The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

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 ]

Posts: 1,968
Registered: 12/4/12
Re: Matheology § 203
Posted: Feb 12, 2013 3:21 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 2/12/2013 11:21 AM, WM wrote:
> On 12 Feb., 17:59, Alan Smaill <> wrote:
>> WM <> writes:
>>> On 4 Feb., 13:35, Alan Smaill <> wrote:
>>>> WM <> writes:
>>>>> On 2 Feb., 02:56, Alan Smaill <> 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.

Speaking of self-referencing definitions...

Your observation that the natural numbers are
in one-to-one correspondence with the initial
segments is invoking the successor as a choice


It is one of the truly elegant observations
in your analysis. Sadly, you cannot see it
because of your religion.

It also suggests that all arithmetic
is impredicative.

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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.