LudovicoVan
Posts:
4,111
From:
London
Registered:
2/8/08


Re: Matheology § 288
Posted:
Jun 20, 2013 7:11 AM


"Alan Smaill" <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:fwehagtm58s.fsf@eriboll.inf.ed.ac.uk... > "Julio Di Egidio" <julio@diegidio.name> writes: >> "fom" <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote in message >> news:C6KdnZCccIjltVzMnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@giganews.com... >> >>> "Numbers count themselves" >> >> Indeed, how else? > > What does pi count? > Isn't it a number?
pi counts pi, of course...
>> I am in fact surprised a "foundationalist" would >> ever have any doubt with that. > > Since no natural number counts the set of natural numbers, there > is every reason to be sceptical of simplistic formulations such as above.
It's indeed simplistic, to the point of meaninglessness, when taken out of context. It was in fact part of a discussion that is beyond just the present thread, about (as I'd put it) arithmetical foundations from the natural/counting numbers. There, informally speaking, "1 is the first, 2 is the second, and so on, and it cannot be otherwise".
That said, that point was just in the background: my actual question (I won't repeat it in detail) was as "simple" as: what about lambda = [0, lambda) vs. [1, lambda] (or, I think equivalently, [0, lambda]).
Julio

