Re: Cantor's circular "proof" that evens = integers
- From: "karl malbrain" <malbrain@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 17:15:34 GMT
"R. Srinivasan" <sradhakr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1178802244.270897.225970@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On May 10, 4:44 pm, G. Frege <nomail@invalid> wrote:
This is what Solomon Feferman has to say regarding Cantorian set
theory in his article "Why a little bit goes a long way: Logical
foundations of scientifically applicable mathemtaics":
\begin{quote}
3. What's wrong with set-theoretical foundations?
Philosophically, set theory - even in its "moderate" form given by
Zermelo's axioms - requires for its justification a strong form of
Platonic realism. This is not without its defenders, most notably
Gödel (1944 and 1947/1964) (cf. also (Maddy 1990)). For its critics,
however, the following are highly problematic features of this
philosophy:
(i) abstract entities are assumed to exist independently of any means
of human definition or construction;
(ii) classical reasoning (leading to non-constructive existence
results) is admitted, since the statements of set theory are supposed
to be about such an independently existing reality and thus have a
determinate truth value (true or false);
(iii) completed infinite totalities and, in particular, the totality
of all subsets of any infinite set are assumed to exist;
(iv) in consequence of (iii) and the Axiom of Separation,
impredicative definitions of sets are routinely admitted;
(v) the Axiom of Choice is assumed in order to carry through the
Cantorian theory of transfinite cardinals.
\end{quote}
Can anyone give up an entity that cannot be defined/constructed by any
means?
karl m
.
- References:
- Re: Cantor's circular "proof" that evens = integers
- From: Phil
- Re: Cantor's circular "proof" that evens = integers
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Cantor's circular "proof" that evens = integers
- From: Phil
- Re: Cantor's circular "proof" that evens = integers
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Cantor's circular "proof" that evens = integers
- From: Phil
- Re: Cantor's circular "proof" that evens = integers
- From: george
- Re: Cantor's circular "proof" that evens = integers
- From: R. Srinivasan
- Re: Cantor's circular "proof" that evens = integers
- From: G . Frege
- Re: Cantor's circular "proof" that evens = integers
- From: herbzet
- Re: Cantor's circular "proof" that evens = integers
- From: G . Frege
- Re: Cantor's circular "proof" that evens = integers
- From: R. Srinivasan
- Re: Cantor's circular "proof" that evens = integers
- Prev by Date: Re: Cantor's circular "proof" that evens = integers
- Next by Date: Beginner's question about NAFL
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor's circular "proof" that evens = integers
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor's circular "proof" that evens = integers
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|