[FOM] When is it appropriate to treat isomorphism as identity?
Arnon Avron
aa at tau.ac.il
Fri May 8 14:03:48 EDT 2009
This is a somewhat late addition to the discussion
when is it appropriate to take isomorphism as identity,
caused by coming across another example where
(in my opinion) such an identification is counter-intuitive:
It is not difficult (see Fitting's new book "incompleteness
in the land of sets") to define a p.r. relation E on N
(the natural numbers) so that <N,E> is isomorphic
to the structure <HF,\in> (where HF is the set of hereditarily
finite sets, and \in is the "epsilon" relation). So
presumably <HF,\in> and <N,E> are "identical". On
the other hand <N,E> and the usual standard structure
<N,0,S,+,*> are identical in the same sense that
<N,0,S,+,*> and <N,0,<,S,+,*,> are identical: E is definable
in terms of 0,S,+,*, and vice versa.
So the conclusion should be that <HF,\in> and <N,0,S,+,*>
are "identical". But are they really? I do not think so
(to start with: it is not a trivial mathematical fact
that these two structures are "identical", but
how can one even *formulates* this nontrivial mathematical fact
without distinguishing first between the two structures?).
Another famous, very common identification which
seems to me problematic is that of the Euclidean plane
with R^2 (where R is the "set" of "real" numbers).
The concept of a "real number" was historically
problematic, and in my opinion it still is, since it
depends on the very questionable powerset axiom.
On the other hand (And I know that I am in a minority
here, in the present cultural climate), I agree with Kant
and Frege that we have a direct intuition concerning
the meaning and TRUTH of the theorems of the Euclidean
Geometry. I was never able to persuade myself otherwise
(and the many beautiful pictures I have seen of the
"Mandelbrot set" tell me that so do many mathematicians
and other scientists, at least in some days of the week).
Arnon Avron
More information about the FOM
mailing list