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
    Real numbers cannot be defined using Dedekindian classes ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Mathematical analysis would collapse if the axiom of reducibility is abandoned.

    Real numbers cannot be defined using Dedekindian classes without the axiom of reducibility.

    Philosophy of LanguageProof of definition segments
    ?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 LanguageProof of definition segments

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge2 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Mathematical analysis depends on the definition of real numbers via such classes...Mathematical analysis would collapse if the axiom of reducibility is abandoned.

    Similar

    Real numbers cannot be defined using Dedekindian classes of rational n...94%The axiom of reducibility is required in Principia Mathematica to allo...85%Without the axiom of reducibility, the ramified type hierarchy prevent...79%The proof that the principle of Induction can be derived without the a...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: principia-mathematica
    View source passageHide passage
    In the appendix B to the second edition of PM, which was written by Russell, there is a technical discussion of the consequences of abandoning the axiom of reducibility. A faulty proof is proposed to show that the principle of Induction can be derived without using the axiom of reducibilty in a modified theory of types (see Linsky 2011). As Russell points out, however, it is not possible to define real numbers using “Dedekindian” classes of rational numbers without assuming the axiom of reducibi

    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