Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:29:26.814Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Set—Theoretical Representations of Ordered Pairs and Their Adequacy for the Logic of Relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Randall R. Dipert
Randall R. Dipert*
Affiliation:
S.U.N.Y. College at Fredonia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the most significant discoveries of early twentieth century mathematical logic was a workable definition of ‘ordered pair’ totally within set theory. Norbert Wiener, and independently Casimir Kuratowski, are usually credited with this discovery. A definition of ‘ordered pair’ held the key to the precise formulation of the notions of ‘relation’ and ‘function’ — both of which are probably indispensable for an understanding of the foundations of mathematics. The set-theoretic definition of ‘ordered pair’ thus turned out to be a key victory for logicism, providing one admits set theory is logic. The definition also was instrumental in achieving the appearance of ontological economy — since it seemed only sets were needed — although this feature was emphasized only later.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , June 1982 , pp. 353 - 374
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Benacceraf, Paul What Numbers Could Not Be,’ Philosophical Review, 74 (1965) 47–7310.2307/2183530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castañeda, H.-N. ‘Plato's Phaedo Theory of Relations,’ Journal of Philosophical Logic, 1 (1972) 467-8010.1007/BF00255573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dipert, R.R. and Whelden, R.M. ‘Set Theoretical Music Analysis,’ Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 34 (1976-7)Google Scholar
Frege, G. Grundgesetze der Arithmetik (Jena: Hermann Pohle 1893)Google Scholar
Grattan-Guiness, I. ‘Wiener on the Logics of Russell and Schröder,’ Annals of Science, 31 (1974) 387–406Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip ‘The Plight of the Platonist,’ Nous, 12 (1978) 119-3610.2307/2214688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip ‘What Ordered Pairs Are Not,’ paper delivered to the Pacific Division of the APA (Spring, 1976)Google Scholar
Peirce, C.S. Collected Papers, ed. by Hartshorne, C. and Weiss, P. (Cambridge Mass.: Belknap Press 1933, 1961)Google Scholar
Quine, W.V. Selected Logic Papers (New York: Random House 1966)Google Scholar
Quine, W.V. Word and Object (Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press 1960)Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand Principles of Mathematics (New York: Norton originally 1903)Google Scholar
Schneider, H.H. ‘Some Remarks Concerning a Definition of Ordered Pair,’ American Mathematical Monthly, 84 (1977) 63-410.1080/00029890.1977.11994442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schröder, E. Vorlesungen über die Algebra der Logic (Leibzig: Vol. Ill, 1895).Google Scholar
Skolem, T. ‘Two Remarks on Set Theory,’ Fenstad, J.E. ed., in Selected Works in Logic (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget 1970); originally published in 1957Google Scholar
Wiener, N. Ex-Prodigy: My Childhood and Youth (New York: Schuster 1953)Google Scholar
Wiener, N. ‘A Simplification of the Logic of Relations,’ Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 17 (1914) 387-90Google Scholar
Tarski, Alfred ‘On the Calculus of Relations,’ Journal of Symbolic Logic, 6 (1941) 73–8910.2307/2268577CrossRefGoogle Scholar