Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: G. Frege <nomail@invalid>
- Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:52:07 +0200
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 00:15:14 +0200, G. Frege <nomail@invalid> wrote:
or 1 = 0'Let's -for the sake of the argument- accept that point of view.
The number 2 is always generated by an application, so I cannot
propose simply 2. I cannot say 2 is a number and leave it at that. I
must specify, and not simply assume, an application that generates it.
YES, we DO specify the number 2 in math. (And especially in set theory.)
Ever heard of the so called Peano axioms? There we take (exactly) ONE
natural number, namely 0, for grated.
Axiom: 0 is a natural number.
Then we can define the number 1 as successor of 0:
1 =df s(0),
or 2 = 1'
and the number 2 as successor of 1:
2 =df s(1).
or 2 = 0''
Hence:
2 = s(s(0)).
"The number 2 is always generated by an application, so I cannot
With other words, the number 2 is the successor of the successor of 0.
This is the specification you asked for:
propose simply 2. I cannot say 2 is a number and leave it at
that. I must specify, and not simply assume, an application
that generates it."
Now we might use the symbol "0''" instead of the name "2" for denoting
the number 2.
This way we would actually _express_ (or specify) the way how this
number is "generated" (starting with the number 0).
It's just a historic fact that we usually denote the number 0'' by the
symbol "2".
(One might consider "0''" to be a description in disguise, while "2"
obviously is only a proper name - with no description -but convention-
involved.)
F.
--
E-mail: info<at>simple-line<dot>de
.
- References:
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: John Jones
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: John Jones
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: G . Frege
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: John Jones
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: John Jones
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- From: G . Frege
- Re: Cantor's definition of set
- Prev by Date: Re: Cantor's definition of set
- Next by Date: Re: Cantor's definition of set
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor's definition of set
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor's definition of set
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|