Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.


fom
Posts:
1,968
Registered:
12/4/12


Re: Matheology § 231
Posted:
Mar 25, 2013 2:01 PM


On 3/25/2013 7:24 AM, WM wrote: > Matheology § 231 > > > > One philosophically important way in which numbers and sets, as they > are naively understood, differ is that numbers are physically > instantiated in a way that sets are not. Five apples are an instance > of the number 5 and a pair of shoes is an instance of the number 2, > but there is nothing obvious that we can analogously point to as an > instance of, say, the set {{/0}}. > [Nik Weaver: "Is set theory indispensable?"] > http://www.math.wustl.edu/~nweaver/indisp.pdf
WM's proxy should have taken the time to learn about Frege and Hume's principle:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fregelogic/
Modern set theory follows the Fregean model of treating extensions of concepts as objects. The statements above concerning "naive understanding" are ludicrous in view of the history of the matters being criticized.
Perhaps WM would care to explain how the "creation myth" from the theory of monotone inclusive crayon marks can account for 5 apples.
The thought of WM "hanching" five apples is making me lose my taste for mom's apple pie!
news://news.giganews.com:119/eba0cf26b31d46339732a76bf5cc4afe@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com



