Defeat of Dedekinds logicism on the infinite sets.

the defeat of Dedekinds logicism on the infinite set

George Mpantes mathematics teacher www.mpantes.gr

Logicism .
The logicism of Dedekind
The infinite set
The logical contradiction
The impredicative definition
The axiom of reducibility
The inconsistency of the infinite set of Dedekind
Comments
ources
Logicism .
The severe involvement of mathematics with Logic began in the late 19th
century , with the emergence of paradoxes in set theory . It was the third crisis
in the foundations of mathematics , after irrational numbers and
infinitesimals . We could say that logic is always a prereuisite for
mathematics , since deductive reasoning plays a ma!or role in mathematics . "n
the other hand , it#s laws have both ultimate and fundamental character, are
1
Defeat of Dedekinds logicism on the infinite sets.
almost identified with the same phenomenon of life, is deeper than all the
$mental attitudes% of humans & and animals ' so logicians felt that $mathematics
could be built on a minimum basis , if they could be traced bac( only to the logic
)... &*lonso +haurch' the idea was that the concepts and ob!ects of mathematics
as for example $number% can be defined by some logic terminology with these
definitions, the theorems of mathematics can be derived from logical principles
&,hapiro'.
This view is called logicism .
There were three attempts of foundation of arithmetic & natural
numbers ' on logic , which failed . These were the logical foundations of the
Dedekind! of "rege! and of #ussell. These mar(ed essentially the end of
logicism .

The logicism of Dedekind.
What are the basic concepts of logic for -ede(ind.
In the /nature and meaning of numbers ) -ede(ind ,
analy0es and
then uses these concepts 1
the ob!ects that are the elements belonging to the sets,
the systems &sets', and the transform & mapping ' .
2..The concept of set is the basic concept in all
systems of mathematical logic , and the elements of the sets
are elsewhere classes, elsewhere concepts, elsewhere types , but always the set is the
bac(ground of the logical addressing of mathematics. It is an extension of the classical
logic , which is based on the concepts the propositions and the arguments. Indeed, the
concepts give a sense of the set and the propositions of the operations between them,
so we have a logical structure .
These notions for -ede(ind are /fundamental to human thought, applicable to
all areas, necessary for any reasoning , which are not attributed to anything more
fundamental% .
2
Defeat of Dedekinds logicism on the infinite sets.
3ased on these concepts -ede(ind defined the infinite set to use it in
deepening the logical nature of numbers. -ede(ind raised the axiomatic base of
arithmetic, as did 4uclid for geometry. This base was passing by the infinite set.

The infinite set.
5alileo had noticed &in the language of -ede(ind ' that some sets li(e the
natural numbers , are amenable to 161 correspondings &similar sets for
-ede(ind' to some subset of them . *s f1 7 7 with f & n ' 8 9n .
That is , each whole number corresponds to precisely one even number,
it#s double, and each even number corresponds to precisely one whole number,
it#s half, as in the form f 1 :1,9,;,<,= ...> :9,<,?,@ ...> ,o it seems that the
subset of evens has the same number of elements with all naturals . 7o one
finite set does have this property, each 161 correspondence on itself is a
bi!ection. The -ede(ind saw that this provided an internal definition of an
infinite set .
Definition $%. a system , is said to be infinite when it is similar to a
proper part of itself. In the contrary case is said to be a finite system'.
Then & Theorem ?? ', proves that there exist infinite systems &which are
necessary for the construction of -ede(ind', and the proof was the sub!ect of
much criticism, because it impinges a paradox of set theory , un(nown at time of
-ede(ind, hence the proof contains a logical contradiction. This contradiction in
axiomatic set theory, in which & axiomati0ation ' we overcome the paradoxes of
the theory, was transcended by the axiom of infinity which generates an endless
philosophical discussion as happens in set theory. In essence the axiom of
infinity tells us that there exist an infinite set containing the natural numbers ,
and is added to the other axioms of -ede(ind, for their foundation . We shall
present the discussion for theorem ?? below , now (eep that -ede(ind has not
demonstrated the existence of infinite sets, the axiom of infinity that we
accept, is not an axiom of logic, so the logical foundation of the natural
3
Defeat of Dedekinds logicism on the infinite sets.
numbers has been canceled by the logic itself . &The foundation of the numbers
in -ede(ind, given the axiom of infinity, is a theme of another article, we
examine now it#s logical consistence'.
Theorem $$. there exist infinite systems
Aroof. By own realm of thoughts , i.e. the totality , of all things, which
can be ob!ects of my thought , is infinite. Cor if s signifies an element of ,, then
there is the thought sD, that s can be ob!ect of my thought, itself an element
of ,. If we regard this sD as transform f&s' of the element s then has the
transformation f of , , thus determined, the property that the transform ,D
is part of ,. *nd ,D is certainly proper part of ,, because there are elements in
,&e.g., my own ego'which are different from such thoughts sD and therefore not
contained in ,D.Cinally is clear that if a,b are different elements of , , their
transforms aD , bD are also different, that therefore the transformation f is a
dinstinc &similar' transformation. Eence , is infinite, which was to be proved.
Eere -ede(ind means that $ego% belongs to , but it is not a thought of a
thought so it doesn#t belong to ,D. * simulation of the theorem is in the figure
The logical contradiction .
*ll logical paradoxes are the paradoxes set theory .
The reason for the controversy caused by set theory
was rather wittily described by Celix Eausdorf in
his boo( FCoundations of ,et theory 191<) where he writes $ is & the set
theory ' a field in which nothing is self evident, , whose true statements are
often paradoxical , and whose plausible ones are false% .
The paradoxes are contradictions , which mathematicians have preferred
the word /paradox/ because a paradox can be resolved , and they wanted to
believe these could be resolved . The technical word commonly used now is
antinomy . "ne of the first paradoxes discovered himself +antor which
published in 19;9 .
4
Defeat of Dedekinds logicism on the infinite sets.
The paradoxes were connected with the following concepts & Gam(e ' 1
*. the set of all cardinals .
3. the set of all ordinal numbers & paradox 3urali6Corti'.
+. the set of all even6ordinal numbers.
- . The set of all sets , each of which has not as an element itself . &Hermelo6
Iussell'
4. the set of all sets. It#s number should be the largest that can exist. Eowever
+antor had shown that the set of all subsets of a given set must have a larger
transfinite number than the set itself. Eence, there must be a larger transfinite
number than the largest one &+antor#s paradox'
C. Crom paradoxes - and 4, Gam(e is guided by logical steps to the
con!ecture that the basic contradictory concept behind them is / the set that
contains itself as an element ./ Ee writes that / we do not (now any set so far ,
which contain itself. 3esides, +antor#s set definition as a collection of ob!ects
seen as a whole, defined completely, distinguised each other , should be
interpreted that something new is produced by this operation of collection and
therefore never a set can be identified with one of it#s elements /.

The impredicative definition.
Iussell believed that all the paradoxes
arose from one fallacy which he called / the
vicious circle principle / and which he
described thus 1 / anything involves all of a
collection must not be one of the collection ,/
or otherwise /if to define a collection of
ob!ects one must use the total collection
itself, then the definition is meaningless / *n
example of Iussell for meaningless definition in the Arincipia &Borris Gein' is,
5
Defeat of Dedekinds logicism on the infinite sets.
/ .... The law of excluded middle states that all propositions are true or false. 3ut the
law itself is a proposition. Eence whereas its intent is to affirm a true law of logic , it is
a proposition and so it too can be false, so this statement of the law is meaningless%
This interpretation was given by Iussell in 19J= , was accepted by
AoincarK in 19J? , who coined the term impredicative definition that is the
definition where an ob!ect is defined or described in terms of a set which
contains the specified ob!ect .

&xamples '(nternet )
*. . Let L the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle .
3. * natural number n is prime if and only if n M 1 and the only divisors are itself
and 1 .
+. +an an omnipotent being create an indestructible ob!ectN Oes , since he is
omnipotent. 3ut he can also destroy any ob!ect
* is predicative definition because L is defined only in terms of the
circumference and diameter of a circle .
3 is impredicative definition as it is generali0ed in terms of total 7 in
which n belongs
In + the concept P%omnipotent / is contained in the collection of all
creators.
The Iussell6Aoincare ob!ection to impredicative definitions became more
widely accepted , although unfortunately such definitions have been used in
classical mathematics . The case of most interest is the concept of the least
upper bound &used in the foundation of the arithmetic continuum that is the
foundation of analysis'. This is1 +onsider the set of numbers of the interval
& 9,=' . Qpper bounds, that is numbers larger than the largest number of the set
are as =, =.9, ? 1J ... *mong these there is a least upper bound , namely =. Eence
the least upper bound is defined in terms of a class of upper bounds that contain
the very one being defined. &impredicative definition'
*lthough all the paradoxes involved impredicative definitions ,
mathematicians are confused because in6sofar as they could see not all
6
Defeat of Dedekinds logicism on the infinite sets.
impredicative definitions lead to contradictions . Cor example, the sentence1 the
larger number of the set : 1,9,;,<,= > is the = is surely harmless although
impredicative . It is true that the word /all/ is unclear. *ccording to some
logicians many of the paradoxes result from use of the word / all / . 3esides, we
see the mention of Gam(e on concepts associated with paradoxes .
3ut the mathematics need infinity R
Qnfortunately there was no criterion to decide which impredicative definition,
was inconsistent and which are not. Eence was a danger that we would find many
such definitions to lead to contradictions . AoincarK proposed a ban of all
impredicative definitions . Eerman Weyl, suggested that some such definitions
could indeed have been contradictory , and devoted great effort to reformulate
the definition of / least upper bound / to avoid impredicativeness , but he did
not succed. The in!uction of Iussell that /we can not allow arbitrary conditions
to define sets and then indiscriminately to allow sets so formed to be members
of other sets P &as if photographs Theorem ?? of -ede(indR' does not answer
the uestion of which impredicative definitions can be permitted .
/ .... though the primary cause of the contradictions seemed to be evident, there
remained the problem of how to build mathematics to eliminate them and, more
important, to ma(e sure that new ones could not occur.We see now why the problem of
consistency became so urgent in the early 199Js.Bathematicians reffered to the
contradictions as the paradoxes of set theory. Eowever the wor( in set theory opened
their eyes to possible contradictions even in classical mathematics2% Morris *lein
The axiom of reducibility .
The answers to these uestions are mainly two .
Cirst was Iussell who adopts in Arincipia the axiom of reducibility which
succinctly tells us that all impredicative definitions, can be converted into
predicative. This axiom was critici0ed by many / as unbearably ad hoc) &Internet
encyclopedia of philosophy'.
2in many it appears completely arbitrary , although there was no evidence of
falseness , some called it $the happy accident , not a logical necessity% . Cran(
7
Defeat of Dedekinds logicism on the infinite sets.
Iamsey wrote 1 / ,uch a postulate has no place in mathematics and something
that can not be proven without it, can not be regarded as proved P
The Eerman Weyl re!ect it unreservedly and Iussell himself wrote in 1919
$2.viewed from this strictly logical point of view, I do not see any reason to believe
that the axiom of reducibility is logically necessary , which is that would be meant by
saying that it is true in all possible worlds. The admission of this axiom into a system of
logic is therefore a defect, even if the axiom is empirically true... (ntroduction to
Mathematical philosophy+
,econd is the reference of 5Sdel with the greatest interest . The fact
that classical mathematics use impredicative definitions should, according to
5Sdel, constitute a refutation of the / vicious cyclic principle / and its ban on
impredicative definitions , rather than anything else. This fact , should consider
it rather as evidence of falsehood of/ vicious cyclic principle / rather that
classical mathematics lie.
The inconsistency of the infinite set of Dedekind .

-ede(ind was one of the founders , along with +antor , of theoretical
school of sets which began growing by their wor( . 3oth dealt first with infinite
sets, yet both tried to establish the natural numbers on the basis of set theory.
3ut the theory of infinite sets produced many contradictions and logical
impasses , which themselves do not fully understand , and here they loo( exactly
li(e the pioneers in infinite sums &series' two centuries ago , where their
problems, the history of mathematics states as / rec(less acts , and were
clarified later with the clarification of the concept of number and convergence.
We will not consider evidence of ?? in terms of realism, but of formalism
. ,o we will not !udge if the thought of thought of thought ... is a clear and
distinct thought that belongs to all ,. This is not in mathematics .
Eowever, we observe that the definition of f1 , , is an impredicative
definition . Indeed the in!uction by Iussell that / we cannot allow arbitrary
conditions to determine sets and then indiscriminately n allow the sets so
8
Defeat of Dedekinds logicism on the infinite sets.
formed to be members of other sets% does not apply here . To define by f the
set of / thin(ing of thoughts / uses the totality of thoughts , to which belong
the / thoughts of thoughts ./ ,o we have an impredicativity. That defines the
existence of infinite set in a logically incorrect manner .
*ssuming the axiom of reducibility & Iussell ', the definition of the
infinite set of -ede(ind becomes axiomatically true but not logically consistent ,
and so if we consider the axiom of infinity &Hermelo'.
3ut we should note 1 the foundation of natural numbers is not done only
on the basis of logic, it ta(es axioms outside the logic , and this is a defeat of
logicism
Comment , . We can still identify the inconsistency of Theorem ??
through the proposition C of Gam(e , for the logical contradiction of a set that
contains itself. *s for -ede(ind thin(ing a thought is thought, so the total of
all thoughts is a thought, so we have a set that contains itself as an element .
3ut such a set is a contradictory concept.
Comment - This adventure of impredicative references contain another
reference that seems fruitful . The proposal of logicism that the foundations of
mathematical are located in logic, is an impredicative sentence, so logically
non6existent . 3ecause the mathematical principles are contained in the totality
of logical principles, can not therefore the first in the collection be defined
into the second . *ristotle said that the principles of logic borrowed from the
mathematics and by abstraction, made them applicable to all sciences . The math
should then deal only with the external world, the mind can not studies itself
&impredicativity' .
%2.The desire to understand nature has had on the development of mathematics the
most important and happiest influence2the pure mathematician who should forget the
existence of the exterior world would be li(e a painter who (nows how to harmoniously
combine colors and forms , but who lac(ed models. Eis creative power would soon be
exhausted...... .oincar/%.
Comment 0. If we see all the game of reasoning as a football game, the
rules of logic set the framewor(, as the rules of football. 3ut the football we
9
Defeat of Dedekinds logicism on the infinite sets.
watch, is not the result of these rules, but the result of creativity, talent,
foresight of the players.
Oet no one logical rule forced 5alois to connect the solution of an
euation with the group of permutations of it#s roots.
Oet 4uclid#s proof of the unending seuence of prime numbers starts with
the introduction of factorials . 4uclid shows that if n is any prime number a
greater prime number always exists. Ee establishes this theorem by consider
the numbers defined by nR and by nRT1. this introduction is an artifice and is
certainly not dictated by any logical necessity. ,hould the reader forget this
first step, all the logic in the world would not enable him to reproduce the
demonstration.&*.-#*bro'

ources .
Bathematics, the loss of certainty, -over Borris Glein
Internet encyclopedia of philosophy
&the nature and meaning of numbers, &-ede(ind, internet'
The inconsistency of -ede(indPs Infinite set &,pringer lin('
The value of science AoincarK ....
The theory of sets 4.Gam(e & Garavias '
Ieflections on mathematics &,teward ,hapiro, Qniversity of Aatras' .
Coundations and fundamental concepts of mathematics Eoward 4ves -over
The rise of the new physics *.-#*bro, -over
5eorge Bpantes mathematics theacher mpantes on scribd
10