Is (un)countabilism restrictive?

Abstract

Let's suppose you think that there are no uncountable sets. Have you adopted a restrictive position? It is certainly tempting to say yes---you've prohibited the existence of certain kinds of large set. This paper argues that this intuition can be challenged. Instead, I argue that there are some considerations based on a formal notion of restrictiveness which suggest that it is restrictive to hold that there are uncountable sets.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

Are Large Cardinal Axioms Restrictive?Neil Barton - 2023 - Philosophia Mathematica 31 (3):372-407.
On quasi-amorphous sets.P. Creed & J. K. Truss - 2001 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 40 (8):581-596.
Skolem's Paradox.Timothy Bays - 2012 - In Ed Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford, CA: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
What is a Restrictive Theory?Toby Meadows - 2024 - Review of Symbolic Logic 17 (1):67-105.
On nice equivalence relations on λ2.Saharon Shelah - 2004 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 43 (1):31-64.

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-08-16

Downloads
544 (#51,447)

6 months
131 (#38,868)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Neil Barton
University of Oslo

Citations of this work

Replies to Rosen, Leiter, and Dutilh Novaes.Justin Clarke-Doane - 2023 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 107 (3):817-837.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references