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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Pseudo-irrationals do not use the idioms of arithmetic. — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Pseudo-irrationals like π' are 'homeless' numbers.

    Pseudo-irrationals do not use the idioms of arithmetic.

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & 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

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Pseudo-irrationals depend upon the particular incidental notation of a particula...Pseudo-irrationals like π' are 'homeless' numbers.

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Pseudo-irrationals depend upon the particular incidental notation of a...82%The term 'irrational number' should be extended to include lawless and...81%An irrational number is not a unique infinite expansion, but rather a ...80%Lawless and pseudo-irrationals are more like rule-governed irrationals...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: wittgenstein-mathematics
    View source passageHide passage
    Although a pseudo-irrational such as \(\pi '\) (on either definition) is “as unambiguous as … \(\pi\) or \(\sqrt{2}\)” (PG 476), it is ‘homeless’ according to Wittgenstein because, instead of using “the idioms of arithmetic” (PR §186), it is dependent upon the particular ‘incidental’ notation of a particular system (i.e., in some particular base) (PR §188; PR §182; and PG 475). If we speak of various base-notational systems, we might say that \(\pi\) belongs to all systems, while \(\pi '\) belon

    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