Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Ordinal identity guarantees structural isomorphism but not cardinality equivalence when cardinal and ordinal number theories are defined independently.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Ordinal identity intrinsically depends on cardinality; two sequences differ ordinally if they assign different sizes to their elements or domains.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The claim conflates notational or formal independence with metaphysical independence; definitions being separate doesn't prevent ordinal facts from constraining cardinality facts.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Ordinal structure (successor relations, ordering) can be preserved across systems while cardinality (set size) varies if definitions operate independently.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The natural numbers exemplify this: ordinal sequence (1,2,3...) remains identical under different set-theoretic constructions with different cardinality criteria.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Independent axiomatic systems can define identity conditions separately, making structural isomorphism sufficient for ordinal equivalence without requiring cardinality matching.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.