Understanding Bertrand Russell's Definition of Number

  • Thread starter Thread starter Barbie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Bertrand Russell defines a number as "the class of all those classes that are similar to it," specifically addressing whole cardinal numbers. His logicist program asserts that pure mathematics is fundamentally based on a limited set of logical concepts and principles. Russell emphasizes that two classes are considered to have the same number if there exists a one-to-one correspondence between their elements. This definition aims to establish cardinal integers as a branch of logic, relying on logical constants such as implication and relation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Bertrand Russell's logicist philosophy
  • Familiarity with cardinal numbers and their properties
  • Knowledge of logical constants and their roles in mathematics
  • Concept of one-to-one correspondence in set theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Study Bertrand Russell's "Principia Mathematica" for foundational concepts in logic
  • Explore the implications of cardinality in set theory
  • Research the concept of similar classes and their definitions
  • Examine critiques and interpretations of Russell's definition of number
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematics, philosophers interested in logic, and anyone seeking a deeper understanding of foundational mathematical concepts.

Barbie
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Hi, guys! I am looking for help understanding Russell's definition of a number for a grad math class. Any help will be much appreciated.

I have a paper from class that I can't find online to post here, but this is the actual "definition": (Ignore the circular appearance of the wording)

"The number of a class is the class of all those classes that are similar to it." thus "A number is anything which is the number of some class." -Bertrand Russell

(He is only talking about whole cardinal numbers here of course)

Here is an explanation I found online for you guys since I can't show you my paper:

According to Russell, the goal of the logicist programme is to show that

all pure mathematics deals exclusively with concepts definable in terms of a very small number of fundamental logical concepts, and that all its propositions are deducible from a very small number of fundamental logical principles (Russell 1903: v).

That is to say, pure mathematics is defined as a class of propositions asserting formal implications and containing only logical constants. The logical constants are: implication, the relation of a term to a class of which it is a member, the notion of such that, the notion of relation, and the notions that are involved in formal implication, that is, truth, propositional function, class, denoting, and any or every term (Russell 1903: 106). According to Russell, the above apparatus of general logical notions is sufficient to establish "the whole theory of cardinal integers as a special branch of logic" (Russell 1903: 111). In his view, the "irreproachable" definition of number in purely logical terms is to define number as a class of classes. Two classes have the same number when their terms can be correlated one to one so that anyone term of either class corresponds to one and only one term of the other class. When the two classes have the same number, Russell calls them similar. The number of a class is the class of all classes similar to the given class. The Membership of this class of classes is a common property of all the similar classes and no others (Russell 1903: 115).

*** I did have a spark somewhere in my brain ( :biggrin: ), but I want to hear opinions of others as well. What do you think of this definition? How do you understand it?
__________________
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Barbie said:
Hi, guys! I am looking for help understanding Russell's definition of a number for a grad math class. Any help will be much appreciated.

I have a paper from class that I can't find online to post here, but this is the actual "definition": (Ignore the circular appearance of the wording)

"The number of a class is the class of all those classes that are similar to it." thus "A number is anything which is the number of some class." -Bertrand Russell

(He is only talking about whole cardinal numbers here of course)

Here is an explanation I found online for you guys since I can't show you my paper:

According to Russell, the goal of the logicist programme is to show that

all pure mathematics deals exclusively with concepts definable in terms of a very small number of fundamental logical concepts, and that all its propositions are deducible from a very small number of fundamental logical principles (Russell 1903: v).

That is to say, pure mathematics is defined as a class of propositions asserting formal implications and containing only logical constants. The logical constants are: implication, the relation of a term to a class of which it is a member, the notion of such that, the notion of relation, and the notions that are involved in formal implication, that is, truth, propositional function, class, denoting, and any or every term (Russell 1903: 106). According to Russell, the above apparatus of general logical notions is sufficient to establish "the whole theory of cardinal integers as a special branch of logic" (Russell 1903: 111). In his view, the "irreproachable" definition of number in purely logical terms is to define number as a class of classes. Two classes have the same number when their terms can be correlated one to one so that anyone term of either class corresponds to one and only one term of the other class. When the two classes have the same number, Russell calls them similar. The number of a class is the class of all classes similar to the given class. The Membership of this class of classes is a common property of all the similar classes and no others (Russell 1903: 115).

*** I did have a spark somewhere in my brain ( :biggrin: ), but I want to hear opinions of others as well. What do you think of this definition? How do you understand it?
__________________

Russell's definition is not circular, despite appearances, but only when you succeed in formulating it without resorting to the concept of a number, which is a class of similar classes. Now you need a definition of similar classes, which are any two classes with a one-to-one correspondence between their elements. However, this latter definition still depends on the numbers two (any two classes) and one (one-to-one correspondence). We need a number-free definition of similar classes. But for now this will help you better understand Russell's definition.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
5K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
12K