Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Defining R requires set theory — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Truth & Knowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Even from a limited viewpoint, having enough set theory for ordered pairs of integers and the definition of R yields the partition R induces

    Defining R requires set theory

    Truth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Truth & Knowledge

    Connections

    2 topics

    Modality & Possibility1 linkedPersonal Identity1 linked

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Truth & Knowledge
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Related

    Even from a limited viewpoint, having enough set theory for ordered pairs of int...Ordered pairs of integers require set theorySet theory sufficient for these also yields the induced partition

    Similar

    A contemporary Millian must take set theory to be about ordinary physi...83%Ordered pairs of integers require set theory83%The Continuum Hypothesis is a solved problem in set theory.80%ZFC is a non-structural set theory79%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: identity-relative
    View source passageHide passage
    The first thing to notice about this example is that E cannot be the I-predicable of such a theory, since \(E\) is defined in terms of identity (look at the right side of R). It is ‘=’ that must serve as the \(I\)-predicable, and it renders distinct ordered pairs of integers discernible. The moral is that not all equivalence relations can be drafted to do the job of identity, even given a limited ideology. There is, indeed, a plausible argument that any equivalence relation presupposes identity

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective