Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T15:16:00.894Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Critical Notice: Michael Hallett's Cantorian Set Theory and Limitation of Size

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Robert Bunn
Robert Bunn*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy University of British Columbia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The usual objections to infinite numbers, and classes, and series, and the notion that the infinite as such is self-contradictory, may ... be dismissed as groundless. There remains, however, a very grave difficulty, connected with the contradiction [of the class of all classes not members of themselves]. This difficulty does not concern the infinite as such, but only certain very large infinite classes.

—Bertrand Russell, The Principles of Mathematics, p. 362

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , September 1988 , pp. 461 - 478
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 by the Philosophy of Science Association

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

REFERENCES

Feferman, S. (1985), “Working Foundations”, Synthese 62: 229–254.10.1007/BF00486048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gödel, K. (1944), “Russell's Mathematical Logic”, in P. A. Schilpp (ed.), The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell. Evanston: Northwestern University, pp. 125–153.Google Scholar
Gödel, K. (1947), “What Is Cantor's Continuum Problem”, American Mathematical Monthly 54: 515–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallett, M. (1984), Cantorian Set Theory and Limitation of Size. Oxford Logic Guides: 10. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Parsons, C. (1983), Mathematics in Philosophy: Selected Essays. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1975), “On the Individuation of Attributes”, in A. R. Anderson, Ruth Barcan Marcus, and R. M. Martin (eds.), The Logical Enterprise. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 3–13.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1984), “Review of C. Parsons (1983)”, Journal of Philosophy 76: 783–794.Google Scholar
Rang, B., and Thomas, W. (1981), “Zermelo's Discovery of the ‘Russell Paradox‘”, Historia Mathematica 8: 15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar