The Philosophy of Mathematics Today

By Matthias Schirn | Go to book overview
Save to active project

the Bs; it is the existence of that map that constitutes the coincidence of their referents, so that the identification of those referents plays no role in the determination of the truth or falsity of the sentence. Wright has given no reason whatever to suppose that it will play a role in the determination of the truth or falsity of other sentences, and the presumption is that it will not. Until this very large lacuna is filled, Wright's argument for lemmas (1) and (2) carries no weight.


APPENDIX ON THE TERM 'HUME'S PRINCIPLE'

I wish to add a protest against the use of the name ' Hume's Principle', popularized by George Boolos and adopted from him by Richard Heck, William Demopoulos, Matthias Schirn, and others, though sparingly used by Crispin Wright in the present paper, where he prefers his earlier appellation 'N='. There are two grounds for the protest.

First, Frege's ascription of the principle to Hume in Grundlagen, §63, is surely little more than a joke. The sentence he quotes from Hume--'When two numbers are so combined that the one has always an unit answering to every unit of the other, we pronounce them equal'--is very vague. Moreover, it has to do with units, not with objects falling under a concept. Hume evidently regarded numbers as collections of units, a conception Frege utterly repudiated.

Secondly, the term ' Hume's Principle' blurs a vital distinction between two quite distinct principles:

(1) the definition of 'just as many . . . as' (of 'equinumerous'): There are just as many Fs as Gs iff there is a one-one map of the Fs on to the Gs

and

(2) the equivalence (EN)--the abstraction principle proper: The number of Fs = the number of Gs iff there are just as many Fs as Gs.

Admittedly, in §63 of Grundlagen, Frege himself blurs the distinction between (1) and (2); but that is no good reason for his commentators to follow him in this, since the two principles are essentially distinct, so that either of them could be accepted while the other was rejected. §63 is a purely preliminary paragraph, and, as soon as Frege treats of the matter in any detail, he keeps (1) and (2) distinct. (1) appears as a definition in §72; (2) as a theorem in §73. (Admittedly, Frege does not keep them so clearly apart in Grundgesetze, where he is less concerned with the justification of his definitions.)

When principles (1) and (2) are distinguished, it becomes at once apparent that the sentence Frege quoted from Hume expresses neither of them. It is not, as it stands, about when it is right to say that there are just as many things of one kind as of another, but about equality of numbers, implicitly taken to be objects. From it

-386-

Notes for this page

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this page

Cited page

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited page

Bookmark this page
The Philosophy of Mathematics Today
Table of contents

Table of contents

Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this book

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen
/ 646

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?