19 ideas
| 15924 | Predicative definitions are acceptable in mathematics if they distinguish objects, rather than creating them? [Zermelo, by Lavine] |
| Full Idea: On Zermelo's view, predicative definitions are not only indispensable to mathematics, but they are unobjectionable since they do not create the objects they define, but merely distinguish them from other objects. | |
| From: report of Ernst Zermelo (Investigations in the Foundations of Set Theory I [1908]) by Shaughan Lavine - Understanding the Infinite V.1 | |
| A reaction: This seems to have an underlying platonism, that there are hitherto undefined 'objects' lying around awaiting the honour of being defined. Hm. |
| 17608 | We take set theory as given, and retain everything valuable, while avoiding contradictions [Zermelo] |
| Full Idea: Starting from set theory as it is historically given ...we must, on the one hand, restrict these principles sufficiently to exclude as contradiction and, on the other, take them sufficiently wide to retain all that is valuable in this theory. | |
| From: Ernst Zermelo (Investigations in the Foundations of Set Theory I [1908], Intro) | |
| A reaction: Maddy calls this the one-step-back-from-disaster rule of thumb. Zermelo explicitly mentions the 'Russell antinomy' that blocked Frege's approach to sets. |
| 17607 | Set theory investigates number, order and function, showing logical foundations for mathematics [Zermelo] |
| Full Idea: Set theory is that branch whose task is to investigate mathematically the fundamental notions 'number', 'order', and 'function', taking them in their pristine, simple form, and to develop thereby the logical foundations of all of arithmetic and analysis. | |
| From: Ernst Zermelo (Investigations in the Foundations of Set Theory I [1908], Intro) | |
| A reaction: At this point Zermelo seems to be a logicist. Right from the start set theory was meant to be foundational to mathematics, and not just a study of the logic of collections. |
| 10870 | ZFC: Existence, Extension, Specification, Pairing, Unions, Powers, Infinity, Choice [Zermelo, by Clegg] |
| Full Idea: Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms: Existence (at least one set); Extension (same elements, same set); Specification (a condition creates a new set); Pairing (two sets make a set); Unions; Powers (all subsets make a set); Infinity (set of successors); Choice | |
| From: report of Ernst Zermelo (Investigations in the Foundations of Set Theory I [1908]) by Brian Clegg - Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable Ch.15 |
| 13012 | Zermelo published his axioms in 1908, to secure a controversial proof [Zermelo, by Maddy] |
| Full Idea: Zermelo proposed his listed of assumptions (including the controversial Axiom of Choice) in 1908, in order to secure his controversial proof of Cantor's claim that ' we can always bring any well-defined set into the form of a well-ordered set'. | |
| From: report of Ernst Zermelo (Investigations in the Foundations of Set Theory I [1908]) by Penelope Maddy - Believing the Axioms I §1 | |
| A reaction: This is interesting because it sometimes looks as if axiom systems are just a way of tidying things up. Presumably it is essential to get people to accept the axioms in their own right, the 'old-fashioned' approach that they be self-evident. |
| 17609 | Set theory can be reduced to a few definitions and seven independent axioms [Zermelo] |
| Full Idea: I intend to show how the entire theory created by Cantor and Dedekind can be reduced to a few definitions and seven principles, or axioms, which appear to be mutually independent. | |
| From: Ernst Zermelo (Investigations in the Foundations of Set Theory I [1908], Intro) | |
| A reaction: The number of axioms crept up to nine or ten in subsequent years. The point of axioms is maximum reduction and independence from one another. He says nothing about self-evidence (though Boolos claimed a degree of that). |
| 13017 | Zermelo introduced Pairing in 1930, and it seems fairly obvious [Zermelo, by Maddy] |
| Full Idea: Zermelo's Pairing Axiom superseded (in 1930) his original 1908 Axiom of Elementary Sets. Like Union, its only justification seems to rest on 'limitations of size' and on the 'iterative conception'. | |
| From: report of Ernst Zermelo (Investigations in the Foundations of Set Theory I [1908]) by Penelope Maddy - Believing the Axioms I §1.3 | |
| A reaction: Maddy says of this and Union, that they seem fairly obvious, but that their justification is of prime importance, if we are to understand what the axioms should be. |
| 13015 | Zermelo used Foundation to block paradox, but then decided that only Separation was needed [Zermelo, by Maddy] |
| Full Idea: Zermelo used a weak form of the Axiom of Foundation to block Russell's paradox in 1906, but in 1908 felt that the form of his Separation Axiom was enough by itself, and left the earlier axiom off his published list. | |
| From: report of Ernst Zermelo (Investigations in the Foundations of Set Theory I [1908]) by Penelope Maddy - Believing the Axioms I §1.2 | |
| A reaction: Foundation turns out to be fairly controversial. Barwise actually proposes Anti-Foundation as an axiom. Foundation seems to be the rock upon which the iterative view of sets is built. Foundation blocks infinite descending chains of sets, and circularity. |
| 13020 | The Axiom of Separation requires set generation up to one step back from contradiction [Zermelo, by Maddy] |
| Full Idea: The most characteristic Zermelo axiom is Separation, guided by a new rule of thumb: 'one step back from disaster' - principles of set generation should be as strong as possible short of contradiction. | |
| From: report of Ernst Zermelo (Investigations in the Foundations of Set Theory I [1908]) by Penelope Maddy - Believing the Axioms I §1.4 | |
| A reaction: Why is there an underlying assumption that we must have as many sets as possible? We are then tempted to abolish axioms like Foundation, so that we can have even more sets! |
| 13486 | Not every predicate has an extension, but Separation picks the members that satisfy a predicate [Zermelo, by Hart,WD] |
| Full Idea: Zermelo assumes that not every predicate has an extension but rather that given a set we may separate out from it those of its members satisfying the predicate. This is called 'separation' (Aussonderung). | |
| From: report of Ernst Zermelo (Investigations in the Foundations of Set Theory I [1908]) by William D. Hart - The Evolution of Logic 3 |
| 11211 | If a sound conclusion comes from two errors that cancel out, the path of the argument must matter [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: If a designated conclusion follows from the premisses, but the argument involves two howlers which cancel each other out, then the moral is that the path an argument takes from premisses to conclusion does matter to its logical evaluation. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000], II) | |
| A reaction: The drift of this is that our view of logic should be a little closer to the reasoning of ordinary language, and we should rely a little less on purely formal accounts. |
| 11210 | Standardly 'and' and 'but' are held to have the same sense by having the same truth table [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: If 'and' and 'but' really are alike in sense, in what might that likeness consist? Some philosophers of classical logic will reply that they share a sense by virtue of sharing a truth table. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000]) | |
| A reaction: This is the standard view which Rumfitt sets out to challenge. |
| 11212 | The sense of a connective comes from primitively obvious rules of inference [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: A connective will possess the sense that it has by virtue of its competent users' finding certain rules of inference involving it to be primitively obvious. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000], III) | |
| A reaction: Rumfitt cites Peacocke as endorsing this view, which characterises the logical connectives by their rules of usage rather than by their pure semantic value. |
| 13487 | In ZF, the Burali-Forti Paradox proves that there is no set of all ordinals [Zermelo, by Hart,WD] |
| Full Idea: In Zermelo's set theory, the Burali-Forti Paradox becomes a proof that there is no set of all ordinals (so 'is an ordinal' has no extension). | |
| From: report of Ernst Zermelo (Investigations in the Foundations of Set Theory I [1908]) by William D. Hart - The Evolution of Logic 3 |
| 18178 | For Zermelo the successor of n is {n} (rather than n U {n}) [Zermelo, by Maddy] |
| Full Idea: For Zermelo the successor of n is {n} (rather than Von Neumann's successor, which is n U {n}). | |
| From: report of Ernst Zermelo (Investigations in the Foundations of Set Theory I [1908]) by Penelope Maddy - Naturalism in Mathematics I.2 n8 | |
| A reaction: I could ask some naive questions about the comparison of these two, but I am too shy about revealing my ignorance. |
| 13027 | Zermelo believed, and Von Neumann seemed to confirm, that numbers are sets [Zermelo, by Maddy] |
| Full Idea: Zermelo was a reductionist, and believed that theorems purportedly about numbers (cardinal or ordinal) are really about sets, and since Von Neumann's definitions of ordinals and cardinals as sets, this has become common doctrine. | |
| From: report of Ernst Zermelo (Investigations in the Foundations of Set Theory I [1908]) by Penelope Maddy - Believing the Axioms I §1.8 | |
| A reaction: Frege has a more sophisticated take on this approach. It may just be an updating of the Greek idea that arithmetic is about treating many things as a unit. A set bestows an identity on a group, and that is all that is needed. |
| 9627 | Different versions of set theory result in different underlying structures for numbers [Zermelo, by Brown,JR] |
| Full Idea: In Zermelo's set-theoretic definition of number, 2 is a member of 3, but not a member of 4; in Von Neumann's definition every number is a member of every larger number. This means they have two different structures. | |
| From: report of Ernst Zermelo (Investigations in the Foundations of Set Theory I [1908]) by James Robert Brown - Philosophy of Mathematics Ch. 4 | |
| A reaction: This refers back to the dilemma highlighted by Benacerraf, which was supposed to be the motivation for structuralism. My intuition says that the best answer is that they are both wrong. In a pattern, the nodes aren't 'members' of one another. |
| 11214 | We learn 'not' along with affirmation, by learning to either affirm or deny a sentence [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: The standard view is that affirming not-A is more complex than affirming the atomic sentence A itself, with the latter determining its sense. But we could learn 'not' directly, by learning at once how to either affirm A or reject A. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000], IV) | |
| A reaction: [compressed] This seems fairly anti-Fregean in spirit, because it looks at the psychology of how we learn 'not' as a way of clarifying what we mean by it, rather than just looking at its logical behaviour (and thus giving it a secondary role). |
| 6231 | There is a self-determing power in each person, which makes them what they are [Cudworth] |
| Full Idea: This hegemonicon (self-power) always determines the passive capability of men's nature one way or other, either for better or for worse; and has a self-forming and self-framing power by which every man is self-made into what he is. | |
| From: Ralph Cudworth (Treatise of Freewill [1688], §X) | |
| A reaction: The idea that we can somehow create our own selves seems to me the core of existentialism, and the opposite of the Aristotelian belief in a fairly fixed human nature. See Stephen Pinker's 'The Blank Slate' for a revival of the old view. |