: So if you think there is nothing more to the natural numbers than their structure, then the Peano Axioms give the essence of arithmetic. If you think that 'objects' must exist to generate a structure, there must be more to the numbers. |
| 18148 | Hume's Principle is a definition with existential claims, and won't explain numbers [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: Hume's Principle will not do as an implicit definition because it makes a positive claim about the size of the universe (which no mere definition can do), and because it does not by itself explain what the numbers are. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 9.A.2) |
| 18145 | Many things will satisfy Hume's Principle, so there are many interpretations of it [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: Hume's Principle gives a criterion of identity for numbers, but it is obvious that many other things satisfy that criterion. The simplest example is probably the numerals (in any notation, decimal, binary etc.), giving many different interpretations. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 9.A.2) |
| 18149 | There are many criteria for the identity of numbers [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: There is not just one way of giving a criterion of identity for numbers. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 9.A.2) |
| 18143 | Frege makes numbers sets to solve the Caesar problem, but maybe Caesar is a set! [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: The Julius Caesar problem was one reason that led Frege to give an explicit definition of numbers as special sets. He does not appear to notice that the same problem affects his Axiom V for introducing sets (whether Caesar is or is not a set). | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 9.A.2) | |
| A reaction: The Julius Caesar problem is a sceptical acid that eats into everything in philosophy of mathematics. You give all sorts of wonderful accounts of numbers, but at what point do you know that you now have a number, and not something else? |
| 8762 | Two definitions of 3 in terms of sets disagree over whether 1 is a member of 3 [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Zermelo said that for each number n, its successor is the singleton of n, so 3 is {{{null}}}, and 1 is not a member of 3. Von Neumann said each number n is the set of numbers less than n, so 3 is {null,{null},{null,{null}}}, and 1 is a member of 3. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Thinking About Mathematics [2000], 10.2) | |
| A reaction: See Idea 645 - Zermelo could save Plato from the criticisms of Aristotle! These two accounts are cited by opponents of the set-theoretical account of numbers, because it seems impossible to arbitrate between them. |
| 8760 | Numbers do not exist independently; the essence of a number is its relations to other numbers [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The structuralist vigorously rejects any sort of ontological independence among the natural numbers; the essence of a natural number is its relations to other natural numbers. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Thinking About Mathematics [2000], 10.1) | |
| A reaction: This seems to place the emphasis on ordinals (what order?) rather than on cardinality (how many?). I am strongly inclined to think that this is the correct view, though you can't really have relations if there is nothing to relate. |
| 8761 | A 'system' is related objects; a 'pattern' or 'structure' abstracts the pure relations from them [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: A 'system' is a collection of objects with certain relations among them; a 'pattern' or 'structure' is the abstract form of a system, highlighting the interrelationships and ignoring any features they do not affect how they relate to other objects. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Thinking About Mathematics [2000], 10.1) | |
| A reaction: Note that 'ignoring' features is a psychological account of abstraction, which (thanks to Frege and Geach) is supposed to be taboo - but which I suspect is actually indispensable in any proper account of thought and concepts. |
| 18116 | Numbers can't be positions, if nothing decides what position a given number has [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: There is no ground for saying that a number IS a position, if the truth is that there is nothing to determine which number is which position. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 6.4) | |
| A reaction: If numbers lose touch with the empirical ability to count physical objects, they drift off into a mad world where they crumble away. |
| 18117 | Structuralism falsely assumes relations to other numbers are numbers' only properties [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: Structuralism begins from a false premise, namely that numbers have no properties other than their relations to other numbers. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 6.5) | |
| A reaction: Well said. Describing anything purely relationally strikes me as doomed, because you have to say why those things relate in those ways. |