WHAT RUSSELL SHOULD HAVE SAID TO BURALI–FORTI

The paradox that appears under Burali-Forti’s name in many textbooks of set theory is a clever piece of reasoning leading to an unproblematic theorem. The theorem asserts that the ordinals do not form a set. For such a set would be—absurdly—an ordinal greater than any ordinal in the set of all ordinals. In this article, we argue that the paradox of Burali-Forti is first and foremost a problem about concept formation by abstraction, not about sets. We contend, furthermore, that some hundred years after its discovery the paradox is still without any fully satisfactory resolution. A survey of the current literature reveals one key assumption of the paradox that has gone unquestioned, namely the assumption that ordinals are objects. Taking the lead from Russell’s no class theory, we interpret talk of ordinals as an efficient way of conveying higher-order logical truths. The resulting theory of ordinals is formally adequate to standard intuitions about ordinals, expresses a conception of ordinal number capable of resolving Burali-Forti’s paradox, and offers a novel contribution to the longstanding program of reducing mathematics to higher-order logic.

[1]  Harold T. Hodes.  Logicism and the Ontological Commitments of Arithmetic , 1984 .

[2]  B. Russell.  Mathematical Logic as Based on the Theory of Types , 1908 .

[3]  José Ferreirós Domínguez.  Labyrinth of thought: a history of set theory and its role in modern mathematics , 2007 .

[4]  On the significance of the Burali-Forti paradox , 2011 .

[5]  John P. Burgess,et al.  E Pluribus Unum: Plural Logic and Set Theory , 2004 .

[6]  G. Leibniz,et al.  Philosophical papers and letters. , 2011 .

[7]  Fernando Ferreira,et al.  Amending Frege’s Grundgesetze der Arithmetik , 2005, Synthese.

[8]  Stephen G. Simpson,et al.  Subsystems of second order arithmetic , 1999, Perspectives in mathematical logic.

[9]  C. Burali-Forti.  Una questione sui numeri transfiniti , 1897 .

[10]  Øystein Linnebo,et al.  Predicative fragments of Frege Arithmetic , 2004, Bull. Symb. Log..

[11]  Richard G. Heck Jnr.  The Consistency of predicative fragments of frege’s grundgesetze der arithmetik , 1996 .

[12]  Hermann Grassmann.  Die Lineale Ausdehnungslehre ein neuer Zweig der Mathematik: Zweiter Abschnitt. Die Elementargrösse , 1844 .

[13]  Stewart Shapiro,et al.  New V, ZF, and Abstraction , 1999 .

[14]  Sean Christopher Ebels Duggan.  The Nuisance Principle in Infinite Settings , 2015 .

[15]  Richard Pettigrew,et al.  Two types of abstraction for structuralism , 2014 .

[16]  Charles Parsons.  Sets and Classes , 1974 .

[17]  Paolo Mancosu.  Grundlagen, Section 64: Frege's Discussion of Definitions by Abstraction in Historical Context , 2015 .

[18]  Gabriel Uzquiano.  Plural Quantification and Classes , 2003 .

[19]  Bertrand Russell.  SOME EXPLANATIONS IN REPLY TO MR. BRADLEY , 1910 .

[20]  Øystein Linnebo,et al.  Pluralities and sets , 2010 .

[21]  S. Shapiro.  All sets great and small: and I do mean ALL , 2003 .

[22]  E B B A Philip Jourdain,et al.  VII. On the transfinite cardinal numbers of well-ordered aggregates , 1904 .

[23]  R. H.,et al.  The Principles of Mathematics , 1903, Nature.

[24]  Logical objects and the paradox of Burali-Forti , 1986 .

[25]  Florio,et al.  What Russell Should Have Said to Burali - , 2016 .

[26]  Graham Hoare,et al.  Labyrinth of Thought: A History of Set Theory and Its Role in Modern Mathematics , 1999, The Mathematical Gazette.

[27]  Fernando Ferreira,et al.  On the Consistency of the Δ11-CA Fragment of Frege's Grundgesetze , 2002, J. Philos. Log..

[28]  Gregory H. Moore,et al.  Burali-Forti's paradox: A reappraisal of its origins , 1981 .

[29]  Michael Glanzberg,et al.  Quantification and Realism , 2004 .

[30]  Crispin Wright,et al.  Is Hume's Principle Analytic? , 1999, Notre Dame J. Formal Log..

[31]  Stewart Shapiro,et al.  All Things Indefinitely Extensible , 2006 .

[32]  Charles D. Parsons,et al.  The liar paradox , 1974, J. Philos. Log..

[33]  Roy T. Cook.  Iteration One More Time , 2003, Notre Dame J. Formal Log..

[34]  Sean Walsh,et al.  RELATIVE CATEGORICITY AND ABSTRACTION PRINCIPLES , 2014, The Review of Symbolic Logic.

[35]  E. Zermelo.  Über Grenzzahlen und Mengenbereiche , 1930 .