3 ms·
the sentence you quoted is prefixed by "set theory has no natural interpretation.". that's the problem. if you're trying to talk about herds of sheep, you migh
by uryga 6y ago
the sentence you quoted is prefixed by "set theory has no natural
interpretation.". that's the problem.
if you're trying to talk about herds of sheep, you might decide to represent them with sets – that sounds like what sets are for! but then is a single-sheep-set meaningfully different from an "unwrapped" sheep? how?
in general the article seems to be talking about the issues with using set theory to talk about real-world stuff; it's not questioning the math.
- smadge 6y agoThere is an obvious isomorphism between the set of all sheep and the singleton sets of sheep, so practically speaking it shouldn’t be much of a barrier.
- HelloNurse 6y agoMathematics is about theories, philosophy is about describing reality. Theories that have little to do with reality are philosophically irrelevant, confusing and to be avoided despite being mathematically interesting.