ebooks logo journals logo reference works logo abstract databases logo
bullet  SIGN IN Register | Why Register? | Got a Voucher? alerts   marked lists   shopping cart 

informaworld

HOME   |   SEARCH   |   BROWSE
    Issues List       Latest Issue       Forthcoming Articles       Subscribe       Article       References       Related articles      
<< firstfirst   < prevprev   Table of contentstoc   next >next   last >>last
Publisher Logo Publication Cover
Search within this journal

Cantor on Frege's Foundations of Arithmetic: Cantor's 1885 Review of Frege's Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik 

Authors: Philip A. Ebert a; Marcus Rossberg b
Affiliations:   a Department of Philosophy, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland, UK
b Department of Philosophy, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA
DOI: 10.1080/01445340903102813
Publication Frequency: 4 issues per year
Published in: journal History and Philosophy of Logic, Volume 30, Issue 4 November 2009 , pages 341 - 348
Formats available: HTML (English) : PDF (English)
Article Requests: Order Reprints : Request Permissions


Abstract

In 1885, Georg Cantor published his review of Gottlob Frege's Grundlagen der Arithmetik. In this essay, we provide its first English translation together with an introductory note. We also provide a translation of a note by Ernst Zermelo on Cantor's review, and a new translation of Frege's brief response to Cantor. In recent years, it has become philosophical folklore that Cantor's 1885 review of Frege's Grundlagen already contained a warning to Frege. This warning is said to concern the defectiveness of Frege's notion of extension. The exact scope of such speculations varies and sometimes extends as far as crediting Cantor with an early hunch of the paradoxical nature of Frege's notion of extension. William Tait goes even further and deems Frege 'reckless' for having missed Cantor's explicit warning regarding the notion of extension. As such, Cantor's purported inkling would have predated the discovery of the Russell-Zermelo paradox by almost two decades. In our introductory essay, we discuss this alleged implicit (or even explicit) warning, separating two issues: first, whether the most natural reading of Cantor's criticism provides an indication that the notion of extension is defective; second, whether there are other ways of understanding Cantor that support such an interpretation and can serve as a precisification of Cantor's presumed warning.
view references (19)
Bookmark with:
  • CiteULike
  • Del.icio.us
  • BibSonomy
  • Connotea
  • More bookmarks
Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Accessibility | RSS
FAQs in: English . Français . Español . 中文(简体和繁體)
© 2009 Informa plc