On 2/27/2014 3:57 PM, Peter Percival wrote: > fom wrote: >> On 2/27/2014 3:09 PM, Peter Percival wrote: >>> firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: >>> >>>> Why have just these axioms of set theory been chosen? Any idea? >>> >>> Zermelo's set theory was axiomatized in the way it was so that he could >>> prove Cantor's theorem that every set was well-orderable. Cantor's own >>> proof was not widely accepted. >>> >> >> And, I am the one accused of being >> a historian? That's a nice little >> fact. Do you know where you picked >> it up? >> >> chuckle >> >> :-) >> > > > I though it was from Heijenoort. Either from Zermelo's papers > translated there, or the introductions to them. But having looked I > don't see any claim as bold as the one I made. :-( >
I think your "bold" claim is absolutely correct. Zermelo had personal motivations that coincided with the general emphasis on axiomatization that occurred in that period. It's two birds with one stone. I wish I had thought about it.
If I dig through Hallett, I might find something more. But, I don't think so.