Radical Contingentism, or; Why Not Even Numbers Exist Necessarily

Author(s):  
Peter Simons

Bob Hale championed the view that some objects exist of necessity, most prominently, mathematical objects like numbers. In contrast, this chapter upholds radical contingentism, the view that no object exists necessarily, and seeks to undermine the idea that the best possible candidates for necessary existence, the natural numbers, exist necessarily, despite there being in fact many contingent objects. Even the best neo-Fregean arguments for the existence of natural numbers depend on assumptions a nominalist may reject. A positive account of cardinalities as belonging to multitudes shows that every finite cardinality is exemplified only if there are two or more individuals, but that there are at least two individuals is not a necessary truth. Hence, even if numbers were admitted to abstract existence contingently upon their being exemplified—which the chapter denies—they would not exist necessarily.

Author(s):  
Harold Hodes

A reducibility is a relation of comparative computational complexity (which can be made precise in various non-equivalent ways) between mathematical objects of appropriate sorts. Much of recursion theory concerns such relations, initially between sets of natural numbers (in so-called classical recursion theory), but later between sets of other sorts (in so-called generalized recursion theory). This article considers only the classical setting. Also Turing first defined such a relation, now called Turing- (or just T-) reducibility; probably most logicians regard it as the most important such relation. Turing- (or T-) degrees are the units of computational complexity when comparative complexity is taken to be T-reducibility.


2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-30
Author(s):  
Joshua Rasmussen ◽  

Author(s):  
Juan Pablo Ramírez

We provide an axiomatic base for the set of natural numbers, that has been proposed as a canonical construction, and use this definition of $\mathbb N$ to find several results on finite group theory. Every finite group $G$, is well represented with a natural number $N_G$; if $N_G=N_H$ then $H,G$ are in the same isomorphism class. We have a linear order on all finite groups, that is well behaved with respect to cardinality. In fact, if $H,G$ are two finite groups such that $|H|=m<n=|G|$, then $H<\mathbb Z_n\leq G$. Internally, there is also a canonical order for the elements of any finite group $G$, and we find equivalent objects. This allows us to find the automorphisms of $G$. The Cayley table of $G$ takes canonical block form, and a minimal set of independent equations that define the group is obtained. Examples are given, using all groups with less than ten elements, to illustrate the procedure for finding all groups of $n$ elements, and we order them externally and internally. The canonical block form of the symmetry group $\Delta_4$ is given and we find its automorphisms. These results are extended to the infinite case. A real number is an infinite set of natural numbers. A real function is a set of real numbers, and a sequence of real functions $f_1,f_2,\ldots$ is well represented by a set of real numbers, also. We make brief mention on the calculus of real numbers. In general, we are able to represent mathematical objects using the smallest possible data-type. In the last section, mathematical objects of all types are well assigned to tree structures. We conclude with comments on type theory and future work on computational and physical aspects of these representations.


2020 ◽  
pp. 213-224
Author(s):  
Bob Hale

If fundamental mathematical theories such as arithmetic and analysis are taken at face value, any attempt to provide an epistemological foundation—roughly, an account which explains how we can know standard mathematical theories to be true, or at least justifiably believe them—must confront the problem of mathematical objects—the problem of explaining how a belief in the existence of an infinity of natural numbers, an uncountable infinity of real numbers, etc., is to be justified. One small but fundamental part of the problem is discussed: whether we can be justified in believing that there is a denumerable infinity of natural numbers, or, more generally, an infinity of objects of any kind. The chapter considers two broad approaches to this problem—what are called object-based and property-based approaches.


Author(s):  
Juan Ramirez

We provide an axiomatic base for the set of natural numbers, that has been proposed as a canonical construction, and use this definition of $\mathbb N$ to find several results on finite group theory. Every finite group $G$, is well represented with a natural number $N_G$; if $N_G=N_H$ then $H,G$ are in the same isomorphism class. We have a linear order on all finite groups, that is well behaved with respect to cardinality. In fact, if $H,G$ are two finite groups such that $|H|=m<n=|G|$, then $H<\mathbb Z_n\leq G$. There is also a canonical order for the elements of $G$ and we can define equivalent objects of $G$. This allows us to find the automorphisms of $G$. The Cayley table of $G$ takes canonical block form, and a minimal set of independent equations that define the group is obtained. We show how to find all groups of order $n$, and order them. Examples are given using all groups with order smaller than $10$. The canonical block form of the symmetry group $\Delta_4$ is given and we find its automorphisms. These results are extended to the infinite case. A real number is an infinite set of natural numbers. A real function is a set of real numbers, and a sequence of real functions $f_1,f_2,\ldots$ is well represented by a set of real numbers, as well. We make brief comments on treating the calculus of real numbers. In general, we represent mathematical objects using the smallest possible data-type. In the last section, mathematical objects are well assigned to tree structures. We conclude with brief comments on type theory and future work on computational and physical aspects of these representations.


Author(s):  
Juan Pablo Ramirez

We provide a construction of natural numbers that is unique with respect to other constructions, and use this construction in the domain of algebra and finite functions to find several results in finite group theory. First, we give a linear order to the set of all finite functions. This gives a linear order in the subset of all finite permutations. To do this, we assign a unique natural number, $N_f$, to every finite function $f$. The sub order on permutations is well defined with respect to cardinality; if $\eta_m,\eta_n$ are permutations on $m<n$ objects, then $N_{\eta_m}<N_{\eta_n}$. This representation also has the characteristic $N_{\textbf{1}_n}<N_{\eta}<N_{\textbf{id}_n}$ where $\textbf{1}_n$ is the one-cycle permutation of $n$ objects, $\textbf{id}_n$ is the identity permutation of $n$ objects, and $\eta$ is any permutation of $n$ objects. This representation provides a good definition of equivalent functions, and equivalent objects on functions. We are able to do this for both concrete functions, and abstract functions. We use this in the main section, on group theory, to number the set of all finite groups. We are able to well represent every finite group as a natural number; two groups are represented by the same natural number if and only if they are in the same isomorphism class. In fact, we are able to give a linear order to the set of finite groups. Specifically, we give a canonical bijective function $\textbf{G}_{Fin}\rightarrow\mathbb N$. This representation, $N_G$, of $G$, is also well behaved with respect to cardinality. Additionally, the cyclic group $\mathbb Z_n$ has smaller representation than any group of $n$ objects, and the group with largest representation is the abelian group $\mathbb Z_{p_1}^{n_1}\oplus\mathbb Z_{p_2}^{n_2}\oplus\cdots\oplus\mathbb Z_{p_k}^{n_k}$, where $n=p_1^{n_1}p_2^{n_2}\cdots p_{k}^{n_k}$ is the prime factorization of $n$. This representation of a finite group as a natural number also provides a linear order to the elements of the group, arranging its Cayley table in a canonical block form. The last section is an introductory description of real numbers as infinite sets of natural numbers. Real functions are represented as sets of real numbers, and sequences of real functions $f_1,f_2,\ldots$ are well represented by sets of real numbers, as well. In the last section we well assign mathematical objects to tree structures and conclude with some brief comments on type theory and future work. In general we are able to represent and manipulate mathematical objects with the smallest possible type, and minimum complexity.


Author(s):  
Juan Pablo Ramirez

We provide an axiomatic base for the set of natural numbers, that has been proposed as a canonical construction, and use this definition of $\mathbb N$ to find several results on finite group theory. Every finite group $G$, is well represented with a natural number $N_G$; if $N_G=N_H$ then $H,G$ are in the same isomorphism class. We have a linear order, on the quotient space of isomorphism classes of finite groups, that is well behaved with respect to cardinality. If $H,G$ are two finite groups such that $|H|=m<n=|G|$, then $H<\mathbb Z_n\leq G\leq\mathbb Z_{p_1}^{n_1}\oplus\mathbb Z_{p_2}^{n_2}\oplus\cdots\oplus\mathbb Z_{p_k}^{n_k}$ where $n=p_1^{n_1}p_2^{n_2}\cdots p_{k}^{n_k}$ is the prime factorization of $n$. We find a canonical order for the objects of $G$ and define equivalent objects of $G$, thus finding the automorphisms of $G$. The Cayley table of $G$ takes canonical block form, and we are provided with a minimal set of independent equations that define the group. We show how to find all groups of order $n$, and order them. We give examples using all groups with order smaller than $10$, and we find the canonical block form of the symmetry group $\Delta_4$. In the next section, we extend our results to the infinite case, which defines a real number as an infinite set of natural numbers. A real function is a set of real numbers, and a sequence of real functions $f_1,f_2,\ldots$ is well represented by a set of real numbers, as well. In general, we represent mathematical objects using the smallest possible data-type. In the last section, mathematical objects are well assigned to tree structures. We conclude with brief comments on type theory and future work on computational aspects of these representations.


1955 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 151-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clifford Spector

Cantor's second ordinal number class is perhaps the simplest example of a set of mathematical objects which cannot all be named in one language. In this paper we shall investigate a system of names for a segment of the first and second number classes in relation to decision problems. The system, except for one minor difference, is the one studied by Markwald in [12]. In our system ordinals are named by natural numbers from a set W via recursive well-orderings of subsets of the natural numbers.The decision problems will be related to the hyperarithmetical hierarchy of Davis [2], [3] and Kleene [8]. This hierarchy is indexed by ordinal notations from Kleene's system S3 [4], [6], [9], in which ordinals are named by natural numbers from a set O, partially well-ordered ([12] p. 138) by a relation a≤Ob; O and ≤O are defined inductively by applications of the successor and limit operations. As results of this investigation, we shall (i) answer negatively Markwald's question [12] Theorem 12 whether his set “W” is arithmetical by showing that it is not even hyperarithmetical, (ii) obtain a new proof of the main result of Kleene [10] that every predicate expressible in both the one-function-quantifier forms of [8] is recursive in Hα for some aεO, (iii) answer affirmatively the question raised by Davis [2], [3] whether all the Church-Kleene constructive ordinals are uniqueness ordinals, and (iv) solve the function-quantifier analog of Post's problem [15]. Strong use will be made of the well-orderings that can be constructed from one-function-quantifier predicates as in [9].


Author(s):  
Fraser MacBride

The properties and relations that perform a role in mathematical reasoning arise from the basic relations that obtain among mathematical objects. It is in terms of these basic relations that mathematicians identify the objects they intend to study. The way in which mathematicians identify these objects has led some philosophers to draw metaphysical conclusions about their nature. These philosophers have been led to claim that mathematical objects are positions in structures or akin to positions in patterns. This article retraces their route from (relatively uncontroversial) facts about the identification of mathematical objects to high metaphysical conclusions. Beginning with the natural numbers, how are they identified? The mathematically significant properties and relations of natural numbers arise from the successor function that orders them; the natural numbers are identified simply as the objects that answer to this basic function. But the relations (or functions) that are used to identify a class of mathematical objects may often be defined over what appear to be different kinds of objects.


1982 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 359-387 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vladimir Lifschitz

We distinguish between two kinds of mathematical assertions: objective and constructive. An objective assertion describes the universe of mathematical objects; a constructive one describes the (idealized) mathematician's ability to find mathematical objects with various properties. The familiar formalizations of classical mathematics are based on formal languages designed for expressing objective assertions only. The constructivist program stresses, on the contrary, the importance of constructive assertions; moreover, intuitionism claims that constructive activities of the mind constitute the very subject matter of mathematics, and thus questions the semantic status of objective assertions.The purpose of this paper is to show that classical mathematics can be extended to include constructive sentences, so that both objective and constructive properties can be discussed in the framework of the same theory. To achieve this goal, we introduce a new property of mathematical objects, calculability.The word “calculable” may be applied to objects of various types: natural numbers, integers, rational or real numbers, polynomials with rational or real coefficients, etc. In each case it has a different meaning, so that actually we define not one, but many new properties.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document