1-1 Introduction Remark on possible worlds: I will return to the topic of possible worlds in Lecture 3.

3. Remark on God and infinity: One of the philosophers who thought that God and the infinite were closely related, and who argued that for that reason there would be serious limitations to our understanding of God, was icolaus !usanus in the "#th century. If you want to know more about him and his $iews, take a look at the corresponding entry in the %tanford &ncyclopedia of 'hilosophy, click here. (y the way: I will )uite regularly refer you to entries in the %tanford &ncyclopedia of 'hilosophy: they are freely accessible* they are written by professional philosophers who speciali+e in the sub,ect matter of the respecti$e entries* and they are sub,ect to a serious peerre$iew process. I can $ery much recommend the %tanford &ncyclopedia to you. It is also where philosophy students and philosophy faculty start their searches when they need some philosophical background information. 1-2 Arguments and Paradoxes Remark on .eno and 'armenides: /or more on the historical background, see the corresponding entries in the %tanford &ncyclopedia of 'hilosophy on 'armenides and on .eno of &lea. 0ou might also like to check out my L12 colleague 'eter 3damson4s 5freely a$ailable6 podcast 47istory of 'hilosophy without any gaps4, which includes episodes on 'armenides and .eno. Remark on the argument 43. If 3 then (. 8herefore, (.4: 8he logical rule by which one can deri$e this conclusion from these premises is called 41odus 'onens4 in the philosophical tradition. 'lease note that, whene$er I can, I will a$oid fancy names and funny symbols in the lectures themsel$es, since these names and symbols are not important really. I will still tell you, from time to time, about some of them in some of my written remarks, but feel free to ignore these remarks on terminology if you are not interested.Oh, and I should add that we will return to the topic of truth in Lecture 9, and we will deal with 4if-then4 in detail in Lecture :. Remark on 3ristotle and his logic: /or more on 3ristotle and his logic, click here and here. Remark on Logic: It is a real pity that I cannot say more here about logical concepts, such as the logical $alidity of arguments--concepts that are of fundamental importance for philosophy--but doing logic properly would re)uire a course of its own. 2nfortunately, in our present course, we will ha$e to lea$e things on a $ery informal 5and sometimes pretty sloppy;6 le$el as far as logic is concerned. If that does not satisfy you: In case you study philosophy at a uni$ersity, then you should ha$e completed a serious logic course anyway. (ut most of you won4t be students in some philosophy program, so if you still want to learn more about logic, then one option would be to take the Introduction to Logic course in !oursera. I should add, though, that that course has not been designed specifically for philosophers. /inally, should you speak German, you might also be interested in the lecture notes of my own introductory logic course at L12 which is in fact

designed specifically for philosophers--the lecture notes are a$ailable freely* click here. Remark on .eno4s parado<es: 1ore historical background information on .eno4s parado<es can be found here. =ui+: >o you think the following argument is logically $alid, too? 5'"6 .eno puts forward arguments. 5'96 If .eno is a philosopher, then he puts forward arguments. 5!6 .eno is a philosopher. Or more generally: 5'"6 (. 5'96 If 3, then (. 5!6 3. %olution: o, that 5kind of6 argument is not logically $alid: if the premises '" and '9 are true, then this does not imply with necessity that also the conclusion ! is true. If the argument were logically true, then ,ust the truth of the premises '" and '9 by themsel$es should suffice to guarantee the truth of !. (ut that is not so: it is perfectly possible that '" and '9 are true while ! is not. 7ere is one way of seeing why: assume, say, 4.eno4 would denote a scientist who is not also a philosopher: this is not e<cluded by '" and '9 being true--and as I said, we are not to suppose tacitly any premise additional to '" and '9 by which, e.g., we could rule out 4.eno4 denoting a non-philosopher. Gi$en that 4.eno4 denotes a scientist who is not also a philosopher, which describes a perfectly possible situation, premise '" is true, since not ,ust philosophers put forward arguments, but also scientists do. 'remise '9 is still true, since all philosophers put forward arguments, so independently of whether .eno is a philosopher or not, @@if@@ he is a philosopher, then he puts forward arguments. (ut the conclusion ! is false: for, by assumption, 4.eno4 was meant to denote a non-philosopher. %o the ,oint truth of '" and '9 taken by itself does not yield the truth of ! with necessity. 3ccordingly, for the more general $ersion of the argument: 3ssume the premises 5'"6 (, 5'96 if 3 then (, to be true. 8hen there is no guarantee that also 3 is true: ( is true, by premise '"* and 3 is indeed one possible AreasonA why ( might be true, as stated by premise '9* but there might well be other AreasonsA why ( is true: e.g., it might be the case that ( is really true because 5i6 if > then (, and 5ii6 > are both true. %o 3 does not ha$e to be true ,ust because the premises '" and '9 are true. 7ence, the argument is not logically $alid. 8he truth of '" and '9 does not logically imply the truth of the conclusion sentence 3. 1-3 Zeno's Paradox =ui+: 'lease check for yourself: /irst of all, did you understand the logic of the argument? Reconsider the structure of premises, and how the premises ,ointly entail the conclusion. %econdly: Bhat do you think about the argument? >o you find the conclusion absurd? If so: which of the premises seem fishy to you? Bhen I turn to my assessment of the argument in the ne<t part of the lecture, please compare your own findings with mine.

1-4 Calculus to the Rescue Remark on infinite sums: If you want to know more about the formal details of all of that, please consult $irtually any web entry or lecture notes or te<tbook on the calculus--on the area that is often called 4analysis 5of real numbers64 in mathematics. 8he mathematical key terms to look for are: 4infinite se)uence4* 4infinite series4* 4con$ergence4 and 4limit4* and 4geometric series4 5for our series "C9 D "C: D "CE D ... is a simple e<ample of a so-called geometric series6. =ui+: 5"6 8ry out the following: Let t F "C9 D "C: D "CE D ... 7ence tC9 F "C: D "CE D ... ow subtract tC9 from t, and try to determine the $alue of 4t4 in this way. %olution: Be first consider the left-hand sides of these e)uations, and then their right-hand sides. On the one hand, if one subtracts tC9 from t, one ends up with tC9. On the other hand, subtracting "C: D "CE D ... from "C9 D "C: D "CE D ... lea$es "C9. 8hus, we ha$e: tC9 F "C9. 8hat is: t F ". 8he infinite sum "C9 D "C: D "CE D ... con$erges towards ". 596 7ow does it follow in our toy model that 3chilles is twice as fast as the tortoise? %olution: 7ere is one way of seeing this. 8he amount of time that it takes the tortoise to mo$e from <G" to <G9 is precisely the amount of time that it takes 3chilles to mo$e from <GH to <G", that is, 8GH* but it only takes 3chilles the amount 8G" of time to mo$e from <G" to <G9* and, by assumption, 8G" is but half of 8GH. %o 3chilles is twice as fast as the tortoise. 1-5 Sets Remark on the empty set: 1ore usually in mathematics, the empty set is denoted by 44, that is, by a crossed 4O4. (ut we will stick to the more self-e<planatory 4IJ4 in the following. Remark on membership: 8he membership relation for sets is usually denoted by means of a formal symbol that looks like the Greek letter epsilon: 4K4. (ut, as I said before, I will a$oid symbols in the lectures where$er I can. =ui+: 5"6 Is the set IE,3,#,#J identical to the set I#,3,E,E,#J? %olution: 0es, as they ha$e the same members. 8he more economical way of denoting that set would be: I3,#,EJ. 596 Is the set I",9,3,:J identical to the set I",:J? %olution: o. /or instance, the number 9 is a member of the set I",9,3,:J while 9 is not a member of I",:J. 8herefore, the set I",9,3,:J is not identical to 5that is, is distinct from6 the set

I",:J. 1- Com!aring Sets in "erms o# Si$e Remark on the subset relation and on the proper-subset relation: 8he usual manner of denoting the proper-subset relation in mathematics is in terms of a symbol that looks like a 424 rotated to the right by LH degrees: 44. 8he symbol for the subset relation is the same one e<cept that a hori+ontal line is added: 44. Remark on 4pairing off4: In order to make this fully precise, one would first ha$e to define set theoretically what an ordered pair is, then what a relation is, then what a function 5a mapping6 is, after which one would define what a one-to-one function, what an onto function, and finally what a bi,ecti$e function is. Our Apairing-offsA coincide with bi,ecti$e functions. 1ore on this can be found on e$ery website, in all lecture notes, and in e$ery te<tbook on basic set theory. Remark on Galileo: 1ore on Galileo can be found here. Remark on Galileo4s 'arado<: If you want to know more about Galileo4s original te<t, click here. ote that Galileo takes s)uares of numbers where we take doubles of numbers. =ui+: 5"6 Is I",3,#J a subset of IE,",#,3J? Is it a proper subset? %olution: 0es and yes. 596 %how that there is a pairing off between the set I",9,3,:,...J of positi$e integers and the set I3,M,L,"9,...J. %olution: I3,M,L,"9,...J is the set of positi$e multiples of 3. 8he pairing off between I",9,3,:,...J and I3,M,L,"9,...J is gi$en by mapping each positi$e integer n to the corresponding number 3n. 1-% &iagnosis o# 'alileo's Paradox =ui+: 5"6 3ssume that we would define N to ha$e e)uallyG" many members as 0 if and only if N is a subset of 0 and 0 is a subset of N. 2se the 'rinciple of &<tensionality for sets in order to show that this would entail: N has e)uallyG" many members as 0 if and only if N F 0. %olution: (y definition, N has e)uallyG" many members as 0 if and only if N is a subset of 0 and 0 is a subset of N. (y definition of 4subset of4: N is a subset of 0 if and only if for all +, if + is a member of N, then + is also a member of 0. 3nd by the same definition of 4subset of4: 0 is a subset of N if and only if for all +, if + is a

member of 0, then + is also a member of N. 8aking all of these together, we ha$e: N has e)uallyG" many members as 0 if and only if for all +, if + is a member of N, then + is also a member of 0, and for all +, if + is a member of 0, then + is also a member of N. Be can simplify the part to the right of 4if and only if4 as follows 5using that 43 if and only if (4 is e)ui$alent to 4if 3, then (, and if (, then 346: N has e)uallyG" many members as 0 if and only if for all +: + is a member of N if and only if + is a member of 0. (ut, according to the 'rinciple of &<tensionality, the part that is now right to the 4if and only if4 can be replaced by an identity statement: N has e)uallyG" many members as 0 if and only if N F 0. Bhich is what we wanted to show. 596 %ay, we would ha$e defined 4lessG94 in this slightly different manner: N has lessG9 members than 0 if and only if N has e)uallyG9 many members as a subset of 0, but N does not ha$e e)uallyG9 many members as 0. 5%o we say 4subset4 now where in the original definition we had said 4proper subset4.6 Bould that change anything regarding which sets are ha$ing lessG9 members than which other sets? %olution: o, it would not change anything. 8he reason is that the part 4N does not ha$e e)uallyG9 many members as 04 already e<cludes N from ha$ing e)uallyG9 many members as 0 itself 5where 0 is the only AimproperA subset of 06. 8herefore, 5i6 4N has e)uallyG9 many members as a subset of 0, but N does not ha$e e)uallyG9 many members as 04, is in fact e)ui$alent to 5ii6 4N has e)uallyG9 many members as a proper subset of 0, but N does not ha$e e)uallyG9 many members as 04. 1-( Cantor's "heorem Remark on early set theory: /or more on the early history of set theory click here.

Remark on !antor4s proof: 3 precise proof of this theorem by !antor is contained in e$ery introductory te<tbook in set theory. Remark on modern set theory: If you want to learn more about set theory, click here. =ui+: 5"6 I mentioned along the way that the real number H.LLLLL... is identical to the real number ".HHHHH. %how this to be so by considering < F H.LLLLL..., then multiplying < by "H, and by deri$ing from this that < F ". %olution: Let < F H.LLLLL... 7ence, "H< F L.LLLL... 8herefore, "H< - < F L.LLLL... - H.LLLLL... which implies that L< F L which means < F ". 596 In the proof of !antor4s theorem I say at one point: @@@@@ ALet me now describe a real number that must be missing in the pairing off abo$e: I choose H to be its digit before the comma. 3s the first digit after the comma, take any digit that is distinct from <OHG": since there are "H a$ailable digits--from 4H4 to 4L4--there is such a digit distinct from <OHG". Let that digit be yG". /or instance, if <OHG" is the digit 4#4, then yG" could be 4:4, or 4P4, or the like--anything other than 4#4. %imilarly, as the second digit after the comma use any digit that is distinct from <O"G9. !all it yG9. 3s the third digit after the comma choose any digit that is distinct from <O9G3* call it yG3. 3nd so on. In general terms: for all natural numbers n, let yGn be any digit other than <OIn-"JGn.A @@@@@ 7ere is the )uestion: Bhen one alters the diagonal of the enumerated

Q...R.<OHG"<OHG9G<OHG3... Q...R.<O"G"<O"G9G<O"G3... Q...R.<O9G"<O9G9G<O9G3... in this way, are there any constraints at all on which digits yG", yG9, yG3,... to choose and which not? %olution: 8here are no constraints e<cept for one: one should a$oid choosing Ls and Hs. /or one wants to a$oid a situation in which, e.g., one constructs the decimal e<pansion H.LLLLLLL... which might well differ from all gi$en decimal e<pansions in Q...R.<OHG"<OHG9G<OHG3... Q...R.<O"G"<O"G9G<O"G3... Q...R.<O9G"<O9G9G<O9G3... but where at the same time ".HHHHHH... would in fact be amongst the gi$en decimal e<pansions* because in that case, since H.LLLLL... F ".H, one would not really ha$e constructed a real number that had been missing from the gi$en pairing off between natural numbers and real numbers. %o, in order to stay on the safe side, one might actually define instead, e.g.: let yG" be 4:4 if <OHG" is the digit 4#4, and let yG" be 4#4 if <OHG" is a digit different from 4#4* and so also for all other digits yGn. 8hat is: a$oid Ls and Hs by choosing, e.g., :s and #s instead. 1-) Conclusions Remark on philosophy of mathematics: If you want to know more about the area of philosophy of mathematics, click here. Remark on the definition of infinity: I should add that there are also alternati$e definitions of infinity--definitions that differ from the one that I used in this lecture 5and which originated with Richard >edekind6. (ut it is fair to say that the definition of infinity by >edekind is generally regarded as the most important and fruitful one in modern mathematics and philosophy. 8he different kinds of definitions of infinity are also contained in the usual te<tbooks on set theory. 7ere are some books on philosophical parado<es which also co$er the parado<es that we are going to encounter in these lectures 5including .eno4s and Galileo4s parado<6:

!lark, 1., 'arado<es from 3 to ., second edition, London: Routledge, 9HHP. Rescher, ., 'arado<es. 8heir Roots, Range, and Resolution, !hicago: Open !ourt, 9HH". %ainsbury, R.1., 'arado<es, third edition, !ambridge: !ambridge 2ni$ersity 'ress, 9HHL. %orensen, R., 3 (rief 7istory of the 'arado<, O<ford: O<ford 2ni$ersity 'ress, 9HH#. 3nd here are some rele$ant books on the infinite and on the corresponding history and philosophy of set theory: /erreirSs, T., Labyrinth of 8hought. 3 7istory of %et 8heory and Its Role in 1odern 1athematics, second re$ised edition, (asel: (irkhUuser, 9HHP. La$ine, %., 2nderstanding the Infinite, !ambridge, 1ass.: 7ar$ard 2ni$ersity 'ress, "LLE. 1oore, 3.B., 8he Infinite, second edition, London: Routledge, 9HH". Oppy, G., 'hilosophical 'erspecti$es on Infinity, !ambridge: !ambridge 2ni$ersity 'ress, 9HHM. /inally, this is a philosophical ,ournal article which deals with different conceptions of the infinite and with how they relate to Galileo4s 'arado<: 1ancosu, '., A1easuring the %i+e of Infinite !ollections of atural umbers: Bas !antor4s 8heory of Infinite umbers Ine$itable?A, 8he Re$iew of %ymbolic Logic 9C: 59HHL6, M"9-M:M.