当哥德尔遭遇爱因斯坦6.pdfVIP

Zenos Revenge 229 continuum but a limit between two parts According to this concept, all the points do not add up to the line but only make up a scaffold (Geriisst) or a collection of points of view (1996, p. 236). This approach too has an Aristotelian flavor (see above, p. 28).12 What is not acceptable, however, is a simple identification (or even a proposed one-one corre- spondence) of the (actually infinite totality ot) rational (not to say the real) numbers with the points on the rational number line (respec- tively, the continuum). Indeed, Paul Bernays has made some remarks that point in the same direction (in correspondence with Wang, as recorded in A Logical Journey): [() Ine should not overestimate the philosophical rel- evance of the possibility of embodying classical mathematics in set theory ... [F]or considering the intuitive sources of mathematics we have to keep to the old dualism of arithmetic and geometry . .. [W]e cannot require a strict arithmetization {ofgeometric concepts/ but in many cases must con- tent ourselves with a kind of compromise [E]ven the concept of the number series is geometrically motivated. From the strictly arithmetical point of view the progress of numbers is only a progressus in indefinitum (emphasis added).13 The considerations advanced above, I believe, give fresh support to these pregnant observations of Bernayss. Whatever the successes, then, of the so-called arithmetization of the continuum from the point of view of the practicing mathematician, its philosophical signif- icance remains in question. In particular, the dialectic of potential versus actual infinity, as well as that between number and line (