Numbers as sets

Some writers define number as a set or multitude or plurality. ALL of these views suffer from the drawback that this concept of number will not cover the numbers 0 and 1. Moreover, these terms (sets, etc.) are utterly vague: sometimes they refer to 'heap' or 'group' or 'agglomeration' - referring to a juxtaposition in space, sometimes they are so used as to be practically equivalent to 'Number', only vaguer.

I conclude, that no analysis of the concept of Number is to be found in a definition of it as sets, etc.

John Jones wrote:

Some writers define number as a set or multitude or plurality. ALL of these views suffer from the drawback that this concept of number will not cover the numbers 0 and 1. Moreover, these terms (sets, etc.) are utterly vague: sometimes they refer to 'heap' or 'group' or 'agglomeration' - referring to a juxtaposition in space, sometimes they are so used as to be practically equivalent to 'Number', only vaguer.

I conclude, that no analysis of the concept of Number is to be found in a definition of it as sets, etc.

Please cite one source that defines number like this.

Brandon9000 wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Some writers define number as a set or multitude or plurality. ALL of these views suffer from the drawback that this concept of number will not cover the numbers 0 and 1. Moreover, these terms (sets, etc.) are utterly vague: sometimes they refer to 'heap' or 'group' or 'agglomeration' - referring to a juxtaposition in space, sometimes they are so used as to be practically equivalent to 'Number', only vaguer.

I conclude, that no analysis of the concept of Number is to be found in a definition of it as sets, etc.

Please cite one source that defines number like this.

No discussion again?

John Jones wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Some writers define number as a set or multitude or plurality. ALL of these views suffer from the drawback that this concept of number will not cover the numbers 0 and 1. Moreover, these terms (sets, etc.) are utterly vague: sometimes they refer to 'heap' or 'group' or 'agglomeration' - referring to a juxtaposition in space, sometimes they are so used as to be practically equivalent to 'Number', only vaguer.

I conclude, that no analysis of the concept of Number is to be found in a definition of it as sets, etc.

Please cite one source that defines number like this.

No discussion again?

I do not understand your objection to citing sources. Doing so is basic to a forum like this one, and also basic to any scholarly work.

Brandon9000 wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Some writers define number as a set or multitude or plurality. ALL of these views suffer from the drawback that this concept of number will not cover the numbers 0 and 1. Moreover, these terms (sets, etc.) are utterly vague: sometimes they refer to 'heap' or 'group' or 'agglomeration' - referring to a juxtaposition in space, sometimes they are so used as to be practically equivalent to 'Number', only vaguer.

I conclude, that no analysis of the concept of Number is to be found in a definition of it as sets, etc.

Please cite one source that defines number like this.

No discussion again?

I do not understand your objection to citing sources. Doing so is basic to a forum like this one, and also basic to any scholarly work.

How does a source affect the sense?

John Jones wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Some writers define number as a set or multitude or plurality. ALL of these views suffer from the drawback that this concept of number will not cover the numbers 0 and 1. Moreover, these terms (sets, etc.) are utterly vague: sometimes they refer to 'heap' or 'group' or 'agglomeration' - referring to a juxtaposition in space, sometimes they are so used as to be practically equivalent to 'Number', only vaguer.

I conclude, that no analysis of the concept of Number is to be found in a definition of it as sets, etc.

Please cite one source that defines number like this.

No discussion again?

I do not understand your objection to citing sources. Doing so is basic to a forum like this one, and also basic to any scholarly work.

How does a source affect the sense?

Anyone who claims sources, then refuses to cite one is hiding something. The idea that someone who claims he is referring to prior work must be willing to cite it is a universal standard of academic discussions.

The fact is that you are opining on a subject that you know nothing about whatever. No, your opinions are not as good as those of people who have spent years learning the field. Most of your posts that purport to be about science are gibberish.

If you lack the discipline to first acquaint yourself with what has already been worked out in the field over thousands of years, then please spare us your ignorant musings. It's really offensive to most of us who have spent years and years studying these things.

Brandon9000 wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Some writers define number as a set or multitude or plurality. ALL of these views suffer from the drawback that this concept of number will not cover the numbers 0 and 1. Moreover, these terms (sets, etc.) are utterly vague: sometimes they refer to 'heap' or 'group' or 'agglomeration' - referring to a juxtaposition in space, sometimes they are so used as to be practically equivalent to 'Number', only vaguer.

I conclude, that no analysis of the concept of Number is to be found in a definition of it as sets, etc.

Please cite one source that defines number like this.

No discussion again?

I do not understand your objection to citing sources. Doing so is basic to a forum like this one, and also basic to any scholarly work.

How does a source affect the sense?

Anyone who claims sources, then refuses to cite one is hiding something. The idea that someone who claims he is referring to prior work must be willing to cite it is a universal standard of academic discussions.

The fact is that you are opining on a subject that you know nothing about whatever. No, your opinions are not as good as those of people who have spent years learning the field. Most of your posts that purport to be about science are gibberish.

If you lack the discipline to first acquaint yourself with what has already been worked out in the field over thousands of years, then please spare us your ignorant musings. It's really offensive to most of us who have spent years and years studying these things.

Its not going to make any difference, and I wonder why you have not come across it before, but the source was a direct quote from Gottlob Frege's Foundations of Arithmetic, study no.28 'the set theory of number'.

John Jones wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Some writers define number as a set or multitude or plurality. ALL of these views suffer from the drawback that this concept of number will not cover the numbers 0 and 1. Moreover, these terms (sets, etc.) are utterly vague: sometimes they refer to 'heap' or 'group' or 'agglomeration' - referring to a juxtaposition in space, sometimes they are so used as to be practically equivalent to 'Number', only vaguer.

I conclude, that no analysis of the concept of Number is to be found in a definition of it as sets, etc.

Please cite one source that defines number like this.

No discussion again?

I do not understand your objection to citing sources. Doing so is basic to a forum like this one, and also basic to any scholarly work.

How does a source affect the sense?

.

Its not going to make any difference, and I wonder why you have not come across it before, but the source was a direct quote from Gottlob Frege's Foundations of Arithmetic, study no.28 'the set theory of number'.

Thank you. Would you mind giving me the exact quotation where he defines a number as a set or multitude or plurality.

Brandon9000 wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Some writers define number as a set or multitude or plurality. ALL of these views suffer from the drawback that this concept of number will not cover the numbers 0 and 1. Moreover, these terms (sets, etc.) are utterly vague: sometimes they refer to 'heap' or 'group' or 'agglomeration' - referring to a juxtaposition in space, sometimes they are so used as to be practically equivalent to 'Number', only vaguer.

I conclude, that no analysis of the concept of Number is to be found in a definition of it as sets, etc.

Please cite one source that defines number like this.

No discussion again?

I do not understand your objection to citing sources. Doing so is basic to a forum like this one, and also basic to any scholarly work.

How does a source affect the sense?

.

Its not going to make any difference, and I wonder why you have not come across it before, but the source was a direct quote from Gottlob Frege's Foundations of Arithmetic, study no.28 'the set theory of number'.

Thank you. Would you mind giving me the exact quotation where he defines a number as a set or multitude or plurality.

I gave you the exact quotation and the reference. The words I wrote were Gottlob's words. The point is, if I had wrote it you wouldn't be interested. What's gone wrong in mathematics? You have lost track of your roots, which lie in philosophy. Now you no longer want to even listen to philosophy.

Brandon9000 wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Some writers define number as a set or multitude or plurality. ALL of these views suffer from the drawback that this concept of number will not cover the numbers 0 and 1. Moreover, these terms (sets, etc.) are utterly vague: sometimes they refer to 'heap' or 'group' or 'agglomeration' - referring to a juxtaposition in space, sometimes they are so used as to be practically equivalent to 'Number', only vaguer.

I conclude, that no analysis of the concept of Number is to be found in a definition of it as sets, etc.

Please cite one source that defines number like this.

No discussion again?

I do not understand your objection to citing sources. Doing so is basic to a forum like this one, and also basic to any scholarly work.

How does a source affect the sense?

.

Its not going to make any difference, and I wonder why you have not come across it before, but the source was a direct quote from Gottlob Frege's Foundations of Arithmetic, study no.28 'the set theory of number'.

Thank you. Would you mind giving me the exact quotation where he defines a number as a set or multitude or plurality.

I gave you the exact quotation and the reference. The words I wrote were Gottlob's words. The point is, if I had wrote it you wouldn't be interested. What's gone wrong in mathematics? You have lost track of your roots, which lie in philosophy. Now you no longer want to even listen to philosophy.

Some writers define number as a set or multitude or plurality. ALL of these views suffer from the drawback that this concept of number will not cover the numbers 0 and 1. Moreover, these terms (sets, etc.) are utterly vague: sometimes they refer to 'heap' or 'group' or 'agglomeration' - referring to a juxtaposition in space, sometimes they are so used as to be practically equivalent to 'Number', only vaguer.

I conclude, that no analysis of the concept of Number is to be found in a definition of it as sets, etc.

John Jones wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Some writers define number as a set or multitude or plurality. ALL of these views suffer from the drawback that this concept of number will not cover the numbers 0 and 1. Moreover, these terms (sets, etc.) are utterly vague: sometimes they refer to 'heap' or 'group' or 'agglomeration' - referring to a juxtaposition in space, sometimes they are so used as to be practically equivalent to 'Number', only vaguer.

I conclude, that no analysis of the concept of Number is to be found in a definition of it as sets, etc.

Please cite one source that defines number like this.

No discussion again?

I do not understand your objection to citing sources. Doing so is basic to a forum like this one, and also basic to any scholarly work.

How does a source affect the sense?

.

Its not going to make any difference, and I wonder why you have not come across it before, but the source was a direct quote from Gottlob Frege's Foundations of Arithmetic, study no.28 'the set theory of number'.

Thank you. Would you mind giving me the exact quotation where he defines a number as a set or multitude or plurality.

I gave you the exact quotation and the reference. The words I wrote were Gottlob's words. The point is, if I had wrote it you wouldn't be interested. What's gone wrong in mathematics? You have lost track of your roots, which lie in philosophy. Now you no longer want to even listen to philosophy.

My first post was what Gottlob said, verbatim. They are his words. You have read them yourself . And Good god man, arithmetic is founded on the philosophy and its practices. Thats what I meant by you had left your roots

John Jones wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

John Jones wrote:

Some writers define number as a set or multitude or plurality. ALL of these views suffer from the drawback that this concept of number will not cover the numbers 0 and 1. Moreover, these terms (sets, etc.) are utterly vague: sometimes they refer to 'heap' or 'group' or 'agglomeration' - referring to a juxtaposition in space, sometimes they are so used as to be practically equivalent to 'Number', only vaguer.

I conclude, that no analysis of the concept of Number is to be found in a definition of it as sets, etc.

Please cite one source that defines number like this.

No discussion again?

I do not understand your objection to citing sources. Doing so is basic to a forum like this one, and also basic to any scholarly work.

How does a source affect the sense?

.

Its not going to make any difference, and I wonder why you have not come across it before, but the source was a direct quote from Gottlob Frege's Foundations of Arithmetic, study no.28 'the set theory of number'.

Thank you. Would you mind giving me the exact quotation where he defines a number as a set or multitude or plurality.

I gave you the exact quotation and the reference. The words I wrote were Gottlob's words. The point is, if I had wrote it you wouldn't be interested. What's gone wrong in mathematics? You have lost track of your roots, which lie in philosophy. Now you no longer want to even listen to philosophy.

My first post was what Gottlob said, verbatim. They are his words. You have read them yourself . And Good god man, arithmetic is founded on the philosophy and its practices. Thats what I meant by you had left your roots

May I ask what your qualifications are to make this judgement? Do you by any chance have a degree in Math or a related field? Since I am asking you what qualifies you to have an opinion, I ought to tell you what qualifies me. I have a BS and MS in Physics. What are your qualifications? Or are you, by any chance, an utterly ignorant person talking about things he doesn't begin to comprehend?

Could we just cut out this silly nested boxes crap?

Thanks.