Set: Difference between revisions

From Objective Mathematics
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "A '''set''' is a collection of existents, considered as a unit. == Infinite sets == Objective Mathematics says that infinite sets are an invalid notion. In short, this is because an infinite set does not refer to anything that can be perceived. The concept in Objective Mathematics which is closest to that of an infinite set is that of a concept. === But what about extended objects? === There are an unlimited number of points on an extended object. It...")
 
Line 3: Line 3:
== Infinite sets ==
== Infinite sets ==
Objective Mathematics says that infinite sets are an invalid [[notion]]. In short, this is because an infinite set does not refer to anything that can be perceived. The concept in Objective Mathematics which is closest to that of an infinite set is that of a [[concept]].  
Objective Mathematics says that infinite sets are an invalid [[notion]]. In short, this is because an infinite set does not refer to anything that can be perceived. The concept in Objective Mathematics which is closest to that of an infinite set is that of a [[concept]].  
=== The traditional concept ===
Standard mathematics says that a set <math>X</math> is ''infinite'' if there exist functions <math>X \rightarrow X</math> which are injective but not surjective.


=== But what about extended objects? ===
=== But what about extended objects? ===

Revision as of 20:03, 21 January 2024

A set is a collection of existents, considered as a unit.

Infinite sets

Objective Mathematics says that infinite sets are an invalid notion. In short, this is because an infinite set does not refer to anything that can be perceived. The concept in Objective Mathematics which is closest to that of an infinite set is that of a concept.

The traditional concept

Standard mathematics says that a set is infinite if there exist functions which are injective but not surjective.

But what about extended objects?

There are an unlimited number of points on an extended object. It may therefore seem like there should be, for any extended object O, such a thing as "the set of all points on O." Since there are unlimited number of points on O, doesn't that mean that there is an infinite set?

To see why that is wrong, we must examine more carefully what is meant by a point. In some contexts, the concept of a point is used to identify a physical object. For example, the reader can easily identify a point in this picture [TODO]. In other contexts, the concept of a point is used to identify a location whose only distinguishing characteristic is that it is the place where one is focusing one's attention. For an example, the reader should try to focus on one specific point on a blank and featureless area of his wall.

We may now see the subtlety with the idea of "the set of all points on O." There may be some points on O which are physical, i.e. points which can be perceptually distinguished from the rest of O. But in order for such points to be perceived, they must necessarily have a finite size, so there can only be finitely many of them. As for those points on O which are non-physical, it is true that there is no limit on how many could exist. But since the concretes in question are merely objects of one's focus, rather than objects in reality, they do not actually exist until one chooses to focus. And one can only ever focus on finitely many points of O. We have thus refuted the idea that there exist infinitely many points on O.

Note: Objective Mathematics does not use the notion of "the set of all points on O," because of the aforementioned subtlety. However, Objective Mathematics does use the notion of "any point on O." Standard mathematics does not draw a sharp distinction between those two notions. See also the related article on the distinction between "any" and "all."

But what about all the practical infinite sets?

Standard mathematics makes use of infinite sets, and many of those infinite sets appear to be practical. Some examples are the set of all integers, the set of all fractions, infinite sequences, etc. Objective Mathematics accepts that integers, fractions, and sequences are concepts, and useful ones at that. But it denies that integers, fractions, etc. are infinite sets.