×

Size and function. (English) Zbl 1398.03048

Summary: Are there different sizes of infinity? That is, are there infinite sets of different sizes? This is one of the most natural questions that one can ask about the infinite. But it is of course generally taken to be settled by mathematical results, such as Cantor’s theorem, to the effect that there are infinite sets without bijections (i.e., one-to-one correspondences) between them. These results (which I of course do not dispute) settle the question, given an almost universally accepted principle relating size to the existence of functions. The principle is: for any sets \(A\) and \(B\), if \(A\) is the same size as \(B\), then there is a bijection from \(A\) to \(B\). The aim of the paper, however, is to argue that this question is in fact wide open: to argue that we are not in a position to know the answer, because we are not in one to know the principle. The aim, that is, is to argue that for all we know there is only one size of infinity.

MSC:

03A05 Philosophical and critical aspects of logic and foundations
00A30 Philosophy of mathematics
03E99 Set theory

References:

[1] Benacerraf, P, What numbers could not be, Philosophical Review, 74, 47-73, (1965) · doi:10.2307/2183530
[2] Bolzano, B. (1851). Paradoxes of the infinite (D. A. Steele, 1950, Trans.). New Haven: Yale University Press. · Zbl 1328.01070
[3] Gödel, K. (1964). What is Cantor’s continuum problem? In S. Feferman et al. (Eds) Collected works: Volume II, Publications 1938-1974 (1990, pp. 254-270). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[4] Hale, B., & Wright, C. (2001). The reason’s proper study: Essays towards a neo-Fregean philosophy of mathematics. Oxford: Clarendon Press. · Zbl 1005.03006 · doi:10.1093/0198236395.001.0001
[5] Hallett, M. (1984). Cantorian set theory and limitation of size. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
[6] Mancosu, P, Measuring the size of infinite collections of natural numbers: was cantor’s theory of the infinite inevitable?, Review of Symbolic Logic, 2, 612-646, (2009) · Zbl 1204.03003 · doi:10.1017/S1755020309990128
[7] Parker, M; Kerkove, B (ed.), Philosophical method and galileo’s paradox of infinity, 76-113, (2009), Hackensack
[8] Rayo, A. (2013). The construction of logical space. Oxford: Oxford University Press. · Zbl 1320.03003 · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199662623.001.0001
[9] Whittle, B. (2015). On infinite size. In Oxford studies in metaphysics: Volume 9 (pp. 3-19). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[10] Wright, C. (1983). Frege’s conception of numbers as objects. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press. · Zbl 0524.03005
[11] Wright, C. (1997). On the philosophical significance of Frege’s theorem. In Hale and Wright (2001) (pp. 272-306). · Zbl 0938.03508
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.