[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 16:13:15 -0600
Message-id: <p06230901c3d1313cb742@[]>
At 4:54 PM -0500 2/7/08, John F. Sowa wrote:
>Pat and Chris,
>I agree with the following point:
>PH> But my main point is that in order to maintain a coherent
>  > strict-finitist position one does need to consider arguments/
>  > debates like this and to think hard about the consequences
>  > of various positions. Its not enough to just announce as
>  > an obvious doctrine that infinity is wrong; still less to
>  > seem to link conventional mathematics to some kind of dark
>  > political conspiracy. Mathematicians tend to be Platonists
>  > because they are driven to it by following chains of thought
>  > which seem to be inevitable and conclusive. If you want to
>  > announce an alternative, you have to tell us where the less
>  > travelled paths branch off the mathematical highway.
>But I would claim that the view held by nearly all mathematicians
>until the latter part of the 19th century is coherent:  Infinity
>is a limit, not something that can be attained as a completed
>mathematical entity.    (01)

Attained? We don't need to attain it in order to 
speak of it. Obviously there is a sense in which 
no infinity can be 'attained' in a finite 
universe.    (02)

>In other words, one can accept the point that there is no upper
>bound on the size of any integer, but the only sets that are
>legitimate objects of mathematical investigation are finite.
>That view is quite coherent, and nearly every mathematician
>accepted it as dogma in the first half of the 19th century.
>The dominant view about points in those days was the approach
>advocated by Aristotle and Euclid:  a point is a designated
>locus on a line, plane, or volume, not a "part" of the line,
>plane, or volume.  There is no upper bound on the number of
>points that a mathematician might designate on a line, plane,
>or volume, but it is not permissible to talk about the totality
>of all the points that one could designate -- because that is
>infinite, and not admissible as an object of mathematical
>CM> ... which of course means that there are infinitely
>  > many finite integers, and hence that there is a set that
>  > contains them...
>Wait!  A 19th century mathematician would agree with the first
>point, but restate it without using the phrases "infinitely many"
>or "set of integers".  As examples of "correct" 19th century
>mathematical English, one could say:
>   1. There is no largest integer.
>   2. Any nonempty set of integers has a largest integer.  (Note that
>      this is true because all early-19th-century sets were finite.)
>   3. There is no largest set of integers.  (Follows from #1 and #2.)
>CM> ...  and hence that there is a set that contains them, hence
>  > a power set of that set, and off we go down the Cantorian bunny
>  > trail!  You may not like where that leads, but it is very hard
>  > to argue that there is a nonarbitrary point at which you can stop
>  > that line of reasoning.
>No, there is a natural stopping point:  only those sets that can be
>constructed in a finite number of steps.    (03)

That is circular. Ack(Ack(5,5),5) can be 
constructed in a finite number of steps. Numbers 
so large that to write out their decimal 
expansion would take more than the information 
capacity of the known universe can still be 
constructed in a finite number of steps. This is 
a real problem, even for 19th century 
mathematics. In fact, it was from wrestling with 
problems like this that 20th century mathematics 
emerged.    (04)

Finitism seems much more intuitive when dealing 
with very large numbers than when dealing with 
very small ones, ie their reciprocals. If all our 
series have to be finite and we cannot talk of 
limits, it becomes impossible to give an adequate 
foundation for calculus, for example. On the 
whole, I think that the mathematicians have done 
a fairly good job and we would all be better off 
leaving it to them, and focusing on matters of 
more direct importance to our engineering.    (05)

>I'm not saying that I'm advocating the 19th c. position, but it is
>quite coherent    (06)

Its reasonably coherent but it breaks down at the edges.    (07)

Pat    (08)

>, and I can sympathize with people who feel uneasy
>about infinite sets.  There is no reason why they must accept them
>in their ontology if they don't want to.
>However, even Euclid would accept statements #1, #2, and #3 above.
>It's important to note that Euclid does not imply Cantor.
>Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ 
>Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ 
>Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>    (09)

IHMC            (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.    (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                       (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                        (850)291 0667    cell
http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes      phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us
http://www.flickr.com/pathayes/collections    (010)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (011)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>