Online research in philosophy

Which objects (order types of total orderings) are the infinite numbers? Cantor answers: the infinite ordinals (that is, the order types of the infinite, well-ordered sets). In this paper, I argue that these objects are not the infinite numbers, but rather that objects of a different form are. Similar considerations will be seen to apply to infinite distance.

Tarski [5] showed that for any set X, its set w(X) of well-orderable subsets has cardinality strictly greater than that of X, even in the absence of the axiom of choice. We construct a Fraenkel-Mostowski model in which there is an infinite strictly descending sequence under the relation |w (X)| = |Y|. This contrasts with the corresponding situation for power sets, where use of Hartogs' ℵ-function easily establishes that there can be no infinite descending sequence under the relation |P(X)| = |Y|.

We propose an alternative approach to probability theory closely related to the framework of numerosity theory: non-Archimedean probability (NAP). In our approach, unlike in classical probability theory, all subsets of an infinite sample space are measurable and zero- and unit-probability events pose no particular epistemological problems. We use a non-Archimedean field as the range of the probability function. As a result, the property of countable additivity in Kolmogorov's axiomatization of probability is replaced by a different type of infinite additivity.

THEROEM 1.1. Let (A,£) be a qo. The following are equivalent. i. (A,£) is a wqo. ii. Every infinite sequence from A has an infinite subsequence which is increasing (£). iii. For all x1,x2,... Œ A there exists n such that every term is ≥ at least one of x1,...,xn. iv. Every infinite subset of A has a two element chain.

This is the sequel to my “Fifteen Arguments Against Finite Frequentism” ( Erkenntnis 1997), the second half of a long paper that attacks the two main forms of frequentism about probability. Hypothetical frequentism asserts: The probability of an attribute A in a reference class B is p iff the limit of the relative frequency of A ’s among the B ’s would be p if there were an infinite sequence of B ’s. I offer fifteen arguments against this analysis. I consider various frequentist responses, which I argue ultimately fail. I end with a positive proposal of my own, ‘hyper-hypothetical frequentism’, which I argue avoids several of the problems with hypothetical frequentism. It identifies probability with relative frequency in a hyperfinite sequence of trials. However, I argue that this account also fails, and that the prospects for frequentism are dim.

This is the sequel to my "Fifteen Arguments Against Finite Frequentism" (Erkenntnis 1997), the second half of a long paper that attacks the two main forms of frequentism about probability. Hypothetical frequentism asserts: The probability of an attribute A in a reference class B is p iff the limit of the relative frequency of A's among the B's would be p if there were an infinite sequence of B's. I offer fifteen arguments against this analysis. I consider various frequentist responses, which I argue ultimately fail. I end with a positive proposal of my own, 'hyper-hypothetical frequentism', which I argue avoids several of the problems with hypothetical frequentism. It identifies probability with relative frequency in a hyperfinite sequence of trials. However, I argue that this account also fails, and that the prospects for frequentism are dim.

In this theory, both adverbs and heads, which encode the functional notions of the clause, are ordered in a rigid sequence.

Assume T is a small superstable theory. We introduce the notion of a flat Morley sequence, which is a counterpart of the notion of an infinite Morley sequence in a type p, in case when p is a complete type over a finite set of parameters. We show that for any flat Morley sequence Q there is a model M of T which is τ-atomic over {Q}. When additionally T has few countable models and is 1-based, we prove that within M there is an infinite Morley sequence I, with I $\subset$ dcl(Q), such that M is prime over I.