Why has Russell's definition of numbers using equivalence classes been finally abandoned? ( If it has...
Shell script can be run only with sh command
Infinite past with a beginning?
What do you call a Matrix-like slowdown and camera movement effect?
A function which translates a sentence to title-case
Why is an old chain unsafe?
What does "enim et" mean?
LED on same Pin as Toggle Switch, not illuminating
A newer friend of my brother's gave him a load of baseball cards that are supposedly extremely valuable. Is this a scam?
How can I fix this gap between bookcases I made?
What makes Graph invariants so useful/important?
What Brexit solution does the DUP want?
How did the USSR manage to innovate in an environment characterized by government censorship and high bureaucracy?
Why Is Death Allowed In the Matrix?
Copenhagen passport control - US citizen
Circuitry of TV splitters
How can bays and straits be determined in a procedurally generated map?
Is Social Media Science Fiction?
What would happen to a modern skyscraper if it rains micro blackholes?
Why is this code 6.5x slower with optimizations enabled?
Example of a relative pronoun
Copycat chess is back
What is the offset in a seaplane's hull?
Could a US political party gain complete control over the government by removing checks & balances?
The use of multiple foreign keys on same column in SQL Server
Why has Russell's definition of numbers using equivalence classes been finally abandoned? ( If it has actually been abandoned).
What is the difference between a class and a set?how to express the set of natural numbers in ZFCCardinality of Vitali sets: countably or uncountably infinite?Do we always use the Axiom of Choice when picking from uncountable number of sets?Class of all finite setsWhy doesn't this definition of natural numbers hold up in axiomatic set theory?What is the domain of the successor function?Understanding impredicative definitionsProve the intersection of every nonempty family of successor sets is a successor set itselfIs it possible to define countability without referring the natural numbers?Defining uncountably infinite set
$begingroup$
I'm trying to understand the evolution of the concept of number since Frege/ Russell and to see the "big picture".
What are the main motivations explaining the change from Russell's definition using equivalence classes ( in "Introduction to mathematical philosophy") and the current definition of (natural numbers) using the successor function?
The "stages" I can see are the following. Would you please assess the reasons I have imagined to explain (to myself) the passage from one stage to another?
(1) Frege / Russell recognized that numbers were higher-order properties, not properties of things , but of sets
(2) Numbers are defined as equivalence classes, using the relation of "the set X is equinumerous to set Y" (iff there exist at least one bijection from X to Y)
(3) To identify each number (that is each class) we would need a "standard" in each class. For example, one could use{ Thumb, Index, Middle finger, Ring finger, Pinky finger} as a representative of the numbers having 5 elements. In that case, one would say:
the number 5 is the set of all X such that there exists a bijection from X to the set { Thumb, Index, Middle finger, Ring finger, Pinky finger }
and
X has 5 as cardinal number iff X belongs to the set 5
(4) But the use of these representatives requires us to admit the existence of the elements of these standards. Furthermore, it obliges us to admit that the existence of numbers depends on contingent facts of the world, that is, the existence of these elements belonging to our " standards".
(5) So to get rid of these existential presupposions, we decide to chose as standards sets whose elements exist "at minimal cost". As standard for the set "zero", we use { } (as we did before. But as standard for the set 1, we now use
{ 0 } (that certainly exists if 0 = { } exists.
and as standard for the set 2, we use { 0, 1} , etc. In this way, our construction becomes independent of the existence of concrete things in the world.
(6) We finally abandon the definition of numbers as equivalence classes (with a special element as standard) and define directly each number by its "standard". So instead of saying that "2 is the set of sets that can be put in $1-1$ correspondance with the standard ${ 0,1}$", we simply say that
the number $2$ is (by definition) the set ${ 0,1}$.
(7) We finally put this set in order using the successor function ( $S($number $x)$ is by definition the union of number $x$ and of ${x}$) which "generates" an infinite series of numbers "out of" the null set.
elementary-set-theory
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm trying to understand the evolution of the concept of number since Frege/ Russell and to see the "big picture".
What are the main motivations explaining the change from Russell's definition using equivalence classes ( in "Introduction to mathematical philosophy") and the current definition of (natural numbers) using the successor function?
The "stages" I can see are the following. Would you please assess the reasons I have imagined to explain (to myself) the passage from one stage to another?
(1) Frege / Russell recognized that numbers were higher-order properties, not properties of things , but of sets
(2) Numbers are defined as equivalence classes, using the relation of "the set X is equinumerous to set Y" (iff there exist at least one bijection from X to Y)
(3) To identify each number (that is each class) we would need a "standard" in each class. For example, one could use{ Thumb, Index, Middle finger, Ring finger, Pinky finger} as a representative of the numbers having 5 elements. In that case, one would say:
the number 5 is the set of all X such that there exists a bijection from X to the set { Thumb, Index, Middle finger, Ring finger, Pinky finger }
and
X has 5 as cardinal number iff X belongs to the set 5
(4) But the use of these representatives requires us to admit the existence of the elements of these standards. Furthermore, it obliges us to admit that the existence of numbers depends on contingent facts of the world, that is, the existence of these elements belonging to our " standards".
(5) So to get rid of these existential presupposions, we decide to chose as standards sets whose elements exist "at minimal cost". As standard for the set "zero", we use { } (as we did before. But as standard for the set 1, we now use
{ 0 } (that certainly exists if 0 = { } exists.
and as standard for the set 2, we use { 0, 1} , etc. In this way, our construction becomes independent of the existence of concrete things in the world.
(6) We finally abandon the definition of numbers as equivalence classes (with a special element as standard) and define directly each number by its "standard". So instead of saying that "2 is the set of sets that can be put in $1-1$ correspondance with the standard ${ 0,1}$", we simply say that
the number $2$ is (by definition) the set ${ 0,1}$.
(7) We finally put this set in order using the successor function ( $S($number $x)$ is by definition the union of number $x$ and of ${x}$) which "generates" an infinite series of numbers "out of" the null set.
elementary-set-theory
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
That's a decent philosophical reasoning - although I can't speak to its historical accuracy, not being versed in the history myself - but never underestimate the role of sheer pragmatics: proper classes are weird and talking about sets of cardinal (or ordinal) numbers is important, so it is useful for the "number of elements" (and similar notions) of a set to also be a set rather than a class. It just ultimately reduces the "overhead cost" for the arguments we want to make. Again, I'm not versed in the history (hence this isn't an answer), but I suspect this did play a major role in the shift.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
14 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I think this approach, as Noah points out, fell out of favor when it became very obvious that unrestricted comprehensions are problematic, and classes are in general annoying to work with. So, it's a lot easier simply denoting a set to represent a given cardinality, and forcing any set with the same cardinality to share a bijection, rather than being a member of some class, that we don't even know much about.
$endgroup$
– Don Thousand
14 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
(6) "sounds" a little bit different IMO... The original proposal of Frege and Russell was also to solve the philosophical problem of "what numbers really are" (assuming that the question is meaningful...). The current set theory construction aims at defining inside the "universe" of sets a structure that has exactly all the properties of the natural number. From a mathematical point of view this is enough, but form the point of view of Frege and Russell it is quite doubtful to asserts that numbers are conjured out of the empty set.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
See Paul Benacerraf, What numbers could not be.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
10 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm trying to understand the evolution of the concept of number since Frege/ Russell and to see the "big picture".
What are the main motivations explaining the change from Russell's definition using equivalence classes ( in "Introduction to mathematical philosophy") and the current definition of (natural numbers) using the successor function?
The "stages" I can see are the following. Would you please assess the reasons I have imagined to explain (to myself) the passage from one stage to another?
(1) Frege / Russell recognized that numbers were higher-order properties, not properties of things , but of sets
(2) Numbers are defined as equivalence classes, using the relation of "the set X is equinumerous to set Y" (iff there exist at least one bijection from X to Y)
(3) To identify each number (that is each class) we would need a "standard" in each class. For example, one could use{ Thumb, Index, Middle finger, Ring finger, Pinky finger} as a representative of the numbers having 5 elements. In that case, one would say:
the number 5 is the set of all X such that there exists a bijection from X to the set { Thumb, Index, Middle finger, Ring finger, Pinky finger }
and
X has 5 as cardinal number iff X belongs to the set 5
(4) But the use of these representatives requires us to admit the existence of the elements of these standards. Furthermore, it obliges us to admit that the existence of numbers depends on contingent facts of the world, that is, the existence of these elements belonging to our " standards".
(5) So to get rid of these existential presupposions, we decide to chose as standards sets whose elements exist "at minimal cost". As standard for the set "zero", we use { } (as we did before. But as standard for the set 1, we now use
{ 0 } (that certainly exists if 0 = { } exists.
and as standard for the set 2, we use { 0, 1} , etc. In this way, our construction becomes independent of the existence of concrete things in the world.
(6) We finally abandon the definition of numbers as equivalence classes (with a special element as standard) and define directly each number by its "standard". So instead of saying that "2 is the set of sets that can be put in $1-1$ correspondance with the standard ${ 0,1}$", we simply say that
the number $2$ is (by definition) the set ${ 0,1}$.
(7) We finally put this set in order using the successor function ( $S($number $x)$ is by definition the union of number $x$ and of ${x}$) which "generates" an infinite series of numbers "out of" the null set.
elementary-set-theory
$endgroup$
I'm trying to understand the evolution of the concept of number since Frege/ Russell and to see the "big picture".
What are the main motivations explaining the change from Russell's definition using equivalence classes ( in "Introduction to mathematical philosophy") and the current definition of (natural numbers) using the successor function?
The "stages" I can see are the following. Would you please assess the reasons I have imagined to explain (to myself) the passage from one stage to another?
(1) Frege / Russell recognized that numbers were higher-order properties, not properties of things , but of sets
(2) Numbers are defined as equivalence classes, using the relation of "the set X is equinumerous to set Y" (iff there exist at least one bijection from X to Y)
(3) To identify each number (that is each class) we would need a "standard" in each class. For example, one could use{ Thumb, Index, Middle finger, Ring finger, Pinky finger} as a representative of the numbers having 5 elements. In that case, one would say:
the number 5 is the set of all X such that there exists a bijection from X to the set { Thumb, Index, Middle finger, Ring finger, Pinky finger }
and
X has 5 as cardinal number iff X belongs to the set 5
(4) But the use of these representatives requires us to admit the existence of the elements of these standards. Furthermore, it obliges us to admit that the existence of numbers depends on contingent facts of the world, that is, the existence of these elements belonging to our " standards".
(5) So to get rid of these existential presupposions, we decide to chose as standards sets whose elements exist "at minimal cost". As standard for the set "zero", we use { } (as we did before. But as standard for the set 1, we now use
{ 0 } (that certainly exists if 0 = { } exists.
and as standard for the set 2, we use { 0, 1} , etc. In this way, our construction becomes independent of the existence of concrete things in the world.
(6) We finally abandon the definition of numbers as equivalence classes (with a special element as standard) and define directly each number by its "standard". So instead of saying that "2 is the set of sets that can be put in $1-1$ correspondance with the standard ${ 0,1}$", we simply say that
the number $2$ is (by definition) the set ${ 0,1}$.
(7) We finally put this set in order using the successor function ( $S($number $x)$ is by definition the union of number $x$ and of ${x}$) which "generates" an infinite series of numbers "out of" the null set.
elementary-set-theory
elementary-set-theory
edited 9 hours ago
Nij
2,01611323
2,01611323
asked 14 hours ago
Eleonore Saint JamesEleonore Saint James
747
747
2
$begingroup$
That's a decent philosophical reasoning - although I can't speak to its historical accuracy, not being versed in the history myself - but never underestimate the role of sheer pragmatics: proper classes are weird and talking about sets of cardinal (or ordinal) numbers is important, so it is useful for the "number of elements" (and similar notions) of a set to also be a set rather than a class. It just ultimately reduces the "overhead cost" for the arguments we want to make. Again, I'm not versed in the history (hence this isn't an answer), but I suspect this did play a major role in the shift.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
14 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I think this approach, as Noah points out, fell out of favor when it became very obvious that unrestricted comprehensions are problematic, and classes are in general annoying to work with. So, it's a lot easier simply denoting a set to represent a given cardinality, and forcing any set with the same cardinality to share a bijection, rather than being a member of some class, that we don't even know much about.
$endgroup$
– Don Thousand
14 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
(6) "sounds" a little bit different IMO... The original proposal of Frege and Russell was also to solve the philosophical problem of "what numbers really are" (assuming that the question is meaningful...). The current set theory construction aims at defining inside the "universe" of sets a structure that has exactly all the properties of the natural number. From a mathematical point of view this is enough, but form the point of view of Frege and Russell it is quite doubtful to asserts that numbers are conjured out of the empty set.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
See Paul Benacerraf, What numbers could not be.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
10 hours ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
That's a decent philosophical reasoning - although I can't speak to its historical accuracy, not being versed in the history myself - but never underestimate the role of sheer pragmatics: proper classes are weird and talking about sets of cardinal (or ordinal) numbers is important, so it is useful for the "number of elements" (and similar notions) of a set to also be a set rather than a class. It just ultimately reduces the "overhead cost" for the arguments we want to make. Again, I'm not versed in the history (hence this isn't an answer), but I suspect this did play a major role in the shift.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
14 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I think this approach, as Noah points out, fell out of favor when it became very obvious that unrestricted comprehensions are problematic, and classes are in general annoying to work with. So, it's a lot easier simply denoting a set to represent a given cardinality, and forcing any set with the same cardinality to share a bijection, rather than being a member of some class, that we don't even know much about.
$endgroup$
– Don Thousand
14 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
(6) "sounds" a little bit different IMO... The original proposal of Frege and Russell was also to solve the philosophical problem of "what numbers really are" (assuming that the question is meaningful...). The current set theory construction aims at defining inside the "universe" of sets a structure that has exactly all the properties of the natural number. From a mathematical point of view this is enough, but form the point of view of Frege and Russell it is quite doubtful to asserts that numbers are conjured out of the empty set.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
See Paul Benacerraf, What numbers could not be.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
10 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
That's a decent philosophical reasoning - although I can't speak to its historical accuracy, not being versed in the history myself - but never underestimate the role of sheer pragmatics: proper classes are weird and talking about sets of cardinal (or ordinal) numbers is important, so it is useful for the "number of elements" (and similar notions) of a set to also be a set rather than a class. It just ultimately reduces the "overhead cost" for the arguments we want to make. Again, I'm not versed in the history (hence this isn't an answer), but I suspect this did play a major role in the shift.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
That's a decent philosophical reasoning - although I can't speak to its historical accuracy, not being versed in the history myself - but never underestimate the role of sheer pragmatics: proper classes are weird and talking about sets of cardinal (or ordinal) numbers is important, so it is useful for the "number of elements" (and similar notions) of a set to also be a set rather than a class. It just ultimately reduces the "overhead cost" for the arguments we want to make. Again, I'm not versed in the history (hence this isn't an answer), but I suspect this did play a major role in the shift.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
14 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
I think this approach, as Noah points out, fell out of favor when it became very obvious that unrestricted comprehensions are problematic, and classes are in general annoying to work with. So, it's a lot easier simply denoting a set to represent a given cardinality, and forcing any set with the same cardinality to share a bijection, rather than being a member of some class, that we don't even know much about.
$endgroup$
– Don Thousand
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think this approach, as Noah points out, fell out of favor when it became very obvious that unrestricted comprehensions are problematic, and classes are in general annoying to work with. So, it's a lot easier simply denoting a set to represent a given cardinality, and forcing any set with the same cardinality to share a bijection, rather than being a member of some class, that we don't even know much about.
$endgroup$
– Don Thousand
14 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
(6) "sounds" a little bit different IMO... The original proposal of Frege and Russell was also to solve the philosophical problem of "what numbers really are" (assuming that the question is meaningful...). The current set theory construction aims at defining inside the "universe" of sets a structure that has exactly all the properties of the natural number. From a mathematical point of view this is enough, but form the point of view of Frege and Russell it is quite doubtful to asserts that numbers are conjured out of the empty set.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
(6) "sounds" a little bit different IMO... The original proposal of Frege and Russell was also to solve the philosophical problem of "what numbers really are" (assuming that the question is meaningful...). The current set theory construction aims at defining inside the "universe" of sets a structure that has exactly all the properties of the natural number. From a mathematical point of view this is enough, but form the point of view of Frege and Russell it is quite doubtful to asserts that numbers are conjured out of the empty set.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
10 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
See Paul Benacerraf, What numbers could not be.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
See Paul Benacerraf, What numbers could not be.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
10 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The question might be a better fit for HSM.se but, until it's there, my answer won't focus on historical details so much as mathematical motives.
(1) numbers were higher-order properties, not of things , but of sets
Numbers are lots of things. Is the example above worth taking as a definition, axiom or theorem? You can try each approach, but we try to leave as much complicated machinery as possible to the later theorem-proving stage.
(2) Numbers are defined as equivalence classes
Which, after $0$, are "proper classes". I won't be terribly specific about that, because the details vary by your choice of set theory. But since we can't have a set of all sets that aren't elements of themselves, we have to say some collections of sets you can imagine aren't sets, and we typically say, ironically enough given the original motive for set theory, that sets are distinguished from proper classes in that they can be elements of classes.
Eventually, we want to define integers as equivalence classes of ordered pairs of integers with the same difference between coordinates, e.g. $-3$ is the set of $(n+3,,n)$ for non-negative integers $n$. But $(a,,b):={{a},,{a,,b}}$ requires $a,,b$ to be elements of things, i.e. sets, so they can't be the enormous equivalence classes proposed in (2).
(3) To identify each number class we would need a "standard" in each class.
(4) But the use requires us to admit the existence of the elements of these standards.
(5) We choose as standards sets whose elements exist "at minimal cost".
(6) We finally abandon the definition of numbers as equivalence classes (with a special element as standard) and define directly each number by its "standard".
A few points:
- If you think about it, (3) immediately allows us to jump to (6) and thereby obviate (2), regardless of whether you make the observations in (4), (5).
- Defining $0:={},,Sn:=ncup{n}$ and putting these into a thing called $omega$ with no further elements, and claiming $omega$ is a set, is something we already do in just about every interesting set theory's axiom of infinity (although I imagine some prefer a slightly different formulation). We don't do that because we're trying to solve the problem Russell was thinking about; we do it because a lot of interesting mathematics requires infinities. And that one axiom lets us skip all of (1)-(5) and never do any "philosophy" at all.
(7) We finally put this set in order using the successor function
Oh dear, I seem to have gotten ahead of myself. ;)
Finally, let's note that none of this lets us decide what the equivalent to (1)-(7) would be for infinite sets' sizes. What is the representative set equinumerous to $Bbb N$, for example, or to $Bbb C$? Roughly speaking, it would go like this:
- (1)/(2) would proceed as before;
- For (3)-(6)'s choice of cardinals, see here. Long story short, the details vary by the set theory used (and to an extent the model thereof), but that link gives the gist of it;
- (7)'s a bit trickier, and in some set theories you can't even order all the set sizes!
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
@ J. G - Thanks for this clear and detailed answer.
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
14 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The main (unique?) motivation has zero relation with your (4). The definition of numbers as equivalence classes has a very big technical problem: the equivalence classes themselves are "too big", namely, proper classes.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I don't know why this got downvoted. It cuts to the heart of the question.
$endgroup$
– TonyK
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ TonyK @ Martin Bias - What was downvoted? Personnaly, I upvote your both answers.
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@EleonoreSaintJames, my answer as two upvotes (you, TonyK) and a downvote. The other upvote of TonyK is also mine.
$endgroup$
– Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@EleonoreSaintJames: Once you reach a certain reputation, you can click on the vote counter to see the number of upvotes and downvotes. This answer currently has two upvotes (from you and me!) and one downvote.
$endgroup$
– TonyK
14 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The problem is not that the original definition requires the existence of the elements of the standards (Thumb, Index etc.) If we have a reasonable Set Theory, we can always find a set with five elements.
The problem is that the equivalence class so defined is a proper Class, not a Set; and the aim is to construct as much mathematics as possible using Sets only, as constructed using the Axioms that we allow ourselves.
So we define $5$ iteratively as
$$0=emptyset$$
$$1={0}$$
$$2={0,1}$$
$$3={0,1,2}$$
$$4={0,1,2,3}$$
$$5={0,1,2,3,4}$$
which are all well-defined Sets.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3178282%2fwhy-has-russells-definition-of-numbers-using-equivalence-classes-been-finally-a%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The question might be a better fit for HSM.se but, until it's there, my answer won't focus on historical details so much as mathematical motives.
(1) numbers were higher-order properties, not of things , but of sets
Numbers are lots of things. Is the example above worth taking as a definition, axiom or theorem? You can try each approach, but we try to leave as much complicated machinery as possible to the later theorem-proving stage.
(2) Numbers are defined as equivalence classes
Which, after $0$, are "proper classes". I won't be terribly specific about that, because the details vary by your choice of set theory. But since we can't have a set of all sets that aren't elements of themselves, we have to say some collections of sets you can imagine aren't sets, and we typically say, ironically enough given the original motive for set theory, that sets are distinguished from proper classes in that they can be elements of classes.
Eventually, we want to define integers as equivalence classes of ordered pairs of integers with the same difference between coordinates, e.g. $-3$ is the set of $(n+3,,n)$ for non-negative integers $n$. But $(a,,b):={{a},,{a,,b}}$ requires $a,,b$ to be elements of things, i.e. sets, so they can't be the enormous equivalence classes proposed in (2).
(3) To identify each number class we would need a "standard" in each class.
(4) But the use requires us to admit the existence of the elements of these standards.
(5) We choose as standards sets whose elements exist "at minimal cost".
(6) We finally abandon the definition of numbers as equivalence classes (with a special element as standard) and define directly each number by its "standard".
A few points:
- If you think about it, (3) immediately allows us to jump to (6) and thereby obviate (2), regardless of whether you make the observations in (4), (5).
- Defining $0:={},,Sn:=ncup{n}$ and putting these into a thing called $omega$ with no further elements, and claiming $omega$ is a set, is something we already do in just about every interesting set theory's axiom of infinity (although I imagine some prefer a slightly different formulation). We don't do that because we're trying to solve the problem Russell was thinking about; we do it because a lot of interesting mathematics requires infinities. And that one axiom lets us skip all of (1)-(5) and never do any "philosophy" at all.
(7) We finally put this set in order using the successor function
Oh dear, I seem to have gotten ahead of myself. ;)
Finally, let's note that none of this lets us decide what the equivalent to (1)-(7) would be for infinite sets' sizes. What is the representative set equinumerous to $Bbb N$, for example, or to $Bbb C$? Roughly speaking, it would go like this:
- (1)/(2) would proceed as before;
- For (3)-(6)'s choice of cardinals, see here. Long story short, the details vary by the set theory used (and to an extent the model thereof), but that link gives the gist of it;
- (7)'s a bit trickier, and in some set theories you can't even order all the set sizes!
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
@ J. G - Thanks for this clear and detailed answer.
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
14 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The question might be a better fit for HSM.se but, until it's there, my answer won't focus on historical details so much as mathematical motives.
(1) numbers were higher-order properties, not of things , but of sets
Numbers are lots of things. Is the example above worth taking as a definition, axiom or theorem? You can try each approach, but we try to leave as much complicated machinery as possible to the later theorem-proving stage.
(2) Numbers are defined as equivalence classes
Which, after $0$, are "proper classes". I won't be terribly specific about that, because the details vary by your choice of set theory. But since we can't have a set of all sets that aren't elements of themselves, we have to say some collections of sets you can imagine aren't sets, and we typically say, ironically enough given the original motive for set theory, that sets are distinguished from proper classes in that they can be elements of classes.
Eventually, we want to define integers as equivalence classes of ordered pairs of integers with the same difference between coordinates, e.g. $-3$ is the set of $(n+3,,n)$ for non-negative integers $n$. But $(a,,b):={{a},,{a,,b}}$ requires $a,,b$ to be elements of things, i.e. sets, so they can't be the enormous equivalence classes proposed in (2).
(3) To identify each number class we would need a "standard" in each class.
(4) But the use requires us to admit the existence of the elements of these standards.
(5) We choose as standards sets whose elements exist "at minimal cost".
(6) We finally abandon the definition of numbers as equivalence classes (with a special element as standard) and define directly each number by its "standard".
A few points:
- If you think about it, (3) immediately allows us to jump to (6) and thereby obviate (2), regardless of whether you make the observations in (4), (5).
- Defining $0:={},,Sn:=ncup{n}$ and putting these into a thing called $omega$ with no further elements, and claiming $omega$ is a set, is something we already do in just about every interesting set theory's axiom of infinity (although I imagine some prefer a slightly different formulation). We don't do that because we're trying to solve the problem Russell was thinking about; we do it because a lot of interesting mathematics requires infinities. And that one axiom lets us skip all of (1)-(5) and never do any "philosophy" at all.
(7) We finally put this set in order using the successor function
Oh dear, I seem to have gotten ahead of myself. ;)
Finally, let's note that none of this lets us decide what the equivalent to (1)-(7) would be for infinite sets' sizes. What is the representative set equinumerous to $Bbb N$, for example, or to $Bbb C$? Roughly speaking, it would go like this:
- (1)/(2) would proceed as before;
- For (3)-(6)'s choice of cardinals, see here. Long story short, the details vary by the set theory used (and to an extent the model thereof), but that link gives the gist of it;
- (7)'s a bit trickier, and in some set theories you can't even order all the set sizes!
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
@ J. G - Thanks for this clear and detailed answer.
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
14 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The question might be a better fit for HSM.se but, until it's there, my answer won't focus on historical details so much as mathematical motives.
(1) numbers were higher-order properties, not of things , but of sets
Numbers are lots of things. Is the example above worth taking as a definition, axiom or theorem? You can try each approach, but we try to leave as much complicated machinery as possible to the later theorem-proving stage.
(2) Numbers are defined as equivalence classes
Which, after $0$, are "proper classes". I won't be terribly specific about that, because the details vary by your choice of set theory. But since we can't have a set of all sets that aren't elements of themselves, we have to say some collections of sets you can imagine aren't sets, and we typically say, ironically enough given the original motive for set theory, that sets are distinguished from proper classes in that they can be elements of classes.
Eventually, we want to define integers as equivalence classes of ordered pairs of integers with the same difference between coordinates, e.g. $-3$ is the set of $(n+3,,n)$ for non-negative integers $n$. But $(a,,b):={{a},,{a,,b}}$ requires $a,,b$ to be elements of things, i.e. sets, so they can't be the enormous equivalence classes proposed in (2).
(3) To identify each number class we would need a "standard" in each class.
(4) But the use requires us to admit the existence of the elements of these standards.
(5) We choose as standards sets whose elements exist "at minimal cost".
(6) We finally abandon the definition of numbers as equivalence classes (with a special element as standard) and define directly each number by its "standard".
A few points:
- If you think about it, (3) immediately allows us to jump to (6) and thereby obviate (2), regardless of whether you make the observations in (4), (5).
- Defining $0:={},,Sn:=ncup{n}$ and putting these into a thing called $omega$ with no further elements, and claiming $omega$ is a set, is something we already do in just about every interesting set theory's axiom of infinity (although I imagine some prefer a slightly different formulation). We don't do that because we're trying to solve the problem Russell was thinking about; we do it because a lot of interesting mathematics requires infinities. And that one axiom lets us skip all of (1)-(5) and never do any "philosophy" at all.
(7) We finally put this set in order using the successor function
Oh dear, I seem to have gotten ahead of myself. ;)
Finally, let's note that none of this lets us decide what the equivalent to (1)-(7) would be for infinite sets' sizes. What is the representative set equinumerous to $Bbb N$, for example, or to $Bbb C$? Roughly speaking, it would go like this:
- (1)/(2) would proceed as before;
- For (3)-(6)'s choice of cardinals, see here. Long story short, the details vary by the set theory used (and to an extent the model thereof), but that link gives the gist of it;
- (7)'s a bit trickier, and in some set theories you can't even order all the set sizes!
$endgroup$
The question might be a better fit for HSM.se but, until it's there, my answer won't focus on historical details so much as mathematical motives.
(1) numbers were higher-order properties, not of things , but of sets
Numbers are lots of things. Is the example above worth taking as a definition, axiom or theorem? You can try each approach, but we try to leave as much complicated machinery as possible to the later theorem-proving stage.
(2) Numbers are defined as equivalence classes
Which, after $0$, are "proper classes". I won't be terribly specific about that, because the details vary by your choice of set theory. But since we can't have a set of all sets that aren't elements of themselves, we have to say some collections of sets you can imagine aren't sets, and we typically say, ironically enough given the original motive for set theory, that sets are distinguished from proper classes in that they can be elements of classes.
Eventually, we want to define integers as equivalence classes of ordered pairs of integers with the same difference between coordinates, e.g. $-3$ is the set of $(n+3,,n)$ for non-negative integers $n$. But $(a,,b):={{a},,{a,,b}}$ requires $a,,b$ to be elements of things, i.e. sets, so they can't be the enormous equivalence classes proposed in (2).
(3) To identify each number class we would need a "standard" in each class.
(4) But the use requires us to admit the existence of the elements of these standards.
(5) We choose as standards sets whose elements exist "at minimal cost".
(6) We finally abandon the definition of numbers as equivalence classes (with a special element as standard) and define directly each number by its "standard".
A few points:
- If you think about it, (3) immediately allows us to jump to (6) and thereby obviate (2), regardless of whether you make the observations in (4), (5).
- Defining $0:={},,Sn:=ncup{n}$ and putting these into a thing called $omega$ with no further elements, and claiming $omega$ is a set, is something we already do in just about every interesting set theory's axiom of infinity (although I imagine some prefer a slightly different formulation). We don't do that because we're trying to solve the problem Russell was thinking about; we do it because a lot of interesting mathematics requires infinities. And that one axiom lets us skip all of (1)-(5) and never do any "philosophy" at all.
(7) We finally put this set in order using the successor function
Oh dear, I seem to have gotten ahead of myself. ;)
Finally, let's note that none of this lets us decide what the equivalent to (1)-(7) would be for infinite sets' sizes. What is the representative set equinumerous to $Bbb N$, for example, or to $Bbb C$? Roughly speaking, it would go like this:
- (1)/(2) would proceed as before;
- For (3)-(6)'s choice of cardinals, see here. Long story short, the details vary by the set theory used (and to an extent the model thereof), but that link gives the gist of it;
- (7)'s a bit trickier, and in some set theories you can't even order all the set sizes!
answered 14 hours ago
J.G.J.G.
32.9k23250
32.9k23250
1
$begingroup$
@ J. G - Thanks for this clear and detailed answer.
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
14 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
@ J. G - Thanks for this clear and detailed answer.
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
14 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@ J. G - Thanks for this clear and detailed answer.
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ J. G - Thanks for this clear and detailed answer.
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
14 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The main (unique?) motivation has zero relation with your (4). The definition of numbers as equivalence classes has a very big technical problem: the equivalence classes themselves are "too big", namely, proper classes.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I don't know why this got downvoted. It cuts to the heart of the question.
$endgroup$
– TonyK
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ TonyK @ Martin Bias - What was downvoted? Personnaly, I upvote your both answers.
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@EleonoreSaintJames, my answer as two upvotes (you, TonyK) and a downvote. The other upvote of TonyK is also mine.
$endgroup$
– Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@EleonoreSaintJames: Once you reach a certain reputation, you can click on the vote counter to see the number of upvotes and downvotes. This answer currently has two upvotes (from you and me!) and one downvote.
$endgroup$
– TonyK
14 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The main (unique?) motivation has zero relation with your (4). The definition of numbers as equivalence classes has a very big technical problem: the equivalence classes themselves are "too big", namely, proper classes.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I don't know why this got downvoted. It cuts to the heart of the question.
$endgroup$
– TonyK
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ TonyK @ Martin Bias - What was downvoted? Personnaly, I upvote your both answers.
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@EleonoreSaintJames, my answer as two upvotes (you, TonyK) and a downvote. The other upvote of TonyK is also mine.
$endgroup$
– Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@EleonoreSaintJames: Once you reach a certain reputation, you can click on the vote counter to see the number of upvotes and downvotes. This answer currently has two upvotes (from you and me!) and one downvote.
$endgroup$
– TonyK
14 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The main (unique?) motivation has zero relation with your (4). The definition of numbers as equivalence classes has a very big technical problem: the equivalence classes themselves are "too big", namely, proper classes.
$endgroup$
The main (unique?) motivation has zero relation with your (4). The definition of numbers as equivalence classes has a very big technical problem: the equivalence classes themselves are "too big", namely, proper classes.
answered 14 hours ago
Martín-Blas Pérez PinillaMartín-Blas Pérez Pinilla
35.4k42972
35.4k42972
1
$begingroup$
I don't know why this got downvoted. It cuts to the heart of the question.
$endgroup$
– TonyK
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ TonyK @ Martin Bias - What was downvoted? Personnaly, I upvote your both answers.
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@EleonoreSaintJames, my answer as two upvotes (you, TonyK) and a downvote. The other upvote of TonyK is also mine.
$endgroup$
– Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@EleonoreSaintJames: Once you reach a certain reputation, you can click on the vote counter to see the number of upvotes and downvotes. This answer currently has two upvotes (from you and me!) and one downvote.
$endgroup$
– TonyK
14 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
I don't know why this got downvoted. It cuts to the heart of the question.
$endgroup$
– TonyK
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ TonyK @ Martin Bias - What was downvoted? Personnaly, I upvote your both answers.
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@EleonoreSaintJames, my answer as two upvotes (you, TonyK) and a downvote. The other upvote of TonyK is also mine.
$endgroup$
– Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@EleonoreSaintJames: Once you reach a certain reputation, you can click on the vote counter to see the number of upvotes and downvotes. This answer currently has two upvotes (from you and me!) and one downvote.
$endgroup$
– TonyK
14 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
I don't know why this got downvoted. It cuts to the heart of the question.
$endgroup$
– TonyK
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't know why this got downvoted. It cuts to the heart of the question.
$endgroup$
– TonyK
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ TonyK @ Martin Bias - What was downvoted? Personnaly, I upvote your both answers.
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ TonyK @ Martin Bias - What was downvoted? Personnaly, I upvote your both answers.
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@EleonoreSaintJames, my answer as two upvotes (you, TonyK) and a downvote. The other upvote of TonyK is also mine.
$endgroup$
– Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@EleonoreSaintJames, my answer as two upvotes (you, TonyK) and a downvote. The other upvote of TonyK is also mine.
$endgroup$
– Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@EleonoreSaintJames: Once you reach a certain reputation, you can click on the vote counter to see the number of upvotes and downvotes. This answer currently has two upvotes (from you and me!) and one downvote.
$endgroup$
– TonyK
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@EleonoreSaintJames: Once you reach a certain reputation, you can click on the vote counter to see the number of upvotes and downvotes. This answer currently has two upvotes (from you and me!) and one downvote.
$endgroup$
– TonyK
14 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The problem is not that the original definition requires the existence of the elements of the standards (Thumb, Index etc.) If we have a reasonable Set Theory, we can always find a set with five elements.
The problem is that the equivalence class so defined is a proper Class, not a Set; and the aim is to construct as much mathematics as possible using Sets only, as constructed using the Axioms that we allow ourselves.
So we define $5$ iteratively as
$$0=emptyset$$
$$1={0}$$
$$2={0,1}$$
$$3={0,1,2}$$
$$4={0,1,2,3}$$
$$5={0,1,2,3,4}$$
which are all well-defined Sets.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The problem is not that the original definition requires the existence of the elements of the standards (Thumb, Index etc.) If we have a reasonable Set Theory, we can always find a set with five elements.
The problem is that the equivalence class so defined is a proper Class, not a Set; and the aim is to construct as much mathematics as possible using Sets only, as constructed using the Axioms that we allow ourselves.
So we define $5$ iteratively as
$$0=emptyset$$
$$1={0}$$
$$2={0,1}$$
$$3={0,1,2}$$
$$4={0,1,2,3}$$
$$5={0,1,2,3,4}$$
which are all well-defined Sets.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The problem is not that the original definition requires the existence of the elements of the standards (Thumb, Index etc.) If we have a reasonable Set Theory, we can always find a set with five elements.
The problem is that the equivalence class so defined is a proper Class, not a Set; and the aim is to construct as much mathematics as possible using Sets only, as constructed using the Axioms that we allow ourselves.
So we define $5$ iteratively as
$$0=emptyset$$
$$1={0}$$
$$2={0,1}$$
$$3={0,1,2}$$
$$4={0,1,2,3}$$
$$5={0,1,2,3,4}$$
which are all well-defined Sets.
$endgroup$
The problem is not that the original definition requires the existence of the elements of the standards (Thumb, Index etc.) If we have a reasonable Set Theory, we can always find a set with five elements.
The problem is that the equivalence class so defined is a proper Class, not a Set; and the aim is to construct as much mathematics as possible using Sets only, as constructed using the Axioms that we allow ourselves.
So we define $5$ iteratively as
$$0=emptyset$$
$$1={0}$$
$$2={0,1}$$
$$3={0,1,2}$$
$$4={0,1,2,3}$$
$$5={0,1,2,3,4}$$
which are all well-defined Sets.
answered 14 hours ago
TonyKTonyK
43.9k358137
43.9k358137
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3178282%2fwhy-has-russells-definition-of-numbers-using-equivalence-classes-been-finally-a%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
That's a decent philosophical reasoning - although I can't speak to its historical accuracy, not being versed in the history myself - but never underestimate the role of sheer pragmatics: proper classes are weird and talking about sets of cardinal (or ordinal) numbers is important, so it is useful for the "number of elements" (and similar notions) of a set to also be a set rather than a class. It just ultimately reduces the "overhead cost" for the arguments we want to make. Again, I'm not versed in the history (hence this isn't an answer), but I suspect this did play a major role in the shift.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
14 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I think this approach, as Noah points out, fell out of favor when it became very obvious that unrestricted comprehensions are problematic, and classes are in general annoying to work with. So, it's a lot easier simply denoting a set to represent a given cardinality, and forcing any set with the same cardinality to share a bijection, rather than being a member of some class, that we don't even know much about.
$endgroup$
– Don Thousand
14 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
(6) "sounds" a little bit different IMO... The original proposal of Frege and Russell was also to solve the philosophical problem of "what numbers really are" (assuming that the question is meaningful...). The current set theory construction aims at defining inside the "universe" of sets a structure that has exactly all the properties of the natural number. From a mathematical point of view this is enough, but form the point of view of Frege and Russell it is quite doubtful to asserts that numbers are conjured out of the empty set.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
See Paul Benacerraf, What numbers could not be.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
10 hours ago