That’s pretty interesting, thanks. It’s related to abstraction (interfaces) vs representation (implementation) in programming. To my eye, there’s no conflict th

That’s pretty interesting, thanks. It’s related to abstraction (interfaces) vs representation (implementation) in programming. To my eye, there’s no conflict that 1 \in 3 is true in one representation and not in the other. Trying to use \in like that seems like a violation of an abstract interface, somehow expecting that the various implementations of an abstraction must be identical. It also doesn’t seem to violate platonism, since “numbers” are abstract ideas that are not expressible directly in set theory. Set theory can only encode concrete representations of numbers. Much like any physical chair cannot be identical to the platonic Chair.