[FOM] Real Numbers
Richard G Heck
heck at fas.harvard.edu
Sat May 3 10:10:08 EDT 2003
Debates over Benacerraf's problem always seem to lead to someone's
something like the following, which Wiman says here:
> The real numbers are not equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences.
> They can be, but they can also be Dedekind cuts, binary numbers, real
> closed fields, one dimensional continua, or a number of other things.
I always feel puzzled when I get to that point, however. What is the
modality here? In what sense /can/ the reals be any of these things,
though they are not? I understand what it means to say, for example,
that, though I am not a mathematician, I might have been, but that is
surely not the sort of thing one has in mind here. If I am not a
mathematician, then perhaps I /could/ be one, but what would it mean to
say that I /can/ be one? Surely if the reals /are not/ Dedekind cuts,
then they /cannot/ be Dedekind cuts, any more than I can be George Bush
if I am not George Bush.
We can interpret analysis in set theory. That is true. But why should it
mean that the reals "can be" sets?
Now granted, there is a point at which one might be trying to get using
such language, and it is a point with real mathematical content. But I
do not see that it has been clearly expressed, either here or elsewhere.
Richard Heck
More information about the FOM
mailing list