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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Real numbers like √2 are defined by Dedekind cuts, which partition the rationals without requiring any independent measuring capacity.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Dedekind cuts define reals *in terms of* rationals, but this doesn't explain why rationals themselves have the ordering properties cuts depend on.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Claiming Dedekind cuts require no 'measuring capacity' conflates mathematical definition with metaphysical existence—definition alone doesn't establish what √2 *is*.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The construction is circular: we justify reals by appeal to rational structure, yet the entire framework presupposes intuitions about infinite ordered sets.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Dedekind cuts are purely relational structures over rationals, requiring no reference to physical measurement or geometric intuition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This construction explains why √2 exists mathematically without presupposing it as a pre-existing entity independent of rational order.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The approach unifies real numbers within set theory, avoiding mysterious 'gaps' that seem to require extra-mathematical grounding.
      ?

      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.