Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: "*** T. Winter" <***.Winter@xxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 01:43:43 GMT
In article <1163505343.116057.183460@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
*** T. Winter schrieb:
In article <1163428158.317887.311810@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> *** T. Winter schrieb:
> > > Cantor considered well-ordering as a first principle,
> > > Zermelo introduced it at a first principle = axiom. Cantor was
> > > wrong, Zermelo was right?
> >
> > Cantor did state it without suggesting either that it was a first
> > principle or something else. He just assumed it. And he was wrong
> > with that assumption.
>
> You are wrong. "Der Begriff der wohlgeordneten Menge weist sich als
> fundamental für die ganze Mannigfaltigkeitslehre aus. Daß es immer
> möglich ist, jede wohldefinierte Menge in die Form einer
> wohlgeordneten Menge zu bringen, auf dieses, wie mir scheint,
> grundlegende und folgenreiche, durch seine Allgemeingültigkeit
> besonders merkwürdige Denkgesetz werde ich in einer späteren
> Abhandlung zurückkommen." (Cantor, Collected works, p.169)
Ah, I missed that one. So he uses it as an axiom.
Not in your sense. He wrote, for instance to Killing, on April 5,
1895:
Was Herr Veronese darüber in seiner Schrift giebt, halte ich für
Phantastereien und was er gegen mich darin vorbringt, ist unbegründet.
Ueber seine unendlich großen Zahlen sagt er, daß sie auf anderen
Hypothesen aufgebaut seien, als die meinigen. Die meinigen beruhen aber
auf gar keinen Hypothesen sondern sind unmittelbar aus dem natürlichen
Mengenbegriff abgezogen; sie sind ebenso nothwendig und frei von
Willkür, wie die endlichen ganzen Zahlen.
You see: Gar keine Hypothesen. Cantor's axioms are not chosen but they
are necessary.
Yes, he did regard it as such, that does not mean that he is right. In
principle no axiom is necessary. But you need a few to have some start
to work with. And when you add axioms to the basic set you will get
more and more structure in what you have, untill you have added to
many axioms. (Assuming of course that none of the axioms can be proven
from the other axioms.) One of the basic researches in mathematics is
what parts need which axioms, and what the result is when you drop
axioms or replace them by other axioms.
--
*** t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~***/
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- References:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- Prev by Date: Re: monotone increasing function on the reals taking only irrational values
- Next by Date: Re: JSH: You are completely out-classed
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Index(es):