Mathematicians modern rigorous definition of number?

What is the mathematicians modern rigorous definition of number ?

thanks

Roger

jcsd
Gold Member
There isn't one!

arildno
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
If there is one, a "number" is an element of a "number system"
A "number system" is some set, associated typically by some "operations" that you can use upon the elements of the set, for example "adding" two of the "numbers" together.

This is my very informal view of this, however..

Zurtex
Homework Helper
roger said:
What is the mathematicians modern rigorous definition of number ?

thanks

Roger
What type of number? A natural number? An integer? A quotient? A real number? A complex number? A hyper-real number? A hyper-complex number? A trans-finite number? A surreal number?...

All of these have different definitions.

Apparently it seems that a number is defined as being an element of some defined set.
It is quite funny that "element" and "number" mean the same thing. So in fact we can define anything we want as a number !

jcsd
Gold Member
hello3719 said:
Apparently it seems that a number is defined as being an element of some defined set.
It is quite funny that "element" and "number" mean the same thing. So in fact we can define anything we want as a number !

Some collection of things whose members we often refer to as numbers are not sets, to give you an example the 'surreal numbers' form a proper class (i.e. they do not form a set).

Element and number are not synonyms; it certainly is not common to call every member of a set (or a class) a number.

I didn't state which kind of number because, I didn't feel that it would ultimately make any difference to the question.

the last comment made is true I guess in the sense that the two words element and number, are equivalent in meaning.

is it wrong to define it as a quantity of things eg apples ?

roger said:
is it wrong to define it as a quantity of things eg apples ?
That definition is misleading. You end up having to twist and distort it to an unrecognizable lump after encountering various number systems. Considering just the negative integers, you then have to modify it by "also an absence of quantity" or some other interpretation. It only goes downhill from there. What quantity does sqrt(-1) measure ? Then you start to redefine quantity until the original statement is meaningless. While all quantities may be described by numbers, not all numbers represent quantities. Some are quite qualitative.

Last edited:
HallsofIvy