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 § 231
Replies: 9   Last Post: Mar 25, 2013 5:42 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 § 231
Posted: Mar 25, 2013 2:01 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

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?"]

WM's proxy should have taken the time to learn
about Frege and Hume's principle:

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!


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.