16 ideas
17453 | The meaning of a number isn't just the numerals leading up to it [Heck] |
17457 | A basic grasp of cardinal numbers needs an understanding of equinumerosity [Heck] |
17448 | In counting, numerals are used, not mentioned (as objects that have to correlated) [Heck] |
17455 | Is counting basically mindless, and independent of the cardinality involved? [Heck] |
17456 | Counting is the assignment of successively larger cardinal numbers to collections [Heck] |
17450 | Understanding 'just as many' needn't involve grasping one-one correspondence [Heck] |
17451 | We can know 'just as many' without the concepts of equinumerosity or numbers [Heck] |
17459 | Frege's Theorem explains why the numbers satisfy the Peano axioms [Heck] |
17454 | Children can use numbers, without a concept of them as countable objects [Heck] |
17458 | Equinumerosity is not the same concept as one-one correspondence [Heck] |
17449 | We can understand cardinality without the idea of one-one correspondence [Heck] |
16771 | A composite is a true unity if all of its parts fall under one essence [Scheibler] |
14590 | If we accept scattered objects such as archipelagos, why not think of cars that way? [Hawthorne] |
14591 | Four-dimensionalists say instantaneous objects are more fundamental than long-lived ones [Hawthorne] |
14589 | A modal can reverse meaning if the context is seen differently, so maybe context is all? [Hawthorne] |
14588 | Modern metaphysicians tend to think space-time points are more fundamental than space-time regions [Hawthorne] |