Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


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

Topic: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Replies: 35   Last Post: Sep 10, 2013 2:12 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
LudovicoVan

Posts: 3,201
From: London
Registered: 2/8/08
Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Posted: Sep 7, 2013 9:28 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

"Albrecht" <albstorz@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:079ffa06-a431-40e6-b85c-90066726b234@googlegroups.com...
> Am Freitag, 6. September 2013 21:35:57 UTC+2 schrieb Julio Di Egidio:
>> "Albrecht" <albstorz> wrote in message
>> news:de62b240-ff1c-4ed3-afc8-0de4b3f89f8a@googlegroups.com...
>>

>> > The natural numbers of normal people starts with an object or entity or
>> > sign and increases in succesive adding further objects or entities or
>> > signs step by step.

>>
>> > E.g.:
>>
>> > I
>> > II
>> > III
>> > IIII
>> > IIIII
>> > IIIIII
>> > ...

>>
>> What is wrong with this?
>>
>> |0| = |{}| = 0
>> |1| = |{0}| = 1
>> |2| = |{0, 1}| = 2
>> |3| = |{0, 1, 2}| = 3
>> ...
>> |n| = |{i < n}| = n
>> ...
>> |w| = |{i < w}| = w (i.e. aleph_0)
>>
>> An objection, as I have got it, is that there must be "w+1" lines in that
>> sequence (i.e. from the first line with 0 up to and including the line
>> with
>> w), so w is the "(w+1)-th" number... But, IMO, there is no incongruence
>> really, rather a relabeling: it is the "(w+1)-th" starting from "1". (To
>> make it explicit, I have quoted the "pre-formal" counting.)

>
> First, this notation obscures the fact, that any numbering sarts with one
> (one
> object, in this case the {}).


Primitive counting, as supported by anthropology, starts with none/some and
develops from there. Zero has just gone missing in mathematics for a bunch
of centuries. In fact, counting from zero is absolutely natural, it is the
initial value of an accumulator, it is the starting point on a ruler, etc.
etc.

> And second, this notation makes so much people believing that there are
> more
> natural numbers as there are natural numbers. A completely idiotic idea.


Some people may miss the distinction between the pre-formal counting numbers
and the formal structured labelling then called
natural/ordinal/cardinal/what-not numbers. That the number of natural
numbers is greater than any natural number is obvious in von Neumann's
construction, and I think it remains true even in a non-well-founded
construction, such as:

|0| = |{0}| = 1
|1| = |{0, 1}| = 2
|2| = |{0, 1, 2}| = 3
...
|n| = |{i <= n}| = n+1
|w| = |{i <= w}| = w+1

Here, the cardinal numbers may be off by one re the ordinal numbers, but the
"count of lines" is still the same. IOW, numbers do count themselves, the
rest is "labelling tricks".

Julio




Date Subject Author
9/1/13
Read Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Jim Burns
9/1/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Jim Burns
9/1/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
David Hartley
9/1/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Peter Percival
9/1/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Virgil
9/1/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Peter Percival
9/1/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Virgil
9/2/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
albrecht
9/6/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
albrecht
9/6/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Robin Chapman
9/6/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Tucsondrew@me.com
9/6/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
LudovicoVan
9/6/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Tucsondrew@me.com
9/7/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
albrecht
9/6/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Michael F. Stemper
9/7/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
albrecht
9/6/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
FredJeffries@gmail.com
9/7/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
albrecht
9/7/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
FredJeffries@gmail.com
9/8/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
albrecht
9/6/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Robin Chapman
9/6/13
Read The decimals by Stevin
Brian Q. Hutchings
9/7/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
albrecht
9/6/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
LudovicoVan
9/7/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
albrecht
9/7/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
LudovicoVan
9/8/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
albrecht
9/8/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
LudovicoVan
9/8/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
albrecht
9/9/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
LudovicoVan
9/10/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
albrecht
9/1/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Jim Burns
9/2/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
9/2/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
9/2/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
9/2/13
Read Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Peter Percival

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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.