FOM: Equivalence classes as objects
Moshe' Machover
moshe.machover at kcl.ac.uk
Sat Aug 1 07:16:02 EDT 1998
I hope that--being a layman as far as history of maths is concerned--I will
be forgiven for raising a simple question which, I am sure, the HOM
professionals can answer without difficulty.
In present-day maths, a routine step has the following general form.
(*) Given an equivalence relation R on a class A, we wish to assign to each
x in A an object x* such that, for all x and y in A, x* = y* iff xRy.
The routine reductionist step is to define x* as the equivalence class of x
mod R.
The earliest example of this I have come across is Frege's definition of
number. (I am aware that I am being a little imprecise here, but I think it
is near enough.)
Formerly, when faced with a problem of the form (*), the standard practice
was to _invent_ primitive entities of a new sort and assign one such new
entity to each equivalent class. I believe that this is what Cantor and
Dedekind used to do. And if I am not mistaken v. Staudt's definition of
_direction_ also follows this pattern (where R is the relation of
parallelism).
My question is: who was the first to use the reductionist ploy of using the
equivalence classes _themselves_ as the required objects x*.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% Moshe' Machover | E-MAIL: moshe.machover at kcl.ac.uk %%
%% Department of Philosophy | FAX (office)*: +44 171 873 2270 %%
%% King's College, London | PHONE (home)*: +44 181 969 5356 %%
%% Strand | %%
%% London WC2R 2LS | * If calling from UK, replace %%
%% England | +44 by 0 %%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
More information about the FOM
mailing list