Results 1 to 6 of 6
Like Tree2Thanks
  • 1 Post By HallsofIvy
  • 1 Post By emakarov

Math Help - circular reasoning of the definition of "number?"

  1. #1
    No one in Particular VonNemo19's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2009
    From
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    1,823

    circular reasoning of the definition of "number?"

    Hi. I'm going back to basics and I have been perusing the book "basic concepts of mathematics and logic" by michael gemignani. The definition 6.1 of this texts defines the phrase "same number as" as follows:

    Def^n\text{ }6.1: Two sets S and T are said to have the same number of elements if each element of S can be paired with precisely one element of  T in such a way that each element of T is paired with precisely one element of  S.

    Note that a prior definition of number was not given in this text. Now...

    Then, in the next section, the definition of cardinal number:

    Def^n\text{ } 6.3: Let  S be any set. Define  \overline{S} to be the collection of all sets that have the same number of elements as S. We call \overline{S} the cardinal number of  S.

    Now, the text goes on to say "using the [above] definitions we could go on to develop a rigorous theory of #s as we usually think of them. I find this quite circular by way of 6.3. It states that a number ( \overline{S})is the set of all sets that have the same number of elements as ( S). HELP? I need some to explain very simply that this reasoningis not circular. THanks.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    15,326
    Thanks
    1298

    Re: circular reasoning of the definition of "number?"

    Why do you think it is circular? If I have the set {a, b}, surely, I can determine which sets have a one-to-one correspondence with that set. Nothing circular in that. \overline{\{a,b\}} is the collection of all such sets (which would, of course, include {a,b} itself). I see nothing circular in that. Now, notice I did not use the term "same number of elements" which, in your quote, is purely descriptive and not a part of the mathematical definition. Perhaps that was what was bothering you - that we seem to need to determine what sets have the "same number of elements" in order to determine a "cardinal number". We don't we merely need to determine one-to-one correspondences which does NOT have to depend on "same number". Indeed, we can wait until after we have defined "cardinal number" before we even mention "same number".
    Last edited by HallsofIvy; August 1st 2012 at 10:54 AM.
    Thanks from VonNemo19
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,506
    Thanks
    765

    Re: circular reasoning of the definition of "number?"

    The concept "have the same number of elements" has the word "number" in its name, but its definition does not use numbers. If you wish, you can replace "have the same number of elements" by "have the same cardinality," "are equinumerous," "are equipollent," or "are equipotent" (these terms are taken from this Wikipedia article).

    Quote Originally Posted by VonNemo19 View Post
    Now, the text goes on to say "using the [above] definitions we could go on to develop a rigorous theory of #s as we usually think of them.
    I don't know enough about this, but I am wondering how hard it would be to go this way. In particular, is this what Russel and Whitehead did in Principia Mathematica? After all, it took them 362 pages to prove 1 + 1 = 2...
    Thanks from VonNemo19
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    No one in Particular VonNemo19's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2009
    From
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    1,823

    Re: circular reasoning of the definition of "number?"

    Quote Originally Posted by HallsofIvy View Post
    Why do you think it is circular? If I have the set {a, b}, surely, I can determine which sets have a one-to-one correspondence with that set. Nothing circular in that. \overline{\{a,b\}} is the collection of all such sets (which would, of course, include {a,b} itself). I see nothing circular in that. Now, notice I did not use the term "same number of elements" which, in your quote, is purely descriptive and not a part of the mathematical definition. Perhaps that was what was bothering you - that we seem to need to determine what sets have the "same number of elements" in order to determine a "cardinal number". We don't we merely need to determine one-to-one correspondences which does NOT have to depend on "same number". Indeed, we can wait until after we have defined "cardinal number" before we even mention "same number".
    Thank you. Very helpful.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    No one in Particular VonNemo19's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2009
    From
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    1,823

    Re: circular reasoning of the definition of "number?"

    Quote Originally Posted by emakarov View Post
    ...(these terms are taken from this Wikipedia article[/URL]).
    Good article. Thank you.
    Last edited by VonNemo19; August 7th 2012 at 10:15 AM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    No one in Particular VonNemo19's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2009
    From
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    1,823

    Re: circular reasoning of the definition of "number?"

    Quote Originally Posted by HallsofIvy View Post
    Why do you think it is circular? If I have the set {a, b}, surely, I can determine which sets have a one-to-one correspondence with that set.
    With pairing? I've noticed that "pairing" was left undefined. Is there a way to define this? I know how to interpret "pairing" in terms of a function, but is there another way?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 23rd 2011, 05:43 AM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 24th 2011, 07:01 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 25th 2010, 04:45 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 16th 2010, 01:26 PM
  5. Rigorous Definition of "Inequality" or "Positive" in the Reals
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 22nd 2010, 12:23 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum