We shouldn't be too dogmatic about what is the 'natural' formalization of informal (or preformal) notions. We do not claim that reductionism always reflects the most interesting aspects of mathematics; in fact as Mac Lane has remarked, it can give a rather one-sided view of mathematical activity. But this is no more a problem than the fact that formal grammar rules do not contribute to poetry. And we should certainly avoid regarding the implementability of mathematical concepts as sets, say, as constituting some kind of ontological discovery -- this view is rightly parodied by [benacerraf]. Rather, it's an interesting and surprising practical discovery about the flexibility of set theory, to be compared with Gentzen's discoveries about the flexibility of a simple inferential apparatus. (At the same time the reduction is not without philosophical significance: in particular the consistency of practically all of mathematics can be reduced to the problem of whether ZF set theory is consistent, so our foundational concerns tend to come home to roost in set theory.)
With these disclaimers in mind, let's look now at a few examples of how the basic concepts of formal systems can be used to define other notions. We'll arrange these in order of the amount of light they throw on the informal concept (in the opinion of the present author).
, 1 = {0}, 2 = {0, 1} etc. Although this is also quite arcane
and ad hoc (do we really want 0
1?) it does have the benefit of
streamlining and simplifying a lot of theorems about natural numbers and
integrating them with their counterparts for ordinals and cardinals. Indeed
[halmos-ba] finds the use of 2 as a canonical 2-element set
sufficiently convenient to remark on it.
i=110 i is 'really' SUM(1,10,
i. i)
while the derivative notation d/(dx) x2 is really DIFF(x,
x.
x2). This really is a useful clarifying force, confronting us
with awkward constructs where the everyday notation confuses free and bound
variables or a function with its value. For example, in the example above of
Leibniz notation for differentiation, x has both free and bound
occurrences.16 The breakdown to a
lambda-term has helped to make this explicit. Though the Leibniz notation is
familiar, it can be awkward and is often abandoned in advanced or
multivariate work. For example, try writing the Chain Rule for
differentiation using just the Leibniz notation! Other notations like f'(x)
seem better for such purposes, but can still lead to confusion; the author
has witnessed a heated debate on sci.math among good mathematicians
over whether f'(g(x)) denotes the derivative of f evaluated at g(x) (this
view seems most popular) or the derivative of f o g evaluated at x ('the
prime notation (f') is a shorthand notation for derivative of a univariate
function with respect to the free variable.')
John Harrison 96/2/22; HTML by
96/4/5