Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 9:34 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Mathematicians who are finitists.
#91
RE: Mathematicians who are finitists.
Why not accept Rosen's definition (page 127), "A set is said to be infinite if it is not finite." Seems reasonable to me, especially in light of Cantor's diagonalization proof (page 183) that the cardinality of some infinite sets is greater than others.
Reply
#92
RE: Mathematicians who are finitists.
(July 9, 2019 at 1:34 pm)A Toy Windmill Wrote:
(July 9, 2019 at 9:56 am)polymath257 Wrote: After thinking a bit, this does not quite prove the convergence since you need to show that
|x_n^2 -2|<eps for ALL n>=p where p is that smallest exponent.

Is there a finitistic definition that gets around this issue?
Yes, you're right, but that use of a quantifier is still legal.

n >= p implies that |x_n^2 - 2| <= 1/2^n <= 1/2^p < ε.

OK, so this particular unbounded quantifier is allowed? Why is that? Are quantifiers of the form
for all n>=p, P(n)
allowed?
If so, take p=1 and we have quantification over all of N.

(July 9, 2019 at 2:29 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Why not accept Rosen's definition (page 127), "A set is said to be infinite if it is not finite."  Seems reasonable to me, especially in light of Cantor's diagonalization proof (page 183) that the cardinality of some infinite sets is greater than others.

A good definition, but in a purely finitistic world, there are no infinite sets. We cannot even talk about the set of natural numbers, let alone the set of real numbers, so the diagonalization argument can't even be started.

Once you accept that there *is* a set of real numbers, then you can do the Cantor trick. But it is an *axiom* that there even exists an infinite set. Without that axiom (which the finitists reject), there may only be finite sets.
Reply
#93
RE: Mathematicians who are finitists.
(July 10, 2019 at 4:55 am)polymath257 Wrote: OK, so this particular unbounded quantifier is allowed? Why is that? Are quantifiers of the form
for all n>=p, P(n)
allowed?
Quantifiers are allowed if they're all outermost. Such quantifiers are then dropped, and you're left with a statement that just has free variables.

When every statement in every proof has this form, you can treat them all as schema or templates. That means that, for my proof above, if someone has concrete numerals for the numerator and denominator of ε, I can plug them in and run that proof down to applied axiom schemes for primitive recursive arithmetic.

I can't do this if quantifiers ever appear left of an implication, as in, say, the principle of mathematical induction:

for any property P, if P holds of 0, and holding of n implies holding of (n+1), then P holds for all natural numbers.

Primitive recursive arithmetic cannot have this as an axiom, because the quantifier position is illegal. Instead, it takes induction as an inference rule.
Reply
#94
RE: Mathematicians who are finitists.
(July 10, 2019 at 4:55 am)polymath257 Wrote: Once you accept that there *is* a set of real numbers, then you can do the Cantor trick. But it is an *axiom* that there even exists an infinite set. Without that axiom (which the finitists reject), there may only be finite sets.

Without axioms, there is no mathematics.
Reply
#95
RE: Mathematicians who are finitists.
(July 10, 2019 at 7:55 am)Jehanne Wrote:
(July 10, 2019 at 4:55 am)polymath257 Wrote: Once you accept that there *is* a set of real numbers, then you can do the Cantor trick. But it is an *axiom* that there even exists an infinite set. Without that axiom (which the finitists reject), there may only be finite sets.

Without axioms, there is no mathematics.

Yes, precisely. So the question is *which* axioms. How do we choose the axioms? And it seems different people have different opinions on how to choose.
Reply
#96
RE: Mathematicians who are finitists.
(July 10, 2019 at 8:34 am)polymath257 Wrote:
(July 10, 2019 at 7:55 am)Jehanne Wrote: Without axioms, there is no mathematics.

Yes, precisely. So the question is *which* axioms. How do we choose the axioms? And it seems different people have different opinions on how to choose.

Ultimately, consensus among experts. I doubt that finitism even has a chapter in any number theory, abstract alebgra or complex analysis textbook, but, I admit that I could be wrong on this one.
Reply
#97
RE: Mathematicians who are finitists.
(July 10, 2019 at 8:19 pm)Jehanne Wrote:
(July 10, 2019 at 8:34 am)polymath257 Wrote: Yes, precisely. So the question is *which* axioms. How do we choose the axioms? And it seems different people have different opinions on how to choose.

Ultimately, consensus among experts.  I doubt that finitism even has a chapter in any number theory, abstract alebgra or complex analysis textbook, but, I admit that I could be wrong on this one.

Well, I wouldn't expect to see much about finitism in such textbooks. I have, however, seen good discussions in introductory books on axiomatic set theory and the issues come up extensively in proof theory. Kunen's book on the Foundations of Mathemtics talks quite a bit about finitism, formalism, and Platonism in the context of introductory set theory. The point is that the meta-theory used to discuss proofs tends to be finitistic by nature.
Reply
#98
RE: Mathematicians who are finitists.
(July 11, 2019 at 2:52 am)polymath257 Wrote:
(July 10, 2019 at 8:19 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Ultimately, consensus among experts.  I doubt that finitism even has a chapter in any number theory, abstract alebgra or complex analysis textbook, but, I admit that I could be wrong on this one.

Well, I wouldn't expect to see much about finitism in such textbooks. I have, however, seen good discussions in introductory books on axiomatic set theory and the issues come up extensively in proof theory. Kunen's book on the Foundations of Mathemtics talks quite a bit about finitism, formalism, and Platonism in the context of introductory set theory. The point is that the meta-theory used to discuss proofs tends to be finitistic by nature.

Fact is that most professional mathematicians accept ZFC and the proofs of Cantor, which was the whole point of my OP. I don't think that it is an either/or proposition -- one can accept ZFC while having intelligent conversations about finitism; without having to reject the former while working within the confines of the latter.
Reply
#99
RE: Mathematicians who are finitists.
(July 11, 2019 at 9:30 am)Jehanne Wrote:
(July 11, 2019 at 2:52 am)polymath257 Wrote: Well, I wouldn't expect to see much about finitism in such textbooks. I have, however, seen good discussions in introductory books on axiomatic set theory and the issues come up extensively in proof theory. Kunen's book on the Foundations of Mathemtics talks quite a bit about finitism, formalism, and Platonism in the context of introductory set theory. The point is that the meta-theory used to discuss proofs tends to be finitistic by nature.

Fact is that most professional mathematicians accept ZFC and the proofs of Cantor, which was the whole point of my OP.  I don't think that it is an either/or proposition -- one can accept ZFC while having intelligent conversations about finitism; without having to reject the former while working within the confines of the latter.

Philosophically, I am a formalist. You tell me which axioms to work with, and I will work with them.

I *prefer* a set of axioms that has classes and a single choice function for all sets, but that's just me. I can live with ZFC. Smile

That said, working in the hereditarily finite sets has advantages in some contexts.
Reply
RE: Mathematicians who are finitists.
(July 11, 2019 at 9:30 am)Jehanne Wrote: Fact is that most professional mathematicians accept ZFC and the proofs of Cantor, which was the whole point of my OP. I don't think that it is an either/or proposition -- one can accept ZFC while having intelligent conversations about finitism; without having to reject the former while working within the confines of the latter.
Yes, we can. Please try to do so next time, without making silly comparisons to creationism.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Question for finitists -- 0.999... = 1? Jehanne 23 3038 November 26, 2022 at 8:40 pm
Last Post: Jehanne



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)