Philosophia Mathematica 8 (1):9-25 (2000)
|Abstract||I discuss a difficulty concerning the justification of the Axiom of Choice in terms of such informal notions such as that of iterative set. A recent attempt to solve the difficulty is by S. Lavine, who claims in his Understanding the Infinite that the axioms of set theory receive intuitive justification from their being self-evidently true in Fin(ZFC), a finite counterpart of set theory. I argue that Lavine's explanatory attempt fails when it comes to AC: in this respect Fin(ZFC) is no better off than the iterative notion.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Lorenz Halbeisen & Saharon Shelah (1994). Consequences of Arithmetic for Set Theory. Journal of Symbolic Logic 59 (1):30-40.
Thomas Glass (1996). On Power Set in Explicit Mathematics. Journal of Symbolic Logic 61 (2):468-489.
Jan Mycielski (1981). Analysis Without Actual Infinity. Journal of Symbolic Logic 46 (3):625-633.
Tatiana Arrigoni (2011). V = L and Intuitive Plausibility in Set Theory. A Case Study. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 17 (3):337-360.
Adam Rieger (2011). Paradox, ZF and the Axiom of Foundation. In D. DeVidi, M. Hallet & P. Clark (eds.), Logic, Mathematics, Philosophy, Vintage Enthusiasms: Essays in Honour of John L. Bell. Springer.
Harvey Friedman (2000). Does Mathematics Need New Axioms? The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 6 (4):401 - 446.
Shaughan Lavine (1995). Finite Mathematics. Synthese 103 (3):389 - 420.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads6 ( #145,761 of 549,754 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 549,754 )
How can I increase my downloads?