Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T13:03:13.123Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Type reducing correspondences and well-orderings: Frege's and Zermelo's constructions re-examined

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

J. L. Bell
J. L. Bell*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario N6A 3K7, Canada, E-mail: jbell@julian.uwo.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A key idea in both Frege's development of arithmetic in the Grundlagen [7] and Zermelo's 1904 proof [10] of the well-ordering theorem is that of a “type reducing” correspondence between second-level and first-level entities. In Frege's construction, the correspondence obtains between concept and number, in Zermelo's (through the axiom of choice), between set and member. In this paper, a formulation is given and a detailed investigation undertaken of a system ℱ of many-sorted first-order logic (first outlined in the Appendix to [6]) in which this notion of type reducing correspondence is accorded a central role and which enables Frege's and Zermelo's constructions to be presented in such a way as to reveal their essential similarity. By adapting Bourbaki's version of Zermelo's proof of the well-ordering theorem, we show that, within ℱ, any correspondence c between second-level entities (here called concepts) and first-level ones (here called objects) induces a well-ordering relation W (c) in a canonical manner. We shall see that, when c is the “Fregean” correspondence between concepts and cardinal numbers, W (c) is (the well-ordering of) the ordinal ω + 1, and when c is a “Zermelian” choice function on concepts, W (c) is a well-ordering of the universal concept embracing all objects.

In ℱ an important role is played by the notion of extension of a concept. To each concept X we assume there is assigned an object e(X) in such a way that, for any concepts X, Y satisfying a certain predicate E, we have e (X) = e (Y) iff the same objects fall under X and Y.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 60 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 209 - 221
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Bell, J. L., Hilbert's epsilon-operator and classical logic, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 22 (1993), pp. 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Boolos, G., Saving Frege from contradiction, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, vol. 87 (1987), pp. 137–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Boolos, G., The standard of equality of numbers, Meaning and method: essays in honor of Hilary Putnam (Boolos, G., editor), University Press, Cambridge, 1990, pp. 261–277.Google Scholar
[4]Boolos, G., The advantages of honest toil over theft, Mathematics and mind (George, Alexander, editor), Oxford University Press, New York, 1994, pp. 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Bourbaki, N., Théorie des ensembles, 2nd ed., Hermann, Paris, 1963.Google Scholar
[6]Demopoulos, W. and Bell, J. L., Frege's theory of concepts and objects and the interpretation of second order logic, Philosophia Mathematica, ser. 3, vol. 1 (1993), pp. 139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Frege, G., Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik, Breslau, 1884; English translation (by J. L. Austin), The foundations of arithmetic, Northwestern University Press, Evanston, Illinois, 1980.Google Scholar
[8]Hallett, M. F., Cantorian set theory and limitation of size. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1984.Google Scholar
[9]Potter, M. D., Sets: an introduction, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1990.Google Scholar
[10]Zermelo, E., Beweis, dass jede Menge wohlgeordnet weden kann, Mathematische Annalen, vol. 59, 1904, pp. 514–516; English translation, From Frege to Gödel, a source book in mathematical logic, (J. van Heijenoort, editor), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachussetts, 1967, pp. 139–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar