DEDEKIND WAS SIND UND WAS SOLLEN DIE ZAHLEN PDF
Zahlen. In the introduction to this paper he points out that the real . In addition the recent work by R. Dedekind Was sind und was sollen. Donor challenge: Your generous donation will be matched 2-to-1 right now. Your $5 becomes $15! Dear Internet Archive Supporter,. I ask only. Dedekind Richard. What Are Numbers and What Should They Be?(Was Sind Und Was Sollen Die Zahlen?) Revised English Translation of 70½ 1 with Added .
|Published (Last):||7 November 2011|
|PDF File Size:||18.43 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||20.24 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
To get clearer about that notion, he compared the system of rational xie with the points on a geometric line. Along such lines, all that matters about mathematical objects, indeed all that is built into their identity and nature, is what the corresponding mathematical truths determine. Dedekind realized early on that several of the notions and techniques he had introduced in wws number theory could be transferred to the study of algebraic functions algebraic function fields, in later terminology.
University of Minnesota Press, pp. While this move led to striking progress, the precise nature of these new mathematical objects was left unclear, as were the basis for their introduction and the range of applicability of the technique.
While a few mathematicians, such as Zaahlen, used them too, many others, like Kronecker, rejected them. The Nature and Meaning of Numbersor more literally, What are the numbers and what are they for? He modified and expanded it several times, with a fourth edition published in Lejeune-DirichletDedekind All of these were re-published, together with selections from his Nachlassin Dedekind — Often all one gets, then, are platitudes: Axiomatic Foundations of MathematicsM.
Cusanus-Literatur der Jahre The extent to which Dedekind’s approach diverged from what had been common stands out further if we remember two traditional, widely shared assumptions: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Horsten – – Philosophia Mathematica wxs 3: And while the deeper features are often captured set-theoretically Dedekind cuts, ideals, quotient structures, etc. Then he establishes that any two simply infinite systems, or any two models of the Dedekind-Peano axioms, are isomorphic so that the axiom system is categorical.
Dedekind, Richard – Was sind und was sollen die Zahlen?
Cambridge University Press, pp. Dedekind’s main foundational writings are: Here an articulate answer is harder to find, especially one that is philosophically satisfying. An important part of the dichotomy, as traditionally understood, was that magnitudes and ratios of them were not thought of as numerical entities, with arithmetic operations defined on them, but in a more concrete geometric way as lengths, areas, volumes, angles, etc. That is to say, he works with a generalized notion of function.
Was sind und soollen sollen die Zahlen? Even more important and characteristic, both in foundational and other contexts, is another aspect. One way to sinc the latter, already touched on above, is by highlighting the methodological values embodied in it: Consequently, one can find philosophically pregnant remarks sprinkled through their works, as exemplified by Dedekind and a. More specifically, a structuralist epistemology, along Dedekindian lines, calls for a structuralist metaphysics, as two sides of the same coin.
Other books in this series.
Dedekind’s Contributions to the Foundations of Mathematics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Gesammelte Mathematische WerkeVols. Any comprehensive history of zahlwn will mention him for his investigation of the notions of algebraic number, field, ring, group, module, lattice, dedwkind. While Dedekind was a great innovator, he was, of course, not alone in moving large parts of mathematics in a set-theoretic, infinitary, and methodologically structuralist direction. Dedekind’s more foundational work in mathematics is also widely known, at least in parts.
This led, at least in part, to Cantor’s un study of infinite cardinalities aind to his discovery, soon thereafter, that the set of all real numbers is not countable.
First and put in modern terminology, a major difference is that, while Frege’s main contributions to logic concern syntactic, proof-theoretic aspects, Dedekind tends to focus on semantic, model-theoretic aspects. A rare piece of information we have in this connection is that he became aware of Gottlob Frege’s most philosophical work, Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik published inonly after having settled on his own basic ideas; similarly for Bernard Bolzano’s Paradoxien des Unendlichen Dedekind a, preface to the second edition.
By his critics, Dedekind’s procedure is often interpreted as follows: Russell’s antinomy and related problems establish that Dedekind’s original conception of set is untenable.