Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Matheology § 203
Replies: 4   Last Post: Feb 2, 2013 4:28 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de

Posts: 14,628
Registered: 1/29/05
Re: Matheology § 203
Posted: Feb 2, 2013 4:52 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 2 Feb., 02:56, Alan Smaill <sma...@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> "The logicist reduction of the concept of natural number met a
> difficulty on this point, since the definition of ?natural number?
> already given in the work of Frege and Dedekind is impredicative. More
> recently, it has been argued by Michael Dummett, the author, and Edward
> Nelson that more informal explanations of the concept of natural number
> are impredicative as well. That has the consequence that impredicativity
> is more pervasive in mathematics, and appears at lower levels, than the
> earlier debates about the issue generally presupposed."


I do not agree with these authors on this point.
>
> So, how on earth do you know that induction is a correct
> principle over the natural numbers?


If a theorem is valid for the number k, and if from its validity for n
+ k the validity for n + k + 1 can be concluded with no doubt, then n
can be replaced by n + 1, and the validity for n + k + 2 is proven
too. This is the foundation of mathematics. To prove anything about
this principle is as useless as the proof that 1 + 1 = 2.
Compare Matheology § 205 here_
http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/KB/Matheology.pdf
>
> You only ever have finitely many of them, so you can never know
> what will happen when you look at a new one.


The new one is finite and not more than 1 different from its
predecessor. And there are never more than finitely many. That's
enough to apply the above formalism.

Thank you for that question.

Regards, WM



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.