[FOM] ontology

[Thomas Forster]

My feeling is that Carlos's answer is ``obviously'' correct.  But there
is a cost to this.  It flies in the face of the idea that identity of
mathematical entities is isomorphism.  That's why i raised this example, 
as it forces us to examine this principle (that identity = isomorphims)
more closely.

      Thomas


On
Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Carlos Gonçalves wrote:

> At 18:14 14-01-2004 +0000, you wrote:
> 
> >An essay question:
> >
> >
> >Are the finite ordinals the same mathematical objects as the finite
> >cardinals?  Give reasons...                       [\aleph_0 marks]
> 
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> These are different objects, the notion of ordinal, in particular, appeals 
> to a notion of order (and of well ordered set) while a cardinal is, 
> following Cantor, obtained through an operation of double abstraction, both 
> from the order in which the elements of the set are given and from the 
> nature itself of those elements.
> 
> C. Pedro
> 
> _______________________________________________
> FOM mailing list
> FOM at cs.nyu.edu
> http://www.cs.nyu.edu/mailman/listinfo/fom
>