PhilArchive
open access
Is (un)countabilism restrictive?
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.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Arrow's theorem, ultrafilters, and reverse mathematics#101206
- Are Moral Prohibitions Modally Necessary?#110209
- The Laws of Thought and the Laws of Truth as Two Sides of One Coin#102869
- If the utility function is unbounded, any finite utility assignment to the St Petersburg game is consistent with expected utility theory#689787
- Restricted nominalism about number and its problems#84695
Record · ID 109109
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive