Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Absolute infinite

The absolute infinite is a philosophical and mathematical concept introduced by Georg Cantor in the late 19th century as part of his foundational work on set theory, denoting an ultimate, indeterminate totality that transcends all finite and transfinite quantities and cannot be mathematically comprehended or surpassed.^[1] In Cantor's view, this absolute infinite represents the boundless domain of God (referred to as infinitum absolutum or infinitum aeternum), which exists beyond human intellect and serves as the source of all actual infinities in creation, while remaining itself unknowable except through acknowledgment.^[2] Unlike the structured infinities of mathematics, the absolute infinite is not subject to determination, addition, or segmentation, embodying a metaphysical limit that Cantor contrasted with the determinate "actual infinite" of transfinite numbers.^[1] Cantor developed this idea in works such as his 1883 essay Grundlagen einer allgemeinen Mannigfaltigkeitslehre, where he argued that, apart from the finite and the absolute infinite—which eludes all definition—there exist infinite entities that are both determinate and intellectually accessible, namely the transfinite cardinal and ordinal numbers.^[1] He posited that "all things finite or infinite are definite and, except for God, can be determined by the intellect," thereby establishing the transfinite as a bridge between the finite world and the divine absolute.^[1] This distinction allowed Cantor to formalize infinite sets, such as the natural numbers with cardinality ℵ₀, while reserving the absolute infinite for a realm impervious to such quantification.^[3] Theologically, Cantor linked the absolute infinite to divine attributes, viewing it as the eternal, unincreasable infinity inherent in God's nature (natura naturans), from which the increasable transfinite infinities of the created world (natura naturata) and human abstraction derive.^[3] In correspondence and later writings, he described it as "refer[ring] to God and his attributes," emphasizing its role in reconciling actual infinity with Christian doctrine against Aristotelian potential infinity alone.^[2] Cantor maintained that infinite sets exist eternally in God's intellect, a position he defended against critics like Spinoza and Leibniz by asserting the consistency of transfinite mathematics as a reflection of divine perfection.^[3] This integration of theology and mathematics underscored Cantor's belief that the absolute infinite symbolizes an unknowable absolute, akin to eternity, where "the absolute can only be acknowledged but never known."^[2]

Cantor's Conception

Definition in Set Theory

Georg Cantor first introduced the concept of the absolute infinite in his 1883 essay Grundlagen einer allgemeinen Mannigfaltigkeitslehre, where he described it as transcending all finite and transfinite quantities. In his later foundational work Beiträge zur Begründung der transfiniten Mengenlehre (Contributions to the Founding of Transfinite Set Theory), published in two parts in 1895 and 1897, Cantor established the hierarchy of transfinite cardinals denoted by \aleph_\alpha for ordinals \alpha, demonstrating that no such cardinal is the largest, as each can be surpassed by another via the power set operation. He formulated this by showing that for any cardinal \kappa, the cardinality of its power set $2^\kappa > \kappa, implying an unending ascent with no supreme transfinite cardinal.^[1] Cantor precisely defined the absolute infinite in a letter to Richard Dedekind dated July 28, 1899, as the "system \Omega of all numbers," which he described as an inconsistent, absolutely infinite multiplicity. This totality cannot be regarded as a consistent set because assuming it forms a completed whole leads to a contradiction: if it had a cardinal number \kappa, then the power set of that totality would have cardinality $2^\kappa > \kappa, implying a larger cardinal not belonging to the totality, which contradicts the assumption that it includes all cardinals.^[4] Thus, the absolute infinite surpasses all \aleph_\alpha, including fixed points where \aleph_\beta = \alpha for some \beta, as no ordinal index \alpha can enumerate the entire hierarchy; any purported enumeration would be incomplete and proper. Central to Cantor's framework is the distinction between potential and actual infinity, with the absolute infinite embodying the ultimate actual infinity. Potential infinity refers to unending finite processes, such as the successive addition of units without completion, akin to Aristotelian views.^[5] In contrast, actual infinity denotes completed infinite wholes, realized in transfinite sets like the natural numbers (\aleph_0) or the continuum ($2^{\aleph_0}), which exist as definite entities despite their infinitude.^[5] The absolute infinite extends this actual infinity to its zenith, as the singular, inconsistent multiplicity encompassing all possible infinities, unattainable by any finite or transfinite construction. Cantor denoted this in his later writings with symbols like \Omega, emphasizing its role as the boundary beyond mathematical sets.^[6]

Theological and Philosophical Underpinnings

Georg Cantor, a devout Lutheran, deeply integrated his Christian faith into his mathematical and philosophical pursuits, viewing the absolute infinite not merely as a conceptual limit but as an essential attribute of God Himself. Influenced by theological traditions such as those of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, Cantor portrayed the absolute infinite as the eternal and uncreated essence of the divine, co-eternal with God and residing solely within the Intellectus Divinum.^[7] This perspective stemmed from his belief that human reason could grasp transfinite infinities—created and contingent—but the absolute infinite transcended all finite and transfinite measures, embodying God's omnipotence and incomprehensibility.^[8] In correspondence, Cantor explicitly linked the absolute infinite to divine mystery, emphasizing its inaccessibility to human cognition. For instance, in a letter dated January 29, 1886, to Cardinal Johannes Franzelin, he distinguished the absolute infinite as an uncreated reality in God from the actual infinities observable in the created world, seeking ecclesiastical approval for his set theory as compatible with Catholic doctrine.^[7] He further articulated this in a 1908 letter to Grace Chisholm Young, stating that "God lies ‘beyond the cardinal numbers,’" underscoring the absolute infinite's position outside mathematical enumeration.^[8] Cantor later reflected in his writings that "the Absolute can only be acknowledged, but never known," reinforcing its status as a theological rather than empirical or logical construct.^[8] Philosophically, Cantor's conception marked a deliberate departure from Aristotelian finitism, which permitted only potential infinity as an unending process without completion, rejecting any actual infinite as impossible.^[9] While acknowledging Hegel's advocacy for actual infinity within a dialectical framework, Cantor critiqued such views for blurring the divine-human divide, insisting instead on the absolute infinite's unique reservation for God alone and thereby rejecting broader finitist constraints on infinity.^[7] This theological anchoring allowed Cantor to defend transfinite mathematics as a revelation of divine order without encroaching on God's singular absoluteness. In his writings from the 1890s, particularly amid growing awareness of set-theoretic paradoxes, Cantor characterized the absolute infinite as an "inconsistent multiplicity"—a totality so vast that it defied consistent formation as a set and could only be comprehended through divine intuition.^[8] He argued that such multiplicities, exemplified by the hypothetical collection of all ordinals, existed actually but paradoxically only in God's mind, inaccessible to finite beings and immune to mathematical manipulation.^[10] This portrayal not only resolved perceived tensions in his theory but also elevated the absolute infinite as the ultimate symbol of divine transcendence.

Mathematical Foundations

Relation to Transfinite Numbers

Cantor developed the theory of transfinite numbers to quantify infinite sets, distinguishing between transfinite ordinals, which describe well-orderings, and transfinite cardinals, denoted by the aleph numbers \aleph_\alpha, which measure sizes of sets. The smallest transfinite cardinal, \aleph_0, corresponds to the cardinality of the natural numbers, representing countable infinity, while higher cardinals like \aleph_1, \aleph_2, and so on form a hierarchy of increasingly larger infinities. These transfinites are "relative infinities," completed totalities that can be mathematically determined and compared, but they stand below the absolute infinite, which Cantor viewed as an indeterminate, all-encompassing totality beyond any such quantification.^[1] Central to this framework is Cantor's continuum hypothesis, which posits that the cardinality of the real numbers, or the continuum $2^{\aleph_0}, equals \aleph_1, the next cardinal after \aleph_0. He argued that iterating the power set operation on any transfinite cardinal \aleph_\alpha yields the next aleph \aleph_{\alpha+1}, generating the entire aleph hierarchy without gaps under the hypothesis. However, the absolute infinite transcends this process, as it cannot be obtained as the power set of any set within the transfinite realm and remains outside the completed infinities of the alephs. Within the transfinite hierarchy, Cantor considered structures where the indexing ordinal aligns with the cardinal itself, known as aleph-fixed points, satisfying \aleph_\alpha = \alpha for limit ordinals \alpha. These points represent stages where the cardinal and its ordinal index coincide in magnitude, yet the absolute infinite surpasses all such fixed points, as the hierarchy of alephs continues indefinitely without a supreme transfinite.^[11] In his late works from the 1900s to 1910s, including correspondence with Dedekind in 1899 and unpublished manuscripts, Cantor refined the transfinite hierarchy to emphasize its asymptotic approach to the absolute infinite. He described the class of all ordinals as an "inconsistent multiplicity" symbolizing the absolute, which bounds but is not attained by any transfinite construction, ensuring the hierarchy's endless progression.^[12]

Inconsistent Multiplicity

In his 1899 letter to Richard Dedekind, Georg Cantor defined an inconsistent multiplicity as a collection whose elements cannot be assumed to exist "together" as a unified whole without engendering a logical contradiction, rendering it impossible to conceive as a completed entity.^[13] He exemplified this with the system of all ordinal numbers, arguing that any attempt to treat it as a set would imply the existence of a larger ordinal, perpetuating an infinite regress that undermines consistency.^[13] Such multiplicities, which Cantor termed absolutely infinite, thus defy the formation of a set in the mathematical sense. This notion contrasts sharply with consistent multiplicities, which can be unified without contradiction and thus qualify as sets, possessing definite cardinalities and ordinal types.^[14] Inconsistent multiplicities, by contrast, elude such unification; in contemporary terminology, they align with the idea of proper classes—collections too expansive to be members of any set.^[4] Cantor emphasized that while transfinite sets within the hierarchy of infinities remain amenable to mathematical analysis, the absolute infinite transcends this structure entirely. Cantor further argued that the absolute infinite embodies the totality of reality itself, serving as a mathematical symbol for divine infinity, which, like God, resists any finite circumscription by human intellect.^[2] Drawing on theological grounds, he maintained that this infinity, excepted from intellectual determination, mirrors the ineffable nature of the divine, where all infinities are rendered finite only in relation to the Creator.^[2] As such, it stands as an unattainable bound, acknowledging the limits of mathematical inquiry without diminishing its symbolic profundity. In elaborations during the early 1900s, including correspondence with David Hilbert, Cantor reinforced that the absolute infinite evades enumeration or well-ordering, as any purported ordering would necessitate a cardinal number surpassing all others, thereby reverting to inconsistency.^[14] He posited that this evasion underscores the absolute's incomprehensibility, positioning it beyond the progressive ascent of transfinite numbers while preserving the coherence of set-theoretic constructions.^[14]

Associated Paradoxes

Burali-Forti Paradox

The Burali-Forti paradox, discovered by Italian mathematician Cesare Burali-Forti in 1897, arises from the assumption that the collection of all ordinal numbers forms a set that itself qualifies as an ordinal. In his paper exploring transfinite numbers, Burali-Forti posited that this total collection, ordered by the standard membership relation, is well-ordered and thus possesses an ordinal order type; however, this order type must belong to the collection, implying a largest ordinal, which contradicts the defining property of ordinals that for any ordinal α, there exists a larger one, β > α.^[15] This contradiction was derived using a result akin to Cantor's theorem on the strict increase of ordinal types under successor operations.^[16] Formally, let O denote the class of all ordinal numbers. The relation \in well-orders O, so there exists an ordinal \alpha such that (O, \in) is order-isomorphic to the ordinals less than \alpha. Yet \alpha must itself be an element of O, making the order type of O equal to \alpha; this implies O consists precisely of all ordinals strictly less than \alpha, but then the order type of O would be \alpha, leading to \alpha < \alpha, a violation of ordinal well-ordering properties.^[17] The paradox thus demonstrates that O cannot be treated as a set within naive set theory, as it would be uncountable in its own structure while purporting to encompass all well-orderings.^[18] Georg Cantor addressed the paradox in his 1899 letter to Richard Dedekind, arguing that it stems not from any defect in the theory of transfinite ordinals but from the inherent inconsistency of the absolute infinite—the totality O represents an "inconsistent multiplicity" that defies set formation.^[16] Cantor maintained that while proper classes like O exhibit paradoxical behavior when naively totalized, the transfinite hierarchy remains consistent, distinguishing the absolute infinite as a theological and philosophical limit beyond mathematical sets.^[18] Burali-Forti's work appeared in the Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo, marking the first published set-theoretic paradox and prompting early scrutiny of ordinal totalities.^[15] Its discovery influenced subsequent developments in ordinal theory, including refinements to well-ordering principles and the recognition of limitations in forming sets from infinite classes.^[19]

Russell's Paradox Connections

Bertrand Russell discovered his paradox in 1901 while analyzing Georg Cantor's diagonalization argument, which demonstrates that no set can contain all possible sets as elements, thereby paralleling the absolute infinite as an unattainable ultimate totality.^[20] The paradox arises from considering the set R = \{ x \mid x \notin x \}, the collection of all sets that do not contain themselves as members; if R \in R, then by definition R \notin R, and if R \notin R, then R \in R, yielding a contradiction.^[21] This self-referential issue mirrors Cantor's absolute infinite by exposing the impossibility of forming a coherent set from the totality of all sets, as such a totality resists consistent membership relations.^[20] Cantor himself had preemptively recognized analogous problems two years earlier, in an 1899 letter to Richard Dedekind, where he argued that the "system of all numbers" or the "totality of everything thinkable" constitutes an "inconsistent multiplicity" that cannot be regarded as a definite set, directly linking to his notion of the absolute infinite as beyond finite or transfinite comprehension.^[13] He distinguished such absolute infinities from consistent sets, noting that they lead to contradictions if treated as objects, much like the self-exclusion in Russell's formulation.^[13] Both paradoxes thus reveal the absolute infinite's foundational role in obstructing naive axioms of comprehension, which would otherwise allow unrestricted collection of all sets into a single entity.^[21] The Burali-Forti paradox serves as an ordinal analog, but Russell's emphasizes membership inconsistencies central to the absolute infinite.^[20]

Modern Interpretations

In Axiomatic Set Theory

In axiomatic set theory, particularly Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice (ZFC), the absolute infinite is conceptualized as the universe of all sets, denoted V, which is treated as a proper class rather than a set to avoid paradoxes arising from self-reference. This formulation aligns with Georg Cantor's notion of an "inconsistent multiplicity," where V encompasses all sets but cannot itself be a member of any set, ensuring the hierarchy's coherence. In ZFC, V is constructed cumulatively through the von Neumann hierarchy V = \bigcup_{\alpha \in \mathrm{Ord}} V_\alpha, where each V_\alpha is a set, but the full V transcends set membership due to its unbounded nature.^[22]^[23] The axiom of limitation of size, a principle tracing back to Cantor's ideas and formalized by John von Neumann, further delineates the absolute infinite's inaccessibility by stipulating that a class is a proper class if and only if it is equinumerous with V. This axiom implies that no set can map onto V, reinforcing that the absolute infinite cannot be "sized" or contained within the set-theoretic universe. Complementing this, the axiom of global choice, which asserts the existence of a class function selecting an element from every non-empty set, enables a well-ordering of V and underscores its transcendence, as it treats the absolute infinite as beyond incremental construction from smaller cardinals. These axioms collectively ensure that V remains indefinable within ZFC, preserving consistency by prohibiting direct quantification over the absolute infinite.^[24]^[25]^[23] In the Von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel (NBG) set theory, an extension of ZFC that explicitly incorporates proper classes, the absolute infinite is modeled through the class comprehension scheme, allowing classes to represent Cantor's inconsistent multiplicities—collections like the class of all ordinals or all sets that defy set formation. NBG distinguishes sets from proper classes, with the latter, such as V, embodying the absolute infinite as unincreasable and non-mathematical in Cantor's sense, yet governed by logical laws. This framework resolves paradoxes by permitting quantification over classes while restricting their membership, thus accommodating the absolute infinite without contradiction.^[22]^[23] Despite these accommodations, ZFC faces limitations in directly addressing the absolute infinite, as it cannot prove the existence of structures that fully capture its scale, such as cardinals equinumerous to V. This has led to extensions via large cardinal axioms, where inaccessible cardinals serve as approximations: a strongly inaccessible cardinal \kappa is uncountable, regular, and a strong limit (i.e., for all \lambda < \kappa, $2^\lambda < \kappa), modeling a "local" absolute infinite inaccessible from below via power sets or unions. Such cardinals, if assumed, strengthen ZFC's consistency but remain independent of it, highlighting the absolute infinite's elusiveness in standard axiomatic frameworks.^[23]^[24]

Philosophical Extensions

In the early 1920s, mathematician and philosopher Hermann Weyl engaged deeply with intuitionism, particularly under the influence of L.E.J. Brouwer, critiquing the classical conception of the absolute infinite as an overly realist commitment to completed, actual infinities that transcend constructive human cognition.^[26] Weyl argued that such infinities introduce an unattainable "taint" into mathematics, positing entities that cannot be exhaustively generated through finite processes, and instead advocated for a predicative approach to the continuum that treats infinity as merely potential. This intuitionistic turn, prominent in his 1921 manifesto "The New Foundational Crisis of Mathematics," positioned the absolute infinite as a metaphysical excess incompatible with the primacy of intuition and finite verification, influencing later constructivist philosophies.^[26] Alain Badiou, in his 20th-century ontological framework outlined in Being and Event (1988) and extended in The Immanence of Truths (2018), appropriates set theory as the discourse of being, where the absolute infinite echoes Cantor's inconsistent multiplicity rooted in the void—the empty set as the primordial multiple without unity.^[27] For Badiou, the absolute infinite manifests as the "inconsistent One" of all multiples, an unpresentable totality that set theory approaches through axioms like infinity and power sets, but never fully captures, thereby secularizing Cantor's theological absolute into a materialist ontology of evental truths emerging from the void's excess.^[27] This interpretation reframes the absolute infinite not as a divine or realist endpoint, but as the generative inconsistency enabling philosophical multiplicities beyond any transcendent One. In analytic philosophy, debates surrounding the absolute infinite have centered on its implications for mathematical platonism, with W.V.O. Quine exemplifying a pragmatic acceptance of set-theoretic infinities as indispensable for scientific theorizing, yet questioning commitments to an ultimate, absolute totality like Cantor's V (the universe of all sets). Quine's indispensability argument posits that abstract entities, including transfinite and potentially absolute infinities, exist insofar as they are ontologically committed by our best theories, thereby justifying a form of platonism without necessitating a theological or hyper-realist absolute infinite. Critics, however, argue that positing such an absolute risks overcommitting to a singular, realist hierarchy of infinities that analytic nominalism or fictionalism could avoid, fueling ongoing discussions on whether set theory's large infinities demand full platonistic realism or merely instrumental utility.^[9] Post-2000 developments in the philosophy of mathematics have increasingly linked the absolute infinite to multiverse interpretations of set theory, as articulated by Joel David Hamkins, who views the set-theoretic universe not as a unique absolute V but as a plurality of countable transitive models, each realizing different infinities without a singular, inconsistent totality.^[28] This multiverse perspective, detailed in Hamkins' 2012 paper "The Set-Theoretic Multiverse," challenges the classical absolute infinite by emphasizing maximality principles across diverse universes, where truths about infinity vary by context, thus shifting philosophical focus from a realist absolute to a modal pluralism in set-theoretic ontology.^[29] Such interpretations reconcile the absolute infinite's paradoxes by treating it as a horizon of possible set concepts rather than a fixed metaphysical entity.

References

[1]
English translation of Cantor's Grundlagen - Logic
The non-actual-infinite has often been called the “bad” infinite by recent philosophers, wrongly in my opinion, since it has proved itself to be a very good, ...Missing: primary | Show results with:primary
[2]
[PDF] Cantor on Infinity in Nature, Number, and the Divine Mind - PhilArchive
The mathematician Georg Cantor strongly believed in the existence of actually infinite numbers and sets. Cantor's “actualism” went against the Aristote- lian ...
[3]
None
### Summary of Cantor's Absolute Infinite, Set Theory, and Theological Reasoning
[4]
[PDF] The Notion of Infinity in Plotinus and Cantor - PhilPapers
Is the absolute infinity conceivable? Are all infinities the same, or are some more infinite than others? Is the actual infinity logical prior to the potential.
[5]
Georg Cantor - Dartmouth Mathematics
Cantor believed that opposition to the use of actual infinities in mathematics, philosophy, and theology was based upon a common and pervasive error. Whatever ...
[6]
Cantor on Set Theory - The Logic Museum
... absolutely infinite multiplicity. [Das System W aller Zahlen ist eine inkonsistente, eine absolut unendliche Vielheit]. Dedekind to Cantor: (Letter 29 ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[7]
Cantor's Concept of Infinity:
Cantor's set theory laid the foundation for analysis. His discovery that n-dimensional space is of the same size for all n spurred the study of topology ...
[8]
[PDF] CANTORIAN INFINITY AND PhILOSOPhICAL CONCEPTS OF GOD
Cantor was a lutheran with deep sympathies for the Catholic church, and his conception of the nature of God (which will be considered in more detail in section ...
[9]
The Infinite | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Cantor's own paradox surfaced in 1895 when he asked whether the set of all cardinal numbers has a cardinal number. Cantor showed that, if it does, then it doesn ...
[10]
[PDF] CANTOR, GOD, AND INCONSISTENT MULTIPLICITIES*
Note that in both of these passages, it is the possibility of thinking of or conceiving of an inconsistent multiplicity as a completed object that is.
[11]
The role of the absolute infinite in Cantor's conception of set
In a letter to Hilbert dated 26 September 1897, Cantor sketches a proof that the power of every infinite set is an aleph 16 based on the fact already.<|control11|><|separator|>
[12]
[PDF] Georg Cantor's Ordinals, Absolute Infinity & Transparent Proof of the ...
Sep 29, 2019 · Our main interest in this essay is in a new, non-controversial proof of WOT based on Cantor's somewhat cryptic remarks using to advantage the ...
[13]
[PDF] Cantor's Letter to Dedekind
Oct 24, 2017 · • however, Cantor's formulation of the distinction between consistent and inconsistent multiplicities is imprecise: a multiplicity is a set ...
[14]
https://www.logicmuseum.com/cantor/cantorquotes.htm
[15]
Una questione sui numeri transfiniti | SpringerLink
Dec 20, 2008 · Una questione sui numeri transfiniti. C. Burali-Forti. Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo (1884-1940) volume 11, ...
[16]
CANTOR AND THE BURALI-FORTI PARADOX - jstor
recognize the distinction between consistent and inconsistent multiplicities, sets and proper classes. But this is a distinction Cantor made long before his.Missing: original | Show results with:original<|control11|><|separator|>
[17]
The Burali-Forti Paradox - jstor
The year 1897 saw the publication2 of the first of the modern logical paradoxes. It was published by Cesare Burali-Forti, the Italian mathemati-.
[18]
Cantor and the Burali-Forti Paradox - Christopher Menzel - PhilPapers
... Cantor discovered the so-called Burali-Forti (BF) paradox sometime in 1895, and that he offered his solution to it in his famous 1899 letter to Dedekind.Missing: response | Show results with:response
[19]
[PDF] BURALI-FORTI'S PARADOX: A REAPPRAISAL OF ITS ORIGINS
The only contradiction in his paper was the usual one found in any proof by reductio ad absurdum. Later in 1897, Burali-Forti read Cantor's article. 11897, 2161.
[20]
Russell's paradox - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Dec 18, 2024 · Russell discovered his paradox by examining Cantor's proof that there is no largest cardinal number. The proof relies on a neat trick known as “ ...
[21]
[PDF] Russell, His Paradoxes, and Cantor's Theorem: Part I
In these articles, I describe Cantor's power-class theorem, as well as a number of logical and philosophical paradoxes that stem from it, many of which were ...
[22]
[PDF] Absolute Infinity
Dec 14, 2013 · He held that the mathematical universe forms a potentially infinite sequence of sets of a special kind, which he called. 'normal domains'.
[23]
None
### Summary of Discussions on Cantor's Absolute Infinite, Proper Classes, and Universe V in ZFC
[24]
[PDF] Axiomatic set theory and unincreasable infinity - m-hikari.com
avoided: since the universe V is a proper class, it has no power class (otherwise, ... the Absolute infinite, according to which the absolutely infinite sequence ...
[25]
[PDF] PhilSci-Archive - CANTOR-VON NEUMANN SET-THEORY
The equinumerosity of V with itself yields its absolute-infinite character by definition (10). As a corollary of Theorems 5 and 7, we have an instance of the ...
[26]
[PDF] Cantorian set theory and limitation of size
Cantor's theory of infinity. 1.1 Free mathematics. 1.2 The potential infinite ... 4.1 The Absolute and limitation of size. 4.2 Jourdain's limitation of ...
[27]
Hermann Weyl - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Sep 2, 2009 · Weyl's espousal of the intuitionistic standpoint in the foundations of mathematics in 1920–21 inevitably led to friction with his old mentor ...
[28]
[PDF] The Immanence of Truths and the Absolutely Infinite in Spinoza ...
In mathematical language, Badiou formalises the infinite via transcendence as the strongly inaccessible cardinal. A strongly inaccessible cardinal κ. 1) is ...
[29]
[1108.4223] The set-theoretic multiverse - arXiv
Aug 22, 2011 · The multiverse view in set theory, introduced and argued for in this article, is the view that there are many distinct concepts of set.
[30]
THE SET-THEORETIC MULTIVERSE | The Review of Symbolic Logic
Aug 9, 2012 · The multiverse view in set theory, introduced and argued for in this article, is the view that there are many distinct concepts of set, each instantiated in a ...