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
    Natural numbers are not sets. — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Natural numbers are not sets.

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    0 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Account I and Account II are both incorrect reductions of natural numbers to sets.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Similar considerations emerge from comparing other reasonable-looking attempts to reduce natural numbers to sets.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If no reduction of natural numbers to sets succeeds, then natural numbers are not sets.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    Account I and Account II are both incorrect reductions of natural numbers to set...If no reduction of natural numbers to sets succeeds, then natural numbers are no...Similar considerations emerge from comparing other reasonable-looking attempts t...

    Similar

    Rational numbers and real numbers are not sets.92%Natural numbers are not sets, as established by the failure of all rea...91%V is not a set87%If no reduction of natural numbers to sets succeeds, then natural numb...84%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: philosophy-mathematics
    View source passageHide passage
    The proper conclusion to draw from this conundrum appears to be that neither account I nor account II is correct. Since similar considerations would emerge from comparing other reasonable-looking attempts to reduce natural numbers to sets, it appears that natural numbers are not sets after all. It is clear, moreover, that a similar argument can be formulated for the rational numbers, the real numbers… Benacerraf concludes that they, too, are not sets at all.
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

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