Measuring the size of infinite collections of natural numbers: Was Cantor's theory of infinite number inevitable?

Review of Symbolic Logic 2 (4):612-646 (2009)
Abstract
Cantorsizesizesizewhole principle). This second intuition was not developed mathematically in a satisfactory way until quite recently. In this article I begin by reviewing the contributions of some thinkers who argued in favor of the assignment of different sizes to infinite collections of natural numbers (Thabit ibn Qurra, Grosseteste, Maignan, Bolzano). Then, I review some recent mathematical developments that generalize the partdel) or for the rational nature of the Cantorian generalization as opposed to that, based on the part–whole principle, envisaged by Bolzano (Kitcher)
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 9,360
External links
  • Through your library Configure
    References found in this work BETA
    B. Bolzano (2001). Wissenschaftslehre. Revue de Metaphysique Et de Morale 2:134-136.

    View all 19 references

    Citations of this work BETA
    Mark van Atten (2011). A Note on Leibniz's Argument Against Infinite Wholes. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 19 (1):121-129.

    View all 6 citations

    Similar books and articles
    Analytics

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index

    2009-12-31

    Total downloads

    105 ( #8,115 of 1,088,810 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    13 ( #8,608 of 1,088,810 )

    How can I increase my downloads?

    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature


    Discussion
    Start a new thread
    Order:
    There  are no threads in this forum
    Nothing in this forum yet.