Higher Set Theory – Cantorian Sets / Large Cardinals in the Infinite

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the conceptual incoherence of the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms with the Axiom of Choice (ZFC) in relation to Cantorian set theory and Platonism. Participants argue that ZFC fails to adequately encapsulate Cantor's contributions to mathematics, as outlined by Peter Fletcher in "Truth, Proof and Infinity." Fletcher's objections to ZFC include its treatment of sets as collections and the limitations imposed by size views. The conversation highlights the philosophical implications of ZFC's inability to be proven consistent or inconsistent, questioning its validity as a foundation for set theory.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms with Axiom of Choice (ZFC)
  • Familiarity with Cantorian set theory
  • Knowledge of mathematical Platonism
  • Awareness of foundational issues in set theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the implications of the Axiom of Choice in set theory
  • Investigate Peter Fletcher's arguments in "Truth, Proof and Infinity"
  • Study alternative set theories beyond ZFC
  • Examine the philosophical debates surrounding mathematical Platonism
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, philosophy of mathematics scholars, and students of set theory seeking to understand the foundational debates surrounding ZFC and Cantorian sets.

heff001
Messages
30
Reaction score
1
Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms - the Axiom of Choice (ZFC), is conceptually incoherent. To me, they stole Cantor’s brilliant work and minimized it. Replies?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You might want to expand on your point. It is completely opaque as stated.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: heff001
>Cantor's work and Platonism
Platonism about mathematics (or mathematical platonism) is the metaphysical view that there are abstract mathematical objects whose existence is independent of us and our language, thought, and practices. Just as electrons and planets exist independently of us, so do 'numbers and sets'.

>ZFC is a refutation of Platonist set theory in general
Set-theoretic intuition, as formalized in the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms with the axiom of choice (ZFC), is conceptually incoherent.

Ref.
Truth, Proof and Infinity pp 13-23 | Peter Fletcher

Peter Fletcher lists the objections to the use of each below as a foundation for ZFC:

(1) sets as consistent multiplicities or multiplicities considered as unities
(2) sets as collections
(3) sets as classes, in the sense of extensionalized properties
(4) the limitation of size view
(5) the iterative conception of sets
(6) sets as an extrapolation from finite sets of physical objects
(7) sets obtained by a transition from potential to actual infinityIs Fletcher correct in doing so?

I am a student of Cantor right now and studying all he did between the nervous breakdowns...
I am totally puzzled by ZFC wording, purpose, the notion that Cantor's work can simply be captured in ZFC.
 
Any reply?
 
It looks to me like you are asking about something that's a matter of opinion, not mathematical proof. As far as mathematical proof goes, we already know that ZFC cannot be proven to be consistent, nor can it be proven to be inconsistent. Whether ZFC captures your "intuitions about sets" is not a matter of mathematical proof, since "intuitions" can't be formalized--if they could be, they wouldn't be intuitions.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sysprog
Perfect. Brilliant. Thank You.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
666
Replies
11
Views
10K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K