FOM: numbers
Neil Tennant
neilt at hums62.cohums.ohio-state.edu
Sun Oct 26 21:26:36 EST 1997
Moshe' Machover's response to Martin Davis in connection with my proposed
adequacy condition on a theory of natural numbers was right on the mark.
The philosophical and technical interest (hence, one can assume?:) foundational
interest of the condition is that it prompts an investigation of how *modest*
a theory can meet it. Modesty can come from being *logically elementary* in
some suitable sense, and *ontologically parsimonious*.
Sure, one can opt for equivalence classes (or sets within them as their
'representatives') if one likes; but then one buys into all the set-theoretic
machinery, which (for natural numbers) is to take a hammer to a walnut.
By contrast, it seems to me that the absolutely minimal theory meeting the
proposed condition is one that involves grafting *just the numbers themselves*
onto one's existing ontology (if it does not already contain the numbers).
The numerals refer to numbers; and so do some of the expressions of the form
#xF(x) [the number of Fs] which denote a number n just in case there are
exactly n Fs.
In my own investigation of what I called 'constructive logicism', I found that
the adequacy condition could be met by using a "schematic second order" logic
in which all proofs were both constructive and relevant. It is also a free
logic, cateriing for the possibility that a term of the form #xF(x) might be
non-denoting (because, say, there are infinitely many Fs and one has
constructivistic reservations about committing oneself to "the number of Fs"
in such a case).
That is not to say that one cannot *extend* the theory to take account of
infinite numbers if one wishes; it is only to say that one can deal with
*natural* numbers with a logic and a mathematical ontology falling way short
of what the modern mathematician, so well versed in ZF, takes for granted.
It is a salutary exercise to step back and examine just how much excess baggage
might be lurking in the Bourbaki bandwagon when it comes to natural numbers!
Neil Tennant
More information about the FOM
mailing list