41 ideas
| 22289 | Dedekind proved definition by recursion, and thus proved the basic laws of arithmetic [Dedekind, by Potter] |
| Full Idea: Dedkind gave a rigorous proof of the principle of definition by recursion, permitting recursive definitions of addition and multiplication, and hence proofs of the familiar arithmetical laws. | |
| From: report of Richard Dedekind (Nature and Meaning of Numbers [1888]) by Michael Potter - The Rise of Analytic Philosophy 1879-1930 13 'Deriv' |
| 13451 | The two best understood conceptions of set are the Iterative and the Limitation of Size [Rayo/Uzquiano] |
| Full Idea: The two best understood conceptions of set are the Iterative Conception and the Limitation of Size Conception. | |
| From: Rayo,A/Uzquiasno,G (Introduction to 'Absolute Generality' [2006], 1.2.2) |
| 10183 | An infinite set maps into its own proper subset [Dedekind, by Reck/Price] |
| Full Idea: A set is 'Dedekind-infinite' iff there exists a one-to-one function that maps a set into a proper subset of itself. | |
| From: report of Richard Dedekind (Nature and Meaning of Numbers [1888], §64) by E Reck / M Price - Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths n 7 | |
| A reaction: Sounds as if it is only infinite if it is contradictory, or doesn't know how big it is! |
| 22288 | We have the idea of self, and an idea of that idea, and so on, so infinite ideas are available [Dedekind, by Potter] |
| Full Idea: Dedekind had an interesting proof of the Axiom of Infinity. He held that I have an a priori grasp of the idea of my self, and that every idea I can form the idea of that idea. Hence there are infinitely many objects available to me a priori. | |
| From: report of Richard Dedekind (Nature and Meaning of Numbers [1888], no. 66) by Michael Potter - The Rise of Analytic Philosophy 1879-1930 12 'Numb' | |
| A reaction: Who said that Descartes' Cogito was of no use? Frege endorsed this, as long as the ideas are objective and not subjective. |
| 13452 | Some set theories give up Separation in exchange for a universal set [Rayo/Uzquiano] |
| Full Idea: There are set theories that countenance exceptions to the Principle of Separation in exchange for a universal set. | |
| From: Rayo,A/Uzquiasno,G (Introduction to 'Absolute Generality' [2006], 1.2.2) |
| 10706 | Dedekind originally thought more in terms of mereology than of sets [Dedekind, by Potter] |
| Full Idea: Dedekind plainly had fusions, not collections, in mind when he avoided the empty set and used the same symbol for membership and inclusion - two tell-tale signs of a mereological conception. | |
| From: report of Richard Dedekind (Nature and Meaning of Numbers [1888], 2-3) by Michael Potter - Set Theory and Its Philosophy 02.1 | |
| A reaction: Potter suggests that mathematicians were torn between mereology and sets, and eventually opted whole-heartedly for sets. Maybe this is only because set theory was axiomatised by Zermelo some years before Lezniewski got to mereology. |
| 13449 | We could have unrestricted quantification without having an all-inclusive domain [Rayo/Uzquiano] |
| Full Idea: The possibility of unrestricted quantification does not immediately presuppose the existence of an all-inclusive domain. One could deny an all-inclusive domain but grant that some quantifications are sometimes unrestricted. | |
| From: Rayo,A/Uzquiasno,G (Introduction to 'Absolute Generality' [2006], 1.1) | |
| A reaction: Thus you can quantify over anything you like, but only from what is available. Eat what you like (in this restaurant). |
| 13450 | Absolute generality is impossible, if there are indefinitely extensible concepts like sets and ordinals [Rayo/Uzquiano] |
| Full Idea: There are doubts about whether absolute generality is possible, if there are certain concepts which are indefinitely extensible, lacking definite extensions, and yielding an ever more inclusive hierarchy. Sets and ordinals are paradigm cases. | |
| From: Rayo,A/Uzquiasno,G (Introduction to 'Absolute Generality' [2006], 1.2.1) |
| 13453 | Perhaps second-order quantifications cover concepts of objects, rather than plain objects [Rayo/Uzquiano] |
| Full Idea: If one thought of second-order quantification as quantification over first-level Fregean concepts [note: one under which only objects fall], talk of domains might be regimented as talk of first-level concepts, which are not objects. | |
| From: Rayo,A/Uzquiasno,G (Introduction to 'Absolute Generality' [2006], 1.2.2) | |
| A reaction: That is (I take it), don't quantify over objects, but quantify over concepts, but only those under which known objects fall. One might thus achieve naïve comprehension without paradoxes. Sound like fun. |
| 9823 | Numbers are free creations of the human mind, to understand differences [Dedekind] |
| Full Idea: Numbers are free creations of the human mind; they serve as a means of apprehending more easily and more sharply the difference of things. | |
| From: Richard Dedekind (Nature and Meaning of Numbers [1888], Pref) | |
| A reaction: Does this fit real numbers and complex numbers, as well as natural numbers? Frege was concerned by the lack of objectivity in this sort of view. What sort of arithmetic might the Martians have created? Numbers register sameness too. |
| 10090 | Dedekind defined the integers, rationals and reals in terms of just the natural numbers [Dedekind, by George/Velleman] |
| Full Idea: It was primarily Dedekind's accomplishment to define the integers, rationals and reals, taking only the system of natural numbers for granted. | |
| From: report of Richard Dedekind (Nature and Meaning of Numbers [1888]) by A.George / D.J.Velleman - Philosophies of Mathematics Intro |
| 7524 | Order, not quantity, is central to defining numbers [Dedekind, by Monk] |
| Full Idea: Dedekind said that the notion of order, rather than that of quantity, is the central notion in the definition of number. | |
| From: report of Richard Dedekind (Nature and Meaning of Numbers [1888]) by Ray Monk - Bertrand Russell: Spirit of Solitude Ch.4 | |
| A reaction: Compare Aristotle's nice question in Idea 646. My intuition is that quantity comes first, because I'm not sure HOW you could count, if you didn't think you were changing the quantity each time. Why does counting go in THAT particular order? Cf. Idea 8661. |
| 17452 | Ordinals can define cardinals, as the smallest ordinal that maps the set [Dedekind, by Heck] |
| Full Idea: Dedekind and Cantor said the cardinals may be defined in terms of the ordinals: The cardinal number of a set S is the least ordinal onto whose predecessors the members of S can be mapped one-one. | |
| From: report of Richard Dedekind (Nature and Meaning of Numbers [1888]) by Richard G. Heck - Cardinality, Counting and Equinumerosity 5 |
| 14131 | Dedekind's ordinals are just members of any progression whatever [Dedekind, by Russell] |
| Full Idea: Dedekind's ordinals are not essentially either ordinals or cardinals, but the members of any progression whatever. | |
| From: report of Richard Dedekind (Nature and Meaning of Numbers [1888]) by Bertrand Russell - The Principles of Mathematics §243 | |
| A reaction: This is part of Russell's objection to Dedekind's structuralism. The question is always why these beautiful structures should actually be considered as numbers. I say, unlike Russell, that the connection to counting is crucial. |
| 14437 | Dedekind's axiom that his Cut must be filled has the advantages of theft over honest toil [Dedekind, by Russell] |
| Full Idea: Dedekind set up the axiom that the gap in his 'cut' must always be filled …The method of 'postulating' what we want has many advantages; they are the same as the advantages of theft over honest toil. Let us leave them to others. | |
| From: report of Richard Dedekind (Nature and Meaning of Numbers [1888]) by Bertrand Russell - Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy VII | |
| A reaction: This remark of Russell's is famous, and much quoted in other contexts, but I have seen the modern comment that it is grossly unfair to Dedekind. |
| 18094 | Dedekind says each cut matches a real; logicists say the cuts are the reals [Dedekind, by Bostock] |
| Full Idea: One view, favoured by Dedekind, is that the cut postulates a real number for each cut in the rationals; it does not identify real numbers with cuts. ....A view favoured by later logicists is simply to identify a real number with a cut. | |
| From: report of Richard Dedekind (Nature and Meaning of Numbers [1888]) by David Bostock - Philosophy of Mathematics 4.4 | |
| A reaction: Dedekind is the patriarch of structuralism about mathematics, so he has little interest in the existenc of 'objects'. |
| 9824 | In counting we see the human ability to relate, correspond and represent [Dedekind] |
| Full Idea: If we scrutinize closely what is done in counting an aggregate of things, we see the ability of the mind to relate things to things, to let a thing correspond to a thing, or to represent a thing by a thing, without which no thinking is possible. | |
| From: Richard Dedekind (Nature and Meaning of Numbers [1888], Pref) | |
| A reaction: I don't suppose it occurred to Dedekind that he was reasserting Hume's observation about the fundamental psychology of thought. Is the origin of our numerical ability of philosophical interest? |
| 9826 | A system S is said to be infinite when it is similar to a proper part of itself [Dedekind] |
| Full Idea: A system S is said to be infinite when it is similar to a proper part of itself. | |
| From: Richard Dedekind (Nature and Meaning of Numbers [1888], V.64) |
| 13508 | Dedekind gives a base number which isn't a successor, then adds successors and induction [Dedekind, by Hart,WD] |
| Full Idea: Dedekind's natural numbers: an object is in a set (0 is a number), a function sends the set one-one into itself (numbers have unique successors), the object isn't a value of the function (it isn't a successor), plus induction. | |
| From: report of Richard Dedekind (Nature and Meaning of Numbers [1888]) by William D. Hart - The Evolution of Logic 5 | |
| A reaction: Hart notes that since this refers to sets of individuals, it is a second-order account of numbers, what we now call 'Second-Order Peano Arithmetic'. |
| 18096 | Zero is a member, and all successors; numbers are the intersection of sets satisfying this [Dedekind, by Bostock] |
| Full Idea: Dedekind's idea is that the set of natural numbers has zero as a member, and also has as a member the successor of each of its members, and it is the smallest set satisfying this condition. It is the intersection of all sets satisfying the condition. | |
| From: report of Richard Dedekind (Nature and Meaning of Numbers [1888]) by David Bostock - Philosophy of Mathematics 4.4 |
| 18841 | Categoricity implies that Dedekind has characterised the numbers, because it has one domain [Rumfitt on Dedekind] |
| Full Idea: It is Dedekind's categoricity result that convinces most of us that he has articulated our implicit conception of the natural numbers, since it entitles us to speak of 'the' domain (in the singular, up to isomorphism) of natural numbers. | |
| From: comment on Richard Dedekind (Nature and Meaning of Numbers [1888]) by Ian Rumfitt - The Boundary Stones of Thought 9.1 | |
| A reaction: The main rival is set theory, but that has an endlessly expanding domain. He points out that Dedekind needs second-order logic to achieve categoricity. Rumfitt says one could also add to the 1st-order version that successor is an ancestral relation. |
| 14130 | Induction is proved in Dedekind, an axiom in Peano; the latter seems simpler and clearer [Dedekind, by Russell] |
| Full Idea: Dedekind proves mathematical induction, while Peano regards it as an axiom, ...and Peano's method has the advantage of simplicity, and a clearer separation between the particular and the general propositions of arithmetic. | |
| From: report of Richard Dedekind (Nature and Meaning of Numbers [1888]) by Bertrand Russell - The Principles of Mathematics §241 |
| 8924 | Dedekind originated the structuralist conception of mathematics [Dedekind, by MacBride] |
| Full Idea: Dedekind is the philosopher-mathematician with whom the structuralist conception originates. | |
| From: report of Richard Dedekind (Nature and Meaning of Numbers [1888], §3 n13) by Fraser MacBride - Structuralism Reconsidered | |
| A reaction: Hellman says the idea grew naturally out of modern mathematics, and cites Hilbert's belief that furniture would do as mathematical objects. |
| 9153 | Dedekindian abstraction talks of 'positions', where Cantorian abstraction talks of similar objects [Dedekind, by Fine,K] |
| Full Idea: Dedekindian abstraction says mathematical objects are 'positions' in a model, while Cantorian abstraction says they are the result of abstracting on structurally similar objects. | |
| From: report of Richard Dedekind (Nature and Meaning of Numbers [1888]) by Kit Fine - Cantorian Abstraction: Recon. and Defence §6 | |
| A reaction: The key debate among structuralists seems to be whether or not they are committed to 'objects'. Fine rejects the 'austere' version, which says that objects have no properties. Either version of structuralism can have abstraction as its basis. |
| 13076 | Scholastics treat relations as two separate predicates of the relata [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
| Full Idea: The scholastics treated it as a step in the right explanatory direction to analyze a relational statement of the form 'aRb' into two subject-predicate statements, attributing different relational predicates to a and to b. | |
| From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 2.2.1) | |
| A reaction: The only alternative seems to be Russell's view of relations as pure universals, having a life of their own, quite apart from their relata. Or you could take them as properties of space, time (and powers?), external to the relata? |
| 9825 | A thing is completely determined by all that can be thought concerning it [Dedekind] |
| Full Idea: A thing (an object of our thought) is completely determined by all that can be affirmed or thought concerning it. | |
| From: Richard Dedekind (Nature and Meaning of Numbers [1888], I.1) | |
| A reaction: How could you justify this as an observation? Why can't there be unthinkable things (even by God)? Presumably Dedekind is offering a stipulative definition, but we may then be confusing epistemology with ontology. |
| 13102 | If you individuate things by their origin, you still have to individuate the origins themselves [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
| Full Idea: If we go for the necessity-of-origins view, A and B are different if the origin of A is different from the origin of B. But one is left with the further question 'When is the origin of A distinct from the origin of B?' | |
| From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 7.4.1) | |
| A reaction: There may be an answer to this, in a regress of origins that support one another, but in the end the objection is obviously good. You can't begin to refer to an 'origin' if you can't identify anything in the first place. |
| 13103 | Numerical difference is a symmetrical notion, unlike proper individuation [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
| Full Idea: Scholastics distinguished criteria of numerical difference from questions of individuation proper, since numerical difference is a symmetrical notion. | |
| From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 7.4.1) | |
| A reaction: This apparently old-fashioned point appears to be conclusively correct. Modern thinkers, though, aren't comfortable with proper individuation, because they don't believe in concepts like 'essence' and 'substance' that are needed for the job. |
| 13104 | Haecceity as property, or as colourless thisness, or as singleton set [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
| Full Idea: There is a contemporary property construal of haecceities, ...and a Scotistic construal as primitive, 'colourless' thisnesses which, unlike singleton-set haecceities, are aimed to do some explanatory work. | |
| From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 7.4.4) | |
| A reaction: [He associates the contemporary account with David Kaplan] I suppose I would say that individuation is done by properties, but not by some single property, so I take it that I don't believe in haecceities at all. What individuates a haecceity? |
| 13100 | Maybe 'substance' is more of a mass-noun than a count-noun [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
| Full Idea: We could think of 'substance' on the model of a mass noun, rather than a count noun. | |
| From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 7.3) | |
| A reaction: They offer this to help Leibniz out of a mess, but I think he would be appalled. The proposal seems close to 'prime matter' in Aristotle, which never quite does the job required of it. The idea is nice, though, and should be taken seriously. |
| 13068 | We can ask for the nature of substance, about type of substance, and about individual substances [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
| Full Idea: In the 'blueprint' approach to substance, we confront at least three questions: What is it for a thing to be an individual substance? What is it for a thing to be the kind of substance that it is? What is it to be that very individual substance? | |
| From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 1.1.1) | |
| A reaction: My working view is that the answer to the first question is that substance is essence, that the second question is overrated and parasitic on the third, and that the third is the key question, and also reduces to essence. |
| 13069 | The general assumption is that substances cannot possibly be non-substances [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
| Full Idea: There is a widespread assumption, now and in the past, that substances are essentially substances: nothing is actually a substance but possibly a non-substance. | |
| From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 1.1.2) | |
| A reaction: It seems to me that they clearly mean, in this context, that substances are 'necessarily' substances, not that they are 'essentially' substances. I would just say that substances are essences, and leave the necessity question open. |
| 13072 | Modern essences are sets of essential predicate-functions [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
| Full Idea: The modern view of essence is that the essence of a particular thing is given by the set of predicate-functions essential to it, and the essence of any kind is given by the set of predicate-functions essential to every possible member of that kind. | |
| From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 1.2.2) | |
| A reaction: Thus the modern view has elided the meanings of 'essential' and 'necessary' when talking of properties. They are said to be 'functions' from possible worlds to individuals. The old view (and mine) demands real essences, not necessary properties. |
| 17080 | Modern essentialists express essence as functions from worlds to extensions for predicates [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
| Full Idea: The modern essentialist gives the same metaphysical treatment to every grammatical predicate - by associating a function from worlds to extensions for each. | |
| From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 2.2) | |
| A reaction: I take this to mean that essentialism is the view that if some predicate attaches to an object then that predicate is essential if there is an extension of that predicate in all possible worlds. In English, essential predicates are necessary predicates. |
| 13101 | Necessity-of-origin won't distinguish ex nihilo creations, or things sharing an origin [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
| Full Idea: A necessity-of-origins approach cannot work to distinguish things that come into being genuinely ex nihilo, and cannot work to distinguish things sharing a single origin. | |
| From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 7.4.1) | |
| A reaction: Since I am deeply suspicious of essentiality or necessity of origin (and they are not, I presume, the same thing) I like these two. Twins have always bothered me with the second case (where order of birth seems irrelevant). |
| 13081 | Even extreme modal realists might allow transworld identity for abstract objects [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
| Full Idea: It might be suggested that even the extreme modal realist can countenance transworld identity for abstract objects. | |
| From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 3.2.2 n46) | |
| A reaction: This may sound right for uncontroversial or well-defined abstracta such as numbers and circles, but even 'or' is ambiguous, and heaven knows what the transworld identity of 'democracy' is! |
| 13071 | We can go beyond mere causal explanations if we believe in an 'order of being' [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
| Full Idea: The philosopher comfortable with an 'order of being' has richer resources to make sense of the 'in virtue of' relation than that provided only by causal relations between states of affairs, positing in addition other sorts of explanatory relationships. | |
| From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 1.1.2) | |
| A reaction: This might best be characterised as 'ontological dependence', and could be seen as a non-causal but fundamental explanatory relationship, and not one that has to depend on a theistic world view. |
| 9189 | Dedekind said numbers were abstracted from systems of objects, leaving only their position [Dedekind, by Dummett] |
| Full Idea: By applying the operation of abstraction to a system of objects isomorphic to the natural numbers, Dedekind believed that we obtained the abstract system of natural numbers, each member having only properties consequent upon its position. | |
| From: report of Richard Dedekind (Nature and Meaning of Numbers [1888]) by Michael Dummett - The Philosophy of Mathematics | |
| A reaction: Dummett is scornful of the abstractionism. He cites Benacerraf as a modern non-abstractionist follower of Dedekind's view. There seems to be a suspicion of circularity in it. How many objects will you abstract from to get seven? |
| 9827 | We derive the natural numbers, by neglecting everything of a system except distinctness and order [Dedekind] |
| Full Idea: If in an infinite system, set in order, we neglect the special character of the elements, simply retaining their distinguishability and their order-relations to one another, then the elements are the natural numbers, created by the human mind. | |
| From: Richard Dedekind (Nature and Meaning of Numbers [1888], VI.73) | |
| A reaction: [compressed] This is the classic abstractionist view of the origin of number, but with the added feature that the order is first imposed, so that ordinals remain after the abstraction. This, of course, sounds a bit circular, as well as subjective. |
| 9979 | Dedekind has a conception of abstraction which is not psychologistic [Dedekind, by Tait] |
| Full Idea: Dedekind's conception is psychologistic only if that is the only way to understand the abstraction that is involved, which it is not. | |
| From: report of Richard Dedekind (Nature and Meaning of Numbers [1888]) by William W. Tait - Frege versus Cantor and Dedekind IV | |
| A reaction: This is a very important suggestion, implying that we can retain some notion of abstractionism, while jettisoning the hated subjective character of private psychologism, which seems to undermine truth and logic. |
| 13448 | The domain of an assertion is restricted by context, either semantically or pragmatically [Rayo/Uzquiano] |
| Full Idea: We generally take an assertion's domain of discourse to be implicitly restricted by context. [Note: the standard approach is that this restriction is a semantic phenomenon, but Kent Bach (2000) argues that it is a pragmatic phenomenon] | |
| From: Rayo,A/Uzquiasno,G (Introduction to 'Absolute Generality' [2006], 1.1) | |
| A reaction: I think Kent Bach is very very right about this. Follow any conversation, and ask what the domain is at any moment. The reference of a word like 'they' can drift across things, with no semantics to guide us, but only clues from context and common sense. |