75 ideas
| 8721 | An 'impredicative' definition seems circular, because it uses the term being defined [Friend] |
| 8680 | Classical definitions attempt to refer, but intuitionist/constructivist definitions actually create objects [Friend] |
| 3678 | Reductio ad absurdum proves an idea by showing that its denial produces contradiction [Friend] |
| 18004 | We can't do philosophy without knowledge of types and categories [Ryle] |
| 8705 | Anti-realists see truth as our servant, and epistemically contrained [Friend] |
| 8713 | In classical/realist logic the connectives are defined by truth-tables [Friend] |
| 8708 | Double negation elimination is not valid in intuitionist logic [Friend] |
| 8694 | Free logic was developed for fictional or non-existent objects [Friend] |
| 15945 | Second-order set theory just adds a version of Replacement that quantifies over functions [Lavine] |
| 15914 | An 'upper bound' is the greatest member of a subset; there may be several of these, so there is a 'least' one [Lavine] |
| 8665 | A 'proper subset' of A contains only members of A, but not all of them [Friend] |
| 8672 | A 'powerset' is all the subsets of a set [Friend] |
| 15921 | Collections of things can't be too big, but collections by a rule seem unlimited in size [Lavine] |
| 8677 | Set theory makes a minimum ontological claim, that the empty set exists [Friend] |
| 8666 | Infinite sets correspond one-to-one with a subset [Friend] |
| 15937 | Those who reject infinite collections also want to reject the Axiom of Choice [Lavine] |
| 8682 | Major set theories differ in their axioms, and also over the additional axioms of choice and infinity [Friend] |
| 15936 | The Power Set is just the collection of functions from one collection to another [Lavine] |
| 15899 | Replacement was immediately accepted, despite having very few implications [Lavine] |
| 15930 | Foundation says descending chains are of finite length, blocking circularity, or ungrounded sets [Lavine] |
| 15920 | Pure collections of things obey Choice, but collections defined by a rule may not [Lavine] |
| 15898 | The controversy was not about the Axiom of Choice, but about functions as arbitrary, or given by rules [Lavine] |
| 15919 | The 'logical' notion of class has some kind of definition or rule to characterise the class [Lavine] |
| 15900 | The iterative conception of set wasn't suggested until 1947 [Lavine] |
| 15931 | The iterative conception needs the Axiom of Infinity, to show how far we can iterate [Lavine] |
| 15932 | The iterative conception doesn't unify the axioms, and has had little impact on mathematical proofs [Lavine] |
| 15933 | Limitation of Size: if it's the same size as a set, it's a set; it uses Replacement [Lavine] |
| 15913 | A collection is 'well-ordered' if there is a least element, and all of its successors can be identified [Lavine] |
| 15926 | Second-order logic presupposes a set of relations already fixed by the first-order domain [Lavine] |
| 15934 | Mathematical proof by contradiction needs the law of excluded middle [Lavine] |
| 8709 | The law of excluded middle is syntactic; it just says A or not-A, not whether they are true or false [Friend] |
| 8711 | Intuitionists read the universal quantifier as "we have a procedure for checking every..." [Friend] |
| 8675 | Paradoxes can be solved by talking more loosely of 'classes' instead of 'sets' [Friend] |
| 8674 | The Burali-Forti paradox asks whether the set of all ordinals is itself an ordinal [Friend] |
| 15907 | Mathematics is nowadays (thanks to set theory) regarded as the study of structure, not of quantity [Lavine] |
| 15942 | Every rational number, unlike every natural number, is divisible by some other number [Lavine] |
| 8667 | The 'integers' are the positive and negative natural numbers, plus zero [Friend] |
| 8668 | The 'rational' numbers are those representable as fractions [Friend] |
| 8670 | A number is 'irrational' if it cannot be represented as a fraction [Friend] |
| 8661 | The natural numbers are primitive, and the ordinals are up one level of abstraction [Friend] |
| 8664 | Cardinal numbers answer 'how many?', with the order being irrelevant [Friend] |
| 15922 | For the real numbers to form a set, we need the Continuum Hypothesis to be true [Lavine] |
| 8671 | The 'real' numbers (rationals and irrationals combined) is the Continuum, which has no gaps [Friend] |
| 18250 | Cauchy gave a necessary condition for the convergence of a sequence [Lavine] |
| 15904 | The two sides of the Cut are, roughly, the bounding commensurable ratios [Lavine] |
| 15912 | Counting results in well-ordering, and well-ordering makes counting possible [Lavine] |
| 15949 | The theory of infinity must rest on our inability to distinguish between very large sizes [Lavine] |
| 15947 | The infinite is extrapolation from the experience of indefinitely large size [Lavine] |
| 15940 | The intuitionist endorses only the potential infinite [Lavine] |
| 15909 | 'Aleph-0' is cardinality of the naturals, 'aleph-1' the next cardinal, 'aleph-ω' the ω-th cardinal [Lavine] |
| 15915 | Ordinals are basic to Cantor's transfinite, to count the sets [Lavine] |
| 15917 | Paradox: the class of all ordinals is well-ordered, so must have an ordinal as type - giving a bigger ordinal [Lavine] |
| 8663 | Raising omega to successive powers of omega reveal an infinity of infinities [Friend] |
| 8662 | The first limit ordinal is omega (greater, but without predecessor), and the second is twice-omega [Friend] |
| 15918 | Paradox: there is no largest cardinal, but the class of everything seems to be the largest [Lavine] |
| 8669 | Between any two rational numbers there is an infinite number of rational numbers [Friend] |
| 8676 | Is mathematics based on sets, types, categories, models or topology? [Friend] |
| 15929 | Set theory will found all of mathematics - except for the notion of proof [Lavine] |
| 8678 | Most mathematical theories can be translated into the language of set theory [Friend] |
| 8701 | The number 8 in isolation from the other numbers is of no interest [Friend] |
| 8702 | In structuralism the number 8 is not quite the same in different structures, only equivalent [Friend] |
| 8699 | Are structures 'ante rem' (before reality), or are they 'in re' (grounded in physics)? [Friend] |
| 8696 | Structuralist says maths concerns concepts about base objects, not base objects themselves [Friend] |
| 8695 | Structuralism focuses on relations, predicates and functions, with objects being inessential [Friend] |
| 8700 | 'In re' structuralism says that the process of abstraction is pattern-spotting [Friend] |
| 15935 | Modern mathematics works up to isomorphism, and doesn't care what things 'really are' [Lavine] |
| 8681 | The big problem for platonists is epistemic: how do we perceive, intuit, know or detect mathematical facts? [Friend] |
| 8712 | Mathematics should be treated as true whenever it is indispensable to our best physical theory [Friend] |
| 8716 | Formalism is unconstrained, so cannot indicate importance, or directions for research [Friend] |
| 8706 | Constructivism rejects too much mathematics [Friend] |
| 15928 | Intuitionism rejects set-theory to found mathematics [Lavine] |
| 8707 | Intuitionists typically retain bivalence but reject the law of excluded middle [Friend] |
| 8704 | Structuralists call a mathematical 'object' simply a 'place in a structure' [Friend] |
| 8685 | Studying biology presumes the laws of chemistry, and it could never contradict them [Friend] |
| 8688 | Concepts can be presented extensionally (as objects) or intensionally (as a characterization) [Friend] |