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 12, 2013 5:07 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: 14,591
Registered: 1/29/05
Re: Matheology § 203
Posted: Feb 12, 2013 12:21 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 12 Feb., 17:59, Alan Smaill <sma...@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes:
> > On 4 Feb., 13:35, Alan Smaill <sma...@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes:
> >> > 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, on what grounds do you suppose that the notion
> >> of natural number is predicative?

>
> > The notion of every finite initial segment is predicative because we
> > need nothing but a number of 1's, that are counted by a number already
> > defined, and add another 1.

>
> It's in the justification of the claim that induction yields a conclusion
> that holds for *any* natural number where the impredicativity lies.


Impredicativity is not a matter of quantity but of self-referencing
definition. Further you seem to mix up every and all.
I don't see any necessity to consider *all* natural numbers. I
maintain, without running in danger to be contradicted: For every
natural number that can be reached by induction, induction holds.

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.