Talk:Hume's principle

Merging

I don't see the necessity of this page being merged with cardinality.

I would definetely not merge the two, they should be kept separate.

Julius Baumann?

Sparing the gory details, I find Frege's work (Sense and Reference) to be philosophically naive. I often wondered how Frege could possibly espouse a theory of meaning so obviously at odds with Kant without some defense of his theory vis a vis Kant.

So the comment that Frege had "probably never read Hume" leads me to wonder if Frege ever read Kant. If Frege never read either Hume or Kant, isn't analytical philosophy, of which Frege is one of the "fathers", in some sense an illegitimate child? Can whoever wrote this page include some more details regarding Frege's philosophical background?

Thanks in advance,

hemlockStreet@gmail.com

That information is likely to be found on the page for Gottlob Frege. I would also recommend J. Alberto Coffa's book "The Semantic Tradition from Kant to Carnap to the Vienna Station".--138.251.242.34 (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Fs and Gs??

Why would a supposedly important principle be stated using nonsense words Fs and Gs. And why would anybody care about them? Visibly Hume never mentioned them. So maybe the intro to this article should be restated in a meaningful way. Marc van Leeuwen (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It is stated in this way by Frege and HP figured prominently in the literature on Frege (rather than the literature on Hume). Mars2mogwai (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• In any case I think it should be explained (parenthetically) what exactly "Fs" and "Gs" mean (I think they just stand for arbitrary things, in which case why not use the more familiar "Xs" and "Ys"?) Joel Brennan (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

What about using in the lead the contemporary mathematical definition of set cardinality; Frege's original phrasing (if available) could be given as a footnote, or in the "Origins" section. Concretely, I suggest the sentence "... HP says that two sets F and G have the same number of elements if and only if there is a one-to-one correspondence (a bijection) between F and G". Note that bijection needn't be linked again. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hume's principle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041228032512/http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~arche/pages/projects/mathsproject.html to http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~arche/pages/projects/mathsproject.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070204210030/http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~arche/pages/home.html to http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~arche/pages/home.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)