Timeline for Don't the axioms of set theory implicitly assume numbers?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 27, 2015 at 6:16 | answer | added | Nikos M. | timeline score: 2 | |
| Dec 2, 2010 at 15:38 | vote | accept | Deniz | ||
| Nov 27, 2010 at 21:46 | vote | accept | Deniz | ||
| Nov 27, 2010 at 21:46 | |||||
| Nov 27, 2010 at 21:46 | vote | accept | Deniz | ||
| Nov 27, 2010 at 21:46 | |||||
| Nov 26, 2010 at 14:13 | answer | added | Todd Trimble | timeline score: 25 | |
| Nov 26, 2010 at 9:02 | comment | added | Martin Brandenburg | Related question: mathoverflow.net/questions/40296/… | |
| Nov 26, 2010 at 8:37 | answer | added | Stefan Geschke | timeline score: 20 | |
| Nov 26, 2010 at 6:38 | answer | added | Kaveh | timeline score: 6 | |
| Nov 26, 2010 at 6:05 | comment | added | Emerton | This kind of issue is raised by Poincare in "Science and Method", and (if I both remember and understand correctly) forms part of his criticism of impredicative definitions (such as the definition of the number two as the equivalence class of all two elements sets under the equivalence relation of bijection). | |
| Nov 26, 2010 at 5:43 | history | asked | Deniz | CC BY-SA 2.5 |