As a practicing mathematician, my understanding is that it is permissible to 
define anything by a property if and only if you can prove there exists a 
unique thing with that property.
For example, you cannot define sqrt(49) as "an integer whose square is 49" 
since there are two such integers. Nor could you define sqrt(-1) as the real 
number whose square is -1 as there is no such real number (and you can't define 
sqrt(-1) as the complex number whose square is -1 as there are two such complex 
numbers, i and -i.)
So circular definitions (where A is defined in terms of B and B in terms of A) 
are permissible if and only if you can show there is a unique pair (A,B) with 
the given relation.


On 4/29/09 9:21 AM, "glen e. p. ropella" <[email protected]> wrote:

Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 04/28/2009 08:33 PM:
> let a, b, and c
> constitute macro-entity E and let the behavior of E. be controled by the
> properties and intereactions of a, b and c.  Now, let one of the behaviors
> of E to control the behavior of a, b, or c.  Is there a problem here?

There's no problem with it.  It's called an impredicative definition,
which basically means the application of a universal quantifier (e.g.
"for all") over a set as a part of the definition of the members of that
set.  (IIRC, of course... ;-)

Here's a quote from Barwise and Moss' "Vicious Circles" that may address
the "problem" you've heard "philosophers" talk about:

"In certain circles, it has been thought that there is a conflict
between circular phenomena, on the one hand, and mathematical rigor, on
the other.  This belief rests on two assumptions.  One is that anything
mathematically rigorous must be reducible to set theory.  The other
assumption is that the only coherent conception of set precludes
circularity.  As a result of these two assumptions, it is not uncommon
to hear circular analyses of philosophical, linguistic, or computational
phenomena attacked on the grounds that they conflict with one of the
basic axioms of mathematics.  But both assumptions are mistaken and the
attack is groundless."

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Reply via email to