Comments on The Existence of Infinite SetsTypePad2010-07-18T22:54:33ZBill Vallicellahttps://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/tag:typepad.com,2003:https://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/07/the-existence-of-infinite-sets/comments/atom.xml/Bill Vallicella commented on 'The Existence of Infinite Sets'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a010535ce1cf6970c0133f311419d970b2010-08-14T17:42:15Z2010-08-14T17:42:15ZBill VallicellaCantor would disagree with you.<p>Cantor would disagree with you.</p>Jake commented on 'The Existence of Infinite Sets'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a010535ce1cf6970c0133f30eadc0970b2010-08-14T03:53:11Z2010-08-14T03:53:11ZJakeIn (2), you have smuggled in the incorrect idea that infinity is a number as opposed to a concept of...<p>In (2), you have smuggled in the incorrect idea that infinity is a number as opposed to a concept of method. It is true that there is no finite number of natural numbers, but the correct conclusion is that there is *no* number of natural numbers, because the natural numbers cannot be exhaustively enumerated. Infinity indicates the "open-endedness" of certain series; It is not itself a number. </p>David Brightly commented on 'The Existence of Infinite Sets'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a010535ce1cf6970c0133f2879ab0970b2010-07-24T23:31:18Z2010-08-19T16:23:56ZDavid Brightlyhttp://profile.typepad.com/davidbrightly>>Easily done so long as we can quantify over natural numbers >>We can easily do it by quantification. Certainly. What...<p>>>Easily done so long as we can quantify over natural numbers <br />
>>We can easily do it by quantification.</p>
<p>Certainly. What I'm urging is that set talk is equivalent to quantification talk given a sufficiently rich notion of set, ie, allowing infinities. Further, the set talk is more elegant. Recall the Weierstrassian definition of continuity for a function on the real line: A function f is continuous iff for all a and all e there is a d such that for all x |x-a|<d implies |f(x)-f(a)|<e. Contrast this with the equivalent set talk: A set is open iff each of its points is surrounded by a neighbourhood lying entirely within the set and a function is continuous iff the inverse image of every open set is open.</p>
<p>>> Not if I am correct</p>
<p>If I'm wrong in thinking that we can always translate out the set talk that would suggest that there are results in widely accepted mathematics, where set talk is ubiquitous, that can't be proven if we eschew conventional sets. Can you think of any?</p>William commented on 'The Existence of Infinite Sets'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a010535ce1cf6970c0133f27ed333970b2010-07-23T12:38:56Z2010-07-23T12:38:56ZWilliam>>I take W to be saying that we can axiomatise sets in a way that forbids an infinite set. Correct....<p>>>I take W to be saying that we can axiomatise sets in a way that forbids an infinite set. </p>
<p>Correct. This is a standard idea. <a href="http://mat140.bham.ac.uk/~wongtl/papers/finitesettheory.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://mat140.bham.ac.uk/~wongtl/papers/finitesettheory.pdf</a></p>
<p>>>If so it would seem that infinite sets are in no way 'forced' on us by natural language. But is this adequate for doing mathematics? </p>
<p>I don't see why not.</p>
<p>>>One of the reasons the mathematician likes his conventional sets in the first place is that they provide a neat way of referencing numbers which share a property, such as being less than ten. </p>
<p>Easily done so long as we can quantify over natural numbers - "for all n such that n < 10 [...]" e.g.</p>
<p>>>Under a system of finite sets the numbers that share the complementary property of being greater than or equal to ten don't form a set and can't be referenced through the language of sets. </p>
<p><br />
We can easily do it by quantification. "for all n such that >= 10 [...]" e.g.</p>
<p>>>We can always translate out the set talk. 'N is an infinite set' translates to 'there are infinitely many natural numbers'.</p>
<p>Not if I am correct. If we allow infinite sets, we get all sorts of other stuff (like the hierarchy, or parts of it). But 'there are infinitely many natural numbers' can be expressed in such a way that there is no hierarchy. <br />
</p>David Brightly commented on 'The Existence of Infinite Sets'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a010535ce1cf6970c0133f27e098b970b2010-07-23T09:12:33Z2010-08-19T16:23:56ZDavid Brightlyhttp://profile.typepad.com/davidbrightlyI take W to be saying that we can axiomatise sets in a way that forbids an infinite set. Such...<p>I take W to be saying that we can axiomatise sets in a way that forbids an infinite set. Such a system may well be adequate for explaining plural terms in natural languages. If so it would seem that infinite sets are in no way 'forced' on us by natural language. But is this adequate for doing mathematics? One of the reasons the mathematician likes his conventional sets in the first place is that they provide a neat way of referencing numbers which share a property, such as being less than ten. Under a system of finite sets the numbers that share the complementary property of being greater than or equal to ten don't form a set and can't be referenced through the language of sets. <br />
My guess is that math sets come about in a different way. Forget for a minute how closely (or not) 'set' and 'member of' used in maths approximate to everyday notions of plurality. Think of set language as completely artificial with terms like 'set' and 'in' whose meaning has to be learned like a foreign language. My claim is that set talk is translatable into talk about conditions. Here are some rather informal examples: <br />
'x in N' means 'x is a natural number'<br />
'x in {2y | y in N}' means 'x is even'<br />
'x in {y | y>10}' means 'x >10'<br />
'x in {y | y>10} intersect {y | y<20}' means '10 < x < 20'<br />
and so on. We can always translate out the set talk. 'N is an infinite set' translates to 'there are infinitely many natural numbers'.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><br />
</p>William commented on 'The Existence of Infinite Sets'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a010535ce1cf6970c0133f27de20b970b2010-07-23T08:36:49Z2010-07-23T08:36:49ZWilliam>>William's response is exceedingly obscure. I don't follow it. It is exceedingly simple and I expressed it formally, without the...<p>>>William's response is exceedingly obscure. I don't follow it.</p>
<p>It is exceedingly simple and I expressed it formally, without the need for obscure concepts like 'potential infinity'. We assume that at least one set exists in our domain. Then (in mathematical set theory terminology)</p>
<p>(*) Every set in the domain is such that there is at least one element (of the domain) that is not a member of it.</p>
<p>If that is true, and there is at least one set X, then it immediately follows that there is an element that is not in X. Call this e. It then follows from standard set-theoretical assumptions that there is a set X' = X u {e}. The again from (*) above, there is a further element e' that is not in X'. Hence a further set X'', a further element e'' and so on ad infinitum. </p>
<p>But it follows from this that, since <i>every</i> set in the domain excludes at least one element, there is no set of all elements in the domain. </p>
<p>Hence my claim that the infinity of a domain (or series) can be expressed by denying, rather than asserting, the existence of an infinite set. I don't see how this is obscure at all. It is your discussion using obscure concepts like 'potential infinity' and 'extensional' that is obscure.</p>
<p>>>I take William to be saying that every set collapses into its extension.</p>
<p>For OL sets, yes. For M sets, no.</p>
<p>>>But how is this consistent with the Unrestricted Comprehension Axiom of naive (as opposed to axiomatic) set theory? UCA says that for every condition (property, concept, propositional function) there is a set.</p>
<p>Which founders on Russell's paradox. Suppose there is an S such that </p>
<p>S = {x:x not in x}</p>
<p>Then if S is in S, S is not in S. But if S is not in S, S is in S.</p>Bill Vallicella commented on 'The Existence of Infinite Sets'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a010535ce1cf6970c0133f279567f970b2010-07-22T18:28:26Z2010-07-22T18:28:26ZBill VallicellaDavid says, >>Now, arguably, we cannot grasp the infinity of natural numbers extensionally. We have to see them intensionally as...<p>David says, >>Now, arguably, we cannot grasp the infinity of natural numbers extensionally. We have to see them intensionally as the collection consisting of zero and all its successors. But this concept already has a naive notion of mathematical set built into it.<<</p>
<p>William responds: >>But as I have argued, we can easily express the infinity of the natural number series without the concept of an infinite set. Indeed, it is exactly the reverse. We express it by denying its existence.<<</p>
<p>William's response is exceedingly obscure. I don't follow it. But it may be that he is assuming that there is no such thing as actual infinity, that infinity is always only potential. Accordingly, one can always add 1 to a given n to arrive at n + 1. But that is not to say that there is a completed collection of the natural numbers. From 'There is no greatest natural numbers' it does not follow straightaway that there is a math. set of natural numbers.</p>
<p>The language of extension and intension helps. And M-set and its extension are distinct. This is obvious, is it not? Take the singleton {Socrates}. It is distinct from Socrates. I take William to be saying that every set collapses into its extension.</p>
<p>But how is this consistent with the Unrestricted Comprehension Axiom of naive (as opposed to axiomatic) set theory? UCA says that for every condition (property, concept, propositional function) there is a set. If you admit a condition such as 'x shares a domicile with William' then it seems you have to admit that there is a math set {x: x shares a domicile with William}.</p>William commented on 'The Existence of Infinite Sets'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a010535ce1cf6970c0133f277ddd6970b2010-07-22T13:16:22Z2010-07-22T13:16:22ZWilliamDB >>Now, arguably, we cannot grasp the infinity of natual numbers extensionally. We have to see them intensionally as the...<p>DB >>Now, arguably, we cannot grasp the infinity of natual numbers extensionally. We have to see them intensionally as the collection consisting of zero and all its successors. But this concept already has a naive notion of mathematical set built into it. So again we have nothing to prove. </p>
<p>But as I have argued, we can easily express the infinity of the natural number series without the concept of an infinite set. Indeed, it is exactly the reverse. We express it by <i>denying</i> its existence.</p>
<p>(*) Any things in the domain are such that there is at least one thing that is not one of them.</p>
<p>I.e. Any things whatever are such that there are a finite number of them.</p>David Brightly commented on 'The Existence of Infinite Sets'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a010535ce1cf6970c0134859bf6c3970c2010-07-22T09:58:49Z2010-08-19T16:23:56ZDavid Brightlyhttp://profile.typepad.com/davidbrightlyHello Bill, Yes, that is exactly it. An afterthought: We only need show that the Hatfields form a family if...<p>Hello Bill,<br />
Yes, that is exactly it. An afterthought: We only need show that the Hatfields form a family if we see them extensionally: Pa Hatfield, Ma Hatfield, and the rest. If we see them intensionally, as that Appalachian family feuding with the McCoys, say, we have nothing to prove. Now, arguably, we cannot grasp the infinity of natual numbers extensionally. We have to see them intensionally as the collection consisting of zero and all its successors. But this concept already has a naive notion of mathematical set built into it. So again we have nothing to prove. </p>
<p>Regarding the trees in your yard, you say 'nor is it the case that the mere plurality is four'. On my understanding of pluralities we are allowed textually to substitute a list of references for the phrase 'a mere plurality' and so arrive at 'nor is it the case that this tree, that tree, the other tree, and the last tree is four'. That must be wrong, surely?</p>William commented on 'The Existence of Infinite Sets'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a010535ce1cf6970c01348594d0eb970c2010-07-21T06:13:36Z2010-07-21T06:13:36ZWilliam>>But 'The Hatfields are 100 in number' does seem to commit us ontologically to an M-set consiting of the members...<p>>>But 'The Hatfields are 100 in number' does seem to commit us ontologically to an M-set consiting of the members of this family. Why? Because there has to be something distinct from the Hatfields that bears the property of being 100 in number. </p>
<p>Why? Does 'A dozen things are 12 in number' commit us to something having the proper of being 12 in number? </p>
<p>>>'There are four trees in my backyard.' It is not the case that any one of these tress is 4, nor is it the case that the mere plurality is four. There must be a single item over and above the plurality which bears the property of being 4.</p>
<p>four(a, b, c, d)</p>
<p>It is not the case that four(a) or four(b) etcetera. </p>Bill Vallicella commented on 'The Existence of Infinite Sets'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a010535ce1cf6970c01348593ea90970c2010-07-21T02:38:16Z2010-07-21T02:38:16ZBill VallicellaDavid, You make a good point which I take to be the following. 'The Hatfields' refers to a plurality the...<p>David,</p>
<p>You make a good point which I take to be the following. 'The Hatfields' refers to a plurality the members of which stand in certain familiar relations which make of them a family. But the math. set consisting of the Hatfields abstracts from these relations.</p>
<p>'The Hatfields are an Appalachian family' does not commit us ontologically to the existence of an M-set consisting of the members of this family. But 'The Hatfields are 100 in number' does seem to commit us ontologically to an M-set consiting of the members of this family. Why? Because there has to be something distinct from the Hatfields that bears the property of being 100 in number. That is either the M-set consisting of them or the property of being a Hatfield which is 100 times instantiated.</p>
<p>William the nominalist wants to avoid commitment to abstract entities. It seems to me we have to admit some.</p>
<p>'There are four trees in my backyard.' It is not the case that any one of these tress is 4, nor is it the case that the mere plurality is four. There must be a single item over and above the plurality which bears the property of being 4. We could say either:<br />
a) the property of being a tree in my back yard is four times instantiated<br />
or<br />
b) The set {x: x is a tree in my back yard} has four members.</p>
<p>Either way we are committed to an abstract object.</p>David Brightly commented on 'The Existence of Infinite Sets'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a010535ce1cf6970c0133f26a7fe0970b2010-07-20T12:20:38Z2010-07-20T12:20:38ZDavid BrightlyI can offer a reason for wanting to treat the natural numbers as a set. If sets are taken as...<p>I can offer a reason for <i>wanting</i> to treat the natural numbers as a set. If sets are taken as primitive then the concept of a function from set A to set B can be explained as a subset of the cartesian product AxB, ie, a set of pairs (a,b). To explain in this way the successor function on the natural numbers, say, clearly requires the naturals to be a set. But I don't think this answers the question you are asking.</p>
<p>Here is another distinction between natural language plural terms and mathematical sets. We can prove that the Hatfields form a family. We just have to show that the right relations hold between the people referred to by 'the Hatfields'. Not so with sets. In general, there need be no relations at all between the members of a set. They can be arbitrary pluralities, by stipulation, though we know that we have to tread carefully here to avoid falling into contradiction. So I can't imagine how an argument for showing that the natural numbers form a set might go. <br />
</p>William commented on 'The Existence of Infinite Sets'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a010535ce1cf6970c0133f2698526970b2010-07-20T07:50:45Z2010-07-20T07:50:45ZWilliam>> In the this post I am asking what the reason is for positing infinite mathematical sets such as the...<p>>> In the this post I am asking what the reason is for positing infinite mathematical sets such as the math. set of natural numbers.</p>
<p>Well, as I commented, there is no reason one way or the other. If there is no such set, you can still get a theory of number (I don't remember the detail, but I think it's called ZF-inf). If there is, you get the first transfinite set.</p>
<p>I think the question of whether there is an OL inf set is the interesting one.</p>Bill Vallicella commented on 'The Existence of Infinite Sets'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a010535ce1cf6970c0133f266980e970b2010-07-19T21:04:56Z2010-07-19T21:04:56ZBill Vallicella>>I did see that, but wanted to make clear that (4) was the difficult one (you mention 1 also, which...<p>>>I did see that, but wanted to make clear that (4) was the difficult one (you mention 1 also, which we agree about). <<</p>
<p>No, we don't agree about (1), which states that there are sets. I made it clear that 'set' is short for 'mathematical set.' What we agree on is that there are pluralities. A plurality is the referent of a plural expression such as 'the barristers of London.'</p>
<p>We disagree on whether, in addition to pluralities, there are also math. sets.</p>
<p>>>Are we agreed we are arguing about the existence of an OL infinite set?<< No. In the this post I am asking what the reason is for positing infinite mathematical sets such as the math. set of natural numbers.</p>
<p> </p>William commented on 'The Existence of Infinite Sets'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a010535ce1cf6970c0134858bdfb0970c2010-07-19T20:49:02Z2010-07-19T20:49:02ZWilliamYet another thought. To avoid psychologizing, perhaps we could say that it is an inherent property of a quantifier that...<p>Yet another thought. To avoid psychologizing, perhaps we could say that it is an inherent property of a quantifier that it can quantify everything. That is what 'everything' means. </p>
<p>I reply: is that necessarily true? Can 'everything' really get to everything. Note that I am not actually denying the universal scope of the singular quantifier. It is the scope of the plural quantifier 'any <i>things</i>' as in 'take any <i>things</i> that you like' that I am puzzled about. Why should the scope of the plural quantifer include 'all things'?</p>William commented on 'The Existence of Infinite Sets'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a010535ce1cf6970c0134858bd984970c2010-07-19T20:45:04Z2010-07-19T20:45:04ZWilliam(Afterthought). I suppose we could argue as follows. As well as making a plural reference by enumerating the individuals, as...<p>(Afterthought). I suppose we could argue as follows. As well as making a plural reference by enumerating the individuals, as in 'Alice and Bob and Chas', we can make an indeterminate reference such as 'the lost ballpoint pens in our house'. I don't know if anyone else has this problem, but our house swallows up these with great rapidity. The only ones you can find by the phone are pencils with broken tips, or pens where the ink has dried up so that you furiously shake it or dip it in water or whatever to take down some important number that your wife's friend wants to leave. There is the possibility that all these lost pens have got swallowed up in some other dimension and are not really in the house, and only exist in a Schrodinger cat kind of way. But we assume not. Despite the fact they never appear again, it seems reasonable to refer to 'the lost pens'.</p>
<p>I reply: that is because we assume there are finitely many lost pens, as clearly they are. That is, we assume that (*) above is false. But that does not mean that it is <i>logically</i> or <i>necessarily</i> false. </p>
<p>Or perhaps we could argue that quantification is like a mental lasso that could rope up absolutely any number of things we like, including an infinite number of things. But (1) that is psychologising and (2) is it necessarily true that a mental lasso could lasso anything? What (*) is asserting is that we cannot lasso all the objects in the domain. We can perhaps lasso a very large finite number, even every finite number of things. But not 'all' things.</p>
<p>Again, hope that makes sense, I have to go.</p>William commented on 'The Existence of Infinite Sets'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a010535ce1cf6970c0134858bc431970c2010-07-19T20:32:09Z2010-07-19T20:32:09ZWilliam>>Apparently, you did not notice that I am questioning (4), not asserting it. My question is: what arguments are there...<p>>>Apparently, you did not notice that I am questioning (4), not asserting it. My question is: what arguments are there for (4)? There must be some.</p>
<p>I did see that, but wanted to make clear that (4) was the difficult one (you mention 1 also, which we agree about). </p>
<p>Are we agreed we are arguing about the existence of an OL infinite set? If it is about M (mathematical) set theory, I have already said that there are versions which deny 4, as well as the standard version which asserts it.</p>
<p>What arguments are there for (4)? Well, if we talk about a domain of things, surely we can always talk about 'the' things, or 'all the things in the domain'. Can't we? But if so it would follow that</p>
<p>(*) For any OL set S, there is at least one item that is not in S</p>
<p>is logically impossible. But I don't see that it is logically impossible. We can meaningfully say that there could be a universe where, for any things whatever in that universe, there is at least one thing that is not one of them. If that is true, there cannot be such things as 'all the things in the universe'. For 'all the things in the universe' falls within the scope of 'any things whatever in that universe'. And if (*) is true, there would be at least one thing that was not one of 'all the things', and so they could not be 'all the things'. </p>
<p>In summary, the only argument for (4) is that it must always be possible to refer to all the things in the domain. But that is only the case if (*) is impossible, and it seems that it is not impossible. (Hope that makes sense).</p>Bill Vallicella commented on 'The Existence of Infinite Sets'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a010535ce1cf6970c0134858b28d8970c2010-07-19T19:11:37Z2010-07-19T19:11:37ZBill VallicellaApparently, you did not notice that I am questioning (4), not asserting it. My question is: what arguments are there...<p>Apparently, you did not notice that I am questioning (4), not asserting it. My question is: what arguments are there for (4)? There must be some.</p>William commented on 'The Existence of Infinite Sets'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a010535ce1cf6970c0133f2626547970b2010-07-19T06:36:47Z2010-07-19T06:36:47ZWilliam>>The natural numbers form a set. I question this. Or rather, I question whether is a plural reference for 'the...<p>>>The natural numbers form a set. </p>
<p>I question this. Or rather, I question whether is a plural reference for 'the natural numbers', and I question whether there is an OL set containing every natural number. I agree that every natural number has a successor that is not identical with any predecessor. I don't see that it is intuitive that there is a corresponding OL set, or plurality. Indeed this version of the axiom of infinity</p>
<p>(*) For any OL set S, there is at least one item that is not in S</p>
<p>suggests it is at least <i>logically possible</i> that there is no infinite OL set.</p>