Re: Platonism
tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu
Date: 12/03/04
- Next message: Dave Seaman: "Re: Platonism"
- Previous message: tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu: "Re: mathematics"
- In reply to: Lester Zick: "Re: Platonism"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Platonism"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Platonism"
- Reply: Nathan: "Re: Platonism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 03 Dec 2004 00:30:25 GMT
In article <41b04e6a.70649348@netnews.att.net>,
Lester Zick <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Not the same thing at all. Every cardinal is an ordinal, but every
>ordinal is not necessarily a cardinal unless differences between
>successive ordinals is the same. This is why I asked the question.
Not every ordinal is a cardinal, but every *finite* ordinal is a *finite*
cardinal. So the finite cardinals coincide with the finite ordinals.
Having said that, I actually feel that it's something of a mistake to say
that the finite ordinals are the *same* as the finite cardinals, since
ordinality and cardinality are such different concepts. Calling them
the same seems to commit the sin of believing that the set-theoretic
formalization of these concepts captures the concepts fully, when it
doesn't quite.
-- Tim Chow tchow-at-alum-dot-mit-dot-edu The range of our projectiles---even ... the artillery---however great, will never exceed four of those miles of which as many thousand separate us from the center of the earth. ---Galileo, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences
- Next message: Dave Seaman: "Re: Platonism"
- Previous message: tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu: "Re: mathematics"
- In reply to: Lester Zick: "Re: Platonism"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Platonism"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Platonism"
- Reply: Nathan: "Re: Platonism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|